Re : So Who Are You?

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Nanda:

 

Thanks for your excellent thoughts on thought and role and importance of

Sadhana. Let me add some additional points. Your assertion that we can only

become aware of the thought after its occurrence is quite right. After several

thoughts, mind conducts an inventory analysis and regrets for the evil thoughts

and wants to retain the good thoughts. Unfortunately, analysis of thoughts

bring more thoughts and this divergence of thoughts can never be stopped without

earnest efforts. Bhagavad Gita suggest three Yogas to stop the accelerating high

speed engine of thoughts.

 

Through Karma Yoga, the Sadhaka (seeker) diverts his/her full attention to the

action and remove the thoughts on the results. Thoughts on the results of

action are like the weeds to the farmer who plants new crops. The weeds

(thoughts) can become uncontrollable if they are not nipped in the bud. Gita

rightly claims that a Karma Yogi can ultimately go beyond thoughts and can

experience the "bliss." The Bhakti Yogi diverts all his/her thoughts on Ishwara

and surrender to Him to reach beyond all other thoughts. The Jnana Yogi

conducts Atman VichAram focuses his/her attention on meditation to go beyond

thoughts.

 

You are absolutely right in your contention that all these require immense

practice and control. Most important, one has to develop strong "faith" to

succeed and Grace through faith is the fundamental ingredient for

self-realization.

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

"nanda chandran" <vpcnk writes:

 

When you reach the truth - there'll neither be an "I" nor "mine".

And to know Truth you've to go beyond the "I". How? By making the ultimate

sacrifice - sacrifice the "I" - let go of it - let go of yourself as an

entity which is aware? If you question whether by this, wouldn't you be

losing your focal point of meditation "Who are you? or Atman VichAram - just

because you let go of the "I", does it mean that you cease to exist? To

"know" you exist is ignorance, but to merely exist - quiescence of plurality

- is bliss - and this will require immense practice and control. And that's

Advaitam.

[Guest guest]

[Nanda wrote]

<snip>

>I remember Sadananda used to say that you cannot keep negating ad infinitum

>- but stop at the negator. No, the negator itself is the root of the mAyam -

>it's what YAgnavalkya refers to in his dialogue with Maitreyi when he says

>it's only because of the self that everything is dear. The self referred to

>here is the Ego, which being pseudo individuality has no existance of its

>own apart from whatever has been experienced. And it is out of this illusion

>of a self that attachment and misery arises. This is the false "I", which is

>referred to in the MundAka Upanishad. And what NAgArjuna, the grea>t Buddhist

>philosopher, refers to as ShUnyam or as lacking inherent existence.

>When you reach the truth - there'll neither be an "I" nor "mine".

>And to know Truth you've to go beyond the "I". How? By making the ultimate

>sacrifice - sacrifice the "I" - let go of it - let go of yourself as an

>entity which is aware? If you question whether by this, wouldn't you be

>losing your focal point of meditation "Who are you? or Atman VichAram - just

>because you let go of the "I", does it mean that you cease to exist? To

>"know" you exist is ignorance, but to merely exist - quiescence of plurality

>- is bliss - and this will require immense practice and control. And that's

>Advaitam.

 

Dear Nanda,

 

I appreciate your intelligent remarks, it shows you are an extraordinary seeker

and please continue ..you are definitely on the right track...

Welcome to where the air is rare, I'm glad to meet you !

 

If you had followed my last comments to Tim, you may have noticed that I

was expressing the same insight.

This 'You' who steps back or lets go can surrender all sorts of external

and internal appendages but is unable to let go of itself, i.e. the essential

core self (ego) or what I had called previously the 'Causal Witness Self'

remains,

divorced from all that is witnessed, i.e. it still is immersed in duality.

In fact this 'you' or 'I' has no intention of giving itself up or quitting the

scene;

a trap and dilemma that all aspirants of the path must encounter at some stage.

So the question is - how can the one who steps back (or let go) finally step

back

(or surrender) from its own self ?

We have already seen that the Katha Upanishad mentions 'Grace' as the final

means to remove this last knot, leading to true liberation. Maybe there are

other

means ?

Maybe the goodly doctor knows some more ?

 

~dave

[Guest guest]

At 09:03 AM 11/5/99 -0600, Dave Sirjue wrote:

 

Nanda wrote:

> >When you reach the truth - there'll neither be an "I" nor "mine".

> >And to know Truth you've to go beyond the "I". How? By making the ultimate

> >sacrifice - sacrifice the "I" - let go of it - let go of yourself as an

> >entity which is aware? If you question whether by this, wouldn't you be

> >losing your focal point of meditation "Who are you? or Atman VichAram - just

> >because you let go of the "I", does it mean that you cease to exist? To

> >"know" you exist is ignorance, but to merely exist - quiescence of plurality

> >- is bliss - and this will require immense practice and control. And that's

> >Advaitam.

 

 

Dave writes:

>Dear Nanda,

>

>I appreciate your intelligent remarks, it shows you are an extraordinary

>seeker

>and please continue ..you are definitely on the right track...

>Welcome to where the air is rare, I'm glad to meet you !

>

>If you had followed my last comments to Tim, you may have noticed that I

>was expressing the same insight. This 'You' who steps back or lets go can

>surrender all sorts of external and internal appendages but is unable to

>let go of itself, i.e. the essential core self (ego) or what I had called

>previously the 'Causal Witness Self' remains, divorced from all that is

>witnessed,

>i.e. it still is immersed in duality. In fact this 'you' or 'I' has no

>intention

>of giving itself up or quitting the scene; a trap and dilemma that all

>aspirants

>of the path must encounter at some stage. So the question is - how can

>the one

>who steps back (or let go) finally step back (or surrender) from its own

>self ?

>We have already seen that the Katha Upanishad mentions 'Grace' as the final

>means to remove this last knot, leading to true liberation. Maybe there are

>other means ? Maybe the goodly doctor knows some more ?

 

Dave,

 

You are putting your finger on the crux of the issue. For many

teachers/teachings, especially in the Westernized forms of popular advaita,

this ultimate witness is their stopping point. The Witness, "Our True

Nature," and objects rising and falling in It. At this point, even the

much-recommended vigilance and exhortations to "be quiet" have fallen

away. Notions and beliefs in independent, autonomous doer-ship are long

gone, or are allowed to peacefully rise and fall. There is peaceful

acceptance of whatever happens. Everything might seem great, even for

years. Firmly seated in this understanding, there aren't really questions

of "how" or "when" because the question refers to the benefit accruing to

an extremely subtle do-er, and the answer would point to a technique for

the doer to achieve something, and the doer just doesn't arise or assert

itself at this point. Things are usually pretty cool in the Witness state,

a smooth flowing of all phenomena across the untouched non-phenomenal

background that is sweetness light itself.

 

 

But as you say, this is still steeped in dualities. Still there is the

sense that it is happening to "me," though at a great remove. There are

still the dualities of me/other and subject/object and noumenon/phenomenon,

etc. The question at this point isn't so much a how, or a means, or a

technique as it is a subtle (and often not unpleasant) lack of total

fulfillment, and a recognition that there are dualities still, though not

necessarily unpleasant ones. What happens next at that point can take many

forms, and certainly is only Grace. It will be accompanied by the

recognition and deeply full intuition that it was Grace all along even in

the beginning, that the subject/object or dualistic (or any!) paradigm

makes no ultimate sense, and that it was all ever So, with no separation

anywhere. This is Knowledge itself, and is the key to the phrase uttered

by many teachers in speaking to people who believe in personal

enlightenment, that "when you are enlightened, you will see all things as

enlightened." Or, that it's not a question of enlightened/un-enlightened,

but just -- all light.

 

Love,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

 

Dave Sirjue [Dave_Sirjue]

Friday, November 05, 1999 10:03 AM

advaitin

Re: Re : So Who Are You?

 

Dear Nanda,

 

I appreciate your intelligent remarks, it shows you are an extraordinary

seeker

and please continue ..you are definitely on the right track...

Welcome to where the air is rare, I'm glad to meet you !

 

....Dave

 

Dear Daveji, Thanks for appreciating Nandaji's intelligent remarks and

confirming that he is on the right track. Frankly I am moved to confirm your

confirmation. Perhaps Ramji can confirm mine, .........and so it goes...Yes,

the air is rare here and that is why we are all very happy and laughing

(lack of oxygen .) I am anyway. It is a Friday. Welcome by the way to Sri

Dan Berkow who has appreciated Frankji's comments here in the past. And let

the Wave of Beauty continue to engulf us with knowledgeable and literary

comments of Moorthyji and Madhavaji and others.

 

Nandaji made a good point about the ultimate sacrifice, "letting go of the

"I". The point Nandaji made about immense practice and control is also a

very good one. The difficulty might be that if the immense practice and

control presupposes the existence of the "I", Self-Realization is

continually seen to be far away and as a goal or an achievement. In this

paradigm, the possibility of being always a half centimeter or less away

from the great attainment has to be considered.

