Commitment in advaita sadhana

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Advaita sadhana aspires to a common truth, which is the same for

everyone. That truth is sought through many paths, which are suited

to our different personalities. Thus, in the end, each path requires

that all differences be given up, to reach a truth that is

eventually impersonal.

 

Whatever path is followed, a complete commitment is required from

the sadhaka -- so that all mind and body and all physical and mental

differences are sacrificed, in the attainment of a final truth that

is the impersonal and undifferentiated essence of all differentiated

personality and world.

 

To cultivate this full commitment, every path that's followed must

be taken as the best of paths, for those sadhakas that are engaged

in it. At any time, a sadhaka must follow just one path, as the best

and only path for her or him to follow at that time.

 

As different sadhakas each follow different paths, it's therefore

only natural that they should disagree about which path is best. But

when a sadhaka becomes committed to a particular path, then other

paths are no longer that sadhaka's business -- neither to attack

them as competitors, nor to hanker after their physical or mental

benefits.

 

When different sadhakas relate, across their different paths, it's

helpful then to recognize their differing commitments, as each

sadhaka speaks from a perspective that is taken to be the best for

her or for him. With such a recognition, it is sometimes possible to

translate across the difference of perspective, and thus to learn

from differing experiences in different paths.

 

In particular, I have in mind our currently ongoing discussion about

the samadhi states of yogic meditation in relation to the reflective

questioning of advaita philosophy. There really is no need to

champion one at the expense of the other.

 

The cultivation of samadhi states has long been used quite

effectively, in many ancient traditions, in order to expand the mind

and to purify the character. Moreover, in the Indian tradition,

yogic meditation has been systematically explained and developed in

a way that connects it with the practice of Advaita Vedanta

philosophy. So, historically, samadhi states have often played a

major part in the practice of advaita enquiry. And they still do, at

the present time. It would be quite wrong to deny or to belittle

this.

 

However, it is also wrong to assert, as some yogins do, that all

philosophy is merely theoretical and so it must be put into practice

through the yogic cultivation of samadhi states. This assertion is

quite simply a misunderstanding of what's meant by the word

'philosophy'. As long described by Advaita Vedanta (and by the

ancient Greeks), philosophy is not mere theory. It is not the

building up of theories and conceptual pictures that describe the

world. Instead, it is a questioning back down, into the assumptions

and beliefs on which our theories and our pictures have been

founded.

 

It's just that turned back questioning which is the actual practice

of philosophy. It is no more or less that a reflective asking for a

plain and simple truth -- beneath the theories and the pictures that

have been superimposed on it, by construction from obscured and

blind habits of assumption and belief. Hence the Greek word

'philosophia', which means 'love of true knowing' (from 'philo-'

meaning 'love' and 'sophia' meaning 'wisdom' or 'true knowing'). The

essence of philosophy is just the love of truth -- which is sought

by asking back down, into the truth of our own knowing.

 

In the early Upanishads, that asking back is clearly and succinctly

described, without any mention of yogic meditation. As the Advaita

tradition progresses, yogic meditation is increasingly described, as

a practice that is used in co-operation with advaita enquiry. As far

as I can make out, Shri Shankara also speaks of yogic meditation in

this way (though as some list-members have recently pointed out, the

position is of course complicated by different ways of interpreting

the texts of the Shankara tradition).

 

In classical and medieval India, as bhakti gets to be more

emphasized, so does the 'prema' or 'love' aspect of the Advaita

tradition, with the result that three aspects come to be more

explicitly acknowledged. Advaitic truth is thus described as

'sat-cit-ananda': with the 'sat' or 'existence' aspect approached

through the yoga marga (the way of meditative union), the 'cit' or

'consciousness' aspect approached through the jnyana marga (the way

of knowledge), and the 'ananda' or 'happiness' aspect approached

through the bhakti marga (the way of devotion).

 

In modernizing India, these same three aspects continue to be

emphasized -- through their three ways of approach which seem to

compete, but which more fundamentally co-operate towards their

common goal. And here, in the 20th century, Ramana Maharshi has

spoken of an 'arjava marga' or a 'direct approach', which works

through 'atma-vicara' or 'self-enquiry'.

 

Soon after Ramana Maharshi, there has been the householder teacher,

Shri Atmananda. He was a police officer and a family man, teaching

in his native Malayalam and in modern English from his home in

Kerala. For most of his disciples, he taught what he called in

Malayalam and in Sanskrit the 'vicara marga'. This phrase means

literally the 'way of thought' or the 'way of questioning'. But when

he taught in modern English, he spoke of this 'vicara marga' in a

slightly different way, as the 'direct method'.

 

For both Ramana Maharshi and Shri Atmananda, this 'direct' way does

not essentially depend upon the traditional authority of ancient and

established texts. Here, the authority of ancient scripture is

replaced by a more direct questioning of individual experience,

under the guidance of a living teacher.

 

But neither Ramana Maharshi nor Shri Atmananda was disrespectful of

the established texts and their traditional ways. Both sages

recognized the use of tradition in its proper context.

 

In particular, though Ramana Maharshi did not make much use of

scripture in his own sadhana, he did become acquainted with it later

on. And he did use it, along with quite some use of yogic meditation

and religious worship, to explain his teachings and to help instruct

his disciples in their sadhana.

 

Similarly, Shri Atmananda was careful to explain that his 'direct

method' was not basically opposed to more traditional methods. He

taught his disciples to respect his contemporary sages, like

Anandamayi Ma and the Kanci Mahasvami, who instructed their

followers through more yogic and more scriptural paths. And he was

quite insistent on the need to avoid aggressive and upsetting

controversies, with those who follow different paths.

 

The point here is that advaita questioning must always turn its

attack upon the questioner's mistakes of assumption and belief. When

the attack is turned outside, towards what someone else believes,

then that external attack is sadly theoretical. It sadly serves to

further build the questioner's constructed theories, which thus

increase and reinforce their covering of underlying mistakes and

misunderstandings that yet remain to be uncovered and clarified.

 

Advaita questioning is only practical when its attack is turned back

in, towards the underlying depth of mind, so that the questioner's

own false beliefs are genuinely open to investigation. It's only

thus that hidden falsity gets opened up and clarified -- so that

true knowing is progressively expressed in truer feelings, clearer

thoughts and more useful acts which may arise from it.

 

Whatever path a sadhaka may follow, aggression towards other paths

is a misuse of advaita questioning. It's a misuse that goes minding

someone else's business. And it thus undermines commitment to the

very path that is being misused to mount an attack elsewhere.

 

In any path, one test of genuine commitment is how far it enables an

appreciation of the best in other paths. But that, of course, is

easier said than done.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Ananda Wood <awood (AT) vsnl (DOT) com> wrote: Namaste,

 

 

Advaita questioning is only practical when its attack is turned back

in, towards the underlying depth of mind, so that the questioner's

own false beliefs are genuinely open to investigation. It's only

thus that hidden falsity gets opened up and clarified -- so that

true knowing is progressively expressed in truer feelings, clearer

thoughts and more useful acts which may arise from it.

 

Ananda

 

Namaskaram

your above statment brings out everything- that we we forget without fail. I had heard Sw Paramarthananda telling us several times, that Vedanta study is not meant to tell others this is it and this is not it, but to ask " to myself" is it?, is that understanding right?, etc...not to advice OTHERS, but to advice ones OWN mind , train ones OWN MIND and INTELLECT etc.

Yes, for last few days or weeks this SATSANG forgot about that most important underlying principle...resulting in a lot of HEAT ...

but then there is always some good things happening from such situations..

like how fortunate we are to have the posting of Shri Jaishankarji and now your this posting to REMIND us all once again...

look inwards....look inwards..

The cool breeze that comes out of your postings will sure make the heat a thing of past..( atleast for the time being until another point comes up like this....but then that is the only way we could be tested and reminded that we are still only students and need to learn a lot...lot more...)

very beautiful indeed and namaskaram once again for this posting

 

 

 

 

Find out what India is talking about on - Answers India

Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Messenger Version 8. Get it NOW

[Guest guest]

Pai-ji

Pranams

My salutations to you for bringing out that wonderful

message from Swami Paramarthananda-ji.

So true.

 

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Shyam

 

--- ram mohan anantha pai <pairamblr > wrote:

 

I had heard Sw Paramarthananda telling us several

times, that Vedanta study is not meant to tell others

this is it and this is not it, but to ask " to

myself" is it?, is that understanding right?,

etc...not to advice OTHERS, but to advice ones OWN

mind , train ones OWN MIND and INTELLECT etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear all,

 

Shree ram mohan anantha pai ji wrote:-

 

> Yes, for last few days or weeks this SATSANG

> forgot about that most important underlying

> principle...resulting in a lot of HEAT ...

 

I was also part of the discussions for the past few

days and am to be blamed for not realizing it soon

enough.

Kindly take my word that I will thus withdraw from

discussion on this topic on samAdhi.

 

Kind regards,

Raghava

 

 

________

India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new

http://in.answers./