Point made but fortunately we have texts like Gita which relieves us of the impossible task of having to know everything. Here is some more:
====================
Michael Belovedvarun ahlawat, Nothing was meant as an insult to you personally and the seemingly aggressive responses which Raj hinted at were a matter of debate or public forum. I may be accused of being too candid and in a world of diplomats, it is likely that candid people will be arrested and deported. Remember when you cited a story about Valmiki? Were you annoyed because I asked for clarification about that person, being that I never saw Valmiki being described in that way in the original Ramayana? Once years ago I was at a yagna in Guyana. It was a big event conducted by one of the main pundits in the country. He gave some story about Rama saying that it was from the Ramayana. When he was finished, for some reason or the other, he asked me to speak. I merely asked him which Ramayana he quoted from because I had never saw his information in Valmiki; and I was interested to know if it was there and I just missed it.
Michael BelovedAfter a while, he took the microphone again and explained to the attendees that he quoted from a Ramayana rendering given by a famous pundit in India and that it was not from the Valmiki Ramayana. So according to rules of etiquette what should I have done? Remained quiet about it even though it was contrary to what was in the Valmiki text which this same Pundit agreed was the final reference? When should anyone speak up? And should everyone speak up only when it is pleasing to the other person? If we stick to the texts in the sense of making every effort to understand the text within the context and to know which is which, and if we are clear about what is our personal experience and what we adopt from specific text, it will be better for everybody.
Michael BelovedPersonal experience is a big deal. Many of my books are about personal experience. If the personal experience is found to be supported by something from the text, that too is a big deal but my point is that personal experience need not be supported by the text. And when it is not, then it should stand as personal experience. Otherwise there is the tendency to move the text out of context and that is my objection. However, I offer my best wishes for your continued success in self-realization! Keep posting your information. It is great and encouraging!
Avadoot MaharajHaribol Raj, I am back after long separation to clarify in a humble way what I feel needs be said and of course, I prefer to take the opinion of the perfect ones to be free from any personal speculation of the subjects. So here is what is said by 'devadeva' in the 'gita'-sannyāsas tu mahā-bāho duḥkham āptum ayogataḥ yoga-yukto munir brahma na cireṇādhigacchati. That is to say we cannot be happy just merely renouncing life and the functions of the body. Thus, why be silent when there is so much that can be said about the supreme transcendence. Bhakti is the synthesis. 'Karam' is the thesis or structure that you regard as binding, as a solution non-karam or inactivity is suggested as also per the Buddhists and Impersonalist Mayavada section, yet the synthesis provides immediate blissful results-brahma na cirenaadhigacchati. So why be silent when the God-given tongue can rectify everything? Therefore the sages have deemed Kali-yuga beneficial for us IF we do Hari-kirtan.
For the ones who lack courage, heart or mind non-action is excellent. For the ones who connect with courage, heart and mind, for us non-action is not an option, it is suffering, it is pain, crying for the ones who suffer in this world and it is deep thought to solve problems correct and long-term.
In that way I envy the ones who are completely detached, without guilt. I seek it, I can experience it, but not for long. I come back to life. I guess I am too human to be dead inside or maybe too controlled by ego (or oneness) to be nothing, trying to affect nothing.
The good thing with everyone trying to detach is that a person without a heart, without a mind or without courage has the potential to become detached like the Buddha and thereby live forever through his wisdom without hurting anyone and instead maybe be a part of saving the world through non-action.
Michael BelovedMartin Gustavsson, There are three types of positions from which one considers non-action but above you listed two of them, which are the two which we are most familiar with. These two are: Consideration of non-action when one is attuned to the level of trauma in which a situation occurs Consideration of non-action when one is aware of but callous to the level of trauma in which the situation occurs The other type which you did not list is this: Consideration of non-action when one is not attuned to the level of trauma but is attuned to the situation from another plane of consciousness where the situation is perceived without its trauma content This last consideration is the type executed by yogis and by ascetics as for example you cited Buddha. This situation is not one of callousness because the person is not within range of the violence or displacement which produced the trauma.
Michael BelovedAn example may be given of three persons who experienced an explosion. The first person was within ten feet of the detonation. He felt the full impact or trauma. He is mortally wounded. The second person was within one hundred feet of the explosion, he felt the wave from the blast energy. He understood it directly and felt emotions for himself and for the man who was mortally wounded. The third person was a thousand feet away behind high impact glass and did not feel the blast energy. He saw everything visually but did not have any touch or hearing impact. He looked on and realized what happened but he was not in direct contact with the blast and did not feel it the way it was experienced by the other two persons.
Michael BelovedYou wrote about detachment without guilt. How is that unless there is some responsibility? Can there be guilt if there is no responsibility for a trauma. How is it that one may adopt responsibility if one was not the cause of a trauma. How would that be correct? Of course one must sometimes assume responsibility when one was not the cause, as for instance a policeman who takes control of the victims in an accident. But otherwise and in consideration of the global scale of violence in the human and other species, even on the microscopic levels, how are you to assume responsibility for that? And if you do not, how can you feel guilt for the love-deficits?
Michael BelovedYou mentioned saving the world. That I feel is dubious. Astronomers with modern technology give us an estimate of about 13-15 billion years for the duration time past of this universe. Do you think that after 13 billion years, we can save this world in any meaningful or permanent way? Or do you feel this will go on as it was before with us humans, as trivial miniscule actors? Even if we minus out our species which to us is the most dangerous, still do you feel that you can fix this. Can you rectify all the wrongs being done by say one ant colony to another or one bacteria to another? If so then that is simply amazing.
varun ahlawatMartin Gustavsson courage is to live a life naturally and one can't live life naturally if he don't have heart (love) to live it . Like rivers , like trees , like ocean . You pollute them but they will clean it by itself no matter what . They will clean it . Detachment is the nature of universe . The meaning of life is hidden in it . This is the yogic way . Detachment doesn't mean not doing anything . And it is also does not mean to go to the mountains and escape life . You can't escape life . Life is in living . Facing the reality . The reality is what human generally don't want to see . They are very busy in achievement, success . You are heartless when you live selfish life because you think it is you only . Freedom is not irresponsibility . Freedom is integrate yourself as a whole with full heart and courage . And act naturally . For that you have to cultivate patience . The problem is understanding the word detachment . It is not avoiding desire . For quiting smoking you don't need medicine but the courage and heart of detachment . Because living naturally seems so simple but in actual it is not . To loose weight ( obesity ) you don't need medicine but the courage of detachment.
Michael Beloved varun ahlawat, Nothing was meant as an insult to you personally and the seemingly aggressive responses which Raj hinted at were a matter of debate or public forum. I may be accused of being too candid and in a world of diplomats, it is likely that candid people will be arrested and deported.
Remember when you cited a story about Valmiki? Were you annoyed because I asked for clarification about that person, being that I never saw Valmiki being described in that way in the original Ramayana?
Once years ago I was at a yagna in Guyana. It was a big event conducted by one of the main pundits in the country. He gave some story about Rama saying that it was from the Ramayana. When he was finished, for some reason or the other, he asked me to speak.
I merely asked him which Ramayana he quoted from because I had never saw his information in Valmiki; and I was interested to know if it was there and I just missed it.
Michael Beloved After a while, he took the microphone again and explained to the attendees that he quoted from a Ramayana rendering given by a famous pundit in India and that it was not from the Valmiki Ramayana.
So according to rules of etiquette what should I have done? Remained quiet about it even though it was contrary to what was in the Valmiki text which this same Pundit agreed was the final reference?
When should anyone speak up? And should everyone speak up only when it is pleasing to the other person?
If we stick to the texts in the sense of making every effort to understand the text within the context and to know which is which, and if we are clear about what is our personal experience and what we adopt from specific text, it will be better for everybody.
Michael Beloved Personal experience is a big deal. Many of my books are about personal experience. If the personal experience is found to be supported by something from the text, that too is a big deal but my point is that personal experience need not be supported by the text. And when it is not, then it should stand as personal experience. Otherwise there is the tendency to move the text out of context and that is my objection.
However, I offer my best wishes for your continued success in self-realization! Keep posting your information. It is great and encouraging!
Avadoot Maharaj Haribol Raj, I am back after long separation to clarify in a humble way what I feel needs be said and of course, I prefer to take the opinion of the perfect ones to be free from any personal speculation of the subjects. So here is what is said by 'devadeva' in the 'gita'-sannyāsas tu mahā-bāho duḥkham āptum ayogataḥ yoga-yukto munir brahma na cireṇādhigacchati.
That is to say we cannot be happy just merely renouncing life and the functions of the body. Thus, why be silent when there is so much that can be said about the supreme transcendence. Bhakti is the synthesis. 'Karam' is the thesis or structure that you regard as binding, as a solution non-karam or inactivity is suggested as also per the Buddhists and Impersonalist Mayavada section, yet the synthesis provides immediate blissful results-brahma na cirenaadhigacchati. So why be silent when the God-given tongue can rectify everything? Therefore the sages have deemed Kali-yuga beneficial for us IF we do Hari-kirtan.
Martin Gustavsson @ varun ahlawat
@ Michael Beloved
For the ones who lack courage, heart or mind non-action is excellent. For the ones who connect with courage, heart and mind, for us non-action is not an option, it is suffering, it is pain, crying for the ones who suffer in this world and it is deep thought to solve problems correct and long-term.
In that way I envy the ones who are completely detached, without guilt. I seek it, I can experience it, but not for long. I come back to life. I guess I am too human to be dead inside or maybe too controlled by ego (or oneness) to be nothing, trying to affect nothing.
The good thing with everyone trying to detach is that a person without a heart, without a mind or without courage has the potential to become detached like the Buddha and thereby live forever through his wisdom without hurting anyone and instead maybe be a part of saving the world through non-action.
Michael Beloved Martin Gustavsson, There are three types of positions from which one considers non-action but above you listed two of them, which are the two which we are most familiar with. These two are:
Consideration of non-action when one is attuned to the level of trauma in which a situation occurs
Consideration of non-action when one is aware of but callous to the level of trauma in which the situation occurs
The other type which you did not list is this:
Consideration of non-action when one is not attuned to the level of trauma but is attuned to the situation from another plane of consciousness where the situation is perceived without its trauma content
This last consideration is the type executed by yogis and by ascetics as for example you cited Buddha. This situation is not one of callousness because the person is not within range of the violence or displacement which produced the trauma.
Michael Beloved An example may be given of three persons who experienced an explosion. The first person was within ten feet of the detonation. He felt the full impact or trauma. He is mortally wounded.
The second person was within one hundred feet of the explosion, he felt the wave from the blast energy. He understood it directly and felt emotions for himself and for the man who was mortally wounded.
The third person was a thousand feet away behind high impact glass and did not feel the blast energy. He saw everything visually but did not have any touch or hearing impact. He looked on and realized what happened but he was not in direct contact with the blast and did not feel it the way it was experienced by the other two persons.
Michael Beloved You wrote about detachment without guilt. How is that unless there is some responsibility? Can there be guilt if there is no responsibility for a trauma. How is it that one may adopt responsibility if one was not the cause of a trauma. How would that be correct? Of course one must sometimes assume responsibility when one was not the cause, as for instance a policeman who takes control of the victims in an accident. But otherwise and in consideration of the global scale of violence in the human and other species, even on the microscopic levels, how are you to assume responsibility for that? And if you do not, how can you feel guilt for the love-deficits?
Michael Beloved You mentioned saving the world. That I feel is dubious. Astronomers with modern technology give us an estimate of about 13-15 billion years for the duration time past of this universe. Do you think that after 13 billion years, we can save this world in any meaningful or permanent way? Or do you feel this will go on as it was before with us humans, as trivial miniscule actors?
Even if we minus out our species which to us is the most dangerous, still do you feel that you can fix this. Can you rectify all the wrongs being done by say one ant colony to another or one bacteria to another? If so then that is simply amazing.
varun ahlawat Martin Gustavsson courage is to live a life naturally and one can't live life naturally if he don't have heart (love) to live it . Like rivers , like trees , like ocean . You pollute them but they will clean it by itself no matter what . They will clean it .
Detachment is the nature of universe . The meaning of life is hidden in it . This is the yogic way .
Detachment doesn't mean not doing anything . And it is also does not mean to go to the mountains and escape life . You can't escape life . Life is in living . Facing the reality . The reality is what human generally don't want to see . They are very busy in achievement, success . You are heartless when you live selfish life because you think it is you only . Freedom is not irresponsibility . Freedom is integrate yourself as a whole with full heart and courage . And act naturally . For that you have to cultivate patience .
The problem is understanding the word detachment . It is not avoiding desire .
For quiting smoking you don't need medicine but the courage and heart of detachment . Because living naturally seems so simple but in actual it is not . To loose weight ( obesity ) you don't need medicine but the courage of detachment.