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 - Nagaraj

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 342
The following article by Sadhu Arunachala (Major Chadwick) may be of interest to you

The Philosophy of Sri Bhagavan, the greatest of sages, can be summed up in just three words ?There is nothing.? So simple and yet so supremely difficult. ?There is nothing.. All this world that you see, this mad rush of people after money and ?existence? is just a fabricless thought. ?There is nothing.? You, as a personality, as a petty entity striving for your own selfish ends, ever seeking so-called ?Self-Realisation,? are nothing.

You are like the shadow of a leaf cast by the moonlight, intangible, unsubstantial, and in fact non-existent. And, as the shadow is a purely negative phenomenon, is in fact nothing but a shutting out of light, so is the ego and everything else (because everything follows in the train of the ego and is actually a part of it) only a shutting out of the light of the Self.

Sri Bhagavan tells us just one other thing. He says: ?Be. Just be your real Self, that?s all.?

?Certainly, it sounds all right,? you say, ?but when one tries to do it, it does not seem so easy. Has he no method??

Method! Well, what exactly do you mean by method? Sitting on the floor and concentrating on the navel? Or blowing the wind out of alternate nostrils? Or repeating some incantation one crore and eight times? No, he hasn?t got any method. All these things are no doubt good in their way and help to prepare one, but Sri Bhagavan doesn?t happen to teach them.

?Then what am I to do?? You must just BE, he says. And to be you must know the ?I that is.? To know the ?I that is,? just go on enquiring ?Who am I?? Don?t take any notice of anything except the ? I,? throw everything else away like refuse. And when you have at last found the ?I,? BE. All talk, all empty words. ?There is nothing? and that?s the end of it. No method, nothing to discard, nothing to find. Nothing at all is except the ? I.? Why worry about anything else? Just BE, now and always, as you were, as you are, and as you ever will be.

?There is nothing.? You may justly ask ?Who wants this purely negative state??

To which I can only reply: ?It is just a question of taste.? Though, note you, I have never suggested that Sri Bhagavan ever says that the ultimate state after which, it is presumed, we are all striving is negative. On the contrary, when he says: ?There is nothing,? it is obvious that he is speaking about our present egoistic existence, which for us is everything. But this being where there is nothing must obviously be a state which is something. That state is Self-realisation. Not only is it something but it is EVERYTHING, and being everything then logically and philosophically it must be PERFECT.

?If we are already perfect and there is nothing else, what need is there for us to go to Bhagavan?? you ask.

And this reminds me of a story against myself. An Australian journalist came to the Ashram, quite why he came is a mystery, I doubt if he would be able to tell himself.

Anyhow, he did come and in the course of his visit came to see me in my room. It was obvious from the first moment that I was a tremendous problem to him. Why a European should shut himself away in a place like this was beyond his comprehension. He asked many questions but none of my replies satisfied him. How could they? Especially as he had not the first idea of what the Ashram was, or what people were doing here. I didn?t even write, then what on earth did I do? At length he could contain himself no longer and bluntly asked me what I was doing here. Now here was a problem to answer. If I had tried to tell him the truth he would never have understood, that I realized, so making the best of it I just said that here I found peace of mind. I knew it was an inadequate answer but hoped it would stave off further enquiries. He looked at me seriously for a few minutes and then said pityingly: ?Oh I see, I have never been troubled in that way myself?!

All I had succeeded in doing was in confirming him in the conviction that I was insane! And was there not, after all, some ground for his belief? Here have I been spending (?wasting,? he would say) half a lifetime searching for something I already possess. I know that I possess it too, which makes matters appear worse.

?Just BE.? It sounds so easy. Well, Sri Bhagavan says it?s the easiest thing there is. I really don?t know. I suppose it all really depends on how much refuse there is inside. We?re all different anyway and perhaps some of us were handicapped at the start. It?s certain that the rubbish has to come out and the coming out process is full of surprises. All kinds of hidden vices and evil tendencies start to pop up their heads which one never suspected were there at all. But it?s all for the good. Bhagavan says they have to come out. But let them come out, not take charge. Don?t give way to them.

