Google+ Followers

Thursday, October 21, 2010

KANDAVAR VINDILAR,VINDAVAR KANDILAR

I happen to go thru certain finer blog on Vedic scriptures and found that some comments of the people who made them, were real thinking, but required counter comments and accordingly made those comments as “KR”. My knowledge is poor yet they may be the productive sense. Welcome.
Therefore the saying "The knower of Brahman is (becomes) Brahman" -- Brahmavid Brahmaiva Bhavati! The understanding of Brahman (i.e the absolute) must also be absolute, the person who understands must also be absolute, and the means of understanding must similarly be absolute. Since this is not possible, we can infer that Brahman cannot be understood in the relative sense.

The following verse (attributed to Krishna in Bhagavad Gita) describes the same thing within the metaphor of a Vedic yajna: "The sacrifice is to Brahman, the sacrificial act itself is Brahman, the performer is Brahman, the offering made in the sacrifice is also Brahman, and the object of doing the sacrifice is similarly Brahman".


brahmārpaṇaṃ brahma havir brahmāgnau brahmaṇā hutam
brahmaiva tena gantavyaṃ brahma karma samādhinā (Bhagavad Gita 4.24)

The above verse is based on the allegorical meaning contained in the Puruṣa sūkta (Rigveda 10.90), it will take a long time to explain that.

However please also note that no one can understand Brahman because one can only understand things by discriminating/differentiating the subject from other object. Brahman does not fit into the subject or object mould and cannot be differentiated from or compared with anything else, since non-duality does not allow comparison or contrast; there is nothing else to compare with because brahman is nirvisesha (undifferentiated).
*** Yājñavalkya: Just as you cannot see the seer of the seeing, hear the hearer of the hearing, or understand the understander of the understanding, or experience the experiencer of the experience, one cannot "know" the Atman, since it is the substratum of all that is knowable. It is not an object like a cow or a horse; hence it cannot be defined or understood. It is the absolute reality, apart from which everything else is just stupidity and uselessness. It cannot be reduced to "an understanding"


It may take a few days, or several years (30 years is the average, I found). But then, at the end of it, you realize that you are chasing your own tail. That there is no person associated with the “I thought”. That the identification with a name and a person is itself the Ego. That this ego or Jeevatma is a non-existent phantom that one has closely identified with by a gross mistake.

And now that you know that you don’t exist as a separate person, the ego falls away. And you wonder who was doing the self-enquiry. You dance in joy having found the ultimate truth, and want to propagate the good news to the ignoramuses of the world who are suffering unnecessarily. And then it hits you (that the ego is trying to assert itself in this process), and you laugh at the situation.

My comment:KR Is not revealing the experience is an unattached action without any expectation or fruition?

There is NO THING and it appears are EVERYTHING, including one's own body, mind, ideas, self-identification, other things in the so-called world, etc. YOU ARE THAT NOTHING-EVERYTHING.

My comment KR : nothing everything is a wrong nomenclature; If brahmam is truth and others are maya , then there exists a truth and cant sya everything is nothing; on the contrary after an ordeal of realizing that virtually there is nothing and therefore nothing in everything, then you have nothing to disclose; then its falsity cheating the ignorant.
This is what Srikrishna says in the very first part of Gita Chapter 2. We all suffer because we identify with a personality and a consequent doer ship/enjoyment ship where none exists. We want to improve ourselves, solve problems from the ego point of status. And that is the root of all problems.
My comment KR: This is what Buddha thought as right and started a religion different from sanathana dharma; it’s erroneous to say that there is “no doer”; “Doer is “Paramatma”; “doing” is “action”; “executor- doer)” is “Jeevatma”. When the executor doer does not expect the fruition, and acts on behalf of the doer, action do not bring misery or sufferings. Personality, ego, Id sub-ego all do exists, along with the Athma, Mind, manas, yet refraining away from the action. “NA MAMA” is the key word to stay away from the actions of Karma as well as on site sufferings.

So relax, and start doing the Drik-Drishya vivechanam : i.e., classify/ identify everything that you encounter as the Subject (Self) or the Object. You will find that you are ever the subject, and cannot be objectified. And this subject has no identity, no properties, no shape, and no limits. It is the Brahman that is talked about.
MY COMMENT KR : ( ?)

At the end of it all, don’t expect to have attained any special powers (siddhis), or have a special halo around your head. Enlightenment is really very mundane, and cannot ever be attained by any person (individual entity). It is the erasure or effacement of the personality that is called enlightenment.
MY COMMENT KR: (THEN BUDDAH AND MAHAVEER ARE NOT ENLIGHTENED?)

One more word: enlightenment happens for no reason, not because of any efforts. Because there is no person doing anything. Conceptually it is said that Athma Sakshatkara (Enlightenment) is obtained by Guru's grace. But that again is untrue, since once you know that you are no person, the guru also is seen to be no person, and a non-doer.
(My comment KR: Again wrong. Gita as well as Upanishads, say guru takes your hand nearer to upasana.)

#1
An enlightened person cannot carry on with his life as before, because he "the person" does not exist anymore, so unless he has perfected the art of fooling himself, he can never continue as before just with the conviction that he is not a person, for a person keeps himself convinced that he is not a person. Then he is not enlightened in the first place.
MY COMMENT: kr MISUNDERSTANDING. 2ND 4TH 18TH CHAPTERS GITA, “EVEN ONE WHO REACHED STATUS BRAHMAM HAS TO ACT CONTINUOSLY AND TO ACT PERSONIFICATION IS REQUIRED VIZ YOU PLAY WITH THE CHILD, IN CHILDISH MANNER, KNOWING FULLY WELL YOU ARE NO CHILD.



#3
All is one? You have now entered the realm of mathematics by your use of numbers by claiming all is one. So it should make mathematical sense. Is All = one mathematically? I don’t think so. Even if it is, what is the big deal? What you think of as "one" is thought of by others as "all", and if the all is one, and one is all, enlightenment is a waste. One doesn’t need to get realized to claim all is one. Enlightenment is not an assertion of facts. It is unknowable and cannot be reduced to such equations as all = 1.
MY COMMENT KR ENLIGHTMENT MAKES YOU SEE “ATHMA IN EVERY SPECIES AND ITS NOT DISTINGUISHABLE.”


