Direct Approach: "You Are the Truth" -- Jean Klein - A word of caution

[Guest guest]

Shree Mark Hovila -

 

First welcome to the advaitin list. With all due respects I cannot

but express a word of caution in the so-called direct approach.

 

First, before I do that - The quotation you have provided " You are

the truth' as that of Jean Klein is actually a Vedic statement - The

translation of Tat Tvam Asi -that Shree Gummuluru Murthy is now

discussing - tat satyam - tad aatmaa - tat tvam asi swetaketo - that

it the turth - that truth is your own self and that your are.

Translation of Vedic statements does not make ownership to somebody

else.

 

Now more serious aspect - Vedanta can stop with just that statement -

you are that truth - and of course it recognizes that it does not

work unless the mind is properly tuned for that teaching. Krishna

gives an elaborate discussion why there are very few people who are

truly interested in realization of the absolute truth and even after

hearing that you are the truth - the direct approach you mentioned

yet the knowledge that you are that truth does not sink in. That is

the reason why it emphasizes the three fold aspect of sadhana -

shravana, manana and nidhidyaasana - and even for that there are

particular qualification the mind needs - that is precisely the

sadhana chatushhTayam - the four fold qualifications required in

preparing the mind so that so called direct approach works.

 

There are lots of neo-advaitins who after reading Bhagavaan

Ramanamaharshi or Nisargadatta maharaj - think there is no need to

study Vedanta. One can sit down and keep inquiring ' who am I ' or I

am that turth etc unless what is that I that I am seeking or what is

the truth that I am is clearly understood. Vedanta is not a religion

as some of the posts in advaitin keep propping once in a way - it is

like not a study of objective science that we can see we do not need

it for realization of self- it is the analysis of the self only - it

is like a mirror and is called darshaNa or philosophy that reveals

like a mirror ones own self - If the mind is not clear or clean from

the pressure of vasana-s how much one repeats that you are that or

who am I - nothing is going to sink in since the frame of mind

required to inquire within that is the object of inquiry is the very

subject doing the inquiry. Hence it is a said a very subtle mind is

required to this inquiry. Several went and sat in front of Bhagavaan

Ramana and only very few were able to get the benefit of that

teaching. That is the reason why Bhagavad Giita emphasizes the yoga

shaastra - how to tune the mind to this knowledge so that when the

teacher says you are that - it makes direct sense.

 

So my friend the so-called direct approach is nothing new - it is the

ancient Vedic wisdom- but without the benefit of the implications and

the qualification required for the direct teaching. Please

understand that I am trying to discourage you or find fault with the

teaching. Only passing on a word of caution - be aware of the pit

falls - this is the caution by Vedanta itself, not by me.

 

I am saying this from my own personal experience; where at one stage

of my life I was attracted to this direct approach with JK teaching

and got lost in the wilderness until I realized the fallacy of the so

called direct approach, thanks to my teacher, you could open my eyes.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

--- Mark Hovila <hovila wrote:

> The NoDoer e-mail list has been renamed DirectApproach. Here is

> the new list description:

>

> "There are basically two known approaches to truth, the gradual and

> the direct. In the direct approach the premise is that you are the

> truth, there is nothing to achieve. Every step to achieve something

> is going away from it. The 'path,' which strictly speaking is not a

> path from somewhere to somewhere, is only to welcome, to be open to

> the truth, the I am. When you have once glimpsed your real nature

> it solicits you. There is therefore nothing to do, only be attuned

> to it as often as invited. There is not a single element of

> volition in this attuning. It is not the mind which attunes to the

> I am but the I am which absorbs the mind.

> "In the gradual approach you are bound to the mind. The mind is

> under the illusion that if it changes, alters states, stops, etc.,

> it will be absorbed in what is beyond it. This misconception leads

> to the most tragic state in which a truth-seeker can find himself:

> he has bound himself in his own web, a web of the most subtle

> duality." -- Jean Klein

>

> Inspired by the late Jean Klein, teacher of Advaita Vedanta

> (nonduality), this forum aims to bring together those who have been

> touched by the teachings of Jean Klein, Sri Atmananda (Krishna

> Menon) and other expressions of the direct approach to truth.

> Please share your questions, your stories, your pointers to the

> Ultimate.

>

> The list home page is DirectApproach/

>

> Mark

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

=====

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.

[Guest guest]

Namaste;

 

I just want to join Sadaji to reinforce the fact that the Mahavakyas

of the Upanishads spell out the essence of the statement - "I am the

Truth" with no ambiguity. As for as I can see that there are no

indirect approaches to the Truth? Though the Truth is within, we are

always looking for elsewhere, just like the mathematics teacher

searching for the glasses hanging on the neck! As Sankara correctly

recoginized, our problem in not knowing the 'Truth' is

our "ignorance." And this is the Truth!!