Those who expect Sri Bhagavan to hand them Self-realisation, as if it were some tangible thing, are surely sadly deluded. How can anybody give one what one has already got? All he can do is help one to remove the ignorance that hides it. It is like going to a lake with a cup and sitting by its side praying to it to fill the cup with water. You may sit there for a thousand years but it is certain that unless you lean forward and dip the cup into the water yourself nothing will happen. Even then you have to make certain that the cup is not already full of a lot of residue. Most cups are!

You say: ?If there is nothing, why write??

Yes, why? The whole thing can be summed up in four words: ?There is nothing, BE!? When one understands those four words one understands everything including Bhagavan

Then there is no more to say!


General Discussion / Re: The Maha-Svami and The Maharishi
« on: October 10, 2016, 10:38:09 AM »

These are various systems of medicine. In the Unani system we have sweet and soft drugs, in the Ayurveda bitter and pungent ones. Does that mean the hakim only is kind an the vaidya cruel? Whatever the patient may think, the hakim and vaidya, if open-hearted, will acknowledge the merit of each other. That was what our vaidya Maha-Swami and hakim Maharishi did. That was the secret of the mutual appreciation between the `Cruel' and the `Sweet'.

(It is also generally accepted by the Masters that when we are in the initial stages of cleansing the mind the Ayurveda of (the Karma-marga of) the Dharma Sastras is more called or, and only afterwards the Unani of Jnana Marga.)

According to my sure understanding, the orthodox interpretation the Maha-Svami gave of touching the place of burial of Maharishi's mother must have changed later on.

For nearly a decade from the early seventies I often felt an irresistible urge to visit Ramanasrama. At that time I had asked the Maha-svami about my going to what was said to be the Mother's temple there.

He said with a smile, "I think you say `what is said to be' because you have heard about my pronouncement (uttravu) on that", he continued, "That was before the Kumbhabishekam (formal consecration of the structure as a temple) was performed there quite elaborately. Among the many santi karmas (expiatory rites) in that, what was necessary in the particular matter was also carried out, perhaps without the knowledge of the people of the Asramam themselves."

Though this may appear rather scrappy to the readers, the eloquent sannidhya (divine personal radiation) of the Maha-Svami added to his verbal statement gave me, personally, the full answer. I could construe with certainty that by `what was necessary in this particular matter was carried out' he meant tat what was scripturally ordained for conferring the status of a temple to a structure that had come up in a burial ground was carried into effect. "Perhaps without the knowledge of the people of the Asramam themselves": my sure guess is that somebody on behalf of the priests to perform the Kumbhabishekam, evidently having in mind the Maha-Svami's previous stricture, had independently sought his advice before taking up the consecration and the Maha-svami must have told him to see if any rite to formally authorise a temple that had come up in a graveyard was given in the Sastras, and if found, that must be carried out in the present case. Actually finding some such, the priests must have duly fulfilled that. Not a raise any unpleasant thoughts among the asramites, the Maha Svami must have, in his abounding sympathy, advised the priests to keep this back from them.

Apart from this `sure guess', it is a fact that the Maha-Svami permitted me, who may be said to be on the side of the orthodox, to visit the place as a temple. That applies to all others of the same persuasion.

Deep within, the sweet water and tender pulp of love and compassion, but on the outside, the hard shell and the husky rind of the orthodox cannons and customs such a coconut the Acharya was. If we acknowledge that he did also partake of the dualism of the world in this Avataric semblance to humanity, we will realise that his loving heart would have undergone more pain than the `victims' of his stringent strictures - as in the present had to veto the verdict of the very person whom he respected as the perfect example of non-dual perfection. Who knows the number of times something akin to the episode of Sri Rama banishing his beloved and spotless Sita for the sake of upholding his dharmic duty happened in the life of the Acharya! The imperceptible influence of this spirit of sacrifice enhanced the unexceptional respect he elicited.

We come to the second of the reports, the ularal one.

