Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - cefnbrithdir

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
16

Dear Sri Anil and Sri Nagaraj

GVK 723 is being quoted and then GVK 722 but you could easily start from say GVK 712 and just read on....

As GVK's authority comes from the fact  that Bhagavan himself checked and occassionally revised and added to this work, we can surely be confident that the truth is there in its wholeness and wholeness cannot easily be divided without creating duality in the mind.  Just a thought !

May "mauna" be the bridge that helps here

" Since only mauna, the swarupa that shines through the pure mind, abides as the final doorway to liberation, whichever of the accepted paths a person may hold onto and advance along, that doorway (mauna) alone is the ultimate entry point and refuge"

GVK 1185.

17

Dear Sri Nagaraj

I don't wish to interrupt but should you not be distinguishing what is necesssary to keep the temple of our bodies in sufficiently good order, to fulfil the wonderful opportunity we have in it,  and whether or not various spiritual practices such as puja, study of the sastras etc are essential elements of sadhana.

I don't think Sri Anil was saying we have to give these latter up. I think he was saying that there are not necessary for Self Enquiry and also that such practices may - in the end or at some point  - be distractions or unhelpful whereas Self Enquiry "to conclusion" is essential.

Were not some of Bhagavan's words on this to assure those who were concerned that they should not be giving up these other practices  - despite finding that they were no longer helpful to them -  that they need not worry and that there was no requirement  to continue with them.

I thought one of the issues on which Bhagavan very occasionally came close to showing irritation was when people were unnecessarily  telling others what to do or what not to do in their own personal sadhana.  We certainly   need to be able to see very clearly before knowing how to advise in any given situation and to  any particular person on such matters.

18

Dear Sri Anil

Thank you for your reply. I like agreeing with you !

I was also musing previously that whilst we remain sadhakas, discrimination would seem to  continue to play an important role, particularly when we are not fully occupied (silently) with Self Enquiry. Doubtless our discrimination continues to deepen with the depth of our practice but what will be helpful or unhelpful or indeed unecessary in our continuing sadhaka can appear to have various influences/coincidences that our minds read rightly or wrongly in a particular way. We can get caught up in this.  With Bhagavan's great grace I feel increasingly fortunate to mistrust what my mind is thinking most (or should that be all) of the time - the solution, as you  say, is more vichara.

Your discussion with Sri Nagaraj touched on the question of generalisation and how  best to converse with  others on their spiritual journeys.  Again with Bhagavan's great grace I am becoming "quieter" -  realising that when there is obvious "doership" in what I am saying or doing, it is likely inappropriate in those particular circumstances and when I get out of the way and it all flows that that generally feels allright.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to always know how best to respond to someone who asks some spiritual question of you or how to illicit in them the love and knowledge that Bhagavan has given you ?

I can just about conceive of what it means when Bhagavan asks a devotee "Are you in the house or is  the house in you ?" and the presumed extension of that - "Are you in the house surrounded by other people or are the house and everyone around you in you ?"  But the question of what Bhagavan saw in front of him; answering often silently the queries and doubts of individuals ; looking at particular people in a  way which invariably changed their lives is of course quite beyond me and rightly so. I understand he usually said he was doing nothing - and I believe him - and yet you never quite know with Bhagavan whether his answers were just what was best for you and others at the time  - or the "full story".

( I was reading yesterday Bhagavan's conversation in 1948 with Sri NR Krishnamurti Aiyer when it seems for the only time he let it be clearly  known the extent to which his taking on of the problems of his devotees had bodily affected him.  (Power of the Presence Vol 1 pp 172-3).)

Anyway this is idle and probably egotistical speculation. Back to vichara.

Thank you.

19

Dear Sri Anil and Sri Nagaraj

I am afraid I do not think your recent conversation helpful and are you not both right ?!

I am sure Sri Anil was originally trying to say that one should never be discouraged from Vichara because of thinking one is either unworthy to do so or to give up on finding it difficult.

But to stray into whether there are no "rules" or lots of "rules" is itself to become dominated by the question of rules which has plagued all aspirants of all faiths for all time.

It is itself a form of duality which the struggling and fearful (of its demise) ego can cling to.

Take the question of food. Bhagavan and others are in accord that whatever you eat is an irrelevance to the realised jnani. Yet Bhagavan was equally clear that some foods should be avoided for various reasons in aiding our sadhana.

