Sri Ramakrishna and Renunciation

By Charlie Feldman (Prana)

Yesterday, in the course of a few minutes, multiple examples of Sri Ramakrishna's renunciation occurred to me, and I thought I would share them with you:

We know he renounced lust because he never consummated his marriage, and he would at times be so caught up in samadhi that his cloth would slip off, and there was no sexual significance in that. It is said he was like a child in this respect.

We know he renounced wealth and greed, because one time when the authorities told him he had to leave his home at Dakshineswar, he got up without a second thought and started to leave, although he had no place to go. Also, as a youth, he had no use for a bread-winning education.

All in a Day's Drive!

By Prasoona

A journey that began at the onset of dawn,
Like a puppy enjoying a jolly-ride.
Through the fresh morning mist,
The heart afloat in serenity,
Buoyant with faith
Of a promised day, nay moment.
A moment that's fresh, as fresh as a dew drop on a crisp green leaf.
A moment not tarnished by the dead past or the mythical future.
The heart was cleansed, setting the stage
For the soul to reverberate with Mother Nature, in that moment, and experience  its innate freedom.

The drive bore on...the moment, where, what?

The day light broke, business around.
The soul was getting shrouded...
Unconsciously, yet surely, a tad too quick for the senses to capture.
Now, "I" wasn't living in the moment;
The mind was busy evaluating the  remainder of ( today plus the many tomorrow-s minus the multitudes of yesterday divided by me vs. the world).

Professor Mathew Pugh

by Swami Yogatmananda

“Hmmm … . Interesting!”

He expressed, by the tone and by facial gesture, his disapproval and disagreement of my opinion about rebirth, after asking me some pointed questions. I knew, my answers were far from convincing for a learned Professor of Philosophy at Providence College, imbued with Western ideas about life, body, soul etc.

He was Prof. Mathew Pugh. It was sometimes towards the end 2001. I had come to the US from India just about 5-6 months ago; Prof Mathew too had come to teach Philosophy at Providence College around the same time. He showed a good knowledge of and interest in Vedanta, life and teachings of Sri Ramakrishna and Vivekananda, Mysticism, meditational practices etc and attended the classes and lectures regularly. The use of ‘interesting’ to convey disagreement, without being disagreeable, was the first of the many, many important and very useful things that Prof. Mathew taught me.

We started having many interesting (not in the above-mentioned sense) conversations about Sri Ramakrishna’s Samadhi-experiences, about fine points in Vedanta and Buddhist philosophy, Karma and reincarnation, the ideas of body-mind-soul in Vedanta and many other related issues. He liked to sit long hours in meditation and also attend the Indian classical music concerts. One day, I expressed my desire to get some courses in Western philosophy from him. After coming to the USA, I felt the need to have a better understanding of the various important strands in ancient and modern Western philosophy. When I requested Prof Mathew, he agreed to tutor me and thought of a plan to give me some broad but brief outline of Western philosophy. What a memorable time I had, learning the ideas of Parmenides, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. He also gave a few classes on Thomas Aquinas, and then on Kant. I saw a new, immensely varied world opening before me. There was of course a good exchange of ideas between Indian and Western philosophical tenets. ‘So, Swami, what is the take of Vedanta on this?’ – He would ask after explaining some of the doctrines of a great philosopher and that would lead to a crisp discussion.

Religion-Science Discussion

by Srikanth

This post is a summary and some additional thoughts on the distinction between Religion and Science, based on what Swami Yogatmanandaji presented in class on Jnana Yoga on Friday, Oct. 23, 2015.

Religion	Science
Personal verification of truth is the ultimate goal of religion. It begins with belief, but it should and will never get stuck there.	Science is belief on what other scientists have proven is acceptable. So it gets stuck in belief.
Religion has already shown to the world what its goal is and how to achieve it. Further, it lays claim that some people have actually achieved this goal.	The ultimate goal is not given in science, nor there is any effort to do so. The cause and effect relationship that governs it is endless, as a cause for a particular effect was earlier an effect of another cause and so on.  Also, the particular effect now would be a cause for another future effect, ad infinitum.
Religion is a life-transformation. The followers of religion are expected to adhere to the disciplines to better their lives - thereby becoming more peaceful and contented.	Science does not demand any change in one’s life. Having a scientific temperament at an intellectual level with no bearing on life is sufficient and in fact it is encouraged.
Religion deals with the subject (knower) itself rather than the object (known). Although it begins with God as an object to be known, it matures into an understanding of God being the subject itself and everything else as non-existent or dependent on God.	Science deals with the object (known). The knower is always scrupulously told to keep separate from the object studied. However, despite his or her best efforts, the knower is bound to have some influence on the known during this interaction.
Great sages and samaritans, who bring peace to the world, are inspired through religion. Religious groups run many charitable organizations.	Science is not known to cultivate great people who are a blessing to the world by bringing peace and happiness to everyone. Although many scientists may be charitable, they rarely take the plunge in helping the world.
Pursuit of religion brings everlasting peace and happiness.	Scientific discoveries and inventions can only bring intellectual happiness and physical comforts in life.
Religion creates a lot of bloodshed in this world, mainly due to differences in how one views  God and performs religious practices. Usually, the actual motive of religious conflict is for power to control a large population with zero regard for God, but religion is used as the prop to further the agenda of these power mongers.	Have you ever heard of scientists killing each other just because they have different views of their field or do experiments differently to reach the same goal? Sadly, many so-called “sane” and “intelligent” people, even if they are scientists, fall into that trap when it comes to religion.
The charlatans in religion create scandals that bring shame not only to themselves, but also to the religion. Unfortunately, their sincere followers may get disgusted with religion itself.	The charlatans in science bring disrepute only to themselves. Somehow science itself never gets blamed for their malpractices, unlike in religion. Also the followers of such charlatans are not very emotionally traumatized when the charlatans are exposed, as seen in the case of religion.

Thoughts on Reading the Book Jewish Meditation - A Practical Guide by Aryeh Kaplan

by Charles Feldman (Prana)

On page 55, it says: When one repeats a mantra over and over, the mind also becomes habituated to it. Eventually, one becomes able to say it without the words registering in the conscious mind. . . . It is therefore a highly effective psychological means of removing all thought from the mind.

I have often wondered about the psychological means of one-pointedness leading to God-realization. The above paragraph indicates that when one becomes habituated to the mantra, it becomes automatic, and one can enter into samadhi through losing track of the mundane world altogether.

On page 95, it says: The most difficult thing [in having a conversation with God] is to begin. Rabbi Nachman advises sitting down in the place where you meditate and saying to yourself, "For the next twenty minutes, I will be alone with God." This in itself is significant, since it is like the beginning of a "visit." Even if there is nothing to say, it is a valid experience since you are spending time alone with God, aware of His presence. If you sit long enough, says Rabbi Nachman, you will eventually find something to say.

The above paragraph let me know that I am not alone in often not knowing what to say to God, and that it is possible to develop a relationship, just as you would with a person with whom you at first feel shy.

The Greatest of All Wonders

By Moomookshoo

The inspiration for this poem comes from Swami Vivekananda's  talks on Maya given in the second volume of the Complete Works and King Yudhishthira's answer to Yaksha's question given in the Mahabharata.

Do you sometimes wonder
What is the greatest wonder?
The ancient world had its seven wonders;
The modern world boasts its own wonders;
The future may bring even greater wonders.
But, curiously enough, we miss the eternal wonders!
Isn't this  the greatest of all wonders?

We look around and find a world of constant change,
Nothing ever remains the same, except that things change.
Yesterday's child is today's  young man,
Only on the way to be tomorrow's old man.
What we today  fondly call "mine", many in the past called  "mine",
And many more will do the same, in the relentless march of time.
The present undoubtedly  is ephemeral,
Yet it feels  reassuringly  eternal!
Isn't this a wonder eternal?

Catching Train at Platform 9&3/4

By Swami Yogatmananda

Humans have a tremendous attraction for the mysterious. We all keep imagining the world that lies beyond ‘this world’ – i.e., the world which we can grasp and measure by our senses. Of course, we are conscious of a lot of things that elude the senses. For example, we all are conscious of beauty, joy, wonder, love, peace as well as their opposites. And of course, the most important and constantly experienced, yet most inexplicable phenomenon of ‘I’! But none of these can be precisely presented in terms of mathematical measurements or logical constructs. The expressions of these emotions can be understood as brain-functions and can thus be reduced to mathematical terms, but not the emotions themselves. The spiritual urge in us therefore wants to go beyond the boundaries of reason, which is truncated by the limits of whole numbers. Mathematical logic, which is also related to set theory, has to work within the whole-number frame-work: we cannot conceive of a set having 5&7/10 objects; it has to have either 5 objects or 6, but not ‘in between’. In arriving at a conclusion using formal logic, we have to go step 1->step 2 ->. . . .  If, for simplification, we put a step between steps 1 & 2, then that becomes step 2 and what was earlier called step 2 becomes step 3. Absolutely no possibility of having step # 1&1/2!

But suppose we can sharpen our basic faculties and are able to actually conceive a logical system that goes in between?