Pre-requisites for Realization ?

[Rushikesh K. Joshi]

>
> At 12:13 PM 11/24/96 -0330, you wrote:

> >he/she still mentally indulges in those worldly activities. That would
> >not take the person anywhere. Thus, it is counter-productive to look
> >for specifications for a Realized person (jeevanmukta).


Why counter-productive ?
The Geeta gives the SthitaPrajn Lakshanaas.
Why ?


> >I like to bring in another point on which I would like to see the
> >List-members' views. I submit that Realization will not come with
> >practice. What I mean is, that one cannot consciously practice toward
> >that end. A person's ajnana will be removed when he/she is ready for
> >it.

How will you get ready for it ?
To get ready itself is practice.

Worship, Inquiry, Praanaayam are practices.
Sadhana is the word for practice. Do you mean Saadhana is
not required ?


I think you want to separate the practice with its awareness, from
the practice which one may not be aware of it as practice.
Mostly you are talking about the second type.
Surrender, deep devotion and GuruBhakti can be some
examples of the second type.


- Rushi

>From  Wed Nov 27 19:05:23 1996
Message-Id: <WED.27.NOV.1996.190523.GMT.>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 19:05:23 GMT
Reply-To: kstuart at mail.telis.org
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ken Stuart <kstuart at MAIL.TELIS.ORG>
Subject: Re: CELIBACY
Comments: To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
Comments: cc: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub at ECN.PURDUE.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <199611222144.QAA09654 at tuna.ecn.purdue.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello,

On Fri, 22 Nov 1996 16:44:39 -0500, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian
<rbalasub at ECN.PURDUE.EDU> wrote:

>Giri wrote:
>
>> D: Is not celibacy necessary for realization of Self.
>> M: Brahmacharya is 'living in Brahman'. It has no connection with
>> celibacy as it is commonly understoood.....
>> D: Celibacy is an aid  for Yoga ?
>> M : So it is. Celibacy is certainly an aid to realization among so many
>> other aids.
>> D: Is it then not indispensable ? Can a married man realize the Self ?
>> M: Certainly, it is a matter of fitness of mind. Married or unmarried, a
>> man can realize the Self, because that is here and now. ....
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Yes, they can, theoretically. It is one of those things which is possible, but
>not probable. For the vast majority (me at any rate) concentrating for a few
>seconds is difficult. For such people celibacy is definitely indispensable. The
>story of Annamalai Swami is also given in the talks where the maharshi commends
>him for fighting against his sensual urges. He has said so to various other
>people also, eg Balaram Reddy etc. So unless one is already in the realm of
>jnana he better stick to niyama. This is because even after "realization" one
>can fall again due to vasanas (this has been told by maharshi himself). Of
>course, we see a lot of people citing this "jnana is here, I can do what I want
>in a disinterested manner" and indulging in things like drinking, marrying 6
>women (really, I am not joking!) etc, and quoting the Gita and such to justify
>their actions. This is not a problem restricted to India alone. I was reading
>"Mud and Water - Conversations with Zen master Bassui" who lived in the 12th
>century. He also denounces people who behave like the "eccentric zen masters"
>thinking that they too are realized. He strictly asks his students not to take
>any alcohol or behave in any eccentric manner, though Zen masters of the yore
>may have. This is sound and practical advice, IMO.
>
>So if one decides to marry etc, he should at least acknowledge his weakness and
>develop a sense of humility, rather than comforting himself with things which
>are possible but certainly not probable. Strictly IMHO. What is your opinion?

[ I've quoted the whole message because the thread is not recent. ]

Well, I think you are now talking about areas that are very specific
to the particular individual.

For example, there are probably some married individuals, who, as you
suggest, take the Maharshi's words as reason to prop up their egos and
lose all humility.

However, there are also undoubtedly some individuals who think they
cannot attain Self-Realization while married, and so do not try with
sufficient focus and attention.   I believe that these are the people
whom Maharshi is talking to, when he is quoted above.

Furthermore, there is a third group of individuals, including myself,
who were married prior to encountering Vedanta and Advaita.   In such
a case, there is no question of deciding whether or not one is capable
of being a monk in order to attain Self-Realization, the decision was
already made by one's karma.   Thus, Maharshi's remarks (and similar
remarks by other esteemed sages) are also intended for this third
group of individuals.

Also, statements that it is "not probable" for such individuals to
attain Self-Realization are pointless.   It is mathematically "not
probable" for ANY individual to attain Self-Realization.
Nevertheless, the lack of probability did not prevent any of the sages
and saints of the past from attaining Self-Realization.

On another matter, Ramakrishnan above states:
> This is because even after "realization" one
>can fall again due to vasanas (this has been told by maharshi himself).

[ In private e-mail, Ramakrishnan explained that this refers to pages
89-91 of "Talks with Ramana Maharshi". ]

It is good that you put "realization" in quotes, because this does not
refer to Self-Realization.   It refers to a temporary experience of
the same state.   The temporary nature is due to samskaras that
manifest in the citta.   These samskaras must be removed before the
state can be made permanent.

>From Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, page 249:

"M: [...] People ask 'How did ignorance (avidya) arise at all?' We
have to say to them: 'Ignorance never arose.  It has no real being.
That which is, is only vidya (knowledge).'

D: Why then do I not realise it?

M: Because of the samskaras. "

And on page 248:

"D: Having heard this truth, why does not one remain content?

M: Because samskaras have not been destroyed.  Unless the samskaras
cease to exist, there will always be doubt and confusion (sandeha,
viparita).  All efforts are directed to destroying doubt and
confusion.  To do so their roots must be cut.  Their roots are the
samskaras.  These are rendered ineffective by practice as prescribed
by the Guru. "

PS  A general question for anyone - towards the bottom of the same
page, page 248, Maharshi uses the word "vasanas" which by context
seems to be used interchangeably with "samskaras".    Is there
actually a subtle difference, or do both words mean the same thing?


Namaskar,

Ken

kstuart at mail.telis.org
http://www.zynet.com/~castlerx/kstuart/KSphilosophy.html