Feasibility versus Truth, or Making It ‘Real’

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

In Sri Sankara's words: three events in life are the most precious and

most to be treasured: a human birth, an intense desire for 'spiritual'

freedom, and company of the sages.

 

The last event it is that makes advaita real for all seekers. Hundreds

and thousands of seekers have basked in the grace of these mighty sages, and

passed on their grace to hundreds more.

 

May all seekers be blessed by such company ['satsang'].

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>"R. Viswanathan" <RVis

>advaitin

>advaitin

>Re: Feasibility versus Truth, or Making It ‘Real’

>Sat, 08 Jul 2000 17:03:08 -0700

>Only we can make Advaita "real" to us,

______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

>"R. Viswanathan" <RVis

>Only we can make Advaita "real" to us, since the Avidya (ignorance) is >of

>our own mind which has to be cleansed by ourselves.

 

Could not agree more. As Anthony De Mello says one of his books,

"No one got drunk on the word wine"! Talking/reading/listening about

it does not get any one intoxicated! However all the masters

teachings and suggestions will certainly provide us information about

the path and the pitfalls. And it is for us to convert that

"information" to our inner "transformation", if we may call so!

With regards

-Srinivas

______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

In my humble opinion Advaita is certainly one of the most, perhaps the most,

profound ideas ever to grace the human mind, and it’s one with which I’ve

been involved in one regard or another off and on for around thirty years.

It is intellectually and aesthetically elegant, internally consistent, and

for all practical purposes philosophically impregnable. It seems safe to say

that all these attributes add up to a very high degree of feasibility. I can

imagine someone becoming totally convinced of its truth merely on an

intellectual basis. Ramana Maharshi and others can be very compelling, and

at some point such a person might just acquiesce and say, “Yes, I already am

the Self, and that’s the end of it.” Although this statement is

philosophically correct from the perspective of Vedanta, wouldn’t something

be missing from such an affirmation in the absence of deep spiritual

experience? All of us no doubt have had moments of deep peace or profound

meditative stillness, but how many of us have actually had ‘the’ experience

that can never be doubted or forgotten? And in the absence of that

experience, aren’t we just repeating philosophical claims, the truth of

which we have become convinced? They are very feasible claims to be sure,

but still just claims without any substantial verification. And it’s a well

known fact of life that strongly held and highly feasible philosophical

ideas can still be wrong. So my question is this: What can make it ‘real’ to

us? What can move us along from the affirmation of profound philosophical

ideas to something that is actually real to us in a living way, beyond

intellectual question? And I ask this question on behalf of people who are

rushing along through life trying to do their best, but who are a little

distracted, maybe a little neurotic, mired in some bad habits and attitudes,

and so appear to have no realistic prospect for full realization in the

foreseeable future. This description probably fits the majority of the human

race. For those of us who will in all likelihood never be another

Ramakrishna or Ramana, what can make Advaita ‘real’ to us?

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

Dear Robert,

 

Parisi & Watson wrote Sat, 8 Jul 2000:

> In my humble opinion Advaita is certainly one of the most, perhaps the most,

profound ideas ever to grace the human mind, and

--\

-----------

> For those of us who will in all likelihood never be another Ramakrishna or

Ramana, what can make Advaita ‘real’ to us?

>

> Robert.

 

Your question is quite profound.

Only we can make Advaita "real" to us, since the Avidya (ignorance) is of our

own mind which has to be cleansed by ourselves. If we can deliberately "drop"

our minds and function in that state for a day, an hour, or atleast a minute

with our hearts and without any doubt or question, we should see our "reality"

in that time.

Coming across another Ramakrishna or Ramana, does not make Advaita "real" to us.

We can see them, admire them, talk about them, be humble to them, totally

impressed by them, and accept them as great Advaitins. But none of that can make

Advaita "real" to us except intellectually. For most of us this is what happens!

 

-- Vis

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, Parisi & Watson wrote:

> In my humble opinion Advaita is certainly one of the most, perhaps the most,

> profound ideas ever to grace the human mind, and it’s one with which I’ve

> been involved in one regard or another off and on for around thirty years.

> It is intellectually and aesthetically elegant, internally consistent, and

> for all practical purposes philosophically impregnable. It seems safe to say

> that all these attributes add up to a very high degree of feasibility. I can

> imagine someone becoming totally convinced of its truth merely on an

> intellectual basis. Ramana Maharshi and others can be very compelling, and

> at some point such a person might just acquiesce and say, “Yes, I already am

> the Self, and that’s the end of it.” Although this statement is

> philosophically correct from the perspective of Vedanta, wouldn’t something

> be missing from such an affirmation in the absence of deep spiritual

> experience? All of us no doubt have had moments of deep peace or profound

> meditative stillness, but how many of us have actually had ‘the’ experience

> that can never be doubted or forgotten? And in the absence of that

> experience, aren’t we just repeating philosophical claims, the truth of

> which we have become convinced? They are very feasible claims to be sure,

> but still just claims without any substantial verification. And it’s a well

> known fact of life that strongly held and highly feasible philosophical

> ideas can still be wrong. So my question is this: What can make it ‘real’ to

> us? What can move us along from the affirmation of profound philosophical

> ideas to something that is actually real to us in a living way, beyond

> intellectual question? And I ask this question on behalf of people who are

> rushing along through life trying to do their best, but who are a little

> distracted, maybe a little neurotic, mired in some bad habits and attitudes,

> and so appear to have no realistic prospect for full realization in the

> foreseeable future. This description probably fits the majority of the human

> race. For those of us who will in all likelihood never be another

> Ramakrishna or Ramana, what can make Advaita ‘real’ to us?

>

> Robert.

>

 

namaste. My two cents worth of opinion.

 

Shraddha. Shraddha is that which makes advaita real. The rough

english translation to word shraddha is faith, although it is

not exactly equivalent. Obviously, when you say you are contemplating

on advaita for a long time and with faith, and yet you do not find

it real, then it seems to me that faith is still not full and may be

there is a lingering doubt which makes you hold on to the doership

and individuality.

 

Further, in addition to faith, purity of heart is another essential

prerequisite to see the reality of advaita.

 

An instance of faith (or lack of it) is the story I recently

posted in prayer of the frog thread (number 5). There the God

is ready to help the atheist. The atheist says he has faith

but is unwilling to commit to an act (leaving the branch) because

the fullness of faith is not there.

 

Thus, in my view, an unflinching faith coupled with the purity

of heart makes the advaita real.

 

On another point raised in the above post: What has time got to

do with realization? I believe Realization can take place in an

instant under proper conditions and if one is ripe for it.

Thus, the thinking that the (this) life is getting over and I have

not realized yet is, in my view, a wrong way to look at realization.

What is thirty years and one life in millions of lives the jeeva

has to endure to see the real SELF? Further, no worry. The karma

theory meticulously and scrupulously accounts and gives credit to

any and to the last good or bad deed committed (if one is considering

him/herself to be the doer).

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

 

Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh

advaitin <advaitin >

Saturday, July 08, 2000 10:13 PM

Re: Feasibility versus Truth, or Making It ‘Real’

 

>Namaste,

>

> In Sri Sankara's words: three events in life are the most precious and

>most to be treasured: a human birth, an intense desire for 'spiritual'

>freedom, and company of the sages.

>

> The last event it is that makes advaita real for all seekers. Hundreds

>and thousands of seekers have basked in the grace of these mighty sages,

and

>passed on their grace to hundreds more.

>

> May all seekers be blessed by such company ['satsang'].

 

Where can I as a Joe-Blow US-American come by the company of sages, except

in books? Books like the 'Talks With Sri Ramana Maharshi' and the 'Gospel of

Sri Ramakrishna' are wonderful, but here again we are dealing mainly with

the element of intellectual acceptance. They say that Sri Ramana

communicated more with his silence than with his words, but most of us

(especially in the US) are never privileged to be in the company of such a

being.

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

 

Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

Advaitin posts <advaitin >

Sunday, July 09, 2000 7:15 AM

Re: Feasibility versus Truth, or Making It ‘Real’

 

 

[...]

On another point raised in the above post: What has time got to

do with realization? I believe Realization can take place in an

instant under proper conditions and if one is ripe for it.

Thus, the thinking that the (this) life is getting over and I have

not realized yet is, in my view, a wrong way to look at realization.

What is thirty years and one life in millions of lives the jeeva

has to endure to see the real SELF? Further, no worry. The karma

theory meticulously and scrupulously accounts and gives credit to

any and to the last good or bad deed committed (if one is considering

him/herself to be the doer).

 

I agree with you totally on this point, and I didn't intend to leave such an

impression. I am asking my question more out of the urgency of the present

moment than from the point of view of having wandered and vacillated for any

number of previous years. But by the same token, a situation of being

somewhat 'stuck' that has persisted for many years has a likelihood of

continuing to do so, at least in the absence of some new factor or approach.

Hence my question.

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 9 Jul 2000, Parisi & Watson wrote:

>

> Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

> Advaitin posts <advaitin >

> Sunday, July 09, 2000 7:15 AM

> Re: Feasibility versus Truth, or Making It ‘Real’

>

>

> [...]

> On another point raised in the above post: What has time got to

> do with realization? I believe Realization can take place in an

> instant under proper conditions and if one is ripe for it.

> Thus, the thinking that the (this) life is getting over and I have

> not realized yet is, in my view, a wrong way to look at realization.

> What is thirty years and one life in millions of lives the jeeva

> has to endure to see the real SELF? Further, no worry. The karma

> theory meticulously and scrupulously accounts and gives credit to

> any and to the last good or bad deed committed (if one is considering

> him/herself to be the doer).

>

> I agree with you totally on this point, and I didn't intend to leave such an

> impression. I am asking my question more out of the urgency of the present

> moment than from the point of view of having wandered and vacillated for any

> number of previous years. But by the same token, a situation of being

> somewhat 'stuck' that has persisted for many years has a likelihood of

> continuing to do so, at least in the absence of some new factor or approach.

> Hence my question.

>

> Robert.

>

>

 

namaste.

 

I understand the question and the need and the urgency for the

question (I think). If you think about it: What is it that is

holding you back from getting liberated? The answer to that is

you only. What I mean by *you*, is the inner feelings, the bondage

which *you* have put on *yourself*. I include in that *you*, the

assumed attachments, the jealousies, the miseries, the enjoyments,

the so-called six great enemies: kAma (desires), krodha (anger),

lobha (miserliness), moha (passion), mada (pride), mAtsarya

(jealousy). Win over them first, and then you are ready for

liberation. It is these six great enemies which hold us bondage.

The instant we win over them, we set our own time-table for

liberation. In fact, we are free at that moment itself.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

---

[Guest guest]

 

Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

[...]

Shraddha. Shraddha is that which makes advaita real. The rough

english translation to word shraddha is faith, although it is

not exactly equivalent. Obviously, when you say you are contemplating

on advaita for a long time and with faith, and yet you do not find

it real, then it seems to me that faith is still not full and may be

there is a lingering doubt which makes you hold on to the doership

and individuality.

[...]

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, and I certainly have no wish to offend

anyone, but it appears that, as a daily reality, Advaita shares a common

element with most traditional religious belief: namely that it is a

conviction founded on faith. A Christian, for instance, believes today from

faith, bolstered by largely self-induced prayer experiences, but with the

belief and hope that all will be made clear after his death. In Advaita, one

death among the many that the person experiences is not such a pivotal

event, and death is no guarantee of enlightenment, but still the belief and

hope that all will be made clear is shared, and for many people that

hypothetical event seems likely to occur at some point beyond the end of

their current lives. Many people can maintain a belief over their lifetime

with only faith as a basis, but many others cannot. In my case, if I were

inclined to accept the traditional beliefs of my own culture, I probably

wouldn't be participating in this list in the first place.

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Robert Watson wrote:

>

> Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

> [...]

> Shraddha. Shraddha is that which makes advaita real. The rough

> english translation to word shraddha is faith, although it is

> not exactly equivalent. Obviously, when you say you are contemplating

> on advaita for a long time and with faith, and yet you do not find

> it real, then it seems to me that faith is still not full and may be

> there is a lingering doubt which makes you hold on to the doership

> and individuality.

> [...]

>

> Please correct me if I'm wrong, and I certainly have no wish to offend

> anyone, but it appears that, as a daily reality, Advaita shares a common

> element with most traditional religious belief: namely that it is a

> conviction founded on faith. A Christian, for instance, believes today from

> faith, bolstered by largely self-induced prayer experiences, but with the

> belief and hope that all will be made clear after his death. In Advaita, one

> death among the many that the person experiences is not such a pivotal

> event, and death is no guarantee of enlightenment, but still the belief and

> hope that all will be made clear is shared, and for many people that

> hypothetical event seems likely to occur at some point beyond the end of

> their current lives. Many people can maintain a belief over their lifetime

> with only faith as a basis, but many others cannot. In my case, if I were

> inclined to accept the traditional beliefs of my own culture, I probably

> wouldn't be participating in this list in the first place.

>

> Robert.

>

 

namaste.

 

Two comments on the above.

 

1. My understanding is: advaita is not a means to an end; advaita

is the end itself. (I recall Frank and I had a discussion on

this sometime ago).

Advaita is not saying: look at everything as one so that at

the end, you get moksha.

Advaita is saying: look at everything as one; that *is* moksha.

There is nothing else to seek beyond that.

 

Now, how can we look at everything as one? Only if we have a

pure heart. Advaita emphasizes cittashuddhi as a minimum,

minimum prerequisite for any human to see everything as one.

In my posting from which the above paragraph was excerpted,

I have emphasized the role of citta shuddhi in the immediate

next sentence.

 

Further, how does this seeing everything as one happen? Does

the ego decide: from now on, I have to see everything as one?

It would not work that way. This looking at everything as one

is to evolve from the inside, pushing the ego to the side.

 

This I see as a fundamental difference between the religious

beliefs which Robert mentioned in his paragraph above and the

philosophy of advaita.

 

2. I think Robert may be looking at advaita in a doubtful or

cynical way.

Advaita says, that you are brahman, here and now. No need to

wait until after death or giving up the present body.

 

My most favorite verse in all upanishads is:

 

Yadaa sarve pramucyante kaamaa ye'sya hr^di shritaaH

atha martyo'mr^ito bhavatyatra brahma samashnute

 

When all the desires that dwell in the heart fall away,

then the mortal becomes immortal, and attains Brahman here

itself.

 

This verse appears in KaTha Upanishhad, Br^ihadAraNyaka upanishad

and the gist of it is there in all upanishads and in bhagavadgItA.

It is self-explanatory. To realize brahman, get rid of the avidyA.

Part of this avidyA is desire and th ego, the thinking that I am

the doer.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

 

Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

[...]

>2. I think Robert may be looking at advaita in a doubtful or

> cynical way.

[...]

 

In a doubtful way, but certainly not a cynical way. As I said in the

beginning, Advaita is elegant, profound, and plausible. But unfortunately

that does not also make it true. There is a mountain of evidence to support

the consensus Western 'scientific' view of reality as well, even though

there are ways in Advaita to marginalize much of it or declare it

irrelevant. And it would be naive of anyone to ask for so-called proof of

the truth of Advaita, since no such ultimate assurance is normally available

in other areas of inquiry, including in rigorous science, and proof itself

is a concept more appropriate to mathematics and logic than to philosophy.

So that's why I asked what is available to make Advaita 'real' rather than

just a plausible philosophy in which we have freely chosen to believe. The

only strange thing to me is that, omitting any rare individuals who have

already fully realized, everyone here isn't asking the same question, at

least internally.

 

But I think it would probaby be best for me to drop the question at this

point.

 

Robert.