Guest guest Posted September 26, 2005 Report Share Posted September 26, 2005 OM NAMAH SIVAYA thanks for this post Maa. i was wondering if you could expound a little on, "For the highest worshipper, anything that is not God- even His Divine gifts-is offered on the altar of that devotee's Heart." also to avoid the cysts what can one do? just be in the moment with every part of your being in order to fully experience it? is this like saying to "let things fall away of their own accord?" i greatly appreciate your words of wisdom as my mind can't help but want to know more about the route of travel. though i know it is not necessary, as the important thing is to drop the keys in Her hands and just move to the seat to the right. and enjoy the ride. JAI MA , "ty_maa" <ds.james@c...> wrote: > Dear Brian, > > If I may, I would like to add a couple of comments to your > insightful discussion of surrender and fear, You have used phrases > like: "Letting go of the fear"---"I think I derived this line of > thought to stop feeling"---"Surrender is merely the mental", etc. > There is another point of view than that implied in these phrases: > > Thought is electrical, as it were, and, as such it can be "let go > of", "denied", "risin above", "suppressed", etc. with impunity. As an > electrical blip racing through our brain circuitry, by an act of will > we can simply stop it. > > Emotion-feeling, however, is "magnetic" i.e. it is a part of our > energy body, and, as such, we don't "get rid of it" we can only > culture it. Any attempt to repress emotional energy results in its > becoming locked up in a cyst form where it leaks poison, and deprives > us of that quantum of usable energy, chit-shakti. A lifetime of this > would only result in another weak and neurotic talking head of which > the world is presently full. And that one would go out into the next > incarnation like a scatterload of buckshot. > > The lack of a clear distinction between the real characteristics of > thought and feeling has been the nine hundred pound gorrila in yin > yang relations. It has profound implications in the relation between > the sexes, the supression of women in secular and religious life > throughtout history, and confusion and frustrating ineffectivenes in > spiritual efforts. > > Surrender is the beginning of spiritual life, and fear > (Mahadbhaya-Great Fear) comes at the end. A devotee needs both wings > to soar into the Beyond. > > We begin by offering-surrendering the best of everything to God, > including the best of our thoughts and our purest feelings. But a > devotee doesn't take personal responsility for the less-than- perfect > elements in his nature, and try to deal with them himself, he offers > them as well. All that exists comes from God, and God alone is > responsible for it. > > God alone can perfectly purify our thoughts, and culture and ennoble > our emotions if we resign them, with no duplicity, to Him. But we can > not offer to God what we have repressed, or ""gotten rid of, because > we have thereby made that portion of ourself unconscious, and > therefore unavailable for surrender. > > For the highest worshipper, anything that is not God-even His Divine > gifts-is offered on the altar of that devotee's Heart. Until God, and > God alone, exists in that Heart. > > At some point in the life of surrender, Mother Kali will appear with > Her well-known Sword, and a Fear will rise up greater than any other > fear. If, and only if, that devotee's surrender has been thorough and > complete, he will be able to offer even that Great Fear, that Final > Death, at Her Feet, and She will walk away smiling with another head > on her garland of saints and avadhutas. > > With love and highest regards, > > Tanmaya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 Jai maa, At your request, I'll try to carry on a little from what I said earlier; lets see if it works out or not. Sri Ramakrishna, during his sadhana years, would take two handfulls of flowers and offer them on the altar with the words, "Mother, here is Your purity here is Your impurity, take them both and give me only pure love for You. Here are Your good deeds, here are Your bad deeds, take them both and give me only pure love for You. Here is Your ignorance, here is Your knowledge, take them both and give me only pure love for You." He went on to offer all the dualities at Her Feet, and asked only for pure love in return. But, admittedly, it has been more characteristic of us, as sadhakas, to think that we are being remiss if we don't, for instance, feel guilty about the little thoughts that cross our mind, and fight with them, thus setting up new dualities between good and bad thoughts, and between us and all thoughts, etc.; even though the simple truth is that we don't see the source of even a single thought. So how can we be personally reponsible for what we don't create? Thoughts are like high flying birds that sail from one horizon, and dissapear over the opposite horizon. But, the way that we can indeed become responsible for them is if we craftily snare that bird, that thought, and either struggle with it or indulge in it. So, the advanced teachers have always advised us that the the most effective way to purify the mind is to receive a mantra from an enlightened guru, and repeat it continuously until it becomes "self acting", i.e. even in sleep. They say that that mantra will then playfully swim and leap like a dolphin in the sea of our mind until the whole mind has become calm and deep and pure and silent. Still, mantra diksha has been around for a long time, and somehow it has not prevented a great many minds from maligning the emotional body. Maybe this derives from identifying the emotional half, Eve, with original sin, or maybe it is just the residual tamas of the caveman to grab a club to solve every problem: we beat the mind to death with the mantra, and then we turn on the feelings and emotions with the same intent. In case you think I am just imagining things, I have lived long enough to see this approach in action many times. And I have also read history. The fact is that our emotions are an actual part of our energy body, vibrating at a (desireable or, perhaps undesireable) frequency. Now its a fact that men often have a temperamental disadvantage in relating to the emotional body, perhaps because of their past predatorial tendency to fight with things. Even St. Paul said, "If thy right arm offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee; If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee". Some of the more enthusiastic monks have even applied this in a literal sense, and I'm sure it wasn't a pretty sight. Women do better with the emotional body than men, and, as such, generally make better sadhus and faster progress, probably because they give birth. No mother with a disobedient child would give him away to the nearest stranger, or bury him alive; she would teach him better manners. A good mother is patient and loving, but absolutely firm: she doesn't say "No" today, and "Yes" tomorrow. And the child learns quickly. But if a mother has a truly out-of-control child, she takes him for counciling, i.e. to the guru. She knows that the guru can only help if she reveals the problem fully; complete disclosure is the law if real help is sought. Here too, men