finally...rollin' out the big guns!

[Guest guest]

hariH OM!

namaskaaram to all.

 

and the big guns of course, are the teachings of the

jagatguru of modern times, bhagavan sri ramana

maharshi. if this is specifically what you're

interested in, please scroll down toward the end of

the post. (note: i apologize for the length of this

post. i concluded it was unavoidable to present it

thus, instead of attempting to break it down, for

reasons that will be clear...if one has the endurance

to read it. :-)

 

the two questions, which are really one in essence: is

the world real or unreal? is the jiva real or unreal?

 

from the paramarthika (Absolute "realm" of brahman),

as we know, there are no answers to these questions,

for there are no questions.

 

however, and assuming the totality of What Is is not

paramarthika alone, even though it is the substratum

of all there is, we still have to admit there's

something being experienced or witnessed that is

consequently literally forcing us to refer to its

existence, even if it's merely pure apparition. (in

other words, we somehow must postulate a reference to

something we cannot deny has *some* kind of presence,

whether deemed illusory or not.)

 

if we want to call whatever it is, illusion, or a

piece of hallucination lost in a forgotten dream in

isvara's equally illusory Mind-universe, we still have

to admit we're alluding to *something*. call it a

snake a ring or a pot, we're still *referring* to

these nama-rupa-s, no?

 

even after moksha, the jnani still has to put his/her

lips to a thing he calls a cup in order to drink

something he also calls water, no?

 

like these two lines of the song goes,

"there's something happenin' here;

what it is ain't exactly clear..."

is one of the most important observations, which i

expound further below.

(if nothing else, read the paragraph--a few below,

starting with the word "naturally"--referring to

innocence, ok? or else, leave me alone! :-)

 

just kidding, comments etc are more than

welcome...however, i won't engage in drastically

diametric oppositions since opinions that divergent

don't readily find common ground. (nor in many cases

should they, for other reasons.)

 

so there *has* to be some fragment--no matter how

ridiculously insignificant--of reality to, of, within,

or about this thing we call maya [or sakthi, kali,

saguna brahman, prakrit, jagat, jiva, paramatman, a

day of brahma, or we might even chose to call it

something like the manvantara of mahesvara the

hiranyagharba prajapati]. the point is, even if we

call it something that's merely an appearance, we're

still being compelled to refer to it, no? **it's the

act of referring** that can't be denied! whatever

follows is academic as far as i can tell..

 

this mayavic reference field, constructed on the

fundamental cosmogenetic principle of Relativity,

is--as we know--the vyavarika. the paramartha relates

to nirguna, the vyavahara to saguna brahman. and what

i believe is the central message of the sastras is the

realization that the real components to consider

whether dual or not is this relationship. if this is

realized to be so, we discover that reality comprises

*both* [as an inherently integrated Whole].

 

now, if the reader is so sure about his/her idea that

the saguna brahman is first of all only defined as

being the creator god isvara, as emissary to its

nirguna source; *or* that saguna brahman (even if

taken to represent the manifestation of consciousness

[in sentient beings as well as Life Itself]) is

afterall utterly an illusion, what follows is perhaps

better left unread.

 

naturally if such one has any doubts about their

position, then by all means consider what i'm about to

say. this post is being specifically addressed to

those who find themselves on the fence of whether to

regard the world as abject illusion or not; while

those who already believe such, can perhaps get some

further support here. the former being the popular

idea, of course...and for those who regard such, my

intention is not to convince them otherwise at all.

to me, not only is excessive debating

counterproductive, especially if the views are so

divergent and equally strongly held, but oftentimes

people *need* to embrace certain ideas relative to

*their* weltanchauung (Life perspective). this latter

observation has *nothing* to do with the implication

that such perspective is more or less valid than this

or any other). as i alluded to numerous times, all

this is finally Mystery. and this latter *primal

insight* relates to the infinitely important idea of

innocence, as colette-ji mentioned re how children

become indoctrinated and delimited through processes

of comparative relationing leading to that mighty

slayer of the Real: mechanistic judgment. the whole

idea of what ramana called the "destruction of Mind"

(manonasa) relates to this. zens call it "mu-shin"

(no-Mind); and jesus said, "unless ye have the mind of

a child, ye cannot enter the kingdom of heaven."

obviously i've been making statements in the past year

or so, although not invalid (according to sastric

precepts) at the level i'm speaking within, aren't

however emphasized in the teachings the way i've been

emphasizing [viz. the value and *sanctity* of the

leela; especially the fact that it is real *as*

brahman, and only illusion if/when considered apart

from brahman, whereupon, for example, the jiva takes

himself to be exclusive in some way, as opposed to

being *naturally unique* yet simultaneously

holistically integrated into the Self of the All].

the shastras allude to this, yet don't embrace it with

vigor; nor do they speak of an eternal cyclic

continuum of manifestation i'm claiming, rather that

the goal is liberation from the samsaric cycle.

(whether i'm right or wrong, in the last analysis--as

mentioned above--it's important to realize it's merely

a matter of a relativistic conception, obviously--as

we vedantins are well aware--having no consequence on

the Real, being the brahman Self. the purpose of any

philosophic Life conception concerns means and not an

end, especially since there is no end. to anything.)

 

as many of my older (earlier) friends know, i had

lived mostly solitary for approx 7 years (except

winters), on a virgin wilderness island in a river in

canada, accessible only by boat. Natura initiated me

into the awesome spectacle of her prakrit in its

primal form. i witnessed and was partaker of events

(both within and without the "'I'-fulcrum") the likes

of which if i attempted to describe would sound too

fantastic to be credible. i saw the Wonder and Beauty

of Life in its primordial creative-impetus, as

catalyst to ananda realized in the *polarity* of

Manifestation, viz. the positive and negative entwined

like ida and pingala nerves round the central

Bliss-sushumna spine of Being.

 

here's one of the incidents; in fact it was the most

cathartic of all. please believe every word, and

especially the emphasis where given, because i can

tell you that my description, as best i will try, will

be literally anemic compared to what it was to

actually witness.

 

before i describe it, please understand, there is a

way of tuning into Nature, where things can happen

that will defy worldly experiences previously had in

"civilized" environs. the potential surge in prana

(is the only way i can describe it) availed to one who

yields to Natura for 2 or 3 or x moon cycles,

depending on individual to be "broken," is a bit [or

even sometimes a lot] frightening to experience, until

one adjusts. thus it's seen to be dangerous and

disarming, yet mystifying and captivating, enchanting

one like the dizzyingly-wild exhilaration of falling

in love.

 

one morning in mid-october 1983, i got out of my tipi

to go to the bushes (as sourdoughs refer to it), i

noticed a strange brightness through the trees,

apparently fog on the water lit by the sun i surmised

while walking to the shore. yes, just that. but the

quality of the brilliance was startling. the steam

rising off the warmer riverwater created this

unusually thick fogbank since it got abnormally cold

overnight. then, above the fogbank, were treetops

full of peak-autumn's multicolored leaves, also

brilliant lit by sun behind me, where i'm in a dark

shade (adding to the magnitude of hitherto unseen

abnormal-sharp vividness, since observing all in

extreme contrasts). above that a deep brilliant

prussian-cobalt blue sky. and the piece de resistance

is a brilliant fullmoon disc of the color of an

unimaginably brilliant iridescent *green*. i stood

transfixed for about 10 minutes i guess, tears welled

in my eyes, body slightly trembling as in a mild

euphoric-seizure, and then sat crosslegged peering

into one of the treasures of her Wonder and Beauty

unveiled. this, among many other encounters, caused

me to fall in love with Natura. as a result i am

utterly convinced that this Life is something to be

treasured, beheld as a gem of unknowable bounty, and

even worshipped in Heart: so for it *is* brahman!!

(only our mostly distorted view of it shifts its

primal reality *in our understanding*.)

 

ever since this soul-expedition into the *ineffable*

leela, i was on an unrelenting hunt for teachings that

paralleled what i came to understand mainly through

zen, vedanta, taoism, and christism applied to this

incredible excursion into the secrets of nature.

 

i found them in arunachala-siva jagatguru sri ramana.

 

 

now, before i share the references i was referring to,

to back my claim about the sanctity of the leela, i

would like to further introduce an observation which

may prove even more controversial in the minds of

[likely most] List members. this latter is not my

intention, and therefore ask any who find themselves

strongly objecting, that they simply ignore it and not

allow it to bother or influence them in any way. in

any event, however, i would suggest that the

possibility of it be considered.

 

_____________

 

although perennially available to any and all, vedic

wisdom has been *gradually* realized and disseminated

through this [our] wave of human souls over time. and

the point i would like to make is that to date all has

*not* yet been revealed!

 

now, the following appears unrelated, but is important

to note and establish, enabling--among other things--a

coherent and feasible presentation.

 

to my understanding and belief, the *primary* line of

sivavatars--those with most influence in

history--began with dakshinamurthi, then to skanda

(son of uma), lord subramanya, vyasa, vasishtha,

jnaana sambandar, ashtavakra, lord maitreya (a.k.a.

the "buddha of the future," who overshadowed jesus

from age 30 to 33), adi sankara, jnaneswar, and

recently ramana maharshi. (chronology is probably

off; a correction would be appreciated, as well as

inclusion of others or refutations of those named [and

grounds for such].)

 

for example, maitreya's transmissions through jesus

were cloaked in parables and implicit observations,

whereas sankara revealed further clarity and insight,

while ramana availed still more clarity/insight (this

all relating to the status of the mind's evolution in

its expanding capacity to comprehend and make

practical the vedic wisdom). so, there is obviously a

progression involved.

 

now, what *has* been revealed [in vedic wisdom] thus

far pertains exclusively to the attainment of

Self-realization. whereas, and contrary to popular

opinion, the latter is not the end but just the

beginning! the beginning of one's awareness of the

act of daily fulfillment of the leela of brahman,

which implies an *ongoing* svadharmic mandate for the

jivanmuktha, which will--as it has in the

beginningless past--continue without end (since it is

anadi and ananta). (in light of this, neither do i

ascribe to the permanence of videhamukthi; i believe

it is a temporary interlude, just as pralaya for

brahman; that eventually the jivatman involved

re-engages in the cycle of reincarnation. consider

for example the progressive reincarnations of the two

lines of avatars (visnu and siva).

 

the above can be supported by not only the words of

ramana maharshi, but even moreso by his life's

example. in this regard, one should have a working

knowledge of not only his teachings but also his life,

to be capable of determining the potential verity of

what i'm claiming here.

 

(it's important to point out that what i learned was

through my own experience, and not the result of

book-learning. in fact, i contend that whatever

*anyone* believes they've learned from books

(including scriptures), had to be first established

within themselves mostly subconsciously through

experience, where then, upon reading it, triggered

[that] already established awareness...despite the

popular belief that it was merely learned from a book.

the fact of the matter is that there has to be a

corresponding *pre-existing* area of understanding

developed within the buddhi, in order for one to have

the capacity to recognize a written or spoken pointer

to Reality.)

 

as i've posted many times, here's what sri ramana has

said, re the nature of the leela:

 

Visitor: "Sri Aurobindo says the world is real and you

say it is unreal. How can the world be unreal?"

 

Bhagavan: "The Vedantins do not say the world is

unreal. That is a misunderstanding. If they did, what

would be the meaning of the Vedantic text: "All this

is Brahman"? They only mean that the world is unreal

as world, but is real as Self. If you regard the world

as not-Self, it is not real. Everything, whether you

call it maya or lila or sakti, must be within the Self

and not apart from It. There can be no sakti apart

from the sakta."

