RE: Ammachi (was follow-up to last reply to P& W)

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

>It is conceivable that I could

> eventually persuade myself not to identify with my body, mind, thoughts, and

> so on, but that in itself would change very little.

 

Or would it?

Robert, your practical experientialist approach to spirituality is just fine

and sooner or later you will find the truth that you are seeking in a way

that is palatable to you. I was raised an atheist and always said that I

would only believe in God if he/she/it stood right before me and I had a

direct experience. Then when I was 21 I had one. In my "experience" of God

I "saw" the brightest light I had ever seen and "felt" the greatest warmth

and love that I had ever felt. I "heard" the most profound wisdom, none of

this was "experienced" through my normal faculties of hearing,seeing or

tactile sensation. I was not on drugs. What I experienced was more real than

any "experience" that I have ever had during what we would call normal

everyday reality. It was however a SENSATION but it didn't seem confined at

all to my brain as my vision and feeling went way beyond the limitations of

my body, the room and even the Earth. Later when I returned to a "normal"

state my brain processed the experience and attached labels and words to it.

It shrunk it down so that I could "think" about it. Even now, almost 20 years

later when I "think" about it -its a small memory - when I meditate on it and

let myself release into the experience then it expands and I get closer to

the way it originally was. So, I suppose you could say that my brain did have

this experience, but to limit it only to that biological location would be

incorrect. If you had attached some kind of EKG monitor to me,there was

likely some intense activity and it probably was in the areas of the brain

where we process "spiritual experiences." It would be fallacious reasoning

to think that the brain "caused" this experience...analogous to looking at

the sun through a telescope and thinking that the telescope caused the

brilliant light, it is merely the apparatus we have that is best suited for

viewing/processing it. Before this event I was a skeptic. I would not have

believed in God if I had not had this experience as I could not possibly

believe in anything simply by faith or by what someone else told me was

truth. I had to experience this "truth" myself. So I validate your approach,

keep searching! ...Though you may have to widen your perimeters a bit. From

my studies in the physical sciences I had long before realized the

limitations of our human capacity to see or hear as there are so many things

that happen in the physical universe that are beyond our limited human range

to process, such as ultraviolet light, ultrasonic waves, distances that we

can't see, slow or subtle movements that we can't detect. After my

"experience" I fully realized that to limit ourselves to only what we could

experience through "normal" physical sensation, even those magnified by

instruments, was to cut ourselves off from knowledge in a most ignorant and

myopic way. To insist truth could only come from data that could be

quantified by our current technology was to fall into the same pit of hubris

as various religious fanatics who insist that their view of God is the only

way. Now that doesn't mean that we can't keep trying to develop

instrumentation to detect God or "spiritual experiences" - though it is a

bit like a fish trying to make a machine that can detect if the water is wet

or not. What I've learned is that humility is a very important ingredient to

gaining greater spiritual knowledge. Just be open to the possibilities. Since

then I have had multiple confirmations of my experience and more of them.

A small example of the benefit of "seeing" beyond the physical range:

Once when I was driving up to a light just as it changed from red to green I

was about to drive through the intersection when in my inner vision I "saw" a

white car coming racing through the intersection and crash into me. This

vision occurred before I had actually driven into the intersection. There was

a car that had been waiting in the left lane while the light was red that

hadn't quite started yet and it completely blocked my view of any traffic

coming from the left. Because of what I had "seen" in my inner vision I

instantly put on the breaks and stopped my car. Within 2 seconds a white car

speed thru the intersection, through the red light, at about 60 -70 miles an

hour. I would have been broadsided on the left had I driven into the

intersection. I was about 6 months pregnant at the time and if I hadn't died

in the accident, I may have very likely lost the baby.

 

The following is long winded comment upon your statement:

 

I would still see only

> through my two eyes and no others, still feel sensations only through my

> body and no other, and so forth. As far as I can tell, there would be no

> obvious detectable difference of any kind.

 

I am also responding to an invitation to share experiences inspired by my

guru, Ammachi, from Ram Chandran, who wrote:

>You are welcome to write any article relating to how you were inspired by

Ammachi.

 

My personal "experience" contradicts your statement above. Though "my"

experiences are subjective to you - they have been very "objective" for me

and other people who have been in close proximity. I have now in fact, seen

through others eyes and have known that someone is seeing through my eyes.

Much of this has occurred in conjunction with a most remarkable Indian woman

that I met four years ago. The night I met Her, what I "saw" with my normal

vision was a very short (about 4'10") dark skinned Indian woman, rather

plump, with a big diamond noise ring. She didn't speak any English and was

reported to be a saint. (which was why I had gone to see her at one of her

programs as she visited the city where I live) She put on a program of

spritual lectures, puja ceremony, bhajans and then darshan (which with her

means getting a hug.) I waited in line a long time to get that hug. I was

told her touch was very healing. The only notable thing that happened that

evening was that a question that I was wondering about, as I sat for hours in

line to get my hug, was answered when I bought a book of hers and just

haphazardly flipped open to a page. The exact question that I had been

pondering was written there and she answered it very satisfactorily in the

book. Other than that nothing seemed out of the ordinary. I got my hug. It

was nice. I stayed and got a mantra to chant to help quiet my mind during

meditation, but nothing earth-shattering happened until...later that evening

after the program. While I was sleeping I had a dream in which I was with Her

in a very tropical place. I won't go into details as this email is already

very long. Let me just say that what happened in the dream was so powerful

that within a week and a half I was on a plane flying across country to go to

a retreat with her before she left the United States. What I have begun to

experience since meeting Her is that often She is seeing through my eyes,

while at the same time I am living inside Her. This sounds TOTALLY crazy

right? Actually it is the truth of Vedanta being experienced. Once when I

was visiting Her, I was reading Shankara's Crested Jewel of Discrimination

and the whole time I waited in line to see Her I silently chanted "That art

Thou" (Tat Twam Asi) the closer I got to Her the more the room began to fade

and I felt as if I was merging back into that light that I had experienced

when I was 21.

One last story illustrating this point, as it seems so weird to say

someone is seeing through my eyes and visa versa. After the first retreat

that I attended shortly after meeting Her, I had some time to pass before my

flight departed Providence, R.I. . So I took a taxi to spend the day at the

beach, as I had the whole day - my flight left in the evening. It was a hot

day, maybe 95 degrees or so and I went out in my bathing suit to the end of a

rocky pier to meditate. I had this strange yet comforting feeling that She

was experiencing everything that I was, that She was enjoying the surf, the

smell of the sea, the breeze. I knew that She would have loved to be at the

beach but that she had to stay finishing business at the retreat before Her

flight left the U.S. The more I meditated on Her and that She was

experiencing the day with me, the more I merged with Her...the winds picked

up ...the sea began to splash in my face. My consciousness began to expand

and I felt the enormous power of the Divine Mother as She is immanent in the

world...as She is the world "I" desolved and merged with Her. Finally the

wind became so strong that the waves began to crash up over the rocks and

splash me. This brought my attention back to my body. I was so wet-completely

drenched. I ended my meditation and looked around. The day had completely

changed..within that time (maybe 15-20 minutes) a storm had blown in, the

temperature had dropped at least 20 degrees, there were white caps out in the

bay..the life guards were calling people to come in out of the water...it

became freezing cold, people were wrapping themselves up in blankets and

sleeping bags. They were leaving the beach quickly. I thought I might

stay...as I was so happy to have some time alone to process all that had just

happened, but then I thought of my husband and my children I longed to see

them again and share with them what I had experienced. I decided to go ahead

and go to the airport...so I called the taxi driver who had given me his card

and said he would happily come back and pick me up and take me to the airport

at no additional charge - as I had run out of money. (probably the greatest

miracle of all) I dressed and walked to the street to wait for him. As I

waited for him. The clouds dissipated. The sun came out, the temperature rose

back up to the 90s people began to unwrap themselves and enjoy the hot summer

day again. I thought how totally strange the weather had been...I had lived

in Colorado and Texas (both known for quick weather changes) and had NEVER

seen such a dramatic change as occurred that day. Especially as the weather

then changed back to nice again. The taxi driver arrived and took me to the

airport. I was able to take an earlier flight from the small airport in

Providence. I had a longer lay over in New York because I had taken the

earlier flight. I called my husband to check in. He answered saying "yes I

know your stuck in Rhode Island, the airlines called me and said they had had

to cancel all the rest of the flights." I said "No, I am in New York, I

didn't take my scheduled flight but they hadn't said anything about canceling

flights when I was there." It turned out that I had made it out on the last

flight for the day. I don't know why they canceled the flights. Was there a

storm? It looked beautiful as we took off, maybe some clouds off over the

ocean in the distance.

I still don't really know what happened that day. I didn't have any

precognition that the flight would be canceled, but I knew that She had known

that I wanted to get home to be with my family. Was I suffering from

delusions of grandeur when I merged with Divine Mother? But then how did the

weather change so quickly and then back again.. Did She change the weather,

did I? Who then is I? Or was the whole bizarre event just coincidence? So

many of these strange "coincidences" have now occurred since I met Ammachi

that I no longer question or doubt them. What has helped confirm my

experiences is that many of the other people who have met Her have also

experienced very similar unusual coincidences and strong feelings of being

part of Her or they tell examples of how She knows their very inner most

thoughts and questions...and then lovingly answers them. This is the

advantage of having a guru. ...to experience the advaitan axiom .."the Atman

is Brahman" rather than just read about it. Through Ammachi this "self" is

experiencing moments of the non-dual state! The goal is to be constantly in

this state, rather than just intermittently. OM AMRITESHVARYAI NAMAH!

 

Humble prostrations and best wishes to you on your path,

there is no doubt that you will succeed for you too are Brahman!

 

"See the past, present and future as one. Know your true existence as the

immortal Self and go beyond time and space, awaken to eternal life. Then you

will know that Amma's Self and your Self are one." - Ammachi

 

Jai Ma,

Parvati

[Guest guest]

"See the past, present and future as one. Know your true existence as the

immortal Self and go beyond time and space, awaken to eternal life. Then you

will know that Amma's Self and your Self are one." - Ammachi

 

Jai Ma,

Parvati

 

 

Yes. This is the message of the nondual sages. Ammachi and her devotees

annually have a retreat here at Bryant College in the summer. They certainly

seem like a nice caring group.

 

Harsha

[Guest guest]

 

Parvatijai <Parvatijai

advaitin <advaitin >

Tuesday, August 17, 1999 12:51 PM

Re: Ammachi (was follow-up to last reply to P& W)

 

 

<snip>

>Before this event I was a skeptic. I would not have

>believed in God if I had not had this experience as I could not possibly

>believe in anything simply by faith or by what someone else told me was

>truth. I had to experience this "truth" myself. So I validate your

approach,

>keep searching! ...Though you may have to widen your perimeters a bit.

<snip>

 

Maybe that's it, and I should just forget about all this until something

hits me over the head. After all, meditation, mindfulness, dispassion, and

so on can be practiced in a strictly pragmatic, quasi-Buddhist way without

any metaphysical underpinnings. Thanks for sharing your stories, which I

read with great interest and appreciation.

 

I do still have one qualm even in the face of all you said. As I mentioned

before, people who have had near death experiences often come away

transformed by them and totally convinced in the 'reality' of the

experience, meaning the belief that they have directly perceived a

benevolent deity that permeates the universe, and have experienced a small

sample of the continuation of life after physical death. And yet in spite of

their psychological certainty, the evidence is overwhelming that the

experience is strictly a physiological or neurological phenomenon, which

tells us nothing at all about the ultimate nature of reality or life after

death. So I have to ask myself whether something similar could be the case

even in a situation that does not involve any sort of massive physical

trauma. We may answer, "If you take that approach, then what makes you think

the experience of looking at a tree corresponds to anything outside your

nervous system either?" The answer is that the survival value of sense

experience has established beyond any reasonable doubt that in most cases it

does convey to us something about reality beyond ourselves. And that's not

to mention the fact that the only way we know anything at all about our

brains and physiology is through sense observation, so to deny the validity

of the sense based on some sort of physiologism would be self contradictory,

as if the nervous system itself were merely a product of the nervous system.

 

But if I'm reading your message correctly, it's "Lighten up, be patient, and

remain open." I think it's good advice, and I would only add the caveat that

even direct personal experience may not always be what we think it is.

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

Greetings Robert:

 

 

The caveat that you have mentioned recognizes the human limitation! We can think

about only what we know and we have to go beyond what we can think to

experience what we can't think ! A typical dictionary

definition of religion is the following - "religion begins where science ends!"

 

Parisi & Watson wrote:

>

> But if I'm reading your message correctly, it's "Lighten up, be patient, and

> remain open." I think it's good advice, and I would only add the caveat that

> even direct personal experience may not always be what we think it is.

>

> Robert.

[Guest guest]

 

Ram Chandran <chandran

advaitin <advaitin >

Wednesday, August 18, 1999 8:10 PM

Re: Ammachi (was follow-up to last reply to P& W)

 

>The caveat that you have mentioned recognizes the human limitation! We can

think about only what we know and we have to go beyond what we can think to

experience what we can't think ! A typical dictionary

>definition of religion is the following - "religion begins where science

ends!"

>

>Parisi & Watson wrote:

>

>>

>> But if I'm reading your message correctly, it's "Lighten up, be patient,

and

>> remain open." I think it's good advice, and I would only add the caveat

that

>> even direct personal experience may not always be what we think it is.

 

 

Without wishing to seem contentious, I would only comment that having a

powerful and ineffable experience is one thing, but correctly interpreting

its significance can be quite another. Similarly, even though intellect

cannot be used to establish or comprehend the unthinkable, it can sometimes

be used to call into legitimate question the terms under which we have

assimilated it. I often have the feeling that a dichotomy is being depicted

between finite, fallible reasoning and intellect on the one hand, and

direct, immediate personal experience on the other. The experience itself

may be direct and immediate, but its significance is not. Reason can't call

into question the fact that an experience has occurred or what it 'felt'

like, which is known only to the person who experienced it. But it can be

used to support or undermine the way in which we have interpreted the

significance of the experience. Am I really the only one who sees this as a

vital consideration?

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

Greetings Robert:

 

Thanks for your thougtful explanations and this quotation from Einstein

implicitly supports your contention: "Science without religion is lame.

Religion without science is blind."

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

Parisi & Watson wrote:

>

> Without wishing to seem contentious, I would only comment that having a

> powerful and ineffable experience is one thing, but correctly interpreting

> its significance can be quite another. Similarly, even though intellect

> cannot be used to establish or comprehend the unthinkable, it can sometimes

> be used to call into legitimate question the terms under which we have

> assimilated it. I often have the feeling that a dichotomy is being depicted

> between finite, fallible reasoning and intellect on the one hand, and

> direct, immediate personal experience on the other. The experience itself

> may be direct and immediate, but its significance is not. Reason can't call

> into question the fact that an experience has occurred or what it 'felt'

> like, which is known only to the person who experienced it. But it can be

> used to support or undermine the way in which we have interpreted the

> significance of the experience. Am I really the only one who sees this as a

> vital consideration?

>

> Robert.

>

> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

> ONElist: home to the world's liveliest email communities.

>

> ------

> Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available at:

/viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin

>

 

--

Ram Chandran

Burke, VA

[Guest guest]

Robert wrote:

>Without wishing to seem contentious, I would only comment that having a

>powerful and ineffable experience is one thing, but correctly interpreting

>its significance can be quite another. Similarly, even though intellect

>cannot be used to establish or comprehend the unthinkable, it can sometimes

>be used to call into legitimate question the terms under which we have

>assimilated it. I often have the feeling that a dichotomy is being depicted

>between finite, fallible reasoning and intellect on the one hand, and

>direct, immediate personal experience on the other. The experience itself

>may be direct and immediate, but its significance is not. Reason can't call

>into question the fact that an experience has occurred or what it 'felt'

>like, which is known only to the person who experienced it. But it can be

>used to support or undermine the way in which we have interpreted the

>significance of the experience. Am I really the only one who sees this as a

>vital consideration?

 

No, I agree with you. I would even go further and say that

reason is capable of questioning the shape and feel of the

experience -- not in the sense that it wasn't 'experienced'

the way it is 'remembered' (although this too is a valid

question), but in the sense that the experience is 'constructed'

(in part) by the experiencer, and hence is already interpreted

in its initial presentation or reception.

 

The point is not to promote skepticism, but to take Jnana Yoga

seriously. The ego and its life-field must be radically

critiqued in order to see through that which needs to be seen

through, to see that which needs to be seen, and to know that

which is to be known.

 

-- Max

 

 

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

FREE - yourname - Just visit http://www.philosophers.net

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

Ram Chandran and Robert as well as all the fellow advaitins:

 

<We can think about only what we know and we have to go beyond what we can

<think to experience what we can't think !

 

Yes this is the point that I was attempting to explain. As the experience I

had began to be processed by my brain after the event, I began to label it an

experience of "God" etc. The actual experience was far beyond any label or

any "thought." It happened when I was meditating on the meaning of the

"trinity" in a Catholic Church. I had asked a priest to explain how God could

be three things simultaneously (obviously I hadn't had much exposure to

Hinduism at the time) He had told me that only someone born Catholic could

understand. I took that as a challenge, being raised an atheist and thinking

myself as competent as the next person to understand

philosophical/theological concepts sat down to meditate on the mystery.

At one point during my experience I was "lifted up" there seemed to be a

strong directional aspect to the whole experience. After meeting "the son" I

experienced the "holy ghost" which was unlike anything that I could have

imagined. (labels attached by the intellect) My consciousness exploded out in

all directions simultaneously.. through all time and all dimensions. I cannot

even "think" about this experience in anyway that could possibly recall what

actually happened as it was so beyond the normal range of consciousness that

I had felt up to this point.

The final point being that "God Realization" which is a label for

something that we don't really have words or "thoughts" to explain, is not

fathomable by the intellect alone. Our intellects can however interpret the

experience. Though I in no way claim to be a saint, I would guess that the

many saints through history who have had "Divine Revelations" have been

interpreters of this type of an experience.

To address Robert's questions concerning the "reality" of personal

experience:

>And yet in spite of

>their psychological certainty, the evidence is overwhelming that the

>experience is strictly a physiological or neurological phenomenon,

 

Certainly your doubt is understandable because if you haven't had this

experience it isn't really possible to imagine its overwhelming veracity

until you have actually experienced it. The only comment on the above

statement that I have is that from my studies... ( and I am working on a

Ph.D. studying Art that has been inspired by mystical experience) It hasn't

really been determined that the experience is STRICTLY a phenomenon of the

brain (or body) of the person. Though we can locate the place in the brain

that has electrochemical reactions that can stimulate "similar" types of

experience that "feel" real to the participants...the conclusion does not

follow implicitly that it is simply these chemical reactions that cause

spiritual experiences, it is just as possible that the experiences cause the

brain to react in that particular way. I would equate this to an aesthetic

experience (my particular field) does the brain "cause" the person to enjoy

looking at particular colors spatial arranged on a visual field or does the

optical experience cause the brain to go through the particular

electrochemical sequence that then allows them to then enjoy/process the

experience that we are having? Or is it some combination of 'phenomena in an

interactive loop with our biology?

I think "lightening" up can help, but so can getting really "heavy" and

intense and crying out for an answer. My sharing was just to validate that

you are on the right path to question and seek ... for that is how the

answers will finally be found. We do have to sometimes be silent and listen

to hear them.

 

Best wishes,

Jai Ma

Parvati

[Guest guest]

Parisi & Watson wrote:

>

> Without wishing to seem contentious, I would only comment that having a

> powerful and ineffable experience is one thing, but correctly interpreting

> its significance can be quite another.

 

this exposes the very common problem.

the whole idea of attempting to interpret

the significance of the experience of the

ineffable is itself fundamentally flawed.

because it boils down to being an attempt

to limit the limitless.

 

it's human nature to want to turn that

[truly Unknowable] Vast into a manageable

reasonableness, to the point where it

inevitably winds up spinning its wheels

of boredom in Mind-limbo.

 

the samadhi 'state' is non-relative.

how can the non-relative be interpreted

in relative terms? moreover, the idea of

significance is itself also relative.

therefore, these modalities are incompatible.

 

however, en route to experiencing a samadhi,

the student/practitioner is advised to apply

viveka (discriminating between the real and

unreal) to one's thoughts [ideas, beliefs,

etc]. however, this wouldn't apply to the

event of samadhi itself.

 

the point is, a samadhi needs no qualification.

if/when it comes, there can be no mistake as to

what it is or isn't. questions won't follow.

 

it's the same with love or laughter or sleep.

we obviously wouldn't analyze or speculate on

their authenticity...to do so would be to

sign-on to madness or folly or both.

 

the advice to be patient, with an open mind,

is the best; nevertheless, it's not easy for

one with a powerful intellect. in light of

this, it's prescribed to counter-challenge it

with the fire of its *own* fire: by turning the

table on its questions. by questioning it back!

by hunting down its source. by Self-inquiry.

 

namaste

[Guest guest]

 

f. maiello <egodust

advaitin <advaitin >

Thursday, August 19, 1999 4:39 PM

Re: Ammachi (was follow-up to last reply to P& W)

 

 

<snip>

>the samadhi 'state' is non-relative.

>how can the non-relative be interpreted

>in relative terms? moreover, the idea of

>significance is itself also relative.

>therefore, these modalities are incompatible.

 

<snip>

>the point is, a samadhi needs no qualification.

>if/when it comes, there can be no mistake as to

>what it is or isn't. questions won't follow.

 

 

By flatly stating what samadhi is, you are assuming the point at issue. In

other words, the transforming and overpowering experience of samadhi leaves

an indelible impression that it has certain superlative characteristics,

such as being non-relative, non-dual, and so on. But to state that it is

beyond all qualities based on the experience itself is already an

interpretation! You're saying that the implications of samadhi can't be

doubted because the experience is beyond all relative qualities, and your

basis for this claim is only the experience itself. Is that not circular?

And are we to take unshakable feelings of psychological certainty as an

unconditional guarantee of truth? I may not be wording this point well, but

please think of it in terms that are at least vaguely analogous to the

so-called near death experience. Only someone who has experienced it can

appreciate its ineffable nature or understand how it engenders certain

beliefs. But despite all this, these beliefs and the terms in which we think

about the experience (life after death, and so on) can still be mistaken.

>it's the same with love or laughter or sleep.

>we obviously wouldn't analyze or speculate on

>their authenticity...to do so would be to

>sign-on to madness or folly or both.

 

 

Very true, but in those cases we are not basing any metaphysical doctrines

on them. I don't have to reshape completely my picture of reality and myself

in order to account for laughter or sleep; they fit quite well with the

consensus Western view of things. The same definitely cannot be said about

Vedanta. That certainly doesn't make it wrong, but radical claims require

strong support, and it's hard for me to view a vivid experience and

subsequent psychological certainty as totally self justifying and self

supporting without some kind of corroboration.

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

 

Parvatijai <Parvatijai

advaitin <advaitin >

Thursday, August 19, 1999 9:11 AM

Re: Ammachi (was follow-up to last reply to P& W)

 

 

<snip>

>Certainly your doubt is understandable because if you haven't had this

>experience it isn't really possible to imagine its overwhelming veracity

>until you have actually experienced it. The only comment on the above

>statement that I have is that from my studies... ( and I am working on a

>Ph.D. studying Art that has been inspired by mystical experience) It hasn't

>really been determined that the experience is STRICTLY a phenomenon of the

>brain (or body) of the person.

<snip>

 

Please note that when I made that statement I was referring specifically to

the near death experience, and not to the experiences that you recounted.

The NDE has been studied in great detail, and I believe the conclusion that

I stated can be justified beyond a reasonable doubt in that case only.

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

 

Max Harris <max_harris

advaitin <advaitin >

Wednesday, August 18, 1999 10:13 PM

RE: Re: Ammachi (was follow-up to last reply to P& W)

 

>No, I agree with you. I would even go further and say that

>reason is capable of questioning the shape and feel of the

>experience -- not in the sense that it wasn't 'experienced'

>the way it is 'remembered' (although this too is a valid

>question), but in the sense that the experience is 'constructed'

>(in part) by the experiencer, and hence is already interpreted

>in its initial presentation or reception.

 

 

Very true. Sense perception itself has been called the hallucination that

bears the most resemblance to what is outside ourselves. It is by no means

immediate or a 'given' either.

>The point is not to promote skepticism, but to take Jnana Yoga

>seriously. The ego and its life-field must be radically

>critiqued in order to see through that which needs to be seen

>through, to see that which needs to be seen, and to know that

>which is to be known.

 

 

Can you enlarge on this point? An approach that incorporates my question

about the veracity of experience instead of resisting it could take things

in a completely new direction, at least for me.

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

f. maiello wrote:

>>it's the same with love or laughter or sleep.

>>we obviously wouldn't analyze or speculate on

>>their authenticity...to do so would be to

>>sign-on to madness or folly or both.

 

Robert wrote:

>Very true, but in those cases we are not basing any metaphysical doctrines

>on them. I don't have to reshape completely my picture of reality and myself

>in order to account for laughter or sleep; they fit quite well with the

>consensus Western view of things. The same definitely cannot be said about

>Vedanta.

 

Sometimes, in psychotherapy or just common life discernment,

we have to analyze the authenticity of love or laughter.

There are such things like feigned love, pathological

pseudo-love, and nervous laughter. I understand the desire

to take experiences of love and laughter at their face value,

but sometimes wisdom moves us to do otherwise.

 

Advaita is only one strand of Vedanta, Robert, and it might

be the case that other traditions of Vedanta have a different

epistemology. And I would also question whether all Advaitins

share an extreme anti-intellectualist attitude regarding the

mind's attempts to appreciate, analyse or assimilate knowledge

claims which are epistemologically challenging.

 

I say all this with high regard for Advaita, although my own

views are in the tradition of Sri Aurobindo, as best as I can

understand all this difficult stuff.

 

Namaste,

-- Max

 

 

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

FREE - yourname - Just visit http://www.philosophers.net

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Thanks for bringing up some interesting points for contemplation. Intellect is

an important instrument for basic understanding of facts and I believe that a

super majority of Advaitins do recognize the

importance of discriminatory intelligence (viveka). Philosophical discussions

can't be carried out without the intellect. At the same time, we should

recognize that the same intellect that purifies the

mind has also the capacity to destroy peace! Sadanandaji in his earlier post

has also pointed out the role of intellect and also its limitations.

 

One of the greatest works of Sankara, "Viveka Choodamani - The Crest-Jewel of

Discrimination" describes the fundamentals of Vedanta in clear terms. Swami

Chinmayananda in his introduction states:

"Vivekachoodamani is the cream of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. It

re-educates the student, in a systematic way, to provide him with a new vision

of life. The Goal and the Path are both exhaustively

dealt with, in this elaborate treatment of Vednata by Acharya Sankara. To one,

who is making a deep study of Vivekachoodamani no other help is needed for

leading him to a spiritual life and guiding him to his

self improvement." (Talks on Sankara's Vivekachoodamani, by Chinmayananda,

CCMT, Bombay, India).

 

In conclusion, intellect is quite important for learning the fundamentals and

for questioning, clarifications and understanding. At some point, it may become

necessary to abandon the intellect in order to

protect us from falling into pitfalls!

 

 

Max Harris wrote:

> Advaita is only one strand of Vedanta, Robert, and it might

> be the case that other traditions of Vedanta have a different

> epistemology. And I would also question whether all Advaitins

> share an extreme anti-intellectualist attitude regarding the

> mind's attempts to appreciate, analyse or assimilate knowledge

> claims which are epistemologically challenging.

>

> I say all this with high regard for Advaita, although my own

> views are in the tradition of Sri Aurobindo, as best as I can

> understand all this difficult stuff.

>

> Namaste,

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/19/1999 7:54:57 PM Central Daylight Time,

chandran writes:

 

<< To one, who is making a deep study of Vivekachoodamani no other help is

needed for leading him to a spiritual life and guiding him to his

self improvement." >>

 

This was the impression that I had when I first read this work, "The

Crest-Jewel of Discrimination", in the English translation by Swami

Prabhavananda, Vedanta Press. I have recommended it to anyone I know that

is seriously on a path of spiritual inquiry. I continue to refer back to it,

finding it to be a constant source of concise and profound wisdom. I have

found it most effective in combination with the Darshan and guidance of a

realized Master. Though of course both the "Crest-Jewel" and a Realized

Master are sufficient catalysts unto themselves for self-improvement. In

combination they are most evocative!

 

 

Thank you for hosting this list.

 

Jai Sri Mata,

Regards,

Parvati

[Guest guest]

Parisi & Watson wrote:

> By flatly stating what samadhi is, you are assuming the point at issue. In

> other words, the transforming and overpowering experience of samadhi leaves

> an indelible impression that it has certain superlative characteristics,

> such as being non-relative, non-dual, and so on. But to state that it is

> beyond all qualities based on the experience itself is already an

> interpretation!

 

quite true. it is impossible to speak at

all without engaging Relativity. this is

why the only true diksha (initiatory teaching)

is mounadiksha (initiation by silence). this is

also why the 'stateless state' of samadhi is

referred to as anirvachaniya (indescribable).

it would be more accurate to say that it is

beyond the duality of relative/non-relative;

yet this is still erroneous and misleading.

> You're saying that the implications of samadhi can't be

> doubted because the experience is beyond all relative qualities, and your

> basis for this claim is only the experience itself. Is that not circular?

> And are we to take unshakable feelings of psychological certainty as an

> unconditional guarantee of truth? I may not be wording this point well, but

> please think of it in terms that are at least vaguely analogous to the

> so-called near death experience. Only someone who has experienced it can

> appreciate its ineffable nature or understand how it engenders certain

> beliefs. But despite all this, these beliefs and the terms in which we think

> about the experience (life after death, and so on) can still be mistaken.

 

the Mind can go on speculating, ad infinitum.

there aren't any epistemological finalities;

just as there aren't any ultimate particles

of solid matter that aren't, in turn, composed

of something smaller--since, although theory,

it is precisely the way the phenomenal world

*has to* work--being the archetypal paradigm

of the Mind itself. if this seems to be as

obtuse as it is :-), please see:

http://digital.net/~egodust/fmpagezm.html

 

the Mind is a relentless, formidable beast.

theosophists call it the "slayer of the real."

the symbolism and treatment given it in the

ten oxherding pictures of the zens, drives the

point well home, of its status to spin endless

delusions and keep the veil over human Hearts

of the way and truth of simple Being.

 

> >it's the same with love or laughter or sleep.

> >we obviously wouldn't analyze or speculate on

> >their authenticity...to do so would be to

> >sign-on to madness or folly or both.

>

> Very true, but in those cases we are not basing any metaphysical doctrines

> on them.

 

what metaphysical doctrine? advaita vedanta

is not a doctrine. it is a discardable means

to the end of delusion, self-imposed bondage

and suffering. if it postulates a world order

or conception, it does so for the *temporary*

purpose of flushing out the hypnotic social

conditioning of judgmental ideas and beliefs

predicated on the existence of multitudinous

separative, baseless egos. once that is

accomplished, the doctrine is followed only

by default. it has no ultimate reality.

it asserts no ultimate tenet, precept, or

truth...simply because none can be asserted.

the status of love, peace, freedom, bliss,

and consciousness aren't tenets or precepts,

but the very nature and essence of their

substratum Existence. trace any one of them

and they all lead to their source in SAT.

> I don't have to reshape completely my picture of reality and myself

> in order to account for laughter or sleep; they fit quite well with the

> consensus Western view of things. The same definitely cannot be said about

> Vedanta. That certainly doesn't make it wrong, but radical claims require

> strong support, and it's hard for me to view a vivid experience and

> subsequent psychological certainty as totally self justifying and self

> supporting without some kind of corroboration.

 

 

what are the radical claims? that bliss

results from the absorption of ego back

into its substrate Self? really, there's

nothing exotic or fantastic about this in

the least! everyone's experiencing the

Self at all times. radically so! it's the

relentless combustion of 'violent' thoughts

that manage to divert our otherwise primal

attention to divisory matters of antagonisms,

fears, and other contractions that create and

recreate the ego moment to moment, thereby

sustaining the miraculous feat of suffering!

 

despite this chaos of Mind, the Self is

always here now. the gap between thoughts

registers subconscious bliss, charging the

Heart battery of every human being--or we

couldn't withstand the pressure of hate

(a.k.a. separativeness; fruit of the ego's

tragic comedy).

 

more than this, the Self is evidenced in

every moment of happiness and well-being.

every rush of chills from a piece of music

to a spectacle in the sky. the Self is

magnanimous. the ego is petty.

 

we already quite know samadhi.

we just have to lift its veil.

 

****

 

re corroboration:

 

as one may well imagine, it comes with

time only. how else?

 

the ageless wisdom teachings (Aldous Huxley

coined the Perennial Philosophy), being in

existence since time immemorial, are

discoverable by anyone with an open mind

and inclination to investigate. they are

found--if one has the key--within all the

major religions: buddhism, hinduism, judaism,

christism, taoism, shamanism.

 

the key itself is obtained by one's state of

[soul] evolution. it does not come by volition,

as it is later discovered that one is in fact

*not* free to choose. (briefly, freedom of

choice is a relative reality, since it precludes

the existence of ego. i.e. as long as ego is

considered real, there is real freedom of choice.)

Ramana Maharshi has said [paraphrasing, intent

intact], "our only freedom lies in whether or not

we allow our thoughts to influence our feelings."

 

so that, for the possession of the key, one must

be patient. YET, to even hear of this key--as

all reading this now--means one is not far from

obtaining it (reference to this latter is found

in Ribhu Gita).

 

once the key is had, the corroboration between

one's newfound metaphysical insight and the insight

of the archetypal ageless wisdom is also had. and

what is this compelling metaphysical holy grail that

has ever sped ahead in the chase, just beyond our

desperate reach? it is the simplest and--*because

of this*--the most laughable thing in the world!

where we find that virtually every culture and time

produced token seers who saw this special laughable

thing. this thing of an uproariously stark and

primally naked resolution! this thing ever before

us in the unavoidable pulse of our very ordinary

everyday life vibration. discovered to be *not*

so ordinary, afterall! thus: our divine Self clear

stripped of judgments and comparisons. that the

seers named variously brahman, jehovah, allah, tao,

nagual...beheld through the stilled inner flame [of]

ain soph, mu-shin, manonasa, bardothodol, wu wei.

resolving into the distilled endgame Art of Being

....as unalloyed SAT.

 

OM shaanthi

[Guest guest]

f. maiello's last post was very nice and quite profound,

but there's one claim I question:

>what metaphysical doctrine? advaita vedanta

>is not a doctrine. it is a discardable means

>to the end of delusion, self-imposed bondage

>and suffering.

 

I don't doubt that it may be for some an effective route

to self-realization and liberation, but I question the

claim that it is not a doctrine. In our discourse we

distinguish Advaita from other traditions of Vedanta or

from non-Vedantic traditions of mystical philosophy.

To do so implies that Advaita proposes certain things,

stands for certain things, means something discernable.

It is a metaphysical position and I think this is what

Robert meant by "doctrine." I don't think anything's

gained by denying this. Sure, its as relative as all

doctrines and all systems of thought, but it still is.

 

But I have found a source for one of my confusions.

When I joined this list, I did so under the assumption

that there were 'non-illusionist' forms of Advaita.

Now I think I know where I may have picked up that idea.

In his introduction to a chapter presenting some writings

of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Charles A. Moore writes:

 

"According to Radhakrishnan, 'maya' has not meant to

Indian philosophers, even to Shankara, that the world

is illusion. The world of everyday events and things

is not ultimate reality, to be sure, but neither is it

unreality. He has defended the reality of the empirical

world; it finds its basis in the Absolute. The Absolute

is the source of its many transformations but these

transformations in the world of the here-and-now do not,

in turn, affect the integrity or absoluteness of Brahman."

 

For this interpretation of Radhakrishnan's interpretation

of Advaita he cites Radhakrishnan's "Indian Philosophy",

Vol. II, chap. VIII. I do not have this work and cannot

immediately confirm Moore's interpretation. The above

quote is from "A Sourecbook in Indian Philosophy", edited

by Radhakrishnan and Moore, p. 610 (1957).

 

This (and perhaps other readings) may have been the source

of my expectation that Advaita contained 'illusionist' and

'non-illusionist' strands. As is clear from my posts, I

favor the non-illusionist strand, and the above position

attributed to Radhakrishnan seems practically identical

to the non-illuionist perspective of Sri Aurobindo.

 

Two questions:

 

1) Is there a basis for Moore's interpretation of

Radhakrishnan's interpretation of Advaita? (Since they

collaborated on the Sourcebook, I assume there is)

 

2) Is there a basis for Radhakrishnan's non-illusionist

interpretation of Advaita and Shankara?

 

Namaste,

-- Max

 

 

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

FREE - yourname - Just visit http://www.philosophers.net

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/20/1999 9:29:13 PM Central Daylight Time,

egodust writes:

 

<< the Mind can go on speculating, ad infinitum.

there aren't any epistemological finalities;

just as there aren't any ultimate particles

of solid matter that aren't, in turn, composed

of something smaller >>

 

Namaste:

 

This is a very good point and relative to the Truth of All is Brahman. As the

physical universe is investigated to be composed of these smaller and smaller

particles..what has finally discovered is that most of the entire universe is

space. An atom is 99% space with the nucleus, electrons, protons only

composing the other 1 %. This goes both ways up and down the scale. The

Molecules are also composed of 99% space as they are made of the atoms that

have combined in a particular formation. So taking this up to the Human

organisim. We too are in reality compsed of 99% space. What is that 1% that

is left. Physcal science theoriezes that it is energy. Advaita describes it

as consciousness. But in the non-dual sense it the consciousness permeates

the space as well. It is tthe duality of space and energy which creates the

illusion of a solid manifest material world.

[Guest guest]

 

f. maiello <egodust

advaitin <advaitin >

Friday, August 20, 1999 9:29 PM

Re: Ammachi (was follow-up to last reply to P& W)

 

 

<snip>

>what are the radical claims? that bliss

>results from the absorption of ego back

>into its substrate Self? really, there's

>nothing exotic or fantastic about this in

>the least! everyone's experiencing the

>Self at all times. radically so!

<snip>

 

No, claims about bliss and so on are hardly radical. What is radical is the

claim that our consensus reality as we experience it every day is an

illusion, and that actual reality is fundamentally different than most

people assume. If we try to start with what we know, then it might be

something like, "I'm a person, born on a certain date, with an approximate

life expectancy, sitting at a computer in a room in a certain city..." on

and on. It's radical to say, "No, all that is wrong. The real you is not an

individual person, you were never born and will never die, and you have no

specific physical location because you are infinite." If that's not a

radical claim, then nothing is. And I'm a little baffled as to why you would

resist this statement. To many people the radical nature of Advaita Vedanta

is part of what makes it so fascinating.

 

Since you brought it up, it is a strange contrast: the things most people

think they know for sure (as above) are rejected in Vedanta, whereas

potentially dubious, radical claims based on exotic states of consciousness

(bliss, depersonalization, etc.) are accepted without question. It's an

interesting inversion of the common attitudes.

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

Max Harris wrote:

>

> I don't doubt that it may be for some an effective route

> to self-realization and liberation, but I question the

> claim that [Advaita] is not a doctrine. In our discourse

> we distinguish Advaita from other traditions of Vedanta or

> from non-Vedantic traditions of mystical philosophy.

> To do so implies that Advaita proposes certain things,

> stands for certain things, means something discernable.

> It is a metaphysical position and I think this is what

> Robert meant by "doctrine." I don't think anything's

> gained by denying this. Sure, its as relative as all

> doctrines and all systems of thought, but it still is.

 

obviously, in any communication semantics is

the first consideration. in this case, we're

using 'doctrine' in somewhat different applications.

i interpreted what Robert was alluding to insofar

as its being a set of tenets and precepts that go

toward shaping a philosophy of a particular

world view. in this sense, advaita vedanta does

not propound any doctrine (it does not propound,

for example, any idyllic world order, any social

or political philosophy, etc).

 

this is not to say, however, that the result of its

application doesn't produce a code of conduct aligned

with the nature of the Self. entailing that it is

inherently integrated with the whole of Being and

therefore *naturally* acting out attributes of love,

peace, harmony, etc. simply because these automatically

have their source in the state of at-one-ment [as the

whole of the universal One-without-a-second, brahman].

these attributes are *not* the product of any dogma,

philosophy, or doctrine. they are intrinsic to the

nature of Being Itself, and are already very much alive

and well within our reach. the point is, they needn't

be cultivated or learned therefore. they surface quite

spontaneously upon the lifting of the veil of avidya.

>

> But I have found a source for one of my confusions.

> When I joined this list, I did so under the assumption

> that there were 'non-illusionist' forms of Advaita.

> Now I think I know where I may have picked up that idea.

> In his introduction to a chapter presenting some writings

> of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Charles A. Moore writes:

>

> "According to Radhakrishnan, 'maya' has not meant to

> Indian philosophers, even to Shankara, that the world

> is illusion. The world of everyday events and things

> is not ultimate reality, to be sure, but neither is it

> unreality. He has defended the reality of the empirical

> world; it finds its basis in the Absolute. The Absolute

> is the source of its many transformations but these

> transformations in the world of the here-and-now do not,

> in turn, affect the integrity or absoluteness of Brahman."

>

 

yes, Sankara was critically misunderstood on this point.

 

Sri Ramana has said, "The Vedantins do not say that the

world is unreal. That is a misunderstanding. If they did,

what would be the meaning of the Vedantic text, 'All this

is brahman'? They only mean that the world is unreal as

the world as such, but it is real as Self."

--p.233; DAY BY DAY WITH BHAGAVAN

by Devaraja Mudaliar (1977)

 

however (and its important to bear this in mind), this

does not constitute a tenet or axiom contributing

toward any doctrine. simply because it is discardable!

advaita, as well as any other method or approach in

metaphysics, is only a means to an end. once the other

shore is reached, the raft becomes firewood. in fact,

a doctrine held as sacred itself will inevitably prove

to be even more of an obstacle than what it was designed

to overcome in the first place!

 

namaste

 

 

 

Max Harris wrote:

>

> I don't doubt that it may be for some an effective route

> to self-realization and liberation, but I question the

> claim that [Advaita] is not a doctrine. In our discourse

> we distinguish Advaita from other traditions of Vedanta or

> from non-Vedantic traditions of mystical philosophy.

> To do so implies that Advaita proposes certain things,

> stands for certain things, means something discernable.

> It is a metaphysical position and I think this is what

> Robert meant by "doctrine." I don't think anything's

> gained by denying this. Sure, its as relative as all

> doctrines and all systems of thought, but it still is.

 

obviously, in any communication semantics is

the first consideration. in this case, we're

using 'doctrine' in somewhat different applications.

i interpreted what Robert was alluding to insofar

as its being a set of tenets and precepts that go

toward shaping a philosophy of a particular

world view. in this sense, advaita vedanta does

not propound any doctrine (it does not propound,

for example, any idyllic world order, any social

or political philosophy, etc).

 

this is not to say, however, that the result of its

application doesn't produce a code of conduct aligned

with the nature of the Self. enttailing that it is

inherently integrated with with the whole of Being and

therefore *naturally* acting out attributes of love,

peace, harminy, etc. simply because these automatically

have their source in the state of at-one-ment [as the

whole of the universal One-without-a-second, brahman].

these attributes are NOT the product of any dogma,

philosophy, or doctrine. they are intrinsic to the

nature of Being Itself, and are already very much alive

and well within our reach. the point is, they needn't

be cultivated or learned therefore. they surface quite

spontaneously upon the lifting of the veil of avidya.

>

> But I have found a source for one of my confusions.

> When I joined this list, I did so under the assumption

> that there were 'non-illusionist' forms of Advaita.

> Now I think I know where I may have picked up that idea.

> In his introduction to a chapter presenting some writings

> of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Charles A. Moore writes:

>

> "According to Radhakrishnan, 'maya' has not meant to

> Indian philosophers, even to Shankara, that the world

> is illusion. The world of everyday events and things

> is not ultimate reality, to be sure, but neither is it

> unreality. He has defended the reality of the empirical

> world; it finds its basis in the Absolute. The Absolute

> is the source of its many transformations but these

> transformations in the world of the here-and-now do not,

> in turn, affect the integrity or absoluteness of Brahman."

>

 

yes, Sankara was critically misunderstood on this point.

 

Sri Ramana has said, "The Vedantins do not say that the

world is unreal. That is a misunderstanding. If they did,

what would be the meaning of the Vedantic text, 'All this

is brahman'? They only mean that the world is unreal as

the world as such, but it is real as Self."

--p.233; DAY BY DAY WITH BHAGAVAN

by Devaraja Mudaliar (1977)

 

however (and it's important to bear this in mind), this

does not constitute a tenet or axiom contributing

toward any doctrine. simply because it is discardable!

advaita, as well as any other method or approach in

metaphysics, is only a means to an end. once the other

shore is reached, the raft becomes firewood. in fact,

a doctrine held as sacred itself will inevitably prove

to be even more of an obstacle than what it was designed

to overcome in the first place!

 

namaste

[Guest guest]

 

f. maiello <egodust

advaitin <advaitin >

Saturday, August 21, 1999 10:42 PM

Re: Ammachi (was follow-up to last reply to P& W)

 

>obviously, in any communication semantics is

>the first consideration. in this case, we're

>using 'doctrine' in somewhat different applications.

>i interpreted what Robert was alluding to insofar

>as its being a set of tenets and precepts that go

>toward shaping a philosophy of a particular

>world view. in this sense, advaita vedanta does

>not propound any doctrine (it does not propound,

>for example, any idyllic world order, any social

>or political philosophy, etc).

 

 

I should have clarified. I had in mind, for example, the distinction between

Advaita and Dvaita. There are hundreds of less obvious instances.

>this is not to say, however, that the result of its

>application doesn't produce a code of conduct aligned

>with the nature of the Self. entailing that it is

>inherently integrated with the whole of Being and

>therefore *naturally* acting out attributes of love,

>peace, harmony, etc. simply because these automatically

>have their source in the state of at-one-ment [as the

>whole of the universal One-without-a-second, brahman].

>these attributes are *not* the product of any dogma,

>philosophy, or doctrine. they are intrinsic to the

>nature of Being Itself, and are already very much alive

>and well within our reach. the point is, they needn't

>be cultivated or learned therefore. they surface quite

>spontaneously upon the lifting of the veil of avidya.

 

 

Your statements about what what is intrinsic to Being itself constitute

doctrine. They go beyond a prescription and prediction in the form of, "If

you follow this practice, this experience will result." They offer a

metaphysical interpretation or explanation of the experience as well.

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

Parisi & Watson wrote:

> [...] ...it is a strange contrast: the things most people

> think they know for sure (as above) are rejected in Vedanta, whereas

> potentially dubious, radical claims based on exotic states of consciousness

> (bliss, depersonalization, etc.) are accepted without question. It's an

> interesting inversion of the common attitudes.

>

 

quite so! obviously the concept radical is

itself relative and based on one's perspective.

non-dualists see as ordinary what the dualists

see as non-ordinary: viz. bliss, etc. this is

the result of holistic, holographic insight,

which is effortless, natural, and innate to

consciousness itself. and in this respect

it's not considered radical at all. rather

it's a coming home to what has been all along

one's true and quite *ordinary* nature. if and

when seen in this light, the dualistic mode of

apprehending the world is regarded as not only

unnatural but contrived, forced, and pretentious.

 

>

> Your statements about what what is intrinsic to Being itself constitute

> doctrine. They go beyond a prescription and prediction in the form of, "If

> you follow this practice, this experience will result." They offer a

> metaphysical interpretation or explanation of the experience as well.

 

 

if by doctrine you mean precepts, tenets, etc.

that contribute toward the formulation of a

particular philosophy, i disagree.

 

if we burn a piece of paper, to say that it

yields flame, smoke, and ashes, is scientific

fact. although they are attributes of the

paper burning process, doesn't mean they are

subject to controversy. they are *intrinsic*

to the process.

 

in the same way are love, peace, freedom, etc

intrinsic to atman; they are the very nature

of the pure existence of the Self.

 

however, it is possible--although rare--that

a jnani will act out in violation of these

attributes. this can be the result of a number

of factors, the most common being prarabdha karma.

 

nevertheless, for our purposes in understanding,

we can consider the verity that such attributes

are inherent and archetypal, and not at all based

on dogmatic opinion or speculation.

 

namaste