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 ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 ... 342
It is the same light coming through glasses of different colours. And these little variations are necessary for purposes of adaptation. But in the heart of everything the same truth reigns. The Lord has declared to the Hindu in His incarnation as Krishna, "I am in every religion as the thread through a string of pearls. Wherever thou seest extraordinary holiness and extraordinary power raising and purifying humanity, know thou that I am there." And what has been the result? I challenge the world to find, throughout the whole system of Sanskrit philosophy, any such expression as that the Hindu alone will be saved and not others. Says Vyasa, "We find perfect men even beyond the pale of our caste and creed." One thing more. How, then, can the Hindu, whose whole fabric of thought centres in God, believe in Buddhism which is agnostic, or in Jainism which is atheistic?

The Buddhists or the Jains do not depend upon God; but the whole force of their religion is directed to the great central truth in every religion, to evolve a God out of man. They have not seen the Father, but they have seen the Son. And he that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father also.


Unity in variety is the plan of nature, and the Hindu has recognised it. Every other religion lays down certain fixed dogmas, and tries to force society to adopt them. It places before society only one coat which must fit Jack and John and Henry, all alike. If it does not fit John or Henry, he must go without a coat to cover his body. The Hindus have discovered that the absolute can only be realised, or thought of, or stated, through the relative, and the images, crosses, and crescents are simply so many symbols ? so many pegs to hang the spiritual ideas on. It is not that this help is necessary for every one, but those that do not need it have no right to say that it is wrong. Nor is it compulsory in Hinduism.

Man is to become divine by realising the divine. Idols or temples or churches or books are only the supports, the helps, of his spiritual childhood: but on and on he must progress.

He must not stop anywhere. "External worship, material worship," say the scriptures, "is the lowest stage; struggling to rise high, mental prayer is the next stage, but the highest stage is when the Lord has been realised." Mark, the same earnest man who is kneeling before the idol tells you, "Him the Sun cannot express, nor the moon, nor the stars, the lightning cannot express Him, nor what we speak of as fire; through Him they shine." But he does not abuse any one's idol or call its worship sin. He recognises in it a necessary stage of life. "The child is father of the man." Would it be right for an old man to say that childhood is a sin or youth a sin?

If a man can realise his divine nature with the help of an image, would it be right to call that a sin? Nor even when he has passed that stage, should he call it an error. To the Hindu, man is not travelling from error to truth, but from truth to truth, from lower to higher truth. To him all the religions, from the lowest fetishism to the highest absolutism, mean so many attempts of the human soul to grasp and realise the Infinite, each determined by the conditions of its birth and association, and each of these marks a stage of progress; and every soul is a young eagle soaring higher and higher, gathering more and more strength, till it reaches the Glorious Sun.


I remember, as a boy, hearing a Christian missionary preach to a crowd in India. Among other sweet things he was telling them was that if he gave a blow to their idol with his stick, what could it do? One of his hearers sharply answered, "If I abuse your God, what can He do?" ?You would be punished,? said the preacher, "when you die." "So my idol will punish you when you die," retorted the Hindu.


If it is happiness to enjoy the consciousness of this small body, it must be greater happiness to enjoy the consciousness of two bodies, the measure of happiness increasing with the consciousness of an increasing number of bodies, the aim, the ultimate of happiness being reached when it would become a universal consciousness.

Therefore, to gain this infinite universal individuality, this miserable little prison-individuality must go. Then alone can death cease when I am alone with life, then alone can misery cease when I am one with happiness itself, then alone can all errors cease when I am one with knowledge itself.


General Discussion / Re: Bharathiyar Poems
« on: August 09, 2014, 12:47:38 PM »
காக்கைச் சிறகினிலே நந்த லாலா!- நின்தன்
கரியநிறந் தோன்று தையே நந்த லாலா!

பார்க்கும் மரங்க ளெல்லாம் நந்த லாலா!- நின்தன்
பச்சை நிறந் தோன்று தையே நந்த லாலா!

