Shri Atmananda on love and devotion

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Madathil,

 

Thanks for the kind message of 8 Dec, in which you wrote:

 

"I am sure you will again return to vidyA-vritti ... as that, as far as

I can see from your past mail, is the super-highway to my real identity

as Knowledge. But, what would be of interest to me and certainly may

others here is the importance attached by Atmanandaji to devotion on

the vidyA-vritti highway. ... With that goes the mind and ego, which we

so interminably erect and analyze in our quest. Am I right, Sir? Will

then Benji be not answered? Will there be any dryness then in our

philosophy for us to lament?"

 

Yes, in Shri Atmananda's approach, devotion (bhakti) or love (prema) is

of the greatest importance. The higher reason (vidya-vritti) is only an

expression of love for truth. It's only love that can take a sadhaka

from dry ideas to living truth (see note 1952 #98 below). As the word

'philosophy' implies (from 'philo-' meaning love and '-sophy' meaning

'true knowledge'), all genuine enquiry is a love affair with truth. And

reason -- in particular the higher reason -- is just a means through

which love works, to express itself in the affair.

 

But, since reason is only a means of expression, it is subject to love

and not the other way around. The workings of love are not subject to

reason and cannot rightly be directed or described by reason. The only

proper use of reason is to question false beliefs, in search of a truth

that is loved beyond all else. It's only through such all-consuming

love that every last remaining trace of falsity may be surrendered, on

the way to truth.

 

Just how love works, through this surrendering enquiry, is not a

subject to which reason properly applies. When a sadhaka's love for

truth is genuine enough, that love for truth manifests itself in the

form of a teacher and of sadhanas or investigations which are thereby

taught. There is of course a deeply emotional side to this, but it is a

side that has to dealt with in its own right -- as a highly delicate

matter between teacher and disciple, expressed in a way that is quite

specific to their particular conditions and circumstances.

 

Shri Atmananda himself was a Krishna-bhakta, and his teacher asked him

to undertake the traditional bhakti sadhana of Radha-hridaya-bhavana

(contemplation on the heart of Radha, who took Krishna as her lover).

Arising directly from this sadhana, Shri Atmananda composed a poetic

work, called 'Radha-madhavam'. It's theme is summarized in stanza 5,

which says:

 

rAdhA-mAdhava-lIla bOdharahitanmArokkeyum prAkrita

prAdhAnyam kalarunna kAmakalayAy kANunna sAdhAraNam.

dvaitamviTTatha citprasAdhavibhavanmArAy mahAbhaktarAm

sAdhukkaLkkatu cittamAtmaniramiccaikyam labhikkyunnatAm.

 

Very freely interpreted, this stanza says something to this effect:

 

A worldly, unenlightened mind

thinks usually that human love

consists in personal desire

for objects other than the self.

 

But Radha's love for Krishna sought

to go beyond duality:

to reach that truth which Krishna is,

where he and she and 'you' and 'I'

are one in self's pure unity.

 

The work is composed in very lyrical and passionate Malayalam; and Shri

Atmananda was once persuaded to try translating it into English. He sat

down to do so, but after a while he gave up, saying that the mood just

wouldn't come. An English disciple (John Levy) did make some sort of

translation; but it comes across as rather quaint, thus sadly missing

out the searing power and spirit of the original. Unlike the reasoned

discourse of 'Atma Darshan' and 'Atma Nirvriti, which Shri Atmananda

did very effectively translate into English, the impassioned bhakti of

'Radha-madhavam' was not thus translatable. It was too specific to the

particular, traditional environment in which it was composed.

 

In his reasoned discourses, Shri Atmananda did sometimes speak about

devotion and love, but he didn't elaborate here nearly as much as when

he spoke of the consciousness or existence aspects of truth. And he

emphasized that in the end, the heart or devotional aspect must be left

to itself, as beyond the jurisdiction of head or intellectual aspect.

 

Even so, in Nitya Tripta's 'Notes on Spiritual Discourses of Shri

Atmananda', there are some brief discussions of the devotion and love,

usually in relation to knowledge. A few of them are appended below.

 

Ananda

 

-----

 

1st October 1951

228. What is the nature of love in its application?

 

If you love another for his or her gross and external qualities alone,

that love is of the lowest type.

 

But if you love the other knowing that it is the life principle alone

in the other that you love, then that love becomes sublime.

 

And lastly, if you love the other knowing that it is that which

transcends the attributes -- body, senses and mind -- that you love,

there the otherness vanishes at once. That love is the most sublime,

and is the Absolute itself.

 

The ordinary man believes the object he desires to be real, and to be

the source of the pleasure he enjoys. But the Sage sees objects as mere

pointers to the Self.

 

 

5th June 1952

57. Love and how to love?

 

All worldly love is mere bargaining and has always its opposite

attached to it, ready to express itself when the consideration

anticipated is in any way obstructed.

 

But a Vedantin's love alone knows no bargain, and naturally knows no

opposite. It is perfect and unconditional; and always in the form of

giving and not taking. Therefore, even to love one's own wife or child

in the best manner, one has to become a Vedantin first. All talk of

love in this world is nothing but unadulterated fraud.

 

So know yourself first. Then alone can you love anybody or anything

truly and unreservedly.

 

 

8th July 1952

98. Heart and prema

 

Heart + I am = I am the heart.

 

Love is the expression of the Self through the heart, and the heart is

always wet. It takes you straight to the Self or Atma and drowns you in

it. Language is dry and is the expression of the Self through the head

or reason. It takes you only to the brink of Atma; and leaves you

there, till the heart rises up to wet reason and ultimately to drown

you in love.

 

So when you begin to discuss love, it is impossible to proceed with the

discussion when the heart wells up. Of the different styles in

literature, 'shringara' (based on human love) is the one style found

best suited to clothe the highest Truth through the message of love or

prema. This is why even the Upanishads have invariably utilized this

style to express Truth....

 

 

26th December 1952

480. What do you love?

 

Answer: 'You can love only the right Absolute, represented by the life

principle in others. You can love nothing else.'

 

 

10th April 1953

83. What do I love? And why?

 

Your love is directed only to the real substratum or Self. You happen

to love the qualities in one, simply because they belong to the

substratum you love. You love, because love is the real nature of the

real Self and you cannot help loving even for a moment.

 

 

10th April 1953

84. How to love?

 

Love is the feeling or sense of oneness with another.

 

If you correctly understand yourself to be beyond body, senses and

mind, your love for another will also be for that self in him. Because

there are no two selves, and love is its nature.

 

If your understanding is incorrect, you love the incorrect self in him;

and as a result of that incorrectness, you hate others.

 

Genuine love absorbs everything into you, and then duality dies. But in

conditioned love, or gratitude, duality persists in giving and taking.

Even this gratitude, if directed to the Guru, goes deep into you, takes

you beyond duality and is transformed into objectless love.

 

 

18th April 1953

97. What differentiates love from knowledge?

 

Knowing with your whole being is Love itself. In thought (which is

knowing with the mind alone) you do not lose yourself. But in love you

lose yourself. So love entails the sacrifice of the ego.

 

 

21st April 1953

109. What are the activities of love and knowledge?

 

Love creates an object for its enjoyment. Immediately, knowledge

destroys that object, leaving love objectless. Being objectless, it is

one with love Absolute. Love is enriched not by taking but by

giving....

 

 

2nd July 1953

125. Where is subject-object relationship in love?

 

When you say you love yourself, you yourself and love stand as one. So

also when you love another, you become one with the other. The

subject-object relationship vanishes, and the experience is one of

identity. In order to 'love thy neighbour as thyself' you have to stand

as Atma itself.

 

The disappearance of subject-object relationship is a natural corollary

of the experience of love. So also of the experience of knowledge. This

actually happens in all experiences in the plane of the relative.

 

Instead of taking note of the sublime Truth, after the event the ego

tries to limit, misrepresent and possess it. Whenever any doubt arises,

refer to the deep sleep experience. There is no subject-object

relationship there.

 

In the experience of Happiness the mind dies. There is neither enjoyer

nor enjoyed in it. There is only Happiness. It is an egoless state; but

this is usurped subsequently by the ego. You are not getting Happiness

by loving all, but loving all is itself Happiness. The humanitarian

worker emphasizes the 'all' and misses Happiness; the vedantin

emphasizes Happiness, his own nature, and misses or loses the 'all'.

 

 

1st June 1957

52. Devotion

 

So also bhakti or devotion is a mental attitude directed to an object,

generally an ishta-deva [a chosen form of God]. This by itself does not

give the ultimate result, moksha.

 

Moksha [liberation] is impersonal. To attain moksha, the goal of bhakti

has to be gradually changed to the impersonal, by understanding the

nature of God. But the truth about God is that it is the highest

concept of the human mind. Therefore, a subjective examination of the

mind has to be gone through and its background, the Self, visualized.

This can never be done by the mind alone, unaided.

 

Hence the truth of one's own real nature has to be heard from the lips

of a Sage (Guru). By that, one's own svarupa [true nature] is

immediately visualized. It is then that incessant devotion has to be

directed to that goal. That is real bhakti, and it enables one to get

established in Atma. That is mukti (liberation).

 

 

23rd September 1958

72. How is misery related to love?

 

Answer: Misery is love itself. But how? Let us examine misery. Take any

experience of misery. You say the thought of your departed father

creates misery. But does it always do so? If your father, when living,

was cruel and inimical to you, the thought of his demise would hardly

make you miserable. Therefore it is clear that it was not the thought

of the father that was the cause of the misery, but it was the thought

of your father's love that was the real cause.

 

But love is attributeless and indivisible. It is wrong even to call it

father's love, and it has been proved that the thought of the father

was not the cause of misery. Therefore it was love and love alone that

was the cause of the misery, if it could ever have had a cause. But you

experience only one thing at a time -- love or misery -- and therefore

there can be no causal relationship between the two [as different

things].

