>
SRF Walrus
Mt. Washington, Ca
Open discussions about SRF
Gold Community SRF Walrus
    > Householder vs. Monastic
        > Leading a balanced life		 New Topic    Add Reply

Page 1 2
Author Comment
Rigiditananda
Unregistered User
(12/6/01 12:32 am)
Reply 		The story of Ribhu
The Story of Ribhu

This is a lovely story told by Ramana Maharshi when a visitor asked him to explain:
A Puranic story of Sage Ribhu and his disciple Nidagha, is particularly instructive. Although Ribhu taught his disciple the supreme Truth of the One Brahman without a second, Nidagha, in spite of his erudition and understanding, did not get sufficient conviction to adopt and follow the path of Jnana (Wisdom), but settled down in his native town to lead a life devoted to the observance of ceremonial religion. But the Sage loved his disciple as deeply as the latter venerated his Master. In spite of his age, Ribhu would himself go to his disciple in the town, just to see how far the latter had outgrown, his ritualism. At times the Sage went in disguise, so that he might observe how Nidagha would act when he, did not know that he was being observed by his Master.
On one such occasion Ribhu, who had put on the disguise of a village rustic, found Nidagha intently watching a royal procession. Unrecognized by the town-dweller Nidagha, the village rustic enquired what the bustle was all about, and was told that the king was going in procession.
"Oh! it is the king. He goes in procession! But where is he?" asked the rustic. "There, on the elephant," said Nidagha. "You say the king is on the elephant. Yes, I see the two," said the rustic, "but which is the king and which is the elephant?" "What!" exclaimed Nidagha. "You see the two, but do not know that the man above is the king and the animal below is the elephant? What is the use of talking to a man like you?" "Pray, be not impatient with an ignorant man like me," begged the rustic. "But 'you said 'above' and 'below' -- what do they mean?"
Nidagha could stand it no more. "You see the king and the elephant, the one above and the other below. Yet ' you want to know what is meant by 'above' and 'below''' burst out Nidagha. "If things seen and words spoken can convey so little to you, action alone can teach you. Bend forward, and ' you will know it all ' too well". The rustic did as he was told. Nidagha got on his shoulders and said: "Know it now. I am above as the king, you are below as the elephant. Is that clear enough?" "No, not yet," was the rustic's quiet reply. "You say you are above like the king, and I am below like the elephant. The 'king', the 'elephant', 'above' and 'below' -- so far it is clear. But pray, tell me what you mean by 'I' and 'you'?"
When Nidagha was thus confronted all of a sudden with. the mighty problem of defining a 'you' apart from an 'I', light dawned on his mind. At once he jumped down and fell at his Master's feet saying: "Who else but . my venerable Master, .Ribhu, could have thus drawn my mind from the superficialities of physical existence to the true Being of the Self? Oh! benign Master, I crave thy blessings".

pschuppe
Registered User
(12/6/01 1:15 pm)
Reply 		Re: Why I chose the name Rigiditananda and more
Dear R,

I wasn't aware that I had "relativistic" thinking. I must have missed something somewhere along the line.

"For one who flies, no bridge is necessary."

If you find yourself on one side of the canyon and need to get to the other, you can get there by many different means. When you're completely Self-realized, one with God, the question of which of those different means to use might not arise at all. It almost certainly wouldn't be a long, tense, rational debate ("lets see, if I walk down this way it'll take 6 hours, if I ask someone to drive me around the canyon, it'll take 4 hours, if I try the rope bridge, I may die because it isn't safe, now there is that other bridge . . . but I don't know if they've finished construction, yadda yadda). It might only be a matter of whether God wills that a particular "miracle" revealed to others at that moment or not.

But Babaji used Sri Yukteswar to deliver a message to Lahiri. Why didn't he just send the same message telepathically? Sometimes the mundane world is where the lessons are being learned by disciples.

If you're not completely self-realized in your present awareness, then flying across the canyon (or some other "miraculous" method of getting across) might not be an option. So you take your best shot and go from there. No great angst, or fear or heavy duty judgement. You can take God with you in your heart whichever way you go. How is that "relativistic"? You have to work with yourself where you are in any case. It doen't do much good to wish you were something different unless you also do something about it.

