Enjoyment of Pleasures - An Obstacle to God Realization ?

[Guest guest]

Shree Hari

 

Alterations and changes in the inner faculty take place, but in

attainment of God, none of these alterations (vikaar) are considered

to be obstacles. On the other the enjoyment of pleasures

(bhogaasakti) have been considered to be an obstacle in God

Realization. Of these two points that have been revealed, which one is true?

 

Anonymous

 

 

Ram Ram

from MODERATOR

The following are the guidelines for Gita-Talk discussions.

1. Wherever possible, please quote Gita or other scriptures to

substantiate the response

2. Kindly make your responses concise and to the point. (Up to

twenty line maximum, if possible).

3. Please limit discussions to subject at hand.

4. Please do not include links to other sites or other organizations

5. Please do not include your personal information such as phone

number, address etc.

6. Kindly do not address the response to a particular individual,

since the message is going to the entire group.

7. Due to a large readership, not all responses will be posted.

MODERATOR

Ram Ram

[Guest guest]

This is my humble opinion. In Chapter 4:26 and 27, it goes like this. 4.26: Some again offer hearing and other senses as sacrifice in the fire-of-restraint;others offer sound and other objects as senses as sacrifice in the fire-of-senses. 4.27:Others again sacrifice all the functions of the senses, and the functions of the breadth (vital energy) in the fire of the Yoga of self-restraint,kindled by knowledge/contemplation. In 4th chapter, it discusses 14 paths for the realization or Self or Realisation of God (as many people call as God Realization). It all depends on the person/personality and inclination. As in above verses, some people sacrifice at the level of senses (physical body) and restrain themselves of any physical activity or actions . Others sacrifice at the mental level. So, just follow the path which suits your personality. Also in your actions, it is important to discrimiate whether we are going in the rigth path or not, we can remember 3rd Chapter that says..karma yoga (do not expect the fruits of the results of ur actions). By not expecting fruits of actions, we definitely will not involve in the actions which may hurt others or ourselves too ..since most of the time if we are involved in certain things (which we feel wrong in our heart), usually we would be expecting something selfish for ourselves. When that selfish desire is absent, whatever our actions become pure. The truth of the matter is we do not need any external entity to make us happy. At the mental level, we can see ourselves as mere observer in this world even though we act, we must understand that we are not the doer. Let us therefore surrender our actions to that LORD as He is everything and pervades everything. Have a nice evening. Regards. sadhak_insight <sadhak_insight wrote: Shree Hari Alterations and changes in the inner faculty take place, but in attainment of God, none of these alterations (vikaar) are considered to be obstacles. On the other the enjoyment of pleasures (bhogaasakti) have been considered to be an obstacle in God Realization. Of these two points that have been revealed, which one is true? AnonymousRam Ram from MODERATORThe following are the guidelines for Gita-Talk discussions.1. Wherever possible, please quote Gita or other scriptures to substantiate the response2. Kindly make your responses concise and to the point. (Up totwenty line maximum, if possible).3. Please limit discussions to subject at hand.4. Please

do not include links to other sites or other organizations5. Please do not include your personal information such as phonenumber, address etc.6. Kindly do not address the response to a particular individual,since the message is going to the entire group.7. Due to a large readership, not all responses will be posted.MODERATORRam Ram

Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out

new cars at Autos.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadhakas, Namaste!

As I understand, the root of all obstacles in

attainment of God* is the Ego! By Ego what is really

meant is the belief that " I " exist as independent and

separate entity who is the doer of all deeds, enjoyer

of bhogas. This belief keeps the pursuits of seeking

pleasures/avoiding pains going all through the life.

In God attainment the INNER faculty-

antahkaran(mind-intellect-chit-Aham) has to find

FREEDOM from this belief of separate

entity/doership/enjoyership. We have to be convinced

beyond a shadow of doubt that God is running this

show(Jagat) by using all of us(bodies-minds) as

instruments! We are not the Doer, nor Enjoyer! We are

the Joy itself, not an entity who enjoys!

Sense pleasures make us extrovert and keep us glued to

external objects-world. This keeps feeding our wrong

belief of being enjoyer(Bhogi). We mistakenly think

such pleasures are in the objects-world. Since objects

themselves are limited, we can never be fulfilled

completely by any or all objects. That is why seeking

bhogaashakti-sensual pleasures become obstacles!

Saadar Pranaam....Pratap

*It is important, I think, to know that by God

attaintment is meant that we realize we are in

ourselves Love, Peace, Bliss, Compassion, Beauty

Experience, not experiencers!

 

--- sadhak_insight <sadhak_insight wrote:

 

> Shree Hari

>

> Alterations and changes in the inner faculty take

> place, but in

> attainment of God, none of these alterations

> (vikaar) are considered

> to be obstacles. On the other the enjoyment of

> pleasures

> (bhogaasakti) have been considered to be an obstacle

> in God

> Realization. Of these two points that have been

> revealed, which one is true?

>

> Anonymous

>

>

> Ram Ram

> from MODERATOR

> The following are the guidelines for Gita-Talk

> discussions.

