Lotus of the Heart and the Cave of the Heart

August 15, 2002

Ken Knight had raised the question about the

difference between the Lotus of the Heart and Cave of

the Heart on the Advaitin List.

At the web site, I have extensively

discussed the different "Hearts". Comments by

Sri Ramana on this topic can be found in the

"Talks".

The Heart Lotus often referred to in the yogic

literature is the Heart Center of Kundalini Yoga. This

is felt in the *Center* of the chest. Focusing on the

Heart Center is one of the yogic methods for

advancement on the Shakti Path.

The "Spiritual Heart" mentioned by Sri Ramana

is truly and completely beyond all centers and is not

attained by specific concentration on a particular

part of the body. However, before the mind merges into

the Heart, the last feeling and sensation is felt

slightly to the lower right of the chest cavity. Sri

Ramana described this many times and said that when

people refer to themselves with their finger, they are

pointing at this center.

Love to all

Harsha

=====

/join

HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs

http://www.hotjobs.com

August 15, 2002

This place pointed to is partly a cultural matter. In China when they refer to

themselves, they point to their forehead :-)

Love,

--Greg

At 11:15 AM 8/15/02 -0700, Harsha wrote:

>The "Spiritual Heart" mentioned by Sri Ramana

>is truly and completely beyond all centers and is not

>attained by specific concentration on a particular

>part of the body. However, before the mind merges into

>the Heart, the last feeling and sensation is felt

>slightly to the lower right of the chest cavity. Sri

>Ramana described this many times and said that when

>people refer to themselves with their finger, they are

>pointing at this center.

>

>Love to all

>Harsha

August 15, 2002

Thanks Greg-Ji for sharing your view. You may be

right. However, I have never seen a Chinese person or

a person from any other culture or country pointing to

their forehead in general conversation when referring

to themselves unless it is done consciously and to

make a certain point.

Unconsciously, when people refer to themselves

physically with their fingers or thumb, they point to

their chest and not their forehead. That is my general

observation.

Love to all

Harsha

=====

/join

HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs

http://www.hotjobs.com

August 15, 2002

Dear Sri Gregji. Welcome to the club. Forehead

pointing by wives saying, "I have a headache" is a

universal phenomena and not limited to the Chinese

culture! :-).

On a more serious note, I agree with you. In fact, any

kind of sensation of pain can lead to pointing to that

part of the body while the individual says "I am

hurting." For example if someone sprains their ankle

badly, the person will grab it and may say, "I am

hurt". It does not imply that the person feels that

the ankle is his/her own Self or the Self is hidden

somewhere close to the foot.

Similarly, when someone points to the chest and refers

to himself, it does mean that the chest is the Self or

the Self is hidden in the chest. Sri Ramana is fairly

clear on this matter. Heart refers to Core of Being,

Being Itself, Pure consciousness that is

Sat-Chit-Ananda. It is the same as the Original Face

of Buddhism. However, people are too eager to dismiss

Sri RAmana's very physical references to the

experiences prior to the mind merging into the Heart.

The fact is that such experiences which allow for

seeing beyond experience and are the gateway to

recognition of nonmovement in movement are rare and

usually come to most through many years of serious

dedicated meditation practice and inquiry. Advaita is

not the fast food as many people would wish to

believe. Therefore, the reference point for discussion

is missing.

The Heart exists at many levels, and from the

perspective of the mind, that includes the physical.

Upon realizing the heart, physical, mental, chest,

sensation, etc. vanishes like a phantom.

For more on the Heart and Nirvikalpa Samadhi, Please

refer to the following link which contains some of my

posts on the Heart. I am open to questions on this

matter as the Heart is one of favorite topics.

Love to all

Harsha

For more on the Heart see the link below.

__/MagazineV2/harsha/heart.html

_____________

Hi Harsha,

I have seen this forehead-pointing many times - my

wife is Chinese and she does

it, and we see lots of Chinese movies where they do

it. And they are really

and naturally pointing to what they take as

themselves, not doing anything

self-conscious.

But it doesn't matter!! Even if only 60% or 40% of the

world pointed to the

center/left/right part of the chest, Ramana's teaching

point is a very very

good one! It resonates with those who hear it!

OM to all!

