Living the lofty philosophy of Hinduism

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

It astonishes me, well somewhat, that people here are advising themselves and others to literally "cultivate and appease" their desires (for perhaps a million more miserable, empty lives? Yikes!!) in order to conquer them (using the "warrior" analogy). Say whaaat??!! If one thinks that one's ultimate "good," i.e., moksha, lies in cessation of desire (an important 'if' to answer for oneself) then isn't catering to them like throwing gasoline on a fire to put it out? (Or pouring ghee on it iffin yer from the East?) None of us are newbies when it comes to examining the nature of desire. How many can honestly say that indulging their ego and its incessant demands for more and more pleasure/pain leads to its taming, let alone demise? How many have had that experience? Even simple and/or laborious abstention doesn't get the job done as noted elsewhere in this thread. Come on now.

@Spirit_Warrior, I think you might have a misconception about the true meaning of vairagya. It seems you are using it to denote abstaining from the pleasure/pain combo. That is not correct. Vairagya means to maintain equanimity when presented with either pleasure OR pain, any of the opposites one finds in duality. Heat/cold, happiness/misery, wealth/poverty, etc. Feeling loved and validated by other egos... or not.

Likewise, you err when you use modifiers after the words "I am." For example, "I am debauched, I am a sinner," blah blah blah. Assert and maintain your true identity always. You are Atman, nothing short of it, caught up in delusion.

Lastly, you didn't spend 40 "loveless" years without at least trying to get a portion for yourself or at least what you think you're due. And you assert that the effort to find love is the rationale for your lifestyle now. But consider this, perhaps the day is on the horizon when you figure out that the Love you are actually seeking isn't going to come from other egos who are in the same or worse condition than your own? Ha ha, sorry, that song, "Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places" just popped into my head.

I've said elsewhere but it bears repeating. WHY are we advised to forgo meat, alcohol, rajasic and tamasic foods, indiscriminate sexual energy loss, etc? These purifications? It's because the human body is like a light bulb. When full of toxins, it cannot bear the energy of divine Love. A poisoned body is like a 25w bulb, only capable of holding a little light without shattering. But divine Love is like the energy of 1,008 watts. The body must be prepared for it. Do not pray for God's Love if you are not willing to purify the instrument created to receive it. Just Who do you think is urging a shift and why? Do you think your prayers are unheard? Your tears shed in vain? You do your part. You walk in humble submission towards your Lord Shiva. And stop entertaining the silly idea that He is, was or will be anything like you (when you identify yourself as human). You do that and I guarantee you He will teach you how to dance. (Heh, heh, two ladies in this forum with punya to spare are making you promises. You must not be too far gone in the eyes of your Lord! )

 

[Vinayaka]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Know when to hold 'em. Know when to fold 'em.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Know when to hold 'em. Know when to fold 'em.

Amazing, isn't it? Just had to make sure it was real water that was offered, not the sugary-coated, fake kind

 

[Aupmanyav]

Excellent, Sassymaa. Yes, all people do not understand 'vairagya' - 'vi + raga' = Without attachment, and not leaving one's home.

"Jñeyaḥ sa nitya-sannyāsī yo na dveṣṭi na kāńkṣati; .." BG 5.3

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

"Jñeyaḥ sa nitya-sannyāsī yo na dveṣṭi na kāńkṣati; .." BG 5.3

Thanks for the scriptural reference, Aupji. Oh, that sublime Gita...!

 

[Vinayaka]

Amazing, isn't it? Just had to make sure it was real water that was offered, not the sugary-coated, fake kind

It could be magic elixir kind of water, capable of giving that horse all the muscle to win the Kentucky Derby, and put out to pasture in the greenest of fields, and He still wouldn't drink it. Such is the way of life.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

It could be magic elixir kind of water, capable of giving that horse all the muscle to win the Kentucky Derby, and put out to pasture in the greenest of fields, and He still wouldn't drink it. Such is the way of life.

Now, now Vinayakaji . Use that powerful mind of yours to imagine a different outcome! I believe God loves it when we spend our banked merits on behalf of others. And you've certainly accumulated a fair share of them, mistah-ji! Throw some of yours onto the fire--without regard for the fruits, of course

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

No longer a placeholder!

There are several traditions that I know of, primarily of the Shaiva and Shakta vines, that advise the seeker to enjoy those things they are craving until the craving gives out; it always gives out at some point after all. Until you have exhausted these cravings you cannot really focus your mind on spirituality with the kind of single mindedness needed to achieve moksha. Now, if you ask me which traditions, I know for a fact that Kashmir Shaivism advocates this path; at least as taught by Swami Lakshman joo.

Thank you for this! I voted your post "winner" in this thread because you have so far been the only one in this thread to recognise the validity of the tantric path and recognise that there are many traditions in Shaiva and Shakta that do indeed tell you enjoy the sense pleasures, in aim to transcend them. This path is considered tamasic by the mainstream Vaishnava and right-hand branches of tantra, so it does not surprise me that a few people in this thread not only do not advise this path, but do not recognise it at all. I think we all commit folly by not recognising that this path exists too within Hinduism and we should acknowledge it at least, even if we do not agree with it. It is the heroic path(veera) for people with strong rajasic and tamasic guna -- i.e. for somebody like me.

However, this path has very dangerous pitfalls, such as 1) It can become just an excuse to enjoy senses pleasure like the rest of wordly people, while pretending to be spiritual and 2) It can lead to serious damage physical, mental, emotional and spiritual, damage that could take lifetimes to repair. This is why there is a way in this which path is conducted. It has to be done to the extreme and without interruption e.g. a craving for chocolate, is to enjoyed not by just having a bit of chocolate now and again, or even a chocolate everyday, if done like this this viveka is not sustained, because we forget just as quickly the viveka that arose. It is done by literally stuffing yourself with chocolates to the point you are sick to the stomach or ONLY eating chocolate and nothing else --- you would very quickly become disgusted. There will come a point where even the name of chocolate arises disgust in you.

I am not nearly doing it as extremely as a tantric would do like the Aghoris, just as living in cemeteries, meditating on dead corpses and eat its flesh, eating stale food, overdosing on drug --- the aim is to overcome all attachments to and related to body -- I am more of a moderate tantrik, but by todays standards im just your average wordly person. However, I have taken more extremes than your average wordly person to conquer my lustful desire. I have actively sought sex by looking for it and doing it everyday of the week. I have gone to sex clubs, and if you have ever been to one or heard about what they are like, you will have an idea. I go out 3 to 4 times a week and I do it actively --- I binge drink everytime I go out and have awful hangovers that last through the week. If you ask where do I get the time to do this, it is because I am currently unemployed(though I do volunteer) -- I have turned the focus of my life to almost single mindedly focus on this path. The only thing that I do not NOT do is illegal drugs.

Has it delivered anything? Well, I have not gone to the extreme of attending wild orgies everyday, I am pretty sure if I did, viveka would arise much faster. However, because I have done it at some degree of extreme, it have definitely come to realise a lot about human behaviour and pleasures. Not just that it is shorted lived, but really how disgusting the human body is. When you see(and smell!) loads of naked bodies in one room all doing all kinds of sexual acts on each other, like a scene from Calgula(the movie) you develop disgust for the human body -- no matter how beautiful the body -- it is still a walking toilet made up sweat, urine, faeces etc. In light of this, you will think twice about Brad Pitts and Angelina jolies of the world. If this viveka fully matures you will have conquered one of the most major vasanas of the human world -- deha vasana or the vasana for body

To a large extent I have risen beyond sex. I now get disgusted at random sexual proposals or solicitations -- for me what is important now is meaningful relationships, intimacy and conversations. This is what I am seeking now and far less of sex(though we all have needs) -- this is loka vasana or vasana for people.

Now, to make you feel better; I gave up beef over a year ago now but I still crave it like you wouldn't believe. I'm hanging out for a double quarter pounder with cheese from McDonalds but I'm not going to have one; it is not a craving that needs to be satisfied. Doesn't mean it's not a strong one though! If I'm really craving it than I'll go cook some mutton so that I've had that red meat fix.

I have gone through the same craving myself! I was vegetarian for about 10 years of my life and I had honestly thought I had no craving for meat anymore, the taste of meat would disgust me -- but the thing about vasanas is when you think you have completely got rid of them, really they have receded into your subconscious and can manifest again with the same force, or even greater with some karmic trigger. This is why I struggle with the idea of repression of vasanas or just to replace vasanas with positive samskaras and hope that they are gone. This is more like denial of the darker side of you.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

we are like children we know it cant last but still we want it to go on for ever , ....

I agree with this analogy. We keep doing it, like the monkey that touches the electric fence over and over, expecting a different outcome, but get the same result. This is why the viveka and vairagaya analysis is the best and most accurate description of this pervasive human condition. Vairagaya will arise at some point, the question is when --- when does the monkey stop touching the electric fence?

.I think what eventualy disgusts some people is the fact that they have continued for so long doing something so futile , it is not the exchange of fluids that is disgusting but the thought that one is wasting ones life and that one has no control over ones desire to act in such a way , ...or that one has no higer desire , ....

it is that which would disgust me , ...if I found my self in this position I would be disgusted with my self , but finding one self disgusting is the most wonderfull catalist which motivates change , the driving force which asks so what is true happiness ? ....and how do we atain it , .....?

I think we all agree the highest desire here is the desire for self-realization. When that desire comes the mind has already reached a higher level of sattva --- there is more self control, mind control, withdrawal, faith, tolerance and single minded focus(sad-sampatti) However, prior to that highest stage there are intermediate desires between the lower base desire of sense gratification --- such as the desire for relationships, for true intimacy and soul connection with another person -- loka vasana. In my journey in meeting all these people who were seeking sex(like I was) what they all wanted deep down was "true love" Eventually, some of them do tire of that lifestyle and move on, while others stay there for years.

It would be a very cynical thing to say that people do not find "true love" Of course we know that are many people who are in happy relationships, who love and care for each other, who want to die together. It does seem to be possible for some people. I have not found it yet, it is never mutual when I do find somebody I love, and when somebody loves me, I don't feel it for them. But I do wonder about even those "happy relationships" as I met loads of people in supposedly happy relationships with one another, and I have seem loads of cracks and fault lines. Is this human "true love" just a fiction that we hear in fairly tales and Bollywood movies, or does it really exist? Is my next stage of viveka to realise it does not really exist?

and true happiness ? perhaps it comes from feeling satisfied with oneself even if it is only with ones efforts ,...we canot become satvic purely by eating the right food or through asidious prayer , ....only by purifying the heart , ...pure heart wants nothing more than to be in harmony with others and with life , ....the Buddhist in me would say that true happiness comes from serving others , the Vaisnava in me says from serving the supreme , .....but both agree that serving the self leads one on a torturous path , .....

I promice you Bhakti Marg is best

Purifying the heart is really another way of saying purifying the chita -- chitta suddhi -- or in terms of guna making the mind 100% sattvic. Nowhere does it say in shastra that this is possible in a single life time, in fact the rather depressing numbers of millions up millions of lifetimes is given. Nor does it end at the human level itself, after that there is the stage of demi gods --- as it is said in -- all the way from a blade of grass to Brahma. At the human level the best one can achieve is the level of a saint. I definitely ain't no saint. I have warned a lot of people who sometimes get impressed with my knowledge and my spiritual realisations and see me like a guru, even tell me to start a ministry, to NEVER follow my example.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

es this undoubtably is true we can all see that people around us are naturaly at different levels of spiritual attainment and for some spiritual life comes easily satvic nature is something inate thus almost instinctive , yet others strugle no matter the effort they put into it , ...in some it seems to come naturaly and to others it requires great effort , we ask why ? is this realy due to imprints gained from former lives ?....

in this case should we fight our own natural inclinations ? if we realise that we are at this or that stage can we just accept this and allow our selves to beleive that satvic nature and liberation will come to us in time , in some other life ?

we can, ...but this may be very dangerous because the imprints that we make in this life propell us into the next life in which those negative imprints will arrise , we will suffer the pull to return to simmilar actions .....if our rajasic or tamasic nature is stronger then this pull will become harder to overcome, so in many respects it is better to try to adress the ballance now before we perhaps create more havoc for ourselves .

this is why the Hindu performs samskars , why he undergoes countless ritual purifications hoping to clense the jiva of negative imprints and to replace them with imprints which will assist the jiva in his spiritual progress .

Exactly, very well said here, we are all different levels of spiritual attainment(or as I would put it different mixtures of gunas) and sattvic nature does not come naturally to many people. Those who try to force themselves to be sattvic struggle no amount how much they try. No doubt, this is because of the imprints of many lifetimes that we do not remember. But therein lies the crux of the problem --- If your mind is not sattvic, is it even productive to follow a sattvic path? If I may use an analogy if you have an IQ of 90, is it productive to you to follow the activities of Mensa with IQ of 140? Isn't it better you follow the path laid down for your IQ group? The gunas are like that -- they are not fixed, but they are definitely very enduring for most of your life. The chances are they are not going to change radically over a single lifetime(like IQ does not change radically) Arjuna is not going to go from Kshatriya gunas to Brahmin gunas in a single time and that is why Krishna does not prescribe the path of Brahminhood to him, even when Arjuna says "It is better I beg for my alms and meditate, than kill"

How can we assess what level of gunas you are at? Childhood is the best way. If from childhood you were not seeking moksha, god/liberation did not have meditative, introspective, or did not have spiritual attainments(acquired from previous sadhanas) the signs are your mind is nowhere near sattvic. Of we cannot quantify but imagine how unfortunate it would be to realise that after all the lifetimes of following a "sattivc lifestyle" you lived your mind is still only 5% sattvic. Perhaps, you needed to do something different.

I can see wisdom in the 16 samskaras of putting positive sattvic imprints in your life from childhood itself, to purify and make the mind sattvic overtime. But then if that is true, then every Hindu who had all the samskaras should be sattvic today. Is that true? Hell no. In fact ironically Hindus who are born in Brahmin families are the most wordly-driven people today.

I pointed out earlier if the pure lofty path of Kapila and Patanjali(Samkhya-Yoga) was enough for the needs of humans living today, there would have been no need for the path of Tantra that developed in medieval times as a means to catalyse spiritual growth. It is obvious that the Samkhya-Yoga path was too difficult to follow, spurring the need for the development of Tantra. Not only just in Hinduism, but in Buddhism and Jainism too. I mean Patanjali with such great ease mentions meditations to levitate and teleport, but how many people you know who have been practising Yoga have levitated or teleported? I suspect none. We are living in a different age today where humans do not have same capacities that had when Kapila and Patanjali were living. We need a different path.

You mentioned Bhakti is the best path. It is said in the Puranas that Bhakti is the best path --- but those who say bhakti is the best are devotional themselves, hence it is open to defect of bias. We also need to assess some of the pitfalls of the bhakti path(as I have done for my own Tantra path) such as 1) It leads to fanaticism and 2) It leads to superstition. (1) The biggest Bhakti traditions in the world are Christianity and Islam, and just look at the fanatical things their bhaktas have done. If you think Hinduism is immune from this, then just recall the fanatical battles between Shaiva and Vaishnava sects a few centuries ago? Think of the sometimes bitter rivalry between the various sects in Hinduism and the need to strongly identity with your group by hot-branding, forehead marks. Rather than spirituality, it becomes more of a need to identify with a wider social group in competition with others. (2) I know you will not disagree, that Hinduism contains the most bizarre practices and rituals of any religion in the world, often making it a target of mockery, such as marrying trees, imitating acts of copulation with a horse, animal sacrifices. What this does is stupefy the intellect(doing the opposite of what shastra says, to refine the intellect)

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying bhakti is not valid. There are countless examples of great inspiring pue bhaktas like the Bhakti saints, Guru Nanak, Mirabhai, Tukram, Tulsidas to Ramakrishna, but they are also examples of people with refined intellects too --- in other words they did not fall into the pitfalls I mentioned above -- but you can't say that about the billions of bhaktas on this planet which give the path of bhakti a bad name.

I don't have very strong bhakti gunas as I mentioned earlier, and when I say that I must qualify, bhakti-guna is genuine love for God, and not just a belief in God -- true yearning for God is when you spontaneously start crying at hearing the name of God. That has actually happened to me a few times, all of a sudden without warning, I just broke out into tears hearing a religious hymn at a temple. Perhaps, my gunas are start to change a little. Maybe there is more sattva there than I give credit to myself for. Either way I don't feel a strong drive to worship. I just feel silly doing it when I do try.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I resign. Spirit_Warrior, you are more jumbled than the little help that I can provide. Keep fighting your demons. If you know Hindi, I would request you to read Sri Rama Charit Manas (carefully) or Srimad Bhagawat Purana. That is from where I got my peace.

I have not asked you Aupmanyav to fix me. I appreciate you trying, but if after reading tons of shastras from cover to cover did not fix me, some of that indeed includes the Sri Rama Charit mnas(also known as Tulsidas Ramayana) and Srimad Bhagwat Purana, then a few words from you on an internet forum stands little chance. Also you have not exactly stuck with Shastra yourself, because you are a strong atheist, and that is actually condemned in the shastra, including the Sri Rama Charit manas. It is more strongly condemned in the Bhagvad Gita, where Krishna calls atheists demons, says they are hypocrites, liars, and says that he hurls into hellish realms and wombs of demonic beings to be born(Chapter 16, yoga of divine and demonic beings) However, I don't think you are a demon at all, because like you, I have individually interpreted the scripture myself. There is a lot of freedom in Hinduism for alternative interpretations.

We are all seekers here, and all are following our own paths and interpret scripture individually, and we are fallible creatures who make mistakes and suffer from human vices, lets not pretend to be better than one another, but rather lets encourage each other I will state again this thread is not really to talk about my individual path and the mistakes I am making(I do appreciate all advice though) but rather to talk in general and philosophically about the the spiritual path, and in particular the validity of scriptural learning vs life learning. There are arguments for both. You seem to be taking the position of scriptural learning is superior to life learning, and I am taking more the position of life learning, but still am open to being convinced about scriptural learning.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Also you have not exactly stuck with Shastra yourself, because you are a strong atheist, ..

Now that is not correct. I am 'Ekameva adviteeyam', how can there be someone else - a God or Goddess.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Now that is not correct. I am 'Ekameva adviteeyam', how can there be someone else - a God or Goddess.

That is cool, however you are sort of taking a single line of out context, in the context of Advaita philosophy that ekam non-dual truth is sat-chit-ananda, that is existence, consciousness and bliss and matter is maya or illusion and only has relative reality(mithya) like a hologram. In your interpretation you have interpreted the ekam non dual truth as matter, which is the exact opposite of what Advaita teaches. In fact in Advaita philosophy even the causal body(karana sharia) is described as ekam and non-dual, but that is also mithya, meaning it is negated by the higher reality of sat-chit-ananda.

But like I said you are free to interpret as you want. But what it tells me, you too, like myself, cannot completely accept what shastra says. I would argue that you have very strong atheist tendencies, stronger than myself, as you probably already know from my posts elsewhere I am an ex-atheist and still have some atheist tendencies. We read shastra through the prism of our gunas and then justify according to those gunas. Shankara was an advatist he interpreted shastra accordingly; Madhva was dvatist and he interpreted shastra accordingly. You are a strong atheist, and though you stand in strong contradiction to almost all Hindu shastras, you interpret shastra as a materialist.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am in confirmation with 'Ayamātma Brahman', 'Tat twam asi', 'So'ham', 'Aham Brahmāsmi', 'Brahma veda Brahmaiva bhavati', 'Brahma satyam jagan-mithyā, jīvo Brahmaiva nā parah', and 'Yathā Soumya, ekena mritpindena sarvam mrinmayam vijnātam syāt; vāchārambhanam vikāro nāmadheyam mrittikā iti eva satyam.'

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

I am in confirmation with 'Ayamātma Brahman', 'Tat twam asi', 'So'ham', 'Aham Brahmāsmi', 'Brahma veda Brahmaiva bhavati', 'Brahma satyam jagan-mithyā, jīvo Brahmaiva nā parah', and 'Yathā Soumya, ekena mritpindena sarvam mrinmayam vijnātam syāt; vāchārambhanam vikāro nāmadheyam mrittikā iti eva satyam.'

Arghh! Aupji, please supply translation beginning at Brahma satyam jagan-mithya.... I'm having to guess with my limited knowledge of Sanskrit. Thanks!

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Arghh! Aupji, please supply translation beginning at Brahma satyam jagan-mithya.... I'm having to guess with my limited knowledge of Sanskrit. Thanks!

If I may: These are Mahavakyas(great saying) from the Upanishads:

'Ayamātma Brahman' - My self is verily brahman
'Tat Avam Asi' - You are that
'So'Ham' - That I am, or I am that
'Aham Brahmashi' - I am Brahman
'Brahma veda Brahmaiva bhavati' The knower of Brahman, becomes Brahman
'Brahman satyam jagan-mithya, jiva brahmaiva na parah' - Brahman is the only reality, the universe only is apparently real and negated ultimately, Brahman and jiva(individual soul) are identical

The others I have not heard, I will let Aupmanyav translate them for you, as my knowledge of Sanskrit too is limited, but I am not sure if they are Mahavakyas. I am curious why he missed out one of the other major mahavakyas:

'Pranjanam Brahma" - Consciousness is Brahman

Aupmanyav is taking the vakyas out of context, they do not at all refers to Brahman as being matter or that we are matter. This is not an accepted interpretation in any branch of Hinduism, any sect, any tradition. In fact it goes against what Vedanta says that Brahman is sat-chit-ananda, it is pure consciousness. The doctrine of Advaita teaches consciousness as the supreme reality and jagat, jiva and ishvara as apparent realities that are negated in the higher truth of Brahman. Jagat, jiva and ishvara are produced from the maya-shakti of Brahman, which is composed of the triguna(sattva, rajas and tamas) Jagat is produced by tamo-guna of maya; ishvara by sattvo-guna and jiva by rajo-guna.

The most important vakya of the Upanishads is "Tat Tvam asi" for which Shankara wrote an entire treatise, 'vakya-vritti" where he proves that 'Tat' or Ishvara and 'Tvam' or you/self, cannot be 'asi' or the same, if taken literally, this would mean that my own Self and God are equal in every respect, and this is impossible because God is infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, untainted by gunas etc. Therefore, he argues that it can only be understood in the implied sense, Ishvara - conditioning = Brahman and jiva - conditioning = Brahman, only at the level of all conditioning being negated, does it become true that Atman = Brahman.

But what Aupmanyav is interpreting is Charvaka philosophy, which only accept matter as the only existence and everything else soul, god, reincarnation as nonsense. However, I am sure I am not the first on this forum to have pointed that out.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

If I may: These are Mahavakyas(great saying) from the Upanishads:

'Ayamātma Brahman' - My self is verily brahman
'Tat Avam Asi' - You are that
'So'Ham' - That I am, or I am that
'Aham Brahmashi' - I am Brahman
'Brahma veda Brahmaiva bhavati' The knower of Brahman, becomes Brahman
'Brahman satyam jagan-mithya, jiva brahmaiva na parah' - Brahman is the only reality, the universe only is apparently real and negated ultimately, Brahman and jiva(individual soul) are identical

The others I have not heard, I will let Aupmanyav translate them for you, as my knowledge of Sanskrit too is limited, but I am not sure if they are Mahavakyas. I am curious why he missed out one of the other major mahavakyas:

'Pranjanam Brahma" - Consciousness is Brahman

Aupmanyav is taking the vakyas out of context, they do not at all refers to Brahman as being matter or that we are matter. This is not an accepted interpretation in any branch of Hinduism, any sect, any tradition. In fact it goes against what Vedanta says that Brahman is sat-chit-ananda, it is pure consciousness. The doctrine of Advaita teaches consciousness as the supreme reality and jagat, jiva and ishvara as apparent realities that are negated in the higher truth of Brahman. Jagat, jiva and ishvara are produced from the maya-shakti of Brahman, which is composed of the triguna(sattva, rajas and tamas) Jagat is produced by tamo-guna of maya; ishvara by sattvo-guna and jiva by rajo-guna.

The most important vakya of the Upanishads is "Tat Tvam asi" for which Shankara wrote an entire treatise, 'vakya-vritti" where he proves that 'Tat' or Ishvara and 'Tvam' or you/self, cannot be 'asi' if taken literally, this would mean that my own Self and God are equal in every respect, and this is impossible because God is infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal. Therefore, he argues that it can only be understood in the implied sense, Ishvara - conditioning = Brahman and jiva - conditioning = Brahman, only at the level of all conditioning being negated, does it become true that Atman = Brahman.

But what Aupmanyav is interpreting is Charvaka philosophy, which only accept matter as the only existence and everything else soul, god, reincarnation as nonsense. However, I am sure I am not the first on this forum to have pointed that out.

LOL, no, you are not the first to point at Aupji and exclaim, "neti! Neti!"
Thank you very much for the translations. Such lofty phrases, such sublime Truth. Oh me, oh my.

@Aupmanyav ji, if I may ask for more of your time, are you in essential agreement with Spirit_Warrior's translations? You have helped me often with your knowledge of Sanskrit, let alone other scripture. (Such a well-rounded, materialistic, atheist, God/NoGod-respecting Hindu you are! MY Beloved God does mysterious really good when it comes to you! )

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

It astonishes me, well somewhat, that people here are advising themselves and others to literally "cultivate and appease" their desires (for perhaps a million more miserable, empty lives? Yikes!!) in order to conquer them (using the "warrior" analogy). Say whaaat??!! If one thinks that one's ultimate "good," i.e., moksha, lies in cessation of desire (an important 'if' to answer for oneself) then isn't catering to them like throwing gasoline on a fire to put it out? (Or pouring ghee on it iffin yer from the East?) None of us are newbies when it comes to examining the nature of desire. How many can honestly say that indulging their ego and its incessant demands for more and more pleasure/pain leads to its taming, let alone demise? How many have had that experience? Even simple and/or laborious abstention doesn't get the job done as noted elsewhere in this thread. Come on now.

This is why both myself and Devichand have pointed out to you, that this is indeed a valid, accepted and traditional path within Hinduism. It may not be mainstream Hinduism, it may even be a small minority sect, but indeed is path. You are right with your analogy that fulling your every cravings/desires is like throwing gasoline into fire in hope of putting it out. However, in these branches of Tantra we do aim not to fulfil desire, but conquer desire by satiating that desire to the point that realisation awakens. I have already described in an earlier post the logic behind this, and surely you can agree, the logic is actually sound and can work. We do hear people who have overcome addictions and desires by extreme indulgence. It can actually work.

I think you might have a misconception about the true meaning of vairagya. It seems you are using it to denote abstaining from the pleasure/pain combo. That is not correct. Vairagya means to maintain equanimity when presented with either pleasure OR pain, any of the opposites one finds in duality. Heat/cold, happiness/misery, wealth/poverty, etc. Feeling loved and validated by other egos... or not.

Actually, what you just described is 'titiksha' that is forbearance or tolerance, to be able to bear equally both heat and cold, profit and loss, pleasure and pain. Vairagya, on the other hand, which literally translated to non-attachment(vi = none; raga = attachment) is defined as having no desire/or craving for the fruits of your actions both in this the world and the hereafter, no craving for any sense objects, up the the highest subtle sense objects to the final form of Brahma. These terms are such key terms in Hinduism, that Shankara and other acharyas wrote entire treatises and dictionaries to define the terms. I will quote for you

Tattva Bodha:

What is dispassion(vairagya)? The absence of desire for the enjoyment (of the fruits of one’s actions) in this world, as also in the other world.

"What is tolerance(titiksha)

The endurance of heat and cold, pleasure and pain etc."

http://practicalphilosophy.in/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/tattvabodha.pdf

Vivekachudamani:

What is detachment(vairgaya)?

"The desire to give up all transient enjoyments gained through seeing, hearing, etc., and also experiences gained through equipments ranging from a mortal body to the form of Brahma is called ‗detachment‘."

What is forebearance (titiksha)

"Titiksa or forebearance is the capacity to endure all sorrows and sufferings without struggling for redress or for revenge, while always being free from anxiety or lament over them."

http://www.realization.org/down/sankara.vivekachudamani.chaitanya.pdf

As you can see you seem to have confused the two, though it is an easy mistake to make when you not formally studied the definitions in Sanskrit. There is another, but similar definition in the Yoga shastra, whose expressed purpose is to cultivate 100% sattvic mind which in Vedanta would equip you with all the qualifications(adhikaras) for final Brahma-realization.

"1.12 These thought patterns (vrittis) are mastered (nirodhah, regulated, coordinated, controlled, stilled, quieted) through practice (abhyasa) and non-attachment (vairagya).
(abhyasa vairagyabhyam tat nirodhah)"

1.15 When the mind loses desire even for objects seen or described in a tradition or in scriptures, it acquires a state of utter (vashikara) desirelessness that is called non-attachment (vairagya).
(drista anushravika vishaya vitrishnasya vashikara sanjna vairagyam)

1.16 Indifference to the subtlest elements, constituent principles, or qualities themselves (gunas), achieved through a knowledge of the nature of pure consciousness (purusha), is called supreme non-attachment (paravairagya).
(tat param purusha khyateh guna vaitrshnyam)"

Here is another definition that is useful to this discussion of "sama" or sense control from the VC(op.cit)

"The tranquil state of mind when it rests constantly upon the contemplation of the goal after having again and again detached itself from myriad sense objects through a process of continuous observation of their defects, is called Sama."

If you consider what I have cited here, I am not totally out of line with what shastra is saying in my understanding of vairgaya. I can only note their defects through observation in my life, and that is what I am doing, and I have noted loads of defects and mentioned them at length with analysis in other posts. However, in shatra developing the qualifications for self-realisation is not either or situation, it recognises it takes a very long time for these qualities to develop --- like filling containers analogy in Tibetan Buddhism. Even shastra then is implying reading scripture is not enough, it is life observation building up over time that leads to the soul gaining maturity.

Likewise, you err when you use modifiers after the words "I am." For example, "I am debauched, I am a sinner," blah blah blah. Assert and maintain your true identity always. You are Atman, nothing short of it, caught up in delusion.

So if somebody asks you your name do you say "I am Atman, sat-chit-ananda" or do you say "I am Vandana Jyoti" If somebody asks you parents names do you say like Shankara's Atma Shatakam, "I have no mother, or father" or or do you say your parents names. Surely it is the latter in both cases. We may know the paramataka satyam(ultimate truth) that we are Brahman, but our everyday reality is vyahvarika satyam(empirical truth) The truth that we are at this moment in time, which will get negated gradually for higher truths. But if you do not accept the truth of what you are right now, you are opening yourself up for serious delusion. I met countless monks in the ashram who were already convinced they were the Brahman, that they became full of arrogance. Shankara witnessed the same in some of his students, so he admonished them thus "If you are Brahman, then eat this hot burning coal, or else keep silent"

Lastly, you didn't spend 40 "loveless" years without at least trying to get a portion for yourself or at least what you think you're due. And you assert that the effort to find love is the rationale for your lifestyle now. But consider this, perhaps the day is on the horizon when you figure out that the Love you are actually seeking isn't going to come from other egos who are in the same or worse condition than your own? Ha ha, sorry, that song, "Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places" just popped into my head.

You are right, but again you jumping straight to paramatika satyam, because of knowledge of scripture. This is why I think scripture knowledge can actually become a hindrance, maybe ignorance can actually be bliss sometimes after all. If you ask somebody wanting money why they want money, you can eventually trace their desire back to Brahman even if they don't know -- they might say I want money because I need to pay my bills --- I need to pay my bills because I need to support my family -- I need to support I love my family because I love my family --- I love them because I love myself -- I love my self because I am satchitananda.

We do not quickly make that logical leap to Brahman, it takes a very long time. Shankara was well aware of this why he came up with very strict qualifications for who can study Vedanta, qualifications that neither you or I meet, and none of the monks studying in ashrams in India. We first must go through preliminary sadhanas of yoga, including bhakti, karma, raja to purify the mind, and it takes a long time to cultivate the chitta and the buddhi to do it.
So this brings me to your next point:

I've said elsewhere but it bears repeating. WHY are we advised to forgo meat, alcohol, rajasic and tamasic foods, indiscriminate sexual energy loss, etc? These purifications? It's because the human body is like a light bulb. When full of toxins, it cannot bear the energy of divine Love. A poisoned body is like a 25w bulb, only capable of holding a little light without shattering. But divine Love is like the energy of 1,008 watts. The body must be prepared for it. Do not pray for God's Love if you are not willing to purify the instrument created to receive it. Just Who do you think is urging a shift and why? Do you think your prayers are unheard? Your tears shed in vain? You do your part. You walk in humble submission towards your Lord Shiva. And stop entertaining the silly idea that He is, was or will be anything like you (when you identify yourself as human). You do that and I guarantee you He will teach you how to dance. (Heh, heh, two ladies in this forum with punya to spare are making you promises. You must not be too far gone in the eyes of your Lord! )

I absolutely agree with your purification and light bulb analogy. The only part where I differ, is you make it sound so easy, and I know from my own life experience it not easy. I know from observation of other people following this path it is not easy. It is not so easy just reading scripture says and doing it. There is a huge gulf between theoretical knowledge and belief, and practice and realisation.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

This is why both myself and Devichand have pointed out to you, that this is indeed a valid, accepted and traditional path within Hinduism. It may not be mainstream Hinduism, it may even be a small minority sect, but it s indeed is path. You are right with your analogy that fulling your every cravings/desires is like throwing gasoline into fire in hope of putting it out. However, in these branches of Tantra we do aim to fulfil desire, but conquer desire by satiating that desire to the point that realisation awakens. I have already described in an earlier post the logic behind this, and surely you can agree, the logic is actually sound and can work. We do hear people who have overcome addictions and desires by extreme indulgence. It can actually work.



Actually, what you just described is 'titiksha' that is forbearance or tolerance, to be able to bear equally both heat and cold, profit and loss, pleasure and pain. Vairagya, on the other hand, which literally translated to non-attachment(vi = none; raga = attachment) is defined as having no desire/or craving for the fruits of your actions both in this the world and the hereafter, no craving for any sense objects, up the the highest subtle sense objects to the final form of Brahma. These terms are such key terms in Hinduism, that Shankara and other acharyas wrote entire treatises and dictionaries to define the terms. I will quote for you

Tattva Bodha:

What is dispassion(vairagya)? The absence of desire for the enjoyment (of the fruits of one’s actions) in this world, as also in the other world.

"What is tolerance(titiksha)

The endurance of heat and cold, pleasure and pain etc."

http://practicalphilosophy.in/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/tattvabodha.pdf

Vivekachudamani:

What is detachment(vairgaya)?

"The desire to give up all transient enjoyments gained through seeing, hearing, etc., and also experiences gained through equipments ranging from a mortal body to the form of Brahma is called ‗detachment‘."

What is forebearance (titiksha)

"Titiksa or forebearance is the capacity to endure all sorrows and sufferings without struggling for redress or for revenge, while always being free from anxiety or lament over them."

http://www.realization.org/down/sankara.vivekachudamani.chaitanya.pdf

As you can see you seem to have confused the two, though it is an easy mistake to make when you not formally studied the definitions in Sanskrit. There is another, but similar definition in the Yoga shastra, whose expressed purpose is to cultivate 100% sattvic mind which in Vedanta would equip you with all the qualifications(adhikaras) for final Brahma-realization.

"1.12 These thought patterns (vrittis) are mastered (nirodhah, regulated, coordinated, controlled, stilled, quieted) through practice (abhyasa) and non-attachment (vairagya).
(abhyasa vairagyabhyam tat nirodhah)"

1.15 When the mind loses desire even for objects seen or described in a tradition or in scriptures, it acquires a state of utter (vashikara) desirelessness that is called non-attachment (vairagya).
(drista anushravika vishaya vitrishnasya vashikara sanjna vairagyam)

1.16 Indifference to the subtlest elements, constituent principles, or qualities themselves (gunas), achieved through a knowledge of the nature of pure consciousness (purusha), is called supreme non-attachment (paravairagya).
(tat param purusha khyateh guna vaitrshnyam)"

Here is another definition that is useful to this discussion of "sama" or sense control from the VC(op.cit)

"The tranquil state of mind when it rests constantly upon the contemplation of the goal after having again and again detached itself from myriad sense objects through a process of continuous observation of their defects, is called Sama."

If you consider what I have cited here, I am not totally out of line with what shastra is saying in my understanding of vairgaya. I can only note their defects through observation in my life, and that is what I am doing, and I have noted loads of defects and mentioned them at length with analysis in other posts. However, in shatra developing the qualifications for self-realisation is not either or situation, it recognises it takes a very long time for these qualities to develop --- like filling containers analogy in Tibetan Buddhism. Even shastra then is implying reading scripture is not enough, it is life observation building up over time that leads to the soul gaining maturity.



So if somebody asks you your name do you say "I am Atman, sat-chit-ananda" or do you say "I am Vandana Jyoti" If somebody asks you parents names do you say like Shankara's Atma Shatakam, "I have no mother, or father" or or do you say your parents names. Surely it is the latter in both cases. We may know the paramataka satyam(ultimate truth) that we are Brahman, but our everyday reality is vyahvarika satyam(empirical truth) The truth that we are at this moment in time, which will get negated gradually for higher truths. But if you do not accept the truth of what you are right now, you are opening yourself up for serious delusion. I met countless monks in the ashram who were already convinced they were the Brahman, that they became full of arrogance. Shankara witnessed the same in some of his students, so he admonished them thus "If you are Brahman, then eat this hot burning coal, or else keep silent"



You are right, but again you jumping straight to paramatika satyam, because of knowledge of scripture. This is why I think scripture knowledge can actually become a hindrance, maybe ignorance can actually be bliss sometimes after all. If you ask somebody wanting money why they want money, you can eventually trace their desire back to Brahman even if they don't know -- they might say I want money because I need to pay my bills --- I need to pay my bills because I need to support my family -- I need to support I love my family because I love my family --- I love them because I love myself -- I love my self because I am satchitananda.

We do not quickly make that logical leap to Brahman, it takes a very long time. Shankara was well aware of this why he came up with very strict qualifications for who can study Vedanta, qualifications that neither you or I meet, and none of the monks studying in ashrams in India. We first must go through preliminary sadhanas of yoga, including bhakti, karma, raja to purify the mind, and it takes a long time to cultivate the chitta and the buddhi to do it.
So this brings me to your next point:

[quore]I've said elsewhere but it bears repeating. WHY are we advised to forgo meat, alcohol, rajasic and tamasic foods, indiscriminate sexual energy loss, etc? These purifications? It's because the human body is like a light bulb. When full of toxins, it cannot bear the energy of divine Love. A poisoned body is like a 25w bulb, only capable of holding a little light without shattering. But divine Love is like the energy of 1,008 watts. The body must be prepared for it. Do not pray for God's Love if you are not willing to purify the instrument created to receive it. Just Who do you think is urging a shift and why? Do you think your prayers are unheard? Your tears shed in vain? You do your part. You walk in humble submission towards your Lord Shiva. And stop entertaining the silly idea that He is, was or will be anything like you (when you identify yourself as human). You do that and I guarantee you He will teach you how to dance. (Heh, heh, two ladies in this forum with punya to spare are making you promises. You must not be too far gone in the eyes of your Lord! )

I absolutely agree with your purification and light bulb analogy. The only part where I differ, is you make it sound so easy, and I know from my own life experience it not easy. I know from observation of other people following this path it is not easy. It is not so easy just reading scripture says and doing it. There is a huge gulf between theoretical knowledge and belief, and practice and realisation.

I appreciate in the extreme your taking the time to write at length with the intent to encourage me to contemplate my understanding of the finer points of detachment, as well as non-attachment (which I think is different), and the Sanskrit words used to describe the same. Points taken. I knew titiksha. I will contemplate vairagya more, thank you, and compare to my guru's instructions on the matter.

You said elsewhere that you had not met your guru in this lifetime. May that blessing come to you. Though Shankara might feel me unqualified to study Vedanta, Guru does not. When I read of the eons it seems you are willing to "suffer" before reaching what I assume is your goal of Self-realization (did I miss that somewhere?!) I realize again the enormous gifts which a true guru imparts. Patient impatience, not patient resignation. It's when you wholly own and/or maintain that it's "your gunas what makes ya do it and it'll be that way for a long, long time" that my head tilts. I just want to chirp, "Well, if you say so!" And I don't say that lightly. There's a chunk of choice in your statements to continue on your chosen path. But what chutzpah of me to challenge you about it!

So I also think now is the time for me to tender an apology to you. My friends here in the forum have tried to guide me in the proper etiquette, if you will, of advancing my opinions. But alas, all too often, I come across as a nagging know-it-all old Mother who simply tells all the Kids what they should do to be hale, hearty and truly happy. Ha ha, even though I might not be in possession of all those things myself!!

But don't think I don't know suffering. However, no need to tell my story here. The way out is the same, i.e., putting an end to rebirth. No way would I ever say that purifying our various instruments is easy and it is not my experience, either, believe me. Oy vey! And I agree 100% that erudition is not realization.

I for one appreciate the kindness you show here in the forum while keeping our feet to the Fire of Knowledge. Your contributions are helpful. That said, I confess I feel sorry for you. It feels like you are not "all in" on your chosen path and I wonder if that is the source of your apparent misery? But to ask this Mother to encourage you to wreck your instrument(s) at a faster pace so you can come back now or in future births and spend more time to undo any damage you've done...? Blow up the temple and then rebuild it over decades or lifetimes? That's a path? Heh heh, I'm starting to feel REALLY, really blessed!

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I appreciate in the extreme your taking the time to write at length with the intent to encourage me to contemplate my understanding of the finer points of detachment, as well as non-attachment (which I think is different), and the Sanskrit words used to describe the same. Points taken. I knew titiksha. I will contemplate vairagya more, thank you, and compare to my guru's instructions on the matter.

Detachment, non-attachment and renunciations are common English translations of the word "vairagya" the closest is non attachment, because raga is attachment, therefore vi-attachment is without attachment. In Yoga shastra vairgaya is not just an attitude, but a mental state of being. As swami Satyananda(BKS) describes: When you sit down to meditate, the very first things that will come to your mind is what is on your immediate consciousness level of mind. Such as the interactions you had in the day, your current problems, your future worries. They will prevent you from going deeper into the mind. If you go past them, them anxieties, worries and problems in your subconscious will emerge, things that you don't really think about it that often, but which are there in the background impinging upon everything you do. They will prevent you from going further. If you go past them, then the unconscious will throw up other karmic issues you need to work though, issues you might have think you didn't even have. It is only after you have resolved all of this that you will reach anywhere near samadhi.

Meditation is a brilliant tool you can use for self-introspection, it is like putting a mirror up to your ego and finding out where you really are currently(rather than where you would like to be) The other great tool is dreams, this tells you what your subconscious really is doing --- this also the indicator of where you are going after you leave this body(death) The other great tool is what others say about you, other people. If you are constantly being told something by various people, then consider that the universe is speaking to you --- it is telling you something you need to learn about where you are at. Use all these mirrors to see who you really are currently.

Gradually, by developing non-attachment too all vrittis in your mind, when they no longer affect you, arise neither like or dislike, you can watch them with pure objectivity, will you overcome it. In fact you could say that Yoga sadhana is non-attachment in action. You gradually must develop non attachment for everything -- but can you be sure you will be able to maintain non-attachment all the way through? What happens when you have your first spiritual experiences like OBES, astral music, visions, siddhis or visitations by devas/devis? Will you be able to maintain non-attachment or will you waiver? We like to think we would maintain it, but that is very easy to say when you don't have something --- like I said earlier it is very easy for me to say I renounce being a movie star -- because I am not a movie star.

Developing brutal honesty with your Self or the yama of Satya is the biggest asset you can have on your journey.

ou said elsewhere that you had not met your guru in this lifetime. May that blessing come to you. Though Shankara might feel me unqualified to study Vedanta, Guru does not. When I read of the eons it seems you are willing to "suffer" before reaching what I assume is your goal of Self-realization (did I miss that somewhere?!) I realize again the enormous gifts which a true guru imparts. Patient impatience, not patient resignation. It's when you wholly own and/or maintain that it's "your gunas what makes ya do it and it'll be that way for a long, long time" that my head tilts. I just want to chirp, "Well, if you say so!" And I don't say that lightly. There's a chunk of choice in your statements to continue on your chosen path. But what chutzpah of me to challenge you about it!

I have met people claiming to be gurus, who were willing to take me on as their student, but I did not accept them as my guru. Just as Shankara gives you a list of qualifications of a student, he also gives you a list of qualifications of a guru, and nobody I have met thus far qualifies. There is only one man I met, of great spiritual attainment, ironically on the train ride back when I left the ashram. I talk to him from time to time and in respect I call him "guruji" It is rare to find true spiritual people, forget gurus.

So I also think now is the time for me to tender an apology to you. My friends here in the forum have tried to guide me in the proper etiquette, if you will, of advancing my opinions. But alas, all too often, I come across as a nagging know-it-all old Mother who simply tells all the Kids what they should do to be hale, hearty and truly happy. Ha ha, even though I might not be in possession of all those things myself!!

I appreciate all advice you have given me. I just ask that it be done non-judgementally. Not just for myself, but others would be more forthcoming and frank in sharing their life experiences in an atmosphere of non jugemental people. Like you would be more likely to disclose in a support group or to a counsellor your deepest desires and dirtiest thoughts and experiences, than you would in a public place. I can disclose here because of the anonymity of the internet, otherwise I do not disclose to people who know me, unless I fully trust them --- there is only one best friend of mine who knows about my life story and my current path.

I for one appreciate the kindness you show here in the forum while keeping our feet to the Fire of Knowledge. Your contributions are helpful. That said, I confess I feel sorry for you. It feels like you are not "all in" on your chosen path and I wonder if that is the source of your apparent misery? But to ask this Mother to encourage you to wreck your instrument(s) at a faster pace so you can come back now or in future births and spend more time to undo any damage you've done...? Blow up the temple and then rebuild it over decades or lifetimes? That's a path? Heh heh, I'm starting to feel REALLY, really blessed!

I know this is not good state to be in, the effects of my childhood to my early 20's, have had a lot of damage on me. I know because a few people claiming to be psychic have picked up on it, without me telling them anything, one even burst out into tears because the pain within me was too much for them to bear. I fear just how deep the emotional damage is and what are long term karmic effects. The last 15 or so years of my life has been my attempt to salvage my life, because I do not give up, that spirit in me is a fighting one, I refused to resign or commit suicide. In the last 15 years, I have pretty much try to do it all by myself, it has really only been me, because nobody really knows what I've been through other than a select few people I have told. The only area where I am blessed is my access to the scriptures, which I was guided to from my early teens, and since then I have been reading tons of shastras and literature. I have also been initiated formally in the Tantra path. It is ironic every spiritual path I joined was Tantra-derived and Shiva kept presenting him to me.

Even without Hinduism, it is recognised just how damaging chronic loneliness and emotional abuse is, I cannot go any further in my spirituality without first putting this setback right. I also need to get a proper job. Nothing right now in my life is working. I am nearing 40 with little to no proper friends, just loads of superficial acquaintances, not married and no relationship, no family, relatives and no job(but I do volunteer, to contribute something back to society) and I suffer from a host of health issues that have probably cut my life expectancy down a few decades. I am still fighting though.