Hello... and questions!

December 31, 2002

Dear David,

Nisargadatta , " sh1vashakt1 <d-mac@f...> " <d-

mac@f...> wrote:

Hello everyone. I hope you can help my understanding of Advaita

and it's teachings.

I wonder whether it is necessary to practise formal sitting

meditation in Advaita? I get the impression by what Nisargadatta

wrote that, this finding the 'I am' by finding out what it is not,

indicates a meditation wherever you find yourself; at all times and

in all situations. I assume that there is a 'practice' within

Advaita if only to show that practice is unnecessary? I would still

assume that there IS a practice!

< snip >

KKT: I found this on the cover

of my book " I Am That "

Question: All teachers advise to meditate.

What is the purpose of meditation?

Maharaj: We know the outer world of sensations

and actions, but of our inner world of thoughts

and feelings we know very little. The primary

purpose of meditation is to become conscious

and familiar with our inner life. The ultimate

purpose is to reach the source of life and consciousness.

Incidentally, skill in meditation affects deeply

our character. We are slaves to what we do not know;

of what we know we are masters. Whatever vice or

weakness in ourselves we discover and understand

its causes and its workings, we overcome it by

the very knowing; the unconscious dissolves when

brought into the conscious. The dissolution

of the un-conscious releases energy; the mind

feels adequate and become quiet.

Q: What is the use of a quiet mind?

M: When the mind is quiet, we come to know

ourselves as pure witness. We withdraw from

the experience and stand apart in pure awareness

which is between and beyond the two. The personality,

based on self-identification, on imagining oneself

to be something: " I am this, I am that " , continues,

but as a part of the objective world. Its identification

with the witness snaps.

KKT

December 31, 2002

hi david,

you're asking questions that have been debated endlessly. advaita is

a series of mystical insights. unlike the organized religions,

mytics tend to be independent. advaitins also avoid calling advaita

a teaching because this is something you already know, not something

that can be taught. hence there is no official universal teaching.

confusing so far? well, here is my personal interpretation of the

paradox:

> I wonder whether it is necessary to practise formal sitting

> meditation in Advaita?

in neo-advaita there are no prescriptions but simply " pointers " that

link to one's mystical realization. yet focusing on these pointers

tend to silence one's mind and advaitins tend to abide in silence at

times. is it a required practice? no

> I get the impression by what Nisargadatta

> wrote that, this finding the 'I am' by finding out what it is not,

> indicates a meditation wherever you find yourself; at all times and

> in all situations. I assume that there is a 'practice' within

> Advaita if only to show that practice is unnecessary? I would

still

> assume that there IS a practice!

hmmm... meditation practice is neither required nor discouraged.

there is no intention to show practice is necessary or unnecessary.

you see, the sages are not giving you anything to hang on to...not

even the idea " don't hang on to concepts. "

how many ways can you say " silence " ?

> More questions! I am having a real problem getting my head

around

> this 'the mind is not in the body, the body is in the mind'

> situation. I know you will probably think that this is a waste of

> time but, if I can KNOW that this is the case, I feel that another

> illusion will be dismantled and I will be a little closer to the

> Truth. I cannot help feeling this is another 'chicken and the egg'

> dilemma. As for myself, whilst the statement and recognition

that 'I

> am sitting in front of a Computer screen' is a thought that passes

as

> content in my mind, I am also aware that without said computer and

me

> sitting in front of it, that thought would not arise. Hmmm... I

> find this confusing but is there a solution? Or, should I just

stick

> to finding Who I am not?

here is the simple solution: silence the mind. whatever arises, the

ideas of " the body in the mind " or the " mind in the body " born out

of consciousness.

consciousness can be a confusing term because we tend to think of it

in bio-chemical terms. how about using the word " existence "

instead? in other words, body and mind both (in) existence.

hur

January 1, 2003

Dear Hur,

Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler <hurg> "

<hurg> wrote:

< snip >

in neo-advaita there are no prescriptions but simply " pointers " that

link to one's mystical realization.

KKT: One question.

What do you mean by << neo-advaita >> ?

And what is the difference

with (traditional) Advaita?

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

consciousness can be a confusing term because we tend to think of it

in bio-chemical terms. how about using the word " existence "

instead? in other words, body and mind both (in) existence.

hur

KKT: I find << consciousness >> is a good term.

For example, to realize that one << exists >>

one should be << conscious >> a` priori ?

Cogito ergo sum

I think therefore I am

Happy New Year

KKT

January 1, 2003

or [non] existence either, as advaita, [nor] vedanta !