Recently Sri Ravi usefully pointed us to the blog of Arvind regarding Self Inquiry. I personally found what he had written useful but his most reason post last month became, as far as I was concerned, obsessed with whether there was the slightest bit of egg in any of the foods he was eating  (and then you can get immersed in the question of whether an infertile egg is the same as a fertile egg etc). This did not feel right to me and I am reminded of Bhagavan teasing his Mother with an onion.

From my Christian background I am also reminded of Jesus's disciples asking him whether they should fast and Jesus replied "Not while the bridegroom is with them". When the bridegroom is taken away is the time to fast.

I have always understood that there were indeed no rules for the jnani - how could there be, there is no doership. But while we are still "doing" - which itself implies an existing, albeit struggling, ego - then we should not get caught up in dualistic arguments about rules. You do what your discrimination helps you best -  knowing that Bhagavan is indeed with you with his Grace.


20
Dear Sri Anil

Your last post - written as I was writing mine - seems strangely connected. Or rather it is itself an answer to mine.

I should have read yours before posting, but there again am content with my one penny worth and the opportunity  to quote Bhagavan.

Thank you

21
Dear Sri Anil

I wanted to ask you about "What to do next ?"

It may seem a strange question but what I mean is that you are in a period of vichara - maybe "good" vichara - but when this finishes what to do next. You maintain "remembrance" which you never want to be distracted from  but you are back in a different place. You may read something spiritual, you may try to understand more fully the meaning of something, do more research on something. Then you need to eat (hopefully not the wrong foods which alters your state and you don't overeat). You make pick up a paper and read a little of what is happening in the world but overdo this and that is not a good idea. You may involve yourself on this site.  Sooner or later you realise you only want to go  back to more deep vichara and you have almost been distracting yourself and wasting time doing other things - however "spiritual" they may have been. But then that period of vichara comes to an end ........

If you have continuing responsibilities then yes you have "tasks". You have to answer this email, write a report, take something from here to there, meet this person etc. Hopefully none of this will be too distracting and you can get back more fully to where your heart is. This all involves a fair amount of thinking - or at least it does at the moment.

What I think I am trying to say is that whereas thinking about the past seems of little point and relevance, the immediate future (what comes next) seems all too real. It is a burden.  And whereas I know there are no objects it seems to me equally important to realise there is no "next" either.  We are all striving onwards yet to some extent is this not distracting us from the present ?

I am reminded  of the usually very structured day that Bhagavan gave himself - though this was also entirely flexible. I understand clocks were  correctly set. Something tells me that Bhagavan did not say to himself - "Now what shall I do - I'll go for a walk"  rather  at about the same time in the day his walk just happened.

I am  reading Bhagavan's conversations with Swami Madhavatirtha in "The Power of the Presence" Vol 1.  The answer to my ramblings is probably here.
This section from p 238 seems relevant to some of the previous discussion there has been here recently  - and more

Q. When I think "Who am I ?" I do not get any answer from within

M. That belief is wrong. If you search properly, you will find out that the "I" that is trying to find out will, later on, cease to exist. As you give up the thoughts of name and form, you will go deeper and deeper inside.

Q.  If I were to remove all thoughts, then, would I be able to meditate properly ?

M.  In the beginning that is all right. But when your attraction towards the Self increases, the real self-inquiry will start. At that time all your efforts will stop and a new state will come into being.

Q. Can the sadhana of self- enquiry be carried on while remaining in the house, or does one have to leave home ?

M.  Are you in the house or is the house in you ?  Be where you are.

Q.  Then I can remain in the house.

M.  It does not mean that. What I mean is that you should abide in your real nature. You are not the house, but the house as well as the world are in you. The householder who believes that he is not a householder, in spite of his staying in his house, is the one who has renounced. Visualise a man sleeping in a train. If the train moves or stops, or if the engine is changed , it is all the same to him. Similarly, one who is properly established in the Atman knows that nothing happens in this world, and that nothing is ever destroyed. Something is felt to be happening only when we are in the state of pramata, the knower. This state is not one's real nature. For the jnani who has given up the idea of the knower, nothing ever happens.

22

Thank you dear Sir

cefnbrithdir

23

Dear Anil

Thank you very much. I do understand what you are saying.

You wrote " We say  " I write, I think, I act etc" Do we not ? The common factor in all the above activities is "I". So all our conscious activities revolve round the tacit assumption that there is an individual separate subject who is responsible for all these activities. Sri Bhagwan termed this common factor as the " I - thought".

Who am I to question Bhagavan but Bhagavan has WRECKED this tacit assumption in my mind. I no longer think that I am an individual separate subject though in many ways I still may behave as one. But I should not underestimate this knowledge - that there are no objects - and therefore there is nothing to think about - has been a thunderbolt. It has changed me.

