Neti Yoga [was Re: ADVAITA-L Digest - 8 Sep 2002 to 9 Sep 2002 (#2002-228)]

[Ashish Chandra]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 08:05:04 -0400, yogafarm <yogafarm at WEBTV.NET> wrote:

Namaste

>
>In response to your combined comments:
>
>1.) Sathya Sai Baba is my guru and preceptor, and has been so for some
>30 years.  I have had other teachers, too, both by book and direct
>participation throughout that time.  Most of them claim their lineage
>back to Shankaracharyaji.  I presume you and your families also have
>your own gurus -- anyway, that is my connection with Sai Baba (who fully
>supports Shankaracharaya's teachings, by the way).
>

You are very fortunate to have a sadguru who has guided you. Whatever path
that you are following and have taken to is only because of his direction
and grace. God speed to you - it cannot be wrong. The only difference you
will see, at least on this list, is that when the teachings of Gurus not
directly belonging to Adi Shankara's lineage are brought up, it "seems"
like they do not fit well with what classical and traditional Advaita
Vedanta is. It is only there where we all see some differences. But that is
quite ok. You will not reach some other God just because you have called
your process Neti Yoga :-)

>4.) Regarding Buddhism's "Great Void" compared to samadhi, satori, Mu,
>etc., I suggest you begin any studies of that pathway with "The Tibetan
>Book of the Dead," then read a number of the great Buddhist sutras,
>beginning with the "Heart" sutra -- these will reveal much about the
>similarities, etc. (see item 2, above).

It is only this that traditionalists will scoff at. However helpful it may
be to you and me to devour everything that points you in the right
direction, Advaita is a complete path in itself. I have not read any of the
works you have mentioned above but you will continue to observe that
traditional Advaita has always opposed the Buddhist philosophy. Great
teachers have spent their lifetimes opposing what Buddhism has tried to
establish. So anyone taking a traditional position (such as Jaladhar) will
always take the position that the two approaches, i.e. Buddhist and
Vedanta, should not be followed together as they will confuse you. He is
right in his own way but if it helps you (and I think it does), then there
is definitely no harm (IMO). However, one must always be careful to make
statements like Buddhism leads to Advaita when traditionally the two have
had different conclusions. I am probably just babbling here but there is a
definite disconnect here between the orthodoxy and others - the former
favoring just one single approach and the latter (like me as well) trying
everything that points you closer and closer to where you want to go.

>7.) Regarding "that" samadhi: Some people believe there are various
>stages of samadhi; others -- including myself -- believe that there is
>only one samadhi.  It is the No-Mind state; it is Brahman; it is turiya,
>Atman, Pure Consciousness, satori, etc.

But this state is not accidental. Even when those "missing moments" are
observed, it is not a direct experience of Brahman. Like deep sleep, it is
experience of mula avidya (primal ignorance). A jivanmukta (fully realized
person) does not experience avidya as he has destroyed it. He is Brahman
and knows it. We can only agree with him that we too are that but we have
no direct experience.

Please don't take anything I have written as offensive. If I have offended
you, please forgive me.

ashish