On 10/12/2014 2:42 PM, seerd...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
I believe he said "We are against it" (not to say that he did not also
say your quote).
>
/At one time MMY said he was "opposed to reincarnation", implying that
anyone who became a siddha would not have to be reincarnated again -
they would be liberated from the endless cycle of rebirth.//Apparently
the idea of reincarnation was invented by the historical Buddha. Go figure.
//
//According to my professor Dr. Olivelle, "...the origin of the concept
of the cycle of birth and death, the concept of samsara, and the concept
of liberation in the Indian tradition, were in part the creation of the
non-Vedic Shramana tradition."/
Notes:
Dr. Patrick Olivelle, the translator of the Upaishads, is the Chair,
Department of Asian Studies, and Director, Center for Asian Studies, at
the University of Texas at Austin.
Works cited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation
Flood, Gavin. Olivelle, Patrick. 2003. The Blackwell Companion to
Hinduism. Malden: Blackwell. pg. 273-4.
>
Being "against it" to me is far richer in meaning, funnier, and to me
characterizes his style of communication. He spoke with different
levels of meaning, with double (and triple) entendre (not sexual in
instances that I heard). His quip was funny, decoupling his words
from esoteria suitable for their focus on modern educated audiences,
yet still conveying (what I believe) he meant.
Being against it means he was promoting a method (in his mind) that
made reincarnation unnecessary. If asked if he believed in the
existance any curable disease, a witty doctor might say the same.
This is instructive (to me) -- a message that his, and any teacher's
words need to be carefully parsed, not over generalized, viewed in its
specific context and for what audience, don't assume its the full
teach or truth being conveyed, and most importantly, loosen up, let
your sense of humor blossom (more).
His is I believe the traditional view that the seeds of reincarnation
(the vast mountain of karma -- both the small chunk bitten off in this
life (prarabdha karma) as well as the remainder of the huge yet to be
dealt with (sanchita karma) are burned by the fires of knowledge (from
Gita).
(And personally I do not count anything M said as authoritative. Nor
that of (much) of any teacher or source of knowledge (or words). But
for me, he did provide some useful starting points for personal
investigation and validation.)
Quick aside: paraphrasing an early day's conversation:
M: we all have a mountain of karma.
CLutes (apparently believing he was quite far along on the path): "M,
do I have a mountain of karma?"
M: "You Charlie have more like a huge mountain range."
What are the fires of knowledge? A number of possibilities, not
necessarily mutually exclusive:
* understanding and knowledge,
* transcending,
* kundalini rising and burning all latent samskaras in the chakras,
culminating in the blooming of the crown chakra,
* grace of a fully realized teacher,
* grace of the divine
* other stuff
And does "no reincarnation" mean no more individuality after the body
drops?
(And my position is at least sympathetic with uber atheist Sam Harris
who said in a funny quip, at a conference on death ( or something)
with speakers across a full spectrum of views, paraphrasing "The key
thing is we will all dance around the question and weave greatly
nuanced and intricate answers, but the bottom line is none of us know
what really happens when the physical body dies."
Reincarnation in human form does not preclude continuation of inner
evolution in many astral and causal planes (Autobio of Yogi has good
discussion of this).
And is Moksha / Liberation (that is, all Sanchita Karma (the whole
range, the big enchilada) is burned / roasted) the same as
"enlightenment"? I suggest Liberation is the ultimate real thing,
with a clear criteria. Enlightenment, at what ever stage, not so much.
That is not to discount the freedom and contentment of any such stages
and states.
