Saga of the "ego"

[nirotu]

Dear Friends:

Not too long ago a sage from India (popularly known as – Amma) passed through San Francisco and a friend of mine had the opportunity to attend her discourse. While chatting with my friend, I was told about the speaker who had said, “Everything is God’s creation accept the ego”. I began to think about this profound statement. How true it really is!! Every soul is trying to turn to God because that is where it belongs, which is in the presence of God. Yet, the ego does not want to turn to God because God is not its creator!

What is every one’s perspective regarding the truth in this profound statement (quote above)? Or, perhaps, that could form the basis for a deeper discussion on the nature and the role of the “ego” in creation and in man’s spiritual journey.

Blessings,

[Znanna]

Accept and except the ego :)


ZN

[atanu]

Dear Friends:

---- “Everything is God’s creation accept the ego”. ----- Yet, the ego does not want to turn to God because God is not its creator!

-----


Hello Nirotu,

I am not sure that I understand the above fully.

Om

[nirotu]

Hello Nirotu,

I am not sure that I understand the above fully.

Om

Dear Atanu:

The statement is a quote from a sage from India, “Every thing is God’s creation except the Ego”. The meaning is implicit in the statement that only man’s ego does not share the same origin that everything else in the manifest creation shares.

I am interested in knowing the nature, role, source and quality of man’s ego in this manifest creation.

What are your thoughts?

Blessings,

[saidevo]

Namaste Nirotu.

Nice to hear from you again.

"Every thing is God's creation except the Ego".

You say that these are the words of Mata Amritanandamayi, popularly known as Ammachi to her devotees, the 'Amma' or Holy Mother, who is renowned, revered and loved the world over. I searched google for this quote that your friend has said she spoke in a discourse in San Francisco, but couldn't find any link to the actual quote. Could you or your friend provide a link to the discourse or a news publication where she used these words in her discourse?

I ask for the source link because Ammachi is a staunch, stark Advaitin who would consider everything that is manifest as a veil over Atman that is the Brahman in every particle of the universe, from the grossest to the subtlest and then beyond. What Ammachi actually says is that the ego is unreal, just like every other manifestation or projection over the Atman is. For her, liberation is not discovering, only uncovering.

"Every thing is God's creation except the Ego".

Your impression on this statement from an Advaitin (assuming that she said it) is that in the spiritual journey "Every soul is trying to turn to God because that is where it belongs, which is in the presence of God. Yet, the ego does not want to turn to God because God is not its creator!"

So this creates a state of duality: the Souls, created by God on the one side and the Ego not created by God on the other; an Ego that wouldn't want to turn to God, acts against God's designs for the souls, like the Asuras or the biblical Satan. And then there is God, the Almighty, sitting in his throne in the heavens and watching the drama of life until the day of dispensing judgment. The goal of the journey of the Souls in this manifest creation is to reach God's heaven. Do the words, supposedly from Ammachi the staunch Advaitin, support this concept of duality which is essentially Christian?

We turn to a beautiful interview she gave to Amy Edelstein of the What is Enlightenment magazine and published in their Website http://www.wie.org/j17/amma.asp?pf=1. This interview clears many doubts and gives a verily enlightening account of the "nature, role, source and quality of man’s ego in this manifest creation" that you seek to know.

Here are some relevant excerpts, but it is best to read the full interview at the link given.



When You Go Beyond the Ego You Become an Offering to the World

An interview with Mata Amritanandamayi
by Amy Edelstein
(http://www.wie.org/j17/amma.asp?pf=1)

WIE: What is ego?

MATA AMRITANANDAMAYI: You are actually asking, what is unreality? But how can unreality be described? What use is there in talking about something that isn't real, that is nonexistent? And how can you speak about that which is real? Amma can only give you a few hints. The mind is the ego. But the ego is a big lie—it is a liar. It is unreal.

[Amma goes on to narrate an astonishingly simple and revealing story: The cowherd boy saw that the rope of one of his cows was missing. He seeks the advice of a wise man for what to do to make the cow stay tied to the post overnight. The sage advices him to pretend to tie the cow in front of her. The cow sees the boy's act of tying and thinks she is secure. The next morning she won't move for grazing when the ropes of other cows are untied, because she thinks she is still tied to her post! The boy again pretends to untie her as advised by the sage and the cow happily trots after him!]

This is what the guru does with the ego of the disciple. The guru helps untie that which was never there. Like the cow, due to our ignorance, we believe that we are bound by the ego when, in fact, we are completely free. We need to be convinced of this, however.

The ego is an illusion with no existence of its own. It appears to be real because of the power it derives from the Atman [Self]. It is animated by the Atman. The ego itself can be compared to dead matter; for without the Atman, it would have no life. Stop supporting the ego, and it will withdraw and disappear. We ourselves lend the unreal ego its reality. Expose it for what it is, or rather, for what it isn't, and that will be the end of it.

A dog wags its tail—the tail does not wag the dog. If the tail were to wag the dog, it would be disastrous! The same is true with the mind. The mind, or the ego, should be nothing more than a useful tool; a sadhaka [spiritual seeker] shouldn't let him- or herself be ruled by the whims and fancies of the mind.

The ego consists of our thoughts and our mind. Our thoughts are our own creation. We make them real by cooperating with them. If we withdraw our support, they will dissolve. We simply have to observe our thoughts. The clouds in the sky assume different shapes, and they change constantly. You may see clouds drifting by that look like faces of the gods or different animals or sailing ships. A small child may believe that these shapes are real, but, of course, they are only illusions. In the same way, our ever changing thoughts drift through the mind, which is the ego. They assume different forms, but they are no more real than the shape of a cloud in the sky. If we simply witness our thoughts as they drift by, they will no longer have any effect on us or influence us in any way.

WIE: What is ego death for the true seeker of moksha [liberation]?

MA: If the ego is unreal, what death are you talking about? We superimpose the unreal on the real. What really exists is Brahman. There is no discovery, only uncovering.

WIE: What are the signs of true ego transcendence?

MA: ...It is difficult to say what a clear sign would be. People pretend or they imitate this and that quality—but for a real master, one who truly doesn't identify with the ego, his or her entire being, and every action, is a pure expression of divine love and self-sacrifice. Divine love and self-sacrifice cannot be imitated.

WIE: Is it possible for a master to completely annihilate their ego?

MA: A mahatma [great soul] is one who disidentifies with the ego; they see everything as an extension of the Self. Due to our ignorance, we identify with the ego, with that which is not real, but a mahatma is not identified at all with the ego, with that which is unreal.

WIE: How does the guru help to annihilate the ego of the disciple?

MA: A true master creates the situations that will allow the seeker to come out of his or her dream. The disciple wants to continue to sleep and to dream, but the master wants to awaken him or her. The whole effort of the master is to somehow bring the disciple back to the reality of his or her true existence.

WIE: It is said that the ego will go to any length to maintain its grip on the individual, even masquerading as our own spiritual longing. What are the most important qualities for success in the fight against the endless tricks of the ego?

MA: Performing one's own dharma with utmost shraddha. Shraddha is very important at the beginning stage on the spiritual path; it is absolutely essential.

WIE: What is shraddha? Is it faith in the possibility of transcending the ego in this life?

MA: Shraddha is more than just faith. It is trust and love. Both trust and love are necessary to transcend the ego—trust in the existence of a higher reality, love for that reality and an intense longing to realize it.

WIE: What is the best way to cultivate discrimination in the face of all the temptations of the ego?

MA: Just as a little boy grows out of his teddy bear and other toys, a true seeker gains the power to discriminate between the eternal and noneternal as his understanding grows and as he advances along the path. The power of discrimination dawns within us as we gain proper understanding and as we mature. As we learn how to evaluate life's experiences in the proper manner, we automatically begin to use our discriminative intelligence. It is an inner blossoming that takes place—like a bud opening up. It is part of a slow but steady process.

There is a divine message hidden behind every experience life brings you—both the positive and negative experiences. Just penetrate beneath the surface and you will receive the message. Nothing comes from outside; everything is within you. The whole universe is within you.

There will be many temptations and challenges along the way. Only an experienced person can help you. The way to moksha is very subtle, and it is easy for a spiritual aspirant to become deluded.

WIE: What is the role of the spiritual master in guiding the seeker on the path to moksha or liberation?

MA: If you want to learn how to drive, you need to be taught by an experienced driver. A child needs to be taught how to tie his shoelaces. And how can you learn mathematics without a teacher? Even a pickpocket needs a teacher to teach him the art of stealing. If teachers are indispensable in ordinary life, wouldn't we need a teacher even more on the spiritual path, which is so extremely subtle?

Though that subtle knowledge is our true nature, we have been identified with the world of names and forms for so long, thinking them to be real. We now need to cease that identification. But in reality, there is nothing to teach. A master simply helps you to complete the journey.
...

On the spiritual journey, we have to really listen to and then contemplate what the master says. We have to be humble in order to receive. When we really listen and then sincerely contemplate, we will assimilate the teachings properly.

WIE: Why is submission to a guru said to be so important in helping the disciple transcend the ego?

MA: The seat of the ego is the mind. Any other obstacle can be removed by using the mind except the ego, because the ego is subtler than the mind. It is only through obedience to the one who is established in that supreme experience that one can conquer the ego.

WIE: You didn't have an external guru, yet you completely transcended your ego. It seems you depended on the formless as your guru to take you all the way.

MA: Yes, you could say that. But Amma considered the whole of creation to be her guru.

WIE: Is perfect obedience to the guru ultimately the same as ego death?

MA: Yes. That is why the satguru [realized spiritual master] is depicted in the Kathopanishad as Yama, the lord of death. The death of the disciple's ego can take place only with the help of a satguru.

Obedience isn't something that can be forced on the disciple. The disciple is tremendously inspired by the master, who is an embodiment of humility. Obedience and humility simply happen in a true master's presence.

WIE: It takes rare courage to face ego death.

MA: Yes, very few can do it. If you have the courage and determination to knock at the door of death, you will find that there is no death. For even death, or the death of the ego, is an illusion.

...

WIE: Since it is possible for spiritual experiences to feed the ego, is it necessary to cultivate purity first?

MA: There is no need to get obsessed with purity. Focus on your dharma, performing it with the right attitude and with love. Then purity will follow.

WIE: What is dharma, in the way you are using it?

MA: Dharma is the right action in the right place at the right time.

WIE: How can one know what one's dharma is?

MA: By loving life with the right attitude and having the right understanding, we will know what the right thing to do is. And then, if we perform our dharma, purity will come.

WIE: How do you cultivate that kind of love?

MA: Love isn't something that can be cultivated—it's already within us in all its fullness. Life cannot exist without love; they are inseparable. Life and love are not two; they are one and the same. A little bit of the proper channeling of your energies will awaken the love within you.

You need to have a strong intent to reach the goal of liberation; you need to be focused on that goal. Then such qualities as love, patience, enthusiasm and optimism will spring forth within you. These qualities will work to help you attain your goal.

WIE: You are revered by so many as the embodiment of unconditional love, and you literally hug everyone who comes to see you. But I have heard that you can also be very fierce with your students. How do these two very different methods of teaching go together?

MA: For Amma there are not two different methods; Amma has only one method, and that is love. That love manifests as patience and compassion. However, if a deer comes and eats the tender flower buds in your garden, you cannot be gentle with the deer and say softly, "Please deer, don't eat the flowers." You have to shout at it and even wave a stick. It is sometimes necessary to show this type of mood in order to correct the disciple. Kali is the compassionate mother in her disciplining mood. But look into her eyes—there is no anger there.

Amma only disciplines those who have chosen to stay close to her, and she only does this when they are ready to be disciplined. A disciple is one who is willing to be disciplined. The guru first binds the disciple with boundless, unconditional love so that when the disciple eventually is disciplined, he or she is aware of the presence of that love in all situations.

Amma helps her children to always be aware and alert. Love has many aspects. When Amma disciplines her children, she does this with the sole purpose of guiding them along the path to help them to fully blossom. This blossoming will happen only if a conducive atmosphere is created. It can never be forced. A true master does not force his or her disciples because pure consciousness cannot force anything. The master is like space, like the boundless sky, and space cannot hurt you. Only the ego can force and hurt. Amma will patiently continue to create opportunities for that inner opening, that blossoming, to take place within her children.

The guru-disciple relationship is the highest. The bond of love between the guru and shishya [disciple] is so powerful that one may sometimes feel there is no guru and no shishya—all sense of separation disappears.

WIE: What do you do when the ego takes hold of one of your disciples?

MA: Amma lovingly helps her children to realize the danger of being under the grip of the ego, and she shows them how to get out of it.

WIE: Some Western psychotherapists and spiritual teachers believe that we must develop strong egos before we seek ego transcendence. They say that most of us have weak or wounded egos as a result of the emotional and psychological traumas that we have suffered over the course of our lives, and they advocate various forms of therapy to help us build up our character, ego and sense of individuality. You had quite a difficult childhood; you had to bear harsh treatment and even physical abuse, and yet you transcended your ego completely. Would you agree with these teachers that in the pursuit of enlightenment, we first need to build up the ego before we endeavor to transcend it?

MA: Most people are deeply wounded within in some way, and those wounds have been caused by the past. Those wounds usually remain unhealed. They are wounds not only from this life but from previous lives as well, and no doctor or psychologist can heal them. A doctor or psychologist can help people to cope with life to a certain extent, in spite of those wounds, but they cannot actually heal them. They cannot penetrate deeply enough into their own minds to remove their own wounds, let alone penetrate deeply enough into the patient's mind. Only a true master, who is completely free from any limitations and who is beyond the mind, can penetrate into a person's mind and treat all those unhealed wounds with his or her infinite energy. Spiritual life, especially under the guidance of a satguru, does not weaken the psyche; it strengthens it.

The ultimate cause of all emotional wounds is our separation from the Atman, from our true nature. It may be necessary for a person to go to a psychologist, and that is fine—but to put spirituality aside in order to first strengthen the ego is to perpetuate that sense of separation, and it will only lead to further suffering. What is the use in thinking, "I will go to the doctor as soon as I feel better"? To wait for either the inner or outer circumstances to be "just right" before we embark on the spiritual journey is like standing on the seashore waiting for the waves to completely subside before we jump into the ocean. This will never happen. Every moment of life is so utterly precious, such a rare opportunity. We should not waste it.

[nirotu]

Dear Saidevo:

Thank you for your response.


Could you or your friend provide a link to the discourse or a news publication where she used these words in her discourse?


This was a verbal Sat-Sangh that was conducted in SF. She spoke only in Malayalam and a Swamiji, her disciple, translated verbatim in English. I am sorry; we cannot provide you with any link as there is none.

My friend admits that as the discussion session went on, it was clear from her talk that even though the “ego” was unreal in the ultimate sense, it was feeling tremendously real to every seeker who attended the discourse. She was addressing that experience as the basis or a starting point of spiritual journey.

