Traditional Advaita and Neo- Advaita Traditional Advaita, as taught by the Adi Shankaracharya, has sadhana requirements. Not everyone will be accepted into the Saraswati Order. Most people won't have access to the initiation performed for the Sannyasin of the Saraswati tradition. However, although the Shankaracharya adheres to the Advairta Vedanta, at the same time they all worship the Divine Mother - Sri Vidya, and that is why they are termed Saraswati - they are Sri Vidya proponents.
Ramana Maharshi changed all that - he established the Direct Path teachings. He taught that realization is open to everyone, and that a long series of preparatory studies was not a requirement that the non-dual Reality be realized. MMY seems to agree with much that Ramana Maharshi has said, as do Poonja, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Papaji, Atmananda Krishna Menon, Swami Chinmayananda, and Ramesh Balsekar. On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Richard Williams <pundits...@gmail.com>wrote: > > Because there has to be duality before a "subject" (you, for example) > > can speculate about an "object". The One has to divide for that to > > happen; and so the One + the subject + the object = three terms. > > *Everything* depends on that Original Trinity. > > > The original trinity was probably invented by the Indo-Europeans who > migrated into India from Persia. One of the oldest systems to explain > duality were the adherents of the ancient "Samkhya" sect, one of the > so-called Six Systems of Indian Philosophy; The Sanskrit word "samkhya" a > word which pertains to number - the three gunas and the 32 tattwas, > constituents of nature, etc. Samkhya is probably the oldest and most > widespread system explaining the basic duality - it spread to China (Tao) > and the Far East (yin-yang). It might correctly be said that Samkhya is the > oldest dualism philosophy - it's even mentioned in the Rig Veda and in the > Zen Avesta. > > In Advaita philosophy "AUM" (not to be confused with the the monosyllable > OM) is frequently used to represent or symbolize the three subsumed into > one; a triune; a common theme in Hinduism since ancient times. The use of > symbolic AUM implies that our current existence is characterized by "maya", > or a falsehood - an appearance only. And that in order to go beyond sensing > a mere appearance, we must know the full truth that is "transcendental" to > the body, mind, or intellect. In MMY's advaita, we comprehend the true > nature of the absolute, Purusha. > > All the authors of the Upanishads were of the transcendentalist > persuasion. Transcendental knowledge is essentially a realization (Sanskrit > "moksha") - a state of realization where one can not only see but know the > absolute existence and to become it: you know, (Sanskrit "jnana") existence > for what it really is. When one gains true knowledge (Sanskrit "vidya") - > there is no split between the knower and known: one becomes > knowledge-consciousness itself. So AUM, like the auspicious hand-sign > (Sanskrit "mudra") is in essence, the signifier of the ultimate truth. > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:13 PM, <s3raph...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Re "Why is it so difficult for you to understand the one, before you go >> off speculating on the three? ": >> >> Because there has to be duality before a "subject" (you, for example) can >> speculate about an "object". The One has to divide for that to happen; and >> so the One + the subject + the object = three terms. *Everything* depends >> on that Original Trinity. >> >> >> Let Uncle Aleister explain: >> >> >> The Chinese, like ourselves, begin with the idea of "Absolute Nothing." >> They "make an effort, and call it the Tao;" but that is exactly what the >> Tao comes to mean, when we examine it. They see quite well, as we have >> done above, that merely to assert Nothing is not to explain the Universe; >> and they proceed to do so by means of a mathematical equation even simpler >> than ours, involving as it does no operations beyond simple addition and >> subtraction. They say "Nothing obviously means Nothing; it has no >> qualities nor quantities." (The Advaitists said the same, and then >> stultified themselves completely by calling it One!) "But," continue the >> sages of the Middle Kingdom, "it is always possible to reduce any >> expression to Nothing by taking any two equal and opposite terms." (Thus n >> + (-n) = 0.) "We ought therefore to be able to get any expression that we >> want *from*Nothing; we merely have to be careful that the terms shall be >> precisely opposite and equal." (0 = n + (-n). This then they did, and >> began to diagrammatize the Universe as a pair of opposites, the Yang or >> active male, and the Yin or passive Female, principles. - (Aleister >> Crowley) >> >> >> > >
