Hindu Advaita?

[Guest guest]

Madhava K. Turumella wrote:

> If you accept the concept which starts with the statement "All that is

> there..." then what is that you are recognizing as that "All" in side the

> "All that is there..." :-)

>

> The "All" as perceived may differ from individual to individual. May be

you

> are not aware, but by accepting the statement "All that is..." you are

> implying all the belief systems of the world... Specifically the things

> which Hindus believe in.

 

No. When I say "All there is is Consciousness" I don't mean "each of the

many things is Consciousness" (that would be pantheism), but: "The only

thing there really is is Consciousness, everything else is an appearance"

(this is monism). I think Advaita is monism, not pantheism.

 

Madhava K. Turumella :

> If conscious can appear as a Tree, Stone, Ice-block, table, chair, human,

> bird --- blah blah blah... then why can't the conscious appear as Kali (as

> Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa seen it), Panduranga (As Saint Tukaram seen

it),

> Ganesh, Hanuman, Rama, Krishna and thousands of other Angels who are

listed

> in the epics!

 

Yes, Consciousness can appear as Kali, Panduranga, and the other Hindu gods

and godesses. BUT these apparitions have no more reality in them than Zeus,

Venus, Apollo, or Micky Mouse. So, in my opinion, there is no fundamental

difference between somebody who worships the god-sun and someone who

worships the moon-goddess, the wind-god or the rive-god. Simple idolatry.

Confering to material objects the virtues of the One and Only God. In this

respect I understand the attitude of the Talivans (for them, they are just

destroying idols, in the same way as all established religions have done).

 

Miguel-Angel

[Guest guest]

"Miguel Angel Carrasco" <macf12@w...> wrote:

>So, in my opinion, there is no fundamental difference between

>somebody who worships the god-sun and someone who worships the moon-

>goddess, the wind-god or the rive-god. Simple idolatry.

> Confering to material objects the virtues of the One and Only God.

>In this respect I understand the attitude of the Talivans (for them,

>they are just destroying idols, in the same way as all established

>religions have done).

 

Sorry, I strongly disagree with your description of the attitude of

the Talibans "for them, they are just destroying idols". If Talibans

thought that the Budha Statues were mere idols and have no

qualms in destroying, why can't they destroy their flags also??

After all national/party/religious flag is a mere cloth with some

painted colors, and borrowing your own words, "confering

to material objects the virtues of" nation/party/religion????

Isn't it???? Why do they revere their flag? Or the crescent???

After all man has even put his feet on the lifeless moon,

and what is so divine about it?? Why can't they desecrate and

destroy their "crescent moon" symbols?? Simple idolatry, isn't it??

My friend, had Talibans saw the statues as mere idols, they

wouldn't even describe their lunatic destruction as

"blasting the legs and face of the Buddha"! How can the idol they

perceive have legs and face like a living entity??

What you call "simple idolatry" is not so simple, after all!

Idols are created to be place-holders of ideals and to facilitate

one to elevate and inspire oneself from within by perceiving it

without. But when the ideal is securely lodged within the hearts

and minds, it is true that the idol is superfluous.

And we all know how the so called "idols" also are created

to accurately reflect the ideals and aspirations by so many

astounding sculptors/creators and painters. All paintings

and sculptures _ARE_ idols! But can we convey in words the

range of emotions, the depth of aspirations and grandeur of awe

they generate within the hearts and minds of so many for so many

generations??? Anyone who saw "Mona Lisa" or "Sun Chariot" or

"Madonna and Child" already experienced it!

It is enough to say that what Talibans did is neither the

destruction of "idols" as they try to justify, nor even

service to their own "religion"! It is desecration of some

precious artistic heritage which they cannot even comprehend.

It is their fanaticism to wipe out anything that their petty

minds think stands tall against their religion. Simple lunacy.

 

With regards

-Srinivas Nagulapalli

[Guest guest]

Hi Miguel,

 

Thanks for your honesty and candor! This made me smile! --Greg

 

At 05:58 AM 3/29/01 +0100, Miguel Angel Carrasco wrote:

 

I partially disagree. Adavaita IS one of the Hindu philosophies. That's a

historical truth.

So far so good. But that doesn't mean I must consider myself a Hindu, if I

am a follower of Nisargadatta. I may be an Advatin, but not a Hindu. The

only thing about Hinduism that I like is Advaita. I profoundy dislike

everything else, which is a lot.

 

Miguel-Angel

[Guest guest]

"Miguel Angel Carrasco" <macf12@w...> wrote:

> I partially disagree. Adavaita IS one of the Hindu philosophies.

> That's a historical truth. So far so good. But that doesn't mean I

> must consider myself a Hindu, if I am a follower of Nisargadatta. I

> may be an Advatin, but not a Hindu. The only thing about Hinduism

> that I like is Advaita. I profoundy dislike everything else, which

> is a lot.

 

You certainly need not consider yourself as Hindu!! And Advaita,

which you like, teaches us not to even consider ourselves

as "individual/body/mind"!! So what gives? Merely for

transactional purpose we have a name, be it for a man or for

a plant species, isn't it?? Incidentally, Nisargadatta maharaj says

"I am THAT", but we always call him "Nisargadatta", strange indeed!

So too he was a Hindu! And if you follow Advaita, which is one

of Hindu philosophies, what does it logically mean for

transactional purposes?? Doesn't it follow you are Hindu - which

you need not accept, but nevertheless doesn't it mean that?

 

When I was working in Austin, I met someone who said he likes

Texas and "profoundly dislikes" everything else of United States of

America, "which is a lot" (borrowing ur words!) and liked to call

himself a "proud Texan"!! I told him that Texas IS part of USA! But

it wouldn't matter to him, and he said he is always a "Texan".

Instead of arguing, we both laughed, and we are still friends!

 

With best regards

-Srinivas Nagulapalli

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

 

I think you will find that Nisargadatta said he wasn't interested

in Hinduism or any religion for that matter, or words to that

effect......Tony.

 

 

 

advaitin, snagul@h... wrote:

> "Miguel Angel Carrasco" <macf12@w...> wrote:

> > I partially disagree. Adavaita IS one of the Hindu philosophies.

> > That's a historical truth. So far so good. But that doesn't mean I

> > must consider myself a Hindu, if I am a follower of Nisargadatta.

I

> > may be an Advatin, but not a Hindu. The only thing about Hinduism

> > that I like is Advaita. I profoundy dislike everything else, which

> > is a lot.

>

> You certainly need not consider yourself as Hindu!! And Advaita,

> which you like, teaches us not to even consider ourselves

> as "individual/body/mind"!! So what gives? Merely for

> transactional purpose we have a name, be it for a man or for

> a plant species, isn't it?? Incidentally, Nisargadatta maharaj says

> "I am THAT", but we always call him "Nisargadatta", strange indeed!

> So too he was a Hindu! And if you follow Advaita, which is one

> of Hindu philosophies, what does it logically mean for

> transactional purposes?? Doesn't it follow you are Hindu - which

> you need not accept, but nevertheless doesn't it mean that?

>

> When I was working in Austin, I met someone who said he likes

> Texas and "profoundly dislikes" everything else of United States

of

> America, "which is a lot" (borrowing ur words!) and liked to call

> himself a "proud Texan"!! I told him that Texas IS part of USA!

But

> it wouldn't matter to him, and he said he is always a "Texan".

> Instead of arguing, we both laughed, and we are still friends!

>

> With best regards

> -Srinivas Nagulapalli

[Guest guest]

Gentlemen,

This makes me smile too :-)

 

One may learn all theories about what it is that is

the pleasant feeling of seeing a child smile

innocently.

However, the same process is infinitely simplified if

one actually sees a child smile.

 

Does one need a child(personal God) to understand the

nature of bliss (Brahman) ? It is one's own choice.

 

In my humble opinion, kind Gentlemen and Ladies.

 

With Love,

Raghava

 

--- Gregory Goode <goode wrote:

> Hi Miguel,

>

> Thanks for your honesty and candor! This made me

> smile! --Greg

>

> At 05:58 AM 3/29/01 +0100, Miguel Angel Carrasco

> wrote:

>

> I partially disagree. Adavaita IS one of the Hindu

> philosophies. That's a

> historical truth.

> So far so good. But that doesn't mean I must

> consider myself a Hindu, if I

> am a follower of Nisargadatta. I may be an Advatin,

> but not a Hindu. The

> only thing about Hinduism that I like is Advaita. I

> profoundy dislike

> everything else, which is a lot.

>

> Miguel-Angel

>

>

 

 

 

 

Get email at your own domain with Mail.

http://personal.mail./?.refer=text

[Guest guest]

Madhava wrote: -

 

I think not being able to see the Angels, or not believing in any such

thing, is a limitation in the personal consciousness (they are limited in

their own thinking I mean).... Just like a person who is sitting in his

home in India can't see a person who is dwelling in America, humans ---

being limited by their own consciousness --- though intelligently think that

"All that is there is consciousness" but not really up to that mark where

they can see each and everything as consciousness :-) They know the rules

of the game very well, but they can't play the game.

