Avidya and Vidya

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

 

What is the point of argumentation and occult knowledge even, if one

doesn't know the Self...........ONS....Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste

One point is this.

 

The Self, so my Guru tells me, comes to the forefront when it is spoken about.

 

Another reason is this: that when the answer is given to the Question of what

"I" is, the theoretical learning acts as a support, to place that understanding

in context.

If I may be so bold I would like to speak from my own case.

Over the years I have had a number of revelations which cast light on many

things. But because none of them happened in the context of the question, "What

am I?", I still had not a clue about who I really am. But then, when I was very

closely questioned by Satyananda, in Hampstead, in London, about who I thought I

was, and then pointed in the direction of who I really am, what was revealed on

that occasion was not to do with universal justice and love, it was to do with

who I really am. The discussion, over years, acted as a support when the answer

was given.

The great mistake is to listen to the theories and think you know; then you have

all support and no revelation. So the theory has to be accompanied by whatever

sadhana one is capable of. But I think (I don't know but my Guru tells me, and

other Gurus say it also) that the Lord places you in the right position to

receive the right instruction at the right time. And furthermore, I'm told that

whatever sincere effort you make in the direction of meditation is the right

meditation for you at that time.

 

Much love

Warwick

-

aoclery

advaitin

Sunday, March 03, 2002 5:32 AM

Avidya and Vidya

 

 

Namaste All,

 

What is the point of argumentation and occult knowledge even, if one

doesn't know the Self...........ONS....Tony.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Warwick and Tony,

 

You are right when you say : "And furthermore, I'm told that whatever

sincere effort you make in the direction of meditation is the right

meditation for you at that time."

 

But, I would like to add that such effort should be supported by

logical conviction and sraddha. The adjective "sincere" you have

used perhaps includes both.

 

Warwick, I find that you are often using the word "revelation". Will

you please endeavour to define the term in your context? The term

has potential to be misinterpreted by an Eastern mind. Hence, this

request.

 

I would also be happy if you detail your spiritual experiences and

the insights you gained from them so that we all can benefit. It is

okay if you can attempt this in small instalments. I believe we ought

to share too while we learn. Am I right?

 

Thanks and regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

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

> Namaste >

> One point is this.

>

> The Self, so my Guru tells me, comes to the forefront when it is

spoken about.

>

> Another reason is this: that when the answer is given to the

Question of what "I" is, the theoretical learning acts as a support,

to place that understanding in context.

> If I may be so bold I would like to speak from my own case.

> Over the years I have had a number of revelations which cast light

on many things. But because none of them happened in the context of

the question, "What am I?", I still had not a clue about who I really

am. But then, when I was very closely questioned by Satyananda, in

Hampstead, in London, about who I thought I was, and then pointed in

the direction of who I really am, what was revealed on that occasion

was not to do with universal justice and love, it was to do with who

I really am. The discussion, over years, acted as a support when the

answer was given.

> The great mistake is to listen to the theories and think you know;

then you have all support and no revelation. So the theory has to be

accompanied by whatever sadhana one is capable of. But I think (I

don't know but my Guru tells me, and other Gurus say it also) that

the Lord places you in the right position to receive the right

instruction at the right time. And furthermore, I'm told that

whatever sincere effort you make in the direction of meditation is

the right meditation for you at that time.

>

> Much love

> Warwick

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Nair

 

You write: "But, I would like to add that such effort should be supported by

logical conviction and sraddha. The adjective "sincere" you have

used perhaps includes both."

 

I suppose that what I mean by sincere is that the seeker is acting from the

deepest understanding that she has. For example, when I was a child I believed

that the small Christian sect to which I belonged had a monopoly on truth, and

that God, whom we imagined to be a personal God, wanted us to tell this truth to

all we met, and convert them. So that's what I used to do. It was often

unpleasant and embarrassing, but I did it. And in the course of doing this I

came to see that our understanding was very narrow and informed by a punitive

spirit. I came to see that ordinary, easy-going and generous people were more

loving and had a more intelligent view of things than we did.

 

So we could say that my efforts to convert were the right meditation and the

result was that a great veil, or curtain, of ignorance, of false conviction, was

lifted. And that the more darkness is dispelled, the more subtle will be one's

meditation. I am told that some of the very ancient Indian meditations, such as

the sound of the word "Aum", have a refinement and force that will dispel even

very subtle veils. But I don't think it is a case of one size fits all. And I

suppose this is why a Guru will give advice that speaks directly to the one in

front of him, or her.

 

To go back to my boyhood, and talk about "revelation", after I decided that this

set of beliefs, that had governed most of my waking life, was entirely false, a

question arose; "Is there anything of which I can be absolutely certain, so that

there is no possibility of being wrong?" And immediately an answer was given, "I

can be certain that I exist". I would call that a revelation. It was not

something that I worked out; it just suddenly appeared to me.

 

Now, at the time I didn't value it very highly. And I can see now that when I

reflected on it, when I was a youth, I added to the simple "I" a body and a

mind, a personality and all the rest of it. And I thought that simple existence

was only the booby prize; that you need success and public recognition and

wealth and cleverness before existence counts for anything.

 

I can tell you another revelation that happened to me. This happened in 1997 and

it was also in an underground train in London, on the Circle line, to be

precise.

 

I was sitting there, not thinking about anything in particular, when a wonderful

lightness enveloped me. After a moment or two it became apparent that the reason

for lightness was that the burden of trying to be wise and knowledgeable had,

for no apparent reason, been lifted. Maybe we could put that another way. I

became aware of my natural state, which is one of happiness in simple being, but

which had been obscured by the burden of "becoming".

And I had very distinct recollections of my father giving me attention, when I

was a very young child, for saying clever things, knowledgeable things. And that

the idea had formed in my mind at a very early age that it was necessary to

gather knowledge and understanding, which I of course equated with theoretical

understanding, so that I could command respect everywhere, and affection, and

power. But there in the train it became clear that if I had a hundred lifetimes

I couldn't possibly gather enough knowledge (I'm talking here about "facts") and

understanding (of the theoretical kind) to make that happen, to give me that

control. And it furthermore became clear that all my strivings to become someone

had been utterly futile; in reality I was no different from that small child who

had decided to become someone. I saw that while I was 57 years old in the way

that time is measured, in reality I was no age at all.

 

Sri Nair, I didn't see then that I am no-one in the deepest possible sense. When

I use the word "revelation" I don't mean a vision or an understanding that is so

all-embracing that no ignorance, no ontological misunderstanding and no

unhappiness can possibly arise thereafter. I am told, by those I respect, that

such things can happen. It seems to have been the case with Ramana Marharshi.

But there are also little revelations.

 

While I'm at it I suppose it is appropriate to mention a revelation which was

very subtle in it's emotional and sensory impact but which I value as the

greatest gift ever.

 

I had been reading Nisargadatta Maharaj and Ramesh Balsekar for a number of

years and I had come to the view that what they were saying was almost certainly

true. With Nisargadatta particularly, his words leap off the page. Even in

translation, his words leap off the page. But it was not enough that he knew and

that he had told others - I had to know it for myself. And around the same time

I met a man in Melbourne, in Australia, who told me that he realised one day

that he had no self. I found that incredibly frustrating. When I examined myself

it seemed absolutely certain that there was indeed a "self" there. So I sat down

and I wrote out all the things and qualities that comprise "myself". Look, I'll

copy it out here - you can read it or skip it.

 

What do we mean when we use the word "self"?

 

 

 

I firstly mean my conscious experiencing.

 

 

 

The sounds that I hear, the sights that I see, my bodily sensations of pressure,

taste, touch and the like. My sexual experiencing. The sensations of smell that

I experience.

 

 

 

 

 

There is the realm of feeling; pleasure, displeasure. Happiness and sorrow.

Anger, fear and laughter. Aesthetic enjoyment of things like sunsets and flowers

and vistas and poetry and music and dance and architecture and gracefulness in

all its forms, the shape of a palm tree, or a fig tree, or a house, or a car, or

a dress, or a body. The displeasure we feel on looking at industrial wastelands,

on hearing kitschy music or verse.

 

 

 

There is the fear of death, loss. There is the happiness that comes from winning

the lottery, from entering into a love affair, from receiving praise, from

performing, without premeditation, a graceful act. There is the happiness that

comes from discovering truth. From obtaining and exercising power. All kinds of

happiness and unhappiness.

