Guest guest Posted January 5, 2003 Report Share Posted January 5, 2003 "BRAHMAIVA SATYAM": THE ABSOLUTE ALONE IS THE TRUTH SWAMI VIVEKANANDA (1897): Why We Disagree I will tell you a story... A frog lived in a well. It had lived there for a long time. It was born there and brought up there, and yet was a little, small frog. Of course the evolutionists were not there then to tell us whether it lost its eyes or not, but for our story's sake we must take it for granted that it had eyes and that it everyday cleansed the water of all the worms and bacilli that lived in it, with an energy that would do credit to our modern bacteriologists. In this way it went on and became a little sleek and fat. Well, one day another frog that lived in the sea came and fell into the well. "Where are you from?" "I am from the sea." "The sea! How big is that? Is it as big as my well? And he took a leap from one side of the well to the other. "My friend", said the frog of the sea, "how do you compare the sea with your well?" Then the frog took another leap and asked, "Is your sea so big?" "What nonsense you speak, to compare the sea with your well!" "Well, then," said the frog of the well, "nothing can be bigger than my well. There can be nothing bigger than this. This fellow is a liar. Turn him out." That has been the difficulty all the while. I am a Hindu. I am sitting in my own well and thinking that the whole world is my little well. The Christian sits in his little well and thinks the whole world is his well. The Mohammedan sits in his well and thinks that is the whole world..." ================ Some quotes from JK (1928): "I maintain that truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatever, by any religion, by any sect. Truth cannot be organised,.... I do not want any followers, and I mean this...You have the idea that only certain people hold the key to the kingdom of happiness. No one holds it. No one has the authority to hold that key. That key is your own Self." (1928) "Most of us are used to being told what to do. The giving and following of directions is considered to be positive teaching. To be lead appears to be positive. But truth is the negation of false, not the opposite of false." "We are so concerned with our own problems, or we are so conditioned, so heavily burdened with belief, with tradition, with the past, that this actually prevents us from seeing or listening." ========== My comments: Truth or knowledge is no one country's or man's property or copyright. No one can can claim any knowledge as having come from a particular school or guru or country exclusively. It is another form- a more subtler one - of ego that makes us believe so. Till one breaks free from this kind of conditioning that everything was known to our ancestors, that everything, every great idea was born in India, we will be misleading ourselves. Every ancient culture, every ancient race contributed to what we have today. Humanity's heritage is common to all, and comes from all. Babylonians, Iranians (Zorastrian), Greeks, Egyptians, ..., every single ancient race had its own contribution. In fact knowledge comes from One Source, the common Source. SEARCH WITHIN FOR THE KEY IS WITHIN. AND YOU SHALL FIND THE LIGHT. =============== Regards, Satya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2003 Report Share Posted January 6, 2003 Dear Dr. Choudharyji, Thanks for writing it up. I have enjoyed reading many of your articles/posts and hope you write more often. > "We are so concerned with our own problems, or we are so conditioned, > so heavily burdened with belief, with tradition, with the past, that > this actually prevents us from seeing or listening." I recently saw a TV program (The Power of Myth: Interview by Late Prof. Joseph Campbell). It was an eye opener. When discussing about the ultimate reality / Truth / Brahm, he said that all civilizations of the world use symbolisms/myths and all scriptures are littered with symbolisms/myths. As time progresses, the use of symbolisms/rituals/images become more important than the truth they were intended to represent. As a result, people argue on symbolisms, and go backwards in their progress towards reality. I have for long wondered why Jesus Christ, Ramalinga Adigalar (the saint who saw God in form of jyothi - www.vallalar.org), Buddha, etc., all God realized(1) persons, cautioned people against symbolisms (eg. idol worship). The reason is to avoid confusing the common folk who confuses symbolisms with real thing. As Prof. Campbell said, if symbolisms are not fully understood, the image of God becomes the biggest obstacle for God realization! He quoted someone who had put it very well: RELIGION (with its dogma) IS THE BIGGEST HURDLE IN THE PATH OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE. We cannot put JK's message in better words. Ekam sat vipraha bahudha vadanti These words are very profound. Irrespective of whether you see Brahm as Heavenly Father or Ksrishna or Shiva or formless divine light/energy it is all