Knowledge only from shruti

[Guest guest]

Namaste Stigji,

 

In the consideration of any scriptures context must be taken into

consideration. Time, place and person. In general they are narrowly

focussed on a particular group of people following a specific path. The

idea is to keep the message clear, direct and unmuddled by qualifications.

A scripture is not a tome on comparitive religion, the truth as the sage or

prophet sees it is delivered in terms that his public can understand it

using the forms and the narratives that they can follow. After that comes

interpretation and here difficulties arise. The truth may indeed be there

but it is wonderful how many versions of it are extracted from the same

texts.

>From my own point of view I think that the game of finding competing and

apparently contrary texts can be played but instead of that I think that it

is better to find a teacher or a form that appeals to one, focus on him or

her and by so doing merge with the divine. 'First you see the light, then

you are in the light, then you are the light.'

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

I am afraid I do not know much about Atmanandaji, nor about his

interpretation of Advaita. What he says in the quote reminds of

what modern interpretators of Advaita often says, namely that

knowledge is not to be found in the scriptures, nor that

traditional studies of the shastras are necessary. I took a quick

look at your website, where Sri Atmanandaji is described as

someone who is teaching the "direct approach". I belive that kind

of approach is different from Advaita as thought by traditional

advaitins such as for instance Shankara, Sureshvara, the

shankaracharyas, Satchidanandendra Swamiji etc. Traditional

advaita is focused on exegetical inquiry into the shastras, and I

believe this is not the way of the direct-path teachers.

 

>

> "It is only the ignorant man, who had not had the good fortune

to be blessed

> by a living Sage (a Guru), that usually takes to shAstra -

somewhat

> helplessly.

 

 

Sri Atmanandaji seems to be talking of those reading the shastras

without any guidance of a guru. This is a well-known situation in

modern times, when the shastras can be bought for a reasonable

price in bookstores anywhere (well, almost!). Then people starts

reading the Upanishads, trying to make some sense out of

seemingly contradicting statements. Of course, this is very far

from what Shankara, Sureshvara and other traditional advaitins

had in mind when they said that only Shruti can give perfect

knowledge of the Self. In those days, the study of the Shruti

took place under the guidance of a competent guru, and the

aspirant also was very focused on actually attaining

Self-knowledge. It was no question of studying just for the fun

of it, or in order to satisfy ones curiosity, academical

treatises or the like.

 

It is absolutely necessary to study the shastras under the

guidance of someone belonging to the sampradaya, that is, someone

who belongs to the traditional lineage of Adi Shankara himself.

Shankara himself says that someone who has learnt the shastras

without the guidance of a competent teacher belonging to the

tradition, is to be considered ignorant: "One who does not know

the true tradition for interpretating the Veda is therefore to be

ignored as an ignoramus, even if he be learned in all the

sciences." (Shankara, Bh. Gita Bh. 13.2)

 

One important task for the Guru is to give you faith in the

tradition and the shastras, because this is what is necessary for

realization of your true Self. The Guru shall transmitt the

teachings of the Shruti, and also provide the correct

interpretations. A realized Guru is an embodiedment of the truths

taught by the shastras. His mere character as someone who has

attained brahmavidya actually proves the truth of the Shruti.

Therefore, the Guru is not an alternative to Shruti, someone who

is able to bring about something superior to the message of the

Shruti. Nevertheless, I believe that this is what Sri Atmanandaji

says in the quote. This conclusion of mine seems to find support

in the next part of the quote:

 

 

> Knowledge (Consciousness pure) is the parent of the shAstras.

As

> such, the shAstras can never be the father of knowledge, nor

can they awaken

> knowledge in the aspirant.

 

 

 

As one can easily see in the many quotes from Shankara and

Sureshvara I have given in my recent postings, this view of Sri

Atmanandaji is clearly deviating from the Vedanta as expounded by

Adi Shankara. The shastras are not just a source to

Self-knowledge, but even the only source to Self-knowledge.

Moreover, the shastras give direct and immediate knowledge of the

Self.

