The essential Advaita Teaching

July 13, 2004

What is the essential Advaita teaching? It is simply

that Atman and ParamAtman are identical. This is not

an intellectual understanding but an actual experience

and self-recognition.

When experience and the experiencer merge consciously,

the state that is devoid of all sorrow is known as

one's own Self and Being as Pure Existence and Pure

Consciousness. I emphasize one's own Self because now

we see our self as different from others and God as

well. So the question arises how can our self that

appears different from everything be identical to

ParamAtman.

The Advaita teaching of a careful investigation

through the neti neti method brings one gradually to

the clarity of Self-Knowledge. Knowing "another" can

never lead to full knowledge because others (things,

worlds, gods, celestial planes, the whole mysterious

cosmos) can only be known through the Shakti of the

self, our own self. So the Vedas teach that one should

know that by which all is known. The teaching is

beautiful and crystal clear and contains the essential

method of Self-Realization.

Knowing One's Own Self is in fact the dawn of

self-knowledge as one knows one's nature to be

Sat-Chit-Ananda. People might say that God is

impersonal. Although it is true in a way that God is

impersonal, it is a much more powerful truth that God

reveals Him Self to be very personal!

How can anything be more personal than your own Self!

Love to all

Harsha

=====

/join

July 13, 2004

What is the essential Advaita teaching? It is simply that Atman and ParamAtman are identical.

Is this the essence?

Or is the essence, that Advaita, meaning Not-Two, neither posits an Atman and

neither posits a Paramataman?

Let alone, the two being identical or not identical.

In the absence of positing of an Atman and a Paramatam, the very issue of their relation, is moot.

For if you say Ataman and ParaAtman are identical, the very 'sayer" of this, is

separate to the two which are supposed to be identical.

Which brings in duality.

And thus negates the very utterance that Atamn and paramatman is the same.

Advaita is really the end of Advaita.

Which is the absence of all notions, of recognition, experience, self-knowledge,

or a positing.

Even of Advaita.

This is notan intellectual understanding but an actual experience and self-recognition.

An experience, a recognition, is always a sense of an "experience", a sense of an "recognition".

And exists only is duality, exists only in time.

As a dream drama, no doubt there are the plethora of experiences, recognitions,

awakenings, realizations, "reaching", "discovery".

Nothing but part of the dream-drama.

When experience and the experiencer merge consciously,the state that is devoid

of all sorrow is known as one's own Self and Being as Pure Existence and Pure

Consciousness. I emphasize one's own Self because nowwe see our self as

different from others and God as well. So the question arises how can our self

that appears different from everything be identical toParamAtman. The Advaita

teaching of a careful investigation through the neti neti method brings one

gradually to the clarity of Self-Knowledge. Knowing "another" cannever lead to

full knowledge because others (things,worlds, gods, celestial planes, the whole

mysteriouscosmos) can only be known through the Shakti of the self, our own

self. So the Vedas teach that one should know that by which all is known. The

teaching isbeautiful and crystal clear and contains the essential method of

Self-Realization.Knowing One's Own Self is in fact the dawn ofself-knowledge as

one knows

one's nature to beSat-Chit-Ananda.

:-)

Sat-Chit-Ananda is a pointer in negation, not affirmation.

To point that there is no a-Sat,(un-Truth) the term Sat(Truth) is used.

To point that there is no a-Cht(un-consciousness), the term Chit (consciousness) is used.

To point that there is no sorrow or grief or suffering, the term Ananda (Joyness) is used.

Sat-Chit-Anand, is really the absence of all that is negated by the term

"Sat-Chit-Anand" as well as the very absence of Sat-Chit-Anand, itself.

People might say that God is impersonal. Although it is true in a way that God

isimpersonal, it is a much more powerful truth that God reveals Him Self to be

very personal!

Truth has no gradations of "more powerful" and "less powerful".

Yes understanding about Truth, may have gradations.

God, which is just another term, is each and every of the "personas",both the

sage and the sadist,

each and every manifest object,sentient and non-sentient,

each and every uttered whisper,

each and every shed tear,

each and every exultation of joyness.

The very persona of phenomenon of Totality is nothing but God-in-expression.

While simultaneously, God is transcendental to that very phenomena of Totality.

How can anything be more personal than your own Self!

For something to be personal, you have to be separate to that.

Personal, impersonal, blown twigs in the wind, which dances in gay abandon.

Love

Avril Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

July 14, 2004

Om namo bhagavate sri ramanaaya

Dear "unkn own" Harsha

thank you again for your posting. Reminding me on the truth is Grace

for me. Truth is for michael when it makes "click" inside "me" .

>From childhood on I had this feeling when something is authentic.

