What is the point of it all?

August 8, 2000

Dennis Waite wrote:

>

> The sruti, other scriptures, the words of the sages and even the more

> enlightened Western philosophers all tell us that they cannot describe any

> ultimate truth - reality is far more subtle than our meagre intellect. At

> best, they can only be a 'finger pointing at the moon' or a 'thorn to remove

> a thorn'. This is reasonable and acceptable (if not always reassuring) but

> how much licence does this give them? Does it mean that source A can say one

> thing while source B says the complete opposite and still both can be

> pointing at the (same) moon?

>

> I am currently having problems reconciling what is said by modern sages

> (from Nisargadatta through to Wayne Liquorman and from Krishnamenon, who I

> haven't yet read, through to Francis Lucille) with the more traditional

> teachings of Advaita (such as the Upanishads, the Gita and Sankara). And

> yes, I know that people like Liquorman claim openly that sages DO contradict

> each other but one still expects that they ought to be saying 'more or less'

> the same sort of thing.

>

> I have felt an intuitive sympathy with Direct Path teachings for many years

> now. I am 'happy' (?) with ideas such as the following: -

>

> There is no individual who could become realised.

> There is no 'path' that can be followed.

> We cannot 'do' anything.

> There is no such thing as choice or free will, only the illusion of this;

> everything that will happen is effectively already determined. We act

> irrevocably according to our natures and events around us.

> There is no one who could die (only the material body reverting to its

> elements) and there is no one who could be born or re-born. There can be no

> such thing as reincarnation.

>

> All of this being the case, my questions are as follows. Why do the

> traditional approaches talk of those who are ignorant and those who have

> attained knowledge? In what way can there be all of the variously described

> ways to enlightenment - karma yoga, bhakti and jnana etc.? Why are we told

> that we have to act in certain ways, follow prescribed rituals or whatever?

> Why is so much effort and so many words devoted to explaining principles of

> karma and all the other concepts of advaita? And what of samsara? We are

> told that only humans can attain realisation; that we may have spent

> thousands (millions?) of lives, progressing through the various levels of

> existence; that now we have the opportunity to achieve enlightenment and

> escape from the eternal round of birth and death.

>

> It seems that Self-realisation is an almost random event, occurring 'through

> Grace'. All it means is that the related individual totally recognises the

> truth that he does nothing at all, that Consciousness acts through his

> body-mind without any 'individual' being involved. And this is fully

> accepted, bring peace and reconciliation. But there never was any individual

> and the Consciousness operating through that body-mind was never separate

> from the One Consciousness, which is all that there is. That event called

> realisation is only of any relevance for the remainder of the life of that

> body-mind. To talk of samsara or of someone now having escaped the wheel is

> quite meaningless.

> So what is the point of all of the confusing and ultimately misleading

> teachings in traditional Advaita? And, perhaps even more disturbing, what is

> the point of our following it and immersing ourselves in it (not that we

> have any choice!)?

hariH OM! dennis-

have you ever noticed how in one 'life scene'

your mood runs accordingly, with the mind

engaging related thoughts...while it could be

even a moment later in another scene and your

mood/thought-realm switches to another whole

level? this radical shifting occurs merely

in one person. now imagine how different the

mood/thought-realm can vary from one person

to the next...

this is one reason for the different approaches

and teachings in existence.

the mind is the most complex thing in the

universe. obviously. all of these paths

and situations have their application for

different individuals. when the aspirant

reaches the path of jnana, he/she gets the

overview of all that you're talking about.

at the same time, within this overview, can

be found a specific path that concerns a

profound simplicity--which is where the

Self-enquiry method is found, which itself

amounts to the elimination of all these

entanglements and tangential considerations

through the 'neti, neti' process. sri ramana

has referred to this as maha yoga, and described

it as an *UNlearning* process, where virtually

all the ideas and insights in fact are undone,

leading one to the threshold of manonasa [the

extinction of the *philosophical* Mind].

it all boils down to this brand of blanking

the mind and thus experiencing pure Being.

then all these questions become irrelevant,

and in fact--in *that* place, even ridiculous!

for once that happens it's equivalent to

dropping the hydrogen bomb of satchidananda

right in the middle of the fertile mind-complex;

where thereafter the relative problems/matters

of the world are dealt with accordingly, and so

without the common bewilderment factor associated

with the human tendency--no, obsession!--toward

philosophical speculation.

as to the ethics, morality and purpose of what

it is we're involved in [in life], it's ultimately

seen as nothing more than a Play. we do our best

in its mysterios/wonderfilled arena, realizing at

the same time that, as in Lennon's words in

STRAWBERRY FIELDS, "...there's nothing to get

hung [up] about."

peacelove in OM,

frank

August 9, 2000

Hi Dennis. Hopefully you won't mind my being blunt.

Respectfully Dennis, you seem to be completely caught in the jungle of the

intellect. In your paradigm, some of the "modern sages" have more of value

to offer you than the traditional Advaita Vedanta. Also you say, you have

intuitive sympathy with the "direct path" teaching. What exactly is the

problem then? Go with what appeals to you. Why should you be bothered if

others prefer more "traditional" approaches and are comfortable with it. You

do what you like. No one prevents you from following a path or a teacher

with whom you have an affinity.

You wish clarification about why traditional Advaita Vedanta is so

confusing, etc. Well, it is not confusing to everyone. Advaita Vedanta is

the Same. Modern or Traditional. Advaita Vedanta points clearly to

Self-Realization.

The main issue for you, as I see it, is your being bothered and disturbed by

something that occurs in your imagination. That needs your attention and

focus.

For example, Dennis, you said in your post:

"So what is the point of all of the confusing and ultimately misleading

teachings in traditional Advaita? And, perhaps even more disturbing, what is

the point of our following it and immersing ourselves in it (not that we

have any choice!)?"

Read the above statement again Dennis and go to the bottom of it. What

creates this feeling of frustration?

Is anyone forcing *you* to understand traditional Advaita Vedanta and giving

you Sanskrit lessons against your wishes and having you recite vedic hymns

at 4am every morning?

If the "modern sages" you mention have brought you to this point of

confusion, consider the possibility of abandoning them! :-).

I would recommend that you read the teachings of the Sage of Arunachala, Sri

Ramana Maharshi, with an open heart and mind.

Open your heart and mind Dennis. Do what you like. Follow whomever you

please. Practice that teaching which helps you. But why be bothered if

others do what they like.

Love

Harsha

August 9, 2000

Hello Dennis and Harsha,

I'd like to chime in about the multivarious approaches, and agree with

Harsha-ji in urging you to open your heart and mind, and follow your

affinities. If you have the intuition or the confidence that the non-dual

teaching is the one for you, then within this confidence, there is no wrong

"place" to go. There isn't even more than one place to begin with, and

even that "place" is not a place. The point of a teaching or path is not

to give a valid, accurate description of reality. Instead, all teachings

are "upaya" or expedient means to sever attachments to world, body, and

mind. One of the attachments is that there is an external spiritual

reality that a theory can accurately point to. The purpose of these

teachings is not to be delivered from the wrong views by taking up the

"correct" views. It is to be free of views and belief altogether. Many

teachings have been introduced that succeed in this.

Like Harsha said, some paths are traditional, some are modern. Some are in

Sanskrit, some in English. Some are complicated, some are simple. The

variety of approaches reflects the variety of needs in aspirants.

One interesting point - you say you are happy with the Direct path

teachings, but your questions are progresive-path questions. If you are

*really* convinced that there is nothing we can do, and no path to follow,

then the questions you raised wouldn't arise. Are you *really* happy with

these ideas, or do they just seem like un-answerable points?

At 11:32 AM 8/9/00 -0400, Harsha wrote:

>>>>