Freedom over action alone...

[atanu]

From my experience, the moment I attempt to control an emotion or suppress it, it gives it more power.

In meditation, if I am too frustrated I will work through levels until I can get to meditation. If I am very aggitated, start with movement and slowing the breath, some exercises. Instead of forcing myself to sit and ultimately being frustrated at some illusion.

Sometimes I visualize the emotions or thoughts tumbling out the Eye into the Universe. Like leaves blowing out a window into the sky. Eventually, they go away and Peace settles in. In the past, I had been very legalistic (ie ego) about how I was supposed to rigidly meditate and ended in failure more often than not. I try to start with where I am, and accept all my shadows.

For me, it is all about the moment. If I can accept the exact moment as it is, I can move inward. Holding onto or forcing anything gets me nowhere.

And always keeping the goal not to accomplish anything in the personal realm, but just to dance with the Divine.

Namaste MG,

If one has to pass an exam, can one give up learning math, since it appears to be tough? Frustration is part of the game. It is about these difficulties I talked about in the very beginning (if you remember?). All hidden desires come up so that you can examine them and discard them in the light of one desire --- Peace ie. God.

You are correct, however. Arjuna mentioned about the problems that you are mentioning.

Meditation is not forcing anything. Till there is effort it is sadhana. But sanatana dharma scriptures do still egg us on towards the object of knowledge which remains as full, just beneath the thoughts of the turbulent mind.

How can one be in the moment, if one has no mastery over mind? Thoughts will surely take you to past and to future like a dry leaf is moved by the wind. Knowing that the Self is infininitely stronger than the mind, only takes you forward.

There are two ways:
Surrender praying to God that this is beyond me and praying for His intervention.
Or, Effort with patience.

I will suggest: Shradhaa and Saburi, Faith and Patience together.

Om Namah Shivayya

[atanu]

From my experience, the moment I attempt to control an emotion or suppress it, it gives it more power.

In meditation, if I am too frustrated I will work through levels until I can get to meditation. If I am very aggitated, start with movement and slowing the breath, some exercises. Instead of forcing myself to sit and ultimately being frustrated at some illusion.

Sometimes I visualize the emotions or thoughts tumbling out the Eye into the Universe. Like leaves blowing out a window into the sky. Eventually, they go away and Peace settles in. In the past, I had been very legalistic (ie ego) about how I was supposed to rigidly meditate and ended in failure more often than not. I try to start with where I am, and accept all my shadows.

For me, it is all about the moment. If I can accept the exact moment as it is, I can move inward. Holding onto or forcing anything gets me nowhere.

And always keeping the goal not to accomplish anything in the personal realm, but just to dance with the Divine.

Namaskar,

And your post and Arjuna's lament (in Gita) proves that how it is impossible to attain Turiya (object of knowledge which gives immortality) without faith and God's intervention. Lord himself says in Gita: surrender to me with all your mind and I will give you knowledge.

To attain Turiya, based on mental discrimination only, is like trying to fold the sky (borrowed expression from Svet. Upanishad).

Om

[atanu]

-----
-----And always keeping the goal not to accomplish anything in the personal realm, but just to dance with the Divine.

Yes dear MG,

This itself, if adhered to at all times, is freedom.

Om Namah Shivayya

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Pranam,

I doubt your assertion seriously that 'Yet this is not mandatory for Part 1 of ones journey to turiya establishment. It can be done through pure discrimination ( vivika)'. How many are established in Advaita Turiya and how many are Jnanis?

The problem is that the Self is still being considered in association with I-Me-Mine. The Self has no I-Me-Mine.

Namaste Atanu,
thank you for the post and various parts of the Upanishads. You are correct the SELF has no i or me ( I use small i) ... of this , there is no doubt. This is not the case for the discussion. The SELF needs to be experienced by itSELF, without activity. This can happen by transcending and stablizing this experience over time.

Yet I have not suggested that the SELF is being considered with me-mine-ours-yours or any duality. This is not my point, and as I have agreed to the SELF needs to realize itSELF by itSELF...this is pointed out in the UPanishads and Adi SHankara's commentaries. My point is , for this to happen, one's devotion is not a key ingredient in baking this cake. I will leave it there and we can develop this over time. I respect your postion on this... my goal is not to convert any thoughts, just bring the knowledge I have been granted to our discussions.

pranams,

[atanu]

Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste Atanu,
thank you for the post and various parts of the Upanishads. You are correct the SELF has no i or me ( I use small i) ... of this , there is no doubt. This is not the case for the discussion. The SELF needs to be experienced by itSELF, without activity. This can happen by transcending and stablizing this experience over time.

