There is no...

[Miguel Angel Carrasco]

Thanks a lot to several members' comments on my "There is no... " position.

Though I have already read quite a few books about Advaita, I will follow
Ram Chandran's kind advice about refering to Vidyasankar's homepage.  I
really appreciate Ram Chandran's lengthy troubles to explain to me the
point of human beings' Dharma.

The problem is that I do not consider myself a human being. This is not my
body, nor is this my mind that is dictating this e-mail. At least they are
not more mine than my dog's (or any living being's) body and mind. As
Nisargadatta Maharaj said (I quote approximately), "You accuse me of being
a person - I declare myself innocent."

I am not interested in human beings' nature. Nor in dolphins',  or
Martians'. That has nothing to do with me.

Once I have heard (in the Vedas) and accepted that only the Absolute is
real, and that I am not this person, but that One who has no form and no
nature (tat twam asi), I have stopped being really interested in
investigating other things (which are only imaginary). I try to see things
"sub speculo aeternitatis" - from the point of view of the eternal.

I suspect that I am oversimplifying, that this "there is no..." position
may be wrong (but, as I feel, not for lack of reading or thinking, but
perhaps for too much of that). Anyway, this cannot be my definite position,
because I am not yet at rest, which means that I am not yet One. Though who
says this? My mind, which does not exist. It is only the One's shadow. And
how can the shadow understand the One?

Anyway, thanks a lot again. Truly.

>From  Wed Oct 22 16:43:02 1997
Message-Id: <WED.22.OCT.1997.164302.0400.>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 16:43:02 -0400
Reply-To: chandran at tidalwave.net
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ram Chandran <chandran at TIDALWAVE.NET>
Organization: Personal
Subject: Re: Teacher - a necessity?
Comments: To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Nanda Kumar wrote:
>
> Is there any explanation anywhere as to why the PHYSICAL presence
> of a teacher is necessary, since the Upanishads places so much
> importance on it? Or isn't it?

Dear Nanda: Namaskar,

 You have an interesting and a valid question. The concept of physical
presence of the teacher (Guru) comes from the Vedic Oral tradition.
Historically for a long time, Vedas were transmitted from generation to
generation from a teacher to a student.  The physical presence was
necessary for that reason. Not long ago, universities across the
universe expected physical presence of the students! Even now, some
universities insist on those conditions! It is also true Degrees and
Diplomas through correspondence courses do not fetch the same value in
the Education Market! All these have something to do with the perception
of the people across the spectrum.  These perceptions have changed with
the modern communication facilities and we could do all our office
practically from home.  This is a new reality! With this new reality, we
can conduct Vedantic classes, meditation and Yoga through Video tapes.
We also conduct our Advaita Satsang without physical presence of the
members of our family!  In summary, the answer to your question is, it
is not necessary!
        Everything can be learnt without the physical presence of a teacher.
However, everything can be learnt better with the presence of a "GOOD"
teacher!  Specifically, the subject matter that deals with spirituality
will require a spiritual master who can give proper guidance!
Sometimes, finding a good spiritual master could be as difficult as
finding the TRUTH!  Ideally the physical presence of a good teacher and
a good student will certainly enhance the learning potential. This may
explain why good spiritual master seek good students!  Swami
Vivekananda's search for a Guru is an interesting episode and worth
reading to understand the importance of a Good student (Swami
Vivekananda) and a Good teacher (Swami Ramakrishna Paramahamsa). It may
be possible to define the necessary factors for learning.  But it is
impossible to define the sufficient factors for learning!
Sankaracharyar discusses beautifully the qualifications of teachers and
students in Vivekachoodamani.

Note: Without a teacher it is our tendency to look for Dictionary
translations to understand difficult concepts.  But such translations
can lead to  misinformation and misunderstanding. Learning is not just
listening and reading there is always a mystic connection in personal
direct human interaction. This is experience which is greater and
unexplainable!

>From  Thu Oct 23 08:13:42 1997
Message-Id: <THU.23.OCT.1997.081342.0400.>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 08:13:42 -0400
Reply-To: chandran at tidalwave.net
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ram Chandran <chandran at TIDALWAVE.NET>
Organization: Personal
Subject: Re: There is no...
Comments: To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Miguel Angel Carrasco wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot to several members' comments on my "There is no... " position.
>
> Though I have already read quite a few books about Advaita, I will follow
> Ram Chandran's kind advice about refering to Vidyasankar's homepage.  I
> really appreciate Ram Chandran's lengthy troubles to explain to me the
> point of human beings' Dharma.
>
> The problem is that I do not consider myself a human being. This is not my
> body, nor is this my mind that is dictating this e-mail. At least they are
> not more mine than my dog's (or any living being's) body and mind. As
> Nisargadatta Maharaj said (I quote approximately), "You accuse me of being
> a person - I declare myself innocent."
>
> I am not interested in human beings' nature. Nor in dolphins',  or
> Martians'. That has nothing to do with me.
>
> Once I have heard (in the Vedas) and accepted that only the Absolute is
> real, and that I am not this person, but that One who has no form and no
> nature (tat twam asi), I have stopped being really interested in
> investigating other things (which are only imaginary). I try to see things
> "sub speculo aeternitatis" - from the point of view of the eternal.
>
> I suspect that I am oversimplifying, that this "there is no..." position
> may be wrong (but, as I feel, not for lack of reading or thinking, but
> perhaps for too much of that). Anyway, this cannot be my definite position,
> because I am not yet at rest, which means that I am not yet One. Though who
> says this? My mind, which does not exist. It is only the One's shadow. And
> how can the shadow understand the One?
>
> Anyway, thanks a lot again. Truly.

Greetings Miguel Angel:

Thanks for your kind and thoughtful words.  I find that you have
communicated the Pure Vedantic Philosophy coming from inside.  Since it
has come from inside it has infinite depth for contemplation. The
following excerpts from J. Krishnamurti contain thoughts that are
parallel to yours. The bottom line is that all answers to fundamental
questions about "Truth" can be found only "within" and not "outside!" It
is better to simplify than complicate!!

'Truth is a pathless land'.  Man cannot come to it through any
organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual,
not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique.  He
has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the
understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and
not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection.  Man has
built in himself images as a fence of security - religious, political,
or philosophical.  They are manifested as symbols, ideas, beliefs.  The
burden of these images dominates man's thinking, his relationships and
his daily life.  These images are the causes of our problems for they
divide man from man.  His perception of life is shaped by the concepts
already established in his mind.  The content of his consciousness is
his entire existence.  This content is common to all humanity.  The
individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires
from tradition and environment.  The uniqueness of man does not lie in
the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his
consciousness, which is common to all mankind.  So he is not an
individual.

Freedom is not a reaction; freedom is not a choice.  It is man's
pretense that because he has choice he is free.  Freedom is pure
observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward.
Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of
man but lies in the first step of his existence.  In observation one
begins to discover the lack of freedom.  Freedom is found in the
choice-less awareness of our daily existence and activity.  Thought is
time.  Thought is born of experience and knowledge which are inseparable
from time and the past.  Time is the psychological enemy of man.  Our
actions are based on knowledge and therefore time, so man is always a
slave to the past.  Thought is ever-limited and so we live in constant
conflict and struggle.  There is no psychological evolution.

When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts, he will see
the division between the thinker and thought, the observer and the
observed, the experiencer and the experience.  He will discover that
this division is an illusion.  Then only is there pure observation which
is insight without any shadow of the past or of time.  This timeless
insight brings about a deep radical mutation in the mind.

Total negation is the essence of the positive.  When there is negation
of all those things that thought has brought about psychologically, only
then is there love, which is compassion and intelligence.  J.
Krishnamurti.