Onlyness and Brahman

The following is an email that was sent to me, along with my response. I modified my response here quite a bit to try to make it a bit clearer for this site, but be warned: it is still filled with a lot of technical Indian verbiage, so it is not for everyone.

Modern Advaita and Waking Down

I viewed your Web site comments with interest. You are fortunate to have found a path with such great satisfaction and efficiency. My comment is really an observation about the many Poonja teachers I have meet as well as the writings of Saniel and Ted regarding "Waking Down". Basically, the point is that both strains of spirituality seemed to have missed their potential depths by not understanding that there is a impersonal source to consciousness. It is called the Absolute and it is not pure consciousness but the absence of personal consciousness. Like a black hole it is distinct by what is absent not what is present. When the Absolute is experienced and embodied then one knows that Atman is Brahman. It's clear that Sri Nissargatta (spelling?) spoke of this clearly but his disciples seem to have missed the teaching. I know some I have told this to say it's a matter of semantics but really the clinical differences between conscious states as described by Waking Down teachers and the Absolute have no similarity in experience. The contemporary teacher that is most articulate on this matter is A.H. Almaas. I am not a student of his but I have experienced the Absolute and its implications. I resonate with his teachings.

None of this is meant to project a value judgment. It is merely an observation concerning the "vertical" depth of realization. Some folks remain forever humanist. As you point out correctly, it is not what you experience but what you embody. Keep up the good work.

----------------------

Brahman, Onlyness and the White Heat

Hi ...,

I can't say that I agree with all of your descriptions or assumptions here, but probably not for the reasons you think . There actually are two issues here and I'd rather not confuse them.

1) Language:

The English word "absolute" is not the "official" term for anything, it is simply the word Maharaj's translator, Maurice Frydman used to translate the Marathi word meaning "Brahman".

This really does matter, because if by hearing me (or any teacher) call consciousness "the absolute" you then infer that we have no sense of the distinction between Atman and Brahman, then that's an assumption based on language. To say "it is called the absolute" will not allow for a real understanding of what is meant. If Almaas happens to use the same English word as Frydman (not Nisargadatta) for Brahman, that's fine.

As I see it, in the language of Waking Down, both consciousness and phenomena have both their Source and Being as "Onlyness", that (as I see it) is our word for Brahman. Old words are loaded with different assumptions by different schools so there is good reason to coin new phrases. I am equating "Onlyness" and "Brahman" here for the sake of this letter, but I would like to make clear how my understanding of Brahman may be different from yours (and others) understanding of it.

2) Differences:

Also, I can appreciate some of what you said. The polarity of consciousness/phenomenon is at the top of the pyramid but is still a form of duality. Many neo-Advaita teachers seem to be stuck there, forever drawing the distinction between consciousness and phenomena without recognizing that consciousness/phenomenon have their source in something that is beyond both: Brahman. Without a recognition of Brahman this is not even a good understanding of Classic Advaita Vedanta. I also agree that it is less important that people can't catalogue all these distinctions if they are living them. However, I am describing something else other than what is focused on by either neo-Advaitin language or classic Advaitin language, so:

As far as Brahman (or Onlyness) as simply being an absence, and impersonal . . . I can't agree.

So here it goes (in my experience):

Onlyness is both the Unmanifest Source and Manifest Being. In other words Brahman is both Nirguna (Unmanifest Source) and Saguna (Manifest Being). As Unmanifest Source it Transcends both Consciousness and phenomena. As Manifest Being it is both Consciousness and phenomena.

Brahman (or Onlyness), as the Source of both consciousness and phenomenon is simply beyond such distinctions (nirguna). Absence/presence, personal/impersonal, consciousness/phenomena, these only make sense as the realm of the manifest, not the Unmanifest Source (Nirguna Brahman) .

Brahman (or Onlyness), as Being both consciousness and phenomena is both simultaneously (Saguna Brahman). Absence/presence, personal/impersonal, consciousness/phenomena, both of these poles are Brahman (Onlyness) in Being the Manifest (saguna).

In Classic Advaita Vedanta language non-duality is the non duality of Atman and Nirguna Brahman, and Maya is illusion.

From my perspective there is non-duality between both Atman and Nirguna Brahman (beyond distinctions) and Atman and Prakriti - Maya (with distinctions) in Saguna Brahman. One can further say that since in Nirguna Brahman (Unmanifest Onlyness) there are no distinctions of any kind that there is also non-duality of Atman and

Prakriti - Maya (or consciousness and phenomena) dissolved into Unmanifest Onlyness (Nirguna Brahman).

Brahman or Onlyness is both the Source (As Nirguna Brahman beyond distinctions) and Being (As Saguna Brahman with distinctions). This is why I say that what is realized is not simply non-duality, but the unity of duality and non-duality as Onlyness. In our school after awakening to Onlyness as Being (Saguna Brahman, or manifest onlyness as non separateness in the midst of distinctions), there is an organic process that moves us into that which is beyond distinctions. Waking Down has its own language describing the natural transition of Onlyness with distinctions giving way into Onlyness beyond distinctions: the White Heat.

Yours,

Krishna

2006 Krishna Gauci