A friend read somewhere that in Hindu mythology Hanuman is among a handful of chiranjeevis (immortals) and is till amongst us whereas even Rama and Krishna had to give up their mortal forms. He found it immensely interesting and enquired who the other chiranjeevis in Hindu mythology are? Further, he wished to know how Hanuman became immortal?
The query brought forth the following from within me:
"CHIRANJEEV" means blessed with eternal life. Most people cannot think of life without form. Hence to them CHIRANJEEVI would refer to someone whao has attained eternal body, defying death and decay. If this has happened, surely it would be a very special achievement, reserved only for just a handful, Rama and Krishna excluded.
"Frankly, my knowledge in matters of mythology is very limited. I must also admit, I have no information in this particular matter concerning immortality of the physical form of Hanuman. Hence, I am afraid I have no resource to dig into and cannot provide a worthwhile answer.
“Also, I am intrigued by the fact that in India in common parlance “CHIRANJEEV” is not used exactly for what it means. Many a time we affectionately to someone's son as "Your Chiranjeev".
“But, I think I can provide a spiritual perspective on what is mortal and what is not.
"Rama and Krishna were Gods incarnate. One was Maryada Purushottam (bound by discipline) and the other Leela Purushottam (his life being no different from his leela or play). Yet, after having attained the human form, they lived like ordinary humans and followed the rules of life. In my view, it was just to set an example to the multitudes of this world.
"Being God incarnate, both were omniscient. Yet, both went to enlightened Masters (Vashishtha and Sandipani) to be initiated by them. One not only went through dispossession and banishment but had to fight Ravana to rescue his wife, ostensibly to establish dharma. Yet, he discarded the same wife due to social pressure. Krishna could have destroyed the sons of Dhritrashtra by his intention. Yet, he chose to be the charioteer for his beloved friend and disciple, Arjuna (which essentially means love). Both Rama and Krishna chose to give up their mortal bodies. This is a great example to show that the mortal is subject to the laws of nature and these shall prevail. Is it not?
"Hanuman, on the other hand, is known for extraordinary daring and unimaginable feats, from the beginning. As a child he almost gobbled up the sun. He brought an entire mountain to Rama so that the herb (Sanjeevani Booty) required to resuscitate Lakshman could be found. He had the intelligence and the strength to challenge and destroy Ravana's army in their own backyard. At the same time, he was a great Gnani (Wisdom personified). He had no attachments. He was a model of surrender and devotion to his Master Rama and his cause. These things provide great insights as to how one should negotiate through life. Let’s accept and be content with that. Perhaps, in mythology, there did not arise any occasion for him to give up the mortal body. Who knows, may be when he chose to give up the body it did not make a good story and therefore the scriptures chose to remain silent about it.
"According to me this inquiry about who gave up the mortal body and who did not is needless. Gods and Goddesses (Hanuman included) represent forces that come from the same subtle substratum of existence.
“The knowledge about the power they represent is inherent in each one’s name as derived from the Sanskrit roots. Rama is RAMATE and denotes the eternal principle that pervades everything. Krishna is KRI and represents the subtle force of action, motivating the mind, the senses and the limbs. Hanuman (derived from the root HAN) represents the power of control over the senses and the mind. If one were to take refuge in any of these qualities or powers, he will reach the goal of life. Focussing on the deity through contemplation (for the Gnani), devotion (for the Bhakta) is the key. Sometimes just repetition of the name (Japa) is enough.
"In particular, no one is superior over the others. We have to choose to believe in one, who is acceptable to our logical mind and our sensibilities. Thus, a beginning can be made.
"I also wish to make another point. Spirituality is about eternal life. Eternal life does not mean that the body will not fall when the time comes or the body will not be subject to the laws of nature. Eternal life is about the spirit. When one is established in the knowing (not knowledge) that he is spirit and not his body-mind, then there is real awareness, unfettered by mental construct dawns.
“In such a state, there is no sleep ever. Always there is full awareness, even when lies down on the bed with closed eyes and there is no thought in the mind (as in sleep). Such a person also experiences physical death, when his time comes. However, he 'dies' consciously, much in the same way as he ‘sleeps’ consciously. When physical death happens, he leaves the body consciously and is fully aware of the journey thereafter. He sees himself as a point of awareness having travelled through various life forms. There is no death for such a man. In this way, he has attained eternal life.
"Hence, in spirituality we do not bother about physical death. We investigate it thoroughly. We even prepare for it. This is because physical death may provide a doorway into the Absolute.
“Not only this, we have the concept of Jiwanmuktas. These are Siddha Masters (Perfected Beings). They have become liberated while living. Such persons are supremely free. They just retain that much of Karma as will allow the physical body to subsist. At an opportune time they burn this remainder of Karma and body falls.
"No wonder, Jesus told those around him that he had come to give them eternal life. This was suggestive of what state he was capable of bestowing upon those who would choose to be with him. But, these words, imbued with mystical intent, were perhaps not fully understood by those around him. However, even today one who worships Jesus experiences his living presence. In the same way anyone who takes refuge in Ram or Krishna or Hanuman feels their living presence.
