|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tonightsthenight
846 Posts |
 Posted - Jul 15 2010 : 10:49:20 PM
|
quote:
Where did I say I eat the plant itself???
eating the root is eating the plant. eating the leaves is eating the plant.
if you are a frutarian, and therefore only eat fruit/seeds, then by definition you don't kill what you eat.
of course, as you yourself said, you are still a killer, even if its only insects and such.
all of this is semantics, and in my mind its a pointless argument.
we are all involved in killing. Life on the physical plane, the unreal but actual life that takes place here, is not eternal, its full of death and killing. but does that make it any less important than life lived in the real but not actualized spiritual world?
why would it? When you can live both lives at once! |
Edited by - tonightsthenight on Jul 15 2010 11:23:37 PM |
 |
|
|
manigma
India
1065 Posts |
Posted - Jul 16 2010 : 01:02:50 AM
|
Hehe... well its not a pointless argument to me yet. I want to go to the roots.
First, killing an animal is way much different from killing a vegetable. Animals have a very developed nervous system than the vegetables.
Second, killing an animal to EAT it is way different from my killing an insect to protect myself from its bite/infection. And I kill just about 10 insects in a year voluntarily. Insects don't have much developed nervous system either like animals.
Third, you can still grow a harvest from a Carrot available in the supermarket, even though it does not produce seed. You can't do it with an animal. Otherwise all this animals getting instinct from the face of earth would have stopped.
Fourth, I guess this debate is on what is better... being a vegetarian or non-vegetarian?
And I consider being a Vegetarian is way better for a person who is on a Spiritual Path.
Because in the end its all about love.
I KNOW that:
quote:
Originally posted by tonightsthenight
we are all involved in killing. Life on the physical plane, the unreal but actual life that takes place here, is not eternal, its full of death and killing. but does that make it any less important than life lived in the real but not actualized spiritual world?
why would it? When you can live both lives at once!
But still in my heart it is impossible for me to kill an animal to eat it. I consider this as unethical for a human being.
Humans are a symbol of LOVE!
I don't know how one would feel if their children were being taken away to supermarkets for eating?
Guess I should join PETA.  |
|
|
|
tonightsthenight
846 Posts |
Posted - Jul 16 2010 : 10:01:22 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by manigma
Hehe... well its not a pointless argument to me yet. I want to go to the roots.
First, killing an animal is way much different from killing a vegetable. Animals have a very developed nervous system than the vegetables.
Second, killing an animal to EAT it is way different from my killing an insect to protect myself from its bite/infection. And I kill just about 10 insects in a year voluntarily. Insects don't have much developed nervous system either like animals.
Third, you can still grow a harvest from a Carrot available in the supermarket, even though it does not produce seed. You can't do it with an animal. Otherwise all this animals getting instinct from the face of earth would have stopped.
Fourth, I guess this debate is on what is better... being a vegetarian or non-vegetarian?
And I consider being a Vegetarian is way better for a person who is on a Spiritual Path.
Because in the end its all about love.
I KNOW that:
quote:
Originally posted by tonightsthenight
we are all involved in killing. Life on the physical plane, the unreal but actual life that takes place here, is not eternal, its full of death and killing. but does that make it any less important than life lived in the real but not actualized spiritual world?
why would it? When you can live both lives at once!
But still in my heart it is impossible for me to kill an animal to eat it. I consider this as unethical for a human being.
Humans are a symbol of LOVE!
I don't know how one would feel if their children were being taken away to supermarkets for eating?
Guess I should join PETA.
Hehehe 
Yeah choice is the ultimate good. its your choice and my choice.
You know my opinion: its all a matter of degree.
I can easily accept another's opinion, however, such as using animals in any fashion (vegan) is wrong. I just dont believe it.
I totally respect your opinion that eating animals is wrong. You have to decide what you feel in your heart  |
|
|
|
rkishan
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - Sep 18 2010 : 11:18:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
quote:
Originally posted by manigma
Eating meat appears violent to me. Its an act of unawareness.
Its unbelievable that we being a human, still kill an innocent living being just to add some strength to our bodies. By eating meat we can probably become more strong and live a few years more. But even by killing thousands of animals if we live a few years more, what do we gain by that extra life?
It does not make any sense.
I know plants also have life but we do not kill them. We just eat the fruit that the tree provides. The tree remains.
But killing a chicken, a cow or an animal just to satisfy your old animal instincts is a pure act of unawareness.
The more aware a person becomes, the more peaceful he will become. He will become vegetarian, quit drinking, smoking, unaware sexual behaviour etc automatically.
This is the price we pay to become a real human. And its worth it. 
Hi Manigma,
Here's what Nisargadatta Maharaj has to say about this general topic:
Q: My body influences me deeply. In more than one way my body is my destiny. My character, my moods, the nature of my reactions, my desires and fears -- inborn or acquired -- they are all based on the body. A little alcohol, some drug or other and all changes. Until the drug wears off I become another man.
M: All this happens because you think yourself to be the body. realise your real self and even drugs will have no power over you.
Q: You smoke?
M: My body kept a few habits which may as well continue till it dies. There is no harm in them.
Q: You eat meat?
M: I was born among meat-eating people and my children are eating meat. I eat very little -- and make no fuss.
Q: Meat-eating implies killing.
M: Obviously. I make no claims of consistency. You think absolute consistency is possible; prove it by example. Don't preach what you do not practise.
And here are a few pertinent words from Ramana Maharshi:
M.: Habit is only adjustment to the environment. It is the mind that matters. The fact is that the mind has been trained to think certain foods tasty and good. The food material is to be had both in vegetarian and non-vegetarian diet equally well. But the mind desires such food as it is accustomed to and considers tasty.
D.: Are there restrictions for the realised man in a similar manner?
M.: No. He is steady and not influenced by the food he takes.
Adyashanti actually picked a recent office location per its proximity to his favorite fast food restaurant (Happy Hound, a hot dog place in Los Gatos, CA).
Jed McKenna writes of eating meat, in his books.
I've made some jokes about my own glaringly not-sattvic diet in the past (I haven't eaten meat since ............ roughly the time I started this post).
Very Seriously: kudos to you for attempting to deepen your understanding in all areas; your sincerity will surely see you through.
However, please don't get caught in the web of conflicting ideas (vegetarian, or not; celibate or not; this philosophy, that philosophy, etc.) ... these things essentially have nothing at all to do with realization, no matter how many texts may say they do.
All that really has to do with realization is releasing the illusion of the limited self.
It dissolves automatically when we release all investment in ideas, and become truly willing to let life show us what is simply true and actual.
All wrongness is a conceptual idea, an evaluation, and therefore utterly meaningless to realizing truth.
As Abhinavagupta said:
"Neither accept nor reject; simply rest in the true nature of the Self."