What the whole world came to know as the unique `aspect' of the Maharishi was his total indifference to whatsoever happened to the body. Even in his teens he was thoroughly obvious of the worms and insects eating into his thighs and nates when he was absorbed in the Self in a subterranean cavern. When at the end of his life, sarcoma was perforating his arm, the world wondered at his perfect unconcern over it. But my Math friends belonged to a different world, the world of the Maha Svami's one-up manship over all other holymen! So their Maharishi sent word to their Maha-Svami about his protracted suffering, asking why it should be so. (Thank God the friends did not go to the extent of saying that the Maharishi prayed for the Maha-Svami's grace for relief) the Maha-Svami in return sent the message, "It is will known to you that the body is not you. (It was gracious of the friends to accept this!) Then what is there except keeping on to it?"

Even as I heard it, it struck me as stark absurd. But when I saw even knowledgeable people believing in it, I took the matter t the Maha-Svami's ears.

And he just dismissed it as ularal.

He went on, brimming with his admiration for the Maharishi. "We have read in the books about the Atma Nishthas (those absorbed in the Self), Braha-Jnanis (knowers of Brahman) and Jivan-Muktas (those liberated even while living in the body), to whom the existence and extinction of the body made no difference and who, fully one (with the Self) did not have an inkling of desire to see or hear anything. Ramana Rishi was among the few extra-ordinary (apurva) persons of the recent times who have demonstrated all that as true. He is the one who has brought, for the world to see, the hoary Jnani-tradition down to the present day."

"Authentic saint?" I said, partly in the affirmative, partly as a question.

"And a jnani at that. Authentic jnani" he amended.

(Many, perhaps most, of the saints do not have the non-dual realisation of the jnani.)

On another occasion the Maha-Svami said that it was a matter of pride for us (of Tamilnadu) that such one as Ramana Rishi lived among us in the present (degenerate) day. This was in private.

But there was a public occasion when he lauded the Maharishi's spiritual power in a moving way in his staggering humility. That was at the farewell gathering at the end of his eighteen-month-long stay in Madras, from Sep. 1957 to March 1959. He said that though he moved from place to place and lived in the midst of the people them back to the sastraic way of life. In contrast, he cited the Maharishi and Sri Aurobindo who did not move out of their asramas and yet drew even foreigners to their respective paths.

But there is a world of difference here. Whereas the Maha-Svami's path of the Dharma Sastras is for the world at large, the Maharishi's Jnana and Sri Aurobindo's Yoga are only for the little minority with the required competence and inclination. Such people also have the antenna to discover their master even if they live in the distant corner of the world, and also the diligence to steadfastly follow the master's path to the end. But the masses are very hard to reclaim, and the more so, to a path to which they are not attracted by native choice.

Though in his humility Maha-Svami under-rated his influence, we must underscore the fact that he too had turned many a mod and agnostic to the sastraic path, sometimes even in a instant. Not only that. He has turned many to the paths of Jnana and Yoga too. Especially in the last decades of his life his influence spread the world over and drew considerable number of foreigners to the paths of Jnana and Yoga, which included the initiates of Paul Brunton himself.

It did not end up with the mutual esteem each had for the other. Higher above each has unmistakably indicated his very identify with the other.

Smt. Kanakamma was born in a family deeply attached to the Kanchi Math and its Acharya. But she took to the Maharishi with fervour. Her relatives were against it. Her grand-mother took her to the Acharya, made the complaint and petitioned to him to wean her from the Maharishi and take her into his fold.

Pat, yet soft, came his reply: "What if it is here or there?'

The judgement from their very Court silenced the members of the family.

We saw before the Maharishi saying that the different prescriptions were due only to the two places and not to the two persons. Even there, the perceptive reader would have heard in undertone a hint to the non-difference between the two persons. Now, when the Maha-Svami referred by `here' and `there' not the two places, but the two persons, we have a more audible indication of their non-differences. We are blessed to have a more explicit expression of this identity from the lips of the Maharishi. I quote from Sri. G.V. Subbaramayya*:

Jagadguru Sri Sankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham was now (end of Oct. 1947) camping near Tiruvannamalai. Someone asked whether His Holiness and Sri Bhagavan ever met. Sri Bhagavan replied:

"When were we separate that we should not meet? We are always together."

Actually, `togetherness' was only `oneness to that Advaita Jnani.

Their unity in the sublimity of Advaita may be out of our comprehension. Both are identical in their utter simplicity born of that very sublimity. Her we can certainly understand, admire and adore the oneness of the Maha-Svami and the Maharishi and exclaim "O sancta simplicitas ! (O holy simplicity!)"


General Discussion / The Maha-Svami and The Maharishi
« on: October 10, 2016, 10:34:59 AM »
The Maha-Svami and The Maharishi

Ra. Ganapati

Two reports I heard from the servitors of the Maha-Svami relating him to Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharishi I could myself easily attribute to their creative artistry in elevating their own Master over every other holy man. Yet I wanted to get confirmation from His Holiness himself for certain reasons.

The Maha-Svami, ever bubbling with wit and witticism had a unique way of saying things. He said he did not want to give the same judgment on both reports and so would call one of them as pettal (colloquial for pitatral) and the other as ularal. The fun of it si that both the words mean the same, viz., talking nonsense!

To come to the two reports. One of them was that when the Maha-Svami was circumambulating the Holy Hill during his camp at Tiruvannamalai, Sri Ramana Maharishi purposely came out of his living room in the Ramana-Asrama and walked to a particular spot from where he could see the Maha-Svami at a distance.

Even as I heard it I could write it off, because Maharishi was to me surely one to whom the triad of the seer, seen and sight had dissolved in the oneness of the only Self. (So it was to His Holiness. But he donned the role of the Teacher exemplifying the ideal to the humans, and therefore was ever on the move to see people and holy places.)

Decades back, a lad of sixteen, the Maharishi fled home to Tirvannamalai, afire with the raging ardor to see the Fire-Linga of lord Arunachalesvara. He took darsan, just one darsan, and with that the very idea of an object to be seen apart from the self was burnt out! Though he lived in the very temple precincts for the next five or six months, he did not visit the sanctum sanctorum again. To assert that, contrary to what the Asrama sources say, he did come out to see that Maha-Svami is, as the Svami himself said, nothing but pettal (nonsense).

Our Acharya Maha-Svami visited Tiruvannamalai twice, once in 1929 and again in 1944, both for the Kartika Deepam festival (when the holy beacon is lighted atop the Hill). On both the occasions he also made the customary Giri-pradakshinam (circumambulation of the Hill). The Ramanasraman lies on the route. I have heard reports from two very reliable and respected persons attached to the Asramam, Sri Kunju Svamigal and Mme. Suri Nagmma about what transpired when the Maha-Svami passed along the route. Kunju Svami must have been present on both the occasions and Nagamma on the latter one.

Bhagavan had already prepared the asramites not to take it amiss if the Acharya did not enter into the Asramam and see him; because, according to one tradition, one in the Jagadguru Peetham (Seat of the World-teacher) must not call on another holy man on his own. As for himself, though he did not say it, he would not extend an invitation to anyone for the simple reason that he did not have any desire or need to see any body, anything. As for the asramites, they could, if they so wished, gather outside and have darsan of the Acharya as he moved along.

And most of them did.

The asramites had great respect for the Acharya, especially by the forties, because it was he who almost compelled Paul Brunton the Maharishi's feet, and it was Brunton's soulful account of the Maharishi that threw open the window of the West of the light of the Illumined Master. The book clearly shows that the Acharya considered the Maharishi as "a high master" who can give "initiation into the real yoga of the higher kind".

In one of his discourses in Madras in the early thirties, the Acharya had raked the Maharishi, whom he referred to as Ramana Svamigal, among the jivan-muktas (liberated even while living in a body). The asramites were naturally happy that the respected head of a Sankara Math, uncompromising in such matters, gave such praise to the Maharishi in public.

On both the occasions of his visit to Tiruvanna malai, the Acharya turned his eyes towards the entrance of the Asrama, stopped for a few seconds looking round and continued to walk, a still picture in motion!