கேட்கு மொலியி லெல்லாம் நந்த லாலா!- நின்தன்
கீத மிசக்குதடா நந்த லாலா!

தீக்குள் விரலை வைத்தால் நந்த லாலா!- நின்னைத்
தீண்டு மின்பந் தோன்று தடா நந்த லாலா!

               In a crow's plumes, Nandha Laala!
Appears thy ebony hue, Nandha Laala!

In trees beheld, Nandha Laala!
Blends thy green tint, Nandha Laala!

In sounds heeded, Nandha Laala!
Resonates thy melody, Nandha Laala!

In flames fingered, Nandha Laala!
Feels thy caress, Nandha Laala!


The Vedas teach that the soul is divine, only held in the bondage of matter; perfection will be reached when this bond will burst, and the word they use for it is therefore, Mukti ? freedom, freedom from the bonds of imperfection, freedom from death and misery.

And this bondage can only fall off through the mercy of God, and this mercy comes on the pure. So purity is the condition of His mercy. How does that mercy act? He reveals Himself to the pure heart; the pure and the stainless see God, yea, even in this life; then and then only all the crookedness of the heart is made straight. Then all doubt ceases. He is no more the freak of a terrible law of causation. This is the very centre, the very vital conception of Hinduism. The Hindu does not want to live upon words and theories. If there are existences beyond the ordinary sensuous existence, he wants to come face to face with them. If there is a soul in him which is not matter, if there is an all-merciful universal Soul, he will go to Him direct. He must see Him, and that alone can destroy all doubts. So the best proof a Hindu sage gives about the soul, about God, is: "I have seen the soul; I have seen God." And that is the only condition of perfection. The Hindu religion does not consist in struggles and attempts to believe a certain doctrine or dogma, but in realising ? not in believing, but in being and becoming.


One of the disciples of Krishna, the then Emperor of India, was driven from his kingdom by his enemies and had to take shelter with his queen in a forest in the Himalayas, and there one day the queen asked him how it was that he, the most virtuous of men, should suffer so much misery. Yudhishthira answered, "Behold, my queen, the Himalayas, how grand and beautiful they are; I love them. They do not give me anything, but my nature is to love the grand, the beautiful, therefore I love them. Similarly, I love the Lord. He is the source of all beauty, of all sublimity. He is the only object to be loved; my nature is to love Him, and therefore I love. I do not pray for anything; I do not ask for anything. Let Him place me wherever He likes. I must love Him for love's sake. I cannot trade in love."


He is everywhere, the pure and formless One, the Almighty and the All-merciful. "Thou art our father, Thou art our mother, Thou art our beloved friend, Thou art the source of all strength; give us strength. Thou art He that beareth the burdens of the universe; help me bear the little burden of this life." Thus sang the Rishis of the Vedas. And how to worship Him? Through love. "He is to be worshipped as the one beloved, dearer than everything in this and the next life."

This is the doctrine of love declared in the Vedas, and let us see how it is fully developed and taught by Krishna, whom the Hindus believe to have been God incarnate on earth.

He taught that a man ought to live in this world like a lotus leaf, which grows in water but is never moistened by water; so a man ought to live in the world ? his heart to God and his hands to work.

It is good to love God for hope of reward in this or the next world, but it is better to love God for love's sake, and the prayer goes: "Lord, I do not want wealth, nor children, nor learning. If it be Thy will, I shall go from birth to birth, but grant me this, that I may love Thee without the hope of reward ? love unselfishly for love's sake."


General Discussion / Re: my musings
« on: August 08, 2014, 11:51:58 PM »
stray thoughts...

Let the Eyes look at the Lord, 
Let the Ears listen to the Lord
Let the Mouth sing the Lord
Let the Limbs serve the Lord
Let the Mind contemplate on the Lord
Let the Heart reside in the Lord


General Discussion / Re: confused at this.......?
« on: August 08, 2014, 11:50:38 PM »
Let the Eyes look at the Lord, 
Let the Ears listen to the Lord
Let the Mouth sing the Lord
Let the Limbs serve the Lord
Let the Mind contemplate on the Lord
Let the Heart reside in the Lord

What matters if this is called Self Enquiry or Nama Sankirthana or Yoga. Let all those who have some term for it, call it! is the term is of any significance, for the one who engages as above?


General Discussion / Re: confused at this.......?
« on: August 08, 2014, 11:24:45 PM »
Dear Dr Sundaram,

i only meant the author when i mentioned as the "writer" and never referred to you as the writer :) . Also, i never felt, i was arguing either, i was just plainly expressing myself, from heart like everybody, and i think i have been reasonably clear, even though, i may lack the language etiquette as i am not that well equipped with it. Personally, i appreciate all paths, and all paths play a role in an aspirant, i believe nothing to be superior or inferior. In a Hill, from whichever side you proceed, you will only proceed upwards and to the summit.

I have been to Bodhendral Samadhi quite a few times, and have stayed there as well. It always reminds me of Ramana Maharshi Samadhi, both are similar, however there have been recent renovations. My favorite place is the Go-Shala. That is the place I like to spend most of my time with calves and cows.

I do not know who the author is, i merely expressed my views to the couple of sentences quoted by you, which fairly is not expressed well enough by the author, if it may seem harsh to say, but yes, it did sound a little biased to me, i have to blame my mind for that :) But you have mentioned it as well in your post as well
"In fact the book  in further paragraphs  emphatically prefers  nama keerthana over athma vichara."

This is what i was contesting, it just goes like the ones who say only self enquiry alone is the path to liberation. But the only good intention of the expressions of the author would be to motivate those that find solace by way of Nama Sankirtana. The expressions in the book is something like a Mother saying emphatically that her elder child is more preferred to the younger one, is it not? After all both are her children, none can be superior or inferior to the Mother.

And some times, its ok even if some heat is triggered in any discussions, and we should be even ok with some such triggers as well, would it not be a blessing to work ourselves out of that heat? (but not in this case, at the least :) )

Why should the free, perfect, and pure being be thus under the thraldom of matter, is the next question. How can the perfect soul be deluded into the belief that it is imperfect? We have been told that the Hindus shirk the question and say that no such question can be there. Some thinkers want to answer it by positing one or more quasi-perfect beings, and use big scientific names to fill up the gap. But naming is not explaining. The question remains the same. How can the perfect become the quasi-perfect; how can the pure, the absolute, change even a microscopic particle of its nature? But the Hindu is sincere. He does not want to take shelter under sophistry. He is brave enough to face the question in a manly fashion; and his answer is: ?I do not know. I do not know how the perfect being, the soul, came to think of itself as imperfect, as joined to and conditioned by matter." But the fact is a fact for all that. It is a fact in everybody's consciousness that one thinks of oneself as the body. The Hindu does not attempt to explain why one thinks one is the body. The answer that it is the will of God is no explanation. This is nothing more than what the Hindu says, "I do not know."


General Discussion / Re: confused at this.......?
« on: August 08, 2014, 01:22:42 PM »
Dear Sri Ravi, friends,

some humble thoughts...

while what you have expressed is quite resonate with the true spirit. But, what was expressed in the tamil doesn't seem to carry the same good spirit as you have well expressed in your posts.

While we see on one hand that self enquiry is fit only for ripe souls, on the other hand, Bhagavan at several occasions answered quite
contrarily. Once Bhagavan was teaching about Self Enquiry to some small child and when somebody questioned to Bhagavan in eall earnestness to Bhagavan as to how a small child could get a grasp of what He was conveying to the child, Bhagavan replied saying, does one grasp only through mind?

in another occasion Bhagavan was found teaching Self enquiry to some animals (monkey?) and a devotee who was amused at it and question to Bhagavan, as to how can that animal understand such exalted atma vidya to monkey, to which Bhagavan said, I am also telling you all about atma vidya. How many of you have understood this? Like that some monkeys also among these would understand atma vidya!

Once an old lady working in the village came to see Bhagavan Ramana in the Hill.  She was in great distress, all sorts of family problems.  Bhagavan Ramana went near her and asked about her difficulties.  The old lady tearfully explained everything.  Bhagavan Ramana paused for a while and asked her:  "Do you get these problems, when you are deep asleep?"  The lady said: "No, Swami!" Bhagavan Ramana then said: "It is because your mind is quelled during your sleep and no problems appear there. Why not you try to be in that state of quiscent mind,without worrying about anything?" Whether the lady understood or not, she left Bhagavan Ramana,
thanking Him.

Kavyakanta Ganapati Muni came to Bhagavan Ramana and said: "Bhagavan Ramana!  Why do you say all this to her?  What can she understand?  If you had directed her to me, at least I should have told her to chant Panchakshari mantra!" Bhagavan Ramana said:  "Nayana!  I can tell her only what I know?  How can I say what I do not know?  Each one should say only what he knows!"

We have seen in so many various instances where he spoke to animals, dogs, monkeys instructing them about self enquiry.

The main point i felt is what is "ripeness?" how can any body judge oneself if one is ripe or not? that itself is a great impediment, and really wise people do not express as such as ஆத்ம விசாரம் செய்து கொண்டிருந்து நாம கீர்த்தனம் செய்யாதவனுக்கு பலன்கள் சித்திக்காது

The question of ripeness does not arise at all. The expressions of the writer merely only seem to lure people to Nama Sankirtanam, perhaps in good spirit only maybe, but when he says ஆனால் நாமகீர்த்தனம் செய்து கொண்டிருந்து ஆத்ம விசாரம் செய்யாதவனுக்கு மோட்சம் உள்ளிட்ட எல்லா பலன்களும் கிட்டும் clearly shows his one sided view as a staunch Nama Sankirthanam advocate, which proclaims that Nama Sankirthanam alone to be  means for மோட்சம் or liberation.

On the other hand, if the writer had said that Atma Vicharam and Nama Sankirthanam complement each other, that for one who does Nama Sankirthanam and Self Enquiry side by side and for one who does Nama Sankirthanam and Atma Vichara side by side or even if he had said, if one exclusively whole hardheartedly does only Nama Sankirthanam alone, with absolute steadfastness and faith, that alone is enough to the attainment of மோட்சம் or liberation, then there would not have been any confusion in the question here.

More over, Even if we speak of ripeness, the same ripeness also is eventually required for Nama Sankirthanam also. It is not to be mis understood that those who are lacking in ripeness or ashraddha, can easily attain liberation through paths such as Nama Sankirthanam. This is a misunderstanding going at large these days. Therefore, question of ripeness is actually to be looked in to carefully.

Ultimately it is based on ones inclination, and to begin with all will lack ripeness, there will be a slack in faith and casualness in the path one in inclined with. Eventually, one has to strive hard, and with the grace of the Lord, and with a proper reasoning, one  has to come to conclusion that yes, i need to strive diligently to become eligible to the grace of Lord in the path i am in, be it Nama Sankirthanam or Self Enquiry or any other.

Everybody has to become ripe. It is not that the ripeness of Atma Vicharam is greater than the ripeness of Nama Sankirthanam.

They all stand in the same spirit.

Therefore what is ripeness, if you are really willing to give in your heart and soul for the attainment of God, that is ripeness.

Mumukshatvam alone is ripeness.


General Discussion / Re: confused at this.......?
« on: August 07, 2014, 07:18:11 PM »
it doesn't appear like போதேந்திரரின் பொன் மொழிகள், it more appears like the writer's பொன் மொழிகள் :D (just in a lighter vein)

sometimes, we need to ignore what is straight away felt as fishy! can any Guru's preaching differ from the Vedas? No Guru truly differ from each other. In most books, we will certainly find some overhead transmissions and translations, which can be conveniently overseen.


Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 ... 342