--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > on 6/25/05 12:35 AM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > --- In [email protected], Peter Sutphen > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Yes, that's all good and fine, but are you understanding this to > > > mean that a realized person can not exhibit angry behavior? Why would > > > that occur? Forget about me. Let's talk about MMY, somebody that, I > > > assume, we can agree is Self-realized. Have you ever seen him royally > > > pissed-off? I have. It is a sight to behold. Raw power. Many others > > > on this list have seen him pissed-off too. Does that mean that he is > > > not enlightened? Of course not. The understanding of the scripture is > > > incorrect. It does mean an enlightened being can not get angry. > > >> > > > > > > The anger does not touch their essential nature. > > > > The anger is their essential nature. IOW, they are the anger just as they > > are everything else they perceive. > > > ??? Anger, like all other experience, is a relative thing. While someone in Unity may well be > "one with the anger," you can make a case that the analysis of someone in CC's anger is > as far as you need go in discussing this issue (at least *I* make that case). > > With someone in CC, you have Self and you have everything else, including all emotional > states. As long as those emotional states don't draw the person out of CC, then those > states doesn't touch their essential nature. > > You can say that they are angry (have the experience of anger) and yet are untouched by > it, on the level of Self. > > When dealing with what the Gita says, recall that it can be interpreted according to the > state of consciousness of the reader. For someone who is in waking state, the verses are a > warning against anger because it is detrimental for growth. For someone transitioning into > CC, they are still a warning about growth because anger, according to the Gita, is the most > likely thing to draw someone out of Self. For someone in CC, they are an observation that > someone in CC isn't angry in the sense that Self can't get angry even if body can.
That is a laudible statement consistent with TMO teachings -- the Atman is not disturbed. However, the Gita is saying something beyond this. **************************************************** A person whose mind [anudvigna-manah] is unperturbed by sorrow, who does not crave pleasures, and who is free from attachment, fear, and ANGER; such a person is called a sage of steady Prajna. (2.56) krodhah--anger One develops attachment to sense objects by thinking about sense objects. Desire for sense objects comes from attachment to sense objects, and ANGER comes from unfulfilled desires. (2.62) Delusion arises from ANGER. The mind is bewildered by delusion. Reasoning is destroyed when the mind is bewildered. One falls down (from the right path) when reasoning is destroyed. (2.63) ****************************************************** The Gita refers not to Atman, but to the mind, specifically "manas" [in text its "manah" form of manas]. In a self-realized one the MANAS is not disturbed, is not agitated. This probably has to do with the manas-maya-kosha being purified or burned away. In addition, note that "fear" and "craving of pleasure" are also absent in the manas of a realized one. While your (sparig) perspective is still true, the Atman is not perterbed by anger (fear and craving), the Gita is making an even deeper point. It refers to manas being unagitated, not Atman (though Atmans non-agitation is implicit). To accept Peter's view that these points about anger are a misinterpretation of the gita, and that anger DOES agitate the mind of the self-realized, then we would have to accept that fear and craving for pleasure also agitate the mind (manas) -- becasue they are equated in this quote. Yet, I have not seen Maharishi exhibit behaviorial states of fear. Indeed it is said from Upanishads, quoted often by Maharishi, that fear is born of duality and that in Unity no fear can exist. As far as craving for pleasure -- a realized one has tastes and preferences, but their mind is not AGITATED when "pleasure" is absent. Experientially, I think most who have some spiritual practice for some time, know exactly this feeling /state experientially. The mind is NOT "lost" or become agitated or one does not "lose" it when an obstacle is presented (source of anger), or when an unknown situation arises (source of fear) or when a pleasurable experience is absent. This is why the gita talks about a steady-fast mind" or the realized, or as in the above quotes, "a sage of steady Prajna". So Sparig, while you are correct that Atman is not disturbed by anger (fear or craving), also the mind (manas) of the self-realized is not agitated and distured, overcome, lost, become unglued or unfocused by these things. The agitation of the mind, the chaos of the state, the "losing it" experience, and the uncontrolled passion of krodha, are almost the opposite of the intense, focused searing attention of a realized or powerful teacher making a point. Peter's equating this intense focus with uncontrolled krodha is superficial and not worthy of serious consideration. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