 

Am I following this correctly? Are you saying that, claiming not to be able

to see angels is equivalent to claiming not to be able to see someone in

America whilst being at home in India?? But I can switch on the television

or, if that is not enough, I can use a videophone to see and speak to the

person at that moment. If that is insufficiently convincing, I can get on a

plane, fly there and grasp hold of the person to satisfy myself of his

reality. How, when or where can I do anything remotely resembling these

things in respect of angels? There is simply no evidence of any verifiable

sort to persuade one of the existence of angels or gods, nor is there any

need of such.

 

I would also like to add my support to Miguel - I too consider myself an

advaitin but, though respecting the Hindu religion and traditions, would not

claim at all to be a Hindu.

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Let me add another slant along with Dennis,

 

These words from Madhava:

======

Just like a person who is sitting in his

home in India can't see a person who is dwelling in America, humans ---

being limited by their own consciousness --- though intelligently think that

"All that is there is consciousness" but not really up to that mark where

they can see each and everything as consciousness :-) They know the rules

of the game very well, but they can't play the game.

======

 

This sounds like if an individual person really, really sees each and every

thing as consciousness, then that individual person will be able to see

everything that every other person sees. Is this what you meant?

 

Harih OM!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

> This sounds like if an individual person really,

> really sees each and every

> thing as consciousness, then that individual person

> will be able to see

> everything that every other person sees. Is this

> what you meant?

>

> Harih OM!

>

> --Greg

>

 

In advaita there is neither the individual person nor

the other. Then where does this question arise ?

 

During His final illness when devotees pressed Sri

Ramakrishna (who had throat cancer) to ask Mother Kali

to relieve His pain so that He may be able to eat

something, Sri Ramakrishna said "I am eating through

all these mouths" and pointed to all the people there.

 

Evidently he was reveling in an advaitic experience

wherein the body is IN the Self and not the Self in

the body. We experience the latter , advaita extols

the former.

 

Regards,

Anand

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get email at your own domain with Mail.

http://personal.mail./?.refer=text

[Guest guest]

These are the same terms Madhava used in speaking of "a person who is

sitting in his home in India can't see a person who is dwelling in

America." I also asked (myself) whence that comment arose... So this is

merely a (rhetorical) question in those same terms, perhaps to elicit what

Madhava meant...

 

At 02:00 PM 3/29/01 -0800, Anand Natarajan wrote:

>>>>

> This sounds like if an individual person really,

> really sees each and every

> thing as consciousness, then that individual person

> will be able to see

> everything that every other person sees. Is this

> what you meant?

>

> Harih OM!

>

> --Greg

>

 

In advaita there is neither the individual person nor

the other. Then where does this question arise ?

 

During His final illness when devotees pressed Sri

Ramakrishna (who had throat cancer) to ask Mother Kali

to relieve His pain so that He may be able to eat

something, Sri Ramakrishna said "I am eating through

all these mouths" and pointed to all the people there.

 

Evidently he was reveling in an advaitic experience

wherein the body is IN the Self and not the Self in

the body. We experience the latter , advaita extols

the former.

 

Regards,

Anand

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get email at your own domain with Mail.

<http://personal.mail./?.refer=text>http://personal.mail./

?.refer=text

 

Sponsor

<http://rd./M=170603.1361494.2950176.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700075991:N/

A=613961/?http://www.newaydirect.com>www.newaydirect.com

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at:

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

aitin/

Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server

For details, visit:

</local/news.html>/local/news.

html

Post message: advaitin

Subscribe: advaitin-

Un: advaitin

URL to Advaitin:

<advaitin>advaitin

File folder:

<advaitin>/group

/advaitin

Link Folder:

<advaitin/links>

advaitin/links

Messages Folder:

<advaitin/messages>/gro

up/advaitin/messages

 

 

 

Your use of is subject to the

<>

<<<<

[Guest guest]

 

Miguel Angel Carrasco [macf12]

Wednesday, March 28, 2001 11:58 PM

advaitin

Re: Hindu Advaita?

 

Srinivas Nagulapalli wrote :

 

Advaita _IS_ one of the major Hindu philosophies,

> isn't it??

 

I partially disagree. Adavaita IS one of the Hindu philosophies. That's a

historical truth.

So far so good. But that doesn't mean I must consider myself a Hindu, if I

am a follower of Nisargadatta. I may be an Advatin, but not a Hindu. The

only thing about Hinduism that I like is Advaita. I profoundy dislike

everything else, which is a lot.

 

Miguel-Angel

 

Yes, Sri Miguel-ji. You profoundly dislike everything about Hinduism other

than Advaita! Obviously you are aware that a significant number of people on

this list are Hindus. They may be Advaitins but they are also Hindus by

birth and by culture. We are having the Gita Satsang and Bhagavad Gita is a

Hindu scripture and you are here listening to it, perhaps even enjoying it,

and benefiting from it.