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

"There are lots of neo-advaitins who after reading Bhagavaan

Ramanamaharshi or Nisargadatta maharaj - think there is no need to

study Vedanta. One can sit down and keep inquiring ' who am I ' or I

am that turth etc unless what is that I that I am seeking or what is

the truth that I am is clearly understood. Vedanta is not a religion

as some of the posts in advaitin keep propping once in a way - it is

like not a study of objective science that we can see we do not need

it for realization of self- it is the analysis of the self only - it

is like a mirror and is called darshaNa or philosophy that reveals

like a mirror ones own self - If the mind is not clear or clean from

the pressure of vasana-s how much one repeats that you are that or

who am I - nothing is going to sink in since the frame of mind

required to inquire within that is the object of inquiry is the very

subject doing the inquiry. Hence it is a said a very subtle mind is

required to this inquiry."

 

This is where I am right now. I've read Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi,

Nisargadatta, and some Ramesh Balsekar. I know that "something" has

to be "done" but I don't know what. I try to meditate 1-2 hours each

morning but is it enough to sit and ask "who am I?" or "what is

aware?" or to attempt the one of the 112 techniques of Shiva (I can't

recall the name offhand but it's in Osho's Book of Secrets)? I want

to study Vedanta and understand (if that's the right word), but there

seems to be so much to sort thru out there, both on the web and in

books. I would love to have someone with which to speak with, in

person, but I'm in Hawaii and all I can find are what look like "pop-

Vedanta" retreats that seemingly promote the Hawaiian islands instead

of the search within.

 

So, I guess my question would be: where do I start? Is it necessary

for me to memorize history dates and lineage lines or is it possible

to understand what the "trap" is/isn't and start there?

 

Thank you

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadananda,

 

Thank you for your comments on the quotation from Jean Klein. I will soon post

a more detailed response, but I do want to address one thing right now, namely,

what seems to be your implication that Dr. Klein, by saying "You are the truth,"

is usurping or claiming "ownership" of the Vedic statement "Tat Twam Asi." Can

such a statement be "owned"? Dr. Klein studied with sages in India in the 1950s

and I am sure he was well versed in traditional Advaitic texts, but I think it

is also safe to say that this phrase "You are the truth" has been said in one

form or another by sages throughout history, from all cultures. Let us

celebrate the spread of such wisdom, not look upon it with suspicion because "We

had it first!"

 

But I agree with you that Vedanta does not stop with that statement (for most of

us, anyway!). I will post more on this soon.

 

Sincerely,

 

Mark

 

 

First welcome to the advaitin list. With all due respects I cannot

but express a word of caution in the so-called direct approach.

 

First, before I do that - The quotation you have provided " You are

the truth' as that of Jean Klein is actually a Vedic statement - The

translation of Tat Tvam Asi -that Shree Gummuluru Murthy is now

discussing - tat satyam - tad aatmaa - tat tvam asi swetaketo - that

it the turth - that truth is your own self and that your are.

Translation of Vedic statements does not make ownership to somebody

else.

 

Now more serious aspect - Vedanta can stop with just that statement -

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

'Scrapperzen' writes:

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

This is where I am right now. I've read Bhagavan Ramana

Maharshi,

Nisargadatta, and some Ramesh Balsekar. I know that "something"

has

to be "done" but I don't know what. I try to meditate ......I

want

to study Vedanta and understand (if that's the right word), but

there

seems to be so much to sort thru out there, both on the web and

in

books. I would love to have someone with which to speak with, in

 

person, but I'm in Hawaii and all I can find are what look like

"pop-

Vedanta" retreats that seemingly promote the Hawaiian islands

instead

of the search within.

 

So, I guess my question would be: where do I start? Is it

necessary

for me to memorize history dates and lineage lines or is it

possible

to understand what the "trap" is/isn't and start there?

 

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

Dear Scrapperzenji,

 

The very fact that you have asked this question means that you

have started. Remember, wherever you are, your teacher is

waiting there right in you, that is the real You. Speak to Him

internally. Study whatever you feel like. In other words do not

jump from one book or one author to another. Take hold of

something or someone who appeals to you on a reasonable first

impression and hold on to it. The Guru is not as important as

the faith that you have in your guru. If you don't have a

physical guru that does not matter. The book in which you trust

is enough. Study that with faith. Think about what you have

read. Don't ask too many questions; but pray. Pray to Whom? To

the Inner Teacher in You. Crave for His guidance. The guidance

will come. The intensity with which you crave for the feel of

the presence of the Inner Teacher is what matters. The

consistency with which you pray is important. In other words

don't allow your faith to waver; This is where you use your

intellect. Use your intellect to check on your faith in your

endeavour so that it does not falter. Do not use your intellect

to 'sort out what you read' and thus trap yourself into going

into circles chasing the logic. Try this for a month. The Divine

in you will be your Guide.

praNAms to all advaitins

Yours, profvk

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

http://finance.

[Guest guest]

Very beautifully said by Sadanandaji. Thanks.

 

Kathi

>

> kuntimaddi sadananda [sMTP:kuntimaddisada]

> Thursday, September 05, 2002 9:21 PM

> advaitin

> Cc: NondualitySalon; RadicalAwakening;

> ConsciousnessisAll; Nisargadatta;

> am1gos

> Re: Direct Approach: "You Are the Truth" -- Jean

> Klein - A word of caution

>

> Shree Mark Hovila -

>

> First welcome to the advaitin list. With all due respects I cannot

> but express a word of caution in the so-called direct approach.

>

> First, before I do that - The quotation you have provided " You are

> the truth' as that of Jean Klein is actually a Vedic statement - The

> translation of Tat Tvam Asi -that Shree Gummuluru Murthy is now

> discussing - tat satyam - tad aatmaa - tat tvam asi swetaketo - that

> it the turth - that truth is your own self and that your are.

> Translation of Vedic statements does not make ownership to somebody

> else.

>

> Now more serious aspect - Vedanta can stop with just that statement -

> you are that truth - and of course it recognizes that it does not

> work unless the mind is properly tuned for that teaching. Krishna

> gives an elaborate discussion why there are very few people who are

> truly interested in realization of the absolute truth and even after

> hearing that you are the truth - the direct approach you mentioned

> yet the knowledge that you are that truth does not sink in. That is

> the reason why it emphasizes the three fold aspect of sadhana -

> shravana, manana and nidhidyaasana - and even for that there are

> particular qualification the mind needs - that is precisely the

> sadhana chatushhTayam - the four fold qualifications required in

> preparing the mind so that so called direct approach works.

>

> There are lots of neo-advaitins who after reading Bhagavaan

> Ramanamaharshi or Nisargadatta maharaj - think there is no need to

> study Vedanta. One can sit down and keep inquiring ' who am I ' or I

> am that turth etc unless what is that I that I am seeking or what is

> the truth that I am is clearly understood. Vedanta is not a religion

> as some of the posts in advaitin keep propping once in a way - it is

> like not a study of objective science that we can see we do not need

> it for realization of self- it is the analysis of the self only - it

> is like a mirror and is called darshaNa or philosophy that reveals

> like a mirror ones own self - If the mind is not clear or clean from

> the pressure of vasana-s how much one repeats that you are that or

> who am I - nothing is going to sink in since the frame of mind

> required to inquire within that is the object of inquiry is the very

> subject doing the inquiry. Hence it is a said a very subtle mind is

> required to this inquiry. Several went and sat in front of Bhagavaan

> Ramana and only very few were able to get the benefit of that

> teaching. That is the reason why Bhagavad Giita emphasizes the yoga

> shaastra - how to tune the mind to this knowledge so that when the

> teacher says you are that - it makes direct sense.

>

> So my friend the so-called direct approach is nothing new - it is the

> ancient Vedic wisdom- but without the benefit of the implications and

> the qualification required for the direct teaching. Please

> understand that I am trying to discourage you or find fault with the

> teaching. Only passing on a word of caution - be aware of the pit

> falls - this is the caution by Vedanta itself, not by me.

>

> I am saying this from my own personal experience; where at one stage

> of my life I was attracted to this direct approach with JK teaching

> and got lost in the wilderness until I realized the fallacy of the so

> called direct approach, thanks to my teacher, you could open my eyes.

>

>

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

>

>

>

>

> --- Mark Hovila <hovila wrote:

> > The NoDoer e-mail list has been renamed DirectApproach. Here is

> > the new list description:

> >

> > "There are basically two known approaches to truth, the gradual and

> > the direct. In the direct approach the premise is that you are the

> > truth, there is nothing to achieve. Every step to achieve something

> > is going away from it. The 'path,' which strictly speaking is not a

> > path from somewhere to somewhere, is only to welcome, to be open to

> > the truth, the I am. When you have once glimpsed your real nature

> > it solicits you. There is therefore nothing to do, only be attuned

> > to it as often as invited. There is not a single element of

> > volition in this attuning. It is not the mind which attunes to the

> > I am but the I am which absorbs the mind.

> > "In the gradual approach you are bound to the mind. The mind is

> > under the illusion that if it changes, alters states, stops, etc.,

> > it will be absorbed in what is beyond it. This misconception leads

> > to the most tragic state in which a truth-seeker can find himself:

> > he has bound himself in his own web, a web of the most subtle

> > duality." -- Jean Klein

> >

> > Inspired by the late Jean Klein, teacher of Advaita Vedanta

> > (nonduality), this forum aims to bring together those who have been

> > touched by the teachings of Jean Klein, Sri Atmananda (Krishna

> > Menon) and other expressions of the direct approach to truth.

> > Please share your questions, your stories, your pointers to the

> > Ultimate.

> >

> > The list home page is DirectApproach/

> >

> > Mark

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

> =====

> 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.

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

> Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

> http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

[Guest guest]

Sadananda,

 

As I understand it, you are saying that unless we prepare by practicing sadhana

or "tuning the mind," self-inquiry will not be effective. But is not

self-inquiry itself sadhana? Can any practice be effective in any respect

whatsoever if it begins from the premise that I am unfree and that I must do X,

Y or Z in order to become free, or, as you say, in order to even be "qualified"

to inquire into my true nature?

 

The direct approach, as I understand it, does not say to avoid any practices

because they are "gradual" and therefore somehow inferior. If one feels called

to do japa, pranayama, chanting, whatever, why not do them? But whatever we do,

do you not agree that it should be "done" with the attitude not that "I am

trying to get something," but rather that with an attitude of surrendering to

What IS? Can any practice which is done from the viewpoint of personal desire

lead anywhere but to more of the same: the person?

 

The direct approach begins from the premise that I am already free. Ramana

Maharshi and other sages have said this many times. You are quite right, simply

repeating this to oneself does not lead to realization. We are free, yet our

freedom is obscured. But it seems to me that any effort taken in the spirit "I

am bound" will lead nowhere. An effort undertaken as surrender to What Is, or

an inquiry into who this supposed "self" is, is what I would call the direct

approach.

 

Thank you for your comments. Glad to be part of the group.

 

Mark

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

I agree with Sadananda that merely asking 'Who am I'

will not help everyone. All of us are at different

stages of spiritual development and require different

lessons and methods of growth.

 

One of the easiest and safest ways is to see the

culture and background in which you are born. Use the

same culture to grow, but be open and tolerant and try

to learn from others also.

 

Do what comes naturally to you at any point of time.

If you feel like praying to Jesus, do just that. If

you feel like meditating, do just that.

 

Remember that your greatest teacher is connected to

you from the inside. Call it by any name that you

like. Ask it to direct you and open up to its

directions. You will then know what to do.

 

Faith is a good starting point. Have faith and your

ego, which is responsible for your conflicts, will

retreat. Faith is the greatest force which pushes us

forward on the spiritual path. This might appear

contradictory to the teachings of advaita. But it is

not. The greatest advaitins have also been men of

great faith. Faith is a means of neutralising our

negative impulses by opening up to higher energies.

 

Warm Regards.

 

Sriram

 

 

--- scrapperzen <scrapper wrote

>

> This is where I am right now. I've read Bhagavan

> Ramana Maharshi,

> Nisargadatta, and some Ramesh Balsekar. I know that

> "something" has

> to be "done" but I don't know what. I try to

> meditate 1-2 hours each

> morning but is it enough to sit and ask "who am I?"

> or "what is

> aware?" or to attempt the one of the 112 techniques

> of Shiva (I can't

> recall the name offhand but it's in Osho's Book of

> Secrets)? I want

> to study Vedanta and understand (if that's the right

> word), but there

> seems to be so much to sort thru out there, both on

> the web and in

> books. I would love to have someone with which to

> speak with, in

> person, but I'm in Hawaii and all I can find are

> what look like "pop-

> Vedanta" retreats that seemingly promote the

> Hawaiian islands instead

> of the search within.

>

> So, I guess my question would be: where do I start?

> Is it necessary

> for me to memorize history dates and lineage lines

> or is it possible

> to understand what the "trap" is/isn't and start

> there?

>

> Thank you

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

http://finance.

[Guest guest]

Shree Mark Hovila - First I want to thank you for taking my comments

in the right spirit. We can discuss now much more objectively the

subject.

 

-

> As I understand it, you are saying that unless we prepare by

> practicing sadhana or "tuning the mind," self-inquiry will not be

> effective. But is not self-inquiry itself sadhana?

> Can any

> practice be effective in any respect whatsoever if it begins from

> the premise that I am unfree and that I must do X, Y or Z in order

> to become free, or, as you say, in order to even be "qualified" to

> inquire into my true nature?

 

The answer lies in your question itself. Why to do any self-inquiry

at all when I am already that? I am that already whether I do the

self-inquiry or not - is it not? The fact that I have to do that

self-inquiry itself presumes that I donot know who am I even though,

it is a self-existing fact -who I am. The very premise that I donot

know who I am, automatically starts with the ignorance of myself and

mind does not stop with the statement that I do not know who I am -

non-apprehension of my true nature - it projects a mis-apprehension

of my self as I am this or that - just as when I see some object down

there which is long and thin like a snake - since I see the object

but do not know what that object is other than some qualifications as

it is 5 feet long and thick at one end and thin at the other end -

the mind immediately projects that it must be a snake - even though

it may be a rope. The projection of the plurality and notion that

plurality is reality is instantaneous with the half-baked knowledge

of the mind. Thus non-apprehension leads to misapprehension. This

misapprehension is deep rooted in the mind since I have been

operating with that notion - whole life (one if your a Christian) and

many if you are a Hindu! Bondage is nothing but deep-rooted notion

in the mind that I am not what I am but is that what I am not. Unreal

is taken as real and real as unreal. if one says "you are that and

not this' does not sink in because of this deep rooted avidya.

 

mana eva manushhyaanaam kaaranam bandha mokshayoH|

bandhaaya vishaasaktam mukthaiH nirvishhayam sritam||

 

mind is responsible for both bondage and liberation - bondage is

desire for objects and liberation is dissolution of all desires for

objects. Once I take myself what I am not, that is I am this body ,

this mind and this intellect etc, automatically the limitations of

these equipments becomes my limitations - Since in truth I am not

limited, I cannot accept the notion that I am limited therefore I try

to solve this problem of limitations by pravRitti and nivRitti -

gaining things, those I feel would make me more complete and getting

rid of things that cause pains etc. Hence the life-cycles start

because of this fundamental notions.

 

Whenever the desires are fulfilled that leaves the impressions in my

mind that- this makes me happy or that makes me happy etc and I go

after continuously with each action leaving an impression in the mind

(Vasana-s) and making me more and more dependent on the world out

side.

 

As long as these vasana-s are powerful - essentially the mind is

polluted with these strong notions, no teaching will sink in. The

premise that I am unfree, is fact of the matter, since I am in search

of happiness all the time. If I am already happy then why do I have

to go in search of happiness. - The teacher may say - you are that

happiness and why go for in search of happiness - That teaching

sounds good to hear but can sink in only when the mind is free from

all the vasana-s. That is where sadhana comes into picture - not for

self-realization but for purification of the mind - That is what the

whole of Bhagavad giita all about - as yoga shaastra - in terms of

karma, bhakti and j~naana - all for purification of the mind and not

for self-realization. Blessed are those whose minds are pure- only

the mind free from agitations is the mind that can learn when the

teacher says you are that.

 

If you ask me whether everybody needs to sadhana and can the

meditation on oneself and will that do the job?. Yes or no and all

depends on the type of the students. This is just like teaching

quantum mechanics - if the fellow has already taken the preparatory

courses including the math, then he can take the course right away.

But for those who are only familiar with simple physics, they have to

do many preparatory courses before they enter the quantum mechanics

class, is it not. If these are so true for the objective courses,

the subjective course is even more difficult since the object of

inquiry is the very subject itself - one cannot objectify the very

subject of inquiry. Hence it is extremely subtle.

 

Let me tell you my own experience - when I heard JK talks about

conditioning of the mind - he tells us any sadhana is again

conditioning the mind - golden shackles instead of iron ones - mind

has to be free from all conditioning - Sounds beautiful is it not,

and that is true to even from Vedanta perspective- the conditioning

is what self-ignorance is all about. Truth is the path-less land and

any path is going to be more of a bondage - that is the essence of

his teaching. Now I was so impressed and rejected all the

disciplines and traditional practices - that part was easy. Next I

found out that by throwing away my mind did not become unconditioned

since the mind was still longing for what I throw, in the momentary

inspiration of the teaching. Another problem is how do I make it

unconditioned - When I went back to JK - he tells us you can not ask

that question or follow some advice since that will only take you to

different conditioning. All you have to do observe your mind that

will uncondition your mind - All that happened was I found myself

with sound sleep when I tried to do that and when I am awake I am

back to the same situation I was before. I was in despair and out of

disgust I threw all the books and felt that whole concept is riddled

with problems - Only when I heard Swami Chinmayanandaji lectures I

realize what a stupid I was - I recognized the need of sadhana and

purity of the mind. Conditioning of the mind is done by deliberate

actions and to unconditioned one has to have proper detergent -

depending on the nature of the dirt. We donot want the detergent on

the plate either but that is needed only as a tool and it should

leave the plate clean free from dirt and the detergent. What kind of

detergent one needs - that depends on the dirt one has. Hence there

is no one path or one yoga or one way - The teacher after studying

the student tendencies and inclinations generally recommends the path

for that particular student. Hence a proper teacher is required -

that is what we call sampradaaya teacher who not only knows the truth

but knows how to teach that to the student who is deep rooted with

notions of his own. Also if I can say - the proper teacher is one

who directs his disciples to scriptures as the authority and not to

himself since this is subjective science.

 

Hence "I am that' will work only to those subtle students who are

already prepared in this or previous lives.

 

Others, depending on the evolution of the mind - karma, bhakti and

j~naana are the methods that Vedanta recommends as a purification

process. It does not take much time for me that I am in the wrong

class if I enter into the classroom where the teacher is teaching the

Shrodingers equation.

 

The discussion of the qualification of self-inquiry or brahman

inquiry is first thing that Vedanta class deals with - If you open

the notes on Brahmasuutra stored in the advaitin files that is the

discussion of the very first suutra - athaatho brahma gij~naasa -

then therefore inquiry in to Brahman - Then - stands for after

acquiring the required qualifications one should inquire into the

nature of Brahman. If you say I have to meditate on that - then

there is already flashing red lights - why does one need to even

meditate on it since I am the truth- It should be self-revealing or

immediate fact, since any medium is not required to know what I

already am - it should be like seeing the fruit in my hand as soon as

I open my eyes.

 

Also as long as I am meditating or seeking, it will be futile since

the very seeking sets the presumption or notion that what I am

seeking is not there to start with since that is why I am seeking -

is it not. AS long as seeker and sought are one and the same any

seeking on the part of the seeker is going to fail since seeker

already assumed that sought is not there where the seeker is - is it

not? But the mind cannot but seek - that is way the mind has to

reject what it is not - neti - neti. and in the process of rejection

it will hopefully ascertains itself what is left which is itself .

Hence it is a self-inquiry and involves extremely discriminative

intellect to reject what is not real and ascertain what is real.

That is - what Viveka - a required qualification of the seeker. In

order to reject what it is not, an intense detachment is required and

that is what is called vairagya - and that comes when there is

intense desire to discover the truth. When the mind is craving for

so many things in the world - it does not have that qualifications to

do this internal examination of ones own self.

 

If you feel that you have the required qualification to do the

inquiry, my friend please go ahead and all my best wishes. My word

of caution is only let the people be aware that everyone does not

have that qualifications and teaching universally that this is direct

path for everyone is dangerous.

 

The answers to the rest of your points naturally follow this - so I

will try to be brief.

>

> The direct approach, as I understand it, does not say to avoid any

> practices because they are "gradual" and therefore somehow

> inferior. If one feels called to do japa, pranayama, chanting,

> whatever, why not do them? But whatever we do, do you not agree

> that it should be "done" with the attitude not that "I am trying to

> get something," but rather that with an attitude of surrendering to

> What IS? Can any practice, which is done from the viewpoint of

> personal desire lead anywhere but to more of the same: the person?

>

 

True - but not to have a personal desire is useless advice in the

sense that everyone who has vasana-s and they have desires.

Suppression of the desires will only blast the mind. What is required

is sublimating those desire at the alter - and that my friend is the

very essence of yoga - karma-bhakti and j~naana.

>

> The direct approach begins from the premise that I am already free.

> Ramana Maharshi and other sages have said this many times. You

> are quite right, simply repeating this to oneself does not lead to

> realization. We are free, yet our freedom is obscured. But it

> seems to me that any effort taken in the spirit "I am bound" will

> lead nowhere. An effort undertaken as surrender to What Is, or an

> inquiry into who this supposed "self" is, is what I would call the

> direct approach.

 

Any effort is from the point of bondage - I am doer is itself is a

problem already solidified. As Harshaji rightly pointed out, that

seeking for any path itself is bondage. If the mind is not properly

prepared the so called direct path will be useless - just as my

effort of directly learning quantum mechanics without the appropriate

preparation of the mind. The so called approach will be more useless

since I will end up with more headache since my mind is not free

whether I think I am free or not!

 

>

> Thank you for your comments. Glad to be part of the group.

>

> Mark

>

Bless you Mark - I hope I have made myself clear

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

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.

[Guest guest]

Sri Sadanana,

>If you feel that you have the required qualification to do the

inquiry, my friend please go ahead and all my best wishes. My word

of caution is only let the people be aware that everyone does not

have that qualifications and teaching universally that this is direct

path for everyone is dangerous.

 

I think it is far more dangerous to undertake a practice with the idea of

achieving something, acquiring something. How could this do anything but

strengthen the ego? Again, I am not saying not to practice. I have my own

practices, and I assume that most people do. But if I am doing my practice with

the motive to attain something, it will be useless. Do you see what I am

talking about? What could come from a practice undertaken with a motive, a goal,

a desire? I am not talking about *suppression* of desires here. I am talking

about allowing the truth of who we are to penetrate our practice. Then our

practice becomes a surrender to What IS, not a willful attempt to break into

Heaven.

 

So I will continue to advocate (not teach, for I am not a teacher) the direct

path, which is, in the words of Jean Klein: "The 'path,' which strictly speaking

is not a path from somewhere to somewhere, is only to welcome, to be open to the

truth, the I am. When you have once glimpsed your real nature it solicits you.

There is therefore nothing to do, only be attuned to it as often as invited."

 

How could it be "dangerous" to be open to the truth, the I am? The danger is in

NOT being open to the truth, in saying "I am a miserable seeker," or "I am not

qualified, I must study books for 10 years, chant, meditate, and then maybe

after all those years of sadhana I will attempt to look at the truth of who I

am, since I am obviously unfit to do so now." I am saying, go ahead, chant,

study, but if you do it with the motive to Become rather than in the spirit of

Being, where will it lead?

 

Thank you for sharing your experience with JK (I assume you mean J.

Krishnamurti). When people hear words like "there is nothing to do," they think

that it means one must give up all practices. To me, that is just the seeker

putting on a different uniform. It is not the practices which must be given up,

it is the notion of the "practicer." Who is practicing? The very asking of the

question reveals that there is no practicer, only practice.

 

Thank you for allowing me to clarify my views.

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Mark Hovila" <hovila@a...> wrote:

> Sri Sadanana,

>

> >If you feel that you have the required qualification to do the

> inquiry, my friend please go ahead and all my best wishes. My word

> of caution is only let the people be aware that everyone does not

> have that qualifications and teaching universally that this is

direct

> path for everyone is dangerous.

>

> I think it is far more dangerous to undertake a practice with the

idea of achieving something, acquiring something. How could this do

anything but strengthen the ego? Again, I am not saying not to

practice. I have my own practices, and I assume that most people

do. But if I am doing my practice with the motive to attain

something, it will be useless. Do you see what I am talking about?

What could come from a practice undertaken with a motive, a goal, a

desire? I am not talking about *suppression* of desires here. I am

talking about allowing the truth of who we are to penetrate our

practice. Then our practice becomes a surrender to What IS, not a

willful attempt to break into Heaven.

>

> So I will continue to advocate (not teach, for I am not a teacher)

the direct path, which is, in the words of Jean Klein: "The 'path,'

which strictly speaking is not a path from somewhere to somewhere, is

only to welcome, to be open to the truth, the I am. When you have

once glimpsed your real nature it solicits you. There is therefore

nothing to do, only be attuned to it as often as invited."

>

> How could it be "dangerous" to be open to the truth, the I am? The

danger is in NOT being open to the truth, in saying "I am a miserable

seeker," or "I am not qualified, I must study books for 10 years,

chant, meditate, and then maybe after all those years of sadhana I

will attempt to look at the truth of who I am, since I am obviously

unfit to do so now." I am saying, go ahead, chant, study, but if you

do it with the motive to Become rather than in the spirit of Being,

where will it lead?

>

> Thank you for sharing your experience with JK (I assume you mean J.

Krishnamurti). When people hear words like "there is nothing to do,"

they think that it means one must give up all practices. To me, that

is just the seeker putting on a different uniform. It is not the

practices which must be given up, it is the notion of

the "practicer." Who is practicing? The very asking of the question

reveals that there is no practicer, only practice.

>

> Thank you for allowing me to clarify my views.

>

> Mark

 

Namaste,IMO

 

Being is unreal, non being is real. Being is the sakti of Saguna

Brahman, only Nirguna is Truth........ONS....Tony.

[Guest guest]

>"Mark Hovila" <hovila

>I think it is far more dangerous to undertake a practice with the idea of

>achieving something, acquiring something. How could this do anything but

>strengthen the ego? Again, I am not saying not to practice. I have my own

>practices, and I assume that most people do. But if I am doing my practice

>with the motive to attain something, it will be useless. Do you see what I

>am talking about? What could come from a practice undertaken with a motive,

>a goal, a desire? I am not talking about *suppression* of desires here. I

>am talking about allowing the truth of who we are to penetrate our

>practice. Then our practice becomes a surrender to What IS, not a willful

>attempt to break into Heaven.

 

Sir - please read my response again. the path is not for achieving for ego

build up, path is for purification of the mind to eliminate the very ego

that is what yoga means and that is what Geeta teaches.

 

And your final statements in the paragraphs indicates that there is nothing

direct about the approach - others than repeating words of the age-old

teaching as if it is recent discoveries.

 

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

>So I will continue to advocate (not teach, for I am not a teacher) the

>direct path, which is, in the words of Jean Klein: "The 'path,' which

>strictly speaking is not a path from somewhere to somewhere, is only to

>welcome, to be open to the truth, the I am. When you have once glimpsed

>your real nature it solicits you. There is therefore nothing to do, only be

>attuned to it as often as invited."

 

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

Again the statements of Klein are nothing new eiter. By all means you can

continue to advocate whatever you what - but definitely not in this forum.

This forum if you read the scope as defined by the moderators is meant for

advaita Vedanta as taught by Bhagavad paada Shankara. The moderaters give a

free hand to some degree to open discussions but definitely not for advocacy

of a given path. I suggest you open your own discussion group where you can

freely advocate the apparently direct path which is supposedly a pathless

path. All my best wishes your direct-path and its advocacy.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

_______________

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadanana,

>Sir - please read my response again. the path is not for achieving for ego

build up, path is for purification of the mind to eliminate the very ego

that is what yoga means and that is what Geeta teaches.

 

All I am saying is that effort done with end-gaining and goal-seeking in mind

will go nowhere and will strenghten the ego. I believe this is also what the

Gita teaches when it talks about renouncing the fruits of one's actions.

>And your final statements in the paragraphs indicates that there is nothing

direct about the approach - others than repeating words of the age-old

teaching as if it is recent discoveries.

 

I never said it was a recent discovery! You are putting words in my mouth. Is

every post here required to be new and original? Is everything you write new

and original, with no reference to or inspiration from the age-old teachings?

>Again the statements of Klein are nothing new eiter. By all means you can

continue to advocate whatever you what - but definitely not in this forum.

This forum if you read the scope as defined by the moderators is meant for

advaita Vedanta as taught by Bhagavad paada Shankara. The moderaters give a

free hand to some degree to open discussions but definitely not for advocacy

of a given path. I suggest you open your own discussion group where you can

freely advocate the apparently direct path which is supposedly a pathless

path. All my best wishes your direct-path and its advocacy.

 

I find it curious that you say that what I am posting is nothing new, simply a

restatement of the age-old teaching, yet it is not welcome here for discussion!

So are we not to discuss the age-old teachings here?

 

And certainly the statement on your home page invites discussion of this very

topic. It says Advaita Vedanta holds that all that exists is only Brahman. It

mentions several groups which hold views along the lines of the direct path,

such as Advaita Fellowship, Society of Abidance in Truth, and Krishnamurti

Foundation. It says that discussion of post-Shankara Advaita philosophy is

welcomed. It even says that discussion of such non-Advaita philosophies as

Buddhism and Jainism is allowed! Yet apparently not the direct path, the very

path taught by Sri Ramana Maharshi!

 

I did not come here to be an advocate. When I used that word I did not mean I

came here to argue the direct path and put down all the others. I joined

because I wanted to learn more about traditional Advaita. A couple of people

kindly answered my question about what is the best introductory book to

Shankara. I then posted a quote from my teacher which I thought would be of

interest, and I certainly never imagined it would be controversial. My only

"advocacy" after that point was defending the criticisms leveled by you and

others.

 

If you are inviting me to leave I will gladly do so, especially if the other

moderators don't want me either. I certainly do not wish to remain if my

discussion of the direct path provokes this kind of hostility.

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Mark Hovila <hovila wrote:

>

> If you are inviting me to leave I will gladly do so, especially if

> the other moderators don't want me either. I certainly do not wish

> to remain if my discussion of the direct path provokes this kind of

> hostility.

>

> Mark

 

Shree Mark - I am neither inviting you to leave not inviting you to

stay back. As a chief moderator, I have restated what the polacy of

this list serve is. As the FAQ clearly states that this list is

meant for Advaita Vedanta as taught by Shankara where Traditional

teaching of adviata is emphasized but definitely not for advocating

any particular paths as your mentioned in your mail. This definitely

is not the forum for that and I suggest if that is your intention of

joining, you have joined a wrong list. If you are here to learn the

advaita vedanta scriptures by all means you are always welcome and

that is the very purpose of this list. We do tolerate differet

opinions but not advocacy of differnt paths as I have outlined my

last mail. I hope the purpose is list serve is clear. Your

contributions towards learning scriptures are always welcome. There

is no problem in following any path that one likes as Dennis White as

clearly mentioned and he has been very frequent contributers for this

list. By the by I met Dennis personally and stayed with him in UK

and had a wornderful satsangh. It is not the paths it is the

advocacy of a given path in this list serve which is formed for a

specific purpose. My role as a chief moderator is only to reinforce

the rules so that everyone abides by the rules of the list. It is

nothing against you or anyone else or any path either. I hope I am

clear. If your purpsose is to learn the traditional advaita vedanta,

by all means stay and learn and contribute freely. And that is the

very purpose of the list as you can see many scholarly articles by

many contributers.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

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.

[Guest guest]

Sadananda,

 

Shree Mark - I am neither inviting you to leave not inviting you to

stay back. As a chief moderator, I have restated what the polacy of

this list serve is. As the FAQ clearly states that this list is

meant for Advaita Vedanta as taught by Shankara where Traditional

teaching of adviata is emphasized but definitely not for advocating

any particular paths as your mentioned in your mail.

 

That is not what I said, but obviously my ill-advised use of the word advocate

has led to confusion on your part, in spite of clarifying it in my last e-mail.

As has been evident from the e-mails thus far, I have only responded to

criticisms. However, if you see me straying into advocacy of a disapproved type

of Advaita, you are certainly free to remove me.

 

Looking back, I see that I used the word in response to your charge that the

direct path is "dangerous" if taught to everyone. Unfortunately, for whatever

reason, you seized upon that word and ignored the rest of my response to your

claim.

 

Mark