--Greg

/MagazineV2/harsha/heart.html

=====

/join

HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs

http://www.hotjobs.com

August 20, 2002

"Gabriele Ebert" <g.ebert@g...>

Mon Aug 19, 2002 5:50 pm

nothing to get, nothing to attain

To speak of a time to come - to hope for it - when I

will be "realized", is absolutely meaningless. It is

to set my faith, my interest - upasana - on a

particular state of consciousness, for example the

state of consciousness of Ramana's body (sarira). To

desire salvation (moksha) is a false word at the level

of the Absolute (paramartha).

Pay no attention either to the idea of being realized

or to that of not being realized. All that steadily

inflates the ego. So long as I think of an ego that

has to be transcended or annihilated, I am simply

feeding it! The sadhana for moksha lies simply in the

stopping (nivritti) of the manas. A sadhana that does

not even think of itself as such.

Nothing to get, nothing to attain to become free.

Having rejected salvation, he has rejected

(everything) - (he is) avadhuta, the one who is free

from everything!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Abhishiktananda: Ascent to the Depth of the Heart,

diary entry April 19th and

20th, 1973

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

=====

/join

HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs

http://www.hotjobs.com

August 20, 2002

Namaste Harshaji.

I could not make out if the contents of your post belonged to you or

to Gabriele Ebertji or Abhishiktanandaji.

There is a lull now in Advaitin. So, let me pick this thread,

disagree with great respect to you and hope to kindle a heated

discussion.

Having an ego is no problem, Harshaji. We need one to operate. The

ego is like a fishing boat. You go out fishing in it in the morning

in the sea of samsara and return in the afternoon. The boat is

moored in your private jetty and you can see it in the moonlight from

your balcony. It does not bother you anymore and hinder your

existence.

Similarly, manas (known as mind) is a kaleidoscope with which you

play. You leave it with the other toys when you go to bed, from

where it does not bother you any more. Where then is the question of

stopping (nivritti) of the manas? It is there with the toys and the

lord, i.e. you, who played with it all day long has retired to his

Original State (capitals deliberate).

To me, acknowledging the existence of the ego and manas and, at the

same time, identifying with them is the root of the problem. Ego and

manas cannot bother one who objectify them as the boat in the

moonlight and the kaleidoscope in the toy room.

Similarly, there is no problem visualizing a state when one will be

free or realized, as long one acknowledges that such visualization is

a thought and the "visualizer" is ever-free.

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

________________________________

advaitin, Harsha <harshaimtm> wrote:

> "Gabriele Ebert" <g.ebert@g...>

> Mon Aug 19, 2002 5:50 pm

> nothing to get, nothing to attain

>

> To speak of a time to come - to hope for it - when I

> will be "realized", is absolutely meaningless. It is

> to set my faith, my interest - upasana - on a

> particular state of consciousness, for example the

> state of consciousness of Ramana's body (sarira). To

> desire salvation (moksha) is a false word at the level

> of the Absolute (paramartha).

>

> Pay no attention either to the idea of being realized

> or to that of not being realized. All that steadily

> inflates the ego. So long as I think of an ego that

> has to be transcended or annihilated, I am simply

> feeding it! The sadhana for moksha lies simply in the

> stopping (nivritti) of the manas. A sadhana that does

> not even think of itself as such.

>

> Nothing to get, nothing to attain to become free.

> Having rejected salvation, he has rejected

> (everything) - (he is) avadhuta, the one who is free

> from everything!

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Abhishiktananda: Ascent to the Depth of the Heart,

> diary entry April 19th and

> 20th, 1973

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

August 21, 2002

Hi Madathil,

Sorry to keep you waite-ing. I have actually been here throughout, silent

because nothing arose for me to say. (Actually, I had to install a new hard

drive on my PC. This took me a week (!) and I've only just caught up with

reading the list.)

I liked your image of the ego-boat moored in the jetty - very evocative.

However, I don't entirely see it as analogous. You say "Ego and manas cannot

bother one who objectify them as the boat in the moonlight and the

kaleidoscope in the toy room". Is this actually meaningful? Is it not the

case that, in order to objectify, there has to be a subject and the only

'thing' that this subject could be is the ego? It seems that it would be a

'detached and intellectual ego' that would have such a view of the world but

still, nevertheless, an ego.

All the best,

Dennis

August 21, 2002

yes, Sri Nairji. What you say makes perfect sense. Thanks for all the

eloquence. I will be quoting you in the future!

Love,

Harsha

advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Harshaji.

>

> I could not make out if the contents of your post belonged to you

or

> to Gabriele Ebertji or Abhishiktanandaji.

>

> There is a lull now in Advaitin. So, let me pick this thread,

> disagree with great respect to you and hope to kindle a heated

> discussion.

>

> Having an ego is no problem, Harshaji. We need one to operate.

The

> ego is like a fishing boat. You go out fishing in it in the

morning

> in the sea of samsara and return in the afternoon. The boat is

> moored in your private jetty and you can see it in the moonlight

from

> your balcony. It does not bother you anymore and hinder your

> existence.

>

> Similarly, manas (known as mind) is a kaleidoscope with which you

> play. You leave it with the other toys when you go to bed, from

> where it does not bother you any more. Where then is the question

of

> stopping (nivritti) of the manas? It is there with the toys and

the

> lord, i.e. you, who played with it all day long has retired to his

> Original State (capitals deliberate).

>

> To me, acknowledging the existence of the ego and manas and, at the

> same time, identifying with them is the root of the problem. Ego

and

> manas cannot bother one who objectify them as the boat in the

> moonlight and the kaleidoscope in the toy room.

>

> Similarly, there is no problem visualizing a state when one will be

> free or realized, as long one acknowledges that such visualization

is

> a thought and the "visualizer" is ever-free.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ________________________________

>

> advaitin, Harsha <harshaimtm> wrote:

> > "Gabriele Ebert" <g.ebert@g...>

> > Mon Aug 19, 2002 5:50 pm

> > nothing to get, nothing to attain

> >

> > To speak of a time to come - to hope for it - when I

> > will be "realized", is absolutely meaningless. It is

> > to set my faith, my interest - upasana - on a

> > particular state of consciousness, for example the

> > state of consciousness of Ramana's body (sarira). To

> > desire salvation (moksha) is a false word at the level

> > of the Absolute (paramartha).

> >

> > Pay no attention either to the idea of being realized

> > or to that of not being realized. All that steadily

> > inflates the ego. So long as I think of an ego that

> > has to be transcended or annihilated, I am simply

> > feeding it! The sadhana for moksha lies simply in the

> > stopping (nivritti) of the manas. A sadhana that does

> > not even think of itself as such.

> >

> > Nothing to get, nothing to attain to become free.

> > Having rejected salvation, he has rejected

> > (everything) - (he is) avadhuta, the one who is free

> > from everything!

> >

> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> > Abhishiktananda: Ascent to the Depth of the Heart,

> > diary entry April 19th and

> > 20th, 1973

> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

August 22, 2002

Namaste.

That is a real big problem, Dennisji – but only as long as one likes

to indulge in the game of infinite regression.

I remember a talcum powder can of my childhood which had the picture

of a lady holding the same talcum powder can. That can in the

picture had the same picture of the lady and the can and so on and so

forth. A typical unending regression. We seem to apply the same

logic when it comes to deducing the truth and go round and round in

unending circles like the images in a hair-cutting saloon having

opposite mirrors. To my eyes, there exactly lies the fault.

Your argument is that one needs an ego to objectify the ego. Yes.

You are absolutely right. I am totally with you. To objectify

something, there should be an objectifier. However, I am looking at

this problem from a different angle – a totally holistic approach -

you can call it. When we say "objectify something", there is a

deliberateness involved in it implying a certain "doership". But, is

there a deliberate objectifying needed to perceive creation? No.

Certainly not! I began to perceive the world without my willing or

wanting it. When exactly I don't know. Creation is simply

perceivable whether I like it or not. We don't have to perceive it

in the sense of deliberately doing something. I would put it in

another way. Spontaneous objectifiability is the essence of creation

and duality. Or rather, creation is spontaneous objectifiability. I

simply see without my having to do it deliberately. I don't know

when exactly I began to see and don't care to know if and when I

would end to see. Here, there is no ego or doership. Actually, we

are to be blamed for bringing in the doership and bringing misery

upon ourselves thereby! I hope you are with me. The essence is the

spontaneous seeing which, in ultimate analysis, encompasses both the

seer and the seen. That is Knowledge.

Once this is appreciated, then there is no infinite regression. We

are then simply aware that there is an awareness, a hinging factor,

behind the (spontaneously) objectified duality which in fact is not

different from the objectified. (The objectified here includes our

infinite regression too!) That Awareness is Me.

There is a dhyAna shlOkA before we begin chanting the Lalita

SahasranAma which requires the chanter to visualize himself or

herself as BhavAni (ahamityeva vibhAvaye BhavAnIm). Here the name

BhavAni is very important. BhavA connotes "be or beings". So,

BhavAni here is the motherless Mother of all beings (creation) and

She is Me! What I tried to elaborate in the previous para, I

believe, is beautifully concealed in this dhyAna shlOkA.

In order to happily operate in this world in advaitic mode, this

appreciation is more than enough. There is absolutely nothing

illogical or dogmatic about it. The problem arises only when we

begin to describe or visualize self-realization or a jnAni (Recall

the long post by our Atmachaitanyaji). Self-realization or jnAnihood

(Sorry for the coinage) cannot be a "state" as we know in this realm

of objectifiability. A "state" here automatically presupposes

attributes. In self-realization we have something beyond

attributes. So, it is better left unexplained and undefined in

mundane terms but only understood as our real nature.

That understanding itself is jnAna. Then what are we endlessly

debating for?

Ahamityeva vibhAvaye BhavAnIm. I remain with pranams to Her, to you,

Dennisji, and to all our advaitins and the whole of creation.

Madathil Nair

_____________________

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> I liked your image of the ego-boat moored in the jetty - very

evocative.

> However, I don't entirely see it as analogous. You say "Ego and

manas cannot

> bother one who objectify them as the boat in the moonlight and the

> kaleidoscope in the toy room". Is this actually meaningful? Is it

not the

> case that, in order to objectify, there has to be a subject and the

only

> 'thing' that this subject could be is the ego? It seems that it

would be a

> 'detached and intellectual ego' that would have such a view of the

world but

> still, nevertheless, an ego.

August 23, 2002

Dear Madathil,

I am sure that there is not really a problem of misunderstanding between us

here. The real problem is one of the language to use when we attempt to

express the inexpressible. I found that I was having precisely this

difficulty only yesterday. I am currently re-reading my book on Advaita

prior to sending a final version to the publishers and had just reached the

section on 'Appearance versus Reality'. In writing about the metaphor of the

magician, I realised that I was having difficulty expressing how the

'realised man' viewed the world without using words that still implied

duality. This is how I eventually resolved it:

"What is suggested is that you draw the wrong conclusion from your

perceptions. A good analogy is that of a magician. When a child sees a

magician sawing a lady in half or extracting yards of ribbon from someone's

ear, he believes these things to be real. An adult, being more experienced

in the ways of the world, sees the same events as the child and may not have

any idea how the tricks are done but he knows that they are an illusion;

that they are not really happening. Similarly, we see the creation and

believe it to consist of many separate objects and other people. The

equivalent of the mature adult - someone who has recognised the true nature

of reality, who has become what is called 'enlightened' or 'Self-realised' -

still sees the same 'objects' and 'people' but he knows that this is an

illusion. He knows that in reality there is only the one Self, that all of

this apparent creation is superimposed on this Self, making it appear as

though there are separate things. Note also that this is not merely an

intellectual appreciation of the fact. To the Self-realised man, there is no

longer objective knowledge of any kind as far as Reality is concerned; there

is only that unassailable truth."

Dennis

August 23, 2002

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

To the Self-realised man, there is no

> longer objective knowledge of any kind as far as Reality is

concerned; there

> is only that unassailable truth."

Namaste,

Well-said! In the words of Gita, that unassailable truth is:

sarvabhuutasthamaatmaanaM sarvabhuutaani chaatmani .

iikshate yogayuktaatmaa sarvatra samadarshanaH .. 6\.29..

Regards,

Sunder

August 23, 2002

Dear Dennisji,

You wrote in your post # 14404:

"I am sure that there is not really a problem of misunderstanding

between us here. The real problem is one of the language to use when

we attempt to express the inexpressible. I found that I was having

precisely this difficulty only yesterday."

I wanted to point this out to you in response to your post # 13483

but preferred not to prolong the debate then as we appeared to share

the same basic understanding.

The magician metaphor is beautiful as well as very illustrative.

Another example that I am always happy with is the rainbow. To a

child, it is a wonder. It doesn't know what makes a rainbow. The

same rainbow raises a grown up to heights of poesy. However, he or

she knows the prismatic truth.

Yet another example is that "grey-faced lady with a grave smile, whom

we mortals call the Moon". Even when we are aware of her barrenness,

she makes us sweetly sentimental. No doubt, we can at times be moon-

struck mad too in true Shakespearean style!

The third is the blueness of the sky. As an aside, I am surprised to

recall that I saw this reference in Sankara's "Atmabodha" (I am not

quite sure). I believe the West (modern science) realised that the

sky is not really blue much after Sankara. Even if they had realised

it, it was not possible that they shared that knowledge with

Sankara. Am I right?

Hope you will share your forthcoming book with us. I do visit your

advaita.org.uk off and on. The information there, particularly the

numerous links, have been quite helpful. You are indeed doing a

great service to Advaita.

Now, lastly, one minor suggestion. It concerns your following

concluding statement:

"To the Self-realised man, there is no longer objective knowledge of

any kind as far as Reality is concerned; there is only that

unassailable truth."

Is this not better left unsaid? Self-realised man, Reality,

Unassialble Truth - these three are synonyms and synonymous with

Silence. To us, a Realized person is an object. Hence, we are in the

habit of using words to describe Him and are thus prey to the danger

of being misinterpreted and misunderstood. Let Silence prevail and

each Advaitin reach the obvious conclusion in Silence.

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

_________

August 24, 2002

Shree Madathilnair - acccept my hearty thanks for the wonderful post

and analysis. I enjoyed reading your response.

You are absolutely right - to see an object through the senses - one

does not need ego - it occurs spontaneously as long as - the senses

are working and the mind behind the senses and consciousness behind

the mind etc. The world exists and seen as long as the senses and the

mind - the upaadhiis are operating - j~naani no j~naani. Perception

involves - sense input to the mind, then volition and then cognition

or recognition of the object - So far there is no ego involved

-Bhagavaan Ramana calls this as 'idam vRitti' - Then comes 'aham

vRitti' trying to own the process as I am the seer and I am the

thinker - it is my thought - these are I am + thoughts with ownership

- there is the ego part that enters into after the upaadhiis or

prakriti does its part - This is what is called ' ahankaara' and

then associated with these is 'mamakaara' - this is mine etc - in

both ego manifests. That is where ignorance lies. One cannot

objectify ego since it has no tangible base other than aham which is

brahman - In the recognition of ahma brahman the notion of ego (aham

jiiva) is dissolved - the world perceptions will still go on by

prakriti as usual but no more notions that this is mine and I am this

etc.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--- madathilnair <madathilnair wrote:

> Namaste.

>

> That is a real big problem, Dennisji – but only as long as one

> likes

> to indulge in the game of infinite regression.

>

> I remember a talcum powder can of my childhood which had the

> picture

> of a lady holding the same talcum powder can. That can in the

> picture had the same picture of the lady and the can and so on and

> so

> forth. A typical unending regression......

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

http://finance.

August 26, 2002

Dear Madathil,

The rainbow is certainly a good example. I'm surprised I haven't come across

this in the scriptures but then perhaps they did not understand how it was

formed. Now you mention it, I would have said, too, that the ancients did

not realise that the sky was not really blue. But it certainly crops up as a

metaphor in the Atmabodha (V.21): 'Owing to non-discrimination. the

qualities and activities of the body and the sense organs are superimposed

on the stainless Atman which is existence-consciousness-absolute, just as

blue colour and the like (are attributed) to the sky.' But then, isn't the

authorship of the Atmabodha disputed? Perhaps by the time it was actually

written, this was understood?

I will endeavour to extend the website sometime soon, and include some

quotations from the book. I will certainly post a message (and link to

amazon?!) when it is published.

<< "To the Self-realised man, there is no longer objective knowledge of any

kind as far as Reality is concerned; there is only that unassailable truth."

Is this not better left unsaid? Self-realised man, Reality, unassailable

Truth - these three are synonyms and synonymous with

Silence. To us, a Realised person is an object. Hence, we are in the habit

of using words to describe Him and are thus prey to the danger of being

misinterpreted and misunderstood. Let Silence prevail and each Advaitin

reach the obvious conclusion in Silence. >>

Yes, I don't disagree in principle. The problem is that I am writing the

book for someone who is not yet convinced of these things. What is not said

is likely to be not heard! Something I found very interesting in this

context concerns Wittgenstein, whose biography I am currently reading.

Apparently he said of his book Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus that it was

the things that he had left unsaid that were the most important. (You may

know of the famous words at the end of that book: 'Whereof we cannot speak,

thereof we must remain silent'.) This is all very fine, of course, but... I

suppose my view is that a living Sage can pass on the truth through silence

but an idiot such as myself has to use the very poor substitute of words!

All the best,

Dennis

August 26, 2002