What you send "me" is IT

In GD

Michael

>Harsha <harshaimtm > >

>advaitin,

, NDS

<nondualitysalon>, ramanamaharshi

> The essential Advaita Teaching >Tue,

13 Jul 2004 12:41:24 -0700 (PDT) > >What is the essential Advaita

teaching? It is simply >that Atman and ParamAtman are identical. This

is not >an intellectual understanding but an actual experience >and

self-recognition. > >When experience and the experiencer merge

consciously, >the state that is devoid of all sorrow is known as

>one's own Self and Being as Pure Existence and Pure >Consciousness.

I emphasize one's own Self because now >we see our self as different

from others and God as >well. So the question arises how can our self

that >appears different from everything be identical to >ParamAtman. >

>The Advaita teaching of a careful investigation >through the neti

neti method brings one gradually to >the clarity of Self-Knowledge.

Knowing "another" can >never lead to full knowledge because others

(things, >worlds, gods, celestial planes, the whole mysterious

>cosmos) can only be known through the Shakti of the >self, our own

self. So the Vedas teach that one should >know that by which all is

known. The teaching is >beautiful and crystal clear and contains the

essential >method of Self-Realization. > >Knowing One's Own Self is

in fact the dawn of >self-knowledge as one knows one's nature to be

>Sat-Chit-Ananda. People might say that God is >impersonal. Although

it is true in a way that God is >impersonal, it is a much more

powerful truth that God >reveals Him Self to be very personal! > >How

can anything be more personal than your own Self! > >Love to all

>Harsha > >===== >/join >

> > > >

> > > Mail -

50x more storage than other providers!

> MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL

VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*.

July 14, 2004

Dear Avril,

It isn't possible to co-municate without using

relative terms. So why not acquiesce to that fact?

Love,

michael

--- Avril Sanya <avrilsanya wrote:

> Hello Harsha

>

> Harsha <harshaimtm wrote:

> What is the essential Advaita teaching? It is simply

> that Atman and ParamAtman are identical.

>

> Is this the essence?

>

> Or is the essence, that Advaita, meaning Not-Two,

> neither posits an Atman and neither posits a

> Paramataman?

>

> Let alone, the two being identical or not identical.

>

> In the absence of positing of an Atman and a

> Paramatam, the very issue of their relation, is

> moot.

>

> For if you say Ataman and ParaAtman are identical,

> the very 'sayer" of this, is separate to the two

> which are supposed to be identical.

>

> Which brings in duality.

>

> And thus negates the very utterance that Atamn and

> paramatman is the same.

>

> Advaita is really the end of Advaita.

>

> Which is the absence of all notions, of recognition,

> experience, self-knowledge, or a positing.

>

> Even of Advaita.

>

> This is not

> an intellectual understanding but an actual

> experience and self-recognition.

>

> An experience, a recognition, is always a sense of

> an "experience", a sense of an "recognition".

>

> And exists only is duality, exists only in time.

>

> As a dream drama, no doubt there are the plethora of

> experiences, recognitions, awakenings, realizations,

> "reaching", "discovery".

>

> Nothing but part of the dream-drama.

>

> When experience and the experiencer merge

> consciously,the state that is devoid of all sorrow

> is known as one's own Self and Being as Pure

> Existence and Pure Consciousness. I emphasize one's

> own Self because now

> we see our self as different from others and God as

> well. So the question arises how can our self that

> appears different from everything be identical to

> ParamAtman.

>

> The Advaita teaching of a careful investigation

> through the neti neti method brings one gradually to

> the clarity of Self-Knowledge. Knowing "another" can

> never lead to full knowledge because others

> (things,worlds, gods, celestial planes, the whole

> mysteriouscosmos) can only be known through the

> Shakti of the self, our own self. So the Vedas teach

> that one should know that by which all is known. The

> teaching is

> beautiful and crystal clear and contains the

> essential method of Self-Realization.

>

> Knowing One's Own Self is in fact the dawn of

> self-knowledge as one knows one's nature to be

> Sat-Chit-Ananda.

>

> :-)

>

> Sat-Chit-Ananda is a pointer in negation, not

> affirmation.

>

> To point that there is no a-Sat,(un-Truth) the term

> Sat(Truth) is used.

>

> To point that there is no a-Cht(un-consciousness),

> the term Chit (consciousness) is used.

>

> To point that there is no sorrow or grief or

> suffering, the term Ananda (Joyness) is used.

>

> Sat-Chit-Anand, is really the absence of all that is

> negated by the term "Sat-Chit-Anand" as well as the

> very absence of Sat-Chit-Anand, itself.

>

> People might say that God is impersonal. Although

> it is true in a way that God is

> impersonal, it is a much more powerful truth that

> God reveals Him Self to be very personal!

>

> Truth has no gradations of "more powerful" and "less

> powerful".

>

> Yes understanding about Truth, may have gradations.

>

> God, which is just another term, is each and every

> of the "personas",both the sage and the sadist,

>

> each and every manifest object,sentient and

> non-sentient,

>

> each and every uttered whisper,

>

> each and every shed tear,

>

> each and every exultation of joyness.

>

> The very persona of phenomenon of Totality is

> nothing but God-in-expression.

>

> While simultaneously, God is transcendental to that

> very phenomena of Totality.

>

> How can anything be more personal than your own

> Self!

>

> For something to be personal, you have to be

> separate to that.

>

> Personal, impersonal, blown twigs in the wind, which

> dances in gay abandon.

>

> Love

>

> Avril

>

> Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"

> your friends today! Download Messenger Now

July 14, 2004

Yes, communication arises only in duality and hence uses relative terms.

However, this post did not seem to be a communication within limitation, as much

as it appeared to be a communication arising out of lack of grasp of the essence

of Advaita.

As seen, relatively.:-)

Love

Avril

Michael Bowes <rmichaelbowes > wrote:

Dear Avril,It isn't possible to co-municate without usingrelative terms. So why

not acquiesce to that fact?Love,michael --- Avril Sanya <avrilsanya >

wrote:> Hello Harsha> > Harsha <harshaimtm > wrote:> What is the

essential Advaita teaching? It is simply> that Atman and ParamAtman are

identical.> > Is this the essence?> > Or is the essence, that Advaita, meaning

Not-Two,> neither posits an Atman and neither posits a> Paramataman?> > Let

alone, the two being identical or not identical.> > In the absence of positing

of an Atman and a> Paramatam, the very issue of their relation, is> moot.> >

For if you say Ataman and ParaAtman are identical,> the very 'sayer" of this,

is separate to the two> which are supposed to be identical.> > Which brings in

duality.> > And thus negates the very utterance that Atamn and> paramatman is

the same.> > Advaita is really the end of Advaita.> > Which is the absence of

all notions, of recognition,> experience, self-knowledge, or a positing.> >

Even of Advaita.> > > > This is not> an intellectual understanding but an

actual> experience and self-recognition.> > An experience, a recognition, is

always a sense of> an "experience", a sense of an "recognition".> > And exists

only is duality, exists only in time.> > As a dream drama, no doubt there are

the plethora of> experiences, recognitions, awakenings, realizations,>

"reaching", "discovery".> > Nothing but part of the dream-drama.>

> > > > > When experience and the experiencer merge> consciously,the state

that is devoid of all sorrow> is known as one's own Self and Being as Pure>

Existence and Pure Consciousness. I emphasize one's> own Self because now> we

see our self as different from others and God as> well. So the question arises

how can our self that> appears different from everything be identical to>

ParamAtman. > > The Advaita teaching of a careful investigation> through the

neti neti method brings one gradually to> the clarity of Self-Knowledge.

Knowing "another" can> never lead to full knowledge because others>

(things,worlds, gods, celestial planes, the whole> mysteriouscosmos) can only

be known through the> Shakti of the self, our own self. So the Vedas teach>

that one should know that by which all is known. The> teaching

is> beautiful and crystal clear and contains the> essential method of

Self-Realization.> > Knowing One's Own Self is in fact the dawn of>

self-knowledge as one knows one's nature to be> Sat-Chit-Ananda.> > :-)> >

Sat-Chit-Ananda is a pointer in negation, not> affirmation.> > To point that

there is no a-Sat,(un-Truth) the term> Sat(Truth) is used.> > To point that

there is no a-Cht(un-consciousness),> the term Chit (consciousness) is used.> >

To point that there is no sorrow or grief or> suffering, the term Ananda

(Joyness) is used.> > Sat-Chit-Anand, is really the absence of all that is>

negated by the term "Sat-Chit-Anand" as well as the> very absence of

Sat-Chit-Anand, itself.> > > > People might say that God is impersonal.

Although> it is true in a way that God

is> impersonal, it is a much more powerful truth that> God reveals Him Self to

be very personal! > > Truth has no gradations of "more powerful" and "less>

powerful".> > Yes understanding about Truth, may have gradations.> > God, which

is just another term, is each and every> of the "personas",both the sage and the

sadist, > > each and every manifest object,sentient and> non-sentient, > > each

and every uttered whisper, > > each and every shed tear, > > each and every

exultation of joyness.> > The very persona of phenomenon of Totality is>

nothing but God-in-expression.> > While simultaneously, God is transcendental

to that> very phenomena of Totality.> > > > > > How can anything be more

personal than your own> Self!> > For something to

be personal, you have to be> separate to that.> > Personal, impersonal, blown

twigs in the wind, which> dances in gay abandon.> > Love> > > > Avril> > > >

> Messenger - Communicate

instantly..."Ping"> your friends today! Download Messenger NowCommunity email

addresses: Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe:

RamanaMaharshi- Un:

RamanaMaharshi List owner:

RamanaMaharshi-ownerShortcut URL to this page:

http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi Messenger -

Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

July 14, 2004

--- Avril Sanya <avrilsanya wrote:

> Hello Michael,

>

> Yes, communication arises only in duality and hence

> uses relative terms.

Correctomundo! Welcome to duality. But please, don't

be afraid. It can't hurt you.

> However, this post did not seem to be a

> communication within limitation, as much as it

> appeared to be a communication arising out of lack

> of grasp of the essence of Advaita.

The essence of Advaita cannot be conveyed in words.

That's what's so hilarious about most of the various

"nondual" lists and groups. How do you talk about the

unspeakable? Aren't we all a little ridiculous if we

engage in that? I am completely ridiculous; but I'm

happy to admit it.

Beyond the "essence of Advaita" is LIFE itSELF. Be

IT.

> As seen, relatively.:-)

We agree, as seen relatively. :-)))))

Love,

michael

snip

July 14, 2004

Avril,

The 'me thought' giving a sense of separation is persisting and

affecting the responses in the dream drama. Thought accepting

SatChitAnanda as the only truth is also present. How are these two

going to reconsile?

Any thoughts?

Thanks

sundar

RamanaMaharshi, Avril Sanya <avrilsanya>

wrote:

> Hello Michael,

>

> Yes, communication arises only in duality and hence uses relative

terms.

>

> However, this post did not seem to be a communication within

limitation, as much as it appeared to be a communication arising out

of lack of grasp of the essence of Advaita.

>

> As seen, relatively.:-)

>

> Love

>

> Avril

>

July 14, 2004

--- Avril Sanya <avrilsanya > wrote:> Hello Michael,> > Yes,

communication arises only in duality and hence> uses relative

terms.Correctomundo! Welcome to duality. But please, don't be afraid. It

can't hurt you.

:-)

I will take your word for it.

> However, this post did not seem to be a> communication within limitation, as

much as it> appeared to be a communication arising out of lack> of grasp of the

essence of Advaita.The essence of Advaita cannot be conveyed in words.

When you say " cannot be conveyed", you convey something about it.

Neither can be conveyed, nor not-conveyed.

Either in words.

Or in the wordless.

That's what's so hilarious about most of the various "nondual" lists and groups.

How do you talk about the unspeakable? Aren't we all a little ridiculous if we

engage in that?

:-)

The ridiculousness lies in the premise that there is a "we" to be engaged in

speaking about the unspeakable and that "we" has an objective/hope/conviction,

to convey something to someone, through speaking or any other means.

Speaking happens and speaking on the speaking happens, whether through a revered

object known as Ramana or some other label.

I am completely ridiculous; but I'mhappy to admit it.Beyond the "essence of

Advaita" is LIFE itSELF. Be IT.

Beyond, lies the total absence of the conceptualization of a "beyond".

Life being already the case, there is none or nothing as not-Life to be Life.

> As seen, relatively.:-)We agree, as seen relatively. :-)))))

:-)

Love,Avril

Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

July 14, 2004

Hello Sundar,

sundar22ca <sundar22ca > wrote:

Avril,The 'me thought' giving a sense of separation is persisting and affecting

the responses in the dream drama.

The sense of the "me" only believes it is affecting the response within the dream drama.

And out of that belief, it further believes that it is elated, when the

happening-response coincides with the sense of hope about what should have

happened, in that moment.

Or believes it is suffering, when the happening-response is not in accordance

with the sense of hope about what should have happened in that moment.

The hope could be about spiritual goals or could be about material goals.

About anything, but the moment as it is.

Meanwhile, the happening-response, within the dream drama unfolds, exactly as it

does in the moment.

Thought accepting SatChitAnanda as the only truth is also present.

No doubt.

Seeing that time erases everything, the sense of the "me" seeks the timeless.

And since the term "timeless" does not seem spicy enough, terms like

SatChitAnand are very appealing.<LOL>

The bliss of SatChitAnand is the new hope, the new driving engine, the new

occupation for the sense of the "me".

Self-Enquiry, is done with one eye half-cocked, looking out, "has SatChitAnand arrived".

And after some time, the sense of the "me" even starts seeing the halo of

SatChitAnand, around it.:-)

How are these two going to reconsile?

The hope to reconcile, is once again nothing but the hope of the sense of the "me".

And the hope rests on the premise that it, (the sense of the "me") believes

itself to have an independent existential reality.

And with the belief in it's independent existence, the consequential belief in

the reality of the separation.

Its two sides of the same coin.

And thus the consequential sense of hope/need/desire/craving/despair to bridge

the gap of separation,to reconcile that gap.

The very premise of reconciliation, needs the premise of two separated entities.

Two separated entities, which are to be reconciled, through some means.

The means are questioned, one dropped for another, but rarely the primary assumption itself.

For in the very primary assumption, in the very primary premise, lies the seed of the error.

(So to say, for really no error has ever taken place).

For the gap has never happened.

The separation has never happened.

The very need and thus the hope to reconcile the "not-happened-gap", is thus, moot.

As Ramana said, forget liberation, find out whether bondage has happened.

Now the sense of the "me" will immediately spring up and ask how to see that the

gap has never existed, how to see that the separation has never taken place.

In the very sense of the "how" is the perpetuation of the sense of the "problem

of reconciliation", is it not?:-)

Any prescription, any revelation of a path, methodology, practice, if offered

with an accompanying sense that via the offer, the "how" will get answered, is

just an indication of the prevailing delusion in the object, offering such

platitudes.

However, out of a sense of compassion (knowing that there is none to be

compassionated, or none to be compassionate),

a sage suggests, to find out, on what basis, on what premise, on what

assumption, does that very sense of "me", believe in it's own independent

existence.

In various ways, means and language, all that any of the "real" sages have said

down ten thousand years, is to forget about the Self, SatchitAnand, Moksha,

Enlightenment, Awakening, Realization, Liberation, Atman, Paramatman, Brahma,

ParamBrahman and all that.

And to ascertain, all these "hoped-for"(s), are of relevance, are of

significance for whom, to whom.

For whom, is the need to reconcile, of relevance, of significance.

And maybe the dance erupts:

"No answers received

All questions, ceased".

Love

Avril

Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

July 16, 2004

Avril,

I get your drift. I like your clarity of expression. You have made

another good case for self enquiry to find out who I am.

The dance that you refer to in your post does not erupt for me.

I and many others have tried this enquiry. It starts at the

intellectual level. It is realised that I am not the body, mind etc.

No interesting answer evolves. At this point, the enquiry stops and

some other thought takes over. Attempts to handle the enquiry at

the 'heart' stage instead of at the intellect stage also fails.

We really need a good treatise on this oft recommended 'self

enquiry' solution. None of the books and talks that I have come

across cover this very important part.

I would really like your help in this. Don't ask me to go and find

out who is asking for this help!

Thanks in advance.

Sundar

RamanaMaharshi, Avril Sanya <avrilsanya>

wrote:

> Hello Sundar,

>

> sundar22ca <sundar22ca> wrote:

>

> Avril,

> The 'me thought' giving a sense of separation is persisting and

affecting the responses in the dream drama.

>

> The sense of the "me" only believes it is affecting the response

within the dream drama.

>

> And out of that belief, it further believes that it is elated,

when the happening-response coincides with the sense of hope about

what should have happened, in that moment.

>

> Or believes it is suffering, when the happening-response is not in

accordance with the sense of hope about what should have happened in

that moment.

>

> The hope could be about spiritual goals or could be about material

goals.

>

> About anything, but the moment as it is.

>

> Meanwhile, the happening-response, within the dream drama unfolds,

exactly as it does in the moment.

>

> Thought accepting SatChitAnanda as the only truth is also present.

>

> No doubt.

>

> Seeing that time erases everything, the sense of the "me" seeks

the timeless.

>

> And since the term "timeless" does not seem spicy enough, terms

like SatChitAnand are very appealing.<LOL>

>

> The bliss of SatChitAnand is the new hope, the new driving engine,

the new occupation for the sense of the "me".

>

> Self-Enquiry, is done with one eye half-cocked, looking out, "has

SatChitAnand arrived".

>

> And after some time, the sense of the "me" even starts seeing the

halo of SatChitAnand, around it.:-)

>

> How are these two going to reconsile?

>

> The hope to reconcile, is once again nothing but the hope of the

sense of the "me".

>

> And the hope rests on the premise that it, (the sense of the "me")

believes itself to have an independent existential reality.

>

> And with the belief in it's independent existence, the

consequential belief in the reality of the separation.

>

> Its two sides of the same coin.

>

> And thus the consequential sense of

hope/need/desire/craving/despair to bridge the gap of separation,to

reconcile that gap.

>

> The very premise of reconciliation, needs the premise of two

separated entities.

>

> Two separated entities, which are to be reconciled, through some

means.

>

> The means are questioned, one dropped for another, but rarely the

primary assumption itself.

>

> For in the very primary assumption, in the very primary premise,

lies the seed of the error.

>

> (So to say, for really no error has ever taken place).

>

> For the gap has never happened.

>

> The separation has never happened.

>

> The very need and thus the hope to reconcile the "not-happened-

gap", is thus, moot.

>

> As Ramana said, forget liberation, find out whether bondage has

happened.

>

> Now the sense of the "me" will immediately spring up and ask how

to see that the gap has never existed, how to see that the

separation has never taken place.

>

> In the very sense of the "how" is the perpetuation of the sense of

the "problem of reconciliation", is it not?:-)

>

> Any prescription, any revelation of a path, methodology, practice,

if offered with an accompanying sense that via the offer, the "how"

will get answered, is just an indication of the prevailing delusion

in the object, offering such platitudes.

>

> However, out of a sense of compassion (knowing that there is none

to be compassionated, or none to be compassionate),

>

> a sage suggests, to find out, on what basis, on what premise, on

what assumption, does that very sense of "me", believe in it's own

independent existence.

>

> In various ways, means and language, all that any of the "real"

sages have said down ten thousand years, is to forget about the

Self, SatchitAnand, Moksha, Enlightenment, Awakening, Realization,

Liberation, Atman, Paramatman, Brahma, ParamBrahman and all that.

>

> And to ascertain, all these "hoped-for"(s), are of relevance, are

of significance for whom, to whom.

>

> For whom, is the need to reconcile, of relevance, of significance.

>

> And maybe the dance erupts:

>

> "No answers received

>

> All questions, ceased".

>

> Love

>

> Avril

> Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends

today! Download Messenger Now

July 16, 2004

very elegant post, sri harsha... thank you (who ever u r)

it's not even a "state"... it is that which precedes "state"... there

is no object (fetish)... all seeking is symptomatic of suffering...

understand the motivation for one's seeking in the 1st place & reside

as that before any "thing" arises

twas ever thus

yours

danananda

, Harsha <harshaimtm> wrote:

> What is the essential Advaita teaching? It is simply

> that Atman and ParamAtman are identical. This is not

> an intellectual understanding but an actual experience

> and self-recognition.

>

> When experience and the experiencer merge consciously,

> the state that is devoid of all sorrow is known as

> one's own Self and Being as Pure Existence and Pure

> Consciousness. I emphasize one's own Self because now

> we see our self as different from others and God as

> well. So the question arises how can our self that

> appears different from everything be identical to

> ParamAtman.

>

> The Advaita teaching of a careful investigation

> through the neti neti method brings one gradually to

> the clarity of Self-Knowledge. Knowing "another" can

> never lead to full knowledge because others (things,

> worlds, gods, celestial planes, the whole mysterious

> cosmos) can only be known through the Shakti of the

> self, our own self. So the Vedas teach that one should

> know that by which all is known. The teaching is

> beautiful and crystal clear and contains the essential

> method of Self-Realization.

>

> Knowing One's Own Self is in fact the dawn of

> self-knowledge as one knows one's nature to be

> Sat-Chit-Ananda. People might say that God is

> impersonal. Although it is true in a way that God is

> impersonal, it is a much more powerful truth that God

> reveals Him Self to be very personal!

>

> How can anything be more personal than your own Self!

>

> Love to all

> Harsha

>

> =====

> /join

>

July 17, 2004

Dear Sundar,

If I may comment:

Last year I posted a small book on this size, "Freeway Zen." It

introduces Self-inquiry and presents discrimination as a way to

deepen the inquiry. The mediations in the book come from my own

investigation into my own Being (Self). I have learned of Self-

inquiry through the teaching of Ramana, and from my own teach, Nome,

who has been teaching Self-inquiry for 25+ years at Society of

Abidance in Truth (SAT) (www.SATRamana.org).

Ramana said to a number of seekers that they should eliminate the

body misidentification, that this is often the most binding of the

misidentifications.

Nome teaches (as did Ramana) that since we are already the Self,

there is nothing to add, acquire, transform, attain, etc. Self-

realization is rather a matter of Self-Knowledge. This Self-Knowledge

is not intellectual. It is not of the mind. It is rather at the same

deep level at which you know with absolute certainty that you exist.

It is a matter of removing the erroneous concepts that you have as to

you own identity. It is a matter of where you "stand." (Standing as a

body, as an individual, there is me and mine, others, the world and

all else. There is birth and death. Standing as Absolute Being there

is – say the sages – no beginning, no end, nothing that binds, no

individual, no other person, etc.) I have learned to look at where I

stand, and then practice accordingly.

I have been practicing inquiry since about 1990. Starting about 4 or

5 years ago I started using discrimination in my practice. One simple

approach in this discrimination is to notice that whatever you see,

feel, touch, smell, hear or think is objective to you. It is

something known. Who is he that knows? This discrimination, I have

found, takes the inquiry deeper than the body or the mind. It takes

the inquiry to a "place" than Nome calls "nonobjective."

Finally one starts to see that the body and mind are in

Consciousness, and you may start moving your "stand" from the

body/mind to Being.

Nome says that at this point the body identifications that are

experienced as time and space (this place, this body, etc) start to

dissolve, to be replaced the Self-Knowledge as to your identity that

is the substratum of all. (It is at this place in practice where I am

now.)

Nome recently published a book of his own teaching. Previously he had

only published translations of materials unavailable in English, like

Song of Ribhu, translating the beautiful, poetic and spiritually deep

Tamil Ribhu Gita into English. This book by Nome is "Self Knowledge."

It is available from the SAT bookstore, found online at

http://www.satramana.org/html/sat_publications.htm

If you have realized that you are not the body, mind etc, then just

who are you? Who is it that knows the body? Who is it that knows the

mind? Who is that knows the waking state? The dream state? The deep

sleep state? Who is that knows the ego?

So my suggestions on books of Self-inquiry are (besides Ramana's

small and profound book of the same name), Nome's "Self Knowledge,"

and my little book posted on this site, Freeway Zen.

Ribhu, in song of Ribhu, talks about practice. As I understand what

is written, I understand Self-Knowledge really starts with conviction

(bhava). This conviction moves to certainty with practice. I think

this certainty turns to Self-Knowledge as the practice moves from the

mental level, and as the "Stand" moves past the body and the mind.

I hope some of this is useful. It represents my actual practice

experiences rather than some intellectual level of cognition.

Nome says that Inquiry always works, so the is no question of it not

working. So keep inquiring.

You said not to say anything like this, but I will say it anyway: You

seem to have doubts about inquiry. Ramana said, "doubt the doubter."

I also remember how much grace has come into the lives of those who

hear Ramana's teachings and are touched by them to start or deepen

their spiritual practice.

We all stand in this grace.

Not two,

Richard

------------------------------

> I and many others have tried this enquiry. It starts at the

> intellectual level. It is realised that I am not the body, mind

etc.

> No interesting answer evolves. At this point, the enquiry stops and

> some other thought takes over. Attempts to handle the enquiry at

> the 'heart' stage instead of at the intellect stage also fails.

>

> We really need a good treatise on this oft recommended 'self

> enquiry' solution. None of the books and talks that I have come

> across cover this very important part.

July 17, 2004

Richard,

Thank you very much. I quickly read through Freeway Zen. That is

exactly the information I was asking for. I do not have much

patience for reading books with many pages. I like the bullet form

of the presentation in your pdf file.

I will get back to you.

Thanks again.

sundar

RamanaMaharshi, "Richard Clarke"

<rclarke@s...> wrote:

> Dear Sundar,

>

> If I may comment:

>

> Last year I posted a small book on this size, "Freeway Zen." It

> introduces Self-inquiry and presents discrimination as a way to

> deepen the inquiry. The mediations in the book come from my own

> investigation into my own Being (Self). I have learned of Self-

> inquiry through the teaching of Ramana, and from my own teach,

Nome,

> who has been teaching Self-inquiry for 25+ years at Society of

> Abidance in Truth (SAT) (www.SATRamana.org).

>

> Ramana said to a number of seekers that they should eliminate the

> body misidentification, that this is often the most binding of the

> misidentifications.

>

> Nome teaches (as did Ramana) that since we are already the Self,

> there is nothing to add, acquire, transform, attain, etc. Self-

> realization is rather a matter of Self-Knowledge. This Self-

Knowledge

> is not intellectual. It is not of the mind. It is rather at the

same

> deep level at which you know with absolute certainty that you

exist.

> It is a matter of removing the erroneous concepts that you have as

to

> you own identity. It is a matter of where you "stand." (Standing

as a

> body, as an individual, there is me and mine, others, the world

and

> all else. There is birth and death. Standing as Absolute Being

there

> is – say the sages – no beginning, no end, nothing that binds, no

> individual, no other person, etc.) I have learned to look at where

I

> stand, and then practice accordingly.

>

> I have been practicing inquiry since about 1990. Starting about 4

or

> 5 years ago I started using discrimination in my practice. One

simple

> approach in this discrimination is to notice that whatever you

see,

> feel, touch, smell, hear or think is objective to you. It is

> something known. Who is he that knows? This discrimination, I have

> found, takes the inquiry deeper than the body or the mind. It

takes

> the inquiry to a "place" than Nome calls "nonobjective."

>

> Finally one starts to see that the body and mind are in

> Consciousness, and you may start moving your "stand" from the

> body/mind to Being.

>

> Nome says that at this point the body identifications that are

> experienced as time and space (this place, this body, etc) start

to

> dissolve, to be replaced the Self-Knowledge as to your identity

that

> is the substratum of all. (It is at this place in practice where I

am

> now.)

>

> Nome recently published a book of his own teaching. Previously he

had

> only published translations of materials unavailable in English,

like

> Song of Ribhu, translating the beautiful, poetic and spiritually

deep

> Tamil Ribhu Gita into English. This book by Nome is "Self

Knowledge."

> It is available from the SAT bookstore, found online at

> http://www.satramana.org/html/sat_publications.htm

>

> If you have realized that you are not the body, mind etc, then

just

> who are you? Who is it that knows the body? Who is it that knows

the

> mind? Who is that knows the waking state? The dream state? The

deep

> sleep state? Who is that knows the ego?

>

> So my suggestions on books of Self-inquiry are (besides Ramana's

> small and profound book of the same name), Nome's "Self

Knowledge,"

> and my little book posted on this site, Freeway Zen.

>

> Ribhu, in song of Ribhu, talks about practice. As I understand

what

> is written, I understand Self-Knowledge really starts with

conviction

> (bhava). This conviction moves to certainty with practice. I think

> this certainty turns to Self-Knowledge as the practice moves from

the

> mental level, and as the "Stand" moves past the body and the mind.

>

> I hope some of this is useful. It represents my actual practice

> experiences rather than some intellectual level of cognition.

>

> Nome says that Inquiry always works, so the is no question of it

not

> working. So keep inquiring.