 

Your point Daveji is also well taken. You say that ........"This 'You' who

steps back or lets go can surrender all sorts of external and internal

appendages but is unable to let go of itself, i.e. the essential core self

(ego) or what I had called previously the 'Causal Witness Self' remains,

divorced from all that is witnessed, i.e. it still is immersed in duality.

In fact this 'you' or 'I' has no intention of giving itself up or quitting

the scene; a trap and dilemma that all aspirants of the path must encounter

at some stage. So the question is - how can the one who steps back (or let

go) finally step back (or surrender) from its own self ?"

 

Well stated Daveji. Perhaps this is why Sages such as Ramana point to the

root issue, and that is the taking of the problematic reality of the "I" to

be real by the "problematic" I.

 

Dave: We have already seen that the Katha Upanishad mentions 'Grace' as the

final

means to remove this last knot, leading to true liberation

 

 

Yes. It seems to me also that Grace is needed. It might be that immense

practice and control (or lack of it), are due to Grace. Since Grace is

ever-present at all times, Grace must refer to the Self It Self. And carried

to its logical conclusion, since the Self Is Always the Self, nothing need

be done, and in fact nothing can be done, and in fact, nothing has ever been

done.

 

Harsha

[Guest guest]

At 02:17 PM 11/5/99 -0600, Dave Sirjue wrote:

 

Well Greg, I'll be brief since its Friday evening, raining heavily, and I

>have to drive 50 miles from work to home.

>I'm contesting these "teachers" especially the Westernized ones

>just as Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabacharya etc. had a right to

>question various misinterpretations of Shankara's teachings.

>We are here to expose these inherent errors made in the past,

>that have kept us in ignorance for centuries.

>Well, I'll say more about this in the near future.

 

 

Dave,

 

These teachers are just doing their thing, teaching according to their

experience and understanding. They teach a witness state, which is not

bereft of dualism. I've known many of the teachers and hundreds of their

students, and they don't care at all about what we are talking about

here. The students are not even looking for a cessation of all suffering,

they just want to feel good, and the witness state sounds much more

appealing and compelling to them than what we are discussing here. When I

pointed out the dualism in his teachings to one of these Western teachers

of non-dualism, his response was, "Well, that's very heady, and I'm more of

a bhakti kind of guy." That's as far as he could go with it.

 

One student of a very famous Indian teacher with many Western disciples

told me he'd rather merge with his teacher than be enlightened, because it

felt better.

 

>[Greg]

><snip>

><this is Knowledge itself, and is the key to the phrase uttered

><by many teachers in speaking to people who believe in personal

><enlightenment, that "when you are enlightened, you will see all things

>as <enlightened."

>

>I see a contradiction here, Greg,....is there such a thing as personal

>enlightenment ? Nobody gets enlightened, sir !

>It more accurate to say that when enlightenment happens there is no

>"you" around. "You" don't see or experience anything rather "you" are

>that experience itself ! "You" are identical to what is happening, there is

>no separate watcher or looker, else you would be presuming duality.

 

 

Dave,

 

You jumped too soon. No contradiction, because no claim. I'm not saying

anything gets enlightened, just passing on a conventional and

democratic-sounding phrase that others have used as a pointer. When it was

told to me, I smiled... The phrase "When I was enlightened, I saw that the

whole world was enlightened" was attributed to Buddha (I don't have the

citation.) Of course it makes no sense, even at a second

glance. Actually, the belief in enlightenment of any kind can do more harm

than good. It actually teaches people a new, very important and

ultimate-sounding way to feel separate and left out. I've seen teachers

wield the notion in quite manipulative ways. How can it make sense? If

there are no independent entities, then how can a subject exist for any

adjective or predicate to really be applied to it? And how can a predicate

such as enlightenment or lack thereof actually apply to any subject? In

fact, it doesn't even make any sense to say that anything is accurate or

inaccurate, because it presumes and reifies a correspondence between

language and a non-linguistic state of some kind, none of which makes sense

upon analysis. Enlightenment of any kind is just as dualistic a notion as

any of the other stuff, it just sounds fancier.

 

Let me ask you something. You say that:

 

Nobody gets enlightened, sir !

It more accurate to say that when enlightenment happens there is no

"you" around. "You" don't see or experience anything rather "you" are

that experience itself ! "You" are identical to what is happening, there is

no separate watcher or looker, else you would be presuming duality.

 

If nobody gets enlightened (which I agree with), then what do you mean by

the "when enlightenment happens"? Is that an actual occurrence? So we

have an event instead of a person? How is that any different? Where/how

would the happening be? Is there somehow a "you" up until that time, but

not from then on? Does something actually disappear? Did it really exist

before? Even the thought of the thing? (Thoughts are no less thing-like

than oranges) If there's really not a "you" after, then how can there be

one before?

 

With love,

 

--Greg

 

 

 

 

 

 

nobody gets enlightened, what do you mean ihow can there be

 

Here's another example of how uninterested in this st

 

>Have a fun weekend

>

>~dave

>

>>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

>Mirror Archive Site: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

>

[Guest guest]

[Greg]

<snip>]

< For many teachers/teachings, especially in the Westernized

<forms of popular advaita, this ultimate witness is their stopping

<point.

 

Well Greg, I'll be brief since its Friday evening, raining heavily, and I

have to drive 50 miles from work to home.

I'm contesting these "teachers" especially the Westernized ones

just as Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabacharya etc. had a right to

question various misinterpretations of Shankara's teachings.

We are here to expose these inherent errors made in the past,

that have kept us in ignorance for centuries.

Well, I'll say more about this in the near future.

 

[Greg]

<snip>

<this is Knowledge itself, and is the key to the phrase uttered

<by many teachers in speaking to people who believe in personal

<enlightenment, that "when you are enlightened, you will see all things

as <enlightened."

 

I see a contradiction here, Greg,....is there such a thing as personal

enlightenment ? Nobody gets enlightened, sir !

It more accurate to say that when enlightenment happens there is no

"you" around. "You" don't see or experience anything rather "you" are

that experience itself ! "You" are identical to what is happening, there is

no separate watcher or looker, else you would be presuming duality.

Think about it.

 

Have a fun weekend

 

~dave

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/4/99 5:44:24 PM Pacific Standard Time,

vpcnk writes:

 

No, the negator itself is the root of the mAyam -

> it's what YAgnavalkya refers to in his dialogue with Maitreyi when he says

> it's only because of the self that everything is dear.

 

Similarl I find in followings: Perhaps it is my childish effort to bring this

in this topics Janni's are same like Lord (Janni Swatmaiva me Matem). I will

be blessed either way by approaching the Janni's of this List for any error.

..

Sri Mad Bhagvatam; Brahma's extols the Lord,

Sri Suka replied: To all created beings, O protector of men, their own self

alone is dear; others such as one's progeny and wealth are dear only because

of the latter being loved by one's own self. 50, Therefore, O king of Kings,

the same love as is seen in the heart of embodied beings severally for their

own self, they do not have for their son, wealth house etc., which are

regarded as their own. (51), If even the body (which is ordinarily regarded

as one's own self) comes to be recognized (as a result of deep thinking) as

one's own (other than one's own self) comes to be recognized (as a result of

deep thinking) as one's own (other than one's self), it would not then be

loved like the self whereas (previously) the desire to survive was very keen

even when the body was worn out. 53, Therefore, one's own self is supremely

dear to all embodied beings; the whole of this creation, mobile as well as

immobile, is loved for the sake of the self alone.(54) Know this Krsna to be

the Self of all Living beings; for the good of the world (alone) even He

appears through His Maya (deluding potency) like one invested with body.(55)

In the eyes of those who know Sri Krsna in reality (as the Cause of the

universe) everything mobile and immobile in this world is a manifestation of

the Lord;there is nothing other than Him here.(56) The esence of all things

lies in their cause and Lord Sri Krisna is the (untimate) cause of the

latter. (Hence) what substance other than Him may be affirmed?(57) With them

who have sincerely taken refuge in the boat -like feet of Lord Sri Krsna of

sacred renown-feet which are tender as a frest leaf and are the goal of the

great (such as Brahma and Siva)- the ocean of mundane existence is reduced to

the (mere) foot print of a calf. (Nay) Vaikuntha (the gighest realm) becomes

their abode and the world (the home of miseries) ceases.(58)

(Another verses from the same I like very much)

Attachment etc., play the role of robbers (rob us of our spiritual wealth),

the house serves as a prison and infatuation acts as a feter only so long as

we do not become your devotees, O Krsna! (36)

What do they not forget in this world-they whose mind stands deluded by Maya,

infatuated by which the whole creation remains constantly forgetful of

itself! (44)

His person picturesquely decked with the plume of a peacock and blossoms and

painted with frest minerals, (nay) full of joy at the shrill notes of flutes,

whistles of leaves and horns, and lovingly shouting to His calves, Sri Krsna

(whose very sight brought delight to the eyes of cowherd women) entered

Vraja, His purifying glory being sung (all the way) by His followers. (47)

 

 

Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurana , Book 10, Chapter 14 (Geeta Press, Gorakhpu

 

 

Raju Chhatry

****