Guest guest Posted May 8, 1999 Report Share Posted May 8, 1999 Greetings to everyone. I gava a talk on Shankara Jayanti - April 20th on Advaita Vedanta. I ended up writing whatever I talked. some of it I have presented in this forum but it may still be of some interest to those who did not read my post earlier. If there is repition - just consider it as review. The article is big and I am not sure it will come as one. Hari Om Sadanadna ---------------- Advaita Vedanta by Shankara Bhagawatpaada* Shankara : shRiti smruti puraaNaanam aalayam karuNaalayam| namaami bhagavat paadam shankaram loka shankaram|| ashTavarshe caturvedii dvaadashe sarvashaastravit shhoDashhe kRitavaan bhaashyam dvaatRimshhe munirabhyagaat|| Bhagavaan Shankara became an exponent of four Vedas by the time he was eight, by twelve he learned all the shaastraas, by sixteen he wrote bhaashyaa-s on prastaanatrayam and by thirty-two fulfilled his mission and left to his abode. Bhagavaan Shankara was one of the greatest emmissionaries that India ever produced. The philosophy that he expounded is the Advaita. A-dvaita is not mono-ism – emphasizing the oneness itself, but more of negation of duality or plurality, as a reality. For, it is recognized, and supported by scriptures, that absolute oneness cannot be defined other than through the negation of all duality. Absoluteness can only be that which is free from negation – tri kaala abhaaditam satyam, that which cannot be negated in three periods of time, alone is the truth. The negation of all duality leaves one who is the negator, who cannot be negated. Since negation process involves an agent who must be a conscious entity to carry out the negation process, what remains after the completion of all process of negation of duality can only be the conscious entity itself. As we shall see later that there cannot be anything other than consciousness. The doctrine of Advaita that Bhagavaan Shankara advocated is about the nature of the absolute truth, which can withstand the rigor of modern scientific analysis, yet it is above any analysis or logic. ‘Naishhaa tarkena matiraapaneya’ says KaThopanishad that the truth cannot be deduced by logic, thus leaving the scripture as the only pramaNa or means of knowledge to know it. The recognition of oneness or definition of oneness is impossible, since the very process of definition involves intrinsic duality; the definer and the defined. In oneness, all one can be is just be – Existence – Consciousness – one without a second; and hence all communications stop, since there is no communicator and the communicated, leaving the eternal dynamic silence alone, which is the very substratum for all that has been negated. Bhagavaan Ramana puts this beautifully in the very first sloka of his Satdarshana: sat pratyayaaH kinnu vihaaya santam hRidyeshu chintaa rahito hRidaakhyaH katham smaraamaH tamameya mekam tasyasmruti tatra dRiDaiva nishhTaa|| “The principle of existence which is the very core of ones individuality that which is free from all thoughts, how can one think if ‘it’. All one can do is just be established firmly in it” This is a prayer of JNaani who is firmly established in the Advaitic understanding of the nature of the reality. Hence the philosophy is rightly called Advaita, non-dualism. The non-aspect is emphasized throughout. The truth of Advaita is (a) the non-duality of the absolute, (b) non-reality of the world and © non-difference of the so-called individual soul from the absolute reality. Advaita is not a sectarian doctrine. It is the culmination of all doctrines, the crown of all views. Advaita is opposed to none, however much the other philosophy projects it to be so. It emphasizes the Advaitic nature of the truth that is transcendental. Dr. T.M.P Mahadevan, a great exponent of Advaita writes: “Advaita is not an ism. When we translate Advaita as non-dualism, the negation is signified by the prefix non – applies not only to duality but also to ism.” In celebrating Bhagavaan Shankara’s Jayanti, it will be fitting for us to recapitulate the essence of Advaitic doctrine expounded by Bhagavaan for the benefit of the entire humanity, and how it differs in its essence from that of VishishhTaadvaita and Dvaita doctrines. Any philosophy must begin with the explanation of three essential aspects – Jeeva, the individual, Jagat, the world and Iswara, the Lord or the creator. The existence of the first two is obvious from ones own experience and does not require any further proof or pramaaNa. The existence of the third follows once we recognize that the world is a creation. Science has yet to provide a convincing explanation for the origin of the universe. It leaves us with the concept of a big bang, that requires (a) a highly centralized matter for the bang to occur, and (b) the pre-existence of physical laws that govern the bang. Presupposition of these two entities leaves the theory incomplete at best. In addition, it offers no explanation for the origin of the consciousness or life-force, other than accounting it by yet another accident. In Vedanta there are no accidents in life, there are only incidents where each incident is an effect, and every effect must have at least a cause. Krishna makes a very profound statement in Ch.II of B.G – ‘Naasato vidyate bhaavo naa bhaavo vidyate sataH|’ - that which is non-existent can never come into existence and that which is existent can never cease to exist. This is essentially the law of conservation principle that a student of science learns as the first fundamental law of nature. Matter or energy can neither be created nor destroyed – only one form of matter or energy can be converted to another. Creation therefore cannot be something out of nothing that makes existence out of non-existence – it can only be a transformation of one form of existence to anther form – change of name and a form (naama and ruupa) with the associated qualities. Shankara says in Drik drisya viveka: asti bhaati priyam ruupam naamam chetyan ca pancakam| adhyaatrayam brahma ruupam jagad ruupam tathaadwayam|| Naama and ruupa only belongs to the Jagat, the world but the essence that supports the very existence of the object with naama and ruupa and hence the world belongs to Brahman. How is that so? How does the doctrine of Advaita come to grips with the presence of two diagonally opposite to one another: the presence of a sentient or chaitanya vastu and that of jaDa vastu or the insentient or inert matter in the universe. Since according to Krishna nothing can be created nor destroyed, then how do we end up with non-duality from the seemingly real duality involving sentient and insentient vastu padaartha. Other philosophies have no problem since they accept the duality, dvaita, as reality – Jeeva satyam, Paramaatma satyam and Jagat satyam are the three axiomatic statements on which dvaita philosophies rest. Let us analyze briefly the scriptural support for the Advaita and see how it is consistent with scriptural declarations, while being logical and scientific. As an invocation verse we normally chant an invocation sloka from Upanishads: PuurNam adhaH puurNam idam PuurNaat purNam udachyate| PuurNasya puurNam aadaaya PuurNameva avasishhyate|| Completeness or fullness is that and completeness is this, >From completeness, completeness is born, >From completeness ( or to completeness), completeness is added (or subtracted) Completeness alone remains. This is interpreted in the dvaitic literature as the relation between the supreme Brahman, NaaraayaNa and his incarnations, Rama, KrishaNa etc. AdaH stands for the supreme Lord NaaraayaNa and idam stands for the avataaraas which are also considered as puurNam in the sense that they are capable of granting moksha to the devotees who surrender to them. From NaaraayaNa, puurNaat, the avataraa-s, puurNam, udachyate, is born. Fullness of NaaraayaNa is not compromised when avataaraa-s originate from Him. He remains full, puurNameva avasishhyate. We examine, now, the sloka from the Advaitic point. We use the word ‘that’, ‘adaH’ to point out something that is spatially remote from us, and ‘this’, ‘idam’, we use for that which is close by. So ‘that’ can stand for something remote in space. At times, we also use the word ‘that’ to denote something remote from time-wise, in terms of our past. When we say “do you remember that – what happened when we were children” – here ‘that’ is used to point out an incident remote in time. Thus ‘that’ is used to denote something remote – spatially or temporally. ‘This’ we use to denote something that is close by. But in Vedanta ‘this’ is used as technical word implying more than what is discussed. ‘This’ or ‘idam’ in Vedanta stands for the entire world of plurality that can be pointed as this, this and this. So ‘this’ according to Vedanta, stands for anything and everything that one can point out as this – idam vastu. ‘This’ therefore stands for the whole jagat that can be pointed out as this and this. To emphasize this meaning, in iishaavaasya Upanishad, in the very first sloka after above invocation sloka, it says: ‘iishaavaasyam idam sarvam’. Thus ‘idam’ is used again pointing out that ‘idam’ here and in the invocation sloka means ‘idam sarvam jagat' this entire universe, which is pervaded by iishaa, the Lord. Hence the invocation sloka points out that idam jagat which is a creation has to be complete or infinite. The statement is logical too. If it is finite, then the question arises as to what is there outside the finite creation. If there is ‘some outside’ the creation, then the next question is who created that outside. If so, it becomes inside the creation, since that outside is created. Hence by shear logic, we can deduce that creation has to be infinite. Hence the second part of the first line – ‘puurNam idam’ is correct by indicating that this jagat has to be infinite. Science has yet to find the boundaries for the universe. If everything is included in the ‘idam’ which is puurNam, then how do we account for the first part of the line ‘puurNam adaH’ – which says ‘that is complete’. When we say something is infinite or complete, it cannot exclude anything. For, if it excludes, by that very exclusion, it becomes apuurNam or finite, and hence its puurNatwam is violated. But scriptural statement is emphatic in the assertion that ‘ that is also complete’. Then, there must be some ‘adaH’, ‘that’, which is remote and also is not included in the Jagat, ‘idam puurNam’. That ‘adaH’ is also puurNam on its own right, since scripture is making a separate statement towards that effect. In addition, since two separate statements have been made in terms of idam and adam – they should be mutually exclusive. That is, idam should exclude adam, and adam should exclude idam. The problem that we run into now is by mutual exclusion neither idam nor adam can be puurNam, since puurNam cannot admit any exclusion for a thing to be puurNam. Since the scripture cannot be wrong, there must be something more to it than what meets the eye. Examining further, if ‘idam’ includes all that can be pointed out – that is the entire Jagat, then what is ‘that’, that is not included in ‘this’. The only thing that is not included in ‘idam’ is ‘I’, aham, who is doing the pointing as this and this and this. ‘I’ being a subject cannot be an object for pointing as ‘this’. So only ‘aham’ is excluded in ‘idam’ jagat. If so, why scripture has to use the word as ‘adam’ indicating remoteness, when I am so close to myself. In using the word ‘adam’ for aham, scripture is indicating also something else. It is not remoteness from space-wise or time-wise, but remoteness from understanding-wise. Scripture is indicating that I do not know who I am. I take myself to be what I am not. I take myself to be ‘this body’ – ‘idam shareeram’ either at gross level or at subtle level, that is mistaking my self to be my mind or my intellect etc. It is not obvious that with all my limitations –limited by body, by mind etc., ‘deha parichinnoham, mono parichinnoham’, etc., how I can be puurNam. In fact I feel apuurNam all the time. All my struggles in life are only to solve this problem of my inadequacy or apuurNatwam. Scripture is pointing something different from my day to day experience of myself, obviously I don’t need a scripture to tell me that I am apuurNam, since that is my day to day experience. Scripture as a pramaaNa is trying to educate me about myself which is beyond my day to day experience. It is pointing that I am not what I think I am, I am that total – puurNam, with no internal distinctions nor external relations. Even if I accept the scriptural statement on its face value, in spite of my day to day experience, there is still a problem in the scriptural statement. For, aham is excluded in idam and idam is excluded from aham. By mutual exclusion neither one can be purNam. Hence there is a self contradiction in the scriptural statement –‘ puurNa madaH puurNam idam. To resolve this issue we need to examine the second line. ‘ puurNaat puurNa mudachyate’- from puurNam puurNam came. Now the question arises from which puurNam which puurNam came, since we are left with two puurNam-s in the first line. Recognizing the problems with ‘idam’ and ‘adam’, scripture advises us to drop both idam and adam, I and this world, but shift our attention to puurNam. By the parallel construction – puurNam adaH puurNam idam, puurNaat puurNam udachyate – it follows that from adaH puurNam, idam puurNam is projected. Since adaH stands for aham, the scripture is pointing out that this jagat, universe that I am seeing, experiencing, arose from aham, I. That is I am the cause for this entire creation, since it comes from me. This is a daring declaration. Not only I am puurNam, I am the very source of the entire jagat. How can that be? We started discussion with three – Jeeva, Jagat and Iswara and the discussion is reduced now to two, I, the conscious or sentient entity and the jagat the insentient entity. In addition scripture is also indicating that the whole universe comes from me, the conscious entity. How can an inert thing, Jadam, can be originated from a conscious entity or chaitanya vastu. Let us examine the shRiti declarations related to the origin of the universe. In ChaDogya Upanishad, Uddaalaka teaches his son, Swetaketu, about the origin of the universe. He says: ‘sadeva soumya idam agra aseet, ekameva adviteeyam’ – ‘Hai, good looking one, existence alone was there in the beginning before the creation. It is one without a second’. Before the creation began – what was there – it is not matter or jadam, or Vishnu or Krishna or father in heaven – whatever was there before the creation started is independent of name and form, naama and ruupa – If there is a ruupa, a form, then one can give a name. On the other hand, if there is a ruupa then, it automatically defines a boundary of inside and outside with respect to that ruupa. If there is outside for the ruupa, then a question related to where and when did that outside came into existence arise – if that outside exists, then it is part of the existence and not different from the existence. If instead the outside is created then it must be created from what was existing there before. In either case, it reduces to the fact that existence alone was there before the creation, and it is one without a second. If there is a second, in order to be different from the first, which is existence, the second can only be a non-existence, since non-existence alone can be different from the existence. But how can one say that non-existence exists, since it is a contradiction in terms. Hence sat eva soumya idam agra aseet – existence alone was there in the beginning. Uddaalaka next refutes an alternate theory that non-existence alone was there in the beginning. ‘ tadeka aahuH| ast eva idam agra aseet| tasmaat asataH sajayata iti’ - some say that non-existence alone was there in the beginning before creation and from the non-existence, existence is born. How can that be possible – ‘kutastu khalu soumya evam syaaditi ho vaacha| katham asataH sajjaayata – satveva soumya idam agra aseet, ekamevaa advitiiyam’ – ‘How can one say that, how is it possible for existence to come out of non-existence? Hence, hay good looking one, existence alone was there in the beginning and it is one without a second’. This is consistent with Krinshna’s statement – ‘naasato vidyate bhaavo na bhaavo vidyate sataH| That which is non-existent can never come into existence and that which exists can never cease to exist. Hence creation can only start from that which exists. Hence Uddaalaka’s statement. In Panchadasi, commenting on ‘existence’ Shree Vidyaaranya says, “existence which is the essential nature of reality has neither external relations, nor internal differentiation. To limit it is to finitize it. It is unrelated to any thing, for there is nothing else with which it can be related to. The real which is the most perfect being cannot be delineated by determinations and relations.” But what kind of existence was there in the beginning that was one without a second. Uddaalaka continues: ‘tad aikshata, buhu syaam, prajaayeyeti’, ‘it saw – it decided to become many, it became many’. Since the scripture says – it saw – as Brahmasuutra emphasizing this point says ‘iikshataarne shabdam’ because of the use of the word ‘iikshata’ – by the use of the word that it saw, scripture is pointing that the existence that was there before the creation of the Jagat is not of the type of inert existence – since it has the capacity ‘to see’. Inert things cannot see – Hence by implication scripture indicates that, what was there before the creation was a chaitanya vastu – a conscious entity and not an inert entity. Hence sat that was there before creation is also chit too. Furthermore when it says it saw, and since there is nothing else to see as it is ‘ekamevaa advitiiyam’, one without a second, scripture is also indicating that it is a self-conscious or self-effulgent entity. ‘It decided to become many and became many’ - further implying that it has the potential to become many and therefore decided to become many – that is, the decision is preconceived. Hence creation starts first with a conception – or idea or a thought – and the thought transforms into action i.e., manifestation into many. One becoming many as the creation evolved is also emphasized in other Upanishads as well. Aitareya upanishad says: ‘ aatmaa vaa idameka eva agra asiit. Na anyaat kinchanamishat. Sa iikshata lokannu sRijaa iti’ – ‘Before the creation aatma was alone there. There was nothing else that was there other than aatma. He wanted to see the manifestation of the creation’. Taittiriiya upanishad says – ‘tasmaat va etasmaat aatmaana aakaashaH sambhuutaH| aakaashaat vaayuH| vaayoH agniH| agneH aapaH| adbhyaH pRithivii. pRitivyaa oshadayaH|….’ Thus from this aatma, aakaasha is born, from aakaasha air, from air fire, from fire water, from water earth and from earth the medicines … etc. Thus creation started from the chaitanya vastu, atmaa, which is of the nature sat and chit, existence and consciousness, one without a second. Thus scriptures repeatedly declare that what was there before was only one, which is of the nature of consciousness and from that one came the manifested universe starting from space, air, fire, water and earth – pancha bhuutaas – subtler one giving rise to more and more grosser ones. Having established that consciousness alone was there before the creation, the question remains to be answered is how can the chaitanya vastu can give rise to achaitanya vastu or jaDa padaartham, inert matter.- PuurNaat puurNamudachyate- Chitanyam and jadam are two diametrically opposite entities and therefore that jadam,, which is of the nature of ignorance or darkness cannot result from that which is the light of all lights, jyotirjyotiH. Recognizing the problem, mother shRiti comes to our rescue again in explaining the exact nature of the universe. To understand this problem of inert mater arising from a chaitanya vastu – we go to Mandukya Upanishad that analyzes the nature of reality in the three states of consciousness, waking, dream and deep sleep states. Existence of the universe, Jagat, which is jadam, is confirmed not by itself but by an experiencer of the universe, who is a chaitanya swaruupa. Without the experiencer, there is no experienced. Whether Jagat exists or not cannot be confirmed since for confirmation a chaitanya vastu must exist, and that chaitanya vastu should illuminate the jaDa vastu for it to be established that it exists. And jagat being jadam, it cannot know by itself. In fact, one can define jadam as ‘anya adheena prakaashatvam, tat jadam’ that is, whose existence is illuminated by another, which is self-luminous. In Advaita Vedaanta there are two explanations related to creation – dRishhTi-sRishhTi and sRishhTi-dRishTi. ‘ I see it, therefore it is’ and ‘ it is, therefore I see it’. In the first case, the universe exists because I see it. If I don’t see it, then the universe has no existence, since it is anya adheena prakaashatvam. ‘I see it therefore it is’ can be a subjective projection of the objective universe, whereas ‘ it is, therefore I see it’ is the objective projection of the objective universe. To understand this clearly, let us take the famous example of a rope and the snake. ‘I see a snake and therefore it is there’ involves a partial truth superimposed by a subjective notion – I am aware of the existence of some object which is long and thin, that is, an object awareness is there. However, in addition to that, there is a superimposed notion which is a subjective cognition or projection on the objective vision due to incomplete inquiry, vichaara or incomplete information due to the limitation of the illuminating equipments, such as defective eye-sight or dim light on the object etc. We call it a subjective notion, since it is subject to negation, when full information becomes available about the object, either through the process of inquiry or complete vision. The complete process of perception by the human mind through the senses involves perception, volition, cognition and recognition. Cognition that there is an object – vastu JNaanam is there even when there is an incomplete information through senses. But in recognition, that involves banking from ones memory, the object can be wrongly recognized as a snake instead of a rope, since vastu JNaanam is incomplete. Hence when there is an incomplete apprehension, then there is a possibility for an error mistaking a rope as a snake. Snake is a notion in a seer’s mind, since it is not really a snake but a rope; and therefore it is subject to negation when more complete inquiry becomes available. Thus it is a subjective projection of the objective world, rope. What is negated is not the substratum that supports the notion of the snake, that is the rope, but what is negated is only the subjective notion, that it is a snake, of the objective reality, which is a rope. When I recognize the object as a snake, it is not complete non-apprehension of the object. If so, then there is neither a rope nor a snake. For an error to exist, there is a partial or incomplete knowledge of the vastu, the object of perception. Thus in the dRishTi-sRishTi, the world exists because it is seen. Whether I see the rope as a snake or as a rope, the existence of the object is based on my perception. There is superimposed error involved if my perception, volition, cognition or recognition, singly or collectively is defective. Error can be negated when the truth is correctly perceived. Here what is negated is the notion or rather my understanding or my misunderstanding of the universe, in this case, that it is the snake that is negated when the truth is completely comprehended. The existence of the substratum, the rope, is never negated. Either rope is seen as a snake or rope is seen as a rope. From the rope point rope remains as a rope all the time even when it is perceived as a snake. In contrast, in sRishhTi-dRishhTi, ‘it is there, therefore I see it’, there is no subjective error involved but there can still be an objective error. Rope is there and therefore I see the rope – is an example here. Here the emphasis is the Iswara who created the rope for me to see. Iswara being sum total of all minds put together, the existence of rope is beyond the notions of the individual mind, by itself. But there is still error since one can see only the naama-ruupa, the object form, but not the substratum the Brahman. Hence the knowledge of the object is incomplete at best. This becomes evident if we try to find out what is a rope? Rope is only a temporal reality or vyavahaarika satyam and not an absolute reality. Absolute reality involves non-negatability at any time. In the process of further inquiry of the nature of the rope, one can negate the rope in that it is not there when we pull the rope apart and when we discover that rope is nothing but some bundle of fibers, assembled together. In fact every created object is nothing but an assemblage of ingredients which themselves in turn are assemblages of some other finer ingredients. Hence rope is gone, and its place fibers are there. We can likewise negate the fibers in discovering that it is nothing but some assemblage of atoms, negate the atoms in discovering that it an assemblage of some fundamental particles, consisting of electrons, protons and neutrons; and thus the process can continue indefinitely; and science has yet to find the final truth about the rope! But what Vedanta declares, which science echoes, is, that which exists can never cease to exist. Whether in the form of rope, or in the form of fibers, atoms or fundamental particles, existence is never dismissed – what is dismissed in each step is only naama and ruupa, but not its essential substratum. Interestingly, while inquiring into what is a rope, the drishyam, there is another factor which persists all through the inquiry. That is the existence of a drashTaa or the existence of an inquirer, who has to be not only an existent entity but also a conscious entity, since unconscious entity cannot inquire. It is now increasingly recognized by particle physicists that while the inquirer, drashTaa, remains independent of the system being investigated, the system being investigated and the results that one obtains are not independent of the inquirer. As Vedanta emphasizes that chaitanya vastu remains independent while the jaDa vastu remains as dependent and therefore has only a dependent-existence. Whether the individual mind sees the rope as a rope or as a snake, the fact remains that existence of rope is independent of the individual perception or its limitations. Here the error is more subtle in the sense that not only I see the rope but others also see the rope. Hence the rope has an objective reality, as real as the others who are seeing it. But if one analyzes this further, the existence of even the rope is not confirmed unless a seer is there to see it. Object may be there but unless I cognize it, its existence, at best is hypothetical depending the validity of the pramaaNa that is confirming the existence of the rope. In one way or the other, either through my mind or some other’s mind, the perception, volition, cognition and recognition has to take place before the existence of the rope is established. Thus we are back to the existence of drashhTaa to establish the existence of the drishyam, the object of awareness. Hence whether the judgments about the nature of Jagat are notional(taking a rope as a snake) or relatively real (rope or fibers etc.), what is absolutely real in the whole process is only the one who is making the judgement call about the Jagat. Without the seer, drashTaa present, the dRishTi cannot occur. In the dRishTi-sRishTi, as well as in sRishTi- dRishTi, the confirmation of the presence of universe rests squarely on the individual seer. Without the analysis of the seer, the analysis of the Jagat, seen has no relevance or only a relative relevance. In analyzing the seer-seen relation, that is, the individual and the jagat and their relation, the analysis must include the complete experience of the seer and the validity of the seen, the jagat. Mandukya, like a true scientific treatise, recognizes that analysis of the only waking state to establish the validity of Jagat can lead to an erroneous conclusion, since it constitutes only one third of the human experience, and thus ignores the other two states of experiences, dream and deep sleep states. For a waker, dream is not real, and only the waking state is real. But that is the conclusion of the waker and not the dreamer about a state of consciousness that is different from the waking state. Just as for a waker the waking state is real and not the dream state, for a dreamer the dream state is equally real. Shankara says in Atmabodha ‘sakaale satyavad bhaati prabhode satyasad bhavet’ – as long as one is dreaming the dream state is real. Only when awaken to the higher state, the dream appears to be unreal. Unreality of the dream world can be established not in the dream but by awakening to the higher state of consciousness. Actually the use of the words higher and lower is only with reference to each states but in reality that which is independent of all the states alone is real. For convenience, this state is referred to in Mandukya as the forth state, turia state, just to differentiate it from the other three states, although it is there in all the three states as the very substratum. Just as gold is there as the very substratum of the bangle, ring or necklace. In principle gold is different from bangle, ring or necklace, even as we transform the bangle into a ring and then into a necklace. Gold remains as gold in all the three states yet it is different from each state in the sense that gold is not a bangle or a ring or a necklace. The later are only the names and forms for the substratum that does not undergo any modification the changing names and forms. Names and forms are superficial projection of the substratum, gold, which itself never undergoes any modification during vikaara, the changing names and forms. In the same way, the universe is superficial projection of the names and forms on the substratum which itself does not undergo any modifications during the changing names and forms. Taittireeya Upanishad says: ‘etova imaani bhuutani jaayante, ena jaataani jeevanti, et prayam tyabhisam visanti| tat viJNaasaswa| tad brahmeti| ’ – ‘That from which the whole universe arose, by which it is sustained and into which it goes back, know that, that is brahman’. From which the whole gold ornaments arose, by which it is sustained and into which it goes back is the material cause, upaadaana kaaraNa for the universe of gold ornaments. In the case of gold ornaments, the ornament maker, goldsmith, who is the nimitta kaaraNa, is different from the upaadaana kaaraNa, gold. But for the creation of the entire universe, the Taittireya establishes by the above statement that the Brahman is the upaadana kaaraNa, since it is sustained by Him and goes back into Him. However, since Brahman being ‘ekameva advitiiyam’, one without a second, and a conscious entity, he has to be both upaadaana kaaraNa and nimitta kaaraNa. Is that possible? How can both the nimitta kaaraNa and upaadana kaaraNa can be one and the same? This is exactly what is learned from the analysis of the dream state of experience. If I am dreaming a blazing fire of big high rise building, I am a fireman who is trying to putout the fire using a fire hose and a water jet, and there are many spectators watching the burning of the building, then my dream world consists of both conscious entities like myself and the spectators, as well as jaDa vastu, the building, fire, the hose, the water etc. But the whole dream world of chara and acara, movable and immovable or chaitanya and achaitanya vastu are all arose from me the waking mind, sustained by my mind and it goes back into my mind. My waking mind is the upaadana kaaraNa as well as the nimitta kaaraNa. Thus dream analysis points out to the fact that it is not difficult to conceive both causes, the nimitta and upaadaana kaaraNa can be one and the same. For me to create a dream world, I should have the knowledge of the creation. I cannot dream ‘gaagaabuubu’ because I don’t know what ‘gaagaabuubu’ is. I am the sarvaJNa of my dream as well as the sarva shaktimaan, since I can create as well as annihilate it. But most important thing is that in the creation process of the dream Jagat, both unconscious entities or jaDa vastu as well as conscious entities such as myself, the fireman and the surrounding spectators, etc., all are emanating from me, who was a waker as well as the dreamer. Unconscious entity cannot dream. Are the objects in my dream such as building and the fire etc., real? They appear to be real as long as the dream lasts but when I am awaken, they are resolved into me, the material cause. Are they not real? As a fireman in the dream, never a moment I will doubt that the building under fire is not real or the water that is putting the fire is not real. Yet when I am awaken, there are no ashes anywhere nor the bed is wet with the dream water. All are resolved into me, the waking mind that was projecting the world of plurality. They raise in me, sustained by me and goes back into me. Hence I am the upaadaana kaaraNa for my dream. In the case of the bangle, it is real only with respect to the name and form and utility. Use of bangle is different from the use of a ring and so on. Yet from the point of gold all the ornaments have only a temporal reality or vyaavaharika satyam. All the differences, sajaati, vijaati and swagata bhedhaas, internal differences and external relations, belong to the naama and ruupa only but not to the essential substratum that sustains all these naama and ruupa. What is real is defined in Vedanta from Paaramaarthika level as that which remains the same in all three periods of time, ‘thrikaala abhaadhitam satyam’. What is unreal, astyam or tuccham, is that which never existed with any locus. Naama and ruupa such as bangle or ring or necklace, cannot be taken as real since they do not fall under the category of ‘trikaala abhaadhitam’, nor they are non-existent since bangle exists that is different from ring etc. Hence they are neither real nor unreal – and advaita veadanta calls this as mithya or apparently real since upon inquiry each resolves into its substratum which is real. Gold plus many varieties of ornaments is not plurality nor duality, but advaita only from the point of Gold. It is just one gold into many ornaments. They appear to be many but they all resolve into one upon appropriate inquiry. In order to see the oneness of the gold in all golden ornaments it is not necessary to melt all the ornaments. By proper discriminative intellect, one can see the gold, in spite of the existence of plurality of the golden ornaments. The dream world there is a plurality that appear to be true, but since they are negated by waking they are not real since they do not fulfil the definition of ‘tri kaala abhaaditam’. They are not unreal either, since they do exist in the dream. Hence they are apparently real or mithya supported by that which is real, the waking mind. Extending this analogy further, even the waking word is not real since it is negated by the dreamer and deep sleeper, and hence does not fulfil the definition of ‘tri kaala abhaaditam’. But what is real that is not negated in the three states of consciousness, Mandukya Upanishad declares, is the consciousness, I, the substratum for all the three states and independent of the three states. Just as gold does not depend on bangle or ring for it to be gold, where as bangle and ring depend on gold for them to be a bangle or a ring; I, the consciousness does not depend on the waking state, dream state or deep sleep state to be myself, but all the three states depend on me, the consciousness. The three worlds, waking or dream or deep sleep, do not establish my existence, whereas I establish the existence of the three worlds. They depend on me where as I don’t depend on them. Krishna says in Ch.9 of B.G., “mayaa tata midam sarvam jagadavyakta muurthinaa| mastaani sarva bhuutaani na chaaham teshwa avastitaH| - I pervade this entire universe in an unmanifested form, all being are in me but I am not in them, meaning they depend on me but I don’t depend on them’. All are names and forms on the substratum, which is me. My existence is independent of them while their existence depends on my existence. Thus without me, the seer, the world is not seen. Now, examining back our original question ‘how can we account for that which is one without a second, which is a conscious-existent entity giving rise to unconscious or inert jagat, we have resolved this with the help of the scriptures, using the analogy of the dream world. Thus, the jaDam that we see is only apparent and not real. Hence there is no real jadam that emanated from the chaitanya vastu. The apparent becomes apparent, when we recognize the substratum behind the apparent. The apparent can appear to be real, if we don’t realize the nature of the truth that is eternal. When the appearance is resolved then there is only the consciousness that is real which is the substratum. Hence what is there before creation – sad eva somya idam agra aseet – existence alone was there in the beginning before the creation. That existence was not an inert existence since scripture says – tad aikshata – it saw – Hence it is conscious-existence. That existence-consciousness which is Brahman remains the essential substratum from which the whole world raises, sustains and goes back. Creation is just the projection of the plurality in terms of naama and ruupa. But in and through the naama and ruupa, the essence – sat chit ananda aspect remains unaltered, just as gold remains as gold in the changing names and forms. Hence advaita remains advaita inspite of the apparent dvaita. Dvaita is not contradictory to Advaita when one inquires into the nature of the reality of the plurality. Dvaita exists at vyavahaarika level and at paaramaarthika level it resolves into Advaita. It is easy to see in the case of the dream world that the waking mind is the substratum from which the whole dream world arises, is sustained and goes back into it and hence is the upaadaana kaaraNa for the dream. How can we establish that the waking world is the projection of ones consciousness, which is one without a second. Bhagavaan Ramana Maharshi discusses this beautifully in his Upadesha saara. dRisya vaaritam chittamaatmanaH cittwadarshanam tatvadarshanam|| If one removes from his mind that objects that are seen, that is, removes all the names and the forms associated with the object thoughts, what remains is the essence of the mind, cittwam, and the vision of the essence of the mind or substratum of the mind is the vision of the reality. Locus of every thought is nothing but an object outside. When I see a chair, I have a chair-thought in my mind. The locus of the chair-thought is the object, chair, outside. But even though the chair is outside, the ‘chair-thought’ is inside my mind. There is what is known as ‘avinaabhaava sambhadha’ - ‘a relationless relationship’ between the object chair outside and the chair-thought inside the mind. Without the chair-thought in the mind, the object chair is not perceived. ‘Out of mind is out of sight’ is a valid statement based on our experience, because of this relationless relationship. Thus every object outside reduces to an object thought inside the mind. Without the object thought inside the mind, the object outside is not recognized. Thus locus of every thought is an object, either existing outside but seen via the senses by the mind, or it could be a recollection of an object by the mind from my memory bank. However, when I say that I have seen the chair, what is seen is the thought in my mind. The thought in the mind is seen or recognized only when I am aware of the thought. That is the awareness has to illumine the chair-thought in my mind, then only I can say ‘this is a chair’. If the thought is away from my awareness, I cannot say ‘ this is a chair’ since I am not aware of the chair or the chair-thought. Thus every part of the chair thought is immersed in my awareness, then only I am aware of the thought. Thus the object-thought cannot be away from my awareness. Actually the thought raises in my awareness, sustained by my awareness and goes back into my awareness. Although we are using the word – my awareness – awareness is not an object that I possess, since it is not another thought. It is because of which the thought is seen. “ yan manasaa na manute ye naa hur mano matam” – “ that which the mind cannot think (it is not an object to think), but because of which the mind has the capacity to think” is the awareness, says Kenopanishad. Hence awareness is not some kind of quality that I possess – The word ‘my awareness’ is like ‘my happiness’ – It is not a thing that I possess – It is about myself or my own nature – I am that happiness or I am that awareness and not ‘ I have happiness nor I have awareness’. This is important to recognize this since some achaaryaas have misinterpreted that ‘awareness’ is a quality or attribute that I possess. In fact thought-wave is nothing but a perturbation in my awareness just as the wave is a perturbation in the ocean. Wave is engulfed by water; it raises from water, sustained by water and goes back into water – every part of the wave is nothing but water and water alone. Wave is nothing but the name and a form for it is just a perturbation of water. If I suppress the wave, what is left is only the water that supports the wave. I don’t have to suppress the wave to see that wave is nothing but water. I have to see in and through the wave discarding its superfluous form and the name associated with it– then I see the substratum that supports the wave. Just the same way, every thought wave that is illumined by my mind is nothing but awareness alone. Thus we have come to conclusion that every object outside is nothing but the thought inside the mind, and every thought in the mind is nothing but a perturbation in the awareness itself. It cannot be away from my awareness since I am aware of the thought. Hence, thought is nothing but what is known as adhyaasa, a superimposition of a name and form on the awareness – a form and thus a name is given for the perturbation. It is not a ‘permanent transformation’ or ‘pariNaama’ of awareness, since when I see a chair, I have a chair thought and then when I turn my head see a table, the chair thought is instantaneously replaced by a table thought. Where did the chair thought go? It went back into myself. Thus all thoughts raise in my awareness, sustained by my awareness and goes back into my awareness – thus awareness is the Upaadana kaaraNa for all the thoughts. Hence Bhagavaan Ramana says in the above sloka that if we discard the names and forms from all objective thoughts, what remains in all the thoughts is nothing but the essence of the mind, which is nothing but ‘tatvam’ the essential truth – the awareness. Thus world is nothing but ‘idam vastu’, this and this and this – a sum total of all objects are nothing but thoughts in my mind and each thought is nothing but a perturbation in consciousness. Just as each gold ornament is nothing but perturbation of gold into a form with a name. Gold does not transform into bangle or ring or necklace. Gold remains as gold in and through the names and forms. Similarly, the awareness is the very substratum of the universe, and the Jagat is the projection of the names and forms in awareness. Thus awareness alone is there from the beginning, and it is one without a second. Just as gold plus varieties of ornaments is just one gold, awareness plus the jagat is nothing but just one awareness alone. Just as gold does not become ornaments; gold remains as gold existing as ornaments. Similarly, existence-awareness, remains as such while existing as Jagat. Thus, Jagat is only a superfluous transformation of Brahman, what is known as adhyaasa. Hence jadam or insentient is not created out of a chaitanya vastu, it is only an appearance or vikaara. Thus dvaita is only apparent but the truth is Advaita, one without a second. This is beautifully illustrated by Udaalaka in ChaDigya Upanishad using many examples. “ yathaa soumya, ekena loha maNinaa sarvam lohamayam viJNaata| syaat vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam| lohamityeva satyam|” “yathaa soumya, ekena mRitpinDena sarvam mRiNmayam viJNaata| syaat vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam| mrittiketyeva satyam|” “yathaa soumya ekena nakha nikRitanena sarvam kaarshNaayasam viJNaata| syaat vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam| kRishNaayasamityeva satyameva|” ‘just as by examining the one gold ornament, the nature of the entire gold is known. Gold ornament is nothing but gold with the name and form starting from the conception of the thought to creation of the name and form – a mear superimposed transformation for the gold – gold alone is real’. ‘just as by examining a mud pot the nature of the entire mud is known. Mud pot is nothing but mud with the name and form starting from the conception of the thought to creation of the name and form – a mear-superimposed transformation of mud – mud alone is real’. ‘just as by examining a nail cutter the nature of the entire black(wrought) iron is known. Nail cutter is nothing but wrought iron with a name and form starting from the conception of the thought to the creation of the name and form – a mear superimposed transformation of wrought iron – iron alone is real’. Thus in each example, Uddaalaka emphasizes the transformed product is nothing but the upadaana kaaraNa, the material cause from which it is formed, sustained and goes back into. The material cause alone is the satyam or real, and is the sat padaartham. Furthermore creation involves a superfluous transformation (vikaara) of the upaadana kaaraNa. The transformation starts with an idea or thought – vaachaarambaNam, obviously, an idea by an intelligent entity or chaitanya vastu. Hence what is real is the sat and chit alone in all creations. Thus existence-consciousness alone was there in the beginning, as one without a second, before creation, and it decided to become many and became many. Thus puurNaat puurNam udachyate – from ‘adam puurNam which is nothing but ‘aham puurNam’ this idam puurNam or jagat arose. Since the jadam cannot come out of conscious entity, the creation is only an apparent transformation or the plurality is only apparent just as one mind projecting many varieties of things and being in the dream world. Since created is not different from the creator (uppadaana kaaraNa), the one plus many created beings is just one puurNam. ‘ puurNasya puurNamaadaaya puurNamevaa vasishhyate’, when puurNam is added or subtracted from puurNam, puurNam alone remains. Mathematically infinity plus minus infinity is infinity only. From aham who is puurNaam, when the universe, jagat which is projected, my puurNatvam is not invalidated. Hence KrishaNa declares in Ch.6 B.G: sarva bhuutasta maatmaanam sarva bhuutani caatmani| iikshate yoga yuktaatmaa sarvatra sama darshanaH|| ‘One who through yoga has realized, he sees himself in all beings and sees all being in him and hence he has the equanimity everywhere. >From the point of bhakti Krishna emphasizes the same thing in a different form’. yo maam pasyati sarvatra sarvan ca mayi pasyati| tasyaaham na praNasyaami sa ca me na praNasyati|| ‘Whoever sees me everywhere and everything in me, he is never away from me and I am never away from him’. Thus Bhagavat paada Shankara uses the scriptural pramaaNa, yukti, logic and anubhava, experience, to emphasize the Advaitic nature of the truth. It is ekameva advitiiyam – one without a second, since existence of any second limits the existent first, and neither can be puurNam. Hence Ahamam Brahmaasmi is the declaration of the Vedaas that can be consistent with the Advaitic nature of the reality. ------ *Based on the lecture presented by Dr. K. Sadananda on Shankara Jayanti on April 20th at Chinmaya Mission, Madras. _____________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 1999 Report Share Posted May 11, 1999 namaste, Shri Sadananda garu, I have seen the written version of your presentation on the occasion of Shankara Jayanti. The material is excellent and scholarly. My hearty congratulations. I follow regularly the Miscellaneous section of the Hindu Internet edition and saw the presentations by various scholars on the occasion of Shankara Jayanti. It must have been a feast for you to be among the company of such presentations. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 1999 Report Share Posted May 11, 1999 Greetings Sadaji: The article is quite timely for the occasion of Shankara Jayanti. I have forwarded this long but most effective article on Advaita Vedanta to the Virginia Study Group Members. We are about to complete Chapter 8 of Gita and everyone in the group wants to convey their regards and respects to you. Your replies to Murthygaru's postings indicate that you are working on your computer late in the night! On behalf of the list members, I want to thank you for your active participation inspite of time constraints. Ram Chandran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 1999 Report Share Posted May 19, 1999 namaste, Shri Sadananda garu, I have enjoyed reading your long article on the subject topic (being your presentation on Shankara Jayanti). I have some questions which are actually continuations of our earlier discussions. I hope you would find time to clarify these for me. On Sat, 8 May 1999, Kuntimaddi Sadananda wrote: > "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda > > [...] >Mandukya, like a true scientific treatise, recognizes that analysis of the >only waking state to establish the validity of Jagat can lead to an >erroneous conclusion, since it constitutes only one third of the human >experience, and thus ignores the other two states of experiences, dream and >deep sleep states. For a waker, dream is not real, and only the waking >state is real. But that is the conclusion of the waker and not the dreamer >about a state of consciousness that is different from the waking state. >Just as for a waker the waking state is real and not the dream state, for a >dreamer the dream state is equally real. Shankara says in Atmabodha >‘sakaale satyavad bhaati prabhode satyasad bhavet’ – as long as one is >dreaming the dream state is real. Only when awaken to the higher state, the >dream appears to be unreal. Unreality of the dream world can be established >not in the dream but by awakening to the higher state of consciousness. >Actually the use of the words higher and lower is only with reference to >each states but in reality that which is independent of all the states alone >is real. For convenience, this state is referred to in Mandukya as the >forth state, turia state, just to differentiate it from the other three >states, although it is there in all the three states as the very substratum. > >[...] You have correctly pointed out that only when we reach a "higher" state, we will find the "lower" state to be unreal. That recognition can be understood intellectually. However, what we want is, to be able to state *while in the wake-up state*, that the wake-up state is unreal. That is Realization. Can we be able to state that (that is, while in the wake-up state, to say that the wake-up state is unreal) not only intellectually, but also experientially ? Intellectually, it cannot be stated because we are existing in that state (wake-up state) at that moment, and to say it is unreal would not make *intellectual* sense, because it denies existence in that state while we *are* in that state. Experientially, it cannot be stated because if it is an experience, in that experience (while in the wake-up state), there is nothing else except the Consciousness. While in that state (of samAdhI), unreality or reality of the jeeva mode is an irrelevant piece of information. Also, while in that experience, vAk does not exist and hence the statement itself is immaterial. The way (intellectually) to justify the Truth (that the wake-up state is unreal while in the wake-up state) is to deny the existence of the jeeva and its three states. Of course, Truth does not require any justification; justification is only for the intellectual satisfaction of the jeeva. Further, Realization has only meaning in the *wake-up* state. That is what the jeeva strives for in the wake-up state. You have stated further that we cannot dream of "gaagaabuubu" because we do not know what "gaagaabuubu" is. What you are saying here is that the wake-up state impressions are *only* what are carried on into the dream state and that the dream state cannot have its own creative world. While scientific evidence may agree with your assessment, does it mean that we cannot dream of a thing which we have never seen (or formed impression) in our wake-up life? There are other clarifications that will be requested on the ChAndogya upanishad analysis and other topics but that will form another post. Again, I congratulate you on a very fine and scholarly article. My comments above are not a criticism of the essay but an attempt by me to understand it better intellectually. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 1999 Report Share Posted May 19, 1999 >Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy > > >> >On Sat, 8 May 1999, Kuntimaddi Sadananda wrote: > > >You have correctly pointed out that only when we reach a "higher" state, >we will find the "lower" state to be unreal. That recognition can be >understood intellectually. > >However, what we want is, to be able to state *while in the wake-up >state*, that the wake-up state is unreal. That is Realization. Can we be >able to state that (that is, while in the wake-up state, to say that the >wake-up state is unreal) not only intellectually, but also experientially ? Murthy gaaru - As I tried point out in the article, the turia state is not really as a forth state different from the other three states. It exists in all the states as the very substratum. Hence unlike going from a dream to waking states, it is not really that kind of movement although analogy works well to note the point. It is shifting ones attention in the each of the states from the states to the very substratum of the states. For that one needs a suukshma buddhi or very subtle intellect. With the intellect only one can do the job. With the pole only we need to cross the pole- Such intellect is not in its full glory in the dream state and of course not in the deep sleep states - hence the claim that only in the waking state realization is possible. It is not the state that is of concern, but only the presence or lack of suukshma buddhi or discriminative intellect or veveka needed for differentiating the nitya and anitya - eternal from ephmeral - >Intellectually, it cannot be stated because we are existing in that state >(wake-up state) at that moment, and to say it is unreal would not make >*intellectual* sense, because it denies existence in that state while we >*are* in that state. Not really - if it does not make intellectual sense we can throw the whole of vedanta. Once reality is defined correctly as trikaala abhaadhitam - then intellectually everything is self consistent and I tried to bring that point across in the article. Please note existence and experience etc are not sole basis of establishing the truth. In fact we experience Brahman or aham all the time - yet we have no absolute knowledge that we are that. We misunderstand that we are the matter although the matter is 'idam vastu' as 'this' that I can point out. There is a misunderstanding rooted in our trasactions and temporarily the intellect gets convinced when one is listening to vedanta but that is not fully convinced as long as we have likes and dislikes driving us nuts. Remember the story of Mr. Jones and a rat. For those who have not heard the story - Mr. Jones somehow convinced that he is a rat and not a man and kept hiding himself whenever he sees a cat. His wife took him to a pshychologist. Ater many sittings, he kept on reeducating himself that 'He is not a rat but he is man". Everybody felt that he is cured. Oneday he came running back to the doctor gasping for breath - He said ' I know I am a man and not a rat - but does that can know that I am not really a rat but a man" - That is our intellectual conviction. Mr Jones is experiencing that he is a man even when he thinks he is a rat. But the misunderstanding that He is a rat is deep rooted that however many sitting he is not able to get over it. We can repeat 'aham Brahmaasmi" etc. but that understanding must become deep-rooted. We know we are conscious entities and not matter which we can point it out as idam shareeram - this body. Yet we have deep rooted notion that we are the bodies. Our intellect is not sharp yet to discriminate the real and unreal. The sharpness of the intellect is blurred by the raaga dweshaas - likes and dislikes. >Experientially, it cannot be stated because if it is an experience, in >that experience (while in the wake-up state), there is nothing else except >the Consciousness. While in that state (of samAdhI), unreality or reality >of the jeeva mode is an irrelevant piece of information. Also, while in >that experience, vAk does not exist and hence the statement itself is >immaterial. not true. It is not that vAk does not exist - body does not exist or mind does not exist etc. The world still exists including the body, mind and intellect - Only difference is there is no mistaken notion that I am the body, mind and the intellect. They are all in me but I am not them is the knowledge. The raise in me, supported by me and go back into me - I am in all of them but different from all of them. >The way (intellectually) to justify the Truth (that the wake-up state is >unreal while in the wake-up state) is to deny the existence of the jeeva >and its three states. Sorry - it is not the denial of the existence that is jiiva or the jagat but the attributing the reality to the plurality is the problem. Jiiva is a notion that arises when consciousness identifies that I am only the body or mind or intellect. Notion has to understood as a notion. Just as seeing sun raise and sun set. they donot disappear when one learns that sun neither raises nor sets. One has understood the experience of sun raise and sun set. One can still enjoy the sun raise and set knowing fully well that sun neither raises nor sets. The sun raise and set have to understood as apparent but not real. That understanding does not negate the sun raise and sun set - what it negates is the reality that we attribute to it. >Of course, Truth does not require any justification; >justification is only for the intellectual satisfaction of the jeeva. > >Further, Realization has only meaning in the *wake-up* state. That is what >the jeeva strives for in the wake-up state. I think I have addressed this above. > >You have stated further that we cannot dream of "gaagaabuubu" because >we do not know what "gaagaabuubu" is. What you are saying here is that >the wake-up state impressions are *only* what are carried on into the >dream state and that the dream state cannot have its own creative world. Sorry - I did not reach the conclusion that you reached. If suppose in your dream that you dream of going to sleep and dreaming in the dream - it is a second order dream - then the impresssion of the first order dream are noted in the second order dream. Dream is a subtle field of experience Lord has provided to exhaust the strong impressions - suppressions and oppresions in the mind - which cannot be exhaused in the waking state. It is flush out system so that mind is free of the burdon. Hence ones dreams all sorts of things one is not directly aware in the waking state but burried deep in the mind for it throw it out. that means I have knowledge or experience of it but I am not aware of it now since it is burried deep down. If dream itself leave some impressions then that has to be exhausted to clean the mind. Normally the intellect is its low web and hence there is no will that is involved in ego centric actions - hence vasanaas are only exhausted in the dream but not accumulated. >While scientific evidence may agree with your assessment, does it mean >that we cannot dream of a thing which we have never seen (or formed >impression) in our wake-up life? I think I have answered this above- What we creat we shold have knowledge of it - otherwise we cannot creat. We may not be aware ofthe knoweldge deep down but that should be there - if not one cannot dream that. >There are other clarifications that will be requested on the ChAndogya >upanishad analysis and other topics but that will form another post. > >Again, I congratulate you on a very fine and scholarly article. My >comments above are not a criticism of the essay but an attempt by me >to understand it better intellectually. > >Regards >Gummuluru Murthy Thanks- I hope I have clarified myself. Thanks for raising the issues that are of interest to all. Hari Om! Sadananda _____________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com 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.