Moksha: Hard or Easy?

[Vinidra]

People say many things, Theresa, like 'instant moksha' if you swim in the Ganges, or say the Lord's name on your last breath. Of course there is no way of knowing for sure, unless perhaps if we're already there. Since it is guaranteed (at least in most versions of SD) I tend to think it depends a lot on where you are in the progression. A 2 year old finds driving a car hard, whereas a professional driver finds it easy. So what's really the case varies by individual.

Prettty much what @Vinayaka said. I think it depends on one's progression or place in their practice. Right now at ripe old age of 25, Moksha looks very far away for me; and it very well may be. However, as time goes on in a more beneficial sadhana, things could potentially get easier.

I tend to agree with what Vinayaka and Starry are saying. I kinda think of it as a footrace that everybody's trying to finish, although not everyone begins from the same starting line. The person who started their race 50 feet from the finish line is going to say, "Yeah, totally easy, no problem," while the person who starts 50 miles from it is going to go "Haha, yeah, right."

But the person who started 50 feet away from the line spent multiple lifetimes getting themselves close enough to it that they could start from that short a distance. And the poor soul who's starting 50 miles back, every step they take toward the finish line in this lifetime is one step closer to it that they'll start from in their next lifetime. Or something like that.

I still have a lot to learn about it, though, so please take my answer with a (very large) grain of salt.

 

[Shantanu]

Namaste, Shantanuji
On my way out the door but I'm using the word moksha to mean the completion extinction of individual identity (ego), beyond saguna samadhi. One might experience that while still in possession of a body and then return to that body with the thinnest thread of ego to be used by the Lord for His works until one's final exit from same. But no karma accrues to that soul after moksha. Oh, I'm just dancing on the tops of this multi-headed subject, for sure! Gotta run!

Pranams Swaminiji,
That is an interesting take. I was under the impression that moksha is a term that simply means liberation for I found the discovery of truth liberating in that it gave me freedom from delusions and straightened me out to start afresh, like a rebirth every so often. When this continued and all the questions were answered and meanings and understandings clarified, something that could only be attained from detachment from material things as well as spritual beliefs, I progressed to a state that I describe as close to sanyasshood. Then I experienced a state where I took leave of the Self, which is the ego as that you describe as well as God, completely. I describe this state as Samadhi state. And now I cling on to my life on autopilot with the Grace of God not knowing when it will be terminated for He alone knows when it will be time for me to enter Mahasamadhi when all my deeds have been performed and I have nothing more to contribute to HIs world.

So there is moksha, the general feeling of attaining liberation; which takes one from the worldly existence towards sanyasshood, and further on into samadhi, and finally to mahasamadhi.

A householder with family responsibilities may not ever enter fully sanyasshood for he will always need to earn a living and do things to keep the family in order as his dharma. But one should know the sequence because it will work for someone who has decided not to marry and remain a batchelor or a spinster.

This is a self taught idea that I have been working on.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Terese, this a great question. And I really like to hear the answer if there is one. I have read every single post in this great thread and still don't feel like I know the answer. Do you?

For myself, I'm now wondering if I need to do more Bhakti/devotional sadhana in my life. But the Advaita/jnani/intellectual approach is what appeals to my personality type.

Ah, George-anandaji, I'm so surprised all the bhaktas haven't come on to chorus in unison, "Yeah, yeah!! Do it, do it!!" And the advaitists will say, "No, not needed. You are already That." Trouble is, if you don't actually realize it, it's just an affirmation, albeit a good one. Erudition is not realization.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

I tend to agree with what Vinayaka and Starry are saying. I kinda think of it as a footrace that everybody's trying to finish, although not everyone begins from the same starting line. The person who started their race 50 feet from the finish line is going to say, "Yeah, totally easy, no problem," while the person who starts 50 miles from it is going to go "Haha, yeah, right."

But the person who started 50 feet away from the line spent multiple lifetimes getting themselves close enough to it that they could start from that short a distance. And the poor soul who's starting 50 miles back, every step they take toward the finish line in this lifetime is one step closer to it that they'll start from in their next lifetime. Or something like that.