Now you are right that this knowledge is still "parading" - I like your word - as an I- thought. But it is an " I- thought" that immediately knows it is an unreal and nothing thought". So the word " I- thought" seems to be giving itself too much substance. It does not feel  the right word for me in the poem - so to speak.

But I pray that I am not meditating on "I am That". I do understand this is not Self Inquiry- it is an I thought. Very much so !

You later wrote  " I exist always even if the body does not exist as in sleep". You  are now talking about the Real "I" and your statement - knowledge that Bhagavan has given you - is nevertheless an "I-thought". This perhaps illustrates why the language may be unhelpful.  If the Self is "I" then "I-thought" is a huge contradiction in terms if they are in any way related. The Self has no thoughts as you have said. If they are not related then can we not keep this  "I" -  about which Bhagavan's grace has already given me the knowledge of its unreality and nothingness -  out of  our conceptual thinking.

The sadhana of Self Inquiry I pray stays the same.

24


Dear Sri Anil

Bhagavan said in Talks 398  " There is only the Self. Thoughts can function only if there are objects. How can thoughts arise at all ? The habit makes us believe that it is difficult to cease thinking. If the error is found out, one would not be fool enough to exert oneself unnecessarily by way of thinking".

I also have a huge desire for the source. The source which is everything and about which nothing can be spoken of , resplendent in Silence.  As things stand, if a name has to be given, I prefer "That" rather than the Real "I"  and "Thou art That" resonates. It helps my awareness, as I type away, that there are still things to clear away so that "Thou art That" can eternally shine.

For the changing unreal "I" I prefer "nothing". This helps me to realise Bhagavan's words that there are no objects and that there is nothing real about this "I". Talk of reflections and modifications, however philosophically complete, does not help  and and is in danger of  begging  the question Is it  really unreal.  nothing nothing nothing - there is nothing to think about. But that of course is not the end. I have a huge desire for the source of this "nothing".

I hope Bhagavan will forgive me these revisions if I am not doing anything to go away from the Truth that he spoke. You have no need to do this - which I hugely respect - so if you think I am changing anything of substance please let me know.

Thank you.

25

Dear Sri Jewell

I much appreciate your posts in reply to mine and your great honesty in doing so.

I want to say that  I fully agree with your second paragraph of your initial reply. That silence is absolutely fundamental to my sadhana and the appreciation that any movement of thought, any conception is in fact  noise.

 I am groping to synthesise/make one the teaching of Bhagavan and Siddharameshwar and Ranjit Maharaj and I have faith they are saying the same thing at the deepest level. I also know that I alternate in my focus. Absolute clarity can come through with the Maharajs and far from any lack of humility or boastfulness a clarity of how easily one is in the field of Maya and objects.
Bhagavan's wonderful remarks on there being no objects and we think because we are mistaken in believing that there are objects seems completely in tune with the Maharajs' objectless world. Any object whether it be subtle or gross is nothing.

I know that I respond to Bhagavan much more emotionally -  as I do to Jesus. However much I know that they are Reality and the "Kingdom of Heaven" is Reality I am aware  there is more Bhakti in my relationship and worship of them - and then I think of the almost "inconsistent" teaching of the Maharajs regarding worship of their Guru. But Bhagavan is also a Bhakti - never leaving Arunachala his own Guru.

I struggle - without too much concern - over the right balance of tantras, by which I mean, and maybe technically incorrectly, the extent to which the external can feed rather than distract the internal. The incarnations of Bhagavan and Jesus do matter to me  - they feed me. This website can feed me. Brahman's manifestation of the universe can feed me. The knowledge behind Namaskar feeds me. And yet how easily this can slip into a lack of desirelessness - or should I say objects onto which remaining desire (suffering in arid places) can keep a foothold. And yet the unequivocal nature of Ranjit's zero both attracts and repels. I know I don't see clearly now but allow me the chance of  the world being Real as part of the Self. So when Sri Anil talks about reflections and modifications of my jiva mind  I object and yet I want this too.

And then we come to movement and rest of Sri Jnaneshvar's Siva and Shakti. A wonderful expression of an all enveloping wholeness and unity and indeed love  which Bhagavan and the Maharajs found in their various ways. And it seems I presently need them all to find my own.

And so back to silence, the rigorous hold  of the objectless world experienced in highest moments of abidance and stillness and when not there the love and play in movement of giving of ourselves with others but not allowing our batteries to go too low or being distracted from the Reality of the Truth.  May it be so.

And thank you.

26
Dear Sri Jewell

You wrote  " Inquirer is just a smoke, nothing more and behind him lies ever shining reality".

My problem is that I (ah!)  don't like "I" and to conceive in Inquiry  about "I" for me would be to introduce something entirely unnecessary for which you immediately need to get behind and "depth wise" beyond.

It is as you say unreal, just a smoke, so don't give it a capital letter.

 me  (lower case) feels more comfortable. Then there are those who talk about "he" - jiva; He - Saint/Guru; HE - Reality. In this conception  He =HE and He = HE is within but  he is just nothing.  Or as you say "behind him (which is just smoke)  lies ever shining reality".

I am reminded that Bhagavan called himself "This" in his leaving note when he set out for Arunachala in search of his Father.

27

Dear Sri Anil

Beautiful passages from Dr Sarada - thank you so much. Another book to buy !

Sri Jnaneshvar would also approve, don't you think ?

28


Dear Sri Anil

Quote from Sri Anil  " But even this so called little "we" are never apart from our Source, the Self. Absolute Truth is that we are never really separated from the Self "

The question at the moment for me - and I think this is primarily a question of what is the best (temporary before abandonment) understanding for the mind, though you may think this goes deeper -  is why we talk at all  about little "we" in terms of reflections, modifications, substratum etc  rather than, without doubt, know that little "we" is a complete illusion and completely nothing. We cannot (re) modify (back) little "we" because it has never had any Reality; there is no "genealogy" so to speak.  It is "zero" - as Sri Ranjit Maharaj so often said.

Would this have any implications for the "task" ?   If we want or require something then an object is required. But there are no objects. Can we not hold our attention away from any object knowing that any object is nothing; any object is "zero". Are we inquiring for an "I" when no "I" exists either. The one and only Reality being  just "That".

29

Dear Anil

On 27th June you wrote  " There is no happening in the Self. Whatever is happening is happening in our mind only ... If we take our position and are established in the Stillness... We understand irreversibly that there is no manifestation whatever. All manifestations are dream like".

I am sure it is superfluous to tell you that since your return these posts have been wonderful. I sit upright in an office chair reading the screen and often don't get very far ..they quickly still my mind. As your depth of understanding and experience of Sri Bhagwan deepens there is a freedom and boldness in the writing  ( cf the highlighting  of Dispassion).

I understand your words (edited above) as this relates to the mind. But you are also interspersing your posts with quotations from Sri Jnaneshvar.

Is he not renowned for his poetry in expressing  the Oneness of Shiva and Shakti, whilst always stressing the Oneness depicting this Unity as the Unity of  the Still and Unmanifest (Shiva) and of Movement and Manifest (Shakti) ?

I know this is on a different level of sadhana and the necessary practice of the jiva and his mind - indeed beyond all this.  (And therefore probably don't ask questions !)

But can we usefully regard Sri Bhagwan's life as Manifest and, without any doership, his life and words as Movement ?

You mention "I am that I am ". Chapter 1 verse 14  of St John's Gospel effectively  reads  " And the " I am that I am" became flesh and pitched his tent among us and we gazed on  his glory,  the glory as of the "monogenes" ** of the Father, full of grace and truth".

With so many thanks

cefnbrithdir

** generally translated (from the original  Greek) "only begotten" but perhaps more literally "born One".

30
" It is only the Pure Radiant Being who rises as the Ego in the dim light. Therefore even the ego is not apart from the Self.....  Hence , if we hold ourselves, the shadowy and phantom like ego, being unreal and non - existent, will disappear "

Dear Anil

 The Self underpins everything but surely only everything that is real. If the ego is unreal and non existent then to speak of it not being apart from the Self - with the implication of gaining the Self's "legitimacy" - is confusing.

Are we talking about the problem of where to put the focus in terms of teaching ? Much is spoken of the jiva and what is necessary for the jiva but the jiva ultimately doesn't exist  and any thought about this concept has to be dismissed. That is itself a form of Self Inquiry. Isn't this also true of whatever "I" we are talking about.

I was struck by your final sentence of your post a couple of days ago -                    "Sri Bhagwan: That Which is does not even say "I am", "

Self Inquiry gets rid of so much "baggage" compared to other teaching but could it be that  ultimately it is perhaps not so much  "enough" but "too much " ! 
 Nothing that we think about, conceive, imagine, experience is real. So give none of these things houseroom.  Just BE.
This would seem to be  even more direct teaching from Bhagavan  than "Self Inquiry"

Thank you for being- here.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5