 

Every religion, not just Hinduism, exists in a social context. If you look

at any major religion of the world, you will find things that are of

profound beauty and you may also find things you do not like or understand.

Parts of any religion may get corrupted due to social conventions as time

goes on. That is not a reason for making a general statement against that

religion. Moreover it is highly disrespectful to people who practice that

religion.

 

My experience of the Hindus on this list is that they are spiritual, good,

and decent and loving people and tolerant people.

I cannot imagine a Hindu on this list making such a general statement to a

group of Christians. If anything, deeply religious and spiritual Hindus tend

to revere Christ and Buddha and other major figures of different religions.

My father, a Hindu, has often told me how much he loves Jesus Christ because

Christ once appeared to him in his dream when my father requested that he do

so!

 

In order to have heart to heart communications with other people regardless

of their religion, ethnicity, gender, nationality, etc., we must first have

respect for them as human beings. That involves showing respect for their

culture and religion and customs even though they may be different from

ours. We can show our sensitivity for others by paying attention to the

language we use.

 

Love

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Well said Harshaji. Namaste.

>

> Harsha [sMTP:harsha-hkl]

> Friday, March 30, 2001 11:17 AM

> advaitin

> RE: Re: Hindu Advaita?

>

>

> Miguel Angel Carrasco [macf12]

> Wednesday, March 28, 2001 11:58 PM

> advaitin

> Re: Hindu Advaita?

>

> Srinivas Nagulapalli wrote :

>

> Advaita _IS_ one of the major Hindu philosophies,

> > isn't it??

>

> I partially disagree. Adavaita IS one of the Hindu philosophies. That's a

> historical truth.

> So far so good. But that doesn't mean I must consider myself a Hindu, if I

> am a follower of Nisargadatta. I may be an Advatin, but not a Hindu. The

> only thing about Hinduism that I like is Advaita. I profoundy dislike

> everything else, which is a lot.

>

> Miguel-Angel

>

> Yes, Sri Miguel-ji. You profoundly dislike everything about Hinduism other

> than Advaita! Obviously you are aware that a significant number of people

> on

> this list are Hindus. They may be Advaitins but they are also Hindus by

> birth and by culture. We are having the Gita Satsang and Bhagavad Gita is

> a

> Hindu scripture and you are here listening to it, perhaps even enjoying

> it,

> and benefiting from it.

>

> Every religion, not just Hinduism, exists in a social context. If you look

> at any major religion of the world, you will find things that are of

> profound beauty and you may also find things you do not like or

> understand.

> Parts of any religion may get corrupted due to social conventions as time

> goes on. That is not a reason for making a general statement against that

> religion. Moreover it is highly disrespectful to people who practice that

> religion.

>

> My experience of the Hindus on this list is that they are spiritual, good,

> and decent and loving people and tolerant people.

> I cannot imagine a Hindu on this list making such a general statement to a

> group of Christians. If anything, deeply religious and spiritual Hindus

> tend

> to revere Christ and Buddha and other major figures of different

> religions.

> My father, a Hindu, has often told me how much he loves Jesus Christ

> because

> Christ once appeared to him in his dream when my father requested that he

> do

> so!

>

> In order to have heart to heart communications with other people

> regardless

> of their religion, ethnicity, gender, nationality, etc., we must first

> have

> respect for them as human beings. That involves showing respect for their

> culture and religion and customs even though they may be different from

> ours. We can show our sensitivity for others by paying attention to the

> language we use.

>

> Love

> Harsha

>

Sponsor

> www.debticated.com

> <http://rd./M=170602.1361328.2950093.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700075991:

> N/A=551014/?http://www.debticated.com>

> ¤bB

> <http://us.adserver./l?M=170602.1361328.2950093.2/D=egroupmail/S=

> 1700075991:N/A=551014/rand=754178945>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

> Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

> <http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>

> Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server

> For details, visit: </local/news.html>

> Post message: advaitin

> Subscribe: advaitin-

> Un: advaitin

> URL to Advaitin: <advaitin>

> File folder: <advaitin>

> Link Folder: <advaitin/links>

> Messages Folder: <advaitin/messages>

>

>

>

> Terms of Service

> <>.

[Guest guest]

Miguel Angel Carrasco wrote:

.............................

> No. When I say "All there is is Consciousness" I don't mean "each of the

> many things is Consciousness" (that would be pantheism), but: "The only

> thing there really is is Consciousness, everything else is an appearance"

> (this is monism). I think Advaita is monism, not pantheism.

 

I agree entirely with this.

 

..............................

