IRC-Galleria

Loviisan poliisilaitos
www.sivarikeskus.fi
Sinä Minä Loponen (123456-GONE)
Kieltäytymisilmoitus 1.1 2008.
Ilmoitus saapunut lapinjärven koulutuskeskukseen 17.1.2008.
Rikosilmoitus.

Loponen on kirjallisesti kieltäytynyt siviilipalveluksen suorittamisesta Lapinjärvellä (liitteenä kirjallinen kieltäytyminen). Lapinjärven koulutuskeskus tekee hänestä rikosilmoituksen siviilipalveluslain 26 §:n mukaisesti. Poliisia pyydetään suorittamaan tutkinta siviilipalvelusrikoksen johdosta ja ryhtymään tarvittaviin toimenpiteisiin syytteen nostamiseksi. Virallisen syyttäjän tulee ilmoittaa Lapinjärven Koulutuskeskukseen ja sotilasläänin esikunnalle mikäli hän tekee asiassa päätöksen jättää syyttämättä. Loposen palvelusaika on 395 päivää josta hän on suorittanut 5 päivää.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Ja sitten odotellaan seuraavaa vaihetta. Josko saisivat asiat hoidettua niin, että olisin jo alkukesästä Suomessa.

Korpikuusen kannon alla on Mörri-Möykyn kolo.
Siellä on koti ja siellä on peti ja peikolla pehmoinen olo.
Tiu tau tiu tau tili tali tittan sirkat soittaa salolla,
Pikkuiset peikot ne piilossa pysyy kirkkaalla päivän valolla.
Syksyn tullen sieniä kasvaa karhunkankahalla,
Mörri-Möykky se sateessa istuu kärpässienen alla.

Sain juuri (ex-)anopilta mailia. Kuulema Lapinjärven koulutuskeskuksesta on tullut kirje. Sanovat jotta polliisit tulloo suorittamaan tutkimusta siviilipalvelusrikoksesta. Ans tulla vaan, täällä ootellaan, vailla stressin häivää loikoillaan, mualiman olemusta pohdiskellaan. Eivät nuo purre jollei niitä ärsytä.

Osoitteenkin muutin Väestörekisterikeskukseen tänne Intian maaseudulle, jotta tietävät tulla oikeaan paikkaan. Mitäköhän mahtavat tutkia? Johan siellä on todiste rikoksesta heidän pöydällään. Kenties se, että unohdin innostuksissani allekirjoittaa sen paperin, on herättänyt epäilyksiä! On siihen nimi printattu alle ja kaunis tyhjä viiva myös. Jos oikein pinnistää mielikuvitusta, siihen voi vaikka kuvitella kukkasia. Mitä suotta sotkea hyvää tyhjää tilaa paperilla!

Ja olen ilmoittanut myös sinne Sivarikeskukseen että sähköpostitse saa ottaa yhteyttä. Eivät nuo osanne, menee järjestään vastaamatta sinne päin laitetut kommunikét. Noh, tutkikoot. Kasvatan partaa odotellessa.

Rennosti Intiassa,
Madhavananda

Lisää viisautta Buddhalta, ibid.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Typerä mies, kuultuaan Buddhan seuraavan suuren rakkauden periaatetta, joka käskee antamaan hyvää pahan vastineeksi, tuli häntä herjatakseen. Buddha oli hiljaa, murehti hänen typeryyttään. Miehen päätettyä herjansa Buddha kysyi häneltä, "Poikani, jos mies ei ottaisi vastaan hänelle annettua lahjaa, kenelle lahja kuuluisi?" Hän vastasi, "Siinä tapauksessa se kuuluisi lahjan antaneelle."

"Poikani," sanoi Buddha, "Olet minua herjannut, mutta kieltäydyn ottamasta herjaasi vastaan ja pyydän sen pitämään tykönäsi. Eikö se tulekin sinulle murheen alhona olemaan? Kuten kaiku kuuluu äänelle, ja varjo ainekselle, niin myös murhe tulee valtaamaan pahantekijän vääjäämättä."

Erilaiset "kymmenen käskyä", käännetty teoksesta "Buddha, The Gospel" - http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/btg/.

-=-=-=-=-

Buddha sanoi, "Kaikki elävien olentojen teot tulevat pahoiksi kymmenen tekijän johdosta, ja niitä kymmentä välttäen tulevat ne hyviksi. On kolme ruumiin pahaa, neljä kielen pahaa ja kolme mielen pahaa.

"Ruumiin pahat ovat murha, varkaus ja huorinteko; kielen ovat valehtelu, herjaus, karkea puhe ja joutopuhe; mielen ovat ahneus, viha ja virhe.

"Kehoitan teitä kymmentä pahaa välttämään:

1. Älä tapa, vaan kunnioita elämää.

