Brahminical conundrum: Tradition vs Modernity

[prasad1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Is it really possible to live without hurting another Jiva. Our very living is at the expense of other Jivas even if we are not intentional about it. For example I read somewhere that animals are used for all kinds of purposes including testing new medicines , cosmetics, food products and drugs which we end up using as human beings without knowing the hurt it had caused.

Yes, you are correct.
We uproot plants. till the earth, walk, drive, breath. every one of these activities hurts other living beings..
Other activities like using blood diamonds, throwing plastic in the ocean eventually cause some pain to other living creatures.
The best we can do is live by doing as little damage as we can.

I run few businesses. In one of my businesses, they sell sandwiches, my Jain friend was aghast and chided me. I did feel bad, I sold that business.

But then again I have stock in Mcdonald corp., so indirectly I am in the meat business. There is no end to it.

I do not have answers, just more questions.

 

[KRS]

Dear Mr KRS,

Thank you for your comments. If I am not mistaken , perhaps you used to be a moderator of this forum. I have seen your thoughtful posts though I joined when you may have been inactive.

Your axioms are great to live by indeed.

Is it really possible to live without hurting another Jiva. Our very living is at the expense of other Jivas even if we are not intentional about it. For example I read somewhere that animals are used for all kinds of purposes including testing new medicines , cosmetics, food products and drugs which we end up using as human beings without knowing the hurt it had caused.

On your second axiom I have a doubt. Is it really possibly to understand 'who am I'.. I read somewhere that mind cannot process that since mind itself shines by that I. Cant say I understand that statement fully but it was an authentic source (I do not have that reference with me).

If I cannot understand I, what does it mean to live to understand 'who am I'

Thank you

Dear Sri a-TB Sir,

Thank you. Yes, by Sri Praveen’s grace I once was a moderator of this forum. Those were the days when discussions were spirited and lively and a moderator had to be busy.

1. Regarding ‘ahimsa’, one has to remember that on a personal level it is what I call a ’selful’ (as opposed to ‘selfish’) act. It is prescribed as the first of 5 Yamas that a person should practice to purify one’s mind. So, if you consider the normal societal practices that do not fall under the legal labels (from meat eating to using animals for medical research and cosmetics) one’s mental makeup will determine to the extent to which one considers what is ahimsa. For example, by all accounts, Gandhi Ji who renounced meat eating after a traumatic dream never experienced self realization, while Gautama Buddha never gave up meat eating, yet attained Nirvana. So, one is free to practice abstinence from what are considered legal.

So, what then is Ahimsa? Ahimsa, broadly in my mind are avoiding acts that you think are harmful to other beings, that disturb your mind. It is obvious that all of us think that acts that are legally frowned upon, such as murder, assault, stealing etc., which are overtly harmful form the base of ahimsa and then we go in to the words and thoughts that are inherently harmful. Beyond that any thoughts on ahimsa are either religio-ethics based or empathy-feeling based and are very personal.

Old cultures recognized that ahimsa is not absolute - so a red Indian ritual asking for forgiveness after killing an animal for food, the Tamil saying ‘Konna pavam thinna pochu’, and our own practice of offering the food we eat to the almighty before we eat. Such beautiful sayings and acts exist to make sure that from normal activities of daily living, our minds get a bit purified in the sense that we needed to do certain things in life that may hurt other beings but we offer the results of such acts to the Gods as sacrifices.

I thought a bit about this. For example, if your life is threatened by a thief or a mad man, is it okay to kill that person. All legal traditions uphold this act as legal. But an interesting debate within oneself happens if you honestly put this question to yourself, whether you will kill. The truthful answer clarifies ahimsa to oneself. In my opinion there is no right or wrong answer.

Sorry for the lengthy response.will try to respond to the second point in my future posting in a couple of days.

 

[tbs]

hi

many gujaratis /jain members running some meat restaurants in USA.... i think they may not eat meat...

but they do business...

 

[SGS]

I am not an elder but have views based on experience of myself and learning by watching others. I am stating the views as a set of guidelines and rules. It is not directed at anyone. Just style of expression,

1. There are Brahmin haters in the society and some play liberal card but they have hate in their heart. You find them in every society in India and even in forums such as this one. You dont see them outside India very much.

With such people just stay away or fight back if they attack you first. Dont invite a fight but do not back down. Not talking about violence but develop strategies ahead of time to fight back. Sometimes flight is the best answer. Leave the state or even the country if need be.

Life is not worth wasting on hateful people for something you had no say about your own birth.

2. Follow your rituals and cultural norms and understand their significance well. Do not fall prey to superstitions.

3. Treat others as fellow Indians in India. Approach life as an Indian first and then a Brahmin. Even better think of yourself as a human being first and see the others as human beings . I cannot think of a more satvic approach to life than viewing others as fellow Indians or fellow human beings. With that broad outlook you will not find many enemies. But the transformation has to start in your heart first

4, Do not believe Brahninism is about some symbols. No need to flaunt symbols but that does not mean you have to hide that either. Just live life with love and kindness to all unless you run into unreasonable people. Dont trust anyone if they say they are beyond caste. Anyone that talks like that cannot be trusted.

