Guest guest Posted January 28, 2010 Report Share Posted January 28, 2010 Dear Kunal, Your posts are interesting. They are dissolving the boundaries between Guruji, You (post is addressed to Guruji, then who is the You), me (that is the me you mentioned as Kunal, and not me as MS). By the way, only Guruji teaches. But dont you think that Everyone is a learner and teacher from one perspective or another. English, as Sanjayji said, comes poor when scriptures have to be translated. Perhaps "No Mind" is not the right translation. Like, if a person goes "Out of Mind", what does it mean? He/She has crossed the boundaries of the 'normal' Mind. Does having a "No Mind" (like that of Buddha) will mean being "Mindless"? [not asking, just exemplifying]. Concepts come to Mind, i think, but you say that "mind is a concept" or may be i said it earlier, but from the view that thoughts arise in mind and organise to form virews and concepts. But, from the view that there is something called the "No Mind", then this concept should have a coutner part called the "Mind". Concepts like "Mind" and "No Mind"; I and That, will be formed in the Mind. Like I said in another mail here, may be the words "That" and "No Mind" may not be the apropriate words to be used for the indescribable. I would quote again, "the Tao that is the real Tao cannot be described in words". Perhaps one can appreciate it's essence but cannot articulate all its apects in even in many scriptures. When we are talking of That, No Mind and the "hint" and the "reality", then we actually know what we are talikng about, but when put through the mind's eye, it is creating duality like "Real vs. Non Real"; "Mind" vs "No Mind" etc etc. Now, doesnt That Real actually encompass the I and NonReal; both of which are part of that Whole (another word!). We say world is non-real but That is Real and whatever. That which can be percieved belongs to domain of Mind and that which remains and encompasses Mind is the No-Mind. Only when the boundary dissolves, everything seems One...but since there is something called as One, there might be something called as Many. Are One and Many actually the Same (One manifesting as Many) or Different: answer: depends on the perspective of the Mind and/or the Reality. If Many arises or is a part of Whole, then arent both Real? why then we should term the world as Unreal? Someone made that symbol of snake with it's tail in it's mouth. All that (like world, us), that seems to start at one point and seems to end at another is actually Ending at the Origin of It All. So what is That: the Origin or the End? Answer can be "Both", since there was a point of origin, then everything went one way and retured to end there; but answer can also be "Neither" - since if it is Origin, how can it be an end, and vice versa, courtesy: the Mind. Ok, let's spare Tulasi from the "subject". Perhaps it would interest Tijana too, wrt the Ouroboros :-) May be, we should bring some technical Jyotisha into the thread. Like how does one tell from the chart how much of Mind and No Mind can a person percieve - my jyotish-gyana is rudimentary. mysticalsense.The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong. Carl Jung. sohamsa , "Utkarsh" <utkarsh_vaggbhav wrote:>> > Respected Guru ji,> > Sadar Pranam!> > While Guru ji was answering, You were writing to teach me. It was> addressed to Guru ji and Guru ji has answered. I try to think over and> learn from what is written and what is hinted!> > The concept of No Mind can not be conceived by Mind! How can Mind> create/conceive something which is beyond it? It can only be realised > if one leaves Mind and hence the world of Duality behind! We can't> understand what the Rishis tried to make us understand fully by thinking> over, but we can get some hint…and that is what they, who realised> it, wanted, to atleast give us some hint!> > Now comes the work of Mind towards the attainment of that ideal of No> Mind. In other words, Gyan Yoga! It will take me far beyond. But then at> the last step/crossing, I need the grace of That which is "Neither" and> "Both" at the same time! So, Kali, the eterneal destroyer> destroys/dissolves Herself!> > I experience Shiva/Myself! Shivoham! Sohamasmi!> > But I may have to come back and so, Kali, the eternal Creatrix> recreates Herself and starts dancing over Shiva. The world of Duality> has returned and now I try to explain That, in terms of Mind, and> discover words and phrases like Advaita and No Mind. I, now, KNOW that> "No Mind" never needed to Arise, as it was always present, inside me> and I, in it. The Sun was always there, the only thing is that clouds of> my Ignorance din't let me see it. The only thing that changed is that> now I have realized it! Now I Am Realized. But now I see everything in> me and myself in everything, so I may try to help/raise my other> Selves, but as No Mind can't be understood with Mind, so I try to hint> them, and show them the way.> > How can there be any duality between one that is Shashwat and the one> that never existed?! Mind is a "concept" , No Mind is "Reality". But> this is talking in absolute terms. Suppose, I try to compare them> understanding their relative importance, then first I'll need to> conceive "No Mind" mentally, which is not possible, so the whole> exercise is futile?! So I'll try to imbibe as much as I can from the> Hints given by my Gurus and walk the path laid down for me. The words> "No Mind" is a hint and That which is hinted, is Reality?!> > > > > Shishyawat,> Kunal.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 Dear Tijana, Sadhana (like moksha) can be a relative to the context. Eric Berne's TA, on personal front, can be used as a sadhana of expressing one's thoughts, emotions etc. or we can say, communicating, in a "detached" way. Combine it with NLP and it gets more effective. Archetype (CJ) of Communication: Lord Krishna. mysticalsense.The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong. Carl Jung. sohamsa , "tijana" <tijanadamjanovic wrote:>> Hello Mysticalsense!> > Thank you for elaborating some crucial points.> To be able to move in a direction that could bring useful insights in this exchange, I kindly request to decide on which concept we`ll discuss (dvaita or advaita), first or only. > You have raised a crucial question - do id, ego and super ego belong to mana or Viveka...If only western psychology knew about this - it would be a revolution.> I base my understanding on Adishankara`s teaching, and Viveka chudamani gives answers to questions rasied (I`m sure you know this). We could go through the slokas anytime and clearly see how he differentiates Mana, Viveka, Ahamkar. > But what I personally lack is self-understanding or experience in sadhana that only can give differentiation. > When it comes to psychology I follow the teaching of Eric Bern and TA method.> If you find this acceptable, I hope we can continue, now or some other time. > Warm regards,> Tijana> > > sohamsa , "mysticalsense" sensemystical@ wrote:> >> > > > Hello Tijana,> > > > Please see below:> > > > > > sohamsa , "tijana" <tijanadamjanovic@> wrote:> > >> > >> > >> > > Dear mysticalsense,> > > Few possible answers and some points bellow...> > >> > > sohamsa , "mysticalsense" sensemystical@ wrote:> > > >> > > >> > > > Dear Sudhir,> > > >> > > > Are we really in a position to offer something to the 'One' Who> > actually> > > > has given us Life?> > >> > > Tijana: Yes. But only after we find out why He has given us a Life.> > > > MS: there can be many views here some of which are:> > > > we will tend to offer (things - puja offering or any other services) to> > That if we think that We and That are 'not one'.> > > > once we realise that we are a part of the That Whole, then we will think> > that our services will be (offered) to The Whole.> > > > If you say that we can offer only after we find why he has given us a> > Life, then does that mean that we cannot/should not consider offering> > anything until "we" come to know the purpose of our life?> > > > > > > >> > > > In true sense, we can only Ask. or should we actually ask - doesnt> > > > He/She already know what we need?> > >> > > Tijana: He/She does, but we don`t.> > > > MS: agreed. we just think of our immediate needs - He/She knows the> > purpose of our Existence. Further, please see below:> > >> > > Do 'We' really exist?> > >> > > Tijana: We certainly do.> > > > MS: 'we' exist so long as 'we' think that 'we are separate from 'That'.> > After realisation of Oneness of 'That' and 'we', we can appreciate that> > it is 'That' that is all there is.> > > > something like dissoluiton of Ego and merger into the Absolute.> > > > now see what happens - below...> > >> > > > > > > Or is it only 'That' which exists as manifold?> > >> > > Tijana: `That` would be Those or These in that case and not That.> > > > MS: 'That' again is the concept in the mind which exists so long as> > there is the appreciation of duality between 'we' and 'That'.> > > > the "That" that is translated from Tat-Tvamasi is not the That of the> > ThisORThat, but the Whole That is: where ther is no boudary between 'we'> > and 'that'.> > > > Sanjayji said somewhere, when it comes to translating, English may not> > be the right language. You see, the statements i have tried to> > articulate above would seem quite contradictory between themsleves.> > > > It is said that the Tao that is the real Tao cannot be described in> > words. Much of the same is said about "God" like: what God is, cannot be> > explained in words, He/She is beyond description.> > > > > >> > > > One Mind, many Views.> > > >> > > > mysticalsense.> > > >> > > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not> > > > between right and wrong. Carl Jung.> > >> > > I`m curious to know how Jung helps. Duality is being created from> > delusive perception of linear +/- axis spreading from the zero point and> > subconscious (unawareness) and not Awareness is the one responsible for> > creating experience of positive and negative. Both sense and nonsense,> > right and wrong are wrong...But this leads to insanity.> > > > Those who look at the world from dvaita perspective, see duality> > everywhere [i vs That; Shiva-Shakti etc.] those who see the world from> > Advaita perspective, see everything as One. Can it be said who of the> > two is right? They call themselves right from the perspective that makes> > sense to them. Both perspectives can make sense from a third> > perspective! What you said above is your perspective and makes sense to> > you and will make sense to many others. When we say 'right' we assume> > exitence of 'wrong', and vice versa. So when u r saying 'wrong', it may> > be implied that there is something else which you think is 'right'.> > > > We are making the mind Master. The mind must be made a slave, not of ego> > and superego (I find Freud much more precise when it comes to defining> > structure of mind) and here only I give a credit to psychology.> > > There is no end to mind even though there are limits to it. Bindu and> > nada, Shiva and Shakti are the only Two who are One.> > > > That particular statement from CJ is (to me) simply as an indicator that> > the field of Mind's working is Limited. From the Mind's perspective, the> > world (our world as we understnad it - Cognitive Perception) depends on> > what sense we make of it.> > > > the issue happens when 'what we think is sense to us' is being termed by> > us as 'right'.> > > > Discriminating between Right and Wrong comes in as a function of the> > SuperEgo that enforces on the individual as to what is to be followed> > and what is not to be followed (that perhaps is equivalent to what> > society or humanity decides collectively as Dharma - sets of rules and> > regulations about life) - like today, gays are being accepted more> > openly, in some societies that others, and as compared to previous> > times. So individuals, accordingly, may have less inhibition or guilt> > feeling in this matter in coming times. Now, whether the given example> > falls in "Right or Wrong" domain of discusson or in "Sense or Nonsense"> > domain, can further be debated (elsewhere i suppose, not in this forum)> > or we may see that it encompasses both.> > > > Now, what i would be interested in knowing is that where is the faculty> > of "Viveka" located in us?> > > > We do use the term vivek-buddhi. So, is this vivek-buddhi originating in> > the mind, or does it come from elsewhere and influence the mind - much> > like emotions from the mana or desires from the Id may be influencing> > the Mind, making it's pendulum sway between making sense or non-sense> > out of it. The viveka-buddhi may be under influence from super-ego, but> > if a person's sense of Ego is stronger, then that person may bring> > revolutionary chagnes in society or atleast follow his/her ways against> > the rules of society. Over a period of time, such ways (of this person)> > may become a norm in the society ( super-ego has undergone change - as> > has the archetype).> > > > Are Id, Ego, SuperEgo and Vivek-buddhi, all parts of Mind? Then perhaps> > Vivek-buddhi is the pendulum that swings between 'thisORthat'. May be> > someone could also coin a statement like "the pendulum of the mana> > swings between Id and SuperEgo". Freud should have done that - actually,> > he did that in his theories, just didnt write that statement :-) And may> > be he didnt differentiate between mana and mind.> > > > (like english translations say - karaka for Mind is Moon!! now, do> > emotions arise in mind or in mana? you know the answer).> > > > You will appreciate, that we cannot demarcate boundaries between Jungian> > ways and Fruedian ways in "either this wayor that way" manner. These> > 2 methods and may be others too like Gestalt can (should) be used in a> > complementary way, seeing which is applicable where, how and how much.> > e.g. Desires arises from Id, super-ego tries to put a reign to it, but> > Mind of the individual keeps swinging to make sense out of it that> > whether the desire should be gratified or whether the rules of society> > or inner conciousness be followed. What manifests may still not make> > sense to the mind or may not make sense to the superego. CJ, SF etc all> > had their 'veiws' about the 'mind', and these veiws and those of others> > that followed (i think you will agree) are in no way the absolute> > correct ways, some explain somethings better that the others, and each> > veiw has it's limitations. The 'archetypes' (of CJ) may be an outgrowth> > of the 'superego' (of SF) at the 'collective consciousness' level (of> > CJ) vs 'individual' level (of SF). The view (CJ, SF ) that one thinks> > is applicable will thus depend on whether at the given moment the> > individual needs to be looked as and Individual or a part of that> > Collective Whole. Both views are nevertheless applicable to the same> > individual, in some conditions in a complementary way, in other> > conditions one at a time.