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 ... 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 [261] 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 ... 342
3901
The teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi / Re: Sat-chit-ananda
« on: October 24, 2011, 12:50:16 PM »
"Vishnu" means that which is all pervading, Shiva means that which is Auspiciousness, and Brahma means, Brahman, the Self. Therefore, When we say Vishnu, Shiva or Brahma, they really signify the Atman and not really their forms. The Self is Vishnu (All Pervading) is Shiva (full of Auspiciousness) and Brahma (Itself) Self (yourself)

AS Jnaneshwar points out, If we say merely that It is Existence, we leave out mention of the fact that It is Consciousness; if we refer to It merely as Consciousness, we leave out mention of the fact that It is pure satisfaction, or Bliss; and so on. But his purpose here is to explain that these three designations are merely hints, and are really inadequate, as all words are, to accurately describe the experience of the Absolute, of Brahman. “Whatever may be said about Him,” says Jnaneshvar, “He is not that.”

Such words as “Consciousness,” “Existence,” “Bliss,” suggest to us those states which are the opposite of “unconsciousness,” “nonexistence,” and “unhappiness.” This is the limitation of all language; it is based upon the dualism of contraries which we experience in the world. But the Absolute Reality is beyond all contraries, and cannot be expressed in language. We can only say, “not this, not that.”

Moreover, Here, it is not an experience, as it itself is the experience and the experiencer as well. To see the Sun do we need another lamp? To know "I am man" do we need some attribute? we know it inherently.

This inherent knowing is described as Sat Chit Ananda. This inherent knowing is continues without any breaks (Sat) and it is Self known, Like we know that I am man, we don't need anything else to know I am man, we are consciousness, which is conscious of itself (Chit), and it is beyond doubt that this is Bliss, Ananda, our true Nature.

Sat Chit Ananda attempts to describe that "state" of Brahman. It states that, that 'State' is continuesly consciously blissful. There are no gap times here in this state to pause for a moment to see how the experience is for the experience itself is experiencer.

26. Whatever may be said about Him−
He is not that.
It is not possible to speak about His real nature,
Just as it is impossible
For one to measure himself
By taking the measurement of his shadow.

27. For, when the measurer
Becomes conscious of himself,
He feels ashamed,
And give us trying to measure himself
By his shadow.

28. Of course, what exists cannot be said not to exist;
But can such existence be called“Existence”?

29. Can what has become conscious
By destroying unconsciousness
Truly be called “Consciousness”?

Salutations to Bhagavan

3902
The teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi / Re: Sat-chit-ananda
« on: October 24, 2011, 12:09:01 PM »
Dear ramana1359

When we say, "Gold Jewelry" is the gold and Jewelry different?

When we say " Sugar Candy" is the sugar and candy different?

Jnaneshwar in his Amritanubhava has exclusively written about this very topic. Please read as below, I gathered some 10 verses, there are many more:

In Chapter Five, Jnaneshvar begins with a clarification of the ageold designation of Brahman (the Absolute) as Satchidananda, a composite Sanskrit word made up of Sat (“Existence”or“Being”),Chit (“Consciousness”) and Ananda (“Bliss”). It is a useful designation, as Jnaneshvar points out, because it includes in one word three separate aspects, or attributes, of the One. If we say merely that It is Existence, we leave out mention of the fact that It is Consciousness; if we refer to It merely as Consciousness, we leave out mention of the fact that It is pure satisfaction, or Bliss; and so on. But his purpose here is to explain that these three designations are merely hints, and are really inadequate, as all words are, to accurately describe the experience of the Absolute, of Brahman. “Whatever may be said about Him,” says Jnaneshvar, “He is not that.”Such words as “Consciousness,” “Existence,” “Bliss,” suggest to us those states which are the opposite of “unconsciousness,” “nonexistence,” and “unhappiness.” This is the limitation of all language; it is based upon the dualism of contraries which we experience in the world. But the Absolute Reality is beyond all contraries, and cannot be expressed in language. We can only say, “not this, not that.” Finally, in the last few verses, Jnaneshvar acknowledges that all his wordy outpourings are of no use in affecting anything at all; even such terms as “bondage” and “liberation” have no meaning in regard to the Self, Who remains always in the same state of Freedom. Nothing, therefore, is to be accomplished by all his lengthy explanations. The fact is, it is all for his own pleasure and delight in expounding the Truth.

