PDA

View Full Version : Giving things up?



Tirisilex
09 January 2010, 01:46 AM
Do I need to give certain things up to be a follower of Advaita? For example I like to play Roleplaying Games.. Do I need to give this up?

devotee
09 January 2010, 02:46 AM
What is the genesis of this weird idea ? :?

Tirisilex
09 January 2010, 02:53 AM
I was just reading some site and it was saying that certain things can be an obstacle to practice.. and I just remembered hearing people from ISKCON talking about giving things up for Krishna.. So it just got me thinking this..

devotee
09 January 2010, 04:04 AM
Yes, there is a need to distinguish between what is impermanent, unreal & what is real & permanent. Slowly as the wisdom dawns upon you, you will go from unreal to real ... from illusion of pains & pleasures to bliss.

The necessary requirements of all paths are more or less the same : purity in thoughts & actions, not harming any beings, love everyone & all, see same supreme reality in all, yogic exercises for keeping body fit for spiritual progress, discipline in your daily life required for meditation & evenness of mind, slow detachment from worldly pleasures etc.

OM

Eastern Mind
09 January 2010, 07:48 AM
I was just reading some site and it was saying that certain things can be an obstacle to practice.. and I just remembered hearing people from ISKCON talking about giving things up for Krishna.. So it just got me thinking this..

Vanakkam Tirisilex: There are tons of obstacles. One of Ganesha's names is 'Remover of Obstacles' Vignesvara I believe, if memory serves. The intellect is an obstacle. Attachment is another. All sorts of emotions like impatience are there too. When the attachment becomes an addivtion, its clearly an obstacle. If you have a chosen sadhana time, and you stay here on HDF discussing things, then HDF is an obstacle.

The term my Guru used was 'affectionate detachment' which basically means loving everything, but from a certain emotional distance. Not to get emotionally attached. Be the watcher of not only your environment, but also of your own mind. This leads to increased discipline.

I agree totally with Devotee's wise comments. It takes time, and eventually, it all comes together.

But certainly it can be tricky discerning the dharmic way of action. Take for example, a Mother outside of an extended family. She is doing japa, and the baby starts to cry. Is the baby an obstacle to the religious pursuit? Or is the religious pursuit an obstacle to the dharma of raising baby?

So in the end we even have to detach ourselves from religious observances themselves.

Aum Namasivaya

AwareConsciousness
21 January 2010, 01:00 PM
I think the 'ascetic approach' or whatever you want to call it is inherently flawed. I think this stems from a misunderstanding of the whole process. Devotees behold their gurus leading ascetic lives and so mimic them in the hope of attaining their 'bliss'. But they fail to see that the ascetic life is something that develops spontaneously after awareness when all material attachments are transcended and when it is clearly perceived that such existence is seen as unnecessary for a joyful life. And so we have these religious people who torture themselves, practice self-denial and who are further from the truth than the dancing, wine-drinking Zorba (who is actually a Buddha). It is not necessary, in my opinion to renounce anything. All the great masters have attested to this: Atmananda, Nisargadatta (he was a shopkeeper his whole life!), Ramana (the direct path is as effective as bhakti), Osho (Zorba the Buddha), Chinmayananda. Plenty more...

Sherab
21 January 2010, 02:09 PM
I think the 'ascetic approach' or whatever you want to call it is inherently flawed. I think this stems from a misunderstanding of the whole process. Devotees behold their gurus leading ascetic lives and so mimic them in the hope of attaining their 'bliss'. But they fail to see that the ascetic life is something that develops spontaneously after awareness when all material attachments are transcended and when it is clearly perceived that such existence is seen as unnecessary for a joyful life. And so we have these religious people who torture themselves, practice self-denial and who are further from the truth than the dancing, wine-drinking Zorba (who is actually a Buddha). It is not necessary, in my opinion to renounce anything. All the great masters have attested to this: Atmananda, Nisargadatta (he was a shopkeeper his whole life!), Ramana (the direct path is as effective as bhakti), Osho (Zorba the Buddha), Chinmayananda. Plenty more...
Osho isn't really a good example, he's a total cult leader, and his books reek of brain washing....

no offense meant...

namaste.

