Guest guest Posted October 24, 1998 Report Share Posted October 24, 1998 Yesterday someone told me a joke which seems to describe very aptly the gap between 'knowing' and being there. A mad man is convinced he is a mouse. He is brought to the lunatic asylum and the doctor does everything to make him understand that he is a man and not a mouse. "Look, you are so big, a mouse is so small, how can you ever be a mouse? ..." In the end the man was convinced and understood he is a human being, not a mouse after all. Everyone was happy that the man was cured of his madness and the relatives gathered to take him home. At the greeting ceremony a cat happened to come into the room and the former mad man winced. "Hey", said the doctor seeing it, "You know you are not a mouse, why are you afraid?I know I'm not a mouse", said the man, "You know I'm not a mouse. But does the cat know?" :-)) The man had understood the logic and fully accepted it, that he was not a mouse, but a human being. He was doubtlessly convinced. But his mental state, that which was the cause of paranoia had not been cured. He was still the same mad man, only with more knowledge in his head. It is the state of his mind that needs to be canged. In the same way, it is the desease of avidya that has to be cured. Theoretical understanding is wonderful, but not enough. Chittashuddhi, freedom from vaasanas, destruction of the ego have to be for real for 'attaining' Jnana, though we never were anything but the Self. Greetings and Om, Vishvarupananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 1998 Report Share Posted October 25, 1998 On Sat, 24 Oct 1998, Swami Vishvarupananda wrote: > "Swami Vishvarupananda" <omkar > > Yesterday someone told me a joke which seems to describe very aptly the gap > between 'knowing' and being there. > > A mad man is convinced he is a mouse. He is brought to the lunatic asylum > and the doctor does everything to make him understand that he is a man and > not a mouse. "Look, you are so big, a mouse is so small, how can you ever be > a mouse? ..." In the end the man was convinced and understood he is a human > being, not a mouse after all. Everyone was happy that the man was cured of > his madness and the relatives gathered to take him home. At the greeting > ceremony a cat happened to come into the room and the former mad man winced. > "Hey", said the doctor seeing it, "You know you are not a mouse, why are you > afraid?I know I'm not a mouse", said the man, "You know I'm not a mouse. > But does the cat know?" > :-)) > > The man had understood the logic and fully accepted it, that he was not a > mouse, but a human being. He was doubtlessly convinced. But his mental > state, that which was the cause of paranoia had not been cured. He was still > the same mad man, only with more knowledge in his head. It is the state of > his mind that needs to be canged. In the same way, it is the desease of > avidya that has to be cured. Theoretical understanding is wonderful, but not > enough. Chittashuddhi, freedom from vaasanas, destruction of the ego have to > be for real for 'attaining' Jnana, though we never were anything but the > Self. > > Greetings and Om, > Vishvarupananda > It is indeed so and I am glad to see this point being made by the swamiji. There is an ocean of difference between intellectual knowledge and what swamiji calls "being there". Sometimes I feel one cannot even strive to "being there". The only "striving" one can do to being there is to root out the negative thought that arises, in the bud itself so that it does not set up a root in us. Beyond that, everything else comes naturally. A major turning point would be when there is no desire in the heart any more. Without desire and without the semblance of a negative thought [be victorious over the six great enemies kAma (desire), krOdha (anger), lobha (miserliness), mOha (passion), mada (pride), mAtsarya (jealousy)], one would see that even by being here one is being there. Or, is my view too simplified ? Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 1998 Report Share Posted October 25, 1998 Gummuluru Murthy wrote: > > Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy > > On Sat, 24 Oct 1998, Swami Vishvarupananda wrote: > > > "Swami Vishvarupananda" <omkar > > > > Yesterday someone told me a joke which seems to describe very aptly the gap > > between 'knowing' and being there. > > > > A mad man is convinced he is a mouse. He is brought to the lunatic asylum > > and the doctor does everything to make him understand that he is a man and > > not a mouse. "Look, you are so big, a mouse is so small, how can you ever be > > a mouse? ..." In the end the man was convinced and understood he is a human > > being, not a mouse after all. Everyone was happy that the man was cured of > > his madness and the relatives gathered to take him home. At the greeting > > ceremony a cat happened to come into the room and the former mad man winced. > > "Hey", said the doctor seeing it, "You know you are not a mouse, why are you > > afraid?I know I'm not a mouse", said the man, "You know I'm not a mouse. > > But does the cat know?" > > :-)) > > > > The man had understood the logic and fully accepted it, that he was not a > > mouse, but a human being. He was doubtlessly convinced. But his mental > > state, that which was the cause of paranoia had not been cured. He was still > > the same mad man, only with more knowledge in his head. It is the state of > > his mind that needs to be canged. In the same way, it is the desease of > > avidya that has to be cured. Theoretical understanding is wonderful, but not > > enough. Chittashuddhi, freedom from vaasanas, destruction of the ego have to > > be for real for 'attaining' Jnana, though we never were anything but the > > Self. > > > > Greetings and Om, > > Vishvarupananda > > > > It is indeed so and I am glad to see this point being made by the swamiji. > There is an ocean of difference between intellectual knowledge and what > swamiji calls "being there". > > Sometimes I feel one cannot even strive to "being there". The only > "striving" one can do to being there is to root out the negative thought > that arises, in the bud itself so that it does not set up a root in us. > Beyond that, everything else comes naturally. A major turning point would > be when there is no desire in the heart any more. Without desire and > without the semblance of a negative thought [be victorious over the six > great enemies kAma (desire), krOdha (anger), lobha (miserliness), mOha > (passion), mada (pride), mAtsarya (jealousy)], one would see that even > by being here one is being there. > > Or, is my view too simplified ? > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > not at all. swamiji raised an excellent point. yet, as you alluded to--which amounts to its obverse--can also be equally claimed (thus exposing the master trickery of the mind)--and that is, that we are *already* 'being there,' and that intellectual knowledge, based on incessant judgment, is pulling the veil proclaiming we *aren't* there! this reveals the power associated with the execution of atmavichara [and it's eventually inevitable right application...if only steadfastly adhered to], that destroys intellectual knowledge that stubbornly locates our attention as being this way or that....when we are technically in fact *already now and quite automatically* That. namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 1998 Report Share Posted October 25, 1998 If one is sufficiently contemplative or self-aware, in the transactional or psychological sense, self-aware enough to objectify the desire thought, that thought can be a turning point back to awareness of the Atman which is brahman. If one can say "Oh, I have a strong desire for such and such" and not be carried away to other related thoughts, then one can notice the existence and knownness of the thought. Then the desire become evidence for satchitananda atma. Aikya Param P.O. Box 4193 Berkeley, CA 94704-0193 Advaita Vedanta for Today (graphics) http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya/ Advaita Vedanta for Today (text version) http://members.tripod.com/~aikya/ Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy advaitin <advaitin > Sunday, October 25, 1998 6:41 AM Re: Theoretical knowledge >Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy > > >On Sat, 24 Oct 1998, Swami Vishvarupananda wrote: > >> "Swami Vishvarupananda" <omkar >> >> Yesterday someone told me a joke which seems to describe very aptly the gap >> between 'knowing' and being there. >> >> A mad man is convinced he is a mouse. He is brought to the lunatic asylum >> and the doctor does everything to make him understand that he is a man and >> not a mouse. "Look, you are so big, a mouse is so small, how can you ever be >> a mouse? ..." In the end the man was convinced and understood he is a human >> being, not a mouse after all. Everyone was happy that the man was cured of >> his madness and the relatives gathered to take him home. At the greeting >> ceremony a cat happened to come into the room and the former mad man winced. >> "Hey", said the doctor seeing it, "You know you are not a mouse, why are you >> afraid?I know I'm not a mouse", said the man, "You know I'm not a mouse. >> But does the cat know?" >> :-)) >> >> The man had understood the logic and fully accepted it, that he was not a >> mouse, but a human being. He was doubtlessly convinced. But his mental >> state, that which was the cause of paranoia had not been cured. He was still >> the same mad man, only with more knowledge in his head. It is the state of >> his mind that needs to be canged. In the same way, it is the desease of >> avidya that has to be cured. Theoretical understanding is wonderful, but not >> enough. Chittashuddhi, freedom from vaasanas, destruction of the ego have to >> be for real for 'attaining' Jnana, though we never were anything but the >> Self. >> >> Greetings and Om, >> Vishvarupananda >> > >It is indeed so and I am glad to see this point being made by the swamiji. >There is an ocean of difference between intellectual knowledge and what >swamiji calls "being there". > >Sometimes I feel one cannot even strive to "being there". The only >"striving" one can do to being there is to root out the negative thought >that arises, in the bud itself so that it does not set up a root in us. >Beyond that, everything else comes naturally. A major turning point would >be when there is no desire in the heart any more. Without desire and >without the semblance of a negative thought [be victorious over the six >great enemies kAma (desire), krOdha (anger), lobha (miserliness), mOha >(passion), mada (pride), mAtsarya (jealousy)], one would see that even >by being here one is being there. > >Or, is my view too simplified ? > >Regards >Gummuluru Murthy >------ > > > > > > >------ >To from this mailing list, or to change your subscription >to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at and >select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. >------ >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 1998 Report Share Posted October 26, 1998 Namaste. This has context to Shri swamiji's posting of saturday on this topic. On further thinking on this matter, it occurred to me that Brahma Sutra 1.1.1 says "athAto brahma jignAsA": therefore, investigate into Brahman. Shri Shankara's commentary on this says that the student is already equipped with sAdhana chatushhTayam and shhaD-sampatti and has met all the pre-requisites and thereafter investigate into Brahman. Is theoretical knowledge mentioned in Shri Swamiji's post different from this brahma jignAsA ? Are they not the same ? If they are not the same, why would anyone want to have theoretical knowledge (only) of a vedanta topic ? I see, on one hand, theoretical knowledge which is intellectual knowledge which is acquired without chitta-shuddhi and which does not lead to experiencing the SELF. On the other hand, I see that also as brahma jignAsA, the necessary investigation which need to be made that leads to what Shri Shankara says as jnAnam (and as Shri Shankara says without jnAnam, there is no moksham). I would be grateful for clarifications. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 1998 Report Share Posted October 26, 1998 Swami Vishvarupananda wrote: >Theoretical understanding is wonderful, but not >enough. Chittashuddhi, freedom from vaasanas, destruction of the ego have to >be for real for 'attaining' Jnana, though we never were anything but the >Self. Swami has raised some valid points. Where the illusion of being a mouse (or the simile of the rope and the snake for that matter) only last a few moments, the illusion regarding the restrictions of consciousness which we aim at dispelling, has lasted in our own mind probably for years, and in the minds of men in general for century after century. Thus although we may have reached the intellectual conviction that we are one with the All-Life, the illusion that we are not thus unified still persists in our sub-conscious and is a formidable obstacle to Realization. The only way we can cure ourselves is by constantly impressing the truth on our sub-conscious. We must in fact untiringly tell ourselves what we already know. We must repeatedly enunciate the formula, "The truth of me is LIFE" or "I am one with LIFE itself". This we should repeat audibly, haft-audibly or mentally, always persisting until the words repeat themselves automatically after our thoughts have wandered to other things. Even as a melody we like will persistently run in our heads, so will it be with this formula, if we persists long enough. But it is of the utmost importance that we should not merely repeat the words, but that at the same time we should induce the joyous feeling of an increase of life. Merely to think one-ness with Life without any endeavour to experience the sensation of that one-ness, must self-evidently be productive of but meagre result. Indeed, how should it be otherwise, seeing that Life is infinitely more than Thought? When this truth is permanently established in our sub-conscious we will experience Turya also in other three states- Jagrat, Svapna and Susapti- as stated in Shiva Sutras "Jagratsvapna susuptabhede turyabhogasambhavah". Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 1998 Report Share Posted October 26, 1998 This matter of theoretical knowledge is controversial in Vedanta. You can have theoretical knowledge of something which is not immediate to you. For example, you can have theretical knowledge of a country you have never visited based on reports you have read or heard. You can have theoretical knowledge of how to make a lasagne in the form of a lasagna recipe before tasting this dish. You can have theoretical knowledge based on shastras for heaven if you are still alive here alive with us now discussing theoretical knowledge. The self, however, is not distant from you since it is you. So you can not yet be quite clear about you yourself eing the same self as the self of all. That can happen. But, once you are clear, it is immediate knowledge, nothing theoretical about it and you don't need to remember it either because it is you. The last part about not having to remember it is something a few of my fellow students and I, who were not memory giants, used to be really relieved and happy about. Can you think of anything more important which a person could forget? Happily, that is not a problem because you are the knower and the known at once. Not that you go around every minute thinking about it. One must use the mind for many things through the day. Thoughts about "other things" cannot cancel out the truth about yourself. People can have many troublesome mental habits which keep them from being blessed by the knowledge. Everyone has some. So you do whatever is necessary to drop them. Meditation is highly touted as a means to become more contemplative, able to see these problems and drop them. Now we have other helps like psychotherapy, etc. Whatever is needed is good. Happily, it is easier to change your mind to something more to your own liking once you know that you are not your mind. Aikya Param P.O. Box 4193 Berkeley, CA 94704-0193 Advaita Vedanta for Today (graphics) http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya/ Advaita Vedanta for Today (text version) http://members.tripod.com/~aikya/ Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy advaitin <advaitin > Monday, October 26, 1998 11:33 AM Re: Theoretical knowledge >Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy > > > >Namaste. > >This has context to Shri swamiji's posting of saturday on this topic. >On further thinking on this matter, it occurred to me that Brahma Sutra >1.1.1 says "athAto brahma jignAsA": therefore, investigate into Brahman. >Shri Shankara's commentary on this says that the student is already >equipped with sAdhana chatushhTayam and shhaD-sampatti and has met all >the pre-requisites and thereafter investigate into Brahman. > >Is theoretical knowledge mentioned in Shri Swamiji's post different from >this brahma jignAsA ? Are they not the same ? If they are not the same, >why would anyone want to have theoretical knowledge (only) of a vedanta >topic ? I see, on one hand, theoretical knowledge which is intellectual >knowledge which is acquired without chitta-shuddhi and which does not >lead to experiencing the SELF. On the other hand, I see that also as >brahma jignAsA, the necessary investigation which need to be made that >leads to what Shri Shankara says as jnAnam (and as Shri Shankara says >without jnAnam, there is no moksham). > >I would be grateful for clarifications. > >Regards >Gummuluru Murthy >------ > > > > > > >------ >To from this mailing list, or to change your subscription >to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at and >select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. >------ >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 1998 Report Share Posted October 27, 1998 I feel that not everyone can use the theoretical knowledge. However, as Aikya-ji says, if we do not have the knowledge of making lasagne, how can we make it? The theoretical knowledge that one attains to find the Self can come to one in many ways, depending on one's temperment. In bhakti, raja and gyana there is some learning. This learning may be immediate or latent in use. Knowledge is man's essential nature. A baby comes in the world not knowing anything. Even the drinking of milk must be taught to him. Slowly, his senses force him to want to learn to walk, eat, talk etc. Knowledge removes ignorance and with the correct Mind and Intellect equipment, we can learn about the Self. Meena. ---------- > Aikya_Param <aikya > advaitin > Re: Theoretical knowledge > Tuesday, October 27, 1998 2:04 AM > > "Aikya_Param" <aikya > > This matter of theoretical knowledge is controversial in Vedanta. > > You can have theoretical knowledge of something which is not immediate to > you. For example, you can have theretical knowledge of a country you have > never visited based on reports you have read or heard. You can have > theoretical knowledge of how to make a lasagne in the form of a lasagna > recipe before tasting this dish. You can have theoretical knowledge based > on shastras for heaven if you are still alive here alive with us now > discussing theoretical knowledge. > > The self, however, is not distant from you since it is you. So you can not > yet be quite clear about you yourself eing the same self as the self of all. > That can happen. But, once you are clear, it is immediate knowledge, > nothing theoretical about it and you don't need to remember it either > because it is you. > > The last part about not having to remember it is something a few of my > fellow students and I, who were not memory giants, used to be really > relieved and happy about. Can you think of anything more important which a > person could forget? Happily, that is not a problem because you are the > knower and the known at once. > > Not that you go around every minute thinking about it. One must use the mind > for many things through the day. Thoughts about "other things" cannot > cancel out the truth about yourself. > > People can have many troublesome mental habits which keep them from being > blessed by the knowledge. Everyone has some. So you do whatever is > necessary to drop them. Meditation is highly touted as a means to become > more contemplative, able to see these problems and drop them. Now we have > other helps like psychotherapy, etc. Whatever is needed is good. Happily, > it is easier to change your mind to something more to your own liking once > you know that you are not your mind. > > Aikya Param > P.O. Box 4193 > Berkeley, CA 94704-0193 > Advaita Vedanta for Today (graphics) > http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya/ > Advaita Vedanta for Today (text version) > http://members.tripod.com/~aikya/ > > Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy > advaitin <advaitin > > Monday, October 26, 1998 11:33 AM > Re: Theoretical knowledge > > > >Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy > > > > > > > >Namaste. > > > >This has context to Shri swamiji's posting of saturday on this topic. > >On further thinking on this matter, it occurred to me that Brahma Sutra > >1.1.1 says "athAto brahma jignAsA": therefore, investigate into Brahman. > >Shri Shankara's commentary on this says that the student is already > >equipped with sAdhana chatushhTayam and shhaD-sampatti and has met all > >the pre-requisites and thereafter investigate into Brahman. > > > >Is theoretical knowledge mentioned in Shri Swamiji's post different from > >this brahma jignAsA ? Are they not the same ? If they are not the same, > >why would anyone want to have theoretical knowledge (only) of a vedanta > >topic ? I see, on one hand, theoretical knowledge which is intellectual > >knowledge which is acquired without chitta-shuddhi and which does not > >lead to experiencing the SELF. On the other hand, I see that also as > >brahma jignAsA, the necessary investigation which need to be made that > >leads to what Shri Shankara says as jnAnam (and as Shri Shankara says > >without jnAnam, there is no moksham). > > > >I would be grateful for clarifications. > > > >Regards > >Gummuluru Murthy > >------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > >------ > >To from this mailing list, or to change your subscription > >to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at and > >select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. > >------ > >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, > profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between > mind and matter > > > > > ------ > Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or > service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit > /advert.html for more information. > ------ > Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 1998 Report Share Posted October 29, 1998 Aikya_Param wrote: > > "Aikya_Param" <aikya > > This matter of theoretical knowledge is controversial in Vedanta. > > You can have theoretical knowledge of something which is not immediate to > you. For example, you can have theretical knowledge of a country you have > never visited based on reports you have read or heard. You can have > theoretical knowledge of how to make a lasagne in the form of a lasagna > recipe before tasting this dish. You can have theoretical knowledge based > on shastras for heaven if you are still alive here alive with us now > discussing theoretical knowledge. > > The self, however, is not distant from you since it is you. So you can not > yet be quite clear about you yourself eing the same self as the self of all. > That can happen. But, once you are clear, it is immediate knowledge, > nothing theoretical about it and you don't need to remember it either > because it is you. > > The last part about not having to remember it is something a few of my > fellow students and I, who were not memory giants, used to be really > relieved and happy about. Can you think of anything more important which a > person could forget? Happily, that is not a problem because you are the > knower and the known at once. > > Not that you go around every minute thinking about it. One must use the mind > for many things through the day. Thoughts about "other things" cannot > cancel out the truth about yourself. > > People can have many troublesome mental habits which keep them from being > blessed by the knowledge. Everyone has some. So you do whatever is > necessary to drop them. Meditation is highly touted as a means to become > more contemplative, able to see these problems and drop them. Now we have > other helps like psychotherapy, etc. Whatever is needed is good. Happily, > it is easier to change your mind to something more to your own liking once > you know that you are not your mind. > beautiful! evidently, it's not readily understood that whatever knowledge is being amassed on the jnanamarga, its sole purpose is for the dissolution of what amounts to being relative knowledge. the principle being [subconsciously adopted is] equivalent to fighting fire with fire, in this case using the mind to destroy the mind--the purifying process suddha chit. this is the gist of the entire endeavor. we don't have anything positive to gain, rather something negative to lose--our ignorance. yes, the jnana sthithi is writ into the very nature of Being itself--as satchidananda--and requires no knowledge to *maintain* its existence. it is such, *effortlessly*, in our midst at all times. always was, always will be. the neutralization of thoughts (being themselves always avidya, since invariably hooked into the relative changeable world of apparent particulars) is our counterweapon to the illusion of suffering. it is grace to realize this. and it is simple. namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 1998 Report Share Posted October 30, 1998 Aikya Param wrote: >Using jApa, in which the thoughts >are made to be the same, one can notice the beginning, existence, >and end of >each thought. Then too, one can see the interval between thoughts, >somewhat >like silence. If one can see the interval between thoughts, then it is not something like silence. It is also just a thought. So there is no interval between thoughts at all. If there is an interval between thoughts we can't experience that interval. Regards Madhavan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 1998 Report Share Posted October 30, 1998 Regarding: evidently, it's not readily understood that >whatever knowledge is being amassed on the >jnanamarga, its sole purpose is for the >dissolution of what amounts to being relative >knowledge Neither the Self nor the knowledge of the self as brahman is in opposition to any other knowledge from that of my own apparent biography or computer science or accounting or quantum physics. The jIvanmukta can easily accomadate both transcendental knowledge of BrahmAtma and the knowledge needed to get through the day in a transactional (vyavahArika) sense. No need to dissolve relative knowledge. If it can be understood that the mind is part of the not-quite-real, apparent transactional reality, there is no need to destroy the mind. There needs rather to be the understanding that the existence and consciousness (whether sentiency or knownness) of the mind observed is naught but the limitless self. Then the mind can happily be there doing its best. Yoga philosophy holds that thoughts cover the Self and that thoughts must be stopped or destroyed in order to see the self. In contrast Vedanta holds that the Self as sentiency, as consciousness, always is and makes possible formation and knownness of thoughts. Before the thought is formed, during its existence, and after it is gone the Self, I-Awareness, is. Rather than blocking the view of the Self, the thought indicates Existence and Consciousness, the thought's own basis. Using jApa, in which the thoughts are made to be the same, one can notice the beginning, existence, and end of each thought. Then too, one can see the interval between thoughts, somewhat like silence. In that interval one can appreciate that existent, conscious self free of form, of time/space limitations. One can see also that the thoughts which arise, exist and end are but that same Existent Consciousness with a form. Also, one can only lose ignorance if ignorance is real. If the light of the truth of BrahmAtma, ignorance vanishes just as the snake vanishes when the rope is lit up. Thus ignorance is the ultimate mirage. Ignorance itself is not the Real, not so real that it even can be lost. Aikya Param P.O. Box 4193 Berkeley, CA 94704-0193 Advaita Vedanta for Today (graphics) http://members.tripod.com/aikya/ Advaita Vedanta for Today (text version) http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya f. maiello <egodust advaitin <advaitin > Thursday, October 29, 1998 3:18 PM Re: Theoretical knowledge >"f. maiello" <egodust > >Aikya_Param wrote: >> >> "Aikya_Param" <aikya >> >> This matter of theoretical knowledge is controversial in Vedanta. >> >> You can have theoretical knowledge of something which is not immediate to >> you. For example, you can have theretical knowledge of a country you have >> never visited based on reports you have read or heard. You can have >> theoretical knowledge of how to make a lasagne in the form of a lasagna >> recipe before tasting this dish. You can have theoretical knowledge based >> on shastras for heaven if you are still alive here alive with us now >> discussing theoretical knowledge. >> >> The self, however, is not distant from you since it is you. So you can not >> yet be quite clear about you yourself eing the same self as the self of all. >> That can happen. But, once you are clear, it is immediate knowledge, >> nothing theoretical about it and you don't need to remember it either >> because it is you. >> >> The last part about not having to remember it is something a few of my >> fellow students and I, who were not memory giants, used to be really >> relieved and happy about. Can you think of anything more important which a >> person could forget? Happily, that is not a problem because you are the >> knower and the known at once. >> >> Not that you go around every minute thinking about it. One must use the mind >> for many things through the day. Thoughts about "other things" cannot >> cancel out the truth about yourself. >> >> People can have many troublesome mental habits which keep them from being >> blessed by the knowledge. Everyone has some. So you do whatever is >> necessary to drop them. Meditation is highly touted as a means to become >> more contemplative, able to see these problems and drop them. Now we have >> other helps like psychotherapy, etc. Whatever is needed is good. Happily, >> it is easier to change your mind to something more to your own liking once >> you know that you are not your mind. >> > >beautiful! > >evidently, it's not readily understood that >whatever knowledge is being amassed on the >jnanamarga, its sole purpose is for the >dissolution of what amounts to being relative >knowledge. the principle being [subconsciously >adopted is] equivalent to fighting fire with >fire, in this case using the mind to destroy >the mind--the purifying process suddha chit. >this is the gist of the entire endeavor. we >don't have anything positive to gain, rather >something negative to lose--our ignorance. > >yes, the jnana sthithi is writ into the very >nature of Being itself--as satchidananda--and >requires no knowledge to *maintain* its >existence. it is such, *effortlessly*, in our >midst at all times. always was, always will be. >the neutralization of thoughts (being themselves >always avidya, since invariably hooked into the >relative changeable world of apparent particulars) >is our counterweapon to the illusion of suffering. >it is grace to realize this. and it is simple. > >namaste > >------ >To from this mailing list, or to change your subscription >to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at and >select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. >------ >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 1998 Report Share Posted October 30, 1998 Greetings: I would restate your expression by the following. There is an apparant controversy in Vedanta while discussing the matter of theoretical knowledge. Theoretically we can always swim but that doesn't mean that we want to jump into swimming without prior training! Everything requires prerequisites, training and preparation. Before the plane fly on the sky, it does undergo number of preliminary preparations. The controversy in Vedanta is similar to our confusion in identifying the rope for the snake! The presence of the duality is the confirmation of the dominance of avidya and the absence of vidya. According to Sankara, Brahman is nirguna, that is attributeless and non-relational. You can't relate it to something and make a statement out of it. The world of difference is not a manifestation of Nirguna Brahman but its appearance. The appearance is less real than the substratum that contains it. Sankara doesn't deny the multiplicity of the world of experience, he only assigns to it a lower order of reality. Nirguna Brahman is therefore so unique that nothing on this side of experience, however sublime or elevating, can approximate to it. Attmpting to describe it is like attempting to describe sweetness to someone who has never tasted sweetness. Nothing that the human mind can think of can be affirmed of Brahman. The negation of appearances will not in the least affect the underlying reality. The concept of different orders of reality is strictly due to Sankara. It is based on the rising levels of our experience. If something is perceived by one individual, even for a brief moment, it must be granted to be that far real. But the criterion of utlimate reality is that of non-contradiction. Perceived realities suffer contradiction when a higher level of experience takes possession of the mind. The reality that vanishes in the presence of higher level of experience is known as phenominal reality (prAtibhAsika sattA). The world that we experience belongs to a higher order of reality called empirical reality (vyAvahArika sattA). The Brahman-consciousness is the highest order of reality and it is Pure Consciousness. There is no higher reality beyond that and hence this is the Absolute Ultimate Reality (pAramArthika SattA). At this level, the dualism of subject and object is no longer present and there is only the mystic communion, which is called nirvikalpa samAdhi. Theoretically, while dealing with relational concepts, we experience contradictions because because our perception changes at different time periods. Fundamentally, these relational concepts should be negated until we experience the ultimate reality! -- Ram Chandran Burke, VA Aikya_Param wrote: > "Aikya_Param" <aikya > > This matter of theoretical knowledge is controversial in Vedanta. > > You can have theoretical knowledge of something which is not immediate to > you. For example, you can have theretical knowledge of a country you have > never visited based on reports you have read or heard. You can have > theoretical knowledge of how to make a lasagne in the form of a lasagna > recipe before tasting this dish. You can have theoretical knowledge based > on shastras for heaven if you are still alive here alive with us now > discussing theoretical knowledge. > > The self, however, is not distant from you since it is you. So you can not > yet be quite clear about you yourself eing the same self as the self of all. > That can happen. But, once you are clear, it is immediate knowledge, > nothing theoretical about it and you don't need to remember it either > because it is you. ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 1998 Report Share Posted October 31, 1998 >"Madhavan Srinivasan" <maadhavan > >If one can see the interval between thoughts, then it is not something >like silence. It is also just a thought. >So there is no interval between thoughts at all. If there is an interval >between thoughts we can't experience that interval. > >Regards >Madhavan. I do not think so. Seeing an objectless-awarness is not a thought - that is being. Observer of silence becomes silence observed. True- conceptulization of that gap is another thought! But gap between the thoughts is silence - if there is a gap. The whole science of Japa yoga rests on this idea. Hence Krishna's declaration in Vibhuti yoga, that I am the Japa yoga. Since when the thoughts are of varying type, one jumps from one thought to the next without paying attention to the gap in between. Hence in japa, the same thought is repeated with Om in between - One has to stop between two thoughts, and if one is not mechanically doing japa but doing with intense faith and longingness, then silence become more important than the mantra itself. One can drop the mantra and revel in that silence until one discovers that the mind is drifting again. Then back to mantra. (yato yato nishcarati .... tatastato niyamyaitad ). Try it to see the truth of it by yourself - as Nandu rightly pointed out that no amout of theretical discussion will help to see the light other than ones own effort in the right direction. Of course right direction comes with the faith in the words of the teacher and the scriptures. Hari Om! Sadananda K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 1998 Report Share Posted October 31, 1998 Aikya_Param wrote: > > > Regarding: > > >evidently, it's not readily understood that > >whatever knowledge is being amassed on the > >jnanamarga, its sole purpose is for the > >dissolution of what amounts to being relative > >knowledge > > Neither the Self nor the knowledge of the self as brahman is in opposition > to any other knowledge from that of my own apparent biography or computer > science or accounting or quantum physics. The jIvanmukta can easily > accomadate both transcendental knowledge of BrahmAtma and the knowledge > needed to get through the day in a transactional (vyavahArika) sense. No > need to dissolve relative knowledge. > > If it can be understood that the mind is part of the not-quite-real, > apparent transactional reality, there is no need to destroy the mind. yes of course...one would have to be a madman to disagree with this... insofar as our functioning in the manifest world, obviously the mind and relative knowledge remains in tact. however, the concept of manonasa as a symbolic result of the process of shudda chit, applies to the otherwise common mistake of our attempting to apprehend the atman with such mind [filled with relative knowledge]. couldn't this be inferred from what you were saying in your post? as such, other than for the [temporary] means of purifying the mind, ideas regarding any theoretical knowledge of the Self have no basis in reality. namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 1998 Report Share Posted October 31, 1998 The reference was to a nondual mediation technique taught to us in our three year course of study by Swami Dayananda Saraswati. The practitioner is looking at what is between thoughts, whwere there is no thought. For a more elaborate description by Swamiji himself, please see http://www.yogamalika.org/frames/html Choose "Selections by Swami Dayananda Saraswati" and then choose "Japa." This technique is properly introduced only after one has heard quite a bit of teaching. Perhaps it was not appropriate here. Aikya Param P.O. Box 4193 Berkeley, CA 94704-0193 Advaita Vedanta for Today (graphics) http://members.tripod.com/aikya/ Advaita Vedanta for Today (text version) http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya Madhavan Srinivasan <maadhavan advaitin <advaitin > Friday, October 30, 1998 5:28 PM Re: Theoretical knowledge >"Madhavan Srinivasan" <maadhavan > >Aikya Param wrote: > >>Using jApa, in which the thoughts >>are made to be the same, one can notice the beginning, existence, >and >end of >>each thought. Then too, one can see the interval between thoughts, >>somewhat >>like silence. > >If one can see the interval between thoughts, then it is not something >like silence. It is also just a thought. >So there is no interval between thoughts at all. If there is an interval >between thoughts we can't experience that interval. > >Regards >Madhavan. > >------ >Did you ever want to participate in video chats, send real-time video >and video mail? Now you can, AND at a super low price--ONLY $89.95! >http://orders.xoom.com/zvc/emzvc921 >------ >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 1998 Report Share Posted October 31, 1998 Sorry. I do not understand what you are saying here: >insofar as our functioning in the manifest world, >obviously the mind and relative knowledge remains >in tact. however, the concept of manonasa as a >symbolic result of the process of shudda chit, >applies to the otherwise common mistake of our >attempting to apprehend the atman with such mind >[filled with relative knowledge]. couldn't this >be inferred from what you were saying in your post? > >as such, other than for the [temporary] means of >purifying the mind, ideas regarding any theoretical >knowledge of the Self have no basis in reality. Aikya Param P.O. Box 4193 Berkeley, CA 94704-0193 Advaita Vedanta for Today (graphics) http://members.tripod.com/aikya/ Advaita Vedanta for Today (text version) http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 1998 Report Share Posted November 2, 1998 Aikya_Param wrote: > > "Aikya_Param" <aikya > > Sorry. I do not understand what you are saying here: > > >insofar as our functioning in the manifest world, > >obviously the mind and relative knowledge remains > >in tact. however, the concept of manonasa as a > >symbolic result of the process of shudda chit, > >applies to the otherwise common mistake of our > >attempting to apprehend the atman with such mind > >[filled with relative knowledge]. couldn't this > >be inferred from what you were saying in your post? > > > >as such, other than for the [temporary] means of > >purifying the mind, ideas regarding any theoretical > >knowledge of the Self have no basis in reality. > manonasa = destroyed mind suddha chit = purified mind perhaps it's better to think of the idea of the "destroyed mind" as the destroyed *philosophical* mind, or *speculative* mind. therefore the mind's use should be restricted to the relative world, and not for any attempt in understanding the atman. i disagree with your implication that the idea of the destroyed mind isn't found in vedanta. on the contrary, it is one of the central ideas in vedanta, as found in the upanishads, as well as yoga vasistha, tripura rahasya, advaita bodha deepika, and many others, as well as in the teachings of sri ramana. i'm not able to elaborate on it now. i posted an introduction to a treatise i put together, which discusses this concept at some length, entitled: automatic freedom, which can be found at: http://digital.net/~egodust/fmpagems.html namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.