CHAPTER FIVE:
EXISTENCE, CONSCIOUSNESS, BLISS


1. These three attributes, Sat, Chit, and Ananda
(Existence, Consciousness, and Bliss),
Do not actually define Brahman.
A poison is poison to others,
But not to itself.

2. Shininess, hardness, and yellowness,
Together signify gold.
Stickiness, sweetness, and viscosity,
Together signify honey.

3. Whiteness, fragrance, and softness,
Are not three separate things;
But only camphor.

4. Camphor is white;
Not only that, it is soft.
And not only that, it is fragrant as well.

5. Just as these three qualities signify
One object  camphor, and not three objects;
So the three qualities,
Sat, Chit, and Ananda,
Are contained in one reality.
6. It is true that the words,
“Sat,” “Chit,” and “Ananda,”
Are different;
But the three are united in one Bliss.

7. Sat is Ananda and Chit
Or is it that Chit is Sat and Ananda?
They cannot be separated;
Just as sweetness cannot be separated from
honey.

8. The moon in the sky appears to pass through
Increasing stages of fullness,
But the moon is always the same;
It is always full.

9. When water is falling in drops,
We can count them;
But when the water is gathered
In a puddle on the ground,
It is impossible to count the number of drops.

10. In the same way,
The scriptures describe Reality
As Sat, or Existence,
In order to negate Its non-existence.
They call It Chit, or Consciousness,
In order to negate Its unconsciousness.

There are more verses, I could post them too, if you desire

Salutations to Bhagavan

3903
General topics / Characteristics of Brahman
« on: October 24, 2011, 11:31:09 AM »

~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~
~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~
~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~




अस्ति भाति प्रियं रूपं नामचेत्यंशपञ्चकम् ।
आद्यात्रयं ब्रह्मरूपं जगद्रूपं ततो द्वयम् ॥ (20)


Every entity has five characteristics,
viz., existene, cognizability, attractiveness,
form and name. Of these, the first three
belong to Brahman and the next two to the world (20)






~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~
~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~
~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~~~*~~


(Drik Drishya Viveka)

Salutations to Bhagavan

3904
General topics / What we desire that we become
« on: October 23, 2011, 06:20:36 PM »
काममया एवायं पुरुष इति
सा यथाकामो भवति तत्क्रतुर भवति
यात्क्रतुर भवति तत कर्म कुरुते
यत कर्म कुरुते तद अभिसम पद्यते


Kaama maya evayam purusha iti
Sa Yatha kaamo bhavati tat kratur bhavati
Yat kratur bhavati tat karma kurute
Yat karma kurte tad abhisam padyate

You are what your deep, driving desire is
As your desire is, so is your will
As your will is, so is your deed
As your deed is, so is your destiny

      Sage Yajnavalkya

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

Salutations to Bhagavan

3905
General topics / Re: Bodhidharma
« on: October 23, 2011, 05:30:31 PM »
:)

3906
Humour / Nothing lasts forever
« on: October 23, 2011, 01:04:11 PM »


:)

Salutations to Bhagavan

3907
The teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi / The self or reality
« on: October 23, 2011, 12:10:54 PM »
“The habits of the mind (vasanas) hinder the realisation
of the Self, and in order to overcome the vasanas we
have to realise the Self. Is this not a vicious circle?”
The Master: “It is the ego which raises these difficulties
and then complains of an apparent paradox. Find out
who is making the enquiries and the Self will be found.
“The Self is ever present; there exists nothing without it.
It is the witness of the three states: the sleep, dream and
waking, which belong to the ego. The Self transcends the
ego. Did you not exist even in sleep? It is only in the
waking state that you describe the experience of sleep as
being unawareness: therefore the consciousness when
asleep is the same as that when awake. If you know what
this waking consciousness is, you will know the consciousness
which witnesses all the three states. Such
consciousness could be found by seeking the consciousness
as it was in sleep.”

