PDA

View Full Version : Enjoying lila



simex
12 January 2009, 10:20 AM
Usually the message is to dissolve our egos, to renounce the worldly pleasures, and to transcend this relativistic realm of the material. We are told to ignore the differences which make phenomenon appear to us. What is here, the same is there. We are told to view with indifference the body/mind's reaction to stimulus. The world is a dream.

To me, this is not completely clear. From my point of view it appears that the universe is a giant experience generating machine. Experiences and experiencers are being constantly molded out of, and dissolved back in to, Brahman. The experiencers can be experiences for other experiencers, and vice-versa.

So I often imagine a God, supreme, without a second, existing alone in reality. Being the only entity, filling all space and time, and being without attributes, god decides to manifest as the universe. Now, as the the shapes smash together, forms coalesce out of the explosion. Life and experience become possible through forms, and consciousness / Brahman rushes to fill the space, like water rushing to fill a container. Now there is relative difference, and points from which that difference can be observed and related to.

It's hard for me to say that there is no will here in the universe. I mean, I doubt it's so simple as to say "God made grass so cows would have something to eat. " However, I do think it's reasonable to say "God wanted experience and existence." I have to trust that if God has a will, this is it.

So there's always a chance that enlightenment/moksha is not "the" goal, rather it's a personal goal invented by humans. What if God just wants us to enjoy the creation, and liberation is simply seeing the manifestation for what it is and not becoming attached. Can't the universe be enjoyed and renounced simultaneously? Like watching the scenery pass out the car window, knowing full well that it will be quickly replaced with new scenery, but enjoying the mystery of what comes next.

The big paradox is the fact that we are asked to see the universe as utterly natural, unfolding exactly the way it should. But, by the same token, we are warned against taking pleasure in it. The idea of "wrong" or "should" has no place in a naturally unfolding process.

Isn't liberating yourself from Maya akin to fighting against God? It's my understanding that Maya is an integral part of the universe.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but still, I wonder about this stuff. Maybe the "point" is to just enjoy the mystery, but we spend our days trying to transcend it.

MahaHrada
12 January 2009, 12:49 PM
There are a variety of approaches and traditions in bharata dharma, some advocate renouncement of worldly pleasure and even monasticism, others do not.
There are also a lot of Shaiva and Shakta traditions that recommend to utilise blissful experiences for attainment of the goal of self realization, even those traditions that do advocate renouncement do so only for certain people or regulate the activity according to the differnt stages of life moksha and renouncement then is the goal to be achieved in old age.

Besides these differences in all traditions the attainment of all four goals dharma (duty) artha (arts and sciences) kama (sensual desires and experiences) and moksha (liberation) are legitimate purposes of life.

atanu
16 January 2009, 08:39 AM
Usually the message is to dissolve our egos, to renounce the worldly pleasures, and to transcend this relativistic realm of the material.

Namaste Simex,

Your post is thought provoking and contemplating on your queries should help one get to the root of all Paradoxes. There are few points that I wish to note.

Actually, the message, as per my understanding is to denounce/overcome the effect of ignorance of the singular reality that the self is. For example, in deep sleep one is very much present, yet not knowing anything owing to uniform singularity of all that can be perceived. No one can deny that this uniform singularity is blissfull, life sustaining, and not different from oneself (though most of us do not comprehend it to be so). But as soon as the mind apparatus starts to work, there are others and duality of pleasure and pain.

The point is that one is singular bliss itself and there is no need for duality of pleasure and pain.

Sahaja Samadhi is the goal, yet Sahaja Samadhi is not attainable till one is grounded in the knowledge of Good versus Pleasure (as taught in Gita). For example, I may take a pleasurable route of not doing today's prescribed karma but I will face suffering tommorrow. The wise know that finishing today's task is both good and pleasurable.

Sahaja Samadhi is not attainable till one has gained mastery over the mind. Sahaja Samadhi is not attainable till one has experienced consciously the Unitary Self. The Vira of Tantra is the highest goal, which cannot be attained till one experiences that "There is fear as long as there is a second".



It's hard for me to say that there is no will here in the universe. I mean, I doubt it's so simple as to say "God made grass so cows would have something to eat. "

Actually the mind that is contemplating all these has never been separate from Brahman. It is good to investigate as to "Whose Desire and Whose Will?"




So there's always a chance that enlightenment/moksha is not "the" goal, rather it's a personal goal invented by humans.


This depends on what one understands the 'Moksha' to mean. You will see difference of perspective among different sampradayas regarding meaning of Moksha.

There is also a paradox in what you say. What are Humans? In one hand you say God's Will and on the other hand, you cite 'Moksha' word to be the invention of Humans. The point is: The mind that throws up all doubts, itself is the paradox. When thoughtless, the mind is That. When thoughts arise, the mind may take Sattwik direction or Tamasic-Rajasic direction or a mixture in any proportion.