have a terrible time with this: it can be embarrassing for them, and they always did have a hard time asking for directions. There is a reason why Sri Ramakrishna worsipped God as a woman, had a woman guru, worshipped his wife as divine, and assumed the dress and charactistics of a woman during part of his sadhana. The energy that has been lost over time, collectively and individually, has severely darkened and stunted the growth and evolution of the human race. It may be that we have lost that energy by mismanagement of the emotional body, which is the energy body, and, in fact, is the only power we have to work with. So, Sri Ramakrishna offered all the warring dualities at the Mother's divine feet, and prayed only for pure, unconditional love, a mother's love, and the only unifying force in all existence. I believe that saints teach by example, and go to the other shore, but that avataras come to profoundly change the world forever. I believe that Sri Ramakrishna, like a great sorcerer, did a great many seemingly small or minor things in His life and sadhana at Dakshineshwar that will continue to ripple out through space and time, and that, because of it, we will never be the same again. Tanmaya , "ecjensen_us" <ecjensen_us> wrote: > OM NAMAH SIVAYA > > thanks for this post Maa. i was wondering if you could expound a > little on, "For the highest worshipper, anything that is not God- > even His Divine gifts-is offered on the altar of that devotee's > Heart." also to avoid the cysts what can one do? just be in the > moment with every part of your being in order to fully experience > it? is this like saying to "let things fall away of their own > accord?" i greatly appreciate your words of wisdom as my mind can't > help but want to know more about the route of travel. though i know > it is not necessary, as the important thing is to drop the keys in > Her hands and just move to the seat to the right. and enjoy the ride. > > JAI MA > > , "ty_maa" <ds.james@c...> wrote: > > Dear Brian, > > > > If I may, I would like to add a couple of comments to your > > insightful discussion of surrender and fear, You have used phrases > > like: "Letting go of the fear"---"I think I derived this line of > > thought to stop feeling"---"Surrender is merely the mental", etc. > > There is another point of view than that implied in these phrases: > > > > Thought is electrical, as it were, and, as such it can be "let go > > of", "denied", "risin above", "suppressed", etc. with impunity. As > an > > electrical blip racing through our brain circuitry, by an act of > will > > we can simply stop it. > > > > Emotion-feeling, however, is "magnetic" i.e. it is a part of our > > energy body, and, as such, we don't "get rid of it" we can only > > culture it. Any attempt to repress emotional energy results in its > > becoming locked up in a cyst form where it leaks poison, and > deprives > > us of that quantum of usable energy, chit-shakti. A lifetime of > this > > would only result in another weak and neurotic talking head of > which > > the world is presently full. And that one would go out into the > next > > incarnation like a scatterload of buckshot. > > > > The lack of a clear distinction between the real characteristics > of > > thought and feeling has been the nine hundred pound gorrila in yin > > yang relations. It has profound implications in the relation > between > > the sexes, the supression of women in secular and religious life > > throughtout history, and confusion and frustrating ineffectivenes > in > > spiritual efforts. > > > > Surrender is the beginning of spiritual life, and fear > > (Mahadbhaya-Great Fear) comes at the end. A devotee needs both > wings > > to soar into the Beyond. > > > > We begin by offering-surrendering the best of everything to God, > > including the best of our thoughts and our purest feelings. But a > > devotee doesn't take personal responsility for the less-than- > perfect > > elements in his nature, and try to deal with them himself, he > offers > > them as well. All that exists comes from God, and God alone is > > responsible for it. > > > > God alone can perfectly purify our thoughts, and culture and > ennoble > > our emotions if we resign them, with no duplicity, to Him. But we > can > > not offer to God what we have repressed, or ""gotten rid of, > because > > we have thereby made that portion of ourself unconscious, and > > therefore unavailable for surrender. > > > > For the highest worshipper, anything that is not God-even His > Divine > > gifts-is offered on the altar of that devotee's Heart. Until God, > and > > God alone, exists in that Heart. > > > > At some point in the life of surrender, Mother Kali will appear > with > > Her well-known Sword, and a Fear will rise up greater than any > other > > fear. If, and only if, that devotee's surrender has been thorough > and > > complete, he will be able to offer even that Great Fear, that Final > > Death, at Her Feet, and She will walk away smiling with another > head > > on her garland of saints and avadhutas. > > > > With love and highest regards, > > > > Tanmaya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 Tanmaya, If I understand these posts correctly -- please tell me if I got this wrong -- then your view is that surrender is not repression which I whole heartedly agree with, because I have personally spent a great deal of my life repressing feelings to try and stop them from ruining things. It was a slow lesson for me, one that has become part of my being. I also perceive that you are saying that one should not attempt to arrest the mind, because the mind itself cannot stop the mind. I also completely agree with that statement. The analogy I use is this: The mind is a mechanism, not unlike a bunch of spinning gears driven by many and various sized fly wheels. These fly wheels are given to us by genetics and by our upbringing (aka karma). These flywheels are connected to buttons which when pressed cause a mechanism to engage gears, placing a drag on the flywheel and powering a reaction within us. The drag on the flywheel is painful. This reaction is pre-programmed by genetics and our mental examples, the people who surround us when we are less than four or so. For example, I have an anger button associated with bad drivers. I get it mostly from my Dad. This flywheel spins and spins happily under its own power and when someone does a silly thing, a button gets pressed, a gear slides into place and anger wells up within me. At one time, it was pretty bad and I did some pretty stupid things because of it. These flywheels of the mind are perceived as survival mechanisms and they exist because under normal circumstances we'd need them to survive. For example there is a fight flight genetic flywheel (which can drive other flywheels by the way) which will tell us to run from danger. It exists because there is an advantage for it to exist. But the mental flywheels created in our infancy may or may not be helpful and at best are unnecessary for our adult lives. With all these buttons connected to many and various sized flywheels, our minds are just abuzz with activity. The system forms a balance which allows us to function and survive. That is why they exist. If you've ever met anyone with a major hangup, you've probably realized that they have it