Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Namaste Everybody, Shree Maa dictated from Bengali with Her own comments a story about Shankaracharya. Please read and share your thoughts, insights and also any questions that you may have. Thank you very much! Jai Maa When Shankaracharya got Brahma Gyaan he saw the whole world as a dream and unreal. At that time he felt energy is not real; Shakti also is a dream. At this time he went to the banks of the River Ganga to take a holy dip. As he was climbing up the stairs of the ghats of Ganga, he saw a lady with a dead body lying by her side. He told the lady, " Please take the dead body away from my path. " The lady replied, " Baba, you tell the dead body to get out of your way. " When he heard this crazy woman saying such a foolish thing, Shakaracharya said, " Mother, inside this corpse there is no shakti (energy). " The lady said, " Why Baba? Does that mean without shakti no one can move? " Shankaracharya got upset and said, " What you are saying is impossible. This man is dead - unless we move him, he cannot move by himself. " The lady answered, " Why is this impossible? In the cycle of creation, can Nature (prakriti) move without Pure Consciousness (chetana shakti)? Why do you say that a dead body cannot move? Please explain this to me. " Shankaracharya was surprised. He felt that whoever has Nirvikalpa samadhi resides in Pure Consciousness (Shuddha Chetana). He is One with the entire universe. This is Shakti, energy. She is Chinmayi Jagat Janani (the Universal Mother of Creation) and creator of this perceivable universe. The dead body and the lady disappeared. It was Divine Mother Maa Annapurna who led Shankaracharya to this intuitive understanding to break his ego and it was Lord Shiva who acted as the dead body. Shree Maa smiled and said, " If we love God with unconditional love, God teaches us in such a beautiful way. If we take one step towards God, God takes 10 steps towards us. Is it not beautiful? Is it not Truth? " Maa laughs in a gentle all knowing way...ha,ha,ha... Ramakrishna's Sanyaas Guru Totapuri did not believe in Shakti (Energy). When Ramakrishna clapped his hands and said " Maa, Maa, Maa, Maa, " Totapuri used to get very mad. But when he stayed a long time with Ramakrishna, he felt a change within himself. When the effect of illusion breaks asunder, then one attains consciousness with wisdom. When True Consciousness awakens, the effects of maya (illusion) go away. Ramakrishna said that you can light a thousand lamps in a dark room and all the darkness goes away. When Pure Consciousness awakens, illusion goes away. This does not happen little by little, it happens in one moment, all together. Om Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Jai Maa! Thank you Ramya-ji, for sharing this wonderful side story from Adi Shankaracharya's very short but most illustrious life, albeit for only 32 years. I am reminded about this very story many a time whenever our internal energies go on a slide down scale, and the only quick action response was to chant Shree Maa's songs, Chandi Path and Maha Mrituyamjaya mantrams, with couple of serious Gayatri Japa. Lo and behold, one gets the energies back and we swing back, with gusto. Despite the vast accumulation of internal shakthi, we all do possess, on latent state, it requires the enlightening lamp (s) to show us the internal light of consciousness. Most of us just prevail as jatam, on many occasions, which Shankaracharya denounces vehemently, as in Bhaja Govindam: "Punarapi Jananam Punarapi Maranam Punarapi Janani Jathare Shayanam Iha Samsare Bahudustaare Kripayaa Paare Pashi Murarey.. Bhaja Govindam Bhaja Govindam" We tend to fall deep into sleep, even when performing our nithya kartas and dwell in our routine karma bandhana chores. This is where the energies so graciously showered on us by Shree Maa will awaken and make us all sing Jago Jago Maa, Jagatha Janani Jago Maa. Namastes and Jai Maa Jai Swamiji. babu krishnan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Namaste, People! It is my humble offering that this is a double lesson in humility and Natural Law. The energy of Nature or Creation doesn't question, it allows. The woman pointed out that there is no more or less natural (Nature) energy in a dead person than in one alive. It is equal, because the lifeless physical body, as a product of Nature, now knows it's path and won't fight it. It will eventually rot and return to dust. The conflict was in the mind of Shankaracharya. Once he (self) realized the Truth in this situation - that his body's physicality wasn't actually worth much more than a decomposing body recycling itself with Nature, the conflict of his mind (to move the body) ceased and the woman and body therefore disappeared (whether metaphorically or literally I do not know, I wasn't really there...). And the halogen lightbulb of humility went on with a cosmic flash...! I wonder what a toddler might have thought of this situation. Probably not much. He wouldn't have known the difference between a dead body and one taking a nap. Nor would he have given it a second thought (attachment). If the body was in his way, he simply would have walked around it. End of story. But it is a little disconcerting to come to the realization that in the Laws of Nature, I really, actually, truly have no more worth than - say - a woodtick or a leech or a steamy, pungent pile of rotting goo, or any other myriad of things that makes one squeamish. As an attachement, as long as we are still " alive " and consumers of Nature, we have to be very, very aware of what we give back. Plant a tree. love and peace to all, sal. , " n_ramya108 " <n_ramya108 wrote: > > Namaste Everybody, > > Shree Maa dictated from Bengali with Her own comments a story about > Shankaracharya. > > Please read and share your thoughts, insights and also any questions > that you may have. Thank you very much! > > Jai Maa > > When Shankaracharya got Brahma Gyaan he saw the whole world as a dream > and unreal. At that time he felt energy is not real; Shakti also is a > dream. > > At this time he went to the banks of the River Ganga to take a holy > dip. As he was climbing up the stairs of the ghats of Ganga, he saw a > lady with a dead body lying by her side. > > He told the lady, " Please take the dead body away from my path. " > > The lady replied, " Baba, you tell the dead body to get out of your way. " > > When he heard this crazy woman saying such a foolish thing, > Shakaracharya said, " Mother, inside this corpse there is no shakti > (energy). " > > The lady said, " Why Baba? Does that mean without shakti no one can move? " > > Shankaracharya got upset and said, " What you are saying is impossible. > This man is dead - unless we move him, he cannot move by himself. " > > The lady answered, " Why is this impossible? In the cycle of creation, > can Nature (prakriti) move without Pure Consciousness (chetana > shakti)? Why do you say that a dead body cannot move? Please explain > this to me. " > > Shankaracharya was surprised. > > He felt that whoever has Nirvikalpa samadhi resides in Pure > Consciousness (Shuddha Chetana). He is One with the entire universe. > > This is Shakti, energy. She is Chinmayi Jagat Janani (the Universal > Mother of Creation) and creator of this perceivable universe. > > The dead body and the lady disappeared. > > It was Divine Mother Maa Annapurna who led Shankaracharya to this > intuitive understanding to break his ego and it was Lord Shiva who > acted as the dead body. > > Shree Maa smiled and said, " If we love God with unconditional love, > God teaches us in such a beautiful way. If we take one step towards > God, God takes 10 steps towards us. Is it not beautiful? Is it not > Truth? " Maa laughs in a gentle all knowing way...ha,ha,ha... > > Ramakrishna's Sanyaas Guru Totapuri did not believe in Shakti > (Energy). When Ramakrishna clapped his hands and said " Maa, Maa, Maa, > Maa, " Totapuri used to get very mad. But when he stayed a long time > with Ramakrishna, he felt a change within himself. > > When the effect of illusion breaks asunder, then one attains > consciousness with wisdom. When True Consciousness awakens, the > effects of maya (illusion) go away. Ramakrishna said that you can > light a thousand lamps in a dark room and all the darkness goes away. > When Pure Consciousness awakens, illusion goes away. This does not > happen little by little, it happens in one moment, all together. > > Om > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Namaste Ramya, Please give my pranaam to Shree maa and thank her for the beautiful story. I was wondering why realized people such as Shankaracharya and Totapuri did not believe in the Divine Shakti. When one is realized and knows Truth, is it not one Truth? Is the realization of a Vedanta Gyani different from that of a Bhakta? If so, how can they both be Truth? Or, are there degrees of realization? And if so, which comes first, the realization of the bhakta or the brahma gyani? Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to ask the question. Regards Papia , " n_ramya108 " <n_ramya108 wrote: > > Namaste Everybody, > > Shree Maa dictated from Bengali with Her own comments a story about > Shankaracharya. > > Please read and share your thoughts, insights and also any questions > that you may have. Thank you very much! > > Jai Maa > > When Shankaracharya got Brahma Gyaan he saw the whole world as a dream > and unreal. At that time he felt energy is not real; Shakti also is a > dream. > > At this time he went to the banks of the River Ganga to take a holy > dip. As he was climbing up the stairs of the ghats of Ganga, he saw a > lady with a dead body lying by her side. > > He told the lady, " Please take the dead body away from my path. " > > The lady replied, " Baba, you tell the dead body to get out of your way. " > > When he heard this crazy woman saying such a foolish thing, > Shakaracharya said, " Mother, inside this corpse there is no shakti > (energy). " > > The lady said, " Why Baba? Does that mean without shakti no one can move? " > > Shankaracharya got upset and said, " What you are saying is impossible. > This man is dead - unless we move him, he cannot move by himself. " > > The lady answered, " Why is this impossible? In the cycle of creation, > can Nature (prakriti) move without Pure Consciousness (chetana > shakti)? Why do you say that a dead body cannot move? Please explain > this to me. " > > Shankaracharya was surprised. > > He felt that whoever has Nirvikalpa samadhi resides in Pure > Consciousness (Shuddha Chetana). He is One with the entire universe. > > This is Shakti, energy. She is Chinmayi Jagat Janani (the Universal > Mother of Creation) and creator of this perceivable universe. > > The dead body and the lady disappeared. > > It was Divine Mother Maa Annapurna who led Shankaracharya to this > intuitive understanding to break his ego and it was Lord Shiva who > acted as the dead body. > > Shree Maa smiled and said, " If we love God with unconditional love, > God teaches us in such a beautiful way. If we take one step towards > God, God takes 10 steps towards us. Is it not beautiful? Is it not > Truth? " Maa laughs in a gentle all knowing way...ha,ha,ha... > > Ramakrishna's Sanyaas Guru Totapuri did not believe in Shakti > (Energy). When Ramakrishna clapped his hands and said " Maa, Maa, Maa, > Maa, " Totapuri used to get very mad. But when he stayed a long time > with Ramakrishna, he felt a change within himself. > > When the effect of illusion breaks asunder, then one attains > consciousness with wisdom. When True Consciousness awakens, the > effects of maya (illusion) go away. Ramakrishna said that you can > light a thousand lamps in a dark room and all the darkness goes away. > When Pure Consciousness awakens, illusion goes away. This does not > happen little by little, it happens in one moment, all together. > > Om > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2007 Report Share Posted July 14, 2007 That's a really good question, Papia. I can't wait to hear the answers you get. Jai Maa! Chris , " roy.papia " <roy.papia wrote: > > Namaste Ramya, > Please give my pranaam to Shree maa and thank her for the beautiful > story. > I was wondering why realized people such as Shankaracharya and > Totapuri did not believe in the Divine Shakti. When one is realized > and knows Truth, is it not one Truth? Is the realization of a Vedanta > Gyani different from that of a Bhakta? If so, how can they both be > Truth? Or, are there degrees of realization? And if so, which comes > first, the realization of the bhakta or the brahma gyani? > Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to ask the question. > Regards > Papia > > , " n_ramya108 " <n_ramya108@> > wrote: > > > > Namaste Everybody, > > > > Shree Maa dictated from Bengali with Her own comments a story about > > Shankaracharya. > > > > Please read and share your thoughts, insights and also any questions > > that you may have. Thank you very much! > > > > Jai Maa > > > > When Shankaracharya got Brahma Gyaan he saw the whole world as a > dream > > and unreal. At that time he felt energy is not real; Shakti also is > a > > dream. > > > > At this time he went to the banks of the River Ganga to take a holy > > dip. As he was climbing up the stairs of the ghats of Ganga, he > saw a > > lady with a dead body lying by her side. > > > > He told the lady, " Please take the dead body away from my path. " > > > > The lady replied, " Baba, you tell the dead body to get out of your > way. " > > > > When he heard this crazy woman saying such a foolish thing, > > Shakaracharya said, " Mother, inside this corpse there is no shakti > > (energy). " > > > > The lady said, " Why Baba? Does that mean without shakti no one can > move? " > > > > Shankaracharya got upset and said, " What you are saying is > impossible. > > This man is dead - unless we move him, he cannot move by himself. " > > > > The lady answered, " Why is this impossible? In the cycle of > creation, > > can Nature (prakriti) move without Pure Consciousness (chetana > > shakti)? Why do you say that a dead body cannot move? Please explain > > this to me. " > > > > Shankaracharya was surprised. > > > > He felt that whoever has Nirvikalpa samadhi resides in Pure > > Consciousness (Shuddha Chetana). He is One with the entire > universe. > > > > This is Shakti, energy. She is Chinmayi Jagat Janani (the Universal > > Mother of Creation) and creator of this perceivable universe. > > > > The dead body and the lady disappeared. > > > > It was Divine Mother Maa Annapurna who led Shankaracharya to this > > intuitive understanding to break his ego and it was Lord Shiva who > > acted as the dead body. > > > > Shree Maa smiled and said, " If we love God with unconditional love, > > God teaches us in such a beautiful way. If we take one step towards > > God, God takes 10 steps towards us. Is it not beautiful? Is it not > > Truth? " Maa laughs in a gentle all knowing way...ha,ha,ha... > > > > Ramakrishna's Sanyaas Guru Totapuri did not believe in Shakti > > (Energy). When Ramakrishna clapped his hands and said " Maa, Maa, > Maa, > > Maa, " Totapuri used to get very mad. But when he stayed a long time > > with Ramakrishna, he felt a change within himself. > > > > When the effect of illusion breaks asunder, then one attains > > consciousness with wisdom. When True Consciousness awakens, the > > effects of maya (illusion) go away. Ramakrishna said that you can > > light a thousand lamps in a dark room and all the darkness goes > away. > > When Pure Consciousness awakens, illusion goes away. This does not > > happen little by little, it happens in one moment, all together. > > > > Om > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2007 Report Share Posted July 14, 2007 , " roy.papia " <roy.papia wrote: > > Namaste Ramya, > Please give my pranaam to Shree maa and thank her for the beautiful > story. > I was wondering why realized people such as Shankaracharya and > Totapuri did not believe in the Divine Shakti. When one is realized > and knows Truth, is it not one Truth? Is the realization of a Vedanta > Gyani different from that of a Bhakta? If so, how can they both be > Truth? Or, are there degrees of realization? And if so, which comes > first, the realization of the bhakta or the brahma gyani? > Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to ask the question. > Regards > Papia > Some answers that come to my mind, one or more can apply. 1. God's Leela brings about this apparent clash to illustrate the importance of Bhakti or Shakti vis-a-vis Jnana. This is more for other devotees to be inspired. 2. On the other hand, there are several stories associated with Jnanis which highlight improper or over-the-top Bhakti (fanatical devotion). 3. Bhakti is basic for all types of spiritual pursuit. Bhakti is enough as a path, but people want to experience God in other ways. hence jnana etc. 4. Bhakti and Jnana are like an infinite helix; no beginning, no end, forever together. one feeds the other to higher highs (sic!). Note: It is hard to think of Shakti without being associated with Bhakti. so for all above, think Shakti also. Jai Ma! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2007 Report Share Posted July 14, 2007 Peace to you, Papia! Your questions are thought provoking and very kindly asked. What a soft and gentle heart! It is my understanding, visual learner that I be, that I liken levels of realization to the peeling of an onion. We are here to re-member who we are (soul energies having human experiences) which is the ultimate Truth. Souls being one with All-That-Is. When and if we begin this spiritual journey (for some never do), whatever it is that causes us to begin our journey takes off that first thin, papery, crunchy layer of onion skin. Consider this the first " aha " moment of " whoa, it's not about me... " The skin is gone, you now have to use the onion. Challenged with our human-ness, our light being, our soul essence has been covered with a lot of layers. Layer by layer, pride, arrogance, ego, control, separation, duality - whether we possess those qualities or not - when then are intellectually internalized for the fraud they are, the layer comes off. We we now have knowledge, and we CHOOSE not to (or at least try to) ever act that way again. The layers cannot go back on because we have peeled them off with awareness. It's sort of like the reverse of lotus blossum blooming. The flower isn't really in full bloom until all the petals (compassion, kindness, empathy, all those groovy ideals that would make this world a heaven on earth) are there, a soul's journey isn't really realized until all the layers of the onion are gone. We are a work in progress. Even the saints continue to peel in the search for Truth. Might as well get along since we're all here for a spell... (My most humble apologies to the well-serving onion for the analogy...you are tasty, you feed me, and you bring me tears.) with love to all, sal. , " roy.papia " <roy.papia wrote: > > Namaste Ramya, > Please give my pranaam to Shree maa and thank her for the beautiful > story. > I was wondering why realized people such as Shankaracharya and > Totapuri did not believe in the Divine Shakti. When one is realized > and knows Truth, is it not one Truth? Is the realization of a Vedanta > Gyani different from that of a Bhakta? If so, how can they both be > Truth? Or, are there degrees of realization? And if so, which comes > first, the realization of the bhakta or the brahma gyani? > Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to ask the question. > Regards > Papia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2007 Report Share Posted July 15, 2007 Ramya, I have been contemplating Maa's teaching. In my research, I found the following text that seems to suggest that Shankaracharya had reached one of the oceans of brillance that surround Paramatmam, one of the places where one meets God, Brahma Gyaan, or pure knowledge; but He had not yet reached the ocean of Nisbat or understanding of union between the Lord and the souls. He was still in illusion with his disbelief of the existance of Shakti. I believe this is what Chinmayi Jagat Janani showed Shankaracharya through Kripa (grace), that the union of Consciousness and Energy (Shiva and Shakti) is one of the meeting places of jiva's and Paramdham. This teaching, about the union of Shiva and Shakti also seems central to what Shree Maa and Swamiji teach us. Sending Love and Thanks, Jai Maa Sadhu Maa ---- Saagar (ocean) is a description of the eight oceans that surround the eternal, ever brilliant Paramdham. In the Mool Milawa (place of meeting) are the Supreme Lord, his bliss part Shyama and the divine souls. Ek Jyot Saagar Ho Ranya, Aur Upar Tale Sab Jot Kai Soor Ude Aage Kankri, Tin Bhom Ki Jot Udot (Saagar 1/35) The entire Mool Milawa is so brilliant that even one particle has more light than thousands of suns put together. Surrounding them, are immense oceans (the word ocean is used to express size, depth, vastness). There is one ocean in each direction - East, West, North, South, Northeast, Southwest, etc. From Parmatma's divine brilliant face arises Noor Sagar (Ocean of Light). From the beauty of all the divine souls arises Neer Sagar (ocean of clear, pure water). The third is created by the unity of all the souls (called Kshir or Doodh Saagar - the Milky Way). The fourth Saagar is created by the beauty and splendour of Shyam and Shyamaji. A very beautiful description of Shyamaji can be found here. The fifth ocean is of Love. There are only two things in Paramdham - brilliance and love - they are prevalent everywhere. The way to see God's brilliance is only through love. The sixth is an ocean of knowledge (Brahma Gyaan). Just a drop of this ocean has created all the religious scriptures, the entire knowledge that we have in the world today. All the written and spoken words are due to this drop of Lord's knowledge. The seventh ocean represents the supreme union (Nisbat) between the Lord and the souls. The eighth ocean is God's immense grace (Kripa). Everywhere we see His grace, the whole world was created due to His grace. We came here, got lost, that is His grace. And it is His grace that will re-awaken us. http://www.pranami.org/saagar.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2007 Report Share Posted July 16, 2007 Thanks for posting this Ramya! There's just so much here to look at and contemplate, and try to understand... When Maa says how beautiful it is, the way God teaches those of us who are blessed with unconditional love for Her, it thrills my heart. I know just what she means. Yet for a while now I have been very unhappy, with myself, and with God. But what can I do? Once you have experienced the reality of God, of God's grace and loving care, how can you deny your own experience and say to God, " I don't want you anymore. You're not helping me like I need you to! " You cannot. You have no choice but to continue to love God with whatever degree of intensity you are capable of, despite all the difficulties, and ambivalent feelings. It's easy to feel possessed of unconditional love when one feels blessed. It is harder when discouragement sets in. But unconditional love is unconditional, isn't it? [Just waiting for the beauty to kick in] Adi Shankara is a bit of an enigma to me. I've read bits and pieces of his history, as well as bit of his writings, but I can't really say I understand who and what he was. Described as the Father of Vedanta, he went across India debating any and all comers (such was the tradition of the day) arguing against the tradition of external worship of idols and for the internal realization of the formless divinity who could only be described as sat, chit, ananda. I don't know why he did this. Apparently he had a mission of some sort, and when great saints have a mission of some sort it generally means there is something fundamentally wrong, or missing, in the current environment. What exactly that was, I'm not sure. Interestingly, despite his one man crusade against formal puja, he is said to have stopped to do puja in every temple he passed. For me this illustrates perfectly the fundamental issues of this story Shree Maa tells. Swamiji illustrated it well in one of the books (perhaps Before Becoming This) when he talked about the great teacher of Vedanta, who lectures all over the world on the formless divinity, the illusory nature of material existence, and on our own true nature being one with Brahman, and who nevertheless has to board a plane and fly to his next engagement. Vedanta says we are all God, and all this is mere illusion. Tantra says that She created all this, and abides in it, and it is therefore real, because She is real. Jai Maa! Chris , " n_ramya108 " <n_ramya108 wrote: > > Namaste Everybody, > > Shree Maa dictated from Bengali with Her own comments a story about > Shankaracharya. > > Please read and share your thoughts, insights and also any questions > that you may have. Thank you very much! > > Jai Maa > > When Shankaracharya got Brahma Gyaan he saw the whole world as a dream > and unreal. At that time he felt energy is not real; Shakti also is a > dream. > > At this time he went to the banks of the River Ganga to take a holy > dip. As he was climbing up the stairs of the ghats of Ganga, he saw a > lady with a dead body lying by her side. > > He told the lady, " Please take the dead body away from my path. " > > The lady replied, " Baba, you tell the dead body to get out of your way. " > > When he heard this crazy woman saying such a foolish thing, > Shakaracharya said, " Mother, inside this corpse there is no shakti > (energy). " > > The lady said, " Why Baba? Does that mean without shakti no one can move? " > > Shankaracharya got upset and said, " What you are saying is impossible. > This man is dead - unless we move him, he cannot move by himself. " > > The lady answered, " Why is this impossible? In the cycle of creation, > can Nature (prakriti) move without Pure Consciousness (chetana > shakti)? Why do you say that a dead body cannot move? Please explain > this to me. " > > Shankaracharya was surprised. > > He felt that whoever has Nirvikalpa samadhi resides in Pure > Consciousness (Shuddha Chetana). He is One with the entire universe. > > This is Shakti, energy. She is Chinmayi Jagat Janani (the Universal > Mother of Creation) and creator of this perceivable universe. > > The dead body and the lady disappeared. > > It was Divine Mother Maa Annapurna who led Shankaracharya to this > intuitive understanding to break his ego and it was Lord Shiva who > acted as the dead body. > > Shree Maa smiled and said, " If we love God with unconditional love, > God teaches us in such a beautiful way. If we take one step towards > God, God takes 10 steps towards us. Is it not beautiful? Is it not > Truth? " Maa laughs in a gentle all knowing way...ha,ha,ha... > > Ramakrishna's Sanyaas Guru Totapuri did not believe in Shakti > (Energy). When Ramakrishna clapped his hands and said " Maa, Maa, Maa, > Maa, " Totapuri used to get very mad. But when he stayed a long time > with Ramakrishna, he felt a change within himself. > > When the effect of illusion breaks asunder, then one attains > consciousness with wisdom. When True Consciousness awakens, the > effects of maya (illusion) go away. Ramakrishna said that you can > light a thousand lamps in a dark room and all the darkness goes away. > When Pure Consciousness awakens, illusion goes away. This does not > happen little by little, it happens in one moment, all together. > > Om > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2007 Report Share Posted July 16, 2007 Namastes and Jai Maa to Ms Papia for this thought provoking question, as we all pay our collective obeisance to Shree Maa for the apt and pointed side story. The following pointers to the path of our internal self realization could provide some feeble light , and could only be taken as a beginner's midterm answers. However, they would form the basis of more serious and profound further analysis and comments from others, if they so venture. We get indoctrinated by our parents, teachers, political heavies and general historians that we gather information and experiences over our life times, which we accumulate as muddy settlements in our cups of lives. These sediments from this janma and our previous ones form the karma bandhans, which we try to break away and move from ignorance to state of internal bliss, which we call realization, wherein together we feel the pangs of separation of the doer to the deed and the resultant, thus causing series of opposing views and self criticism. We shudder to think of the contiuned pain pleasure, love/hatred, hope/despair, beauty/ugliness etc the maiilions of pairs of emotional, self induced analysis paralysis. Brahma Gyanis are no different in their daily routines, as they consciously negate the effects of these sedimentary muddles and stirrings which cause more confused state of obtaning Gyana at its zenith. If we imagine the effects of aeons of internal dogmas and self immolatory critiquing the existence of the Supreme Consciousness which we obviously cannot fathom or measure or even quantify or describe, then we could possibly 'feel' the traumas faced by those who venture into the realms of self-vicharan. Thus the beginning Gyani, whose path is strewn with massive obstacles of doubt, anguish, helplessness and utter chaos, faces immense internal and constant scrutiny of the nebulous pricniples, whihc we now know, as being time tested steps to obtaining everlasting bliss or ananda. Then the question arisies, who is this "reaching" or trying to "reach" this gyana marg or gyana deepika. It is the story of our lives, as we know, since that fleeting sense of "reaching" some imaginary "goal" itself is absolutely illusory and we conveniently call it our manushya maya. The animals and birds and other living janthoos and organisms, do not bother about the existence or absence of internal ore external gyan, as their needs or internal vichar are limited or non existent. It is the human minds' rich and rather questioning emquiries and taxing the buddhi that prompts further looking into the nature and truth of things around us, at all times. Unless we are willing to have that unique EUREKA moment as it happened to Archimedes or the passionate unstinted belief shown about the truth of Narayana's existence within the folds of the series of sari pallus by Draupadi as she was being ridiculed, stripped and abused by Shakuni , Duchasan and Duryodhan in the grand court of the Kauravas, we possibly cannot "feel" that unparalleled glow which emantes from our within. Thus even for Shankaracharya, these tests were supposedly needed to refine his thought process and sharpen his intellect, which he freely admits to be faulty, on more than one occasion. He is so scrupulously honest that he chasties himself first before commenting on others. So much so, when his won mother was about enter into a coma, prior to her departure from these earthly bonds, Shankaracharya travelled back from the Himalayas to offer final rites to his dear mother, despite the fact that he had taken sanyas at a very young age. His justifications are simple- His Mother gladly allowed him to go forth and venture into creating so many new peetams and advaita gyana for the benefit of this human race and his doing darpana was the smallest thank you for a soul who was so selfless and demanded so little. How many mothers would encourage a 12 year to walk thousands of miles into the forests and hills in search of a truth which could not be fathomed or described. But our own paths of atma-bodhana could continue unabated and relentlessly, whether we want or not. These choices that we make now, to study the scriptures, and try and gather enough internal know-how are nothing but follow through of an ancient unending self examination from a differing view points. The lighthouse at the middle of the bay continues to shine day or night, rain or shine, guiiding ships far and close, with little thought whether the ships respond or not. Our lives are also similar, as we perform all our nithya karmas and samsara bandhans, with little or no concern of their impacts or otherwise. But of course, when we start attaching meaning to results of action or inactions, then we fall prey to the maya-chakkar, an endless spiral of queries and doubts. Only Shree Maa and Swamijis' grace and love will allow us to proceed on these troubled waters, so as to clear the sedimentations of our accumulated negative thoughts . No body said ever that Gyan Path is easy, thus we feel fine we move to Bhakthi Marg!! Jai Maa With lots of love and namastes, Babu Krishnan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2007 Report Share Posted July 16, 2007 Namaste Ramya and all, with gratitude to Shree Maa for tenderly sowing this seed of contemplation in our hearts, and to all of you who shared their wisdom in response, I offer this Gem from the Gospel of the Holy Mother, which I found when searching for some understanding of the story: " One day the Holy Mother said, " However much of Japa you do, however much of work you perform all is for nothing. If Mahamaya does not open the way, is anything possible for any one? Oh bound soul! Surrender, surrender. Then alone will She take compasson on you and leave the path open. " with love, Henny , " n_ramya108 " <n_ramya108 wrote: > > Namaste Everybody, > > Shree Maa dictated from Bengali with Her own comments a story about > Shankaracharya. > > Please read and share your thoughts, insights and also any questions > that you may have. Thank you very much! > > Jai Maa > > When Shankaracharya got Brahma Gyaan he saw the whole world as a dream > and unreal. At that time he felt energy is not real; Shakti also is a > dream. > > At this time he went to the banks of the River Ganga to take a holy > dip. As he was climbing up the stairs of the ghats of Ganga, he saw a > lady with a dead body lying by her side. > > He told the lady, " Please take the dead body away from my path. " > > The lady replied, " Baba, you tell the dead body to get out of your way. " > > When he heard this crazy woman saying such a foolish thing, > Shakaracharya said, " Mother, inside this corpse there is no shakti > (energy). " > > The lady said, " Why Baba? Does that mean without shakti no one can move? " > > Shankaracharya got upset and said, " What you are saying is impossible. > This man is dead - unless we move him, he cannot move by himself. " > > The lady answered, " Why is this impossible? In the cycle of creation, > can Nature (prakriti) move without Pure Consciousness (chetana > shakti)? Why do you say that a dead body cannot move? Please explain > this to me. " > > Shankaracharya was surprised. > > He felt that whoever has Nirvikalpa samadhi resides in Pure > Consciousness (Shuddha Chetana). He is One with the entire universe. > > This is Shakti, energy. She is Chinmayi Jagat Janani (the Universal > Mother of Creation) and creator of this perceivable universe. > > The dead body and the lady disappeared. > > It was Divine Mother Maa Annapurna who led Shankaracharya to this > intuitive understanding to break his ego and it was Lord Shiva who > acted as the dead body. > > Shree Maa smiled and said, " If we love God with unconditional love, > God teaches us in such a beautiful way. If we take one step towards > God, God takes 10 steps towards us. Is it not beautiful? Is it not > Truth? " Maa laughs in a gentle all knowing way...ha,ha,ha... > > Ramakrishna's Sanyaas Guru Totapuri did not believe in Shakti > (Energy). When Ramakrishna clapped his hands and said " Maa, Maa, Maa, > Maa, " Totapuri used to get very mad. But when he stayed a long time > with Ramakrishna, he felt a change within himself. > > When the effect of illusion breaks asunder, then one attains > consciousness with wisdom. When True Consciousness awakens, the > effects of maya (illusion) go away. Ramakrishna said that you can > light a thousand lamps in a dark room and all the darkness goes away. > When Pure Consciousness awakens, illusion goes away. This does not > happen little by little, it happens in one moment, all together. > > Om > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2007 Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 Dear Papia The testimony of the sages is that followers of karma yoga, bhakti yoga, jnana yoga, and raja yoga can all attain to the realization of nirvikalpha samadhi by the exercise of their respective practices-though not all care to do so. Sri Ramakrishna would often quote: Mother, I don't want to be sugar, I want to taste sugar. The sages tell us also that there are two " degrees " of attainment of nirvikalpha samadhi. The first is " conditional " nirvikalpha. This means that, by the exercise of a well-trained and purified (cooperative) ego-mind, the sadhaka can, for a time, completely suppress the vrittis of the ego-mind itself, and " enter " nirvikalpha. Both Tota Puri and Shankara had attained that blessed and transcendental condition. That is why Tota Puri explained in answer to a question of Sri Ramakrishna, that he continued the various traditions of his dharma, such as polishing the kamandalu daily, because, if he did not, it, like the mind, would become darkened, less bright. Sri Ramakrishna said in answer to this, " But, what if the kamandalu is made of gold? " . In this way, Sri Ramakrishna was alluding to the other " kind " of nirvikalpha-the " state " of the sages as well as the avataras-the natural (sahaja) nirvikalpha, in which the ego-mind is dead, never to return with its duality, samskaras, and " all-to-human characteristics. As Buddha said: " Gata, gata, gata " , " gone, gone, gone " . This is Shiva's state, and, for that matter, who knows Shakti better than Shiva? With Love and Respect to yourself, and to all the saints, seers, sages, and