Great Questions...

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

Have you heard or listened or read a question that made you think, Wow what a great question. For me I find them to be the ones that are potent, or profound. I find some to be so simple in the questioning , yet the answer turns out to allow the truth on multiple levels to come out. There are many like this and wondered if you care to share some that you have heard.

Let me start if I may by the following:
In the muṇḍaka¹ upaniṣad Śaunaka approaches his teacher and asks,
venerable Sir, by knowing what does all the world become known?

He is asking, what one thing can I know, that I will know ( the nature) all things? With this one simple but profound question, he is asking about brahmavidyā.

Do you have any you care to offer? It can be of any nature or subject you wish to offer.

praṇām प्रणम्

words
muṇḍaka मुण्डक - shaved , shorn ; the shaved ones (saṃyasin);
This upaniṣad comes from the Ātharva Veda.

[satay]

Namaskar,

I was visiting a philosophy professor in India last month. He has written several books translating sastric works. He told me that as he presented his translation of the Gita to the President of India, he was asked the following question by the President before the President even looked at his book.


Mahabharata gives details of the massacre that took place due to a family dispute. Crores of people were slaughtered. Why is God telling Arjuna to slaughter his loved ones? Why God never spoke a word about the tactics of war but going on an on about yoga and the nature of man? Shouldn’t God be instructing Arjuna on the tactics of war instead? Why God doesn’t speak a word about the actual war in the Gita?Then the professor posed the above and the following questions to me. Told me not to provide an answer right now but to begin my studies of the hindu sastra but keep these questions in mind. The answers will come to you automatically he said.


Don’t you think hindu God’s have a weird behaviour? For example, when the evil spirit bhairon is after Durga, she goes and hides in the mountains. What kind of Gods are these? They hide when the evil spirits are after them? They cut off their son’s head and place an elephant head over his shoulders? What’s all this?

[devotee]

Why is God telling Arjuna to slaughter his loved ones? Why God never spoke a word about the tactics of war but going on an on about yoga and the nature of man? Shouldn’t God be instructing Arjuna on the tactics of war instead? Why God doesn’t speak a word about the actual war in the Gita?

Namaste Satay,

Let me make an humble attempt. :)

i) Why is God telling Arjuna to slaughter his loved ones ?

Ans : May be the professor didn't know the answer. However, Satay must be aware of it, I am sure. If someone asks this question, it means he has never read the B.G. Asking this question after reading B.G. is akin to asking "who was Sita ?" after listening to the Ramayana !

ii) Why God never spoke a word about the tactics of war but going on and on about yoga and the nature of man? Shouldn’t God be instructing Arjuna on the tactics of war instead? Why God doesn’t speak a word about the actual war in the Gita?

Ans : Arjuna had everything with him to go for the war. He was brave, the best archer, one of the best warriors of his time. He didn't need tution on war tactics. What he needed most was the "will & motivation" to fight with his full capacity. He considered 'killing" (that too of his own relatives) a sin & therefore, he was not in a perfect mental condition for the war. So, God taught what he needed at that time. Does anyone really think, Arjuna needed a lecture on how to fight ? He was already an expert of that field !

iii) Don’t you think hindu God’s have a weird behaviour? For example, when the evil spirit bhairon is after Durga, she goes and hides in the mountains. What kind of Gods are these? They hide when the evil spirits are after them? They cut off their son’s head and place an elephant head over his shoulders? What’s all this?

Ans : First of all, in Hinduism there is a difference between 'devas' (god ?) & the God (the Supreme Lord). Devas are the beings (taijsa state) who live in the heaven & once their karmic period is over, they come back again to the Mirtyuloka. So, they are not much different from the human beings in so many aspects.

