Re: [FairfieldLife] Advaita is about inherent freedom
We are not getting much help from emptybill, or anyone else on the list, for a definition of the Sanskrit term maya and what it meant for the Shankara tradition of Advaita Vedanta, so it looks like it's up to me to post the explanations. Maya is in fact, indescribable, a superimposition on Brahman, the real. I'm pretty sure SBS didn't read Vivekananda's books or writings so let's start with SBS on maya. According to SBS, maya is a fact in that it is the appearance of phenomena. Since Brahman is the only truth, maya is true but not the real truth, the difference being that the truth is the truth forever while what is true is only true for now. Brahman is Light - it needs no other illumination to reveal it. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: Richard, this brings to mind one of my favorite passages from Maharishi's SBAL: ...identification is not bondage. What is bondage is inability to maintain Being along with identification while indulging in experience and activity. pg 238 On Monday, January 20, 2014 9:50 AM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: Share: This brings to my mind Maharishi's teaching that knowledge is different in different states of consciousness... Things and events - phenomena - are not real, yet not unreal either. They are like an illusion in that they are not exactly as they appear to be, yet they are real in the sense that they are presented to us as illusion. So, it would not be correct to say that phenomena are unreal; they are simply dream-like because phenomena can't be known or experienced without an intermediary something - we call it 'consciousness'. We do not experience phenomenon directly, but through the lens of the senses, which change the objects of perception. Dreams are real because they are dreams. Something that is unreal is something that never existed, a figment of the imagination for example. But quite often people see with double vision simply because they have a mote in their eye, or they see the horns of a hare when in reality, there are no horns on a rabbit. Duality is only an appearance; non-duality is the real truth. The object exists as an object for the knowing subject; but it does not exist outside of consciousness because the distinction of subject and object is within consciousness (GK IV 25-27). Work cited: 'Dispelling Illusion' Gaudapada's Alatasanti by Douglas A. Fox State University of New York Press, 1993 Read more: 'Gaudapada' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudapada On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: emptybill, thanks for your clarity here. This brings to my mind Maharishi's teaching that knowledge is different in different states of consciousness. Purusha Prakriti realization seems to be a GC experience to me whereas the experience of moksha as one's basic nature seems more like Unity. A friend is on a retreat where they are discussing three stages of Brahman: basic, refined and Wholeness or holiness. Mind boggling to me! On Sunday, January 19, 2014 4:35 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: A popular view of Advaita Vedanta (sometimes an accusation) is that it is Maya-vada ... the doctrine that everything is mere Maya. This is a classical misrepresentation that began with Ramanuja (11th Century head of the Sri Vaishnava-s) and continues down to today. Probably one reason for the misunderstanding is that different teachers presented alternate explanations of the Brahma Sutras. In essence, they held contrary preconceptions. Another reason is that discussions about the nature of Maya became continuous in debates between Advaita scholars. This led to the belief that “Maya talk” was the core of Advaita. The reality is that Advaita is more accurately call Brahma-vada, the teaching about Brahman. It uses the principal Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita as a threefold authoritative Vedic source. However, leading up to the 14th Century, the Yoga Sutras became an alternate source for understanding the *path* to realize Brahman. By the middle of the 14th-15th Century, this view so infiltrated Advaita Vedanta that the works of Shankaracharya Swami Vidyâranya (who wrote Pañchadâši and Jivanmuktiviveka) presumed that students of Advaita followed a yogic path to realize Brahman. The modern proponent of this view was Swami Vivekananda. MMY just continued that mode – which included the division of the Bhagavad Gita into three topical sections, a theme also found in Sri Aurobindo Ghose. Scholars now call this interpretation “Yogic Advaita” - an interpretation that is more about yoga and less about Advaita Vedanta. Perhaps more perplexing for those studying Advaita, the concept of “enlightenment” (so over-popularized) was borrowed from the Buddhists – and is neither Yogic nor Vedantic. The Yoga Sutras, in fact, do not even propose yoga as a
Re: [FairfieldLife] Advaita is about inherent freedom
Share: I've heard that when tamas guna dominates, maya is a covering over reality Vedanta is all about how to pierce the veil of maya in order to know the transcendent truth. Maya is a perception as fact - the appearance of phenomena through the constituents of nature, the three gunas. In the field of nature Brahman appears as God, the divine magical power of the Supreme Goddess Saraswati. In Sri Vidya there is no difference between the bija mantra and Saraswati herself. According to Brooks, The srividya, because it consists of indestructible seed syllables (bijaksara) rather than words, transcends such mundane considerations as semantic meaning. Accordingly, a bija-only mantra is not merely esoteric but inherently superior. Because it is purely seed-syllables [bijasaras] is the purest form of mantra. It does not make a request or praise god, it is God's purest expression. Gayatri is great but it cannot match srividya because it is still in language; it is Veda and mantra but when transformed into the srividya its greatness increases. Only he who sees that all activities are performed by the body (field), which is created of material nature, and sees that the Self (Knower of the field) does nothing, sees aright (B.G. 13, v 30). Works cited: Auspicious Wisdon The texts and traditions of Srividya Sakta Tantrism in South India. by Douglas Renfrew Brooks SUNY 1992 p. 95 'Bhagavad-Gita As It Is' by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada Bhagavad Gita, Ch. 13, Verse 30 On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: Richard, I've heard that when tamas guna dominates, maya is a covering over reality; when rajo guna dominates, maya is a veil; but when sat guna dominates, maya is actually a means to ultimate reality. What do you think? On Monday, January 20, 2014 9:40 AM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: A popular view of Advaita Vedanta (sometimes an accusation) is that it is Maya-vada... Maybe you lost them, but you have to begin with a definition of the term maya - which I already posted: maya is neither real nor unreal, nor both, nor neither. Maya is not an illusion or something that is not real, because even an illusion is presented to us. Maya is actualy a superimposition on the real. So, maya is not real but not unreal. It's like a zen koan: Daibai asked Baso: `What is Buddha?' Baso said: `This mind is Buddha.' Mumon's Comment: If anyone wholly understands this, he is wearing Buddha's clothing, he is eating Buddha's food, he is speaking Buddha's words, he is behaving as Buddha, he is Buddha. This anecdote, however, has given many pupil the sickness of formality. If one truly understands, he will wash out his mouth for three days after saying the word Buddha, and he will close his ears and flee after hearing `This mind is Buddha.' Under blue sky, in bright sunlight, One need not search around. Asking what Buddha is Is like hiding loot in one's pocket and declaring oneself innocent. This Mind is Buddha: http://www.ibiblio.org/zen/gateless-gate/30.html On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 4:35 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: A popular view of Advaita Vedanta (sometimes an accusation) is that it is Maya-vada ... the doctrine that everything is mere Maya. This is a classical misrepresentation that began with Ramanuja (11th Century head of the Sri Vaishnava-s) and continues down to today. Probably one reason for the misunderstanding is that different teachers presented alternate explanations of the Brahma Sutras. In essence, they held contrary preconceptions. Another reason is that discussions about the nature of Maya became continuous in debates between Advaita scholars. This led to the belief that “Maya talk” was the core of Advaita. The reality is that Advaita is more accurately call Brahma-vada, the teaching about Brahman. It uses the principal Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita as a threefold authoritative Vedic source. However, leading up to the 14th Century, the Yoga Sutras became an alternate source for understanding the *path* to realize Brahman. By the middle of the 14th-15th Century, this view so infiltrated Advaita Vedanta that the works of Shankaracharya Swami Vidyâranya (who wrote Pañchadâši and Jivanmuktiviveka) presumed that students of Advaita followed a yogic path to realize Brahman. The modern proponent of this view was Swami Vivekananda. MMY just continued that mode – which included the division of the Bhagavad Gita into three topical sections, a theme also found in Sri Aurobindo Ghose. Scholars now call this interpretation “Yogic Advaita” - an interpretation that is more about yoga and less about Advaita Vedanta. Perhaps more perplexing for those studying Advaita, the concept of “enlightenment” (so over-popularized) was borrowed from the Buddhists – and is neither Yogic nor Vedantic. The Yoga Sutras, in fact, do not even propose yoga as a goal but rather
Re: [FairfieldLife] Advaita is about inherent freedom
To reiterate - the term maya in Advaita Vedanta is not real, yet not unreal; it is neither both nor neither. Maya in Advaita Vedanta is real in the sense that it is presented to us, but not real in the absolute sense. According to Shankara, maya is a superimposition on the real. Apparently there are no Vedanta scholars posting to this list, so lets just break it down and make it simple for people to understand: TM practice is yoga - based on the tantras and not on the Advaita Vedanta. MMY did not emphasize the notion that maya is illusion - that notion would be totally counter-productive for ordinary householders. Shankara's Advaita Vedanta is based on Sri Vidya and Kashmere Trika. It is a restatement of Buddhist Vijnanvada, which takes the ultimate reality to be pure consciousness, vijnana in Sanskrit. Liberation or moksha is release by aquiring vidya - knowledge. The term advaita in Sansrit means not-two - nondual idealism. Advaita Vedanta is the identity of the true Self, Atman, which is pure consciousness. Excerpt from vijnApti matratA siddhi by vasAabAndhu: Reality is Pure Conciousness; external objects do not exist outside thought. Reality can be directly realized by transcending the subject-object duality. (vimshAtika-Vrtti on kArikA 1 - Sharma). So, let's review what we know: The first historical proponent of Advaita Vedanta was the Adi Guru, Shri Gaudapadacharya, the teacher of Shankara and his teacher, Shri Govindacharya. Gaudapadacharya composed the Mandukya-Karika, the first treatise on non-dual consciousness, in which three states of consciousness are enumerated, and a transcendental state, turiya, which in Sanskrit means fourth. Excerpt from Mandukya Karia by Gaudapada: Duality is only an appearance; non-duality is the real truth. The object exists as an object for the knowing subject; but it does not exist outside of consciousness because the distinction of subject and object is within consciousness (IV 25-27 - Sharma). Shankaracharya founded ten sannyasin orders including the Saraswati; Shankara founded four seats of learning including the monestery at Sringeri. The guru of Swami Brahmananda Saraswati was Swami Krishnananda Saraswati, both highly accomplished siddha yogis who followed the Sri Vidya tradition. SBS's student was Swami Hariharananda Saraswati (Karpatri Swami) a proponent of the non-dual Sri Vidya. MMY studied and learned yoga meditation under SBS for thirteen years and then founded the TMO. In 1968 MMY visited Srinagar with his students on TTC, and meditated in a group with Swami Lakmanjoo, the last guru of the Kasmere tantric system. Kashmere Shaivism is a form of transcendental, realistic idealism; a form of absolute monism. According to Kashmere Shaivism, 'Cit' is pure consciousness - the One Reality. The term trika in Sanskrit means three, refering to the three states of consciousness, called in Sri Vidya the three cities. Works cited: 'A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy' by Chandrahar Sharma, M.A., D. Phil., D. Litt., LL.B., Shastri, Dept. of Phil., Benares Hindu U. Rider, 1960 p. 245-246. 'A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy' by Chandrahar Sharma, M.A., D. Phil., D. Litt., LL.B., Shastri Dept. of Phil., Benares Hindu University Rider, 1960. p. 114. 'The Secret of the Three Cities' An Introduction to Hindu Sakta Tantrism by Douglas Renfrew Brooks University Of Chicago Press, 1990 Hariharananda Saraswati: He was also the great expert of Shree Vidya and probably all the present day experts in Varanasi have somehow or the other obtained Shree vidya from him or his pupils. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Karpatri On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:05 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: This reply demonstrates that you are either unable to understand the post or you didn't read it. It also shows that you are probably unqualified to study advaita. The post was about Advaita - not Kashmiri Trika or Shri Vidya.Your reply is merely inane. Don't sully this one with your quasimoto, pseudo-professorial bullshit.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Advaita is about inherent freedom
emptybill, thanks for your clarity here. This brings to my mind Maharishi's teaching that knowledge is different in different states of consciousness. Purusha Prakriti realization seems to be a GC experience to me whereas the experience of moksha as one's basic nature seems more like Unity. A friend is on a retreat where they are discussing three stages of Brahman: basic, refined and Wholeness or holiness. Mind boggling to me! On Sunday, January 19, 2014 4:35 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: A popular view of Advaita Vedanta (sometimes an accusation) is that it is Maya-vada ... the doctrine that everything is mere Maya. This is a classical misrepresentation that began with Ramanuja (11th Century head of the Sri Vaishnava-s) and continues down to today. Probably one reason for the misunderstanding is that different teachers presented alternate explanations of the Brahma Sutras. In essence, they held contrary preconceptions. Another reason is that discussions about the nature of Maya became continuous in debates between Advaita scholars. This led to the belief that “Maya talk” was the core of Advaita. The reality is that Advaita is more accurately call Brahma-vada, the teaching about Brahman. It uses the principal Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita as a threefold authoritative Vedic source. However, leading up to the 14th Century, the Yoga Sutras became an alternate source for understanding the path to realize Brahman. By the middle of the 14th-15th Century, this view so infiltrated Advaita Vedanta that the works of Shankaracharya Swami Vidyâranya (who wrote Pañchadâši and Jivanmuktiviveka) presumed that students of Advaita followed a yogic path to realize Brahman. The modern proponent of this view was Swami Vivekananda. MMY just continued that mode – which included the division of the Bhagavad Gita into three topical sections, a theme also found in Sri Aurobindo Ghose. Scholars now call this interpretation “Yogic Advaita” - an interpretation that is more about yoga and less about Advaita Vedanta. Perhaps more perplexing for those studying Advaita, the concept of “enlightenment” (so over-popularized) was borrowed from the Buddhists – and is neither Yogic nor Vedantic. The Yoga Sutras, in fact, do not even propose yoga as a goal but rather discuss the necessity for “vi-yoga” … separating, dis-uniting, dis-joining. Thus the question … “separating what from what”? In this case, separating the apparent con-fusion (fusing together) between awareness (purusha) and the field of experience (i.e. body, senses, mind). Contrary to this Yogic assumption of two orders of reality (purusha and prakriti), Shankara’s Vedanta teaches the inherent unity of Reality (Brahman). Rather than chitta-vritti-nirodha, nirvikalpa-samâdhi or Buddhist dhyana-samâpatti, Advaita points to the direct ascertainment of one’s own true nature. The purpose of such recognition is seeing directly that moksha (freedom) is already the inherent nature of human beings. It also recognizes that moksha is freedom from any experience, while realizing that like waves moving across the ocean, experience is itself nothing but Brahman.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Advaita is about inherent freedom
Empty, really a great concise roadmap here that you write here. FFL-post-of- the- year thus far amongst all the athletic supporters flash-flooding this forum as place of high mind spirituality otherwise. Thanks. For Me the best sutras I got out of the TM-siddhis were the ones about the discernment/distinction o Bhuti a Purusha. That is what popped things for me and I am most grateful for. Om Jai Adi Shankara, -Buck in the Dome ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: emptybill, thanks for your clarity here. This brings to my mind Maharishi's teaching that knowledge is different in different states of consciousness. Purusha Prakriti realization seems to be a GC experience to me whereas the experience of moksha as one's basic nature seems more like Unity. A friend is on a retreat where they are discussing three stages of Brahman: basic, refined and Wholeness or holiness. Mind boggling to me! On Sunday, January 19, 2014 4:35 PM, emptybill@... emptybill@... wrote: A popular view of Advaita Vedanta (sometimes an accusation) is that it is Maya-vada ... the doctrine that everything is mere Maya. This is a classical misrepresentation that began with Ramanuja (11th Century head of the Sri Vaishnava-s) and continues down to today. Probably one reason for the misunderstanding is that different teachers presented alternate explanations of the Brahma Sutras. In essence, they held contrary preconceptions. Another reason is that discussions about the nature of Maya became continuous in debates between Advaita scholars. This led to the belief that “Maya talk” was the core of Advaita. The reality is that Advaita is more accurately call Brahma-vada, the teaching about Brahman. It uses the principal Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita as a threefold authoritative Vedic source. However, leading up to the 14th Century, the Yoga Sutras became an alternate source for understanding the path to realize Brahman. By the middle of the 14th-15th Century, this view so infiltrated Advaita Vedanta that the works of Shankaracharya Swami Vidyâranya (who wrote Pañchadâši and Jivanmuktiviveka) presumed that students of Advaita followed a yogic path to realize Brahman. The modern proponent of this view was Swami Vivekananda. MMY just continued that mode – which included the division of the Bhagavad Gita into three topical sections, a theme also found in Sri Aurobindo Ghose. Scholars now call this interpretation “Yogic Advaita” - an interpretation that is more about yoga and less about Advaita Vedanta. Perhaps more perplexing for those studying Advaita, the concept of “enlightenment” (so over-popularized) was borrowed from the Buddhists – and is neither Yogic nor Vedantic. The Yoga Sutras, in fact, do not even propose yoga as a goal but rather discuss the necessity for “vi-yoga” … separating, dis-uniting, dis-joining. Thus the question … “separating what from what”? In this case, separating the apparent con-fusion (fusing together) between awareness (purusha) and the field of experience (i.e. body, senses, mind). Contrary to this Yogic assumption of two orders of reality (purusha and prakriti), Shankara’s Vedanta teaches the inherent unity of Reality (Brahman). Rather than chitta-vritti-nirodha, nirvikalpa-samâdhi or Buddhist dhyana-samâpatti, Advaita points to the direct ascertainment of one’s own true nature. The purpose of such recognition is seeing directly that moksha (freedom) is already the inherent nature of human beings. It also recognizes that moksha is freedom from any experience, while realizing that like waves moving across the ocean, experience is itself nothing but Brahman.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Advaita is about inherent freedom
Buck: For Me the best sutras I got out of the TM-siddhis were the ones about the discernment/distinction o Bhuti a Purusha. For most TMers, the esoteric teachings are the most important aspects of their practice - the knowledge and the mechanics of the Sri Vidya and the Kashmere Trika theory. These are the ideas most closely associated with MMY and his TM practice. This is not surprising considering that MMY's master, SBS, was a Sri Vidya adherent and that MMY himself visited Kashmere to sit with the Swami Laksmanjoo. Most TMer seem to be more interested in the tantras than in reading about the mayavada in the Brahma Sutras. And why? Because the Advaita mayavada does not lend itself easily to the common tasks of everyday householders. Kashmere Saivism contends that there is only one reality, but it has two aspects; therefore the manifestation is real. This is based on the argument that the effect cannot be different from its cause. The world of matter is only another form of consciousness. Sri Vidya is based on the Kashmir Shaivism's absolute idealist monism (abhedha, non dualism) where Cit - consciousness - is the one reality and matter is not separated from consciousness, but is identical to it. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:39 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: Empty, really a great concise roadmap here that you write here. FFL-post-of- the- year thus far amongst all the athletic supporters flash-flooding this forum as place of high mind spirituality otherwise. Thanks. For Me the best sutras I got out of the TM-siddhis were the ones about the discernment/distinction o Bhuti a Purusha. That is what popped things for me and I am most grateful for. Om Jai Adi Shankara, -Buck in the Dome ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: emptybill, thanks for your clarity here. This brings to my mind Maharishi's teaching that knowledge is different in different states of consciousness. Purusha Prakriti realization seems to be a GC experience to me whereas the experience of moksha as one's basic nature seems more like Unity. A friend is on a retreat where they are discussing three stages of Brahman: basic, refined and Wholeness or holiness. Mind boggling to me! On Sunday, January 19, 2014 4:35 PM, emptybill@... emptybill@... wrote: A popular view of Advaita Vedanta (sometimes an accusation) is that it is Maya-vada ... the doctrine that everything is mere Maya. This is a classical misrepresentation that began with Ramanuja (11th Century head of the Sri Vaishnava-s) and continues down to today. Probably one reason for the misunderstanding is that different teachers presented alternate explanations of the Brahma Sutras. In essence, they held contrary preconceptions. Another reason is that discussions about the nature of Maya became continuous in debates between Advaita scholars. This led to the belief that “Maya talk” was the core of Advaita. The reality is that Advaita is more accurately call Brahma-vada, the teaching about Brahman. It uses the principal Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita as a threefold authoritative Vedic source. However, leading up to the 14th Century, the Yoga Sutras became an alternate source for understanding the *path* to realize Brahman. By the middle of the 14th-15th Century, this view so infiltrated Advaita Vedanta that the works of Shankaracharya Swami Vidyâranya (who wrote Pañchadâši and Jivanmuktiviveka) presumed that students of Advaita followed a yogic path to realize Brahman. The modern proponent of this view was Swami Vivekananda. MMY just continued that mode – which included the division of the Bhagavad Gita into three topical sections, a theme also found in Sri Aurobindo Ghose. Scholars now call this interpretation “Yogic Advaita” - an interpretation that is more about yoga and less about Advaita Vedanta. Perhaps more perplexing for those studying Advaita, the concept of “enlightenment” (so over-popularized) was borrowed from the Buddhists – and is neither Yogic nor Vedantic. The Yoga Sutras, in fact, do not even propose yoga as a goal but rather discuss the necessity for “vi-yoga” … separating, dis-uniting, dis-joining. Thus the question … “separating *what* from *what*”? In this case, separating the apparent con-fusion (fusing together) between awareness (purusha) and the field of experience (i.e. body, senses, mind). Contrary to this Yogic assumption of two orders of reality (purusha and prakriti), Shankara’s Vedanta teaches the inherent unity of Reality (Brahman). Rather than chitta-vritti-nirodha, nirvikalpa-samâdhi or Buddhist dhyana-samâpatti, Advaita points to the direct ascertainment of one’s own true nature. The purpose of such recognition is seeing directly that moksha (freedom) is *already* the inherent nature of human beings. It also recognizes that moksha is freedom from *any* experience, while realizing that like waves moving across the ocean,
Re: [FairfieldLife] Advaita is about inherent freedom
Buck, that's one of my favorites too. Share in Bhagambrini... On Monday, January 20, 2014 7:39 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: Empty, really a great concise roadmap here that you write here. FFL-post-of- the- year thus far amongst all the athletic supporters flash-flooding this forum as place of high mind spirituality otherwise. Thanks. For Me the best sutras I got out of the TM-siddhis were the ones about the discernment/distinction o Bhuti a Purusha. That is what popped things for me and I am most grateful for. Om Jai Adi Shankara, -Buck in the Dome ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: emptybill, thanks for your clarity here. This brings to my mind Maharishi's teaching that knowledge is different in different states of consciousness. Purusha Prakriti realization seems to be a GC experience to me whereas the experience of moksha as one's basic nature seems more like Unity. A friend is on a retreat where they are discussing three stages of Brahman: basic, refined and Wholeness or holiness. Mind boggling to me! On Sunday, January 19, 2014 4:35 PM, emptybill@... emptybill@... wrote: A popular view of Advaita Vedanta (sometimes an accusation) is that it is Maya-vada ... the doctrine that everything is mere Maya. This is a classical misrepresentation that began with Ramanuja (11th Century head of the Sri Vaishnava-s) and continues down to today. Probably one reason for the misunderstanding is that different teachers presented alternate explanations of the Brahma Sutras. In essence, they held contrary preconceptions. Another reason is that discussions about the nature of Maya became continuous in debates between Advaita scholars. This led to the belief that “Maya talk” was the core of Advaita. The reality is that Advaita is more accurately call Brahma-vada, the teaching about Brahman. It uses the principal Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita as a threefold authoritative Vedic source. However, leading up to the 14th Century, the Yoga Sutras became an alternate source for understanding the path to realize Brahman. By the middle of the 14th-15th Century, this view so infiltrated Advaita Vedanta that the works of Shankaracharya Swami Vidyâranya (who wrote Pañchadâši and Jivanmuktiviveka) presumed that students of Advaita followed a yogic path to realize Brahman. The modern proponent of this view was Swami Vivekananda. MMY just continued that mode – which included the division of the Bhagavad Gita into three topical sections, a theme also found in Sri Aurobindo Ghose. Scholars now call this interpretation “Yogic Advaita” - an interpretation that is more about yoga and less about Advaita Vedanta. Perhaps more perplexing for those studying Advaita, the concept of “enlightenment” (so over-popularized) was borrowed from the Buddhists – and is neither Yogic nor Vedantic. The Yoga Sutras, in fact, do not even propose yoga as a goal but rather discuss the necessity for “vi-yoga” … separating, dis-uniting, dis-joining. Thus the question … “separating what from what”? In this case, separating the apparent con-fusion (fusing together) between awareness (purusha) and the field of experience (i.e. body, senses, mind). Contrary to this Yogic assumption of two orders of reality (purusha and prakriti), Shankara’s Vedanta teaches the inherent unity of Reality (Brahman). Rather than chitta-vritti-nirodha, nirvikalpa-samâdhi or Buddhist dhyana-samâpatti, Advaita points to the direct ascertainment of one’s own true nature. The purpose of such recognition is seeing directly that moksha (freedom) is already the inherent nature of human beings. It also recognizes that moksha is freedom from any experience, while realizing that like waves moving across the ocean, experience is itself nothing but Brahman.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Advaita is about inherent freedom
A popular view of Advaita Vedanta (sometimes an accusation) is that it is Maya-vada... Maybe you lost them, but you have to begin with a definition of the term maya - which I already posted: maya is neither real nor unreal, nor both, nor neither. Maya is not an illusion or something that is not real, because even an illusion is presented to us. Maya is actualy a superimposition on the real. So, maya is not real but not unreal. It's like a zen koan: Daibai asked Baso: `What is Buddha?' Baso said: `This mind is Buddha.' Mumon's Comment: If anyone wholly understands this, he is wearing Buddha's clothing, he is eating Buddha's food, he is speaking Buddha's words, he is behaving as Buddha, he is Buddha. This anecdote, however, has given many pupil the sickness of formality. If one truly understands, he will wash out his mouth for three days after saying the word Buddha, and he will close his ears and flee after hearing `This mind is Buddha.' Under blue sky, in bright sunlight, One need not search around. Asking what Buddha is Is like hiding loot in one's pocket and declaring oneself innocent. This Mind is Buddha: http://www.ibiblio.org/zen/gateless-gate/30.html On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 4:35 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: A popular view of Advaita Vedanta (sometimes an accusation) is that it is Maya-vada ... the doctrine that everything is mere Maya. This is a classical misrepresentation that began with Ramanuja (11th Century head of the Sri Vaishnava-s) and continues down to today. Probably one reason for the misunderstanding is that different teachers presented alternate explanations of the Brahma Sutras. In essence, they held contrary preconceptions. Another reason is that discussions about the nature of Maya became continuous in debates between Advaita scholars. This led to the belief that “Maya talk” was the core of Advaita. The reality is that Advaita is more accurately call Brahma-vada, the teaching about Brahman. It uses the principal Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita as a threefold authoritative Vedic source. However, leading up to the 14th Century, the Yoga Sutras became an alternate source for understanding the *path* to realize Brahman. By the middle of the 14th-15th Century, this view so infiltrated Advaita Vedanta that the works of Shankaracharya Swami Vidyâranya (who wrote Pañchadâši and Jivanmuktiviveka) presumed that students of Advaita followed a yogic path to realize Brahman. The modern proponent of this view was Swami Vivekananda. MMY just continued that mode – which included the division of the Bhagavad Gita into three topical sections, a theme also found in Sri Aurobindo Ghose. Scholars now call this interpretation “Yogic Advaita” - an interpretation that is more about yoga and less about Advaita Vedanta. Perhaps more perplexing for those studying Advaita, the concept of “enlightenment” (so over-popularized) was borrowed from the Buddhists – and is neither Yogic nor Vedantic. The Yoga Sutras, in fact, do not even propose yoga as a goal but rather discuss the necessity for “vi-yoga” … separating, dis-uniting, dis-joining. Thus the question … “separating *what* from *what*”? In this case, separating the apparent con-fusion (fusing together) between awareness (purusha) and the field of experience (i.e. body, senses, mind). Contrary to this Yogic assumption of two orders of reality (purusha and prakriti), Shankara’s Vedanta teaches the inherent unity of Reality (Brahman). Rather than chitta-vritti-nirodha, nirvikalpa-samâdhi or Buddhist dhyana-samâpatti, Advaita points to the direct ascertainment of one’s own true nature. The purpose of such recognition is seeing directly that moksha (freedom) is *already* the inherent nature of human beings. It also recognizes that moksha is freedom from *any* experience, while realizing that like waves moving across the ocean, experience is itself nothing but Brahman.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Advaita is about inherent freedom
Richard, I've heard that when tamas guna dominates, maya is a covering over reality; when rajo guna dominates, maya is a veil; but when sat guna dominates, maya is actually a means to ultimate reality. What do you think? On Monday, January 20, 2014 9:40 AM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: A popular view of Advaita Vedanta (sometimes an accusation) is that it is Maya-vada... Maybe you lost them, but you have to begin with a definition of the term maya - which I already posted: maya is neither real nor unreal, nor both, nor neither. Maya is not an illusion or something that is not real, because even an illusion is presented to us. Maya is actualy a superimposition on the real. So, maya is not real but not unreal. It's like a zen koan: Daibai asked Baso: `What is Buddha?' Baso said: `This mind is Buddha.' Mumon's Comment: If anyone wholly understands this, he is wearing Buddha's clothing, he is eating Buddha's food, he is speaking Buddha's words, he is behaving as Buddha, he is Buddha. This anecdote, however, has given many pupil the sickness of formality. If one truly understands, he will wash out his mouth for three days after saying the word Buddha, and he will close his ears and flee after hearing `This mind is Buddha.' Under blue sky, in bright sunlight, One need not search around. Asking what Buddha is Is like hiding loot in one's pocket and declaring oneself innocent. This Mind is Buddha: http://www.ibiblio.org/zen/gateless-gate/30.html On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 4:35 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: A popular view of Advaita Vedanta (sometimes an accusation) is that it is Maya-vada ... the doctrine that everything is mere Maya. This is a classical misrepresentation that began with Ramanuja (11th Century head of the Sri Vaishnava-s) and continues down to today. Probably one reason for the misunderstanding is that different teachers presented alternate explanations of the Brahma Sutras. In essence, they held contrary preconceptions. Another reason is that discussions about the nature of Maya became continuous in debates between Advaita scholars. This led to the belief that “Maya talk” was the core of Advaita. The reality is that Advaita is more accurately call Brahma-vada, the teaching about Brahman. It uses the principal Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita as a threefold authoritative Vedic source. However, leading up to the 14th Century, the Yoga Sutras became an alternate source for understanding the path to realize Brahman. By the middle of the 14th-15th Century, this view so infiltrated Advaita Vedanta that the works of Shankaracharya Swami Vidyâranya (who wrote Pañchadâši and Jivanmuktiviveka) presumed that students of Advaita followed a yogic path to realize Brahman. The modern proponent of this view was Swami Vivekananda. MMY just continued that mode – which included the division of the Bhagavad Gita into three topical sections, a theme also found in Sri Aurobindo Ghose. Scholars now call this interpretation “Yogic Advaita” - an interpretation that is more about yoga and less about Advaita Vedanta. Perhaps more perplexing for those studying Advaita, the concept of “enlightenment” (so over-popularized) was borrowed from the Buddhists – and is neither Yogic nor Vedantic. The Yoga Sutras, in fact, do not even propose yoga as a goal but rather discuss the necessity for “vi-yoga” … separating, dis-uniting, dis-joining. Thus the question … “separating what from what”? In this case, separating the apparent con-fusion (fusing together) between awareness (purusha) and the field of experience (i.e. body, senses, mind). Contrary to this Yogic assumption of two orders of reality (purusha and prakriti), Shankara’s Vedanta teaches the inherent unity of Reality (Brahman). Rather than chitta-vritti-nirodha, nirvikalpa-samâdhi or Buddhist dhyana-samâpatti, Advaita points to the direct ascertainment of one’s own true nature. The purpose of such recognition is seeing directly that moksha (freedom) is already the inherent nature of human beings. It also recognizes that moksha is freedom from any experience, while realizing that like waves moving across the ocean, experience is itself nothing but Brahman.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Advaita is about inherent freedom
Share: This brings to my mind Maharishi's teaching that knowledge is different in different states of consciousness... Things and events - phenomena - are not real, yet not unreal either. They are like an illusion in that they are not exactly as they appear to be, yet they are real in the sense that they are presented to us as illusion. So, it would not be correct to say that phenomena are unreal; they are simply dream-like because phenomena can't be known or experienced without an intermediary something - we call it 'consciousness'. We do not experience phenomenon directly, but through the lens of the senses, which change the objects of perception. Dreams are real because they are dreams. Something that is unreal is something that never existed, a figment of the imagination for example. But quite often people see with double vision simply because they have a mote in their eye, or they see the horns of a hare when in reality, there are no horns on a rabbit. Duality is only an appearance; non-duality is the real truth. The object exists as an object for the knowing subject; but it does not exist outside of consciousness because the distinction of subject and object is within consciousness (GK IV 25-27). Work cited: 'Dispelling Illusion' Gaudapada's Alatasanti by Douglas A. Fox State University of New York Press, 1993 Read more: 'Gaudapada' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudapada On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: emptybill, thanks for your clarity here. This brings to my mind Maharishi's teaching that knowledge is different in different states of consciousness. Purusha Prakriti realization seems to be a GC experience to me whereas the experience of moksha as one's basic nature seems more like Unity. A friend is on a retreat where they are discussing three stages of Brahman: basic, refined and Wholeness or holiness. Mind boggling to me! On Sunday, January 19, 2014 4:35 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: A popular view of Advaita Vedanta (sometimes an accusation) is that it is Maya-vada ... the doctrine that everything is mere Maya. This is a classical misrepresentation that began with Ramanuja (11th Century head of the Sri Vaishnava-s) and continues down to today. Probably one reason for the misunderstanding is that different teachers presented alternate explanations of the Brahma Sutras. In essence, they held contrary preconceptions. Another reason is that discussions about the nature of Maya became continuous in debates between Advaita scholars. This led to the belief that “Maya talk” was the core of Advaita. The reality is that Advaita is more accurately call Brahma-vada, the teaching about Brahman. It uses the principal Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita as a threefold authoritative Vedic source. However, leading up to the 14th Century, the Yoga Sutras became an alternate source for understanding the *path* to realize Brahman. By the middle of the 14th-15th Century, this view so infiltrated Advaita Vedanta that the works of Shankaracharya Swami Vidyâranya (who wrote Pañchadâši and Jivanmuktiviveka) presumed that students of Advaita followed a yogic path to realize Brahman. The modern proponent of this view was Swami Vivekananda. MMY just continued that mode – which included the division of the Bhagavad Gita into three topical sections, a theme also found in Sri Aurobindo Ghose. Scholars now call this interpretation “Yogic Advaita” - an interpretation that is more about yoga and less about Advaita Vedanta. Perhaps more perplexing for those studying Advaita, the concept of “enlightenment” (so over-popularized) was borrowed from the Buddhists – and is neither Yogic nor Vedantic. The Yoga Sutras, in fact, do not even propose yoga as a goal but rather discuss the necessity for “vi-yoga” … separating, dis-uniting, dis-joining. Thus the question … “separating *what* from *what*”? In this case, separating the apparent con-fusion (fusing together) between awareness (purusha) and the field of experience (i.e. body, senses, mind). Contrary to this Yogic assumption of two orders of reality (purusha and prakriti), Shankara’s Vedanta teaches the inherent unity of Reality (Brahman). Rather than chitta-vritti-nirodha, nirvikalpa-samâdhi or Buddhist dhyana-samâpatti, Advaita points to the direct ascertainment of one’s own true nature. The purpose of such recognition is seeing directly that moksha (freedom) is *already* the inherent nature of human beings. It also recognizes that moksha is freedom from *any* experience, while realizing that like waves moving across the ocean, experience is itself nothing but Brahman.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Advaita is about inherent freedom
Richard, this brings to mind one of my favorite passages from Maharishi's SBAL: ...identification is not bondage. What is bondage is inability to maintain Being along with identification while indulging in experience and activity. pg 238 On Monday, January 20, 2014 9:50 AM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: Share: This brings to my mind Maharishi's teaching that knowledge is different in different states of consciousness... Things and events - phenomena - are not real, yet not unreal either. They are like an illusion in that they are not exactly as they appear to be, yet they are real in the sense that they are presented to us as illusion. So, it would not be correct to say that phenomena are unreal; they are simply dream-like because phenomena can't be known or experienced without an intermediary something - we call it 'consciousness'. We do not experience phenomenon directly, but through the lens of the senses, which change the objects of perception. Dreams are real because they are dreams. Something that is unreal is something that never existed, a figment of the imagination for example. But quite often people see with double vision simply because they have a mote in their eye, or they see the horns of a hare when in reality, there are no horns on a rabbit. Duality is only an appearance; non-duality is the real truth. The object exists as an object for the knowing subject; but it does not exist outside of consciousness because the distinction of subject and object is within consciousness (GK IV 25-27). Work cited: 'Dispelling Illusion' Gaudapada's Alatasanti by Douglas A. Fox State University of New York Press, 1993 Read more: 'Gaudapada' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudapada On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: emptybill, thanks for your clarity here. This brings to my mind Maharishi's teaching that knowledge is different in different states of consciousness. Purusha Prakriti realization seems to be a GC experience to me whereas the experience of moksha as one's basic nature seems more like Unity. A friend is on a retreat where they are discussing three stages of Brahman: basic, refined and Wholeness or holiness. Mind boggling to me! On Sunday, January 19, 2014 4:35 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: A popular view of Advaita Vedanta (sometimes an accusation) is that it is Maya-vada ... the doctrine that everything is mere Maya. This is a classical misrepresentation that began with Ramanuja (11th Century head of the Sri Vaishnava-s) and continues down to today. Probably one reason for the misunderstanding is that different teachers presented alternate explanations of the Brahma Sutras. In essence, they held contrary preconceptions. Another reason is that discussions about the nature of Maya became continuous in debates between Advaita scholars. This led to the belief that “Maya talk” was the core of Advaita. The reality is that Advaita is more accurately call Brahma-vada, the teaching about Brahman. It uses the principal Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita as a threefold authoritative Vedic source. However, leading up to the 14th Century, the Yoga Sutras became an alternate source for understanding the path to realize Brahman. By the middle of the 14th-15th Century, this view so infiltrated Advaita Vedanta that the works of Shankaracharya Swami Vidyâranya (who wrote Pañchadâši and Jivanmuktiviveka) presumed that students of Advaita followed a yogic path to realize Brahman. The modern proponent of this view was Swami Vivekananda. MMY just continued that mode – which included the division of the Bhagavad Gita into three topical sections, a theme also found in Sri Aurobindo Ghose. Scholars now call this interpretation “Yogic Advaita” - an interpretation that is more about yoga and less about Advaita Vedanta. Perhaps more perplexing for those studying Advaita, the concept of “enlightenment” (so over-popularized) was borrowed from the Buddhists – and is neither Yogic nor Vedantic. The Yoga Sutras, in fact, do not even propose yoga as a goal but rather discuss the necessity for “vi-yoga” … separating, dis-uniting, dis-joining. Thus the question … “separating what from what”? In this case, separating the apparent con-fusion (fusing together) between awareness (purusha) and the field of experience (i.e. body, senses, mind). Contrary to this Yogic assumption of two orders of reality (purusha and prakriti), Shankara’s Vedanta teaches the inherent unity of Reality (Brahman). Rather than chitta-vritti-nirodha, nirvikalpa-samâdhi or Buddhist dhyana-samâpatti, Advaita points to the direct ascertainment of one’s own true nature. The purpose of such recognition is seeing directly that moksha (freedom) is already the inherent nature of human beings. It also recognizes that moksha is freedom from any experience, while realizing that like waves moving
Re: [FairfieldLife] Advaita is about inherent freedom
This reply demonstrates that you are either unable to understand the post or you didn't read it. It also shows that you are probably unqualified to study advaita. The post was about Advaita - not Kashmiri Trika or Shri Vidya.Your reply is merely inane. Don't sully this one with your quasimoto, pseudo-professorial bullshit.
