To de la Rouviere--

[Guest guest]

ThePowerOfSilence , " de la rouviere "

<mollerdlr@t...> wrote:

>

> Dear Tony, Xan and other friends,

>

> Allow me to introduce myself as Moller de la Rouviere, author of

> 'Spirituality Without God'. Xan, you may recall our interesting

> discussions a few years ago on my list: Advaita Ashram.

Well, I

> have since written this book where I explore a human-centric

approach to

> the nondual truth of the living moment, rather than the God-

centric one

> as proposed in the Perennial Philosophy. I mention this, as my

sense is

> that we do not need to hold ourselves bondage to the traditions in

order

> to realize and become the living reality of the true Advaita.

There is

> so much the Perennial Philosophy do not and cannot explain,

whereas if

> we bring this enquiry back into the human realm, before it becomes

> influenced and conditioned by the notion of Brahman, Self, the

idea of

> an Ultimate Essence of everything, and so on, it seems to me that

we

> could give a new truly humanistic quality to the enquiry into human

> suffering and the causes of human suffering, rather than trying to

fit

> it into the not so neat categories of the Perennial Philosophy.

>

> To my understanding non-duality needs not be equated with Oneness,

as

> proposed by the mystical traditions. Non-duality means 'not-two',

and

> this is also the meaning of the word Advaita (not two). To be non-

dual

> is not to be one or absorbed into a kind of amorphous oneness where

> everything disappears and all appearance becomes mere illusory

> modifications of Brahman. Non-duality is the case when the

separate

> self-sense has been transcended. Life remains as it is, but from

this

> perspective, the diversity of appearances no longer implies

duality.

> Things appear as before, but the sense of separateness is no

longer the

> case. Here no oneness can be detected, yet, duality is no longer

the

> case. Why I feel this approach to the non-dual is more real than

the

> theories of the Advaitist philosophers, is because it is

observable and

> true of present evidence as long as we stay with experience itself

and

> not link it to some presumed Great Other.

>

> Since Shankara defined manifest existence as illusory, and stated

that

> Brahman alone is the Truth and Essence of all manifest existence,

it

> seems to me that we have lost touch with the urgency of the

original

> enquiry of the Indian mind which has always been directed towards

> finding out why there is so much suffering in the world and what

could

> be done about it by ourselves as humans. To call suffering

illusory, is

> simply to avoid the issue and to dehumanize the reality of our

ordinary

> human experience. Perhaps the Buddha was the first to reject the

entire

> notion of soul and Universal Essence from within the Indian

> philosophical system. I rather agree with the Buddha's premise

that

> although deep unitary experiences are possible for everyone, these

need

> not be attached to any Transcendental Reality such as Brahman, the

Self,

> Godhead etc. My sense is that non-duality is a human experience

and

> that human life cannot be wished away as mere illusion such as

Shankara

> proposes. These are theories created by the philosophical mind

with no

> substantiation in the living reality of human life.

>

> I hope I am not being too critical here. But my sense is that,

rather

> than attempting to preserve the Perennial Philosohpy as some kind

of

> holy cow, we need first to re-open the book on the whole thing and

find

> out for ourselves the truth and falseness of the profound

implications

> of this belief system. The possibility is that the entire system

may be

> flawed, and if so, where does it leave us as mere preservers and

> upholders of something which binds our minds and hearts into its

> conditioning power, rather than to liberate us from the tragedies

we

> create for ourselves as human beings because of uninspected living.

>

> Hand in hand,

> Moller de la Rouviere

> www.spiritualhumanism.co.za <http://www.spiritualhumanism.co.za/>

>

>

>

> ThePowerOfSilence

> [ThePowerOfSilence ] On Behalf Of Tony OClery

> 06 October 2005 11:00 PM

> ThePowerOfSilence

> [ThePowerOfSilence] Ajatavada..

>

> Namaste,

>

> From D Godman's writings;

>

>

> " 1.

>

> Ajata vada or the theory of non-causality. This is an

> ancient Hindu doctrine which states that the creation of

> the world never happened at all. It is a complete denial

> of all causality in the physical world. Sri Ramana

> endorsed this view by saying that it is the jnani's (Man

> who is Self-realised) experience that nothing ever

> comes into existence or ceases to be because the

> Self alone exists as the sole unchanging reality. It is a

> corollary of this theory that time, space, cause and effect,

> essential components of all creation theories, exist only in the

> minds

> of ajnanis (ignorant) and that the experience of the Self reveals

> their non-existence. "

>

> Namaste,

>

> Yes it is my understanding that when a Mukta drops the body all

> seeming connection the the world disappears with the world itself.

> This indicates the truth of Ajatavada, for Nirguna cannot be

unaware

> so really there is nothing to be aware of. It has been my own

belief

> for many years, even before I had really studied the term

Ajatavada,

> that nothing has ever happened, even the appearance didn't happen.

> Where is it in deep sleep? even?..............ONS...

Namaste,

 

Thank you for replying. My reply to you didn't appear for whatever

reason, moderation, error or whatever. I feel your position,

although humanist, is based on the idea we exist. You mention the

Buddha not positing Brahman, well that isn't exactly true, he

posited an 'Unknown' which makes it all worthwhile. He mostly talked

in the negative which is the only real way to talk of NirGuna

Brahman, neti neti etc. Indian philosophy isn't based on wondering

about suffering but wondering about reality. Suffering is just a

humans intelligence way of making sense of what seems a cruel world,

when it is just energies moving about illusorily and in illusion.

Your ideas seem to bind us to the idea we are ultimately human,

which imo is a basic error. You talk of a great other. That is a

step to no other, no essence...........ONS...Tony.