Well, the March/April meeting went ahead last night. There were six of us in all and it was a good session, I think.
I hadn't had much time to give thought to the Gita verses, and there wasn't rally much discussion about them, as I don't think anyone else had either.
The event took place in the evening of a MADYA seminar (Pornamurti and I are on the MADYA committee), and it left us in a bit of a rush to arrange everything.
The events are small but very enjoyable. I'd like to see a few more people ideally...
Sunday, 10 April 2011
Tuesday, 5 April 2011
Vedanta
In another context, someone just asked me the meaning of advaita.
This is what I answered:
As I'm sure you are ware, much of Yoga philosophy is based upon the Upanishads. The Upanishads are a loose collection of writings from the Indian subcontinent. They date from around 1000 years old, to just a couple of hundred years old. There is no official collection, as such, and there are some Upanishads that are not always included in collections.
There are a few 'classics', though, such as Brihadaranyak, Mandukya, Chandogya, and Isa.
Upanishad means 'to sit near', and the implication is that it is the student sitting near to the teacher. Many Upanisads are written as a student asking questions of a teacher, and the teacher answering. The questions are profound, such as: What is the true nature of reality; What is the real significance of OM; etc.
As these books are old, they have been read by many people, and some of those people were remarkably bright. Some of these people commented on the Upanishads, and over time, 'schools of thought' grew up around these commentaries.
There are three main schools of thought:
Dvaita (dualistic): The true nature of reality is that there is a divine spirit which is separate from human consciousness. We can strive to approach the divine spirit, and find its grace and favour, but we can never become one with the divine spirit.
Advaita (non-dualistic): The true nature of reality is non-dual. We and the divine spirit are identical. What you are right now is the divine. What you see right now is the divine. Everything that is, is the divine, right here, right now, in its pure, perfect undiluted form. All we need to do is realise our present true nature, and we are one with the divine.
Vishist-advaita (qualified non-dualism): The true nature of reality is one divine spirit, but presently we are separate from that spirit. We can become one with the divine, but we have to strive to achieve this. It's not just a case of modifying our understanding (as in pure advaita), but of modifying our nature.
It's worth pointing out that, although in the past there have been fierce discussion (I mean, hundreds of years ago), most people now accept that each of these is really just a different way of approaching the same thing. Some people feel more comfortable thinking about things one way or the other. In the end, it matters little, as the Upanishads always say the same, whatever spectacles you look at them through!
This is what I answered:
As I'm sure you are ware, much of Yoga philosophy is based upon the Upanishads. The Upanishads are a loose collection of writings from the Indian subcontinent. They date from around 1000 years old, to just a couple of hundred years old. There is no official collection, as such, and there are some Upanishads that are not always included in collections.
There are a few 'classics', though, such as Brihadaranyak, Mandukya, Chandogya, and Isa.
Upanishad means 'to sit near', and the implication is that it is the student sitting near to the teacher. Many Upanisads are written as a student asking questions of a teacher, and the teacher answering. The questions are profound, such as: What is the true nature of reality; What is the real significance of OM; etc.
As these books are old, they have been read by many people, and some of those people were remarkably bright. Some of these people commented on the Upanishads, and over time, 'schools of thought' grew up around these commentaries.
There are three main schools of thought:
Dvaita (dualistic): The true nature of reality is that there is a divine spirit which is separate from human consciousness. We can strive to approach the divine spirit, and find its grace and favour, but we can never become one with the divine spirit.
Advaita (non-dualistic): The true nature of reality is non-dual. We and the divine spirit are identical. What you are right now is the divine. What you see right now is the divine. Everything that is, is the divine, right here, right now, in its pure, perfect undiluted form. All we need to do is realise our present true nature, and we are one with the divine.
Vishist-advaita (qualified non-dualism): The true nature of reality is one divine spirit, but presently we are separate from that spirit. We can become one with the divine, but we have to strive to achieve this. It's not just a case of modifying our understanding (as in pure advaita), but of modifying our nature.
It's worth pointing out that, although in the past there have been fierce discussion (I mean, hundreds of years ago), most people now accept that each of these is really just a different way of approaching the same thing. Some people feel more comfortable thinking about things one way or the other. In the end, it matters little, as the Upanishads always say the same, whatever spectacles you look at them through!
Interlude
Everything that comes to me
that I find to be agreeable
is my Guru's
sweetest blessin'
Everything that comes to me
that to accept, I am less able
is my Guru's
welcome lessin
that I find to be agreeable
is my Guru's
sweetest blessin'
Everything that comes to me
that to accept, I am less able
is my Guru's
welcome lessin
Thursday, 10 March 2011
Guru Stotram Transalation
I've been working on a translation of Guru Stotram.
You can find my latest attempt here. It's given as a straight-through English language 'poem', and also with each Romanised Sanskrit verse.
I left the term bindunada (point-sound, essential sound, root of space/time and motion?) untranslated, because yoga bods will know what it means, and I couldn't get a decent translation to fit...
Also in that file are translations of the other mantras we usually chant on our Saturday evenings.
Don't worry about the use of 'He' and 'Him'. It's just impossibly to write anything approaching readable using he/she, his/her, they/them. Change it all to she if you like, Guru is genderless anyway.
You can find my latest attempt here. It's given as a straight-through English language 'poem', and also with each Romanised Sanskrit verse.
I left the term bindunada (point-sound, essential sound, root of space/time and motion?) untranslated, because yoga bods will know what it means, and I couldn't get a decent translation to fit...
Also in that file are translations of the other mantras we usually chant on our Saturday evenings.
Don't worry about the use of 'He' and 'Him'. It's just impossibly to write anything approaching readable using he/she, his/her, they/them. Change it all to she if you like, Guru is genderless anyway.
Sunday, 6 March 2011
Bhagavad Gita 2.9-18
2.9 When Arjuna the great warrior had thus unburdened his heart, 'I will not fight, Krishna,' he said, and then fell silent.
2.10 Krishna smiled and spoke to Arjuna - there between the two armies the voice of God spoke these words:
2.11 Thy tears are for those beyond tears; and are thy words words of wisdom? The wise grieve not for those who live; and they grieve not for those who die - for life and death shall pass away.
2.12 Because we all have been for all time: I, and thou, and those kings of men. And we all shall be for all time, we all for ever and ever.
2.13 As the spirit of our mortal body wanders on in childhood, and youth, and old age, the Spirit wanders on to a new body: of this the sage has no doubts.
2.14 From the world of the senses, Arjuna, comes heat and cold, and pleasure and pain. They come and they go: they are transient. Arise above them, strong soul.
2.15 The person whom these cannot move, whose soul is one, beyond pleasure and pain, is worthy of life in Eternity.
2.16 The unreal never is: the Real never is not. This truth indeed has been seen by those who can see the true.
2.17 Interwoven in his creation, the Spirit is beyond destruction. No one can bring to an end the Spirit which is is everlasting.
2.18 For beyond time he dwells in these bodies, though these bodies have an end in their time: but he remains immeasurable, immortal. Therefore, great warrior, carry on thy fight.Mascaro.
February Meeting
Well, I've bee a little remis in providing this update.
We had eleven people at our February gathering, which is really great. There were four other people who in the end couldn't make it on the night. With 15 we would have been pushed for space!
It's nice to keep things intimate, though. We have thought that if we get many people, we might need to look for a venue outside our home. In the sumer months, course that's exactly were we can do it: outside our home, in the garden!
If we do decide we need more space during times of inclement weather, I think we'l l have to be very careful about selecting a place. It felt so relaxed and easy to talk in informality of a kitchen and living room! Or maybe that was just me, because it was my living room!
The discussion of the Gita verses was interesting. My views were not popular, but I think they provoked some thought!
Unfortunately, Poornamurti and I are away at the end of March. Also, the last weekend in April is Easter.
For this reason, we are going to break the 'last Saturday of the Month' ideal, and the next meeting will be on the 9th April, and will count as the meetings for March and April combined.
As nobody else has volunteered, I shall be choosing some more verses for contemplation very soon...
Poornamurti and I would again like to extend our sincerest love and thanks to everyone who attended.
We had eleven people at our February gathering, which is really great. There were four other people who in the end couldn't make it on the night. With 15 we would have been pushed for space!
It's nice to keep things intimate, though. We have thought that if we get many people, we might need to look for a venue outside our home. In the sumer months, course that's exactly were we can do it: outside our home, in the garden!
If we do decide we need more space during times of inclement weather, I think we'l l have to be very careful about selecting a place. It felt so relaxed and easy to talk in informality of a kitchen and living room! Or maybe that was just me, because it was my living room!
The discussion of the Gita verses was interesting. My views were not popular, but I think they provoked some thought!
Unfortunately, Poornamurti and I are away at the end of March. Also, the last weekend in April is Easter.
For this reason, we are going to break the 'last Saturday of the Month' ideal, and the next meeting will be on the 9th April, and will count as the meetings for March and April combined.
As nobody else has volunteered, I shall be choosing some more verses for contemplation very soon...
Poornamurti and I would again like to extend our sincerest love and thanks to everyone who attended.
The Theory of Emergence
Continuing with my theme of pointing out where great scientists with PhD's coming out of their ears are going wrong...
One of the most accepted theories of consciousness in science at the moment is that it is simply an 'emergent feature'.
The idea is that the brain is simply so complex, that the illusion of consciousness simply emerges from the complexity. Again, a bit like the idea of a whirlpool emerging from a flowing river. The whirlpool isn't real in a great sense, it just 'emerges' from the complexity of the forces of the flowing water.
So this idea of emergent consciousness says that there really is no 'I'. There is no self at all, and the fact that we think we exist is just a complex activity of the brain that simply springs forth from its inherent nature. Consciousness, even beingness, is simply an illusion brought forth by the nature of the way matter behaves.
Well, yet again, they have it nearly right.
In fact, the brain is an emergent feature of consciousness.
The universe is an emergent feature of consciousness.
One of the most accepted theories of consciousness in science at the moment is that it is simply an 'emergent feature'.
The idea is that the brain is simply so complex, that the illusion of consciousness simply emerges from the complexity. Again, a bit like the idea of a whirlpool emerging from a flowing river. The whirlpool isn't real in a great sense, it just 'emerges' from the complexity of the forces of the flowing water.
So this idea of emergent consciousness says that there really is no 'I'. There is no self at all, and the fact that we think we exist is just a complex activity of the brain that simply springs forth from its inherent nature. Consciousness, even beingness, is simply an illusion brought forth by the nature of the way matter behaves.
Well, yet again, they have it nearly right.
In fact, the brain is an emergent feature of consciousness.
The universe is an emergent feature of consciousness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)