Fwd: 'The deepest essence of Advaita' by Sandeep Chatterjee

[Guest guest]

Namaste Members,

 

First, I want to thank Sri Sandeep Chatterjee for this

excellent essay with the format of Questions &

Answers. His presentation is quite foreful and

enjoyable and he is quite thorough in his own way. His

style of presentation resembles a glimpse of

Nisargatta Maharaj and other pure thinkers. I am very

happy to forward this essay to you all.

 

Everyone is welcome to send any comments and I will be

more than happy to forward Sri Sandeep's replies back

to the list.

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: The list objectives, policies and guidelines for

posting to the list are available at the File folder

at

http://www.advaitin. Members

are requested again to strictly follow the list

guidelines.

 

--- Sandeep Chatterjee <sandeepc

wrote:

> "Sandeep Chatterjee"

> <sandeepc

> <rchandran

> The deepest essence of Advaita

> Wed, 28 Mar 2001 21:41:34 +0530

>

> Hi Ram,

>

> Have a look.

>

> ---------------------

>

>

>

>

>

> Point of Departure:

>

>

>

> When Consciousness pretends that there's a

> separation between what It says It is.(the "I"). and

> what It says It isn't .(the "not-I"), then the world

> mysteriously (re)appears. In truth, though, the

> so-called "story of your life" is only the cosmic

> song-of-Consciousness being gloriously played out

> through the instrument of your own body. The purpose

> of any song, though, is not to arrive at the final

> note. The purpose of a song can only be found in the

> joyous playing of it. And so it is with

> Consciousness. In short, Its purpose is to play out

> an entrancing story with Itself by using an illusory

> "you" as the so-called "Star" of this Cosmic drama.

>

>

> Q. But all of it really can't be that basic. Aren't

> you simplifying this whole thing a little too much?

>

>

> A. Well, how can you oversimplify something that is,

> by Its very nature, simplicity itself? In fact,

> because Its simpleness is so absolutely complete and

> pure, this "It" can only manifest Itself by

> pretending to be "complex." In other words, when the

> indivisible Consciousness pretends to be divisible,

> It creates the world of polarities. And YOU are that

> very Consciousness, Itself!

>

>

> Q. Yes, but if I'm really this so-called "It," then

> why don't I have a direct experience of It right

> now?

>

>

> A. This "you," as the illusory ego-self that you

> think you are, can never personally experience its

> own, true, fundamental nature. This "you" can only

> BE what It already is (i.e. "It"). In other words,

> this "you" will never be able to "get" It simply

> because It already is IT! (After all, no one can

> arrive at a place where they are already dwelling.)

> Believing that you're not really there, however,

> provides the cosmic momentum for It to, seemingly,

> "go out looking for Itself." It's this purposeful

> misidentification that sets the entire drama into

> motion.

>

>

> Q. Well, if any of this is really true, how can I

> actually use this kind of philosophy in my everyday

> life?

>

>

> A. You can't "use" It in the usual sense because It

> will, actually, be only using YOU. At one level,

> though, you can stay more aligned with It by

> consciously choosing exactly what It is choosing for

> you. In other words, practice saying a resounding

> "Yes!" to whatever shows up for you. And, even when

> you feel like saying "No," then just say "Yes" to

> the fact that, for right now, you're saying "No." In

> short, don't reject anything..not even your own

> rejections!

>

> Remember, however, that this "you," (as the

> historical ego-self) is only pretending that you're

> able to manipulate or control It. Consciousness will

> always get Its own way in the end, simply because,

> no matter where you think this "you" is going, It is

> already there..waiting for you.

>

>

> Q. Is this why you say that "It" is always directly

> in front of me in Its absolute totality?

>

>

> A. Yes. Where else could It possibly be? By

> definition, there can't be some of It here and then

> some more of It around the corner, too. That would

> be implying that It could, somehow, be divided from

> Itself. But, if It's absolutely simple and complete,

> It can't really have any parts at all. It can only

> pretend to have parts. The "you" that you think you

> are is only one of the many so-called "parts" that

> It is pretending to have (and/or to be.) So whatever

> is in your experience at this very instant is

> absolutely all of It. There's really nothing else.

> Or, to put it another way, through Its own "I's"

> (yours), It "sees" 100% of Itself... 100% of the

> time. Nothing is ever "missing" in It because

> nothing of It can ever be left out. Not ever!

>

>

> Q. So then where does our idea of God come into all

> of this?"

>

>

> A. "God" really doesn't come "into" It at all; God

> actually comes out of It. The word "God" (or the

> Self, Allah, Yahweh, Spirit, etc.) is simply the

> ego's attempt to give a name to the unnameable

> "It-that-Is."

>

> It's like a movie actor who's trying to give a

> proper name to the screen that he inwardly senses is

> supporting his unfolding drama. The greatest

> obstacle, though, will be the actor's egotistical

> wish to "be there" as a personal witness to his own

> awakening of this reality. However, this is a

> contradiction in terms. Why? Well, there's no

> separate one that can be "there" at the so-called

> "awakening" simply because there's no separate one

> that's "here" right now who's "not awakened." In

> other words, there's not only nothing for this actor

> to "get," there's really not even a truly

> individuated actor present who's even available to

> be either "getting It" (or, for that matter, to be

> not getting IT) in the first place! In short, all

> that there truly IS, is the seamless Screen of

> Consciousness, Itself ...this "IT."

>

>

> Q. Yes, but what does that do to this whole idea of

> free choice? Doesn't free will really exist?

>

>

> A. Once again, before answering that question, you

> need to initially determine if there are separate

> and distinct individuals that are truly present and

> real. You see, if all separation is an illusion,

> then any further talk about an illusory self having

> a "free will" or not would be as useless as arguing

> about the probable water temperature of a lake

> mirage out in the desert. Just like there's no real

> lake out there to be having a water temperature,

> there's also no real "separate self" actually

> present to be having (or to be not having) a

> so-called "free will."

>

>

> Q. But what does that notion do to the idea of

> karma, reincarnation and the Law of Cause and

> Effect? Aren't they real either?

>

>

> A. Karma and reincarnation exist only as long as

> there's an illusion that there's a separate and

> individual "self" who is the so-called do-er.

>

> In other words, if you consider yourself to be the

> "causer," it naturally follows that a "you" will

> then be obliged to "hang around" in order to receive

> the full effects of the so-called "causes" that

> you've, seemingly, set into motion. Without a

> separated "self" actually present to experience

> these phenomena, though, the idea of karma and

> reincarnation is unsupportable.

>

> How does that follow? Well, if all separation is

> only illusory, then who is it that's actually being

> "reincarnated," anyway? Or, for that matter, who is

> it who's ever really "died" in the first place in

> order to be "reborn" again?

>

>

> Q. So are you saying that all of mankind's past

> history is really only a part of this great

> illusion, too, and that none of it ever really

> happened!?

>

>

> A. Well, there's only one so-called "movie" playing

> on the "Cosmic Screen," and that's the very "movie"

> that you believe you're experiencing at this very

> moment.

>

> When you watch a movie, for example, did the

> offscreen events that are referred to by the

> characters really, in fact, ever take place at all?

> But, you see, the dramatic story on the screen is

> greatly advanced (and enhanced) by the viewer's

> willingness to pretend that those offscreen events

> did, in fact, actually occur. But "It" (as the

> movie) is always fully present in its absolute

> totality...right here and right now. In short, this

> really is IT !!

>

>

> Q. Yes, but then what about the future? It almost

> sounds like you're saying that I shouldn't try to do

> anything about it.

>

>

> A. No, I'm not suggesting that at all. For example,

> if you really feel moved to save the whales, help

> the poor, stop AIDs, etc., then go ahead and

> completely throw yourself into it 100%. Don't hold

> anything back! The "you" that you think you are,

> though, is not really the "do-er" of any of these

> actions. Consequently, this "you," then, need not

> concern itself with the results of these "actions"

> that you're feeling so compelled to, seemingly,

> "do." In Truth, by playing ALL of the so-called

> "parts" in the cosmic drama, Consciousness is really

> "doing" it all.

>

>

> Q. But are you saying that I shouldn't care how

> things work out?

>

>

> A. Actually, I'm just suggesting that you play out

> your role in the Cosmic drama with complete gusto

> and passion. However, you can best remain truly

> detached from what shows up for you only if you give

> up your idea about what "working out" looks like. In

> truth, things will neither "work out" nor will they

> not "work out." They will only BE whatever they will

> be.

>

> If there's any overlay of what "should" be happening

> on top of what actually is happening, then it's only

> a manifestation of the ego-self getting caught up in

> its own delusion that it (and it alone) is the true

> source and the "do-er" of these actions.

>

> The irony here is that, even though it doesn't

> really matter what you "do" in your role, it still

> seems to be very important that you go ahead and,

> seemingly, "do" it anyway. After all, the dance is

> best honored when the Dancer (Shiva) really dances

> the dance!

>

> But remember that It's all only a dazzling "play"

> that's unfolding like the ever-changing colors of a

> cosmic kaleidoscope. The very nature of the

> Consciousness that you are is to "BE" what It is ...

> by pretending to, seemingly, "become" what It's

> pretending to not be.

>

>

> Q. So, are you enlightened?

>

>

> A. Well, if any and all divisions on the Cosmic

> Screen are only illusory, then how is any individual

> enlightenment even possible? In other words, what

> separate being is really "there" to be enlightened

> (or, for that matter, to be un-enlightened) in the

> first place?

>

>

> Q. But then isn't any of it real?

>

>

> A. No matter what activities are, seemingly,

> "happening" in the movie, the fundamental reality

> beneath It all is still only the unbroken and

> seamless Screen that's supporting all of the dramas

> being played out.

>

> Although the world appears to exist, the only thing

> that's really real ..is Consciousness, Itself. So,

> as the historical ego-self, you're always looking

> directly into the cosmic mirror of Life and

> beholding the wondrous and multifaceted face of God.

> And here's the great miracle: It's always been your

> face!

>

>

> Q. So, then, why is everyone seeking some sort of

> enlightenment .....this IT?

>

>

> A. Well, in truth, you already are who you are

> looking for. Enlightenment is not the attainment of

> anything new. Instead, it is more like a discovery

> of the essential truth about what actually is. The

> drama around you, though, will seemingly continue to

> unfold exactly as It does. In other words, you won't

> really awaken from the dream; you'll only be

> awakening TO the dream.

>

> But, in this awakening, the Dreamer has to disappear

> entirely. If not, he'll just substitute one dream

> called "Once-I-was-asleep" for another dream called

> "But-now-I-am-awake!" And here's the ultimate cosmic

> irony: The Self who is "asleep" is also the very

> same Self who is "awake." After all, there is only

> one Self. One Consciousness. One "It."

>

> The mesmerizing seductiveness of the dream is easily

> seen in the long-standing belief that, someday, (if

> the Dreamer only plays his cosmic cards right), he

> will, eventually, "awaken." But, in Truth, the

> so-called "Enlightenment Bus" that he's been looking

> for will never show up for him. Why not? Well, in

> waiting for this future event to occur somewhere in

> time, he only reinforces his belief that

> Consciousness is not fully present and available

> right here and right now.

>

>

> Q. Well, isn't there some kind of objective reality

> in the world? What about the idea of good and evil?

> Don't they really exist... even as a small part of

> this Consciousness?

>

>

> A. At one level, you might consider that

> Consciousness is really a sort of "context" that

> appears to contain a pretend world of illusory

> polarities. So, at the bottom line, there's really

> no "success" and no "failure." There's no "right"

> and no "wrong;" no "good" and no "bad;" no "victors"

> and no "victims;" no "heaven" and no "hell" and no

> "life" and no "death."

>

> All of these polarities only appear on the spectrum

> of opposites that It creates in order to play out

> Its cosmic drama. In a sense, these opposites

> radiate out in all directions from the "point of

> view" that "you" (as your ego-self) think that you

> are.

>

>

> Q. But what can I do to improve myself? Don't I need

> to change in some way?

>

>

> A. But how can WHO you are really "change?" Your

> basic nature is Pure Consciousness. You are

> infinite, omnipresent, impersonal, omniscient, and

> immutable. As such, there is nothing that you "need"

> to remember, to learn about, to realize, to strive

> for, to pray to or to meditate on.

>

> It's this very belief that "real progress is

> possible," however, that provides the momentum

> necessary for "you" (as It) to, seemingly, want to

> propel your story "forward" and out into some kind

> of illusory "future." But, in Truth, you can't

> really become more of who you already are.

>

>

> Q. But what about all of the current interest in

> metaphysics? Won't it help me to study things like

> astrology, ESP, tarot, crystals, channeling and so

> forth? Why wouldn't my growth in those esoteric

> areas be a very positive sign of my spiritual

> progress?

>

>

> A. Although the study of metaphysics is neither

> "good" nor "bad," it often serves to provide a very

> attractive diversion for many people. By being

> spiritually seduced with the implied promise of

> attaining special knowledge or powers, the "seeker"

> is often unwittingly diverted from his true inner

> quest. Consequently, instead of looking inside to

> discover the actual truth about who he really is,

> these pseudo-spiritual distractions only give him

> something else to get attached to, or, even worse,

> to feel "superior" about. Spiritual

> "one-ups-man-ship" is an insidious trap!

>

>

> Q. So how do you suggest that I learn to live with

> myself being this Consciousness?

>

>

> A. Well, does a fish really need to learn how to

> swim? You already are whatever it is that you're

> seeking. So, just fully commit yourself 100% to

> doing whatever it is that you're, seemingly,

> "doing," but do it with an openhearted sense of

> detached compassion and total love.

>

> Avoid judging or discriminating in any way. (After

> all, doesn't an author love his "villains" every bit

> as much as he loves his "heroes?") Consciousness

> will appear to tease you, seduce you, scare you,

> amaze you, and, from time to time, even try to

> overwhelm and destroy you. But learn to fully

> embrace It as YOU because this is all only lila

> ..the Dance of the Divine...the play of

> Consciousness, Itself! And, It's all being "staged"

> for your delight and edification! Joyously welcome

> IT all with a sense of deep gratitude and profound

> wonderment. You being able to "play- in-the-world"

> is a miraculous gift that Consciousness is giving to

> Itself, so don't be an unappreciative audience to

> your own melodrama. Let everything happen to you

> because It's all really OK! As the Buddha once said,

> "At the end of the road is freedom. Until then, have

> patience."

>

> And, just like it is with a song, the purpose of any

> dance is not to arrive at the final position. The

> so-called "purpose" is only to be found in the

> dancing of the dance! So, whatever seemingly happens

> to you in your drama, just keep on...dancing!

>

>

> Q. Yes, but won't I be needing some kind of "dancing

> teacher?"

>

>

> A. Yes. A teacher is necessary, but you need to give

> up your idea about what this teacher might look

> like. The guru may not show up for you as a

> "living-in-the-body," physical human being. The guru

> (It) is ever-present, and It always appears directly

> in front of you as everything (and everyone) that

> you're pretending that you're NOT. In other words,

> whatever experiences show up for the historical

> ego-self are, in fact, the guru's teaching. You need

> to trust that this Grace will slowly awaken you from

> your pretended delusion of separation. And here is

> yet another strange paradox: "IT" really turns out

> to be...Its own guru!

>

>

> Q. Well, does this philosophy have some kind of

> special name?"

>

>

> A. Actually, it does. This is called Advaita.the

> ancient path of direct insight and knowledge. It's

> spiritually introspective because the "seeker" is

> not focused primarily on the ritualistic devotion or

> outward activity that's usually found on many of the

> other paths. Instead, the emphasis here is to use

> the power of self-inquiry to seek out the true

> Source of the "I" thought by asking oneself the

> ultimate, primordial question: "Who am I?"

>

> As all of the answers to that question slowly drop

> away, you awaken to discover yourSelf to be in a

> place that you had never really left. At that

> "pointless point" of awareness, your ground-of-being

> becomes, quite simply, "I AM," and you recognize the

> very essence of who you really are: Love.loving

> Itself!

>

>

> Q. OK, but quite honestly, how can any of this

> strange stuff help the real world?

>

>

> A. Well, is it the so-called "real world" who's

> asking this question, or is it only the "you" who

> you think you are that wants to know? Your spiritual

> work lies in discovering for whom this question is

> arising. Remember, as Ramana Maharshi has said, "The

> answer to life's problems is to first see who has

> them!"

>

>

> Cheers

>

> Sandeep

>

[Guest guest]

--- Sandeep Chatterjee <sandeepc

wrote:

> "Sandeep Chatterjee"

> <sandeepc

> <rchandran

> CC: "Gummuluru Murthy" <gmurthy

> Fw: Fwd: 'The deepest essence of

> Advaita' by Sandeep Chatterjee

> Wed, 28 Mar 2001 23:44:20 +0530

>

> And please also indicate that the dialogue was with

> an entity named Chuck Hillig, not Sandeep.

>

> Cheers

>

> Sandeep

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Ram Chandran <ramvchandran> wrote:

> Namaste Members,

>

> First, I want to thank Sri Sandeep Chatterjee for this

> excellent essay with the format of Questions &

> Answers. His presentation is quite foreful and

> enjoyable and he is quite thorough in his own way. His

> style of presentation resembles a glimpse of

> Nisargatta Maharaj and other pure thinkers. I am very

> happy to forward this essay to you all.

>

 

Umm, excuse, me but there's no way Sandeep is the author of

this....it sound suspiciously familiar to something I read in Chuck

Hillig...

 

If this is a glimpse of anything, it's of plagiarism....

 

I'll check into it...

 

Steve