Back and forth

February 8, 2002

I've been a dabbler in advaita for some years now.

Many times, for extended periods, I tried to 'live it'.

But it never seemed quite to fit. For one thing,

it always seemed like a variation on the scientific

materialistic explanation. Science says 'everything is

just atoms, everything happens due to atoms jiggling

around'. Advaita says 'everything is God/Mind, everything

happens due to God/Mind jiggling around'.

Everything is, and is caused by, Matter. Or, everything is,

and is caused by, Mind.

I guess I need some help in understanding here. What is the

real difference between the scientific world-view and advaita?

If the answer is nothing, then we are left with desolation,

with a lifeless, random, mechanical, existence,

and I cannot accept that.

===========

orbitsville

February 8, 2002

Dear Orbitsville

If you live in the USA or Europe you might like to meet Francis Lucille and talk

to him about it. He has a website www.francislucille.com where you will find his

schedule of satsangs and retreats.

In England there is a very beautiful man named Satyananda. He is from Venezuela

or one of the nearby countries; he is young and with a wonderful open heart. His

schedule is published in the newsletter of the Ramana Association in London.

Satyananda stresses the importance of having real experience "who you are" and

all his satsangs direct his questioners towards that understanding.

Good luck

Warwick

February 8, 2002

Dear Orbitsville

Do you mind if I point to something which might be helpful?

I think it is very helpful to make a distinction between mind and consciousness.

I imagine that you have already given a lot contemplation to mind, that you are

aware that everything you know is either a direct perception, (such as a sound

or a smell or an object of vision) or a thought, (which includes memories and

language,concepts and suchlike).

Let's regard all those perceptions and thoughts, (and feelings), as mind.

And let's observe that all these things are moving and changing. Your idea of

who you are is changing all the time, (as mine is too, of course).

Then what is consciousness?

Well, let's regard consciousness as simply "that which sees." And if we regard

the mind as the parade of objects of perception then consciousness is simply

that which perceives. And consciousness never changes. Consciousness is

changeless. In fact, it is because consciousness is changeless that change can

be observed - if consciousness were changing along with the objects of

consciousness it would not be possible to be aware of any change happening.

As a friend pointed out to me, "You were at one time a small boy, then you were

a young man and now you are a man of middle age; but there is something that has

seen all those different ages without ever changing itself - what is that?"

I'm sorry if I've pointed out things that you are already quite familiar with,

but in your email you only mentioned mind and matter; I think it is necessary,

in order to get any of the feel of Advaita, to employ the concept of changeless

consciousness.

That's only the first step, of course. The real thing is to know it

existentially. That's why I recommend a meeting with Satyananda or Francis

Lucille, both of whom are very approachable, very friendly and sweet.

Good luck and warm regards

Warwick

February 8, 2002

Thank you very much for your comments. I appreciate what you are

saying, and I do have a genuine sense of what you say. However,

the fundamental issues are still not resolved for me.

If Mr. Smith walks up to Mr. Jones, and punches him in the face,

what do I make of that? It is God's will? There is no Mr. Smith

or Mr. Jones, just phenomena?

If yes, how can we ever advise people that they should do this

or that (if whatever will be will be)?

The world is just a load of randomly generated phenomena, and

God is constantly hurting Himself? That doesn't make any sense.

===========

orbitsville

advaitin, "Warwick Wakefield" <nomistake@o...> wrote:

> Dear Orbitsville

>

> Do you mind if I point to something which might be helpful?

>

> I think it is very helpful to make a distinction between mind and

consciousness.

> I imagine that you have already given a lot contemplation to mind,

that you are aware that everything you know is either a direct

perception, (such as a sound or a smell or an object of vision) or a

thought, (which includes memories and language,concepts and suchlike).

> Let's regard all those perceptions and thoughts, (and feelings), as

mind.

> And let's observe that all these things are moving and changing.

Your idea of who you are is changing all the time, (as mine is too,

of course).

>

> Then what is consciousness?

