Guest guest Posted July 15, 2002 Report Share Posted July 15, 2002 I've been very confused regarding the necessity of sadhana since I became interested in spirituality 14 years ago. I have read numerous books about Advaita, yet still this question remains. I am wondering why teachers of Advaita such as Nisargatta Maharaj and Sri Ramana Maharshi at times recommended that a person practice sadhana if there is in fact no such thing as karma/reincarnation......it seems like many people who have practiced sadhana intensely for years are still identified with being a body-mind entity with volition. If sadhana doesn't lead to disidentification in this life, I'm wondering why sages would recommend spiritual practices. Any thoughts/insights would be greatly appreciated! Kirsten khd5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2002 Report Share Posted July 16, 2002 " I'm wondering ~~~~why~~~~~ sages would recommend spiritual practices. Any thoughts/insights would be greatly appreciated! " Kirsten ------------------ UG talks about this ad nausium. Having spent almost 50 years doing " spiritual practices " to no avail. Reading Material: http://www.well.com/user/jct/ Video and audio: http://www.ugkrishnamurti.org/ug/ug_video/index.html El .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2002 Report Share Posted July 16, 2002 Kirsten: Maharaj's books have something for everyone. Where ever you are at, you can basically find yourself in one of the characters he is talking to; or a combination; or all of them. With the appropriate response at the moment to each character. (when it is translated correctly). He is definitely not recommending people spend years doing sadhanas. Hell, he was a working man. He woke up while he was working! El .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2002 Report Share Posted July 16, 2002 Thank you for responding to my inquiry:) I have spent a good deal of time with UG.......while I'm with him, there is no longer any question of the necessity of sadhana, etc. It only arises having been out of his company for so many years. Probably due to my past involvement (and resultant conditioning) with gurus who propose that there is in fact karma and reincarnation, and that if one does not perform sadhana in this lifetime, one will suffer in the next one (which was the whole reason I "chose" to pursue spiritual practices in the first place actually) Kirsten khd5 el_wells_2002 writes: UG talks about this ad nausium.Having spent almost 50 years doing "spiritual practices"to no avail.Reading Material: http://www.well.com/user/jct/Video and audio: http://www.ugkrishnamurti.org/ug/ug_video/index.htmlEl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2002 Report Share Posted July 16, 2002 Wrong. He talks to the 'some " thing " ' that is common and beyond their plural selves. Namaste, ----- Anand. PS : The waking up has nothing to do with working / not working.The nature of mind is such that it attributes causal reasoning in the perception of disjoint events in phenomenality, lending them the illusion of continuity. Maharaj's books have something for everyone.<BR> <BR> Where ever you are at,<BR> you can basically find yourself in one of the characters he is <BR> talking to;<BR> or a combination; or all of them.<BR> <BR> With the appropriate response at the moment to each character.<BR> (when it is translated correctly).<BR> <BR> He is definitely not recommending people spend years doing <BR> sadhanas.<BR> Hell, he was a working man.<BR> He woke up while he was working!<BR> <BR> El<BR> <BR> ..<BR> <BR> </tt> <br> <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| --> <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC> <td align=center><font size= " -1 " color=#003399><b> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2002 Report Share Posted July 16, 2002 HI :To practice or not to practice? hummmmmm.Are you asking for a prescription about the practice of the no-practice way?????????? Atagrasin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2002 Report Share Posted July 16, 2002 Nice view , and do you think that non-practice can ever be " practiced " ? ------------------ HI :To practice or not to practice? hummmmmm.Are you asking for a <BR> prescription about the practice of the no-practice <BR> way?????????? & ______________________ Want to sell your car? advertise on Autos Classifieds. It's Free!! visit http://in.autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2002 Report Share Posted July 16, 2002 It seems that the question "is sadhana necessary or not" (for me) arises due to confusion regarding the concept of karma/rebirth. If I was convinced that there is no such thing as karma/rebirth, there would be no motivation to practice sadhana. But because there is no way of 'knowing' whether or not karma/rebirth actually exists, there is confusion about the issue of the necessity of sadhana. - atagrasin HI :To practice or not to practice? hummmmmm.Are you asking for a prescription about the practice of the no-practice way?????????? Atagrasin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2002 Report Share Posted July 16, 2002 Nisargadatta, Anand Eswaran <anandesw> wrote: > Nice view , and do you think that non-practice can > ever be " practiced " ? ____________________ __The New York Yankees practiced yesterday.Very good practice,they seem to be in form for tonight game. Atagrasin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2002 Report Share Posted July 16, 2002 Beloved Kirsten, In whom do these questions arise? Who is this " I " that needs convincing? As long as you believe that you are a separate entity, an individual " I " , this " I " will identify with arising questions. Seek to know only the reality of this " I " . Karma/rebirth exist only as long as one believes they exist. Drop all beliefs. Namastè, Davè on 7/16/02 8:51 AM, khd5 at khd5 wrote: > It seems that the question " is sadhana necessary or not " (for me) arises due > to confusion regarding the concept of karma/rebirth. If I was convinced that > there is no such thing as karma/rebirth, there would be no motivation to > practice sadhana. > > But because there is no way of 'knowing' whether or not karma/rebirth actually > exists, there is confusion about the issue of the necessity of sadhana. > > > - >> atagrasin <k1c2 >> >> >> HI :To practice or not to practice? hummmmmm.Are you asking for a >> prescription about the practice of the no-practice >> way?????????? >> Atagrasin >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2002 Report Share Posted July 16, 2002 Dear Kirsten, Depending on what stage one is at one's life, the desire for doing rituals arise from personal need. If a seeker has the undeniable need to submit to the will of God(s), the seeker will find a devotional path that will satisfy his/her needs by practicing rituals. It does not make sense for an advaita master to tell a devotional seeker not to practice. That's as unrealistic as telling a teenage lover that 'the lover and beloved are illusion since all is love. " It ain't gonna happen. Surrounded by some of the most devotional people on earth, Nisargadatta and Ramana never discouraged devotional seekers from practice. In fact Nisargadatta and Ramana both took rituals seriously and participated in them. The question then is not so much about whether rituals lead to disidentification or not but knowing one's true identity independent of rituals. Hur ps. before i read your post i saw this quote: " The queen said to Alice, who was standing in a world she could not believe, " I dare say you have not had much practice. Why, sometimes I have believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast! " --Lewis Carroll Through the Looking Glass Nisargadatta, <khd5@a...> wrote: > I've been very confused regarding the necessity of sadhana since I became interested in spirituality 14 years ago. I have read numerous books about Advaita, yet still this question remains. I am wondering why teachers of Advaita such as Nisargatta Maharaj and Sri Ramana Maharshi at times recommended that a person practice sadhana if there is in fact no such thing as karma/reincarnation......it seems like many people who have practiced sadhana intensely for years are still identified with being a body-mind entity with volition. If sadhana doesn't lead to disidentification in this life, I'm wondering why sages would recommend spiritual practices. > > Any thoughts/insights would be greatly appreciated! > > Kirsten > khd5@a... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2002 Report Share Posted July 16, 2002 Nisargadatta, <khd5@a...> wrote: > Thank you for responding to my inquiry:) > > I have spent a good deal of time with UG.......while I'm with him, there is no longer any question of the necessity of sadhana, etc. > It only arises having been out of his company for so many years. Probably due to my past involvement (and resultant conditioning) with gurus who propose that there is in fact karma and reincarnation, and that if one does not perform sadhana in this lifetime, one will suffer in the next one (which was the whole reason I " chose " to pursue spiritual practices in the first place actually) > > Kirsten > khd5@a... > ------------------------- haaaaaaaaaa As UG says, " what brings you here will take you somewhere else! El .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2002 Report Share Posted July 16, 2002 Nisargadatta, <khd5@a...> wrote: > I've been very confused regarding the necessity of sadhana since I became interested in spirituality 14 years ago. I have read numerous books about Advaita, yet still this question remains. I am wondering why teachers of Advaita such as Nisargatta Maharaj and Sri Ramana Maharshi at times recommended that a person practice sadhana if there is in fact no such thing as karma/reincarnation......it seems like many people who have practiced sadhana intensely for years are still identified with being a body- mind entity with volition. If sadhana doesn't lead to disidentification in this life, I'm wondering why sages would recommend spiritual practices. > > Any thoughts/insights would be greatly appreciated! > > Kirsten > khd5@a... What happens, Kirsten, when you interpret a claim made by someone else about what you should be doing or not doing? What happens when you look to someone else to give you the confidence to be? Instead of knowing directly, you impose an idea or an image from someone else upon yourself. Now, you become confused, trying to figure out whether or not this idea is right, or how you can embody the image that is being provided. So, you replace the previous authority who said " don't do anything " with a different authority who says " there is something you must do. " But still, you are not ready to simply know, simply to be the knowing you already are. You move away from knowing to get something from someone or through someone. What a loss, the moment you move away from the knowing which is who you are, to try to figure out what an authority is selling, or to try to have the authority by you, who will give you confidence. Namastes with white sugar frosting, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2002 Report Share Posted July 16, 2002 The concept karma/rebirth has been supplied to you. You say there is no way of knowing whether it actually exists. This is not so. You are this knowing. Be. Know. Now, who will befuddle you with silly notions about whether or not there is rebirth? Nisargadatta, <khd5@a...> wrote: > It seems that the question " is sadhana necessary or not " (for me) arises due to confusion regarding the concept of karma/rebirth. If I was convinced that there is no such thing as karma/rebirth, there would be no motivation to practice sadhana. > > But because there is no way of 'knowing' whether or not karma/rebirth actually exists, there is confusion about the issue of the necessity of sadhana. > > > - > atagrasin > > > > HI :To practice or not to practice? hummmmmm.Are you asking for a > prescription about the practice of the no-practice > way?????????? > Atagrasin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2002 Report Share Posted July 16, 2002 Thank you to everyone who took the time to respond to my post! I never expected so many replies, and so quickly:) I'm very grateful to have happened upon this group! The thing that always confused me in my decade of spiritual seeking and half-hearted attempts at practicing various forms of sadhana was the fact that although my gurus (I've had several) taught that the only thing that exists is Consciousness, and that we are only dreamed characters without volition, they still recommended sadhana be performed, and taught that there was a certain way one should behave in life (kind, loving, selfless, tolerant, austere, etc.) This never made sense to me because if we are only dreamed characters without independence of action, how could "I" be held responsible for my thoughts/feelings/desires and actions performed as a result of them? If I had no control over my social-cultural and childhood conditioning, my genes and biochemistry and my astrological makeup - how could I be held responsible for the qualities these produced? Yet my teachers (and the Vedic scriptures) were telling me that these characteristics (and my thoughts, feelings, actions) were somehow 'wrong'/bad, and that "I" should try to instead cultivate more "sattvic" qualities, etc. So many years spent judging and trying to transform/resist/get rid of my natural (and conditioned) characteristics seems to have actually *strengthened* the identification with being a separate entity with free will......which is why I started to question the effectiveness and validity of sadhana (and happened upon UG Krishnamurti, Ramesh Balsekar, Nisargadatta Maharaj, & others). Nevertheless, it's been tough letting go of the belief that by not practicing sadhana, I will be destined to suffer through numerous rebirths based upon my actions in this life (my 'diksha' guru, whom I respect and trust implicitly, teaches that karma/recincarnation are very much real - which is why it's so hard to let this idea go). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2002 Report Share Posted July 17, 2002 Nisargadatta, <khd5@a...> wrote: > Thank you to everyone who took the time to respond to my post! I never expected so many replies, and so quickly:) I'm very grateful to have happened upon this group! > > The thing that always confused me in my decade of spiritual seeking and half-hearted attempts at practicing various forms of sadhana was the fact that although my gurus (I've had several) taught that the only thing that exists is Consciousness, and that we are only dreamed characters without volition, they still recommended sadhana be performed, and taught that there was a certain way one should behave in life (kind, loving, selfless, tolerant, austere, etc.) This never made sense to me because if we are only dreamed characters without independence of action, how could " I " be held responsible for my thoughts/feelings/desires and actions performed as a result of them? If I had no control over my social-cultural and childhood conditioning, my genes and biochemistry and my astrological makeup - how could I be held responsible for the qualities these produced? >Yet my teachers (and the Vedic scriptures) were telling me that these characteristics (and my thoughts, feelings, actions) were somehow 'wrong'/bad, and that " I " should try to instead cultivate more " sattvic " qualities, etc. Why could not one dream character hold another dream character responsible for dream actions? What is to prevent it? The first dream character is nonvolitionally being dreamed as a character who believes the second character has volition and needs to be held responsible. So what? Do you think a dream is supposed to follow rules of logic? You are being dreamed as a character who thinks there should be logic in the dream. So you are now pondering the consequences of dream characters having no volition and no responsibility. Yet, you think you are there to ponder these things ... This is in no way a superior position to any thoughts that occur to any dream character. If teachers say there are things people are supposed to do, I am sure that these thoughts and statements appeared as nonvolitionally as any others. The idea of volition appears nonvolitionally according to the context of the dream that allows that idea to occur. > > So many years spent judging and trying to transform/resist/get rid of my natural (and conditioned) characteristics seems to have actually *strengthened* the identification with being a separate entity with free will......which is why I started to question the effectiveness and validity of sadhana (and happened upon UG Krishnamurti, Ramesh Balsekar, Nisargadatta Maharaj, & others). Nevertheless, it's been tough letting go of the belief that by not practicing sadhana, I will be destined to suffer through numerous rebirths based upon my actions in this life (my 'diksha' guru, whom I respect and trust implicitly, teaches that karma/recincarnation are very much real - which is why it's so hard to let this idea go). If the dream is over, then who will there be to claim to have spent years judging and trying to transform? If the dream isn't over, then what difference does it make what idea occurs nonvolitionally concerning " effectiveness of sadhana " or " identification with being a separate entity " ? Identification is the dream. There isn't a character in a dream who can identify. The idea that it's hard to let an idea go -- that's just another idea arising... The ego trying to get rid of the ego, the mind trying to know that there is no knower, the being trying to get convinced that there is no volition and no doer ... What reality is there to any of that, other than the appearance conferred by the dream? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2002 Report Share Posted July 17, 2002 Anand, at the 'Edit my Membership' page under: Message Format 1. Convert to HTML. ( Convert plain-text messages sent to me to HTML. ) 2. Do not convert to HTML. ( Don't change the format of messages sent to me. Note: The HTML format allow you to see colors and graphics in your messages. ) --I think the 1. first choice gives no long HTML at the end of messages. ~k~ Nisargadatta, Anand Eswaran <anandesw> wrote: > Wrong. > He talks to the 'some " thing " ' that is common and > beyond their plural selves. > > Namaste, > ----- > Anand. > > PS : The waking up has nothing to do with working / > not working.The nature of mind is such that it > attributes causal reasoning in the perception of > disjoint events in phenomenality, lending them the > illusion of continuity. > > > Maharaj's books have something for everyone.<BR> > <BR> > Where ever you are at,<BR> > you can basically find yourself in one of the > characters he is <BR> > talking to;<BR> > or a combination; or all of them.<BR> > <BR> > With the appropriate response at the moment to each > character.<BR> > (when it is translated correctly).<BR> > <BR> > He is definitely not recommending people spend years > doing <BR> > sadhanas.<BR> > Hell, he was a working man.<BR> > He woke up while he was working!<BR> > <BR> > El<BR> > <BR> > .<BR> > <BR> > </tt> > > <br> > > <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| --> > > <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2> > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC> > <td align=center><font size= " -1 " > color=#003399><b> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2002 Report Share Posted July 18, 2002 Hi Anand -- You wrote: > > PS : The waking up has nothing to do with working / > > not working.The nature of mind is such that it > > attributes causal reasoning in the perception of > > disjoint events in phenomenality, lending them the > > illusion of continuity. Indeed. And the mind has to be imagined as something that has continuity, usually associated with a body, in order to provide cause and effect links between events. Dogen said: Wood does not burn and become ash. There is wood, there is burning, there is ash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2002 Report Share Posted July 18, 2002 Absolutely true! Star-spangled namastes, Anand. >>Hi Anand -- You wrote: > > PS : The waking up has nothing to do with working / > > not working.The nature of mind is such that it > > attributes causal reasoning in the perception of > > disjoint events in phenomenality, lending them the > > illusion of continuity. Indeed. And the mind has to be imagined as something that has continuity, usually associated with a body, in order to provide cause and effect links between events. Dogen said: Wood does not burn and become ash. There is wood, there is burning, there is ash. ______________________ Want to sell your car? advertise on Autos Classifieds. It's Free!! visit http://in.autos. 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.