because they needed it to survive until adulthood. But now as adults they still utilize it when really they don't need it anymore and would be far better off without it. So, saying that the mind cannot control the mind in these terms is saying: it is nearly impossible to build a mechanism in the mind capable of applying brakes to all these flywheels and stopping them. After all where is the energy going to go? And if you just throw in a monkey wrench, destroying the mind, what will be left to function in reality? Most of us, as we grow, begin to recognize bad habits and we adjust them, adjust ourselves to them. Often we put up a mechanism in front of the bad habit mechanism to govern it. Sometimes we declare those barriers off limits to most, only revealing them to those we care for and care about us. Have you ever met someone who can only be mean to those he cares for? He must be "nice" in public because society requires it, but to those who really love him he's mean and nasty and that proves to him that he's loved. Just as it was when he was a child and he accepted his parent('s) meanness to prove he loved them. Some of us, me for example, attempted to build braking units to power down the flywheels. This creates big inner conflict as the various mechanisms begin to compete for energy to keep spinning. They need to survive so we can survive, or that's the thought, and since we actually see a great deal of ourselves in those mechanisms of mind we tend to feel that part of us is dying when we apply those brakes. Generally the brakes we make, break instead of brake. ;-) Those of us with large soul desire for awareness, tend to have many more and bigger mechanisms whirring within our minds, trying to drown out the drone of OM, because the desire fuels our enlightenment and thus the forces that would prevent our enlightenment, the mechanisms of mind. In everything there must be balance, when "We" want awareness, "we" react and create more mechanisms. So when you say we cannot arrest our minds (my interpretation) I feel you are absolutely correct, we cannot build mental machinery to stop all the whirring mechanisms. In fact building more just makes the mind more complex and pushes us farther away from peace. When you mentioned monks beating themselves with Mantram I got this image of a mind so upset with itself that it fashions a crow bar with the words, "OM AIM HRIM KLIM CHAMUNDAYE VICHE" and proceeds to build a machine to insert into the mind so it can beat the daylights out of the machinery that's already there. Even if its successful, the beating machine will still be present and the mind will not be peaceful. In fact it may decide to go on a crusade and begin to beat upon the minds of others. I have seen examples of this kind of mind. Its a kind of "robo-cop" mind. He says, "I built this complex thought system and brought order to my mind [actually insanity, but hey a rose by any other name right?] and I can do the same for you ... Well of course it hurts, no pain no gain, etc etc etc..." I believe Freud had such a mind. Although for him the words "sex" and "mother" were inscribed on the crow bar he beat himself and others with. It sure is fun talking about mind, huh? Oh wait, I just heard a new slogan, "Less talk. More Sadhana." Whoops, there I go again... *grin* Brian > Jai maa, > > At your request, I'll try to carry on a little from what I said > earlier; lets see if it works out or not. > > Sri Ramakrishna, during his sadhana years, would take two handfulls > of flowers and offer them on the altar with the words, "Mother, here > is Your purity here is Your impurity, take them both and give me only > pure love for You. Here are Your good deeds, here are Your bad deeds, > take them both and give me only pure love for You. Here is Your > ignorance, here is Your knowledge, take them both and give me only > pure love for You." He went on to offer all the dualities at Her > Feet, and asked only for pure love in return. > > > But, admittedly, it has been more characteristic of us, as sadhakas, > to think that we are being remiss if we don't, for instance, feel > guilty about the little thoughts that cross our mind, and fight with > them, thus setting up new dualities between good and bad thoughts, and > between us and all thoughts, etc.; even though the simple truth is > that we don't see the source of even a single thought. So how can we > be personally reponsible for what we don't create? > > > Thoughts are like high flying birds that sail from one horizon, and > dissapear over the opposite horizon. But, the way that we can indeed > become responsible for them is if we craftily snare that bird, that > thought, and either struggle with it or indulge in it. > > > So, the advanced teachers have always advised us that the the most > effective way to purify the mind is to receive a mantra from an > enlightened guru, and repeat it continuously until it becomes "self > acting", i.e. even in sleep. They say that that mantra will then > playfully swim and leap like a dolphin in the sea of our mind until > the whole mind has become calm and deep and pure and silent. > > > Still, mantra diksha has been around for a long time, and somehow it > has not prevented a great many minds from maligning the emotional > body. Maybe this derives from identifying the emotional half, Eve, > with original sin, or maybe it is just the residual tamas of the > caveman to grab a club to solve every problem: we beat the mind to > death with the mantra, and then we turn on the feelings and emotions > with the same intent. In case you think I am just imagining things, I > have lived long enough to see this approach in action many times. And > I have also read history. > > > The fact is that our emotions are an actual part of our energy body, > vibrating at a (desireable or, perhaps undesireable) frequency. Now > its a fact that men often have a temperamental disadvantage in > relating to the emotional body, perhaps because of their past > predatorial tendency to fight with things. Even St. Paul said, "If > thy right arm offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee; If thy > right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee". Some of > the more enthusiastic monks have even applied this in a literal sense, > and I'm sure it wasn't a pretty sight. > > > Women do better with the emotional body than men, and, as such, > generally make better sadhus and faster progress, probably because > they give birth. No mother with a disobedient child would give him > away to the nearest stranger, or bury him alive; she would teach him > better manners. A good mother is patient and loving, but absolutely > firm: she doesn't say "No" today, and "Yes" tomorrow. > And the child > learns quickly. > > > But if a mother has a truly out-of-control child, she takes him for > counciling, i.e. to the guru. She knows that the guru can only help > if she reveals the problem fully; complete disclosure is the law if > real help is sought. Here too, men have a terrible time with this: it > can be embarrassing for them, and they always did have a hard time > asking for directions. > > > There is a reason why Sri Ramakrishna worsipped God as a woman, had > a woman guru, worshipped his wife as divine, and assumed the dress and > charactistics of a woman during part of his