It seems to me, as though, there is a fine thread of commonality running through the four verses 4.24; 6.29; 9.4 and 9.5 of Bhagavad-Gita, coming from the Chapters titled respectively, jnAnakarmasamnyAsayoga, dhyAnayoga and rAjavidyArAjaguhyayoga.
Question: Does a jnAni see a world?
Hishi Ryo (aka Thomas Felber) answers:
[This post only scratches the surface, as this topic can be viewed from many angles per shloka, mantra, sUtra, prakaraNa etc. Due to the amount of texts and references, the answer can quickly become lengthy. As long as there are glimpses to ponder, we can all learn something. ]
A few points: Continue reading
Q: Does Atman make use of intellect? Or does intellect function automatically with Atman just being the witness?
This is because, identification with body mind is possible only when we think. Liberation is possible when we overcome this wrong idea. Either way, it appears that Atman makes use of the intellect to get bound or liberated.
It is said that Atman is ever free and illusion and bondage are concepts only. But this concept can appear to Atman only when intellect is used.
A: First of all, you must clearly differentiate between the ‘absolute reality’ and the ‘empirical’ (worldly) appearance.
In reality, there is only non-dual Brahman. The world, including ‘you, the person’, is not real in itself. It is ‘name and form of’ Brahman, just as ring and necklace are not real in themselves, being name and form of gold.
Continue readingAdvaita teaching frequently makes use of metaphor in its explanations of the various topics. These are indisputably invaluable, although there is also the danger of taking them beyond the realm of their applicability and either drawing erroneous conclusions or simply failing to see the point that is being made. This also highlights the necessity of using the metaphor that is most appropriate for conveying the message. Take the example of sarvam khalvidam brahma – all this (world) is really Brahman.
We might start with the ubiquitous rope-snake metaphor. We think we see a snake but the light is poor. (We think we see a world of separate objects, but we haven’t yet gained the Self-knowledge of Advaita – our perception is covered by ignorance.) When we bring torchlight to shine into the darkness, we see that it is really a rope. (Having been taught Advaita, we realize that the world is really name and form of Brahman.)
Continue readingQ: I am still confused about the relative value of experience and knowledge. Some teachers seem to say that scriptures only give you ‘intellectual’ knowledge and you then have to convert this into actual ‘experience’ in order to become enlightened. But then there are metaphors like rope-snake and dream-waking. The snake that we experience is not real and we have to wake up from the dream. This means gaining knowledge, doesn’t it?
A: You cannot experience the Self/Brahman/Absolute. But then neither can you ‘know’ it in the usual sense of the word. Reality is non-dual. The empirical, experienced world of duality is an appearance; name and form of Brahman. All of this can be intellectually understood by the mind. When it is firmly believed to be true, without any doubt, that is enlightenment.
You should also understand that it is not the case that ‘all of this is unreal’. ‘Unreal’ is not the correct adjective. Every empirical perception is name and form of Brahman and therefore ultimately real. Just not ‘real’ as its perceived ‘object’. This is why the world does not disappear on enlightenment. The scriptures tell us ‘sarvam khalvidam brahma’ – all of this is Brahman. So, if it disappeared, it would mean that Brahman disappeared!
Continue reading*** 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*** 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 readingContinuing 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*** Read Part 1 ***
There are also two significant dangers regarding the Neo-Advaita ‘movement’. Firstly, there is the clear possibility of charlatans who, having read a little or heard the fundamental elements of ‘descriptions’ of reality, can devise a few ‘routines’ of their own and then advertise themselves on the circuit. Providing that they are good speakers/actors, it is certainly possible to make a living from deceiving ‘seekers’ in such a way, without ever giving away their true lack of knowledge or the fact that they are no nearer any ‘realization’ than their disciples.
Secondly, seekers themselves may be deluded into a belief that some specious realization has been obtained when, in fact, all that has happened is that they have come to terms with some psychological problem that had been making life difficult. The ending of such suffering could well be seen as a ‘liberation’. Of course, such a thing would not be at all bad – it simply would have nothing to do with enlightenment. Indeed, such people might well go on to become teachers in their own right, not charlatans in the true sense of the word, since they genuinely believe that ‘realization’ has taken place.
Continue readingThis will be a multi-part post, triggered in part by Ramesam’s recent post ‘Liberation is Disembodiment’, following which I promised a separate post. First of all, I will repost an article on the subject from advaita.org.uk, with which readers may not be familiar. Secondly, I will post an article on the subject that I apparently wrote in 2006 but do not seem ever to have published. Finally, I will add a new section and make a radical suggestion (as promised in my comment).
The word ‘neo’ means ‘new’ so that ‘Neo-Advaita’ is an impossibility. Advaita means ‘not two’, referring to the non-dual reality that always was, is and will be – unchanging because change would necessarily be from one thing into another, which would be contradictory. There cannot, therefore, be an ‘old’ and a ‘new’ Advaita, only the one truth.
Continue reading