Beethoven and Advaita

[Guest guest]

Dear Guru Venkat,

>If you want to look at it from Advaita point of view, the pen , paper and the

>music are all Brahman.The straight answer is yes.

 

In Advaita, Brahman is chaitanya. So it can't be pen and paper which

is 'jada'. All the vEdAntins agree that Brahman is not jada.

 

Shruti presents Brahman as "nityO nityAnAm chEtanaschEtanAnAm" -no where

in prasthAna-traya you will find that Brahman is a lifeless 'jada' object.

 

-

Guru Venkat

advaitin

Tuesday, April 15, 2003 9:20 AM

Re: Re: Beethoven and Advaita

 

 

Dear Jay, you wrote :What does this really mean?

Does it mean the pen, paper, on my table, the music I hear,

are all Brahman?.

 

The answer to this question is given in 11th chapter of the Geetha,

"savam samApnOshi tatOsi sarvaha"

(God is all because He is in all).

 

Everything in this world has its existence, goes thro various transformations

by acquiring and/or loosing certain attributes, because Brahman

exists in it, and controls it that is why God is

described as "sarva-bhootAntarAtmA" by shruti. THis is precisely

what Geetha is saying too.

 

It is the theory of adhyAsa, which kind of throws all this shruti and smriti

away.***************************************** If you want to look at it from

Advaita point of view, the pen , paper and the music are all Brahman.The

straight answer is yes. God is in all is quite true. But it does not end there.

It goes beyond to say that God is ALL. The purpose of any single verses you pick

from Gita and Upanishads are to show you the path to the truth. These are the

guiding lights. How best you make use of them to take you to the shore is up to

you. The purpose of the Neti Neti... path is to show man that he is not he

body, the mind etc. So he is lead to the Atman and it leaves you there. Man ,

when he reaches this state understands that all he sees is he himself and there

is nothing else. His vision of the world is his own creation. In the Aitareya

Upanishad : It says that in the beginning that there was only Brahman and

nothing else. Then Brahman creates the worlds, Gods , creatures and finally man.

He lets the Gods enter the body and finally seeing that he needs to be in the

body for it to come alive, enters it from the aperture in the head. So you see,

that which we call the world is something that came out of Brahman. How can it

be anything but Brahman ? Did it come out of nothing ? Om Tat SatG.Venkat

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

 

 

 

Sponsor

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

At 08:09 PM 4/14/03 -0400, Benjamin Root wrote:

>Sri Greg wrote:

>

>>I know one satsang teacher who maintains that after realization,

>>you will like Bach, not Beethoven. The reason being that Bach

>>comes straight from Consciousness, whereas Beethoven comes from

>>the level of the mind.

 

Benjamin:

>You hit the nail on the head. This is exactly what I was talking

>about. This may well be true.

 

 

Greg: This was irony on my part!! This teacher really did say these things,

but can't you see they make no sense? This teacher was projecting his own

musical tastes on his image of advaita teaching! There is a snobbish and

somewhat classist opinion that Western classical music is the best music, the

most sophisticated, etc. And of this music, it's often thought that Bach is the

best. "The best of the best," whether one likes Bach or not. But there is no

"good, better, best" in matters of aesthetics, which you will probably agree

with, since these are names for responses and judgment calls. A true "best

music" would entail an inherent existence of music and an inherent goodness.

This is exactly the kind of stuff that does not exist independently, just as the

teacup and the Empire State Building do not exist independently. So what we

have here is a European satsang teacher who believes this culturally-conditioned

story wrapped around the music of Bach. Plus, the teacher also likes Western

neo-advaita. So he constructs a story that he might even believe, about the

music he likes coming from a place closer to the Ultimate Source than other

music. That's projection on his part and brainwashing on the part of students

who uncritically believe everything the teacher says. Don't get sucked into

this kind of belief system.

 

There are Bach pieces that are rajasic. And there are a heck of a lot of

non-Bach, non-classical pieces that are extremeley sattvic. If you follow your

heart with music you really like, it will take you much farther inward than

anything you listen to because it's prescribed by someone else.

 

I don't have my Gita with me here at work to provide a citation, but it does

describe a movement from tamas through rajas through sattva. Again, this is not

so much a *prescription* as a *description* of what happens as contemplation and

self-inquiry become a bigger part of one's life. You can't force it by buying

the right CD's. You can't pull a plant to make it grow. And once this process

has come to its peaceful conclusion, it doesn't mean that you become a bland

lump of human tofu. The endpoint is not sattva. The endpoint is non-attachment

to any phenomenality, all of which is guna-conditioned.

 

I have maybe 100 cd's of sattvic music, and none of them classical. In fact

they are mostly with electronic techniques, not analog instrumentation at all.

I found classical music not to my taste for this kind of inquiry...