sadhana. The energy that > has been lost over time, collectively and individually, has severely > darkened and stunted the growth and evolution of the human race. It > may be that we have lost that energy by mismanagement of the emotional > body, which is the energy body, and, in fact, is the only power we > have to work with. So, Sri Ramakrishna offered all the warring > dualities at the Mother's divine feet, and prayed only for pure, > unconditional love, a mother's love, and the only unifying force in > all existence. > > > I believe that saints teach by example, and go to the other shore, > but that avataras come to profoundly change the world forever. I > believe that Sri Ramakrishna, like a great sorcerer, did a great many > seemingly small or minor things in His life and sadhana at > Dakshineshwar that will continue to ripple out through space and time, > and that, because of it, we will never be the same again. > > Tanmaya > > > , "ecjensen_us" > wrote: > > OM NAMAH SIVAYA > > > > thanks for this post Maa. i was wondering if you could expound a > > little on, "For the highest worshipper, anything that is not God- > > even His Divine gifts-is offered on the altar of that devotee's > > Heart." also to avoid the cysts what can one do? just be in the > > moment with every part of your being in order to fully experience > > it? is this like saying to "let things fall away of their own > > accord?" i greatly appreciate your words of wisdom as my mind > can't > > help but want to know more about the route of travel. though i know > > it is not necessary, as the important thing is to drop the keys in > > Her hands and just move to the seat to the right. and enjoy the ride. > > > > JAI MA > > > > , "ty_maa" wrote: > > > Dear Brian, > > > > > > If I may, I would like to add a couple of comments to your > > > insightful discussion of surrender and fear, You have used phrases > > > like: "Letting go of the fear"---"I think I derived > this line of > > > thought to stop feeling"---"Surrender is merely the > mental", etc. > > > There is another point of view than that implied in these phrases: > > > > > > Thought is electrical, as it were, and, as such it can be "let > go > > > of", "denied", "risin above", > "suppressed", etc. with impunity. As > > an > > > electrical blip racing through our brain circuitry, by an act of > > will > > > we can simply stop it. > > > > > > Emotion-feeling, however, is "magnetic" i.e. it is a part > of our > > > energy body, and, as such, we don't "get rid of it" we can > only > > > culture it. Any attempt to repress emotional energy results in its > > > becoming locked up in a cyst form where it leaks poison, and > > deprives > > > us of that quantum of usable energy, chit-shakti. A lifetime of > > this > > > would only result in another weak and neurotic talking head of > > which > > > the world is presently full. And that one would go out into the > > next > > > incarnation like a scatterload of buckshot. > > > > > > The lack of a clear distinction between the real characteristics > > of > > > thought and feeling has been the nine hundred pound gorrila in yin > > > yang relations. It has profound implications in the relation > > between > > > the sexes, the supression of women in secular and religious life > > > throughtout history, and confusion and frustrating ineffectivenes > > in > > > spiritual efforts. > > > > > > Surrender is the beginning of spiritual life, and fear > > > (Mahadbhaya-Great Fear) comes at the end. A devotee needs both > > wings > > > to soar into the Beyond. > > > > > > We begin by offering-surrendering the best of everything to God, > > > including the best of our thoughts and our purest feelings. But a > > > devotee doesn't take personal responsility for the less-than- > > perfect > > > elements in his nature, and try to deal with them himself, he > > offers > > > them as well. All that exists comes from God, and God alone is > > > responsible for it. > > > > > > God alone can perfectly purify our thoughts, and culture and > > ennoble > > > our emotions if we resign them, with no duplicity, to Him. But we > > can > > > not offer to God what we have repressed, or ""gotten rid > of, > > because > > > we have thereby made that portion of ourself unconscious, and > > > therefore unavailable for surrender. > > > > > > For the highest worshipper, anything that is not God-even His > > Divine > > > gifts-is offered on the altar of that devotee's Heart. Until God, > > and > > > God alone, exists in that Heart. > > > > > > At some point in the life of surrender, Mother Kali will appear > > with > > > Her well-known Sword, and a Fear will rise up greater than any > > other > > > fear. If, and only if, that devotee's surrender has been thorough > > and > > > complete, he will be able to offer even that Great Fear, that Final > > > Death, at Her Feet, and She will walk away smiling with another > > head > > > on her garland of saints and avadhutas. > > > > > > With love and highest regards, > > > > > > Tanmaya > > > > > > > Visit your group "" on the web. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 OM NAMAH SIVAYA thanks for carrying on. it always works out. JAI MAA , "ty_maa" <ds.james@c...> wrote: > Jai maa, > > At your request, I'll try to carry on a little from what I said > earlier; lets see if it works out or not. > > Sri Ramakrishna, during his sadhana years, would take two handfulls > of flowers and offer them on the altar with the words, "Mother, here > is Your purity here is Your impurity, take them both and give me only > pure love for You. Here are Your good deeds, here are Your bad deeds, > take them both and give me only pure love for You. Here is Your > ignorance, here is Your knowledge, take them both and give me only > pure love for You." He went on to offer all the dualities at Her > Feet, and asked only for pure love in return. > > > But, admittedly, it has been more characteristic of us, as sadhakas, > to think that we are being remiss if we don't, for instance, feel > guilty about the little thoughts that cross our mind, and fight with > them, thus setting up new dualities between good and bad thoughts, and > between us and all thoughts, etc.; even though the simple truth is > that we don't see the source of even a single thought. So how can we > be personally reponsible for what we don't create? > > > Thoughts are like high flying birds that sail from one horizon, and > dissapear over the opposite horizon. But, the way that we can indeed > become responsible for them is if we craftily snare that bird, that > thought, and either struggle with it or indulge in it. > > > So, the advanced teachers have always advised us that the the most > effective way to purify the mind is to receive a mantra from an > enlightened guru, and repeat it continuously until it becomes "self > acting", i.e. even in sleep. They say that that mantra will then > playfully swim and leap like a dolphin in the sea of our mind until > the whole mind has become calm and deep and pure and silent. > > > Still, mantra diksha has been around for a long time, and somehow it > has not prevented a great many minds from maligning the emotional > body. Maybe this derives from identifying the emotional half, Eve, > with original sin, or maybe it is just the residual tamas of the > caveman to grab