RE: Atman -- nature

[Guest guest]

> The Atman is distinct from and beyond the physical constituents -

> equipments constituted of the body, mind, and intelligence

> complex for it is this illuminator, which lights the subtle

> workings of these equipments. In spite of its close association

> it is a mere WITNESS and NEVER A PARTICIPANT === whereas the

> observation in your statement says " the JOY OF THE ATMA --

> objects of enjoyment for Atma sake etc which is a bit ambiguous

> and pl correct my understanding if wrong.

>

>

 

I made this clear in my note on two-birds analogy at the end of the mail.

See the point #2.

 

Let me explain what I wrote from the point of view advaita-vedanta and with

word of caution that words used in English may render it ambiguous.

 

- brahman = Atman

 

- Even though brahman is nirguNa, it is always indicated as

sat-chit-aananda. These are not attributes and Sage ramaNa gives an

explanation for this. But I will skip that here.

 

- Ananda aspect of brahman is always emphasized. Take for instance in

trishatii itself for the names kalyaaNi, kamaniiya, etc. For kalyaaNii,

aacharya says that aanandaika vigrahavatii iti arthaH.

 

- Atman is non-dual, complete and it is unallayed pure bliss. It does not

seek anything.

 

- Who seeks: There are many ways one can answer and there are different

answers. Here I will use a simpler version that the mind seeks. What we

refer in English as "mind" itself is composed of for different things and

called in Skt as antaH karaNa. They are manas, chitta, buddhi and ahankAra.

According to yoga suutra-s aha.nkaara arises by the reflection of Self on

buddhi. It should also be noted that buddhi by itself is jaDa.

 

 

- What the mind seeks is completeness and aananda of Atman. This is what I

denoted as "Joy of aatman". I did not say Atman seeks anything.

 

- Why the mind seeks that? because what energizes buddhi is the reflection

of Self. Hence, it has an tacit idea about it.

 

- But due to ignorance the mind tries to accomplish this by seeking in

external world. It wants to attain that innate state of Joy. But not knowing

how and being blinded by ignorance it seeks that transient, fleeting,

pleasures in external world. But what it is really after is the completeness

and joy in the non-dual state of Atmaan.

 

- That is why Acharya offers this brilliant interpretaion. In this point, he

is not saying SHE is wearing all this. He is saying, all this is being

obtained for *HER sake*. Here "HER sake" does not meean she seeks its (even

though English allows that meaning also), when we say for the sake of Atman,

we mean that "to achievd that [non-dual] state of Atman which is

sat-chit-aananda.

 

- He makes the other interpretation in #4 (which will come later), where

invokes the upAdhi argument. First time when I wrote about this few years

ago, I did not catch the subtle difference.

 

This is an area, where words fail to convey (especially from the point of

view of advaita-vedanta) the essence. That is why shruti "where the words

recoil".

 

Thanks and I hope made myself clear,

 

Ravi