 

 

 

One who is being guided by a kAraNa-guru will

> never need the service of any shAstra. The ultimate purpose and

utility of

> all shAstras is only to convince the aspirant about the supreme

need of a

> kAraNa-guru and to help him to seek one."

 

 

 

This is different from the standpoint of Adi

Shankara. As already mentioned, the guru is not any better

alternative instead of shruti, but instead someone who can

provide the correct interpretations leading to Self-knowledge.

And regarding the "ultimate purpose and utility of all shastras",

Shankara says the following at the end of his preamble to

BSBh: "With a view to freeing one´s self from that wrong notion

which is the cause of all evil and attaining thereby the

knowledge of the absolute unity of the Self the study of the

Vedanta-texts is begun. That all the Vedanta-texts have the

mentioned purport we shall show in this so-called

Sariraka-mimamsa."

 

> And he then quotes from the kathopaniShad (1.3.14): uttishThata

jagrata...

> 'Arise, awake; having reached the great (teachers) learn

(realise the

> Atman).

 

 

I assume Sri Atmanandaji do quote this in support of his view

that the purpose of the shastras is to make aspirants looking for

a guru. Of course finding a guru is necessary, and the reason for

this is that the guru sheds light over the meaning of the Shruti,

thereby eradicating the ignorance. In his bhashya on 1.3.14.,

Shankara puts forward the following question: How to put an end

to ignorance? He answers that the aspirant shall approach an

excellent teacher who teaches about the all-pervading Self as

"Tat tvam asi".

 

 

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren

[Guest guest]

Dear Stig-ji,

 

Apologies again for slowness of response here!

 

You are right, of course, when you say that Sri Atmananda's is a 'direct'

approach and differs in some respects from more traditional ones.

 

I agree with your statement that "In those days, the study of the Shruti

took place under the guidance of a competent guru, and the

aspirant also was very focused on actually attaining Self-knowledge". Sri

Atmananda also seems to be saying that this is just as true today - that a

guru is essential. I don't, however, see why "It is absolutely necessary to

study the shastras under the guidance of someone belonging to the

sampradaya". A sage, fully established in the truth, surely transcends

words? The sage speaks directly from truth and can suit his words to the

listener. The words of the shruti are fixed and the reader will be

understanding these via his (very limited) mind.

 

I thought that the part 'knowledge (Consciousness pure) is the parent of the

shAstras' was indubitable. Whether the shruti are apaurusheya or not, they

must have arisen out of Consciousness. When being read, they must either

'speak' directly to Consciousness or be interpreted by the mind. If the

former, then are they needed at all? If the latter then there must be scope

for confusion and misunderstanding - especially if they are not being read

in the original by a fluent Sanskrit scholar!

 

In the end, I think we (all!) agree that a guru is necessary, whether this

be to 'interpret the shruti' or to speak directly from his own knowledge.

 

I will quote two more (rather longer) Notes from Sri Atmananda for anyone

who wishes to see more of his thoughts on this subject but I think I have

summarised above the point that I wished to make so don't read these unless

you want to.

 

 

1015. EFFICACY OF THE SPOKEN WORD OF THE GURU AND THE WRITTEN WORD

(37)

When the Guru talks to you about the Truth there is no doubt that it is the

words that

you hear. But the words disappear at once. Nothing remains for you to refer

to or to

depend upon, except the Guru himself. So in case of any doubt you approach

the Guru

again any number of times; and every time he explains it in a different set

of words.

Each time you understand the same sense, more and more deeply. Therefore it

is

evident that it is not from words or their meaning that you understand the

sense,

because the words used each time are different. From this it is clear that

something

else also follows the words, from the Guru. It is this something that

penetrates into the

inmost core of the disciple and works the miraculous transformation called

experience.

When you read the written word before listening to the Truth from the lips

of the

Guru, that something, which follows the spoken word of the Guru, is entirely

absent;

and you have to depend upon the dead word which is still before you and its

meaning

as your ego is inclined to interpret it, in the dark light of its own

phenomenal experiences.

Naturally, therefore, you miss that divine experience when you only read the

written word; though it is so easily and effortlessly obtained in the

presence of the

Guru, or after even once listening to the Truth from him.

When you listen to the spoken word of the Guru, even on the first occasion

your

ego takes leave of you and you visualize the Truth at once, being left alone

in your

real nature. But when you read the same words by yourself, your ego lingers

on in the

form of the word, its meaning etc., and you fail to transcend them. To

visualize the

Truth, the only condition needed is the elimination of the ego. This is

never possible

by mere reading, before meeting the Guru. Therefore listen, listen, listen

and never be

satisfied with anything else. After listening to the Truth from the Guru

direct and after

visualizing the Truth in his presence, you may well take to thinking deeply

over what

the Guru has told you. This is also another form of listening and takes you,

without

fail, to the same experience you have already had in his presence.

9th June 1954

 

1016. Dr. H. and his wife asked: 'WHAT BOOKS ON PHILOSOPHY SHALL WE

READ'? (38)

Books will not help you much to understand the Truth. Sometimes they may

even do

you much harm. Suppose you read the Bhagavad-gita which is recognized as one

of

the tripods of Hindu religion. Your only help is the existing commentaries.

You do

not know whether a particular commentator was a man who had realized the

Truth or

not. If he had not, he will misguide you. You can read only your own sense

in a book,

be it the original or a commentary.

A Sage alone can show you the Truth. But after understanding the Truth from

the

Sage, you may read only the few books he suggests, to keep you in the groove

he has

chalked out. After some time, when you are established in the Truth

yourself, you

may read any book, good or bad.

Every book has some nuggets of Truth in it. You will yourself be able to

pick these

out and throw away the dross. If nothing in the book attracts you, accept it

for its

existence value and thus find it an expression of the Ultimate.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji.

 

Question. Atmanandaji is very categorical about listening to a guru

and reading books. Is listening to a guru through audio-visual media

as helpful as direct listening? I can't help asking this in this

great electronic age of ours. Most aspirants these days do such

listening.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________

 

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> quoted:

>

>

> 1015. EFFICACY OF THE SPOKEN WORD OF THE GURU AND THE WRITTEN WORD

> (37)

> When the Guru talks to you about the Truth there is no doubt that

it is the

> words that

> you hear. But the words disappear at once. Nothing remains for you

to refer

> to or to

> depend upon, except the Guru himself. So in case of any doubt you

approach

> the Guru

> again any number of times; and every time he explains it in a

different set

> of words.

> Each time you understand the same sense, more and more deeply.

Therefore it

> is

> evident that it is not from words or their meaning that you

understand the

> sense,

> because the words used each time are different. From this it is

clear that

> something

> else also follows the words, from the Guru. It is this something

that

> penetrates into the

> inmost core of the disciple and works the miraculous transformation

called

> experience.

> When you read the written word before listening to the Truth from

the lips

> of the

> Guru, that something, which follows the spoken word of the Guru, is

entirely

> absent;

> and you have to depend upon the dead word which is still before you

and its

> meaning

> as your ego is inclined to interpret it, in the dark light of its

own

> phenomenal experiences.................

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis,

 

I hope you don't mind me commenting on your post, if so I offer my sincerest

apologies and in no way will I be offended if you see fit to ignore it, and

choose not to respond.

 

It has been my experience that the guru is not limited to the audio-visual

media, but may also include the tactile sense too. If experience shows that

direct inquiry into the movement of thought is the supreme guru, then would it

perhaps be reasonable to conclude that the medium which prompts the inquiry is

subordinate to the inquiry itself?

 

All words being predicate to the inexpressible leaves an infinitude of means

by which a seeker may come into the presence of the guru. I may be incorrect

in my understanding of your response regarding words being fixed, and the

ability of the mind to hear and interpret correctly. But is it reasonable to

offer

the metaphor of the gold bracelet in this context, and equate the word to the

form of the bracelet and the definition to the gold? Albeit, in weighing the

definition of the words of the guru, is not their essential essenceless

revealed, as opposed to the weighing of gold which is done to ascertain its

essential

value?

