Ego, Love and the Purpose in Life – Sri Sri Ravishankar

[Guest guest]

thnx

 

" R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani wrote:

Ego, Love and the Purpose in Life – Sri Sri Ravishankar

 

A Short Article by Sri Sri Ravishankar (as appeared in the Times of India)

 

I never say that some emotions are good or bad, right or wrong. We are

looking at what the consequences are. In fact, when anger comes, what can you

do? You may think a hundred times, “Oh I should not get angry,” but when the

mood comes, it comes like a thunderstorm. You are unable to control it. You are

swept by your emotion. Emotions are 20/30 times more powerful than thoughts and

promises you make. Understanding this mechanism opens your heart. In fact, anger

is an instrument. Anger is essential when you are able to be in control of it,

when you are able to know it, how to use it, where to use it, and how to apply

it. That takes skill –the art of handling your own might. Knowledge and anger

are mutually dependant. This knowledge gives a possibility for you to be

flowering in life at any moment, anywhere, anytime. Maybe you are walking on the

beach; suddenly you are in love with the whole entire universe, the sun, the

moon, stars, the sunset, the waves on the beach

and the

wind in the trees. Everything appears to be very lively to you. So alive you

become that moment and it stirs something deep inside you.

 

Simultaneously, there is awareness in you, and there is love flowering. Our

capacity to love depends on how deep and open we can be. The capacity to love

can be increased by knowledge, by diving deep into oneself. When the capacity to

love is greater, the ability to know and understand also becomes greater.

Typically, we limit ourselves. A Hindu says Hinduism is great because he is a

Hindu not because of what it is. A Christian says the Bible is great, because he

is a Christian. Muslims say Koran is the greatest book in the world, because

they are Muslims. If a Hindu says “Bible is wonderful,” it is more authentic

than a Christian claiming, Bible wonderful. We think things are great just

because we belong to that thing. Why not wake up and see that all that exists in

this world, from time immemorial belongs to you? “Am I not just from time

immemorial, do I not belong to you?” I am not just from America, I am not a

German, I am not just an Indian or an Asian, or an

African, but I

am at home everywhere and with everybody. All the wealth of humanity belongs to

me, whether it is the Gita, Koran or the Bible, or Sikhism or Jainism, all this

wealth is mine.”

 

A mature person would claim the whole world as his wealth. Maturity is –

someone does not limit the wealth that is present in the world and divide it. He

says, “The whole entirety belongs to me and I belong to everybody.” That is

enlightenment. The whole evolution of man starts from being somebody. Being

somebody is ego. “I am great, I am very evolved.” This is an ego. Recognizing

the truth of the two steps of evolution takes one from somebody to being nobody

to being everybody. To an enlightened person, everyone is a form of God.

Everyone is a form of the Divinity.

 

An enlightened person when he speaks does not speak from the position, “You

are all ignorant, I am very enlightened. I am going to tell you something.” No.

He knows nature, the Divine is providing this beautiful knowledge, and it is

just coming out in another form. An exchange is happening. In fact, everything

in life is just a happening.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for Good

Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I don't see this " Universalism " approach as particularly wise, to put it nicely.

There is an

ocean of difference between " Everything is God " and " Everything is God's " (as

subtly

mentioned by Zakir Naik in their debate). Sri Sri Ravishankar needs to found his

philosophy

of love on an Upanishadic precept: Everybody is a form of God, etc. That marks

it as

uniquely HINDU. The identity need not be compromised in the message, nor need we

trivialize the strong position counter to this emphasized in other religions.

 

Whatever our Bhakthi-oriented positions, our religion must resolve itself

ultimately in the

statements of the Upanishads, and this marks out the religion from others and

also marks

out Sri Sri Ravi Shankar as Hindu spiritual teacher. When we enter religious

preaching in a

world setting, it is dabbling with religious politics: the identity of our roots

must be

maintained and not silenced in such a setting. We can present the views of " my "

religion or

philosophy; let others be free to search them, take or leave what they like; no

need to

make it a universalistic-soup.

 

Also, probably Sri Sri Ravi Shankar meant that the whole world is an expression

of Ishvara

and we should see our Self in all, and viseversa. That ensures the respect for

the universal

divinity in nature and existence. Translating the same as " whole world belongs

to me, and

I to everybody " mixes duality into the advaitic basis, leads to potential and

dangerous

confusion.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

advaitin , Surendra Shrestha <coloramacentre wrote:

>

> thnx

>

> " R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani wrote:

> Ego, Love and the Purpose in Life – Sri Sri Ravishankar

>

> A Short Article by Sri Sri Ravishankar (as appeared in the Times of India)

>

> Simultaneously, there is awareness in you, and there is love flowering.

Our capacity to

love depends on how deep and open we can be. The capacity to love can be

increased by

knowledge, by diving deep into oneself. When the capacity to love is greater,

the ability to

know and understand also becomes greater. Typically, we limit ourselves. A Hindu

says

Hinduism is great because he is a Hindu not because of what it is. A Christian

says the

Bible is great, because he is a Christian. Muslims say Koran is the greatest

book in the

world, because they are Muslims. If a Hindu says " Bible is wonderful, " it is

more authentic

than a Christian claiming, Bible wonderful. We think things are great just

because we

belong to that thing. Why not wake up and see that all that exists in this

world, from time

immemorial belongs to you? " Am I not just from time immemorial, do I not belong

to you?

" I am not just from America, I am not a German, I am not just an Indian or an

Asian, or an

> African, but I

> am at home everywhere and with everybody. All the wealth of humanity belongs

to me,

whether it is the Gita, Koran or the Bible, or Sikhism or Jainism, all this

wealth is mine. "

>

> A mature person would claim the whole world as his wealth. Maturity is –

someone

does not limit the wealth that is present in the world and divide it. He says,

" The whole

entirety belongs to me and I belong to everybody. " That is enlightenment. The

whole

evolution of man starts from being somebody. Being somebody is ego. " I am great,

I am

very evolved. " This is an ego. Recognizing the truth of the two steps of

evolution takes

one from somebody to being nobody to being everybody. To an enlightened person,

everyone is a form of God. Everyone is a form of the Divinity.

>

[Guest guest]

There are many preachers/teachers/swamijis/gurus preaching their own 'brand' of

Hindu teachings in the internet age.Their aim is to sell their own 'brand' at

the highest price in the world [globalized ] market.....Most often ,their

perception and interpretation are not traditional [sampradaya] or based on our

great sages and saints and very limited to a few cliches.

Some teachers , though well-meaning, in their zeal to popularize Hindu

/Indian philosophy,oversimplify things.Let them preach, write articles in

newspapers and books....It is best to ignore such gurus/preachers and

concentrate on our pursuits/discussions.

Regards

N K Srinivasan

 

putranm <putranm wrote: I

don't see this " Universalism " approach as particularly wise, to put it nicely.

There is an

ocean of difference between " Everything is God " and " Everything is God's " (as

subtly

mentioned by Zakir Naik in their debate). Sri Sri Ravishankar needs to found

his philosophy

of love on an Upanishadic precept: Everybody is a form of God, etc. That marks

it as

uniquely HINDU. The identity need not be compromised in the message, nor need

we

trivialize the strong position counter to this emphasized in other religions.

 

Whatever our Bhakthi-oriented positions, our religion must resolve itself

ultimately in the

statements of the Upanishads, and this marks out the religion from others and

also marks

out Sri Sri Ravi Shankar as Hindu spiritual teacher. When we enter religious

preaching in a

world setting, it is dabbling with religious politics: the identity of our

roots must be

maintained and not silenced in such a setting. We can present the views of

" my " religion or

philosophy; let others be free to search them, take or leave what they like;

no need to

make it a universalistic-soup.

 

Also, probably Sri Sri Ravi Shankar meant that the whole world is an

expression of Ishvara

and we should see our Self in all, and viseversa. That ensures the respect for

the universal

divinity in nature and existence. Translating the same as " whole world belongs

to me, and

I to everybody " mixes duality into the advaitic basis, leads to potential and

dangerous

confusion.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

advaitin , Surendra Shrestha <coloramacentre wrote:

>

> thnx

>

> " R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani wrote:

> Ego, Love and the Purpose in Life – Sri Sri Ravishankar

>

> A Short Article by Sri Sri Ravishankar (as appeared in the Times of India)

>

> Simultaneously, there is awareness in you, and there is love flowering.

Our capacity to

love depends on how deep and open we can be. The capacity to love can be

increased by

knowledge, by diving deep into oneself. When the capacity to love is greater,

the ability to

know and understand also becomes greater. Typically, we limit ourselves. A

Hindu says

Hinduism is great because he is a Hindu not because of what it is. A Christian

says the

Bible is great, because he is a Christian. Muslims say Koran is the greatest

book in the

world, because they are Muslims. If a Hindu says " Bible is wonderful, " it is

more authentic

than a Christian claiming, Bible wonderful. We think things are great just

because we

belong to that thing. Why not wake up and see that all that exists in this

world, from time

immemorial belongs to you? " Am I not just from time immemorial, do I not

belong to you?

" I am not just from America, I am not a German, I am not just an Indian or an

Asian, or an

> African, but I

> am at home everywhere and with everybody. All the wealth of humanity belongs

to me,

whether it is the Gita, Koran or the Bible, or Sikhism or Jainism, all this

wealth is mine. "

>

> A mature person would claim the whole world as his wealth. Maturity is

– someone

does not limit the wealth that is present in the world and divide it. He says,

" The whole

entirety belongs to me and I belong to everybody. " That is enlightenment. The

whole

evolution of man starts from being somebody. Being somebody is ego. " I am

great, I am

very evolved. " This is an ego. Recognizing the truth of the two steps of

evolution takes

one from somebody to being nobody to being everybody. To an enlightened

person,

everyone is a form of God. Everyone is a form of the Divinity.

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.