FAQs

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote:

> Dear Advaitins:

>

> I have been following the thread about a primer for Advaita. The

idea

> of using the FAQ forum intrigued me and I have , in the spirit of

> pitching in on a difficult but worthy task, compiled my idea of

what

> some of these questions might be.

 

Namaste,

 

At the risk of sounding naive and simplistic, I offer here some

short answers to this interesting series of questions, each of which

could be expanded into a thread, to correct my errors and to satisfy

the questioners.

 

1. Advaita means not-two, implying One. Can this One be explained

with concepts?

 

Only to a limited extent. Reality, if defined as the the unchanging

substratum, is beyond the concepts of duality - such as One and Many.

The usual examples given are the waves and the sea, or the sparks and

the fire, or the gold and ornaments, or clay and pots, etc.

 

2. Why does someone talk about something that is impossible to

impart to another?

 

The 'something' that is imparted is [in] 'silence' only! The person

has to be 'ripe' to understand the silence. The talk is a necessity

for most aspirants to show the path to the Immortal Bliss of Reality.

 

3. Is Advaita a religion? Is it a part of any religion?

 

If defined etymologically, religion refers to the concept of 'binding

together' [re-ligare], a method to bind one to God / Reality /

Perfection / Ideal, etc. In the sociological context, it is an

organised transmission of values promoting the welfare of a society

through faith in the teachings God/Prophets, etc.

 

4. Is Advaita a philosophy?

 

Advaita is the 'name' given to the 'Reality', defined as

Consciousness.

OM is the symbol of that Reality. The use of the word in the context

of philosophy is later; and in the Sanskrit context it is known as

'darshana', meaning that which helps one 'see'/'experience' Reality.

 

5. Why is non-violence so important?

 

One has to be familiar with the concepts of 'Gunas' to understand

this. Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas define the modes of activities in

Nature. Sattva promotes holiness and is essential for

understanding 'Reality', and is uniquely developed by the human

being. The other two are closer to the 'animalistic'

instinctual nature, and serve as obstacles in the understanding.

Violence, himsA in Sanskrit, [non-violence = ahimsA] epitomises

the latter two qualities. At the human level, through millenia of

experience, the Golden Rule "All things whatsoever ye would that men

should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the

prophets." The Gospel of Matthew Matt 7:12, has served

as an ideal in all societies, and abjuring violence has become a

spiritual value of utmost importance.

 

6. Does Advaita negate existence and see it as Illusion?

 

Another synonym for Advaita is Sat [Existence], Chit

[Consciousness/Energy], and Ananda [beatitude], which will explain

the fallacy of negating Existence!

Existence is not an Illusion, but to treat the limited and transient

perceptual phenomena, divorced from its Infinite substratum of

Consciousness, as the sole Reality, is Illusory. One who has realised

the unity of one's own consciousness with the universal

Consciousness, through the Illumined Intellect/Intuition, has

no words to describe this mystery of Existence, which is the reason

for the Silence to describe Reality.

 

7. How is one to view the idea that the world arises with the mind?

Doesn't the world remain when I don't perceive it?

 

The world remains even if one does not perceive it, but it never

remains the same!

Whatever remains in Time and Space changes, and by definition

Reality has to be that which does not chage, in other words That has

to be Transcendant. One perceives the world because of its Immanence;

the world cannot exist without That.

 

8. If the Advaitist sees only one, and the observer, observing, and

observed event are the same, then why do I feel like I am my body and

not the things I see?

 

The Advaitist sees only one, only in a manner of speaking. The real

speech is Silence alone, but the Silence that holds within Itself the

Infinite potential of manifestations [whether sensory or supra-

sensory].

This feeling of 'I am the body', is what the Advaita philosophy

calls as the fundamental Ignorance. This is like the cloud hiding the

Sun. When the cloud of Ignorance is removed by the development of

Sattvik Intellect, the Sun of Consciousness illumines all Existence.

 

9. In Advaita is individuality seen as an illusion? Please, explain!

 

As stated earlier, individuality divorced from the Universal

Consciousness, is the source of grief, misery, duality, etc. It is a

mask that keeps one from recognising one's true nature of Immortality

& Beatitude.

 

10. Would you explain about being and non-being. What is non-being?

 

Being is ever-existent, unborn, immortal, Transcendent and Immanent,

Conscious, etc. Non-being is the opposite of the above.

 

11. How does Jnana Yoga differ from Raja Yoga?

 

Jnana Yoga relies on the method of Intellectual inquiry into the

nature of Reality. The Self-understanding requires ripeness in

several moral virtues and intellectual perspicacity, along with a

determination to pursue dispassionately only what is non-transient,

treating all transience as source of Ignorance.

Raja Yoga relies on the control of the Mind's activities through

special techniques of physical, mental, moral, purification, and

faith.

 

12. Is holding the "I" in the mind the same as being in the moment?

 

'I' is the subtlest element of the individual mind [in Hindu

psychology this mind would be termed 'antaHkaraNa']. Until this 'I'

is erased by non-identification with body-mind-intellect, it does not

get illumined by the Universal Consciousness. It would then be in the

Eternal Moment, beond Time and Space.

 

13. Is Advaita gaining popularity worldwide?

 

In terms of exposure to the word, yes! Being the most absruse,

abstract, and rigorous discipline, it is probably on par with Quantum

Physics!

 

14. Is dispassion seen as a virtue? If so, why?

 

Absolutely. Attachment to anything transient only can re-inforce

Ignorance.

 

15. Can anyone else cause this illusion to be dispelled in us?

 

In Advaita there is no 'other'/'anyone else'! The same Reality

dispels the Ignorance with or without the intervention of a manifest

person.

 

16. Is a guru necessary?

 

The Reality Itself is the Guru, but serves that function in many

different ways, depending on the individual's readiness, efforts,

sincerity, etc.

 

17. If Consciousness is the underlying nature of mind then how is

the mind to perceive it?

 

Consciousness is the underlying nature of all Existence. The mind

does not perceive it, so much as its darkness [ignorance] is dipelled.

 

18. What is the "Aham Vritti"?

 

'vritti'-s refers to the thoughts that constantly arise in the field

of awareness. The root of all these is the 'self-hood'[ego].

The first aphorism in Raja Yoga is that of elimination of all

vrittis of 'idam' [everything separate from oneself.]

In Jnana Yoga, the Aham vritti is realised as non-different from

Brahmaakaara vritti.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunderh:

 

I am of course new to this list and I do appreciate your replying to

my post. You are most eloquent and thorough in the context you were

given. The references and language in most of the posts I read here

are beyond my education. I thought perhaps I would be a good person

to present some questions that someone new to Advaita might

appreciate having answered in a straightforward and relatively simple

way.

 

I do not want to abuse your good will or treat you as a reference

source but I thought I would comment on one thing. It has to do with

my own experience.

 

It is down at number 12.

--

 

advaitin, "sunderh" <sunderh> wrote:

> advaitin, "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote:

> > Dear Advaitins:

> >

> > I have been following the thread about a primer for Advaita. The

> idea

> > of using the FAQ forum intrigued me and I have , in the spirit of

> > pitching in on a difficult but worthy task, compiled my idea of

> what

> > some of these questions might be.

>

> Namaste,

>

> At the risk of sounding naive and simplistic, I offer here

some

> short answers to this interesting series of questions, each of

which

> could be expanded into a thread, to correct my errors and to

satisfy

> the questioners.

>

> 1. Advaita means not-two, implying One. Can this One be explained

> with concepts?

>

> Only to a limited extent. Reality, if defined as the the unchanging

> substratum, is beyond the concepts of duality - such as One and

Many.

> The usual examples given are the waves and the sea, or the sparks

and

> the fire, or the gold and ornaments, or clay and pots, etc.

>

> 2. Why does someone talk about something that is impossible to

> impart to another?

>

> The 'something' that is imparted is [in] 'silence' only! The person

> has to be 'ripe' to understand the silence. The talk is a necessity

> for most aspirants to show the path to the Immortal Bliss of

Reality.

>

> 3. Is Advaita a religion? Is it a part of any religion?

>

> If defined etymologically, religion refers to the concept

of 'binding

> together' [re-ligare], a method to bind one to God / Reality /

> Perfection / Ideal, etc. In the sociological context, it is an

> organised transmission of values promoting the welfare of a society

> through faith in the teachings God/Prophets, etc.

>

> 4. Is Advaita a philosophy?

>

> Advaita is the 'name' given to the 'Reality', defined as

> Consciousness.

> OM is the symbol of that Reality. The use of the word in the

context

> of philosophy is later; and in the Sanskrit context it is known as

> 'darshana', meaning that which helps one 'see'/'experience' Reality.

>

> 5. Why is non-violence so important?

>

> One has to be familiar with the concepts of 'Gunas' to understand

> this. Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas define the modes of activities in

> Nature. Sattva promotes holiness and is essential for

> understanding 'Reality', and is uniquely developed by the human

> being. The other two are closer to the 'animalistic'

> instinctual nature, and serve as obstacles in the understanding.

> Violence, himsA in Sanskrit, [non-violence = ahimsA] epitomises

> the latter two qualities. At the human level, through millenia of

> experience, the Golden Rule "All things whatsoever ye would that

men

> should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and

the

> prophets." The Gospel of Matthew Matt 7:12, has served

> as an ideal in all societies, and abjuring violence has become a

> spiritual value of utmost importance.

>

> 6. Does Advaita negate existence and see it as Illusion?

>

> Another synonym for Advaita is Sat [Existence], Chit

> [Consciousness/Energy], and Ananda [beatitude], which will explain

> the fallacy of negating Existence!

> Existence is not an Illusion, but to treat the limited and transient

> perceptual phenomena, divorced from its Infinite substratum of

> Consciousness, as the sole Reality, is Illusory. One who has

realised

> the unity of one's own consciousness with the universal

> Consciousness, through the Illumined Intellect/Intuition, has

> no words to describe this mystery of Existence, which is the reason

> for the Silence to describe Reality.

>

> 7. How is one to view the idea that the world arises with the mind?

> Doesn't the world remain when I don't perceive it?

>

> The world remains even if one does not perceive it, but it never

> remains the same!

> Whatever remains in Time and Space changes, and by definition

> Reality has to be that which does not chage, in other words That

has

> to be Transcendant. One perceives the world because of its

Immanence;

> the world cannot exist without That.

>

> 8. If the Advaitist sees only one, and the observer, observing, and

> observed event are the same, then why do I feel like I am my body

and

> not the things I see?

>

> The Advaitist sees only one, only in a manner of speaking. The real

> speech is Silence alone, but the Silence that holds within Itself

the

> Infinite potential of manifestations [whether sensory or supra-

> sensory].

> This feeling of 'I am the body', is what the Advaita philosophy

> calls as the fundamental Ignorance. This is like the cloud hiding

the

> Sun. When the cloud of Ignorance is removed by the development of

> Sattvik Intellect, the Sun of Consciousness illumines all Existence.

>

> 9. In Advaita is individuality seen as an illusion? Please, explain!

>

> As stated earlier, individuality divorced from the Universal

> Consciousness, is the source of grief, misery, duality, etc. It is

a

> mask that keeps one from recognising one's true nature of

Immortality

> & Beatitude.

>

> 10. Would you explain about being and non-being. What is non-being?

>

> Being is ever-existent, unborn, immortal, Transcendent and Immanent,

> Conscious, etc. Non-being is the opposite of the above.

>

> 11. How does Jnana Yoga differ from Raja Yoga?

>

> Jnana Yoga relies on the method of Intellectual inquiry into the

> nature of Reality. The Self-understanding requires ripeness in

> several moral virtues and intellectual perspicacity, along with a

> determination to pursue dispassionately only what is non-transient,

> treating all transience as source of Ignorance.

> Raja Yoga relies on the control of the Mind's activities through

> special techniques of physical, mental, moral, purification, and

> faith.

>

> 12. Is holding the "I" in the mind the same as being in the moment?

>

> 'I' is the subtlest element of the individual mind [in Hindu

> psychology this mind would be termed 'antaHkaraNa']. Until this 'I'

> is erased by non-identification with body-mind-intellect, it does

not

> get illumined by the Universal Consciousness. It would then be in

the

> Eternal Moment, beond Time and Space.

 

 

---

I have realized that the thing I think of as "me" does not

change. It is not something else that does not change, but my most

intimate self. My mind changes about subjects but the knowing "me"

does not. Since it is not localized in the body doesn't this make me

the 'now'? I wondered if this means anything to others in an

intellectual context.

 

I probably need two words for me; one for the reference to my

relative participation in events, and one for this 'knowing me'. I

believe Shankara called the king of the senses Indra, and the

knowing, Brahman, in the Aitareya Upanisad.

If I am asking too much of your time I will understand but any

comments will be appreciated.

----

 

 

> 13. Is Advaita gaining popularity worldwide?

>

> In terms of exposure to the word, yes! Being the most absruse,

> abstract, and rigorous discipline, it is probably on par with

Quantum

> Physics!

>

> 14. Is dispassion seen as a virtue? If so, why?

>

> Absolutely. Attachment to anything transient only can re-inforce

> Ignorance.

>

> 15. Can anyone else cause this illusion to be dispelled in us?

>

> In Advaita there is no 'other'/'anyone else'! The same Reality

> dispels the Ignorance with or without the intervention of a

manifest

> person.

>

> 16. Is a guru necessary?

>

> The Reality Itself is the Guru, but serves that function in many

> different ways, depending on the individual's readiness, efforts,

> sincerity, etc.

>

> 17. If Consciousness is the underlying nature of mind then how is

> the mind to perceive it?

>

> Consciousness is the underlying nature of all Existence. The mind

> does not perceive it, so much as its darkness [ignorance] is

dipelled.

>

> 18. What is the "Aham Vritti"?

>

> 'vritti'-s refers to the thoughts that constantly arise in the

field

> of awareness. The root of all these is the 'self-hood'[ego].

> The first aphorism in Raja Yoga is that of elimination of all

> vrittis of 'idam' [everything separate from oneself.]

> In Jnana Yoga, the Aham vritti is realised as non-different from

> Brahmaakaara vritti.

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

 

Love

Bobby G.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote:

 

I thought I would comment on one thing. It has to do with

> my own experience.

>

> It is down at number 12.

> --

> > 12. Is holding the "I" in the mind the same as being in the

moment?

> >

> > 'I' is the subtlest element of the individual mind [in Hindu

> > psychology this mind would be termed 'antaHkaraNa']. Until

this 'I'

> > is erased by non-identification with body-mind-intellect, it does

> not

> > get illumined by the Universal Consciousness. It would then be in

> the

> > Eternal Moment, beyond Time and Space.

>

>

> --

-

> I have realized that the thing I think of as "me" does not

> change. It is not something else that does not change, but my most

> intimate self. My mind changes about subjects but the knowing "me"

> does not. Since it is not localized in the body doesn't this make

me

> the 'now'? I wondered if this means anything to others in an

> intellectual context.

>

> I probably need two words for me; one for the reference to my

> relative participation in events, and one for this 'knowing me'. I

> believe Shankara called the king of the senses Indra, and the

> knowing, Brahman, in the Aitareya Upanisad.

> If I am asking too much of your time I will understand but any

> comments will be appreciated.

> --

 

Namaste Bobby,

 

This, for me, is like swimming in deep waters !

 

You are probably referring to Aitareya upanishad 1:3:13-14. The 12th

verse refers to all the changing states as 'svapna avasthA', dream

states!

 

When awareness is confined to the body, it is termed 'deha-buddhi';

when it crosses this step to a more subtle level, aware of

individuality, and of THAT [immanent] which crosses even this, it is

termed 'jIva buddhi';

when it is pure awareness alone [transcendent], it is termed 'Atma

buddhi'.

 

The words 'now, moment', etc. are a manner of speaking - time-bound;

they are in reference to past & future. Timeless Reality cannot be

expressed in words! Even the words One, or the 'Fourth' [turIya]

cannot do it justice!

 

I hope expert 'swimmers' in this ocean will explain it better than I

can.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bobby & Sunder, there is one verse which speaks to me in such

times.

 

advaitin, "sunderh" <sunderh> wrote:

> advaitin, "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote:

> > I have realized that the thing I think of as "me" does not

> > change. It is not something else that does not change, but my

most

> > intimate self. My mind changes about subjects but the

knowing "me"

> > does not. Since it is not localized in the body doesn't this

make

> me

> > the 'now'? I wondered if this means anything to others in an

> > intellectual context.

> >

> Namaste Bobby,

>

> This, for me, is like swimming in deep waters !

>

> You are probably referring to Aitareya upanishad 1:3:13-14. The

12th

> verse refers to all the changing states as 'svapna avasthA', dream

> states!

>

> When awareness is confined to the body, it is termed 'deha-buddhi';

> when it crosses this step to a more subtle level, aware of

> individuality, and of THAT [immanent] which crosses even this, it

is

> termed 'jIva buddhi';

> when it is pure awareness alone [transcendent], it is termed 'Atma

> buddhi'.

>

> The words 'now, moment', etc. are a manner of speaking - time-bound;

> they are in reference to past & future. Timeless Reality cannot be

> expressed in words! Even the words One, or the 'Fourth' [turIya]

> cannot do it justice!

>

> I hope expert 'swimmers' in this ocean will explain it better than

I

> can.

 

 

Here's a very expert swimmer!

 

'There is neither Past nor Future. These is only the Present.

Yesterday was the present to you when you experienced it,and tomorrow

will also be the present when you will experience it. Therefore

experience takes place only in the present, and beyond experience,

nothing exists.'

 

Ramana Maharshi

 

I also equate this verse by Dogen as daintily pointing to this as

well. It also speaks to the experience of beauty of experiencing life

fully, that Frankji spoke of ..

 

'When you see forms or hear sounds fully engaging body & mind, you

grasp things directly. Unlike things & their reflections in the

mirror, & unlike the moon & its reflection in the water, when one

side is illuminated the other side is dark.'

 

Dogen

 

This is when duality & unity celebrate life as is (without any

interference with interpretation).

 

Colette

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunderh and Colette:

 

I will try to clarify my meaning and ask another question.

 

>I have realized that the thing I think of as "me" does not

> change. It is not something else that does not change, but my most

> intimate self. My mind changes about subjects but the knowing "me"

> does not. Since it is not localized in the body doesn't this make

me

> the 'now'? I wondered if this means anything to others in an

> intellectual context.

>

> I probably need two words for me; one for the reference to my

> relative participation in events, and one for this 'knowing me'. I

> believe Shankara called the king of the senses Indra, and the

> knowing, Brahman, in the Aitareya Upanisad.

> If I am asking too much of your time I will understand but any

> comments will be appreciated.

>>Namaste Bobby,

>You are probably referring to Aitareya upanishad 1:3:13-14. The 12th

>verse refers to all the changing states as 'svapna avasthA', dream

>states!

>When awareness is confined to the body, it is termed 'deha-buddhi';

>when it crosses this step to a more subtle level, aware of

i>ndividuality, and of THAT [immanent] which crosses even this, it is

termed 'jIva buddhi';

when it is pure awareness alone [transcendent], it is termed 'Atma

>buddhi'.

 

-----Actually i looked up the passage that I was referring to and

copied it below . When I read the text a few years ago it seemed

that this was the central theme.

 

Aitareya Upanisad with commentary by Shankaracharya-Translated by

Swami Gambhirananda

Part III Chapter 1,

1. What is It that we worship as this Self? Which of the two is the

Self? Is It that by which one sees, or that by which one hears, or

that by which one smells odour, or that by which one utters speech,

or that by which one tastes the sweet of the sour?

 

--At the end of Shankara's commentary on this verse he says:

......Which, again is that one organ that has become diversely

differentiated? That is being answered:

 

2. It is this heart (intellect) and this mind that were stated

earlier. It is sentience, rulership, secular knowledge, presence of

mind retentiveness, sense-perception, fortitude, thinking, genius,

mental suffering, memory, ascertainment, resolution, life-activities,

hankering, passion, and such others. All these verily are the names

of Consciousness.

 

3. This One is (the inferior) Brahman: this is Indra, this is

prajapati: this is all these gods:....

All these have Consciousness as the giver of their reality: all these

are impelled by Consciousness: the universe has Consciousness as its

eye, and Consciousness is its end. Consciousness is Brahman.>

 

 

----My most intimate self is Consciousness (Brahman) but to me it is

just me. The set of likes and dislikes, the will to live, all

ignorance, and the sense or manifestation of I amness (What Patanjali

called the afflictions) are this smaller not-me or Indra.

Consciousness of the "I am" must be Brahman musn't it? That is my

question.

 

My thoughts are that as long as the now is experienced in a sustained

fashion (dhyana)the feeling of "I" is superfluous, but may recur as a

thought to be ignored. By this reasoning Saying 'I AM the now' would

be better than saying 'I am IN the now' which reinforces the actually

illusion of separation.

 

At the beginning of Drik Drisya Viveka --

"The world we see, being seen by the eye, is drisya (object); the eye

which sees it is drik (subject). But the eye, being perceived by the

mind is drisya (object) and the mind which sees it is drik

(subject). The mind, with its thoughts peceived by the Self, is

drisya (object), and the Self is drik (subject). The Self cannot be

drisya (object), not being perceived by anything else.

 

>The words 'now, moment', etc. are a manner of speaking - time-bound;

>they are in reference to past & future. Timeless Reality cannot be

>expressed in words! Even the words One, or the 'Fourth' [turIya] >

>cannot do it justice!.........

 

<Here's a very expert swimmer!

 

'<There is neither Past nor Future. These is only the Present.

Yesterday was the present to you when you experienced it,and tomorrow

will also be the present when you will experience it. Therefore

experience takes place only in the present, and beyond experience,

nothing exists.'

 

<Ramana Maharshi>

 

----Yes, Colette, an expert unsurpassed. I was hoping to use the

word "now' as a referent to reality. The way I see it, now is the

timeless moment. I experience no other. The concept is not, but

what it refers to is.

What is a tree without the concept of a tree?

What am I without the concept of I?

What is now without the concept of now?

 

 

<I also equate this verse by Dogen as daintily pointing to this as

well. It also speaks to the experience of beauty of experiencing life

fully, that Frankji spoke of ..

 

<'When you see forms or hear sounds fully engaging body & mind, you

grasp things directly. Unlike things & their reflections in the

mirror, & unlike the moon & its reflection in the water, when one

side is illuminated the other side is dark.'

 

Dogen

 

This is when duality & unity celebrate life as is (without any

interference with interpretation).

 

<Colette

 

Many thanks for the opportunity to address you.

Love

Bobby G.

[Guest guest]

Dear Bobby,

 

The most important ingredient that can be missed in the

discussion of Upanishads is that of a 'pure mind'. The utterances of

the Sages came out of pure ['sAtvik'] nature, they having gone even

beyond that ['triguNatIta']. 'chitta-shuddhi' is a concept that is

fundamental to the understanding of spiritual 'truths'.

 

One's understanding of these is in direct proportion to the

purity of mind, whether it is through the 'yamas and niyamas' of Raja

Yoga, or the 'sadhana-chatushtaya' of Vedanta.

 

It is this that gives universality to the utterances of

pure souls.

 

The purity can be pursued only in the waking stage; dream

and deep sleep are marooned in much less purity, in fact quite

tamasic.

 

The Bhagavadgita explains in great depth at least 12 areas

of purification:

 

AhAra [food, or in general all sensory intake]

kartA [doer]

karma [deeds]

yajna [sacrifice]

dAna [charity]

tapa [austerities]- of body, mind, speech

dhriti [perseverance]

tyAga [renunciation]

shraddhA[faith]

buddhI [intellect]

jnAna [knowledge]

sukha [happiness]

 

Gita 3:38 [and to 43] gives the metaphor of how knowledge of

the spirit is masked - like the smoke of a fire, like the dirt on a

mirror, and like the amniotic sac over the embryo!

 

If one achieves the sattvik nature in all these facets, the

upanishads and the whole nature become an open book, and all debates

end in the adoration of the Silence.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote:

> Aitareya Upanisad with commentary by Shankaracharya-Translated by

> Swami Gambhirananda

> Part III Chapter 1,

> 1. What is It that we worship as this Self? Which of the two is

the

> Self? Is It that by which one sees, or that by which one hears, or

> that by which one smells odour, or that by which one utters speech,

> or that by which one tastes the sweet of the sour?

>

> --At the end of Shankara's commentary on this verse he says:

> .....Which, again is that one organ that has become diversely

> differentiated? That is being answered:

>

> 2. It is this heart (intellect) and this mind that were stated

> earlier. It is sentience, rulership, secular knowledge, presence

of

> mind retentiveness, sense-perception, fortitude, thinking, genius,

> mental suffering, memory, ascertainment, resolution, life-

activities,

> hankering, passion, and such others. All these verily are the

names

> of Consciousness.

>

> 3. This One is (the inferior) Brahman: this is Indra, this is

> prajapati: this is all these gods:....

> All these have Consciousness as the giver of their reality: all

these

> are impelled by Consciousness: the universe has Consciousness as

its

> eye, and Consciousness is its end. Consciousness is Brahman.>

>

>

> ----My most intimate self is Consciousness (Brahman) but to me it

is

> just me.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote:

>

> Dear Sunderh and Colette:

 

Hello Bobby:-) my first disclaimer ~ anything I say is just my

colouring on That. Ok? I am not trying to seek a truth I can capture

in words.

>

> I will try to clarify my meaning and ask another question.

>

>

> >I have realized that the thing I think of as "me" does not

> > change. It is not something else that does not change, but my

most

> > intimate self. My mind changes about subjects but the

knowing "me"

> > does not.

 

Hi again. I am reminded here of Ramana's term 'II'

 

Since it is not localized in the body doesn't this make

> me

> > the 'now'?

 

I like your conclusion. I like the way Ramana uses the word Present

for the Here & Now. Presence is another word I find meaningful.

> ----My most intimate self is Consciousness (Brahman) but to me it

is

> just me. The set of likes and dislikes, the will to live, all

> ignorance, and the sense or manifestation of I amness (What

Patanjali

> called the afflictions) are this smaller not-me or Indra.

> Consciousness of the "I am" must be Brahman musn't it? That is my

> question.

 

I like the way you have worded It. I myself do not say that one is, &

one is not. I include both as That. For discussion purposes I use

this & That ..

 

Using these words Here & Now, I might play, & say that awareness is

Here, & Now (includes It as Its forms).

>

> My thoughts are that as long as the now is experienced in a

sustained

> fashion (dhyana)the feeling of "I" is superfluous, but may recur as

a

> thought to be ignored. By this reasoning Saying 'I AM the now'

would

> be better than saying 'I am IN the now' which reinforces the

actually

> illusion of separation.

 

Well I fully support how you see it & speak it as perfect for you

right now. I have nothing better to offer you.

>

> At the beginning of Drik Drisya Viveka --

> "The world we see, being seen by the eye, is drisya (object); the

eye

> which sees it is drik (subject). But the eye, being perceived by

the

> mind is drisya (object) and the mind which sees it is drik

> (subject). The mind, with its thoughts peceived by the Self, is

> drisya (object), and the Self is drik (subject). The Self cannot be

> drisya (object), not being perceived by anything else.

>

>

> >The words 'now, moment', etc. are a manner of speaking - time-

bound;

> >they are in reference to past & future. Timeless Reality cannot be

> >expressed in words! Even the words One, or the 'Fourth' [turIya] >

> >cannot do it justice!.........

 

 

Yes, that's why I'm avoiding speaking as if I know. I cannot give you

a tidbit encompassing It. You are Here anyway:-)) Hi ya!

>

> <Here's a very expert swimmer!

>

> '<There is neither Past nor Future. These is only the Present.

> Yesterday was the present to you when you experienced it,and

tomorrow

> will also be the present when you will experience it. Therefore

> experience takes place only in the present, and beyond experience,

> nothing exists.'

>

> <Ramana Maharshi>

>

> ----Yes, Colette, an expert unsurpassed. I was hoping to use the

> word "now' as a referent to reality.

 

Me too. I find the term the Now fullsome.

 

The way I see it, now is the

> timeless moment. I experience no other. The concept is not, but

> what it refers to is.

> What is a tree without the concept of a tree?

> What am I without the concept of I?

> What is now without the concept of now?

 

Beautiful :-) and so trees & animals are just as much now as you are.

 

'One should get the essence out of things and let the things

themselves alone'

 

Meister Eckhart

 

In this sense things refers to the conceptual baggage we would carry

around us which we project upon forms of Being.

 

> Many thanks for the opportunity to address you.

> Love

> Bobby G.

 

It is very lovely seeing a flower bloom Bobby.

 

Yours,

 

Colette

[Guest guest]

Hi Bobby, your words have inspired me to look inside Rumi. There is a

particular poem I am seeking ~ but along the way I have found

something else to share of his ...

 

'There is an original inside me.

What's here is a mirror for that, for you.'

 

Rumi

[Guest guest]

I couldn't resist, here's another

 

'My soul, don't try to answer now!

Find a friend & hide.

But what can stay hidden?

Love's secret is always lifting its head

out from under the covers,

"Here I am!"

 

Rumi

 

For the child at play

 

:-)

[Guest guest]

Hi Colette:

 

Communication is a wonderful part of reality. It is a true

blessing. That you respond and I respond brings me a great joy.

 

Thank you for this.

Love Bobby G.

 

advaitin, "oceanwavejoy" <colette@b...> wrote:

> Hi Bobby, your words have inspired me to look inside Rumi. There is

a

> particular poem I am seeking ~ but along the way I have found

> something else to share of his ...

>

> 'There is an original inside me.

> What's here is a mirror for that, for you.'

>

> Rumi

[Guest guest]

Hi:

> Beautiful :-) and so trees & animals are just as much now as you

are.

 

I am going to venture a guess that the trees etc. are not confused

about this issue.

> 'One should get the essence out of things and let the things

> themselves alone'

>

> Meister Eckhart

>

> In this sense things refers to the conceptual baggage we would

carry

> around us which we project upon forms of Being.

 

Well said!

>

>

> > Many thanks for the opportunity to address you.

> > Love

> > Bobby G.

>

> It is very lovely seeing a flower bloom Bobby.

 

Yes there is an atachments for growing thinsg, things not fully

developed, a good vibe that is pulled from us when we see babies and

puppies. Truly everything is developing and pulls from from people

their love. Maybe I am just resisting it too often. (I am pretty

sure I do that too often)

>

> Yours,

>

> Colette

 

Love,

Bobby G.

[Guest guest]

Hi Bobby, nice to hear from you again. I am struck by the

synchronicity of Frank's use of the same words you found so

compelling (here & now).

 

 

advaitin, "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote:

> Hi:

>

> > Beautiful :-) and so trees & animals are just as much now as you

> are.

>

> I am going to venture a guess that the trees etc. are not confused

> about this issue.

 

Doubts do not grow

Branches & leaves

 

Zen Master Dogen

 

~~~<~<@)

 

Trunk & branches

Share the same essence

 

Zen Master Sekito Kisen ~ The Sandokai

 

Oh! You give me the opportunity to share all my favourite quotes!

 

Bless you!

 

:-)

 

Col

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> > 'One should get the essence out of things and let the things

> > themselves alone'

> >

> > Meister Eckhart

>

> >

> > In this sense things refers to the conceptual baggage we would

> carry

> > around us which we project upon forms of Being.

>

> Well said!

>

> >

> >

> > > Many thanks for the opportunity to address you.

> > > Love

> > > Bobby G.

> >

> > It is very lovely seeing a flower bloom Bobby.

>

> Yes there is an atachments for growing thinsg, things not fully

> developed, a good vibe that is pulled from us when we see babies

and

> puppies. Truly everything is developing and pulls from from people

> their love. Maybe I am just resisting it too often. (I am pretty

> sure I do that too often)

>

> >

> > Yours,

> >

> > Colette

>

> Love,

> Bobby G.

[Guest guest]

Dear Bobby,

 

The most important ingredient that can be missed in the

discussion of Upanishads is that of a 'pure mind'. The utterances of

the Sages came out of pure ['sAtvik'] nature, they having gone even

beyond that ['triguNatIta']. 'chitta-shuddhi' is a concept that is

fundamental to the understanding of spiritual 'truths'.

 

One's understanding of these is in direct proportion to the

purity of mind, whether it is through the 'yamas and niyamas' of Raja

Yoga, or the 'sadhana-chatushtaya' of Vedanta.

 

It is this that gives universality to the utterances of

pure souls.

 

The purity can be pursued only in the waking stage; dream

and deep sleep are marooned in much less purity, in fact quite

tamasic.

 

The Bhagavadgita explains in great depth at least 12 areas

of purification:

 

AhAra [food, or in general all sensory intake]

kartA [doer]

karma [deeds]

yajna [sacrifice]

dAna [charity]

tapa [austerities]- of body, mind, speech

dhriti [perseverance]

tyAga [renunciation]

shraddhA[faith]

buddhI [intellect]

jnAna [knowledge]

sukha [happiness]

 

Gita 3:38 [and to 43] gives the metaphor of how knowledge of

the spirit is masked - like the smoke of a fire, like the dirt on a

mirror, and like the amniotic sac over the embryo!

 

If one achieves the sattvik nature in all these facets, the

upanishads and the whole nature become an open book, and all debates

end in the adoration of the Silence.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

Dear Sunder:

 

Thank you for this. I was not aware of these 12 areas of

purification. I know little of the Upanishads. That is one reason I

am here, to learn. The lives and words of the sages are intended for

consumption. Thank you for your efforts on my behalf.

 

Love,

Bobby G.

[Guest guest]

> Bless you!

Bless you too.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/9/2002 8:19:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

sunderh writes:

 

> If one achieves the sattvik nature in all these facets, the

> upanishads and the whole nature become an open book, and all debates

> end in the adoration of the Silence.

>

 

I quote here a beautiful wall plaque given to me by Brahma Kumaris, a warm

dynamic peaceful international yoga group based out of Athens and London.

 

Silence is spirituality

Silence is simplicity

Silence brings satisfaction

Silence makes you smile

Silence is sweetness

Silence makes you sensible

Silence is sincerity

Silence is stability

Silence creates solutions

Silence makes you strong

Silence removes all selfishness

Silence makes you a self-sovereign

Silence makes you stress-free

Silence puts a full stop to worries

Silence makes you sing in happiness

Silence creates your inner strength

Silence makes you serviceable

Silence makes you sacred

Silence is having sympathy

Silence brings safety

Silence is solitude

Silence is serenity

Silence is stillness of mind

Silence is having self-respect

Silence makes you spontaneous

Silence enables you to know all secrets of life

 

jai guru dev,

 

Edmond