Guest guest Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Namaste All, I recently came across some short YouTube videos by a man called Rupert Spira in conversation about Consciousness and Advaita thought and understanding (although the word advaita is never mentioned). A simple and apparently unassuming fellow, Spira goes to the heart of the matter very powerfully and practically, without the least intention to " teach " something to " the rest of us " , simply deconstructing the notional process of ignorance itself, based on the nature of our relative " experience " . The simplicity of the pointers displayed in these four short conversations is, to my knowledge, one of the best representations of how Advaita is understood within the western world, assimilating cultural and historical influences, bypassing in its essence all categories and labels such as " traditional " , " based on sastras " , " neo " , " direct path " and even religion. I thought some of us would be interested. Links are here, every video is only 9 minutes long: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMs5XTvlxE & feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAgf6UaXchA & feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zHEbMHerdc & feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ckx9Lb4ORI & feature=related Yours in Bhagavan, Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I've just finished his book and put a (very long) review up at my website - it awards 5* but with quite a bit of criticism of what he says - see http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/transparency_waite.htm. Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Mouna Monday, July 06, 2009 3:41 PM advaitin An interesting set of advaitic pointers. Namaste All, I recently came across some short YouTube videos by a man called Rupert Spira in conversation about Consciousness and Advaita thought and understanding (although the word advaita is never mentioned). .. <http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=4 5964/stime=1246891310/nc1=4507179/nc2=5741391/nc3=5191954> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Dear Dennis-ji, This in fact is a review of a review. You say in your review: QUOTE Our experience only confirms duality. This is why traditional advaita refers back to the scriptures for its authority. It is the correctly interpreted words of the wise that will remove our Self-ignorance, not any mere inquiry into our experience. UNQUOTE Well, well, is the referring back to the scriptures and correctly interpreted words of the wise outside the realm of experience and duality? Anything and everything here has to do with duality and experience. Traditional advaita cannot escape it. You then continue to say: QUOTE I think there is also a problem with words here. At one point, Rupert says that experiences are " an object of Consciousness. " But if we take the sentence `I see the book', `I' is the subject and `book' is the object. The `experience' relates to the `seeing' and this is not an object; it is a word which tells us more about the verb, or possibly the subject but nothing at all about the object. UNQUOTE I don't know what Rupert actually meant. I haven't read his book. However, an experience is always " I experienced an experience " and therefore can be treated as an object. About anthropomorphism, can you absolve even the Upanishads of it? Vedanta cannot be taught without an element of anthropomorphism. There are many instances in traditional Vedanta where Brahman is `personalized'. In fact, that is the crux of AdhyAropa apavAda. Isn't it? Lastly, about deep sleep, Rupert seems to be right. It is a 'state between a beginning and an end' only when recalled from our waking ignorance. But, per se, it is the seed into which this samsAra tree including the individualized jIva resolves (bIjasyAnkurivO.... in Shankara's Dakshinamurthy Stotram). The 'seed' is Endlessness and Formlessness (capitalization deliberate with a little bit of counter-sarcasm). It is the happiness of It that is recalled on waking into stupidity as " I enjoyed the sleep " . Some of Rupert's thoughts, unfortunately termed as " false premises and contradictions " , are in fact, very profound statements. For instance, the following one: QUOTE " This line of reasoning leads to understanding. However, understanding does not take place in the mind. It is beyond the mind. It is a moment when Consciousness experiences itself directly and knowingly. " UNQUOTE Is self-realization a mere understanding or experience has always been a vexing question. Rupert has resolved it beautifully. In fact, Ruperts words remind me of a similar statement made by Shri Atmananda Krishna Menon. Shri Anandaji might be able to locate it. I would have liked to comment more elaborately on your review but for the fact that I am travelling. Couldn't resist this bit, however, particularly when I saw Mounaji's appreciation of the Rupert's U-Tube videos. Best regards. Madathil Nair ___________________ advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > > I've just finished his book and put a (very long) review up at my website - > it awards 5* but with quite a bit of criticism of what he says - see > http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/transparency_waite.htm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 From : H.N. Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams to all. advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > QUOTE > > " This line of reasoning leads to understanding. However, understanding does not take place in the mind. It is beyond the mind. It is a moment when Consciousness experiences itself directly and knowingly. " > > UNQUOTE > > Is self-realization a mere understanding or experience has always been a vexing question. Rupert has resolved it beautifully. In fact, Ruperts words remind me of a similar statement made by Shri Atmananda Krishna Menon. Shri Anandaji might be able to locate it. DEAR Sri Rajendran, Sri Gaudapada states in karika -33 of Advaitha Prakarana thus: akalpakamajaM j~JAnaM j~JEyABinnaM pracakShatE | brahmaj~JEyamajaM nityamajEnAjaM vibudhyatE || It means: The knowledge ( j~JAnaM) which is unborn and free from all imaginations is ever inseperable from the knowable. The immutable and birthless Brahman is the sole object of knowledge. The birthless is known by the birthless. [Traslation by : Swami Nikhilananda] Another Translation: They say that the non-conceptual knowledge which is birthless, is non-different from the knowable (Brahman). The knowledge that has Brahman for its content is birthless and everlasting. The birthless (Self) is known by the birthless (knowledge) [Translation by Swami Gambhirananda] Has the above stated mantra any similarity with what Mr. Rupert has stated ? With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy P.S :With a request to other learned members to throw light on the above. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Dear Murthy-ji. I said I haven't read Rupert's book. However, from what Dennisji has said about the book, I am almost certain he is saying what Gaudapada has said. Birthless is known by the birthless = Consciousness experiences itself directly and knowingly. Rupert, I believe has used the words 'understanding' and 'experience' in order to reconcile the two. It may be contextual, I am not sure having not read the book. This is my humble opinion. My eyes see shades of difference between Nikhilananda and Gambhirananda. Then what to say about Rupert? BTW, my knowledge of Sanskrit is very meagre. Yet, a doubt. Why there is no translation for 'pracakShyate' in both the translations? Or is it there and I am not able to locate it? Best regards. Madathil Nair _______________ advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145 wrote: > > From : H.N. Sreenivasa Murthy > Pranams to all. > > advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " > <madathilnair@> wrote: > > > QUOTE > > > > " This line of reasoning leads to understanding. However, understanding > does not take place in the mind. It is beyond the mind. It is a moment > when Consciousness experiences itself directly and knowingly. " > > > > UNQUOTE > > > > Is self-realization a mere understanding or experience has always been > a vexing question. Rupert has resolved it beautifully. In fact, Ruperts > words remind me of a similar statement made by Shri Atmananda Krishna > Menon. Shri Anandaji might be able to locate it. > > DEAR Sri Rajendran, > > Sri Gaudapada states in karika -33 of Advaitha Prakarana thus: > > akalpakamajaM j~JAnaM j~JEyABinnaM pracakShatE | > brahmaj~JEyamajaM nityamajEnAjaM vibudhyatE || > > It means: The knowledge ( j~JAnaM) which is unborn and free from > all imaginations is ever inseperable from the knowable. The immutable > and birthless Brahman is the sole object of knowledge. > The birthless is known by the birthless. > [Traslation by : Swami Nikhilananda] > > Another Translation: > > They say that the non-conceptual knowledge which is birthless, is > non-different from the knowable (Brahman). The knowledge that has > Brahman for its content is birthless and everlasting. The birthless > (Self) is known by the birthless (knowledge) > [Translation by Swami Gambhirananda] > > Has the above stated mantra any similarity with what Mr. Rupert > has stated ? > > With warm and respectful regards, > Sreenivasa Murthy > > P.S :With a request to other learned members to throw light on the > above. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Birthless is known by the birthless = Consciousness experiences itself directly and knowingly. praNAms Hare Krishna This reminds me shankara's bruhadAraNyaka bhAshya (1-4-10) wherein shankara says: through the upadesha of compassionate AchArya, the Atman knew itself in its own intrinsic nature. And in upadesha sAhasri also we have the verse which says the witnessing self itself would be intuited by itself of the nature of intuition. And the birth of the resulting intellectual concept with its semblance is called its intuition. Shankara says here 'AtmajnAna vrutti' (intellectual concept) has the semblance of the sAkshi coz. this vrutti also will be completely pervaded by the consciousness. 'uddhare AtmanAtmAnam' also coming to my mind.. So, when shruti / shankara says : manasaivedamAptavyaM neha nAnAsti kiMchana, susamskruta manaM Atmadarshane karaNAm etc. we have to understand these statements without disturbing the above siddhAnta. And finally, I dont know from which stand point all these statements have been made & which of the above statements hold good in vyavahArika & which of the statements showing the significance of pAramArthika :-)) Oflate, it has become a big botheration for me to ascertain which is vyAvahArika & which is pAramArthika :-)) Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Dear Sastriji and Srinivasa Murthyji, We have read the translations of master scholars, Sw. Gambhirananda and Sw. Nikhilanda for the following verse of Mandukya Karika kindly provided by Shri Srinivasa Murthyji: akalpakamajaM jnAnaM jnEyAbhinnaM pracakShatE | brahmaJnEyamajaM nityaM ajEnAjaM vibudhyatE || Will it be proper for me to understand the import of the verse as follows? Inconceivable and birthless Knowledge (Brahman) pervades and shines (pracakShatE) as all that is known (jnEyaM), i.e. Brahman is not separate from or beyond (abhinnaM) the Universe. (This is akin to saying that Brahman shines and the Universe shines after (tamEva bhAntaM anubhAti sarvaM tasya bhAsAt sarvamidaM vibhAti). Brahman is to be known (jnEyaM) as birthless (ajaM) – never born and immortal (beyond birth and death) (This is perhaps a statement to stress the fact that Brahman is not born (ajAta) inspite of the connection which appears to have been purported above between Brahman and the Universe of multiplicity.). Only the unborn is aware of the unborn – Only Brahman knows Brahman, i.e. Awareness abides in Awareness (Atmani Eva Atma). Have I carried unwanted (and perhaps impure) coal to New Castle? Kindly pardon me if I have. Best regards. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams to all. advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: " My eyes see shades of difference between Nikhilananda and Gambhirananda. Then what to say about Rupert? " Dear Sri Rajendran, You are perfectly correct. Swami Nikkhilanada has left out to translate that word " pracakShatE " . Swami Gambhirananda translates that word as " they say " .. The English translations lack the beauty and spirit of the original writing in Sanskrit. There is tremendous power and beauty in the sentence " ajEna ajaM vibudhyatE " when read in the original language Viz. Sanskrit. In order to show how the translations of the orignal work vary from translator to translator I gave both the translations. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.