on the concept of self awareness

[Guest guest]

I am not shocked about the smoking thing and agree. also, Vasudeva´s post was

very interesting, too. The balancing between discipline and spontaneity

reminded me of the middle path expounded by Buddha, i.e. to avoid

exaggerations of any kind. as for choiceless awareness i had still been

wondering as to whether it was ok to find out why one reacts in a certain way

or not (is this "analysis" or not? sometime one seems to "analyze" and

sometimes it seems to strike one´s mind out of the blue. so thank you, your

mail has helped me.

 

I don´t find it always easy not trying to change society, yet on the whole i

know that it is

> all about oneself and not about the outside world, e.g about changing

> others. I found it amazing that today´s lesson from Bhagavad Gita is also

> fitting in very well, at least in my opinion. jai guru datta

 

According to Advaita school of philosophy, the whole

world does not exist at all. Paramatma, the Supreme

Lord alone exists. The world is only a superimposition

on Paramatma. For instance, a man in twilight takes a

piece of rope to be a snake by mistake. That means an

unreal snake is superimposed on the real rope. This

wrong notion persists in his mind till he is freed

from his delusion. When the delusion is removed, he

will realize that only rope existed and not the snake.

In the same way man superimposes this whole universe

on Paramatma or the Supreme Self. When the real

knowledge dawns on him, he will realize that only the

Supreme Self exists and nothing else. Thus, from the

pure Advaitic point of view, no beings exist in the

Lord. Only the Lord exists.

>

>

> Jai Guru Datta,

>

> As Vasudeva (Chris Haynes) pointed out, It is true that you should not

> "force" yourself to follow "advaitam" either -- if one forces any path, it

> takes one away from the actual truth espoused by that path. For example, if

> you 'force' your bhakthi, you only create an illusion and hypocrisy for

> your mind; whereas, if it flows naturally, it is real bhakthi. You must

> learn to realize when your mind thinks of something, what is the reason for

> it? Why do you have urges? What makes you act on those urges? Are those

> urges because of some spontaneous purpose? Or, are you doing it just

> because you want something? At first, you will not see why you do things --

> but with practice, you will start to unravel your psychology, and you will

> begin to see how your actions are selfish/unselfish real/false right/wrong,

> and you will slowly begin to go "beyond" the pairs of opposites. Awareness

> therefore is the true meditation, and your reactions to the people around

> you, are your guru. This is the psychological equivalent of Swamiji sitting

> inside you -- imagine that for a moment. Guru never leaves you indeed, it

> is you who leave the guru time and time again, by not paying attention to

> the Guru within.

>

> Forced processes are not lasting, they are fleeting; they cannot lead to

> truth, because by forcing them, you are applying ego and creating desires,

> which takes you automatically in the opposite direction from knowledge of

> the self which is the ever present reality. However, forcing yourself to

> "not force yourself" is also ill conducive to attainment of realization; do

> you see the psychological paradox presented herein? Fundamentally, you

> cannot "fight" or "annihilate" mind if you don't know what "mind" really

> is.

>

> As for win's statement that "smoking is adharmic" etc. It may come as a

> shock to you, but smoking cannot be "adharmic" -- what is "bad for health"

> should not be confused with "adharmic". There is a fundamental difference

> which you haven't perceived between the realized one and the non-realized

> one in this scenario. Haven't you all read the story of dattatreya? Where

> is appears as a drunkard and is surrounded by women, etc.? Does this not

> throw you into a state of question as to what does this signify? What does

> this mean? It doesn't mean we should all "go and get drunk" etc, what it

> does mean, is that the self-realized are not "bound" by the same "laws" as

> the non-realized. They are not "bound" because there is a complete

> knowledge of who they are -- they have an unspoken understanding of the

> difference, and an unspoken knowledge of what is real. There is a

> fundamental psychological difference, and while outwardly there is

> semblence of "normality" the self-realized will inwardly have a very

> different psychology. That is, there is a difference between those who

> smoke and have attachment (even if they are in denial of their addiction)

> and those who neither smoke nor don't smoke (i.e., those who are truly

> self-realized). It is not for us to go around judging who is self-realized

> and who is not, but it IS for us to find out where we stand; that is, who

> are we really? Don't take my statements wrongly and assume that smoking is

> good for you somehow -- because then you missed my point entirely. That is

> not my intention here. My intention is to point out the underlying

> difference, in the concept of "self realization" versus "ignorance",

> because there is a vast psychological difference between the two, and yet,

> there is no difference at all (again, we must think about why this is the

> case, and what does it mean? don't just accept my word for it or anyone

> else's words because they sound like they know something, find out for

> yourself what could be this difference! )

>

> As for making analogs of scientific statements, it must be done carefully;

> science is quite exacting, and does not use additional words which imply

> new meanings than what was intended. I gave the example of quantum nature

> of the electron as an example of the observer-observed phenomena and the

> concept of duality at a fundamental quantum level. This should not be taken

> to mean that people should think "no snow" and it won't snow. The idea is

> that our expectation (in ways that we are not fully/partially aware, but

> for example, Swamiji IS aware) leads to our perception of truth. Have you

> never considered why the "Ashtasiddhi's" are a stumbling block on the road

> to self-knowledge? Why is it that such powers are worthless to a

> self-realized soul? Not because they have lots of it (its not like money

> which becomes deflated/inflated due to quantity available), but because

> they understand that there is a fundamental "emptiness" in what we perceive

> to be "reality". That reality is not real. Your relationships are not real.

> Your problems are not real either; yet due to attachment, all of them

> become 'real'. You think its amazing if Swamiji were to fly or create some

> object out of nothing, for Swamiji, its not amazing at all -- it is about

> as worthless as a dream. He's simply been trying to wake you up from your

> dream, but no one seems to want to get up, so they hit the snooze button

> and miss the entire meaning of Swamiji's mission or Swamiji's words.

>

> Any thoughts/comments?

>

> Sri Guru Datta

>

>

> ______________________________

> The centipede was happy quite

> until a bird said, in fun,

> "Which foot goes after which?"

> This raised his mind to such a pitch

> he lay distracted in a ditch

> considering how to run.

>

>

>

>

> Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more

>

>

>

>

>

> Latest News and Additions http://www.dattapeetham.com/additions/new.html

>

> Upcomming events at Datta Temple and Hall of Trinity, Baton Rouge, LA

> http://www.dattatemple.com/uevents.htm

>

> Post message: JAIGURUDATTA

> Subscribe: JAIGURUDATTA-

> Un: JAIGURUDATTA

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

also, today´s lesson from Bhagavad Gita,

"...the whole world does not exist at all. Paramatma, the Supreme

Lord alone exists. The world is only a superimposition

on Paramatma....no beings exist in the

Lord. Only the Lord exists."

 

and today´s Swamiji Says, at first sight may seem to contradict each other:

 

"...The concluding sentence is, 'Eikadaatmyamidam sarvam – tat satyam – sa

atmaa – tattvamasi shwetaketo'. The meaning of this sentence is, 'the

manifest universe is infact the primordial Sat itself. That Sat is Real. That

itself is Atma. O!Shwetaketu, You are that Sat.'"

 

it may seem as if according to Bhagavad Gita the world and all the beings in

it, don´t exist, only the Lord exists.

 

and that according to Swamiji Says the manifest universe does exist, i.e. is

real.

 

But then there is the conclusion: the universe is real in so far as it is all

one with the Lord - and unreal as for names, forms and thoughts etc as it

seems.

 

difficult to explain, especially in English, there seems to be a

contradiction, and yet there is not.

jai guru datta.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jai Guru Datta,

 

As Vasudeva (Chris Haynes) pointed out, It is true that you should not "force"

yourself to follow "advaitam" either -- if one forces any path, it takes one

away from the actual truth espoused by that path. For example, if you 'force'

your bhakthi, you only create an illusion and hypocrisy for your mind; whereas,

if it flows naturally, it is real bhakthi. You must learn to realize when your

mind thinks of something, what is the reason for it? Why do you have urges? What

makes you act on those urges? Are those urges because of some spontaneous

purpose? Or, are you doing it just because you want something? At first, you

will not see why you do things -- but with practice, you will start to unravel

your psychology, and you will begin to see how your actions are

selfish/unselfish real/false right/wrong, and you will slowly begin to go

"beyond" the pairs of opposites. Awareness therefore is the true meditation, and

your reactions to the people around you, are your guru. This is the

psychological equivalent of Swamiji sitting inside you -- imagine that for a

moment. Guru never leaves you indeed, it is you who leave the guru time and time

again, by not paying attention to the Guru within.

 

Forced processes are not lasting, they are fleeting; they cannot lead to truth,

because by forcing them, you are applying ego and creating desires, which takes

you automatically in the opposite direction from knowledge of the self which is

the ever present reality. However, forcing yourself to "not force yourself" is

also ill conducive to attainment of realization; do you see the psychological

paradox presented herein? Fundamentally, you cannot "fight" or "annihilate" mind

if you don't know what "mind" really is.

 

As for win's statement that "smoking is adharmic" etc. It may come as a shock to

you, but smoking cannot be "adharmic" -- what is "bad for health" should not be

confused with "adharmic". There is a fundamental difference which you haven't

perceived between the realized one and the non-realized one in this scenario.

Haven't you all read the story of dattatreya? Where is appears as a drunkard and

is surrounded by women, etc.? Does this not throw you into a state of question

as to what does this signify? What does this mean? It doesn't mean we should all

"go and get drunk" etc, what it does mean, is that the self-realized are not

"bound" by the same "laws" as the non-realized. They are not "bound" because

there is a complete knowledge of who they are -- they have an unspoken

understanding of the difference, and an unspoken knowledge of what is real.

There is a fundamental psychological difference, and while outwardly there is

semblence of "normality" the self-realized will inwardly have a very different

psychology. That is, there is a difference between those who smoke and have

attachment (even if they are in denial of their addiction) and those who neither

smoke nor don't smoke (i.e., those who are truly self-realized). It is not for

us to go around judging who is self-realized and who is not, but it IS for us to

find out where we stand; that is, who are we really? Don't take my statements

wrongly and assume that smoking is good for you somehow -- because then you

missed my point entirely. That is not my intention here. My intention is to

point out the underlying difference, in the concept of "self realization" versus

"ignorance", because there is a vast psychological difference between the two,

and yet, there is no difference at all (again, we must think about why this is

the case, and what does it mean? don't just accept my word for it or anyone

else's words because they sound like they know something, find out for yourself

what could be this difference! )

 

As for making analogs of scientific statements, it must be done carefully;

science is quite exacting, and does not use additional words which imply new

meanings than what was intended. I gave the example of quantum nature of the

electron as an example of the observer-observed phenomena and the concept of

duality at a fundamental quantum level. This should not be taken to mean that

people should think "no snow" and it won't snow. The idea is that our

expectation (in ways that we are not fully/partially aware, but for example,

Swamiji IS aware) leads to our perception of truth. Have you never considered

why the "Ashtasiddhi's" are a stumbling block on the road to self-knowledge? Why

is it that such powers are worthless to a self-realized soul? Not because they

have lots of it (its not like money which becomes deflated/inflated due to

quantity available), but because they understand that there is a fundamental

"emptiness" in what we perceive to be "reality". That reality is not real. Your

relationships are not real. Your problems are not real either; yet due to

attachment, all of them become 'real'. You think its amazing if Swamiji were to

fly or create some object out of nothing, for Swamiji, its not amazing at all --

it is about as worthless as a dream. He's simply been trying to wake you up from

your dream, but no one seems to want to get up, so they hit the snooze button

and miss the entire meaning of Swamiji's mission or Swamiji's words.

 

Any thoughts/comments?

 

Sri Guru Datta

 

 

______________________________

The centipede was happy quite

until a bird said, in fun,

"Which foot goes after which?"

This raised his mind to such a pitch

he lay distracted in a ditch

considering how to run.

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more