Guest guest Posted March 23, 2001 Report Share Posted March 23, 2001 Hello everyone! I've been d to this group for over a week, and have greatly enjoyed the various discussions and threads. This is my first post to the group. My general background is Christian, but as a seeker for Truth, I also seek to recognize Truth wherever it may be found. My favorite Christian writer/philosopher is Nicolas Berdyaev, who is sometimes categorized as a Christian existentialist, as I suppose might I be. Recently I discovered Ramana Maharshi, and this morning, I finished reading "The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi" as edited by Arthur Osborne. I really enjoyed this book, and found a great deal of light in Ramana's teachings. The reason I mention finishing this book is because I went right from the book to reading this morning's Advaitan Digest (#907). There I found the very interesting and erudite posts of "Sandeep Chatterjee." Because I am new to this group, I don't know if Sandeep is a regular poster here or not (hello, Sandeep! I hope I'm not getting into "deep sand" with you by posting this! <g>), but what struck my about his arguments was how profoundly different they seemed to be from what I had just read in the Ramana book. Now while I have only been studying "Eastern thought" for 15 years or so, and claim no special expertise, it seems to me that Sandeep's premises, and their arguments are essentially Mahayana Buddhist, (probably the Zen school), and not Vedantan. For example, he replies at one point: > 5. In fact, worldings attribute atman to what is not atman, > > Commentary: Atman or soul, is just the ego's attempts to perpetuate > itself. Seeing the temporal nature of the current identity, the body-mind > complex, it latches on to a more permanent option, Atman , which it expects to > last few lifetimes.,<s> > > and in the same way they imagine happiness, misery, indifference, passions > and liberation. Sandeep's commentary certainly *sounds* like the typical Buddhist response to such a statement about Atman. It certainly doesn't sound like the Ramana Maharshi I just finished reading! Much of the rest of Sandeep's responses in Message number 9 of Digest 907 sounds Buddhist to my ears, but then, maybe it's simply a form of Hinduism I'm not familiar with, or perhaps just his own personal philosophy. (I do have a great deal more familiarity with Buddhist writings and teachings than Advaita Vedanta, so I could be totally off on this surmise. If so, Sandeep, I apologize to you, and others, who I may have misread or misunderstood!) But once again, the reason I even raise the question in my very first post tot he group is that Sandeep's answers seemed so startling different, and Zen-ish, and non-God-centered, compared to what I'd just read in Ramana. So, how about it, Sandeep, are you a Buddhist of some sort come to have fun with the Hindus and their "attachment" to Atman? <g> Does your world view and practice include what Ramana called "Self-Enquiry" and the Self, or are you agnostic on these questions, accepting the doctrine of no-Self (anatman)? (If you are a student of Zen, I can imagine all sort of neti, neti, "not this! not that!" answers you might be tempted to give, but if you accept anatman, I hope you'll simply say so.) The reason I ask for plain speaking is because of this response you gave initially in your posts: > > Hiya Gummuluru, > > <SNIP> > > namaste shri Sandeepji, and welcome to the List. > > It is customary on this List to send a short note > introducing yourself to the List so that all the > members are aware of the perspectives behind the > post. > > San: > > A gentleman of leisure. > ------------- > > I concede that recalling the background itself > is to perpetuate bondage but in vyavahArika communications, > it is unavoidable. > San: > If the background is not the message, then it's not worth a fig. How Zen! Or disingenuous? A "gentleman of leisure" hardly seems to be answering the question in the spirit in which it was asked. Of course, I anyone is certainly free to say as much or little about his or her "background beliefs" as he or she wants. For me to say upfront "I am a Christian" gives only the barest information, I admit, and given all the Christian sects, could be relatively meaningless. But since I am so new to Advaita, and since this is a forum to discuss Advaita, I was just wondering where you were coming from so I could separate personal belief from what the actual teaching of Advaita is. (Assuming that this is more or less understood and agreed upon. Perhaps to ask, "what does Advaita teach" is like asking "what does Christianity teach?" There would be a multiplicity of possible answers, but certainly there would also be some core, basic beliefs. That's what I'm looking to understand about Advaita. And of course, I realize that no one here can claim infallibility of understanding!) Please know that I don't ask or say any of this to be critical of you, Sandeep, I really did enjoy your posts, your humor, and I look forward to your response. Let me add, too, that some of the best discussion I've seen have been when someone with a different belief system visits, for example, a newsgroup like alt.meditation, or alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan or alt.religion.christian and brings a "outsider's" or "non-believer's" critique. That feels like what you are doing, Sandeep. Am I wrong? What do others think? Best wishes, Steve Steven L. Fair ----------------- "Truth is not something given objectively, but rather a creative achievement. It is creative discovery, rather than the reflected knowledge of an object or of being. Truth ... is the creative transfiguration of reality." Nicolas Berdyaev Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2001 Report Share Posted March 23, 2001 Sandeep Chatterjee wrote: > And thus the term used has been "leela", a game of pretence. _______________ hariH OM! sandeepji- namaste 95% of what you're saying i agree with *enthusiastically*! however, the 5% i disagree with, i do so with the obverse of same.. it's said that one cannot *live* advaita. implying that if the conduct in the role of the lives of let's say theoretically *all* nondualists (of all traditions...as you say, they all meet in the ajatavada of advaita, from zen to islam) were attempting to mimic the [metaphysical allusion to] being the ineffable, unknowable, inscrutable Absolute Existence (parabrahman, tao, aynsoph, allah, etc), chaos would be the *inevitable* result. profound implications here. this is why--as i've posted on this list in the past--the general approach of "acting dual and being ONE," is what's really going on in this wonderfully mysterious, divine Play of brahman's leela--before, during and after [even the delusionary idea of] jivanmukthi. there's the matter of coming to terms with the true nature of this Play. to definitely conclude that it's either an illusion or a reality is a mistake, and can have serious consequences. and the more convinced one becomes in it being either way, the more sociopathic and even psychotic the believer can become. one view breeds the reckless rebel; the other the reckless fanatic. for example, osho was one of the most lucid, eclectic and practically insightful teachers of all time. but he had a critical conflict on [this issue] that adversely affected everything else. on one hand he wanted to change the world into a utopia, and on the other he granted himself license to do anything he wanted. the former idea based on the leela being real; the latter on it being unreal. he became a menace, and potentially a very real threat to society. the leela, as product of brahman's maya, is anirvachaniya! it is both and neither real and/or unreal. and this is how and why advaita actually embraces dvaita, and must!! without bhakti the jnani becomes anarchist. without jnana, the bhaktha becomes fascist. OM shaanthi regards, frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2001 Report Share Posted March 23, 2001 ok, sandeep...you want dharma combat? you came to the right place. MMMWHAhahaha! truly, peace in love, frank i'll do my best to reply in a day or two... _______________________________ Sandeep Chatterjee wrote: > > ---------------------- > > it's said that one cannot *live* advaita. > > San: > > Frank it is the easiest thing to do so. > > Do, think, act, exactly whatever comes up in you, for you to do, think and act, in the moment. > Whatever. > Whatsoever. > With all the vim and the full of gusto. > > If subsequently the thought, the decision, gets actualized into a doing (not all decisions get actualized as you would have noted in your life), such a "doing" is exactly what Impersonal Consciousness or Micky Mouse desired to be enacted in that moment, through you. > > Otherwise it will not happen. > > The word inappropriate does not exist in phenomenon. > > "You" with no volition, how can you do any wrong? > . > "You" with no volition, how can you do any right? > > For in all the "rights" and all the "wrongs" that have occurred since phenomenality raised it's head, it is only impersonal functioning taking place through the billions and billions of sentient and non-sentient beings, moment after moment after moment. > > Which is what is, the "mosiac" of Life. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2001 Report Share Posted March 24, 2001 Hi Steven, I am not too sure, this will appear on the List hence copying to your personal E Mail also. You know, I am in the "Advaitin dog house", at the moment <LOL> - stevenfair advaitin Saturday, March 24, 2001 01:02 AM Sandeep's arguments -- isn't this just Buddhism? Hello everyone! I've been d to this group for over a week, and have greatly enjoyed the various discussions and threads. This is my first post to the group. My general background is Christian, but as a seeker for Truth, I also seek to recognize Truth wherever it may be found. My favorite Christian writer/philosopher is Nicolas Berdyaev, who is sometimes categorized as a Christian existentialist, as I suppose might I be. San: What is Christian existentialist? Can existence be Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or Islamic? Recently I discovered Ramana Maharshi, and this morning, I finished reading "The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi" as edited by Arthur Osborne. I really enjoyed this book, and found a great deal of light in Ramana's teachings. The reason I mention finishing this book is because I went right from the book to reading this morning's Advaitan Digest (#907). There I found the very interesting and erudite posts of "Sandeep Chatterjee." Because I am new to this group, I don't know if Sandeep is a regular poster here or not (hello, Sandeep! I hope I'm not getting into "deep sand" with you by posting this! <g>), but what struck my about his arguments was how profoundly different they seemed to be from what I had just read in the Ramana book. Now while I have only been studying "Eastern thought" for 15 years or so, and claim no special expertise, it seems to me that Sandeep's premises, and their arguments are essentially Mahayana Buddhist, (probably the Zen school), and not Vedantan. For example, he replies at one point: > 5. In fact, worldings attribute atman to what is not atman, > > Commentary: Atman or soul, is just the ego's attempts to perpetuate > itself. Seeing the temporal nature of the current identity, the body-mind > complex, it latches on to a more permanent option, Atman , which it expects to > last few lifetimes.,<s> > > and in the same way they imagine happiness, misery, indifference, passions > and liberation. Sandeep's commentary certainly *sounds* like the typical Buddhist response to such a statement about Atman. It certainly doesn't sound like the Ramana Maharshi I just finished reading! Much of the rest of Sandeep's responses in Message number 9 of Digest 907 sounds Buddhist to my ears, but then, maybe it's simply a form of Hinduism I'm not familiar with, or perhaps just his own personal philosophy. (I do have a great deal more familiarity with Buddhist writings and teachings than Advaita Vedanta, so I could be totally off on this surmise. If so, Sandeep, I apologize to you, and others, who I may have misread or misunderstood!) But once again, the reason I even raise the question in my very first post tot he group is that Sandeep's answers seemed so startling different, and Zen-ish, and non-God-centered, compared to what I'd just read in Ramana. So, how about it, Sandeep, are you a Buddhist of some sort come to have fun with the Hindus and their "attachment" to Atman? <g> San: I am neither a Buddhist (Mahayana or Hinayana), neither a "Zenist",(Soto or Renzai schols) neither a Hinduist, neither an Advaitist. To shamelessly borrow, I am that I am. And yes, all concepts including the concept of either a "self" or a Father's Kingdom are hilarious. And incidentally Ramana was one of the highest expression of Consciousness, in the phenomenal context. And if you just allow, you will only see Ramana in these prattlings. Do you know once Ramana was asked. "Are the 33,000,0000 Gods and Goddesses of the Hindus real?" His reply is classic. Ramana replied "they are as real as you are" Does your world view and practice include what Ramana called "Self-Enquiry" and the Self, or are you agnostic on these questions, accepting the doctrine of no-Self (anatman)? San: What I am saying is that if in a particular body-mind complex, a seeking is acausally and non-volitionally initiated(yes a seeker is a seeker not of his/her volition) and such a seeking is to take a form of self-enquiry, the 'Who am I" of Ramana, then such a "form" of seeking will take place . And for this occurrence to occur, an appropriately conditioned body-mind complex will be manifested. If the form of seeking is , surrender to an symbol created of the surrender's conditionings, if such a form of seeking is take place , an appropriate Meera, a Meister Eckhart, will be manifested. If the form of seeking is to be the path of tapas, meditation, zazen, smearing ash all over, burying one's body in sand, standing on one's head, all this will take place through appropriately conditioned body-mind complexes. In all this, there is a notional seeker, asking the question who am I, surrendering, standing on one leg, meditating etc. The notional seeker is needed so as to bring about a notional separation and hence a notional Duality. Otherwise the "leela" of seeking, of surrendering can never take place. For the heighest example of compassion to come to occur, which is only found in the milieu of a true sage and a genuinely miserable seeker, there has to be a "sage" notionally different to a "seeker". For truly the seeking (form of it), the seeker and the sought are all one and the same. And thus the term used has been "leela", a game of pretence. Not-Two, Not-Two, Not-Two. So does it not make Sandeep an Advaitist? An Advaitist, remains at this Not-Two, not seeing that stating, not-Two is also absurd. Awareness not even aware of itself ( a conceptual term to indicate), to whom will it affirm, not-Two? Thus to whom can there be a need to affirm, anything at all? (If you are a student of Zen, I can imagine all sort of neti, neti, "not this! not that!" answers you might be tempted to give, but if you accept anatman, I hope you'll simply say so.) The reason I ask for plain speaking is because of this response you gave initially in your posts: San: Was that plain enough? <s> > > Hiya Gummuluru, > > <SNIP> > > namaste shri Sandeepji, and welcome to the List. > > It is customary on this List to send a short note > introducing yourself to the List so that all the > members are aware of the perspectives behind the > post. > > San: > > A gentleman of leisure. > ------------- > > I concede that recalling the background itself > is to perpetuate bondage but in vyavahArika communications, > it is unavoidable. > San: > If the background is not the message, then it's not worth a fig. How Zen! Or disingenuous? A "gentleman of leisure" hardly seems to be answering the question in the spirit in which it was asked. Of course, I anyone is certainly free to say as much or little about his or her "background beliefs" as he or she wants. San: Indeed background is nothing but a belief structure, value system, heard, collected, read about or even experienced. Not worth the time or effort to delve into. For me to say upfront "I am a Christian" gives only the barest information, I admit, and given all the Christian sects, could be relatively meaningless. But since I am so new to Advaita, and since this is a forum to discuss Advaita, I was just wondering where you were coming from so I could separate personal belief from what the actual teaching of Advaita is. San: Shorn of all the intricate maneuverings, it is a simple term meaning Not-Two. And it might surprise you (or may not), this is the essence of what was "prattled" (again that word<g>) by all true dudes of every so called religions. The essence of Christianity is not the silly virgin conception or the miracles or the resurrection. It is, the dude on the cross, who cries out "Hey dad, why ya kick my ass" And then then those 5 words--------- 'let they will be done". (Paraphased off course) Let thy will be done is nothing but Not-Two. Take Islam. The essence of Islam is Laillaha Allah. There is no god but GOD. Or even take the term used "Inshallah" commonly used in Islam, which means God willing. Not-Two. Take the dude Buddha who prattled "There is doing but no doer thereof; there is suffering but no 'sufferer thereof". Not-Two. (Assuming that this is more or less understood and agreed upon. Perhaps to ask, "what does Advaita teach" is like asking "what does Christianity teach?" There would be a multiplicity of possible answers, but certainly there would also be some core, basic beliefs. That's what I'm looking to understand about Advaita. And of course, I realize that no one here can claim infallibility of understanding!) Please know that I don't ask or say any of this to be critical of you, Sandeep, I really did enjoy your posts, your humor, and I look forward to your response. Let me add, too, that some of the best discussion I've seen have been when someone with a different belief system visits, for example, a newsgroup like alt.meditation, or alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan or alt.religion.christian and brings a "outsider's" or "non-believer's" critique. That feels like what you are doing, Sandeep. Am I wrong? San: Who knows? Can a Leela, a game have a purpose? My dropping in to this List, my prattlings, and my getting kicked out of the List (likely<s>) are all part of that leela, that Duet of One. What do others think? Yes, that could be interesting. "Truth is not something given objectively, but rather a creative achievement. San: By whom? It is creative discovery, rather than the reflected knowledge of an object or of being. San: A closer statement, but still pre-supposes an entity, discovering. Truth ... is the creative transfiguration of reality." Nicolas Berdyaev As the dude Lao Tzu put it , anything said about Truth is False, meaning a concept. My addendum ----- the statement "anything said about Truth is False" is also saying something about Truth and thus subject to the same intrinsic logic of it. LOL. Mis conceptual dos centavos. Cheers Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2001 Report Share Posted March 24, 2001 Hiya Frank, - f maiello advaitin Saturday, March 24, 2001 02:02 AM Re: Sandeep's arguments -- isn't this just Buddhism? Sandeep Chatterjee wrote: > And thus the term used has been "leela", a game of pretence. _______________ hariH OM! sandeepji- namaste 95% of what you're saying i agree with *enthusiastically*! however, the 5% i disagree with, i do so with the obverse of same.. San: Aw shucks Frank, come one don't be a miser. Give it full marks, when you know it deserves it. LOL. This is my last post of the day and you Frank raise the most crucial point, which I have been waiting for somebody to stumble upon. Till it is all an "intellectual understanding" and indeed it is just that at this stage, the question comes up, how to live life in a society where the majority have no clue what the hell you are talking about. ---------------------- it's said that one cannot *live* advaita. San: Frank it is the easiest thing to do so. Do, think, act, exactly whatever comes up in you, for you to do, think and act, in the moment. Whatever. Whatsoever. With all the vim and the full of gusto. If subsequently the thought, the decision, gets actualized into a doing (not all decisions get actualized as you would have noted in your life), such a "doing" is exactly what Impersonal Consciousness or Micky Mouse desired to be enacted in that moment, through you. Otherwise it will not happen. The word inappropriate does not exist in phenomenon. "You" with no volition, how can you do any wrong? . "You" with no volition, how can you do any right? For in all the "rights" and all the "wrongs" that have occurred since phenomenality raised it's head, it is only impersonal functioning taking place through the billions and billions of sentient and non-sentient beings, moment after moment after moment. Which is what is, the "mosiac" of Life. Now for specific actions to occur, appropriate conditioned body-mind complexes are manifested. And how does Impersonal Consciousness function through the object-body-mind complex? Through the occurrence of a non-volitional thought in the object-body-mind-complex which triggers of a chain of secondary thoughts, some of which gets externally actualized into "actions, a series of actions constituting the "precise behaviour" which was, what was to be enacted. Behaviourial scientists and neuro scientist call that non-volitional, acausally occurring thought , a particular "wave-function collapse" from that Infinite Field of all possible Wave-functions, in Quantum Mechanics terminology. Now to these "doings, the illusory entity, the illusory self, attaches a meaning and makes the doing either a "sin" or a "profoundity". Impersonal functioning does not get altered by "your" attached meanings. This is the true apperception of the truth of non-volitionality. Now there is one more step to be seen as a consequence of this apperception. When the action through "you" is seen to be the action of Impersonal Consciousness and thus there is no question of guilt for "sinful" acts and also no question of pride for "profound" acts, such a body-mind complex may face the consequences of such an act which was enacted through it. That consequence could be either condemnation by the "other" (as is happening by some on this List for Sandeep) or it could be praise/tears of gratitude (as is happening by some, on this List for Sandeep) Know that, in both the praise and the condemnation, there is also no "entity" in the other body-mind complex and that praise/condemnation, is as much the functioning of the same Impersonal Consciousness through that other body-mind complex. With this total apperception, now Frank........ Who will you hate? Who will you despise? Who could disturb you? Who could anger you? Whom would you envy? For what will you take pride in? For what will you be anxious about? What will you fear, to lose or rush to safe-guard? No pride, no hate, no anger, no envy, no fear, no insecurity, nothing to seek, nothing to be renounced, nothing to be achieved, nothing to be negated AND existing in full bloom in the midst of the market place, call this state of beingness, whatever name you wish to give. La deeee Daaaaa Deeeee Doooobeeeee Dooobeeee Dooooo ------------------------ implying that if the conduct in the role of the lives of let's say theoretically *all* nondualists (of all traditions...as you say, they all meet in the ajatavada of advaita, from zen to islam) were attempting to mimic the [metaphysical allusion to] being the ineffable, unknowable, inscrutable Absolute Existence (parabrahman, tao, aynsoph, allah, etc), chaos would be the *inevitable* result. San: If chaos is to occur, it will. Why is chaos ianppropriate? Out of chaos are born, stars. One of the most hilarious aspect of the human ego is the need to maintain "order", (whatever the particular order be). ------------------------------- profound implications here. this is why--as i've posted on this list in the past--the general approach of "acting dual and being ONE," is what's really going on in this wonderfully mysterious, divine Play of brahman's leela--before, during and after [even the delusionary idea of] jivanmukthi. there's the matter of coming to terms with the true nature of this Play. to definitely conclude that it's either an illusion or a reality is a mistake, and can have serious consequences. and the more convinced one becomes in it being either way, the more sociopathic and even psychotic the believer can become. one view breeds the reckless rebel; the other the reckless fanatic. San: And the reckless rebel and the reckless Taliban are as much appropriate expressions of that same Impersonal Consciousness as is Ramana or Lao Tzu. The saint and the sinner, each need each other to, define each to the other. The hero and the villian, both are needed for the plot of the story to be riveting. And remember to an author, both the hero and the villian are equally dear, except in this case there is no author separate from it's creations. ------------------------ for example, osho was one of the most lucid, eclectic and practically insightful teachers of all time. but he had a critical conflict on [this issue] that adversely affected everything else. San: Osho was brilliant. And yet despite all that lucidity, Osho was still stuck with a self which could be enlightened, through his "unique" methods. Again, for me, Osho and all his teachings and methods are perfect expressions of the same Impersonal Consciousness working to produce exactly that, through that conditioned body-mind complex. ----------------------- on one hand he wanted to change the world into a utopia, San: That was the problem. There was a conception of an utopia separate from the world, otherwise how could the question of change come up. Now this very world, an infinitely insignificant morsel of the Universe, with all it's "beauty" and all it's "ugliness" is the very utopia, if the apperception exists. ----------------------- and on the other he granted himself license to do anything he wanted. the former idea based on the leela being real; the latter on it being unreal. he became a menace, and potentially a very real threat to society. San: Curious, in what way? ------------- the leela, as product of brahman's maya, is anirvachaniya! it is both and neither real and/or unreal. San: This needs to be clarified. It is real, because there is a cognition of it. It is unreal because it has no independent existence of it's own. Without the cognizer, there is no "cognized". It is thus real and unreal at the same time. ------------------ and this is how and why advaita actually embraces dvaita, and must!! without bhakti the jnani becomes anarchist. San: An anarchist wishes to change something, through whichever means at whatever cost. For a true Jnani, there is no "other" either to be changed or to be left alone. ----------------------- without jnana, the bhaktha becomes fascist. On the contarary, the true bhakta reaches the same place as the true Jnani. How? For the Janai, at it's deepest apperception, there is no other. I am That I am. I am All. I am Brahman. Now to whom can this statement be made to? To whom would it be relevant to hear? The Jnani reposes into that which conceives even silence. The true bhakta, at the height of bhakti, cries "Not me, Only thou" Now if "Only thou", who is saying this? Even this "Only thou" drops from the lips of the bhkata and the bhakta reposes into that which conceives even silence. That is why it is said, the beginning is bhakti which ends in Jnan. Good night Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.