Practice of Advaita

December 13, 1999

>"R. Viswanathan" <rvis

>

>Hi!

>The mind with the "I" creates thoughts which are ego-centric. No advaita

>here.

>The mind immersed in God creates thoughts which are Divine. Advaita is a

>possibility here.

>The mind aligned with God-Consciousness or the mind that is truly

>surrendered is "thoughtless" in that it has no "I" identity. This is

>Advaita.

Does the mind really create thoughts? Or is "mind" a handy name we give to a

bundle of thoughts that revolve around a common center (the "I"-thought)?

W

December 20, 1999

In a message dated 12/20/1999 5:29:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,

colette writes:

<<

Yes comes a stage after much devoted meditating where the silence is present

simultaneously with thought. But when first starting I was taught meditation

is the transcendence of thought into thesilent still Source (God) as Rainbo

my friend

expressed.) Hi Rainbo :-)

Bye now,

Love,

Colette

>>

Hi Colette,

In the beginning I just had a few books and just sat, my kundalini

fired very young, and when it went, I had no idea what happened,

I wasn't very concerned about thought or not-thought, I was concerned

that I had left reality and was seeing at my third eye and thought i

had become *weird* ... I had no one to talk to about it, and i sure

wasn't going to tell anyone :-)

So, transcend thought has never been a subject with me, I was just

playing with an answer, but since the issue arises, it has been, for

me, about surrender... :-)

L*L*L

Annette

December 21, 1999

There is a lot of discussion about practising Advaita. But one cannot really

practise Advaita, for Advaita is the understanding that there is indeed no

separate `one,' so `who' is to `do' any practice? As J.Krishnamurti said, you

cannot `practise' awareness. If you are `practising' awareness, you are all the

time being inattentive. `Practising' awareness or Advaita is like "putting legs

on a snake", or trying to "make the river wet." It is, in the words of

Chuang-Tzu "trying to make things into one without realizing that they are

already one." And it is this "realizing that they are already one" that is the

Great Understanding which needs no practice.

But then why are practices often prescribed by the Masters? That is because most

people who have jumped onto the Enlightenment band-wagon are not ready to accept

the teaching that there is nothing to be `done' apart from understanding the

situation. (Nisargadatta Maharaj: Nusta samzhoon ghyaayacha aahe, Understanding

is all that is required). For such people, some practice (any practice) is

prescribed to keep them busy till they are ripe for the final teaching. (See

Ashtavakra's teaching to King Janaka: "Your only bondage is that you practice

meditation" Ashtaavakra Gita, 1,15). There is the story of the man who employed

a ghost do his daily chores. On the very first day, the ghost finished all his

work in a trice and demanded more, saying that if he was given no work, he would

consume his master. But whatever work the man invented the ghost finished in

next to no time and demanded still more. The terrified man ran to a sage, who

advised him to install a pole in his backyard. Ask the ghost, he said, to climb

to the top of the pole, and when he reaches there, climb down , and then climb

up again, then down again, and continue till you tell him to stop. This finally

satisfied the ghost.

This is not to say that these practices should *not* be done. Indeed, the word

"should" is obsolete. But perhaps attention could also be paid to the question

of `who' is to `do' these practices.

This is also not to say that these practises (like meditation, for example) have

no value. They may certainly produce calming of the mind and other beneficial

effects. But in the context of the intuitive understanding of Advaita, which is

Enlightenment, *any* practice done with the idea that `one' is `doing' the

practice with a certain aim (which is the `achievement' of Enlightenment), can

be counter-productive, for it will inevitably reinforce the conviction in the

existence of the `one' (who is doing the practice for his own benefit). So what

is the way out? It is only when this very understanding leads to a de-emphasis

on the practice, that things will begin to happen. Indeed, the practice may then

very well continue, but there will no more be the idea that `one' is `doing' it

for a particular purpose. The practice will simply be seen to happen - done

because you `feel like doing it.' Or it may drop off on its own (not `given

up').

The key word is thus *understanding.*

Best wishes,

Nitin

Homepage: http://personal.vsnl.com/ntrasi

Best wishes,

Nitin

Homepage: http://personal.vsnl.com/ntrasi

December 21, 1999

Greetings Robert:

I agree with your observation and environment plays an havoc in everyone's life.

In India also beliefs, perceptions and practices by person and also by region.

One size doesn't fit everybody and we have develop our "Swadharma" that is

agreeable to our temperament. As long as we watch our progress using Kanchi

Sage's testing device: "If, each year, the number of things or events which can

arouse your anger or lust grows smaller, you are making progress; you are

stagnating if it remains the same; if it increases, your spiritual development

is retrogressive."

A good substitute for personal god in the context of westerners is ‘personal

guru.' For example, Frankji considers the sage of Arunachal (Ramana Maharishi)

as his personal guru and he has demonstrated that he was able to grind his Ego

into DUST. In advaita every entity is part and parcel of the ParaBrahman and

consequently, He is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Eternal. Whether it is a person,

any living creature or even a stone, it doesn't matter. It is just symbolic and

is transient. We just create an illusion to remove the illusions! It is our

earnest effort to discriminate between the SELF (ParaBrahman) and self (ego

circled within the boundaries of body, mind and intellect).

Last weekend, I was watching Joseph Campell's video presentation of "Power of

Myth." This is six part series produced by the Public TV and is readily

available in public libraries across the USA. This is a beautiful presentation

of the unity in the diversity of religions, beliefs and practices. He is very

meticulous in describing his understanding of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and

Hinduism. The true Christian keeps the Christ in his/her heart, a true

representation of a realized soul, and loves everybody and hates none. I had

come across quite a few in my life. In Western Culture, Hell, heaven, sins,

forgiveness, worship and prayer are cultural attributes and they just help the

Christians to develop positive mental attitudes. They are the means and not the

ends. A similar point can be made regarding personal deity, guru, etc. in

Hinduism.

Ram Chandran

"Parisi & Watson" <niche writes

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

> large factor of individual temperament.

>....................

> 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.

December 21, 1999

On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Nitin Trasi wrote:

> There is a lot of discussion about practising Advaita. But one cannot really

practise Advaita, for Advaita is the understanding that there is indeed no

separate `one,' so `who' is to `do' any practice? As J.Krishnamurti said, you

cannot `practise' awareness. If you are `practising' awareness, you are all the

time being inattentive. `Practising' awareness or Advaita is like "putting legs

on a snake", or trying to "make the river wet." It is, in the words of

Chuang-Tzu "trying to make things into one without realizing that they are

already one." And it is this "realizing that they are already one" that is the

Great Understanding which needs no practice.

>

> But then why are practices often prescribed by the Masters? That is because

most people who have jumped onto the Enlightenment band-wagon are not ready to

accept the teaching that there is nothing to be `done' apart from understanding

the situation. (Nisargadatta Maharaj: Nusta samzhoon ghyaayacha aahe,

Understanding is all that is required). For such people, some practice (any

practice) is prescribed to keep them busy till they are ripe for the final

teaching. (See Ashtavakra's teaching to King Janaka: "Your only bondage is that

you practice meditation" Ashtaavakra Gita, 1,15). There is the story of the man

who employed a ghost do his daily chores. On the very first day, the ghost

finished all his work in a trice and demanded more, saying that if he was given

no work, he would consume his master. But whatever work the man invented the

ghost finished in next to no time and demanded still more. The terrified man ran

to a sage, who advised him to install a pole in his backyard. Ask the ghost, he

said, to climb to the top of the pole, and when he reaches there, climb down ,

and then climb up again, then down again, and continue till you tell him to

stop. This finally satisfied the ghost.

>

> This is not to say that these practices should *not* be done. Indeed, the word

"should" is obsolete. But perhaps attention could also be paid to the question

of `who' is to `do' these practices.

>

> This is also not to say that these practises (like meditation, for example)

have no value. They may certainly produce calming of the mind and other

beneficial effects. But in the context of the intuitive understanding of

Advaita, which is Enlightenment, *any* practice done with the idea that `one' is

`doing' the practice with a certain aim (which is the `achievement' of

Enlightenment), can be counter-productive, for it will inevitably reinforce the

conviction in the existence of the `one' (who is doing the practice for his own

benefit). So what is the way out? It is only when this very understanding leads

to a de-emphasis on the practice, that things will begin to happen. Indeed, the

practice may then very well continue, but there will no more be the idea that

`one' is `doing' it for a particular purpose. The practice will simply be seen

to happen - done because you `feel like doing it.' Or it may drop off on its own

(not `given up').

>

> The key word is thus *understanding.*

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Nitin

>

namaste.

I fully agree with the above that one cannot 'practise' advaita.

Any 'practice' where the doer has the feeling that he/she is the

doer defeats the thing altogether.

shri nitin says that the key-word is understanding. I would say that

even 'understanding' is not the key-word because 'understanding' still

separates the knowledge and the knower: that someone is understanding

something. I would consider shri shankara's vivekacUDAmaNi expression:

"ahambhAvodayAbhAvo bodhasya paramAvadhiH" - the end of the rise of

the sense of 'I' of the ego is the culmination of knowledge - as the

key.

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

----

December 21, 1999

hariH OM!

something we all tend to forget now and again is

the fact that each of us is at a different stage

in development and understanding, and therefore

whatever we ascribe to or give advice on, is not

applicable to all.

this is why, as it was pointed out some time ago,

forums like this can be problematic. presumably

most of us here are more or less primed for the

entry level to middling teachings of advaita.

insofar as the choice between the so-called seeded

and unseeded meditation techniques, or even--as

Nitinji mentioned--the very act of practicing such,

is a matter of one's position on the 'path.'

even Sri Ramana had some incidental trouble with

this very problem. some who were mixed in with

the more advanced sadhakas, would complain that

their questions were going to be met with his

brahma astram (divine weapon of the atmavichara,

viz. 'who's doing or thinking this or that').

he was very aware of who was or wasn't ready to

hear this, as it is the highest teaching, reserved

for those approaching the threshold of moksha.

namaste

December 21, 1999

You'll still be "in God", but if you're "in thought" you won't realize

it.

(Probably this is what you meant :-)

W

>>

« Yes, true, and in energy, in the flow, thought is aligned :-) so,

still true *g*. »

Bo

So something or thought not aligned is not true?

Echoes of the void,

Antoine

Is everything true?

Alignment refinement,

Bo

December 21, 1999

Message: 16

Mon, 20 Dec 1999 19:03:10 EST

RainboLily

Re: Practice Of Advaita

wedonley writes:

<< ....one cannot be in thought and be in God....

You'll still be "in God", but if you're "in thought" you won't realize

it.

(Probably this is what you meant :-)

W

>>

« Yes, true, and in energy, in the flow, thought is aligned :-) so,

still true *g*. »

Bo

So something or thought not aligned is not true?

Echoes of the void,

Antoine

December 21, 1999

Namaste Nitin,

I really enjoyed your post. The ego is the beast.

Your insightful analysis prevents bending the lord to

the ego.

---attention should be given as to "whom" is

"doing" these practices .

Aum Shanti Shanti

Larry

--- Nitin Trasi <ntrasi wrote:

> There is a lot of discussion about practising

> Advaita. But one cannot really practise Advaita, for

> Advaita is the understanding that there is indeed no

> separate `one,' so `who' is to `do' any practice? As

> J.Krishnamurti said, you cannot `practise'

> awareness. If you are `practising' awareness, you

> are all the time being inattentive. `Practising'

> awareness or Advaita is like "putting legs on a

> snake", or trying to "make the river wet." It is, in

> the words of Chuang-Tzu "trying to make things into

> one without realizing that they are already one."

> And it is this "realizing that they are already one"

> that is the Great Understanding which needs no

> practice.

>

> But then why are practices often prescribed by the

> Masters? That is because most people who have jumped

> onto the Enlightenment band-wagon are not ready to

> accept the teaching that there is nothing to be

> `done' apart from understanding the situation.

> (Nisargadatta Maharaj: Nusta samzhoon ghyaayacha

> aahe, Understanding is all that is required). For

> such people, some practice (any practice) is

> prescribed to keep them busy till they are ripe for

> the final teaching. (See Ashtavakra's teaching to

> King Janaka: "Your only bondage is that you practice

> meditation" Ashtaavakra Gita, 1,15). There is the

> story of the man who employed a ghost do his daily

> chores. On the very first day, the ghost finished

> all his work in a trice and demanded more, saying

> that if he was given no work, he would consume his

> master. But whatever work the man invented the ghost

> finished in next to no time and demanded still more.

> The terrified man ran to a sage, who advised him to

> install a pole in his backyard. Ask the ghost, he

> said, to climb to the top of the pole, and when he

> reaches there, climb down , and then climb up again,

> then down again, and continue till you tell him to

> stop. This finally satisfied the ghost.

>

> This is not to say that these practices should *not*

> be done. Indeed, the word "should" is obsolete. But

> perhaps attention could also be paid to the question

> of `who' is to `do' these practices.

>

> This is also not to say that these practises (like

> meditation, for example) have no value. They may

> certainly produce calming of the mind and other

> beneficial effects. But in the context of the

> intuitive understanding of Advaita, which is

> Enlightenment, *any* practice done with the idea

> that `one' is `doing' the practice with a certain

> aim (which is the `achievement' of Enlightenment),

> can be counter-productive, for it will inevitably

> reinforce the conviction in the existence of the

> `one' (who is doing the practice for his own

> benefit). So what is the way out? It is only when

> this very understanding leads to a de-emphasis on

> the practice, that things will begin to happen.

> Indeed, the practice may then very well continue,

> but there will no more be the idea that `one' is

> `doing' it for a particular purpose. The practice

> will simply be seen to happen - done because you

> `feel like doing it.' Or it may drop off on its own

> (not `given up').

>

> The key word is thus *understanding.*

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Nitin

>

> Homepage: http://personal.vsnl.com/ntrasi

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Nitin

>

> Homepage: http://personal.vsnl.com/ntrasi

>

> [Attachments have been removed from this message]

>

------

> Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita

> Vedanta Philosophy focusing on non-duality between

> mind and matter. Searchable List Archives are

> available at:

> http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ Contact

> Email Address: advaitins

>

<HR>

<html>

>

Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place.

Shopping:

December 21, 1999

Hi!

The mind with the "I" creates thoughts which are ego-centric. No advaita

here.

The mind immersed in God creates thoughts which are Divine. Advaita is a

possibility here.

The mind aligned with God-Consciousness or the mind that is truly

surrendered is "thoughtless" in that it has no "I" identity. This is

Advaita.

-- Vis

December 21, 1999

Hi!

How true!

Understanding appears great since we are achieving something which

satisfies our minds. Lot of "I" here.

Acceptance appears better since it requires humility. Less of "I" here.

Knowing is best since it needs no specially developed mind-skills. No

"I" here.

-- Vis

December 22, 1999

In a message dated 12/22/1999 9:38:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,

carrea writes:

<< You'll still be "in God", but if you're "in thought" you won't realize

it.

(Probably this is what you meant :-)

W

>>

««« Yes, true, and in energy, in the flow, thought is aligned :-) so,

still true *g*.

Bo »»»

«« So something or thought not aligned is not true?

Echoes of the void,

Antoine »»

« Is everything true?

Alignment refinement,

Bo »

The void those not Echo anymore...

Antoine >> listen... dove's breath whisper..

light of love ... thru time and death ... illusions they are

she whispers thru .. the void ...

true ... ? love is true and real ...

Bo

December 22, 1999

Message: 12

Tue, 21 Dec 1999 15:43:13 EST

RainboLily

Re: Re: Practice Of Advaita

You'll still be "in God", but if you're "in thought" you won't realize

it.

(Probably this is what you meant :-)

W

>>

««« Yes, true, and in energy, in the flow, thought is aligned :-) so,

still true *g*.

Bo »»»

«« So something or thought not aligned is not true?

Echoes of the void,

Antoine »»

« Is everything true?

Alignment refinement,

Bo »

The void those not Echo anymore...

Antoine

December 23, 1999

Thank you for all the answers to my query. Allow me to bring out a few points.

I agree that meditating on an Ishta devata is the easiest and safest approach. I

also agree that Meditating on Nirguna Brahman is not for all. However the Ramana

approach is not meditating(meditation always involves a triad) but seeking the I

"Aham Ayam Kutho Bhavathi Chinvatha .

Ayi! Pathathi Aham Nija vicharananam "

" From where does this I arise , please find out,

LO! The I falls away. This is true enquiry"

When we meditate on an ishta devata, as I pointed out before we impose on him

all our restrictions. Even when we try our best to surrender to Him, our

surrender is not complete. Therefore it is a very gradual process of sublimation

of our ego to the ishta devata , till we merge in Him. However during this

process, the major obstacle I have found is the erosion of faith. Many a time

you will find your selves receiving blows from the world . For want of a reason

you may turn to your ishta devata to find no help coming.You might have been

used to help streaming from your Ishta devata, but suddenly you will find he

does not respond anymore. This can cause a huge unsettlement in mind.

However if you practise enquiry, you are asked at all times to question. The

focus is not on the doubt but on the doubter. I dont say this is easy .However

problems like the above will not arise. Who suffers? Who enjoys? if the question

is asked, one returns back to the source.

Another thing which I feel is different in the two Margas is the way surrender

is achieved (pardon the expression). In Bhakthi marga, the ego sees none to hold

onto but God and there is a sudden overwhelming turn over to Him afterwhich one

loses consciousness. In many cases when you come to waking state, you lose the

experience again.

In self enquiry ,one focuses on the location of the I within and seeks the

source, till one reaches a point of total suspension of thought (mano Laya).

This is as far as we can go. We see only a blank. Sri Ramana asks "For whom is

the blank". This is difficult to practise, but here surrender comes a bit easily

, because something from within us pulls us inside. All we have to do is submit

to this pull (which is terrifying, I admit).

I am not sure in which Upanishad this comes(I think the Kathopanishad).

"The Atman is not to be realized by austerities, self effort , sacrifices,

oblations.....

He realizes the Atman Whom the Atman chooses".

Devotee: Is the Atman realized by meditation and Japa ?

The Holy Mother (Sarada Devi) : None of these practises will bestow Self

Realization.

Only by His grace does realization come. However these practises will help in

purifying the mind.

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

December 23, 1999

Hari Om Anand:

First, I want to congratulate you for your keen interest and knowledge on

Advaita Philsophy and your willingness to consider accepting other view

points. The list is quite fortunate to have youngsters like you taking active

part in discussions. You always come up with some thoughtful observations to

help others to understand the difficulties in accepting notions such as the

sublimation of our ego to the ista devata.

We learn to negate every one of our notions at appropriate time and the notion

of ishta devata is no exception. No faith can be based on 'expectations' and

when we begin to expect returns for our faith, it erodes! I have seen people

deal with the ishta devata as though it is a business proposition. They offer

currencies or goods or services and in return expect more favors. That is not

'true faith' nor it is 'true surrender.' Consequently, those people do lose

faith and all such faith will eventually fail. The goal of those people with

such a faith is not 'liberation' but just 'accumulation of wealth and

comforts.' The purpose of 'ishta devata' is to develop 'prasad buddhi.' That

is, develop the faith that 'what we have are the gifts of God' and gifts are

to be taken happily without questions and explanations. As Gita says, conduct

the duties with the 'yagna spirit' which means that we should work and willing

to accept the consequences that come along! Work based on expecations will

eventually lead to the dead end street of misery! Getting the Yagna spirit

(Karma Yoga) is not easy and he want to unload our burden on the ishta devata

and accept the consequences as 'prasad.'

Ram Chandran

Anand Natarajan wrote:

> .......

> When we meditate on an ishta devata, as I pointed out before we impose on him