0.
Intro. A question for Nisargadata Maharaj:
- Founder of Theosophy was engaged in war
The
August-September 2011 issue of Rivista
italiana di teosofia,
the journal of the Theosophical Society in Italy, carries an article
on “Helena Petrovna Blavatsky e l’Italia” by Patrizia Moschin
Calvi. The writer informs us that as 2011 marks the 150th anniversary
of the Unification of Italy, H.P. Blavatsky
has
come into the news there, together with Giuseppe Garibaldi and
Giuseppe Mazzini, who were the well-known protagonists and heroes in
the fight for unification. Blavatsky’s different statements about
her presence at the Battle of Mentana, Italy, in November 1867, are
referred to, though the writer is forced to mention: it
is difficult to make rational sense of her movements, as AP Sinnett
explains “We rarely find any logical meaning which might explain
her actions and often even she found herself in the position of not
understanding ‘why’ at any given moment she was preparing to go
here or there. The true reasons for these movements were the orders
she received through occult channels.”
Obviously
another area that needs further research.
Olcott says she was still wearing her red Garibaldian shirt when they met in rural Vermont in October 1874: she told me many incidents of her past life, among others, her having been present as a volunteer, with a number of other European ladies, with Garibaldi at the bloody battle of Mentana. In proof of her story she showed me where her left arm had been broken in two places by a sabre-stroke, and made me feel in her right shoulder a musket-bullet, still imbedded in the muscle, and another in her leg. She also showed me a scar just below the heart where she had been stabbed with a stiletto.
Garibaldi was also shot and wounded at the Battle of Mentana, which occurred on November 3, 1867. Garibaldi’s army was routed by the Papal troops.
Olcott says she was still wearing her red Garibaldian shirt when they met in rural Vermont in October 1874: she told me many incidents of her past life, among others, her having been present as a volunteer, with a number of other European ladies, with Garibaldi at the bloody battle of Mentana. In proof of her story she showed me where her left arm had been broken in two places by a sabre-stroke, and made me feel in her right shoulder a musket-bullet, still imbedded in the muscle, and another in her leg. She also showed me a scar just below the heart where she had been stabbed with a stiletto.
Garibaldi was also shot and wounded at the Battle of Mentana, which occurred on November 3, 1867. Garibaldi’s army was routed by the Papal troops.
- Breaking the sterotypes and who is a mystic, magician and who is both
So
now we know that HPB was far from apolitical and saintly aureola
that some ppl still want to enforce on her memory, even today. She
heavily cursed, smoked as chimney and was really hard to get along.
She was a first ray teacher, who teaches through will, power, orders,
bluntness.
To
come now to subject of simmilarities of advaita and theosophy. All in
all, advaita is one of the schools of vedanta which in it's
practicality is purely a mystical system.
That
means that to advaitist all that matters is self realisation and
nothing else. There is no compassion towards sentient beings, cos
except realisation of I AM (classical advaita: Nisargadata,
Shankaracharya and Maharshi) or attaining inner guidance from
transpersonal self, everything else is an illusion.
On
the other hand, teosophy in it's outer court is more mysticaly
inclinged. But in the inner court it's purely a practical magic
system. Therefore Theosophy is mystical magic system and advaita is
just a mystical system. Ideal of Theosophy is Boddisatva and he's
principle to wait with his total merger with Ocean, cos of helping
others. Advaitist will just merge in Ocean.
To
understand advaita in metaphorical terms we can say that religions
are dogmatic systems for ppl in begining of their voyage towards God.
Advaita
doesn't have a dogma. It rellys on experience only. It does however
say that it is crucial to have a Teacher firmly rooted in self
realisation or in Brahman. Without this gudiance, reallisation of I
am is not possible. So after you realise that you have outgrown the
religions you enter advaita. And if u are lucky u find a true
Teacher. If not u do ACIM instead ;) There is nothing wrong with
religions. They have their place in order of things.
On
the other hand, theosophy would agree on advaitistic point of view,
but it would say that is good to study and compare religions. It
would also say that it is usefull even for selfrealised to perform
rituals, cos from magical perspective some rituals are performed as
service to other ppl (CWL's books on energetic aspets of ritual work
in masonic and christian rituals) and enhancment of their spiritual
development. And masters, do perform rituals. St Germain for example.
Daily.
3.
Anarcho-Advaita of a disciple
Another
metaphorical
exploration of what advaita is, and what is not might start in AAB's
system. According to DK on spiritual path there are aspirants and
disciples, to name the two I need for making my point clear.
Aspirants
are la creme de la creme of organised religions (of holly books or
pagan alike). They are very self disciplined by outer authority or
rules or dogmas. Their contact of personality and transpersonal self,
is not established yet, so they have to rely on outer authority. On
the other hand disciples are in transition period from outer
authority to inner one. They day by day listen more to the inner
dictate of the transpersonal self. That is what intro about HPB and
her joining Garibaldi is all about. Disciple folllows dictate of soul
no matter what. He doesn't care about what other ppl think about his
actions...
We
can say that political parties are very much so as organised
religions. But on the other hand, Anarchists are much more simmilar
to disciples. They tend to think with their own heads. Chomsky,
Bakunin, Asange, Yurofsky, to name just a few.
The
don't follow any outer authority. Their concept of perceiving reality
and their political thinking is much more related to personal
freedom, than those of followers of organised religion. They tend to
follow leaders.
But
even as an anarchist u can go further. If an anarchist would become
self-realised, he would then follow dictates of his transpersonal
self and not that of his ego. He would become an enlightened
anarchist and as such an pneumatocrat – the one who obeys dictates
of his own transpersonal self and considers words of spiritualy more
developed brothers and sisters as worth of thinking over. If they
resonate in his heart (and her's or his transpersonal aproves 'em),
then enligtened anarchist would follow suggestions of somebody else
on case to case basis. Not cos of accepting outer authority, but cos
his inner transpersonal self agrees with wisdom of others. His own
soul is a final judge in all decisions. Therefore he is in my view a
true anarchist, enlightened anarchist.
To
say that disciples are in fact true anarchists is in some occult
circles considered as a blasphmey. (It is hard for every disciple to
cope with his enviroment, cos he thinx and acts quite differentley
than Ordinary ppl.) But I couldn't care less about that. True
theosophists allways cared about other ppl and beings welfare and
even laid down lifes for others. Cowards theorise about esoterics and
stay apolitical cos it's easier. HPB stood her ground with Garibaldi.
And if founder of Theosophy was deeply politicaly active, so should
be everyone who declares herself or hisself a theosophist.
- Nisargadata Maharaj (1897-1981)
Simmilarly
advaitist would follow only dictates of his guru that resonate in his
soul. He doesn't care for outer rules and stereotypes. Nisargadata
was for example selfrealised, but he smoked bijis and sang bhajans 4
times a day. Because he considered bahajans as harmless habbit, not
as a path towards god. He also taught advaita quite unorthodoxically.
Nisrgadatta
was a very provocative teacher of advaita who all his life worked as
a clerk in his store and latter in afternoon taught advaita in his
flat to westerners and indians allike. His sayings on advaita are
very minimalistic and direct. He became a leader of Inchegiri branch
of Navnath Sampradaye. He realised himself after a few years (he was
in silence all his free time) of performing the only instruction from
his Teacher – to allways go back to his feeling of I AM.
Nisargadata
said, that the only goal of spirituality (this is a view of a mystic)
is in realising WHO AM I? He didn't wanted to start teaching advaita
to ppl. He did it only after his teacher persuaded him into it.
Techinque that he jsutified for this path, was mental discrimination,
which is part of Jnana yoga path. Dasbodhe, which is book for
teaching advaita, Nisagadata never used.
Dr.
Powel said about Nisargadatta that he is like zen master of ancient
past. He has violent outbursts, provocations and depth. He forcefully
breaks down the barriers and enters the essence of things. He doesn't
care about things that are not essential. When Nisargadatta said,
everyone listened. He said things bluntly as HPB and direct as is the
cutom in guru-shisya tradition. His words transformed consiousness of
listeners. That is the only reason why in advaitistic guruparampara,
guru is a prerequisite to selfrealisation.
5.
ACIM
In
20th
century Hierarchy made an experiment. They gave advaita to the west
and packed it in christian words. I personaly don't like the
churchianity.
In
the end I prefer classical, direct advaita. It is true that exercises
from ACIM do - help. But to see how many ppl actualy suceeded in
getting to the goal of ACIM – u would be suprised. Very few
attained the goal – to reach inner guidance. There are though many
wondeerfull theoriticians and even preachers use ACIM during liturgy.
But the aim of Hierarchical project was to germinate self-realisation
in ppl, not forming a new set of dogmas on concrete mental level, but
to help ppl attain manas taijasi and pure the light of buddhi in
mental body.
6.
Theosophy and Advaita
Theosophical
system of thought teaches that all human beings are expressions of
One life. The inalienable rights of all sentient beings, humans and
animals alike
(vegans
political ideology actualy derives it's justification from this
point) stem from this universiality, from something that is
universally diffused throughout life and which therefore unites all
living and apparently non-living beings. In fact metaphysic of
nonduality permeates all first generation theosophical writing
(mainly HPB).
Nisargadatta
Maharaj had a succint way of summarising the salient points of
Vedanta also embraced by first generation of theosophists, when he
said: „IN PURE BEING CONSCIOUSNESS ARISES, IN CONSCIOUSNESS THE
WORLD APPEARS AND DISSAPEARS. Pure being (sat-chit-ananda) is basis,
consciousness is secondary and thoughts and and things are totally
dependent on the former two. World we live in is like in Matrix -
just a code, not a world of material objects. It's a world of
consciousness not of actions.
Through
today's
science
of cartesian dualism in which division, separation and selfishness
are the norm, oneness of advaita, solara, ACIM, Nisargadata and
Maharshi cannot be reached.
And
to declare that all humans and animals are the same and should not be
hurt or eaten, say Bhagavad Gita: „He whose self is harmonized by
yoga, seeth Self abiding in all beings and all beings in Self;
everywhere he sees the same Oneness.“ He is Vegan cos he can't act
and think differently to his fellow humans and animals. It is well
known how Ramana said to feed the dog, before him. When they did,
they asked him if he wants to eat now. He replied that he is full
now. That he has eaten, cos he is one with that dog. His point was
that in consciousness of oneness, things become different...
In
most basic practical terms a metaphysic of nonduality suggest that we
should never want for anything. Everything that we need is with us.
We must just realize that. Realize that: „I am God, and so are you.
And Old man in the sky is for an advaitist, just a fairy tale.“
- History of Advaita (ONE-ness) (from Wiki mainly;)
Advaita
Vedanta (IAST Advaita
Vedānta; Sanskrit: अद्वैत
वेदान्त [əd̪ʋait̪ə
ʋeːd̪ɑːnt̪ə])
is a philosophical
concept where
followers seek liberation/release by recognizing identity of the Self
(Atman) and the Whole (Brahman) through long preparation and
training, usually under the guidance of a guru,
that involves efforts such as knowledge of scriptures, renunciation
of worldy activities, and inducement of direct identity experiences.
Adi
Shankara (788 - 820), also known as Śaṅkara
Bhagavatpādācārya and Ādi
Śaṅkarācārya,
expounded the doctrine of Advaita — a nondualistic reality.
He consolidated the Advaita Vedanta, an interpretation of the Vedic
scriptures that continued the line of thought of some of the
Upanishadic teachers, Shankara's teacher Govinda
Bhagavatpada,
Govinda's teacher Gaudapada,
and Gaudapada's teacher Ajativada.
Advaita
vedanta is the most influental of 6 branches of advaita. It is a
praxis and philosophy of consciousness of onennes.Advaita relates to
identity of man – atman and all (brahman). In my view atman
consciousness is far more important.
Greatest
expounder of Advaita was Shankaracharya. He says that there are three
stages of reality.
Shankara
uses sublation as the criterion to postulate an ontological
hierarchy:
- Pāramārthika (paramartha, absolute), the absolute level, "which is absolutely real and into which both other reality levels can be resolved".This experience can't be sublated by any other experience.
- Vyāvahārika (vyavahara, empirical or pragmatical), "our world of experience, the phenomenal world that we handle every day when we are awake". It is the level in which both jiva (living creatures or individual souls) and Iswara are true; here, the material world is also true.
- Prāthibhāsika (pratibhasika, apparent reality, unreality), "reality based on imagination alone". It is the level in which appearances are actually false, like the illusion of a snake over a rope, or a dream.
The
first advaitist, Ramakrishna main disciple,
 |
| Check his right hand. Initiation mudra ;) |
that
talked on Advaita in west was Shri Vivekananda (1863-1902).
"I
do not come", said Swamiji on one occasion in America, "to
convert you to a new belief. I want you to keep your own belief; I
want to make the Methodist a
better Methodist; thePresbyterian a
better Presbyterian; theUnitarian a
better Unitarian. I want to teach you to live the truth, to reveal
the light within your own soul."
In
a talk on "The absolute and manifestation" given in at
London in 1896 Swami
Vivekananda said,
I may make bold to say that the only religion which agrees with, and even goes a little further than modern researchers, both on physical and moral lines is the Advaita, and that is why it appeals to modern scientists so much. They find that the old dualistic theories are not enough for them, do not satisfy their necessities. A man must have not only faith, but intellectual faith too".
Necessity of a Guru
Guru-shishya
tradition
]Guidance of a Guru
According
to Śankara and others, anyone seeking to follow the philosophy of
Advaita Vedānta must do so under the guidance of a Guru (Teacher).It
is the teacher who through exegesis of Sruti and skillful handling of
words generates a hitherto unknown knowledge in the disciple. The
teacher does not merely provide stimulus or suggestion.
nothin' else matters...