Eastern Mind
21 January 2010, 04:21 PM
Vannakkam Hindu souls:

Although the 'ascetic approach' is often considered flawed by new age Gurus, within traditional Hinduism the wandering ascetic or his brethen the monk staying within the monastic order of an established peetam, math, or adheenam (monasteries) is as commonplace today as it was 3000 years ago. (I'm not actually sure, but at least it's common.) Some of the wandering Nayanars, great bhaktars of God, and countless Hindu Swamis, Gurus, and Rishis over the years took the 'ascetic approach'. The idea that it is somehow flawed seems preposterous. Its totally an essential part of traditional Hinduism.

Of course, what Ramana (Famed Hindu that he was) said about it actually being in the mind is true. Of course his view is from the already realised pure Advaitic non-dual perspective. This is not quite so with the ordinary man. One can certainly make choices to make affectionate detachment easier. Many lifestyle choices. such as not starting addictive habits, or doing everything in moderation are a couple of examples. I choose to not walk the streets of certain areas within the city after midnight. That's just wisdom. When we're browsing the net, and out of nowhere an anti-Hindu or porn site pops up, we can hit the 'continue' or the 'back' button with no reaction at all, or we can sit there and let some lower emotion take us over. Its just a bit of will.

Sherab: Osho himself discarded Hinduism. It was the western press that made the association. They are like that. Funny thing they didn't associate Jim Jones to Hinduism back then. Neither would they associate him to Christianity.

Aum Namasivaya

Sherab
21 January 2010, 04:28 PM
Vannakkam Hindu souls:

Although the 'ascetic approach' is often considered flawed by new age Gurus, within traditional Hinduism the wandering ascetic or his brethen the monk staying within the monastic order of an established peetam, math, or adheenam (monasteries) is as commonplace today as it was 3000 years ago. (I'm not actually sure, but at least it's common.) Some of the wandering Nayanars, great bhaktars of God, and countless Hindu Swamis, Gurus, and Rishis over the years took the 'ascetic approach'. The idea that it is somehow flawed seems preposterous. Its totally an essential part of traditional Hinduism.

Of course, what Ramana (Famed Hindu that he was) said about it actually being in the mind is true. Of course his view is from the already realised pure Advaitic non-dual perspective. This is not quite so with the ordinary man. One can certainly make choices to make affectionate detachment easier. Many lifestyle choices. such as not starting addictive habits, or doing everything in moderation are a couple of examples. I choose to not walk the streets of certain areas within the city after midnight. That's just wisdom. When we're browsing the net, and out of nowhere an anti-Hindu or porn site pops up, we can hit the 'continue' or the 'back' button with no reaction at all, or we can sit there and let some lower emotion take us over. Its just a bit of will.

Sherab: Osho himself discarded Hinduism. It was the western press that made the association. They are like that. Funny thing they didn't associate Jim Jones to Hinduism back then. Neither would they associate him to Christianity.

Aum Namasivaya
It's not that he discarded hinduism: it's the teachings I have read. Never sat well with me at all. :P

Eastern Mind
21 January 2010, 05:09 PM
It's not that he discarded hinduism: it's the teachings I have read. Never sat well with me at all. :P

Vannakkam: You are probably correct. I actually don't know much of his teachings for disinterest. I do remember he was born into a Jain family, and his brand of sannyasins were termed neo-sannyasin for some reason by somebody.

Aum Namasivaya

Sherab
21 January 2010, 05:19 PM
Vannakkam: You are probably correct. I actually don't know much of his teachings for disinterest. I do remember he was born into a Jain family, and his brand of sannyasins were termed neo-sannyasin for some reason by somebody.

Aum Namasivaya

He belnds a lot of new ageism into his books, uyses really well-spaced font, to many images, and reading it.. your mind twists.

anyways, yeah, not such a great author.

Tirisilex
21 January 2010, 05:24 PM
It's Odd that you should bring up Osho.. I met a guy on Yahoo who is a follower of Osho.. We've been chatting.. He was telling me that my "Kind" don't accept his path.. That we are in complete disagreement with Oshos teachings.. Is this true? I did a little reading on it and all I could find were some interesting meditation practices that were outside the norm.. Like spinning around in a circle.. and dancing.

yajvan
21 January 2010, 06:02 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté Tirisilex,


Do I need to give certain things up to be a follower of Advaita? For example I like to play Roleplaying Games.. Do I need to give this up?

What do we really own ? We think we own something because we have a receipt for its purchase.

The maitreya upaniṣad offers us another POV.
This is 'I' and 'That is mine' one binds himself with himself , as does a bird with a snare."

'Giving up ' is the notion of becoming unstuck . The saṃskṛt word is asaṃga¹. In a word it is to become unfastened. One can easily make the connection of this idea of becoming 'unfastened' to obligations, friends, community, etc. and pursue one's intent in a remote place.
While this notion is typically ~assigned~ to one āśrama ('halting place') in life, the āśrama of the sannyās, it has a deeper significance. How so?

This asaṃga has much to do with becoming unfastened to what you are not. And what is that? The body. Our true SELF is not the body. More on this if there is interest.

praṇām

words

asaṃga = a + saṃga = a or not + saṃga 'coming together' ( also written saṅga that is rooted in sañj to be attached or fastened , adhere , cling , stick )

Eastern Mind
21 January 2010, 06:04 PM
He was telling me that my "Kind" don't accept his path..

Trisilex: I don't know, but somehow I find this funny, as it was the term used in racism, and homophobia and ethnic bashing ... eons ago. The guy who runs 'Sarlo's Guru rating service' or whatever its called is also from Osho's 'kind'. So Osho gets five stars out of five, and the next closest is 2 or so. That's also quite funny. "I'm right. You're wrong. If you don't like it, go jump in the Ganges or something. I'll stick to my midnight twirling meditations under the moonlit night of Nirvana induced euphoria." But humour is good for the soul.

Aum Namasivaya

Tirisilex
21 January 2010, 06:12 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté Tirisilex,



What do we really own ? We think we own something because we have a receipt for its purchase.

The maitreya upaniṣad offers us another POV.
This is 'I' and 'That is mine' one binds himself with himself , as does a bird with a snare."

'Giving up ' is the notion of becoming unstuck . The saṃskṛt word is asaṃga¹. In a word it is to become unfastened. One can easily make the connection of this idea of becoming 'unfastened' to obligations, friends, community, etc. and pursue one's intent in a remote place.
While this notion is typically ~assigned~ to one āśrama ('halting place') in life, the āśrama of the sannyās, it has a deeper significance. How so?

This asaṃga has much to do with becoming unfastened to what you are not. And what is that? The body. Our true SELF is not the body. More on this if there is interest.

praṇām

words

asaṃga = a + saṃga = a or not + saṃga 'coming together' ( also written saṅga that is rooted in sañj to be attached or fastened , adhere , cling , stick )


This reminds me of when I would ride my bike out in the woods until I got to a place I could not ride anymore.. I decided to leave my bike behind.. "What if someone comes by and decides to steal the bike?" I thought to myself "So what? it is only an object."

However.. Objects are quite helpful for things.. Cant do much stuff without them.
Yes please continue..

Znanna
21 January 2010, 06:54 PM
Namaste,

Rather than thinking about what to give up, why no simply put on one's daily to-do list time to do nothing?

I know how hard that is to do ... which is why I say to actually schedule the time that's timeless:)

Practice makes perfect!

(Put the car in park and turn off the engine, do not open the door for 5 minutes, to start?)


XOXO,
ZN

yajvan
21 January 2010, 07:17 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté Tirisilex,


However.. Objects are quite helpful for things.. Cant do much stuff without them. Yes please continue..

Yes, objects ( things) are very helpful. There has been the thought that things/objects are 'bad' in some way , they are not. They are bundles of consciousness, vibrations, energy, śakti. Yet the wisdom is here:

In the chāndogya upaniṣad¹, Sanatkumāra is instructing Nārada and says, nālpe sukham asti or finite (alpa) things do not (na) contain happiness (suka).
Finite things come-and-go. Objects, our bodies, our thoughts, homes, cars, etc. all come and go. What does not come-and-go? The SELF ( brahman). To be possessed of the SELF one then associates with the Infinite vs. the finite.

This compliments the notion of 'giving up'. One is giving up limitations for the Unlimited.

We can continue , and , must ponder what then is really giving up and who are you giving up to?



praṇām


1. chāndogya upaniṣad - Chapter 7.23.1

smaranam
22 January 2010, 09:39 PM
In the chāndogya upaniṣad¹, Sanatkumāra is instructing Nārada and says, nālpe sukham asti or finite (alpa) things do not (na) contain happiness (suka).
Finite things come-and-go. Objects, our bodies, our thoughts, homes, cars, etc. all come and go. What does not come-and-go? The SELF ( brahman). To be possessed of the SELF one then associates with the Infinite vs. the finite.

This compliments the notion of 'giving up'. One is giving up limitations for the Unlimited.

We can continue , and , must ponder what then is really giving up and who are you giving up to?



PraNAm

Following is what I penned down a few years ago, on this topic.
Just thought of sharing this here, but please continue with the discussion.

=====================

Om Govindaya Namaha

I read in a book by Swami Chinmayanada , that the word "namah" at the end of each Vedic sentence really originated from years of modification of
"Na Mama" which means "not mine".

The sages would offer oblations (rice, ghee) into the sacrificial fire [yajna] saying - "Lord, this that I offer to you is actually not mine." - Na Mama.

This gives us insight into our own prayers of surrender, our personal yajna [sacrifice].


~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~

O my Lord, nothing is mine , everything is Yours.

You are my Knowledge and my Wealth [Tvam eva vidya , dravinam Tvam eva].
You are my Everything [Tvam eva sarvam mama Deva Deva]

You created me , didn't You ? I am just Your instrument. So please order me and i shall do as You say.

Here , take this. My mind, intelligence , whatever that is, is all really Yours. You gave it all to me.

All my supposed abilities and strengths are Your opulences. Here, take them.

All worldly things You have given me belong to You. So please accept them.

What am i doing ? "Giving" everything back to You ? It was never mine in the first place !

Not a blade of grass can move without Your Will.

This that i am scribbling is also really fuelled by Your Mercy.

BUT THIS IS NOTHING COMPARED TO THE BIGGEST TREASURE :
Its Your infinite GRACE and kindness that YOU MAKE MY HOME AND HEART YOUR ABODE, and YOUR ABODE AND HEART MY HOME.


He HrishikeshA GovindA MAdhavA MadhusudanA ,
i do not know how to be
Therefore i surrender myself unto Thee.

amith vikram
23 January 2010, 01:35 AM
The abandonment of the illusory universe by realizing it as the all-conscious Atman is the real renunciation honored by the great, since it is of the nature of immediate liberation.
-shankaracharya.

so the main aim should be to seek knowledge and understandig.when one gets suffecient knowledge and when it reflects in our mind,renunciation will be natural.its not like stop listening 2 ur fav. music because u've 2 give up things.just keep on discovering ur self wit an open mind.its best 2 be ur self and do what u want 2 do,and parallely go deep into the forest of knowledge as if its your hobby or somethin like that.

yajvan
23 January 2010, 08:32 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté


The abandonment of the illusory universe by realizing it as the all-conscious Atman is the real renunciation honored by the great, since it is of the nature of immediate liberation.
-shankaracharya.



But one must ask, what is the illusion? The universe is real, I touch, smell, feel things, it registers in my awareness. We say that awareness is real, consciousness is real, and is the core fabric of this universe. But are we saying then what awareness perceives is not correct? There must be more to the story , no?

One answer is the viewpoint of what advaita vedānta offers. Are their other valid POV's ? - of this there is no doubt. Ādi Śaṅkara-ji's notion of illusion is you are looking at a world, a universe and you are not seeing the total picture - therefore it is alluding you as to what is real, full, complete.
It is as if you are looking at a picture and fail to see outside of the picture . As if reality only lies within in the borders of the picture and nothing exists outside that frame of reference - that would be the illusion.
That your awareness is stuck within the frame of the picture and you cannot see beyond this frame. That frame is the boundry of life and we take that to be all that there is.


So, what is the illusion then? That the Universe is made of multiplicity and every-thing is individual things. This view say the wise is 'ignorance of the truth' . What is the truth then ? Advaita; advaita means a=not + dvaita = duality , duplicity , dualism . More about this has been disucussed here:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=38415#post38415

praṇām

smaranam
23 January 2010, 09:39 AM
so the main aim should be to seek knowledge and understandig.when one gets suffecient knowledge and when it reflects in our mind,renunciation will be natural.its not like stop listening 2 ur fav. music because u've 2 give up things.just keep on discovering ur self wit an open mind.its best 2 be ur self and do what u want 2 do,and parallely go deep into the forest of knowledge as if its your hobby or somethin like that.

Namaste

Yes, what needs to be given up is the

1. ahamkAr - "I am XYZ"
2. mamakAr - "This is mine"

Not necessarily your favorite things, but the attachment to that favorite thing , that means living in the world but dettached from the BMI, its doership, and ownership.

However, if the favorite thing is too bizzarre, it may not help one come to a dettached state of mind, that is all. The dependence has to break.
That is why it is said "accept what is favourable to your spiritual progress, reject the unfavourable".

Also, the catch of truly realizing the Advaita is that one cannot get away with just about anything as harming anyone or anything is harming your own Self.

If a realized person leads a controversial life, they are harming the spiritual progress of others around them.

Also, offering things to Ishvara/Brahman/Self by means of thought , really means giving up the mamakAr or the illusion of ownership.

praNAm

amith vikram
23 January 2010, 01:34 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté



But one must ask, what is the illusion? The universe is real, I touch, smell, feel things, it registers in my awareness. We say that awareness is real, consciousness is real, and is the core fabric of this universe. But are we saying then what awareness perceives is not correct? There must be more to the story , no?

One answer is the viewpoint of what advaita vedānta offers. Are their other valid POV's ? - of this there is no doubt. Ādi Śaṅkara-ji's notion of illusion is you are looking at a world, a universe and you are not seeing the total picture - therefore it is alluding you as to what is real, full, complete.
It is as if you are looking at a picture and fail to see outside of the picture . As if reality only lies within in the borders of the picture and nothing exists outside that frame of reference - that would be the illusion.
That your awareness is stuck within the frame of the picture and you cannot see beyond this frame. That frame is the boundry of life and we take that to be all that there is.


So, what is the illusion then? That the Universe is made of multiplicity and every-thing is individual things. This view say the wise is 'ignorance of the truth' . What is the truth then ? Advaita; advaita means a=not + dvaita = duality , duplicity , dualism . More about this has been disucussed here:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=38415#post38415

praṇām
namaste sir,
i didnt catch your point.
may be i am wrong?
about illusion, what i know is this....
what is illusion?
The form is seen, the eye is seer; the mind is both seen and seer. The changing moods of mind are seen, but the witnessing Self, the seer, is never seen
The conscious Self, remaining one, shines on all the moods of mind: on desire, determination, doubt, faith, unfaith, firmness and the lack of it, shame, insight, fear, etc..
This illumining comes when the ray of consciousness enters the thinking mind; and the thinking mind itself is of twofold nature. The one part of it is the personal idea; the other part is mental action
The ray of consciousness and the personal idea are blended together, like the heat and the hot iron ball. As the personal idea identifies itself with the body, it brings that also a sense of consciousness
The personal idea is blended with the ray of consciousness, the body, and the witnessing Self, respectively -- through the action of innate necessity, of works, and of delusion
When the personal idea melts away in deep sleep, the body also loses its sense of consciousness. The personal idea is only half expanded in dream, while in waking it is complete
The power of mental action, when the ray of consciousness has entered into union with it, builds up mind-images in the dream-state; and external objects, in the waking state.
The personal form, thus brought into being by the personal idea and mental action, is of itself quite lifeless. It appears in the three modes of consciousness; it is born, and so also dies.

yajvan
23 January 2010, 07:57 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté amith vikram,


namaste sir,
i didnt catch your point. may be i am wrong? about illusion, what i know is this.... what is illusion?
The form is seen, the eye is seer; the mind is both seen and seer. The changing moods of mind are seen, but the witnessing Self, the seer, is never seen The conscious Self, remaining one, shines on all the moods of mind: on desire, determination, doubt, faith, unfaith, firmness and the lack of it, shame, insight, fear, etc.. This illumining comes when the ray of consciousness enters the thinking mind; and the thinking mind itself is of twofold nature. The one part of it is the personal idea; the other part is mental action The ray of consciousness and the personal idea are blended together, like the heat and the hot iron ball. As the personal idea identifies itself with the body, it brings that also a sense of consciousness
The personal idea is blended with the ray of consciousness, the body, and the witnessing Self, respectively -- through the action of innate necessity, of works, and of delusion When the personal idea melts away in deep sleep, the body also loses its sense of consciousness. The personal idea is only half expanded in dream, while in waking it is complete
The power of mental action, when the ray of consciousness has entered into union with it, builds up mind-images in the dream-state; and external objects, in the waking state.
The personal form, thus brought into being by the personal idea and mental action, is of itself quite lifeless. It appears in the three modes of consciousness; it is born, and so also dies.

Your points are reasonable and a good overview of the perceived and the perceiver. The illusion surely co-mingles in what you write, as you define the SELF in the equation of experience and perception. The illusion subsides say the wise with the establishment of what the SELF brings to one's understanding of the seen and not-seen.


Yet, that said, I do not grasp the offer of what you you may defining as illusion . Perhaps you can assist me with another POV or example or what ever you are comfortable with.

I will also add a few more ideas to this string as smaranam has asked above, but will wait for your response first on this matter we are discussing, so we do not have too many ideas in-process and the chance for confusion to arise.


praṇām

yajvan
23 January 2010, 10:03 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté smaranam,

Namaste

Yes, what needs to be given up is the

1. ahamkAr - "I am XYZ"
2. mamakAr - "This is mine"

Not necessarily your favorite things, but the attachment to that favorite thing , that means living in the world but dettached from the BMI, its doership, and ownership.
praNAm

These are the correct things to give up, yet to do this as a selection process, as a thought and not anchored in the actual experience of ātman (Self), one has missed the mark.

While it is good to know I am not this, not that, this is good to know. Now, this must be complimented with the experience of self-less-ness. Note I write it in lower case self. This is the self of boundaries, of transition, of going, coming, etc. It is not that SELF that is pure awareness. This does not suggest this self is bad, it is just bound in the world of things, duality, multiplicity of things and actions.

For us to hit the mark it must (IMHO) be anchored in Being, pure awareness i.e. the SELF. I use the idea of 'mark' as we are considered arrows (bāṇa) in the praśna upaniṣad. It is when the arrow hits its target , its existence is justified, fulfilled. Like that, we become fulfilled , without wanting, when we too hit the mark of brahman.

Hence , we can entertain thoughts and ideas of brahman, and this is healthy, but it is when the arrow leaves the bow and hits the mark that its existence is fulfilled.

So this giving up can be symbolized by eliminating possessions - yet the thing we wish to give up is the ignorance of not personally experiencing this Being, Self, brahman, and this comes with practice, with sādhana and with study. And this is where the whole conversation started, yes? What do I have to give up ?


I can say with 100% confidence it is by bringing the light that the darkness is removed. It is not working with the darkness that it-and-by-it-self will leave. Like that, ignorance is not removed by working with it, but by bringing the full rays of Being in, ignorance vanishes.
This is the intent of sādhana , to bring in the light - a bit more daily. For some it comes in swiftly , for others slowly. But it is the 'effort' here to bring in more Being, light, brahman.

So now the next logical question - why do we always read, hear, discuss the notion of giving up things? Some give up activities, some leave their families. In the beginning the first to be given up are 'habits' which are not life supporting (healthy) to one's self or others, this usually is the first to go. This giving up is a simple thing - it is not having distractions, things that are not supporting one's intention of the arrow (bāṇa) to hit the mark. Less things, less management - more time for one's intent.


praṇām

Tirisilex
23 January 2010, 10:11 PM
How do you practice sādhana? What is sādhana?

amith vikram
24 January 2010, 12:16 AM
namaste yajvanji,
yeah you were right,i defined the seer and the seen. that means you know where my source of info is from.OK
considering only the illusion.,
illusion has 2 powers-extension and limitation, or enveloping. The power of extension brings into manifestation the whole world, from the personal form to the universal cosmos.
This manifesting is an attributing of name and form to the Reality -- which is Being, Consciousness, Bliss, the Eternal; it is like foam on the water
The inner division between the seer and the seen, and the outer division between the Eternal and the world, are concealed by the other power, limitation; and this also is the cause of the cycle of birth and death
The light of the witnessing Self is united with the personal form; from this entering in of the ray of consciousness arises the habitual life -- the ordinary self
The isolated existence of the ordinary self is attributed to the witnessing Self, and appears to belong to it; but when the power of limitation is destroyed, and the difference appears, the sense of isolation in the Self vanishes away
It is the same power which conceals the difference between the Eternal and the visible world; and, by its power, the Eternal appears subject to change
But when this power of limitation is destroyed, the difference between the Eternal and the visible world becomes clear; change belongs to the visible world, and by no means to the Eternal
The five elements of existence are these: being, shining, enjoying, form and name; the three first belong to the nature of the Eternal; the last two, to the nature of the visible world.
In the elements -- ether, air, fire, water, earth; in creatures -- gods, animals, and men, Being, Consciousness, Bliss are undivided; the division is only of name and form
this is all i know about illusion,and i am keen to know your view on this.