> 1. Wherever possible, please quote Gita or other

> scriptures to

> substantiate the response

> 2. Kindly make your responses concise and to the

> point. (Up to

> twenty line maximum, if possible).

> 3. Please limit discussions to subject at hand.

> 4. Please do not include links to other sites or

> other organizations

> 5. Please do not include your personal information

> such as phone

> number, address etc.

> 6. Kindly do not address the response to a

> particular individual,

> since the message is going to the entire group.

> 7. Due to a large readership, not all responses will

> be posted.

> MODERATOR

> Ram Ram

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

If this group is really about Hinduism, then there will be no talk of "God" Realization. Do you think Christian groups speak of Brahman Realization, or Atmana Realization, or Siva or Vishnu Realization?

 

Swami ParamSee what's free at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadhakas, Namasteji.

I humbly submit I don't understand the implications of

comments on " there will be no talk of 'GOD' if this

group is really about Hinduism.

I think most of us in the group use word God in the

same spirit as in Siva, Vishnu, Brahman. At least I

do.

1)Does it really mean we should not use the word " God "

because we 'think' we are Hindu?

2)Because Christian groups don't speak about Brahman,

Vishnu, Shiva; don't their usage of word God point to

same Reality as pointed out by Shiva or Vishnu?

3)Are we really, really Hindu or Christian or Muslim

or anything we believe ourselves to be?

4)Shouldn't we go beyond our separate and therefore

mistaken identity of being this or that?

5)I think the teaching of Gita, Vedanta, Puranas etc

have universal appeal and anyone can learn to go

beyond all isms and realize in this life what we truly

are.

Saadar Namaskar... Pratap

 

 

--- Classyoga wrote:

 

> If this group is really about Hinduism, then there

> will be no talk of " God "

> Realization. Do you think Christian groups speak of

> Brahman Realization, or

> Atman Realization, or Siva or Vishnu Realization?

>

> Swami Param

[Guest guest]

Swami Param wrote: ‘If this group is really about Hinduism, then there will be no talk of "God" Realization. Do you think Christian groups speak of Brahman Realization, or Atmana Realization, or Siva or Vishnu Realization?’

I have to say that I found this contribution less than helpful. These are, after all, only names. We should borrow from the Tao Te Ching the realisation that ‘the name that can be named is not the eternal name’ … and Zen tells us wisely not to confuse the moon with the finger pointing at the moon.

Dr Ian Buckley

-----------

 

 

 

 

Ishwar is the word used for ultimate creation of the universe, which is also can be called Aum, Bhagawan and some other words in Sanskrit which is Omnipotant, Omni present, Omniscent . Which is considered to be regulating the motion of Sun, moon, stars and every life which exist in the universe.

 

 

Now, God is the English word which references to some higher power than Human. That is why often they refer to My God and your God. In Movie ' Ten Commandments" they are referring Egyptians God and Jewish God.

 

 

Yesterday an old religious lady, Lutheran asked me who is my God?

Thus when they use word " GOD' They do not think of him/her as one for all of us. They mean all religions have different Gods.

 

From my experience it would be very difficult for western religions and peoples to understand the concept of Ishwar. In fact they are not able to grasp the concept of manifestation of Brahman.

 

Harilal Patel

[Guest guest]

Yes ! Language and words are just a mode of communication and identification to

create an understanding between a group of human beings. When we speak in

various Indian Languages, the name of the supreme can be called in any of the

thousands of Names.

 

In fact, in Vishnu Sahasranama, The Supreme is addressed in 1008 names, still,

Siva tells Parvathi, that the Supreme can be addressed just as " Rama " . Saivites

address the Divine as Siva or one of His Thousands of Names. This is the

greatness of Hindu Dharma. Various languages give different names. Vaishnavites

and Bhagavat Gita readers will address as Krishna or Narayan to refer to the

same. If Swami Param speaks in Hindi or Sanskrit the name can be Ishwar or

Bhagwan, but when I talk in Tamil the same Supreme becomes " KADAVUL " or

" ANDAVAN " . Even Ishwar in in Hindi becomes Ishwara in Samskritham and Bhagwaan

is Bhagawaan.

 

The idea is that when we address in English language we can still keep the word

simple as " GOD " very simple to coney the meaning and represent for " Generator,

Observer and Dissolver " . It would be closed mined to restrict one name to the

all powerful. Same answer for Hindu Dharma vs Sanatana Dharma and Vaidheeha

Dharma.

 

Namaskaram,

With best regards,

Bala N. Aiyer.

 

--- Dr Ian Buckley <ianbuckley wrote:

 

> Swami Param wrote: 'If this group is really about Hinduism, then there

> will be no talk of " God " Realization. Do you think Christian groups

> speak of Brahman Realization, or Atmana Realization, or Siva or Vishnu

> Realization?'

>

> I have to say that I found this contribution less than helpful. These

> are, after all, only names. We should borrow from the Tao Te Ching the

> realisation that 'the name that can be named is not the eternal name' .

> and Zen tells us wisely not to confuse the moon with the finger pointing

> at the moon.

