Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

14261Re: [Meditation Society of America] Reaching self is reaching Lord?

Expand Messages
  • prakki surya
    Aug 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment

      dear friends

       

      Everybody aspires the highest fruit through the easiest way.  The easiest way is the path of knowledge, which does not require any sacrifice.  The highest fruit is to become the very Lord right now from this moment onwards.  They like the preacher to say that they should just come out of their house to receive a heap of infinite treasure lying down before the doors.   Anybody will be happiest to receive the news that, he has become eligible to join the post of district collector in whatever stage of his study to the I.A.S. Examination he is present.  The post is offered to the fresh student who just joined the I.A.S. Course and also to the student who passed the I.A.S. Examination.  Both are equally eligible now itself to join the same post.  If the preacher says that already both have joined the post and that they have forgotten this truth, now all the effort is only to recognize that they are the district collectors.  This gives the idea that there is no need of any future effort.  This is the mis-interpreted philosophy of monoism (Advaita) of Sankara. 

       

      Every body is very much attracted to this path.  The influence of this path is so much that no body is coming out of this illusion.  It is so sweet that they are unable to leave this state.  The basic mis-concept is to think that the self is the super-self.  Self is any living being in this world.  Super self is the Lord.  They just find one common point i.e., the pure awareness (Chit) exists in both.  The Prime Minister and his peon have several common points like pure awareness, similar form of external human body etc. Both eat and sleep similarly.  Both are married and both have children.  Because of these common points can you treat the Prime Minister and His peon as one and the same?  Based on one common point i.e., pure awareness, how can you say that self is super-self?  Veda says that by the order of the Lord, the Sun is shining.  In summer due to sunstroke a human being is killed.  Let the Advaita scholar stand against the sunstroke and order the Sun not to kill him. 

       

      When the disciples of Sankara thought that they are also the Lord, Sankara swallowed the molten lead and asked the disciples to do the same.  Then they fell on the feet of Sankara.  Then Sankara told "Shivah Kevaloham", which means that only He is Shiva.  The word Kevala (only) is important here.  Sankara while taking bath in the ocean at Puri told "Oh! Lord! Though the qualitative identity is in between us, the quantitative difference exists.  The water is common in both the sea and the wave like the pure awareness in the soul and super soul.  But the quantitative difference exists and one should not forget that the entire wave is in the sea but the entire sea is not in the wave".  This is stated as a message for the sake of ordinary soul.  These Advaita Scholars filter all the differentiating points and finally get the common point filtered down into the beaker as the filtrate.  The differentiating points are the residue on the filter paper and the filtered common point is in the downward beaker.  They see only the beaker but not the filter paper.  Therefore, the whole spiritual path is twisted and confused almost all the human beings. 

       

      Seeing this situation the same Sankara came as Ramanuja and Madhva and clearly differentiated the super self from the self.  Some devotees have come out of this illusion but several people are still lingering there only due to their unreasonable and unimaginable ambition for the fruit.  Unless this basic concept is realized, all the stages of the spiritual effort cannot be healthy.  The poison injected in the foundation has spread all over the upstairs of the construction.  Your question has already assumed that self is super self.  You have no doubt about that basic concept.  Nobody likes to touch that basic concept.  If that basic concept is analysed the entire castle of their ambition will collapse.  They cannot tolerate to loose the highest fruit, which was captured by them by the easiest way of self-realization.  Now for such self-realization, you are asking whether the meditation or the study of scriptures is the path.  When the goal itself is absent what is the use of the path?  It is something like asking whether one should pass eighth standard or ninth standard to become the district collector.  Neither of these two standards can give you the post.  By passing those two standards one can get the post of a peon.  One has to pass the I.A.S. Examination for which he is eligible after passing degree examination, which is far from both those standards.  These advaita scholars argue that the peon is the collector.  They do not accept the existence of any higher post other than the peon. 

       

      The reason for this basic misunderstanding is the word "Brahman".  As per Sanskrit grammar this word comes from the root "Bruhi-Vruddhau", which means that the root meaning of this word is greatness.  Anything that is great can be called as Brahman.  The soul is the most precious and greatest item of the creation and is called as Para Prakruti, which means the greatest of all the created items.  The soul is included as a part of the creation (Prakruti) and is called as Para Prakruti as said in Gita (Prakritim Viddhi me paraamÂ….).  It is not Creator.  If it is Creator it cannot be called as Prakruti.  It is only the modification of food during evolution as said in Veda (Annat PurushahÂ…).  The same inert energy called as electro magnetic radiation working through a special unknown technology is life.  The materials of the technology are known and the working inert energy is also known.  But the special technology in which it works is not known and therefore, life energy is not synthesized so far.  Only God knows that technology. 

      at the lotus feet of shri datta swami

      surya



      Rushikant Mehta <rushi_kant@...> wrote:
      Absolutely true, Sandeep, absolutely.

      But not relatively.

      What u say appears to be a view of the ' Enlightened '
      one, who has reached where realization dawns that
      there is nowhere to go, nowhere to reach; where
      'entitification' drops, meditator vanishes in the
      meditative state & perhaps nothing but bliss pervades.