 

This may be redundant, but I would aver that purity of mind determines ones

ability to hear and interpret the scriptures and/or the words of the guru

correctly. And I agree that some seekers may require the physical presence of a

guru in order not to continue the free fall in the blind well, but wouldn't the

clarity of mind contribute in determining this? In this respect, I would equate

the clarity of mind to body weight, in the sense that if a person wants to

lose, say 2 pounds to get to their ideal body weight, they wouldn't in all

likelihood have to join a gym or work out for that matter. Whereas the person

who

is, say 400-plus pounds above their ideal body weight would in all

probability need the physical presence of an aide. They both may in fact only

need to

hear, see, taste or feel any number of sensual stimuli to reconcile the need to

lose the weight. But the desire to seek the weight loss is none the same for

both. The former may take a few days, the latter a few years, but the results

are identical in all respects.

 

Is it not the seekers sincere desire to seek, and their belief in the

veracity of the guru the prime requisite for the journey? Can the guru through

the

word formed of the essenceless (silence), and the essenceless which forms the

word, confer grace upon the seeker who is truly sincere, regardless of which

medium the guru's grace flows through?

 

It is not my intention to contradict or dispute what you've written, but to

lend another perspective to Nariji’s question. And to also perhaps receive a

response to the questions posed from anyone those who may choose to take the

time to respond. If your response to Nariji was made in a provisional manner,

and

intended to address a concern beyond the specific query Nariji made, then I

offer my humblest apologies for not being fully informed.

 

Best Regards,

Mark

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Nairji,

 

You asked: "Is listening to a guru through audio-visual media as helpful as

direct listening?"

 

I can't see that it is unfortunately. In the presence of the guru, he is

able to connect with our particular category of ignorance and speak those

particular words that will cut through this to reveal the truth. In the case

of a recorded transcript, the words are fixed, just as with the shruti, and

this relies upon the ability of our mind to hear and interpret correctly.

With no possibility of feedback and correction, this must then be open to

misunderstanding and ultimate failure to achieve the 'desired' effect. So it

seems to me anyway.

 

The exception to this would be if the recording was of the guru speaking on

an occasion at which one had actually been present. Then the recording would

serve to remind of the original experience, which would then be recreated.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> Hi Nairji,

>

> You asked: "Is listening to a guru through audio-visual media as

helpful as

> direct listening?"

>

> I can't see that it is unfortunately. In the presence of the guru,

he is

> able to connect with our particular category of ignorance and speak

those

> particular words that will cut through this to reveal the truth.

 

Namaste!

 

Indeed, the guru may not even have to speak in some cases. Only

recently someone had quoted this following verse.

 

citram vaTa taror mUle vriddhAh shiShyAh gurur yuvah|

gurostu maunam vyAkyAnam shiShyAstu chinnasamshaYah||

 

(Under the banyan tree the disciples are old, the guru young. The

guru teaches in silence and the disciples clear all their doubts)

 

I guess listening to a recording is really no different from reading

a commentary.

 

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

 

In the case

> of a recorded transcript, the words are fixed, just as with the

shruti, and

> this relies upon the ability of our mind to hear and interpret

correctly.

> With no possibility of feedback and correction, this must then be

open to

> misunderstanding and ultimate failure to achieve the 'desired'

effect. So it

> seems to me anyway.

>

> The exception to this would be if the recording was of the guru

speaking on

> an occasion at which one had actually been present. Then the

recording would

> serve to remind of the original experience, which would then be

recreated.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

[Guest guest]

-neelakantanji writes ...

 

( Indeed, the guru may not even have to speak in some cases. Only

> recently someone had quoted this following verse.

>

> citram vaTa taror mUle vriddhAh shiShyAh gurur yuvah|

> gurostu maunam vyAkyAnam shiShyAstu chinnasamshaYah||

>

> (Under the banyan tree the disciples are old, the guru young. The

> guru teaches in silence and the disciples clear all their doubts))

 

that was a verse quoted by our breloved professorji in response to my

story as narrated by shri ramana maharishi on mauna diksha !