avataras, Tanmaya , " roy.papia " <roy.papia wrote: > > Namaste Ramya, > Please give my pranaam to Shree maa and thank her for the beautiful > story. > I was wondering why realized people such as Shankaracharya and > Totapuri did not believe in the Divine Shakti. When one is realized > and knows Truth, is it not one Truth? Is the realization of a Vedanta > Gyani different from that of a Bhakta? If so, how can they both be > Truth? Or, are there degrees of realization? And if so, which comes > first, the realization of the bhakta or the brahma gyani? > Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to ask the question. > Regards > Papia > > , " n_ramya108 " <n_ramya108@> > wrote: > > > > Namaste Everybody, > > > > Shree Maa dictated from Bengali with Her own comments a story about > > Shankaracharya. > > > > Please read and share your thoughts, insights and also any questions > > that you may have. Thank you very much! > > > > Jai Maa > > > > When Shankaracharya got Brahma Gyaan he saw the whole world as a > dream > > and unreal. At that time he felt energy is not real; Shakti also is > a > > dream. > > > > At this time he went to the banks of the River Ganga to take a holy > > dip. As he was climbing up the stairs of the ghats of Ganga, he > saw a > > lady with a dead body lying by her side. > > > > He told the lady, " Please take the dead body away from my path. " > > > > The lady replied, " Baba, you tell the dead body to get out of your > way. " > > > > When he heard this crazy woman saying such a foolish thing, > > Shakaracharya said, " Mother, inside this corpse there is no shakti > > (energy). " > > > > The lady said, " Why Baba? Does that mean without shakti no one can > move? " > > > > Shankaracharya got upset and said, " What you are saying is > impossible. > > This man is dead - unless we move him, he cannot move by himself. " > > > > The lady answered, " Why is this impossible? In the cycle of > creation, > > can Nature (prakriti) move without Pure Consciousness (chetana > > shakti)? Why do you say that a dead body cannot move? Please explain > > this to me. " > > > > Shankaracharya was surprised. > > > > He felt that whoever has Nirvikalpa samadhi resides in Pure > > Consciousness (Shuddha Chetana). He is One with the entire > universe. > > > > This is Shakti, energy. She is Chinmayi Jagat Janani (the Universal > > Mother of Creation) and creator of this perceivable universe. > > > > The dead body and the lady disappeared. > > > > It was Divine Mother Maa Annapurna who led Shankaracharya to this > > intuitive understanding to break his ego and it was Lord Shiva who > > acted as the dead body. > > > > Shree Maa smiled and said, " If we love God with unconditional love, > > God teaches us in such a beautiful way. If we take one step towards > > God, God takes 10 steps towards us. Is it not beautiful? Is it not > > Truth? " Maa laughs in a gentle all knowing way...ha,ha,ha... > > > > Ramakrishna's Sanyaas Guru Totapuri did not believe in Shakti > > (Energy). When Ramakrishna clapped his hands and said " Maa, Maa, > Maa, > > Maa, " Totapuri used to get very mad. But when he stayed a long time > > with Ramakrishna, he felt a change within himself. > > > > When the effect of illusion breaks asunder, then one attains > > consciousness with wisdom. When True Consciousness awakens, the > > effects of maya (illusion) go away. Ramakrishna said that you can > > light a thousand lamps in a dark room and all the darkness goes > away. > > When Pure Consciousness awakens, illusion goes away. This does not > > happen little by little, it happens in one moment, all together. > > > > Om > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2007 Report Share Posted July 24, 2007 Dear Family, My deepest thanks to all who wrote in with their answers, ideas and comments. Sal, Babu Krishnan, Chris, Manoj, and Sadhu Maa, you have given me a lot of think about and understand and I am in your debt for that. Love Papia , " ty_maa " <dsjames wrote: > > > Dear Papia > > The testimony of the sages is that followers of karma yoga, bhakti > yoga, jnana yoga, and raja yoga can all attain to the realization of > nirvikalpha samadhi by the exercise of their respective > practices-though not all care to do so. Sri Ramakrishna would often > quote: Mother, I don't want to be sugar, I want to taste sugar. > > The sages tell us also that there are two " degrees " of attainment of > nirvikalpha samadhi. The first is " conditional " nirvikalpha. This > means that, by the exercise of a well-trained and purified > (cooperative) ego-mind, the sadhaka can, for a time, completely > suppress the vrittis of the ego-mind itself, and " enter " nirvikalpha. > > Both Tota Puri and Shankara had attained that blessed and > transcendental condition. That is why Tota Puri explained in answer to > a question of Sri Ramakrishna, that he continued the various > traditions of his dharma, such as polishing the kamandalu daily, > because, if he did not, it, like the mind, would become darkened, less > bright. > > Sri Ramakrishna said in answer to this, " But, what if the kamandalu is > made of gold? " . > > In this way, Sri Ramakrishna was alluding to the other " kind " of > nirvikalpha-the " state " of the sages as well as the avataras-the > natural (sahaja) nirvikalpha, in which the ego-mind is dead, never to > return with its duality, samskaras, and " all-to-human characteristics. > > As Buddha said: " Gata, gata, gata " , " gone, gone, gone " . > > This is Shiva's state, and, for that matter, who knows Shakti better > than Shiva? > > > With Love and Respect to yourself, and to all the saints, seers, > sages, and avataras, > > Tanmaya > > > > , " roy.papia " <roy.papia@> wrote: > > > > Namaste Ramya, > > Please give my pranaam to Shree maa and thank her for the beautiful > > story. > > I was wondering why realized people such as Shankaracharya and > > Totapuri did not believe in the Divine Shakti. When one is realized > > and knows Truth, is it not one Truth? Is the realization of a Vedanta > > Gyani different from that of a Bhakta? If so, how can they both be > > Truth? Or, are there degrees of realization? And if so, which comes > > first, the realization of the bhakta or the brahma gyani? > > Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to ask the question. > > Regards > > Papia > > > > , " n_ramya108 " <n_ramya108@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Namaste Everybody, > > > > > > Shree Maa dictated from Bengali with Her own comments a story about > > > Shankaracharya. > > > > > > Please read and share your thoughts, insights and also any questions > > > that you may have. Thank you very much! > > > > > > Jai Maa > > > > > > When Shankaracharya got Brahma Gyaan he saw the whole world as a > > dream > > > and unreal. At that time he felt energy is not real; Shakti also is > > a > > > dream. > > > > > > At this time he went to the banks of the River Ganga to take a holy > > > dip. As he was climbing up the stairs of the ghats of Ganga, he > > saw a > > > lady with a dead body lying by her side. > > > > > > He told the lady, " Please take the dead body away from my path. " > > > > > > The lady replied, " Baba, you tell the dead body to get out of your > > way. " > > > > > > When he heard this crazy woman saying such a foolish thing, > > > Shakaracharya said, " Mother, inside this corpse there is no shakti > > > (energy). " > > > > > > The lady said, " Why Baba? Does that mean without shakti no one can > > move? " > > > > > > Shankaracharya got upset and said, " What you are saying is > > impossible. > > > This man is dead - unless we move him, he cannot move by himself. " > > > > > > The lady answered, " Why is this impossible? In the cycle of > > creation, > > > can Nature (prakriti) move without Pure Consciousness (chetana > > > shakti)? Why do you say that a dead body cannot move? Please explain > > > this to me. " > > > > > > Shankaracharya was surprised. > > > > > > He felt that whoever has Nirvikalpa samadhi resides in Pure > > > Consciousness (Shuddha Chetana). He is One with the entire > > universe. > > > > > > This is Shakti, energy. She is Chinmayi Jagat Janani (the Universal > > > Mother of Creation) and creator of this perceivable universe. > > > > > > The dead body and the lady disappeared. > > > > > > It was Divine Mother Maa Annapurna who led Shankaracharya to this > > > intuitive understanding to break his ego and it was Lord Shiva who > > > acted as the dead body. > > > > > > Shree Maa smiled and said, " If we love God with unconditional love, > > > God teaches us in such a beautiful way. If we take one step towards > > > God, God takes 10 steps towards us. Is it not beautiful? Is it not > > > Truth? " Maa laughs in a gentle all knowing way...ha,ha,ha... > > > > > > Ramakrishna's Sanyaas Guru Totapuri did not believe in Shakti > > > (Energy). When Ramakrishna clapped his hands and said " Maa, Maa, > > Maa, > > > Maa, " Totapuri used to get very mad. But when he stayed a long time > > > with Ramakrishna, he felt a change within himself. > > > > > > When the effect of illusion breaks asunder, then one attains > > > consciousness with wisdom. When True Consciousness awakens, the > > > effects of maya (illusion) go away. Ramakrishna said that you can > > > light a thousand lamps in a dark room and all the darkness goes > > away. > > > When Pure Consciousness awakens, illusion goes away. This does not > > > happen little by little, it happens in one moment, all together. > > > > > > Om > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2007 Report Share Posted July 24, 2007 Dear Tanmaya, Thank you so much for your response. You have this wonderful ability to make the most difficutl things very simple and easily understood. Love Papia , " ty_maa " <dsjames wrote: > > > Dear Papia > > The testimony of the sages is that followers of karma yoga, bhakti > yoga, jnana yoga, and raja yoga can all attain to the realization of > nirvikalpha samadhi by the exercise of their respective > practices-though not all care to do so. Sri Ramakrishna would often > quote: Mother, I don't want to be sugar, I want to taste sugar. > > The sages tell us also that there are two " degrees " of attainment of > nirvikalpha samadhi. The first is " conditional " nirvikalpha. This > means that, by the exercise of a well-trained and purified > (cooperative) ego-mind, the sadhaka can, for a time, completely > suppress the vrittis of the ego-mind itself, and " enter " nirvikalpha. > > Both Tota Puri and Shankara had attained that blessed and > transcendental condition. That is why Tota Puri explained in answer to > a question of Sri Ramakrishna, that he continued the various > traditions of his dharma, such as polishing the kamandalu daily, > because, if he did not, it, like the mind, would become darkened, less > bright. > > Sri Ramakrishna said in answer to this, " But, what if the kamandalu is > made of gold? " . > > In this way, Sri Ramakrishna was alluding to the other " kind " of > nirvikalpha-the " state " of the sages as well as the avataras-the > natural (sahaja) nirvikalpha, in which the ego-mind is dead, never to > return with its duality, samskaras, and " all-to-human characteristics. > > As Buddha said: " Gata, gata, gata " , " gone, gone, gone " . > > This is Shiva's state, and, for that matter, who knows Shakti better > than Shiva? > > > With Love and Respect to yourself, and to all the saints, seers, > sages, and avataras, > > Tanmaya > > > > , " roy.papia " <roy.papia@> wrote: > > > > Namaste Ramya, > > Please give my pranaam to Shree maa and thank her for the beautiful > > story. > > I was wondering why realized people such as Shankaracharya and > > Totapuri did not believe in the Divine Shakti. When one is realized > > and knows Truth, is it not one Truth? Is the realization of a Vedanta > > Gyani different from that of a Bhakta? If so, how can they both be > > Truth? Or, are there degrees of realization? And if so, which comes > > first, the realization of the bhakta or the brahma gyani? > > Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to ask the question. > > Regards > > Papia > > > > , " n_ramya108 " <n_ramya108@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Namaste Everybody, > > > > > > Shree Maa dictated from Bengali with Her own comments a story about > > > Shankaracharya. > > > > > > Please read and share your thoughts, insights and also any questions > > > that you may have. Thank you very much! > > > > > > Jai Maa > > > > > > When Shankaracharya got Brahma Gyaan he saw the whole world as a > > dream > > > and unreal. At that time he felt energy is not real; Shakti also is > > a > > > dream. > > > > > > At this time he went to the banks of the River Ganga to take a holy > > > dip. As he was climbing up the stairs of the ghats of Ganga, he > > saw a > > > lady with a dead body lying by her side. > > > > > > He told the lady, " Please take the dead body away from my path. " > > > > > > The lady replied, " Baba, you tell the dead body to get out of your > > way. " > > > > > > When he heard this crazy woman saying such a foolish thing, > > > Shakaracharya said, " Mother, inside this corpse there is no shakti > > > (energy). " > > > > > > The lady said, " Why Baba? Does that mean without shakti no one can > > move? " > > > > > > Shankaracharya got upset and said, " What you are saying is > > impossible. > > > This man is dead - unless we move him, he cannot move by himself. " > > > > > > The lady answered, " Why is this impossible? In the cycle of > > creation, > > > can Nature (prakriti) move without Pure Consciousness (chetana > > > shakti)? Why do you say that a dead body cannot move? Please explain > > > this to me. " > > > > > > Shankaracharya was surprised. > > > > > > He felt that whoever has Nirvikalpa samadhi resides in Pure > > > Consciousness (Shuddha Chetana). He is One with the entire > > universe. > > > > > > This is Shakti, energy. She is Chinmayi Jagat Janani (the Universal > > > Mother of Creation) and creator of this perceivable universe. > > > > > > The dead body and the lady disappeared. > > > > > > It was Divine Mother Maa Annapurna who led Shankaracharya to this > > > intuitive understanding to break his ego and it was Lord Shiva who > > > acted as the dead body. > > > > > > Shree Maa smiled and said, " If we love God with unconditional love, > > > God teaches us in such a beautiful way. If we take one step towards > > > God, God takes 10 steps towards us. Is it not beautiful? Is it not > > > Truth? " Maa laughs in a gentle all knowing way...ha,ha,ha... > > > > > > Ramakrishna's Sanyaas Guru Totapuri did not believe in Shakti > > > (Energy). When Ramakrishna clapped his hands and said " Maa, Maa, > > Maa, > > > Maa, " Totapuri used to get very mad. But when he stayed a long time > > > with Ramakrishna, he felt a change within himself. > > > > > > When the effect of illusion breaks asunder, then one attains > > > consciousness with wisdom. When True Consciousness awakens, the > > > effects of maya (illusion) go away. Ramakrishna said that you can > > > light a thousand lamps in a dark room and all the darkness goes > > away. > > > When Pure Consciousness awakens, illusion goes away. This does not > > > happen little by little, it happens in one moment, all together. > > > > > > Om > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 Dear Chris, Shankara Acharya is only one of the three great Acharyas of India. The other two are Madva and Ramanuja. Madva established the philosophy of dvaita or dualism, i.e. that God and the soul are eternally different and separate. Ramanuja founded the philosophy of vashishta advaita, or the doctrine that soul and God are of the same substance but infinitely different in magnitude: God is great, while the soul, like a spark from God, is minute. Shankara propounded the philosophy of adviata or non-dualism, which declares that, from the highest point of view (beyond time, space, and causation) soul and God are indistinguishable and the Same. Each acharya, to win his spurs, was required to comment on the three great pillars of Hinduisn-the Gita, the Brahma Sutras, and the Upanisads-making each and every statement in each support his doctrine. From this attempt comes the very appropriate phrase, " text torturing " . The truth is that the great teachers, Krishna, the rishis, etc., all spoke from every point of view, according to the needs of those they were teaching at the time; thus the original scriptures contain statements supportive of dualism, qualified non-dualism, and non-dualism. I've always found the traditional iconography of the three acharyas interesting. Since there are many more advaitic statements in the scriptures than dualistic, Madva is portrayed as a huge man-like a shaven-headed sumo wrestler. That (it might be said) is because he had to work the hardest to bend every statement in the Gita, Upanishads, etc, to support dualism. Ramanuja is portrayed as a normal, well proportioned gentleman, because his job was easier. While Shankara, who had to work the least, is shown as a wispy little boy. Although the efforts of the three acharyas did systematize Hinduism under three philosophies, appropriate to aspirants in different stages of development, these philosophies (like the cast system), over time, became water-tight compartments. A family, for instance, down through the generations, would all be Madva dualists for life. This didn't allow for growth. And, those who believed in Advaita were also bound by their tradition, or " Church " . All were expected to accept, from the start, a point-of-view of " Soham " , " I am He " . This this was impractical, and tended to embroil the greatness of the advaita philosophy in intellectualism and argumentation rather than transcendental realization. In recent times, Swami Vivekananda, in bringing Indian spirituality to the West, stated that it was left for him to reveal that these three philosophies were three different stages of natural growth and experience, on a single path to God which all must tread. And his source of authority was the realization of Sri Ramakrishna, whose sadhana had taken him through each level in turn. These philosophies, and the unending arguments among them, have been a stumbling block for many. So another thing that Vivekananda did was to establish a tradition of selfless service, Karma Yoga. Sadhus traditionally did not do " work " . But Vivekananda put many of his sadhus to serving the poor, the diseased, and the starving. Even now, when the inevitable periods of dryness come, members of that Order are put to service. Some in hospitals, schools, or famine or plague relief. It clears the air and opens the Heart. ....And even now, for simple individuals like myself, when too much thinking has taken me too much into my head and out of my Heart, I remember the teaching: " Get the flow going, go out and find a homeless family sitting on a sidewalk somewhere and give them $50 dollars you can't afford " . Or the sage advice of Sal, " plant a tree " . Respectfully, Tanmaya , " Chris Kirner " <chriskirner1956 wrote: > > Thanks for posting this Ramya! > > There's just so much here to look at and contemplate, and try to > understand... > > When Maa says how beautiful it is, the way God teaches those of us who > are blessed with unconditional love for Her, it thrills my heart. I > know just what she means. Yet for a while now I have been very > unhappy, with myself, and with God. > > But what can I do? Once you have experienced the reality of God, of > God's grace and loving care, how can you deny your own experience and > say to God, " I don't want you anymore. You're not helping me like I > need you to! " You cannot. You have no choice but to continue to love > God with whatever degree of intensity you are capable of, despite all > the difficulties, and ambivalent feelings. > > It's easy to feel possessed of unconditional love when one feels > blessed. It is harder when discouragement sets in. But unconditional > love is unconditional, isn't it? [Just waiting for the beauty to kick > in] > > Adi Shankara is a bit of an enigma to me. I've read bits and pieces of > his history, as well as bit of his writings, but I can't really say I > understand who and what he was. > > Described as the Father of Vedanta, he went across India debating any > and all comers (such was the tradition of the day) arguing against the > tradition of external worship of idols and for the internal > realization of the formless divinity who could only be described as > sat, chit, ananda. > > I don't know why he did this. Apparently he had a mission of some > sort, and when great saints have a mission of some sort it generally > means there is something fundamentally wrong, or missing, in the > current environment. What exactly that was, I'm not sure. > > Interestingly, despite his one man crusade against formal puja, he is > said to have stopped to do puja in every temple he passed. For me this > illustrates perfectly the fundamental issues of this story Shree Maa > tells. Swamiji illustrated it well in one of the books (perhaps Before > Becoming This) when he talked about the great teacher of Vedanta, who > lectures all over the world on the formless divinity, the illusory > nature of material existence, and on our own true nature being one > with Brahman, and who nevertheless has to board a plane and fly to his > next engagement. > > Vedanta says we are all God, and all this is mere illusion. Tantra > says that She created all this, and abides in it, and it is therefore > real, because She is real. > > Jai Maa! > Chris > > > > , " n_ramya108 " n_ramya108@ wrote: > > > > Namaste Everybody, > > > > Shree Maa dictated from Bengali with Her own comments a story about > > Shankaracharya. > > > > Please read and share your thoughts, insights and also any questions > > that you may have. Thank you very much! > > > > Jai Maa > > > > When Shankaracharya got Brahma Gyaan he saw the whole world as a dream > > and unreal. At that time he felt energy is not real; Shakti also is a > > dream. > > > > At this time he went to the banks of the River Ganga to take a holy > > dip. As he was climbing up the stairs of the ghats of Ganga, he saw a > > lady with a dead body lying by her side. > > > > He told the lady, " Please take the dead body away from my path. " > > > > The lady replied, " Baba, you tell the dead body to get out of your way. " > > > > When he heard this crazy woman saying such a foolish thing, > > Shakaracharya said, " Mother, inside this corpse there is no shakti > > (energy). " > > > > The lady said, " Why Baba? Does that mean without shakti no one can > move? " > > > > Shankaracharya got upset and said, " What you are saying is impossible. > > This man is dead - unless we move him, he cannot move by himself. " > > > > The lady answered, " Why is this impossible? In the cycle of creation, > > can Nature (prakriti) move without Pure Consciousness (chetana > > shakti)? Why do you say that a dead body cannot move? Please explain > > this to me. " > > > > Shankaracharya was surprised. > > > > He felt that whoever has Nirvikalpa samadhi resides in Pure > > Consciousness (Shuddha Chetana). He is One with the entire universe. > > > > This is Shakti, energy. She is Chinmayi Jagat Janani (the Universal > > Mother of Creation) and creator of this perceivable universe. > > > > The dead body and the lady disappeared. > > > > It was Divine Mother Maa Annapurna who led Shankaracharya to this > > intuitive understanding to break his ego and it was Lord Shiva who > > acted as the dead body. > > > > Shree Maa smiled and said, " If we love God with unconditional love, > > God teaches us in such a beautiful way. If we take one step towards > > God, God takes 10 steps towards us. Is it not beautiful? Is it not > > Truth? " Maa laughs in a gentle all knowing way...ha,ha,ha... > > > > Ramakrishna's Sanyaas Guru Totapuri did not believe in Shakti > > (Energy). When Ramakrishna clapped his hands and said " Maa, Maa, Maa, > > Maa, " Totapuri used to get very mad. But when he stayed a long time > > with Ramakrishna, he felt a change within himself. > > > > When the effect of illusion breaks asunder, then one attains > > consciousness with wisdom. When True Consciousness awakens, the > > effects of maya (illusion) go away. Ramakrishna said that you can > > light a thousand lamps in a dark room and all the darkness goes away. > > When Pure Consciousness awakens, illusion goes away. This does not > > happen little by little, it happens in one moment, all together. > > > > Om > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Hi Tanmaya, I'm afraid my education is very limited. I know a little about some things, but about many I know next to nothing at all. Rather than systematically studying I have tended toward those things I found either spiritually uplifting or practical, and eschewed the rest. I am slightly ashamed to admit, for instance, that even though I come from a tradition that emphasized the teachings of the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, I have never read any scripture or commentary devoted to the discussion of the philosophy of Sankya alone. Oh well. Thanks so much for your interesting response. I only wish I had more to say...I will add this, however, to your comments about debate and the obstacles this creates. I think that debate can be healthy. In the sphere of philosophy it can help to refine a structure to its finest point of understanding, which is a good thing. Problems arise when people attempt, as they always seem to do, to define (capture or bind) the undefinable with words that can never convey the whole truth - and they become very insistent about it, too. People who become too invested in their pride of philosophical accomplishment, become embedded there, and like a bug caught in amber, can no longer move beyond their particular point of view. Those whose first allegiance is to God, and to their own direct experience, are able to approach these various ideas with equanimity, recognize the limitations of each, and use them for inspiration and understanding, each in its proper place in the scheme of things. There is a point at which only direct experience suffices, and words alone give no satisfaction. Thanks again. Jai Maa! Chris , " ty_maa " <dsjames wrote: > > Dear Chris, > > Shankara Acharya is only one of the three great Acharyas of India. The > other two are Madva and Ramanuja. > > Madva established the philosophy of dvaita or dualism, i.e. that God and > the soul are eternally different and separate. Ramanuja founded the > philosophy of vashishta advaita, or the doctrine that soul and God are > of the same substance but infinitely different in magnitude: God is > great, while the soul, like a spark from God, is minute. > > Shankara propounded the philosophy of adviata or non-dualism, which > declares that, from the highest point of view (beyond time, space, and > causation) soul and God are indistinguishable and the Same. > > Each acharya, to win his spurs, was required to comment on the three > great pillars of Hinduisn-the Gita, the Brahma Sutras, and the > Upanisads-making each and every statement in each support his doctrine. > From this attempt comes the very appropriate phrase, " text torturing " . > > The truth is that the great teachers, Krishna, the rishis, etc., all > spoke from every point of view, according to the needs of those they > were teaching at the time; thus the original scriptures contain > statements supportive of dualism, qualified non-dualism, and > non-dualism. > > I've always found the traditional iconography of the three acharyas > interesting. Since there are many more advaitic statements in the > scriptures than dualistic, Madva is portrayed as a huge man-like a > shaven-headed sumo wrestler. That (it might be said) is because he had > to work the hardest to bend every statement in the Gita, Upanishads, > etc, to support dualism. Ramanuja is portrayed as a normal, well > proportioned gentleman, because his job was easier. While Shankara, who > had to work the least, is shown as a wispy little boy. > > Although the efforts of the three acharyas did systematize Hinduism > under three philosophies, appropriate to aspirants in different stages > of development, these philosophies (like the cast system), over time, > became water-tight compartments. A family, for instance, down through > the generations, would all be Madva dualists for life. This didn't allow > for growth. > > And, those who believed in Advaita were also bound by their tradition, > or " Church " . All were expected to accept, from the start, a > point-of-view of " Soham " , " I am He " . This this was impractical, and > tended to embroil the greatness of the advaita philosophy in > intellectualism and argumentation rather than transcendental > realization. > > In recent times, Swami Vivekananda, in bringing Indian spirituality to > the West, stated that it was left for him to reveal that these three > philosophies were three different stages of natural growth and > experience, on a single path to God which all must tread. And his source > of authority was the realization of Sri Ramakrishna, whose sadhana had > taken him through each level in turn. > > These philosophies, and the unending arguments among them, have been a > stumbling block for many. So another thing that Vivekananda did was to > establish a tradition of selfless service, Karma Yoga. Sadhus > traditionally did not do " work " . But Vivekananda put many of his sadhus > to serving the poor, the diseased, and the starving. > > Even now, when the inevitable periods of dryness come, members of that > Order are put to service. Some in hospitals, schools, or famine or > plague relief. It clears the air and opens the Heart. > > ...And even now, for simple individuals like myself, when too much > thinking has taken me too much into my head and out of my Heart, I > remember the teaching: " Get the flow going, go out and find a homeless > family sitting on a sidewalk somewhere and give them $50 dollars you > can't afford " . > > Or the sage advice of Sal, " plant a tree " . > > > Respectfully, > > Tanmaya > > , " Chris Kirner " <chriskirner1956@> > wrote: > > > > Thanks for posting this Ramya! > > > > There's just so much here to look at and contemplate, and try to > > understand... > > > > When Maa says how beautiful it is, the way God teaches those of us who > > are blessed with unconditional love for Her, it thrills my heart. I > > know just what she means. Yet for a while now I have been very > > unhappy, with myself, and with God. > > > > But what can I do? Once you have experienced the reality of God, of > > God's grace and loving care, how can you deny your own experience and > > say to God, " I don't want you anymore. You're not helping me like I > > need you to! " You cannot. You have no choice but to continue to love > > God with whatever degree of intensity you are capable of, despite all > > the difficulties, and ambivalent feelings. > > > > It's easy to feel possessed of unconditional love when one feels > > blessed. It is harder when discouragement sets in. But unconditional > > love is unconditional, isn't it? [Just waiting for the beauty to kick > > in] > > > > Adi Shankara is a bit of an enigma to me. I've read bits and pieces of > > his history, as well as bit of his writings, but I can't really say I > > understand who and what he was. > > > > Described as the Father of Vedanta, he went across India debating any > > and all comers (such was the tradition of the day) arguing against the > > tradition of external worship of idols and for the internal > > realization of the formless divinity who could only be described as > > sat, chit, ananda. > > > > I don't know why he did this. Apparently he had a mission of some > > sort, and when great saints have a mission of some sort it generally > > means there is something fundamentally wrong, or missing, in the > > current environment. What exactly that was, I'm not sure. > > > > Interestingly, despite his one man crusade against formal puja, he is > > said to have stopped to do puja in every temple he passed. For me this > > illustrates perfectly the fundamental issues of this story Shree Maa > > tells. Swamiji illustrated it well in one of the books (perhaps Before > > Becoming This) when he talked about the great teacher of Vedanta, who > > lectures all over the world on the formless divinity, the illusory > > nature of material existence, and on our own true nature being one > > with Brahman, and who nevertheless has to board a plane and fly to his > > next engagement. > > > > Vedanta says we are all God, and all this is mere illusion. Tantra > > says that She created all this, and abides in it, and it is therefore > > real, because She is real. > > > > Jai Maa! > > Chris > > > > > > > > , " n_ramya108 " n_ramya108@ wrote: > > > > > > Namaste Everybody, > > > > > > Shree Maa dictated from Bengali with Her own comments a story about > > > Shankaracharya. > > > > > > Please read and share your thoughts, insights and also any questions > > > that you may have. Thank you very much! > > > > > > Jai Maa > > > > > > When Shankaracharya got Brahma Gyaan he saw the whole world as a > dream > > > and unreal. At that time he felt energy is not real; Shakti also is > a > > > dream. > > > > > > At this time he went to the banks of the River Ganga to take a holy > > > dip. As he was climbing up the stairs of the ghats of Ganga, he saw > a > > > lady with a dead body lying by her side. > > > > > > He told the lady, " Please take the dead body away from my path. " > > > > > > The lady replied, " Baba, you tell the dead body to get out of your > way. " > > > > > > When he heard this crazy woman saying such a foolish thing, > > > Shakaracharya said, " Mother, inside this corpse there is no shakti > > > (energy). " > > > > > > The lady said, " Why Baba? Does that mean without shakti no one can > > move? " > > > > > > Shankaracharya got upset and said, " What you are saying is > impossible. > > > This man is dead - unless we move him, he cannot move by himself. " > > > > > > The lady answered, " Why is this impossible? In the cycle of > creation, > > > can Nature (prakriti) move without Pure Consciousness (chetana > > > shakti)? Why do you say that a dead body cannot move? Please explain > > > this to me. " > > > > > > Shankaracharya was surprised. > > > > > > He felt that whoever has Nirvikalpa samadhi resides in Pure > > > Consciousness (Shuddha Chetana). He is One with the entire > universe. > > > > > > This is Shakti, energy. She is Chinmayi Jagat Janani (the Universal > > > Mother of Creation) and creator of this perceivable universe. > > > > > > The dead body and the lady disappeared. > > > > > > It was Divine Mother Maa Annapurna who led Shankaracharya to this > > > intuitive understanding to break his ego and it was Lord Shiva who > > > acted as the dead body. > > > > > > Shree Maa smiled and said, " If we love God with unconditional love, > > > God teaches us in such a beautiful way. If we take one step towards > > > God, God takes 10 steps towards us. Is it not beautiful? Is it not > > > Truth? " Maa laughs in a gentle all knowing way...ha,ha,ha... > > > > > > Ramakrishna's Sanyaas Guru Totapuri did not believe in Shakti > > > (Energy). When Ramakrishna clapped his hands and said " Maa, Maa, > Maa, > > > Maa, " Totapuri used to get very mad. But when he stayed a long time > > > with Ramakrishna, he felt a change within himself. > > > > > > When the effect of illusion breaks asunder, then one attains > > > consciousness with wisdom. When True Consciousness awakens, the > > > effects of maya (illusion) go away. Ramakrishna said that you can > > > light a thousand lamps in a dark room and all the darkness goes > away. > > > When Pure Consciousness awakens, illusion goes away. This does not > > > happen little by little, it happens in one moment, all together. > > > > > > Om > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2007 Report Share Posted August 1, 2007 Chris, You had asked about Shankara; ( " ..an enigma..I can't say I really understand who and what he was.. " ). My reply was an attempt to put him more into context. A religious teacher can't be fully understood outside of context, including what went before, and when possible, what comes afterward. Why should we try to understand? Because misunderstanding of the greatest good can become the greatest danger, as has been shown clear to the present. Religion is not cut in stone. It evolves as the human life-stream evolves. It is the eternal dialogue between God and Man, Nara and Narayana. And, it is important to remember that idolatry (collective religious dryness) only comes when we make too much of the " words " , and not enough of the living Relationship. When the Great Teachers are with us, they keep us on track. When they are gone, the responsibility becomes ours not to step into a minefield. In any case, that's my take on it; not everyone will agree, nor is there any need to . T. , " Chris Kirner " <chriskirner1956 wrote: > > Hi Tanmaya, > > I'm afraid my education is very limited. I know a little about some > things, but about many I know next to nothing at all. Rather than > systematically studying I have tended toward those things I found > either spiritually uplifting or practical, and eschewed the rest. I am > slightly ashamed to admit, for instance, that even though I come from > a tradition that emphasized the teachings of the Yoga Sutras of > Patanjali, I have never read any scripture or commentary devoted to > the discussion of the philosophy of Sankya alone. Oh well. > > Thanks so much for your interesting response. I only wish I had more > to say...I will add this, however, to your comments about debate and > the obstacles this creates. I think that debate can be healthy. In the > sphere of philosophy it can help to refine a structure to its finest > point of understanding, which is a good thing. Problems arise when > people attempt, as they always seem to do, to define (capture or bind) > the undefinable with words that can never convey the whole truth - and > they become very insistent about it, too. > > People who become too invested in their pride of philosophical > accomplishment, become embedded there, and like a bug caught in amber, > can no longer move beyond their particular point of view. Those whose > first allegiance is to God, and to their own direct experience, are > able to approach these various ideas with equanimity, recognize the > limitations of each, and use them for inspiration and understanding, > each in its proper place in the scheme of things. There is a point at > which only direct experience suffices, and words alone give no > satisfaction. > > Thanks again. > > Jai Maa! > Chris , " ty_maa " dsjames@ wrote: > > > > Dear Chris, > > > > Shankara Acharya is only one of the three great Acharyas of India. The > > other two are Madva and Ramanuja. > > > > Madva established the philosophy of dvaita or dualism, i.e. that God and > > the soul are eternally different and separate. Ramanuja founded the > > philosophy of vashishta advaita, or the doctrine that soul and God are > > of the same substance but infinitely different in magnitude: God is > > great, while the soul, like a spark from God, is minute. > > > > Shankara propounded the philosophy of adviata or non-dualism, which > > declares that, from the highest point of view (beyond time, space, and > > causation) soul and God are indistinguishable and the Same. > > > > Each acharya, to win his spurs, was required to comment on the three > > great pillars of Hinduisn-the Gita, the Brahma Sutras, and the > > Upanisads-making each and every statement in each support his doctrine. > > From this attempt comes the very appropriate phrase, " text torturing " . > > > > The truth is that the great teachers, Krishna, the rishis, etc., all > > spoke from every point of view, according to the needs of those they > > were teaching at the time; thus the original scriptures contain > > statements supportive of dualism, qualified non-dualism, and > > non-dualism. > > > > I've always found the traditional iconography of the three acharyas > > interesting. Since there are many more advaitic statements in the > > scriptures than dualistic, Madva is portrayed as a huge man-like a > > shaven-headed sumo wrestler. That (it might be said) is because he had > > to work the hardest to bend every statement in the Gita, Upanishads, > > etc, to support dualism. Ramanuja is portrayed as a normal, well > > proportioned gentleman, because his job was easier. While Shankara, who > > had to work the least, is shown as a wispy little boy. > > > > Although the efforts of the three acharyas did systematize Hinduism > > under three philosophies, appropriate to aspirants in different stages > > of development, these philosophies (like the cast system), over time, > > became water-tight compartments. A family, for instance, down through > > the generations, would all be Madva dualists for life. This didn't allow > > for growth. > > > > And, those who believed in Advaita were also bound by their tradition, > > or " Church " . All were expected to accept, from the start, a > > point-of-view of " Soham " , " I am He " . This this was impractical, and > > tended to embroil the greatness of the advaita philosophy in > > intellectualism and argumentation rather than transcendental > > realization. > > > > In recent times, Swami Vivekananda, in bringing Indian spirituality to > > the West, stated that it was left for him to reveal that these three > > philosophies were three different stages of natural growth and > > experience, on a single path to God which all must tread. And his source > > of authority was the realization of Sri Ramakrishna, whose sadhana had > > taken him through each level in turn. > > > > These philosophies, and the unending arguments among them, have been a > > stumbling block for many. So another thing that Vivekananda did was to > > establish a tradition of selfless service, Karma Yoga. Sadhus > > traditionally did not do " work " . But Vivekananda put many of his sadhus > > to serving the poor, the diseased, and the starving. > > > > Even now, when the inevitable periods of dryness come, members of that > > Order are put to service. Some in hospitals, schools, or famine or > > plague relief. It clears the air and opens the Heart. > > > > ...And even now, for simple individuals like myself, when too much > > thinking has taken me too much into my head and out of my Heart, I > > remember the teaching: " Get the flow going, go out and find a homeless > > family sitting on a sidewalk somewhere and give them $50 dollars you > > can't afford " . > > > > Or the sage advice of Sal, " plant a tree " . > > > > > > Respectfully, > > > > Tanmaya > > > > , " Chris Kirner " <chriskirner1956@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for posting this Ramya! > > > > > > There's just so much here to look at and contemplate, and try to > > > understand... > > > > > > When Maa says how beautiful it is, the way God teaches those of us who > > > are blessed with unconditional love for Her, it thrills my heart. I > > > know just what she means. Yet for a while now I have been very > > > unhappy, with myself, and with God. > > > > > > But what can I do? Once you have experienced the reality of God, of > > > God's grace and loving care, how can you deny your own experience and > > > say to God, " I don't want you anymore. You're not helping me like I > > > need you to! " You cannot. You have no choice but to continue to love > > > God with whatever degree of intensity you are capable of, despite all > > > the difficulties, and ambivalent feelings. > > > > > > It's easy to feel possessed of unconditional love when one feels > > > blessed. It is harder when discouragement sets in. But unconditional > > > love is unconditional, isn't it? [Just waiting for the beauty to kick > > > in] > > > > > > Adi Shankara is a bit of an enigma to me. I've read bits and pieces of > > > his history, as well as bit of his writings, but I can't really say I > > > understand who and what he was. > > > > > > Described as the Father of Vedanta, he went across India debating any > > > and all comers (such was the tradition of the day) arguing against the > > > tradition of external worship of idols and for the internal > > > realization of the formless divinity who could only be described as > > > sat, chit, ananda. > > > > > > I don't know why he did this. Apparently he had a mission of some > > > sort, and when great saints have a mission of some sort it generally > > > means there is something fundamentally wrong, or missing, in the > > > current environment. What exactly that was, I'm not sure. > > > > > > Interestingly, despite his one man crusade against formal puja, he is > > > said to have stopped to do puja in every temple he passed. For me this > > > illustrates perfectly the fundamental issues of this story Shree Maa > > > tells. Swamiji illustrated it well in one of the books (perhaps Before > > > Becoming This) when he talked about the great teacher of Vedanta, who > > > lectures all over the world on the formless divinity, the illusory > > > nature of material existence, and on our own true nature being one > > > with Brahman, and who nevertheless has to board a plane and fly to his > > > next engagement. > > > > > > Vedanta says we are all God, and all this is mere illusion. Tantra > > > says that She created all this, and abides in it, and it is therefore > > > real, because She is real. > > > > > > Jai Maa! > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > , " n_ramya108 " n_ramya108@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Namaste Everybody, > > > > > > > > Shree Maa dictated from Bengali with Her own comments a story about > > > > Shankaracharya. > > > > > > > > Please read and share your thoughts, insights and also any questions > > > > that you may have. Thank you very much! > > > > > > > > Jai Maa > > > > > > > > When Shankaracharya got Brahma Gyaan he saw the whole world as a > > dream > > > > and unreal. At that time he felt energy is not real; Shakti also is > > a > > > > dream. > > > > > > > > At this time he went to the banks of the River Ganga to take a holy > > > > dip. As he was climbing up the stairs of the ghats of Ganga, he saw > > a > > > > lady with a dead body lying by her side. > > > > > > > > He told the lady, " Please take the dead body away from my path. " > > > > > > > > The lady replied, " Baba, you tell the dead body to get out of your > > way. " > > > > > > > > When he heard this crazy woman saying such a foolish thing, > > > > Shakaracharya said, " Mother, inside this corpse there is no shakti > > > > (energy). " > > > > > > > > The lady said, " Why Baba? Does that mean without shakti no one can > > > move? " > > > > > > > > Shankaracharya got upset and said, " What you are saying is > > impossible. > > > > This man is dead - unless we move him, he cannot move by himself. " > > > > > > > > The lady answered, " Why is this impossible? In the cycle of > > creation, > > > > can Nature (prakriti) move without Pure Consciousness (chetana > > > > shakti)? Why do you say that a dead body cannot move? Please explain > > > > this to me. " > > > > > > > > Shankaracharya was surprised. > > > > > > > > He felt that whoever has Nirvikalpa samadhi resides in Pure > > > > Consciousness (Shuddha Chetana). He is One with the entire > > universe. > > > > > > > > This is Shakti, energy. She is Chinmayi Jagat Janani (the Universal > > > > Mother of Creation) and creator of this perceivable universe. > > > > > > > > The dead body and the lady disappeared. > > > > > > > > It was Divine Mother Maa Annapurna who led Shankaracharya to this > > > > intuitive understanding to break his ego and it was Lord Shiva who > > > > acted as the dead body. > > > > > > > > Shree Maa smiled and said, " If we love God with unconditional love, > > > > God teaches us in such a beautiful way. If we take one step towards > > > > God, God takes 10 steps towards us. Is it not beautiful? Is it not > > > > Truth? " Maa laughs in a gentle all knowing way...ha,ha,ha... > > > > > > > > Ramakrishna's Sanyaas Guru Totapuri did not believe in Shakti > > > > (Energy). When Ramakrishna clapped his hands and said " Maa, Maa, > > Maa, > > > > Maa, " Totapuri used to get very mad. But when he stayed a long time > > > > with Ramakrishna, he felt a change within himself. > > > > > > > > When the effect of illusion breaks asunder, then one attains > > > > consciousness with wisdom. When True Consciousness awakens, the > > > > effects of maya (illusion) go away. Ramakrishna said that you can > > > > light a thousand lamps in a dark room and all the darkness goes > > away. > > > > When Pure Consciousness awakens, illusion goes away. This does not > > > > happen little by little, it happens in one moment, all together. > > > > > > > > Om > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2007 Report Share Posted August 3, 2007 I agree completely, Tanmaya. It is important to understand spiritual teachings and religious history from a variety of contexts. Jai Maa! Chris , " ty_maa " <dsjames wrote: > > > Chris, > > You had asked about Shankara; ( " ..an enigma..I can't say I really > understand who and what he was.. " ). > > My reply was an attempt to put him more into context. A religious > teacher can't be fully understood outside of context, including what > went before, and when possible, what comes afterward. > > Why should we try to understand? Because misunderstanding of the > greatest good can become the greatest danger, as has been shown clear to > the present. > > Religion is not cut in stone. It evolves as the human life-stream > evolves. It is the eternal dialogue between God and Man, Nara and > Narayana. > > And, it is important to remember that idolatry (collective religious > dryness) only comes when we make too much of the " words " , and not enough > of the living Relationship. > > When the Great Teachers are with us, they keep us on track. When they > are gone, the responsibility becomes ours not to step into a minefield. > > In any case, that's my take on it; not everyone will agree, nor is there > any need to . > > > T. > > > > , " Chris Kirner " <chriskirner1956@> > wrote: > > > > Hi Tanmaya, > > > > I'm afraid my education is very limited. I know a little about some > > things, but about many I know next to nothing at all. Rather than > > systematically studying I have tended toward those things I found > > either spiritually uplifting or practical, and eschewed the rest. I am > > slightly ashamed to admit, for instance, that even though I come from > > a tradition that emphasized the teachings of the Yoga Sutras of > > Patanjali, I have never read any scripture or commentary devoted to > > the discussion of the philosophy of Sankya alone. Oh well. > > > > Thanks so much for your interesting response. I only wish I had more > > to say...I will add this, however, to your comments about debate and > > the obstacles this creates. I think that debate can be healthy. In the > > sphere of philosophy it can help to refine a structure to its finest > > point of understanding, which is a good thing. Problems arise when > > people attempt, as they always seem to do, to define (capture or bind) > > the undefinable with words that can never convey the whole truth - and > > they become very insistent about it, too. > > > > People who become too invested in their pride of philosophical > > accomplishment, become embedded there, and like a bug caught in amber, > > can no longer move beyond their particular point of view. Those whose > > first allegiance is to God, and to their own direct experience, are > > able to approach these various ideas with equanimity, recognize the > > limitations of each, and use them for inspiration and understanding, > > each in its proper place in the scheme of things. There is a point at > > which only direct experience suffices, and words alone give no > > satisfaction. > > > > Thanks again. > > > > Jai Maa! > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " ty_maa " dsjames@ wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chris, > > > > > > Shankara Acharya is only one of the three great Acharyas of India. > The > > > other two are Madva and Ramanuja. > > > > > > Madva established the philosophy of dvaita or dualism, i.e. that God > and > > > the soul are eternally different and separate. Ramanuja founded the > > > philosophy of vashishta advaita, or the doctrine that soul and God > are > > > of the same substance but infinitely different in magnitude: God is > > > great, while the soul, like a spark from God, is minute. > > > > > > Shankara propounded the philosophy of adviata or non-dualism, which > > > declares that, from the highest point of view (beyond time, space, > and > > > causation) soul and God are indistinguishable and the Same. > > > > > > Each acharya, to win his spurs, was required to comment on the three > > > great pillars of Hinduisn-the Gita, the Brahma Sutras, and the > > > Upanisads-making each and every statement in each support his > doctrine. > > > From this attempt comes the very appropriate phrase, " text > torturing " . > > > > > > The truth is that the great teachers, Krishna, the rishis, etc., all > > > spoke from every point of view, according to the needs of those they > > > were teaching at the time; thus the original scriptures contain > > > statements supportive of dualism, qualified non-dualism, and > > > non-dualism. > > > > > > I've always found the traditional iconography of the three acharyas > > > interesting. Since there are many more advaitic statements in the > > > scriptures than dualistic, Madva is portrayed as a huge man-like a > > > shaven-headed sumo wrestler. That (it might be said) is because he > had > > > to work the hardest to bend every statement in the Gita, Upanishads, > > > etc, to support dualism. Ramanuja is portrayed as a normal, well > > > proportioned gentleman, because his job was easier. While Shankara, > who > > > had to work the least, is shown as a wispy little boy. > > > > > > Although the efforts of the three acharyas did systematize Hinduism > > > under three philosophies, appropriate to aspirants in different > stages > > > of development, these philosophies (like the cast system), over > time, > > > became water-tight compartments. A family, for instance, down > through > > > the generations, would all be Madva dualists for life. This didn't > allow > > > for growth. > > > > > > And, those who believed in Advaita were also bound by their > tradition, > > > or " Church " . All were expected to accept, from the start, a > > > point-of-view of " Soham " , " I am He " . This this was impractical, > and > > > tended to embroil the greatness of the advaita philosophy in > > > intellectualism and argumentation rather than transcendental > > > realization. > > > > > > In recent times, Swami Vivekananda, in bringing Indian spirituality > to > > > the West, stated that it was left for him to reveal that these three > > > philosophies were three different stages of natural growth and > > > experience, on a single path to God which all must tread. And his > source > > > of authority was the realization of Sri Ramakrishna, whose sadhana > had > > > taken him through each level in turn. > > > > > > These philosophies, and the unending arguments among them, have been > a > > > stumbling block for many. So another thing that Vivekananda did was > to > > > establish a tradition of selfless service, Karma Yoga. Sadhus > > > traditionally did not do " work " . But Vivekananda put many of his > sadhus > > > to serving the poor, the diseased, and the starving. > > > > > > Even now, when the inevitable periods of dryness come, members of > that > > > Order are put to service. Some in hospitals, schools, or famine or > > > plague relief. It clears the air and opens the Heart. > > > > > > ...And even now, for simple individuals like myself, when too much > > > thinking has taken me too much into my head and out of my Heart, I > > > remember the teaching: " Get the flow going, go out and find a > homeless > > > family sitting on a sidewalk somewhere and give them $50 dollars you > > > can't afford " . > > > > > > Or the sage advice of Sal, " plant a tree " . > > > > > > > > > Respectfully, > > > > > > Tanmaya > > > > > > , " Chris Kirner " > <chriskirner1956@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks for posting this Ramya! > > > > > > > > There's just so much here to look at and contemplate, and try to > > > > understand... > > > > > > > > When Maa says how beautiful it is, the way God teaches those of us > who > > > > are blessed with unconditional love for Her, it thrills my heart. > I > > > > know just what she means. Yet for a while now I have been very > > > > unhappy, with myself, and with God. > > > > > > > > But what can I do? Once you have experienced the reality of God, > of > > > > God's grace and loving care, how can you deny your own experience > and > > > > say to God, " I don't want you anymore. You're not helping me like > I > > > > need you to! " You cannot. You have no choice but to continue to > love > > > > God with whatever degree of intensity you are capable of, despite > all > > > > the difficulties, and ambivalent feelings. > > > > > > > > It's easy to feel possessed of unconditional love when one feels > > > > blessed. It is harder when discouragement sets in. But > unconditional > > > > love is unconditional, isn't it? [Just waiting for the beauty to > kick > > > > in] > > > > > > > > Adi Shankara is a bit of an enigma to me. I've read bits and > pieces of > > > > his history, as well as bit of his writings, but I can't really > say I > > > > understand who and what he was. > > > > > > > > Described as the Father of Vedanta, he went across India debating > any > > > > and all comers (such was the tradition of the day) arguing against > the > > > > tradition of external worship of idols and for the internal > > > > realization of the formless divinity who could only be described > as > > > > sat, chit, ananda. > > > > > > > > I don't know why he did this. Apparently he had a mission of some > > > > sort, and when great saints have a mission of some sort it > generally > > > > means there is something fundamentally wrong, or missing, in the > > > > current environment. What exactly that was, I'm not sure. > > > > > > > > Interestingly, despite his one man crusade against formal puja, he > is > > > > said to have stopped to do puja in every temple he passed. For me > this > > > > illustrates perfectly the fundamental issues of this story Shree > Maa > > > > tells. Swamiji illustrated it well in one of the books (perhaps > Before > > > > Becoming This) when he talked about the great teacher of Vedanta, > who > > > > lectures all over the world on the formless divinity, the illusory > > > > nature of material existence, and on our own true nature being one > > > > with Brahman, and who nevertheless has to board a plane and fly to > his > > > > next engagement. > > > > > > > > Vedanta says we are all God, and all this is mere illusion. Tantra > > > > says that She created all this, and abides in it, and it is > therefore > > > > real, because She is real. > > > > > > > > Jai Maa! > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " n_ramya108 " n_ramya108@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Everybody, > > > > > > > > > > Shree Maa dictated from Bengali with Her own comments a story > about > > > > > Shankaracharya. > > > > > > > > > > Please read and share your thoughts, insights and also any > questions > > > > > that you may have. Thank you very much! > > > > > > > > > > Jai Maa > > > > > > > > > > When Shankaracharya got Brahma Gyaan he saw the whole world as a > > > dream > > > > > and unreal. At that time he felt energy is not real; Shakti also > is > > > a > > > > > dream. > > > > > > > > > > At this time he went to the banks of the River Ganga to take a > holy > > > > > dip. As he was climbing up the stairs of the ghats of Ganga, he > saw > > > a > > > > > lady with a dead body lying by her side. > > > > > > > > > > He told the lady, " Please take the dead body away from my path. " > > > > > > > > > > The lady replied, " Baba, you tell the dead body to get out of > your > > > way. " > > > > > > > > > > When he heard this crazy woman saying such a foolish thing, > > > > > Shakaracharya said, " Mother, inside this corpse there is no > shakti > > > > > (energy). " > > > > > > > > > > The lady said, " Why Baba? Does that mean without shakti no one > can > > > > move? " > > > > > > > > > > Shankaracharya got upset and said, " What you are saying is > > > impossible. > > > > > This man is dead - unless we move him, he cannot move by > himself. " > > > > > > > > > > The lady answered, " Why is this impossible? In the cycle of > > > creation, > > > > > can Nature (prakriti) move without Pure Consciousness (chetana > > > > > shakti)? Why do you say that a dead body cannot move? Please > explain > > > > > this to me. " > > > > > > > > > > Shankaracharya was surprised. > > > > > > > > > > He felt that whoever has Nirvikalpa samadhi resides in Pure > > > > > Consciousness (Shuddha Chetana). He is One with the entire > > > universe. > > > > > > > > > > This is Shakti, energy. She is Chinmayi Jagat Janani (the > Universal > > > > > Mother of Creation) and creator of this perceivable universe. > > > > > > > > > > The dead body and the lady disappeared. > > > > > > > > > > It was Divine Mother Maa Annapurna who led Shankaracharya to > this > > > > > intuitive understanding to break his ego and it was Lord Shiva > who > > > > > acted as the dead body. > > > > > > > > > > Shree Maa smiled and said, " If we love God with unconditional > love, > > > > > God teaches us in such a beautiful way. If we take one step > towards > > > > > God, God takes 10 steps towards us. Is it not beautiful? Is it > not > > > > > Truth? " Maa laughs in a gentle all knowing way...ha,ha,ha... > > > > > > > > > > Ramakrishna's Sanyaas Guru Totapuri did not believe in Shakti > > > > > (Energy). When Ramakrishna clapped his hands and said " Maa, > Maa, > > > Maa, > > > > > Maa, " Totapuri used to get very mad. But when he stayed a long > time > > > > > with Ramakrishna, he felt a change within himself. > > > > > > > > > > When the effect of illusion breaks asunder, then one attains > > > > > consciousness with wisdom. When True Consciousness awakens, the > > > > > effects of maya (illusion) go away. Ramakrishna said that you > can > > > > > light a thousand lamps in a dark room and all the darkness goes > > > away. > > > > > When Pure Consciousness awakens, illusion goes away. This does > not > > > > > happen little by little, it happens in one moment, all together. > > > > > > > > > > Om > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2007 Report Share Posted August 4, 2007 On 8/3/07, Chris Kirner <chriskirner1956 wrote: > I agree completely, Tanmaya. It is important to understand spiritual > teachings and religious history from a variety of contexts. I think that these seemingly different approaches of jnana and bhakti of can be viewed as complementary in one's own sadhana. When one grasps firmly at the objects of one's experience as external and real, the 'neti neti' approach of rejecting as false all conceptual entities is an effective antidote. After all, the Mother does appear as Error and Confusion: " ya devi sarvabhuteshu bhrantirupena samstitha... " If at the point one has strong understanding of pure awareness through this approach, one can then continue to " cut " at one's experience with " not this, not this " and miss what is truly existent beyond falsehood. This is the famous mistake that Adi Shankara made which Maa chided him for. To correct this, a positive approach can be taken as in the mahavakya: " sarvam khalvidam brahma " (All of this is Supreme Consciousness). One has to note that Adi Shankara was a great srividyopasika and to this day the worship of Mahatripurasundari is a central feature of the monastic institutions that he founded, so it seems that he himself demonstrated this two-stage sadhana. Sincerely, Kalidas > , " ty_maa " <dsjames wrote: > > > > > > Chris, > > > > You had asked about Shankara; ( " ..an enigma..I can't say I really > > understand who and what he was.. " ). > > > > My reply was an attempt to put him more into context. A religious > > teacher can't be fully understood outside of context, including what > > went before, and when possible, what comes afterward. > > > > Why should we try to understand? Because misunderstanding of the > > greatest good can become the greatest danger, as has been shown clear to > > the present. > > > > Religion is not cut in stone. It evolves as the human life-stream > > evolves. It is the eternal dialogue between God and Man, Nara and > > Narayana. > > > > And, it is important to remember that idolatry (collective religious > > dryness) only comes when we make too much of the " words " , and not enough > > of the living Relationship. > > > > When the Great Teachers are with us, they keep us on track. When they > > are gone, the responsibility becomes ours not to step into a minefield. > > > > In any case, that's my take on it; not everyone will agree, nor is there > > any need to . > > > > > > T. > > > > > > > > , " Chris Kirner " <chriskirner1956@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Tanmaya, > > > > > > I'm afraid my education is very limited. I know a little about some > > > things, but about many I know next to nothing at all. Rather than > > > systematically studying I have tended toward those things I found > > > either spiritually uplifting or practical, and eschewed the rest. I am > > > slightly ashamed to admit, for instance, that even though I come from > > > a tradition that emphasized the teachings of the Yoga Sutras of > > > Patanjali, I have never read any scripture or commentary devoted to > > > the discussion of the philosophy of Sankya alone. Oh well. > > > > > > Thanks so much for your interesting response. I only wish I had more > > > to say...I will add this, however, to your comments about debate and > > > the obstacles this creates. I think that debate can be healthy. In the > > > sphere of philosophy it can help to refine a structure to its finest > > > point of understanding, which is a good thing. Problems arise when > > > people attempt, as they always seem to do, to define (capture or bind) > > > the undefinable with words that can never convey the whole truth - and > > > they become very insistent about it, too. > > > > > > People who become too invested in their pride of philosophical > > > accomplishment, become embedded there, and like a bug caught in amber, > > > can no longer move beyond their particular point of view. Those whose > > > first allegiance is to God, and to their own direct experience, are > > > able to approach these various ideas with equanimity, recognize the > > > limitations of each, and use them for inspiration and understanding, > > > each in its proper place in the scheme of things. There is a point at > > > which only direct experience suffices, and words alone give no > > > satisfaction. > > > > > > Thanks again. > > > > > > Jai Maa! > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " ty_maa " dsjames@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Chris, > > > > > > > > Shankara Acharya is only one of the three great Acharyas of India. > > The > > > > other two are Madva and Ramanuja. > > > > > > > > Madva established the philosophy of dvaita or dualism, i.e. that God > > and > > > > the soul are eternally different and separate. Ramanuja founded the > > > > philosophy of vashishta advaita, or the doctrine that soul and God > > are > > > > of the same substance but infinitely different in magnitude: God is > > > > great, while the soul, like a spark from God, is minute. > > > > > > > > Shankara propounded the philosophy of adviata or non-dualism, which > > > > declares that, from the highest point of view (beyond time, space, > > and > > > > causation) soul and God are indistinguishable and the Same. > > > > > > > > Each acharya, to win his spurs, was required to comment on the three > > > > great pillars of Hinduisn-the Gita, the Brahma Sutras, and the > > > > Upanisads-making each and every statement in each support his > > doctrine. > > > > From this attempt comes the very appropriate phrase, " text > > torturing " . > > > > > > > > The truth is that the great teachers, Krishna, the rishis, etc., all > > > > spoke from every point of view, according to the needs of those they > > > > were teaching at the time; thus the original scriptures contain > > > > statements supportive of dualism, qualified non-dualism, and > > > > non-dualism. > > > > > > > > I've always found the traditional iconography of the three acharyas > > > > interesting. Since there are many more advaitic statements in the > > > > scriptures than dualistic, Madva is portrayed as a huge man-like a > > > > shaven-headed sumo wrestler. That (it might be said) is because he > > had > > > > to work the hardest to bend every statement in the Gita, Upanishads, > > > > etc, to support dualism. Ramanuja is portrayed as a normal, well > > > > proportioned gentleman, because his job was easier. While Shankara, > > who > > > > had to work the least, is shown as a wispy little boy. > > > > > > > > Although the efforts of the three acharyas did systematize Hinduism > > > > under three philosophies, appropriate to aspirants in different > > stages > > > > of development, these philosophies (like the cast system), over > > time, > > > > became water-tight compartments. A family, for instance, down > > through > > > > the generations, would all be Madva dualists for life. This didn't > > allow > > > > for growth. > > > > > > > > And, those who believed in Advaita were also bound by their > > tradition, > > > > or " Church " . All were expected to accept, from the start, a > > > > point-of-view of " Soham " , " I am He " . This this was impractical, > > and > > > > tended to embroil the greatness of the advaita philosophy in > > > > intellectualism and argumentation rather than transcendental > > > > realization. > > > > > > > > In recent times, Swami Vivekananda, in bringing Indian spirituality > > to > > > > the West, stated that it was left for him to reveal that these three > > > > philosophies were three different stages of natural growth and > > > > experience, on a single path to God which all must tread. And his > > source > > > > of authority was the realization of Sri Ramakrishna, whose sadhana > > had > > > > taken him through each level in turn. > > > > > > > > These philosophies, and the unending arguments among them, have been > > a > > > > stumbling block for many. So another thing that Vivekananda did was > > to > > > > establish a tradition of selfless service, Karma Yoga. Sadhus > > > > traditionally did not do " work " . But Vivekananda put many of his > > sadhus > > > > to serving the poor, the diseased, and the starving. > > > > > > > > Even now, when the inevitable periods of dryness come, members of > > that > > > > Order are put to service. Some in hospitals, schools, or famine or > > > > plague relief. It clears the air and opens the Heart. > > > > > > > > ...And even now, for simple individuals like myself, when too much > > > > thinking has taken me too much into my head and out of my Heart, I > > > > remember the teaching: " Get the flow going, go out and find a > > homeless > > > > family sitting on a sidewalk somewhere and give them $50 dollars you > > > > can't afford " . > > > > > > > > Or the sage advice of Sal, " plant a tree " . > > > > > > > > > > > > Respectfully, > > > > > > > > Tanmaya > > > > > > > > , " Chris Kirner " > > <chriskirner1956@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for posting this Ramya! > > > > > > > > > > There's just so much here to look at and contemplate, and try to > > > > > understand... > > > > > > > > > > When Maa says how beautiful it is, the way God teaches those of us > > who > > > > > are blessed with unconditional love for Her, it thrills my heart. > > I > > > > > know just what she means. Yet for a while now I have been very > > > > > unhappy, with myself, and with God. > > > > > > > > > > But what can I do? Once you have experienced the reality of God, > > of > > > > > God's grace and loving care, how can you deny your own experience > > and > > > > > say to God, " I don't want you anymore. You're not helping me like > > I > > > > > need you to! " You cannot. You have no choice but to continue to > > love > > > > > God with whatever degree of intensity you are capable of, despite > > all > > > > > the difficulties, and ambivalent feelings. > > > > > > > > > > It's easy to feel possessed of unconditional love when one feels > > > > > blessed. It is harder when discouragement sets in. But > > unconditional > > > > > love is unconditional, isn't it? [Just waiting for the beauty to > > kick > > > > > in] > > > > > > > > > > Adi Shankara is a bit of an enigma to me. I've read bits and > > pieces of > > > > > his history, as well as bit of his writings, but I can't really > > say I > > > > > understand who and what he was. > > > > > > > > > > Described as the Father of Vedanta, he went across India debating > > any > > > > > and all comers (such was the tradition of the day) arguing against > > the > > > > > tradition of external worship of idols and for the internal > > > > > realization of the formless divinity who could only be described > > as > > > > > sat, chit, ananda. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know why he did this. Apparently he had a mission of some > > > > > sort, and when great saints have a mission of some sort it > > generally > > > > > means there is something fundamentally wrong, or missing, in the > > > > > current environment. What exactly that was, I'm not sure. > > > > > > > > > > Interestingly, despite his one man crusade against formal puja, he > > is > > > > > said to have stopped to do puja in every temple he passed. For me > > this > > > > > illustrates perfectly the fundamental issues of this story Shree > > Maa > > > > > tells. Swamiji illustrated it well in one of the books (perhaps > > Before > > > > > Becoming This) when he talked about the great teacher of Vedanta, > > who > > > > > lectures all over the world on the formless divinity, the illusory > > > > > nature of material existence, and on our own true nature being one > > > > > with Brahman, and who nevertheless has to board a plane and fly to > > his > > > > > next engagement. > > > > > > > > > > Vedanta says we are all God, and all this is mere illusion. Tantra > > > > > says that She created all this, and abides in it, and it is > > therefore > > > > > real, because She is real. > > > > > > > > > > Jai Maa! > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " n_ramya108 " n_ramya108@ > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Everybody, > > > > > > > > > > > > Shree Maa dictated from Bengali with Her own comments a story > > about > > > > > > Shankaracharya. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please read and share your thoughts, insights and also any > > questions > > > > > > that you may have. Thank you very much! > > > > > > > > > > > > Jai Maa > > > > > > > > > > > > When Shankaracharya got Brahma Gyaan he saw the whole world as a > > > > dream > > > > > > and unreal. At that time he felt energy is not real; Shakti also > > is > > > > a > > > > > > dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > At this time he went to the banks of the River Ganga to take a > > holy > > > > > > dip. As he was climbing up the stairs of the ghats of Ganga, he > > saw > > > > a > > > > > > lady with a dead body lying by her side. > > > > > > > > > > > > He told the lady, " Please take the dead body away from my path. " > > > > > > > > > > > > The lady replied, " Baba, you tell the dead body to get out of > > your > > > > way. " > > > > > > > > > > > > When he heard this crazy woman saying such a foolish thing, > > > > > > Shakaracharya said, " Mother, inside this corpse there is no > > shakti > > > > > > (energy). " > > > > > > > > > > > > The lady said, " Why Baba? Does that mean without shakti no one > > can > > > > > move? " > > > > > > > > > > > > Shankaracharya got upset and said, " What you are saying is > > > > impossible. > > > > > > This man is dead - unless we move him, he cannot move by > > himself. " > > > > > > > > > > > > The lady answered, " Why is this impossible? In the cycle of > > > > creation, > > > > > > can Nature (prakriti) move without Pure Consciousness (chetana > > > > > > shakti)? Why do you say that a dead body cannot move? Please > > explain > > > > > > this to me. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Shankaracharya was surprised. > > > > > > > > > > > > He felt that whoever has Nirvikalpa samadhi resides in Pure > > > > > > Consciousness (Shuddha Chetana). He is One with the entire > > > > universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is Shakti, energy. She is Chinmayi Jagat Janani (the > > Universal > > > > > > Mother of Creation) and creator of this perceivable universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > The dead body and the lady disappeared. > > > > > > > > > > > > It was Divine Mother Maa Annapurna who led Shankaracharya to > > this > > > > > > intuitive understanding to break his ego and it was Lord Shiva > > who > > > > > > acted as the dead body. > > > > > > > > > > > > Shree Maa smiled and said, " If we love God with unconditional > > love, > > > > > > God teaches us in such a beautiful way. If we take one step > > towards > > > > > > God, God takes 10 steps towards us. Is it not beautiful? Is it > > not > > > > > > Truth? " Maa laughs in a gentle all knowing way...ha,ha,ha... > > > > > > > > > > > > Ramakrishna's Sanyaas Guru Totapuri did not believe in Shakti > > > > > > (Energy). When Ramakrishna clapped his hands and said " Maa, > > Maa, > > > > Maa, > > > > > > Maa, " Totapuri used to get very mad. But when he stayed a long > > time > > > > > > with Ramakrishna, he felt a change within himself. > > > > > > > > > > > > When the effect of illusion breaks asunder, then one attains > > > > > > consciousness with wisdom. When True Consciousness awakens, the > > > > > > effects of maya (illusion) go away. Ramakrishna said that you > > can > > > > > > light a thousand lamps in a dark room and all the darkness goes > > > > away. > > > > > > When Pure Consciousness awakens, illusion goes away. This does > > not > > > > > > happen little by little, it happens in one moment, all together. > > > > > > > > > > > > Om > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 Dear Friend, Just to acknowledge your perceptive and truthful comments. Looked at historically, acharyas are sequential, and can appear in conflict. Seen individually, each is a hologram; each seed of the tree containing the whole tree. As are we as well...holograms: appearing variously, yet containing the whole Tree. And for now this hologram is shutting down. Remembering that good speech is silver, but Silence is Golden. T. , " Thubten Namgyal " <anandabhairav wrote: > > On 8/3/07, Chris Kirner chriskirner1956 wrote: > > > I agree completely, Tanmaya. It is important to understand spiritual > > teachings and religious history from a variety of contexts. > > I think that these seemingly different approaches of jnana and bhakti > of can be viewed as complementary in one's own sadhana. When one > grasps firmly at the objects of one's experience as external and real, > the 'neti neti' approach of rejecting as false all conceptual entities > is an effective antidote. After all, the Mother does appear as Error > and Confusion: > > " ya devi sarvabhuteshu bhrantirupena samstitha... " > > If at the point one has strong understanding of pure awareness through > this approach, one can then continue to " cut " at one's experience with > " not this, not this " and miss what is truly existent beyond falsehood. > This is the famous mistake that Adi Shankara made which Maa chided > him for. To correct this, a positive approach can be taken as in the > mahavakya: " sarvam khalvidam brahma " (All of this is Supreme > Consciousness). > > One has to note that Adi Shankara was a great srividyopasika and to > this day the worship of Mahatripurasundari is a central feature of the > monastic institutions that he founded, so it seems that he himself > demonstrated this two-stage sadhana. > > Sincerely, > > Kalidas > > , " ty_maa " dsjames@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > Chris, > > > > > > You had asked about Shankara; ( " ..an enigma..I can't say I really > > > understand who and what he was.. " ). > > > > > > My reply was an attempt to put him more into context. A religious > > > teacher can't be fully understood outside of context, including what > > > went before, and when possible, what comes afterward. > > > > > > Why should we try to understand? Because misunderstanding of the > > > greatest good can become the greatest danger, as has been shown clear to > > > the present. > > > > > > Religion is not cut in stone. It evolves as the human life-stream > > > evolves. It is the eternal dialogue between God and Man, Nara and > > > Narayana. > > > > > > And, it is important to remember that idolatry (collective religious > > > dryness) only comes when we make too much of the " words " , and not enough > > > of the living Relationship. > > > > > > When the Great Teachers are with us, they keep us on track. When they > > > are gone, the responsibility becomes ours not to step into a minefield. > > > > > > In any case, that's my take on it; not everyone will agree, nor is there > > > any need to . > > > > > > > > > T. > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Chris Kirner " <chriskirner1956@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Tanmaya, > > > > > > > > I'm afraid my education is very limited. I know a little about some > > > > things, but about many I know next to nothing at all. Rather than > > > > systematically studying I have tended toward those things I found > > > > either spiritually uplifting or practical, and eschewed the rest. I am > > > > slightly ashamed to admit, for instance, that even though I come from > > > > a tradition that emphasized the teachings of the Yoga Sutras of > > > > Patanjali, I have never read any scripture or commentary devoted to > > > > the discussion of the philosophy of Sankya alone. Oh well. > > > > > > > > Thanks so much for your interesting response. I only wish I had more > > > > to say...I will add this, however, to your comments about debate and > > > > the obstacles this creates. I think that debate can be healthy. In the > > > > sphere of philosophy it can help to refine a structure to its finest > > > > point of understanding, which is a good thing. Problems arise when > > > > people attempt, as they always seem to do, to define (capture or bind) > > > > the undefinable with words that can never convey the whole truth - and > > > > they become very insistent about it, too. > > > > > > > > People who become too invested in their pride of philosophical > > > > accomplishment, become embedded there, and like a bug caught in amber, > > > > can no longer move beyond their particular point of view. Those whose > > > > first allegiance is to God, and to their own direct experience, are > > > > able to approach these various ideas with equanimity, recognize the > > > > limitations of each, and use them for inspiration and understanding, > > > > each in its proper place in the scheme of things. There is a point at > > > > which only direct experience suffices, and words alone give no > > > > satisfaction. > > > > > > > > Thanks again. > > > > > > > > Jai Maa! > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " ty_maa " dsjames@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chris, > > > > > > > > > > Shankara Acharya is only one of the three great Acharyas of India. > > > The > > > > > other two are Madva and Ramanuja. > > > > > > > > > > Madva established the philosophy of dvaita or dualism, i.e. that God > > > and > > > > > the soul are eternally different and separate. Ramanuja founded the > > > > > philosophy of vashishta advaita, or the doctrine that soul and God > > > are > > > > > of the same substance but infinitely different in magnitude: God is > > > > > great, while the soul, like a spark from God, is minute. > > > > > > > > > > Shankara propounded the philosophy of adviata or non-dualism, which > > > > > declares that, from the highest point of view (beyond time, space, > > > and > > > > > causation) soul and God are indistinguishable and the Same. > > > > > > > > > > Each acharya, to win his spurs, was required to comment on the three > > > > > great pillars of Hinduisn-the Gita, the Brahma Sutras, and the > > > > > Upanisads-making each and every statement in each support his > > > doctrine. > > > > > From this attempt comes the very appropriate phrase, " text > > > torturing " . > > > > > > > > > > The truth is that the great teachers, Krishna, the rishis, etc., all > > > > > spoke from every point of view, according to the needs of those they > > > > > were teaching at the time; thus the original scriptures contain > > > > > statements supportive of dualism, qualified non-dualism, and > > > > > non-dualism. > > > > > > > > > > I've always found the traditional iconography of the three acharyas > > > > > interesting. Since there are many more advaitic statements in the > > > > > scriptures than dualistic, Madva is portrayed as a huge man-like a > > > > > shaven-headed sumo wrestler. That (it might be said) is because he > > > had > > > > > to work the hardest to bend every statement in the Gita, Upanishads, > > > > > etc, to support dualism. Ramanuja is portrayed as a normal, well > > > > > proportioned gentleman, because his job was easier. While Shankara, > > > who > > > > > had to work the least, is shown as a wispy little boy. > > > > > > > > > > Although the efforts of the three acharyas did systematize Hinduism > > > > > under three philosophies, appropriate to aspirants in different > > > stages > > > > > of development, these philosophies (like the cast system), over > > > time, > > > > > became water-tight compartments. A family, for instance, down > > > through > > > > > the generations, would all be Madva dualists for life. This didn't > > > allow > > > > > for growth. > > > > > > > > > > And, those who believed in Advaita were also bound by their > > > tradition, > > > > > or " Church " . All were expected to accept, from the start, a > > > > > point-of-view of " Soham " , " I am He " . This this was impractical, > > > and > > > > > tended to embroil the greatness of the advaita philosophy in > > > > > intellectualism and argumentation rather than transcendental > > > > > realization. > > > > > > > > > > In recent times, Swami Vivekananda, in bringing Indian spirituality > > > to > > > > > the West, stated that it was left for him to reveal that these three > > > > > philosophies were three different stages of natural growth and > > > > > experience, on a single path to God which all must tread. And his > > > source > > > > > of authority was the realization of Sri Ramakrishna, whose sadhana > > > had > > > > > taken him through each level in turn. > > > > > > > > > > These philosophies, and the unending arguments among them, have been > > > a > > > > > stumbling block for many. So another thing that Vivekananda did was > > > to > > > > > establish a tradition of selfless service, Karma Yoga. Sadhus > > > > > traditionally did not do " work " . But Vivekananda put many of his > > > sadhus > > > > > to serving the poor, the diseased, and the starving. > > > > > > > > > > Even now, when the inevitable periods of dryness come, members of > > > that > > > > > Order are put to service. Some in hospitals, schools, or famine or > > > > > plague relief. It clears the air and opens the Heart. > > > > > > > > > > ...And even now, for simple individuals like myself, when too much > > > > > thinking has taken me too much into my head and out of my Heart, I > > > > > remember the teaching: " Get the flow going, go out and find a > > > homeless > > > > > family sitting on a sidewalk somewhere and give them $50 dollars you > > > > > can't afford " . > > > > > > > > > > Or the sage advice of Sal, " plant a tree " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respectfully, > > > > > > > > > > Tanmaya > > > > > > > > > > , " Chris Kirner " > > > <chriskirner1956@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for posting this Ramya! > > > > > > > > > > > > There's just so much here to look at and contemplate, and try to > > > > > > understand... > > > > > > > > > > > > When Maa says how beautiful it is, the way God teaches those of us > > > who > > > > > > are blessed with unconditional love for Her, it thrills my heart. > > > I > > > > > > know just what she means. Yet for a while now I have been very > > > > > > unhappy, with myself, and with God. > > > > > > > > > > > > But what can I do? Once you have experienced the reality of God, > > > of > > > > > > God's grace and loving care, how can you deny your own experience > > > and > > > > > > say to God, " I don't want you anymore. You're not helping me like > > > I > > > > > > need you to! " You cannot. You have no choice but to continue to > > > love > > > > > > God with whatever degree of intensity you are capable of, despite > > > all > > > > > > the difficulties, and ambivalent feelings. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's easy to feel possessed of unconditional love when one feels > > > > > > blessed. It is harder when discouragement sets in. But > > > unconditional > > > > > > love is unconditional, isn't it? [Just waiting for the beauty to > > > kick > > > > > > in] > > > > > > > > > > > > Adi Shankara is a bit of an enigma to me. I've read bits and > > > pieces of > > > > > > his history, as well as bit of his writings, but I can't really > > > say I > > > > > > understand who and what he was. > > > > > > > > > > > > Described as the Father of Vedanta, he went across India debating > > > any > > > > > > and all comers (such was the tradition of the day) arguing against > > > the > > > > > > tradition of external worship of idols and for the internal > > > > > > realization of the formless divinity who could only be described > > > as > > > > > > sat, chit, ananda. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know why he did this. Apparently he had a mission of some > > > > > > sort, and when great saints have a mission of some sort it > > > generally > > > > > > means there is something fundamentally wrong, or missing, in the > > > > > > current environment. What exactly that was, I'm not sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > Interestingly, despite his one man crusade against formal puja, he > > > is > > > > > > said to have stopped to do puja in every temple he passed. For me > > > this > > > > > > illustrates perfectly the fundamental issues of this story Shree > > > Maa > > > > > > tells. Swamiji illustrated it well in one of the books (perhaps > > > Before > > > > > > Becoming This) when he talked about the great teacher of Vedanta, > > > who > > > > > > lectures all over the world on the formless divinity, the illusory > > > > > > nature of material existence, and on our own true nature being one > > > > > > with Brahman, and who nevertheless has to board a plane and fly to > > > his > > > > > > next engagement. > > > > > > > > > > > > Vedanta says we are all God, and all this is mere illusion. Tantra > > > > > > says that She created all this, and abides in it, and it is > > > therefore > > > > > > real, because She is real. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jai Maa! > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " n_ramya108 " n_ramya108@ > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Everybody, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shree Maa dictated from Bengali with Her own comments a story > > > about > > > > > > > Shankaracharya. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please read and share your thoughts, insights and also any > > > questions > > > > > > > that you may have. Thank you very much! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jai Maa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When Shankaracharya got Brahma Gyaan he saw the whole world as a > > > > > dream > > > > > > > and unreal. At that time he felt energy is not real; Shakti also > > > is > > > > > a > > > > > > > dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At this time he went to the banks of the River Ganga to take a > > > holy > > > > > > > dip. As he was climbing up the stairs of the ghats of Ganga, he > > > saw > > > > > a > > > > > > > lady with a dead body lying by her side. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He told the lady, " Please take the dead body away from my path. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The lady replied, " Baba, you tell the dead body to get out of > > > your > > > > > way. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When he heard this crazy woman saying such a foolish thing, > > > > > > > Shakaracharya said, " Mother, inside this corpse there is no > > > shakti > > > > > > > (energy). " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The lady said, " Why Baba? Does that mean without shakti no one > > > can > > > > > > move? " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shankaracharya got upset and said, " What you are saying is > > > > > impossible. > > > > > > > This man is dead - unless we move him, he cannot move by > > > himself. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The lady answered, " Why is this impossible? In the cycle of > > > > > creation, > > > > > > > can Nature (prakriti) move without Pure Consciousness (chetana > > > > > > > shakti)? Why do you say that a dead body cannot move? Please > > > explain > > > > > > > this to me. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shankaracharya was surprised. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He felt that whoever has Nirvikalpa samadhi resides in Pure > > > > > > > Consciousness (Shuddha Chetana). He is One with the entire > > > > > universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is Shakti, energy. She is Chinmayi Jagat Janani (the > > > Universal > > > > > > > Mother of Creation) and creator of this perceivable universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The dead body and the lady disappeared. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was Divine Mother Maa Annapurna who led Shankaracharya to > > > this > > > > > > > intuitive understanding to break his ego and it was Lord Shiva > > > who > > > > > > > acted as the dead body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shree Maa smiled and said, " If we love God with unconditional > > > love, > > > > > > > God teaches us in such a beautiful way. If we take one step > > > towards > > > > > > > God, God takes 10 steps towards us. Is it not beautiful? Is it > > > not > > > > > > > Truth? " Maa laughs in a gentle all knowing way...ha,ha,ha... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ramakrishna's Sanyaas Guru Totapuri did not believe in Shakti > > > > > > > (Energy). When Ramakrishna clapped his hands and said " Maa, > > > Maa, > > > > > Maa, > > > > > > > Maa, " Totapuri used to get very mad. But when he stayed a long > > > time > > > > > > > with Ramakrishna, he felt a change within himself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the effect of illusion breaks asunder, then one attains > > > > > > > consciousness with wisdom. When True Consciousness awakens, the > > > > > > > effects of maya (illusion) go away. Ramakrishna said that you > > > can > > > > > > > light a thousand lamps in a dark room and all the darkness goes > > > > > away. > > > > > > > When Pure Consciousness awakens, illusion goes away. This does > > > not > > > > > > > happen little by little, it happens in one moment, all together. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Om > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 Hi Kalidas, I'm sorry this is so late in coming... Yes, I think you stated it very well. May we all be blessed with the vision of all that is as pure divinity. Jai Maa! Chris , " Thubten Namgyal " <anandabhairav wrote: > > On 8/3/07, Chris Kirner <chriskirner1956 wrote: > > > I agree completely, Tanmaya. It is important to understand spiritual > > teachings and religious history from a variety of contexts. > > I think that these seemingly different approaches of jnana and bhakti > of can be viewed as complementary in one's own sadhana. When one > grasps firmly at the objects of one's experience as external and real, > the 'neti neti' approach of rejecting as false all conceptual entities > is an effective antidote. After all, the Mother does appear as Error > and Confusion: > > " ya devi sarvabhuteshu bhrantirupena samstitha... " > > If at the point one has strong understanding of pure awareness through > this approach, one can then continue to " cut " at one's experience with > " not this, not this " and miss what is truly existent beyond falsehood. > This is the famous mistake that Adi Shankara made which Maa chided > him for. To correct this, a positive approach can be taken as in the > mahavakya: " sarvam khalvidam brahma " (All of this is Supreme > Consciousness). > > One has to note that Adi Shankara was a great srividyopasika and to > this day the worship of Mahatripurasundari is a central feature of the > monastic institutions that he founded, so it seems that he himself > demonstrated this two-stage sadhana. > > Sincerely, > > Kalidas > > , " ty_maa " <dsjames@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Chris, > > > > > > You had asked about Shankara; ( " ..an enigma..I can't say I really > > > understand who and what he was.. " ). > > > > > > My reply was an attempt to put him more into context. A religious > > > teacher can't be fully understood outside of context, including what > > > went before, and when possible, what comes afterward. > > > > > > Why should we try to understand? Because misunderstanding of the > > > greatest good can become the greatest danger, as has been shown clear to > > > the present. > > > > > > Religion is not cut in stone. It evolves as the human life-stream > > > evolves. It is the eternal dialogue between God and Man, Nara and > > > Narayana. > > > > > > And, it is important to remember that idolatry (collective religious > > > dryness) only comes when we make too much of the " words " , and not enough > > > of the living Relationship. > > > > > > When the Great Teachers are with us, they keep us on track. When they > > > are gone, the responsibility becomes ours not to step into a minefield. > > > > > > In any case, that's my take on it; not everyone will agree, nor is there > > > any need to . > > > > > > > > > T. > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Chris Kirner " <chriskirner1956@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Tanmaya, > > > > > > > > I'm afraid my education is very limited. I know a little about some > > > > things, but about many I know next to nothing at all. Rather than > > > > systematically studying I have tended toward those things I found > > > > either spiritually uplifting or practical, and eschewed the rest. I am > > > > slightly ashamed to admit, for instance, that even though I come from > > > > a tradition that emphasized the teachings of the Yoga Sutras of > > > > Patanjali, I have never read any scripture or commentary devoted to > > > > the discussion of the philosophy of Sankya alone. Oh well. > > > > > > > > Thanks so much for your interesting response. I only wish I had more > > > > to say...I will add this, however, to your comments about debate and > > > > the obstacles this creates. I think that debate can be healthy. In the > > > > sphere of philosophy it can help to refine a structure to its finest > > > > point of understanding, which is a good thing. Problems arise when > > > > people attempt, as they always seem to do, to define (capture or bind) > > > > the undefinable with words that can never convey the whole truth - and > > > > they become very insistent about it, too. > > > > > > > > People who become too invested in their pride of philosophical > > > > accomplishment, become embedded there, and like a bug caught in amber, > > > > can no longer move beyond their particular point of view. Those whose > > > > first allegiance is to God, and to their own direct experience, are > > > > able to approach these various ideas with equanimity, recognize the > > > > limitations of each, and use them for inspiration and understanding, > > > > each in its proper place in the scheme of things. There is a point at > > > > which only direct experience suffices, and words alone give no > > > > satisfaction. > > > > > > > > Thanks again. > > > > > > > > Jai Maa! > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " ty_maa " dsjames@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chris, > > > > > > > > > > Shankara Acharya is only one of the three great Acharyas of India. > > > The > > > > > other two are Madva and Ramanuja. > > > > > > > > > > Madva established the philosophy of dvaita or dualism, i.e. that God > > > and > > > > > the soul are eternally different and separate. Ramanuja founded the > > > > > philosophy of vashishta advaita, or the doctrine that soul and God > > > are > > > > > of the same substance but infinitely different in magnitude: God is > > > > > great, while the soul, like a spark from God, is minute. > > > > > > > > > > Shankara propounded the philosophy of adviata or non-dualism, which > > > > > declares that, from the highest point of view (beyond time, space, > > > and > > > > > causation) soul and God are indistinguishable and the Same. > > > > > > > > > > Each acharya, to win his spurs, was required to comment on the three > > > > > great pillars of Hinduisn-the Gita, the Brahma Sutras, and the > > > > > Upanisads-making each and every statement in each support his > > > doctrine. > > > > > From this attempt comes the very appropriate phrase, " text > > > torturing " . > > > > > > > > > > The truth is that the great teachers, Krishna, the rishis, etc., all > > > > > spoke from every point of view, according to the needs of those they > > > > > were teaching at the time; thus the original scriptures contain > > > > > statements supportive of dualism, qualified non-dualism, and > > > > > non-dualism. > > > > > > > > > > I've always found the traditional iconography of the three acharyas > > > > > interesting. Since there are many more advaitic statements in the > > > > > scriptures than dualistic, Madva is portrayed as a huge man-like a > > > > > shaven-headed sumo wrestler. That (it might be said) is because he > > > had > > > > > to work the hardest to bend every statement in the Gita, Upanishads, > > > > > etc, to support dualism. Ramanuja is portrayed as a normal, well > > > > > proportioned gentleman, because his job was easier. While Shankara, > > > who > > > > > had to work the least, is shown as a wispy little boy. > > > > > > > > > > Although the efforts of the three acharyas did systematize Hinduism > > > > > under three philosophies, appropriate to aspirants in different > > > stages > > > > > of development, these philosophies (like the cast system), over > > > time, > > > > > became water-tight compartments. A family, for instance, down > > > through > > > > > the generations, would all be Madva dualists for life. This didn't > > > allow > > > > > for growth. > > > > > > > > > > And, those who believed in Advaita were also bound by their > > > tradition, > > > > > or " Church " . All were expected to accept, from the start, a > > > > > point-of-view of " Soham " , " I am He " . This this was impractical, > > > and > > > > > tended to embroil the greatness of the advaita philosophy in > > > > > intellectualism and argumentation rather than transcendental > > > > > realization. > > > > > > > > > > In recent times, Swami Vivekananda, in bringing Indian spirituality > > > to > > > > > the West, stated that it was left for him to reveal that these three > > > > > philosophies were three different stages of natural growth and > > > > > experience, on a single path to God which all must tread. And his > > > source > > > > > of authority was the realization of Sri Ramakrishna, whose sadhana > > > had > > > > > taken him through each level in turn. > > > > > > > > > > These philosophies, and the unending arguments among them, have been > > > a > > > > > stumbling block for many. So another thing that Vivekananda did was > > > to > > > > > establish a tradition of selfless service, Karma Yoga. Sadhus > > > > > traditionally did not do " work " . But Vivekananda put many of his > > > sadhus > > > > > to serving the poor, the diseased, and the starving. > > > > > > > > > > Even now, when the inevitable periods of dryness come, members of > > > that > > > > > Order are put to service. Some in hospitals, schools, or famine or > > > > > plague relief. It clears the air and opens the Heart. > > > > > > > > > > ...And even now, for simple individuals like myself, when too much > > > > > thinking has taken me too much into my head and out of my Heart, I > > > > > remember the teaching: " Get the flow going, go out and find a > > > homeless > > > > > family sitting on a sidewalk somewhere and give them $50 dollars you > > > > > can't afford " . > > > > > > > > > > Or the sage advice of Sal, " plant a tree " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respectfully, > > > > > > > > > > Tanmaya > > > > > > > > > > , " Chris Kirner " > > > <chriskirner1956@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for posting this Ramya! > > > > > > > > > > > > There's just so much here to look at and contemplate, and try to > > > > > > understand... > > > > > > > > > > > > When Maa says how beautiful it is, the way God teaches those of us > > > who > > > > > > are blessed with unconditional love for Her, it thrills my heart. > > > I > > > > > > know just what she means. Yet for a while now I have been very > > > > > > unhappy, with myself, and with God. > > > > > > > > > > > > But what can I do? Once you have experienced the reality of God, > > > of > > > > > > God's grace and loving care, how can you deny your own experience > > > and > > > > > > say to God, " I don't want you anymore. You're not helping me like > > > I > > > > > > need you to! " You cannot. You have no choice but to continue to > > > love > > > > > > God with whatever degree of intensity you are capable of, despite > > > all > > > > > > the difficulties, and ambivalent feelings. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's easy to feel possessed of unconditional love when one feels > > > > > > blessed. It is harder when discouragement sets in. But > > > unconditional > > > > > > love is unconditional, isn't it? [Just waiting for the beauty to > > > kick > > > > > > in] > > > > > > > > > > > > Adi Shankara is a bit of an enigma to me. I've read bits and > > > pieces of > > > > > > his history, as well as bit of his writings, but I can't really > > > say I > > > > > > understand who and what he was. > > > > > > > > > > > > Described as the Father of Vedanta, he went across India debating > > > any > > > > > > and all comers (such was the tradition of the day) arguing against > > > the > > > > > > tradition of external worship of idols and for the internal > > > > > > realization of the formless divinity who could only be described > > > as > > > > > > sat, chit, ananda. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know why he did this. Apparently he had a mission of some > > > > > > sort, and when great saints have a mission of some sort it > > > generally > > > > > > means there is something fundamentally wrong, or missing, in the > > > > > > current environment. What exactly that was, I'm not sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > Interestingly, despite his one man crusade against formal puja, he > > > is > > > > > > said to have stopped to do puja in every temple he passed. For me > > > this > > > > > > illustrates perfectly the fundamental issues of this story Shree > > > Maa > > > > > > tells. Swamiji illustrated it well in one of the books (perhaps > > > Before > > > > > > Becoming This) when he talked about the great teacher of Vedanta, > > > who > > > > > > lectures all over the world on the formless divinity, the illusory > > > > > > nature of material existence, and on our own true nature being one > > > > > > with Brahman, and who nevertheless has to board a plane and fly to > > > his > > > > > > next engagement. > > > > > > > > > > > > Vedanta says we are all God, and all this is mere illusion. Tantra > > > > > > says that She created all this, and abides in it, and it is > > > therefore > > > > > > real, because She is real. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jai Maa! > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " n_ramya108 " n_ramya108@ > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Everybody, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shree Maa dictated from Bengali with Her own comments a story > > > about > > > > > > > Shankaracharya. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please read and share your thoughts, insights and also any > > > questions > > > > > > > that you may have. Thank you very much! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jai Maa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When Shankaracharya got Brahma Gyaan he saw the whole world as a > > > > > dream > > > > > > > and unreal. At that time he felt energy is not real; Shakti also > > > is > > > > > a > > > > > > > dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At this time he went to the banks of the River Ganga to take a > > > holy > > > > > > > dip. As he was climbing up the stairs of the ghats of Ganga, he > > > saw > > > > > a > > > > > > > lady with a dead body lying by her side. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He told the lady, " Please take the dead body away from my path. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The lady replied, " Baba, you tell the dead body to get out of > > > your > > > > > way. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When he heard this crazy woman saying such a foolish thing, > > > > > > > Shakaracharya said, " Mother, inside this corpse there is no > > > shakti > > > > > > > (energy). " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The lady said, " Why Baba? Does that mean without shakti no one > > > can > > > > > > move? " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shankaracharya got upset and said, " What you are saying is > > > > > impossible. > > > > > > > This man is dead - unless we move him, he cannot move by > > > himself. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The lady answered, " Why is this impossible? In the cycle of > > > > > creation, > > > > > > > can Nature (prakriti) move without Pure Consciousness (chetana > > > > > > > shakti)? Why do you say that a dead body cannot move? Please > > > explain > > > > > > > this to me. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shankaracharya was surprised. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He felt that whoever has Nirvikalpa samadhi resides in Pure > > > > > > > Consciousness (Shuddha Chetana). He is One with the entire > > > > > universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is Shakti, energy. She is Chinmayi Jagat Janani (the > > > Universal > > > > > > > Mother of Creation) and creator of this perceivable universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The dead body and the lady disappeared. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was Divine Mother Maa Annapurna who led Shankaracharya to > > > this > > > > > > > intuitive understanding to break his ego and it was Lord Shiva > > > who > > > > > > > acted as the dead body. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shree Maa smiled and said, " If we love God with unconditional > > > love, > > > > > > > God teaches us in such a beautiful way. If we take one step > > > towards > > > > > > > God, God takes 10 steps towards us. Is it not beautiful? Is it > > > not > > > > > > > Truth? " Maa laughs in a gentle all knowing way...ha,ha,ha... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ramakrishna's Sanyaas Guru Totapuri did not believe in Shakti > > > > > > > (Energy). When Ramakrishna clapped his hands and said " Maa, > > > Maa, > > > > > Maa, > > > > > > > Maa, " Totapuri used to get very mad. But when he stayed a long > > > time > > > > > > > with Ramakrishna, he felt a change within himself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the effect of illusion breaks asunder, then one attains > > > > > > > consciousness with wisdom. When True Consciousness awakens, the > > > > > > > effects of maya (illusion) go away. Ramakrishna said that you > > > can > > > > > > > light a thousand lamps in a dark room and all the darkness goes > > > > > away. > > > > > > > When Pure Consciousness awakens, illusion goes away. This does > > > not > > > > > > > happen little by little, it happens in one moment, all together. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Om > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.