 

- DAY BY DAY WITH BHAGAVAN

(1977) p.233

 

in the early days (in virupaksha cave, gurukulam,

etc), bhagavan ramana adhered to the lifestyle of a

sannyasin. this included disallowing food to be

spiced, including even the use of salt; whereas in the

later years (in ramanashramam), this observance

changed entirely. insofar as detachment to the world

and its sentient beings, the early years saw him

oblivious of his surroundings, whereas later he

embraced many world matters: from daily doing

giripradakshina around the hill [of arunachala]; to

caring for his inmates at the ashram [not only

spiritually but oftentimes inquiring as to their

physical wellbeing], especially his mother; to

interacting/communicating with numerous families of

animals from monkeys to squirrels, as well as his

beloved cow lakshmi who he affectionately called

"amma," and who upon her death was interred and

accorded full honors befitting the mahasamadhi of a

jivanmuktha; to displaying *profound* compassion on a

number of occasions to people who came to him with

problems (in one incident, a woman came to him with

her dead 4 year old son in her arms, and it was

observed that sri ramana had tears in his eyes upon

her taking leave of his presence). however, usually

he was sunk in and therefore automatically

demonstrating the turiya state, and so in the face of

sometimes what would seem to be circumstances as the

one cited above, that one would think in fact merited

a response! and this was more usual...thus his

reputation among some were as expressed by one of the

frequent visitors, "they say, you could crack your

skull open right in front of this guy, and he wouldn't

even blink." yet he is inscrutable...even to himself

[viz. to his functioning jiva]! he would also

celebrate with all during the major festivals, as well

as his own jayanthi-s. he was also obviously a lover

of music and the arts, and was occasionally seen

tapping his pencil to the beat of songs and ragas

being performed. he also encouraged and gave

blessings to those desiring marriage. he never

stressed one yogamarga or path over another, realizing

that each individual has a different temperament as

well as needs unique to their place on the path. and

finally, just prior to his mahasamadhi, it was

observed that he gave one last look at his attendants

and a tear was seen dropping from his eye.. tears of

love and sadness that could only be interpreted as

testifying to the fact that he felt such compassion

for his beloved people who would miss the benefit of

seeing him in his form as well as his missing seeing

them, in their form. the bitter-sweet pathos of the

vulnerable human (who brahman took form in! and who's

*latent* spectrum of attributes has been projected

into!) was still very much engaged. what other meaning

could be attached to such emotion displayed?

 

sri ramana also clarified the teachings of sankara.

that, and as we well know, sankara defined maya as

anirvachaniya and *not* as simply unreal. in this

vein, a simple and revealing question we could also

ask ourselves is: why would he have gone to the four

corners of bharath to establish his mathas, if he

considered the world *utterly* illusion?

 

adi sankara's advaita aphorisms:

1. brahma satyam,

2. jagat mithya,

3. jivo brahmaiva naparah.

 

where the third axiom doesn't speak of [the popular

interpretation as] atman being non-different from

brahman, but literally states that the jiva is

non-different from brahman. this is in terms of the

jiva's essential nature, being thus its aham vritti or

"I"-thought.

 

when ramana explains this he goes even further [from

the idea of comparing atman-brahman] and refers to the

jiva aspect in the statement as the jagat! "The

World," he says [paraphrasing], "is not different from

its source in the Self." "The World," he goes on to

say, "as World *as such* (viz. being isolated and unto

itself), is mithya or unreal; otherwise it is the Self

Itself."

 

for excellent overview summary of different sastras

and schools of yoga, most supporting directly or

indirectly this theory of leela:

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/disc/disc_14.html

 

an excellent article on justice and beauty by james

hillman:

http://www.springpub.com/GORBY.htm

 

OM sri ramanarpanamasthu!

 

 

 

 

 

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.

[Guest guest]

Frankji, frankly speaking I don't understand the raison d'etre for

your long and beautiful post, why you are apologetic about presenting

your vision, what gave you the impression that advaita considers the

manifest as illusion as different from the unmanifest and why you

chose a violent caption for your poetry ("rolling out the guns!" -

even if that be the teachings of Ramana).

 

You perhaps have the pedestrian translation of maaya as illusion

and "neti neti" as "not this, not this" bothering you. Maaya is not

illusion. It comprises everything conditioned by space and time, and

space and time as well. "Neti" consists of the words "na" and "iti"

(not and thus). So, the correct translation is "not thus" or "not

like this". Thus, there is no absolute negation in "neti" as one

would assume from the usually employed translation of "not this".

Thus, "this" (idam) is fully accepted but not in the way it is

usually seen (thus). One has to look at and understand "idam"

differently and realize that "idam" is in fact the unmanifest (That)

itself.

 

This is very clear from Isavasyopanishad. Verses "Isaavaasyamidam

sarvam" and "Poornamatha poornamidam" are loud and clear

proclamations that This in fact is That. Swami Dayananda

Saraswathiji has written a beautiful interpretation for "Poornamatha

poornamidam". Please read it. It is sheer poetry. I am yet to

see a better and more logical elucidation. I am sure, reading it,

you will relive your experience in the Canadian woods.

 

About your wood experience, your eyes welled up with tears of joy

because you broke out of your shell and became one with everything.

Christ and Ramana lived that experience every moment. That was why

Christ smiled while he was being crucified. He knew that the "idam"

consisting of his tormentors, cross, nails, pain, blood etc. were all

That. "That" being himself, how could he feel the pain!? The same

applies to Bhagwan Ramana. The gaping sarcoma on his shoulder was

Idam and, therefore, himself. How can himself hurt him!? He also

smiled like Christ.

 

Frankji, it is within us to make each moment of our life a "wood

experience" and smile all the way. That is mukthi. Why look for

videhamukthi? The liberated sees the Unmanifest (That) in each and

every atom and pore of his body (This). Then, where is the question

of a mukthi without deha (body). With body or without body, it does

not matter to him.

 

This is advaita as I understand and "know" it. I don't have any

problem with this "idam" as I am in fact That which is This (idam).

How can I be a problem for myself?

 

Let me conclude by quoting from Devi Maahathmya (Sapthasathi):

 

Chithi roopena yaa kristhnamethath vyapya sthitha jagath

Namasthasyai namasthasyai namasthasyai namo namaha

 

(Salutations again and again to Her who, pervading the entire

universe, abides as Consciousness.)

 

And She is our Mrs. Mahaamaayaji whom the ignorant has the temerity

to call "illusion"!

 

At Her feet always.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________________

 

advaitin, f maiello <egodust> wrote:

> hariH OM!

> namaskaaram to all.

>

> and the big guns of course, are the teachings of the

> jagatguru of modern times, bhagavan sri ramana

> maharshi. if this is specifically what you're

> interested in, please scroll down toward the end of

> the post. (note: i apologize for the length of this

> post. i concluded it was unavoidable to present it

> thus, instead of attempting to break it down, for

> reasons that will be clear...if one has the endurance

> to read it. :-)

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

> Let me conclude by quoting from Devi Maahathmya (Sapthasathi):

>

> Chithi roopena yaa kristhnamethath vyapya sthitha jagath

> Namasthasyai namasthasyai namasthasyai namo namaha

>

> (Salutations again and again to Her who, pervading the entire

> universe, abides as Consciousness.)

>

> And She is our Mrs. Mahaamaayaji whom the ignorant has the temerity

> to call "illusion"!

>

> At Her feet always.

>

> Pranams.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Hi. I like that you said this.

 

Is Frank part of your This too?

 

I hear the innocence (& cheek;-) of youth in you, but know not what

your physical age may be.

 

Thanks for sharing your wisdom,

 

And thanks to my brother Frank also,

 

luv,

 

Colette

[Guest guest]

At the young age of 55+, I am "cheeky" in appearance too. That is

what the doc who diagnosed me to be parotitic says. Yes. Frankji is

included in "idam". I see you also there - my mental picture of you -

no doubt, a little cheeky too!

 

Thanks and pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

 

________________________

 

 

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

> Hi. I like that you said this.

>

> Is Frank part of your This too?

>

> I hear the innocence (& cheek;-) of youth in you, but know not what

> your physical age may be.

>

> Thanks for sharing your wisdom,

>

> And thanks to my brother Frank also,

>

> luv,

>

> Colette

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

> At the young age of 55+, I am "cheeky" in appearance too. That is

> what the doc who diagnosed me to be parotitic says. Yes. Frankji is

> included in "idam". I see you also there - my mental picture of

you -

> no doubt, a little cheeky too!

 

Yes!

 

:-)

 

Col

[Guest guest]

hariH OM! nairji-

 

from what i understand and see, if i may say, clearly

you have an excellent grasp of advaita. however, i

beg to differ with you regarding the prevalence of the

idea the world and jiva are pure illusion. according

to my experience, only a very small minority sees it.

but that's who i've been exposed to. you might have a

whole different sangha.

 

and i will also be frank and forthright with you and

say that it wasn't the "experience" of oneness that

caused tears. i first had that happen some 15 years

prior (and has mostly been with me since, and to

varying degrees--sometimes also tricking me into

thinking it's lost completely for awhile due to karma

i'm sure).

 

no, it wsn't the ONENESS experience of sat or

Beingness, which confers a bliss-base in one's

antahkarana (which we all always *experience* yet

mind-judgments cunningly talk us out of through habit

socio-psychic patternings of Life and Self

conceptions, that are delimiting and discouraging for

those yet unable to see through the phanasmagoria of

the Mindfield). quite the contrary! it was the

experience of *duality* [superimposed on the

everpresent nondual base], where such arrangement of

awareness alone avails the possibilty of seeing the

Beauty and Wonder of our leela in Her form Natura

while at the same time being naturally in that base

existence. the tears were tears of appreciation and

wild-ecstatic hitherto unwitnessed divine-spectacle of

her Essence in all its primal power yet equally

vulnerable innocence! the leela Mystery unveiling

fragaments of Her secrets that have no end. unveiling

them daily for us all if we have but the eyes to see

[viz. beyond the categorization habit of the Mind

wielding killer judgments on our awareness of Being

Itself!].

 

namaskaar,

frank

 

 

 

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your good words, Frankji.

 

Now about the two points of divergence in our views:

 

1. I am not in any sangha as such. In fact, I am all alone. I am

just mouthing what the person I consider my guru taught me and what I

assimilated into me subsequently through contemplation on the points

taught and learnt.

 

2. Regarding your experience, the most important point is that it

enriched you, whether we agree on its "mechanics" or not. What you

have said has come as a "morale-booster" for me as I see that there

are others who are tuned into frequencies more or less in the same

range as mine. Here is wishing you more tears of joy and a rapturous

journey towards self-realization.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

 

advaitin, f maiello <egodust> wrote:

 

 

1. you might have a

whole different sangha.

 

2. I will also be frank and forthright with you and

say that it wasn't the "experience" of oneness that

caused tears.......

[Guest guest]

"madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

> [..]

>

> [..] Here is wishing you more tears of joy and a

rapturous journey towards self-realization.

>

 

_________________

 

hariH OM! nairji-

namaste.

 

based on what you've said in your earlier posts as

well, may i ask what criteria you're using to have

determined that you or i are not *already*

Self-realized, or anyone else for that matter?

