SEEKING YOUR HELP - ATMANUBHAVA -1

[Guest guest]

Dear Group Members, Moderators and Friends,

 

 

I am a new member located in Bangalore, India. After retirement from what one

could call ‘ active service ‘, I have been taking keen interest in understanding

Vedanta. I have had several spiritual experiences in this life and have had a

burning interest in spirituality all along. This got me into all sorts of

situations but the most fascinating experience was the Mantropadesham at the

hands of a Brahmaswaroopi just before my retirement. This sort of organized my

Sadhana and got me into meditation in a rigorous sort of way.

 

 

 

Intuitively I was always oriented to ‘Bhakti’ ! Bhajans and prayers etc would

easily move me.

 

Although I am from what one could call a fairly orthodox Tamil background, my

early childhood in the colony attached to the goldmines at Kolar Gold Fields

near Bangalore and an upbinging in the midst of English children and

Anglo-Indians was not exactly what one could term Hindu in content nor in any

way ‘orthodox ‘!

 

Indeed the very first spirituality I got to know about was Christianity

…although there was this bewildering variety like Roman Catholicism,

Presbyterianism , Methodist etc …

 

When I was in Madras Christian College ( those were the heydays of Dr Billy

Graham and I was very impressed by him and got my family worried they were going

to lose the eldest of the family to some form of Christianity !) …the Upanayana

ceremony was performed and it became a turning point for me ..as someone very

aptly remarked in one of the listings recently the Sandhya Vandanam ritual is

indeed a composite of very many upasanas … and when I got to IIT Kharagpur I

was ready for Swami Vivekananda … he really got me into an understanding of

Vedanta. Although when I think of it , ‘ understanding ‘ may not be the really

correct word .. more ‘ misunderstanding ‘ than ‘ understanding ‘ ..but

everything has to start somewhere I suppose ….

 

 

 

It was a matter of time for me to get involved in the Ramakrishna Mission in

London ( I was in UK for about five years ) and later when we got back to

Bombay, India , to discover the Mission in Khar, Bombay… I was initiated into

Diksha by Swami Vireswarananda ..but I cant say I was totally satisfied because

I could have no personal interaction …

 

Years later this need was satisfied by my meeting Sri Ajit Dalvi in Bombay and

his Mantropadesham .

 

Now nearly a decade after that I seem to have discovered the advaitin listings

thanks to the tremendous technological changes that have taken place in the

interregnum ..and the advent of the ‘WEB ‘ as a Guru par excellence !!!

 

 

 

As I proceed with my Sadhana ( nothing orthodox although I am re-discovering a

lot of the meanings of Vedic rituals recently ) , new and creative meanings have

started presenting themselves to me on the content and import of many of the

thoughts expressed in the Veda Sukthas, the Upanishads and the Gita and so on .

Because of my involvement all through my worldly career in Management in various

parts of the organization and an early realization of the importance of

psychology for understanding oneself better and others in the bargain, I have

been a keen student of Western Psychology. I am naturally attracted to the

psychologists and there are so many of them who are involved in spirituality

also these days. Strong correlations have started presenting themselves in my

mind between Sankara’s teachings and the Gita and psychological revelations of

the Freudian variety.

 

 

 

Of late there is a deep urge to ‘ EXPERIENCE ‘ all that is stated by these

writers. So with the relative ( I say relative because one cannot really be a

recluse when one has a family to serve ! ) relaxed time at one’s disposal

nowadays, I have started trying to ‘ EXPERIMENT IN ORDER TO EXPERIENCE ‘ , so

to speak. This has started a kind of crystallization of ideas on what I would

like to term

 

‘ ATMANUBHAVA ‘ and the crying need to write it all down . But more than that,

one feels the need to share it all with learned people and ask for advice . I am

not at all learned in Sanskrit , or in fact , thanks to Kolar Gold Fields, any

Indian or foreign language except English . Of course, reading and hearing the

texts makes one slightly familiar with meanings … but when I look into the

Sanskrit Dictionary by Sri Apte which I recently procured, I am amazed at the

variety of meanings for a sound !

 

 

 

This is the brief ( sorry, it has become longer than intended ! ) background

to this posting and a series of postings which the advaitins group may have to

bear with ! Let me express how moved I get when I read some of the postings … I

seem to have gone through all those doubts myself sometime or the other . The

responses I read are compassionate learned and courteous . That is what gives me

the courage to expose my humble thoughts to this group . Please bear with

ignorance which you will definitely find …

 

 

 

For me the GURU principle has manifested itself in you all . I bow to you and

start my questions .

 

 

 

Question 1 :

 

 

 

I wonder whether there can be a ‘ Double Affirmation ‘ ! I set out below a set

of

 

‘ statements ‘ :

 

 

Prajnanam Brahma Awareness is Brahman

 

 

Aham Brahmasmi I am Brahman

 

 

 

Hence, Prajnanam Aham ! I am Awareness !

 

 

 

Would this be a correct conclusion ?

 

 

 

This has occurred because of a statement attributed to Bhagavan Ramana Maharishi

( I think this is mentioned in the book of Conversations ) where he states that

the optimum point where you can know your Self is in the transition from ‘

dreaming ‘ to ‘ waking ‘ …

 

I am what one can call a ‘ prolific ‘ dreamer. Observing the dream carefully, I

have become more and more ‘ aware ‘ that I am ‘ aware ‘ ! I presume this ‘

awareness’ ( a kind of witness state where one is observing the dream, the

waking and even one’s mind during meditation ) is what is called “ Prajna “.

 

 

 

I came thus to the conclusion that the state of ‘ I am aware “ is one condition

… one can call a ‘ Dualistic ‘ state where there are ‘ I ‘ and the ‘ object ‘ I

am aware of .

 

 

 

Logically, therefore, the ‘ realization ‘ that ‘ I ‘ am myself nothing but ‘

awareness’ should be the next step.

 

 

 

This could be the ‘ advaitic ‘ stage. I am nowhere near it, although I can feel

that merging the ‘ I ‘ with ‘ awareness ‘ would be a unique condition, where all

that one is witnessing would vanish.

 

 

 

I humbly seek your guidance .

 

 

 

India Mobile: Ringtones, Wallpapers, Picture Messages and more.Download

now.

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- S Mohan <mohanirmala wrote:

 

Shree Mohan, Greetings.

 

Welcome to the group. You have acquired very impressive background and

thanks for sharing it with us.

> Question 1 :

> I wonder whether there can be a ‘ Double Affirmation ‘ ! I set out

> below a set of

>

> ‘ statements ‘ :

> Prajnanam Brahma Awareness is Brahman

> Aham Brahmasmi I am Brahman

> Hence, Prajnanam Aham ! I am Awareness !

> Would this be a correct conclusion ?

 

Logically it should be the other way. Awareness or consciousness is

Brahman, that becomes a necessary and sufficient for the

'identification' of Brahman. Your third statement 'I am awareness or I

am awareful being' is not something to be arrived at but something that

is self-existing. That is it is not by deductive or inductive reasoning

that one establishes that I am awareness. It is indeed a given

self-established fact that I am conscious entity. Given that fact, one

needs to apply the definition of Brahman to establish that I, the

awareness being, is indeed 'Brahman'. And hence your second statement

follows from your first and third statements. And therefore 'aham

brahmaasmi' becomes a self-realization or self-knowledge.

