Aurobino's religious thoughts

November 17, 2005

Dear Friends,

I have had occasion to go through the work, 'Life

Divine' of Sri Aurobindo. To the extent of my capacity to grasp his abstruse

thoughts contained in that monumental work, I have understood his philosophy as

one of admitting the reality of both, ' Becoming', and, ' Being'. I have also

understood from the contents of the chapter, 'Reality and Cosmic Illusion',

that Aurobindo considers the philosophy of Advaita as a seeking of salvation

for the individual, which Aurobindo brands as selfish, Aurobindo differing from

the views of both Sankara and Buddha while making a penetrating analysis of

their teachings. I understand Sankara's branding the world as unreal is only

from the point of view of the independent existence of the world in its own

right, the ontological basis of the world being Brahman only. Then, why does

Aurobindo condemn the teachings of Sankara? What is the distinction between the

teachings of these two great masters? Further, what is

exactly the import of the terminologies, ' Supramental', and, ' Overmind',

very much traceable in the teachings of Aurobindo? Has Aurobindo talked of the

divinization of the body itself, as was the view of saint Vallalar, who has

actually performed this feet, all siddha schools, Tirumular included, being of

the view that emancipation consists only in the dissolution of the body-mind

tatvas into the primary void, which Vallalar calls, ' Arutperunjodhi'. Would

anybody, if they do not consider this question impertinent to this forum, be

kind enough to clarify these aspects ?

with warm regards,

yours ever in Bhaghavan Ramana

Sankarraman

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

November 18, 2005

Dear Ganesan,

I too enjoy Sri Aurobindo's writings. The book `Letters on Yoga: Vol.

1' explains the differences between Aurobindo's views and those of

Shankara and Advaita very clearly in the section `Integral Yoga and

Other Paths.' `The Life Divine' is very excellent but harder to

understand than `Letters on Yoga,' at least to me. The latter book

was Sri Aurobindo's responses to letters written to him by his

students. There are three volumes of `Letters on Yoga,' but the

book `The Integral Yoga' is a skimmed down version containing the

core information from all three. Though if you want all of the detail

and completion like I do, then `Letters on Yoga' has more on the

topics you mentioned. That being said, I'll try to use my limited

understanding to comment on your questions.

Regarding the differing views of Shankara and Aurobindo, I will have

to read further to get a better understanding. But at this point I

can say that Aurobindo didn't accept the theory of maya; He did not

think that this universe is an illusion. To Him, the static and

active Brahman are inseparable.

Overmind and Supermind are levels above mind, further stages in the

evolution of consciousness. To Aurobindo, everything has that Divine

Spark in it. Matter evolves into Life, Life to Mind. Mind is the

present culmination in evolution thus far for most of humanity.

However, Overmind and Supermind are further evolutionary steps, which

I believe Sri Aurobindo probably attained to, although I'm not sure

if he ever stated it.

As far as divinization of the body is concerned, I'm not very

familiar with those other persons or groups that you mentioned. Sri

Aurobindo said that this aspect of his yoga wasn't entirely new.

Instead of the aspirant simply merging his soul into spirit but

neglecting the body and the earth, Aurobindo thought that the divine

should be brought down into the lowest reaches of man's being,

through mind, vital, and physical, all the way down to the

subconscient parts of man's being. He wanted to change the Earth

Consciousness, and bring about a harmony and utopia on earth. He

strongly believed that this will happen, either through the work of

man, or if not, through a violent transformation.

Please excuse me if I have misspoken on any of these topics, but

everything I've written is correct to the best of my understanding.

Once again, `Letters on Yoga' will give you a much better

understanding of Sri Aurobindo's views, and your specific questions.

Regards,

Nathan

November 18, 2005

Namaste Sri Ganesan-ji and Sri Sankarraman-ji,

advaitin, "Nathan Port" <eport924> wrote:

> Overmind and Supermind are levels above mind, further stages

> in the evolution of consciousness. To Aurobindo, everything

> has that Divine Spark in it. Matter evolves into Life, Life

> to Mind. Mind is the present culmination in evolution thus

> far for most of humanity.