 

This is how Shri Ramana maharishi views this whole suubject...

 

disciple : Does Bhagavan give diksha (initiation)?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Mouna (silence) is the best and the most potent

diksha. That was practised by Sri Dakshinamurti. Initiation by touch,

look, etc., are all of a lower order. Silent initiation changes the

hearts of all.

 

Dakshinamurti observed silence when the disciples approached him.

That is the highest form of initiation. It includes the other forms.

There must be subject-object relationship established in the other

diksha. First the subject must emanate and then the object. Unless

these two are there how is the one to look at the other or touch him?

Mouna diksha (silent initiation) is the most perfect; it comprises

looking, touching. It will purify the individual in every way and

establish him in the reality.

 

**********************************************************************

 

Folks, believe it or not !

 

when i was in Ramansahram recently ( jan 23-24, 2004) , We were

sitting in the meditation hall in front of an Idol of Bhagwan with

our eyes closed .... believe me , i could feel the 'grace ' of shri

ramana flowing in that hall filled with complete silence ! and my

brother (who is total atheist ) felt this too ! i was not

hallucinating either ! such is the power of realized souls for their

physical form may vanish but their silent grace is always availabvle

in their teachings !

 

Aum shri gurave namaha !

 

anyway, Ekalava just meditated on the idol of Dronacharya and became

a attained 'mastery' in the art of 'archery ' ; so much so ekalavya

became a threat to arjuna !

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

The value of a Guru is not his mere physical presence or absence (in the

case of listening to audio aids). But it is in the capacity of having a

samvada (a dialogue). Ignorance does not vanish from mere listening to a

Guru. In fact while listening to the teaching ignorance with reference to a

certain subject may vanish but this will give rise to further questions. So

if the Guru is not physically there, the disciple won't have the opportunity

to clarify his/her doubts. He can't possibly question the CD or tape player

:-). He/she has no choice but to postpone the question to another time. But

this lingering unanswered question may cause damage by fattening itself over

time in the form of many doubts which may lead to the loss of shraddha

(faith).

 

That's why the tradition gives emphasis in approaching a teacher to seek

self-knowledge. Not for the sake of mere proximity but for the sake of being

able to clarigy one's doubts while the teaching is taking place. This is

beautifully explained in Shankara's Upadesha Sahasri which even serves as a

guide to Vedanta teachers. This Samvada is very important in learning

Vedanta as it is not a one-way street. The Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads and

other Gitas teach knowledge mostly in the form of Samvada.

 

Kathirasan

 

 

Neelakantan [pneelaka]

Monday, May 10, 2004 6:47 AM

advaitin

Re: Knowledge only from shruti

 

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> Hi Nairji,

>

> You asked: "Is listening to a guru through audio-visual media as

helpful as

> direct listening?"

>

> I can't see that it is unfortunately. In the presence of the guru,

he is

> able to connect with our particular category of ignorance and speak

those

> particular words that will cut through this to reveal the truth.

 

Namaste!

 

Indeed, the guru may not even have to speak in some cases. Only

recently someone had quoted this following verse.

 

citram vaTa taror mUle vriddhAh shiShyAh gurur yuvah|

gurostu maunam vyAkyAnam shiShyAstu chinnasamshaYah||

 

(Under the banyan tree the disciples are old, the guru young. The

guru teaches in silence and the disciples clear all their doubts)

 

I guess listening to a recording is really no different from reading

a commentary.

 

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

 

In the case

> of a recorded transcript, the words are fixed, just as with the

shruti, and

> this relies upon the ability of our mind to hear and interpret

correctly.

> With no possibility of feedback and correction, this must then be

open to

> misunderstanding and ultimate failure to achieve the 'desired'

effect. So it

> seems to me anyway.

>

> The exception to this would be if the recording was of the guru

speaking on

> an occasion at which one had actually been present. Then the

recording would

> serve to remind of the original experience, which would then be

recreated.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

 

 

 

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

[Guest guest]

Namaste Markji.

 

When I read Dennisji, I knew he gave me a very satisfactory reply.

When I read you thereafter, I felt you have a good point too.

 

I would, therefore, venture to say, with trepidation of course, that

purity of mind (antahkaraNa suddhi) is the deciding factor. With

that purity, the Truth simply and inevitably dawns without the need

for mediation by external agencies, like the shine of a cloudless

spring morn.

 

Purity may also bring in the right Guru. That Guru, or any Guru for

that matter, is a projection of the seeker himself. I hope this

answers Shri Manoharji who asked questions about jIvanmuktAs. Is it

not then advisable to work sincerely in our given situations for

purity of mind not searching for or boterhing about the arrival of a

proper guru? The jIvanmukta guru will manifest spontaneously - nay,

we will give birth to him! It is then irrelevant to bother about how

a jIvanmukta looks, behaves and helps. It is a matter of ultimate

Self-help. Our helping ourselves. That is then faith - to answer

another thread here.

 

Thanks, Markji, for your excellent thoughts.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin, somamara@a... wrote:

>

> This may be redundant, but I would aver that purity of mind

determines ones

> ability to hear and interpret the scriptures and/or the words of

the guru

> correctly.

[Guest guest]

Hi Mark,

 

Why should I mind your commenting? This is a discussion group!

 

I agree that tactile (and presumably other senses, too) must be able to

transmit the 'grace of the guru'. My point was that the physical presence is

required. As others have pointed out, silence is still an adequate medium in

this case.

 

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with your application of the

gold-bracelet metaphor to the situation of words on a tape. Are you implying

that the sound of the words themselves is a source of truth rather than

their meaning? There might well be something in this - which would certainly

contradict what I was suggesting.

 

Nevertheless, it is certainly the case that, at the level of meaning and

context, the words were only relevant to the situation in which they were

made, i.e. for the presumed seeker to whom the sage was speaking. We all

know that sages often say apparently contradictory things to different

seekers, tailoring their words to the particular level of understanding. It

is extremely unlikely that we will be in precisely that state and, if we

listen via our minds (which is usually the case), then it is highly likely

we will misunderstand.

 

I also agree that purity of mind is terribly important. The better prepared

we are, the more likely it will be that there will be understanding. In the

extreme, it seems likely that it would be possible for a single word, spoken

or read, to tip the balance. I don't know if this is necessary to 'draw the

guru to us', as Sri Nair suggests. If it is, my own mind is clearly not yet

sufficiently pure!

 

So yes, very useful input!

 

Agree also with Kathirasan, though the example of teaching through silence

has been given, where there is obviously no dialogue at the mental level.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

I would like to submit the following input, which is very relevant to this

topic. It is from new member Meirionwen, who having only just joined was

unable to comment at the time the topic was being more actively discussed.

It was communicated off-line but she has given her permission for me to post

it to the group.

 

 

"With regard to the essential nature of the scriptures with regard to

enlightenment, there are surely many examples of "people getting

enlightened" - three completely wrong words of course, without the

scriptures, such as Ramana himself, and more recently Robert Adams. I can

also think of many in other religious traditions who were "zapped" as

teenagers out of a blue sky, as it were. But maybe you meant something

different by that phrase? The scriptures are constantly pointing to the

need to stop looking outwards at one's thoughts and feelings, and start

looking inwards at pure being, so as to realise that is who we are. Thinking

is a great obstacle to this, a GREAT obstacle, but we are quite addicted to

it. The scriptures are so beautiful and so TRUE, that it is a great

temptation to spend a lifetime thinking about them and talking about them,

rather than following what they are trying to teach us. Once more we are

looking with delight at the finger pointing to the moon, instead of

following the direction and looking at the moon itself. We do this because

it is much easier to see the finger than the moon, I suppose. It is like the

story of the woman looking for her necklace under the street lamp though she

lost it in a dark corner in her house. Daft of course, but there is so much

more light under the street lamp. But we have to gaze out into the darkness

and wait patiently, in silence. It is then we realise that the necklace is

still round our neck, as it always has been.

