new to group....how advaita can help lifelong issues?

[Guest guest]

Thanks for admission to the group.

 

I've read several treatises on Advaita ... Chuck Hillig, Dennis

Waite, Alan Watts, etc. I've had a lifelong personal issue/habit

that is very disruptive to my life and to my marriage and family.

It's one that won't go away. I've been to counselors, taken

antidepressants, dream therapy, inner child work, and on and on and

on. I keep repeating these behaviors and following these desires

and they are very disruptive.

 

I know that I will get the message that " there is no doer, there is

no separate person, all is one, everything is just a manifestation

of consciousness, who is it that has these problems?. " Well, my

wife just isn't going to understand those.

 

How can advaita help me deal with lifelong behaviors and desires

(oh...and another message I will hear is " reach a state of

desirelessness " ) ? Oh here's another: Everything is perfect just

as it is.

 

I hope to get some real practical, compassionate replies from you.

 

Thanks.

 

Hal

[Guest guest]

Hal - PraNAms

Let us be practical.

 

First - you do not need Advaita, to set your life

straight. Since you have said you have already read,

several treatises on Advaita, some more discussion on

advaitin list is not going to make you any more

practical.

 

Fist you have to decide very strongly in your own mind

that you want to be practical.

 

What is practical - Have the determination to follow

what you know is right. That is what Vedanta calls as

swadharma. In the process your mind becomes free from

conflicts. Conflict arises when the mind wagers -

between what is right and what one feels like doing.

 

All those life long struggles, personal issues and

habits are hard to change, but can be changed slowly -

provided we have the guts to follow what we think is

right.

 

Only when the mind becomes relatively free from

conflicts, advaita Vedanta helps since it requires a

mind to be calm and vigilant for the knowledge to sink

in. Mind in conflict is not the mind ready to

contemplate.

 

Some time it helps to take the help of the Almighty,

whatever you may think that is - it is because of

which you are able to think, you are able to

recognized all those problems you think you have, it

is because of which you are able to breath, because of

which you are able to see, smell, hear, speak, taste,

that because of which you are what you and without

that you are just a bundle of carbohydrates, minerals

and water. The more you surrender your problems the

more he will carry your cross and you are free more to

contemplate on the truth expounded in advaita Vedanta.

 

 

Advaita Vedanta is practical to take you beyond the

practical or transactional. But the mind should have

full faith and the mind is available to have faith

only if it is free from wanting to be free from

problems and issues.

 

Hal - everybody has problems and everybody has to over

come habits that are hard to overcome. But that is

life. To see the life as full of drama with all these

problems, the mind has to get detached slowly from the

problems. Not to have desires is a useless advice,

since we all have them. The best thing to do is turn

them and offer them to the Lord who does not any of

these. Essentially remembering Him, act on or play

the game of life. In the process the mind becomes

free from the desires. That is the practical way that

I know of. That is the essence of karma yoga too.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

--- hnash53 <hnash53 wrote:

 

> Thanks for admission to the group.

>

> I've read several treatises on Advaita ... Chuck

> Hillig, Dennis

> Waite, Alan Watts, etc. I've had a lifelong

> personal issue/habit

> that is very disruptive to my life and to my

> marriage and family.

> It's one that won't go away. I've been to

> counselors, taken

> antidepressants, dream therapy, inner child work,

> and on and on and

> on. I keep repeating these behaviors and following

> these desires

> and they are very disruptive.

>

> I know that I will get the message that " there is no

> doer, there is

> no separate person, all is one, everything is just a

> manifestation

> of consciousness, who is it that has these

> problems?. " Well, my

> wife just isn't going to understand those.

>

> How can advaita help me deal with lifelong behaviors

> and desires

> (oh...and another message I will hear is " reach a

> state of

> desirelessness " ) ? Oh here's another: Everything

> is perfect just

> as it is.

>

> I hope to get some real practical, compassionate

> replies from you.

>

> Thanks.

>

> Hal

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " hnash53 " <hnash53 wrote:

 

>

> I know that I will get the message that " there is no doer, there is

> no separate person, all is one, everything is just a manifestation

> of consciousness, who is it that has these problems?. " Well, my

> wife just isn't going to understand those.

>

> How can advaita help me deal with lifelong behaviors and desires

> (oh...and another message I will hear is " reach a state of

> desirelessness " ) ? Oh here's another: Everything is perfect just

> as it is.

>

> I hope to get some real practical, compassionate replies from you.

>

> Thanks.

>

> Hal

 

Namaste Hal,

 

After reading Sadanandaji's excellent reply to your

post, I feel reluctant to add my own, but I feel

that I may have experienced some confusions similar

to those which you are speaking about, so perhaps you

may find what I have to say useful.

 

The messages which you outline above may not be

very helpful when applied to the problems which

you indicate, and if not properly understood,

these messages aren't even true.

