Why "Traditional Advaita" has not relevance to liberation.

[Guest guest]

atagrasin wrote:

> This confusion is of course as much an expression of oneness as the

> clarity which exposes it.

>

OK. So what exactly is the point?

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Harsha wrote:

>

> atagrasin wrote:

>

> > This confusion is of course as much an expression of oneness as the

> > clarity which exposes it.

> >

> OK. So what exactly is the point?

Your question have precisely the answer included in

it.

Atagrasin

[Guest guest]

atagrasin wrote:

>

> advaitin, Harsha wrote:

> >

> > atagrasin wrote:

> >

> > > This confusion is of course as much an expression of oneness as the

> > > clarity which exposes it.

> > >

> > OK. So what exactly is the point?

> Your question have precisely the answer included in

> it.

> Atagrasin

>

Dear Atagrasin:

 

My point was not to raise a philosophical issue (in terms of what is the

point). I understand that the post itself (the post you posted from

another list) was indicating its own pointlessness. My point was more a

practical one concerning appropriate list posting. The post (you posted

from another list) did not seem congruent with list spirit and substance

and the charter. But I am not a moderator. So happy days! :-).

 

Love,

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Hi Harsha

-

Harsha

advaitin

Sunday, March 27, 2005 11:56 PM

Re: Re: Why "Traditional Advaita" has not relevance to

liberation.

 

 

My point was more a

practical one concerning appropriate list posting. The post (you posted

from another list) did not seem congruent with list spirit and substance

and the charter.

Where, how and why did you feel the post did not seem congruent with list spirit

(this list's spirit, or list spirit per se?), with substance (what do you mean

by "not congruent with substance") and the charter (what provision in the

charter did you have in mind)? I am somewhat baffled ...

 

Rudi

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

Very well said. Let me summarise it for you:

 

1. Traditional Vedanta = Right Method

2. Neo-Vedanta = Right Method Misunderstood

3. Pseudo-Vedanta = Wrong Method

 

Hope this helps you.

 

Kathir

 

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:12:58 -0000, atagrasin <k1c2 wrote:

>

>

> From other group posted article

> It has recently been argued that Traditional Oneness is somehow

> better than Neo-Oneness, or even Pseudo-Oneness. The strangeness of

> this idea exposes the foolishness of trying to give title to that

> which is limitless.

>

> The cunning and manipulative guru mind inevitably objectifies verbal

> expression, and out of that objectifying arises a plethora of

> dogmatic movements all claiming supreme understanding of that which

> cannot be understood.

>

> As a consequence, so-called Traditional Advaita, for instance, is

> just another established religion with a proliferation of teachings

> and literature, all of which very successfully and consistently miss

> the mark. It stands alongside Christianity and Buddhism as one of

> the many systems of personal indoctrination promising the eventual

> spiritual fulfilment. To translate the inexpressible into the

> doctrinal is to attempt to transform a

> song of freedom into a dogma of limitation. When the bird has flown,

> the essence of its song is often mislaid and all we are left with is

> an empty cage."

>

> The teaching of "Traditional Advaita" has no relevance to liberation

> because it is born out of a fundamental misconception. Its logical

> and sensibly progressive recommendations include meditation, self-

> enquiry, self-restraint, and to quote "the renunciation of the ego

> and all desire". Of course there is nothing right or wrong with the

> idea of desiring to renounce desire. However, these idealistic

> recommendations and teachings are based on the fundamental

> misconception that there is such a thing as a separate individual

> with free will and the choice to become.

>

> The belief that there is a separate seeker (subject) who can choose

> to attain or become worthy of something called enlightenment

> (object) is a direct denial of abiding oneness (Advaita).

>

> Within the hypnotic dream of separation, the prevailing perception

> is that of the seeker and the sought. The ignorance of this

> perception continues in the search for enlightenment, and inevitably

> the dreamseeker is attracted to a dreamteaching which upholds and

> encourages the same premise of personal discipline and sacrifice

> (seeking) leading to the eventual goal of enlightenment (the sought).

>

> The recommendation to cultivate understanding and refine something

> called "the mind" (?) is hugely attractive to the dreamseeker

> because it prolongs the very worthy search and thrives on logic,

> detachment, complication, endeavour, hierarchy and exclusivity.