Vishnu is Param Padam, since Vishnu is All Pervading Unitary Sattwik Mind -- effectively identical to Brahman. Vedas do exhort us to attain this.




The big paradox is the fact that we are asked to see the universe as utterly natural, unfolding exactly the way it should. But, by the same token, we are warned against taking pleasure in it. The idea of "wrong" or "should" has no place in a naturally unfolding process.

Isn't liberating yourself from Maya akin to fighting against God? It's my understanding that Maya is an integral part of the universe.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but still, I wonder about this stuff. Maybe the "point" is to just enjoy the mystery, but we spend our days trying to transcend it.


Actually, I repeat, we are urged to acquire wisdom -- to know the self. Towards that goal we are taught to discriminate between Pleasure (concerned with locational body-mind, which are called Truth but are temporal) versus the GOOD (concerned with infinite Atma, which is the Truth of the Truth). To experience the Truth of the Truth one does not have to throw away the Truth but one must know the true nature of the Truth itself.

The mind that throws up all doubts, itself is the paradox.

Regards,

Om

simex
16 January 2009, 11:19 AM
namaste atanu and mahahrada

Yes I see the paradox in my own statements now. It's hard to make a distinction between God's will and the will of humans, if all is God. In that case, I suppose moksha is a "real" goal because some people aspire to it. The goal exists, and therefor it is an expression of Brahman, regardless of who holds it.

I see that there's a difference between physically renouncing the world, and dispelling the attitude with which we approach it. However, I find that the more I pursue the spiritual, the more I get attached to the world, because I see EVERYTHING as sacred and beautiful. I think to myself "I made this to experience it". Could this attitude be used to advance spiritual progress?

Sometimes I see renunciation like cooking yourself a big meal, and then just sitting there while it gets cold, because you came to realize you were never hungry.

atanu
17 January 2009, 08:33 AM
namaste atanu and mahahrada

I see that there's a difference between physically renouncing the world, and dispelling the attitude with which we approach it.

Namaste Simex,

I think this is the crux. Many Upanishads outline the steps to liberation and surely sannyasa (renunciation) tops the list. However, Gita and many Gurus clarify that wearing ochre robes alone does not qualify Sannyasa.

Gita teaches that giving up fruits of actions and also experiencing firmly "I am not the doer", is true renunciation. It is not about giving up the ego (as if as a great sacrifice) but it is experiencing that the Ego is the ignorance -- it is the illusory trap to which the mind is attached.

In fact a few gurus do point out that a man who labels himself a sadhu (mendicant) is in equal error as a man who labels himself a grihasthi (householder). There is a story in Tripura Rahasya. A king wanted to be liberated and thus renounced everything material that beloged to him, including his clothes and subjected his body to great difficulties. His wife being a Self realised one was his guru. The wife chided him for being unnecessarily cruel to the harmless body. The wife then pointed out to the king that he had not renounced that very thing which was renouncing everything.

The tricky thing is to renounce the renouncer.:) And by corollary, there is nothing that one can really renounce, except the false notion "I am renouncing".

Om

atanu
17 January 2009, 10:36 PM
Namaste Simex,

The following three stanzas, representing the end of Mahanarayana Upanishad, summarize the issue better than any one of us can do. I thought of capping this discussion with the citation.

The highest is ONE and ALL, without even a molecular level gap. Whatever is known directly or by report is pervaded by Lord. One who meditates on Him thus with the help of OM, is defined as Sannayasi, whose all acts and he himself is the sacrifice. All required priests and various rites are himself.




Maha-Narayana Upanishad
Translated by Swami Vimalananda
Published by Sri Ramakrishna Math, Chennai