"There is no dearth of Gurus who though they are no longer in their physical bodies are guiding people all the time. So let's stop bothering about who gave up the physical body and who did not and take refuge the self-effulgent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent Self that exists right within each of us but to which we pay little attention.”
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Hinduism - A Spiritualist's View Point - Continued ....
After going through my views in the post of Febryary 18, 2009 on "Hinduism - A Spiritualist's Viewpoint", my friend V K wrote the following piece explaining his point of view with wonderful ease.
“First of all thanks for inviting me to share your blog. On atheism and agnosticism I thought I should say something.
"The issue of Atheism raises another question - non-believer in what? God - as people normally understand and pray? If the answer is yes, then a large number of saints generally categorised as Hindus are non-believers. Buddha was a non-believer and so was Shankaracharya. When People asked Buddha what is the ultimate reality his reply was 'shunya'. When the same question was asked from Shankaracharya he said 'neti neti iti brahma'.
"The word "Upanisad" means rahasya. It perhaps means that what people believe to be real is not real and what is real cannot be known. Perhaps what they said was a form of agnosticism as they believed that one cannot know what is the reality which is known only when one is liberated and what we call real - be it God or the world or the self - are all unreal and untrue. When it comes to calling self and the world as un-real we have no difficulty. But when, following the same teachings, it comes to calling God as un-real we are scared.
"In fact a true believer is one who believes in all three - self , world and God as un-real. In my opinion a believer is one who is agnostic as he understands his limitations in knowing the truth. He is definitely spiritual as he never challenges the existence on the ultimate - unknown, un-definable.
"The moment we say anything about him we limit him as all our words have limited connotation.I do not know how far do you agree with my views. But I am yet to find any convincing answer which goes beyond this stand.”
The great contemplation behind these beautiful words evoked the following response from me:
“I am mighty impressed to read your views. These demonstrate a contemplative mind, trying to succinctly analyse whatever is put across. I have absolutely no dispute with what you say. It could be that the Super-Self (God), the small Self (the Atman) and the world (existence) all are un-real (in the sense that the common substratum, if any, cannot be realized through any deliberate exploration). Else, it could be that all are real (as Kashmir Shaivism teaches). Or, there could be various sets of belief systems propounding that one or more of these are real.
“To me it does not matter what view a person does subscribe by way of either belief or disbelief. What matters is the sincerity of the search process that has culminated into that particular view. The choices, each one of us have, are infinite. As long as one holds on to a particular choice steadfastly and tries to explore the underlying truth he is bound to learn from his experiences and go further.
“The spiritual path calls for unparalleled dynamism. "Experience" is of paramount importance. Those who finally attain the goal (enlightenment) become beacons of light for all others. The light of their enlightenment begins to shine through not just their words (teachings) but also through their movements (and even silence) and begins to remove the darkness of ignorance of those whose lives are touched by them.
“I may emphasize again that this does not happen so much by teachings (weighed in terms of intellectual input or knowledge). It happens through transmission of a grain of experience. Words are too insignificant on the path. What matters is transformation, felt by the heart.
“On the intellectual plane, Buddha's proclamation of "SHOONYA" gels very well with Shankaracharyya's shout of "Neti-Neti-Iti-Brahman". But if this kind of isolation through negation propelled separatism were accepted as the only paramount thought what will explain Buddha's call for "Compassion" and Shankara's bhakti-filled cries of "Shivo-Ham, Shivo-Ham".
“Neither are wrong in their apparently contradictory stands. As I have sometimes experienced in meditation, this creation and creator are one. When the experience occurs it could be through the process of neti-neti and also iti-iti. It could be through negation or transposition. The experience is beyond words and, as you have very rightly pointed out, cannot be circumscribed in words. When ever we try to express the reality in words, it becomes limited and hence un-real.
“Each one of us has to grow through a process, decided by God (one might call it our own "free will" through various life times). Accordingly, we inherit a particular belief system (or frame of mind). However, when we put our belief system to test, we encounter experiences that challenge that particular belief system itself. This kind of constant interaction engineers change in our thinking and we let go of one belief system to be replaced by another. This is the secret of growth. This is how people rooted in dry knowledge are gently guided towards bhakti (devotion) and those well-established in the duality generated by bhakti are induced to embrace knowledge and thereby accept non-duality.
“We have to start somewhere. So any belief system is a good starting point. But, we must decide, if we will just remain at the starting point clinging to a particular belief system that does not lead us anywhere. Or, we would act with courage and change the belief system if the situation or the experience so demands. Most religious beliefs, if not backed by open questioning, lead to communities stuck in the chains of rigid dogma. This is why the spiritualist does not embrace the religion. He embraces the prophet instead.
