Guest guest Posted July 2, 1999 Report Share Posted July 2, 1999 In a message dated 99-07-01 16:45:27 EDT, shankar writes: << Sri Ramakrishna, to be sure, recommended the Path of Devotion to one and all. >> I recall he said it was the easiest in the Kali yuga...I don't recall him recommending it to to all. Where did he say this? The path of devotion is for those with a devotional nature. Not all have this devotional nature...especially in the beginning. Jnana yoga appeals to those with a more intellectual type of nature, karma yoga for those who find selfless action to their liking, and or course Raja yoga for those with a meditative nature. Now, one should try to practice a little of all of these, but one's primary " path " will depend on their nature. All merge into one at the end... <<Thus, in conclusion, it emerges that anyone who has body-consciousness has, by virtue of that limited body-consciousness alone, accepted God.>> I know a few atheists who might disagree with you here. And what of the Taoist, and Buddhist? No god in their beliefs. <<Again, by virtue of body-consciousness, we become persons. Therefore, as long as we are persons, endowed with name and form, we have no choice but to perceive God as a Person.>> Well, I'm a person, and at present residing in this world with a name and a form, and I DON'T perceive god as a person. So, I will have to disagree with you here. Sue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 1999 Report Share Posted July 2, 1999 It is true that Sri Ramakrishna says that the Path of Devotion is the easiest in this Kali Yuga, the Age of Darkness. If that is so, all of us are living in this Age of Darkness alone and hence, by virtue of that, he has stated that method to be the easiest to all of us, irrespective of our nature. Let us take a person who is predominantly intellectual in nature and to whom Jnana yoga appeals too much. He will then persistently attempt to enquire into the source of his thoughts following the method of self-enquiry, 'Who am I' and attempt to abide, without thoughts, as the Supreme Self. In this process, there is the enquirer, the object of inward enquiry, the Supreme Self and the relationship between the two, namely, the process of enquiry into the Self. This enquiry into the Self is obviously done by the 'ego', apparently having a separate existence, apart from the Self. Therefore, the ego seeking its own source, the Supreme Self, is only the devotion of the ego to the Supreme Self. However, it has to be accepted that this process entails Devotion to the Impersonal Absolute. But, the ego is constantly moving by the power of the reflection of the Supreme Self in it, called the 'Chidabhasa' (Chit + Abhasa = Conscoiusness + Reflection). The ego, being a separative personality formation, the reflection in it is only the Personal God endowed with the Power of absolute rulership over the ego. Therefore, it is apt that Thakur says that 'Mother alone is the Doer, and I am but an instrument'. How true! Therefore, the reflection of the Supreme Self, the Real Doer, is performing the process of self-enquiry through the apparently separative formation of the ego, to abide as the Supreme Self. If ego thinks that it is performing the Sadhana, it is arrogating to itself the position of the 'Doer', which it is not. Unless this wrong notion is willingly given up, the Sadhana cannot proceed. If it is not thinking itself to be the doer, then surely, it thinks that the Peronal God is the Real Doer; and this is true devotion to the Personal God. On the other hand, if it thinks that it is only an apparent doer as an instrument of the Personal God, that too is true devotion to the Personal God. Thus, we can see 'Jnana Yoga' proceeds by devotion to the Personal God alone, whether acknowledged by the ego or not. More to follow later! Kind regards. FREESUE <FREESUE ramakrishna <ramakrishna > Friday, July 02, 1999 10:33 AM [ramakrishna] Thakur & Upanishads-4 >FREESUE > >In a message dated 99-07-01 16:45:27 EDT, shankar writes: > ><< Sri Ramakrishna, to be sure, recommended the Path of Devotion to one >and all. >> > >I recall he said it was the easiest in the Kali yuga...I don't recall him >recommending it to to all. Where did he say this? The path of devotion is >for those with a devotional nature. Not all have this devotional >nature...especially in the beginning. Jnana yoga appeals to those with a >more intellectual type of nature, karma yoga for those who find selfless >action to their liking, and or course Raja yoga for those with a meditative >nature. Now, one should try to practice a little of all of these, but one's >primary " path " will depend on their nature. All merge into one at the end... > ><<Thus, in conclusion, it emerges that anyone who has body-consciousness has, >by virtue of that limited body-consciousness alone, accepted God.