What is a jivanmukta’s experience? (Part 1)

Posted on by

Dennis: “The body is inert. How can it do anything unless Consciousness is enabling it to do so?”

Rick: “Are fully realized and liberated jivanmukti conscious during deep sleep?”

BGB 2.69, which is considered to be the quintessence of the Bhagavad Gita, and arguably all of Advaita, sheds light on these questions. Three translations of Sankara:

“And all organs of knowledge (pramanas) are so called because they ultimately lead to a knowledge of the Self. When the knowledge of the true nature of the Self has been attained, neither organs of knowledge nor objects of knowledge present themselves to consciousness any longer.” – A.M Sastry

“Surely, after the realization of the true nature of the Self, there is no scope again for any means to, or end of, knowledge. The last valid means of (Self-) knowledge eradicates the possibility of the Self becoming a perceiver.” – Gambhirananda

“Once Self-realisation is won, it is no longer possible to discuss the distinctions between the means of knowledge and their objects. The last means of knowledge indeed liberates the Self from its status as a knower” – A.G.Krishna Warrier

Fear of annihilation

Posted on by

Q: I have a fear of falling asleep and losing consciousness. Why do I have this fear? How can I solve it? For as long as I can remember I’ve been afraid of going unconscious because I lose control. When I fall asleep, I wake up 3 hours later. (From Quora)

A (Martin): I have made a life-long search for the meaning and reality of ‘myself’ and the world.

Apart from the advice (and different diagnoses) given by others, I am thinking of something else, which has a psychological as well as a philosophical side to it. It is not just fear of death but self-annihilation, an emptiness or void where there is no longer an experience of selfhood or continuity (“What if I don’t wake up?”).

This can become an obsession – an existential angst – one of the worst kind. A sensitive child may (I experienced it) entertain the idea of nothingness, including that of *me/myself*, that is, my very personal, intimate consciousness not existing or vanishing into nothingness. It may or may not be associated with the thought “Why is there something (a world) rather than nothing?”.

If that strikes a chord – and it is a question of temperament and inclination – there is an answer, which can be obtained at the end of a lengthy, arduous journey: ‘Know thyself’, as it was written on the frontispiece of the oracle of Delphos in ancient Greece. After a lifelong search, I found the most complete, satisfying answer in Advaita Vedanta. According to this philosophy or discipline, deep sleep is the most blessed state short of full awakening – that is, awakening from the ‘darkness’ of the awake state and its narrow ego-centered vision, shot through with doubt and suffering.

Who “Listens” to the Vedanta vAkya – ‘tattvamasi’?

Posted on by

[Background: This Post is a sequel to the Discussions at Q: 541 with regard to “Who or what is that which listens to the mahA vAkya ‘tattvamasi’ and Who really gets “It”?” My reply to that question, based on 18.114, upadesha sAhashrI of Shankara,  was that “It is the Inner Self Itself which “listens” to the Non-dual message.” Dennis and Venkat made some significant observations on this issue and I found myself inadequate to answer their points.

So, I took the liberty to refer the matter to three highly knowledgeable and well-read Vedantins who are also proficient in Sanskrit. They had been extremely kind to readily spare their time amidst their own preoccupations and to  share their views on this profound subject. Their in-depth analysis and exposition backed by authentic citations is too valuable and important to stay tucked in my files and deserve wider dissemination. Hence, I present below, as an expression of my gratitude, their Comments which will undoubtedly be beneficial to many seekers.]

Smt. Manjushree Hegde Ji (India):

You’ve chosen the toughest chapter of the toughest text! Continue reading →

Question about mananā and nididhyāsana

Posted on by

Greetings!

I often apply the śravaṇa-mananā-nididhyāsana approach to the Advaitin teachings I am studying. I understand the role of śravaṇa. But I am unclear on the distinction between mananā and nididhyāsana, the boundaries between them seem hazy, overlapping.

Please help me distinguish between mananā and nididhyāsana. It would be good to take a real-world situation: Say I am studying the māhāvakya, Prajñānam brahma प्रज्ञानम् ब्रह्म “Consciousness is Brahman.” What would mananā entail, and what would nididhyāsana entail?

Thanks!

Rick

Advaita Gurus and Critics – part 2

Posted on by

by Prof. Phillip Charles Lucas

<Read Part 1>

Modern Advaitins are the successors of a long line of Vedanta-inspired teachers and movements in North America that reaches back to 1830s New England Transcendentalists, the Theosophical Society (founded 1875), New Thought (originating in the late nineteenth century), Vedanta Societies (founded in the 1890s), Paramahansa Yogananda’s Self-Realization Fellowship (founded 1920), Transcendental Meditation (founded 1959 in Los Angeles as the Spiritual Regeneration Movement), the Integral Yoga Institute (founded 1966), Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centers (founded 1959), and many other teachers and movements. [For a recent and comprehensive view of these teachers and movements see Philip Goldberg, American Veda: From Emerson and the Beatles to Yoga and Meditation (New York: Random House, 2010).]

TMA proponents have witnessed the profusion of NTMA (sometimes pejoratively called “Neo-Advaita”) satsangs and teachers in the past twenty-five years with a growing concern that the forms Advaita spirituality is taking in Western cultures may no longer be providing spiritual seekers with an effective methodology to achieve moksha, the ultimate liberation from the ocean of human suffering and rebirth (samsara). This article takes no position on the efficacy issue but seeks to examine various dimensions of tension between these two factions that might shed light on the larger phenomenon of orthodoxy versus innovation in transnational spiritual movements.

Continue reading →

Bhagavad Gita ( Topic-wise)Pt16

Posted on by

Part 15

Part 17

6 Moksha
6-1 Preparation
6-1-2 Preparatory Action

6-1-2-15 More on preparatory disciplines 2(41 to 45,60 to 68), 4(39,40), 16(21 to 24) 18(50 to 53)

6-1-2-15-1: 2 (41 to 45,60,61) A person is required to prepare himself adequately to undertake jnana yoga. Karma yoga is one such preparatory discipline. All religious practices like puja, charity, and sacrifice come under karma yoga. An essential ingredient of karma yoga is selfless action resulting in the purification of the mind. A seeker does not long for enjoyment and affluence. He has the one-point conviction that his goal is Self-knowledge. Vedas prescribe various rituals for the fulfillment of desires in this world and worlds post-death. The desires are different permutations and combinations of three qualities. If the desire is fulfilled, there is happiness. It is not permanent because the object of desire is subject to change. Worldly objects and related desires exist in pairs of opposites.

Continue reading →

Advaita in the Vedas – Rig Veda 1.164.20

Posted on by

See the source image

In exploring Advaita, we may have heard of the metaphor of the two birds,

Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating. [1]

The two birds are the jiva (the one which eats) and paramatman (the one which looks on without eating). The jiva is bound, attached to karma and its fruits, whereas the paramatman is free from karma. Identified as the jiva, the ‘enjoyer’, we ‘taste’ the fruits of action (pleasure and pain). Identified with the paramatman, we do not experience the duality of pleasure and pain as there is no attachment to them.

The two birds highlight the contrasting ways of conducting action – with or without attachment. In the jiva, we act to attain certain fruits (desirable outcomes) of our actions. Whereas, in the paramatman, we act without any desire or discrimination between success and failure or pleasure and pain. The paramatman is the Advaitin witness, whilst the jiva is still caught up in the dualistic experience of self (subject) and ‘other’ (object).

What we may not know is that the ‘two birds’ metaphor originates from Rig Veda (1.164.20). Continue reading →

Q.541 Knowledge in the Vedas

Posted on by

Q: Do the Vedas really contain any advanced knowledge as so many people claim they do?

A (Martin): I’d say the Vedas contain the most fundamental and ‘advanced’ knowledge there is, though usually portrayed in the form of paradox (analogy, metaphor, story, etc.), so that one has to crack the code in order to find the wealth hidden in them. That knowledge is not like empirical science, which is cumulative and provisional, and which could be said to be somehow contained in it, even if in embryonic or potential form.

The knowledge inherent in the Vedas is metaphysical rather than mystical. According to it there is one and only reality: consciousness (Brahman, or the Absolute), which pervades the whole universe; it is immanent in it as well as transcendent… “the smallest of the small, the largest of the large”. It cannot be measured or understood by the mind, for which it is ineffable, but it is that by which the mind comprehends… it cannot be expressed in words but by which the tongue speaks… it is eye of the eye, ear of the ear, mind of the mind, as expressed in the Upanishads.

Modern physics is having a hard time trying to explain away what consciousness is in terms of physical phenomena (neuronal activity in the brain), but consciousness is not an irreducible phenomenon or datum; it is reality itself or a name or symbol for reality – since the referent of the symbol is unfathomable – everything being comprehended in it (theories, doubts, projections, emotions, things, thoughts, intelligence, observer and observed, you and I). For the Vedas reality is one, and present physics is trying to find out in which way it is so (‘theory of everything’, ‘unifying theory…’). Not all physicists are reductionist, some of them having seemingly mutated into philosophers with an understanding of the core of Vedic teachings.

Non-Traditional Modern Advaita Gurus In The West And Their Traditional Modern Advaita Critics

Posted on by

By Phillip Charles Lucas

*** Part 1 ***

ABSTRACT: The Modern Advaita movement has undergone a split between two factions: one remains committed to a more traditional articulation of Advaita Vedanta, and the other has departed in significant ways from this traditional spiritual system. Over the past fifteen years, the Traditional Modern Advaita (TMA) faction has launched sustained and wide-ranging criticism of Non-Traditional Modern Advaita (NTMA) teachers and teachings. This article identifies the main themes of TMA criticisms and interprets their significance using insights from the social sciences and history of religions. I suggest that some reconfiguring of the Advaita tradition is necessary as it expands in transnational directions, since the structures of intelligibility from one culture to another are rarely congruent. Indeed, adaptation, accommodation and reconfiguration are normal and natural processes for religious traditions expanding beyond their indigenous cultural matrices. In the end, the significant questions for Advaita missionaries to the West may be how much accommodation is prudent, how rapidly reconfiguration should take place, and what adaptations are necessary for their spiritual methodology not only to survive but also thrive in new cultural settings.

KEYWORDS: Modern Advaita, Neo-Advaita, Advaita Vedanta, Ramana Maharshi, Papaji, Nisargadatta Maharaj, transnational religious movements, Satsang Network, Transcendental Meditation, North American Hindu Communities, Chinmaya Mission, James Swartz, Dennis Waite

Continue reading →

Advaita in the West

Posted on by

Readers of my books and blogs will know that, over the years, my position has shifted from early support of modern Western teachers to an increasing criticism of anything other than the traditional approach of Ādi Ṥaṅkara. My book ‘Enlightenment: The Path through the Jungle’ spelled out the key differences between these approaches and explained why so many aspects of modern teaching failed the seeker. More recently, my ‘Confusions in Advaita Vedanta’ books(s) are addressing specific topics in Advaita and showing how many post-Ṥaṅkara teachers have distorted or even rejected the original explanations and thereby brought much confusion to today’s seekers.

My next book will specifically address the problems of trying to learn about Advaita in the West and how to spot the indicators of good and bad sources. I have been doing lots of research for this book, endeavoring to look at all of the current websites purporting to teach nonduality, and Advaita in particular. In the process of doing this, I came across this paper by Phillip Lucas, who was a Professor at Stetson University in Florida until 2021. He has kindly given permission for me to post it here. In it, he looks at the modern attempts to teach a modified version of Advaita, adapted to Western ‘ethos’, and the increasing criticism of these attempts by those, such as myself, who espouse the traditional approach. It is quite long, so I will be posting it in around 6 parts over the next couple of months. The first part follows. My sincere thanks to Prof. Lucas.