There are wars when the Devas flee from the battlefield. However, there are not many instances when the Supreme Godhead like Lord Shiva & Lord Vishnu or Ma Durga have fled from war. There was once the case of BhasmAsur when Lord Shiva didn't fight .... that was because BhasmAsur was a devotee of Lord Shiva (it would have given a wrong signal, if a devotee was killed by the same God whom the devotee worshipped) & also enjoyed boon from him which made it difficult to defeat him in the usual way of fighting .... In such a case, fighting would have created only destruction & not the end of the evil & also would have sent a wrong signal to the devotees. So, he thought it bettet to leave it for Lord Vishnu. In fact, this was the reason that Lord Shiva refused to help Rama against Ravana directly but helped Rama in killing Ravana through the incarnation of Lord Hanuman (who is considered an "ansha" of one of the rudras of Lord Shiva) .

I have not heard of Ma DurgA running away from Bhairava. (It was Ma PArvati running away from BhasmAsur). First of all, Bhairava is not an evil spirit but a Gana of Lord Shiva. However, you have mentioned "Bhairon" & not Bhairava. I am not aware of any other "Bhairon" --- please update me. And it was not an evil spirit who cut off the head & placed an elephant's head on Ma PArvati's son (i..e Lord Ganesha) ... it was done by Lord Shiva himself. Or are you referring to some other story ?

There is another story of Lord Krishna running away from battlefield .... but that running away was also an effort not to hurt the glory of the devotee (God always enjoys getting defeated by his true devotees).... he knew how to kill him without fighting directly ! Lord Krishna had nothing to prove by trying to kill a devotee by his own hands ( an egoist approach).

Regards,

OM

[atanu]

Namaste Satay,

Let me make an humble attempt. :)

i) Why is God telling Arjuna to slaughter his loved ones ?

Ans : May be the professor didn't know the answer. However, Satay must be aware of it, I am sure. If someone asks this question, it means he has never read the B.G. Asking this question after reading B.G. is akin to asking "who was Sita ?" after listening to the Ramayana !

ii) Why God never spoke a word about the tactics of war but going on and on about yoga and the nature of man? Shouldn’t God be instructing Arjuna on the tactics of war instead? Why God doesn’t speak a word about the actual war in the Gita?

Ans : Arjuna had everything with him to go for the war. He was brave, the best archer, one of the best warriors of his time. He didn't need tution on war tactics. What he needed most was the "will & motivation" to fight with his full capacity. He considered 'killing" (that too of his own relatives) a sin & therefore, he was not in a perfect mental condition for the war. So, God taught what he needed at that time. Does anyone really think, Arjuna needed a lecture on how to fight ? He was already an expert of that field !

iii) Don’t you think hindu God’s have a weird behaviour? For example, when the evil spirit bhairon is after Durga, she goes and hides in the mountains. What kind of Gods are these? They hide when the evil spirits are after them? They cut off their son’s head and place an elephant head over his shoulders? What’s all this?

Ans : First of all, in Hinduism there is a difference between 'devas' (god ?) & the God (the Supreme Lord). Devas are the beings (taijsa state) who live in the heaven & once their karmic period is over, they come back again to the Mirtyuloka. So, they are not much different from the human beings in so many aspects.

There are wars when the Devas flee from the battlefield. However, there are not many instances when the Supreme Godhead like Lord Shiva & Lord Vishnu or Ma Durga have fled from war. There was once the case of BhasmAsur when Lord Shiva didn't fight .... that was because BhasmAsur was a devotee of Lord Shiva (it would have given a wrong signal, if a devotee was killed by the same God whom the devotee worshipped) & also enjoyed boon from him which made it difficult to defeat him in the usual way of fighting .... In such a case, fighting would have created only destruction & not the end of the evil & also would have sent a wrong signal to the devotees. So, he thought it bettet to leave it for Lord Vishnu. In fact, this was the reason that Lord Shiva refused to help Rama against Ravana directly but helped Rama in killing Ravana through the incarnation of Lord Hanuman (who is considered an "ansha" of one of the rudras of Lord Shiva) .

I have not heard of Ma DurgA running away from Bhairava. (It was Ma PArvati running away from BhasmAsur). First of all, Bhairava is not an evil spirit but a Gana of Lord Shiva. However, you have mentioned "Bhairon" & not Bhairava. I am not aware of any other "Bhairon" --- please update me. And it was not an evil spirit who cut off the head & placed an elephant's head on Ma PArvati's son (i..e Lord Ganesha) ... it was done by Lord Shiva himself. Or are you referring to some other story ?