 

If we take a message such as 'there is no

doer' (which I might say is debatable from

a certain perspective, the perspective in

which action does take place), or `there

is no separate person,' etc., if we take

such statements and apply them to the relative

order of reality in which you, as an individual,

do exist and perform actions, then what will occur

is what is sometimes termed, 'spiritual bypassing.'

 

This phenomena often takes place, in my

experience, amongst those who, in particular,

have been exposed to a certain type of teaching,

which for want of a better term, might

be called, neo-advaita.

 

This type of teaching generally takes that which only

applies to the absolute order of reality,

(or it takes those types of statements which

need to be thoroughly understood), and applies

these statements to the relative order of

reality, and then the person takes the

statements as true across the board.

 

This causes a tremendous amount of problems for

those who try and understand and live by such statements

as you have listed above, without the adequate

support and guidance of a highly trained teacher.

 

'Reaching a state of desirelessness,' `everything

perfect as it is,' these statements are not

at all helpful for someone whose life does

not seem to be going that way. In fact, IMO

they are counterproductive, because they may

add to a feeling of self-condemnation which

already exists.

 

All of that being said, I'm not sure what

helpful and practical advice I have to offer

you, other than to advise you to stop taking

phrases and terms which are used in the teachings of

neo-advaita, and trying to apply these statements

to the problems of everyday life. Aside from

not being helpful, it's been my direct experience,

that such sayings, when not properly understood or

explained, are actually damaging to the individual

psyche.

 

Now days we have a proliferation of teachers,

and their writings, particularly in the west,

who profess to teach advaita, and they are unqualified

in all ways to do so. We also have students who

unfortunately (but understandably) are not

being benefited, and may be harmed by these teachings.

 

It sounds as if you have tried a lot of options

to deal with your problems, but perhaps I can

suggest one more to you, which my teacher's

guru (Swami Dayananda, a very well known and

highly respected teacher of Advaita/Vedanta)

once suggested to me, and it is one which neither

neo-advaitin teachers, their literature, nor perhaps

health professionals may have suggested. It is prayer.

 

In traditional teachings prayer is considered

a 'manasa karma.' That is 'a mental action,

which has a result.'

 

Whether you think your prayers may in fact

reach the desired locus, or even be helpful,

why not try it? What is the harm?

 

Swami Dayananda has taken the initial portion of the

serenity prayer from AA and adopted it into a series

of prayers called, 'Morning Meditations.'

The portion of the serenity prayer

which he adopted says: " God grant me the serenity

to accept the things I cannot change;

courage to change the things I can;

and wisdom to know the difference. "

 

 

Perhaps it might be better at this point for you

to drop all of the types of statements which

you have listed above, because IMO they are not useful

or even meant to be used to address the types of

problems which you are speaking about, and just

try prayer instead. Certainly we all innately know

what 'goodness' is. So perhaps just address your

prayers to that which you feel is 'good, compassionate,

and kind,' which in the end is indeed your true nature.

 

I hope I've not offended you by saying any of the above,

nor confused you, nor added to your suffering in any

way. But without an extremely skilled and seasoned

and committed teacher available to you, I'm not sure

that the teachings of advaita are useful for your problems

of the moment.

 

However, prayer itself often leads the student to find

the correct teacher. This whole big universe is one

living being, and that one living being can be addressed

from the standpoint of a part to the whole. This seems to

have an effect, and it might be a good place to begin.

 

As I once heard Swami Dayananda say to someone who

seemed to have some really difficult problems,

" There is always room on Ishwara's lap. "

 

All the best and all good wishes,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Dear Hal,

 

Both Sadanandaji's and Durgaji's messages are extremely helpful and

basically cover everything. I am not adding anything new, but just

would like to clarify my own thoughts on this matter.

 

It seems to me that problems have to be addressed at their own level.

So for instance, if you are being bothered by a mosquito, you would

generally not try to shoot it down with a gun. This is not because the

gun is inherently ineffective, its just that the gun solves a

different kind of problem.

 

When someone has serious self-esteem problems, for instance,

counteracting this by saying " What does it matter? I alone exist, " for

example, is not helpful for a very simple reason. The person has self-

esteem problems so the person thinks that he is useless, not worth

anything. If such a person jumps from " I am useless " to " I am

everything, " the latter cannot be said with any degree of confidence.

It is like someone in extreme state of fear trying to think " I am not

afraid. " Its not going to negate the fear simply because it is so far

attached from the person's immidiate feeling. Similarly, when we

extremely strongly feel like we are a doer, that we have to do

something, that we have done the wrong things, that we will keep doing

the wrong thinks, a thought such as " I am not the doer " will have

absolutely no force.

