Practise Of Advaita

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Robert, you spoke for me as well (and very eloquently).

 

W

>"Parisi & Watson" <niche

>

>I often feel that, as a Westerner, I am barred from this course. The Christ

>figure of my own culture has been so hopelessly besmirched, at least for

me,

>that it offers nothing. And the deities of India, while they certainly have

>their own appeal and relate directly to Vedanta, are still cultural items

>borrowed from another context, and so lack some of the necessary

familiarity

>and intimacy. I doubt that many Westerners would be able, for instance, to

>attain the level of devotion to Kali that was shown by Sri Ramakrishna in

>his youth. What this process of elimination leaves is at most a personal

but

>formless deity... certainly more manifest than the inconceivable Brahman,

>but still somewhat abstract. And there seems to be little choice but to

>'make due' with what is given to us.

>

>Some members may disagree with my statement, since it includes a large

>factor of individual temperament. And we all know that some groups, such as

>ISKCON, make a point of adopting not only the icons of Indian culture, but

>even Indian dress and rituals. If it works for them, then I wish them well.

>But for myself I have to make a separation between cultural influences on

>the one hand, and the core of Vedanta on the other which, even though it

>arose in an Indian context, is universal.

>

>Robert.

[Guest guest]

I have this question. I know of one way to practise formless mediatation that

can lead to a non-dual experience and that is by seeking the source of the " I"

within (The Ramana method). However most advaita schools (Like the Ramakrishna

math) would advice to meditate in the region of the spiritual heart on a deity

and repeat a suitable mantra. This is also supposed to lead to non-duality in

the long run.

My simple question is will meditation on a deity cause weakness of the mind? One

thing I have learnt in my sadhana is that only the strong in spirit can realize

the atman. All weakness must be weeded out . In this regard I feel that

meditation on a personal God makes one more dependent on external help and

does'nt make one stand on one's feet. Whereas the neti neti marga or searching

the "I" puts all responsibilty on one's own shoulder.

So is it not better to follow formless meditation to meditation with form ?

 

Sincerely,

Anand

 

 

 

 

A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology

Network.

Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com

[Guest guest]

On 12/19/99 at 2:05 PM Anand Natarajan wrote:

 

¤

¤I have this question. I know of one way to practise formless

mediatation that can lead to a non-dual experience and that is ¤by

seeking the source of the " I" within (The Ramana method). However most

advaita schools (Like the Ramakrishna ¤math) would advice to meditate in

the region of the spiritual heart on a deity and repeat a suitable mantra.

This is also ¤supposed to lead to non-duality in the long run.

¤My simple question is will meditation on a deity cause weakness of the

mind?

 

Isn't thinking of a weak mind the cause of a weak mind? To my experience,

mind is a kind of wishing tree - when fed with the proper thoughts, the

conditions to fulfill the wish will be set and the fulfilling of the wish

will follow - what is required is sincerity, consistency and faith. As

nonduality can't be called a wish in the proper sense, it is easier to have

it accomplished than acquiring material wealth

 

¤One thing I have learnt in my sadhana is that only the strong in spirit

can realize the atman. All weakness must be weeded ¤out . In this regard

I feel that meditation on a personal God makes one more dependent on

external help and does'nt make ¤one stand on one's feet. Whereas the neti

neti marga or searching the "I" puts all responsibilty on one's own

shoulder.

¤So is it not better to follow formless meditation to meditation with

form ?

¤

¤Sincerely,

¤ Anand

 

If meditation is pleasant, one forgets self; most thoughts are centered

around "I". If meditation isn't pleasant, it will be very difficult to

forget self. Meditation on a personal God makes the mind onepointed (only

thoughts about the deity are present) and if there is surrender and

devotion, meditation will start to "live a life of its own" and life

becomes meditation itself. This is far more important than the method used.

So don't worry, if the devotee is sincere, meditation on the chosen God

will always have results. If one has a guru, the guru will be one's

personal God.