the same thing. As you might concur, the parts of Holy Bible or anything else for that matter, that deals with God/Brahm is para-vidya as are the parts of vedas that deal with Brahm. When it is said that nobody created vedas and they exist eternally, I take it that it refers to the eternal Truth (or Brahm) that is represented by the Vedas - not the literal texts and sounds in them - which are again symbolisms. When we try to seek God, we seek it through love, devotion, and in that process, we venerate all things that stand for God/brahm as holy. Just like the frogs in Swami Vivekananda's story, each one of us gets attached to one set of symbolisms and fail to realize that there are other systems and symbolisms that point to the same truth. As you said, maharishis, avatars, civilizations are common to all and not exclusive property of some country or people. A quote you gave before was also a sort of eye opener for me. (When someone fully understands Brahm, s/he will ceaze to exist as s/he will become part of Brahm). Only After reading it, I could understand (atleast partly) the message of Ramalinga Adigalar and similar saints and their miracle filled life. His work - Thiruarutpa is a masterpiece that captures in beautiful poetry each stage of his spiritual development. He was initially a devotee of Karthikeya & Lord Shiva. As his *realizations*(1) became more and more closer to truth, he perceived God in different forms. As his realizations grew, so were his miraclous powers (meaning the law of maya didnt trouble him anymore;- bet he tried his best to hide it like Ramakrishna Paramahamsa). Finally, when his realization was complete - he ceazed to exist (he didnt die - he vanished after telling disciples that from then on he will exist everywhere). He also advised people to not compress universal God inside a few notions of avatars or characters in puranas but realize universal God as what He is - all permeating divine light or energy. Such ultimate God-realization is not specific to only saints/rishis in India. As Yogananda mentions, Christianity had and probably other religions/cultures would have had such God realized rishis and saints. The purpose behind saying all these is that we need to understand the difference between symbolisms/scriptures, etc which should be pointers to the REAL THING and dont become the real thing itself. Once we understand this, we can overcome spiritual arrogance, which unfortunately follower of each path unkowingly develops in the deep of his/her mind. Since in all cultures, ancient shastras are related to scriptures, this spiritual arrogance turns into *intellectual arrogance* that everything originated from only one place and there is no mutual exchange or borrowing. Once we become closed in mind - we close the doors to realization and ultimately again symbolisms become the biggest obstacle in the path of realization. As you have said in your article about KP system of astrology, "true knowledge can only be liberating and not close our minds to truths in other forms". The ultimate realization of TRUE knowledge liberates one from this world as we perceive it. A PERSON WITH TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF VEDAS WILL SEE TRUTH IN VEDAS AND ALL FORMS OF TRUTH AS VEDAS. There will be less scope for spiritual or intellectual arrogance then. ........ (footnote:)..... (1) It is easy to understand - but difficult to *realize*. For example, our intellect can think it has understood the path to Brham, karma, etc. Our intellectual understanding is only partial. But only when we realize it, we *fully* understand it. At that point we merge into the ever permeading ultimate Truth. There are many gnanis like JK, swamis, who intellectually understand brahm, but when they realize it, they would have ceazed to exist in separate form or exist in whatever form they want - outside of birth-death cycle and laws of maya - like Jesus Christ or Babaji or Ramalinga Adigalar or Trilinga Swami. For example, many of us accept/understand that God is in every human/object. However, when we realize it, we see God everywhere and we become part of everything - we will cease to exist as a separate entity. Ultimate realization brings in ultimate liberation. -Siva. PS: I used the words "spiritual/intellectual arrogance" as a generic term that refers to tendencies which all of us unknowinlgy develop at somepoint in our spiritual path. Please pardon me if I had said somthing that offends someone's belief or faith. These are just my opinions and understandings. As PVRji used to say, May Jupiter's light shine on us! vedic astrology, "Dr Satya Prakash Choudhary <satyaprakasika>" <satyaprakasika> wrote: > > > "BRAHMAIVA SATYAM": THE ABSOLUTE ALONE IS THE TRUTH > > > SWAMI VIVEKANANDA (1897): > > > Why We Disagree > > > I will tell you a story... > > A frog lived in a well. It had lived there for a long time. It was > born there and brought up there, and yet was a little, small frog. Of > course the evolutionists were not there then to tell