[Prev][Next][Index]
SHREEMADBHAGAVADGEETAA
------------------------------------------------
--$$$$'------------$$'--------------------------
-$$'-$$'----------------------------------------
-$$'-----$$$$'----$$$'--$$'$$$'--$$$$'---$$'$$'-
--$$$$'-----$$'----$$'---$$$'$$'----$$'-$$$$$$$'
-----$$'-$$$$$'----$$'---$$'-----$$$$$'-$$'$'$$'
-$$'-$$'$$'-$$'----$$'---$$'----$$'-$$'-$$'$'$$'
--$$$$'--$$$'$$'--$$$$'-$$$$'----$$$'$$'$$'--$$'
------------------------------------------------
When the intellect exits the maze of delusion, one attains
indifference to tales and revelations.
-Bhagavad Geetaa 2:52
At alt.hindu in discussing the nature of GOD, jAhnavA-nitAi dAsovAca:
[snip, due to scratchy needle going over and over the same old
stuck record]
Haagen-dasovAca... no, don't fret I don't deliver leftovers. Still
that Sundae discourse pretty neatly sprinkled the butler's argument.
Always it is good to see if the butler did it. Still, that might have
been too subtle for the union of servants. Soooooo...
Thus have I heard: "Brahman is beyond personality."
To this was piped:
>If Brahman is free from personality, the doubt will arise, "How do we have
>personality at present." As has been addressed earlier, the effect is
>always present in the cause, therefore the Brahman must also possess
>Personality, as it is present in its effect.
Must? How incredibly self-filled that verb is. I will assume the
fellow does not know how great his ego appears when he tells Brahman
what MUST possess. Let me calmly recall that all Doubts arise in
order to be resolved. I will put aside the stench of that great ego in
the word MUST, and instead address the doubt, not the doubter.
As has been addressed earlier, the effect is often subtler than the
manifest result, therefore let us look carefully first at subtle
things and then to manifest ones. Thus, rather than assert Brahman
`must' possess Personality because of one's own personality, it might
as well be asserted that Brahman `must' be the result of sperm and
ovum, and then be born as an infant, and grow into an assertive
argumentative Person. Since Scripture tells us Brahman is not the
result of sperm and egg, we might consider if He `must' be like us in
other bodily ways.
The Butler's entire argument is based on his identification with body, and
AHAMBRAHASMI does not refer to bawdy consciousness, nor to personality
disorders, but to atma. The reason scripture uses only atma to mean both
lower
self and Supreme Self is that there is only one atma, spirit, consciousness-
that can only be realized when bawdiness is discarded. That realm of Spirit
has no` personality'. It can certainly appear as a Person, and does in the
avatar. For those who are yet locked in bawdy consciousness, scripture
details, for the sake of the lower mind, jivatma, paramatma, etc.
These are words, meant to satisfy those who prefer the lower mind to the
higher self as they think. Experience surronds that argumentative nature with
Silence. In Silence one hears GOD. As long as one chants, or talks or argues,
one cannot hear Him. He does not talk over nor interrupt, for His manners are
impeccable. Some call that His Personality.
>>To say that the personality has not come from the Brahman, but from the
>>illusion, means that there are actually two sources, therefore two bRhats.
On the contrary, it is to say that personality is similar to clothing. Few
argue that humans are born clothed. However, should the argument persist,
the
reply comes that some personality is the gross result of an ill-attended
weed-filled garden. Such weeds are ego and shows bawdy consciousness, belly
consciousness, manifesting in head. The wise do not argue about reality and
illusion, they rather work.
Brahman is defined as that which is the source of itself. Thus there
is no second source, and scripture posits no other source. The
delusional mind is the only source of such thoughts as a second
Primary. That is like being caught in sandhya.
"In a dark room, one may see a rope and mistake it for a snake. It is
not real, it is only mAyA (illusion)"
In reply to this some answer:
>The activity of mistaking a rope for a snake further confirms the
>duality of the observer, the observed, and the process of observing.
That is mistaking words for what is wordless. The reality is that the
_only_ `confirmation' in that sentence arises based on ego, not Deity.
An argumentative person is forever looking into more mirrors of
mirrors, and marvelling at the infinite views of himself. To end that
enchantment one needs only to end the visual echo, to turn from
Narcissus, to leave vanity behind. That is called sadhana and will
truly end the ego's running of the intellect. One must get above
intellect into direct experience. As long as one clings to words, one
will suffer.
Many choose to stay in the hall of mirrors, worshipping their own
intellects. They want to be heard. Merrily merrily I say unto thee,
when the intellect exits the maze of delusion, one attains
indifference to tales and revelations.
>Some may say that it is only illusion, because actually there is no
>snake there. In reply we say that the rope is real, the person is
>real and the idea of the snake is real. All are real.
Real snakes bite real people. Snakes in the mind bite noone but those
who cherish them there. That kind of reality is called sammoha,
mudhamate, or madness.
>The only illusion is identifying the rope and the snake.
Bingo. There is the Ariadnic thread out of the maze. Grab it!, then
slay the minatour of the mind called ego, and walk to freedom.
Vikshepa and Avarana must be recognized.
>The very fact that one thinks the rope is a snake shows that the idea
>of a snake is real.
So close and he let the thread go, ah me. Delusion is paramount when
one believes ideasnakes are real snakes. They may well be the source
of the poison that deludes the mind. The idea of a snake can bite no
one but the person in whose mind they appear. To mistake the mind's
serpents for reality is called delusion. If that serpent is real,
show him to your mother.
>One will not think that the rope is some thing that does not exist,
>since it is impossible to think of something non-existant.
Think of yesterday.
In case that doesn't burp the babe, consider:
"If there is only one soul, then why does the illusion continue even
after he is liberated?"
Illusion persists even when delusion ends, otherwise the body drops.
As to why that is so, better to experience it first hand. Describing
mysore pak will not satisfy curiousity. One must eat it for oneself.
>>If there is only one, manifested as many due to illusion, then when
>>one is liberated from bondage, all should be liberated.
That mistakes atma for body, and is the basis of that arguement. None
were ever bound, none were ever liberated- but as long as one thinks
only with the body, this will never be understood. Only those who
leave the house of mirrors realize this, and those who love to hear
the echo of their own voices will never leave there.
Those who argue without the experience are neither sincere aspirants
nor wellwishers of the spiritual association. Better for them to
chant.
At this point one might chant "tat tvam asi", "You are that."
Those who think reading something is the same as experiencing it might
reply:
>Based on the Srutis we know that "we are that".
No one knows anything based on _reading_ Sruti. One must listen
directly for oneself in order to begin the process of knowing. Reading
is third hand, hearing is second hand, being is GOD. Reading is not
knowing. Believeing is not knowing. Scripture does not say that the
one who _reads_ about Brahman becomes Brahman, but the one who KNOWS.
One knows by experience, not by argument.
"That" refers to Brahman, therefore the statement "tat tvam asi" means
you are Brahman. Reading this is but a clue.
Those who do not experience the state may argue for yugayuga about the
nature of language, which is of course dual. Nondualistic language is
called Silence, and that is how true gurus instruct disciples in the
highest truths: through Silence. Those who are never silent never hear
them. Instead they give public speeches over and over saying as if
they knew the truth:
>This is the same as saying "ahaM brahmAsmi", but due to the fact that
the word tvam is used, it directly indicates duality.
What a tragedy lies in that sentence.
Be still, and know that I am here. Perfect Love removes all fear.
Be still, and know.
Why cater to concepts?- they are all illusion. Only Service in Love
can dispel the delusion: be still and know.
Silence is a portal between Man and God; Silence is a glimpse into
the Promised Land. Be still, and know.
*+*
--
****************************************************************************
Sent via Earth Spirit Online - The Environmental Network - Los Angeles, CA
for more information send e-mail to: info@earthspirit.org
****************************************************************************