:-)

no matter,

nobody

nomind

nothing

only I

only No I

only All

Vedanta

All Is Bliss, all is bliss...

..

-

<hurg

Tuesday, December 31, 2002 10:18 PM

Re: Hello... and questions!

hi david,

you're asking questions that have been debated endlessly. advaita is

a series of mystical insights. unlike the organized religions,

mytics tend to be independent. advaitins also avoid calling advaita

a teaching because this is something you already know, not something

that can be taught. hence there is no official universal teaching.

confusing so far? well, here is my personal interpretation of the

paradox:

> I wonder whether it is necessary to practise formal sitting

> meditation in Advaita?

in neo-advaita there are no prescriptions but simply " pointers " that

link to one's mystical realization. yet focusing on these pointers

tend to silence one's mind and advaitins tend to abide in silence at

times. is it a required practice? no

> I get the impression by what Nisargadatta

> wrote that, this finding the 'I am' by finding out what it is not,

> indicates a meditation wherever you find yourself; at all times and

> in all situations. I assume that there is a 'practice' within

> Advaita if only to show that practice is unnecessary? I would

still

> assume that there IS a practice!

hmmm... meditation practice is neither required nor discouraged.

there is no intention to show practice is necessary or unnecessary.

you see, the sages are not giving you anything to hang on to...not

even the idea " don't hang on to concepts. "

how many ways can you say " silence " ?

> More questions! I am having a real problem getting my head

around

> this 'the mind is not in the body, the body is in the mind'

> situation. I know you will probably think that this is a waste of

> time but, if I can KNOW that this is the case, I feel that another

> illusion will be dismantled and I will be a little closer to the

> Truth. I cannot help feeling this is another 'chicken and the egg'

> dilemma. As for myself, whilst the statement and recognition

that 'I

> am sitting in front of a Computer screen' is a thought that passes

as

> content in my mind, I am also aware that without said computer and

me

> sitting in front of it, that thought would not arise. Hmmm... I

> find this confusing but is there a solution? Or, should I just

stick

> to finding Who I am not?

here is the simple solution: silence the mind. whatever arises, the

ideas of " the body in the mind " or the " mind in the body " born out

of consciousness.

consciousness can be a confusing term because we tend to think of it

in bio-chemical terms. how about using the word " existence "

instead? in other words, body and mind both (in) existence.

hur

January 1, 2003

Are You Void So ?

-

<phamdluan

Wednesday, January 01, 2003 1:06 AM

Re: Hello... and questions!

Dear Hur,

Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler <hurg> "

<hurg> wrote:

< snip >

in neo-advaita there are no prescriptions but simply " pointers " that

link to one's mystical realization.

KKT: One question.

What do you mean by << neo-advaita >> ?

And what is the difference

with (traditional) Advaita?

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

consciousness can be a confusing term because we tend to think of it

in bio-chemical terms. how about using the word " existence "

instead? in other words, body and mind both (in) existence.

hur

KKT: I find << consciousness >> is a good term.

For example, to realize that one << exists >>

one should be << conscious >> a` priori ?

Cogito ergo sum

I think therefore I am

Happy New Year

KKT

January 1, 2003

Nisargadatta , " shantiprod " <shantiprod>

wrote:

Are You Void So ?

KKT: Unfortunately, I am full :-))

Full of an << I AM >> and an << I am X,Y,Z >>

The difference between the two

is just an << identification >>

i.e. the << feeling of I, Me, Mine, Myself >>

or the sense of << doership >> :-))

And this identification should be

dissolved by the magic of ... the Void :-))

Voidly yours :-))

KKT

===========

-

<phamdluan@a...>

Wednesday, January 01, 2003 1:06 AM

Re: Hello... and questions!

Dear Hur,

Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler <hurg> "

<hurg> wrote:

< snip >

in neo-advaita there are no prescriptions but simply " pointers " that

link to one's mystical realization.

KKT: One question.

What do you mean by << neo-advaita >> ?

And what is the difference

with (traditional) Advaita?

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

consciousness can be a confusing term because we tend to think of it

in bio-chemical terms. how about using the word " existence "

instead? in other words, body and mind both (in) existence.

hur

KKT: I find << consciousness >> is a good term.

For example, to realize that one << exists >>

one should be << conscious >> a` priori ?

Cogito ergo sum

I think therefore I am

Happy New Year

KKT

January 2, 2003

Nisargadatta , " phamdluan2000 <phamdluan@a...> "

<phamdluan@a...> wrote:

>

> in neo-advaita there are no prescriptions but simply " pointers "

that

> link to one's mystical realization.

>

> KKT: One question.

>

> What do you mean by << neo-advaita >> ?

>

> And what is the difference

> with (traditional) Advaita?

> -------------

traditional advaita is a nondual school in india, founded by

shankara. the prescription of that school states that the path or

the transmission is through knowledge which can only be obtained by

the study of scriptures. spontenous enligtenment means very little

for this school because it can happen to anyone, even to an

uneducated housewife in india. the traditional advaita school tend

to be sexist in that they don't recognize females as gurus.

on the other hand, the neo-advaita, a term i use to refer to

independent modern mystics, particularly ramana and nisargadatta, may

borrow certain terms from scriptures but the validity of their

teaching do not depend on the scriptures. that's one of the reasons

why neo-advaita appealed to the westerners because they didn't have

to learn the scriptures or the rituals...not to mention the fact this

was impractical for most since they could only stay in india for a

few months.

>

> For example, to realize that one << exists >>

> one should be << conscious >> a` priori ?

>

> Cogito ergo sum

> I think therefore I am

>

we don't understand what consciousness is. to make the matters even

more difficult the conscious mind needs consciousness to understand

itself. if you look at consciousness as a tool, we use the same tool

to understand the tool.

it's also true that we, as the individual body/minds, depend on the

mind/consciousness to know existence but i don't think that the

personal consciousness has to exist before existence.

*am* or existence is therefore *i* is true as well.

if i remember correctly from my phil class, when descartes used the

term " cogito ergo sum " he was concluding a long article he wrote in

which he wonders if he's being deceived by a demon. though he never

uses the term lila, according to the christian mind the hindu concept

lila must sound like a demon. descartes concludes that even if he's

been deceived by a demon, ie if this is all an illusion, a dream,

then there must be a descartes to be deceived in the first place. in

other words, (even if) i am being deceived by a demonic illusion,

therefore i am. descartes' dualistic model builds from the empirical

evidence than the absolute.

on the other hand the the hindu traditional myth/model advaita starts

from the absolute that the brahman, the universal existence or

consciousness (whichever term you prefer) manifests itself through

atman, the individual. it's only the individual mind, the wave that

knows the universal/ocean. the universal existence, brahman (or

consciousness) does not know itself since it is all " knowing " and

there is not even an " i " to know.

the traditional hindu model does not deny the individual and

accepts " brahman the universal " and " atman the individual " both and

concludes that atman=brahman. an advaitic realization of this model

can also mean that the self=consciousness.

hur

January 3, 2003

Dear Hur,

Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler <hurg> "

<hurg> wrote:

> in neo-advaita there are no prescriptions but simply " pointers "

> that link to one's mystical realization.

>

> KKT: One question.

>

> What do you mean by << neo-advaita >> ?

>

> And what is the difference

> with (traditional) Advaita?

traditional advaita is a nondual school in india, founded by

shankara. the prescription of that school states that the path or

the transmission is through knowledge which can only be obtained by

the study of scriptures. spontenous enligtenment means very little

for this school because it can happen to anyone, even to an

uneducated housewife in india. the traditional advaita school tend

to be sexist in that they don't recognize females as gurus.

on the other hand, the neo-advaita, a term i use to refer to

independent modern mystics, particularly ramana and nisargadatta, may

borrow certain terms from scriptures but the validity of their

teaching do not depend on the scriptures. that's one of the reasons

why neo-advaita appealed to the westerners because they didn't have

to learn the scriptures or the rituals...not to mention the fact this

was impractical for most since they could only stay in india for a

few months.

KKT: Thank you very much

for your long and thoughtful answer.

I was particularly struck by your

statements about traditional advaita that

<< the path or the transmission is through knowledge

which can only be obtained by the study of scriptures >>

and

<< spontenous enligtenment means very little for this school >>

Could you furnish more evidence

to back up your statements?

I read from the book

Advaita Vedanta by Eliot Deutsch, p.4:

Advaita Vedanta is more than a philosophical system,

as we understand these terms in the West today;

it is also a practical guide to spiritual experience,

and is intimately bound up with spiritual experience.

The Advaitin is convinced that " to know " is " to be " ;

that one acquires knowledge only in an act of conscious

being which is akin to what one knows and is the content

of direct experience. " Disease, " Samkara notes. " is not

cured by pronouncing 'medicine,' but by taking it. "

Advaita Vedanta is a religion as much as it is a technical

philosophy; it is a way of spiritual realization as well as

a system of thought.

It seems that contradicts your statements?

Again, thank you very much for your sharing.

Peace,

KKT

January 3, 2003

Well, Hum-hum !...

Let Me Say :

if you take off Advaita, that could be such a [non] practise, but maybe

showing You as I on the Path (which seems to be a brige either, nor a total

off-hanging in the Confidence of God, vertically down to nothing, or The

Self, or the Instant That You live conscioussly, so when evrerything

including this and that and no-thing is off, what shall remain may we call

Vedanta !

Ha !

:-)

Phil

-

<phamdluan

Friday, January 03, 2003 1:21 AM

Re: Hello... and questions!

Dear Hur,

Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler <hurg> "

<hurg> wrote:

> in neo-advaita there are no prescriptions but simply " pointers "

> that link to one's mystical realization.

>

> KKT: One question.

>

> What do you mean by << neo-advaita >> ?

>

> And what is the difference

> with (traditional) Advaita?

traditional advaita is a nondual school in india, founded by

shankara. the prescription of that school states that the path or

the transmission is through knowledge which can only be obtained by

the study of scriptures. spontenous enligtenment means very little

for this school because it can happen to anyone, even to an

uneducated housewife in india. the traditional advaita school tend

to be sexist in that they don't recognize females as gurus.

on the other hand, the neo-advaita, a term i use to refer to

independent modern mystics, particularly ramana and nisargadatta, may

borrow certain terms from scriptures but the validity of their

teaching do not depend on the scriptures. that's one of the reasons

why neo-advaita appealed to the westerners because they didn't have

to learn the scriptures or the rituals...not to mention the fact this

was impractical for most since they could only stay in india for a

few months.

KKT: Thank you very much

for your long and thoughtful answer.

I was particularly struck by your

statements about traditional advaita that

<< the path or the transmission is through knowledge

which can only be obtained by the study of scriptures >>

and

<< spontenous enligtenment means very little for this school >>

Could you furnish more evidence

to back up your statements?

I read from the book

Advaita Vedanta by Eliot Deutsch, p.4:

Advaita Vedanta is more than a philosophical system,

as we understand these terms in the West today;

it is also a practical guide to spiritual experience,

and is intimately bound up with spiritual experience.

The Advaitin is convinced that " to know " is " to be " ;

that one acquires knowledge only in an act of conscious

being which is akin to what one knows and is the content

of direct experience. " Disease, " Samkara notes. " is not

cured by pronouncing 'medicine,' but by taking it. "

Advaita Vedanta is a religion as much as it is a technical

philosophy; it is a way of spiritual realization as well as

a system of thought.

It seems that contradicts your statements?

Again, thank you very much for your sharing.

Peace,

KKT

January 5, 2003

Nisargadatta , " phamdluan2000 <phamdluan@a...> "

<phamdluan@a...> wrote:

>

> Could you furnish more evidence

> to back up your statements?

>

> I read from the book

> Advaita Vedanta by Eliot Deutsch, p.4:

>

> Advaita Vedanta is more than a philosophical system,

> as we understand these terms in the West today;

> it is also a practical guide to spiritual experience,

> and is intimately bound up with spiritual experience.

>

> It seems that contradicts your statements?

>

> Again, thank you very much for your sharing.

>

hi KKT,

I liked Deutch's commentary. Whether it's modern Advaita or

traditional Advaita Vedanta, most Eastern mystical traditions are not

merely philosophical systems but ultimately they intend to transform

the seeker/student. I'm not sure how you read my statements but I

was making a comparison between the " source code " of traditional

Advaita Vedanta versus modern Advaita. In traditional Advaita just

in any other traditional system the structure is based on the

scriptures but in modern Advaita, particularly the way Ramana and

Nisargadatta spoke from their experience, although they borrowed

terms from scriptures, ultimately the validity of their teaching do

not depend on the scriptures.

Traditions form very easily. In fact we already have a modern

Advaita tradition formed by Ramana and Nisargadatta. For example,

after you read " I am That " translated by Maurice Frydman, when you

compare Nisargadatta's ideas to his students' teachings, such as

Ramesh Balsekar, it'd be unfair to shoot down Ramesh' ideas just

because his ideas differ from our modern scripture " I am That. "

If you're interested further how traditional Advaita Vedanta differs

from modern Advaita you can search from the traditional sources some

of which available online.

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/links/

or participate in the Advaitin discussion group to test some ideas:

advaitin/

Hur

January 5, 2003

Hi Hur,