ŷ������

“The biggest problem is the moment you say "spirituality," somebody starts talking about God, someone else about mukti, someone else about nirvana and someone else about the Ultimate. They are all already up there. You cannot do anything with people who are already up there. If somebody is down here, you can do something with them. You can only take a step if your feet are on the ground, isn't it? The moment you talk about God, you are not here anymore; you know it all. You can only start a journey from where you are. You cannot start a journey from where you are not. If you are willing to come down to where you are, then we can see what the next step is. If you are already on the third step to heaven, what can I do with you?”
― Jaggi Vasudev, Of Mystics & Mistakes

“As for karma itself, it is apparently only that which binds "jiva" (sentience, life, spirit, etc.) with "ajiva" (the lifeless, material aspect of this world) - perhaps not unlike that which science seeks to bind energy with mass (if I understand either concept correctly). But it is only through asceticism that one might shed his predestined karmic allotment.

I suppose this is what I still don't quite understand in any of these shramanic philosophies, though - their end-game. Their "moksha", or "mukti", or "samsara". This oneness/emptiness, liberation/ transcendence of karma/ajiva, of rebirth and ego - of "the self", of life, of everything. How exactly would this state differ from any standard, scientific definition of death? Plain old death. Or, at most, if any experience remains, from what might be more commonly imagined/feared to be death - some dark perpetual existence of paralyzed, semi-conscious nothingness. An incessant dreamless sleep from which one never wakes? They all assure you, of course, that this will be no condition of endless torment, but rather one of "eternal bliss". Inexplicable, incommunicable "bliss", mind you, but "bliss" nonetheless.

So many in the realm of science, too, seem to propagate a notion of "bliss" - only here, in this world, with the universe being some great amusement park of non-stop "wonder" and "discovery". Any truly scientific, unbiased examination of their "discoveries", though, only ever seems to reveal a world that simply just "is" - where "wonder" is merely a euphemism for ignorance, and learning is its own reward because, frankly, nothing else ever could be.

Still, the scientist seeks to conquer this ignorance, even though his very happiness depends on it - offering only some pale vision of eternal dumbfoundedness, and endless hollow surprises. The shramana, on the other hand, offers total knowledge of this hollowness, all at once - renouncing any form of happiness or pleasure, here, to seek some other ultimate, unknowable "bliss", off in the beyond...”
― Mark X., Citations: A Brief Anthology

“sebagian orang mendapatkan mukti/mulia dengan mudah, seperti durian runtuh dari langit. Tapi ada juga yang mendapatkannya dengan susah payah dan jungkir balik”
― Dian Nafi, Mengejar Mukti

“While aesthetic richness has prevailed in Indian spiritual life form ancient times, there has also been a parallel puritanical aspect among Indian people. This puritanism was prevalent in various traditions of monks, and evolved into the systems of Buddhism and Jainism. Monks of these two religious paths prohibited the use of objects that were pleasing to the senses, and prescribed forcible control of the mind and senses, suppression of the emotions and instincts, and renunciation of worldly enjoyments. Those monks who became experts in this austere type of penance often developed supernatural psychic powers like telepathy and hypnotism. Even though Patanjali denounced the attainment of such powers (siddhis) as being impediments to liberation (Yogasutra, IV.36-37) still they tended to have considerable influence on people from all walks of life. Brahmanic thinkers were inflienced as well, but wisely accommodated the ideals and practices of these monks by placing them into the renunciatory and seclusionary periods of a practitioner’s later lifetime (the third and fourth stages which follow the student and householder stages).

Tantric theologians did not accept puritanism. Instead they propagated a spiritual path that focused on the simultaneous attainment of enjoyment (bhukti), and liberation (mukti). They accepted both of them as the goal of human life, and developed philosophies and methods that could be followed equally by both monks and householders. They did not approve of any form of forcible control or repression of the mind, emotions, and senses, but rather emphasized that such practices could create adverse reactions that might simply deepen a practitioner’s bondage.

�� B. N. Pandit, Specific Principles of Kashmir Shaivism (3rd ed., 2008), p. 118.”
― Balajinnatha Pandita, Specific Principles of Kashmir Saivism [Hardcover] [Apr 01, 1998] Paṇḍita, BalajinnaÌ"tha

“Dan kenapa sebagian lainnya harus susah jungkir balik untuk dapat mukti dan kemuliaan.”
― Dian Nafi, Mengejar Mukti

“Kamu walau memang dari kaum santri tapi ayahmu bukan kyai, jadi kamu bukan gus, bukan ningrat.”
― Dian Nafi, Mengejar Mukti

“Kecuali kalau kamu masih keturunan sunan, lha itu malah hordogjumahwage”
― Dian Nafi, Mengejar Mukti

“Meski orangnya memang bonafid, tapi kalau tidak satu rel dengan kita apa ya bisa nyambung?”
― Dian Nafi, Mengejar Mukti

“Kalau mau kerja keras, tidak lihat dia ini keturunan siapa, ya pasti akan suksess, mukti, mulia.”
― Dian Nafi, Mengejar Mukti

“No one succeeds or fails in his life, either attains Mukti or takes Rebirth”
― Dr.P.S. Jagadeesh Kumar

“By clearing your mind, you cleanse the karma of this life time, all the memories, biases & conditionings, that prevent you from seeing & experiencing the truth as it is. When you free your mind, you simulteneously set your spirit free from the karma of all your lifetimes. That is the moment of mukti, salvation, liberation, enlightenment, born again, freedom.”
― Zen Everest