 

So these problems are to be addressed at their own level. On the side,

one can also learn Vedanta and try to understand it to the best of

one's ability, but this doesn't mean one stops dealing these problems

at their own level. In your case, I don't know exactly what kind of

problem you have (and of course, don't expect you to reveal such

private matters), but if it is something commonly treated by

professionals, it is good to get such help.

 

In general, I think another useful piece of advice that I recieved and

that you might find helpful, is to look at this whole process of

purification somewhat surgically. A doctor looks at a patient's

problems, feels bad about it, but just identifies the causes and seeks

to remove the problem (if the patient is sick, the doctor doesn't feel

" I am sick " ). We should look upon it in this way - we shouldn't feel

bad that our mind is so messed up (we didn't choose to have such a

mind!) and that consequently we are such terrible people. Instead we

should understand that there are causes at play which make the mind

the way it is, and we should, rather impersonally, deal with those

causes. It is helpful to understand the mind in terms of sattva, rajas

and tamas and other such impersonal forces rather than thinking too

much about childhood, one's circumstances, etc... which we are prone

to do, I think.

 

I hope this is somewhat helpful.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

(Reply to Dhyanasaraswatiji and Putranji - I thought it would be

better not to multiply messages too much)

 

Dear Dhyanasaraswatiji,

 

When I was talking about James Schwartz, I was talking about the neo-

Advaita article, which seemed sound to me. I cannot talk about more

than that, as such. But your general point is well taken: it is fine

to say disagree with Vivekananda, but it should be done politely.

Please forgive me if, in excessive passion, I sometimes transgress

that line!

 

Dear Putranji,

 

I agree with your basic point about the method of interpretation.

Shankara was writing what was meant to be extremely thorough and

precise works whereas Vivekananda was writing a different kind of

" genre " , for a different kind of audience. So a flat comparison is not

appropriate and we should look at the general essence or spirit of the

teachings.

 

" Vivekananda represented the spirit of Shankara's approach (or so

he no doubt thought), and he came upon some of the issues in his free-

thinking manner trying to get to the essence of the thing. "

 

On this, I disagree with you and here is the major issue. I think

Vivekananda's approach and Shankara's approach are widely divergent.

This is not true just of Vivekananda but also of a lot of Vedantins in

Shankara's school, in my opinion.

 

Here is my basic reasoning. Vivekananda basically taught (and please

correct me if I am wrong) that the knowledge one gets from studying

the scriptures is indirect or conceptual knowledge. Using Sri

Ramakrishna's metaphor, this is a map, and after getting the map, you

have to start travelling. Through " deep meditation " , this indirect

knowledge is turned into direct knowledge, which is also direct

experience.

 

Remember that this is a position that Shankara explicitly rejects,

this is Mandana Mishra's position. Shankara says that direct knowledge

(aparoskha jnana) is gained from acharya-upadesha, alone. One thing

intersting is that Shankara says many many many times that you can get

self-knowledge just by hearing the mahavakya once. Of course, he knows

that in practice basically no one gets liberated like this. But why

does he keep saying this so many times? Is he just being precise but

impractical?

 

The whole point in Shankara is to point out that Sruti is the pramana,

which gives self-knowledge and how that is the case with respect to

any given verse. The purpose of all the commentaries is not to just

explain conclusively that all the scriptures say the same thing - this

is a very small part. The purpose of the commentaries is to show how

the means of knowledge is operating at any given time. Shankara

focuses so much on " what " any given verse is " doing, " he is not just

explaining the meaning of the verse. This is because he never looks

upon the scripture as a text giving information, but always as a

pramana performing its function.

 

I think this is essential to Shankara, whereas it has no relation to

Vivekananda's Vedanta. This is not just about Vivekananda but also a

lot of post-Shankaran Advaitins too, it seems.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Through " deep meditation " , this indirect knowledge is turned into direct

knowledge, which is also direct experience.

 

praNAms Sri Rishi prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

You are absolutely right...some of the post shankara commentators (such as

vAchaspati mishra of bhAmati school & to the extent vivaraNa) have said

even after discerning the shAstra vAkyArTha some spiritual practice like

meditation or jnAnAbhyAsa (repeated practice of that knowledge ) should be

performed to achieve nirvikalpa samAdhi..Hence they say shravaNa is aNga &

manana nidhidhyAsa are aNgi. In this list itself you might have seen

members saying that scriptures are like operating & instruction manual & we

need the tools of dhyAna & samAdhi to achieve this jnAna in a particular

state!!! On the contrary to this, shankara in muNdaka bhAshya quite

expressly states that ' the very instant of our discerning the vAkyArtha

the whole process gets completed (vAkyArTha jnAna samakAlE yEvatu

paryavasitO bhavati)..

 

Anyway, we have already discussed a lot about these issues earlier in this

list...this is my first & last post on this subject.