 

In classical Yoga this seeming dilemma can happen too and Purohit Swami

comments on (I, 17) : [...] "The yogi is attached to his personal God,

prides himself in being his devotee, his son, dedicates his life to him,

sings his glory, enjoys his sense of duality, refuses to merge himself into

his God, refuses to become God. God initiates him into this last stage,

when the yogi says: 'I am spirit, the personal Self is the impersonal

Self', leaves all for God, lives there for ever" [...].

 

So there is no escape from nonduality; there isn't anything else

 

Jan

[Guest guest]

~Hi everyone. Welcome Antoine. I will add my bits to this discussion.

 

> On 12/19/99 at 2:05 PM Anand Natarajan wrote:

> ¤I have this question. I know of one way to practise formless

> mediatation that can lead to a non-dual experience and that is ¤by

> seeking the source of the " I" within (The Ramana method). However most

> advaita schools (Like the Ramakrishna ¤math) would advice to meditate in

> the region of the spiritual heart on a deity and repeat a suitable mantra.

> This is also ¤supposed to lead to non-duality in the long run.

> ¤My simple question is will meditation on a deity cause weakness of the

> mind?

 

~My response to that is, that it is the ego mind which is weak already. And as

we know it can't free itself. In my opinion Grace or deities are needed to help

sever attachment to ego mind.I did not know my own meditational mantra was

invoking the

help of a deity. After finding somewhere on the net the meaning of my mantra now

it seems it was all along. That was kept secret from me.

> Jan:

> Isn't thinking of a weak mind the cause of a weak mind?

 

~Isn't losing the limited mind's boundaries (no mind) the aim of Self

realisation?

> To my experience,

> mind is a kind of wishing tree - when fed with the proper thoughts, the

> conditions to fulfill the wish will be set and the fulfilling of the wish

> will follow - what is required is sincerity, consistency and faith. As

> nonduality can't be called a wish in the proper sense, it is easier to have

> it accomplished than acquiring material wealth

>

 

~This is where I get confused. For if we are in essence one with Supreme Being &

Brahman then 'is that a thinking state' of choice or non choice? Are we the

thinker?Anand:¤One thing I have learnt in my sadhana is that only the strong in

spirit

can realize the atman. All weakness must be weeded ¤out . In this regard I feel

that meditation on a personal God makes one more dependent on external help and

does'nt make ¤one stand on one's feet. Whereas the neti neti marga or searching

the "I"

puts all responsibilty on one's own shoulder.¤So is it not better to follow

formless meditation to meditation with formJan :

> If meditation is pleasant, one forgets self; most thoughts are centered

> around "I". If meditation isn't pleasant, it will be very difficult to

> forget self. Meditation on a personal God makes the mind onepointed (only

> thoughts about the deity are present) and if there is surrender and

> devotion, meditation will start to "live a life of its own" and life

> becomes meditation itself. This is far more important than the method used.

> So don't worry, if the devotee is sincere, meditation on the chosen God

> will always have results. If one has a guru, the guru will be one's

> personal God.

 

~It seems to me that one pointed attention transcends thought reaching the

source of thought & everything.

> In classical Yoga this seeming dilemma can happen too and Purohit Swami

> comments on (I, 17) : [...] "The yogi is attached to his personal God,

> prides himself in being his devotee, his son, dedicates his life to him,

> sings his glory, enjoys his sense of duality, refuses to merge himself into

> his God, refuses to become God. God initiates him into this last stage,

> when the yogi says: 'I am spirit, the personal Self is the impersonal

> Self', leaves all for God, lives there for ever" [...].

>

> So there is no escape from nonduality; there isn't anything else

>

> Jan

 

Like that last quote Jan.

 

All the best,

 

Col

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 19 Dec 1999, Anand Natarajan wrote:

> "Anand Natarajan" <anandn

>

> [...]

> So is it not better to follow formless meditation to meditation with form ?

>

> Sincerely,

> Anand

>

 

namaste.

 

As I understand

 

Meditation on nirguna brahman is the hardest. Nirguna brahman without

shape, form, attributes is very hard for the mind to concentrate on.

The purpose of meditation is to make the mind not drift from thought

to thought (or not to wander). That is, to make the mind concentrate

on a single entity (ekAgrata). While nirguna meditation is ideal,

that cannot be achieved by a sAdhaka in the preliminary stages of

meditation (or even in an advanced state). Lord Krishna says in

BG that nirguna meditation while ideal, is quite difficult to

achieve (I can give the verse reference, verse and meaning if

there is interest).

 

What do we meditate on then? Saguna brahman, brahman with all good

attributes. In explaining tat of tat tvam asi, shri Shankara says

that while the implied meaning of tat is nirguna brahman, the direct

meaning of tat is the saguna brahman, the personal god with all good

attributes. There is no difference between Ishwara, vishNu, lalitA,

rAmA or any with all good attributes. In meditation on saguna

brahman (one's personal god), it gives anchor to the mind so that

the mind can be continuously held on to the lotus feet of the personal

god, resulting in ekAgrata and dissolution of the ego. Finally, one

would see oneself to be merging with the personal god, and the personal

god becoming vishwavyApta.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

-----

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Anand:

 

Thanks for your profound enquiry regarding meditation (or worship or prayer)

on a personal deity. Ideally we want to be independent (liberated. Then why

should we dependent on a personal God and be a slave instead of being free?

 

I want to ask the following questions to myself before answering your

questions:

(1) Why didn't I walk from the day of my birth?

(2) Why didn't I talk and ask for milk instead of crying?

 

After some thoughts, it came to my mind that I have to accept some dependence

before I gained my freedom from parents. Many times all of us have to take

some steps backward in order to go forward. Even the cars that we drive may

ultimately go forward, sometimes we have to back it to get more clearance and

freedom. When the tiger takes several steps backward, it is not due to fear

but it is prepared for a calculated attack! We do take bitter medicine in

order to get better.

 

Let us take a moment to understand how did the weekness enter into the mind.

The greatest example is from Gita, where Arjun throws the bow and arrow on the

ground standing with utter confusion. He was afraid to fight the war and kill

his relatives and friends. Lord Krishna tells him in clear terms that Arjun is

not the 'doer' but is only an instrument! Lord Krishna's advice is described

in Chapter 18, one of the most admired verse in Bhagavad Gita (Chapter 18,

Verse 66. Ramanuja and Sankara gave great importance to this verse for

different reasons:

 

Sarvadharmaanparityajya maamekam sharanamvraja

Aham tvaa sarvapaapebhyo mokshayishyaami maa shuchah

 

(For more details, refer to advaitin archive at escribe.com:

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/index.html?mID=2067)

 

Essentially, focusing on personal God is a smart way to gain confidence and

clarity and some temporary dependence in order to gain total indepence! In the

Hindu system of "idol worship" the stone is a symbolic representation of

personal god. I can stand before the "icon" and identify the impersonal

Brahman through the stone. The Brahman in the "icon" does not eat or talk or

sleep but listen to my talk and give me back the food that I serve to Him as

"Prasad." Also I gain the true prasad (total peace) for my temporary

insanity! I am sorry, that I can't explain any more and I have to surrender my

ego and stop here!

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

Note on Distinction between surrender concept in advaita and VishsTaadvaita

explained by Sadanandaji is the following:

 

In advaita - surrenderence of ego implies there is no more I notion or

identity with the body, mind and intellect as I am that. Since ego results

from that identity and consequently, surrenderence therefore cannot happen

until I know who I am. Hence Bhagawan Ramana says true surrenderence occurs

only once. Once surrendered there is no more left to surrender.

 

In VishisTaadviata surrenderence of ego is sublimation of the misunderstanding

that I am swatantram or independent entity. I am dependent completely on Him

and hence it is the surrenderence to daasya bhava - I am external servent of

the Lord. I remain and the Lord remain but I am subserviant to the Lord.

swaruupyam is only explined as I am part of him or that is I am his property.

I belog to Him - I still remains separte from Him but being dependent on Him I

am part of His glory. Bhakta still remains.

 

===================================

Anand Natarajan wrote:

> I have this question. I know of one way to practise formless mediatation that

can lead to a non-dual experience and that is by seeking the source of the " I"

within (The Ramana method). However most advaita schools (Like the Ramakrishna

math) would advice to meditate in the region of the spiritual heart on a deity

and repeat a suitable mantra. This is also supposed to lead to non-duality in

the long run.

> My simple question is will meditation on a deity cause weakness of the mind?

One thing I have learnt in my sadhana is that only the strong in spirit can

realize the atman. All weakness must be weeded out . In this regard I feel that

meditation on a personal God makes one more dependent on external help and

does'nt make one stand on one's feet. Whereas the neti neti marga or searching

the "I" puts all responsibilty on one's own shoulder.

> So is it not better to follow formless meditation to meditation with form ?

>

> Sincerely,

> Anand

[Guest guest]

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

<snip>

>What do we meditate on then? Saguna brahman, brahman with all good

>attributes. In explaining tat of tat tvam asi, shri Shankara says

>that while the implied meaning of tat is nirguna brahman, the direct

>meaning of tat is the saguna brahman, the personal god with all good

>attributes. There is no difference between Ishwara, vishNu, lalitA,

>rAmA or any with all good attributes. In meditation on saguna

>brahman (one's personal god), it gives anchor to the mind so that

>the mind can be continuously held on to the lotus feet of the personal

>god, resulting in ekAgrata and dissolution of the ego. Finally, one

>would see oneself to be merging with the personal god, and the personal

>god becoming vishwavyApta.

 

 

I often feel that, as a Westerner, I am barred from this course. The Christ

figure of my own culture has been so hopelessly besmirched, at least for me,

that it offers nothing. And the deities of India, while they certainly have

their own appeal and relate directly to Vedanta, are still cultural items

borrowed from another context, and so lack some of the necessary familiarity

and intimacy. I doubt that many Westerners would be able, for instance, to

attain the level of devotion to Kali that was shown by Sri Ramakrishna in

his youth. What this process of elimination leaves is at most a personal but

formless deity... certainly more manifest than the inconceivable Brahman,

but still somewhat abstract. And there seems to be little choice but to

'make due' with what is given to us.

 

Some members may disagree with my statement, since it includes a large

factor of individual temperament. And we all know that some groups, such as

ISKCON, make a point of adopting not only the icons of Indian culture, but

even Indian dress and rituals. If it works for them, then I wish them well.

But for myself I have to make a separation between cultural influences on

the one hand, and the core of Vedanta on the other which, even though it

arose in an Indian context, is universal.

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/20/1999 6:56:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,

chandran writes:

 

<< Also I gain the true prasad (total peace) for my temporary

insanity! I am sorry, that I can't explain any more and I have to surrender

my

ego and stop here!

 

Ram Chandran >>

 

Beautiful! Exactemente :-)

 

Annette

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Parisi & Watson wrote:

> "Parisi & Watson" <niche

>

> >Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

> <snip>

> >What do we meditate on then? Saguna brahman, brahman with all good

> >attributes. In explaining tat of tat tvam asi, shri Shankara says

> >that while the implied meaning of tat is nirguna brahman, the direct

> >meaning of tat is the saguna brahman, the personal god with all good

> >attributes. There is no difference between Ishwara, vishNu, lalitA,

> >rAmA or any with all good attributes. In meditation on saguna

> >brahman (one's personal god), it gives anchor to the mind so that

> >the mind can be continuously held on to the lotus feet of the personal

> >god, resulting in ekAgrata and dissolution of the ego. Finally, one

> >would see oneself to be merging with the personal god, and the personal

> >god becoming vishwavyApta.

>

>

> I often feel that, as a Westerner, I am barred from this course. The Christ

> figure of my own culture has been so hopelessly besmirched, at least for me,

> that it offers nothing. And the deities of India, while they certainly have

> their own appeal and relate directly to Vedanta, are still cultural items

> borrowed from another context, and so lack some of the necessary familiarity

> and intimacy. I doubt that many Westerners would be able, for instance, to

> attain the level of devotion to Kali that was shown by Sri Ramakrishna in

> his youth. What this process of elimination leaves is at most a personal but

> formless deity... certainly more manifest than the inconceivable Brahman,

> but still somewhat abstract. And there seems to be little choice but to

> 'make due' with what is given to us.

