• A single rice grain has the potential life of acres of paddy. It is a living being.
• Isn’t it cruel when you kill them for food?
• The idea of cruelty towards animal life alone, has its origins in ancient belief systems when knowledge of life was limited.
• Vegetarianism flourished on the rise of agriculture oriented civilizations, their culture, religion and belief.
• Known universe is 13.8B old, Earth is 4.5B old, Homo-sapiens are 3,00,000 years old, Agriculture is just 5,000 years old.
• Nature works on a food chain. Interestingly there are carnivorous plants.
• Cellulose (most of the green part) cannot be digested by humans; it just adds fibre.
• Meat diet of ancient homo sapiens is linked to the development of larger brains and thus the ability to think of its own existence.
• ~90% humans consume directly, 100% of humans are indirect beneficiaries of animal products.
• Knowing the Truth – the real Advaita is in no way related to food.
• The body and the separate pseudo-identity is a concept. What if it eats meat or not?
• Realization is to go beyond the pseudo-identity, not nurturing it.
=================================
Reply to comments on Facebook group.
Truth is one. All masters try to convey the same thing. Teachings of old masters would have been misinterpreted by some people, made as a concept, a story, or a religion by the years passed by. People take what is convenient for them, a part, ignoring the context, mostly those prescribed for the beginners, or an answer to a particular person. They fail to grasp the whole, the root. They would maintain that just because their Guru talked to a Goddess daily, it is part of their practice too, and it is not fair to classify it as a concept or ignorance.
People who are not so serious, who are satisfied with the religious-part of the teachings, would be enjoying it just like a kid with a lollipop. Immediately when you take out the lollipop, the child starts crying. Such people would classify all those who disturb their convenient beliefs as "Neo-Advaitins".
They fail to grasp that the very entity that is seeking is a concept and any knowledge is still a concept. They are grossly immersed in their own conceptual world of spirituality, awaiting an objective change of status, a permanent euphoric state for the entity they believe themselves to be. “Indeed there is no such thing as enlightenment. The apperception of this fact is itself enlightenment!”
Do you know, Maharaj himself is considered as a "Neo-Advaitin" and His teachings are not allowed in many popular Advaita Vedanta groups. According to Wikipedia: The basic practice of neo-Advaita is self-inquiry, via the question "Who am I?", or simply the direct recognition of the non-existence of the "I" or "ego." This recognition is taken to be equal to the Advaita Vedanta recognition of the identity of Atman and Brahman, or the recognition of the "Formless Self."
Tony Parsons writes that classical Advaita Vedanta is just another established religion with a proliferation of teachings and literature, all of which very successfully and consistently miss the mark, qualifying it as one of the many systems of personal indoctrination promising the eventual spiritual fulfilment. According to Parsons, classical Advaita Vedanta has no relevance to liberation because it is born out of a fundamental misconception, namely that there is something like a separate individual who can become enlightened. According to Parsons, this is a direct denial of abiding oneness (Advaita).
https://www.facebook.com/groups/nisargadatta/permalink/3220967281328212/
----------------------------
This book is a must-read for all claiming to be on a so-called ‘spiritual’ path, all those who are still ‘practicing’. The book or the author never claims to be anything ‘spiritual’, but can throw light into how these concepts of pseudo-spirituality, religions and cultures developed.
There is only one step from here – who the subject is, who the knower is – what is its nature, which is the area of Advaita as explained by Maharaj. Realization is to understand that you are that primordial source. It does not award you any advantage over others. It is not the search for a euphoric state, a better life.
All acts of spirituality are purely material. It is the observer alone that is beyond. If you do any spiritual activity – yoga or meditation, persist or refrain from any acts, you do that in the phenomenal, material plane only. No matter what you eat, drink or do, it cannot affect the noumenal, the observer – whether you have realized it or not. It will not affect the realizing process or the chance of realizing either because there is no such thing.
People think that spirituality means anything that defies logic, physics, gravity and evidence. It is the Truth – the pure subjectivity – the knower of the spirituality - that is beyond the laws. And that too, it is not defying – it is ‘beyond’.
--------
Science is the systematic study that organizes knowledge in testable explanations. When you talk about logical fallacy of an argument, unfortunately ‘logical fallacy’ is part of science. If I had said Ramana Maharshi was a U.S. citizen, or that yesterday evening I had a coffee with Maharshi, you would deny it outright because you depend on logic and evidence; unfortunately, that is also science.
And about meat eating, let us leave the masters, because as per the so-called ‘vegetarians’, masters are realized, so they can eat it. The ordinary monks of Sri Ramakrishna order eat meat and fish. The monks of Tibet eat it. The ritualistic brahmins of Bengal regularly take fish as their favourite dish. So, does that mean they are all wasting their time there? The doctrine that separates people based on their food is religion, nothing else.
Consciousness manifested, is a product of the brain. Just like the music you hear is a product of the radio. Both depend on the instrument and its health. That is simply why a dead brain does not produce consciousness. But there is a catch – brain is the seat of consciousness, whereas the brain and the body themselves are objects in the very consciousness itself; it is a vicious circle. The only way is to grasp it as a whole, which is the very idea of Advaita. As said by Maharaj – “Consciousness itself is the greatest painter, The entire world is a Picture and The painter is in the picture”. It is the source of the consciousness that is not the product of a brain. It is the source of the music that is not part of the radio.
Science does not simply say there is an external world, science also says that the entire world including consciousness is a projection. I have posted a lot of statements by quantum physicists earlier here supporting this.
All the other views of practice, devotion and effort are simply religion and belief-system. If there is no external world, how can practice, devotion and prayer in the non-existent external world help? Isn’t that ‘logical fallacy’ applicable for ‘spiritual’ people? If that is claimed to be for beginners, simple science with an external world is also for beginners. Advanced science gives explanations to the illusion of appearance.
Not a single view of Advaita as taught by Maharaj (not at all the traditional religious Advaita) and interpreted as a whole is against the views of science or against logic and reasoning. It is religion and belief-system that are against science and evidence. Maharaj has always condemned them. Real Advaita cannot be shaken by a question of science. Conveniently using science for all other activities of life, but skipping them for the defence of our belief-system is the nature of religion. If something when challenged by science turns to be offensive, it is belief-system and not Advaita.
--------
Sir, I have mentioned it in the post that there are no claims of ‘spirituality’, and going beyond is only one step ahead. And what about ‘yoga’ and ‘meditation’? Is that not contents in the consciousness? Can some contents inside the false-appearance be good and some others not?
For the sake of explanation, it may be taken that the teachings of Maharaj have a sweet, soothing ‘former’ part, and a dry, fundamental ‘latter’ part, though no such separation exists. This group has consistently during its long history ensured to focus on the ‘latter’ part only and will continue to be so. The group has always been cautious enough to not be a dumb quote-sharing group, falling into a belief-trap. It will not be comfortable for most of the people.
The above book was shared for people interested in inquiry to differentiate between what is Advaita and what is a belief-trap. It also helps people to study how all these beliefs and cultures developed.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/nisargadatta/permalink/4912531655505091/
----------------------------
You seem to be nearer the point. No one compels to eat meat. But people think that if they don't eat they are more superior to others in terms of spirituality. Such a spirituality which by doing or not doing something assures this pseudo identity some higher status is simply religion. All those who are offended by this post are fully immersed in concepts which they feel painful to let go.
People forget the "minimalistic explanation" and that the purpose of spirituality is to know what you are; to know the falsity of the pseudo-identity and the image of the world projected.
If we are discussing environmental, climatic issues, they are correct. If we are discussing about world peace, they are correct. But we are discussing about the very temporality of the entire 'dream' itself. People forget that all these benchmarks of cruelty are human-made.
--------
The post serves the very purpose of what was intended. How many people get offended is the key. Very few members, who are that serious, contact me personally and discuss. They are afraid of being bullied by the ‘believers’. These comments are eye-openers for them. They learn from them that they should not fall into these kind of belief-traps.
People forget that the very idea of spirituality is to know what you are; to understand the nature of the pseudo-identity and the world projected by it. They forget that the so-called-cruelty is as per their definition and that a lion cannot be compassionate towards a deer; it is its nature. Still, the original point remains unanswered – we defined according to our convenience that plants don’t have any feelings. We will not define it the other way because we very well know that it will question our existence. If having a brain that knows pain is the problem, will they eat organisms that don’t have a pain-sensing mechanism? Modern methods involve painless killing. Is that ok? What about eggs? The topic is large, and I’m not elaborating. No point in applying logic here, because that is not the problem. The problem is their deep rooted beliefs. They forget that this is food to ~90% of the people, but still dare to call it dirt.
Now, is environmental concern the problem? If the world history is scaled to a 24-hour clock, humans arrived at 11:59pm. The so called humans with a civilization arrived at 11:59:59pm. They are trying to protect the world. Did nature put that responsibility over them? No, the nature knows to correct itself. But that would be so brutal. Humans know that. So in reality, they are worried about their existence only.
Is it really the post defending meat-eating or the others defending their beliefs when it is questioned? When something offends, the first thing to observe is what in ‘me’ did cause that. Serious people would immediately separate what is a concept in ‘me’ which can get offended, and that which is ‘prior’ to it which cannot get offended. But people strongly hold on to their sweet concept of self-realization to happen someday. It is a concept. It is never going to happen.
No action, nothing you eat, nothing you do, nothing you think will make you pure or impure. Nothing makes you ineligible for real spirituality – knowing the Truth. If you are serious you can get it now. If someone preaches otherwise, it is religion. By the words of Maharaj – “Discard all traditional standards. Leave them to the hypocrites.”
I see an elephant every night in my dream. My friend told me that if I wash the elephant daily, I will get self-realized. But we haven’t reached a conclusion on whether the elephant is a black or white one. What should I do?
--------
Exactly, whatever 'spiritual' people call as bad is always being carried by us in/as our body. So, as they say, a butcher cannot realize his nature, but a saint can, even if both the butcher and the saint are appearances.
The elaboration of this point ends up in the concepts of 'purity' in religion, that only 'pure' people are eligible for ‘knowledge’, only pure people can enter temples. Next step is, the descendants of pure people will also be pure. Next step, we pure people are ‘selected’ people of God. Thus it goes on.
I have a doubt. If eating plants makes one ‘pure’, the cows must be so pure. Then, eating a cow makes you ‘purer’. Isn’t it?
--------
Thank you Sir for your understanding. Yes, the teachings are spread on different levels according to the questioner. But at the last, when it is said that “waiting for something is simply hindering and delaying”, which teaching would you take? When the very point is to realize the falsity of the pseudo-entity, would that mean anything to conclude that what the pseudo-entity does will contribute to its liberation? When ‘apperception of the dream as a dream’ is the only thing one can do, is there any hope in assuming that any act of a character in the ‘dream’ will contribute to its liberation, and that too - slowly?
In algebra, when you start by assuming ‘let x=0’, and later, going through different steps conclude that x is something else, even if you have not understood it fully, would you still believe that for the time being x is 0, because I am not yet ready? Is it true that until I realize it, x is 0? No matter what you believe or not, x is something else. Similarly, when you are convinced that there are different levels of teaching, which level would you take? When it is said that “keep doing something for step-by-step realization” itself is the hindrance, and which notion is that what has to be removed, would you again “keep doing something” to remove that notion?
Your next point is absolutely correct. Advaita is not for all. Nothing is a compulsory thing. A simple farmer who is not worried about all these, who carries out his daily activities and live peacefully is perfectly alright. It is only those who feel deeply concerned about the uncertainty and illusory nature of this world need to inquire. But the problem is when people believe some actions contribute to their realization and some others not.