 

Hence it is love that expresses itself as misery, and not your father

[that causes it, as something different from love]. The father is

forgotten in love. To find the source of misery, you must go beyond

body and mind. If you emphasize body and mind, you are fixed in the

expression of Truth. The substance is beyond.

 

Misery and happiness are both expressions. Love pure is the background

of both. When you cling on to love, objects vanish. But when you cling

on to objects, love is not perceived as such.

 

Where there is no love, there is no misery. So love goes into the make

of misery; misery is love itself. It is the illusory concept of time

that makes love appear as misery. If you separate love from misery,

misery is not.

 

 

12th October 1958

78. What is bhakti?

 

Answer: You cannot have bhakti for something non-existent, nor can you

have it towards anything you do not know. Every object of bhakti has

two aspects:

 

1. The impermanent or non-existent form, and

2. The permanent or the real consciousness.

 

Bhakti should be directed to the latter aspect, and the former can be

blissfully ignored when it has fulfilled its legitimate purpose. The

purpose of the 'form' is only to arrest your attention and to enable

you to direct it to Consciousness, which is its background. The

Consciousness can never be objectified. That is always the ultimate

subject (vishayin). It is in the devotee himself and indivisible.

 

Therefore, a real devotee can only and need only direct his attention

to the Consciousness in him. This is real bhakti; and it immediately

yields Peace or ananda, which is Consciousness itself. This is

vastu-tantra, the outcome of Truth. Shri Shankara defines real bhakti

of the highest order as follows:

 

moksha-sAdhana-sAmagryAm bhaktir eva garIyasI

sva-svarIpA-'nusandhAnam bhaktir ity abhidhIyate

[Viveka-cudamani, 31]

 

'Incessantly clinging onto one's own real nature is verily termed

bhakti.'

 

Bhakti for anything other than this is really unworthy of the name. It

may, at the most, be called a fascination as unreal as the object

itself.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

> Namaste Shri Madathil,

>

>

> Yes, in Shri Atmananda's approach, devotion (bhakti) or love

(prema) is

> of the greatest importance. The higher reason (vidya-vritti) is

only an

> expression of love for truth. It's only love that can take a

sadhaka

> from dry ideas to living truth (see note 1952 #98 below). >

> But, since reason is only a means of expression, it is subject to

love

> and not the other way around. The workings of love are not subject

to

> reason and cannot rightly be directed or described by reason. The

only

> proper use of reason is to question false beliefs, in search of a

truth

> that is loved beyond all else. It's only through such all-consuming

> love that every last remaining trace of falsity may be

surrendered, on

> the way to truth.

>

> Shri Atmananda himself was a Krishna-bhakta, >

> The disappearance of subject-object relationship is a natural

corollary

> of the experience of love.

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

 

Namaste. Your entire post, Anandaji, is superb. I have only quoted

above, a few of the gems that should be marked in gold. What a

profound analysis of Bhakti! My PraNAms.

 

Just as a challenge to curiosity-oriented researchers, may I submit

that it would be difficult to find a single name, either in the

present or in the past, of an acknowledged proponent of advaitic

thoughts who is (or was) not a deep devotee of God? Can they (the

researchers) take this challenge and find a single name?

 

PraNAms to all advaitins and Devotees of God.

profvk

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

> advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

> > Namaste Shri Madathil,

> >

> >

> > Yes, in Shri Atmananda's approach, devotion (bhakti) or love

> (prema) is

> > of the greatest importance. The higher reason (vidya-vritti) is

> only an

> > expression of love for truth. It's only love that can take a

> sadhaka

> > from dry ideas to living truth (see note 1952 #98 below). >

>

> > But, since reason is only a means of expression, it is subject to

> love

> > and not the other way around. The workings of love are not

subject

> to

> > reason and cannot rightly be directed or described by reason. The

> only

> > proper use of reason is to question false beliefs, in search of a

> truth

> > that is loved beyond all else. It's only through such all-

consuming

> > love that every last remaining trace of falsity may be

> surrendered, on

> > the way to truth.

> >

> > Shri Atmananda himself was a Krishna-bhakta, >

>

> > The disappearance of subject-object relationship is a natural

> corollary

> > of the experience of love.

> ----------------------------

>

> Namaste. Your entire post, Anandaji, is superb. I have only quoted

> above, a few of the gems that should be marked in gold. What a

> profound analysis of Bhakti! My PraNAms.

>

> Just as a challenge to curiosity-oriented researchers, may I submit

> that it would be difficult to find a single name, either in the

> present or in the past, of an acknowledged proponent of advaitic

> thoughts who is (or was) not a deep devotee of God? Can they (the

> researchers) take this challenge and find a single name?

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins and Devotees of God.

> profvk

 

dear friends, i guess you termed 'reason' here the mind that needs to

be appeased by practice to let Brahman shine?

why would we need the mind to question false belief?

would it be the mind enquiring about what is false?

what is false?

sorry to interrupt,

praNAms

eric

[Guest guest]

PraNAms to all advaitins and Devotees of God!

I have to confess that sometimes I feel quite lazy to read all these gigantic

(though enlightened) posts you all write in this list. I´d really like to be

able to sit and JUST BE what I am, but I don´t know why the most simple thing

seems to be so difficult. Also I feel depressed because I want to understand,

but the masters say that I all I have to do is to relax and be, nothing else.

That creates conflict in my mind. Sometimes I enjoy a state of supreme

satisfaction (for some fractions of a second), another times I´m totally imersed

in body consciousness and all its miseries. But when I come to Iswara, all this

strugle disappears and I just want to contemplate on His Beauty and enjoy His

Presence. As I see, this practice seems to lead to the same goal I´m looking for

and so I don´t need to worry about anything, but be natural and just surrender

my life to Him, and be sure that He will take care of everything in due time.

 

Thank you for sharing these enlightened teachings once more!

 

Namaste

 

Celine

 

PS: Thanks Dennis for the sanskrit web site and Kannan for info about Yoga

Vasishta!

 

 

Just as a challenge to curiosity-oriented researchers, may I submit

that it would be difficult to find a single name, either in the

present or in the past, of an acknowledged proponent of advaitic

thoughts who is (or was) not a deep devotee of God? Can they (the

researchers) take this challenge and find a single name?

 

PraNAms to all advaitins and Devotees of God.

profvk

 

 

The other way is to simply be natural, to be yourself, while in surrender to

Lord of the Heart who manifests as the Inner Being, whose nature is awareness,

and to see one's identity with the Lord, who turns out to be none other than our

own Self. That is the supreme beauty. The one whom we adore is indeed none other

than Sat-Chit-Ananda manifesting in the Heart as the Self.

 

Love to all

Harsh

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - 6MB, anti-spam e antivírus gratuito. Crie sua conta agora!

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Celine Tosta <nirakaram> wrote:

>

> I have to confess that sometimes I feel quite lazy to read all

these gigantic (though enlightened) posts you all write in this list.

I´d really like to be able to sit and JUST BE what I am, >

 

Namaste,

 

There is a well-known 'subhashita' (a wise saying):

 

anantashAstraM bahuveditavyam

alpashcha kAlo bahavashcha vighnAH |

yatsArabhUtaM tadupAsitavyam

haMso yathA kShIramivAmbumishram ||

 

[ Without end are the scriptures, much needs to be studied;

short is the time to do it, and many are the hurdles.

What the essence is, that is to be drawn out for practice,

like the swan which can separate milk mixed with water. ]

 

As you have already adopted the 'swan' attitude, nothing need

disturb it!

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Anandaji.

 

I am deeply indebted to you for your brilliant post # 20125. Oh!

What a great occasion we are having with you expounding Atmandaji's

thoughts!

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Anandaji.

 

With Mother's and Atmandaji's blessings and grace taken for granted,

may I risk the audacity of freely translating his quoted verse to

simple English poetry without the usual Sanskrit terminology?

 

rAdhA-mAdhava-lIla bOdharahitanmArokkeyum prAkrita

prAdhAnyam kalarunna kAmakalayAy kANunna sAdhAraNam.

dvaitamviTTatha citprasAdhavibhavanmArAy mahAbhaktarAm

sAdhukkaLkkatu cittamAtmaniramiccaikyam labhikkyunnatAm.

 

 

Radha with Madhava plays,

Ignorant see not through.

Their eyes by habit see

Love game of man and eve.

 

Those who have undone two,

Blessed by Knowledge true,

His saintly lovers discern,

Mind losing in the One,

In sheer playful abandon,

Melting themselves at the end.

 

Hope I have not committed a sacrilege!

 

Needless to say, the theme is similar to our Shiva-Sakti example.

The ultimate melting is most important for us irrespective of whether

we are vaishnavites or shaivaites or of some other hue.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________________

 

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

> The work is composed in very lyrical and passionate Malayalam; and

Shri

> Atmananda was once persuaded to try translating it into English. He

sat

> down to do so, but after a while he gave up, saying that the mood

just

> wouldn't come. An English disciple (John Levy) did make some sort of

> translation; but it comes across as rather quaint, thus sadly

missing

> out the searing power and spirit of the original.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Madathil,

 

Thanks for your message (14 Dec) translating Radha-madhavam, stanza 4.

Yes, it brings out, in simple English verse, some of the traditional

flavour that someone like yours truly misses out.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Eric,

 

You asked (14 Dec):

 

"I guess you termed 'reason' here the mind that needs to be appeased by

practice to let Brahman shine?"

 

No, "the mind that needs to appeased" is what Shri Atmananda called

'lower reason'. He defined such mind or lower reason as 'consciousness

going out towards objects'. And he gave the name 'higher reason' or

'vidya-vritti' to what Ramana Maharshi called 'self-enquiry' or

'atma-vicara'.

 

That higher reason is consciousness reflecting back into the self from

which mind arises (and seems to go out). That alone is true reason. And

it is not mind at all. Instead, it is consciousness itself or love

itself, expressed in the form of investigating questions, so as to take

a sadhaka back to her or his own truth.

 

So, when you go on to ask "Why would we need the mind to question false

belief?", one answer might be 'For love of truth.'

 

Or, when you ask "Would it be the mind enquiring about what is false?",

an answer might be 'If it were, then the enquiry could not be genuine.'

 

And, in reply to your final question "What is false?", it might be said

'In the end, nothing else but truth itself, appearing in the form of

falsity.'

 

But these are only 'smart' replies, from someone else who is countering

your questions. Such questions cannot be of any real use unless they

turn back on themselves, to the sadhaka's own false beliefs emerging in

the questions asked.

 

It is indeed a delicate and perplexing business, repeatedly digging up

the ground from one's own feet, so that one keeps on falling awkwardly,

until there's nowhere left to fall. What else but unconditioned love

could keep that going till the end? And this too is a question which

the questioner must use to question his own foolishness.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

excellent, nair saahb!

a.v.krshnan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________

BT Broadband - Save £80 when you order online today. Hurry! Offer ends

21st December 2003. The way the internet was meant to be.

http://uk.rd./evt=21064/*http://bt..co.uk

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

> Dear Eric,

>

thank you Ananda,

I'll go along your explanation below:

> You asked (14 Dec):

>

> "I guess you termed 'reason' here the mind that needs to be

appeased by

> practice to let Brahman shine?"

>

> No, "the mind that needs to appeased" is what Shri Atmananda called

> 'lower reason'. He defined such mind or lower reason

as 'consciousness

> going out towards objects'. And he gave the name 'higher reason' or

> 'vidya-vritti' to what Ramana Maharshi called 'self-enquiry' or

> 'atma-vicara'.

>

so it is what Shri Ramana called atma-vidya, which is the self

obvious at anytime: sat-chit-ananda;

 

> That higher reason is consciousness reflecting back into the self

from

> which mind arises (and seems to go out). That alone is true reason.

And

> it is not mind at all. Instead, it is consciousness itself or love

> itself, expressed in the form of investigating questions, so as to

take

> a sadhaka back to her or his own truth.

>

in the same way that sat-chit-ananda is spoken in threefold but is

perceived only one, also functions and actions can be ascribed to

higher reason i guess, but no movement is perceived.

> So, when you go on to ask "Why would we need the mind to question

false

> belief?", one answer might be 'For love of truth.'

>

the question better formulated would be: "how can higher reason be

used? and who uses it?"

> Or, when you ask "Would it be the mind enquiring about what is

false?",

> an answer might be 'If it were, then the enquiry could not be

genuine.'

>

> And, in reply to your final question "What is false?", it might be

said

> 'In the end, nothing else but truth itself, appearing in the form of

> falsity.'

>

so we are back to vidya-avidya, but no specifics about 'topics'

or 'issues' that reason should tackle for liberation;

because "enquiring about what is false" is only coming back to 'I am'

which is a gift of Grace and the movement of subsiding within the

heart which movement is the heart itself;

> But these are only 'smart' replies, from someone else who is

countering

> your questions. Such questions cannot be of any real use unless they

> turn back on themselves, to the sadhaka's own false beliefs

emerging in

> the questions asked.

>

indeed the question makes sense from the point of view of a restless

or miserable mind that would seek an anodyne to life; yet in my case

I know that a permanent peaceful mind is not the end of the quest, as

peace or lack of worry and a good handle on the issues of life/death

can still hide a number of personal issues, so I keep enquiring...

> It is indeed a delicate and perplexing business, repeatedly digging

up

> the ground from one's own feet, so that one keeps on falling

awkwardly,

> until there's nowhere left to fall. What else but unconditioned love

> could keep that going till the end? And this too is a question which

> the questioner must use to question his own foolishness.

>

> Ananda

 

thank you Ananda

eric

[Guest guest]

Greetings Ananda Wood,

 

In your reply to Eric's questions (dec. 15th) you cleared some points

I was missing about Sri Atmananda's approach. I am thankful that I can learn a

lot by participating in this forum.

One statement of yours, though, remained obscure to me. It is:

 

 

That higher reason is consciousness reflecting back into the self from

which mind arises (and seems to go out). That alone is true reason. And

it is not mind at all. Instead, it is consciousness itself or love

itself, expressed in the form of investigating questions, so as to take

a sadhaka back to her or his own truth.

 

Fred: This implies that there are different truths, and each Sadhaka finds

his own truth through Vidya-Vritti, in Sri Atmananda's teachings? This would

imply that Sri Atmananda's teaching is then very subtle and subjective. But then

when one talks about truth, is it not the Turiya and Turiyatita states?

According to Sri Ramana Maharshi the final truth is the Self, which is realized

in the states mentioned above. Is that concurrent with Sri Atmananda's teachings

as well? What exactly does Sri Atmananda means by "his or her own truth". This

sounds to me that each individual finds a truth and each truth is different. Is

that so in Sri Atmananda's teachings? I am nobody to agree or disagree with

this, but instead I am asking this with a sincere love for knowledge of truth.

