The phenomena of quoting

July 26, 2009

I've been noticing an interesting phenomena these past months (and years) throughout some of the lists I am part of. Of course "quoting" is a general phenomena and for that reason I certainly include myself in it.The main observation that appeared from that investigation is that quoting reflects not so much (and sometimes not at all) the understanding of the quoted sage or scripture, but the understanding of the one quoting them.The case of quoting Bhagavan, Nisargadatta, and the Gita are the best examples that jumped to my observation.I will let aside the "translation" factor for the moment, although is a very big part of this Babel's Tower and misunderstandings, simply to focus more on the "use" that we make of the quotations to either assert one's position or opinion or destroy the "opponent's" point of view.We are all very aware of the different "interpretations" given for the Bhagavad Gita to our days, from the very "Bhagavad Gita AS IT IS" to the more advaitic elaboration of Adi Shankara thirteen hundred years ago or so reflected in teachings like Swami Dayanada or Swami Paramarthananda nowadays. With Bhagavan is a little bit the same problem we are confronting here. The fact that he addressed the devotees (or others) at their level of understanding is undeniable a factor to consider. Even in his own words, he established very clearly this difference.That means that the recorded session of his talk, within its context, should always be kept in mind. It is almost a problem of context that creates misunderstandings.Specially these days that "googling" became so embeded in the human culture, it is very easy to have access, superficially of course, to information without really "dive in deep" in order to have a vision of the whole of the particular Teaching a person or sage mantained throughout his/her life. It's very easy nowadays, since the appearance of the "cut and paste" technology, to quote Upanishads, Commentaries, different version of translations of the Gita, Bhagavan Ramana, Nisargadatta, the Bible, scientific evidence and many etcaeteras without even have a clue what the sage/scripture was really talking about, since it's not related to the Whole of the sage/scripture's Vision.For example, we may quote Bhagavan endorsing efforts, and we will be right. As right as when we will quoting be endorsing Him the "no effort" is necessary. The same with Bhakti versus Jnana, surrender versus/or Enquiry, traditional indian culture customs versus more liberal approach, etc..One of the difficult aspects for our dualistic mind to understand is that jnanis do not have the same relationship to "opposites" as we have. They "can" see the unifying principle within the pair of opposites.But study someone in deep is difficult and takes time of course. Two aspects that our "consumer oriented" culture really don't like. (The Dalai Lama said recently that nowadays culture, specially in the West, wants everything to be "easy, fast and... cheap". Specially true also when it come to spiritual growing (understanding oneself).So one shouldn't quote anymore anything?Far from that, it is a very powerful tool, specially when it is related to the whole. and not subservient to the dictates of the ego to put down others' point of view or pointers to the Truth. The "whole" being the understanding of the particular Doctrine or Teaching not only from one's own point of view but also from the other's, besides the fact of spending time studying "in deep".Because after all, since the Ultimate cannot be "named", eventually quotes are all lies, except that some of them point in the right direction.Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna

July 26, 2009

Thank you for writing and posting this. It is very clear, concise, and relevant.

May we all fully digest this poignant statement.

upadesa <maunna Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 9:40:24 AM The phenomena of "quoting"

I've been noticing an interesting phenomena these past months (and years) throughout some of the lists I am part of. Of course "quoting" is a general phenomena and for that reason I certainly include myself in it.The main observation that appeared from that investigation is that quoting reflects not so much (and sometimes not at all) the understanding of the quoted sage or scripture, but the understanding of the one quoting them..The case of quoting Bhagavan, Nisargadatta, and the Gita are the best examples that jumped to my observation.I will let aside the "translation" factor for the moment, although is a very big part of this Babel's Tower and misunderstandings, simply to focus more on the "use" that we make of the quotations to either assert one's position or opinion or destroy the "opponent's" point of view.We are all very aware of the different "interpretations" given for the Bhagavad Gita to our days, from the very

"Bhagavad Gita AS IT IS" to the more advaitic elaboration of Adi Shankara thirteen hundred years ago or so reflected in teachings like Swami Dayanada or Swami Paramarthananda nowadays. With Bhagavan is a little bit the same problem we are confronting here. The fact that he addressed the devotees (or others) at their level of understanding is undeniable a factor to consider. Even in his own words, he established very clearly this difference.That means that the recorded session of his talk, within its context, should always be kept in mind. It is almost a problem of context that creates misunderstandings.Specially these days that "googling" became so embeded in the human culture, it is very easy to have access, superficially of course, to information without really "dive in deep" in order to have a vision of the whole of the particular Teaching a person or sage mantained throughout his/her life. It's very easy nowadays, since the

appearance of the "cut and paste" technology, to quote Upanishads, Commentaries, different version of translations of the Gita, Bhagavan Ramana, Nisargadatta, the Bible, scientific evidence and many etcaeteras without even have a clue what the sage/scripture was really talking about, since it's not related to the Whole of the sage/scripture' s Vision.For example, we may quote Bhagavan endorsing efforts, and we will be right. As right as when we will quoting be endorsing Him the "no effort" is necessary. The same with Bhakti versus Jnana, surrender versus/or Enquiry, traditional indian culture customs versus more liberal approach, etc..One of the difficult aspects for our dualistic mind to understand is that jnanis do not have the same relationship to "opposites" as we have. They "can" see the unifying principle within the pair of opposites.But study someone in deep is difficult and takes time of course. Two aspects that our "consumer

oriented" culture really don't like. (The Dalai Lama said recently that nowadays culture, specially in the West, wants everything to be "easy, fast and... cheap". Specially true also when it come to spiritual growing (understanding oneself).So one shouldn't quote anymore anything?Far from that, it is a very powerful tool, specially when it is related to the whole. and not subservient to the dictates of the ego to put down others' point of view or pointers to the Truth. The "whole" being the understanding of the particular Doctrine or Teaching not only from one's own point of view but also from the other's, besides the fact of spending time studying "in deep".Because after all, since the Ultimate cannot be "named", eventually quotes are all lies, except that some of them point in the right direction.Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna

July 26, 2009

Dear Mouna-ji:

Wonderful observations. Perhaps we can put it on the blog.

Here are certain quotes from me from the following article.

“It is important to know both the theory and the

practical applications as indicated by Bhagavan’s words, behavior, and

interaction with many devotees over a period of over fifty years. Without

understanding the totality of Bhagavan’s Pure Grace, we can get caught up

and fixated upon certain words. It would be comical for us to make Bhagavan

engage in professional wrestling with himself using his own words!”

“As

I said earlier, my comments about Bhagavan’s teachings are based on my

own knowledge of the Heart as well as number of actual conversations from

“Talks with Ramana Maharshi”. Many people attempt to present a

sanitized version of Sri Ramana’s teaching and quote him selectively to

support their own preconceived notions of how the teaching should be

structured, organized, and presented to the public. That is fine and certainly

useful for a variety of purposes. But the fact is that Sri Ramana spoke about the

term Heart on many different levels, and this included the physical as well.”

the-heart-nirvikalpa-samadhi-and-self-realization-by-harsha-harsh-k-luthar-phd

Namaste and Love to all

Harsha

On

Behalf Of upadesa

Sunday, July 26, 2009 12:40 PM

The phenomena of

" quoting "

I've been noticing an interesting phenomena these past months (and years)

throughout some of the lists I am part of. Of course " quoting " is a

general phenomena and for that reason I certainly include myself in it.

The main observation that appeared from that investigation is that quoting reflects

not so much (and sometimes not at all) the understanding of the quoted sage or

scripture, but the understanding of the one quoting them.

The case of quoting Bhagavan, Nisargadatta, and the Gita are the best examples

that jumped to my observation.

I will let aside the " translation " factor for the moment, although is

a very big part of this Babel's Tower and misunderstandings, simply to focus

more on the " use " that we make of the quotations to either assert

one's position or opinion or destroy the " opponent's " point of view.

We are all very aware of the different " interpretations " given for

the Bhagavad Gita to our days, from the very " Bhagavad Gita AS IT IS "

to the more advaitic elaboration of Adi Shankara thirteen hundred years ago or

so reflected in teachings like Swami Dayanada or Swami Paramarthananda

nowadays.

With Bhagavan is a little bit the same problem we are confronting here. The

fact that he addressed the devotees (or others) at their level of understanding

is undeniable a factor to consider. Even in his own words, he established very

clearly this difference.

That means that the recorded session of his talk, within its context, should

always be kept in mind.

It is almost a problem of context that creates misunderstandings.

