The ear of the ear, eye of the eye, mind of the mind, speech of the speech and life of the life

[dwai]

Prasanna,  Thanks for the additional examples that warn of where your dictator like ego is coming from !  Btw, to try and hide that behind Hindusim is deplorable. 

3Bob,

 

Let us not let this beautiful discussion degenerate into acrimony.  

 

Om Shanti

[3bob]

Is a fairly obvious observation being made and given equal to falsely based and biased acrimony?  Me thinks not but of course seldom do all of us see things the same way.   

 

I will leave the protagonist with his words and karma:

 

"There are fanatical Hindus who fight in the name of Gods like you two and there are spiritual Hindus who want to cross over those trivialities like fighting over name and form. You decide where you want to be."

Prasanna

 

p.s. bold and underline by me

Edited March 6, 2017 by 3bob

[thelerner]

Glad we got the above drama out of the way, because the quote in the OP is pretty deep.  

II. “It is the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, the speech of the speech, the life of the life, the eye of the eye. The wise, freed (from the senses and from mortal desires), after leaving this world, become immortal.”

An ordinary man hears, sees, thinks, but he is satisfied to know only as much as can be known through the senses; he does not analyze and try to find that which stands behind the ear or eye or mind. He is completely identified with his external nature. His conception does not go beyond the little circle of his bodily life, which concerns the outer man only. He has no consciousness of that which enables his senses and organs to perform their tasks.

There is a vast difference between the manifested form and That which is manifested through the form. When we know That, we shall not die with the body. One who clings to the senses and to things that are ephemeral, must die many deaths, but that man who knows the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear, having severed himself from his physical nature, becomes immortal. Immortality is attained when man transcends his apparent nature and finds that subtle, eternal and inexhaustible essence which is within him.

~ Kena Upanishad with commentary by Swami Paramananda

It boarders some  interesting Taoist philosophy.  In Taoism the senses are considered thieves.  In some branches the goal is to go deep, beyond them.  We have a hermit tradition of hitting the caves, staying for months, motionless, while a disciple takes care of the body.  Or less extreme, leaving society and devoting most of the day to deep meditation.. communing with, I don't know, deeper forces. 

 

Transcending nature.. finding immortality.. very Taoist.  A branch anyway. 

 

I wonder how applicable it is for the householder?  In either tradition?

[3bob]

But "we" didn't need what sounded like a smart alec comment about it did we?

Edited March 8, 2017 by 3bob

[thelerner]

"We" need to learn to let things go.  To move on.

 

3Bob, if you don't have anything to constructive to say about the OP, then stop the trolling or start a new thread- On whatever your point is.

[dwai]

Glad we got the above drama out of the way, because the quote in the OP is pretty deep.  

It boarders some  interesting Taoist philosophy.  In Taoism the senses are considered thieves.  In some branches the goal is to go deep, beyond them.  We have a hermit tradition of hitting the caves, staying for months, motionless, while a disciple takes care of the body.  Or less extreme, leaving society and devoting most of the day to deep meditation.. communing with, I don't know, deeper forces. 

 

Transcending nature.. finding immortality.. very Taoist.  A branch anyway. 

 

I wonder how applicable it is for the householder?  In either tradition?

 

 

Practical implementation very simple, yet very hard. How can we stay unaffected by the upheavals of samsara (dualistic world)? 

I find that by remaining Present, i.e., remaining a witness to all the happenings, I am free from attachments (to pain, pleasure, gain or loss). The moment I identify with any particular "thing" (say my job), the pain resumes immediately (pain as is worries, fears, etc etc). 

 

The masters say, that little by little, by staying ever vigilant and ever present, we will burn through all these "attachments", so much so, that we can be in the world but yet remain unaffected, just like a Lotus grows in the mud but is unaffected by the mud.

 

There is nothing more practical than this path, but nothing seems more impractical to the ego-self.

[Prasanna]

1) "Please drop the pretense of being a "spiritual" Hindu since one can't do so while also trashing or belittling very important and multiple aspects related to it ! )"

 

2) Prasanna,  Thanks for the additional examples that warn of where your dictator like ego is coming from !  Btw, to try and hide that behind Hindusim is deplorable.

Do the words in bold and underlined signify decency in spirituality? And Is this the humility and refinement of English speaking people who are here to learn Hindusim which the Hindus themselves are continuing to strive even now? 

Very funny to see such a sadistic hypocritical English speaking person who unnecessarily takes things personally with his biased Mind and using disgraceful language.

[Prasanna]

Dwai,

Your message to me in the past:

"Prasanna, I was not arguing with 3Bob. I was telling him that Shiva + Shakti (Purusha + Prakriti) of Samkhya not different from Brahman of Advaita Vedanta. You are falling into the same trap that you are warning against.

 

Please re-read the discussion and see if you find an element of anger, pointless argumentation here. Most of the people who post here are serious sadhakas and respectful of each other's view points. Those who are not are handled by the moderators."

 

I never said you wer arguing with 3Bob. I am only pointing out that those who are claiming that Shiva + Shakthi is alone Brahman or Vishnu alone is brahman have no clue as to what they are saying. Shiva, Shakthi, vishnu are all names and form of deities, manifestations of the Supreme God Brahman. Even your claim that Shakthi is matter will be refuted by followers of Shaktham, those who claim that Shakthi is the primordial source called Brahman or Supreme most goddess of all the Gods and Goddesses. and the worst thing is to blame me of showing anger where I did not. Do you mean to say that I am not a sincere Sadhak and what on what grounds do you say that? I don't see any difference between you an 3Bob who are only trying to dissuade me from participating in this forum. I don't know why you mistake my words for finding faults with you. 

 

William Cowper says in his poem "The Pineapple and the Bee" that: 

"Those whom the truth and wisdom lead,

Can gather honey from a weed".

I can only see you both trying to prove the opposite of this.

Edited March 9, 2017 by Prasanna

[3bob]

Prasanna,  When you imply or state that traditional forms or sects of Hinduism are "trivial" compared to what you happen to posit or see as superior then you may get feedback.  Btw#1: A common saying and teaching in Hinduism from its many Saints, Rishis, Gurus, etc. is, "many paths, one goal or God". which is what I based the pretense without recognition of that remark on.   Btw#2, it takes two to tango so it seems to me that you should have also gotten a mod notice if you haven't already? 

 

Also and surely no one is trying to dissuade you from your school...be and go in peace.  

[dwai]

Dwai,

Your message to me in the past:

"Prasanna, I was not arguing with 3Bob. I was telling him that Shiva + Shakti (Purusha + Prakriti) of Samkhya not different from Brahman of Advaita Vedanta. You are falling into the same trap that you are warning against.

Please re-read the discussion and see if you find an element of anger, pointless argumentation here. Most of the people who post here are serious sadhakas and respectful of each other's view points. Those who are not are handled by the moderators."

I never said you wer arguing with 3Bob. I am only pointing out that those who are claiming that Shiva + Shakthi is alone Brahman or Vishnu alone is brahman have no clue as to what they are saying. Shiva, Shakthi, vishnu are all names and form of deities, manifestations of the Supreme God Brahman. Even your claim that Shakthi is matter will be refuted by followers of Shaktham, those who claim that Shakthi is the primordial source called Brahman or Supreme most goddess of all the Gods and Goddesses. and the worst thing is to blame me of showing anger where I did not. Do you mean to say that I am not a sincere Sadhak and what on what grounds do you say that? I don't see any difference between you an 3Bob who are only trying to dissuade me from participating in this forum. I don't know why you mistake my words for finding faults with you.

William Cowper says in his poem "The Pineapple and the Bee" that:

"Those whom the truth and wisdom lead,

Can gather honey from a weed".

I can only see you both trying to prove the opposite of this.

Please don't misunderstand. You Have a lot to share with us and no one is trying to dissuade you from it.

 

Let me remind you to Stay in sakshi bhava

[Prasanna]

Prasanna,  When you imply or state that traditional forms or sects of Hinduism are "trivial" compared to what you happen to posit or see as superior then you may get feedback.  Btw#1: A common saying and teaching in Hinduism from its many Saints, Rishis, Gurus, etc. is, "many paths, one goal or God". which is what I based the pretense without recognition of that remark on.   Btw#2, it takes two to tango so it seems to me that you should have also gotten a mod notice if you haven't already? 

 

Also and surely no one is trying to dissuade you from your school...be and go in peace.  

3Bob, I need not explain to somebody who is arguing with me, yet to make you know that I have not presented my personal view but a well established Upanishadic view I will quote you what our great rishis (sages) have said there in it. 

 

"Ekam Sat Vipraabahudhaa Vadhanthi". If you have least of humility, google it and find out  what the meaning is. I don't need to explain to somebody who is arguing without receptivity. Hinduism is not trivial as you think it is. You have insulted me more than three times and continuing the same  thing. I don't need your permission to stay or leave. You better stay away from responding till you know decency to relate with me. 

Edited March 9, 2017 by Prasanna

[Prasanna]

Please don't misunderstand. You Have a lot to share with us and no one is trying to dissuade you from it.

 

Let me remind you to Stay in sakshi bhava

First of all, you both mind yourselves. I don't need your advice in any form. Let me remind you that you are not my Guru and you haven't behaved with the magnanimity of a Guru till now.

[3bob]

Perhaps you could re-read my posts - nowhere did I say or imply Hinduism (and its sects) as being trivial, but that is sure what it sounded like from you by your "personal" use of the word earlier... "be and go in peace" does not mean I'm telling you to go, stay or whatever, with it being meant more as a basic feeling and hopefully common ground.  If you can hear yourself speaking it sounds like you are trying threaten and or dictate to Dwai and myself in certain ways while on the other hand putting yourself above communication with us?  (since we are below you going by your judgement, - one might ask where that is coming from, then again one might just let it go)

 

 Om  (contains all Sanskrit and all beings, humble or not)

Edited March 9, 2017 by 3bob

[dwai]

First of all, you both mind yourselves. I don't need your advice in any form. Let me remind you that you are not my Guru and you haven't behaved with the magnanimity of a Guru till now.

 

Okay Prasanna. You have obviously been offended by something. If there was anything I said to inadvertently offend you, my sincere apologies.

 

Same extends to Bob as well as other participants on this thread.

[3bob]

Dwai, There were no offences ever given or mistakenly taken.  Besides and imo any person on the internet and in a public forum should have fairly thick skin with the ability to give it and take it to a certain degree -  

[Jeff]

Dwai, There were no offences ever given or mistakenly taken.  Besides and imo any person on the internet and in a public forum should have fairly thick skin with the ability to give it and take it to a certain degree -

 

And with a backhand comment (and the "like" associated with it), it all ramps up again...

[3bob]

what does that last post mean Jeff, for instance like the occasional backhand comments that the historic Buddha, Jesus and many lesser known teachers are recorded to have made about various things to their students or otherwise?  Btw, Solomon had a fairly well known saying about being able to take a reprimand but I don't remember it at the moment, and there is Chapter 13 in the TTC to consider,  among many dozens of other examples along such lines.

Edited March 9, 2017 by 3bob

[Jeff]

what does that last post mean Jeff, for instance like the occasional backhand comments that the historic Buddha, Jesus and many lesser known teachers are recorded to have made about various things to their students or otherwise? Btw, Solomon had a fairly well known saying about being able to take a reprimand but I don't remember it at the moment, and there is Chapter 13 in the TTC to consider, among many dozens of other examples along such lines.

Given how a member recently felt insulted, you don't think your implication that some people don't have "thick skin" would not interpreted as continuing to attack by the member? And who do you see as your students that you need to make such comments?

Edited March 9, 2017 by Jeff

[3bob]

oh...you mean that I wasn't insulted and neither was Dwai, at least in some way mistakenly or not?  I find such a presumption to be an insult to me, now does that mean you are going to stick up for me to? - blah, blah - (& no thanks anyway if so) 

 

 I hope we are not softies here and you can take that as an insult if it makes you feel better and wiser.

Edited March 9, 2017 by 3bob

[3bob]

but they don't go anywhere as in leaving - being that Atman contains all worlds

Edited March 9, 2017 by 3bob

[dwai]

Edited March 10, 2017 by dwai

[Prasanna]

Okay Prasanna. You have obviously been offended by something. If there was anything I said to inadvertently offend you, my sincere apologies.

 

Same extends to Bob as well as other participants on this thread.

 

 

Dwai, There were no offences ever given or mistakenly taken.  Besides and imo any person on the internet and in a public forum should have fairly thick skin with the ability to give it and take it to a certain degree -  

Dwai, If you still continue to allow 3Bob to continue his personal insults and disgraceful ways in your post, and still think that I am unnecessarily offended, you are no different from him. I see you giving your like to an extremely egoistic stance in a spiritual discussion. If that is what your level of spiritual edification is, who is bothered?

Edited March 10, 2017 by Prasanna

[3bob]

umm, I have not taken offence by anything Dwai has said in this string.  Period

(which was previously meant by me, since I can't speak for anyone else)

 

so I'm off - 

Edited March 10, 2017 by 3bob

[dwai]

Dwai, If you still continue to allow 3Bob to continue his personal insults and disgraceful ways in your post, and still think that I am unnecessarily offended, you are no different from him. I see you giving your like to an extremely egoistic stance in a spiritual discussion. If that is what your level of spiritual edification is, who is bothered?

Dear Prasanna,

 

You got your apology which was sincere. This is a public forum and anyone is free to post anything they like.

 

Life is too short to waste on this squabbling. Please accept the apology and move on.

 

While it is unclear to me what offended you, I still offered you the apology because it was not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings. But if you persist in this vein, you are merely proving 3Bob's views (who I've interacted with for many years and I do know to be a good person).

 

I will delete the off topic posts from this thread if this issue persists. So please, cease and desist from anymore conflict.

 

Hari Om Tat Sat.

[thelerner]

An ordinary man hears, sees, thinks, but he is satisfied to know only as much as can be known through the senses; he does not analyze and try to find that which stands behind the ear or eye or mind. He is completely identified with his external nature. His conception does not go beyond the little circle of his bodily life, which concerns the outer man only. He has no consciousness of that which enables his senses and organs to perform their tasks.

 

There is a vast difference between the manifested form and That which is manifested through the form. When we know That, we shall not die with the body. One who clings to the senses and to things that are ephemeral, must die many deaths, but that man who knows the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear, having severed himself from his physical nature, becomes immortal. Immortality is attained when man transcends his apparent nature and finds that subtle, eternal and inexhaustible essence which is within him.

 

~ Kena Upanishad with commentary by Swami Paramananda

What kind of immortality is Swami Paramananda talking about?  In Taoism there's are different kinds of immortality.

Also is he pointing to the world as Mara?  Or is his meaning elsewhere?