Amma followed it with a nice example. “The Sun is one in creation but is reflected in million pots. In some pots it is clear and in some it is pale and muddier. These are the pots in which ego takes hold, where veil of the ego has become thicker and therefore, the reflection of the Sun has become paler.

My friend and I believe that in a Spiritual Sat-Sangh to address a seeker Amma gives very concrete answers by not negating the reality of “ego”. She takes that as a starting point because that is where all seekers begin with. That, in our view, is also clearly demonstrated in her act of hugging, which reinforces duality. While she shows love and compassion in her act of hugging, the very act itself shows, in a true sense, a separation or veil between her and the seeker (two-ness). She feels the need in a seeker, which would not be there if she thinks purely as an Advaitin!

Amma may be an ambassador of Advaita in her own heart but my friend suggests that in her interaction with spiritual seekers she addresses at levels in which they (seekers) are experiencing reality. To a true guru, realizing the true level at which the seeker is and addressing that in terms of his or her spiritual journey is the main goal.

Notwithstanding her great writings, we believe she is starkly not an Advaitin when it comes to addressing a seeker where ego is very real, which is also what I have been emphasizing in all my discussions (my famous (or not-so famous) first step).

Blessings,

[atanu]

Dear Saidevo:

-----
Notwithstanding her great writings, we believe she is starkly not an Advaitin when it comes to addressing a seeker where ego is very real, which is also what I have been emphasizing in all my discussions (my famous (or not-so famous) first step).

Blessings,

Namaste Nirotu,

The earlier confusion of mine was due to use of 'accept' in place of 'except'. I think I understand it correctly now?

WRT to above quote, one cannot be in advaita being in prakriti. Even Iswara, though he is controller of Prakriti, is not Advaita from within prakriti. So, Krishna while teaching is Dvaita, knowing well that dvaita serves a purpose of Vak alone.

Gurus have given example of how camphor burns itself without residue. Similar is said to be the saga of Ego dissoving itself. And for this purpose, the self less work, worship, and sadhana are recommended.

Your famous or infamous first step will never happen if even a bit of ego remains -- someday or on some occassion, the ego will rear its ugly head and destroy all gains. Whereas, true and final surrender is Samadhi and complete dissolution of ego, which cannot happen without the experience that the ego is bhandasur (fake demon).

Only ONE Ego called Mahat is upheld. Even then, Mahat does not exist without the True being's existence.

Any way, ----------------

Om

[nirotu]

WRT to above quote, one cannot be in advaita being in prakriti. Even Iswara, though he is controller of Prakriti, is not Advaita from within prakriti.

Atanu, it is gratifying to note the agreement between us. Yes, “even Iswara, though He is the controller of Prakriti, is not Advaita from within Prakriti.” This is the tune over which we have been dancing around all this time through many and many posts. You have answered my age old question and that is, in the manifest creation (Prakriti) it is impossible to hold singular awareness anymore. Such a transcendental awareness can only come when you are in Turiya. Therefore, if you now agree that the creation indeed has occurred, what makes any mortal think he is in Advaita in creation? Remember, we are not talking about the starting point and the end-point of soul’s journey, which is decidedly Advaita but in creation the duality has come into existence that cannot be and must not be denied. We went through several posts just to agree with the above statement!!!!! Amen to that!!!

This point has been recognized well by Amma, although an Advaitin by heart, when she made such a statement (OP).


Gurus have given example of how camphor burns itself without residue. Similar is said to be the saga of Ego dissolving itself. And for this purpose, the self less work, worship, and sadhana are recommended.I have never denied the use of Sadhana, worship and self-less work. These are all necessary tools but, given the tenacious hold of the ego, we are simply cautioning to beware of the starting step. Just like in any race (running race, bicycle race etc), the starting phase at the sound of the buzzer is very crucial that determines pretty much the outcome. Similarly, in our spiritual journey or race we need to be careful about that starting point! That starting point is appropriately called “holding the hand of grace” so that the tenacious ego does not get a chance to own the spiritual practices as its own. As spiritual journey progresses you will naturally continue to use tools like Sadhanas, worship etc. I consider the ability to use these tools is the logical outcome of this grace working for us. Such a person will always do "good" and "persist in doing good".

While Advaitins may consider ego as transient (illusion) and may see it dissolve in “Oneness” but, the tenacious hold of the ego cannot be denied. Moreover, to dissolve something assumes something exists. Metaphorically speaking, the tentacles of Octopus have a very strong grip that needs to be cut asunder, neither by simply negating it, nor by denying it but, by realizing its existence and overcoming its power.


Your famous or infamous first step will never happen if even a bit of ego remains -- someday or on some occasion, the ego will rear its ugly head and destroy all gains.
I agree with your response but like it more with a qualification and that is; “The first step will not happen if you allow ego to rule over your self”. You are saying that the first-step will not happen as long as ego takes hold, but a man can bypass that hold through the level of simple knowingness of the “grace” just like having a natural consciousness during the waking state. Upon waking, a simple knowingness with which one knows one’s name and, I submit, that level of simple knowing of grace is needed at the first step.

More importantly, I do get a sense that “ego” in your view or any advaitin’s view has been compared to evil or maya. They seem to paint a picture of the ego in such a way that it always prevents you from realizing your true self. Respectfully, I beg to differ. Don’t you think such a description of ego gives it (ego) a bad rap?

You may or may not agree with me but this is how I view “ego”. I do consider ego as a necessary tool in man’s life that allows him to aspire to reach the higher plane by navigating the world. I have an ego, as do all individuals on this HDF. I do consider it a valuable part of who we are, which separates one from the other. While, in the spiritual realm there is no such separation exists, in the material world separation does exist between individuals, which is very valuable for the individual that allows one to acquire skills to learn and live with others around.

Having said that, I also believe that ego is not bad if kept at its rightful place! The ego functions best when it is in harmony with the whole–self. Those who are in touch with their higher-self find ego not as a threat but truly a vehicle to serve the higher–self.

A Swamiji once said ( I am sorry, I do not know his name) and I quote, “The problem arises only when ego gets out of control and the higher self begins to fall under the leadership of the ego! Then, it is almost as if the ego is the self playfully pretending to be the separate entity called “I.” We keep our egos in check when we continually nurture our awareness of who we really are. Then our egos are free to serve without trying ineffectually to rule.”

Back to "OP", I would be interested in your opinion regarding the truth in Amma’s statement.

Blessings,

[atanu]

Atanu, it is gratifying to note the agreement between us. Yes, “even Iswara, though He is the controller of Prakriti, is not Advaita from within Prakriti.” This is the tune over which we have been dancing around all this time through many and many posts. You have answered my age old question and that is, in the manifest creation (Prakriti) it is impossible to hold singular awareness anymore. -

Namaskar,

Actually there has been no dancing around ---- of course I do not know about you.


If it was impossible to experience Advaita, then scriptures would have said so.


Om Namah Shivayya

[atanu]

-----
A Swamiji once said ( I am sorry, I do not know his name) and I quote, “The problem arises only when ego gets out of control and the higher self begins to fall under the leadership of the ego! -----
Blessings,


It is interesting to note.

It is foolish to assume that higher self will ever begin to fall.

Om

[atanu]

-------Back to "OP", I would be interested in your opinion regarding the truth in Amma’s statement.

Blessings,

“Every thing is God’s creation except the Ego”

There are infinite millions of perspectives, flavours and colours of One.

Ego, or the I call, or Ahamkara originates in One only, where else it can come from? But that ego is not ignorance. The sensual ego -- the awareness of boundaries and non-awareness of the unbroken awareness that perceives the boundaries, on the other hand, is ignorance.

Amma must have talked about ignorance. But you are trying a short cut.


Om Namah Shivaya

[nirotu]

Actually there has been no dancing around ---- of course I do not know about you.


There are infinite millions of perspectives, flavours and colours of One.

Ego, or the I call, or Ahamkara originates in One only, where else it can come from? But that ego is not ignorance. The sensual ego -- the awareness of boundaries and non-awareness of the unbroken awareness that perceives the boundaries, on the other hand, is ignorance.

Amma must have talked about ignorance. But you are trying a short cut.

Dear Atanu:

Atanu, look who is dancing around here with words! Let us not split hairs in trying to dissect the nature of ego. Yes, ego can be called in many names. For your benefit, let me change the word “ego” with “ignorance” does that change the meaning of the statement?

The issue here is not what the nature of ego is but instead the origin of the whole entity:-- ego/ignorance/lower “I”/personality etc. If an entity that is not eternal and at the same time is transient, does it share the nature of God? In other words, has it been created by God as opposed to Atman which is a part of God from the beginning?

Thus, instead of trying to look at ego in an analytical way, perhaps to everyone’s benefit keep your focus on the question and not side-track into other areas. The question is not about the nature of ego but if it has been created by God!


It is foolish to assume that higher self will ever begin to fall.

Yes, I agree with you that a soul that is in tune with its higher-self cannot fall! Atanu, Your point is valid and true but somehow I feel we are again getting into play of words here. What Swamiji said can easily be mis-interpreted if you consider higher-self falling under the lower-self in a literal sense. What he meant was that the higher-self can easily get buried under the dark veil of ignorance cast by the lower-self. Actions of such a person looks like coming more from “Fallen Nature” where in, actually his higher-self is buried under the mask of lower-self thereby, bringing in the need of the “Spiritual Journey (My Mantra)”.


Blessings,

[satay]

namaste nirotu,





[FONT=Verdana][FONT=Verdana] That starting point is appropriately called “holding the hand of grace” so that the tenacious ego does not get a chance to own the spiritual practices as its own.

Once again, I request you to please outline the steps on how to 'hold this hand of grace'. What are the practical steps on holding this hand? Where is the 'hand' exactly and how do I 'hold' it?

I agree with you that we need to hold the hand of grace. Now, tell me how to accomplish the next step.

More importantly, what's the practical use of holding this hand of grace? any clue?

Also, if GOD is not the originator of Ego/ignorance, then who is? Do we have two originators and thus two creators? Are you implying that there are two equally powerful entities called GOD1 and GOD2?

[atanu]

Dear Atanu:

Atanu, look who is dancing around here with words! ----


OK. Dancing is good. Sorry that you can't.




The issue here is not what the nature of ego is but instead the origin of the whole entity:-- ego/ignorance/lower “I”/personality etc. If an entity that is not eternal and at the same time is transient, does it share the nature of God? In other words, has it been created by God as opposed to Atman which is a part of God from the beginning?


Issue is that God does not create to befuddle and confuse. It is the nature of Brahman itself from the time immemorial.

Ishwara teaches us overcoming the ignorance, but that does not make the ignorance vanish, since what was not created cannot disappear.




Thus, instead of trying to look at ego in an analytical way, perhaps to everyone’s benefit keep your focus on the question and not side-track into other areas. The question is not about the nature of ego but if it has been created by God!


Give up your pedantism, while you can. It is my sweet will as to how I will analyse anything.




Yes, I agree with you that a soul that is in tune with its higher-self cannot fall! Atanu, Your point is valid and true but somehow I feel we are again getting into play of words here. ---


Check up please. You referred to the fall of the higher self. There is no question of higher and lower and no question of fall. We are taught that Atma Na Lipayate.

What you call soul is not Atma. What you call soul is actually the emanation of Atma.


Blessings

Om Namah Shivaya

[saidevo]

Namaste Nirotu and other participants.



The issue here is not what the nature of ego is but instead the origin of the whole entity:-- ego/ignorance/lower “I”/personality etc. If an entity that is not eternal and at the same time is transient, does it share the nature of God? In other words, has it been created by God as opposed to Atman which is a part of God from the beginning?

Thus, instead of trying to look at ego in an analytical way, perhaps to everyone’s benefit keep your focus on the question and not side-track into other areas. The question is not about the nature of ego but if it has been created by God!


Creation of Ego

In Hinduism, creation is by emanation from the formless One God. From the formless God emanate the formed Gods and then they 'create' the universe and its subtle principles, making use of the 'body' and 'consciousness' of the formless God. It is like a potter who is himself a product of Prakriti and Atman making pots out of the clay in the Prakriti. The difference between a potter and formed God is that that latter infuses life into the forms He creates, not in the Christian sense of giving them a standalone life, but by pervading them.

Thus everything including the Ego (Ahamkara) and the false ego (personality) are creations/emanations from the formed Gods. Srimad Bhagavatam is very clear about the nature and order of Hindu cosmic creation.

Bhagavatam says that there are nine divisions of creations. The first six of them are done by Vishnu Himself leaving only the tasks of creation of the vegetable, animal, human and deva kingdoms to Brahma. Vishnu's creation by way of emanation include Mahat, the Cosmic Buddhi and the Cosmic Ahamkara, which is the principle of egoism.



The first manifestation of prakriti is Mahat, the Cosmic Buddhi. Sankara calls it atma mahan, the Great Soul. Mahat is the hiranyagarbha of Rg Veda, the progenitor of all other beings.

From mahat proceeds the Cosmic Ahamkara, the I-ness or the principle of egoism. Buddhi and ahamkara characterize the jivas also because they are all sparks from Brahman. With individual souls, because of the surrounding maya, ahamkara generates personal ego that causes the soul to identify itself with its body and the surrounding world, rather than its true Source.

From ahamkara emanate the ten senses and the mind on the subjective side, and the five subtle Tanmatras of sound, smell, taste, colour and touch on the objective side. From these Tanmatras proceed the pancha bhutas or five gross elements -— earth, water, fire, air and ether.

For more details, check these HDF links:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=532
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=553


Nature of Ego

Since Brahman takes forms of individual Atmans that are reflected as Jivas when associated with bodies, there are two kinds of egos: spiritual and physical. The spiritual ego is the Ahamkara, which is the I-ness of the Atman even after it is disembodied. It is this Ego that is born again and again. Once it is born and associated with a body, the reflection of Jiva makes it associate with the physical body, which is usually called the personality or the false ego. This false ego vanishes when the body is given up.

Amma is a devotee of Sri Krishna. I strongly doubt she spoke the words, "Everything is God’s creation except the Ego" even in a private talk.

[satay]

namaste,
May be we should all examine what the Lord has to say (nirotu you too)?

chapter 10 verse 32

sarganam adir antas ca
madhyam caivaham arjuna
adhyatma-vidya vidyanam
vadah pravadatam aham

"Of all creations I am the beginning and the end and also the middle, O Arjuna. Of all sciences I am the spiritual science of the self, and among logicians I am the conclusive truth. "

10.34
mrtyuh sarva-haras caham
udbhavas ca bhavisyatam
kirtih srir vak ca narinam
smrtir medha dhrtih ksama

"I am all-devouring death, and I am the generator of all things yet to be. Among women I am fame, fortune, speech, memory, intelligence, faithfulness and patience. "

10.38
dyutam chalayatam asmi
tejas tejasvinam aham
jayo 'smi vyavasayo 'smi
sattvam sattvavatam aham

"I am also the gambling of cheats, and of the splendid I am the splendor. I am victory, I am adventure, and I am the strength of the strong. "

Now, why would GOD be the 'gambling of cheats' yet not responsible for 'ego'?

ps: haven't read all the posts yet on this thread, may be this is answered already.

