Tag Archives: self

Surefire Way To Liberation – Part 2

Posted on by
Reply

[Part 1]

2.  With One Stop Over:

The Unfailing Universal Rule:

Krishna reveals the universal rule, that governs with no exception, the next birth of a creature.  The rule is:

यं यं वापि स्मरन्भावं त्यजत्यन्ते कलेबरम् ।
तं तमेवैति कौन्तेय सदा तद्भावभावितः ॥  —   8.6, BG.

Meaning: Of whatever Being thinking at the end a man leaves the body, Him alone, O son of Kunti, reaches he by whom the thought of that Being has been constantly dwelt upon.

Therefore, his promise is: “Whoso, at the time of death, thinking of Me (Vishnu, the Supreme Lord) alone, leaves the body and goes forth, he reaches My being (My real being as Vishnu); there is no doubt in this as to whether he reaches or not (8.5, BG; 7.30, BG.).” Continue reading →

Surefire Way To Liberation – Part 1

Posted on by
Reply

Surefire Way To Liberation:

  1. Non-stop Direct:

One attains (eternal and irreversible) identification with brahman by being established in brahman *even in the closing years of one’s life* — 2.72, BG.

Essential Requirements:

a) Should be free from all desires, be free from hankering, without the idea of (‘me’ and) ‘mine’, and be devoid of pride — 2.71, BG.

Shankara comments at 2.71, BG: Only that man attains peace (Liberation) into whom all desires enter, from all directions, like waters entering into a sea, without overwhelming him.

Continue reading →

BrihadAranyaka Upanishad (Part 4)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 3

Part 5

Chapter 2 Section 1 

2.1.1 to 2.1.14                                                                                                                   It is a dialogue between GArgya, a BrAhmana and a kshatriya king AjAtshatru of KAsi. GArgya has learnt VedAs and he knows Saguna Brahman. AjAtshatru is a jnAni. GArgya visits AjAtshatru and offers him to teach Brahman. AjAtshatru understands that Gargya’ s main intention is to get dakshinA, i.e., teacher’s fee for teaching. He gives him 1000 cows for his proposal to teach. Though GArgya’s knowledge is confined to Saguna Brahman, he thinks that he knows everything and is proud. He says that he meditates on aspects of Saguna Brahman, namely, sun, moon, lightening, space, air, fire, water, looking glass, sound of breath of walking man, directions, shadow. and asks the king to meditate on these aspects.

Continue reading →

Tat Tvam Asi (Part 6)

Posted on by

Part 5

Who is the hearer? Who says, I am Brahman?
Teaching of TTA becomes useful (Up Sa18.111) if it is meant for a hearer. In 18.76/77, there is a question: who is the hearer of the teaching? Two possible answers, namely, the Self and the ego are examined. It is argued that Self cannot be the hearer because It is free from action. The ego which is miserable, and a sufferer cannot be the hearer because it cannot say, ‘I am free’. Does it mean that the scripture is not a pramAna and teaching has no value? To dismiss such a possibility, 18.78 suggests a solution by introducing chidAbhAsa.

Continue reading →

Locus of Primal Ignorance (Mool-avidyA)

Posted on by

In Up Sah 18.44, the opponent (Purva Paksha-PP) asks a question. Who experiences the transmigratory existence? It cannot be the changeless Self. It cannot be the inert intellect, nor can it be the reflection (of the Self in the intellect) which is mithya. ShankarAchAryA gives a short reply. The transmigratory existence is a delusion because of non-discrimination between Self and non-Self. It has an apparent existence (and experienced) because of real existence of the changeless Self and appears to be belonging to It (Self). 

Continue reading →

Tat Tvam Asi (Part 5)

Posted on by

Part 4

Sravan is sufficient
In Sravan, the student listens to the teacher about the teaching, namely, TTA. On understanding the full import of TTA, the student has Self-knowledge, i.e., I am Brahman and there is liberation. Self-knowledge and liberation are simultaneous. There is no time-gap. In chapter 18 titled ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ of Upedesha Sahasri (Up Sah), ShankarAchArya introduces a Purva Paksha (PP) in 18.09 who holds that mere Sravan is not sufficient for liberation. It should be followed by repetition of ‘I am Brahman’. PP argues as below.

Continue reading →

Dialog with Jeff Foster (conc.)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 2 *** *** Go to Part 1 ***

13. You then talk about:“the collapse into not-knowing, the profound mystery…”I don’t know (!) what this means – sounds a bit too mystical for me.

– Well, I suppose those words do sound a bit mystical! I’m talking about the huge relief, the liberation, the sense of freedom when the mind’s endless search for something MORE than the present moment dies down, and there is only what is, and nothing more. It’s the “profound mystery” because nothing can be known about it.

OK, I’m happy with ‘relief’ and ‘liberation’ but I would use ‘fascination’ instead of ‘mystery’ – after all, ‘I amThat’. ‘Not-knowing’ is quite misleading.

14. “If anything, I’m saying the exact opposite, that the Mystery could NEVER be contained in ANY belief (especially simplistic neo-advaita beliefs!) ”Words never ‘contain’ the ‘mystery’, but they can be used to point to it. “Everything is here right now” does not provide any pointers that might overcome the essential ignorance.

– Yes, words as pointers….of course.

Continue reading →

Dialog with Jeff Foster (part 2)

Posted on by

*** Go to Part 1 ***

The Discussion

1. You say: “But the message asks – what reality does this person have in the first place? This isn’t about DENYING that person, or REJECTING that person.”

So are you saying that the person exists or not?

– I see this as a false dichotomy. The mind believes that something has to “exist or not”. But who would know whether a person existed or not? A person?

Without Consciousness, nothing exists. But it seems that this is the usual absolute versus empirical reality problem. Since we are using language and having a dialog, both of us are implicitly assuming the existence of separate persons. You cannot deny this without making nonsense of your position as a teacher and writer. So the answer to your question ‘what reality does the person have’ is that he has an empirical reality. This has to be accepted as a given at the level of the world appearance. The question as to whether this person has an absolute and separate existence is another question entirely.

Continue reading →

Dialog with Jeff Foster (part 1)

Posted on by

Continuing to look for essays and reviews etc. that are no longer available online, I came across the following dialog that I had with Jeff Foster in June 2007, after I had read his book ‘Life Without a Centre: awakening from the dream of separation’. In fact, the dialog is still available at the advaita.org.uk site but, since that site does not seem to be much visited these days, I thought it would be a good idea to republish here, as a follow-up to the recently posted article on neo-Advaita. A link to an extract from the book is included below and you can purchase the book at Amazon.UK or Amazon.com. Jeff’s website is here.  

This post will be in several parts. This first part contains our initial exchange; the remainder will contain the ensuing discussion. Readers should always remember that this was nearly 20 years ago and views may change. I understand that Jeff has said that he no longer holds some of the views that he did then.

In all parts, my words are in blue (Dennis Waite) and Jeff’s are in red (Jeff Foster).

The reason I am writing is that Julian Noyce (Non-Duality Press) periodically sends me review copies of new books and, some time ago he sent me yours, which I read with interest. I just sent the following message back to him and he suggested that I contact you directly.

Continue reading →

Waking Up (Conclusion)

Posted on by

Part 4 (conclusion) of the review of Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by Sam Harris

Read Part 3 / Go to Part 1

Drugs

Many pages are devoted to a discussion of Near Death Experiences, although the reason for this is unclear – it is quite disproportionate, given the supposed topic of the book. He rightly condemns them as having nothing to do with spirituality, since they are merely the result of a cocktail of naturally produced chemicals in the brain. But then, inexplicably, he lauds hallucinogens as a mechanism for artificially inducing spiritual experiences, when all that they do is introduce a cocktail of man-made chemicals into the brain! You know full well (afterwards) that any experience you might have had was chemically created and therefore unreal. How can it possibly teach you anything useful? This is the height of irresponsibility and should have been rejected by the publisher.

Continue reading →