Advaita Practice- Doing and Being ?

[Guest guest]

Thank You Sadaji for your prompt response and i hope Mauna ji also

read your succinct response ! Dear sadaji , you waste no words and

you do not mix any words , that is what i luv about your approach!

 

maunaji , i cannot 'top' what sadaji has said but may i also add a

few points from my own understanding.

 

in this context, i would encorage you to read the following message

posted in Advaitin list by Sri Anandaji- Message number 33248 !

 

Here are some important passages from that Divine message in

Anandaji's chaste English!

 

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

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

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

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

eventually impersonal.

 

Whatever path is followed, a complete commitment is required from

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

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

is the impersonal and undifferentiated essence of all differentiated

personality and world.

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

benefits.

 

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

helpful then to recognize their differing commitments, as each

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

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

translate across the difference of perspective, and thus to learn

from differing experiences in different paths.

 

(((((snip snip snip )))))))))

 

 

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

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

through the yogic cultivation of samadhi states. This assertion is

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

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

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

building up of theories and conceptual pictures that describe the

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

and beliefs on which our theories and our pictures have been

founded.

 

((((snip snip)))))))))

 

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

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

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

have been superimposed on it, by construction from obscured and

blind habits of assumption and belief. Hence the Greek word

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

tradition progresses, yogic meditation is increasingly described, as

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

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

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

position is of course complicated by different ways of interpreting

the texts of the Shankara tradition).

 

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

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

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

explicitly acknowledged. Advaitic truth is thus described as

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

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

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

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

through the bhakti marga (the way of devotion).

 

In modernizing India, these same three aspects continue to be

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

compete, but which more fundamentally co-operate towards their

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

slightly different way, as the 'direct method'.

 

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

not essentially depend upon the traditional authority of ancient and

established texts. Here, the authority of ancient scripture is

replaced by a more direct questioning of individual experience,

under the guidance of a living teacher.

 

But neither Ramana Maharshi nor Shri Atmananda was disrespectful of

the established texts and their traditional ways. Both sages

recognized the use of tradition in its proper context.

 

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

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

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

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

his disciples in their sadhana.

 

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

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

taught his disciples to respect his contemporary sages, like

Anandamayi Ma and the Kanci Mahasvami, who instructed their

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

quite insistent on the need to avoid aggressive and upsetting

controversies, with those who follow different paths.

 

The point here is that advaita questioning must always turn its

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

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

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

further build the questioner's constructed theories, which thus

increase and reinforce their covering of underlying mistakes and

misunderstandings that yet remain to be uncovered and clarified.

 

Advaita questioning is only practical when its attack is turned back

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

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

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

true knowing is progressively expressed in truer feelings, clearer

thoughts and more useful acts which may arise from it.

 

 

Ananda

 

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

Maunaji , Sri Atmananda was a police officer in real life but he

was a staunch advaitin at heart . In his relationships with his

wife , children and sisyas and a host of 'others' he was 'Love'

personified . So , Maunaji , there you have it - " Consciousness

is 'being' at all levels " ( in word , deed and thought) . You know

how difficult it is to be a police officer - you have to 'issue

arrest warrants' to miscreants and offenders and criminals - half

the time one is not even sure if these people are really guilty as

charged until it is proved by the legal system . But let me assure

you , Shri Atmananadaji was a great police officer and a very

devoted householder besides being an exemplary guru to his sisyas.

Maunaji , it is possible for great beings like Shri Ramana and Shri

Atmananda practice 'advaita' at heart as well as being 'fair and

equitable' in their day to day activities .

 

i hope i make sense

 

Shri Gurubyo namaha !

 

love and regards

 

 

 

..

 

 

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

>

asked me if I can respond to your

> question - Here is my understanding.

>

> Advaita involves non-duality and any activity involves

> duality - As Shree Shastriji pointed out in a recent

> post, one should not have advaitic notion while

> serving the God, teacher or Guru, parents etc. In fact

> I should say at the level of vyavahaara or

> transactional level, duality is evident. Even though I

> have advaitic understanding, my check is different

> and my bank balance is different from that of others.

> When you are operating in the world, one can have

> clear vision of the unity or underlying advaita, yet

> transact with the world of dvaita appropriately.