THE MOUNTAIN PATH April 1964

March 10, 2007

in all themes it is "very simple" - like you stated

if one s level of awareness is not developed enough one will not only eat meat, but will think and do and act and evade acting in the usual way....

but living this very simple truth - thats a lesson indeed....

namaste dear old warrior

michael

-

Tony OClery

Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:40 PM

Re: THE MOUNTAIN PATH April 1964

, "Michael Bindel" <michael.bindel wrote:>> Vegetarianism> > By Arthur Osborne> > > > The Bodhisattva .... desirous of cultivating the virtue of love, should not eat meat, lest he cause terror to living beings. When dogs see, even at a distance, an outcaste .... who likes eating meat, they are terrified and think: 'These are dealers of death and will kill us!' Even the minute beings living in earth, air and water have a very keen sense of smell and detect at a distance the odour of the demons in meat-eaters, and they flee as fast as they can from the death which threatens them. > > - From the Lankavatara Sutra. > > > > Is there any benefit from not eating meat? Or perhaps the question should be put the other way round: is there any harm in eating meat? I am not considering the question from a medical but purely from a spiritual point of view. One's body is not a mere tenement; so long as one remains an individual being it is a part of that being and, as De la Mare quaintly remarks > > It's a very strange thing, > As strange as can be, > That whatever Miss T. eats > Turns into Miss T.> > Various spiritual paths include physical as well as mental and emotional disciplines, aiming at a total harmonisation. On the one hand vibrations set up by a spiritual technique affect the body, while on the other hand the bodily state can facilitate or impede spiritual progress. Diet, therefore, cannot be a matter of indifference. Namaste,It is very simple; If one's level of awarenes is not developed enough one will eat meat....Tony.__________ Informazione NOD32 2009 (20070126) __________Questo messaggio è stato controllato dal Sistema Antivirus NOD32http://www.nod32.it__________'>http://www.nod32.it__________ Informazione NOD32 2009 (20070126) __________Questo messaggio è stato controllato dal Sistema Antivirus NOD32http://www.nod32.it

Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/716 - Release 09/03/2007 18.53__________ Informazione NOD32 2009 (20070126) __________Questo messaggio h stato controllato dal Sistema Antivirus NOD32http://www.nod32.it

March 13, 2007

Tapas and Sannyas*

By Satya Mayi

* The correct transliteration would be 'tapasya' and 'sannyasa', but since this is a practical, not an academic journal, we prefer to use the forms of current speech. (Editor)

Apart from being an outstanding writer on spiritual topics, the author of this article is also the German translator of the Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi and Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi.

I have neither father nor mother, neither caste nor family, neither birth nor death; how, then, can I speak of attachment or non-attachment? I am by nature Eternal Freedom beyond all ills.

- Avadhuta Gita, IV, 21.

Tapas is usually translated as 'austerity' or 'penance'; sannyas is that form of tapas which consists in renouncing one's home and property and going forth as a wandering mendicant, as Christ bade the rich young man and as Buddha bade his son Rahula. Materialistic young India has turned hostile to such tapas but many are still drawn to it,

What did the Maharshi say about it? On one occasion he said: "Take the flower of your heart and lay it at the Feet of the Lord and live at peace." But does this surrender of the heart imply physical renunciation or not? Usually his replies were more definite, making it clear that it does not.

"Why do you think that you are a householder? The similar thought that you are a sannyasi will haunt you even if you go forth as one. Whether you continue in the household or renounce it and go to live in the forest your mind haunts you. The ego is the source of thought. It creates the body and the world and makes you think of being a householder. If you renounce, it will only substitute the thought of renunciation for that of the family and the environment of the forest for that of the household. But the mental obstacles are always there for you. They even increase greatly in the new surroundings. Change of environment is no help. The one obstacle is the mind, and this must be overcome whether in the home or in the forest. If you can do it in the forest, why not in the home? So why change the environment? Your efforts can be made even now, whatever be the environment."*_______________________* The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi in his own Words, p. 78 of the Rider & Co. edition, p. 94 of the Sri Ramanasramam edition. Sometimes also he has been known to reply: "If it were better for you to renounce the question would not arise."

Let us consider the aim of tapas before going any further into the question. Its aim is to get rid of the individual I-sense in order to realize the universal Self. This I-sense is deeply rooted in the conditions of our everyday life. One has to work to support oneself and one's family. The nature of the work is usually due more to circumstances and opportunity than to one's own choice. The ego comes in only when the work is done with attachment or aversion; it is these that feed it, not the work itself. The work is neutral. That is why the Gita tells us to work without considering the rewards to be obtained and why Bhagavan told us to work impersonally, asking ourselves who it is that does the work. Desire and aversion are the two sides of the same medal, that is of the individual will, desire the positive side, and aversion the negative. If we could only get rid of these two the ego-sense would not last long.*_______________________* Getting rid of desire and aversion means acquiring the quality of vairagya on which Hindu teaching lays such stress. See also the explanation by Father Lazarus, in his article published in our last issue, of the importance attached by the Greek Orthodox Church to the quality of apatheia, which is fundamentally the same. (Editor)

What we have to grasp is that everybody is situated by his own karma in that environment which is most propitious for his own spiritual development - whether pleasant or not doesn't matter. Bhagavan said that our circumstances are not an accident; they are what our nature requires, aversion to our environment simply shows that we have not surrendered; and surrender is the one essential means of destroying the ego, whether we regard it as surrender to God or the Self or Guru or simply to the quest for Enlightenment.

The story of the Enlightenment of the Buddha Sakyamuni under the Bodhi-tree is that after seven years of terrific tapas which brought him to the very limits of endurance he suddenly stopped it and accepted a bowl of rice and milk from a young girl. He then took a bath, made himself a seat of grass and sat down in the shade of the Bodhi-tree. Then it is said that he screwed his will to the highest pitch of concentration, vowing that he would not rise again till he had attained Enlightenment.

There is another interpretation, however, which appeals to me more. After all, had he not sought Enlightenment all through these seven terrible years of fasting and mortification, and was not that a constant exercise of willpower? Willpower itself is an assertion of the ego, even the will to attain Enlightenment. The Buddha realized, he declared later, that his terrific tapas had been a mistake; and this must mean that his will or desire for Enlightenment had been powered by the ego. I believe that he attained Enlightenment at the very moment that he gave up craving for it, since this craving was his last wish and therefore the sole remaining obstacle on his path. By this final act of renunciation he acted according to the first injunction of Bhagavan that I quoted: "Take the flower of your heart and lay it at the Feet of the Lord and live in peace."

This is a very subtle and dangerous line of doctrine, where the division between truth and error is as fine as a razor's edge. Rightly understood, it means that one must totally renounce the idea of getting, even getting Enlightenment, and substitute for it the idea of giving, even giving up the self who desires Enlightenment. Perhaps even more appropriate is the word 'accepting', accepting what is. And then there is no one to achieve; there just IS; and that is Enlightenment. But it is fatally easy to misunderstand it as accepting separate individual being as one's natural state and giving up the attempt to surrender it.

The five disciples who had been following Gautama before his Enlightenment must have thought that he had fallen into this error, because, seeing him begin to take normal food, they considered him a quitter and turned and left him.

It was perhaps to guard against this error that the Maharshi sometimes stressed the negative side of the quest, saying: "All that you have to do is to disrealize unreality and Reality remains."

Now let us turn to Bhagavan's cryptic saying: "If it were better for you to renounce you would not ask." There are people whose karma leads naturally to sannyas in this lifetime. Bhagavan himself was one such. In that case circumstances adapt themselves; the person falls away from social life like a ripe fruit from a tree. The question in fact does not arise; it just happens so. Bhagavan once expressed this by saying: "Sannyas comes of its own accord." This implies that a person's worldly karma stops when the time for sannyas has come. It may be, however, that in the conditions of the modern world even this final renunciation takes an inner form as a change of attitude towards unchanged outer conditions.

There is no doubt that sannyas in its traditional form, that is taking the ochre robe and adhering to certain vows, brings experiences peculiar to itself. That does not mean, however, that such experiences are necessary for everyone who takes a spiritual path. Life does not flow to a set pattern, but consists of countless individual dreams all awakening eventually into the One Consciousness. One of the ways will always be that of sannyas.

The Hindu sannyasi, the Muslim fakir, the Buddhist bhikkhu, the Christian monk, all have the same attitude to the world, all alike renouncing worldly values. Also, all alike are regarded in the same way by society, revered by some, condemned by others.

It is fashionable nowadays to regard tapas as an unhealthy deviation from normal life and the ascetic as a psychological aberration and a parasite on productive society. A parasite is one who is supported by society without performing any corresponding services; and what service, it is asked, does the sannyasi perform? But the same question could be asked of many scientists. Millions are spent on scientific research which brings no practical benefits. And what about academic philosophers? They receive not merely maintenance from society but comfortable salaries; and are their theses and discussions of any more use to society than the tapas of a sannyasi? Far less, because they are merely mental, whereas from the latter a spiritual influence emanates. On this point Bhagavan often and quite firmly reassured those who doubted. For instance: "Realization of the Self is the best possible help that can be rendered to humanity. Therefore saints are said to be helpful even though they remain in the forests."*_______________________ * The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi in his own Words, p. 92 in the Rider & Co. edition, p. 113 of the Sri Ramanasramam edition.

Eastern peoples have always appreciated this, but now China has been captured by a materialist ideology, and even in India many have succumbed to the modern Western attitude and would like to do away with sadhus and sannyasis, driving them all into factories. The sannyasi is one who has given up the life of a householder for a much harder way in his quest of Realization. Is that only to benefit himself? He may think so, and indeed it can give a dangerous foothold to egoism to think of helping others spiritually before one has attained the goal oneself; but indirectly and invisibly his progress helps others, as the Maharshi assured us. And the renouncers are following the great Masters - Jesus or Mohammad, Buddha or Sri Krishna - whose tapas has in fact poured out blessings on countless others.

By his very existence the sannyasi keeps people in mind of the great Masters. His voluntary poverty is a silent protest against man's slavery to possessions and craving for property. His inactivity is a rejection of the constant restlessness which rushes men from work to pleasure and back again to work ceaselessly, till they no longer experience peace of mind, that creative peace in the spiritual depths of the heart. He confronts the noisy creeds of 'having' and 'doing' with the eternal silent gospel of 'being'. His voluntary homelessness preaches silently the gospel of the spiritual home not to be found through attachment to any worldly abode. Thus, even apart from the influence which may radiate from him, his service to society consists in reminding it by his mere existence of the power and grace of another, greatly Reality.

The modern ideal is rather dedication of oneself to the physical well-being of others through social service. Can both ideals be right? The answer is that man's own nature, which is the fruit of his karma, drives him in one direction or the other, though he may think that it is he who decides. Both can be useful to those who follow them sincerely; both also can indirectly help others.

People cling to the ideas of what they call a 'normal life' on as high a level of material well-being as possible; but no such pattern has enduring reality. It is a dream sooner or later to be broken up by events. But in spite of events people do not learn.

The sannyasi points to the unreality of such goals by the mere fact of his seemingly abnormal life. There is a meaning and a reminder in his silent presence in the thick of modern civilisation. He is indeed a sign of continued spiritual life, for the ideal of renunciation cannot flourish in a completely materialistic society, whether it be primitive or mechanised.