Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2020 10:27:53 GMT -5
Niz's elitist view?
Question:All teachers advise to meditate. What is the purpose of meditation?
Maharaj: We know the outer world of sensations and actions. But of our inner world of thoughts and feelings we know very little. The primary purpose of meditation is to become conscious of, and familiar with, our inner life. The ultimate purpose is to reach the source of life and consciousness. Incidentally, practice of meditation affects deeply our character. We are slaves to what we do not know. Whatever vice or weakness in ourselves we discover and understand its causes and its workings, we overcome it by the very knowing; the unconscious dissolves when brought into the conscious. The dissolution of the unconscious release energy; the mind feels adequate and become quiet.
|
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 24, 2020 22:32:46 GMT -5
Incidentally, practice of meditation affects deeply our character. Yes, the character we wear might actually become transparent to Inner Being via the practice of meditation. It's the meaning behind the old gospel song about "Letting Your Light Shine". Matthew 5:16 King James Version (KJV "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 8, 2020 2:24:58 GMT -5
From Powell's book again:
Uh-oh.
|
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Feb 8, 2020 9:37:30 GMT -5
The state of “beingness” is clearly an incomplete, provisional state of understanding, as is also evinced from Maharaj’s following words: “The sages and prophets recognized the sense of ‘being’ initially. Then they meditated and abided in it and finally transcended it, resulting in their ultimate realization.” Yes, this is what I was referring to when I suggested a while back that Nisargadatta had two realizations. His first realization = recognition of his wordless beingness (I am) which then became for him - as he called it - a doorway to the Absolute, his second ultimate realization. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2020 10:17:12 GMT -5
 The patterns of thought and emotion on approaching the existential truth are ancient. Here are several excerpts from Shankra's "Thousand Teachings" (found here : estudantedavedanta.net/Sri_Shankaracharya-Upadeshasahasri%20-%20Swami%20Jagadananda%20(1949)%20[Sanskrit-English].pdf ) that I think related to Powell's points. Note how Shankara peppers this work with "Objections". para 76, chap 17 "Right Knowledge" para's 6-9, chap 18, "Thou Art That" I'd say, in terms of this comparison, that it's useful to note Shankara was a thinker, an intellectual. Seems to me that Niz only engaged intellect to the extent as to led to quiescence, hence his prescription to "refuse all thoughts but 'I AM'". Evidently, Shankara founded a monastic movement, while Niz'ez lineage is a householder lineage. Shankara apparently put himself in opposition to ritualists, while Niz was once quoted as being tolerant of various bhakti chanting, singing and dancing.
|
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Feb 8, 2020 11:43:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2020 12:22:45 GMT -5
Great link, thanks. Read pg 1 and intend to get back to it at some point. But, no, I didn't find that surprising.  On the other hand, the story about the Beedi's was - as any snippet about them usually is - quite funny. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Feb 8, 2020 20:56:15 GMT -5
Great link, thanks. Read pg 1 and intend to get back to it at some point. But, no, I didn't find that surprising. On the other hand, the story about the Beedi's was - as any snippet about them usually is - quite funny. Glad to share. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 10, 2020 7:34:27 GMT -5
The state of “beingness” is clearly an incomplete, provisional state of understanding, as is also evinced from Maharaj’s following words: “The sages and prophets recognized the sense of ‘being’ initially. Then they meditated and abided in it and finally transcended it, resulting in their ultimate realization.” Yes, this is what I was referring to when I suggested a while back that Nisargadatta had two realizations. His first realization = recognition of his wordless beingness (I am) which then became for him - as he called it - a doorway to the Absolute, his second ultimate realization. In terms of magnitude or order of importance, from our perspective here on the forum, he seems to have it backwards (RK, too). We here tend to consider satori to be the highest realization, CC/kensho as either being equal or at least running a close second and NS would be the one of least importance. I think ZD even argued that based on how we define the term realization, NS shouldn't even be called a realization. In the Indian traditions, they seem to turn this order on its head. Both Niz and RK seem to consider NS the highest realization, with CC/kensho and satori being only second and third grade realizations. Actually, I'm not sure RK even mentions something satori related. On the other hand, Niz distinguishes rather clearly between these three kinds of realizations. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 10, 2020 7:49:16 GMT -5
