"seeing" Atman everywhere

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

"Seeing" Brahman everywhere and in everything has come up in Professor

Krishnamurthy's post, in Shri f. maiello's post and often in Shri

Sadananda's posts. I would like to put my understanding of "seeing"

Brahman everywhere and I look forward to learned members' interpretations.

 

When we say we "see" Brahman in everything, (or when Lord KrishNa says

in Bhagavad Gita 6.29 sarvabhUtasthamAtmAnaM sarvabhUtAnicAtmani Ikshate

yogayuktAtmA sarvatrasamadarshanaH) what we mean is (from an advaita

perspective) that the substrata of everything is Brahman. For two entities

X and Y, the substrata of X and Y is the same Brahman; X may be human,

Y may be a dog. The thoughts and actions and bodies of X and Y are just

superpositions on the Brahman and are illusory. If X is a realized soul,

he/she would "see" the "interactions" between X and Y to be such only;

just illusions. X, the realized soul, "sees" no difference between X and

Y, although their outer shapes are different. X "sees" the Atman in Y.

X also sees the outer shape of Y to be different. X recognizes the outer

shape is just a superposition. As a corollary to this, X sees the jagat

with all its duality, but for X, the jagat is just a superposition, an

illusion.

 

Is that what is meant by samadr^shhTi, or seeing Atman everywhere ?

Or, does "seeing Atman everywhere" mean not seeing jagat itself ?

I think "seeing" does not refer only to the sight but the perception

by the sense organs and the mind. [such usage of word "seeing" as an

example of perception by the sense organs is present in various advaita

texts, Viveka ChUDAmaNi, for example]. Thus "seeing" need to be

interpreted in a broader perspective of grasping of the external

world by the sense organs. Thus, I think the jagat does appear for a

jeevanmukta, but as an unreal entity. This concept of "seeing" Atman

everywhere comes in Bhagavad Gita 6.29, 5.18 and as Professor

Krishnamurthy says, in IshA Upanishhad, 6. I would hope learned

members discuss these verses from an advaitic perspective.

 

Further, we know from BhAgavatam, PrahlAda, that great bhakta, is

described as seeing Lord VishhNu everywhere. And the interpretation

given to us when we learnt it as children was that PrahlAda actually

"saw" Lord VishhNu everywhere. Is that seeing Lord VishhNu everywhere

by PrahlAda different from advaita of "seeing" Atman everywhere ?

I think in PrahlAdA's situation, the belief of the transformation of

Lord VishhNu into various forms is involved, unlike the superposition

of advaita. I would like to see the learned members' views.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

I am still grappling with the topic of "seeing" Atman everywhere and

what it actually means. The extension of this is the appearance or

otherwise of the jagat for jeevanmukta. As I mentioned in my last

post on this topic, I think the jagat does appear for jeevanmukta

but as an illusion only. The jeevanmukta takes it as waters in a

mr^gatr^shhNa.

 

Isha upanishhad, verse 6 touches on this topic and says:

 

yas tu sarvAni bhUtAni Atmanyeva anupashyati

sarvabhUteshhu cAtmAnam tato na vijugupsate

 

Radhakrishnan's translation is: And he who sees all beings in his

own self and his own self in all beings, he does not feel any revulsion

by reason of such a view.

 

When the translation says "And he who "sees".... " (my quotations around

"sees"), I am taking the "sees" includes the perception by all the sense

organs, the mind and the intellect. Thus, "sees" is a general catch-word

for all that has been grasped by the jeeva of the outside jagat.

 

The keyword in the verse in this context is "anupashyate", which also

appears in verse 7 and translated as "sees" in both verses. What is the

root for anupashyate and what is the correct meaning of it ?

 

I wonder if someone has Shri Shankara's bhAshhya on this verse and if

they can put in a few words on shri Shankara's interpretation.

 

My understanding of this verse is: It is the same SELF that pervades

all beings. It is only the names and shapes that are superposed that

are different. Such differences are only in the body, mind and

intellectual levels which are transient and unreal. Jugupsa (revulsion)

arises if one perceives something unpleasant in others than oneself.

But, if one realizes that the same SELF is in all as the sub-stratum,

and beyond the sub-stratum, everything is transient and unreal, then

one does not feel any revulsion to other beings.

 

Bhagavad Gita 6.29 touches the same topic and says:

 

sarvabhUtasthamAtmAnam sarvabhUtAni cA'tmani

Ikshate yogayuktAtmA sarvatra samadarshanah

 

Radhakrishnan's translation is: he whose self is harmonized by yoga

sees the Self abiding in all beings and all beings in the Self;

everywhere he sees the same.

 

Here, the keywords in this context are "Ikshate" and "samadarshanah".

samadarshanah can be interpreted as samabhAvam, perceiving everything

to be the same. Ikshate means much more directly with seeing, but can

also be taken to mean recognition that the sub-stratum is the same in

all beings, that being Brahman.

 

The same word "pashyati" (as in Isha upanishhad verses) appears in

verse 30 and is translated as "seen" by Radhakrishnan. But, am I

correct in interpreting the word "pashyatiseen" as meaning that

grasped by all the sense organs, the mind and intellect, rather than

the actual seeing ?

 

I would be grateful for any alternate interpretations and for anyone

to post Shri Shankara's bhAshhyAs on these verses.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

> [...] I think "seeing" does not refer only to the sight but the perception

> by the sense organs and the mind. [such usage of word "seeing" as an

> example of perception by the sense organs is present in various advaita

> texts, Viveka ChUDAmaNi, for example]. Thus "seeing" need to be

> interpreted in a broader perspective of grasping of the external

> world by the sense organs. Thus, I think the jagat does appear for a

> jeevanmukta, but as an unreal entity.

 

 

actually, i won't say that i disagree with

the last sentence, only because, either way

i believe it amounts to a strategy, and not

an absolute verity. let me explain...

 

we have to remember that advaita is a means

to an end. and the whole thrust within this

means concerns the purification of the mind.

this involves the elimination of vasanas,

which tie us to thought patterns rooted in

relativistic judgments. such judgments engage

the disturbing philosophical questions such as

why are we here, do we have free will or not,

what is it we are seeing, what is our true

nature, etc. the sages tell us, however, that

within the turiya state, no such questions arise.

the state itself is likened to pure consciousness,

whereby one is empty and awake. here the jnani is

at home and has made final peace with the mystery

of Being (as the nature of brahman is inscrutable).

 

however, en route to mukthi, certain strategies

are in order. and the way they take shape, in

terms of their methodology, is in accordance

to the temperament of the individual involved.

my personal preference, regarding what to me

has proved to be the most efficient means to

eliminating vasanas, is to regard what is being

seen as an agglomeration of infinite facets of

the totality of saguna brahman (which, in turn,

is not different from nirguna brahman--thus a

further advaitic application augmented from the

proposition of atman=brahman). where, (as i've

mentioned before) instead of regarding the world

as illusion, it may be seen as a manifestation of

brahman, with the caveat that no specific aspect

within it be regarded as a "thing in itself*.

bhagavan ramana has stressed this repeatedly.

however, i think (and also believe i'm not in

violation of ramana's teaching on this account

either) that it's best to regard all of this as

merely a strategy. for, in the end, all of it

becomes irrelevant. the jnani has made friends

with the Mystery: the inscrutable brahman in its

splendorous totality......where no answers are

forthcoming because no questions arise. what

one is left with is the awareness of pure Being.

satchidananda.

 

it's also worth mentioning that this isn't the

sole revelatory property of vedanta, but can

also be found in the esoteric teachings of

buddhism, taoism, christism, sufism, as well

as shamanism. "the fact is we're surrounded by

pure mystery; anything we think we know of it is

pure folly." --don juan matus [toltec shaman].

aldous huxley referred to it as "the perrenial

philosophy," being accessible to all cultures

in all times, via the key within the Heart.

 

namaste

 

 

****

 

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>

> Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

> Namaste.

>

> "Seeing" Brahman everywhere and in everything has come up in Professor

> Krishnamurthy's post, in Shri f. maiello's post and often in Shri

> Sadananda's posts. I would like to put my understanding of "seeing"

> Brahman everywhere and I look forward to learned members' interpretations.

>

> When we say we "see" Brahman in everything, (or when Lord KrishNa says

> in Bhagavad Gita 6.29 sarvabhUtasthamAtmAnaM sarvabhUtAnicAtmani Ikshate

> yogayuktAtmA sarvatrasamadarshanaH) what we mean is (from an advaita

> perspective) that the substrata of everything is Brahman. For two entities

> X and Y, the substrata of X and Y is the same Brahman; X may be human,

> Y may be a dog. The thoughts and actions and bodies of X and Y are just

> superpositions on the Brahman and are illusory. If X is a realized soul,

> he/she would "see" the "interactions" between X and Y to be such only;

> just illusions. X, the realized soul, "sees" no difference between X and

> Y, although their outer shapes are different. X "sees" the Atman in Y.

> X also sees the outer shape of Y to be different. X recognizes the outer

> shape is just a superposition. As a corollary to this, X sees the jagat

> with all its duality, but for X, the jagat is just a superposition, an

> illusion.

>

> Is that what is meant by samadr^shhTi, or seeing Atman everywhere ?

> Or, does "seeing Atman everywhere" mean not seeing jagat itself ?

> I think "seeing" does not refer only to the sight but the perception

> by the sense organs and the mind. [such usage of word "seeing" as an

> example of perception by the sense organs is present in various advaita

> texts, Viveka ChUDAmaNi, for example]. Thus "seeing" need to be

> interpreted in a broader perspective of grasping of the external

> world by the sense organs. Thus, I think the jagat does appear for a

> jeevanmukta, but as an unreal entity. This concept of "seeing" Atman

> everywhere comes in Bhagavad Gita 6.29, 5.18 and as Professor

> Krishnamurthy says, in IshA Upanishhad, 6. I would hope learned

> members discuss these verses from an advaitic perspective.

>

> Further, we know from BhAgavatam, PrahlAda, that great bhakta, is

> described as seeing Lord VishhNu everywhere. And the interpretation

> given to us when we learnt it as children was that PrahlAda actually

> "saw" Lord VishhNu everywhere. Is that seeing Lord VishhNu everywhere

> by PrahlAda different from advaita of "seeing" Atman everywhere ?

> I think in PrahlAdA's situation, the belief of the transformation of

> Lord VishhNu into various forms is involved, unlike the superposition

> of advaita. I would like to see the learned members' views.

>

> 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

[Guest guest]

Hi everybody,

A few hours ago, I wrote something down and recieved this post from the

list about seeing Brahman everywhere. Maybe it is perennial philosophy. At

any rate, it was a very beautiful sight and maybe this note will help

convey how we can see Brahman everywhere.

 

My beloved sits in stillness.

A thought arises and I am born

For an eternity, I have faced the other way

His eye has seen me, but I have not seen him

By grace and love, he turned me around

Now I look

eye to eye.

Where he sits in glory and stillness

Is not so far from here

No space

No time

I have always been there

Inside his mind

Projected from his eye.

 

Tamra Temple 9 December 1998

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

I have put forward arguments in the past few posts that a jeevanmukta

sees or beholds the world, but as an illusion only. Jagat for a

jeevanmukta is like waters in a mr^ga-tr^shhNa, just a mere illusion.

 

(1). Nevertheless, it is to be accepted that jeevanmukta perceives the

jagat, which is, by definition, of duality. That is, outwardly, the

jeevanmukta sees the difference between X and Y, X a human and Y a dog

for example. The outward forms do not matter to the jeevanmukta, they

are all transient. The only reality is the same sub-stratum for X and Y,

the Atman.

 

(2). On the other hand, all the upanishhads say and Shri Shankara says in

various bhAshhyAs that the only thing there is, is Brahman. This is stated

emphatically in Br^hadAraNyaka upanishhad 4.5.15 and bhAshhya on it by

Shri Shankara for example, and also in various other upanishhads. I can

present the shruti statements if anyone is interested.

 

Putting (1) and (2) together, it seems to me that a jeevanmukta is a

latter stage in the spiritual evolution of a human, and the ultimate

stage is still there. The ultimate stage is one where the nirguna Brahman

is in its pure state, where no recognition is made of the upAdhis, where

the difference between X and Y even in outside form is not even seen.

The only thing in human form that satisfies this is, as I see it, when

one is in nirvikalpa samAdhi, revelling in Brahman, and completely oblivious

of the surroundings.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Frank.

 

Thanks for the response. This allows me to clarify a few points. We

seem to have a difference in semantics here or a slightly different

perspective.

 

On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, f. maiello wrote:

> "f. maiello" <egodust

>

> Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>

> > [...] I think "seeing" does not refer only to the sight but the perception

> > by the sense organs and the mind. [such usage of word "seeing" as an

> > example of perception by the sense organs is present in various advaita

> > texts, Viveka ChUDAmaNi, for example]. Thus "seeing" need to be

> > interpreted in a broader perspective of grasping of the external

> > world by the sense organs. Thus, I think the jagat does appear for a

> > jeevanmukta, but as an unreal entity.

>

>

> actually, i won't say that i disagree with

> the last sentence, only because, either way

> i believe it amounts to a strategy, and not

> an absolute verity. let me explain...

>

 

and further down, Frank added

> [...}

> however, en route to mukthi, certain strategies

> are in irder. and the way they take shape, in

> terms of their methodology, is in accordance

> to the temparament of the individual involved.

 

I agree with you that different jeevas' understanding and

temparament and hence what you call "methodology" may

differ. However, I believe advaita is beyond temparament,

understanding, methodology and strategy which are some of

the words you used. Particularly, I hesitate to use the

word "strategy" in this context. We use the word "strategy"

when we plan a route to achieve an end. The route may take

us on paths which may tempoararily take us farther away from

the destination. Further, the word "strategy" implies that

something is being done willfully with the objective of

reaching an end, and with the mind in full control of the

situation

 

I do not take advaita that way. I do not see it as a strategy,

but the status of my present understanding of separating out the

upAdhis. In our quest for Brahmavidya, what we know now is our

present sincere understanding. We are progressing, no doubt, but

this is our final understanding at this stage. We may progress a

bit more, and abandon our presently held position. But, that is

not because of the "strategy" that we used, but because of our

sincere mumukshutvam. Somehow, the word "strategy" has the connotation

of a devious technique, and any devious technique is repelled by advaita.

> we have to remember that advaita is a means

> to an end. and the whole thrust within this

> means concerns the purification of the mind.

> this involves the elimination of vasanas,

 

My comment on this is: You are putting the cart before the horse.

As I understand, advaita is not a means towards an end. Advaita is

the end, the end of the misery of the duality. Further, advaita is

not a means to get purification of the mind. A purified mind gets

advaita, not the other way round.

 

As usual, I would be grateful for your comments.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

gummuluru, hariH OM!

 

yes, this is clearly a matter of semantics.

if we apply eachother's definitions to our

respective terminology, i see no fundamental

disagreements in evidence.

 

regarding such definitions, however, i don't

equate advaita with brahmavidya, since i

consider the latter a product of the former.

that is, once brahmavidya is achieved, the

[means through] advaita can be discarded.

(in this sense, the implication is that the

popular definition of 'advaita' is 'non-dual

philosophy,' which implies methodology, and

not a state of being or awareness, as such.)

this is in keeping with the famous metaphor

of bhagavan ramakrishna: ....[the method is

likened to] "a thorn is used to pluck another

thorn from beneath the skin, and when it has

been removed, both are discarded."

 

nevertheless, you may well be correct in your

expanded definition of the word. it's just

that i haven't seen it used that way myself.

 

namaste

 

 

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>

> Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

> Namaste, Frank.

>

> Thanks for the response. This allows me to clarify a few points. We

> seem to have a difference in semantics here or a slightly different

> perspective.

>

> On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, f. maiello wrote:

>

> > "f. maiello" <egodust

> >

> > Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

> >

> > > [...] I think "seeing" does not refer only to the sight but the perception

> > > by the sense organs and the mind. [such usage of word "seeing" as an

> > > example of perception by the sense organs is present in various advaita

> > > texts, Viveka ChUDAmaNi, for example]. Thus "seeing" need to be

> > > interpreted in a broader perspective of grasping of the external

> > > world by the sense organs. Thus, I think the jagat does appear for a

> > > jeevanmukta, but as an unreal entity.

> >

> >

> > actually, i won't say that i disagree with

> > the last sentence, only because, either way

> > i believe it amounts to a strategy, and not

> > an absolute verity. let me explain...

> >

>

> and further down, Frank added

>

> > [...}

> > however, en route to mukthi, certain strategies

> > are in irder. and the way they take shape, in

> > terms of their methodology, is in accordance

> > to the temparament of the individual involved.

>

> I agree with you that different jeevas' understanding and

> temparament and hence what you call "methodology" may

> differ. However, I believe advaita is beyond temparament,

> understanding, methodology and strategy which are some of

> the words you used. Particularly, I hesitate to use the

> word "strategy" in this context. We use the word "strategy"

> when we plan a route to achieve an end. The route may take

> us on paths which may tempoararily take us farther away from

> the destination. Further, the word "strategy" implies that

> something is being done willfully with the objective of

> reaching an end, and with the mind in full control of the

> situation

>

> I do not take advaita that way. I do not see it as a strategy,

> but the status of my present understanding of separating out the

> upAdhis. In our quest for Brahmavidya, what we know now is our

> present sincere understanding. We are progressing, no doubt, but

> this is our final understanding at this stage. We may progress a

> bit more, and abandon our presently held position. But, that is

> not because of the "strategy" that we used, but because of our

> sincere mumukshutvam. Somehow, the word "strategy" has the connotation

> of a devious technique, and any devious technique is repelled by advaita.

>

> > we have to remember that advaita is a means

> > to an end. and the whole thrust within this

> > means concerns the purification of the mind.

> > this involves the elimination of vasanas,

>

> My comment on this is: You are putting the cart before the horse.

> As I understand, advaita is not a means towards an end. Advaita is

> the end, the end of the misery of the duality. Further, advaita is

> not a means to get purification of the mind. A purified mind gets

> advaita, not the other way round.

>

> As usual, I would be grateful for your comments.

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

> ------

>

> ------

> 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