Guest guest Posted October 1, 2002 Report Share Posted October 1, 2002 In a message dated 9/30/02 11:33:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Ammachi writes: > > Go through everything Amma says in Her books, go through Sanathana > Dharma scriptures, words from other recognized sadgurus. For > example, the idea that if you've committed a life of sin, but with in > your last moments you realize your mistakes and are able to say the > name of God with your last breath, such a person deserves Liberation > (moksha). I'm not sure if this was from a scripture story or a > particular blessing from a particular sage. ::Yeah, yeah, they say this sort of stuff. It's not altogether convincing, is it? Boy, it puts a heck of a lot of pressure on that final moment, doesn't it? No way of knowing what state of mind I might find myself in, no way at all. It's hard to believe that you can sort out a lifetime's karma by saying "Krishna" or something. They must mean not just saying a word or thinking a thought about God, but rather merging into God, if one is capable of what he has not been capable of his whole life. I have a hard time believing that less than that would cut the mustard, shall we say. > > It's also when Amma says about a devotee who has died, something > like, "Don't worry, they've been absorbed in Me (Self, Absolute)". > Or when Swamiji told the story of when Amma stepped on a slug and > someone said, "Oh, that slug just attained Liberation" (having died > at the feet of a Realized Soul). :Doesn't say much, in that we know nothing abou the devotee, or the slug, for that matter.Does it mean Amma absorbed him, for instance, or that he/she merged by their own accord? > > It's the ego that wants the freedom of being a jivanmukta. But it's > the death of the ego that needs to happen to become a jivanmukta. > This is why many people run in circles in their sadhana. ::This is where I think you entirely miss the train of thought that declares that you have to actualize your enlightenment in life; that you can't catch it like a football and just fall over the goal line. It is more than mere egoity to want to be liberated while alive. I cannot be anymore clear about it. There is a lot to recommend the view that you have to have time to bring the insight into your life as a man or woman in this world, and LIVE it, not just die into it, if that is even possible. You see it as egotism. Others see it as avoiding the goal of life, thinking that you'll get "It" in the dying moment. What's the purpose of your life till then, just biding time? You see? What if they are right, that you have to bring it into life, em-body it, live it, then die. Don't forget that Ramana Maharshi had his renowned enlightenment experience at age 16. He then sat in meditation for three years before speaking to others. He, the Maharshi, needed three years to stabilize and to embody his understanding. The one enlightenment moment WAS NOT ENOUGH. He needed time to bring it into himself. So, if he got it two seconds before he died, he would not have had that time. So, maybe he would have needed more births. Also, don't forget that the first time Ramana tried to usher a devotee into liberation while dying, he failed, and he acknowledged that he failed. He learned and succeeded when his mother's time came. But he had been intensively working on his mother for decades before this happened. so, there is more to this than meets the eye, yes? > > Perhaps those who don't understand could ask Dayamrita or Amma at > their next Q & A session. In Sanathana Dharma (Hindus), the goal > is Moksha. For Jains (like Osho) the goal is Mukti. This is to > the best of my understanding. > ::Sorry, I never have seen that the Hindu goal is moksha, while the Jain > goal is mukti. I really don't know where you come up with this, really. > don't get how the two are different. I think you intend one of them to be > liberation without understanding, which is quite an incongruous > understanding, as far as I can see. Avram > tom > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2002 Report Share Posted October 2, 2002 Ammachi, sprose1@a... wrote: > In a message dated 9/30/02 11:33:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Ammachi writes: > > > > It's also when Amma says about a devotee who has died, something > > like, "Don't worry, they've been absorbed in Me (Self, Absolute)". > > Or when Swamiji told the story of when Amma stepped on a slug and > > someone said, "Oh, that slug just attained Liberation" (having died > > at the feet of a Realized Soul). > > :Doesn't say much, in that we know nothing abou the devotee, or the slug, for > that matter.Does it mean Amma absorbed him, for instance, or that he/she > merged by their own accord? Hi Avram, I agree with much of your train of thought. Several of the Hindu scriptures say self-realization requires to wings of a bird, both self-effort and grace. It is a mysterious process, and not always obvious to the untrained, unenlightened eye. > > It's the ego that wants the freedom of being a jivanmukta. But it's > > the death of the ego that needs to happen to become a jivanmukta. > > This is why many people run in circles in their sadhana. > > ::This is where I think you entirely miss the train of thought that declares > that you have to actualize your enlightenment in life; that you can't catch > it like a football and just fall over the goal line. It is more than mere > egoity to want to be liberated while alive. I cannot be anymore clear about > it. There is a lot to recommend the view that you have to have time to bring > the insight into your life as a man or woman in this world, and LIVE it, not > just die into it, if that is even possible. You see it as egotism. Others > see it as avoiding the goal of life, thinking that you'll get "It" in the > dying moment. What's the purpose of your life till then, just biding time? > You see? What if they are right, that you have to bring it into life, > em-body it, live it, then die. Don't forget that Ramana Maharshi had his > renowned enlightenment experience at age 16. He then sat in meditation for > three years before speaking to others. He, the Maharshi, needed three years > to stabilize and to embody his understanding. The one enlightenment moment > WAS NOT ENOUGH. He needed time to bring it into himself. So, if he got it > two seconds before he died, he would not have had that time. So, maybe he > would have needed more births. Also, don't forget that the first time Ramana > tried to usher a devotee into liberation while dying, he failed, and he > acknowledged that he failed. He learned and succeeded when his mother's time > came. But he had been intensively working on his mother for decades before > this happened. so, there is more to this than meets the eye, yes? I think it's more than the ego that craves liberation. The soul inherently aspires towards it. It is the soul that aspires for liberation and it's inherent nature. If it is the ego alone that craves liberation, it may eventually just get in the way and never really find it at all. I also have a strong feeling that a true liberation or self- realization may require an actualization as you mention. It is one thing to have an experience of enlightenment...it is quite another to be able to hold that experience and make it a total, integrated realization in all the states of waking, dreaming, sleeping, and beyond those. It is another thing to be established in that state...that unbroken state. This is very interesting what you mention re: Ramana Maharshi. Is this is the David Godman book you mentioned at one point. Best, Lisa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2002 Report Share Posted October 2, 2002 It's interesting because I've been thinking about this lately. Jivan muktas are _exceedingly_ rare. Both the scriptures and observation make this clear. And think about the astonishing number of sentient beings, not only on this planet or in this universe, but in all universes. So at least my reasoning would say that if liberation at the moment of death is not possible, then the odds of _ever_ getting it are astronomically low. So yes, the goal is to become a jivan mukta, but believe me, I will be grateful for Mother's grace to let me off the wheel in whenever and in whatever way she deems fit, even if that is at the moment of dying. Jai Ma! Aravind --- lbrachlin <lalita120 wrote: > Ammachi, sprose1@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 9/30/02 11:33:41 AM Pacific > Daylight Time, > > Ammachi writes: > > > > > > > It's also when Amma says about a devotee who > has died, something > > > like, "Don't worry, they've been absorbed in Me > (Self, > Absolute)". > > > Or when Swamiji told the story of when Amma > stepped on a slug and > > > someone said, "Oh, that slug just attained > Liberation" (having > died > > > at the feet of a Realized Soul). > > > > :Doesn't say much, in that we know nothing abou > the devotee, or the > slug, for > > that matter.Does it mean Amma absorbed him, for > instance, or that > he/she > > merged by their own accord? > > Hi Avram, > I agree with much of your train of thought. > Several of the Hindu scriptures say self-realization > requires to > wings of a bird, both self-effort and grace. It is a > mysterious > process, and not always obvious to the untrained, > unenlightened eye. > > > > It's the ego that wants the freedom of being a > jivanmukta. But > it's > > > the death of the ego that needs to happen to > become a > jivanmukta. > > > This is why many people run in circles in their > sadhana. > > > > ::This is where I think you entirely miss the > train of thought that > declares > > that you have to actualize your enlightenment in > life; that you > can't catch > > it like a football and just fall over the goal > line. It is more > than mere > > egoity to want to be liberated while alive. I > cannot be anymore > clear about > > it. There is a lot to recommend the view that you > have to have > time to bring > > the insight into your life as a man or woman in > this world, and > LIVE it, not > > just die into it, if that is even possible. You > see it as egotism. > Others > > see it as avoiding the goal of life, thinking that > you'll get "It" > in the > > dying moment. What's the purpose of your life > till then, just > biding time? > > You see? What if they are right, that you have to > bring it into > life, > > em-body it, live it, then die. Don't forget that > Ramana Maharshi > had his > > renowned enlightenment experience at age 16. He > then sat in > meditation for > > three years before speaking to others. He, the > Maharshi, needed > three years > > to stabilize and to embody his understanding. The > one enlightenment > moment > > WAS NOT ENOUGH. He needed time to bring it into > himself. So, if > he got it > > two seconds before he died, he would not have had > that time. So, > maybe he > > would have needed more births. Also, don't forget > that the first > time Ramana > > tried to usher a devotee into liberation while > dying, he failed, > and he > > acknowledged that he failed. He learned and > succeeded when his > mother's time > > came. But he had been intensively working on his > mother for > decades before > > this happened. so, there is more to this than > meets the eye, yes? > > > I think it's more than the ego that craves > liberation. The soul > inherently aspires towards it. It is the soul that > aspires for > liberation and it's inherent nature. If it is the > ego alone that > craves liberation, it may eventually just get in the > way and never > really find it at all. > > I also have a strong feeling that a true liberation > or self- > realization may require an actualization as you > mention. It is one > thing to have an experience of enlightenment...it is > quite another to > be able to hold that experience and make it a total, > integrated > realization in all the states of waking, dreaming, > sleeping, and > beyond those. It is another thing to be established > in that > state...that unbroken state. > > This is very interesting what you mention re: Ramana > Maharshi. Is > this is the David Godman book you mentioned at one > point. > > Best, Lisa > > New DSL Internet Access from SBC & http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2002 Report Share Posted October 2, 2002 Ammachi, Jami Blakeley <jami108> wrote: > It's interesting because I've been thinking about this > lately. Jivan muktas are _exceedingly_ rare. Both > the scriptures and observation make this clear. And > think about the astonishing number of sentient beings, > not only on this planet or in this universe, but in > all universes. So at least my reasoning would say > that if liberation at the moment of death is not > possible, then the odds of _ever_ getting it are > astronomically low. So yes, the goal is to become a > jivan mukta, but believe me, I will be grateful for > Mother's grace to let me off the wheel in whenever and > in whatever way she deems fit, even if that is at the > moment of dying. > > Jai Ma! > > Aravind > Hi Aravind, Yes, jivanmuktas are very rare. Yet, that doesn't mean that because they are rare, it is impossible and we should give up. We should still strive towards it,in my view. Amma, herself, has said that self-realization is the goal of life. I've heard her say this over and over again. (It's funny, I don't recall her saying liberation is the goal of life). And many of the great beings have said that self-realization is meant for all. Because it is rare, we can imagine how very precious it is and how only a courageous and humble soul can attain it. Here is an excerpt from Amma's new book: An excerpt from Lead Us To The Light: Q: Is it possible to enjoy spiritual bliss while still living in this world? Mother: Certainly. Spiritual experience is indeed something to be enjoyed in this world, with this body, and not something to be gained after death. Spirituality and worldly life are both ingredients of life. One does not exist totally without the other, just as in the case of mind and body. Spirituality is the science that teaches us how to live happily in the material world. There are two kinds of learning. One is the learning required for a job, for work. Ther other is learning for living. Schooling of the former type will get us a job. But if we want to live in peace and happiness, we need another kind of learning. That is spirituality. That is the knowledge of the mind. Spirituality is thus the practical science of life. It explains the nature of the world and teaches us how to live according to that nature. We all want Mother's grace to let us off the wheel, but it also requires self-effort. No matter how much we may hope, we must do the work too. As Mother has said, "It's not enough just to live in the ashram", or as Sw. Amritananda said in a recent talk in Rhode Island, "It doesn't matter how many years we live with Amma if we don't....." all imply to me that we must put in our part 100% if we want jivanmukti or mukti, or moksha, or whatever we want to call it. It requires the two wings of self-effort and grace. Lisa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2002 Report Share Posted October 2, 2002 Ammachi, sprose1@a... wrote: >..... Don't forget that Ramana Maharshi had his > renowned enlightenment experience at age 16. He then sat in meditation.... Beginner's mistake: using the exception to defend a rule. People like Ramana Maharshi reach high states early in life because their karma made them ripe for it or they were a true incarnation. And then there's a difference between simply being a jivanmukta and having various other abilities. For example, just because you realize the self, doesn't make you a guru. For that, you'd need to realize the guru-tattva, or guru-principle. How far a person goes past the line of mukti depends on their karma, efforts and guru's/God's grace in the over all plan of things. Not everyone that realizes their Self or attains Enlightenment is destined to be a guru or super yogi. >....I think you intend one of them to be > > liberation without understanding, which is quite an incongruous > > understanding, as far as I can see. > Avram Try less self and more discrimination. Look at your overall plan. Once you attain Enlightenment, what then? Become a god or super yogi and have a little fun? Live a few lifetimes of various occupations, personas that you desire (ie, king, actor, etc.). How about evolving further until you are the one God and you can create endless Universes at your command and all will worship you. Ok, been there done that. Now what? Do it all again? Ok, been there done that. Understand the nature of time and how it relates to experience, and you'll understand why souls seek moksha. As Amma says, "the Universe is created and destroyed in an instant". The more inward drawn you are (the same when actually in a meditative/dhyaana state), the faster time passes by. If you're meditating and time seems normal or slow, you're just still concentrating still trying to meditate. You'll know when you've reached a state of meditation when it doesn't feel like much time has passed, but alot has. This is how detachment can come naturaly if you just persist with sadhana will Faith that you will make progress. tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2002 Report Share Posted October 2, 2002 Ammachi, "lbrachlin" <lalita120@h...> wrote: > Hi Avram, > I agree with much of your train of thought. > Several of the Hindu scriptures say self-realization requires to > wings of a bird, both self-effort and grace. It is a mysterious > process, and not always obvious to the untrained, unenlightened eye. >> I think it's more than the ego that craves liberation. The soul > inherently aspires towards it. It is the soul that aspires for > liberation and it's inherent nature. If it is the ego alone that > craves liberation, it may eventually just get in the way and never > really find it at all. My point is that it's the ego that craves liberation in the form of mukti so that it can do what it wants, and have liberation when and how IT wants it (no humility). It is the soul/jiva that craves moksha, but not until a certain amount of living lifetimes. In other words, if everything's going great, why would you want to be free of it? In other's lifetimes, new to being human, they are still experiencing things and will not have any inclination towards lofty goals such as dharma or moksha probably not even having the intellectual ability to really understand what you're talking about. tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2002 Report Share Posted October 2, 2002 Yes, absolutely, 110% + effort is needed. I just think that I am hundreds of lifetimes away from achieving the status of jivan mukta. Trust me. And now having met Mother, I do not like the feeling of being seperated from Her at all. So, whatever She wants. Maybe She wants me to live hundreds more lives and "lose" Her and "find" Her as part of Her play. Maybe She wants me to live hundreds of lives remembering Her and work out all my karmas one by one. I do not know. I just want to be with Her. In Santa Fe last June, I learned how to say, "Mother, please bless this son that I might always remember you" in Malayalam. "Ee moan Ammaye epporum ormikkan anugrahickyumo." When I said it to Her during darshan she laughed and laughed, hitting me on the back and rubbing my head, saying to the Swamis, "Did you hear what he said?" and then repeating my terrible pronunciation. But then She handed me my prasad, looked at me, nodded Her head up and down and said, "Yes." This is my hope, that regardless of how many times I have to come back, I will not forget our Mother. Jai Ma Aravind New DSL Internet Access from SBC & http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2002 Report Share Posted October 3, 2002 Ammachi, "Tom" <tomgull@m...> wrote: For example, just because you > realize the self, doesn't make you a guru. For that, you'd need to > realize the guru-tattva, or guru-principle. Just one comment here. Are you absolutely certain that the guru-principle and the Self are such opposite? Realizing the Self is no small matter. It has been said the guru is none other than the Self. I think you can realize the guru-tattva without necessarily taking on the role of the guru. Lisa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.