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
Dear Kirtanman,
I take issue with most of what you said and quoted. Let's leave the topic of vegetarian and non-vegetarian aside for a minute. Quoting Ramana Maharishi, Nisargadatta Maharaj and Adyashanti (I do not know much about Adyashanti, so I will leave him on the rest of this post) when they speak from their highest advaitic stand point is not going to be useful to seekers who are at the various levels and the discussion involves duality (dvaita). In advaita everything is one. If I read Mandukya Upanishad, I feel that there is no world and everything is an illusion. The world does not exist at all, it only appears to exist. All these lofty notions are only at the theoretical level for me. Once I am practically at the same level as Ramana Maharishi or Nisargadatta Maharaj. I can take a similar attitude towards vegetarianism or any other aspect of life for that matter. Nothing is good or bad in that state. The GOD is immaculate says the Bible.
If I can live practically the advaitic life then, I can say, "All wrongness is a conceptual idea". Even that is absurd, since there is no wrongness or rightness once we reach that stage. Before we reach that stage there is no use in making statements like, "All wrongness is a conceptual idea". It can potentially be extremely harmful. There is no wrongness, there is no rightness. Why should I even do my sadhana twice a day. What is sadhana for that matter? Sadhana has no meaning as anything else, if we claim all is illusion.
We can not mix advanced jnana yoga and advaitic principles for every simple issues and questions that we come across in our life, based on our convenience. And these lofty advaitic notions are not useful for every one and every situation in my opinion. If we are truly at the stage of Ramana Maharishi or Nisargadatta Maharaj, then there is no need to even say anything. Anything we say even is meaningless. The world as it exists is unreal according to Mandukya. Ramana Maharishi, Nisargadatta, Adi Shankara, Buddha and all their teachings and words are also illusion. What value does it add when we engage in a discussion like that.
So, when discussing a practical aspect of life from a stand point of duality (dvaita), mixing advaita and advocating advaita may not be answer for everything. If all is illusion, this world does not exist in the real sense, then there is no need for any discussion, talk, forum, questions or answers.
Since we are in the forum, discussing questions, answers, etc., we are already in the mode of duality (dvaita). Mixing the advaita suddenly in between out of context as an answer to every issue and problem does not make much sense to me.
I used to be an avid reader of advaita, upanishads, etc. I used to quote from them and advice others based on these principles. And then, I realized later, that I do not have that practical experience of advaita. I am merely repeating what is said in scriptures and by the teachers. This is not very helpful. In fact, this can be extremely harmful for those who are unprepared. It was harmful in my own experience. I read too much advaita, vedanta, krishnamurthy and other philosophies when I was young. I thought I understood them all very well. Later, I realized that they did not help me much at all. They did more harm than good. Everything is illusion, no good, no bad, vegetarian, non-vegetarian do whatever you want. This is not the right way in my opinion. I am not advocating vegetarianism, but I am saying that discipline is needed in the initial stages. We can not talk from the highest advaitic stand point and justify anything and everything. It is very easy to do that.
The late Sankaracharya of Kanchi Sri Chandrasekerandra Saraswati said, that one who knows the truth has nothing to say to the world, because he understands every thing is the same(ONE). So, who is saying what to whom, when all is 'ONE'? He also said that one who does not know the truth has no right to advice or preach others.
I am not implying that you are advising or preaching here. But I take issue when we answer questions and talk from the highest advaitic stand point for worldly matters which are dvaitic in nature. From the advaitic stand point there is nothing good or bad. Nothing right or wrong. So, there is no need even for any discussions.
We are here to help serve each other by sharing our own personal experiences and to progress spiritually. By quoting great advaitic teacher's verbatim from some unknown context, is not going to help any one. I can readily find one thousand compelling quotes for and against vegetarianism online, and present it right here. Such great people of the world like Leonardo da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, Swami Sivananda, Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, the late Sankaracharya of Kanci Sri Chandrasekerendra Saraswati, Mahatma Gandhi and many others have made strong arguments for vegetarianism. And you have quoted some other great people who say non-vegetarian is ok, or it does not matter either way. What is the use of these quotes? I can justify murder, rape, child molestation and every other heinous crimes with the logic of advaita and claim everything is illusion, and make the same exact statement that you made, "All wrongness is a conceptual idea". The murderer, the rapist and the child molester are also that one same paramatman (the one great truth or soul) that is inside everyone. But we stay away from those paramatmans and put those paramatmans in prison. Why do we do that? There is a very interesting story that Sri Ramakrishna illustrated to one of his students which comes on his book, "The Gospel of Ramakrishna" to explain that reason. I don't want to elaborate that story here.
It is really sad to see that people take advaita and other lofty vedantic notions, and give advice freely to others based on the matters of life, that each one has to resolve according to one's own dharma and the prarabdha karmas.
Now, coming back to vegetarion or non-vegetarian, an act is considered as a merit (punya) or sin (papa) based on our own inner conscience and how we feel after commiting that action. There is no single rule for all to justify that vegetarianism is right or otherwise. Every individual is different. If I do an action and my own conscience rebels against that action, and the result is a deep remorse and regret in my own inner bosom, then that action is a sin to me. Some one else can do the same exact action and feel completely contended with themselves. It is not a sin to them.
Is consuming non-vegetarian food a punya (merit) or papa (sin), could differ from person to person depending on what stage of evolution they are on. If I kill and eat a cow, and feel completely contended and not disturbed by my conscience, then it is not a sin to me. On the other hand, after eating the cow, if I feel deep remorse, regret and sad, then it definitely is a a sin. Punya (merits) and papa (sins) are not universal and same to everyone. Yogani's talk on Bhakti and Karma yoga confirms this same concept.
Quoting advaitic or 'self-proclaimed' advaitic teachers to justify anything and every thing, one way or other, may not add value, or serve the purpose of spiritual progress.
Regards,
Ram. |
Edited by - rkishan on Sep 21 2010 2:07:25 PM |
|
|
|
krcqimpro1
India
329 Posts |
Posted - Sep 19 2010 : 11:28:52 AM
|
RAM,
WHAT YOU SAY MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
KRISH |
|
|
|
manigma
India
1065 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2010 : 06:36:57 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by rkishan
Punya (merits) and papa (sins) are not universal and same to everyone.
This is what tonightsthenight meant as well.
quote:
Originally posted by tonightsthenight
You have to decide what you feel in your heart
But I would like to share another thought that came while meditating yesterday:
When I feel hungry, its the whole universe expressing its hunger through me.
When I feel loving, its the whole universe expressing its loving through me.
Similarly, all the things that we've been doing ever since we came into existence (consciously or unconsciously)... were done as per the Universal Laws of Existence.
"OH EXPANSIVE ONE, RELIGION AND ATHEISM, HAPPINESS AND MISERY (VIRTUE & SIN)-- ALL ARE OF THE MIND, THEY ARE NOT FOR YOU. YOU ARE NOT THE DOER NOR THE ENJOYER.
YOU HAVE ALWAYS BEEN LIBERATED."
- Ashtavakra - http://www.balbro.com/maha/geeta12.htm
\o/
Be still, know!
|
|
|
|
rkishan
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - Sep 21 2010 : 1:48:29 PM
|
quote:
Similarly, all the things that we've been doing ever since we came into existence (consciously or unconsciously)... were done as per the Universal Laws of Existence.
"OH EXPANSIVE ONE, RELIGION AND ATHEISM, HAPPINESS AND MISERY (VIRTUE & SIN)-- ALL ARE OF THE MIND, THEY ARE NOT FOR YOU. YOU ARE NOT THE DOER NOR THE ENJOYER.
YOU HAVE ALWAYS BEEN LIBERATED."
- Ashtavakra - http://www.balbro.com/maha/geeta12.htm
\o/
Be still, know!
I agree with all these things. We are all liberated etc.
But most of us still do not practically experience it yet. If we did, we may not even be here on the forums.
The key point that I was trying to make was to justify (for instance the practice of non-vegetarian or vegetarian) practical matters of the life that happens in physical plane with statements like "All wrongness is a conceptual idea".
Yes all wrongness is a conceptual idea. And all goodness is also a conceptual idea. The author of that post Kirtanman was making that statement to justfity eating meat or to say it does not matter either way.
What is with the quotes from Ramana Maharishi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Abinava Gupta etc.? I see a lot of these quotes and statements from the masters to justify "this and that" according to our own convience, or to say "nothing matters". I could care very less about these quotes. Adyashanti chose a place near his favorite hot dog retaurant. Great!!! I could care less, if Adyashanti eats a real dog or snake. What does it matter what Adyashanti eats, and how is it relevant to this post? Since Adyashanti eats hot dog, so it is justified that any one can eat hot dog or meat!!!!! What is so special about Adyashanti?? This shows blind guru worship. What absurd statements and quotes. Many of the great masters have said to throw away the books and quotes. I am making strong statements here concsiously, and on purpose to make a clear statement.
Actually everything matters until we attain the state of liberation. There is a concrete right and there is a concrete wrong for each individual according to his/her own accumulated karmas. Vegetarian or eating meat is very important according to one's own dharma and his prarabdha karmas. For that matter when we are at the point in life, where we have to make an important decision about our life/progress, the right and wrong matters (very much). Following one's own right karma is called dharma. So, one needs to follow one's dharma. Instead making statements like all wrongness is a conceptual idea and quoting great masters to justify any thing and everything is misleading others in my opinion.
I take a strong opposition to that. We are in no place to say what matters or not matters to some one else unless, we know a whole lot about them including their past karmas, etc. |
Edited by - rkishan on Sep 21 2010 2:32:06 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Sep 21 2010 : 4:03:40 PM
|
Hi Ram,
Yes, you are right of course... it is not always helpful to say that there is no good or bad, no right or wrong as these are just concepts. People hearing that could end up doing things that may harm themselves or others, and so prolong their suffering and their spiritual journey. It tends to be something that people say at a certain stage on the path: "there is nothing to do, nowhere to go", "there is no right or wrong", or even: "there is nothing you can do to realize the truth". These things tend to be said by people who have recently shifted their perception from identification with form to identification with pure awareness. This stage is accompanied by experiences such as bliss and freedom.
Beyond this stage, there is a melting down into the heart. This is the rise of compassion and divine love (love which does not place any conditions on it's existence). With the rise of compassion and love, we no longer would wish to harm another living creature if we didn't have to, or ask anyone else to harm another living creature. In fact we would go out of our way to help another living creature who is suffering or in danger. So this is the transition from the stage of passive transendentalism (nothing to do, everything is perfect), to an active engagement in the world motivated by love. It is the transition to the stage where you love your neighbour as yourself, because they are yourself (unity). And your neighbour is not just the guy or girl next door, it includes all the people, animals and plants in the world.
Christi |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Sep 21 2010 : 7:47:27 PM
|
Hi Ram & All,
quote:
Originally posted by rkishan
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Hi Manigma,
Here's what Nisargadatta Maharaj has to say about this general topic:
Q: My body influences me deeply. In more than one way my body is my destiny. My character, my moods, the nature of my reactions, my desires and fears -- inborn or acquired -- they are all based on the body. A little alcohol, some drug or other and all changes. Until the drug wears off I become another man.
M: All this happens because you think yourself to be the body. realise your real self and even drugs will have no power over you.
Q: You smoke?
M: My body kept a few habits which may as well continue till it dies. There is no harm in them.
Q: You eat meat?
M: I was born among meat-eating people and my children are eating meat. I eat very little -- and make no fuss.
Q: Meat-eating implies killing.
M: Obviously. I make no claims of consistency. You think absolute consistency is possible; prove it by example. Don't preach what you do not practise.
And here are a few pertinent words from Ramana Maharshi:
M.: Habit is only adjustment to the environment. It is the mind that matters. The fact is that the mind has been trained to think certain foods tasty and good. The food material is to be had both in vegetarian and non-vegetarian diet equally well. But the mind desires such food as it is accustomed to and considers tasty.
D.: Are there restrictions for the realised man in a similar manner?
M.: No. He is steady and not influenced by the food he takes.
Adyashanti actually picked a recent office location per its proximity to his favorite fast food restaurant (Happy Hound, a hot dog place in Los Gatos, CA).
Jed McKenna writes of eating meat, in his books.
I've made some jokes about my own glaringly not-sattvic diet in the past (I haven't eaten meat since ............ roughly the time I started this post).
Very Seriously: kudos to you for attempting to deepen your understanding in all areas; your sincerity will surely see you through.
However, please don't get caught in the web of conflicting ideas (vegetarian, or not; celibate or not; this philosophy, that philosophy, etc.) ... these things essentially have nothing at all to do with realization, no matter how many texts may say they do.
All that really has to do with realization is releasing the illusion of the limited self.
It dissolves automatically when we release all investment in ideas, and become truly willing to let life show us what is simply true and actual.
All wrongness is a conceptual idea, an evaluation, and therefore utterly meaningless to realizing truth.
As Abhinavagupta said:
"Neither accept nor reject; simply rest in the true nature of the Self."
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
Dear Kirtanman,
I take issue with most of what you said and quoted.
Okay.
quote:
Let's leave the topic of vegetarian and non-vegetarian aside for a minute. Quoting Ramana Maharishi, Nisargadatta Maharaj and Adyashanti (I do not know much about Adyashanti, so I will leave him on the rest of this post) when they speak from their highest advaitic stand point is not going to be useful to seekers who are at the various levels and the discussion involves duality (dvaita). In advaita everything is one.
In reality everything is one; hence Advaitic teachings being a useful model, as long as they are not turned into a fragmented dogma-like philosophy of their own, which happens with all philosophies, as interpreted by some.
Both Ramana and Nisargadatta (as well as Adyashanti, and quite a few others) recognize that the perception of duality occurs within the wholeness (non-duality) of reality, and that students, of course, are going to be learning via conditioned, conceptual (aka dualistic) filters.
And so, Ramana, for instance, describes why and how a vegetarian diet is useful prior to realizing the Self, and why it doesn't matter one way or the other, after.
Nisargadatta points out the fallacy of focusing solely on the body's habits (imagine if someone was foolish enough to reject Nisargadatta's wisdom because he smoked! I imagine, though, that some have done so) --- which, again, is good advice for anyone, at the level they can receive it, in my view.
Basically, in my view and experience, some of these advaitic teachings which may not be easy to understand for some beginners, can still serve as useful orientation points ("Ramana says that the reason a vegetarian diet doesn't matter after realizing the Self, is because the mind is steady --- steady mine is that important ..... hm.")
quote:
If I read Mandukya Upanishad, I feel that there is no world and everything is an illusion. The world does not exist at all, it only appears to exist. All these lofty notions are only at the theoretical level for me.
Again, you might wish to let them serve as orientation points.
Saying the world is illusory is a common teaching -- but the world certainly seems tangible and non-illusory, yes? And so, wherein lies the illusion?
The illusion is in the world as it is conceived prior to realization.
As Ramana taught, reinforcing the concept that the world is illusory is the only way to get the non-realized idea-self to begin to release its deeply-embedded ideas about life and the world --- ideas it confuses as the whole of reality, and therefore, with which it blocks the whole of reality.
By relaxing these ideas, we realize the Self/Brahman -- and then we realize "the world" as an aspect of the Wholeness we each and all actually ever are now.
As Advaita Vedanta founder Adi Shankara famously said:
brahma satyam jagan mithya
jivo brahmaiva napara
Brahman is the Reality, the universe is an illusion,
The living being is Brahman alone, none else.
Understanding that, with the term "illusion", sages are referring to the attachment to limited concepts with which we create unenlightenment, is the key to realizing the power of Shankara's statement, and the power of similar teachings.
quote:
Once I am practically at the same level as Ramana Maharishi or Nisargadatta Maharaj. I can take a similar attitude towards vegetarianism or any other aspect of life for that matter. Nothing is good or bad in that state. The GOD is immaculate says the Bible.
Releasing concepts of good and bad now is useful as well; these concepts are one of the fundamental ways we create unenlightenment.
quote:
If I can live practically the advaitic life then, I can say, "All wrongness is a conceptual idea".
Well, there's a benefit to looking at that, now.
All wrongness is a conceptual idea.
Kashmir Shaivism teaches of three great illusions with which we create unenlightenment:
Anavamala - the primary illusion of being partial, separate and unwhole.
This gives rise to:
Mayiyamala - the illusion of "I, Me & Mine" with it related fallacious attachments.
This gives rise to:
Karmamala - the illusion of Good & Bad actions; if it benefits "I, Me & Mine", it's good; if it's painful to "I, Me & Mine", it's bad ... as evaluated by the ego-idea created by confusing the Anavamala illusion as being who we actually are.
Dropping belief in good and bad action (the entire Bhagavad Gita is devoted to helping us do just this) opens the door to dropping belief in I, Me & Mine, which opens the door to dropping belief in being separate, partial and unwhole.
One of the most powerful toolsets, to help us do this, by the way, in my experience, are the daily practices of AYP, including inquiry and samyama.
quote:
Even that is absurd, since there is no wrongness or rightness once we reach that stage. Before we reach that stage there is no use in making statements like, "All wrongness is a conceptual idea".
Please see above.
quote:
It can potentially be extremely harmful. There is no wrongness, there is no rightness. Why should I even do my sadhana twice a day. What is sadhana for that matter? Sadhana has no meaning as anything else, if we claim all is illusion.
Well, if you do that, you'll likely find that taking that concept to the other extreme doesn't yield a balanced experience, or take you in the direction of greater clarity and less suffering - and it will therefore be a lesson as useful as any other; possibly more so.
The key is to drop ideas - not to spin the idea around 180 degrees so as to make it seem like a new, better idea.
Belief in ideas - confusing ideas with reality - is the way we create unenlightenment.
quote:
We can not mix advanced jnana yoga and advaitic principles for every simple issues and questions that we come across in our life, based on our convenience.
I agree with this, based on the "our convenience" part of your statement.
Kashmir Shaivism starts at the highest levels, lays everything out for everyone to see, and invites people to start at the level that works for them.
So does AYP.
I have found great value in this approach. It puts more responsibility on the practitioner, sure -- but it also gives all of us the opportunity to come home to reality quite quickly in some cases.
I don't think any of us would want to hold someone back, would we?
quote:
And these lofty advaitic notions are not useful for every one and every situation in my opinion.
I understand. I respectfully disagree.
"Advaitic notions" are some of the clearest indicators, regarding the wholeness we actually are, and so, there can be a deep resonance with them; they can be a powerful aspect of the map home, even at early stages.
quote:
If we are truly at the stage of Ramana Maharishi or Nisargadatta Maharaj, then there is no need to even say anything. Anything we say even is meaningless. The world as it exists is unreal according to Mandukya. Ramana Maharishi, Nisargadatta, Adi Shankara, Buddha and all their teachings and words are also illusion. What value does it add when we engage in a discussion like that.
The opportunity to realize the value in our own experience -- i.e. the only actual value -- opens up when we realize that by illusion, they are referring to the conditioned concept-memories with which enlightenment is created, by attaching attention to them, and focusing on them.
We can realize, then, that the opposite movement - releasing attachment to conditioned concept-memories, is how the reality of our wholeness (aka enlightenment, aka non-dual reality, etc.) can be consciously enjoyed.
quote:
So, when discussing a practical aspect of life from a stand point of duality (dvaita), mixing advaita and advocating advaita may not be answer for everything. If all is illusion, this world does not exist in the real sense, then there is no need for any discussion, talk, forum, questions or answers.
I would respectfully suggest, per what I've said elsewhere in this post, that the view stated above is a misunderstanding of actual advaitic teachings.
Basically, that evaluation/conclusion, is deciding that the map we are following is the wrong color, and focusing on that non-pertinent conclusion ... rather than looking at the map (advaitic teachings) and then looking (within) to see where they are directing us to "go" (all the way within).
As the Buddhist saying goes (paraphrasing a little, here) - "When a finger points at the moon, the wise one looks at the moon, and not the finger."
quote:
I used to be an avid reader of advaita, upanishads, etc. I used to quote from them and advice others based on these principles. And then, I realized later, that I do not have that practical experience of advaita.
That may be the difference; I do.
I was fortunate - when I was learning about advaita, I wasn't active here at the forum, and wasn't inclined to discuss much, with people in general.
I've only started expressing non-dual views since non-dual reality is my experience, now.
quote:
I am merely repeating what is said in scriptures and by the teachers. This is not very helpful. In fact, this can be extremely harmful for those who are unprepared. It was harmful in my own experience. I read too much advaita, vedanta, krishnamurthy and other philosophies when I was young. I thought I understood them all very well. Later, I realized that they did not help me much at all. They did more harm than good.
I understand that this can happen, and how it can happen; easily.
Sounds like you learned from the experience; excellent.
A few advaitic teachers I like and respect (primarily Jeff Foster, in terms of the example I'm about to give) -- were hardcore advaitins; Jeff even tells a story "on himself" of talking with someone in "advaita-speak" - the other person said, "Look, what a beautiful tree!!"
Jeff responded, "What is a tree, and who sees it?"
(Or words to that effect.)
(NOTE: Do not "try this at home" - this is a good way to get strangled, which Jeff might have, had he not been conversing with his own mother, and if he could not run faster than she can!! )
I actually heard this story from Jeff on a conference call a few weeks back, and his Mom was on that same call; much fun!
I like to joke (but with an element of truth) that Jeff has "awakened out of his advaitic awakening."
We can realize our true nature, but if we double-back and attach to concepts - any concepts, even the most "advaitic" - we freeze ourselves in place, 99.999% of the way home --- "not recommended".
quote:
I am not implying that you are advising or preaching here. But I take issue when we answer questions and talk from the highest advaitic stand point for worldly matters which are dvaitic in nature.
They're not really dvaitic - they just seem that way.
All Is ONE -- confusing apparent separation with reality is the only way we can create the dream of unenlightenment within the reality of wholeness that we each and all ever actually are now.
The things discussed here, and most importantly, the AYP practices discussed here, if they are engaged in daily (with allowance for self-pacing), are one of the best ways to know the reality of wholeness in our own experience that have ever been devised.
quote:
We are here to help serve each other by sharing our own personal experiences and to progress spiritually. By quoting great advaitic teacher's verbatim from some unknown context, is not going to help any one.
Correct. However, I know the context well, in both cases, and can support them, by speaking from my own experience (I can attest that both Ramana and Nisargadatta are expressing profound truths, simply and eloquently, in their statements quoted above).
quote:
I can readily find one thousand compelling quotes for and against vegetarianism online, and present it right here.
Sure; so could I, if this was about debate, or about using quotes solely as supporting evidence.
This isn't about debate - Ramana and Nisargadatta just happen to be highly respected, and they say certain things clearly and well, and I can attest, from and in experience, that was they say is valid, valuable and accurate --- that's why I quoted them.
quote:
It is really sad to see that people take advaita and other lofty vedantic notions, and give advice freely to others based on the matters of life, that each one has to resolve according to one's own dharma and the prarabdha karmas.
Nisargadatta and Ramana speak from advaitic experience; so do I.
quote:
Quoting advaitic or 'self-proclaimed' advaitic teachers to justify anything and every thing, one way or other, may not add value, or serve the purpose of spiritual progress.
Agreed. Again, I did not quote Nisargadatta for those reasons, but because what they said is true, valid and valuable.
Vegeterianism, like anything else, is a potentially valuable support for some. It may make the road home to wholeness easier for some. However, many people have realized wholeness, who have never been vegetarian (Nisargadatta Maharaj and Adyashanti being two good examples).
I hope my response is useful.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Sep 21 2010 : 7:53:30 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by rkishan
[quote]Actually everything matters until we attain the state of liberation. There is a concrete right and there is a concrete wrong for each individual according to his/her own accumulated karmas.
Hi Ram,
Respectfully:
There is a concrete right and there is a concrete wrong for each individual according to his/her own accumulated concepts.
Belief that karma of various types is something fixed and immutable is just one more way of closing our mind.
I don't expect you to agree with me; agreement is never pertinent, really.
Only the unbound being-knowing-living which results from knowing our own wholeness is pertinent.
How do we do this?
Practices and observation.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
rkishan
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - Sep 21 2010 : 10:35:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
quote:
Originally posted by rkishan
[quote]Actually everything matters until we attain the state of liberation. There is a concrete right and there is a concrete wrong for each individual according to his/her own accumulated karmas.
Hi Ram,
Respectfully:
There is a concrete right and there is a concrete wrong for each individual according to his/her own accumulated concepts.
Belief that karma of various types is something fixed and immutable is just one more way of closing our mind.
I don't expect you to agree with me; agreement is never pertinent, really.
Only the unbound being-knowing-living which results from knowing our own wholeness is pertinent.
How do we do this?
Practices and observation.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
Dear Kirtanman,
I agree with most of what you say if not everything including the advaitic, vedantic and zen thouths. I turly believe in many of the words and quotes that you have made. But, I personally do not have the practical experience of many and do not live in the state of Satchitananda.
What I took exception from your posts is that they are not relevant to the point in question. Karma and Dharma are very important and fundamental principles for a spiritual and yogic life. I see that our views vary here. But for seekers who are not established in Satchitananda already, I think Karma and Dharma theories are very relevant. We can not generalize the answers ("All wrongness is a concept") as you did when we are dealing with one particular issue of importance.
When one has a severe heart attack and 'needs the medicine within 5 , minutes. Do we give the medicine or say, "Everything is one", Disease, death, body all are same and illusions? The person will be dead in 5 minutes. Some of the issues that we discuss, like the other topic (Addiction) are very serious in nature. I notice that you prescribe the advaita and zen philosophies as a solution to all sorts of issues. I fully agree with you that your advaitic/vedantic/zen statements are true and correct. I do not question the validity of advaita/vedanta or zen. But, at the same time, I disagree with the application of those philosophies as THE solution to different individuals and for all issues of world.
Regards,
Ram |
Edited by - rkishan on Sep 21 2010 11:04:51 PM |
|
|
|
rkishan
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - Sep 21 2010 : 10:46:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
quote:
I used to be an avid reader of advaita, upanishads, etc. I used to quote from them and advice others based on these principles. And then, I realized later, that I do not have that practical experience of advaita.
That may be the difference; I do.
I was fortunate - when I was learning about advaita, I wasn't active here at the forum, and wasn't inclined to discuss much, with people in general.
I've only started expressing non-dual views since non-dual reality is my experience, now.
Dear Kirtanman,
By claiming that you live in the practical experience of Advaita, you essentially are claiming that you are an enlightened master. One who lives in the practical experience of 'oneness' the advaita is revelling in the state of Satchitananda. There is no coming back from that stage. You are liberated. You don't even need the quotes of Adyashanti, Nisargadatta, etc. You can talk from your own experiential state of the oneness (advaita!). Why rely on the quotes of other advaitic teachers, when you have reached the summit yourself.
Kudos to you! I have not seen any one else in AYP making the claim that they are enlightened masters (established in the experential state of advaita is enlightenment) here so far including Yogani. I am glad that we have an enlightened master in the midst of us.
I would still disagree with your advocation of advaita as a solution to all. Even the great Adi Shankara the proponent of Advaita, promoted bhakti, karma and serveral other ways. He wrote several hymns which are purely related to bhakti. Though he was a strong propenent of advaita and believed that dualism is wrong, he does not preach every common man to practice advaita. Otherwise, why did he establish the Chandra Moulishvara swami in Kanchi and other lingas and worship procedures in his maths and conduct daily poojas? Pooja and worship is only in duality. Why did he sing, "Bhaja govindam"? Why did he write the Kanakadhara strotra, Soundaryalahiri, Subramanya Bhujangam, etc.? |
Edited by - rkishan on Sep 21 2010 11:02:28 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Sep 21 2010 : 11:11:15 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by rkishan
[quote]I do not question the validity of advaita/vedanta or zen. But, at the same time, I disagree with the application of those philosophies as THE solution to different individuals and different issues.
Regards,
Ram
Hi Ram,
That's fine, of course (your disagreement).
The reason for the seeming universality of my "advaitic recommendations" is my own experience.
However, I well know that this is not everyone's experience.
And so, if you notice - for instance, in the addiction thread - my recommendations to Clear White Light were to simply stop worrying so much and observe.
If I was operating in the illusions of advaitic philosophy, I might have said something like "Who is there, to be addicted?" .... which, per your heart-attack analogy --- would indeed not be useful.
From wholeness, it is easy to see that the vacillations of limited mind are very, very close to 100% of the "source code" with which unenlightenment is created.
Communicating this can actually be very helpful -- because everyone can begin to realize this, at whatever their current conceptual level may be.
The wholeness we're seeking is the wholeness we already are -- and so, pointers (such as "stop worrying so much, and simply notice") are as beneficial to early stage practitioners, or those dealing with addiction issues, as for anyone else.
Thinking, worrying, are the very attempted control that the 12 Steps walk one out of .... step by step.
You may have heard the early-recovery axiom:
"Our own best thinking got us here."
(?)
"Like that."
Ditto vegetarianism -- it may be helpful for some, but not for all.
I'm not saying "all wrong is conceptual, and therefore kill animals and eat them" or whatever; not at all.
I'm saying:
There are some clearly realized teachers who eat meat, and who ate meat during their sadhana, so vegetarianism is obviously not an absolute requirement; nothing is an absolute requirement .... how could it be?
Unenlightenment is the dream of the sole reality of the relative, which we (wholeness) create by appearing as separate beings ... by identifying with the concepts of ourselves as separate beings.
All activities in the physical realm are relative supports.
All beliefs are relative concepts.
When we release the beliefs, we can insightfully recognize the value of the relative supports for ourself, via intuitive awareness much more effective than the constricted barriers called "thinking".
It's all so much easier than thinking mind makes it.
Regardless of the issue at hand.
Or heart.
I'm not recommending against pragmatic solutions; if someone is dealing with addiction, and feels that 12 Step might be helpful -- by all means, go ... but don't fall into the trap that it's the only way; that's just another idea-set that can only be limiting (one that's infinitely superior, though, of course to the addict's typical control-refrain "I can handle this!").
I'm not saying "don't take clearly-indicated, practical action" - I'm saying "remain open and aware, and you'll know what to do."
In this thread, I wasn't saying "don't be vegetarian" - I was respectfully disagreeing with Manigma's assertion that vegetarianism is the only way.
Basically, keeping ego as "out of the way" as possible, in any moment, is always best ... because ego is the idea-set with which we block reality.
By locking our mind down around belief --- any belief --- we block reality in our experience.
In both these threads, where you've taken exception to what I've written -- this has been the essence of my recommendations.
And, I can assure you - they are 100% based in reality.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Sep 21 2010 11:12:46 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Sep 21 2010 : 11:29:35 PM
|
Hi Ram,
quote:
Originally posted by rkishan
Originally posted by Kirtanman
quote:
I used to be an avid reader of advaita, upanishads, etc. I used to quote from them and advice others based on these principles. And then, I realized later, that I do not have that practical experience of advaita.
That may be the difference; I do.
I was fortunate - when I was learning about advaita, I wasn't active here at the forum, and wasn't inclined to discuss much, with people in general.
I've only started expressing non-dual views since non-dual reality is my experience, now.
quote:
Why rely on the quotes of other advaitic teachers, when you have reached the summit yourself.
Certain teachers express certain things well, and certain teachers also have high name-recognition and respect - and so, quotes can be useful in that regard, I find.
If you read through my post exchange with you tonight, you'll see that most statements are statements directly from me.
quote:
I would still disagree with your advocation of advaita as a solution to all. Even the great Adi Shankara the proponent of Advaita, promoted bhakti, karma and serveral other ways.
Per comments in other posts, I don't promote anything - including advaitic views - exclusively.
Whatever I write is just what happens; everything's like that.
The wholeness writing and reading these words is the same.
Really.
Bhakti, Karma, Tantra - numerous means, supports, methods, can all be useful at times, and for certain people.
That's an essential key: nothing is fixed; the ego sees ice where reality is flowing, living water.
quote:
Why did he sing, "Bhaja govindam"?
Dude ...... I sing Bhaja Govindam ......... did you notice my username, by chance??
I'm not exclusively advaitic (heck, I'm not even exclusively "I" ).
Maybe try, if you like, reading what I say with a bit more open mind ... and see if it doesn't seem a little different (than the "advaita only" approach you've been sure I was taking.)
And, just FYI, if you read through some fairly recent posts of mine, you'll see that there have been ..... some "rather extensive" discussions regarding "my" enlightenment, including quite a few opinions of "likely not so much."
Sitting here smiling as I write this ---- it *so* doesn't matter.
There's only wholeness.
How could I care at all what we call it?
Only wholeness.
It's just beautiful.
Unspeakably so.
And it's really, really, really what we all truly are.
If you only take one thing away from everything I've written tonight - I recommend the last four sentences above this sentence ....
Wholeheartedly.
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
manigma
India
1065 Posts |
Posted - Sep 22 2010 : 01:40:23 AM
|
All of you know that nothing exists and this argument is entirely useless.
Let the dreamers decide what is good and what is bad.
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Sep 22 2010 : 09:22:17 AM
|
Hi all,
Here is what Yogani says about a vegetarian diet in the main lessons for those who are interested in the subject:
quote:
Is it necessary to become a strict vegetarian to achieve good health, and be suitably prepared for yoga practices such as deep meditation?
No, it isn’t. All of the suggestions given above can be acted upon within a diet regimen that includes meat and dairy products. It is only a matter of eating in moderation, and favoring the basic guidelines as best we can without throwing our personal preferences out the window. There is no black or white in this. While it seems to be human nature to believe it is so, few things in life are all or nothing. So, good health can certainly be maintained by eating a wide range of foods in moderation. For those who have an aversion to fresh fruits and vegetables, try compromising and eating some of these – only a little bit on a regular basis. It won’t kill you. If you are a heavy meat eater, favor eating less meat, and see how much better you feel. It can be as simple as favoring lighter meats (like fish or fowl) over heavier meats. These tendencies will come up by themselves if you are practicing deep meditation. It happens like that. Nothing is all or nothing. We just favor what we know will be good for our health and well being. It is logical, yes?
On the spiritual side it is just the same. We eat according to our preferences, favoring what we know will improve our health and well being. A vegetarian diet may gradually emerge in our life as we move ahead, but only if we are naturally inclined that way.
from:
http://www.aypsite.org/305.html
Christi |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Sep 22 2010 : 8:29:48 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by manigma
All of you know that nothing exists and this argument is entirely useless.
Let the dreamers decide what is good and what is bad.
LOL!
Indeed!
"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I will meet you there."
~Rumi
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Sep 23 2010 : 03:56:50 AM
|
Hi Kirtanman,
What about love? How does that fit into the picture? How does it affect the way we treat animals?
Christi |
|
|
|
manigma
India
1065 Posts |
Posted - Sep 23 2010 : 06:20:17 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I will meet you there."
~Rumi
Narrow is the lane of love, two will never fit
When I was, the Lord was not
Now He is, I am not
- Kabir
The basic fact - that you are not the body - must be clear to you by now. You are working in the world and you think that you are doing that work, but what is really happening is this: the life force, when it comes out in thoughts and words, is the mind, so it is this pram mind, life force mind, which is the acting principle. The beingness, the consciousness, is the God which witnesses the life force and mind working. It does not interfere; it merely witnesses. The reason for your unhappiness is that you think it is you are working.
- Nisargadatta
(Neo straightens as the dojo dissolves away like a curtain lifting, leaving the two men now standing on a building rooftop in a city skyline.
Morpheus turns to Neo, his long coat flapping in the wind.)
Morpheus : You have to let it all go, Neo. Fear...doubt...and disbelief.
Free your mind...
(Morpheus spins, running hard at the edge of the rooftop. And jumps. He sails through the air, his coat billowing out behind him like a cape -
He somersaults once and lands on the rooftop across the street.)
Neo : Woah.
http://dc-mrg.english.ucsb.edu/Warn....script.html
Welcome to reality!
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Sep 23 2010 : 7:29:30 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Kirtanman,
What about love? How does that fit into the picture? How does it affect the way we treat animals?
Christi
Hi Christi,
You described it well in a recent post in this thread:
"there is a melting down into the heart. This is the rise of compassion and divine love (love which does not place any conditions on it's existence)."
The movement of wholeness is love, which manifests as a harmony with, and a loving of, what is - all of what is - not as a separate being evaluating the loving - but simply being the loving, the natural harmonious flowing.
Some people eat meat (animals), others do not. Some feel drawn to eliminate meat (animals) from their diet, others do not. Some feel drawn to engage in activism to reduce the suffering of animals, or to help raise awareness regarding the suffering of animals produced for food, and others do not.
Some waves in the ocean wave north, some wave south - and neither set is going the wrong direction, because there isn't one.
I would say that love is the willingness to let life flow unimpeded.
I hope that clarifies my perspective; please let me know if not.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
rkishan
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - Sep 23 2010 : 10:26:03 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Hi Ram,
quote:
Originally posted by rkishan
Originally posted by Kirtanman
quote:
I used to be an avid reader of advaita, upanishads, etc. I used to quote from them and advice others based on these principles. And then, I realized later, that I do not have that practical experience of advaita.
That may be the difference; I do.
I was fortunate - when I was learning about advaita, I wasn't active here at the forum, and wasn't inclined to discuss much, with people in general.
I've only started expressing non-dual views since non-dual reality is my experience, now.
quote:
Why rely on the quotes of other advaitic teachers, when you have reached the summit yourself.
Certain teachers express certain things well, and certain teachers also have high name-recognition and respect - and so, quotes can be useful in that regard, I find.
If you read through my post exchange with you tonight, you'll see that most statements are statements directly from me.
quote:
I would still disagree with your advocation of advaita as a solution to all. Even the great Adi Shankara the proponent of Advaita, promoted bhakti, karma and serveral other ways.
Per comments in other posts, I don't promote anything - including advaitic views - exclusively.
Whatever I write is just what happens; everything's like that.
The wholeness writing and reading these words is the same.
Really.
Bhakti, Karma, Tantra - numerous means, supports, methods, can all be useful at times, and for certain people.
That's an essential key: nothing is fixed; the ego sees ice where reality is flowing, living water.
quote:
Why did he sing, "Bhaja govindam"?
Dude ...... I sing Bhaja Govindam ......... did you notice my username, by chance??
I'm not exclusively advaitic (heck, I'm not even exclusively "I" ).
Maybe try, if you like, reading what I say with a bit more open mind ... and see if it doesn't seem a little different (than the "advaita only" approach you've been sure I was taking.)
And, just FYI, if you read through some fairly recent posts of mine, you'll see that there have been ..... some "rather extensive" discussions regarding "my" enlightenment, including quite a few opinions of "likely not so much."
Sitting here smiling as I write this ---- it *so* doesn't matter.
There's only wholeness.
How could I care at all what we call it?
Only wholeness.
It's just beautiful.
Unspeakably so.
And it's really, really, really what we all truly are.
If you only take one thing away from everything I've written tonight - I recommend the last four sentences above this sentence ....
Wholeheartedly.
Kirtanman
Dear Kirtanman,
You sound more and more like Nisargadatta, Krishnamurti, Adyashanti, etc. Like an echo from them. May be you are enlightened and live in the state of advaita, the oneness, the state of satchitananda. But I contradict people like Krishnamurti for various reasons including the ones that I stated on this thread. Every one in this world is not ready for the messages from these great masters. It can harm many who are not ready to receive such knowledge.
And I still strongly believe that making statements like "All wrongness is illusion", in an open forum could be extremely harmful to many, especially when one is confused and trying to make a critical decision in life.
Spiritual seekers are at different levels. Vedanta is called vedanta for a reason. 'Anta', it is the end of the Veda. The karmas are the first portion of the vedas. The high philosophies of vedanta were later taught later to students, who are ready to receive such messages. If you want to do a masters degree in an university, you must have certain prior qualifications to enroll. The qualifications that are needed for vedantic study are clearly stated in vedantas itself. It might only cause harm to read vedantas when some one lacks those qualifications. Every one is not ready to receive vedantic thoughts like, 'all world is just illusion' and there is no right and wrong. So, even if I believe in advaita, zen, upanishads, I would not suggest mere philosophy and quotes from others as solutions to a very specific question, or to all other questions/issues for that matter. Everything you say may be right. I even agree with all or most of the things that you say. But the contradiction comes, when we discuss about presenting these thoughts as solutions to problems occurring in some other individual's life. We do not know anything about the karmas of the individual in question. So, to say that Ramana Maharishi, Adyashanti, and Nisargadatta said it is okay to eat meat, or it does not matter either way. Therefore it is okay for any one to eat meat is not acceptable to me.
The sanatana dharma provides various paths for various students. The path of jnana yoga (knowledge) that makes statements like, "All wrongness is illusion", "Just observe", "Just be" etc., are not for all. The advanced calculus is not taught in the math class for a third grader.
Here is a statement from Gita 3-6, where Krishna is talking about the importance of karmas, before we get into the lofty notions of vedanta etc.
Gita 3-6
karmendriyani samyamya ya aste manasa smaran
indriyarthan vimudhatma mithyacarah sa ucyate
(A deluded person who forcibly controls his working senses while internally meditating on sense objects is a person whose actions belie his stated beliefs.)
Many people in this world including me are still under the spell of sense objects and the sense organs. So, we are not ready yet for high vedanta and advaitic philosophies in my opinion.
We can keep arguing about this topic. But, I think I have made my stand very clear. I have nothing more to say to you on this topic.
Regards,
Ram.
|
Edited by - rkishan on Sep 23 2010 11:37:09 PM |
|
|
|
rkishan
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - Sep 23 2010 : 10:37:22 PM
|
I got side tracked discussing the merits of advocating advaitic or vedantic thoughts on each and every issue.
I wanted to share my opinion on the topic of Vegetarian and Non-Vegetarian. I see this or any other issue from the point of dharma or adharma. The right or wrong action (karma). Doing one's own right action is his/her dharma. This differs from person to person and from time to time.
For those who do not know, Vyasa was the sage who compiled the four vedas and wrote the 18 maha (great) puranas. Puranas are stories that illustrate the dharmic way of life. They talk about karmas and what is merit, what is sin, in a given situation for a given person, etc. The various stories are given to show examples of what is dharma in varying situations. What is dharma in one situation could be adharma in another. The doctor cutting the patient with the knife to serve him is doing his dharma. Where as if some one cuts another person with a knife with an intent to harm. it is adharma. If one were to sincerely study one of these puranas, it would take years. So, voluminous are the 18 great puranas. Each one of them have thousands of verses.
If some one were to ask sage Vyasa to summarize this whole library of 18 great puranas in just two sentences, what would he say???
Here is what he said:
quote:
By Sage Vyasa:
aShTAdasha purANeShu vyAsasya vachanadvayam |
paropakAraH puNyAya pApAya parapIDanam ||
Sage Vyasa has only two things to say in summary of all his eighteen puranas:
Serving others has good merits ('puNyam')
Hurting, harming or giving pain to others is sin ('pApam').
Serving others is dharma. Harming others is adharma. Now each one of us have to decide whether eating meat is dharma or adharma.
Consuming meat not only causes harm to the animal, but we all are now learning about the impact of eating meat to the earth and our ecological system. I am sure some of you have watched the slaughter houses and how the animals are treated there in Television. We can also argue that eating plants is also causing harm. In my mind it is to a much lesser degree. We do penances (tapas) for doing unavoidable harms.
In my language Tamil, we say "Anbe Sivam". The love/compassion is the lord Shiva. If we have compassion and love, we can not slaughter and eat an animal in my opinion. As I stated earlier on this same thread, some others might feel completely okay with the slaughter houses, the impact to the ecological system, the harm to the animal, etc. If their conscience has no issues with all those things, let them go ahead and eat meat. As they grow spiritually, they might become aware in a latter stage, and see the need to change. I used to be able to do certain actions 5 or 10 years before, without my conscience raising any kind of issues. But, I can not do the same actions any more because my conscience repels against those actions. If I still do them against my own instincts, I end up with great remorse committing a sin. So, people change and their dharmas change.
From where I am right now, I perceive eating meat as causing harm not only to the animals, but to our earth, its ecological system and much more. My conscience repels when I see the slaughter houses on the Television. The poor animals given powerful antibiotic and other shots every day. The slaughter houses are cruel places. One who has seen them even in television can understand.
As we saw earlier, Vyasa's summary of the 18 puranas state that doing harm to others is a sin. To me, eating meat is causing harm to others in various ways. Therefore, I can not consume meat.
Regards,
Ram. |
Edited by - rkishan on Sep 25 2010 12:54:43 PM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Sep 23 2010 : 10:48:26 PM
|
| In the wild part of the state I live in, wolves were killing the elk, and they were afraid the elk would be extinct. So they sent in hunters to kill the wolves. Now there are way too many elk. So they made it legal to hunt the elk again, and it is illegal to kill the wolves. |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Sep 23 2010 : 11:32:10 PM
|
I was a vegetarian for 11 years. I was very physically sick because of this. After starting AYP I decided I wanted to "be well", so I started eating meat again. I have never been healthier.
Love!
|
|
|
|
rkishan
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - Sep 23 2010 : 11:43:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Ram,
Yes, you are right of course... it is not always helpful to say that there is no good or bad, no right or wrong as these are just concepts. People hearing that could end up doing things that may harm themselves or others, and so prolong their suffering and their spiritual journey. It tends to be something that people say at a certain stage on the path: "there is nothing to do, nowhere to go", "there is no right or wrong", or even: "there is nothing you can do to realize the truth". These things tend to be said by people who have recently shifted their perception from identification with form to identification with pure awareness. This stage is accompanied by experiences such as bliss and freedom.
Beyond this stage, there is a melting down into the heart. This is the rise of compassion and divine love (love which does not place any conditions on it's existence). With the rise of compassion and love, we no longer would wish to harm another living creature if we didn't have to, or ask anyone else to harm another living creature. In fact we would go out of our way to help another living creature who is suffering or in danger. So this is the transition from the stage of passive transendentalism (nothing to do, everything is perfect), to an active engagement in the world motivated by love. It is the transition to the stage where you love your neighbour as yourself, because they are yourself (unity). And your neighbour is not just the guy or girl next door, it includes all the people, animals and plants in the world.
Christi
Christi,
Thanks for that great insight. I agree 100% with you. There was a time, when I was also making such statements like nothing is right or wrong etc. As you stated it might be a stage that we go through. But that approach only took me backwards.
You said, "we no longer would wish to harm another living creature if we didn't have to"
True. Please read the Vyasa's quote that I made on another reply in this same thread.
Sage Vyasa has only two things to say in summary of all his eighteen puranas:
Serving others has good merits ('puNyam')
Hurting, harming or giving pain to others is sin ('pApam').
Regards,
Ram |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Vegetarian or non-Vegetarian