>> > >I know a few atheists who might disagree with you here. And what of the >Taoist, and Buddhist? No god in their beliefs. > ><<Again, by virtue of body-consciousness, we become persons. Therefore, as >long as we are persons, endowed with name and form, we have no choice but to >perceive God as a Person.>> > >Well, I'm a person, and at present residing in this world with a name and a >form, and I DON'T perceive god as a person. So, I will have to disagree with >you here. > >Sue > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >How has ONElist changed your life? >Share your story with us at > >------ >Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah >Vivekananda Centre London >http://www.btinternet.com/~vivekananda/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 1999 Report Share Posted July 2, 1999 Let us now take the case of a person engaging himself in action in a spirit of Yoga. The karma yogi has to constantly discriminate between obligatory and optional courses of action, having regard both to the station of his life and his innate nature. He must perpetually renounce the optional courses of action. He must unfailingly choose the obligatory courses of action and perform them in a spirit of surrender to the Master of all works, the Personal God, who is the presiding deity of his ego. The works of the current birth fall into two categories, namely, the works of planning (agamya) and the works of execution (kriyamana). None of the works of the current birth bear fruit in the current birth, as a general rule. The accumulated results of the works of the past births are called 'Sanchita'. Out of the 'Sanchita', a portion is earmarked at the time of the current birth, for fructification in the current birth, by the Personal God. Therefore, there is a total lack of connection between the works of the current birth and the fruits enjoyed in the current birth. Consequently, a karma yogi cannot even think of engaging in works for the sake of any kind of fruit. The Personal God determines from His Absolute Omnipotent Will, which portion of the 'Sanchita' has to fructify in the current birth and in which order. This He does in such a way that the individual soul progresses in its evolution towards the complete unfoldment of the concealed divinity within. Works performed with single-mindedness are intense and are called 'Drtha' and others 'Adhrtha'. Intense works beget intense results. Some of the very intense works, whether benevolent or malevolent, bear fruit in the same birth, by the intervening Will of the Personal God. Some other intense works, bear fruit in the subsequent births, again by the Will of the Personal God. At the time these intense works of the past births bear fruit in the current birth, if the supposed experiencer of these fruits, is intensely engaged in spiritual practices or experiencing an intense longing for God, the Will of the Personal God descends and either entirely sets aside the fructification or modifies it suitably. This descent of the Will of the Personal God entirely setting aside or modifying the fructification of the intense works of the past births gets manifest in the external circumstances as 'signs' (Shakuna). These are not therefore mere superstitions. There is even a separate 'Shastra' relating to this and is called the 'Shakunarnavam'. Hence, it can readily be seen, no karma yoga is ever possible, without Devotion to the Personal God, whether acknowledged thus by the performing ego or not. FREESUE <FREESUE ramakrishna <ramakrishna > Friday, July 02, 1999 10:33 AM [ramakrishna] Thakur & Upanishads-4 >FREESUE > >In a message dated 99-07-01 16:45:27 EDT, shankar writes: > ><< Sri Ramakrishna, to be sure, recommended the Path of Devotion to one >and all. >> > >I recall he said it was the easiest in the Kali yuga...I don't recall him >recommending it to to all. Where did he say this? The path of devotion is >for those with a devotional nature. Not all have this devotional >nature...especially in the beginning. Jnana yoga appeals to those with a >more intellectual type of nature, karma yoga for those who find selfless >action to their liking, and or course Raja yoga for those with a meditative >nature. Now, one should try to practice a little of all of these, but one's >primary " path " will depend on their nature. All merge into one at the end... > ><<Thus, in conclusion, it emerges that anyone who has body-consciousness has, >by virtue of that limited body-consciousness alone, accepted God.>> > >I know a few atheists who might disagree with you here. And what of the >Taoist, and Buddhist? No god in their beliefs. > ><<Again, by virtue of body-consciousness, we become persons. Therefore, as >long as we are persons, endowed with name and form, we have no choice but to >perceive God as a Person.>> > >Well, I'm a person, and at present residing in this world with a name and a >form, and I DON'T perceive god as a person. So, I will have to disagree with >you here. > >Sue > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >How has ONElist changed your life? >Share your story with us at > >------ >Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah >Vivekananda Centre London >http://www.btinternet.com/~vivekananda/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 1999 Report Share Posted July 3, 1999 Dear friends, > Shankar wrote: > Let us now take the case of a person engaging himself in action in a > spirit of Yoga. > The karma yogi has to constantly discriminate between obligatory and > optional courses of action, having regard both to the station of his > life and his innate nature. He must perpetually renounce the optional > courses of action. He must unfailingly choose the obligatory courses > of action and perform them in a spirit of surrender to the Master of > all works, the Personal God, who is the presiding deity of his ego. Dr C S Shah: No. A true Karma-Yogi, in most of the cases, may not believe in God! And it is not at all necessary to believe in God to be able to perform the sadhana of Karma-Yoga! > The works of the current birth fall into two categories, namely, the > works of planning (agamya) and the works of execution (kriyamana). > None of the works of the current birth bear fruit in the current > birth, as a general rule. Dr C S Shah: Very vague. > The accumulated results of the works of the past births are called > 'Sanchita'. Out of the 'Sanchita', a portion is earmarked at the time > of the current birth, for fructification in the current birth, by the > Personal God. > Therefore, there is a total lack of connection between the works of > the current birth and the fruits enjoyed in the current birth. > Consequently, a karma yogi cannot even think of engaging in works for > the sake of any kind of fruit. > The Personal God determines from His Absolute Omnipotent Will, which > portion of the 'Sanchita' has to fructify in the current birth and in > which order. This He does in such a way that the individual soul > progresses in its evolution towards the complete unfoldment of the > concealed divinity within. > Works performed with single-mindedness are intense and are called > 'Drtha' and others 'Adhrtha'. > Intense works beget intense results. > Some of the very intense works, whether benevolent or malevolent, bear > fruit in the same birth, by the intervening Will of the Personal God. > Some other intense works, bear fruit in the subsequent births, again > by the Will of the Personal God. Dr C S Shah: Which Personal God was responsible for granting the fruits of their actions in case of Hitler and Gandhiji? > At the time these intense works of the past births bear fruit in the > current birth, if the supposed experiencer of these fruits, is > intensely engaged in spiritual practices or experiencing an intense > longing for God, the Will of the Personal God descends and either > entirely sets aside the fructification or modifies it suitably. > This descent of the Will of the Personal God entirely setting aside or > modifying the fructification of the intense works of the past births > gets manifest in the external circumstances as 'signs' (Shakuna). > These are not therefore mere superstitions. There is even a separate > 'Shastra' relating to this and is called the 'Shakunarnavam'. > Hence, it can readily be seen, no karma yoga is ever possible, without > Devotion to the Personal God, whether acknowledged thus by the > performing ego or not. Dr C S Shah: I do not agree. > > dr c s shah -- ==================================== E-magazine on science and spirituality. Visit: http://members.xoom.com/drcsshah/neovedanta/index.html http://members.xoom.com/drcsshah/neovedanta/details.html ==================================== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 1999 Report Share Posted July 3, 1999 Let us take the case of a person heavily inclined towards Raja Yoga. This term has commonly been used to refer to the eight-limbed yoga leading to and ending with Samadhi. This is also known commonly as the Yoga of Meditation. The first few steps ensure the purification and turning inward of the mind. Then, comes the step in which the mind begins to flow as a torrent of oil in a continuous and unbroken fashion towards any single idea, like say, the Aum. Then, this continuous flow of one idea, merges into the source of the idea, resulting in Nirvikalpa Samadhi. This too can happen only by the Grace of the Personal God or Ishwara, who is our Inner Controller. Thus, as Thakur says, we need the Divine Shakthi or the Personal God/Goddess to stand aside, to have the vision of Brahman. It is then and only then, the ego can approach and merge in Brahman and not otherwise. The typical example is that of Totapuri, the Monistic Guru of Thakur, trying to enter into Ganges to commit suicide, when on account of severe stomach ache, body-consciouness overpowered him and he could not abide as the Self. FREESUE <FREESUE ramakrishna <ramakrishna > Friday, July 02, 1999 10:33 AM [ramakrishna] Thakur & Upanishads-4 >FREESUE > >In a message dated 99-07-01 16:45:27 EDT, shankar writes: > ><< Sri Ramakrishna, to be sure, recommended the Path of Devotion to one >and all. >> > >I recall he said it was the easiest in the Kali yuga...I don't recall him >recommending it to to all. Where did he say this? The path of devotion is >for those with a devotional nature. Not all have this devotional >nature...especially in the beginning. Jnana yoga appeals to those with a >more intellectual type of nature, karma yoga for those who find selfless >action to their liking, and or course Raja yoga for those with a meditative >nature. Now, one should try to practice a little of all of these, but one's >primary " path " will depend on their nature. All merge into one at the end... > ><<Thus, in conclusion, it emerges that anyone who has body-consciousness has, >by virtue of that limited body-consciousness alone, accepted God.>> > >I know a few atheists who might disagree with you here. And what of the >Taoist, and Buddhist? No god in their beliefs. > ><<Again, by virtue of body-consciousness, we become persons. Therefore, as >long as we are persons, endowed with name and form, we have no choice but to >perceive God as a Person.>> > >Well, I'm a person, and at present residing in this world with a name and a >form, and I DON'T perceive god as a person. So, I will have to disagree with >you here. > >Sue > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >How has ONElist changed your life? >Share your story with us at > >------ >Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah >Vivekananda Centre London >http://www.btinternet.com/~vivekananda/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 1999 Report Share Posted July 4, 1999 It is true that atheists do not admit the existence of God. But, athiests do not deny the existence of themselves. And, that Self is not their body-sense-mind combination, which is only a spurious offshoot from their body-consciousness. Thus, they will readily have to agree that they are experiencing the three states of waking, dream and deep sleep, irrespective of whether they like to experience them or not. Thus, they have admitted their helplessness in experiencing these three states. This also amounts to admitting a Higher Power, that is God, which is forcing them to experience these three states. Thus, as long as the ego does not abide as the Self, it is forced to experience the three states by the Power of the Self, which is God. As for experiencing God as a person, we are constantly experiencing the Personal God alone, only without being so aware. It is only Thakur who experienced so with full awareness. 'Person' is a combination of name and form. We experience a world of gross name and form in the waking state and a world of subtle name and form in the dream state. All name and form constitute the body of the Personal God. From the Supreme Self, an egoistic identification arises, as Its Body, with the entire universe, comprised of name and form, thus: 'I am this Body of Universe'. This identification gives rise to the Personal God. Hence, all names and forms are included in the Personal God. Jiva is identified with his limited gross body and the Personal God is identified with the entire universe of name and form as His Body. Thus, the difference between Jiva and Ishwara is only in the type of body with which they are identified. However, Jiva is ignorant of his source, the 'Supreme Self'. But, the Personal God, having assumed the universe as His Body by His Omniscience, is always aware of His Status as the Supreme Self. Thus, all of us are experiencing 'persons' or 'names and forms' all the time, which are included in, but which do not exhaust, the body of the Personal God. When we seek with intense longing to have the vision of the 'Entire Body of Personal God' like Thakur, we can behold His Divine Form in Savikalpa Samadhi. FREESUE <FREESUE ramakrishna <ramakrishna > Friday, July 02, 1999 10:33 AM [ramakrishna] Thakur & Upanishads-4 >FREESUE > >In a message dated 99-07-01 16:45:27 EDT, shankar writes: > ><< Sri Ramakrishna, to be sure, recommended the Path of Devotion to one >and all. >> > >I recall he said it was the easiest in the Kali yuga...I don't recall him >recommending it to to all. Where did he say this? The path of devotion is >for those with a devotional nature. Not all have this devotional >nature...especially in the beginning. Jnana yoga appeals to those with a >more intellectual type of nature, karma yoga for those who find selfless >action to their liking, and or course Raja yoga for those with a meditative >nature. Now, one should try to practice a little of all of these, but one's >primary " path " will depend on their nature. All merge into one at the end... > ><<Thus, in conclusion, it emerges that anyone who has body-consciousness has, >by virtue of that limited body-consciousness alone, accepted God.