There is another story of Lord Krishna running away from battlefield .... but that running away was also an effort not to hurt the glory of the devotee (God always enjoys getting defeated by his true devotees).... he knew how to kill him without fighting directly ! Lord Krishna had nothing to prove by trying to kill a devotee by his own hands ( an egoist approach).

Regards,

OM


I think it an excellent post. There is no defeat or retreat for the Supreme and the knower of Brahman.

Regards

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté
regarding other great questions...

In the Bṛhadaraṇyaka Upaniṣad the ṛṣi Yajñavalkya talks that a man is similar to a tree i.e. the skin is like the outer bark, the hair on his head like the leaves, etc.
He then asks the assembly of brāhmaṇa-s¹ who have just been questioning him for some time, the following: Since the tree when felled ( cut down) grows anew from its root, from which root does the mortal too, when cut down by death, grows anew (or grows again) ?

He gives the assembly a few more pieces of information, as he says If together with the root the tree is uprooted ( that is the tree is cut and the roots area also removed) it would not grow again; from which root, the mortal, when cut down by death grows up? If you say 'he is never born' (again) I say (Yajñavalkya) no. He is born again (after death). Who brings him forth?


praṇām

words

brāhmaṇa ब्राह्मण one who has divine knowledge; a Brahman , a man belonging to the 1st of the twice-born classes ; also as a noun the brāhmaṇa-s are a portion of the veda (distinct from its mantra and upaniṣad portion), consisting of a class of works called brāhmaṇas. They contain rules for the employment of the mantras or hymns at various sacrifices , with detailed explanations of their origin and meaning and numerous legends.

[satay]

Namaskar devotee,




Namaste Satay,

Let me make an humble attempt. :)

i) Why is God telling Arjuna to slaughter his loved ones ?

Ans : May be the professor didn't know the answer.


Thank you for the post.

Please note that there was no malice intended in the professor's questions. He and I are both Hindus. If my post created the impression that the questions were asked in an insulting tone by the professor then that was my fault and I should have worded my post in a better tone.

The questions were not meant to be answered right on the spot. They were not an exercise by the professor to show that he knew more than I did becuase he had written many books on the subject etc. It was to give me a background theme to have in mind as I start my study. They are meant to be pondered upon and meditated upon. Not to intellectually be ripped apart. :)

In hindsigth, I see that my post and the questions are not in alighnment with the theme of this thread.

[devotee]

Namaste,

Thanks Atanu ! :)

Sorry Satay, I think there was no need for me to be too prompt ! I didn't think too much about the Professor. Yes, I was a bit surprised. :)

I also have a question which always bothers me.

If this World is nothing but a dream of the great Dreamer, why this dream is made more like a nightmare than a sweet dream ? Was it really necessary to fill this world with so much pains & sufferings ? What was the harm in creating a little better world where everyone would have sufficient food to eat, a home -- the basic necessities of life ? Pain is ok to keep one alert but, imho, God forgot to have a proper sense of proportion when he decided to create this world !

OM

[saidevo]

Namaste everyone.

This thread is beautiful! The questions and their import are great for spiritual inquiry! Thanks to Yajvan and Satay for the questions and Devotee and Atanu for their answers.



I also have a question which always bothers me.

If this World is nothing but a dream of the great Dreamer, why this dream is made more like a nightmare than a sweet dream ? Was it really necessary to fill this world with so much pains & sufferings ? What was the harm in creating a little better world where everyone would have sufficient food to eat, a home -- the basic necessities of life ? Pain is ok to keep one alert but, imho, God forgot to have a proper sense of proportion when he decided to create this world !


Suppose you write a novel. Would you populate your fictional world with just good or mix it with bad in things, characters and incidents? If you would mix good and bad, why should it be so? Why can't you write a pure novel with goodness only that you might enjoy even if the world ignores it? In one sense a novel could be deemed as an extension of its author, but would this mean that the author has all the good and bad of the characters of the novel?