 

Hari OM!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

I'm pleased that my 'silly question' is getting quite a

response. And it's OK if it gets off the track sometimes. We're

quite free-wheeling here, which I approve of as long as it doesn't

get too excessive. Anyhow, that's Sri Ram's job.

 

 

Sri Nair, you have a delightful story:

>Swamiji had the rasam with relish and called out

>aloud for a second serving. Devotees rushed to

>fulfil his want. The scene made many to raise their

>eyebrows. The obvious question on their lips: Why

>should a renunciate be so very much interested in rasam?

 

I have a similar story about my Swamiji. Since I once mentioned who

my Swamiji is, I wonder if I should share this story. I hope that I

am not being inconsiderate. But the story seems very positive and

inspiring to me, and it is said with sincere love, so can I be going

far wrong?

 

Well, I attend a Vivekachudami satsang with this Swamiji where a

charming lady serves very delicious homemade rasgula for prasad. Now

Swamiji does not take seconds, only firsts! But he does love this

rasgula, and he jokes about this himself. So I have also wondered,

'Should he be enjoying this so much?' We disciples are so mean and

petty! We have such narrow minds. That's because we need

enlightenment!

 

Anyhow, here is my answer, from the heart. This Swamiji is ALWAYS

pleasant, cheerful, calm and peaceful. Always smiling and relaxed.

I have never seen him otherwise. This is TRULY very significant to

me, because I spent (or should I say wasted) a great portion of my

life feeling grouchy, unhappy, bitter, frustrated, etc. Never mind

the personal reasons. All I will say is that I was unhappy over what

I lacked, and this Swamiji has far less ... little more than the

rasgula and our company. And yet he is always so pleasant. From

someone who for years fought with the demons of his mind, this is

truly significant to me. Most of us can be nice some of the time,

but it is a very great accomplishment to be pleasant all of the time.

 

Also, I might point out that some revered gurus do not seem to have

such a pleasant disposition, especially when they take themselves too

seriously. So I very much love and respect this Swamiji. And I'm

someone who doesn't like Swamijis in principle, for the same reasons

as J. Krishnamurti (Mr. Truth-is-a-pathless-land)! I got lucky with

this one. Quite auspicious. (By the way, my mood is MUCH better

these days, and I credit Zen and Advaita with that.)

 

Also, I recently asked Sri Ram about enjoying chocolate cake. He

said, just enjoy it when served but don't think about it at other

times. Basically what you said about your guru. This was during a

discussion on the Gita, when I mentioned that Krishna and Arjuna were

decked in magnificent attire, including gold helmets and bracelets,

while Krishna was discoursing on renunciation! After all, they were

princes. And King Janaka was certainly spiritual!

 

Still, I wonder if these gentlemen didn't prefer peaceful flutes and

sitars when not fighting, rather than a bombastic symphony orchestra!

 

 

Sri Kathirasan: great Gita quote!

 

 

Sri Venkat of Mumbai:

 

Sorry! I'm not knowledgeable enough in Indian names to know that

there can be more than one Venkat! I will be more careful when I

read the header.

 

I'm sorry to hear that Ash was injured during shooting. At least it

wasn't a 'drive-by shooting' that we sometimes have in American

cities. Still, she should avoid handsome boyfriends who are in any

way related to gangsters.

 

Thanks for informing me about those foods. I eat a lot at Indian

restaurants over here, but those were new names to me. I must try

Vada Sambar some day! The morale of your story is the same as Sri

Nair's, but your story was just as delightful and fresh, so I was

very glad to read it. My response to Sri Nair applies here too, of

course. Actually, I'm glad to hear this wisdom echoed from so many

sources. Didn't the Buddha also tell us to avoid the extremes of

asceticism and self-indulgence and to remain detached and peaceful at

all times? Very sound advice! Very practical, too, in addition to

being spiritual.

 

 

Sri Kamesh B: A hilarious (and revealing) story!

 

 

Sri Venkat of Mumbai: Funny what you said in your second post. I

continue to be amazed by the internet. To think that while we in

America are sleeping, wise men in India are busy typing messages to

this list, fresh for us the next morning as we enjoy our cup of

coffee.

 

 

Sri Nair: Aha! Your second post ... sharing the same story with Sri

Venkat of Mumbai. Well, MY story is real !!! :-)

 

 

Thanks Scott, your answer is surely the 'pure' and impeccable answer.

But as with all such answers, I enthusiastically await the true

experience! Meanwhile, I will glean whatever wisdom I can from

discussions such as these. And meditation has at least calmed my

mind, the benefit of which can hardly be overestimated.

 

 

Namaste Guruprasad Venkat. One reason I thought that Guru Venkat was

the Venkat of Mumbai, is because that Venkat has quite a sense of

humor, so I figured he was making a joke calling himself 'Guru'!

Anyhow, all Venkats are welcome!

 

 

Well, thank you for your comments.

 

Personally, though, I have a feeling that MOST enlightened people

will prefer peaceful flutes and sitars (or harps or other such

instruments) to loud rock music. Beethoven is a 'borderline' case!

He had a sad and painful life, and it shows through in his music.

right now, he may be peacefully meditating, with a slight

Buddha-smile on his face, and enjoying perfect peace, tranquillity

and bliss ... with maybe some flutes in the background. I hope so.

I used to enjoy melodramatic stories about the joys and pains of love

and life, but now I prefer peace.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg,

 

I seemed to have missed your message when I wrote my previous post.

 

Yes, I agree that some people from a Western cultural

background can get snobbish about Bach being the best, and so forth.

And aren't some people from a Hindu background following Advaita

because it is the 'high-class' thing to do? I believe that this must

be so, human nature being what it is. Actually, I think Bach can be

either very boring or beautiful, depending on the piece, and equally

important, how it is played and recorded.

 

And yet you did mention the Gita quote saying that we evolve

from tamas, through rajas on to Sattva and beyond to the nondual. So

does this not make my point? You say that it is a description rather

than a prescription, but still it seems that the spiritual path does

entail this evolution.

 

Then you say that the final state is one of non-attachment to

any phenomenality. This is surely true. But either a Jivanmukti

listens to music or he doesn't. And if he listens to music, he will

have certain tastes and not just put CDs on randomly. So it is

meaningful for me to ask about the statistics of the aesthetic tastes

of Jivanmuktis! Maybe we could get a government grant to study the

problem!

 

I like all kinds of music, Western classical, Eastern

classical, ethnic, electronic, you name it. I would love any

suggestions of your favorites, which you can send to my email address

which you once used. I really do like tips, since I cannot buy

everything at Amazon!

 

Thank you and Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

At 11:43 AM 4/15/03 -0400, Benjamin Root wrote:

> Then you say that the final state is one of non-attachment to

>any phenomenality. This is surely true. But either a Jivanmukti

>listens to music or he doesn't. And if he listens to music, he will

>have certain tastes and not just put CDs on randomly. So it is

>meaningful for me to ask about the statistics of the aesthetic tastes

>of Jivanmuktis! Maybe we could get a government grant to study the

>problem!

 

 

Let's say there were an answer that made sense to you. Then what? Would you

throw your CD's out and get what other people listen to? You can't choose your

preferences, so how would this help? Your first difficulty in a large project

will be getting agreement, outside certain traditions, on whether there's any

such thing as a Jivamukti, and just what such a thing is. On this list you

might get agreement, maybe on ADVAITA-L too. But once you go outside those

confines and take your question to other internet lists or the government :-)

you'll have a hard time defining your terms to the satisfaction of a committee!

 

> I like all kinds of music, Western classical, Eastern

>classical, ethnic, electronic, you name it. I would love any

>suggestions of your favorites, which you can send to my email address

>which you once used. I really do like tips, since I cannot buy

>everything at Amazon!

 

I'll write some titles down this evening, and send you some of the best right

now offline.

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Hari OM!

 

Dear Benjamin,

 

You wrote:

This suggests to me that one can still enjoy rajasic music, but in

complete detachment, without being affected by it. But can one feel

passion without being passionate? Or does enlightenment cause one to

simply lose interest in all passionate things? For example, it is

well-known that saints tend to be single, and even Ramakrishna,

though formally married, considered his wife to be more of a

spiritual companion.

 

Benjamin,

 

The Answer for the previous reply from you, I think it is well

replied by our Honourable, learned members.

 

My Piece of reply is as follows:

 

We can hear, listen, enjoy Beethoven's, A.R.Rahman's or Ilayaraja's,

or Yesudas's music the same way we are doing it, and we are not

unhappy without it...also. No attachments. The only difference is

there is not the doership or enjoyership.

 

With Love & OM!

 

Krishna Prasad

 

 

 

 

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

> Namaste Shri Benjamin and all.

>

> A renowned Advaita teacher was once gracing a satsangh in our area.

>

> Housewives of the locality had prepared various delicacies to be

> served as prasAd at the end of the satsangh and my wife had

> contributed `tomato rasam' (an appetizer similar to mulligatawny),

> which is her forte.

>

> Swamiji had the rasam with relish and called out aloud for a

> second

> serving. Devotees rushed to fulfil his want. The scene made many

> to

> raise their eyebrows. The obvious question on their lips: Why

> should a renunciate be so very much interested in rasam?

>

> I believe rasam, because of its pungent constituents, is more

> rajasic

> than poor Beethoven. I don't want to name the Swamiji because that

>

> would raise a dispute whether or not he was enlightened, as he may

> have detractors on our List. To my knowledge, he is an enlightened

> personage who can effectively impart advaitic knowledge to any

> person

> of any level. I, therefore, rever him and consider him a

> jnAnaniStA.

>

> Swamiji's own explanation to his behaviour would be something as

> follows. Not that he said so on that occasion. This is my

> assumption based on his teachings. An enlightened person accepts

> everything and is in peace with everything in the world. If rasam

> is

> offered to him, he will have it and enjoy it too if he has a

> natural

> liking for it. But, he would not be uncomfortable without it. If

> he

> is compelled to remain in a place where rasam is unavailable, he

> would accept that situation with perfect equanimity and spend the

> rest of his life without any longing or craving for the delicacy.

>

> I believe the same would apply to Beethoven. If he likes

> Beethoven,

> then there is no need for him to run away from his rajasic music.

> He

> will enjoy it whenever available but would not insist and bother

> himself or others if Beethoven is not available.

>

> PranAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo

http://search.

[Guest guest]

Dear Guru Venkat,

>Reply : I am not much conversant with Sanskrit. Can you translate the above

>line please ?

 

This is part of the problem.

People who have never studied vEda, somehow have already come to know that

Veda teaches non-duality etc.

>All is matter. And all matter can finally be reduced to the subtlest of all

>matter. Akasa; Ether or Space.All exist in space. So there is really no >object

that we call Jada.

 

Is this what you call vEdAnta?.

VedAnta does not say AkAsha is the subtlest of all matter.

Vedanta instead says, AkAsha is that which lets matter stay in it.

(AkAsha is that which provides avakAsha)

That is why, it is one of the pancha-mahA-bhootas.

If what you are saying is vEdAnta, why there are five of them instead of just

one called AkAsha?

 

 

>Aren't all the idols in Hindu temples made of stone images ? If they are all

>considered Jada, why should anyone be going to a temple at all ? Unless of

>course you are against idol worship. Also, you say that "All the vEdAntins

>agree that Brahman is not jada."

 

You need to get your fundamentals straight, my friend.

VedAntins say Brahman is not jada, not because of temples, but because

a jada has no intelligence and a jada can not do anything on its own and

always is in the need of a chEtana for it to act. A grain of rice does not

move by itself, it needs an ant.

 

But Vedas establish that parabrahman does not need anything else

to create. "icchAmAtram prabhOsrisTihi", therefore Brahman can not be jada.

(this world is created by the mere desire of Brahman)

>Don't the yagnas mean : the fire that is Brahman , the ghee is brahman, the

>offering is brahman : and all again goes to Brahman ?

 

If you are quoting Geetha,

"brahmArpaNam brahmahavihi brahmaNahutam

brahmaiva tEna gantavyam brahma karma samAdhinA"

 

You should study this shlOka in its context in the Geetha.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Jay, You wrote :This is part of the problem.

People who have never studied vEda, somehow have already come to know that

Veda teaches non-duality etc. Reply : Language is only a tool. That cannot be

any barrier. And I thought there were enough translations out there for these

texts!! But since you view this as a problem in understanding nature and truth,

I don't want to say anything further. Cheers Now!G.Venkat

 

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Venkat,

 

I did not mean it in a condescending way. Every one has to start somewhere.

But the fact remains that Veda is apourushEya and any translation of it is

pourushEya

and therefore is not Veda.

 

As long as we realize the fact that there are no alternatives to Veda, it is ok

to start

with any coloquial translation.

 

I hope you understand my point.

-

Guru Venkat

advaitin

Tuesday, April 15, 2003 4:16 PM

Re: Re: Beethoven and Advaita

 

 

Dear Jay, You wrote :This is part of the problem.

People who have never studied vEda, somehow have already come to know that

Veda teaches non-duality etc. Reply : Language is only a tool. That cannot be

any barrier. And I thought there were enough translations out there for these

texts!! But since you view this as a problem in understanding nature and truth,

I don't want to say anything further. Cheers Now!G.Venkat

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

 

 

 

Sponsor

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Jay:

 

Am I right to assume that you agree that Sri Sankara has not only

studied vEdas but he has much better understanding of vEdas than you.

I strongly recommend that you first study Sankara;s commentaries of

the Upanishads, Brahmasuutras and Bhagagavad Gita before making any

of your conclusions. Let me modify and restate your wise observation –

"People who have never studied Shankara's commentaries and works

have already come to know more than Shankara!" As a matter of fact,

Sankara's advaita philosophy is quite subtle and the message will be

only crisp and clear to those who possess `wisdom.'

 

Since you are well read, you should be aware that the light of wisdom

first eliminates the `arrogance' before it removes one's ignorance!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote:

> People who have never studied vEda, somehow have already come to

> know that Veda teaches non-duality etc.

>