give up attempts to intellectually understand advaita

[Guest guest]

Dear Murthy,

 

You seem to be pointing to the futility of engaging the intellect in genuine

understanding. Provided our intellects don't feed on this momentary

perception and don't spin off more theories from it, it may indeed be a

valuable insight. A few have talked about it. Below are a few passages from

Ramana and Krishnamurti on this subject.

 

Affectionately,

 

----Viswanath

 

 

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

>

>namaste.

>

>Sometimes I wonder if there is any use in trying to intellectually

>understand advaita. It (attempt to intellectualize advaita) is a futile

>exercise doomed to fail by its very nature. It will always end up in

>a loop which has no beginning or end. Further, the intellectual

>understanding of advaita is never the goal. The objective is the

>purification of the heart with the ultimate demise of the ego while

>an *intellectual* understanding of advaita by its very definition is

>the strengthening of the intellect of th ego. They are mutually

>incompatible.

>

 

Ramana:

 

....Pre-occupation with theory, doctrine and philosophy can actually be

harmful insofar as it distracts a man from the really important work of

spiritual effort by offering an easier alternative which is merely mental

and which therefore, cannot change his nature...

 

D.: Is the study of science, psychology, physiology, etc., helpful for

attaining Yoga-liberation or for intuitive understanding of the unity of

Reality ?

B.: Very little. Some theoretical knowledge is needed for Yoga and may be

found in books, but practical application is what is needed. Personal

example and instruction are the most helpful aids. As for intuitive

understanding, a person may laboriously convince himself of the truth to be

grasped by intuition, of its function and nature, but the actual intuition

is more like feeling and requires practical and personal contact. Mere book

learning is not of any great use. After Realisation all intellectual loads

are useless burdens and are to be thrown overboard.

 

 

.....It is due to illusion born of ignorance that men fail to recognise that

which is always and for everybody the inherent Reality dwelling in its

natural heart-centre and to abide in it, and that instead they argue that it

exists or does not exist, that it has form or has not form, or is non-dual

or is dual? Can anything appear apart from that which is eternal and

perfect? This kind of dispute is endless. Do not engage in it. lnstead turn

your mind inward and put an end to all this. There is no finality in

disputations......

 

.....I was indeed fortunate that I never took to it (i.e. philosophy). Had I

taken to it I would probably be nowhere; but my inherent tendencies led me

directly to inquire 'Who am I ?' How fortunate!

 

 

>One example of the futility of this exercise is *giving* up the ego

>and the *success* in it. Who is giving up the ego ? It is the ego

>itself. How can it give itself up and to who ? The very statement

>that ego is giving itself up and if it is a *success*, it strengthens

>the ego, and if it fails, again the ego gets strengthened. Thus, the

>ego cannot give itself up. The ego has to drop by itself. How and why

>does the dropping of the ego take place ? It is certainly not by any

>action of the ego but by purified heart.

 

 

Krishnamurti:

 

 

......The very noise of the self prevents its own dissolution. We consult,

analyse, pray, exchange explanations; this incessant activity and noise of

the self hinders the bliss of the Real. Noise can produce only more noise

and in it there is no understanding....

 

 

......The moment you want to be free from the ego, that very desire is also

part of the ego; so you have a constant battle in the ego over two desirable

things, between the part that wants and the part that does not....

 

 

......Self-knowledge, then, is not a process to be read about or speculated

upon; it must be discovered by each one from moment to moment, so that the

mind becomes extraordinarily alert. In that alertness there is a certain

quiescence......

 

 

.....And in that silence the entity who experiences has completely ceased.

But what most of us want is to experience, to gather more. It is the desire

for the more that makes us meditate, that makes us do spiritual exercises,

and so on. But when all that is understood, when all that has dropped away,

then there is a silence, then there is a tranquillity of the mind, in which

the experiencer, the interpreter is absent. Then only is there a possibility

for that which is not nameable to come into being. It is not a reward for

good deeds. Do what you will, be as selfless as you like, force yourself to

do the good things, the noble things, to be virtuous--all those are

self-centred activities; and such a mind is only a stagnant mind. It can

meditate; but it will not know that state of silence, quietness, in which

the real can be.

 

 

 

>

>

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

>

>Transfer your big list to ONElist and earn $500!

>For program details, go to

>/info/biglistbon_intro.html

>

>------

>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

>

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

Sometimes I wonder if there is any use in trying to intellectually

understand advaita. It (attempt to intellectualize advaita) is a futile

exercise doomed to fail by its very nature. It will always end up in

a loop which has no beginning or end. Further, the intellectual

understanding of advaita is never the goal. The objective is the

purification of the heart with the ultimate demise of the ego while

an *intellectual* understanding of advaita by its very definition is

the strengthening of the intellect of th ego. They are mutually

incompatible.

 

One example of the futility of this exercise is *giving* up the ego

and the *success* in it. Who is giving up the ego ? It is the ego

itself. How can it give itself up and to who ? The very statement

that ego is giving itself up and if it is a *success*, it strengthens

the ego, and if it fails, again the ego gets strengthened. Thus, the

ego cannot give itself up. The ego has to drop by itself. How and why

does the dropping of the ego take place ? It is certainly not by any

action of the ego but by purified heart.

 

Another example of the futility of the exercise (of intellectually

understanding advaita) is the concept of jeeva. Only if the concept

of jeeva dies, moksha is attained. For whose is this moksha ? Is that

moksha for the jeeva, for the humanity, for the jagat ? It cannot be

for the jeeva, because that jeeva is no longer there. It cannot be

for the jagat, because jagat is not there either, because the jeeva

that perceives the jagat is not there. So, moksha will not have much

meaning. Again, attempts at intellectual understanding fail.

 

We will run into the same intellectual roadblock at the threshold

in understanding the three states all in association with turIyA.

 

Even continuous surgical analysis of Who am I ? leads to the same

unfathomable (to the intellect) end-point.

 

However, in spite of the inability of the intellect to grasp it,

It is still the Truth, the non-duality, the Atman is the only thing

there is, nothing else. And That is unfathomable by the intellect.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Hari Om!

 

Well said! I have nothing more to add or subtract!!

 

Ram Chandran

 

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>

> Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

> However, in spite of the inability of the intellect to grasp it,

> It is still the Truth, the non-duality, the Atman is the only thing

> there is, nothing else. And That is unfathomable by the intellect.

>

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, y viswanath wrote:

> "y viswanath" <yviswanath

>

> Dear Murthy,

>

> You seem to be pointing to the futility of engaging the intellect in genuine

> understanding. Provided our intellects don't feed on this momentary

> perception and don't spin off more theories from it, it may indeed be a

> valuable insight. A few have talked about it. Below are a few passages from

> Ramana and Krishnamurti on this subject.

>

> Affectionately,

>

> ----Viswanath

>

 

namaste.

 

Thanks for quotes from Shri RamaNa and Jiddu Krishnamurti as they pertain

to this topic. Sayings of both these great sages certainly clarify this

point very well.

 

When I said it is futile to intellectually understand advaita, I mean to

say that advaita is beyond intellect, as correctly taken by all the

respondents on this thread. Of course, it does not mean that advaita

cannot stand rigorous intellectual analysis. It certainly does and is

much more than that. The point that is being made is: do not get oneself

entwined in the intellectual rigour. The objective is more than that and

one's energy need not be dissipated in an intellectual discussion which

is counter-productive to the ultimate objective.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------