Swami Bodhananda Dialogues With Young American Critiques

[Guest guest]

Hello. Swami Bodhananda and I have recently written a book of dialogues

on a number of spiritual and philosophical topics of interest to

advaitins, from consciousness and reality to the daily application of

spiritual principles. I was the "young american" skeptic in the talks,

and he was the teacher and respondent.

 

Swami Bodhananda is the spiritual director of The Sambodh Society, USA,

and is a well-known vedantic scholar and sannyasi. I am currently

completing a master's in information systems at Carnegie Mellon.

 

Currently we have posted two chapters from our book online, at

http://tinyurl.com/lqqu .

 

We would really appreciate any critiques or thoughtful feedback you may

have. Are the ideas clear? Does the book interest you? Does it enrich

the global understanding of vedanta?

 

Our apologies in advance for any spelling or grammar mistakes -- if you

point them out, we would be grateful. Anything else of value you could

add would be much appreciated.

 

Thank you very much.

 

Hari Om,

 

Akilesh Ayyar & Swami Bodhananda

[Guest guest]

very beautiful...i am falling short of words !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

Akilesh Ayyar <akilesh wrote:

Hello. Swami Bodhananda and I have recently written a book of dialogues

on a number of spiritual and philosophical topics of interest to

advaitins, from consciousness and reality to the daily application of

spiritual principles. I was the "young american" skeptic in the talks,

and he was the teacher and respondent.

 

Swami Bodhananda is the spiritual director of The Sambodh Society, USA,

and is a well-known vedantic scholar and sannyasi. I am currently

completing a master's in information systems at Carnegie Mellon.

 

Currently we have posted two chapters from our book online, at

http://tinyurl.com/lqqu .

 

We would really appreciate any critiques or thoughtful feedback you may

have. Are the ideas clear? Does the book interest you? Does it enrich

the global understanding of vedanta?

 

Our apologies in advance for any spelling or grammar mistakes -- if you

point them out, we would be grateful. Anything else of value you could

add would be much appreciated.

 

Thank you very much.

 

Hari Om,

 

Akilesh Ayyar & Swami Bodhananda

 

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 all.

 

With his Consciousness piece, it looks like Shri Akilesh has jumped

the gun on Benji's October discussion topic. However, I can't resist

making the following remarks on the dialogue with Sw. Bodhananda. I

have yet gone through only the Consciousness part.

 

In the consideration of Consciousness, do we have to take recourse to

the three stages called anterior consciousness, posterior

consciousness and the gap (absence of consciousness) between them,

irrespective of whether the last one is due to sleep or fainting or

any other reason whatsoever?

 

Why do I ask this question? Simply because the three stages are just

objectification to something whatever that is called. When does that

objectification take place? Always in the present. The

objectification of time (i.e. the appreciation of the separateness of

the three states and the duration of absence of consciousness) is

also in the present. The awareness of the labyrinthine discussion on

this topic is also an objectification in the present. So, to

whatever the three states and the rest of the paraphernalia are

objectified, there is only a present. Let us, therefore, call it

an `ever-present-present' without past and future and, therefore,

unafflicted by our normal notion of sequential time.

 

Since it is not afflicted by time (i.e. without a past or future), it

is verily timelessness. Time-space continuum is like an umbrella

where the ribs are time and the cloth space. When the ribs close,

the cloth also follows suit. As such, when time resolves into

timelessness in the `ever-present-present', space has no option

available but to follow suit. Thus, timelessness is spacelesness

where into anterior, posterior and absent consciousnesses, including

all objectified phenomena, resolve on final enquiry. That is

Consciousness, which the mind and intellect (again objectifications)

cannot grasp (beyond objectification) and about the existence of

which there is no doubt because It is the self-evident I AM.

 

Let us take the experience of seeing a flower. When I see the

flower, I am one with it. There is no separation of seer and seen.

The sense of separation dawns when the thought "I have seen a

flower" dawns, where there apparently is a separation of seer, seeing

and seen. When that thought occurs, there is no flower objectified.

I am one with the thought. That thought is objectified only when the

thought that I have had a thought occurs. It thus goes on

interminably. The seer, seeing and seen are again separate

objectifications at the appreciation of each of which I am one with

each of them.

 

Truly, then, on ultimate analysis, I am one with all my alleged

experiences – objectifications – all of which are inter-connected in

the matrix of the `ever-present-present'. I am not separate. Yet,

there is a sense of separation, which again is an objectification and

I am one with that too when that sense dawns. Why do I then feel

separate from the rest at all when I am not really separate? That is

ignorance, the source of all miseries, and that has no logic or

validity. That knowledge of ignorance is also an objectification at

the time of appreciation of which again I am one with it. Where does

all this lead us? To the truth that I am in everything or I am

everything. I pervade everything. I am the ever-present-present

where experiences seem to project themselves. The apparent

projection is nothing but an error in my understanding of the nature

of reality.

 

Then whose death, birth and absence of consciousness (temporary or

endless) are we lamenting? Those thoughts are again in the `ever-

present-present'. The `ever-present-present' cannot die or be born

or be unconscious. It is a wakefulness pervading everything and,

since it is spacelessness without compartmentalization, it is

infinite. Logically, anything infinite cannot have limited parts.

So, the seemingly limited flower and my thoughts are really infinite

just because I am in them but they are not in me because I am

infinite and cannot be broken into pieces. Back to the Bhagwad GitA

therefore.

 

Hope this helps.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

advaitin, "Akilesh Ayyar" <akilesh@a...> wrote: