dsvfsdfs

hffcj
fxfx

<script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-6494646176133479";
/* 200x200, created 8/24/11 */
google_ad_slot = "5255083965";
google_ad_width = 200;
google_ad_height = 200;
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>

path to release

Question : Why should the path to release be differently taught? Will it not create confusion in the minds of aspirants?

Ramana Maharshi : Several paths are taught in the Vedas to suit the different grades of qualified aspirants. Yet, since release is but the destruction of the mind, all efforts have for their aim the control of mind. Although the modes of meditation may appear to be different from one another, in the end all of them become one. 

There is no need to doubt this. One may adopt that path which suits the maturity of one’s mind.The control of prana which is yoga, and the control of mind which is jnana — these are the two principal means for the destruction of the mind. To some, the former may appear easy, and to others the latter. Yet, jnana is like subduing a turbulent bull by coaxing it with green grass, while yoga is like controlling it through the use of force.     

Thus the wise ones say that of the three grades of qualified aspirants, the highest reach the goal by making the mind firm in the Self through determining the nature of the real by Vedantic enquiry and by looking upon one’s self and all things as of the nature of the Real; the mediocre by making the mind stay in the Heart through kevala kumbhaka and meditating for a longtime on the Real; and the lowest grade, by gaining that state in a gradual manner through breath-control, etc.The mind should be made to rest in the Heart till the destruction of the ‘I-thought’ which is of the form of ignorance, residing in the Heart. This itself is jnana; this alone is dhyana also. The rest are a mere digression of words, digression of the texts. 

Thus the scriptures proclaim.Therefore, if one gains the skill of retaining the mind in one’s Self through some means or other, one need not worry about other matters. The great teachers also have taught that the devotee is greater than the yogi and that the means to release is devotion, which is of the nature of reflection on one’s own Self.Thus, it is the path of realizing Brahman that is variously called Dahara vidya, Brahma Vidya, Atma vidya, etc. What more can be said than this? One should understand the rest by inference. The scriptures teach in different modes. After analysing all those modes the great ones declare this to be the shortest and the best means. 

Ramana Maharshi on Fasting

Question : Can one progress spiritually by fasting?Ramana Maharshi : Fasting should be chiefly mental [abstention from thoughts]. Mere abstinence from food will do no good, it will even upset the mind. Spiritual unfoldment will come rather by regulating eating.

But if, during a fast of one month, the spiritual outlook has been maintained, then in about ten days after the breaking of the fast (if it be rightly broken and followed by judicious eating) the mind will become pure and steady, and remain so. In the early days after my coming here, I had my eyes closed and I was so deeply absorbed in meditation that I hardly knew whether it was day or night.

I had no food and no sleep. When there is movement in the body, you need food. If you have food, you need sleep. If there is no movement, you do not need sleep. Very little food is enough to sustain life. That used to be my experience. Somebody or other used to offer me a tumbler of some liquid diet whenever I opened my eyes. That was all I ever ate.

But remember one thing: except when one is absorbed in a state where the mind is motionless, it is not possible to give up sleep or food altogether. When the body and mind are engaged in the ordinary pursuits of life, the body reels if you give up food and sleep.

There are differing theories concerning how much a sadhaka should eat and how much he should sleep. Some say that it is healthy to go to bed at 10 p.m. and wake up at 2 a.m. That means that four hours sleep is enough. Some say that four hours sleep is not enough, but that it should be six hours. It amounts to this, that sleep and food should not be taken in excess. If you want to cut off either of them completely, your mind will always be directed towards them. Therefore, the sadhaka should do everything in moderation.

There is no harm in eating three to four times a day. But only do not say `I want this kind of food and not that kind' and so on. Moreover, you take these meals in twelve hours of waking whereas you are not eating in twelve hours of sleep. Does sleep lead you to mukti? It is wrong to suppose that simple inactivity leads one to mukti. 

Jiddu Krishnamurti discourse on Truth

Question: There is a prevalent assumption these days that everything is relative, a matter of personal opinion, that there is no such thing as truth or fact independent of personal perception. What is an intelligent response to this belief?

Jiddu Krishnamurti - Is it that we are all so personal that what I see, what you see, is the only truth? That my opinion and your opinion are the only facts we have? That is what the question implies; that everything is relative; goodness is relative, evil is relative, love is relative. If everything is relative (that is, not the whole complete, truth) then our actions, our affections, our personal relationships are relative, they can be ended whenever we like, whenever they do not please us.

Is there such a thing as truth apart from personal belief, apart from personal opinion? Is there such a thing as truth? This question was asked in the ancient days by the Greeks, by the Hindus and by the Buddhists. It is one of the strange facts in the Eastern religions that doubt was encouraged - to doubt, to question - and in religion in the West it is rather put down, it is called heresy.

One must find out for oneself, apart from personal opinions, perceptions, experiences, which are always relative, whether there is a perception, a seeing, which is absolute truth, not relative. How is one going to find out? If one says that personal opinions and perceptions are relative then there is no such thing as absolute truth, all is relative. Accordingly our behaviour, our conduct, our way of life, is relative, casual, not complete, not whole, fragmentary.

How would one find out if there is such a thing as truth which is absolute, which is complete, which is never changing in the climate of personal opinions? How does one's mind, the intellect, thought, find out? One is enquiring into something that demands a great deal of investigation, an action in daily life, a putting aside of that which is false - that is the only way to proceed.

If one has an illusion, a fantasy, an image, a romantic concept, of truth or love, then that is the very barrier that prevents one moving further. Can one honestly investigate what is an illusion? How does illusion come into being? What is the root of it? Does it not mean playing with something which is not actual?

The actual is that which is happening, whether it is what may be called good, bad or indifferent; it is that which is actually taking place. When one is incapable of facing that which is actually taking place in oneself, one creates illusions to escape from it. If one is unwilling or afraid to face what is actually going on, that very avoidance creates illusion, a fantasy, a romantic movement, away from that which is. That word `illusion' implies the moving away from that which is.

Can one avoid this movement, this escape, from actuality? What is the actual? The actual is that which is happening, including the responses, the ideas, the beliefs and opinions one has. To face them is not to create illusion.

Illusions can take place only when there is a movement away from the fact, from that which is happening, that which actually is. In understanding that which is, it is not one's personal opinion that judges but the actual observation. One cannot observe what is actually going on if one's belief or conditioning qualifies the observation; then it is the avoidance of the understanding of that which is.

If one could look at what is actually taking place, then there would be complete avoidance of any form of illusion. Can one do this? Can one actually observe one's dependency; either dependency on a person, on a belief, on an ideal, or on some experience which has given one a great deal of excitement? That dependence inevitably creates illusion.

So a mind that is no longer creating illusion, that has no hypotheses, that has no hallucinations, that does not want to grasp an experience of that which is called truth, has now brought order into itself. it has order. There is no confusion brought about by illusions, by delusions, hallucinations; the mind has lost its capacity to create illusions.

Then what is truth? The astrophysicists, the scientists, are using thought to investigate the material world around them, they are going beyond physics, beyond, but always moving outward. But if one starts inwards one sees that the `me' is also matter. And thought is matter. If one can go inwards, moving from fact to fact, then one begins to discover that which is beyond matter. Then there is such a thing as absolute truth, if one goes through with it.