"Pseudo"-Realisation?

[Guest guest]

Is it possible that some people who proffer themselves as realised

beings, neo-Advaitin or traditional Advaitin, have merely stumbled on

the understanding of a philosophical idea, like Berkeleyan idealism or

the phenomenological reduction?

 

I mean, it's impossible to mistake the Real Thing, but is it possible

to mistake intellectual understanding for the Real Thing?

[Guest guest]

Yes, it is possible to mistake intellectual understanding for the

Real Thing.

 

If I have understood is that matters and not if the other guy has, be

he a neo, pseudo, pristine, pure or traditional advaitin.

 

There is enough written on this List to tell Berkeley and Hume from

Advaita. This includes a monumental post by our Shri Ananda Wood-ji

in answer to Benjamin-ji. I don't have the exact post #. A search

in the archives by his name should reveal.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin, "P. George Stewart" <george@s...>

wrote:

>

>

> Is it possible that some people who proffer themselves as realised

> beings, neo-Advaitin or traditional Advaitin, have merely stumbled

on

> the understanding of a philosophical idea, like Berkeleyan idealism

or

> the phenomenological reduction?

>

> I mean, it's impossible to mistake the Real Thing, but is it

possible

> to mistake intellectual understanding for the Real Thing?

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

When a person makes the claim, "I know the Brahman," it is an

intellectual understanding of Brahman and the sages of the

Upanishads rightly declare that "the Brahman is beyond the

intellect." Also the sages state, "the more we know, we can

recognize that more we don't know." The scriptures differentiate

the 'intellectual understanding' and 'real understanding' using the

terminology "apara vidya - scholastic knowledge " and "para vidya -

wisdom or spiritual knowledge."

 

In conclusion, your statement is quite valid and it is possible (most

of the time) to mistake the understanding the philosophical idea of

the Brahman as real understanding of the Brahman.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: Sri Madhathil's reference about Anandaji's observation is good

one and they are available at the File section of this list:

Go to: advaitin20Prakriyas/

and look under the folder Atmananda. You can also access at

Dennisji's homepage: http://www.advaita.org.uk/

 

 

advaitin, "P. George Stewart" <george@s...>

wrote:

>

>

> Is it possible that some people who proffer themselves as realised

> beings, neo-Advaitin or traditional Advaitin, have merely stumbled

on

> the understanding of a philosophical idea, like Berkeleyan idealism

or

> the phenomenological reduction?

>

> I mean, it's impossible to mistake the Real Thing, but is it

possible

> to mistake intellectual understanding for the Real Thing?

[Guest guest]

Dearest Ram ji:

 

Surely you know the story of Sage Yajnavalkya.

 

When King Janaka said to the assembly gathered for spiritual discussion that

the Knower of Brahman would receive a 1000 cows, there was complete silence,

and no one laid a claim to the cows.

 

Yajnavalkya, however, got up told his disciple to gather the cows and take

them home.

 

Love to all

 

Harsha

 

_____

 

Ram Chandran [RamChandran]

Saturday, December 11, 2004 9:29 AM

advaitin

Re: "Pseudo"-Realisation?

 

 

 

 

Namaste:

 

When a person makes the claim, "I know the Brahman," it is an

intellectual understanding of Brahman and the sages of the

Upanishads rightly declare that "the Brahman is beyond the

intellect." Also the sages state, "the more we know, we can

recognize that more we don't know." The scriptures differentiate

the 'intellectual understanding' and 'real understanding' using the

terminology "apara vidya - scholastic knowledge " and "para vidya -

wisdom or spiritual knowledge."

 

In conclusion, your statement is quite valid and it is possible (most

of the time) to mistake the understanding the philosophical idea of

the Brahman as real understanding of the Brahman.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: Sri Madhathil's reference about Anandaji's observation is good

one and they are available at the File section of this list:

Go to: advaitin20Prakriyas/

and look under the folder Atmananda. You can also access at

Dennisji's homepage: http://www.advaita.org.uk/

 

 

advaitin, "P. George Stewart" <george@s...>

wrote:

>

>

> Is it possible that some people who proffer themselves as realised

> beings, neo-Advaitin or traditional Advaitin, have merely stumbled

on

> the understanding of a philosophical idea, like Berkeleyan idealism

or

> the phenomenological reduction?

>

> I mean, it's impossible to mistake the Real Thing, but is it

possible

> to mistake intellectual understanding for the Real Thing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

hariH OM! sri george,

 

this is an excellent question. and nair-ji has given a good answer.

 

if i may elaborate...

 

in a few of my recent posts i asserted the fact that i believe there

are a number of members on our List who are *already* entry level

jnanis, yet wouldn't consider themselves as such because the

traditional concept of Self-realization IMO has been made into

something far too exotic and sublime.

 

as nair-ji alluded to, it's quite possible to believe one has

attained the state when in reality it's just an intellectual

understanding, and they themselves are [understandably] tricked by

it. (note: my observation in )

 

contrary to what many belive, [it's my understanding that]

the "revelation" of Self-realization isn't necessarily an

instantaneous one. more often than not it's a subtle phase-in

process, inaugurated by the intellectual understanding itself.

invariably this is how it happens first. however, oftentimes one's

ego-Mind gets excited from the experience--aside from its natural

tendency of pride: idea that it is, as a result, special amongst its

peers--and one prematurely/sincerely believes they're enlightened,

and acts out accordingly. now, as long as they don't dwell on the

notion of being superior (which will cause considerable backsliding),

they're in fact making excellent headway, and it's a only matter of

time before their intellectual insights impact the Heart sufficiently

causing them to have indeed entered the genuine yet early stage of

atmasakshat.

 

the problem that seems to confront and discourage many who i believe

have already reached this stage, is that of the mind's yet being very

active and reactive (rajasic). this doesn't imply anything

momentous; only that they must be capable of recognizing the fact

that its the nature of the Mind to generate thoughts. the jnani is

not exempt from this, except at very late stages like sri ramana or

ramakrishna have reached...and i believe even they aren't fully

exempt! so that, although thoughts will continue, even at

accellerated rates--which is common in fact for one at the threshold

or just crossing it(!)--one needs to understand that thoughts are in

fact *sacred* and have themselves been desired by the Self all

along! the problem arises if one allows oneself to become entrapped

by them. they exist for our entertainment, being in fact the

progenitors and sustainers of the lila we ourselves [as brahman]

desired. this is why Manifestation has been magically spun into the

theater we call life. it's a beautiful and breathtaking thing, IF we

have the right understanding re why its here. as well as the fact

that it MUST also carry a "permanent" streak of imperfection in its

process of unfoldment. for, Relativity (the mechanism by which Life

*must* operate through) is by nature bound by the universal contrasts

of positive and negative. if perfection were ever reached, the world

would collapse.

 

the bottom line is, we are NATURALLY Self-realized; it's only the

developed habit within the ego-Mind that diverts our inherent

awareness of such.

 

OM ramanarpanamasthu!

 

namaste,

frank

 

______________________

> advaitin, "P. George Stewart" <george@s...>

> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Is it possible that some people who proffer themselves as realised

> > beings, neo-Advaitin or traditional Advaitin, have merely

stumbled

> on

> > the understanding of a philosophical idea, like Berkeleyan

idealism

> or

> > the phenomenological reduction?

> >

> > I mean, it's impossible to mistake the Real Thing, but is it

> possible

> > to mistake intellectual understanding for the Real Thing?

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Frankji

It is'nt just artificial humility or an exaggerated portrayal of the

state of realization that prevents 'entry level jnanis' from making

any claims as you seem to suggest.

Until it becomes and experience ( not just an intellectual

understanding which has to be incomplete by definition) and until

effortless abidance in self happens there is always a danger of fall -

examples abound. Vishwamitra after his relentless sadhana and

accomplishments did have a period of fall when enchanted by Maenaka.

 

I was watching Swami Chinmayanda's witty description of how a 'fall'

in spiritual progress could happen in a video of his discourse - and

that too rather suddenly. He makes a case for unceasing vigilance and

guarding against complacense- pardon the spello. There is this Gent

who is swimming in the ocean of spirituality smoothly and happily,

supremely self-confident. He is suddenly swallowed by a shark and he

does not even realize it. It is just that to him the world seems dark

as if there has been a sudden power outage and he is mildly puzzled.

He then experiences a slight burning sensation on his shoulder- and

....' ha! the digestion has started'.

The point one is trying to make is that there is no exaggeration in

the idea that self-realization is sublime or exotic. It is our true

nature and It is so close to each one of us and yet so difficult to be

sure until there is effortless abidance in self.

 

Many thanks for this opportunity to reflect upon 'intellectual

understanding- Gnana versus experiencing - vignana

 

Warm regards and namaskarams to all

Sridhar

advaitin, "frank maiello" <egodust> wrote:

>

>

> in a few of my recent posts i asserted the fact that i believe there

> are a number of members on our List who are *already* entry level

> jnanis, yet wouldn't consider themselves as such because the

> traditional concept of Self-realization IMO has been made into

> something far too exotic and sublime.

>

[Guest guest]

hariH OM! sridhar-ji,

 

i quite agree with what you're saying.

 

it's been said, that if we weren't psychic we'd never understand

eachother.

 

perhaps, however, my words are misleading when i say [it] isn't

sublime or exotic. what i was trying to point out was the popular

ideas concerning the qualities one's persona are supposed to all take

on, must be satvic in expression (not only Without, but especially

Within...i.e. the thought world), and if these satvic qualities are

not overwhelmingly present in one, then atmasakshat is discounted by

the entry level jnani himself. not realizing that, as ramana always

said, "once the fan is turned off, it will continue to spin

(prarabdha karma unfolding) for some time." however, internally the

connection has been already made.

 

i don't have the time to reply in full now.

 

namaskaar,

frank

 

______________________-

 

 

advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19> wrote:

>

> Namaste Frankji

> It is'nt just artificial humility or an exaggerated portrayal of the

> state of realization that prevents 'entry level jnanis' from making

> any claims as you seem to suggest.

> Until it becomes and experience ( not just an intellectual

> understanding which has to be incomplete by definition) and until

> effortless abidance in self happens there is always a danger of

fall -

> examples abound. Vishwamitra after his relentless sadhana and

> accomplishments did have a period of fall when enchanted by Maenaka.

>

> I was watching Swami Chinmayanda's witty description of how a 'fall'

> in spiritual progress could happen in a video of his discourse - and

> that too rather suddenly. He makes a case for unceasing vigilance

and

> guarding against complacense- pardon the spello. There is this Gent

> who is swimming in the ocean of spirituality smoothly and happily,

> supremely self-confident. He is suddenly swallowed by a shark and he

> does not even realize it. It is just that to him the world seems

dark

> as if there has been a sudden power outage and he is mildly puzzled.

> He then experiences a slight burning sensation on his shoulder- and

> ...' ha! the digestion has started'.

> The point one is trying to make is that there is no exaggeration in

> the idea that self-realization is sublime or exotic. It is our true

> nature and It is so close to each one of us and yet so difficult to

be

> sure until there is effortless abidance in self.

>

> Many thanks for this opportunity to reflect upon 'intellectual

> understanding- Gnana versus experiencing - vignana

>

> Warm regards and namaskarams to all

> Sridhar

> advaitin, "frank maiello" <egodust>

wrote:

> >

> >

> > in a few of my recent posts i asserted the fact that i believe

there

> > are a number of members on our List who are *already* entry level

> > jnanis, yet wouldn't consider themselves as such because the

> > traditional concept of Self-realization IMO has been made into

> > something far too exotic and sublime.

> >

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Sridharji, may I try to visualize and build on Chinmayanadaji's wit?

 

Let us suppose the shark devoured a self-realized person like

Bhagawan Ramana Maharshi.

>From the description of the event, he doesn't *know* that his body

has gotten into the entrails of a shark. All that he is *aware*,

is an outage of daylight. The shark's digestive fluids then begin

their work on his shoulder. That is a burning *sensation*.

 

The self-realized one will spontaneously accept both (outage and

burning) without qualms in the same manner he accepted the beautiful

morn in which he swam in the shining waters because, to him, the

sunshine and glitter of the sea were himself and, therefore, the

darkness and burning that follow cannot be anything but himself.

 

Sun, water, darkness and the burning never shine on their own. Only

he shines - the shine of all - and *continues* to do so during and

after the digestion. The fool, me, standing on the shore projects it

as a very tragic event of a shark eating a human being not realizing

that the event is shone by me and I am the only One shining there!

I, the fool, have an academic knowledge of advaita. The *one* who

was devoured *is* Advaita – KNOWLEDGE! He has never been other than

me!

 

In the Absolute sense, there is, therefore, no difference between an

outright fool, academically knowledgeable fool and the self-

realized. The difference is only in the apparent - the

transactional. It builds walls around us and isolates us from

Wholeness. Advaita appears in that apparence as a tool for us to

demolish the walls, whereafter there are no walls and advaita as a

tool. There is only the shine of Knowledge where the apparence is

embraced and dissolved in like the brilliance of the Sun dissolving

the night.

 

That Sun shines on shining our sun, moon and stars. Thus, we

sing: `na tatra sUryo bhAti ….' and our beloved Ramana shines his

unforgettable smile even as the unrelenting gory sarcoma eats out his

mortal shoulder!

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

 

advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19> wrote:

> I was watching Swami Chinmayanda's witty description of how a 'fall'

> in spiritual progress could happen in a video of his discourse - and

> that too rather suddenly. He makes a case for unceasing vigilance

and

> guarding against complacense- pardon the spello. There is this Gent

> who is swimming in the ocean of spirituality smoothly and happily,

> supremely self-confident. He is suddenly swallowed by a shark and he

> does not even realize it. It is just that to him the world seems

dark

> as if there has been a sudden power outage and he is mildly puzzled.

> He then experiences a slight burning sensation on his shoulder- and

> ...' ha! the digestion has started'.

> The point one is trying to make is that there is no exaggeration in

> the idea that self-realization is sublime or exotic. It is our true

> nature and It is so close to each one of us and yet so difficult to

be

> sure until there is effortless abidance in self.

[Guest guest]

Absolutely madathilji

Now that you point out, some of what i have read earlier begin to make

sense.While to the ardent devotees ramakrishna paramahamsa and Bhagwan

Ramana appeared to be going through a cruel cancer disease they

themselves never expressed any discomfort and often made light of

their illness. When devotees cried 'bhagwan, don't leave us and go'

apparently bhagwan ramana said 'i am here , where can the self go, you

people attach too much importance to the body'.

 

Another example of the difference between 'our' view and a jnani's

view- When devotees were singing songs in praise of Bhagwan, Ramana

Maharshi joined them and sang enthusiastically. When the devotees

found it amusing and asked him how he could do so he replied ' you are

singing praises of not this body but of the Ramana Principle- in that

case why can't i also sing praises of that principle'

 

your words that there is no difference between the ouright fool, the

intellectual fool and the realized person affords so much solace.

 

Why should i worry about where i am in the spectrum, as long as i can

enjoy reading, thinking and reflecting on the actions and teachings of

the great saints.

 

Many namaskarams to all

Sridhar

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Namaste.

>

>

> In the Absolute sense, there is, therefore, no difference between an

> outright fool, academically knowledgeable fool and the self-

> realized. The difference is only in the apparent - the

> transactional. It builds walls around us and isolates us from

> Wholeness. Advaita appears in that apparence as a tool for us to

> demolish the walls, whereafter there are no walls and advaita as a

> tool. There is only the shine of Knowledge where the apparence is

> embraced and dissolved in like the brilliance of the Sun dissolving

> the night.

>

> That Sun shines on shining our sun, moon and stars. Thus, we

> sing: `na tatra sUryo bhAti ….' and our beloved Ramana shines his

> unforgettable smile even as the unrelenting gory sarcoma eats out his

> mortal shoulder!

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> _________________

>

[Guest guest]

Very interesting replies from everyone, with much food for thought!

 

My opinion is that The Real Thing is definitely a settled

experience (or a "glimpse" of something that with time can _become_ a

settled experience) rather than an intellectual realisation, but many

people do have an intellectual realisation thinking it's THAT. This

is an easy mistake to make until one has tasted THAT!

 

When I say "intellectual realisation", I think it's something like this:-

 

Imagine a child had been brought up by a Berkeleyan father, and taught

to take her experience in Berkeleyan terms - she sees all her

experience as direct communication from God. Then, one day, she has a

revelation - suddenly, she has the sense that all her experiences

"point" to something outside experience that doesn't have any of the

qualities she directly experiences, but is their "substratum" in some

sense. She has now had a "realist" epiphany! She has exchanged one

set of deep, metaphysical presuppositions for another, and can now

live out of them, literally "see" her experience as pointing to this

"real world". She will now have many disagreements with her Berkelyan

father!

 

Actual vidya, IMHO, is different from this. It's the dropping away of

the experience that one is the body only, and its replacement by an

experience that one's true body is actually the Whole (i.e. whatever

is the whole _context_ of the body experience); it's a dropping away

of the experience of being a mind (perceptive/creative faculties) that

"pertains" to this body, and its replacement by an experience that one

is a mind that "pertains" to the Whole. (When I say "replacement", of

course I don't mean something new appears - it's the revelation of

something that was always true, i.e. one _always was_ a mind

pertaining to the whole, only that fact was occluded by a persistent,

habitual sense that one's mind or perceptive faculty pertained _only_

to the body, or body-experience.)

 

Now the interesting thing is, this shift in experience could be the

same _whatever_ one's deep philosophical presuppositions - IOW, they

don't touch the experience, which has its own dynamic and logic.

 

For example, a realist having this experience, or looking at the world

this way, would think of the body and world in purely physical terms,

a Berkeleyan would think in terms of the whole (that he now feels

himself to be) being Absolute Mind, or some such. The pure

phenomenologist might conceive the whole as being a sort of

experiential event hanging there in the Void.

[Guest guest]

NAmaste Amidaji

My 'not so learned' attempt at a reflection on two of your questions

I heard swamy ishwarananda ( of Chinmaya mission) discuss this with

someone.

On the effect of drugs, they do take one to occasional experience of

bliss but it is not a sustained experience. The effect of drugs wear

off and the intolerable craving is the only guaranteed thing. It is a

lot like someone being taken to a temple in the forest blindfolded and

brought back- he does not even know how to get there again.

Sustained joy through sadhana is like being guided ( by a guru) to the

temple in the forest. When ready, one can get there and stay there.

 

On the manifestation of evil powers- Even in the plant kingdom there

are curing herbs and there are poisonous plants. When the lord had the

the milky ocean churned, there came the alahala poison and there came

the Amrita.The greatest good can never be so unless there is the

greatest evil to compare with. The gatekeeper in vaikunta were told by

lord vishnu that he will have 3 demoniacal births and that the lord

himself will come and kill him. Will it not be laughable to think that

, say, hiranyakashipu or Rabana derived their powers to do evil all by

themselves!!

 

In the Gospel of Ramakrishna we see the Thakur confirming that the

lords power manifests in different people in different ways and in

different levels. There is the cow god and there is the dangerous

tiger god. Given our inclinations we should worship the cow god and

keep a safe distance from the tiger god was how he put it to them-

advising them of the importance of choosing holy men to associate with

and avoiding dangerous ones that can only lead one astray.

 

Many namaskarams to all

Sridhar

 

advaitin, "Amida" <amida@c...> wrote:

>

>

>

> what of alcohol and drug (non 'hallucinigan') use and abuse? for

those teachers or "realized" ones?

>

>

> i specifically refer to-- Osho-- (extreme valium abuse among

others)

>

>

> Chogyam Trungpa ...alcohol--gin in very large amounts upon

awakening every morning...

>

>

>

>

> judging is of the ego...ok, then hitler was doing his

dharma---therefore it is "morally" acceptable for the "realized"

Advaitist?

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Amida" <amida@c...> wrote:

>

> I am a new member. (somewhat aware that the previous statement has

many variables that are easily deconstructed via Advaita 'thinking')...

>

> Nevertheless, I...(or, i...) will proceed with the question:

>

>

> what of alcohol and drug (non 'hallucinigan') use and abuse? for

those teachers or "realized" ones?

>

>

> i specifically refer to-- Osho-- (extreme valium abuse among

others)

>

>

> Chogyam Trungpa ...alcohol--gin in very large amounts upon

awakening every morning...

>

>

> Alan Watts... very large amounts of vodka in the years preceeding

his death

> (i realize he never claimed realization...though some teachers

adhere to his work)

>

 

All very good questions. There can be no doubt that the people above

said great, true things. But at the same time, they didn't seem to be

in control of their lives.

 

Or at least, during certain observable periods they didn't seem in

control of their lives - but you'll notice that several of these

people did do intense periods of sadhana too, so it's not as if they

totally lacked self-control at all, is it? There must be something

else going on. I suspect the strains that stresses and strains

Realised people undergo are of a different kind from what we can

conceive. That doesn't excuse unethical behaviour that is definitely

hurtful to others, but it might excuse behaviour that seems "off

colour", eccentric, anarchic, etc.

 

I think it's actually the moral and ethical training that sadhana

usually requires as a prelimiary that makes one a morally upright

person, not any quality of Realisation in itself. Someone who

maintains those standards after Realisation is probably doing so out

of habit. But there's no reason why a Realised person necessarily

needs to maintain those kinds of practices after Realisation. Many,

perhaps most will. But as long as things don't get _too_ out of hand,

I think we can allow some leeway.

 

I think it's also true that gurus can "fall". Someone can "get it"

and "lose it" - there's no guarantee, and it's partly a question of

Grace.

>

>

> Given: ... no matter what... appearance (Maya) presents

>

> the SELF is as IT IS ...shoreless ocean...etc. then, what of

ethics??? nurturing sattva?

>

> judging is of the ego...ok, then hitler was doing his

dharma---therefore it is "morally" acceptable for the "realized"

Advaitist?

>

>

> Please, i would very much appreciate learned opinions on these

matters...OM NAMAH SHIVA

>

>

 

Again, great questions. I'd say that it's true that nothing actually

matters, but the reason why Realised people don't act like Hitlers is

because hitlerian programmes don't come into their heads, and don't

seem like a good idea anyway. The trained mind and body have a

certain "momentum" - they are _shot_ into Realisation, in a way, and

their inertia as things of a certain nature and kind keep them going

in the same direction. Most of the ethical aspects of systems of

realisation train the aspirant to _behave_ like a vehicle for

EVERYTHING'S grokking of Itself, so that's the momentum an aspirant

will have after they Attain. But Realisation could happen to somebody

who wasn't a balanced "pyramid" (tomb!) like that, and maybe certain

bad habits they had might carry on, or new bad habits be picked up?

 

Another way of looking at this. While it's true that everything is

just "shit happening", with no intrinsic value, everything sentient

does, in itself, have its own preservation and flourishing, and the

preservation and flourishing of other things, as a value. And the

more it conceives of as its Self, the broader will be its conception

of what to do to keep It healthy.

 

Anyway, the main point when Being comes home to Itself, it's a relief,

so I don't see that bad behaviour would naturally flow from that. Bad

behaviour might be metaphysically just Being, but it's the sort of

behaviour it wouldn't occur to a being that's realised it's Being to

perform!

[Guest guest]

Sounds great but you kept sinking in and out of delusion.

 

> Let us suppose the shark devoured a self-realized person like

> Bhagawan Ramana Maharshi.

 

Bhagawan Ramana Maharshi being self-realized was not a person.

Bhagawan Ramana Maharshi is nothing more than a point of reference in

the illusion, sometimes called a body.

> From the description of the event, he doesn't *know* that his body

> has gotten into the entrails of a shark. All that he is *aware*,

> is an outage of daylight. The shark's digestive fluids then begin

> their work on his shoulder. That is a burning *sensation*.

 

The self-realized have no body and there is no shark. Only the

illusion of the two.

> The self-realized one will spontaneously accept both (outage and

> burning) without qualms in the same manner he accepted the

beautiful

> morn in which he swam in the shining waters because, to him, the

> sunshine and glitter of the sea were himself and, therefore, the

> darkness and burning that follow cannot be anything but himself.

 

On the contrary, the self-realized will accept none of it as himself.

Life and death has no effect upon reality.

> That Sun shines on shining our sun, moon and stars. Thus, we

> sing: `na tatra sUryo bhAti ….' and our beloved Ramana shines his

> unforgettable smile even as the unrelenting gory sarcoma eats out

>his mortal shoulder!

 

Not exactly, there's some screaming going on but it has nothing to do

with the Self-realized, the screamer would be Ramana.

[Guest guest]

> your words that there is no difference between the ouright fool, the

> intellectual fool and the realized person affords so much solace.

 

 

Exactly, because the Self-realized is no person. All consciousness

above is the same, deluded.

[Guest guest]

There have been some posts equating advaita knowledge with "settled

experience" as against "intellectual realization". In my opinion the

distinction is neither true nor required.

 

First, advaita knowledge is not an "experience". This confusion has arisen

by translating the word "anubhava" as "experience". A better translation

would be "assimilation". By making distinction between "settled experience"

and "intellectual realization", we are putting advaita on same footing as

some mystical traditions. While such traditions may have their own merits,

if we attempt to mix them up with advaita, we will not be doing justice to

either of them. The path of advaita does not take a mystical approach.

Advaitanubhava is an understanding -- not an experience. And as sometime

back someone in this list very correctly pointed out that like any other

understanding, advaita is also an intellectual understanding.

 

Problem arises when we equate "intellectual" with "shallow". However,

intellectual understanding need not be superficial. It can be as deep, or

even deeper than experience. My everyday experience is of a flat earth,

however my intellectual understanding is that earth is round. My knowledge

of earth's geometry is not an "experience" of roundness-- it is just an

"intellectual understanding" which is deeper than my experience. However

this understanding of "roundness" of earth does not inhibit my capacity to

walk on "flat" earth.

 

The experiential approach to advaita has harmed the sadhakas in several

other ways also. People misled to believe "realization" as "experience of a

thousand suns exploding" have gone astray in their pursuit of experience

hunting including alchohol, drugs, sex and whatever they thought could bring

them to the REAL THING. In fact at one time Huxley and his associates were

actually working on producing "Upanishadic state of consciousness" via

chemicals and drugs! Maybe some day we become so advanced to produce

understanding of a subject say physics/maths/advaita through injecting

specific combination of chemicals in brain. Right now it is not the case and

therefore it is all the more necessary that the message of upanishads

preserved in its purity and is not diluted by putting artificial

distinctions where none exist.

 

 

----Original Message Follows----

"P. George Stewart" <george>

advaitin

advaitin

Re: "Pseudo"-Realisation?

Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:23:49 -0000

 

 

 

 

Very interesting replies from everyone, with much food for thought!

[Guest guest]

Shree Sanjay Srivastava - my PraNaams

 

Your post was refreshing and delightful.

 

You are absolutely right.

 

In the 7th Chapter of Geeta - Krishna expounds on the jnaana and

vijnana- difference between understandings as 'idea' vs. understanding

as a 'fact'. It is not experience in the sense of the word that

involves - experiencer-exprienced-experiencing. It is an intense

understanding where the experiencer-experienced-experiencing are nothing

but one - the substantive of all the three- which is myself. A firm

abidance in that knowledge (what Bhagavaan Ramana calls as dRiDaiva

nishhTaa) is indeed the realization. The one who has realized this is a

true 'jnaani' and Krishna points out he is the greatest among the four

bhakata-s. And such a jnaana is rare indeed among the mankind (bahuunaam

janmanaamante ...)

-------

An Unrelated point - I have seen recently too many 'one or two line

posts' Those one-liners makes no sense to many and there is also a

unwritten rule to limit the number of posts to two or less per day for a

person - Only the 'topic of the month' coordinator and moderators, I

believe, are exempt from this rule. I request everyone to adhere to the

rule before the chief moderator comes with his axe. Please think deeply

and explain clearly what you inted to communicate - That is the very

purpose of this list serve.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

--- Sanjay Srivastava <sksrivastava68 wrote:

>

> First, advaita knowledge is not an "experience". This confusion has

> arisen

> by translating the word "anubhava" as "experience". A better

> translation

> would be "assimilation". By making distinction between "settled

> experience" .

>

 

=====

What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort.

Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only

the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda

[Guest guest]

Note from Advaitin List Moderator: Members and specifically new members are

requested not to keep the entire message of the previous poster whiling

replying. In this post, the unnecessary portion of the previous message has been

truncated. List guidelines require every member to follow those guidelines. The

moderators appreciate cooperation from the members and thank them in advance.

 

advaitin, "Sanjay Srivastava"

<sksrivastava68@h...> wrote:

>

> There have been some posts equating advaita knowledge with "settled

> experience" as against "intellectual realization". In my opinion the

> distinction is neither true nor required.

 

I think you're right about the dangers of chasing after mystical

experiences. But I think one has to distinguish between what Robert

KC Forman called the "Pure Consciousness Event" (PCE) and the

Advaitin's type of realisation, which doesn't require anything special

to happen to be the case. I think the appropriate terms would be

nirvikalpa samadhi and sahaja samadhi.

 

The PCE, or wakeful nescience, is a wonderful experience, by all

accounts, and seductive and addictive. It's where Atman rests in its

own nature. It's also a very useful practice to keep up, even if one

is in positive samadhi (sahaja samadhi) most of the time - constant

bathing in that pool of nescience is said to sharpen positive samadhi,

and keep it strong. But the Advaitin isn't _going_ for nirvikalpa

samadhi, or anything difficult and flashy (and temporary!) rather, it

may be expedient to pass through that silent valley, but that's not

his final destination. The final destination, if it be right to call

anything that, is sahaja samadhi, the natural state.

 

I think you're right about the depth of philosophical experience, and

the point you make about the truth going in some sense "beyond"

experience is valuable.

 

I think also, the non-dual experience (whether PCE or natural state)

doesn't _prove_ the truth of any particular metaphystical theory - it

neither proves that the world is an Idea, or Consciousness, or the

Absolute, or a dualistic world of Matter and Mind, or ... the non-dual

_experience_ of the natural state (of being an Eye for Being to see

Itself) is compatible with all these philosophical positions, and more.

 

Clearly, both experience and philosophy ought to converge on a lived

experience and understanding that one is THAT - but everyone isn't

necessarily called upon to be a _Priest_ of THAT (so to speak). Being

THAT is perfectly sufficient, and nothing else needs to be "done" -

not even keeping the thought of consciously being THAT before one's

mind, or experiencing being THAT (rather than just being this human

organism).

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Stewart.

 

I will directly go to the crux of your post quoted below.

 

As Shailendraji said it is not an experience.

 

There is no looking at the world in the normal sense if one is the

world. Where to 'look' then?

 

It is not thinking in terms of the whole or conceiving the whole but

being Wholeness. What to think and conceive? Where is there scope for

hanging and void?

 

This is how far words can go. One's past history i.e. whether one

was an advaitin, follower of Berkeley, Hume, Kant or Sartre doesn't

matter any more then.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________

 

Shri George Stewart wrote:

> For example, a realist having this experience, or looking at the

world

> this way, would think of the body and world in purely physical

terms,

> a Berkeleyan would think in terms of the whole (that he now feels

> himself to be) being Absolute Mind, or some such. The pure

> phenomenologist might conceive the whole as being a sort of

> experiential event hanging there in the Void.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Amida-ji.

 

This comes from my heart and personal experience.

 

Alcohol, nicotine, hallucinogens and stimulants cloud the clarity of

one's thinking. Don't question me here. This is MY personal

conviction. I have used them all and would request all earnest

advaitins to lay them aside and see for themselves the difference

living without them makes. If it makes a difference, then don't look

for justifications if particular gurus use them or not. They may

have their own reasons and it is none of our business to probe into

them. JUST QUIT WITHOUT BEING OVERWEIGHED BY GUILT. If one can't do

it on one's own despite strong personal conviction of the benefit I

mentioned, then call out to God for help. He/She will certainly help.

 

It is very easy to say smoking or drinking doesn't matter as long as

we have control over these habits. We make great claims like we have

absolute control over the bottle and not vice versa. But, my

experience tells me that I have often had to postpone, interrupt or

cut short my daily sAdhana for the sake of the pleasure a fag or

bottle offers, the mind is not there in spiritual pursuits when it

should be, and, even if it is there, it lacks the desired clarity and

pointedness.

 

I am sure I don't have to talk about the other benefits like better

family relations, better health and money saved as we are daily being

bombarded with such information from all directions.

 

Mata Amritanandamayi Devi exhorts Her followers to visualize the

amount of money that can be saved to help others by dropping these

usually expensive habits.

 

Regarding your question about Hitler - he was a big ego and all his

actions arose from that. How can we accept them? A true advaitin in

Hitler's shoes would certainly have acted quite differently to solve

the problems of his country and people.

 

About your last question, please understand the guru as you yourself

trying to help you out with the realization that you are already free

and you now know that not. Every event or lesson or being in your

life that takes you closer to this realization is a guru. There is

nothing other than YOU in the absolute sense. You are the guru and

his grace and, you being actually ever free, there is no moksha as an

event.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

My post # 25460 today and refernece therein to Shailendraji. Please

read the name as Sanjay Srivastavaji. Sorry, Srivastavaji, for the

error.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

praNAm Lord of the mystic prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

LOTM prabhuji:

 

Bhagawan Ramana Maharshi being self-realized was not a person.

Bhagawan Ramana Maharshi is nothing more than a point of reference in

the illusion, sometimes called a body.

 

bhaskar :

 

Thats very well said prabhuji...yes jnAni can be one & ONLY...this reminds

me Sri Atmachaitanya prabhuji's post on jnAni & jnAnaniShTa.

 

 

LOTM prabhuji:

> That Sun shines on shining our sun, moon and stars. Thus, we

> sing: `na tatra sUryo bhAti ?.' and our beloved Ramana shines his

> unforgettable smile even as the unrelenting gory sarcoma eats out

>his mortal shoulder!

 

Not exactly, there's some screaming going on but it has nothing to do

with the Self-realized, the screamer would be Ramana.

 

bhaskar :

 

yes, this again shows our chronic inability to withdraw ourselves from

dEhAtma bhuddhi which shankara repeatedly said as adhyAsa/avidyA...It is

just like thinking pot space has separate existence from ether (mahAkASa).

shankara says jnAni's realisation is that which gives him the intuitive

knowledge that he was/is/will never be restricted to his body & he is not

body at any point of time. bruhadAraNyaka shruti also explains how *jnAni's

body (!!??) will be there after realisation.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Note from the list moderators: Thanks following the list guidelines and we

appreciate your efforts. We welcome you to the list and look forward to your

active participation.

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Namaste Shri Stewart.

>

> I will directly go to the crux of your post quoted below.

>

> As Shailendraji said it is not an experience.

>

> There is no looking at the world in the normal sense if one is the

> world. Where to 'look' then?

>

 

Hello sir! Agreed. What can there be beyond What Is?

> It is not thinking in terms of the whole or conceiving the whole but

> being Wholeness. What to think and conceive? Where is there scope for

> hanging and void?

 

Agreed! That's why I don't think those kinds of philosophical

apprehensions are the same as the realisation of non-dual Being.

What's the realisation is the simple conscious _being_ of Being. One

is the Whole (however it may best be described), one's individual,

tiny consciousness is at the same time Its consciousness, _belongs_ to

It, _pertains_ to It.

 

Yet people do often seem to believe that that Experience, the

experience of Being, proves a theory - usually some kind of idealistic

theory. Advaita _sometimes_ has the flavour of an "empirical

idealist" theory.

 

But that's a _philosophical_ question, to be answered, perhaps, in

time, by philosophical means. I take a Realist view of things rather

than an Idealist view. That probably makes me not-Advaitin in the

strict, doctrinal sense.

 

But the revelation - that _all this_ is Being, and that one is Being -

holds True _whatever_ one's highest metaphysical principles, and is a

"place" where mystics of all religions and systems of thought can come

together.

 

Again, trouble seems to come when one's experience of THAT feels like

it's temporally bounded. One then feels like one has "come out" of

THAT, back into being one's ordinary self again, with an agenda, with

vengeance; and then, perhaps, one seeks cover one's insecurity by

bolstering one's philosophical predilections, using THAT to somehow

prove their truth.

 

I say: relax about the philosophical side, already! Whether the world

is a dream, a mechanical monster (my preference at the moment), or

something we can't even conceive yet, its Being is the same as mine.

>

> This is how far words can go. One's past history i.e. whether one

> was an advaitin, follower of Berkeley, Hume, Kant or Sartre doesn't

> matter any more then.

>

 

Thank you for your words. It seems like this is a nice place to be

reminded, in almost a soldierly way, to keep one's back straight!

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Sanjay Srivastava"

<sksrivastava68@h...> wrote:

>

> There have been some posts equating advaita knowledge with "settled

> experience" as against "intellectual realization". In my opinion

the

> distinction is neither true nor required.

>

> First, advaita knowledge is not an "experience". This confusion has

arisen

> by translating the word "anubhava" as "experience". A better

translation

> would be "assimilation". By making distinction between "settled

experience"

> and "intellectual realization", we are putting advaita on same

footing as

> some mystical traditions. While such traditions may have their own

merits,

> if we attempt to mix them up with advaita, we will not be doing

justice to

> either of them. The path of advaita does not take a mystical

approach.

> Advaitanubhava is an understanding -- not an experience. And as

sometime

> back someone in this list very correctly pointed out that like any

other

> understanding, advaita is also an intellectual understanding.

>

> Problem arises when we equate "intellectual" with "shallow".

However,

> intellectual understanding need not be superficial. It can be as

deep, or

> even deeper than experience. My everyday experience is of a flat

earth,

> however my intellectual understanding is that earth is round. My

knowledge

> of earth's geometry is not an "experience" of roundness-- it is

just an

> "intellectual understanding" which is deeper than my experience.

However

> this understanding of "roundness" of earth does not inhibit my

capacity to

> walk on "flat" earth.

>

 

Thank you, Sanjayji, for this wonderful post. I was beginning to get

lost in the various exchanges during the last few weeks. I feel more

assured by this post and Sadaji's reply.

 

Experience indeed, is an unreliable thing. It is often negated by

true understanding. Like 'flat earth', 'blue sky', 'sun going around

the earth' and so on - these everyday experiences are all negated by

correct understanding. Somehow, there is still a tendency to give pre-

eminence to experiences (through the senses).

 

But what about experience backed by true understanding?

 

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

> The experiential approach to advaita has harmed the sadhakas in

several

> other ways also. People misled to believe "realization"

as "experience of a

> thousand suns exploding" have gone astray in their pursuit of

experience

> hunting including alchohol, drugs, sex and whatever they thought

could bring

> them to the REAL THING. In fact at one time Huxley and his

associates were

> actually working on producing "Upanishadic state of consciousness"

via

> chemicals and drugs! Maybe some day we become so advanced to

produce

> understanding of a subject say physics/maths/advaita through

injecting

> specific combination of chemicals in brain. Right now it is not the

case and

> therefore it is all the more necessary that the message of

upanishads

> preserved in its purity and is not diluted by putting artificial

> distinctions where none exist.

>

>

> ----Original Message Follows----

> "P. George Stewart" george@s...

> advaitin

> advaitin

> Re: "Pseudo"-Realisation?

> Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:23:49 -0000

>

>

>

>

> Very interesting replies from everyone, with much food for thought!

[Guest guest]

Yes, Neelakantanji.

 

You are much closer.

 

Let us take sugar as an example. That is quite different from the

ones mentioned by Srivastavaji. I have profound knowledge about the

chemistry of sugar. That is an intellectual understanding like the

knowledge of earth being round while it appears flat.

 

When I taste sugar, it is an experience. A new dimension is then

added to my knowledge of sugar over and above my hithertofore

intellectual understanding. That is experience backed by

understanding and you are very right there. Inadequate language can

go only that far. Faced with Truth, it just stands and shivers

wordless.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________

 

 

 

advaitin, "Neelakantan" <pneelaka@s...> wrote:

>

> But what about experience backed by true understanding?

[Guest guest]

Sri Neelkantha wrote:

>"But what about experience backed by true understanding?"

 

Sri Madathil Rajendran Nair replied:

>"Let us take sugar as an example. That is quite different from the

>ones mentioned by Srivastavaji. I have profound knowledge about the

>chemistry of sugar. That is an intellectual understanding like the

>knowledge of earth being round while it appears flat.

>When I taste sugar, it is an experience. A new dimension is then

>added to my knowledge of sugar over and above my hithertofore

>intellectual understanding. That is experience backed by

>understanding and you are very right there."

 

I respectfully disagree. The example of sugar tells that "intellectual

understanding" of sugar was incomplete because I did not have the prior

"experience" of sugar. This gives me an impression that in order to make my

understanding complete, I have to go out and get the experience of sugar

separately. This is not comparable to the knowledge of self.

 

In case of sugar, there was a time when I did not have the experience of

sugar and therefore needed to go out and get that experience. Is this the

same with self? Was there a time when I did not have experience of self? I

experience self all the time. Do I need any special experience of self over

and above my normal experience of self? Certainly not. What I am lacking

here is not the experience of self, but the understanding of it. I have

enough experience of self. In fact I experience it all the time. I need not

go out and and get some special experience of self to make my knowledge

complete. All I need is to understand the experience of self which I already

have. I need a pramAna that can explain me the true meaning of my experience

of self.

 

Instead of "knowledge of sugar" this case is much like "knowledge of

geometry of earth". I experience the earth all the time but consider it

flat. Untill a teacher comes with a pramAna and points out that it is

actually flat. The routine experience of earth that I already have is backed

by true understanding --- not a new and special experience of earth.

Similarly I experience self all the time but consider it limited, untill the

teacher comes with a pramAna and points out that it is actually limitless.

The routine experience of self I already have --- not any new and special

experience of self--- is backed by true understanding and a new meaning

unfolds.

 

I think that fine distinction is necessary in advaita in order to eliminate

the possibility of "experiential approach" entering through back door.

 

Regards,

Sanjay Srivastava

 

 

Robert H. Smith School of Business

University of Maryland, College Park

U.S.A.

 

Ph: 301-434-3773

 

_______________

Searching for your soulmate? Zero in on the perfect choice.

http://www.astroyogi.com/newmsn/astrodate/ Try MSN Astrodate now!