Sudarshan
24 January 2010, 12:43 AM
I think the 'ascetic approach' or whatever you want to call it is inherently flawed. I think this stems from a misunderstanding of the whole process. Devotees behold their gurus leading ascetic lives and so mimic them in the hope of attaining their 'bliss'. But they fail to see that the ascetic life is something that develops spontaneously after awareness when all material attachments are transcended and when it is clearly perceived that such existence is seen as unnecessary for a joyful life. And so we have these religious people who torture themselves, practice self-denial and who are further from the truth than the dancing, wine-drinking Zorba (who is actually a Buddha). It is not necessary, in my opinion to renounce anything. All the great masters have attested to this: Atmananda, Nisargadatta (he was a shopkeeper his whole life!), Ramana (the direct path is as effective as bhakti), Osho (Zorba the Buddha), Chinmayananda. Plenty more...

Asceticism makes both mind and body strong. Luxury makes both mind and body weak. This is why religion mandates some kind of renunciation.

It is not suitable for everyone though, and I agree we cannot imitate the masters. Renouncing is not the key but nor is excessive indulgement. Nothing needs to be renounced ultimately and everything must be sublimated to the highest divine perfection.

yajvan
24 January 2010, 08:47 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté Tirisilex,


How do you practice sādhana? What is sādhana?

First what is sādhana?

Let's start with the definition
sādhana - leading straight to a goal , guiding well , furthering ; accomplishment , performance ; as a noun it is bringing about , carrying out , accomplishment ,.fulfilment , completion , perfection

Sādhana and how we have been applying it in the context of HDF posts is the spiritual unfoldment ( pursuit) of establishing Being ( ātman) as a personal and direct experience; sādhana = upāya = a means by where one reaches their aim.

So what is one to do?
The wise say withdraw then withdraw from the withdraw. We know these words are sūtras ( or stitches, snippets). So people ask withdraw from what? Withdraw from the parts (aṅga) and experience the the whole,(aṅgī); then withdraw from the withdrawal i.e. withdraw from that whole or aṅgī, and come back to the parts.

Now what's that again?

Withdraw from the duality of life, the parts, diversity (aṅga) and experience fullness, bhuma, turīya¹ ( aṅgī ), then come back to diversity. Another way of simply saying this is deep rest and activity of experiencing Being, silence, a 'pause' if you will bathing in Silence, then come back into your normal daily routine. It is sādhana + upāya (practice) , then we come back to our daily life of doing. The 'doing' then stabilizes the silence we experienced during our practice.

What occurs over time , even our daily work of doing ( job, family, recreation) this too becomes sādhana over time as our awareness is groomed and honed. All things in time become sādhana.

What's is going on with this? It is the cleaning/unfoldment process Abhinavagupta-ji calls out in some of his work and can be applied, he says:
Just as by washing the dirt or impurity lying in the inner fold of a cloth, the dirt lying on the upper portion ( the outer folds) gets automatically washed or cleansed ; even so, by the removal of the dirt (mala) lying at the subtle levels, the dirt residing at the madhyamā ( central ) levels get automatically removed.

Where to begin ?
With a teacher, proper instruction - a competent guide. Look for the guide.

What is this upāya suppose to accomplish?
We dip into pure awareness then come back. Each time this is done, some purification happens, mala-s are being removed, but more importantly our attention is not on the mala-s, the impurities, we are infusing more and more pure awareness into our daily awareness. We are 'refreshing' the system, bring in more wholeness, fullness of Being.

This is why it is considered sādhana 'leading straight to the goal ' of Being, Silence, Pure Awareness, brahman.

praṇām

references
For more on this reivew the posts On Belonging to Everything : http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=24223#post24223 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=24223#post24223)
Also see Revisiting turīya for in-depth information : http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3312 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3312)

Eastern Mind
24 January 2010, 09:01 AM
How do you practice sādhana? What is sādhana?

Namaste Tirisilex: In the simplest terms, sadhana means 'religious practise'. It means setting apart a certain time of the day to do something 'religious'. Usually it would mean alone time. It can take many forms. Scriptural reading, singing bhajans, doing japa, doing puja, meditating, hatha yoga can all be incorporated. It can be for 5 minutes or 3 hours. It is up to the individual. The wise say it should ideally bed one at the same time every day, and daily, for best results. Its like a self-imposed time out, for spiritual benefit. So its entirely up to you.

Aum namasivaya

yajvan
24 January 2010, 10:28 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~




Where to begin ?
With a teacher, proper instruction - a competent guide. Look for the guide.

Why do I mention this? Because ,

it's practical
It offers the shortest distance between two points
It allows one to ask more in-depth questions and allows the teacher to teach
It's a proven approachLet's say a person wishes to know ( in depth) about a subject. So you go to the library. You walk in , now where to start? So many books and ideas... where is the proper place to begin? The librarian may assist you and get you into the correct section, yet s/he cannot tell which books will bring you to your goal, but she is most helpful by eliminating 95% of your search by getting you in the right row or section.
Now you look for the some one very familiar in the field that you are considering to study - this person tells you specifically what areas to study - but still this is not tailored to you .

Then you get a personal trainer - the tutor. He or she assesses your abilities, your present skill set and takes you from there. Like at, the teacher with this ability becomes very valuable. They know you and the subject at hand, where the librarian only knows the book locations, and the person very familuar with the subject too knows the knowledge, but not you . It is when there is this understanding of you and the knowledge that substantial progress can be made.

I consider HDF the 'librarians' and the 'very knowledgeable' - the personal trainer we are not.

Now in the beginning you may try different approaches - what feels right what does not , this is good , but nothing beats a teacher. Having a map of the territory is wise - trying to get to your goal on your own without a map 'trial and error' is do-able, yet the time expended is time lost - and doubts arise : Am I do this right? Is this the proper approach ? Is this the expected result of this technique? We must remember , well begun is half done.

praṇām

smaranam
25 January 2010, 12:15 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté smaranam,


These are the correct things to give up, yet to do this as a selection process, as a thought and not anchored in the actual experience of ātman (Self), one has missed the mark.

For us to hit the mark it must (IMHO) be anchored in Being, pure awareness i.e. the SELF. I use the idea of 'mark' as we are considered arrows (bāṇa) in the praśna upaniṣad. It is when the arrow hits its target , its existence is justified, fulfilled. Like that, we become fulfilled , without wanting, when we too hit the mark of brahman.


So this giving up can be symbolized by eliminating possessions - yet the thing we wish to give up is the ignorance of not personally experiencing this Being, Self, brahman, and this comes with practice, with sādhana and with study. And this is where the whole conversation started, yes? What do I have to give up ?


This is the intent of sādhana , to bring in the light - a bit more daily. For some it comes in swiftly , for others slowly. But it is the 'effort' here to bring in more Being, light, brahman.

So now the next logical question - why do we always read, hear, discuss the notion of giving up things? Some give up activities, some leave their families. In the beginning the first to be given up are 'habits' which are not life supporting (healthy) to one's self or others, this usually is the first to go. This giving up is a simple thing - it is not having distractions, things that are not supporting one's intention of the arrow (bāṇa) to hit the mark. Less things, less management - more time for one's intent.



praṇām


PraNAm Yajvanji

Thank you very much for the sound advice. I agree, and especially the last part , that is why I had said further



That is why it is said "accept what is favourable to your spiritual progress, reject the unfavourable".

I do not have many bad habits , but some very subtle disguised as sattvic -
like for instance, the appearant spiritual pursuit itself , leaves me disinterested in daily things .
Fortunately, once I take up a task (let's say weeding the garden) I finish it in silence and with a good feeling , and may not even want to leave it half done.

Another thing - my family complains I am too attached to the computer :)
And coming here for instance, I cannot agree less. So I have to stop coming to HDF now :) Yes, not a good thing to say in a forum - since attachment to satsang is dettachment from the world.

I do agree the internet is a library and HDF is librarians. I should not be adding to it but living a solitary silent life of my own, which may go slightly ignored and out of schedule if I stay glued to reading scriptures and discussing them and especially the computer. Just because 'this' is more appealing.

From an ordinary material life point of view, I was better at the mundane life Karma Yoga then than now.
However, I am a relatively free person, not afraid of simple people-ego confrontations, Krshna has taken me across THAT bridge for sure, and feel extremely lucky for that.

So, I am more at peace, but a peaceful and peace-loving procrastinator.

What does meditation do ? Inertia , more meditation. And you will say - then your meditation is wrong. Perhaps , from worldly point of view.

But there is more of Krshna in the shastra, bhajans, satsang than in the chores and projects as long as they (the projects) are not utterly important in my view. This is the current illusion, and I need to find more Krshna in daily mundane life.

Namaste