In Guru,

ps

pschuppe
Registered User
(12/6/01 1:23 pm)
Reply 		Re: The story of Ribhu
This is a beautiful story to me particularly because the interaction between the Guru and disciple rings true. We each have to get to the point of being ready to receive that unity of consciousness the Guru has to offer us, in our own way. If the disciple's relativistic thinking is what you take issue with, then all I can say is that at least his Guru enlightened him in the end. The disciple was true to his own path and arrived at the goal. Lovely.

ps

Rigiditananda
Unregistered User
(12/6/01 9:38 pm)
Reply 		Relativistic thinking vs. non-dual thinking
Dear PS chuppe

I like this interchange of ideas. Thanks for your participation. You have defend your points of view quite well, and I give credit to you. The issue between dualistic paths and non dual is as old as religion itself. We find innumerable discussions of the subject in the scriptures and the proponents of one or the other method have been arguing for centuries. I certainly love the non-dual more, but the truth is somewhat in between. A few years ago I wrote an article about this issue and I copy here a few points for you:

1) Every situation or experience in life can be observed or analyzed from at least two main perspectives or frames of reference -- a relative perspective and an absolute perspective. Due to the dualistic nature of the perceptible universe, these two perspectives are often, or always, mutually contradictory. The Paradox being that both hold true from their own frame of reference. These two perspectives we will call "relative," and "absolute."

For example: A man dying, may choose to look at the process of death from these two perspectives. The "relative" will hold that his life is very important for him, and being at the verge of losing it, is an unbearably painful catastrophe. From the "absolute" perspective -- from a universal, cosmic point of view -- his death is NOTHING, it is not important at all, the universe is absolutely not at all affected by his passing. The day after his death everything will continue the same, even on earth. Some painful tears, some minute changes, but the Universe in its vastness is not affected significantly. Both arguments -- “it is very important,” and “it is insignificant” -- are right from each perspective, yet both arguments are mutually contradictory; because here we find that something is insignificant, and very important at the same time. This paradox applies to countless situations or events we human beings experience in this dualistic universe.

2) It is the human being's challenge to discriminate the right perspective from which to contemplate and analyze each event, situation or experience. Not forgetting that both perspectives are true, each one from its own frame of reference, we are each required by the very nature of the dualistic universe, to freely choose one of them in order to deal or cope with every situation. If, consciously or unconsciously, we choose the right perspective, the result will be greater happiness or less suffering. If we choose the wrong perspective, suffering will inevitably increase. Choosing consciously and carefully the frames of reference through which we contemplate our life's experiences, increases exponentially the possibilities of savoring a joyful life. When the perspective is selected unconsciously, the "relative perspective" is usually selected by default. This perspective, although indispensable in many cases, can be extremely painful under other circumstances. Our world in this age, and at its present level of philosophical development, suffers from an almost complete ignorance of these “paradoxical issues;” the consequence being immeasurable suffering.

3) Liberation from suffering is not possible unless we learn to look at our experiences from the absolute perspective every time we need it. Although not easy, and although it requires mental discipline, it is possible -- in fact, indispensable -- to train the mind to contemplate life's experiences from the "absolute" perspective. Should we not learn this skill, our mind becomes locked into the "relative" perspective. This rigidity is a mortal trap, where sooner or later, suffering becomes the norm and joy the exception. Similarly, to be locked into the absolute perspective, which sometimes prevails with those of excessive religious zeal, can be equally painful and self-destructive; ultimately, the individual becomes oblivious of even his most basic needs as a human being. He/she has lost contact with his/her feelings. Rigidity in our thinking goes hand in hand with neurosis and mental disease. A rare exception to this is the enlightened individual. He/she can EFFORTLESSLY contemplate every life experience from the ultimate perspective alone. However, in that abscense of effort, his/her thoughts and feelings are in perfect harmony so that fragmentation or inner conflict becomes an impossible. Very few can attain such sublime state of consciousness, and even fewer can stay there for a long time. For the majority of us, flexibility in our thinking is a must if we aspire to enjoy sound mental health and a happy balanced life. Furthermore, the ability to contemplate life experiences from both perspectives -- the relative and the ultimate -- should offer the best foundation to heal and trascend the ego and eventually experience enlightenment through meditation. Attempts to DESTROY the ego through denial of our human nature and the relative perspective are foolishness, conducive only to ignorance and suffering.


Raja Begum
Unregistered User
(12/7/01 3:18 am)
Reply 		Crucified
I always liked the way Master explained the cross. The long vertical line represents the absolute uncreated infinite. The short horizontal line represents the manifested world.

It once occured to me that at the intersection of both lines is the place where man resides. Each day, each of us must endure the paradox of a dual existence: we are infinite, and we are these little clowns called humans. The mystery of our existence is tied to this paradox. To be human is to be nailed at the intersection of two worlds. And God says, "Deal with it."

pschuppe
Registered User
(12/7/01 8:54 am)
Reply 		Re: Crucified
And deal with it we must, for though the questions: "Why me?" and "Why am I HERE?!" spring up naturally under many difficult situations in life, they are, shall we say, somewhat less than relevant questions (unless they spur us on to do something about our suffering). I take great comfort in the thought (affirmation?) that God and Master are with me already, both relatively and absolutely.

I once asked Kriyananda a somewhat related question: "How many of my limitations do I have to acknowledge or accept in a given situation?" I'm paraphrasing his response: "To go three steps beyond your actual experience isn't faith, it's presumption. To try to go one or two steps beyond is an exercise of faith that stretches your awareness to embrace a broader reality." Three steps would be like saying mentally: "I and the canyon are one in infinity--therefore I can cross it in an instant by taking just one large step nowwwwwww!"

But even dealing with the relative world and its myriad cross-currents of choices, conflicting and semi-conflicting commitments, etc. God and Master are still with me right now. Maybe that's just my limited, relativistic thinking that, in fact, as Rigiditananda said, will eventually cause me great suffering. But I didn't detect any great suffering in that disciple's awareness (in the story he told above) even in his relative, limited perspective. And though his Guru eventually liberated him from that limitation, he did so in a very natural way. Devotion still works--proven technology you might say.

ps

Through a glass darkly
Unregistered User
(12/7/01 1:22 pm)
Reply 		Where does the duty paradigm come from?
Where does the concept of duty in the lessons ultimately come from? An Indian critic K. N. Rao, wrote that the philosophy of service is not a traditional Indian concept but one planted by the British. Once this philosophy took root, everyone, including aspiring young gurus, had to slowly work themselves out from under its' debris and guard themselves from press criticism while doing so. Thus, critics have noted that the writings of 19th- and early 20th century Indian gurus are "redolent with Victorian morality." Before coming to America, Yogananda, a creative type like Vivekananda, seemed to have already been chaffing under the restrictions imposed by British and Indian society combined. Add to this 1000 thousand years or so of military occupation and repression of India by Monguls and Islamics. Does anyone really believe that such institutions as the guru-disciple relationship, the swami orders, etc. didn't tend toward irrational rigidification, even Tallibanization, under this kind of pressure? So much demand for loyalty to the past. One comes out from under such a repressive background only slowly.

Returning to the specific question of duty and service, the idea that "life should be chiefly service," that we should all have the mentality of maids, butlers or houseboys. Why did the British push this idea so hard in India? As Britain's own historians acknowledge, they did so because they never wanted anything to happen again like the egalitarian American revolution, with its' unregulated technical progress that could disturb investments in fixed markets. They rigidly reinforced the Indian caste system to inhumane levels with an eye to making India into an elitist showcase for the world, a thoroughly romantic colonial alternative to the American revolution, which could dupe people everywhere into accepting minutely stratified society in which knowledge and access to power would be controlled at every level in order to slow the impact of technological progress on fixed investments and privilege. I don't think we should forget this. Is the hangover from this what makes SRF seem so un-American to so many?

With the beginnings of large-scale public education, elites began looking to "timeless India," for their philosophy, as a way of distinguishing themselves from the newly Western-educated masses and as an excuse for forming exclusive clubs, oriental lodges, for the heriditary and financially-elite few. The elaborate and flatuent spiritual hierarchies proposed by the theosophists immediately come to mind as an example. By and large people who adopted Indian philosophy and religion in the later nineteeth century the first half of the twentieth century did so for a very different mix of reasons than those who came in the 1950's and afterward. They wanted exclusive associations for elites. From what I have read, Tara Mata seems a perfect example of this mentality. Also heavily represented among Western orientalists of that time were Europeans of heriditary wealth who also took up mountaineering as another way of distinguishing themselves from the undisciplined, "lazy," newly educated middle classes, Canadian Royalists who bought the British class structure hook-line-and sinker, and feudal romantics from the American South, hold overs from the British inspired Klu-Klux clan. Seems like we have seen several of these types circulate through the ministers' podium over the years. The American main stream is less represented, and tends to leave.

Picture how this mentality must have reacted to the sixties. Continued public education, increased leisure time, and certain pharmacological advances, brought the Oriental ideas to everyone. They didn't see yoga as a duty or as a retirement package for the next world; they saw it as a delight in the here and now, much as did the Vedic seers of thousands of years ago, who prayed for more desire, more wives, more ganja, and more psychedelic mushrooms for their Soma rituals and who thought simple liberation from rebirth to be an unworthy goal for an Aryan. So much for "Sanatan Dharma (eternal dharma)," the very idea of which, as Sanskrit scholars have pointed out, was a blasphemy from the view point of the Vedic authors, whose only approved renunciation was renunciation of limited point of view.

More ironies: the 60's group were loaded with sensualism, creativity, and enthusiasm, and also, to be fair, several close-to clinically insane ideas. And there was an unwelcome stampede in the direction of such retreats as SRF... where elitists with a very different philosophy and upbringing were trying to hold up. The sudden shock of this must have reinforced every elitist prejudice the renunciants had. Theses prejudices have to be explored in detail. Though they seemed vindicated to some at the time, they were at best half-truths, as is now becoming very clear. It was one of those clashes of colliding worlds.

Through a glass darkly
Unregistered User
(12/7/01 1:46 pm)
Reply 		more on service
How is it that we became trapped? Indian historians say that part of the "maya" of eastern thought is the idea of a timeless teaching. This illusion is bought about, in part, by the focus on the Guru-disciple transmission. Picture yourself in a little raft in the middle of a wide river. If you look only at the water closest to the raft, it looks like you are not moving, that you are in a timeless world. If you look out a little, you see that you are indeed moving. You can see the changes in Kriya philosophy over the last hundred years. You can ponder the rationalist Sri Yukteswar's reported favorite saying, "beware of the person who shows to much devotion, he may be a thief!" You can ponder Lahiri's opposition to giving an organizational structure to Kriya. Further out, you can see other Kriya traditions - the Tantrics in India, Chinese kriya, even Vietnamese (Sanskrit was spoken in Vietnam prior to the time of Christ). If you look all the way to the banks of the "river," you see the great historical landmarks, the Vedas, etc. You see that you are moving at quite a clip.

It seems to me that SRF lacks this historical awareness. Consequently, they have tried to build a wall in the middle of a wide river. If you go back in time, you see that the techniques went under a lot of evolution and experimentation; they were combined with psychedelics (the Vedas, Puranas, and Ramayana are full of veiled allusions to this); they were combined with @#%$ by the Tantrics. They were the product of a lot of cognitive effort; they did not "fall out of the sky,"like some kind of financial inheritance to an elite, leaving us with some kind of anti-cognitive cargo cult supervised by elites.

All this gradually became hidden from public view, starting with the big population explosions coupled with drought from the nascent El Nino current several thousands of years ago. Military elites were forced to conquer much of the Eurasian landmass and impose slavery on 25-50% of the population. Predictably, spiritual initiation became restricted to a few. Why waste it all a slave who might even rebel if they came to know their own nature as made in the image of God? According to ancient records in Greece, the island of Crete, which held out from conquest for the longest time because of it's water isolation, was the last place to give spiritual initiations freely to all.

We are now in another overpopulation situation. Elites everywhere are scrambling to make sure the population is channeled into easily controllable "service economies," that public education gets downgraded to computer literacy, humanities are eliminated, etc. etc. so as to preserve existing power arrangements. If we get 10 billion souls in the next century, relatively uneducated, spiritually ignorant, starring into a black hole of dwindling resources and skills simultaneously, it's really going to hit the fan. Some day, we may all have to start thinking "communities."

Witness
Unregistered User
(12/7/01 3:54 pm)
Reply 		Broad Perspectives
"Through A Glass Darkly," thank you for painting with such broad strokes. So many people who have dedicated their lives to the SRF belief system have literally no idea of its historical context. Or, for that matter, that elites are continually finding new and better ways to control the masses.
As so many of the visitors to this board know, an ochre robe usually works wonders, especially when it's combined with strict prohibitions against virtually any normal human behavior.

pipsqueak
Unregistered User
(12/24/01 4:20 pm)
Reply 		The River Of Dreams
QUOTE
In the middle of the night
I go walking in my sleep
From the mountains of faith
To a river so deep
I must be looking for something
Something sacred I lost
But the river is wide
And it's too hard to cross

Baptized by the fire, I wade into the river
That runs to the promised land
In the middle of the night
I go walking in my sleep
Through the desert of truth
To the river so deep
We all end in the ocean
We all start in the streams
We're all carried along
By the river of dreams
In the middle of the night
END QUOTE
above is excerpt from “The River Of Dreams”
by Billy Joel

Page 1 2

Add Reply

Email This To a Friend Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies Click to receive email notification of replies
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies Click to stop receiving email notification of replies
jump to:

- SRF Walrus - Householder vs. Monastic -



Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.32
Copyright ©1999-2005 ezboard, Inc.