us whether it > lost its eyes or not, but for our story's sake we must take it for > granted that it had eyes and that it everyday cleansed the water of > all the worms and bacilli that lived in it, with an energy that would > do credit to our modern bacteriologists. In this way it went on and > became a little sleek and fat. Well, one day another frog that lived > in the sea came and fell into the well. > > "Where are you from?" > > "I am from the sea." > > "The sea! How big is that? Is it as big as my well? And he took a > leap from one side of the well to the other. > > "My friend", said the frog of the sea, "how do you compare the sea > with your well?" > > Then the frog took another leap and asked, "Is your sea so big?" > > "What nonsense you speak, to compare the sea with your well!" > > "Well, then," said the frog of the well, "nothing can be bigger than > my well. There can be nothing bigger than this. This fellow is a > liar. Turn him out." > > That has been the difficulty all the while. I am a Hindu. I am > sitting in my own well and thinking that the whole world is my little > well. The Christian sits in his little well and thinks the whole > world is his well. The Mohammedan sits in his well and thinks that is > the whole world..." > > ================ > > Some quotes from JK (1928): > > > "I maintain that truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it > by any path whatever, by any religion, by any sect. Truth cannot be > organised,.... I do not want any followers, and I mean this...You > have the idea that only certain people hold the key to the kingdom of > happiness. No one holds it. No one has the authority to hold that > key. That key is your own Self." (1928) > > > "Most of us are used to being told what to do. The giving and > following of directions is considered to be positive teaching. To be > lead appears to be positive. But truth is the negation of false, not > the opposite of false." > > > "We are so concerned with our own problems, or we are so conditioned, > so heavily burdened with belief, with tradition, with the past, that > this actually prevents us from seeing or listening." > > > ========== > > My comments: Truth or knowledge is no one country's or man's property > or copyright. No one can can claim any knowledge as having come from > a particular school or guru or country exclusively. It is another > form- a more subtler one - of ego that makes us believe so. Till one > breaks free from this kind of conditioning that everything was known > to our ancestors, that everything, every great idea was born in > India, we will be misleading ourselves. Every ancient culture, every > ancient race contributed to what we have today. Humanity's heritage > is common to all, and comes from all. Babylonians, Iranians > (Zorastrian), Greeks, Egyptians, ..., every single ancient race had > its own contribution. In fact knowledge comes from One Source, the > common Source. > > > SEARCH WITHIN FOR THE KEY IS WITHIN. AND YOU SHALL FIND THE LIGHT. > > > =============== > > > > Regards, > Satya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2003 Report Share Posted January 7, 2003 JAYA JAGANNATHA! Dear Shiva, Namaste. > I have for long wondered why Jesus Christ, Ramalinga Adigalar (the > saint who saw God in form of jyothi - www.vallalar.org), Buddha, > etc., all God realized(1) persons, cautioned people against > symbolisms (eg. idol worship). The reason is to avoid confusing the > common folk who confuses symbolisms with real thing. As Prof. > Campbell said, if symbolisms are not fully understood, the image of > God becomes the biggest obstacle for God realization! He quoted > someone who had put it very well: RELIGION (with its dogma) IS THE > BIGGEST HURDLE IN THE PATH OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE. We cannot put > JK's message in better words. I strongly object here. The arca.vigrama is not an idol, and not symbolism. It is REALLY God. Despite you mentioning meny ssints discarding Deity-worship, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu was not against it at all, and He declared that the Deity is non/different from God personally. > Ekam sat vipraha bahudha vadanti > > These words are very profound. Irrespective of whether you see Brahm > as Heavenly Father or Ksrishna or Shiva or formless divine Brahman is not Krishna and Krishna cannot be sees as a representative of Brahman. Brahman is the effulgence of Bhagavan Sri Krishna's transcendental body. He says in Gita: brahmano hi pratishthaaham, i.e. I am the basis of impersonal brahman. Please don't confuce things. Unfirtunately for so long time since Shankaracarya almost everyone thinks that Hinduism means ALL IS ONE, but this is not so. You need to read more of Ramanuja, Madhva, Baladeva, Jiva Goswami and the other great Vaishnava commentators on the Vedanta sutra to understand its real purport and hence the philosophy which is the actual basis of Hinduism. Yours, Gauranga das 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.