 

> I am what one can call a ‘ prolific ‘ dreamer. Observing the dream

> carefully, I have become more and more ‘ aware ‘ that I am ‘ aware ‘ !

> I presume this ‘ awareness’ ( a kind of witness state where one is

> observing the dream, the waking and even one’s mind during meditation

> ) is what is called “ Prajna “.

 

Yes dream analysis establishes oneness in the seer-seen just as oneness

in the subjects and objects in the dream.

 

>

> Logically, therefore, the ‘ realization ‘ that ‘ I ‘ am myself nothing

> but ‘ awareness’ should be the next step.

 

Actually as stated above, I am awareness need not be based on any logic.

That is factual and beyond any pramaaNa or means of knowledge

(aprameyam). But to know that I am Brahman we need scripture as pramaaNa

that says 'praj~naanam brahman' the conscious entity that 'I am' is

indeed Brahman the totality - since there is nothing other than Brahman.

 

 

> This could be the ‘ advaitic ‘ stage. I am nowhere near it, although I

> can feel that merging the ‘ I ‘ with ‘ awareness ‘ would be a unique

> condition, where all that one is witnessing would vanish.

 

That is beautiful - the final understanding should be - there is nothing

other than awareness and hence I am Brahman. sarva bhuutastam

aatmaanam sarva bhuutanica aatmani - all being are in me and I am in all

beings.

 

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.

 

 

 

SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!

http://webhosting./ps/sb/

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Mohan

 

Thank you for your message. I found your life story quite engaging.

 

I am by no means an expert on sadhana; I am merely an ex-philosophy

student with stubborn opinions regarding that subject and how it

relates to Advaita.

 

Nevertheless, I think you 'hit the nail on the head' when you said

that you have become 'more aware that you are aware'. I think that

simply reminding ourselves of this at all times is an excellent and

simple sadhana for beginners. And it's not that easy ... the mind

gets sluggish and stubborn and wants to reach out and get lost in the

objects. This does lead us to become 'blind' to awareness itself,

and produces a tamasic state of mind.

 

Being aware that we are aware would seem to be the seed of

spirituality, at least for the jnana approach. I believe that it is

essentially the same as the 'witness' state, which Ramana and others

preach. I do not hesitate to say that any attempt at self-awareness

leads to some purification and illumination of consciousness, however

slight in my case. One discovers the truth of this simply be

practice and self-observation. And even a little purification is a

good thing...

 

The mind can either go out or in. Going out feeds vasanas (habits),

rajas (restless appetites) and tamas (ignorance); going in restores

the detached, illuminated, peaceful 'satvic' state of mind, as we

become aware of our true nature as awareness. But it takes effort.

The greatest enemy may be the television (and perhaps the computer)!

 

By the way, as an ex-Christian, I can assure you that they are not

all like the missionaries which you find troublesome. Most

Christians just want to mind their own business and raise their

families. And among educated Christians, religion has become more of

a social function than something they really believe in. That is why

I got interested in Eastern religions, where I can practice on

something I can believe in ... namely my own consciousness ... rather

than pretending that I can still believe in myths. As I said, I am

an ex-philosophy student!

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sadanandaji,

 

Thank you for your message of welcome and your detailed clarifications. I wish

to engage a little more on these points further in order to clarify my own mind

, with your permission.

 

 

 

The sequential logic that you suggest is as follows :

 

 

 

PRAJNANAM AHAM …. I am Awareness ( or an awareful being ) ….( this statement

can be taken to be a self-existing FACT and hence does not require logic to

prove its existence)

 

 

 

The scriptures, ( in this case, the Yajur Veda ) states categorically

 

AHAM BRAHMASMI … I am Brahman …( this is a matter of revelation to a Rishi and

is commended to be accepted as sufficient Pramaana ).

 

 

 

Hence, and as a logical deduction, you suggest that the first statement (an

existential fact) and the second statement ( a revealed scriptural injunction )

can thus be read together to generate the basis of the statement :

 

PRAJNANAM BRAHMA …Awareness is Brahman .

 

 

 

This, therefore, leads me logically , with the support of the Sruthi, to the

conclusion that this ‘ Awareness “ that I am experiencing ( as a matter of

day-to-day fact ) is in fact Brahman Itself !!

 

 

 

This really was the astonishing realization which dawned in this humble mind one

day quite recently and I can only say I was astounded !

 

 

 

Can this be the Truth ? Is it so simple and clear ?

 

 

 

I would like to express my reasons for the astonishment.

 

As this life has progressed, and various facets of the God-Principle have

revealed themselves ( and I have broadly conveyed the sequence of revelations –

there is of course a lot lot more , but it distracts from the purpose of this

discussion ) as these revelations progressed, certain ‘ authoritative’ concepts

presented themselves. One of these was the concept ‘ You are truly Brahman ‘,

supported by the scriptural statements.

 

 

 

Being, by nature, what one would call ‘ God-fearing ‘ or what I would prefer to

call

 

‘ God-respecting and loving ‘ , I accepted the concept ‘ You are truly Brahman ‘

quite unquestioningly.

 

 

 

I find many of us in this country tend to accept these statements

unquestioningly. There are, of course, people who do not agree, or at least,

they question the statements and seek proof.

 

 

 

I once got stuck in a taxi traveling for four hours from Nasik to Bombay with a

colleague from the factory. After the first hour of mostly ‘ shop-talk’, I

graciously enquired about his background. That opened the floodgates, and I was

surprised to find that he was a confirmed Marxist and for the next two or two

and a half hours I sat in silence as he gave me an eclectic discourse with

stunning logic which I simply could not refute just like that!

 

 

 

Similarly, I have come across ‘ spiritual questioners’ from time to time, and I

have floundered in trying to explain the logic of my unquestioning acceptance of

 

‘ sampradaya’ as Sri Sankara calls it, I think.

 

 

 

It is thus with the greatest delight that I accept your comment, that as

Awareness is something that is a matter of fact, and as the scripture states

categorically that ‘ You are Brahman’, then logically, this personal ‘

Awareness’ which I am experiencing every day, both when I am awake and when I am

asleep, both when I am active and when I am in meditation , this personal

‘Awareness’ is truly Brahman.

 

 

 

My hair stands on end and when I contemplate that every second I dwell in the

state of

 

‘ Awareness’, I am so closely in touch with Brahman.

 

 

 

I accept this, but do I continuously ‘experience’ it ? Why do all these emotions

like anger, distress, and so on plague me as I try to go through each day and

night, calmly in a state of ‘ Awareness that is Brahman ‘ ?

 

 

 

Why did I struggle to deal with ( and continue to struggle even today ) to deal

with other creatures in this world , including humans?

 

 

 

I am experiencing a state of elation on realizing that there is a ‘state’ called

‘awareness’ which transcends sleeping and waking and is aware of both, and which

transcends all the interactions that I have in the world. I am thrilled beyond

words to gather from respected and learned persons like yourself that this ‘

awareness’ is Brahman.

 

 

 

I am able to identify with the person who is dreaming. I am able to identify

with the person who is dealing with the gardener, with the bank manager, with

many many others. But I am not able to fully identify with this ‘ awareness

which is Brahman ‘ …how can this be Me ?

 

 

 

Someone would probably say ‘ You are at this point only because of the Sadhana

you have done ! Continue the Sadhana and the answer will automatically appear.’

 

But having reached this point as a truly personal experience, I cannot stop. I

have to go ahead. Contemplation indicates that I MYSELF HAVE CREATED THIS WORLD

!

 

I am posting this analysis as ‘ATMANUBHAVA-2 ‘

 

 

 

I eagerly look forward to your guidance.

 

 

 

Warm regards and pranams to all advaitins

 

Mohan

 

 

India Mobile: Ringtones, Wallpapers, Picture Messages and more.Download

now.

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- S Mohan <mohanirmala wrote:

>

> This, therefore, leads me logically , with the support of the Sruthi,

> to the conclusion that this ‘ Awareness “ that I am experiencing ( as

> a matter of day-to-day fact ) is in fact Brahman Itself !!

 

Yes indeed! – In that sense only the scripture becomes a pramaaNa to

validate the experience! – Otherwise the experience could just be

subjective.

> This really was the astonishing realization which dawned in this

> humble mind one day quite recently and I can only say I was astounded

 

My hearty congratulations. It is wonder of all wonders – and the most

secret of all secrets, since it is so obvious but unbelievable!

> Can this be the Truth ? Is it so simple and clear ?

>

 

Yes indeed – profound truth are so simple and clear – remember the sloka

– mounam vyaakhyaa prakatita para brahma nishhTaam … It is the very

silence awareness – everything else is just noise!

> I would like to express my reasons for the astonishment.

> ‘ God-respecting and loving ‘ , I accepted the concept ‘ You are truly

ÿ Brahman ‘ quite unquestioningly.

 

Mohanji – you are indeed blessed. Please read the story of Nisargadatta

Maharaj – the author of “I am that” which you can get in Bangalore

Vedata bookstore. He had that faith in the teacher’s word and that very

faith took him beyond the realm of all notions.

> I find many of us in this country tend to accept these statements

> unquestioningly. There are, of course, people who do not agree, or at

ÿ least, they question the statements and seek proof.

 

You are kidding! – If you want some entertainment visit vAdAvali list –

you will see how many argue against it. In AvadhUta Giita Bhagavaan

Dattaatreya starts the text with the statement that only by grace of God

one acquires Advaita vaasanaa-s!

> My hair stands on end and when I contemplate that every second I dwell

> in the state of

>

ÿ ‘ Awareness’, I am so closely in touch with Brahman.

 

 

Mohanji – actually there is never a moment you are not closely in touch

with Brahman, since there is nothing other than Brahman, by definition.

As our friend Benjamin keep emphasizing (in his own way!)- There is

nothing other than consciousness or awareness. Hence what you see or

experience is only names and forms on the substantive Brahman. When you

say “I am in touch with Brahman’ is like “I am in touch with myself’

since clear understanding should be myself is nothing but awareness that

is indivisible and immutable.

> I accept this, but do I continuously ‘experience’ it ? Why do >all

these emotions like anger, distress, and so on plague me as I try to

> go through each day and night, calmly in a state of ‘ Awareness that

ÿ is Brahman ‘ ?

 

Mohanji – experience is time bound – but knowledge is not – it is

eternal. It is understanding of what you experience – lies the

knowledge. The more you contemplate (nidhidhyaasana) the more you

firmly established in that knowledge that you are that awareness. The

anger, the distress and other emotions are also you are aware off, just

as you are aware of your gross body. They come and go in response to the

situations . That is natural. But you, as awareness, aware of their

coming and going. Therefore you are not angry but you are aware of the

anger and the other emotions raising in your mind in response to the

demanding situation. Watch Rama’s crying in the forest for Sita!

 

There is no problem in getting angry if the situation demands. The

problem lies in anger getting to you – that is you get carried away with

the anger. This is where firm abidance in the knowledge that I am

Brahman should help you not get carried away with emotions. Emotions

come and go, but you are beyond the transient emotions – that is aware

of the transience of the emotions.

 

That is what Bhagavaan Ramana calls as firm abidance in the truth –

dRiDaiva nishhTaa.

 

> Why did I struggle to deal with ( and continue to struggle even today

ÿ ) to deal with other creatures in this world , including humans?

 

Mohanji – The life become a struggle only when we don’t know how to play

the game of life. Life becomes a sport when we play as sport. It is a

drama and different roles that one plays – father, mother, brother, son,

friend, employee, etc are all roles and roles will have their problems

(otherwise the drama will be boring). There is no problem in roles

having a problems. The problems of the roles become my problem, if I

forget that I am awareness that is aware of the roles and their

problems. I should transact like a true actor playing different roles.

The problems of the roles do not belong the actor who is wearing various

costumes that characterizes the roles. The trick is to keep reinforcing

in ones mind that I am actor or I am awareness that does not have any

problems. It is like a passenger in a train, trying to carry heavy load

on his head just to relive the burden to the train and complaining that

the load is very heavy.

 

> I am experiencing a state of elation on realizing that there is a

> ‘state’ called ‘awareness’ which transcends sleeping and waking and

> is aware of both, and which transcends all the interactions that I

> have in the world. I am thrilled beyond words to gather from respected

> and learned persons like yourself that this ‘ awareness’ is Brahman.

 

Mohanji – it is not just ‘a’ state but the state that is substratum of

all the states of experiences.

> I am able to identify with the person who is dreaming. I am able to

> identify with the person who is dealing with the gardener, with the

> bank manager, with many many others. But I am not able to fully

> identify with this ‘ awareness which is Brahman ‘ …how can this be Me

> ?

 

It is not just identifying with the gardener, banker etc. but

identifying with the very awareness in all, since all are in one's

awareness! The distinctions among them are also in awareness. Hence

Upanishad’s as well Ramana’s teaching in terms of discarding the names

and forms as ‘not this’ as they belong to ‘this’ category. But shifting

ones attention to the attention of that because of which I am able to

see or hear or touch or feel emotions etc.- tad eve Brahman tvam viddhi

... Know that alone is Brahman says Upanishads.

> But having reached this point as a truly personal experience, I cannot

> stop. I have to go ahead. Contemplation indicates that I MYSELF HAVE

ÿ CREATED THIS WORLD !

ÿ

Mohanji – keeping going ahead – but realize that even the world and the

creation are ultimately due to the projection of the mind which itself

is in awareness. It is not that ‘I’ have created this world, since that

kind of thinking could lead to additional egotistical notions. In stead

– understand that the world is in your consciousness and you are

different from the world in the sense it is just the name and forms that

rise in awareness that you are. Ultimately – it is only in your

presence – the world of objects raise in your mind, sustained in your

mind and dissolves in your mind. ‘akarthaam abhoktaahma aham eva aham

avyayam’ – I am neither doer (creator) nor enjoyer – I am that

self-alone that is awareness and immutable. How can awareness create

anything (since created is something different from creation!) since one

is even aware of the creation too. Ultimately I am the created that I

am creator – there is nothing other than me – should be the knowledge as

well as nidhidhyaasana too.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

> I am posting this analysis as ‘ATMANUBHAVA-2 ‘

> I eagerly look forward to your guidance.

> Warm regards and pranams to all advaitins

>

> Mohan

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

> This, therefore, leads me logically , with the support of the Sruthi,

> to the conclusion that this ' Awareness " that I am experiencing ( as

> a matter of day-to-day fact ) is in fact Brahman Itself !!

 

Yes indeed! ? In that sense only the scripture becomes a pramaaNa to

validate the experience! ? Otherwise the experience could just be

subjective.

 

praNAm Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I am bit confused here. Self is not the cognizer nor an experiencer.

upAdhi-s which are the figment of avidyA is the root cause for imposing

jnAtru, pramAtru, bhOktru on Atman is it not prabhuji?? That is why

shankara says, the final pramANa (i.e. shAstra pramANa) removes the very

knowership of Atman. I think we can not hold Atman as an experiencer from

the absolute point of view since shAstra-s donot teach us the objective

knowledge of parabrahman. In the samanvayAdhikaraNa bhAshya shankara says

while commenting on shastra pramANa, just as we treat the notion of the

body itself being the self ( till the realisation of shruti vAkya janya

jnAna), it is in that spirit only we take that the empirical means of

knowledge such as pratyakshAdi pramANa to be valid till the realisation of

our true self. Prabhuji, for that matter brahma jnAna definitely a

subjective experience only is it not?? shruti itself failed to describe it

as such & such thing. Though shankara says brahma jnAna is ahaM pratyaya

gOchara, this very aham will get sublated (bAdhita) after the dawn of

kevala jnAna. Your clarification requested prabhuji.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

--- bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> > This, therefore, leads me logically , with the support of the

> Sruthi,

> > to the conclusion that this ' Awareness " that I am experiencing (

> as

> > a matter of day-to-day fact ) is in fact Brahman Itself !!

>

> Yes indeed! ? In that sense only the scripture becomes a pramaaNa to

> validate the experience! ? Otherwise the experience could just be

> subjective.

>

> praNAm Sri Sadananda prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> I am bit confused here. Self is not the cognizer nor an experiencer.

> upAdhi-s which are the figment of avidyA is the root cause for

> imposing

> jnAtru, pramAtru, bhOktru on Atman is it not prabhuji?? That is why

> shankara says, the final pramANa (i.e. shAstra pramANa) removes the

> very

> knowership of Atman. I think we can not hold Atman as an experiencer

> from

> the absolute point of view since shAstra-s donot teach us the

> objective

> knowledge of parabrahman.

 

Bhaskarji - if you look at Shree Mohanji statement for which my response

pertains - 'this awareness that I am experiencing is in fact Brahman'

and read my response in relation to that - the confusion should get

clarified. From the absolute point what you say is right - from the

experiencer-experienced point - it becomes knowledge to know that the

substratum of both is nothing but Brahman and that is what scripture is

trying to point out.

 

It is the question of from what reference the discussion is done. From

the absolute point there is no duality. From the relative plane the

duality is apparent and from ignorant point the apparent duality is

taken as reality. Jiivam mukta can see the apparent duality of

experiencer and experienced but do not have the notions that they are

real from absolute point. It is like we seeing the sunrise and sunset

knowing very well sun never raises nor sets. Hence experience has to be

understood using a valid pramaaNa.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadanadaji

>Mohanji – experience is time bound – but knowledge is not – it is

>eternal. It is understanding of what you experience – lies the

>knowledge. The more you contemplate (nidhidhyaasana) the more you

>firmly established in that knowledge that you are that awareness. The

>anger, the distress and other emotions are also you are aware off, just

>as you are aware of your gross body. They come and go in response to

>the

 

One of my problems got solved by above passage.

 

Many PraNAms.

 

Om tat-sat

Vishal

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Benjamin,

Thanks for your gracious response. I am sorry for the delay in my

reply to you as you advaitins are so fast and quick-witted and

old `hard copy' types like me have to sit and think it all over

before being able to write.

I notice two mentions of `ex-..' in your response, one is `ex-

philosophy student' and the other is `ex-Christian' ! I have some

views on both aspects ( because I am both a philosophy student and a

practical Christian ! ) , but I will write about them a little later.

 

I am grateful for your categorical concurrence with my experience

of ` being aware that I am aware'. You will be surprised when this

realization hit me like a bombshell. It was on the Amtrak train to

Niagara in 1998. It was our first visit to USA and my wife and I had

entrained at NY. I was reading something on Advaita when not

enjoying the Hudson River. I was so shattered by the revelation that

as we later approached the Niagara Falls on a boat, wearing the

traditional raincoats, I found myself declaiming the ` Sri Suktam `,

full of awe at the majesty of Mother Nature.

I agree fully with you that this continued state of awareness is

best achieved in a meditative mode, so to speak…. ` going in ` as

you mention. Many times I get worried whether I am

confusing `awareness' with just plain `thinking'. That is where I

find that the moment of waking up, when I am able to observe both my

dream and the waking from afar, as it were, quite helpful. Similarly

there are moments during meditation where I am able to

distinguish `awareness' of the process taking place from the process

itself. I do, however, struggle to be `aware' as much of the time as

possible.

And this takes me to your next comment, about the mind `going out'.

 

I am keenly `aware' of the house in which we live. It is called `Sri

Ananda' and was largely designed and conceived of by my wife. It is

a kind of what Americans would call ` a ranch type', single floor

bungalow, embellished all over and surrounded with tiles , with a

small corner lawn, fringed all round with various plants, flowering

and non-flowering ( we get at least four or five hibiscus flowers

for our puja room every day !).

I am keenly `aware' of the two young men I have engaged to come and

sweep the leaves that fall over the garden, every day, and water the

plants and wash the tiles. I am `aware' of the elderly lady who

comes every morning to sweep the entire house and swab the floors

with soapy water. I am `aware' of the boy who dashes in every

morning to drop two plastic packets of milk in my basket and snatch

the money I put there and dashes out. I am `aware' of the chap who

cycles up the road with a huge bunch of newspapers, comes to lean

against my mailbox, carefully pulls out exactly the particular

newspaper we to ( incidentally called The Hindu !) and

slides it into the box before cycling off. I notice the black cat

which occasionally comes in, walking elegantly on the wall to see if

there is something to munch or sip. And the cacophony raised by the

cat's entry in the neighbouring tree where several families of crows

seem to have their nests , and from the mutual animosity I concluded

that the cat must have attacked the youngsters in one of the nests

sometime or other. I am aware of the squirrels ( Indian squirrels

are so much smaller than the ones we discovered on the lawns of

Washington Square , NY, when we once went to NYU there !), as they

come running all over the place, up and along the top of our gate ,

all along the wall and one fellow even effortlessly ran all along a

TV cable which is strung up nearby, to get to another tree.

 

Yesterday when we were driving to a lecture on ` Kriya Yoga `, a

lady driver came suddenly across my path. I stopped in time , then

followed her across the traffic signals, until a policeman ahead

signaled me to stop and fined me , because, I had , as he wrote on

the receipt, `jumped the signal'. The whole receipt was in the local

language called Kannada, but he preferred to scribble in English. He

was actually quite polite and seemed to indicate that he was just

doing his duty.

 

This is the `world of objects' in which I live. Yes there is the TV,

where I have to see what's happening in the Democratic Party in the

US. And there is the computer, where, suddenly this `world' of mine

has expanded and includes a new phenomenon called the `advaitin

group' and Prof VK, and Sachidanandaji and Ken Knight and Benjamin (

your name reminds us of our day trip by Greyhound, just for the

experience, to Philadelphia and how moved we were to see the

painstaking attempts that people are making to re-create Benjamin

Franklin's house … in contrast to the utter callousness with which

we deal with our archaelogical material !) ….

 

How can I wish away this world? I am not only `aware' of it, but, do

you know,

I ACTUALLY CREATED EVERY BIT OF IT !

 

You must please bear with me as I proceed to share this wonderful

advaitic experience I seem to be going through .

>From ` awareness', I am beginning to realize that all that I

am `aware' of, both inside me and outside me is of my own making !

So that takes me to ATMANUBHAVA –2 which I posted yesterday itself

after getting Sadanandaji's response.

Please look at it in the above context.

I eagerly await your comments and advice.

With warm regards and pranams to all advaitins

Mohan

 

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Mohan

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sadanandaji,

 

Namaste & Hari Om

 

Sri Mohanji wrote the following in his mail, and only for the purpose of

clearing my own doubts, I have tried to mention my understanding on what he has

stated. I would be most grateful if you would kindly correct my understanding.

 

<<<Hence, and as a logical deduction, you suggest that the first statement (an

existential fact) and the second statement ( a revealed scriptural injunction )

can thus be read together to generate the basis of the statement >>>

 

I THINK IT CANNOT, I MAY BE WRONG, GENERATE A DIRECT BASIS, AS WE ARE COMPARING

TWO, I.E. PRAJNANAM AND BRAHMA. PRAJNANAM IS EXPLAINED AS AWARENESS, BUT WE HAVE

TO UNDERSTAND WHAT BRAHMAN IS,

 

<<I can only say I was astounded !

 

Can this be the Truth ? Is it so simple and clear>>> ?

 

YES, BECAUSE TRUTH IS THAT WHICH DOES NOT CHANGE UNDER ANY CONDITIONS, I.E.

TIME, SPACE, AND OBJECT (VASTU), WHICH HAS NO BEGINNING AND NO END. AWARENESS

RATHER CONSCIOUSNESS ALSO DOES NOT HAVE BEGINNING AND NO END.

 

<<<<that he was a confirmed Marxist and for the next two or two and a half hours

I sat in silence as he gave me an eclectic discourse with stunning logic which I

simply could not refute just like that>>>>

 

WHAT MARXISM STANDS FOR WE ALL KNOW. THEY EXPECT EQUALITY IN VYVHARIC LIFE.

WHICH IS NEVER POSSIBLE.

 

<<when I contemplate that every second I dwell in the state of ‘ Awareness’, I

am so closely in touch with Brahman.I accept this, but do I continuously>>>

‘experience’ it>>>

 

FIRST OF ALL AWARENESS IS NOT A STATE. SECONDLY, FOR ANY EXPERIENCE KNOWLEDGE IS

REQUIRED I.E. KNOWER OF THAT KNOWLEDGE. FOR KNOWER, TO KNOW OR EXPERIENCE

AWARENESS HE HAS TO BE DIFFERENT FROM KNOWER WHO MUST HAVE AWARENESS FOR KNOWING

AWARENESS. WE ALL EXPERIENCE IT IN ALL OUR STATES, I.E. IT IS AWARENESS ON WHICH

ALL THE STATES FLOAT. THERE IS NO EXPERIENCE WITHOUT AWARENESS, AT THE SAME TIME

AWARENESS IS NOT A SUBJECT FOR DIRECT EXPERIENCE.IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, WE CANNOT

BE IN TOUCH WITH WHAT WE ARE.

 

<<< Why do all these emotions like anger, distress, and so on plague me as I try

to go through each day and night, calmly in a state of ‘ Awareness that is

Brahman >>>>

 

THEY COME BECAUSE OF HABITUAL ERRORS, I.E. THE ERROR WE CONTUNIE TO COMMIT BASED

ON EARLIER NOTIOINS, I.E. I AM BODY, MIND AND INTELLECT. IT TAKES TIME TO BE

FREE FROM HABITUAL ERRORS. BUT WHEN WE ALWAYS DWELL IN THE KNOWEDGE THAT “I AM

AWARENESS” AND REST IS JUST FLOATING ON AWARENESS, THEY DO NOT AFFECT US I.E.

THE REAL I. MOREOVER, WHO IS GETTING EMOTIONS, SUCH AS HAPPINESS, SORROW, ANGER,

JELEOUSY, ETC. ETC.? WE MUST FIND OUT THAT “I” WHO GETS SUCH EMOTIONS, IT IS NOT

THE REAL I, BUT A FALSE I, WHICH APPEARS TO TRICK THE REAL I, AN IMPOSSIBLE

THING, BUT THAT HAPPENS AND THAT IS THE PLAY OF MAYA.

 

<<<<I am able to identify with the person who is dreaming. I am able to identify

with the person who is dealing with the gardener, with the bank manager, with

many many others. But I am not able to fully identify with this ‘ awareness

which is Brahman ‘ …how can this be Me.>>>>

 

THE PROBLEM IS OUR WANTING TO IDENTIFY WITH AWARENESS OR BRAHAMAN. WE CANNOT GET

IDENTIFIED WITH WHAT REALLY WE ARE. WE CAN IDENTIFY WITH SOMETHIG THAT WE ARE

NOT. IT IS BECAUSE OF THAT AWARENESS ONLY WE SEEM TO GET FALSLY IDENTIFIED WITH

ALL THE STATES, I.E. WAKING STATE, DREAM STATE, AND SLEEP STATE, ALL THROUGH OUR

BODY, MIND AND INTELLECT. WHEN I SAY “I EXIST AND I AM A CONSCIOUS BEING” I DO

NOT RELATE MYSELF TO ANYTHING, AS IT IS ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE. WHEN I SAY “I AM SO

AND SO” IDENTIFICATIONS AND RELATIONS START.

 

<<<Someone would probably say ‘ You are at this point only because of the

Sadhana you have done! Continue the Sadhana and the answer will automatically

appear>>>.

 

SADHANA IS REQUIRED FOR GETTING ANYTHING I.E. SADHYA. HERE WE DO NOT GET

ANYTHING NEW. WE ONLY CORRECT AN ERROR THROUGH RIGHT KNOWLEDGE I.E. I AM

AWARENESS AND NOT I AM SO AND SO, ETC. THE ONLY MEANS FOR THIS KNOWLEDGE IS

SABDA PRAMANA I.E. THE UPANISHADS.

 

 

 

I would be grateful if the learned members would kindly correct me wherever my

understanding is wrong or confusing.

 

Warm Regards

 

Mani

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online

 

 

[Guest guest]

I wish it was --- what they think it is!

 

I wish I could explain -

that which always fails me from explaining...

 

I wish I could experience -

What they say should be experienced...

 

Quieten the mind, deliberately relax the body,

Sit tight - watch your breath,

There you go - cruising in the void!

I wish my friend,

I really wish that you didn't get lost in that infinite void...

 

 

Kneel down, say minimum five time prayers,

Write off your life for that cant-be-seen almighty,

Think of the afterlife rewards, punish others who don't pray,

Fight others who don't understand your almighty!

There you go - cruising towards the heaven...

 

I wish my friend,

I really wish you didn't kill the heaven!

The heaven we all helped create for you with love and affection...

The heaven we created neither above nor below, not in sky neither in stars,

The heaven we created right now here.. Just for all of us to be happy....

 

 

In the end - you will remain as you always remained...

 

My friend,

You remained as earth, water, fire, air and ether

For times immemorial, recycling yourself again and again.

 

In the end - you will remain as you always remained

You remain for the fun of the game!

 

My fried,

You have been playing the game of Seer and the Seen for so long!

You remained as the Seer, for times immemorial.

You also remained as the Seen, for the times immemorial.

 

I know your game - You remain as winner as you always remained.

I know your game - You cheat yourself, you pretend to be the loser!

I know your game - you pretend that you lost to the winner within

yourself...

 

 

Regards,

Madhava

[Guest guest]

--- "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani wrote:

>

> I THINK IT CANNOT, I MAY BE WRONG, GENERATE A DIRECT BASIS, AS WE ARE

> COMPARING TWO, I.E. PRAJNANAM AND BRAHMA. PRAJNANAM IS EXPLAINED AS

> AWARENESS, BUT WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT BRAHMAN IS,

 

Maniji - The dichotomy gets resolved in the very understanding of the

meaning of awareness. Let me explain using a simple example - when we

learn that two parallel lines meet at infinity, in our math class, what

do we understand by that statement. Do we understand what 'infinity'

means? In reality infinity cannot be 'understood', since the very

understanding makes it 'finite' - Infinity cannot be defined either.

Here you can see how dwaitins fumble when they say that Lord is 'saguNa'

and the saguNa-s are ananta kalyaana guna-s - anantam or infinite in

each and infinite in number too. But what is that infinite - the mind

cannot grasp since by definition it cannot be definable - NirguNa also

essentially means the same is He is guna-ateeta. The point is one cannot

define Brahman and therefore one cannot understand Brahman since the

very word implies infinitely infinite - unqualifiedly infinite. All it

would mean is that any thing that is contradictory cannot be Brahman.

Anything that is finite cannot be Brahman. Anything that has qualities

(since finite alone can have definable attributes) cannot be Brahman.

Anything that can be understood cannot be Brahman (Kenopanishad screams

out saying that 'who understand 'it', understand 'it' not - since it is

not something to understand.

 

When I say I am awareness, that requires a type of understanding, and

scripture says awareness or consciousness (we are using both as synonyms

- although Nisargadatta-s tradition use awareness for conditioned

consciousness while the later word for absolute consciousness - but

these distinctions themselves get dissolved in the clear understanding

the nature of each) is Brahman and Brahman stands of absolutely

infinite, we are in the process trying to realize the very nature of

awareness as absolutely infinite. Hence it cannot of the type - knowing

awareness and knowing Brahman and then equating the two- it is realizing

that I, the awareness is unlimited and absolute and hence 'I am Brahman

or aham brahmaasmi' - It is not understanding as a 'thought', but it is

understanding as a 'fact'.

 

>

> <<I can only say I was astounded !

>

> Can this be the Truth ? Is it so simple and clear>>> ?

>

> YES, BECAUSE TRUTH IS THAT WHICH DOES NOT CHANGE UNDER ANY CONDITIONS,

> I.E. TIME, SPACE, AND OBJECT (VASTU), WHICH HAS NO BEGINNING AND NO

> END. AWARENESS RATHER CONSCIOUSNESS ALSO DOES NOT HAVE BEGINNING AND

> NO END.

 

Yes - it is said the consciousness is 'nodeti naatameti' - neither born

nor dies or no beginning nor end - If it has a beginning then who will

be aware of the beginning of the awareness. Then that first awareness

which is conscious of the birth of second awareness, itself should not

have no beginning or end - if it has, then one has to bring a third

awareness - and this leads to infinite regress. Hence nodeti naastameti.

 

> THERE

> IS NO EXPERIENCE WITHOUT AWARENESS, AT THE SAME TIME AWARENESS IS NOT

> A SUBJECT FOR DIRECT EXPERIENCE.IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, WE CANNOT BE IN

> TOUCH WITH WHAT WE ARE.

 

Experience involves experiencer who is an awareful being. Awareness is

the substratum for both experience and experienced since both

subject-object - aham vRitti and idam vRitti are in the mind - seer

thought and seen thought. Yes technically you are right that awareness

cannot be a 'subject' of direct experience- but we use these word -

including statements like 'tat tvam asi' as implicative statements to

take the mind beyond the experiencer-experienced notions to see the

substantive 'awareness' that I am, wherein the experiencer-experienced

or subject-object distinctions become only apparent. It is not the

elimination of the subject-obejct relationships but transendence of both

- Then that 'apparent' becomes apparent in that understanding.

>

> <<< Why do all these emotions like anger, distress, and so on plague

> me as I try to go through each day and night, calmly in a state of ‘

> Awareness that is Brahman >>>>

>

> THEY COME BECAUSE OF HABITUAL ERRORS, I.E. THE ERROR WE CONTUNIE TO

> COMMIT BASED ON EARLIER NOTIOINS, I.E. I AM BODY, MIND AND INTELLECT.

> IT TAKES TIME TO BE FREE FROM HABITUAL ERRORS. BUT WHEN WE ALWAYS

> DWELL IN THE KNOWEDGE THAT “I AM AWARENESS” AND REST IS JUST FLOATING

> ON AWARENESS, THEY DO NOT AFFECT US I.E. THE REAL I.

 

One can look at this process in this way. When there is clear

unperturbed pond - there are no ripples in the water. But if a stone is

thrown in the water, the response of the water is manifested as ripples.

Is it habitual process or system's response to the local perturbations.

The emotions can be thought of response to the perturbations that occur.

This is what our 'no-free will' group argue. From a j~naani's point, it

is a natural response of the system to environmental perturbations. His

knowledge will be 'they are in me and I am not in them - in the sense

they do not affect me. Hence you can see all our Indian Gods in

purana-s always getting angry towards 'wrong-doers' and try to set them

straight. An ignorant person looks at the same problem differently - he

is thinking he is getting angry etc due to identification with the

upaadhi-s as I am this or that, etc. Hence Saadhana helps to 'declutch'

oneself from that identifications.

 

 

MOREOVER, WHO IS

> GETTING EMOTIONS, SUCH AS HAPPINESS, SORROW, ANGER, JELEOUSY, ETC.

> ETC.? WE MUST FIND OUT THAT “I” WHO GETS SUCH EMOTIONS, IT IS NOT THE

> REAL I, BUT A FALSE I, WHICH APPEARS TO TRICK THE REAL I, AN

> IMPOSSIBLE THING, BUT THAT HAPPENS AND THAT IS THE PLAY OF MAYA.

 

Yes - the moment you are in a position to raise those beautiful

questions mentioned above, you have already objectified those emotions

separate from you. Ninety percept of the problem is already solved. The

rest (the most difficult) is to do that while the emotions are rising in

response to the demand without letting the emotions sweeping one away

with them.

 

> THE PROBLEM IS OUR WANTING TO IDENTIFY WITH AWARENESS OR BRAHAMAN. WE

> CANNOT GET IDENTIFIED WITH WHAT REALLY WE ARE. WE CAN IDENTIFY WITH

> SOMETHIG THAT WE ARE NOT. IT IS BECAUSE OF THAT AWARENESS ONLY WE SEEM

> TO GET FALSLY IDENTIFIED WITH ALL THE STATES, I.E. WAKING STATE, DREAM

> STATE, AND SLEEP STATE, ALL THROUGH OUR BODY, MIND AND INTELLECT. WHEN

> I SAY “I EXIST AND I AM A CONSCIOUS BEING” I DO NOT RELATE MYSELF TO

> ANYTHING, AS IT IS ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE. WHEN I SAY “I AM SO AND SO”

> IDENTIFICATIONS AND RELATIONS START.

 

True, but also recognize that so called 'things and beings - emotions

included' that we are trying to separate as 'not this' are not exclusive

but inclusive - since even those are Brahman too or to put it more

correctly the substantive of all of them is Brahman too. Hence it is not

elimination of them but 'understanding' that they are not different

from me - Everything is in me and I am in everything - is the knowledge

that I am Brahman would imply.

> SADHANA IS REQUIRED FOR GETTING ANYTHING I.E. SADHYA. HERE WE DO NOT

> GET ANYTHING NEW. WE ONLY CORRECT AN ERROR THROUGH RIGHT KNOWLEDGE

> I.E. I AM AWARENESS AND NOT I AM SO AND SO, ETC. THE ONLY MEANS FOR

> THIS KNOWLEDGE IS SABDA PRAMANA I.E. THE UPANISHADS.

>

 

Saadhana prepares the mind or purifies the mind for shabda pramaaNa to

operate. The so-called right knowledge will remove the wrong notions.

But remember even the shabada pramaaNa itself comes under the category

of 'this'. It is 'a means' to go beyond 'any means' - like pole vault.

 

Hari OM!

 

Sadananda

 

 

>

>

> I would be grateful if the learned members would kindly correct me

> wherever my understanding is wrong or confusing.

>

> Warm Regards

>

> Mani

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online

>

>

>

>

>

> 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

>

>

> Links

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Mohan,

> I ACTUALLY CREATED EVERY BIT OF IT !

>that takes me to ATMANUBHAVA -2 which I posted yesterday itself

>after getting Sadanandaji's response.

>Please look at it in the above context.

>I eagerly await your comments and advice.

 

 

Once again, you gave us an engrossing message. I got so engrossed in

the objects of your life that it did serious harm to my sadhana! :-)

 

I've been reading what Sadanandaji has been saying to you, and as

usual he is the best teacher of Advaita here. I just wish he would

admit that Western philosophers sometimes have something spiritually

useful to say. :-)

 

I'd just like to make two points:

 

(1) Regarding the question of analytical vs. meditative thought...

It is true that the state of witness or awareness at first requires a

relinquishing of the analytical mind which goes out and grasps the

objects, like a curious and restless monkey examining everything in

his environment. But I also believe that after one is advanced in

the detached and meditative state of mind, one can then come back and

do analytical thinking even better than before. If anything, the

power of intuition is increased, and that has always been where true

genius comes from. The important thing is to lose the sense of

duality, of self and object. This does not preclude analytical

thought per se. On the contrary, it will clear up the mind and

permit analytical thought to flow much more smoothly.

 

(2) I agree with you that there is a sense in which you (or I) have

created the world. This can be a very spiritual way of looking at

it. However, from a purely technical point of view, I think that the

word 'creation' can be dangerous, since it may easily reinforce

dualism, in the sense that the world is some 'object' created 'out

there'. THAT must be avoided! So Sadaji will tell you that even

Ishwara is only a provisional view of Brahman seen from the dualistic

level. Ultimately, there is no creator and created, as these are

dualistic concepts. In the dualistic state of mind, who remains to

create what?

 

But this in no way denies your statement above, in which you say that

you created the world. As I see it, you are simply speaking after

descending back into a slightly dualistic perspective, for the sake

of discussion and communication.

 

You might want to take a look at Gaudapada's 'Ajativada' theory, in

his Karika on the Mandukya Upanishad. He says that nothing is

created, and I quite agree. There is only Consciousness and no

'beings' or 'world'. He was the guru of the guru of Shankara.

 

http://www.ajati.com/ajativada1.htm

 

(Others, even advaitins, try to make Gaudapada into something more

'realistic' and 'respectable', but that is not the ultimate Advaitic

perspective.)

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

>In the dualistic state of mind, who remains to create what?

 

Of course, this should be 'nondualistic'!

 

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin <orion777ben wrote:

> I've been reading what Sadanandaji has been saying to you, and as

> usual he is the best teacher of Advaita here. I just wish he would

> admit that Western philosophers sometimes have something spiritually

> useful to say. :-)

 

Benjamin - Thanks for your compliments. First I cannot admit that which

I do not know, can I? Second anything that is useful is temporal and

finite, is it not!

> So Sadaji will tell you that even

> Ishwara is only a provisional view of Brahman seen from the dualistic

> level. Ultimately, there is no creator and created, as these are

> dualistic concepts.

 

I would put it this way, it is the nature of the reality in the

dualistic, trasactional or relative plane of reality.

 

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.

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadaji,

>> I've been reading what Sadanandaji has been saying to you,

>> and as usual he is the best teacher of Advaita here. I

>> just wish he would admit that Western philosophers

>> sometimes have something spiritually useful to say. :-)

>Benjamin - Thanks for your compliments. First I cannot

>admit that which I do not know, can I? Second anything

>that is useful is temporal and finite, is it not!

 

 

Just joking, Sadaji! I'm sure you took it that way.

 

But sometimes one might get the impression that certain (unspecified)

Indians think that perhaps they have a Bill Gates monopoly on wisdom.

The rest of us are mere technologists. :-)

 

Seriously, though, we all agree that the truth must be ETERNAL. And

the same in every time and on every planet. There must be

intelligent beings on other planets who discovered the supreme

nondual truth and never heard the word 'Hindu'! They may not even

speak Sanskrit. :-)

 

Now I wonder... If the truth is eternal, does that make it 'useless'

by your logic above? Just joking again. My coffee must be too

strong today.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

--- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

> Benjamin - Thanks for your compliments. First I

> cannot admit that which

> I do not know, can I? Second anything that is useful

> is temporal and

> finite, is it not!

 

Namaste Kind Sirs,

Wonderful question that second one to which may be

allied? Where is East and West, inside-out or

outside-in? Do we not need a point of reference for

such claims of two-ness? And yet a point has no

dimension and its usefulness, or rather its fulness,

somehow is beyond time and space as well as filling

them. All quite magical really.

Such a good question is that second one of yours that,

with your permission Sadanandaji, I will use it at a

study day in February for people interested in

Plotinus. One quote by Plotinus that we will be

considering on that day is an effort to point the

intellect to 'to hen', Greek for 'The One', which I

would also call 'Tad Ekam':

 

'....It is...not a determinate being, is without

quality and quantity, and is neither Intellect nor

soul; it is not in motion nor yet at rest; not in

place, not in time, but 'self-contained, unique form'

(Plato, Symposium 211 b1) - or, rather, formless,

existing before all form, before movement, before

rest; for these are attributes of Being, which make it

manifold. Why, then, if not in motion, is it not at

rest? Because it is to Being that one or both of these

must pertain, and Being is at rest in virtue of rest,

and is not identical with rest; so it will have rest

as an attribute and cease to be simple. Even to

describe the One as cause is not to attach a predicate

to the One, but to ourselves, because we take gifts

while it exists in itself. Strictly speaking, we

should not say 'it' or 'exists', but we chase round

about it in our desire to make sense of our

experiences, at times coming close, but sometimes

falling aside in the perplexity that it causes us

(Ennead. VI.9,)

 

But with respect Sadanandaji, your first question

implies that I cannot affirm the authoritative word of

the wise whether I have 'discovered' them or not.

 

The intellect strives to reach that which is beyond

its vision of this and that, knowing and not-knowing.

By so doing it places itself on the ritual fire to

which all thought of 'this and that' will approach.

Discrimiative thought is neither good nor bad, right

or wrong until the ahaMkara gets its sticky fingers to

work. The power of discrimination enables the

mind/heart to acknowledge and affirm that which is

beyond name and form, beyond the reach of words and

formulations. 'Neti Neti' of itself cannot reveal that

which is beyond 'is' and 'is not'. Brahman is beyond

knowing and not-knowing, only 'Tad Ekam' knows whether

it knows or does not know, says the wise poet.

 

So yes, you are right inasmuch as, in truth (sat) we

cannot affirm that which we do not know, but nor can

we affirm that which we know. Such language has 'no

place' in that which has no place. And we are back to

your second question which I like so much.

 

I am probably as confused as always but something

stirred the fingers to type. Hope it wasn't the ego,

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

New Photos - easier uploading and sharing.

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kenji,

>One quote by Plotinus that we will be

>considering on that day is an effort to point the

>intellect to 'to hen', Greek for 'The One', which I

>would also call 'Tad Ekam':

 

 

I TOLD you that some Westerners had discovered nondual wisdom.

Though maybe Plotinus heard it from an Indian sailor and plagiarized

it! (Or maybe his guru Plato did this.)

 

I like your statement: 'All quite magical really'.

 

This Advaita stuff is more than just a lot of tedious discussions.

 

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

> Namaste Kenji,

>

> >One quote by Plotinus that we will be

> >considering on that day is an effort to point the

> >intellect to 'to hen', Greek for 'The One', which I

> >would also call 'Tad Ekam':

>

>

> I TOLD you that some Westerners had discovered nondual wisdom.

> Though maybe Plotinus heard it from an Indian sailor and

plagiarized

> it! (Or maybe his guru Plato did this.)

 

Namaste,

 

Plato may have spent a decade in India when he left Greece

after the death of Socrates. The 'Lost Years of Jesus' (age 14 to 32)

seem to have been spent in India/Tibet.

 

Regardless, they all were Rishis, who gave as much they took

from each other's contemplations - more universal in their outlook

than our present-day chauvinistic pre-occupations!

 

http://www.aber.ac.uk/tfts/journal/archive/drew.html

 

".......In addition to these common themes, Drew sees some

similarities between the philosophies of Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato,

Plotinus, and that of the Indian thinkers. For example, Pythagoras's

vegetarianism, reincarnation, and the transmigration of souls is

present in Indian thought as well. A form of reincarnation resurfaces

in Socrates and Plato too. In the Meno, Socrates explains that we all

know everything because our souls have been reincarnated many times,

and therefore have accumulated all knowledge. What we require is a

Socratic midwife to bring the buried knowledge to the surface. Plato

uses reincarnation in his cautionary tale from the Republic, The Myth

of Er. In this work the unjust are informed that they will be

sentenced to many painful lifetimes of rebirth.

A possible explanation for so many parallels is that these thinkers

actually made passages to India and learned the ideas directly from

the Hindu masters themselves. There are records of the treks to India

made by Appollonius and Alexander, but as for the others Drew states:

Whether Plato and Pythagoras ever actually did get to India is in one

sense no more material than whether Appollonius did. What is

pertinent is that in associating these philosophers with the passage

to India, imaginative fiction, bodying out the metaphors through

which the Imagination is revealed, suggests that the tradition of

which they are the protagonists owes India some sort of debt of

recognition or acknowledgement. (120).............. "

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

>

> I TOLD you that some Westerners had discovered

> nondual wisdom.

> Though maybe Plotinus heard it from an Indian sailor

> and plagiarized

> it! (Or maybe his guru Plato did this.)

>

> I like your statement: 'All quite magical really'.

 

 

Good evening Benji,

I was not sure, as I always get lost in these threads,

but I thought this thread was about Maya some way back

so decided to throw that one in to stir the pot.

With our names we should be a double-act 'Ben and Ken,

the Advaitin Warriors.'

As you liked the Plotinus, here is another for you in

which he is describing 'Nous':

'Everything is clear, altogether and to its inmost

part, to everything, for light is transparent to

light. Each, there, has everything in itself and sees

all things in every other, for all are everywhere and

each and every one is all, and the glory is unbounded;

for each of them is great, because even the small is

great: There is the sun, all the stars, and each star

is the sun and all the others. (Enn. V.8, [31], 4,

5-10)

 

Or as the Chandogya Upanishad poet put it:

‘Hari Om! Then, in this small lotus-like dwelling that

is within the city of Brahman, there is a small space.

That which exists in that space is to be known. That

indeed has to be enquired into for realization.

Should they ask him, ‘Now that within this city of

Brahman there is this small lotus-like dwelling, and

within it is a small space, what is it that exists

there which is to be known, and which indeed is to be

sought for realization?’ He should reply: ‘This space

within the heart is as vast as this space (outside).

Within it indeed are included both heaven and earth,

as also both fire and air, both sun and moon,

lightning and stars. Whatever this one has here and

whatever he has not, all that is included in that.’

 

Wonderful isn't it!!!

 

 

Om sri ram jai jai ram

 

Ken

 

By the way. Did you know that Shakespeare was an Arab

whose father's father's name was Sheikh Zobair? This

was anglicised when they settled in Stratford. That is

why all Shakespeare's tales are copied from old Arab

stories that he heard from his family. I know that

because an Arab friend told me when I was lucky enough

to travel through some deserts with Bedouin groups.

They had a great sense of humour.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Photos - easier uploading and sharing.

 

[Guest guest]

namaskaar benjamin ji,

you said--

Seriously, though, we all agree that the truth must be ETERNAL. And

the same in every time and on every planet. There must be

intelligent beings on other planets who discovered the supreme

nondual truth and never heard the word 'Hindu'! They may not even

speak Sanskrit.

 

i think there is no need to search for an alien, you will find them

here and many in india too(but indians will be familiar with the

word hindu while others may not be).

 

with regards,

gautam.

[Guest guest]

DEAR SRI SADANANDJI,

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CLARIFICATIONS. IT IS VERY KIND OF YOU.

I AM SORRY I COULD NOT ACKNOWLEDGE IT EARLIER.

WITH WARM REGARDS AND HARI OM

R.S.MANI

 

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

--- "R.S.MANI" wrote:

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online