PDA

View Full Version : From Watts



Bob G
30 December 2007, 09:51 AM
Quoted from Alan Watts:

"...Consider life as a revolving wheel set upright with man walking on its tire. As he walks, the wheel is revolving toward him beneath his feet, and if he is not to be carried backward by it and flung to the ground he must walk at the same speed as the wheel turns. If he exceeds that speed, he will topple foward and slip off the wheel onto his face. For at every moment we stand, as it were, on the top of a wheel; immediately we try to cling to that moment, to that particualr point of the wheel, it is no longer at the top and we are off balance. Thus by not trying to seize the moment, we keep it, for the second we fail to walk on we cease to remain still. Yet within this there is still a deeper truth. From the standpoint of eternity we never can and never do leave the top of the wheel, for if a circle is set in infinite space it has neither top nor bottom. Wherever you stand is the top, and it revolves only because you are pushing it round with your own feet." Alan Watts

Bob G
03 January 2008, 07:50 PM
Hi folks! An excerpt from Alan Watts (and a picture of him)


"...in Buddhism a pratyeka- buddha--'private buddha'. He is one who goes off into the transcendental world and is never seen again. And he's made a mistake from the standpoint of Buddhism, because from the standpoint of Buddhism, there is no fundamental difference between the transcendental world and this everyday world. The bodhisattva, you see, who doesn't go off into a nirvana and stay there forever and ever, but comes back and lives ordinary everyday life to help other beings to see through it, too, he doesn't come back because he feels he has some sort of solemn duty to help mankind and all that kind of pious cant. He comes back because he sees the two worlds are the same. He sees all other beings as buddhas. He sees them, to use a phrase of G.K. Chesterton's, 'but now a great thing in the street, seems any human nod, where move in strange democracies the million masks of god.' And it's fantastic to look at people and see that they really, deep down, are enlightened. They're It. They're faces of the divine. And they look at you, and they say 'oh no, but I'm not divine. I'm just ordinary little me.' You look at them in a funny way, and here you see the buddha nature looking out of their eyes, straight at you, and saying it's not, and saying it quite sincerely. And that's why, when you get up against a great guru, the Zen master, or whatever, he has a funny look in his eyes. When you say 'I have a problem, guru. I'm really mixed up, I don't understand,' he looks at you in this queer way, and you think 'oh dear me, he's reading my most secret thoughts. He's seeing all the awful things I am, all my cowardice, all my shortcomings.' He isn't doing anything of the kind; he isn't even interested in such things. He's looking at, if I may use Hindu terminology, he's looking at Shiva, in you, saying 'my god, Shiva, won't you come off it?"

330

satay
04 January 2008, 12:15 AM
Admin Note

Hello Bob G,

I am noticing that you have made several posts in different thread where you simply quote other people without providing your own comments on those quotes.

It would be great if we get to read your comments about those quotes or about the people that you are quoting and the context rather than just reading the dump of a quote.

If you absolutely must post quotes without any of your own comments, please consider the following thread, which is dedicated to quotes of other people, and you can simply post on this thread:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=969

sarabhanga
04 January 2008, 12:49 AM
Namaste Satay,

I know what you mean, but often Bob's uncommented quotes are actually quite relevant to other threads, or to the forum in general, and to my mind they are wise selections. So I am not sure that I agree with immediate relegation to a dump of unrelated comments from third parties.

In general, however, I agree that everyone should at least look for some closely related thread before starting a brand new thread for every new post.

atanu
04 January 2008, 03:41 AM
Hi folks! An excerpt from Alan Watts (and a picture of him)

-----When you say 'I have a problem, guru. I'm really mixed up, I don't understand,' he looks at you in this queer way, and you think 'oh dear me, he's reading my most secret thoughts. He's seeing all the awful things I am, all my cowardice, all my shortcomings.' He isn't doing anything of the kind; he isn't even interested in such things. He's looking at, if I may use Hindu terminology, he's looking at Shiva, in you, saying 'my god, Shiva, won't you come off it?"



Namaste Bob,

When I look inside OM, aided by OM, I see Him, like a soft rock encompassing the Sun, me, and everything, looking at me with such refreshing coolness that I say "oh dear me, my god, Shiva, won't you claim this, this mind ever?"