>> > >I know a few atheists who might disagree with you here. And what of the >Taoist, and Buddhist? No god in their beliefs. > ><<Again, by virtue of body-consciousness, we become persons. Therefore, as >long as we are persons, endowed with name and form, we have no choice but to >perceive God as a Person.>> > >Well, I'm a person, and at present residing in this world with a name and a >form, and I DON'T perceive god as a person. So, I will have to disagree with >you here. > >Sue > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >How has ONElist changed your life? >Share your story with us at > >------ >Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah >Vivekananda Centre London >http://www.btinternet.com/~vivekananda/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 1999 Report Share Posted July 5, 1999 >When we seek with intense longing to have the vision of the 'Entire Body of Personal >God' like Thakur, we can behold His Divine Form in Savikalpa Samadhi. is this a reference to the personal god as atman? If so, what is savikalpa samadhi? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 1999 Report Share Posted July 7, 1999 I am sure you would have read Dr CS Shah's message on the visions of Thakur. Please treat this message on 'savikalpa samadhi', as a small addendum to that message. Savikalpa samadhi is not the Realsiation of Atman. It is the vision of the Personal God endowed with Form, like say, the Divine Mother, Kali. This realisation of Mother Kali, is beautifully narrated by Thakur and is wonderfully recorded by Swami Sri Saradananda, in his text, 'Sri Ramakrishna, the Great Master'. Thakur says that he felt that the walls of the Divine Mother's shrine in Dakshineswar, at the time of His Vision of the Mother, seemed to, sort of, lose their material form and melt into an ocean of Light, which started proceeding from all sides of Thakur towards Him and engulfed Him from all sides, and he fell down unconscious, as it were. Obviously, since the Divine Mother's Form included the body of Sri Ramakrishna, the beholder of the Divine Form, the Light came and engulfed Him and He lost all consciouness of the outer world. Thus, 'savikalpa samadhi' happens when the serpent energy has risen fully to the centre between the eye-brows (the 'Ajna' Chakra), after every ray of ego having been fully withdrawn from all other five lower centres and not before. That is why Thakur emphasised infinitely on 'renunciation' of even the company of sense-objects, for monks intent on God-realisation. But, the moment the serpent energy rises above that to the seventh centre (the 'Sahasraaraa), the vision of God with Form can no more endure, and there commences an experience of unitary consciousness. However, a trace of 'ego' in the sense of body-consciouness, still persists. This ascent is beautifully described by Thakur, with the example of people enjoying a feast. There is too much noise in the beginning, then slowly it subsides and when the meal is finished, there is total silence etc., But, when the ego consciously seeks from the seventh centre back to its source of the eighth turiya Heart Centre, the ego dives into the ocean of Brahman and is dissolved completely, as described by Thakur, like a salt doll which went to measure the depth of the ocean. This experience is subject-objectless and hence it is stated by Thakur to be 'undefiled' or not expressed. This is so, because there is none apart from the Supreme Self to describe it, the ego which was the apparent second false self, having been eaten up by the Supreme Self, with no possibility of return. This is the realisation of the atman or the 'Nirvikalpa Samadhi'. Su <sulea Ramakrishna <Ramakrishna > Monday, July 05, 1999 10:31 AM Re: [ramakrishna] Thakur & Upanishads-4 >When we seek with intense longing to have the vision of the 'Entire Body of Personal >God' like Thakur, we can behold His Divine Form in Savikalpa Samadhi. is this a reference to the personal god as atman? If so, what is savikalpa samadhi? 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.