Guest guest Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Questioner: I would appreciate your views on the question: “Is hunger an illusion?” Thanks, J. Harsha responds: You ask a wonderful question about the nature of hunger. Here is the definitive hint. No need for gratitude. This stuff is a piece of cake for me (sorry for the reference to food!). I will pass this on to as well. Hunger is an illusion right after having had breakfast. Gradually it appears to become real before lunch and has to be dealt with in a fitting fashion. This cycle continues indefinitely until the body drops. After that there is the hunger to get another body (being born again). That hunger disappears after having received a body. Hunger is essentially the fundamental desire to survive. From that appear thousands and millions of other hungers. Meditation means to know the true nature of this hunger. That is why meditation on the breath is taught in many traditions. In and out. The hunger to breathe is most fundamental to the body. One can’t help it. If you look at any spiritual practice (fasting, pranayama, meditation) they all focus on hungers of various types. Through any one strand of hunger you can go back to the fundamental hunger and understand its Source. That fundamental hunger to know One’s Own Nature calls. Always calls. The Buddha Nature calls. The Original Face calls. It does not sing out like a Rock band, “Oh come to me! Come and look at me!” It calls by Simply Existing. By Simply Being! It Calls ItSelf. It breathes It Self. With every breath, the reminder is there. It Sings to It Self in pure silence! Source: suffering-and-meaning-by-harsha-harsh-k-luthar-phd On Behalf Of Harsha Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:23 PM RE: The phenomena of " quoting " 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Dr.Raju wrote:- Dear all, Hunger is the perception of need of energy requirement of the body,it is not an illusion.Satiety is perception of fulfilment of energy requirements of the body.Hunger is physiological,it is not suffering.It becomes suffering if you resist hunger or if you indulge in taking food as a glutton.This resistence or indulgence is the progeny of illusion.Hunger per se is not illusion. Thank you all~Dr.Raju. -- In , " Harsha " wrote: > > Questioner: I would appreciate your views on the question: " Is hunger an > illusion? " > > Thanks, > > J. > > Harsha responds: > > You ask a wonderful question about the nature of hunger. Here is the > definitive hint. No need for gratitude. This stuff is a piece of cake for me > (sorry for the reference to food!). I will pass this on to as > well. > > Hunger is an illusion right after having had breakfast. Gradually it appears > to become real before lunch and has to be dealt with in a fitting fashion. > This cycle continues indefinitely until the body drops. After that there is > the hunger to get another body (being born again). That hunger disappears > after having received a body. > > Hunger is essentially the fundamental desire to survive. From that appear > thousands and millions of other hungers. > > Meditation means to know the true nature of this hunger. That is why > meditation on the breath is taught in many traditions. In and out. The > hunger to breathe is most fundamental to the body. One can't help it. > > If you look at any spiritual practice (fasting, pranayama, meditation) they > all focus on hungers of various types. Through any one strand of hunger you > can go back to the fundamental hunger and understand its Source. > > That fundamental hunger to know One's Own Nature calls. Always calls. The > Buddha Nature calls. The Original Face calls. It does not sing out like a > Rock band, " Oh come to me! Come and look at me! " It calls by Simply > Existing. By Simply Being! It Calls ItSelf. It breathes It Self. With every > breath, the reminder is there. It Sings to It Self in pure silence! > > Source: suffering-and-meaning-by-harsha-harsh-k-luthar-phd > > On Behalf Of Harsha > Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:23 PM > > RE: The phenomena of " quoting " > > 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-harsh > 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 > 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.