> Well, let's regard consciousness as simply "that which sees." And

if we regard the mind as the parade of objects of perception then

consciousness is simply that which perceives. And consciousness never

changes. Consciousness is changeless. In fact, it is because

consciousness is changeless that change can be observed - if

consciousness were changing along with the objects of consciousness

it would not be possible to be aware of any change happening.

>

> As a friend pointed out to me, "You were at one time a small boy,

then you were a young man and now you are a man of middle age; but

there is something that has seen all those different ages without

ever changing itself - what is that?"

>

> I'm sorry if I've pointed out things that you are already quite

familiar with, but in your email you only mentioned mind and matter;

I think it is necessary, in order to get any of the feel of Advaita,

to employ the concept of changeless consciousness.

> That's only the first step, of course. The real thing is to know it

existentially. That's why I recommend a meeting with Satyananda or

Francis Lucille, both of whom are very approachable, very friendly

and sweet.

>

> Good luck and warm regards

> Warwick

>

February 9, 2002

Orbitsville said:

| I've been a dabbler in advaita for some years now.

| Many times, for extended periods, I tried to 'live it'.

| But it never seemed quite to fit. For one thing,

| it always seemed like a variation on the scientific

| materialistic explanation. Science says 'everything is

| just atoms, everything happens due to atoms jiggling

| around'. Advaita says 'everything is God/Mind, everything

| happens due to God/Mind jiggling around'.

Actually Science has moved on since the Newtonian mechanics that you describe

above. Those are still valid for most day to day measurements and

quantifications but they have been supplemented by Quantum mechanics and

Einstein's Theory (and Special Theory) of relativity for matters in regard to

sub atomic and cosmological measurements and observations accordingly.

In this regard, science is clearly moving towards a "Vedic" view, that the

universe is built on vibration (or the unified field), where there are no solid

objects, there is no space and time and everything that is observed depends on

the state of the observer.

OM is the vibrational basis of the universe.

| Everything is, and is caused by, Matter. Or, everything is,

| and is caused by, Mind.

No, Science is confused about the cause of everything (Stephen Hawking famously

grappled with these issues in his "A Brief History of Time").

We are privileged from an Advaitic perspective, that we understand that Brahman

is the be all and end all of everything. That the universe is his game in which

we are (mostly ignorantly) playing, waiting to realize that we are just that.

| I guess I need some help in understanding here. What is the

| real difference between the scientific world-view and advaita?

| If the answer is nothing, then we are left with desolation,

| with a lifeless, random, mechanical, existence,

| and I cannot accept that.

So the differences are narrowing, "modern Science" is playing catch-up with a

different science that is eternal, has been articulated by the Vedas for

millennia.

Best regards

Brian

February 9, 2002

> Actually Science has moved on since the Newtonian mechanics that

you describe above. Those are still valid for most day to day

measurements and quantifications but they have been supplemented by

Quantum mechanics and Einstein's Theory (and Special Theory) of

relativity for matters in regard to sub atomic and cosmological

measurements and observations accordingly.

>

I realise this, and understand that the universe is not really

constructed from a load of little ping pong balls. Yes, it is

far more like ripples on a sea.

However, we just go then from random vibrations of atoms, to

random ripples on the sea.

And if this is the case, then none of 'us' really exist, only

the sea does. It will ripple as it will. So, if I have cornflakes

or toast for breakfast this morning is not up to me. As there

is no 'me'. It all depends on how the sea ripples.

Is this what it comes down to?

(And 'I' AM the Sea - but if so, does the little me sitting

here have any real conscious choice in anything?)

Many Thanks

===========

orbitsville

February 9, 2002

Orbitsville said:

| I realise this, and understand that the universe is not really

| constructed from a load of little ping pong balls. Yes, it is

| far more like ripples on a sea.

I don't think this (famous Atman/Brahman) analogy works here, because the

vibration -the unified field is underpinning everything, and so atoms have no

real existence (whereas ripples are just a feature of the sea).

| However, we just go then from random vibrations of atoms, to

| random ripples on the sea.

No, there is no randomness. (The manifestation of God's will often leaves us all

completely perplexed, that's for sure. The existence of pain and suffering, at

the mundane level, raise the same questions in all of us.)

| And if this is the case, then none of 'us' really exist, only

| the sea does. It will ripple as it will. So, if I have cornflakes

| or toast for breakfast this morning is not up to me. As there

| is no 'me'. It all depends on how the sea ripples.

In the illusional world of the Gunas, we do have free will, to have cornflakes,

toast or even porridge for breakfast. The intriguing part is that we also have

the ability to surrender ourselves to the will of God and Self-realize.

| Is this what it comes down to?

|

| (And 'I' AM the Sea - but if so, does the little me sitting

| here have any real conscious choice in anything?)

You (your conscious mind, interpreting the thoughts written here by my conscious

mind) is illusional and pretty irrelevant. The ego, hanging onto itself,

powerfully pretends to be real and gives for example, that instinct to avoid

death. When Self realization occurs, ego is debilitated ("Death, where is thy

sting?") and the illusional nature of the three gunas becomes apparent.

Until then, we have to struggle with the paradoxical nature of life as we see

it.

Regards

Brian

February 9, 2002

advaitin, Brian Milnes <b.milnes@b...> wrote:

> Orbitsville said:

> | I realise this, and understand that the universe is not really

> | constructed from a load of little ping pong balls. Yes, it is

> | far more like ripples on a sea.

>

> I don't think this (famous Atman/Brahman) analogy works here,

because the vibration -the unified field is underpinning everything,

and so atoms have no real existence (whereas ripples are just a

feature of the sea).

=========

I think you misunderstood me. When I was talking about ripples

on the sea, I meant exactly the same thing as 'vibrations' in

the unified field. I guess I was being a little more poetic

(and for the record, I studied post-graduate physics).

Many Thanks

===========

orbitsville

February 9, 2002

Talk about "teaching grandmother to suck eggs" ...

Orbitsville reveals:

| I think you misunderstood me. When I was talking about ripples

| on the sea, I meant exactly the same thing as 'vibrations' in

| the unified field. I guess I was being a little more poetic

| (and for the record, I studied post-graduate physics).

With regard to your Holodeck example - I think that's a great analogy, very,

very similar to The Matrix and others. I think the first example of such a story

that I was aware of was Plato's cave. In this allegorical tale, prisoners were

bound motionless and could only perceive the world through shadows cast on the

wall of the cave in which they were held.

Plato states that this is the equivalent to the illusory way we live our lives.

Here's another example of an author with extraordinary insight into our true

nature...

Regards

Brian

Excerpt from Plato's Republic:

http://www.vrc.iastate.edu/why.html

February 9, 2002

The computer generated character called Brian Milnes wrote:

> With regard to your Holodeck example - I think that's a great

analogy, very, very similar to The Matrix and others. I think the

first example of such a story that I was aware of was Plato's cave.

In this allegorical tale, prisoners were bound motionless and could

only perceive the world through shadows cast on the wall of the cave

in which they were held.

>

> Plato states that this is the equivalent to the illusory way we

live our lives. Here's another example of an author with

extraordinary insight into our true nature...

>

> Regards

>

> Brian

>

> Excerpt from Plato's Republic:

> http://www.vrc.iastate.edu/why.html

>

Thanks for that Brian. Yes, I've visited that particular tale a

few times over the years, and it is well worth repeating.

Funnily enough, I remember the first time I heard it was from

an English teacher when I was about 13-14. And her conclusion was

that Plato had predicted the coming of television! I suppose she

had a point, but she was still somewhat off the mark.

(BTW the response time in this group is great!)

===========

orbitsville

February 9, 2002

Hullo Brien,

since the discussion has got round to the matter of "what is real", there is an

aspect of this discussion that I would like to raise with you.

Many people who have an Advaitic bent to their view of things claim (as Bishop

Berkeley claimed) that appearances are all; that there is no "real thing" behind

appearances. Do I see a dog? Simply a visual phenomenon. Do I hear the dog bark?

Simply an auditory phenomenon. Did the dog bite me? Simply another phenomenon,

this one in the realm we call "bodily feelings" (I imagine that philosophers and

psychologists have a more elegant name than "bodily feelings").

So far so good. But the people I have in mind take it a little further; they say

that nothing exists except that which I, as an individual body/mind, perceive

now. Looking out my window I see some parrots in a tree. Now I look back at the

keyboard - the tree and parrot cease to exist, literally cease to exist. I look

back out the window and the tree and the parrots rematerialize, or re-appear, in

the twinkling of an eye.

I have heard about one man who, when he was told by his interlocutor that she

was distressed by the plight of the millions of hungry people in India replied,

"I don't see any starving millions. Point them out to me. They only exist in

your imagination."

This is obviously absurd, yet many hundreds of quite intelligent folk adhere to

it. Even Tony Parsons, the very interesting teacher, holds to it. Tony Parsons

has an undoubted presence, in his presence you can feel something of the beyond,

but I think that intellectually he is neither trained nor naturally adept, and

he cannot express what he sees.

Bishop Berkeley, when he addressed the problem, concluded that the perceptions

exist primarily in the mind of God, and hence they have continuity.

And Francis Lucille, whom I have mentioned earlier, makes the same point. But

whereas Berkeley envisioned a Christian God, Francis equates God with

unidentified Consciousness. The way Francis puts it, God, out of a sense of

drama and play, and in a way that an individual mind cannot understand, creates

the whole dream-play and then plays each of the actors in the drama. But in this

version the individual player, as an individual player, is not at the centre of

everything, as certain pop-advaitists would have you believe.

On the other hand, this raises the question, "If I am not really what I take to

be a body, and I am not really this character-structure, and I am not really my

thoughts and feelings and roles and postures, then what really am I." Speaking

personally, I beat my head against a brick wall for years, trying to find a

more-than-theoretical answer to that question. The understanding, or answer,

came in the course of a conversation with Satyananda at the Friends Meeting

House in Hampstead. It was a subtle thing, but it stilled all the mental

agitation. Once it was seen it was totally obvious. And, in the course of an

hour or so, lots of other things spontaneously became clear. I remember the

thought occurring, "Ah, so that's what Nisargadatta was getting at!"

But I think that it happens differently for everyone; it all depends on what

kind of enquiry, and how intense the enquiry, of the individual concerned. Like

most people, perhaps everyone, prior to that time I had been given a number of

wonderful insights, revelations, call them what you will, but because my enquiry

had never been directed to who I am, (or "What is "I") I had never made the

connection between what had been given and who I am. And I must hasten to add

that the understanding is a glimpsish thing, real enough but the clouds come

back.

Cheers

Warwick

-

Brian Milnes

'advaitin'

Sunday, February 10, 2002 4:45 AM

RE: Re: Back and forth

Talk about "teaching grandmother to suck eggs" ...

Orbitsville reveals:

| I think you misunderstood me. When I was talking about ripples

| on the sea, I meant exactly the same thing as 'vibrations' in

| the unified field. I guess I was being a little more poetic

| (and for the record, I studied post-graduate physics).

With regard to your Holodeck example - I think that's a great analogy, very,

very similar to The Matrix and others. I think the first example of such a story

that I was aware of was Plato's cave. In this allegorical tale, prisoners were

bound motionless and could only perceive the world through shadows cast on the

wall of the cave in which they were held.

Plato states that this is the equivalent to the illusory way we live our

lives. Here's another example of an author with extraordinary insight into our

true nature...

Regards

Brian

Excerpt from Plato's Republic:

http://www.vrc.iastate.edu/why.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

Your use of is subject to

February 9, 2002

advaitin, "Warwick Wakefield" <nomistake@o...> wrote:

> I have heard about one man who, when he was told by his

interlocutor that she was distressed by the plight of the millions of

hungry people in India replied, "I don't see any starving millions.

Point them out to me. They only exist in your imagination."

>

> This is obviously absurd, yet many hundreds of quite intelligent

folk adhere to it. Even Tony Parsons, the very interesting teacher,

holds to it. Tony Parsons has an undoubted presence, in his presence

you can feel something of the beyond, but I think that intellectually

he is neither trained nor naturally adept, and he cannot express what

he sees.

>

What you are referring to here is solipsism. Anyone who believes

in that has really misunderstood the teachings.

The truth is (I think) that there is the sea. There are waves.

I am a wave, and so are you. But, point at a wave, and you also

point at the ocean. The wave has no existence seperate from the

ocean. But, the wave is a concept, there is only really the sea.

The concept of a 'wave' occurs when we draw an imaginary circle

around a part of the ocean.

I suppose advaita is where I say "I am the ocean, and so are you",

whereas solipsism says "The wave is the ocean".

The old branch/tree metaphor does just as well. I am a branch,

and so are you. And yet, point at me and you point at the tree.

Point at you, and you point at the tree. That is correct, I think.

Yet, solipsism would say simply "I am the tree", and that is that.

This is wrong. The branch is not the tree. A wave is not the ocean.

===========

orbitsville

February 9, 2002

Yes, Orbitsville, I had forgotten, solipsism is the right word. Thank you.

But you would be surprised how easily solipsism comes if you have heard that all

is One, and you are That.

Especially if you are really struggling with the teachings.

I would like to say something about the wave-ocean metaphor.

Mostly it doesn't work (although, come to think of it, most metaphors don't

work, most of the time.) And the reason, I think, is that one tends immediately

to see the physical connection/oneness between wave and ocean and then look at

the physical connection between body and environment (eg lungs and air, body and

atmospheric pressure, the body as a functioning entity as a part of a

functioning biosphere) and the mental/emotional connection between the person

and the society, as sociologists and psychologists point to.

While all of this may be relevant in some way, it really misses the point.

If I may be so bold, I would like to say that the point is the oneness between

consciousness and mind. Consciousness is infinite and unchanging and yet it is

intimately connected with the ever-changing thoughts, phenomena, objects in

consciousness, concepts, including the concept of "I as a separate entity, a

person." No consciousness, no thoughts, no perceptions. All mental activity

exists within consciousness. Consciousness, while having no attributes of its

own, gives reality to every perception. This is the point of the metaphor of the

unity of wave and ocean.

If attention is directed solely towards the objects of consciousness, the

changing, moving perceptions and thoughts, then the answer to "Who am I?" is the

answer that everyone gives.

But if attention is directed towards the unchanging, unmoving consciousness,

then the answer to "Who am I?" is.......................................

Actually, I am simply here relating my own long-time misunderstanding of the

metaphor. Maybe others get it immediately. I don't think so, but I could be

wrong. What do others in this discussion group have to say?

Cheers

Warwick

-

orbitsville

advaitin

Sunday, February 10, 2002 12:10 PM

Re: Back and forth

advaitin, "Warwick Wakefield" <nomistake@o...> wrote:

> I have heard about one man who, when he was told by his

interlocutor that she was distressed by the plight of the millions of

hungry people in India replied, "I don't see any starving millions.

Point them out to me. They only exist in your imagination."

>

> This is obviously absurd, yet many hundreds of quite intelligent

folk adhere to it. Even Tony Parsons, the very interesting teacher,

holds to it. Tony Parsons has an undoubted presence, in his presence

you can feel something of the beyond, but I think that intellectually

he is neither trained nor naturally adept, and he cannot express what

he sees.

>

What you are referring to here is solipsism. Anyone who believes

in that has really misunderstood the teachings.

The truth is (I think) that there is the sea. There are waves.

