Guest guest Posted March 29, 2003 Report Share Posted March 29, 2003 Namaste all! I have had a change of heart about all this Advaita stuff. Yes, I will still cling to my philosophical ideas and interpretations of Advaita, so long as they seem reasonable or at least plausible to me. But I have lost all interest in convincing others. But even more important, I have decided, in agreement with Nanda VPCNK, that these discussions really are more of an impediment than an aid to realization. I still have faith that a much 'higher state of consciousness' is attainable, in which we realize our divinity. But the way we go about this is not cannot really be analyzed, which seems to make our list a bit irrelevant I suppose. What we must do is simply 'see God everywhere' and 'see no distinctions', as Ramana and many others have said. That seems to be the real meaning of Advaita and not something more complicated. This simple 'nondual vision' evidently produces the desired change of consciousness, when it sinks deep enough. This cannot really be understood. We must simply do it and maybe, with grace, something will happen. It is said that if you throw a baby in water it will swim, whereas an older child capable of some thought might drown. However, the intellectual thoughts that I will insist on are these: All this spectacle of the 'universe' could not have popped out of nowhere, therefore *something* corresponding to God exists. Therefore life has a purpose, which must be spiritual development. Therefore, we look around to see what clues the Lord gives us. If we are not particularly intellectual and skeptical, then we should probably just follow the religion we were born into and assume that was 'right' for us. If we are skeptical and cannot believe the mythical nature of that religion, then something like Advaita provides a more philosophically acceptable alternative, even if the practice itself transcends the intellect. Otherwise, life is meaningless. It's a nightmare while it lasts, and then we are devoured by oblivion. I simply cannot believe that the miracle of existence could be reduced to this. And by the way, science is irrelevant, since it can say nothing about these ultimate questions. Finally, while meaning no disrespect, I sometimes feel that there is a bit too much blind veneration of scriptures on the part of Hindus. This is an aspect of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic approach that does not appeal to me. Although I accept that the Upanishads are the inspired utterances of realized souls, I still have respect for the Buddha's skeptical and self-reliant attitude, echoes of which I find in J. Krishnamurti. Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2003 Report Share Posted March 29, 2003 One thing that once drew me to Zen was that it was a transmission outside of the scriptures. Scriptures although they do point at something and to an extent try to explain it, in the end offers a dead end and have the potential effect of trapping a seeker. Mike Carris advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben> wrote: > > Namaste all! > > I have had a change of heart about all this Advaita stuff. > Yes, I will still cling to my philosophical ideas and > interpretations of Advaita, so long as they seem reasonable or at > least plausible to me. But I have lost all interest in convincing > others. > > But even more important, I have decided, in agreement with > Nanda VPCNK, that these discussions really are more of an impediment > than an aid to realization. > > I still have faith that a much 'higher state of > consciousness' is attainable, in which we realize our divinity. But > the way we go about this is not cannot really be analyzed, which > seems to make our list a bit irrelevant I suppose. > > What we must do is simply 'see God everywhere' and 'see no > distinctions', as Ramana and many others have said. That seems to be > the real meaning of Advaita and not something more complicated. This > simple 'nondual vision' evidently produces the desired change of > consciousness, when it sinks deep enough. This cannot really be > understood. We must simply do it and maybe, with grace, something > will happen. It is said that if you throw a baby in water it will > swim, whereas an older child capable of some thought might drown. > > However, the intellectual thoughts that I will insist on are > these: All this spectacle of the 'universe' could not have popped > out of nowhere, therefore *something* corresponding to God exists. > Therefore life has a purpose, which must be spiritual development. > Therefore, we look around to see what clues the Lord gives us. If we > are not particularly intellectual and skeptical, then we should > probably just follow the religion we were born into and assume that > was 'right' for us. If we are skeptical and cannot believe the > mythical nature of that religion, then something like Advaita > provides a more philosophically acceptable alternative, even if the > practice itself transcends the intellect. > > Otherwise, life is meaningless. It's a nightmare while it > lasts, and then we are devoured by oblivion. I simply cannot believe > that the miracle of existence could be reduced to this. And by the > way, science is irrelevant, since it can say nothing about these > ultimate questions. > > Finally, while meaning no disrespect, I sometimes feel that > there is a bit too much blind veneration of scriptures on the part of > Hindus. This is an aspect of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic approach > that does not appeal to me. Although I accept that the Upanishads > are the inspired utterances of realized souls, I still have respect > for the Buddha's skeptical and self-reliant attitude, echoes of which > I find in J. Krishnamurti. > > Om! > Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2003 Report Share Posted March 29, 2003 Dear Benjaminji: You have dared to speak what many of us were afraid to utter. Shanti - "Benjamin Root" <orion777ben <advaitin> Saturday, March 29, 2003 6:32 PM Start from scratch > > Namaste all! > > I have had a change of heart about all this Advaita stuff. > Yes, I will still cling to my philosophical ideas and > interpretations of Advaita, so long as they seem reasonable or at > least plausible to me. But I have lost all interest in convincing > others. > > But even more important, I have decided, in agreement with > Nanda VPCNK, that these discussions really are more of an impediment > than an aid to realization. > > I still have faith that a much 'higher state of > consciousness' is attainable, in which we realize our divinity. But > the way we go about this is not cannot really be analyzed, which > seems to make our list a bit irrelevant I suppose. > > What we must do is simply 'see God everywhere' and 'see no > distinctions', as Ramana and many others have said. That seems to be > the real meaning of Advaita and not something more complicated. This > simple 'nondual vision' evidently produces the desired change of > consciousness, when it sinks deep enough. This cannot really be > understood. We must simply do it and maybe, with grace, something > will happen. It is said that if you throw a baby in water it will > swim, whereas an older child capable of some thought might drown. > > However, the intellectual thoughts that I will insist on are > these: All this spectacle of the 'universe' could not have popped > out of nowhere, therefore *something* corresponding to God exists. > Therefore life has a purpose, which must be spiritual development. > Therefore, we look around to see what clues the Lord gives us. If we > are not particularly intellectual and skeptical, then we should > probably just follow the religion we were born into and assume that > was 'right' for us. If we are skeptical and cannot believe the > mythical nature of that religion, then something like Advaita > provides a more philosophically acceptable alternative, even if the > practice itself transcends the intellect. > > Otherwise, life is meaningless. It's a nightmare while it > lasts, and then we are devoured by oblivion. I simply cannot believe > that the miracle of existence could be reduced to this. And by the > way, science is irrelevant, since it can say nothing about these > ultimate questions. > > Finally, while meaning no disrespect, I sometimes feel that > there is a bit too much blind veneration of scriptures on the part of > Hindus. This is an aspect of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic approach > that does not appeal to me. Although I accept that the Upanishads > are the inspired utterances of realized souls, I still have respect > for the Buddha's skeptical and self-reliant attitude, echoes of which > I find in J. Krishnamurti. > > Om! > Benjamin > > > 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 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2003 Report Share Posted March 29, 2003 On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:32:51 -0500, Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote: > I have had a change of heart about all this Advaita stuff. Yes, I will > still cling to my philosophical ideas and interpretations of Advaita, so > long as they seem reasonable or at least plausible to me. But I have > lost all interest in convincing others. I was not aware that you were trying to convince others. I thought you were just asking questions. > But even more important, I have decided, in agreement with Nanda VPCNK, > that these discussions really are more of an impediment than an aid to > realization. They are not an aid to realization, they are an aid to understanding. They are also a school in the art of philosophical discussion wherein the attentive student of advaita may learn to express himself effectively and with precision. > . . . Finally, while meaning no disrespect, I sometimes feel that there > is a bit too much blind veneration of scriptures on the part of Hindus. > This is an aspect of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic approach that does not > appeal to me. Although I accept that the Upanishads are the inspired > utterances of realized souls, I still have respect for the Buddha's > skeptical and self-reliant attitude, echoes of which I find in J. > Krishnamurti. I hope you are not referring to my quotations of Abhinavagupta. I don't use them because I think they are inspired; I use them because they represent a standard and stable set of terms for the known territory of this type of philosophical discourse. It's easier to use what's available than to "reinvent the wheel", and there's a higher chance of being understood by others when using standard terminology. The alternative is a proliferation of laborious periphrasis :-) Pranams, Shivaram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2003 Report Share Posted March 29, 2003 Hari OM! Blessed Benjaminji, The Intellect cannot understand it, As Swami Chinmayanandaji quotes, "We cannot understand it, we can only stand under" The reason why, the Power to think, the power to write, the power to speak, from where the source of power is, that is The reality, You cannot see your eyes with your own pair of eyes without the help of mirror! So any amount of argument, debate cannot help, it only helps to point the truth!, so your change of heart is, you are trying to understand the truth through your intellect! Jai Jagadeeswara With Love & OM! Krishna Prasad --- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote: > > Namaste all! > > I have had a change of heart about all this Advaita stuff. > Yes, I will still cling to my philosophical ideas and > interpretations of Advaita, so long as they seem reasonable or at > least plausible to me. But I have lost all interest in convincing > others. > > But even more important, I have decided, in agreement with > Nanda VPCNK, that these discussions really are more of an > impediment > than an aid to realization. > > I still have faith that a much 'higher state of > consciousness' is attainable, in which we realize our divinity. > But > the way we go about this is not cannot really be analyzed, which > seems to make our list a bit irrelevant I suppose. > > What we must do is simply 'see God everywhere' and 'see no > distinctions', as Ramana and many others have said. That seems to > be > the real meaning of Advaita and not something more complicated. > This > simple 'nondual vision' evidently produces the desired change of > consciousness, when it sinks deep enough. This cannot really be > understood. We must simply do it and maybe, with grace, something > will happen. It is said that if you throw a baby in water it will > swim, whereas an older child capable of some thought might drown. > > However, the intellectual thoughts that I will insist on are > these: All this spectacle of the 'universe' could not have popped > > out of nowhere, therefore *something* corresponding to God exists. > > Therefore life has a purpose, which must be spiritual development. > Therefore, we look around to see what clues the Lord gives us. If > we > are not particularly intellectual and skeptical, then we should > probably just follow the religion we were born into and assume that > > was 'right' for us. If we are skeptical and cannot believe the > mythical nature of that religion, then something like Advaita > provides a more philosophically acceptable alternative, even if the > > practice itself transcends the intellect. > > Otherwise, life is meaningless. It's a nightmare while it > lasts, and then we are devoured by oblivion. I simply cannot > believe > that the miracle of existence could be reduced to this. And by the > > way, science is irrelevant, since it can say nothing about these > ultimate questions. > > Finally, while meaning no disrespect, I sometimes feel that > there is a bit too much blind veneration of scriptures on the part > of > Hindus. This is an aspect of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic approach > that does not appeal to me. Although I accept that the Upanishads > are the inspired utterances of realized souls, I still have respect > > for the Buddha's skeptical and self-reliant attitude, echoes of > which > I find in J. Krishnamurti. > > Om! > Benjamin > Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 advaitin, "Mike Carris" <mike_carris> wrote: One thing that once drew me to Zen was that it was a transmission outside of the scriptures. Scriptures although they do point at something and to an extent try to explain it, in the end offers a dead end and have the potential effect of trapping a seeker. Mike Carris KKT: Please don't blame the scriptures. The fault is not of the scriptures but of the person who reads the scriptures. Because the person uses his intellect to read the scriptures. And intellect can never << grasp >> the Atman. Thus intellect itself is the dead end, the trap. Regards, KKT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 Namaste Benjaminji I am glad to read that you still have faith that a 'much higher state of consciousness' is attainable. With this I would like to recommend you this book 'The methods of Knowledge' by Swami Satprakashananda (here is a link to a review: http://www.vedantastl.org/Catalog/Book/Methods_of_Knowledge/book_main.htm). This book draws heavily from the the text, Vedanta Paribhasa, which is a book on Advaita Vedanta Epistemology. Apart from the frequent mention of Nirvikalpa Samadhi as a means to know the Self, the book is very good. Perhaps after reading this book you would understand why a Hindu venerates the Upanishads, but NOT blindly. The Hindu looks at the Upanishads as the SOLE 'means of knowledge' to know the Self as there are no other means. Therefore, he venerates it. I am quite confused with your statement 'that you have to see god everywhere' or 'see no distinctions'. Seeing god everywhere is not a wilful action. When the firm knowledge that the Self is not separate from the Whole dawns, the Jiva has no choice but see God ALONE. There is no distinction between the Seer and the Seen. Therefore we cannot make a choice whether or not to see God everywhere. It happens the moment the knowledge dawns. This list is definitely not irrelevant to the pursuit of knowledge. In fact I have been a member of this list for almost over 3 years and I have immensely benefitted by studying the various posts from the members here. At times I even consider this list as one of my many teachers who have removed my many pre-conceived notions about Advaita Vedanta. best regards, K Kathirasan > > Benjamin Root [sMTP:orion777ben] > Sunday, March 30, 2003 7:33 AM > advaitin > Start from scratch > > > Namaste all! > > I have had a change of heart about all this Advaita stuff. > Yes, I will still cling to my philosophical ideas and > interpretations of Advaita, so long as they seem reasonable or at > least plausible to me. But I have lost all interest in convincing > others. > > But even more important, I have decided, in agreement with > Nanda VPCNK, that these discussions really are more of an impediment > than an aid to realization. > > I still have faith that a much 'higher state of > consciousness' is attainable, in which we realize our divinity. But > the way we go about this is not cannot really be analyzed, which > seems to make our list a bit irrelevant I suppose. > > What we must do is simply 'see God everywhere' and 'see no > distinctions', as Ramana and many others have said. That seems to be > the real meaning of Advaita and not something more complicated. This > simple 'nondual vision' evidently produces the desired change of > consciousness, when it sinks deep enough. This cannot really be > understood. We must simply do it and maybe, with grace, something > will happen. It is said that if you throw a baby in water it will > swim, whereas an older child capable of some thought might drown. > > However, the intellectual thoughts that I will insist on are > these: All this spectacle of the 'universe' could not have popped > out of nowhere, therefore *something* corresponding to God exists. > Therefore life has a purpose, which must be spiritual development. > Therefore, we look around to see what clues the Lord gives us. If we > are not particularly intellectual and skeptical, then we should > probably just follow the religion we were born into and assume that > was 'right' for us. If we are skeptical and cannot believe the > mythical nature of that religion, then something like Advaita > provides a more philosophically acceptable alternative, even if the > practice itself transcends the intellect. > > Otherwise, life is meaningless. It's a nightmare while it > lasts, and then we are devoured by oblivion. I simply cannot believe > that the miracle of existence could be reduced to this. And by the > way, science is irrelevant, since it can say nothing about these > ultimate questions. > > Finally, while meaning no disrespect, I sometimes feel that > there is a bit too much blind veneration of scriptures on the part of > Hindus. This is an aspect of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic approach > that does not appeal to me. Although I accept that the Upanishads > are the inspired utterances of realized souls, I still have respect > for the Buddha's skeptical and self-reliant attitude, echoes of which > I find in J. Krishnamurti. > > Om! > Benjamin > > > 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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.