I'd say, in terms of this comparison, that it's useful to note Shankara was a thinker, an intellectual. Seems to me that Niz only engaged intellect to the extent as to led to quiescence, hence his prescription to "refuse all thoughts but 'I AM'". Evidently, Shankara founded a monastic movement, while Niz'ez lineage is a householder lineage. Shankara apparently put himself in opposition to ritualists, while Niz was once quoted as being tolerant of various bhakti chanting, singing and dancing. Yes, this householder thing is interesting. Both Niz and RK teach that you don't have to retreat from the world, that you can attain freedom while in this world. I also find the difference in approach between Niz and RK interesting. Niz basically says, use discernment and retrace your steps and you'll get there. However, RK says, while this may be the most direct path, it is extremely difficult to practice this kind of discernment, especially without the help of a guru, you're probably going to get lost while trying to retrace your steps. So he recommends bhakti, because it's the safer route. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 10, 2020 11:19:44 GMT -5
I'd say, in terms of this comparison, that it's useful to note Shankara was a thinker, an intellectual. Seems to me that Niz only engaged intellect to the extent as to led to quiescence, hence his prescription to "refuse all thoughts but 'I AM'". Evidently, Shankara founded a monastic movement, while Niz'ez lineage is a householder lineage. Shankara apparently put himself in opposition to ritualists, while Niz was once quoted as being tolerant of various bhakti chanting, singing and dancing. Yes, this householder thing is interesting. Both Niz and RK teach that you don't have to retreat from the world, that you can attain freedom while in this world. I also find the difference in approach between Niz and RK interesting. Niz basically says, use discernment and retrace your steps and you'll get there. However, RK says, while this may be the most direct path, it is extremely difficult to practice this kind of discernment, especially without the help of a guru, you're probably going to get lost while trying to retrace your steps. So he recommends bhakti, because it's the safer route. Yes, I see RK's point, but then again, danger is always a two-sided coin, and the perils of the bhakti trap should be obvious. There's no escape! No solution!  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 17, 2020 0:40:44 GMT -5
Yes, this householder thing is interesting. Both Niz and RK teach that you don't have to retreat from the world, that you can attain freedom while in this world. I also find the difference in approach between Niz and RK interesting. Niz basically says, use discernment and retrace your steps and you'll get there. However, RK says, while this may be the most direct path, it is extremely difficult to practice this kind of discernment, especially without the help of a guru, you're probably going to get lost while trying to retrace your steps. So he recommends bhakti, because it's the safer route. Yes, I see RK's point, but then again, danger is always a two-sided coin, and the perils of the bhakti trap should be obvious. There's no escape! No solution! Yes, valid point. But at the same time I have my doubts that bhakti is for everyone. I think it's a personality thing, in the Myers Briggs sense. Based on their personality, I just can't imagine some folks going into bhakti mode, like let's say UG. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 19, 2020 8:05:35 GMT -5
Truth is the state beyond concepts
Niz: To exist as a separate individual constitutes the entire problem. And all these things, the various sense caterings, all reading, search for knowledge, for pleasure, everything is related to that. Once all that subsides, there is no more problem. Then the bliss you experience is true bliss. The foregoing, however, is not a ban on activities. Do whatever you want, but never forget the reality, never forget what you really are. You are not the body, you are not the food, you are not this vital air (prana). Whatever has appeared is a state, and as such it has to go.
So long as you are firmly convinced that you are the body, whatever I am telling you is not going to be of any use to you. Because whatever knowledge we take, we take it as body-mind, since it adds to our existing store of information. We then feel we have become more knowledgeable.
The fact is, I cannot describe reality to you, I cannot explain it, because it is beyond expression. So from that, everything flows; but every time I say something, I am aware that it is to be negated, “not this, not this” (neti- neti)...that is my experience.
We human beings have so many pet notions, preconceived ideas. Whenever we listen to somebody whose idea tallies with ours, we agree. Otherwise, we reject. Similarly, those jnanis who state they are established in the Absolute are actually in beingness. They are known as sages. They like certain ideas, certain concepts, and they want to propagate those. But they propagate only “ideas,” and an idea is not the truth. Truth is the state beyond concepts.