I cannot claim to have much familiarity with Sri Aurobindo's

philosophy, but from whatever little I have read I get the impression

that in one respect Aurobindo's philosophy comes closer to the Judeo-

Christian tradition than the tradition of the Vedas. One thing that

strikes me in the lines cited above is the movement of Reality or

Absolute towards a collective redemption of humanity. This conception

which has its seeds in the revelations of St.John (I think) was

reinforced later by the Ecumenical Revolution (if I may call it a

revolution). In Sanatana Dharma there is no concept of collective

redemption, this being more in accord with the Judeo-Christian and

perhaps the Zoroastrian (?) traditions, but there is instead a

cathartic dissolution of the universe at the end of a creation-cycle.

This cathartic dissolution is not a collective redemption of humanity

but the end of a cycle of regression and the birth of a new cycle. In

Vedic philosophies, the concept of evolution is applicable properly

to the individual soul winding its way through various being-

principles to its final 'ascent' to Reality.

> However, Overmind and Supermind are further evolutionary steps,

> which I believe Sri Aurobindo probably attained to, although

> I'm not sure if he ever stated it.

The conception of Overmind and Supermind has strong resonance with

Nietzsche's Oberman - the overcoming of man on his way to becoming

the Superman. I believe that Sri Aurobindo spoke about Nietzsche in

the context of the evolution of mind to Supermind. There are also

other similarities between Sri Aurobindo and Nietzsche, though,

ironically, one was a man of Divinity and the other a rank atheist

and an anti-Christ. But Nietzsche's atheism was a kind of

spirituality, one that wanted to hide the nothingness of spirit under

the glories of the earth once again, one that pined to go back to a

Dyonisian celebration of life. Nietzsche Oberman was at once a child

and a Superman, one who would look a man that hit him on the cheek

and say 'I hit myself!' with a laugh and a lightness of spirit that

indicates that the Oberman had a mind like the Overmind that Sri

Aurobindo desired to bring to earth.

These are some thoughts that ran through my mind when I once read a

bit of Sri Aurobindo's writings. I may be completely wrong. Comments

and corrections are welcome.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

November 18, 2005

Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote: Namaste Sri

Ganesan-ji and Sri Sankarraman-ji,

advaitin, "Nathan Port" <eport924> wrote:

> Overmind and Supermind are levels above mind, further stages

> in the evolution of consciousness. To Aurobindo, everything

> has that Divine Spark in it. Matter evolves into Life, Life

> to Mind. Mind is the present culmination in evolution thus

> far for most of humanity.

I cannot claim to have much familiarity with Sri Aurobindo's

philosophy, but from whatever little I have read I get the impression

that in one respect Aurobindo's philosophy comes closer to the Judeo-

Christian tradition than the tradition of the Vedas. One thing that

strikes me in the lines cited above is the movement of Reality or

Absolute towards a collective redemption of humanity.

Dear sir,

Thank you very much for your well-meaning

clarification of Aurobindo's philosophy. I am of opinion that Aurobindo's

terminology, 'Supramental', this being referred to as, 'Truth Consciousness',

again by him, is perhaps to be equated with a stage of life in which the soul

can directly perceive things without the medium of anthakarana, this being

referred to by Aurobindo as a plastic body. Regarding Overmind, I think that

refers to the planes of the gods. I am not sure of Aurobindo having been

influfenced by the thoughts of German philosopher Frederick Nietche, his

concept of Superman, as you rightly say, deriving from an iconoclastic urge to

transcend the existing discord and pain of life, Nietzche having been

dissatisfied with certain dogmatic thoughts of Christianity. I also understand

from the clarification given by you that Aurobindo's position of collective

redemption, is a novel idea, not having the vedantic base. According to

Vedanta, to

my understanding, realization consists in understanding the sole reality of

one's underlying essence, which manifests itself both as an individual jiva,

and the Iswara who as a creative beat of the absolute brings this illusory

creation, entering into creation, ' upto the nails of fingertips', a phrase

used in Brahdhaharanyaka Upanishad. According to vedanta the thought of

redemption of other indivduals does not seem to be upheld, as individuality

itself is branded as an lllusion, the other entities confronted being

characters of one's own dream. The concept of redemption of other individuals

relates to the concept of Avatar, this being only an empirical position. On

this score, I think, the vedantin cannot accept the charge of Aurobindo against

the Vedantin, that the Advaitic salvation is a selfish one. Further, you have

not dilated upon the mystic concept of Aurobindo as well as saint Vallalar and

the siddha schools, that realization consists in resolving the body

into the primary void, anything short of it constituting potentiality of

rebirth, this definitely having been the position of the Siddhas, Ramalingar's

writing containig this position in a trenchant manner, Ramalingar not admitting

of even saint Thayumanar's position( a siddhantin-cum-vedantin) as final. If

you consider these aspects not relevant you can ignore them.

With warm regards

Sankarraman

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

November 18, 2005

Namaste Sri Sankarraman-ji,

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran>

wrote:

> According to vedanta the thought of redemption of other

> indivduals does not seem to be upheld, as individuality

> itself is branded as an lllusion, the other entities

> confronted being characters of one's own dream. The concept

> of redemption of other individuals relates to the concept

> of Avatar, this being only an empirical position. On this

> score, I think, the vedantin cannot accept the charge of

> Aurobindo against the Vedantin, that the Advaitic salvation

> is a selfish one.

Sri Aurobindo's idea of universal salvation is reflected also in

Mahayana Buddhism which holds that individual salvation is a selfish

idea. I am of the opinion that the doctrine of universal salvation is

an 'upaya' - a way - to rid oneself of being centered in one's ego-

centric world. Be that as it may, Sri Ramana Maharshi was known to

confront the devotee that wanted to help the world by saying: 'He

that has created the world will take care of it, why do you worry

about it' or words to that effect. The sage of Arunalachala turned

all questions back to the question of the Self of the person that

asked the question. Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa used to say that one

cannot help the world, one can only serve the world that the Great

Being has already projected thereby leading to the dissolution of the

ego that sees the world fractured into diverse individuals.

> Further, you have not dilated upon the mystic concept of

> Aurobindo as well as saint Vallalar and the siddha schools,

> that realization consists in resolving the body into the

> primary void, anything short of it constituting potentiality

> of rebirth, this definitely having been the position of the

> Siddhas, Ramalingar's writing containig this position in a

> trenchant manner, Ramalingar not admitting of even saint

> Thayumanar's position( a siddhantin-cum-vedantin) as final.

I find that the mystic concept of Aurobindo and saint Vallalar (and

the siddha schools) is a perfect (mystic) articulation of Advaita in

which the effect is nothing but the material cause itself. In the

seeing of Truth the body sublimates into a shimmer of Light (spanda)

before it is seen to be nothing but Pure Light Itself.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

November 19, 2005

> On this

> > score, I think, the vedantin cannot accept the

> charge of

> > Aurobindo against the Vedantin, that the Advaitic

> salvation

> > is a selfish one.

>

Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa used

> to say that one

> cannot help the world, one can only serve the world

> that the Great

> Being has already projected thereby leading to the

> dissolution of the

> ego that sees the world fractured into diverse

> individuals.

Dear Shankarraman Ji,

Bhagavan Sri Ramamkrishna says that maximum one can do

is the selfless service. By this one gets purity of

mind thruogh which one can attain the heighest

illumination. Swami Vivekananda also said that untill

the last man gets liberation i will be working and

inspiring. But it seems that task is for special ones

whom the Lord has choosen.

I remember one incident. There was person called

Shambu Mallik who had garden house next to

dakshineshwar kali temple. Once he asked ramakrishna

to bless him so that he can do more philonthraphic

work. then Sri Ramakrishna rebukes him saying when the

lord appears before you will you ask for money to

build dispensay and roads ect? So he was very clear he

always told that it is a means to an end not end in

itself.

To attain personal liberation itself seems an

impossible task. and what to speak about salvation of

the world? First we should try to come out of the

individual avidya by realisation and then we can think

about the salvation of mankind etc. Infact he says

ordinary jivas cannot comeback from nirvikalpa samadhi

unless it is the wish of the lord.

HARI OM TAT SAT,

Yours in the Lord,

Br. Vinayaka.

Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

November 19, 2005

br_vinayaka <vinayaka_ns wrote:

> On this

> > score, I think, the vedantin cannot accept the

> charge of

> > Aurobindo against the Vedantin, that the Advaitic

> salvation

> > is a selfish one.

>

Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa used

> to say that one

> cannot help the world, one can only serve the world

> that the Great

> Being has already projected thereby leading to the

> dissolution of the

> ego that sees the world fractured into diverse

> individuals.

Dear Shankarraman Ji,

Bhagavan Sri Ramamkrishna says that maximum one can do

is the selfless service. Dear Vinayakaji,

I sought only clarification regarding

Aurobindo's position, neither accepting nor denying it. It is Aurobindo's

continuous refrain that the function of the individual is to make the

supramental descend, and not be satisfied by merging in the featureless

Absolute, taking into account the reality of the manifest also. Aurobindo

interprets certain abstruse verses in the, 'Isa Upanishad', to substantiate

this viewpoint. These verses are: " Enter into great darkness those who

worship ignorance; enter into greater darkness those who worship knowledge.

Through ignorance one conquers death, obtaining immortality through

knowledge". In the same lines the manifest and the unmanifest are referred to

in this Upanishad. Each teacher is unique in his utterance. It is not as if

Aurobindo did not know of the fact of Iswara alone being the ordainer of

everything. In fact, for the Advaitin there is no individual salvation, there

being no

individuality at all. J.K's foremost utterance is that there is no salvation

as an individual, because we are the product of the collective, the collective

stream manifesting itself in various bodies and brains, those bodies and

instruments though pertaining to someone, that someone is not an individual

apart from some talents, cultural conditioning etc. At the same time, if an

individual realizes that he is not different from the stream, then he enters

into a dimension in which he is being related to the stream through

compassion, this being the Bodhisattva ideal of Mahayana Buddhism, this

perhaps being relatable to the position of Aurobindo. I think that from the

particular utterance of a master we cannot judge something differently stated

by another master, truth being beyond the realm of words. It is like the

Buddhistic concept of Samsara and Nirvana being the same. This has been

wonderfully depicted in the story, ' Siddhartha', by Herman Hesse. This

small book running only to hundred pages contains wealth of ideas being

available online in gutenberg site or some other.

with regards

Sankarraman

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

December 1, 2005

Namaste Sankarramanji

Regarding the following piece of information provided by you can you

please direct me to the exact work of Sri Aurobindo where his

interpretation of Isa Up. ("Enter into great..") can be found. I have

been trying to locate it but cannot find it.

It is Aurobindo's continuous refrain that the function of the

individual is to make the supramental descend, and not be satisfied

by merging in the featureless Absolute, taking into account the

reality of the manifest also. Aurobindo interprets certain abstruse

verses in the, 'Isa Upanishad', to substantiate this viewpoint. These

verses are: " Enter into great darkness those who worship ignorance;

enter into greater darkness those who worship knowledge. Through

ignorance one conquers death, obtaining immortality through

knowledge". In the same lines the manifest and the unmanifest are

referred to in this Upanishad.

rgds

Hersh

December 2, 2005

hersh_b <hershbhasin wrote: Namaste Sankarramanji

Regarding the following piece of information provided by you can you

please direct me to the exact work of Sri Aurobindo where his

interpretation of Isa Up. ("Enter into great..") can be found. I have

been trying to locate it but cannot find it.

It is Aurobindo's continuous refrain that the function of the

individual is to make the supramental descend, and not be satisfied

by merging in the featureless Absolute, taking into account the

reality of the manifest also. Aurobindo interprets certain abstruse

verses in the, 'Isa Upanishad', to substantiate this viewpoint. Dear Mr

Hersh,

You might be aware that the worldview of

Aurobindo is the recognition of the validity of both the world and its

substratum, the Self, unlike that of the advaita, which Aurobindo says gives

emphasis to the side of the reality of the Self only, being concerned with

individual salvation rejecting thereby any reality to the world. This view of

Aurobindo is easily infer able from his magnum opus, 'Life Divine', in spite

of its recondite and rather mystic language. I am not sure whether in Advaita

the world is completely rejected as an error. A very obvious position of

Advaita is only the rejection of the world as a dream haunted reality. But, of

course, the intellectuals are capable of reading much into the philosophy of

Advaita. I do not possess a systematic traditional knowledge of Advaita, as can

be gleaned from the works of Advaita. But, from what has been taught by

Bhaghavan Ramana, and brought out in the works of saint Muruganar, the

foremost disciple of Ramana, reality to the world is unmistakeably denied.