      And being in that mode u probably admit not even
      theoratically, of any mundane mortal existence
      suffering from ignorance of non-entitification ! To
      such an ignorant mortal like me  you sound more like
      philosophizing that leads to pedantry more than
      enlightenment.

      U r right but what u say doesn't help me realize what
      u do, may be just because I think it is so for me.

      You may like to pity me or sympathise with me or laugh
      on me or....just dump it in your nothingness !













      --- Sandeep <sandeep1960@...> wrote:

      > Hi RM,
      >
      >   ----- Original Message -----
      >   From: Rushikant Mehta
      >   To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
      >   Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 1:52 AM
      >   Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America]
      > Unselfish Love
      >
      >
      >   Truth, very well said !
      >
      >   But how can one stop coloring the events with
      > 'should/should not' ?
      >
      >   In the very sense of the "how" is the sense of
      > "should".
      >
      >   In the recognition....... is the cessation.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >   Just by thinking & wishing a million times that I
      > don't want to do it ? Or determining that I'll NOT
      > do it ?
      >
      >   No difference between the two.
      >
      >   Determining, intending, thinking,
      > wishing......song and dance of the sense of the
      > entity.
      >
      >   Nope, the conscious mind may want & decide not to
      > add color to an event but the habit of doing that is
      > so deeply & intensly ingrained in the subconscious
      > that the moment the event occurs, it overpowers the
      > intellect & reasoning of the poor conscious & before
      > one knows, reaction takes place. When this is
      > happening it is nearly impossible to get detached
      > from it & witness it from a distance.
      >
      >
      >
      >   Detachment cannot be "got".
      >
      >   Witnessing cannot be "achieved".
      >
      >
      >   Sure, ..........the sense of entity believes that
      > having done, X, Y, Z for so many years, it is now
      > detached, it is now in witnessing mode.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >   Here is how meditation helps.
      >
      >   That which helps is not meditation.
      >
      >
      >    If one sits alone doing NOTHING, the first thing
      > that props up in mind is the memory of the most
      > powerful passonate event that has taken place
      > recently or before. And mind starts coloring it with
      > thoughts & wishes. One starts rolling over in them
      > just as if the event is reocurring even though the
      > other party concerned is not physically present to
      > cause or contribute to it. Along with that flood of
      > emotions, a number of sensations start arising in
      > the body. With little practice & patience one can
      > observe these sensations. And lo ! that mental act
      > of observing helps to stand, bear & witness that
      > flow arising & intensifying but slowly & surely
      > waning & withering away! With every re-run of this
      > observation, the strength of that event's influence
      > in the mind also weakens till it completely passes
      > out. Very soon, one can experience that the mind is
      > absolutely free of the after-effects of that event.
      >
      >
      >
      >   And yet the sense of a mind ......now believed to
      > be free of the after-effects of the
      > event..........persists.
      >
      >   Rather than looking to free the mind, see what is
      > the nature of the assumption, that is held to be the
      > mind.
      >
      >   Is not the mind an inference arising from a
      > selectiveness ........from among the mnemonic cells
      > of past experiences?
      >
      >   Don't rush to agree or disagree.
      >
      >   
      >
      >    So much so that its memory no longer pains. If by
      > chance the other person confronts again, the mind
      > being bereft of all negativities surrounding that
      > person, one can cooly face the reality & hit the
      > solution to the relationship tangle.
      >   Inspired by the result, as one practices more &
      > more,one can eradicate all accumulated 'sanskaars'
      > of innumerable events, by developing this attitude
      > of detached witnessing & can then remain cool,
      > unhazed, unfazed in any future event too.
      >
      >   An attitude of detached witnessing is still an
      > identification.
      >
      >   The state of detached witnessing (to use some
      > words, some terms)....
      >
      >   ....is the absence of the presence of all
      > identifications......
      >
      >   .....AND.......... the absence of the absence of
      > the presence of all identifications
      >
      >
      >   If meditation cannot help to this end, nothing
      > else can.
      >
      >
      >   Indeed.
      >
      >   The issue is not whether meditation can help or
      > not.
      >
      >   Or that X, Y, Z can help in place of meditation.
      >
      >   The issue, (so to say).........is to apperceive
      > whether there is anything which needs to be helped.
      >
      >   So long there is "something" which needs to be
      > helped,..........there persists the sense of the
      > entity for which is relevant, for which is
      > significant.....that "something which needs to be
      > helped".
      >
      >   So long there persists a sense of
      > entitification..............meditation has yet to
      > happen.
      >
      >
      >   
      >
      >
      >   And if meditation cannot help to this end, it is
      > anything but meditation !
      >
      >   The meditative state is not a means to another
      > end, .......an end separated from it.
      >
      >
      >   The meditative state is the end of the sense of a
      > "meditator" and thus end of the very concept of
      > meditation.
      >
      >   The meditative state does not even admit the
      > concept of the meditative state.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >


      May All Beings be Happy, be Peaceful, be Liberated from Misery.

      Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com

    • Show all 10 messages in this topic