Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: Un-Complicating the SELF became complicated!

  1. #21

    Re: Un-complicating the SELF

    Quote Originally Posted by saidevo
    . Your saying that Vedanta acts as an opium is like saying that Vedas are opium. Where is your prapatti, bhakti or even your Jesus' teachings without Vedas?
    Dear Saidevo:

    Please, Saidevo!! Why are you so determined to twist my words and miss-interpret? Does that what my statement says or is it your interpretation? Please, look at the operative words used in the sentence. “For an inflated ego, Vedanta merely acts as opium” Notice the focus of the statement is in the subject: “inflated ego” and, not in the object “Veda”.

    To a drunken man the world appears upside down. Does that mean world truly is upside down? To a man wearing red glasses the surrounding world appears only as red where as a man with blue glasses it appears only in blue. Does that mean this unchanging world suddenly becomes an object of their vision at the whims of these people? You seem to focus more on the object and not on the changing nature of the subject. The reference here is to the changing nature of man that is “inflated ego” not the unchanging truths of Vedas. We are talking about ego and not sacred Vedas here!

    To a person with a very bloated ego the same Sacred Vedanta acts as opium. Perhaps, I should qualify it further. To a bloated ego any scripture (Hindu or Christian or Islam) acts as opium. I don’t have to look far. Every Sunday I see this in Churches in many parts of the world (through TV of course!) where the ego is in full command of the scripture! If such a statement offends you, I am sorry! Once again, I was making a point regarding bloated ego in a man and not criticizing Vedas!
    Quote Originally Posted by saidevo
    . You should thus understand that Prapatti is not inaction or just worldly actions with God in the consciousness; it is essentially meditation keeping God in the front (Ishvara prANidhAna), and thus is intimately connected to the paths of Yoga and Jnana advocated in the Vedanta.
    Yes, I agree but before you even begin to engage in any actions how do you get into that mode or consciousness without the hand of grace, when ego is nicely thriving? That’s been my main point.

    Finally, let me ask you this with a sincere heart. Here is honest post by Yajavan asking others to participate giving their opinion. I considered mine as an appropriate response (post #3) to him within the context of his question. I have tried to use terms like Self, Yoga, Jnana, Bhakti etc (basic to Hindu Philosophy), which are very foreign to Christianity. How can any one even remotely connect my response to Christianity? Especially, when I use term like surrender to grace or prapatti, which I have exclusively borrowed from Ramanuja’s Philosophy, why there is so much knee-jerk reaction? Why do you get so upset when I interject Dvaita, VA or even Christian thoughts in meaningful way to make an argument? Why does it have to end up in personal attacks?

    For a productive spiritual discussion, I do believe one has to go beyond dogmatic assertions and present real arguments. We can debate on arguments, as long as it does not lead into personal confrontation of any kind. I have, at least in my view, tried to do that by separating “spirituality” from “religion” but without any recognition of that effort. It seems I am spending more time defending my position on “proselytizing” than any other thing that is useful.

    It is not clear to me if we are engaged in defending our faith in God or defending our ideas about God! While it is acceptable to argue on each other’s ideas of God but many have gone as far as to attack the person presenting it and his character and possibly his motive. It is unfortunate that some (not you!) have made it their primary goal to make it difficult for me to discuss a simple argument by resorting to religion. They are bent on hanging the messenger rather than focusing on the point of the message. With this kind of attitude it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to continue with a meaningful exchange. Once again, I do think this forum can serve as a valuable platform if, instead of reacting to labels and terms, we can find this exchange to further our own spiritual journey.

    In that regard, I have always admired and very much respected many of your views that were very spiritual in nature. I do appreciate your time spent with me and very insightful and different points of view you have provided.


    Blessings,

  2. #22

    Re: Un-complicating the SELF

    Quote Originally Posted by sm78
    My dear friend everyone is not a year old child. A child must grow up one day ... sure you will too ....
    Dear sm78:

    You may not be a child now but at least you must have grown from being a child! I bet my bottom dollar, you were born some day before growing in to an adult. I guess, I have lots of growing up to do. Yes, every thing applies to me as well. I am not above any of these! What you become of as an adult now surely tells me the choices you made as a child. Those choices are initial steps are crucial in your later development that shaped life of you and me. That initial step I call turning to grace.

    You seem to miss my point. Metaphorically speaking, just as child’s mind cannot fully comprehend the proper use of knife, the ego of the mind is also not fully able to comprehend the tools at hand. While tools that you describe so well are necessary but developing a discerning mind is also equally necessary to utilize them properly.