>

> Trying to understand oneness is as futile as trying to fall in love

> with an inch.

>

> There is no possibility of teaching oneness. However, the sharing

> can bring a rediscovery of that which is already known.

>

> If we are to believe recent descriptions of something called "Neo-

> Advaita" as being "the forcing of the truth(?) on unprepared minds"

> or "advising people to stop seeking" or suggesting to people that

> they are "nothing but the mind itself", these teachings, if they

> exist, are equally as dualistic as the "traditional Advaita" they

> were born out of.

>

> This confusion is of course as much an expression of oneness as the

> clarity which exposes it.

>

> All of this silly circus is simply the eternal play of oneness

> apparently seeking itself. It is the wonderful cosmic joke oneness

> plays on itself by pretending to be an individual seeking something

> called "not being an individual".

>

> When it is suddenly and directly rediscovered by no-one that

> liberation brings with it the realisation that there is nothing to

> seek and no-one to become liberated, then there is much

> laughter . . .

>

>

> 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]

advaitin, Harsha wrote:

> atagrasin wrote:

>

> >

> > advaitin, Harsha wrote:

> > >

> > > atagrasin wrote:

> > >

> > > > This confusion is of course as much an expression of oneness

as the

> > > > clarity which exposes it.

> > > >

> > > OK. So what exactly is the

point?

> > Your question have precisely the answer included in

> > it.

> > Atagrasin

> >

> Dear Atagrasin:

>

> My point was not to raise a philosophical issue (in terms of what

is the

> point). I understand that the post itself was indicating its own

pointlessness.

Yes its absolutly clear that trying to get water from a mirage,

[practicing to become what you always already are] is pointtlessness.

> My point was more a

> practical one concerning appropriate list posting. The post (you

posted

> from another list) did not seem congruent with list spirit and

substance

> and the charter. But I am not a moderator. So happy days! :-).

This is a traditional Advaita list and the article is precisely about

Traditional Advaita,perhap you as an advaitin don't share the

perspective [spirit] of the article and don't see any point in the

posting of articles like this one, but from here this make little

sense, why not let the members of this group [mature seekers] to read

it and arrive to his owns conclusions.If the traditional Advaita that

you are defending is not another DOGMATIC RELIGION then what is the

problem with the article? From here, any nondual "liberation way"

worth his salt should encourage the inquiry and examination of its

owns propositions.

Atagrasin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, K Kathirasan <brahmasatyam@g...> wrote:

> Namaste

>

> Very well said. Let me summarise it for you:

>

> 1. Traditional Vedanta = Right Method

> 2. Neo-Vedanta = Right Method Misunderstood

> 3. Pseudo-Vedanta = Wrong Method

>

> Hope this helps you.

 

Hi K Kathirasan: Right or wrong method for what? If your list results

are in reference to the play of Conciousness unfolding as apparently

separate individuals with free will involved with the self-

improvement,spiritual life,permanent bliss,still mind,meditation,

egoless state,being here/now tasks [games].If you goal is the

santification of struggle then I don't see the point don't need in re-

arrange your list.

Atagrasin

[Guest guest]

Dennis

-

Dennis Waite

advaitin

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 2:23 PM

Re: Why "Traditional Advaita" has not relevance to

liberation.

 

 

First of all, the posted article was unattributed. (The guidelines are that

all quotations should be.)

Agreed.

The reason that it is inappropriate for this list has nothing to do with the

relative merits of traditional and neo-advaita. It is simply that this list

has its expressed purpose as being to discuss the subject of Advaita *as

taught by shaMkara*.

The Advaitin List's homepage says "... to exchange viewpoints on Shankara's

Advaita Philosophy". Would a contribution criticising his philosophy, even if

misguided, not be "an expression of a viewpoint" on his philosophy? I understand

that you would want to keep off-topic contributions off the list, but

contributions questioning assumptions underlying discussions on a list - even if

erroneous - are still on-topic.

The Advaitin homepage also says "to help members to develop an attitude ...

(of) ... an open mind".

Quite.

As far as the content of the article is concerned, it simply misses the

point ... <snip>

I agree that it misses the point.

 

 

 

 

Rudi

 

 

 

 

 

... that the 'traditional' method does *not* have a 'fundamental

misconception that there is such a thing as a separate individual'. It

simply *starts* with this position since that is the apparent situation of

the apparent person in this apparent world. The approach of shaMkara, from

whom all traditional teachings derive, is one of adhyAropa and apavAda -

false attribution followed by subsequent retraction. Now *that* is am

appropriate topic for the list. Unfortunately, we covered this some months

ago...

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Sponsor

Children International

Would you give Hope to a Child in need?

 

· Click Here to meet a Girl

And Give Her Hope

 

· Click Here to meet a Boy

And Change His Life

 

Learn More

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Links

 

advaitin/

 

b..

advaitin

 

c..

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Every single thing is of relevance to liberation because every single

thing is the free-soaring flag of liberty in the Leela that Liberty

Itself has chosen to play!

 

Every pleasure, every pain, every foolish act, every great

achievement, every movement, every thought, everything that one did

in the past, does now in the present, and will do in the future - is

either the joy or the pain on the path to liberation. Therefore what

is there that is not of relevance to liberation?

 

It is not the fault of darkness if you go with a light to look for

it! But of course, we are talking here of Light and not Darkness.

When the Darkness dazzles in the Light, we have the universe. It is a

kind of love affair. Therefore it hurts. But when the separation is

over, there is only the Bliss of Union. Separation and Union is the

game of Love.

 

 

You are mistaken about Traditional Advaita! Traditional Advaita is

not a dogma. It is the synchronising of the breath! The breath that

lies between Life and Death! Suspended it is Life, expended it is

Death.

 

Breath is Knowledge knowing movement. Breath suspended is immovable

Knowledge.

 

Prana is not merely the breath of air; it is also the Life that

surges as metabolism. It is the esoteric current of the mystery of

Life.

 

Traditional Advaita speaks about Life that one may prepare to Die! It

is not a joke but is a serious affair. As serious as gravity. One

needs to learn the difficult art of levitation to overcome it!

 

Traditional Advaita teaches you the serious art of levitation. But

only he can learn it that is fit to be an 'aeronaut of the spirit'.

The test of fitness is laid out in the instruction manuals of

Traditional Advaita. It is a fool that tries to finds a way through

the labyrinth by running blindly through it.

 

Death lies not in the instruction for dying but in Dying. Traditional

Advaita is the instruction, but for Dying one needs to walk to the

Sacrificial Altar. Traditional Advaita helps one to breathe one's way

freely to the Altar.

 

Traditional Advaita says that when you have prepared well, a

disguised person will come to you at a Crossroad that you cannot now

see. He will carry with him a sword that will slice clean through

your neck. His is an act of Love. He is a mercy-killer! He will kill

Death that Life may shine through. He is your Self personified in the

mystery of Maya.

 

Who says there is no path to liberation? It is not a path made of

clay and earth. It is a path that leaves no trace. That you cannot

point out a traceless path is no fault of the path.

 

 

There is a path from bondage to Freedom. It is the path of Truth in a

Reality in which there is only the Truth.

 

The Truth is thought straightened. The wave straightened is the Ocean

Itself.

 

Straightening of thought is tattva jnana which is an intrinsic part

of Traditional Advaita.

 

There is even a path from Freedom to bondage. It is the path of

falsity in a Reality in which there is only the Truth.

 

The false is the vision of the neurotic.

 

Neurosis is the denial of Truth. 'There is no truth', it says and

looks defiantly out of the foolishness of its own absurdity. That is

bondage. Freedom from its matrix is liberation. In the realm of

language, it is called 'Truth'. That is Mimamsa (Advaita Vedanta).

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

advaitin, "atagrasin" <k1c2@h...> wrote:

>

> From other group posted

article

> It has recently been argued that Traditional Oneness is somehow

> better than Neo-Oneness, or even Pseudo-Oneness. The strangeness of

> this idea exposes the foolishness of trying to give title to that

> which is limitless.

>

> The cunning and manipulative guru mind inevitably objectifies verbal

> expression, and out of that objectifying arises a plethora of

> dogmatic movements all claiming supreme understanding of that which

> cannot be understood.

>

> As a consequence, so-called Traditional Advaita, for instance, is

> just another established religion with a proliferation of teachings

> and literature, all of which very successfully and consistently miss

> the mark. It stands alongside Christianity and Buddhism as one of

> the many systems of personal indoctrination promising the eventual

> spiritual fulfilment. To translate the inexpressible into the

> doctrinal is to attempt to transform a

> song of freedom into a dogma of limitation. When the bird has flown,

> the essence of its song is often mislaid and all we are left with is

> an empty cage."

>

>

> The teaching of "Traditional Advaita" has no relevance to liberation

> because it is born out of a fundamental misconception. Its logical

> and sensibly progressive recommendations include meditation, self-

> enquiry, self-restraint, and to quote "the renunciation of the ego

> and all desire". Of course there is nothing right or wrong with the

> idea of desiring to renounce desire. However, these idealistic

> recommendations and teachings are based on the fundamental

> misconception that there is such a thing as a separate individual

> with free will and the choice to become.

>

> The belief that there is a separate seeker (subject) who can choose

> to attain or become worthy of something called enlightenment

> (object) is a direct denial of abiding oneness (Advaita).

>

> Within the hypnotic dream of separation, the prevailing perception

> is that of the seeker and the sought. The ignorance of this

> perception continues in the search for enlightenment, and inevitably

> the dreamseeker is attracted to a dreamteaching which upholds and

> encourages the same premise of personal discipline and sacrifice

> (seeking) leading to the eventual goal of enlightenment (the

sought).

>

> The recommendation to cultivate understanding and refine something

> called "the mind" (?) is hugely attractive to the dreamseeker

> because it prolongs the very worthy search and thrives on logic,

> detachment, complication, endeavour, hierarchy and exclusivity.

>

> Trying to understand oneness is as futile as trying to fall in love

> with an inch.

>

> There is no possibility of teaching oneness. However, the sharing

> can bring a rediscovery of that which is already known.

>

> If we are to believe recent descriptions of something called "Neo-

> Advaita" as being "the forcing of the truth(?) on unprepared minds"

> or "advising people to stop seeking" or suggesting to people that

> they are "nothing but the mind itself", these teachings, if they

> exist, are equally as dualistic as the "traditional Advaita" they

> were born out of.

>

> This confusion is of course as much an expression of oneness as the

> clarity which exposes it.

>

> All of this silly circus is simply the eternal play of oneness

> apparently seeking itself. It is the wonderful cosmic joke oneness

> plays on itself by pretending to be an individual seeking something

> called "not being an individual".

>

> When it is suddenly and directly rediscovered by no-one that

> liberation brings with it the realisation that there is nothing to

> seek and no-one to become liberated, then there is much

> laughter . . .

[Guest guest]

Dennis

-

Dennis Waite

advaitin

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 9:19 AM

Re: Why "Traditional Advaita" has not relevance to

liberation.

 

 

The spirit of this list is one of earnest

enquirers seeking guidance and discussion on topics relating to the teaching

of Shankara, where Shankara is regarded as an authority second only to the

prasthAna traya. It is fine to ask 'what does Shankara mean by this?'. It is

not acceptable to say 'What Shankara says is a load of rubbish'.

Hm. The article criticised "traditional advaita" rather than Shankara (who

wasn't mentioned), ie. the tradition as it has developed. In other words, it is

not clear from the article whether the writer (or the poster) holds the view

that Shankara was wrong, or merely that the 'traditional interpretation' (of

scriptures, Shankara, etc) was wrong. If you equate the two, serious questioning

of traditional (ie. potentially erroneous) interpretation becomes impossible as

this will then necessarily be perceived as questioning Shankara himself.

 

<snip> Unlike most other lists, members are *required* to be respectful to

teachers about who they write and to others. If not, they become moderated and,

if they persist, removed from the list.

If "tradition" does not equal "Shankara", and considering that Shankara has not

even been mentioned in this post, saying that it was disrespectful to him seems

a bit far-fetched.

 

 

Rudi

 

 

 

And this policy works

extremely well! Hope this all makes sense.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Sponsor

Children International

Would you give Hope to a Child in need?

 

· Click Here to meet a Girl

And Give Her Hope

 

· Click Here to meet a Boy

And Change His Life

 

Learn More

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Links

 

advaitin/

 

b..

advaitin

 

c..

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Atagrasin,

 

It occurred to me that, if you want to continue this discussion on this

group (and I for one consider it to be a very interesting one), you could do

so by changing the emphasis a little.

 

I suggest you address two of the commentaries by Shankara (and there are

others):

 

Commentary on brahmasutrabhAShya I.ii.6:-

 

"Vedantin : To this we say: It is quite true that the supreme Self Itself,

as delimited by the conditioning factors-body, senses, mind, intellect,

etc.-is spoken of in a roundabout way as the embodied soul by the ignorant.

The case is similar to the appearance of space, undivided though it is, as

if divided owing to such conditioning factors as a pot, a jar, etc. And

before obtaining the instruction about the unity of the Self as in, "That

thou art" (Ch. VI. viii. 7), it is nothing incongruous to talk from that

point of view in terms of such differences as are implied by subjects and

objects. But once the unity of the Self is accepted, there will surely be an

end to all empirical dealings, involving notions of bondage, liberation,

etc." - Translation by Swami Gambhirananda, ISBN 81-7505-105-1

 

Commentary on gauDapAda kArikA to mANDUkya upaniShad I-18:-

 

"As the manifold is like the illusion (conjured up by the magician or) of

the snake in the rope, so also are the ideas of the teacher etc. These

ideas, namely, the ideas of teacher, taught, and scripture are for the

purpose of teaching which are (therefore appear) true till one realises the

Highest Truth. But duality does not exist when one, as a result of the

teaching, attains knowledge, i.e., realises the Highest Reality." -

Translation by Swami Nikhilananda, pub Advaita Ashrama, No ISBN.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

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

> Hi Atagrasin,

>

> It occurred to me that, if you want to continue this discussion on

this

> group (and I for one consider it to be a very interesting one), you

could do

>

> I suggest you address two of the commentaries by Shankara (and

there are

> others):

Hi Dennis:

Ok here my commentaries

What Shamkara commentaries are pointing is to this Ordinary Everyday

Awareness is IT. IT is not a special state or some new extraordinary

spiritual experience.It doesn't

matter what the thoughts are "I have not realized it", "I'm not

living it","I understand this intellectually but is not a direct

experiencing for me" [you can include any other excuse] for overlook

this Issness that is always already present.For Shamkara and pure

Advaita teachings the seeking for an experience of Oneness by any so

called spiritual practice is a bit of a misnomer as the Self is not

an experience, but the One Experiencing

of all experiences.All is the Oneness; even the idea that there is

someone that has to do sadhana to reach it as a final destination. If

there is resonance for you with the idea of effort and practice,then

that is the way IT appears to ITself and that is the way IT is.

In the end, just see what resonates for you. If doing nothing seems

right then follow that, if sadhana feels right then go with that.

Whatever appears is the One and there is no going wrong for the One

Respectfully

Atagrasin

[Guest guest]

_____

 

atagrasin [k1c2]

Saturday, April 02, 2005 10:57 AM

advaitin

Re: Why "Traditional Advaita" has not relevance to

liberation.

 

 

 

 

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

> Hi Atagrasin,

>

> It occurred to me that, if you want to continue this discussion on

this

> group (and I for one consider it to be a very interesting one), you

could do

>

Hi Dennis:

Ok here my commentaries

What Shamkara commentaries are pointing is to this Ordinary Everyday

Awareness is IT. IT is not a special state or some new extraordinary

spiritual experience.

 

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

 

 

 

Yes, the Self sees it self clearly in the Ordinary Everyday Awareness (OEA),

and in Every Aspect Of Awareness (EAOW) whether we label it ordinary (O) or

extraordinary (E). Self as simple Being-Consciousness is always Present (P)

being the nature of Presence It Self. This is the experience of the sages.

This Knowledge arises immediately when the mind merges in the Heart. Sages

state that although in truth Self is always Self-Realized, one does not gain

this firm conviction without hearing the Truth from the Guru, reflecting on

the Truth, and then merging with the Truth. In terms of Tony Parsons's

criticism of gurus, I think others like Krishnamurthi and Rajneesh have been

more eloquent on this matter and have exhibited more intellectual power. Lot

of what Tony Parsons says appears to be repeat of others (who have said it

better). Just my view.

 

 

 

Love to all

 

Harsha

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "atagrasin" <k1c2@h...> wrote:

>

Hi Dennis:

Ok here my commentaries

What Shamkara commentaries are pointing is to this Ordinary Everyday

Awareness is IT. IT is not a special state or some new extraordinary

spiritual experience.It doesn't

matter what the thoughts are "I have not realized it", "I'm not

living it","I understand this intellectually but is not a direct

experiencing for me" [you can include any other excuse] for overlook

this Issness that is always already present.For Shamkara and pure

Advaita teachings the seeking for an experience of Oneness by any so

called spiritual practice is a bit of a misnomer as the Self is not

an experience, but the One Experiencing

of all experiences.

Atagrasin

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

 

 

Namaste Atagrasin,

 

I have a couple of things to address in your post. First of all, I

would agree with you that Ordinary Everyday Awareness is IT.

 

However, I would like to take a small issue with your use of the

word, "excuse," because I think it points a finger at the one

who does not have Self-knowledge, as if it is that person's

fault.

 

It is no one's fault. Why does someone not have Self-knowledge

in the first place? In the teachings, as I understand them,

ignorance of one's true nature is held to be beginningless.

 

What is ignorance? Ignorance is the mistaken, but strongly held

belief, that the Atma, the Self is one with, and dependent upon, the

body/mind/sense organs experience. Therefore one takes one's

true self to be the body/mind.

 

This is the conviction which most people have, and if you were to

try and tell them otherwise, they would think that you were crazy.

 

Every once and a while, it may occur to someone to ask the

question. "What is actually going on here? Because all of this

certainly is not working out the way it is `supposed'

to." And that is the birth of the seeker of Self-knowledge.

 

Above you have mentioned "the seeking for an experience of

Oneness by any so called spiritual practice."

 

Now if this is what you understand the teachings of Advaita/Vedanta

to recommend, i.e. the seeking of an experience of Oneness by

spiritual practice, I would say that you are mistaken in your

understanding.

 

The teacher tells you, "You are already That. There is nothing

which you can do to make yourself That, because you already are

That. The problem is one of ignorance. The solution is knowledge.

There is no practice by which you can become more your Self (more

That) than you already are."

 

You can listen. You can contemplate. And you can directly know the

Truth. How? By listening to what the teacher has to say. By

contemplating on his/her words. By directly perceiving the truth of

yourself as That.

 

You speak of a "final destination." I have heard my

teacher's guru, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, say, "Anyone who

teaches you that you have to travel somewhere in order to be happy

is promoting tourism."

 

Even though I have made this a rather short-hand post, I would

respectfully submit that you may not understand what the teachings

of Advaita/Vedanta actually recommend.

 

Any `sadhana,' as far as I understand it, is only aimed at

gaining clarity (or purity) of mind. Why would one need that?

Because the problem of ignorance lies in the mind. The mind has

taken the Self to be the mind, because no thought ever takes place

away from the Self.

 

Thus whatever thought the mind has, whatever mood, whatever emotion,

that is who `I' am. And since the mind is seen to be a

product of the body, well then I am the body as well. So `I'

am a product of the body/mind. This is the mistaken understanding

which causes the problem of ignorance, and which leads to the next

even worse conclusion. "When the body/mind dies, I will die."

 

The teacher points out to you that this is not the case. Your Self-

experience, who you really are, is here right now. Constant. It does

not depend on any changing mental or physical experience. And there

is a method and a logic in this pointing out.

 

Perhaps the teachings of advaita/vedanta, and those to which you

(if you do) are not so far apart as you think.

 

The main difference which I see between the two (and I studied with

neo-advaita teachers for over thirteen years before coming to these

teachings) is this. Advaita/Vedanta provides a methodology, which

neo-advaita teachings lack.

 

Perhaps there are some lucky individuals who do not need a

methodology. Perhaps they are so ripe that someone can just walk

right up to them and say with conviction, "You are already what

you seek. You are That." And the lucky one upon hearing those

words, recognizes the truth of those words, and walks away with Self-

knowledge.

 

I would salute such a person because I feel that such a one is very

rare indeed.

 

For most people, I think it takes a bit more than that. And that is

what the teachings of advaita/vedanta so beautifully provide. They

are a direct means of knowledge to know the truth. They show you

directly, with superb logic and patience, in more ways than you

could possibly imagine, that you are already That. That the One you

have taken to be dependent upon the body/mind changing experiences

is not conditioned, is constant, and is already free.

 

Durga

 

For those who have more wisdom and experience and exposure to the

teachings than I have had, please pardon whatever mistakes I may

have made. My understanding is far from complete.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

No Durgaji. Your understanding is very much complete. Superbly

expressed. Thanks.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

advaitin, "Durga" <durgaji108> wrote:

>.....> The teacher points out to you that this is not the case.

Your Self-

> experience, who you really are, is here right now. Constant. It

does

> not depend on any changing mental or physical experience. And

there

> is a method and a logic in this pointing out.

>.....

 

Advaita/Vedanta provides a methodology, which

> neo-advaita teachings lack.

>

 

........ They show you

> directly, with superb logic and patience, in more ways than you

> could possibly imagine, that you are already That. That the One

you

> have taken to be dependent upon the body/mind changing experiences

> is not conditioned, is constant, and is already free.

>

> Durga

>

> For those who have more wisdom and experience and exposure to the

> teachings than I have had, please pardon whatever mistakes I may

> have made. My understanding is far from complete.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Durga" <durgaji108> wrote:

>

> advaitin, "atagrasin" <k1c2@h...> wrote:

> Namaste Atagrasin,

>

> I have a couple of things to address in your post. First of all, I

> would agree with you that Ordinary Everyday Awareness is IT.

> However, I would like to take a small issue with your use of the

> word,"excuse," because I think it points a finger at the one

> who does not have Self-knowledge, as if it is that person's

> fault.

I use the word "excuse" in the sense of all those rationalization

used by the the characters playing in the divine hidden /seek drama,

overlooking the

odvious.

>Ignorance is the mistaken, but strongly held

>belief, that the Atma, the Self is one with,This is the conviction

>which most people have, and if you were to

> try and tell them otherwise, they would think that you were crazy.

Ignorance, what? Mistakes in the Issness of the inevitability of what

is.Ignorance is surely non-existent.How can ignorance which is the

opposite of knowledge be expected to exist together with knowledge?

Ignorance just don't exist with or independently of

knowledge.Ignorance can't be apprehended or logical inferred.The

recomendation of the sages is that if you still perceiving "someone

without self knowledge" you should inquiry

into the nature of this individual who is assumed to be ignorant.In

Knowingness how the question of ignorance would arise at all?

> Above you have mentioned "the seeking for an experience of

> Oneness by any so called spiritual practice."

>

> Now if this is what you understand the teachings of Advaita/Vedanta

> to recommend, i.e. the seeking of an experience of Oneness by

> spiritual practice, I would say that you are mistaken in your

> understanding.

Again "mistakes" in the all inclusive Unicity? Yes any seeking or so

called "not practice" looking for an "onesness experience" are just

tricks or cunning devices "upaya" to make us see things which are so

odvious that we don't even notice them.

>> you seek. You are That." And the lucky one upon hearing those

> words, recognizes the truth of those words, and walks away with

Self-

> knowledge.

>

> I would salute such a person because I feel that such a one is very

> rare indeed.

Rare, because seekers are revolving in vicious circles vainly trying

to archive the imposible.As your teacher said "You are already That.

There is nothing that you can do to make yourself that because you

are already that".But you can easily get lost hoping to find

those "special permanent bliss states" places where wisdom is

hidden,an in this exercise in futility you are led away from the no-

place where Itness actually is which is right under your own nose

here and now in the ordinary life.

Atagrasin