But the fact is that you are going all over the place...to saints and ashrams and all that, collecting knowledge in your capacity of being an “individual.” Don’t do that. Go beyond. This amassing of knowledge is not going to help you, because it is in a dream.
The Ultimate Medicine: Dialogues with a Realized Master, Chapter 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 25, 2020 21:37:34 GMT -5
Who is asking the questions?
Niz: The knowledge “I am” is the same in all sentient creatures, whether it be an insect, a worm or a human being, or even an avatar, the highest kind of being. I do not consider this basic consciousness in one form as being different in any way from the consciousness in another form. But in order to manifest itself, consciousness needs a base, a particular construct in which it can appear. That base can be anything, it may be any form, but the manifestation can last only so long as that particular form endures. And until that consciousness appears, there cannot be knowledge of any kind. In sum, knowledge depends on consciousness, and consciousness needs a physical matrix or form.
When people first come here, I always tell them that they come with the purpose of showing off their knowledge or trying to draw me into an argument. So I am aware of that, but I am even more strongly aware of the fact that such people have not got the slightest idea what they are talking about. I call it pure ignorance. It is for this reason that I say, don’t ask any questions, don’t even start discussing, until you have listened to the talk for a while and absorbed at least some of its contents. Then you can begin asking questions.
Intelligent people, extremely intelligent people, come here and ask me questions. And I answer them. So what happens? They don’t accept my replies. Why? Because they ask me from the point of view of identification with the body-mind. And I answer them from a point of view which is without such identification. So how can they understand me? How can the answers possibly tally with the questions?
Who is asking the questions? It is the persons who see themselves as existing in time, with the birth of the physical body as their base point; therefore, they ask questions from that point of view. But that view is false; it is a figment of their imagination. They consider that as the truth; yet it is sheer ignorance, having no basis in reality at all.
Since my talk will be beyond the scope of their understanding, some of the audience may become very upset and disturbed. They will say, it’s no use, we must finish him off. It is because of the command of my guru that I am doing this, participating in all these talks. When I go to that village, I will have to discourse about God and purity; I must take the devotional approach. But if I gave the kind of talk that I am giving here, they would not be able to understand it. I should talk on their level of understanding—God, purity, and devotion.
The Ultimate Medicine: Dialogues with a Realized Master, Chapter 2
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 28, 2020 12:38:31 GMT -5
An advanced course in spirituality
Niz: What is that prarabdha, that destiny, you are talking about? I know of no prarabdha, no destiny. In the initial stages, in the kindergarten thinking of spirituality, I used to say that. To one who is receiving primary initiation into spirituality, for him these lessons are good enough. But not for my sadhana. For an advanced course in spirituality, I will not explain this. These concepts are rejected. If you don’t like my teachings, whatever I say, you may blame me and are free to leave here.
Anybody coming here will be liquidated: he is not going to get anything. When you reach that state, the highest state, then only will you be realized, whether you are going to attain or discard. I assure you that you will attain nothing and you will realize that no attainment is required.
Although consciousness is universal and the knowledge “you are,” and whatever knowledge there is, is all common, its expression through the body and the mind is individualistic; there everything is different. Therefore, the path expounded by each sage will be different; it is bound to be so. [All those several paths], they will lead to the same. Is it not that all paths lead to Delhi? The paths will be different, but the destination is the same. So you can’t compare the path or what I am expounding with somebody else’s.
My guru told me, although you are realized, you will have to expound knowledge only. No siddhi powers for you. I was very eager...I thought, “I’ll get certain powers, do miracles, remove the sickness of people.” At first, I was thinking along those lines, as an initiate. But my guru told me, “Nothing of the sort for you. You have to expound knowledge only.” There were to be no powers for me. And then he also told me, “You must repeat all these bhajans three or four times a day. You have to do it.” He said, for the sake of all the ignorant people we have to do this.
I do not want to take you by the traditional, conventional, tortuous ways. That is why my teachings are better liked by the foreigners, because none of this traditional, conventional thing is there.
The Ultimate Medicine: Dialogues with a Realized Master, Chapter 3
|
|
On the other hand, the story about the Beedi's was - as any snippet about them usually is - quite funny. 