“Also, on the spiritual path what is required is not allegiance to a belief system but allegiance to our experience. Belief systems and intellectualism have not bestowed enlightenment up on anyone. Experience (direct perception) has. This is why in our tradition we call the study of the path as “darshan” (direct seeing) and not “philosophy” (love of knowledge).
“There is one more point that I would like to make before parting. What you say about the Upanishads is true. An Upanishad is rahasya. Rahasya effectively means mystery. However, the mystery if any is not at all deep. The word Upanishad itself reveals it. "Up" means near or close. "Shad" means sitting. Thus, Upanishad means "sitting close". This is significant.
“Upanishads always underline a very intimate dialogue between a Master and his disciple. The disciple is of pure mind, free from all intellectual chatter. So, his mind is completely open. He is ready to receive the Truth. Also, he is sitting at the feet of an enlightened Master. The Master knows that the disciple is ready.
“Now, the Master speaks. His words are not emanating from an ordinary mind, deriving its thoughts from intellectual and information based knowledge. His words are coming from deep knowing, a direct perception of the Truth. They have the power of enlightenment (of the Master) obtained through the deepest state of samadhi.
“The eager disciple receives these words, as they are, without any interpretation of his own whatsoever. The result is miraculous. The disciple instantaneously attains the same status as that of the Master. The disciple becomes one with the Master.
“This happens through preparation of emptying the mind. These days, we are full of the mind. So it is difficult to rise above the mind and perceive the Truth as it is.
“Whether a believer or non-believer, every one knows that a silent mind is an aware mind that can go behind the fluff and access the juice.
“Whatever I say is also a product of the mind. When silence is experienced the debate or even the desire to put up one's case will disappear.
“Let's strive to have a silent mind.”
“First of all thanks for inviting me to share your blog. On atheism and agnosticism I thought I should say something.
"The issue of Atheism raises another question - non-believer in what? God - as people normally understand and pray? If the answer is yes, then a large number of saints generally categorised as Hindus are non-believers. Buddha was a non-believer and so was Shankaracharya. When People asked Buddha what is the ultimate reality his reply was 'shunya'. When the same question was asked from Shankaracharya he said 'neti neti iti brahma'.
"The word "Upanisad" means rahasya. It perhaps means that what people believe to be real is not real and what is real cannot be known. Perhaps what they said was a form of agnosticism as they believed that one cannot know what is the reality which is known only when one is liberated and what we call real - be it God or the world or the self - are all unreal and untrue. When it comes to calling self and the world as un-real we have no difficulty. But when, following the same teachings, it comes to calling God as un-real we are scared.
"In fact a true believer is one who believes in all three - self , world and God as un-real. In my opinion a believer is one who is agnostic as he understands his limitations in knowing the truth. He is definitely spiritual as he never challenges the existence on the ultimate - unknown, un-definable.
"The moment we say anything about him we limit him as all our words have limited connotation.I do not know how far do you agree with my views. But I am yet to find any convincing answer which goes beyond this stand.”
The great contemplation behind these beautiful words evoked the following response from me:
“I am mighty impressed to read your views. These demonstrate a contemplative mind, trying to succinctly analyse whatever is put across. I have absolutely no dispute with what you say. It could be that the Super-Self (God), the small Self (the Atman) and the world (existence) all are un-real (in the sense that the common substratum, if any, cannot be realized through any deliberate exploration). Else, it could be that all are real (as Kashmir Shaivism teaches). Or, there could be various sets of belief systems propounding that one or more of these are real.
“To me it does not matter what view a person does subscribe by way of either belief or disbelief. What matters is the sincerity of the search process that has culminated into that particular view. The choices, each one of us have, are infinite. As long as one holds on to a particular choice steadfastly and tries to explore the underlying truth he is bound to learn from his experiences and go further.
“The spiritual path calls for unparalleled dynamism. "Experience" is of paramount importance. Those who finally attain the goal (enlightenment) become beacons of light for all others. The light of their enlightenment begins to shine through not just their words (teachings) but also through their movements (and even silence) and begins to remove the darkness of ignorance of those whose lives are touched by them.
“I may emphasize again that this does not happen so much by teachings (weighed in terms of intellectual input or knowledge). It happens through transmission of a grain of experience. Words are too insignificant on the path. What matters is transformation, felt by the heart.
“On the intellectual plane, Buddha's proclamation of "SHOONYA" gels very well with Shankaracharyya's shout of "Neti-Neti-Iti-Brahman". But if this kind of isolation through negation propelled separatism were accepted as the only paramount thought what will explain Buddha's call for "Compassion" and Shankara's bhakti-filled cries of "Shivo-Ham, Shivo-Ham".
“Neither are wrong in their apparently contradictory stands. As I have sometimes experienced in meditation, this creation and creator are one. When the experience occurs it could be through the process of neti-neti and also iti-iti. It could be through negation or transposition. The experience is beyond words and, as you have very rightly pointed out, cannot be circumscribed in words. When ever we try to express the reality in words, it becomes limited and hence un-real.
“Each one of us has to grow through a process, decided by God (one might call it our own "free will" through various life times). Accordingly, we inherit a particular belief system (or frame of mind). However, when we put our belief system to test, we encounter experiences that challenge that particular belief system itself. This kind of constant interaction engineers change in our thinking and we let go of one belief system to be replaced by another. This is the secret of growth. This is how people rooted in dry knowledge are gently guided towards bhakti (devotion) and those well-established in the duality generated by bhakti are induced to embrace knowledge and thereby accept non-duality.
“We have to start somewhere. So any belief system is a good starting point. But, we must decide, if we will just remain at the starting point clinging to a particular belief system that does not lead us anywhere. Or, we would act with courage and change the belief system if the situation or the experience so demands. Most religious beliefs, if not backed by open questioning, lead to communities stuck in the chains of rigid dogma. This is why the spiritualist does not embrace the religion. He embraces the prophet instead.
“Also, on the spiritual path what is required is not allegiance to a belief system but allegiance to our experience. Belief systems and intellectualism have not bestowed enlightenment up on anyone. Experience (direct perception) has. This is why in our tradition we call the study of the path as “darshan” (direct seeing) and not “philosophy” (love of knowledge).
“There is one more point that I would like to make before parting. What you say about the Upanishads is true. An Upanishad is rahasya. Rahasya effectively means mystery. However, the mystery if any is not at all deep. The word Upanishad itself reveals it. "Up" means near or close. "Shad" means sitting. Thus, Upanishad means "sitting close". This is significant.
“Upanishads always underline a very intimate dialogue between a Master and his disciple. The disciple is of pure mind, free from all intellectual chatter. So, his mind is completely open. He is ready to receive the Truth. Also, he is sitting at the feet of an enlightened Master. The Master knows that the disciple is ready.
“Now, the Master speaks. His words are not emanating from an ordinary mind, deriving its thoughts from intellectual and information based knowledge. His words are coming from deep knowing, a direct perception of the Truth. They have the power of enlightenment (of the Master) obtained through the deepest state of samadhi.
“The eager disciple receives these words, as they are, without any interpretation of his own whatsoever. The result is miraculous. The disciple instantaneously attains the same status as that of the Master. The disciple becomes one with the Master.
“This happens through preparation of emptying the mind. These days, we are full of the mind. So it is difficult to rise above the mind and perceive the Truth as it is.
“Whether a believer or non-believer, every one knows that a silent mind is an aware mind that can go behind the fluff and access the juice.
“Whatever I say is also a product of the mind. When silence is experienced the debate or even the desire to put up one's case will disappear.
“Let's strive to have a silent mind.”
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Spirituality & Service - A Perspective
I am a civil servant by vocation and have been meditating for several years. Over this time, I have found that contact with me has encouraged many of my colleagues to start taking interest in spirituality. All this happens silently, behind the scenes.
I have a colleague, who is also a friend of long standing. Besides being a great worker at the office, he stands for simple living, has Gandhian views and is passionate about social and personal uplift. He has great plans and shares the same freely with me. I believe he is destined to do some great work and have always been very encouraging.
Recently, my friend asked, “What has been the real and permanent effect of your spirituality in your own organisation? If yes, how? If not, why?”
A spontaneous response that arose from within me is reproduced below.
“I cannot answer your question. In my view, there is nothing real and permanent about any organization (establishment). So how can any form of spirituality make any "permanent" or "real" contribution to it? Contribution, if any, can only be towards sustaining people and encouraging that effort which will help them evolve according to their chosen path. This may not be quite visible on the outside in measurable terms. About this, you can ask yourself in the light of our own association.
“Spirituality essentially directs one towards the discovery of Self. So, it cannot be directed towards an organization. This is why all religions (organizations or establishments) have the tendency to turn decadent, when the prophet is no longer there, his teachings have been codified in books that reign supreme and are interpreted by the custodians according to their own limited understanding. Has this not happened with Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and so on.......?”
This is what my friend wrote back in his reply:
“You are correct. My field of action is somewhat different. I am working for the present and immediate. You are perhaps for a wholesome change in man. If the man changes, he changes everything. He does not need to be told everyday. We could perhaps be complementary.
“I apply myself to bring about some immediate change in my surroundings and the people around me. Meeting these demands drains my energies. Hence, I need spiritual stimulation to keep my spirits intact. But, my spiritual search stops here.
“As far as my own evolution in the spiritual realm is concerned, I find myself in no hurry. I will let such evolution come when it comes.
“Over the last 3-4 years, I have noticed my initiatives getting more and more empowered and bearing some great results. I am aware that my role in all this is that of a mere instrument. Yet, I am tempted to take credit for the results. I know that it is work of the ego, which does not go away easily. My attitude is to let ego also take its time to dissolve.
“These days, when I approach others with my plans their response is certainly more and more positive. This would not happen earlier. Your being with me makes a lot of difference.”
The above response contains a great perspective. The intention to help others, even in mundane matters, comes from an innate recognition of commonality (self-sameness) amongst all beings. This itself shows tremendous spiritual evolution as the spiritualist sees divinity not just within himself but also in all.
Also, there underlies another beautiful thought in this response. In the immediate present, the author is diligently applying himself to ensure comfort and growth of all others. He puts this action in the forfront of all his pursuits, even personal quest for spiritual evolution. This is pure compassion in action – putting service before self.
The view that ego will take its own time to dissolve also has a wonderful message. A Theosophist seeks to kill out ambition [Ref: Light on the Path]. Yet, he understands that ambition is a necessary curse. Only the ambitious has a chance to realize the futility of ambition and let go of it. This is the work of enhanced awareness.
The same process applies to ego also. Ego propels us to act. If ego were to be quelled suddenly, most people will just become inert. For the spiritualist, there is no scope for inertia. He must work for the work's sake. This happens only through a process, wherein one has to recognize the ego and its futility. For this to happen there is no need to shun either action or the attendant sense of ego. What is needed is increasing awareness.
Seva (self-less service) is a great purifier and is sure to bring great fruit. Let’s salute the man and his mission.
I have a colleague, who is also a friend of long standing. Besides being a great worker at the office, he stands for simple living, has Gandhian views and is passionate about social and personal uplift. He has great plans and shares the same freely with me. I believe he is destined to do some great work and have always been very encouraging.
Recently, my friend asked, “What has been the real and permanent effect of your spirituality in your own organisation? If yes, how? If not, why?”
A spontaneous response that arose from within me is reproduced below.
“I cannot answer your question. In my view, there is nothing real and permanent about any organization (establishment). So how can any form of spirituality make any "permanent" or "real" contribution to it? Contribution, if any, can only be towards sustaining people and encouraging that effort which will help them evolve according to their chosen path. This may not be quite visible on the outside in measurable terms. About this, you can ask yourself in the light of our own association.
“Spirituality essentially directs one towards the discovery of Self. So, it cannot be directed towards an organization. This is why all religions (organizations or establishments) have the tendency to turn decadent, when the prophet is no longer there, his teachings have been codified in books that reign supreme and are interpreted by the custodians according to their own limited understanding. Has this not happened with Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and so on.......?”
This is what my friend wrote back in his reply:
“You are correct. My field of action is somewhat different. I am working for the present and immediate. You are perhaps for a wholesome change in man. If the man changes, he changes everything. He does not need to be told everyday. We could perhaps be complementary.
“I apply myself to bring about some immediate change in my surroundings and the people around me. Meeting these demands drains my energies. Hence, I need spiritual stimulation to keep my spirits intact. But, my spiritual search stops here.
“As far as my own evolution in the spiritual realm is concerned, I find myself in no hurry. I will let such evolution come when it comes.
“Over the last 3-4 years, I have noticed my initiatives getting more and more empowered and bearing some great results. I am aware that my role in all this is that of a mere instrument. Yet, I am tempted to take credit for the results. I know that it is work of the ego, which does not go away easily. My attitude is to let ego also take its time to dissolve.
“These days, when I approach others with my plans their response is certainly more and more positive. This would not happen earlier. Your being with me makes a lot of difference.”
The above response contains a great perspective. The intention to help others, even in mundane matters, comes from an innate recognition of commonality (self-sameness) amongst all beings. This itself shows tremendous spiritual evolution as the spiritualist sees divinity not just within himself but also in all.
Also, there underlies another beautiful thought in this response. In the immediate present, the author is diligently applying himself to ensure comfort and growth of all others. He puts this action in the forfront of all his pursuits, even personal quest for spiritual evolution. This is pure compassion in action – putting service before self.
The view that ego will take its own time to dissolve also has a wonderful message. A Theosophist seeks to kill out ambition [Ref: Light on the Path]. Yet, he understands that ambition is a necessary curse. Only the ambitious has a chance to realize the futility of ambition and let go of it. This is the work of enhanced awareness.
The same process applies to ego also. Ego propels us to act. If ego were to be quelled suddenly, most people will just become inert. For the spiritualist, there is no scope for inertia. He must work for the work's sake. This happens only through a process, wherein one has to recognize the ego and its futility. For this to happen there is no need to shun either action or the attendant sense of ego. What is needed is increasing awareness.
Seva (self-less service) is a great purifier and is sure to bring great fruit. Let’s salute the man and his mission.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Hinduism - A Spiritualist's Viewpoint
Questions, Posed by a friend on February 02, 2009
One of my friends has the following questions:
(1) Does Hinduism allow somebody to be atheist or agnostic and still allow him to claim to be a Hindu?
(2) who is Hindu or what is Hindu?
(3) what does it mean to be a Hindu?
I wonder how you would answer these questions.
Thanks.
Answer given the same day:
Dear One,
A seer, who I had the great good fortune of knowing in the early nineties, told me something that was nothing short of a revelation. Alexander, when he came to India, crossed the river (Indus). The waters of the river were black and so was the colour of the skin of the people on this side. So, he cried, "Indu. Indu." Perhaps in Greek it means black. This is how the river came to be known as 'Indus' and this country as 'India'. In course of time, we came to known as Hindus.The word Hindu does not appear anywhere in the scriptures and is clearly a term that was coined simply to describe a populace. Therefore, those, who are trying to propagate the so called "Hindu-Dharma" are spreading a myth that our scriptures do not speak of and do not endorse.What our sages speak of in the scriptures is the 'Sanatan-Dharma' (by its very nature, Dharma, which upholds everything, can only be sanatan - eternal). This is an eternal principle - responsible for this creation, its maintenance and its dissolution. This principle is self-sustaining because even when this creation has been dissolved it shall still be there to give rise to further new creations. Also, because this is the whole (complete), any other principle or doctrine (any other dharma, by whatever name called) is its part. Therefore, the Sanatan Dharma does not oppose or ostracise any other Dharma. Establishment in Sanatan Dharma leads to liberation while living [Jiwan-mukti]. Liberation is the right and attainment of an individual. Hence, by its very nature, the Sanatan Dharma is purely individualistic and cannot belong to or imposed upon a society. This explains why we have never used force (power of the sword) or allurement (like in Christianity or Islam) to convert others. [If someone is established in Sanatan-Dharma, he is bound to get complete understanding of the faith, in which he was born.] Also, this explains why we have never opposed propagation of their faiths by others.Also, all other dharmas, since these are not eternal, shall have to disappear some. Only the Sanatan Dharma shall remain.Thus in my opinon each one of us has to take a conscious decision as to what his dharma is and which dhama shall he subscribe. Being a Hindu to me is nothing beyond having been born in Hindustan.These are my views (my dharma that is upholding me). There is an equal choice to every other person.I think I have answered the questions, though not in the sequence they have been asked.
Love and only Love
An Addendum to the Answers (sent separately)
Dear One,
I think I did not touch upon the question about the choice of being atheist or agnostic. Before I deal with the issue let me discuss from my understanding the kind of believers or non-believers we come across in this world.
2. Non-believers are of two types:
a. Those, who do not wish to believe and are closed. Their mind is not just irrational but also too strong. It is in denial mode. So, even if such persons are given some experience, they would still be trying their best to find out ways and means to deny the same. [For such people, initiation in to spirituality comes at a time, only when they are faced with some great un-surmountable difficulty and reach their wit’s end. Then they discover that the mind has become still. This leads to light.]
b. Those, who do not believe because they have not experienced the realm beyond the senses and the mind. These people are essentially open. They readily accept things, as and when the experience befalls them.
3. However, believers would be of three type:
a. Those, who believe, without having had any experience of the teachings. Someone was born in a family of Hindus or Muslims or Christians and starts professing that kind of faith. These people are indoctrinated ones. Their allegiance to the faith depends upon the intensity or the kind of indoctrination or exposure handed out to them. They do not live the teachings but conform to the outer forms of worship, dressing and behaviour.
b. Those, who start from step one above but also have some experience. These people begin with the observances of their faith and outer forms etc. Yet, at some point of time, they begin to have some inner experiences. Such people are those who while performing outer observances also start exploring the deeper and inner life preached by their faiths.
c. The last category is of persons who are non-believers but have turned to a belief system or faith due to some undeniable and very strong inner experience. They may or may not be observing any outer observances. But, they discover the inner significance of any practice they choose to adopt. Such people progress very fast on the spiritual path.
So, according to me, in the beginning, whether a believer or not, one needs to be strongly rooted in his system of belief. Of course, at the same time, he has to be flexible and should be ready to change. This is necessary, because a belief system or faith is still in the realm of the mind – a wave of thought caused by undulations of awareness. With time, it will change. Changelessness comes only when thoughts have ceased to exist and Buddhahood has been attained. [This is one reason why the great ones (be it Buddha or Shankara or Jesus or Muhammad or the Sufis) have always come up and preached the opposite of what was generally accepted in their times.]
4. Irrespective of whether or not one believes in God, one has to have this belief – he exists. Each one of us says, “I am.” By this statement, each one of recognizes, “I exist.” This is self-evident. To make this statement, we do need any supportive evidence. So, whether a believer or not, one should try and investigate who this “I”, the commonality amongst all beings, is. When this is investigated, the Truth will be known. All debates would cease and in the void of samadhi.
5. Debates arise from the intellectual chatter and subside in the silence of the Absolute. Samadhi means that state where all questions have just disappeared.
6. Of course, from the un-initiated, all debates and questions are welcome. The debates and questions exist in the periphery of the mind. It is only from the periphery that one can begin to look at and investigate the deeper levels. But, it must be recognized that intellectual debates can only be supportive (sahayaka) and not decisive (vidhayaka).
7. The believers would like to put the fear of God in the hearts of the non-believers. Yet, in my experience, some of the non-believers are perhaps more firmly rooted in the path of search (mumukshutva) for liberation than the so called believers, whose belief is devoid of any experience and is half baked.
8. In conclusion, each one of us has a choice right in the beginning – to believe or not to believe. There is nothing good or bad about it. We choose to seek in a particular way. It is just that. What is important is readiness to change and accept new experiences. Depending upon the choice we have thus made through various life times, we meet a Master, who eventually puts us on the path.
9. No wonder the Master has often been likened to death. He gives us the experience of death while we are living in the body. He destroys the mind - the belief systems, we have. That engineers the disappearance of the ego. Then, a sudden and great transformation comes.
10. Let’s wish and pray that each one of us has that tremendous breakthrough.
Love and only love,
Brahmaprakash
One of my friends has the following questions:
(1) Does Hinduism allow somebody to be atheist or agnostic and still allow him to claim to be a Hindu?
(2) who is Hindu or what is Hindu?
(3) what does it mean to be a Hindu?
I wonder how you would answer these questions.
Thanks.
Answer given the same day:
Dear One,
A seer, who I had the great good fortune of knowing in the early nineties, told me something that was nothing short of a revelation. Alexander, when he came to India, crossed the river (Indus). The waters of the river were black and so was the colour of the skin of the people on this side. So, he cried, "Indu. Indu." Perhaps in Greek it means black. This is how the river came to be known as 'Indus' and this country as 'India'. In course of time, we came to known as Hindus.The word Hindu does not appear anywhere in the scriptures and is clearly a term that was coined simply to describe a populace. Therefore, those, who are trying to propagate the so called "Hindu-Dharma" are spreading a myth that our scriptures do not speak of and do not endorse.What our sages speak of in the scriptures is the 'Sanatan-Dharma' (by its very nature, Dharma, which upholds everything, can only be sanatan - eternal). This is an eternal principle - responsible for this creation, its maintenance and its dissolution. This principle is self-sustaining because even when this creation has been dissolved it shall still be there to give rise to further new creations. Also, because this is the whole (complete), any other principle or doctrine (any other dharma, by whatever name called) is its part. Therefore, the Sanatan Dharma does not oppose or ostracise any other Dharma. Establishment in Sanatan Dharma leads to liberation while living [Jiwan-mukti]. Liberation is the right and attainment of an individual. Hence, by its very nature, the Sanatan Dharma is purely individualistic and cannot belong to or imposed upon a society. This explains why we have never used force (power of the sword) or allurement (like in Christianity or Islam) to convert others. [If someone is established in Sanatan-Dharma, he is bound to get complete understanding of the faith, in which he was born.] Also, this explains why we have never opposed propagation of their faiths by others.Also, all other dharmas, since these are not eternal, shall have to disappear some. Only the Sanatan Dharma shall remain.Thus in my opinon each one of us has to take a conscious decision as to what his dharma is and which dhama shall he subscribe. Being a Hindu to me is nothing beyond having been born in Hindustan.These are my views (my dharma that is upholding me). There is an equal choice to every other person.I think I have answered the questions, though not in the sequence they have been asked.
Love and only Love
An Addendum to the Answers (sent separately)
Dear One,
I think I did not touch upon the question about the choice of being atheist or agnostic. Before I deal with the issue let me discuss from my understanding the kind of believers or non-believers we come across in this world.
2. Non-believers are of two types:
a. Those, who do not wish to believe and are closed. Their mind is not just irrational but also too strong. It is in denial mode. So, even if such persons are given some experience, they would still be trying their best to find out ways and means to deny the same. [For such people, initiation in to spirituality comes at a time, only when they are faced with some great un-surmountable difficulty and reach their wit’s end. Then they discover that the mind has become still. This leads to light.]
b. Those, who do not believe because they have not experienced the realm beyond the senses and the mind. These people are essentially open. They readily accept things, as and when the experience befalls them.
3. However, believers would be of three type:
a. Those, who believe, without having had any experience of the teachings. Someone was born in a family of Hindus or Muslims or Christians and starts professing that kind of faith. These people are indoctrinated ones. Their allegiance to the faith depends upon the intensity or the kind of indoctrination or exposure handed out to them. They do not live the teachings but conform to the outer forms of worship, dressing and behaviour.
b. Those, who start from step one above but also have some experience. These people begin with the observances of their faith and outer forms etc. Yet, at some point of time, they begin to have some inner experiences. Such people are those who while performing outer observances also start exploring the deeper and inner life preached by their faiths.
c. The last category is of persons who are non-believers but have turned to a belief system or faith due to some undeniable and very strong inner experience. They may or may not be observing any outer observances. But, they discover the inner significance of any practice they choose to adopt. Such people progress very fast on the spiritual path.
So, according to me, in the beginning, whether a believer or not, one needs to be strongly rooted in his system of belief. Of course, at the same time, he has to be flexible and should be ready to change. This is necessary, because a belief system or faith is still in the realm of the mind – a wave of thought caused by undulations of awareness. With time, it will change. Changelessness comes only when thoughts have ceased to exist and Buddhahood has been attained. [This is one reason why the great ones (be it Buddha or Shankara or Jesus or Muhammad or the Sufis) have always come up and preached the opposite of what was generally accepted in their times.]
4. Irrespective of whether or not one believes in God, one has to have this belief – he exists. Each one of us says, “I am.” By this statement, each one of recognizes, “I exist.” This is self-evident. To make this statement, we do need any supportive evidence. So, whether a believer or not, one should try and investigate who this “I”, the commonality amongst all beings, is. When this is investigated, the Truth will be known. All debates would cease and in the void of samadhi.
5. Debates arise from the intellectual chatter and subside in the silence of the Absolute. Samadhi means that state where all questions have just disappeared.
6. Of course, from the un-initiated, all debates and questions are welcome. The debates and questions exist in the periphery of the mind. It is only from the periphery that one can begin to look at and investigate the deeper levels. But, it must be recognized that intellectual debates can only be supportive (sahayaka) and not decisive (vidhayaka).
7. The believers would like to put the fear of God in the hearts of the non-believers. Yet, in my experience, some of the non-believers are perhaps more firmly rooted in the path of search (mumukshutva) for liberation than the so called believers, whose belief is devoid of any experience and is half baked.
8. In conclusion, each one of us has a choice right in the beginning – to believe or not to believe. There is nothing good or bad about it. We choose to seek in a particular way. It is just that. What is important is readiness to change and accept new experiences. Depending upon the choice we have thus made through various life times, we meet a Master, who eventually puts us on the path.
9. No wonder the Master has often been likened to death. He gives us the experience of death while we are living in the body. He destroys the mind - the belief systems, we have. That engineers the disappearance of the ego. Then, a sudden and great transformation comes.
10. Let’s wish and pray that each one of us has that tremendous breakthrough.
Love and only love,
Brahmaprakash
Monday, February 16, 2009
The Intention Behind the Blog
Mumbai
16.02.2009
11.20PM
Dear Parul,
It was really nice to hear your wonderful voice on the phone, helping me create a blog of my own. True, over the last several months, I have been in email contact with a number of people, writing to them about whatever I have been reading or sometimes offering comments / answers to issues posed by them in their communications. However, if one were to ask me, it has only been by way of sharing myself with others.
2. Personally speaking, I do not attach much value to what I have to say or speak out. The idea behind my interactions is to share my ‘perspective’ with others. Perhaps it will make a difference to them and will guide them into the realm of deeper reality, as I perceive it. I understand that in the final analysis reality is gained when one is established in changelessness. Ultimate truth is a perspectiveless perspective. It just happens and cannot be gained. When it happens, the senses and the mind ‘drink’ in absolute silence. This is a unique state. The multifarious functions of senses and the mind have ceased. Pure awareness alone remains.
3. Hence, whatever I say can and may do some preparatory ground work for may readers. It is only preparatory because one day they will be required to go beyond the perspectives, I impart them. This is what happens in spirituality. It is a dynamic process. We cling to opinions and beliefs that are needed to raise our awareness. But, as the awareness gets more refined, old belief systems have to be discarded or shed off; and, new belief systems have to be embraced. It is like a medical doctor, caught up with the bio-chemical processes within the body, suddenly getting familiar with the existence of prana and its functions. His entire approach to medicines and healing will have to change at once. The process goes on until the last point is reached. There, the Truth has been attained. Becoming has found its last resort in Being. Man has become God. Belief has eventually matiarialised into Experience.
4. All of us are are on this very journey form ‘Becoming’ into ‘Being’, from ‘Belief’ to ‘Experience’, and from ‘Man’ to ‘God’. Each one stands on the ladder of existence, which is also the ladder of evolution, joining the peak to the base. Depending up on the extent of one’s evolution, each one is at a different rung of the ladder. But the journey is the same. Edge if any enjoyed by one over the others is temporary. One who finds himself in cosy confines has gone through the trials, tribulations and pitfalls, common to others. The only difference is that he has learnt his lessons well and has graduated to to a higher level on the ladder. Others will occupy that space in due time. Being companions on this path, we must have respect and love for everyone, if not for anything else then for the simple reason reason that each one has the same potential.
5. One way to express this love is to share ourselves. This is what plods me on. I am reminded of a beautiful story. The Master was sitting with his disciples. A bird began to sing. The Master asked, “Why does the bird sing?” The disciples remained silent. The Master provided the answer, “It has a song.” I feel like the bird.
6. Thanks so much for asking me to create the blog. Personally, I do not attach much value to my own words. If my readers find them nurturing, credit is due to them alone. So, my salutations to you for being the first visitor to my blog.
7. The bond we share extends beyond formal words. Still as an elder I send you my goodwishes. May God bless you.
Affectionately yours
Mausa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)