New Member

[Guest guest]

Shree Andrew - First, welcome to the group.

 

Your post is interesting.

 

Let us not discuss somebody's experience in Meditation. Everybody is longing for

some experience and some quote what they or others have experienced. These are

all subjective.

 

Let us discuss from the truth point - the very subject who is longing for

experience or who experienced.

 

In any experience, there are three aspects -experiencer, experienced and

experiencing. There are time-bound. The truth is beyond time concept itself.

 

The subject, I, takes the role of experiencer when there is some object to

experience- whether seeing myself as something that I want to be or imagined to

be to be in a state that others glorify and others have a value for it.

 

Subject without any objectless identification is no more subject but pure

existence-consciousness - one without any limitations since limitations belong

to objects that subject is not. A clear understanding who that I am is the very

understanding of aatma or self that I am. Every object becomes then only an

apparent thing which has not independent existence of its own since object exist

only as object of experience for the subject. When the subject transcends the

subject-ness of the subject there is no more object-ness associated with

apparent objects.

 

Hence all experiences are understood as temporal or mithyaa or have no validity

from the absolute subject-less that I am.

 

That my friend is advaita or non-dual. Oneness in spite of apparent duality or

apparent experiences.

 

Hope this helps

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--- On Tue, 10/20/09, andrew nyerere <poppywewi wrote:

 

 

Now,I am new to the group,but I already I have a question.

 

I am reading this book an autobiography of Rev. Moon,you may have heard of Rev.

Moon,he is the Christian Rev. of South Korea,leader of the Unification

Church,the one who is always in the Press,performing marriages for scores of

couples,sometimes hundreds of couples.

[Guest guest]

>

> How would you write this sentence for Rev. Moon'' Some refer to this as

anatman,or not-self''

>

> And who are these 'some'' who are being reffered to,can we call them

vedantists or advaita vedantists.'

>

> I am right,am I not,when I say that the word that the Rev. was seeking for

was ''Brahman,and not anatman''?

>

>

>

> Sincerely,

>

> I am Andrew.

>

 

Welcome Mr Andrew.Shuttling in between opposites is beating round the

bush.Unless otherwise one is familiar with the drama of ones own mother tongue

there may not be true perception. Perceiving without the perceiver is what

Vedanta advocates.Without knowing what illusion is it makes little sense in

talking beyond illusion.

thank you and your comments are invited

sekhar

> _______________

> Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online.

>

http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-\

network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_1:092010

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear sir & other revered members,

 

********************

While in that state,I listen to the sounds nature hands to me-the sounds of the

pine trees,the sound of the bugs-and we become friends. I could go to a village

and know,without meeting anyone,the disposition of the minds of the people

living there.I would go into the meadow of a village and spend the night

there,then listen to what the crops in the fields would tell me. I could see

whether the crops were sad or happy and that would tell me the kind of people

who lived there.

****************************

 

Going by the above statements of Rev. Moon, this *experience* cannot be termed

as *anAtma-bhAva* but there is an exact term called *sa-hridayatva* which means

to become one with the soul of others and experiencing in oneself others' joys &

sorrows.

 

This reminds the story of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. When he sees the bull being

hit hard by a villager, the bruises were seen on the back of Ramakrishna. This

is NOT Mithya. This is SarvAtmana-bhAva which is achieved by a highly sensitive

upasaka.

 

This sarvAtmanAbhava is ONLY achived through ahamgrahopasana as brahmanda &

pindanda to be one entity. The last sloka of Dakshinamurthy stotra hints this

upasana in the form of " sarvAtmatvam iti sphuTikritam yasmAd muShminstavE......

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

regs,

sriram

 

 

 

 

advaitin , andrew nyerere <poppywewi wrote:

>

>

> Dear Friends,

>

> I am new to the group. Hello every one. I am in Tacoma,Washington.

>

> Now,I am new to the group,but I already I have a question.

>

> I am reading this book an autobiography of Rev. Moon,you may have heard of

Rev. Moon,he is the Christian Rev. of South Korea,leader of the Unification

Church,the one who is always in the Press,performing marriages for scores of

couples,sometimes hundreds of couples.

>

> Anyway,this Rev, is writing his autobiography,and as I was reading it I came

across this sentence; " Even now I close my eyes and enter a state in which I am

one with nature.Some refer to this as 'anatman',or 'not-self',but to me it is

more than that,because nature enters and settles into the place that has been

made empty. While in that state,I listen to the sounds nature hands to me-the

sounds of the pine trees,the sound of the bugs-and we become friends. I could go

to a village and know,without meeting anyone,the disposition of the minds of the

people living there.I would go into the meadow of a village and spend the night

there,then listen to what the crops in the fields would tell me. I could see

whether the crops were sad or happy and that would tell me the kind of people

who lived there.''

>

> I have quoted this at lenght,so that we can see what kind of state it is

that he has called the 'anatman' state.

>

> But then,this does not make much sense to me. Because I think what the Rev.

is talking about here is a state of transcending the atma,and experiencing the

Brahman. So,I remembered as my eye was roving over the introduction, the

translators of this work had said this was a copy for review,'this edition is

not considered final.'

>

> So,since I am staying here at the house of this person who is a dsiciple of

this Rev..I would like to ask your opinion about this.

>

> How would you write this sentence for Rev. Moon'' Some refer to this as

anatman,or not-self''

>

> And who are these 'some'' who are being reffered to,can we call them

vedantists or advaita vedantists.'

>

> I am right,am I not,when I say that the word that the Rev. was seeking for

was ''Brahman,and not anatman''?

>

>

>

> Sincerely,

>

> I am Andrew.

>

> _______________

> Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online.

>

http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-\

network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_1:092010

>

>

[Guest guest]

This reminds the story of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. When he sees the bull

being hit hard by a villager, the bruises were seen on the back of

Ramakrishna. This is NOT Mithya. This is SarvAtmana-bhAva which is

achieved by a highly sensitive upasaka.

praNAms

Hare Krishna

I've read same type of incident in Swamy vivekananda's life also. Kindly

dont think I am questioning the credibility of this episode..But a doubt

arise in my ever inquisitive mind, which I would like to share with you

all. why a upAsaka's 'body' should get a scratch when 'pashu's body'

being hit!!?? Is this bull's body he is identifying with himself or the

indwelling /all pervading Atman?? If this realization is 'all pervading

Atman' then irrespective of the body (bull's body or paramahamsa's body) &

the bruises, the upAsaka would have felt that pain in his mind...We agree

that it is not sarva dehAtma bhAva, it_is-sarvAtma bhAva...Kindly clarify

my doubt.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " babi " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

>

> Dear sir & other revered members,

>

> ********************

> While in that state,I listen to the sounds nature hands to me-the sounds of

the pine trees,the sound of the bugs-and we become friends. I could go to a

village and know,without meeting anyone,the disposition of the minds of the

people living there.I would go into the meadow of a village and spend the night

there,then listen to what the crops in the fields would tell me. I could see

whether the crops were sad or happy and that would tell me the kind of people

who lived there.

> ****************************

>

 

> >If it is a nameless experience you are blessed to have.What do you want more

than this.You are welcome and free to discuss to your hearts content.

thank you

sekhar

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste James (or better, Sadashiv). Thanks for your email. Yes, it is an interesting discussions on Advaita. I myself am only mildly steeped in the subject being a reader of Adi Shankara (and my guru (Sri Pattahbi Jois) always quoted him. Anyway, warm regards from Florida, Jeff--- On Tue, 1/26/10, james <jdhoy wrote:james <jdhoy New Memberadvaitin Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2010, 1:26 PM

 

 

Hello from Pittsburgh. I go by JD. My initiation name is Sadashiv though it is infrequently, if ever, of any import. Am enjoying the perceived friction playing out between the Traditionalist and the Neo. Is this not plain and simple Advaita appearing as a battle of duelistic proportion? Namaste.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " james " <jdhoy wrote:

>

> Hello from Pittsburgh. I go by JD. My initiation name is Sadashiv though it

is infrequently, if ever, of any import. Am enjoying the perceived friction

playing out between the Traditionalist and the Neo. Is this not plain and

simple Advaita appearing as a battle of duelistic proportion? Namaste.

