What is the point - Part 2

[Guest guest]

Allow me to make a few comments first since there seems to have been some

misunderstandings regarding my intentions. I have no disrespect for the

teachings. I am not making any unconsidered criticisms. I am not about to

'give up on' advaita, commit suicide or take any other drastic action. I

will continue to read avidly from traditional and modern sources, meditate

twice daily and read and participate in such (excellent) groups as this. I

will also, no doubt, continue to question anything and everything, since

that is my nature.

 

(For those who may not know) I have been studying advaita for many years (at

least 20 - I've lost track). I have always had some qualms about apparent

contradictions in what is said by various sources, though all purporting to

be representing the same philosophy. I have never been seriously upset by

this however. I acknowledge that 'the tao that can be spoken is not the true

tao', to pinch a quote from another tradition. Indeed I have always found

the most valuable material to reside in metaphor and the many amusing

stories to be found throughout commentaries on the scriptures. The main

reason that my criticisms have crystallised at this point is my recent

involvement with Francis Lucille and Wayne Liquorman and their

uncompromising views. I am in the (slow) process of writing a book on

advaita and it is necessary for me to get my ideas straight so that I can

represent them for others.

 

As Sadananda observes, I had made several conclusions before asking but the

point about experimentation does not seem really to apply. (I cannot

consciously investigate the theory of reincarnation for example!) The reason

for my post was genuinely to seek guidance from others, such as yourself, to

indicate how you reconcile the more glaring inconsistencies. The most

obvious is the question of rebirth and samsara. Since there are in reality

no individuals, how can there be reincarnation? Nisargaddatta says "The

objective part of what was once a sentient being will be destroyed, never to

be re-born as the same body. And consciousness is not an object, not a thing

at all - therefore, consciousness, as something non-objective, cannot be

'born', cannot 'die' and certainly cannot be 're-born'." This seems so

obvious. How, therefore can traditional presentations claim this?

 

What concerns me particularly is that I have always been led to believe

that, for those aspects that are not amenable to direct discovery ourselves,

one resorts to the sruti. These provide the source of knowledge for all

those things (c.f. the superb posting from Jaishankar Narayanan on pramaanam

recently). If living sages directly contradict what is said there, then it

seems that nothing can be trusted.

 

Ram talks about our 'having the options to understand and misunderstand;

like and dislike etc.' but no, we don't. This is one of the points I was

making. We only think we have choice. In fact, our genetic heritage together

with the multifarious influences upon us since our birth dictates

irrevocably how we respond to any given situation. Yes, we have an intellect

that we like to think discriminates but it can only use the data that is

available to it and all of that originated mechanically. (Reading through

this later, I realise I could disagree with this! I have previously argued

that buddhi operates correctly in stillness, when it is able to respond

freshly, not affected by old habits. But choice is not involved here either,

is it?) I agree that the 'choice' is influenced by our attitude, positive or

negative, but whence does that attitude arise? Is it not simply part of our

nature, again determined by genetics and environment? We can change a

negative into a positive attitude but not through choice. Our views are

mechanically influenced by others with whom we come into contact, books we

read etc. The words of Sankara influence us irrespective of his intentions

but there is no 'free will' involved in any of this. It seems that, this

being the case, the idea of human life being an 'opportunity' is

misconceived - it simply IS and, if the nature of this particular body-mind

identification is to 'realise the truth', great! (If not, tough!) There is

nothing I can do about it either way.

 

Yet another clear and apposite article 'Why Vedanta?' from Sadananda. No

quibbles with most of this except the part about solutions. Yes, I agree

with the steps shravaNa, manana and nidhidhyaasana, but again you are

implying that one can choose to do this and I believe (and believe that the

sruti states this in some places) that an 'individual' cannot 'do'

anything - and that includes 'choosing' to do something, itself an act. Yes,

'I am that consciousness - I am that Brahman'; I am not an individual with

self-determining ability to act.

 

I agree with most of what you say, Colette, though I have recently begun to

doubt the worth of meditation in respect of helping one towards realisation.

Apart from the fact, again, that an individual can never become realised,

any 'result' of meditation (such as clarity and peace of mind etc.) can only

ever be just that - a state of mind. States of mind have nothing to do with

enlightenment. As I read somewhere recently, how long has TM been around?

How many hundreds of thousands have taken it up and been meditating for

years and years? And how many of those have you heard of becoming

enlightened? (As mentioned above, though, this has not stopped me from

practising!) Also, you end up by saying that 'really there is a need to do'.

At the risk of repeating myself, we cannot 'do' and whether we are able to

'surrender' and exhibit 'devotion' is a result of our nature and nurture.

 

I love the story about the rat and Mr. Jones - I remember reading it before.

It is a very useful analogy and I fully appreciate the import. I also have

full intellectual appreciation that I am not a rat! Obviously, we all

realise that something more than this is needed, however. I was not saying

that one CAN wait for randomness to operate, I was saying that one has no

choice but to do so. The individual setting off on a path and doing this or

that (were any of this possible anyway) would never get anywhere. The

individual cannot become enlightened. (Presumably we do all agree with this

last statement? I am a bit worried when you make statements such as 'I am

what I am seeking - but as long as I am seeking I have not realized what

truly I am'.) Depending upon our nature, we may follow a process of

brainwashing ourselves that we are indeed a man. Presumably all of us on

this list will do so - I certainly will. But I do this because I am that

sort of a person, not because I have a choice. Also, I accept that it can

never achieve anything for ME (other than intellectual amusement and a

feeling that I am doing something useful with my life). Consciousness is

already consciousness; is all there is and never was anything else. The fact

that its manifestation in this body-mind mechanism has resulted in the

illusion of a separate entity does not alter the reality of the situation.

 

I don't mind your being blunt, Harsha. My problem is not with my particular

nature finding more affinity with modern than traditional, it is with there

being some elements that seem blatantly contradictory. I believe there is

only one Truth and, even though this is beyond words, I expect those in whom

this truth has been manifest to make more or less the same statements. Not

being expressible does not seem a licence for being contradictory. I didn't

mean that traditional advaita was confusing per se, it becomes confusing

only when modern sages flatly contradict what it seems to be saying. I agree

that I am confused, however! But I don't think it is imagination. Although I

don't have a Concordance for the Upanishads (it seems you can only get one

from India), my first 10 - 15 years worth of exposure to advaita derived

from traditional sources and I was fairly clear about what claims were being

made for the nature of life and death etc. I thought it was a legitimate

question to ask of the group whose background is presumably very diverse and

might be able to offer some explanations. (Incidentally, I have been given

Sanskrit lessons initially against my wishes - later with enthusiasm - and

had to recite vedic hymns at 5.30 in the morning, only one and a half hour

later!) Again I have no problem with everyone 'doing as they like'… other

than the fact that they have no choice in the matter!

 

Similarly, I agree with Greg - there are lots of 'paths' to suit all tastes

BUT ultimately they are all describing the same truth. Surely they should

not differ in fundamentals. Either there is really a creation or there

isn't; there are paths or there are not; one has choice or hasn't;

individuals are reborn or they aren't. Surely no one truth can have it all

ways? As I said at the beginning, I am 'reasonably' resolved on these issues

in my own mind. My concern for asking is in respect of wishing to represent,

rationalise and justify the views in the forthcoming book (within the very

limited framework of the human intellect of course!).

 

I acknowledge Gummuluru's statements about purification but again have to

say that all of this implies choice and doing. Either these are available to

us or they are not. Can you 'block negative thoughts'? Is this not an

impossible thing to do? If something occurs to block, surely you have

already had the thought and therefore cannot block it? Which thoughts you

have are surely determined again by nature and impressions etc. etc., all

things beyond your control. I don't dispute that purification may occur if

these pursuits are followed, only that whether or not they ARE followed is

not something in which there is choice.

 

I really do appreciate your comments, Frank and acknowledge the reference to

maha yoga. The danger of books and intellectual speculation is spelled out

in detail in the 'Maha Yoga of Bhagavan Sri Ramana' by 'Who'. "The

book-taught philosopher is even worse off than other men; his egoism is

swelled by the pride of knowledge; his heart is beset with new attachments -

from which the illiterates are free - which leave him no time for the

enterprise of finding the real Self." But I am not attached to any of these

beliefs and that, he says, is the 'mark of the Truth-lover'. The presence of

a sage and their words and silence count for far more than translations of

commentaries on ancient Sanskrit texts. Nevertheless, as indicated several

times now, one doesn't expect contradictions.

 

I was intending to end with a quotation but this post has gone on far too

long already and I don't expect the discussion will end just yet!

 

With respect and a bow to you all,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis,

 

What a well-thought and well-presented reply to the various postings that

your thread has generated! I understand a lot better where you are coming

from now, and thanks for being so clear about it.

 

One things leaps out at me, and that is your intuition that those who

transmit this message shouldn't contradict each other or themselves.

Similarly, that Teaching A should be consistent with teaching B, and

Teacher A should be consistent with herself and with Teacher B.

 

My question to is, what is wrong with contradictions? I can see the need

for consistency, e.g., when doing the mathematical stress-analysis for a

skyscraper or a suspension bridge. But in an enterprise like advaita,

whose teachings that are expedient only, teachings whose effect is to

dissolve ignorance and superimposition, what is wrong if a given teaching

is not consistent with some other teaching somewhere else?

 

Another, rhetorical question -- if someone achieves liberation with the

help of a certain strand of advaita teaching, then later finds out that

there are other teachings that contradict it, what should be done? Should

the person say, well, then I'm can't really be Consciousness after all??

 

If you know Wayne Liquorman, then you might have heard him say that a given

teacher will contradict himself several places per paragraph! And he also

gives the example of various roads leading up to the Grand Canyon. The

roads differ from each other, but all of them lead unfailingly to the Grand

Canyon...

 

Do you find advaita teachings or teachers that contradict the core teaching

-- that you are Consciousness?

 

OM!!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Let me join with Greg for the comprehensive reply from

Dennis.

 

Greg's question, "what is wrong with

contradictions?" should be preceded by the question,

What is a contradiction? If we take a moment to think,

we can identify the cause for the illusionary

contradiction - our ignorance. (Gandhiji once pointed

out that all the illusionary contradictions were due

to his ignorance - contradiction is essentially an

illusion!)

 

I agree that free-will and choice are in appearance.

However, we have to exercise free-will as though it is

real. (This was pointed by Swamiji Viditatmanandaji of

Arshavidya Gurukulam).

 

Finally, I appreciate your style of presentation with

clarity,

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

I like the direction of Swamiji's comments on the free-will notion. The

appearance-will in response to appearance-situations appears to be required

before certain appearance-effects arise... This view can (appear to) save

one from the hopelessness and sense of desperation that can often (appear

to) strike.

 

Om!

 

--Greg

 

At 09:04 AM 8/10/00 -0700, Ram Chandran wrote:

>>>>

Let me join with Greg for the comprehensive reply from

Dennis.

 

Greg's question, "what is wrong with

contradictions?" should be preceded by the question,

What is a contradiction? If we take a moment to think,

we can identify the cause for the illusionary

contradiction - our ignorance. (Gandhiji once pointed

out that all the illusionary contradictions were due

to his ignorance - contradiction is essentially an

illusion!)

 

I agree that free-will and choice are in appearance.

However, we have to exercise free-will as though it is

real. (This was pointed by Swamiji Viditatmanandaji of

Arshavidya Gurukulam).

 

Finally, I appreciate your style of presentation with

clarity,

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

----------

<http://click./1/8193/6/_/489436/_/965923465/>

 

----------

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/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/adv

aitin/ To from the list, send Email to

<advaitin- > For other contact, Email to

<advaitins

 

 

<<<<