[satay]

Check up please. You referred to the fall of the higher self. There is no question of higher and lower and no question of fall. We are taught that Atma Na Lipayate.

What you call soul is not Atma. What you call soul is actually the emanation of Atma.


Blessings

Om Namah Shivaya

and what he thinks of 'fallen' is not fallen at all! :)

[satay]

Namaste Nirotu,


Dear Friends:

Not too long ago a sage from India (popularly known as – Amma) passed through San Francisco and a friend of mine had the opportunity to attend her discourse. While chatting with my friend, I was told about the speaker who had said, “Everything is God’s creation accept the ego”. I began to think about this profound statement. How true it really is!! Every soul is trying to turn to God because that is where it belongs, which is in the presence of God. Yet, the ego does not want to turn to God because God is not its creator!

What is every one’s perspective regarding the truth in this profound statement (quote above)? Or, perhaps, that could form the basis for a deeper discussion on the nature and the role of the “ego” in creation and in man’s spiritual journey.

Blessings,

I am going to outline some assumptions from my part so that my perspective (since you asked) regarding the truth of this statement can be understood clearly.

My assumptions are as follows:
- your friend actually heard these words from the mother's mouth.
- you heard the exact words through your friend.
- what your friend and you are telling us about the statement coming from mother's mouth is correct.

If I don't make these assumptions first, then your OP becomes a hearsay and thus needs no further discussion as no one can verify it. But I am assuming that you and your friends are telling us the truth about this quote.

So now, here is my prespective. I believe this quote is an error. Without the proper context of in which it was made, the way it is presented here, I would have to disagree with mother on this statement.

Either GOD is source of everything or he is not. If he is then he is the source of the Ego/evil/ignorance as well, may be in a round about way but HE is the source as everything begins and ends in HIM.

And that's the beauty, as a Hindu, I don't have to agree with everything our gurus and sages tell us. Everything should go through a personal test by exercising the faculty of buddhi and viveka. We are not to close our brains and take everything as written in stone.


I disagree with the quote completely as it is presented here without the context.

[nirotu]

Once again, I request you to please outline the steps on how to 'hold this hand of grace'. What are the practical steps on holding this hand? Where is the 'hand' exactly and how do I 'hold' it?

I agree with you that we need to hold the hand of grace. Now, tell me how to accomplish the next step. Dear Satay:

At the expense of sounding personal let me ask you this. When you were growing up as a child, did you ever find the need of a manual of steps or a recipe or a practical guide to know and hold the hand of your father? Surely, I hope you did not! That level of “innocent knowingness” is what needs to be brought back that does not require any recipe or formula.

I am going to outline some assumptions from my part so that my perspective (since you asked) regarding the truth of this statement can be understood clearly.


My assumptions are as follows:
- your friend actually heard these words from the mother's mouth.
- you heard the exact words through your friend.
- what your friend and you are telling us about the statement coming from mother's mouth is correct.

If I don't make these assumptions first, then your OP becomes a hearsay and thus needs no further discussion as no one can verify it. But I am assuming that you and your friends are telling us the truth about this quote.

So now, here is my prespective. I believe this quote is an error. Without the proper context of in which it was made, the way it is presented here, I would have to disagree with mother on this statement.


I disagree with the quote completely as it is presented here without the context.
If you read the OP correctly and flow along with post #6, you will see that Amma was addressing a seeker to his question. Following her discourse during the Q/A session a seeker honestly asked the following: If you (amma) and I are one, why I am not as enlightened as you are? I feel guilty, angry, selfish etc that is contrary to how you feel? This is the context of the answer by Amma. She followed the statement with a beautiful example of Sun and pots (refer to post #6). For a practicing advitin this may pose as dilemma but indeed there is none if one understands as to what aspect and nature of ego she was referring to! Please, look into my response to Saidevo.

More importantly, what's the practical use of holding this hand of grace? any clue?
Here is my understanding of Grace. Again, my views are not necessarily along the lines of those who profess Advaita or other branches. I am merely responding to your question.

Grace is primarily a response of God in love. It recognizes that God does not love us because of what we do, but in spite of what we do. That does not mean we become irresponsible with our actions thinking Grace is always there! The meaning of this is best described when we understand, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” I do believe that the underlying principle of God’s grace is embedded in His unconditional love towards His creation. In response to that benevolent grace, our gratitude turns to practice the virtues described in scriptures and that includes paths of worship, jnana, bhakti, obedience and service etc.

Practically speaking, I feel we are all living on a borrowed time. I do feel, but for the grace of God, I would have been dead a long time ago! When I was very young (about 12) I was afflicted with a medical problem and was given up for dead. Not being able to eat even a morsel of food, I was down to bare bones. Somehow I felt that God was being merciful to me and chose not to let me die and gave me grace to endure the hardship and come back to normal. No doctors could explain why it turned out so! While everyone was trying to reconcile this as an aberration of some kind and stuck to their logic and science, I somehow felt that it was a divine intervention. To this day, I still do not know why I was spared except that I live with a hope that He will reveal that to me someday!

I have lived all my life believing that it is the Grace that brought me thus far and only the Grace will lead me to Him! As Philip Yancey once said, “The world thirsts for God’s grace in ways it does not even recognize.” Can any of us experience anything in life of greater personal advantage to our souls than possession of God’s Grace? I do feel that without grace we are like boats adrift on a sea of human speculation. When you look around and see the ravages of evil upon each person you will see that the only hope for all mortals is the true grace and mercy of God!


As I understand it, without the accurate understanding of our shortcomings we will never come to know the meaning of God’s grace. Seeking after God has been the history of our race. Many think this is precisely what they are doing but I fervently believe that the human creation has occurred with a spiritual vacuum that only He can fill. In our natural state, apart from God’s grace, tendency of man has been not to fill with God but try to fill it with other things!


Blessings,

[nirotu]

Creation of Ego

. . . Thus everything including the Ego (Ahamkara) and the false ego (personality) are creations/emanations from the formed Gods. Srimad Bhagavatam is very clear about the nature and order of Hindu cosmic creation.

Nature of Ego

Since Brahman takes forms of individual Atmans that are reflected as Jivas when associated with bodies, there are two kinds of egos: spiritual and physical. The spiritual ego is the Ahamkara, which is the I-ness of the Atman even after it is disembodied. It is this Ego that is born again and again. Once it is born and associated with a body, the reflection of Jiva makes it associate with the physical body, which is usually called the personality or the false ego. This false ego vanishes when the body is given up.

Amma is a devotee of Sri Krishna. I strongly doubt she spoke the words, "Everything is God’s creation except the Ego" even in a private talk.
Dear Saidevo:

Thank you for an excellent exposition of the nature of ego. I agree with you. There is no doubt that if one holds the position; God is the creator of everything then yes, ego is also one of His creations. In that context, you seem to deny Amma’s statement. It is understandable from an Advaitic point of view where everything is one, emanating from one and merging into one! But I submit to you that while you are correct in your note, I also agree with Amma’s statement as well. Here is how I like to understand it. Amma indeed made that statement and I have elaborated the context in which it was made to Satay.

Ultimately, everything is out of His emanation. But, in the context of creation the ego we are talking about is the “functioning ego” that has become a veiling entity. It has become an entity that is distracting the reality of the goal or fulfilling God’s purpose in creation. Because of that, what Sages (Amma included) mean is that in the experiencer or a seeker that level of the functioning ego is not doing God’s bidding! The functioning ego has such a hold on human nature that it is no longer conscious of God and that is what she was addressing. It was so dominating in man that he began to forget the father.

It is pure ego (Ahamkara) that we are all born with. It was absolutely essential to identify us with others. Even Sages and Jesus Christ included needed that for survival. Sages as well as Jesus Christ had “Ahamkara” (pure ego) but it never became extremely functioning. In Jesus it did not veil Christ in Him. Jesus had to wake up, brush his teeth, eat, drink and be called the son of Mary and yet He never allowed functioning ego to take its hold in that He always knew His father and His relationship with Him.

In other words, just like how one part mixed up with matter became an alloy, the pure ego has become a “functioning ego” (so to speak) in the context of creation. Look at the universe and all created elements by God. Hydrogen, oxygen, iron all these elements and much more – all pure. But once created, under proper conditions (pressure, temperature) God also allowed alloys to form. For example, iron does mate with oxygen to form iron-oxide known as “rust” and we don’t particularly like it. Likewise, human free-will created proper condition that allowed for “functioning ego” to evolve.


If an ego that interferes with true purpose of creation then it becomes “functioning ego.” Amma was speaking about that “functioning ego”, which indeed was not through the creative process of God!

You may have differing view but this is how I can reconcile with her statement!

Blessings,

[saidevo]

Namaste Nirotu.

Agni on the earth raises smoke. Agni in the sun does not.
Agni on the earth purifies things as far as it burns them.
Agni raises smoke as it burns because it manifests on gross matter.
Agni is covered and hidden by smoke and ash but it always lurks beneath them.
Agni is the self, the smoke is the ego and the ash is the body.
Agni is Brahman, the smoke are the Jivas and the ash is this Universe.
Agni burns the karma of the Jivas, and they suffer.
Agni is graceful still, and loving, because it burns.

Why all this game of manifesting, burning and refining?
Only Agni knows.

[saidevo]

Namaste Nirotu.



When you were growing up as a child, did you ever find the need of a manual of steps or a recipe or a practical guide to know and hold the hand of your father? Surely, I hope you did not! That level of “innocent knowingness” is what needs to be brought back that does not require any recipe or formula.


Did you hold the hand of your parent seeking it instinctively as a child, or you held it when it was extended?

Unless the father/mother extends his/her hand, the child trying to stand up holds onto whatever is near it! The child 'knows instinctively' only to hold on to, but 'learns' by experience that when it holds a parent's hand it is the safest. The parent's hand is always there to hold onto, only the child has to learn to seek it even as it grows in worldly stature.



Grace is primarily a response of God in love. It recognizes that God does not love us because of what we do, but in spite of what we do. That does not mean we become irresponsible with our actions thinking Grace is always there!


The parents' grace and love are the same for all the children in a family but they do not all progress uniformly, why? And a parent chides a child who merely hankers after him/her without doing its dharma.



The meaning of this is best described when we understand, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”


This Biblical quote is typically interpreted to mean the cause and effect of karma. Another such quote is "As you sow, so you reap."

While you "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", you also need to "do unto yourself as God would have you done unto you". With the 'functioning ego' of Satan, added to the free will, how many can realize the action of this quote?



I do believe that the underlying principle of God’s grace is embedded in His unconditional love towards His creation. In response to that benevolent grace, our gratitude turns to practice the virtues described in scriptures and that includes paths of worship, jnana, bhakti, obedience and service etc.


You seem to have modified your earlier stand that only total, innocent surrender is all that is required to get God's grace for liberation in the manifest creation?

[satay]

namaste nirotu,




At the expense of sounding personal let me ask you this. When you were growing up as a child, did you ever find the need of a manual of steps or a recipe or a practical guide to know and hold the hand of your father? Surely, I hope you did not! That level of “innocent knowingness” is what needs to be brought back that does not require any recipe or formula.


You are correct, just like any other child; I did not need a manual to hold my dad’s hand.

You keep repeating again and again about holding God’s hand of grace, and we keep repeating (from sarabhanga to atanu to many others members of HDF) that Hindus already understand the Grace of God. This concept is nothing new to Sanatana dharma.

The reason why I asked the question is to find out if you have some secret formula or manual that you only hold, because you seem to be implying that others on HDF do not know how to hold the hand of grace.

Just as you knew how to hold the hand of your father, please be assured that I also know how to hold the hand of my father. Okay?



Please, look into my response to Saidevo.


Okay, I will.




Grace is primarily a response of God in love. It recognizes that God does not love us because of what we do, but in spite of what we do. That does not mean we become irresponsible with our actions thinking Grace is always there! The meaning of this is best described when we understand, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” I do believe that the underlying principle of God’s grace is embedded in His unconditional love towards His creation. In response to that benevolent grace, our gratitude turns to practice the virtues described in scriptures and that includes paths of worship, jnana, bhakti, obedience and service etc.



I agree but you are mixing up many ideas to describe ‘grace’ or what we know as ‘kripa’ or ‘kirpa’ in punjabi. Grace or ‘kripa’ is known to many if not all.



Practically speaking, I feel we are all living on a borrowed time. I do feel, but for the grace of God, I would have been dead a long time ago! When I was very young (about 12) I was afflicted with a medical problem and was given up for dead. Not being able to eat even a morsel of food, I was down to bare bones. Somehow I felt that God was being merciful to me and chose not to let me die and gave me grace to endure the hardship and come back to normal. No doctors could explain why it turned out so! While everyone was trying to reconcile this as an aberration of some kind and stuck to their logic and science, I somehow felt that it was a divine intervention. To this day, I still do not know why I was spared except that I live with a hope that He will reveal that to me someday!


Thanks for the personal example. I too have been touched by the same kripa of GOD, a few years ago. Most of my adult life from teenage years, I have been an atheist. Yet a few years ago, I was dealing with a very personal intense problem of someone dearest and closest to me, of which I still do not have any solution. My ego and arrogance that most young men of my age have, was quickly shattered when I realized that there is no-thing I could do and that this was and is completely out of my hands and control. My closest friend (who happens to be much older, wiser than me) said this, “When you are young you think that you have the life by the balls but when life throws a problem at you, you quickly realize that life’s got you by the balls.” I was in total helpless situation. My friends comment described my situation very well.

Then suddenly one day, unexpectedly, I was touched by the grace of GOD who appeared in my dreams at least three times as Shiva. Note, that even though I was born and raised in a hindu family, we are not shivaites and in fact, never really paid attention to shiv before. So why GOD decided to do some kripa on me and show me his grace? Why he extended his hand? I too live with the hope that He will reveal that to me someday.



I do feel that without grace we are like boats adrift on a sea of human speculation. When you look around and see the ravages of evil upon each person you will see that the only hope for all mortals is the true grace and mercy of God!


I think that you may be very quick here to attribute the ravages of some selfish men to ‘evil’.

The ravages that we see around us are due to the forceful shoving of ‘my GOD is better’, “I am the only one that knows Grace” or “My GOD is the only true god dispensing true grace” kind of attitude of some men. Due to this intolerance, arrogance and ignorance we see ravages around us.



As I understand it, without the accurate understanding of our shortcomings we will never come to know the meaning of God’s grace. Seeking after God has been the history of our race. Many think this is precisely what they are doing but I fervently believe that the human creation has occurred with a spiritual vacuum that only He can fill. In our natural state, apart from God’s grace, tendency of man has been not to fill with God but try to fill it with other things!


Our natural state is not apart from God or his grace but divine. God’s grace helps us dis-cover our divinity.

[atanu]

Namaste Nirotu.

Agni on the earth raises smoke. Agni in the sun does not.
Agni on the earth purifies things as far as it burns them.
Agni raises smoke as it burns because it manifests on gross matter.
Agni is covered and hidden by smoke and ash but it always lurks beneath them.
Agni is the self, the smoke is the ego and the ash is the body.
Agni is Brahman, the smoke are the Jivas and the ash is this Universe.
Agni burns the karma of the Jivas, and they suffer.
Agni is graceful still, and loving, because it burns.

Why all this game of manifesting, burning and refining?
Only Agni knows.

Namaste Saidevoji,

Rig Veda says Agni keeps its highest station pure. Rig Veda also says that Rudra pushes out the asuras from the highest station. And Rig Veda says Soma purifies itself. The highest station is of course of the all pervasiveness.

Opposing Asuric and Daivic tendencies, I suppose are eternal, and one tendency predominates over the other at different times.

Shri Nirotu is correct in that the Daivic tendencies begin with illumination of grace, though grace is constant.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

Namaste Nirotu,

------
I disagree with the quote completely as it is presented here without the context.

Yes Satay Ji,

What I fail to understand is that if this was a verbal answer to a query of a devotee and if there are no records to show what exactly was the answer of Amma, then how does one ascertain the verity?

[satay]

Yes Satay Ji,

What I fail to understand is that if this was a verbal answer to a query of a devotee and if there are no records to show what exactly was the answer of Amma, then how does one ascertain the verity?

I made some assumptions before answering nirotu. I am assuming that his friend is telling the truth with proper context. If we don't assume this, there is not point in discussing the OP as then OP would be heresay since there is no proof and amma is not here to verify.

[nirotu]

Just as you knew how to hold the hand of your father, please be assured that I also know how to hold the hand of my father. Okay? Dear satay:


If you are truly conscious of grace, I have nothing more to say. In fact, I am truly happy for you and that I mean sincerely. For many, it is a trait that is easily bypassed because in them the habitual preoccupation of the mind is to make spiritual world its domain. It is only because of this tendency of mind I have been emphasizing this cautionary first-step. Many ways, it appears easy but it is more subtler than the subtle! If you can honestly say that you have that instinctive knowingness of grace, I have nothing less than great respect for you.


I agree but you are mixing up many ideas to describe ‘grace’ or what we know as ‘kripa’ or ‘kirpa’ in punjabi. Grace or ‘kripa’ is known to many if not all. That’s great! I am filled with joy for those who understand that!


I think that you may be very quick here to attribute the ravages of some selfish men to ‘evil’.


The ravages that we see around us are due to the forceful shoving of ‘my GOD is better’, “I am the only one that knows Grace” or “My GOD is the only true god dispensing true grace” kind of attitude of some men. Due to this intolerance, arrogance and ignorance we see ravages around us.Yes, Satay. Satan’s functioning ego has created ravages in ways makes the need for turning to grace even more acute!


Our natural state is not apart from God or his grace but divine. God’s grace helps us dis-cover our divinity.

Well said, Satay. Yes, I agree. Impositions upon the self by the ego have it buried completely in some. The self is pure and will always remain divine but it is the veiling of the ego created such a mask!

Let me summarize with a strict personal observation of mine!

In my view, the best way to summarize is that humans have a tendency to under estimate the tenacious hold of the ego, while at the same time over estimate the power in our practices. Regardless, grace is somehow kept as a secondary means to achieve our goal. I always believe that it is the “grace” that truly is benevolent in its nature and is bestowed as a gift upon mankind!

All sages have addressed the issue of ego! They all have lamented and agonized over it. Creation was perfect but somehow, in creation the defect in the pure-self is come into being. Even Shankara admits that the ego has come into being. Addressing that ego is far more meaningful than simply wishing it away or discarding as mere illusion.

In my view, advaitins fail to realize that the moment there is grace; there is also someone on whom it can be bestowed upon! In your response you are acknowledging the fact there is a giver and a receiver. The two-ness is crystallized. How can one profess our journey is Advaita when in reality they are experiencing two-ness all along?

Advaita as a start and the end is true and so is creation. If creation has occurred then Advaita can only be a goal for this created being! The real journey is not advaita as some like to think! When you go to a surgeon with a broken leg, the ultimate goal in your mind is always to be whole (Advaita- so to speak) with leg completely fixed but getting to that goal has to be through the process of surgery performed by surgeons, which essentially brings us into duality! Therefore, no amount of emphasizing the leg is whole will absolve the pain and the truth of broken leg!

Blessings,

[nirotu]

What I fail to understand is that if this was a verbal answer to a query of a devotee and if there are no records to show what exactly was the answer of Amma, then how does one ascertain the verity?

I am assuming that his friend is telling the truth with proper context. If we don't assume this, there is not point in discussing the OP as then OP would be heresay since there is no proof and amma is not here to verify.


Dear Atanu, Satay:

I am quite puzzled by your stance on becoming a lawyer to prove if Amma said it or not! Why should it matter to you? While it is true that Amma did say it, it could have been said by any one of us for that matter.

Perhaps, you should realize that it is not the source but the content of the statement that is being investigated. All I was asking is if there is any truth in a statement like this. That is what we are to focus and not Amma’s credibility. Perhaps, that can be a separate discussion.

Let us not by-pass the content of the quote and hover around details that are irrelevant! Let us stick to the analysis of the quote itself regardless of who said it. Let us stick to the core point of discussion. As I have often emphasized; we are dealing with a very subtle matter for discussion and it is easy to go astray!

Blessings,

[nirotu]

Unless the father/mother extends his/her hand, the child trying to stand up holds onto whatever is near it! The child 'knows instinctively' only to hold on to, but 'learns' by experience that when it holds a parent's hand it is the safest. The parent's hand is always there to hold onto, only the child has to learn to seek it even as it grows in worldly stature.

Dear Saidevo:

Personally, I like to think it is instinctive knowingness makes that child want to hold the hand. Now, till that instinctive knowingness dawns, anything one does will not help but will only act as a crutch! Even for a child, as you have put it, the experience should dawn before learning. That I call the “first step”.

The parents' grace and love are the same for all the children in a family but they do not all progress uniformly, why? And a parent chides a child who merely hankers after him/her without doing its dharma.Yes, that is because when the ego is functioning at different intensity (level), they are more or less conscious of parent’s love. This is why a child or a person who is less conscious of grace will have more difficult time in getting on with the journey!

While you "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", you also need to "do unto yourself as God would have you done unto you". With the 'functioning ego' of Satan, added to the free will, how many can realize the action of this quote?
Well said, Saidevo. Once again do you see that with such a deadly combination of Satan’s hand in “functioning ego” and human “free-will”, how difficult the journey is unless the first step is realized and addressed?

You seem to have modified your earlier stand that only total, innocent surrender is all that is required to get God's grace for liberation in the manifest creation?

I am disheartened to see so much of misrepresentation that is going on! I have never said, “Only total, innocent surrender is all that is required to get God's grace”. Please, refer to all my previous posts and nowhere have I stuck this argument. Instead, I have always maintained that a surrender to grace is the pre-requisite for other practices to work. It is like placing a numeral one before the starting of zeros. Those zeros, no matter how many are there, are meaningless without a preceding numeral one. That preceding numeral is the first step (surrender to grace -so to speak). If you do it through that first step, all other steps will be meaningful towards progress.

Perhaps, once again, for the benefit of other members I will reiterate that I have never put down values of other practices of the spiritual journey. I have merely emphasized by adding this numeral one “(grace)” before starting other practices such as Bhakti, Jnana, worship and Service will only make them more meaningful.

Blessings,

[atanu]

Dear Atanu, Satay:

I am quite puzzled by your stance on becoming a lawyer to prove if Amma said it or not! ----Blessings,

Dear Nirotu,

If you were to pass off your view as view of Gita, would'nt it be correct for us to first investigate? What is there to be puzzled about?

I'm however, not puzzled that you act to be puzzled.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

Dear satay:

------Let me summarize with a strict personal observation of mine!

-------

In my view, advaitins fail to realize that the moment there is grace; there is also someone on whom it can be bestowed upon! In your response you are acknowledging the fact there is a giver and a receiver. The two-ness is crystallized. How can one profess our journey is Advaita when in reality they are experiencing two-ness all along?

-------
Blessings,

Yes Nirotu, it is your view alone and it is faulty, since you have not realised the grace. How do you know what grace is?


The realised ones also say that "the moment there is grace; there is grace alone" as below:

Svet. Up,

4.18 yadaa.atamastaanna divaa na raatriH
na sannachaasachchhiva eva kevalaH .
tadaxara.n tat.h saviturvareNyaM
praGYaa cha tasmaat.h prasR^itaa puraaNii .. 18

4.18. When the light has risen, there is no day, no night, neither existence nor non-existence; Siva (the blessed) alone is there. That is the eternal, the adorable light of Savitri, - and the ancient praGYaa proceeded thence.


That is nor to say that Avaitins do not worship Iswara in dualistic mode, lest you tamper with statements as is your wont. Your persistent clamouring that Advaitins are mistaken and you alone are right is typical of ----

Om Namah Shivaya

[satay]

Namaskar Nirotu,
Thank you for the post.
Let me see if I can offer a different POV as my experience and observation is contrary to some of what you are saying.



In my view, the best way to summarize is that humans have a tendency to under estimate the tenacious hold of the ego, while at the same time over estimate the power in our practices. Regardless, grace is somehow kept as a secondary means to achieve our goal. I always believe that it is the “grace” that truly is benevolent in its nature and is bestowed as a gift upon mankind!


My observation is different, for example, I have observed that when an uneducated villager bows down in front of the statue of Lord Hanuman, he is requesting God’s grace/kripa to bestow upon himself.

God’s grace might be free and freely available yet like saidevo said is it not God that should make the first effort like any father does? Practical experience tells us that we as fathers/parents make the first effort and extend our hand out to protect the child from falling. Once a child learns after a few times of holding the hand, that it is safer to ‘hold the hand’ trust mechanism kicks in and the child begins to trust that holding the hand of the father or mother is the safest position. The first effort or the first step is made though by the parent and similarly God (like in my case).

In my observation and opinion it is God that makes the first effort. For example, in my personal case that is the case. I had ego then and I still have ego now and perhaps I will still have ego till the last breath when prana leave this mortal body but why God made the first step? That’s a bigger question for me personally and the answer to which is unknown at the moment.




All sages have addressed the issue of ego! They all have lamented and agonized over it. Creation was perfect but somehow, in creation the defect in the pure-self is come into being. Even Shankara admits that the ego has come into being. Addressing that ego is far more meaningful than simply wishing it away or discarding as mere illusion.



I truly believe that ego is not a ‘defect’. It has a purpose in the grand scheme of things. To my simple engineering mind, ego is a feature and not a defect.



In my view, advaitins fail to realize that the moment there is grace; there is also someone on whom it can be bestowed upon! In your response you are acknowledging the fact there is a giver and a receiver. The two-ness is crystallized. How can one profess our journey is Advaita when in reality they are experiencing two-ness all along?



I am sorry but I don’t claim to understand Advaita yet there is something in me that thinks that Advaita is the ultimate goal because we are divine by nature and must dis-cover this position that exists eternally. However, I am unable to defend this point of view because I have not dis-covered this divine sate yet and like many others, live and experience duality.

ps: Also, I don't believe that there is any Satan. There can not be if there is only One God! Either there is only one GOD responsible for all that we see, experience and live or there are two, one God trying to protect us and the other trying to fool us. I subscribe to the notion that there is One God and he chose to reveal himself as Shiva in my case.

Let's start a new thread to discuss 'satan', if you would like...

[satay]

That is nor to say that Avaitins do not worship Iswara in dualistic mode, lest you tamper with statements as is your wont. Your persistent clamouring that Advaitins are mistaken and you alone are right is typical of ----

Om Namah Shivaya

typical of...? ego/ignorance

[satay]

Dear Atanu, Satay:

I am quite puzzled by your stance on becoming a lawyer to prove if Amma said it or not!


To the contrary, I made the assumption that what your friend said is correct that Amma did say it. Otherwise it would have been a hearsay.



While it is true that Amma did say it,

No, it is not true because we can not prove that it is, it is a hearsay as presented here on HDF.
Dictionary.com defines hearsay as follows:

–noun 1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.
2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.
–adjective 3. of, pertaining to, or characterized by hearsay: hearsay knowledge; a hearsay report.

However, in my response I made the assumption that it is true otherwise there would be no point in discussing the hearsay.




[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Perhaps, you should realize that it is not the source but the content of the statement that is being investigated. All I was asking is if there is any truth in a statement like this. That is what we are to focus and not Amma’s credibility. Perhaps, that can be a separate discussion.



Please don't put words in other people's mouths. We are not questioning Amman's credibility. Though we couldn't say the same about your friend whom we don't know so this is why I made the assumption in an effort to not even question the credibility of your friend.



Let us stick to the analysis of the quote itself regardless of who said it. Let us stick to the core point of discussion. As I have often emphasized; we are dealing with a very subtle matter for discussion and it is easy to go astray!



I don't know how you can write this, are you being sincere here? What if I start writing some bible quotes here, twist them and say my friend said this...would your position be the same or would you try to investigate the source and credibility of the source?

Please be sincere and consistent in your approach.

[nirotu]

The realized ones also say that "the moment there is grace; there is grace alone" as below:

Dear Atanu:

With all due respect to your statement, look closely at all Sages. There is always a receiver of a grace. He may have been transformed but he still is reaching out for that grace. Perhaps, one needs to see Amma in the passion of her Sat-Sangh. All her acts displayed are dualistic in nature. Even she convinces that grace and its receiver go hand in hand.

Therefore, there is no question of Grace being alone. In fact, I dare say, term grace is meaningless if there is no receiver of that grace! In the experience of grace there occur moments of complete one-ness or union but there are two entities required for that union to occur. Krishna and Radha merge to become one but Krishna’s grace was bestowed upon Radha. Therefore, there has to be two-ness for the experience of one-ness.


4.18. When the light has risen, there is no day, no night, neither existence nor non-existence; Siva (the blessed) alone is there. That is the eternal, the adorable light of Savitri, - and the ancient praGYaa proceeded thence.

I am not in Turiya yet, where this verse holds very true!

Blessings,

[nirotu]

Dear Satay and Atanu:

Okay, I do see your point. I also want to explain that I went to a great length to give you the proper context of this statement and also Amma’s explanation to the seeker. Please, understand that I don’t quote Sages lightly. I made the last statement because the topic was getting stretched in wrong direction.