 

And, to the perceptions of the senses and the feelings of one's emotions must be

added one's thoughts. One's thoughts can be simple memories of simple

perceptions, such as a man we saw riding a horse across a field when we were a

child, or more complex thoughts such as an opinion we have about the structure

of human nature, such as Freudian theory, or an opinion we have about the

character of an acquaintance, or the worth of a painting, or the existence of

God, or the Darwinian theory of evolution, or the "big bang" or the "fact" of

human progress. My perceptions, my emotions, my ideas and opinions, and my

assumed physical existence as a body, more precisely my body-image, my idea of

what kind of body I have, constitute my self.

 

 

 

Perceptions, feelings and thoughts.

 

 

 

Particularly important is my idea, my image, of what kind of person I am.

 

I like to think that I am intelligent, and generous, and flexible, and willing

to explore new ideas. I also think that I am a lover of truth, preferring to

hold ideas that are true rather than ideas that are popular but untrue. I like

to think I would prefer to know the truth, even if it be painful, rather than

content myself with pretty lies.

 

 

 

There is a category of perceptions and ideas and feelings that is pre-eminently

important to me, as an individual. These are the perceptions and feelings and

ideas that are seen to be mine.

 

 

 

This is MY body. It is particularly important what happens to

 

MY body. It is particularly important what people think of my body; I don't want

people to regard MY body as unattractive; I don't care anywhere near so much if

they regard YOUR body, or HIS body, as unattractive. Unless you are, or he is,

MY wife or MY child, and by extension a part of me.

 

 

 

I have to care for MY body, feed and clothe it and care for it if it becomes

unwell. It is the prospect of the death of MY body that causes me the most fear

and suffering - I think it is probably true that concealed in my sorrow at the

suffering and death of others is the fear and sorrow at the prospect of MY OWN

death. The death of others reminds me of my own death.

 

 

 

I want pleasure and happiness for MYSELF. I am happy if you are happy and

experience pleasure, but it is MY OWN happiness and pleasure that is of most

significance.

 

 

 

There is ME and the rest. The ME is always at the centre, everything else

radiates out, in importance, from the ME, the SELF.

 

 

 

I showed this to my friend and I said, "Well, this is my evidence for the

statement that I do exist as an independent and separate self. How can you deal

with that." He said something to the effect that you either see it or you don't.

 

 

 

A year or two later I was in London. I had been reading the life of Socrates and

I had fallen in love with the idea that one could live one's whole life in the

pursuit of truth in the way he did it, by questioning every proposition, asking

for the evidence, seeing if it held together logically. I had been doing this

consistently for a while. I had been thrown out of certain gatherings when I

kept on asking, "But what do you really MEAN by that?" And that didn't worry me

- anything for truth.

 

 

 

Then, one beautiful Summer's day, in the early afternoon, I got onto the

underground train to attend Satsang with a very beautiful young man named

Satyananda. The underground trains, eh? In my life it seems to perform the same

function as the Sacred Ganges in India.

 

Well, pretty much as soon as I got onto the train something opened up and I saw,

very clearly, that this neo-Socratic searching that I had been pursuing was not,

somehow, real. It was a role, just like a role that an actor plays on stage.

 

 

 

After the Satsang with Satyananda got underway I told him about it, told him

that I had seen through this role. He said it was beautiful. But I said, "No,

it's not particularly beautiful, because although I've seen though this game I

was playing, I don't feel any release; I don't feel any freedom."

 

So he said, in the kindest and friendliest possible way,"Warwick, just who do

you think you are?"

 

And I said, "Well, who do I THINK I am? That's easy. I've thought about it a

lot. I'll tell you who I THINK I am, if that's any use."

 

And I mentioned some of the things, the perceptions, the experiencing, the

feelings, the thoughts and the memories and ideas that I'd been exploring.

 

 

 

He said, "That's very good. Very many items, very many objects. And I suppose

you could go on longer?"

 

I said "Yes, I could go on for days."

 

So he looked very intently at me and he said, "Have you included in that list

the one who sees all that?"

 

I was stunned. I was silent for a long time. I was amazed that I had overlooked

the most obvious, the closest, that without which none of the rest would be

possible. I said nothing.

 

 

 

But Satyananda seemed to know exactly what was happening and he said, "Very

good. Now just sit down and be silent. This is Satsang."

 

 

 

While I was sitting down I was silent, but things became apparent, and I said to

myself, "So THIS is what Nisargadatta means, that you are not the body and not

the mind."

 

 

 

And I saw that who I really am is changeless, without form, witnesses

everything, rejects nothing, is always pure, and while it sees everything, can

never be seen itself. I saw that who I really am doesn't belong to this

dimension of time and space, of thoughts and feelings, of hopes and fears. Who I

really am has nothing to gain and nothing to lose. Who I really am cannot be

described in the words we use to describe objects and events in time and space,

but although it cannot be described, it is what I am. And furthermore, knowing,

or seeing this (knowing and seeing are not the right words but I don't have any

better ones) didn't make me in any way a better person than anyone else, for

this who sees is the same behind (behind is also not the right word) everyone.

And it didn't make me a better "person" than I was before, because , firstly, I

had always been this, would always be this, and couldn't NOT be this, even if I

tried. And secondly, this who sees, (you realise this is a very clumsy phrase)

doesn't belong to this dimension of the players and their roles, the good and

the bad, approval and condemnation.

 

 

 

So, is this always with me? Logically I have to say "yes", but often, maybe

mostly, the concerns of the "person" occupy the foreground. I have seen the

"person" to be, not that which perceives but simply an accumulation of

perceptions, but it still emerges. Does this mean that what was seen was not

real? I have never for a moment doubted that it was real. Then why am I not

perpetually happy, singing, dancing, celebrating? I do not know. Firstly I think

that it is a false expectation, to think that the first answer to this question

will totally banish all the habits and momentum of the ego. I believe that the

Advaitic sages explored this with great clarity and depth. Am I a sage?

Certainly not. Am I ignorant? To say that I am ignorant would be to betray God's

great gift. So I will say that I cannot say exactly who or what I am, but I am

constantly reminded that I, and everyone I meet, is Infinite Consciousness, and

that God urges me to act from that. The belief that I am separate from God has

not been vanquished - I suppose it pleases God that this idea continues in her

movie, her Maya.

 

 

 

Sorry I went on so long. I got carried away.

 

 

 

Much love

 

Warwick

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

madathilnair

advaitin

Sunday, March 03, 2002 3:31 PM

Re: Avidya and Vidya

 

 

Namaste Warwick and Tony,

 

You are right when you say : "And furthermore, I'm told that whatever

sincere effort you make in the direction of meditation is the right

meditation for you at that time."

 

But, I would like to add that such effort should be supported by

logical conviction and sraddha. The adjective "sincere" you have

used perhaps includes both.

 

Warwick, I find that you are often using the word "revelation". Will

you please endeavour to define the term in your context? The term

has potential to be misinterpreted by an Eastern mind. Hence, this

request.

 

I would also be happy if you detail your spiritual experiences and

the insights you gained from them so that we all can benefit. It is

okay if you can attempt this in small instalments. I believe we ought

to share too while we learn. Am I right?

 

Thanks and regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Warwick,

 

I read and reread your long mail without skipping any of the contents.

 

Although we hail from two entirely different cultural backgrounds,

there is a convergence of ideas at the end, despite the different

routes taken. I appreciate your experiences, thoughts, sentiments

and conclusions. You have been extremely frank, Warwick.

 

Advaita says, "I" am the only self-evident truth, that which shines

on its own; the rest shines after It. It is quite amazing to see

how you reached this conclusion on your own without advaitic

methodology.

 

As you said, you seem to be gaining spiritual insights in the

metros. May be metros are your banyan (bodhi) tree! This reminds me

of a point you made a bit earlier in this forum – that you are able

to appreciate silence amidst the din of the world passing by.

Perhaps, it is in the racing staccato of the metros that you are able

to relax and drop all your personal identifications to be the

ultimate Yourself.

 

Don't worry – the "person" in the foreground will always emerge. I

am told a successful advaitin appreciates and acknowledges this fact

and remains Himself inspite of this "person" in the foreground. All

the problems arise when you deliberately try to annihilate

this "person" by suffocating him. He will remain harmless if his

presence is acknowledged without entertaining. Don't make Yourself

available to him when he wants You. Let him be available to You,

when You need him, as You will still need him for a long time to come.

 

You asked: "Then why am I not perpetually happy, singing, dancing,

celebrating?". Who told you that you are not? Pain is pain only

when it is seen as pain. The painfulness of pain is valid only in

relation to your identification with the body. If the pain

experience is considered per se without association with your

physical being, it is just an "experience", a glow – a lighting up of

Consciousness – as everything else is. If this is understood and

appreciated, then You are happiness, song, dance and celebration (I

am using the noun form deliberately to show that what I mean is

attributeless – without adjectives, in true advaitic spirit.).

