"THE PLACE OF PRACTICE IN ADVAITA-VEDANTA"

[Guest guest]

Namaste Gregji:

 

The term "practice" can't be considered a translation of the Sanskrit

term, "Sadhana." If we have the understanding of "Practice in

Advaita-Vedanta" as "Sadhana with Shraddha - Practice with immense

faith and conviction with one-track mind" then such a 'practice' will

have the 'right place' in Advaita Vedanta. Actually, we are playing

with words and this also requires practice, otherwise we may end up

with the wrong conclusions.

 

For example the practice of Karma Yoga with Shraddha will likely lead

us to liberation. We are experts in doing 'karma' and not

necessarily karma yoga. Bhagawan Ramana Maharishi's Upadesa Saram

provides the meaning for Sanskrit term, 'Sadhana with Shraddha" by

distinguishing between "Karma and Karmayoga."

 

Here are the first three verses of Upadesa Saram:

 

kartur-âjñayâ prâpyate phalam,

karma kim param karma tajjadam.

 

Action yields fruit, For so the Lord ordains it.

How can action be the Lord? It is insentient.

 

krti-mahodadhau patana-kâranam,

phalam-asâsvatam gati-nirodhakam.

 

The fruit of action passes.

But action leaves behind Seed of further action

Leading to an endless ocean of action;

Not at all to moksha.

 

 

îsvarârpitam necchayâ krtam,

citta-sodhakam mukti-sâdhakam.

 

Disinterested action Surrendered to the Lord

Purifies the mind and points The way to moksha.

 

Warmeste regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: The entire Upadesa Saram along with MP3 audio is available at

http://www.ramana-maharshi.org/music/upadesa.htm

 

advaitin, Greg Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

> At 06:17 AM 9/2/2004 +0000, Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote:

> >Namaste Gregji.

> >

> >The neos are also practising, Gregji! Otherwise, why all their

> >discussion groups and interminable talk. They are doing satsangh

and

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis and Rajendran,

 

Thanks for sharing your views and practices.

 

Among those I know offlists who are seriously

involved in these matters, they do tend not to

talk about what they do.

 

And the ones who do talk about it, tend not to

do any sadhana. They don't see their talking,

or the other activities they do, as sadhana.

Rather, they talk in various ways about what

the end-point must be like!

 

One point about the yogas I'd like to make

might be unnecessary. It's that the yogas

are *general* descriptions. They apply

across activities, across cultures.

 

As far as the preparations towards calming

the mind are concerned, one can be a worshipper

of Jesus and be doing bhakti yoga. One can

be in the military onerous doing tasks to

benefits others, and be doing karma yoga.

 

The way I see it, the advaita-vedantic view

of these yogas doesn't place importance on

the particular image worshipped or served.

Rather, the emphasis is on the qualities of

one's mind that result from performing the

activities. Qualities such as the reduction

of egocentric motives, the reduction of a

scattered or lazy mind, the reduction of

huge emotional upheavals.

 

I don't think that one needs to have brought

egocentrism, laziness, disintegration, etc.

to zero in order to effectively begin the study

of advaita vedanta. In fact, one could say,

having brought egocentrism to zero is closer

to the goal than it is to the beginning of study!

There is room in life for the various yogas in

addition to advaitic study and earnest self-inquiry.

What also helps is honesty with one's self,

and a humble and open attitude.

 

About bhakti yoga - I remember in my early years

of studying advaita-vedanta. I didn't know about

any school or present-day teaching tradition.

But I did have a yearning to integrate the

devotional feelings I had with the self-inquiry I

was doing. This is where a wise human teacher

perhaps could have served the purpose. That person

can possibly serve as the preceptor from whom

the teachings flow, as well as the focal point

for the opening of one's heart.

 

But after looking for over a year, I had found

no such person. I didn't feel drawn to the

obvious candidates of worship, past or present.

And I realized that an advaitin can't treat the

object of their devotions as a truly external,

separate real entity. This made me willing to

find a person or image or form of Ishwara who

I related to, who could serve as the representation

of the Self, towards which I could focus my heart.