Om

Bob G
04 January 2008, 07:36 AM
Gentlemen,

I'll try to comment on or give more introductions to the quotes I may use...although in many cases I feel that what I might add could interfere with the quote. I think that in most cases (but not all the time) I have kept my quotes in the areas related to them, such as upanisad quotes in the upanisad area, Taoism quotes in the Taoism thread, Christian related quotes in the Christian area, Watts quotes in the Watts thread, etc.. I for one like these different areas of the forum that obviously can be quite different from Hinduism. Btw., I've noticed a tendency for such threads to be turned or taken over by forms of Hinduism which is very understandable at Hindu forum, but then one might ask why are these different religion and belief sections included in this forum?

Bob G
04 January 2008, 07:46 AM
Namaste Atanu,

Yes, and thanks for sharing your beautiful words!

I feel Watts is speaking right on the mark (and I've more or less experienced what I think he is describing) when he says:

"...When you say 'I have a problem, guru. I'm really mixed up, I don't understand,' he looks at you in this queer way, and you think 'oh dear me, he's reading my most secret thoughts. He's seeing all the awful things I am, all my cowardice, all my shortcomings.' He isn't doing anything of the kind; he isn't even interested in such things. He's looking at, if I may use Hindu terminology, he's looking at Shiva, in you, saying 'my god, Shiva, won't you come off it?"

sarabhanga
05 January 2008, 04:21 AM
One might ask why are these different religion and belief sections included in this forum?

Namaste Bob,

Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, and even ISKCON ;), are all elements Sanatana Dharma, and most would accept that they are all derived directly from the fold of Indian Hinduism. And likewise, the followers of all Abrhamic faiths (including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) are following an ancient scion of Hindu Dharma (the original Yudha presumably descended from Yadava priests who headed west more than 3,000 years ago). And Hindu Dharma Forums has roughly classified many different aspects of Sanatana Dharma merely for convenience, so that related information collects in roughly the same area. But it should not be assumed that ANY area is immune from discussion in the context of Hindu Dharma. If someone wants to discuss Christianity, for example, untouched by any reference to Dharma, then they should be posting on a Christian web site!

Inclusion under the umbrella of Sanatana Dharma certainly does not invalidate other Dharmas; indeed, once the appropriate associations are made, this shared knowledge greatly enhances the proper understanding of those divergent (and apparently irreconcilable) ways of Dharma, conflict between some elements of which has been the source of very much suffering over the centuries. And given the ancient roots of Judaism, modern Hinduism can learn something of its own roots by consideration of the ancient Judaic texts and practices. And I am certainly not suggesting that anyone changes their denomination, only seeking some common understanding in the midst of otherwise endless perceptions of separation and mysterious “otherness”. But I would always suggest that whatever Dharma is under consideration, it is best considered from the standpoint of Advaitam.

Bob G
05 January 2008, 10:41 AM
Hello Sarabhanga,

I don't see a problem if you make it very clear to everyone up front when they first visit or join the forum that all of the other non-Hindu sub-sections here are basically under the views that you espouse in your last post in this thread. (and I wonder if such is the same for the rest of management?) Otherwise I feel that the other traditions and people could easily be stepped on with various and wide ranging correlations and beliefs that they do not hold! (regardless of your many studies that find interesting evidences to reveal historical and or other types of connections)

Granted, it's a noble idea to find common ground and from what little I know of the history of Hinduism and its people, they have bent over backward being tolerable of other faiths. None-the-less I feel that they must primarily stick to their own Ways or Sects. Likewise and for instance it would not be cool for a Buddhist to come here and remark or insist to all of the Hindus that they are really Buddhists and under Buddhist Dharma but they just don't know it yet! (through showing various and well thought out correlations and evidences)

Good day to you,

Om

atanu
05 January 2008, 11:38 AM
Namaste Atanu,

Yes, and thanks for sharing your beautiful words!

