Re:Vedantic Scholar and Spiritual-Realiztion

[Guest guest]

Dear Svenkat52,

 

Thank you for posting the two articles which clearly distinguish

Buddhism from Vedanta. I think that they are very helpful for those

laboring under the misconception that what the Buddha taught (whether

as interpreted by the Theravadins or the so-called 'non- dualistic'

Mahayanists) is fundamentally the same as that which is propounded by

the Upanishads.

As for the statement of Vpcnk, "Most of my arguments are

from the perspective of Mahayana Buddhism, which historically without

doubt played a major role in the formation of Advaita Vedanta itself."

I would suggest that he has his history reversed. The historical fact

of the matter is that approximately three hundred years before the

birth of the Buddha, and over eight hundred years before the

appearance of Mahayana Buddhism, we find the following Non-Dualist

teachings in the two oldest Upanishads. "All this is Atman alone"

(Chandogya 7-25-2), "Now this Brahman has neither a before nor an

after, neither a within nor a without; This Self, the knower of

everything, is Brahman. This is the teaching." (Brihadaranyaka

2-5-19). See also Ch.8-14-4, Br.3-8-8, etc. etc. which have for their

purport the Non-Dual Reality, which is the differenceless Brahmatman

and do not principally aim at teaching anything else. It should also

be noted that the most important Mahayanist teachers were mostly

converted sanskritist Brahmans, who were in all likelihood quite

familiar with the Upanishadic Non Dualism, and which may have

influenced there rejection of Theravada dualism and contributed to the

formation of their 'modified' and watered down non-dualist teachings.

I say 'modified' and' watered down' because, unlike the Upanishadic

non-dualism, no Mahayanist ever rejected the dualistic phenomenal

Universe as totally non-existent in truth.

 

----

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

 

Now I would like to turn my attention to what I take to be

an even more important subject for Advaita Vedantins. It relates to

your first question 1:

 

"Sir you concluded your introduction with a statement that, ' I am

merely a Vedantic scholar and make no claims to any spiritual

realization of my own'. Yet, sir, you have been arguing with great

erudition backed by the authority of quotations from Shankaras

Bhasyas, that 'Sabda' or the scriptures are the only 'Pramana' for the

Self……..And yet you say you make no claims to self-realization. If

this statement is factual and not out of humility, then we have a

paradox here. How do we resolve it?

 

As well as Brian's question:

 

" Strangely, then, Atmachaitanya also states ' I am merely a Vedantic

scholar and make no claims to 'Spiritual-Realization'. So in 30 years

of studying Vedanta, the ONLY route to Moksha., what value have his

studies been in this regard?"

 

My answer to these questions (I'm sorry to say) requires a rather

elaborate response, for it concerns some very subtle distinctions, but

for those willing to make the effort to truly understand what I am

getting at, and especially if they try to understand it in the light

of their own experience, I think the outcome maybe very fruitful with

regard to their own spiritual aspirations.

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A JNANI AND A JNANANISHTA

 

In Vedanta there are two terms that are very close in

meaning, yet there is a very subtle and important distinction that has

to be made between them, and if this distinction is not clearly

recognized there is a great danger that a spiritual aspirant may come

to the ruinous egotistical conclusion that he is in fact a wise man

who has attained 'Spiritual-Realization'. The first term is 'Jnani' (

Knower). It refers to one who has, in the light of his own experience,

understood the meaning of the sentence 'tat tvam asi' He has realized

that he himself is the Non-Dual Brahman, besides which there never

was, is or will be anything else. The Upandishad text which perhaps

describes this person best is 'Brahmavid Brahma Bhavati' (The Knower

of Brahman IS Brahman). One must fully understand and appreciate the

full implications of this statement. In the first place, since there

is only one Brahman, and since the Jnani is Brahman, THERE IS ONLY ONE

JNANI. There are not many Jnanis!

Secondly, since the Jnani is Brahman, and since Brahman never

had, does not now have, and will never have a body, senses or mind, a

Jnani doesn't do anything, doesn't enjoy anything, and doesn't know

anything. In other words a Jnani is ever free from doership,

enjoyership and knowership. All the empirical dealings of agency,

instruments of action, and results of action have ceased. All

empirical dealings of enjoyership, instruments of enjoyment and

things enjoyed have ceased. And perhaps most important, all empirical

dealings of being a knower, means of knowledge, and things known have

ceased. To state this last assertion is a slightly different manner:

In Vedanta,-- To Know Means To Be --, It doesn't mean that you retain

your knowership and now you 'know' Brahman. That this is in fact the

correct Vedantic understanding of who a Jnani really is, allow me to

quote a famous Sruti mantra:

 

"For where there is duality, as it were, there one sees

something, one tastes something, one says something, one hears

something, one thinks something, one touches something, one knows

something. But when, to this knower of Brahman, everything has become

the Self alone, then what can one possibly see and through what? What

can one smell and through what,…..what can one know and through what?

This Self is that which has been described as 'Not This', 'Not This'.

It is imperceptible, for it is never perceived; It is undecaying for

it never decays; Unattached, for it is never attached; Unfettered, for

it never feels pain, and never suffers injury." Brhadaranyaka 4-5-15.