#6
if Brahman is really the one and all of us is non-persons, and then it's Brahman who needs to get enlightened, for Brahman didn’t get non-dual realization. It therefore follows that Brahman is not the one, Brahman is not singular, and Brahman is not even countable, and all cannot be one. This is one of the cardinal delusions that self-proclaimed advaitins get into, by claiming that All = Brahman = One, so all = Brahman, Brahman = one, and one = all. Advaita is not about the unity of all things, nor is it about identifying everything or anything with Brahman.
MY COMMENT KR: I FIND DELUSION HERE. ADVAITHAM IS TWO, OR TWO IN ONE OR ONE AND THE SAME,TILL THE CONCLUSION OF THE PROCESS OF THE REALIZATION. HAVE YOU SEEN THE PAINTING OF LEONOR DE VINCE, TWO HANDS SO CLOSE YET TOO FAR? PARAMATHMA AND JEEVATHMA ARE INSIDE US, IN ALL SPECIES, AND THE VEIL HAS O BE PIERCED TO BECOME ONE. ADVAITHA INCLUDES IN ITSELF ,VISIHTADVAITHAM AS WELLAS DVAITHAM. AHAM BRAMASMI WILL BY CONTINUOUS ACTION WILL ENTAIL YOU TO ADVAITHAM WHICH IS ULTIMAE.TIRUMOOLAR SAID THAT “MARATHIL MARAINDADU MAMADA YANAI, MARATHAI MARAITHATHU MAMADA YANAI, ‘”. YOU LOOK AT IT ANY WAY AND WHEN ONE KNOWS BOTH MARAM AND YANAI ARE ONE AND THE SAME, ADVAITHAM EXPOSES THE REALISATION.
Brahman (and the real I) is beyond concepts, and cannot be grasped by the mind. Enlightenment consists is doing all the enquiries (yes, average 30 years for all spiritual seekers who were following Nisargadatta), the mind losing its battle, understanding its own limitation, and just slumping and surrendering. The sense of ego just drops at that point, saranagathi happens, and nothing is the same ever after. All this is difficult to put in concepts that the mind can understand, and unless one goes through the process of enquiry, the mind will always try to understand, compare, conceptualize, grasp, etc. that something in which the mind itself is an appearance.
MY COMMENT KR :( GOING TOWARDS MADWA AND RAMANUJA, NOT ADI SANKARA)
MOM EKAM SARANAM VRAJA, IS REALISATION OF ONE AND ONLY TRUTH; THAT BRIGHT LIGHT, PARA BRAHMAM, BEYOND THE BRAHMAM; INACTIVE BRAHMAM HAS TO BE RE BORN; (CHANDOKYA UPANISHAD—TWO PATHS ARE CHOSEN, ONE COMIN BACK AND THE OTHER, “NO ONE HAD RETURNED BACK”) IMMATURED COMMENTATORS SAY KRISHNA IS SUPREME AND ONE HAS TO SURRENDER, LIKE THE SAYINGS OF THE CHRISTIAN PRECHERS. IT’S SPOKEN OUT OF POSSESSIVE ATTITUDE, ITS GOOD BUT NOT THE BEST.

No you, no world, no God, nothing. Know you, know world, and know God

MY COMMEN KR : HENCE PERHAPS FOR FEAR OF WRONG CONCEPTION OF SPREAD OF ATHIESM, KANDAVAR VINDILAR

Krishna Consciousness, Buddha Consciousness, Christ Consciousness, or what have you, are all trips in the wrong direction: they are all within the field of time.

( VIDE MY COMMENT EARLIER ABOUT MOM EKAM )

The timeless can never be experienced, can never be grasped, contained, much less given expression to, by any man.

( MY COMMENT KR: QUANTUM THEORY OR THEORY OF RELATIVITY )

Once one advances by doing drik/drishya analysis and neti-neti, of negating oneself as not the body, not the mind, and not the person, there still remains the act of seeing, hearing, and so on. Now, this perception is done by the NOTHING, the beingness, or Brahman.
This could be termed Atmasakshatkara.

MY COMMENT KR: SO NOTHING IS ANY THINK-END OF THINKING SAT CIT ANANDA
But this is not the end of it. It is relatively easy to accept one's own absence, but very difficult to see that everything else is similarly the NOTHING that he himself is. This is the ultimate realization if there is one. And then one understands the statement Vaasudeva idam sarvam.This is true advaitic understanding
.

MY COMMENT KR: AGAIN WRONG MENTIONING VASUDEVAM;IT IS INDECRIBABLE POORNAM. POORNAMIDAM SARVAM

Atma cannot be communicated, nor known directly, because, again, it remains the subject that cognizes thing, and never the other way

1. Deep misunderstanding. All subjects are ipso-facto objects. If there is one subject, then there is ipso-facto at least one object (like if there is night, there definitely is day; if there is joy, there is definitely sorrow; and so forth), which is called duality or relativity (dvaita). So you are advocating dvaita in the guise of Advaita, and not surprisingly, it has logical fallacies.
2. Cognition needs a cognizer (i.e a mind). Since atman is not a mind, it cannot cognize anything.
3. All cognizers can cognize themselves, because of the law of general relativity. Atman cannot cognize itself since it does not have the means of cognition. Further, the subject cannot be multiple; it should be one, only then is cognition of an object possible. Therefore atman can neither be a subject nor an object.
MY COMMENT KR : IT IS SUBJECTIVE OBJECT OR THE OBJECTIVE SUBJECT;THE PERCIEVER IS THE PERCIEVED; DRIK-DRISHYA VEDANTHAM
-------------

Saturday, September 25, 2010

FAITH WHEN TALKING ABOUT

Wrong usage of the word FAITH WHEN TALKING ABOUT
I HEAR words like AANMEEKAM, FAITH, CULTURE, when talking about the God and Religion. It’s said that aanmeekam is not about god or any particular religion, but one that is UNIVERSAL and leading to HUMAN PEACE. As becoming sanyasi became a profession to earn, so too, the preachers felt like earning more with their tongue, and coined a non-existent term, to hook all in single stoke and to hoodwink, the gullible praying on such models.
How do you conduct and teach AANMEEKAM without the fundamental base of religious texts? All paths have been found from one source called the SANATHANA DHARMA, FROM INDIA. Hinduism is a fallacy coined by the British and a separate cult called the Hindus were born-out, to distinguish the Christianity. Vedas, Upanishads etc are the constitution of the sanathana dharma, and said that those were born on this earth are the Hindus as termed or created by the British. Its universal and can fit to any atmosphere, location, people and periods. Sanathana means neither a beginning nor an end, known to the human frails. Hence Greeks took it, Jews followed it, Budda modified it, Christ explored and explained it, Islam and Parsi, and Jain floated riders of Maths.
In a sense aanmeekam is sanathana dharma or Hindu religion (erroneously described as). Hence the way of life of those born is the DHARMA which is SANATHANA; AND CONTINUES TO HOLD FOREVER. Aanmeekam is a wrong nomenclature used by the profiteers. Faith is another term like this. Action is born with the lives on earth. Action is embedded to oneself. So too sanathana dharma. Some may have less action some may have more. God is light and universal and as sanathana dharma is shaped to once taste and will, as different religion, so too, god’s shape vary to act with the convenience of the holder. Faith is a mock belief in a thing, and faith change like kids change the toys. TRUTH IS UNIVERSAL AND CANNOT GET ALTERED AND REMAIN CONSTANT AND CONSISTANT.
Sanathana dharma is TRUTH. All other religions are FAITH. All faiths shall converge only towards the TRUTH. Future India at least for a decade, shall in habitat, the YOUTHS, and they shall understand the truth of India and follow. ARISE, AWAKE AND STOP NOT.