> Yes, Consciousness can appear as Kali, Panduranga, and the other Hindu gods

> and godesses. BUT these apparitions have no more reality in them than Zeus,

> Venus, Apollo, or Micky Mouse. So, in my opinion, there is no fundamental

> difference between somebody who worships the god-sun and someone who

> worships the moon-goddess, the wind-god or the rive-god.

 

The word God means the Universal Consciuosness.

When an Advaitin worships say, Sun -God, he does not think of the the

physical Sun

as God ; He worships the Universal Consciousness which appears as the Sun.

Similarly he worships the Universal Consciousness which is appears as the Wind,

River, Rama, Kaali, any idol, etc. etc.

That these apparitions are also denoted by the word God is a shortcoming of the

english

language.

 

...........................................

 

Love

V.M.Sundaram

>

[Guest guest]

Tony O'Clery wrote:

> I think you will find that Nisargadatta said he wasn't interested

> in Hinduism or any religion for that matter, or words to that

> effect......Tony.

 

Quite true. Though I've heard that in his private life he continued with

Hindu practices and rituals (chanting, etc.), when he was asked about

religions he tended to express some disdain. For example (quotes taken from

"I Am That"):

 

"Until you are free of the drug [of identification with the body-mind], all

your religions and sciences, prayers and yogas are of no use to you, for,

based on a mistake, they strengthen it. (page 443)

 

"What is religion? A cloud in the sky. I live in the sky, not in the clouds,

which are so many words held together." (p.512)

 

"Christianity is one way of putting words together and Hinduism is another.

The real is behind and beyond words, incommunicable, directly experienced."

(p.512)

 

"Recorded religions are mere heaps of verbiage." (p.513)

 

Miguel-Angel

[Guest guest]

Harsha wrote:

> Yes, Sri Miguel-ji. You profoundly dislike everything about Hinduism other

> than Advaita! Obviously you are aware that a significant number of people

on

> this list are Hindus. They may be Advaitins but they are also Hindus by

> birth and by culture.

 

<SKIP>

> In order to have heart to heart communications with other people

regardless

> of their religion, ethnicity, gender, nationality, etc., we must first

have

> respect for them as human beings. That involves showing respect for their

> culture and religion and customs even though they may be different from

> ours. We can show our sensitivity for others by paying attention to the

> language we use.

 

You are quite right, dear Harsha. And I was wrong if I made you feel hurt as

a Hindu.

My apologies.

When I said that Advaita is the only thing I like about Hinduism, I didn't

mean to say that Hinduism as a whole is not a rich tradition worthy of all

admiration and respect. What I meant to say is that in order to be an

Advaitin I needn't also become a Hindu and that I have no inclination to do

it. I hope you find this acceptable. I apologize for my poor English.

 

Miguel-Angel

[Guest guest]

>

> Miguel Angel Carrasco [macf12]

>

> Madhava K. Turumella wrote:

> > If you accept the concept which starts with the statement

> "All that is

> > there..." then what is that you are recognizing as that

> "All" in side the

> > "All that is there..." :-)

> >

> > The "All" as perceived may differ from individual to

> individual. May be

> you

> > are not aware, but by accepting the statement "All that

> is..." you are

> > implying all the belief systems of the world...

> Specifically the things

> > which Hindus believe in.

>

> No. When I say "All there is is Consciousness" I don't mean

> "each of the

> many things is Consciousness" (that would be pantheism), but:

> "The only

> thing there really is is Consciousness, everything else is an

> appearance"

> (this is monism). I think Advaita is monism, not pantheism.

>

namastE Miguel,

 

Thank you for responding. If I understood your earlier email perfectly,

then you meant "you are not a Hindu *because* you don't like so many things

in it"... My reply aimed at this point and I wanted to convey:

 

(1) A true advaitin should never have likes and dislikes.

(2) And when one engages his mind in likings and disliking, then he is no

more at the advaitic state (monism)! He is dwelling in the relative field

of pantheism.

(3) Advaita is a state which can only be experienced, but can't be

explained.

(4) YOU ARE THAT as long as you dwell in it ---- however, when you want to

talk, you are talking with somebody, when you want to see, you are seeing

something else... LIKINGS AND DISLIKING towards anything arise *only* when

*you*, who is obviously not *that* because you no more see *yourself* in

everything!

(5) "yastu sarvANi bhootAni AtmaivAbhoodvijAnatah, tatra kOmOhaH kaHsOkaH

Ekatva manupaSyataH": The moment you open your mouth and proclaim that you

like something; or you dislike something; or you are feeling something; or

you are experiencing something; then *you* are still a witness of the

appearence... I BELIEVE THAT IS NOT ADVAITA. Advaita is where you are no

more what you *think* you are, *you* in terms of consciousness are

unthinkable, *you* are unimaginable...

(6) All that we can talk is about the practical application of advaitic

*experience* in day to day life. All that we can discuss is --- how will

you put your experience in day to day life... Will you simply negate the

appearence (of this world, how ever untrue it may be) as a mirage and do

nothing, or will you do something! For example, an innocent boy is brutally

getting killed, will you not try to stop! will you not try to alert the

police? will you, or will you not? We can simply ignore and walk, or we

can do something. Ancient Hindus have discussed eloborately about Gods,

even Sri Adi Shankara seem to have travelled to Kailasa and brought down the

Sivalinga! It just depends on whether you believe in it or not. By the

way, if you believe this adishankara episode then you are not an *advaitin*,

AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE then also you are not an *advaitin*... Same way, if

you like something then you are not an advaitin, AND if you dislike

something then you are not an "advaitin"... EXPERIENCE IS BEYOND ALL THAT

YOU CAN THINK OF... ALL THAT YOU CAN BELIVE OF... ALL THAT YOU CAN MAKE ANY

OPINION OF...

 

 

I hope you understand what my point is... I express my inability in

communicating in English. I apologize if I confused you more. (this is in

relative terms, where you and me stand and speak :-))

 

Harih Om tat sat.

 

Yours,

Madhava

[Guest guest]

Speaking as a Hindu, (YES! I am a Hindu)

 

:-) I realized that this discussion can lead us nowhere! I also realized

that there is a great gap between what the westerners believe and what we as

traditional hindus believe.

 

You have asked: how, when or where --- I know how, I know when and I also

know where because I have undergone certain methods of training for it. If

I were able to do it (witness the angels) then you should be equally able to

see it after undergoing all that. The question is: how much time and

dedication anybody has got towards realizing the truth of vedic wisdom!

 

Let me quote from my diving example. When you stand at the shore and look

at the ocean, you will not be able to realize how beautiful the underwater

world is... Unless you go deep inside the water and swim along with

beautiful fish, you will not be able to enjoy the experience of it. The

other chance you may have got is by looking at the underwater photography.

If you say the underwater photography is *fabricated* then I have nothing to

say. The only way to learn is first believe and travel.

 

Personally, for me, our traditional Hindu rituals were like underwater

photography. They arouse curiosity, and they encouraged me to personally go

and experience all that by myself. I believed in them. Also I could

shamelessly agree that I am entirely dependent on the help of angels in

solving day to day problems of others. Many Hindus believe just like I

believe. We as Hindus start our day, by offering water to the Sun God, we

prostrate to Lord Ganesha so that we will not face obstacles during the day.

They are Gods, and they are angels and they are more than that! Some people

call them energy, some people call them hallucination, what ever it may be

--- believing in them never caused any harm to us Hindus. And I believe we

has Hindus will continue to believe in them, and in their capability, for

the coming centuries.

 

Remember Ahalya (a woman character from Ramayana), who is turned in to a

stone! It seems she was able to listen, see and feel everything as a stone,

but she never felt the thirst! How could anybody tell the stone how

important the water is? Can a stone ever feel the thirst! Mere Advitic

belief is like a stone which can never feel the thirst of devotion. It take

a Lord Rama to bring back the life to the stone, to make it feel the thirst.

Everybody, how ever invincible they may think they are, will have their time

in their life when they undergo the litmus test, the need of angels, the

need for the touch of Lord Rama's feet will be realized only then! Tell

then.... YES We have a long long way to walk -- perhaps another million

years :-)

 

 

Yours,

Madhava

 

 

>

> Dennis Waite [dwaite]

>How, when or where can I do anything remotely > resembling these

> things in respect of angels? There is simply no evidence of

> any verifiable

> sort to persuade one of the existence of angels or gods, nor

> is there any

> need of such.

>

> I would also like to add my support to Miguel - I too

> consider myself an

> advaitin but, though respecting the Hindu religion and

> traditions, would not

> claim at all to be a Hindu.

>

> Dennis

>

>

>

> ------------------------ Sponsor

> ---------------------~-~>

> Make good on the promise you made at graduation to keep

> in touch. Classmates.com has over 14 million registered

> high school alumni--chances are you'll find your friends!

> http://us.click./03IJGA/DMUCAA/4ihDAA/XnRVlB/TM

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

> ------>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of

> nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

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

> Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server

> For details, visit: /local/news.html

> Post message: advaitin

> Subscribe: advaitin-

> Un: advaitin

> URL to Advaitin: advaitin

> File folder: advaitin

> Link Folder: advaitin/links

> Messages Folder: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

30032001

Namaste

 

Everybody is Hindu by default. One accepts or not,religion has no problems.

Belivers & non-belivers all are Hindus. So it is an individual aspect to

continue as Hindu or claim as Non-Hindu. Hindu religion will always consider

everyone as Hindu inspite of individual differences.

 

Hindu religion never talks less that Vishwatmaka. Some one may be more Hindu

some one may be less but that does not qualify one to be good or bad Hindu.

Hindu goes beyond Time ,Space, Money and Energy. It is very perfect for an

individual to be Advaitin and Non-Hindu and a Hindu to be Non-Adwait. So

inherited Hindu and Non-inherited Hindu all are Hindus. There is no Dwait

but only Adwait.

 

So humble request to avoid discussions on Hindu-Adwait or Non-Hindu-Adwait

on atleast Advaitin list.

 

Prabodh

 

 

 

Dennis Waite <dwaite

Advaitin <advaitin>

Friday, March 30, 2001 2:30 AM

RE: Hindu Advaita?

 

>Madhava wrote: -

>

>I think not being able to see the Angels, or not believing in any such

>thing, is a limitation in the personal consciousness (they are limited in

>their own thinking I mean).... Just like a person who is sitting in his

>home in India can't see a person who is dwelling in America, humans ---

>being limited by their own consciousness --- though intelligently think

that

>"All that is there is consciousness" but not really up to that mark where

>they can see each and everything as consciousness :-) They know the rules

>of the game very well, but they can't play the game.

>

>Am I following this correctly? Are you saying that, claiming not to be able

>to see angels is equivalent to claiming not to be able to see someone in

>America whilst being at home in India?? But I can switch on the television

>or, if that is not enough, I can use a videophone to see and speak to the

>person at that moment. If that is insufficiently convincing, I can get on a

>plane, fly there and grasp hold of the person to satisfy myself of his

>reality. How, when or where can I do anything remotely resembling these

>things in respect of angels? There is simply no evidence of any verifiable

>sort to persuade one of the existence of angels or gods, nor is there any

>need of such.

>

>I would also like to add my support to Miguel - I too consider myself an

>advaitin but, though respecting the Hindu religion and traditions, would

not

>claim at all to be a Hindu.

>

>Dennis

>

>

>

>

>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at:

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

>Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server

>For details, visit: /local/news.html

>Post message: advaitin

>Subscribe: advaitin-

>Un: advaitin

>URL to Advaitin: advaitin

>File folder: advaitin

>Link Folder: advaitin/links

>Messages Folder: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Sri Prabodji made an excellent point and I agree 100%

that the discussions on Hindu-Advait or

non-Hindu-Advait is the wrong-path for Truth Seekers.

 

In addition, the 'True Hindu Spirit' (those who

believe in Hindu Scriptures) should fully respect

opposite viewpoints without any reservations. When

the opposite viewpoints hurts your feelings, that

signals that you lost your control over your Ego.

 

Once a soccer ball went to a Yogi with the complaint

that "everyone is kicking me around and it is

unbearable." The Yogi listened and suggested that the

soccer ball should let the 'air' (ego) go so that it

can be free! Would you like to kick a ball without the

air? Then you will get the hurt and not the soccer

ball! (Story Source: From one of the speeches from

Swami Vivekananda)

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

softbit Writes:

 

Namaste

>......

> So humble request to avoid discussions on

> Hindu-Adwait or Non-Hindu-Adwait on atleast

> Advaitin list.

 

Prabodh

[Guest guest]

Madhava K. Turumella wrote:

> namastE Miguel,

>

> Thank you for responding. If I understood your earlier email perfectly,

> then you meant "you are not a Hindu *because* you don't like so many

things

> in it"... My reply aimed at this point and I wanted to convey:

>

> (1) A true advaitin should never have likes and dislikes.

> (2) And when one engages his mind in likings and disliking, then he is no

> more at the advaitic state (monism)! He is dwelling in the relative field

> of pantheism.

 

Dear Madhava,

You are right, of course. On a theoretical level, at least. But just tell

me, honestly, how many of you in this list are above or beyond likes and

dislikes? As Jesus said, "let he who is without sin throw the first stone".

Being without likes means being perfectly realized or enlightened. I am not.

But are you? Are you without likes and dislikes? And does that mean that we

can't call ourselves Advaitins? If so, how many Advaitins are in this

Advaitin list?

 

For me, Advaitin doesn't mean enlightened or realized, but a follower or

supporter of Shankara's philosophy, in the same way as a Hindu is not

necessarily a jnani but a follower of a certain religion, whether he is

realized or not.

 

I to what Shankara said. But, if I am not mistaken, he never wrote

about there being many gods, or about reincarnation, of in support of the

caste system. These are the three main things I dislike about Hinduism. And

this implies no disrespect. Just disagreement. Does that make me a

non-Advaitin?

 

Miguel-Angel

[Guest guest]

 

Miguel Angel Carrasco [macf12]

Friday, March 30, 2001 1:48 AM

advaitin

Re: Hindu Advaita?

 

 

Harsha wrote:

> In order to have heart to heart communications with other people

regardless

> of their religion, ethnicity, gender, nationality, etc., we must first

have

> respect for them as human beings. That involves showing respect for their

> culture and religion and customs even though they may be different from

> ours. We can show our sensitivity for others by paying attention to the

> language we use.

 

You are quite right, dear Harsha. And I was wrong if I made you feel hurt as

a Hindu.

My apologies.

When I said that Advaita is the only thing I like about Hinduism, I didn't

mean to say that Hinduism as a whole is not a rich tradition worthy of all

admiration and respect. What I meant to say is that in order to be an

Advaitin I needn't also become a Hindu and that I have no inclination to do

it. I hope you find this acceptable. I apologize for my poor English.

 

Miguel-Angel

 

Thank you Miguelji for your nice note. I agree with you entirely. The

language of the Heart is the native tongue for all of us. When we realize

that it is working, all other languages are secondary.

 

Love

Harsha

[Guest guest]

V. M. Sundaram said: - "The word God means the Universal Consciousness.

When an Advaitin worships say, Sun -God, he does not think of the

physical Sun

as God ; He worships the Universal Consciousness which appears as the Sun.

Similarly he worships the Universal Consciousness which is appears as the

Wind,

River, Rama, Kaali, any idol, etc. etc. That these apparitions are also

denoted by the word God is a shortcoming of the English language."

 

Excellent! This is the clearest (and simplest) justification/explanation. I

have heard. Thank you. (Mind you, whilst it seems this must be true for

Advaitins, one presumes it is not universally true for Hindus?)

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis,

It occurs to me that Life is a Book with several pages. Each page represents

one physical life with the associated sensory inputs and identifications.

When we finish reading one page we go to the next page and the Book (Life)

continues.

Some are convinced that each page is a book, unrelated to its other pages

and unconnected with the previous or later pages. For them the idea that

each page is transforming into the next page (as the current page is from

the previous page) is necessary to see the continuity. On the same token,

for those who read the Book, several pages have already been read and

several more have to go. For them the current page is just the current phase

in the infinite Life!

-- Vis

 

-

"Dennis Waite" <dwaite

"Advaitin" <advaitin>

Saturday, March 31, 2001 3:42 AM

Re: Hindu Advaita?

 

> Just another brief thought that occurred to me yesterday on this subject.

> Regarding claims that an Advaitin must also be a Hindu - is it not the

case

> that Hindus believe in reincarnation whereas the Advaitin acknowledges

that

> there is no such thing as reincarnation (for no one was ever born or died

in

> the first place)?

>

> Dennis

>

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server

> For details, visit: /local/news.html

> Post message: advaitin

> Subscribe: advaitin-

> Un: advaitin

> URL to Advaitin: advaitin

> File folder: advaitin

> Link Folder: advaitin/links

> Messages Folder: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi MAC,

I am this and not that. Some one else says I am that and not this. As a true

believer of Nisgaradatta, you should know that you are neither This nor

That!

-- Vis

-------------

-

"Miguel Angel Carrasco" <macf12

<advaitin>

Wednesday, March 28, 2001 8:58 PM

Re: Hindu Advaita?

 

>

> But that doesn't mean I must consider myself a Hindu, if I

> am a follower of Nisargadatta. I may be an Advatin, but not a Hindu. The

> only thing about Hinduism that I like is Advaita. I profoundy dislike

> everything else, which is a lot.

>

> Miguel-Angel

>

>

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server

> For details, visit: /local/news.html

> Post message: advaitin

> Subscribe: advaitin-

> Un: advaitin

> URL to Advaitin: advaitin

> File folder: advaitin

> Link Folder: advaitin/links

> Messages Folder: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

[Guest guest]

R. Viswanathan wrote:

> Hi MAC,

> I am this and not that. Some one else says I am that and not this. As a

true

> believer of Nisgaradatta, you should know that you are neither This nor

> That!

> -- Vis

 

Yes, dear Vis, you are right. Only I was speaking from the relative level,

the level I would speak from if a friend were to ask me: "are you a

Christian?" and I would answer "no, I', an Advaitin". But yes, you do well

in bringing us back to the absolute level, where we are no longer

Christians, Hindus or Advaitins, but just THAT.

 

Miguel-Angel