 

This text evidently avers that all details of knowledge, i.e.:

the distinctions of being a knower, the means of knowledge (in this

case the Shastra), the object of knowledge (in this case Brhaman

itself), as well as the resultant knowledge, belong to the sphere of

seeming duality, a creation of ignorance, and not to the Jnani

himself, who, in fact, is identical with the Absolute, Ever Free,

Non- Dual Reality.

 

The second term is Jnananishta ( established in knowledge) It

refers to the one who is established in the Self, to the one who is

satisfied in Self, the one who revels in Self, (Atmani eva tushtaha,

Atmani eva ramantaha, Atmani eva Stithaha). It refers to one who sees

duality, just like the one who has never studied Vedanta, but who has

the firm conviction, based on his own experience, that duality is

false. It refers to the one who though walking all day, knows he has

not moved an inch, though talking all day, knows he has not said a

word. In the Gita, he is described as the one who sees the Gunas and

knows that he is beyond the Gunas (Gunatita), and the one who is

rooted in Wisdom (Stithaprajnaha) In the Upanishads he is called the

Guru who is established in Brahman (Brahmanishta), and to whom we have

to go to get the knowledge of Brahaman.

 

Yet, strange as it may seem, this Jnananishta is an ignorant

person, a person bereft of 'Spiritual-Realization', and not a Jnani.

The Jnananisshta Gaudapada who wrote the Karikas on the Mandukya was

an ignorant man, and not a Jnani! The Jnananishta Shankaracharya who

wrote his commentaries on the Prastana Traya, and refuted the

Buaddhists was an ignorant man and not a Jnani. The Jnananista

Suresvara who composed his Vartikas on the Brahadarnyaka,and

Taititreya Upanishads was an ignorant man and not a Jnani. And my own

Guru, Swami Satchidandendra Sarawaviti, the Jnananista who for the

first time in a thousand years separated the pure teachings of

Shankara from the post Shankara Vedantins, was an ignorant man and not

a Jnani. (Then what to speak of the 'Spiritual-Realization ' of

Atmachaitanya, who is not even a Jnananishta!)

One should not conclude from this that being a Jnananishta,

(or even having the aspiration to be a true Jnananishta) is merely an

'intellectual game' or that it is of 'no value'. For a Jnananishta is

one who has verified the truth of the teachings of Vedanta and the

Guru in their own direct experience, and there is tremendous value in

realizing that the states of waking and dream are both equally false

and that you are in fact totally unaffected by any happenings that are

occurring in those two states, and that if there is, in truth, no

waking or dream, there certainly can be no state such as deep sleep.

It's just that this 'direct knowledge' does not make one a Jnani, or

'Spiritually-Realized'. In fact, this Jnananishta is the

precondition, the essential prerequisite, while still in the grip of

ignorance, for one to become a Jnani, to 'become' the Self.. Sri

Shankara explains this while commenting on Gita 18-50 :

 

"Know from me briefly, how one having attained

perfection (through works)

attains the supreme (culmination) of Jnananishta

(establishment in

knowledge), O Arjuna."

 

Shankaras' Commentary: "Learn from me the Supreme consummation of this

'establishment in knowledge' (Jnananishta). Nishta or

'establishment' refers to a specific attainment and a goal. Goal of

what? The supreme goal of Brahman-knowledge. What is this goal like ?

It is like the knowledge of the Self. And what is this like? It is

like the Self. And what is the Self like? It is like what has been

elucidated by the Lord in 18-17("the Self neither slays nor is it

bound"), and what is affirmed by the Upanishads." (GBh.18-50)

 

 

 

A Jnani has no convictions about the truth or falsity of

Duality. A Jnani doesn't give lectures or write books on Vedanta. A

Jnani is not an 'erudite scholar' who can quote Shankaras sentences.

A Jnani is not beyond the Gunas, because for a Jnani there are no

Gunas to be 'beyond'. A Jnani is not one who has transcended the

three states, because there are no 'states' for a Jnani. A Jnani IS

the Non-Dual SELF nothing more, nothing less. Ultimately even the

empirical distinction between Jnanis and Ajnanais is only in the

realm of ignorance. My Shankara is the Self , ever pure, ever awake,

ever free (Nitya Shudha Buddha Mukta Svabhavaha).My Guru,

Satchidandendra, is my Self, the only Self, the Non-Dual Self, ever

residing in my heart as the eternal light of the entire Universe.

There is only One Shankara, only One Guru, only One Jnani, ONLY THE

SELF. This is the highest and most sublime teaching of Advaita

Vedanta. In the words of the great sage Guadapada:

 

"There is no creation, there is no destruction. No one

in bondage, no one

practicing spiritual discipline, no one desirous of

liberation and no one

liberated. THIS IS THE HIGHEST TRUTH." (GK.2-32)

 

A Vedantin is not one who can give talks on Vedanta, refutes the

Buddhists, or posts replies on the internet. There are only two types

of true Vedantins:

 

1) The one who is established in his true nature

2) The one who is trying to be established in his true nature

 

(A Jnani is not a Vedantin)

Hari Om

Atmachaitanya

 

P.S. I am still well aware of the fact that I have yet to make good on

my promise to try to demonstrate, from a different angle, how the

Upanishadic teaching is the only means (Pramana) for the Knowledge of

Brahman.

 

----------

 

 

 

...>

>

> Question 1 : Sir, you concluded your Introduction (#msg 11977) with

a

> statement that, 'I am merely a vedantic scholar, and make no claims

> to any spiritual realisation of my own'. Yet, sir, you have been

> arguing with great erudition backed by the authority of quotations

> from shankara Bhashyas, that 'Sabda' or the scriptures are the

> only 'Pramana' for the Self. I have come across not many in my life

> who are as knowledgeable about the scriptures as you. And yet you

say

> you make no claims to self-realisation. If this statement is factual

> and not out of humility, then we have a paradox here. How do we

> resolve it?

>

[Guest guest]

namaste shri Atmachaitanyaji,

 

That was an excellent post. The arguments are compelling and

your facts are straight. You made a distinction between

jnAni and jnAnaniShTa and have even categorized shri shankara

as a jnAnaniShTa. I have comment/question on this aspect of

your post.

 

Isn't jnAni, jnAaniShTa from an ignorant's viewpoint only?

We are saying X is a jnAni, Y is a jnAnaniShTa. We are seeing

a difference between X and Y. As either X or Y see it, there

is no difference.

 

Further, isn't the word jnAni a contradiction in terms? I am

assuming you are calling jnAni as the embodiment of jnAnam.

But jnAnam is never embodied. Hence, there cannot be anyone

called a jnAni. That is, if we call anyone a jnAni, it is

more an exhibition of our ignorance only. JnAnaniShTa is

all there is.

 

This may be just semantics only. But I would be grateful for

your viewpoint.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

-

[Guest guest]

atmachaitanya wrote:

> [...] the two articles which clearly distinguish Buddhism

> from Vedanta. I think that they are very helpful for those

> laboring under the misconception that what the Buddha taught

> (whether as interpreted by the Theravadins or the so-called

> 'non- dualistic' Mahayanists) is fundamentally the same as that

> which is propounded by the Upanishads.

___________

 

hariH OM! sri atmachaitanyaji-

namaskaar.

 

i must respectfully disagree..

 

to my understanding, what the buddha taught was in essence identical

to what krishna, vasishtha, gaudapada, sankara, ramana, and

ramakrishna, as well as the esoteric teachings in the upanishads

taught. and that is that *all there is* is one essential impulse in

and causal to an existence implicitly experienced by [an 'I AM']

consciousness.

 

the comparison effectively hinges on what [the buddha's idea of]

nirvana actually signifies, whether overtly stated or not.

 

since sakyamuni gotama referred to the state of buddha-mind or

buddha-hood as being in 'nirvana,' *implicates* a consciousness [that

is having nirvana or being in the state of nirvana], whether or not

overtly named as atta or atman. the entire approach of refuting the

*idea* or *concept* of the self or even the Self (jiva, atman, or

paramatman) reached its epitome in mahayana rinzai zen, which captured

the very spirit of buddha's teaching: the means to awakening through

*radical* transcendence of all rationalization via philosophical

speculation.

 

the *same* pragmatic approach is found in the ajatavada doctrine of

advaita vedanta, which is the esoteric source in the method of

jnanayog, for achieving "that which one *already has* but doesn't know

it," specifically *because* of the ancient thought-wrought

Relativity-knowledge Entanglement covering the everpresent dynamo

Light of the Self.

 

again and again, it's the Mind and its urgent, moment-to-moment

judgment process beclouding the primal wonder of the Self.

 

all intellectual wrangling and hairsplitting (i.e. *overdone*

ku-tarka), has also its time of reckoning. when the point comes to

behold advaita in its intended direct speedway to the Heart, this

[once vital] ku-tarka needs to be taken to task and released. it

oftentimes becomes, however, the sadhaka's greatest obstacle, due to

the ahankara adorning itself with [once very important achievements

in] scholarship. ramana has sternly warned of this eventuality that

overcomes more than a few sadhaks/pandits/pakvas who necessarily had

to trek this path--to one degree or other, even with the sincerest

mumukshutvam!

 

namaste,

frank

[Guest guest]

>P.S. I am still well aware of the fact that I have

yet >to make

>good on

>my promise to try to demonstrate, from a different

>angle, how

>the

>Upanishadic teaching is the only means for

>the

>Knowledge of

>Brahman.

 

Namaste Atmachaitanyaji,

 

This was the longest post I have read on this

email list. Why should the knowledge of Brahman have

any means? My little understanding of the scriptures

is to the effect that our means to liberation go only

so far as to do away with our claim of being embodied

in this world. We unrealize the unreal and then what

remains is the truth.

All these arguments are for only showing how to

unrealize the unreal. If you want to claim "only

means" for any method, then the only means is

Unconditonal Surrender to the Self within.

 

Srimad Bhagavad Gita says

"Tameva Sharanam Gaccha Sarva Bhavena Bhaaratha

Tat Prasaadaat Paraam Shaantim Sthaanam Praapsyasi

Shaashwatham".

 

"Surrender to Him completely in every manner, O'

Bharatha.

By His Grace, you will attain the abode of supreme

peace" -18.62.

 

I think Sri Ramana Maharshi had included this stanza

in his Garland of selections from the Gita and it

tells us what the world weary Jiva finally does after

going hither and thither studying and practising.

The author of the Vedanta and all your Shastras is

sitting in your heart. Why do you ignore Him ?

 

Regards,

Anand

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great stuff seeking new owners in Auctions!

http://auctions.

[Guest guest]

Dear Members,

 

There is confusion in my mind, not so much in regards to anybody claiming to be

a realized

person per se, but pertaining to those who claim 'I am Brahman, there is

nothing more to

say or do, I Am That'. Then they arrogantly go around denouncing scriptures,

deities,

striving, sadhana, etc... Compassion, humility, love, all seem to be lacking.

Which again

brings up the question, is *experience* necessary for Brahman realization,

when you are

*That* already, but only mentally know it. *Experience* from the

*realized* point of

view implies doership, so there can be no *experience*. However, if you only

mentally tell

yourself 'I Am Brahman', should there not be some *experience* to back that

statement up. I

understand realization is beyond the mind. It seems to be a paradox. Are

scriptures the only

means of realization as some on this list are saying? Is that what

Shankaracharya

propounded? There is one person I know, a westerner, who lives, breathes,

talks of nothing

but Brahman, because of an *experience* he had in 1974. Is it impossible for

him to attain

full realization *because* he is not versed in Vedic scriptures? Some on

this list are

saying the only means of realization is scriptural. Does that exclude the

rest of the world

who don't know Vedic scriptures? It is all confusing to me.

Hari Om,

Gasusima

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Gasusima [Gasusima]

Saturday, February 02, 2002 3:10 AM

advaitin

Re: Re:Vedantic Scholar and Spiritual-Realiztion

 

Dear Members,

 

There is confusion in my mind, not so much in regards to anybody claiming

to be a realized

person per se, but pertaining to those who claim 'I am Brahman, there is

nothing more to

say or do, I Am That'. Then they arrogantly go around denouncing

scriptures, deities,

striving, sadhana, etc... Compassion, humility, love, all seem to be

lacking. Which again

brings up the question, is *experience* necessary for Brahman

realization, when you are

*That* already, but only mentally know it. *Experience* from the

*realized* point of

view implies doership, so there can be no *experience*. However, if you

only mentally tell

yourself 'I Am Brahman', should there not be some *experience* to back

that statement up. I

understand realization is beyond the mind. It seems to be a paradox. Are

scriptures the only

means of realization as some on this list are saying? Is that what

Shankaracharya

propounded? There is one person I know, a westerner, who lives, breathes,

talks of nothing

but Brahman, because of an *experience* he had in 1974. Is it impossible

for him to attain

full realization *because* he is not versed in Vedic scriptures? Some

on this list are

saying the only means of realization is scriptural. Does that exclude the

rest of the world

who don't know Vedic scriptures? It is all confusing to me.

Hari Om,

Gasusima

 

 

Namaste Sri Gausimaji,

 

Scriptures are given meaning by Self-Realization, not the other way around.

Upanishads consist of eternal truths revealed through Self-Realized sages.

A person who knows the Self can understand the great truths uttered in the

Upanishads spontaneously and instantly. Others end up playing with words and

their subtle meanings and finer shades of what this means and what that

means.

 

The fact that you have doubt on such things means you need to fully reflect

on the meaning of Self-Realization. Sri Ramana has said that you can read

any number of books but they cannot give you Self-Realization. At best, they

can indicate the way and help you refine your intellect.

 

Once when I was 12-13, I was meditating on top floor of my Nanaji's house in

the mild winter sun covered with a warm blanket. I saw clearly that Truth

was fully independent of any teaching, any guru, any scripture, and even my

own personality.

 

Sri Gausima, if one is profoundly serious, why worry about others think and

be confused by different opinions? Let others take care of themselves. You

focus on what you need to do.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

A person who is realised doesn't need scripture means he should not be

arrogantly denounce scriptures. It is just like a person who crosses river in a

boat doesn't need the boat anymore ones he reaches the other shore. He leaves

the boat there itself b'cos now he knows it is of no use to him. But he also

knows that it because of boat that he reached this shore.

 

About the realisation, one thing it is Realised souls who produced scriptures

and not the scriptures produce realise souls. The scriptures discuss two

things, the way to realise and what is realisation. Unless we know what is

realisation we will always be in confusion or in our own world. Some people

might think seeing a blue light while meditating is realisation and some other

people might say silencing mind is realisation etc. But upanishad realisation

is to become one with brahman. A person can experience this state independently

without reading scripture but when he is exposed to scripture if he has

realised in the right way then he will spontaneously understand or the other

way is to Understand the scripture and follow what is said their and realise.

But both the methods requires one to understand scripture. The sages have

tried several possibalities over many years and they rejected many of the

methods till they came to conclusion.

 

my 2c worth of points and please correct me if anything wrong.

 

sarvam vadudevamayam jagath

Prashanth

 

--- Gasusima <Gasusima wrote:

> Dear Members,

>

> There is confusion in my mind, not so much in regards to anybody claiming to

> be a realized

> person per se, but pertaining to those who claim 'I am Brahman, there is

> nothing more to

> say or do, I Am That'. Then they arrogantly go around denouncing scriptures,

> deities,

> striving, sadhana, etc... Compassion, humility, love, all seem to be

> lacking. Which again

> brings up the question, is *experience* necessary for Brahman

> realization, when you are

> *That* already, but only mentally know it. *Experience* from the

> *realized* point of

> view implies doership, so there can be no *experience*. However, if you

> only mentally tell

> yourself 'I Am Brahman', should there not be some *experience* to back that

> statement up. I

> understand realization is beyond the mind. It seems to be a paradox. Are

> scriptures the only

> means of realization as some on this list are saying? Is that what

> Shankaracharya

> propounded? There is one person I know, a westerner, who lives, breathes,

> talks of nothing

> but Brahman, because of an *experience* he had in 1974. Is it impossible

> for him to attain

> full realization *because* he is not versed in Vedic scriptures? Some on

> this list are

> saying the only means of realization is scriptural. Does that exclude the

> rest of the world

> who don't know Vedic scriptures? It is all confusing to me.

> Hari Om,

> Gasusima

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Great stuff seeking new owners in Auctions!

http://auctions.

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

A direct personal mail I recently received concerning

my post on the role of an advaitain in society

questions me thus:

 

"You seem to argue that Christ was a jeevan muktha.

Does that mean that Christ knew our scriptures,

particularly the advaita philosophy?"

 

There is enough there in Christ's life to warrant that

he was indeed a jeevan muktha. As far as I am

concerned, that is sufficient. Perhaps, what I did

was to recast him in the advaita mould because I see

an excellent, exemplary, advaitic role model in him

(and in Gandhiji too) to prove my points. As far I

have succeeded in my objective, the comparison was

well worth trying.

 

Before concluding, I will quote none other than Pujya

Swami Dayananda Saraswathiji whom I asked long ago if

"this knowledge" (advaitic view) exists elsewhere in

the world. With his usual smile, Swamiji answered:

"Yes. It does exist elsewhere. But the methodology

of arriving at it(beginning with Sadasiva through

Sankara to our present acharya as we sing in our

prayer) is uniquely Indian." Words in parenthesis

mine.

 

I hope, Shri Gasusimaji, your question has been

answered.

 

Pranams to everyone.

 

M.R. Nair

 

--- Gasusima <Gasusima wrote:

 

Some on this list are

> saying the only means of realization is

> scriptural. Does that exclude the rest of the world

> who don't know Vedic scriptures? It is all

> confusing to me.

> Hari Om,

> Gasusima

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

 

 

 

 

Great stuff seeking new owners in Auctions!

http://auctions.

[Guest guest]

Thanks Shri Anand Natarajan!

 

You said it.

 

Indeed, members have recently raised some

mind-boggling issues about mind, intellect etc. I am

used to commonsense and a little bit of elementary

contemplation. I am, therefore, afraid repeat afraid

I can perhaps look at these questions from a different

angle.

 

If I am audacious and ignorant to venture into an area

that requires high intellectual capabilities, please

forgive me.

 

The general contention, its looks like, is to make hay

while the sun shines, i.e. to seek enlightenment when

the mind/intellect shine and, in thinking so, we seem

to take both mind and intellect for granted. We seem

to forget about what lights up the mind and intellect

to us. It is not for our asking that these are

lighted up. It just happens. We have no choice.

 

About a couple of years ago, I happened to travel in

the company of a Christian priest from Bangalore to

Chennai, when I foolishly tried to convince him about

my vedantic superiority. I asked him to imagine a

hypothetical situation where he was to take a tablet

at 13:05 hrs. The time he remembered this was 13:00

hrs. and he made a vow to himself that he would not

forget it. But, alas, the Bishop called him at 13:04

hrs on a very important issue and he forgot all about

taking the tablet upto 16:00 hrs. Obviously, the

point I was trying to drive home was that what

Consciousness unravels or lights up for us the next

moment is not within our choice. The priest’s

reaction surprised me. He simply remarked that he was

not worried about such a situation because he had

faith his Lord will make it possible for him to take

the tablet at the appointed time. I thought he was

silly and left him at that.

 

Now, in retrospective, I realize he was not foolish,

but I was. What the priest had is that we perhaps

lack. Faith. In order not to misinterpret the word,

I will call it shraddah the importance of which one

of our members was recently stressing in his mail.

 

The sruthi gives us a vision about what this universe

and creation is all about. It points at an absolute

truth without which all that is manifest has no

independent existence and teaches us to see that

“unmanifest” in all that is manifest. The logic of

this vision is also detailed to us.

 

We need to have shraddah on our vision. In addition

to mere faith, Shraddah here includes the very

‘living’ of the vision. That is difficult indeed, to

say the least.

 

When a doubt occurs or when one confronts us with an

opposite view point, we have to necessarily fall back

on our vision granted by the sruthi like the goldsmith

rushes for his touchstone. Like, for instance, if

someone presents the point of “infinite regression”,

we have to refer back to our vision and ask “who or

what lights up this “infinite regression”?”. The

doubt then will, no doubt, be resolved. The day we

find that the vision cannot help, we have every right

to throw it in the dustbin. However, I am sure and

convinced the advaitic vision cannot fail us.

 

Once we have the basic advaitic vision, what is needed

is contemplation on it. It is ideal if we can make

this contemplation habitual and spontaneous. Although

it is desirable and ideal to apportion some time of

the day for this mental activity, spontaneous

contemplation can continue at any time and at any

place – even on the toilet commode. Such contemplation

is like a continuous honing through which our

knowledge of what we really are is made razor-sharp

and crystal-clear. That is why people find it

convenient to take to sanyasa (renunciation) and lead

a life of incessant contemplation. Others, the

grihasthas, have the other choice of karma yoga – i.e.

to accept the world with prasada buddhi, work with the

knowledge that the Lord is the ultimate result-giver,

and also contemplate on the vision to hasten their

spiritual enlightenment.

 

So, once we have sraddha on the sruthi and the

vision granted by it, then there is no room for

worries about intellect/mind etc., which all exist in

Consciousness. If I may say so referring to recent

discussions in this group, there is also no need to

worry about terms like jnani, jnananishta etc.,

although it is good to know and be enlightened on the

apparent difference in the meaning of these terms.

There is also no need to refute anybody’s beliefs be

he a Buddhist or a Christian. We also need not “run

inside the bus” to reach our destination faster

fearing liberation is possible only as long the

mind/intellect function, because sruthi grants us the

knowledge that we are already at our destination and

that we are only unaware of it. Just contemplate and

lead a life of content knowing fully well that

Consciousness, our Lord, will not leave us in the

lurch. This is what sraddha demands of us when it is

said at the fag end of the Bhagwath Geetha:

“Yogakshemam Vahamyaham” and “Sarva Dharman

Parithyajya ….”. Bhagwath Geetha also assures us that

we won’t forfeit our spiritual progress even through

death.

 

And what is death afterall? Our valid experience is

only the fact that the body ages and the “fearful”

conclusion that it will die one day like the other

bodies around us. We also conclude that it was once

born like all the other bodies. Besides that, birth

and death are not objectifiable experiences for us,

like the exact time we fell asleep last night is not

in our awareness. We were never born and will never

die is the truth. What is going on is only “Jaanami” –

as Sankara sang in the famous Dakshinamorthi Ashtaka.

(This ashtaka brilliantly encapsulates the entire

advaita philosophy in eight verses.) “Jaanaami” is

poorly translated as “I know”, which stresses an

unfortunate division between the subject “I” and verb

“know”. On the contrary, the Sanskrit “Jaanaami” is

compact and effectively avoids imparting a sense of

division through the use of the terminal first person

singular inflexion of “aami”. “Only That shines

forth as “jaanaami” and all this world shines after

That” is what Shankara declares in the Ashtaka. So,

let us endeavour to always see what is “shining forth”

in all that “shines after” with the help of our

advaitic vision. Let us not negate “what shines

after”. Let us simply look at what “shines after”

differently by knowing that it is all “Jaanaami”. Life

then becomes a light and pleasant trip. We are then

cocksure the light that shines forth will ever shine.

Let there be a thousand “births” and “deaths”. What

does it matter if you know that you are the very light

that these “births” and “deaths” shine after.

 

That is perhaps why Matha Amritanandamayi Devi floats

around like a wisp of cloud, always smiling, when her

corporeal body is virtually dragged from continent to

continent by the unending demands of bhakthas. That

is why Bhagwan Ramana kept smiling at the terrible

sarcoma that was eating his shoulder away.

 

We also tend to believe that our spiritual evolution

is bound by the space-time continuum. To put it in

simple terms, we have a feeling that if we attend

advaita discourses in 2002, moksha can occur only in

subsequent years. This is a big tyranny that we

subject ourselves to.

 

Dr. Hoyle (of the “steady state theory of the

universe” or “Hoyle-Narlikar Theory”) is resident in

Sri Lanka. Naturally, therefore, he is much

influenced by Buddhist thoughts. In one of his novels

centering on time-warp (Unfortunately, I can’t recall

the title as I read the book way back in 1977), there

is a very thought-provoking, compelling analogy of

consciousness. Consider a pigeon-holed letter sorter

with many holes like the ones we find in our Indian

post offices. Hole No. 1 has a description of

itself, hole No. 2 has a synopsis of hole No. 1 and

its own description, hole No. 10 has the synopsis of

holes 1 to 9 and its own description, hole No. 60 has

the synopsis of holes 1 to 59 and its own contents,

and son on. There is a light moving from one hole to

another lighting up their contents. So, when hole 50

is lighted up, the gist of holes 1 to 49 and the

contents of hole 50 are shone. When 99 lights up, the

synopsis of 1 to 98 and what is in 99 are revealed.

In this analogy, do we have a right to assume that

the light should move from hole to hole in a regular

increasing mathematical unit progression? Why can’t

it shine in 99 and then all of a sudden move to 5? If

this argument is extended to our consciousness, is

there any justification for us to assume that our

awareness will move from age 1 to 2 to 3 … in that

order? You can be 99 and then revert immediately to

your primary school classroom at age 6 where you have

that teacher you hate the most! And you will never be

aware of this reversion!

 

This is just an argument. It sounds valid too. It is

mentioned only to puncture our feeling that things

happen in a very progressive order in time. I don’t

remember the point Dr. Hoyle was trying to make in

that novel. However, the analogy remained etched in

my memory and I would now like to extend it further to

a system of infinite number of pigeon holes (When it

is “infinite”, please remember there is no No. 1 and

an end number.) and take the liberty of manipulating

the contents. Then, space and time will go berserk

without the “awarer” ever knowing it. Perhaps, my

moksha already occurred (if it is something that

“occurs” at all!) in the England of 12th century B.C.

Isn’t that great? That may perhaps explain Kuchela’s

story too – his hut becoming a palace overnight. If

Krishna is Consciousness, Kuchela a devout bhaktha,

then can’t their story have a secret message to

posterity – that you cannot be certain how

Consciousness will unravel itself the very next

moment. There are no laws or rules. The universe is

full of miracles. You can have a nuclear explosion in

one hole, in another a comet can hit the earth and

extinguish life, there can be devilish UFOs, black

holes, naked singularities and what not but be sure,

Sir, the Light that lights up will keep lighting up.

That is the only thing that remains and matters. Then,

why not enjoy the roller-skater ride? Of course,

don’t forget to chant your dear sahasranamavali en

route.

 

I am sure this is the Cosmic Vision of Bhagwat Geetha.

The doddering Arjuna needed a big dose of it in order

to be induced to stand up and fight.

 

There is the sage called Narada in our mythology, who

flits from world to world and from epoch to epoch

catalyzing cataclysms after cataclysms but totally

untouched by what is happening around, for he is

rooted in that Narayana. Narada is a jeevan muktha

who knows that the Light in the infinite pigeonhole

system is his Narayana. For him only Narayana exists

inspite of the pigeonholes and the cataclysms

occurring in them.

 

The sruthi guarantees that we can all be like Narada –

but only if we look in the pigeonholes and see the

Light that lights up. In the brilliance of that

Light, the contents will no more be there – be it a

brain, body, mind, intellect or a very naked

singularity!

 

Forgive me please, if I have indulged. These are my

thoughts and I thought I can share them with you all.

 

Pranams

 

M.R. NAIR

____________________

 

--- Anand Natarajan <harihara.geo wrote:

> "Surrender to Him completely in every manner, O'

> Bharatha.

> By His Grace, you will attain the abode of supreme

> peace" -18.62.

>

> > The author of the Vedanta and all your Shastras is

> sitting in your heart. Why do you ignore Him ?

>

> Regards,

> Anand

 

 

 

 

Great stuff seeking new owners in Auctions!

http://auctions.

[Guest guest]

> Namaste Sri Gausimaji,

>

> Scriptures are given meaning by Self-Realization, not the other way

around.

 

<Snip,Snip,Snip>

> > Sri Gausima, if one is profoundly serious, why worry about others

think and

> be confused by different opinions? Let others take care of

themselves. You

> focus on what you need to do.

>

> Love to all

> Harsha

 

Namaste Harshaji,

 

Very well said indeed. This post is just to remind you of a few

agreements we have between us:

 

1. You promised to ask Gloria Lee (who by the way does not appear to

be on this list) to collect all your past articles on 'what I need to

do' in the next edition of HS magazine.

 

2. You also promised to dictate an introduction about yourself when

you are in office. You can safely forget about this. Since then, I

have come to realize that I have probably cracked the joke of the

year even when the year was in its infancy, by asking you to

introduce yourself. I have also discovered '', joined

it and from your interview in the current edition of HS magazine

known all that I need to know about you.

 

Many thanks and regards,

 

Venkat

[Guest guest]

----Original Message-----

svenkat52 [venkat52]

Monday, February 04, 2002 3:13 AM

advaitin

Re:Vedantic Scholar and Spiritual-Realiztion

 

> Namaste Sri Gausimaji,

>

> Scriptures are given meaning by Self-Realization, not the other way

around.

 

<Snip,Snip,Snip>

> > Sri Gausima, if one is profoundly serious, why worry about others

think and

> be confused by different opinions? Let others take care of

themselves. You

> focus on what you need to do.

>

> Love to all

> Harsha

 

Namaste Harshaji,

 

Very well said indeed. This post is just to remind you of a few

agreements we have between us:

 

1. You promised to ask Gloria Lee (who by the way does not appear to

be on this list) to collect all your past articles on 'what I need to

do' in the next edition of HS magazine.

 

2. You also promised to dictate an introduction about yourself when

you are in office. You can safely forget about this. Since then, I

have come to realize that I have probably cracked the joke of the

year even when the year was in its infancy, by asking you to

introduce yourself. I have also discovered '', joined

it and from your interview in the current edition of HS magazine

known all that I need to know about you.

 

Many thanks and regards,

 

Venkat

 

**************************************

Namaste Venkatji,

 

Sorry if I have not kept any promises. The next edition of HS may have some

of my writings on Nirvikalpa and the Heart, depending on time. It is not out

yet. As far as introducing myself, other than my interests in yoga and

meditation since early childhood, I am an ordinary person. For some years, I

made a living teaching yoga and relaxation. Then I went back to graduate

school. Now I teach at a college.

 

I am not a guru or a teacher of religion and not interested in impressing

anyone and so say what I please. Ahimsa, mutual respect, and love are the

foundation of my interaction with others and hopefully I don't cross the

line too often! :-).

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaskar,

 

I actually want to know about a word 'noneumenal' or something. I am not even

sure about the spelling of this word. The word actually means non-phenomenal and

was used by Swami Vivekananda quite extensively. I couldn't find a close match

in many dictionaries.Perhaps the word has been relegated to extinction.

 

If anybody could mail me the correct spelling and interpretation of this word I

shall be extremely thankful.

 

Regards,

 

Vinayak

 

 

 

 

 

Send FREE Valentine eCards with Greetings!

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Vinayak Lohani <vinayaklohani wrote:

Namaste Vinayak

 

Do you mean numinous?

If you do the main introduction, that may be of

interest, is by Rudolf Otto in his book Das Helige

which was translated into English as 'The Idea of the

Holy'.

Rudolf Otto was writing about a hundred years ago ( he

studied sanskrit and wrote of the philosophy of

Shankara but tended to play the connection down in his

general works; I wish he were writing today as the

greater general understanding available would greatly

encourage him.)

The word 'numinous' comes from the Latin word numen

meaning divine power or majesty ( as opposed to

phenomenon) and as Otto develops the meaning of the

word numinous the most apt phrase for it would be

'Mysterium tremendum'.

Otto writes of the feeling as: 'The feeling of it may

at times come sweeping like a gentle tide, pervading

the mind with a tranquil mood of deepest worship. It

may pass over into a more lasting and set attitude of

the soul, continuing, as it were, thrillingly vibrant

and resonant, until at last it dies away and the soul

resumes its profane, non-religious mood of everyday

experience.

If you have a copy of 'Wind in the Willows' by Kenneth

Grahame and look at the chapter called 'The Piper at

the Gates of Dawn' you will find a wonderful

description of the feeling of the numinous.

In my research with the Alister Hardy Society which

studies the varieties of religious/spiritual

experience there is much discussion on this term.

Alister Hardy himself writes a very good chapter in

his book 'The Divine Flame'. The chapter is called

'The Numinous and the Love of Nature.' In this he

brings in the poetry of Ranindranath Tagore as

'glowing with the light of the numinous.'

If this is the right word for your search and you want

any more information let me know.

Om sri ram

Ken Knight

 

 

 

Send FREE Valentine eCards with Greetings!

http://greetings.

[Guest guest]

Noumena is also a term used by the well known philosopher Immanuel Kant and

it refers to the "thing-in-itself" behind phenomenon. Noumena refers to the

Reality behind the appearance which remains unseen.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

ken knight [hilken_98]

Sunday, February 10, 2002 3:08 PM

advaitin

Re: Re:Vedantic Scholar and Spiritual-Realiztion

 

 

--- Vinayak Lohani <vinayaklohani wrote:

Namaste Vinayak

 

Do you mean numinous?

If you do the main introduction, that may be of

interest, is by Rudolf Otto in his book Das Helige

which was translated into English as 'The Idea of the

Holy'.

Rudolf Otto was writing about a hundred years ago ( he

studied sanskrit and wrote of the philosophy of

Shankara but tended to play the connection down in his

general works; I wish he were writing today as the

greater general understanding available would greatly

encourage him.)

The word 'numinous' comes from the Latin word numen

meaning divine power or majesty ( as opposed to

phenomenon) and as Otto develops the meaning of the

word numinous the most apt phrase for it would be

'Mysterium tremendum'.

Otto writes of the feeling as: 'The feeling of it may

at times come sweeping like a gentle tide, pervading

the mind with a tranquil mood of deepest worship. It

may pass over into a more lasting and set attitude of

the soul, continuing, as it were, thrillingly vibrant

and resonant, until at last it dies away and the soul

resumes its profane, non-religious mood of everyday

experience.

If you have a copy of 'Wind in the Willows' by Kenneth

Grahame and look at the chapter called 'The Piper at

the Gates of Dawn' you will find a wonderful

description of the feeling of the numinous.

In my research with the Alister Hardy Society which

studies the varieties of religious/spiritual

experience there is much discussion on this term.

Alister Hardy himself writes a very good chapter in

his book 'The Divine Flame'. The chapter is called

'The Numinous and the Love of Nature.' In this he

brings in the poetry of Ranindranath Tagore as

'glowing with the light of the numinous.'

If this is the right word for your search and you want

any more information let me know.

Om sri ram

Ken Knight

 

 

 

Send FREE Valentine eCards with Greetings!

http://greetings.

 

 

 

<http://rd./M=221000.1882886.3382503.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17050759

91:HM/A=965713/R=0/O=1/I=brandr-promo-flowersale-alerts-lrecg/*http://shoppi

ng./promotions/flowers/index.html>

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at:

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

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

Terms of Service

<> .