Quoting for authority?

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

In Shrimati Durga's clear and helpful discussion of self-ignorance

(message #36468, July 12), she points out that " everyone already

knows the self " . But for its " clear and distinct recognition, a

j~nAna vR^itti [a functioning of knowledge] is necessary " .

 

In other words, self knows itself, in each of us; but we confuse

that knowing with our personal perceptions, thoughts and feelings.

And so a special functioning of knowledge is needed, to make it

clear just what true knowing is.

 

What then is this functioning of knowledge, which clarifies our

recognition of the self and its true knowing? The self is knowing in

itself. Its very being is to know, completely unengaged in any

changing act or function. The self's true knowing is thus

functionless.

 

And yet we need a special functioning of knowledge -- to clarify our

confusion and to take us utterly beyond all functioning, to what

true knowing clearly is.

 

Such a functioning (or vR^itti) is obviously paradoxical. It must

raise questions that take us beyond belief. This is the root meaning

of the English word 'paradox'. It comes from the ancient Greek,

where 'para' means 'beyond' and 'doxa' means 'belief'.

 

As Shrimati Durga puts it, " no one can say specifically what causes

such a vR^itti to occur, study, clarity of mind, puNya (the reward

of good deeds done in the past), prayer, guidance of a really good

teacher. No one can say specifically what brings about that event. "

 

I quite agree that many causes can be seen to clarify true knowing.

And that different people need to look for various different

sources, from where true knowing may be shown.

 

Some may choose to put their faith in studying old texts that have

withstood the test of time. Some may choose to put their faith in

clarifying mind, through good deeds or yogic practices and

meditation. Some may prefer to put their faith in various kinds of

prayer and worship and devotion.

 

I personally put my faith in reflective reasoning, under the

guidance of a living teacher. For me, that living teacher is the one

authentic source from where true clarity must come. This faith is of

course paradoxical. It is faith in a particular person, whom I

personally trust to lead me to the impersonal.

 

This is the faith that Shri Shankara described, when he said

(Advaita-pa~ncaratnam, 1.2):

 

jIvo nA 'ham deshiko 'ktyA shivo 'ham

[by what my teacher said, I am

no person, but just happiness

in which all world is found dissolved.]

 

However, it would not be right for me to expect that others should

give the same authority to what my teacher has said. Other people

have a variety of different faiths, in various different sources of

authority, whether textual or practical or ethical or devotional or

spiritual.

 

From these differences of faith, there arises an inherent problem

with quoting for authority. The problem is particularly acute in the

modern world, where people of different faiths increasingly

communicate with each other, as we do in our e-group.

 

I would even say that it is becoming less and less appropriate to

quote for authority, in the modern world. Two questions may then

well be asked of me. In the first place, haven't you just quoted

Shri Shankara, for the sake of authority? And in the second place,

if you don't accept the authority of shruti and smR^iti texts in the

Advaita Vedanta tradition, what are you doing in our e-group which

is based on this tradition?

 

To the first question, I would answer that the quotation is only

meant to locate what I say in relation to Shri Shankara's writings.

For those who take these writings to be authoritative, this

quotation may be taken to provide authority, provided my

interpretation is also found acceptable. But I should not be asking

here that Shri Shankara's writings be taken on authority. I can only

quote from them to illustrate a point that is being made, in

relation to the Advaita Vedanta tradition.

 

To the second question, I would answer that I do accept a qualified

authority that shruti and smR^iti texts may have, in a tradition

through which I have received an advaita teaching. But my final and

unqualified authority is only that particular teacher who has

directly taught me.

 

It is only in relation to my direct teacher that I can ascribe any

authority to the tradition and its other teachers and its texts. Any

such authority is indirectly ascribed, through my living teacher.

This indirectly ascribed authority must then be qualified. It must

be qualified by reinterpreting the old texts today, relative to new

conditions that have changed from the past.

 

Many members of our e-group are less guarded than I am, concerning

the authority that is ascribed by tradition to old texts. And it is

often a useful discipline for us, to quote and interpret the old

texts. Why then am I placing so much emphasis upon the direct

teaching of a living individual, who is established in plain truth?

 

I suppose I am trying to point out an essential limitation of an

e-group such as ours. We can only discuss Advaita indirectly, in a

scholarly sort of way, using quotations more for illustration than

for authoritative proof. Such proof can only come directly from a

living sage, not from indirect discussions such as ours.

 

Sorry, this isn't satisfactory. But it is the best sense I can make

of a question that has been troubling me recently, about quoting for

authority.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Shri Anandaji writes :

 

(I personally put my faith in reflective reasoning, under the

guidance of a living teacher. For me, that living teacher is the

one authentic source from where true clarity must come. This faith

is of course paradoxical. It is faith in a particular person, whom

I personally trust to lead me to the impersonal.)

 

True ! Very True! For without the guidance of a Satguru , you may

read read all the scriptures Vedas , Upanishads , Srimad Bhagwad

Gita etc etc , They will all be 'greek and latin' to you ! Even to

understand these scriptures , you need Guru Katakshakam or Anugraham

( mercy or intervention)

 

so, Anandaji , i am with you 100% when you claim that

 

(But my final and unqualified authority is only that particular

teacher who has directly taught me. It is only in relation to my

direct teacher that I can ascribe any authority to the tradition and

its other teachers and its texts. Any such authority is indirectly

ascribed, through my living teacher.

This indirectly ascribed authority must then be qualified. It must

be qualified by reinterpreting the old texts today, relative to new

conditions that have changed from the past.)

 

Exactly ! That is why it is as important for a sisya to choose a

Guru as it is important for a Guru to 'screen' his sisya before

accepting him as a disciple. You will not believe this - when i read

Shri Atmananda's many SPIRITUAL quotations , i was surprised (

rather taken aback) when i read Atmanandaji saying " The sage has

both worldly and spiritual activities. To him both are recreations

each in relation to the other (on an equal footing). " I found this

very close to my heart -this makes more sense than all the

preachings on 'vairagya' and 'sanyasa defined in an absolute way .

 

You go on to say:

(Many members of our e-group are less guarded than I am, concerning

the authority that is ascribed by tradition to old texts. And it is

often a useful discipline for us, to quote and interpret the old

texts. Why then am I placing so much emphasis upon the direct

teaching of a living individual, who is established in plain

truth?)

 

 

That is why , it is important to look for a 'shotriya' and a Brahma

nishta guru ! HOW MANY OF THEM ARE AVAILABLE IN TODAY'S WORLD ?

 

We can all quote all the scriptural authorities in the world only to

engage in 'Tarka ' and 'Vaada' after all Advaita is also a Tarka

shastra - but real knowledge can only be imparted by a self

realized Guru .. Till then, everything is in the realm of academic

pursuits only ....

 

Ananda-ji , i am a little perplexed by the adjective 'living' in the

Living Teacher ? what does this mean ?

 

Shri Ramana was often fond of quoting this verse from Ribhu Gita

 

" The Guru, indeed, does not exist; truly, there is no disciple.

There being only Brahman alone, be of the certitude that there is no

non-Self. "

 

Warm regards

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shrimati Dhyanasaraswati,

 

You ask (message #36516, July 14): " I am a little perplexed by the

adjective 'living' in the Living Teacher ? What does this mean? "

 

So far as I can make out, the adjective 'living' means that a

disciple must meet the teacher as a living person, so that the

teaching may be imparted through a direct person to person meeting

in the world. A disciple must receive the teaching directly from the

teacher's living person.

 

As the teaching is thus received, it goes into the inmost centre of

a disciple's heart. And there it lives unchanged, beyond all time

and personality. There, at the centre of a disciple's heart, the

teacher is found always present, as undying truth.

 

Where that truth has finally been realized, there is no disciple

separate from the Guru -- as the Ribhu Gita says, in Shri Ramana's

quote from it.

 

But, for the relationship of Guru and disciple, no descriptions can

be adequate. That relationship is quite beyond the mind, and so the

mind can't rightly be applied to it.

 

This is the best I can somehow manage to report what my teacher

said, on this very delicate subject.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

PraNAms

 

Echoing Shree Anandaji words,

 

ShravaNam is defined as systematic, consistent study

of scriptures under a competent, LIVE guru for a

prolonged length of time.

 

Proper Guru is the one who directs his disciples to

the scriptures as the authority.

 

Competent teacher is the one who himself was a

competent student. - Hence there is lineage of

guru-sishya.

 

Systematic teaching involves a teaching that follows a

sampradaaya - a system.

 

Vedanta teaching involves a system since it deals with

adhyaaropa apavaada - method of assertion and negation

of teaching. That is it takes from dvaita vyahaara to

advaita knowledge of the reality through steps where

student is taken to each step and then that step is

negated so that student can go to the next step. You

can see this very clearly in BhRigu valli of T. Up. or

Prajaapati's teaching to Indra in Ch. Up.

Upaasana is emphasized as bhakti up to a point - once

the student is mature, that is negated as in

Kenopanishad - Brahman is not that this that you

worship - then what is Brahman - That which mind

cannot think - but that because of which the mind has

the capacity to think - it is not that the eyes can

see, but because of which the eyes have the capacity

to see. - Thus it negates all forms and concept of

Brahman - but zeros in to that very source because of

which all forms and concepts are perceived.

 

To take the student in clear steps a live teacher is

needed - not a tape recorder or books that one can

read leisurely sitting in lazy boy's chair.

 

There are always exceptions to the rule but we cannot

make rule out of exceptions.

 

Bhagavaan Ramana is an exception - but it is assumed

that He had that samskaara from the prious birth. This

he himself emphasized in Upadesha saara - in term of

krama - or sequence of mental evolution as part of

sadhana.

kaaya vaak manaaH karyam uttamam|

puujanam japaa chintanam kramaat||

 

bedha bhaavana soham ityasou|

bhaavanaa bhidaa paavanii mataa||

 

one goes in steps - from gross puja involving the

whole body to sthava to meditation - even in

meditation one goes from dviata to advaita - Lord is

differnt from me to sOham - He and I are one from the

point of vastu or the essence. He recommends a proper

steps in the evolution of the mind ( unless of course

one thinks he is an exception and that he is already

evolved to go directly!).

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

--- Ananda Wood <awood wrote:

 

 

>

> So far as I can make out, the adjective 'living'

> means that a

> disciple must meet the teacher as a living person,

> so that the

> teaching may be imparted through a direct person to

> person meeting

> in the world. A disciple must receive the teaching

> directly from the

> teacher's living person.

[Guest guest]

Thank You Sri Ananda-ji for your response. Thank you Sadaji also for

providing an 'elaborate' respionse to my question on what is meant

by a Living Teacher.

 

To be quite honest, my question was specifically addressed to Shri

Ananda-ji. Of late , i seem to be attracted to the Teachings of Sri

Atmananda AKA Krishna Menon. Shri Anandaji pointed outin a post not

too long ago thar " Shri Atmananda was very much a householder, not

a sannyasi. He never took sannyasa, nor did he encourage his

disciples to do so. His teaching was most decidedly individual,

without setting up or involving any organized institution that could

be called an " ashram " . "

 

So, in reality , what i was trying to find out was if any one is

interested in studying Shri Atmananda's teachings , what is the best

way to do so ? i know there are many on this list who have expressed

an interest in Shri Atmananda's teachings . The most recent inquiry

was from Shri R.S. Mani who was looking for Shri Atmananda's Books

in the Trivandrum area.

 

As we know, Shri Atmananda is no longer present in his physical

body ( he attained Samadhi on may 14, 1959). My question is if one

is genuinely interested in learning Shri Atmananda's teachings , who

should one approach? Of course , we can read books like Atma

Darshan , Atma Nivritti , Atmatattwam . Atmananda Tattwa Samhita etc

etc but it will not be the same like meeting the Guru in person face

to face and sitting at his feet, serve him and learn from him the

finer nuances of Advaitic philosophy. The reason i am asking this is

there is something very similar between the approaches of Shri

Atmananda and Shri Ramana Maharishi -both they do not

advocate 'sanyasa' ( which appeals to me most- being a woman i can

never be a sanyasi )- Also, Paul Brunton's first teacher was Shri

Atmananda before he became a full fledged disciple of Shri Ramana

bhagwan.

 

so , i am back to where i started - only reading and reading - but

how to assimilate what you read ?

 

Ananda-ji , this is my dilemma .

 

My own Gurudeva left me orphaned six years ago - although he lives

in the 'mantra' he initiated me with , i feel sometimes lost ...

 

.......

 

.....

 

regards

[Guest guest]

Dear Ananda-ji,

 

 

I find myself not quite in agreement with what I understand to have been

said on this topic.

 

You stated in your original post:

 

<<It is only in relation to my direct teacher that I can ascribe any

authority to the tradition and its other teachers and its texts. Any

such authority is indirectly ascribed, through my living teacher.

This indirectly ascribed authority must then be qualified. It must

be qualified by reinterpreting the old texts today, relative to new

conditions that have changed from the past.

 

Many members of our e-group are less guarded than I am, concerning

the authority that is ascribed by tradition to old texts. And it is

often a useful discipline for us, to quote and interpret the old

texts. Why then am I placing so much emphasis upon the direct

teaching of a living individual, who is established in plain truth?

 

I suppose I am trying to point out an essential limitation of an

e-group such as ours. We can only discuss Advaita indirectly, in a

scholarly sort of way, using quotations more for illustration than

for authoritative proof. Such proof can only come directly from a

living sage, not from indirect discussions such as ours.>>

 

 

 

 

I would not dispute that a living guru is the ideal source of knowledge;

someone who is both a j~nAnI, a shrotriya and a good teacher as we have

agreed before. Such a one must be best able to identify the particular

problems of the shiShya and then use the approriate prakriyA-s to bring

about the removal of those problems.

 

However, surely it is undeniable that the appropriate self-knowledge (i.e.

appropriate to remove the specific self-ignorance) will bring about

akhaNDAkAra vRRitti *regardless of its source*? That being the case, this

knowledge could arise from reading something (from scriptures, commentary or

'even' the Advaitin group) or just in the course of everyday pursuits,

unlikely though this might be. To claim that a living guru must be present

seems to imply some sort of ethereal 'transmission', which of course is not

meaningful. Similarly, what 'proof' can there be of any of this except

through our own direct apprehension of the truth? Authority, certainly, may

be provided by the guru or the scriptures, and we may well have shraddhA in

either or both but faith does not constitute proof, surely.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> PraNAms

>

> Echoing Shree Anandaji words,

>

> ShravaNam is defined as systematic, consistent study

> of scriptures under a competent, LIVE guru for a

> prolonged length of time.

>

> Proper Guru is the one who directs his disciples to

> the scriptures as the authority.

>

> Competent teacher is the one who himself was a

> competent student. - Hence there is lineage of

> guru-sishya.

>

> Systematic teaching involves a teaching that follows a

> sampradaaya - a system.

>

>

>

>He recommends a proper steps in the evolution of the mind ( unless

of course one thinks he is an exception and that he is already

evolved to go directly!).

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

>

 

Namste Sadananda-Ji:

 

One gets a clue why this may have been so 1/ for paaNinii's shixaa,

where is explains the importance of " svara " vowels and the root verbs.

 

anaxara.m hataayuShyaM visvaraM vyaadhipiiDitam |

axataa shastra ruupeNa vajraM patati mastake || 53 ||

 

Meaning (Liberal) - If one makes an error in the pronouncing vowels

then one gets into trouble (because other's cannot understand it or

it leads to misunderstanding. However, if one makes mistake in the

root verb then that leads to death.

 

Illustration: Just adding additional vowel " a " the gender changes

from masculine to feminine. vijaya (M) vijayaa (F); even in English

we find such examples Paul (M) Paula (F).

 

In olden days due to lack of written script, it was important to

memorize the entire text giving explicit detailed attention to all

sounds. This was partially achieved through various notations.

Matter must have become more complicated after the yaj~navakla

departed his guru, vaishampaayana and established his own school of

follower. Even today, (Yajurvedi's) Yaj~navalkaa's followers) do not

pronounce the sound " sha " it gets pronounced as " kha " .

 

All shaakhaa's have different set of following with specific history,

which can only be understood properly through a qualified guru who

can expound the meaning as per the tradition.

 

j~n is pronounced as " gya " , " dny " , " gna "

Maithili folks " Sh " (as in ShaTakona) " kha " .

In Bengal sh, Sh, and sa are pronounced as " ha "

 

Thus on a lighter note it is recommended that one should avoid spoken

blessings from the folks who live in the East.

 

ashiirvaadaM na gR^ihviiyata puurvadeshanivaasinaH |

shataayuriti vaktavye hataayuritivaadinam ||

 

Meaning (Liberal) - Never ask for blessings from folks who live in

the East. because their utterance of " shataayuH bhava " (live for

hundreds of years) will sound as " hataayuH bhava " (hops this reduces

the life span).

 

Just some thoughts !?

 

Kind regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shrimati Dhyanasaraswati, Shri Sadananda and Shri Dennis,

 

In message #36530 (July 15), Shrimati Dhyanasaraswati asks: " ... if

any one is interested in studying Shri Atmananda's teachings, what

is the best way to do so? "

 

As Shrimati Dhyanasaraswati points out, there is a dilemma here.

When an Advaita teacher's body has passed away, of what use are the

writings or any other records of what that teacher taught? Such

records remain in the external world, where they can be read. Being

external, such records are not in themselves alive. Then how can any

reading of dead records help, in leading a sadhaka to living truth?

 

As I understand it, such reading and interpretation of external

records is a scholarly and intellectual exercise, which can be

helpful on the way to truth. But there are of course many different

exercises, which can be of help in a variety of different paths to

truth.

 

In 'Notes on Spiritual Discourses' (note #1387), Shri Atmananda is

reported to have said:

 

" Comparing all these so called paths and exercises, we come to the

conclusion that they only prepare the ground for the aspirant, by

purifying his mind and heart. He can then imbibe the ultimate Truth.

The real light can be imparted only by the Karana-guru, 'in person'.

There is no exception to this. "

 

But this quotation too is an external record. It too must be

interpreted, and it is thus open to being qualified by the

interpretation that is made.

 

Personally, I would interpret this quotation to the effect that any

texts and other such records can help only to prepare for a living

teacher, from whom the truth must be received in person.

 

But I would also agree that my interpretation may well need to be

qualified by Shri Sadananda's observation in message #36528 (July

15):

 

" There are always exceptions to the rule [that a living teacher is

required] but we cannot make rule out of exceptions. Bhagavaan

Ramana is an exception .... "

 

Yes, Shri Atmananda was usually very emphatic about the need for a

living teaching in person. But this emphasis was meant specifically

for his particular disciples, and he did sometimes seem to admit of

very special exceptions.

 

And further, while Ramana Maharshi did not generally acknowledge

having learned from a personal guru, I do seem to remember a report

that on one occasion he was a little ambiguous about this -- saying

that perhaps he may have had a guru.

 

What strikes me here is that the guru-disciple relationship is

inherently beyond the mind. So it must be acknowledged to defy the

limits of language; and it is best to be careful about literal

interpretations of any quotes on this most delicate and tricky

subject.

 

I would even say that the guru-disciple relationship is based upon a

depth of faith which cannot be described by any reasoned argument.

At that depth, there is no question of examining belief in any

mind-made concepts. Instead, there's only faith in plain truth

itself, beneath all personality.

 

For a disciple who accepts an advaita guru, that impersonal truth is

spontaneously expressed in the guru's person. And the expression

must completely baffle all descriptive reasoning. Faith in a guru

has to be discovered through depth of feeling in the heart. It

cannot be described by reasoned thinking in the mind.

 

Yes, reason can reflect towards true knowing in the depth of heart,

but this is quite a different approach from a discovery of faith

through deeper and more genuine feelings.

 

Such a discovery of faith must naturally take place quite

differently in our different personalities; and so it is only

natural that we should have differences of feeling and faith, in

addition to our differences of thought and logic.

 

Where I speak of the teacher-disciple relationship, I should perhaps

make it clearer that I have changed approach, from reflective reason

to expressive faith.

 

It's only in this second mode -- of expressing faith -- that I can

report Shri Atmananda's insistence on the need for a living teacher

to impart advaitic truth in person. As Shri Dennis says (in message

#36534, July 16), logic alone does not justify the 'claim that a

living guru must be present'. Here, I can only report that Shri

Atmananda said so, without claiming that this is established on the

basis of logic.

 

But I do not think that logic prevents us from having differences of

faith in the authority of various means through which knowledge is

expressed and imparted. So I would say there is plenty of room for

such differences of faith.

 

And while I agree with Shri Dennis that there is a sense in which

'faith does not constitute proof', I would point out that there is

another, deeper sense where true faith is the ultimate proof of

non-dual reality. True faith is found exactly at the inmost depth of

heart, where it is proved that pure knowing and all being are

identical.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

--- ymoharir <ymoharir wrote:

 

 

 

> Meaning (Liberal) - Never ask for blessings from

> folks who live in

> the East. because their utterance of " shataayuH

> bhava " (live for

> hundreds of years) will sound as " hataayuH

> bhava " (hops this reduces

> the life span).

>

> Just some thoughts !?

>

> Kind regards,

>

> Dr. Yadu

>

>

Yaduji - PraNAms.

Interesting info. I am reminded of the professor in

the My Fair lady who puts marbles in the mouth of the

lady so that she can pronounce the vowels correctly.

In the Carnatic music tradition, they used to insists

that the student to immerse in the cold water up to

the neck shivering and do the swaraas - to make sure

they are done properly.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

And further, while Ramana Maharshi did not generally acknowledge

having learned from a personal guru, I do seem to remember a report

that on one occasion he was a little ambiguous about this -- saying

that perhaps he may have had a guru.

 

I believe his exact words were " I may have had a guru at one time or

another " . From the text, it could be interpreted that in a past

lifetime he may have had a teacher.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Anandaji:

 

You have articulated beautifully why a proof is unnecessary for

making the assertion that " living in the Living Teacher. " No one can

deny the fact that at the very moment of birth, the living needs of a

newborn baby (everything that the baby acquired) came from another

living being. No proof is needed to verify this fact of life and the

fundamental law of nature! Besides human beings, even animals

including birds needed a similar care and support. Any exception to

this rule is just a miracle.

 

Also what you are referring comes from the Vedic Sampradhaya (well

established vedic oral tradition) where the knowledge got transferred

from one generation (Guru) to the next generation (Shisya). This is

also known as the Guru-Shisya Parmpara system of transfer of

undiluted knowledge in any field through successive generations.

Also, it should be pointed out the Sankara Sampradhyam of the

spreading of the advaita philosophy also had the same system.

 

Sankara had strong belief in this system as is evidence from the

establishment of four mutts in four key locations with rules for

successions, etc. These are facts and once we have faith in Sankara

and the philosophy of nonduality as visioned by hime, we have to

believe in " living in the Living Teacher. " Suppose we all are inside

the Plato's cave with no exposure to any light, then we can recognize

the light only through another person with the experience of light!

From all that I can see, what you said in your posts make lots of

sensual appeal. The Guru serves like the mirror to get our own

reflection and correct our understanding. All other means of learning

are quite helpful but they may not penetrate through the inner core

of our hearts to cleanse our misunderstandings!

 

Thanks again for your insights,

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , Ananda Wood <awood wrote:

>

> But I do not think that logic prevents us from having differences

of

> faith in the authority of various means through which knowledge is

> expressed and imparted. So I would say there is plenty of room for

> such differences of faith.

>

> And while I agree with Shri Dennis that there is a sense in which

> 'faith does not constitute proof', I would point out that there is

> another, deeper sense where true faith is the ultimate proof of

> non-dual reality. True faith is found exactly at the inmost depth

of

> heart, where it is proved that pure knowing and all being are

> identical.

>

> Ananda

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

 

> However, surely it is undeniable that the appropriate self-knowledge

(i.e.

> appropriate to remove the specific self-ignorance) will bring about

> akhaNDAkAra vRRitti *regardless of its source*?

>

> Best wishes,

> Dennis

 

Namaste Dennisji (and everyone else),

 

I very much appreciated Sri Anandaji's

post. I also find that having a living teacher is

absolutely necessary. At least, it certainly

seems absolutely necessary for me. Without

a teacher I would have no idea what the words

of the scriptures mean, nor of the way they

are meant to be used as a pramana. Only a

teacher who knows how to do so can use them

in this way.

 

But what I specifically would like to address

is the phrase Dennis has written above. As

far as I know, there is no `appropriate self-knowledge

which brings about the akhaNDAkAra vRRitti.'

 

One problem I see here is that it sounds as if

self-knowledge comes from outside, and in pieces,

and it does not. And also that self-knowledge is

some type of conceptual understanding which brings

about a knowledge vritti. This is not correct,

as far as I understand things.

 

It is the vRRitti itself which provides

(or is) the self-knowledge and thereby

ignorance is destroyed.

 

Again, as far as I know, the destruction

of ignorance and the gain of knowledge,

are phrases which are actually synonyms

for each other. There is not one event and

then the other. Both occur simultaneously.

 

In fact, it is probably wrong to say 'both'

occur, as there is only a single occurrence.

 

The destruction of ignorance is the gain

of knowledge. The gain of knowledge is

the destruction of ignorance. You cannot

separate these two by a hair's breadth

(or less), because they are not two

events to begin with. And (as I said in a

previous post) as far as I know, no one can

point to one single 'thing' in particular which

is the cause for this vRRitti to taking place.

 

A person might say, " I sat still and realized

I was my self. " If that person were asked

what piece of knowledge brought that about?

How could that person answer? I think that

person would say, " No piece of knowledge brought

it about. It was the culmination of all of the

teachings, and by the grace of those teachings,

I saw. "

 

So again, as far as I know, it would not be proper

to say that there is some type of appropriate

self-knowledge which brings about the vRRitti.

 

The vRRitti is self-knowledge. The instant

gain of self-knowledge is the instant loss of

self-ignorance.

 

For some reason, I think this is important to

understand, because if we don't understand this,

we may still think that some type of conceptual

understanding will bring about self-knowledge, and

I don't think this is the case.

 

This is where the term `pramana' comes in.

The pramana works like your eyes. Perhaps

the teachings can give you some indirect

information about the self, but their primary purpose

is to directly guide your mind to recognize the self,

which is entirely different from receiving outside

information about the self, which no matter how good,

does not guide your mind to see.

 

My favorite example of how the teachings work

is the example of two friends walking at dusk.

One says to the other " Look at the beautiful

moon. " " What moon? " says her friend, " I don't

see it. " Because it is a new moon, a tiny sliver

one friend does not see it. The other friend says,

" Look see that tree? Now follow up the trunk

of the tree with your eyes. Now look over to the left,

now up higher, where those leaves are, now look right there

between those two small branches which make a V,

there is the new moon. " And then her friend sees.

 

This is how the teachings of Vedanta work as a

guide for gaining knowledge. It is not the `pieces

of knowledge' which enable one to know the self.

It is the direct guidance of the mind by the teacher,

using all of the methodology which Vedanta has

to offer.

 

And this is why it is necessary to have a teacher

as a guide, rather than just reading scriptures on

one's own. Without a guide, one may well interpret

the words incorrectly, and thus take a wrong

turn as it were. The teacher will tell you if you've

made a wrong turn, and guide your mind back

in the right direction.

 

Without a teacher, IMO, one may wander for years,

even become very knowledgeable in quoting scripture

etc., but without really understanding what is being

pointed out.

 

This at least is my understanding.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Namaste Durga-ji,

 

I seem to have (yet again) arrived at a situation in which I am trying to

make a pedantic statement with a fine distinction and this being contested

on general grounds.

 

Firstly, let me be very clear - I would always recommend that a seeker

endeavor to find a qualified teacher. I would never suggest that a seeker

try to gain enlightenment purely through reading etc. unless there is no

choice.

 

Secondly, it seems unarguable that the problem is self-ignorance and it

seems unarguable that the only solution is self-knowledge. If you want to

say that the 'appropriate self-knowledge' IS akhaNDAkAra vRRitti' and it

arises in the mind, it still must do so as a result of exposure to

appropriate teaching surely? Otherwise there would have to be lots of

enlightened individuals who had no exposure whatsoever to any teaching. And

this is not the case.

 

So we are still in the position of having knowledge come from somewhere in

order to put the mind into the state in which this vRRitti might occur.

Accordingly, to return to my original point, this knowledge is undoubtedly

most likely to arise as a result of approriate teaching from a qualifies

guru. But there is nothing to say that it could not also arise as a result

of reading/discussion etc. without the intermediary of a guru at all. It is

simply much less likely,

 

I don't think the question of pramANa is relevant here at all, unless we are

arguing relative probablilites (which we aren't, I hope).

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Durga-ji,

 

Apologies - I clicked on 'Send' before I had finished!

 

Regarding the last point about the sthUla arundhatI nyAya method, I think

you are taking the metaphor too literally. It may be analagous to pointing

but it is still knowledge being given from an outside source. The best

example of its use is the koSha-s in the taittirIya upaniShad. Here,

knowledge is being given about each of the sheaths in turn, to convince the

seeker that she is not that. It is not simply a case of pointing and the

knowledge is automatically there.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

<http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=3

6548/stime=1184602731/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848583/nc3=3848571>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Namaste Durga-ji,

..

>

 

>

> Secondly, it seems unarguable that the problem is self-ignorance and it

> seems unarguable that the only solution is self-knowledge. If you

want to

> say that the 'appropriate self-knowledge' IS akhaNDAkAra vRRitti' and it

> arises in the mind, it still must do so as a result of exposure to

> appropriate teaching surely? Otherwise there would have to be lots of

> enlightened individuals who had no exposure whatsoever to any

teaching. And

> this is not the case.

>

> So we are still in the position of having knowledge come from

somewhere in

> order to put the mind into the state in which this vRRitti might occur.

 

>

> I don't think the question of pramANa is relevant here at all,

unless we are

> arguing relative probablilites (which we aren't, I hope).

>

> Best wishes,

> Dennis

 

Namaste Dennis,

 

Unless I do not understand the point which you are

making (and that is possible)

 

I would say that the gain of self-knowledge has

everything to do with Vedanta being a pramANa.

Because Vedanta when taught appropriately acts

as a pramANa. And exposure to Vedanta taught as a

pramANa is exposure to the appropriate teaching.

 

That is why the teachings work. They are a mirror.

If someone holds up a mirror to you, do you see

your face or not?

 

A mirror isn't a piece of knowledge. It's a mirror.

The 'knowledge' doesn't come from somewhere, other

than from your own recognition. How would that

be possible?

 

What enables the mind to 'see' the self, IMO,

are two things. First of all a certain mental

condition, which is loosely translated as 'purity

of mind,' which means having the qualifications

of mind to enough of a degree that the mind is

subtle enough for the vRRitti to arise.

 

And the second thing is the teachings in the hands

of a teacher who knows how to use them as a

pramANa, as a mirror of one's actual experience.

 

To me, what you are saying sounds as if you are

saying that 'self-knowledge' is an object, which

it isn't. No one can hold a piece of self-knowledge,

and say, " Here is some self-knowledge. Please take it. "

 

We can hear words about the self, which give us certain

ideas, but until the self is recognized, what those

words are pointing out is not actually understood.

 

Say we hear the word 'limitless.' We will have an idea

of what that word means. It means something spacial.

 

Then we recognize the self. It doesn't seem limitless

according to our previous idea of the meaning of the

word. We may ask the teacher, " This doesn't seem limitless. "

The teacher may reply, " But is it limited by anything? "

 

And then one directly knows why the word 'limitless' is

used.

 

I don't want to argue about this, but it does seem to be

an important point to me. Perhaps we should talk off-list

when we have time. Also I would invite any other member

to join in and add their own understanding to this discussion.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Durga-ji,

>

> Apologies - I clicked on 'Send' before I had finished!

>

> Regarding the last point about the sthUla arundhatI nyAya method, I

think

> you are taking the metaphor too literally. It may be analagous to

pointing

> but it is still knowledge being given from an outside source. The best

> example of its use is the koSha-s in the taittirIya upaniShad. Here,

> knowledge is being given about each of the sheaths in turn, to

convince the

> seeker that she is not that. It is not simply a case of pointing and the

> knowledge is automatically there.

>

> Best wishes,

> Dennis

>

 

Namaste Dennis,

 

I would say that it is simply a case of pointing

out the truth, and the knowledge is automatically

there.

 

The teacher points to the body, and points out that

the body is an object of knowledge. The body is known.

Then it is pointed out that although the body is known,

the body is changing. Not only is it changing, one

is not always aware of the body. Yet I always am.

 

The body isn't always the same. Once it was a child's

body. Now it is an adult body, but I remain.

 

Same with the mind. Thoughts come and go. But I remain.

If I were the mind, then I would be gone with the thought,

but I'm not. Not only that, I'm aware of the thoughts

in the mind.

 

How is the student convinced of the truth of what the

teacher is saying? Because the student sees that it

is experientially true.

 

So, the truth is pointed out. And then the fact that it is

true, ('the knowledge of the truth' of what is pointed out),

is gained.

 

So is this knowledge of the body/mind and the fact that

it changes and I don't, knowledge from an outside source,

or is it my knowledge? It is my knowledge when I see that

it is true. It is a pointing from an outside source

to what is true, and then an inner knowing or recognition

of the truth of what is being pointed out.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Hi Durga-ji,

 

<<I would say that it is simply a case of pointing

out the truth, and the knowledge is automatically

there.

 

The teacher points to the body, and points out that

the body is an object of knowledge. The body is known.

Then it is pointed out that although the body is known,

the body is changing. Not only is it changing, one

is not always aware of the body. Yet I always am.

 

The body isn't always the same. Once it was a child's

body. Now it is an adult body, but I remain.>>

 

Sorry but it seems to me that you are agreeing with me and yet trying to say

that you don't. The words that you are using are actually misleading. If I

can rephrase what you are saying:

 

" The teacher points to the body and *additionally provides the following

knowledge*, namely that the body is an object of knowledge, isn't always the

same, once was a child's body etc. "

 

If the teacher simply pointed, nothing would happen. It is after pointing

*and supplying the requisite knowledge* that the student is able to say

'Aha! Of course! I knew that really already!'

 

And, to re-make my original point, that 'additional knowlege' could also

come from a source other than a living guru.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Hi Durga-ji,

>

> <<I would say that it is simply a case of pointing

> out the truth, and the knowledge is automatically

> there.

>

> The teacher points to the body, and points out that

> the body is an object of knowledge. The body is known.

> Then it is pointed out that although the body is known,

> the body is changing. Not only is it changing, one

> is not always aware of the body. Yet I always am.

>

> The body isn't always the same. Once it was a child's

> body. Now it is an adult body, but I remain.>>

>

> Sorry but it seems to me that you are agreeing with me and yet

trying to say

> that you don't. The words that you are using are actually

misleading. If I

> can rephrase what you are saying:

>

> " The teacher points to the body and *additionally provides the following

> knowledge*, namely that the body is an object of knowledge, isn't

always the

> same, once was a child's body etc. "

>

> If the teacher simply pointed, nothing would happen. It is after

pointing

> *and supplying the requisite knowledge* that the student is able to say

> 'Aha! Of course! I knew that really already!'

>

> And, to re-make my original point, that 'additional knowlege' could also

> come from a source other than a living guru.

>

> Best wishes,

> Dennis

>

Namaste Dennis,

 

I've written to you privately, and I think that we

have cleared up the confusion hand between ourselves,

but for anyone else reading here who may have been

confused by our posts, I believe the confusion lay

in my mind in your use of the word 'knowledge.'

 

I was taking you as using the word 'knowledge' to

mean 'self-knowledge' as in moksha, rather than

'information' (or knowledge) about the self.

 

So since you are using the word 'knowledge' here

to mean information about the self, then I do

agree with what you are saying.

 

Because I assume that both of us know it would

be incorrect to replace the word 'knowledge'

with the word 'moksha' in the last sentence of

your post above.

 

If one were to do that the sentence would read

" that 'additional moksha' could also

come from a source other than a living guru. "

which of course does not make sense.

 

Glad we cleared that up. (I hope) :-)

 

Pranams,

Durga