I am a wave, and so are you. But, point at a wave, and you also

point at the ocean. The wave has no existence seperate from the

ocean. But, the wave is a concept, there is only really the sea.

The concept of a 'wave' occurs when we draw an imaginary circle

around a part of the ocean.

I suppose advaita is where I say "I am the ocean, and so are you",

whereas solipsism says "The wave is the ocean".

The old branch/tree metaphor does just as well. I am a branch,

and so are you. And yet, point at me and you point at the tree.

Point at you, and you point at the tree. That is correct, I think.

Yet, solipsism would say simply "I am the tree", and that is that.

This is wrong. The branch is not the tree. A wave is not the ocean.

===========

orbitsville

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

Your use of is subject to

February 10, 2002

--- Warwick Wakefield <nomistake

wrote:

> I would like to say something about the wave-ocean

> metaphor.

>

> If attention is directed solely towards the objects

> of consciousness, the changing, moving perceptions

> and thoughts, then the answer to "Who am I?" is the

> answer that everyone gives.

> But if attention is directed towards the unchanging,

> unmoving consciousness, then the answer to "Who am

> I?" is.......................................

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

Your explanation of the wave/ocean metaphor could'nt

be better put in writing. All one has to do in your

above statement is to fill up the dotted line left

blank by you with the word "BRAHMAN" if you are in the

'Advaita' mode or with the word "GOD" if you are in

any other mode!!

Our scriptures say it with authority that Conciousness

is verily Brahman.

"Sarvam etad Pragyaane pratishtitam,Pragyaanetro

lokaha,Pragyaapratishtaa, Pragyaanam Brahma"

Surely, the branch is not the tree and the wave too is

not the ocean. But these are respectively an 'amsha'

or a 'part' of the respective 'whole' viz:the tree or

the ocean in these cases.

Think for a moment.Without the tree there is no branch

and without the ocean there is no wave!

The reverse however is not true!Without the branch the

tree EXISTS and without the wave the ocean EXISTS.

In other words, Pragyaanam,Conciousness (without the

'ness'portion), Brahman alone EXISTS.

Let us,'waves' or 'branches' that we think we are,make

a serious effort to Self-realise what "WE REALLY ARE".

Hari Om!

Swaminarayan

Send FREE Valentine eCards with Greetings!

http://greetings.

February 11, 2002

Namaste!

There is nothing wrong with the metaphor. The problem, I presume, is

with the way it is being looked at.

First of all, advaita demands that the following should be logically

appreciated and accepted:

All this creation (material universe, space time, body, thoughts,

intellect, etc. all included) is within my awareness as I "know" it

all. (Here, "know" effectively stands for the functioning of all

means of knowledge including the sense organs.). What is going on

is, therefore, a continuous "I know" ("jaanaami"). "Jaanaami"

encompasses the knower, knowing and known. Without the knower,

knowing and known have no validity. Thus, as the knower, I am not

what I consider me to be (body, mind, intellect, brain etc.) but

only "jaanaami".

We have a feeling that this "jaanaami" blacks out during deep sleep

and in death. All our fears and limitations stem from this fear.

Let us try to analyze.

"I am feeling very sleepy. Time now is 22:00 hrs. I hear the birds

chirp. Time now is 06:00 hrs. It is the morning of the following

day."

In the statements above, the assumption is that I slept between 22:00

hrs and 06:00 hrs. because I did not know anything in the middle.

Let us simplify the situation to "jaanaami" or "I know" statements:

"Jaanaami I am feeling very sleepy. Jaanami time now is 22:00 hrs.

Jaanami I hear the birds chirp. Jaanami the time is 06:00 hrs.

Jaanami that I did not know anything in the middle. Jaanami my

conclusion therefore is that I slept. Jaanami it is the morning of

the following day."

There is no gap in the above statements. It is a

continuous "jaanaami". Even the so-called "black out" is a

brilliant "jaanaami that I did not know anything". Let us assume that

a friend now gets in to say that he saw me sleeping like a hog. His

statement does not create a problem if it is simplified to: "Jaanaami

that my friend says he saw me sleeping like a hog". That is all and

nothing more. Thus, everything can be simplified to "Jaanaami".

Jaanaami I know chemistry. Jaanaami I do not know botany or Jaanaami

my ignorance of botany. Now, if I learn botany, my learning lights

up as "Jaanaami" again. Thus, all ignorance and acquisition of

knowledge is accounted for through "jaanaami" statements.

"Jaanaami" thus is the common denominator in all transactions. There

cannot be any transaction independent of "jaanaami". There is no "He

knows", because even that needs to be restated as "Jaanaami he knows".

The inevitable, logical conclusion therefore is that there is

only "jaanaami", without "jaanaami" the perceived creation has no

validity, this "jaanaami" itself is Consciousness which shines forth

on its own and the perceived creation shines after It.

Now to go back to the "problematic metaphor" – the ocean and the

waves. The ocean is "jaanaami" and the waves are creation (the

things perceived). The waves cannot be without the ocean. The ocean

can be without the waves. The waves are the ocean itself. There is

no need to quell or still the waves to appreciate the oneness

(fullness) of the ocean. There is no need to melt all the ornaments

to appreciate the oneness (fullness) of gold. The ocean is inspite

of the waves, the gold is inspite of all the ornaments.

Thus, there is no need to "still the mind" to realize "jaanaami",

there is no need to "negate" creation (brain, body, mind, intellect,

space, time all included) to know that I am the fullness

called "Jaanaami" called Consciousness. I am essentially fullness

(poornam) inspite of creation, creation is not outside or apart from

me. But, because creation is conditioned by space and time, I call

all the things created "maaya", and, because space and time

are "known" and thus within Consciousness, I know that Consciousness

is beyond them and thus essentially "timelessness" (not "eternity"!)

and "spacelessness".

Both space and time being within our awareness, a question

like "where and when did Consciousness arise?" does not arise at

all. It has no validity because the word "where" is spatial

and "when" is temporal. This dreaded question is the biggest

stumbling block in all theologies. If it is asked, the asker is

immediately asked to shut up. At least, advaita does not let us down

here and I am thankful to it because I could save my face when my

daughter asked me this very question years ago when she was still in

6th standard.

If what I wrote above can be accepted, then metaphors cannot bother

however ineffective they may be. Don't wait then. Begin to

contemplate on this Awareness and "live" it with courage and

conviction. When one walks, one has a body sense, when one drives a

small car, there is a car sense equal to the size of the car, when

the vehicle is bigger, say a truck, the sense is even wider, when one

knows that one is everything, the sense is universal. One is in love

with everything because everything is oneself. This is how we all

advaitins must think and move about. This is what is implied when we

sing in our prayer "vyomavat vyapthadehaya dakshinamoorthaye namaha"

(Salutations to Dakshinamoorthy who is an embodiment of

everywhereness like space) (Translation mine). And to live like that

is a tall order indeed!

And if one lives like that, then there is no fear of death because he

knows that as Consciousness even the concept of death is within him.

If I am everything, then nothing should survive my death. That is

not the case with our notion of death where the world continues. So,

death is non-existent and, alas, we live in the constant fear of

dying just because we see other `bodies' dying! What a tragedy! We

simply forget that "jaanaami" will survive everything as it is

essentially timelessness.

Picking pieces from here and there and discussing unceasingly is a

vain task like trying to contain a big inflated balloon inside the

palm. The balloon does not yield but always bulges out. What is

required is only a simple shift in focus. Advaita does not demand

superhuman intellect or spectacular academic background. In fact,

some one has said that these are big impediments. I have heard of a

beedi maker at Prarthana Samaj in Mumbai City who can convince you of

his advaitic vision in a matter of minutes even as he keeps rolling

beedies one after another!

I hope my clarification has been helpful.

Pranams.

advaitin, "Warwick Wakefield" <nomistake@o...> wrote:

> I would like to say something about the wave-ocean metaphor.