5. Vasudaiva Kutumbakam as PM says is a good attitude to have. Be kind to others and animals. If possible practice vegan/vegetarianism as a value.

I think Brahmin values and character will survive the test of time if the above guidelines are followed.

The issue comes when it comes to weddings. If the community develops high values children will seek similar alliance. Today we live in contradictions and under spell of western culture aping all the west does in the worst manner possible. That will ensure the death of the Brahin community and that may be a good thing. So getting back to roots of right values is a must for survival.

Very well thought out and the right way to go.

 

[balaravi11]

I know a few people who have managed to strike a balance.
At home, they follow everything but when they are at work or in a public place, they adapt to the surroundings.

With so much political changes + changing times, it is essential to adapt like a chameleon. Else we are unnecessarily calling for attention. There is no point in trying to explain to those who ridicule us because they won't listen.

Dear Sir,
I have great respect for your work here.
But I beg to differ from you. " Striking a balance " attitude is extremely dangerous and works differently with different people. Either you follow or NOT. No " in between ". All our rich traditions are based on Science. If you understand this ( I do not know if you are science student or like science), we follow without compromise .Children will follow if you explain to them. Travel abroad, for example was banned because of infection like Covid. But if you are suitably vaccinated, you are protected. Different parts of the world follow different tradition ( may be suitable to them for various reasons) and if we change our track, this may be dangerous.
Better to learn the scientific reason from knowledgeable people and spread rather than " strike a balance " attitude.

Regards

Ravindran R

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri a-TB Sir,

Thank you. Yes, by Sri Praveen’s grace I once was a moderator of this forum. Those were the days when discussions were spirited and lively and a moderator had to be busy.

1. Regarding ‘ahimsa’, one has to remember that on a personal level it is what I call a ’selful’ (as opposed to ‘selfish’) act. It is prescribed as the first of 5 Yamas that a person should practice to purify one’s mind. So, if you consider the normal societal practices that do not fall under the legal labels (from meat eating to using animals for medical research and cosmetics) one’s mental makeup will determine to the extent to which one considers what is ahimsa. For example, by all accounts, Gandhi Ji who renounced meat eating after a traumatic dream never experienced self realization, while Gautama Buddha never gave up meat eating, yet attained Nirvana. So, one is free to practice abstinence from what are considered legal.

So, what then is Ahimsa? Ahimsa, broadly in my mind are avoiding acts that you think are harmful to other beings, that disturb your mind. It is obvious that all of us think that acts that are legally frowned upon, such as murder, assault, stealing etc., which are overtly harmful form the base of ahimsa and then we go in to the words and thoughts that are inherently harmful. Beyond that any thoughts on ahimsa are either religio-ethics based or empathy-feeling based and are very personal.

Old cultures recognized that ahimsa is not absolute - so a red Indian ritual asking for forgiveness after killing an animal for food, the Tamil saying ‘Konna pavam thinna pochu’, and our own practice of offering the food we eat to the almighty before we eat. Such beautiful sayings and acts exist to make sure that from normal activities of daily living, our minds get a bit purified in the sense that we needed to do certain things in life that may hurt other beings but we offer the results of such acts to the Gods as sacrifices.

I thought a bit about this. For example, if your life is threatened by a thief or a mad man, is it okay to kill that person. All legal traditions uphold this act as legal. But an interesting debate within oneself happens if you honestly put this question to yourself, whether you will kill. The truthful answer clarifies ahimsa to oneself. In my opinion there is no right or wrong answer.

Sorry for the lengthy response.will try to respond to the second point in my future posting in a couple of days.

Sri a-TB Sir,

Here is the continuation of this post:

‘Who am I?’ Is an eternal question for all human kind.

We all look outside to answer this question. Lots of ancient philosophies answered this question, I think wrongly, from a material perspective, and philosophies like Vedanta, answered them in a more scientific non materialistic basis.

The problem with human existence is that we are crowd full of individualistic folks, in intellectual, emotional and even physical capacities, we all approach this grand question from different angles. This will not be a problem if all of us understand this ‘many levels’ of human capacity to discern and do not force anyone in to any particular way (path).

So, I carry on as an individual, trying to find peace, suited to my make up.

We are fortunate to be born with our religion, because It allows us to pick and choose.

For me then, ‘who am I?’ as a daily living Sadhana boils down to questioning every thought that would come across my brain, examining it on the basis of practicing Ahimsa, and whether the thought arose out of personal ego. And if I find that the thoughts arose contrary to ahimsa and in service to my ego, I correct it.

Now, this is not easy. Because one does not question one’s thoughts, when emotions play a part. But, I am here to tell you after resolving to try to do this several years ago, after much practice of what I fashion as ‘dhyana yoga’, I am at a place of mostly peace, without rejecting the normal enjoyments of life. ( I long ago decided Virakthi does not bring peace to me). I do not know whether I will attain Moksha, but as a simple human being enjoying the fruits of life, I am content.

So, you have to decide which path suits your temperament as a human being and follow doing a SadhAna applicable in earnest.


Thank you.

 

[teshil]

Google says 150-200 species become extinct every single day. Obviously, most of these species were unable to survive their environment and/or failed to propagate.

Therefore, the species that are here must be doing something right to be here at the present time. The same applies to every strand of the human race that are present today. Over a long period, each race's beliefs, value systems, rituals, practices evolved with one thing in common: its survival and existence today! Despite this fact, races engage in debates of the superiority of one's pathway over the other. While it is understandable human nature, it may not be relevant.

So, if I am here today, then it means that my ancestral pathway, i.e. beliefs, value systems, rituals, practices, worked well. There is no compelling reason for me to fundamentally change anything except adapt to my environment to find resources to survive and flourish from one generation to the next.

While the survival needs can be easily defined, the extent of resources needed to "flourish" can become a debating point. History does provide some clues here. We all know that rulers created empires with enormous wealth and power. After a passage of time, there is no evidence to prove that wealth preserved or flourished a ruler's lineage. There are no known descendants of those who created vast empires. Obvious none! Wealth accumulated in one or few generations can only go so far and eventually dissipates. Therefore, seeking abundant wealth may be unnecessary to flourish and counterproductive to preserving identity or heritage.

"How much is enough to flourish?" is often the question that causes imbalance and makes people stray from their proven ancestral pathways. While I can understand people being productive to themselves and to their communities, there is no reason to alter ancestral pathway, i.e. beliefs, value systems, rituals, practices.

For example, a person of Indian origin having American citizenship does not make him or her an American in the eyes of the majority community (i.e. whites). They will always see an Indian as an "Indian". That is the default position. If an Indian migrant accepts that position, then there is no compelling need to be someone else. Therefore, there is no need to drastically change my ancestral pathway. The migrant just needs to adapt to communicate in the environment that they are in and continue to be who they are.

Having said all that, if one must live like a Roman when in Rome, nothing will stop them. However, to become a Roman and, more importantly, it will take a few hundred years or more to be accepted as one.

My heritage is my ship. My ship has travelled thousands of years, and it will probably help me travel my life span. What possible reason do I have to jump to an unknown ship and learn its ways? Not a lot that I can think of.

Thanks

 

[tbs]

Google says 150-200 species become extinct every single day. Obviously, most of these species were unable to survive their environment and/or failed to propagate.

Therefore, the species that are here must be doing something right to be here at the present time. The same applies to every strand of the human race that are present today. Over a long period, each race's beliefs, value systems, rituals, practices evolved with one thing in common: its survival and existence today! Despite this fact, races engage in debates of the superiority of one's pathway over the other. While it is understandable human nature, it may not be relevant.

So, if I am here today, then it means that my ancestral pathway, i.e. beliefs, value systems, rituals, practices, worked well. There is no compelling reason for me to fundamentally change anything except adapt to my environment to find resources to survive and flourish from one generation to the next.

While the survival needs can be easily defined, the extent of resources needed to "flourish" can become a debating point. History does provide some clues here. We all know that rulers created empires with enormous wealth and power. After a passage of time, there is no evidence to prove that wealth preserved or flourished a ruler's lineage. There are no known descendants of those who created vast empires. Obvious none! Wealth accumulated in one or few generations can only go so far and eventually dissipates. Therefore, seeking abundant wealth may be unnecessary to flourish and counterproductive to preserving identity or heritage.

"How much is enough to flourish?" is often the question that causes imbalance and makes people stray from their proven ancestral pathways. While I can understand people being productive to themselves and to their communities, there is no reason to alter ancestral pathway, i.e. beliefs, value systems, rituals, practices.

For example, a person of Indian origin having American citizenship does not make him or her an American in the eyes of the majority community (i.e. whites). They will always see an Indian as an "Indian". That is the default position. If an Indian migrant accepts that position, then there is no compelling need to be someone else. Therefore, there is no need to drastically change my ancestral pathway. The migrant just needs to adapt to communicate in the environment that they are in and continue to be who they are.

Having said all that, if one must live like a Roman when in Rome, nothing will stop them. However, to become a Roman and, more importantly, it will take a few hundred years or more to be accepted as one.

My heritage is my ship. My ship has travelled thousands of years, and it will probably help me travel my life span. What possible reason do I have to jump to an unknown ship and learn its ways? Not a lot that I can think of.

Thanks

hi

or example, a person of Indian origin having American citizenship does not make him or her an American in the eyes of the majority community (i.e. whites). They will always see an Indian as an "Indian". That is the default position. If an Indian migrant accepts that position, then there is no compelling need to be someone else. Therefore, there is no need to drastically change my ancestral pathway. The migrant just needs to adapt to communicate in the environment that they are in and continue to be who they are.

exactly...i have american citizenship....everybody see me as INDIAN.....THIS IS MY DEFAULT

POSITION....

 

[renuka]

hi

or example, a person of Indian origin having American citizenship does not make him or her an American in the eyes of the majority community (i.e. whites). They will always see an Indian as an "Indian". That is the default position. If an Indian migrant accepts that position, then there is no compelling need to be someone else. Therefore, there is no need to drastically change my ancestral pathway. The migrant just needs to adapt to communicate in the environment that they are in and continue to be who they are.

exactly...i have american citizenship....everybody see me as INDIAN.....THIS IS MY DEFAULT

POSITION....

Well...

Google says 150-200 species become extinct every single day. Obviously, most of these species were unable to survive their environment and/or failed to propagate.

Therefore, the species that are here must be doing something right to be here at the present time. The same applies to every strand of the human race that are present today. Over a long period, each race's beliefs, value systems, rituals, practices evolved with one thing in common: its survival and existence today! Despite this fact, races engage in debates of the superiority of one's pathway over the other. While it is understandable human nature, it may not be relevant.

So, if I am here today, then it means that my ancestral pathway, i.e. beliefs, value systems, rituals, practices, worked well. There is no compelling reason for me to fundamentally change anything except adapt to my environment to find resources to survive and flourish from one generation to the next.

While the survival needs can be easily defined, the extent of resources needed to "flourish" can become a debating point. History does provide some clues here. We all know that rulers created empires with enormous wealth and power. After a passage of time, there is no evidence to prove that wealth preserved or flourished a ruler's lineage. There are no known descendants of those who created vast empires. Obvious none! Wealth accumulated in one or few generations can only go so far and eventually dissipates. Therefore, seeking abundant wealth may be unnecessary to flourish and counterproductive to preserving identity or heritage.

"How much is enough to flourish?" is often the question that causes imbalance and makes people stray from their proven ancestral pathways. While I can understand people being productive to themselves and to their communities, there is no reason to alter ancestral pathway, i.e. beliefs, value systems, rituals, practices.

For example, a person of Indian origin having American citizenship does not make him or her an American in the eyes of the majority community (i.e. whites). They will always see an Indian as an "Indian". That is the default position. If an Indian migrant accepts that position, then there is no compelling need to be someone else. Therefore, there is no need to drastically change my ancestral pathway. The migrant just needs to adapt to communicate in the environment that they are in and continue to be who they are.

Having said all that, if one must live like a Roman when in Rome, nothing will stop them. However, to become a Roman and, more importantly, it will take a few hundred years or more to be accepted as one.

My heritage is my ship. My ship has travelled thousands of years, and it will probably help me travel my life span. What possible reason do I have to jump to an unknown ship and learn its ways? Not a lot that I can think of.

Thanks

Well...The White American is a European by race.
He too is not a native to to America.
So if he views you as Indian, you too can view him as European.

Only the Native American is the true American and the rest of you there are migrants.

 

[renuka]

The only ship we have is our physical body.
Sail through the ocean of existence using our understanding and personal belief/culture/dharma system as a guide but dont let anything become a rigid identity.
We are suppose to disembark after having sailed.
But if we hold on to the ship and refuse to get down..we lost out knock knock on heaven's door.

 

[prasad1]

For example, a person of Indian origin having American citizenship does not make him or her an American in the eyes of the majority community (i.e. whites). They will always see an Indian as an "Indian". That is the default position. If an Indian migrant accepts that position, then there is no compelling need to be someone else. Therefore, there is no need to drastically change my ancestral pathway. The migrant just needs to adapt to communicate in the environment that they are in and continue to be who they are.

It is only the Immigrant who thinks of themselves as Indian, even though they may have US passport. Some ignorant whites may think (?) of you as Indian to disparage you.

Our children think of themselves as Americans with Indian heritage. And their white, Black, Yellow fellows consider them as American.

Just one example of my point.

Wikipedia says:

Rohit Khanna is an American politician, lawyer, and academic serving as the U.S. Representative from California's 17th congressional district since 2017.

Khanna was born in 1976 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. His parents are Indian immigrants to the United States. His father is a chemical engineer who graduated from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) and the University of Michigan, and his mother is a former substitute school teacher.

Some Trumpian will call him Indian just to insult Ro, that does not mean that majority of Whites in his district agree with that label. A majority of Whites did vote for him as an American.

Trump tried to paint Obama as a NON-AMERICAN and some whites agreed with it.

(On a personal level, he is not Indian enough for me, because he is not pro-India all the time.)

 

[a-TB]

Dear Sri a-TB Sir,

Thank you. Yes, by Sri Praveen’s grace I once was a moderator of this forum. Those were the days when discussions were spirited and lively and a moderator had to be busy.

1. Regarding ‘ahimsa’, one has to remember that on a personal level it is what I call a ’selful’ (as opposed to ‘selfish’) act. It is prescribed as the first of 5 Yamas that a person should practice to purify one’s mind. So, if you consider the normal societal practices that do not fall under the legal labels (from meat eating to using animals for medical research and cosmetics) one’s mental makeup will determine to the extent to which one considers what is ahimsa. For example, by all accounts, Gandhi Ji who renounced meat eating after a traumatic dream never experienced self realization, while Gautama Buddha never gave up meat eating, yet attained Nirvana. So, one is free to practice abstinence from what are considered legal.

So, what then is Ahimsa? Ahimsa, broadly in my mind are avoiding acts that you think are harmful to other beings, that disturb your mind. It is obvious that all of us think that acts that are legally frowned upon, such as murder, assault, stealing etc., which are overtly harmful form the base of ahimsa and then we go in to the words and thoughts that are inherently harmful. Beyond that any thoughts on ahimsa are either religio-ethics based or empathy-feeling based and are very personal.

Old cultures recognized that ahimsa is not absolute - so a red Indian ritual asking for forgiveness after killing an animal for food, the Tamil saying ‘Konna pavam thinna pochu’, and our own practice of offering the food we eat to the almighty before we eat. Such beautiful sayings and acts exist to make sure that from normal activities of daily living, our minds get a bit purified in the sense that we needed to do certain things in life that may hurt other beings but we offer the results of such acts to the Gods as sacrifices.

I thought a bit about this. For example, if your life is threatened by a thief or a mad man, is it okay to kill that person. All legal traditions uphold this act as legal. But an interesting debate within oneself happens if you honestly put this question to yourself, whether you will kill. The truthful answer clarifies ahimsa to oneself. In my opinion there is no right or wrong answer.

Sorry for the lengthy response.will try to respond to the second point in my future posting in a couple of days.

Dear Mr KRS sir,

Thank you for your detailed response.

It seems to me Ahimsa is being sensitive and minimize hurt to other beings. So it would mean to not even pluck a flower just to feel good about decorating my table. Even to offer to God I could pick flowers that have already fallen.

The harder part is not argue and cause unneeded hurt in others with words.

I think this is in alignment with your views, it seems

 

[a-TB]

Sri a-TB Sir,

Here is the continuation of this post:

‘Who am I?’ Is an eternal question for all human kind.

We all look outside to answer this question. Lots of ancient philosophies answered this question, I think wrongly, from a material perspective, and philosophies like Vedanta, answered them in a more scientific non materialistic basis.

The problem with human existence is that we are crowd full of individualistic folks, in intellectual, emotional and even physical capacities, we all approach this grand question from different angles. This will not be a problem if all of us understand this ‘many levels’ of human capacity to discern and do not force anyone in to any particular way (path).

So, I carry on as an individual, trying to find peace, suited to my make up.

We are fortunate to be born with our religion, because It allows us to pick and choose.

For me then, ‘who am I?’ as a daily living Sadhana boils down to questioning every thought that would come across my brain, examining it on the basis of practicing Ahimsa, and whether the thought arose out of personal ego. And if I find that the thoughts arose contrary to ahimsa and in service to my ego, I correct it.

Now, this is not easy. Because one does not question one’s thoughts, when emotions play a part. But, I am here to tell you after resolving to try to do this several years ago, after much practice of what I fashion as ‘dhyana yoga’, I am at a place of mostly peace, without rejecting the normal enjoyments of life. ( I long ago decided Virakthi does not bring peace to me). I do not know whether I will attain Moksha, but as a simple human being enjoying the fruits of life, I am content.

So, you have to decide which path suits your temperament as a human being and follow doing a SadhAna applicable in earnest.


Thank you.

Thank you, KRS Sir for sharing your understanding.

Early on when I signed up here, i had interesting dialog with one Mr Sangom (he may be no more now) and exchanged a few personal email with him. He told me about Ramana Maharishi and his teachings. In reading some of those works this is my understanding.

'Who am I' cannot be answered because if subject 'I' can be described it becomes an object , the one describing is then the subject!
Beside who is asking and who is answering - such issues will come up

All conclusions will be the mind which is not I

So it is the question 'who am I' matters more than the answer

Over the last several years I have learnt some little vedanta speak to write in such riddles LOL

 

[KRS]

Thank you, KRS Sir for sharing your understanding.

Early on when I signed up here, i had interesting dialog with one Mr Sangom (he may be no more now) and exchanged a few personal email with him. He told me about Ramana Maharishi and his teachings. In reading some of those works this is my understanding.

'Who am I' cannot be answered because if subject 'I' can be described it becomes an object , the one describing is then the subject!
Beside who is asking and who is answering - such issues will come up

All conclusions will be the mind which is not I

So it is the question 'who am I' matters more than the answer

Over the last several years I have learnt some little vedanta speak to write in such riddles LOL

Sri a-TB Sir,

I remember Sri Sangom Sir as a very knowledgeable person and inclined towards an ethics based religion. I got the impression that he was partial to Buddhism, as he did not believe in the Hindu concept of Brahman.

To me Ahimsa at the edges is very blurry. One can not expect a person near the North Pole to be a vegetarian. I do not judge others on practices that do not concern me, as long as they are not illegal. Even then, if they affect me, then I tend to take actions to counter, if warranted.

Otherwise, As my Guru advises, I focus on myself in a ‘selful’, way and leave everything else to Ishwara.

Yes, I think the hardest part is not to hurt others even by words. But once you consciously practice it, you will find that your mind automatically starts thinking about stopping thoughts that evoke such words/actions. This is a difficult process as your mind slips up often.

Regarding ‘who am I?’, it is a well known fact that if one is part of a closed system, one can not understand what is outside. But, we know from our experience that mystics in almost all religions who turned inwards have told us that they have the experience of ‘that’. They told us that we also can ‘know it’ if we practice certain ways to control our minds. I just chose a path that is appealing and attractive to me. I can not claim that it will work for anybody else. For me, even if I do not experience ‘that’ it is well worth it.

 

[renuka]

Sri a-TB Sir,

I remember Sri Sangom Sir as a very knowledgeable person and inclined towards an ethics based religion. I got the impression that he was partial to Buddhism, as he did not believe in the Hindu concept of Brahman.

To me Ahimsa at the edges is very blurry. One can not expect a person near the North Pole to be a vegetarian. I do not judge others on practices that do not concern me, as long as they are not illegal. Even then, if they affect me, then I tend to take actions to counter, if warranted.

Otherwise, As my Guru advises, I focus on myself in a ‘selful’, way and leave everything else to Ishwara.

Yes, I think the hardest part is not to hurt others even by words. But once you consciously practice it, you will find that your mind automatically starts thinking about stopping thoughts that evoke such words/actions. This is a difficult process as your mind slips up often.

Regarding ‘who am I?’, it is a well known fact that if one is part of a closed system, one can not understand what is outside. But, we know from our experience that mystics in almost all religions who turned inwards have told us that they have the experience of ‘that’. They told us that we also can ‘know it’ if we practice certain ways to control our minds. I just chose a path that is appealing and attractive to me. I can not claim that it will work for anybody else. For me, even if I do not experience ‘that’ it is well worth it.

Dear Sir,

It might seem that it is finally about a point of focus.
Whether its " Who am I" or " Who is God" or " What lies beyond", "How would heaven be like".."How is it be with God...all make the mind focus on just one point.

From that the whole process of knowing starts in any school of thought or religion itself.

Coming to " controling the mind"..usually its not really a " control" but rather allowing the mind to be in a conducive balancing norm may be by sadhana/ prayers/ meditation or seeking jnaana.
Over time the mind adopts the new norm of having less waves to identify with and eventually one is able to be in the eternal NOW.

Then one takes one step back and develops Sakshi Bhava ( the ability to be a witness).
One may see thoughts traverse the mind but one does not become that thoughts.

The mind then becomes like any other organ which runs in the background..for eg we dont try to control our kidneys..we simply let it function in.a parasympathetic format.

So here we let the mind do its actual function of Viveka without our ahamkara hijacking it.

The " Who am I " question may not really have an answer if its going to go through our intellect ..even an answer like Aham Brahmaasmi could just be recycling familiar concepts.

So may be the question of Who am I is just to kick start the whole process of " Be and it is"

It need not have an answer and may be the need for the question was just part of the plan and not actually as important and may be "That "itself wont really " exist" as being able to " experience" it or " perceive" it...cos it would go back to plurality of having " That"..the one who experiences the "That" and the process of experiencing the " That".

 

[KRS]

Dear Sir,

It might seem that it is finally about a point of focus.
Whether its " Who am I" or " Who is God" or " What lies beyond", "How would heaven be like".."How is it be with God...all make the mind focus on just one point.

From that the whole process of knowing starts in any school of thought or religion itself.

Coming to " controling the mind"..usually its not really a " control" but rather allowing the mind to be in a conducive balancing norm may be by sadhana/ prayers/ meditation or seeking jnaana.
Over time the mind adopts the new norm of having less waves to identify with and eventually one is able to be in the eternal NOW.

Then one takes one step back and develops Sakshi Bhava ( the ability to be a witness).
One may see thoughts traverse the mind but one does not become that thoughts.

The mind then becomes like any other organ which runs in the background..for eg we dont try to control our kidneys..we simply let it function in.a parasympathetic format.

So here we let the mind do its actual function of Viveka without our ahamkara hijacking it.

The " Who am I " question may not really have an answer if its going to go through our intellect ..even an answer like Aham Brahmaasmi could just be recycling familiar concepts.

So may be the question of Who am I is just to kick start the whole process of " Be and it is"

It need not have an answer and may be the need for the question was just part of the plan and not actually as important and may be "That "itself wont really " exist" as being able to " experience" it or " perceive" it...cos it would go back to plurality of having " That"..the one who experiences the "That" and the process of experiencing the " That".

Dear Dr. Renuka Ji,

I think I understand what you are saying. Looks like you are well read and thought out the mechanisms.

Right now, what I am doing is aiding me. I like very simple, easy to follow methods, tailored just for my mental make up.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

 

[renuka]

Dear Dr. Renuka Ji,

I think I understand what you are saying. Looks like you are well read and thought out the mechanisms.

Right now, what I am doing is aiding me. I like very simple, easy to follow methods, tailored just for my mental make up.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Dear Sir,
You are right...its simplicity and personalized formats that is tailored to individual needs that again would keep changing constantly in its application..very much like an update we get on Android...as the saying goes " Change is the only constant"

Not all understandings can be found in books I feel..being well read helps only to some extent.
Its like learning to swim..we can read it from a book on how to swim but till we swim in water we would never really truly know it.

Hands on practical experience is what true reading is about.
Hence even the 1st word Prophet Muhammad ( pbuh) heard from Angel Gabriel was " Iqra" (Read!)
When prophet replied " I dont know how to read" ..the word Iqra was repeated.

So it goes to show we Read the messages that unfold to us from within..having which the art of knowing develops and whatever information we had previously got from books would reveal itself in different shades of expression we never knew existed..that too again in a personalized format hence we see commentaries of a same text for eg The Bhagavad Gita having various commentaries by Masters and they differ.

Gita bhashya of Ramanuja would differ from Adi Shankara and both are right as it was their personalized revelation.

So its important I feel that we read any text for information and patiently wait for our own personalized update tailored for our mental make up to download in us.

Its nice to read your posts..keep sharing with everyone.

 

[tbs]

Sir,

Very well thought out response.

World has changed. So Purva Mimamsa is nowadays only a relic of yester years.

For the industrialized world, Vedanta is more apt.

But one should know the values of the past can still guide us. And for a lot of us they are in our DNA.

I try to live by two axioms:
1. Do not hurt another Jeeva
2. Live to understand who am I?

That’s it. I am fortunate to have grand children and everything in life is a blessing after that.

Thank you.

hi sir

nice to see you again ...after a long time....im here more than 10 years....many veterans left...

 

[KRS]

Dear Sir,
You are right...its simplicity and personalized formats that is tailored to individual needs that again would keep changing constantly in its application..very much like an update we get on Android...as the saying goes " Change is the only constant"

Not all understandings can be found in books I feel..being well read helps only to some extent.
Its like learning to swim..we can read it from a book on how to swim but till we swim in water we would never really truly know it.

Hands on practical experience is what true reading is about.
Hence even the 1st word Prophet Muhammad ( pbuh) heard from Angel Gabriel was " Iqra" (Read!)
When prophet replied " I dont know how to read" ..the word Iqra was repeated.

So it goes to show we Read the messages that unfold to us from within..having which the art of knowing develops and whatever information we had previously got from books would reveal itself in different shades of expression we never knew existed..that too again in a personalized format hence we see commentaries of a same text for eg The Bhagavad Gita having various commentaries by Masters and they differ.

Gita bhashya of Ramanuja would differ from Adi Shankara and both are right as it was their personalized revelation.

So its important I feel that we read any text for information and patiently wait for our own personalized update tailored for our mental make up to download in us.

Its nice to read your posts..keep sharing with everyone.

 

[KRS]

hi sir

nice to see you again ...after a long time....im here more than 10 years....many veterans left...

Yes, Sri tbs Sir. Thank you. I recognize several veterans here. Looks like many also have left.

 

[tbs]

Yes, Sri tbs Sir. Thank you. I recognize several veterans here. Looks like many also have left.

hi sir

many are became thathas/pattis now.... very busy with grand kids....

 

[usaiyer]

#25 KRS ji,
I feel happy about your comment on 'Nan Yar' tool of Ramana
Maharishi and your close association with him.
The healing or spiritual enlightenment have to happen at personal level and it can have only a limited impact on the
vast mass of ignorant and unguided folks.
Sankara's aatma vicharam concept and practice also an individualised.
But if you want to have meaningful social reforms based on
Ahimsa ,how this approach can help? Do we need to think at different level?

 

[KRS]

#25 KRS ji,
I feel happy about your comment on 'Nan Yar' tool of Ramana
Maharishi and your close association with him.
The healing or spiritual enlightenment have to happen at personal level and it can have only a limited impact on the
vast mass of ignorant and unguided folks.
Sankara's aatma vicharam concept and practice also an individualised.
But if you want to have meaningful social reforms based on
Ahimsa ,how this approach can help? Do we need to think at different level?

Sri Usaiyer Sir,

You raise a question that I have thought about quite a lot the last few years.

The only conclusion I have come to is that there is no such thing called ‘society’ As we usually imagine. This took me a while to understand, but here are my thoughts, and of course, I do not claim that my thoughts are correct.

My Guru once was asked, and I am paraphrasing, ‘the world is full of problems, what should I do?’. He replied ‘World is maintained by Ishwara. Why do you worry about it? Just concentrate on yourself to understand who you are, and the world will take care of itself’.

Now, this advice looks to be ‘selfish’ on the first thought. But then one realizes that one really has no control over the Universe, what it is doing, where it is going, what happened in the past, and most importantly how one WISHES to affect the world. One realizes that even the desire for Moksha is selfish, and in the end, any morality is time period oriented in terms of human development.

There is no ‘wrong’ in morality pursued during each epoch of human development. Our ancestors once were cannibals, after all. So one understands that there is a progression in civilization, regardless of any individual’s effort.

This is not to say that one should not try to shape a dharmic world. I am sure my Guru would say that if that is one’s dharma, Ishwara would produce such folks (plug in any names that we have that impacted the lives of large number of folks).

So coming back to your question, the physical world always have opposites. One can not talk even about dharma, without the opposite. There is no ahimsa without himsa. The point is these concepts exist in our minds, we do not even know why one is better than the opposite, only we think that one is so, because of our prevailing culture and standards.

So, a long explanation to illustrate what my Guru‘s words resonated within me.

 

[KRS]

For those who do not know, here is a write up on The Bhagwan Sri Ramana Maharishi.:

He was affable and courteous to all
comers . There was no pontifical
solemnity in his expositions; on the
contrary, his speech , whether on daily
affairs or on doctrine , was vivacious and
full of laughter. And so infectious was
his laughter that even those who did not
know Tamil would spontaneously join
in. Right up to the end he joked , and yet
his jokes also bore instruction.

When the doctors were alarmed to see a new growth of tumour pushing up during his final sickness, he said, laughing ,
"Why do you worry? It's its nature to come up. "

When a woman beat her head against a post outside his room in grief, despite his
insistence that the body's death is no
cause for grief, he listened for a moment
and then said: " Oh , I thought somebody was trying to break a coconut."

A devotee asked why his prayers were not answered and Bhagavan replied ,
laughing : "If they were , you might stop
praying."

His manner of life was of the most
normal . It was no attitude of superiority
that bent men's knees before him , for
none could be more simple or natural; it
was the spontaneous reaction of men to
the Divine .

His face was like the face of water,
always changing and yet always the same .
H e would be laughing and talking, and
then he would turn graciously to a small
child or hand a nut to a squirrel that
hopped on to his couch from the
window, or his radiant, wide open eyes
would shine with love upon some devotee
who had just arrived or was taking leave .
And then, in silence , a moment later, his
face would be rock-like, eternal in its
grandeur.

The love that shone in his eyes, the
luminous understanding , cannot be
described . Someone has come to the
Ashram broken down with the hopeless
grief of bereavement, and Bhagavan ,
after hearing the story, has simply looked ,
no word spoken , and peace flooded the
soul.

An old pandit who knew Sri Ramana
as a boy had visited many yogis and
decided to visit the Yogi Ramana also and
discuss with him . But, standing before
the couch , he felt his whole body electrified with awe and , before he knew what had happened , had fallen on his face before him .

Little children were drawn to him and gladdened by his smile . A cooly picked up a blown sheet of paper and , seeing his picture on it, exclaimed "Bhagavan!" and folded it reverently to take away with him .

Animals were drawn to him like people . Once he came back late from his afternoon walk on the hill.
And while devotees clustered in groups
or sat waiting or followed him up the
hillside , a pair of monkeys came to the
doorway of the hall and forgetting their
fear of people , came inside and gazed
anxiously at the vacant couch . A monkey
that has been tended by humans is
ostracised by its fellows on its return to
wild life, but any that had been tended by Bhagavan was gladly received. Having
transcended the ego , he had transcended fear and antagonism , and the animals
sensed this. A snake crept over his leg
and he did not move or shrink. When a
devotee asked him later what it felt like
to have a snake pass over one , he replied,
laughing : "Cold and moist."
.................................

We shall not again see the divine grace
in human form or the love shining in his
eyes, but in our hearts he is with us and
will not leave us.

His grace continues to be poured out, not only on those who knew the miracle of his bodily form , but on all who turn to him in their hearts,now as before.

~ THE MAN WHO WAS RAMANA
By Arthur Osborne
# Mountain Path, 1996 Aradhana.

 

[usaiyer]

happy to be briefed on the Great divine path shower and
heals the wounds of humans battered in the day to day life,
and showed equal love to animals and other living creatures,
I wish to know the significance of the NAN -YAR tool
and how one can use it to raise his level of consciousness?
Namaskars.