In the end, what will help all of us is the understanding of the origin of the ego.

I do respect your POV of knowing the source but let us put this to rest now and move on to other interesting topic of yours.

Thanks

\Blessings,

My friend tells me there is an audio tape that is being developed for release at the end of this summer: Amma’s San Ramon tour -2007. If anyone is keen to find out regarding the statement and her discourse, he/she may want to look for that audio release.

[atanu]

Dear Atanu:

With all due respect to your statement, look closely at all Sages. There is always a receiver of a grace. He may have been transformed but he still is reaching out for that grace. Perhaps, one needs to see Amma in the passion of her Sat-Sangh. All her acts displayed are dualistic in nature. Even she convinces that grace and its receiver go hand in hand.

Therefore, there is no question of Grace being alone. In fact, I dare say, term grace is meaningless if there is no receiver of that grace! In the experience of grace there occur moments of complete one-ness or union but there are two entities required for that union to occur. Krishna and Radha merge to become one but Krishna’s grace was bestowed upon Radha. Therefore, there has to be two-ness for the experience of one-ness.



I am not in Turiya yet, where this verse holds very true!

Blessings,


Dear Nirotu,


Dear Atanu:

--------
In the experience of grace there occur moments of complete one-ness or union but there are two entities required for that union to occur. Krishna and Radha merge to become one but Krishna’s grace was bestowed upon Radha. Therefore, there has to be two-ness for the experience of one-ness.

Blessings,

Namaste,

You never open up enough to appreciate that there needs to be A SEER to see Krishna and Radha uniting.

And when the Seer, seen, and the seeing are ONE, then it is grace. It is always there but the ONE is trifurcated by thoughts like 'This is I' and 'That is the world'.

You are correct that these thoughts are not easily given up because of desires and attachments to objects (considered as others). The body is also such an object and so is the mind -- a packet containing memories.

And this is how YOU (and me also to some extent) are sticking to the false thought that Advaita is unattainable in Prakriti.


But shruti says: KNOW THE ADVAITA ATMA.

Your whole discussion proves the point that EGO DOES NOT WANT TO VANISH. Your whole effort is ego's effort to stay afloat, somehow.

We all suffer from same problem to less or more extent, of course. But your Ego is the strongest. hehe.

Om Namah Shivaya

You will never understand that the duality you see in Lord Krishna or Shri Ramana or Amma, is from your perspective-- from your eyes alone.

When I say "I am Shiva", fools who think that I am talking of this body-mind called Atanu, laugh derisively. They do not realise that the basic ignorance is that "I am this body".

Read into Shri Ramana and know that He was in Advaita always, though apparently in body to the onlookers.

You are simply not there yet. What does an ignorant know about grace?
An ignorant like you speaking about grace with such authority is insolence and insult to grace. Your only aim throughout all your posts has been to try to demean Advaita, and as expected you have only exposed your own intolerance more and more.


Om Namah Shivaya

[satay]

namaste nirotu,
As I said earlier, I don't claim to understand advaita yet know that it is the ultimate truth. However, if I may make a comment that might help you. I think that your ignorance and misunderstanding about advaita is to do with poor translation and wording. Advaita as far as I understand it does not say that 'everything is an illusion', Advaita's thesis is that 'this existence though real to many is 'asat'.

Please try to understand the meaning of 'Asat'. Asat doesn't mean illusion! Asat is the opposite of Sat i.e. opposite of truth. Asat means 'not sat', not truth. Because truth is always real and permanent, advaita is saying that since what we see here in this world is not permanent it is not the truth. The ultimate truth is real, permanent and advaita. The goal is to realize that and experience that.

I request you once again (as I have done many times before) to not put down any Vedic philosophies including advaita. Otherwise I will be forced once again to edit your posts and close the thread.

We all know here that advaita doesn't make sense to you, I am in the same category as you, you can choose to let it go...

[atanu]

Dear Atanu:

-------

I am not in Turiya yet, where this verse holds very true!

Blessings,

Exactly.

You are not in Turiya and never you have experienced it. So, how can you, post after post, put down the experiences of sages as untrue? Their teachings as untrue?

If you were happy and content with your holding hand of grace (which you have never seen/neither known) you would not come down here crowing time again that Advaitins were in wrong. If you are truly conscious of grace, you would not crib repeatedly about deficiencies in other paths, as if a needle is stuck on a gramaphone record.


Holding hand of a material father and an unknown infinite subtle entity has vast difference. We all have very good intention either to hold His/Her hand or remain at His/Her FEET. But no has really succeeded. It is called Yoga or Yuktamta. And just for this purpose, scriptures guide us that the Advaita Atma must be known. Scriptures also guide us that not alone by worship of unmanifest or not alone by the worship of manifest, this is to be done.

My final submission to you.

Have you succeeded to hold the hand of Grace that you are teaching us of it again and again? Tell us which hand/finger you are holding? How does it look? How does it feel?

First get to feel the touch and feel of That and then preach and bless (or criticize advaita).

This is my humble submission.

Om

[atanu]

Dear Friends:

---- I began to think about this profound statement. How true it really is!! Every soul is trying to turn to God because that is where it belongs, which is in the presence of God. Yet, the ego does not want to turn to God because God is not its creator!

--------

Blessings,

What is Ego? If God is not its origin then who is? Who is the creator of Ego?

I think we may shifty to satay's new post "SATAN"

Om Namah Shivaya

[nirotu]

Dear Atanu and Satay:

You just don’t get it, do you? Step out of that denial mode for once and look into all posts that I have been involved with.

Satay, your soft claim of not knowing Advaita does not give you right to judge other’s post on Advaita unless your views are biased. Do either of you have made any attempt to understand what I am saying or simply struggling hard to find points of disagreement? It seems to me, you both have deliberately chosen to misunderstand my comment. I have not demeaned Advaita and in fact I am holding it to the highest by pointing out how narrow your views have been. All you point out is what the book says without a slightest idea in practical terms or in creation what it means!

I have always maintained that Advaita to be ultimate truth and the goal. But, I am also coming from a perspective that creation has occurred and in this creation, in the body-mind vehicle resides atman (higher-self). All I am maintaining is that atman that it is part of Brahman and has become a spark of the Brahman in creation. Therefore, in creation there is a degree of two-ness to it. Forget the ego crying out to Grace, even Sages Ramana, Ramakrishna in their highest state have shown intense longing and reaching out to that Grace. Perhaps, attend one of Amma’s Sat-sangh and see how charged she gets in Bhakti by calling out names of God so loudly. Even Shankara, time and again, had composed beautiful poetry and Bhajans (Devi Stutis) for grace. All these sages, although feeling in a state of Advaita (as you like to see), have shown within them the separation from Param-Atman and their writings clearly show that. You may call it one but Atman-Brahman connection is always maintained. Rather than attacking the messenger try first to understand where I come from which is from Creation perspective and what has come into being. That is all I have been saying. Any deliberate miss-interpretation to mean demeaning (as it is to some Advaita scholars) only shows immature ego prematurely bloating.

What is “Sat” and what is “Asat”? If evil is not the truth, because it is not eternal, does that mean it is untrue? How do you describe real evil in light of “Asat”? Look around and see ravages of evil! Evil may not be permanent but the scars produced by the evil are. That just does not go through mortal body but cuts through the conscience! I am not talking about the concept (theory) of evil but the realities of evil. It is not “Asat” as long as it feeds and activates our five-senses!

As for Atanu’s comment, “What does ignorant know about grace? An ignorant like you speaking about grace with such authority is insolence and insult to grace“, it clearly shows an immature side of his ego. Yes, I may be stubborn and ignorant about Grace but, even a stubborn and obstinate child showing true knowingness and love for his parents is much better received by parents than the arrogant child (who says I know it all)!! That arrogant child will come to senses some day or, perhaps, be corrected by parents.

I will not insult his intelligence by similar comment but only feel sorry for him as my compassion moves me to. All his talks have been hoisted on an impractical notion that we are all in Turiya. It is high time that he came down to the level of other seekers who are struggling to get their starting point of journey set right let alone reaching the goal. That is if he is sincere in participating in any forum on an even level. Even my basic understanding of physics principles tells me that for resonance to occur both giver and receiver should be at the same level or the same frequency. Only in that mode does the exchange of energy is optimal!! In addition, he should make an effort to illuminate others with practical approach and not by his book knowledge.

I cannot claim to be in Adviata and, judging by your attitude, neither should you. Sages may have been in one but never flaunted to the outside world! Therefore, in this Creation those who profess to the world that they are in Advaita are soaking in their pious delusion. Then after, what’s even worst is to be in denial. That makes for a potent combination for ego to thrive!!

Once again, I refer to my previous post to Satay (if he cared to read it). Merely denying that leg is broken does not heal it. Actual surgery of Grace is needed. Hence, the two way street (duality)!!



Blessings,

[Kaos]

Nirotu,

Who says that one should completely eliminate all notions of ego, while existing in this world?


Lord Caitanya says we must be humble than a blade of grass, more tolerant than a tree, devoid of all sense of false prestige, and ready to offer great respect to others without expecting any in return... Thinking ourselves lower than the straw in the street.


There was no need for you to be harsh to both Atanu and satay, unless you merely wanted to project a massively bloated ego, which I would be willing to grant you such honor.

Otherwise, like they say, what goes around comes around. What's bloated will one day burst.

[satay]

namaste nirotu,

You win. You are right. I am wrong.

Since you can not leave your addiction of demeaning advaita, I choose to leave this conversation and let you be...

[saidevo]

Namaste Nirotu.



All his talks have been hoisted on an impractical notion that we are all in Turiya. It is high time that he came down to the level of other seekers who are struggling to get their starting point of journey set right let alone reaching the goal.


Should we all be in Turiya to realize the Ultimate Truth of Advaita? No, just the deep sleep that everyone of us is familiar with will suffice. 'Sleep knowingly', says Swami Atmananda, and you will know the Truth! And deep sleep is our real waking state whereas the normal waking state is only a dream, he says.

Here are his quotes on the journey through the path of deep sleep:



Deep Sleep

1. Deep sleep is the key to the ultimate Truth.
Sleep knowingly.

259. In deep sleep, ‘I am I’; and I can never come out of it.

599. Sleep involuntarily and you will be taken to the ignorant man’s deep sleep. Sleep voluntarily and you will be taken to nirvikalpa samadhi. Sleep knowingly and you will be taken right to your real nature (your natural state) beyond all samadhi.

669. Let the mind be asleep to the whole world and wakeful to the real ‘I’.

705. The easiest way to understand the Sage is to direct your mind to your deep sleep. The Sage is there. The Sage is deep sleep as it is rightly understood.

721. The only clue given to us by the unseen, to understand one’s own real nature, is the ‘deep sleep state’. That alone is ours in fact.

752. Deep sleep is the most important part of your life; and it saves you from going mad.

806. See to it that both ends of your sleep are saturated with the thought of your real nature, your native home.

879. Not seeing the Reality, or forgetting the Self, is sleep. Seeing the Reality, or visualizing the Self, is real waking. To be really awake is not to be awake with sense organs and mind, but with Consciousness. The present waking state is verily a sleep or a dream.

946. If deep sleep loses its sense of objectivity and becomes subjective, you are free.

(From: Notes on Spiritual Discourses (Atmananda)
http://raghavendrakg.com/Documents/Discourses%20of%20Shri%20Atmananda.pdf


To me these quotes answer many questions and establish the underlying Advaita in the manifested creation and the unmanifested Brahman. Of special interest is this quote:

"752. Deep sleep is the most important part of your life; and it saves you from going mad."

Already in the normal waking state we are going mad, quibbling over the inter-linked and interactive concepts of God, his grace, karma and sadhana taking things in insolation and out of context. So deep sleep is the common man's Turiya; only he/she needs to do it knowingly, which is initiated by sadhana and nurtured by grace.

[saidevo]

Namaste Nirotu.



Therefore, in creation there is a degree of two-ness to it. Forget the ego crying out to Grace, even Sages Ramana, Ramakrishna in their highest state have shown intense longing and reaching out to that Grace. Perhaps, attend one of Amma’s Sat-sangh and see how charged she gets in Bhakti by calling out names of God so loudly. Even Shankara, time and again, had composed beautiful poetry and Bhajans (Devi Stutis) for grace. All these sages, although feeling in a state of Advaita (as you like to see), have shown within them the separation from Param-Atman and their writings clearly show that. You may call it one but Atman-Brahman connection is always maintained.


The duality is maintained by these says from your perspective. What and how do you know about their perspective unless you are on par with them in sadhana?

As ordinary people we can only guess that these sages compose and cry out to the deities so loudly only for the sake of their followers and other people. Who are these people to them? Since they are JivanMuktas they are part and parcel of them, forming their physical and spiritual selves. The worldly acts and karma of unrealised people are like itches in their own outer selves, which they seek to remove by descending to the necessary levels.

As you seek knowledge about God's grace and the duality of the world in manifest creation, also try to find out why God has given the state of deep sleep to everyone (possibly every form of life) and what happens in that state. The irony is that as the earth revolves on its axis only half the world experiences deep sleep in one day and one night. Suppose the entire world goes into deep sleep for just one full day of 24 hours: where will be the manifested creation then?

[atanu]

Dear Atanu and Satay:

------
As for Atanu’s comment, “What does ignorant know about grace? An ignorant like you speaking about grace with such authority is insolence and insult to grace“, it clearly shows an immature side of his ego. Yes, I may be stubborn and ignorant about Grace but, even a stubborn and obstinate child showing true knowingness and love for his parents is much better received by parents than the arrogant child (who says I know it all)!! That arrogant child will come to senses some day or, perhaps, be corrected by parents.

--------

Once again, I refer to my previous post to Satay (if he cared to read it). Merely denying that leg is broken does not heal it. Actual surgery of Grace is needed. Hence, the two way street (duality)!!



Blessings,



Namskar hehe,

It will be most sweet thing when parents correct me, the arrogant child. But what about you? From doling out grace, you have shifted to issuing threats (in the name of divine parents). So be it.

Know Thyself, my dear Nirotu. One who has been graced does not issue veiled threats (my POV).




Your whole discussion proves the point that EGO DOES NOT WANT TO VANISH. Your whole effort is ego's effort to stay afloat, somehow.

We all suffer from same problem to less or more extent, of course. But your Ego is the strongest. hehe.


The above is what I had said. Atanu, even as an ego, does not claim that he is Turiya. Also, unlike you, Atanu does not take lightly the comments that we are not in Turiya. If we were not in Turiya, we would not know of existence. Turiya is the Self. If Self has gone shopping leaving you alone, how do you even exist?


You should also inspect all your posts. While discussing about Amma's alleged teaching, suddenly you go for the attack on Advaita/Advaitins. And every post of yours is like that. I will humbly request you to check up your posts to decide whether what I say is true or not?