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

The purpose of the commentaries is to show how

> the means of knowledge is operating at any given time. Shankara

> focuses so much on " what " any given verse is " doing, " he is not just

> explaining the meaning of the verse. This is because he never looks

> upon the scripture as a text giving information, but always as a

> pramana performing its function.

>

> I think this is essential to Shankara, whereas it has no relation to

> Vivekananda's Vedanta. This is not just about Vivekananda but also a

> lot of post-Shankaran Advaitins too, it seems.

>

> Regards,

>

> Rishi.

 

Namaste,

 

While I don't know enough about other schools and

teachers who use Vedanta in teaching, to comment

on them, I do know that the way that I am being

taught is exactly what you have described in your

post, i.e. Vedanta as a pramana.

 

The words guide the student's mind step by step

to the direct realization of the self. Since

we have not been given a 'sense' organ at birth

to recognize the self, as eyes to see, or ears

to hear, (leaving aside the fact that the self

is not an object in the creation), the words of

the shruti, when unfolded by a qualified teacher,

who is trained in the methodology, act 'as if' a

sense organ to cognize the self.

 

They guide the mind step by step to the direct

recognition of the self, and this usually takes place,

at the time of teaching itself, as the words are

being unfolded.

 

This is why the methodology is so beautiful because

it really does work. IMO if the student has shraddha

and the teacher is good, and knows how to use Vedanta

as a pramana, one cannot help but, eventually, to directly

recognize the self.

 

It's just like opening your eyes. If your eyes are

open and working, and your mind backing them,

do you see or not?

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Rishiji writes :

 

( When I was talking about James Schwartz, I was talking about the

neo- Advaita article, which seemed sound to me. I cannot talk about

more than that, as such. But your general point is well taken: it

is fine to say disagree with Vivekananda, but it should be done

politely. Please forgive me if, in excessive passion, I sometimes

transgress that line!)

 

Rishiji ! no , not at all ! you are never 'rude' or 'impolite' -

that is what 'i ' excel in ! With all due respects to James Schwartz

i was quite taken aback my this statement in James Schwartz's

article :

 

" Neo-Advaita is basically a `satsang' based `movement' that has

very little in common with either traditional Vedanta or modern

Vedanta or even its inspiration, Ramana…except the doctrine of non-

duality. Neo-Advaita is so abstracted from its Vedantic roots that

I recently met a person who had been `empowered' to give satsang who

did not know that the word satsang was a Sanskrit compound

meaning `keeping the company of reality.'

 

i cannot really quarrel with this interpretation of 'satsangh '

because this is how our Beloved Sri Ramana interprets the

word 'satsangh' ! but there are many beginners in the spiritual path

who need 'crutches ' - and they need''satsanghs ' - the company of

like minded individuals who come together and sit in a conregational

setting in front of a 'realized' swami who holds discourses on the

scriptures ! such Satsanghs are very common not only in the west but

also in India ! it is also a poor man's entertainment , so to speak -

i know many elderly men and women who attend these satsanghs in the

evenings in cHENNAI AND OTHER PLACES - NOT SO MUCH TO LEARN ABOUT

SHANKARA'S ADVAITA AS MUCH AS TO EXCAPE FROM A NAGGING 'DAUGHTER-IN -

LAW ' OR HER TAUNTS !

 

having said that , may i bring to you attention this verse from Sufi

Bhakta Kabir

 

" There is no relative closer than the Sadguru ,

No bounty equal to Spiritual Awakening

There is no benefactor than Hari

No community equal to that of Hari's devotees "

 

AND THIS IS ONE REASON , WE ALL ENJOY THE CYBER SATSANGHS SUCH AS

THIS ! WOULD YOU NOT AGREE , RISHIJI ?

 

on another note , i want to thank putranji for bringing such a

lovely quote from Swami Vivekananda ! May i share this wonderful

quote from Swamiji ?

 

....These are what Vedanta has not to give. No book. No man to be

singled out from the rest of mankind — " You are worms, and we are

the Lord God! " — none of that. If you are the Lord God, I also am

the Lord God. So Vedanta knows no sin. There are mistakes but no

sin; and in the long run everything is going to be all right. No

Satan — none of this nonsense. Vedanta believes in only one sin,

only one in the world, and it is this: the moment you think you are

a sinner or anybody is a sinner, that is sin. From that follows

every other mistake or what is usually called sin. There have been

many mistakes in our lives. But we are going on. Glory be unto us

that we have made mistakes! Take a long look at your past life. If

your present condition is good, it has been caused by all the past

mistakes as well as successes. Glory be unto success! Glory be unto

mistakes! Do not look back upon what has been done. Go ahead!...

 

....Therefore Vedanta formulates, not universal brotherhood, but

universal oneness. I am the same as any other man, as any animal —

good, bad, anything. It is one body, one mind, one soul throughout.

Spirit never dies. There is no death anywhere, not even for the

body. Not even the mind dies. How can even the body die? One leaf

may fall — does the tree die? The universe is my body. See how it

continues. All minds are mine. With all feet I walk. Through all

mouths I speak. In everybody I reside.... "

 

IS THIS NOT 'ADVAITA' ?

 

 

( forget about nirvikalpa samadhi , kundalini shakti and the Turiya

tita etc etc etc etc )

 

love and regards

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " hnash53 " <hnash53 wrote:

>

> Thanks for admission to the group.

>

> I've read several treatises on Advaita ... Chuck Hillig, Dennis

> Waite, Alan Watts, etc. I've had a lifelong personal issue/habit

> that is very disruptive to my life and to my marriage and family.

> It's one that won't go away. I've been to counselors, taken

> antidepressants, dream therapy, inner child work, and on and on and

> on. I keep repeating these behaviors and following these desires

> and they are very disruptive.

>

> I know that I will get the message that " there is no doer, there is

> no separate person, all is one, everything is just a manifestation

> of consciousness, who is it that has these problems?. " Well, my

> wife just isn't going to understand those.

>

> How can advaita help me deal with lifelong behaviors and desires

> (oh...and another message I will hear is " reach a state of

> desirelessness " ) ? Oh here's another: Everything is perfect just

> as it is.

>

> I hope to get some real practical, compassionate replies from you.

>

> Thanks.

>

> Hal

 

I hesitate to send this. I'm new here myself, been

reading/studying/ " practicing " , without a teacher, for many years.

Stumbling along in the dark, so to speak, with the books/teachings of

Raman Maharshi, Ken Wilbur, Nisargatta, etc...I've had to deal with a

phobia for many years.

Only thing I can say that's helped me, one word: INCREMENTAL. I've

looked for changes to come incrementally. As in: to feel/act EVEN

SLIGHTLY LESS " negative " , even tiny, incremental changes brought

about slowly, patiently does get us there s l o w l y. I'd love to

snap my fingers and be rid of the " apparently " negative. Just doesn't

seem to work that way. Patient, plodding, tiny, itty bitty change--

I've come to accept that. Best wishes.

>

[Guest guest]

Respected Rishi-ji,

Hari Om. Salutations.

 

Your mail made me understand what this discussion was about.

:-) Thank You. I have a couple of questions, if you can please

clarify then I will have better understanding. Please see below.

 

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane

wrote:

 

> The whole point in Shankara is to point out that Sruti is the

pramana,

> which gives self-knowledge and how that is the case with respect to

> any given verse. The purpose of all the commentaries is not to just

> explain conclusively that all the scriptures say the same thing -

this

> is a very small part. The purpose of the commentaries is to show

how

> the means of knowledge is operating at any given time. Shankara

> focuses so much on " what " any given verse is " doing, " he is not

just

> explaining the meaning of the verse. This is because he never looks

> upon the scripture as a text giving information, but always as a

> pramana performing its function.

>

 

I think what you are talking here is " Knowledge after Sharvana " . For

a " Sadhan Chatushtaya Sampanna Adhikari " this will definitely take

place and Shankara has also made sure to list that as the pre-

requisite for studying scritpture. However, for " run of the mill "

seekers like me Acharyas keep telling about Shravanam, Mananam and

Nidhidhyasanam. If I am doing Mananam and Nidhidhyasanam after

listening to Shruti then am I not using " Pramana " as a map? Somebody

gave me a map, I have faith in it and it struck me..wow, this is how

to get there ! but I didn't reach there (Shravanam). Then I realised

that I wasn't clear about all the things in the map so I looked at it

at finer levels and got it clear in my head(Mananam). Then I began my

journey inwards(Nidhdhyasanam).

 

Second question is related to first. You say -

 

> Here is my basic reasoning. Vivekananda basically taught (and

please

> correct me if I am wrong) that the knowledge one gets from studying

> the scriptures is indirect or conceptual knowledge. Using Sri

> Ramakrishna's metaphor, this is a map, and after getting the map,

you

> have to start travelling. Through " deep meditation " , this indirect

> knowledge is turned into direct knowledge, which is also direct

> experience.

 

What is the difference between meditation and Nidhidhyasanm

(Contemplation)?

 

Can you please help me understand this better. Thanks.

 

P.S. I have actually heard one more Mahatma call this as a " map " . It

is Mata Amritanandamayi (Ammachi). She said in her speech " When you

go to station, you look at the train schedule map, to see how to go

to your destination. Then you just board the train and start your

journey. What's the point standing there studying various train

schedules and maps? You will be just standing there and will go

nowhere. Scriputures is like a map. It is written by people who have

actually reached there. Look at the map only to see how to get there,

so you don't get lost and then start ! "

 

I am too little a person to comment on Mahatmas like Bhagwan

Shankara, Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa-ji and Swami Vivekananda-ji.

Just want to understand what you all Mahatmas are talking about.

 

Love and Respect

Padma

[Guest guest]

Dear Padmaji,

 

" I am too little a person to comment on Mahatmas like Bhagwan

Shankara, Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa-ji and Swami Vivekananda-ji.

Just want to understand what you all Mahatmas are talking about. "

 

And I lack the verbal finesse to so beautifully mix humility and

sarcasm :)

 

" I think what you are talking here is " Knowledge after Sharvana " . For

a " Sadhan Chatushtaya Sampanna Adhikari " this will definitely take

place and Shankara has also made sure to list that as the pre-

requisite for studying scritpture. However, for " run of the mill "

seekers like me Acharyas keep telling about Shravanam, Mananam and

Nidhidhyasanam. If I am doing Mananam and Nidhidhyasanam after

listening to Shruti then am I not using " Pramana " as a map? "

 

In general, we say that there are two kinds of knowledge: vritti jnana

(knowledge which a modification of the mind) and svarupa jnana

(knowledge which is the very nature of the Self). The purpose of

vritti jnana is to negate ignorance and it can do so because ignorance

is also a mental problem. When all ignorance is removed by the vritti-

jnana, then we say that svarupa-jnana is " attained. " In fact, svarupa

jnana is just the Self and is never attained, but since before it

appeared unattained, it is still called an attainment.

 

The " attainment " of self-knowledge, in the sense of svarupa-jnana as

soon as one hears the teachings is indeed something that happens only

with uttama-adhikaris. However, as soon as someone hears the

teachings, vritti jnana does take place. Sometimes the word aparoksha-

jnana is used just for the Self (ie: svarupa-jnana) but at other

times, we talk about vritti jnana of both aparoksha and paroksha type.

It is paroksha when we treat the words of the scripture as dealing

with something not immidiately present and it is aparoksha when we

talk of the same words dealing with something immidiately present (so

if I understand the scriptural statements about Brahman referring to

the immidiately-present " I, " it is aparoksha but if it refers to

" Brahman " or " Atman " as an abstract entity, it is paroksha).

 

Since Vedanta deals with the way things are and the way things are is

always available to us, the words immidiately negate ignorance (to

some extent or other) and establish us in our true nature (to the

extent ignorance is negated). This means the scripture is not some

kind of map telling you what to do or where to go, but it immidiately

negates ignorance. This negation is not perfect unless one is an

uttama-adhikari and to makes this negation perfect, we engage in

further sravanam, etc...

 

I would request all members to correct my mistakes here, since it is a

complicated (controversial?) topic and my understanding is quite

limited.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane

wrote:

 

Respected Rishi-ji,

Hari Om. Salutations.

 

Thanks for such clear explaination. I now understand your standpoint.

I will need to now reconcile it with map theory. There was one more

question in my email. Can you kindly reply that too. Thanks.

 

P.S. Sincere Apologies if my statement came across to you as sarcasm.

It shows your humility. It takes firm conviction to comment on

Mahatmas. Conviction comes from insight. Insight comes from glimpse

of Jnana or grace of Guru. Anyone who has it is Mahatma in my eyes.

That is the reason I made that statement.

 

For some reason I have a firm conviction that if I see differences in

what two Mahatmas said then it must be because I am mixing different

contexts. I feel the need to resolve this within myself, so I asked.

NO other resason. Awaiting your reply to my second question. Thanks.

 

Love and Respect

Padma

[Guest guest]

Dear Padmaji,

 

" It takes firm conviction to comment on Mahatmas. "

 

Or just some extra time...

 

" For some reason I have a firm conviction that if I see differences in

what two Mahatmas said then it must be because I am mixing different

contexts. "

 

I think to some extent everyone has to do this. Depending on how many

people have to be reconciled, we can afford a narrower or broader

understanding. For instance, someone who has to reconcile Ramanuja,

Madhva, etc... as not-contradictory will naturally need an extremely

broad (and not very specific) understanding of Vedanta, accomodating a

huge amount of differences. Someone who considers only Shankara (and

not even other Advaitins) authoritative could probably have far less

to reconcile.

 

But I think a different approach is also possible. I don't actually

doubt that Sri Ramakrishna was a brahmanistha. I also don't doubt that

his teachings are effective to some extent because I have faith that

at least one current person in his lineage is a brahmanistha. So I

don't, as such, think that Ramakrishna's teachings are ineffective.

However, they are not Shankara's teachings, and I don't think can be

reconciled because the approach is radically different.

 

" What is the difference between meditation and Nidhidhyasanm

(Contemplation)? "

 

Well this is a nice topic in general (hopefully other members can also

contribute) and there seem to be many ways of explaining it.