I've found Sri Atmananda's teachings as expounded by you so far, very

interesting. On my part I thank you for sharing this with me. I understand you

are quite busy and so I do not expect a quick answer, but if you could sometime

answer these questions I would be very grateful.

Best energies,

Fred

 

 

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]

Dear Fred,

you wrote:

>...to take a sadhaka back to her or his own truth.

>This sounds to me that each individual finds a truth and each truth is

different. Is that so in Sri Atmananda's teachings? I am nobody to agree or

disagree with this, but instead I am asking this with a sincere love for

knowledge of truth. I've found Sri Atmananda's teachings as expounded by you so

far, very interesting.>

 

If I can interfere, from my point of view this statement doesn´t mean that each

one has its own truth, but that the Truth is the same for each one. In ultimate

sense, "my" truth is not different from "your" truth as we are not separate

beings, but the same One manifested in many forms. The Truth is only one and I

am this Truth, since I am the only One without a second.

 

I´ve been reading all the posts about the three states and the Reality beyond

it, and I´d like to quote this from Shri Madathil Nair:

>in the Maharshi's own words, "there is no you, nor I, nor he; no present, nor

past, nor future. It is beyond time and space, beyond _expression".

>Thus, the word sAkSi is neither mundane nor metaphorical. IT is the Reality we

are, which unfortunately we have to `be' despite `being' IT! And when we `be'

IT, there are no words to explain It to others. Well, where are words and

others then and where is a then in that wherelessness!? Yet, we see the

Realized speaking and writing tomes! And we build tombs for them, when they go

into mahAsamadhi! He he he! Again the mind, Sir.>

 

Thanks, Madathil-ji!

 

Pranams,

Celine

 

"Frederico S. Gonzales" <fsg wrote:

Greetings Ananda Wood,

 

In your reply to Eric's questions (dec. 15th) you cleared some points

I was missing about Sri Atmananda's approach. I am thankful that I can learn a

lot by participating in this forum.

One statement of yours, though, remained obscure to me. It is:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - 6MB, anti-spam e antivírus gratuito. Crie sua conta agora!

 

 

[Guest guest]

" In ultimate sense, "my" truth is not different from "your" truth as we are

not separate beings, but the same One manifested in many forms. The Truth is

only one and I am this Truth, since I am the only One without a second. "

 

 

If you truly believe that you are One without a second, what is holding you

back from embracing the truth? What are you afraid of? You say about it, you

write about it, you discuss about it. Why cant you live it? What are you

waiting for? A shower of blessing from someone?

I am not posing a question at anyone. My three fingers are pointing right

towards me.

 

 

Hari Om

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ranjeetji.

 

That we are able to ask this question itself is Grace when we see a

whole lot of humanity around us that does not care to pause and think

even for a second. Don't worry. The rest will follow if we continue

to operate in this mode, I mean, incessantly contemplate on what we

already know. Why worry about a when? That question has no

relevance in *whenlessness*. Worry cannot be a part of mumukshatwam.

Knowledge will grow on you and consume you ultimately if you continue

the thinking. Let all the ten fingers point at YOU. Don't let any

look the other way.

 

This is just an observation. Thank you very much for providing this

opportunity.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

>

>

> If you truly believe that you are One without a second, what is

holding you

> back from embracing the truth? What are you afraid of? You say

about it, you

> write about it, you discuss about it. Why cant you live it? What

are you

> waiting for? A shower of blessing from someone?

> I am not posing a question at anyone. My three fingers are pointing

right

> towards me.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

>

>

> If you truly believe that you are One without a second, what is holding you

back from embracing the truth?

 

>madathilnair wrote:

>Don't worry. The rest will follow if we continue

to operate in this mode, I mean, incessantly contemplate on what we already

know.

>Knowledge will grow on you and consume you ultimately if you continue the

thinking.

 

 

Namaste, Ranjeet-ji and Madathil-ji

 

I also put these questions to myself, and I really don´t know what prevents me

from being established in Truth right now. Maybe it´s like a so stupidly easy

enigma that you just cannot find the answer using your reason in an ordinary

way. Once the Truth is told we should immediately hold on to it, but by the

force of habit and maybe impurities of the mind we are not able to do this. We

are living in wrong identification for so many lives. Now at least we should

stop and behave according to the truth as far as our understanding can go, and

the result was expounded so brilliantly by Madathil-ji again... Thanks!

 

I´m not good in sankskrit, but I recall one thing i used to read in Sai Baba´s

discourses: "Yad Bhavam Tad Bhavathi" (As are your feelings, so will be the

result). Right??

 

 

Hari Om!

Celine

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - 6MB, anti-spam e antivírus gratuito. Crie sua conta agora!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

A friend who read my post # 20179 dated 16th December 2003 commented

as follows in a personal mail:

 

QUOTE

 

I know from the scriptures that I am Brahman and everything is Me.

But even after reading "tAmstithikshasva bhAratha" the chill winter

breeze affects me. The problem is that *I know* but I am not

sure of it ! I fear that if I forego all that is binding me, I might

end up in no-man's land !! errr.. forget it. I cant put my thoughts

into words. I think the fruit is not ripe yet.

 

UNQUOTE

 

 

With Benji doubting if he could bear all the pain in the world, I

thought I would reproduce here my answer to my friend (slightly

revised):

 

 

QUOTE

 

Yes. The chill winter breeze affects me too despite

all my advaitic blabber. But, I do notice a

difference.

 

To illustrate, in the later sixties and early

seventies when I was in Bombay, I used to pity an

invalid beggar sleeping on the pavements of Parel.

His almost naked body full of oozing wounds with blades and

metal parts deliberately lodged into them was a

horrible sight. I then used to wonder how a human

being could put up with such shocking physical suffering and

abomination.

 

I was much better off than the beggar with a steady

job and income and no constraining family

responsibilities. Then, I moved to the Gulf to greener

pastures and better comforts. Life was just great till 2nd August

1990 when Saddam Hussein misadventured with world history.

 

I was taken prisoner and incarcerated in a prison camp

in Baghdad for about a month. My family (wife and two

little daughters – one asthmatic) remained in Kuwait helpless.

 

My captors failed to provide even the least bit of

amenities that a prisoner in a normal jail gets. I

was kept in a tin-roofed shed and slept on undone

floor covered with human spit and dirt with over one thousand other

inmates stacked like sardines. The day

temperature was above 40 degrees C. Sleep and snore I did there

because one who is tired and sleepy has to necessarily fall asleep

whatever the circumstances! I couldn't have a

wash during the whole period I was in there. All

through, I wore the same clothes I was wearing when I

was caught. The very little food that was served

occasionally was so badly cooked and substandard that

most of us forsook it. The competition to get at it was animal-like

where I found myself physically incompetent. There was yet another

reason for not eating. The toilets were without water most of the

time and solidly overflowing. It was better to avoid them at all

cost so much so that we took to the Lomotil pills an unfortunate

doctor-inmate was fortunately carrying with him.

 

However, advaita kept me company there and I realized

that I could be (not that I like to) the Bombay beggar

if the situation demanded. I was witnessing a tide in

history that was carrying Saddam Hussein and Bush

Senior on its crest. I knew that the tide will pass

to be taken over by another one. That is the way life

is. What does a family of a desolate wife and two

tiny tots matter there?

 

I had a companion there with two little children locked in his flat

back in Kuwait. His wife had gone to Bombay on an urgent mission.

He was caught when he ventured out alone to enquire about some

commotion that was going on in front of his building. I was much

better off than him with my two children having their educated mother

beside them to take care of. (For those who are eager, may I add that

a Pakistani neighbour rescued the kids and handed them over to the

Indian Embassy. They were reunited with their parents after the

Govt. of India began operating their rescue flights.)

 

Then, there was our Iraqi prison guard, who had been at the Iraqi

Embassy in Canada during the long drawn-out Iran-Iraq war and just

returned to find that all the male members of his family had vanished

without a trace through compulsory conscription. How could I console

him? Calamities do not discriminate between nationalities, captors

and captives! Look at what is happening to Saddamji!

 

So, what could I do? Witness the scene I did till the tide ebbed off

and life changed again to the better.

 

Many of my prison inmates broke down completely. A

few of them found solace on my shoulders as I chanted

the Hanuman ChAlisA unceasingly. I would also have

broken down like them had I not imbibed a little bit

of advaita and had such calamity befallen me say in

1980.

 

Witnessing and waiting without a sense of waiting is

the name of the game for an advaitin until he is able

to be the chill wind that affects the body. That may

sound like waiting for Godot. But, I am sure, I can't

be as absurd and hopeless as Samuel Beckett with the

bells of advaita ringing in my ears.

 

There, therefore, is a difference between the me of

today and the me of twenty years ago. That difference

I owe to advaita and I am pretty sure that one day I

will rise to realize that there was never any difference at

all or I myself am the difference like I am

everything, pain and pleasure alike, which as yet is just an academic

or intellectual awareness slowly but irreversibly percolating into

and transforming my being.

 

The promised world is no *no man's land* as it is full and

encompasses everything. So, let the chill winter go about doing its

vagaries. It is there to educate us like the vengeful mosquitoes of

Kerala, the beggar on the Bombay streets and Shri Saddam Hussein.

 

UNQUOTE

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Greetings Fred,

 

This is a rather delayed reply to your 16th Dec message, in which your

asked what I meant by speaking of questions that can 'take a sadhaka

back to her or his own truth'.

 

In particular, you asked if this "implies that there are different

truths", to be found by different sadhakas? Well, you are right of

course that it looks that way, because different sadhakas see

themselves differently -- as different personalities, with different

bodies and minds. But, in the end, it's only when we talk of

personality that 'hers' and 'his' seem different.

 

As some members have been replying to you, when any sadhaka comes

finally to truth of self, there 'hers' and 'his' are found to be the

same, in reality. All difference there is shown to be appearance only,

always showing one same self. That's what love points to, as a sadhaka

gives up what seems to be 'my' for what is truly 'I'.

 

You went on to ask: "But then when one talks about truth, is it not the

Turiya and Turiyatita states? According to Sri Ramana Maharshi the

final truth is the Self, which is realized in the states mentioned

above."

 

Again, there is a problem of terminology, with different words

producing seeming differences that have to be transcended on the way to

truth. But the problem here is a bit technical, I'm afraid. In

Sanskrit, the word 'turiya' simply means the 'fourth'. In the Mandukya

Upanishad, the truth is called 'catush-pat' or 'fallen out in four'.

The four are:

 

1. 'jagarita-sthana' or the 'waking state'

2. 'svapna-sthana' or the 'dream state'

3. 'sushupta-sthana' or the 'deep sleep state'

4. 'caturtha' or the 'fourth'.

 

In this fourfold division, the word 'sthana' or 'state' is applied only

to the first three divisions, which are the states of waking, dream and

sleep. The last division is where all divisions are dissolved. It is

merely called the 'fourth', and the word 'sthana' or 'state' is

significantly omitted. Here is the concluding stanza of the Mandukya

Upanishad:

 

amAtrash caturtho 'vyavahAryah prapanc'-opashamah shivo 'dvaita

evam on-kAra Atm' aiva samvishaty Atman' AtmAnam ya evam veda

 

I would translate this (somewhat freely) as follows:

 

The fourth is not an element;

nor has it elements. It cannot

be transacted or made up.

In it, the whole created world

of made-up things is brought to rest.

 

It is the unconditioned

happiness of non-duality.

 

'Om' is thus self alone.

One who knows that

joins back, through self,

into the truth of self.

 

In this interpretation, the 'fourth' is not a state that comes and

goes. It is instead, it is a non-dual reality beyond all change and

movement. It is the changeless reality described by the mantra 'om'. It

is the 'fourth' merely in the sense that it is beyond the three states

of waking, dream and sleep. These three are states that come and go.

The 'fourth' is the reality that's found beyond these changing states.

It's that which stays the same, while they come and go. Each one of

them shows it alone and nothing else.

 

However, there is also another interpretation, in which the 'fourth'

refers to a state of nirvikalpa samadhi, which is forcefully entered

through the waking state. Such a samadhi state does come and go, but it

is taken as a special gateway from the waking state to changeless

truth. Then the word 'turiya' (which is just another Sanskrit word for

'fourth') is used to describe a changing state. And the changeless

truth is described as 'turiy-atita' or 'beyond turiya'. Sometimes, even

'turiy-atita' is spoken of as a higher state, beyond 'turiya'. And

then, the changeless truth has to be conceived as 'turiy-atit-atita' or

'beyond turiy-atita'. So the conceiving of higher and higher states can

go on indefinitely, so long as a sadhaka keeps thinking in terms of

changing states.

 

To avoid this endless elaboration of terminology, Shri Atmananda

recommended a simple questioning of the experience of deep sleep, in

its own terms. And he said that this questioning could well be carried

out in the waking state, by reflecting into the objectless depth of wak

ing consciousness. For it is that same objectless depth which stays

present in all dreams and in deep sleep as well. As the experience of

deep sleep is considered, the consideration can take a sadhaka

reflecting down -- beneath all waking assumptions -- into a knowing

relaxation that dissolves all pettiness of ego into unconditioned

truth.

 

But that knowing relaxation needs the help of truth itself, which

arises in the form of a 'karana guru'. A 'karana guru' is a teacher

(guru) who is at one with 'karana' -- the inmost source within each

sadhaka.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Hello Ananda,

 

Thank you very much for the enlightening reply to my Dec 16 message. It

shed light on many points which were not clear for me, such as 'turiya' meaning

literally 'fourth' and 'turiyatita' , simply 'beyond fourth'.

Now, the representation of the fourth state as the mantra om is also

interesting. My teacher pointed out to me once that if you look at the mantra om

as it is normally written you will notice there is a penis penetrating a vagina

there. I was somewhat shocked when I saw that in fact this was the case.

Probably a reference of attaining the fourth state through sexual conjunction?

Thanks also for the clearing on nirvikalpa-samadhi. It is interesting

that you see nirvikalpa as being included in Truth. I have no means of

criticizing your position here because I also think this is an irrelevant and

technical difference. My teacher pointed to me Nirvikalpa is the truth being

realized, a state without ignorance, while the Jagarat, Svapna and Sushupta are

states of 'residual ignorance'. My teacher also pointed out to me once that upon

Liberation the sadhaka has then the broader consciousness and is able to enter

in and out of Nirvikalpa Samadhi at will. But I do not think this contradicts in

any way Sri Atmananda's teachings.

Best energies and thank you again for replying.

Fred

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

advaitin/

 

b..

advaitin

 

c..