Guest guest Posted September 13, 2004 Report Share Posted September 13, 2004 Dear List, An explanation of Maya, God and us. Lets say that everything to which we can get related in at least one manner is Maya, say as a Mayaic relationship. Ofcourse, the same holds true for our relationship with God...does it? But Bhaagvad-Geeta tells that God is not touched by Maya => God is not related to everything else in the same way as we are => If God is related to us, then this relationship cannot be termed as a Mayaic relationship => God cannot be related to us in any of the ways of our normal understanding of things because at the point he touches us cannot be categorized in terms of one of those relationships that we have in dealing with Maya => Then, the relationship cannot exist in Time, Space, Money, emotions, and other normal ways of measuring and perceiving things => We cannot do anything about our relationship with God like we do to all the Mayaic relationships... Lets not Worry about what we cannot do anything about... Lets worry about what makes us forget that there exists one relationship about which we cannot do anything but it still exists? Here, " forgetting " means, while there exists a relationship about which we cannot do anything, we still try to have at least one relationship with at least one thing of our normal world about which we can do something!!! Why would we do so...probably in anticipation of its continuance,increase or decrease? Well that is strange. A Non-Mayaic relationship exists without our being able/requiring to do anything about it while another Mayaic relationship exists only because we can do something about it!!! Probably, we can categorize all the effort that goes into creating/sustaining/destroying a Mayaic relationship into a group and term it as Maya... After all it is worth the effort. Phew!!! If anybody would check the logic is correct... . Any comments are welcome? regards, Nitish -- Nitish Arya nitish.arya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2004 Report Share Posted September 14, 2004 In a message dated 09/13/2004 11:06:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, nitish.arya writes: Nitish, It's as simple as this. The mind is mayic in nature as it is composed of the five tattwas therefore the mind is always wrong when it comes to Divine matters. It only has affinity for the mayic world. The soul is divine and a spark of God and the soul resides within the heart. Therefore we can ONLY experience God through the heart. The emotional OR feeling OR intuitive capacity of the mind, and each of these is a more refined aspect of the other, is that aspect of the mind that relates to the heart, and by bringing the mind to the heart in surrender to HIM, we transcend the mayic realms. The intellect, try as it may, is incapable of experiencing the Divine. Thus, intellectuals typically have a poor reputation for spiritual guidance, whereas the simple truths, the simple hearted people are more likely to see through the nonsense and offer good advice. Warm Regards, Brendan Dear List, An explanation of Maya, God and us. Lets say that everything to which we can get related in at leastone manner is Maya, say as a Mayaic relationship. Ofcourse, the sameholds true for our relationship with God...does it? But Bhaagvad-Geeta tells that God is not touched by Maya => God is not related to everything else in the same way as we are => If God is related to us, then this relationship cannot be termed asa Mayaic relationship => God cannot be related to us in any of the ways of our normalunderstanding of things because at the point he touches us cannot becategorized in terms of one of those relationships that we have indealing with Maya => Then, the relationship cannot exist in Time, Space, Money,emotions, and other normal ways of measuring and perceiving things => We cannot do anything about our relationship with God like we do toall the Mayaic relationships... Lets not Worry about what we cannot do anything about... Lets worry about what makes us forget that there exists onerelationship about which we cannot do anything but it still exists? Here, "forgetting" means, while there exists a relationship aboutwhich we cannot do anything, we still try to have at least onerelationship with at least one thing of our normal world about whichwe can do something!!! Why would we do so...probably in anticipation of itscontinuance,increase or decrease? Well that is strange. A Non-Mayaic relationship exists without our being able/requiringto do anything about it while another Mayaic relationship exists onlybecause we can do something about it!!! Probably, we can categorize all the effort that goes intocreating/sustaining/destroying a Mayaic relationship into a group andterm it as Maya...After all it is worth the effort. Phew!!!If anybody would check the logic is correct... .Any comments are welcome?regards,Nitish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2004 Report Share Posted September 14, 2004 Dear Brendan ji and list, I hope my words are not taken as being harsh, however clear and direct they be. I take your words in good spirit. >The intellect, try as it may, is incapable of experiencing the Divine. Thus, >intellectuals typically have a poor reputation for spiritual guidance, whereas >the simple truths, the simple hearted people are more likely to see through >the nonsense and offer good advice. Lets not assume that there is no hope for the intellectuals. Neither, that the intellect can never experience the Divine as Geeta talks about Janana yoga in sufficient detail. Ofcourse, an intellectual enquiry is not necessarily a path to complexity, rather it is a search towards simplicity. Words like " nonsense " and " good advice " are themselves very intellectual in nature. Can we really abstain from using intellect somehow, if it makes things complex? >It's as simple as this. The mind is mayic in nature as it is composed of the >five tattwas therefore the mind is always wrong when it comes to Divine >matters. It only has affinity for the mayic world. The simplicity of these sentences lies in the nature of knowledge that you possess and not in the fact that these are but mere intellectual musings, taken in the healthiest sense of the word. Nevertheless, we are discussing such knowledge in an intellectual manner. I would be pleased to receive it in a much more efficient manner, if you agree to give it to me that way. Do you agree? Lets be very hopeful that you are not considering intellect to be a worst tool for revealing God. >The soul is divine and a spark of God and the soul resides within the heart. >Therefore we can ONLY experience God through the heart. The emotional >OR feeling OR intuitive capacity of the mind, and each of these is a more >refined aspect of the other, is that aspect of the mind that relates to the >heart, and by bringing the mind to the heart in surrender to HIM, we >transcend the mayic realms. Whether we can feel God in the heart or not is questionable as God transcends all our feelings and measures as derived earlier. Any other point of view is very welcome. It shouldn't be assumed that the God can only be experienced through heart; subject to the sort of constraints that such a view puts on these matters. best regards, Nitish - bpfeeley <bpfeeley Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:14:50 EDT Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya varahamihira , parasari_jyotish In a message dated 09/13/2004 11:06:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, nitish.arya writes: Nitish, It's as simple as this. The mind is mayic in nature as it is composed of the five tattwas therefore the mind is always wrong when it comes to Divine matters. It only has affinity for the mayic world. The soul is divine and a spark of God and the soul resides within the heart. Therefore we can ONLY experience God through the heart. The emotional OR feeling OR intuitive capacity of the mind, and each of these is a more refined aspect of the other, is that aspect of the mind that relates to the heart, and by bringing the mind to the heart in surrender to HIM, we transcend the mayic realms. The intellect, try as it may, is incapable of experiencing the Divine. Thus, intellectuals typically have a poor reputation for spiritual guidance, whereas the simple truths, the simple hearted people are more likely to see through the nonsense and offer good advice. Warm Regards, Brendan Dear List, An explanation of Maya, God and us. Lets say that everything to which we can get related in at least one manner is Maya, say as a Mayaic relationship. Ofcourse, the same holds true for our relationship with God...does it? But Bhaagvad-Geeta tells that God is not touched by Maya => God is not related to everything else in the same way as we are => If God is related to us, then this relationship cannot be termed as a Mayaic relationship => God cannot be related to us in any of the ways of our normal understanding of things because at the point he touches us cannot be categorized in terms of one of those relationships that we have in dealing with Maya => Then, the relationship cannot exist in Time, Space, Money, emotions, and other normal ways of measuring and perceiving things => We cannot do anything about our relationship with God like we do to all the Mayaic relationships... Lets not Worry about what we cannot do anything about... Lets worry about what makes us forget that there exists one relationship about which we cannot do anything but it still exists? Here, " forgetting " means, while there exists a relationship about which we cannot do anything, we still try to have at least one relationship with at least one thing of our normal world about which we can do something!!! Why would we do so...probably in anticipation of its continuance,increase or decrease? Well that is strange. A Non-Mayaic relationship exists without our being able/requiring to do anything about it while another Mayaic relationship exists only because we can do something about it!!! Probably, we can categorize all the effort that goes into creating/sustaining/destroying a Mayaic relationship into a group and term it as Maya... After all it is worth the effort. Phew!!! If anybody would check the logic is correct... . Any comments are welcome? regards, Nitish |Om Tat Sat| http://www.varahamihira Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2004 Report Share Posted September 15, 2004 In a message dated 09/14/2004 1:47:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, nitish.arya writes: HARI OM TAT SAT Nitish, Truth and Bliss are both powers of God. The Gyani is a worshipper of Divine Truth, the abstract form of God, and the bhakta is the worshipper of the Blissful form of Godhead. Both are worshippers of the same God but they worship god for different reasons. Gyana yoga has nothing to do with the intellect. Yes, the form of Divine Truth is Divine Knowledge but that knowledge comes from God not the intellect. Only God can reveal that Truth to the Gyani because of his merits and capacity to surrender his mind, heart and soul. The intellect is an object of creation and it is completely identified with Maya. Yes, of course we can use our mind intelligently but as Krishna says in the Bhagvatam, "The gyani who surrender to me receives my Divine Grace, and he then realizes the magnificience of My Truth. He understands the unimaginable form of My Divine Knowledge and enters into Me forever." All through the scriptures, it is clearly indicated that the mind has to be surrendered to become Divinized. Samkya philosophy is very clear on the structure of the mind and it limitations and incapacity to perceive the Divine Truth. I don't mean to down play the glory of the intellect but it has no place in that final surrender to God Krishna, Shiva, Vishu or any other form of God(ess) that one chooses to worship. The intellect may take one far but in the end it has to be surrendered. That which is mayic has no capacity to be that which is Divine. Since Maya is a Divine power, the intellect is not capable of removing it from the mind as it is made from the same stuff. How can a mayic thing remove maya from itself? Only the Godhead can do that. The soul is beyond maya, maya is beyond soul and God is beyond both the soul and maya. Thus, the Vedas teach that the Divine Knowledge is beyond the reach of the human senses, human mind and human intelligence. If somebody desires to have Divine knowledge, he will only get it through His Grace and His Grace alone. It is very difficult for us to admit that we must surrender the intellect, the mind to God. It is in this sense that I say that an intellectual is unlikely to give good advice spiritually. Of course there are great intellectuals out there and I admire some of them, but is it Divine Knowledge? Not at all. It is of the intellect, the mind, and may be very intelligent. But mental intelligence is not Divine intelligence. This is how I understand it and it is a beautiful teaching that the Vedas offer us. It is difficult to take and even more difficul to implement.. i.e., surrender. It is the rare soul that is able to do that. It is only through His Mercy and Grace that this can happen for us. HARI OM TAT SAT Warm Regards, Brendan Dear Brendan ji and list, I hope my words are not taken as being harsh, however clear anddirect they be. I take your words in good spirit.>The intellect, try as it may, is incapable of experiencing theDivine. Thus, >intellectuals typically have a poor reputation forspiritual guidance, whereas >the simple truths, the simple heartedpeople are more likely to see through >the nonsense and offer goodadvice. Lets not assume that there is no hope for the intellectuals. Neither, that the intellect can never experience the Divine asGeeta talks about Janana yoga in sufficient detail. Ofcourse, an intellectual enquiry is not necessarily a path tocomplexity, rather it is a search towards simplicity. Words like "nonsense" and "good advice" are themselves veryintellectual in nature. Can we really abstain from using intellectsomehow, if it makes things complex?>It's as simple as this. The mind is mayic in nature as it is composedof the >five tattwas therefore the mind is always wrong when it comesto Divine >matters. It only has affinity for the mayic world. The simplicity of these sentences lies in the nature of knowledgethat you possess and not in the fact that these are but mereintellectual musings, taken in the healthiest sense of the word.Nevertheless, we are discussing such knowledge in an intellectualmanner. I would be pleased to receive it in a much more efficientmanner, if you agree to give it to me that way. Do you agree? Lets be very hopeful that you are not considering intellect to bea worst tool for revealing God.