Guest guest Posted November 29, 2001 Report Share Posted November 29, 2001 Namaste: Let us welcome Sri Don Smith, a new member to the list. We can look forward to his active participation in the list discussions with thoughtful insights. warmest regards, Advaitin List Moderators --- Don Smith <DonaldAlan wrote: > > Greetings, > > I've been interested in Eastern spirituality since > college, > twenty years ago, when I got turned on to meditation > and yoga > by books like Ram Dass' "Be Here Now" and by a 3HO > yoga teacher > (from Yogi Bhajan's group). > > I am a great fan of Ramana Maharshi: his books are > so inspiring > and thought-provoking, and he was so obviously a > great spiritual > master. (I use his photo as the background of my > Windows desktop.) > I'm also interested in Buddhism, and have read quite > a few books > about that path. Jack Kornfield's "A Path with > Heart" is a > great book, and he too is obviously an advanced > teacher, as > well as a great writer. > > I dabbled in a couple of other groups as well. > Nowadays I > still meditate, but not intensively enough to make > much > "progress." I know that you're not supposed to > expect > too much in the way of "progress" (bliss, powers, a > decrease > in suffering, whatever), but I can't help thinking > that if > there's no benefit from the path, then why bother? > (So, I > don't really understand the typical Buddhist > emphasis on > emptiness and letting go. One needs to really > "want" > enlightenment. And isn't practice selfish compared > to, say, > helping sick or elderly people?) Also, I've met > people who had > great benefits from meditation, and when I was with > them (in the > company of the wise?) I seemed to advance. So how > can I pretend > that I'm not trying to get something? > > Interestingly, I've never felt anything (no "buzz") > from meditating > with Buddhist groups. But from Vedantic groups I > did. Anybody else > notice this? > > Ramana Maharshi and other teachers say that it's not > necessary to be > in proximity to a teacher, but from personal > experience and from > readings, it seems clear to me that it does help to > be with teachers > and devoted seekers. > > I know they say that it's wise to follow one path > devotedly, so > that you can make progress, instead of giving up and > jumping > around. But I haven't been able to find a path (or > a group) > that I have faith in. (Actually, there was one > path, but they > turned out to be dogmatic: they thought theirs was > the only true path.) > Though my head is attracted to Buddhism -- because > of the clean and > undogamatic nature of its essential teachings -- > after all, I think > I don't understand it, or maybe I just don't agree > with it. The > essential problem is that it denies any good essence > or Self, and > I don't understand how one can have faith, or how > one can be in favor > of stuff like love and morality, unless one believes > in some sort of > good, benign, loving essence. So, my heart, as well > as parts of my > head, are attracted to Vedantic, devotional groups. > > > If, as many Buddhists say, radically letting go > leads to the end of > suffering (or, even, to satori and bliss), then it > must be because > there is a good essence in us or in the universe. > Well, there are > Buddhists who almost agree with this. Anyway, > such doctrinal > discussions tend to be tedious. Or they lead to > arguments, war, or > (worst of all!) flame-wars. > > Similarly, though my head dislikes superstition and > favors science, > my heart yearns for what I experienced in > devotional, Vedantic groups. > > As Jack Kornfield says, seekers tend to have several > fallings out > with teachers and with groups during one's life, and > groups tend > to carry a lot of "baggage" that can be burdensome > or even dangerous. > > After all, (I'm trying to bring this rather long and > rambling self- > introduction to a close), I suppose I feel most > comfortable with > Ramana Maharshi's teachings. At times he sounds > like a Buddhist > (when he says things like "there's nothing to be > realized", "there > is no essential difference between enlightenment and > unenlightenment", > "investigate deeply the source of the 'I thought' > and you will eventually find peace, when the > illusion of > separateness disappears" (letting go)). On the other > hand, > Ramana sometimes sounds like a Hare Krishna devotee, > in the > sense that he talks about the Self, Brahman, > surrender, devotion, > sahaj samadhi, and lots of inspiring stuff like > that. And for > students who were "ripe", Ramana was able to send > them over the > top. Isn't that why people practice: to obtain > peace or bliss? > > Anyway, I like Ramana's statement: trust, trust > itself is > realization. Trust = letting go = surrender. > > Don (DonaldAlan) ===== Tips to Members from the Advaitin List Moderators 1) While replying, avoid repeating the entire message and be brief. 2) Be considerate to your fellow members and focus only on the subject matter. 3) When you are in doubt, contac the moderators at advatins 4) Split long articles into several parts and post them separately. 5) Suggestions/comments can be sent to advaitins 6) Advaitin Webspace: advaitin GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities./ps/info1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2001 Report Share Posted November 30, 2001 Welcome Don - You have provided us an exhaustive evolution of your mind. Thanks. I could not resist passing on some comments - but they are not intended to provoke any discussion - I am sure we all learn from each other in the days to come. > > >--- Don Smith <DonaldAlan wrote: >> > > Greetings, >> >..... > > about that path. Jack Kornfield's "A Path with >> Heart" is a >> great book, and he too is obviously an advanced >> teacher, as >> well as a great writer. Never heard of him. Would like to get hold of the book some time. > > >> I dabbled in a couple of other groups as well. >> Nowadays I >> still meditate, but not intensively enough to make >> much >> "progress." I know that you're not supposed to >> expect >> too much in the way of "progress" (bliss, powers, a >> decrease >> in suffering, whatever), but I can't help thinking >> that if >> there's no benefit from the path, then why bother? >> (So, I >> don't really understand the typical Buddhist >> emphasis on >> emptiness and letting go. One needs to really >> "want" >> enlightenment. And isn't practice selfish compared >> to, say, > > helping sick or elderly people?) Benefit is only dropping the notions about what I think I am and recognizing what I am as what I am. Anything or benefit that I get that is something other than myself comes and goes. Even the very longing for it becomes a problem in self realization, since in the very longing one makes an inherent assumption that one is not what one is and one is other than one is. When the seeker and the sought are one and the same, any seeking on the part of the seeker is doomed to fail since in the very seeking one has already concluded that one is not what one is. This is the greatest obstacle in the self-realization. Progress is only in the purification of the mind - a degree of detachment to the world and sense objects since one is slowly realizes the futility of these pursuits and recognize that what one is searching for one is searching with. As I understand, the more adviatic definition of Buddhistic suunya vaada is - the emptiness is only from the point of objectiveness - since it is the very nature of the subject that cannot be objectified. Since words fail to express that, they become empty. - Hence nothing can be said about it. The gap between the infiniteness and the emptiness is just a slash - one is the numerator and the other is the denominator-The world is the inderminate in between the two. > Also, I've met >> people who had >> great benefits from meditation, and when I was with >> them (in the >> company of the wise?) I seemed to advance. So how >> can I pretend >> that I'm not trying to get something? >> >> Interestingly, I've never felt anything (no "buzz") >> from meditating >> with Buddhist groups. But from Vedantic groups I >> did. Anybody else >> notice this? Don - whatever are the feeling in any group or otherwise- they are all in the mind - The truth lies just beyond these feeling - that because of which one has the feeling and that because of which one is aware of these feeling that one has- that dynamic consciousness that one is. It is never away from one self in any group - yet it is beyond any feeling of any group - vedantin or otherwise. Sat Sangh is defined is that company that brings one back to oneself. And the opposite is that one takes moves oneself away from oneself. > > >> Ramana Maharshi and other teachers say that it's not >> necessary to be >> in proximity to a teacher, but from personal >> experience and from >> readings, it seems clear to me that it does help to >> be with teachers >> and devoted seekers. Yes - mind always wants to seek and if one is provided an environment that keeps the seeking mind at rest, that is the best company. It is not a quiet mind but a mind that is vigilant and dynamic that fulfills itself recognizing that there is not need to seek. > > >> I know they say that it's wise to follow one path > > devotedly, so >> that you can make progress, instead of giving up and >> jumping >> around. But I haven't been able to find a path (or >> a group) >> that I have faith in. (Actually, there was one >> path, but they >> turned out to be dogmatic: they thought theirs was > > the only true path.) My suggestion is not to follow any path - but follow your heart and soul. In following a particular path you have already set some goal to reach and that very goal setting and trying to reach that goal itself will be a great obstacles in that very path. Just relax and inquire within as Ramana suggests who that inquirer or the one who is longing for a path or a faith is. There is no need to have faith about oneself since faith itself has validity when one is. Find out who is that one who is searching for a path. That very seeking will terminate oneself to oneself. Enquire about the enquirer. > > Though my head is attracted to Buddhism -- because >> of the clean and >> undogamatic nature of its essential teachings -- >> after all, I think >> I don't understand it, or maybe I just don't agree >> with it. The >> essential problem is that it denies any good essence >> or Self, and >> I don't understand how one can have faith, or how >> one can be in favor >> of stuff like love and morality, unless one believes >> in some sort of >> good, benign, loving essence. So, my heart, as well >> as parts of my >> head, are attracted to Vedantic, devotional groups. >> What you say may be right. Remember Buddha is called the most compassionate one. Vedanta says one does not love anything other than oneself - for oneself - by oneself. - aatmanastu kaamaaya sarvam priyam bhavati -says Br. Up. Love for oneself will manifest as the love for all since oneself is the self in all - sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutani ca aatmani says Giita. oneself in all beings and all being in oneself - the one who sees this as the truth is the real yogi. > >> >> If, as many Buddhists say, radically letting go >> leads to the end of >> suffering (or, even, to satori and bliss), then it >> must be because >> there is a good essence in us or in the universe. If that is what Buddhists say then they are absolutely right and that is exactly what Vedanta says too. But when one has attachments it is not easy to let one self go - Hence the emphasis of Vedanta on yoga - the whole of Bhagavad giita is centered on this aspect since Arjuna is trying hold as My People and Who I am going to kill my people - I and mine - That is the problem with us. We cannot let go since this is me and that is mine - Hence yoga - karma, bhakti and j~naana are important means for letting oneself go! - > > Well, there are >> Buddhists who almost agree with this. Anyway, >> such doctrinal >> discussions tend to be tedious. Or they lead to >> arguments, war, or >> (worst of all!) flame-wars. >> >> Similarly, though my head dislikes superstition and >> favors science, >> my heart yearns for what I experienced in >> devotional, Vedantic groups. You seem to have right combination of intellect and mind - which is called Heart in Vedanta. They are two wings need to take the flight. > > >> As Jack Kornfield says, seekers tend to have several >> fallings out >> with teachers and with groups during one's life, and >> groups tend >> to carry a lot of "baggage" that can be burdensome > > or even dangerous. Sorry I cannot agree with his statement as presented. Normally it is not the groups that is baggage. It is we who take our baggage to the groups and then complain. - Swami Chinmayanandaji used to tell a story. One ant from 'salt hill colony' vent to visit his fried in the 'sugar hill colony'. His sugar hill ant fried was happy to see his friend from salt hill but was saddened to see his so week and puny. He advised him to stay for a week and enjoy the plenty of sugar available. But to his surprise even after couple of days his salt-hill fried was still unhappy and looked like he was staving even with so much sugar around. Then upon inquiry, he discovered that his salt hill fried is carrying a bag of salt in his mouth (which he brought just in case he needs some food) and because of that he was finding sweet sugar tasteless with that mouth full of salt. He was reluctant to spit out that salt to be able to enjoy the sweetness of the sugar. We are like the salt-hill ant - always carry our baggage wherever we go and then complain we are getting the peace of mind wherever we go. Please Don, I am not pointing at you, just making aware of where the real problem lies. In most of the situations it is the reflection of our own baggage. But you are right. If the environment is not conducive to have a peace of mind then one should segregate where one is peaceful at heart. That are called shama and dama in Vedantic teaching. > > After all, (I'm trying to bring this rather long and >> rambling self- >> introduction to a close), I suppose I feel most >> comfortable with >> Ramana Maharshi's teachings. At times he sounds >> like a Buddhist >> (when he says things like "there's nothing to be >> realized", "there >> is no essential difference between enlightenment and >> unenlightenment", >> "investigate deeply the source of the 'I thought' >> and you will eventually find peace, when the >> illusion of > > separateness disappears" (letting go)). It is not Buddhistic teaching - it is the teaching of Vedanta - Tat tvam asi - what you are seeking is what you are. There is nothing to be realized. There is only some thing to be dropped - a misconception or wrong notions about oneself. When the clouds are removed the sun who is self luminous behind the clouds and only in whose light I was even seeing the clouds that were covering the sun, become self-evident. - > On the other >> hand, >> Ramana sometimes sounds like a Hare Krishna devotee, >> in the >> sense that he talks about the Self, Brahman, >> surrender, devotion, >> sahaj samadhi, and lots of inspiring stuff like >> that. > I did not realize Hare Krishna devotees talk like that -May be you read different books that I have. I do not think they even appreciate Ramana Maharshi - for them he is one of those Mayavadins who mislead people. For them even Shankara was mislead until in his final days he realized that he made a mistake and then wrote "Bhajagovindam" book. as the final teaching. > > > > Don (DonaldAlan) > Hari Om! Sadananda -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 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.