advaitic experience in life - Copernican revolution in science

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

Some random thoughts on the topic(s). Comments/corrections from

the List-members will be most appreciated.

 

We may safely describe the advaitic experience in ordinary life

as the experience of oneness while in the midst of the dualistic

jagat. The doctrine of this experience, and the theoretical basis

is well established by Shri Shankara. We also know that this

experience of one-ness while in the jagat is possible from the

experiences of Shri RamaNa Maharshi, Shri Nisargadatta and the

upanishadic sages.

 

There is our experience of our daily living, seeing the duality

of the jagat, of family and friends and foes and going through

the emotions of joy, sorrow, love, hate etc. These are our ordinary

experiences. What is an advaitic experience ? Is this an extra-ordinary

experience (of oneness) outside these ordinary experiences ? Or, is

this looking at the ordinary experiences in an extra-ordinary way,

in a sense of oneness ? It seems to me that the latter is what It is.

Rather than looking for that extra-ordinary experience, look at

(or interpret) the ordinary experiences in an extra-ordinary way.

 

Now, let me look at the parallelism for the above in the Copernican

thinking of science. From the time of Aristotle and the ancient Greeks,

the thinking was that the Earth does not rotate, does not orbit around

the Sun, but the celestial sphere (carrying the Sun on it) rotates

around the Earth making the Sun rise in the east and set in the west

daily. Copernicus simply put a different interpretation to this daily

experience (of Sun rising in the east and setting in the west). He said

that the daily rise of the Sun in the east and set in the west is not

because of Sun making that motion, but of the Earth rotating. However,

even today, well after Copernicus' time and with a firm (intellectual)

knowledge that the earth is rotating about its axis, and the Sun is not

moving, we still see the Sun rise in the east, make its traverse across

the sky and set in the west. So, our experience is still the same,

ordinary experience of sun's traverse across the sky. So the experience

has not changed, it is only our interpretation of the experience that has

changed. Can we experience the actual fact that the Earth's rotation is

causing the Sun-rise and the Sun-set? Obviously, no, although we can find

many evidences which can be inferred that way. Extending this argument to

the 'advaitic-'experience, it seems to me that the advaitic experience is

looking at the ordinary experience of life in an extra-ordinary way.

I realize that (i) the experience of sun-rise and sun-set and its

interpretation as due to Earth's rotation and (ii) the experience of the

jagat and recognizing the mithya of the jagat are on different levels

altogether, but still the similarity is there. [i also recognize that

(i) above is an exercise of the mind, while (ii) is outside the

comprehension of the mind.].

 

Two other related thoughts. It seems to me that the word advaitic

experience is an ambiguous expression. Experience is something felt by

the individual jeeva. *advaitic* -experience is something felt when the

experiencer, the ego, has been extinguished. That is, there is no

"experiencer" of the advaitic-experience. The word experience can refer

to the experience of ordinary people or to the experience of extra-ordinary

people like Shri RamaNa Maharshi. It can refer to (i ) ordinary experience

of ordinary people, (ii) ordinary experience of extra-ordinary people,

(iii) extra-ordinary experience of ordinary people or (iv) extra-ordinary

experience of extra-ordinary people. All these are experiences. Ordinary

people become extra-ordinary people when they interpret and realize

ordinary experiences in an extra-ordinary way.

 

Comments and corrections are very much appreciated.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

> There is our experience of our daily living, seeing the duality

> of the jagat, of family and friends and foes and going through

> the emotions of joy, sorrow, love, hate etc. These are our ordinary

> experiences. What is an advaitic experience ? Is this an extra-ordinary

> experience (of oneness) outside these ordinary experiences ? Or, is

> this looking at the ordinary experiences in an extra-ordinary way,

> in a sense of oneness ? It seems to me that the latter is what It is.

> Rather than looking for that extra-ordinary experience, look at

> (or interpret) the ordinary experiences in an extra-ordinary way.

 

Agreed. In order to do so, the pool of the mind must be absolutely clear,

so clear that the bottom (Atman) can be seen. As the mind cannot quiet

itself, it is helpful to engage in the chanting of mantrams that assist in

making the mind calm, and allow Grace to do the rest. It is only through

the grace of Atman that the mind may be made as clear as crystal, so the

Atman behind it can be seen through the turbulence.

 

For those who may doubt, the mind-monkey CAN be silenced... but not by

either the mind itself or the ego. Rather, an allowing has to take place.

With practice, this allowing becomes as natural as breathing, and all

thought can be dropped from the mind. However, more important is the

dropping of attachment to thought. Although it is better that no thoughts

arise, let You who are the witness be the observer of all thoughts that do

arise.

> Two other related thoughts. It seems to me that the word advaitic

> experience is an ambiguous expression. Experience is something felt by

> the individual jeeva. *advaitic* -experience is something felt when the

> experiencer, the ego, has been extinguished. That is, there is no

> "experiencer" of the advaitic-experience.

 

Absolutely, there is only the experience itself. But even this can be

dropped, so there is neither experience nor experiencer, simply

Sat-Chit-Ananda. This is my view of pure Advaita.

>The word experience can refer

> to the experience of ordinary people or to the experience of

extra-ordinary

> people like Shri RamaNa Maharshi.

 

Please, Sri Ramana Maharshi was nobody extraordinary. What existed within

him exists within us all in FULL measure. I believe Sri Ramana Maharshi

would not accept being termed "extraordinary," nor would any other sage

"worth their salt." This may be a bit off topic, but the Buddha declared

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." Kill this idea that we are

not already intrinsically perfect. Chop it off at the root with the sword

of knowledge.

>Ordinary

> people become extra-ordinary people when they interpret and realize

> ordinary experiences in an extra-ordinary way.

 

There is absolutely no becoming whatsoever. Nothing 'becomes' in this

reality. There is only the bliss of pure Being. From Being evolves time,

space and causation. Into Being these three may return.

 

It is not difficult. There is no strain involved. Only let the barbell of

"me" drop from the shoulders. We carry our egos around like camels

carrying gold bars. We would rather die of exhaustion than give up the

ego, which seems as gold to us. The dying man in the desert would trade

1000 gold bars for a single drink of water. Let us be as a man dying of

thirst for truth.

 

In Sadhana,

 

Tim

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Tim Gerchmez wrote:

> "Tim Gerchmez" <fewtch

>

> [...]

>

> >The word experience can refer

> > to the experience of ordinary people or to the experience of

> extra-ordinary

> > people like Shri RamaNa Maharshi.

>

> Please, Sri Ramana Maharshi was nobody extraordinary. What existed within

> him exists within us all in FULL measure. I believe Sri Ramana Maharshi

> would not accept being termed "extraordinary," nor would any other sage

> "worth their salt." ....

>

 

namaste.

 

In my thinking, an extra-ordinary person is one who uses an extra-ordinary

approach to explain/view ordinary experiences. Explaining the visible

duality of the jagat in terms of one-ness is extra-ordinary (for lack of a

better word). Shri RamaNa is one like that and abided in that one-ness

continuously, and in that sense, I call Him extra-ordinary.

 

You are quite correct in saying that what existed in Him also existed in

us in full measure. However, in addition to That, we also have layers of

ignorance which does not allow the SELF to shine through us as in Shri

RamaNa.

 

Whether Shri RamaNa would "accept" being termed extra-ordinary ("nor would

any other sage "worth their salt"" [your description, not mine]) is not

material here. It is simply an expression of my devotion and marvel at a

saint who *continuously* abided in the one-ness and that I call

extra-ordinary.

 

> >Ordinary

> > people become extra-ordinary people when they interpret and realize

> > ordinary experiences in an extra-ordinary way.

>

> There is absolutely no becoming whatsoever. Nothing 'becomes' in this

> reality. There is only the bliss of pure Being. From Being evolves time,

> space and causation. Into Being these three may return.

>

 

I agree there is no *new* becoming whatsoever. However, as long as we are

covered with layers of ignorance, we still need and would like to become

something. We would like to get rid of the layers of ignorance. When the

layers of ignorance are removed, the ordinary person becomes an

extra-ordinary person (from the viewpoint of another ordinary person).

Even from the viewpoint of the person with ignorance removed, there is a

change in perspective; he/she would not have the same reaction to an event

as before. Equanimity settles in the person, and the person's reaction

would be different from what it was. That is, an extra-ordinary person

has evolved out of the ordinary person. That is what I mean by "becoming".

> [...]

> In Sadhana,

>

> Tim

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------