How I discovered the Awareness watching Awareness method

[Guest guest]

I created a new web page today

that has the story of how I disovered

the Awareness watching Awareness method.

 

It includes many quotes by Sri Muruganar on the

Awareness watching Awareness method.

 

To read it click this link:

 

http://uarelove1.tripod.com/AWA_DISCOVERY.htm

 

It is one of many new links recently added to the

 

Direct Path Links Directory:

 

http://uarelove1.tripod.com/STD8.htm

 

Take care,

 

with Love,

 

in: Awareness watching Awareness,

 

Michael L.

 

 

 

 

 

 

SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

Pls note that the "awareness of the awareness" is nothing by the

psycho/physical self trying to be aware of the conscious element

which enlivens it.

 

It is very good practice.

 

But one should try to move beyond it - because one is in reality not

the psycho/physical self. The true self is only awareness. And you

needn't be aware of it, because you are it.

 

That we want to be aware of the awareness is due to the natural

objectifying tendency of the mental faculties which is an integral

part of our psycho/physical self. It only reflects the confusion of

the self with the non-self - the psycho/physical faculties.

 

The self is realized neither by being aware or not aware. Efforts

like these are only the exertions of the psycho/physical self to know

its own limits/boundaries.

 

At a higher level all action is to be abandoned. One should let got

of the tendency to know.

 

 

advaitin, "Michael L." <uarelove> wrote:

> I created a new web page today

> that has the story of how I disovered

> the Awareness watching Awareness method.

>

> It includes many quotes by Sri Muruganar on the

> Awareness watching Awareness method.

>

> To read it click this link:

>

> http://uarelove1.tripod.com/AWA_DISCOVERY.htm

>

> It is one of many new links recently added to the

>

> Direct Path Links Directory:

>

> http://uarelove1.tripod.com/STD8.htm

>

> Take care,

>

> with Love,

>

> in: Awareness watching Awareness,

>

> Michael L.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

> http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

Namaste VPCNK

>But one should try to move beyond it - because one is in reality not

>the psycho/physical self. The true self is only awareness. And you

>needn't be aware of it, because you are it.

>

>That we want to be aware of the awareness is due to the natural

>objectifying tendency of the mental faculties which is an integral

>part of our psycho/physical self. It only reflects the confusion of

>the self with the non-self - the psycho/physical faculties.

 

What you say is quite correct ... for those who are indeed trying to

apprehend awareness as some kind of object. But I believe that one

can also be aware in the sense of a great 'openness' or pure empty

consciousness beyond concepts or distinctions. Otherwise, what is

Ramana's 'Who am I?' Even 'awareness of awareness' need not be

objectifying. It may be taken as a linguistic 'trick' to emphasize

the utter abandonment to awareness. Some have said that Ramana's

'I-I' is more of a feeling than a vision or idea ... the feeling of

simply being. This sounds right to me.

 

As I said to Michael on Harsha's group, I think he is on the right

track, and a number of spiritual traditions will back him up ...

Ramana and Nisargadatta (if correctly understood) and Tibetan

Dzogchen for example.

 

Regards

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

> As I said to Michael on Harsha's group, I think he is on the right

> track, and a number of spiritual traditions will back him up ...

> Ramana and Nisargadatta (if correctly understood) and Tibetan

> Dzogchen for example.

 

Oh I didn't mean to say Micheal wasn't on the right track.

 

Only that at a higher level all effort is to be abandoned.

[Guest guest]

--- vpcnk <vpcnk wrote:

> Oh I didn't mean to say Micheal wasn't on the right track.

>

> Only that at a higher level all effort is to be abandoned.

 

Nanda -even abandoning an effort is effortful. What is required is

correct understanding that one is never a doer at all. "prakRiti eva ca

karmaaNi kriyamaaNaani sarvashhaH| yaH pasyati tad aatmaanam akartaaram

sa pashyati|" says Krishna. All actions are done only by praKriti and

one who sees that one is really a non-doer he alone 'sees'.

 

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.

 

 

 

SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadanandaji,

 

What is Prakriti according to this verse of Gita? Is it something other than

Brahman? Many thanks for your clarifications and regards,

 

Venkat

 

 

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

--- vpcnk <vpcnk wrote:

> Oh I didn't mean to say Micheal wasn't on the right track.

>

> Only that at a higher level all effort is to be abandoned.

 

Nanda -even abandoning an effort is effortful. What is required is

correct understanding that one is never a doer at all. "prakRiti eva ca

karmaaNi kriyamaaNaani sarvashhaH| yaH pasyati tad aatmaanam akartaaram

sa pashyati|" says Krishna. All actions are done only by praKriti and

one who sees that one is really a non-doer he alone 'sees'.

 

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.

 

 

 

SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

http://sbc.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plus - For a better Internet experience

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- S Venkatraman <svenkat52 wrote:

> Namaste Sadanandaji,

>

> What is Prakriti according to this verse of Gita? Is it something

> other than Brahman? Many thanks for your clarifications and regards,

>

> Venkat

 

 

Shree Venkat - in principle there cannot be anything other than Brahman.

Since one sees - one brings in Iswara as the intelligent cause and

prakRiti as the material cause - mayaa adhyaksheNa prakRitiH suutate sa

charaa charam - says Krishna - he becomes the purushha or intelligent

cause and prakRiti as his menifested name and form - which is the same

as maaya - maayantu prakRitim vidyaat - says upanishad - know that

maaaya and prakRiti are the same.

 

For simple illustration - look at the pumping of the heart or all

physiological functions in the hody - the breathing, digestive system,

the circulatory system, the excretory system etc. all are actions but we

are not the doers -We cannot take the credit for those actions. The

actions are being done naturally - and that 'naturally' is what is

called prakRiti.

 

In the sloka quoted - KrishNa says sarvaani karmaani - all actions are

being done by prakRiti - hence we unnecessorily superimpose ourselves

and claim that we have done it or we are the doers -false claims demand

false responsibilities too! That is called kartRitva bhaava and

bhokRitva bhaava- That is due to adhyaasa - error in understanding who

we are or what we are.

 

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.

 

 

 

SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

>Only that at a higher level all effort is to be abandoned.

 

I think Nisargadatta said that we must make great efforts only to one

day realize the futility of effort. If we do not make those efforts,

then we will not really understand.

 

>Shree Venkat - in principle there cannot be anything other than Brahman.

>Since one sees - one brings in Iswara as the intelligent cause and prakRiti

>as the material cause

 

Ah, this old subject! Again, I must state my humble *opinion* that

prakRiti (matter) does not really exist in any sense at all. It only

SEEMS to 'since one sees' it. The seeing itself is an illusion. To

'see' is to see dualistically (subject and object), and to see

dualistically is to be engrossed in an illusion. This goes for all

seeing.

 

Actually, I don't think that Sadanandaji believes anything much

different. Only, when he went on to talk about biological functions,

I got the impression that the body was something quite physical and

concrete for him. True, he used the body to illustrate that we are

not the doers. But the doer then seemed to become 'Nature', which

still sounds rather 'materialistic' to me. Just my impression upon

reading that.

 

The entire Jagat is a massive optical illusion, a dream, sometimes a

nightmare (if we allow it to be)...

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>

> --- S Venkatraman <svenkat52> wrote:

> > Namaste Sadanandaji,

> >

> > What is Prakriti according to this verse of Gita? Is it something

> > other than Brahman? Many thanks for your clarifications and

regards,

> >

 

Namaste,

 

I am, the verb to be, being is awareness. Iswara is but the sum total

of all the jivas as the tree is to the forest........ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin@

> The entire Jagat is a massive optical illusion, a dream, sometimes

a

> nightmare (if we allow it to be)...

>

> Om!

> Benjamin

 

Namaste Benji,

 

Yes the entire universe is an illusion a holographic

illusion......ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

> I think Nisargadatta said that we must make great efforts only to one

> day realize the futility of effort. If we do not make those efforts,

> then we will not really understand.

 

That is how Upanishad starts - with the sloka in Mundaka .."pariiksha

lokaan ..." After examining all our efforts to gain the absolute ....we

understand that ..."

>

> >Shree Venkat - in principle there cannot be anything other than

> Brahman.

> >Since one sees - one brings in Iswara as the intelligent cause and

> prakRiti

> >as the material cause

>

> Ah, this old subject! Again, I must state my humble *opinion* that

> prakRiti (matter) does not really exist in any sense at all.

 

Your humble opinion is exactly what Upanishad screams as the truth ..You

are in a good company Benjamin. I would not use the word 'in any sense

at all' - it exists in the sense level! My typographical and English

errors are as real as my writing skills!

>It only

> SEEMS to 'since one sees' it. The seeing itself is an illusion. To

> 'see' is to see dualistically (subject and object), and to see

> dualistically is to be engrossed in an illusion. This goes for all

> seeing.

>

> Actually, I don't think that Sadanandaji believes anything much

> different. Only, when he went on to talk about biological functions,

> I got the impression that the body was something quite physical and

> concrete for him. True, he used the body to illustrate that we are

> not the doers. But the doer then seemed to become 'Nature', which

> still sounds rather 'materialistic' to me. Just my impression upon

> reading that.

>

> The entire Jagat is a massive optical illusion, a dream, sometimes a

> nightmare (if we allow it to be)...

>

> Om!

> Benjamin

>

 

 

Benjamin - read my mail again - it starts 'since one sees ..' we are

bringing the causes to account what we see. And I also used the

Upanishad quote ' maayantu prakRitim vidyaat' - know that maaya is

prakRiti - and maaya is that which is not there but appears to be there.

 

 

Efforts as well as not doing efforts - to do, not to do and to do

another way - are all exercises of choices in vyavahaara level only

where one is involved in prakRiti or with prakRiti. Otherwise, I will be

happy to take your pay check use it for a good sense!

 

If we understand that the entire jagat is massive optical illusion, 'we'

have solved the problem which is not there to start with - and all these

questions (and answers too) will have no relavency. As long as we do

not get reference-states mixed up, there is no problem!

 

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.

 

 

 

SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadanandaji!

> Benjamin - read my mail again - it starts 'since one sees ..'

 

I realized that! That's why I put those words in quotes in my

previous message, in order to emphasize that I was elaborating on

your very words.

 

>we are bringing the causes to account what we see. And I also used the

>Upanishad quote ' maayantu prakRitim vidyaat' - know that maaya is

>prakRiti - and maaya is that which is not there but appears to be there.

 

That is extremely interesting! I did not know that the Upanishads

*explicitly* say that maaya is prakRiti. That is a very profound

statement indeed. Those few words sum up everything I ever said

about Subjective Idealism and Berkeley, and that was a lot! Maybe we

don't need the October discussion now! Greg, are you there? Just

kidding ... I'll be glad to engage in that discussion if the

moderators still feel it's appropriate for this list.

 

>If we understand that the entire jagat is massive optical illusion, 'we'

>have solved the problem which is not there to start with ...

 

You know how much I agree with this. Yet I was at the dentist's

office this morning, and even though there was no pain, these

beautiful spiritual ideals were still put to the test (by my

anxiety)! And then I started to think how bad everything will get as

I approach death (unless the Lord blesses me with a heart attack in

my sleep).

 

Yes I agree with all this philosophy at the intellectual and

inspirational level. But from time to time we should pause to

consider, when faced with the terrible vulnerability of the body, how

wonderfully bold and courageous (or insane) are the pronouncements of

Advaita! :-)

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Tony,

>Yes the entire universe is an illusion

>a holographic illusion......ONS...Tony.

 

Make that a holy-graphic illusion!

 

I just couldn't resist that silly joke.

Swamiji likes jokes and puns.

 

Ooops, I'm starting to exceed my daily message diet again...

 

Om!

Benjamin