--------
Geeta and other scriptures have spoken various other things too. In most cases, it is called religion. As per Maharaj, "Discard all traditional standards. Leave them to hypocrites".
If discussed in the light of the teachings of Maharaj, "There is no such thing as realisation". If that is the case, there are no such distinct groups of people as 'realised' and 'non-realised'. If that is the case, how can there be two separate food menus for the 'realised' and the 'non-realised'?
Anything that prescribes a definite set of dos and don'ts which guarantees your upliftment is religion, not Advaita.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/nisargadatta/permalink/4899136763511247/
----------------------------
People who are not so serious, who are satisfied with the religious-part of the teachings, would be enjoying it just like a kid with a lollipop. Immediately when you take out the lollipop, the child starts crying. Such people would classify all those who disturb their convenient beliefs as "Neo-Advaitins".
They fail to grasp that the very entity that is seeking is a concept and any knowledge is still a concept. They are grossly immersed in their own conceptual world of spirituality, awaiting an objective change of status, a permanent euphoric state for the entity they believe themselves to be. “Indeed there is no such thing as enlightenment. The apperception of this fact is itself enlightenment!”
Do you know, Maharaj himself is considered as a "Neo-Advaitin" and His teachings are not allowed in many popular Advaita Vedanta groups. According to Wikipedia: The basic practice of neo-Advaita is self-inquiry, via the question "Who am I?", or simply the direct recognition of the non-existence of the "I" or "ego." This recognition is taken to be equal to the Advaita Vedanta recognition of the identity of Atman and Brahman, or the recognition of the "Formless Self."
Tony Parsons writes that classical Advaita Vedanta is just another established religion with a proliferation of teachings and literature, all of which very successfully and consistently miss the mark, qualifying it as one of the many systems of personal indoctrination promising the eventual spiritual fulfilment. According to Parsons, classical Advaita Vedanta has no relevance to liberation because it is born out of a fundamental misconception, namely that there is something like a separate individual who can become enlightened. According to Parsons, this is a direct denial of abiding oneness (Advaita).
https://www.facebook.com/groups/nisargadatta/permalink/3220967281328212/
----------------------------
This book is a must-read for all claiming to be on a so-called ‘spiritual’ path, all those who are still ‘practicing’. The book or the author never claims to be anything ‘spiritual’, but can throw light into how these concepts of pseudo-spirituality, religions and cultures developed.
There is only one step from here – who the subject is, who the knower is – what is its nature, which is the area of Advaita as explained by Maharaj. Realization is to understand that you are that primordial source. It does not award you any advantage over others. It is not the search for a euphoric state, a better life.
All acts of spirituality are purely material. It is the observer alone that is beyond. If you do any spiritual activity – yoga or meditation, persist or refrain from any acts, you do that in the phenomenal, material plane only. No matter what you eat, drink or do, it cannot affect the noumenal, the observer – whether you have realized it or not. It will not affect the realizing process or the chance of realizing either because there is no such thing.
People think that spirituality means anything that defies logic, physics, gravity and evidence. It is the Truth – the pure subjectivity – the knower of the spirituality - that is beyond the laws. And that too, it is not defying – it is ‘beyond’.
--------
Science is the systematic study that organizes knowledge in testable explanations. When you talk about logical fallacy of an argument, unfortunately ‘logical fallacy’ is part of science. If I had said Ramana Maharshi was a U.S. citizen, or that yesterday evening I had a coffee with Maharshi, you would deny it outright because you depend on logic and evidence; unfortunately, that is also science.
And about meat eating, let us leave the masters, because as per the so-called ‘vegetarians’, masters are realized, so they can eat it. The ordinary monks of Sri Ramakrishna order eat meat and fish. The monks of Tibet eat it. The ritualistic brahmins of Bengal regularly take fish as their favourite dish. So, does that mean they are all wasting their time there? The doctrine that separates people based on their food is religion, nothing else.