Reminiscing the second visit Nagamma said, while all the other asramites went out and waited at the gate for His Holiness, she alone was left with the Maharishi.

"Why have you not joined them?" he asked her.

"Because the Svami does not see Brahmin widows who have not shaved their heads", Nagamma replied.

Though mature and tolerant not to denounce the orthodox custom, she felt a tinge of sadness.

The Maharishi just nodded his head and looked at her with compassion, The compassion assuaged her sadness. The simple nod too conveyed a lot to the discerning disciple. It signified the Maharishi's acceptance of both the Acharya's adherence to the institutional customs, and Nagamma's wisdom in not following the other such windows who used to peep at the Acharya from a hidden place.

Here comes something antipodal between the Maha-Svami and the Maharishi. the former stood foremost in strictly observing all the distinction laid out by the Dharma sastras and orthodox traditions, whereas the latter stood foremost in practicing equality. Even to merit the glance of the Maha-Svami one had to fulfil conditions; a millionaires Brahmin widow was disqualified if she was not tonsured! On the other hand, even an untouchable beggar could sit right by the side of the Maharishi and eat along with him. Nay, if he so felt, there was no restriction to his feeding the Maharishi from out of the alms in his begging bowl! How rude, crude and cruel does the one appear and how suave, soft and sweet the other? How is it that the Sweet gives his nod of approval to the Cruel?

If the Sweet cannot appreciate the Cruel, equally true is the vice versa. But whereas the Sweet's appreciation of the Cruel came out in `just nodding,' the Cruel's appreciation of the Sweet came out in a verbal flow. That was in the public discourse given by the Maha-Svami the very night. To quote Nagamma, "The Swami spoke at great length saying that every head of a religious organisation has to observe established traditions while one who is an Athyasramite (one transcending the four stages of life prescribed by the Dharma Sastras) has no such inhibitions... (To) attain that state is very difficult and that had been possible only for a great soul like Ramana Maharishi."

The devotees of the Maharishi exulted at this unstinted tribute the Acharya paid to their Master in their home-town.

But close on it wake the Acharya gave a rude shock to them. They felt that he had dealt a direct blow on what they held in worshipful respect in the Asrama, viz., the temple over the spot where the body of the mother of the Maharishi was buried. When she passed away, the Maharishi favoured the idea of putting up such a structure because in his view (which was not just a view, but perception of truth) she was a Sannyasini who attained the Jnani's liberation of Oneness. Vedic priests offered their chants and ritualistic services at the temple as they did in any other `regular' temple. But, to their dismay when they went after one such service there to participate in the evening Puja at the Acharya's Math, they were asked to enter only after taking a purificatory bath. Because, first of all opinion was divided among the orthodoxy on first of all, opinion was divided among the orthodoxy on the very question of the eligibility of women for sannyasa; and even if that was accepted, the mother of Maharishi was not initiated to that order in the formal, scriptural way. So the place of her burial was just a grave-yard (which pollutes the entrants).

The directive of the Acharya to the priests struck the asramites as a bigoted, book-learnt judgement over the intuitive judgment of their enlightened master. As most of the priests were also devoted to the Maharishi, they were deeply perturbed when the Pontiff, who was the bulwark of the priestly tradition in the changing world, pronounced the stricture.

Early next morning the asramites and priests went to the Maharishi. In spite of the asramites' efforts to restrain themselves before their august Master, they could not keep their tempers. They complained about what all `that Svami' was doing with his differentiating outlook in contrast to what `this Bhagavan' was doing in his all-embracing outlook. "The priests want to give a reply to him. (They actually wanted to teach him a lesson!) Bhagavan should give the reply."

As ever unruffled, the Maharishi heard it all and in his stately composure gave his judgement on the judgement of the Svami on his previous judgment. It was Neutrality itself that spoke!

"Why say that person, this person? Say there, here. That is the correct expression. Viewed so, what all has happened will also be understood as correct. (For the benefit of the Tamil-knowing readers, let me give the original simple, concise and powerful words of the Maharishi as faithfully conveyed by Sri Kunju Svami: That is an orthodox Peetham, and this an independent ashram. Who ever is here would be like this. So long as that svami is the head of that Peetham he must only follow (more precisely, `demonstrate', because the Maharishi said not the ways and rules of the Peetham. He had therefore issued that directive.

"Why reply? Then there will be a counter to it, a counter to the counter and it will go on like that. (Looking at the asramites) Let us carry on in our way silently here, come. The others may withdraw. let not anybody raise questions and arguments."

Is it not clear that Maharishi considered the Maha-svami to be a Brahma-jnani in reality who was just `demonstrating' certain ways because he happened to be in a certain place! The Brahma-jnani alone can take the colour of any surroundings. Chameleon-like? But the chameleon does that to save itself; the jnani, to save the surrounding! The particular surrounding of our Brahma-jnani conferred on him the uniqueness of being the only Maha-Purusha of the recent times to apparently bind his state of unbound freedom with shackles of the strictest codes of the orthodox tradition. Much in it would be rude, crude and cruel in the eyes of the changing free world. But in Nature's order freedom too must be balanced by discipline, which is another name for restraint. When almost the whole world plumbed in for freedom and its consequent break from the past to its rude, crude and cruel extreme, it was as though Nature threw up the Single Entity on the Acharya to counter balance it by his total adherence to the past tradition in its extreme form. Though noble motives and ideals are not lacking n the Modern Movements, in actually it has only `helped its adherents in self-pampering in various ways. In contrast, however base orthodoxy appeared to be, people saw with open eyes in its Ace-adherent the living example of self-paupering. They realised that he was more `cruel' in his self-denial than in denying them the many rights they clamoured for. It was the power of this self-abnegation, added to that of his unbounded love deep within, which knew no differentiation, that gained universal respect for him.

But human nature being what it is, respect gives way to remonstration when personally picked. That happened with the Ramana-asramites too. But the Maharishi, who had no person to be pricked, dissolved it by counseling sympathetic acceptance.


General Discussion / Re: Advice needed on Mantra Diksha via Dream
« on: October 04, 2016, 09:26:42 AM »
Dear devnithiavel,

To progress in spiritual sadhana, we all need Bhakti, Jnana and Vairagya all together. One without any of the other would never always be complete. Bhakti without Jnana and Vairagya and Jnana without Bhakti and Vairagya and Vairagya without Jnana and Bhakti - all of these would never be complete and would most often lead us to some sort of incompleteness always.

Just Blind Bhakti alone would do us no good. It has to be coupled with right reasoning and understanding the Tatva - Essence of what is being worshiped. When Bhakti Becomes coupled with Jnana and Vairagya, it becomes Upasana.

I would like to share with you the following link, which describes the story of Bhakti Mata which appears in the Bhagawata Mahatmyam from the Padma Purana. This story very beautifully captures how each one of us need to foster in ourselves the qualities of Bhakti Jnana and Vairagya. Only when all of these are in proper synchronization would the grace of the Antaryami the Sarvavyapi the Lord Shanmukha, The Guru-Guha (the cave Dweller within is the Guru) would reveal to us his real form and all that is to be known and knowing which all else becomes known.

Chapters 1, 2 and 3 :

It is slightly big article. But please do spend some qualitative time over the article and ponder over it, I am sure you would be blessed abundantly by your Atma Guru Murugan and his brother Ayappan.

General Discussion / Re: Advice needed on Mantra Diksha via Dream
« on: September 30, 2016, 12:18:11 PM »
Dear devnithiavel,

Welcome to the forum, by what you have expressed, it appears that you have been asking for advise for over 11 years now, and are still continuing the same, and you have mentioned that you have been unable to carry on with the Japam for not more than 10 days in continuity and it appears that you have not been able to take up one advise and carry forward with absolute faith and discipline. I am afraid, your asking for advises from various people will do you no good, if you yourself have no strict discipline and conviction. Sometimes, if we keep asking for advises, the sanctity of advise received would get diminished having no value or respect for the advise and the person as well.

Either you trust your own intelligence and come to logical conclusion and go through the repercussions of your own decisions or take up the advise of the wise person, and keep up your word and follow up the advise to the end no matter what happens.

I understand, my response may be slightly unexpected, but there definitely appears lack of clarity on your side.

In our tradition, especially in matters of spirituality, we don't go about window shopping for advise from various persons, and if some advise is not in our liking, we do not just move on.

In Gita, there is a beautiful verse -

tad viddhi pranipatena
pariprasnena sevaya
upadeksyanti te jnanam
jnaninas tattva-darsinah

If you intend to ask somebody for some advise, you just cant ask them as though some wordly question, first we should be clear enough whom you want to ask for advise, he should be learned and respect worthy spiritually by learned people. To him, you go and approach reverentially by by completely submitting yourself fully, by thought word and deed and by way of your body - to be ready to render what ever service may be required of you, and very submissively waiting for the right time and moment and place and when you lay your question or query to Him, in such an auspicious situation, what ever response comes of Him ought be carried over irrespective of any repercussions.

(1) It is not enough merely to prostrate before the Jnanis. We must make Sarvaswa Sharangati (complete surrender) to the Sad-guru.

(2) Mere questioning is not enough. The question must not be made with any improper motive or attitude or to trap the Guru and catch at mistakes in the answer, or out of idle curiosity. It must be serious and with a view to achieve moksha or spiritual progress.

(3) Seva is not rendering service, retaining still the feeling that one is free to offer or refuse service. One must feel that he is not the master of the body, that the body is Guru's and exists merely to render service to him.
- (from Sai Chat Charitra)

May the Lord's blessings be onto you, and guide you with right wisdom forward.


General Discussion / Re: my musings
« on: September 07, 2016, 08:54:14 PM »
Stray thoughts...

Sometimes, jnana or realisation may not just result by meditation or any other spiritual practices, it can only be realised in the very precarious situation or station of our lives where we are placed currently.


General Discussion / Re: my musings
« on: September 07, 2016, 08:46:13 PM »
Stray thoughts...

By simply being, (as what Bhagawan says) abundant love is generated to the universe!

Simply being is to be at absolute peace with oneself. Being absolute peace with oneself is love - Ananda.


General Discussion / Re: my musings
« on: September 07, 2016, 08:42:33 PM »
Stray thoughts...

Love is the greatest healer! Nothing heals more than love. Infact, the greatest take-away from Bhagawan and Ramakrishna was only their love. Jnana-stuffs were only secondary.

For all the 3 maladies i.e.

Adyatmika, Adibhautika and Adidaivika,

Love heals very quickly.

Healing itself is Jnana.


General Discussion / Re: my musings
« on: September 07, 2016, 08:35:28 PM »
Stray thoughts...

Sometimes, all that one needs is just love and all that one needs to get is just love and all that is to know is just love! Nothing heals more than an unconditional pure love. Jnana need not just be the Self alone. Sometimes it needs to be realised as love, it can never be realised as Self.

Some times we need not even realise the Self. Sometimes one just needs to love. This itself is realisation!


General Discussion / Re: Gems from Samskrutam
« on: September 07, 2016, 07:18:28 PM »
मात्रास्पर्शास्तु कौन्तेय शीत्ऽओष्णसुखदुःखदाः ।
आगम्ऽआपायिनोऽनित्यास्तांस्तितिक्षस्व भारत ॥

mAtrAsparSAstu kaunteya SItoshNa-sukhaduHkha-dAH |
AgamApAyino 'nityAs tAMs titikshasva bhArata || 2. 14 ||

mAtrAsparSAH - in this context, sense organs and contact with the objectsof these organs
tu - particle, added for emphasis, anticipating a question
kaunteya, bhArata - son of Kunti, descendent of bharata, both words refer to Arjuna here (to each one of us - Nagaraj)
SIta - cold
ushNa - heat
sukha - joy, happiness
duHkha - sorrow
SIta...dAH - things that give rise to cold etc.
AgamApAyinaH - things that come and go
anityAH - temporary, ephemeral
tAn - them
titikshasva - endure, pay no heed.

The contact of sense organs with their objects gives rise to cold and heat, happiness and sorrow, O son of Kunti. These come and go, they are temporary. Endure them out!

(Gita - 2.14)

General Discussion / Re: my musings
« on: September 07, 2016, 05:40:46 PM »
Stray thoughts...

Though the cow is full of milk, ever ready to give away all its milk, it cannot itself give milk to the calf. It is upto the calf to reach out to the cow and drink milk. So too, a seeker, has to milk the ambrosia of Truth-milk from the Guru.

सर्वोपनिषदो गाव: दोग्धा गोपालनंदन: |
पार्थो वत्स: सुधी: भोक्ता दुग्धं गीतामॄतं महत् ||
All Upanishads are (like)cows, Gopala nandana (Shrikrishna) is their keeper. Intelligent Partha (Arjuna) is the calf who enjoys the milk and splendid GeetAmRit is the milk of these cows. (Geeta is the precise summary of all Upanishadas.)


Arunachala / Re: Just a ordinary hill or a mountain!!
« on: September 06, 2016, 07:55:00 PM »
Wish you all the best Vinod.

I found another ibstance by chance.
 Given below

As a European Countess was leaving for Europe tonight she requested him to bless her and her family. M.:  You  do  not  go  anywhere  away  from  the  Presence  as  you  imagine. The  Presence  is  everywhere.  The  body  moves  from  place  to  place; yet  it  does  not  leave  the  one Presence.  So no one can be out of sight of  the  Supreme  Presence.  Since  you  identify  one  body  with  Sri Bhagavan  and  another  body  with  yourself,  you  find  two  separate entities  and  speak  of  going  away  from  here.  Wherever  you  may be, you cannot leave ME. To  illustrate  it:  The  pictures  move  on  the  screen  in  a  cinema  show; but  does  the  screen  itself  move?  No.  The  Presence  is  the  screen: you,  I,  and  others  are  the  pictures.  The  individuals  may  move  but not the Self.

General Discussion / Re: Gems from Samskrutam
« on: September 05, 2016, 06:20:26 AM »
श्रमापनोदनक्षमं समाहितान्तरात्मनां
सुमादिभिः सदार्चितं क्षमानिधिं गणाधिपम् ।
रमाधवादिपूजितं यमान्तकात्मसम्भवं
शमादिषड्गुणप्रदं नमाम्यहं विभूतये ॥५॥

I worship the lord Ganadhipa, who removes the hardship of the people who constantly meditate upon the Supreme Self, who is worshipped always with fragrant flowers, who is the abode of tolerance, who is worshipped by the spouse of goddess Lakshmi and others, who is the son of Siva, who is the destroyer of evan Yama and who helps us inculcate the virtues like Sama (control of mind) Dama (control of senses) Uparama, (renunciation) Titiksa (the capacity to withstand the hardships) Sraddha (faith in the Vedanta and in the words of the preceptor) and Samadhana (fixing the mind in abstract contemplation on the true nature of the spirit).

Sacchidananda Sivabhinava Narasimha Bharati Swamiji, Sringeri

General Discussion / Re: my musings
« on: September 05, 2016, 12:15:29 AM »
Stray thoughts...

On death -

Say you dream yourself travelling from one place to another, talk chit chat with somebody, and some such other activities...

Then its time and you wake up from your dream!

What happened to you in dream? You died there!

That is all death too! You die there tto wake up here! We will die here to wake up elsewhere!

When we look closely, its not exciting right?

The Rishis claim realise the Self and transcend this dream of birth and death! Anyone is free to do so!


General Discussion / Re: my musings
« on: September 05, 2016, 12:04:25 AM »
Stray thoughts...

If not for the occassional stumbling blocks of our life, we will keep taking our lives to be real! Difficulties, mistakes, problems, deatha keep reminding us the illusory nature of this life and world!

Each of these stumbling blocks open a window towards the truth, giving us an opportunity to see the truth as it is!


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 342