Then I had asked a few pointed questions, particularly about the texture of the hand of grace. he he. Please teach only that which you have experienced and do not become abusive to others and other paths.


On one point I agree fully with you. Definitely, my discussion with you is a sign of immaturity. There is no doubt. But that is my Karma. To expose hypocrisy.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

-----If we were not in Turiya, we would not know of existence. Turiya is the Self. If Self has gone shopping leaving you alone, how do you even exist?
------

Om Namah Shivaya

Namaskar All,

The thread is truly THE SAGA OF THE EGO. Through and on account of Shri Nirotu, this forum has seen a lot of exposition of Advaita. Yet, this is not for Shri Nirotu. The following is for record (my POV).

In respect of the Ego, the following was noted earlier, which I quote here again.




Namaste,

You never open up enough to appreciate that there needs to be A SEER to see Krishna and Radha uniting.

And when the Seer, seen, and the seeing are ONE, then it is grace. It is always there but the ONE is trifurcated by thoughts like 'This is I' and 'That is the world'.

You are correct that these thoughts are not easily given up because of desires and attachments to objects (considered as others). The body is also such an object and so is the mind -- a packet containing memories.

And this is how YOU (and me also to some extent) are sticking to the false thought that Advaita is unattainable in Prakriti.


But shruti says: KNOW THE ADVAITA ATMA.

Your whole discussion proves the point that EGO DOES NOT WANT TO VANISH. Your whole effort is ego's effort to stay afloat, somehow.



Advaitic journey starts with discrimination between the eternal and ephemeral. Shankara's teaching: Jagat Mithya, Brahman Satya, Brahman Jagat, is meant to open the mind to the eternal reality of Turiya/Brahman, which though not seen or felt, is ever there as ONE unbroken truth.

If one does not begin the sadhana from this premise, one will dwell forever in samsara, lobbed here and there by anyadevatas. If one sticks to the notion that discrete entities are eternal then so be it, how can one reach the ONE ADVAITA atma, which has to be known (as per all scripture).

Next step is Vairagya about the objects. If one is not able to give up attachment to objects, including to one's body and ego, one will remain like Ravana. But before one can give up the attachments, the truth must be accepted that Brahman is the eternal sole, unchanging, underlying, reality, in which all objects come and go and which are modifications of Brahman alone.

Without this discrimination the grace does not help. Scripture says: Atma choses one who has chosen Atma.

But at the same time, Atma -- the grace IS. Knowing this (using the discriminative faculty) the mind may engage in devotional worship, karma, and enquiry. Every act and every thought is by the agency of Atma for the Atma, as worship.

A note: Atma is not that which feels "I am Atanu". It is the ego.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Kaos]

Nirotu,

We need an "ego" to exist and function normally in this world.
Even the mere of act of reading and responding to this thread proves that ego is still at work. So, I don't understand what all the commotion was all about.

In a certain sense, the ego is but a scaled down version of the transcendental "I".

The problem is more of with keeping this "ego" in check rather than completely identifying with the false misconception of ourselves as ego-personality. In Buddhist terms, this accomplised through mindfulness.

So, no, you have not proven anything new in this thread, therefore, there was no reason to engage in a confrontational debate with the other members. May I suggest you apologize to Atanu and yajvan, in the spirit of goodwill here in this forum.

[atanu]

Dear Atanu and Satay:

-------
All you point out is what the book says without a slightest idea in practical terms or in creation what it means!

I have always maintained that Advaita to be ultimate truth and the goal. ------
Blessings,

Namaste,

Yes. Only you know with full clarity what is creation and what is its aim (we have gone through this before also). You are so sure of the intent of the creator. hehe. You do not lose a chance to show the ignorance of others.

On the other hand, you argue from premises of half baked ideas and concepts only. If one maintains/believes Advaita to be the ultimate truth then one would speak of Ajativada and not of a creation, as a second entity different from the Advaita Atma.

If that was so then the definition of unchangeable eternal brahman would be wrong.


Your goals and values are dualistic -- 'us and them'. Goal is to somehow inject, a bit here and there, of Bible. Arguments stem from those basic values and goals and they are at a different level from our goals. Although, repeatedly, it has been said that Advaita does not deny dualistic methods and goals, you have not cared to pay heed since you have a fixed agenda. No one has said that the Advaitin on the path is always Advaita, like you naively claim again and again. No. If it was so then Advaitin would not resort to sadhana. Foolish is a very mild word for this kind of repeated argument.

But an Advaitin surely believes that the Advaita Atma is eternally Advaita Atma. It has gone nowhere and it is not tucked away in a special heaven. That Advaita Atma has to be one's very self, since its very name is Atma. There is no other self. There cannot be two selves, unless one has pscychological disease, which some people have. Such people, negating scripture which says that God is antaratma, are hell bent on finding the heaven.


Om

[atanu]

Sanatana dharma considers Brahman as ONE and ALL. The religions that followed in the wake of Zarathustra have eternal division between good and evil; asuras (Ahura Mazda-Varuna) who are good and evil daevas (led by devil Shiva, since He is the non-conforming destroyer).

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam predominantly follow Zarathustra. Esoteric spiritualist burns the evil within. The bold exoteric Zarathustrian takes a gun and shoots another… the one who dies is always painted as the evil one. Or, the milder one will take a Bible (and money from rich) and coerce the so-called less fortunate others to follow his footsteps. The powerful always sees itself as the representative of the good God. And others are always evil; the Moralist rules. In Christianity, this translates into missionary reformist attitude: ‘We know God, we are His children. Others have to be taught’.

In God’s own country, Zarathustrian spirit burns brightly and presidents contemplate ‘star wars’ against ‘empires of evil’ or lead crusades against ‘an axis of evil’. A funny situation has arisen; Zarathustrians are fighting each other unto death. Another irony is that some Zarathustrians have taken up the land of devil Shiva as their own and Shiva has protected them.

The ‘us and them’ theme rules everywhere, in more or less strength, in sanatana dharma also. I am aware that it is the root of this write up as well.

The spiritual ‘us and them’ philosophy leads to frantic missionary/reforming activity and taken to excess will lead to destruction of Daksha Yagna and Daksha -- a powerful hero; will be reduced to a goat.

Dakshas are the so-called pillars of society, those who have stakes to lose.

Om Namah Shivaya

[satay]

Such people, negating scripture which says that God is antaratma, are hell bent on finding the heaven.


Om

amazing...:bowdown:

[Kaos]

In a practical sense, we still need to retain a certain sense of "ego" in order to function normally in this world. However, this "ego" is an idea only. Being an idea only, it is mental. Being mental only, it cannot be the Self.

It is likened to turning the intellect within and on itself, to face itself and see it's ignorance. Realizing that we are not the "ego-personalilty", but the Self within the Self, and that each jiva is actually Siva, that is, transcendental wisdom.

[mirabai]

Therefore, in creation there is a degree of two-ness to it. Forget the ego crying out to Grace, even Sages Ramana, Ramakrishna in their highest state have shown intense longing and reaching out to that Grace.

Dear Mr. Nirotu,

I take exception to your habit of pulling references in part and inserting them into your own vehicle to fabricate a half-baked theory for the purpose of slinging pebbles at a respected and accepted set of beliefs.
You completely ignore (misunderstand?) the very essence of the writings that you presume to describe. You bring dishonour and insult by doing this. Please at the least, show respect enough to reference and include context when you make claims like this.

You would have us to think of “grace” as though it is provided on demand, from a God who alternately bestows and withholds His grace according to who ever finds favor with Him. Then you misrepresent our own literature or scripture to substantiate your point.

Try to understand that Grace is not a favor to be obtained or a reward for being “good” for it is present around us and within us already. There is no need to beg for it or to long for it. We have already been graced to the max.


Your description of grace is like a pet at master’s feet, begging for tidbits of kindness. That way of thinking dishonours God and man. If you think you are reading such a thing in Vedanta or any of the respected writings, then please read and comprehend the entire piece so your misconception can be revealed to you.

As the grace of the sun is the sunlight beams that radiate out from it, so also is the grace of God.

As example, Swami-ji’s poem here is not describing a “reaching out and longing for grace”, but a beautiful celebration of the fact that the grace of God is inherent in every minute detail and aspect of existence, and at every moment it is the visible and concrete evidence of His loving care and benevolence and that the Self, being one with God, is also the enjoyer being manifest humanity. A win/win arrangement to be sure ;)

Self is not a kicked puppy as you think.




A SONG I SING TO THEE (Rendered from Bengali (http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_4/translation_poems/6212.pdf))
A song I sing. A song I sing to Thee!
Nor care I for men's comments, good or bad.
Censure or praise I hold of no account.
Servant am I, true servant of Thee Both (Purusha and Prakriti together.),
Low at Thy feet, with Shakti, I salute!
Thou standest steadfast, ever at my back,
Hence when I turn me round, I see Thy face,
Thy smiling face. Therefore I sing again
And yet again. Therefore I fear no fear;
For birth and death lie prostrate at my feet.
Thy servant am I through birth after birth,
Sea of mercy, inscrutable Thy ways;
So is my destiny inscrutable;
It is unknown; nor would I wish to know.
Bhakti, Mukti, Japa, Tapas, all these,
Enjoyment, worship, and devotion too —
These things and all things similar to these,
I have expelled at Thy supreme command.
But only one desire is left in me —
An intimacy with Thee, mutual!
Take me, O Lord across to Thee;
Let no desire's dividing line prevent.
The eye looks out upon the universe,
Nor does it seek to look upon itself;
Why should it? It sees itself in others.
Thou art my eyes! Thou and Thou alone;
For every living temple shrines Thy face.
Like to the playing of a little child
Is every attitude of mine toward Thee.
Even, at times, I dare be angered with Thee;
Even, at times, I'd wander far away: —
Yet there, in greyest gloom of darkest night,
Yet there, with speechless mouth and tearful eyes,
Thou standest fronting me, and Thy sweet Face
Stoops down with loving look on face of mine.
Then, instantly, I turn me back to Thee,
And at Thy feet I fall on bended knees.
I crave no pardon at Thy gentle hands,
For Thou art never angry with Thy son.
Who else with all my foolish freaks would bear?
Thou art my Master! Thou my soul's real mate.
Many a time I see Thee — I am Thee!
Ay, I am Thee, and Thou, my Lord, art me!
Thou art within my speech. Within my throat
Art Thou, as Vinâpâni, (Goddess of learning) learned, wise.
On the flow of Thy current and its force
Humanity is carried as Thou wilt.
The thunder of Thy Voice is borne upon the boom
Of crashing waves, of over-leaping seas;
The sun and moon give utterance to Thy Voice;
Thy conversation, in the gentle breeze
Makes itself heard in truth, in very truth,
True! True! And yet, the while, these gross precepts
Give not the message of the Higher Truth
Known to the knower!
Lo! The sun, the moon,
The moving planets and the shining stars,
Spheres of abode by myriads in the skies,
The comet swift, the glimmering lightning-flash,
The firmament, expanded, infinite —
These all, observant watchful eyes behold,
Anger, desire, greed, Moha, (delusion) and the rest (Such as pride and malice, the sixfold evil),
Whence issues forth the waving of the play
Of this existence; the home wherein dwells
Knowledge, and non-knowledge — whose centre is
The feeling of small self, the "Aham!" "Aham!"
Full of the dual sense of pleasure and of pain,
Teeming with birth and life, decay and death,
Whose arms are "The External" and "The Internal",
All things that are, down to the ocean's depths,
Up to sun, moon, and stars in spanless space —
The Mind, the Buddhi, Chitta, Ahamkâr,
The Deva, Yaksha, man and demon, all,
The quadruped, the bird, the worm, all insect life,
The atom and its compound, all that is,
Animate and inanimate, all, all —
The Internal and the External — dwell
In that one common plane of existence!
This outward presentation is of order gross,
As hair on human brow, Ay! very gross.
On the spurs of the massive Mount Meru (The name of a fabulous mountain round which the planed are said to revolve.)
The everlasting snowy ranges lie,
Extending miles and miles beyond more miles.
Piercing through clouds into the sky above
Its peaks thrust up in hundreds, glorious,
Brilliantly glistening, countless, snowy-white:
Flash upon flash of vivid lightning fleet,
The sun, high in his northern solstice hung,
With force of thousand rays concentrating,
Pours down upon the mountain floods of heat,
Furious as a billion thunderbolts,
From peak to peak.
Behold! The radiant sun
Swoons, as it were, in each. Then melts
The massive mountain with its crested peaks!
Down, down, it falls, with a horrific crash!
Water with water lies commingled now,
And all has passed like to a passing dream.
When all the many movements of the mind
Are, by Thy grace, made one, and unified,
The light of that unfoldment is so great
That, in its splendour, it surpasses far
The brilliance of ten thousand rising suns.
Then, sooth, the sun of Chit (Knowledge) reveals itself.
And melt away the sun and moon and stars,
High heaven above, the nether worlds, and all!
This universe seems but a tiny pool
Held in a hollow caused by some cow's hoof.
This is the reaching of the region which
Beyond the plane of the External lies.
Calmed are the clamours of the urgent flesh,
The tumult of the boastful mind is hushed,
Cords of the heart are loosened and set free,
Unfastened are the bandages that bind,
Attachment and delusion are no more!
Ay! There sounds sonorous the Sound
Void of vibration. Verily! Thy Voice!
Hearing that Voice, Thy servant, reverently,
Stands ever ready to fulfil Thy work.
"I exist. When, at Pralaya time
This wondrous universe is swallowed up;
Knowledge, the knower and the known, dissolved;
The world no more distinguishable, now,
No more conceivable; when sun and moon
And all the outspent stars, remain no more —
Then is the state of Mahâ-Nirvâna,
When action, act, and actor, are no more,
When instrumentality is no more;
Great darkness veils the bosom of the dark —
There I am present.
"I am present! At Pralaya time,
When this vast universe is swallowed up,
Knowledge, and knower, and the known
Merged into one.
The universe no more
Can be distinguished or can be conceived
By intellect. The sun and moon and stars are not.
Over the bosom of the darkness, darkness moves
Intense Devoid of all the threefold bonds,
Remains the universe. Gunas are calmed
Of all distinctions. Everything deluged
In one homogeneous mass, subtle,
Pure, of atom-form, indivisible —
There I am present.
"Once again, I unfold Myself — that 'I';
Of My 'Shakti' the first great change is Om;
The Primal Voice rings through the void;
Infinite Space hears that great vibrant sound.
The group of Primal Causes shakes off sleep,
New life revives atoms interminable;
Cosmic existence heaves and whirls and sways,
Dances and gyrates, moves towards the core,
From distances immeasurably far.
The animate Wind arouses rings of Waves
Over the Ocean of great Elements;
Stirring, falling, surging, that vast range of Waves
Rushes with lightning fury. Fragments thrown
By force of royal resistance through the path
Of space, rush, endless, in the form of spheres
Celestial, numberless. Planets and stars
Speed swift; and man' abode, the earth revolves.
"At the Beginning, I the Omniscient One,
I am! The moving and the un-moving,
All this Creation comes into being
By the unfoldment of My power supreme.
I play with My own Maya, My Power Divine.
The One, I become the many, to behold
My own Form.
"At the Beginning, I, the Omniscient One,
I am! The moving and the un-moving,
All this Creation comes into being
By the unfoldment of My power supreme.
Perforce of My command, the wild storm blows
On the face of the earth; clouds clash and roar;
The flash of lightning startles and rebounds;
Softly and gently the Malaya breeze
Flows in and out like calm, unruffled breath;
The moon's rays pour their cooling current forth;
The earth's bare body in fair garb is clothed,
Of trees and creepers multitudinous;
And the flower abloom lifts her happy face,
Washed with drops of dew, towards the sun."
http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_4/vol_4_frame.htm

Please reference the particular writings that you claim are a “longing and reaching out” for grace by Shri Ramana and Shri Ramakrishna. If it turns out to be so, then I apologize for speaking out and will attempt to clear my own misconceptions.

[nirotu]

Dear Mirabai:

There is a lot of good that can be learned from various contributors of this discussion if seekers like you cared to go over posts only bit carefully. To that end, your sudden enthusiasm coupled with “internet rage” is not really helpful when you have not really taken time to understand the meaning and the context of my statements:

Case in point:


You would have us to think of “grace” as though it is provided on demand, from a God who alternately bestows and withholds His grace according to who ever finds favor with Him. Then you misrepresent our own literature or scripture to substantiate your point.


Try to understand that Grace is not a favor to be obtained or a reward for being “good” for it is present around us and within us already. There is no need to beg for it or to long for it. We have already been graced to the max.

Your description of grace is like a pet at master’s feet, begging for tidbits of kindness. That way of thinking dishonors God and man. If you think you are reading such a thing in Vedanta or any of the respected writings, then please read and comprehend the entire piece so your misconception can be revealed to you.



Grace is primarily a response of God in love. It recognizes that God does not love us because of what we do, but in spite of what we do. That does not mean we become irresponsible with our actions thinking Grace is always there! http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1598&page=2 (http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1598&page=2)

I always believe that it is the “grace” that truly is benevolent in its nature and is bestowed as a gift upon mankind!

http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1598&page=3 (http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1598&page=3)


When you understand the definition of “grace” you will see the truth in what I am saying. The “grace” is an unmerited favor of God and as such, any one can avail of it where no qualifications required! It is there for the asking! No where in the Bible does it say “you have grace only through Jesus”.

http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1442&page=2 (http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1442&page=2)

In spite of my repeated explanation that Grace is an unmerited favor of God upon us, you seem to go on a tangent that is not clear to me.

Perhaps, a little more diligence on your part in reading the material is greatly appreciated. Otherwise, such mud-slinging will continue without an end or a purpose.



Please reference the particular writings that you claim are a “longing and reaching out” for grace by Shri Ramana and Shri Ramakrishna. If it turns out to be so, then I apologize for speaking out and will attempt to clear my own misconceptions.

Hmmmm!

Read Hymns to Arunachala by Sri Ramana Maharishi.
Sri Ramana’s cry towards Arunachala is a way to show his intense love and longing.

Read Gosepls of Ramakrishna by M.
Here Sri Ramakrishna shows his intense longing to Ma Kali that he had intimate visions of.

Read Devi Stuti or Durga Chaalisa of Shankara or pick up any book by Adi Shankara. His poetry is about Devi stuti for grace.

In all these you will find the intense longing of these sages to Grace through a maternal icon. If that does not move you, I have nothing more to say!


Blessings,

[nirotu]

Dear Kaos:

I am not sure at what point you began following my discussions on this thread. You seem to agree than disagree with me or vice-versa. Perhaps, let me rewind a bit to recap what you said, I said.


We need an "ego" to exist and function normally in this world.
Even the mere of act of reading and responding to this thread proves that ego is still at work. So, I don't understand what all the commotion was all about.

Who says that one should completely eliminate all notions of ego, while existing in this world?
I do consider ego as a necessary tool in man’s life that allows him to aspire to reach the higher plane by navigating the world. I have an ego, as do all individuals on this HDF. I do consider it a valuable part of who we are, which separates one from the other. While, in the spiritual realm there is no such separation exists, in the material world separation does exist between individuals, which is very valuable for the individual that allows one to acquire skills to learn and live with others around.


In a certain sense, the ego is but a scaled down version of the transcendental "I".
A Swamiji once said ( I am sorry, I do not know his name) and I quote, “The problem arises only when ego gets out of control and the higher self begins to fall under the leadership of the ego! Then, it is almost as if the ego is the self playfully pretending to be the separate entity called “I.”


The problem is more of with keeping this "ego" in check rather than completely identifying with the false misconception of ourselves as ego-personality. In Buddhist terms, this accomplised through mindfulness.
Having said that, I also believe that ego is not bad if kept at its rightful place! The ego functions best when it is in harmony with the whole–self. Those who are in touch with their higher-self find ego not as a threat but truly a vehicle to serve the higher–self.

We keep our egos in check when we continually nurture our awareness of who we really are. Then our egos are free to serve without trying ineffectually to rule.”


So, no, you have not proven anything new in this thread, therefore, there was no reason to engage in a confrontational debate with the other members.
I suppose you are right! To many, I have proved nothing other than stating the obvious which is the very heart of the question posed in this OP and that is, “what is the origin of the ego that Amma was referring to”? Here is what I said:
If an ego that interferes with true purpose of creation then it becomes “functioning ego.” Amma was speaking about that “functioning ego”, which indeed was not through the creative process of God.

After carefully looking at all statements above, if you still think that it somehow demeans Advaita or Advaitins, I am not sure if there can be any meaningful discussion between us.

May I suggest you apologize to Atanu and yajvan, in the spirit of goodwill here in this forum.Happy to oblige! If the spirit of our debate can be lifted and the goodwill towards each others maintained, surely, my sincere apologies to both. What bothers me is not criticisms of my view but their repeated assertion that I am somehow demeaning Advaita! These are very strong words and surely not warranted in debates! My responses in the form of criticism are resentments to those allegations. In any debate or a discussion it must be realized that when someone makes a point and justifies a personal view, it is only to highlight the “pros” of that view. That should never be construed as a means used to denigrate others.

Notwithstanding my remarks about Atanu and Satay, they can rest assured that their respect in the community of HDF is intact. I thank Satay for inviting me on the HDF. I admire Atanu as a person and his scholarship. Differing opinions and disagreement between us does not make him any less intelligent nor does it make me a winner! In the end it should be respected as just opinions and individual’s understanding of the truth without demeaning each other. He is far advanced in his knowledge while I am still struggling in my practical realities. I may not be as close to reaching that state as he is, but I surely thank God that God does not grade us on a curve!

Blessings,

[nirotu]

The duality is maintained by these says from your perspective. What and how do you know about their perspective unless you are on par with them in sadhana?

As ordinary people we can only guess that these sages compose and cry out to the deities so loudly only for the sake of their followers and other people.

Dear Saidevo:

I beg to differ with you. There is no proof of that. I think if Sages consciously were doing it for the sake of others then it is not genuine. The sublime expression on their faces (Ramana’s tears when he cites poems for Arunachala or absolute fervor in the writings of Shankara to divine mother) is such that their whole body would contort. Do you think it was for the benefit of the audience? It is said that the highest state of realization (Turiya) culminates in pure Bhakti, between sages and the Creator without any notice or participation of others. Such expressions are not put-ons by Sages for the sake of seekers. The state of Trans they exhibit shows their intense connection with the divine in that has no other person involved in it.

As you seek knowledge about God's grace and the duality of the world in manifest creation, also try to find out why God has given the state of deep sleep to everyone (possibly every form of life) and what happens in that state. The irony is that as the earth revolves on its axis only half the world experiences deep sleep in one day and one night. Suppose the entire world goes into deep sleep for just one full day of 24 hours: where will be the manifested creation then?
This is an excellent point but is not relevant to our discussion at the moment. Indeed, this could be a new topic for further discussion. The question here is not how to experience Turiya but the origin of ego as it relates to Advaita.

I thank you and appreciate your thoughtful comments.

Blessings,

[nirotu]

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam predominantly follow Zarathustra. Esoteric spiritualist burns the evil within. The bold exoteric Zarathustrian takes a gun and shoots another… the one who dies is always painted as the evil one. Or, the milder one will take a Bible (and money from rich) and coerce the so-called less fortunate others to follow his footsteps. The powerful always sees itself as the representative of the good God. And others are always evil; the Moralist rules. In Christianity, this translates into missionary reformist attitude: ‘We know God, we are His children. Others have to be taught’.
Dear Atanu:

It has become painfully obvious to me that no matter how hard I try not to bring in Christianity into a discussion I am greatly misunderstood. To tell you honestly, in all of my more recent discussions, I was referring to Sri Ramanuja’s philosophy of Vishista-Advaita more so than any other religion to make several of my points. It has been said that Ramanuja concentrates on the relation of the world to God where God indeed is real and independent. Similarly, souls of the world are also real, though their reality is dependent on God. Sri Ramanuja truly believes in a spiritual principle at the basis of the world, which cannot be treated as illusion!

If I may quote S. Radhakrishnan here, “Though Shankara did not mean by Jnana theoretical learning, there was a tendency among some of his disciples to make religion more an affair of the head than of the heart or will. They shut out from the external life the soul that is wrong, as well as the soul that is wicked. . . . .

. . Despite doctrinal differences, theistic systems, including four Vaisnava schools are all agreed in rejecting the conception of Maya, in regarding God as personal, and the soul as possessed of inalienable individuality, finding its true being not in an absorption in the supreme but in fellowship with Him.” (Indian Philosophy, Part 2, Muirhead Library of Philosophy, 1966 section on the Theism of Ramanuja)

Yet in another passage I quote, “Ramanuja urges several objections against the Advaita doctrine of Avidya. What is the seat of Avidya? It cannot be Brahman, who is full of perfections. It cannot be individual who is the product of Avidya. Avidya cannot conceal Brahman, whose nature is self-luminosity” (Indian Philosophy, Part 2, Muirhead Library of Philosophy, 1966 Section on the Theism of Ramanuja)

My reference to Amma’s quote was to see how the above statement jives with Amma’s statement. I still believe that her statement is correct because, as Radhakrishnan points so correctly, perfect God cannot create such an ego. In spite of my interpretation, I was once again labeled as demeaning Advaita!

In all honesty, do you really think that souls like Radhakrishnan, Ramanuja or Amma are actually demeaning Advaita? One needs to grasp the subtlety of the overall context in which such comments are being made. Any comment in isolation may appear as a judgment or an attack but when understood in the light of the context in which it is being made, it makes perfect sense. That is true with statements by Ramanuja or Radhakrishnan.

To get back to Amma’s statement, her comment in isolation could look like non-advaita or duality based but when you see that it is actually addressing the state of the seeker (suffering due to ego) then the same comment fits perfectly.

In many ways, Jesus Christ sayings resonate with the above statements. In creation even Jesus Christ has shown us Jesus the Son from the Christ Consciousness which is nothing short of duality. At the same time, “I am in my Father or I and my Father are one” reflects perfect Advaita in Him. I will not elaborate anymore on this as it will only bring in bad vibes in all! Let me end once and for all with the following remarks:

Last weekend as I was resting listening to a radio and the message on the radio caught my attention completely. It was as if the speaker was shouting in my ears with a megaphone. Somehow, I felt it was directed towards me. The speaker was Adrian Rogers, a noted preacher.

He said and I quote (may not be verbatim), “Follow peace with everyone and holiness without which no man shall see the Lord, looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God, lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you and thereby many be defiled”

12:14 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Heb&chapter=12&verse=14) Pursue peace with everyone, and holiness, for without it no one will see the Lord. 12:15 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Heb&chapter=12&verse=15) See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God, that no one be like a bitter root springing up and causing trouble, and through him many become defiled. (Hebrews: KJV)

There is a terrible problem that can blow a light from a candle and keep one’s soul in darkness. That can rob you of your peace and that is the root of bitterness. Looking back, I find this message points to me that I am robbing my own peace by keeping this bitterness take its root. I will mend my heart that is full of grief by spending time with Him who gave me the heart. Therefore, I find it is best for me that I do not engage anymore of myself in discussions with you or any others until I get over that hump of bitterness and I start to feel my points are being understood in the light in which they are being said.

Thank you all for your time.

Blessings,

[Kaos]

I will mend my heart that is full of grief by spending time with Him who gave me the heart.




Namaste nirotu,

I don't understand why your belief with Him (whatever name you want)should cause you grief. Perhaps, something is not aligned somewhere.

Nevertheless, may you find the peace you are looking for.

Regards,
Kaos

[atanu]

Dear Atanu:

It has become painfully obvious to me that no matter how hard I try not to bring in Christianity into a discussion I am greatly misunderstood. To tell you honestly, in all of my more recent discussions, I was referring to Sri Ramanuja’s philosophy of Vishista-Advaita more so than any other religion to make several of my points. -----
,

Dear Nirotu,

Your resolve to spend time with Him is good resolve, which will bear good fruits, no doubt.

Believe that it is more painful to me to encounter a confused person. I knew when you said “I consider the advaita to be the highest truth” that either you are lying or you do not know, since you were using VA concepts.

But why are you disclosing it now? Why bring in Shri Ramanuja at this stage? Will you explain frankly?




---- “Ramanuja urges several objections against the Advaita doctrine of Avidya. What is the seat of Avidya? It cannot be Brahman, who is full of perfections. It cannot be individual who is the product of Avidya. Avidya cannot conceal Brahman, whose nature is self-luminosity” (Indian Philosophy, Part 2, Muirhead Library of Philosophy, 1966 Section on the Theism of Ramanuja)

-----
Blessings,


There are millions of concepts and all are welcome. But do you have the understanding and level? The blessings and the rants going together indicate negativity.

First, Shri Ramanuja says that Avidya cannot be seated in Brahman. But Ramanuja also says that Jivas are laced eternally with Karma from time unknown and wherefrom that karma has come is not known. (How can a bad karma originate from dependent jivas who are parts of Lord, the controller?) Whereas Lord Krishna teaches “Arjuna you are not the doer”, “all karma happen due to interplay of gunas”, “atma na lipayate”. It is clear that the belief that one has karma is the basic delusion and wherefrom this delusion has come is not known. So, Shri Shankara is correct that there is delusion which is anirvarchaniya (even from the premise of Ramanuja). Hehe.

Either you say karma anirvachaniya or you say delusion anirvachaniya. Both lead to same problem. The latter, however, is correct, since it would be illicit to suggest that some bad karma may be traced back to Lord. Unthinkable.

