NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shyam-ji,

There tends to be a certain circularity in the arguments used by you.

Sravana is essential because that is the Vedic way. It is the Vedic way

because it incorporates Sravana as a central method. Other methods which

do not incorporate sravana directly are thereby not Vedic. Taking

examples which are clearly not within the Vedic path eg. Buddha and Kabir,

do not advance this argument as no one is promoting the idea that their

methods are universal. The suggested assimilation of the ‘Who Am I’

inquiry to these is purely rhetorical and without substance.

 

Sravana then has been made into a measure of utility and an exclusionary

principle. This seems excessive. Of course it is true that one will not

be very long with any swami or guru without a mahavaka being mentioned.

I’m not sure however that this fits Shyam-ji’s desideratum. He possibly

has some more formal circumstance in mind. Yes we are all fond of the

usages of our apprenticeship but that should not blind us to different

ways. The Bhagavad Gita mentions Jnana, Bhakti and, Karma as paths. No

one would deny that the principle behind the mahavakas is implicit to all

of these paths.

 

In the discussion of sravana in B.S.B. IV.i.1/2 Shankara mentions many

texts in which ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ is related to other key texts. The idea is

that the totality of the understanding of the Mahavaka may be accessed by

the cumulative understanding of several of these texts. They help to

clear the fog of ignorance, doubt and, confusion. The clarification of

the concepts comes but slowly. It is a gradual process of the discarding

of superimposition.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nair-ji,

 

It may well be in some cases that Bhagavan meant " easier " , one would have to

check the context. In general Bhagavan used the term in contrast to

" indirect " , for example:

 

D.: What is the difference between meditation and enquiry into the Self?

 

M.: Meditation is possible only if the ego be kept up. There is the ego

and the object meditated upon. The method is indirect. Whereas the

Self is only one. Seeking the ego, i.e., its source, ego disappears.

What is left over is the Self. This method is the direct one.

(Talks: 174)

 

In essence, Bhagavan regarded those practices which included seeking the

source of the 'I-Thought' as " direct " . All practices which did not include

an investigation into " I " and its source he regarded as " indirect " .

 

Hence the practice of self-inquiry, " Who am I? " , was referred by Bhagavan

himself as 'the direct path'.

 

The investigation " Who am I? " is common to all people - men, women, children

and devotees of all faiths and none. People drawn to Bhagavan need not give

up their own spiritual tradition in order to practice it. Testimony

suggests that many people from different faiths become more devoted to their

own path and spiritual practice after meeting with Bhagavan. In fact just

like Kanchi paramacharya, Bhagavan believed devotees need not change their

religion to reach liberation and that the one light of Truth shone through

all the great teachers, spiritual traditions and in the hearts of All.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

>

> advaitin

> [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Madathil Rajendran Nair

> 02 April 2009 12:53

> advaitin

> Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

>

> Namaste Peter-ji.

>

> By the word 'direct', Bhagawan could have meant 'easier'

> only. Definitely, he was not labelling anything as different

> from the vedantic mainstream.

>

> Otherwise, our teachers like Chinmayanandaji, Dayanandaji et

> al wouldn't have spent so much time on his teachings. The

> latter has great admiration and respect for Bhagawan. I had

> been fortunate once to sit right in front of him and listen

> to his melodious rendering of Upadesasaram by-heart! His

> preoccupation with Bhagawan, I have heard, once made a

> hardened Ramanite to wonder in a western mag if Swamiji

> planned to 'own up' Bh. Ramana completely!

>

> Pranams.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ______________

[Guest guest]

--- On Thu, 4/2/09, Peter <not_2 wrote:

 

M.: Meditation is possible only if the ego be kept up. There is the ego

and the object meditated upon. The method is indirect. Whereas the

Self is only one. Seeking the ego, i.e., its source, ego disappears.

What is left over is the Self. This method is the direct one.

(Talks: 174)

 

 

Peter - even in the advaita - the meditation is not the means of knowledge -

meditaion resolves the meditator and meditated into one - that is the

sublimation of ego.

 

aham dhyaata param dhyeyam akhanDam khaDate katham? - says Shree Dattaatreya in

the Avdhuuta Gita. - How can you divinde that I am the meditator and this has to

be meditated upon - that which is indivisible. That is what nidhidhyaasana

should lead to.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Indeed, Sadaji -

 

I think this shows the link between nididhyasana and Bhagavan Ramana's

'self-inquiry'. Which is why, I imagine, profVK-ji ask this question in the

first place. Sri Ramana was quite clear that self-inquiry was not

'meditation'.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by " even in advaita " ? I hope haven't given the

impression that 'self-inquiry' is something different from advaita!

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

>

> advaitin

> [advaitin ] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi sadananda

> 02 April 2009 15:39

> advaitin

> RE: Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

>

>

>

> --- On Thu, 4/2/09, Peter <not_2 wrote:

>

> M.: Meditation is possible only if the ego be kept up. There

> is the ego and the object meditated upon. The method is

> indirect. Whereas the Self is only one. Seeking the ego,

> i.e., its source, ego disappears.

> What is left over is the Self. This method is the direct one.

> (Talks: 174)

>

>

> Peter - even in the advaita - the meditation is not the means

> of knowledge - meditaion resolves the meditator and meditated

> into one - that is the sublimation of ego.

>

> aham dhyaata param dhyeyam akhanDam khaDate katham? - says

> Shree Dattaatreya in the Avdhuuta Gita. - How can you divinde

> that I am the meditator and this has to be meditated upon -

> that which is indivisible. That is what nidhidhyaasana should lead to.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

>

> ---

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- On Thu, 4/2/09, Peter <not_2 wrote:

 

-

 

I think this shows the link between nididhyasana and Bhagavan Ramana's

'self-inquiry' . Which is why, I imagine, profVK-ji ask this question in the

first place. Sri Ramana was quite clear that self-inquiry was not

'meditation' .

