Author Topic: Musings  (Read 1235 times)


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 757
    • View Profile
« on: April 10, 2010, 01:06:51 PM »
Cricket and Life:
In cricket, if attention is only on the ball, the fate of the ball is seen to only get hit throughout the day and run helter-skelter. When the attention is on the whole match does the meaning of the ball dawns and enjoyment comes. Similarly in life, if the ego is seen as only a ball, it seems to only get hit and run helter-skelter. Only when the awareness of the deeper (and broader) life dawns does the ego makes some sense.
A devotees prayer can be expressed in cricketing terms as:
"Oh Lord, please reveal yourself; You are the match and  the match-maker. Lord, deliver me from getting hit day after day in the world game."

Is ego a mistake?
A lot is said about the ego....overall it is considered as bad since it seems to hide  the Self. A lot of books have been written and lot of discussions happen. When a person makes a mistake a few times, he learns from it and rectifies himself. However the Supreme Consciousness, with Its supreme intelligence does not seem to have  taken notice of all the discussions that the ego is bad and possibly a mistake.  The overall structure continues the same, a bigger self and the smaller ego.  So it does not seem that ego is a mistake, on the other hand it is a deliberate structure in creation.

Is ego non-existent in waking state?
We speak in these terms.
"The Self is one without a second. But our mind does not stay with the Self. It jumps out."

However to say this we bring two entities: the "Self" and "us" (as in "our" mind).

If the "Self" is one without the second, what is "us"?
Is it a part of the Self? Or totally an error, non-existent thing?

If it is a part of the Self, the Self must have deliberately divided itself into so many individualities (in such a way that each individual seems to have free-will).

To say it is non-existent in the waking state gives rise to fallacies,  since to declare the Self is one without the second in the waking state requires the  existence of "us" (the small I). In sleep and meditative state (which loses I consciousness) no such declaration is required.

To say that the Self itself is declaring that it is one without the second in the waking state raises the question "To whom is it declaring?"
There must have been splitting as individualities for this declaration.

To say that the Self is musing within Itself and saying "It is one without the second" raises the question, "What is the need of the Self to muse within Itself?" Has it forgotten that it is one without the second? Or is it just enjoying Itself?

If the musing is for enjoyment only, then the musing happens in so many different languages and so many different ways. So the Self still virtually splits itself for the musing.

So the waking state seems always to involve ego and Self together. The Supreme Consciousness has not changed this structure (possibly since creation) and there does not seem to be any plan in the near future to do so. So it does not seem there is any error in this structure. It is deliberate.

In the waking state the understanding of the interplay of the Self and the ego seems to be important rather than obliterating the ego which will (possibly) never happen. The ego is not left as an isolated entity but connected with the Self. So a route is always left for the ego to wade back to the Self and even lose its identity.

Bhagavan tells us to do self enquiry.
If there is no ego, who will do self-enquiry?
Similarly, if there is no infinite Self, why shall we do self-enquiry?
So again it shows that ego and Self co-exists.

The purpose of self-enquiry seem to raise the cricket-ball consciousness to match consciousness. After that watching the match may continue or going home.

Even staying in Sahaja Samadhi Bhagavan tells people to do self enquiry.
This shows that Bhagavan was aware of the relative world.
If Bhagavan was only aware of the absolute he would not have the ability to identify  different persons.
So it does not seem that relative world vanishes in Sahaja Samadhi, but the absolute and the relative co-exists. The relative being in such as surrendered state in the absolute, that it seems the absolute is driving the relative. The relative world then takes a different form than for a smaller-focussed individual consciousness.

Sri Ramakrishna's words:
Finally, I find Sri Ramakrishna's words conveying God in the most appropriate way.

Sri Ramakrishna: (To the goswami) "How can you say that the only truth about God is that He has form? It is undoubtedly true that God comes down to earth in a human form, as in the case of Krishna. And it is true as well that God reveals Himself to His devotees in various forms. But it is also true that God is formless; He is the Indivisible Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute.

He has been described in the Vedas both as formless and as endowed with form. He is also described there both as attributeless and as endowed with attributes. "Do you know what I mean? Satchidananda is like an infinite ocean. Intense cold freezes the water into ice, which floats on the ocean in blocks of various forms.

Ocean of the Absolute. These forms are meant for the bhaktas, the lovers of God. But when the Sun of Knowledge rises, the ice melts; it becomes the same water it was before. Water above and water below, everywhere nothing but water.

Therefore a prayer in the Bhagavata says: 'O Lord, Thou hast form, and Thou art also formless. Thou walkest before us, O Lord, in the shape of a man; again, Thou hast been described in the Vedas as beyond words and thought.' "But you may say that for certain devotees God assumes eternal forms. There are places in the ocean where the ice doesn't melt at all. It assumes the form of quartz.

Kedar: "It is said in the Bhagavata that Vyasa asked God's forgiveness for his three transgressions. He said: 'O Lord, Thou art formless, but I have thought of Thee in my meditation as endowed with form; Thou art beyond speech, but I have sung Thee hymns; Thou art the All-pervading Spirit, but I have made pilgrimages to sacred places. Be gracious, O Lord, and forgive these three transgressions of mine.'"

Sri Ramakrishna: "Yes, God has form and He is formless too. Further, He is beyond both form and formlessness. No one can limit Him."


Homage to the Universal Being...Om Shanti ... Om Shanti ... Om Shanti ...


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47994
    • View Profile
Re: Musings
« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2010, 05:24:12 PM »
Atma Vicharam is really Anatma Vicharam.  Atma does not need any Vicharam.

Who am I?  The "I" here is the ego.  After negating many many things, like
peeling of the onion, eventually there is nothing, only Pure Space.  This
is Atma.  Peeling gives rise to tears.  The tears are indicative of our ego
being smothered to make it non existent.

Arunachala Siva.