Monday, September 20, 2010

SCIENCE NARROW VIEW ON GOD, CREATION AND DESIGN AND DARWIN THEORY ERROR

BOOK REVIEW “THE GRAND DESIGN “BY STEPHEN HAWKING
AN ARTICLE OR BROAD OUTLOOK FROM HINDUISM

It’s good to see articles on foreign books at least now. However a book review must speak what it contains, as the writings of SOMERSET MAUGHM. He wrote as the character and not as an author. In Tamil I could see only Kalki Krishnamurthy, in that style and no one else. All writers inserted their thoughts and views, even great writers in Tamil as acclaimed by you.
Now this THEME OF THE book is pretty old for the world outside India (its seen in INDIA, LANDMARK RECENTLY) and regarding the books on great design- atheism 100s have come, including Mr. Dawkins, Ms Wendy etc. It’s said that even without reading the book people criticize on quotes basis, which would go for you also. There was/are word-wars even from Vedic period and the 18th century and thereafter, brought another twist, viz a war between the SCIENCE and the RELIGION. Writers who wanted to make fast money, wrote on GOD, EXISTENCE, CREATION AND DESIGN, in order to support, as well as to get support of the Darwinian Theory, Big Bang etc, but miserably failed to create a strong edifice or good infra structure like our Indian Economy.
These books written in the western world were never based on Indian Vedas and scriptures mainly but wanted the Christian Religion concepts to be criticized. Even People like Ms Wendy who read Sanskrit and headed the foreign university Sanskrit departments, made fun of Indian Religion on the basis of the GUDIMALLAN archeology. Rest never understood the Indian scriptures and strayed in the half way; in this aspect neither MAXMULLER nor Dr Radhakrishnan are exceptional. In spite of all these things there were few western authors, who really found remarkable themes behind The Hindu Religion. Yet our great exponents, who were writing cinema scriptures, never felt ever, that they owe to this country something, to explain and expose our great scriptures and the biased writings of the western world. Hence from that point of view your book review is laudable, since it would expose to readers what is THE ASSET WE OWN AND HOW WESTERNERS and INDIANS MAKE MOCKERY OF IT.
However, books on “design of God” ,including this one ,were written on the basis of the inconclusive, ever-definition-changing and variable facts based -science, intending to vindicate the stand of the truth, viz real religion. Hence the hue and cry made by such authors are/were blank calls but contained quixotic questions which were /are not rebutted at all, by any Religious-lead. Such authors always took a stand that” the science is REAL and had proved so for and would continue to believe one day( or some day) in future, it will prove everything .”
The life of the science is hardly 200 years, whereas earth existence is minimum 14 billion years. CORBON DATING AND DNA is recent concepts. The relevance of science is based on few samples, documents and surface-excavated materials, apart from the FOSSILS; and all of them are distant apart on” locations and time” and therefore, facts found were mixed with the hunches for deriving at the conclusions. DARWIN himself did not even accept that he found the NATURAL EVOLUTION (he had his own doubts), totally and completely. It did help for the creation of the bio-science to learn, but did not fully established the theory of natural evolution. But those who were /are around created a veil of semblance of absolute evolution. Design authors took refuge under it. Or else there won’t be multiple books written on where Darwin went wrong. Even while making a tall claim on natural designs under evolution, the force to (evolute) evolve the first big bang, are still unknown as admitted by such authors and they hide under the earlier statements made elsewhere viz “one day science will prove”.
A lot can be said against this kind of book on design, however, the basis being Darwin theory, it’s good to see the opposite also, why Darwin is incomplete. (Extract from “where Darwin went wrong):
“ “ What is your brief with natural selection?
The main thing Darwin had in mind with natural selection was to come up with a theory that answers the question, "Why are certain traits there?" Why do people have hair on their heads? Why do both eyes have the same color? Why does dark hair go with dark eyes? You can make up a story that explains why it was good to have those properties in the original environment of selection. Do we have any reason to think that story is true? No.
According to Darwin, traits of creatures are selected for their contribution to fitness [likelihood to survive]. But how do you distinguish a trait that is selected for from one that comes along with it? There are a lot of interesting structures in creatures that have nothing to do with fitness.
Some variants in selection are clearly environmental. If you can’t store water you’ll do worse in a dry environment than if you can. But suppose that having a high ability to carry a lot of water is correlated for genetic reasons with skin color. How do you decide which trait is selected for by environmental factors and which one is just attached to it? There isn’t anything in the Darwinist picture that allows you to answer that question.
So we have no way of knowing whether a trait serves an evolutionary purpose?
Some traits are presumably selected for by the environment, and some of them are not. If somebody says Trait A affects fitness and Trait B does not, but Trait B comes with Trait A so you’ve got both traits in the organism, it’s very natural for somebody in the Darwinian tradition to think that Trait B has been selected for by the environment. But the answer is, it’s not there for anything.
Look, everybody has toenails, so you might ask yourself, why is it such a good thing we have toenails? It may be a case that in the environment there was some factor that favored toenails but there also may not.
As you explain in the book, it turns out many genes are far more tied together -- and gene expression is much more complicated -- than many people originally thought.
What the genetics has come to show is that traits are not independent, but complexly interconnected, and a lot of the effect that the environment has on an organism’s evolution depends on what organism it is.
There’s a famous fox-into-dog experiment, in which many generations of foxes were selected for being domestically trainable. As you would expect, when you select for domesticability, you get animals that behave less and less like their feral counterparts -- but you also get curly ears and kinked tails and changes in their reproductive system. Nobody had that in mind, but the structure of the organism groups all of these traits together. Why do these animals have kinky tails? They just happen to be structural correlates. Now the question is, how much of the evolutionary variance is determined by factors of the environment and how much is controlled by the organization of the organism, and the answer is nobody knows.
Do you think people are defending Darwinism because they think any attack on Darwinism gives power to creationists, and they don't want creationists to get the upper hand?
I think there’s the sense that if you think that there’s something wrong with the theory you’re giving aid and comfort to intelligent design people. And people do feel very strongly about whether you want to do that.
When you do science, you try to find the truth. The problem with creationism, even if you’re not a hardcore atheist, as I am, is that anything is compatible with creationism. If God created the world, he could have created it any way he liked. So creationists, when faced with evidence of evolution, are happy to say that that’s the way God created the world. If it turns out that there is no process of evolution, they’d say OK, that’s fine too. Whatever turns out to be the case it’s compatible with God having created the world, so you can’t argue with their position or you throw your shoulders out.

If you're right, what do you think your argument means for the study of evolution?