 

I'm not sure what you mean by " even in advaita " ? I hope haven't given the

impression that 'self-inquiry' is something different from advaita!

 

Peter - PraNAms

 

I belief Self-inquiry could lead to advaita if it is done properly - In that

sense - understanding what and how to inquire are not different. The rest is how

much one is commited to it- boils down to Shraddhaa.

 

Krishna addresses this in one form -

kleshodikaraH teshaam ..

it is direct but very difficult for those whose minds are not tuned. This is

what adhikaaritvam or qualification of the mind for that pursuit required. That

is all.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

It has nothing to do with this thread. But I thought of sharing with you a

practical way of understanding advaita taught to me as a practical exercise by

my teacher...

 

1) Chose a partner who is totally willing to help you in your quest

2) Chose a quite place where you both are not disturbed

3) Take a pen and paper

4) Ask your partner to keep asking you the question " who are you? " with at

least one minute gap... AND absolutely no other words... only a single and

straight forward question " who are you? " has to repeatedly come from him/or/her

5) Watch out the reaction in yourself... At first your ears receive the

question, your eyes gaze the questioner and your mind tries to assimilate the

question and your intelect leaps to respond...

 

STOP IT THERE... and Stop the intellect don't let your intellect decide who you

are... ask it to rest... SLOW DOWN.. and now turn your gaze inwards (avruta

chakshu) and feel the energy at your Anahata Chakra... It is there the Vayu is

vibrating and the seed word " YAM " ... YAM is a question " Yam brahma varunEndra

rudra marutaH stunvaMti divaiH stavaiH " ... That YAM responds to the world from

Anahata it goes to Visuddha to become an expression..

 

Don't go to Vishuddha... just watch the energy at the Anahata ... Feel who you

are .... Who are you?! Now open your eyes... write down who you think you

are... then look at what you wrote and then say it loud to your partner. Then

he/she will ask you the question again " who are you? " ...

 

Ask your partner to repeat this question till you fail to answer anymore...

Where the answer fails you... only you can observe the silence...

 

I must humbly say this is one of the exercises that helped me immensely in

sadhana. Those who are sincere this exerecise gives a great divine

understanding.

 

Love & Light,

Madhava

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, " Peter " <not_2 wrote:

>

>

> A minor correction, if I may: I did not write that you implied " who am I? "

> is a mindless repetition. The word " mindless " is your addition to my words.

> Should I also ask you to read my post again, carefully?

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

>

>

> --- On Thu, 4/2/09, Peter <not_2 wrote:

>

> -

>

> I think this shows the link between nididhyasana and Bhagavan Ramana's

> 'self-inquiry' . Which is why, I imagine, profVK-ji ask this question in the

> first place. Sri Ramana was quite clear that self-inquiry was not

> 'meditation' .

>

> I'm not sure what you mean by " even in advaita " ? I hope haven't given the

> impression that 'self-inquiry' is something different from advaita!

>

> Peter - PraNAms

>

> I belief Self-inquiry could lead to advaita if it is done properly - In that

sense - understanding what and how to inquire are not different. The rest is how

much one is commited to it- boils down to Shraddhaa.

>

> Krishna addresses this in one form -

> kleshodikaraH teshaam ..

> it is direct but very difficult for those whose minds are not tuned. This is

what adhikaaritvam or qualification of the mind for that pursuit required. That

is all.

>

 

Namaste,

 

The word used by Sri Ramana is 'ArjavAt' - Upadesha Saram, verse 17.

 

The dictionary definition i:

 

1 Arjava mfn. (fr. %{Rju} g. %{pRthvAdi} Pa1n2. 5-1 , 122) , straight ;

honest , sincere Katha1s. ; m. N. of a teacher VP. ; (%{am}) n. straightness ,

straight direction Sa1h. ; rectitude , propriety of act or observance ; honesty

, frankness , sincerity ChUp. A1p. Gaut. MBh. R. Mn. & c.

 

So commentators choose one of these words!

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Dear Peter-ji,

You commented on Shyam-ji’s post:

 

<<

>> What I have outlined is a fact - that an intellect

- itself a product of avidyA - cannot -

>> without recourse to an independent and valid means

of knowledge - ever by any amount

>> of viveka - arrive at the transcendental truth that

will ablate its own self-ignorance.

 

This is not " a fact " . This is a

view. It is an advaitin view. Other spiritual traditions have quite

different views about the transcendental truth and its attainment which

they also call " facts " .

>>

 

This is an interesting point. Logically, it *would*

appear to be a ‘fact’. If you accept that the seeker’s

problem is one of self-ignorance, the only remedy is ‘Self-knowledge’.

From where is this knowledge to come? The seeker already *is* the

non-dual brahman; he/she experiences this every night in deep sleep. There is

the need for a source of knowledge and a means of knowledge. Can these possibly

arise without scriptures and/or a qualified teacher? That ‘I am the

non-dual brahman’ is counter-intuitive when I seem to experience duality

everywhere. Maybe I experience unity in deep meditation but this rapidly dissipates

on returning to the normal waking state. Certainly pratyakSha (perception) cannot

be a suitable pramANa. Can anumAna (inference)? I think you are forced to agree

that only shabda pramANa (scriptural or verbal) fits the bill.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Pranams,

****

Nair-ji

“Refernece (1) below. Why this haste to label something a 'methodology' and then discard certain things as external to it?â€

 

My point is the other way around. I would much rather accept Ramana’s teachings very much as part of a traditional Vedantic approach with an emphasis on Vedanta. It is some of Ramana Maharishi’s followers (certainly not Peter or anyone on this List) who perhaps believe/tend to label his teachings as a new or different method called vichara marga without recognizing that its basis has been outlined in the beginningless Vedas.

 

“When we say the upanishads were not authored, we probably only mean that they were spontaneous revelations of Consciousness which ancient sages could tap into.â€

 

Rather than give you my explanation I will ask you to please read through the words of the Sage of Kanchi as to what we mean by the term apaurusheya when referencing the Vedas.

http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2008/03/vedas-anadi-and-apaurusheya.html

 

“no harm in accepting Bhagawan's words as pramANa as much as the upanishads and incuding him in the hierarchy of vedantic teachers beginning with Dakshinamurthi.â€

 

A crucial word of caution here - Every Realized Master has transcended his Ego and so is verily tapping into the same pool of Consciousness. Accepting everyone of the statements of everyone of those Masters as pramana will only leave us as seekers in a myriad of so-called "pramanas" some of which may be visible contradictory to each other.

 

Centuries ago in the the Brahmasutra bhashyas themselves have this interesting dialog about self-realized Seers such as Sage Kapila – the opponent argues that since not everyone has access to (or can understand) the Shruti and since Realized Ones like Kapila have an “unobstructed vision of the Truthâ€(literal translation) we can equally accept their point of view since what they wrote was “composed with exclusive reference to perfect knowledge as the means of final releaseâ€â€“ this is Bhagwan Shankara’s reply:

 

--Nor can we assume that some persons are able to perceive supersensuous matters without Sruti, as there exists no efficient cause for such perception. Nor, again, can it be said that such perception may be assumed in the case of Kapila and others who possessed supernatural powers, and consequently unobstructed power of cognition. For the possession of supernatural powers itself depends on the performance of religious duty, and religious duty is that which is characterised by injunction; hence the sense of injunctions (i.e. of the Veda)which is established first must not be fancifully interpreted in reference to the dicta of men 'established' (i.e. made perfect, and therefore possessing supernatural powers) afterwards only. Moreover, even if those 'perfect' men were accepted as authorities to be appealed to, still, as there are many such perfect men, we should have, in all those cases where the Smritis contradict each other in the manner described, no other means of final decision than an appeal to Sruti.--As to men destitute of the power of independent judgment, we are not justified in assuming that they will without any reason attach themselves to some particular Smriti; for if men's inclinations were so altogether unregulated, truth itself would, owing to the multiformity of human opinion, become unstable. (Brahma Sutra Bhashya 2.1.1)

 

Here, we can see that generally, Shankara does not accept the authority of Realized sages who themselves do not recognize the Vedas as ultimately authoritative, nor does he favor relying on their revelations(termed Smrti) as an independent means of arriving at Selfknowledge, no matter how exalted or revered their position be.

 

May I know whether our impersonal resources proclaim anywhere in their body that they are the only and absolute pramANa?

 

The fact that Shastra/Shruti is an independent pramana is found in the ancient Manu Smrti itself:

 

'Perception, inference, and the Shastra(i.e.Veda) - this triad is to be known well by one desiring clearness in regard to right - He who applies reasoning not contradicted by the Veda to the Veda and the Smriti doctrine of law, he, and no other, knows.' (Manu Smriti XII, 105, 106).

 

****

Peter-ji

“The issue is not whether Bhagavan Ramana called the method of self-inquiry "my method…..Bhagavan did refer to it as the "direct" method."

 

I am not sure what exactly is your position – are you positing that Bhagwan Ramana’s method is very much part and parcel of the traditional Vedantic approach, or is it a new, direct path that is propogated/authored by Him? This issue very much boils down to whether Bhagwan Ramana Himself called this a novel method or not, or is this something his followers felt/propogated? Can you enlighten us (and I mean this sincerely and respectfully) as to whether in any of his writings, Ramana Maharishi, in referring to Vedanta/Upanishads, indicated that what he was teaching was new/better/different than what was presented there? or has he alternatively indicated that a study of the Upanishads is not necessary? What has his quoted position been?

 

[be careful with quotes that talk about “Scriptures†because often times that term can refer to the karmakanda/ritualistic portion of the Vedas – as an example many people are fond of misquoting even Bhagwan Krishna(traigunya vishaya veda nistraigunyo bhava Arjuna) and saying that He asked us to go beyond the Vedas!]

 

This is not "a fact" . This is a view. It is an advaitin view. Other spiritual traditions have quite different views about the transcendental truth and its attainment which they also call "facts".

 

I respectfully disagree. There is a tree in front of you and you are blindfolded. Removing the blindfold will automatically enable you to see the tree. That is because the eyes will relay the sight of the tree to you – there is no choice in the matter. It is not a matter of belief. It is not one point of view! On the contrary if you refuse to acknowledge this fact and prevent someone from removing the blindfold, or worse even after the blindfold has been removed keep your eyes tightly shut, and insist that a]there is no way for you to see – that the experienced darkness is the sole reality OR b]without removing the blindfold you will be by yourself, without open eyes, be able perceive the tree - then those can certainly be characterized as “beliefs.â€

So what the Shruti states is a pramana for self-knowledge – “tat tvam asi†or “aham brahmasmi†is quite simply a statement of fact about a jivA’s identity – the Shruti is not asking you to believe in it – it is quite simply stating a fact – your ability to understand/absorb/abide OR reject is in your hands. In fact jivanmuktas like Ramana are living proofs of principle of this fact, if any be needed.

 

“Are we to believe that while he was considered a Jnani capable of explaining scriptural questions and points of practice to the learned and un-learned alike he was still ignorant of the points you are making here?â€

 

I am afraid you are missing the point of my post. The point is Peter-ji that different Masters through the ages have presented seemingly contradictory points of view. A Buddhist may ask you to consider that if Buddha was a jnAni would he have been still ignorant that Consciousness is Brahman? Similarly a dvaitin may ask that if MadhavAcharyA a spiritual giant was a jnAni would he still have been ignorant of the polemic arguments that advaita advances in understanding Vedanta? I am afraid this line of questioning does not get us anywhere. Please again see my ref to the BSBhasya where the opponent makes a similar line of argument to Bhagwan Shankara about KapilAchArya. I think your question would be valid ONLY if you contend that the Maharshi Himself felt that his method of Atma vichara was novel/different from/ an improvement upon the Shruti – that which has always been

handed down across generations from beginningless time as BrahmavidyA in the tradition of Sanatana Dharma.

 

****

Michael-ji

 

“Namaste Shyam-ji,There tends to be a certain circularity in the arguments used by you. Sravana is essential because that is the Vedic way. It is the Vedic way because it incorporates Sravana as a central method. Other methods which do not incorporate sravana directly are thereby not Vedic.â€

 

I am not sure I am following you here. The Upanishad says Atma Vaare Shrotavyah Mantavyah.. iti. Which Vedic way do you know of (or contend) allows one to bypass the shravana as the primary means to jnAnaprapti? and how?

 

Pranams to all

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam--- On Thu, 4/2/09, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisadaRE: Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiryadvaitin Date: Thursday, April 2, 2009, 10:38 AM

 

 

--- On Thu, 4/2/09, Peter <not_2 (AT) btinternet (DOT) com> wrote:Peter - even in the advaita - the meditation is not the means of knowledge - meditaion resolves the meditator and meditated into one - that is the sublimation of ego.

 

 

 

Recent Activity

 

 

5

New Members

 

1

New FilesVisit Your Group

 

 

 

Give Back

for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.

 

Y! Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

 

 

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

..

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

 

 

Namaste,

 

This excerpt is from Sri Ramana's Introduction to his Tamil

translation of Vivekachudamani:

 

 

http://www.tattvaloka.com/Shankara%20Jayanthi/viveka%20chudamani.pdf

 

" ....To fix the mind firmly in the heart until these forces are destroyed and to

awaken with unswerving, ceaseless vigilance the trend and cognate tendency which

is characteristic of the Atman and is expressed by the saying: Aham Brahmasmi (I

am Brahman), and Brahmaivaham (Brahman alone am I) is termed nididhyasana or

Atmãnusandhana, that is constancy in the Self. This is otherwise called bhakti,

yoga and dhyana.

Atmãnusandhana has been compared to churning curds in order to make butter, the

mind being compared to the churn, the heart to the curds, and the practice of

concentration on the Self to the process of churning. Just as butter is made by

churning the curds and fire by friction, so the natural and changeless state of

nirvikalpa samadhi is produced by unswerving vigil and concentration on the

Self, ceaseless like the unbroken flow of oil. This readily and spontaneously

yields that direct, immediate, unobstructed, and universal perception of

Brahman, which is at once knowledge and experience and which transcends time and

space........

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shyam-ji,

Just to make my point a little clearer. You

seem to be focusing on sravana on its own as primal whereas others combine

the three, Sravana, Manana and Nidhidhyasana in a sequence together. May

I quote:

" There are three methods of learning, namely Sravana that is to listen,

Manana that is to think over again and Nididhyasana that is to assimilate.

In these three levels of learning, they installed Saraswati, Bharati and

Ida. You have now recognised that these three names are three parts of the

same aspect. Truly what you have listened to cannot be well acquired and

assimilated only by just listening. You have to do some Manana or think it

over and then you have to absorb what you have listened to and this is

Nididhyasana. If you do all three - listen, think over and absorb, then

only you can enjoy the fruits of what you have listened to. " (Sathya Sai

Baba)

 

I remember when this came up before I asked if there was ever anyone who

had achieved enlightenment on just hearing the mahavaka alone. No one

then was able to come up with a reliable legend even.

 

In B.S.B. IV.i.2; " That being so, one false constituent may be discarded

at one attempt at comprehension, and another at another. In this sense

the dawn of a conception in a progressive manner becomes justifiable " .

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

--- On Thu, 4/2/09, Shyam shyam_md

 

I think Shyamji has brought out very important points relating to pramANa.

 

First and foremost why we consider Upanishads or Vedanta as pramANa - and not the teaching of any particular individuals, however great that sage is. We respect the sage, we get inspired by the sage - But for pramANa we accept all the teachings of any sage as long as they are in tune with Vedanta. If the teaching deviates from the scriptures, then we discard that part since Vedanta alone is the ultimate pramANa. We do not even accept the smRities if they deviate from Vedanta.

 

Having said that from what I have studied of Bhagavaan Ramana, there is no deviation from Vedanta. In fact the more I am dwelling in Sat DarshaNam, the more Vedanta coming to life - recognizing the fact is I am coming from Vedantic background to appreciate it.

 

I must also tell you frankly, that I even appreciate JK and Nisargadatta Maharaj - particularly those aspects that are in tune with Vedanta.

 

Would I have appreciated this without the study of Vedanta? To answer that - Let me say I was first exposed to JK teaching and was completely lost since I have no idea of how to uncondition my mind and you cannot ask him the method of how since that will be, according to him, is another conditioning. I ended up becoming an agnostic or even an atheist. I ended up throwing even JK books since they did not make any sense any more. Only when my wife dragged me to Swami Chinmayanandaji class one day in spite of my resistance, and after listening to him, my outlook for Vedanta and of course life itself changed.

 

The bottom line from my point is - I could appreciate and dwell in the beauty of Sat Darshanam that Ramana shows because the mind has been prepared for that vision. I can see no conflict between his teaching and any prakarana grantha in advaita Vedanta.

 

Frankly from my experience - study of Ramana's text and even Nisargadatta maharaj - I am that - should be considered as Nidhidhyaasanam - and not for beginner students - the contents need to be meditated upon to see the unity of oneness underlying all. Otherwise, there is a possibility to get derailed in the pursuit, in some cases.

 

There is a law - everybody finds the right teacher at the right time. My exposure to JK was instrumental for my appreciation of Vedanta too and my appreciation of JK later after the requisite background of Vedanta is also in order. During the coming camp on Sat Darshanam, I know it is not me that will be doing the text - Bhagavaan himself will be expressing through this feeble instrument - I can see that teaching coming to life as I am preparing for the camp. Words fail to express that feeling.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

I did not mean to be amusing or flippant. I am coming from the spirit of the

famous statement of Wittgenstein you yourself posted few months ago on this

list: Whereof you cannot speak there of you must be silent. As you well know

Ramana's preferred teaching was by silence and the next best thing is inquiry

and surrender. Inquiry always leads to surrender. Peter has explained very well

the possible confusion of Who am I. Basically it is not an intellectual answer

one is looking for. The point is thought cannot capture that which is beyond

thought. At some point it has to realize and stay put and abide in the stillness

or being or whatever you call the substratum. One uses words to describe it to

others but the word is not the thing.

(Recall the metaphor of salt doll diving into water)

 

Even in science the so called materialistic or objective endeavor great

breakthroughs of creativity happen only when the mind goes into a state of

abeyance after deep inquiry. If that is true of science what can we say of

vedanta whose whose purpose is self-knowledge. I get the feeling that on this

list vedanta has become mostly an intellectual affair.

 

Alan Watts used to say that the eastern philosophies are not philosophies in the

sense of western philosophies, they are more like transformative

psychotherapies.

 

The Guru can only take the horse to the water but the horse has to drink the

water. In this case we are submerged in the water and we are the water and

searching for water.

 

Bhaja Govindam is always safer than Neti Neti since the latter seems to become

dukrui karane in spite of Sankara's admonition.

 

Suren

 

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Suren-ji and Michael-ji,

>

> Regarding your amusing (but slightly flippant) comments on Shyam-ji's

> statement, I think you are missing the point. I believe it was Swami

> Chinmayananda who said that (without guidance from a qualified teacher), the

> only likely answer to repeated asking of the question 'Who am I?' was " the

> same old fool " .

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

>

>

> advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

> Of surenirukulla

> Wednesday, April 01, 2009 5:03 AM

> advaitin

> Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

>

>

>

> Namaste Shyamji,

>

> It's like saying memorizing and studying Kama Sutra is the means to

> understand Kama whereas actually experiencing kama can be misguided exercise

> in futility. I once heard a quip about Vatsayana that he never slept with a

> woman.

>

> WORD IS NOT THE THING and MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY is a well known adage.

>

> Suren

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Sreenivasaji:

 

Your point is well taken. My point in stating what I did was to

observe that the living embodied teacher was not the ONLY

way for one to achieve Self-realization. Part of the beauty

of the Divine Lila is that It is not limited to one melody, but

many variations on the theme. My intention was not

to exclude but to expand. So do let me correct myself

to acknowledge that Grace can surely appear in the form of

a living embodied teacher. Thank you for your observation and

clarification. With warm and respectful regards to you :-)

 

In His Service,

 

Radhe

 

 

From :H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

Are Grace and a living embodied teacher two different and

distinct entities? Is it not that Grace which is none other than

Self and which is one's own true nature appears as the living

embodied teacher as well as the living embodied mumukshu?

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Appreciate your thoughts and feelings.

 

But, can't it be the other way around for another person - he listens first to

Bhagawan and then finds corroboration in Shankara or the Upanishads? Why this

extra emphasis on the pramANa matrix which admittedly is very contradictory

without the help of an interpreter whereby the interpreter seems to become the

ultimate pramANa?

 

For example, I began to appreciate vedanta through the words of one of Sw.

Dayanandaji's disciples. The initial texts included the Upadesha Saram. Before

he took up UD, we had just done only Tattwabodha. Even then, UD appealed to me

as in tune with Shankara whom I had then known only very sparaingly.

 

The only explanation for this seems to be past samskAra. If that is the case,

then do we have to set geographical, ontological and epistemological boundaries?

What happens to us can happen anywhere on this globe, any time, past, prsent or

future, or, for that matter, on any planet in this vast Universe. Aren't we,

therefore, being chauvinistic with our preferences?

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

> I think Shyamji has brought out very important points relating to pramANa.

>  ........................>  

> There is a law - everybody finds the right teacher at the right time. My

exposure to JK was instrumental for my appreciation of Vedanta too and my

appreciation of JK later after the requisite background of Vedanta is also in

order. During the coming camp on Sat Darshanam, I know it is not me that will be

doing the text - Bhagavaan himself will be expressing through this feeble

instrument - I can see that teaching coming to life as I am preparing for the

camp. Words fail to express that feeling.  

[Guest guest]

GRACE is ever present.. only depending on our receptivity the intensity , the source , the place ,etc varies .. Has Shakespear not found " Books in running brooks , Sermons in stones and Good in everything " ....

 

Pranams

 

ramesh

--- On Fri, 4/3/09, Radhe <shaantih wrote:

Radhe <shaantihRe: Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiryadvaitin Date: Friday, April 3, 2009, 6:13 AM

 

 

Dear Shri Sreenivasaji:Your point is well taken. My point in stating what I did was toobserve that the living embodied teacher was not the ONLY way for one to achieve Self-realization. Part of the beauty of the Divine Lila is that It is not limited to one melody, but many variations on the theme. My intention was not to exclude but to expand. So do let me correct myselfto acknowledge that Grace can surely appear in the form of a living embodied teacher. Thank you for your observation andclarification. With warm and respectful regards to you :-)In His Service,RadheFrom :H.N.Sreenivasa MurthyPranams to all.Are Grace and a living embodied teacher two different anddistinct entities? Is it not that Grace which is none other than Self and which is one's own true nature appears as the living embodied teacher as well as the living embodied

mumukshu?

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

For me there are a couple of issues here. Overall - I accept " the view " of

Advaita, which is why am I a student.

 

Within 'the view' I don't need (or feel " forced " ) to accept anything or

everything as facts. Good working propositions are good enough, so there is

clearly also a factor of shradda (faith) here, for me, mixed with intuition.

Also, my knowledge is limited and subject to revision, therefore, what

appears 'a fact' today I may see in a different light tomorrow.

 

Your own response to the issue is with the use of logic, i.e., - " Logically,

it *would* appear to be a 'fact'. "

 

With logic we can support and prove the legitimacy of our views to others

providing the other party accepts the premises. When everybody accepts the

premises as established facts and when the logical deductions are also

accepted as valid then collectively we may well refer to the conclusions as

facts.

 

When people accept the logic but disagree with the premises, or don't regard

the premises to be established facts, then our views and deductions are

likely to be considered as opinions, convictions and or beliefs (tradition

or just personal).

 

In your own 'proposals' (from your mail below) there are a number of

premises from which you start and which are there to justify your

conclusion. Other traditions may well not accept your premises.

 

All I am saying is that different spiritual traditions may well start with

different premises ( views ) about the nature of the individual, world and

God and have different notions as to what is Transcendental Truth, the

spiritual path and goal. What they regard as 'facts' may not be accepted as

such by other traditions. For some traditions 'wisdom' arises from 'within'

and is not dependent on scripture or verbal means of knowledge, though these

may help. For other traditions 'knowledge' and 'intellect' are merely

conceptual and will ever remain so - for them devotion and surrender are

'the means', & so on.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

________________________________

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On

Behalf Of Dennis Waite

02 April 2009 16:57

advaitin

RE: Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

 

 

 

Dear Peter-ji,

 

You commented on Shyam-ji's post:

 

 

 

<<

 

>> What I have outlined is a fact - that an intellect - itself a

product of avidyA - cannot -

 

>> without recourse to an independent and valid means of knowledge -

ever by any amount

 

>> of viveka - arrive at the transcendental truth that will ablate

its own self-ignorance.

 

 

 

This is not " a fact " . This is a view. It is an advaitin view.

Other spiritual traditions have quite different views about the

transcendental truth and its attainment which they also call " facts " .

 

>>

 

 

 

This is an interesting point. Logically, it *would* appear to be a

'fact'. If you accept that the seeker's problem is one of self-ignorance,

the only remedy is 'Self-knowledge'. From where is this knowledge to come?

The seeker already *is* the non-dual brahman; he/she experiences this every

night in deep sleep. There is the need for a source of knowledge and a means

of knowledge. Can these possibly arise without scriptures and/or a qualified

teacher? That 'I am the non-dual brahman' is counter-intuitive when I seem

to experience duality everywhere. Maybe I experience unity in deep

meditation but this rapidly dissipates on returning to the normal waking

state. Certainly pratyakSha (perception) cannot be a suitable pramANa. Can

anumAna (inference)? I think you are forced to agree that only shabda

pramANa (scriptural or verbal) fits the bill.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dear Suren-ji,

There is much in what you say and I appreciate that you have

thought seriously about this. Nevertheless, I would make two points. Firstly, I

have posted before on the idea of ‘teaching through silence’. I accept

Swami Dayananda’s statement to the effect that this is effectively a

mistranslation of Sanskrit and does not literally mean this at all (since it

would be contrary to reason and advaita is never contrary to reason). Secondly,

you speak disparagingly of vedAnta having become ‘mostly an intellectual

affair on this list’. As I pointed out earlier, enlightenment *is*

in the mind; effectively it *is* intellectual (although, of course,

direct and immediate and not in the negative sense in which we usually

understand the term). Without effective transmission of self-knowledge (i.e.

ideally by a qualified teacher unfolding shruti), self-ignorance cannot be

removed.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of surenirukulla

Friday, April 03, 2009 1:34 AM

advaitin

Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

 

 

 

 

 

 

<<As

you well know Ramana's preferred teaching was by silence and the next best

thing is inquiry and surrender.>>

<<

Basically it is not an intellectual answer one is looking for. The point is

thought cannot capture that which is beyond thought. At some point it has to

realize and stay put and abide in the stillness or being or whatever you call

the substratum. One uses words to describe it to others but the word is not the

thing.>>

[Guest guest]

Dear Peter-ji,

I certainly agree with much of what you say. Other traditions certainly

have their own approaches and many professed advaitins pursue devotional and

other methods and believe that these will take them ‘all the way’.

What I was trying to do was to circumvent all of this and cut

straight to the key point. I don’t actually think that I did make any

unsupported premise.

If the statements of advaita are true, then we are already

brahman. This being the case, then all that we can say is ‘but I do not *know*

this to be true’. I.e. there is Self-ignorance. It then follows,

doesn’t it, that to remove this, we must gain Self-knowledge?

You say: “With logic we can support and prove the

legitimacy of our views to others

providing the other party accepts the premises. When everybody accepts the

premises as established facts and when the logical deductions are also

accepted as valid then collectively we may well refer to the conclusions as

facts.”

It seems to me that the premises are unarguable and the

deductions valid. If the statements of advaita are in fact false, then any

other approach than the gaining of self-knowledge is equally futile. But,

whereas other methods (such as bhakti) would simply lead nowhere, presumably

the gaining of self-knowledge would at least revel that futility?

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shyam-ji,

 

I think we are in agreement in quite a number of important places. It's

certainly possible, as you suggest, that I may have missed your point in

some areas. The reverse is also possible. Thank you for taken the time to

explain further, especially as writing thoughtful and considered replies can

be rather time consuming.

 

You ask:

 

>> I am not sure what exactly is your position - are you positing that

Bhagwan

>> Ramana's method is very much part and parcel of the traditional Vedantic

>> approach, or is it a new, direct path that is propogated/authored by Him?

 

 

I don't distinguish Bhagavan Ramana's teaching from Vedanta which itself

includes a number of traditions which have varying viewpoints. I observe

that a few people who are unfamiliar with Advaita Vedanta believe Bhagavan

is teaching something 'new'.

 

Your own view was:

 

>> I doubt the Maharshi would have Himself liked his method to be called

" new " or " direct " ...<<

 

I only went on to point out he did indeed call atma-vichara " the direct

method " . Bhagavan maintained that each teacher will likely find his own way

of expressing the same 'truths'. He saw unity in teachings where others saw

only diversity, so I doubt he regarded himself as saying anything 'new', as

such.

 

With regards to the difference between 'facts' and 'views' you replied:

 

>> I respectfully disagree. There is a tree in front of you and you are

>> blindfolded. Removing the blindfold will automatically enable you to

>> see the tree. That is because the eyes will relay the sight of the tree

>> to you - there is no choice in the matter. It is not a matter of belief.

 

>> It is not one point of view!

 

This (and the explanation that followed) is not quite the assertion you had

originally made. Your original assertion was:

 

>> What I have outlined is a fact - that an intellect - itself a product of

avidyA - cannot -

>> without recourse to an independent and valid means of knowledge - ever by

any amount

>> of viveka - arrive at the transcendental truth that will ablate its own

self-ignorance.

 

Please see my reply to Dennis-ji on this question.

 

You ask if there are any quotes from Bhagavan on the Scriptures. These are

varied and, I believe, dependent on the temperament and developmental stage

of the enquirer. He did seem to often stress that the most important thing

was to discover 'the true nature of the seeker' over and above accumulating

intellectual knowledge or having 'experiences'. Here is a passage from

" Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi " which I believe is no different to what

Sankaracharya states in Vivekacudamini. Clearly the first sentence in Sri

Ramana's reply is the one to be understood.

 

D.: One of the stanzas says that the scriptures so scrupulously studied

in the earlier stages are ultimately of no use. At what stage do they

become useless?

 

M.: When their essence is realised. The scriptures are useful to indicate

the

existence of the Higher Power (the Self) and the way to gain it. Their

essence is that much only. When that is assimilated the rest is useless.

But they are voluminous, adapted to the development of the seeker. As

one rising up in the scale finds the regions one has passed to be only steps

to the higher stage, and so on, the steps ascended become purvapaksha

successively until the goal is gained. When the goal is reached it

remains alone, and all the rest becomes useless. That is how the

sastras become useless. We read so much. Do we remember all that

we read? But have we forgotten the essentials? The essential soaks

in the mind and the rest is forgotten. So it is with the sastras.

(Talks; 63)

 

Best wishes

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> I remember when this came up before I asked if there was ever anyone who

> had achieved enlightenment on just hearing the mahavaka alone. No one

> then was able to come up with a reliable legend even.

>

 

namastE!

 

There is a story about Janaka achieving enlightnment by hearing the mahavakya

alone. It seems Janaka requested his teacher Yaajnavalkya to give him

enlightenment. Yaajnavalkya said he could do it but he wants first a

gurudakshina. Janaka was willing to give anything as gurudakshina (donation to

the teacher) for an instant enlightenment. Yaajnavalkya asks Janaka to mount

the horse so that they can go to the forest. Janaka was about to get on to the

horse and Yaajnavalkya stops him and says " GIVE ME YOUR MIND AS GURUDAKSHINA " ...

Janaka opens his mouth to declare " I here by give offer my mind to you as guru

dakshina " ... But the story says that Janaka felt so silent he last all

consciousness the moment he closed his eyes and started declaring " I.... " he

never finished his statement it seems... he achieved what we traditional schools

consider as " Manolayam " ... complete merging of the mind.. when the mind is

gone... what remains is... THAT THOU ART...

 

Love & Light,

Madhava

[Guest guest]

PraNAms to all

 

There is interesting sloka in the VivekachUDAmani. I am quoting from memory.

 

avijnaate pare tatve shaastrAdIstu niShpalaa|

vijnaatepi pare tatve shaastrAdIstu niShpalaa||

 

The sloka essentially means - if one has not used Shaastras properly for the

realization of the supreme then that study of the Shaastras is useless.

If one has used the Shaastras properly and realized, the Shaastras have done

their job and any further study is also useless.

 

Shastraas come to life only in the hands of a proper teacher that is what

shraddhaa involves - shaastrasya guruvaakyasa satya buddhyaavadhArana saa

shraddhaa.

 

One is ultimately led to a proper teacher - that is the law.

 

Ultimately it is the teaching and the complete faith in that teaching that

counts. Everything else is building up the requisites for the knowledge to take

place.

That is my understanding.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

--- On Thu, 4/2/09, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

 

The only explanation for this seems to be past samskAra. If that is the case,

then do we have to set geographical, ontological and epistemological boundaries?

What happens to us can happen anywhere on this globe, any time, past, prsent or

future, or, for that matter, on any planet in this vast Universe. Aren't we,

therefore, being chauvinistic with our preferences?

 

---

Nariji - PraNAms

 

Agreed.

 

There is also a law - every law has exceptions and also exceptions do not make a

law.

 

The discussion is only from the point of normal - what should be generic pramANA

or means of knowledge to go by as reference. One should have faith in a

particular teacher and what he teaches is in accordance with scripture - is the

correct attitude.

 

The problem comes only in cross communication between students of one teacher

with that of other. If there are contradictions, for that Shaastra only becomes

the ultimate pramANa.

 

The problem that we have is the same Shaastras are interpreted differently by

different aachaaryaas or darshanikaas.

 

We are back to square one - the ultimately back to proper teacher who can

interpret properly.

 

Hence in Avadhuuta Gita in the first sloka itself Shree Dattatreya says -

Iswraanugraahat eva pumsaam advaita vaasanaa - only by the grace of god only a

person will have inklings towards advaita Vedanta (here Vedanta is ultimate

knowledge)

 

I think SureSwara discusses this in his Naiskarmaya Siddhi - do not remember the

exact slokas. Every teacher has his puurvapaksha and siddhaanta - then how do we

know what you are teaching is more correct.

 

This is where - Shaastra, yukti and anubhava come as sequence in support besides

the faith in a teacher. The teaching should also be logically self-consistent.

 

Having said all this - the ultimate truth is - It is only by the grace of God

one is lead to a proper teacher.

 

Accept your teacher and follow the goal pointed out by him with full faith and

one will reach that goal. The problem comes only if one teaches and says not to

follow me, we run into problem as JK does and sometimes can lead to confusion

for a beginner - His teaching also OK if one understand

uddhare atmanaa aatmaanam - one has to lift oneself by oneself - but that

requires a prepared mind. After saying that sloka in the 6th chapter, Krishana

in the 7th chapter says, BUT those who surrender to me, I will uplift them!

Surrenderence of one EGO is the essence in all teachings.

 

Hari Om!

sadananda

[Guest guest]

Madhava-ji wrote:

 

On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:07:05 +0100, Madhava Turumella

<madhava wrote:

 

> advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>>

>> I remember when this came up before I asked if there was ever anyone who

>> had achieved enlightenment on just hearing the mahavaka alone. No one

>> then was able to come up with a reliable legend even.

>>

>

> namastE!

>

> There is a story about Janaka achieving enlightnment by hearing the

> mahavakya alone. It seems Janaka requested his teacher Yaajnavalkya to

> give him enlightenment. Yaajnavalkya said he could do it but he wants

> first a gurudakshina. Janaka was willing to give anything as

> gurudakshina (donation to the teacher) for an instant enlightenment.

> Yaajnavalkya asks Janaka to mount the horse so that they can go to the

> forest. Janaka was about to get on to the horse and Yaajnavalkya stops

> him and says " GIVE ME YOUR MIND AS GURUDAKSHINA " ... Janaka opens his

> mouth to declare " I here by give offer my mind to you as guru

> dakshina " ... But the story says that Janaka felt so silent he last all

> consciousness the moment he closed his eyes and started declaring " I....

> " he never finished his statement it seems... he achieved what we

> traditional schools consider as " Manolayam " ... complete merging of the

> mind.. when the mind is gone... what remains is... THAT THOU ART...

>

> Love & Light,

> Madhava

 

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

Namaste Madhava-ji,

That's a great story and I have no difficulty accepting

the idea of sudden enlightenment. Yes I know we are always enlightened

and have never been otherwise.....However this 'alteration' in Janaka was

not due to a mahavaka but more to the sudden shock of the Master's

demand. They may come to the same thing but what is being asserted is

that the mahavaka is the sole key.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

 

 

 

--

Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Guest guest]

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

> You seem to be focusing on sravana on its own as primal whereas others combine

the three, Sravana, Manana and Nidhidhyasana in a sequence together.

 

I remember when this came up before I asked if there was ever anyone who had

achieved enlightenment on just hearing the mahavaka alone. No one then was able

to come up with a reliable legend even.

>

Michael.

 

 

Hari Om Shri Michaelji, Pranaams!

 

naiShkarmyasiddhi Chapter II (verses 2-4)

 

pUrvapakShi:

 

krtsna anAtma nivrttau ca kashcit Apnoti nirvrtim.

shruta-vAkya-smrteH ca anyaH smAryate ca vacaH aparaH..2..

 

etat prasa~ngena shrotr antara upanyAsam ubhayatra api sambhAvanAya Aha.

 

vAkya-shravaNamAtrAt ca pishAcakavad ApnuyAt.

triShu yAdrcchhikI siddhiH smAryamANe tu nishcitA..3..

 

One attains liberation when the entire not-self gets removed(i); another person

by remembering the sentence heard by him(ii); and someone else by being made to

remember the sentence..2..

 

In this context, the case of another hearer is mentioned with a view to show

that in both ways (the rise of knowledge) takes place.

 

Also, by the mere hearing of the text, as in the case of pishAcaka(iv); one

attains it. The attainment (of liberation) is accidental in three cases(i, ii &

iv); but in the case of one who is made to remember(iv), there is certainity of

attainment.

 

i. Viraj of brhadAraNyaka (1.4.1-2)

ii. Brghu of taittrIya (Valli III)

iii. shvetaketu of Chandogya (Chapter VI)

iv. A legend. (A certain person by name pishAcakA owing to purity of mind,

attaining the knowledge just by hearing the mahAvAkya.

 

siddhAnti

 

na ayam anaikAntika hetuH. yataH..

 

sarvaH ayam mahimA jneyaH vAkyasya eva yathA-uditaH.

vAkyArthaM na hi ete vAkyAt kashcit jAnAti tattvataH..4..

 

This (sentence) is not the variable cause For:

 

It should be known that the entire power (of producing this knowledge) belongs

to the sentence itself, as stated. Indeed, no one can really know the meaning of

the sentence in the absence of the sentence..4..

 

Translation by Dr. R. Balasubramanian.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya