Aurobino's religious thoughts

[Guest guest]

>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.

 

 

Namaste NairJi

 

 

I am afraid that I find myself disagreeing with you about the

importance of Aurobindo work both as a thinker and as a great Indian

Nationalist. His genius has been recognized by all eminent thinkers

of India and the world (among them Romain Rolland and Tagore -see :

http://www.savitribysriaurobindo.com/tributes1.htm).

 

There is a current thread in progress discussing the importance

of "safeguarding" India's History from western interpretations.

Aurobindo attempted to do exactly that. His interpretations of the

Upanishads was an attempt to do that at the time when these so called

Indologists were holding sway. Please do not forget that he was an

important national leader. This is what Rolland (who was his

contemporary) writes in "The Prophets of the New India".

 

" At the time I am considering, he was the voice of Vivakananda

risen from the pyre. He has the same conception of the identity of

Indian's national ideal and her spiritual mission and the same

universal hope. Nothing was farther from his thoughts than a gross

nationalism, whose aim was the purely political supremacy of his

people confined within a proud and narrow "parochial life". His

nation was to be a servant of humanity; and the first duty of the

nation was to work for the unity of humanity- not by force of arms

but by the force of the spirit. And the very essence of this force is

spirituality in the form of energy called religion,- but in as

widely different a sense as possible from all confession in the

profound self and its reserves of eternity, the Atman. No nation has

had such age-long knowledge and free access to it as India. Her real

mission then should be to lead the rest of humanity to it".

 

again he says:

 

"Here comes Aurobindo, the completest synthesis that has been

realized to this day of the genius of Asia and the genius of

Europe....in his hand, in firm unrelaxed grip, the bow of creative

energy."

 

 

There are two parts of Aurobindos work (to my mind). The first is his

work on the Gita which is reflected in his "Essays on the Gita".

There is no "supras and infras" as you put it here. This is a

brilliant work and I cannot even attempt to express how wonderful the

work is in understanding the Gita. His essays on Equality, Work,

Action in Inaction etc puts one right in the spirit of Gita.

 

The second part of his work is his personal philosophy as put out

in "The Life Divine". This has the "supras and infras".

 

Aurobindo along with Vivakananda are important interpreters of own

culture and I feel that the importance of their work can not be

discounted at any time.

 

Warm regards

Hersh

[Guest guest]

*Aurbindo is an important figure in spiritual Indian literature and his

works reflect depth as a thinker and other eminent thinkers recognize

him. For attaining Self-Realization, it is the attachment to thinking

itself where the difficulty lies. Ascent and descent of forces, etc.,

while important from a relative perspective are experiences like

anything else and therefore unreal. **The Heart, the Self, does not

admit of any such experiences at all.**

 

Hershji or someone quoted Aurbindo as saying,

 

"**The psychic is realized as the pursha behind the heart. It is not

universalized like the Jivatman, but is the individual soul supporting

from its place behind the heart-center the mental, vital, physical,

psychic evolution of the being in Nature. Its realisation brings bhakti,

self-giving, surrender, turning of all the movements (Godward,

discrimination and choice of all that belongs to the Divine Truth, Good,

Beauty, rejection of all that is false, evil, ugly, discordant, union

through love and sympathy with all existence, openness to the Truth of

the Self and the Divine."

 

It does not seem like Sri Aurbindo knows what he is talking about when

it comes to the Heart at all. He appears to be mixing up the heart

center of Kundalini Yoga with the Spiritual Heart that scriptures refer

to as Hridaya Gufa or "cave of the Heart".

 

The Heart Sri Ramana refers to cannot be the same as the heart-center of

Aurbindo. If Shakti enters the Heart, it becomes the Heart, and the Self

rests in its own nature of pure wholeness and consciousness. There can

absolutely be no question of Ascent or Descent of Supramental forces at

this point. That is all preliminary experience. That which is One

without a second, does not seek anything, there being nothing else for

it to seek. These Ascents and descents are movement of Shakti and the

vital forces and because of it many super conscious experiences and

things are possible. But Sri Ramana will say, "So What?" It is all

consumption of experience. It all boils down to the innate hunger for

experience, whether the experiences are mundane or supernatural is

immaterial. The desire for experience is vasana, that is karma, and that

is OK. Sri Ramana's teaching is to look at source of all this and ask

"who am I" that wants this ascent or descent of supramental forces to

come down, etc. So self-inquiry is the root method. It simply involves

being aware of the inherent quality of self- existence, self awareness,

which announces itself continuously to itself through its own presence.

The Self, that Ramana referred to is complete and whole. All forces and

perceptions, all experiences are fully resolved in it. The Pure Being is

the Heart. One's own Heart is the Pure Being.

 

Harsha

 

*

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nathan Port wrote:

> If I understand correctly, the Supramental is not only

> something that is to be brought down into the lowest levels of man's

> being, but is also something which doesn't necessarily come with

> enlightenment, but requires further effort. So Sri Ramana could mean

> by realization Self-Realization or Nirvana, while Sri Aurobindo uses

> the words "full realization"to mean Self-Realization plus the

> attainment of Supermind,

 

 

Self-Realization implies Wholeness. No other attainment can add to it.

What is meant by Self-Realization? Self knowing itself, by Itself,

through itself. Sat-Chit-Ananda, Nityam, Poornum. Nityam means Eternal.

Poornum means Whole and Complete. What is added to the Whole will not

make it any more Whole. The notion of "Self-Realization plus something"

implies that attachment to experience (of supramental, etc.) can

continue after Self-Knowledge and therefore further effort will be made

to attain higher stages. Scriptures say that "Knowing That, nothing else

remains to be known." All these things have deep meaning. The ancient

sages spoke from direct experience of the highest reality that

transcends all supramental states.

 

Harsha

 

 

 

>

> ------

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Hershji and Nathanji.

 

I didn't ask anyone to dismiss Aurobindo or ignore his contributions

to the world as an acclaimed spiritual leader.

 

My request was to desist from quoting him or others, however great

they may be, without relating or reconciling their words to Advaita.

 

To illustrate my point, please permit me to quote from Nathanji's

post:

 

Nathanji wrote:

> One post had a link to an excerpt from a talk with Sri Ramana, in

> which Sri Ramana comments upon a letter written by Sri Aurobindo.

> The letter talked about a "partial realization," which Sri Ramana

> says is impossible. Maybe their ideas of a full realization are

> different. Sri Aurobindo said that the attainment of Nirvana is

just

> the beginning of his Yoga. The latter part being the descent of the

> Supramental. If I understand correctly, the Supramental is not only

> something that is to be brought down into the lowest levels of

man's

> being, but is also something which doesn't necessarily come with

> enlightenment, but requires further effort. So Sri Ramana could

mean

> by realization Self-Realization or Nirvana, while Sri Aurobindo

uses

> the words "full realization"to mean Self-Realization plus the

> attainment of Supermind, the descent of the Supramental, and the

> Unification of both Being and Non-Being, Phenomenon and Nomenon,

> etc. After all, emptiness is form, form is emptiness, etc.

 

[Advaita has only Self-Relaization, as I understand. There is

nothing extra to it. It is Fullness. We cannot connote an extra to

Fullness. Please tell me then what is meant by "plus the attainment

of Supermind, the descent of the Supramental ...." etc. There is no

plus or minus in Advaitic Truth. Unless the quoter explains

relevance of such statements to Advaita, confusion will be the only

result. We are here for clarification.]

 

 

Again, Nathanji wrote:

>

> The post referring to the Isa Upanashad and the interpretation by

> Sri Aurobindo has some thought-provoking material in it. Is a dark

> Void what some of us are after, or going towards by our negations?

> One thing I've found confusing is that Advaita is supposed to be

> about Oneness, but instead of accepting everything as One, negates

> everything until there is only One left. Isn't "And this, and

this,"

> more appropriate than "Not this, not this?"

 

[is it Max Muller who translated "neti, neti" as "Not this, "not

this"? In our current context, I am sure no one would be surprised

by this question. Well, mAyA has been translated as illusion and most

of us understand it as such and mouth it ad nauseum. So, why

not "Not this, not this" - that is the pedestrian excuse. Nathanji,

I am afraid, you have not understood Advaita. If Aurobindo had

maintained that "neti, neti" is an absolute negation in search of a

dark void, then I am afraid neither had he understood Advaita. I am

sorry to say this. Please read Sw. Dayanandaji's "purNamadah,

pUrNamidam" interpretation in our file section, which Shri Krishna

Prasadji quoted here very pertinently yesterday, and see for yourself

if Advaita advocates an absolute negation in search of the dark void.]

 

[May I repeat Hershji and Nathanji, I have nothing against Aurobindo,

Sartre, Neitsche, Kirkegard (sp?) or even Karl Marx. You are welcome

to quote them as much as you want. But, when you quote, kindly

relate your quote intelligibly to advaita for the benefit of all

readers. The two paras quoted above have only served to add to the

confusion instead of providing clarification.]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

amaste Harshaji and NairJi

 

Harshaji regarding your comment:

>It does not seem like Sri Aurbindo knows what he is talking about

>when it comes to the Heart at all. He appears to be mixing up the

>heart center of Kundalini Yoga with the Spiritual Heart that

>scriptures refer to as Hridaya Gufa or "cave of the Heart

 

 

I am not qualified to really discuss Aurobindo's philosophy but I do

not think that it is fair to draw conclusions about Aurobindo's

philosophy by just considering one paragraph in isolation. Auro's

terminology is of his own coinage and what you are taking to be the

heart (psychic) might not be what he means at all!!. Like I said I am

not an expert on his philosophy.

 

My point is that we as Indians are breathing our freedom through

actions of leaders like Tilak, Gandhi and Auro. Each one of these

leaders interpretation of Gita and other scriptures is unique and

cannot be said to follow that of Shankra. The Karam Yoga of a Tilak

or Auro does not reflect Shankaras emphasis on Jnana. But these

leaders are the living embodiments of the path of Gita. While we as

intellectuals sitting on our high ivory towers are discussing the

plights befalling our nation as in the recent threads , these leaders

actually went to prisons and suffered great hardships to correct the

wrongs that we are only talking about.They are the living Karam Yogis

of life. Surely they must have felt some great aspiration, held some

noble ideals, felt some great and noble sentiment in their hearts. Is

not religion really a "feeling". Vivakananda says "how do you know a

Buddha or a Christ was right- because you feel some stirring of a

similar sentiment in your heart etc". We know that these leaders were

not hypocrites - they must have seen a light- towards which they

moved. They lived what they believed. Now why are we discussing

scriptures in this group. Is it not to find some model, some ideal by

which we can guide our lives. Whose words are we going to trust? How

will we believe that the words of the scriptures are true. By looking

up to such great men who have had the courage to live out the life of

the great ideal laid out in the scriptures. Men like AURO,

Vivakananda, Gandhi and Tilak. Now even if their thinking is

completely wrong - wrong from top to bottom. Even then it is just the

model that is wrong. A model of the scripture, one that they believed

in is incorrect. It is just a model. Their life, their sentiments by

which they constructed the model, their FEELINGS are not wrong.

Midgets like us do not even have a surface right to dismiss, demolish

what they held to be true. We have to be a Vivakananda or Shankra or

a Ramana to say that Auro was wrong.

 

NairJi regarding your comment:

>My request was to desist from quoting him or others, however great

>they may be, without relating or reconciling their words to Advaita.

 

My post was seeking clarification on a verse of Isa Upanishad and I

was not quoting Auro in vain. I believe that my question and post was

well within the scope of this group. The discussion was on Isa

Upanishad on which Shankra has written his famous commentary. We have

discussed Kant, Spinoza, Berkley who do not have the faintest

connection to Advaita. Here we are discussing a most important and

highly relevant verse from our scriptures. As a moderator please

clarify your objection.

 

Warm regards

 

Hersh

[Guest guest]

Namaste Hershji.

 

Oh God, what in the world made you think that I was referring to you

in particular!

 

I fully appreciate your eagerness about that Isavasyopanishad verse.

To confess frankly, I am yet to find an explanation to it that

satisfies my understanding although I have read several teachers on

it. Needless to say, Aurobindo has only added to my confusion. I

thought that matter was closed with Prof. Krishnamurthyji's reference

to one of his links.

 

I would also like to add that I have several verses from the Bhagwad

GItA itself for which I am still hunting for satisfactory

explanation. Then, what to speak of the other Upanishads?

 

May I repeat again that my remarks relate only to random repeat

random quotes appearing on this List. I have seen that Members have

quoted Aurobindo and others just for the sake of quoting without any

definite purpose or objective. If one is seriously exploring in

order to expand one's understanding of Advaita by sharing with and

seeking from the Group and asking pertinent questions, why should

anybody object? My observation would apply to Kant, Spinoza et al if

the quotes are without relevance to Advaita.

 

I have written my post more as a sharing Member than Moderator.

 

Hope this lays your doubt to rest.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

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

> My post was seeking clarification on a verse of Isa Upanishad and I

> was not quoting Auro in vain. I believe that my question and post

was

> well within the scope of this group. The discussion was on Isa

> Upanishad on which Shankra has written his famous commentary. We

have

> discussed Kant, Spinoza, Berkley who do not have the faintest

> connection to Advaita. Here we are discussing a most important and

> highly relevant verse from our scriptures. As a moderator please

> clarify your objection.

[Guest guest]

hersh_b wrote:

> amaste Harshaji and NairJi

>

> Midgets like us do not even have a surface right to dismiss, demolish

> what they held to be true. We have to be a Vivakananda or Shankra or

> a Ramana to say that Auro was wrong.

>

Dear Hershji,

 

My point was that what Aurbindo was saying did not appear to be in line

in any way with Self-Realization as described in Advaita Vedanta. Sri

Ramana, in his own way, has said the same thing.