 

Finding no person (past or present), and no divine

figure that I resonated with, I noticed I was

related most closely with the Mandukya Upanishad.

So I purchased an extra copy, and put the one I

had been studying on my altar. For several years

it occupied the same place on my altar (and in my

heart) that photographs or drawings of human and

divine ones occupy on other people's altars.

It didn't feel strange to me, though it was a bit

strange to talk about if I had visitors who were

devotees of Ramana Maharshi or Jesus! A book

must have seemed so dry and irrelevant to them!

But to me, it represented sat, chit, ananda, and

it filled my heart to bursting!

 

Pranaams,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Having implied in my last message that I no longer practise any of the

various yogas etc., I do in fact still meditate. Although I used to do so

assiduously for two half-hour periods each day over many years, this has now

reduced to one period four or five days per week.

 

I would certainly say that regular meditation is of tremendous value during

those years in which the Self and the body-mind are still confused. Whereas

exercises such as the one I last mentioned can show that one is not the

body, meditation is able to show that we are also not the mind. Resting in

stillness and seeing thoughts arise and subside but being quite detached

from them, there is no doubt that we are not those. In 'normal' waking life,

one can seem to be pulled first one way and then the other by sights, speech

and so on as well as 'internal' thoughts. All of these can occur during

meditation and distract one not at all. Here, there is the possibility to

recognise that everything, including mind-ego, is simply arising in

Consciousness - and 'I am that'.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Thank you shri Dennis!

 

for sharing this from Dzogchen!

 

You state quite correctly

 

" Advaita is clearly not the only source of wisdom!"

 

please read what sufi poet Rumi says on Rumi on Different

Philosophies

 

And watch two men washing clothes.

 

One makes dry clothes wet. The other makes

 

wet clothes dry. They seem to be thwarting each other,

 

but their work is a perfect harmony.

 

 

Every holy person seems to have a different doctrine

 

and practice, but there's really only one work.

 

(members.aol.com/ron765/rumi1.htm - 8k - Cached )

 

and as Shri AUROBINDO observes ...

 

Each religion has helped mankind. Paganism increased in man the

light of beauty, the largeness and height of his life, his aim at a

many-sided perfection; Christianity gave him some vision of divine

love and charity; Buddhism has shown him a noble way to be wiser,

gentler, purer; Judaism and Islam how to be religiously faithful in

action and zealously devoted to God; Hinduism has opened to him the

largest and profoundest spiritual possibilities. A great thing would

be done if these God-visions could embrace and cast themselves into

each other; but intellectual dogma and cult-egoism stand in the way."

Sri Aurobindo

 

Love and regards

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

wrote:

>

> " Advaita is clearly not the only source of wisdom!"

>

 

Namaste to all, and please forgive me for my unperfect english.

 

When we say that "advaita is not the only source of wisdom", maybe we want

to say that there is not only the non dualism of Shankara, because we can find

the same view in Plato, Plotin, Eraclitus, etc. etc.

 

But if we consider wisdom as the identity between the being (jiva) with his own

essence of pure Reality (atman) discovered identical to absolute Reality

(brahman), in this case we cannot say that exists any other source.

 

The sourse is only one, that we call in different way according the branch of

tradition that we want consider. But in this case is not relevant the name, it

could be advaita, zen, gnosis, platonism, orfism, etc.

 

For the same reason it seems that doesn't exist any sadhana in non-dualism,

how could we cause the brahman that already exist?

 

If we accept the possibility of sadhana, we have to consider the existence of

free will, and many other things that are not in concordance with Advaita.

 

We have to consider advaita for those who have already finished any kind of

sadhana, any kind of yoga, any chain with the fenomenical world.

 

We have not to forget the qualification requested for advaita, They says that

advaita is just for few people... how large is that "few"?

 

One hundred? One thousand? One million?