> > > > Study of psychology, to me, provides another way about understanding of> > what the scriptures are saying about the human wrt desires, I, That,> > consciousness, ego etc.> > > > U said that: Both sense and nonsense, right and wrong are wrong...But> > this leads to insanity.> > > > > > > > U said that: The mind must be made a slave, not of ego and superego> > > > The scriptures say as well that mind should be mastered, and i could> > agree no lesser. The statement from CJ just reminds me of just that -> > i.e. one should not be a slave to the swinging of the mind's pendulum -> > between ego-superego, this-that, I-That, sense-nonsense, karma-destiny,> > etc etc. It is no weightier a statement, than those, if any, about> > swinging between Id-Superego or between ego-superego from wherever they> > came from, including SF or Tijana or anyone who studies these> > perspectives :-)> > > > > e> Warm regards> > > Tijana> > > > Nice discussing all this with you.> > > > mysticalsense.> > > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not> > between right and wrong. Carl Jung.> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > sohamsa , "sudhir_panda_bbsr"> > > > <sudhir_panda_bbsr@> wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Hello Sir,> > > > >> > > > > This is an interesting discussion. In a small village near Puri,> > where> > > > I was born, people regularly offer Champaka to Shiva linga. Many> > people> > > > offer multiple of 108 Champakas when their wishes are fulfilled. I> > am> > > > not sure about other places in India, but this practice is also seen> > in> > > > several other parts of Odisha.> > > > >> > > > > I cannot exactly remember where (I think it was in Pune) but once> > a> > > > pandit has asked me to offer Tulasi on Shiva linga during a> > > > rudrabhiseka.> > > > >> > > > > Thanks and regards,> > > > > Sudhir> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > sohamsa , "mysticalsense" sensemystical@> > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear SR,> > > > > >> > > > > > It can also be inferred that since the Atman in us is the Shiva> > and> > > > > > the rest of what we are made of is Shakti/Girija (ref:> > > > > > AdiShankaracharya's kriti: Atmaa tvaM girijaa matiH sahachrAhA;> > and> > > > > > Shiva Purana); then we should neither be consuming tulasi nor> > > > wearing> > > > > > it, as in essence we just end up offering it to Shiva+Shakti,> > since> > > > > > consuming it will put it into the Shakti part and wearing it> > will be> > > > > > around the body that houses the Atman that is the Spark of> > Shiva.> > > > > >> > > > > > oh ho but who is sustaining this body and the universe...Vishnu?> > so> > > > > > where is Vishnu if everything is Shiva+Shakti....and so on and> > so> > > > forth,> > > > > > then someone learned with Vishnu Purana will say, it is Vishnu> > that> > > > > > manifests as everything...so the 2 parties keep fighting about> > who> > > > is> > > > > > superior and what should be offered to whom.> > > > > >> > > > > > Coming back to Shiva Purana, why would Shiva Purana be talking> > about> > > > > > offering Tulasi to Shiva in general or under special> > circumstances?> > > > > >> > > > > > e.g. ShivaPurana: Rudra Samhita: Chapter 14: talks of offering> > > > Tulasi to> > > > > > Shiva ( Shloka 28 ), among benefits of offering other articles> > like> > > > > > bilva, bandhuka, nirgundi etc. this chapter 14 explicit in> > saying> > > > that> > > > > > ketaki and champaka are prohibited (and reasons to same are> > given in> > > > > > other parts of Shiva Purana). Please can you point the reference> > > > from> > > > > > Shiva Purana or elsewhere which says that "Only on Shiva ratri> > is> > > > tulasi> > > > > > offered to Shiva and Bilva offered to Vishnu." or is that an> > > > inference> > > > > > (or a tradition being followed)?> > > > > >> > > > > > mysticalsense.> > > > > >> > > > > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense,> > not> > > > > > between right and wrong. Carl Jung.> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > sohamsa , "Sanjay Rath" <sanjayrath@>> > wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > om gurave namah> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Dear Kunal Nath> > > > > > >> > > > > > > That is 100% correct. Only on Shiva ratri is tulasi offered to> > > > Shiva> > > > > > and Bilva offered to Vishnu. This is taught after the battle> > between> > > > > > Brahma and Vishnu in the Vidyesvara samhita of Shiva purana. For> > > > > > Shivaratri is the day when the Atma linga (pillar of light) was> > > > > > witnessed as the manifestation of Shiva by them. It was on this> > day> > > > that> > > > > > Shiva granted the boon of equivalence to Vishnu and forgiveness> > to> > > > > > Brahma for his sins. Therefore those who have lied and sinned in> > the> > > > > > year go to Shiva with the Ketaki flower (only offered on this> > day)> > > > and> > > > > > while offering it, they CONFESS their sin. This confession with> > > > Ketaki> > > > > > as witness leads to forgiveness and change. This is pracised in> > all> > > > > > Orissa temples even today.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Best Wishes> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Sanjay Rath> > > > > > >> > > > > > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road, New Delhi 110060, India; +91 (011)> > > > 4504> > > > > > 8762> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Readings: www.srath.com; Courses: www.sohamsa.com; Books:> > > > > > www.sagittariuspublications.com; Community: www..org> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > sohamsa [sohamsa ]> > On> > > > > > Behalf Of utkarsh_vaggbhav> > > > > > > 26 December 2009 03:06 AM> > > > > > > sohamsa > > > > > > > Re: Tulasi: Either or Both?> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Respected sir,> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I don't know the technical reason as to why Tulasi is not> > offered> > > > to> > > > > > Shiva, but I know that we shouldn't...!! Actually sometimes ago,> > I> > > > used> > > > > > to offer Tulasi to Shiv Linga, but later I came to know that I> > > > > > shouldn't, so I stopped that. Now while I didn't face any> > problems> > > > > > because of that, I know of people who had problems due to that> > > > > > only..like a friend of mine had kept shiva linga at the Tulasi> > Pindi> > > > and> > > > > > used to pour water over it...needless to say, his "general time> > and> > > > > > growth" suffered!> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Also it wouldn't be out of place to mention that once a year,> > on> > > > > > Mahashivaratri, Tulasi is offered to Baba Vaidyanath in> > Jharkhand,> > > > and> > > > > > if my memory doesn't fail me, Bel Patra to Vishnu ji.. It is a> > > > practice> > > > > > being followed since God knows when, but it is right for that> > place> > > > at> > > > > > that time...> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Though it is slightly off the topic, but let me add few more> > > > > > words...the same deity may change his/her bhava from place to> > > > place..so> > > > > > even as there are generalities as mentioned in scriptures, there> > are> > > > > > local/specific differences..to alter that is possible only for> > > > people> > > > > > like Adi Shankaracharya..Now the reasons behind this phenomenon> > can> > > > be> > > > > > many and unexplainable...Our own bhavas over a period of> > time(like> > > > > > bhavas of Bhaktas or of very evolved souls) somehow affects the> > > > bhava of> > > > > > deity too...> > > > > > >> > > > > > > So I think if I have to offer something to Shiva ji, I'll> > offer> > > > Bel> > > > > > Patra..But suppose You r really in love with Him and have been> > > > > > worshipping Him with Tulasi all your life, if I happen to come> > to> > > > your> > > > > > house, I'll make it a point that I offer some Tulasi to Shiv Ji> > :-)> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Sincerely,> > > > > > > Kunal Nath.> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 Dear Mysticalsense, No, it cannot be used as sadhana. Expressing thoughts and emotions is not understanding their seed. So nakshatramsa is focus. No one can penetrate it nor go beyond it with what we call rational thinking. Meditation on Lord Krishna is not TA in any sense. Why would you advise NLP to anyone if there is Vipaasana. Warm regards, Tijana sohamsa , " mysticalsense " <sensemystical wrote: > > > > Dear Tijana, > > Sadhana (like moksha) can be a relative to the context. > > Eric Berne's TA, on personal front, can be used as a sadhana of > expressing one's thoughts, emotions etc. or we can say, communicating, > in a " detached " way. Combine it with NLP and it gets more effective. > > Archetype (CJ) of Communication: Lord Krishna. > > mysticalsense. > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not > between right and wrong. Carl Jung. > > sohamsa , " tijana " <tijanadamjanovic@> wrote: > > > > Hello Mysticalsense! > > > > Thank you for elaborating some crucial points. > > To be able to move in a direction that could bring useful insights in > this exchange, I kindly request to decide on which concept we`ll discuss > (dvaita or advaita), first or only. > > You have raised a crucial question - do id, ego and super ego belong > to mana or Viveka...If only western psychology knew about this - it > would be a revolution. > > I base my understanding on Adishankara`s teaching, and Viveka > chudamani gives answers to questions rasied (I`m sure you know this). We > could go through the slokas anytime and clearly see how he > differentiates Mana, Viveka, Ahamkar. > > But what I personally lack is self-understanding or experience in > sadhana that only can give differentiation. > > When it comes to psychology I follow the teaching of Eric Bern and TA > method. > > If you find this acceptable, I hope we can continue, now or some other > time. > > Warm regards, > > Tijana > > > > > > sohamsa , " mysticalsense " sensemystical@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello Tijana, > > > > > > Please see below: > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , " tijana " <tijanadamjanovic@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear mysticalsense, > > > > Few possible answers and some points bellow... > > > > > > > > sohamsa , " mysticalsense " sensemystical@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sudhir, > > > > > > > > > > Are we really in a position to offer something to the 'One' Who > > > actually > > > > > has given us Life? > > > > > > > > Tijana: Yes. But only after we find out why He has given us a > Life. > > > > > > MS: there can be many views here some of which are: > > > > > > we will tend to offer (things - puja offering or any other services) > to > > > That if we think that We and That are 'not one'. > > > > > > once we realise that we are a part of the That Whole, then we will > think > > > that our services will be (offered) to The Whole. > > > > > > If you say that we can offer only after we find why he has given us > a > > > Life, then does that mean that we cannot/should not consider > offering > > > anything until " we " come to know the purpose of our life? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In true sense, we can only Ask. or should we actually ask - > doesnt > > > > > He/She already know what we need? > > > > > > > > Tijana: He/She does, but we don`t. > > > > > > MS: agreed. we just think of our immediate needs - He/She knows the > > > purpose of our Existence. Further, please see below: > > > > > > > > Do 'We' really exist? > > > > > > > > Tijana: We certainly do. > > > > > > MS: 'we' exist so long as 'we' think that 'we are separate from > 'That'. > > > After realisation of Oneness of 'That' and 'we', we can appreciate > that > > > it is 'That' that is all there is. > > > > > > something like dissoluiton of Ego and merger into the Absolute. > > > > > > now see what happens - below... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or is it only 'That' which exists as manifold? > > > > > > > > Tijana: `That` would be Those or These in that case and not That. > > > > > > MS: 'That' again is the concept in the mind which exists so long as > > > there is the appreciation of duality between 'we' and 'That'. > > > > > > the " That " that is translated from Tat-Tvamasi is not the That of > the > > > ThisORThat, but the Whole That is: where ther is no boudary between > 'we' > > > and 'that'. > > > > > > Sanjayji said somewhere, when it comes to translating, English may > not > > > be the right language. You see, the statements i have tried to > > > articulate above would seem quite contradictory between themsleves. > > > > > > It is said that the Tao that is the real Tao cannot be described in > > > words. Much of the same is said about " God " like: what God is, > cannot be > > > explained in words, He/She is beyond description. > > > > > > > > > > > > > One Mind, many Views. > > > > > > > > > > mysticalsense. > > > > > > > > > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, > not > > > > > between right and wrong. Carl Jung. > > > > > > > > I`m curious to know how Jung helps. Duality is being created from > > > delusive perception of linear +/- axis spreading from the zero point > and > > > subconscious (unawareness) and not Awareness is the one responsible > for > > > creating experience of positive and negative. Both sense and > nonsense, > > > right and wrong are wrong...But this leads to insanity. > > > > > > Those who look at the world from dvaita perspective, see duality > > > everywhere [i vs That; Shiva-Shakti etc.] those who see the world > from > > > Advaita perspective, see everything as One. Can it be said who of > the > > > two is right? They call themselves right from the perspective that > makes > > > sense to them. Both perspectives can make sense from a third > > > perspective! What you said above is your perspective and makes sense > to > > > you and will make sense to many others. When we say 'right' we > assume > > > exitence of 'wrong', and vice versa. So when u r saying 'wrong', it > may > > > be implied that there is something else which you think is 'right'. > > > > > > We are making the mind Master. The mind must be made a slave, not of > ego > > > and superego (I find Freud much more precise when it comes to > defining > > > structure of mind) and here only I give a credit to psychology. > > > > There is no end to mind even though there are limits to it. Bindu > and > > > nada, Shiva and Shakti are the only Two who are One. > > > > > > That particular statement from CJ is (to me) simply as an indicator > that > > > the field of Mind's working is Limited. From the Mind's perspective, > the > > > world (our world as we understnad it - Cognitive Perception) depends > on > > > what sense we make of it. > > > > > > the issue happens when 'what we think is sense to us' is being > termed by > > > us as 'right'. > > > > > > Discriminating between Right and Wrong comes in as a function of the > > > SuperEgo that enforces on the individual as to what is to be > followed > > > and what is not to be followed (that perhaps is equivalent to what > > > society or humanity decides collectively as Dharma - sets of rules > and > > > regulations about life) - like today, gays are being accepted more > > > openly, in some societies that others, and as compared to previous > > > times. So individuals, accordingly, may have less inhibition or > guilt > > > feeling in this matter in coming times. Now, whether the given > example > > > falls in " Right or Wrong " domain of discusson or in " Sense or > Nonsense " > > > domain, can further be debated (elsewhere i suppose, not in this > forum) > > > or we may see that it encompasses both. > > > > > > Now, what i would be interested in knowing is that where is the > faculty > > > of " Viveka " located in us? > > > > > > We do use the term vivek-buddhi. So, is this vivek-buddhi > originating in > > > the mind, or does it come from elsewhere and influence the mind - > much > > > like emotions from the mana or desires from the Id may be > influencing > > > the Mind, making it's pendulum sway between making sense or > non-sense > > > out of it. The viveka-buddhi may be under influence from super-ego, > but > > > if a person's sense of Ego is stronger, then that person may bring > > > revolutionary chagnes in society or atleast follow his/her ways > against > > > the rules of society. Over a period of time, such ways (of this > person) > > > may become a norm in the society ( super-ego has undergone change - > as > > > has the archetype). > > > > > > Are Id, Ego, SuperEgo and Vivek-buddhi, all parts of Mind? Then > perhaps > > > Vivek-buddhi is the pendulum that swings between 'thisORthat'. May > be > > > someone could also coin a statement like " the pendulum of the mana > > > swings between Id and SuperEgo " . Freud should have done that - > actually, > > > he did that in his theories, just didnt write that statement :-) And > may > > > be he didnt differentiate between mana and mind. > > > > > > (like english translations say - karaka for Mind is Moon!! now, do > > > emotions arise in mind or in mana? you know the answer). > > > > > > You will appreciate, that we cannot demarcate boundaries between > Jungian > > > ways and Fruedian ways in " either this way " " or that way " manner. > These > > > 2 methods and may be others too like Gestalt can (should) be used in > a > > > complementary way, seeing which is applicable where, how and how > much. > > > e.g. Desires arises from Id, super-ego tries to put a reign to it, > but > > > Mind of the individual keeps swinging to make sense out of it that > > > whether the desire should be gratified or whether the rules of > society > > > or inner conciousness be followed. What manifests may still not make > > > sense to the mind or may not make sense to the superego. CJ, SF etc > all > > > had their 'veiws' about the 'mind', and these veiws and those of > others > > > that followed (i think you will agree) are in no way the absolute > > > correct ways, some explain somethings better that the others, and > each > > > veiw has it's limitations. The 'archetypes' (of CJ) may be an > outgrowth > > > of the 'superego' (of SF) at the 'collective consciousness' level > (of > > > CJ) vs 'individual' level (of SF). The view (CJ, SF ) that one > thinks > > > is applicable will thus depend on whether at the given moment the > > > individual needs to be looked as and Individual or a part of that > > > Collective Whole. Both views are nevertheless applicable to the same > > > individual, in some conditions in a complementary way, in other > > > conditions one at a time. > > > > > > Study of psychology, to me, provides another way about understanding > of > > > what the scriptures are saying about the human wrt desires, I, That, > > > consciousness, ego etc. > > > > > > U said that: Both sense and nonsense, right and wrong are > wrong...But > > > this leads to insanity. > > > > > > > > > > > > U said that: The mind must be made a slave, not of ego and superego > > > > > > The scriptures say as well that mind should be mastered, and i could > > > agree no lesser. The statement from CJ just reminds me of just that > - > > > i.e. one should not be a slave to the swinging of the mind's > pendulum - > > > between ego-superego, this-that, I-That, sense-nonsense, > karma-destiny, > > > etc etc. It is no weightier a statement, than those, if any, about > > > swinging between Id-Superego or between ego-superego from wherever > they > > > came from, including SF or Tijana or anyone who studies these > > > perspectives :-) > > > > > > > e> Warm regards > > > > Tijana > > > > > > Nice discussing all this with you. > > > > > > mysticalsense. > > > > > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not > > > between right and wrong. Carl Jung. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , " sudhir_panda_bbsr " > > > > > <sudhir_panda_bbsr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Sir, > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an interesting discussion. In a small village near > Puri, > > > where > > > > > I was born, people regularly offer Champaka to Shiva linga. Many > > > people > > > > > offer multiple of 108 Champakas when their wishes are fulfilled. > I > > > am > > > > > not sure about other places in India, but this practice is also > seen > > > in > > > > > several other parts of Odisha. > > > > > > > > > > > > I cannot exactly remember where (I think it was in Pune) but > once > > > a > > > > > pandit has asked me to offer Tulasi on Shiva linga during a > > > > > rudrabhiseka. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and regards, > > > > > > Sudhir > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , " mysticalsense " sensemystical@ > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear SR, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It can also be inferred that since the Atman in us is the > Shiva > > > and > > > > > > > the rest of what we are made of is Shakti/Girija (ref: > > > > > > > AdiShankaracharya's kriti: Atmaa tvaM girijaa matiH > sahachrAhA; > > > and > > > > > > > Shiva Purana); then we should neither be consuming tulasi > nor > > > > > wearing > > > > > > > it, as in essence we just end up offering it to > Shiva+Shakti, > > > since > > > > > > > consuming it will put it into the Shakti part and wearing it > > > will be > > > > > > > around the body that houses the Atman that is the Spark of > > > Shiva. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oh ho but who is sustaining this body and the > universe...Vishnu? > > > so > > > > > > > where is Vishnu if everything is Shiva+Shakti....and so on > and > > > so > > > > > forth, > > > > > > > then someone learned with Vishnu Purana will say, it is > Vishnu > > > that > > > > > > > manifests as everything...so the 2 parties keep fighting > about > > > who > > > > > is > > > > > > > superior and what should be offered to whom. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Coming back to Shiva Purana, why would Shiva Purana be > talking > > > about > > > > > > > offering Tulasi to Shiva in general or under special > > > circumstances? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > e.g. ShivaPurana: Rudra Samhita: Chapter 14: talks of > offering > > > > > Tulasi to > > > > > > > Shiva ( Shloka 28 ), among benefits of offering other > articles > > > like > > > > > > > bilva, bandhuka, nirgundi etc. this chapter 14 explicit in > > > saying > > > > > that > > > > > > > ketaki and champaka are prohibited (and reasons to same are > > > given in > > > > > > > other parts of Shiva Purana). Please can you point the > reference > > > > > from > > > > > > > Shiva Purana or elsewhere which says that " Only on Shiva > ratri > > > is > > > > > tulasi > > > > > > > offered to Shiva and Bilva offered to Vishnu. " or is that an > > > > > inference > > > > > > > (or a tradition being followed)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mysticalsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and > nonsense, > > > not > > > > > > > between right and wrong. Carl Jung. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , " Sanjay Rath " <sanjayrath@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > om gurave namah > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Kunal Nath > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is 100% correct. Only on Shiva ratri is tulasi > offered to > > > > > Shiva > > > > > > > and Bilva offered to Vishnu. This is taught after the battle > > > between > > > > > > > Brahma and Vishnu in the Vidyesvara samhita of Shiva purana. > For > > > > > > > Shivaratri is the day when the Atma linga (pillar of light) > was > > > > > > > witnessed as the manifestation of Shiva by them. It was on > this > > > day > > > > > that > > > > > > > Shiva granted the boon of equivalence to Vishnu and > forgiveness > > > to > > > > > > > Brahma for his sins. Therefore those who have lied and > sinned in > > > the > > > > > > > year go to Shiva with the Ketaki flower (only offered on > this > > > day) > > > > > and > > > > > > > while offering it, they CONFESS their sin. This confession > with > > > > > Ketaki > > > > > > > as witness leads to forgiveness and change. This is pracised > in > > > all > > > > > > > Orissa temples even today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Wishes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sanjay Rath > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road, New Delhi 110060, India; +91 > (011) > > > > > 4504 > > > > > > > 8762 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Readings: www.srath.com; Courses: www.sohamsa.com; Books: > > > > > > > www.sagittariuspublications.com; Community: > www..org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa > [sohamsa ] > > > On > > > > > > > Behalf Of utkarsh_vaggbhav > > > > > > > > 26 December 2009 03:06 AM > > > > > > > > sohamsa > > > > > > > > Re: Tulasi: Either or Both? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respected sir, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know the technical reason as to why Tulasi is not > > > offered > > > > > to > > > > > > > Shiva, but I know that we shouldn't...!! Actually sometimes > ago, > > > I > > > > > used > > > > > > > to offer Tulasi to Shiv Linga, but later I came to know that > I > > > > > > > shouldn't, so I stopped that. Now while I didn't face any > > > problems > > > > > > > because of that, I know of people who had problems due to > that > > > > > > > only..like a friend of mine had kept shiva linga at the > Tulasi > > > Pindi > > > > > and > > > > > > > used to pour water over it...needless to say, his " general > time > > > and > > > > > > > growth " suffered! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also it wouldn't be out of place to mention that once a > year, > > > on > > > > > > > Mahashivaratri, Tulasi is offered to Baba Vaidyanath in > > > Jharkhand, > > > > > and > > > > > > > if my memory doesn't fail me, Bel Patra to Vishnu ji.. It is > a > > > > > practice > > > > > > > being followed since God knows when, but it is right for > that > > > place > > > > > at > > > > > > > that time... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Though it is slightly off the topic, but let me add few > more > > > > > > > words...the same deity may change his/her bhava from place > to > > > > > place..so > > > > > > > even as there are generalities as mentioned in scriptures, > there > > > are > > > > > > > local/specific differences..to alter that is possible only > for > > > > > people > > > > > > > like Adi Shankaracharya..Now the reasons behind this > phenomenon > > > can > > > > > be > > > > > > > many and unexplainable...Our own bhavas over a period of > > > time(like > > > > > > > bhavas of Bhaktas or of very evolved souls) somehow affects > the > > > > > bhava of > > > > > > > deity too... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I think if I have to offer something to Shiva ji, I'll > > > offer > > > > > Bel > > > > > > > Patra..But suppose You r really in love with Him and have > been > > > > > > > worshipping Him with Tulasi all your life, if I happen to > come > > > to > > > > > your > > > > > > > house, I'll make it a point that I offer some Tulasi to Shiv > Ji > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Kunal Nath. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 What is " NLP " ? I am loosing it (mind .. no mind) with these acronyms. sohamsa , " tijana " <tijanadamjanovic wrote: > > > Dear Mysticalsense, > No, it cannot be used as sadhana. Expressing thoughts and emotions is not understanding their seed. So nakshatramsa is focus. No one can penetrate it nor go beyond it with what we call rational thinking. > Meditation on Lord Krishna is not TA in any sense. > Why would you advise NLP to anyone if there is Vipaasana. > Warm regards, > Tijana > sohamsa , " mysticalsense " <sensemystical@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Tijana, > > > > Sadhana (like moksha) can be a relative to the context. > > > > Eric Berne's TA, on personal front, can be used as a sadhana of > > expressing one's thoughts, emotions etc. or we can say, communicating, > > in a " detached " way. Combine it with NLP and it gets more effective. > > > > Archetype (CJ) of Communication: Lord Krishna. > > > > mysticalsense. > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not > > between right and wrong. Carl Jung. > > > > sohamsa , " tijana " <tijanadamjanovic@> wrote: > > > > > > Hello Mysticalsense! > > > > > > Thank you for elaborating some crucial points. > > > To be able to move in a direction that could bring useful insights in > > this exchange, I kindly request to decide on which concept we`ll discuss > > (dvaita or advaita), first or only. > > > You have raised a crucial question - do id, ego and super ego belong > > to mana or Viveka...If only western psychology knew about this - it > > would be a revolution. > > > I base my understanding on Adishankara`s teaching, and Viveka > > chudamani gives answers to questions rasied (I`m sure you know this). We > > could go through the slokas anytime and clearly see how he > > differentiates Mana, Viveka, Ahamkar. > > > But what I personally lack is self-understanding or experience in > > sadhana that only can give differentiation. > > > When it comes to psychology I follow the teaching of Eric Bern and TA > > method. > > > If you find this acceptable, I hope we can continue, now or some other > > time. > > > Warm regards, > > > Tijana > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , " mysticalsense " sensemystical@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Tijana, > > > > > > > > Please see below: > > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , " tijana " <tijanadamjanovic@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear mysticalsense, > > > > > Few possible answers and some points bellow... > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , " mysticalsense " sensemystical@ > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sudhir, > > > > > > > > > > > > Are we really in a position to offer something to the 'One' Who > > > > actually > > > > > > has given us Life? > > > > > > > > > > Tijana: Yes. But only after we find out why He has given us a > > Life. > > > > > > > > MS: there can be many views here some of which are: > > > > > > > > we will tend to offer (things - puja offering or any other services) > > to > > > > That if we think that We and That are 'not one'. > > > > > > > > once we realise that we are a part of the That Whole, then we will > > think > > > > that our services will be (offered) to The Whole. > > > > > > > > If you say that we can offer only after we find why he has given us > > a > > > > Life, then does that mean that we cannot/should not consider > > offering > > > > anything until " we " come to know the purpose of our life? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In true sense, we can only Ask. or should we actually ask - > > doesnt > > > > > > He/She already know what we need? > > > > > > > > > > Tijana: He/She does, but we don`t. > > > > > > > > MS: agreed. we just think of our immediate needs - He/She knows the > > > > purpose of our Existence. Further, please see below: > > > > > > > > > > Do 'We' really exist? > > > > > > > > > > Tijana: We certainly do. > > > > > > > > MS: 'we' exist so long as 'we' think that 'we are separate from > > 'That'. > > > > After realisation of Oneness of 'That' and 'we', we can appreciate > > that > > > > it is 'That' that is all there is. > > > > > > > > something like dissoluiton of Ego and merger into the Absolute. > > > > > > > > now see what happens - below... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or is it only 'That' which exists as manifold? > > > > > > > > > > Tijana: `That` would be Those or These in that case and not That. > > > > > > > > MS: 'That' again is the concept in the mind which exists so long as > > > > there is the appreciation of duality between 'we' and 'That'. > > > > > > > > the " That " that is translated from Tat-Tvamasi is not the That of > > the > > > > ThisORThat, but the Whole That is: where ther is no boudary between > > 'we' > > > > and 'that'. > > > > > > > > Sanjayji said somewhere, when it comes to translating, English may > > not > > > > be the right language. You see, the statements i have tried to > > > > articulate above would seem quite contradictory between themsleves. > > > > > > > > It is said that the Tao that is the real Tao cannot be described in > > > > words. Much of the same is said about " God " like: what God is, > > cannot be > > > > explained in words, He/She is beyond description. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One Mind, many Views. > > > > > > > > > > > > mysticalsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, > > not > > > > > > between right and wrong. Carl Jung. > > > > > > > > > > I`m curious to know how Jung helps. Duality is being created from > > > > delusive perception of linear +/- axis spreading from the zero point > > and > > > > subconscious (unawareness) and not Awareness is the one responsible > > for > > > > creating experience of positive and negative. Both sense and > > nonsense, > > > > right and wrong are wrong...But this leads to insanity. > > > > > > > > Those who look at the world from dvaita perspective, see duality > > > > everywhere [i vs That; Shiva-Shakti etc.] those who see the world > > from > > > > Advaita perspective, see everything as One. Can it be said who of > > the > > > > two is right? They call themselves right from the perspective that > > makes > > > > sense to them. Both perspectives can make sense from a third > > > > perspective! What you said above is your perspective and makes sense > > to > > > > you and will make sense to many others. When we say 'right' we > > assume > > > > exitence of 'wrong', and vice versa. So when u r saying 'wrong', it > > may > > > > be implied that there is something else which you think is 'right'. > > > > > > > > We are making the mind Master. The mind must be made a slave, not of > > ego > > > > and superego (I find Freud much more precise when it comes to > > defining > > > > structure of mind) and here only I give a credit to psychology. > > > > > There is no end to mind even though there are limits to it. Bindu > > and > > > > nada, Shiva and Shakti are the only Two who are One. > > > > > > > > That particular statement from CJ is (to me) simply as an indicator > > that > > > > the field of Mind's working is Limited. From the Mind's perspective, > > the > > > > world (our world as we understnad it - Cognitive Perception) depends > > on > > > > what sense we make of it. > > > > > > > > the issue happens when 'what we think is sense to us' is being > > termed by > > > > us as 'right'. > > > > > > > > Discriminating between Right and Wrong comes in as a function of the > > > > SuperEgo that enforces on the individual as to what is to be > > followed > > > > and what is not to be followed (that perhaps is equivalent to what > > > > society or humanity decides collectively as Dharma - sets of rules > > and > > > > regulations about life) - like today, gays are being accepted more > > > > openly, in some societies that others, and as compared to previous > > > > times. So individuals, accordingly, may have less inhibition or > > guilt > > > > feeling in this matter in coming times. Now, whether the given > > example > > > > falls in " Right or Wrong " domain of discusson or in " Sense or > > Nonsense " > > > > domain, can further be debated (elsewhere i suppose, not in this > > forum) > > > > or we may see that it encompasses both. > > > > > > > > Now, what i would be interested in knowing is that where is the > > faculty > > > > of " Viveka " located in us? > > > > > > > > We do use the term vivek-buddhi. So, is this vivek-buddhi > > originating in > > > > the mind, or does it come from elsewhere and influence the mind - > > much > > > > like emotions from the mana or desires from the Id may be > > influencing > > > > the Mind, making it's pendulum sway between making sense or > > non-sense > > > > out of it. The viveka-buddhi may be under influence from super-ego, > > but > > > > if a person's sense of Ego is stronger, then that person may bring > > > > revolutionary chagnes in society or atleast follow his/her ways > > against > > > > the rules of society. Over a period of time, such ways (of this > > person) > > > > may become a norm in the society ( super-ego has undergone change - > > as > > > > has the archetype). > > > > > > > > Are Id, Ego, SuperEgo and Vivek-buddhi, all parts of Mind? Then > > perhaps > > > > Vivek-buddhi is the pendulum that swings between 'thisORthat'. May > > be > > > > someone could also coin a statement like " the pendulum of the mana > > > > swings between Id and SuperEgo " . Freud should have done that - > > actually, > > > > he did that in his theories, just didnt write that statement :-) And > > may > > > > be he didnt differentiate between mana and mind. > > > > > > > > (like english translations say - karaka for Mind is Moon!! now, do > > > > emotions arise in mind or in mana? you know the answer). > > > > > > > > You will appreciate, that we cannot demarcate boundaries between > > Jungian > > > > ways and Fruedian ways in " either this way " " or that way " manner. > > These > > > > 2 methods and may be others too like Gestalt can (should) be used in > > a > > > > complementary way, seeing which is applicable where, how and how > > much. > > > > e.g. Desires arises from Id, super-ego tries to put a reign to it, > > but > > > > Mind of the individual keeps swinging to make sense out of it that > > > > whether the desire should be gratified or whether the rules of > > society > > > > or inner conciousness be followed. What manifests may still not make > > > > sense to the mind or may not make sense to the superego. CJ, SF etc > > all > > > > had their 'veiws' about the 'mind', and these veiws and those of > > others > > > > that followed (i think you will agree) are in no way the absolute > > > > correct ways, some explain somethings better that the others, and > > each > > > > veiw has it's limitations. The 'archetypes' (of CJ) may be an > > outgrowth > > > > of the 'superego' (of SF) at the 'collective consciousness' level > > (of > > > > CJ) vs 'individual' level (of SF). The view (CJ, SF ) that one > > thinks > > > > is applicable will thus depend on whether at the given moment the > > > > individual needs to be looked as and Individual or a part of that > > > > Collective Whole. Both views are nevertheless applicable to the same > > > > individual, in some conditions in a complementary way, in other > > > > conditions one at a time. > > > > > > > > Study of psychology, to me, provides another way about understanding > > of > > > > what the scriptures are saying about the human wrt desires, I, That, > > > > consciousness, ego etc. > > > > > > > > U said that: Both sense and nonsense, right and wrong are > > wrong...But > > > > this leads to insanity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > U said that: The mind must be made a slave, not of ego and superego > > > > > > > > The scriptures say as well that mind should be mastered, and i could > > > > agree no lesser. The statement from CJ just reminds me of just that > > - > > > > i.e. one should not be a slave to the swinging of the mind's > > pendulum - > > > > between ego-superego, this-that, I-That, sense-nonsense, > > karma-destiny, > > > > etc etc. It is no weightier a statement, than those, if any, about > > > > swinging between Id-Superego or between ego-superego from wherever > > they > > > > came from, including SF or Tijana or anyone who studies these > > > > perspectives :-) > > > > > > > > > e> Warm regards > > > > > Tijana > > > > > > > > Nice discussing all this with you. > > > > > > > > mysticalsense. > > > > > > > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not > > > > between right and wrong. Carl Jung. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , " sudhir_panda_bbsr " > > > > > > <sudhir_panda_bbsr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Sir, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an interesting discussion. In a small village near > > Puri, > > > > where > > > > > > I was born, people regularly offer Champaka to Shiva linga. Many > > > > people > > > > > > offer multiple of 108 Champakas when their wishes are fulfilled. > > I > > > > am > > > > > > not sure about other places in India, but this practice is also > > seen > > > > in > > > > > > several other parts of Odisha. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I cannot exactly remember where (I think it was in Pune) but > > once > > > > a > > > > > > pandit has asked me to offer Tulasi on Shiva linga during a > > > > > > rudrabhiseka. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and regards, > > > > > > > Sudhir > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , " mysticalsense " sensemystical@ > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear SR, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It can also be inferred that since the Atman in us is the > > Shiva > > > > and > > > > > > > > the rest of what we are made of is Shakti/Girija (ref: > > > > > > > > AdiShankaracharya's kriti: Atmaa tvaM girijaa matiH > > sahachrAhA; > > > > and > > > > > > > > Shiva Purana); then we should neither be consuming tulasi > > nor > > > > > > wearing > > > > > > > > it, as in essence we just end up offering it to > > Shiva+Shakti, > > > > since > > > > > > > > consuming it will put it into the Shakti part and wearing it > > > > will be > > > > > > > > around the body that houses the Atman that is the Spark of > > > > Shiva. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oh ho but who is sustaining this body and the > > universe...Vishnu? > > > > so > > > > > > > > where is Vishnu if everything is Shiva+Shakti....and so on > > and > > > > so > > > > > > forth, > > > > > > > > then someone learned with Vishnu Purana will say, it is > > Vishnu > > > > that > > > > > > > > manifests as everything...so the 2 parties keep fighting > > about > > > > who > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > superior and what should be offered to whom. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Coming back to Shiva Purana, why would Shiva Purana be > > talking > > > > about > > > > > > > > offering Tulasi to Shiva in general or under special > > > > circumstances? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > e.g. ShivaPurana: Rudra Samhita: Chapter 14: talks of > > offering > > > > > > Tulasi to > > > > > > > > Shiva ( Shloka 28 ), among benefits of offering other > > articles > > > > like > > > > > > > > bilva, bandhuka, nirgundi etc. this chapter 14 explicit in > > > > saying > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > ketaki and champaka are prohibited (and reasons to same are > > > > given in > > > > > > > > other parts of Shiva Purana). Please can you point the > > reference > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > Shiva Purana or elsewhere which says that " Only on Shiva > > ratri > > > > is > > > > > > tulasi > > > > > > > > offered to Shiva and Bilva offered to Vishnu. " or is that an > > > > > > inference > > > > > > > > (or a tradition being followed)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mysticalsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and > > nonsense, > > > > not > > > > > > > > between right and wrong. Carl Jung. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , " Sanjay Rath " <sanjayrath@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > om gurave namah > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Kunal Nath > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is 100% correct. Only on Shiva ratri is tulasi > > offered to > > > > > > Shiva > > > > > > > > and Bilva offered to Vishnu. This is taught after the battle > > > > between > > > > > > > > Brahma and Vishnu in the Vidyesvara samhita of Shiva purana. > > For > > > > > > > > Shivaratri is the day when the Atma linga (pillar of light) > > was > > > > > > > > witnessed as the manifestation of Shiva by them. It was on > > this > > > > day > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > Shiva granted the boon of equivalence to Vishnu and > > forgiveness > > > > to > > > > > > > > Brahma for his sins. Therefore those who have lied and > > sinned in > > > > the > > > > > > > > year go to Shiva with the Ketaki flower (only offered on > > this > > > > day) > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > while offering it, they CONFESS their sin. This confession > > with > > > > > > Ketaki > > > > > > > > as witness leads to forgiveness and change. This is pracised > > in > > > > all > > > > > > > > Orissa temples even today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Wishes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sanjay Rath > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road, New Delhi 110060, India; +91 > > (011) > > > > > > 4504 > > > > > > > > 8762 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Readings: www.srath.com; Courses: www.sohamsa.com; Books: > > > > > > > > www.sagittariuspublications.com; Community: > > www..org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa > > [sohamsa ] > > > > On > > > > > > > > Behalf Of utkarsh_vaggbhav > > > > > > > > > 26 December 2009 03:06 AM > > > > > > > > > sohamsa > > > > > > > > > Re: Tulasi: Either or Both? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respected sir, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know the technical reason as to why Tulasi is not > > > > offered > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > Shiva, but I know that we shouldn't...!! Actually sometimes > > ago, > > > > I > > > > > > used > > > > > > > > to offer Tulasi to Shiv Linga, but later I came to know that > > I > > > > > > > > shouldn't, so I stopped that. Now while I didn't face any > > > > problems > > > > > > > > because of that, I know of people who had problems due to > > that > > > > > > > > only..like a friend of mine had kept shiva linga at the > > Tulasi > > > > Pindi > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > used to pour water over it...needless to say, his " general > > time > > > > and > > > > > > > > growth " suffered! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also it wouldn't be out of place to mention that once a > > year, > > > > on > > > > > > > > Mahashivaratri, Tulasi is offered to Baba Vaidyanath in > > > > Jharkhand, > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > if my memory doesn't fail me, Bel Patra to Vishnu ji.. It is > > a > > > > > > practice > > > > > > > > being followed since God knows when, but it is right for > > that > > > > place > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > that time... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Though it is slightly off the topic, but let me add few > > more > > > > > > > > words...the same deity may change his/her bhava from place > > to > > > > > > place..so > > > > > > > > even as there are generalities as mentioned in scriptures, > > there > > > > are > > > > > > > > local/specific differences..to alter that is possible only > > for > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > like Adi Shankaracharya..Now the reasons behind this > > phenomenon > > > > can > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > many and unexplainable...Our own bhavas over a period of > > > > time(like > > > > > > > > bhavas of Bhaktas or of very evolved souls) somehow affects > > the > > > > > > bhava of > > > > > > > > deity too... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I think if I have to offer something to Shiva ji, I'll > > > > offer > > > > > > Bel > > > > > > > > Patra..But suppose You r really in love with Him and have > > been > > > > > > > > worshipping Him with Tulasi all your life, if I happen to > > come > > > > to > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > house, I'll make it a point that I offer some Tulasi to Shiv > > Ji > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > Kunal Nath. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 Respected Guru ji,Sadar Pranam!Though I do dissolve Shiva with the vehicles/channels(in human form like You) that he chooses to serve as his medium, to guide people like me, I'm smart enough to maintain boundary(respect) between You(Gyani) & Me(Gyanarthi)! The dhyan/scene is a very simple one: I'm surrounded by Gurujans(like Sanjay ji, Ramdas ji, Rafal ji, you yourself and others) and you all are keeping your hands in Gyan & Varad mudra; I'm sitting near your feet, receiving your bounties and notice that in all your hearts, Shiva is shining and smiling! So when I address to anyone of you, can I chose any word other than Guru ji? Also, as I can't help noticing Shiva playing & guiding from inside you all, my "Guruji" is automatically directed to both, the "Immediate" (like you right now) , and the Eeternal i.e. Shiva! I accept that there can be many perspectives, but a sadhak/mantric gets the result according to the Viniyoga! And my intentions(Viniyoga/Samkalpa) are clear and my Dhyan too is firm! As regarding Mind and No Mind, I think I've understood what you've been explaining and so won't engage more of you in that matter…I try "invoking" you, but if that doesn't work, I may go to the extent of "provoking" you. But my "exclamations" are my "questions"! I've found that they often bring much better answers than straight questions. Framing straight questions, not only requires high intellect, it also curtails the scope of learning. So I exclaim and thereby ask…but essentially they are my questions! Would you have bothered to explain so much otherwise? I'm not sure…I find Shiva has become Lalit in the company of Lalita! He likes to play too… For example, I had asked Guru Ramdas ji to let me know about myself, my potenial, there Shiva chose to keep mauna; and now he is playing by making you initiate "how does one tell from the chart how much of Mind and No Mind can a person perceive"! You say your "jyotish-gyana is rudimentary"… Well I'm sitting at your feet and so all I can do, is provide my birth details looking toward your face in anticipation! Case study method is very effective and I'll provide for a good case study for myself and others…I admit I abound in negatives, and would like to know how they show up in horoscope; knowing them may help in controlling them! I must be having some good too and knowing them will help me in enriching myself in possible ways(My selfishness is one of my +ve/-ve ïŠ)! The good thing is that I will be glad in knowing my flip side too, so you can be ruthlessly honest in your analysis… If you take lead, I'm sure other Gurujans will come along... there is never any dearth of cases, their study will automatically result in dissemination and growth of Gyan! My Birth Details:Time:8:06p.m.DoB:8th May 1981.Place:Patna(Bihar)I'm like this kid who stumbled on this Oasis which has so many celestial trees. Few trees are easily visible like Pandit Sanjay Rath ji, Ramdas Ji, Rafal ji; few trees are hidden amidst the greenery like Visti ji, Freedom ji, Narsimha ji…and then there is someone like You with that Mystical air around, spreading Gyan but not letting anyone know your name … and all of you, are laden with ripe fruits! What can I do? I'm a kid who wants to eat all of them , but doesn't even know how to pluck them! So, I try different means, try to catch some by jumping, use catapult, even throw stones…Ideally, I should try to climb any one tree and fill myself up but then the big Guruji called "Time" admonishes me to save my hunger for future. So meanwhile, I play around and mostly eat whatever fruits land in my lap!Shishyawat,Kunal.sohamsa , "mysticalsense" <sensemystical wrote:>> > > Dear Kunal,> > Your posts are interesting. They are dissolving the boundaries between> Guruji, You (post is addressed to Guruji, then who is the You), me (that> is the me you mentioned as Kunal, and not me as MS). By the way, only> Guruji teaches. But dont you think that Everyone is a learner and> teacher from one perspective or another.> > English, as Sanjayji said, comes poor when scriptures have to be> translated.> > Perhaps "No Mind" is not the right translation. Like, if a person goes> "Out of Mind", what does it mean? He/She has crossed the boundaries of> the 'normal' Mind. Does having a "No Mind" (like that of Buddha) will> mean being "Mindless"? [not asking, just exemplifying].> > Concepts come to Mind, i think, but you say that "mind is a concept" or> may be i said it earlier, but from the view that thoughts arise in mind> and organise to form virews and concepts. But, from the view that there> is something called the "No Mind", then this concept should have a> coutner part called the "Mind". Concepts like "Mind" and "No Mind"; I> and That, will be formed in the Mind.> > Like I said in another mail here, may be the words "That" and "No Mind"> may not be the apropriate words to be used for the indescribable. I> would quote again, "the Tao that is the real Tao cannot be described in> words". Perhaps one can appreciate it's essence but cannot articulate> all its apects in even in many scriptures.> > When we are talking of That, No Mind and the "hint" and the "reality",> then we actually know what we are talikng about, but when put through> the mind's eye, it is creating duality like "Real vs. Non Real"; "Mind"> vs "No Mind" etc etc. Now, doesnt That Real actually encompass the I and> NonReal; both of which are part of that Whole (another word!). We say> world is non-real but That is Real and whatever. That which can be> percieved belongs to domain of Mind and that which remains and> encompasses Mind is the No-Mind. Only when the boundary dissolves,> everything seems One...but since there is something called as One, there> might be something called as Many. Are One and Many actually the Same> (One manifesting as Many) or Different: answer: depends on the> perspective of the Mind and/or the Reality. If Many arises or is a part> of Whole, then arent both Real? why then we should term the world as> Unreal? Someone made that symbol of snake with it's tail in it's mouth.> All that (like world, us), that seems to start at one point and seems to> end at another is actually Ending at the Origin of It All. So what is> That: the Origin or the End? Answer can be "Both", since there was a> point of origin, then everything went one way and retured to end there;> but answer can also be "Neither" - since if it is Origin, how can it be> an end, and vice versa, courtesy: the Mind. Ok, let's spare Tulasi from> the "subject".> > Perhaps it would interest Tijana too, wrt the Ouroboros :-)> > May be, we should bring some technical Jyotisha into the thread. Like> how does one tell from the chart how much of Mind and No Mind can a> person percieve - my jyotish-gyana is rudimentary.> > mysticalsense.> The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not> between right and wrong. Carl Jung.> > > sohamsa , "Utkarsh" utkarsh_vaggbhav@ wrote:> >> >> > Respected Guru ji,> >> > Sadar Pranam!> >> > While Guru ji was answering, You were writing to teach me. It was> > addressed to Guru ji and Guru ji has answered. I try to think over and> > learn from what is written and what is hinted!> >> > The concept of No Mind can not be conceived by Mind! How can Mind> > create/conceive something which is beyond it? It can only be realised> > if one leaves Mind and hence the world of Duality behind! We can't> > understand what the Rishis tried to make us understand fully by> thinking> > over, but we can get some hint…and that is what they, who realised> > it, wanted, to atleast give us some hint!> >> > Now comes the work of Mind towards the attainment of that ideal of No> > Mind. In other words, Gyan Yoga! It will take me far beyond. But then> at> > the last step/crossing, I need the grace of That which is "Neither"> and> > "Both" at the same time! So, Kali, the eterneal destroyer> > destroys/dissolves Herself!> >> > I experience Shiva/Myself! Shivoham! Sohamasmi!> >> > But I may have to come back and so, Kali, the eternal Creatrix> > recreates Herself and starts dancing over Shiva. The world of Duality> > has returned and now I try to explain That, in terms of Mind, and> > discover words and phrases like Advaita and No Mind. I, now, KNOW that> > "No Mind" never needed to Arise, as it was always present, inside me> > and I, in it. The Sun was always there, the only thing is that clouds> of> > my Ignorance din't let me see it. The only thing that changed is that> > now I have realized it! Now I Am Realized. But now I see everything in> > me and myself in everything, so I may try to help/raise my other> > Selves, but as No Mind can't be understood with Mind, so I try to hint> > them, and show them the way.> >> > How can there be any duality between one that is Shashwat and the one> > that never existed?! Mind is a "concept" , No Mind is "Reality". But> > this is talking in absolute terms. Suppose, I try to compare them> > understanding their relative importance, then first I'll need to> > conceive "No Mind" mentally, which is not possible, so the whole> > exercise is futile?! So I'll try to imbibe as much as I can from the> > Hints given by my Gurus and walk the path laid down for me. The words> > "No Mind" is a hint and That which is hinted, is Reality?!> >> >> >> >> > Shishyawat,> > Kunal.> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2010 Report Share Posted March 15, 2010 Dear Tijana, As said earlier, Sadhana (like moksha) can be a relative to the context.If one takes the emotions and thoughts to be a part of a Tree, then one concieves how their Seed can be found. See NLP using Vipaasana, it may surprise you. Meditation on Lord Krishna is not being equated with TA! mysticalsense. The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong. Carl Jung. sohamsa , "sbt_ravi" <sbt_ravi wrote:>> What is "NLP"? I am loosing it (mind .. no mind) with these acronyms.> > sohamsa , "tijana" tijanadamjanovic@ wrote:> >> > > > Dear Mysticalsense,> > No, it cannot be used as sadhana. Expressing thoughts and emotions is not understanding their seed. So nakshatramsa is focus. No one can penetrate it nor go beyond it with what we call rational thinking.> > Meditation on Lord Krishna is not TA in any sense.> > Why would you advise NLP to anyone if there is Vipaasana.> > Warm regards,> > Tijana> > sohamsa , "mysticalsense" <sensemystical@> wrote:> > >> > > > > > > > > Dear Tijana,> > > > > > Sadhana (like moksha) can be a relative to the context.> > > > > > Eric Berne's TA, on personal front, can be used as a sadhana of> > > expressing one's thoughts, emotions etc. or we can say, communicating,> > > in a "detached" way. Combine it with NLP and it gets more effective.> > > > > > Archetype (CJ) of Communication: Lord Krishna.> > > > > > mysticalsense.> > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not> > > between right and wrong. Carl Jung.> > > > > > sohamsa , "tijana" <tijanadamjanovic@> wrote:> > > >> > > > Hello Mysticalsense!> > > >> > > > Thank you for elaborating some crucial points.> > > > To be able to move in a direction that could bring useful insights in> > > this exchange, I kindly request to decide on which concept we`ll discuss> > > (dvaita or advaita), first or only.