Salutations to Bhagavan

3908
General topics / Re: Bodhidharma
« on: October 23, 2011, 11:18:24 AM »
The essence of what I have been trying to convey is clearly articulated here:

http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.com/2008/06/attend-to-what-you-came-here-for.html

have nothing more to convey



:)

Salutations to Bhagavan

3909
General topics / Re: Bodhidharma
« on: October 22, 2011, 09:09:29 PM »
Dear Prashant ji,

i am Happy if you have not criticized Buddha. Your quote of Swami Vivekananda itself speaks everything -

Quote
but they are to be judged by their virtues, never by their defects.


and moreover, we are nobody to spot their defects!

Self is happy, Everybody is happy. Happiness prevails!

You have quoted an excellent quote of Buddha

Quote
"Believe not because an old book is produced as an authority. Believe not because your father said [you should] believe the same. Believe not because other people like you believe it. Test everything, try everything, and then believe it, and if you find it for the good of many, give it to all."

It does not matter if we don't understand the doctrine! There is somebody out there who does understand the doctrine and it is the Gita for that person. Hence, we ought to give that respect and "Sthanam" position for Buddha, Jesus, Allah, who ever it is!

In Mahabharatha, there is a parable which stands testimony to Yudhishtra’s  inherent greatness when compared with Duriyodhana. One day Duriyodhana is summoned and asked to bring one good man from the earth. In the evening a disillusioned Duriyodhana returns, grumbling about how there isn’t one decent man left on the face of the earth. The very same day, Yudhishtra returns, shaking his head in utter dismay, genuinely unable to spot ONE BAD man, on which endeavour he was sent!! Each saw in the world what he found himself to be. Much as Duriyodana tried to rule the kingdom and prove his supremacy, it is proven beyond doubt that he must have been a tormented man, unhappy with himself on the core level. While Yudhishtra was intrinsically happy and contented even when he was in the forest, divested of the kingdom and the honours of a princely life!

We have to be like Yudhishtra as in the above. We should excel so much so as to be unable to spot any defects even mentally! Such should be our purity. This is Brahmacharyam, Celebacy!

To clarify further on the topic of Buddha on his views on Soul, Self -

When the Buddhist says there is nothing, only Sunyata. No Soul, No Self, No Realisation, a vedantist would argue by going one more step further and ask, after all who watches the emptiness, Sunyata, Nothingness. Unless the Self is, how the result can be spoken of? Therefore Self is!

Here, even the Vedantist view may be arguably very sound and valid but in the end it is but only a thought!

What is, is only Silence, Mauna, silence of Dakshinamurthy. As mentioned, even the Vedantist view is only illusion of mind. Both are incorrect!

Is it not like saying "I am silent" after taking the owe of Silence? that silence is broken that very moment! There is no need to affirm that silence.

(Talks 273)
(Talks 273)
D.: Buddha, when asked if there is the ego, was silent; when asked if there is no ego, he was silent; asked if there is God, he was silent; asked if there is no God, he was silent. Silence was his answer for all these........
M.: You are right.

If Buddha had replied then it would have become false. Any answers such as "yes" "no" "neither" all would defeat that "Mauna", "Silence" which is the truth.

Even to say that who witnessed all these? the Self witnessed is also a vritti. This Silence is the "Naan Udiyaadulla Nilali" Non emergence of I

Shankara said that for just giving Jnana to the blind seekers by asking as to how did you get to know that it was sunyata? it was because Self was there! A requirement arose there to convey that Silence is not mute, not pause, it is full of Life. Like Buddha's reponse of Silence to the questions (as above)

If we look deeper and discern further, Mauna alone is the Truth, words such as "Self", "Sunyata" are all only thoughts of the mind's . To say it as Sunyata or Self or Advaita or Brahman, Atman also is false. That Mauna alone is the truth. Only this Mauna alone is "Naan Udiyaadulla Nilai" non emergence of I

One who has seen the Truth will never say "Aham Brahmasmi" There is no need. So in that way, all those who say, Sunyata or Brahman, both are false.

Now what can we say?

Anyway Prashant, this whole thing is not intended a debate. We are all here to go up further beyond all dvandas dualities. It is our foremost duty to not get caught in these small matters of Sunyata and Self. Both are unreal in the Truth!

These are all mere words.

The Spirit is more important. The Essence is more important. I am sure, you have yourself observed here as well as outside how people blindly criticise Buddha in matters of Tatva Tarka or debates. We now know that it is all the play of mind.

Nakeerar a great tamil pulavar, said to Lord Shiva -

"Netri Kann Thiraippinum Kutram Kutrame" which means even if you open your third eye and spit fire a mistake is a mistake.

Therefore, in the spirit of Vedas, and in the spirit of what Buddha said

Quote
"Believe not because an old book is produced as an authority. Believe not because your father said [you should] believe the same. Believe not because other people like you believe it. Test everything, try everything, and then believe it, and if you find it for the good of many, give it to all."

doesn't matter, even if it is Swamy Vivekananda Himself or some prominent personality talks negative about somebody, we should not take it!

Prashant ji, it is not even a matter of my personal feelings. It is simple discernment. All Goodness is Self and All negativeness is Non Self. Why talk negativity? when there are so much good things to talk about?

Thus says the great Shubhashita -

प्रियवाक्यप्रदानेन सर्वे तुष्यन्ति जन्तवः।
तस्मात्तदेव वक्तव्यं वचने का दरिद्रता॥

All living creatures love listening sweet words!
So in that case, why poverty of sweet words?

Salutations to Bhagavan

3910
The teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi / Re: Gods
« on: October 22, 2011, 06:47:03 PM »
A very common and popular example -



Salutations to Bhagavan

3911
The teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi / Re: Gods
« on: October 22, 2011, 06:27:01 PM »
Forms (of God) actually are the "Bhashyam" or Commentary on the "Formless"

Typically all forms of God have Abhaya Hasta meaning Protection, and in the form of giving Vara, meaning bestow-er of all Happiness, additionally have a weapon, meaning destroyer of irgnorance, avidya(As the case of the God may be, Lakshmi, Aishwarya, Brahma has books, Saraswati has books, etc...) and a lotus in another hand signifying untouched, unmoved, Achala which is the nature of the Self. It basically represents the "Self" knowing which itself is all protector and bestow-er of all happiness.

It indicates - "Know me" and realise Self. So when we pray, we pray for that Self, knowing that God, is knowing Self which is "Bliss" which is knowing and being Atman.

Like this every form of Gods and Mudras have essence hidden in them which are the Bhashyam or commentaries of the Self or Atman



Salutations to Bhagavan

3912
General topics / Self remains untouched
« on: October 22, 2011, 12:38:26 PM »
Though the shadows on the wall are ever-changing,
The wall itself remains steady and immobile.
Likewise, the forms of the universe take shape
Upon the one eternal and unchanging Consciousness.
(Jnaneshwar, 13, Changadev Pasashti)



The soul remains alwaysuncontaminated. It is the substratum
running through all these three states. Wakefulness passes off, I am;
the dream state passes off, I am; the sleep state passes off, I am.
They repeat themselves, and yet I am. They are like pictures moving
on the screen in a cinema show. They do not affect the screen.
Similarly also, I remain unaffected although these states pass off.
 - Bhagavan


Salutations to Bhagavan

3913
General topics / Re: Bodhidharma
« on: October 21, 2011, 11:46:50 PM »
Here is a quote from a book titled "The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi" by Sir Arthur Osborne:

Quote
Q. "Buddha is said to have ignored questions about God."

Ramana Maharshi: "Yes, and for this he has been called an agnostic. In fact, Buddha was more concerned with leading the seeker to Bliss here and now, rather than with academic speculations about God and so forth."

It is true that there have been many criticisms on Buddha by many. But, as true Sadhakas, is it important for us to take note of these critisisms or is it important to take note of the truth that they have conveyed?

The truth is that, there have been no criticisms by Buddha on Vedas and Shankara on Buddha.

What both of them condemned is avidya. In Srimad Bhagavata, 10.14.29

athāpi te deva padāmbuja-dvaya-
prasāda-leśānugṛhīta eva hi
jānāti tattvaḿ bhagavan-mahimno
na cānya eko 'pi ciraḿ vicinvan

My Lord, if one is favored by even a slight trace of the mercy of Your lotus feet, he can understand the greatness of Your personality. But those who speculate to understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead are unable to know You, even though they continue to study the Vedas (or Buddhist Sutras) for many years. (this likewise applies to the continues study of Buddhist Sutras also!)

Ajnana was much prevailant at that time, even now! People were blindly following routine without even realising the true purport of what they were doing. The lost the essence of true purport of Vedas and Shastras which is why Buddha had to come to show the light.

Similalrly, when Shankara had come, then too, true purport of essence was getting lost, there existed mere "intellectual brain" and  the true essence of Buddha was getting lost!

lets not forget that Shankara had to revive Vedas among Hindus itself, second comes his debates with others. Shankara revived Vedas and taught true Vedanta even to the then Vedantist.

But these are not important. Both Buddha and Shankara have shown just the simple truth in their works in their vast light of knowledge Like how Bhagavan Ramanar showed to us. In fact they don't even show, it just shines like the Sun!

One section of people believe that Shankara was born around 400 BC and another section of people believe he was born in 8 AD. What matters when Shankara was born, when he dies? what matters if Shankara lived for only 32 years. What is more important is the truth that he showed. What is important in Buddha is not all the unnecessary things, but the truth that he showed us.

Why does it pain us if somebody criticizes Vedas or something that we pray? it only indicates bondage with vedas, sanskrit, etc... he criticized vedas, he criticized that, etc... it is a bondage, what is being criticized? what maters if anything is being criticized? Lets stay put and focus only on Self as Swaatma Rama. Criticism is Maya, Avidya. If somebody comes in my dream and tells me "I am fool" how does it matter to me? If criticisms bother us, then it indicates strong sense of Ego, it clearly indicates a strong feelig of "I" "mine" "my". Both, Buddha and Shankara criticized only this ego, this avidya not the Vedas or Buddhist truths. 

It is tantamount to ridiculousness to believe that Buddha did all that he did just to condemn Vedas. Why would he want to do that? Did he have no other work?, other than condemning Vedas and Hindus? What gain would he get? He was more concerned about liberating people with true discernment of Truth. He was more concerned about people going astray. Similalry Shankara too, did not criticize then buddhists just because, it was Buddhist, He was more concerned about them realising the truth import of that "Tatva" what gains has Shankara got by all criticisms? Like a mother who gives bitter medicine to her child to cure her from disease of avidya! Medicine is bitter, but it cures. Similarly, Their criticisms may be bitter, but it destroys avidya!

It is their Big Heartedness that both Buddha and Shankara at their respective times, who traveled the length and breadth of India showing light of the truth to everybody out of such a compassion that exceeds even a mothers love for her child. The ultimately only killed the ego's of everybody! We should not forget that we are here only to focus on "Self" and nothing else, we are surely not here to say Buddha was false and Shankara was right and the dvaitas are wrong advaita is right. We are not here to prove Atheists are wrong and theists are right. We are here for completely different purpose to remain focused on Self to attain that exalted proclamation of "Naan Udiyaadulla Nilai" "Non emergence of I"

True discernment is important.

Salutations to Bhagavan

3914
General topics / Re: Bodhidharma
« on: October 21, 2011, 08:58:14 PM »
Dear Prashant ji,

I would like to disagree with you. Our approach should be "inclusive" We should never frame opinions just blindly because some Adviatin has commented against Buddha and his teachings. What is right and wrong, what is acceptable and not acceptable are only in the realms of the mind. Who are we to say there are flaws in Buddhist teachings. "God fulfils Himself in many ways, lest one good custom should corrupt the earth" - Tennyson: Please lets not make Bhagavan Ramanar a "custom" Who are we to judge, we are mere sadhakas! Friends, we should make sure that we don't give in to such plays of our mind.

Buddha's teachings are the same as of our Vedas. When we look with inner eye, there is no difference, but when we simply look with intellect, then mind begins to play games!

There are definitely reasons why Buddha had to come, He knew the truth, he knew what he taught, he knew what he spoke! We do not know, we are mere sadhaka yet. There are so many millions of followers of Buddha and Jains, can we say that they can never attain moksha? This is what TWO OTHER MAJOR RELIGIONS HAVE falsely BEEN doing propoganda that their's is the only way and all else is no way. Their's is the only Path for Salvation just out of Avidya, and have created huge chaos and confusion among the polulation! Do we long to become one among them?

We, especially being Bhagavan's devotees should never even think in such lines. We devotees should not even be in the list of those who contest or question other paths! All Paths lead to the Supreme Truth. We, being the disciples of Vedas, which proclaim, Ekam Sat Vipraa Bahuda Vadanti. Truth is one, Sages call it differently, should never even think of condemning other Gurus and paths.

I have seen a tendency among Bhagavan's devotees who believe and convey to others that Self Enquiry alone is the only way in the end, where ever, what ever one may be doing (with a subtle unconscious feeling that all other methods are not good enough). There are many paths even other than Self Enquiry also that lead one to the same truth. We should not delve in such matters, rather, we should keep focusing on Self, meditating.

Akaashaat Patitam Toyam, Saagaram Prati Gachchatiall the water fallen from the sky goes to the sea

There is a saying in tamil which (Thirukkural) says,

"EpporuL yaar yaar vaai ketpinum apporuL
meipporuL kaaNbadhaRivu"

From whomsoever one hears about a thing, it is wisdom to understand the true import of it.


Here are Bhagavan's views -

Quote
(Talks 273)
D.: Buddha, when asked if there is the ego, was silent; when asked if there
is no ego, he was silent; asked if there is God, he was silent; asked if there
is no God, he was silent. Silence was his answer for all these. Mahayana
and Hinayana schools have both misinterpreted his silence because
they say that he was an atheist. If he was an atheist, why should he
have spoken of nirvana, of births and deaths, of karma, reincarnations
and dharma? His interpreters are wrong. Is it not so?
M.: You are right.
Quote
(Talks 239)
Mr. M. Frydman: One imagines things and enjoys them by strength
of imagination. Such creations are possible to Brahma the Creator.
Can the same statement apply to His creature, man?
M.: This is also your thought.
D.: Krishnamurti says that man should find out the ‘I’. Then ‘I’ dissolves
away, being only a bundle of circumstances. There is nothing behind
the ‘I’. His teaching seems to be very much like Buddha’s.
M.: Yes - yes, beyond expression.

Quote
(Talks 20)
D.: Buddha advises the eight-fold path as being the best so that none
might be lost.
M.: Yes. Such is called Raja Yoga by the Hindus.

Refer (Letters 164)

We should strive to be good and worthy devotees of Bhagavan!

Salutations to Bhagavan

3915
General topics / Re: carnal desires -- some observations
« on: October 21, 2011, 08:34:09 PM »

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
“Brahmacharya is ‘being in Brahman’ (or ‘living in
Brahman’). It has no connection with celibacy, as it is
commonly understood. A real Brahmachari, that is, one
who lives in Brahman, finds bliss in Brahman, which is
the Self. Why should he then look for other sources of
happiness? In fact emergence from the Self is the cause
of all misery.”

                   Salutations to Bhagavan

Pages: 1 ... 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 [261] 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 ... 342