I feel Watts is speaking right on the mark (and I've more or less experienced what I think he is describing) when he says:

"...When you say 'I have a problem, guru. I'm really mixed up, I don't understand,' he looks at you in this queer way, and you think 'oh dear me, he's reading my most secret thoughts. He's seeing all the awful things I am, all my cowardice, all my shortcomings.' He isn't doing anything of the kind; he isn't even interested in such things. He's looking at, if I may use Hindu terminology, he's looking at Shiva, in you, saying 'my god, Shiva, won't you come off it?"

Namaste Bob,

That is nice, yet I (this mind) is not there. I say: "Who knows what the Guru (Shiva) is thinking?". I say: "Guru, Shiva, let me know who I am?"

Om

sarabhanga
05 January 2008, 08:12 PM
Namaste Bob,

The URL is HinduDharmaForums, the site is titled Hindu Dharma Forums, every page carries a banner at the top proclaiming Hindu Dharma Forums in large letters and with a caption stating “HINDU DHARMA FORUMS for Discussion of Sanatana Dharma, Hindu Religion and Indian Culture”, and the very first item in our FAQ says “Hindu Dharma Forums is an open forum for constructive discussion on all aspects of Indian culture and traditions and the positive presentation of Sanatana Dharma (the Eternal Religion, known as Hinduism or simply as Dharma, the spiritual Duty or universal Law). And all visitors get a special message on the index page saying in bold letters: “Welcome to Hindu Dharma Forums, for discussions on Sanatana Dharma, Hindu Religion, and Indian Culture”.


It should be quite clear to all visitors, and especially all members, that the whole of HDF is dedicated to Hindu communication and Hindu understanding. Everyone is welcome, but the site’s overriding theme is Sanatana Dharma or “Universal Spiritual Law” and anything connected with Indian culture and Indian traditions.

The “Abrahamic Religions” forum was originally titled “Abrahmic Religions” to make it clear that Abrahmic was a pair with Brahmic, but someone complained about the spelling and it was changed to “Abrahamic”. And the Abrahamic forum is subtitled “For discussion on the diasporic traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.” The diaspora referred to here is that of Sanatana Dharma, which is generally known as Hinduism, which is generally understood as having originated in India.

The management is well aware of my views on the all pervasive nature of Sanatana Dharma, and has provided every support in presenting such views to a wider audience. I have even posted a kind of personal “manifesto” declaring a plan of action, which is supported by a core of dedicated members.

I have presented evidence repeatedly over the last 10 years in various forums, and since nobody has ever presented a reasonable refutation of any of this information (other than a stubborn “I don’t believe you”) I will continue to assume that what I am saying is close to the truth.

I have clearly shown that Islam is derived from Hindu Dharma, without any convincing refutation of this evidence. I have clearly shown that Christianity is derived from Hindu Dharma. without any convincing refutation. I have clearly shown that Judaism is derived from Hindu Dharma, without any refutation. I have clearly shown that Taoism is not essentially different from “Gaoism” (i.e. Hinduism). And, since Gautama Buddha, and Mahavira, were raised as Hindu in the midst of traditional Hindu culture and with Hindu Gurus teaching them the whole suite of Hindu philosophy, it would be foolish to suggest that Jaina and Bauddha Dharma are not intimately connected with Hinduism. Gautama and Mahavira would certainly not have accepted that they were responsible for anything new, only representing the same key understandings in a Prakrit language instead of Sanskrit.

And I have just noted that I am certainly NOT suggesting that anyone should change their denomination!

It would be very foolish for a Buddhist to claim that Buddhism has no intimate connexion with Hinduism, when the Buddha himself was a Hindu, and the key tenets of Buddhism were all developed within Hindu India! It would be just as foolish as a Christian claiming that the message of Jesus Christ is entirely independent of Judaism. When, in reality, Judaism and Christianity are related in exactly the same way as Vedic Hinduism and Vedantic Hinduism are intimately related.

Please give an example, from any of my many posts on such matters, where the beliefs or practices of any traditional Dharma have been incorrectly presented!! If someone has contrary evidence I would very much like to see it. But so far such key information has not been forthcoming, with objectors merely ignoring every one of my points and blindly repeating “I just don’t believe you!”.

I cannot force anyone to believe anything, and I have no intention of doing so! But I can present true information and logically deduce its implications, supported by a range of scriptural and linguistic and historical correlations. And if someone has a contrary opinion they are free to present it, but some reasonable evidence should be provided to counter the compelling evidence already given, otherwise their stubborn “I don’t believe it” is unconvincing.

Bob G
06 January 2008, 11:27 AM
Hello Sarabhanga,

I did read the info you mention when I first came here that says : "The URL is HinduDharmaForums, the site is titled Hindu Dharma Forums, every page carries a banner at the top proclaiming Hindu Dharma Forums in large letters and with a caption stating “HINDU DHARMA FORUMS for Discussion of Sanatana Dharma, Hindu Religion and Indian Culture”, and the very first item in our FAQ says “Hindu Dharma Forums is an open forum for constructive discussion on all aspects of Indian culture and traditions and the positive presentation of Sanatana Dharma (the Eternal Religion, known as Hinduism or simply as Dharma, the spiritual Duty or universal Law)..."

Thus as I said when I first came here I found the listings and involvement with the non-Hindu sub-forums as being rather incongruent with the stated mission of the forum, and still incongruent after reading what to me are your recently stated rationalizations related to same...but what the heck I like variety even though I didn't expect such here! Anyway, whether or not I like the variety I personally see no need to equate just about everything as being related to Hindusim as you apparently do! Also the interesting tidbits or treastises of various religious knowledge that you seem so deeply attached to and opionated about are apparently proportional to the degree of frustration you suffer when others do not recognize your apparently irrefutable acumen related to same; thus I sometimes feel an attitude of one-up-man-ship coming from you about the information you share, which btw I think is counter-productive to tolerant exchanges with some members, even though much of the information by itself is or could be of interest.

That is about all I have to say on the subject.

Om Shanti...

satay
06 January 2008, 12:27 PM
namaste,

Why does Sarabhanga get attacked personally by some members when they don't agree with what he has to say?

:dunno:

sarabhanga
06 January 2008, 07:38 PM
Namaste Satay (and Bob),

I have presented considered opinions based on a range of evidence, and there are some who, based on their own prejudice and preconceived notions of difference, cannot tolerate the vision of naranArAyaNa. They have discarded nara (God the Father, the immortal old man of Heaven) and proudly consider nArAyaNa (God the Son, who both divides and unites, as the eternal transmission, the very Word of God) and nAra (mortal man) as the whole. And, lost in a cycle of endless dvaitam, and lost for words, such individuals may either stubbornly ignore every point (without reason or any informed comment) or insult my personal integrity (agreement, of course, being out of the question). I am not presenting anything on the internet out of personal pride, so personal insults have little impact. Of course, as a human teacher, I do feel some frustration that my deeply considered words are apparently misunderstood or even entirely dismissed as meaningless prattle, but that does not affect the truth of those words (which do not require praise or abuse, only understanding and then either acceptance or some reasoned denial). And if any supposed fact was shown to be incorrect, I would happily remove it from consideration, for I have no attachment to the details of the argument, only the conclusion.

The veritable darkness of dvaitam (like any vampire) cannot tolerate the true light of advaitam. So, the more vehement any pointless protestation becomes, it only serves to prove that the point is truly aimed at the dark heart of dvaitam, which is the source of all division and endless suffering.

Znanna
06 January 2008, 08:29 PM
namaste,

Why does Sarabhanga get attacked personally by some members when they don't agree with what he has to say?

:dunno:


Namaste,

While Sarabhanga has summed up concisely in response ... I'd add that preservation of construct/ego is a natural response to that which would upset the notion of integrity.

Respectfully, I can relate, as I been called every thing under the sun, starting with Satanist and going downhill from there.



ZN

sarabhanga
06 January 2008, 09:57 PM
“With truthful news I come to you from sheba (shivA), where I found a woman (satI) reigning over the people. She is possessed of every virtue (shiva) and has a splendid throne (kailAsa). I found that she and her subjects worship the sun instead of god (i.e. before the light). Satan has seduced them and debarred them from the right path, so that they might be guided to the worship of god, who brings the light to all that is hidden in the heavens and the earth and knows what you conceal and what you reveal. God, there is no god but him (i.e. rudra), the lord of the glorious throne (kailAsa).”

“He said: ‘Serve none but god’ (i.e. advaitam), but they divided themselves into two discordant factions (i.e. dvaitam).”

yajvan
06 January 2008, 11:10 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

We were born to bless, this we should never forget.
Maharishi Mehesh Yogi

atanu
07 January 2008, 06:45 AM
Namaste Atanu,

Yes, and thanks for sharing your beautiful words!

I feel Watts is speaking right on the mark (and I've more or less experienced what I think he is describing) when he says:

"...When you say 'I have a problem, guru. I'm really mixed up, I don't understand,' he looks at you in this queer way, and you think 'oh dear me, he's reading my most secret thoughts. He's seeing all the awful things I am, all my cowardice, all my shortcomings.' He isn't doing anything of the kind; he isn't even interested in such things. He's looking at, if I may use Hindu terminology, he's looking at Shiva, in you, saying 'my god, Shiva, won't you come off it?"

Namaste Bob,

That is nice, yet I (this mind) is not there. I say: "Who knows what the Guru (Shiva) is thinking?". I say: "Guru, Shiva, let me know who I am?"

Om

----------------

Thought I would give a try to bring it back, though watt is also unit of consumption of energy.

Om

atanu
07 January 2008, 06:47 AM
Namaste,

... I'd add that preservation of construct/ego is a natural response to that which would upset the notion of integrity.
----
ZN

Wow.

Om

Bob G
07 January 2008, 04:15 PM
Hello Atanu,

I'm not sure if you are asking something...? (or giving a rhetorical like hint)

Anyway I'd say asking the right question at the right time is half the answer; and then taking that half and working with all of its aspects to completion or unfoldment should just about bring one through to the other half...

"Fear not"

Om

atanu
08 January 2008, 01:22 AM
Hello Atanu,

I'm not sure if you are asking something...? (or giving a rhetorical like hint)

Anyway I'd say asking the right question at the right time is half the answer; and then taking that half and working with all of its aspects to completion or unfoldment should just about bring one through to the other half...

"Fear not"

Om

Namaste Bob G,

Neither a question nor a hint. My status.

"Fear Not" is correct. I get it.

Om

atanu
08 January 2008, 01:38 AM
namaste,

Why does Sarabhanga get attacked personally by some members when they don't agree with what he has to say?

:dunno:
Dear Satay,

God ensures that a sadhaka who has surrendered (unlike un-enlightened ones) gets what he needs. "Fear Not".



Om

sarabhanga
08 January 2008, 03:47 AM
Namaste,

advaitam is the ultimate reality, but that does not discount the fact that all mortals are born into a relative world of dvaitam, and the repeating cycle of birth and death and the passing experience of joys and sufferings continues for as long as this kalpa of creation (and destruction) lasts.

advaitavAda is the ultimate truth, but that does not negate the transient value of dvaitavAda. Indeed, the vaidika sAMkhya and vaisheSika nyAya are radically dualistic, the karmakANDa and much of the bhaktimArga is dualistic, and shvetAmbara jaina and bauddha dharma, following the ancient traditions, are also expressions of dualism.

And the key to following dvaitavAda while existing in dvaitam is the binding vow of ahiMsatyA.

Only advaita vedAnta suggests the ultimate bliss of moksha; with properly informed dvaitavAda affirming the continuity of worldly existence, peace on earth, and the greatest prosperity and happiness for all mortal beings.

Provided that dvaitavAda is well restrained by yama, there is no problem at all; but when dvaitavAda is mistaken for advaitavAda, the implications become serious. And if the restraints of yama are abandoned, the result can only be adharma, with the sum total of human suffering and environmental degradation, and even the risk of total extinction, increased.

atanu
08 January 2008, 08:23 AM
Namaste,

---
And the key to following dvaitavAda while existing in dvaitam is the binding vow of ahiMsatyA.

--

Pranam Sarabhanga,

And the key to following dvaitavAda while existing in dvaitam is the binding vow of ahiMsatyA, knowing that advaitam is the ultimate reality and accompanied with unflinching faith that God provides the best for the devotee.


I hope that you will agree to the additions, since this is not ego construct but my experience.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Bob G
08 January 2008, 12:27 PM
A link to further information about Alan Watts.

http://deoxy.org/watts.htm

sarabhanga
09 January 2008, 06:29 AM
And the key to following dvaitavAda while existing in dvaitam is the binding vow of ahiMsatyA, knowing that advaitam is the ultimate reality and accompanied with unflinching faith that God provides the best for the devotee.

Namaste Atanu,

If one knows that advaitam is the ultimate reality, why would one be following dvaitavAda? If advaitam is understood as another, in any dualistic relation with the self, then this is dvaitavAda; but perhaps you are suggesting vishiSTAdvaitam, where the spirits of men are considered as having a qualified identity with the one Spirit, being separate and distinct from the one supreme Spirit, although entirely dependent on it, and ultimately to be united with it.

atanu
09 January 2008, 07:41 AM
Namaste Atanu,
If one knows that advaitam is the ultimate reality, why would one be following dvaitavAda? If advaitam is understood as another, in any dualistic relation with the self, then this is dvaitavAda; but perhaps you are suggesting vishiSTAdvaitam, where the spirits of men are considered as having a qualified identity with the one Spirit, being separate and distinct from the one supreme Spirit, although entirely dependent on it, and ultimately to be united with it.

Namaste Sarabhanga,

You are logically correct. Yet, as of now, through discrimination/through studies/through Guru's teachings, I comprehend God to be the innermost being, Advaita, divisionless pure knowledge which has no second.

However, there are phases daily, when this ego called atanu goes through dvaita state (as when a mosquito bites), or through VA (as when in meditation). Only on rare occassions, the ego atanu gets the touch of Advaita. Dvaita prevails mostly, as the bony body is surely perceived separate from the pure spirit. And when the body is bony, it lacks even a qualified identity with the one Spirit. Thus the Dvaita and not VA. (I feel that D, VA, and A roughly correspond to waking, dream, and Shushupti states).

During meditation, however, the seer in the right eye and the person in the Sun -- Atman and Brahman, often become One Purusha and encapsulates Me -- all my bodies. Even in waking, this knowledge is palpable but not of Advaita.

These are my reasons. This is a bit complicated for me to put in words properly but in summary i will say that this ego passes through both Dvaita and VA states (and through Advaita in flashes).

May be I should modify a bit as below:

And the key to following dvaitavAda while existing in dvaitam is the binding vow of ahiMsatyA, believing that advaitam is the ultimate reality and accompanied with unflinching faith that God provides the best for the devotee.


Om Namah Shivaya

sarabhanga
09 January 2008, 09:10 PM
Namaste Atanu,

turya = advaitAdvaitam = amArga = ajAtivAda
prAjña = advaitam = advaitamArga = mAyAvAda
taijasa = dvaitAdvaitam = dvaitAdvaitamArga = vishiSTAdvaitavAda
vaishvAnara = dvaitam = dvaitamArga = dvaitavAda

sarabhanga
09 January 2008, 11:17 PM
turya = advaitAdvaitam = amArga = ajAtivAda
prAjña = advaitam = advaitamArga = mAyAvAda
taijasa = dvaitAdvaitam = dvaitAdvaitamArga = vishiSTAdvaitavAda
vaishvAnara = dvaitam = dvaitamArga = dvaitavAda

dvaitavAda is dharma for brahmacaryAshrama and gRhasthAshrama,
vishiSTAdvaitavAda is vAnaprastha dharma,
mAyAvAda is saMnyAsa dharma, and
ajAtivAda is the avadhUta mArga.

atanu
10 January 2008, 01:32 AM
Namaste Atanu,

turya = advaitAdvaitam = amArga = ajAtivAda
prAjña = advaitam = advaitamArga = mAyAvAda
taijasa = dvaitAdvaitam = dvaitAdvaitamArga = vishiSTAdvaitavAda
vaishvAnara = dvaitam = dvaitamArga = dvaitavAda

The following is my understanding:

Transcnding vidyaAvidya inherent in Shushupti one knows Ajati Turya

Transcending vishiSTAdvaitavAda one knows ONE Taijjassa

Transcending dvaitam one knows ONE vaishvAnara

----

Regards,

Om