Consciousness manifested, is a product of the brain. Just like the music you hear is a product of the radio. Both depend on the instrument and its health. That is simply why a dead brain does not produce consciousness. But there is a catch – brain is the seat of consciousness, whereas the brain and the body themselves are objects in the very consciousness itself; it is a vicious circle. The only way is to grasp it as a whole, which is the very idea of Advaita. As said by Maharaj – “Consciousness itself is the greatest painter, The entire world is a Picture and The painter is in the picture”. It is the source of the consciousness that is not the product of a brain. It is the source of the music that is not part of the radio.
Science does not simply say there is an external world, science also says that the entire world including consciousness is a projection. I have posted a lot of statements by quantum physicists earlier here supporting this.
All the other views of practice, devotion and effort are simply religion and belief-system. If there is no external world, how can practice, devotion and prayer in the non-existent external world help? Isn’t that ‘logical fallacy’ applicable for ‘spiritual’ people? If that is claimed to be for beginners, simple science with an external world is also for beginners. Advanced science gives explanations to the illusion of appearance.
Not a single view of Advaita as taught by Maharaj (not at all the traditional religious Advaita) and interpreted as a whole is against the views of science or against logic and reasoning. It is religion and belief-system that are against science and evidence. Maharaj has always condemned them. Real Advaita cannot be shaken by a question of science. Conveniently using science for all other activities of life, but skipping them for the defence of our belief-system is the nature of religion. If something when challenged by science turns to be offensive, it is belief-system and not Advaita.
--------
Sir, I have mentioned it in the post that there are no claims of ‘spirituality’, and going beyond is only one step ahead. And what about ‘yoga’ and ‘meditation’? Is that not contents in the consciousness? Can some contents inside the false-appearance be good and some others not?
For the sake of explanation, it may be taken that the teachings of Maharaj have a sweet, soothing ‘former’ part, and a dry, fundamental ‘latter’ part, though no such separation exists. This group has consistently during its long history ensured to focus on the ‘latter’ part only and will continue to be so. The group has always been cautious enough to not be a dumb quote-sharing group, falling into a belief-trap. It will not be comfortable for most of the people.
The above book was shared for people interested in inquiry to differentiate between what is Advaita and what is a belief-trap. It also helps people to study how all these beliefs and cultures developed.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/nisargadatta/permalink/4912531655505091/
----------------------------
You seem to be nearer the point. No one compels to eat meat. But people think that if they don't eat they are more superior to others in terms of spirituality. Such a spirituality which by doing or not doing something assures this pseudo identity some higher status is simply religion. All those who are offended by this post are fully immersed in concepts which they feel painful to let go.
People forget the "minimalistic explanation" and that the purpose of spirituality is to know what you are; to know the falsity of the pseudo-identity and the image of the world projected.
If we are discussing environmental, climatic issues, they are correct. If we are discussing about world peace, they are correct. But we are discussing about the very temporality of the entire 'dream' itself. People forget that all these benchmarks of cruelty are human-made.
--------
The post serves the very purpose of what was intended. How many people get offended is the key. Very few members, who are that serious, contact me personally and discuss. They are afraid of being bullied by the ‘believers’. These comments are eye-openers for them. They learn from them that they should not fall into these kind of belief-traps.
People forget that the very idea of spirituality is to know what you are; to understand the nature of the pseudo-identity and the world projected by it. They forget that the so-called-cruelty is as per their definition and that a lion cannot be compassionate towards a deer; it is its nature. Still, the original point remains unanswered – we defined according to our convenience that plants don’t have any feelings. We will not define it the other way because we very well know that it will question our existence. If having a brain that knows pain is the problem, will they eat organisms that don’t have a pain-sensing mechanism? Modern methods involve painless killing. Is that ok? What about eggs? The topic is large, and I’m not elaborating. No point in applying logic here, because that is not the problem. The problem is their deep rooted beliefs. They forget that this is food to ~90% of the people, but still dare to call it dirt.
Now, is environmental concern the problem? If the world history is scaled to a 24-hour clock, humans arrived at 11:59pm. The so called humans with a civilization arrived at 11:59:59pm. They are trying to protect the world. Did nature put that responsibility over them? No, the nature knows to correct itself. But that would be so brutal. Humans know that. So in reality, they are worried about their existence only.
Is it really the post defending meat-eating or the others defending their beliefs when it is questioned? When something offends, the first thing to observe is what in ‘me’ did cause that. Serious people would immediately separate what is a concept in ‘me’ which can get offended, and that which is ‘prior’ to it which cannot get offended. But people strongly hold on to their sweet concept of self-realization to happen someday. It is a concept. It is never going to happen.
No action, nothing you eat, nothing you do, nothing you think will make you pure or impure. Nothing makes you ineligible for real spirituality – knowing the Truth. If you are serious you can get it now. If someone preaches otherwise, it is religion. By the words of Maharaj – “Discard all traditional standards. Leave them to the hypocrites.”
I see an elephant every night in my dream. My friend told me that if I wash the elephant daily, I will get self-realized. But we haven’t reached a conclusion on whether the elephant is a black or white one. What should I do?
--------
Exactly, whatever 'spiritual' people call as bad is always being carried by us in/as our body. So, as they say, a butcher cannot realize his nature, but a saint can, even if both the butcher and the saint are appearances.
The elaboration of this point ends up in the concepts of 'purity' in religion, that only 'pure' people are eligible for ‘knowledge’, only pure people can enter temples. Next step is, the descendants of pure people will also be pure. Next step, we pure people are ‘selected’ people of God. Thus it goes on.
I have a doubt. If eating plants makes one ‘pure’, the cows must be so pure. Then, eating a cow makes you ‘purer’. Isn’t it?
--------
Thank you Sir for your understanding. Yes, the teachings are spread on different levels according to the questioner. But at the last, when it is said that “waiting for something is simply hindering and delaying”, which teaching would you take? When the very point is to realize the falsity of the pseudo-entity, would that mean anything to conclude that what the pseudo-entity does will contribute to its liberation? When ‘apperception of the dream as a dream’ is the only thing one can do, is there any hope in assuming that any act of a character in the ‘dream’ will contribute to its liberation, and that too - slowly?
In algebra, when you start by assuming ‘let x=0’, and later, going through different steps conclude that x is something else, even if you have not understood it fully, would you still believe that for the time being x is 0, because I am not yet ready? Is it true that until I realize it, x is 0? No matter what you believe or not, x is something else. Similarly, when you are convinced that there are different levels of teaching, which level would you take? When it is said that “keep doing something for step-by-step realization” itself is the hindrance, and which notion is that what has to be removed, would you again “keep doing something” to remove that notion?
Your next point is absolutely correct. Advaita is not for all. Nothing is a compulsory thing. A simple farmer who is not worried about all these, who carries out his daily activities and live peacefully is perfectly alright. It is only those who feel deeply concerned about the uncertainty and illusory nature of this world need to inquire. But the problem is when people believe some actions contribute to their realization and some others not.
--------
Geeta and other scriptures have spoken various other things too. In most cases, it is called religion. As per Maharaj, "Discard all traditional standards. Leave them to hypocrites".
If discussed in the light of the teachings of Maharaj, "There is no such thing as realisation". If that is the case, there are no such distinct groups of people as 'realised' and 'non-realised'. If that is the case, how can there be two separate food menus for the 'realised' and the 'non-realised'?
Anything that prescribes a definite set of dos and don'ts which guarantees your upliftment is religion, not Advaita.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/nisargadatta/permalink/4899136763511247/
----------------------------
0 comments:
Post a Comment