No, the author is certainly good in nature and wiser than his/her characters but still he/she makes them what they are for his/her own sporty enjoyment. In doing so, the author is exploring himself/herself with a view to better knowledge of the changing self and the unchanging Self underneath it.

When we dream, we have no control over the world we create. When God dreams out creation, he has perfect control over everything and is always conscious of his dream, which is why we have the maya of the world, though it is difficult for us realize it as such. And remember, God is the only member of the audience witnessing his own play; we are only the characters in the play, with no independent life.

[devotee]

Suppose you write a novel. Would you populate your fictional world with just good or mix it with bad in things, characters and incidents? If you would mix good and bad, why should it be so? Why can't you write a pure novel with goodness only that you might enjoy even if the world ignores it? In one sense a novel could be deemed as an extension of its author, but would this mean that the author has all the good and bad of the characters of the novel?


Namaste Saidevo ji,

I agree that evil is necessary to be able to appreciate the good. If ugliness would not exist who would appreciate the beauty ? Pains & sufferings are also necessary for keeping us on the right path. If everything comes easily, why anyone would do anything & that would make the life boring.

No, I am not saying that it should not be there. What I am saying that in my opinion, the amount of pains & sufferings in this world is apparently too much. If you see the animal kingdom .... one animal survives by killing & eating the other ... the complete food chain contains a series of animals survive on killing the other ! Was it really necessary ?

In human beings there are more poor than people who have all the basic needs. People are forced to live the lives of a beggar, petty thieves, prostitutes & killers ... there are people who also indulge in creating beggars, thieves, prostitutes & killers.

Why is so much killing of the innocent souls in the name of religion ? Why Dalai Lama & many innocent Buddhist saints are crying for their own homeland for decades but there is no respite for them & China is able to suppress their voice mercilessly ? Why was Hallaz Mansur killed when he proclaimed, "I am the Truth" & nothing happened ?

Yes, from God's point of view, it is nothing more than dream. But then, was it necessary in so much proportion ?

Regards,

OM

[vcindiana]

Namaste Saidevo ji,

I agree
.........................What I am saying that in my opinion, the amount of pains & sufferings in this world is apparently too much. If you see the animal kingdom .... one animal survives by killing & eating the other ... the complete food chain contains a series of animals survive on killing the other ! Was it really necessary ?

In human beings there are more poor than people who have all the basic needs. People are forced to live the lives of a beggar, petty thieves, prostitutes & killers ... there are people who also indulge in creating beggars, thieves, prostitutes & killers.

Why is so much killing of the innocent souls in the name of religion ?
Yes, from God's point of view, it is nothing more than dream. But then, was it necessary in so much proportion ?

Regards,

OM

Dear Devotee: I find answers in asking myself these powerful questions …..How good is good enough? Or how bad is bad enough? How much is enough? Or how less is enough? I observe neither God answers these questions but intentionally for a purpose. Only life measures things. I have highlighted "more and much" in your posts. God is beyond life, He is Love, need to be experienced only. Good and bad things are only relative things, but I need these in my freedom to understand what Love is.


Ref: BG Ch 2 verse 47

Always Love..........VC

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté devotee,


sufferings are also necessary for keeping us on the right path.

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional... The Dali Lama


praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté devotee,

you write,

sufferings are also necessary for keeping us on the right path.

From Talks with Śrī Nisargadatta Mahraj - I Am That

Q: The universe does not seem a happy place to live in.
Why is there so much suffering?

A: Śrī Nisargadatta Mahraj:
Pain is physical, suffering is mental. Beyond the mind there is no suffering. Pain is merely a signal that the body is in danger and requires attention.
Similarly, suffering warns us that the structure of memories and habit, which we call the person (vyakti¹) is threatened by loss or change.
Pain is essential for the survival of the body, but none compels you to suffer. Suffering is due entirely to clinging and resisting. It is a sign of our unwillingness to move on, to flow with life.
As a sane life is free of pain, so is a saintly life free from suffering.


praṇām

words
vyakti व्यक्ति- an individual; specific appearance , distinctness; visible appearance or manifestation , becoming evident or known or public

[devotee]

Namaste VcIndiana & Yajvan ji,

Thanks VcIndiana for your views ! :)


Pain is essential for the survival of the body, but none compels you to suffer. Suffering is due entirely to clinging and resisting. It is a sign of our unwillingness to move on, to flow with life.

You are absolutely correct, Yajvan ji.

Regards,

OM

[atanu]

Namaste,

Thanks Atanu ! :)

Sorry Satay, I think there was no need for me to be too prompt ! I didn't think too much about the Professor. Yes, I was a bit surprised. :)

I also have a question which always bothers me.

If this World is nothing but a dream of the great Dreamer, why this dream is made more like a nightmare than a sweet dream ? Was it really necessary to fill this world with so much pains & sufferings ? What was the harm in creating a little better world where everyone would have sufficient food to eat, a home -- the basic necessities of life ? Pain is ok to keep one alert but, imho, God forgot to have a proper sense of proportion when he decided to create this world !

OM

Namaste Devotee,

Good answers have already been given for your query, which bothers most of us and which impels us to dig deeper. I wish to augment with two more points.

First, who says that the world is created unequal and painful? The world does not say that it is unequal. Neither does Brahman say so. A third factor (entity) perceives the ills and goods. Second, why everyone, while being devoid of all possesions and while being devoid of the body-mind, in deep sleep, is blissful?

The reality called Brahman is inherently saman, but an unequal mind, perturbed by unequal thoughts find the world unequal and painful. Our memories again and again draw us to the wrong idea "I am this" and subsequent perceptions. The practise of meditation to unite the mind with saman Brahman does only remove the error.

Where there is perception of another there is fear and other ills. As in dream, the dream seems very real, in waking life, which is another dream of mind (and not of Brahman's), the perception of 'otherness' is so real. In dream, a bread being eaten is so real. In waking life also, the bread being eaten is so real. No one, while dreaming, can ascertain that the nighmare is a nightmare. So, being in the waking dream, it is not possible to ascertain that the ills are the mere nightmares of the mind. Unbroken yoga can only remove the errors of perceptions that karma is eternal, avidya is eternal, "I am a doer", and that "Brahman is creator".


Om Namah Shivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté devotee,



You are absolutely correct, Yajvan ji.


Just to insure I keep (my) ego parked at the curb, this wisdom belongs to Śrī Nisargadatta Mahraj. I am just the messenger.

Yet his words are wise and ring true for me - and I hope for others.

praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté



Where there is perception of another there is fear and other ills.


atanu-ji offers wise words.... we find the same in the following:
Bṛhadaraṇyaka Upaniṣad - Puruṣavidha-Brāhmaṇa, 2nd śloka.
dvitiyad vai bhayam bhavati

Any time there is a sense of 2, fear arises i.e. Fear is born of duality.

dvitiyad or dvitia द्वित- 2nd or two
bhayam or bhaya भय- fear , alarm dread apprehension
( rooted in bhī to fear for , be anxious about )
vai an emphasis and affirmation , generally placed after a word
and laying stress on it (it is usually translatable by 'indeed' ,
'truly' , 'certainly' )
bhavati or bhava भव arising or produced from , being inpraṇām

[devotee]

First, who says that the world is created unequal and painful? The world does not say that it is unequal. Neither does Brahman say so. A third factor (entity) perceives the ills and goods. Second, why everyone, while being devoid of all possesions and while being devoid of the body-mind, in deep sleep, is blissful?

Namaste Atanu,

This is another good one from you, Atanu. You echo the voice of Maharishi Ramana. :)

However, does enlightenment lead one to becoming a dead-wood to the pains & sufferings of others ? Do I ever like to say, "Sorry, I am too enlightened to be bothered by the sufferings of my friend." ? I think, NO.


Where there is perception of another there is fear and other ills.

That is absolutely true. But why is it so hard to remove all conditioning of "Ahamkar" ?

Regards,

OM

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu,
However, does enlightenment lead one to becoming a dead-wood to the pains & sufferings of others ? Do I ever like to say, "Sorry, I am too enlightened to be bothered by the sufferings of my friend." ? I think, NO.

Namaste Devotee,

If i am destined to see pain of others then i will see it that way. But probably that is not always true.


V-xii-1: Some say that food is Brahman. It is not so, for food rots without the vital force. Others say that the vital force is Brahman. It is not so, for the vital force dries up without food. But these two deities being united attain their highest. So Pratrda said to his father, ‘What good indeed can I do to one who knows like this, and what evil indeed can I do to him either?’ The father, with a gesture of the hand, said, ‘Of, no, Pratrda, for who would attain his highest by being identified with them ?’ Then he said to him this: ‘It is "Vi". Food is "vi", for all these creatures rest on food. It is "Ram". The vital force is "Ram", for all these creatures delight if there is the vital force’. On him who knows as above all creatures rest, and in him all creatures delight.

V-xiii-1: (One should meditate upon the vital force as) the Uktha (a hymn of praise). The vital force is the Uktha, for it raises this universe. From him who knows as above rises a son who is a knower of the vital force, and he achieves union with and abode in the same world as the Uktha.


V-xiii-2: (One should meditate upon the vital force as) the Yajus. The vital force is the Yajus, for all these beings are joined with one another if there is the vital force. All beings are joined for the eminence of him who knows as above, and he achieves union with and abode in the same world as the Yajus (vital force).
V-xiii-3: (One should meditate upon the vital force as) the Saman. The vital force is the Saman, for all these beings are united if there is the vital force. For him who knows as above all beings are united, and they succeed in bringing about his eminence, and he achieves union with abode in the same world as the Saman.
V-xiii-4: (One should meditate upon the vital force as) the Ksatra. The vital force is the Ksatra, for it is indeed the Ksatra. The vital force protects the body from wounds. He who knows as above attains this Ksatra (vital force) that has no other protector, and achieves union with and abode in the same world as the Ksatra.
When the unified vision of one vital force (ram) rising (uktha) and resting on food (vi) is obtained then all being are joined for eminence of the knower of 'viram'. This union or joining of all beings need not be painful for the knower of 'viram', who knows only the bliss, but the many joined beings who uphold the eminence of the knower of 'viram' may perceive that knower to be a mitigator of pain.

The knower of 'viram' does nothing. Such a being is 'ramana'. He knows only the bliss.

'viram' is the highest, attained by joining of food (bliss-soma) and ram (agni-eater). And Viram means:
viramP. %{-ramati} , to stop (esp. speaking) , pause , cease , come to an end ; to give up , abandon , abstain or desist from {-rAmayati} , to cause to stop or rest , bring to an end , finish

On all needs ceasing the viram is attained. Else, how is a sage different from a christian missionary?



That is absolutely true. But why is it so hard to remove all conditioning of "Ahamkar" ?
OM

I do not know. Perhaps as Gita says that it is due to forgetfulness. Ramana says it is due to failure to enquire into one's nature.


Regards.

Om

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

From Talks with Śrī Nisargadatta Mahraj - I Am That

Q: How is it that in spite of so much instruction and assistance we make no (spiritual) progress?

A: Śrī Nisargadatta Mahraj:
As long as we imagine ourselves to be separate personalities, one quite apart from another, we cannot grasp reality which is essentially impersonal. First we must know ourselves as witnesses only, dimensionless and timeless centers of observation, and then realize the immense ocean of pure awareness which is both mind and matter and beyond both.

praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

From Talks with Śrī Nisargadatta Mahraj - I Am That

Q:What is austerity?

A: Śrī Nisargadatta Mahraj:
Once you have gone through an experience, not to go through it again is austerity. (That means) To eshcew ( abstain or stay away from) the unnecessary is austerity. Not to anticipate pleasure or pain austerity. Having things under control at all times is austerity.

praṇām

[TatTvamAsi]

Namaste Yajvan,

I really like the quotes from Nisargadatta Maharaj. Do you recommend any particular book written by/about him and his philosophy? I would be keen on reading them.

Thank you.

Namaskar.


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

From Talks with Śrī Nisargadatta Mahraj - I Am That

Q:What is austerity?

A: Śrī Nisargadatta Mahraj:
Once you have gone through an experience, not to go through it again is austerity. (That means) To eshcew ( abstain or stay away from) the unnecessary is austerity. Not to anticipate pleasure or pain austerity. Having things under control at all times is austerity.

praṇām

[TatTvamAsi]

Namaste Atanu,

I think your explanation is splendid!

The fact that we are looking at this world, its inhabitants and their experiences both collectively and individually, in a myopic perspective leads us to think that there is suffering, pain, pleasure, fame, misery etc. when in actuality the sum total of this entire experience, or universe if you will, is perfection (Brahman).

I was told a wonderful analogy to better understand this viewpoint.

Imagine a group of ants crossing a dirt road in a straight line. They go about their business scurrying along the ground for bits and morsels of food and when they find it, they carry it back 'home' to feed on. Suddenly, it starts to rain heavily and many of the ants are washed away, some of which are never to be found again. The rest of the ants, through great peril, get back home and mourn the loss of their loved ones and the lost food! Such misery in Ant City has never been witnessed before! At the same time, in that particular village where Ant City is located, the farmers are rejoicing and there is joy in the air, for the drought has finally come to an end! The men can harvest their crop and have a prosperous season due to the rainfall!

Now, how can one 'man's' (ants') misery be another's joy? If one were to look at the sum total of the events that took place on that day, there was neither happiness nor misery! The perspective enables us to see that the entire 'game' is perfection where there is no imbalance whatsoever.

Therefore, I think that perspective is really important in dealing with life's situations and other things in general. After all the earth (Universe), with all its misfortunes and apparent inequity, is Tat (perfect).

Namaskar.


Namaste Devotee,

Good answers have already been given for your query, which bothers most of us and which impels us to dig deeper. I wish to augment with two more points.

First, who says that the world is created unequal and painful? The world does not say that it is unequal. Neither does Brahman say so. A third factor (entity) perceives the ills and goods. Second, why everyone, while being devoid of all possesions and while being devoid of the body-mind, in deep sleep, is blissful?

The reality called Brahman is inherently saman, but an unequal mind, perturbed by unequal thoughts find the world unequal and painful. Our memories again and again draw us to the wrong idea "I am this" and subsequent perceptions. The practise of meditation to unite the mind with saman Brahman does only remove the error.

Where there is perception of another there is fear and other ills. As in dream, the dream seems very real, in waking life, which is another dream of mind (and not of Brahman's), the perception of 'otherness' is so real. In dream, a bread being eaten is so real. In waking life also, the bread being eaten is so real. No one, while dreaming, can ascertain that the nighmare is a nightmare. So, being in the waking dream, it is not possible to ascertain that the ills are the mere nightmares of the mind. Unbroken yoga can only remove the errors of perceptions that karma is eternal, avidya is eternal, "I am a doer", and that "Brahman is creator".


Om Namah Shivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté TatTvamAsi


Namaste Yajvan,

I really like the quotes from Nisargadatta Maharaj. Do you recommend any particular book written by/about him and his philosophy? I would be keen on reading them. Thank you. Namaskar.

The book I use is called I Am That, Talks with Śrī Nisargadatta Mahraj - ISBN 0-89386-022-0

You can also find it on-line. Saidevo has posted the link ( that I cannot recall but am sure you can search on HDF to find it).

Yet ( for me) reading this wisdom by computer is less comfortable and a book allows me to make notes, read in a comfortable chair - all that.

praṇām

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu,

I think your explanation is splendid!

Namaskar.

Namaste TTA,

Thank you for the appreciation. Nevertheless, your cited story is the crowning glory -- simple and illuminating. Thanks.

Om Namah Shivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

From Talks with Śrī Nisargadatta Mahraj - I Am That

Q: Is perfection the destiny of all human beings?

A: Śrī Nisargadatta Mahraj:
Of all living beings - ultimately. The possibility becomes a certainly when the notion of enlightenment appears in the mind. Once a living being has heard and understood that deliverance is within his reach, he will never forget, for it is the first message from within. It will take roots and grow and in due course take the blessed shape of the Guru

praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

'...let Me be many'

In the Taittirīya Upaniṣad , Brahmanānanda vallī ( 6th anuvāyka or sub-section) offers the following:

so'kāmayata bahu syāṁ prajāyeyeti
This says,
He ( Brahman - sa) sounded out (syāṁ) His wish/desire (kāma) to bring forth (praja) and become many (bahu), let (Me) to be born.

My question is why? A wish to become many - how is Brahman not totally full, complete. What could Completeness Itself want? Is it not inferred that if you desire or will someting, that you are looking for something additional? What is Brahman's intent?

praṇām

words

so = sa स another way of saying the Supreme, the Universal, He, Brahman; used to denote used to denote Puruṣa
kāma कामwish , desire , longing ; having a desire or intention
yata यत- held forth, governed
bahu बहु -much , many , frequent , abundant , numerous , great or considerable in quantity
syāṁ or syam स्यम् to sound , cry aloud , shout , cry , note ām आम् is an interjection of accent or recollection
prajāyeyeti - praja is to bring forth - bring forth ~birth~

[NayaSurya]

In this quiet moment after homework and before dinner I bring this precious thread back to the surface.

A perfect pie, golden and whole sits upon the counter...and until the moment I come and cut it into pieces, it can not be enjoyed.

Perhaps it was a desire to share this wonderous experience?

Being perfectly, fully, one and one alone, Beloved wanted to share so He broke each of us off from His beautiful perfect form so that He could share existence with each of us?

Is this not the same reason we bring our own broken portions into this world? As I broke each child off from this fragile vessel to share this world I have created upon this frozen hill?

As a mother I do understand this need, things were perfect before...but it was accompanied by such a solid silence that I was compelled to fill it will the laughter of children.

Perhaps this particular feeling is shared between Beloved and this simple portion still struggling through this captivity to come home.

Perhaps the moment each of us begins to feel the strain of this muddied existence is when Beloved begins to allow us to retract?

My hope is that the weary which have seen enough behind the curtain to begin to ask these questions above, do find pardon and move beyond this leela back to the shelter of Beloved.

I no longer fear death, of anyone or anything. If the whole world were to retract tomorrow, the last word upon my lips would be thanks to Beloved for this act of mercy.

Death is truly the great liberation of captivity. Though, I still am compelled to intercede when it comes to suffering.

I am grateful Beloved gave me a chance to bring beautiful portions into this realm to raise in this place of such misery. Each of them acts as my prayer for compassion and I send it out into this world knowing the perils they will face...but knowing no matter what peril may befall us...we will ultimately return unscathed, perfect and willing to Him.

[Maya3]

Naya,

That is so beautiful!

Maya

[hrdayananda]

Namaste,

I would like to give my humble opinion regarding yajvan's question regarding Brahman's wish to become many. The text is clearly viewing Brahman from the personal, dualistic perspective, thus, I would say that SA ("he") would refer to Brahma and not Brahman (the impersonal). Also, I believe, the word is actually sah, which is a masculine pronoun, reffering to the personal creator, Brahma. The text is attributing personal characters to Him, as to wish/want something implies that we are already talking about some individual, something that is already separate and perceives duality. That One that wished to become many was already perceiving the duality between HIM and Nothingness, just as a man experiences duality in a dark room. He was alone, yet he was limited, because He was seeing Himself as an individual... So, considering that it is Brahma who became many, I think everything becomes clear now. Ultimately, we cannot explain how all this happened and how the personality of Brahma came into being and no text will ever be able to depict that :)