 

if one has reached the point where they can understand

that the power of jnana and bhakthi margas are

*already* perfectly [because *innately naturally*]

balanced and merged as ONE experience in the Heart,

and that only the collection of negative-programmed

historic thought-streams that delimit the jiva [bowing

to them, as if worshipping...thus, in the process,

forgetting that it is in fact the jivatman, who is

brahman Itself], represent [at this stage] the

greatest obstacle to one's awareness unfolding to its

source in pure sat-chit.

 

thus the most debilitating thought to entertain is

that one isn't yet That! for *whatever* reason! it's

safe to say it's only a Mind-game. (not that

Mind-games are bad...quite the contrary! however, i

think we can all agree that this is definitely one of

the bad ones. :-)

 

sri ramana has stressed this very thing. it's also

found in TRIPURA RAHASYA, RIBHU GITA, ADVAITA BODHA

DEEPIKA, and other advaita texts.

 

there are a number of folks on this List i believe are

"just," as a zen might use the metaphor "a shout

away!" from hearing their Heart singing the truth this

very moment NOW. to be therefore *that* close,

realize they should!: **it's only a single thought

needs be eliminated, or simply *ignored* **!! ::::

and lo! *here appears* as the mental dust clears, the

HERE NOW we really are!

 

remember that thought is ever a split-second away from

the NOW where we are.

 

i'm not at all saying that thoughts should be

eliminated, but rather selective as to be entertained.

the ones that bring an identity contraction are

especially bad if they're brooded over and thus

worshipped! like the current prevailing one,

sustained by socio-hypnotic conditioning, become

routine, telling us [and we thus telling ourselves]

we're *this such* exclusive entity of

awareness/character. where, although true, it's only

*infinitesimally* representative of who and what we

are. to put it in perspective, this monad, this

atmanic kernel of expression and viewpoint among

countless myriads in the leela universe, is as

significant as any other, for ALL are the singular

Hologram of brahman; yet it is one of an *infinite*

number as well!

 

mind boggling? yes! that's why the Mind (that

portion thereof considered a practical instrument to

be used in the process of realizing the Self) has to

be given up as a thing to worship. with it goes

isolated categorizations. of everything.

 

the way i see it

i am ultimately

an absolute Fool

what else can i possibly be

immersed in my own true Self

which is absolute Mystery

 

OM ramanarpanamasthu!

 

namaste and

peace in LovePower [to all],

frank

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/9/2002 9:10:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

egodust writes:

 

> thus the most debilitating thought to entertain is

> that one isn't yet That! for *whatever* reason! it's

> safe to say it's only a Mind-game. (not that

> Mind-games are bad...quite the contrary! however, i

> think we can all agree that this is definitely one of

> the bad ones. :-)

>

 

Yes, it is only a Mind-game. Without yoga for a good balance of experience

of the sakti flows of joy and bliss, the Mind-game alone ends in despair.

Those not so situated are, in fact, doing various bits and pieces or whole

yoga programs 'on-the-sidelines', while talking a good game here in advaita.

This advaita is all of buddhi, one of the tattvas yet faraway from being the

most subtle of tattvas. Buddhi may well be seen as the most subtle tattva of

the everyday world of duality, and the stronghold of all of academia, but by

itself, it stops one from reaching closer to the goal, indeed, by its own

tenets that are well embedded in its structure.

 

> there are a number of folks on this List i believe are

> "just," as a zen might use the metaphor "a shout

> away!" from hearing their Heart singing the truth this

> very moment NOW.

 

Undoubtedly so, but that shout needs be heard via the yoga of subtle

experience, not through another intellectually devised combination or

permutation or repetition of the immense quantities of well poised advaita

sruti and literature. The experience of subtle and subtlest mantra has

virtually nothing to do with words and/or sounds heard in/about the world of

duality. The subtlest of all such 'sounds' are nothing but brahman itself,

experienced via siva/sakti transformations. The 'flowings' of bliss out of

such domains bring a joy and life to the otherwise rather dead and cold

domains of intellectual pursuits only.

 

jai guru dev,

 

Edmond

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

dear frank, I have been enjoying your posts over the last few weeks. I

thought the last one was great blessings in what can be a blizzard of

concepts that sometimes keeps the mind for ever chasing its own tail. I used

to be confused and a seeker after who or what I was and am. After a few

other path's I finally came to advaita.

Then to trace this I back to its source, so you find yourself at your own

source, where there is only THAT, there is no explanations[AS THAT SOURCE]

no concepts, no teachings, that says PARABRAHMAN BECOMES BRAHMAN BECOMES

ATMAN BECOMES JIVA AND THEN PLAYS HIDE AND SEEK WITH ITSELF, its all truly

mysterious and all my mind can do is remain at best in devotion[LOVE] to its

own SOURCE SELF. I find there is a lack of guideposts for integration of

SELF playing in the dance of Leila. mostly I have heard, read etc. that its

not true and forget the world of name and form because its an illusion,

this may help to remove the ignorance and realize your SELF but it doesn't

give any knowledge how to embrace the world as the reality of YOUR SELF.

what is usually implied is that you become detached from the world and all

desires dry up, my experience is that is so as 'THAT' minus saguna BRAHMAN,

BUT lets face it we are in form, that walks and talks. my feeling is that

the realization of SELF is a door way that allows the further expansion of

SELF in form/manifestation. That we now are at a turning point in the

evolution of SELF in form, that one of the key factors is to be rooted in

the Presence/ the NOW HERE. to be free of the identification with mind which

is a fiction of past or future.The time now is ripe for many Souls to

realize the ONE TRUE REALITY and be free of the binds of there minds, I feel

that the fire is now burning very strong in pockets on our planet. this is

especially so in some western countries, where there as been a struggle to

become free of their conditioned minds. I know in my case and many of like

minds we mostly turned to the east to find answers but I say this from my he

art not wishing to offend anyone, that mostly all traditions on this planet

are corrupted in one way or another, I can now see that's why I couldn't

awake through the tradition I was born into.I am putting my words down here

now because as the HUMAN RACE IS AT A TURNING POINT TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP

IN THE EVOLUTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS OR TO FALL PREY TO THE DESTRUCTIVE FORCES

OF THE COLLECTIVE MIND OF SEPARATION/FEAR. Don't misunderstand me,

CONSCIOUSNESS WILL EVOLVE ETHER THROUGH HUMANS OR ANOTHER FORM. ADVAITA IS A

GREAT TOOL TO REALIZE THE SELF, BUT LIKE ANY TOOL ONCE THE JOB IS DONE THE

TOOL MUST BE PUT DOWN, MEANING THE MIND MUST STOP DOUBTING THE TRUTH OF ITS

OWN SELF. I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT FRANK AND COL ARE POINTING AT IN THEIR WAY.

IN MY WAY THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING, EVERYONE IS THE TRUTH ALREADY WE ARE ALL

ONE AS CONSCIOUSNESS, NOW, NOT IN SOME FUTURE TIME BUT NOW, THE PAST CAN'T

HELP US TO BE HERE NOW, BECAUSE WE ARE ALREADY HERE NOW!!!

 

I DIDN'T MEAN TO BE SO LONG WINDED WITH THE ABOVE. IF ANYTHING I HAVE SAID

OFFENDS ANYONE, I AM SORRY, FOR I CAN ONLY LOVE AND RESPECT EVERYONE HAS MY

SELF.

 

WITH LOVE....JAYA

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.368 / Virus Database: 204 - Release 29/05/2002

[Guest guest]

Frankji,

 

Sorry for the delay. I was pretty badly tied up with more mundane

distractions.

 

I read your post several times. Still, I cannot say I understood it

well. However, I would like to answer the very tricky question you

have asked.

 

My wishing you was by way of just wishing as we wish best of luck,

happy birthday etc. I just worded it to suit the advaitic context.

That is all. I cannot say what was in my sub-conscious at that moment

and what prompted those words. I am sorry for the the feeling it

imparted (that you or I are not already THAT).

 

However, about my current state of affairs, I would like to say that

I have the basic advaitic vision imbibed through my efforts in

the "past" and also a feeling that I have a long, long way to go

before I can be something like even my good neighbour, not so speak

of great solus like Gandhi, Ramana and Christ, who I have accepted as

role-models. Every time I get upset over trifles with my wife,

children and others, I have to keep telling myself: "Nair, change

man. You have a long way to go.". Nevertheless, this is not to say

that I am a dissatisfied man. Not at all. I am very very happy with

my advaitic vision, my devotion to my ishtadevata whom I endeavour to

see as everything (Consciousness) and to whom I love to leave

everything. So, to me at least it looks like there is a sort

of "forward moment" under Her close supervision and I am very much

enjoying it. I do not know if this is self-realization because I

don't want to mince words. I just don't care what I have to confront

en route. It is Her business and I am sure She will take care of it.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

 

__________________

 

 

advaitin, f maiello <egodust> wrote:

> namaste.

>

> based on what you've said in your earlier posts as

> well, may i ask what criteria you're using to have

> determined that you or i are not *already*

> Self-realized, or anyone else for that matter?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/11/2002 4:10:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

madathilnair writes:

 

> However, about my current state of affairs, I would like to say that

> I have the basic advaitic vision imbibed through my efforts in

> the "past" and also a feeling that I have a long, long way to go

> before I can be something like even my good neighbour, not so speak

> of great solus like Gandhi, Ramana and Christ, who I have accepted as

> role-models. Every time I get upset over trifles with my wife,

> children and others, I have to keep telling myself: "Nair, change

> man. You have a long way to go.".

 

Might you be too hard on yourself? Why, I'll bet that if we could get to

talk to Mary Magdalene we would have found Jesus complaining about his pushy

mother, at least once, perhaps in a moment of relative distraught. Outside

of Hollywood and our own imaginations of the ideal, does such perfection ever

exist in the human body? What are the details of this leshâvidya stuff,

still hanging around those evolved ones, that small amount of 'ignorance'

that must remain, it is said, to hold âtma tied to sarîram? Duality means

duality; it would seem that there always must be that opposing way, that

complimentary polarization, that potential difference of simultaneously

occurring energy fields that drive the engines of motion. No?

 

jai guru dev,

 

Edmond

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

hariH OM!

jayaji, nairji, coletteji, edmondji-

 

please excuse the delay. this has unfortunately

become typical of me lately since i can't sit at

computer too long, due to bad back. as such, also,

i'll have to answer all at once, and briefly.

 

obviously i agree with jayaji. in fact, verbatim.

 

sri nairji, thanks for clarifying what you meant in

wishing me well, etc. however, i would like to

address the question about being perfect. as edmond

pointed out, and i agree, there ain't no such manifest

entity feasible. and for the very necessity that

*all* entities, regardless defined as enlightened or

not, retain a streak of avidya, because that is the

direct byproduct of Being Itself, which since it is

Mystery Itself, thus implicates the inescapable

component of imperfection! this entire spectrum of

Relativity exists *latent* in parabrahman.

 

also, if you care to, please explain what part within

my post you had trouble understanding. if you happen

to do so, i promise i'll try to reply within a month

or so. :-)

 

coletteji, re maharishi's quote:

what he's alluding to is parabrahmam, which is often

said to be beyond brahman and its leela; however--and

as we've agreed on this basic concept in another

context, the word 'beyond' can be misleading. since

there is really nothing *beyond* brahman and its

leela, for that would violate the intent behind the

mahavakya "all this is brahman." parabrahman is

equated in this sense to what is also referred to as

"the state beyond the Fourth" [or turiya], which is

turiyatita. but these [parabrahmam and turiyatita]

really hold the idea that brahman is both its Relative

and Absolute states or saguna and nirguna. somehow

systems of ideologies got crossed and these two terms

were added to explain the holistic value of brahman,

viz. that It isn't confined to being the

Undifferentiated or Unmanifest nirguna only! these

two words/ideas should be seen as substratums of and

not representing as anything beyond. ("cabeesh?"

[understand?] as the italians would say.. "if not, i

got a friend who'll make you an 'idea-offer' you can't

refuse.." :-))

 

perfection only exists *conceptually* in contrast to

imperfection. no? well it makes enough sense to me

to get the relentless Mind-beast off *my* back

anyway.. :-)

 

namaste,

frank

 

 

 

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Frankji.

 

Here we are mixing two things: being perfect and being enlightened.

The first one is akin to a system working at efficiency 1 in

thermodynamics, which simply does not exist. So, we have the concept

of entropy. Imperfections, therefore, are entropy in human

existence. I accept them without qualms. Nevertheless, like we can

edeavour to make a system work more and more efficiently at

efficiency levels less than 1, I believe, no harm will come by if an

advaitin puts in deliberate efforts to reduce imperfections in order

to tend towards perfection. I am not the same Nair I was four years

ago. Whether I willed a change or not, the fact remains that I have

changed and am changing to the better (according to me). Such

changes in many cases may or may not have anything to do with

enlightenment (advaitic or otherwise). A materialist, for example,

can also tend towards perfection. His enlightenment (if one would

call it enlightenment) comes from thoughts that are diametrically

opposed to those of a theist. So, perfection and enlightenment can

never be equated.

 

Once I asked a renowned Advaita teacher how one could become repeat

become a jeevanmuktha. He gave me a very practical advice which I

have all along held close to my heart, and beneficially so. He asked

me to deliberately behave like a jeevanmuktha straightaway if I had

the required advaitic vision and courage. His advice and my 'not so

very sincere' follow up on it (although my vision then was only an

academic appreciation of the advaitic truth) have convinced me that

it is possible to at least tend towards jeevanmukthahood. Thus, the

really exhilarating roller-coaster ride (as I would like to call it)

began and still continues. I don't think there is any destination.

The destination is the ride itself. So, there is no being perfect.

There is only a tending to be perfect and that is very much enjoyable.

 

About my inability to grasp some of the things you wrote - I believe

the problem is with me. Often, I find your style rather very

abstract and demanding repeated reading. This could well be due to

the profundity of the thoughts expressed. I don't want to go back to

your previous message. I do have problem with the following line in

your current message under reference:

 

"because that is the direct byproduct of Being Itself, which since it

is Mystery Itself, thus implicates the inescapable component of

imperfection! this entire spectrum of Relativity exists *latent* in

parabrahman."

 

Assuming that I understood you right, I agree that my being myself is

a mystery in the sense that I am what I am without my choice as I do

not know who willed my being. But, I cannot understand why that

should necessarily involve imperfection and what is the element of

relativity pointed at.

 

Please don't take this as criticism. I just can't figure it out.

May be philosophical premises totally unfamiliar to me might be

influencing your thoughts.

 

Pranams.

 

Madahtil Nair

_______________________________

 

 

-- In advaitin, f maiello <egodust> wrote:

> sri nairji, thanks for clarifying what you meant in

> wishing me well, etc. however, i would like to

> address the question about being perfect. as edmond

> pointed out, and i agree, there ain't no such manifest

> entity feasible. and for the very necessity that

> *all* entities, regardless defined as enlightened or

> not, retain a streak of avidya, because that is the

> direct byproduct of Being Itself, which since it is

> Mystery Itself, thus implicates the inescapable

> component of imperfection! this entire spectrum of

> Relativity exists *latent* in parabrahman.

>

> also, if you care to, please explain what part within

> my post you had trouble understanding. if you happen

> to do so, i promise i'll try to reply within a month

> or so. :-)

[Guest guest]

hariH OM! nairji-

pranaam.

 

again, sorry for the delay. of late, my life

circumstances make it difficult to keep up with the

mail. please don't hesitate to write; it's just that

it may tale awhile for me to reply.

 

madathilnair wrote:

> Once I asked a renowned Advaita teacher how one

could become repeat

> become a jeevanmuktha. He gave me a very practical

advice which I

> have all along held close to my heart, and

beneficially so. He asked

> me to deliberately behave like a jeevanmuktha

straightaway if I had

> the required advaitic vision and courage. His

advice and my 'not so

> very sincere' follow up on it (although my vision

then was only an

> academic appreciation of the advaitic truth) have

convinced me that

> it is possible to at least tend towards

jeevanmukthahood.

 

yes, i've heard of this approach, and in my view it's

quite valid depending on one's quality of advaitic

vision (something one must try to honestly determine

for themselves...i.e. do they feel satisfied with

their basic grasp of the teaching). however, i

believe it's misleading to speak in terms of 'acting'

per se, because this is where much misunderstanding

can occur. we of course all have a good idea of right

dharma re our actions in the world; however, one's

actions, per se, are not necessarily related to the

presence of mukthi. i would instead say--within the

context of this [quite valid if i may say]

approach--that one should *inwardly* consider oneself

a jivanmuktha, and carry on from that point, instead

of for example attempting to behave in a satvic

manner, whereupon if one fails thereof there is no

reactive negative self-judgment, which would lead one

to believe they were far from mukthi, defeating the

purpose (which is the process of clearing the mind its

ancient bad habits, especially pertaining to

*separative* egoic contraction)! fact is, the jnani

*does* act--even if to the subtlest of

degrees--a-dharmically, due to prarabdha karma.

> Thus, the

> really exhilarating roller-coaster ride (as I would

like to call it)

> began and still continues. I don't think there is

any destination.

> The destination is the ride itself. So, there is no

being perfect.

> There is only a tending to be perfect and that is

very much enjoyable.

 

beautifully stated!

 

i will address the rest of your [very insightful!]

post as soon as possible.

 

namaste,

frank

 

 

 

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.

[Guest guest]

hariH OM! nairji-

namaste.

 

yes, i'm all too aware that my writing style is

difficult, which is a product of reading so many

thosophical works over the years. i try to edit where

i can, as well as try to break the habit of attempting

to cover too much ground in the course of my

expression, etc. unfortunately some habits are real

die-hards.

 

___________

 

madathilnair wrote:

> I do have problem with the following line in

> your current message under reference:

>

> "because that is the direct byproduct of Being

Itself, which since > it is Mystery Itself, thus

implicates the inescapable component of

> imperfection! this entire spectrum of Relativity

exists *latent*

> in parabrahman."

>

> Assuming that I understood you right, I agree that

my being myself > is a mystery in the sense that I am

what I am without my choice as

> I do not know who willed my being. But, I cannot

understand why

> that should necessarily involve imperfection and

what is the

> element of relativity pointed at.

>

 

here's my line of reasoning, within which i believe

there is validity; however, this doesn't mean that it

is or points to any definitive truth concerning the

nature of parabrahmam, simply because the latter is

ultimately a pure Mystery. (i define parabrahmam not

as simply transcendent of the idea of nirguna and

saguna brahman, but rather as the *totality* of Being

or Existence, being thus inclusive of *Everything*

[unmanifest nirguna as well as Manifest saguna, *as

well as* transcendent of both yet *not* excluding

either, all at once!].)

 

as such, the nature of Being [even in the nirguna

brahman state, however here it is dormant/latent] has

within it the component of imperfection, just as a

fractal is the interface of symmetry (akin to

perfection) with a free-radical asymmetrical (or

imperfect) element, which in fact bestows it with

*creative beauty*! thus, i conclude, within all of

Existence, spiritual and physical, there must be en

element of imperfection. and this in turn relates to

Relativity. i see Relativity as an essential

archetypal mechanism present in all forms of Life

expression. i see it as lying latent in and as

mulaprakrit Itself.

 

the thing of utmost importance is however, the fact

that this is merely part of a leela *theory*. the

understanding is maintained that the leela, as

projection of our Self brahman, is in fact *equally*

unknowable and inscrutable. what we can know,

therefore, are only knowledges that have to do with

given unique realms of/within the infinite potential

of leela. the realm we share is, in this cosmology,

therefore one of literally infinite. the insight into

the magnitude of this logical enigma should be enough

to blow all the circuits of the lower [manasic or

'concrete reasoning'] mind, with its insistence that

it has the capability of *grasping* what it divines as

'absolute perfection' in all its [satvic relativistic]

nuances. for, this latter is--from what i can

see--the most common misconception of metaphysicians

in general, including many who pursue advaita

(although i would say the latter category are the

least likely to fall for this trap, with the zens not

too far behind.....however, the problem with [even

some of the most enlightened] zens is most of them

believe their's is the only way! [of course, not an

uncommon trait for *exoteric* traditional religious

beliefs, and--if you're familiar--the soto zennists

fall into this category; not the rinzai's however.]

this is based on what i've seen and read, especially

on the internet.. where i found the most holistic and

openminded approaches are among the vedantins....this

was also *especially* evidenced by the teachings of

sri ramana, as well as ramakrishna, vivekananda,

sivananda, and yogananda, among others).

 

peace in OM,

frank

 

 

 

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.

[Guest guest]

Hi frank-ji,

 

You're right - that theosophical writing is some of the worst in the entire

English language. Blavatsky is bad enough! Imagine reading Rudolf Steiner in

German. Hey, it might even be better! Yours is certainly better than the

theosophists' though!

 

I've tried to use the magnificent Brand Blanshard, George Berkeley and Richard

Rorty as writing examples. These guys are about the best philosophical stylists

in English. And Blanshard even has a book on it, called On Philosophical

Style.

 

Om!

 

--Greg

 

At 05:45 PM 6/24/02 -0700, f maiello wrote:

>hariH OM! nairji-

>namaste.

>

>yes, i'm all too aware that my writing style is

>difficult, which is a product of reading so many

>thosophical works over the years. i try to edit where

>i can, as well as try to break the habit of attempting

>to cover too much ground in the course of my

>expression, etc. unfortunately some habits are real

>die-hards.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Frankji,

 

I am very happy to read both your replies. I am very very happy that

you have clarified your position so elaborately inspite of your

backpain and other preoccupations.

 

I look forward to reading more from you. So, let the "rolling out of

guns" continue unabated. However, I suggest considering an

alternative title: "Letting out the doves!". Om shantih, shantih,

shantihi.

 

Best regards and pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________________

 

advaitin, f maiello <egodust> wrote:

> yes, i'm all too aware that my writing style is

> difficult, which is a product of reading so many

> thosophical works over the years. i try to edit where

> i can, as well as try to break the habit of attempting

> to cover too much ground in the course of my

> expression, etc. unfortunately some habits are real

> die-hards.

[Guest guest]

greg goode wrote:

>

[...] ...theosophical writing is some of the worst in

the entire English language. Blavatsky is bad enough!

Imagine reading Rudolf Steiner in German.

>

 

dear greg-ji,

 

i can't even fathom that! :-) steiner was a genius no

doubt, but surely abstruce in his writings, as was

blavatsky of course. the pinnacle i think was reached

by helena roerich; and especially one book in

particular channeled by alice bailey, TREATISE ON

COSMIC FIRE. this is the one that broke my logical

mind. :-)

 

on the other hand, the upside to theosophy--and i'm

sure you'll agree--is its holistic approach to all

religions and philosophies, as well as its general

goodwill towards all humanity. in my view, this has a

profoundly positive influence on the psyche.

 

namaste,

frank

 

 

 

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.