I still have a lot to learn about it, though, so please take my answer with a (very large) grain of salt.

Namaste, Vinidra
I don't know if this will be a helpful analogy for you in addition to your own but for me, rather than imagining motion and effort (a race), I imagine standing still and using the techniques taught by a qualified guru, focus on the Truth indwelling within; everything that is not I AM eventually falls away. This is the "stripping or removal of the veil" idea or similar to the "ripe fruit naturally and automatically falls to the ground" idea. You don't go anywhere. What you seek (all knowledge, supreme divine love, constant awareness) already exists in you, always did, always will. It IS you. It is what Tereseji identifies as "Spark of Consciousness." Yep, embodied, we all be sparks of That.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Pranams Swaminiji,
That is an interesting take. I was under the impression that moksha is a term that simply means liberation for I found the discovery of truth liberating in that it gave me freedom from delusions and straightened me out to start afresh, like a rebirth every so often. When this continued and all the questions were answered and meanings and understandings clarified, something that could only be attained from detachment from material things as well as spritual beliefs, I progressed to a state that I describe as close to sanyasshood. Then I experienced a state where I took leave of the Self, which is the ego as that you describe as well as God, completely. I describe this state as Samadhi state. And now I cling on to my life on autopilot with the Grace of God not knowing when it will be terminated for He alone knows when it will be time for me to enter Mahasamadhi when all my deeds have been performed and I have nothing more to contribute to HIs world.

So there is moksha, the general feeling of attaining liberation; which takes one from the worldly existence towards sanyasshood, and further on into samadhi, and finally to mahasamadhi.

A householder with family responsibilities may not ever enter fully sanyasshood for he will always need to earn a living and do things to keep the family in order as his dharma. But one should know the sequence because it will work for someone who has decided not to marry and remain a batchelor or a spinster.

This is a self taught idea that I have been working on.

Warm greetings, Shantanuji!
Here is what Guruji has to say on this subject. Some of it has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

Kingdom of Heaven
The Kingdom of Heaven is the most fascinating study in the holy Scriptures of world religions. The quest of man never stops until he realizes God and His Kingdom. In many schools of thought, the Kingdom of Heaven is a location beyond all spheres. That being the support of the entire creation, it stands without support.

Those to whom God has revealed the Kingdom speak about the glory of the Kingdom in a highly mystical way. The reason is, God and His Kingdom cannot be compared to anything which we have seen. It is of your consciousness, and it is the Truth. There is no doubt that what we see here on earth is a reflection of all that is above. Hence the saying, “That which is above, is below, and vice versa.”

There are other schools of thought that do not believe that there is any location where the Kingdom of Heaven can be found. They take only the esoteric meaning that the Kingdom of Heaven is within, without having its counterpart without or above.

Even Christ Jesus has taught that the Kingdom of Heaven is within, but he has spoken so many times of his Father’s house having many mansions, and that he would go there and prepare a place for those who believe in God. The teachings of Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity emphasize both dimensions, the inner and the outer, the esoteric and the exoteric.

In other words, there is a loka or sphere where the soul reaches after death if it is rid of all ego and desires while living. One will only reach the Kingdom of Heaven above if one has realized the Kingdom within. Without realizing the Kingdom within, one is not free from karma, and as long as karma binds the soul, rebirth is inevitable.

The Kingdom of Heaven is total freedom of the soul from the clutches of karma. That is the reason why Masters teach humanity that the Kingdom of Heaven is within, which means one has to attain freedom from duality, ego, and desires while living in this body.

God is dwelling in the heart of all beings as the Self. He is the light which we call life that illumines the body, and when one realizes Him through prayer and meditation, it is He who illumines the mind, which is known as enlightenment.

The consequences of such enlightenment is Self-realization. This knowledge of the Self makes the soul merge in God within. Then the soul is separated from the body even while living in this body just as in a dry coconut the meat is separated from the shell.

Just to show the way, the truth, and the life, such an illumined Master maintains a silken thread of ego to hold the body and soul together as per divine will, and then he departs to the Kingdom of Heaven above. As per the divine law, such a soul which reaches God’s Kingdom above shall never return again to the round of rebirth, except for the specific purpose of guiding the world, if God so wills.