 

We probably could say that nidhidhyasanam is meditation in some sense

of the term, but usually we use meditation to refer to preparatory

meditation, so it is upasana. The idea here is to fix the mind on a

single object for a period of time. In upasana, this object is a

concept of Brahman. Shankara actually says that we should, in upasana,

identify with what is being meditated upon and that meditation

culminates in a vision of oneself as the object meditated upon. The

way it is taught today, the identification with the object of

meditation is not considered essential because the purpose of upasana

is citta-ekagrata (one-pointedness of mind) and this can be gained

even if the object of meditation is considered separate from oneself.

 

Nidhidhyasanam, in the other hand, is not about maintaining a concept

constantly in mind, but it is putting the words of the teacher and

scripture side-by-side with our experience and trying to see how the

meaning of the words match up with our own condition (or our own

nature). So we are seeing how the words are true as a fact (to use Dr.

Sadananda's terminology) and not just thinking about the words. This

is possible only because the words of the Vedanta reveal the nature of

our ordinary experience and not just to some special experience. It is

also only possible after we understand with some degree of clarity the

meaning of the words from sravanam and mananam.

 

This is just one way of explaining it, and it would be nice if other

members also explained the difference between meditation and

nidhidhyasanam.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane

wrote:

 

Respected Rishi-ji,

Hari Om. Salutations.

 

 

> way it is taught today, the identification with the object of

> meditation is not considered essential because the purpose of

upasana

> is citta-ekagrata (one-pointedness of mind) and this can be gained

> even if the object of meditation is considered separate from

oneself.

>

 

Trying to understand what you are saying. Are you saying that Bhagwan

Shankara's way of meditation is " I am Brahman. I am changeless

substratum. I am Nitya...etc. " and Swami Vivekananda-ji's way of

meditation is " Brahman is changelss. Brahman in Nitya...etc. " (Like

worm and wasp example Bhavet Bhramara Kitavat in Atma Bodha verse

49 ?) Can you please give some example so I understand. Actually, if

you can give a reference about this from a book pulbished by

Ramakrishna Mission I will look it up or ask for clarification to

some Swamiji in Ramakrishna Mission.

 

Even if meditation is done Bhagwan Shankara's way still is it not

like a map (for manda adhikari), where Guru tells address (Maha

vakya) and then we meditate and move(as though) from outer inert

vestures by negating them to our inner true Self by constant

meditation on Mahavakya? I see so many verses in Vivekachudamani

which highlight necessity of self effort for subjective knowledge

after receiving objective knowledge (51-55, 65), and highlight on

meditation(70, 408-410). Teachers also always tell us 'lift yourself

by yourself', so it seems words bring clarity but self effort is

needed after that for abidance, at least for ordinary seekers. In

that respect it seems like a map to me.

 

Love and Respect

Padma

[Guest guest]

Dear Padmaji,

 

" Trying to understand what you are saying. Are you saying that Bhagwan

Shankara's way of meditation is " I am Brahman. I am changeless

substratum. I am Nitya...etc. " and Swami Vivekananda-ji's way of

meditation is " Brahman is changelss. Brahman in Nitya...etc. " "

 

No no, not at all. I'm sorry, my explanation was a bit confused.

Basically, I'm saying you can do upasana identifying with the object

of meditation or considering the object as different from you. Both

ways purify the mind so both way are fine, but Shankara says upasana

is with identification. But this is a minor issue because the purpose

of upasana is attaining citta-ekagrata, which works either way. This

also means that just saying " I am Brahman " isn't necccesarily

nidhidhyasana, it could be just another type of upasana.

 

Nidhidhyasana is different because you are connecting the words with

your immidiate (and ordinary) experience at once. It is not a matter

of personal effort (in the sense of personal will), though it does

require diligence since you have to spend time. But it is essentially

an effortless process of presenting the words of Vedanta, after you

understand them to some extent, before your mind.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Still new to the group!

If I say, " I am Brahman.. " , then, still, who is saying that? If I am

Brahman and I can see that I am Brahman, then I, seeing Brahman cannot

be Brahman because " I " see it. I cannot be the same as what is seen. I

can also say " I am otnac6 " just as easily as I can say " I am

Brahman " . So " something " can say both of those things, see both of

those things or concepts so the " I " that says it can't be it! Brahman,

in this context, seems to be just a sound that I say or type or think,

just like any other " object " . The " fact " that " I " can say I'm anything

at all seems to imply that I can't be any of those things because I can

see them and say it! Best wishes, Steve or otnac6, or

Brahman...whatever " I " am.

[Guest guest]

Shree Otnac6

 

PraNAms.

 

There is seems to be confusion in the statements made.

 

'I am Brahman' - is not a statement to be made is an

equation to be realize I = Brahman - the identity

relation. That realization can occur only when I drop

out all my identifications that I am the body, mind

and intellect.

 

When I say right now I am hungry - who is hungry? The

mind that is saying or the stomach that is empty? Mind

identifying the conditions of the body, says using the

mouth which is part of the body as I am hungry. It is

the identification that is important to recognize.

 

I, the conscious-existent entity, identifying with the

conscious entity, the mind, say I am the Brahman which

is pure, infinite consciousness. How can I say I am

Brahman - since Brahman is infinite

existence-consciousness that is one without a second

and where I to say I am Brahman - there is only

Brahman and Brahman cannot say I am Brahman since he

has no equipments to say I am Brahman, since he is one

without a second.

 

Then who says I am Brahman - it is only a statement of

realization. I who have been thinking that I am this

and that, now recognize that I am none of this - I am

all pervading Brahman who is pure conscious-existence

principle. No one who has realized that I am Brahman

say that I am Brahman since to whom he can say that I

am Brahman. A jnaani just keeps quite - mounam

vyaakyaa ....

 

I am Brahman is a statement by the scripture -

instruction for a seeker, to realize that what his

true nature is.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

--- otnac6 <otnac6 wrote:

 

> Still new to the group!

> If I say, " I am Brahman.. " , then, still, who is

> saying that? If I am

> Brahman and I can see that I am Brahman, then I,

> seeing Brahman cannot

> be Brahman because " I " see it. I cannot be the same

> as what is seen. I

> can also say " I am otnac6 " just as easily

> as I can say " I am

> Brahman " . So " something " can say both of those

> things, see both of

> those things or concepts so the " I " that says it

> can't be it! Brahman,

> in this context, seems to be just a sound that I say

> or type or think,

> just like any other " object " . The " fact " that " I "

> can say I'm anything

> at all seems to imply that I can't be any of those

> things because I can

> see them and say it! Best wishes, Steve or

> otnac6, or

> Brahman...whatever " I " am.

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane

wrote:

 

> is with identification. But this is a minor issue because the

purpose

> of upasana is attaining citta-ekagrata, which works either way.

This

> also means that just saying " I am Brahman " isn't necccesarily

> nidhidhyasana, it could be just another type of upasana.

>

> Nidhidhyasana is different because you are connecting the words

with

> your immidiate (and ordinary) experience at once. It is not a

matter

> of personal effort (in the sense of personal will), though it does

> require diligence since you have to spend time. But it is

essentially

> an effortless process of presenting the words of Vedanta, after you

> understand them to some extent, before your mind.

 

Dear Respected Rishi-ji,

Hari Om. Salutations.

 

Hmm..! So, you are saying ..

 

'you have to spend time' but it is 'not personal effort'

'diligence is required' but there is 'no personal will'

'have to present Vedanta words before mind' but it is 'effortless

process'

 

So, is it 'diligently spending every moment while keeping awareness

of vedanta words with day to day experiences'? Wouldn't such

diligence be mostly outwards directed (negation of objects) and not

inwards (assertion of one's true identity). Can you please clarify

some more. Thanks for your reply.

 

Love and Respect

Padma

[Guest guest]

>>Thanks for admission to the group.

 

>>I've read several treatises on Advaita ... Chuck Hillig, Dennis

Waite, Alan Watts, etc. I've had a lifelong personal issue/habit

that is very disruptive to my life and to my marriage and family.

It's one that won't go away.

 

 

 

Which 'habit' you are talking about?

 

'What' has really prevented you from

'changing' that habit?

 

 

 

As one of my favorite author says:

 

.. . . . . . . . . In reality, people seldom lack

'ability'; they only lack REAL Will to do what

the right thing.

 

You can perform a very simple test to judge

whether you lack ability or will:

 

if you find yourself 'unable'

to do something in spite of

wanting to do it - ask,

would I do it, if someone

put a pistol against my head

and threatened to kill me if I

didn't do it?

 

If your answer is yes; you

lack the real will and not

really the ability.

 

 

>>I've been to counselors, taken

antidepressants, dream therapy, inner child work, and on and on and

on. I keep repeating these behaviors and following these desires

and they are very disruptive.

 

>>I know that I will get the message that " there is no doer, there is

no separate person, all is one, everything is just a manifestation

of consciousness, who is it that has these problems?. "

 

>>Well, my wife just isn't going to understand those.

 

Good for her

 

 

 

>>How can advaita help me deal with lifelong behaviors and desires

(oh...and another message I will hear is " reach a state of

desirelessness " ) ?

 

Surely not Maybe, try living for

your wife for a change Or, maybe

for your children or maybe for the

humanity, world, universe - and, then, see

if 'change' is still difficult.

 

 

>>Oh here's another: Everything is perfect just

as it is.

 

 

>>I hope to get some real practical, compassionate replies from you.

 

Sure But, ask. . . do I really have an honest

'will' to 'change' It? Am I really ready to 'sacrifice'

the 'juice' that I get out of it?

 

 

 

>>Thanks.

 

>>Hal