>

> Some members may disagree with my statement, since it includes a large

> factor of individual temperament. And we all know that some groups, such as

> ISKCON, make a point of adopting not only the icons of Indian culture, but

> even Indian dress and rituals. If it works for them, then I wish them well.

> But for myself I have to make a separation between cultural influences on

> the one hand, and the core of Vedanta on the other which, even though it

> arose in an Indian context, is universal.

>

> Robert.

>

 

namaste.

 

I certainly empathize with what Robert and Warren are saying. My viewpoint

on this is the following:

 

Advaita is a philosophy. While it is to some extent associated with Hindu

religion, advaita can stand well by its own without any association with

any religion, including the Hindu religion.

 

Shri Shankara, when he interprets the direct meaning of tat (in tat tvam

asi) as personal god (i.e., brahman with attributes), or when Lord Krishna

says in BG 12.5 that meditation on nirguna brahman is very difficult and

suggests meditation on brahman with attributes, we need to understand

what this saguna brahman is. Any formful entity with all good attributes

would serve this purpose. Our objective in meditation is to bring the

mind repeatedly to a fixed focus so that the mind does not wander hither

and tither. The best that the mind can keep focus on is what we call God,

the creator.

 

In Hindu environment, Ishwara or lalitA or any other form of personal

god would give an excellent focus, at the same time helping in the

evolution and growth of bhakti. The focus can be on our guru, shri

Shankara, shri RamaNa or any form for whom we have reverence. As

recently posted on the List, shri RamaNa says that devotion to any,

even an object of beauty would be effective for this purpose.

 

Then, we need to define what the purpose is. The purpose is quietening

the mind. The jnAnam will need to evolve through and that would be

spontaneous. No 'effort' with a purpose would lead to IT. Thus,

meditation on a saguna brahman as a requirement, and the Hindu religion

being best suited with deities for upAsana being plentily available

while other religions may be deficient in these icons, this statement

may be an overstatement for Atma vidyA. The objective is to quieten

the mind, and that can be accomplished with devotion to any preferred

icon or entity whom we wish we are or whom we adore (with unfettered

love and total surrender). Such icons or entities are aplenty in

human spiritual literature.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

-----

[Guest guest]

Message: 14

Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:59:47 -0500

Ram Chandran <chandran

Re: Practise Of Advaita

 

Hello Ram Chandram:

 

Your personal questions raise others...

 

« I want to ask the following questions to myself before answering your

questions:

(1) Why didn't I walk from the day of my birth?

(2) Why didn't I talk and ask for milk instead of crying? »

 

(1) Why does a rock not chameleon directly into a human?

(2) Why do i not understand the language of stars in the skies or ants

or cells in a body right away, instead of speaking?

 

« After some thoughts, it came to my mind that I have to accept some

dependence before I gained my freedom from parents. »

 

Who are the parents, the family, the relatives, the doer?

 

« Let us take a moment to understand how did the weakness enter into the

mind. The greatest example is from Gita, where Arjun throws the bow and

arrow on the ground standing with utter confusion. He was afraid to

fight the war and kill his relatives and friends. Lord Krishna tells him

in clear terms that Arjun is not the 'doer' but is only an instrument! »

 

« Essentially, focusing on personal God is a smart way to gain

confidence and clarity and some temporary dependence in order to gain

total indepence! In the Hindu system of "idol worship" the stone is a

symbolic representation of personal god. I can stand before the "icon"

and identify the impersonal Brahman through the stone. The Brahman in

the "icon" does not eat or talk or sleep but listen to my talk and give

me back the food that I serve to Him as "Prasad." Also I gain the true

prasad (total peace) for my temporary insanity! I am sorry, that I can't

explain any more and I have to surrender my ego and stop here! »

 

The rocks do speak a wise language that open in the "absence" of it,

thank you for your time.

 

Antoine