 

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Hershji,

 

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

> My post was seeking clarification on a verse of Isa Upanishad

> and I was not quoting Auro in vain. I believe that my question

> and post was well within the scope of this group. The discussion

> was on Isa Upanishad on which Shankra has written his famous

> commentary. We have discussed Kant, Spinoza, Berkley who do

> not have the faintest connection to Advaita. Here we are

> discussing a most important and highly relevant verse from

> our scriptures.

 

 

Kant, Spinoza and Berkeley indeed have faint connections to Advaita.

Kant's apriori 'forms', which lie within conciousness as the

conditions for the possibility of experience, is very akin to the

sakshi-pramana of Advaita. Spinoza's mind-body unity is almost the

same as that of Advaita. As regards, Berkeley, well, he said the

world doesn't exist, didn't he? But I agree with you that these

connections are more faint than the connection Aurobindo has with

Advaita. But the point Nairji was making was different I think. The

poster of the post must bring out the connection and show how it

stands in relation to Advaita. As this list is dedicated to

understanding Shankara Advaita, it wouldn't be in keeping with the

aims of the group if we were to say something that implies

Aurobindo's philosophy to be negating Advaita through concepts

(claiming to be superior) like ascension, descension, supramental

forces and such other things that are said to remain as residues

after the sadhaka of Advaita realises the Self. Such statements add

confusion in the minds of those that are trying to understand Advaita

if they are not properly clarified.

 

There is not the least doubt that Aurobindo was both a great

philosopher and a patriot, but it has to be said that he

misunderstood Advaita. By saying this, we are not belittling

Aurobindo, for we are taking into cognisance that even the great

acharyas of the other scools have misunderstood Shankara Advaita. We

are here only trying to let the light of the greatest of all

philosophers, Adi Shankara, to shine in our hearts.

 

The path revealed by Shankara is the path of knowledge. The path that

Aurobindo talks about is the path of yoga. The path of knowledge does

not involve the least bit of work. Truth is. When the eye is open the

Truth is seen. The 'opening of the eye' is not an action - it is the

same Maya that makes the eye seem to be closed that makes it seem to

be an action - and therefore in the Light of Knowledge the Realised

One knows that there is no such thing as bondage and no one seeking

moksha. The Self realised in Advaita is not the Self known in

nirvikalpa samadhi. If it were, we would all be realising the Self

every night in deep sleep because the latent cause of deep sleep lies

even in nirvikalpa samadhi. It is the confusion caused by the

equation of nirvikalpa samadhi to Self-Realisation that has resulted

in not only Aurobindo, but also many other great philosophers,

belittling the notion of Self-Realisation in Advaita. The realised

Self in Advaita is stitha prajna because the latent sleep that

creates the notion of limitation and impels one to action to mitigate

the deep privation given by the avidya of sleep, is not there. For it

is the illusion of sleep that makes one see the Self as limited to

the body, to the windows of time and space, and to the scarcity of

bliss that the Self enjoys. The stitha prajna sees all as Knowledge.

And this Knowledge is Brahman, which is so profound and infinitely

incomprehensible to the mind that many who try to conceive of it

ascribe their inability of conception to Advaita. There is no

negation in Self-Realisation, for the entire universe abides in this

Brahman that is nirvisesha, in which forms are not the sesha of

Brahman but rest in abidance in the Pure Intelligence of Brahman.

Forms, in Truth, are formless, as it were. This is the mystery of

Maya that it is same as Brahman, something that Sri Ramana Maharshi

speaks about often. Aurobindo seems to have missed out this great and

profound aspect of Advaita.

 

One who wants to know the taste of a mango must taste it. Tasting is

an action, and the path to Brahman by tasting mangoes is the path

of 'experience'. It is the path of yoga - of the union with the taste

of mangoes. Advaita is not a path of experience. It is the path of

knowledge. In Advaita, one does not taste the mango to know the taste

of mango; one knows the Self to know the taste of mango. Mangoes and

the taste of mangoes are eternally in the Self. The path of

experience is the path of yoga. Aurobindo's philosophy is a

philosophy of yoga. In yoga, one has to achieve union with the Self.

The separation of self with Self in Advaita is false. In Yoga, there

is said to be a separation, and hence there must be union.

Aurobindo's philosophy speaks about this union, and his philosophy

has resonances with Kundalini Yoga, where the Self is said to have

come down to reside in a lower plane of consciousness (muladhara

chakra), and Yoga is the ascension of the Self back to the highest

plane of Consciousness. The sadhaka practices not only how to ascend

but also how to descend. Knowing how to descend is to know 'avidya';

it is to know the ignorance that the Isa Upanishad talks about. And

ascencion is vidya, the knowing of knowledge that the Isa Upanishad

talks about. Both this vidya and avidya that are to be known are

constituted in the Light of Brahman that the stitha prajna of Advaita

Knows. That Light is purnam. Shankara's commentary has to be seen in

this light.

 

What about the supramental descension to help humanity? In the

revelation of Advaita, the Self of the sadhaka is revealed to be

Brahman. Brahman is creating, sustaining and dissolving this universe

through His Will. Can the Self-Realised One, who is none other than

Brahman, have another discordant Will 'within' Brahman Itself? I

think the question answers itself. Who is to fight with Brahman to

save humanity from the things that Brahman Himself is giving to it?

 

The concept of supramental descent is similar to the concept of the

Son in the Christian Trinity. God, the Father, creates this world

through the word that is in Him, and there is the fall. Christ, the

Son, is the Spirit that descends into the fallen world, and as the

Holy Ghost, lifts them back to the Father.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji.

 

Thank you very much for the very helpful clarification on Auro and

others.

 

By the way, the following para from your mail triggered a thought:

___________________

> What about the supramental descension to help humanity? In the

> revelation of Advaita, the Self of the sadhaka is revealed to be

> Brahman. Brahman is creating, sustaining and dissolving this universe

> through His Will. Can the Self-Realised One, who is none other than

> Brahman, have another discordant Will 'within' Brahman Itself? I

> think the question answers itself. Who is to fight with Brahman to

> save humanity from the things that Brahman Himself is giving to it?

>

>______________________

 

Let us take the current scenario of Indian (I don't want to call it

Hindu in order not to sound exclusive.) decadence about which one of

your recent posts has produced a rather vociferous debate. From the

point of view of advaita, this scenario has its origin in Brahman and

Brahman pervades it through and through. Does an Advaitin (I mean a

Self-Realized One) have to really 'descend' and play a role to mitigate

the situation (dharma samstApana)? If he does, is he then displaying a

discordant will 'within' Brahman Itself?

 

This question was foremost in my mind when I read the several posts on

the issue and it deterred me from taking an active plunge into the

debate although I was very much resonating with your, Dr. Yaduji's and

other Members' feelings.

 

My explanation would be that a Realized one can get down to the

required role-playing through non-binding action (karmayoga) and that

he would not be bothered about the result produced by his role-playing

although he might have one - legitimate to his Dharma - in sight. Non-

binding action is not a retort of will within the Will. It will be the

Will and the Self-Realized understands this fully well through his

attitude of total surrender where he knows that even a hair of his

cannot move without that Will. This could be the only reason why

Shankara got down to finishing his mission of dharmasamstApana when the

decay of his times called for it.

 

Am I right? Your explanation, I am sure, would impart a very

purposeful momentum to the current indigation boiling in our veins and

define the role of an Advaitin vis-a-vis the Indian imbroglio.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear harshji,

 

I appreciate your comments on the group. I also want to know one thing .I

think realization of "aham brahmasmi" is the goal of ADVATIA as was taught by

ramana and shankara and sadashivabrahmendra swami . This is euqivalent to saying

that there are no dimensionas to this world. If this were true where comes the

question of descent as pointed by AURO?doesn't it give a hint of dwaita ?

Some of the people said ARUO's yoga="self realization"+"supermind".

Many said ADWAITA is about self realization but i felt it is about experiensing

AHAMBRAHMASMI.(thouh nobody remains to experience)

 

hersh_b <hershbhasin wrote: amaste Harshaji and NairJi

 

Harshaji regarding your comment:

>It does not seem like Sri Aurbindo knows what he is talking about

>when it comes to the Heart at all. He appears to be mixing up the

>heart center of Kundalini Yoga with the Spiritual Heart that

>scriptures refer to as Hridaya Gufa or "cave of the Heart

 

 

I am not qualified to really discuss Aurobindo's philosophy but I do

not think that it is fair to draw conclusions about Aurobindo's

philosophy by just considering one paragraph in isolation. Auro's

terminology is of his own coinage and what you are taking to be the

heart (psychic) might not be what he means at all!!. Like I said I am

not an expert on his philosophy.

 

My point is that we as Indians are breathing our freedom through

actions of leaders like Tilak, Gandhi and Auro. Each one of these

leaders interpretation of Gita and other scriptures is unique and

cannot be said to follow that of Shankra. The Karam Yoga of a Tilak

or Auro does not reflect Shankaras emphasis on Jnana. But these

leaders are the living embodiments of the path of Gita. While we as

intellectuals sitting on our high ivory towers are discussing the

plights befalling our nation as in the recent threads , these leaders

actually went to prisons and suffered great hardships to correct the

wrongs that we are only talking about.They are the living Karam Yogis

of life. Surely they must have felt some great aspiration, held some

noble ideals, felt some great and noble sentiment in their hearts. Is

not religion really a "feeling". Vivakananda says "how do you know a

Buddha or a Christ was right- because you feel some stirring of a

similar sentiment in your heart etc". We know that these leaders were

not hypocrites - they must have seen a light- towards which they

moved. They lived what they believed. Now why are we discussing

scriptures in this group. Is it not to find some model, some ideal by

which we can guide our lives. Whose words are we going to trust? How

will we believe that the words of the scriptures are true. By looking

up to such great men who have had the courage to live out the life of

the great ideal laid out in the scriptures. Men like AURO,

Vivakananda, Gandhi and Tilak. Now even if their thinking is

completely wrong - wrong from top to bottom. Even then it is just the

model that is wrong. A model of the scripture, one that they believed

in is incorrect. It is just a model. Their life, their sentiments by

which they constructed the model, their FEELINGS are not wrong.

Midgets like us do not even have a surface right to dismiss, demolish

what they held to be true. We have to be a Vivakananda or Shankra or

a Ramana to say that Auro was wrong.

 

NairJi regarding your comment:

>My request was to desist from quoting him or others, however great

>they may be, without relating or reconciling their words to Advaita.

 

My post was seeking clarification on a verse of Isa Upanishad and I

was not quoting Auro in vain. I believe that my question and post was

well within the scope of this group. The discussion was on Isa

Upanishad on which Shankra has written his famous commentary. We have

discussed Kant, Spinoza, Berkley who do not have the faintest

connection to Advaita. Here we are discussing a most important and

highly relevant verse from our scriptures. As a moderator please

clarify your objection.

 

Warm regards

 

Hersh

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "advaitin" on the web.

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enjoy this Diwali with Y! India Click here

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Nairji,

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Let us take the current scenario of Indian (I don't want to

> call it Hindu in order not to sound exclusive.) decadence

> about which one of your recent posts has produced a rather

> vociferous debate. From the point of view of advaita, this

> scenario has its origin in Brahman and Brahman pervades it

> through and through. Does an Advaitin (I mean a Self-

> Realized One) have to really 'descend' and play a role to

> mitigate the situation (dharma samstApana)? If he does,

> is he then displaying a discordant will 'within' Brahman

> Itself?

>

> This question was foremost in my mind when I read the

> several posts on the issue and it deterred me from taking

> an active plunge into the debate although I was very much

> resonating with your, Dr. Yaduji's and other Members'

> feelings.

>

> My explanation would be that a Realized one can get down

> to the required role-playing through non-binding action

> (karmayoga) and that he would not be bothered about the

> result produced by his role-playing although he might

> have one - legitimate to his Dharma - in sight. Non-

> binding action is not a retort of will within the Will.

> It will be the Will and the Self-Realized understands

> this fully well through his attitude of total surrender

> where he knows that even a hair of his cannot move without

> that Will. This could be the only reason why Shankara got

> down to finishing his mission of dharmasamstApana when the

> decay of his times called for it.

 

 

I fully agree with you Nairji that non-binding action is not a retort

of the will within the Will. In fact, by being free of the desire for

fruits, the karma yogi is acquiescing to the One Will, to whatsoever

the Will may bring forth as the fruits of his actions. Moreover, by

guiding his actions in accordance with dharma rather than in

accordance with his desires, the karma yogi is acquiescing to the Way

of Action revealed by God.

 

I would say that the Self-Realised One is higher than the karma yogi

because, whereas the karma yogi is one that is striving for Self-

Realisation by transmuting his actions to conform with the Will of

God, the jiva-mukta is one who has already realised the Self and is

One with God. Shankara says that the term 'jiva' as applied to a

jivan-mukta is only a concession to common usage of words, and that

the jivan-mukta is in truth One with Brahman. In this respect, I

would think that the jivan-mukta's actions are the Will of God

Himself just as an avatara's actions are, the distinction between a

jivan-mukta and an avatara being only the history of their past as

seen by people in the world. For we see the history of the avatara to

be the Abode of God and the history of the jivan-mukta to be the past

of 'that person' who achieved Self-Realisation. It is said that God

imposes limitations on Himself and comes to this world as an avatara,

and we may perhaps not be unjustified in saying that a jivan-mukta

who is helping humanity has been retained in the world by the same

Will of God that imposes limitations on Himself to take on the role

of an avatara.

 

In the context of the ongoing debate regarding what our actions

should be in the face of the inimical forces that have been unleashed

on our dharma, I would like to say a few words here. Until one has

realised the Self, one is always acting. Lord Krishna says that no

being in this world can cease from action even for a moment. As long

as one is acting, the guide for one's actions is dharma. The karma

yogi tries to transmute his or her actions into a way of achieving

Self-Realisation, but even for the non-karma-yogi, the guide for his

or her actions is dharma. What deflects him or her from abiding by

dharma is desire, says Lord Krishna. This desire manifests in various

ways, one of them being servility. Servility is nothing but the

desire for gain or for the comfort of non-action when dharma dictates

that one shall be acting. It is this servility that has resulted in

us serving masters in the past who have taught us to call our fathers

and mothers liars without the least bit of basis. The past is over,

but today the present calls us to our dharma. Whether we choose

dharma or servility is left to us.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji.

 

As expected, that was just wonderful.

 

This List will remain ever-indebted to you for the wisdom poured in

such a very balanced manner.

 

My only problem now is to decide which portion of your post shall I

retain in order to go by List rules and save web-space!

 

Thanks and praNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> The karma

> yogi tries to transmute his or her actions into a way of achieving

> Self-Realisation, but even for the non-karma-yogi, the guide for

his

> or her actions is dharma. What deflects him or her from abiding by

> dharma is desire, says Lord Krishna. This desire manifests in

various

> ways, one of them being servility. Servility is nothing but the

> desire for gain or for the comfort of non-action when dharma

dictates

> that one shall be acting. It is this servility that has resulted in

> us serving masters in the past who have taught us to call our

fathers

> and mothers liars without the least bit of basis. The past is over,

> but today the present calls us to our dharma. Whether we choose

> dharma or servility is left to us.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bandaruji.

 

If you understand Self-Realization of Advaita as 'experiencing AhaM

BrahmAsmi without an experiencer', then you are quite right. Without

experiencer, experience and experienced, there is only Wholeness. We

are that Wholeness. Advaita reveals this Truth and that is Self-

Realizaton.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________

 

advaitin, phani bandaru <bphanii> wrote:

..... > Many said ADWAITA is about self realization but i felt it is

about experiensing

> AHAMBRAHMASMI.(thouh nobody remains to experience)

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Nairji,

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Chittaranjanji.

>

> As expected, that was just wonderful.

 

Thank you Sir.

> My only problem now is to decide which portion of your post

> shall I retain in order to go by List rules and save web-space!

 

Any portion that you think fit.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittranjanji and NairJi

Thank you for inputs and Nairji thanks for clarifying that the List

is not averse to inputs from Auro.

 

Chittranji you said:

>There is not the least doubt that Aurobindo was both a great

>philosopher and a patriot, but it has to be said that he

>misunderstood Advaita. By saying this, we are not belittling

>Aurobindo, for we are taking into cognisance that even the great

>acharyas of the other scools have misunderstood Shankara Advaita. We

>are here only trying to let the light of the greatest of all

>philosophers, Adi Shankara, to shine in our hearts.

 

 

My problem and protest was with a "summary" dismissal of Auro without

a fair trial. On the strength of a few sentenses or one para of his

work he was dismissed as "not understanding Advaita". Auro is a

difficult philosopher to understand and one has difficulty in

understanding his position even after many years of detailed reading

of his work. He cannot be debated by just considering one para from

his work. This is not in accord with what normally happens in our

discussions on this list. All our debates be it on Spinoza or Berkely

have been scholarly, detailed and academic with a list of references

and cross references. If we gave a fair hearing to western

philosophers why are we being condescending to our very own son of

the soil.

 

My second point is that Auro's work is not limited to his "Life

divine". His work on Gita as laid out in his "Essays of the Gita"

will be more to the liking to the List members.This work has

no "supra mental descension etc" which is what list members are

objecting to. Auro has said that his yoga has the Gita as the basis

and the work involving "supramental decent" was a very later part of

his yoga which only very advanced sadhakas will undertake. In his

time only about 5 sadahaks were doing the final parts of his yoga

(quoting from memory here).

 

His work on the Gita should be read with a fair mind and I would love

to see an academic debate on the merits or otherwise of work.

Dismissing his work like this would be like dismissing Shankras work

on Advaita after reading just Saundaryalahari.

 

Warm Regards

Hersh

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Hersh-ji,

 

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

> My problem and protest was with a "summary" dismissal of Auro

> without a fair trial.

>

> My second point is that Auro's work is not limited to his "Life

> divine". His work on Gita as laid out in his "Essays of the Gita"

> will be more to the liking to the List members.

 

I do not know much about Aurobindo's philosophy, but I do know that

Aurobindo was a great yogi and luminary. He was one of the few modern

Indians to have commented on, and interpreted, the Vedas, thus not

leaving it to only the Max Muellers and Griffiths of this world to

have a say on the Vedas. Both Max Mueller and Griffith thought that

they could interpret some parts of the Vedas better than Sayana (they

said so themselves), and while they have largely followed Sayana in

their interpretations, they have also introduced many meanings from

their own acculturations, which, despite their deep study, remains

quite foreign to Vedic culture. Considering this, all of us should be

grateful to Aurobindo for the great work he has done for Vedic

studies. Also, Aurobindo's was a voice of India that also knew how to

speak in the language and cultural setting of the West, and he could

thus address the world much better than most other Indians that were

brought up within the Indian system.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Namaste Chittaranjanji.

>

> Thank you very much for the very helpful clarification on Auro and

> others.

>

>

> My explanation would be that a Realized one can get down to the

> required role-playing through non-binding action (karmayoga) and

that

> he would not be bothered about the result produced by his role-

playing

> although he might have one - legitimate to his Dharma - in

sight. Non-

> binding action is not a retort of will within the Will. It will

be the

> Will and the Self-Realized understands this fully well through his

> attitude of total surrender where he knows that even a hair of his

> cannot move without that Will. This could be the only reason why

> Shankara got down to finishing his mission of dharmasamstApana

when the

> decay of his times called for it.

>

> Am I right? Your explanation, I am sure, would impart a very

> purposeful momentum to the current indigation boiling in our veins

and

> define the role of an Advaitin vis-a-vis the Indian imbroglio.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

 

Namaste Nairji:

 

You have raised an interesting question. Why do jivan-muktas act? I

believe it is compassion for humanity that expresses as action

through such masters. Swami Vidyaranya in his Sankara Vijaya says:

 

ajnAnAntar.gahana.patitAn AtmavidhyOpadeshih

trAtum.lOkAn.bhavadavasikhA.tApapAcyamAnAn

muktvA.mounaM.vatavitapinOr.mUlatOnissaranti

zambhOr.mUrthih.carati.bhuvanE.zankarAcArya.rUpAh

 

(The form of Lord Shambhu has descended from the base of the banyan

tree, giving up His silence, and is moving about the world in the

form of Sankaracharya in order to save the humanity suffering from

the disease of samsara, having fallen into the jungle of ignorance,

through the teaching of atmavidya - translation is mine, so please

bear with any erros.)

 

Of course, in our ignorance, we mistake the actions of realized

masters. I want to share the following with the group here.

(Unfortunately, I do not have the reference to the source of this

now).

 

When the late Sringeri Acharya, Sri Chandra Shekhara Bharati Swamiji

was seen performing elaborate puja to Goddess Sharada, a devotee

wondered if any action was not incompatible with the state of

realization of advaita.

 

He desired reconciliation and at an appropriate occasion mentioned

this to His Holiness Himself in an indirect manner, "If a person has

Atma realization as propounded in the Advaita Vedanta, can he

properly engage himself in rituals or in image worship?" His

Holiness asked in answer, "What else do you except him to do?" Had

the gentleman answered this question with any other alternative then

that would have been equally inconsistent with the state of the

realized soul. He therefore replied by saying, "I do not mean to say

that he should do anything else. My difficulty arises this way.

Doing anything, be it rituals or image worship or even study of

scriptures implies the sense of doer-ship. Are not these two

attitudes inconsistent with each other and, if so, how can they exist

at the same time in the same individual?" His Holiness said, "Quite

true. Two things, which are mutually contradictory, cannot exist at

the same time in the same entity. Can you tell me, who the non-doer

is?Of course, the Self.Quite right. You have studied our system

well. Will you now tell me, who the doer is?Certainly, it is the

body, the senses, the mind and the intellect.Quite right again.

The Self is the non-doer; and the doer is the non-Self. Is it not

so?Yes.Where is the inconsistency now? Doer-ship and non-doer-

ship do not inhere in the same entity."

 

Harih Om.

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote: Namaste Sri

Hershji,

 

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

> My post was seeking clarification on a verse of Isa Upanishad

> and I was not quoting Auro in vain. I believe that my question

> and post was well within the scope of this group. The discussion

> was on Isa Upanishad on which Shankra has written his famous

> commentary. clarified.

 

 

 

 

 

Who is to fight with Brahman to

save humanity from the things that Brahman Himself is giving to it?

 

 

From

Sankarraman

 

In this connection, I think it would be appropriate to recall the

statement of Sri Nisargdatta Maharaj, who says, in response to a visitor's

statement as regards the view of some philosophers that the distaste for the

world is to be replaced by an all-pervading love, and a steady will to work

with God, as follows: "All you say is right for the outgoing (pravaritti) path.

For the path of return (niviritty), naughting of oneself is necessary. My

standard I take where nothing (paramakash)is:words do not reach there, nor the

thoughts. To the mind it is all darkness and silence. Then consciousness begins

to stir up and wakes up the mind (chidakash), which projects the world

(mahadkash), built of memory and imagination. Once the world comes into being,

all you say may be so. It is in the nature of the mind to imagine goals, to

strive towards them, to seek out ways and means, to display vision, energy and

courage. These are divine attributes and I do not deny

them. But I take my stand where no difference exists, where things are not,

nor the minds that create them. There I am at home. Whatever happens, does not

affect me- things act on things, that is all. Free from memory and expectation,

I am fresh, innocent and whole-hearted. Mind is the great worker (mahakarta)

and it needs rest. Needing nothing, I am unafraid. Whom to be afraid of? There

is no separation, we are not separate selves. There is only one Self, the

Supreme Reality, in which the personal and impersonal are one." ( Chapter 24 of

I AM THAT BY MAURICE FRYDMAN). According to Maharaj, the idea of helping others

through self-realization is a pointer towards the fact that one is still

holding on to the idea of I AMNESS or BEINGNESS, which does not represent the

primal state of Awareness that is not aware of itself. But, I think, it is not

correct to make such galloping statements that Aurobindo did not know Adviata

etc, etc, based on our mere scriptural knowledge,

which is only a bright ignorance to quote the phrase of Aurobindo. Great

personalities like Ramana and Nisargdatta, who have realized non-duality, they

alone are qualified to make statements about what Advaita is. A mere

intellectual knowledge should not arrogate to us the idea that some people

have not understood Advaita. When we ourselves make a lot of statements about

Advaita, would Aurobindo not have understood the depth of Advaita? If we are

not veering round to the other worldviews, we had better desist from them. All

faults arise out of our attachments to some conclusions, a lofty wisdom like

Advaita also being given a label through some system building. When we can

discuss social issues and a lot of dualistic thoughts in this forum, is the

lofty thought of Aurobindo an anathema? Aurobindo's accusation may be against

some people who have understood nirvikalpa samadhi to be the final state,

which definitely does not mean the idea of his not having understood

the wisdom of Advaita.

 

yours ever in Bhaghavan

 

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Religion and

spirituality Advaita

Bhagavad gita

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "advaitin" on the web.

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less

 

 

[Guest guest]

Neelakanta-ji !

 

This is so 'divine'

 

"Will you now tell me, who the doer is?Certainly, it is the

body, the senses, the mind and the intellect.Quite right again.

The Self is the non-doer; and the doer is the non-Self. Is it not

so?Yes.Where is the inconsistency now? Doer-ship and non-doer-

ship do not inhere in the same entity."

 

That is why in the ultimate analysis , THERE IS NO DEMARCATION

BETWEEN A KARMA YOGI AND BHAKTI YOGI AND A JNANA YOGI - for they all

blend into 'one' in the philosophy of ADVAITA!

 

 

ADI SHANKARA BHAGAVADAPADA SINGS

 

'Siva Maanasa puja'

 

"Atma tvam Girija matih…

Sahacharaah praanaah,

Sariram griham,

Pujaa te vishayopa bhoga rachanaa,

Nidraa samaadhih stitih,

Sanchaarah padayoh pradakshina vidhih,

Stotrani sarvaa giro,

Yadyat karma karomi tattadakhilam

Sambho! tavaaraadhanam !"

 

 

 

Meaning of the sloka

 

 

"My self is Sambhu (yourself); my intellect is Girija; my vital

breaths are your attendants; my body is your temple of residence; my

enjoying the objects of senses is your worship; my sleep is the state

of meditation; all movement with the pair of feet is doing

pradakshina to you and all my words are your praises. O Sambhu!

Whatever I do is entirely an act of worshipping you."

 

NEELAKANTA -JI! how beautifully our beloved Acharya in one sloka

captured the 'sharangati' Tattwa' of a bhakta , the 'nishkamya' karma

yogi and the oneness of the Jnani with the object of jnana!

 

I WOULD WELCOME MORE INTERPRETATIONS OF THIS SLOKA FROM ALL SADHAKS!

 

DON'T YOU THINK IT IS MUCH EASIER TO OFFER PATRAM, PHALAM, PUSHPAM

AND TOYAM ? ( LEAF, FLOWER, FRUOT AND WATER) but our Acharya is

offering hie entire 'Self' in this INTERNAL WORSHIP! (MANASIKA PUJA)

 

Devi is attainble both by 'antarmukhi and bahirmukhi sadhanba' (LS)

 

SALUTATIONS TO GIRIJA SHANAKARA

 

PS our gentle nairji wants to 'steer' the advaitin ship in the right

direction so we can all reach the shoreless ocean of 'Brahma-ananda'

in spite of the current storms , winds etc pulling us all in

different directions from Sorengard to Aurobindo and everything in

between! Smile:-)

 

a MOOD HAS TO BE CREATED BEFORE ANY CONCERT BEGINS!

 

 

>> >

> > Am I right? Your explanation, I am sure, would impart a very

> > purposeful momentum to the current indigation boiling in our

veins

> and

> > define the role of an Advaitin vis-a-vis the Indian imbroglio.

> >

> > PraNAms.

> >

> > Madathil Nair

>

[Guest guest]

Nair-ji wrote,

 

[is it Max Muller who translated "neti, neti" as "Not this, "not

this"? In our current context, I am sure no one would be surprised

by this question. Well, mAyA has been translated as illusion and most

of us understand it as such and mouth it ad nauseum. So, why

not "Not this, not this" - that is the pedestrian excuse. Nathanji,

I am afraid, you have not understood Advaita. If Aurobindo had

maintained that "neti, neti" is an absolute negation in search of a

dark void, then I am afraid neither had he understood Advaita. I am

sorry to say this. Please read Sw. Dayanandaji's "purNamadah,

pUrNamidam" interpretation in our file section, which Shri Krishna

Prasadji quoted here very pertinently yesterday, and see for yourself

if Advaita advocates an absolute negation in search of the dark

void.]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

 

Namaste Madathil Nair-ji

 

Well, I'm sure my understanding isn't nearly as good as many of the

members. But from what I've read to date, it seems that there are

different "states" that one can arrive at, if not eternally, then at

least for a great period of time. In this group for example, many

equate realization of the Brahman as the final enlightenment. Sri

Nisargadatta explains that realization of the Brahman isn't the

Ultimate. He says that the witness of Brahman is the Absolute, the

Parabrahman. Maharaj would say that Jnani's would visit him, who had

realized their identity with Brahman, but that they hadn't gone

beyond the Brahman and arrived at the Ultimate "state." Because I

think that there may be long-lasting states that one can arrive at,

that aren't the Ultimate, is why I take seriously warnings, such as

those of Sri Aurobindo. After all, until realization, we're all just

groping in the dark. We have no idea what enlightenment will be

like; at least I don't. So I think a little trepidation is warranted.

 

-Nathan

[Guest guest]

Nathan Port wrote:

> Namaste Madathil Nair-ji

>

>

> Nisargadatta explains that realization of the Brahman isn't the

> Ultimate. He says that the witness of Brahman is the Absolute, the

> Parabrahman. Maharaj would say that Jnani's would visit him, who had

> realized their identity with Brahman, but that they hadn't gone

> beyond the Brahman and arrived at the Ultimate "state."

 

 

This is perfectly comical. All these things such as "Ultimate" are mere

concepts and are completely trivial. Making distinctions leads to more

distinctions, and one is lost in the jungle of thought.. One does not

arrive at the "Ultimate". One and Ultimate are not two. One is the Ultimate.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaji, Nathenji and Harshaji

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

NathanJi wrote

> Nisargadatta explains that realization of the Brahman isn't the

> Ultimate. He says that the witness of Brahman is the Absolute, the

> Parabrahman. Maharaj would say that Jnani's would visit him, who had

> realized their identity with Brahman, but that they hadn't gone

> beyond the Brahman and arrived at the Ultimate "state."

 

Harshaji responded:

This is perfectly comical. All these things such as "Ultimate" are

mere

concepts and are completely trivial. Making distinctions leads to more

distinctions, and one is lost in the jungle of thought.. One does not

arrive at the "Ultimate". One and Ultimate are not two. One is the

Ultimate.

 

 

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

 

 

 

Vivakananda also talks of various "states" which are spheres like the

solar/lunar spheres etc which arise like visions to a jiva on the

path of his sadhana. He also talks of "ascent/descent" in his works

on Raj Yoga.

 

Lets pick on Vivakananda now and prove that he did not know what he

was saying. Did he not talk of ascent and descent (of the Kundalini)

in his masterpiece on Raj Yoga. Maybe he had his concepts of Advaita

all wrong when he talks about his discussions with Scientist Nichola

Tesla in his Letter to E.T. Sturdy. He maintains that Advaitism says

that these spheres ( Solar sphere, Lunar sphere etc )are the VISIONS

WHICH ARISE in succession before the Jiva. Maybe like Auro he was not

a real advaitan at all!!.

 

 

>From Sister Navidita's "THE MASTER AS I SAW HIM" Chapter "ABOUT

DEATH";

 

Regarding: Discussion of Swami Vivakanand with Tesla as expressed in

his letter to E.T. Sturdy

 

"In that case, the Vedantic cosmology will be placed on the surest of

foundations. I am working a good deal now, upon the cosmology and

eschatology (° Eschatology means doctrine of the last things;

according to Christianity. Death, Judgmenr, Heaven and Hell. In other

words, the fate of the soul.) of the Vedanta. I clearly see their

perfect unison with modern science, and the elucidation of the one

will be followed by that of the other. I intend to write a Vedanta and

work later on, in the form of

Science questions and answers. The first chapter will be on

cosmology, showing the harmony between Vedantic theories and modern

science.

 

The eschatology, will be explained from the Advaitic standpoint only.

That is to say, the dualist claims that the soul after death passes

on to the Solar Sphere, thence to the Lunar Sphere, thence to the

Electric Sphere. Thence he is accompanied by a Purusha to Brahmaloka

(thence, says the Advaitist, he goes to Nirvana)."Now on the Advaitic

side it is held that the Soul neither comes nor goes, and that all

these spheres or layers of the universe are only so many varying

products of Akasa and Prana. That is to say, the lowest or most

condensed is the Solar Sphere, consisting of the visible universe, in

which Prana appears as physical force, and Akasa as sensible matter.

The next is called the Lunar Sphere, which surrounds the Solar

Sphere. This is not the moon at all, but the habitation of the gods,

that is to say, Prana appears in it as psychic forces, and Akasa as

Tanmatras, or fine particles. Beyond this is the Electric Sphere,

that is to say, a condition in which the Prana is almost inseparable

from Akisa, and you can hardly tell whether Electricity is force or

matter. Next is the Brahmaloka, where there is neither Prana nor

Akasa, but both are merged into the Mind-stuff, the primal energy.

And here-there being neither Prana nor Akasa-the Jiva contemplates

the whole universe as Samasti, or the sum total of Mahat, or mind.

 

The Theory of Dualism

 

This appears as a Purusha, an abstract universal Soul, yet

not the Absolute, for still there is multiplicity. From this, the

Jiva finds at last that Unity which is the end. Advaitism says that

these are the VISIONS WHICH ARISE in succession before the Jiva, who,

himself, neither goes nor comes, and that in the same way this

present vision has been projected. The projection (Srishti) and

dissolution must take place in the same order, only one means going

backward and the other coming out.

 

"Now, as each individual can only see his own universe, that universe

is created with his bondage, and goes away with his liberation,

although it remains for others who are in bondage. Now name and form

constitute the universe. A wave in the ocean is a wave, only in so

far as it is bound by name and form. If the wave subsides, it is the

ocean, but that name-and-form has immediately vanished forever. So

that the name and farm of a wave could never be, without the water

that was fashioned into the wave bv them, yet the name and form

themselves were not the wave. They die as soon as ever it returns to

water. But other names and forms live on, in relation to other waves.

This name-and-form is called Maya, and the water is Brahman. The wave

was nothing but water all the time, yet as a wave it had the name and

form. Again this name-and-form cannot remain for one moment separated

from the wave, although the wave, as water, can remain eternally

separate from name and form. But because the name and form can never

be separated, they can never be said to exist. Yet they are not zero.

This is called Maya.

"I want to work all this out carefully, but you will see at a glance

that I am on the right track. It will take more study in physiology,

on the relations between the higher and lower centres, to fill out

the psychology of mind, Chitta and Buddhi, and so on. But I have

clear light now, free from all hocuspocus: '

 

Synthesis of Beliefs

 

Once more in this letter, as so often elsewhere, we see the

reconciling and organising force of the Swami's genius. The standard

of Sankaracharya shall not be moved. That `the soul neither comes nor

goes' remains to all time the dominant truth. But the labours of

those who began their work at the opposite end shall not be wasted

either. The Advaitin, with his philosophic insight, and the Dualist,

with his scientific observation of successive phases of consciousness-

both are necessary, to each other and to the new formulation."

 

* (editors note) The Swami's plan, of writing a book in the form of

questions and answers, was never carried out. But in studying the

lectures he delivered in London in the year 1896, it is easy to see

that his mind was still working on the ideas here announced. See

especially his lectures-"The Absolute and Manifestation"; "The

Cosmos: the Macrocosm"; and his American lectures, "The Real and the

Apparent Man"; and "Cosmology".

 

References:

 

Links describing Swami Vivekananda and Scientist Nichola

Tesla's discussion :

 

 

 

This discussion is from a Letter written by Swamiji to Mr. Sturdy

from 228 W. 39th Street, New York City. The letter is re-mentioned in

Master as I saw Him, by Sister Nivedita; Chapter 14 (on death), pg

303-5.

 

Letter to E.T. Sturdy available at :

http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/complete_works.htm

Look under :Volume 5/ Epistles-First Series/LVII Blessed & Beloved

or do a search on "Tesla" at the web site.

 

Other links about this are:

http://www.iitkgp.ac.in/ejics/issue1/time-joy.htm

http://www.uncletaz.com/library/scimath/tesla/vedictesl.html

 

Warm regards

Hersh

[Guest guest]

Sri Bhasini-ji !

 

(now there r two harshas ( soelling differs ) , two Subramaniams, two

Krishnamurthys, two krishnas, two ramachandras .... etc etc) ! no

dualuism here !

 

anyway,

 

Have you seen the Emblem of Sri Ramakrishna Mission :

 

Pl read:

 

Designed and explained by

Swami Vivekananda

 

The wavy waters in the picture are symbolic of work, and lotus, of

devotion, and the rising sun, of knowledge. The encircling serpent is

indicative of yoga and the awakened power dormant in us, while the

swan in the picture stands for God. Therefore, the idea of the

picture is that by the union of work, knowledge, devotion, and yoga,

the vision of God is obtained.

 

Now , i remember reading that when Swami Vivekananda approached The

master Sri Ramakrishna paramahammsa and asked him whether he could

practice Hatha yoga - the master dissuaded him from that path!

 

Now, i know one thing for sure ! any path that you practice does lead

to the awakning of the 'kundalini' even in mantra japa yoga ! I think

the whole point of this Aurobindo debate is only woith reference to

what shri Ramana himself felt about the 'kundalini' yoga - Sri Ramana

did not believe in 'kundalini' yoga as he felt that it was a

temporary method and also a dangerous one! ( i think i have posted

this before) !

 

If one reads the Saundarya Lahari , adi shankara bhagvadapada also

discusses about the ascent and descent of Kundalini !

 

Pray, who is an advaitin?

 

It is unknown to those who know, and known to those who

do not know." (Kena 2.3)

 

i am enjoying this Leela of dwaita-adwaita Madhuri!

 

Shakespeare said : This whole world is a stage ; we are all actors'

 

Cheers!

 

ps btw, we have so far heard of Balasekhar, Nishardgatta,

J.Krishnamurthy ETC ETC ! Where is our Papaji of poona ?

 

Who said adwaita can be 'dull'? i find it very entertaining!

 

love and regards

[Guest guest]

Sri Hersh_b

> Vivakananda also talks of various "states" which are spheres like the

> solar/lunar spheres etc which arise like visions to a jiva on the

> path of his sadhana. He also talks of "ascent/descent" in his works

> on Raj Yoga.

>

> Lets pick on Vivakananda now and prove that he did not know what he

> was saying.

 

Let us not forget that Swami Vivekanada's credentials have also been

questioned on the very such issues as raised above.

 

It is only because of his towering personality and enormous

contribution to the cause of vedanta, that these issues pale into

insignificance. Swami Vivekananda established his credentials more as

a social revolutionary and architect of institutions that helped vedic

dharma rather than a teacher.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

Dear Nathanji,

 

There is Brahman and then there is Parabrahman. But how do you know

there is not a Super Parabrahman who is even more super ultimate? And if

you reflect on this carefully, you may come to see that there may even

be a Super Duper Parabrahman who is Super Duper Ultimate. The mind is

fascinated by hierarchies and complexities. The scriptures say that the

highest reality (call it Brahman or Parabrahman or Self or Ultimate or

Super Duper Double Ultimate or whatever)is closer to us then our own

breath. So if we are able to see the simplicity of our immediate

presence and being, we are not attracted to promises of supramental

glories that will be attained in the future. Unless we learn to see and

appreciate the obvious, anyone can turn our head with fancy words. It

does not matter if it is Aurbindo or Nisargadatta or Krishnamurti or

Vivekananda. They are all good and fine people and came and did what

they were meant to do. They are all admired and respected within the

sphere of their influence and their contribution.

 

There is one wonderful thing I have learned from the wise people on this

list over the last 5-6 years that I did not appreciate before. That is

that Advaitic knowledge that comes to us from Upanishads is the

accumulated wisdom of the ages and the great sages. It cannot be

contradicted by one individual such as Aurbindo or Nisargadatta or

Vivekananda or Krishnamurti or anyone else having their own special

terminology or system. Advaita is not inconsistent with Shakti yoga at

all. All ascents and descents are mere ripples in consciousness.

Everyone has the right to give their individual interpretations of the

scriptures and certainly there may even be disagreements on that.

 

I like that saying of the ancient sages which goes something like, "Know

That by which all else is known".

 

Harsha

 

Nathan Port wrote:

> Namaste Harsha-ji,

>

> Tell it to Sri Nisargadatta then! I'm only using examples from books

> I've read. How else will we communicate with each other, if not

> through concepts. Concepts are necessary for most, especially for

> beginners, such as myself. Not many are blessed enough to find a

> Ramana Maharshi and just sit silently in his presence, without using

> words and concepts. If you don't make distinctions, then why are you

> posting to this group. Because if you don't make distinctions, then

> everyone is enlightened already, and so the group is of little worth

> to someone enlightened. In the same way as there are those who have

> become enlightened and those who have not, there are those who have

> realized the Brahman, and those who have realized the Parabrahman.

> Shouldn't we be aware that consciousness isn't the Ultimate, and

> that even consciousness must be transcended, as Sri Nisargadatta

> makes clear? If the 'Ultimate' is a concept, then the 'Self' is a

> concept as well, and equally trivial, according to your point of

> view.

>

> -Nathan

>

>

>