If this is true, then we need to rethink the implications of Darwinism. Maybe the right question to ask is not what environmental variables are doing selection, but what kinds of complexes are they selecting on. One sees, even without God, how this Darwinian story could turn out to be radically wrong. You could see a massive failure of the evolutionary project, because wrong assumptions were made. (March 7, 2010))””
Hence finally to conclude it can be said that 200 years of effort cannot conclude that its finding is absolute truth, since it’s not even the tip of the ice-berg ; and this book is said to have created a revolution is untruth and may not even be considered as facts since Darwin has not become final. Then what it is? Go back to Rig-Veda, since long long ago creation and the design are well dealt, unlike statement in Bible. As we write about a western book, we fail to appreciate our ancient, intelligent scriptures.
1. RIG VEDA, CH10-HYMN 129,130 ON CREATION

RIG VEDA LONG AGO, BEFORE BIG BANG, YET WE ARE DUMB
Nasadiya The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda


नासदासीन नो सदासीत तदानीं नासीद रजो नो वयोमापरो यत |
किमावरीवः कुह कस्य शर्मन्नम्भः किमासीद गहनं गभीरम ||
न मर्त्युरासीदम्र्तं न तर्हि न रात्र्या अह्न आसीत्प्रकेतः |
आनीदवातं सवधया तदेकं तस्माद्धान्यन न परः किं चनास ||
तम आसीत तमसा गूळमग्रे.अप्रकेतं सलिलं सर्वमािदम |
तुछ्येनाभ्वपिहितं यदासीत तपसस्तन्महिनाजायतैकम ||
कामस्तदग्रे समवर्तताधि मनसो रेतः परथमं यदासीत |
सतो बन्धुमसति निरविन्दन हर्दि परतीष्याकवयो मनीषा ||
तिरश्चीनो विततो रश्मिरेषामधः सविदासी.अ.अ.अत |
रेतोधाासन महिमान आसन सवधा अवस्तात परयतिः परस्तात ||
को अद्धा वेद क इह पर वोचत कुत आजाता कुत इयंविस्र्ष्टिः |
अर्वाग देवा अस्य विसर्जनेनाथा को वेद यताबभूव ||
इयं विस्र्ष्टिर्यत आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न |
यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे वयोमन सो अङग वेद यदि वा नवेद ||
nāsadāsīn no sadāsīt tadānīṃ nāsīd rajo no vyomāparo yat |
kimāvarīvaḥ kuha kasya śarmannambhaḥ kimāsīd ghahanaṃ ghabhīram ||
na mṛtyurāsīdamṛtaṃ na tarhi na rātryā ahna āsītpraketaḥ |
ānīdavātaṃ svadhayā tadekaṃ tasmāddhānyan na paraḥ kiṃ canāsa ||
tama āsīt tamasā ghūḷamaghre.apraketaṃ salilaṃ sarvamāidam |
tuchyenābhvapihitaṃ yadāsīt tapasastanmahinājāyataikam ||
kāmastadaghre samavartatādhi manaso retaḥ prathamaṃ yadāsīt |
sato bandhumasati niravindan hṛdi pratīṣyākavayo manīṣā ||
tiraścīno vitato raśmireṣāmadhaḥ svidāsī.a.a.at |
retodhāāsan mahimāna āsan svadhā avastāt prayatiḥ parastāt ||
ko addhā veda ka iha pra vocat kuta ājātā kuta iyaṃvisṛṣṭiḥ |
arvāgh devā asya visarjanenāthā ko veda yataābabhūva ||
iyaṃ visṛṣṭiryata ābabhūva yadi vā dadhe yadi vā na |
yo asyādhyakṣaḥ parame vyoman so aṅgha veda yadi vā naveda ||

यो यज्ञो विश्वतस्तन्तुभिस्तत एकशतं देवकर्मेभिरायतः |
इमे वयन्ति पितरो य आययुः पर वयाप वयेत्यासते तते ||
पुमानेनं तनुत उत कर्णत्ति पुमान वि तत्ने अधि नाकेस्मिन |
इमे मयूखा उप सेदुरू सदः सामानि चक्रुस्तसराण्योतवे ||
कासीत परमा परतिमा किं निदानमाज्यं किमासीत्परिधिः क आसीत |
छन्दः किमासीत परौगं किमुक्थंयद देवा देवमयजन्त विश्वे ||
अग्नेर्गायत्र्यभवत सयुग्वोष्णिहया सविता सं बभूव |
अनुष्टुभा सोम उक्थैर्महस्वान बर्हस्पतेर्ब्र्हती वाचमावत ||
विराण मित्रावरुणयोरभिश्रीरिन्द्रस्य तरिष्टुब इहभागो अह्नः |
विश्वान देवाञ जगत्या विवेश तेनचाक्ळिप्र रषयो मनुष्याः ||
चाक्ळिप्रे तेन रषयो मनुष्या यज्ञे जाते पितरो नःपुराणे |
पश्यन मन्ये मनसा चक्षसा तान य इमंयज्ञमयजन्त पूर्वे ||
सहस्तोमाः सहछन्दस आव्र्तः सहप्रमा रषयः सप्तदैव्याः |
पूर्वेषां पन्थामनुद्र्श्य धीरा अन्वालेभिरेरथ्यो न रश्मीन ||
yo yajño viśvatastantubhistata ekaśataṃ devakarmebhirāyataḥ |
ime vayanti pitaro ya āyayuḥ pra vayāpa vayetyāsate tate ||
pumānenaṃ tanuta ut kṛṇatti pumān vi tatne adhi nākeasmin |
ime mayūkhā upa sedurū sadaḥ sāmāni cakrustasarāṇyotave ||
kāsīt pramā pratimā kiṃ nidānamājyaṃ kimāsītparidhiḥ ka āsīt |
chandaḥ kimāsīt praughaṃ kimukthaṃyad devā devamayajanta viśve ||
aghnerghāyatryabhavat sayughvoṣṇihayā savitā saṃ babhūva |
anuṣṭubhā soma ukthairmahasvān bṛhaspaterbṛhatī vācamāvat ||
virāṇ mitrāvaruṇayorabhiśrīrindrasya triṣṭub ihabhāgho ahnaḥ |
viśvān devāñ jaghatyā viveśa tenacākḷipra ṛṣayo manuṣyāḥ ||
cākḷipre tena ṛṣayo manuṣyā yajñe jāte pitaro naḥpurāṇe |
paśyan manye manasā cakṣasā tān ya imaṃyajñamayajanta pūrve ||
sahastomāḥ sahachandasa āvṛtaḥ sahapramā ṛṣayaḥ saptadaivyāḥ |
pūrveṣāṃ panthāmanudṛśya dhīrā anvālebhirerathyo na raśmīn ||
Viewing the path of those of old, the sages have taken up the reins like chariot-drivers.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

2 First, let's look at the actual words in English translation (The Creation hymn)WITH THE TRANSLATED MEANING
I believe this Poem is saying, "Some questions are too large to know any answer", and it also seems to
Encourage a value to uncertainties.
now the meaning:

There was neither non-existence nor existence then.
There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond.
What stirred?
Where?
In whose protection?
Was there water, bottomless deep?

There was neither death nor immortality then.
There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day.
That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse.
Other than that there was nothing beyond.

Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning,
with no distinguishing sign, all this was water.
The life force that was covered with emptiness,
that One arose through the power of heat.

Desire came upon that One in the beginning,
that was the first seed of mind.
Poets seeking in their heart with wisdom
found the bond of existence and non-existence.

Their cord was extended across.
Was there below?
Was there above?
There were seed-placers, there were powers.
There was impulse beneath, there was giving forth above.

Who really knows?
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced?
Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterward, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Whence this creation has arisen
- perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not -
the One who looks down on it,
in the highest heaven, only He knows
or perhaps even He does not know.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

3 The Vedas are the very first compositions mankind produced dating back at least twenty thousand years. Most orthodox historians and anthropologists strongly dispute such a view. They confuse writing with civilization and deny meaningful history to any people who did not leave a written record. A rich culture does not necessarily depend on writing, as the Celtic civilization proves. The hymns are the most sophisticated, most profoundly beautiful, and most complete presentations of what Aldous Huxley termed the “perennial philosophy” that is at the core of all religions. In modern academia, of course, there is not supposed to be any “ancient wisdom”.

The Vedas go much further in outlining the nature of reality than any other religious texts still in use. Some Vedic hymns paint the exquisite glories of the natural world: the preternatural beauty of predawn light, its rosy fingers holding the iridescent steel-blue sky; some celebrate the welcome cool of evening the scented breeze of a calm and refreshing night, its basalt dome studded with shimmering pearls and diamonds. Beauty permeates them, a reflection of Truth. The Vedas hold within them enough information to rebuild human civilization from scratch, if necessary. I think someone did believe that might be necessary one day.
The Vedas are the quintessence of classical Hindu philosophy. Thinking with your heart; loving with your mind. All yoga and meditation aim to attain this goal. Anything else is delusion, or worse. And when the heart sees, it sees the unknowable, nameless, formless, limitless, supreme God. He is called the nonexistent because he is eternal, beyond existence. God manifest is the fabric of creation itself. They are one. The heart that learns to think realizes this truth and merges into the eternal oneness. As William Blake put it, “ If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear as it is, infinite.”


4 “"Om Purnamadah purnamidam purnaat purnamudachyate,
purnasya purnamadaya purnamevaavashishyate"
"That (pure consciousness) is full (perfect); this (the manifest universe
Of matter; of names and forms being Maya) is full. This fullness
Has been projected from that fullness. When this fullness merges
In that fullness, all that remains is fullness."
- Isa Upanishad’
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AND finally on Darwin
5 “The Target of Natural Selection
Evolutionists agree that natural selection usually acts on genes in organisms - individuals carrying genes that give them a reproductive or survival advantage over others will leave more descendants, gradually changing the genetic composition of a species. This is called "individual selection". But some evolutionists have proposed that selection can act at higher levels as well: on populations (group selection), or even on species themselves (species selection). The relative importance of individual versus these higher order forms of selection is a topic of lively debate.
Natural Selection Versus Genetic Drift
Natural selection is a process that leads to the replacement of one gene by another in a predictable way. But there is also a "random" evolutionary process called genetic drift, which is the genetic equivalent of coin-tossing. Genetic drift leads to unpredictable changes in the frequencies of genes that don't make much difference to the adaptation of their carriers, and can cause evolution by changing the genetic composition of populations. Many features of DNA are said to have evolved by genetic drift. Evolutionary geneticists disagree about the importance of selection versus drift in explaining features of organisms and their DNA. All evolutionists agree that genetic drift can't explain adaptive evolution. But not all evolution is adaptive. ( Copyright © 2002, the American Humanist Association)
Hence, it may be noted that it is not the first book written to create a stir. Criticism of the creation spoke in few scriptures may be true, but the whole concept presented based on the science, Darwin theory and Big bang etc are not virtual and had not become final except the creation of the controversy. It is not a question of Atheism or denial, but a mere projection of the segment of 5 million of the world, which is not even supported by contiguous facts. As Darwin voyaged in a small sector and exploded, because of the anger against the death of his daughter, in drawing inferences, so too these authors jump to conclusions, with varied arguments. So be it. Thank you.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

WHO IS SANNYASI ?

Sannyasa-Renunciation
From Mundaka Upanishad
Translated by Swami Gambhirananda
Advaita Ashrama, Mayavati
This Self is not attained by one devoid of strength, nor through delusion, nor through knowledge unassociated with monasticism. But the Self of that knower, who strives through these means, enters into the abode that is Brahman.
-3.2.4
Having attained this, the seers become contented with their knowledge, established in the Self, freed from attachment, and composed. Having realised the all-pervasive One everywhere, these discriminating people, ever merged in contemplation, enter into the All.
- 3.2.5
Those to whom the entity presented by the Vedantic knowledge has become fully ascertained, and who endeavour assiduously with the help of the Yoga of monasticism, become pure in mind. At the supreme moment of final departure all of them become identified with the supreme Immortality in the worlds that are Brahman, and they become freed on every side.
-3.2.6
It is not comprehended through the eye, nor through speech, nor through the other senses; nor is It attained through austerity or Karma. Since one becomes purified in mind through the favourableness of the intellect, therefore can one see that indivisible Self through meditation.
-3.1.8
_______________
Sannyasa- Renunciation
From The Mahabharata
Santi Parva, Section CCXLV
Translated by sri Kisari Mohan Ganguli
[Notes are comments by the scholar and
translator Sri Kisari Mohan Ganguli]
Suka said: While living in the due observance of the duties of the foremost of life, how should one, who seeks to attain to That which is the highest object of knowledge, set one’s soul on Yoga according to the best of one’s power?
Vyasa said: Having acquired (purity of conduct and body) by the practice of the first two modes of life, viz., Brahmacharya and domesticity, one should, after that, set one’s soul on Yoga in the third mode of life (Vanprastha). Listen now with concentrated attention to what should be done for attaining to the highest object of acquisition!
[Note: By the first line of this verse, Vyasa answers his son’s question. Having answered the question, the speaker (in the second line) proceeds to indicate the simple or straight path for reaching the highest object of men’s endeavour, viz., Parmartham or Brahman.]
Having subdued all faults of the mind and the heart by easy means in the practice of the first three modes of life (viz., pupilage, domesticity, and seclusion) one should pass into the most excellent and the most eminent of all the modes, viz., Sannyasa or Renunciation. Do thou then pass thy days, having acquired that purity. Listen also to me. One should, alone and without anybody to assist him or bear him company, practise Yoga for attaining to success (in respect of one’s highest object of acquisition). One who practises Yoga without companionship, who beholds everything as a repetition of his own self, and who never discards anything (in consequence of all things being pervaded by the Universal Soul), never falls away from Emancipation.
Without keeping the sacrificial fire and without a fixed habitation, such a person should enter a village for only begging his food. He should provide himself for the day without storing for the morrow. He should betake himself to penances, with heart fixed on the Supreme. [Note: Bhava-samahitah is explained as chitta-samadhanavan.]
Eating little and that even under proper regulations, he should not eat more than once a day. The other indications of a (religious) mendicant are the human skull, shelter under trees, rags for wearing, solitude unbroken by the companionship of any one, and indifference to all creatures. [Note: The skull is to be used as a drinking vessel. Kuchela, which I render ‘rags’, is supposed by the commentator to signify reddish or brown cloth which has, from age, lost its colour.]
That person into whom words enter like affrighted elephants into a well, and from whom they never come back to the speaker, is fit to lead this mode of life which has Emancipation for its object. [Note: Elephants, when hurled into a well, become utterly helpless and unable to come out. That person, therefore, into whom words enter like elephants into a well, is he who answers not the evil speeches of others. What is said here is that only a person of such forbearance should betake himself to mendicancy or Sannyasa.]
The mendicant (or Renouncer) should never take note of the evil acts of any person. He should never hear what is said in dispraise of others. Especially should he avoid speaking evil of a Brahmana (Brahmin). He should always say only what is agreeable to the Brahmanas. When anything is said in dispraise (of himself), he should (without answering) remain perfectly silent. Such silence, indeed, is the medical treatment prescribed for him. That person in consequence of whose single self the place he occupies becomes like the eastern sky, and who can make a spot teeming with thousands of men and things appear to himself perfectly solitary or unoccupied, is regarded by the deities to be a true Brahmana. [Note: I have given a closely literal version of this verse. The commentator explains that first line refers to the person who deems himself to be everything to be himself. The second line refers to the same individual who, by Yoga, can withdraw his senses and the mind and consequently make the most populous place appear as totally solitary or unoccupied. This is the Yoga process called Pratyahara.]
Him the gods know for a Brahmana who clothes himself with whatever comes by the way, who subsists upon whatever he gets, and who sleeps on whatever spot he finds. Him the gods know for a Brahmana who is afraid of company as of a snake; (afraid) of the full measure of gratification (from sweet viands and drinks) as of hell; and (afraid) of women as of a corpse. [Note: Suhitya, whence Sauhitya, means no satiety but the full measure of gratification from eating. The speaker wishes to lay down that the mendicant or renouncer should never take food to the full measure of gratification. He should eat without completely appeasing his hunger.]
Him the gods know for a Brahmana who is never glad when honoured and never angry when insulted, and who has given assurances of compassion unto all creatures. One in the observance of the last mode of life should not view death with joy. Nor should he view life with joy. He should only wait for is hour like a servant waiting for the behest (of his master). He should purify his heart of all faults. He should purify his speech of all faults. He should cleanse himself of all sins. As he has no foes, what fear can assail him? He who fears no creature and whom no creature fears, can have no fear from any quarter, freed as he is from error of every kind. As the footprints of all other creatures that move upon legs are engulfed within those of elephants, after the same manner all ranks and conditions are absorbed within Yoga.
[Note: I follow the commentator in his exposition of Kunjara which he derives as Kun (earth or the body which is made of earth) Jaravati iti kunjarah, i.e., a Yogi in Samadhi. The sense seems to be that the fruits of Yoga include or absorb the fruits of every other act. The rank and status of Indra himself is absorbed within what is attained to by Yoga. There is no kind of felicity that is not engulfed in the felicity of Emancipation, which Yoga alone can confer.]
After the same manner, every other duty and observance is supposed to be engulfed within the one duty of abstention from injury (to all creatures). [Note: The commentator thinks that by the ‘one duty of abstention from injury’ is implied the fourth mode of life or Sannyasa. What is said, therefore, is that the observance of the single duty of harmlessness includes that of every other duty; or, what amounts to the same thing, the fourth mode of life is singly capable of giving merit which all the others may give together.]
He lives an everlasting life of felicity who avoids injuring other creatures. One who abstains from injury, who casts an equal eye upon all creatures, who is devoted to truth, who is endued with fortitude, who has his senses under control, and who grants protection to all beings, attains to an end that is beyond compare. The condition called death succeeds not in transcending such a person who is content with self-knowledge, who is free from fear, and who is divested of desire and expectancy. On the other hand, such a person succeeds in transcending death. Him the gods know for a Brahmana who is freed from attachments of every kind, who is observant of penances, who lives like space which while holding everything is yet unattached to anything, who has nothing which he calls his own, who leads a life of solitude, and whose is tranquillity of soul. The gods know him for a Brahamana whose life is for the practice of righteousness, whose righteousness is for the good of them that wait dutifully upon him, and whose days and nights exist only for the acquisition of merit.
[Note: Hartyartham means ‘for the sake of Hari’ i.e., one who takes away merit, implying a disciple or attendant. Some texts read Ratyrtham, meaning ‘for the happiness (of others)’.]
The gods know him for a Brahmana who is freed from desire, who never exerts himself for doing such acts as are done by worldly men, who never bends his head unto any one, who never flatters another, and who is free from attachments of every kind. All creatures are pleased with happiness and filled with fear at the prospect of grief. The man of faith, therefore, who should feel distressed at the prospect of filling other creatures with grief, must abstain entirely from acts of every kind. [Note: Because all acts are fraught with injury to others. Whether ‘acts’ betaken in its general sense or in the particular sense of ‘religious acts’, their character is such.]
The gift of assurances of harmlessness unto all creatures transcends in point of merit all other gifts. He, who, at the outset, forswears the religion of injury, succeeds in attaining to Emancipation (in which or) whence is the assurance of harmlessness unto all creatures. [Note: The commentator correctly explains that Tikshnam tanum means the religion of injury, i.e., the religion of sacrifices and acts. ‘So’ for ‘sa’ is Arsha; as also anantyam for anantyam which, of course, implies moksham or Emancipation. The commentator correctly supplies yatah after apnoti and shows that prajabhyah is equivalent to prajanam. The last clause of the second line, therefore, means sa moksham apnoti, yatah prajabhyah (or prajanam) abhayam. The dative, not ablative as the vernacular translators take it, is not bad grammar, although the genitive is more agreeable with usage.]
That man who does not pour into his open mouth even the five or six mouthfuls that are laid down for the forest recluse, is said to be the navel of the world, and the refuge of the universe. The head and other limbs, as also the acts good and bad, become possessed by Fire. Such a man, who sacrifices in his own self, makes a libation of his senses and mind into the fire that dwells within the limited space of his own heart. In consequence again of his pouring such a libation into such a fire within his own self, the universe with all creatures including the very gods, become gratified.
He that apprehends the Jiva-soul (embodied soul) that is endued with effulgence, that is enveloped in three cases, that has three attributes for its characteristics, to be Iswara partaking of that which is foremost, viz., the nature of the Supreme Soul, becomes object of great regard in all the worlds. The very gods with all human beings speak highly of their merits. He who succeeds in beholding in the soul that resides in his own body all the Vedas, space and the other objects of perception, the rituals that occur in scriptures, all those entities that are comprehensible in sound only and the superior nature of the Supreme Soul, is sought to be worshipped by the very deities as the foremost of all beings.
He who sees in the soul that resides within his body, that foremost of beings which is not attached to the earth, which is immeasurable in even the (measureless) firmament, which is made of gold, which is born of the egg and resides within the egg, which is equipped with many feathers, and which has two wings like a bird, and which is rendered effulgent by many rays of light, is sought to be worshipped by the very deities as the foremost of all beings. [Note: All these expressions apply to the Supreme Soul. Immeasurable in the firmament implies that the Supreme Being is vaster than the firmament. ‘Made of gold’ means, as the commentator explains, Chit having knowledge only for its attribute. ‘Born of the egg’ i.e., belonging to the universe. ‘Within the egg’ means ‘capable of being apprehended in the heart’. ‘Equipped with many feathers’ i.e., having many limbs each of which is presided over by a particular deity. The two wings are absence of attachment or complete dissociation from everything and joy and gladness and aptitude for enjoyment. ‘Rendered effulgent by many rays of light’, i.e., transformed into a living and active agent by means of eyes, ears, etc.]
The very deities worship him in whose understanding is set the wheel of Time, which is constantly revolving, which knows no decay, which swallows up the period of existence of every creature, which has the six seasons for its naves, which is equipped with two and ten radii consisting of the two and ten months, which has excellent joint, and towards whose gaping mouth proceeds this universe (ready to be devoured). [Note: The sense is that he who understands the wheel of Time is a person worthy of universal regard. The excellent joints of that wheel are the Parva days, viz., those sacred lunations on which religious rites are performed.]
The Supreme Soul is the capacious unconsciousness of dreamless slumber. That Unconsciousness is the body of the universe. It pervades all created things. Jiva, occupying a portion of that capacious unconsciousness gratifies the deities. These last, being gratified, gratify the open mouth of that unconsciousness. [Note: I give little version of verse 33, following the commentator as regards the meaning of Samprasadam. The sense, however, of the verse is this: Brahma, in the previous sections, has often been spoken of as Sushupti or the unconsciousness of dreamless slumber. The universe flows from Brahma. Unconsciousness, therefore, is the cause or origin or body of the universe. That unconsciousness, therefore, pervades all things, viz., gross and subtle. Jiva, finding a place within that unconsciousness existing in the form of gross and subtle, gratifies the deities, prana and the senses. These, thus gratified by Jiva, at last gratify the open mouth of the original unconsciousness that waits to receive or swallow them. All these verses are based upon the figurative ideas that find expression in the Upanishads.]
Endued with effulgence as also with the principle of eternity, Jiva is without beginning. It acquires (by following particular paths) infinite regions of eternal happiness. He, of whom no creature is afraid, has never to fear any creature. He who never does anything censurable and who never censures another, is said to be a truly regenerate person. Such a man succeeds in beholding the Supreme Soul. He whose ignorance has been dispelled and whose sins have been washed away, never enjoys either here or hereafter the happiness that is enjoyed by others (but attains to complete Emancipation). A person in the observance of the fourth mode of life wanders on the earth like one unconnected with everything. Such a one is freed from wrath and error. Such a one regards a clod of earth and lump of gold with an equal eye. Such a man never stores anything for his use. Such a one has no friends and foes. Such a one is utterly regardless of praise or blame, and of the agreeable and the disagreeable.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

LOVE THYSELF

SELF IMPROVEMENT TIPS
(REALLY?)
S=AUTHOR OF WEBMAIL RECIEVED
C=MY VIEW OF DISAGREEMENT
STATEMENT: We spend so much of our time waiting to be loved, hoping love will find us, searching, and yearning for that special love. Feeling empty and lost without it. Wanting someone to give us love and fill us up.
COMMENT: (IT’S NATURAL)

Steps

1. S: Take a realistic evaluation of yourself. Be honest with yourself about how valuable you believe you are as a person. The way you see yourself and treat yourself is the very way others will see you and treat you. Do you see yourself as valuable, worthy of the gift of love? More importantly, do you treat yourself lovingly and as a valuable being? It’s ok to be truthful with yourself, it may not be pretty! Awareness is the first and more powerful step on the path to change!
C: (IT’S NOT CLEAR; WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THIS STATEMENT? DOES VALUE MEAN ASSETS TANGIBLE? IN THE MODERN WORLD LOVE IS BINDED TO WHAT ONE CAN USURP FROM SOME ONE, SO THAT THE USURPER CAN ACT THE ROLL OF LOVE.)

2. S: Forgive yourself if you ever believe you aren't worthy of love. After all, there were probably things in your childhood or previous years that created that belief for you. It simply isn’t true; every being on this planet is worthy of love, after all, love is what we are here for, it’s what it’s all about. Say to yourself now; “I forgive myself for believing that I was not worthy of love.” Go look in a mirror and say it out loud to yourself, look yourself right in the eyes and say it like you mean it. Go on, I’ll wait.
C: YOU MEAN ONLY ONE CAN LOVE HIMSELF? OR ONLY MIRROR IMAGE CAN LOVE? CONTRADICTION IS ITS ASSERTED THAT EVRYTHING IS LOVABLE AND LOVE IS WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR, BUT OPENING SENTENCE IS EVERY ONE EXPECT LOVE AND WHETHER ONE IS WRTHY OF LOVE,WHY?


3.S: Post this affirmation up someplace where you will see it each and every day; "I have the courage to believe that I am worthy of love." Read it out loud, every day, at least once, ideally at least ten times each time you notice it. Sticky notes are fabulous for affirmations.
C: TO BELIEVE BLINDLY IS AS GOOD A FAITH OF INDIANS OVER RELIGIOUS REVERENCE WITHOUT ANALYSIS. TO BELIEVE SHALL NOT BE A CHEATING.

4. S: Take action and make those words real. Begin loving and valuing yourself. It is said that you cannot give away what you do not have. So, if you are not able to love and accept yourself unconditionally, how in the world are you going to love and accept anyone else unconditionally? Much less accept that love in return from them?
C: ARE U TALKING ABOUT LOVE OF OTHERS TO U OR EXPECTATION OF OTHERS LOVE OR LOVING ONESELF INSPITE OF ODDITIES?

5. S: Remember that love is not a feeling, it is a choice! Make the choice to love yourself. After all, who deserves it more? The more loving you are to yourself, the more loving you will be able to be to everyone around you. Family and friends will especially benefit from this. Make a choice to come from a place of love for yourself and for everyone who is important in your life.
C: FUNNY. LOVE THYSELF, SYNCS LIKE BIBLICAL. LOVE IS WHAT LIND OF CHOICE? MULTIPLE CHOICES? IT’S EMOTIONAL, WHERE HEART OVER GOES HEAD. EVERYONE LOVES HIMSELF AND BECOMES CONSERVATIVE TO RECIPROCATE.
6. S: Think about what you need to fill that emptiness inside, that place that is longing for love. What specifically do you need? Find the answer and then give it to yourself. No one is more capable of loving you, and giving you exactly what you need than you are! When you learn how to fulfill yourself in that way, you stop searching for it outside of yourself and you suddenly begin attracting it to you! You change yourself from a sponge to a magnet! People see you radiating self love and they are drawn to you!
C: LOVE RADIATES AND THAT’S THE EXPLOITATION OF THE MOST RELIGIOUS CLANS. PEOPLE GO TO LIKE A FLY TO BE CRUMPLED, LOSING THE INNER CALMNESS; THEY BARTERED, WITH MASKED GURUS. THE WRONG SEEKERS REMAIN A MAGNET TO ATTACH TO PSEUDO-GURUS ALWAYS, AND THE SOUGHT REMAIN A SPONGE TO SUCK ALL THE SEEKER HAD.

7.S : Keep a journal. Write about your experiences, good and bad. When you write down your good experiences allow yourself to feel those good feelings again. When you remember the bad experiences, allow yourself to feel pride. Pride because you faced a challenge in your life and you are here today to write about it, which must mean you are a survivor and a fighter. Tell yourself, "I know pain, but I've yet to be introduced to surrender." Keep on keeping on.
C : JOURNAL WILL BE YOUR ULTIMATE FRAGMENTS LEFT WITH U. YOU FEEL PRIDE (another feeling) FOR BAD EXPERIENCE. WHAT A TRUTH.

S : Tips

• Here's something to try saying every day. Place it on your mirror. It always helps: "Look in the mirror and what do I see? A beautiful boy/girl staring back at me!" "Oh wow!" I thought. Who could that be? [smile and say] "Oh! It's most definitely me!"

• Keep a list of the things you love about your self or things you've done that if you saw someone else do them, you would love them. For instance, if you scored more in basketball, write it down, then eventually you can build up more pros, to help you know why to love yourself (if you're analytical)

• Practice Metta meditation. It will help you love yourself and others more.

• Do what you enjoy. If that is do go out anywhere, or with anyone. Make yourself happy.
C : ULTIMATE PHILOSOPHY. NEVER EXPECT TO BE LOVED INSPITE OF YOUR RADIATION.TRY TO BE HAPPY WITHIN YOURSELF. THEN WHY SUCH DOCTOR-PRESCRIPTION-HANDWRITING, PRESENTATIONS. EVERY ONE SHALL KNOW THAT THE CONCEPT OF LOVE IS GIVEN, TOTALLY A DIFFERENT MEANING, UNCAPABLE OF DEFINING LOVE –CREATION.

Friday, February 19, 2010

SUMMAYIRUTHALE SUGAM-SIDHAR VAKYAM(NON-CHALANT PLEASURE-SAGE WORDS)

CAUSE AND THE EFFECT OF ACTION
The article below speaks the tolerance, and the attitude to search within self and ratify one’s action and the counter action, which are spoken in VEDAS AND UPANISADS.Gita speaks about “Nishkamya karma” which is this. This aspect alone was preached by Buddha as a way of life in Sanskrit, which existed in 1800BC 0r 590 BC, which is roughly 4000 to 2500 years back, when the whole world had no spoken language fully developed. Pali or prakritham came only or known only at the time of Kin Asoka. In Tamil, tiruvalluar gave the essence of various Vedic scripts in 1330 kurals and one repeats the idea of self-correction seen below viz:
Immaikkum eanai marumaikkum
Thatham karumame kattalaikkal

This idea was also spoken by Socrates in Greece, people of Judea, Isreal, in old testament, followed by Jesus in 3 years preaching in new testament(idea learnt from Ladak,Buddah Principle, was he in India between the age of 12 & 26? And died in Srinagar, Kashmir after the rescue by eseenan Jews from the cross? Likely similar preaching of Buddha),followed by Quron adopted from Bible. Even here the oldest language and the way of life Vedas the oldest are from India, but suppressed in all aspects by the Jones, Maxmuller and Radhakrishnan as well as Neelakanta sastry, for lack of Indian research and analysis mentality. What is stated below is hard to practice but wise way to stay away from troubles. As long as Atman,Maya,and Paramatman or Id, ego, and super ego or Trinity or any other tri-concepts of all other religions, play thro,the safer way to get rid of Maya or ego or Satan or any devils to stay out of problems and below is one. The alternative is Concept of bhakthi.
(Drafted by KEYARTAX and the write up below by courtesy of email received)
THE MAN AND HIS FINGER

A man once went to see a doctor complaining of aches and pains all over his body.
"Doctor my whole body hurts me," he moaned. The doctor asked him to show exactly where the pain was.
The man explained, "When I touch my shoulder, it hurts. When I touch my back it hurts. When I touch my legs, they hurt."
The doctor did a thorough examination and told the man-
"Sir, there is nothing wrong with your body. Your finger is broken. That is why it hurts wherever you touch. Get your finger plastered, rest it for a couple of weeks and all of your pains will disappear."!!
SPIRITUAL COMMENTARY
In life so frequently it is our own perspective that causes us pain or pleasure.
As we go through life "feeling" the world with our fingers, if our finger is broken naturally we will experience pain everywhere. But,we make the mistake of blaming the external world for our ailments: "My job is over-taxing, my husband is too demanding, my wife nags, my children are disobedient, my in-laws don't understand me, etc. etc."
But if you look throughout the world you will be able to find someone who has the same type of job, but is calm, or someone who has the same type of spouse but is happy, or someone who has the same type of children but is patient, or someone who has the same type of in-laws but is grateful.
What is it that allows 2 people to experience the same external situation but respond in 2 different ways?
Our own perspective.Our own perception.The key, then, is not to try to change every situation in our life, but rather to change the glasses through which we see the world.
Sure, if we have a fixable situation at the office or at home, we should definitely do our best to improve it. But, what we have observed is that if someone has the nature to be dissatisfied, or the nature to be stressed, or the nature to be pained, that person's nature is not going to change simply by changing the external situation.
A massage for the back or shoulder or legs would not help the man in our earlier example because it is his finger which is broken. He could spend hundreds of dollars to ease the pain in his body, but unless he puts his broken finger in a splint, he will continue to experience pain every time that finger touches the various parts of his body.
Similarly, we run around through life trying to "fix" our jobs or marriages or family life, but frequently the reality is in our own perspective. If we spend the same amount of energy "fixing" our perspective as we spend trying to "fix" our spouse or children,everything would be fine.
This is not to say that pains and troubles don't really exist in our day to day life. Of course they do.The man in our example may also have a stiff back or sore shoulders. But the excruciating pain he experienced was due not to the minor aches and pains in his body, but due to the severely broken finger with which he was touching them.
Similarly, our jobs and our families are taxing. They demand a lot of us. But the unbearable pain many of us experience is due not to the demands and commands from without, but due to the demands and commands from within ourselves.
In the Gita it is said that we are our best friend and also our own worst enemy, depending upon how we live our lives.
In this New Year,let us all take some time to examine what our own personal "broken finger" is.
What is it within ourselves that causes us to experience pain in the world? What irrational fear, what unfulfillable desire, what selfish motive, what ego-driven need has broken the finger with which we feel the world or has colored the glasses with which we see? We spend so much time examining others, but very little time examining our own selves.
The Source of all joy and peace lies within us. We are blocked from that Source by a host of desires, fears and ignorance.
The key to finding and tapping into that Source must come from within.
Let us find the key within ourselves and unleash the Ocean of Divine Bliss in our lives!!