Sheepish but glad

[Guest guest]

Dear ChittaranjanJi, Nairji,Ram ChandranJi and Adi MaJi

 

With my tail between my legs and very sheepishly I thank you all for

inviting me back which I gratefully accept. Though initially an

indignant and petulant huff clouded my reason, there were other more

important reasons for not wanting to be an active member of the

group. I found myself giving out opinions and basically making a lot

of "verbal" noise. When quoting Aurobindo or Vivakananda I could not

justly say that I was practicing what I was mouthing. In her book "To

live within" Lizelle Reymond came down to India to study Sankhya in

the early 1900. Her Guru made her promise to wait 12 years before she

could write about her experiences with Sankhya and here I was, a

person with no spiritual experience or knowledge whatsoever ready to

profess my observations on each and every thing. This was not control

of "vak" and I wanted to leave the group to save myself from myself.

 

Thank you for your kind and considerate mails which really did touch

me. Nairji I fully understand where you are coming from in enforcing

discussions to fall within strict guidelines and the vision of the

group. Thank you very much for inviting me back. Ram Chandarji thank

you for reminding me of my duty of the `human dharma' - not that I

am under any illusion of any sort of "wisdom" attributable to me. Adi

Ma thank you for reminding me that "one who quits is a loser". And

Adi Ma I share your sentiments about NRI Indians. As I am also in the

US I do not consider myself a second rate citizen. My late Dad (an

out and out Indian to whom living anywhere else was an enigma) used

to say in India you can become a Giani Zaleel (means cruel or bad in

Punjabi) Singh if you cannot become a Giani Zail Singh ( first

Punjabi to become president of India) meaning thereby that in India

you can have some sense of identity as an Indian which gets lost when

you leave the country. That seed will grow into an oak another day.

Till then I am keeping it alive and that is why the association of

this group is so important to me.

 

ChittaranjanJi I did not get offended with your remarks. In fact one

of my hidden agenda was to lure you into reading Aurobindos essay on

Isa and have the light of your intellect shine on it so that I can

get your insight on it. What brings a smile to my face is that what

you are saying in your recent posts, especially in your post

advaitin/message/29031 is also the

message of Aurobindo.

 

<quote>

Advaita does not say that this world is an illusion. This world is

not an illusion when Maya is showing it to be real. It is an illusion

when Maya is showing it to be an illusion. The world is self-

referencing to Maya. Brahman gives to us both these visions. When

this world is not an illusion, it is a delusion to sit in non-action

and say that it is all an illusion. Let the sanyasi say that; he has

a right to say it. But those that live in the world must act, must

shed tears, must shed their blood if need be, must cry in joy, and

must suffer in their resistance to adharma. There is no alternative

to it.

<end quote>

 

I request you and other members to just read 14 pages on Isa by

Aurobindo at http://www.odinring.de/eng/isha.htm. Read only Chapter

4 (14 pages) to get his message. Sunder Hattangadiji I was aware of

the link you posted (about Auro being Leonardo da Vinci etc in past

life). I too puzzled about that but this is not the pristine writing

of Aurobindo. It is not a statement written by Auro but by the

Mother.

 

If you read the 14 pages on Isa (Chapter 4) you will see that Auro is

critical (and does not reject) Shankaras vision. I read this essay

together with Swami Chinmayanandas commentary and what all that I

heard was a thundering justification for the path of the Gita - na

karma lipyate nare, Action cleaveth not to a man. Chittaji you,

following Shankras vision say "Advaita does not say that this world

is an illusion. This world is not an illusion when Maya is showing it

to be real. It is an illusion when Maya is showing it to be an

illusion. " When it is not an illusion you must not act and when

Maya is an illusion you have to act. This is very true and Aurobindo

admits Shankras vision. But he says even when there is no illusion,

one must act because " na karma lipyate nare, Action cleaveth not to

a man" . Even after arriving at the vision of Shankra one must attain

to the insight of Janaka or Krishna:

 

"lifted above Buddha and Shankara stand Janaka and Krishna, the

supreme Yogin and the entire Avatar; they in full action are in

entire possession of peace and, conquerors of desire and ego or

eternally superior to them, keep their hold on the real and divine

bliss of God's triple self-manifestation; they know and exercise the

simultaneous and harmonious enjoyment of His transcendent being, His

universal Self and His individual play of becoming"

 

His cry is "OM Tapas" and not "OM Shanti" .:

 