Second, Shri Ramanuja teaches “In case of perception contradicting shruti, the shruti is not stronger”. So, in the face of the perception that the Sun goes round the Earth, the knowledge that 'it is actually the Earth which is going round' becomes invalid. Moreover, if perception is stronger then of what use is shruti? Go and believe the perceptions of a child or of a dog.

On the other hand, Advaita says that whatever transpires as concept/object is true since the consciousness is true. This includes all Dvaita and VA possibilities. The highest truth is the truth ever, whatever is the concept or the belief. This is plain and simple Advaita. There is nothing more. Sankara urges us to unravel this eternal truth (atma) by peeling away the clouds of delusion, which is also the truth, in a vibrating mode (Atma as the mind).

Please give rest and contemplate. All these arguments stem from Ego. Ramana instructs us to find out who has the questions.

Om Namah Shivaya

[satay]

namaste nirotu,

From dictionary.com, the definition of the word ‘demean’
- to lower in dignity, honor, or standing;
- reduce in worth or character, usually verbally

Perhaps the correct word that should have been used is ‘degrade’ instead of ‘demeaning’.



All sages have addressed the issue of ego! They all have lamented and agonized over it. Creation was perfect but somehow, in creation the defect in the pure-self is come into being. Even Shankara admits that the ego has come into being. Addressing that ego is far more meaningful than simply wishing it away or discarding as mere illusion.


What’s the implied meaning of the last sentence that you want to convey to the reader? Is it not implied here that ‘advaitins’ are not being meaningful by wishing ego away or by discarding it as mere illusion?

Aren’t you implying in a roundabout way that advaita is misleading humans by its less meaningful addressing of ego because it is discarding it as mere illusion? This kind of comparison shows that you are trying to show that ‘adviata’ is ‘lower’ in dignity or standing, you are trying to reduce its worth or character. Or at least that is how I read it. If that is not the intended meaning then please clarify.



In my view, advaitins fail to realize that the moment there is grace; there is also someone on whom it can be bestowed upon!


Okay, so? What is the implied meaning or intent here?



How can one profess our journey is Advaita when in reality they are experiencing two-ness all along?


I don’t know the answer to your question but what’s the implied meaning of your question?



Advaita as a start and the end is true and so is creation. If creation has occurred then Advaita can only be a goal for this created being! The real journey is not advaita as some like to think! When you go to a surgeon with a broken leg, the ultimate goal in your mind is always to be whole (Advaita- so to speak) with leg completely fixed but getting to that goal has to be through the process of surgery performed by surgeons, which essentially brings us into duality! Therefore, no amount of emphasizing the leg is whole will absolve the pain and the truth of broken leg!


Okay, so the goal is advaita but the journey is not. Just like if you are going to see the Taj, the path to agra is not Taj itself. So?

I have no regrets of inviting you here on HDF. In fact, the reason why I invited you here is simply because I admire your scholarship. However, I am not sure why you keep implying that adviata is wrong in its concepts of maya, ego etc. Let’s assume for a moment that it is wrong. So what? Why can’t we move on? Why this need of attacking it and need of proving that it is wrong?

This is not to bring labels in the conversation but I see this very often, where many Christians have this need to attack advaita because it has a target on its back. The first I heard of this was in lectures of Ravi. Do you listen to Ravi’s tapes/mp3s?

[mirabai]

Namaste Nirotu,

Hari om


Dear Mirabai:

There is a lot of good that can be learned from various contributors of this discussion if seekers like you cared to go over posts only bit carefully. To that end, your sudden enthusiasm coupled with “internet rage” is not really helpful when you have not really taken time to understand the meaning and the context of my statements:


Yes I agree there is very much that can be learned from the contributors of this and other discussions here. We agree on that at least, and some other points. A shame you cannot speak from a neutral (at least respectfully objective and accepting) position.

I stooped to the level of defending what you are so subtley attacking, and lashed out in retaliation.
My "sudden enthusiasm and internet rage" was more the result of my final frustration with you.
Even after the repeated explanation from other contributors, after hours of reading your posts, I finally realize that your intent is only to "subtley" convince us we must turn to the christ and be saved in order to advance spiritually. You pick out what you perceive to be flaws in various Vedic philosophy and practices, and are not capable to comprehend it when the further explanation is given.

Nevermind that others have humbly expressed respect for your belief and politely pointed out they are fine and happy with their own belief, you proceed to smudge and smear and try to convince of the error in another's belief. Nevermind also that some of these have studied and researched extensively and considered very carefully what they chose to believe and constantly seek truth and consciously practice integrity in their every day. Your arguments indicate to me that you practice deceit in trying to show others the error of their beliefs. To me this is unacceptable and a despicable practice.

Your own ignorance leads you to see "flaws" in the beliefs and practices of others, and your stubborn refusal to question your own belief prevents you from overcoming the ignorance. It is clearly the phenomenon of the "veil" that Jesus spoke of.

Words can be weapons and foolish people use them as such. I did. I do humbly apologize to you and to the members and admin of hindudharmaforum for lashing out. I was wrong to do that and I hope I will be forgiven for it.

om shanti shanti shantih

[atanu]

A man may argue for the love of ego, but when a woman lashes out, it is never without a real reason.

Even Shiva respects such anger, though it is Uma who contains Shiva's anger.

Om

[atanu]

Dear Saidevo:

I beg to differ with you. There is no proof of that. I think if Sages consciously were doing it for the sake of others then it is not genuine. The sublime expression on their faces (Ramana’s tears when he cites poems for Arunachala or absolute fervor in the writings of Shankara to divine mother)


This guy places only one side of the picture with such great confidence that an initiate will get mislead easily. I am surprised to see that he never mentions anything about Ramana's teachings on Jivan Mukta's or on Advaita? Nirotu only places what suits his bias as if that is the only saying of whomever he quotes.

I do not feel any guilt to say that I sense guile and not simplicity (which he claims to preach).

Anil Antony, please read Ramana fully and see whether He has said or not that a Jnani is not the body that the ignorant devotee sees. Jnani's actions are also not actions of the physical body or of the mind. His actions are all of Prakriti's. His bodily requirements are met by Prakriti (actually your and mine also).

There is no "I am Ramana", and such a Jnani does not compose, though to you he appears to compose. All of Jnanis acts are natural benevolent acts of Prakriti.

And use your common sense also. A jnani is not the body. He is Turiya. He can remain in Turiya while participating at all levels. Or He may not participate. Your rules of conduct and your perceptions do not mean anything. Please do not forget that a Jnani is Spirit absolute and not the body, on which you base your judgements.

A Jnani is free to do anything. He is God. He can cry in worshipful mood. Or He can command Kali. He remains as ONE and also as ALL. All scripture is by such Jnanis. Shankaracharya acted as incarnate as well as a great embodied devotee. So, did Lord Rama and Lord Krishna. So did Jesus.

Om Namah Shivaya

[suresh]

He can cry in worshipful mood.

This doesn't stand the test of logic, does it? God will worship who, himself, another god, what else? And is God subject to moods like crying etc.?

[atanu]

This doesn't stand the test of logic, does it? God will worship who, himself, another god, what else? And is God subject to moods like crying etc.?

Namaskar,




A jnani is not the body. He is Turiya. ---- Your rules of conduct and your perceptions do not mean anything. ------.

A Jnani is free to do anything. He is God. He can cry in worshipful mood. Or He can command Kali. He remains as ONE and also as ALL. All scripture is by such Jnanis. Shankaracharya acted as incarnate as well as a great embodied devotee. So, did Lord Rama and Lord Krishna. So did Jesus.


I am not competent to logically judge the Turiya, since it is indescribable, ungraspable, advaita, the past, the present, the future, and the All.

If you have attained that logical level, go ahead please.


Om Namah Shivaya

[nirotu]

I knew when you said “I consider the advaita to be the highest truth” that either you are lying or you do not know, since you were using VA concepts. But why are you disclosing it now? Why bring in Shri Ramanuja at this stage? Will you explain frankly?
Just when I was about to close chapters with you, I could not resist seeing your new allegation that I was lying. I won’t let you have the last word and get away with such allegations.

As scholarly as you present yourself on this board, I am quite baffled by the fact that you never noticed any hint of Ramanuja’s philosophy in all of my previous posts. The “Prapatti” I was referring to was exclusively from Ramanuja. The destiny of Atman that remains as a spark of the Brahman is from Ramanuja. The worship and not absorption in God is also from Ramanuja. In addition, I also indicated that even Christ’s sayings do resonate with these. Yet you keep on harping on the same tune that I am bringing Christianity. When a person’s intellect forms a shell then contrary or even complementary views are never welcome. It is about time that you broadened your horizon by stepping out of Advaita mode for a while so that you will have better appreciation of what others are saying even within Sanatana Dharma. I will say that there are striking parallels between Ramanuja and Christ except in salvation. We did not even touch that part.

Also, I would request my enraged friend “Mirabai” to reread my posts before joining you in slinging mud at me in the form of personal attacks. I do not wish to engage anymore with you both for now as you do not seem to get above the baseline personal level. We can endlessly engage in throwing mud at each other. Do you think that will get us anywhere? There is an old adage I am reminded of that says, “When we throw mud at others, only we lose ground and our hands will get dirty!” It’s best that I do not!

Believe that it is more painful to me to encounter a confused person.
So my friend, I would rather any day be confused like a child about spiritual matters but truly held in the arms of Grace with a passionate longing for the truth rather than dry intellectual theorizing of concepts that will never become real for me.

May I say, even many mystical sages have come across looking like confused adults (as seen by the ego of others) only they have known and felt the bliss of true contact. Any time I would rather be confused than arrogant.

Your resolve to spend time with Him is good resolve, which will bear good fruits, no doubt.

Thank you and yes, I am looking forward to that much needed break. I know I do need a break from so much theory going around here in a never ending chase, so that for once I can immerse myself in the ocean of Grace and not merely be standing and shivering on the banks of a ocean with a complete knowledge of what makes it and never having once felt or experienced or even drank that water intimately. I would be happy even with a drop of that ocean!


Adeos!

Blessings,

[atanu]

Just when I was about to close chapters with you, I could not resist seeing your new allegation that I was lying. I won’t let you have the last word and get away with such allegations.
--------

May I say, even many mystical sages have come across looking like confused adults (as seen by the ego of others) only they have known and felt the bliss of true contact. Any time I would rather be confused than arrogant.


Namaste

Yes, half truths and deceptions are worse than lies. Anyone can see how you try to use name of Radhakrishnan for your propaganda, from a scholarly exposition of the author. If I write a factual treatise on philosophy, you can’t draw some passage to colour me with an ideology. Same you have attempted with names of Shri Ramana’s and other sages.

This is despicable and you are a fanatic at this kind of propaganda (you know it Shri Anil).

I am a bit happy that you accept that commoners cannot fathom sages.



-------so that for once I can immerse myself in the ocean of Grace and not merely be standing and shivering on the banks of a ocean with a complete knowledge of what makes it and never having once felt or experienced or even drank that water intimately. I would be happy even with a drop of that ocean!

Adeos!

Blessings,

Yes, go and immerse yourself. Wish you best. Please do not bother about me, whether I have any experience or not? I can only say that your happiness, if you ever experienced the immersion, would not leave me untouched. At present your unhappiness only touches me.

May God give you contentment with yourself.

-------
Om Namah Shivaya

[saidevo]

Namaste Nirotu.



I will say that there are striking parallels between Ramanuja and Christ except in salvation. We did not even touch that part.


Why stop there? After all, Ramanuja lived during the years 1017-1137 CE and Jesus Christ is supposed to have lived a thousand years earlier. So why not say that the Visishtadvaita System of Hindu Philosophy has its origins in the teachings of Jesus Christ as delineated in the Bible? In the same way you can also say that the Advaita System founded by Adi Sankara who according to Western historical scholars lived in the 8th century CE. If Jehovah taught Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma how to meditate as claimed by a Jehovah's Witness evangelist when he visited my house, why can't Jesus originate the Hindu philosophies? Hail Jesus!

[nirotu]

I can only say that your happiness, if you ever experienced the immersion, would not leave me untouched. At present your unhappiness only touches me.
Dear Atanu:

Thank you so much for your well founded (?) concern about my state of unhappiness. At least on my part, all emphasis that I was placing on “first step” was not merely a talk or theory but is actually what I am practicing (famous first step). And thus, when you are already holding the hand of grace there is no room for unhappiness (perhaps bitterness from conflict).

I am not unhappy to say the least. Then again, “What one sees is what one actually is”, and therefore, that leads me to believe that you must be unhappy and troubled yourself. Therefore, I leave with a note urging you to take that first step of your journey.

On that beautiful note of friendship and encouragement let us part ways.

Blessings,

[atanu]

Dear Atanu:

------
Then again, “What one sees is what one actually is”, and therefore, that leads me to believe that you must be unhappy and troubled yourself. Therefore, I leave with a note urging you to take that first step of your journey.

On that beautiful note of friendship and encouragement let us part ways.

Blessings,


Hello Nirotu,

That's nice. After a long time you say: “What one sees is what one actually is”. Thus pay attention to yourself and all your head banging against Advaita Bug, that fills your mind, instead of love of God.


I have not claimed that I am 100% happy, so I am fine.

Praise Lord, Nirotu. That is infinitely better than acting like the sieve who said to the needle "Needle, you have a hole on your backside".

I remain alert happily to counter your devious, ignorant, divisive, fault finding, negative propaganda.

Best Wishes

Om Namah Shivaya

[Kaos]

Then again, “What one sees is what one actually is”




Perhaps, we should change the title of this thread to "Saga of Nirotu's ego", all 7 pages of it...

[Arvind Sivaraman]

Dear Friends:

Not too long ago a sage from India (popularly known as – Amma) passed through San Francisco and a friend of mine had the opportunity to attend her discourse. While chatting with my friend, I was told about the speaker who had said, “Everything is God’s creation accept the ego”. I began to think about this profound statement. How true it really is!! Every soul is trying to turn to God because that is where it belongs, which is in the presence of God. Yet, the ego does not want to turn to God because God is not its creator!

What is every one’s perspective regarding the truth in this profound statement (quote above)? Or, perhaps, that could form the basis for a deeper discussion on the nature and the role of the “ego” in creation and in man’s spiritual journey.

Blessings,

Om Shirdi Sai Ram.
Namaste Nirotu.
The sense of doership should at all cost be rid of in all matters.Even a leaf cannot move without HIS bidding.This is the ultimate truth.
To understand and realise this principle, one needs to have the grace of a self-realised Guru.Only then this profound realisation will flash by itself.

[satay]

Namaste Arvind,
Nirotu has been missing in action for quite a while now.

Nirotu, if you are reading this, I request you to join us again. I am sure that you are being missed by many.