s1va

I just did a search on the 'fivefold teaching of Dawa Gyaltsen'. Just briefly glimpsed through the results. Really interesting. I am going to certainly check later and read more on this. Found some videos also about the practice. Thank you. May I ask, if you work on this by yourself or with guidance from a teacher or part of a tradition? Dawa Gyaltsen seems to be a Dzogchen master. This is something I have interest in the recent times. If I understand right, most practices are done with the help of a qualified master. Yes, genetics seem to play a role on predisposition to certain preferences. Many of the genetical or physical limitations that one is born with, seem to continue at least until the body lives. When you mentioned human condition, I am not sure if you are talking about some type of collective consciousness, that gets passed on.

So, you are stating it's not preference, but attachment to that preference. This makes sense. Earlier you mentioned preference is in the same camp as like/dislike, this caused some confusion in me and subsequent questions. In this case, if it is not about preferences, then attachments to the preferences must be the 'desires', and not just having the preferences themselves. Is residing in Dao and realization of Dao are different things? I thought once the Dao is realized, it's a done deal. Perhaps, we can reside in (out of) Dao, before the actual realization?

When I started this topic, I was generally thinking about lot of mundane things. I heard some kids use the word boring now and then. Certain tasks seem to be boring to each one of us. What is this boring? or why the lack of interest in certain tasks, while there is no such thing with some others. Is this about desire or not being present? When I asked myself this question, I had to conclude that this seems to go deeper than awareness or being present in the 'now' or this moment. One can be totally present and aware in the moment, absence of any desires or thoughts and still have a general dislike or aversion towards certain tasks or activities. In the total absence of desires, it seems like there can still be detachment from the world or external things. Not having the inclination towards engaging in certain actions. Also, not bothered about such detachment or feel perfectly fine about that (for the most part). This is why I stated on the OP, certain masters deciding to stay on the cave after enlightenment just be immersed on bliss. I am not inclined to debate about whether such action is right or wrong. I was wondering about the cause for certain boring, and also relate that to detachment to see if they all spring from the same causes.

It's not about judging them. But, if we make certain deductions such as 'wants = desires', or 'likes = desires', 'addiction = desires'. We are just applying these deductions uniformly irrespective of who engaged in those action. Just because someone that is enlightened has done certain thing, it cannot be accepted as right action, just by virtue of that. I understand that It is also subjective, whether they are really addicted to these substances. One can still use them heavily and say they are not addicted, and maybe they are not. There is no way for me to know. It is well known fact that Osho used laughing gas (nitrous oxide) several times. He is also considered enlightened and I have great respect towards him and his teachings. Reading the teachings of these masters had huge impact on me also. I still read their teachings as needed, and it still has huge impact on me. I think there is something to learn from everyone. Like a famous master said once, "There is something I learn from everyone I meet, some teach me 'what to do' and some others teach me 'what not to do' in life". He went on to say, "I think those that teach me what not to do, are just as important as the ones that teach me what to do". So, this is in no way a disrespect to any of them. Not just the masters, I would agree judging anyone is not the right thing to do, such an action is a result of desire.

Per Jeff's statements, one that is addicted (to smoking or drugs or anything) has not overcome desires. I agree with this assessment. There is no other way to look at heavy smokers. No disrespect to Nisargadatta Maharaj. If there is addiction, I don't think that person has overcome all desires. There are subconscious tendencies that cause this desire, which manifests as heavy smoking. We can argue that he was a heavy smoker, but not addicted. When it comes to smoking, I can't agree with this. I agree with the part where you wrote about want and needs. But, how can heavy smoking ever be considered as a need, considering all of us know it is injurious to the body?

I get the part about drug addict lacking mental clarity and in grip of desires. You also brought up cigarette smoker or drug addict in Non-dual topic stating, such a person cannot be in Non-dual state. While some others did not agree with this, after some thought it sounded right to me. A smoker cannot be considered as a person who has given up desires. But, for likes and dislikes, where do we draw the line. If someone just likes to drink a cup of coffee in the morning, does this mean the person is under the grip of desires. Some people seem to have a distaste towards certain tasks, like washing dishes, but are able to do other things just fine. Does not some of our preferences and like/dislike make each one of us what we are? Separate individuals. When the one came from Dao, and it became two & three, and then the moment it became 10,000. Each of the 10,000 has a unique personality, meaning some types of preferences, likes and dislikes. Unless, this all goes back into the Dao, loses the form and separation as individual, some of the factors that go into making each of the 10,000 to be unique must continue to be, right? If there are absolutely no preferences of any sort, then there is no difference for that to be from Dao. Even at the level of male/female, there has to be some preferences or likes and dislikes.

It's not about bothering, but about the existence of likes and dislikes -- without labeling them. Ramana Maharishi seemed to have some strong preferences about the method of self inquiry being the direct and most effective path. It is certainly based on his subconscious tendencies and his own likes/dislikes. It's not about, if it's right or wrong or whether it bothered him anyway. I am sure none of this bothered him. Nevertheless, he still had his preferences and likes and dislikes just like any other person. Granted, he was not in the sway of them.

Yes, I agree that awakening is not enough. I am not quite sure, even falling away of all tendencies (vasanas), is enough to make all likes/dislikes to disappear. As long as their is division as individuals or separate life forms (The 10000 that originally came from Dao), it seems like some likes and dislikes will be there for each one of us to retain our individuality. If someone has no likes or dislikes or any sort of preferences, perhaps he has merged with the source (whatever that be), and does not retain any form of sperate identity or form such as a individual person or a deity. What do you think?

I am not sure whether all likes/dislikes and preferences are due to desires. Are you stating that one who has given up desires have absolutely no likes/dislikes, therefore no preference on any choice they make or any action they engage upon? Let's take a food example itself . If someone did not like chocolate for whatever reason from birth, they simply can't eat it (but no physical allergies or issues). Does this dislike arise out of desire in the first place? It could be because of some subconscious tendency as you stated on the other post. If this person has overcome all desires, does that mean his dislike for chocolates is gone, and he has no preference towards it now?

Awareness does not absolve or end the limiting factor. The limiting factor will continue to be there. The awareness will just help not to get caught up with that as an issue. The awareness can help to work around limitations. I am not saying awareness does not help. You are offering solution to those who are struck, which is good. But this is not about that. I have stated myself, being present, witness or aware as part of the original post. We also don't have power to always choose. We have the power to surrender and accept things as they are. This post is about like/dislike continuing after such complete acceptance.

Thank you. I was looking for the triggers from deep inside that cause some of these -- whether it is subconscious or tendencies. About the giving up desire part, I am not really sure. Those that have given up desires also seem to have likes/dislikes -- sometimes sharp likes/dislikes. Anyway, if such subconscious tendencies are whipsawing the mind and causing such things as desires, then how does letting go of desires help with this? To me, certain like/dislike seem to last forever. Something like limitations which we just accept and work with. What are your thoughts?

-

Neither like/dislike, nor lack of awareness of them is a problem to one that lives in the present moment always. This post is not about a problem. It is not describing like/dislike as a problem and asking for a solution. The question that the post raised was about, some likes and dislikes lasting forever. The origins of such likes/dislikes that last forever. This is not about labeling something as good or bad or as problem and look for a solution to that problem. I thought I communicated this clearly on the original post. May be it's not as clear to everyone as I expected it to be. Anyway, thanks for the responses.

That sounds like a right approach or way to go about it. To admit that one has them and to be aware that they are hard to get rid of. This should help work around them or to use them in productive ways to serve others.

Thanks everyone for the responses so far. I guess maybe I did not express or state clearly in OP, what I was looking for. This is not just about the like/dislike like for a drink/food that is tied to clinging or some limiting factor. I was talking about the deeper ones (arising from subconscious tendencies/vasanas, possibly from the past or a prior birth), which seem to run for lifetime, perhaps from birth - certain types of like/dislike without any rational reason as to why. May be I need to come up with some good examples. This is why I mentioned about Gods and immortals also having certain likes and dislikes. So, it's not entirely about clinging also. Anyway, the responses so far, got me thinking about some other things. It's late for me now. I will add more sometime tomorrow. Look forward to more responses.

Thanks. I am being kind to myself Love.

This article has actual scriptural references from Puranas and Upanishads about Namasmarana. ( From Sri Sathya Sai Baba's teachings on Namasmarana, The Supreme Sadhana. )

What is interesting and not interesting is relative to each person. I found the question Jonesboy asked to be genuine and interesting. Not sure about 'giving the life to the school and follow it all the way' to see what it's upto! Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Will make a majority of discussions on this forum moot. If something upsets me so bad, normally I conclude that I am the one that needs to let go and move on from there

Yes. And, I mentioned his story as an example and reminder for myself. Sometimes it feels that the empty awareness, or the state where there are no thoughts, or deep state of samadhi is the destination. What can possibly be there beyond awareness? Not sure about that, but what can stop and start is not it for me. The state of satchidananda is described generally as an eternal.

Something really to ponder upon. Not just while dealing with others, even if some sudden and unexpected disastrous life event can make someone get caught up with mind stuff, are they really enlightened at all? I will leave that question open. Anyway, this reminded me of the story of Ram Dass, whose life changes drastically after the unexpected stroke that paralyzed him. Ram Dass had the courage to admit and describe the suffering of his ego and the agony he went through after the stroke. In his own words, But, he eventually finds the grace in suffering also. His documentary on this topic is available on Netflix.

If some one has realized their true nature, they should be able to describe it in their own words. Many great masters have done it in their own ways. I like what Jeff said on another post (link below) about explaining realization. I think it may apply to describing also. "Those who know can easily explain." Whether, I am be able to understand what they explain, or if my realization matches theirs are all different stories.

Agreed, on Brahma and Yahweh being different in several ways. However, I think you may be mixing up Brahman (from Vedanta) with Brahma (The creator God or deity). Yes, Brahman has no personality, form or characteristics and is not a deity. Therefore, we cannot compare Brahman with Yahweh. However, Brahma is a deity with form, personality etc. Though Brahma is part of the Hindu trinity (Brahma - Creator, Vishnu - Protector & Shiva - Destroyer), he is not worshipped like other Hindu deities and given a (relatively) lower status compared to Shiva or Vishnu.

First of all, It is not the chanting that was described as the best (or most effective practice) for Kaliyuga, but it is the 'Namasmarana' -- 'the (constant - ever present awareness or ) remembrance of the name of Gods (or one's Ishta -- favorite Deity or object of worship). This practice helps to be mindful of one's object of worship or deity all the time and to build a single pointed devotion towards the same. Where does this practice originate? Namasmarana or even chanting is practiced from Vedic times and has some place in all scriptures of the Sanatana Dharma. Where does the idea that this practice is the best for Kaliyuga originate from, is it from ISKCON as stated by some above? No, this idea does not originate from Iskcon. Namasmarana or Chanting as the most effective method of worship for Kali yuga comes from Puranas, that are part of the canon of Hindu scriptures. I will get to Puranas in a bit. Iskcon may follow chanting as one of their primary practice. But, this idea did not come from them. The origins of Namasmarana or chanting aslo has nothing to do with Iskcon or their Krishna mantra in particular, it was there for a very long period before Iskcon or even Sri Chaitanya. I can understand why some do not like Iskcon or it's philosophies or practices. But, none of this has any sort of relevance to the original question on this topic. Iskcon has its plus and minus like any other religious organization out there. I will leave it at that. Chanting is just one of the methods to practice Namasmarana. There are numerous other ways or methods to practice Namasmarana. The basic idea of this practice is to build single or one pointed intense devotion or love towards God (one's deity) or object or worship. Such single pointed devotion can act as a meditation in its own right and cut through all karmas or obstructions. To illustrate the effectiveness of Namasmarana as a practice, there are many examples of great sadhus and saints that attained realization through this practice. Starting with Hanuman from Ramayana who practiced the constant remembrance and chanting of his beloved deity Rama, there are several others including Radha, Sant Kabir, Tulasi Das, Andal, Nandi, Chaitanya, Arunagirinatha. The list can go on. Getting back to the origins, as stated this idea of most effective practice for Kaliyuga originated from the Puranas that are part of scriptures. The Hindu scriptures are made up of Shruti (Vedas -- that were heard or revelations), Smriti (Upavedas, Dharma Sutras, etc.), Itihasas (Historical accounts such as Ramayana and Mahabharata) and Puranas (Stories or events that happened long time back, but the morals are considered to be still relevant today). The Itihasa and Puranas decodify the other scriptures and explain with illustrations and stories -- showing how to apply the lessons from Sruti (vedas) and Smriti in the daily lives. The Puranas are comprehensive and they play a key role in illustrating and explaining the core scriptures. There are 18 major Puranas that are voluminous and over 100 smaller ones. Sri Veda Vyasa is the one who compiled the Vedas into 4, wrote commentaries such as Brahma Sutras. He is also credited as the author of the Mahabharata and the 18 major Puranas. This practice of namasmarana also is not specific (or owned by) any one tradition such as Vaishnava or Shaiva traditions. There are numerous examples to illustrate this (namasmarana is universal to all traditions) from various major puranas such as Bhagavat, Shiva Purana, Linga Purana, Devi (Shakti) Bhagavat Purana, Vishnu Purana, etc. In the southern Shaiva traditions, there are the 63 Nayanmars (63 great devotees of Shiva), many of whom followed Namasmarana and chanting as the primary method of worship. So, are the 12 Alwars (12 great devotees of Vishnu) from the southern Vaishnava traditions, all of whom practiced this. There are several Devi's (Shakti) devotees also, who practiced namasmarana. It is these Puranas that illustrate the glory of Namasmarana (or chanting) as a practice and state that it is the most effective practice for the Kali Yuga. Chanting has been there from Vedic times, but it was not the primary method of worship during the vedic times. In fact all the scriptures of sanatana dharma are chanted. Including the 4 vedas, smrithis and even Bhagavad Gita, which happens to be part of the Ithihasas. During the Vedic times, the Yagna or havan (fire rituals) was the primary method of worship. Michael has explained the yugas really well above. Starting with the Satya yuga, the most effective practice as described for the first yuga was Tapas or performing Austerities for a long period of times. Even the Asuras (demons or demi gods) were described to be performing lengthy austerietes to attain powers in this yuga. In Treta yuga,the Yagna or Havans (fire rituals) were the primary method of worship. This is described as the most effective method of worship for Treta yuga. In the Dwapara yuga that followed, Puja (Ritual worship with flowers, mantra, etc.) was described as the most effective method of worship. In the end, Kali yuga where the relative lifespan of humans is supposed to be shorter compared with other yugas for various reasons, the Namasmarana or just to be in the constant remembrance of God (or one's deity or object or worship) is said to be the most effective method of worship. The other methods are not discredited, or said not to be effective. It is stated, this is enough and this is more effective than others. If we look at this carefully, we can also see that the evolution has played a role in the way worship or spiritual practices have evolved over the millennia. Starting with tapas (or austerities) performed for years, decades or lifetimes in the first yuga, it became a little easier with Yajnas (elaborate fire ceremonies) in the second yuga. It got more easier and accommodating in the third yuga with puja (ritual worship with flowers, chanting, etc.) as the preferred method of worship. So, it is logical in a way to simplify further concluding, the constant awareness of one's deity or object of worship (God) can also be effective for our times. The evolution of Vedic community vs. the emergence of Tantra and Tantric community has also played a huge role in the changes that happened in the society, including the method of worship. There was no deity or idol worship during the Vedic times (Puja as performed these days was in essence not a Vedic ritual in many ways). The Gods were invoked and worshipped only on fire ceremonies or Yagnas before this period. With the emergence of Tantra, came the idol or deity worship and the Temples and elaborate rituals associated with them. It makes sense that one does not (necessarily) need to engage in tapas or elaborate rituals in order to invoke Gods or deities -- connect, interact or pray to them. Not that they are not effective or don't have their own place in the worship or the religion. Depending on their preference and what they see as best, there are those who still engage in tapas (or austerities) for years and decades, many of the elaborate fire rituals or yagnas are still performed, the temples and pujas still remain one of the primary method of worship these days, along with the chanting, namasmarana, etc. Anyway, to answer the question, this is how the method of worship has evolved over time in the Hindu religion. The topic asked someone to elaborate and I did, hope this helps

Trataka is an advanced and powerful practice that is part of Kundaluni Tantra and some schools of Kriya yoga. Yes, the foundation of the practice may be from Hatha yoga. This practice is normally undertaken to stimulate and open the 3rd eye or Ajna chakra. Besides aiding in the opening of 3rd eye, it is described to have various other benefits including health. Though it could work with other objects, there are reasons to do it with flame. It is best to undertake such powerful practices under the guidance of a qualified teacher. Also, to start very slow, with just 1 or 2 minutes of practice a day, and slowly increasing the time. Opening of heart chakra (4th) is very important, before proceeding to practices that target the 3rd eye. I have learned that bypassing the heart and targeting the 3rd eye directly ( some schools do this), can result in some major imbalances. For this and various other reasons, even right practices undertaken at wrong time (in our own personal evolution), can produce negative results. In my experience, there are easier and safer ways to do energy practices effectively with guidance from a teacher or being part of the right group. If you want the complete details about undertaking this practice and it's benefits (including health), the best place to look for is in the books of: 'Kundaluni Tantra' & 'A Systematic Course in the Ancient Tantric Techniques of Yoga and Kriya' by Swami Satyananda Saraswati. Swami Sivananda's books on Kundaluni and Kriya yoga also have information about this practice. (Btw: I have both of these books. If you just need some additional information on this practice, I can try to get it from the books)

Destruction is not always about good or bad. Shiva as Mahakala destroys everything in time, both good and bad. So, destruction is in a sense inevitable in this world. Supposing there was no destroyer, every plant, human and animal lived from prehistoric times (let's say starting from the time of Neanderthal) and no one ever died. What would be the population of Earth? Would there be any space left for all of us to live? So, destruction is good generally, of both bad and good.