 

Namaste Sadashiv (James),

 

If you are asking is there a difference between what

is referred to as 'traditional' teachings of nonduality,

and the nontraditional movement (or neo, as it is sometimes

called), I would say there definitely is a very big difference.

 

First of all, what is meant by the term 'neo,' or

'nontraditional?' This is actually a category so

large that it is not easy to simply say who or

what is in it.

 

I would say that the term 'neo' (when speaking of a teacher)

refers to those who give talks or 'satsangs,' who either

claim to have self-knowledge, (are enlightened), let others make

the claim for them, or imply from their words that

they are. Often the word which is used (if any word

is used at all) to describe self-knowledge,

or enlightenment is 'awake,' or 'awakening.'

 

Whether this vast number (and it really is quite

large at this point) of people who seem to claim

they can speak authoritatively on the subject of

advaita, are (in their words) 'awake' is one

question.

 

Another question would be, even if that person

is 'awake' does he or she have the ability to

'awaken' or pass what he or she knows on to another,

so that person in turn can recognize the same thing?

 

In the teachings of Vedanta it is acknowledged that

there may be a few jnanis (people with self-knowledge,

who are 'awake') who arrived at this knowledge some

how on their own and without a teacher. Ramana Maharshi

is often famously cited to be such a one. However, in general,

this is considered to be very rare.

 

One very useful distinction to draw between

Vedanta, which is a teaching tradition, and

whatever it is that is going on in the 'neo-sphere,'

is that the teachings of Vedanta employ a clear and

logical methodology, which takes the mind of the student,

step by step to the direct recognition of the nondual

nature of reality.

 

Neo teachers and teachings have no such methodology

at their disposal. Theirs is a very hit and miss affair.

 

Just telling someone, " You are already free. You

are already that which you seek, " without having

a clear way to show the person that is true, isn't

all that useful, IMO. And I have seen instances

where this can actually be damaging, because such

statements may even increase a feeling of low

self-esteem if the student doesn't understand

the words. And how can the student initially

understand such words? It isn't even possible, IMO.

 

So without going into an in-depth analysis, which

has been done elsewhere, in Dennis Waite's book,

" Enlightenment the Path through the Jungle, "

and also in some articles which can be found here

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/trad_neo.htm

and in many other places on the web as well,

I would say that the main, and very important difference

between nontraditional and traditional teachings of

advaita is that the traditional has a tried and

true teaching methodology which has been employed

throughout hundreds, if not thousands, of years

by a teacher who knows how to use it, and which

methodology has again allowed many (probably thousands

I would assume) to come to the clear direct recognition

of the nondual nature of reality.

 

And this methodology has been passed from teacher to

student in an unbroken line. Although the term

'neo-advaita' is very broad and can be seen to include

an enormous number of diverse individuals and their

correspondingly diverse statements, there is one thing

which all of these nontraditional 'neo' teachings

lack.

 

And what is missing from them is a teaching tradition,

a tried and true teaching methodology for the gain of

self-knowledge that has been passed from teacher to student,

and this passing of the teaching tradition is what is called 'lineage.'

 

As far as I know, there is no neo-advaitin who knows

how to use a clear, tried and true teaching methodology.

 

Now, it is this methodology itself which some neo-advaitins

may object to (if they even know about it, which IMO most

don't) because they will say it is hide-bound,

or stale, or something of the sort. And I can understand

such objections. But when these objections are put to

the test, they don't really hold water.