However, Aurobindo holds the views of both the Buddha and Sankara in the same

breath, accusing their philosophies as being partial and not integral, vide the

chapters, ' The cosmic illusion, Reality and the Cosmic illusion', in the work

Life Divine. But, Ramana disowns the ideas of Aurobindo such as the Ascent,

Discent, etc, in reply to the queries of one Madhava Tirtha, well-versed in

Aurobindo philosophy, but attracted to Bhaghavan Ramana also, which I think has

been referred to by David Godman in his work, " The Power of the Prescence".

Apropos, the commentary on the two verses in the, 'Isa Upanishad', quoted by me

and referred to by you, you might find it in the commentary on the Upanishads,

which I could not find it in the Internet for on line study. But, you must be

able to find it in a good library like the ones made available by Sri

Ramakrishna Mutt. I read the works of Aurobindo long

back, being no longer interested in them, and quoting them from only my

memories. But, you can seek the advise of the scholarly people in this forum. I

am not much of a scholar. If there are any errors in my rendition of

Aurobindo's philosophy, I may be excused, as I am not up to date in my

knowledge, having gathered some little crumbs from here and there.

Yours truly,

Sankarraman

Personals

Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.

Lots of someones, actually. Try Personals

December 2, 2005

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran>

wrote:

>

> hersh_b <hershbhasin@g...> wrote: Namaste Sankarramanji

>

> Regarding the following piece of information provided by you can

you

> please direct me to the exact work of Sri Aurobindo where his

> interpretation of Isa Up. ("Enter into great..") can be found. I

have

> been trying to locate it but cannot find it.

>

> However, Aurobindo holds the views of both the Buddha and Sankara

in the same breath, accusing their philosophies as being partial

and not integral, vide the chapters, ' The cosmic illusion, Reality

and the Cosmic illusion', in the work Life Divine. But, Ramana

disowns the ideas of Aurobindo such as the Ascent, Discent, etc, in

reply to the queries of one Madhava Tirtha, well-versed in

Aurobindo philosophy, but attracted to Bhaghavan Ramana also, which

I think has been referred to by David Godman in his work, " The

Power of the Prescence".

Namaste,

This reminiscence of Balaram Reddy highlights the

difference:

http://www.ramana-maharshi.org/publish/newsletters.htm

May/June 1995 Vol. 5 - No. 3

THE RECOLLECTIONS OF N. BALARAM REDDY - PART II

"......not too long after settling near Sri Ramanasramam, I

approached Bhagavan when no one was in the hall and showed him that

last letter I had received from Aurobindo. Bhagavan asked me to give

it to him to read. I told him he would be unable to decipher

Aurobindo's handwriting, as it was very illegible and only those who

have studied it for sometime could read it. He said, "Give it to me.

Let me try."

After looking into it and realizing he could only make out a few

words, he returned it and asked me to read it out. I began reading

it and when I came to the sentence, "Since you are determined to

follow a path in which you can achieve only partial realization...",

Bhagavan stopped me and said, "Partial realization? If it is

partial, it is not realization, and if it is realization, it is not

partial."

This was the final blow that silenced all my doubts. I then

destroyed this letter, like all the rest. And because of all the

discussions I had had with Bhagavan I soon felt perfectly

established in his teachings, having a clear understanding of where

the Maharshi's path and Aurobindo's path diverged and went different

ways. When all the clouds of doubts and distractions dispersed, so

did our discussions. Bhagavan then knew that I understood and the

foundation work had been done. The purpose of all our discussions

were served and so they stopped automatically."......

For further details of this:

http://www.ramana-maharshi.org/publish/newsletters.htm

May/June 1995 Vol. 5 - No. 3

Dilip Kumar Roy's testimony is also available in the

archives.

Regards,

Sunder

December 2, 2005

Namaste Sankarraman Ji

You said in your post

at :advaitin/message/28812:

It is Aurobindo's continuous refrain that the function of the

individual is to make the supramental descend, and not be satisfied

by merging in the featureless Absolute, taking into account the

reality of the manifest also. Aurobindo interprets certain abstruse

verses in the, 'Isa Upanishad', to substantiate this viewpoint. These

verses are: " Enter into great darkness those who worship ignorance;

enter into greater darkness those who worship knowledge. Through

ignorance one conquers death, obtaining immortality through

knowledge". In the same lines the manifest and the unmanifest are

referred to in this Upanishad. Each teacher is unique in his

utterance. It is not as if Aurobindo did not know of the fact of

Iswara alone being the ordainer of everything. In fact, for the

Advaitin there is no individual salvation, there being

noindividuality at all.

I apologize for revisiting your post of Nov 19 after such a long gap.

My excuse is that I wanted time to research the matter of your post,

namely that Sri Aurobindo interpreted a verse of Isa Up. to

substantiate /justify an element of his integral yoga dealing with

supramental descend. I have not been able to find any such

reference in Sri Aurobindo's commentary on Isa (which I provide below

with link references) . You were unable to provide a source to

substantiate your assertion which makes it difficult to verify the

accuracy of your statement.

The verse referred to by you as supporting Sri Aurobindo's theory of

supramental descent (i.e. #9 & #12) is as follows:

#9

andham tamah pravishanti ye avidyam upasate,

tato bhuya iva te tamo ya u vidyayan ratah.

Trans:

Into a blind darkness they enter who follow after the

Ignorance,

they as if into a greater darkness enter who devote

themselves to the Knowledge alone.

#12

andham tamah pravishanti ye asambhuutim upasate,

tato bhuya eva te tamo ya u sambhutyam ratah.

Trans:

Into a blind darkness they enter who follow after the Non-

Birth (unmanifest),

they as if into a greater darkness who devote themselves to

the Birth (manifest) alone.

Swami Chinmayananda's Interpretation of #9 and #12

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

verse #9 talks of knowledge (vidyayan) and Ignorance (avidyam).

Swami Chinmayananda observes that Gita seems to have sprung directly

from the spirit of this Upanishad and this Upanishad attempts to

reconcile the path of knowledge and the path of action. As per Swami

Chinmayananda Vidya is the path of knowledge (resulting from

Renunciation) which is stated in the second line of the first verse

of the Upanishad (..ma grdhah kasya sviddhanam):

Isa #1

ishavaasyam idam sarvam yat kincha jagatyam jagat;

tena tyaktena bhunjitha ma grdhah kasya sviddhanam.

Trans:

All this is for habitation by the Lord, whatsoever is

individual universe of movement in the universal motion.

By that renounced thou shouldst enjoy, lust not after any

man's possession.

As per Swami Chinmayananda Avidtya is the path of ritualistic karma

and the path of action which is set out in the second verse of the

Upanishad as follows:

Isa #2

kurvanneveha karmani jijivishet shatam samah;

evam tvayi na anyatheto asti na karma lipyate nare.

Trans:

Doing verily, works in this world one should wish to live a

hundred years.

Thus it is in thee and not otherwise than this; action

cleaves not to a man.

Isa Upanishad advocates a synthesis of action and inaction (action in

inaction) in verse 11 as follows.

Isa #11

vidyam cha avidyam yastad vedobhayan saha,

avidyaya mrthyum tirtva vidyayamrtamashnute.

He who knows That as both in one, the Knowledge and the

Ignorance,

by the Ignorance crosses beyond death and by the Knowledge

enjoys Immortality.

Swami Chinmayananda explains the Unmanifest and Manifest in Verse #12

to be the Impersonal and the Personal God respectively or Jnana and

Bhakti. Just as there is no conflict between action and inaction

(verse 9), there is no conflict between Jnana and Bhakti is what this

verse (#12) conveys.

Sri Aurobindo's commentary on Isa Verses 9-12:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sri Aurobindo's commentary on Isa is available at:

http://www.odinring.de/eng/isha.htm

http://www.vedah.com/org/literature/upanishads/transIsha.asp

http://www.vedah.com/org/literature/upanishads/princIsha.asp

Auro on #9-11

Vidya , Aurobindo says is the awareness of the Unity of things the

Oneness of all. Avidya is consciousness of multiplicity. Compare

this with Swami Chinmayananda's interpretation of Avidya as Karmayog

and Vidya as JnanYog. The two interpretations do match as Jnana is

indeed the realization of Unity.

<quote>

Knowledge, vidya Sri Aurobindo explains, is the

consciousness, the effective awareness of the Unity of things the

Oneness of all. Ignorance, avidya is the consciousness of

multiplicity. Those who are aware of only the multiplicity of forms

and not their reconciling oneness and live in line with that

understanding are closed to the light of true knowledge and sink into

obscurity. But those who look only at the Unity of' things, the sheer

oneness alone, denying the fact of the Many, withdraw themselves

gradually from the scene of life-activity and merge into a state of

non-being, a state of consciousness where everything is, as if, iva,

a, blank of still greater darkness. [This sense of iva in verse 9

seems to be left out in the commentary of Shankara; there it is

explained as eva, verily. The point is that this state attained by

the pursuit of sheer unity alone is so void, that its emptiness

resembles—though, be it noted, it is not the same—in its benumbing

blankness, the darkness of Ignorance raised to a degree]

"Those who are devoted entirely to the principle of

indiscriminate Unity and seek to put away from them the integrality

of the Brahman, also put away from them knowledge and completeness

and enter as if into a greater darkness. They enter into some special

state and accept it for the whole, mistaking exclusion in

consciousness for transcendence in consciousness. They ignore by

choice of knowledge, as the others are ignorant by compulsion of

error. Knowing all to transcend all is the right path of Vidya.

Although a higher state than the other, this supreme Night is termed

a greater darkness, because the lower is one of chaos from which

reconstitution is always possible, the higher is a conception of Void

or Asat, an attachment to non-existence of Self from which it is more

difficult to return to fulfillment of Self".

But rightly pursued and realized, the results of Knowledge

and Ignorance, says the Upanishad, are different. They are both

related to each other. Multiplicity is supported and sustained by the

underlying Unity and Unity is realized in its full potential, only

vis-a-vis the multiplicity. The Many, the manifestation in diversity

provides the field for the soul to live and row in the experience of

a multitudinous becoming—in all its richness—and arrive progressively

at a point where the impact of multiplicity begins to be informed and

regulated by the consciousness of the governing Unity—Vidya. When one

realizes this Knowledge, not only in the mind but in other parts of

the being, specially related to life-activity, the knot of Ignorance,

the sense of separativity is lost and the range of one's conscious-

ness begins to transcend the barriers of the normal human existence—

physical and other,—in a word, it partakes of immortality. This is

the truth seen by the ancients, the dhiras who saw 'steadfast in the

gaze of their thought' and revealed widely, comprehensively, to the

seers of the Upanishad, vichachakshire.

So also, birth and non-birth, acceptance of manifestation and

withdrawal from manifestation, are truths which yield their full

value only when taken together and lead to disastrous results if

followed exclusively.

Auro on #12: Being and non Being (or manifest and unmanifest or

Birth and Non-Birth)

Swami Chinmayananda interprets the manifest and unmanifest of #12 as

Bhakti (or Personal God) and Jnana (or Impersonal God) and says that

they are both complementry to each other but must be performed in

sequence. By Action one gets out of Tamas to Rajas (enthusiasm) than

by by purification of mind one gets to Jnana. Here is what Aurobindo

says:

<quote>

Sambhuti and Asambhuti, Birth and Non-Birth, Sri Aurobindo

clarifies, are not so much conditions of the body as states of the

soul. One who chooses the state of Non-Birth rejects Birth and the

line of manifestation and prepares himself to withdraw into a non-

being, goes to a Nihil, a Void where all is blank. But he who is

content to remain in the Birth alone, in the field of multiplicity

and movement, without realizing the saving truth of freedom and

transcendence from Birth, goes under in an abysm of darkness. Both

Birth and Non-Birth are facts of Existence, and both are to be

integrated in oneself.