"The world-fleeing saint and the hermit have multiplied, the world-

helping saint and the divine warrior of life come rarely and fail for

want of the right atmosphere and environment. The Avatars of moral

purity and devotional love abound, the Avatars of life, Krishna and

Balarama, manifest themselves no more. Gone are Janaka and

Ajatashatru, Aruna and Vyasa, the great scientists, the great law-

givers. The cry of OM Tapas with which God creates has grown faint in

the soul of India, the cry of OM Shanti with which He withdraws from

life alone arouses and directs the best energies of a national

consciousness to whose thought all life is sorrow, self-delusion and

an undivine thunder. Chilled is that marvellous and mighty vigour

which flowed out from the Veda and Upanishads on the Indian

consciousness and produced the grand and colossal forms of life

eternally portrayed for us in the fragments of our ancient art and

history and in the ideal descriptions of the Epics. "

 

This was the call also of Swami Vivakananda. He thought that we

Indians were basically pansies. He used to say that we will be better

men by playing football and building our muscles than by reading our

scriptures. He even recommended meat eating so that we can get out

of tamas and to rajas for only from the platform of rajas can we get

to sattwa. Feed the stomachs of the poor and then think of

scriptures. Only in the last stages of his life did he say (quoting

from memory here) " who am I to save my mothers temples from the

mogul invaders etc. My Mother asked me do I look after you or do you

look after me?"

 

 

Tonyj you ask " Why are we arguing about religions and nationalism

etc? ..Nationalism is a psychosis and Patriotism its cult....We are

all one!

 

Tonyji to my mind the reason we are arguing about nationalism and

Patriotism is because to an Indian mind religion is personal

realization which is reflected in a mans actions. We take a Shankra,a

Gandhi,a Tilak, a Vivakananda, a Chinmayananda or an Aurobindo

seriously because their actions speak about their character.

Regarding Patriotism, every Sunday my family and I attend a lecture

at Chinmaya mission where we stand up for the Chinmaya Mission

pledge which has this line:

 

"We believe that the service of our country is the service of

the Lord of Lords"

 

Now the Chinmaya Swamiji was explaining the pledge and someone asked

him. "Since we live in the US what country do you mean? US or

India". "Think about it" he said "Your country is where you live-

which is the US". This was very profound. He did not say India- he

said US. This was much debated with him but he did not budge. From an

ethical standpoint this is exactly what Socrates said. You accept the

boons of a certain society. You have to serve that country. If you do

not like the country or society you go to another society that you

like. That freedom of choice is given to you. That is what Tolstoy

also said and this was what he was trying to do at his dying moment.

 

Thank you once again for having me back.

 

Warm Regards

Hersh

[Guest guest]

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

>>

> I request you and other members to just read 14 pages on Isa by

> Aurobindo at http://www.odinring.de/eng/isha.htm. Read only

Chapter

> 4 (14 pages) to get his message. Sunder Hattangadiji I was aware

of

> the link you posted

 

Namaste Hersh-ji,

 

I, too, welcome you back. If it was my posting (urging an

end to the thread) that precipitated your previous decision, then

that was not my intention. The posting was not a personal reply to

your post, but appeared so because the subject title remained

unchanged.

 

The link you have given notes it as an incomplete work, and

it has been revised subsequently but in separate works.

 

As Ramchandranji and Nairji have explained before, this

list focusses on Shankara's interpretation (Advaita) of Vedanta

(Upanishads). As Aurobindo has rejected it, just as Ramanuja and

Madhva before him, maybe for other reasons, his interpretation has

to be treated in the same manner as the others.

 

Philosophies that resonate with Shankara's get primary

attention - e.g. Kanchi Mahasvamigal, Ramana Maharshi, etc. One can

read ad infinitum other philosophies and even consider them

superior. The purpose of this list is not to prove it is better than

others. It has stood the test of time, has had living exemplars, and

left a legacy that attracts certain individuals inclined by an

innate temperament. It does not negate any other approach.

 

The confusion is caused by mixing and equating the words

Vedanta and Advaita. It is not correct to say 'advaita does not end

with traditional teachers'. It is the Vedanta interpretations that

do not end; Advaita can only be One.

Advaita has to be accepted in toto or rejected - as

graphically described in the metaphor 'you can't have half a hen for

cooking and the other half for laying eggs!'

 

Again, welcome back.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote: --- In

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

>>

 

The confusion is caused by mixing and equating the words

Vedanta and Advaita. It is not correct to say 'advaita does not end

with traditional teachers'. It is the Vedanta interpretations that

do not end; Advaita can only be One.

Advaita has to be accepted in toto or rejected - as

graphically described in the metaphor 'you can't have half a hen for

cooking and the other half for laying eggs!'

From

Sankarraman

It is by virtue of the fact that a transcendental philosophy is being mixed up

with a belief system, new and new teachers have to come to the world to caution

people to guard themselves against the tragic error of converting Advaita into

a cult. Advaita is not a cult. Advaita is not available through the books,

which are only within the five kosas as Bhaghavan Ramana cautions us, but has

to be discovered in the immediacy of one's true Self, which is occluded by all

extraneous thoughts. Even the etymological meaning of the word Vedanta, is, one

thinks, the ending of knowledge, the knowledge stored in the brain through

various beliefs. There is no question of something being superior as against

something inferior in the search for truth. Let us come to the perception of

the Self that swallows up everything and then talk of the superiority of any

world view.

yours ever in Bhaghavan Ramana

Sankarraman

[Guest guest]

Namaste Hershji.

 

A VERY VERY BIG WELCOME BACK.

 

Your 'come-back post', if I may call it so because I don't think you

have actually gone anywhere, speaks for itself. It is a piece of

elegance, eloquence and wisdom and justifies the Moderator's absolute

trust, which I tried to articulate yesterday, reposed in you. The

issues covered by you encompass a wide spectrum of reading, search

and seeking. I can't imagine what we would have lost if you hadn't

had second thoughts!

 

Now, if the Moderators can agree, I have the following suggestions.

Judging from his previous contributions and the monumental 'come-back

post', I am sure Hershji has more than the required calibre to

deliver our expections.

 

1. Let us invite Hershji to expound Auro's interpretation of

selected, very crucial verses from the GItA. We can take the ten

verses selected by Sw. Daynandaji, about which we discussed here

earlier, or else Shri Sunderji can pick the ones (not more than ten)

which he thinks are very important. That will give the Members an

excellent opportunity to judge where Auro's views parallel with

traditional advaita and where they differ. I know that the whole of

GItA is important. Yet, time is a crucial factor; we can't escape

being selective.

 

2. Hershji can also contribute to the ongoing GItA discussion (10th

chapter now) by quoting relevantly from Auro. It will be helpful if

he does this by first posting a very short one-post-long synopsis of

the essentials of Auro's GItA interpretation so that we all know what

type of a Master we are dealing with.

 

3. Simultaneously, we can also initiate a discussion on Auro's

fourteen-page interpretation of IshA for which Hershji has very

kindly given a link reference. I am going to read it and will be

back with my comments as to its relevance to advaita. I am sure

Chittaji and others are going to do the same.

 

We need to devote now fully to Adiji's current topic of discussion.

I am already feeling guilty that I have not played my humble role due

to pressure of work and the recent disheartening developments in the

List. Now that the cloud has passed over, I believe I have the right

frame of mind for the task.

 

Will be back soon.

 

Thanks and PraNAms to Hershji and all for bringing this bright morn

of brilliant sunshine back to the List. We deserve it.

 

LOKAH SAMASTAH SUKHINO BHAVANTU.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sankarraman:

 

I still don't understand your point of your contention. As a matter of

matter of fact, this list is against blind faith and/or 'cult.' I hope

that you understand, it is impossible to organize a mailing list by

permitting discussions without any boundary. The scope of the advaitin

list and the list guidelines should be 'seriously' considered as the

boundary. Accordingly, this list rigthtly so limits its discussions on

subject matter that is directly related to Sankara's advaita

philosophy.

 

I hope that you and other memebrs are aware that thousands of lists are

currently available within the discussing topics that

specifically suit individual interests. This is the best way to reduce

the number of emails each one can receive, handle and understand. For

example, there are more than ten mailing lists in the Internet that

specifically discuss the works of Sri Aurobindo. Also thousands of

mailings lists do discuss the works of Swami Vivekananda and Sri

Ramakrishna Parmahamsa. Similarly, the advaitin list wants to focus its

discussions primarily on Sankara's advaita philosophy. I am repeating

this important fact once again so that we understand our boundary with

respect to what we can discuss, when do we stop our debates. We should

always remember the fact, "Posting is a privilege and it is not a

right." These guidelines are set by the members of the list to keep the

list to focus on the subject matter. The moderators are expected to do

their 'DUTY' to keep the list focusing only on the subject matter.

 

I hope that this clarification will help all of us to understand and

fulfill our responsibilities.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Harih Om!

 

Ram Chandran

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran>

wrote:

>

> It is by virtue of the fact that a transcendental philosophy is

being mixed up with a belief system, new and new teachers have to come

to the world to caution people to guard themselves against the tragic

error of converting Advaita into a cult. Advaita is not a cult.

Advaita is not available through the books, which are only within the

five kosas as Bhaghavan Ramana cautions us, but has to be discovered

in the immediacy of one's true Self, which is occluded by all

extraneous thoughts.

[Guest guest]

--- Ram Chandran <ramvchandran wrote:

> Namaste Sri Sankarraman:

>

>

> I hope that this clarification will help all of us

> to understand and

> fulfill our responsibilities.

>

> From

Sankarraman

 

Yes, I respect your stand. would it be alright

if we discussed Advaita as taught by Bhaghavan Raman?

yours ever in Bhaghavan Ramana

Sankarraman

 

List Moderator's Note:

Yes, by all means. Please note that the advaita as practised by Bhagawan Ramana

implicitly and truly falls within Sankara's advaita philosophy.