Guest guest Posted October 4, 2002 Report Share Posted October 4, 2002 In a message dated 10/4/02 1:54:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Ammachi writes: > BOTTOMLINE: Seek, and ye shall (read WILL) find. > > Jai Ma! > manoj. > Dear Manoj: Enjoyed your rolicking post. I have one question that you did not address. what do you think of the idea of enlightenment during life as more perfect than enlightenment at time of death? someone made a point, if I recall, that at time of death, you are either alive or dead. so, either you are alive and have enlightenment, or it is when you are dead...attaining enlightenment as dead--is this even possible? I have been accused of being egotistical for even thinking of realization during life, for what reasons I cannot fathom. Rather, I think that holding that enlightenment requires that we be dead or dying cheapens life and the fullness of realization-whilst-living, since it implies that you can't be up to any good while alive. That only good sadhak is a dead sadhak. I think the point is to "get it" while you can still live with it; rather than hoping that at death you will all of a sudden see, and grok, a great message. You see Amma. when you are there you feel a certain way, and when you leave, you feel another way. Why? Because it is not yours; you have not owned it; you have not stabilized in it, so it goes when She goes. If She was able to make you keep it, I think she would; why wouldn't She? What makes people think that the ultimate realization is something that they can get from outside themself? If you can't even hold Amma's shakti, then what makes you think you will be able to own up to an even greater shakti or consciousness? and, just as we lose consciousness just about as soon as She leaves the room, it seems that any perception of the Self at time of death, will be like this. That we will not be ready for it, and not able to take it completely, or die completely into it, however you want to say it. I think an argument can be made that life is about integrating the Self into our every day life, not simply sitting around, and hoping that we will be blown away in one great tidal wave of Bliss. It is NOT just a matter of riding a wave of bliss; who ever said that this is the final end of life? No. I think it is the integration of the Self into the human form; that is why we are, after all, human. Why would our humanness NOT be an integral part of Self-Realization? Must we just blow up and shatter into Reality; is that the correct model? What are your ideas about the purpose of life?? Avram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2002 Report Share Posted October 4, 2002 > Dear Manoj: > > Enjoyed your rolicking post. I have one question that you did not address. > what do you think of the idea of enlightenment during life as more perfect > than enlightenment at time of death? someone made a point, if I recall, that > > at time of death, you are either alive or dead. so, either you are alive and > have enlightenment, or it is when you are dead...attaining enlightenment as > dead--is this even possible? I have been accused of being egotistical for > even thinking of realization during life, for what reasons I cannot fathom. > Rather, I think that holding that enlightenment requires that we be dead or > dying cheapens life and the fullness of realization-whilst-living, since it > implies that you can't be up to any good while alive. That only good sadhak > is a dead sadhak. I think the point is to "get it" while you can still live > with it; rather than hoping that at death you will all of a sudden see, and > grok, a great message. You see Amma. when you are there you feel a certain > way, and when you leave, you feel another way. Why? Because it is not yours; > > you have not owned it; you have not stabilized in it, so it goes when She > goes. If She was able to make you keep it, I think she would; why wouldn't > She? What makes people think that the ultimate realization is something that > > they can get from outside themself? If you can't even hold Amma's shakti, > then what makes you think you will be able to own up to an even greater > shakti or consciousness? and, just as we lose consciousness just about as > soon as She leaves the room, it seems that any perception of the Self at time > > of death, will be like this. That we will not be ready for it, and not able > to take it completely, or die completely into it, however you want to say it. > > I think an argument can be made that life is about integrating the Self into > > our every day life, not simply sitting around, and hoping that we will be > blown away in one great tidal wave of Bliss. It is NOT just a matter of > riding a wave of bliss; who ever said that this is the final end of life? > No. I think it is the integration of the Self into the human form; that is > why we are, after all, human. Why would our humanness NOT be an integral > part of Self-Realization? Must we just blow up and shatter into Reality; is > that the correct model? What are your ideas about the purpose of life?? > Avram Avram, You do ask a lot of questions, you know! lol.... But the reason I have not ventured to comment on the questions you ask is because I am not sure on what ground I lie with these questions. But since you have specifically asked me, I will attempt to answer. To begin with, you asked my preference - it is to be liberated while living than not. BUT, given a choice between liberation (while living or not) or no liberation at all, I would choose the former, regardless of whether I am living or not. Kind of humbles me when the thought pops in that my framework of thinking may not cover the entire landscape there is. So this brings to another profound set of questions: what choices do we REALLY have? and WHO has given us these choices? Knowing answers to these questions can help us centre ourselves better with what life dishes out to us. I think that if we are destined to be liberated while living, we will be, else we just have to accept it. Sounds fatalistic, but is not necessarily so. Because, like everything, I believe liberation comes with a price - to pay back to the world what you took from it while you were getting liberated. If that meant abandoning your family and meditating, then you probably have to go back and raise a large flock of spiritual children, or it could be anything else. But payback you must. Maybe that explains why many are not liberated while 'living' - life has already extracted its price from you while you were working on your liberation in this world. Or maybe you were given the liberation while living because you came in to earth promising to pay a certain price for that rare status.... worth thinking about. (As a sidethought, if you think about it, how arrongant of me to judge that many were not liberated while living? How could I possible know the truth?)... But that does not mean we have to stop doing any effort. We should still be doing the effort, it's just that the reward is beyond our control. As P. Yogananda said, our body (spiritual condition) is like a 50-W bulb, and the spiritual power of a billion watts can break and splinter our bodies if not trained to receive it.... God knows best when and who can withstand the billion-watt price. Finally, I invite you to look into the possibility that when we 'die', we still do 'live' maybe not in a human body, but nevertheless still do live. If that be the case, then liberation 'here' or 'there' makes no difference. What DOES make a difference is a steady stream of love coming from the Divine Mother and being able to see Her from time to time, and eventually being able to be around Her permanently, 'here' or 'there', inward or outward. If this sounds dualistic or non-undifferentiated, I really don't care, because I am struggling with words to express what I am feeling and may not be doing a good job of it. Finally, Avram, what is grok? I can figure it out from the context, but I would like to know accurately. I do not have a dictionary, and Microsoft Word 'reds' it out! Jai Ma! manoj. Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2002 Report Share Posted October 4, 2002 Hi boys, I have really enjoyed both your posts. I wanted to throw in a few western ideas from a book I loved, "Balancing Heaven and Earth" by the noted Jungian therapist, Robert Johnson. See below. You see Amma. when you are > there you feel a certain > > way, and when you leave, you feel another way. > If She was able to make you keep it, I > think she would; why wouldn't > > She? What makes people think that the ultimate > realization is something that > > > > they can get from outside themself? If you can't > even hold Amma's shakti, > > then what makes you think you will be able to own > up to an even greater > > shakti or consciousness? > > No. I think it is the integration of the Self into > the human form; > An SRF minister told me years ago that "God is more human than we are." That was reassuring to me. However, to get on to Robert Johnson, I will quote from his book: "Every person's psychological process can be likened to an exchange of alchemical gold. Alchemical gold is another term for the soul. Soul work, or inner work, takes place when something moves from the unconscious, where it began, into conscious awareness....when something is ready to move from the unconscious to the conscious, it needs a host or intermediary. Generally this intermediary is some person or thing....It's your gold--your soul-- that is coming to consciousness." Is this not what Amma is doing for us? Holding our projection of our own gold until we can take it back ourselves? Johnson says that the truth about Christ (and Amma, I add) is that he was both fully human and fully divine, and to give one aspect more weight than the other is, in the truest sense, to fall into heresy. So yes, Avram, I'm with you. Our humaness is very important, too. As Johnson says, the two worlds are in reality one. > > Finally, I invite you to look into the possibility > that when we 'die', we still > do 'live' maybe not in a human body, but > nevertheless still do live. > Absolutely true! We can never stop living! Thanks for the great posts. In Amma, Jyotsna > > > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More > http://faith. > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2002 Report Share Posted October 5, 2002 Ammachi, sprose1@a... wrote: > In a message dated 10/4/02 1:54:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Ammachi writes: I have been accused of being egotistical for > even thinking of realization during life, for what reasons I cannot fathom. Avram, This is the most noble desire and your birth right and don't let anyone tell you differently! Keep the yogic fire burning...this fire within you will lead you to the divine goal. It is your good karma that gives you such a strong desire for self-realization. If it is egotistical to want self-realization, then I say it is also the ego that is trying to trick you and others here and elsewhere into thinking it is an egotistical desire and that you are unworthy of it for some reason. The ego is very tricky and works in many ways to keep us bound. Remember, "Thou Art That", and if you can wake up to this noble and virtuous realization, I say go foward and never look back. 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.