Aurobindo

[Guest guest]

I wondered if some knowledgeable members could enlighten me.

Not having read any Aurobindo (I think I looked once but found him to be not

very readable), is his teaching actually in accord with Shankara’s

Advaita? I had formed the opinion that it was rather Yoga philosophy.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

2010/2/23 Dennis Waite <dwaite

 

 

I wondered if some knowledgeable members could enlighten me.

Not having read any Aurobindo (I think I looked once but found him to be not

very readable), is his teaching actually in accord with Shankara’s

Advaita? I had formed the opinion that it was rather Yoga philosophy.

 Namaste Shri Dennis,I am not a knowledgeable member, but here is my reply. Sometime back, I read some of Aurobindo's works: His interpretation of Upanishads, in particular, the Gita, along with some of His commentaries on Rig Veda Suktas. The former was mainly after I read Shri Prof. VK-ji's  beautiful essays on the same (my praNAms to him) in our list.

My understanding is the same as yours: Reading him needs good levels of concentration! Also, He uses yogic terminology ( " What does bringing down brahman mean? " ), for which a samanvaya can be done in a constrained way by one who is familiar with Shankara Advaita. But, the same holds for any other school of thought too, hence criticism is simply unavoidable. The easiest among these is his criticism of mithya in Shankara Vedanta and His dvaitin-like use of the term mAyAvAda for Shankara Advaita.

Hope this helpspraNAmaH to all advaitinsRamakrishna

[Guest guest]

I wondered if some knowledgeable members could enlightenme. Not having read any Aurobindo (I think I looked once but found himto be not very readable), is his teaching actually in accord with Shankara’sAdvaita? I had formed the opinion that it was rather Yoga philosophy.praNAmsHare KrishnaI too have not read Aurobindo...But isit necessary to make yOga and advaita as two distinct concepts?? yOgaas a philosophy (yOga shAstra) is dvaita shastra, shankara himself saysthis...But yOga as a sAdhana shankara accepts first 5 limbs of ashtAngayOga (atleast as per my parama guruji) and uses dhAraNa, dhyAna & samAdhias per vedAnta...But as we all know, patanjali's ashtAnga yOga, especiallydhyAna, samAdhi etc. are closely knitted in shankara vedAnta and one canhardly take out yOga philosophy and teach pure vedAnta...Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Shri Aurobindo is against Mayavada and especially the Sayana's interpretation of

Veda. Nevertheless, his works should be studied at least to improve the English

Vocabulary & Mental Concentration.

 

There is an ancient chinese proverb which says " If you have 2 loaves of bread,

sell one and buy a lilly " . So, Lilly stands for the Beauty & Joy of Life.

 

So, according to some, a mayavadi " misses " this juice & joy of life in search of

dry vedanta " neti - neti " etc. which is an intellectual enquiry.

 

regs,

sriram

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> I wondered if some knowledgeable members could enlighten me. Not having read

> any Aurobindo (I think I looked once but found him to be not very readable),

> is his teaching actually in accord with Shankara's Advaita? I had formed the

> opinion that it was rather Yoga philosophy.

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis-ji,

I have read Aurobindo's Essays on the Gita. He differs from Sankara on some

points of interpretation without mentioning the name of Sankara. But on the

whole his philosophy is not opposed to Advaita. There have been people who were

disciples of Aurobindo and also of Ramana Maharshi at the same time, which

shows that their philosophies are not opposed to each other. His language is

rather involved, but his Essays on the Gita is worth study.There are other works

in which he has dealt with yoga. I shall be able to write more only after

refreshing my memory of his works.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> I wondered if some knowledgeable members could enlighten me. Not having read

> any Aurobindo (I think I looked once but found him to be not very readable),

> is his teaching actually in accord with Shankara's Advaita? I had formed the

> opinion that it was rather Yoga philosophy.

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

>

> advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite@> wrote:

> >

 

Namaste,

 

The following may give one the 'flavor':

 

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/advaita-vedanta/154942-ramana-sri-aurobindo-d\

ifferences.html

 

Ramana and Sri Aurobindo differences - 12-06-2002, 09:37 AM

 

-

 

The Power of the Presence PART ONE

 

In this excerpt from David Godman's new book, Swami Madhavatirtha recalls a

conversation in which Ramana Maharshi explained the differences between his

teachings and Sri Aurobindo's.

 

By DAVID GODMAN

 

One day, during the second week of my stay, I was standing near the

northern gate that leads to the hill path. With me was a devotee who had

returned the previous day from Sri Aurobindo's ashram. It was evening and Sri

Maharshi came by that way after his usual evening stroll. I wanted to ask him

about his views on the theory of creation and the presence of the devotee who

had returned from Sri Aurobindo's ashram prompted me to refer to Sri Aurobindo's

views on the subject. I may say here that I am well acquainted with Sri

Aurobindo's philosophy, for during my earlier visits to him some twenty-five

years ago I used to discuss with him freely about these spiritual subjects. By

way of an introduction, I asked the Maharshi whether he upheld the vedantic

views on creation that were promulgated by Adi-Sankaracharya. After that we

moved on to a discussion about Sri Aurobindo's world view.

 

Q: In the Vedanta of Sri Sankaracharya, the principle of the creation of the

world has been accepted for the sake of beginners, but for the advanced, the

principle of non-creation is put forward. What is your view in this matter?

 

M: na nirodho na chotpattirna bandho na cha sAdhakaH |

na mumukShurna vai mukta ityeShA paramArthatA ||

 

 

This shloka appears in the second chapter [v. 32, vaitathya prakarana] of

Gaudapada's Karika [a commentary on the Mandukyopanishad]. It means really that

there is no creation and no dissolution. There is no bondage, no one doing

spiritual practices, no one seeking spiritual liberation, and no one who is

liberated. One who is established in the Self sees this by his knowledge of

reality.

 

Q: Sri Aurobindo believes that the human body is not the last on this

earth. Establishment in the Self, according to him, is not perfectly attained in

a human body, for Self-knowledge does not operate there in its natural way.

Therefore the vijnanamaya sarira [the body made of pure knowledge]1 in which

Self-knowledge can work naturally must be brought down on this earth.

 

M: Self-knowledge can shine very well in the human body, so there is no need of

any other body.

 

Q: Sri Aurobindo believes that the vijnanamaya sarira will not be attacked by

disease, will not grow old, and will not die without one's desire.

 

M: The body itself is a disease. To wish for a long stay of that disease is not

the aim of the jnani. Anyhow, one has to give up identification with the body.

Just as the I-am-the-body consciousness prevents one from attaining

Self-knowledge, in the same way, one who has got the conviction that he is not

the body will become liberated even if he doesn't desire it.

 

Q: Sri Aurobindo wants to bring the power of God into the human

body.

 

M: If, after surrendering, one still has this desire, then surrender

has not been successful. If one has the attitude, 'If the higher power is to

come down, it must come into my body', this will only increase identification

with the body. Truly speaking, there is no need of any such descent. After the

destruction of the I-am-the-body idea, the individual becomes the form of the

absolute. In that state, there is no above or below, front or back.

 

Q: If the individual becomes the form of the absolute, then who will

enjoy the bliss of the absolute? To enjoy the bliss of the absolute, we must be

slightly separate from it, like the fly that tastes sugar from a little

distance.

 

M: The bliss of the absolute is the bliss of one's own nature. It is

not born, nor has it been created. Pleasure that is created is sure to be

destroyed. Sugar, being insentient, cannot give its own taste. The fly has to

keep a little distance to taste it. But the absolute is awareness and

consciousness. It can give its own bliss, but its nature cannot be understood

without attaining that state.

 

Q: Sri Aurobindo wants to bring down on the earth a new divine race.

 

M: Whatever is to be attained in the future is to be understood as

impermanent. Learn to understand properly what you have now so that there will

be no need of thinking about the future.

 

Q: Sri Aurobindo says that God has created various kinds of worlds

and is still going to create a new world.

 

M: Our present world itself is not real. Each one sees a different

imaginary world according to his imagination, so where is the guarantee that the

new world will be real? The jiva [the individual person], the world and God, all

of these are relative ideas. So long as there is the individual sense of 'I',

these three are also there.

 

From this individual sense of 'I', from the mind, these three have

arisen. If you stop the mind, the three will not remain, but Brahman alone will

remain, as it remains and abides even now. We see things because of an error.

This misperception will be rectified by enquiring into the real nature of this

jiva. Even if the jiva enters Supermind, it will remain in mind, but after

surrendering the mind, there will be nothing left but Brahman. Whether this

world is real or unreal, consciousness or inert, a place of happiness or a place

of misery, all these states arise in the state of ignorance. They are not useful

after realisation.

 

The state of Atmanishta [being fixed in the Self], devoid of the

individual feeling of 'I', is the supreme state. In this state there is no room

for thinking of objects, nor for this feeling of individual being. There is no

doubt of any kind in this natural state of being-consciousness-bliss.

 

So long as there is the perception of name and form in oneself, God

will appear with form, but when the vision of the formless reality is achieved

there will be no modifications of seer, seeing and seen. That vision is the

nature of consciousness itself, non-dual and undivided. It is limitless,

infinite and perfect.

 

When the individual sense of 'I' arises in the body, the world is

seen. If this sense is absent, who then will see the world? "

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

P.S. - Several episodes have been recorded where A. was extremely reluctant to

let his followers visit R.! (Dilip Kumar Roy, etc.)

Kapali Shastry was Vasishtha Ganapati's disciple, but joined A's ashram. When

the latter was invited for a visit, some were anxious that V.G. may join it too!

R. assured all that that would never happen!!

 

R. never had any hesitation in letting anyone visit him or anyone else.

[Guest guest]

Point definitely accepted. I, also, always recommend Patanjali’s

Yoga Sutras for preparation of the mind.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

<<I too have not read

Aurobindo...But is it necessary to make yOga and advaita as two distinct

concepts?? yOga as a philosophy (yOga shAstra) is dvaita shastra,

shankara himself says this...But yOga as a sAdhana shankara accepts first 5

limbs of ashtAnga yOga (atleast as per my parama guruji) and uses dhAraNa,

dhyAna & samAdhi as per vedAnta...But as we all know, patanjali's

ashtAnga yOga, especially dhyAna, samAdhi etc. are closely knitted in shankara

vedAnta and one can hardly take out yOga philosophy and teach pure vedAnta...

 

Hari Hari

Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

>>.

[Guest guest]

Thanks to all those who responded to my query regarding Aurobindo

– they were very helpful in clarifying my views.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dear members,

 

for quite a while I have been a quiet, albeit occasional reader of this

excellent forum.

 

Recently I came accross two fascinating topics that were brought up and one of

them is Shri Aurobindo.

 

I hope that my questions are not out of the scope of discussion at this board

and if they are, then I hope that the moderators will draw my attention to this.

 

But to come to the point.

 

What precisely would be the common points between Shri Aurobindo's Integral Yoga

(purna yoga) and Shri Gopinath Kaviraj's Akhanda Mahayoga? I am asking this,

because Shri Kaviraj's name is often mentioned in one breath with Shri

Aurobindo's when it comes to matters of their respective philosophical and

spiritual outlooks.

 

Does there exist any text by a knowledgeable sadhaka cum scholar which would

treat Shri Kaviraj's and Shri Aurobindo's spiritual outlook and experiences in a

comparative manner?

 

Does perhaps anyone know if Shri Gopinath Kaviraj and Shri Aurobindo ever met in

person or perhaps if they exchanged correspondence with eachother?

 

Many thanks in advance for the answers.

 

Gayahbajya