 

Thank you, friend, and best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

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

>

> So, is this always with me? Logically I have to say "yes", but

often, maybe mostly, the concerns of the "person" occupy the

foreground. I have seen the "person" to be, not that which perceives

but simply an accumulation of perceptions, but it still emerges.

Does this mean that what was seen was not real? I have never for a

moment doubted that it was real. Then why am I not perpetually happy,

singing, dancing, celebrating? I do not know. Firstly I think that it

is a false expectation, to think that the first answer to this

question will totally banish all the habits and momentum of the ego.

I believe that the Advaitic sages explored this with great clarity

and depth. Am I a sage? Certainly not. Am I ignorant? To say that I

am ignorant would be to betray God's great gift. So I will say that I

cannot say exactly who or what I am, but I am constantly reminded

that I, and everyone I meet, is Infinite Consciousness, and that God

urges me to act from that. The belief that I am separate from God has

not been vanquished - I suppose it pleases God that this idea

continues in her movie, her Maya.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Nair,

 

Thank you for your kind and helpful letter.

I particularly appreciate your encouraging comments about my distress regarding

the tenacious character of the "person".

"Don't worry - the "person" in the foreground will always emerge. He will remain

harmless if his

presence is acknowledged without entertaining. Don't make Yourself

available to him when he wants You. Let him be available to You,

when You need him, as You will still need him for a long time to come."

 

When you say it, it seems obvious.

 

Your friend

Warwick

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "aoclery" <aoclery> wrote:

> Namaste All,

>

> What is the point of argumentation and occult knowledge even, if

one

> doesn't know the Self...........ONS....Tony.

 

Tony,

 

Yes too much argumentation that doesn't help anyway in one's Sadhana

is a waste. Sankara says the same in VivekaChudamani:

 

vadan{}tu shaastraaNi yajan{}tu devaan.h

kurvan{}tu karmaaNi bhajan{}tu devataaH .

aatmaik{}yabodhena vinaapi muk{}tiH

na sidhyati brahmashataan{}tare.api .. 6..

 

People may quote the scriptures, make sacrifices to the gods, perform

actions and pay homage to the deities, but there is no liberation

without recognising the oneness of one's own true being - not even in

the lifetime of a hundred Brahmas (countless millions of years). (6)

 

aviGYaate pare tattve shaastraadhiitistu nishhphalaa .

viGYaate.api pare tattve shaastraadhiitistu nishhphalaa .. 59..

 

When the supreme reality is not understood, the study of the

scriptures is useless, and study of the scriptures is useless when

the supreme reality has been understood. 59

 

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

[Guest guest]

>

> Warwick Wakefield [sMTP:nomistake]

> Wednesday, 6 March 2002 6:05

> advaitin

> Re: Re: Avidya and Vidya

>

> Namaste Sri Nair,

>

> Thank you for your kind and helpful letter.

> I particularly appreciate your encouraging comments about my distress

> regarding the tenacious character of the "person".

> "Don't worry - the "person" in the foreground will always emerge. He will

> remain harmless if his

> presence is acknowledged without entertaining. Don't make Yourself

> available to him when he wants You. Let him be available to You,

> when You need him, as You will still need him for a long time to come."

>

> When you say it, it seems obvious.

>

> Your friend

> Warwick

 

>

>

>

> 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

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Alana Moorman.

 

Why have you quoted this old post now? What are you trying to say?

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin, Alana Moorman <Alana.Moorman@W...>

wrote:

>

>

> >

> > Warwick Wakefield [sMTP:nomistake@o...]

> > Wednesday, 6 March 2002 6:05

> > advaitin

> > Re: Re: Avidya and Vidya

> >

> > Namaste Sri Nair,

> >

> > Thank you for your kind and helpful letter.

> > I particularly appreciate your encouraging comments about my

distress

> > regarding the tenacious character of the "person".

> > "Don't worry - the "person" in the foreground will always emerge.

He will

> > remain harmless if his

> > presence is acknowledged without entertaining. Don't make

Yourself

> > available to him when he wants You. Let him be available to You,

> > when You need him, as You will still need him for a long time to

come."

> >

> > When you say it, it seems obvious.

> >

> > Your friend

> > Warwick

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > 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

> >