>The soul is divine and a spark of God and the soul resides within theheart. >Therefore we can ONLY experience God through the heart. Theemotional >OR feeling OR intuitive capacity of the mind, and each ofthese is a more >refined aspect of the other, is that aspect of themind that relates to the >heart, and by bringing the mind to the heartin surrender to HIM, we >transcend the mayic realms. Whether we can feel God in the heart or not is questionable asGod transcends all our feelings and measures as derived earlier. Anyother point of view is very welcome. It shouldn't be assumed that the God can only be experiencedthrough heart; subject to the sort of constraints that such a viewputs on these matters.best regards,Nitish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2004 Report Share Posted September 15, 2004 Dear Brendan Sir And Nitish Well Said Brendan Sir. Nitish, the intellect what you are talking about is the intellect that can analyse anything which is part of the System. THis intellect cannot analyse the programmer that is the God. The program is our planes of consciousness, there are various levels to it. Even the subtlest of the subtle that is the causal planes is still a part of the system. The obsrever is the soul, and soul is made of the the divine stuff. It is untouched by any of the functioninalities of the program itself. But due to karma the soul is entrapped in the body. If you go through the various scriptures, you would get an idea of the various constituent elements of the bodie(s). The chit, ahankara, manah, the five senses etc etc. That is what many a intellectuals have done. They have analysed with profound ability the intricacies of the system. But that is only the experience and not the cause itself. I may write the program, and you may analyse it, but you can never know why the program was written in the first place, unless you come from heart. Here heart doesnot mean emotions as you seem to have understood. Heart here is the spontaniety of the Bieng. The all pervading awareness. When a person falls in love, does he think about it? You might have thought about the " idea of loving a particular person " but the moment comes, when he or she stands right accross the table, in the elevator, in the restaurant, just right in front of you, and " SOMETHING hits you " . It happens so fast, that you might have not even thought about it. It is not from the mind, it just " happens " . Because it is a " state of being " , and not the " process " . Thus when you love, you get a glimpse of Godhood. But most of the people can limit that kind of transcdental love only for few persons . But some avataars like Jesus. Krishna love everyone with same vision. They perform miracles " withouit thinking " . Thinking is the slowest mode of creation. There is something greater than thinking which makes it faster, and that is the being. there is a lot more to it. But your understanding of Gyana yogi, is nothing to do with the intellect itself. It is more to do with " awareness " of all in ALL. best wishes partha - bpfeeley <bpfeeley Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:53:50 EDT Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya varahamihira In a message dated 09/14/2004 1:47:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, nitish.arya writes: HARI OM TAT SAT Nitish, Truth and Bliss are both powers of God. The Gyani is a worshipper of Divine Truth, the abstract form of God, and the bhakta is the worshipper of the Blissful form of Godhead. Both are worshippers of the same God but they worship god for different reasons. Gyana yoga has nothing to do with the intellect. Yes, the form of Divine Truth is Divine Knowledge but that knowledge comes from God not the intellect. Only God can reveal that Truth to the Gyani because of his merits and capacity to surrender his mind, heart and soul. The intellect is an object of creation and it is completely identified with Maya. Yes, of course we can use our mind intelligently but as Krishna says in the Bhagvatam, " The gyani who surrender to me receives my Divine Grace, and he then realizes the magnificience of My Truth. He understands the unimaginable form of My Divine Knowledge and enters into Me forever. " All through the scriptures, it is clearly indicated that the mind has to be surrendered to become Divinized. Samkya philosophy is very clear on the structure of the mind and it limitations and incapacity to perceive the Divine Truth. I don't mean to down play the glory of the intellect but it has no place in that final surrender to God Krishna, Shiva, Vishu or any other form of God(ess) that one chooses to worship. The intellect may take one far but in the end it has to be surrendered. That which is mayic has no capacity to be that which is Divine. Since Maya is a Divine power, the intellect is not capable of removing it from the mind as it is made from the same stuff. How can a mayic thing remove maya from itself? Only the Godhead can do that. The soul is beyond maya, maya is beyond soul and God is beyond both the soul and maya. Thus, the Vedas teach that the Divine Knowledge is beyond the reach of the human senses, human mind and human intelligence. If somebody desires to have Divine knowledge, he will only get it through His Grace and His Grace alone. It is very difficult for us to admit that we must surrender the intellect, the mind to God. It is in this sense that I say that an intellectual is unlikely to give good advice spiritually. Of course there are great intellectuals out there and I admire some of them, but is it Divine Knowledge? Not at all. It is of the intellect, the mind, and may be very intelligent. But mental intelligence is not Divine intelligence. This is how I understand it and it is a beautiful teaching that the Vedas offer us. It is difficult to take and even more difficul to implement.. i.e., surrender. It is the rare soul that is able to do that. It is only through His Mercy and Grace that this can happen for us. HARI OM TAT SAT Warm Regards, Brendan Dear Brendan ji and list, I hope my words are not taken as being harsh, however clear and direct they be. I take your words in good spirit. >The intellect, try as it may, is incapable of experiencing the Divine. Thus, >intellectuals typically have a poor reputation for spiritual guidance, whereas >the simple truths, the simple hearted people are more likely to see through >the nonsense and offer good advice. Lets not assume that there is no hope for the intellectuals. Neither, that the intellect can never experience the Divine as Geeta talks about Janana yoga in sufficient detail. Ofcourse, an intellectual enquiry is not necessarily a path to complexity, rather it is a search towards simplicity. Words like " nonsense " and " good advice " are themselves very intellectual in nature. Can we really abstain from using intellect somehow, if it makes things complex? >It's as simple as this. The mind is mayic in nature as it is composed of the >five tattwas therefore the mind is always wrong when it comes to Divine >matters. It only has affinity for the mayic world. The simplicity of these sentences lies in the nature of knowledge that you possess and not in the fact that these are but mere intellectual musings, taken in the healthiest sense of the word. Nevertheless, we are discussing such knowledge in an intellectual manner. I would be pleased to receive it in a much more efficient manner, if you agree to give it to me that way. Do you agree? Lets be very hopeful that you are not considering intellect to be a worst tool for revealing God. >The soul is divine and a spark of God and the soul resides within the heart. >Therefore we can ONLY experience God through the heart. The emotional >OR feeling OR intuitive capacity of the mind, and each of these is a more >refined aspect of the other, is that aspect of the mind that relates to the >heart, and by bringing the mind to the heart in surrender to HIM, we >transcend the mayic realms. Whether we can feel God in the heart or not is questionable as God transcends all our feelings and measures as derived earlier. Any other point of view is very welcome. It shouldn't be assumed that the God can only be experienced through heart; subject to the sort of constraints that such a view puts on these matters. best regards, Nitish |Om Tat Sat| http://www.varahamihira Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2004 Report Share Posted September 15, 2004 Dear Brendan Ji, > Truth and Bliss are both powers of God. The Gyani is a worshipper of Divine ..... ....of My Divine Knowledge and enters into Me forever. " Interesting. That shows your conviction on maintaining strict boundaries with the words like Gyana, yoga and intellect...a highly intellectual way of dealing with things. Why do you deny intellect is beyond logic, while you urselves are being too much of an intellectual. You yourself are using the same tool that you are denying. > All through the scriptures, it is clearly indicated that the mind has to be surrendered to become Divinized. Samkya philosophy is very clear on the structure of the mind and it limitations and incapacity to perceive the Divine Truth. What is Samkhya if not an intellectual outpouring? > I don't mean to down play the glory of the intellect but it has no place in that final surrender to God Krishna, Shiva, Vishu or any other form of God(ess) that one chooses to worship. The intellect may take one far but in the end it has to be surrendered. Ofcourse you cannot downplay the intellect, because you are using intellect all the time in all the discussions. > That which is mayic has no capacity to be that which is Divine. Since Maya is a Divine power, the intellect is not capable of removing it from the mind as it is made from the same stuff. How can a mayic thing remove maya from itself? Only the Godhead can do that. The soul is beyond maya, maya is beyond soul and God is beyond both the soul and maya. Why should a mayaic thing remove maya from itself? Maya doesn't work on itself, neither on God but on Jeevatmas/soul. If soul is beyond maya, what are we doing here? Please review my first mail again or agree upon the context first. > Thus, the Vedas teach that the Divine Knowledge is beyond the reach of the human senses, human mind and human intelligence. If somebody desires to have Divine knowledge, he will only get it through His Grace and His Grace alone. > It is very difficult for us to admit that we must surrender the intellect, the mind to God. It is in this sense that I say that an intellectual is unlikely to give good advice spiritually. Of course there are great intellectuals out there and I admire some of them, but is it Divine Knowledge? Not at all. It is of the intellect, the mind, and may be very intelligent. But mental intelligence is not Divine intelligence. True. And it is even more difficult for us to admit that we must surrender the constant thought of opposing the intellect, and mind to God. Then the " sense " that you are talking about doesn't seem to retain its virtues. What do you expect the divine knowledge to look like? So much conviction is not required to talk about such simple matters, because conviction is not going to solve the problems if trust is missing. Well, you don't accept intellect now, may be later...that happens all the time in such intellectual discussions. > This is how I understand it and it is a beautiful teaching that the Vedas offer us. It is difficult to take and even more difficul to implement.. i.e., surrender. It is the rare soul that is able to do that. It is only through His Mercy and Grace that this can happen for us. Beautiful teachings of Vedas don't stand a chance when compared to the beauty with which their admirers, enquirers, exponents and opponents actuate their wishes - all in consonance with the truths they are teaching. The beauty lies in the purview that it all works whether we know it or not, desire it or not. regards, Nitish On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:53:50 EDT, bpfeeley <bpfeeley wrote: > > > In a message dated 09/14/2004 1:47:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, nitish.arya writes: > > HARI OM TAT SAT > > Nitish, > > Truth and Bliss are both powers of God. The Gyani is a worshipper of Divine Truth, the abstract form of God, and the bhakta is the worshipper of the Blissful form of Godhead. Both are worshippers of the same God but they worship god for different reasons. > > Gyana yoga has nothing to do with the intellect. Yes, the form of Divine Truth is Divine Knowledge but that knowledge comes from God not the intellect. Only God can reveal that Truth to the Gyani because of his merits and capacity to surrender his mind, heart and soul. > > The intellect is an object of creation and it is completely identified with Maya. Yes, of course we can use our mind intelligently but as Krishna says in the Bhagvatam, " The gyani who surrender to me receives my Divine Grace, and he then realizes the magnificience of My Truth. He understands the unimaginable form of My Divine Knowledge and enters into Me forever. " > > All through the scriptures, it is clearly indicated that the mind has to be surrendered to become Divinized. Samkya philosophy is very clear on the structure of the mind and it limitations and incapacity to perceive the Divine Truth. > > I don't mean to down play the glory of the intellect but it has no place in that final surrender to God Krishna, Shiva, Vishu or any other form of God(ess) that one chooses to worship. The intellect may take one far but in the end it has to be surrendered. > > That which is mayic has no capacity to be that which is Divine. Since Maya is a Divine power, the intellect is not capable of removing it from the mind as it is made from the same stuff. How can a mayic thing remove maya from itself? Only the Godhead can do that. The soul is beyond maya, maya is beyond soul and God is beyond both the soul and maya. > > Thus, the Vedas teach that the Divine Knowledge is beyond the reach of the human senses, human mind and human intelligence. If somebody desires to have Divine knowledge, he will only get it through His Grace and His Grace alone. > > It is very difficult for us to admit that we must surrender the intellect, the mind to God. It is in this sense that I say that an intellectual is unlikely to give good advice spiritually. Of course there are great intellectuals out there and I admire some of them, but is it Divine Knowledge? Not at all. It is of the intellect, the mind, and may be very intelligent. But mental intelligence is not Divine intelligence. > > This is how I understand it and it is a beautiful teaching that the Vedas offer us. It is difficult to take and even more difficul to implement.. i.e., surrender. It is the rare soul that is able to do that. It is only through His Mercy and Grace that this can happen for us. > > HARI OM TAT SAT > > Warm Regards, > Brendan > > > Dear Brendan ji and list, > I hope my words are not taken as being harsh, however clear and > direct they be. I take your words in good spirit. > > >The intellect, try as it may, is incapable of experiencing the > Divine. Thus, >intellectuals typically have a poor reputation for > spiritual guidance, whereas >the simple truths, the simple hearted > people are more likely to see through >the nonsense and offer good > advice. > > Lets not assume that there is no hope for the intellectuals. > Neither, that the intellect can never experience the Divine as > Geeta talks about Janana yoga in sufficient detail. > Ofcourse, an intellectual enquiry is not necessarily a path to > complexity, rather it is a search towards simplicity. > Words like " nonsense " and " good advice " are themselves very > intellectual in nature. Can we really abstain from using intellect > somehow, if it makes things complex? > > >It's as simple as this. The mind is mayic in nature as it is composed > of the >five tattwas therefore the mind is always wrong when it comes > to Divine >matters. It only has affinity for the mayic world. > > The simplicity of these sentences lies in the nature of knowledge > that you possess and not in the fact that these are but mere > intellectual musings, taken in the healthiest sense of the word. > Nevertheless, we are discussing such knowledge in an intellectual > manner. I would be pleased to receive it in a much more efficient > manner, if you agree to give it to me that way. Do you agree? > > Lets be very hopeful that you are not considering intellect to be > a worst tool for revealing God. > > >The soul is divine and a spark of God and the soul resides within the > heart. >Therefore we can ONLY experience God through the heart. The > emotional >OR feeling OR intuitive capacity of the mind, and each of > these is a more >refined aspect of the other, is that aspect of the > mind that relates to the >heart, and by bringing the mind to the heart > in surrender to HIM, we >transcend the mayic realms. > > Whether we can feel God in the heart or not is questionable as > God transcends all our feelings and measures as derived earlier. Any > other point of view is very welcome. > It shouldn't be assumed that the God can only be experienced > through heart; subject to the sort of constraints that such a view > puts on these matters. > > best regards, > Nitish |Om Tat Sat| > http://www.varahamihira > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2004 Report Share Posted September 15, 2004 Dear Partha, > Because it is a " state of being " , and not the " process " . Thinking is as well a state of being dear partha. Please, think about it. Lets not try to make boundaries where there are none. There is no other reality than thought, which awaits there to be perceived. Whatever you preceive cannot be transcendental and therefore made of this same thinking. > They perform miracles " withouit thinking " . How convincing!!! Perhaps, there is no need to oppose thought with such force. What you think is a miracle is after all a state of being of the supreme being, why to put so much emphasis on it. regards, nitish - Partha Sarathy <partvinu Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:48:48 +0530 Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya varahamihira Dear Brendan Sir And Nitish Well Said Brendan Sir. Nitish, the intellect what you are talking about is the intellect that can analyse anything which is part of the System. THis intellect cannot analyse the programmer that is the God. The program is our planes of consciousness, there are various levels to it. Even the subtlest of the subtle that is the causal planes is still a part of the system. The obsrever is the soul, and soul is made of the the divine stuff. It is untouched by any of the functioninalities of the program itself. But due to karma the soul is entrapped in the body. If you go through the various scriptures, you would get an idea of the various constituent elements of the bodie(s). The chit, ahankara, manah, the five senses etc etc. That is what many a intellectuals have done. They have analysed with profound ability the intricacies of the system. But that is only the experience and not the cause itself. I may write the program, and you may analyse it, but you can never know why the program was written in the first place, unless you come from heart. Here heart doesnot mean emotions as you seem to have understood. Heart here is the spontaniety of the Bieng. The all pervading awareness. When a person falls in love, does he think about it? You might have thought about the " idea of loving a particular person " but the moment comes, when he or she stands right accross the table, in the elevator, in the restaurant, just right in front of you, and " SOMETHING hits you " . It happens so fast, that you might have not even thought about it. It is not from the mind, it just " happens " . Because it is a " state of being " , and not the " process " . Thus when you love, you get a glimpse of Godhood. But most of the people can limit that kind of transcdental love only for few persons . But some avataars like Jesus. Krishna love everyone with same vision. They perform miracles " withouit thinking " . Thinking is the slowest mode of creation. There is something greater than thinking which makes it faster, and that is the being. there is a lot more to it. But your understanding of Gyana yogi, is nothing to do with the intellect itself. It is more to do with " awareness " of all in ALL. best wishes partha - bpfeeley <bpfeeley Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:53:50 EDT Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya varahamihira In a message dated 09/14/2004 1:47:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, nitish.arya writes: HARI OM TAT SAT Nitish, Truth and Bliss are both powers of God. The Gyani is a worshipper of Divine Truth, the abstract form of God, and the bhakta is the worshipper of the Blissful form of Godhead. Both are worshippers of the same God but they worship god for different reasons. Gyana yoga has nothing to do with the intellect. Yes, the form of Divine Truth is Divine Knowledge but that knowledge comes from God not the intellect. Only God can reveal that Truth to the Gyani because of his merits and capacity to surrender his mind, heart and soul. The intellect is an object of creation and it is completely identified with Maya. Yes, of course we can use our mind intelligently but as Krishna says in the Bhagvatam, " The gyani who surrender to me receives my Divine Grace, and he then realizes the magnificience of My Truth. He understands the unimaginable form of My Divine Knowledge and enters into Me forever. " All through the scriptures, it is clearly indicated that the mind has to be surrendered to become Divinized. Samkya philosophy is very clear on the structure of the mind and it limitations and incapacity to perceive the Divine Truth. I don't mean to down play the glory of the intellect but it has no place in that final surrender to God Krishna, Shiva, Vishu or any other form of God(ess) that one chooses to worship. The intellect may take one far but in the end it has to be surrendered. That which is mayic has no capacity to be that which is Divine. Since Maya is a Divine power, the intellect is not capable of removing it from the mind as it is made from the same stuff. How can a mayic thing remove maya from itself? Only the Godhead can do that. The soul is beyond maya, maya is beyond soul and God is beyond both the soul and maya. Thus, the Vedas teach that the Divine Knowledge is beyond the reach of the human senses, human mind and human intelligence. If somebody desires to have Divine knowledge, he will only get it through His Grace and His Grace alone. It is very difficult for us to admit that we must surrender the intellect, the mind to God. It is in this sense that I say that an intellectual is unlikely to give good advice spiritually. Of course there are great intellectuals out there and I admire some of them, but is it Divine Knowledge? Not at all. It is of the intellect, the mind, and may be very intelligent. But mental intelligence is not Divine intelligence. This is how I understand it and it is a beautiful teaching that the Vedas offer us. It is difficult to take and even more difficul to implement.. i.e., surrender. It is the rare soul that is able to do that. It is only through His Mercy and Grace that this can happen for us. HARI OM TAT SAT Warm Regards, Brendan Dear Brendan ji and list, I hope my words are not taken as being harsh, however clear and direct they be. I take your words in good spirit. >The intellect, try as it may, is incapable of experiencing the Divine. Thus, >intellectuals typically have a poor reputation for spiritual guidance, whereas >the simple truths, the simple hearted people are more likely to see through >the nonsense and offer good advice. Lets not assume that there is no hope for the intellectuals. Neither, that the intellect can never experience the Divine as Geeta talks about Janana yoga in sufficient detail. Ofcourse, an intellectual enquiry is not necessarily a path to complexity, rather it is a search towards simplicity. Words like " nonsense " and " good advice " are themselves very intellectual in nature. Can we really abstain from using intellect somehow, if it makes things complex? >It's as simple as this. The mind is mayic in nature as it is composed of the >five tattwas therefore the mind is always wrong when it comes to Divine >matters. It only has affinity for the mayic world. The simplicity of these sentences lies in the nature of knowledge that you possess and not in the fact that these are but mere intellectual musings, taken in the healthiest sense of the word. Nevertheless, we are discussing such knowledge in an intellectual manner. I would be pleased to receive it in a much more efficient manner, if you agree to give it to me that way. Do you agree? Lets be very hopeful that you are not considering intellect to be a worst tool for revealing God. >The soul is divine and a spark of God and the soul resides within the heart. >Therefore we can ONLY experience God through the heart. The emotional >OR feeling OR intuitive capacity of the mind, and each of these is a more >refined aspect of the other, is that aspect of the mind that relates to the >heart, and by bringing the mind to the heart in surrender to HIM, we >transcend the mayic realms. Whether we can feel God in the heart or not is questionable as God transcends all our feelings and measures as derived earlier. Any other point of view is very welcome. It shouldn't be assumed that the God can only be experienced through heart; subject to the sort of constraints that such a view puts on these matters. best regards, Nitish |Om Tat Sat| http://www.varahamihira Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2004 Report Share Posted September 15, 2004 ... hamsasso.aham .. Dear Brendan, >> Only God can reveal that Truth to the Gyani because of his merits and capacity to surrender his mind, heart and soul. We are using gyana in the para sense of “satyam, gyanam, anantam” and gyani in the apara sense of “gyana yoga performed through the intellect”. When the word “gyani” is encumbered like this, it’s effectively been turned it into “karma yogi”, who has purity of mind. IMO, this is a better statement: “Only God can grant that purity of mind to the karma-yogi because of his merits”. >> I don't mean to down play the glory of the intellect but it has no place in that final surrender to God Krishna, Shiva, Vishu or any other form of God(ess) that one chooses to worship. The intellect may take one far but in the end it has to be surrendered. Indeed. That which is uncomprehensible by the mind is not reachable through the mind / intellect. However, take these mental faculties away and there is no I, Me, You or Him. It is the mind that initiates all action, including “surrender”. How can “I”, “surrender” to “him” without the mind & intellect that have “already been given up”? ajit Bpfeeley [bpfeeley] Tuesday, September 14, 2004 8:54 PM varahamihira Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya In a message dated 09/14/2004 1:47:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, nitish.arya writes: HARI OM TAT SAT Nitish, Truth and Bliss are both powers of God. The Gyani is a worshipper of Divine Truth, the abstract form of God, and the bhakta is the worshipper of the Blissful form of Godhead. Both are worshippers of the same God but they worship god for different reasons. Gyana yoga has nothing to do with the intellect. Yes, the form of Divine Truth is Divine Knowledge but that knowledge comes from God not the intellect. Only God can reveal that Truth to the Gyani because of his merits and capacity to surrender his mind, heart and soul. The intellect is an object of creation and it is completely identified with Maya. Yes, of course we can use our mind intelligently but as Krishna says in the Bhagvatam, " The gyani who surrender to me receives my Divine Grace, and he then realizes the magnificience of My Truth. He understands the unimaginable form of My Divine Knowledge and enters into Me forever. " All through the scriptures, it is clearly indicated that the mind has to be surrendered to become Divinized. Samkya philosophy is very clear on the structure of the mind and it limitations and incapacity to perceive the Divine Truth. I don't mean to down play the glory of the intellect but it has no place in that final surrender to God Krishna, Shiva, Vishu or any other form of God(ess) that one chooses to worship. The intellect may take one far but in the end it has to be surrendered. That which is mayic has no capacity to be that which is Divine. Since Maya is a Divine power, the intellect is not capable of removing it from the mind as it is made from the same stuff. How can a mayic thing remove maya from itself? Only the Godhead can do that. The soul is beyond maya, maya is beyond soul and God is beyond both the soul and maya. Thus, the Vedas teach that the Divine Knowledge is beyond the reach of the human senses, human mind and human intelligence. If somebody desires to have Divine knowledge, he will only get it through His Grace and His Grace alone. It is very difficult for us to admit that we must surrender the intellect, the mind to God. It is in this sense that I say that an intellectual is unlikely to give good advice spiritually. Of course there are great intellectuals out there and I admire some of them, but is it Divine Knowledge? Not at all. It is of the intellect, the mind, and may be very intelligent. But mental intelligence is not Divine intelligence. This is how I understand it and it is a beautiful teaching that the Vedas offer us. It is difficult to take and even more difficul to implement.. i.e., surrender. It is the rare soul that is able to do that. It is only through His Mercy and Grace that this can happen for us. HARI OM TAT SAT Warm Regards, Brendan Dear Brendan ji and list, I hope my words are not taken as being harsh, however clear and direct they be. I take your words in good spirit. >The intellect, try as it may, is incapable of experiencing the Divine. Thus, >intellectuals typically have a poor reputation for spiritual guidance, whereas >the simple truths, the simple hearted people are more likely to see through >the nonsense and offer good advice. Lets not assume that there is no hope for the intellectuals. Neither, that the intellect can never experience the Divine as Geeta talks about Janana yoga in sufficient detail. Ofcourse, an intellectual enquiry is not necessarily a path to complexity, rather it is a search towards simplicity. Words like " nonsense " and " good advice " are themselves very intellectual in nature. Can we really abstain from using intellect somehow, if it makes things complex? >It's as simple as this. The mind is mayic in nature as it is composed of the >five tattwas therefore the mind is always wrong when it comes to Divine >matters. It only has affinity for the mayic world. The simplicity of these sentences lies in the nature of knowledge that you possess and not in the fact that these are but mere intellectual musings, taken in the healthiest sense of the word. Nevertheless, we are discussing such knowledge in an intellectual manner. I would be pleased to receive it in a much more efficient manner, if you agree to give it to me that way. Do you agree? Lets be very hopeful that you are not considering intellect to be a worst tool for revealing God. >The soul is divine and a spark of God and the soul resides within the heart. >Therefore we can ONLY experience God through the heart. The emotional >OR feeling OR intuitive capacity of the mind, and each of these is a more >refined aspect of the other, is that aspect of the mind that relates to the >heart, and by bringing the mind to the heart in surrender to HIM, we >transcend the mayic realms. Whether we can feel God in the heart or not is questionable as God transcends all our feelings and measures as derived earlier. Any other point of view is very welcome. It shouldn't be assumed that the God can only be experienced through heart; subject to the sort of constraints that such a view puts on these matters. best regards, Nitish |Om Tat Sat| http://www.varahamihira Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2004 Report Share Posted September 15, 2004 In a message dated 09/15/2004 8:57:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, nitish.arya writes: Nitish, Take a break. Eat some ice-cream. Regards, Brendan > Truth and Bliss are both powers of God. The Gyani is a worshipper of Divine .... ....of My Divine Knowledge and enters into Me forever." Interesting. That shows your conviction on maintaining strictboundaries with thewords like Gyana, yoga and intellect...a highly intellectual way ofdealing with things. Why do you deny intellect is beyond logic, while you urselves arebeing too much of an intellectual. You yourself are using the sametool that you are denying. > All through the scriptures, it is clearly indicated that the mind has to be surrendered to become Divinized. Samkya philosophy is very clear on the structure of the mind and it limitations and incapacity to perceive the Divine Truth. What is Samkhya if not an intellectual outpouring?> I don't mean to down play the glory of the intellect but it has no place in that final surrender to God Krishna, Shiva, Vishu or any other form of God(ess)that one chooses to worship. The intellect may take one far but in theend it has to be surrendered. Ofcourse you cannot downplay the intellect, because you are usingintellect all the time in all the discussions.> That which is mayic has no capacity to be that which is Divine. Since Maya is a Divine power, the intellect is not capable of removing it from the mind as it is made from the same stuff. How can a mayic thing remove maya from itself? Only the Godhead can do that. The soul is beyond maya, maya is beyond soul and God is beyond both the soul and maya. Why should a mayaic thing remove maya from itself? Maya doesn'twork on itself, neither on God but on Jeevatmas/soul. If soul isbeyond maya, what are we doing here? Please review my first mail againor agree upon the context first. > Thus, the Vedas teach that the Divine Knowledge is beyond the reach of the human senses, human mind and human intelligence. If somebody desires to have Divine knowledge, he will only get it through His Grace and His Grace alone. > It is very difficult for us to admit that we must surrender the intellect, the mind to God. It is in this sense that I say that an intellectual is unlikelyto give good advicespiritually. Of course there are great intellectuals out there and Iadmire some of them, but is it Divine Knowledge? Not at all. It is ofthe intellect, the mind, and may be very intelligent. But mentalintelligence is not Divine intelligence. True. And it is even more difficult for us to admit that we mustsurrender the constant thought of opposing the intellect, and mind toGod. Then the "sense" that you are talking about doesn't seem toretain its virtues. What do you expect the divine knowledge to look like? So muchconviction is not required to talk about such simple matters, becauseconviction is not going to solve the problems if trust is missing. Well, you don't accept intellect now, may be later...that happensall the time in such intellectual discussions.> This is how I understand it and it is a beautiful teaching that the Vedas offer us. It is difficult to take and even more difficul to implement.. i.e., surrender. It is the rare soul that is able to do that. It is only through His Mercy and Grace that this can happen for us. Beautiful teachings of Vedas don't stand a chance when compared tothe beauty with which their admirers, enquirers, exponents andopponents actuate their wishes - all in consonance with the truthsthey are teaching. The beauty lies in the purview that it all workswhether we know it or not, desire it or not.regards,Nitish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2004 Report Share Posted September 15, 2004 In a message dated 09/15/2004 12:35:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, partvinu writes: Dear Partha, Thanks for this lovely message done in the spirit of sharing. I like what you say here. Regards, Brendan Dear Brendan Sir And NitishWell Said Brendan Sir.Nitish, the intellect what you are talking about is the intellect thatcan analyse anything which is part of the System. THis intellectcannot analyse the programmer that is the God. The program is ourplanes of consciousness, there are various levels to it. Even thesubtlest of the subtle that is the causal planes is still a part ofthe system. The obsrever is the soul, and soul is made of the thedivine stuff. It is untouched by any of the functioninalities of theprogram itself. But due to karma the soul is entrapped in the body. Ifyou go through the various scriptures, you would get an idea of thevarious constituent elements of the bodie(s). The chit, ahankara,manah, the five senses etc etc. That is what many a intellectuals havedone. They have analysed with profound ability the intricacies of thesystem. But that is only the experience and not the cause itself.I may write the program, and you may analyse it, but you can neverknow why the program was written in the first place, unless you comefrom heart. Here heart doesnot mean emotions as you seem to haveunderstood. Heart here is the spontaniety of the Bieng. The allpervading awareness.When a person falls in love, does he think about it? You might havethought about the "idea of loving a particular person" but the momentcomes, when he or she stands right accross the table, in the elevator,in the restaurant, just right in front of you, and "SOMETHING hitsyou". It happens so fast, that you might have not even thought aboutit. It is not from the mind, it just "happens". Because it is a "stateof being", and not the "process".Thus when you love, you get a glimpse of Godhood. But most of thepeople can limit that kind of transcdental love only for few persons .But some avataars like Jesus. Krishna love everyone with same vision.They perform miracles "withouit thinking". Thinking is the slowestmode of creation. There is something greater than thinking which makesit faster, and that is the being. there is a lot more to it. But yourunderstanding of Gyana yogi, is nothing to do with the intellectitself. It is more to do with "awareness" of all in ALL.best wishespartha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2004 Report Share Posted September 16, 2004 In a message dated 09/15/2004 11:16:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, astro writes: Ajit, I do not see Gyan yoga as an intellectual practice. From everything I learned from my Beloved Guru, Gyan yoga is a form of surrender to the Godhead. The Gyani wants truth and only God, through His Grace, can bestow that. Why does the gyani sit in meditation reciting his mantra, the names of his God, over and over again. He is calling his God to come and Grace him with Divine Knowledge. Yes, choice comes into the picture. One has to be smart or have the good karmas to choose the path. One has to have that discrimination. But even in our personal worldy relationships and friendship we have to have discrimination and discernment. I don't see this as intellect. Intelligence is more than intellect. > “Only God can grant that purity of mind to the karma-yogi because of his meritsâ€. Yes, this too applies. I agree. > Indeed. That which is uncomprehensible by the mind is not reachable through the mind / > intellect. However, take these mental faculties away and there is no I, Me, You or Him. It is > the mind that initiates all action, including “surrenderâ€. How can “Iâ€, “surrender†to “him†> without the mind & intellect that have “already been given upâ€? This is such an important topic you hit upon here. It is questionable wheter it is the mind that initiates all the actions. I wonder about this. I think there is a great deal of pre conditioning in the mind of all of us. We all have typical responses and experiences. There is an intentionality to experience that is common in the life of every human being. I say this in an archetypal sense, in that the forces of the soul, of life itself are guiding us through an experience and we like to think that we are the initiators of the experiences ourselves. There is a program in other words and we rarely ask the important question. We study jyotish and we study jyotish and go on studying jyotish and never ask ourselves why. There is an intentionality driving us and we are not aware of that. Were is the study of Jyotish taking us? Why do we do this? There is a drive in us, as if a predestiny. Why do the Holy Ones tell us to wake up? Why do they tell us we are asleep? Because we are not conscious. We are not aware of the origin of our experience or even the experiencer. We don't know who we are. We see a changing phenomenal world and much philosophy is about this changing situation. There is an entire field called phenomenology that looks at this. But is this the right place to look for answers? The Vedas teach us to look at the non-changing for the answers. The other point that you bring up here is the nature of the "I" former, the ego, and its relationship to the "Self." This too is a huge area and one that is a constant source of anguish to all of us. The ego is in a constant state of trepedation that it will be absorbed by the Self, that it will loose its power. The ego gets a bad rap and we need it and must develop it to transcend it. We cannot transcend or surrender a weak ego. It must be nurtered but in a conscious way. The ego is always subordinate to the Self or God, but the Self actualizes through the ego and has goals that are far beyond the goals of the ego. There is a constant confrontation between these two forces and that very confrontation is the process of surrender IMHO. Regards, Brendan Dear Brendan, >> Only God can reveal that Truth to the Gyani because of his merits and capacity to surrender his mind, heart and soul. We are using gyana in the para sense of “satyam, gyanam, anantam†and gyani in the apara sense of “gyana yoga performed through the intellectâ€. When the word “gyani†is encumbered like this, it’s effectively been turned it into “karma yogiâ€, who has purity of mind. IMO, this is a better statement: >> I don't mean to down play the glory of the intellect but it has no place in that final surrender to God Krishna, Shiva, Vishu or any other form of God(ess) that one chooses to worship. The intellect may take one far but in the end it has to be surrendered. Indeed. That which is uncomprehensible by the mind is not reachable through the mind / intellect. However, take these mental faculties away and there is no I, Me, You or Him. It is the mind that initiates all action, including “surrenderâ€. How can “Iâ€, “surrender†to “him†without the mind & intellect that have “already been given upâ€? ajit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2004 Report Share Posted September 16, 2004 Dear Nitish Thinking is not a state of Being. When you say i am happy, are you " thinking happy " or are you " being happy " ? It is a fundamental question. If you think that there is no other reality than thought, then probably you would be in the field of thought only. And never go beyond that. And beyond that is GOD. All the meditation schools teach us to open up the two vital chakras that is Sahasrara and Anahata. God can only be reached through the path of heart and not intellect or analysis. You can do all kinds of speculation, intellectual analysis, you may even discard the simple facts also, but one day if not today, then someday, if not this life then some life, you shall surely go through the path of heart. the Moksha trikona comprises of 4th, 8th and 12th houses. Reckoning naturally all are water signs. Miracles are infact not " miracles for the people performing them " , but miracles for those who do not understand the subtle laws of the universe. You can also perform miracles, once you get to know the subtle laws The difference between them and us is the fact that they know and remember, they are aware, we are not. best wishes partha On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:42:18 +0530, Nitish Arya <nitish.arya wrote: > Dear Partha, > > Because it is a " state of being " , and not the " process " . > Thinking is as well a state of being dear partha. Please, think > about it. Lets not try to make boundaries where there are none. > There is no other reality than thought, which awaits there to be > perceived. Whatever you preceive cannot be transcendental and > therefore made of this same thinking. > > > They perform miracles " withouit thinking " . > How convincing!!! Perhaps, there is no need to oppose thought > with such force. What you think is a miracle is after all a state of > being of the supreme being, why to put so much emphasis on it. > > regards, > nitish > > > > - > Partha Sarathy <partvinu > Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:48:48 +0530 > Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya > varahamihira > > Dear Brendan Sir And Nitish > > Well Said Brendan Sir. > > Nitish, the intellect what you are talking about is the intellect that > can analyse anything which is part of the System. THis intellect > cannot analyse the programmer that is the God. The program is our > planes of consciousness, there are various levels to it. Even the > subtlest of the subtle that is the causal planes is still a part of > the system. The obsrever is the soul, and soul is made of the the > divine stuff. It is untouched by any of the functioninalities of the > program itself. But due to karma the soul is entrapped in the body. If > you go through the various scriptures, you would get an idea of the > various constituent elements of the bodie(s). The chit, ahankara, > manah, the five senses etc etc. That is what many a intellectuals have > done. They have analysed with profound ability the intricacies of the > system. But that is only the experience and not the cause itself. > I may write the program, and you may analyse it, but you can never > know why the program was written in the first place, unless you come > from heart. Here heart doesnot mean emotions as you seem to have > understood. Heart here is the spontaniety of the Bieng. The all > pervading awareness. > When a person falls in love, does he think about it? You might have > thought about the " idea of loving a particular person " but the moment > comes, when he or she stands right accross the table, in the elevator, > in the restaurant, just right in front of you, and " SOMETHING hits > you " . It happens so fast, that you might have not even thought about > it. It is not from the mind, it just " happens " . Because it is a " state > of being " , and not the " process " . > Thus when you love, you get a glimpse of Godhood. But most of the > people can limit that kind of transcdental love only for few persons . > But some avataars like Jesus. Krishna love everyone with same vision. > They perform miracles " withouit thinking " . Thinking is the slowest > mode of creation. There is something greater than thinking which makes > it faster, and that is the being. there is a lot more to it. But your > understanding of Gyana yogi, is nothing to do with the intellect > itself. It is more to do with " awareness " of all in ALL. > best wishes > partha > > - > bpfeeley <bpfeeley > Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:53:50 EDT > Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya > varahamihira > > In a message dated 09/14/2004 1:47:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, > nitish.arya writes: > > HARI OM TAT SAT > > Nitish, > > Truth and Bliss are both powers of God. The Gyani is a worshipper of > Divine Truth, the abstract form of God, and the bhakta is the > worshipper of the Blissful form of Godhead. Both are worshippers of > the same God but they worship god for different reasons. > > Gyana yoga has nothing to do with the intellect. Yes, the form of > Divine Truth is Divine Knowledge but that knowledge comes from God not > the intellect. Only God can reveal that Truth to the Gyani because of > his merits and capacity to surrender his mind, heart and soul. > > The intellect is an object of creation and it is completely identified > with Maya. Yes, of course we can use our mind intelligently but as > Krishna says in the Bhagvatam, " The gyani who surrender to me receives > my Divine Grace, and he then realizes the magnificience of My Truth. > He understands the unimaginable form of My Divine Knowledge and enters > into Me forever. " > > All through the scriptures, it is clearly indicated that the mind has > to be surrendered to become Divinized. Samkya philosophy is very clear > on the structure of the mind and it limitations and incapacity to > perceive the Divine Truth. > > I don't mean to down play the glory of the intellect but it has no > place in that final surrender to God Krishna, Shiva, Vishu or any > other form of God(ess) that one chooses to worship. The intellect may > take one far but in the end it has to be surrendered. > > That which is mayic has no capacity to be that which is Divine. Since > Maya is a Divine power, the intellect is not capable of removing it > from the mind as it is made from the same stuff. How can a mayic thing > remove maya from itself? Only the Godhead can do that. The soul is > beyond maya, maya is beyond soul and God is beyond both the soul and > maya. > > Thus, the Vedas teach that the Divine Knowledge is beyond the reach of > the human senses, human mind and human intelligence. If somebody > desires to have Divine knowledge, he will only get it through His > Grace and His Grace alone. > > It is very difficult for us to admit that we must surrender the > intellect, the mind to God. It is in this sense that I say that an > intellectual is unlikely to give good advice spiritually. Of course > there are great intellectuals out there and I admire some of them, but > is it Divine Knowledge? Not at all. It is of the intellect, the mind, > and may be very intelligent. But mental intelligence is not Divine > intelligence. > > This is how I understand it and it is a beautiful teaching that the > Vedas offer us. It is difficult to take and even more difficul to > implement.. i.e., surrender. It is the rare soul that is able to do > that. It is only through His Mercy and Grace that this can happen for > us. > > HARI OM TAT SAT > > Warm Regards, > Brendan > Dear Brendan ji and list, > I hope my words are not taken as being harsh, however clear and > direct they be. I take your words in good spirit. > > >The intellect, try as it may, is incapable of experiencing the > Divine. Thus, >intellectuals typically have a poor reputation for > spiritual guidance, whereas >the simple truths, the simple hearted > people are more likely to see through >the nonsense and offer good > advice. > > Lets not assume that there is no hope for the intellectuals. > Neither, that the intellect can never experience the Divine as > Geeta talks about Janana yoga in sufficient detail. > Ofcourse, an intellectual enquiry is not necessarily a path to > complexity, rather it is a search towards simplicity. > Words like " nonsense " and " good advice " are themselves very > intellectual in nature. Can we really abstain from using intellect > somehow, if it makes things complex? > > >It's as simple as this. The mind is mayic in nature as it is composed > of the >five tattwas therefore the mind is always wrong when it comes > to Divine >matters. It only has affinity for the mayic world. > > The simplicity of these sentences lies in the nature of knowledge > that you possess and not in the fact that these are but mere > intellectual musings, taken in the healthiest sense of the word. > Nevertheless, we are discussing such knowledge in an intellectual > manner. I would be pleased to receive it in a much more efficient > manner, if you agree to give it to me that way. Do you agree? > > Lets be very hopeful that you are not considering intellect to be > a worst tool for revealing God. > > >The soul is divine and a spark of God and the soul resides within the > heart. >Therefore we can ONLY experience God through the heart. The > emotional >OR feeling OR intuitive capacity of the mind, and each of > these is a more >refined aspect of the other, is that aspect of the > mind that relates to the >heart, and by bringing the mind to the heart > in surrender to HIM, we >transcend the mayic realms. > > Whether we can feel God in the heart or not is questionable as > God transcends all our feelings and measures as derived earlier. Any > other point of view is very welcome. > It shouldn't be assumed that the God can only be experienced > through heart; subject to the sort of constraints that such a view > puts on these matters. > > best regards, > Nitish > > |Om Tat Sat| > http://www.varahamihira > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2004 Report Share Posted September 16, 2004 Dear Partha, > Thinking is not a state of Being. When you say i am happy, are you > " thinking happy " or are you " being happy " ? It is a fundamental >question. Your first statement is unreasonable and unproved. Because the second statement is only a necessary condition not sufficient to prove the first statement. Second