Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2007 Hi All, Sri Ram was to have posted next week's definition but is on holiday so I am taking the opportunity to post this special 'short story' which explains the meaning of the word Advaita. There will not be any additional defintion next week. I am posting it early so that members of the group will see it before anyone else. It was not written primarily for the group but, as we do not yet have a definition for Advaita, it fits in rather well. My new book 'Back to the Truth: 5000 years of Advaita' is out this week and my publisher has been 'encouraging' me to do some marketing rather than working on my next book, which is what I would rather be doing. Accordingly, I wrote the following article, which I am circulating to anyone who might be interested. It's in the form of a (hopefully) entertaining story so that you might actually enjoy reading it! Please feel free to post to other groups, print out for friends or even publish it in a magazine or newspaper if you should feel so inclined- no fee! Just retain the message at the end so that someone might possibly buy the book afterwards! If you would like to put it up on your website/blog etc. that would be excellent! I hope you will excuse my taking advantage of my position to use the group for marketing purposes! Best wishes, Dennis ****** What is Advaita? - Dennis Waite "So, Swami-ji, what would you say that Advaita is?" The eager young woman crossed her legs and sat expectantly, pencil poised above a pristine pad of paper. "It simply means 'not two' - the ultimate truth is non-dual," replied the Sage, reclining in a large and comfortable-looking armchair and not sitting in an upright lotus position, as he ought to have been, for the sake of the photograph that she had just taken, if nothing else. She continued to wait for further elucidation before beginning to write but it soon became apparent that the answer had been given. "But is it a religion? Do you believe in God, for example?" "Ah, well, that would depend upon what you mean by those words, wouldn't it?" he responded, irritatingly. "If, by 'religion', you mean does it have priests and churches and a band of followers who are prepared to kill non-believers, then the answer is no. If, on the other hand, you refer to the original, literal meaning of the word, namely to 'bind again', to reunite the mistaken person that we think we are with the Self that we truly are, then yes, it is a religion. Similarly, if by 'God' you mean a separate, supernatural being who created the universe and will reward us by sending us to heaven if we do what He wants, then the answer is no. If you use the term in the sense of the unmanifest, non-dual reality, then yes, I most certainly do believe in God." The pencil raced across the paper, recording the answer for the benefit of the magazine's readers but, as the words clashed with previous ideas in her memory, the lack of a clear resolution of her questions was reflected by an increasing puzzlement in her expression. He registered this with compassion and held out his hand towards her. "Give me a piece of paper from your pad." She looked up, mouth slightly open as she wondered why he could possibly want that. But she turned the pad over, carefully tore off the bottom sheet and placed it in his outstretched hand. He turned to the table at his right and deftly began to fold and refold the paper. After a few moments, he turned back and, before she had had time to see what he had done, he held the paper aloft and launched it into the air. It rose quickly and circled gracefully around the room before losing momentum and diving to meet a sudden end when its pointed nose hit a sauce bottle on the dining table. "Could you bring it back over here do you think?" he asked. "So, what would you say that we have here?" he asked, as she handed it back to him. "It's a paper aeroplane," she replied, with just a hint of questioning in her voice, since the answer was so obvious that she felt he must have some other purpose in mind. "Really?" he responded and, in an instant, he screwed up the object and, with a practised, over-arm movement, threw it effortlessly in a wide arc, from which it landed just short of the waste paper basket in the corner of the room. "And now?" he asked. "It's a screwed-up ball of paper", she said, without any doubt in her voice this time. "Could you bring it back again, please", he continued. She did so, wondering if this was typical of such an interview, spending the session chasing about after bits of paper like a dog running after a stick. He took the ball and carefully unfolded it, spread it out on the table and smoothed his hand over it a few times before handing it back to her. "And now it is just a sheet of paper again," he said, "although I'm afraid it's a bit crumpled now!" He looked at her, apparently anticipating some sign of understanding if not actual revelation but none was forthcoming. He looked around the room and, after a moment, he stood up, walked over to the window and removed a rose from a vase standing in the alcove. Returning to his seat, he held the rose out to her and asked, "What is this?" She was feeling increasingly embarrassed as it was clear he was trying to explain something fundamental, which she was not understanding. Either that or he was mad or deliberately provoking her, neither of which seemed likely, since he remained calm and open and somehow intensely present. "It's a flower," she replied eventually. He then deliberately took one of the petals between his right-hand thumb and fore-finger and plucked it. He looked at her and said, "And now?" She didn't reply, though it seemed that this time he didn't really expect an answer. He continued to remove the petals one by one until none remained, looking up at her after each action. Finally, he pulled the remaining parts of the flower head off the stem and dropped them onto the floor, leaving the bare stalk, which he held out to her. "Where is the flower now?" he asked. Receiving no reply, he bent down and picked up all of the petals, eventually displaying them in his open hand. "Is this a flower?" he asked. She shook her head slowly. "It was a flower only when all of the petals and the other bits were all attached to the stem." "Good!" he said, appreciatively. "Flower is the name that we give to that particular arrangement of all of the parts. Once we have separated it into its component parts, the flower ceases to exist. But was there ever an actual, separate thing called 'flower'? All of the material that constituted the original form is still here in these parts in my hand. "The paper aeroplane is an even simpler example. There never was an aeroplane was there? And I don't just mean that it was only a toy. There was only ever paper. To begin with, the paper was in the form of a flat sheet for writing on. Then, I folded it in various ways so that it took on an aerodynamic shape which could fly through the air slowly. The name that we give to that form is 'aeroplane'. When I screwed it up, the ball-shape could be thrown more accurately. 'Aeroplane' and 'ball' were names relating to particular forms of the paper but at all times, all that ever actually existed was paper. "Now, this sort of analysis applies to every 'thing' that you care to think of. Look at that table over there and this chair on which you are sitting. What are they made of? You will probably say that they are wooden chairs?" He looked at her questioningly and she nodded, knowing at the same time that he was going to contradict her. "Well, they are made of wood certainly, but that does not mean that they are wooden chairs! On the contrary, I would say that this, that you are sitting on, is actually chairy wood, and that object over there is tably wood. What do you say to that?" "You mean that the thing that we call 'chair' is just a name that we give to the wood when it is that particular shape and being used for that particular function?" she asked, with understanding beginning to dawn. "Exactly! I couldn't have put it better myself. It is quite possible that I could have a bag full of pieces of wood that can be slotted together in different ways so that at one time I might assemble them into something to sit upon, another time into something to put food upon and so on. We give the various forms distinct names and we forget that they are ONLY names and forms and not distinct and separate things. "Look - here's an apple," he said, picking one out of the bowl on the table and casually tossing it from one hand to the other before holding it up for her to examine. "It's round or to be more accurate, spherical; its reddish in colour and it has", he sniffed it, "a fruity smell. No doubt if I were to bite into it, I would find it juicy and sweet. "Now all of these - round, red, fruity, juicy, sweet - are adjectives describing the noun 'apple.' Or, to use more Advaitic terms, let me say that the 'apple' is the 'substantive' - the apparently real, separately existing thing - and all of the other words are 'attributes' of the apple - merely incidental qualities of the thing itself. Are you with me so far?" She nodded hesitantly but, after a little reflection, more positively. "But suppose I had carried out this analysis with the rose that we looked at a moment ago. I could have said that it was red, delicate, fragrant, thorny and so on. And we would have noted that all of those were simply attributes and that the actual existent thing, the substantive, was the rose. But then we went on to see that the rose wasn't real at all. It was just an assemblage of petals and sepals and so on - I'm afraid I am not a botanist! In the same way, we could say that the apple consists of seeds and flesh and skin. We may not be able to put these things together into any form different from an apple but Nature can. "If you ask a scientist what makes an apple an apple, he will probably tell you that is the particular configuration of nucleotides in the DNA or RNA of the cells. There are many different species of apple and each one will have a slight variation in the chromosomes and it is that which differentiates the species. If you want to explain to someone what the difference is between a Bramley and a Granny Smith, you will probably say something like 'the Bramley is large and green, used mainly for cooking and is quite sharp tasting, while the Granny Smith is still green but normally much smaller and sweeter'. But these are all adjectives or attributes. What is actually different is the physical makeup of the cell nuclei. "But, if we look at a chromosome or a strand of DNA, are we actually looking at a self-existent, separate thing? If you look very closely through an electron microscope, you find that DNA is made up of four basic units arranged in pairs in a long, spiral chain. And any one of these units is itself made up of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, again arranged in a very specific way. So even those are not separate 'things-in-themselves'; they are names given to particular forms of other, more fundamental things. "And so we arrive at atoms - even the ancient Greeks used to think that everything was made up of atoms. Are these the final 'substantives' with all of the apparent things in the world being merely attributes? Well, unfortunately not. Science has known for a long time that atoms mainly consist of empty space with electrons spinning around a central nucleus of protons and neutrons. And science has known for somewhat less time that these particles, which were once thought to be fundamental, are themselves not solid, self-existent things but are either made up of still smaller particles or are in the form of waves, merely having probabilities of existence at many different points in space. "Still more recently, science claimed that all of the different particles are themselves made out of different combinations of just a few particles called quarks and that those are the ultimately existing things. But they have not yet progressed far enough. The simple fact of the matter is that every 'thing' is ultimately only an attribute, a name and form superimposed upon a more fundamental substantive. We make the mistake of thinking that there really is a table, when actually there is only wood. We make the mistake of thinking that there is really wood, when actually there is only cellulose and sugars and proteins. We make the mistake of thinking there is protein when this is only a particular combination of atoms. "Ultimately, everything in the universe is seen to be only name and form of a single substantive. The journalist was transfixed; not exactly open-mouthed but her pencil had not moved for some time. Eventually, she asked in a small voice: "But then where do I fit into all of this?" "Ah", he replied. "That again depends upon what you mean by the word 'I'. Who you think you are - 'Sarah' - is essentially no different from the table and chair. You are simply name and form, imposed upon the non-dual reality. Who you really are, however. well, that is quite different - you are that non-dual reality. You see, in the final analysis, there are not two things; there is only non-duality. That is the truth; that is Advaita." ****** Dennis Waite has been a student of Advaita for over 20 years and maintains one of the most visited websites on the subject. He is the present Chief Moderator of the Advaitin group and has published several books, including 'The Book of One' and, this month, 'Back to the Truth: 5000 Years of Advaita'. For information about the books, together with endorsements and many extracts, visit <http://www.advaita.org.uk/> www.advaita.org.uk. Note: This essay may be freely published and circulated, provided that these notes are also included. If you do publish it in any hardcopy format, it would be great if you could let the author know by emailing via the website. ****** Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2007 H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams to all. advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite wrote: > > Hi All, > > Sri Ram was to have posted next week's definition but is on holiday so I am > taking the opportunity to post this special 'short story' which explains the > meaning of the word Advaita. Respected Vedantins, The mantras from Chadogya Upanishad define ADWAITA in the following unique manner: sa Eva adhastAt sa upariShTAt sa paScAt sa purastAt sa dakShinataH sa uttarataH sa EvEdagM sarvamiti atha ataH ahaMkArAdESa Eva ahamEva adhastAt aham upariShTAt aham paScAt aham putastAt aham dakShiNataH aaham uttarataH ahamEvEdagM sarvamiti || 7-25-1 "That infinite, indeed, is below. It is above. It is behind. It is before. It is to the south. It is to the north. The Infinite, indeed, is all this. "Next follows the instruction about the Infinite with reference to `I': I, indeed, am below. I am above. I am behind. I am before. I am to the south. I am to the north. I am, indeed, all this. athAta AtmAdESa Eva AtmaivAdhastAt AtmOpariShTAdAtmA paScAdAtmA purastAdAtmA dakShiNata AtmOttarata AtmaivEdagM sarvamiti || 7-25-2 "Next follows the instruction about the Infinite with reference to the Self: The Self indeed, is below. It is above. It is behind. It is before. It is to the south. It is to the north. The Self, indeed, is all this. OM TAT SAT Sri Shankara again and again draws our attention to the Truth that Shastra , in other words Upanishads, reminds us of facts which we are not aware of. So what has been stated in the above two mantras is A STATEMENT OF FACT but not cognized. Sri Shankara, in his commentaries, has provided in a very simple and direct way the methodology for making that fact a LIVING TRUTH for us. Our goal is: TO BE ATMAVITS and NOT MANTRAVITS , i.e. KNOWING ATMAN and not KNOWING ABOUT ATMAN. May THE DIVINITY BLESS US. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2007 Congratulations! Dear Dennis-ji! You very well know by now that i thrive on 'stories' and love to read poetry . One reason why i love reading Anandaji's posts is he presents the COMPLEX TRUTH OF ADVAITA IN SIMPLE VERSES AND HE IS GETTING BETTER AND BETTER AT IT! The grandmother in me also loves to read stories and narrate stories - therefore , i found this particular story you narrated very interesting . In south india , where i come from , this art of story telling is called 'kathakalashepham ' and ever since i was a kid , i used to accompany my grandmother to attend these storytelling sessions! In Chandogya upanishad , Uddalaka Aruni Teaches all the basics of Advaita to his son Svetaketu through simple illustrative stories. My favorite one is the following : Uddalaka Aruni instructs his son Svetaketu to . "Place this salt in water, and in the morning come to me." He did exactly so, and he said to him, "the salt that you put in the water last night, bring it hither. But while he grasped for it he could not find it, since it had completely dissolved. 2. "Take a sip from the edge of it. What is there?" "Salt." "Take a sip from the middle. What is there?" "Salt." "Take a sip from the far edge. What is there?" "Salt." "Set it aside and come to me." And [the boy] did exactly that, [saying] "It is always the same." He said to him, "Being is indeed truly here, dear boy, but you do not perceive it here. 3. That which is the finest essence, the whole universe has That as its soul. That is Reality, That is the Self, and That is you, Svetaketu!" (6.13.1) Tat Twam Asi! SOMEHOW , FOR SOME ODD REASON, I LOVE THIS 'SALT' IN THE WATER STORY the BEST ! Very effective ! Do you know that Mahtma Gandhi rocked the entire British empire with his 'salt satyagraha' ? what is so beautiful about the 'salt' ? "Salt is born of the purest of parents: the sun and the sea." says Pythagoras (580 BC - 500 Our Advaita philosophy is also pure and pristine like Salt - coming down to us from the greatest of Guru Parampara ! Dennis-ji , may i please recall the words of Mahatma GANDHI "I believe in Advaita; I believe in the essential unity of man and for that matter, for all that lives. Therefore, I believe that if one man gains spiritually, the whole world gains with him and if one man fails, the whole world fall to that extent…" Let me therefore assure you Dennisji , if by reading your new book 'Back to the Truth: 5000 years of Advaita' , you are able to make a difference in the spiritual lives of the readers who read it , you would have accomplished a lot ! i have already posted this story on ADVAITA in all the five groups i moderate . This is one marketing effort i would love to promote for by promoting Unity we are promoting the ultimate non-dual tuth - we are all 'One' ! Good Luck and best wishes ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 25, 2007 H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams to all Vedantins. advaitin, "dhyanasaraswati" <dhyanasaraswati wrote: > > Congratulations! Dear Dennis-ji! > > You very well know by now that i thrive on 'stories' and love to > read poetry . One reason why i love reading Anandaji's posts is he > presents the COMPLEX TRUTH OF ADVAITA IN SIMPLE VERSES AND HE IS > GETTING BETTER AND BETTER AT IT! Dear smt Dhyanasaraswathji, , Here is an excerpt from Sri Aurobindo'S magnumopous 'SAVITHRI' for your delight,who is a lover of Poetry. A deathless littleness is not all we are; Immortal our forgotten vastness Await discovery in our summit selves; Unmeasured breadths and depths of being are ours. - - Savithri; Book-1 Canto-4 "Complex Truth Of Advaita" : It is the writers or speakers with a complex and confused minds who present the SIMPLE TRUTH OF ADVAITA to simple readers like you ,me and other readers as complex,very difficult to understand and realize. We simply swallow and follow their words blindly without examining them thereby creating obstacles in our path. NOW WE HAVE TO WAKE UP AND THROW OUT ALL SUCH PRECONEIVED WRONG NOTIONS. Truth of Advaita is the most simple, direct(aparoksha) and immediate ONE because Advaita is about our svarupa which is sAkShAt aparOkShAt brahma who is AtmA sarvAntaraH. This is the message of the Upanishads. That is the true meaning of the above quoted verse. I do not mean any offence to anybody or hurt others'feelings. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 25, 2007 Sreenivasa-ji writes : (I do not mean any offence to anybody or hurt others'feelings. ) There is no 'other' in Advaita ! who is hurting whom ? yours truly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 25, 2007 Sreenivasa-ji : How would you. an advaitin, interpret the following verse from the Srimad Bhagavat Gita ? Bahir antasca butanam acaram caram eva ca, Suksmatvat tat avijneyam durastham cantike ca tat. Chapter 13 XVI Without and within (all) begins, the `unmoving' and also the `moving'; because of its subtlety unknowable; and near and far away – is That. This is also in the upanishads. SREENIVASA-JI, YOUR TURN NOW ! i am all ears! love and blessings advaitin, "narayana145" <narayana145 wrote: > > H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy > Pranams to all Vedantins. > advaitin, "dhyanasaraswati" > <dhyanasaraswati@> wrote: > > > > Congratulations! Dear Dennis-ji! > > > > You very well know by now that i thrive on 'stories' and love to > > read poetry . One reason why i love reading Anandaji's posts is he > > presents the COMPLEX TRUTH OF ADVAITA IN SIMPLE VERSES AND HE IS > > GETTING BETTER AND BETTER AT IT! > > Dear smt Dhyanasaraswathji, > > , Here is an excerpt from Sri Aurobindo'S > magnumopous 'SAVITHRI' for your delight,who is a lover of Poetry. > > A deathless littleness is not all we are; > > Immortal our forgotten vastness > > Await discovery in our summit selves; > > Unmeasured breadths and depths of being are ours. > - - Savithri; Book-1 Canto-4 > > "Complex Truth Of Advaita" : It is the writers or speakers > with a complex and confused minds who present the SIMPLE TRUTH OF > ADVAITA to simple readers like you ,me and other readers as > complex,very difficult to understand and realize. We simply swallow > and follow their words blindly without examining them thereby > creating obstacles in our path. NOW WE HAVE TO WAKE UP AND THROW OUT > ALL SUCH PRECONEIVED WRONG NOTIONS. Truth of Advaita is the most > simple, direct(aparoksha) and immediate ONE because Advaita is about > our svarupa which is sAkShAt aparOkShAt brahma who is AtmA > sarvAntaraH. This is the message of the Upanishads. > That is the true meaning of the above quoted verse. > I do not mean any offence to anybody or hurt others'feelings. > > With warm and respectful regards, > Sreenivasa Murthy > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 26, 2007 >From : H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy advaitin, "dhyanasaraswati" <dhyanasaraswati wrote: > > Sreenivasa-ji : > > How would you. an advaitin, interpret the following verse from the > Srimad Bhagavat Gita ? > > Bahir antasca butanam acaram caram eva ca, > Suksmatvat tat avijneyam durastham cantike ca tat. > Chapter 13 XVI Dear Smt Dhyanasaraswathi, Instead of Sreenivasa Murthy interpretting let the Mother Sruti interpret the verse and the interpretation is being confirmed by LIFE itself: sa Eva adhastAt sa upariShTAt sa paScAt sa purastAt sa dakShinataH sa uttarataH sa EvEdagM sarvamiti atha ataH ahaMkArAdESa Eva ahamEva adhastAt aham upariShTAt aham paScAt aham putastAt aham dakShiNataH aaham uttarataH ahamEvEdagM sarvamiti || 7-25-1 "That infinite, indeed, is below. It is above. It is behind. It is before. It is to the south. It is to the north. The Infinite, indeed, is all this. "Next follows the instruction about the Infinite with reference to `I': I, indeed, am below. I am above. I am behind. I am before. I am to the south. I am to the north. I am, indeed, all this. athAta AtmAdESa Eva AtmaivAdhastAt AtmOpariShTAdAtmA paScAdAtmA purastAdAtmA dakShiNata AtmOttarata AtmaivEdagM sarvamiti || 7-25-2 "Next follows the instruction about the Infinite with reference to the Self: The Self indeed, is below. It is above. It is behind. It is before. It is to the south. It is to the north. The Self, indeed, is all this.[Chandogya Upanishad ; Chapter 7 Subdivision 25 verses 1&2] Please verify what Mother Sruthi is saying within yourself by referring to the facts furnished by your LIFE. Since it is vastu tantra opinions and mere speculations have no place in UNDERSTANDING/ COGNITION. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 26, 2007 Thanks Sreenivasa-ji! i enjoyed reading all the relevant quotes from my favorite upanishad- Chandogya . Now , how about following what the RiG VEDA SAYS Glorify eternal truth, but the proof of it is to Put your creed into your deeds And practice truth in your action. (Rg.Veda.III.4.7) Kali yuga is within us ! Yaduji may have a point. (Michaelji -may i quote our beloved Chittaji on the subject of Samanya and vishesha ? " All flowers are flowers due to the flowerness in them, and even though a rose and a lotus are different from each other as particular kinds of flowers, they are both not different from being the flower that they both are. " - i kind of agree with Dennisji when he says we ought to keep things 'simple' for the beginners of Advaita! Once an 'interest' has been created aroused, the students will himself move forward in the pursuit of higher learning !We all know that 'brahma sutras' are a forest ! ) love and blessings Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites