Guest guest Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 || Aum Sri Gurubhyo Namah || || Hari: Aum ||>> Dear sisters and brothers in AMMACHI>> These are some of the most inspiring sentences which I came across while reading the books of Swami Vivekananda and Paramahansa Yogananda. • Even a thought is a hindrance to realize the Self. • Duty is the midday sun which scorches the tender plant of spirituality. • Ordinary beings are shattered by the floods of lust, anger, greed, pride, envy etc… I would like to have the best commentary on these most valuable content. Please do your best. *.*.*.*.*.*. At Sri Paada Sridhar Babu «referrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"> ath o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f">ath>´`³¤³´`*:»§« ´`³¤*:»§« ´`³¤« ´`³¤³´`*:» || Aum Lokah Samastah Sukhino Bhavanthu || « ´`³¤³´`*:»§« ´`³¤*:»§« ´`³¤« ´`³¤³´`*:» Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 on 1/25/06 12:17 AM, Sridhar Babu at ammassridhar wrote: > • Even a thought is a hindrance to realize the Self. My quick comment: Is a fish or a bit of seaweed a hindrance to the ocean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Ammachi, Rick Archer <rick@s...> wrote: > > on 1/25/06 12:17 AM, Sridhar Babu at ammassridhar wrote: > > > • Even a thought is a hindrance to realize the Self. > > My quick comment: Is a fish or a bit of seaweed a hindrance to the ocean? > By itself, perhaps not. But if it is the sort of fish and seaweed that rapidly grows and chokes the body of water, it would be a hindrance. Nandu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 on 1/25/06 11:44 AM, vallathnkumar at vallathn wrote: > > Ammachi, Rick Archer <rick@s...> wrote: >> >> on 1/25/06 12:17 AM, Sridhar Babu at ammassridhar wrote: >> >>> • Even a thought is a hindrance to realize the Self. >> >> My quick comment: Is a fish or a bit of seaweed a hindrance to the > ocean? >> > > By itself, perhaps not. But if it is the sort of fish and seaweed > that rapidly grows and chokes the body of water, it would be a hindrance. True, but the quote implied that even a single thought was a hindrance. Thoughts, in their proper proportion, are natural and not a hindrance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Ammachi, Rick Archer <rick@s...> wrote: > > on 1/25/06 12:17 AM, Sridhar Babu at ammassridhar wrote: > > > • Even a thought is a hindrance to realize the Self. > > My quick comment: Is a fish or a bit of seaweed a hindrance to the ocean? > Maybe not. but fish (thought) is a hindrance to the "realization" of the ocean (Self). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 on 1/25/06 12:08 PM, manoj_menon at ammademon wrote: > Ammachi, Rick Archer <rick@s...> wrote: >> >> on 1/25/06 12:17 AM, Sridhar Babu at ammassridhar wrote: >> >>> • Even a thought is a hindrance to realize the Self. >> >> My quick comment: Is a fish or a bit of seaweed a hindrance to the > ocean? >> > > Maybe not. but fish (thought) is a hindrance to the "realization" of > the ocean (Self). I know why it appears to be, but I'm arguing that it isn't, and that if it were, no one could get enlightened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Ammachi, Rick Archer <rick@s...> wrote: > > on 1/25/06 12:08 PM, manoj_menon at ammademon@g... wrote: > > > Ammachi, Rick Archer <rick@s...> wrote: > >> > >> on 1/25/06 12:17 AM, Sridhar Babu at ammassridhar wrote: > >> > >>> • Even a thought is a hindrance to realize the Self. > >> > >> My quick comment: Is a fish or a bit of seaweed a hindrance to the > > ocean? > >> > > > > Maybe not. but fish (thought) is a hindrance to the "realization" of > > the ocean (Self). > > I know why it appears to be, but I'm arguing that it isn't, and that if it > were, no one could get enlightened. Why would enlightenment not happen this way? >From various accounts, enlightenment is defined as the Silence in us; the empty thoughtless "state". The entire process of mantra chanting is to reduce our thoughts and our need for thinking in this general scheme: Many thoughts ----> reduced to one constant thought (mantra) ---> reduced to NO THOUGHT with the help of the Guru's Grace, which is considered as enlightenment. This means that eventually even the mantra is a hindrance to realization. Only Grace can overcome that for us. Looked at it another way, "Even a thought is a hindrance to realize the Self". As Einstein said: problems are overcome only at a level higher than the problem; solutions ca never be at the same level as the problem. Because the Self is greater than thought, it can't be of the level of, derived from, or a function of composite, thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 on 1/25/06 1:51 PM, manoj_menon at ammademon wrote: >> >> I know why it appears to be, but I'm arguing that it isn't, and > that if it >> were, no one could get enlightened. > > Why would enlightenment not happen this way? > From various accounts, enlightenment is defined as the Silence in > us; the empty thoughtless "state". Yes. Along with activity, which includes thoughts. In other words, the enlightened one is established in the Silence of the Self, while the mind engages in thinking and the body performs actions. > > The entire process of mantra chanting is to reduce our thoughts and > our need for thinking in this general scheme: > > Many thoughts ----> reduced to one constant thought (mantra) ---> > reduced to NO THOUGHT While meditating. After meditating, we resume thinking and activity, hopefully with more silence established. >with the help of the Guru's Grace, which is > considered as enlightenment. Temporary samadhi is not enlightenment. > > This means that eventually even the mantra is a hindrance to > realization. The mantra is left behind when the mind merges with the transcendent during meditation. When realization is established, it remains whether or not thinking or acting are taking place. > Looked at it another way, "Even a thought is a hindrance to realize > the Self". The opposite could be argued. It takes a thorn to remove a thorn. The Self is realized through transcending thought, and that is done by experiencing finer states of a thought until thought is transcended. A car is a hindrance to enjoying the Grand Canyon, but it is essential for getting there. Once you arrive, you get out of the car. > > Because the Self is greater than thought, it can't be of the level > of, derived from, or a function of composite, thoughts. It's the other way around. If the Brahman is omnipresent, wholeness, then everything, including thoughts, is contained within it, like fish in the ocean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Relevant quote that just popped up on http://www.mpeters.de/nisargadatta/index.cfm Don't fight with what you take to be obstacles on your way. Just be interested in them, watch them, observe, enquire. Let anything happen - good or bad. But don't let yourself be submerged by what happens. The mind must learn that beyond the moving mind there is the background of awareness, which does not change. The mind must come to know the true self and respect it and cease covering it up, like the moon which obscures the sun during solar eclipse. Just realize that nothing observable, or experienceable is you, or binds you. Take no notice of what is not yourself. You are aware anyhow, you need not try to be. What you need is to be aware of being aware. Be aware deliberately and consciously, broaden and deepen the field of awareness. You are always conscious of the mind, but you are not aware of yourself as being conscious. Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Perhaps tomorrow I will feel differently, but just now I need to feel entirely affirmed and supported in my humanity, warts and all. So to me, these quotes, taken together, convey a dissonance with humanity rather than a compassion and embracing of it. It is possible to be pro-divine without being anti-human. just my .02 and frame of mind (!) JAI MA caleb Ammachi, "Sridhar Babu" <ammassridhar> wrote: > > || Aum Sri Gurubhyo Namah || > || Hari: Aum ||>> > Dear sisters and brothers in AMMACHI>> > > These are some of the most inspiring sentences which I came across while reading the books of Swami Vivekananda and Paramahansa Yogananda. > > Even a thought is a hindrance to realize the Self. > > Duty is the midday sun which scorches the tender plant of spirituality. > > Ordinary beings are shattered by the floods of lust, anger, greed, pride, envy etc> > I would like to have the best commentary on these most valuable content. > > Please do your best. > > *.*.*.*.*.*. > At Sri Paada > Sridhar Babu > > Ž«referrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"> ath o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f">ath>Ž´`Ž³Ž¤Ž³Ž´`*:Ž»Ž§Ž« Ž´`Ž³Ž¤*:Ž»Ž§Ž« Ž´`Ž³Ž¤Ž« Ž´`Ž³Ž¤Ž³Ž´`*:Ž» > > || Aum Lokah Samastah Sukhino Bhavanthu || > > Ž« Ž´`Ž³Ž¤Ž³Ž´`*:Ž»Ž§Ž« Ž´`Ž³Ž¤*:Ž»Ž§Ž« Ž´`Ž³Ž¤Ž« Ž´`Ž³Ž¤Ž³Ž´`*:Ž» > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 I don't think the statement can be literally interpreted, I think rephrasing it to the following makes sense "Even the mere asssociation to a thought is a hindrance to realize the self". It's quite unrealistic to expect no thoughts. Ammachi, Rick Archer <rick@s...> wrote: > > > • Even a thought is a hindrance to realize the Self. > > >> My quick comment: Is a fish or a bit of seaweed a hindrance to the > > ocean? > >> > > > > Maybe not. but fish (thought) is a hindrance to the "realization" of > > the ocean (Self). > > I know why it appears to be, but I'm arguing that it isn't, and that if it > were, no one could get enlightened. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 I would definitely agree with Rick. You cannot stop thoughts - that's the nature of the mind; but when you meditate you make an effort to not associate with them(same thing when you chant a mantra). Once you gain control on your thoughts you can use them as your slave. The bottomline is are you the master of your thoughts or not. I cannot fathom the absence of thoughts not in this world as we know anyway. Ammachi, Rick Archer <rick@s...> wrote: > > on 1/25/06 1:51 PM, manoj_menon at ammademon@g... wrote: > >> > >> I know why it appears to be, but I'm arguing that it isn't, and > > that if it > >> were, no one could get enlightened. > > > > Why would enlightenment not happen this way? > > From various accounts, enlightenment is defined as the Silence in > > us; the empty thoughtless "state". > > Yes. Along with activity, which includes thoughts. In other words, the > enlightened one is established in the Silence of the Self, while the mind > engages in thinking and the body performs actions. > > > > The entire process of mantra chanting is to reduce our thoughts and > > our need for thinking in this general scheme: > > > > Many thoughts ----> reduced to one constant thought (mantra) ---> > > reduced to NO THOUGHT > > While meditating. After meditating, we resume thinking and activity, > hopefully with more silence established. > > >with the help of the Guru's Grace, which is > > considered as enlightenment. > > Temporary samadhi is not enlightenment. > > > > This means that eventually even the mantra is a hindrance to > > realization. > > The mantra is left behind when the mind merges with the transcendent during > meditation. When realization is established, it remains whether or not > thinking or acting are taking place. > > > Looked at it another way, "Even a thought is a hindrance to realize > > the Self". > > The opposite could be argued. It takes a thorn to remove a thorn. The Self > is realized through transcending thought, and that is done by experiencing > finer states of a thought until thought is transcended. A car is a hindrance > to enjoying the Grand Canyon, but it is essential for getting there. Once > you arrive, you get out of the car. > > > > Because the Self is greater than thought, it can't be of the level > > of, derived from, or a function of composite, thoughts. > > It's the other way around. If the Brahman is omnipresent, wholeness, then > everything, including thoughts, is contained within it, like fish in the > ocean. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Ammachi, "Ravi Chivukula" <ravichivukula@h...> wrote: > > I would definitely agree with Rick. You cannot stop thoughts - > that's the nature of the mind; but when you meditate you make an > effort to not associate with them(same thing when you chant a > mantra). In fact, in spirituality the mind is defined as a "flow of thoughts", so that's how it's nature will be. Transcending the mind is the same as transcending thoughts. > Once you gain control on your thoughts you can use them as your > slave. The bottomline is are you the master of your thoughts or not. Control thoughts. the very term still retains a sense of ego (I and thoughts are different). Amma would say "Be a witness to the thought and don't let it overpower you". The real bottom line is are you the master of yourself (which is also not a bad goal, BTW) or are you the Self? > I cannot fathom the absence of thoughts not in this world as we know > anyway. I can in a sense, but still can't. More on this in a subsequent post. > Ammachi, Rick Archer <rick@s...> wrote: > > > > on 1/25/06 1:51 PM, manoj_menon at ammademon@g... wrote: > > >> > > >> I know why it appears to be, but I'm arguing that it isn't, and > > > that if it > > >> were, no one could get enlightened. > > > > > > Why would enlightenment not happen this way? > > > From various accounts, enlightenment is defined as the Silence in > > > us; the empty thoughtless "state". > > > > Yes. Along with activity, which includes thoughts. In other words, the > > enlightened one is established in the Silence of the Self, while the mind > > engages in thinking and the body performs actions. > > > > > > The entire process of mantra chanting is to reduce our thoughts and > > > our need for thinking in this general scheme: > > > > > > Many thoughts ----> reduced to one constant thought (mantra) ---> > > > reduced to NO THOUGHT > > > > While meditating. After meditating, we resume thinking and activity, > > hopefully with more silence established. > > > > >with the help of the Guru's Grace, which is > > > considered as enlightenment. > > > > Temporary samadhi is not enlightenment. > > > > > > This means that eventually even the mantra is a hindrance to > > > realization. > > > > The mantra is left behind when the mind merges with the transcendent during > > meditation. When realization is established, it remains whether or not > > thinking or acting are taking place. > > > > > Looked at it another way, "Even a thought is a hindrance to realize > > > the Self". > > > > The opposite could be argued. It takes a thorn to remove a thorn. The Self > > is realized through transcending thought, and that is done by experiencing > > finer states of a thought until thought is transcended. A car is a hindrance > > to enjoying the Grand Canyon, but it is essential for getting there. Once > > you arrive, you get out of the car. > > > > > > Because the Self is greater than thought, it can't be of the level > > > of, derived from, or a function of composite, thoughts. > > > > It's the other way around. If the Brahman is omnipresent, wholeness, then > > everything, including thoughts, is contained within it, like fish in the > > ocean. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 on 1/25/06 5:46 PM, manoj_menon at ammademon wrote: > > Control thoughts. the very term still retains a sense of ego (I and > thoughts are different). Amma would say "Be a witness to the thought > and don't let it overpower you". I agree. In the Gita Arjuna refers to thoughts (or the mind) as being as difficult to control as the wind, and Krishna says "what can restraint accomplish?" >The real bottom line is are you the > master of yourself (which is also not a bad goal, BTW) or are you the > Self? Doesn't knowing the latter accomplish the former? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Why is dissonance wrong? If everyone resonated with the same opinion the world would be a boring place. But God never gets bored, he makes every person unique. In India we say there are 3 crore gods(30 million) - I think this says each person has their own god(who knows may be the population of India was 30 million when this statement was first made). Indeed God is the creation of man and to each his own; also this shows that every person has a different mental makeup and each person creates a God of his own. It also shows the liberal nature of the Sanatana Dharma - it accepts everything and doesn't condemn anything. Could you please clarify more on your other comments - what was said that was pro-divine or anti-human or lacking compassion Ammachi, "cal_ewing" <cal_ewing> wrote: > > > Perhaps tomorrow I will feel differently, but just now I need to feel > entirely affirmed and supported in my humanity, warts and all. So to > me, these quotes, taken together, convey a dissonance with humanity > rather than a compassion and embracing of it. It is possible to be > pro-divine without being anti-human. just my .02 and frame of mind (!) > JAI MA caleb > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Ammachi, "manoj_menon" <ammademon@g...> wrote: > > > > Once you gain control on your thoughts you can use them as your > > slave. The bottomline is are you the master of your thoughts or not. > > Control thoughts. the very term still retains a sense of ego (I and > thoughts are different). Amma would say "Be a witness to the thought > and don't let it overpower you". The real bottom line is are you the > master of yourself (which is also not a bad goal, BTW) or are you the > Self? I meant to say control over your thoughts - since you are the master you can direct them. Amma herself has said the thought of a devotee in distress reaches her. Does this thought overpower her? Is she controlling this thought or getting controlled by this thought? Just because that thought reached her does it mean she has an ego? If she acts on this thought does it mean she is not self-realized anymore? Realization does not mean an absence of mind but mind which is under your control. I don't personally see the difference between master of yourself and Self because you are made of the Self. Any self realized master in a body still has an ego(the last vestige) because there is the one last desire - that of being a Guru. This is my understanding. > > I cannot fathom the absence of thoughts not in this world as we know > > anyway. > > I can in a sense, but still can't. More on this in a subsequent post. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Ammachi, "Ravi Chivukula" <ravichivukula@h...> wrote: > I meant to say control over your thoughts - since you are the master you can direct them. Amma herself has said the thought of a devotee in distress reaches her. Does this thought overpower her? Is she controlling this thought or getting controlled by this thought? Just because that thought reached her does it mean she has an ego? If she acts on this thought does it mean she is not self-realized anymore? Ravi, very nice point. there is a lot that you said in here. it can easily be confusing if read in one breath ... let me see if i can make some sense. someone mentioned recently: if you have a body, there is then atleast some ego. How true! There are two types of ego. 1. The worldly ego (which most of the world has) 2. The functional ego of Realized Masters. Amma, I believe, has the functional ego. The functional ego is that which allows her to "function" in this world as a "separate unit of humanity" that interacts with others of its ilk. Realized Masters can drop their bodies at will, but have kept it out of compassion for the devotees and because of a divine calling for them to retain. They have the power of Ichcha Mrtyu (power to direct the time and place and type of death of their own body). This functional ego is what receives the devotees' distress call. She is neither controlling nor getting controlled by the thought. She receives it in witness mode. If she acts on this thought, it is a reflection of the devotee's wish. AMMA ONLY RESPONDS, SHE NEVER REACTS. and in responding, Amma neither overpowers nor is overpowered. Amma simply IS.... (Yet I fancy, that with Amma's strong will-power, she can easily overpower anybody!) Consider the functional ego of a Master to be like that of a burnt rope that has retained its structure and (strech the analogy further) is functioning too. The structure is the apparent ego, the functioning is the quality around it. In contrast, we are a like a solid live rope, hardened egos! > Realization does not mean an absence of mind but mind which is under > your control. I don't personally see the difference between master > of yourself and Self because you are made of the Self. Master of yourself points to a limited identity of self (the body). There are lots of people in the world with this ability (master of body and mind), but not necessarily realized. They are worthy of our respect, but that is not the goal of spirituality. Master of Self transcends bodily limitations. > Any self realized master in a body still has an ego(the last > vestige) because there is the one last desire - that of being a > Guru. This is my understanding. Not necessarily. It could be because of a calling. Look at Amma's case; she was happily mystically immersed till Divine Mother told her to come down to the level of us earthlings. Desire (as in wanting something for ourselves) would disqualify a true Guru from happening. "Desire to serve others" is not qualified as the usually-condemned Desire quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Namah Shivaya. surely I will clarify. Separately the quotes speak to the values of stilling the mind and of translating base insticts into higher purpose, all worthy pursuits, but taken together the three quotes set up a really severe vib in my heart..MY heart. the portal to divinity is broad and wide, as you said, but I felt squeezed by this assemblage rather than positively guided. I felt it asked too much and accepted too little. The idea of thoughts as a general hinderance, the idea that humanity and human excess is toxic to 'the ocean', and the idea that 'duty' is productive only when not perceived as such was too much to be fed from a single spoonful, or page. I did not feel fed. i felt marginalized and unsupported, punished almost. My opinion of this was asked for and I gave it, honestly and heartfelt. I believe it is entirely consistent with the infinite variety of Dharma. The ocean refuses no river. ONS C Ammachi, "Ravi Chivukula" <ravichivukula@h...> wrote: > > Why is dissonance wrong? If everyone resonated with the same opinion the world would be a boring place. But God never gets bored, he makes every person unique. In India we say there are 3 crore gods(30 million) - I think this says each person has their own god(who knows may be the population of India was 30 million when this statement was first made). Indeed God is the creation of man and to each his own; also this shows that every person has a different mental makeup and each person creates a God of his own. It also shows the liberal nature of the Sanatana Dharma - it accepts everything and doesn't condemn anything. > > Could you please clarify more on your other comments - what was said that was pro-divine or anti-human or lacking compassion > > Ammachi, "cal_ewing" <cal_ewing> wrote: > > > > > > Perhaps tomorrow I will feel differently, but just now I need to feel > > entirely affirmed and supported in my humanity, warts and all. So to > > me, these quotes, taken together, convey a dissonance with humanity > > rather than a compassion and embracing of it. It is possible to be > > pro-divine without being anti-human. just my .02 and frame of mind (!) > > JAI MA caleb > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 thoughts can cease, however, you have to experience it.it is called no mind.it is possibly our minds that tell us that thoughts cannot cease.AMMA says that the mind is A BIG LIE.AMMAs son suggest that we not limit ourselves based upon what we have not experienced. through deep and intense chanting ,AMMAs son has expereinced NO-MIND.now he knows that it is impossible,however prior to that AMMAs son read in an AWAKEN CHILDREN BOOK where AMMA said that experiecing the STATE OF NO-MIND was attainable.AMMAs words gave AMMAs son tremendous FAITH.IF WE DONT HAVE FAITH IN SOMETHING then we block the flow of GRACE that can enable us to attain whatever we dont believe possible. thers is a STATE WHERE THOUGHTS CEASE TO EXIST ALL TOGETHER.AMMA calls it the state of NO-MIND.we can return to the VOID through intense sadhana.from the LOVE of this heart ,sincerlly your servant. >"Ravi Chivukula" <ravichivukula >Ammachi >Ammachi > Re: Some help needed here ... >Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:27:04 -0000 > >I would definitely agree with Rick. You cannot stop thoughts - that's the >nature of the mind; but when you meditate you make an effort to not >associate with them(same thing when you chant a mantra). Once you gain >control on your thoughts you can use them as your slave. The bottomline is >are you the master of your thoughts or not. I cannot fathom the absence of >thoughts not in this world as we know anyway. > > >Ammachi, Rick Archer <rick@s...> wrote: > > > > on 1/25/06 1:51 PM, manoj_menon at ammademon@g... wrote: > > >> > > >> I know why it appears to be, but I'm arguing that it isn't, and > > > that if it > > >> were, no one could get enlightened. > > > > > > Why would enlightenment not happen this way? > > > From various accounts, enlightenment is defined as the Silence in > > > us; the empty thoughtless "state". > > > > Yes. Along with activity, which includes thoughts. In other words, the > > enlightened one is established in the Silence of the Self, while the >mind > > engages in thinking and the body performs actions. > > > > > > The entire process of mantra chanting is to reduce our thoughts and > > > our need for thinking in this general scheme: > > > > > > Many thoughts ----> reduced to one constant thought (mantra) ---> > > > reduced to NO THOUGHT > > > > While meditating. After meditating, we resume thinking and activity, > > hopefully with more silence established. > > > > >with the help of the Guru's Grace, which is > > > considered as enlightenment. > > > > Temporary samadhi is not enlightenment. > > > > > > This means that eventually even the mantra is a hindrance to > > > realization. > > > > The mantra is left behind when the mind merges with the transcendent >during > > meditation. When realization is established, it remains whether or not > > thinking or acting are taking place. > > > > > Looked at it another way, "Even a thought is a hindrance to realize > > > the Self". > > > > The opposite could be argued. It takes a thorn to remove a thorn. The >Self > > is realized through transcending thought, and that is done by >experiencing > > finer states of a thought until thought is transcended. A car is a >hindrance > > to enjoying the Grand Canyon, but it is essential for getting there. >Once > > you arrive, you get out of the car. > > > > > > Because the Self is greater than thought, it can't be of the level > > > of, derived from, or a function of composite, thoughts. > > > > It's the other way around. If the Brahman is omnipresent, wholeness, >then > > everything, including thoughts, is contained within it, like fish in the > > ocean. > > > > > > > _______________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Ammachi, "temba spirits" <tembaspirits@h...> wrote: > > thoughts can cease, however, you have to experience it.it is called no > mind. It is also called 'sleep'. Nandu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Ammachi, "vallathnkumar" <vallathn@h...> wrote: > > Ammachi, "temba spirits" <tembaspirits@h...> wrote: > > > > thoughts can cease, however, you have to experience it.it is called no > > mind. > > It is also called 'sleep'. > > Nandu Not necessarily, Nandu. . one gets dreams in sleep. dreams are another dimensions to automatic thoughts. 'lucid dreams' are another level actually; that's when the thought is imposed (beneficially) on you by another entity (like Amma, for instance). Lucid dreams have more of an observatory quality (unattached to the dream but present in it), whereas in a regular dream, I am the main actor - totally attached to it! Jai Ma! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 on 1/27/06 6:58 PM, vallathnkumar at vallathn wrote: > Ammachi, "temba spirits" <tembaspirits@h...> wrote: >> >> thoughts can cease, however, you have to experience it.it is called no >> mind. > > It is also called 'sleep'. Except in sleep, you are generally not conscious (although the enlightened can be) while in samadhi you are, or rather, "consciousness is." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 As one's consciousness unfolds, one may experience alertness while sleeping. You become a "witness" of yourself while sleeping, fully aware and conscious, yet your body will sleep. - In Ammachi, Rick Archer <rick@s...> wrote: > > on 1/27/06 6:58 PM, vallathnkumar at vallathn@h... wrote: > > > Ammachi, "temba spirits" <tembaspirits@h...> wrote: > >> > >> thoughts can cease, however, you have to experience it.it is called no > >> mind. > > > > It is also called 'sleep'. > > Except in sleep, you are generally not conscious (although the enlightened > can be) while in samadhi you are, or rather, "consciousness is." > 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.