> Mostly it doesn't work >

> Actually, I am simply here relating my own long-time

misunderstanding of the metaphor. Maybe others get it immediately. I

don't think so, but I could be wrong. What do others in this

discussion group have to say?

>

> Cheers

> Warwick

February 11, 2002

Dear Madhavan and Swaminarayan

many thanks to both of you for giving depth to this discussion.

I assume that both of you, since you have Hindi names, live in India.

Are you aware that in the West, in America and Europe and Australia, very many

people are aware that that their suffering is caused by their lack of a sense of

identity?

You often hear people who work with men and women who are suffering from mental

disturbances and breakdowns say that the main cause of their clients' suffering

is their lack of a sense of identity.

It is usually thought here that one's identity is the same as the role that one

plays in society.

It is not quite as simple as that, if you ask people who they think they are

they will usually give first an identity that relates to the body, ("I am a

man." or "I am a woman" or "I am a black woman.") and then they name one or more

of their roles, ("I am a mother " or "I am a teacher" or "I am an electrician")

.. But if they have trouble being a mother, or trouble behaving in the

conventional ways that a woman is supposed to behave towards men, or sons are

supposed to behave towards fathers, or teachers are supposed to behave towards

their seniors or their students, they are not sure who they are and they find it

very painful.

It is my guess that very many people are ready to discover that who they really

are is "the one who sees". Or, if you like, the One who sees. And that that is

who they always have been and always will be. And that they couldn't NOT be

that, even if they tried. And that every role and every bodily form is just an

object in that consciousness.

I don't at all like to make prophecies, but it seems that very many people in

the West have been working so hard and so sincerely on this question, "Who am

I", although not knowingly in that form, that they are ready to see the answer.

Of course, this is all said from the point of view of individuals finding the

great void, or waves falling into the ocean. I have a suspicion that what is

really happening is that the ocean is about to fall into the waves.

I very much appreciate our conversation

warm regards

Warwick

-

Madhavan

Advaitin

Tuesday, February 12, 2002 9:25 AM

Re: Back and forth

"Swaminarayan T" <tvswaminarayan> wrote:

> Surely, the branch is not the tree and the wave too is

> not the ocean. But these are respectively an 'amsha'

> or a 'part' of the respective 'whole' viz:the tree or

> the ocean in these cases.

> Think for a moment.Without the tree there is no branch

> and without the ocean there is no wave!

> The reverse however is not true!Without the branch the

> tree EXISTS and without the wave the ocean EXISTS.

> In other words, Pragyaanam,Conciousness (without the

> 'ness'portion), Brahman alone EXISTS.

>

> Let us,'waves' or 'branches' that we think we are,make

> a serious effort to Self-realise what "WE REALLY ARE".

Somehow we seem to have moved to Visishtadvaita, metaphor and all.

The wave and the branch, the foam and the leaves, have an existence

conditional

on the ocean and the tree respectively. But as Swaminarayanan puts it, the

reverse

is not true.This means that the jivAtma and jagat- or in visishtavatic terms,

cit and the

acit -have an existence conditional on Brahman or Isvara, who however exists

independently of either.

Madhavan

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

Your use of is subject to

February 11, 2002

Dear madathilnair

Namaste!

Thank you for sending me this long and fascinating message.

I particularly like the word/concept, "jaanami ".

And it is very clear that there is an uninterrupted "I know".

I will spend more time with your message, allowing it to sink in, getting the

full flavour of it.

I see here a trap that could easily be fallen into. It could be easily imagined

that the "I" part of jaanami is the body/mind - it may not be seen straight away

that the body and the mind are just objects in consciousness, they are not that

which knows.

I have just seen that "jaanami" has an advantage over "that which knows, because

"that which knows" could be imagined to be something objective, whereas it is

less likely that "jaanami" would be falsely imagined as something that can be

seen as an object; it is pretty obvious that I cannot see jaanami, I can only be

jaanami.

Thank you.

Affectionate regards