LXXIX-17: O Supreme, Thou art the giver of the wealth of supreme knowledge to us. Thou hast become all. Thou unitest the individual Souls in the Sutratman. Thou pervadest the universe. Thou art the giver of the lustre to fire. Thou art the giver of light and heat to the sun. Thou art the bestower of the riches of light to the moon. Thou art taken in the upayama vessel as soma juice for oblation. We worship Thee the Supreme who art such for the manifestation of Light.
LXXIX-18: (The Sannyasin having meditated upon the Supreme) should concentrate his thoughts on Him uttering the syllable Om. This, the syllable Om, verily is the substance of many great Upanishads and a secret guarded by the gods without imparting to the unfit. He who practises meditation on the Supreme thus with the aid of Pranava after Sannyasa attains to the unlimited greatness of the Supreme. By that he attains to the greatness of Brahman. Thus the secret knowledge has been imparted.
LXXX-1: The institutor of the sacrifice, in the case of the sacrifice offered by a Sannyasin who has attained supreme knowledge in the manner already described, is his own Self. His faith is his wife; his body is his sacrificial fuel; his chest is his altar; his hairs are his holy grass; the Veda he has learnt is his tuft of hair; his heart is his sacrificial post; his desire is his clarified butter; his anger is his animal to be immolated; his austerity is his fire; his sense-control is his immolator; his gifts are his dakshina; his speech is his Hotir priest; his breath is his Udgatir priest; his sight is his Adhvaryu priest; his mind is his Brahman priest; his hearing is his Agnid priest; the span of his life is his preparatory rite; what he eats that is his oblation; what he drinks that is his drinking of soma juice; when he delights himself that is his Upasad rite; when he walks, sits and stands that is his Pravargya rite; that which is his mouth that is his Ahavaniya Fire; that which is his utterance that is his offering of oblation; that which is his knowledge that is his Homa sacrifices; when he eats in the afternoon and forenoon that is his Samid-homa (oblation of fuel in the fire); the three divisions of the day – forenoon, midday and evening – relating to him are his savanas; the day and night are his Darsapurnamasa sacrifices; the half months and the months are his Chaturmasya sacrifice; the seasons are his Pasubandha sacrifice; the samvatsaras and the parivatsaras are his Ahargana sacrifice; the total sacrifice is, indeed, his Sattra; death is the Avabhritha or completion of his sacrifice. That person who knows this, namely, the conduct of a Sannyasin – covering all the duties from Agnihotra to Sattra and terminating in death overcome by old age – and who dies during the period of the sun’s movement to the north attains to the overlordship of gods like Indra and then reaches identity or companionship with the sun. On the other hand he who dies during the period when the sun moves to the south gets only the greatness of the manes and then attains to the identity or companionship with the moon. A Brahmana who knows separately the greatness of the sun and the moon realizes these two; but he who has become a knower of Hiranyagarbha wins further. From that knowledge which was acquired in the world of Hiranyagarbha, he attains to the greatness of Brahman, the Supreme who is Existence-Knowledge-Bliss, at the dissolution of the world of Hiranyagarbha. Thus the secret knowledge here, and in this Upanishad, is concluded.

The above condition would mean enjoying the Lila, as it happens, to the hilt, without any dependence on anything external to oneself.


Om Namah Shivaya

simex
20 January 2009, 08:50 AM
Namaste atanu,

A very appropriate passage. Thank you, as always, for sharing your knowledge.

atanu
25 January 2009, 07:43 AM
Namaste atanu,

A very appropriate passage. Thank you, as always, for sharing your knowledge.

Namaste Simex,

I was reading some old posts and the following came up. This clarifies again what actually 'Renunciating' means.


Mystic Night of Shiva



Swami Krishnananda



We conceive God as glory, as creativity and as austerity. Vishnu is glory and magnificence, Brahma is creativity force, and Siva is austerity and renunciation. You might have heard it said that God is the embodiment of six attributes of which renunciation is one. You will be wondering how God can renounce things. He is not a Sannyasin. He is not an ascetic like a Vairagin or a Sadhu. What is He going to renounce? How do you conceive Siva as an austere Yogin or a renunciate? What does He renounce? The all-pervading Almighty, what has He to give or abandon? Here is the secret of what renunciation is! It is not renunciation of anything, because there is nothing outside Him; renunciation does not mean abandonment of object. If that had been the definition of renunciation, that cannot apply to God. God does not renounce or abandon any object, because all objects are a part of His Cosmic Body. Then how do you represent God as an embodiment of Vairagya (dispassion)? Bhagavan, who is endowed with 'Bhaga' or glories of a sixfold nature, is also embodiment of Vairagya. Do you identify Him with a Sannyasin, possessing nothing? No, never. God is the possessor of all things. Then, how can you call Him a renunciate, a Sannyasin or a Vairagin? The secret behind the concept or the consciousness of Vairagya, renunciation is here, in the identification of this attribute with God. It is only when we interpret things in terms of God that things become clear. Otherwise, we get confused. We cannot know what goodness is, we cannot know what evil is, we cannot know what virtue is, unless we refer all these values of life to the concept of God in His Perfection. The only standard of reference for us in all matters of life's values, is the existence of God. So, the concept of renunciation, which has been very much misused, also gets rectified, clarified and purified when it is understood with reference to the existence of God whose special manifestation, in this context, is known as Lord Siva.



God does not renounce anything. Then, in that case what is renunciation in this context? It is the freedom from the consciousness of externality. This is called Vairagya. How can you abandon things? All things are there in front of you, like trees in a forest or stones in the jungle. There is nothing like abandonment of things, because they are internally related to you. Nobody can renounce anything, because everything in this world is connected to everything else. Then what is Vairagya? Vairagya is not renunciation of any object; it is impossible. Everything clings to you. But the idea that things are outside you, makes you get attached to them. This false attachment is Raga, and its absence is Vi-raga. The condition of Vi-raga is Vairagya. As God has no consciousness of externality, because everything is embodied in Him, there cannot be a greater renunciate than God. And in as much as this Consciousness of God is the highest form of Wisdom, He is the repository of Jnana.

Om