RE: [TEMPLEUNIVERSAL] RESPONSE TO BRAHMAVID
Print format

From: Yahoo D.
Date: Thursday, February 1, 2007, 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: [templeuniversal] response to Brahmavid
ID: 255711

Swami,

You talk as if I do not understand your 'vision' of Vedanta. I not only understand it, I worked out most all of your points over 20 years ago and found not only the potential but also the limitations. Even your idea of Vedic spirituality is just pushing the principal aspect of the Vedic tradition. Vedic spirituality is embedded in the Vedas and Vedanta as the word implies - You can pull it out, but the Vedas is a Hindu system. You are just taking Vivekanada's idea of 'the end of knowing' definition. Vivekanada, because he was talking to a larger audience and because he had realized his universal nature, emphasized the principle of the Vedanta. He knew that if he tried to emphasize the Vedas to the larger public, they would not be accepted.

Any tradition can do this, as has been done by Buddhism for almost the last 2000 years in the Mahayana tradition. They also have powerful prophets such as BodhiDharma - who also emphasized the essential nature of all beingness and said to focus on this. This is where much of the power of Vivekananda came from and his emphasis on the Atman was an explosive message to many in America who were steeped in a protestant tradition. But if you study Buddhism very seriously and practice it very seriously for many years, you see that Buddhism also gave this message, even before Vivekananda in America. Vivekananda himself did not even know about Zen, which is virtually identical to Advaita Vedanta. He believed his offering of Advaita Vedanta was a completely unique message in the West, but aspects of Buddhism had already done this for portions of the American public. Vivekanada was a very powerful messanger of universal spiritual essence, but he is by no means the only one of importance, nor will he be the 'star' of the show, because there are many 'stars'. I am not trying to convince you of anything, I just want to be very clear about what I am saying for anyone else who might read this. I am not sure I am that respected, nor do I care; I have been through too much in this life and my focus is on continuing to humbly understand life, mind, and BEINGNESS. Each day is new for me and I continue to learn and open up to life's endless expressions. I am inspired by Vivekananda and many others, but life and its source are my ultimate focus. I am not trying to be the mouthpiece of any person, prophet or even science for that matter. I just continue to educate myself and push myself beyond all perceived limitations to try to become one with all that is and all that will be. I believe this is exactly what Vivekananda and other illumined souls were trying to point out and not some 'universal' panecea. Life is too big, too complex and too beautiful for our limited mind and heart to comprehend and only by continuing to strive beyond our current 'concepts' and sureties, can we ever hope to attain anything resembling freedom and fearlessness.

For some reason you think you are the mouth piece for Vivekananda and forget that others of us have been also studying, practicing and assimilating the ideas for over 30 years. I have deep respect for Vedanta; that is one of the reasons why I left everything for many years and dedicated myself to intense austerities and years of meditation, study and inner transformation. Just because someone leaves an institutional life style does not mean they have left the pursuit of 'depth spirituality.' If someone had a background in the Buddhist tradition, they would know that the Bodhisattva tradition actually encourages a person to leave the monastic tradition after many years of practice and re-engage in everyday living, taking care of yourself and others and 'grounding' your spiritual realizations. They hold this to be a deeper and higher tradition than even monasticism. I know this is frowned upon in the Vedanta tradition, because that is not the Hindu system that puts the Sannyasin at the top of the pyramid of spirituality. I have known some sannyasins who were very good people, but I have experienced Native American holy men who are of the same quality. I have also experienced so-called everyday people who are every bit as 'evolved' as some of these individuals, because they embodied a universal love, which, for me, is the culmination of true, deep, understanding.

What you have seemed to miss about science, because you are not professionally trained in these areas, is that it is now expressing the other side of the equation of Total Beingness. Many people are speaking in Vedanta about the sciences with little or no verifiable background. This is creating confusion among the people within Vedanta and those who attend such lectures. This is not only ignorant scholarship but shows a lack of an authentic approach to the process of education in and of itself and this is one of the main reasons that Vedanta is becoming more and more isolated within the culture of America. We have religiously sincere Vedanta evangelists quoting 19th Century science and trying to twist it into confused and uneducated ideas about the evolution of consciousness and making vast, sweeping claims about human knowledge. True modern scientists, whether of the spirit or of its expression called Life, are very careful and cautious when approaching such profound areas of knowledge. They go on observation and experience. To me, this is a much more authentic approach and one that is both humble and strong, simultaneously and leads to more and more unfoldment of both knowledge and love. Buddhism seems to not only be gaining a strong foothold in America but making an impact to some degree in both the hard and soft sciences, because they are taking this more open and sincere educational approach. You cannot educate people in ecology, evolution and other profound sciences when you are not trained in these areas. This just ends up adding confusion and chaos. I have had the advantage to study not only Vivekanada, but many other systems in the past 20 years because of my studying and then teaching for years in major universities across the country. I have had the opportunity to mix with some of the greatest minds of our time and I will not 'denegrate' some of these individuals because they are not 'spiritually advanced in deep mysticism.'