> > > > You have raised a crucial question - do id, ego and super ego belong> > > to mana or Viveka...If only western psychology knew about this - it> > > would be a revolution.> > > > I base my understanding on Adishankara`s teaching, and Viveka> > > chudamani gives answers to questions rasied (I`m sure you know this). We> > > could go through the slokas anytime and clearly see how he> > > differentiates Mana, Viveka, Ahamkar.> > > > But what I personally lack is self-understanding or experience in> > > sadhana that only can give differentiation.> > > > When it comes to psychology I follow the teaching of Eric Bern and TA> > > method.> > > > If you find this acceptable, I hope we can continue, now or some other> > > time.> > > > Warm regards,> > > > Tijana> > > >> > > >> > > > sohamsa , "mysticalsense" sensemystical@ wrote:> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Hello Tijana,> > > > >> > > > > Please see below:> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > sohamsa , "tijana" <tijanadamjanovic@> wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear mysticalsense,> > > > > > Few possible answers and some points bellow...> > > > > >> > > > > > sohamsa , "mysticalsense" sensemystical@> > > wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Dear Sudhir,> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Are we really in a position to offer something to the 'One' Who> > > > > actually> > > > > > > has given us Life?> > > > > >> > > > > > Tijana: Yes. But only after we find out why He has given us a> > > Life.> > > > >> > > > > MS: there can be many views here some of which are:> > > > >> > > > > we will tend to offer (things - puja offering or any other services)> > > to> > > > > That if we think that We and That are 'not one'.> > > > >> > > > > once we realise that we are a part of the That Whole, then we will> > > think> > > > > that our services will be (offered) to The Whole.> > > > >> > > > > If you say that we can offer only after we find why he has given us> > > a> > > > > Life, then does that mean that we cannot/should not consider> > > offering> > > > > anything until "we" come to know the purpose of our life?> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > In true sense, we can only Ask. or should we actually ask -> > > doesnt> > > > > > > He/She already know what we need?> > > > > >> > > > > > Tijana: He/She does, but we don`t.> > > > >> > > > > MS: agreed. we just think of our immediate needs - He/She knows the> > > > > purpose of our Existence. Further, please see below:> > > > > >> > > > > > Do 'We' really exist?> > > > > >> > > > > > Tijana: We certainly do.> > > > >> > > > > MS: 'we' exist so long as 'we' think that 'we are separate from> > > 'That'.> > > > > After realisation of Oneness of 'That' and 'we', we can appreciate> > > that> > > > > it is 'That' that is all there is.> > > > >> > > > > something like dissoluiton of Ego and merger into the Absolute.> > > > >> > > > > now see what happens - below...> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > Or is it only 'That' which exists as manifold?> > > > > >> > > > > > Tijana: `That` would be Those or These in that case and not That.> > > > >> > > > > MS: 'That' again is the concept in the mind which exists so long as> > > > > there is the appreciation of duality between 'we' and 'That'.> > > > >> > > > > the "That" that is translated from Tat-Tvamasi is not the That of> > > the> > > > > ThisORThat, but the Whole That is: where ther is no boudary between> > > 'we'> > > > > and 'that'.> > > > >> > > > > Sanjayji said somewhere, when it comes to translating, English may> > > not> > > > > be the right language. You see, the statements i have tried to> > > > > articulate above would seem quite contradictory between themsleves.> > > > >> > > > > It is said that the Tao that is the real Tao cannot be described in> > > > > words. Much of the same is said about "God" like: what God is,> > > cannot be> > > > > explained in words, He/She is beyond description.> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > One Mind, many Views.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > mysticalsense.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense,> > > not> > > > > > > between right and wrong. Carl Jung.> > > > > >> > > > > > I`m curious to know how Jung helps. Duality is being created from> > > > > delusive perception of linear +/- axis spreading from the zero point> > > and> > > > > subconscious (unawareness) and not Awareness is the one responsible> > > for> > > > > creating experience of positive and negative. Both sense and> > > nonsense,> > > > > right and wrong are wrong...But this leads to insanity.> > > > >> > > > > Those who look at the world from dvaita perspective, see duality> > > > > everywhere [i vs That; Shiva-Shakti etc.] those who see the world> > > from> > > > > Advaita perspective, see everything as One. Can it be said who of> > > the> > > > > two is right? They call themselves right from the perspective that> > > makes> > > > > sense to them. Both perspectives can make sense from a third> > > > > perspective! What you said above is your perspective and makes sense> > > to> > > > > you and will make sense to many others. When we say 'right' we> > > assume> > > > > exitence of 'wrong', and vice versa. So when u r saying 'wrong', it> > > may> > > > > be implied that there is something else which you think is 'right'.> > > > >> > > > > We are making the mind Master. The mind must be made a slave, not of> > > ego> > > > > and superego (I find Freud much more precise when it comes to> > > defining> > > > > structure of mind) and here only I give a credit to psychology.> > > > > > There is no end to mind even though there are limits to it. Bindu> > > and> > > > > nada, Shiva and Shakti are the only Two who are One.> > > > >> > > > > That particular statement from CJ is (to me) simply as an indicator> > > that> > > > > the field of Mind's working is Limited. From the Mind's perspective,> > > the> > > > > world (our world as we understnad it - Cognitive Perception) depends> > > on> > > > > what sense we make of it.> > > > >> > > > > the issue happens when 'what we think is sense to us' is being> > > termed by> > > > > us as 'right'.> > > > >> > > > > Discriminating between Right and Wrong comes in as a function of the> > > > > SuperEgo that enforces on the individual as to what is to be> > > followed> > > > > and what is not to be followed (that perhaps is equivalent to what> > > > > society or humanity decides collectively as Dharma - sets of rules> > > and> > > > > regulations about life) - like today, gays are being accepted more> > > > > openly, in some societies that others, and as compared to previous> > > > > times. So individuals, accordingly, may have less inhibition or> > > guilt> > > > > feeling in this matter in coming times. Now, whether the given> > > example> > > > > falls in "Right or Wrong" domain of discusson or in "Sense or> > > Nonsense"> > > > > domain, can further be debated (elsewhere i suppose, not in this> > > forum)> > > > > or we may see that it encompasses both.> > > > >> > > > > Now, what i would be interested in knowing is that where is the> > > faculty> > > > > of "Viveka" located in us?> > > > >> > > > > We do use the term vivek-buddhi. So, is this vivek-buddhi> > > originating in> > > > > the mind, or does it come from elsewhere and influence the mind -> > > much> > > > > like emotions from the mana or desires from the Id may be> > > influencing> > > > > the Mind, making it's pendulum sway between making sense or> > > non-sense> > > > > out of it. The viveka-buddhi may be under influence from super-ego,> > > but> > > > > if a person's sense of Ego is stronger, then that person may bring> > > > > revolutionary chagnes in society or atleast follow his/her ways> > > against> > > > > the rules of society. Over a period of time, such ways (of this> > > person)> > > > > may become a norm in the society ( super-ego has undergone change -> > > as> > > > > has the archetype).> > > > >> > > > > Are Id, Ego, SuperEgo and Vivek-buddhi, all parts of Mind? Then> > > perhaps> > > > > Vivek-buddhi is the pendulum that swings between 'thisORthat'. May> > > be> > > > > someone could also coin a statement like "the pendulum of the mana> > > > > swings between Id and SuperEgo". Freud should have done that -> > > actually,> > > > > he did that in his theories, just didnt write that statement :-) And> > > may> > > > > be he didnt differentiate between mana and mind.> > > > >> > > > > (like english translations say - karaka for Mind is Moon!! now, do> > > > > emotions arise in mind or in mana? you know the answer).> > > > >> > > > > You will appreciate, that we cannot demarcate boundaries between> > > Jungian> > > > > ways and Fruedian ways in "either this wayor that way" manner.> > > These> > > > > 2 methods and may be others too like Gestalt can (should) be used in> > > a> > > > > complementary way, seeing which is applicable where, how and how> > > much.> > > > > e.g. Desires arises from Id, super-ego tries to put a reign to it,> > > but> > > > > Mind of the individual keeps swinging to make sense out of it that> > > > > whether the desire should be gratified or whether the rules of> > > society> > > > > or inner conciousness be followed. What manifests may still not make> > > > > sense to the mind or may not make sense to the superego. CJ, SF etc> > > all> > > > > had their 'veiws' about the 'mind', and these veiws and those of> > > others> > > > > that followed (i think you will agree) are in no way the absolute> > > > > correct ways, some explain somethings better that the others, and> > > each> > > > > veiw has it's limitations. The 'archetypes' (of CJ) may be an> > > outgrowth> > > > > of the 'superego' (of SF) at the 'collective consciousness' level> > > (of> > > > > CJ) vs 'individual' level (of SF). The view (CJ, SF ) that one> > > thinks> > > > > is applicable will thus depend on whether at the given moment the> > > > > individual needs to be looked as and Individual or a part of that> > > > > Collective Whole. Both views are nevertheless applicable to the same> > > > > individual, in some conditions in a complementary way, in other> > > > > conditions one at a time.> > > > >> > > > > Study of psychology, to me, provides another way about understanding> > > of> > > > > what the scriptures are saying about the human wrt desires, I, That,> > > > > consciousness, ego etc.> > > > >> > > > > U said that: Both sense and nonsense, right and wrong are> > > wrong...But> > > > > this leads to insanity.> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > U said that: The mind must be made a slave, not of ego and superego> > > > >> > > > > The scriptures say as well that mind should be mastered, and i could> > > > > agree no lesser. The statement from CJ just reminds me of just that> > > -> > > > > i.e. one should not be a slave to the swinging of the mind's> > > pendulum -> > > > > between ego-superego, this-that, I-That, sense-nonsense,> > > karma-destiny,> > > > > etc etc. It is no weightier a statement, than those, if any, about> > > > > swinging between Id-Superego or between ego-superego from wherever> > > they> > > > > came from, including SF or Tijana or anyone who studies these> > > > > perspectives :-)> > > > >> > > > > > e> Warm regards> > > > > > Tijana> > > > >> > > > > Nice discussing all this with you.> > > > >> > > > > mysticalsense.> > > > >> > > > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not> > > > > between right and wrong. Carl Jung.> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > sohamsa , "sudhir_panda_bbsr"> > > > > > > <sudhir_panda_bbsr@> wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hello Sir,> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This is an interesting discussion. In a small village near> > > Puri,> > > > > where> > > > > > > I was born, people regularly offer Champaka to Shiva linga. Many> > > > > people> > > > > > > offer multiple of 108 Champakas when their wishes are fulfilled.> > > I> > > > > am> > > > > > > not sure about other places in India, but this practice is also> > > seen> > > > > in> > > > > > > several other parts of Odisha.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I cannot exactly remember where (I think it was in Pune) but> > > once> > > > > a> > > > > > > pandit has asked me to offer Tulasi on Shiva linga during a> > > > > > > rudrabhiseka.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks and regards,> > > > > > > > Sudhir> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > sohamsa , "mysticalsense" sensemystical@> > > > > wrote:> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Dear SR,> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > It can also be inferred that since the Atman in us is the> > > Shiva> > > > > and> > > > > > > > > the rest of what we are made of is Shakti/Girija (ref:> > > > > > > > > AdiShankaracharya's kriti: Atmaa tvaM girijaa matiH> > > sahachrAhA;> > > > > and> > > > > > > > > Shiva Purana); then we should neither be consuming tulasi> > > nor> > > > > > > wearing> > > > > > > > > it, as in essence we just end up offering it to> > > Shiva+Shakti,> > > > > since> > > > > > > > > consuming it will put it into the Shakti part and wearing it> > > > > will be> > > > > > > > > around the body that houses the Atman that is the Spark of> > > > > Shiva.> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > oh ho but who is sustaining this body and the> > > universe...Vishnu?> > > > > so> > > > > > > > > where is Vishnu if everything is Shiva+Shakti....and so on> > > and> > > > > so> > > > > > > forth,> > > > > > > > > then someone learned with Vishnu Purana will say, it is> > > Vishnu> > > > > that> > > > > > > > > manifests as everything...so the 2 parties keep fighting> > > about> > > > > who> > > > > > > is> > > > > > > > > superior and what should be offered to whom.> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Coming back to Shiva Purana, why would Shiva Purana be> > > talking> > > > > about> > > > > > > > > offering Tulasi to Shiva in general or under special> > > > > circumstances?> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > e.g. ShivaPurana: Rudra Samhita: Chapter 14: talks of> > > offering> > > > > > > Tulasi to> > > > > > > > > Shiva ( Shloka 28 ), among benefits of offering other> > > articles> > > > > like> > > > > > > > > bilva, bandhuka, nirgundi etc. this chapter 14 explicit in> > > > > saying> > > > > > > that> > > > > > > > > ketaki and champaka are prohibited (and reasons to same are> > > > > given in> > > > > > > > > other parts of Shiva Purana). Please can you point the> > > reference> > > > > > > from> > > > > > > > > Shiva Purana or elsewhere which says that "Only on Shiva> > > ratri> > > > > is> > > > > > > tulasi> > > > > > > > > offered to Shiva and Bilva offered to Vishnu." or is that an> > > > > > > inference> > > > > > > > > (or a tradition being followed)?> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > mysticalsense.> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and> > > nonsense,> > > > > not> > > > > > > > > between right and wrong. Carl Jung.> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > sohamsa , "Sanjay Rath" <sanjayrath@>> > > > > wrote:> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > om gurave namah> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Dear Kunal Nath> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > That is 100% correct. Only on Shiva ratri is tulasi> > > offered to> > > > > > > Shiva> > > > > > > > > and Bilva offered to Vishnu. This is taught after the battle> > > > > between> > > > > > > > > Brahma and Vishnu in the Vidyesvara samhita of Shiva purana.> > > For> > > > > > > > > Shivaratri is the day when the Atma linga (pillar of light)> > > was> > > > > > > > > witnessed as the manifestation of Shiva by them. It was on> > > this> > > > > day> > > > > > > that> > > > > > > > > Shiva granted the boon of equivalence to Vishnu and> > > forgiveness> > > > > to> > > > > > > > > Brahma for his sins. Therefore those who have lied and> > > sinned in> > > > > the> > > > > > > > > year go to Shiva with the Ketaki flower (only offered on> > > this> > > > > day)> > > > > > > and> > > > > > > > > while offering it, they CONFESS their sin. This confession> > > with> > > > > > > Ketaki> > > > > > > > > as witness leads to forgiveness and change. This is pracised> > > in> > > > > all> > > > > > > > > Orissa temples even today.> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Best Wishes> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Sanjay Rath> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road, New Delhi 110060, India; +91> > > (011)> > > > > > > 4504> > > > > > > > > 8762> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Readings: www.srath.com; Courses: www.sohamsa.com; Books:> > > > > > > > > www.sagittariuspublications.com; Community:> > > www..org> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > sohamsa > > > [sohamsa ]> > > > > On> > > > > > > > > Behalf Of utkarsh_vaggbhav> > > > > > > > > > 26 December 2009 03:06 AM> > > > > > > > > > sohamsa > > > > > > > > > > Re: Tulasi: Either or Both?> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Respected sir,> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I don't know the technical reason as to why Tulasi is not> > > > > offered> > > > > > > to> > > > > > > > > Shiva, but I know that we shouldn't...!! Actually sometimes> > > ago,> > > > > I> > > > > > > used> > > > > > > > > to offer Tulasi to Shiv Linga, but later I came to know that> > > I> > > > > > > > > shouldn't, so I stopped that. Now while I didn't face any> > > > > problems> > > > > > > > > because of that, I know of people who had problems due to> > > that> > > > > > > > > only..like a friend of mine had kept shiva linga at the> > > Tulasi> > > > > Pindi> > > > > > > and> > > > > > > > > used to pour water over it...needless to say, his "general> > > time> > > > > and> > > > > > > > > growth" suffered!> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Also it wouldn't be out of place to mention that once a> > > year,> > > > > on> > > > > > > > > Mahashivaratri, Tulasi is offered to Baba Vaidyanath in> > > > > Jharkhand,> > > > > > > and> > > > > > > > > if my memory doesn't fail me, Bel Patra to Vishnu ji.. It is> > > a> > > > > > > practice> > > > > > > > > being followed since God knows when, but it is right for> > > that> > > > > place> > > > > > > at> > > > > > > > > that time...> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Though it is slightly off the topic, but let me add few> > > more> > > > > > > > > words...the same deity may change his/her bhava from place> > > to> > > > > > > place..so> > > > > > > > > even as there are generalities as mentioned in scriptures,> > > there> > > > > are> > > > > > > > > local/specific differences..to alter that is possible only> > > for> > > > > > > people> > > > > > > > > like Adi Shankaracharya..Now the reasons behind this> > > phenomenon> > > > > can> > > > > > > be> > > > > > > > > many and unexplainable...Our own bhavas over a period of> > > > > time(like> > > > > > > > > bhavas of Bhaktas or of very evolved souls) somehow affects> > > the> > > > > > > bhava of> > > > > > > > > deity too...> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > So I think if I have to offer something to Shiva ji, I'll> > > > > offer> > > > > > > Bel> > > > > > > > > Patra..But suppose You r really in love with Him and have> > > been> > > > > > > > > worshipping Him with Tulasi all your life, if I happen to> > > come> > > > > to> > > > > > > your> > > > > > > > > house, I'll make it a point that I offer some Tulasi to Shiv> > > Ji> > > > > :-)> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,> > > > > > > > > > Kunal Nath.> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2010 Report Share Posted March 18, 2010 Dear MS, The pendulum stops eventually. The stronger the impulse for knowing dictated by the Self is, the bigger the oscillation of the pendulum is = the one who wants to know loses himself in extremities. Tranquility is the sign of knowledge. Regards, Tijana sohamsa , " mysticalsense " <sensemystical wrote: > > > Dear Tijana, > > As said earlier, Sadhana (like moksha) can be a relative to the context. > > If one takes the emotions and thoughts to be a part of a Tree, then one > concieves how their Seed can be found. > > See NLP using Vipaasana, it may surprise you. > > Meditation on Lord Krishna is not being equated with TA! > > mysticalsense. > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not > between right and wrong. Carl Jung. > > sohamsa , " sbt_ravi " <sbt_ravi@> wrote: > > > > What is " NLP " ? I am loosing it (mind .. no mind) with these acronyms. > > > > sohamsa , " tijana " tijanadamjanovic@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Mysticalsense, > > > No, it cannot be used as sadhana. Expressing thoughts and emotions > is not understanding their seed. So nakshatramsa is focus. No one can > penetrate it nor go beyond it with what we call rational thinking. > > > Meditation on Lord Krishna is not TA in any sense. > > > Why would you advise NLP to anyone if there is Vipaasana. > > > Warm regards, > > > Tijana > > > sohamsa , " mysticalsense " <sensemystical@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Tijana, > > > > > > > > Sadhana (like moksha) can be a relative to the context. > > > > > > > > Eric Berne's TA, on personal front, can be used as a sadhana of > > > > expressing one's thoughts, emotions etc. or we can say, > communicating, > > > > in a " detached " way. Combine it with NLP and it gets more > effective. > > > > > > > > Archetype (CJ) of Communication: Lord Krishna. > > > > > > > > mysticalsense. > > > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, > not > > > > between right and wrong. Carl Jung. > > > > > > > > sohamsa , " tijana " <tijanadamjanovic@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hello Mysticalsense! > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for elaborating some crucial points. > > > > > To be able to move in a direction that could bring useful > insights in > > > > this exchange, I kindly request to decide on which concept we`ll > discuss > > > > (dvaita or advaita), first or only. > > > > > You have raised a crucial question - do id, ego and super ego > belong > > > > to mana or Viveka...If only western psychology knew about this - > it > > > > would be a revolution. > > > > > I base my understanding on Adishankara`s teaching, and Viveka > > > > chudamani gives answers to questions rasied (I`m sure you know > this). We > > > > could go through the slokas anytime and clearly see how he > > > > differentiates Mana, Viveka, Ahamkar. > > > > > But what I personally lack is self-understanding or experience > in > > > > sadhana that only can give differentiation. > > > > > When it comes to psychology I follow the teaching of Eric Bern > and TA > > > > method. > > > > > If you find this acceptable, I hope we can continue, now or some > other > > > > time. > > > > > Warm regards, > > > > > Tijana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , " mysticalsense " sensemystical@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Tijana, > > > > > > > > > > > > Please see below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , " tijana " <tijanadamjanovic@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear mysticalsense, > > > > > > > Few possible answers and some points bellow... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , " mysticalsense " > sensemystical@ > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sudhir, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are we really in a position to offer something to the > 'One' Who > > > > > > actually > > > > > > > > has given us Life? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tijana: Yes. But only after we find out why He has given us > a > > > > Life. > > > > > > > > > > > > MS: there can be many views here some of which are: > > > > > > > > > > > > we will tend to offer (things - puja offering or any other > services) > > > > to > > > > > > That if we think that We and That are 'not one'. > > > > > > > > > > > > once we realise that we are a part of the That Whole, then we > will > > > > think > > > > > > that our services will be (offered) to The Whole. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you say that we can offer only after we find why he has > given us > > > > a > > > > > > Life, then does that mean that we cannot/should not consider > > > > offering > > > > > > anything until " we " come to know the purpose of our life? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In true sense, we can only Ask. or should we actually ask > - > > > > doesnt > > > > > > > > He/She already know what we need? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tijana: He/She does, but we don`t. > > > > > > > > > > > > MS: agreed. we just think of our immediate needs - He/She > knows the > > > > > > purpose of our Existence. Further, please see below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do 'We' really exist? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tijana: We certainly do. > > > > > > > > > > > > MS: 'we' exist so long as 'we' think that 'we are separate > from > > > > 'That'. > > > > > > After realisation of Oneness of 'That' and 'we', we can > appreciate > > > > that > > > > > > it is 'That' that is all there is. > > > > > > > > > > > > something like dissoluiton of Ego and merger into the > Absolute. > > > > > > > > > > > > now see what happens - below... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or is it only 'That' which exists as manifold? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tijana: `That` would be Those or These in that case and not > That. > > > > > > > > > > > > MS: 'That' again is the concept in the mind which exists so > long as > > > > > > there is the appreciation of duality between 'we' and 'That'. > > > > > > > > > > > > the " That " that is translated from Tat-Tvamasi is not the That > of > > > > the > > > > > > ThisORThat, but the Whole That is: where ther is no boudary > between > > > > 'we' > > > > > > and 'that'. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sanjayji said somewhere, when it comes to translating, English > may > > > > not > > > > > > be the right language. You see, the statements i have tried to > > > > > > articulate above would seem quite contradictory between > themsleves. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is said that the Tao that is the real Tao cannot be > described in > > > > > > words. Much of the same is said about " God " like: what God is, > > > > cannot be > > > > > > explained in words, He/She is beyond description. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One Mind, many Views. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mysticalsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and > nonsense, > > > > not > > > > > > > > between right and wrong. Carl Jung. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I`m curious to know how Jung helps. Duality is being created > from > > > > > > delusive perception of linear +/- axis spreading from the zero > point > > > > and > > > > > > subconscious (unawareness) and not Awareness is the one > responsible > > > > for > > > > > > creating experience of positive and negative. Both sense and > > > > nonsense, > > > > > > right and wrong are wrong...But this leads to insanity. > > > > > > > > > > > > Those who look at the world from dvaita perspective, see > duality > > > > > > everywhere [i vs That; Shiva-Shakti etc.] those who see the > world > > > > from > > > > > > Advaita perspective, see everything as One. Can it be said who > of > > > > the > > > > > > two is right? They call themselves right from the perspective > that > > > > makes > > > > > > sense to them. Both perspectives can make sense from a third > > > > > > perspective! What you said above is your perspective and makes > sense > > > > to > > > > > > you and will make sense to many others. When we say 'right' we > > > > assume > > > > > > exitence of 'wrong', and vice versa. So when u r saying > 'wrong', it > > > > may > > > > > > be implied that there is something else which you think is > 'right'. > > > > > > > > > > > > We are making the mind Master. The mind must be made a slave, > not of > > > > ego > > > > > > and superego (I find Freud much more precise when it comes to > > > > defining > > > > > > structure of mind) and here only I give a credit to > psychology. > > > > > > > There is no end to mind even though there are limits to it. > Bindu > > > > and > > > > > > nada, Shiva and Shakti are the only Two who are One. > > > > > > > > > > > > That particular statement from CJ is (to me) simply as an > indicator > > > > that > > > > > > the field of Mind's working is Limited. From the Mind's > perspective, > > > > the > > > > > > world (our world as we understnad it - Cognitive Perception) > depends > > > > on > > > > > > what sense we make of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > the issue happens when 'what we think is sense to us' is being > > > > termed by > > > > > > us as 'right'. > > > > > > > > > > > > Discriminating between Right and Wrong comes in as a function > of the > > > > > > SuperEgo that enforces on the individual as to what is to be > > > > followed > > > > > > and what is not to be followed (that perhaps is equivalent to > what > > > > > > society or humanity decides collectively as Dharma - sets of > rules > > > > and > > > > > > regulations about life) - like today, gays are being accepted > more > > > > > > openly, in some societies that others, and as compared to > previous > > > > > > times. So individuals, accordingly, may have less inhibition > or > > > > guilt > > > > > > feeling in this matter in coming times. Now, whether the given > > > > example > > > > > > falls in " Right or Wrong " domain of discusson or in " Sense or > > > > Nonsense " > > > > > > domain, can further be debated (elsewhere i suppose, not in > this > > > > forum) > > > > > > or we may see that it encompasses both. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, what i would be interested in knowing is that where is > the > > > > faculty > > > > > > of " Viveka " located in us? > > > > > > > > > > > > We do use the term vivek-buddhi. So, is this vivek-buddhi > > > > originating in > > > > > > the mind, or does it come from elsewhere and influence the > mind - > > > > much > > > > > > like emotions from the mana or desires from the Id may be > > > > influencing > > > > > > the Mind, making it's pendulum sway between making sense or > > > > non-sense > > > > > > out of it. The viveka-buddhi may be under influence from > super-ego, > > > > but > > > > > > if a person's sense of Ego is stronger, then that person may > bring > > > > > > revolutionary chagnes in society or atleast follow his/her > ways > > > > against > > > > > > the rules of society. Over a period of time, such ways (of > this > > > > person) > > > > > > may become a norm in the society ( super-ego has undergone > change - > > > > as > > > > > > has the archetype). > > > > > > > > > > > > Are Id, Ego, SuperEgo and Vivek-buddhi, all parts of Mind? > Then > > > > perhaps > > > > > > Vivek-buddhi is the pendulum that swings between 'thisORthat'. > May > > > > be > > > > > > someone could also coin a statement like " the pendulum of the > mana > > > > > > swings between Id and SuperEgo " . Freud should have done that - > > > > actually, > > > > > > he did that in his theories, just didnt write that statement > :-) And > > > > may > > > > > > be he didnt differentiate between mana and mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > (like english translations say - karaka for Mind is Moon!! > now, do > > > > > > emotions arise in mind or in mana? you know the answer). > > > > > > > > > > > > You will appreciate, that we cannot demarcate boundaries > between > > > > Jungian > > > > > > ways and Fruedian ways in " either this way " " or that way " > manner. > > > > These > > > > > > 2 methods and may be others too like Gestalt can (should) be > used in > > > > a > > > > > > complementary way, seeing which is applicable where, how and > how > > > > much. > > > > > > e.g. Desires arises from Id, super-ego tries to put a reign to > it, > > > > but > > > > > > Mind of the individual keeps swinging to make sense out of it > that > > > > > > whether the desire should be gratified or whether the rules of > > > > society > > > > > > or inner conciousness be followed. What manifests may still > not make > > > > > > sense to the mind or may not make sense to the superego. CJ, > SF etc > > > > all > > > > > > had their 'veiws' about the 'mind', and these veiws and those > of > > > > others > > > > > > that followed (i think you will agree) are in no way the > absolute > > > > > > correct ways, some explain somethings better that the others, > and > > > > each > > > > > > veiw has it's limitations. The 'archetypes' (of CJ) may be an > > > > outgrowth > > > > > > of the 'superego' (of SF) at the 'collective consciousness' > level > > > > (of > > > > > > CJ) vs 'individual' level (of SF). The view (CJ, SF ) that one > > > > thinks > > > > > > is applicable will thus depend on whether at the given moment > the > > > > > > individual needs to be looked as and Individual or a part of > that > > > > > > Collective Whole. Both views are nevertheless applicable to > the same > > > > > > individual, in some conditions in a complementary way, in > other > > > > > > conditions one at a time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Study of psychology, to me, provides another way about > understanding > > > > of > > > > > > what the scriptures are saying about the human wrt desires, I, > That, > > > > > > consciousness, ego etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > U said that: Both sense and nonsense, right and wrong are > > > > wrong...But > > > > > > this leads to insanity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > U said that: The mind must be made a slave, not of ego and > superego > > > > > > > > > > > > The scriptures say as well that mind should be mastered, and i > could > > > > > > agree no lesser. The statement from CJ just reminds me of just > that > > > > - > > > > > > i.e. one should not be a slave to the swinging of the mind's > > > > pendulum - > > > > > > between ego-superego, this-that, I-That, sense-nonsense, > > > > karma-destiny, > > > > > > etc etc. It is no weightier a statement, than those, if any, > about > > > > > > swinging between Id-Superego or between ego-superego from > wherever > > > > they > > > > > > came from, including SF or Tijana or anyone who studies these > > > > > > perspectives :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > e> Warm regards > > > > > > > Tijana > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice discussing all this with you. > > > > > > > > > > > > mysticalsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and > nonsense, not > > > > > > between right and wrong. Carl Jung. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , " sudhir_panda_bbsr " > > > > > > > > <sudhir_panda_bbsr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Sir, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an interesting discussion. In a small village > near > > > > Puri, > > > > > > where > > > > > > > > I was born, people regularly offer Champaka to Shiva > linga. Many > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > offer multiple of 108 Champakas when their wishes are > fulfilled. > > > > I > > > > > > am > > > > > > > > not sure about other places in India, but this practice is > also > > > > seen > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > several other parts of Odisha. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I cannot exactly remember where (I think it was in Pune) > but > > > > once > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > pandit has asked me to offer Tulasi on Shiva linga during > a > > > > > > > > rudrabhiseka. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and regards, > > > > > > > > > Sudhir > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , " mysticalsense " > sensemystical@ > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear SR, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It can also be inferred that since the Atman in us is > the > > > > Shiva > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > the rest of what we are made of is Shakti/Girija (ref: > > > > > > > > > > AdiShankaracharya's kriti: Atmaa tvaM girijaa matiH > > > > sahachrAhA; > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > Shiva Purana); then we should neither be consuming > tulasi > > > > nor > > > > > > > > wearing > > > > > > > > > > it, as in essence we just end up offering it to > > > > Shiva+Shakti, > > > > > > since > > > > > > > > > > consuming it will put it into the Shakti part and > wearing it > > > > > > will be > > > > > > > > > > around the body that houses the Atman that is the > Spark of > > > > > > Shiva. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oh ho but who is sustaining this body and the > > > > universe...Vishnu? > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > where is Vishnu if everything is Shiva+Shakti....and > so on > > > > and > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > forth, > > > > > > > > > > then someone learned with Vishnu Purana will say, it > is > > > > Vishnu > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > manifests as everything...so the 2 parties keep > fighting > > > > about > > > > > > who > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > superior and what should be offered to whom. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Coming back to Shiva Purana, why would Shiva Purana be > > > > talking > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > offering Tulasi to Shiva in general or under special > > > > > > circumstances? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > e.g. ShivaPurana: Rudra Samhita: Chapter 14: talks of > > > > offering > > > > > > > > Tulasi to > > > > > > > > > > Shiva ( Shloka 28 ), among benefits of offering other > > > > articles > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > bilva, bandhuka, nirgundi etc. this chapter 14 > explicit in > > > > > > saying > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > ketaki and champaka are prohibited (and reasons to > same are > > > > > > given in > > > > > > > > > > other parts of Shiva Purana). Please can you point the > > > > reference > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > Shiva Purana or elsewhere which says that " Only on > Shiva > > > > ratri > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > tulasi > > > > > > > > > > offered to Shiva and Bilva offered to Vishnu. " or is > that an > > > > > > > > inference > > > > > > > > > > (or a tradition being followed)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mysticalsense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and > > > > nonsense, > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > between right and wrong. Carl Jung. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa , " Sanjay Rath " > <sanjayrath@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > om gurave namah > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Kunal Nath > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is 100% correct. Only on Shiva ratri is tulasi > > > > offered to > > > > > > > > Shiva > > > > > > > > > > and Bilva offered to Vishnu. This is taught after the > battle > > > > > > between > > > > > > > > > > Brahma and Vishnu in the Vidyesvara samhita of Shiva > purana. > > > > For > > > > > > > > > > Shivaratri is the day when the Atma linga (pillar of > light) > > > > was > > > > > > > > > > witnessed as the manifestation of Shiva by them. It > was on > > > > this > > > > > > day > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > Shiva granted the boon of equivalence to Vishnu and > > > > forgiveness > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > Brahma for his sins. Therefore those who have lied and > > > > sinned in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > year go to Shiva with the Ketaki flower (only offered > on > > > > this > > > > > > day) > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > while offering it, they CONFESS their sin. This > confession > > > > with > > > > > > > > Ketaki > > > > > > > > > > as witness leads to forgiveness and change. This is > pracised > > > > in > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > Orissa temples even today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Wishes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sanjay Rath > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road, New Delhi 110060, India; > +91 > > > > (011) > > > > > > > > 4504 > > > > > > > > > > 8762 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Readings: www.srath.com; Courses: www.sohamsa.com; > Books: > > > > > > > > > > www.sagittariuspublications.com; Community: > > > > www..org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa > > > > [sohamsa ] > > > > > > On > > > > > > > > > > Behalf Of utkarsh_vaggbhav > > > > > > > > > > > 26 December 2009 03:06 AM > > > > > > > > > > > sohamsa > > > > > > > > > > > Re: Tulasi: Either or Both? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respected sir, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know the technical reason as to why Tulasi > is not > > > > > > offered > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > Shiva, but I know that we shouldn't...!! Actually > sometimes > > > > ago, > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > used > > > > > > > > > > to offer Tulasi to Shiv Linga, but later I came to > know that > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > shouldn't, so I stopped that. Now while I didn't face > any > > > > > > problems > > > > > > > > > > because of that, I know of people who had problems due > to > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > only..like a friend of mine had kept shiva linga at > the > > > > Tulasi > > > > > > Pindi > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > used to pour water over it...needless to say, his > " general > > > > time > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > growth " suffered! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also it wouldn't be out of place to mention that > once a > > > > year, > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > Mahashivaratri, Tulasi is offered to Baba Vaidyanath > in > > > > > > Jharkhand, > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > if my memory doesn't fail me, Bel Patra to Vishnu ji.. > It is > > > > a > > > > > > > > practice > > > > > > > > > > being followed since God knows when, but it is right > for > > > > that > > > > > > place > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > that time... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Though it is slightly off the topic, but let me add > few > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > words...the same deity may change his/her bhava from > place > > > > to > > > > > > > > place..so > > > > > > > > > > even as there are generalities as mentioned in > scriptures, > > > > there > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > local/specific differences..to alter that is possible > only > > > > for > > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > > > like Adi Shankaracharya..Now the reasons behind this > > > > phenomenon > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > many and unexplainable...Our own bhavas over a period > of > > > > > > time(like > > > > > > > > > > bhavas of Bhaktas or of very evolved souls) somehow > affects > > > > the > > > > > > > > bhava of > > > > > > > > > > deity too... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I think if I have to offer something to Shiva ji, > I'll > > > > > > offer > > > > > > > > Bel > > > > > > > > > > Patra..But suppose You r really in love with Him and > have > > > > been > > > > > > > > > > worshipping Him with Tulasi all your life, if I happen > to > > > > come > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > house, I'll make it a point that I offer some Tulasi > to Shiv > > > > Ji > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > Kunal Nath. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.