Spiritual Erudition

[Harry Fleenor]

Charles A. Hillig wrote,

>On Sat, 17 Aug 1996 15:38:33 -0700, "Charles A. Hillig"
><chillig at JETLINK.NET> wrote:
>
>>     Non-dualism is experiential.  The "map" is not to be confused with the
>>spiritual "territory" that it describes.    As fascinating as it may be to
>>ponder,  the so-called "map" often only provides us with yet another
>>distraction along the "way-less way."   And, in the end,  the energy spent
>>in studying it often keeps us away from fully addressing that  ultimate and
>>most  primordial  of all questions:   Who Am I?
>
>and then later...
>
Yes, the "map" is not the Self. *Who* is looking at the map?

>>     In short, how does the non-dualism of Shankara and Maharshi translate
>>now into the cyber-dream of  your own melodramatic dance?

In daily life ask, *Who* is doing this work? *Who* is walking down the street?
*Who* is sleeping, eating etc,?
This way the body is seen as the illusion it is. It is not the same body for
even a full second of time, since at least millions of changes in its appearance
happen in that time. This way the *Real* shines through and life is seen as
a-mazing, phenomenal and joyous no matter what the body is going through.

Ken Stuart wrote,

>I actually think that what you are describing is the difference
>between studying Shankara and studying Maharshi.
>
>Now, when I say "Shankara" here I mean Shankara as we know him
>hundreds of years later, in what has come down to us in texts such as
>the Vivekachudamani.
>
>Whereas in studying Maharshi, since he was on earth much more
>recently, we have a wealth of more practical information, including
>interpretations of texts such as the Vivekachudamani.   The question
>and answer sessions that have been recorded are particularly helpful
>to the student who wishes to apply Advaita in his life.
>
>I do think that scholarly discussion about Advaitic texts are a good
>thing, but certainly the personal practice you want to discuss is also
>a worthy topic.
>
>However, practice alone is not enough, as I learned from the example
>of a close friend.    Here is what Swami Lakshman Jee has to say on
>this subject:
>
>" If an aspirant is only attached to practical knowledge [ ie
>developed through practice ] and not to theoretical [ie intellectual]
>knowledge, believing that the only real knowledge is practical
>knowledge which is the realizing of one's own nature, then he is
>incorrect from a Saiva point of view.  If only practical knowledge is
>cultivated and intellectual knowledge is totally ignored then there is
>every possibility that practical knowledge may decrease day by day,
>slowly fading away so that in the end it does not remain at all.  It
>is the greatness of intellectual knowledge that with its power it
>firmly establishes practical knowledge.  In this respect, therefore,
>intellectual knowledge is more predominant than practical knowledge."
>
>My understanding of what he is saying, is that without intellectual
>knowledge, one does not know where one is going with one's practice.

Are you trying to say that nonintellectual people cannot realize their
own *True Nature*? Of course not.
Next to the light of the *Self* all the writings of Sankara aren't even
one candlepower in the midday sun. So even though Sankara has helped
to remove layers of ignorance he must be abandoned with all other
appearing phenomena once the jewel has been found. :>

Thanks
hfleenor at beachnet.gen.ca.us (Harry Fleenor)

OM
Knowing Being and Joyously Reveling in our own True Nature!