Advaita 101 - An interview with Swami Dayananda Saraswati

[Guest guest]

--- On Sat, 12/20/08, Susan Shobbrook <peela wrote:

 

 

Is it appropriate for me to chime in here-? I am new here and new to

these scriptural teachings in general, although not new to neo-advaita

etc. I am here to learn, so please share your understanding with me.

 

My understanding is that one knows a teacher (valuable for one's own

development) by the silence and deepening of understanding/ revealing

one experiences in their presence. Is more than that needed?

---------------

Susan - PraNAms

 

Here is my understanding.

 

In silence, I discover myself I am ever enlivening silence in spite of the noise

outside. It is the silence inspite of noise. Hence there are two types of

silence(s) - a silence which is just absence of noise which I can get even in

deep sleep state and silence inspite of noise out there. I do not learn from

silence by being silent I have to enquire about the silent presence (witnessing

consciousness that I am) where the Bhagavaan Ramana says analyze the analist -

where I can be silent in spite of the noise - that is what is called experience

of myself or experience of non-duality in spite of the apparent duality.

 

This is not teaching but living in the teaching.

 

Teacher cannot teach by being silent. He has to guide you how and why you need

to shift your attention to that which is beyond the duality and why you are that

and not what you think you are. It is not eliminiation of the thoughts but

transcendence of the thoughts by looking at the essence of thoughts and

rejecting your identification with the thoughts.

 

Any Understanding comes only by analysis and by teaching. For that - one needs

to prepare the mind - According to advaita you need four-fold qualifications for

the mind to inquire within - veveka, the discriminative faculty to reject the

superficial and to look at the substantive, vairagra or detachment to the

superficial (that which changes continously - starting from Body), Shatsampatti

- the six-fold qualifications of the mind that include faith in the teacher and

in the scriptures, and mumukshutvam - intense desire and commitment for

self-realization.

 

When you prepare your mind appropriately a teacher will come to help in the

sadhana - that is the law.

 

Hope this helps

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Susan Shobbrook <peela wrote:

>

>

> <<<Is there any way to know that someone that is one's teacher is a

> 'self-realised' one?>>>

>

> Is it appropriate for me to chime in here-? I am new here and new to

> these scriptural teachings in general, although not new to neo-advaita

> etc. I am here to learn, so please share your understanding with me.

> My understanding is that one knows a teacher (valuable for one's own

> development) by the silence and deepening of understanding/revealing

one

> experiences in their presence. Is more than that needed?

>

> Susan

 

Dear Susan,

 

Namaste and welcome. From the point of view of

the teachings of Advaita/Vedanta a lot more than

what you've outlined above is needed.

 

A teacher of Advaita/Vedanta uses the words of

the Upanishads as a means of self-knowledge.

(The Upanishads are those scriptures found at the

end of the Vedas).

 

Ignorance of the self exists in the mind of the

student. For the removal of self-ignorance Vedanta

tells us that a teaching method and a teacher who

knows how to use the method are necessary.

 

Vedanta is a teaching methodology, which specifically

uses words to take the mind of the student step by step

to the clear recognition of my self as the nondual basis

of all which is perceived to be dual.

 

The teacher will point out certain things about yourself

and about observed phenomena which will lead you to

recognize the truth.

 

If we sit in silence in a teacher's presence

we might have a some nice mental experiences. We

may even think that we have gained some clarity

on the subject of self-knowledge.

 

However, Vedanta would tell you that since self-knowledge

is not the gain of a new mental experience, but rather

a recognition of what is already true, a teaching

methodology which uses words and a teacher who knows

how to use the words are necessary to:

(a)point out what the mind's confusion is, and

(b)point out exactly what is true.

 

Vedanta would say that sitting in silence alone in

the presence of a teacher cannot resolve this mental

confusion.

 

Another thing to consider is that although sitting in

silence can be pleasant, one's mind can project

into that silence all sorts of things which may

not have anything at all to do with self-knowledge.

We may think we are having a deep and revealing

experience, but then the experience may vanish, or

need to be repeated again.

 

Knowledge of the self is not a mental experience

requiring either repetition or maintainance.

 

Many of the books which we read, so much of what we are

exposed to, and the functioning of duality itself leads us to

think that we need to have a new and different experience

from the experience we are already having, and that having

various experiences is some sort of a marker of

spiritual progress.

 

What we are looking for is not a new experience. We are

looking for what is already present but not recognized,

and when recognized is realized never to have absent,

and in fact has always been known as myself.

 

But that doesn't really answer the question as to how one

recognizes or attains a true teacher. The teachings of

Advaita/Vedanta themselves have a lot to say on the subject.

 

For myself, in my own long journey, I would point to two things.

The first was that although I'd been seeking for a very long time

I knew I wasn't 'enlightened,' and I knew I had to find a teacher.

I was also certain at that point in my life that I had no

desire strong enough to outweigh the desire for self-knowledge.

 

The second thing which happened was that the first time

I heard my teacher speak, I realized that the words

she was speaking made complete sense, and in many years

of seeking that was first time that had happened. Other

teachers had inspired me through their words or their actions,

but this was the first time someone's words actually

made sense, and in even in some way matched up to what

I already knew was true.

 

Also the more I observed my teacher teach, the more I

became aware that she was absolutely kind and trustworthy.

It was apparent that she thoroughly grasped the subject

which she was unfolding and that she could express herself

in a way that was completely logical, coherent and

accessible. So those are two important factors in my

opinion. The transparency and nature of teacher's character,

and the teacher's ability to teach the subject in a way that

is accessible for the student.

 

In Advaita/ Vedanta we say that it is 'Ishwara Anugraha,'

the grace of the Lord, which leads one to a true teacher.

If one has a strong and overwhelming desire for self-knowledge,

and has clearly begun to see that all mental and physical experiences,

even those which we think are 'spiritual,'

are just that, experiences, which, by their very nature,

will arise and pass away, and which are therefore ultimately

unsatisfactory, then that is a very good start. Prayer is also

helpful, because it is within the realm that prayers are answered

(i.e. duality) that a teacher is to be found.

 

To just to sit in silence with a teacher and have an

experience is not enough, because the mind can project

too much into that silence. One needs to be able to speak

to a teacher, who is competent, in order to clear doubts

and receive direct guidance in words. Otherwise in my

opinion and experience, there is too much room for fantasy

and mental projection which really is a large part of the

problem in the first place.

 

Wishing you all joy and success in your journey.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Susan Shobbrook <peela wrote:My understanding is that one knows a teacher (valuable for one's owndevelopment) by the silence and deepening of understanding/ revealingone experiences in their presence. Is more than that needed?Hello Susan,No and... yes.No, because when one re-cognizes one's own Self through the resonance with the one who one recognized as one's Teacher, there is nothing else to know and/or continue discovering or seeking. The Teacher, recognized as one, is no longer needed (although we may be eternally grateful and continue to be at His Service). I believe this requires a mature seeker.Yes, because if that Understanding was in the form of glimpses or certain states of temporal experience, no matter how deep they are, they might be quickly covered by eons of mind tendencies (vasanas) that need to be also recognized as obstacles to the permanent abidance in that Understanding (and eventually destroyed). The Teacher, if being the right one for us, will present tools to eradicate those recurrent obstacles (different traditions different tools).Yours in Bhagavan,MounaFrom a different perspective, here the words of Nisargadatta Maharaj (I Am That, excerpt):Who is the Guru, after all? He who knows the state in which there is neither the world nor the thought of it, he is the Supreme Teacher. To find him means to reach the state in which imagination is no longer taken for reality, for truth, for what is. He is a realist in the highest sense of the term. He cannot and shall not come to terms with the mind and its delusions. He comes to take you to the real; don't expect him to do anything else. The Guru you have in mind, one who gives you information and instructions, is not the real Guru. The real Guru is he who knows the real, beyond the glamour of appearances. What exists for you does not exist for him. What you take for granted, he denies absolutely. He wants you to see yourself as he sees you. Then you will not need a Guru to obey and follow, for you will obey and follow your own reality.

[Guest guest]

Sri Kuntimaddi Sadananda wrote...

" Self realization involves realization that I am that - that standing

for what I am seeking - eternal absolute happiness "

 

I am that... the That stands for everything, oneness. Happiness is

being oneself. The self is different from oneself. Self is universal,

oneself is individual. Happiness is therefore simply identification

with personal being. Being is an illusion, induced by the mere touch

of air, something latent is awakened into manifestation by Ahamkara.

Ahamkara is the I am maker. It makes the latent Aham, the I am, come

to life. I am is being, it is the first person singular of the verb to

be. Ahamkara is an emissary of Maya, therefore being is merely an

indirect illusory creation of Maya. Being is at the level of fire.

Fire is light and fire is consciousness, since consciousness is merely

light dancing and reflecting in the head.

 

Latent being is part of the buddhi, an unmanifested form floating in

the light of Isvara, which is brought into manifestation by the touch

of Ahamkara. Being is merely one of the names and forms, yet no longer

a static form but now an apparently living form.... your own being!...

a very clever illusion. Isvara's light is sattva. Sattva is one of the

gunas, even a very desirable guna. The gunas are simply prakriti. One

has to disengage from prakriti, otherwise one is moving, not still,

just as Krishna says... " I have put these various beings on the top

of a machine of this illusion. They are mechanically going around " .

Purusha, the higher witness, is placed on the top, Prakriti is the

cosmic machine turning one's being around and around, and your life is

the illusion.

 

Happiness is neither eternal nor absolute. Happiness is inturned

identification with a very high quality part of the cosmic machine....

your own being.

 

One has to go beyond being and non-being. Self realization is beyond

air and fire. It is also beyond the level of space. Maya is in space,

how are you going to transcend that... there is no form, no shape, no

colour, nothing at all? No one can conceive that original Maya.

 

Happiness is being in the bliss-sheath.... fire. It is difficult to go

beyond happiness, joy, bliss, and it seems natural to stop there,

especially if the seeker has been seeking it all his life. Very few

are seeking the everything, the oneness. Most seek happiness, or

knowledge, or divine perfect consciousness, but if and when these are

reached there is understanding that they are not ultimates.

 

Sat-Cit-Ananda, if translated as Consciousness-Knowledge-Bliss, are

illusions. Even if translated as Existence-Consciousness-Happiness it

is still illusory. Existence and non-existence are opposites and

neither can be Brahman. If Brahman positively exists then

non-existence must also exist, as the negative form of existence, and

clearly there is a duality present which cannot relate to non-dual

Brahman. Sat-Cit-Ananda are, in fact, masks of Visnu, the sly one. He

is playing with you. They are at the level of the gunas, which have

to be transcended. A better translation is

Awareness-Understanding-Equanimity, but these are not fashionable

words. The Parabrahman is said to be beyond words, therefore

Sat-Cit-Ananda does not relate to the Parabrahman. They must relate to

something at a slightly lower level. Therefore for the absolute one

has to go beyond consciousness, knowledge and even heavenly bliss.

 

Ahamkara touches the buddhi (intellect), but cannot touch the chitta

(memory-understanding). Ahamkara touches the buddhi and it becomes `

I want happiness', `I am a seeker of Brahman, eternal, absolute

happiness`. Chitta is not fooled. Chitta is the finest part of mind,

that which enables someone to instantly understand what something is,

knowing before words are formulated. It is said to be the only thing

you take with you after death.

 

Sri Kuntimaddi Sadananda wrote...

" Self does not need to realize since it is what it is. ego cannot

realize since it is what it is. Realization is therefore recognition

that I am not what I think I am (ego) but I am that - satyam jnaanam

anantam brahmna. that realization is an understanding - understanding

occurs in the mind only. "

 

Agreed.... realization is related to understanding, because

understanding seems to be as close to Brahman as the mind can

approach. Understanding is in the organ Chitta and must be related to

Cit?

 

Mind is inner space. Go beyond earth, water, fire, air and...... even

beyond space. If you get stuck in space again.... it will all recur.

You are still in the mind. As long as you remain in the mind your

Shakti will arrange for you to wander again in the labyrinth, lost in

another series of circles of time. If you believe you live in mind, in

inner space, then Shakti your companion becomes your mother and

arranges for your atman, your separated consciousness, to watch the

acceptance of another incarnation, and for the jiva to be suitably

manipulated by Maya. Then all the trouble starts again.

 

The genuine self is not in space or time. Realization is therefore not

in the mind only.

 

Nisargadatta says... " I am beyond the mind. The mind cannot go beyond

itself by itself. It must explode. The explosive power comes from the

real. You are well advised to have your mind ready for it. When you

realize that all is in your mind, and that you are beyond the mind,

that you are truly alone, then all is you " .

 

 

 

Sri Kuntimaddi Sadananda wrote...

" I can only know my mind and I cannot know other minds "

 

Not true. Mind is one. We all think we have an individual mind, which

is quite private and into which no one can trespass.... but that is

because we are generally unaware that individual mind connects

directly, in a straight-within direction, with universal mind. Some

one who has managed to dive deeply enough in their individual mind and

reached universal mind.... has the same mind as you, shares the same

mind. In reality mind is one, not multiple. Individual minds are

simply branches or terminals of the one universal mind.

 

Just as God knows all, so can you know all, know all minds, if you

dive sufficiently deep into your own mind. Very young children, say a

few months old, have something of that quality of mind.... they see

what is

going on in your mind, although you may not realize that. The problem

is that they do not yet have any language with which to communicate

with you. And by the time they have developed language... they have

lost the power to see inside your mind. So you can never know how an

infant child sees you, unless you remember what you were like yourself

at that age. Most people can not remember that far back.

But those who have managed to remember what they were like at a few

months of age... all say the same thing.... they saw directly into

adults minds, they saw what people were thinking.

 

Sri `Indian Rediff' asked...

" Is there any way to know that someone that is one's teacher is a

'self-realised' one? "

 

A self-realized guru will never humiliate you. That is how they are

recognized.

 

Nisargadatta said.... If you are able to trust and obey,

you will soon find your real Guru, or rather, he will

find you. Mistrust all, until you are convinced. The true

Guru will never humiliate you, nor will he estrange you

from yourself. He will constantly bring you back to the

fact of your inherent perfection and encourage you to

seek within. He knows you need nothing, not even him,

and is never tired of reminding you. But the self-

appointed Guru is more concerned with himself than

with his disciples.

 

Sri " Indian Rediff " asked...

" Does a teacher/guru have to be self-realised to guide others toward

self-realisation? "

 

Naturally it may help, but they are so rare that there is probably

little chance of meeting one. Upon self-realization most simply stay

in silence. They are not teachers. It is said very few teach.

Possibly, you need to discover how recognize your inner guru?

 

Nisargadatta said.... Every sentient being has a guru

within himself. Your own Self is your ultimate teacher

(satguru). The outer teacher (Guru) is merely a

milestone. Only your inner teacher will walk with you

to the goal, for he is the goal. Look within and you will

find him. The greatest Guru is your inner self. Truly, he

is the supreme teacher. He alone can take you to your

goal, and he alone meets you at the end of the road.

Confide in him and you need no outer Guru. It is the

inner Guru who takes you to the outer Guru. Trust and

obey your Guru, for he is the messenger of your real

Self. Your heart will tell you if you have found a Guru

whom you can trust.

 

You are never without a Guru, for he is timelessly

present in your heart. Sometimes he externalizes

himself and comes to you as an uplifting and reforming

factor in your life, a mother, a wife, a teacher. Or he

remains as an inner urge towards righteousness and

perfection. All you have to do is to obey him and do

what he tells you. What he wants you to do is simple:

learn self-awareness, self-control, self-surrender. In the

initial stages you must have an external Guru. That

Guru initiates you with the inner Guru.

 

Even when there is no discoverable outer Guru, there is

always the Satguru, the inner Guru, who directs and

helps from within.

 

Is the finding of a true Guru essential? More essential

is the finding of a true disciple. A true disciple is very

rare, for in no time he goes beyond the need for a Guru,

by finding his own self. Life will bring you a Guru, if

one is needed. Or deprive you of all outer guidance and

leave you to your own lights. It is the teaching that

matters not the person of the Guru. The Guru only tells

you about your real Self, and shows you the way back

to it. The Guru is the messenger. There will be many

messengers, but the message is one: be what you are.

 

Until you realize yourself, you cannot know who is

your real Guru. When you realize, you find that all the

Gurus you had have contributed to your awakening.

Your realization is the proof that your Guru was real.

 

When the Guru feels disciples have sufficient

knowledge on which they can continue their own

search, he tells them to leave. It is not necessary for

them to be physically present. This makes room for

newcomers. The Guru expounds the knowledge to the

disciple and takes him out of the body-mind sense, and

then asks him to fend for himself.

 

The entire universe is your Guru. You learn from everything if you are

alert and intelligent. Were your mind clear and your heart clean, you

would learn from every passer-by.

 

It is natural to move on from one Guru to another. Each

tells you the direction and the distance, while the

Satguru, the eternal Guru, is the road itself. Once you

realize that the road is the goal, and you are always on

the road, not to reach a goal, but to enjoy its beauty and

its wisdom, life ceases to be a task and becomes natural

and simple.

 

 

John Ward

[Guest guest]

Thankyou Sadananda, Durga and Mouna,

I see that a teacher cannot teach by being silent except to perhaps the

most mature of students, but I meant more that if in someone's presence

one experiences one's own being as silence, and is also guided toward

deeper clarity and understanding (of one's true nature) by the

teaching- is that not a sign of a good teacher? I am contrasting that,

I suppose, with a teacher who either has some presence but cannot guide

people skilfully, or has no presence but teaches skillfully- or of

course some presence and some skill but not enough?

I am guessing that you feel not, and the specific rigor of scriptural

teachings and the other aspects are important? That seems to be what I

am learning lately- that there is immense validity and usefulness in

the actual study of Vedanta, which the neo-advaitist teachers I have

come across tend to distinctly distance themselves from.

I am reading a lot about this lately, and some of you (I read some of

your articles Sadananda) are incredibly articulate and lucid, and what

you are saying is resonating with me. At the same time, my brain is

just about frying with all the words, even though I love to read about

it.

 

Susan

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Susan Shobbrook <peela wrote:

>

> Thankyou Sadananda, Durga and Mouna,

> I see that a teacher cannot teach by being silent except to perhaps the

> most mature of students, but I meant more that if in someone's presence

> one experiences one's own being as silence, and is also guided toward

> deeper clarity and understanding (of one's true nature) by the

teaching-

> is that not a sign of a good teacher? I am contrasting that, I suppose,

> with a teacher who either has some presence but cannot guide people

> skilfully, or has no presence but teaches skillfully- or of course some

> presence and some skill but not enough?

> I am guessing that you feel not, and the specific rigor of scriptural

> teachings and the other aspects are important? That seems to be what I

> am learning lately- that there is immense validity and usefulness in

the

> actual study of Vedanta, which the neo-advaitist teachers I have come

> across tend to distinctly distance themselves from.

> I am reading a lot about this lately, and some of you (I read some of

> your articles Sadananda) are incredibly articulate and lucid, and what

> you are saying is resonating with me. At the same time, my brain is

just

> about frying with all the words, even though I love to read about it.

>

> Susan

 

Namaste Susan,

 

I too spent a lot of time with neo-advaita teachers,

(eleven years in fact) before I met my own teacher

of traditional Vedanta six years ago.

 

My teacher is a westerner (as am I), and a highly

trained disciple of Swami Dayananda Saraswati, whom

I feel is probably the best teacher of Advaita/Vedanta

alive in the world today.

 

Above you seem to place a lot of emphasis on the

teacher's 'presence.' This does not surprise me

as neo-advaita is very experience oriented. To

feel the teacher's presence is an experience, isn't

it? This isn't what we are looking for in the teachings

of Advaita/Vedanta. We are not encouraged to gauge

a teacher by his or her 'presence' but rather by the effective

way the teacher uses the words and methods of the Upanishads

as a direct means of knowledge.

 

The reason the neo-advaita teachers whom you come across

distance themselves from traditional teachings, in my

opinion and experience, is that they don't really know

anything about them, and have never been exposed to them.

 

Many of them (also my opinion based on what I've observed)

come from a background of no tradition at all, or they

are trying to claim a tradition by pointing to their

teacher (who also did not have a tradition).

 

They take a basic premise, (which actually has some validity)

that you are already that which you seek, and from that

statement, they will then say, " Because you are already that

which you seek, you don't need to do anything to become

'enlightened,' that any study of the scriptures will only

give you 'concepts' and take you farther away from the goal. "

 

I swallowed this line of reasoning hook, line and sinker

for awhile because I didn't know anything else. The truth is

yes, you are already that which you seek, but the second half

of the statement should be, because you don't know that, you

need to be taught. And the teaching of Vedanta does not

take you farther from the goal. It leads your mind directly

to the goal.

 

For myself, at the end of end of eleven years of listening to

various neo-advaita teachers the one thing I did know

was that I was virtually clueless, but I still didn't

know how completely confused I was.

 

In fact, it was only after I had studied with a traditional

teacher for some time that I saw not only was I clueless,

I was actually really confused on the subject of nonduality

itself because of all the incorrect notions I had garnered

listening to teachers who themselves either did not understand

what they were talking about, or even if they did understand,

they were unable to effectively communicate what they knew to

another person. So my teacher had to spend a lot of time

unraveling the confused notions I had about nonduality.

 

Although everyone comes to the teachings with the usual

confusion of taking themselves to be a body/mind/sense

organs individual, and many may come with confused ideas

about 'enlightenment,' I think that there is a new

(and I would not say improved) confusion abroad which

directly comes from the confused non-teachings of

neo-advaita. Thank the Lord for my teacher's patience,

because I think that some of my notions were new even

to her, and she has been teaching for a long time.

 

The thing about traditional teachings if you boil them down

to their essence is that they are incredibly logical,

and methodical. And it is because of the logic and methods

they employ that they work. They are also designed to

be vast, accessible and inclusive because human beings

are so varied.

 

It is said that the scriptures are like a patient mother,

who can appropriately point out the truth to each of her

children in more ways than one human mind can conceive of.

 

No individual teacher who is untrained can do this.

No individual mind which has arrived at some sort of

understanding of nonduality on its own without a tradition

can do this. Because of the wealth of material which

Vedanta supplies, a talented teacher trained within that

tradition can do this.

 

And at the same time as we speak of the wealth of material

Vedanta can give us, the teachings, the methodology,

the logic, is incredibly simple. It takes the student

step by step, (and that gradual process is very important),

to the direct recognition of my self as the nondual reality

of all things.

 

The neo-advaitin teachers I encountered made it sound as

if 'enlightenment' dropped from the sky, and there was

really nothing one could do to attain it. Vedanta would

not say this is true. So there, we have one very great

difference.

 

It is true that your nature is silence. But the silent

nature which you are is actually experienced at all times.

If you sit with a teacher in silence, and experience

silence, and then get up and 'become' noisy again, then this

seems to me to be experience seeking, seeking to expand

the silence until it becomes permanent.

 

Your own self is already permanently silent. You don't

need to expand it, or dip in and out of it, or maintain it.

If one thinks one can dip in and out of silence or expand it,

then it seems to me that what is happening is that at certain

times your mind is having less thoughts. That is all.

 

The true silent nature of your being is ever present

lighting up every single noisy thought the mind has.

 

If once you have recognized that silence, as distinct from

the thoughts in the mind, then even in the most noisy of times,

you will always be aware of your own silent nature.

 

There are other ways to recognize your own nature other

than by recognizing its silence. You may also look

to see who or what is it that is always changelessly

present to every passing thought, feeling, mood,

emotion and physical experience.

 

You can try to notice that while everything about

'you' changes, there is something about 'you' which does not.

This might be a good exercise for you to undertake,

and for the moment steer you away from silence, and into

looking for something which is changeless.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Susan Shobbrook <peela wrote:

>

> Thankyou Durga, I am humbled by what you have said, and I see that my

> mind is still looking for experiences. This traditional teaching is new

> to me and I am being drawn to it.

> thanks for walking me through those distinctions

> Susan

>

 

Dear Susan,

 

It is normal that your mind is seeking experiences.

It is all that the mind knows how to do. It is through

interpreting experience that we make our way in the world.

 

We all want to be happy. Vedanta will tell us this is

because happiness is our true nature. When the mind

is happy, it feels, " Ah, this is how I am meant to

be. " When the mind is unhappy, it wants to get rid

of that unhappy feeling because unhappiness is like

a foreign entity. It doesn't feel 'right' to be unhappy.

 

How does the happiness equation work? It works like

this. The mind thinks. " I need this (person, situation

or thing) to be a certain way in order for me to be

happy. " The reason the mind thinks like this is that

getting what one wants usually does make one temporarily happy.

So there is logic to the mind's thinking in this way.

The problem is the happiness doesn't last, so one has

to then go out into the creation, and try and get that

happiness back.

 

This can be a never ending process, and most people

never get to the point of questioning it. That is

they never get to the point of seeing its futility

and asking if there is any other way to find happiness.

 

What one really is after is lasting happiness, and

trying to get it from the creation doesn't work because

one cannot get something lasting from circumstances

which change. By their very nature the two do not go

together.

 

When it comes to spiritual seeking we often unwittingly

repeat the same process we have done all our lives because

it is all we are familiar with, and all we know how

to do. Thus we seek an experience, a feeling,

something different, other, and even perhaps more

spectacular than the everyday happiness we experience

by fulfilling a desire within the creation.

 

In fact, this can compound the difficulty, because now

we want something really spectacular! :-)

 

So, experience seeking is natural in every pursuit,

including spiritual pursuits, but the nice thing

is that it can be pointed out, and it can also come

to an end.

 

It comes to an end gradually and overtime when the

mind comes to recognize that 'I' am the true source

of all happiness. When that recognition has occurred

the mind will learn more and more that it no longer

needs to search out happiness in the changing circumstances

of the creation. It no longer needs to act as a vagrant

or a vagabond, going from one thing to another. It rests

with the self, and revels in the self, and knows that my

own true nature is the actual locus of all happiness, and

that 'I' remain as that despite any changing circumstances.

 

I think that it is wonderful that you are interested in

the teachings of Advaita/Vedanta, and I hope that you

soon meet a teacher who has the ability to lead you

to recognize that you are indeed that which you seek.

 

All the best and pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Thankyou Durga, I am humbled by what you have said, and I see that my

mind is still looking for experiences. This traditional teaching is new

to me and I am being drawn to it.

thanks for walking me through those distinctions

Susan

 

<<<I too spent a lot of time with neo-advaita teachers,

(eleven years in fact) before I met my own teacher

of traditional Vedanta six years ago. >>>

[Guest guest]

Dear Susan and All,A little corollary paragraph to wrap-up (maybe...) the question originally posted by Susan.Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna"In fact, you have no measuring rod to identify a guru. Only one thing is possible, a teacher can prove himself a teacher. For this he has to make you see what you have to see, nothing less will make him a teacher. So to find out a teacher is to find exactly the teaching. Whether the person is a teacher or not is not known by how many hours he is spending in the classroom. It is known by whether that person makes you see that you are free. Only then he is a teacher. If you want to make him your teacher you have to go to him, you have to choose him from many. But you have no way to know whether the person is a teacher or not. One who earnestly seeks the knowledge gets the right teacher by Isvara-anugraha (Lord's grace). Mahapurusha-samsraya (being under the tutelage of one who knows) is, therefore, by the grace of the Lord only. Swani Dayananda Saraswati

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote:

>

> Dear Susan and All,

> A little corollary paragraph to wrap-up (maybe...) the question

> originally posted by Susan.

> Yours in Bhagavan,

> Mouna

>

> " In fact, you have no measuring rod to identify a guru. Only one

thing

> is possible, a teacher can prove himself a teacher. For this he has

to

> make you see what you have to see, nothing less will make him a

teacher.

> So to find out a teacher is to find exactly the teaching. Whether

the

> person is a teacher or not is not known by how many hours he is

spending

> in the classroom. It is known by whether that person makes you see

that

> you are free. Only then he is a teacher. If you want to make him

your

> teacher you have to go to him, you have to choose him from many.

But you

> have no way to know whether the person is a teacher or not. One who

> earnestly seeks the knowledge gets the right teacher by Isvara-

anugraha

> (Lord's grace). Mahapurusha-samsraya (being under the tutelage of

one

> who knows) is, therefore, by the grace of the Lord only.

>

> Swani Dayananda Saraswati

>

 

 

Dear Mouna,

 

Nice message, thanks

 

Maybe in the perception of a real teacher, there is nothing anymore

to be " enlightened " , also not the student.

 

There is already a special reason why both meet and see each.

 

Means, some conditions are already fulfilled.

 

Regards,

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

PranAms Susan,

Shri Dennis-ji's website contains a well-written essay by Shri James Shwartz, also a student of Swami Dayananda-ji, concerning neo-vedanta

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/neo_vedanta_swartz.htm

that you may find useful - it covers some of the points that Durga-ji has so brilliantly elaborated in her two-part presentation.

 

Hari OM

Shyam--- On Mon, 12/22/08, Susan Shobbrook <peela wrote:

Susan Shobbrook <peela Re: Advaita 101 - An interview with Swami Dayananda Saraswatiadvaitin Date: Monday, December 22, 2008, 12:33 AM

 

 

Thankyou Sadananda, Durga and Mouna,That seems to be what I am learning lately- that there is immense validity and usefulness in the actual study of Vedanta, which the neo-advaitist teachers I have come across tend to distinctly distance themselves from. Susan

 

 

 

Recent Activity

 

 

9

New MembersVisit Your Group

 

 

Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

 

Y! Messenger

Want a quick chat?

Chat over IM with

group members.

 

 

Special K ChallengeJoin others who are losing pounds.

..

[Guest guest]

Shyam <shyam_md wrote:>> PranAms Susan,> Shri Dennis-ji's website contains a well-written essay by Shri James Shwartz, also a student of Swami Dayananda-ji, concerning neo-vedanta > http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/neo_vedanta_swartz.htmShyam and Susan and All, pranamsHere is a little excerpt of what Mr Shyam consider a well-written essay that, to my eyes, denotes a serious lack of information (and also the article in general displays very judgemental thoughts to diceased teachers even citing their names).I, for oneself, will read this article very carefully...Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna(Excerpt)Ramana Maharshi, who had a profound experience of the Self at the tender age of seventeen, understood the wisdom of sAdhana in so far as he sat in meditation on the Self in caves for twenty years after he was `awakened.' Had he been a Neo-Advaitin he would have immediately advertised satsang and begun instantly enlightening devotees. But he had the wisdom to understand that his epiphany was not the end of it. Had it been he could have returned home, eaten his mother's iddlies and played cricket like any normal seventeen year old Tamil. But in line with the traditional teachings of Shankara he `practiced knowledge' until such time as all the vAsanA-s were reduced to ashes in the fire of Self knowledge (j~nAnam).(End of Excerpt)

[Guest guest]

PranAms Shri Mouna-ji

I am not sure what you mean by a "serious lack of information"? It is a mere essay, certainly not an authoratative thesis.

 

The excerpt you have highlighted talks about how Bhagwan Ramana had a profound out-of-body experience, perhaps non-different from nirvikalpa samadhi, and subsequently developed severe vairAgya and withdrew himself to the caves of Arunachala to immerse himself in tapas like any other Master would - akin to Yajnavalkya, a knower, who gives profound instructions in BrahmavidyA as even as he is preparing to withdraw himself to the forest - vidvat sannyasa - as vividly described in our Upanisadic passages (Br.Up). What (I find) Mr.Shwartz is doing here is contrasting the conduct of a Realized Master, a one-in-a-million Maharshi, with the dime-a-dozen-new-Age Gurus that one finds today talking about the "effortless stillness of Being" and the like.

 

In any case this essay is only one person's viewpoint - one can take from it what one finds useful in terms of information.

 

PranAms

Hari OM

Shyam

 

--- On Tue, 12/23/08, Mouna <maunna wrote:

Mouna <maunna Re: Advaita 101 - An interview with Swami Dayananda Saraswatiadvaitin Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 2:06 PM

 

 

Shyam <shyam_md wrote:>> PranAms Susan,> Shri Dennis-ji's website contains a well-written essay by Shri James Shwartz, also a student of Swami Dayananda-ji, concerning neo-vedanta > http://www.advaita. org.uk/discourse s/trad_neo/ neo_vedanta_ swartz.htmShyam and Susan and All, pranamsHere is a little excerpt of what Mr Shyam consider a well-written essay that, to my eyes, denotes a serious lack of information (and also the article in general displays very judgemental thoughts to diceased teachers even citing their names).I, for oneself, will read this article very carefully...Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna(Excerpt)Ramana Maharshi, who had a profound experience of the Self at the tender age of seventeen, understood the wisdom of sAdhana in so far as he sat in meditation on the Self in caves for twenty years after he was `awakened.' Had he been a Neo-Advaitin he

would have immediately advertised satsang and begun instantly enlightening devotees. But he had the wisdom to understand that his epiphany was not the end of it. Had it been he could have returned home, eaten his mother's iddlies and played cricket like any normal seventeen year old Tamil. But in line with the traditional teachings of Shankara he `practiced knowledge' until such time as all the vAsanA-s were reduced to ashes in the fire of Self knowledge (j~nAnam).(End of Excerpt)

[Guest guest]

Namaste DurgaJi,Thank you for your comments.Unfortunately I will not comment about Mr Schwartz because he is not present at this forum (at least I assume that), but I needed to point out what I considered a lack of information (Bhagavan Ramana's "enlightenment" and "sadhana"), no matter in which tone it had been done. Bhagavan Ramana clearly stated through time that his "experience" (for lack of a better word for the moment) was final. The egoic aspect of the mind, or the identification with chidabhasa if you want, was gone, evaporated... not to come back again. His vasanas were reduced to ashes at that moment, or at least the "binding vasanas", because as you well know EVERYBODY has vasanas, even Jnanis (talking from from this side of Maya anyway). So, no sadhana was ever performed after that, it was the Absolute accomodating It/Her/Himself through that 17 year old boy (this is poetic language of course, you understand, right?). He spent decades in caves because that's what happened, not because he decided. Are we able to see the difference? Bhagavan never "practised knowledge" (I'm almost smiling at this one). If someone asked, he spoke, if not, he didn't. As simple as that.Now, although already much talked about it, a few thoughts on Neo-Advaita and this article.Many months back, there was an article in "What is Enlightenment " magazine about Neo-Advaita. The article made a clear parallel with the Neo-Nazi movement, even graphically. That's why I don't like much this word, but will use it because otherwise I'll be contributing to the confusion. (I prefer Advaita as teached by non-traditional non-indian teachers, but it's soooo long!!)Sometimes I have the feeling that Neo-Advaita touches a nerve of its traditional parent. I always wonder why one sees sooo many angry reactions against those teachers that pervert our youth taking them to the wrong path! (a little joke of mine)Part of the problem is that everybody is kind of right at the same time.Neo-Advaitins, with their simplicity, point to the Absolute Brahman without even knowing what that word means, but some of them pointing in the right direction anyway. I really think that some of the Neo-Advaita teachers I've met have a clear notion of what they are talking about, they "live" it, and can transmit it very well, the only thing is that it's (maybe) a Course for Advanced Students, not for the general seeker public, that's why a lot of people have "states" and then... well, we all know about the "then I lost it...", right? On a side note, as a very dear friend of mine pointed out, for many westerners, that's the only possibility to reach a non-dual or teaching, since they won't have the opportunity to come across an indian traditional teacher ever, and if they did, the western conditioning about religion in general (orange robes, images of gods, etc..) will cover their perception.So the problem, like they say in America, is to throw the baby with the bath water. Many articles against Neo-Advaita do that.DennisJi book (Enlightenment the path through the jungle) seems a good start to view this phenomenon in its totality, although from my perspective, it is still harboring a little bit the Traditional Flag. (Dennis, don't read me wrong, I really enjoyed and learned from your book.)Neo-advaita is a phenomenon, and it's here to stay, we want it or not.A phenomenon that goes with our times, everything fast, easy and cheap but that doesn't mean that Self-Knowledge HAS to necessarily be a long and a hard process either, specially for the mind that was already prepared "lives" ago. It happens that maybe many of those saddhus and sadhakas of past jenmas, now they were born in an inducive medium (capitalist/materialistic/atheist western hemisphere) due to their samskaras to receive the final blow to their identification with the body from the hands of a "caucassian british, or american, non-sanyassin" teacher!. You can't deny that this is a possibility, right? even if it sounds completely off from a traditional point of view.The funny thing about all this, dear DurgaJi, is that if someone comes with a full blow against Traditional Advaita and its Teachers, then I will put my Traditional Costume and defend them as harshly as I may defend many of the so-called Neo-Advaita Teachers that to my eyes, are wrongly misunderstood. The Big Problem is, as always: generalization, lack of information and least but not last, identification with the Mind!The movie is on, and after all, the curtain is not drawn yet for this act that we are all performing here. Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna

[Guest guest]

Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> PranAms Shri Mouna-ji

> I am not sure what you mean by a " serious lack of information " ?

 

Pranams Shri ShyamJi,

 

I was " kind of waiting " for your posting to arrive.

I just finished a post where I explain my point of view in relation to

the excerpt I posted with the " lack of information " .

I might address this recent post of yours subsequently.

 

Thanks,

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri SHyamJi,>> The excerpt you have highlighted talks about how Bhagwan Ramana >had a profound out-of-body experience, perhaps non-different from nirvikalpa samadhi.I doubt that many of the people that have near death experiences come back with the notion that the "I" is permanent, eternal, all pervading, that it is our essential nature and from then on one is permanently abiding in it!>What (I find) Mr.Shwartz is doing here is contrasting >the conduct of a Realized Master, a one-in-a-million Maharshi, >with the dime-a-dozen-new-Age Gurus that one finds today talking >about the "effortless stillness of Being" and the like. I read some other articles from this author, specially one on Upadesa Saram, where he clearly depicts Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi as a Yogi that teached the Yogic Path!! Not because he wasn't one (also), but it is so limiting, wouldn't you agree?. About the "effortless stillness of Being", Shyamji, tell me, what's wrong about that notion? I find it's a perfect description of Sahaja Samadhi.> In any case this essay is only one person's viewpoint - one can take >from it what one finds useful in terms of information.I definitely agree with you in this point, although the only difference is that I wouldn't endorse it as a piece of information to anyone else, due to it's... "lack of right information".Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna

[Guest guest]

Dear All:

Some errors in my last posting.

First, please read James Swartz and not James Schwartz.

Second, the article I made reference to (erroneously said to be Mr

Swartz on Upadesa Saram) was mainly about " Who Am I " (another of

Bhagavan's Ramana Upadesas) in the general frame of an interview, and

anyone interested may find it here:

 

http://www.shiningworld.com/Books%20Pages/HTML%20Books/Ramana%20Maharshi%20Raman\

a%27s%20Teachings.htm

 

Thanks,

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

Susan Shobbrook - PraNAms

 

In the Dennis website there are some 24-27 lectures on the Introduction to

vedanta - that provides the back ground info. There is 'Manual of Self

unfoldment " by Swami Chinmayanandaji - very good introductory book where all the

terms are well defined.

 

Hope this helps.

Sadananda

 

--- On Tue, 12/23/08, Susan Shobbrook <peela wrote:

 

Susan Shobbrook <peela

Re: Advaita 101 - An interview with Swami Dayananda

Saraswati

advaitin

Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 9:05 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for that link, Shyam- I am finding it interesting to read the

" downside " of neo-advaita and I can resonate with some of it.

 

Mouna, thankyou for what you have said- at this point, and I am new to

the more traditional perspective- it does seem to me that there are

generalizations occurring regarding neo-advaita, and also simply mis

information and judgements.   However I will leave it at that because

at this stage, I am broadening my understanding by just listening.

 

 

 

I have a question though....does anyone have any suggestions for where

to " start " with learning more about Vedanta. I am reading Dennis's Back

to the Truth, since my library has it. I have read some articles on his

website too.  I also have a book on the Upanishads recommended on

Dennis's site. Has anyone here done the basic e-vedanta course on the

Chinmaya site? 

 

thanks

 

Susan

 

(in Australia)

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Susan Shobbrook <peela wrote:

 

>

> I have a question though....does anyone have any suggestions for where

> to " start " with learning more about Vedanta. I am reading Dennis's Back

> to the Truth, since my library has it. I have read some articles on his

> website too. I also have a book on the Upanishads recommended on

> Dennis's site. Has anyone here done the basic e-vedanta course on the

> Chinmaya site?

> thanks

> Susan

> (in Australia)

 

Dear Susan,

 

Are you in Sydney perhaps?

 

If so, there is a teacher I

can recommend for you who

teaches there:

 

http://srivasudevacharya.org/

 

Vasudevacharya was trained by Swami Dayananda to teach.

He is a westerner by birth. I met him last year when

I visited Australia, when Swami Dayanandaji was there,

and I liked him very much. He has a great sense of

humor!

 

I also have a couple of other ideas for you which I

will send to you off-list.

 

All the best,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Thanks for that link, Shyam- I am finding it interesting to read the

"downside" of neo-advaita and I can resonate with some of it.

Mouna, thankyou for what you have said- at this point, and I am new to

the more traditional perspective- it does seem to me that there are

generalizations occurring regarding neo-advaita, and also simply mis

information and judgements. However I will leave it at that because

at this stage, I am broadening my understanding by just listening.

 

I have a question though....does anyone have any suggestions for where

to "start" with learning more about Vedanta. I am reading Dennis's Back

to the Truth, since my library has it. I have read some articles on his

website too. I also have a book on the Upanishads recommended on

Dennis's site. Has anyone here done the basic e-vedanta course on the

Chinmaya site?

thanks

Susan

(in Australia)

[Guest guest]

Susan Shobbrook <peela wrote:> > I have a question though....does anyone have any suggestions for where > to "start" with learning more about Vedanta. I am reading Dennis's Back > to the Truth, since my library has it. I have read some articles on his > website too. I also have a book on the Upanishads recommended on > Dennis's site. Has anyone here done the basic e-vedanta course on the > Chinmaya site? Dear Susan,I am still at almost the very same stage you are regarding the "listening", but what worked for me since I joined the List (year and a half ago) was mainly what could complement the Teachings of my Guru, Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, from the Traditional Advaita Vedanta point of view.What I found of great value (besides this incredible List postings) is Sri Sadananda's "Introduction to Vedanta" in Dennis' site, and specially the comprehensive teaching that Swami Paramarthananda gives in his website, on lecture form, (downloadable mp3s) of Adi Shankaracharya's Atma Boddha (although in the website is called Introduction to Vedanta), here is where to find these talks:http://www.vedantavidyarthisangha.org/(scroll to the bottom of the page and click the link "For Previous 4 Talks Click Here...." this will take you to the talks page, the last one is the series called: Introduction to Vedanta).Needless to say, Swami ParamarthanandaJi is one of the most methodically clear teachers of the new generation, being a direct disciple of Swami Dayananda. Also funny in a very peculiar way, but mainly a solid rock when it comes to Teaching. All talks are in English.Swami Dayananda's talks and commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita and Adi Shankara's Vivekachudamani are also an invaluable source of Advaitic Teachings.There are many videos in You Tube of Swami Chinmayananda and Swami Dayananda.Interesting your remark, because one day I was about to follow the E-Vedanta course but I couldn't continue the registration, I suddenly understood "intuitively" that it wasn't for me... but it seems that it worked for many people...OK, enough postings for the day, hoping the respected moderators will waive me the fact that I wrote so many postings, taking so much space!!Pranams to All.Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna

[Guest guest]

Thanks, I am on the other side of Australia unfortunately.

Susan

 

> Dear Susan,

>

> Are you in Sydney perhaps?

>

> If so, there is a teacher I

> can recommend for you who

> teaches there:

>

> http://srivasudevacharya.org/

[Guest guest]

Thanks Mouna, that will keep me going a while!

Susan

 

> What I found of great value (besides this incredible List postings) is

> Sri Sadananda's " Introduction to Vedanta " in Dennis' site, and specially

> the comprehensive teaching that Swami Paramarthananda gives in his

> website, on lecture form, (downloadable mp3s) of Adi Shankaracharya's

> Atma Boddha (although in the website is called Introduction to Vedanta),

> here is where to find these talks:

> http://www.vedantavidyarthisangha.org/

> (scroll to the bottom of the page and click the link " For Previous 4

> Talks Click Here <http://www.vedantavidyarthisangha.org/talks.html>

> .... " this will take you to the talks page, the last one is the series

> called: Introduction to Vedanta).

> Needless to say, Swami ParamarthanandaJi is one of the most

[Guest guest]

> --- On Tue, 12/23/08, Susan Shobbrook <peela wrote:

>

> Susan Shobbrook <peela

> Re: Advaita 101 - An interview with Swami

Dayananda Saraswati

> advaitin

> Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 9:05 PM

..................

> I have a question though....does anyone have any suggestions for

where

> to " start " with learning more about Vedanta. Has anyone here done

the basic e-vedanta course on the

> Chinmaya site?  > thanks> Susan> (in Australia)

 

Pranams Susanji,

I did have the chance to complete the basic e-Vedanta course of CIF (

Chinmaya international Foundation) and found it very interesting and

useful in improving my understanding. If you are starting you will

find it helpful.

Regards and God Bless

Mohan

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Susan-ji, I too have completed basic e-vedanta course of

Chinmaya Mission (CIF). I found that the course is designed to build

up the knowledge " systematically " and it helps in reflection immensely

because the questions are designed to bring out the essence and make

you think a lot. I had heard many of those vedantic concepts in

various discourses before but after joining it I understood their

significance in big scheme of things and I developed better

appreciation for them. The course brings " clarity " in knowledge. I

highly recommend it.

Salutations,

Padma

advaitin , " smnm1010 " <smnm1010 wrote:

> > to " start " with learning more about Vedanta. Has anyone here done

> the basic e-vedanta course on the

> > Chinmaya site?  > thanks> Susan> (in Australia)

>

> Pranams Susanji,

> I did have the chance to complete the basic e-Vedanta course of CIF

> Chinmaya international Foundation) and found it very interesting and

> useful in improving my understanding.

> Mohan

>