sense organs: are they boon or a curse?

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

Katha upanishad is my favourite upanishad. While Isha and some

other upanishads are amenable for a theistic interpretation,

Katha upanishad stands out with highest and pure advaita as its

main and natural theme. People have to stretch it with a few

twists to put in a dualistic interpretation on Katha upanishad.

 

In my recent re-reading of this upanishad, the role of the sense

organs in human spiritual evolution has come to the forefront.

In Katha upanishad I.3.3. to I.3.9, the sense organs are equated

to the horses (in the well-known chariot analogy). The purpose

of the horses is to take the chariot and the master of the chariot

to the destination. That is, the sense organs are to play a useful

role in the spiritual evolution of the human.

 

On the other hand, we have another verse in Katha upanishad (II.1.1)

 

parAnci khAni vyatr^NAt svayambhUs tasmAt parAn passhyati nAntarAtman

kash chid dhIrah pratyag-AtmAnam aikshad Avr^tta-cakshur amr^tatvam icchan

 

The SELF is not to be sought through the senses. The Self-existent

(svayambhUh) created the sense organs (including the mind) with the

defect of an out-going disposition; therefore one looks outward and

not within oneself. A certain dhIra (wise man) desirous of immortality,

turned his senses (including the mind) inward and realized the Inner

Self.

 

Shri Shankara's interpretation of this verse is quite revealing and

gives me great satisfaction. Shri Shankara says that the Self-existent

(svayambhUh) cursed or injured the senses (himsitavAn hananam kr^tavAn)

by turning them outward. In that sense, the sense organs put obstacles

in our real understanding of ourselves (by capturing the duality of the

outside world). Further as Shri Shankara says in commenting on this

verse "... It is, verily, not possible for one and the same person to

be absorbed in the thought of external sense-objects and realize the

Inner Self. ..."

 

So, are the sense organs an aid or a hindrance? In my view, they are a

hindrance, putting obstacles at every step. If we recognize what we are,

it is *in spite of* the sense organs, rather than with the help of the

sense organs.

 

The same argument can be extended to the mind (which sometimes may be

called the sixth sense) and even to the so-called prize possession of

the humankind, the viveka, the buddhi. They are all, in my view, curses

put on the humankind in the form of mAyA, giving them to suffer through

this false sense of individuality.

 

Frankly, what is the purpose of viveka? It is true that it allows us

to discriminate between the Real and unreal. Yet, it does not have the

capability to transcend the unreal and Be in the Reality. It is the

one that has put us in the unreality in the first place, by giving us

that false sense of individuality. However much rectification it (the

viveka) tries to do later on is of no use because at the end it has to

die before Realization takes hold. Further, it seems to me, viveka is

a feeble tool to which we hang on to see a semblance of a bliss in this

mAyAvic world. Viveka does not take us anywhere; it simply allows us

to tolerate the unreality we see around. Another way to put it is:

Knowledge that one is a vivekI gives satisfaction to the ego and nothing

else and that too, it is a false satisfaction and a contradiction.

Ultimately, the ego, the mind and the viveka are all non-existent and

elusive.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>

> Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

> The SELF is not to be sought through the senses. The Self-existent

> (svayambhUh) created the sense organs (including the mind) with the

> defect of an out-going disposition; therefore one looks outward and

> not within oneself. A certain dhIra (wise man) desirous of immortality,

> turned his senses (including the mind) inward and realized the Inner

> Self.

>

> Shri Shankara's interpretation of this verse is quite revealing and

> gives me great satisfaction. Shri Shankara says that the Self-existent

> (svayambhUh) cursed or injured the senses (himsitavAn hananam kr^tavAn)

> by turning them outward. In that sense, the sense organs put obstacles

> in our real understanding of ourselves (by capturing the duality of the

> outside world). Further as Shri Shankara says in commenting on this

> verse "... It is, verily, not possible for one and the same person to

> be absorbed in the thought of external sense-objects and realize the

> Inner Self. ..."

>

> So, are the sense organs an aid or a hindrance? In my view, they are a

> hindrance, putting obstacles at every step. If we recognize what we are,

> it is *in spite of* the sense organs, rather than with the help of the

> sense organs.

>

 

i agree they can hinder one on the path to

Self-discovery. however, i wouldn't say they

are without worth. quite the contrary.

 

avidya is the misapprehension of what is.

'all i see, hear, etc is brahman.' however,

if what it is i see, hear, etc i regard to

be isolated and unto itself, i am erroneously

perceiving this sport or play of brahman--thus

am i in this way a victim of illusion.

 

so, it's all in the attitude accompanying

the perception. and this doesn't contradict

the idea of turning one's gaze within, for,

'seeing brahman in everything,' is tantamount

to having the gaze on the Self within, which

is in this case identical to the 'without,'

or the [mistakenly theorized] external world.

such [external world] is a product of avidya--

it is simply a blunder.

 

om shaanthi

[Guest guest]

In my experience the sense-organs are most often a hindrance, but in

certain yogas (such as karma) they can be an aid. There are many hundreds

of paths to realization (stemming from the basic four), not just one, and

different paths are valid to different people.

 

Sri Sankara's was mostly jnana, and in that path, the sense-organs are

taken to be "liars" but are largely irrelevant to either attainment or

blockage from nirvikalpa samadhi. What IS relevant is total acceptance of

Truth and renunciation of falsehood. It is *attachment* to anything of the

sense-organs that constitutes falsehood, the way I see it. The

sense-organs serve a useful function for continuation in the body - if you

did not feel pain when accidentally touching a hot stove, the entire hand

might be burned away... thus, in my opinion at least, common sense should

prevail. Like all else that is not of Self, the sense-organs should be

relegated to a rightful place but not necessarily ignored. Without taste,

for instance, food may be so unattractive that a person might starve to

death. So it is a useful thing to have, but the abuse of it might be to

indulge in rich dishes solely for sensual pleasure. Without sight, one may

fall over the edge of a cliff, so the sense of sight serves a useful

purpose as well, but the wanton gazing upon artwork and ignoring what is

important would be an abuse of the sight-sense. It is the common *abuse*

of these organs that result in them being a hindrance, in the path of jnana

at least (and in my opinion).

 

With Love,

 

ayam atma Brahma,

 

Tim

 

 

At 09:52 AM 3/16/99 -0330, you wrote:

>In my recent re-reading of this upanishad, the role of the sense

>organs in human spiritual evolution has come to the forefront.

>In Katha upanishad I.3.3. to I.3.9, the sense organs are equated

>to the horses (in the well-known chariot analogy). The purpose

>of the horses is to take the chariot and the master of the chariot

>to the destination. That is, the sense organs are to play a useful

>role in the spiritual evolution of the human.

>

>On the other hand, we have another verse in Katha upanishad (II.1.1)

>

>parAnci khAni vyatr^NAt svayambhUs tasmAt parAn passhyati nAntarAtman

>kash chid dhIrah pratyag-AtmAnam aikshad Avr^tta-cakshur amr^tatvam icchan

>

>The SELF is not to be sought through the senses. The Self-existent

>(svayambhUh) created the sense organs (including the mind) with the

>defect of an out-going disposition; therefore one looks outward and

>not within oneself. A certain dhIra (wise man) desirous of immortality,

>turned his senses (including the mind) inward and realized the Inner

>Self.

>

>Shri Shankara's interpretation of this verse is quite revealing and

>gives me great satisfaction. Shri Shankara says that the Self-existent

>(svayambhUh) cursed or injured the senses (himsitavAn hananam kr^tavAn)

>by turning them outward. In that sense, the sense organs put obstacles

>in our real understanding of ourselves (by capturing the duality of the

>outside world). Further as Shri Shankara says in commenting on this

>verse "... It is, verily, not possible for one and the same person to

>be absorbed in the thought of external sense-objects and realize the

>Inner Self. ..."

>

>So, are the sense organs an aid or a hindrance?

 

-----

The CORE of Reality awaits you at:

http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html -

Poetry, Writings, Live Chat on spiritual topics.

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

I am grateful to Shri frank maiello and to Shri Tim Gerchmez for

their comments. The following (my response below) are thoughts which

have come about, and are not based on any scriptural or advaitic text,

hence may be erroneous. I would be grateful if List-members point out

any inconsistencies.

 

On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, f. maiello wrote:

> "f. maiello" <egodust

>

> Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

> >

> > Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

> >

> > So, are the sense organs an aid or a hindrance? In my view, they are a

> > hindrance, putting obstacles at every step. If we recognize what we are,

> > it is *in spite of* the sense organs, rather than with the help of the

> > sense organs.

> >

>

> i agree they can hinder one on the path to

> Self-discovery. however, i wouldn't say they

> are without worth. quite the contrary.

>

> avidya is the misapprehension of what is.

> 'all i see, hear, etc is brahman.' however,

> if what it is i see, hear, etc i regard to

> be isolated and unto itself, i am erroneously

> perceiving this sport or play of brahman--thus

> am i in this way a victim of illusion.

>

> so, it's all in the attitude accompanying

> the perception. and this doesn't contradict

> the idea of turning one's gaze within, for,

> 'seeing brahman in everything,' is tantamount

> to having the gaze on the Self within, which

> is in this case identical to the 'without,'

> or the [mistakenly theorized] external world.

> such [external world] is a product of avidya--

> it is simply a blunder.

>

> om shaanthi

>

 

I agree with the above assessment. Attitude accompanying the

perception is all there is in vyavahArika. Actual perception by

the sense organs does not matter. How the intellect (buddhi with

its viveka) interprets the information brought in by the sense organs

is all that matters. If the viveka interprets the perception as all

Brahman, there is equanimity. If the viveka interprets it as otherwise,

there is accompanying joy and sorrow, the jagat, which, as you say,

is a blunder.

 

Now, the jagat has appeared because of the perception and its

interpretation (either correctly or incorrectly). Let us look at

the following scenarios where for a moment we can imagine the

sense organs are directable inward or the sense organs are not there.

 

a) sense organs are directed inward: no perception of the external

world, no interpretation by the viveka is required.

 

b) sense organs are directed outward, perceive the external world,

viveka interprets it correctly (sarvam Brahma), the entity is jnAnam

embodied

 

c) sense organs are directed outward, perceive the external world,

viveka interprets it incorrectly (it takes the perception to be

real), the jIvA goes through samsArA.

 

Of the three alternatives, © is the vyavahArika day-to-day life.

(b) is where we see the jagat to be leela of saguNa Brahman. We

perceive the jagat but are not affected by it. But, this is still

not the ultimate knowledge. We still see duality, although unaffected

by it. (a) is the ultimate knowledge. No need for dependency on viveka

for the proper interpretation. In this scenario, no perception, no

viveka, no individuality, no jagat perceived. All is one, the

Consciousness.

 

Coming to the title of the thread, the poor sense organs have no major

role to play. They are simply collectors of information. VivekA is the

one that makes or breaks it for the jIvA. As analyzed above and in the

last post, what is the outcome of vivekA's interpretation? A proper

interpretation makes life blissful in the vyavahArika (viveka will

remove the layers of ajnAna, and at the same time the viveka should

cease to exist or merge into Consciousness as perceived by that entity).

A wrong interpretation makes life miserable (suffering the pairs of

opposites) in the vyavahArika. The objective of this life (of the jIvA)

is to shed this jIvA concept and along with that, vivekA, which is a

property of the jIvA, merges with the Absolute. Thus, it seems to me,

this attribute, vivekA, is useful only in the vyavahArika;

in paramArtha, it has no role and no meaning.

 

On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Tim Gerchmez wrote:

> Tim Gerchmez <fewtch

> In my experience the sense-organs are most often a hindrance, but in

> certain yogas (such as karma) they can be an aid. There are many hundreds

> of paths to realization (stemming from the basic four), not just one, and

> different paths are valid to different people.

> Sri Sankara's was mostly jnana, and in that path, the sense-organs are

> taken to be "liars" but are largely irrelevant to either attainment or

> blockage from nirvikalpa samadhi. What IS relevant is total acceptance of

> Truth and renunciation of falsehood. It is *attachment* to anything of the

> sense-organs that constitutes falsehood, the way I see it. The

> sense-organs serve a useful function for continuation in the body - if you

> did not feel pain when accidentally touching a hot stove, the entire hand

> might be burned away... thus, in my opinion at least, common sense should

> prevail. Like all else that is not of Self, the sense-organs should be

> relegated to a rightful place but not necessarily ignored. Without taste,

> for instance, food may be so unattractive that a person might starve to

> death. So it is a useful thing to have, but the abuse of it might be to

> indulge in rich dishes solely for sensual pleasure. Without sight, one may

> fall over the edge of a cliff, so the sense of sight serves a useful

> purpose as well, but the wanton gazing upon artwork and ignoring what is

> important would be an abuse of the sight-sense. It is the common *abuse*

> of these organs that result in them being a hindrance, in the path of jnana

> at least (and in my opinion).

> With Love,

> ayam atma Brahma,

> Tim

 

 

I agree. However, all the examples cited above are for making the life

enjoyable (or even blissful) in vyavahArika. I wonder, if life itself has

a meaning in paramArtha. Our objective is to shed this vyavahArika garb.

In that objective, it seems to me the role of the sense organs is minimal,

and if at all it has a role, it is negative. I like your statement

"... the sense organs are taken to be "liars"". In spite of the lies

which the sense organs convey, the vivekA has to come to the right

decision. That is, vivekA has to work extra hard compared to if the

sense organs were not cursed (Shri Shankara's bhAshhya on Katha u.

II.1.1) to be directed outward. However, as frank maiello pointed

out above, the attitude (dictated by viveka) is more important than

the information collected by the sense organs.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Note - much of the following post is conjecture, take it as you will.

 

At 12:44 PM 3/19/99 -0330, you wrote:

>I agree. However, all the examples cited above are for making the life

>enjoyable (or even blissful) in vyavahArika. I wonder, if life itself has

>a meaning in paramArtha. Our objective is to shed this vyavahArika garb.

 

Sometimes I wonder what our objective is, or if there even is any. It has

been said (although not by Sankara) that all life will eventually reach

absolute Perfection on its own, without effort on our part (Ramakrishna /

Vivekananda), that eventually everything will be perfect. Thus, for those

willing to endure a few more births and deaths, there may not be such a

rush. It is purely up to the "individual." Perhaps this conjecture is

just a grab of this ego for survival, I don't know.

>In that objective, it seems to me the role of the sense organs is minimal,

>and if at all it has a role, it is negative.

 

If you would like to pluck out thine eyes, feel free, but I won't be

waiting with a net when you fall out the window <grin>...

 

Sankara's path is too rocky for 'me' to follow to the letter. I believe

that with maybe one or two weeks of absolutely devoted struggle for

liberation, I could attain permanent union with Brahman through His "recipe

book" of Viveka-Chudamani (and other writings), as the methods are

absolutely clear. I find myself tempted, but even if it makes me a fool, I

will not do this now. I have a family, and a certain love for other

'individuals' that I'm not ready to give up completely. Thus, I find

myself unwilling to walk alongside Sankara for any great distance. His

'path' would bloody my 'feet' to ruin, and I find no need for total union

with Brahman to happen with such rapidity. He is a Saint, because his path

is clear, direct, rapid, and the end result guaranteed. But not everybody

can be or will be a Saint.

 

Tim

 

 

-----

The CORE of Reality awaits you at:

http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html -

Poetry, Writings, Live Chat on spiritual topics.

[Guest guest]

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>

> [...]

>

> ...the jagat has appeared because of the perception and its

> interpretation (either correctly or incorrectly). Let us look at

> the following scenarios where for a moment we can imagine the

> sense organs are directable inward or the sense organs are not there.

>

> a) sense organs are directed inward: no perception of the external

> world, no interpretation by the viveka is required.

>

> b) sense organs are directed outward, perceive the external world,

> viveka interprets it correctly (sarvam Brahma), the entity is jnAnam

> embodied

>

> c) sense organs are directed outward, perceive the external world,

> viveka interprets it incorrectly (it takes the perception to be

> real), the jIvA goes through samsArA.

>

> Of the three alternatives, © is the vyavahArika day-to-day life.

> (b) is where we see the jagat to be leela of saguNa Brahman. We

> perceive the jagat but are not affected by it. But, this is still

> not the ultimate knowledge. We still see duality, although unaffected

> by it. (a) is the ultimate knowledge. No need for dependency on viveka

> for the proper interpretation. In this scenario, no perception, no

> viveka, no individuality, no jagat perceived. All is one, the

> Consciousness.

>

> Coming to the title of the thread, the poor sense organs have no major

> role to play. They are simply collectors of information. VivekA is the

> one that makes or breaks it for the jIvA. As analyzed above and in the

> last post, what is the outcome of vivekA's interpretation? A proper

> interpretation makes life blissful in the vyavahArika (viveka will

> remove the layers of ajnAna, and at the same time the viveka should

> cease to exist or merge into Consciousness as perceived by that entity).

> A wrong interpretation makes life miserable (suffering the pairs of

> opposites) in the vyavahArika. The objective of this life (of the jIvA)

> is to shed this jIvA concept and along with that, vivekA, which is a

> property of the jIvA, merges with the Absolute. Thus, it seems to me,

> this attribute, vivekA, is useful only in the vyavahArika;

> in paramArtha, it has no role and no meaning.

>

 

this is an instance where the language and its

semantics has to be carefully evaluated because,

depending on how it's approached, the point being

made can be quite subtle/elusive.

 

if "we see the jagat to be leela of saguNa Brahman,"

how is this "seeing duality"? it would be duality

if it were being perceived *in an exclusive sense*

as the [blunder] jagat. this is the whole point,

that the misconstrued notion that the leela of saguna

brahman could be jagat *on its own terms* (or jagat

as jagat, *as such*), is where and when delusion

sets in. thus, taking in what is erroneously regarded

as jagat, through the senses, resolves in the act of

perceiving what may be *called* duality, but is in

truth only brahman...yet the phenomenal perception

itself must remain intact. or else, how would it

be possible for a jivanmukta to get through the rest

of his/her life if nothing can be literally seen?

 

i completely agree that viveka is no longer needed

after atmasakshat, since the prakrit in jagat is

no longer viewed as separate, or anything that has

to be distinguished from the sathyasthithi...again,

it is naught but saguna brahman.

 

namaste

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, f. maiello wrote:

> "f. maiello" <egodust

>

>

> this is an instance where the language and its

> semantics has to be carefully evaluated because,

> depending on how it's approached, the point being

> made can be quite subtle/elusive.

>

> if "we see the jagat to be leela of saguNa Brahman,"

> how is this "seeing duality"? it would be duality

> if it were being perceived *in an exclusive sense*

> as the [blunder] jagat. this is the whole point,

> that the misconstrued notion that the leela of saguna

> brahman could be jagat *on its own terms* (or jagat

> as jagat, *as such*), is where and when delusion

> sets in. thus, taking in what is erroneously regarded

> as jagat, through the senses, resolves in the act of

> perceiving what may be *called* duality, but is in

> truth only brahman...yet the phenomenal perception

> itself must remain intact. or else, how would it

> be possible for a jivanmukta to get through the rest

> of his/her life if nothing can be literally seen?

>

> i completely agree that viveka is no longer needed

> after atmasakshat, since the prakrit in jagat is

> no longer viewed as separate, or anything that has

> to be distinguished from the sathyasthithi...again,

> it is naught but saguna brahman.

>

> namaste

>

 

namaste.

 

I like to touch on whether there is duality in seeing the

jagat as leela of saguNa Brahman. If we consistently and

naturally view the jagat that way, I think it is a really

advanced state of knowledge. However it may still be,

viewed intellectually, as a case where there is duality.

What I mean to say is: how can we accommodate saguNa

Brahman's leela in the ultimate advaitic Truth? Let me

clarify my thought on this.

 

SaguNa Brahman is personal God, with all and only good

attributes. His sport or leela is the jagat. The question

"Why does saguNa Brahman play the sport (of creating jagat)?"

cannot be answered. Further, if He plays the sport, He being

one with all good attributes, why is the sport not perceived

as fair to all His creation?" cannot be answered either.

 

It seems to me that there is duality when there is saguNa

Brahman *and* the Consciousness I. For no duality, one of

the following three should be possible:

 

(a) Consciousness I alone exists, negate the saguNa Brahman('s leela)

(b) SaguNa Brahman('s leela) alone exists, negate the Consciousness I

© Consciousness I is identical with saguNa Brahman

 

(a) is nirvikalpa samAdhi and is the highest Turth. When we (I mean

by "we" here the Consciousness and not the jeeva) are negating

the saguNa Brahman, we are negating the jagat.

(b) cannot be the case, since Consciousness I cannot be negated.

Consciousness I is always there and will always be there.

SaguNa Brahman is the creator of the jagat including the

jeeva aspect of the Consciousness I. Consciousness I is beyond

the saguNa Brahman concept and is the substratum for everything.

© Consciousness I is identical with nirguna Brahman. SaguNa Brahman

is the creator of the jagat and the Consciousness I does not

participate in the creation of the jagat. Thus, Consciousness I

and saguNa Brahman cannot be identical.

 

Thus, if we (the jeevAs) see jagat as the leela of saguNa Brahman

(and this leela includes the jeeva aspect of the Consciousness,

but not the Consciousness I Itself), I feel that we are still

within the realm of lower knowledge.

 

In answer to the question "... How would it be possible for a

jeevanmukta to get through the rest of his/her life .....?",

I can only conjecture the following: The jeevanmukta sees the

various forms and hears the various forms but considers them as

Brahman only and nothing else. The mortals around may think that

the jeevanmukta is seeing the differences in various forms. But

for the jeevanmukta, A = B = c = D is the same. The beauty of a

jeevanmukta, as I understand, is He/She may be right in our midst,

with the sense organs directed outward and grasping the jagat,

and completely unrecognizable by the ordinary mortals. But He sees

the jagat as Brahman only. The jeevanmukta relinquishing the body -

may make a difference to ordinary mortals around; but what difference

does it make to jeevanmukta? It is of no concern to Him/Her and is

not a major event as jeevanmukta sees it. The highest state is

nirvikalpa samAdhi, with the sense organs directed inward, and

no perception of the jagat. At least, that is the way I understand

at the moment. I would be grateful for any corrections.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>

> I like to touch on whether there is duality in seeing the

> jagat as leela of saguNa Brahman. If we consistently and

> naturally view the jagat that way, I think it is a really

> advanced state of knowledge. However it may still be,

> viewed intellectually, as a case where there is duality.

 

(see below)

 

> In answer to the question "... How would it be possible for a

> jeevanmukta to get through the rest of his/her life .....?",

> I can only conjecture the following: The jeevanmukta sees the

> various forms and hears the various forms but considers them as

> Brahman only and nothing else.

 

 

please note the above paragraphs are

contradicting eachother--unless it is

surmised that what the jivanmukta is

seeing/hearing thus approximates duality.

neverthelss, the latter paragraph reflects

what i meant and, really, how else can

it be? surely Sankara, Ramana, and

Ramakrishna wouldn't have been able to

function without their senses in tact.

so that, yes, what they are perceiving

is naught but brahman, despite the maya

associated with saguna brahman's leela.

 

> (a) Consciousness I alone exists, negate the saguNa Brahman('s leela)

>

> is nirvikalpa samAdhi and is the highest Turth. When we (I mean

> by "we" here the Consciousness and not the jeeva) are negating

> the saguNa Brahman, we are negating the jagat.

 

 

yes, as it is defined, when engaged in [pure]

nirvikalpa samadhi, Consciousness I, as per

nirguna brahman, stands alone--there is no leela

of saguna brahman, nor jagat. however, one

cannot function in that state since, trance-like,

it nullifies the senses. on the other hand, the

jivanmukta is engaged in the *functional*

nirvikalpa samadhi which is, as you know, defined

as sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi. and in this [sahaja

state] the senses are again operable, although all

is perceived as brahman.

 

namaste

[Guest guest]

Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy Save Address Block

Sender

advaitin

advaitin

Re: sense organs: are they boon or a curse?

Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:52:28 -0330 (NST)

 

Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

 

 

On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, f. maiello wrote:

> "f. maiello" <egodust

>

>

> this is an instance where the language and its

> semantics has to be carefully evaluated because,

> depending on how it's approached, the point being

> made can be quite subtle/elusive.

>

> if "we see the jagat to be leela of saguNa Brahman,"

> how is this "seeing duality"? it would be duality

> if it were being perceived *in an exclusive sense*

> as the [blunder] jagat. this is the whole point,

> that the misconstrued notion that the leela of saguna

> brahman could be jagat *on its own terms* (or jagat

> as jagat, *as such*), is where and when delusion

> sets in.

>namaste.

>I like to touch on whether there is duality in seeing the

>jagat as leela of saguNa Brahman. If we consistently and

>naturally view the jagat that way, I think it is a really

>advanced state of knowledge.

>It seems to me that there is duality when there is saguNa

>Brahman *and* the Consciousness I. For no duality, one of

>the following three should be possible:

>(a) Consciousness I alone exists, negate the saguNa Brahman('s leela)

>(b) SaguNa Brahman('s leela) alone exists, negate the Consciousness I

>© Consciousness I is identical with saguNa Brahman

>(a) is nirvikalpa samAdhi and is the highest Turth. When we (I mean

>by "we" here the Consciousness and not the jeeva) are negating

>the saguNa Brahman, we are negating the jagat.

>(b) cannot be the case, since Consciousness I cannot be negated.

> Consciousness I is always there and will always be there.

>SaguNa Brahman is the creator of the jagat including the

>jeeva aspect of the Consciousness I. Consciousness I is beyond

> the saguNa Brahman concept and is the substratum for everything.

>© Consciousness I is identical with nirguna Brahman. SaguNa Brahman

> is the creator of the jagat and the Consciousness I does not

> participate in the creation of the jagat. Thus, Consciousness I

>and saguNa Brahman cannot be identical.

>Thus, if we (the jeevAs) see jagat as the leela of saguNa Brahman

>(and this leela includes the jeeva aspect of the Consciousness,

>but not the Consciousness I Itself), I feel that we are still

>within the realm of lower knowledge.

>In answer to the question "... How would it be possible for a

>jeevanmukta to get through the rest of his/her life .....?",

>I can only conjecture the following: The jeevanmukta sees the

>various forms and hears the various forms but considers them as

>Brahman only and nothing else. The mortals around may think that

>the jeevanmukta is seeing the differences in various forms. But

>for the jeevanmukta, A = B = c = D is the same. The beauty of a

>jeevanmukta, as I understand, is He/She may be right in our midst,

>with the sense organs directed outward and grasping the jagat,

>and completely unrecognizable by the ordinary mortals. But He sees

>the jagat as Brahman only. The jeevanmukta relinquishing the body -

>may make a difference to ordinary mortals around; but what difference

>does it make to jeevanmukta? It is of no concern to Him/Her and is

>not a major event as jeevanmukta sees it. The highest state is

>nirvikalpa samAdhi, with the sense organs directed inward, and

>no perception of the jagat. At least, that is the way I understand

>at the moment. I would be grateful for any corrections.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

 

Greetings from the hot country - I could only open my mails now. First,

my thanks to all those who expressed sentiments on my coming and joining

IIT Madras.

 

There have been so many mails on advaitin, it would take me year to read

- instead I decided to skip most them and read them leisurely from

archives list later. I find the loading and unloading hotmail is really

a time consuming affair here since the process is very very slow. One

thing I find here, the slow pace of life and perhaps we are so used to

the rat race there that things do not work as fast as one wants.

Positive side of this is one has more time to think and to contemplate.

 

Now on the topic of saguna Brahma. Brahma is saguNa only if one thinks

that oneself is saguNa. Jeevanamukta sees the jagat as jagat (just as

any -body) but does not have the misunderstanding that the jagat is real

- where the reality is trikaala abhaaditam - that which remains the same

in the three periods of time. The seer-seen distinction is there for

jeevanmukta too just like for anyone else. That is the property of the

mind, which is independent of whether one has realized or not - but the

difference is that he has no notion that the distinction is real - it is

either considered as vibhuuti or aiswaryam of the Lord - everything is

in Me and I am in everything yet everything appears to be different from

me yet not different from me - This duality is there but duality is

taken as reality only at the transaction level but not in its intrinsic

nature. I don't think that nirvikalpa samaadhi is superior - unless one

is afraid of the thoughts - it should be sahaja samaadhi - I am there

whether there are thoughts or no thoughts. They are all in me and I am

in all of them - yet I am not them in the sense that the name and form

are just superimposition and transients and not real me. They raise in

me, sustained by me and go back into me. I am the substratum for even

the vikalpa samaadhi or nirvikalpa samaadhi since I can never be negated

while the kalpana can be either be superimposed or dismissed and one can

see through without getting carried away by the kalpana.

 

Hence jagat is not the problem and in fact is the glory - illusion is

not the problem - taking the illusion is real is the problem and that is

delusion. Krishna is able to kill Kamsa and marry so many ladies- wife

is different from mother and enemy is different from a friend - that

vyavahaara is real in its own sphere but not real in the absolute sense.

Realisation brings the knowledge that Self in me is the Self in all.

Everything else is just a superimpostion. No misunderstanding that the

superimposition is real - just as no one takes the apparent bending of a

pencil in a half-filled glass is real bending of the pencil.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Greetings Murthygaru:

 

Though I hesitate, I am compelled to comments my two cents worth. Both

you and Frank have posted some interesting thoughts regarding Brahman,

Saguna Brahman and Jeevanmukta.

 

I believe that we have no way to define the "qualities" of either

Brahman or Jeevamukta. Any attempt to define the qualities is an

expression of duality! All conjectures, definitions, and establishment

of relationship is primarily due to our intellectual curiosity to know

what we don't know! As I understand, "Saguna Brahman" is an

intellectually conceivable expression of Brahman, a close approximation

to the expression "Sarvam Brahmamayam." It is highly unlikely that "no

duality" can be explained exactly through three possiblities! It is

safer to say that "no duality" can be explained through infinite

possibilities. But unfortunately, that is equivalent to saying, it is

unexplainable!

 

The world is the deep well where the Jiva is fallen and noone knows when

did the Jiva fall on the well nor we know when the Jiva will come out of

the well! Jiva needs something like a ladder to get out of the well and

"Saguna Brahman" serves as the ladder. These explanations or conjectures

coming from an intellect and until we go beyond our intellectual

perception, we don't know the TRUTH!

 

Ram Chandran

Burke, VA

[Guest guest]

Dear Ram,

 

At 03:27 PM 3/23/99 -0500, you wrote:

>I believe that we have no way to define the "qualities" of either

>Brahman or Jeevamukta. Any attempt to define the qualities is an

>expression of duality!

 

Actually, nonduality cannot be talked about at all. The word "non-duality"

itself is an oxymoron, or even a paradox. To suggest that there is

nonduality indicates that there is duality. Obviously, there cannot be

both nonduality and duality, for such is duality.

>All conjectures, definitions, and establishment

>of relationship is primarily due to our intellectual curiosity to know

>what we don't know!

 

Agreed. Such discussions may be compared to christian theologians

discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's ultimately

nonsensical, and perhaps even harmful, in that it takes the focus off the

Reality and puts it onto thought. Brahman can never in the smallest degree

be contained by thought, in Shankara's words, "no, not at the end of many

hundreds of ages" !

>As I understand, "Saguna Brahman" is an

>intellectually conceivable expression of Brahman, a close approximation

>to the expression "Sarvam Brahmamayam." It is highly unlikely that "no

>duality" can be explained exactly through three possiblities! It is

>safer to say that "no duality" can be explained through infinite

>possibilities. But unfortunately, that is equivalent to saying, it is

>unexplainable!

 

I like to think that the term "unduality" might be slightly more

descriptive than "nonduality," although both miss the mark by a thousand

miles.

>These explanations or conjectures

>coming from an intellect and until we go beyond our intellectual

>perception, we don't know the TRUTH!

 

Well, maybe the intellect will wear itself out, grow tired of these

discussions and stop yapping awhile, then learning can begin. Perhaps that

is the only real benefit of these discussions, to wear down the mind and

tire it out.

 

With Love,

 

Tim

Seattle, WA.

 

 

-----

The CORE of Reality awaits you at:

http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html -

Poetry, Writings, Live Chat on spiritual topics.

[Guest guest]

Tim Gerchmez wrote:

>

> Actually, nonduality cannot be talked about at all.

 

i beg to differ.

 

nondual philosophy--in our case, advaita

vedanta--is a *methodology* specifically

geared to readying the Mind, in terms of

purifying it, for its eventual dissolution

or absorption back into its source, being

its substratum, brahman. as such, it can

definitely--and should!--be talked about,

not only because it is rooted yet in the

vyavaharika, but because a clear grasp of

what it seeks to accomplish must be had.

what *cannot* be talked about or defined

is the reality it's pointing to: viz. the

paramarthika. this is why it is said that

advaita has to be abandoned at the threshold

of Self-realization, since it is only a

[discardable] means.

 

advaita seeks to unite the entirety of

what is, manifest and unmanifest. in this

way, the sadhaka can effectively purify the

Mind, insofar as judgments re attractions

and repulsions concerning the gross and

subtle are rendered irrelevant--as in the

end, all is perceived as the one brahman,

the only reality in existence. this, from

the relative vyavahara level is regarded

as absolute monism. whereas, the reality

*itself* is anirvachaniya (indescribable).

 

namaste

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, f. maiello wrote:

> "f. maiello" <egodust

>

> Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

> >

> > I like to touch on whether there is duality in seeing the

> > jagat as leela of saguNa Brahman. If we consistently and

> > naturally view the jagat that way, I think it is a really

> > advanced state of knowledge. However it may still be,

> > viewed intellectually, as a case where there is duality.

>

> (see below)

>

>

> > In answer to the question "... How would it be possible for a

> > jeevanmukta to get through the rest of his/her life .....?",

> > I can only conjecture the following: The jeevanmukta sees the

> > various forms and hears the various forms but considers them as

> > Brahman only and nothing else.

>

>

> please note the above paragraphs are

> contradicting eachother--unless it is

> surmised that what the jivanmukta is

> seeing/hearing thus approximates duality.

> neverthelss, the latter paragraph reflects

> what i meant and, really, how else can

> it be? surely Sankara, Ramana, and

> Ramakrishna wouldn't have been able to

> function without their senses in tact.

> so that, yes, what they are perceiving

> is naught but brahman, despite the maya

> associated with saguna brahman's leela.

>

>

 

namaste.

 

The two paragraphs quoted above refer to two different scenarios

(as per my understanding) and hence the contents are not the same.

I was careful in differentiating between the two scenarios of

 

(1) seeing everything as Brahman and

(2) jagat viewed as leela of saguNa Brahman

 

As per my understanding, (1) and (2) are not the same and hence the

difference I placed in the two paragraphs.

 

(1) One who sees everything as Brahman is Brahman itself. There is no

duality. Such an entity has recognized itself to be Brahman. Jeevanmukta

is such an entity.

 

(2) In contrast to that, let us say a jeeva X sees the jagat as leela of

saguNa Brahman. Being part of the jagat, jeeva X is still in the jeeva

mold. It is true that jeeva X is not affected by the jagat. Where does

the Consciousness on which the jeeva X is superimposed fit in this

understanding? What is the relation between the Consciousness and

saguNa Brahman? That was not clarified in this understanding.

 

If this jeeva X sees and fully realizes that Consciousness is beyond

saguNa Brahman, then there is no necessity of seeing the jagat as

leela of saguNa Brahman. Jagat can be seen as Brahman itself or

superimposition on Brahman. Why the leela?

 

If the jeeva X sees jagat as the leela of saguNa Brahman, then this

jeeva visualizes some entity saguNa Brahman as creating this jagat.

That is, as per my understanding, not the ultimate advaita standpoint.

 

That is what I was hoping to convey im my last post. I think semantics

are playing a major role here, although I suspect there may also be a

slight difference in emphasis. I am grateful to Shri frank maiello for

educating me on some of these points and for giving an opportunity to

clarify my views.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Ram Chandran wrote:

> Ram Chandran <chandran

>

> Greetings Murthygaru:

>

> Though I hesitate, I am compelled to comments my two cents worth. Both

> you and Frank have posted some interesting thoughts regarding Brahman,

> Saguna Brahman and Jeevanmukta.

>

 

namaste.

 

I am extremely glad that you have commented and we all have the benifit

of your sage comments in this learning process.

> I believe that we have no way to define the "qualities" of either

> Brahman or Jeevamukta. Any attempt to define the qualities is an

> expression of duality! All conjectures, definitions, and establishment

> of relationship is primarily due to our intellectual curiosity to know

> what we don't know! As I understand, "Saguna Brahman" is an

> intellectually conceivable expression of Brahman, a close approximation

> to the expression "Sarvam Brahmamayam." It is highly unlikely that "no

> duality" can be explained exactly through three possiblities! It is

> safer to say that "no duality" can be explained through infinite

> possibilities. But unfortunately, that is equivalent to saying, it is

> unexplainable!

>

 

I agree. By defining, we are trying to confine the infinite into a

definitive mold, which is not possible. I also agree that the infinite

Brahman can be (attempted to be) explained in infinite possibilities.

However, the point I was trying to make there is: If we see the jagat

as saguNa Brahman's leela, I am trying to understand the role of

Consciousness I which is the only subject. Your description "SaguNa

Brahman is an intellectually conceivable expression of Brahman" seems

to be quite a good description of the infinite in finite words.

> The world is the deep well where the Jiva is fallen and noone knows when

> did the Jiva fall on the well nor we know when the Jiva will come out of

> the well! Jiva needs something like a ladder to get out of the well and

> "Saguna Brahman" serves as the ladder. These explanations or conjectures

> coming from an intellect and until we go beyond our intellectual

> perception, we don't know the TRUTH!

>

 

Yes, that is another way to describe as well. When the jeeva climbs out

of the well, the jeeva will find there is no well at all and further all

the jeevas that he/she comes across and the ladder that he/she uses while

in the well are not there either. Those who have climbed out of the well

(shrutI) say that the well itself disappears on climbing out of the well.

> Ram Chandran

> Burke, VA

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Kuntimaddi Sadananda wrote:

> "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda

>

> Greetings from the hot country - I could only open my mails now. First,

> my thanks to all those who expressed sentiments on my coming and joining

> IIT Madras.

>

> There have been so many mails on advaitin, it would take me year to read

> - instead I decided to skip most them and read them leisurely from

> archives list later. I find the loading and unloading hotmail is really

> a time consuming affair here since the process is very very slow. One

> thing I find here, the slow pace of life and perhaps we are so used to

> the rat race there that things do not work as fast as one wants.

> Positive side of this is one has more time to think and to contemplate.

>

 

namaste.

 

I welcome Shri Sadananda garu back on to the List this time from India.

I am sure it will be quite an enjoyable stay for you in India with

advaitic literature readily available and with satsangs at every

temple corner. Things may appear slow. But after recognizing that we

have run all these years only to find that Truth we are searching for

is always with us, the slow pace of India may not be a hindrance

and, as you say, gives more time to contemplate. I look forward

to your sage wisdom on many of the topics.

> Now on the topic of saguna Brahma. Brahma is saguNa only if one thinks

> that oneself is saguNa. Jeevanamukta sees the jagat as jagat (just as

> any -body) but does not have the misunderstanding that the jagat is real

> - where the reality is trikaala abhaaditam - that which remains the same

> in the three periods of time. The seer-seen distinction is there for

> jeevanmukta too just like for anyone else. That is the property of the

> mind, which is independent of whether one has realized or not - but the

> difference is that he has no notion that the distinction is real - it is

> either considered as vibhuuti or aiswaryam of the Lord - everything is

> in Me and I am in everything yet everything appears to be different from

> me yet not different from me - This duality is there but duality is

> taken as reality only at the transaction level but not in its intrinsic

> nature. I don't think that nirvikalpa samaadhi is superior - unless one

> is afraid of the thoughts - it should be sahaja samaadhi - I am there

> whether there are thoughts or no thoughts. They are all in me and I am

> in all of them - yet I am not them in the sense that the name and form

> are just superimposition and transients and not real me. They raise in

> me, sustained by me and go back into me. I am the substratum for even

> the vikalpa samaadhi or nirvikalpa samaadhi since I can never be negated

> while the kalpana can be either be superimposed or dismissed and one can

> see through without getting carried away by the kalpana.

>

 

I understand and agree with what is said. I will re-phrase the topic:

The difference between a jeevanmukta and nirvikalpa samAdhi is:

jeevanmukta has sense organs directed outward, grasps the jagat, sees

the jagat as Brahman. A jnAni in nirvikalpa samAdhi has the sense

organs directed inward, does not grasp the jagat and as Shri Ram

Chandran's recent posting shows, is merged in the Absolute.

 

It is interesting some jnAnis (like Shri RamaNa) get back into viewing

the jagat as a jeevanmukta after a period in nirvikalpa samAdhi.

I would assume this is for the betterment of the jagat (what I mean

by that is, to help some destined souls to be taken across this

samsAra sAgara). On the other hand, some jnAnis keep themselves in

the samAdhi until relinquishing the physical body. What guides them to

be one or the other? I heard explanations that it is the remaining

prArabdha karma of the jeevanmuktas that get them back to the jagat

environment. But that seems to be an explanation catering to a

vyavahArika law of karma. Jeevanmukta does not have any karma, and

is beyond the karma explanations. So also is the one in nirvikalpa

samAdhi. So, what "decides" then their physical body's destiny?

Is it discussed in any particular bhAshhya?

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

>

>It is interesting some jnAnis (like Shri RamaNa) get back into viewing

>the jagat as a jeevanmukta after a period in nirvikalpa samAdhi.

>I would assume this is for the betterment of the jagat (what I mean

>by that is, to help some destined souls to be taken across this

>samsAra sAgara). On the other hand, some jnAnis keep themselves in

>the samAdhi until relinquishing the physical body. What guides them to

>be one or the other? I heard explanations that it is the remaining

>prArabdha karma of the jeevanmuktas that get them back to the jagat

>environment. But that seems to be an explanation catering to a

>vyavahArika law of karma. Jeevanmukta does not have any karma, and

>is beyond the karma explanations. So also is the one in nirvikalpa

>samAdhi. So, what "decides" then their physical body's destiny?

>Is it discussed in any particular bhAshhya?

>

>

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy

>------

 

Jeevanmukta by definition has no vaasanaas to exahaust. He has

realized that "I asm not an individual, Jeeva but Brahman, the

substratum for everthying. So if any action is being performed

throught that body, mind and intellect, it is with the understanding

that I am Brahman - Hence it is recognized as Bhagavaan or living God

moving on the earth - avataara purusha - that who has come down form the

state of Brahmanhood.

Why does he act - Obviously he does not act. The nature acts. The

motivation for the action is not personal or individual vaasanaas but

samishTi vaasanaas. Others need a person of that knowledge for their

evolution and Lord guarentees that an appropriate person of that

caliber, JNaani, is provided for the seeker. Hence it is not the

prarabda of the individual but the prarabda of the disciples that keeps

the body of the teacher going. This is the law of natre.

 

paritraanNaaya sadhuunam vinaashaayata dRishhkRitaam

dharma samsthaapanaarthaaya sambhavaami yugeyuge||

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

 

Gummuluru Murthy [gmurthy]

Wednesday, March 24, 1999 2:10 PM

advaitin

Cc: k_sadananda

Re: sense organs: are they boon or a curse?

 

 

It is interesting some jnAnis (like Shri RamaNa) get back into viewing

the jagat as a jeevanmukta after a period in nirvikalpa samAdhi.

I would assume this is for the betterment of the jagat (what I mean

by that is, to help some destined souls to be taken across this

samsAra sAgara). On the other hand, some jnAnis keep themselves in

the samAdhi until relinquishing the physical body. What guides them to

be one or the other? I heard explanations that it is the remaining

prArabdha karma of the jeevanmuktas that get them back to the jagat

environment. But that seems to be an explanation catering to a

vyavahArika law of karma. Jeevanmukta does not have any karma, and

is beyond the karma explanations. So also is the one in nirvikalpa

samAdhi. So, what "decides" then their physical body's destiny?

Is it discussed in any particular bhAshhya?

 

Harsha: Thanks for your post Moorthyji. I do not about BhAshya. Ramana

Maharshi pointed out the difference between Kevala Nirvikalpa and Sahaj

Nirvikalpa. Although, they both have Nirvikalpa in common, the one in Kevala

Nirvikalpa comes back as the mind is only temporarily merged in the Self.

Why it comes back is hard to say. In Kevala Nirvikalpa, one is in the purest

trance without any thoughts or doubts, and the mind remains completely

merged in Sat-Chit-Ananda. So there is no one to ask or know why the mind

might rise up again. Probably the latent tendencies in the form of the "will

to live and take rebirth to satisfy desires" are still too strong. This

explanation is given as to why the merged mind sprouts back up again.

Whether anything truly rises or sets, who can say?

[Guest guest]

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>

> (1) One who sees everything as Brahman is Brahman itself. There is no

> duality. Such an entity has recognized itself to be Brahman. Jeevanmukta

> is such an entity.

>

> (2) In contrast to that, let us say a jeeva X sees the jagat as leela of

> saguNa Brahman. Being part of the jagat, jeeva X is still in the jeeva

> mold. It is true that jeeva X is not affected by the jagat. Where does

> the Consciousness on which the jeeva X is superimposed fit in this

> understanding? What is the relation between the Consciousness and

> saguNa Brahman? That was not clarified in this understanding.

>

> If this jeeva X sees and fully realizes that Consciousness is beyond

> saguNa Brahman, then there is no necessity of seeing the jagat as

> leela of saguNa Brahman. Jagat can be seen as Brahman itself or

> superimposition on Brahman. Why the leela?

>

> If the jeeva X sees jagat as the leela of saguNa Brahman, then this

> jeeva visualizes some entity saguNa Brahman as creating this jagat.

> That is, as per my understanding, not the ultimate advaita standpoint.

>

 

harih OM!

 

since you clarified what you mean by the

'leela of saguna brahman,' which differs,

however, from what i take it to mean, it

*is* a matter of semantics.

 

i was under the assumption that the term

saguna brahman was formulated to show that

in fact, the manifestation or outbreath of

brahman--otherwise erroneously thought of

as jagat--is naught but brahman itself with

attributes. and that, furthermore, saguna

brahman manifests as the three-in-one: as

sohamidam (isvara, jiva, jagat).

 

therefore:

if jiva x sees jagat *as such*, *unto itself*,

there is duality.

 

if jiva x sees jagat as saguna brahman (being

thus brahman itself), there is no duality.

 

so, assuming i'm wrong in my definition, we're

really saying the same thing. :-)

 

namaste

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, f. maiello wrote:

> "f. maiello" <egodust

>

> [...]

>

> so, assuming i'm wrong in my definition, we're

> really saying the same thing. :-)

>

> namaste

>

>

 

namaste.

 

Yes, it is indeed so. We are speaking of the same except the semantics

arising from a slightly different definition of leela of saguNa Brahman.

 

Thanks again for a very fruitful discussion.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------