Specially these days that " googling " became so embeded in the human

culture, it is very easy to have access, superficially of course, to

information without really " dive in deep " in order to have a vision

of the whole of the particular Teaching a person or sage mantained throughout

his/her life. It's very easy nowadays, since the appearance of the " cut

and paste " technology, to quote Upanishads, Commentaries, different

version of translations of the Gita, Bhagavan Ramana, Nisargadatta, the Bible,

scientific evidence and many etcaeteras without even have a clue what the

sage/scripture was really talking about, since it's not related to the Whole of

the sage/scripture's Vision.

For example, we may quote Bhagavan endorsing efforts, and we will be right. As

right as when we will quoting be endorsing Him the " no effort " is

necessary. The same with Bhakti versus Jnana, surrender versus/or Enquiry,

traditional indian culture customs versus more liberal approach, etc..

One of the difficult aspects for our dualistic mind to understand is that

jnanis do not have the same relationship to " opposites " as we have.

They " can " see the unifying principle within the pair of opposites.

But study someone in deep is difficult and takes time of course. Two aspects

that our " consumer oriented " culture really don't like. (The Dalai

Lama said recently that nowadays culture, specially in the West, wants

everything to be " easy, fast and... cheap " . Specially true also when

it come to spiritual growing (understanding oneself).

So one shouldn't quote anymore anything?

Far from that, it is a very powerful tool, specially when it is related to the

whole. and not subservient to the dictates of the ego to put down others' point

of view or pointers to the Truth. The " whole " being the understanding

of the particular Doctrine or Teaching not only from one's own point of view

but also from the other's, besides the fact of spending time studying " in

deep " .

Because after all, since the Ultimate cannot be " named " , eventually

quotes are all lies, except that some of them point in the right direction.

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

July 26, 2009

" Harsha " wrote:

Dear HarshaJi, Namaste

You couldn't be more to the point.

I must say I didn't make myself time to read your articles yet about NK

Samadhi, Hridayam and Self-R. but these excerpts fired the desire to do

so.

As per my post, you are welcome to put it on the blog of course, also if

you would like to edit it, no problem, my broken english requires a

little bit of that too.

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

> Here are certain quotes from me from the following article.

>

> " It is important to know both the theory and the practical

applications as

> indicated by Bhagavan's words, behavior, and interaction with many

devotees

> over a period of over fifty years. Without understanding the totality

of

> Bhagavan's Pure Grace, we can get caught up and fixated upon certain

words.

> It would be comical for us to make Bhagavan engage in professional

wrestling

> with himself using his own words! "

>

> " As I said earlier, my comments about Bhagavan's teachings are based

on my

> own knowledge of the Heart as well as number of actual conversations

from

> " Talks with Ramana Maharshi " . Many people attempt to present a

sanitized

> version of Sri Ramana's teaching and quote him selectively to support

their

> own preconceived notions of how the teaching should be structured,

> organized, and presented to the public. That is fine and certainly

useful

> for a variety of purposes. But the fact is that Sri Ramana spoke about

the

> term Heart on many different levels, and this included the physical as

> well. "

>

the-heart-nirvikalpa-samadhi-and-self-realization-by-h\

arsh

> a-harsh-k-luthar-phd

>

> Namaste and Love to all

>

> Harsha

>

> On Behalf Of upadesa

> Sunday, July 26, 2009 12:40 PM

>

> The phenomena of " quoting "

>

> I've been noticing an interesting phenomena these past months (and

years)

> throughout some of the lists I am part of. Of course " quoting " is a

general

> phenomena and for that reason I certainly include myself in it.

>

> The main observation that appeared from that investigation is that

quoting

> reflects not so much (and sometimes not at all) the understanding of

the

> quoted sage or scripture, but the understanding of the one quoting

them.

>

> The case of quoting Bhagavan, Nisargadatta, and the Gita are the best

> examples that jumped to my observation.

> I will let aside the " translation " factor for the moment, although is

a very

> big part of this Babel's Tower and misunderstandings, simply to focus

more

> on the " use " that we make of the quotations to either assert one's

position

> or opinion or destroy the " opponent's " point of view.

>

> We are all very aware of the different " interpretations " given for the

> Bhagavad Gita to our days, from the very " Bhagavad Gita AS IT IS " to

the

> more advaitic elaboration of Adi Shankara thirteen hundred years ago

or so

> reflected in teachings like Swami Dayanada or Swami Paramarthananda

> nowadays.

>

> With Bhagavan is a little bit the same problem we are confronting

here. The

> fact that he addressed the devotees (or others) at their level of

> understanding is undeniable a factor to consider. Even in his own

words, he

> established very clearly this difference.

> That means that the recorded session of his talk, within its context,

should

> always be kept in mind.

> It is almost a problem of context that creates misunderstandings.

>

> Specially these days that " googling " became so embeded in the human

culture,

> it is very easy to have access, superficially of course, to

information

> without really " dive in deep " in order to have a vision of the whole

of the

> particular Teaching a person or sage mantained throughout his/her

life. It's

> very easy nowadays, since the appearance of the " cut and paste "

technology,

> to quote Upanishads, Commentaries, different version of translations

of the

> Gita, Bhagavan Ramana, Nisargadatta, the Bible, scientific evidence

and many

> etcaeteras without even have a clue what the sage/scripture was really

> talking about, since it's not related to the Whole of the

sage/scripture's

> Vision.

>

> For example, we may quote Bhagavan endorsing efforts, and we will be

right.

> As right as when we will quoting be endorsing Him the " no effort " is

> necessary. The same with Bhakti versus Jnana, surrender versus/or

Enquiry,

> traditional indian culture customs versus more liberal approach, etc..

> One of the difficult aspects for our dualistic mind to understand is

that

> jnanis do not have the same relationship to " opposites " as we have.

They

> " can " see the unifying principle within the pair of opposites.

>

> But study someone in deep is difficult and takes time of course. Two

aspects

> that our " consumer oriented " culture really don't like. (The Dalai

Lama said

> recently that nowadays culture, specially in the West, wants

everything to

> be " easy, fast and... cheap " . Specially true also when it come to

spiritual

> growing (understanding oneself).

>

> So one shouldn't quote anymore anything?

> Far from that, it is a very powerful tool, specially when it is

related to

> the whole. and not subservient to the dictates of the ego to put down

> others' point of view or pointers to the Truth. The " whole " being the

> understanding of the particular Doctrine or Teaching not only from

one's own

> point of view but also from the other's, besides the fact of spending

time

> studying " in deep " .

>

> Because after all, since the Ultimate cannot be " named " , eventually

quotes

> are all lies, except that some of them point in the right direction.

>

> Yours in Bhagavan,

> Mouna

>

July 27, 2009

Dear Mounaji:

I suspect that the quoting almost always reflects the understanding of

the one quoting, in that it resonated with the quoter for some reason.Whatever the reason that drives the moment, some purpose is being served and I think that most devotees are sincere in their efforts. To quote Bhagavan out of context, as it serves my purpose of the

moment :-)....

All will come right in the end!!!

In His Service,

Radhe

Hare Krishna!!!

-

upadesa

Sunday, July 26, 2009 12:40 PM

The phenomena of "quoting"

I've been noticing an interesting phenomena these past months (and years) throughout some of the lists I am part of. Of course "quoting" is a general phenomena and for that reason I certainly include myself in it.The main observation that appeared from that investigation is that quoting reflects not so much (and sometimes not at all) the understanding of the quoted sage or scripture, but the understanding of the one quoting them.The case of quoting Bhagavan, Nisargadatta, and the Gita are the best examples that jumped to my observation.I will let aside the "translation" factor for the moment, although is a very big part of this Babel's Tower and misunderstandings, simply to focus more on the "use" that we make of the quotations to either assert one's position or opinion or destroy the "opponent's" point of view.We are all very aware of the different "interpretations" given for the Bhagavad Gita to our days, from the very "Bhagavad Gita AS IT IS" to the more advaitic elaboration of Adi Shankara thirteen hundred years ago or so reflected in teachings like Swami Dayanada or Swami Paramarthananda nowadays. With Bhagavan is a little bit the same problem we are confronting here. The fact that he addressed the devotees (or others) at their level of understanding is undeniable a factor to consider. Even in his own words, he established very clearly this difference.That means that the recorded session of his talk, within its context, should always be kept in mind. It is almost a problem of context that creates misunderstandings.Specially these days that "googling" became so embeded in the human culture, it is very easy to have access, superficially of course, to information without really "dive in deep" in order to have a vision of the whole of the particular Teaching a person or sage mantained throughout his/her life. It's very easy nowadays, since the appearance of the "cut and paste" technology, to quote Upanishads, Commentaries, different version of translations of the Gita, Bhagavan Ramana, Nisargadatta, the Bible, scientific evidence and many etcaeteras without even have a clue what the sage/scripture was really talking about, since it's not related to the Whole of the sage/scripture's Vision.For example, we may quote Bhagavan endorsing efforts, and we will be right. As right as when we will quoting be endorsing Him the "no effort" is necessary. The same with Bhakti versus Jnana, surrender versus/or Enquiry, traditional indian culture customs versus more liberal approach, etc..One of the difficult aspects for our dualistic mind to understand is that jnanis do not have the same relationship to "opposites" as we have. They "can" see the unifying principle within the pair of opposites.But study someone in deep is difficult and takes time of course. Two aspects that our "consumer oriented" culture really don't like. (The Dalai Lama said recently that nowadays culture, specially in the West, wants everything to be "easy, fast and... cheap". Specially true also when it come to spiritual growing (understanding oneself).So one shouldn't quote anymore anything?Far from that, it is a very powerful tool, specially when it is related to the whole. and not subservient to the dictates of the ego to put down others' point of view or pointers to the Truth. The "whole" being the understanding of the particular Doctrine or Teaching not only from one's own point of view but also from the other's, besides the fact of spending time studying "in deep".Because after all, since the Ultimate cannot be "named", eventually quotes are all lies, except that some of them point in the right direction.Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.31/2264 - Release 07/26/09 11:07:00

July 27, 2009

" Radhe " <shaantih wrote:

>

> To quote Bhagavan out of context, as it serves my purpose of the

> moment :-)....

Dear Radhe, Namaste

I have a little uncomfortable feeling with this particular sentence of

yours...

I'll tell you a little story to exemplify what I mean.

Here in my hometown, some three years ago, I went (out of curiosity) to

a satsanga of a well known Krishna devotees' group.

At that time I was wearing (on me) rudraksha malas around my neck and

wrist since my first contacts with hindu devotional was through Lord

Shiva. There was a visiting Swami of their association that was going to

give a talk also.

I was a little bit naive at that time...

The chanting was very nice, with the increasing intensity and the

rapture at the end, and the people were very sincere in their devotion.

I was having a great time, but couldn't help feeling something was a

little off, specially that the Swami was continuously looking at me

during his talk.

The talk was all about the devotional sense of the Gita and was very

interesting since I wasn't very much exposed to it, so far. But at a

certain point of the talk, there was an excerpt of a film that was

showed on a nearby monitor, a film about the Saint Jnaneshwar. An old

production of the 40's maybe? in that film there was a clear

ridiculization of Shiva, depicted as an arrogant (and almost stupid) guy

that after some turns of the story falls in complete devotion for Lord

Krishna. The rest of the talk was more or less focusing on this aspect,

the emphatization of " bhakti " over " jnana " , " love " over " intellectual

dryness " , etc.. while the swami kept looking at me.

It was a lesson for me that evening, a lesson that I entirely attribute

now to Lord Krishna's Grace in fact, because I was shown how knowledge

put out of context, serving individual purposes (egoic in this case) can

actually mislead people. The problem is that there was no ill intention,

everybody was sincere, after all, love and devotion was praised, BUT...

the misleading points is that ONLY certain aspects of the influence of

Jnana Marga in devotees that pursue that way were emphazised. How SOME

become arrogant because they start to " understand " , eyc..

Of course, all this by lack of knowledge. Because these devotees

couldn't know better, that was the problem.

As I later came to study the Gita a little more in deep I realized how

all-encompassing are Krishna's teachings, including ALL paths, and for

all levels of understanding.

I know that what I depicted here is almost a caricature, an extreme...

but it is only a matter of intensity.

And yes, I also understood at that point that Ego is ALSO part of the

Lord's Leela!

Some can see it clearly and some don't and keep the wheel of samsara

turning, pretty much in spite of their " good intentions " to serve their

purposes.

> All will come right in the end!!!

I agree with this, dear Radhe, specially when, through Self-Enquiry and

Bhagavan's Grace, we are able to see that the end is nowhere than now

and here. (Nowhere is not NoWhere, it's NowHere)

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

July 27, 2009

Dear Mouna-ji:

I love your writing and stories. Are you an author on Luthar.com. I thought

you were. Authors can post their own articles.

Love,

Harsh

On Behalf Of upadesa

Monday, July 27, 2009 10:24 AM

Re: The phenomena of " quoting "