Guest guest Posted October 7, 2002 Report Share Posted October 7, 2002 In a message dated 10/7/02 4:24:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Ammachi writes: Let's take a final look at this matter: > All this talk about "stabilizing" the experience reminds me of New > Agers talking about "grounding" the energy. > > ::I don't know what the New Agers mean by "grounding the energy." However, > your demeaning attitude is pretty clear. I would not wish to lower my > meaning to those murky, feely terms. I chose the word "stabilizing" > quickly, in an attempt to communicate in a way most would be able to relate > to, not because it is necessarily the most clear and distinct way possible. > The concept is that Realization is one thing but Actualizing is another. > That is, having Self-Realization is distinct from integrating the insight > into one's total consciousness at all levels. One might have Realization > and still be a jerk and a fool in many ways. Someone who actualizes his > realization is one who integrates his insight into reality into all aspects > of himself. I can think of many spiritual leaders who I firmly believe had > great realization, but insufficient actualization; they didn't do the work > required to integrate their insight. They thought they were done, but they > were not. In a way I think it is parallel to the ten Zen Ox pictures. The > eighth was self-realization and it was the highest one for some time > historically. Later they added two more stages, where the realizer goes > back into the world, where the world is the Self. He does not end in > realization only, with the world as illusion, but lives in the world, > seeing it as Self. this is a poor description of this, so don't take it > too much to heart. The bottom line is that Realization does not make > everything instantly clear; I think that's the best way to put it. Another > angle would be to say, why would we be in a world as men in the first place > if it were not the point to realize oneself in the world and live it here? > Either way, the only> thing close that I've heard Amma refer to is the time > delay between > doing sadhana and reaping the fruit of it. I don't think it has to > do with stabilizing, but letting the old fall away, allowing your > life and mind to change with the new center (the fruit). ::Having read this paragraph, I don't see much distinction between what I called stabilizing and what you call letting the old fall wawy, allowing your life and mind to change with the new center. That's what I am talking about in other words.Why do you make such a kvetch about this? > > The other only closest thing I can recall is Satya Sai Baba talking > about Jesus, in that (paraphrasing) at first Jesus claimed to be the > Son of God, and only later when the Atma (soul/self) Consciousness > stabilized, did he proclaim "I and my Father are One". I would > think that the true moment of Realization didn't occur until the > latter state. ::Here you use the term "stabilized" in just the way I do with no caveats. I would disagree with "the true moment" part. I think the first realization was true, only it took time for the deeper meaning to be disclosed; you could call it a second realization or the first true realization, whatever. Or, it could be the deeper meaning which was potential in the first realization. > > Regarding Ramana's period of "stabilizing" Realization, the > description lends itself to developing the guru tattwa, not really > stabilizing the experience of Realization. ::Here's where I find this a bit cocky. Now, he sat silently for three years, after having his Realization at age 16 years. You say that he was not stabilizing the realization, not integrating it, but "developing the guru tattwa"as you so fondly refer to it. May I ask where you derive this from? Does Ramana himself speak of this period as "developing the guru tattwa?" If so, in what book? You seem to feel that the realization was instantaneous and complete, but that he sat there for three years, in silence, trying to come up with his "guru tattwa.Gee, I wish I had a guru tattwa. Sure would be nice to have a tattwa..." I think by that term you mean the ability to teach others, and if so, just say that, for those of us who do not speak Sanskrit. why would it take three years for him to come up with a teaching method? He taught to do what he himself did, self-enquiry. It would not at all seem to take three years of sitting on a rock to come up with that. Or, do you mean that he sat like this to get up the will to be a teacher at all? In that case what was the struggle? It is obvious you feel strongly about Ramana. Don't forget that he too learned things after self-realization. For example, he tried to liberate one man as he was dying, and he failed to do so, and admitted it. the next time he tried, he did a better job. So, he went on learning things. me, I think he meditated for three years after realization, sheerly for the awe of it, not to come up with a "guru tattwa." That happened spontaneously, I believe, and was not the essence of what was going on for those years whatsoever. Avram > > tom > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2002 Report Share Posted October 8, 2002 Realization and Actualization according to the Zen tradition is discussed very beautifully and clearly in the book Healing Zen: Awakening to a Life of Wholeness and Compassion While Caring for Yourself and Others (Viking 2002) by Zen teacher Ellen Birx. In fact, there is a chapter entitled- "Being Grounded: Staying Rooted in the Earth and Practical Activities of Life. Also, one entitled- Perseverance: Keep on Going! I only mention this on an Ammachi board because the person below refers to the Zen Ox Herding pictures. It is important to be clear about the teachings of each tradition and to be as true to each of them as possible. It is even more important to live out the teachings! I am so grateful for the work Ammachi and her students are doing. Thank you. charles shinkai birx, sensei new river zen community radford, va 24141 http://www.healingzen.com Ammachi, sprose1@a... wrote: > In a message dated 10/7/02 4:24:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Ammachi writes: > > Let's take a final look at this matter: > > All this talk about "stabilizing" the experience reminds me of New > > Agers talking about "grounding" the energy. > > > > ::I don't know what the New Agers mean by "grounding the energy." However, > > your demeaning attitude is pretty clear. I would not wish to lower my > > meaning to those murky, feely terms. I chose the word "stabilizing" > > quickly, in an attempt to communicate in a way most would be able to relate > > to, not because it is necessarily the most clear and distinct way possible. > > The concept is that Realization is one thing but Actualizing is another. > > That is, having Self-Realization is distinct from integrating the insight > > into one's total consciousness at all levels. One might have Realization > > and still be a jerk and a fool in many ways. Someone who actualizes his > > realization is one who integrates his insight into reality into all aspects > > of himself. I can think of many spiritual leaders who I firmly believe had > > great realization, but insufficient actualization; they didn't do the work > > required to integrate their insight. They thought they were done, but they > > were not. In a way I think it is parallel to the ten Zen Ox pictures. The > > eighth was self-realization and it was the highest one for some time > > historically. Later they added two more stages, where the realizer goes > > back into the world, where the world is the Self. He does not end in > > realization only, with the world as illusion, but lives in the world, > > seeing it as Self. this is a poor description of this, so don't take it > > too much to heart. The bottom line is that Realization does not make > > everything instantly clear; I think that's the best way to put it. Another > > angle would be to say, why would we be in a world as men in the first place > > if it were not the point to realize oneself in the world and live it here? > > > > > Either way, the only> thing close that I've heard Amma refer to is the time > > delay between > > doing sadhana and reaping the fruit of it. I don't think it has to > > do with stabilizing, but letting the old fall away, allowing your > > life and mind to change with the new center (the fruit). > > > ::Having read this paragraph, I don't see much distinction between what I > called stabilizing and what you call letting the old fall wawy, allowing your > life and mind to change with the new center. That's what I am talking about > in other words.Why do you make such a kvetch about this? > > > > > The other only closest thing I can recall is Satya Sai Baba talking > > about Jesus, in that (paraphrasing) at first Jesus claimed to be the > > Son of God, and only later when the Atma (soul/self) Consciousness > > stabilized, did he proclaim "I and my Father are One". I would > > think that the true moment of Realization didn't occur until the > > latter state. > > > ::Here you use the term "stabilized" in just the way I do with no caveats. I > would disagree with "the true moment" part. I think the first realization was > true, only it took time for the deeper meaning to be disclosed; you could > call it a second realization or the first true realization, whatever. Or, it > could be the deeper meaning which was potential in the first realization. > > > > > Regarding Ramana's period of "stabilizing" Realization, the > > description lends itself to developing the guru tattwa, not really > > stabilizing the experience of Realization. > > > ::Here's where I find this a bit cocky. Now, he sat silently for three years, > after having his Realization at age 16 years. You say that he was not > stabilizing the realization, not integrating it, but "developing the guru > tattwa"as you so fondly refer to it. May I ask where you derive this from? > Does Ramana himself speak of this period as "developing the guru tattwa?" If > so, in what book? You seem to feel that the realization was instantaneous > and complete, but that he sat there for three years, in silence, trying to > come up with his "guru tattwa.Gee, I wish I had a guru tattwa. Sure would > be nice to have a tattwa..." I think by that term you mean the ability to > teach others, and if so, just say that, for those of us who do not speak > Sanskrit. why would it take three years for him to come up with a teaching > method? He taught to do what he himself did, self-enquiry. It would not at > all seem to take three years of sitting on a rock to come up with that. Or, > do you mean that he sat like this to get up the will to be a teacher at all? > In that case what was the struggle? It is obvious you feel strongly about > Ramana. Don't forget that he too learned things after self- realization. For > example, he tried to liberate one man as he was dying, and he failed to do > so, and admitted it. the next time he tried, he did a better job. So, he > went on learning things. me, I think he meditated for three years after > realization, sheerly for the awe of it, not to come up with a "guru tattwa." > That happened spontaneously, I believe, and was not the essence of what was > going on for those years whatsoever. Avram > > > > > tom > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2002 Report Share Posted October 8, 2002 To clarify further, "stabilizing" would general mean you're not there yet, still growing and adapting to growth. My examples of Amma saying there's a delay between sadhana and the fruit, and my comments about SSB's explanation was to show this. Realization of the Self, while the state of Liberation from Rebirth may be similar to other terms, is not always the same. For example, Actualization. This would refer more to principles, as I've said before, how far you go (learn, yogic acheivements, etc.) past the Realization state depends on your karma and purpose. Realization of the Self is exactly that, and doesn't imply that you're an Jnaani (Knower of the Self). You simply realize that life is an illusion and you experience your true self. Realization is a state of being/existence. >> One might have Realization and still be a jerk and a fool in many ways. Someone who actualizes his realization is one who integrates his insight into reality into all aspects of himself. True (it's possible), but unlikely. > I can think of many spiritual leaders who I firmly believe had > great realization, but insufficient actualization; they didn't do > the work required to integrate their insight. They thought they were done, but they were not. In a way I think it is parallel to the ten Zen Ox pictures. There have been many that have achieved a certain degree of Realization, mostly intellectually not truly experiencing true reality. SSB calls these "mini-incarnations". People who have Realized the Self, but are bound to rebirth because of various desires to be fulfilled. Not true Mukti or Liberation. > ::Here you use the term "stabilized" in just the way I do with no >caveats. I would disagree with "the true moment" part. I think the >first realization was true, only it took time for the deeper meaning >to be disclosed; What deeper meaning? It never took hold to begin with, although he may have attained various yogic abilities prior to final Realization. > > Regarding Ramana's period of "stabilizing" Realization, the > > description lends itself to developing the guru tattwa, not really stabilizing the experience of Realization. > > > ::Here's where I find this a bit cocky. Now, he sat silently for >three years, after having his Realization at age 16 years. You say >that he was not stabilizing the realization, not integrating it, >but "developing the guru tattwa"as you so fondly refer to it. May >I ask where you derive this from? This is similar to Ramakrishna going around and "realizing" various sadhanas, paths, religions. He was also a bhakta, which implies a certain amount duality needed to remain (versus a vedantin). Whatever any person does after "realizing the self", is (again) dependent on their karma and purpose of their birth. Whether it's realizing principles like guru or healing or other things. Guru Tattva: guru principle: pedagogy (the art of teaching) I've mentioned this one because the guru-complex among people is a common ego trap. As Sw. Paramaatmaananda said that the more you learn, the more you have a desire to teach. Of course, in New Age circles this is encouraged. I've tried to limit what I post here because there are some people that are so tamasic, that will still not believe should you provide a good argument. Many people believe what they "prefer" to believe, and this is because of the ego. Amma doesn't push the Moksha ("Liberation Only") so much because she knows that it won't inspire people to do sadhana or give up bad habits or stop being selffish. In other words, if the ego thinks it'll experience all kinds of fun and ecstacy and still have a neat life in the world (mukti, enlightenment), then it'll be motivated to do sadhana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2002 Report Share Posted October 9, 2002 Ammachi, "Tom" <tomgull@m...> wrote: Realization of > the Self is exactly that, and doesn't imply that you're an Jnaani > (Knower of the Self). You simply realize that life is an illusion > and you experience your true self. Realization is a state of > being/existence. I find the above statement rather absurd. Realization of the Self doesn't imply that you're a Knower of the Self? And what exactly do you think a jnani is? Jnana, like bhakti, is a path to the divine, to Self-Realization...the path of knowledge. A true jnani is a true bhakta, and vica versa (as both Amma and Ramana Maharshi have said), as it takes one pointed devotion to be a knower of the truth). All of these different paths to Self Realization are not necessarily water tight compartmental truths. They overlap and integrate with one another. Self Realization is the most supremely integrated way of knowing truth and one's own divinity. Why reduce it to something smaller than it is, and why alientate it from jnana. Why not see Self-Realization as the universal thing that it is. Self-Realization implies knowledge...supreme knowledge. If Self-Realization is something alien and separate from jnana, the knower of truth, then what value can Self-Realization have for us. This is not to say that there aren't various types of realizations on the way to God-realization (self-realization). Realization of the Self doesn't necessarily imply that you simply see life as an illusion as you have stated. Take Kashmir Shaivism, for example. It is a lofty philosophy which differs from the Vedanta of Shankaracharya. It rejects the idea of life as an illusion. It sees the world as a true reality. It argues that if Shiva is the essential reality (Brahman), then why should Shiva's creation be an illusion. It says Shiva has created the universe out of his own being. Anyway, it is another story and too much to get into here. > > > > Regarding Ramana's period of "stabilizing" Realization, the > > > description lends itself to developing the guru tattwa, not > really stabilizing the experience of Realization. > > Guru Tattva: guru principle: pedagogy (the art of teaching) > I've mentioned this one because the guru-complex among people is a > common ego trap. As Sw. Paramaatmaananda said that the more you > learn, the more you have a desire to teach. Of course, in New Age > circles this is encouraged. I've tried to limit what I post here > because there are some people that are so tamasic, that will still > not believe should you provide a good argument. By the way, the Guru Tattva/principle is more than just the art of teaching. The guru principle is actually none other than the Self. This is what various texts, such as the Guru Gita, expand upon. The Guru is the Self. Amma, Anandamayi Ma, Ramana Maharshi, all have been quoted to say this. I'm not sure what Ramana was doing during this "stabilizing" part of his sadhana. But he said many times that when people consider him the guru, he neither accepts or rejects this notion. He didn't make any kind of big deal over being a guru, and never claimed to be one. Lisa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2002 Report Share Posted October 9, 2002 Ammachi, "lbrachlin" <lalita120@h...> wrote: > > I find the above statement rather absurd. Realization of the Self > doesn't imply that you're a Knower of the Self? And what exactly do > you think a jnani is? Waking up from a dream doesn't imply you know everything about dreaming or being awake. You are just awake and are able to enjoy the experience of it. If you are a true Jnaani, it implies you've reached that state through self-inquiry or similar path. > By the way, the Guru Tattva/principle is more than just the art of > teaching. The guru principle is actually none other than the Self. > This is what various texts, such as the Guru Gita, expand upon. The > Guru is the Self. Amma, Anandamayi Ma, Ramana Maharshi, all have been > quoted to say this. I'm not sure what Ramana was doing during this > "stabilizing" part of his sadhana. But he said many times that when > people consider him the guru, he neither accepts or rejects this > notion. He didn't make any kind of big deal over being a guru, and > never claimed to be one. > > Lisa I think I meant pedagogy to be the "Study of the art of teaching". I mentioned this because of the examples of RM trying to bestow realization/liberation and not being able to do so, but later on was able to. Bestowing liberation is a "guru" task. The rest of your commments are a part of philosophical discussions and how they can circle on and on because of angles, definitions ("guru is the self" etc). That's why I'm try to give the context for what I say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2002 Report Share Posted October 10, 2002 Ammachi, "Tom" <tomgull@m...> wrote: > Ammachi, "lbrachlin" <lalita120@h...> wrote: > > > > I find the above statement rather absurd. Realization of the Self > > doesn't imply that you're a Knower of the Self? And what exactly do > > you think a jnani is? > > Waking up from a dream doesn't imply you know everything about > dreaming or being awake. You are just awake and are able to enjoy > the experience of it. If you are a true Jnaani, it implies you've > reached that state through self-inquiry or similar path. Tom, This is what it sounds like you're saying: Self-realization means only to wake-up and to experience bliss. Other than that, you remain ignorant and might as well be living in a bubble because you have no knowledge about that state. You have ananda (bliss), but do not experience sat or chit (this sounds a little bit like a space case to me.) A knower is superior to a realizer, because a realizer is only awake but doesn't know much, but a knower has practised jnana marga through methods of self-inquiry or alike and therefore has not only awakened, but has knowledge of the Self. He/She experiences satchitananda. A realizer has awakened, but has no knowledge of the Self (or very limited). Therefore, the path of jnana yoga is superior to other paths. (Certainly, the Bhagavad Gita says nothing of the kind when it does commentaries on jnana, bhakti, karma and dhyana yogas. I wonder what the great beings mean when they say many are the paths to the Divine? Do they mean that jnana leads to a better, more complete Divine than bhakti or dhyana?) It almost sounds like you're saying it doesn't matter if you've reached the state of Self-realization or not; what matters is how you've reached it because reaching it doesn't give you knowledge of the Self. But the path of jnana gives you knowledge of the Self. The state of self-realization is only that which allows you to live in a bubble of bliss, but you're still ignorant. I say if the jnani has not only awakened but also gained knowledge and the realizer has not only gained knowledge, but has also awakened. Anyway, it sounds very much like you're saying this. Is this what you mean to say? Lisa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2002 Report Share Posted October 11, 2002 Somewhat. To be a little clearer: Self-Realization: Realizing YOU ARE the SELF (that's all, the minimum). Waking up from a dream, realizing that what you thought was real, isn't. Jnaani: KNOWER of the self, normally attained by self-inquiry or similar path that involves much discrimination and learning (i.e, raaja yoga). The term Jivanmukta (liberated being/soul) doesn't contain the word for knowledge (jnaana). Bhakta: attains self-realization and/or moksha by Grace earned through devotion. Grace can be little or a lot. Example: ST. Therese of Lisieux, even though a novice, was appointed to teach the new novices, serving as sort of their teacher and source of inspiration. Was wise for her young age, her later published autobiography has inspired many, but her path was Devotion. She desired to "spend her Heaven doing good on Earth". From the various miracles attributed to her and the intense popularity and devotion to her and the depth of her writings.... she was obviously granted more than simply "moksha" at the end of her life, but much more (mukti). You'd have to examine her life to learn why such Grace was granted. You could argue that she realized guru tattwa during life. The different paths are like roads. There are rough roads, easy roads, dirty roads, clean roads, complicated roads. Yet, as you get closer to your destination, you all end up on the same few roads. Before reaching MA Center, everyone ends up on Crow Canyon Rd or whatever that road is, unless they were miraculously transported there (guru's grace). Paths are superior to one another depending on what's best for the individual. Chances are, if you're a true bhakta, and have been incorporating Jnaana as part of your path, you will enjoy more than just bliss. But for those that don't, bliss is all they're entitled to. Of course, a guru's blessing (resolve + reason) can bestow wisdom on anyone. Remember that in Sanathana Dharma, to my understanding, the goal is Moksha, not Mukti or Jnaana. The goal is not knowledge of the absolute or knowledge of creation, etc. The goal is liberation from rebirth. Some people, however, may have their own goal of Enlightenment (knowledge of the self), or Mukti, etc. tom Ammachi, "lbrachlin" <lalita120@h...> wrote: > Tom, > This is what it sounds like you're saying: > > Self-realization means only to wake-up and to experience bliss. Other > than that, you remain ignorant and might as well be living in a > bubble because you have no knowledge about that state. You have > ananda (bliss), but do not experience sat or chit (this sounds a > little bit like a space case to me.) A knower is superior to a > realizer, because a realizer is only awake but doesn't know much, but > a knower has practised jnana marga through methods of self-inquiry or > alike and therefore has not only awakened, but has knowledge of the > Self. He/She experiences satchitananda. A realizer has awakened, but > has no knowledge of the Self (or very limited). Therefore, the path > of jnana yoga is superior to other paths. (Certainly, the Bhagavad > Gita says nothing of the kind when it does commentaries on jnana, > bhakti, karma and dhyana yogas. I wonder what the great beings mean > when they say many are the paths to the Divine? Do they mean that > jnana leads to a better, more complete Divine than bhakti or dhyana?) > > It almost sounds like you're saying it doesn't matter if you've > reached the state of Self-realization or not; what matters is how > you've reached it because reaching it doesn't give you knowledge of > the Self. But the path of jnana gives you knowledge of the Self. The > state of self-realization is only that which allows you to live in a > bubble of bliss, but you're still ignorant. > > I say if the jnani has not only awakened but also gained knowledge > and the realizer has not only gained knowledge, but has also > awakened. > > Anyway, it sounds very much like you're saying this. Is this what you > mean to say? > > Lisa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2002 Report Share Posted October 12, 2002 Ammachi, "Tom" <tomgull@m...> wrote: > Somewhat. To be a little clearer: The term Jivanmukta (liberated being/soul) doesn't > contain the word for knowledge (jnaana). My dear friend, just remember the view that ignorance is the cause of bondage and perfect "knowledge" is the cause of freedom is commonly accepted by most Indian philosophers. You see, you must also learn to read between the lines. Perhaps you're reading too much and getting too much "book knowledge", which is the same as ignorance, the cause of bondage in the first place. Lisa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2002 Report Share Posted October 13, 2002 I was trying to make the distinction that just because you're liberated, does't mean you're all-knowing, a notion you obviously reject. The root for the term Jnaani is Jnaana. There's a reason why there's different terms. The idea that "perfect knowledge" is the cause of freedom is commonly accepted can be debated, unless you're talking about self-inquiry. It's kinda like saying it's commonly accepted that Vishnu is the most Supreme. Sure, among Vaishnavas who can quote scripture left and right to defend it. But then, ask a Shakta and they can make the same claims and scriptural defenses for Devi being the most Supreme. Which one is right? Like Darth Vader murdering Luke Skywalker's father... "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view". (Obi-wan) Ammachi, "lbrachlin" <lalita120@h...> wrote: > Ammachi, "Tom" <tomgull@m...> wrote: > > Somewhat. To be a little clearer: > > The term Jivanmukta (liberated being/soul) doesn't > > contain the word for knowledge (jnaana). > > My dear friend, just remember the view that ignorance is the cause of > bondage and perfect "knowledge" is the cause of freedom is commonly > accepted by most Indian philosophers. You see, you must also learn to > read between the lines. Perhaps you're reading too much and getting > too much "book knowledge", which is the same as ignorance, the cause > of bondage in the first place. > > Lisa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2002 Report Share Posted October 13, 2002 Ammachi, "Tom" <tomgull@m...> wrote: The idea that "perfect knowledge" is > the cause of freedom is commonly accepted can be debated, unless > you're talking about self-inquiry. This isn't my statement. I was actually quoting directly from Swami Laksmanjoo, the great philosopher saint of the 20th century and the last and considered by many to be the greatest master of the Kashmir Shaivite tradition. In his book Kashmir Shaivism, The Secret Supreme, Chapter 14, entitled Moksa in Kahsmir Saivism and Indian Philosophy, he starts out by saying, "The view that ignorance is the cause of bondage and perfect knowledge is the cause of freedom (moksa) is commonly accepted by all Indian philosophers. Yet, in reality, these philosophers have not completely understood knowledge and ignorance...." Then he goes on to eloquently describe the theory of moksa in different traditions. If you want to debate this as not commonly accepted, I would say to remember that these words are coming from a scholar and master of a very, very high caliber. It's kinda like saying it's > commonly accepted that Vishnu is the most Supreme. Sure, among > Vaishnavas who can quote scripture left and right to defend it. But > then, ask a Shakta and they can make the same claims and scriptural > defenses for Devi being the most Supreme. Which one is right? > Like Darth Vader murdering Luke Skywalker's father... "Many of the > truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view". (Obi- wan) I'm not talking about which god or goddess is the most supreme. I'm talking about the nature of liberation from the chains of ignorance. I'm also saying that if knowledge isn't an integral part of liberation, then your liberation is empty and incomplete. How can a state where one is still abiding in ignorance be a liberating experience? Perhaps you will not be free from the cycle of birth and death and will need to return to acquire a true liberation...one that's free from the chains of ignorance. > Ammachi, "lbrachlin" <lalita120@h...> wrote: > > Ammachi, "Tom" <tomgull@m...> wrote: > > > Somewhat. To be a little clearer: > > > > The term Jivanmukta (liberated being/soul) doesn't > > > contain the word for knowledge (jnaana). > > > > My dear friend, just remember the view that ignorance is the cause > of > > bondage and perfect "knowledge" is the cause of freedom is commonly > > accepted by most Indian philosophers. You see, you must also learn > to > > read between the lines. Perhaps you're reading too much and getting > > too much "book knowledge", which is the same as ignorance, the > cause > > of bondage in the first place. > > > > Lisa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2002 Report Share Posted October 14, 2002 Lisa, It comes down to what the definitions of "knowledge" and "ignorance" are. You can have knowledge of something without having all- knowledge of it. Are you using a literal or contextual definition? For example, to raise an old debate of calling Br. Dayamrita "swamiji". Using the common or literal meaning, it's ok. Using the contextual meaning (in context being associated with Amma), her devotees don't call all renunciates and br.'s "swami/ji", while being a br. down in Yogaville it would be ok because both sannyasis and bramacharis are referred to as swami's (to my understanding) with the only difference being the "-aananda" at the end of the names of the sannyasis. Just like being found Not-Guilty doesn't mean you're innocent, removing ignorance of the Self, doesn't mean you know everything about the Self, you simply "know" who you are and that everything is the Self. That's my point. There's nothing that supports one becoming wise in everything about creation just because you Realize the Self or remove that ignorance. Ignorance of worldly or yogic knowledge is not the same thing as ignorance of the Self. My Darth Vader/Devi example is what you've shown in the article you found: it all depends on your point of view. Your quote mentions indian "philosophers" which would further support that those views are held by those who follow the path of Jnaana. Bhakti and Karma yogi's don't consider themselves to be "philosophers". >> How can a state where one is still abiding in ignorance be a liberating experience? >> What Ignorance? You're liberated from Ignorance of the Self, not igorance of all knowledge (temporal knowledge). The Supreme Knowledge is Knowledge of the Self. If you follow the path of Jnaana, you will surely reach that state. The one who follows Bhakti Yoga will reach union with their deity, although some may attain wisdom depending on their own efforts in that direction. If you've had any experiences of samadhi, you'd understand that in that state nothing matters and you don't have any desires to know anything. You simply experience freedom. If you're lucky enough to attain that state while in the body, then more power to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2002 Report Share Posted October 14, 2002 Ammachi, "Tom" <tomgull@m...> wrote: ..> It comes down to what the definitions of "knowledge" and "ignorance" > are. Tom, Trying to retrace this thread and go back to the beginning of this Digest no 618, I think somewhere where we were discussing stabilization, is now becoming a challenge in itself. Anyway, I found so many of your statements to be so very strange. To come back to one of the things you originally said, "Realization of the Self is exactly that, and doesn't imply that you're a Knower of the Self" is probably where the concept of knowledge first came into the conversation. And I hope to think we're talking about supreme knowledge here, not knowledge of what I had for dinner last night, etc. "Jnana (knowledge) is knowing one's own essential nature, which is all Being (sat), all consciousness (cit), and all bliss (ananda). Ajnana (ignorance) is ignoring this essential nature and this is the cause of the samsara which carries one in the cycle of repeated births and deaths"...so says Swami Lakshmanjoo, for example. So to realize the Self is to know one's essential nature, and to acquire true knowledge, jnana, is to be liberated from the cycle of birth and death and free of avidya (ignorance). So a realizer is a knower and a knower is a realizer in this sense. And the purpose of jnana marga or self-enquiry, etc., is to realize one's essential nature, the Self, the Supreme Reality. It is a means, not an end in itself. It is a path to the Divine. To realize the Self is in all it's totality and to be completely established in this realization without a break in consciousness is a supreme goal, and the way you have been describing this state in some past posts seemed quite off-base to me Your quote mentions > indian "philosophers" which would further support that those views > are held by those who follow the path of Jnaana. Bhakti and Karma > yogi's don't consider themselves to be "philosophers". Don't make the mistake that Indian philosophers can't be great bhaktas or even karma yogis, as well as adept in the path of jnana. When they take on the role of "philosopher" or "jnani" in order to commit something to print, they may also be burning with bhakti and the spirit of service in their hearts and minds. > >> How can a state where one is still abiding in ignorance be a > liberating experience? >> > What Ignorance? You were the one who said that liberation (and also realization of the Self is not the same as knowing the Self. You're liberated from Ignorance of the Self, not > igorance of all knowledge (temporal knowledge). The Supreme > Knowledge is Knowledge of the Self. If you follow the path of > Jnaana, you will surely reach that state. The one who follows > Bhakti Yoga will reach union with their deity, although some may > attain wisdom depending on their own efforts in that direction. I feel you don't understand supreme bhakti, because it doesn't end with union with chosen deity. One's supreme bhakti will transcend form and take one to formlessness (like Ramakrishna Paramahamsa)...one will unleash the fathomless divinity from within and experience the Supreme Reality and Self-Realization from one- pointed bhakti as well, because truly bhakti and jnana are both paths to Supreme Reality. Through supreme bhakti, one can realize one's essential nature. L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2002 Report Share Posted October 14, 2002 Lisa, since the discussion has come to splitting hairs (tamasic), I will yield here. It has brought out good points. Part of the problem I have is with your quotes from various swami's. I don't necessarily recognize people known to be "great", but try to discriminate what's actually said. There are many out there deemed to be great by their followers, but whose knowledge is limited. Just like most Hindu-style devotees consider their guru to be an incarnation, doesn't mean they are. I also understand that a Bhakta's path doesn't end with merging with the deity, I was just trying to limit the discussion, besides the fact that even acheiving that state is difficult. > I feel you don't understand supreme bhakti, because it doesn't end > with union with chosen deity. One's supreme bhakti will transcend > form and take one to formlessness (like Ramakrishna > Paramahamsa)...one will unleash the fathomless divinity from within > and experience the Supreme Reality and Self-Realization from one- > pointed bhakti as well, because truly bhakti and jnana are both paths > to Supreme Reality. Through supreme bhakti, one can realize one's > essential nature. > > L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2002 Report Share Posted October 14, 2002 Tom, Thanks for the lively discussion, also. It does keep us on our toes. I was also planning on replying to your next post by signing off, as I have already made my point and to continue any further would be excessive. Anyway, may we all be recipients of Divine grace. Lisa Ammachi, "Tom" <tomgull@m...> wrote: > Lisa, since the discussion has come to splitting hairs (tamasic), I > will yield here. It has brought out good points. > > Part of the problem I have is with your quotes from various > swami's. I don't necessarily recognize people known to be "great", > but try to discriminate what's actually said. There are many out > there deemed to be great by their followers, but whose knowledge is > limited. Just like most Hindu-style devotees consider their guru to > be an incarnation, doesn't mean they are. > > I also understand that a Bhakta's path doesn't end with merging with > the deity, I was just trying to limit the discussion, besides the > fact that even acheiving that state is difficult. > > > I feel you don't understand supreme bhakti, because it doesn't end > > with union with chosen deity. One's supreme bhakti will transcend > > form and take one to formlessness (like Ramakrishna > > Paramahamsa)...one will unleash the fathomless divinity from within > > and experience the Supreme Reality and Self-Realization from one- > > pointed bhakti as well, because truly bhakti and jnana are both > paths > > to Supreme Reality. Through supreme bhakti, one can realize one's > > essential nature. > > > > L 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.