[Guest guest]

Shree Hari Ram Ram Dear fellow Sadhakas, When we speak about Enjoyment of Pleasures, believe it is meant to be worldly pleasures. Why the pleasures have to be shunned because the nature of these pleasures is temporary and they are followed by pain only as compared to the blissful state of a Brahm Jnani or an Ardent Devotee of God. Many places in Gitaji, this question has been

addressed, few of the related verses are: (Gita 5-22) "Ye hi samsparha bhoga dukhayonaya eva te ady anta vantah kaunteya na tesu ramate budhah" MEANING - The pleasures that are born of attachment (with objects), are only sources of pain, these have a beginning and an end, O son of Kaunti (Arjuna), no wise man rejoices in them. (Gita 18-37) "Yat tad agre visham iva pariname 'mrtptopamam tat sukham sattvikkam proktam atmabudhiparsadajam" Meaning - That happiness which is like poison in the beginning and like nectar in the end, born of blissful knowledge of the self, that happiness is Sattvic. (Gita 18-38) "Vishaindriyasamyogad yat tad agre 'mrtopamam pariname visham iva tat sukham rajasam smrtam" MEANING - That joy which is derived from the contact of the senses with their objects, at first is like nectar and is like poison in the end, such happiness is said to be Rajasic. (Gita 6-22) "Yam labdhva ca param labham manyate na 'dhikam tatah yasmin sthito na dukhena guruna 'pi vichalyate" MEANING - Having obtained that which he thinks there is no greater gain than,

established therein, he is not shaken by the heaviest affliction. Pls. refer to Swami Maharaj's Sadhaka Sanjivani for detailed comments on these verses. On a side note: Thanks for bringing up this important point, the response to the subject question "Enjoyment of Pleasures - An Obstacle to God Realization" has no direct relationship with the question. Our moderators have sent us Guide Lines from time to time to remind us - how the responses should be addressed on the Gita-talk. Believe, it is very important to stay focused in our responses to the questions, specially, in this era of

high volume of e-mails and people having only limited time to read. Suggest we should not place our moderators in a difficult spot where they may be forced to refrain from posting a response which does not meet the Guide Lines

Ram Ram Loving pranam A sadhaka Dr Ian Buckley <ianbuckley wrote: _Swami Param wrote: ‘If this group is really about Hinduism, then there will be no talk of "God" Realization. Do you think Christian groups speak of Brahman Realization, or Atmana Realization, or Siva or Vishnu Realization?’ I have to say that I found this contribution less than helpful. These are, after all, only names. We should borrow from the Tao Te Ching the realisation that ‘the name that can be

named is not the eternal name’ … and Zen tells us wisely not to confuse the moon with the finger pointing at the moon. Dr Ian Buckley Ishwar is the word used for ultimate creation of the universe, which is also can be called Aum, Bhagawan and some other words in Sanskrit which is Omnipotant, Omni present, Omniscent . Which is considered to be regulating the motion of Sun, moon, stars and every life which exist in the universe. Now, God is the English word which references to some higher power than Human. That is why often they refer to My God and your God. In Movie ' Ten Commandments" they are referring Egyptians God and Jewish God. Yesterday an old religious lady, Lutheran asked me who is my God? Thus when they use word " GOD' They do not think of him/her

as one for all of us. They mean all religions have different Gods. From my experience it would be very difficult for western religions and peoples to understand the concept of Ishwar. In fact they are not able to grasp the concept of manifestation of Brahman.

[Guest guest]

> Swami Param wrote: 'If this group is really about Hinduism, then there

> will be no talk of " God " Realization. Do you think Christian groups speak

> of Brahman Realization, or Atmana Realization, or Siva or Vishnu

> Realization?'

>

> I have to say that I found this contribution less than helpful. These are,

> after all, only names. We should borrow from the Tao Te Ching the

> realisation that 'the name that can be named is not the eternal name' .

> and Zen tells us wisely not to confuse the moon with the finger pointing

> at the moon.

> ENJOYMENT OF BODY PLEASURE BRINGS UNHAPPINESS WHEREAS ENJOYMENT OF

MENTAL PLEASURE WITHOUT ANY ATTACHMENTS BRINGS HAPPINESS. INRECENT TIMES

99.9%OF PEOPLE ARE ENGAGED FOR BODYPLEASURE.THERE ARE ONLY LITTLE FEW

WHO ARE ENGAGED IN UNATTACHED PLEASURE AND THEY DO NOT HANKER FOR POWER

OR MONEY .YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN IN TVs THE STING OPERATION BY IBN 7 ON

SOME YOGIS HOW THEY ARE BUSY TO ACCUMULATE MONEY.THIS TYPE OF GREED YOU

CAN FIND IN EACH SOCIETY IN RECENT YEARS.NO POWERFUL/AUTHORITY/RICH IS

BOTHERED FOR OTHERS AND THEY HAVE CHANGED THE IDEALS OF RIGHTOUSNESS

PREACHED BY GREAT SAGES.HOW TO REFORM POWERFUL PEOPLE?

REGARDS

N.PANDA