The lynch-pin that holds together the continually changing

movements and experiences in the normal life of the individual is the

ego-sense. When that is dissolved the main prop of the life in

ignorance is destroyed, vinasha.

It does not mean the, end of the body; the physical frame can

very well continue after the death of the ego. The seeker breaks the

bonds imposed by the self-limiting ego, the subjection to incapacity,

limitation and desire which are the agents of death. And once he

realizes this freedom, the seeker after the integral truth of

manifestation accepts the Birth: the soul chooses to participate in

the general manifestation in order to more fully enjoy its freedom.

As Sri Aurobindo says, "it is enjoyed by a free and divine becoming

in the universe and not outside the universe; for there it is always

possessed, but here in the material it is to be worked out and

enjoyed by the divine Inhabitant under circumstances that are in

appearance the most opposite to its terms, in the of life the

individual and in the multiple life of the universe."

Thus "Through Avidya. the Multiplicity, lies our path out of

the transitional egoistic self-expression in which death and

suffering predominate; through Vidya consenting with Avidya by the

perfect sense of oneness even in that multiplicity, we enjoy

integrally the immortality and the beatitude. By attaining to the

Unborn beyond all becoming we are liberated from this lower birth and

death; by accepting the Becoming freely as the Divine, we invade

mortality with the immortal beatitude and become luminous centres of

its conscious self-expression in humanity." [sri Aurobindo, The Life

Divine, Vol. 1, ch. V].

rgds

Hersh

December 2, 2005

advaitin, "hersh_b" <hershbhasin@g...> wrote:

>

> Namaste Sankarraman Ji

>

> You said in your post

> at :advaitin/message/28812:

> <snippet>

>

> It is Aurobindo's continuous refrain that the function of the

> individual is to make the supramental descend, and not be

satisfied

> by merging in the featureless Absolute, taking into account the

> reality of the manifest also. Aurobindo interprets certain

abstruse

> verses in the, 'Isa Upanishad', to substantiate this viewpoint.

These

> verses are: " Enter into great darkness those who worship

ignorance;

> enter into greater darkness those who worship knowledge. Through

> ignorance one conquers death, obtaining immortality through

> knowledge".

Namaste

Different interpretations of the above verse are talked about in a

kind of synthesis in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishopanishad

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

December 2, 2005

Namaste Sunderji.

Your quote is extremely pertinent to our current situation.

May I request Shri Sankarramanji and others to kindly desist from

quoting Aurobindo or for that matter any others unless they are able

to propose a reconciliation between the quoted thought and advaita

and unless a live topic of discussion demands the quote. Of late,

there have been too many random quotes on the List from various

sources, which, in my opinion, can only confound aspiring sAdhakAs.

Hence, this humble request.

Aurobindo's terminology, particularly, with all its supras and

infras, sounds very alien to advaita and cannot be of any benefit to

us unless a systematic reconciliation is attempted.

While saying this, I fully appreciate and admire the urge and

enthusiasm of the quoters in presenting different view points.

Nevertheless, we need to guard against over-crowding our minds with

words not easily digestible. Unwarranted quotes can only mislead and

produce avoidable ennui.

PraNAms to all.

Madathil Nair

______________________

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

quoted from THE RECOLLECTIONS OF N. BALARAM REDDY - PART II:

> "......not too long after settling near Sri Ramanasramam, I

> approached Bhagavan when no one was in the hall and showed him that

> last letter I had received from Aurobindo. ...

.....I began reading

> it and when I came to the sentence, "Since you are determined to

> follow a path in which you can achieve only partial

realization...",

> Bhagavan stopped me and said, "Partial realization? If it is

> partial, it is not realization, and if it is realization, it is not

> partial."

> This was the final blow that silenced all my doubts. I then

> destroyed this letter, like all the rest. And because of all the

> discussions I had had with Bhagavan I soon felt perfectly

> established in his teachings, having a clear understanding of where

> the Maharshi's path and Aurobindo's path diverged and went

different

> ways. When all the clouds of doubts and distractions dispersed, so

> did our discussions. Bhagavan then knew that I understood and the

> foundation work had been done. The purpose of all our discussions

> were served and so they stopped automatically."......

December 2, 2005

hersh_b <hershbhasin wrote: