basic questions

[Guest guest]

Hi,i have just requested to join this Egroup and would like to start of by

asking some basic questions,I would like to know the difference between

Traditional Advaita and Direct Path teachings.Is the sadhana different in the

two paths or the understanding of the scriptures?Is the need to study scriptures

important for both the paths?

Also just to clarify a doubt,why or how does the Self forget its nature and

get enveloped in avidya?Please forgive my lack of understanding and the need for

these basic questions.jas

 

 

 

Luggage? GPS? Comic books?

Check out fitting gifts for grads at Search.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Jas,

 

Welcome to the list, I hope you will find it helpful. I am probably

unqualified to answer both of your questions, but I will try to

explain what I do understand.

 

Both the term " traditional Advaita " and " direct path Advaita " are

somewhat vague words that don't precisely mean anything. It also

seems to imply that traditional Advaita is somehow " indirect, " which

is a questionable claim. However, this doesn't mean there is no basis

for this division.

 

Any teacher who is called a traditional Advaitin would generally be

teaching karma yoga and bhakti yoga (in the sense of worship/

meditation of Brahman with attributes) in addition to jnana yoga.

Such a teacher would point out that jnana yoga is the direct means of

liberation but in order to succeed in jnana yoga it is neccesary to

have a certain preparation and this preparation is systematically

acquired through karma yoga and bhakti yoga. In general everyone

needs preparation and people who do not are very exceptional. In

addition to this, a traditional Advaitin's teaching of jnana yoga

will be strongly rooted in verbal Vedantic teaching. So knowledge is

gained through hearing, reflection and contemplation, where

reflection and contemplation are both based on and dependent upon

what has been heard. It is not possible to engage in contemplation

without having been taught the nature of the Self in accordance with

Vedanta. While there is quite some variety within traditional

Advaita, the path is broadly the same everywhere.

 

The word " direct path " Advaita refers to teachers who do place an

emphasis on some kind of systematic jnana yoga or systematic method

of investigation into the nature of the Self but give no (or very

little) importance to karma yoga and bhakti yoga. They may or may not

accept the utility of karma yoga and bhakti yoga, but they do not

teach it much (sort of by definition). The jnana-yoga of " direct

path " Advaitins may or may not be close to the jnana-yoga of

traditional Advaita (ie: it may or may not be based on spoken

teachings).

 

It is important to note that from a traditional Advaitin's point of

view, " direct path " is NOT direct in the sense of being the fastest

means of getting liberation. Unless we work on purifying the mind, no

amount of jnana-yoga will lead to the destruction of ignorance, even

in a million lifetimes. In line with the teachings of the Gita, there

is no one sadhana that is the " best " but it all depends upon the

level of preparation of the sadhaka.

 

Regarding the other question, the idea that the Self " forgets " its

own nature should be taken as a poetic statement. From the Self's

point of view, there never was any ignorance nor will there ever be

any ignorance. From the point of view of the limited self, ignorance

is beginingless (ie: it was always there).

 

I hope this message has been of some help and hope other members will

correct my mistakes.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Jas Dullat - PraNAms (salutations)-

 

First, welcome to the list. No need to ask for

forgiveness - as this list is meant for asking the

questions and getting answers for contemplation. There

are many learned members who could quench your thirst

to know. Instead of accepting or rejecting the

answers, I request you to contemplate on them until

they are clear.

 

You have asked very pertinent questions and to

appreciate and assimilate the answers it takes time

and effort.

 

Dennis white - our chief moderator has written a

classic book explains many of the questions you have

raised. Here is a brief answer I will try to venture.

 

Question about the 'Difference between traditional

advaita and direct path teaching'.

 

This requires an understanding what advaita means - to

say if there is something traditional and

non-traditional.

 

Advaita means non-dual. Any path implies a duality.

Hence, in principle, advaita cannot have any paths.

There are no direct or curvilinear paths in advaita.

 

But for those who see the duality, the teaching says

the truth is advaita, or non-dual.

 

I am there and the world is there in front of me. -

that is the duality that we face all the time. Should

I dismiss the world or should I dismiss myself - for

me to recognize that there is only one. Either way I

will have a problem. I cannot dismiss myself since I

have to be there to dismiss myself and I cannot

dismiss the world either, say for an hour in the seat

of meditation the world is dismissed and then get up

and say I am hungry. I have to bring the world back

that I just now dismissed as non-existent, so that my

hunger is taken care of. In fact the world was there

before I am into the world and it will be there even

after I leave. World seems to more permanent than I.

Then how can I dismiss the world as non-existent?

Hence to say the world is not there will be as

ridiculous as dismissing myself from the world. Then

where is advaita. Therefore, the direct path is the

only path that can make me understand clearly - who

am I and what is the nature of the world and what is

my relationship with the world. The scripture says

that the truth is SAT-CHIT-ANANDA - OR

EXISTENCE-CONSCIOUSNESS-INFINITENESS and that is

advaita or non-dual.

 

To understand this clearly only I need a proper

teaching. And that is only the direct path - clear

unambiguous understanding of the nature of the reality

that involves understanding of who I am and what is

this world - and in the process of inquiry if I

bringing the creation and creator - what is the nature

of that creator, etc. That my friend is the only

direct path to realize the advaita - and there are no

other paths for advaita other than understanding the

truth oneness that pervades both I and the world.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- jas dullat <jas.dullat wrote:

 

> Hi,i have just requested to join this Egroup and

> would like to start of by asking some basic

> questions,I would like to know the difference

> between Traditional Advaita and Direct Path

> teachings.Is the sadhana different in the two paths

> or the understanding of the scriptures?Is the need

> to study scriptures important for both the paths?

> Also just to clarify a doubt,why or how does the

> Self forget its nature and get enveloped in

> avidya?Please forgive my lack of understanding and

> the need for these basic questions.jas

>

>

>

> Luggage? GPS? Comic books?

> Check out fitting gifts for grads at Search.

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Rishi,thank you for your prompt and very helpful reply. Further to this could

you clarify another query.Is the present avidya of the jiva due to Lila and is

this where sargun Ishwar comes in? And if so is the World the Jiva all Brahman

playing out the various dramas of this apparantely real existence?Is the avidya

and all suffering and happiness ultimately unreal when the truth is realized,and

who is it that realizes?jasrisrajlam <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

Dear Jas,

 

Welcome to the list, I hope you will find it helpful. I am probably

unqualified to answer both of your questions, but I will try to

explain what I do understand.

 

Both the term " traditional Advaita " and " direct path Advaita " are

somewhat vague words that don't precisely mean anything. It also

seems to imply that traditional Advaita is somehow " indirect, " which

is a questionable claim. However, this doesn't mean there is no basis

for this division.

 

Any teacher who is called a traditional Advaitin would generally be

teaching karma yoga and bhakti yoga (in the sense of worship/

meditation of Brahman with attributes) in addition to jnana yoga.

Such a teacher would point out that jnana yoga is the direct means of

liberation but in order to succeed in jnana yoga it is neccesary to

have a certain preparation and this preparation is systematically

acquired through karma yoga and bhakti yoga. In general everyone

needs preparation and people who do not are very exceptional. In

addition to this, a traditional Advaitin's teaching of jnana yoga

will be strongly rooted in verbal Vedantic teaching. So knowledge is

gained through hearing, reflection and contemplation, where

reflection and contemplation are both based on and dependent upon

what has been heard. It is not possible to engage in contemplation

without having been taught the nature of the Self in accordance with

Vedanta. While there is quite some variety within traditional

Advaita, the path is broadly the same everywhere.

 

The word " direct path " Advaita refers to teachers who do place an

emphasis on some kind of systematic jnana yoga or systematic method

of investigation into the nature of the Self but give no (or very

little) importance to karma yoga and bhakti yoga. They may or may not

accept the utility of karma yoga and bhakti yoga, but they do not

teach it much (sort of by definition). The jnana-yoga of " direct

path " Advaitins may or may not be close to the jnana-yoga of

traditional Advaita (ie: it may or may not be based on spoken

teachings).

 

It is important to note that from a traditional Advaitin's point of

view, " direct path " is NOT direct in the sense of being the fastest

means of getting liberation. Unless we work on purifying the mind, no

amount of jnana-yoga will lead to the destruction of ignorance, even

in a million lifetimes. In line with the teachings of the Gita, there

is no one sadhana that is the " best " but it all depends upon the

level of preparation of the sadhaka.

 

Regarding the other question, the idea that the Self " forgets " its

own nature should be taken as a poetic statement. From the Self's

point of view, there never was any ignorance nor will there ever be

any ignorance. From the point of view of the limited self, ignorance

is beginingless (ie: it was always there).

 

I hope this message has been of some help and hope other members will

correct my mistakes.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Travel.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Sadananda ji ,thank you for your prompt amd very helpful reply, could you

further elaborate on why the Self or Brahman would be enveloped in avidya,and if

the world and jiva are really Brahman acting out his own lila?Ultimately is

suffering and happiness unreal as Self is already perfect and to whom then is

enlightenment?thanks again jas

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: Jas Dullat -

PraNAms (salutations)-

 

First, welcome to the list. No need to ask for

forgiveness - as this list is meant for asking the

questions and getting answers for contemplation. There

are many learned members who could quench your thirst

to know. Instead of accepting or rejecting the

answers, I request you to contemplate on them until

they are clear.

 

You have asked very pertinent questions and to

appreciate and assimilate the answers it takes time

and effort.

 

Dennis white - our chief moderator has written a

classic book explains many of the questions you have

raised. Here is a brief answer I will try to venture.

 

Question about the 'Difference between traditional

advaita and direct path teaching'.

 

This requires an understanding what advaita means - to

say if there is something traditional and

non-traditional.

 

Advaita means non-dual. Any path implies a duality.

Hence, in principle, advaita cannot have any paths.

There are no direct or curvilinear paths in advaita.

 

But for those who see the duality, the teaching says

the truth is advaita, or non-dual.

 

I am there and the world is there in front of me. -

that is the duality that we face all the time. Should

I dismiss the world or should I dismiss myself - for

me to recognize that there is only one. Either way I

will have a problem. I cannot dismiss myself since I

have to be there to dismiss myself and I cannot

dismiss the world either, say for an hour in the seat

of meditation the world is dismissed and then get up

and say I am hungry. I have to bring the world back

that I just now dismissed as non-existent, so that my

hunger is taken care of. In fact the world was there

before I am into the world and it will be there even

after I leave. World seems to more permanent than I.

Then how can I dismiss the world as non-existent?

Hence to say the world is not there will be as

ridiculous as dismissing myself from the world. Then

where is advaita. Therefore, the direct path is the

only path that can make me understand clearly - who

am I and what is the nature of the world and what is

my relationship with the world. The scripture says

that the truth is SAT-CHIT-ANANDA - OR

EXISTENCE-CONSCIOUSNESS-INFINITENESS and that is

advaita or non-dual.

 

To understand this clearly only I need a proper

teaching. And that is only the direct path - clear

unambiguous understanding of the nature of the reality

that involves understanding of who I am and what is

this world - and in the process of inquiry if I

bringing the creation and creator - what is the nature

of that creator, etc. That my friend is the only

direct path to realize the advaita - and there are no

other paths for advaita other than understanding the

truth oneness that pervades both I and the world.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- jas dullat <jas.dullat wrote:

 

> Hi,i have just requested to join this Egroup and

> would like to start of by asking some basic

> questions,I would like to know the difference

> between Traditional Advaita and Direct Path

> teachings.Is the sadhana different in the two paths

> or the understanding of the scriptures?Is the need

> to study scriptures important for both the paths?

> Also just to clarify a doubt,why or how does the

> Self forget its nature and get enveloped in

> avidya?Please forgive my lack of understanding and

> the need for these basic questions.jas

>

>

>

> Luggage? GPS? Comic books?

> Check out fitting gifts for grads at Search.

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shape in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sreenivasa responds to the question asked by Jas thus

 

( You have asked : " Could I know trouble you further with another

query,namely who or what recieves enlightenment if all is

unreal,and> Self already being Realized,who is that requires

knowledge)

 

The entity 'I' who has put the question requires knowledge.

 

 

Sreenivasa , who is the entity that is responding to the question ?

Is it you ( the I in you ) or somebody else Smile :-)

 

anyway, here is a wonderful text on 'enlightening the disciple' -

Upadesa Sahasri by ADI SHANKARA BHAGVADAPADA .

 

 

PL READ

 

http://www.sankaracharya.org/upadesa_sahasri.php

 

Meanwhile, i am sure Shastriji , Sadaji , professorji and other

learnedscholars will respond to your question in a detailed manner .

 

Thanks jas , you ask questions and the rest of us will also benefit

from all the 'learned' responses we get from scholqars on this

list .

 

thanks

[Guest guest]

Your question is answred by the following passage in gItA bhAshya:--

 

Gita, 2. 21, Sankara bhAshya— " The Self, while remaining immutable, is

imagined to be the knower of objects such as sound, which are actually

experienced by the mind and the sense-organs. This is because the Self is

not distinguished from the mental modifications (vrittis) due to nescience.

Similarly, the Self is spoken of as having become enlightened only because

of avidyaa associating it with that intellectual perception ---which is also

unreal--- which takes the form of discrimination between the Self and the

not-Self, while in reality the Self has undergone no change whatsoever. "

 

The idea is that neither ignorance, nor enlightenmement, pertains to the

Self. Both are only in the mind and are wrongly attributed to the Self.

 

S.N.Sastri

I

 

On 10/5/07, jas dullat <jas.dullat wrote:

>

> Hi Sadanandji and Rishj

> First of all I would like to thank you for your replies to my previous

> questions,I found them very helpful.Could I know trouble you further with

> another query,namely who or what recieves enlightenment if all is unreal,and

> Self already being Realized,who is that requires knowledge?

>

>

> Catch up on fall's hot new shows on TV. Watch previews, get

> listings, and more!

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " bhagini_niveditaa "

<bhagini_niveditaa wrote:

>

> Sreenivasa responds to the question asked by Jas thus

>

> ( You have asked : " Could I know trouble you further with another

> query,namely who or what recieves enlightenment if all is

> unreal,and> Self already being Realized,who is that requires

> knowledge)

>

> The entity 'I' who has put the question requires knowledge.

>

>

> Sreenivasa , who is the entity that is responding to the question ?

> Is it you ( the I in you ) or somebody else Smile :-)

 

It is ATMAN appearing in the form of Sreenivasa Murthy replying to

ATMAN appearing in the form of Jas. Instead of smiling please ponder

over the statement deeply .Sri Shankara in many places has

charecterized such questions as useless and fruitless. please note

that so long as one is thinking that he is an entity, he needs the

saving knowledge of Vedanta.

 

ATMAN appearing as Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

Sreenivasa :

 

As long as you are in this group fielding questions , you are

*JIVATMA* SREENIVASA ONLY !

 

Does tHE PARAMATMA Sreenivasa DESCEND FROM VAIKUNTA to field

questions in advaitin ? YOU ARE JIVATMA SREENIVASA ONLY AS FAR AS I AM

CONCERNMED !RE

 

We are all in the BMI complex only and we are not 'shankara' .....

Vedanta saves only those who have relinquished their ego ? When the

ego is intact as is evident from many of your responses ,EVEN

vedanta cannot save !

 

A smile is good for the endorphine glands than a cynical response.

 

Btw , pl read Shastriji's response to newcomer Jas. Would you not

agree that we learn more from his response than your cryptic remark.

 

Please let newcomers ask questions fearlessly - we learn also in the

process when other learned members like Sadaji , shastriji etc etc

respond to these questions in an informed manner !

 

Let go of ego - vedanta will shine in its full glory all on its own.

 

love and regardws

 

>

> It is ATMAN appearing in the form of Sreenivasa Murthy replying to

> ATMAN appearing in the form of Jas. Instead of smiling please ponder

> over the statement deeply .Sri Shankara in many places has

> charecterized such questions as useless and fruitless. please note

> that so long as one is thinking that he is an entity, he needs the

> saving knowledge of Vedanta.

>

> ATMAN appearing as Sreenivasa Murthy

>

[Guest guest]

>

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin , " bhagini_niveditaa "

<bhagini_niveditaa wrote:

 

Dear Bhagini(sister),

After going through your reply to the posting of ATMAN appearing

as Sreenivasa Murthy, I smiled and smiled and smiled finally

culminating in a big laughter. There is no PARAMATMA Sreenivasa and

JIVATMA SREENIVASA does not exist. There is only PARAMATMA Who is

appearing as Sreenivasa and also as billions of name and form. I hope

you have been able to see the difference.

 

 

Dear Bhagini, are YOU in BMI or BMI is in YOU? My Revered Guru

used to put this question frequently to his disciples in order to

remove the basic delusion that one is in BMI and one is BMI.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

advaitin , jas dullat <jas.dullat wrote:

 

>who or what recieves enlightenment if all is unreal,and Self already

>being Realized,who is that requires knowledge?

>

 

hariH OM! sri jas (greetings, mr jas),

 

excellent question. however it is based on one of the most popular

misrepresentations in all of vedanta. which is that all (i.e. the

world) is unreal.

 

the world is only unreal if it is apprehended APART from its

foundation in brahamn. otherwise, it is real *yet* with extenuating

circumstances. which is why the first major proponent of advaita,

shankaracharya, refered to it as indescribable (anirvachaniya). he

called it " maya, " and said [maya] is real, yet unreal.

 

sri ramana maharshi (the modern " counterpart " to shankaracharya),

also emphasized this.

 

so, the fact remains, the jiva (or ego-Mind) is the one who requires

realization. the one who must realize its source nature, where its

focal point as an identifiable ego needs to be attenuated, or put in

its right perspective, relative to the reality of its origin and

destiny. its mission is to curtail the ages-developed habit of

constantly defaulting to the allurement of that astoundingly powerful

beast called the Mind.

 

namaste (i bow to the reality where you and i are one),

frank