 

I would say that a quality of a person who really wants self-knowledge, whether

they are going for neo teachings or traditional teachings, is that they want

something

that works. So, if someone is having some doubts about

what it is that works, I would advise them to examine

their own experience. If that person thinks neo teachings

work, fine, let them try that. But if a person has

discovered after years of hopping from one neo teacher

to another, or even after staying with one, that it hasn't

worked, then that person might like to try and investigate

traditional teachings, which actually do work, and which

have a much better and proven track record over time.

 

Best wishes,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Who am I, I am e-go and nothing else. Words are only useful for egoic

reflection, Maharaj spoke absolute truth using the I as all Jnani do but he made

it clear that if you understand you have no need or interest in visiting him.

If you are in his presence with understanding you will have no interest in

returning and without the hearers who spread this ego trip none of this would be

happening. When I first read; Consciousness & The Absolute, it was as if I

wrote the book and I had discovered my pure reflection. For that I love Maharaj

but truth is truth and ego is playing here. Just Being leaves no room for self

reflection because there is no self and only duality sees itself. Oneness is

duality, pure consciousness reflects itself, Parabrahman is the Supreme Absolute

but that also is spoken from ego or I amness and there is the duality. As

Maharaj said, everything he spoke was from this I am or consciousness and

therefore was not real either. See the absolute circle you get caught in,

Maharaj played in consciousness and that is all that is happening in this, that

& the other thingness. Truth is pointless it leads nowhere and simply keeps the

pot of soup stirred. I am & I am not are still statements in duality and

anyones consciousness that defends anything is caught in their own ego dreamed

drama. That is absolute, it applies to all and especially Maharaj. So I

swallowed the bate, lived on the food and now I am playing here, with another

self reflection group of egos that may or may not be self realized or Jnani. It

shall be interesting to see how the soup reacts to being stirred with the spoon

of truth and as with other ego posting I am seeing this post never making it to

the egoic group consciousness. Why does this group exist?

" Blessings In All Ways! " . Sincerely,

sriparaguru

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " sriparaguru " <sriparaguru wrote:

>

> Who am I, I am e-go and nothing else. Words are only useful for egoic

reflection,

 

 

Nonsense !

 

The brain is creating words for eventual communication. For no other reason.

 

And:

What please do you mean with ego ? Besides that the word ego is the most used

slogan word by so called spiritual people, no one really knows what the ego is.

 

 

> Maharaj spoke absolute truth using the I as all Jnani do but he made it clear

that if you understand you have no need or interest in visiting him. If you are

in his presence with understanding you will have no interest in returning and

without the hearers who spread this ego trip none of this would be happening.

When I first read; Consciousness & The Absolute, it was as if I wrote the book

and I had discovered my pure reflection. For that I love Maharaj but truth is

truth and ego is playing here. Just Being leaves no room for self reflection

because there is no self and only duality sees itself. Oneness is duality, pure

consciousness reflects itself, Parabrahman is the Supreme Absolute but that also

is spoken from ego or I amness and there is the duality. As Maharaj said,

everything he spoke was from this I am or consciousness and therefore was not

real either. See the absolute circle you get caught in, Maharaj played in

consciousness and that is all that is happening in this, that & the other

thingness. Truth is pointless it leads nowhere and simply keeps the pot of soup

stirred. I am & I am not are still statements in duality and anyones

consciousness that defends anything is caught in their own ego dreamed drama.

That is absolute, it applies to all and especially Maharaj. So I swallowed the

bate, lived on the food and now I am playing here, with another self reflection

group of egos that may or may not be self realized or Jnani. It shall be

interesting to see how the soup reacts to being stirred with the spoon of truth

and as with other ego posting I am seeing this post never making it to the egoic

group consciousness. Why does this group exist?

 

 

The group exists because it exists.

 

But happily, it can also be used by you to project all your ego-contempt onto

its members, isn't that wonderful ?

 

Werner

 

 

> " Blessings In All Ways! " . Sincerely,

> sriparaguru

>