You’re very welcome. I’m happy to contribute what I can. It was great to be able connect and I have a clearer idea of how to approach the writing project now. My take away is to consider primarily how my story serves the teaching and keep that as the main focus. It helps tremendously when deciding what to include and more importantly what to exclude.
Yes. Your autobio is not about you. Swamiji used to call it HIStory, meaning Isvara’s story. A famous American literary person once read my autobiography, Mystic by Default, and said the it was the first autobiography he read that wasn’t about the person.
I read the article from Swami Dayananda where he introduces himself as a teacher of traditional Vendanta and rejects the idea of considering the teaching as a philosophy. It seems very much in line with what you have taught namely the idea that the subject of study is not ideas, but of the Self. I’m curious to understand more clearly how this may be in any contrary to the way Swami Chinmayananda taught. Was it that he understood this, but was devoted to maintaining the tradition as a school of knowledge? Was there perhaps some attachment there to maintaining a structure that he had put in place and therefore allowed the concept of Jana Yoga as a seperate discipline to stand, even though it was not part of the original teaching? I know it’s splitting hairs but as we are absolutely committed to freedom and the teaching it makes sense that a rejection of philsophical identity would be necessary on a fundamental level. Or I’m just missing the point all together. I do see a purity in Dayanandas approach which makes sense why it can also be taught in a non traditonal manner. The teaching stands on its own and needs no cultural validation whatsoever in my view. It’s traditional but easily transcends tradition.
Let me know if I’m missing the point of what you were trying to convey. There were a couple other articles you suggested but I forgot which ones they were.
Chinmaya had a second agenda, which was to revive Hinduism after the Indians tossed out the British and started to rule themselves. They needed to discover the glory of their own culture, not just ape Western culture. I imagine that you can relate to that issue in so far as you are a ceremonial leader for your tribe. He understood Vedanta as a means of knowledge for sure but the emphasis was more experiential in terms of the jiva’s sadhana than strictly knowledge-centric.
Here’s the link to Dayananda’s very important essay that explained to the world the differences between New Vedanta or Modern Vedanta which and traditional Vedanta. https://shiningworld.com/the-teaching-tradition-of-advaita-vedanta-by-swami-dayananda/
I attached a copy of What is Advaita Vedanta? which expands and clarifies his essay.
Thanks again for taking the time. As always it’s blessing and a pleasure. You mentioned that my energy looked good. I have likewise started to notice a subtle energy field around others. Not visually neccessarily, although on rare occasions when I see someone like yourself it does seem to be a type of white light. Which makes me very happy for no particular reason. Or at least that is my sense of it. I find myself feeling repulsed by people who seem “dim”. Its a strange thing. It’s almost like I can tell the mood someone is in when I am feeling very sattvic. I find myself increasingly attached to maintaining a sattvic state of mind. Almost as if it’s becoming it’s own vasana if that makes any sense. Regardless I’m loving life. The work continues. I’m sure to make mistakes along the way, but you’re right. I don’t think I could go back to the old life, the old me even if I wanted to.
If a person has enough sattva he or she will have a pure white or golden aura. It will make them very attractive, charismatic. The sanskrit word is tejas, which means radiance. They will be loveable, not to mention they will enjoy enhanced bliss.
Love
Ram