a club to solve every problem: we beat the mind to > death with the mantra, and then we turn on the feelings and emotions > with the same intent. In case you think I am just imagining things, I > have lived long enough to see this approach in action many times. And > I have also read history. > > > The fact is that our emotions are an actual part of our energy body, > vibrating at a (desireable or, perhaps undesireable) frequency. Now > its a fact that men often have a temperamental disadvantage in > relating to the emotional body, perhaps because of their past > predatorial tendency to fight with things. Even St. Paul said, "If > thy right arm offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee; If thy > right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee". Some of > the more enthusiastic monks have even applied this in a literal sense, > and I'm sure it wasn't a pretty sight. > > > Women do better with the emotional body than men, and, as such, > generally make better sadhus and faster progress, probably because > they give birth. No mother with a disobedient child would give him > away to the nearest stranger, or bury him alive; she would teach him > better manners. A good mother is patient and loving, but absolutely > firm: she doesn't say "No" today, and "Yes" tomorrow. And the child > learns quickly. > > > But if a mother has a truly out-of-control child, she takes him for > counciling, i.e. to the guru. She knows that the guru can only help > if she reveals the problem fully; complete disclosure is the law if > real help is sought. Here too, men have a terrible time with this: it > can be embarrassing for them, and they always did have a hard time > asking for directions. > > > There is a reason why Sri Ramakrishna worsipped God as a woman, had > a woman guru, worshipped his wife as divine, and assumed the dress and > charactistics of a woman during part of his sadhana. The energy that > has been lost over time, collectively and individually, has severely > darkened and stunted the growth and evolution of the human race. It > may be that we have lost that energy by mismanagement of the emotional > body, which is the energy body, and, in fact, is the only power we > have to work with. So, Sri Ramakrishna offered all the warring > dualities at the Mother's divine feet, and prayed only for pure, > unconditional love, a mother's love, and the only unifying force in > all existence. > > > I believe that saints teach by example, and go to the other shore, > but that avataras come to profoundly change the world forever. I > believe that Sri Ramakrishna, like a great sorcerer, did a great many > seemingly small or minor things in His life and sadhana at > Dakshineshwar that will continue to ripple out through space and time, > and that, because of it, we will never be the same again. > > Tanmaya > > > , "ecjensen_us" <ecjensen_us> > wrote: > > OM NAMAH SIVAYA > > > > thanks for this post Maa. i was wondering if you could expound a > > little on, "For the highest worshipper, anything that is not God- > > even His Divine gifts-is offered on the altar of that devotee's > > Heart." also to avoid the cysts what can one do? just be in the > > moment with every part of your being in order to fully experience > > it? is this like saying to "let things fall away of their own > > accord?" i greatly appreciate your words of wisdom as my mind can't > > help but want to know more about the route of travel. though i know > > it is not necessary, as the important thing is to drop the keys in > > Her hands and just move to the seat to the right. and enjoy the ride. > > > > JAI MA > > > > , "ty_maa" <ds.james@c...> wrote: > > > Dear Brian, > > > > > > If I may, I would like to add a couple of comments to your > > > insightful discussion of surrender and fear, You have used phrases > > > like: "Letting go of the fear"---"I think I derived this line of > > > thought to stop feeling"---"Surrender is merely the mental", etc. > > > There is another point of view than that implied in these phrases: > > > > > > Thought is electrical, as it were, and, as such it can be "let go > > > of", "denied", "risin above", "suppressed", etc. with impunity. As > > an > > > electrical blip racing through our brain circuitry, by an act of > > will > > > we can simply stop it. > > > > > > Emotion-feeling, however, is "magnetic" i.e. it is a part of our > > > energy body, and, as such, we don't "get rid of it" we can only > > > culture it. Any attempt to repress emotional energy results in its > > > becoming locked up in a cyst form where it leaks poison, and > > deprives > > > us of that quantum of usable energy, chit-shakti. A lifetime of > > this > > > would only result in another weak and neurotic talking head of > > which > > > the world is presently full. And that one would go out into the > > next > > > incarnation like a scatterload of buckshot. > > > > > > The lack of a clear distinction between the real characteristics > > of > > > thought and feeling has been the nine hundred pound gorrila in yin > > > yang relations. It has profound implications in the relation > > between > > > the sexes, the supression of women in secular and religious life > > > throughtout history, and confusion and frustrating ineffectivenes > > in > > > spiritual efforts. > > > > > > Surrender is the beginning of spiritual life, and fear > > > (Mahadbhaya-Great Fear) comes at the end. A devotee needs both > > wings > > > to soar into the Beyond. > > > > > > We begin by offering-surrendering the best of everything to God, > > > including the best of our thoughts and our purest feelings. But a > > > devotee doesn't take personal responsility for the less-than- > > perfect > > > elements in his nature, and try to deal with them himself, he > > offers > > > them as well. All that exists comes from God, and God alone is > > > responsible for it. > > > > > > God alone can perfectly purify our thoughts, and culture and > > ennoble > > > our emotions if we resign them, with no duplicity, to Him. But we > > can > > > not offer to God what we have repressed, or ""gotten rid of, > > because > > > we have thereby made that portion of ourself unconscious, and > > > therefore unavailable for surrender. > > > > > > For the highest worshipper, anything that is not God-even His > > Divine > > > gifts-is offered on the altar of that devotee's Heart. Until God, > > and > > > God alone, exists in that Heart. > > > > > > At some point in the life of surrender, Mother Kali will appear > > with > > > Her well-known Sword, and a Fear will rise up greater than any > > other > > > fear. If, and only if, that devotee's surrender has been thorough > > and > > > complete, he will be able to offer even that Great Fear, that Final > > > Death, at Her Feet, and She will walk away smiling with another > > head > > > on her garland of saints and avadhutas. > > > > > > With love and highest regards, > > > > > > Tanmaya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2005 Report Share Posted September 29, 2005 Dear Brian, I read your very thoughtful comments carefully several times through; thank you for writing them; I have only one thing to reply to. At the very outset, you ask me to tell you if you have it wrong. But, according to my philosophy, you can only have it right. I believe in the snowflake