Yet I have not suggested that the SELF is being considered with me-mine-ours-yours or any duality. This is not my point, and as I have agreed to the SELF needs to realize itSELF by itSELF...this is pointed out in the UPanishads and Adi SHankara's commentaries. My point is , for this to happen, one's devotion is not a key ingredient in baking this cake. I will leave it there and we can develop this over time. I respect your postion on this... my goal is not to convert any thoughts, just bring the knowledge I have been granted to our discussions.

pranams,

Namaskar Yajvan Ji,

I reciprocate that I respect your understanding and position. Differences are always the result of not talking of the same thing.

The Self I am talking about is ONE. The object of knowledge, knowing which one is granted immortality. This Self is not my self or Yajvan's self. The Self I am talking cannot be the object of consciousness since it is beyond the consciousness (in which the world is dissolved). When the world itself is dissolved in Pragnya, what remains in the Self? Definitely it is inconcievable and even indescribable.

The point is that this Self (as described in Mandukya Upanishad) is Advaita and Brahman. This Self is thus Param Atma.

And thus I do believe that this Self, which grants immortality can be known by mere mental discrimination. Also, is it possible to transcend to this Self, without worshipping Sarvesvara Pragnya --- ?

Respects. And Regards.

Om Namah Shivayya

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaskar Yajvan Ji,

I reciprocate that I respect your understanding and position. Differences are always the result of not talking of the same thing.

The Self I am talking about is ONE. The object of knowledge, knowing which one is granted immortality. This Self is not my self or Yajvan's self. The point is that this Self (as described in Mandukya Upanishad) is Advaita and Brahman. This Self is thus Param Atma.

And thus I do believe that this Self, which grants immortality can be known by mere mental discrimination. Also, is it possible to transcend to this Self, without worshipping Sarvesvara Pragnya --- ?
Om Namah Shivayya

Namaste Atanu,
Yes, I see your point and concur... there is only one SELF. This is the Fullness of Bhuma. This SELF is consciousness itSELF, pure consciousness - this is confirned in the Yoga Vasistha, again and again. So, the experience of IT is not my consciousness experiencing THE consciousness, because it is one and the same. We now can have a conversation because we have established common ground, and I comprehend your point of view.

Yes, it is possible to transcend to this SELF and experience IT as pure silence. Over time it gets established in our nervious system , and then we do not have to close our eyes anymore to do this, it is lived every day and this silence is with us all the time. This is available to all that seek it.
So many techniques , so many ways to contact this Silence. Blessed are those that have a guru that can lead the way.
Now my point, this Silence to be experienced within ones being does not need bhakti. I have done this and can say it is possible for all to experience, I am nothing special ( cosmic lint as my friends have told me!), and can understand how this clarity is key for higher levels of spiritual development, it is the foundation.

Yet it is my humble opinion that reaching this Silence, His Grace is given to do this. When one becomes 'awake' to this phenomenon, bhakti starts in it's infancy and grows over time, but was not an entry fee to start.
[ It is said, that the SELF picks you first, then you proceed to it as if YOU made the choice ! ]

Just as the sun shines on this earth for all to have, like that, this Silence is for all to have. My teacher instucts me, to experience a personal relationship with Him, with ones Ishtadevata, this Silence must be established, then one's mind , really one's being is now set for this realationship to be developed, this is the part that does not come by itself i.e. the entry fee is required. The entry fee, is to establish purity of mind, clarity, silience, pure consciousness, then this can focus on devotion, service, bhakti to one's Ishta.

Now why would this be? It is because He is most subtle, most refined, most unbiquitious, that it takes the grooming of the senses, the perception, the intitution to be most refined and cultured to percive this... The Upanishds say this over and over. ( happy to bring these example to the forum). He is most subtle, just as one talks of His location in the heart, being a fraction of that of a human hair.

