Srila Prabhupada stated that "the human form of life is meant for Self-Realization". But then you read about great personalities like Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Narada Muni causing wild animals to dance in ecstasy and roar out Hare Krishna...
I think that these instances, and also the case of Ramana Maharishi's cow are exceptions. Due to the prescense of these Divine Beings, these animals receieved some special grace perhaps - whether it was 'enlightenment' (an ill defined term) I don't know. The Buddha emphasized that only from the human form is enlightenment possible, and that a human birth is a rare opportunity. Even if an animal could be said to be enlightened, it wouldn't mean the same as in a human. I say that because I can't see how an animal can have gone through anything like the long and protracted experience of the mental level of consciousness as is the case with humans. All our thinking is a result of our possession of symbolic language, which allows us to make abstractions in a way an animal, lacking languge, could never do. And an animal would face massive restrictions on their functions after enlightenment compared to a human. However - a talking enlightened animal, should one ever appear to mankind in general, would make people sit up and take notice :sunglasse The sceptics would have a hard time with that.
Bill...good explanation. The effect on an animal seemingly would have to be only a momentary connection to its spiritual nature, because it lacks the physical faculties and faculties of consciousness to sustain and express such a connection. A Sanskrit-reciting cat in saffron robes, giving a class on Bhagavad-gita, would be a trip.
I dunno, I've always looked at the whole Gita war as symbolic of the struggle between the Higher Self and the lower self. It seems to me that the Gita preaches a good deal of non-violence. And to me, WW2 itself WAS a huge disaster for the human race. Who knows, maybe if you just let yourself die, out of a refusal to fight, you would be born in a whole other world free of violence. Maybe the Earth has a karma of it's own that it's trying to work out...causing great wars and what not. But we humans have our own karma to work out, and I bet we can free ourselves from any of the evils of this planet without killing. PS - I dont think the Earth is evil...just a karmic entity that makes mistakes...like acting violently out of anger
The Gita is part of Mahabharata and the war is meant to be seen as a war - there are symbolic meanings too, but there's little doubt that Krishna encourages Arjuna to fight. It would have been a worse disaster if the NAZIs had won the second world war. There would for example, be no freedom to pursue spiritual things which weren't dictated by the state. To just let oneself be killed or crushed by tyranny is certainly not desirable from any point of view - spiritual or non-spiritual. We have a responsibility to the collective, and to the earth itself. I don't think you'd suddenly find yourself transported to some paradise, as you say. And even if you did, you wouldn't have achieved the goal. You'd have to return here eventually. The earth isn't responsible for wars - it is human beings who are their causes and actors. If humans evolve to a higher consciousness, war will become a thing of the past. Until then, there is no choice but to fight evil where necessary.
That is exactly Arjuna's question at the start of the Gita where he says he won't fight. Krishna explains in detail.
'I am' - the sense of a separate existence, belongs mainly to the ego - if it has any reality it pertains to the Jiva, the subtle form the unborn Atman puts out for the cosmic individual existence. It is only really a representative of the Atman, which is One in all respects with Brahman. To see the Jiva, the ego has first to go. They are not the same thing.
Additional thoughts: Prabhupada refers to material ego as "false ego", indeed different from the jiva, the qualities of which are referred to by SP as sat-chit-ananda-vigraha: eternal, knowledgeable, and blissful, with form...a person who knows the nature of the jiva has already realized the nature of the nondual atman. This leads into the concept of acintya-bhedabheda-tattva...simultaneous difference and non-difference. Very esoteric. Interesting...after the reading I've done so far about Sri Krishna Prem, especially his letters, I'm convinced that he had full realization of all of it.
Spook - Sri Krishnaprem explains all this very well in 'Yoga of the Bhagavat Gita'. And of course, he goes much further. He gives a very clear elucidation of what is the Atman, and what is the Jiva. Overall, this is one of the best books on the Gita I've read. I'm sure that Krishnaprem had a very high level of realization.
Hi Bill...I haven't started on "Yoga of the Bhagavat Gita" yet. I have finished the Kaul book on SKP, it starts dry but gets more interesting about halfway through. Right now I'm reading "In Search of the Unitive Vision". This is a great book. The author, Sy Ginsburg, is an American businessman who founded the Toys-R-Us store chain, assumedly cashed out wealthy at some point, and then went off to India in search of self-realization. In India, around the late '70's, Ginsburg met up with SKP's successor, Sri Madhava Ashish, and they maintained correspondence and regular visits until SMA's passing in 1997. Sri Madhava Ashish was a British engineer who was based in India during WWII, encountered Indian spiritual culture and became a seeker during that period, met up with SKP around 1946, and spent the rest of his life in SKP's ashram, succeeding him as acharya and head of the ashram after SKP's death in 1965.
I'm on ch.13 of 'Yoga of the BG'. As I say - it is great. I won't say anymore. I will certainly check out the work of Sri Madhva Ashish at some point in the near future. I'm interested that Gurdjieff is mentioned - I studied his work some time ago, and I regard it very highly. I've only glanced at the Kaul book - but there seem to be some interesting bits and pieces in there. I came across this btw when I searched amazon for Sri Madhva Ashish. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0835600068/qid=1139957154/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_16_1/026-3072312-2346865
There's quite a bit Gurdjieff-related in Search for the Unitive Vision...the author studied in "Gurdjieff groups" at the suggestion of Sri Madhava Ashish. Yes, I've also seen the same book on Amazon...I think it was influenced quite a bit by SKP's early Theosphical studies. Early western "channelers" of Indian philosophy: Blavatsky, Gurdjieff, Jung, and so on never held much interest for me, they're tedious and a little musty sounding...Yogananda and Srila Prabhupada got my attention early on, as did Ram Dass...he's always been a great western communicator of eastern thought for our generation.
I agree about theosophy - not knocking it but it was more for the late 19th - early 20th centuries. Jung was interesting but too much the 'psychologist'. Gurdjieff is in a slightly different category though - in fact, not a great deal of his teaching is based in Hinduism. G had also travelled extensively in Tibet, Egypt and remote areas of central Asia, and a lot of it seems to derive from Sufi and other sources. There are definite resonances though with some yoga teachings. As I say, I looked into his work some years ago, and although I found it very interesting, I decided that it wasn't something I could pursue further. Nonetheless, I have great respect for G's ideas. Of that group of early teachers, he seems to me to stand out as exceptional. I'll just add that G's own writings, esp 'Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson' are a very difficult read but worth the effort in my view. Difficult, but totally unique and unlike anything else.
Yeah, I barely got through the first few pages of Theosophy & Gurdjieff...never really absorbed anything. Jung was in college psychology courses and maybe mentioned in eastern civ. courses, and of course he's mentioned in plenty of other writings on eastern thought. Hesse scored an all-time home run with Siddhartha, but his other writings have the same antiquated overtones as those of his contemporaries. Just for reading's sake, I did like Narcissus and Goldmund. I don't think there's that much controversial about P. Yogananda, and people can think what they please about Srila Prabhupada, but they, along with Ram Dass-Richard Alpert, were arguably the greatest spiritual geniuses of the 20th century when it came to selectively packaging authentic Vedic thought and practice for the west and planting it here successfully. I know Sri Aurobindo is your guiding light in many ways, but his whole concept is just as difficult for me now as when I first encountered it. I'm finding Sri Krishna Prem's work to be very contemporaneous, readable, and relevant, even though much of it was done in the 30's and 40's and he was influenced early-on by Theosophy and Gurdjieff, and by Sri A. to some degree throughout.
I agree that Krishnaprem's work is very readable, although his style is a little bit old fashioned. Still very enjoyable to read, and filled with amazing insight. As to Herman Hesse's books I agree with Jack Kerouac who said he was 100 years too late. They seem to me to belong more to the intellectual atmosphere of the 19th century. Prabhupada and Yogananda both had an influence on me - less so Ram Dass, although I've read a couple of his books and listened to a few tapes. With Sri Aurobindo - yes, I regard him as a great authority on all aspects of Yoga and Indian philosophy - however, for several reasons, I don't consider myself a 'disciple' of Sri A, and I think that his writings are not at all easy to read. It all gets extremely complex, and requires a high degree of concentrated effort to study successfully. I certainly don't recommend Sri A's work to beginners - either in terms of yoga or philosophy. When I was studying social sciences, I thought that surely, no writer on the planet could ever have been more hard to comprehend than Michael Foucault - I was wrong. By comparison to Sri A his works are light reading. That said - on the positive side, I have to say that Sri Aurobindo's work is on a level one rarely encounters. It has a kind of luminosity, and a power to almost lift one to a higher mental plane. And he had an unrivaled grasp of the meaning of just about all systems of yoga. His knowledge was so vast and high as to be almost dazzling. But again - his prose style was very formal(English 19th c. education) and there are many repititions. There are though contradictions and problems too I feel. I will only mention one. Sri Aurobindo's whole line in one respect is that it is necessary to go beyond intellect, and in fact beyond the mind itself to get knowledge of the Divine. But he wrote thousands of pages of mental philosophy. It's true that he didn't intend to establish 'dogmas' or anything of that nature, he said he wrote only 'to pacify the minds of the sadhakas'. But still, it is a fact that to get a grasp on his overall system, one would have to be prepared to read thousands of pages of densely written and difficult material. Still - once grasped, the system also has a beautiful simplicity! Sorry if that sounds like another contradiction. It's not easy to decide wtd on this forum where Sri A is concerned. Generally, I think younger people will probably not get far if they attempt his major works. Some educational background in either philosophy, sociology or some similar discipline would be a great advantage. On the other hand, maybe I'm being too narrow in seeing it that way. Half a Hippie. for instance, went to an Aurobindian school of some kind I believe, and has asked direct questions - Generally, if I post anything with a Sri A connection, it's quotes from Sweet Mother, as I feel some of what she said is of general interest and relevance and is simply expressed.
Bill...well, now I don't feel like a moron for not getting an immediate grasp on Sri Aurobindo's philosophy. Though always been a reader, I'm not a scholar or intellectual...have to enjoy what I'm reading.
Mere intellectualism has never satisfied me. Although I've done some academic studies in my time - but all that had a practical, worldly goal. I meant only that being used to looking at 'systems' of thought, philosophy etc would be a useful preparation for one wishing to tackle Sri A's books. It's definitely a mistake to be too attached to the intellect. Ultimately, the most immediate message from Sri A is to seek to open oneself to the Divine, to God, by whatever path meets the needs of the individual. The intellect can be a help, and it can also be a hinderance to that.