As for all of our 'unique' human creations, again because of a lack of education in the works of Lynn Margulis and others, you do not seem to understand what a human being is as a biological system nor that there is a global network of microbes that have designed cities of transportation and medicine that in many ways dwarf their human counterparts. I cannot go into all of the intricacies of these creations in an e-mail; I can only suggest you take a couple of years and read all you can that Lynn has written on the subject.

To me, this kind of idea is just simple spiritual egotism and fanaticism. Vivekananda himself emphasized over and over that science is every bit as spiritual as any of the so-called mystical traditions. If you take this seriously, you have to take some years and deeply and seriously study many of these understandings. You cannot just pick up a book, skim over it for a few hours and believe that you have understood the deep and profound implications that the book has brought to life, mind, consciousness and spirit.

This, as I see it, is the problem with modern Vedanta, whether it is being taught by the current Americans or the Indians; there is a rampant spiritual superiority - Vedanta is the answer and all other systems are good, but not up to the mark of the universal Vedanta and powerful message of Vivekananda. I find this to be a confused view of what the essence of Vedanta is and really is limiting the potential of such a beautiful system. Vedanta just cannot accept that it will only play a part in this grand symphony of life. Life, if you study the deep scientific and metaphysical implications, is not a heirarchical system, but a fluid, multi-branched, synergistic process that is ever opening to its own Beingness and transcendence - it is fully Biological and Transcendent at the same time.

You will never create a universal Vedanta by trying to beat people over the head with your 'universal Vivekanada message.' All this does is show a limited education and signs of religious fanaticism to the larger public who is not in the 'Vedanta circle.' I have heard of this grand universal vision of Vedanta and in the very next sentence, there is this very close minded, uneducated and isolated views that are extremely heirarchical. I do not believe true knowledge or love is developed by studying and emphasizing one person over and over and over and over. The spirit of the person becomes lost in the letter of what they said.

You are not the only person who has studied very deeply what Vivekananda has said or what he meant. Continued education is the means to grow in knowledge and humility. The scientific community will have little interest in your 'mystical' views until you have bonefide credentials. This is what I realized when I was 30 years old, and I knew that science was creating the new Upanishads and Dharmic texts of our current age and that is one of the reasons that I returned to college and spent almost 10 years studying and then teaching. As Vivekanada himself said, Non-Dualism is the message for the modern age and the educated public will respond to that combined with modern science.

In my biological Non-Dualism model, synergistic science is the other 12 hours on a 24 hour clock of understanding our total Beingness. I know this is a new and a radical idea for many, but history will show that it is correct, because many of the greatest minds of our time are starting to hint at just such a system - such as Lynn Margulis, Fritjof Capra, Gregory Bateson, et.al. Most all of these individuals know that we are no longer in the information age, but the age of ecological understanding of ourself, nature and spirit. This is an evolving understanding that Vedanta can play an important part in, but it will not be the main mouthpiece. I have shown in many ways just how important Vedanta and other Non-Dualistic traditions are to this unfoldment. I do not accept that Vedanta or Science or any other tradition has the last word on our eternal BEINGNESS.

That is why I am no longer affiliated with any system - Vedanta or otherwise, because to me they all make up the grand mosaic and each is vitally important and then and only then are we going to create anything resembling a universal process of life and living. I am very aware of the universal potential of Vedanta and I was one of the first to push for an American version of Vedanta, but this will take true humility and massive education and I do not see either the current American monks or Indian monks who really want to see what is truly involved. Rather, I see many who tenaciously hold on to their 'superior and pure ideas' and after all those who live in the world and take care of themselves and others cannot have the 'insights and realizations' of the monastics. This game cannot be played with me because I have lived both lives in this life and have come to experientially understand that it is the principles of love, sincerity, dedication and fearlessness that really matter. All of this emphasis on monasticism, and its embedded heirarchies in Vedanta and not emphasizing the principles behind the process, has made modern Vedanta into a limited movement at best. Also, because Vedanta has lots of money, they can cut off from the culture at large and develop all of these 'universal' ideas in isolation.

I have also dedicated a large portion of my life to Vedanta, but I am very discouraged to see what is happening and the lack of education in the movement. Many of the key ideas have not really been challenged, and many of the individuals are not challenged in the way they either think or interpret this Vedanta and it has lead to a kind of ignorant superiority that goes against the essential beauty of this perennial philosophy.

These are my thoughts for what they are worth.

Michael

--- Swami Brahmavidyananda wrote:

> Michael, as I said in the previous statement, > Vedanta is has no > historical context. And just on this point alone, I > think I'm > entitled to take just as strong a stand just as you > are. And as for > the evolutionary model, Ken Wilbur is clear that > this is a necessary > model. At least that is what I've read in his > writings in the past. > Most of what we call "modern science" has no > metaphysical basis to > it. Until the scientists can explain with full > accuracy that the > intelligence that pervades life isn't largely > unconscious and > instinctive, as I would think it is in the microbial > world, then it > hasn't stepped into the arena of metaphysics yet, > nor has it stepped > into the world of real proof yet. If you have made > this segue, then > this will be stunning. Yet this remains to be seen. > By the way, I got Lynn Margulis' "Microcosmos." > No doubt she > point out to the intelligence pervading the > microbial world. Who > can't deny this. But there is still no evidence that > > this "intelligence" is conscious. I'm contributing > to all sorts of > functions in my body right now. The heart pumps, the > blood pulses > through my veins. But I'm not conscious of what I'm > doing. It's all > unconscious instinct. Just because the microbial > world is highly > adaptive, and no doubt, far more adaptive then us in > its > assimilation of its surrounding world, is no > indication that these > adaptations are built upon conscious decisions. It > could all be > unconscious instinct. That the world of microbes is > as consciously > rational as our human world is yet to be proven. > Our human condition is unique in its ability to > build cities, play > golf, have mathematical contexts. We fly to the > moon, etc. > As for Buddhism, it may have devotional aspects > to it. In fact > the arsonal of wisdom it's different schools offer > is enormous. But > to say it's free of a historical context, which the > Vedanta, as > Swami Vivekananda taught it is, is not how I see it. > True, many > Christians are embracing Zen as a source of > rationality, and as a > Vedantin, I'm free to embrace Zen or any other > system if I so > choose. There's nothing that can stop me. In fact > Vivekananda > encourages independent thinking and action. > But let's say a Christian chooses to "go it" > without Zen, yet > wants a non-dual background as his or her basis. > Neither Zen nor the > devotional schools in Buddhism are free enough of > historical > identity and culture to adapt their teachings to > Christian imagery, > Islamic imagery, Jewish imagery, Celtic imagery, > etc., which are all > purely devotional. Vedanta has that power as > Vivekananda taught it > in the West. > What Vivekananda did was to distill down the > basic dynamics of > devotion, pure unadulterated devotion, without > reason, etc. And in > this way he leaves the individual with the freedom > to choose > whatever image or personality he or she wants to > express in his or > her devotion. That's a unique contribution that > Vivekananda's > Vedanta has made. To overlook this is unfair because > it margenalizes > this unusual contribution. > Vivekananda did the same thing with the idea of > work, meditation > and reason as well. His ideas and contributions are > based on his own > incredible genius as well as the genius of vast > numbers of people in > the West as in the East. He took from many sources. > So,to say he's > confined to the 19th Century is not what I see. > > All I'm saying is that, as a person who is > looking for a model of > models, if I or someone else is then asked to > neutralize or minimize > its potency and power for our modern age by equating > it to any and > all other systems, I'll just be contributing to the > lack of > direction to which our modern world is now subject. > I'll even be > contributing to the lack of direction to which the > Vedanta is now > subject. I simply won't do that. It's clear that > this is not an > issue with you, but it is with me. > Lot's of people are now practicing Zen and other > forms of > Buddhism. Buddhism is 2500 years old. It's unfair to > compare it to > the Vedanta as Vivekananda taught it in the West. > Vedanta simply > hasn't had an opportunity to express itself yet. > Americans in mass > have not embraced it fully enough yet. I'm sure that > once they do, > it will soar. I'm convinced of that, and I'm > certainly not going to > contribute in the clipping of its wings. Rather I > want to encourage > the unique contribution it has for the world. I > simply won't > contribute to neutralizing its unique potency! > So, yes, I will stand up for it and I won't > equate it to the > brillaint, yet historical religions which have had > their day. No > doubt they have an enormous part to play in the > present and the > future. But for me to magenalize Vivekananda's ideas > would be unfair > to Vedanta, to me and to the future of humanity. > With love, > Brahmavid > >

____________________________________________________________________________________ Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail