J. Krishnamurti on Duality Creates Conflict - - -

[Guest guest]

Advaita of Adi Sankara says that every human being is Brahman (the Lord). There

is a figure of speech called " Roopaka” in which the object compared is

identified with the original object. Ex: This man is tiger. This means that the

man and the tiger are very much similar in qualities. So instead of telling the

Lord is like human being it is said as the Lord is the human being (Jeeva is

Brahman). In the third stage of the university level the human incarnation of

the Lord is recognized and is differentiated from the other human beings by His

internal form, which is His Special knowledge (Prajnanam Brahma). In this stage

all the egoism and jealousy to the human form must have been removed. At this

university level Sankara proved that He alone is Eswara. The water in a drop and

the water in the ocean is one and the same. The water is Brahman. The definition

of Brahman is confined to simple awareness. In such case every living being

(Jeeva) is Brahman since every living being is

having awareness. This is the qualitative similarity between water drop and the

ocean. But if you see the quantitative aspect, the water drop is the living

being and the ocean is Eswara. Sankara told not only that He is Brahman but He

is also Siva who is Eswara (Sivoham). Therefore He swallowed the molten lead

where as the disciples could not swallow it. Thus Sankara proved that any living

being is Brahman but not Eswara. One should not misunderstand that Brahman

(qualitative) and Eswara (Quantitative) are one and the same.

In Advaita philosophy you are reaching the self which is only the intermediate

station. Ofcourse you must attain the peace which gives you lot of strength so

that you will withstand the suffering by sacrifice in the next half of the

journey. Sankara stopped by preaching this intermediate station to all the

people. When a few people reached this station, then He opened the further path

to them only. He swallowed the molten lead and preached to the disciples that He

alone is the Lord. They realized the self and reached the intermediate station

called Brahman by the path of ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ (I am Brahman). Brahman means

simple awareness. The next half path is to reach Lord who is Eeswara. Peace is

not the final fruit. Peace is only the intermediate fruit, which gives you the

strength in the journey. The fruit given by the Lord is the final fruit, which

are peace, bliss and all the eight super powers. If one takes a sleeping tablet,

he can get peace during the sleep as well

as after awakening. Detachment from the world gives you the peace (Brahman) but

the fruit given by the Lord is to remain peaceful, blissful while living in this

world and helping the real devotees with the help of the eight super powers

(Asta Siddhis). The fruit given by the Lord will give you the real bliss i.e.,

the entertainment in the life game played by you in this world itself which is

certainly far higher than the peace. Sivoham (I am Eeswara) as told by Sankara

is the final goal and not 'Aham Brahmasmi'.

 

Sankara lived in the world and did lot of work. He never sat idle thinking

Aham Brahmasmi like the present Advaita Philosophers. Patanjali wrote Yoga

Sutras and fixed Eeswara as the final goal. We remember Sankara today as the

divine hero but not the other Advaita philosophers. Sankara sacrificed His

mother and earning of money for the sake of the mission of the Lord. But the

Advaita Philosophers sit in their houses and roll with their family bonds and

simply say Aham Brahmasmi. One should become a divine hero like Sankara,

Ramanuja, Madhva, Swami Vivekananda etc.; they were dynamic doing the Karma

Yoga, which was without any selfishness. Their Karma Yoga was the propagation of

the divine knowledge, which is Jnana Yoga but today the Advaita Philosopher is

doing Karma Yoga with selfishness for his family bonds only. What is the use of

their Jnana Yoga?

 

What do you mean by self-analysis?

You cannot analyze yourself. Only Satguru can analyze and show your internal

self. You cannot see the condition of your internal organs. Only a doctor can

take the x-ray photo and will show to you. Then only you can understand your own

internal system. Therefore self-analysis does not mean the analysis of yourself

by yourself. It means the analysis of yourself with the help of the Satguru.

 

posted by: His servant

at the lotus feet of shri datta swami

www.universal-spirituality.org

 

Adamson <adamson wrote:

Duality Creates Conflict

Conflict of any kind—physically, psychologically, intellectually—is a waste of

energy. Please, it is extraordinarily difficult to understand and to be free of

this because most of us are brought up to struggle, to make effort. When we are

at school, that is the first thing that we are taught—to make an effort. And

that struggle, that effort is carried throughout life—that is, to be good you

must struggle, you must fight evil, you must resist, control. So, educationally,

sociologically, religiously, human beings are taught to struggle. You are told

that to find God you must work, discipline, do practice, twist and torture your

soul, your mind, your body, deny, suppress; that you must not look; that you

must fight, fight, fight at that so-called spiritual level—which is not the

spiritual level at all. Then, socially each one is out for himself, for his

family.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

L.E: The non-dual perspective is knowing oneself as the

existence itself and not EVER apart from it. In existence, all the

forms, whether they're personal or impersonal, me, God, Brahman, the

others, are expressions of existence itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , prakki surya <dattapr2000

wrote:

>

> Advaita of Adi Sankara says that every human being is Brahman (the

Lord).

>

 

I'm not an expert on the Shankara's Advaita school but as far as I

know in traditional Advaita phil Brahman is not the Lord.

 

Brahman or Consciousness is an impersonal entity whereas the Lord or

Krishna is a personal form.

 

This must be very confusing for the dualist mind as it would seem

that the nondual perspective is

 

1. All-theist, everyone is the Lord (The famous Sufi Hallaj was

executed for saying " I am the Truth. " ) or

 

2. Atheist: there's no me, no personal God but all there is....is

Consciousness (Then how come I cannot pick the winning numbers in

lottery if I am the Lord? " ) or

 

3. Pantheist, where the nature, every thing is God (...not to be

confused with nature worship).

 

I'm sure for the devotional mind, which has the need to worship the

Other, the non-dual phil may appear bizarre or even offensive but in

its simplicity, the non-dual perspective is knowing oneself as the

existence itself and not always apart from it. In existence, all the

forms, whether they're personal or impersonal, me, God, Brahman, the

others, appear and disappear.

 

Hur

[Guest guest]

If you say that Lord is within you and by this, if you conclude that you are the

Lord, then there is no requirement of any spiritual effort to please the Lord

separately. You eat and do whatever pleases you and say that Lord is pleased

with you. Now if any trouble comes, we should not ask any help from any external

Lord and enjoy the trouble saying that Lord is enjoying the trouble. But

invariably we pray to the external Lord.

 

Infact, if your logic is true, why so many people are worshipping Jesus,

Krishna as Lord external to them? Are they fools? Actually Lord comes in human

form in every generation. We do not accept Him because of our jealousy and

egoism. When we worship such lord in human form only, it is true worship. If you

offer food to Lord in human form, He will eat it. So our real colour comes out.

 

Divine knowledge itself means the knowledge required to identify the Lord in

human form, then attain Him by your devotion and then please Him with your

service. Service consists of sacrifice of money and physical service.

 

But, if you please yourself and say that you pleased the Lord, it is totally

wrong concept. Human beings try to develop some clever means of pleasing Lord in

imagination without really doing anything in practical. But Lord is even more

intelligent and will not answer even if we cry, roll for such worships. There is

no truth in such worship.

---------------------

If go one step further and declare that you are the absolute God (Aham

Brahmasmi). While eating the food you offer the same to the Lord present inside

them. By this the doors of sacrifice are completely closed from all sides. Thus

there are two types of devotees who worship statues and photos. The first type

of devotees are ignorant or innocent and are not greedy. But they are mad of a

particular external dress of the Lord that was destroyed in the past and worship

a statue or photo of the same human form of the Lord imagining it directly as

the Lord present in a living body. They treat the past human incarnation as the

present human incarnation due to their madness. Their devotion is blind without

analysis but they derive the happiness and satisfaction in their hearts which

cannot be denied. A mother who is very fond of her dead child becomes mad and

treats a photo or a doll as her child and lives with it as if it is alive. She

is deriving all the satisfaction and

pleasure in her madness. Such devotees are not greedy, they are generous and

good but they are simply mad without the analysis of the truth and the divine

knowledge. Hanuman played a role of such mad devotee by not recognizing Lord

Krishna. He was thinking of the past Rama only. He did not like the new name

‘Krishna’ and a new form of the Lord in the next human generation. But finally

Hanuman recognized Krishna as the same Lord present in Rama. All these mad

devotees should take the concluding part of this story. The story did not simply

end with Hanuman not recognizing Krishna and leaving Him in the illusion of Rama

only. Had the story ended there, the state of these mad devotees who worship the

statues of previous human forms of Lord is really justified. You must recognize

the concluding part of the story in which Hanuman left the illusion of the past

external dress (Rama) and recognized the same Lord in the present existing dress

(Krishna).

 

This does not mean that Hanuman became ignorant and then realized the truth.

He just acted in the role of the present mad devotees of statues and showed them

the path. All these mad devotees were present then also in different human

bodies with different names. The same history repeats always. It is better to

offer the food to the devotees of the Lord than to offer to the statue of

previous incarnation of the Lord. The king feels happy if his son is honoured.

Similarly a devotee is very dear to God and God feels happy, if His devotee is

worshipped. The king will be more pleased with the worship of his son than the

worship of his photo or statue.

 

at the lotus feet of shri datta swami

surya

www.universal-spirituality.org

 

epston wrote:

L.E: The non-dual perspective is knowing oneself as the

existence itself and not EVER apart from it. In existence, all the

forms, whether they're personal or impersonal, me, God, Brahman, the

others, are expressions of existence itself.