statement only means this much that that persons' thoughts (whom you are referring to) are highly irrelevant and out of place. If ones' thought doesn 't represent his state of being, then he is not functioning in his natural rhythm. Nevertheless, we are not concerned about the state of beings, because that doesn't change the beingness of thought, which by default you have to accept (unless proved otherwise) because you think from inside of your body!! >If you think that there is no other reality than thought, >then probably you would be in the field of thought only. And never go >beyond that. And beyond that is GOD. Whatever the content of thought, doesn't change the functioning of thought. If the content of it, is able to affect your emotions, actions and perceptions then it only reinforces the point that 'thought is a state of being'. Whether I think of GOD or not, there is no guarantee anyways that I will reach GOD. If I don't need guarantee, I think what I think and I go where I go. It is different issue what I really think!!! Please don't put so much conviction in your thoughts, else you create a certainty because of the Law of Karma which is always functioning. >All the meditation schools teach us to open up the two vital chakras.... >....Moksha trikona comprises of 4th, 8th and 12th houses. Reckoning >naturally all are water signs. Dear, you forgot virgo - the preparation part!! and the trines. regards, Nitish - Partha Sarathy <partvinu Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:26:51 +0530 Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya varahamihira Dear Nitish Thinking is not a state of Being. When you say i am happy, are you " thinking happy " or are you " being happy " ? It is a fundamental question. If you think that there is no other reality than thought, then probably you would be in the field of thought only. And never go beyond that. And beyond that is GOD. All the meditation schools teach us to open up the two vital chakras that is Sahasrara and Anahata. God can only be reached through the path of heart and not intellect or analysis. You can do all kinds of speculation, intellectual analysis, you may even discard the simple facts also, but one day if not today, then someday, if not this life then some life, you shall surely go through the path of heart. the Moksha trikona comprises of 4th, 8th and 12th houses. Reckoning naturally all are water signs. Miracles are infact not " miracles for the people performing them " , but miracles for those who do not understand the subtle laws of the universe. You can also perform miracles, once you get to know the subtle laws The difference between them and us is the fact that they know and remember, they are aware, we are not. best wishes partha On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:42:18 +0530, Nitish Arya <nitish.arya wrote: > Dear Partha, > > Because it is a " state of being " , and not the " process " . > Thinking is as well a state of being dear partha. Please, think > about it. Lets not try to make boundaries where there are none. > There is no other reality than thought, which awaits there to be > perceived. Whatever you preceive cannot be transcendental and > therefore made of this same thinking. > > > They perform miracles " withouit thinking " . > How convincing!!! Perhaps, there is no need to oppose thought > with such force. What you think is a miracle is after all a state of > being of the supreme being, why to put so much emphasis on it. > > regards, > nitish > > > > - > Partha Sarathy <partvinu > Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:48:48 +0530 > Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya > varahamihira > > Dear Brendan Sir And Nitish > > Well Said Brendan Sir. > > Nitish, the intellect what you are talking about is the intellect that > can analyse anything which is part of the System. THis intellect > cannot analyse the programmer that is the God. The program is our > planes of consciousness, there are various levels to it. Even the > subtlest of the subtle that is the causal planes is still a part of > the system. The obsrever is the soul, and soul is made of the the > divine stuff. It is untouched by any of the functioninalities of the > program itself. But due to karma the soul is entrapped in the body. If > you go through the various scriptures, you would get an idea of the > various constituent elements of the bodie(s). The chit, ahankara, > manah, the five senses etc etc. That is what many a intellectuals have > done. They have analysed with profound ability the intricacies of the > system. But that is only the experience and not the cause itself. > I may write the program, and you may analyse it, but you can never > know why the program was written in the first place, unless you come > from heart. Here heart doesnot mean emotions as you seem to have > understood. Heart here is the spontaniety of the Bieng. The all > pervading awareness. > When a person falls in love, does he think about it? You might have > thought about the " idea of loving a particular person " but the moment > comes, when he or she stands right accross the table, in the elevator, > in the restaurant, just right in front of you, and " SOMETHING hits > you " . It happens so fast, that you might have not even thought about > it. It is not from the mind, it just " happens " . Because it is a " state > of being " , and not the " process " . > Thus when you love, you get a glimpse of Godhood. But most of the > people can limit that kind of transcdental love only for few persons . > But some avataars like Jesus. Krishna love everyone with same vision. > They perform miracles " withouit thinking " . Thinking is the slowest > mode of creation. There is something greater than thinking which makes > it faster, and that is the being. there is a lot more to it. But your > understanding of Gyana yogi, is nothing to do with the intellect > itself. It is more to do with " awareness " of all in ALL. > best wishes > partha > > - > bpfeeley <bpfeeley > Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:53:50 EDT > Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya > varahamihira > > In a message dated 09/14/2004 1:47:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, > nitish.arya writes: > > HARI OM TAT SAT > > Nitish, > > Truth and Bliss are both powers of God. The Gyani is a worshipper of > Divine Truth, the abstract form of God, and the bhakta is the > worshipper of the Blissful form of Godhead. Both are worshippers of > the same God but they worship god for different reasons. > > Gyana yoga has nothing to do with the intellect. Yes, the form of > Divine Truth is Divine Knowledge but that knowledge comes from God not > the intellect. Only God can reveal that Truth to the Gyani because of > his merits and capacity to surrender his mind, heart and soul. > > The intellect is an object of creation and it is completely identified > with Maya. Yes, of course we can use our mind intelligently but as > Krishna says in the Bhagvatam, " The gyani who surrender to me receives > my Divine Grace, and he then realizes the magnificience of My Truth. > He understands the unimaginable form of My Divine Knowledge and enters > into Me forever. " > > All through the scriptures, it is clearly indicated that the mind has > to be surrendered to become Divinized. Samkya philosophy is very clear > on the structure of the mind and it limitations and incapacity to > perceive the Divine Truth. > > I don't mean to down play the glory of the intellect but it has no > place in that final surrender to God Krishna, Shiva, Vishu or any > other form of God(ess) that one chooses to worship. The intellect may > take one far but in the end it has to be surrendered. > > That which is mayic has no capacity to be that which is Divine. Since > Maya is a Divine power, the intellect is not capable of removing it > from the mind as it is made from the same stuff. How can a mayic thing > remove maya from itself? Only the Godhead can do that. The soul is > beyond maya, maya is beyond soul and God is beyond both the soul and > maya. > > Thus, the Vedas teach that the Divine Knowledge is beyond the reach of > the human senses, human mind and human intelligence. If somebody > desires to have Divine knowledge, he will only get it through His > Grace and His Grace alone. > > It is very difficult for us to admit that we must surrender the > intellect, the mind to God. It is in this sense that I say that an > intellectual is unlikely to give good advice spiritually. Of course > there are great intellectuals out there and I admire some of them, but > is it Divine Knowledge? Not at all. It is of the intellect, the mind, > and may be very intelligent. But mental intelligence is not Divine > intelligence. > > This is how I understand it and it is a beautiful teaching that the > Vedas offer us. It is difficult to take and even more difficul to > implement.. i.e., surrender. It is the rare soul that is able to do > that. It is only through His Mercy and Grace that this can happen for > us. > > HARI OM TAT SAT > > Warm Regards, > Brendan > Dear Brendan ji and list, > I hope my words are not taken as being harsh, however clear and > direct they be. I take your words in good spirit. > > >The intellect, try as it may, is incapable of experiencing the > Divine. Thus, >intellectuals typically have a poor reputation for > spiritual guidance, whereas >the simple truths, the simple hearted > people are more likely to see through >the nonsense and offer good > advice. > > Lets not assume that there is no hope for the intellectuals. > Neither, that the intellect can never experience the Divine as > Geeta talks about Janana yoga in sufficient detail. > Ofcourse, an intellectual enquiry is not necessarily a path to > complexity, rather it is a search towards simplicity. > Words like " nonsense " and " good advice " are themselves very > intellectual in nature. Can we really abstain from using intellect > somehow, if it makes things complex? > > >It's as simple as this. The mind is mayic in nature as it is composed > of the >five tattwas therefore the mind is always wrong when it comes > to Divine >matters. It only has affinity for the mayic world. > > The simplicity of these sentences lies in the nature of knowledge > that you possess and not in the fact that these are but mere > intellectual musings, taken in the healthiest sense of the word. > Nevertheless, we are discussing such knowledge in an intellectual > manner. I would be pleased to receive it in a much more efficient > manner, if you agree to give it to me that way. Do you agree? > > Lets be very hopeful that you are not considering intellect to be > a worst tool for revealing God. > > >The soul is divine and a spark of God and the soul resides within the > heart. >Therefore we can ONLY experience God through the heart. The > emotional >OR feeling OR intuitive capacity of the mind, and each of > these is a more >refined aspect of the other, is that aspect of the > mind that relates to the >heart, and by bringing the mind to the heart > in surrender to HIM, we >transcend the mayic realms. > > Whether we can feel God in the heart or not is questionable as > God transcends all our feelings and measures as derived earlier. Any > other point of view is very welcome. > It shouldn't be assumed that the God can only be experienced > through heart; subject to the sort of constraints that such a view > puts on these matters. > > best regards, > Nitish > > |Om Tat Sat| > http://www.varahamihira > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2004 Report Share Posted September 16, 2004 Dear Nitish I really dont want to get into debate, once you start using programming language to prove some ridiculous logic. best wishes partha On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:45:27 +0530, Nitish Arya <nitish.arya wrote: > > Dear Partha, > > Thinking is not a state of Being. When you say i am happy, are you > > " thinking happy " or are you " being happy " ? It is a fundamental > >question. > Your first statement is unreasonable and unproved. Because the > second statement is only a necessary condition not sufficient to prove > the first statement. Second statement only means this much that that > persons' thoughts (whom you are referring to) are highly irrelevant > and out of place. If ones' thought doesn > 't represent his state of being, then he is not functioning in his > natural rhythm. > Nevertheless, we are not concerned about the state of beings, > because that doesn't change the beingness of thought, which by default > you have to accept (unless proved otherwise) because you think from > inside of your body!! > > >If you think that there is no other reality than thought, > >then probably you would be in the field of thought only. And never go > >beyond that. And beyond that is GOD. > > Whatever the content of thought, doesn't change the functioning of > thought. If the content of it, is able to affect your emotions, > actions and perceptions then it only reinforces the point that > 'thought is a state of being'. > Whether I think of GOD or not, there is no guarantee anyways that > I will reach GOD. If I don't need guarantee, I think what I think and > I go where I go. It is different issue what I really think!!! > Please don't put so much conviction in your thoughts, else you > create a certainty because of the Law of Karma which is always > functioning. > > >All the meditation schools teach us to open up the two vital chakras.... > >....Moksha trikona comprises of 4th, 8th and 12th houses. Reckoning > >naturally all are water signs. > > Dear, you forgot virgo - the preparation part!! and the trines. > > regards, > Nitish > > > - > Partha Sarathy <partvinu > Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:26:51 +0530 > Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya > varahamihira > > Dear Nitish > > Thinking is not a state of Being. When you say i am happy, are you > " thinking happy " or are you " being happy " ? It is a fundamental > question. If you think that there is no other reality than thought, > then probably you would be in the field of thought only. And never go > beyond that. And beyond that is GOD. > > All the meditation schools teach us to open up the two vital chakras > that is Sahasrara and Anahata. God can only be reached through the > path of heart and not intellect or analysis. You can do all kinds of > speculation, intellectual analysis, you may even discard the simple > facts also, but one day if not today, then someday, if not this life > then some life, you shall surely go through the path of heart. the > Moksha trikona comprises of 4th, 8th and 12th houses. Reckoning > naturally all are water signs. > > Miracles are infact not " miracles for the people performing them " , but > miracles for those who do not understand the subtle laws of the > universe. You can also perform miracles, once you get to know the > subtle laws The difference between them and us is the fact that they > know and remember, they are aware, we are not. > best wishes > partha > > On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:42:18 +0530, Nitish Arya <nitish.arya wrote: > > Dear Partha, > > > Because it is a " state of being " , and not the " process " . > > Thinking is as well a state of being dear partha. Please, think > > about it. Lets not try to make boundaries where there are none. > > There is no other reality than thought, which awaits there to be > > perceived. Whatever you preceive cannot be transcendental and > > therefore made of this same thinking. > > > > > They perform miracles " withouit thinking " . > > How convincing!!! Perhaps, there is no need to oppose thought > > with such force. What you think is a miracle is after all a state of > > being of the supreme being, why to put so much emphasis on it. > > > > regards, > > nitish > > > > > > > > - > > Partha Sarathy <partvinu > > Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:48:48 +0530 > > Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya > > varahamihira > > > > Dear Brendan Sir And Nitish > > > > Well Said Brendan Sir. > > > > Nitish, the intellect what you are talking about is the intellect that > > can analyse anything which is part of the System. THis intellect > > cannot analyse the programmer that is the God. The program is our > > planes of consciousness, there are various levels to it. Even the > > subtlest of the subtle that is the causal planes is still a part of > > the system. The obsrever is the soul, and soul is made of the the > > divine stuff. It is untouched by any of the functioninalities of the > > program itself. But due to karma the soul is entrapped in the body. If > > you go through the various scriptures, you would get an idea of the > > various constituent elements of the bodie(s). The chit, ahankara, > > manah, the five senses etc etc. That is what many a intellectuals have > > done. They have analysed with profound ability the intricacies of the > > system. But that is only the experience and not the cause itself. > > I may write the program, and you may analyse it, but you can never > > know why the program was written in the first place, unless you come > > from heart. Here heart doesnot mean emotions as you seem to have > > understood. Heart here is the spontaniety of the Bieng. The all > > pervading awareness. > > When a person falls in love, does he think about it? You might have > > thought about the " idea of loving a particular person " but the moment > > comes, when he or she stands right accross the table, in the elevator, > > in the restaurant, just right in front of you, and " SOMETHING hits > > you " . It happens so fast, that you might have not even thought about > > it. It is not from the mind, it just " happens " . Because it is a " state > > of being " , and not the " process " . > > Thus when you love, you get a glimpse of Godhood. But most of the > > people can limit that kind of transcdental love only for few persons . > > But some avataars like Jesus. Krishna love everyone with same vision. > > They perform miracles " withouit thinking " . Thinking is the slowest > > mode of creation. There is something greater than thinking which makes > > it faster, and that is the being. there is a lot more to it. But your > > understanding of Gyana yogi, is nothing to do with the intellect > > itself. It is more to do with " awareness " of all in ALL. > > best wishes > > partha > > > > - > > bpfeeley <bpfeeley > > Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:53:50 EDT > > Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya > > varahamihira > > > > In a message dated 09/14/2004 1:47:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, > > nitish.arya writes: > > > > HARI OM TAT SAT > > > > Nitish, > > > > Truth and Bliss are both powers of God. The Gyani is a worshipper of > > Divine Truth, the abstract form of God, and the bhakta is the > > worshipper of the Blissful form of Godhead. Both are worshippers of > > the same God but they worship god for different reasons. > > > > Gyana yoga has nothing to do with the intellect. Yes, the form of > > Divine Truth is Divine Knowledge but that knowledge comes from God not > > the intellect. Only God can reveal that Truth to the Gyani because of > > his merits and capacity to surrender his mind, heart and soul. > > > > The intellect is an object of creation and it is completely identified > > with Maya. Yes, of course we can use our mind intelligently but as > > Krishna says in the Bhagvatam, " The gyani who surrender to me receives > > my Divine Grace, and he then realizes the magnificience of My Truth. > > He understands the unimaginable form of My Divine Knowledge and enters > > into Me forever. " > > > > All through the scriptures, it is clearly indicated that the mind has > > to be surrendered to become Divinized. Samkya philosophy is very clear > > on the structure of the mind and it limitations and incapacity to > > perceive the Divine Truth. > > > > I don't mean to down play the glory of the intellect but it has no > > place in that final surrender to God Krishna, Shiva, Vishu or any > > other form of God(ess) that one chooses to worship. The intellect may > > take one far but in the end it has to be surrendered. > > > > That which is mayic has no capacity to be that which is Divine. Since > > Maya is a Divine power, the intellect is not capable of removing it > > from the mind as it is made from the same stuff. How can a mayic thing > > remove maya from itself? Only the Godhead can do that. The soul is > > beyond maya, maya is beyond soul and God is beyond both the soul and > > maya. > > > > Thus, the Vedas teach that the Divine Knowledge is beyond the reach of > > the human senses, human mind and human intelligence. If somebody > > desires to have Divine knowledge, he will only get it through His > > Grace and His Grace alone. > > > > It is very difficult for us to admit that we must surrender the > > intellect, the mind to God. It is in this sense that I say that an > > intellectual is unlikely to give good advice spiritually. Of course > > there are great intellectuals out there and I admire some of them, but > > is it Divine Knowledge? Not at all. It is of the intellect, the mind, > > and may be very intelligent. But mental intelligence is not Divine > > intelligence. > > > > This is how I understand it and it is a beautiful teaching that the > > Vedas offer us. It is difficult to take and even more difficul to > > implement.. i.e., surrender. It is the rare soul that is able to do > > that. It is only through His Mercy and Grace that this can happen for > > us. > > > > HARI OM TAT SAT > > > > Warm Regards, > > Brendan > > Dear Brendan ji and list, > > I hope my words are not taken as being harsh, however clear and > > direct they be. I take your words in good spirit. > > > > >The intellect, try as it may, is incapable of experiencing the > > Divine. Thus, >intellectuals typically have a poor reputation for > > spiritual guidance, whereas >the simple truths, the simple hearted > > people are more likely to see through >the nonsense and offer good > > advice. > > > > Lets not assume that there is no hope for the intellectuals. > > Neither, that the intellect can never experience the Divine as > > Geeta talks about Janana yoga in sufficient detail. > > Ofcourse, an intellectual enquiry is not necessarily a path to > > complexity, rather it is a search towards simplicity. > > Words like " nonsense " and " good advice " are themselves very > > intellectual in nature. Can we really abstain from using intellect > > somehow, if it makes things complex? > > > > >It's as simple as this. The mind is mayic in nature as it is composed > > of the >five tattwas therefore the mind is always wrong when it comes > > to Divine >matters. It only has affinity for the mayic world. > > > > The simplicity of these sentences lies in the nature of knowledge > > that you possess and not in the fact that these are but mere > > intellectual musings, taken in the healthiest sense of the word. > > Nevertheless, we are discussing such knowledge in an intellectual > > manner. I would be pleased to receive it in a much more efficient > > manner, if you agree to give it to me that way. Do you agree? > > > > Lets be very hopeful that you are not considering intellect to be > > a worst tool for revealing God. > > > > >The soul is divine and a spark of God and the soul resides within the > > heart. >Therefore we can ONLY experience God through the heart. The > > emotional >OR feeling OR intuitive capacity of the mind, and each of > > these is a more >refined aspect of the other, is that aspect of the > > mind that relates to the >heart, and by bringing the mind to the heart > > in surrender to HIM, we >transcend the mayic realms. > > > > Whether we can feel God in the heart or not is questionable as > > God transcends all our feelings and measures as derived earlier. Any > > other point of view is very welcome. > > It shouldn't be assumed that the God can only be experienced > > through heart; subject to the sort of constraints that such a view > > puts on these matters. > > > > best regards, > > Nitish > > > > |Om Tat Sat| > > http://www.varahamihira > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2004 Report Share Posted September 16, 2004 || Jaya Jagannath || Dear Partha, <<once you start using programming language to prove some ridiculous logic.>> The forum, which does not encourage constructive arguement cannot help in growth of knowledge. If somebody has expressed a thought there must be some novelty in it for that person. Please don't use terms such ridiculous to put someone down. If you have something constructive to say please go ahead, otherwise no need saying. Personal fights and destructive arguements can hinder discussiong and learning. Best Wishes Sarajit - Partha Sarathy varahamihira Thursday, September 16, 2004 5:07 PM Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya Dear NitishI really dont want to get into debate, once you start usingprogramming language to prove some ridiculous logic.best wishesparthaOn Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:45:27 +0530, Nitish Arya <nitish.arya wrote:> > Dear Partha,> > Thinking is not a state of Being. When you say i am happy, are you> >"thinking happy" or are you "being happy"? It is a fundamental> >question.> Your first statement is unreasonable and unproved. Because the> second statement is only a necessary condition not sufficient to prove> the first statement. Second statement only means this much that that> persons' thoughts (whom you are referring to) are highly irrelevant> and out of place. If ones' thought doesn> 't represent his state of being, then he is not functioning in his> natural rhythm.> Nevertheless, we are not concerned about the state of beings,> because that doesn't change the beingness of thought, which by default> you have to accept (unless proved otherwise) because you think from> inside of your body!!> > >If you think that there is no other reality than thought,> >then probably you would be in the field of thought only. And never go> >beyond that. And beyond that is GOD.> > Whatever the content of thought, doesn't change the functioning of> thought. If the content of it, is able to affect your emotions,> actions and perceptions then it only reinforces the point that> 'thought is a state of being'.> Whether I think of GOD or not, there is no guarantee anyways that> I will reach GOD. If I don't need guarantee, I think what I think and> I go where I go. It is different issue what I really think!!!> Please don't put so much conviction in your thoughts, else you> create a certainty because of the Law of Karma which is always> functioning.> > >All the meditation schools teach us to open up the two vital chakras....> >....Moksha trikona comprises of 4th, 8th and 12th houses. Reckoning> >naturally all are water signs.> > Dear, you forgot virgo - the preparation part!! and the trines.> > regards,> Nitish> > > -> Partha Sarathy <partvinu> Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:26:51 +0530> Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya> varahamihira > > Dear Nitish> > Thinking is not a state of Being. When you say i am happy, are you> "thinking happy" or are you "being happy"? It is a fundamental> question. If you think that there is no other reality than thought,> then probably you would be in the field of thought only. And never go> beyond that. And beyond that is GOD.> > All the meditation schools teach us to open up the two vital chakras> that is Sahasrara and Anahata. God can only be reached through the> path of heart and not intellect or analysis. You can do all kinds of> speculation, intellectual analysis, you may even discard the simple> facts also, but one day if not today, then someday, if not this life> then some life, you shall surely go through the path of heart. the> Moksha trikona comprises of 4th, 8th and 12th houses. Reckoning> naturally all are water signs.> > Miracles are infact not "miracles for the people performing them", but> miracles for those who do not understand the subtle laws of the> universe. You can also perform miracles, once you get to know the> subtle laws The difference between them and us is the fact that they> know and remember, they are aware, we are not.> best wishes> partha> > On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:42:18 +0530, Nitish Arya <nitish.arya wrote:> > Dear Partha,> > > Because it is a "state of being", and not the "process".> > Thinking is as well a state of being dear partha. Please, think> > about it. Lets not try to make boundaries where there are none.> > There is no other reality than thought, which awaits there to be> > perceived. Whatever you preceive cannot be transcendental and> > therefore made of this same thinking.> >> > > They perform miracles "withouit thinking".> > How convincing!!! Perhaps, there is no need to oppose thought> > with such force. What you think is a miracle is after all a state of> > being of the supreme being, why to put so much emphasis on it.> >> > regards,> > nitish> >> >> >> > -> > Partha Sarathy <partvinu> > Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:48:48 +0530> > Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya> > varahamihira > >> > Dear Brendan Sir And Nitish> >> > Well Said Brendan Sir.> >> > Nitish, the intellect what you are talking about is the intellect that> > can analyse anything which is part of the System. THis intellect> > cannot analyse the programmer that is the God. The program is our> > planes of consciousness, there are various levels to it. Even the> > subtlest of the subtle that is the causal planes is still a part of> > the system. The obsrever is the soul, and soul is made of the the> > divine stuff. It is untouched by any of the functioninalities of the> > program itself. But due to karma the soul is entrapped in the body. If> > you go through the various scriptures, you would get an idea of the> > various constituent elements of the bodie(s). The chit, ahankara,> > manah, the five senses etc etc. That is what many a intellectuals have> > done. They have analysed with profound ability the intricacies of the> > system. But that is only the experience and not the cause itself.> > I may write the program, and you may analyse it, but you can never> > know why the program was written in the first place, unless you come> > from heart. Here heart doesnot mean emotions as you seem to have> > understood. Heart here is the spontaniety of the Bieng. The all> > pervading awareness.> > When a person falls in love, does he think about it? You might have> > thought about the "idea of loving a particular person" but the moment> > comes, when he or she stands right accross the table, in the elevator,> > in the restaurant, just right in front of you, and "SOMETHING hits> > you". It happens so fast, that you might have not even thought about> > it. It is not from the mind, it just "happens". Because it is a "state> > of being", and not the "process".> > Thus when you love, you get a glimpse of Godhood. But most of the> > people can limit that kind of transcdental love only for few persons .> > But some avataars like Jesus. Krishna love everyone with same vision.> > They perform miracles "withouit thinking". Thinking is the slowest> > mode of creation. There is something greater than thinking which makes> > it faster, and that is the being. there is a lot more to it. But your> > understanding of Gyana yogi, is nothing to do with the intellect> > itself. It is more to do with "awareness" of all in ALL.> > best wishes> > partha> >> > -> > bpfeeley <bpfeeley> > Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:53:50 EDT> > Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya> > varahamihira > >> > In a message dated 09/14/2004 1:47:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,> > nitish.arya writes:> >> > HARI OM TAT SAT> >> > Nitish,> >> > Truth and Bliss are both powers of God. The Gyani is a worshipper of> > Divine Truth, the abstract form of God, and the bhakta is the> > worshipper of the Blissful form of Godhead. Both are worshippers of> > the same God but they worship god for different reasons.> >> > Gyana yoga has nothing to do with the intellect. Yes, the form of> > Divine Truth is Divine Knowledge but that knowledge comes from God not> > the intellect. Only God can reveal that Truth to the Gyani because of> > his merits and capacity to surrender his mind, heart and soul.> >> > The intellect is an object of creation and it is completely identified> > with Maya. Yes, of course we can use our mind intelligently but as> > Krishna says in the Bhagvatam, "The gyani who surrender to me receives> > my Divine Grace, and he then realizes the magnificience of My Truth.> > He understands the unimaginable form of My Divine Knowledge and enters> > into Me forever."> >> > All through the scriptures, it is clearly indicated that the mind has> > to be surrendered to become Divinized. Samkya philosophy is very clear> > on the structure of the mind and it limitations and incapacity to> > perceive the Divine Truth.> >> > I don't mean to down play the glory of the intellect but it has no> > place in that final surrender to God Krishna, Shiva, Vishu or any> > other form of God(ess) that one chooses to worship. The intellect may> > take one far but in the end it has to be surrendered.> >> > That which is mayic has no capacity to be that which is Divine. Since> > Maya is a Divine power, the intellect is not capable of removing it> > from the mind as it is made from the same stuff. How can a mayic thing> > remove maya from itself? Only the Godhead can do that. The soul is> > beyond maya, maya is beyond soul and God is beyond both the soul and> > maya.> >> > Thus, the Vedas teach that the Divine Knowledge is beyond the reach of> > the human senses, human mind and human intelligence. If somebody> > desires to have Divine knowledge, he will only get it through His> > Grace and His Grace alone.> >> > It is very difficult for us to admit that we must surrender the> > intellect, the mind to God. It is in this sense that I say that an> > intellectual is unlikely to give good advice spiritually. Of course> > there are great intellectuals out there and I admire some of them, but> > is it Divine Knowledge? Not at all. It is of the intellect, the mind,> > and may be very intelligent. But mental intelligence is not Divine> > intelligence.> >> > This is how I understand it and it is a beautiful teaching that the> > Vedas offer us. It is difficult to take and even more difficul to> > implement.. i.e., surrender. It is the rare soul that is able to do> > that. It is only through His Mercy and Grace that this can happen for> > us.> >> > HARI OM TAT SAT> >> > Warm Regards,> > Brendan> > Dear Brendan ji and list,> > I hope my words are not taken as being harsh, however clear and> > direct they be. I take your words in good spirit.> >> > >The intellect, try as it may, is incapable of experiencing the> > Divine. Thus, >intellectuals typically have a poor reputation for> > spiritual guidance, whereas >the simple truths, the simple hearted> > people are more likely to see through >the nonsense and offer good> > advice.> >> > Lets not assume that there is no hope for the intellectuals.> > Neither, that the intellect can never experience the Divine as> > Geeta talks about Janana yoga in sufficient detail.> > Ofcourse, an intellectual enquiry is not necessarily a path to> > complexity, rather it is a search towards simplicity.> > Words like "nonsense" and "good advice" are themselves very> > intellectual in nature. Can we really abstain from using intellect> > somehow, if it makes things complex?> >> > >It's as simple as this. The mind is mayic in nature as it is composed> > of the >five tattwas therefore the mind is always wrong when it comes> > to Divine >matters. It only has affinity for the mayic world.> >> > The simplicity of these sentences lies in the nature of knowledge> > that you possess and not in the fact that these are but mere> > intellectual musings, taken in the healthiest sense of the word.> > Nevertheless, we are discussing such knowledge in an intellectual> > manner. I would be pleased to receive it in a much more efficient> > manner, if you agree to give it to me that way. Do you agree?> >> > Lets be very hopeful that you are not considering intellect to be> > a worst tool for revealing God.> >> > >The soul is divine and a spark of God and the soul resides within the> > heart. >Therefore we can ONLY experience God through the heart. The> > emotional >OR feeling OR intuitive capacity of the mind, and each of> > these is a more >refined aspect of the other, is that aspect of the> > mind that relates to the >heart, and by bringing the mind to the heart> > in surrender to HIM, we >transcend the mayic realms.> >> > Whether we can feel God in the heart or not is questionable as> > God transcends all our feelings and measures as derived earlier. Any> > other point of view is very welcome.> > It shouldn't be assumed that the God can only be experienced> > through heart; subject to the sort of constraints that such a view> > puts on these matters.> >> > best regards,> > Nitish> >> > |Om Tat Sat|> > http://www.varahamihira> >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 I thought of leaving SJC anyways Sarajit I am leaving Now. Good bye for ever best wishes partha - Sarajit Poddar <sarajit Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:49:00 +0800 Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya varahamihira || Jaya Jagannath || Dear Partha, <<once you start using programming language to prove some ridiculous logic.>> The forum, which does not encourage constructive arguement cannot help in growth of knowledge. If somebody has expressed a thought there must be some novelty in it for that person. Please don't use terms such ridiculous to put someone down. If you have something constructive to say please go ahead, otherwise no need saying. Personal fights and destructive arguements can hinder discussiong and learning. Best Wishes Sarajit - Partha Sarathy varahamihira Thursday, September 16, 2004 5:07 PM Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya Dear Nitish I really dont want to get into debate, once you start using programming language to prove some ridiculous logic. best wishes partha On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:45:27 +0530, Nitish Arya <nitish.arya wrote: > > Dear Partha, > > Thinking is not a state of Being. When you say i am happy, are you > > " thinking happy " or are you " being happy " ? It is a fundamental > >question. > Your first statement is unreasonable and unproved. Because the > second statement is only a necessary condition not sufficient to prove > the first statement. Second statement only means this much that that > persons' thoughts (whom you are referring to) are highly irrelevant > and out of place. If ones' thought doesn > 't represent his state of being, then he is not functioning in his > natural rhythm. > Nevertheless, we are not concerned about the state of beings, > because that doesn't change the beingness of thought, which by default > you have to accept (unless proved otherwise) because you think from > inside of your body!! > > >If you think that there is no other reality than thought, > >then probably you would be in the field of thought only. And never go > >beyond that. And beyond that is GOD. > > Whatever the content of thought, doesn't change the functioning of > thought. If the content of it, is able to affect your emotions, > actions and perceptions then it only reinforces the point that > 'thought is a state of being'. > Whether I think of GOD or not, there is no guarantee anyways that > I will reach GOD. If I don't need guarantee, I think what I think and > I go where I go. It is different issue what I really think!!! > Please don't put so much conviction in your thoughts, else you > create a certainty because of the Law of Karma which is always > functioning. > > >All the meditation schools teach us to open up the two vital chakras.... > >....Moksha trikona comprises of 4th, 8th and 12th houses. Reckoning > >naturally all are water signs. > > Dear, you forgot virgo - the preparation part!! and the trines. > > regards, > Nitish > > > - > Partha Sarathy <partvinu > Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:26:51 +0530 > Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya > varahamihira > > Dear Nitish > > Thinking is not a state of Being. When you say i am happy, are you > " thinking happy " or are you " being happy " ? It is a fundamental > question. If you think that there is no other reality than thought, > then probably you would be in the field of thought only. And never go > beyond that. And beyond that is GOD. > > All the meditation schools teach us to open up the two vital chakras > that is Sahasrara and Anahata. God can only be reached through the > path of heart and not intellect or analysis. You can do all kinds of > speculation, intellectual analysis, you may even discard the simple > facts also, but one day if not today, then someday, if not this life > then some life, you shall surely go through the path of heart. the > Moksha trikona comprises of 4th, 8th and 12th houses. Reckoning > naturally all are water signs. > > Miracles are infact not " miracles for the people performing them " , but > miracles for those who do not understand the subtle laws of the > universe. You can also perform miracles, once you get to know the > subtle laws The difference between them and us is the fact that they > know and remember, they are aware, we are not. > best wishes > partha > > On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:42:18 +0530, Nitish Arya <nitish.arya wrote: > > Dear Partha, > > > Because it is a " state of being " , and not the " process " . > > Thinking is as well a state of being dear partha. Please, think > > about it. Lets not try to make boundaries where there are none. > > There is no other reality than thought, which awaits there to be > > perceived. Whatever you preceive cannot be transcendental and > > therefore made of this same thinking. > > > > > They perform miracles " withouit thinking " . > > How convincing!!! Perhaps, there is no need to oppose thought > > with such force. What you think is a miracle is after all a state of > > being of the supreme being, why to put so much emphasis on it. > > > > regards, > > nitish > > > > > > > > - > > Partha Sarathy <partvinu > > Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:48:48 +0530 > > Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya > > varahamihira > > > > Dear Brendan Sir And Nitish > > > > Well Said Brendan Sir. > > > > Nitish, the intellect what you are talking about is the intellect that > > can analyse anything which is part of the System. THis intellect > > cannot analyse the programmer that is the God. The program is our > > planes of consciousness, there are various levels to it. Even the > > subtlest of the subtle that is the causal planes is still a part of > > the system. The obsrever is the soul, and soul is made of the the > > divine stuff. It is untouched by any of the functioninalities of the > > program itself. But due to karma the soul is entrapped in the body. If > > you go through the various scriptures, you would get an idea of the > > various constituent elements of the bodie(s). The chit, ahankara, > > manah, the five senses etc etc. That is what many a intellectuals have > > done. They have analysed with profound ability the intricacies of the > > system. But that is only the experience and not the cause itself. > > I may write the program, and you may analyse it, but you can never > > know why the program was written in the first place, unless you come > > from heart. Here heart doesnot mean emotions as you seem to have > > understood. Heart here is the spontaniety of the Bieng. The all > > pervading awareness. > > When a person falls in love, does he think about it? You might have > > thought about the " idea of loving a particular person " but the moment > > comes, when he or she stands right accross the table, in the elevator, > > in the restaurant, just right in front of you, and " SOMETHING hits > > you " . It happens so fast, that you might have not even thought about > > it. It is not from the mind, it just " happens " . Because it is a " state > > of being " , and not the " process " . > > Thus when you love, you get a glimpse of Godhood. But most of the > > people can limit that kind of transcdental love only for few persons . > > But some avataars like Jesus. Krishna love everyone with same vision. > > They perform miracles " withouit thinking " . Thinking is the slowest > > mode of creation. There is something greater than thinking which makes > > it faster, and that is the being. there is a lot more to it. But your > > understanding of Gyana yogi, is nothing to do with the intellect > > itself. It is more to do with " awareness " of all in ALL. > > best wishes > > partha > > > > - > > bpfeeley <bpfeeley > > Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:53:50 EDT > > Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya > > varahamihira > > > > In a message dated 09/14/2004 1:47:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, > > nitish.arya writes: > > > > HARI OM TAT SAT > > > > Nitish, > > > > Truth and Bliss are both powers of God. The Gyani is a worshipper of > > Divine Truth, the abstract form of God, and the bhakta is the > > worshipper of the Blissful form of Godhead. Both are worshippers of > > the same God but they worship god for different reasons. > > > > Gyana yoga has nothing to do with the intellect. Yes, the form of > > Divine Truth is Divine Knowledge but that knowledge comes from God not > > the intellect. Only God can reveal that Truth to the Gyani because of > > his merits and capacity to surrender his mind, heart and soul. > > > > The intellect is an object of creation and it is completely identified > > with Maya. Yes, of course we can use our mind intelligently but as > > Krishna says in the Bhagvatam, " The gyani who surrender to me receives > > my Divine Grace, and he then realizes the magnificience of My Truth. > > He understands the unimaginable form of My Divine Knowledge and enters > > into Me forever. " > > > > All through the scriptures, it is clearly indicated that the mind has > > to be surrendered to become Divinized. Samkya philosophy is very clear > > on the structure of the mind and it limitations and incapacity to > > perceive the Divine Truth. > > > > I don't mean to down play the glory of the intellect but it has no > > place in that final surrender to God Krishna, Shiva, Vishu or any > > other form of God(ess) that one chooses to worship. The intellect may > > take one far but in the end it has to be surrendered. > > > > That which is mayic has no capacity to be that which is Divine. Since > > Maya is a Divine power, the intellect is not capable of removing it > > from the mind as it is made from the same stuff. How can a mayic thing > > remove maya from itself? Only the Godhead can do that. The soul is > > beyond maya, maya is beyond soul and God is beyond both the soul and > > maya. > > > > Thus, the Vedas teach that the Divine Knowledge is beyond the reach of > > the human senses, human mind and human intelligence. If somebody > > desires to have Divine knowledge, he will only get it through His > > Grace and His Grace alone. > > > > It is very difficult for us to admit that we must surrender the > > intellect, the mind to God. It is in this sense that I say that an > > intellectual is unlikely to give good advice spiritually. Of course > > there are great intellectuals out there and I admire some of them, but > > is it Divine Knowledge? Not at all. It is of the intellect, the mind, > > and may be very intelligent. But mental intelligence is not Divine > > intelligence. > > > > This is how I understand it and it is a beautiful teaching that the > > Vedas offer us. It is difficult to take and even more difficul to > > implement.. i.e., surrender. It is the rare soul that is able to do > > that. It is only through His Mercy and Grace that this can happen for > > us. > > > > HARI OM TAT SAT > > > > Warm Regards, > > Brendan > > Dear Brendan ji and list, > > I hope my words are not taken as being harsh, however clear and > > direct they be. I take your words in good spirit. > > > > >The intellect, try as it may, is incapable of experiencing the > > Divine. Thus, >intellectuals typically have a poor reputation for > > spiritual guidance, whereas >the simple truths, the simple hearted > > people are more likely to see through >the nonsense and offer good > > advice. > > > > Lets not assume that there is no hope for the intellectuals. > > Neither, that the intellect can never experience the Divine as > > Geeta talks about Janana yoga in sufficient detail. > > Ofcourse, an intellectual enquiry is not necessarily a path to > > complexity, rather it is a search towards simplicity. > > Words like " nonsense " and " good advice " are themselves very > > intellectual in nature. Can we really abstain from using intellect > > somehow, if it makes things complex? > > > > >It's as simple as this. The mind is mayic in nature as it is composed > > of the >five tattwas therefore the mind is always wrong when it comes > > to Divine >matters. It only has affinity for the mayic world. > > > > The simplicity of these sentences lies in the nature of knowledge > > that you possess and not in the fact that these are but mere > > intellectual musings, taken in the healthiest sense of the word. > > Nevertheless, we are discussing such knowledge in an intellectual > > manner. I would be pleased to receive it in a much more efficient > > manner, if you agree to give it to me that way. Do you agree? > > > > Lets be very hopeful that you are not considering intellect to be > > a worst tool for revealing God. > > > > >The soul is divine and a spark of God and the soul resides within the > > heart. >Therefore we can ONLY experience God through the heart. The > > emotional >OR feeling OR intuitive capacity of the mind, and each of > > these is a more >refined aspect of the other, is that aspect of the > > mind that relates to the >heart, and by bringing the mind to the heart > > in surrender to HIM, we >transcend the mayic realms. > > > > Whether we can feel God in the heart or not is questionable as > > God transcends all our feelings and measures as derived earlier. Any > > other point of view is very welcome. > > It shouldn't be assumed that the God can only be experienced > > through heart; subject to the sort of constraints that such a view > > puts on these matters. > > > > best regards, > > Nitish > > > > |Om Tat Sat| > > http://www.varahamihira > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2004 Report Share Posted September 19, 2004 || Jaya Jagannath || Dear Partha, You had been one of the avid member of SJC and a keen learner of Jyotish. I donot quite understand what you meant when you say that you are leaving SJC. Please let us know what made you take such a step. I know that you are willing to do more spiritual sadhana and keep yourself away from jyotish for a while. Do let us know when you change your mind, since jyotish world would miss you a lot. Best Wishes Sarajit - Partha Sarathy varahamihira Friday, September 17, 2004 11:46 AM Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya I thought of leaving SJC anyways SarajitI am leaving Now.Good bye for everbest wishespartha-Sarajit Poddar <sarajitThu, 16 Sep 2004 18:49:00 +0800Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Mayavarahamihira || Jaya Jagannath ||Dear Partha,<<once you start using programming language to prove some ridiculous logic.>>The forum, which does not encourage constructive arguement cannot helpin growth of knowledge. If somebody has expressed a thought there mustbe some novelty in it for that person. Please don't use terms suchridiculous to put someone down. If you have something constructive tosay please go ahead, otherwise no need saying. Personal fights anddestructive arguements can hinder discussiong and learning.Best WishesSarajit- Partha Sarathy varahamihira Thursday, September 16, 2004 5:07 PMRe: |Sri Varaha| Musing about MayaDear NitishI really dont want to get into debate, once you start usingprogramming language to prove some ridiculous logic.best wishesparthaOn Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:45:27 +0530, Nitish Arya <nitish.arya wrote:> > Dear Partha,> > Thinking is not a state of Being. When you say i am happy, are you> >"thinking happy" or are you "being happy"? It is a fundamental> >question.> Your first statement is unreasonable and unproved. Because the> second statement is only a necessary condition not sufficient to prove> the first statement. Second statement only means this much that that> persons' thoughts (whom you are referring to) are highly irrelevant> and out of place. If ones' thought doesn> 't represent his state of being, then he is not functioning in his> natural rhythm.> Nevertheless, we are not concerned about the state of beings,> because that doesn't change the beingness of thought, which by default> you have to accept (unless proved otherwise) because you think from> inside of your body!!> > >If you think that there is no other reality than thought,> >then probably you would be in the field of thought only. And never go> >beyond that. And beyond that is GOD.> > Whatever the content of thought, doesn't change the functioning of> thought. If the content of it, is able to affect your emotions,> actions and perceptions then it only reinforces the point that> 'thought is a state of being'.> Whether I think of GOD or not, there is no guarantee anyways that> I will reach GOD. If I don't need guarantee, I think what I think and> I go where I go. It is different issue what I really think!!!> Please don't put so much conviction in your thoughts, else you> create a certainty because of the Law of Karma which is always> functioning.> > >All the meditation schools teach us to open up the two vital chakras....> >....Moksha trikona comprises of 4th, 8th and 12th houses. Reckoning> >naturally all are water signs.> > Dear, you forgot virgo - the preparation part!! and the trines.> > regards,> Nitish> > > -> Partha Sarathy <partvinu> Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:26:51 +0530> Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya> varahamihira > > Dear Nitish> > Thinking is not a state of Being. When you say i am happy, are you> "thinking happy" or are you "being happy"? It is a fundamental> question. If you think that there is no other reality than thought,> then probably you would be in the field of thought only. And never go> beyond that. And beyond that is GOD.> > All the meditation schools teach us to open up the two vital chakras> that is Sahasrara and Anahata. God can only be reached through the> path of heart and not intellect or analysis. You can do all kinds of> speculation, intellectual analysis, you may even discard the simple> facts also, but one day if not today, then someday, if not this life> then some life, you shall surely go through the path of heart. the> Moksha trikona comprises of 4th, 8th and 12th houses. Reckoning> naturally all are water signs.> > Miracles are infact not "miracles for the people performing them", but> miracles for those who do not understand the subtle laws of the> universe. You can also perform miracles, once you get to know the> subtle laws The difference between them and us is the fact that they> know and remember, they are aware, we are not.> best wishes> partha> > On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:42:18 +0530, Nitish Arya <nitish.arya wrote:> > Dear Partha,> > > Because it is a "state of being", and not the "process".> > Thinking is as well a state of being dear partha. Please, think> > about it. Lets not try to make boundaries where there are none.> > There is no other reality than thought, which awaits there to be> > perceived. Whatever you preceive cannot be transcendental and> > therefore made of this same thinking.> >> > > They perform miracles "withouit thinking".> > How convincing!!! Perhaps, there is no need to oppose thought> > with such force. What you think is a miracle is after all a state of> > being of the supreme being, why to put so much emphasis on it.> >> > regards,> > nitish> >> >> >> > -> > Partha Sarathy <partvinu> > Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:48:48 +0530> > Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya> > varahamihira > >> > Dear Brendan Sir And Nitish> >> > Well Said Brendan Sir.> >> > Nitish, the intellect what you are talking about is the intellect that> > can analyse anything which is part of the System. THis intellect> > cannot analyse the programmer that is the God. The program is our> > planes of consciousness, there are various levels to it. Even the> > subtlest of the subtle that is the causal planes is still a part of> > the system. The obsrever is the soul, and soul is made of the the> > divine stuff. It is untouched by any of the functioninalities of the> > program itself. But due to karma the soul is entrapped in the body. If> > you go through the various scriptures, you would get an idea of the> > various constituent elements of the bodie(s). The chit, ahankara,> > manah, the five senses etc etc. That is what many a intellectuals have> > done. They have analysed with profound ability the intricacies of the> > system. But that is only the experience and not the cause itself.> > I may write the program, and you may analyse it, but you can never> > know why the program was written in the first place, unless you come> > from heart. Here heart doesnot mean emotions as you seem to have> > understood. Heart here is the spontaniety of the Bieng. The all> > pervading awareness.> > When a person falls in love, does he think about it? You might have> > thought about the "idea of loving a particular person" but the moment> > comes, when he or she stands right accross the table, in the elevator,> > in the restaurant, just right in front of you, and "SOMETHING hits> > you". It happens so fast, that you might have not even thought about> > it. It is not from the mind, it just "happens". Because it is a "state> > of being", and not the "process".> > Thus when you love, you get a glimpse of Godhood. But most of the> > people can limit that kind of transcdental love only for few persons .> > But some avataars like Jesus. Krishna love everyone with same vision.> > They perform miracles "withouit thinking". Thinking is the slowest> > mode of creation. There is something greater than thinking which makes> > it faster, and that is the being. there is a lot more to it. But your> > understanding of Gyana yogi, is nothing to do with the intellect> > itself. It is more to do with "awareness" of all in ALL.> > best wishes> > partha> >> > -> > bpfeeley <bpfeeley> > Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:53:50 EDT> > Re: |Sri Varaha| Musing about Maya> > varahamihira > >> > In a message dated 09/14/2004 1:47:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,> > nitish.arya writes:> >> > HARI OM TAT SAT> >> > Nitish,> >> > Truth and Bliss are both powers of God. The Gyani is a worshipper of> > Divine Truth, the abstract form of God, and the bhakta is the> > worshipper of the Blissful form of Godhead. Both are worshippers of> > the same God but they worship god for different reasons.> >> > Gyana yoga has nothing to do with the intellect. Yes, the form of> > Divine Truth is Divine Knowledge but that knowledge comes from God not> > the intellect. Only God can reveal that Truth to the Gyani because of> > his merits and capacity to surrender his mind, heart and soul.> >> > The intellect is an object of creation and it is completely identified> > with Maya. Yes, of course we can use our mind intelligently but as> > Krishna says in the Bhagvatam, "The gyani who surrender to me receives> > my Divine Grace, and he then realizes the magnificience of My Truth.> > He understands the unimaginable form of My Divine Knowledge and enters> > into Me forever."> >> > All through the scriptures, it is clearly indicated that the mind has> > to be surrendered to become Divinized. Samkya philosophy is very clear> > on the structure of the mind and it limitations and incapacity to> > perceive the Divine Truth.> >> > I don't mean to down play the glory of the intellect but it has no> > place in that final surrender to God Krishna, Shiva, Vishu or any> > other form of God(ess) that one chooses to worship. The intellect may> > take one far but in the end it has to be surrendered.> >> > That which is mayic has no capacity to be that which is Divine. Since> > Maya is a Divine power, the intellect is not capable of removing it> > from the mind as it is made from the same stuff. How can a mayic thing> > remove maya from itself? Only the Godhead can do that. The soul is> > beyond maya, maya is beyond soul and God is beyond both the soul and> > maya.> >> > Thus, the Vedas teach that the Divine Knowledge is beyond the reach of> > the human senses, human mind and human intelligence. If somebody> > desires to have Divine knowledge, he will only get it through His> > Grace and His Grace alone.> >> > It is very difficult for us to admit that we must surrender the> > intellect, the mind to God. It is in this sense that I say that an> > intellectual is unlikely to give good advice spiritually. Of course> > there are great intellectuals out there and I admire some of them, but> > is it Divine Knowledge? Not at all. It is of the intellect, the mind,> > and may be very intelligent. But mental intelligence is not Divine> > intelligence.> >> > This is how I understand it and it is a beautiful teaching that the> > Vedas offer us. It is difficult to take and even more difficul to> > implement.. i.e., surrender. It is the rare soul that is able to do> > that. It is only through His Mercy and Grace that this can happen for> > us.> >> > HARI OM TAT SAT> >> > Warm Regards,> > Brendan> > Dear Brendan ji and list,> > I hope my words are not taken as being harsh, however clear and> > direct they be. I take your words in good spirit.> >> > >The intellect, try as it may, is incapable of experiencing the> > Divine. Thus, >intellectuals typically have a poor reputation for> > spiritual guidance, whereas >the simple truths, the simple hearted> > people are more likely to see through >the nonsense and offer good> > advice.> >> > Lets not assume that there is no hope for the intellectuals.> > Neither, that the intellect can never experience the Divine as> > Geeta talks about Janana yoga in sufficient detail.> > Ofcourse, an intellectual enquiry is not necessarily a path to> > complexity, rather it is a search towards simplicity.> > Words like "nonsense" and "good advice" are themselves very> > intellectual in nature. Can we really abstain from using intellect> > somehow, if it makes things complex?> >> > >It's as simple as this. The mind is mayic in nature as it is composed> > of the >five tattwas therefore the mind is always wrong when it comes> > to Divine >matters. It only has affinity for the mayic world.> >> > The simplicity of these sentences lies in the nature of knowledge> > that you possess and not in the fact that these are but mere> > intellectual musings, taken in the healthiest sense of the word.> > Nevertheless, we are discussing such knowledge in an intellectual> > manner. I would be pleased to receive it in a much more efficient> > manner, if you agree to give it to me that way. Do you agree?> >> > Lets be very hopeful that you are not considering intellect to be> > a worst tool for revealing God.> >> > >The soul is divine and a spark of God and the soul resides within the> > heart. >Therefore we can ONLY experience God through the heart. The> > emotional >OR feeling OR intuitive capacity of the mind, and each of> > these is a more >refined aspect of the other, is that aspect of the> > mind that relates to the >heart, and by bringing the mind to the heart> > in surrender to HIM, we >transcend the mayic realms.> >> > Whether we can feel God in the heart or not is questionable as> > God transcends all our feelings and measures as derived earlier. Any> > other point of view is very welcome.> > It shouldn't be assumed that the God can only be experienced> > through heart; subject to the sort of constraints that such a view> > puts on these matters.> >> > best regards,> > Nitish> >> > |Om Tat Sat|> > http://www.varahamihira> >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2004 Report Share Posted September 20, 2004 Pardon me for not reading the whole thread of replies as well as counter replies. First, amongst all, we need to understand that the notion of deva, devatas, brahma, eshwara etc are antithetical to that of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Our deva, devatas, raakshasas, brahma etc, naastikas(but not western atheists, who are secularized christians, and whose experience is nowhere closer to that of Indian naastikas) do seek enlightement, unlike the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Not only that. The road of Enlightenment in Indian traditions does not go thru Jerusalem. That is to say, Enlightenment in Indian traditions depends on individual efforts, but not on the Grace of God of Abraham etc. It is one thing that modern Indians are semitized to the extent that they dont need to accept Jesus as messiah; Bible as the Good word. But the experience of modern Indian is closer to that of a Christian. On maaya: The semitic religions that Christianity, Islam, Judaim are claim that the World is Purpose of a being, and they call such being as Lord God/Allah. Humans, by their invidual efforts alone, cant know what such purpose is. So, such Being has to interfere in human communities to reveal his purpose. Such purpose is called RELIGION-- empirically speaking. Given there is only one cosmos, there should be only one purpose. Thats why there should be only one religion-- which is True. Where are our traditions, where Semitic religions. Just reflect on this, instead of trying to understand semities in our framework. It is a matter of empirical history that Semites havent understood both pagans of Greece and Rome and those of India, and vice versa. All semitic religions claim that actions are instantiations of will/purpose/beliefs. Such meta-assumption is typical Judeo-christian theme, but not of Greeco-Roman Pagans or of Indian pagans. Our traditions answer the question: what experience is. They also discovered that our experience is not veridical; for instance, we continue to experience that sun is moving around earth. But such experience is necessary, because of earth's movement around sun. Just because one experiences the world in certain way does not mean that the structure of the world should be how one perceives to be. Much the same way, we do experience that humans are intentional. Such experience is necessary, but not veridical. Here Indian traditions step in, and answer in the way Galileo's theory does: how such non-veridical(illusory) experience reproduces; how to get rid of such illusion; and so on. In other words, maaya, ajnana, avidya are of cognitive categories. They are not esoteric--much less exotic, except to the eyes of semites and colonized Indians that succumb to the descriptions given by first muslims and next by Christians of Indian traditions. And we took over their descriptions, and seeing our traditions the way the west and semites do. For more on this, check the forthcoming paper by a Philosopher of Natural Sciences, SN Balagangadhara, " India and Her Traditions: An Agenda for the future " In a way, Indian traditions are sciences on certain aspects of the beings that we humans are. After all, Bhakti traditions have been seen to be religious, but they are not religious. Bhakti traditions do counter semitic meta-belief: that actions are instantiations of will/belief/purpose. 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.