VEDĀNTA the solution to our fundamental problem by D. Venugopal
Part 20 looks at the defining requirements of a good teacher and at the distinction between subject and object.
There is a complete Contents List, to which links are added as each new part appears.
Q: Do vAsanA-s belong to the causal body or the subtle body?
In the subtle body camp I got a response from one of Swami Dayananda’s senior students saying that the causal body is pure ignorance with no attributes and that vAsanA-s “definitely belong to the subtle body”. In addition, from my own quick review of some of Shankara’s basic works I can find no passage that says the causal body is anything but “avidyA” and find no mention of the term “ vAsanA-s ” anywhere.
In the causal body camp I have James Schwartz and multiple pieces of Chinmayananda literature. In fact I have seen them equate vAsanA-s to avidyA by pointing out that avidyA and vAsanA-s are both caused by the guNa-s.
Can you help with this one? What is going on here? Btw, as an interesting side note, in Swami Dayananda’s extensive Gita course-books the word “ vAsanA-s ” does not appear once.
Answers from Ramesam, Ted, Martin and Dennis. Continue reading
Q. I come from an atheistic upbringing, and in addition I have studied a good chunk of modern Western philosophy and science, and such a position has become my “default mode”. A day came a couple years back where I found myself in a deep existential crisis (one that is most certainly still ongoing), and so I looked for a spiritual path that could reconcile what I knew of philosophy/science with spirituality. Advaita seemed to be the one that not only fit the bill the best, but also resonated with me the most. But on this path, I find myself constantly slipping into the habits of thought that I am used to. I try to cling to the pieces that don’t fit neatly into the materialist story, but I’m very much aware that I’m hanging on to them because I’m worried, not because I have a strong belief in their truth. If there is a teaching that goes against the grain of most scientific thought, even slightly, I tell myself I must discard it – “otherwise you’re just fooling yourself”, I say.
I notice this thought process, and it’s disturbing to me. I want to be open to what Advaita has to offer, but it’s incredibly tough – I worry often that a spiritual path of any kind is not possible for someone like me. I have a good deal of mumukshutva, but no shraddha. Can someone without shraddha somehow gain it? How necessary is it? And how can I break through my old habits of thinking, and gain that faith that there’s something more than just this body? Continue reading
All the objects in the world are Brahman. ‘I’ am Brahman. Such being the case, both passion and dispassion, craving and aversion are but notions. Body is Brahman, death is Brahman, too: when they come together, as the real rope and the unreal imaginary snake come together, where is the cause for sorrow? Similarly, body is Brahman and pleasure is Brahman: where is the cause of rejoicing when body experiences pleasure? When, on the surface of the calm ocean, waves appear to be agitated, the waves do not cease to be water! Even when Brahman appears to be agitated (in the world appearance), its essence is unchanged and there is neither ‘I’-ness nor ‘you’-ness. When the whirlpool dies in the water, nothing is dead! When the death-Brahman overtakes the body-Brahman, nothing is lost.
The Supreme Yoga: Yoga VasiShTha, translated by Swami Venkatesananda, Chiltern Yoga Trust. ISBN: 8120819640. Buy from Amazon US, Buy from Amazon UK.
VEDĀNTA the solution to our fundamental problem by D. Venugopal
Part 6 examines who we think we are and explains how this dictates our degree of happiness.
There is a complete Contents List, to which links are added as each new part appears.
1.19. Just as a mirror exists within and without the image reflected in it, so the Supreme Self exists inside and outside this body.
The idea is this: The image in the mirror has no real existence. It is a mere appearance. Only the mirror exists. Similarly, only the Self exists. Body, mind, etc have no real existence. It is only by being superimposed on the Self that they appear to exist. Just as the reflection cannot affect the mirror, so body, mind etc cannot affect the Self.
aShTAvakra saMhitA, Swami Nityaswarupananda, Advaita Ashrama, No ISBN.
The ulterior agenda of the human ego is always one of control and the validation of separation and isolation. “I am alone, we (organization, community, race, etc.) are alone, and I or we will prove it to you.” The ego is not ‘bad’ for trying constantly to validate that it is alone and separate. That’s its job. It is a guardian that is meant to take care of the physical body by providing boundaries. That’s how it evolved long ago.
A Natural Awakening: Realizing the Self in Everyday Life, P. T. Mistlberger, TigerFyre Publishing, 2005. ISBN 0-9733419-0-4.
Part 18 of the serialization of ‘The Dream Problem’ by Dr. R.V. Khedkar. Vasishta discusses with the dreamer the cause of dreams and whether we can determine their nature. He concludes with an explanation of the nature of the physical body.
This is the final part.
Q: Can you explain how it is possible that anything lifeless, for example a stone, a corpse or space, does not have consciousness. Yet all of this is consciousness.
A (Shuka): The svarūpa (intrinsic nature) of fire is both heat and light. However, when it expresses through water (when water is heated), only the heat principle is expressed (water does not glow, but becomes hot); however when it expresses through an iron ball (when an iron ball is heated), both heat and light principles are expressed (the iron ball both glows and is hot). This is the limitation of the upādhī (medium) through which fire expresses, and is not reflective of the true nature of fire. So also, Brahman whose svarūpa is existence, consciousness and limitlessness, expresses only its existential principle when reflected through the upādhi-s such as stone, whereas it expresses both existential and conscious principles when expressed through a living being, and as īśvara (God), it expresses in all dimensions of its svarūpa. Continue reading
In the case of the human being, is death – whatever meaning we give to it – an ending, a transformation (in psychological terms), a recombination of parts (physics and biology), or a transfiguration, such as what is called reincarnation, transmigration or metempsychosis (religious tradition)? Is it terminal, or a new beginning, a renewal – in someone of the senses enumerated above?
Or is death simply illusory? In the restricted sense we are now having in view (related to a human being), what is the meaning of ‘death’ – a question which, whether it has a precise answer or not, must have been asked countless times, at least ever since one or more individuals started to ask these kinds of questions, that is, to philosophize? It is frequently said that according to Plato philosophy begins in wonder. With such a broad view or approach of the problem we can appreciate how many possible answers, or rather areas of research and inquire are open to ourselves. We saw that, whether a (“short-lived”) event or a (gradual) process, death can be defined in simple terms in what concerns the body, in fact the body of any organism, as was stated in Part 1. Going beyond this, and entering directly into the realm of philosophy – the philosophy of Vedanta in particular – the problem is also simplified by just saying that the only ‘things’ that ‘die’, or are annihilated, are forms, phenomena, which are impermanent. Essence or substance, being changeless, does not die. Continue reading