Fwd: Bhakti can be the final impediment.

[Guest guest]

, " mazie_l " <sraddha54@h...>

wrote:

 

> , " saktidasa "

<saktidasa>

> wrote:

>

>

> I am speaking relatively of course for to my mind the only truth is

> Ajatavada, which I got from Ramana's teachings, 'Be as you are'.

> p181, although a certain Atmananda writes on this

> subject...ONS....Tony.........

>

>

> Dearest Tony, Hello again,

>

> Could you share this with me in a way that is clearly understood --

 

> in other words, explain this to me if you are so inclined, in your

> own words, how this truth, this 'only truth to your mind,' is

known

> or shown to so, to you. If we were sitting talking together, (and

I

> would so enjoy doing just that - sitting with you face to face,)

and

> I did not know any of these terms, like Ajatavada, what would you

say

> to explain to me what you're actually wanting to express?

>

>

> Love to You, DearOne,

>

> Mazie

 

Namaste Mazie,

 

One who has crossed over the mire,

crushed the thorn of sensuality,

reached the ending of delusion,

is a monk undisturbed by bliss & pain.

 

Udana III, 2

 

Having quoted that Buddhist Text let me try and explain how I see

the 'Truth', or rather my truth.

 

It would be easier for me to explain a Jnani or Mukta, and as a

result explain the rest. Speaking in illusion, or the Appearance.

 

1. A Mukta is someone who has achieved two things; A. The feeling of

a separate ego has disappeared. B. The Mukta has purified the

vijnanamayakosa so it reflects the Truth. However this is qualified

to some extent by the fact that the Mukta still has to serve out the

prarabda karma. The engine is off but the wheel still needs to

exhaust its residual energy in a few turns. This means his/her

actions may be programmed karma or perhaps as an example. For

whether the body was realised or not the karma would still operate,

to this extent a Mukta is the full human being.

 

So to that extent 'God' never incarnates on the planet as we are

all 'God', but don't have a purified vijnanamayakosa or dead ego. It

is useful to some to worship a human 'God' as it helps in

concentration, which is the only reason for any sadhana, Bhakti or

otherwise. A lion would no doubt worship a lion form.

Most people understand love as they can feel the energy move and

therefore can identify with it, so they are Bhaktas. However in

Bhakti there is also a fear of lonliness, a separation from the

beloved 'God'. To some extent the human mind needs to love more than

be loved in the first instance, for that is instant and nobody

believes there isn't any reciprocation. So Bhakti is an easier path

for many.

 

So you and I are just the same as Ramana except for A and B, above.

Whilst the Mukta is still in the body they see all illusion as an

appearance upon the Self. This Self is the Sakti or Saguna Brahman,

which people can identify with. However on dropping the body at the

end of prarabda karma, the Mukti realises Nirguna,completely. No

energy exists or is projected. Nothing ever happened at all, not

even the appearance. This is the Ajativada..............ONS...Tony.

 

 

Hello Tony, Good Morning, my Dear Friend,

 

This is so very appreciated, this explanation. It's clarified very

well for me, just what you were wanting to be saying. Yes,

DearHeart,

this really did fill in the gaps of my undertanding just exactly

what

you meant.

 

This same thing that is expressed by you, through you, well, such as

you have done so well here in telling me what you meant, is jib and

sail, in tandem, whatever the hell that means, and I agree with your

analysis, Tonysan.

 

As you might remember, having known me for so many years here and

elsewhere, my bhava-bunny ways were well-fed by the head that fell

in

love, that was just dug into the idea of my own entrenched belief

system of God and Love and what it is, yaddo yaddo yaddo, (not

yadda,

yadda, 'cause I'd rather go to Yaddo... " yeah, right! " ) but yes,

Tony, this is where I've landed up - laughingly, happily agreeing

with you in the main ideas expressed. Dan Berkow was a great

helpmate

for me in relieving myself of the burden of beliefs and buying into

a

bliss, a psuedo-bliss not conducive to truth, the bottom-line of

what

it is, as it is.

 

As it is right now, the plowing of karmic fields with intent, with

an

intention of somehow being relieved of the fear of 'future'

unleashings, released its grip, let go of its so suffocating grip

on/of the mind inclined to " need, " and to be needed, just as you

mention above calling it love, to need something to love and to

deify, to Unionate with something, some One, we call it God, to

never

be alone, and to end the sense of separation, of a separate

existence

apart from This, well, hmmm, it, this, has become just this, what it

is as this existence -- Mazie, me, this appearance of being ... here

now, being here, this moment, this everyday of unflaying,

unstraying,

(where would I go?) un-unning in the sun shine of truth, as I know

it, this " I " moving/unmoving as I am simply working, playing, and

living and being and seeing what presents, watching what rises, and

not trying to end it or change it or re-arrange it... in other

words,

Dearest Tonysan, non-resistance to what is as it is and non-

opposition to whatever is, as it is.

 

Sure, I still react and idnetify and cry and love too much and too

little, and yes, I still skittle sometimes in the frying pan of my

mind, inclined to wallow a bit in the misery hits that wish to

compliment my ego's patterning attempts to repeat what it feels fits

its agenda for survival. You know, the old wanting (that dickens of

a

picker and chooser!) to have enlightenment (as if it's something to

shop for and haggle over, teehee) with the ego still ver well

intact.

It still smacks me now and again, by whatever, by mySelf, some call

it the Friend, God, Love, This, Bliss, well it shifts energy clubs

imagined or not, upside the head of my dread or fear of pain or loss

or regret at actions acted out upon my friends. But Tony, Dear Tony,

how much now is known as baloney and known as phoney and known as my

Ultimate Homie, too -- Self-Realization, the Silence which speaks

but

cannot say what it is or knows.... but it somehow knows without

needing to show it or go toe to toe with those who do not go along

with this version of vision and verity. I am often told of my

temerity at talking the way I do about " God. " I might have been

burned at the stake if it were another moment's motioning

flowing 'whoa babyment' incarnateness.

 

I imagine that Nagarjuna gets your juices flowing with what he

speaks

of knowing and not knowing, about bhakti and jnana. Here's a

sampling

you're probably already familiar with from Nagarjuna --

 

 

Summary of Major Ideas of Nagarjuna -- by Dan Lusthaus

 

" All things, ideas, events, etc., are 'empty,' meaning they don't

cause or define themselves, but arise and cease due to conditions.

 

Under close scrutiny even the most rationally constructed positions

and systems-- including Buddhism-- are demonstrably incoherent and

irrational.

 

The four alternatives-- X is, X is not, X both is and isn't, X

neither is nor isn't-- underwrite all theories, propositions,

beliefs, etc.; given any X, all four alternatives can be

demonstrated

to be invalid and inadequate.

 

No entity arises from itself, from another, from both itself and

another, or from neither itself nor another.

 

All thinking presupposes the categories 'identity' and 'difference,'

but these categories are incoherent and have no referent.

 

Language does not refer to things, but is self-referential.

 

There are two levels of discourse, the conventional and the

ultimate;

one learns the latter through the former, and realizes Nirvana on

the

basis of the latter.

 

Our deepest emotional and existential problems stem from clinging to

cognitive positions and presuppositions (d.r.s.ti).

 

The deep-seated, driving propensity to create the illusion of

conceptual order through self-justifying rationalizations

(prapa~nca)

can be overcome and eliminated. "

 

 

Thank you, Tony, for elaborating and explaining for me what you were

meaning to say, or what I had failed to understand previously.

 

 

Loving You, Yes,

 

Mazie

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

, " Tony OClery " <aoclery>

wrote:

 

, " kheyalove " <kheyala@n...>

wrote:

>

> , " Tony OClery "

<aoclery>

> wrote:

> >

> > , " Al Larus "

<erilarend>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > I find the contradictions

> > > > intersting, mainly why do Bhaktas choose such an

Advaitin

> > path

> > > and

> > > > modify it?.....ONS..........Tony.

> > > I used to have similar questions, and my teacher would just

> look

> > at me

> > > and they would disappear : )

> > >

> > >

> > > Alan

> >

> > Namaste,

> >

> > But then doesn't it all disappear? The question still remains,

and

> > my post was really rhetorical. I see even on advaita sites that

> > people won't let go of this type of bhakti. It seems to be

giving

> > the envelope of surrender but holding on to the corner. Some

> people

> > have an attachment to materiality, subtle or no and cannot let

go.

> > Bhakti in the common sense if all external and experiencing.

True

> > Bhakti is total surrender of the ego.

> > It is a matter of capacity I suppose, some people really believe

> > that Ramana is still around and helping them, when that was only

a

> > body. If he was around that would negate any idea that he was a

> > Mukta........Your teacher just showed you that speculation is

not

> > what he was into, but then it wasn't on a discussion

> > group....It all harks back to Maharaj saying that only one

person

> in

> > Mumbai can understand non dualisml even

> intellectually....ONS...Tony.

>

>

> Do you live in Mumbai, Tony? 'Cause I think you're it! You win

the

> carrot for understanding nondualism intellectually!

>

> (in good fun)

>

> Kheyala

 

Namaste Kheyala,

 

No I don't live in Mumbai although I did spend some time in an Indian

Hotel at the beach.

I'm not sure what Maharaj means exactly, so perhaps I don't

understand. He says intellectual so I suppose that has something to

do

with the vijnanamayakosa. If this kosa is purified it reflects the

knowledge of the Self, as a Mukta does. So perhaps Maharaj is talking

of a stage that is prior to Mukti but is perhaps

Moksha....ONS...Tony.

--- End forwarded message ---