Tag Archives: Totality

Acharya Prashant on Veganism: Vedas and Milk

Blog-11

Question: Acharya Ji, there are people who quote the Vedas and say “A Hindu is a good Hindu only if he drinks milk from the mother cow.” What is your take on that?

Acharya Prashant: See if you have named the Vedas, what is the central teaching of all the Vedic literature?

If you want to really know what the Vedic teaching is, you will have to go to the Upanishads. The Upanishads are called the “Vedanta”, which means the summit or the climax of Veda. And they go into the reality of man. What is the reality of man? The Upanishads are very forthright and unequivocal about it. They say, “Man is the Truth itself (Aham Brahmasmi).” Nothing else except the Truth. You are the ultimate finality. You are the total.

Now, if this is the position that the Vedic literature takes, then one cannot operate from a point of incompleteness, hollowness or desirousness. A lot of what we do, please see we do just in order to gain fulfillment. We say that the purpose of human Life is progress, don’t we? And we asses a human being according to how much he has been able to progress and contribute to progress.

And what is progress for us?
Knowing more; collecting more.

I’m not trying to unnecessarily be simplistic. Please go into it.

When you know more, when you collect more, is it something that happens only on the outside or does it also affects your self-worth? When you know more, your self-worth rises; when you collect more, again your self-worth rises. The Upanishads say, that your self-worth, that which you are, is any way infinite, you are anyway total. Now, go out and play. You are anyway perfect and complete. Now, do whatever you want to do. But do it from a point of perfection. Do it from a point of completion.

Do not do in order to gain something. Do not do in order to rise.

Act as if you are already there as if you are already complete.

That is what Vedas are all about.

Now, around this center, a lot has been said. Just a whole lot.

Continue reading

Pure giving

The ego is interested in its own nourishment.

Because the ego wants only that what the ego values, not which is absolutely valuable.

Getting tired of getting hurt is a rare happening. Man is extremely resilient. We keep on getting hurt again and again, at the same place and yet we are hardly ever tired of repeating the same processes, the same actions that bring us to hurt.

You can call it a stage of demolition. The old patterns are seen as worthless and hence given up.

In the first level, the ego gives, and this giving is of a nature that strengthens the ego. In the second level, the ego gives up its trust in itself and hence gets diminished.

In the third stage giving up does not happen. The third stage is of pure giving.

You just give. Meaninglessly, purposelessly, reasonlessly. You don’t even give, you are just being what you really are.

And when you just start giving, since you are giving to yourself, you start receiving a lot.

Tremendously bored we are with everything, that even an invitation to get rid of boredom sounds boring.

Your mind is already afraid of death, and Rumi is just exposing, or at worst exploiting that fear.

Given the way we are, fear is our reality. Wherever there is body identification, there would also parallely be the fear of the loss of the body.

Everything is done for a purpose, for a reason, with the expectation of gain. And where there is the expectation of gain, there is also the parallel fear of loss.

Because an action that arises from fear can never eliminate fear.

Take care of the ‘first’ in the ‘first place.’ Do not let the disease guide your actions. Rather, the first action should be to eliminate the disease. And these are the only two ways of living.



Read the complete article: Acharya Prashant on Rumi: The three levels of giving

Acharya Prashant on Rumi: The three levels of giving

IMG-20180628-WA0017 

Before death takes away what you are given,

give away what there is to give.

Rumi

Acharya Prashant: Here is something from Rumi: “Before death takes away what you are given, give away what there is to give.”

The question says, “Statements like these are interpreted as being pleasure aversive, and we already are pain aversive, so together it means being life aversive. Is Rumi really talking about being life aversive?”

I’ll repeat the quote, “Before death takes away what you are given, give away what there is to give.”

‘Giving’ is the keyword. Let’s go close to it and understand it. ‘Giving’ happens at three different levels. All three are connected to each other, yet there is a dimensional difference between the three. The three appear to be progressively leading to each other, yet there is also a quantum jump from the first to the second and from the second to the third. The first kind of giving is the giving that we are all very familiar with.

You give somebody a hundred rupee note and then you expect in return a value of at least hundred rupees, right? And it is great if you give hundred rupees and are in return given a value of two hundred rupees. If you just look at the event partially, then giving is happening. Is it not? You are giving something, right?

Similarly, we give gifts to each other. We give compliments to each other. We give advices to each other. We even give help to each other. We see that happening all around us. What is common between all these types of givings? We are talking about the first level of giving. What is common between all these types of giving?

Listener: It’s given to someone else.

AP: Yes, and?

L: Expectation of a return.

AP: Expectation of a return. Now what kind of return do you expect? When you give something to somebody, what do you expect in return?

L: Something of same value.

AP: Something of value at least, or do you expect something valueless? Be with me, do you expect something valueless or something you deem as worthy?

L: Something we deem as worthy.

AP: Who decides whether what you are getting in return is indeed valuable?

L: Me.

AP: You decide. So you are the one who decides that you are giving away something that has value, let’s say a note or a compliment. And you are also the one who decides that what you are getting in return too is valuable, correct? Who is this ‘you’, who is this ‘me’ who decides what to give and what to get? And whether to give and whether to get? And whether the given and taken has value? Who is this entity that decides all this? That entity is called the ‘ego.’

The ego is interested in its own nourishment.

So, whenever it enters into a transaction with the world, whenever it enters into a transaction in a relationship, its objective is always to enhance itself. Which means that if it is giving hundred, it wants hundred and fifty in return. This is our normal day-to-day giving, which appears like giving but is actually a business transaction in which the ego wants to benefit and hence enhance itself. Are you getting it?

If you give something but get something in return which the ego does not like, then you will say that this is not a fair transaction. Take an extreme example. Let’s say you have become habituated to substance abuse, drugs. You take one thousand rupees and you give it to a drug peddler. And what you get from him instead is some sane advice and a copy of the Upanishads. An entire set of the principal Upanishads, that’s what he gives you the moment you hand over your thousand bucks to him. Will you say that you have been given a fair deal? Would you?

L: No.

AP: No,

because the ego wants only that what the ego values, not which is absolutely valuable.

It has to be valuable in relation to the ego’s configuration. I want that which I think is good for me. Now even if what you are giving me is beautiful advice and a copy of the scriptures, yet I reject it because I do not value it because this is not what I expected. Give me that which I want.

Continue reading

Can one Truth be bigger than another?

SR Generic_ English

Question: Is this something like one truth is bigger than another truth? Like, if I want to pursue a path, right. But if I pursue that then there are chances that I might be losing some important aspect of my life. And that is also a truth. So which truth should I follow and should I listen to?

AP: How many truths do you know of?

L: As of now I’m talking of these two truths.

AP: What if two or four more come?

L: They may.

AP: So how many are possible?

L: I don’t know.

AP: Is it possible that something is Truth and something separate from it is also Truth? If there is Truth then everything apart from it is bound to be?

Listeners: False.

Continue reading

When you work purposelessly, then you really work.

When the time for the action has arrived, go there, purposelessly, act, purposelessly. And if you find that purposelessness is unsuitable to that place, then you and the place would anyway get separated. Good for you, good for that place.

Why must you be in a place that doesn’t love you enough to bear your purposelessness.?

Why must you be with a person only with a purpose?

Why must you be working only for a purpose?

Remember that working can never be a purpose. When you say that you go to a workplace for a purpose, the purpose is never the work. Is it? 

When you say that you go to your workplace for a purpose, is the purpose ever the work? What is the purpose? The purpose is the salary check. You don’t go to work for a purpose. In fact, if work could be bypassed and you could straight away reach the salary check, who would want to work? Is work the purpose, really? No, it is not.

Now, why work in such a place then why subject to month-long torture so you get a check, in the month end. When you work purposelessly, then you really work. Now you are going to work, you are not going to get the salary check.

Now, the purpose is the doing itself, otherwise, the purposes are outside of the doing. The purposes are always in the future, somewhere ahead.



Read the complete article: What would life be without a purpose?

What would life be without a purpose?

gen 1Question: Should life be purposeless?

Acharya Prashant: It is purposeless. You tell me where purposes come from. It is not as if it should be purposeless. All shoulds are purposes in themselves. So, when you say, “Life should be purposeless, you have already ascribed a purpose to life.”

Life is already purposeless. Even if you give it a purpose, that purpose stands nowhere. A purpose is just like trying to write your name on the surface of the mountain stream. Continue reading

Trying to experience the Total means you are reducing the Total to an object

Trying to experience the Total means you are reducing the Total to an object, a limited object. Whereas totally experiencing whatever is, means, you experience whatever is there, to experience. But, you have the Total behind your back, patting, touching you gently, toddling you on and saying, “Go ahead.”

Total, go ahead, experience. The world is yours.



Read the Complete Article: Do not try to experience the Total just totally experience whatever is