 

The scriptures are still "out there" - a wonderful guru pointing us back

"in here". It was only after decades studying them that I realised that in

themselves they were still not touching the essence, but only entrancing,

delighting and awe-inspiring the mind, - beautiful, convincing and

reassuring as that was. There was a certain terror in looking the way they

were pointing, like setting out alone in a very small boat, rowing AWAY from

the twinkling lights of the sheltering harbour into the stormy night sea. I

realised then what a cosy comforting refuge the scriptures had become for

me.

It was then, some time after that, that sea, boat, harbour and night

dissolved into what I can only describe as a great smile - the universe (I)

beaming a welcome. Come to think of it, maybe that is the story of the

Prodigal Son! We return from our wanderings in the world and our dwelling in

the pigsties of the mind to the arms of the loving father.

Of course there is nothing "we" can do, as there is no-one there to do

anything, and anyway, nothing needs to be done, as it is all already

perfect. However until we really know this there is an irresistible urge to

find the truth. I suppose therefore that paradoxically we have to learn to

STOP doing and stop thinking, as we come to understand that it is the very

activity of the mind and will ( even trying to do nothing!) that stands in

the way."

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

REspected Dennis-ji !

 

first, let me thank you for sharing this message submitted by our new

member Meirowen . Welcome aboard to this holy satsangha!

 

what she has written is profound ...

 

"The scriptures are constantly pointing to the need to stop looking

outwards at one's thoughts and feelings, and start looking inwards at

pure being, so as to realise that is who we are. "

 

exactly, something that our beloved Shri RAMANA MAHARISHI was fond of

saying over and over again.

 

I liked the analogy of the finger and the moon as well.

 

Yes, returning to the 'source' indeed that is what it is all about.

 

and as the sufi poet Kabirdas ji says

 

"Knowledge beyond knowledge is my knowledge."

 

and it will not be out of place to quote a sutra from Yoga vasishta

in this regard ,,,

 

"Behold the self-luminous Self which pervades everything. ... it is

the guru of all gurus, it is the Self, it is the light that illumines

the world from within. "

 

we would love to hear more from you on this and other subjects.

 

Love

[Guest guest]

Hello Dennis,

 

Thank you for your kind response. Regarding the last post, it was my intent

to not offend that prompted me to make sure that what was written was not taken

as a contradiction of what you had already stated.

 

Provisionally speaking, as far as the gold bracelet metaphor, it was intended

to equate the spoken word as an object that can be grasped with the senses so

to speak. In this case the mind being the field, the thought as the sense

medium, the experience as the definition and the word as the object experienced.

In weighing the definition of the word against what can be known by the

knower, there is nothing that can be definitively known being that the knower

cannot

be known. With gold there are standards to measure the weight and value, with

words there are no standards, everyone perceives, interprets and applies

their meanings differently. It’s been my experience that the guru’s words

reduce

the multiplicity of meanings into unity and unity into absolute silence. So to

surmise, it was my intent to convey that words cannot be weighed against a

standard other than the guru’s grace which is without measure or

specification,

and the guru's words reveal this through divine grace.

 

It was not my intention to state that the sound of words themselves is a

source of truth rather than their meaning. I believe the sound and the word are

one, for the hearer of the ear is one. I believe there is no true meaning in

words beyond what the mind lends to them through its sense medium of thought and

ideation. And in this thought and ideation the appearance of contradictions

is surmised as a counterveiling thought, but alas appearance is illusory, and

illusions are unreal. Hence the definitions of the words are shown as illusory

and transient by the guru’s grace, and the guru’s words can only be weighed

against the knower of the seeker, and by the seeker who is in fact the supreme

guru.

 

Of course this is provisionally speaking, so what I've written is open to the

varying interpretations mentioned above, but this dialogue and this

discussion group, for me, gives me the opportunity to further reduce the

multiplicities.

 

 

Best Regards,

Mark