 

Many time here in the West I saw people saying: "I'm practicing Advaita, only

because they make meditation or they have read Vivekacudamani".

 

How is possible to practice Advaita? How is possible to practice

consciousness? How could you practice what you already are?

 

Of course, all these are just a point of view.

 

Shanti

 

bo.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji.

 

Your post has me here pondering.

 

I am meditating. There is the thought of a car. An image of a car

appearing on the mental screen corresponds that thought. I, the

witness, am seeing that thought is our conclusion. However, when

seeing actually takes place, right at that point of time – let us say

microsecond, am I, the witness, there? I think no. Only the car-

image (car thought) is there. Later, only when I search around for

the one who saw the car-image, does the thought of a witness (I)

arise. Mark it please – it is yet another thought and, as such, it

is just an image or an idea of a witness. Who sees that image or

idea? Infinite regress, eh? Advaita can't buy that.

 

This applies to the external world of objects and experiences too.

 

So, where does all this take us? I look at it this way. Every

thought or everything objectified is me simply because if I am not

there, they too are not. They come and go with me. They need me as a

prerequisite for their apparent existence. As such, all that are

objectified are *essentially* the same, i.e. me. My seeing them as

other than me in such striking diversity is the mistake. This

attitude brings in a wholeness to meditation. The thoughts then have

to disappear leaving that wholeness which is the floodlighting that

lights up this cricket stadium of experienced phenomena encompassing

external objects and internalizations. The light shines on even

after the players and cheering spectators have left because its

*nature* is lighting up. That light should be the THAT of your post

and it is everything including me, who falsely assumes `witnessship'.

Nothing is excluded here – even the thought or apprehension of an

infinite regress. In other words, that light is the

only `everything' there. Reality is One, therefore, both in the

absolute and transactional senses. It is just One despite the

diversity in the latter. Discerning this truth should be the purpose

of meditation.

 

We can't go beyond this point with language. The finality of the

wholeness is never communicated, is impossible to describe. Yet, we

are sure of that finality which is our whole being beyond the realm

of inert words.

 

I believe I have pointed out this here before. Yet, I thought your

post presented an opportunity for a repetition. If you think I am

wrong, please let me know.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________

 

 

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

....... Whereas

> exercises such as the one I last mentioned can show that one is not

the

> body, meditation is able to show that we are also not the mind.

Resting in

> stillness and seeing thoughts arise and subside but being quite

detached

> from them, there is no doubt that we are not those. In 'normal'

waking life,

> one can seem to be pulled first one way and then the other by

sights, speech

> and so on as well as 'internal' thoughts. All of these can occur

during

> meditation and distract one not at all. Here, there is the

possibility to

> recognise that everything, including mind-ego, is simply arising in

> Consciousness - and 'I am that'.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Madathil Nair,

 

your message about meditation is interesting

you wrote:

 

........"So, where does all this take us? I look at it this way.

Every

> thought or everything objectified is me simply because if I am not

> there, they too are not. They come and go with me. They need me as

a

> prerequisite for their apparent existence. As such, all that are

> objectified are *essentially* the same, i.e. me. My seeing them as

> other than me in such striking diversity is the mistake. This

> attitude brings in a wholeness to meditation. ..........."

 

Similar view appeared in my mind too....and exactly this point caused

some "inner search".....i beleive that "they are still there...even

if i'm not...and so that nobody need my personal "view" to be there

too.

I mofified this view or "appearence of the world around"...let me

explain....difficult to write about.

I agree that the mind is completely related to what is the appearence

of the world around.

Everything and everybody appear in the view...because the own mind is

the "instrument" to perceive something....whatever and whoever it is.

It's like in a dream....we are kind of One with what we dream....we

are responsible for what we are dreaming.....depends on own Karma.

As long there is Karma working....we are much attached to what appear

around....we are in fact attached to our own mind which still need

the appearence of the world...to keep on acting...and reacting....and

existing.

The mind need this existance of the "appearence of the world" like a

baby need the mother........and so this is Maya....because we beleive

that anybody or "the world need our mind" to exist.

We are like waves on an ocean....different in forms...in minds.

We are all like equal ....moving around....moving minds.

If we ...as a smal wave beleive that all other waves "depends on

us"....there is mistake of our mind....

But if get the consciousness that the real nature behind all this our

perceptions is the ocean.....Brahman....we no more take our view

(limited by time) much serious....we perceive that waves and

ocean....all are ONE....and that no wave and no ocean exist seperated

from each.

 

....all for now....

sorry....i'm at work...i can't write so much....even if i would like

to...

 

Regards

 

with love

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Dennis Travis.

 

I am addressing you by your full name in order to differentiate you

from our Shri Dennis Waite, to whose message on meditation I was

responding.

>From what I assume I understood from your message, the disagreement

between us, if at all any, arises from the fact that we are

addressing the same problem from two different angles.

 

According to how advaita was taught to me, I am (whatever that is

because I, the unquestionable self-evidence, am beyond description)

the only subject. The rest of the experienced world (both

externalizations and internalizatoins) are other than me. As the one

and only subject, I cannot therefore accord the same validity to the

perceptions of those other than me. This can be illustrated thus:

 

"I see a car." I, the seer, is the subject, and the car seen is the

object.

 

"Shri Travis sees a car." I come to know about Shri Travis's seeing

the car. From my point of view as the one and only subject, this

statement then needs to be rewritten as:

 

I know Shri Travis's seeing a car, where I am still the subject where

as "Shri Travis's seeing the car" becomes the object.

 

Thus, Shri Travis as well as his seeing a car are objectifications

for me.

 

The world I see necessarily includes Shri Travis and his seeing a

car. But, both are other than me - objects.

 

You seem to place your perceptions (as the subject) and the

perceptions of those who are objects to you in the same category.

Actually, your perceptions and your *perceiving* the perceptions of

others are in the same category. I assume your consideration of the

topic in a different light arises from this fundamental difference in

our approaches.

 

Hope I am clear. Am I right?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__

 

advaitin, "dennis_travis33"

<dennis_travis33> wrote:

> Namaste Madathil Nair,

>

> your message about meditation is interesting

> you wrote:

>

> ......."So, where does all this take us? I look at it this way.

> Every

> > thought or everything objectified is me simply because if I am

not

> > there, they too are not. They come and go with me. They need me

as

> a

> > prerequisite for their apparent existence. As such, all that are

> > objectified are *essentially* the same, i.e. me. My seeing them

as

> > other than me in such striking diversity is the mistake. This

> > attitude brings in a wholeness to meditation. ..........."

>

> Similar view appeared in my mind too....and exactly this point

caused

> some "inner search".....i beleive that "they are still there...even

> if i'm not...and so that nobody need my personal "view" to be there

> too.

> I mofified this view or "appearence of the world around"...let me

> explain....difficult to write about.

> I agree that the mind is completely related to what is the

appearence

> of the world around.

> Everything and everybody appear in the view...because the own mind

is

> the "instrument" to perceive something....whatever and whoever it

is.

> It's like in a dream....we are kind of One with what we dream....we

> are responsible for what we are dreaming.....depends on own Karma.

> As long there is Karma working....we are much attached to what

appear

> around....we are in fact attached to our own mind which still need

> the appearence of the world...to keep on acting...and

reacting....and

> existing.

> The mind need this existance of the "appearence of the world" like

a

> baby need the mother........and so this is Maya....because we

beleive

> that anybody or "the world need our mind" to exist.

> We are like waves on an ocean....different in forms...in minds.

> We are all like equal ....moving around....moving minds.

> If we ...as a smal wave beleive that all other waves "depends on

> us"....there is mistake of our mind....

> But if get the consciousness that the real nature behind all this

our

> perceptions is the ocean.....Brahman....we no more take our view

> (limited by time) much serious....we perceive that waves and

> ocean....all are ONE....and that no wave and no ocean exist

seperated

> from each.

>

> ...all for now....

> sorry....i'm at work...i can't write so much....even if i would

like

> to...

>

> Regards

>

> with love

>

> Marc

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Madathil Nair,

 

Thank you for your clear words and explanations.

 

Yes, it seem that we see it from a "different angle"....

 

You write about the subject which is "the one and only"...means in

fact "no others around"...

Thank you to remember me that this is according advaita.

 

The Oneness in advaita is what i also beleive in.

Maybe this "Oneness" is seen by different angles.

 

I agree in the point that the world appear because of the subject.

And that the object of another person is still "other than

you"....both objects.

Also in my point of view...it's possible to see this "other than me".

I would like to describe this "other than me" on a different way...

As i know that i'm not body mind and intellect....and so not the

real "doer".......it's possible i feel detached from anything what

appear around.

Perceptions need an "ego-mind" to act and react on it.

If there is no ego-mind existing.....what could have any influence on

something....not existing.

It's possible to just "watch the world" without having any

attachement to it....even if one perceive other "subjects" then your

own....it's still the same "nature" behind all this.....or source or

Brahman.

Two realized person meeting each.....they will make one big

discussion about who is the subject?

Maybe they will see the same Self in each....and so agree that they

are both....children of Brahman....of God.....

or that they are both ....and always have been....the object of the

same "one and only" Brahman.

 

Brahman as the one and only subject....i agree...

 

I'm not a realized person....

For this reason i'm attached like a baby child to Brahman......

Me being as "subject" or whatever and whoever....i know that without

Brahman "all this" would not exist.

 

with Regards

 

love and peace

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Travis,

 

Thanks for your post 24461.

 

As I see it, body, mind, intellect and ego are included in the 'other

than me' category because we *know* that we *have* them. In fact,

the last three which lack the solidity of the first one, are our

inventions to explain ignorance to the ignorant. (I hope nobody

pounces on me for this rather loud statement!)

 

When we understand this, we begin to operate in total freedom

unshackled by these invented Frankensteins. The weight of the body

can then be dumped in the wastebin at will.

 

About a realized person meeting another realized person, I assume,

you have a jnAni in mind. Well, from the jnAni's point of view,

there simply cannot be two. So, there is no question of a meeting.

Such a meeting takes place in the realm of ignorance and only the

ignorant project and witness it.

 

We have the story of a realized guru from Kerala (Shri Narayana Guru)

meeting Bh. Ramana Maharshi. It is reported that they met and

uttered not a word to each other. They simply sat smiling for some

time and then parted ways. We have to really ponder this incident. It

is there to educate us.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Madathil Nair,

 

you wrote....

"(I hope nobody

> pounces on me for this rather loud statement!)"

 

i beleive that nobody realy do...as there is no other subject

existing

 

people have many inventions....as i see

 

 

 

Regards

 

with love

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Nairji,

 

Beautifully expressed! Yes, at the moment of the perception, thought or

feeling, there is just That. The next moment there is the claiming of it

and, more often than not, this is then followed by the habitual reaction to

it. The perception or thought is itself the 'evidence' of the Consciousness

that enables perception or thought. Ultimately, it is seen that the

splitting up of this into perceiver and perceived is only the result of

ignorance. The reality is that there is only That.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

You might like the following extract from the 'Notes on Spiritual

Discourses of Shri Atmananda' (from Note 1159):

 

"Light by itself is not perceptible to the naked eye. You perceive light

only when it

is temporarily obstructed by an object. This perception of light you wrongly

call

the object. This is a phenomenon usually misunderstood; and the fallacy is,

on the

face of it, obvious.

Similarly, pure Consciousness is not perceivable, as is evident in deep

sleep. But

when it is confined or limited to a particular object, it seems to become

perceptible.

Even then, it is not the object but it is Consciousness alone that is

perceived.

Therefore, nobody has ever seen or perceived an object, but only light or

Consciousness."

 

 

>Namaste Dennisji.

>Your post has me here pondering.