phlosophy: that each person is a perfect and unique manifestation of God, and how then can one snowflake judge the rightness or wrongness of another? Unless he is a guru, of course. (Which I am most emphatically not.) But, even then, a guru's corrections-even if harsh-are not judgement, rather, they are the purest manifestation of love we have recourse to on earth. Just ask Swamiji or Sri Maa if you doubt it. They are the gurus, and you will be lucky if they scold you By the way,you said these things yourself, of course, in your own comments, I'm just rephrasing them in my own way. There is just one tiny little thing though. Between every line you wrote I see an image of you putting a small picture of yourself on your altar, and each day offering that murty of your Self a huge dollop of your heart's purest love. I wonder if you would think that that would be a wrong thing to do; that you would feel guilty about it, maybe even that it is some kind of blaspheme. I can tell you that the saints love themselvest first, before they love God. They have faith in themeselves first, before they have faith in God. How can God trust our faith in Him if we have no faith in ourself? How can God trust our love for Her if we can't love ourself first? There is a day in India when they all run out and worship the tools of their trade. If you are a farmer, you put garlands and sandalpaste on your plow, and offer incense to it. In our trade, as devotees of God, our tool is our self. It is the vehicle which we must trust to carry us to the very highest state of realization. And, as such, it is most worthy of our worship. Affectionately, and with highest regards, Tanmaya , "Brian McKee" <brian@s...> wrote: > Tanmaya, > If I understand these posts correctly -- please tell me if I got this > wrong -- then your view is that surrender is not repression which I whole > heartedly agree with, because I have personally spent a great deal of my > life repressing feelings to try and stop them from ruining things. It was > a slow lesson for me, one that has become part of my being. > > I also perceive that you are saying that one should not attempt to arrest > the mind, because the mind itself cannot stop the mind. I also completely > agree with that statement. The analogy I use is this: > > The mind is a mechanism, not unlike a bunch of spinning gears driven by > many and various sized fly wheels. These fly wheels are given to us by > genetics and by our upbringing (aka karma). These flywheels are connected > to buttons which when pressed cause a mechanism to engage gears, placing a > drag on the flywheel and powering a reaction within us. The drag on the > flywheel is painful. This reaction is pre-programmed by genetics and our > mental examples, the people who surround us when we are less than four or > so. > > For example, I have an anger button associated with bad drivers. I get it > mostly from my Dad. This flywheel spins and spins happily under its own > power and when someone does a silly thing, a button gets pressed, a gear > slides into place and anger wells up within me. At one time, it was pretty > bad and I did some pretty stupid things because of it. > > These flywheels of the mind are perceived as survival mechanisms and they > exist because under normal circumstances we'd need them to survive. For > example there is a fight flight genetic flywheel (which can drive other > flywheels by the way) which will tell us to run from danger. It exists > because there is an advantage for it to exist. > > But the mental flywheels created in our infancy may or may not be helpful > and at best are unnecessary for our adult lives. > > With all these buttons connected to many and various sized flywheels, our > minds are just abuzz with activity. The system forms a balance which > allows us to function and survive. That is why they exist. If you've ever > met anyone with a major hangup, you've probably realized that they have it > because they needed it to survive until adulthood. But now as adults they > still utilize it when really they don't need it anymore and would be far > better off without it. > > So, saying that the mind cannot control the mind in these terms is saying: > it is nearly impossible to build a mechanism in the mind capable of > applying brakes to all these flywheels and stopping them. After all where > is the energy going to go? And if you just throw in a monkey wrench, > destroying the mind, what will be left to function in reality? > > Most of us, as we grow, begin to recognize bad habits and we adjust them, > adjust ourselves to them. Often we put up a mechanism in front of the bad > habit mechanism to govern it. Sometimes we declare those barriers off > limits to most, only revealing them to those we care for and care about > us. Have you ever met someone who can only be mean to those he cares for? > He must be "nice" in public because society requires it, but to those who > really love him he's mean and nasty and that proves to him that he's > loved. Just as it was when he was a child and he accepted his parent('s) > meanness to prove he loved them. > > Some of us, me for example, attempted to build braking units to power down > the flywheels. This creates big inner conflict as the various mechanisms > begin to compete for energy to keep spinning. They need to survive so we > can survive, or that's the thought, and since we actually see a great deal > of ourselves in those mechanisms of mind we tend to feel that part of us > is dying when we apply those brakes. > > Generally the brakes we make, break instead of brake. > > ;-) > > Those of us with large soul desire for awareness, tend to have many more > and bigger mechanisms whirring within our minds, trying to drown out the > drone of OM, because the desire fuels our enlightenment and thus the > forces that would prevent our enlightenment, the mechanisms of mind. In > everything there must be balance, when "We" want awareness, "we" react and > create more mechanisms. > > So when you say we cannot arrest our minds (my interpretation) I feel you > are absolutely correct, we cannot build mental machinery to stop all the > whirring mechanisms. In fact building more just makes the mind more > complex and pushes us farther away from peace. > > When you mentioned monks beating themselves with Mantram I got this image > of a mind so upset with itself that it fashions a crow bar with the words, > "OM AIM HRIM KLIM CHAMUNDAYE VICHE" and proceeds to build a machine to > insert into the mind so it can beat the daylights out of the machinery > that's already there. Even if its successful, the beating machine will > still be present and the mind will not be peaceful. In fact it may decide > to go on a crusade and begin to beat upon the minds of others. I have seen > examples of this kind of mind. Its a kind of "robo-cop" mind. He says, "I > built this complex thought system and brought order to my mind [actually > insanity, but hey a rose by any other name right?] and I can do the same > for you ... Well of course it hurts, no pain no gain, etc etc etc..." > > I believe Freud had such a mind. Although for him the words "sex" and > "mother" were inscribed on the crow bar he beat himself and others with. > > It sure is fun talking about mind, huh? > > Oh wait, I just heard a new slogan, "Less