>

> You said not to say anything like this, but I will say it anyway:

You

> seem to have doubts about inquiry. Ramana said, "doubt the

doubter."

>

> I also remember how much grace has come into the lives of those

who

> hear Ramana's teachings and are touched by them to start or deepen

> their spiritual practice.

>

> We all stand in this grace.

>

> Not two,

> Richard

> ------------------------------

> > I and many others have tried this enquiry. It starts at the

> > intellectual level. It is realised that I am not the body, mind

> etc.

> > No interesting answer evolves. At this point, the enquiry stops

and

> > some other thought takes over. Attempts to handle the enquiry at

> > the 'heart' stage instead of at the intellect stage also fails.

> >

> > We really need a good treatise on this oft recommended 'self

> > enquiry' solution. None of the books and talks that I have come

> > across cover this very important part.

July 17, 2004

Hello Sundar,

sundar22ca <sundar22ca > wrote:

Avril,I get your drift. I like your clarity of expression. You have made another

good case for self enquiry to find out who I am.The dance that you refer to in

your post does not erupt for me.

Maybe it is not acceptable or agreeable, but the "not-erupted dance" is the very

dance in the moment.

If this is seen, all is seen.

I and many others have tried this enquiry. It starts at the intellectual level.

Yes.

Because the very issue, is an issue in ideation.

It is realised that I am not the body, mind etc.

Interesting.

On what basis is this realization based upon?

No interesting answer evolves. At this point, the enquiry stops and some other thought takes over.

:-))

Yes.

And that is why a "profound" thought as much as a "profane" thought, is a durational event.

Thought conjures up the state of the "thoughtless".

Which is nothing but a thought.

Seeing this, truly seeing this, enables a state of complete helplessness.

Attempts to handle the enquiry at the 'heart' stage instead of at the intellect

stage also fails.

What is typically held to be the path of the heart, is also nothing but the play of thought.

May be accompanied by some sensations, cognized as bliss, that cognition once

again being a thought.

We really need a good treatise on this oft recommended 'self enquiry' solution.

How will that help?

The world is flooded by treatises.

As soon as treatise comes about whether, on what Ramana said, or what Ashtavkra

said, Truth is obscured (not missing but obscured).

For what erupted through a sage, was an eruption in that moment, in that milieu.

Which ended with the end of that moment.

And thus cannever be captured by memory, even by the sage himself or herself.

A relatively unknown anecdote associated with the Mahabharata, and the song

which erupted through the object known as Krishna, in the milieu of the

battlefield and the helplessness of Arjun (which was nothing but a shree

eruption of vacancy).

After the war is over and the Pandavs have won, Arjun asks Krishna, to re-sing

the song at the battlefield.

Krishna expressed his helplessness to "treatise it".

And million treatises on the Gita, float about.:-)

None of the books and talks that I have come across cover this very important part.

Yes.

It does not.

For Life is not a a time tested formula.

A formula, which can be re-used

I would really like your help in this. Don't ask me to go and find out who is asking for this help!

LOL.

There is a biological object, with attributes of sentience.

And with a repository of knowledge, skills, talents,

with a bag of past-experiences,recalled by memory.

Out of all this, is a prevailing sense of a set of beliefs, convictions,

assumptions, "held premises".

Which keeps changing with time.

And this object is referred to, by surrounding society as "sundar".

As distinct to say another name of another object.

This object is a fact.

(ofcourse only within the gestalt of phenomenality).

In this object, prevails, a sense of entity, the "me-sundar".

The first thing to see is that "self-enquiry" is of no interest to the biological body.

The biological body already being enlightened, could not care two hoots about

self or SELF, Moksha or Enlightenment, Awakening or Realization.

All this is a matter of concern, only to the sense of the self the "me-sundar".

Some time ago, something else occupied the attention of this "me-sundar", now it

is spirituality, and within spirituality, it is the path of "self-enquiry".

Rather than what occupies its current attention, which keeps changing,

ascertain the very premise, the very foundation on which it believes it exists.

What is the evidence, (believed to be irrevocable), which enables the arising of

the sense of the "me-sundar"?

And which then further believes, it exists as an independent, separated distinct self?

What is that supposedly rock-solid evidence?

Thus, rather than discarding what you are not,

what is that sense of the "discarder" (which is nothing but the sense of

"me-sundar"), held to be?

Love

Avril

Vote for the stars of 's next ad campaign!

July 18, 2004

Here is a leaf out of my revered uncle's scribbling pad:

"All activity to become reflex action and NO CONSCIOUS EFFORT is made even while

thinking! Thus the sub-conscious mind gets rid of its samskara, remains in its

natural state...OM"

"The principle of single thought, thoughtlessness or reactionless state depends

upon the existence of mind. The Ultimate Reality to which the mind owes its

existence cannot be explained by mind. As such none of these are essential for

realisation. They are limits when thinking stops.......OM....Therefore don't

care.....OM"

Regards,

NagarajaAvril Sanya <avrilsanya > wrote: