Charles's post

[Guest guest]

Charles, when I said stop trying to "know" it - I'm not referring to the

stage of mumukshutvam. Not at all. The first qualification Shankara

demands of a student is vivekam - the ability to discriminate between

the real and the unreal. After one "knows" the real, then one can

practice vairagyam by developing attachment to the real and

non-attachment to the unreal. This practice over a period of time will

increase one's attachment towards the real to such an extent that one

will wish to be always "attached" to the real. This is mumukshutvam or

the longing for liberation. But without having the first quality the

other two are not possible, for obvious reasons.

 

To know the real, one should stop trying to know - for knowing applies

only to entities other than you. And it's very clearly stated in the

shruti that "you" are the Atman. If you want to "know", know objects

other than you - neti, neti. But then also constantly question yourself

as to who's doing the neti, neti - that which does it - which is the

unspeakable "you" - is the Atman. As your awareness of yourself

increases, it'll result in vivekam - when you can discriminate between

yourself and the non-you - between purusha (soul) and the purusha

manifested through prakriti (matter).

 

IMO, without vivekam there's absolutely no point reading Shankara's

works on Advaitam. It'll be an endless game of speculation, without an

iota of benefit. Even if you are able to understand superimposition et

al (which I sincerely doubt), it'll only be an intellectual

appreciation, but not knowledge which is felt to the core of one's

being, which will ultimately aid vairagyam and mumukshutvam.

 

Advaitam is not some fancy intellectual philosophy, but is the life

principle itself. Every concept that one learns should be reconciled

with one's life and it's only this understanding which will become true

knowledge. And if one's unable to validate it with one's life, please

step back and examine the criterions for studying Advaitam. If you're

not qualified you're better off developing the requisite qualities and

then taking up Advaitam.

 

Please let it not be thought that I'm discouraging. When one is

searching for the Truth, the least one should be is to be truthful to

oneself. When Gandhi says Truth is God, he's not merely referring to not

speaking lies, but to be true to oneself to the core - in every small

action, in every tiny thought. It's from the small truth that one can

rise to the greater truth. Shankara's Advaitam is to take one from the

high truth to the higher truth - so one has to be at a certain level to

appreciate his philosophy.

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 nanda chandran <vpcnk wrote:

Charles's post

> Charles, when I said stop trying to "know" it - I'm not referring to the

> stage of mumukshutvam. Not at all.

 

My apologies for misunderstanding your point: let's see if I understand

it better now.

> The first qualification Shankara

> demands of a student is vivekam - the ability to discriminate between

> the real and the unreal. After one "knows" the real, then one can

> practice vairagyam by developing attachment to the real and

> non-attachment to the unreal. [...]

 

It rather depends what you mean by "knows": if you mean realisation,

then subsequant practice is superfluous; if you mean knowing _about_

the real, i.e. theoretically, then discrimination can be either

objective or subjective.

 

Discrimination at the level of objective percepton, for example in

"This is a pot", there is the dual cognition of the real (is-ness)

and the unreal (pot), as expounded by Shankara in his bhAshya to

BG 2:16.

 

Discrimination can also be founded on theoretical knowledge backed

by experience: it starts as distinguishing between subject and object,

and, through refining one's understanding of the "subject", leads to

discrimination between Self and not-Self.

 

The form is perceived and the eye is the perceiver. It (eye)

is perceived and the mind is its perceiver. The mind with its

modifications is perceived and the Witness (the Self) is verily

the perceiver. But It (the Witness) is not perceived by any

other.

[ DRg-dRShya-viveka 1, tr. Nikhilananda ]

> To know the real, one should stop trying to know - for knowing applies

> only to entities other than you. And it's very clearly stated in the

> shruti that "you" are the Atman. If you want to "know", know objects

> other than you - neti, neti. [...]

 

You have to be told that "you" are the Atman; you have to be told

neti neti. This is ShrAvanam.

> IMO, without vivekam there's absolutely no point reading Shankara's

> works on Advaitam. It'll be an endless game of speculation, without an

> iota of benefit. [...]

 

For some it may well be speculative sophistry, but advaita requires

_reasoned_ acceptance of scriptural statements, and not blind belief.

Removing doubts, misconceptions, misunderstandings, and so on, is

mananam.

> Advaitam is not some fancy intellectual philosophy, but is the life

> principle itself. Every concept that one learns should be reconciled

> with one's life and it's only this understanding which will become true

> knowledge. [...]

 

Through enquiry, study, practice, discipline, and so on, one comes

to understand the principles expounded in the scriptures as well

as the Truth which they indicate. You live what you understand.

This is the practical side of nididhyAsanam.

 

The cycle of ShrAvanam, mananam and nididhyAsanam is repeated: at

each turn the understanding is refined, so that the meaning grasped

in ShrAvanam becomes deeper and more universal. In this manner,

the importance of the individual jIva as an individual, slowly but

inevitably fades away, so that one becomes Selfish rather than selfish.

> Please let it not be thought that I'm discouraging. [...]

 

I don't think so at all. You have the courage and integrity to write

honestly about your understanding. Our difference in understanding is

not important in itself: if the duscussion is open and truthful, it may

lead to refinement in both our understandings.

 

Thinking of Him, speaking of Him, and making one another

understand Him -- this is what the wise call "practice of

Brahman-realisation."

[ Pancadasi 13:83, tr. Swahananda ]

> It's from the small truth that one can

> rise to the greater truth. Shankara's Advaitam is to take one from the

> high truth to the higher truth - so one has to be at a certain level to

> appreciate his philosophy.

 

I don't believe that the entry level is as high as you seem to imply:

when man's activities are seen to be little better than those of that

of animals, when the attractions and ambitions of worldly life weaken,

and one starts to seriously seek for something more enduring and worthy

of man, then that is already the start of viveka and vairAgya.

 

At this stage you may not even know what you are looking for: you may

never have heard of advaita, let alone Shankara. So the search begins

for some higher reality, some higher knowledge: if one is fortunate to

come across a teaching such as advaita, it is soon enough appreciated

that theoretical knowledge is only a framework, and to really understand

it one must put the knowledge into _practice_ systematically, and _live_

the teaching according to one's understanding of it.

 

In summary then, I understand viveka and vairAgya rather more widely

than implied at the start of your post. I think that you are quite

familiar with viveka and vairAgya, albeit not according to Shankara's

strict definitions -- but that simply means that there is work to be

done to refine them. The work continues until Self-realisation: only

then does one truly understand Shankara's definitions.

 

Regards, Charles.