2. Älä varasta, älä ryövää; vaan auta jokaista saavuttamaan työnsä hedelmät.

3. Pidättäydy epäpuhtaudesta, elä siveää elämää.

4. Älä valehtele, ole totuudellinen. Puhu totuus harkiten, pelotta ja rakastavalla sydämellä.

5. Älä luo vääriä todistuksia, älä niitä toista. Älä nurise, vaan etsi kanssaeläjiesi hyviä ominaisuuksia.

6. Älä kiroa, vaan puhu siivosti ja arvokkaasti.

7. Älä haaskaa aikaa juoruihin, vaan puhu merkityksellisesti tai vaikene.

8. Älä ahnehdi tai kadehdi, vaan riemuitse muiden saavutuksista.

9. Puhdista sydämesi pahasta tahdosta äläkä vaali vihaa, älä edes vihollisiasi kohtaan, vaan ota kaikki elävät olennot vastaan ystävyydellä ja avosylin.

10. Vapauta mielesi tietämättömyydestä, ole innokas tarpeellisen totuuden oppimiseen; sillä muutoin joudut joko skeptisismin tai virheiden uhriksi. Skeptisismi tekee sinusta välinpitämättömän ja erheet johtavat sinut harhaan, etkä tule ikuiseen elämään johtavaa jaloa tietä löytämään."

Kaksi pientä lintua ilmeisesti rakentavat pesäänsä huoneeni kattopalkin välissä olevaan rakoon.

Antaa lintujen häärätä. On tässä tilaa kolmelle.

Yesterday I wrote a blog, "The Bodhisattva's Cocoon", detailing reasons for my withdrawing into solitary practice.

Today's e-mail brought in a comment from Anonymous: "Little late. You already misled many..."

Truth there is in his words, there's no denying that. Blind man sees the truth in a blind man's response, alas the irony of that.

Little late is fortunately much better than a lot late. Of course, some among the blind companions realized the folly on the way and turned back, and again some of them fell into their self-discovered ditches in the route of their return from nowhere to nowhere, and of course for that I am also indirectly responsible.

Fortunately no effort is wholly in vain, and many fellow men and ladies also found good routes to places where they'd one day find eyes to see. It was not that I ever meant to be the sole beacon, only the blindest of the blind would have assumed such.

While some embarked on a journey with the blind man, I know not of a single one who would have walked alongside to where he is now. And I'm not in a ditch yet! People then neither know where I am, nor where my route leads, and may that remain so. Far be it from me to call for anyone to partake of my inner quest.

I cannot say whether the Anonymous of sparse words means to say that I have misled people by not, for example, serving them with the doctrines of ISKCON, Gaudiya Math, or of any other contemporary sect of choice. If that were the case, then I would consider the proposal laughable and preposterous. The principle of my sentiment applies universally to all paths, and blind men remain blind regardless of the route they supposedly lead you onwards on.

Truth is not that which is written, truth is that which is seen and experienced within. The seer of truth will guide the seeker to the oasis of divine gnosis. All aside that are but potential indicators. The truths of the scriptures and the truths of the traditions convey meaning through direct fusion with the experiential core of the consciousness; otherwise, even the best of theories consists of only so many words written.

How many times can a man apologize, and do the incrementing apologies add to their value? Again I extend my heartfelt apologies to everyone adversely affected, and I pray that the clouds of bitter bile will eventually subside from the heart-skies of those harboring ill feeling. May that conclude my reflections and mortifications for now, be there good will and peace for all.

(Saattaa aiheuttaa päänsärkyä.)

Some of you have been missing philosophical writings. Here goes: Unity and difference of Atman and Brahman, doctrinal trouble with different strata of philosophy fused into a single doctrine, and God's creation of the chicken and the egg.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

* Is it possible to become one with Brahman? In Advaita-vedanta, the always-existing unity of Brahman and Atman is realized; however, for Gaudiyas the two are different -- so how does it work? *

Merging in the Brahman is called sayujya-mukti and is one of the five kinds of liberation mentioned (vide e.g. Kapiladeva's teachings in the 3rd canto). It is, then, certainly possible. Further, three kinds of sayujya are admitted: Brahma-sayujya, Paramatma-sayujya (merging with the Supersoul) and Parsada-sayujya (merging with a companion), all of them undesired for the devotee.

Classical Vedanta wouldn't admit that the svarupa or essential nature of the being is something to be gained from an outside source; even Bhagavata notes, muktir hitvAnyathA-rUpam svarUpeNa vyavasthitaH -- "Mukti is the forsaking of other forms, the establishment in one's intrinsic being." As such, the Vedantic perfection shouldn't be anything extrinsic to the living entity.

A problem we face is in Gaudiya Vaisnavism's essentially being, historically speaking, a fusion of two different strata of doctrines, namely the Vedanta tradition and the Tantra tradition that are markedly different, even if many have found them compatible. This poses a problem with understanding, for example, the Gaudiya doctrine of the gaining of the parsada-svarupa (companion-form) in Goloka, which has been the subject of some debate over the years, given that the Atman is traditionally thought of unchanging, immutable and so forth.

While Vedanta would have us hold the position that everything is only uncovered from under a veil of ignorance, much along the lines of Mahaprabhu's nitya-siddha-kRSNa-prema sAdhya kabhu naYa, zravaNAdi zuddha-citte karaYe udaYa statement, the premises of Sri Jiva in his Priti-sandarbha on the nature of bhakti are clear in there being an external input: He explains that hladini, or the power of love, is given by God to the living entity so that with that love, he might love him in turn.

One might reconcile the question of an apparently external source by stating that in the spirit of the doctrine of Bheda-abheda, the Atman and the Brahman (to take the Vedantic terms) are simultaneously one and different, and therefore, given the underlying unity, no question of an external, second source arises. This would of course necessitate the rejection of the complete Dvaita position that we often (unwittingly) assume in stating "the distinction between Brahman and Atman" and the such -- for it is not that there is only distinction, the traditional dualist position. Granted, devotional traditions naturally tend to emphasize the duality owing to the need to maintain a clearly distinct subject and object, an obvious need for devotion to go on.

—

* What are we to make of statements implying that the living entity forgets Krishna in light of the conclusion that bondage is beginningless? *

This is a common expression also found, for example, in Caitanya-caritamrita. kRSNa bhuli' sei jIva anAdi bahirmukha, "Forgetting Krishna, that jiva is turned away from him since time beginningless." (2.20.117) Of course, here in our exegesis we can "cancel" the literal meaning of forgetting at a point of time owing to the anadi or beginningless aversion, but it isn't as easy in texts such as the following: 'kRSNa-nitya-dAsa' -- jIva tAhA bhuli' gela, "'Krishna's eternal servant' -- forgetting that, the jiva went into forgetfulness."

I haven't ever read in any acknowledged source the reconciliation of this -- essentially fall-vada -- with the literal anadi-baddha theory that all of Vedanta propounds, but I am inclined to think we are looking at two levels of exposition: One for the masses and the other for the scholastics.

The conclusion one holds on such matters does not, in any substantial way, affect the here-and-now of the practitioner, who ought to focus on the obvious issues that demand for immediate resolution rather than delve on high metaphysical, and for all practical purposes unprovable, theories. One can then think in one way or in the other way, or not think about it at all -- it doesn't really make a substantial difference in the end at all.

To illustrate, the Advaita-vedanta tradition offers three different approaches to creation: Ajati-vada, the Drishti-srishti-vada, and the Srishti-drishti-vada. Ajati-vada states that there is no creation, period! It doesn't exist to begin with, it's all a non-dual substance and that's it. Can't take it, too much to grasp? Move on to the next: Drishti-srishti-vada states that creation takes place simultaneously with the arising of your perception, making you the de facto creator of your subjective outer world. Too much stll? Okay, Srishti-drishti-vada: First there was a creation where the elements flowed into being as the unborn Brahman diversified, or alternatively as the Great Vishnu glanced over the undifferentiated sum-total of matter, and then you perceived the world. All three are extant possible theories and suit different needs, the realized philosophers holding that the first of the three is the ultimate in all of its paradoxical beauty. And for the Buddha, many such issues didn't even merit an answer, so removed were they from the here and now that demanded attention.

To became caught up on such matters is to become caught up in debating whether God first created the egg or the chicken. That is, mind you, a valid philosophical question! With this, one begins to appreciate that some themes are best left as indescribable or incomprehensible. Perfect philosophy is free from paradox, the idealist claims! How he forgets that perfect philosophy must be a perfect representation of the complete truth, and if the complete truth were indeed comprehensible to the space-time-conditioned human mind, the mind would have subjugated the complete truth -- leading to suspicions that the complete truth is a creation of the human mind!

Some may have wanted to take a peek into my psyche for insight into the fundamental reasons of my present direction into solitude, the underlying impetus of my turn from the dim limelights of outreach. What has made the once almost all-permeating wish to help others subside? Is the bodhisattva now staring at the navel of his own fat belly?

It's not that I have any less a wish to help others in their quest than I had before. To the contrary, with the deepening of an understanding of the human condition, the wish has grown by the day. The poignant question I've had to face is, "Am I any good for the task?" Many have lauded my efforts, many have professed the help received. Yet, what I speak is tinged with theory, and what I speak is fallible, prone to errors uncounted. Let me quote an often heard parable (narrated by Swami Sivananda) with apt emphasis on the core problem.

---

"Fifty blind men were sitting in a Dharmashala. They were born blind. They all wanted to go to a distant place of pilgrimage. Four other blind men came along and joined this group. They said they were also going to the same place. "Friends," said the leader of the fifty, "we are blind and cannot find our way to the sacred shrine. Will you be able lead us? Do your eyes see?" "Yes, my dear friends," replied the four, "we have heard a lot about the sacred city and the way to reach it. We have a clear mental picture of the route. Though we do not see it with our eyes, we are confident that we shall not only reach our destination, but lead you all there with us. Follow us." They tied one another with a long rope. The best one among the four led the way. He had a mental idea of the way, no doubt; it was not of much avail. He was misled. Soon he fell into a deep ravine. Bound to him, the other blind men, not knowing where he was leading them, also fell into the ditch, one by one. All of them perished.

Similar is the case with the masses today. They hear of the Land of perennial Bliss, the Land where Holiness and Divinity abound. But they know not the way. They are waiting to be led there. In the meantime a few other blind men arrive there. They have heard a lot about the Kingdom of God. They have great intellectual understanding. They think they know the way, and not only that, they can lead others also. They are the scientists and scientific philosophers. They promise to lead the masses to the Kingdom or Immortal Bliss. The credulous public follows them. These leaders have a great intellect, but no self-control and experience. They go where their cravings and Vasanas and desires lead them. They fall into a terrible ditch of sensuousness, of materialism, and perish. All their followers also perish.

Hearken ye, all men; follow not the blind misleaders. Follow the sages who have the eye of intuition and attain the Abode of Supreme Bliss."

---

The fact of the matter is, and it should not come as a surprise to any thinking and observant individual, that I do not have the eyes to see. I have certainly had my share of glimpses of insight into the "sacred city" of the parable — who among earnest practitioners wouldn't have — but it is far from being the sufficient and comprehensive, persistent and mature insight a responsibility in guiding others would call for.

Is that a problem? Would my faith not suffice? Do I have no faith in the path? "Faith is the beginning", they say. Faith is the beginning, yes, and faith is also a process. The path from faith to certainty is a long and arduous journey. Faith is subject to human misestimations, certainty arising from direct perception into paratattva is a divine immutability. "I said it on faith" is the equivalent of saying "I hope it'll be right!". Who, a wise man, would make an earnest commitment on the basis of such half-certainties?

I needn't get into describing the vast web of responsibility giving practical guidance to others weaves. Some assume that responsibility is only taken when initiation is given. No — responsibility is taken with each advice given to a faithful person, and each ill advice will return as a snake to bite you in the heel. Getting 50% right isn't a great consolation, no matter how great the merit of the 50% may be. The other 50% will feel disappointed, let down, mistreated or offended. Even if in their magnanimity they don't, the karma of giving undue advice is upon me.

With the lack of comprehensive insight and experience, the absence of power is evident. It is not the mere content, it is the experiential impact of the message that counts. One is not to inform, one is to transform. Words of value possess an inherent transforming quality, born as they are of reality instead of theory, while words of theory leave men but luke-warm and half-baked, not good for one nor the other. "But isn't something better than nothing?" Yes it is, but it isn't good enough.

With this, some who've met me may have observed, I have consciously abstained from giving definitive personal answers to many questions that would call for realization to justify the definitive tone. I have, rather, modeled my answers as "some say" or "it is written". Sentences beginning with "some say" or "it is written" do not carry the weight that sentences implying or expressly stating "it is, and I am the evidence" do; and again, masquerading book-knowledge as the latter, the mature spring of perceived wisdom oozing from within, is the worst kind of pretense. In the classical Buddhist Patimokkha, the monastic code of 227 rules, dishonesty over one's own internal state was one of the only four unforgivable offences that led to expulsion for life from the monastery.

I have no monastery to disown me, no judge as the vox populi and their broad court of law to effect me. However, I am bound by a sense of internal integrity. It is finally dawning upon me, delusions shred, that I cannot afford to play the game the world would like me to play, that others would like me to play, a game I myself at times fondly played, no matter how much external call there would be for the same.

Please do not mind, then, my resignation from the duties of the world. I am not in a position to convey the substance I perceive ought to be conveyed. The future years will be committed to an internal process. Wrapping myself in a cocoon, burning myself to ashes I shall. Perhaps one day a butterfly will glide across the deep blue sky, perhaps a phoenix will rise and spread its benevolent shine.

śakunīnām ivākāśe matsyānām iva codake /
padaṁ yathā na dṛśyeta tathā jñānavidāṁ gatiḥ //

"Juuri kuten linnut taivaalla, juuri kuten kalat vedessä
joiden jäljet eivät ole nähtävissä, niin kulkee viisaan tie."

---Mahabharata 12.174.19