    To what extent the knowledge dawns in that child depends on early upbringing of that child. Similarly, to what extent you use all tools at your disposal depends on the action you take as a first-step. All I am saying is that the first-step is turning to grace! I believe that these are the sayings of Sage Ramanuja!

    Blessings,

  3. #23

    Re: Un-complicating the SELF

    Quote Originally Posted by Atanu Banerjee
    When an inflated ego has no chance to reach Vedanta then how can Vedanta ever become opium to an inflated ego?
    I am afraid I have once again confounded you!

    Because the Truth of Vedanta cannot be revealed to an inflated-ego in its purest form, it becomes (acts as) an opium. If truth of Vedanta gets revealed why would it be called opium at all? Because the truth of Vedas do not get revealed to an inflated-ego that is why it becomes opium.

    Fact is that the truth of the Vedas cannot be revealed in its “purest form” to an inflated ego (notice operative word: purest form)! Therefore, an inflated-ego uses Vedantic message as a crutch to cling to and convinces itself it knows the truth. That is what I call opium. It is when you actually don’t know, you have lulled yourself into thinking that you know!

    This has been my simple point to beware of how an inflated ego can prematurely handle Vedas. As Ramana Maharishi so beautifully elaborates, “when the thief dressed in policeman’s clothes and catches the thief, he may think he has caught a thief but he still is a thief!” Perhaps, you should shift your focus from the unchanging nature of the object (Vedas) to the changing nature of the subject (inflated-ego) and then you will grasp the intended meaning of that statement in that context!

    Any way, if such statements offend you, you have my sincere apologies. Because, with you “clarity always comes at the expense of charity”.
    Quote Originally Posted by Atanu
    Although, I once more request you to be truthful to yourself and decide first as to what you really want to convey, I know that my request is futile since time and again you have betrayed brash attitude towards different paths of sanatana dharma
    My dear friend, I wish you had not made such statements. I sincerely feel these statements are not warranted. You are making me reluctantly answer your baseless allegations. This topic started by Yajavan was simply asking others to express their opinion. Whether one agrees with other’s opinion should be a matter of discussion not turning into religious war. You have taken every one of my statement to construe with Christianity. I call that a poor judgment (should I say brash attitude) on your part. Perhaps, look in to a mirror and this is what you might see!

    - When I expressed my opinion about Upanishad being presented in double voice, and asked for the true nature of the parent gospel, you almost immediately jumped to conclusion that I am blaspheming sacred scripture. You did not even spend a minute trying to understand from an intellectual/rational perspective!

    - When I expressed my opinion about incoherent nature of some of the terms in Sage Shankara’s Vedanta, you immediately jumped the gun and proclaimed I am blaspheming Shankara!

    - When the topic was about Mystical experience that had nothing to do with any religion but mystical experience you immediately accused me of bringing Christian doctrine!

    - Even with the topic at hand, I tried to use terms like “Prapatti “ that is; “surrender to Grace” , which was strictly from Ramanuja’s philosophy, you immediately concluded there is an undercurrent of Christianity. Heck, another member (sm78) goes as far as requesting moderator to move it to a Christian board!

    How can I make any rational conversation with you when you are so hung up on labels and terms? When a topic is of such a subtle spiritual nature why do you inject religion and corrupt and derail other’s thoughts?

    Notwithstanding above remarks, I still admire your intellect in Advaita! You have great understanding and insight of Advaita philosophy we all envy. But, that should not in anyway be used to negate or discard other thoughts outside of Advaita. You seem to live in a fortress with heavy walls and as soon as you detect any thought contrary to Advaita, especially coming from me, to you immediately it becomes Blasphemy.

    You remind me of Pharisees living at the time of Jesus Christ! Rather than understand and intellectually argue with Jesus Christ as to why He healed the sick during the Sabbath, they immediately jumped to conclusion that Jesus was Blaspheming Sabbath! They were more interested in keeping up with the tradition than a sick man being healed! Notice their focus and your focus! I believe, that is exactly what you and others are doing with the statement I made, “For an Inflated ego, Vedanta merely acts as opium”.

    The contrary views should be welcome in a debate or discussions of this sort that is why it is called debate. Contrary views must be handled rationally in an intelligent way and not by crying foul in the name of another religion.

    Blessings,

  4. #24
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: Un-complicating the SELF

    Namaste Nirotu.

    1. "For an inflated ego, Vedanta merely acts as an opium."
    2. "To a person with a very bloated ego the same Sacred Vedanta acts as opium."

    I have never had a formal course in the nuances of English grammar. I learnt the English alphabets only when in my fifth grade and could not write a sentence of my own until I came out of the school! Any grammatical correctness that happens to be found in my English is only instinctive.

    That said, do you honestly think that the two sentences from you convey the same meaning to the reader in unambiguous terms? If you knew that Vedanta is 'sacred' why not say it in the first place and avoid all unnecessary analysis of your prose?

    Nirotu, the gap between thoughts and words is wide; and tricky. And the key color of thoughts would reflect on the words, howevermuch you try to filter or soften it.

    The first sentence of yours may easily lead to these derivatives, while the second may not:

    -- What acts as an opium for an inflated ego?
    -- Vedanta.

    -- Vedanta acts as what?
    -- Opium.

    -- To what Vedanta is like opium?
    -- Inflated ego.

    -- What is an inflated ego?
    -- An embodied soul.

    -- So every human is an inflated ego?
    -- Yes, except those who surrender to God.

    -- Inflated egos that don't surrender, can't progress with Vedanta?
    -- Yes.

    -- Why?
    -- Because it is like opium to them.

    -- What is your point of view here, Vendata or inflated egos?
    -- Inflated egos, of course.

    -- I am an inflated ego who does not easily surrender to God. So according to your POV, Vedanta is opium to me?
    -- Yes from my POV, not towards you, but an inflated ego.

    -- Do you consider yourself an inflated ego?
    -- Probably not, because I surrender to God.

    -- Assuming that you have some scope for inflation of ego, do you think Vedanta would benefit your spiritual progress, or would it be an opium?
    -- If I am an inflated ego, yes, Vedata would be opium to me.

    -- If you are not an inflated ego, since you surrender to God, how do you know that Vedanta would be like opium? Did you try it and know or is it merely a conjecture?
    -- I have no faith in Vedantic methods, so I don't think I will try them.

    -- So, in your opinion, those who try Vedanta instead of just surrendering to God, would become more and more intoxicated because Vedanta would act as opium?
    -- To an inflated ego, yes.

    -- If you are not an inflated ego, if you have not tried Vedanta or don't want to try it, on what authority you make your statement that Vedanta will be like opium to an inflated ego?

    I take exception even to the way to you present Vedanta in the second sentence. The exception is to the word 'opium'.

    Opium is a gross herbal substance that intoxicates with psychedelic states that has no connection with spirituality or spiritual progress. How ignorant should a person be to compare Vedanta, that has the loftiest knowledge in the human and divine realms with opium? How can a person with such ignorance and obstinacy hope to be childlike and surrender to God?

    Do you know that Vedas/Vedanta have existed since the time of Creation in Hinduism, which was 155.521972 trillion years ago?

    Now, don't try to be apologetic. You profess to have high regard for the Hindu scriptures and the Hindu dharma, but in your discussions you cleverly (should I say craftily?) interject a word or phrase and seek to demean other points of view.

    To demean and be crafty is the job of the missionaries. We know that you have faith in Jesus, we don't mind your considering him as your sole/soul saviour, we don't even mind your supporting the evangelists and presenting your points in appropriate forums here in HDF (that is what Satay has invited you for), but try to be intelletually honest.

    It is not settling scores; not winning or losing a debate; and certainly not shoving POVs down other throats. It is only sharing of spiritual knowledge, experiences and POVs.

    I shall reply to your other observations in a separate post.

  5. #25

    Re: Un-complicating the SELF

    Well, Saidevo:

    I am not sure if you read my last post correctly. I have already addressed and clarified my point of view regarding this statement. No one has denied the loftiness of Vedas. In fact, I also have high regard for its content. It is the nature of ego that makes crutch of anything. It is the ego that is susceptible in man at that stage of the journey. That is all we are cautioning about.

    More over, I have sincerely apologized for mis-understanding caused in that offensive statement. I just don’t understand why you are continuing to emphasize a moot point!

    Blessings,

  6. #26
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: Un-complicating the SELF

    Namaste Nirotu.

    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu
    To a bloated ego any scripture (Hindu or Christian or Islam) acts as opium. I don’t have to look far. Every Sunday I see this in Churches in many parts of the world (through TV of course!) where the ego is in full command of the scripture!
    Let us discuss this observation of yours. Be assured that I have rightly understood that your motive is spiritual, and that only childlike surrender to God is required; the scriptures are all like opium that bloat the already bloated ego further.

    Every child knows about God only through the parents, mostly from the mother.
    Every child knows about God only through the religion of its parents, usually the father's.

    Ignoring the cases of atheist parents, whatever the religion, interaction with God is introduced to the child first by simple prayers (and mantras in Hinduism). And God is introduced by a personal name: Krishna, Rama, Narayana, Shiva, Ganesh, Jesus, or any other.

    In an orthodox family, the child is also taught some scriptures and taken to the temple or church in order to foster a community feeling of its religion. Thereafter, the child learns to visualize the God in its mind and interact with Him on its own. Religion is thus a familial as well as a communal culture.

    A parent of the child might have taught it about surrendering to God's grace, but the child never understands it fully, until it has made its own efforts and found out by its personal experiences. The parent might try to spoon-feed surrender and grace, and the child might appear to take it, relish it, and grow with it, but the assimilation of these spiritual concepts is only by experience born out of acts and efforts. To a child, its thinking of God is meditation and the what it learns by it is jnAna (knowledge).

    A Hindu is not required to go to the temples regularly by the religion. He is encouraged to worship God, not just every Sunday, but daily in his puja room in a personal form. When it comes to a personal form of God, no other religion excels in the concept, as Hinduism. A Christian might invite Jesus to come to him/her through the Holy Spirit, but to a Hindu a personal God always resides in him/her in the form of an ishta devata ever since his/her birth.

    A Christian is required/encouraged to regularly attend the Sunday masses in his/her church, seek the counsel of the priest for spiritual guidance to invite and entertain Jesus in his daily life through the Holy Ghost or Spirit. The Christian dogmas do not allow a Christian to seek Jesus or His Father in a personal way, only through the hierarchy of priest-Spirit-Jesus-God.

    Unlike the many Christians (known by their names) in HDF who have indicated their religion as Sanatana Dharma (perhaps they seek to strengthen their own faith in Christianity through the comforting concepts of Sanatana Dharma), you have not indicated your religion as Sanatana Dharma in your profile in HDF, so I take it to be Christianity. If that be so, I am surprised at your disparaging remarks about churches "where the ego is in full command of the scriptures"! Did the Apostles who wrote the Bible have ego? To what extent did it command/color the Christian scriptures? If they did not have ego, and everyone of them displayed a childlike surrender to Jesus (remember, one of them betrayed Jesus), why do their versions differ, specially when it is supposed to be Jesus' words to them and God's words to Jesus? Did the Apostles read each other's version? Is it not the expression of their egos that has resulted in differing versions? If it is, in what way are the Gospels the Truth about God and God's own words?

    If ego commands scriptures and they in turn act as opium to a seeker, why do you quote frequently from the Bible? The discussions about Christianity in this thread are the offshoots of your quotes and remarks. Do you think you can surrender to God, childlike, without having the knowledge of any religion or scriptures or a label for God like Jesus, Krishna, etc? Even God is a label!

    The wisemen will understand that Prapatti is the connection, Bhakti is the communication, Jnana is the contents and Vedas are the field of our interaction with God, any god, personal or impersonal, of any religion.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: Un-complicating the SELF

    Namaste Nirotu,

    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    Finally, let me ask you this with a sincere heart. Here is honest post by Yajavan asking others to participate giving their opinion. I considered mine as an appropriate response (post #3) to him within the context of his question.
    Hope you will consider my posts #14 (that places Prapatti as used by Patanjali Maharshi in proper context), #18 and #19 as also relevant within the context of the OP! Many thanks to you, if you do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    I have tried to use terms like Self, Yoga, Jnana, Bhakti etc (basic to Hindu Philosophy), which are very foreign to Christianity. How can any one even remotely connect my response to Christianity?

    Especially, when I use term like surrender to grace or prapatti, which I have exclusively borrowed from Ramanuja’s Philosophy, why there is so much knee-jerk reaction? Why do you get so upset when I interject Dvaita, VA or even Christian thoughts in meaningful way to make an argument? Why does it have to end up in personal attacks?
    Jesus might be the only Saviour to you and the Bible your only tool of communication with Him, but you should understand that to most Hindus and in a Hindu Forum like the HDF, Jesus is nothing more than artifice for agression and Bible is anathema, mainly because either of them does not believe in peaceful co-existence with other faiths.

    When you discuss either of them in a Hindu Forum, you are welcome to make a honest presentation of them as they are, without trying to extrapolate or discover hidden and metaphorical meanings in them that honest, enlightened Christian scholars and other Christians have not done.

    You should also understand that Sanatana Dharma is an ocean where many rivers discharge their currents. There are many paths to salvation in Hinduism. We have multitudinous sects and gods and gurus and ways, but they never revile one another or shove one's POV down another's throat.

    We may discuss that only Vishnu or Shiva or Krishna or Shakti is the supreme God and try to prove that it is so, but we never say that all Hindus should worship only one of them for salvation. Personally, I am an Advaitin but I worship all Hindu Gods, revere all Hindu Gurus and their teachings, though my own personal views differ. It is this freedom in Hinduism that makes it a Sanatana Dharma.

    And, most importantly, our sects are all Vedas-based. If you say that Vedas are like opium, even qualifying them with the adjective 'sacred', then it is either reviling and shoving down your POV or displaying your (feigned) ignorance which is what is resented by the HDF members. There is no point in saying such things first and then being apologetic after the milk is spilled.

    This is not to say that one has no intellectual freedom to discuss religious concepts, intra as well as inter; only that the freedom should not be abused.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: Un-complicating the SELF

    Namaste Nirotu,

    You seem to be fond of the quotes from Ramana Maharshi where he compares the mind to a monkey and a thief in the guise of a policeman. By these quotes you try to give an impression that Bhagavan Ramana supported childlike surrender to obtain God's grace.

    Here is what the sage says about the role of God's grace and surrender in Self-Realization:

    "Leave God's job to God. You are to do what is in your hands. When the time is ripe, God's grace which is always operating, would be felt by you also. Grace would work automatically."

    Bhagavan advised that three things should be kept in mind --
    i) individual effort,
    ii) the appropriate time,
    iii) God's grace

    He graciously observed:
    "Keep at your practice. There is no need to remind God about his business, which is to keep an eye always on our welfare. The mistake one is prone to make is to abandon effort under the mistaken impression that God's grace is absent. But one should not slacken, for God's grace is bound to operate at the ripe time."

    -- Sishtla Subba Rao on Bhagavan. UY p121.
    http://end-to-suffering.blogspot.com...god-grace.html

    The conversation turned upon the question as to whether Iswara
    Prasad (Divine Grace) is necessary for the attaining of samrajya (universal dominion) or whether a jiva's honest and strenuous efforts to attain it cannot of themselves lead him to That from whence is no return to life and death.

    The Maharshi with an ineffable smile which lit up His Holy Face and which was all-pervasive, shining upon the coterie around him, replied in tones of certainty and with the ring of truth; "Divine Grace is essential for Realisation. It leads one to God-realisation. But such Grace is vouchsafed only to him who is a true devotee or a yogin, who has striven hard and ceaselessly on the path towards freedom."

    D.: It is said that Divine Grace is necessary to attain successful undistracted mind (samadhi). Is that so?

    Maharshi: We are God (Iswara). Iswara Drishti (i.e., seeing ourselves as God)
    is itself Divine Grace. So we need Divine Grace to get God's Grace. Maharshi smiles and all devotees laugh together.

    D.: There is also Divine Favour (Iswara anugraham) as distinct from Divine Grace (Iswara prasadam). Is that so?

    Maharshi: The thought of God is Divine Favour! He is by nature Grace (prasad or arul). It is by God's Grace that you think of God.

    D.: Is not the Master's Grace the result of God's Grace?

    Maharshi: Why distinguish between the two? The Master is the same as God and not different from him.
    http://talks-with-ramana-maharshi.bl...4/talk-29.html

    A person begins with dissatisfaction. Not content with the world he seeks satisfaction of desires by prayers to God; his mind is purified; he longs to know God more than to satisfy his carnal desires. Then God's Grace begins to manifest. God takes the form of a Guru and appears to the devotee; teaches him the Truth; purifies the mind by his teachings and contact; the mind gains strength, is able to turn inward; with meditation it is purified yet further, and eventually remains still without the least ripple. That stillness is the Self. The Guru is both exterior and interior. From the exterior he gives a push to the mind to turn inward; from the interior he pulls the mind towards the Self and helps the mind to achieve quietness. That is Grace.Hence there is no difference between God, Guru and Self.

    (Source: Talks with Ramana Maharshi, vol. 1 published by Sri Ramanasramam, Tiruvannamalai, Tamilnadu.

    Question: How is a Guru found?

    Sri Ramana Maharshi: God, who is immanent, in His grace takes pity on the loving devotee and manifests himself according to the devotee's development. The devotee thinks that he is a man and expects a relationship between two physical bodies. But the Guru, who is a God or the Self incarnate works from within, helps the man to see the error of his ways and guides him on the right path until he realises the Self within.

    Question: What is the significance of Guru's grace in the attainment of liberation?

    Sri Ramana Maharshi: Liberation is not anywhere outside you. It is only within. If a man is anxious for deliverance, the internal Guru pulls him in and the external Guru pushes him into the Self. This is the grace of the Guru.

    A spiritually minded man thinks that God is all pervading and takes God for his Guru. Later, God brings him in contact with a personal Guru and the man recognises him as all in all. Lastly the same man is made by the grace of the master to feel that his Self is the reality and nothing else. Thus he finds that the Self is the master.
    http://www.kundalinisupport.com/guru.htm

    God's grace is the beginning, the middle, and the end. When you pray for God's grace, you are like someone standing neck-deep in water and yet crying for water. It is like saying that someone neck-deep in water feels thirsty, or that a fish in water feels thirsty, or that water feels thirsty.
    http://web.ionsys.com/~remedy/MAHARS...i%20Ramana.htm

    Take the case of bhakti. I approach Isvara and pray to be absorbed in Him. I then surrender myself in faith and by concentration. What remains afterwards? In the place of the original 'I' perfect self-surrender leaves a residium of God in which the 'I' is lost. This is the highest form of parabhakti (supreme bhakti), prapti (surrender) or the height of vairagya.
    http://www.murugan.org/bhaktas/maharshi.htm
    The bottom line: Understand that the concept of Prapatti in Hinduism does not act as the concept of grace in Christianity: do nothing but just invite Jesus by the Holy Spirit, surrender childlike to Jesus, and continue with your worldly life of sin (for everyman is a sinner), and Jeus on the Judgment Day will recommend your case to God, take any sins that you have accumulated and influence God to grant you eternal heaven.

    As you are aware, Ramana had no guru except Shiva as the Lord of Arunachala, who made him realize that the Self was not the body that dies and set him on the path of Self Inquiry. Thereafter, Ramana did intense Tapas for months together in the true Vedic fashion, became a Maharshi, a Bhagavan and a Jivan Mukta. You might (in your ignorance) think of him as just a sage, a Self-Realized soul and a teacher of the Truth, but to many, including a large number of Westerners, Bhagavan Ramana is verily the Bhagavan, the Lord of Arunachala Himself, who is not just an electric bulb but an inner, spiritual sun which that has the kOti sUrya prakAsha of the ordinary suns like Jesus, who is touted as the only Son of God.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    mrityuloka
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,729
    Rep Power
    337

    Re: Un-complicating the SELF

    namaste all,
    based on Agni's review of my post #20, I have edited it accordingly.

    Nirotu, I have also added more remarks to the post. These remarks are the same that I also sent to you in my reply to your personal email.

    I will wait and look for your posts explaining the background of your remark on God's grace being available to all without Christ.

    Till then at least for me there is no point in discussing this topic any longer.
    satay

  10. #30
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Un-complicating the SELF

    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    I am afraid I have once again confounded you!

    Because the Truth of Vedanta cannot be revealed to an inflated-ego in its purest form, it becomes (acts as) an opium. -------

    Yes Nirotu you confound all of us again and again with impunity. You know how truthful you are. Don't you? Why do you alter the sentences and their meanings as if as an after thought?



    Quote Originally Posted by nirotu View Post
    You remind me of Pharisees living at the time of Jesus Christ! Rather than understand and intellectually argue with Jesus Christ as to why He healed the sick during the Sabbath, they immediately jumped to conclusion that Jesus was Blaspheming Sabbath! ------.

    -------
    Blessings,
    Intellectual argument and Nirotu are very greatly apart. It is definitely dangerous to argue with you.

    And I am not as far sighted as you are so as to compare you with christian murderers. But you definitely remind me of Anil Antony.


    No one here has objected to child like surrender. What I personally find obnoxious is that a fully surrendered devotee will have no business to point finger at faith of others. First you achieve full surrender then preach and bless.

    Regarding your (and Anil Antony's) fake and malicious citation of Ramana Maharshi, very appropriate answers have been given by Saidevoji. I will add that full surrender is not possible without the Jnana that the EGO itself is fake. So, one comes back to the beginning of Shankara: "DISCRIMINATION". And Ramana Maharshi, whom you are fond of quoting endorses Shankara and Enquiry into the Self.
    Last edited by atanu; 18 May 2007 at 12:50 PM.
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •