The Game of Chess

[ad...@sadguru.us]

THE GAME OF CHESS

In the game of chess, there is no residual past karma. There is the basic material of wood out of which the various men and other pieces are formed. However, they are in fact, all only wood. There is no inherent enmity in any of them, but the game of chess is virtually a war. The players call out, "The knight is dead, the rook is dead," etc. But, by saying so, does it mean that knight really dies? If a knight overpowers the King, does he get any real kingdom? There is no life in the pieces, but players say, "The knight is dead." One wins and the other is defeated, but is there really any death or victory? No, there is nothing like that. The one who plays does everything in the game. All is his concept. If any piece dies in the game, what is his sin? Similarly, to be in bondage or to be free, is all simply a product of imagination. One who conducts his affairs in the worldly life, with this wise attitude, has neither bondage nor liberation. For him all this is only a dream. By thinking that the dream in the night is what is actually occurring in the day, a man acts like an ignorant fool, and cries and laments in vain. The dream in the night cannot be the reality of the day, even though some ignorant people may think so. It is the dream in the night and when the night ends, it will be day, and there will not be any sign of the dream.

In the waking state, the husband, the wife, the king, and queen, are all as false as in a dream. The one who understands this well, is the Incarnation of the Incarnation. He himself is God. The Scriptures, the Vedas, you, I, all are only a myth. This world is a dream. One who awakens from this dream, is truly awakened. In this world appearance, we really own nothing. We say that we should not die and we have to be careful accordingly. That is not how it is in the game of chess. In chess, the man who is defeated is not hanged, nor does the one who wins gets any kingdom. This Illusion is like a game of chess. When a game of chess is over, the players go away with only what they brought with them to the game. What kingdom or spoils can they take away? In short, this world is a game of chess. What is visible is Brahman, but I ask you, what is beyond this appearance? It is Parabrahman. I ask you, "What and how is it?" "That" is Shiva. "That" is Brahman, which is the Truth. There is no horse, house, or man. There is only One, nothing else. However, "That" has no name, no shape. It "is," that's all. There is no asking what "It" is, or how "It" is. The dictates of the Vedas are all like a dream. Bondage and freedom are false. One who understands this and lives a natural life has no insistence that some thing should be done, or should not be done. To do, or not to do, is the thought belonging to the "body-consciousness." Many were able to be completely and perpetually free by withdrawing from the worldly life, but they also kept the sense that they were "somebody." Even when they attained victory, to be immovable or movable, are factors belonging to the body. Such a one valued himself, or conceived of himself, in relation to the body only. Such conceptual delusion should not be there. Really we are nothing and at the same time, we are all things. Not one, not two, not even zero. Elephant, dog, horse, we are all these, we are everything.

Gold was asked, "What are you?" It said, "I am not a certain number of rupees, and all of the various ornaments such as bangles, and bracelets do not exist. I am all. The ornaments and rupees are not. I am only Gold." Like in the example of Gold, we are all, but we are not any particular thing. I am in all. There is no thing in me. Even the "I" is not here. The Guru was asked, "How did you enter into everything?" He said, "When the I in me vanished, I entered into all." The "all" has become pervading all. Where could it be found as any particular thing? When some became liberated by renouncing the world, they were asked, "Who became free?" and they replied "I." This is proof that this "I" has not left at all. Whatever remains after the dropping of "I," is beyond the grasp of logic. "This State," which is unimaginable, this Devotion after Liberation is not understood by anybody. Only the one who has realized that there is only One without a second, has attained this Devotion after Liberation. Death is certain, so everybody says. However, you should be able to die once to such an extent, that there will be no need for taking another birth. "I" as such, does not exist at all. Whatever is, is only Brahman, nothing else. One who has understood this, has the Devotion after Liberation. He says to all, "If you think that there is anything else other than Brahman, search, find it, and bring it here." He understands the Oneness of Brahman, but he also has Devotion.

Some say that Qualified Brahman, or Brahman with qualities, is only Illusion, and what is beyond, is really Brahman. Really, after all, only one single "Existence" is there. The world is like frozen water in the form of ice, and Paramatman is only water without any other attributes. This is the only difference between the Qualified Brahman (Saguna Brahman) and the Absolute Formless Brahman (Nirguna Brahman), nothing more. To differentiate between the two is duality, and to realize it as only one, is non-duality. Namdev said, "The Saguna, and the Nirguna, is only one God. So, to whom should one bow down?" God says, "Dear Namya, now you have really understood. Truly blessed you are!" When one is free, one should remain as he is. All our actions should be as the "Brahman Consciousness." All activities, such as eating, or dining, are only the Supreme Self, Paramatman, acting. This should be very deeply realized. The One who is able to understand this, attains the Devotion after Liberation. The individual is always ready to say that he is an individual, even after attaining the state of Absolute Brahman. He is always ready to tell lies. He has this habit only. The individual fights, being too shy to say "Brahman." This shyness must go. Brahman is never bashful. It is the only Truth.

- Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj from a talk in "Master of Self-Realization"

Evening, 4-11-35

 

[Mahakali]

Transcending the duality of this world means liberation. But one can
go beyond liberation if he clearly believes that Brahman/Self is all
there is. This conviction makes the difference between the ordinary
person and the realized one, because there is the knowledge that
anything and everything is imbued with Self.

The loss of individuality means liberation from karma because there is
none to come back and continue a certain cycle. And "whatever remains
after the dropping of the "I" is beyond logic".

Once Oneness is fully realized, this seems to be supported by
Devotion. The nothingness, emptyness has got a character of Devotion.
But there is no devotee.


Kali

[Richard]

The body/mind egojis are the pawns. Those who understand this are the
players. That which is the substance/non-substance of the players,
that cognative emptiness, which is outside all dualities, is ultimate,
everlasting, unchanging, untouched.

[godszen]

>The Guru was asked, "How did you enter into everything?"
> He said, "When the I in me vanished, I entered into all."

When the I in me vanished...............

how does this "I" come to vanish?

[Richard]

The same way air becomes invisible.

According to Siddharameshwar the "I Am" is the start of the ego. From
it spring "I am this" or "I am that", further false notions and ego
identifications. Having no concepts is the easy way to the samadhi
state, he said as recorded in Amrit Laya vol. 2.

[Mahakali]

Richard

I actually think that, according to Siddharameshwar, the "I Am" is the
the ego. It sounds like to me that both as the same thing.

From Amrut Laya 2, page 55: "One's "True Nature" alone is pure, and
untained. The feeling "I Am" arises in it. This feeling of "I Am" is
itself ego in it's first and purest form. Later, it is tainted with
the pride associated with the body; "I am so and so." Understand that
these are both only different forms of ego. "


Kali

[godszen]

Richard wrote:
> According to Siddharameshwar........

> Having no concepts is the easy way to the samadhi state

Having no concepts .......... the mind melts away

[Richard]

On Mar 10, 7:18 pm, Mahakali <Maha.Ka...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Richard
>
> I actually think that, according to Siddharameshwar, the "I Am" is the
> the ego. It sounds like to me that both as the same thing.

Kali,

That's what I meant. I see that I worded it ambiguously but was
recalling the chapter you quoted and meant to say that the "I Am" is
the beginning of the ego's appearance.