VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 02:03:04 04/28/04 Wed
Author: Hendrik - 3 Apr 2004
Subject: Re: the 3 steps on the (kriya) path
In reply to: sundarar - 3 Apr 2004 's message, "Re: the 3 steps on the (kriya) path" on 02:02:33 04/28/04 Wed


Brilliant post. Please go on contributing when you feel like, and just ignore if I or anyone else just happens to be carping. There is also a silent majority who never post but read with interest.

One question: Did Ramdas really criticize Shankara and Buddha? I am asking because (a) criticizing was not his business and (b) I can hardly imagine because Buddha was one of his main inspirers, and he also used to extol Ramana who was surely an Advaitin, to the heavens. Ramdas says that a number of spiritual teachers including Shankara and Aurobindo are misquoted or misunderstood.

You are right that Ramdas was not a philosopher. Like Ramakrishna he said the most contradicting things and didn't even care. For me this is the mark of the mystic.

Commenting on your statement that one ought to have a general idea of what one wants, I want to add my observation that yogis to a great degree become what they originally wanted to become.

For instance Ramdas and his 'Ram' basically represent a personal God, but one with infinite qualities. This although non-dual experience and impersonality were dominant all throughout his sadhana. He was speaking about "God" all the time. Studying his early life however I found out that he was Ram(God)-oriented already when he started yoga and that one of his favorite works like Tulsidas' Hindi Ramayana propagates the same ideal, and so did Samartha Ramdas, one of his favorite saints. Inborn preference for worship can be largely ruled out, because in his early life he was an agnostic, and he was also more educated than one is lead to believe at first sight.

Sri Aurobindo worked for the freedom of India and refused to reject life for any airy beyond-stage. Later as a yogi he preached a spirituality that 'conquered heaven and earth', covering both life and spirit. He did not modify his basic perception of life, he just shifted from the political to the spiritual plane.

Buddha rejected everything and arrived at nothingness. He attained liberation, but being liberated from the perceived suffering of life had been his goal right from the beginning.

Padre Pio on the other hand found favor with the idea of suffering for God already as a child and occasionally flagellated himself. Suffering was his very aim. He ended up suffering all his life as someone stigmatized, asked for more suffering, and even after his death he appeared to a disciple triumphantly announcing that suffering goes on in the beyond life as well. So he got what he wanted. I thought it would be going to end sometime, but no, suffering was his ultimate aim.

Ramakrishna fell in love with Mother Kali and continued to worship her even after attaining Nirvikalpa Samadhi.


This is remarkable, isn't it. No doubt many of these saints and yogis changed their convictions as a result of their yogic development, but the main idea behind whatever they may have 'realized' largely remained the same until the end.

Do you have any explanation? If all of them said, "I have realized formlessness", or "I don't exist anymore" things would be easy. But this is not the case. Not at all.


If you want to go deeper into theoretical considerations here is some food for your investigative mind. T.R.Thulasiram, a Tamil devotee of St. Ramalingam has analysed the writings of dozens of Hindu saints, particularly those of his home area Tamil Nadu, and wrote a giant study on the same topic. He also translated 800 pages of poems by St. Ramalingam.

To be sure he is influenced by Sri Aurobindo, but all the same he is exact and impartial like a true scholar. The book was published by the university of Madras.

This file just came to my mind because in it one "Sundarar" is mentioned among the enlightened saints ;-)

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:T2ud1Z7HS0cJ:www.vallalar.org/onlineres/english/thulasiram/deathlessbody/Chapter-13/Deathlessbody|52013th|520Chapter.doc

Hendrik

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

  • Parabrahman, Mukti and Human Thought-Systems -- Hendrik - 4 Apr 2004, 02:04:32 04/28/04 Wed
  • Re: Parabrahman, Mukti and Human Thought-Systems -- sundarar - 4 Apr 2004, 02:05:06 04/28/04 Wed
    [ Contact Forum Admin ]

    Forum timezone: GMT-8
    VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
    Before posting please read our privacy policy.
    VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
    Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.