talk. More Sadhana." > > Whoops, there I go again... > > *grin* > > Brian > > > > > Jai maa, > > > > At your request, I'll try to carry on a little from what I said > > earlier; lets see if it works out or not. > > > > Sri Ramakrishna, during his sadhana years, would take two handfulls > > of flowers and offer them on the altar with the words, "Mother, here > > is Your purity here is Your impurity, take them both and give me only > > pure love for You. Here are Your good deeds, here are Your bad deeds, > > take them both and give me only pure love for You. Here is Your > > ignorance, here is Your knowledge, take them both and give me only > > pure love for You." He went on to offer all the dualities at Her > > Feet, and asked only for pure love in return. > > > > > > But, admittedly, it has been more characteristic of us, as sadhakas, > > to think that we are being remiss if we don't, for instance, feel > > guilty about the little thoughts that cross our mind, and fight with > > them, thus setting up new dualities between good and bad thoughts, and > > between us and all thoughts, etc.; even though the simple truth is > > that we don't see the source of even a single thought. So how can we > > be personally reponsible for what we don't create? > > > > > > Thoughts are like high flying birds that sail from one horizon, and > > dissapear over the opposite horizon. But, the way that we can indeed > > become responsible for them is if we craftily snare that bird, that > > thought, and either struggle with it or indulge in it. > > > > > > So, the advanced teachers have always advised us that the the most > > effective way to purify the mind is to receive a mantra from an > > enlightened guru, and repeat it continuously until it becomes "self > > acting", i.e. even in sleep. They say that that mantra will then > > playfully swim and leap like a dolphin in the sea of our mind until > > the whole mind has become calm and deep and pure and silent. > > > > > > Still, mantra diksha has been around for a long time, and somehow it > > has not prevented a great many minds from maligning the emotional > > body. Maybe this derives from identifying the emotional half, Eve, > > with original sin, or maybe it is just the residual tamas of the > > caveman to grab a club to solve every problem: we beat the mind to > > death with the mantra, and then we turn on the feelings and emotions > > with the same intent. In case you think I am just imagining things, I > > have lived long enough to see this approach in action many times. And > > I have also read history. > > > > > > The fact is that our emotions are an actual part of our energy body, > > vibrating at a (desireable or, perhaps undesireable) frequency. Now > > its a fact that men often have a temperamental disadvantage in > > relating to the emotional body, perhaps because of their past > > predatorial tendency to fight with things. Even St. Paul said, "If > > thy right arm offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee; If thy > > right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee". Some of > > the more enthusiastic monks have even applied this in a literal sense, > > and I'm sure it wasn't a pretty sight. > > > > > > Women do better with the emotional body than men, and, as such, > > generally make better sadhus and faster progress, probably because > > they give birth. No mother with a disobedient child would give him > > away to the nearest stranger, or bury him alive; she would teach him > > better manners. A good mother is patient and loving, but absolutely > > firm: she doesn't say "No" today, and "Yes" tomorrow. > > And the child > > learns quickly. > > > > > > But if a mother has a truly out-of-control child, she takes him for > > counciling, i.e. to the guru. She knows that the guru can only help > > if she reveals the problem fully; complete disclosure is the law if > > real help is sought. Here too, men have a terrible time with this: it > > can be embarrassing for them, and they always did have a hard time > > asking for directions. > > > > > > There is a reason why Sri Ramakrishna worsipped God as a woman, had > > a woman guru, worshipped his wife as divine, and assumed the dress and > > charactistics of a woman during part of his sadhana. The energy that > > has been lost over time, collectively and individually, has severely > > darkened and stunted the growth and evolution of the human race. It > > may be that we have lost that energy by mismanagement of the emotional > > body, which is the energy body, and, in fact, is the only power we > > have to work with. So, Sri Ramakrishna offered all the warring > > dualities at the Mother's divine feet, and prayed only for pure, > > unconditional love, a mother's love, and the only unifying force in > > all existence. > > > > > > I believe that saints teach by example, and go to the other shore, > > but that avataras come to profoundly change the world forever. I > > believe that Sri Ramakrishna, like a great sorcerer, did a great many > > seemingly small or minor things in His life and sadhana at > > Dakshineshwar that will continue to ripple out through space and time, > > and that, because of it, we will never be the same again. > > > > Tanmaya > > > > > > , "ecjensen_us" > > wrote: > > > OM NAMAH SIVAYA > > > > > > thanks for this post Maa. i was wondering if you could expound a > > > little on, "For the highest worshipper, anything that is not God- > > > even His Divine gifts-is offered on the altar of that devotee's > > > Heart." also to avoid the cysts what can one do? just be in the > > > moment with every part of your being in order to fully experience > > > it? is this like saying to "let things fall away of their own > > > accord?" i greatly appreciate your words of wisdom as my mind > > can't > > > help but want to know more about the route of travel. though i know > > > it is not necessary, as the important thing is to drop the keys in > > > Her hands and just move to the seat to the right. and enjoy the ride. > > > > > > JAI MA > > > > > > , "ty_maa" wrote: > > > > Dear Brian, > > > > > > > > If I may, I would like to add a couple of comments to your > > > > insightful discussion of surrender and fear, You have used phrases > > > > like: "Letting go of the fear"---"I think I derived > > this line of > > > > thought to stop feeling"---"Surrender is merely the > > mental", etc. > > > > There is another point of view than that implied in these phrases: > > > > > > > > Thought is electrical, as it were, and, as such it can be "let > > go > > > > of", "denied", "risin above", > > "suppressed", etc. with impunity. As > > > an > > > > electrical blip racing through our brain circuitry, by an act of > > > will > > > > we can simply stop it. > > > > > > > > Emotion-feeling, however, is "magnetic" i.e. it is a part > > of our > > > > energy body, and, as such, we don't "get rid of it" we can > > only > > > > culture it. Any attempt to repress emotional energy results in its > > > > becoming locked up in a cyst form where it leaks poison, and > > > deprives > > > > us of that quantum of usable energy, chit-shakti. A lifetime of > > > this > > > > would only result in another weak and neurotic talking head of > > > which > > > > the world is presently full. And that one would go out into the > > > next > > > > incarnation like a scatterload of buckshot. > > > > > > > > The lack of a clear distinction between the real characteristics > > > of > > > > thought and feeling has been the nine hundred pound gorrila in yin > > > > yang relations. It has profound implications in the relation > > > between > > > > the sexes, the supression of women in secular and religious life > > > > throughtout history, and confusion and frustrating ineffectivenes > > > in > > > > spiritual efforts. > > > > > > > > Surrender is the beginning of spiritual life, and fear > > > > (Mahadbhaya-Great Fear) comes at the end. A devotee needs both > > > wings > > > > to soar into the Beyond. > > > > > > > > We begin by offering-surrendering the best of everything to God, > > > > including the best of our thoughts and our purest feelings. But a > > > > devotee doesn't take personal responsility for the less-than- > > > perfect > > > > elements in his nature, and try to deal with them himself, he > > > offers > > > > them as well. All that exists comes from God, and God alone is > > > > responsible for it. > > > > > > > > God alone can perfectly purify our thoughts, and culture and > > > ennoble > > > > our emotions if we resign them, with no duplicity, to Him. But we > > > can > > > > not offer to God what we have repressed, or ""gotten rid > > of, > > > because > > > > we have thereby made that portion of ourself unconscious, and > > > > therefore unavailable for surrender. > > > > > > > > For the highest worshipper, anything that is not God-even His > > > Divine > > > > gifts-is offered on the altar of that devotee's Heart. Until God, > > > and > > > > God alone, exists in that Heart. > > > > > > > > At some point in the life of surrender, Mother Kali will appear > > > with > > > > Her well-known Sword, and a Fear will rise up greater than any > > > other > > > > fear. If, and only if, that devotee's surrender has been thorough > > > and > > > > complete, he will be able to offer even that Great Fear, that Final > > > > Death, at Her Feet, and She will walk away smiling with another > > > head > > > > on her garland of saints and avadhutas. > > > > > > > > With love and highest regards, > > > > > > > > Tanmaya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Visit your group "" on the web. > > > > > > Terms of Service. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2005 Report Share Posted September 29, 2005 Tanmaya, > I read your very thoughtful comments carefully several times through; > thank you for writing them; I have only one thing to reply to. At the > very outset, you ask me to tell you if you have it wrong. But, > according to my philosophy, you can only have it right. I was asking you to tell me if I mis-understood you, not if I was right or wrong. > There is just one tiny little thing though. Between every line you > wrote I see an image of you putting a small picture of yourself on > your altar, and each day offering that murty of your Self a huge > dollop of your heart's purest love. > > I wonder if you would think that that would be a wrong thing to do; > that you would feel guilty about it, maybe even that it is some kind > of blaspheme. I worship Self. If I were to worship an image of me, it would just contain my eyes, because they show the trueness of my spirit and intent. They are the true gateway to my soul. I don't feel it is wrong to worship me and I feel no guilt when my wife does so once a week. In fact I truly worship this vehicle, this tool of my existence because it is through the proper and efficient use of this vehicle I am learning about my Self. However, if given the choice of Murti, I would choose anything but my own image to worship, because the siamese twins, Self Agrandizement and Self Deprecation need very little energy to start an arguement. And honestly, I'm tired of their bickering. Be silent you two! Be silent! Your perception is clear and your caring gently wonderful. Thank you. Namaste, Brian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2005 Report Share Posted September 30, 2005 Dear Brian, Thank you kindly for your corrections; I accept them all with due humility. By no manner of means do I always get it right, but nothing ventured, nothing gained. By the way, did you notice the wonderful postings our discussion stirred up? The very perceptive comments on Chandi and the three bodies; and the marvelous poem by Sadhuma? One must poke the honeycome to get the honey. And no one can predict wherefrom the honey will drip. The Chandi Itself is a divine archetype which, by itself, is content to remain static and potential forever. It is only when the human heart, mind and soul venture to interface with it that it becomes enlivened by that relationship, and dynamically begins to spin out a new heaven and a new earth. I agree fully with the comments which emphasize that we must not get off task, and that participation with Chandi Maa is the golden key. With love to all, Tanmaya , "Brian McKee" <brian@s...> wrote: > Tanmaya, > > > I read your very thoughtful comments carefully several times through; > > thank you for writing them; I have only one thing to reply to. At the > > very outset, you ask me to tell you if you have it wrong. But, > > according to my philosophy, you can only have it right. > > I was asking you to tell me if I mis-understood you, not if I was right or > wrong. > > > There is just one tiny little thing though. Between every line you > > wrote I see an image of you putting a small picture of yourself on > > your altar, and each day offering that murty of your Self a huge > > dollop of your heart's purest love. > > > > I wonder if you would think that that would be a wrong thing to do; > > that you would feel guilty about it, maybe even that it is some kind > > of blaspheme. > > I worship Self. If I were to worship an image of me, it would just contain > my eyes, because they show the trueness of my spirit and intent. They are > the true gateway to my soul. > > I don't feel it is wrong to worship me and I feel no guilt when my wife > does so once a week. In fact I truly worship this vehicle, this tool of my > existence because it is through the proper and efficient use of this > vehicle I am learning about my Self. > > However, if given the choice of Murti, I would choose anything but my own > image to worship, because the siamese twins, Self Agrandizement and Self > Deprecation need very little energy to start an arguement. And honestly, > I'm tired of their bickering. Be silent you two! Be silent! > > Your perception is clear and your caring gently wonderful. Thank you. > > Namaste, > > Brian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2005 Report Share Posted September 30, 2005 Dear Tanmaya, > By the way, did you notice the wonderful postings our discussion > stirred up? The very perceptive comments on Chandi and the three > bodies; and the marvelous poem by Sadhuma? One must poke the > honeycome to get the honey. And no one can predict wherefrom the > honey will drip. Yes I noticed. The analogy for poking the honeycomb is perfect in more ways than one. Poking the honeycomb also stirs the bees that they may begin to sting us, preferably on the tail bone, heh. I quite enjoy the inspirations these conversations bring. Namaste, Brian 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.