In the ancient wisdom of the Himalayas, this Kingdom of Heaven is called mukti or moksha. Mainly they describe the five types of liberated states of the souls. They are known as salokya, samipya, sarupya, sarsti, and finally sayujya.

Salokya
Salokya means the soul reaching the abode of God. That abode is considered as a transcendental sphere, infinitely vast and filled with only pure consciousness. There, nothing is made up of matter, everything is made only of consciousness. For those who have reached that state of consciousness, water, trees, mountains, birds, animals, or gardens may be visible but they are all filled with absolute consciousness. There is no desire, ego, pairs of opposites, misery, birth and death cycle, fear or sickness. It is the immortal Kingdom.

Samipya
Samipya means liberated souls feeling the nearness of God or sitting in the presence of God. The mystics of all world religions have spoken about this moksha. It is said that our Heavenly Father asked the liberated soul of St. Mathilda to sing a song for Him and Matilda requested God to dance when she sang, to which the Holy Presence agreed and there was a great rejoicing in the Kingdom of Heaven.

In Hinduism it is taught that Sage Narada and Sage Tumbura are the saints who always sing before God in the Kingdom of Heaven. It is also said in some of the Puranas that God manifests there to the liberated souls as the transcendental person of Lord Vishnu. His power of wealth and prosperity manifests as Lakshmi, His spouse.

Sages Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanat Sujata, and Sanat Kumara glorify the Lord through their hymns. The seven sages of Taparloka, the sphere of penance, visit the Lord and receive from Him instructions to guide the world. Such direct instructions of the Lord are known as the Veda or the revelation. That which is revealed by the Lord alone can be called true knowledge. It is supersensuous. The normal mind or senses cannot comprehend it. It is to the superconscious state such a truth is audible and visible. Here the joy of the liberated souls is enhanced a thousandfold more than those who are just in the abode of God because of the nearness of the Holy Presence.

Sarupya
Sarupya means the soul is transformed into the likeness of the Holy Presence or God, as if those souls, having spirit bodies, look like God in their appearance. But it should be clearly known that even such souls as these do not have the power of God. They do have divine virtues such as light, love or any attribute of God manifest in a small measure compared to the limitless power of the supreme Godhead.

Sarsti
This is another unique state of consciousness where the soul acquires some of the highest powers of God such as creating or dissolving planets and tossing to hell or saving from hell some souls. Those who obtain such powers are known as the Sons of God. This is why you hear in the Bible that Christ has the key to heaven and hell. It is a highly exalted state of consciousness while in the human body and to sit on the right-hand side of the Heavenly Father in the Kingdom of Heaven. In Hinduism, He is called Brahma, the Creator, just as in Christianity He is known as the Son of God. This power should not be mistaken for several powers which come to a sage while living in the body.

For example, Sage Vashista was capable of feeding millions in a trice through the help of a cow named Kamadhenu or Sage Vishwamitra creating a new solar system etc. In other words, sarsti is a state of mukti where God specifically confers special powers on His son to take care of the affairs of the cosmos, angels, and human beings.

Up to now, in all of these states of consciousness, individuality has been maintained. God allows the soul to maintain its individuality even though it is filled with universal consciousness. Here the individuality means to assume the same form in which he lived on earth to appear before his devotees to shower grace and boons upon them of his own sweet will. Out of mercy to the fallen humanity, he can even take incarnation with the permission of the Lord to guide humanity towards the light. When such a great Master appears on earth, he helps millions of souls to attain liberation by speaking about the Kingdom of Heaven.

Sayujya
This is total mergence in the essence of God. Here there is no individuality nor assuming any responsibility. It is merging in bliss. Even after explanation, it remains a mystery. It is simply incomprehensible. What type of bliss, how much, how long, and is there an individuality to enjoy the bliss? None of these questions hold good in that realm of experience. All that can be said is that such a soul becomes one with God forever.​

 

[George-ananda]

Ah, George-anandaji, I'm so surprised all the bhaktas haven't come on to chorus in unison, "Yeah, yeah!! Do it, do it!!" And the advaitists will say, "No, not needed. You are already That." Trouble is, if you don't actually realize it, it's just an affirmation, albeit a good one. Erudition is not realization.

Yes, I understand there is a difference between understanding the concepts of Advaita, and the experience of Oneness. In Bhakti, who is worshipping who when all is One? It seems to me Bahkti requires a dualistic mind sense, the same sense you are trying to lose through jnana yoga. But I think I can understand beseeching the gods for assistance though.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

I agree. There is a teaching that Moksha happens by grace alone, since in reality there is no second. What however clouds the grace that is never absent is the ego self pretensions "I am doing this and that. I am doing good karma" etc. etc.



I think generalisation is not good. Actually, some advaitins, specifically the adherents of ajAtivAda will not say "I've attained moksha".

There is a well known scriptural teaching that in reality there is no one bound and no one is seeking.

Are you referring to the Avadhuta Gita?

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Yes, I understand there is a difference between understanding the concepts of Advaita, and the experience of Oneness. In Bhakti, who is worshipping who when all is One? It seems to me Bahkti requires a dualistic mind sense, the same sense you are trying to lose through jnana yoga. But I think I can understand beseeching the gods for assistance though.

One might say it is dualistic in a way, George-anandaji, no doubt. But entering into and enjoying a personal relationship with Personal God (bhakti marg) is still a transcendental experience (meaning not occurring in the realm of senses). Note I didn't write "a Personal God" which would imply there is more than One. There isn't. ALL the Names (Nama) and Forms (rupa) = Personal God. Anama arupa (no Name, no Form) = Brahman. In my mind, the so-called dualistic mode equates quite well with the trick Beloved has to play on Himself "down here" and in every other loka existent for however long it does exist: in order to have this whole thing work, He Himself (don't get hung on the gender stuff, OK?) has to pretend He doesn't know who the heck He is while He is "enjoying" not-moksha! Heh, heh. I put enjoying in quotes but Guruji used to say, "Hey! God is having fun, He wants you to relax and enjoy His lila, too! Be the witness!" God is the Playwright, Director, Actor, Audience, Stage and Props. God does it all. God IS all.

EDIT: Can't resist. Pramana for my buds who might be exclaiming, "What? All Names & Forms = Personal God? No way! MY God (insert named God here __________ is quite personal, thank you very much, you Sassi swamini! I know Krishna bhaktas will have no problem with this. Neither should those who accept the Bhagavad Gita as one of the triune of Hindu scripture. Anyway, the proof for the statement is found in the revelation of Vishwarupa, God's Universal Form, to Arjuna.

And I hope George-anandaji has a way to "unlike" if he needs to after my edit.

 

[Terese]

Terese, this a great question. And I really like to hear the answer if there is one. I have read every single post in this great thread and still don't feel like I know the answer. Do you?

For myself, I'm now wondering if I need to do more Bhakti/devotional sadhana in my life. But the Advaita/jnani/intellectual approach is what appeals to my personality type.

All i know is that i haven't attained moksha, i need a good dose of Vaishnavas surrounding me (preferably one of them be a guru) and that i myself cannot give moksha, only the Lord can grant it to me.

 

[Aupmanyav]

My medicine is not the one which will work on George or Teresa. Each case has its particularities.

 

[Shantanu]

Those to whom God has revealed the Kingdom speak about the glory of the Kingdom in a highly mystical way. The reason is, God and His Kingdom cannot be compared to anything which we have seen. It is of your consciousness, and it is the Truth. There is no doubt that what we see here on earth is a reflection of all that is above. Hence the saying, “That which is above, is below, and vice versa.”

God distances Himself from parts of the Kingdom that He has created and encourages us to fight to restore dharma and destroy evil, No?

 

[Kapalika]

Many times i have heard that attaining moksha is very hard, that even becoming a sadhu or acharya it would take a few lifetimes to be rid of our mortal coil. However other times I have heard that attaining moksha is relatively easy, like just chanting Lord Hari's name, or being in the vicinity of virtuous acharyas, or even thinking about Lord Krishna at the time of your death. What is really the case?

I'd say that it's simple, just difficult. Moksha in of itself is simple and "easy" in that it takes not particular effort or path. It's most difficult though in that it goes against every habit of the mind. We are simply programed to think of ourselves as subjects and dualistically individualized. In trying to be free of Vikalpa we tend to just end up in doing the opposite.

It's kind of hard to stop thinking and just be aware by thinking about not thinking, you know? The idea in itself is easy, it's the execution that's hard. It's the same with meditation... it should come effortlessly, trying to force it just makes it harder. It's just something you kind of learn to do without trying.

In Vedanta you have your conciousness-existence-bliss and so the mind is destroyed along with Maya when one attains Moksha. This necessarily destroys the ego as others have pointed out.

In what I currently believe and understand (as much as I attempt to) the self is absorbed and regenerated into universal consciousness (the citta becomes Cit). It's then that one becomes Shiva and the physical universe is seen as one's own Shakti, not as an illusion but as an expression of Shiva. The personality itself becomes like a face on an infinitely sided diamond along with all other personalities as likewise different expressions of Shiva.

I would venture to say though that one doesn't have to conceptualize this as Shiva, really in my mind any Ishvara will do in either role or place, but the philosophy is historically in the context of seeing it as Shiva and I personally don't have an issue with that, I do at times swap out the symbols though. I think this is perfectly fine because if everything is an expression of Shiva, including the symbol and personification of Shiva itself, then so likewise is any other symbol or personification with the same fundamental attributes.

 

[kalyan]

This is another unique state of consciousness where the soul acquires some of the highest powers of God such as creating or dissolving planets and tossing to hell or saving from hell some souls. Those who obtain such powers are known as the Sons of God. This is why you hear in the Bible that Christ has the key to heaven and hell. It is a highly exalted state of consciousness while in the human body and to sit on the right-hand side of the Heavenly Father in the Kingdom of Heaven. In Hinduism, He is called Brahma, the Creator, just as in Christianity He is known as the Son of God. This power should not be mistaken for several powers which come to a sage while living in the body.

christianity has an eternal hell, so no tossing up back and forth from the hell. I am one of those who believe jesus never existed.

Till 325 AD, not a single historian or writer wrote about Jesus Christ or any of is disciples .

The dead sea scrolls covering the period from Birth of Jesus to 68 AD , does NOT say one single word about Jesus or his 12 Apostles.

Hellenistic philosopher Philo Judaeus of Alexandria (20 BCE-50 AD/CE)—alive at the purported time of Jesus, and one of the wealthiest and best connected citizens of the Empire— makes no mention of Christ, Christians or Christianity in his voluminous writings. Nor do any of the hundreds of other historians and writers who flourished during the first THREE centuries of the common era

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

christianity has an eternal hell, so no tossing up back and forth from the hell. I am one of those who believe jesus never existed.

Till 325 AD, not a single historian or writer wrote about Jesus Christ or any of is disciples .

The dead sea scrolls covering the period from Birth of Jesus to 68 AD , does NOT say one single word about Jesus or his 12 Apostles.

Hellenistic philosopher Philo Judaeus of Alexandria (20 BCE-50 AD/CE)—alive at the purported time of Jesus, and one of the wealthiest and best connected citizens of the Empire— makes no mention of Christ, Christians or Christianity in his voluminous writings. Nor do any of the hundreds of other historians and writers who flourished during the first THREE centuries of the common era

Namaste, Kalyanji
Not sure I ever got to say 'hi' to you personally but my memory sucks so I dunno. New avatar? Very pretty. Not that it matters but do you have a female body or a male body this time out? Also not sure why so much here is bolded, don't think any of us here is hard of hearing?

You didn't say how you feel about it, but I don't believe in an eternal hell. That's not God-like; it's a ridiculous assertion advanced by priests acting the part of the boogeyman to make people follow the rules du jour. I breathed a sigh of relief (in a way) when I reread the part of the post you quoted. Guruji never said anything about Jesus there.

Probably haven't put forth my "beliefs" on the Jesus Christ thing but here goes. This "I" makes a sharp distinction between Jesus (the name of the man's body temple or "personality," if you will) and the level of divine consciousness he exhibited (Christ). So, for me, it's not like a first and last name; Jesus the Christ gets closer. That Christ-consciousness is Krishna, Buddha, Allah et al consciousness. And it's this state of consciousness that Guruji was describing.

In a way to my mind, it simply doesn't matter whether Jesus existed. The fact that a huge chunk of the world's population believes he did is the fact that I work with. So when I converse with a "Jesus believer" (NO charge on that phrase at all) and if they're interested in my take on their hero, I advance how we're not so very far apart after all because I'm able to praise their guru (Jesus) and point out that their Christ is my Beloved God sporting another Name.

 

[kalyan]

Very pretty. Not that it matters but do you have a female body or a male body this time out?

hi, bolded part is Fact ....male

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

God distances Himself from parts of the Kingdom that He has created and encourages us to fight to restore dharma and destroy evil, No?

Namaste, Shantanuji
Personally, I don't think "distance" or closer/farther away is a possibility. For one thing, it implies that God is conditioned by space. I think that the perception of distance occurs in direct proportion to the "thickness of the veil" or the extent to which a "soul is bewitched by maya."

Makes me go on cautionary alert when I read "we are encouraged to do ______" and fill in the blank. Ego thinks it acts, that it has the power "to do." Not true. If one has an ego which thinks this way, I recommend at a minimum that it attempt to determine if that is actually possible and then if it still thinks so, to work to restore dharma and fight evil (ignorance) in its own field first. Thereafter, it becomes a humble, suitable instrument for Beloved to use in His drama of fighting adharma "out there."

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

My medicine is not the one which will work on George or Teresa. Each case has its particularities.

Oy, Aupji, what a dunce I am. I finally got this

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Pranams Swaminiji,
That is an interesting take. I was under the impression that moksha is a term that simply means liberation for I found the discovery of truth liberating in that it gave me freedom from delusions and straightened me out to start afresh, like a rebirth every so often. When this continued and all the questions were answered and meanings and understandings clarified, something that could only be attained from detachment from material things as well as spritual beliefs, I progressed to a state that I describe as close to sanyasshood. Then I experienced a state where I took leave of the Self, which is the ego as that you describe as well as God, completely. I describe this state as Samadhi state. And now I cling on to my life on autopilot with the Grace of God not knowing when it will be terminated for He alone knows when it will be time for me to enter Mahasamadhi when all my deeds have been performed and I have nothing more to contribute to HIs world.

So there is moksha, the general feeling of attaining liberation; which takes one from the worldly existence towards sanyasshood, and further on into samadhi, and finally to mahasamadhi.

A householder with family responsibilities may not ever enter fully sanyasshood for he will always need to earn a living and do things to keep the family in order as his dharma. But one should know the sequence because it will work for someone who has decided not to marry and remain a batchelor or a spinster.

This is a self taught idea that I have been working on.

Pranams, Shantanuji
The extent of your sharanagati (self-surrender--I translate for newcomers)--must be so very pleasing to the Lord. It really is all He asks of us. Guruji used to say, "Do your best and leave the rest to Heaven." But for myself, I need to continue to use the word "moksha" to mean the traditional "final liberation" that most Hindu texts and their translations and commentaries refer to.

Also, are you sure about your understanding of the four ashramas? This is a lift from Wiki (I didn't read the whole thing and quoting Wiki tickles my gag reflex) but up through here, from what I was taught, I think "they" got it somewhat right. (Strike-throughs are mine.)The svadharma to provide for your family and descendants does not necessarily apply throughout life. The soul's first duty is to free itself from delusion. Even while performing one's duties during the various ashramas, that goal will quietly be foremost in a sadhaka's mind.

An Ashrama (āśrama) in Hinduism is one of four age-based life stages discussed in ancient and medieval era Indian texts. The four asramas are: Brahmacharya (student), Grihastha (householder), Vanaprastha (retired--literally, "forest dweller" -SVJ) and Sannyasa (renunciation).

The Ashramas system is one facet of the Dharma concept in Hinduism. It is also a component of the ethical theories in Indian philosophy, where it is combined with four proper goals of human life (Purusartha), for fulfillment, happiness and spiritual liberation. (Oh for heaven's sake, "they" can't even count! And fulfillment = happiness, sigh.) It's kama, artha, dharma, moksha, variously translated as creative fulfillment, wealth, adherence to Divine Law, liberation.)

The Ashram system[edit]
Under the Ashram system, the human life was divided into four periods. The goal of each period was the fulfillment and development of the individual. While some Indian texts present these as sequential stages of human life and recommend an age when one enters each stage, many texts state the ashramas as four alternative ways of life and options available, but not as sequential stage that any individual must follow, nor do they place any age limits.
​

May Beloved continue to grant you more opportunities to perform the devotional seva that you do, Shantanuji. Tatastu.

​

 

[Shantanu]

Pranams, Shantanuji
The extent of your sharanagati (self-surrender--I translate for newcomers)--must be so very pleasing to the Lord. It really is all He asks of us. Guruji used to say, "Do your best and leave the rest to Heaven." But for myself, I need to continue to use the word "moksha" to mean the traditional "final liberation" that most Hindu texts and their translations and commentaries refer to.

Also, are you sure about your understanding of the four ashramas? This is a lift from Wiki (I didn't read the whole thing and quoting Wiki tickles my gag reflex) but up through here, from what I was taught, I think "they" got it somewhat right. (Strike-throughs are mine.)The svadharma to provide for your family and descendants does not necessarily apply throughout life. The soul's first duty is to free itself from delusion. Even while performing one's duties during the various ashramas, that goal will quietly be foremost in a sadhaka's mind.

An Ashrama (āśrama) in Hinduism is one of four age-based life stages discussed in ancient and medieval era Indian texts. The four asramas are: Brahmacharya (student), Grihastha (householder), Vanaprastha (retired--literally, "forest dweller" -SVJ) and Sannyasa (renunciation).

The Ashramas system is one facet of the Dharma concept in Hinduism. It is also a component of the ethical theories in Indian philosophy, where it is combined with four proper goals of human life (Purusartha), for fulfillment, happiness and spiritual liberation. (Oh for heaven's sake, "they" can't even count! And fulfillment = happiness, sigh.) It's kama, artha, dharma, moksha, variously translated as creative fulfillment, wealth, adherence to Divine Law, liberation.)

The Ashram system[edit]
Under the Ashram system, the human life was divided into four periods. The goal of each period was the fulfillment and development of the individual. While some Indian texts present these as sequential stages of human life and recommend an age when one enters each stage, many texts state the ashramas as four alternative ways of life and options available, but not as sequential stage that any individual must follow, nor do they place any age limits.
​

May Beloved continue to grant you more opportunities to perform the devotional seva that you do, Shantanuji. Tatastu.

​

Please Swaminiji, I am finding one too many disagreements with you but am sure that these are helpful to the discussion. I cannot persuade you to change your views but also cannot let unsound knowledge stand in this DIR without my providing an explanation of the reality that I have perceived and understood. Please note that I am fearless in my expression of truth and even God has to bow to my need to ascertain my own understanding of how humans came to be as they are and what their future is in an ideal society.

I subscribe to the notion of a Vedic society. Accordingly, I believe in the verna system of caste-classification of human beings according to guna-based aptitudes so that these four ashramas are not for everyone. People have different roles in society and brahmacharya is for those who would classify themselves as Brahmins, their role being to study the shastras and guide the rest of society. It is not appropriate for every human being to be a brahmacharya or the human race will not progress into future generations. There is a need for vasishyas and kshatriyas for other reasons to maintain society. They cannot be expected to become sanyassis on later life because they have not had the education needed for Brahma gyana. Further, for a brahmacharya, the phase of studies as a householder can last up to 50 years before one is able to realise the Lord and conduct oneself accordingly. As I have said these studies take a Brahmin to moksha through truth-generated liberation, thence to sanyasshood, and finally Samadhi waiting for mahasamadhi. You will not find this kind of explanation anywhere in HIndu shastras.

As to my sharanagati, it is true that I gave up all my material considerations in order to submit to God but I did this only to learn the truth. When I found that a God existed and was willing to associate with me I surrendered to His will out of devotion as well as practicality for I knew that I did not have the intelligence to survive in this world to achieve the goals that I had set out for myself in the development of my Blog 'Towards Knowledge for World Conservation' (https://shantanup.wordpress.com/) . As I am in the Samadhi phase now I do not have any attachment to God and have no idea whether He is pleased with me. I believe I have done everything that He expected of me. I have lived my life in knowledge that He had done a considerable amount of guidance in order to both protect me and enable me to learn the truth. I followed the path that was outlined for me by God with the understanding that I do not expect anything from Him and indeed do not owe Him anything. As someone who has attained this position I have no need for Him any longer for I have no desires and no consideration of the self. When I needed Him, He was always there for me. From this experience you will know that God-knowledge is also a phase and finally one must be completely detached and survive in truth and the reality that God does not do anything to get a human being to retain his or her devotion to Him. There is therefore no bliss either in the end although there were great moments of excitement when truth was being searched and obstacles to truth overcome.

So I have a unique view on God and human beings that do not conform to shastras in Hinduism and I have no need to pay homage to any 'guruji' as you constantly appear to do.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Please Swaminiji, I am finding one too many disagreements with you but am sure that these are helpful to the discussion. I cannot persuade you to change your views but also cannot let unsound knowledge stand in this DIR without my providing an explanation of the reality that I have perceived and understood. Please note that I am fearless in my expression of truth and even God has to bow to my need to ascertain my own understanding of how humans came to be as they are and what their future is in an ideal society.

I subscribe to the notion of a Vedic society. Accordingly, I believe in the verna system of caste-classification of human beings according to guna-based aptitudes so that these four ashramas are not for everyone. People have different roles in society and brahmacharya is for those who would classify themselves as Brahmins, their role being to study the shastras and guide the rest of society. It is not appropriate for every human being to be a brahmacharya or the human race will not progress into future generations. There is a need for vasishyas and kshatriyas for other reasons to maintain society. They cannot be expected to become sanyassis on later life because they have not had the education needed for Brahma gyana. Further, for a brahmacharya, the phase of studies as a householder can last up to 50 years before one is able to realise the Lord and conduct oneself accordingly. As I have said these studies take a Brahmin to moksha through truth-generated liberation, thence to sanyasshood, and finally Samadhi waiting for mahasamadhi. You will not find this kind of explanation anywhere in HIndu shastras.

As to my sharanagati, it is true that I gave up all my material considerations in order to submit to God but I did this only to learn the truth. When I found that a God existed and was willing to associate with me I surrendered to His will out of devotion as well as practicality for I knew that I did not have the intelligence to survive in this world to achieve the goals that I had set out for myself in the development of my Blog 'Towards Knowledge for World Conservation' (https://shantanup.wordpress.com/) . As I am in the Samadhi phase now I do not have any attachment to God and have no idea whether He is pleased with me. I believe I have done everything that He expected of me. I have lived my life in knowledge that He had done a considerable amount of guidance in order to both protect me and enable me to learn the truth. I followed the path that was outlined for me by God with the understanding that I do not expect anything from Him and indeed do not owe Him anything. As someone who has attained this position I have no need for Him any longer for I have no desires and no consideration of the self. When I needed Him, He was always there for me. From this experience you will know that God-knowledge is also a phase and finally one must be completely detached and survive in truth and the reality that God does not do anything to get a human being to retain his or her devotion to Him. There is therefore no bliss either in the end although there were great moments of excitement when truth was being searched and obstacles to truth overcome.

So I have a unique view on God and human beings that do not conform to shastras in Hinduism and I have no need to pay homage to any 'guruji' as you constantly appear to do.

It's OK if we disagree, Shantanuji. I don't need to "be right" but neither will you EVER convince me to abandon shastra and guru to strike out on my own, making up my own shastra as I go. That will not happen. The ways and means of getting to Self-realization is a project unique to each jiva but I'm grateful to the enlightened Masters of the various sampradaya(s) who made the complete sacrifice of ego required to know God and out of compassion, returned to show the way.

So you say you have reached your limit, "one too many disagreements" with me. I do not wish to cause you upset, so I won't respond to your posts anymore. Will that help?

Wishing you all the best and sincere salutations,
Sw. Vandana