We of gross intellect will miss this subtleness, this refinement unless we culture the intution, the sense,etc. to 'see' Him in creation with every flower, cloud, planet, person we see. This is the grooming, trancending does this, cultures the villiage of the senses to hold this silence, longer and longer, till one lives it all the time. This is my resolve to establish this silence while my eyes remain open!

pranams,

[atanu]

Hari Om
~~~~~


------[ It is said, that the SELF picks you first, then you proceed to it as if YOU made the choice ! ]

Namaste,

My Guru says Bhakti is mother of Jnana. Here again a clarity of perspective is required. Jnana is none but the Lord. When everything else is not, only the Jnana exists -- and this is the Lord. So, 'Bhakti is mother of Jnana' means that without Bhakti Lord cannot be attained.

For those who take Lord as something apart from pure knowledge (as with a body etc.), the above concept will not hold.

For the rest, I agree to all what you say. Just wish to add two points.

First, WRT to the verse: 'Self picks you', one must remember the second part of the verse also, which says: '--- since one has selected the Self'.

Second: Shri Krishna, out of four kinds of devotees, favours the wise, who not because of any pressure but based on their discrimination have chosen the Self.

I would finally say that Bhakti, Jnana, Karma etc., are mental ideas created to make certain concepts clear. All aspects need harmonization for anything good to happen.

Om

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

For the rest, I agree to all what you say. Just wish to add two points.

First, WRT to the verse: 'Self picks you', one must remember the second part of the verse also, which says: '--- since one has selected the Self'.

Second: Shri Krishna, out of four kinds of devotees, favours the wise, who not because of any pressure but based on their discrimination have chosen the Self. Om

Namaste Atanu,
you bring wise words to HDF. Here's my audit trail on the SELF for your consideration...
Kathopanishad - Chapt 2.23 and Mundakopanishad Chapt 3.2.3

This atman cannot be attained by much study of the Vedas, nor by intelligence, nor by much hearing. He whom the Self chooses, by him the Self can be gained. To him this Atman reveals its true nature.

Sri Aurobindo says it this way: He chooses the Self who is chosen by the Self.
Adi Shankara says it like this: To whom who makes an exclusive choice of the Self, the Self reveals its own body (its own truth).

As I understand and comprehend , the act of revealing belongs solely to the choice/volition of the Self.

Please advise where my understanding is blemished so I may better appreciate the dictims presented by the wise.

...by the grace of thy Self, I see (that most auspicious form)
Adi Shankara commenting on verse 16 of the Isha Upanishad.


pranams,

[atanu]

Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste Atanu,
you bring wise words to HDF. Here's my audit trail on the SELF for your consideration...
Kathopanishad - Chapt 2.23 and Mundakopanishad Chapt 3.2.3

This atman cannot be attained by much study of the Vedas, nor by intelligence, nor by much hearing. He whom the Self chooses, by him the Self can be gained. To him this Atman reveals its true nature.

Sri Aurobindo says it this way: He chooses the Self who is chosen by the Self.
Adi Shankara says it like this: To whom who makes an exclusive choice of the Self, the Self reveals its own body (its own truth).

As I understand and comprehend , the act of revealing belongs solely to the choice/volition of the Self.

Please advise where my understanding is blemished so I may better appreciate the dictims presented by the wise.

...by the grace of thy Self, I see (that most auspicious form)
Adi Shankara commenting on verse 16 of the Isha Upanishad.


pranams,

Pranam,

You bring much value to HDF. I learn from you.

Since Self is ONE and ALL, both Aurobindo and Shankara speak correctly, as far as I can comprehend.

The mind has to make an exclusive choice to abide by Self (Shankara) at the same time the ego should not arise that this small self has the power to chose SELF.

Ultimately it is grace but ultimately it is also the mind's resolve, since grace is ever resplendent and ever present.

I personally go by Shankara, since my logic tells me that by aiming to know the self as part one can never know the ONE WHOLE SELF, as is dictated by the shruti. And I find that Shri Aurobindo proceeds from the perspective of many (which can at best be the product), whereas Shankara's premise is top-down from the ONE INDIVISIBLE ATMA.

And Gita says:

Avibhaktam cha bhooteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam;
Bhootabhartru cha tajjneyam grasishnu prabhavishnu cha.

13.17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.

Om Namah Shivayya