Guest guest Posted June 12, 1999 Report Share Posted June 12, 1999 We are told that the individual is nothing but "satchidAnanda". Here I am trying to understand, thinking out loud, how I am a satchidAnanda. We feel that we lost something and searching for it.... In reality, Can we ever loose any thing that we do not have!? sat: (immortality) ============ *I* want to be immortal. I will never hesitate to kill a snake, because as long as the snake lives, I am not sure whether I can live with out getting harm. Either I kill the snake or I try to flee. Only because I can live at some other place for some more time. The real intention was that "I want to live, if possible for ever". Why do *I* want to live? because *I* knew what it was to live for ever (immortality) cit: (knowledge) ============ I want to know everything. *I* feel I lost some thing because of not knowing some thing. For example, I do not know the meaning of "gaagaabubu" and *I* desperately search for it. Because, as long as I do not know the meaning of "gaagaabubu" I am limited in my knowledge. That feeling makes me frustrated! Most of the people in this world are bestowed by universities with "certificate of ignorance". I am a Systems Engineer, I know computers. That means, I don't know civil engineering, I don't know medicine, I don't know thousands of other things. A great amount of ignorance, a little amount of knowledge. If you question me: "do you know the meaning of gaagaabubu?", I will reply that *I* do not know.". Then, you question "how do you know that you do not know the meaning of gaagaabubu?", I will reply "I know that I do not know"... Having the knowledge of some thing has made *me* secure, loosing it is making *me* frustrated. Hence, in the beginning I was knowledgeable, but now *I* feel that *I* am ignorant. ananda: (happiness) =============== *I* search for happiness, because I feel that *I* lost it. In reality, some where before the known time, *I* must be totally happy. Since, *I* know what it means to be totally happy, *I am* struggling to gain that happiness again. The genuine question is: "How did it happen that I lost it?"... Answer is: "You never lost. In deed, you are thinking that you lost it. That thinking makes it real." sat+chit+ananda = parabhrahma (sat+chit+ananda) + jeevabhaava = The resplendent world of the individual. Remove the "jeevabhava" (individuality) you are *that*. tat-tvaM-asi. Hari Om! tat sat! -mAdhava Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 1999 Report Share Posted June 13, 1999 >"Vivekananda Centre" <vivekananda >advaitin >"advaita list" <advaitin > >CC: "sadanandaji" <k_sadananda > Nature of Reality >Fri, 11 Jun 1999 11:59:34 +0100 > >"Vivekananda Centre" <vivekananda > >The following explanation from Sadanandji is superb. > > >"satyam JNaanam anantam Brhamham which is same as sat chit ananda is > >Brahman. The equation is from Shruthis. Trikaala abhaaditam satyam that > >which remains the same in three periods of time alone is the truth. Real >is > >defined. Please note that I did not say or imply any way that "unreal >means > >changing" - In fact I gave a clear example for what is unreal - that >which > >has no locus at any time - ex. vandyaa putraH is typical example. man's >horn > >is another example. The world - jagat that which undergoes continuos > >changes is neither real nor unreal - Hence Mithya is the word brought in >to > >define that chaning things since they exist but there is changing part - > >naama and ruupa - The existence part is the real base for it and changing > >part is only the mithya part. Once this is clear then the rest of the > >arguments are straight forward. -- > ><snip> > Sadanandji-- > >Even though he may have developed this theme in the past may I request him >to develop these ideas further (specially):- > >(1) >Sat Chit Ananda or Asti Bhati Priya are considered to be the nearest we can >come to understanding Brahman. > >"Sat maybe equated to Asti" >Kindly develop this relationship. > >(2) >Shankracharya's explanation that the world is neither real nor unreal is >excellent. >If we now change this to say that the world is a mixture of real and unreal >what technical difference do you see in this approach? Are there any merits >or demerits in this? > >jay > > > > >May I request Sadanadji to develop this idea further as his superb >explanations are very valuable. > > > > >------ >How has ONElist changed your life? >Share your story with us at >------ >Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy >focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available >at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin > _____________ 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 June 14, 1999 Report Share Posted June 14, 1999 poojya sadanandagaru, praNAms! you wanted to convey some thing on this topic! I seem to be missing it. There is no text in the message but blank. Please re-post it. Thank you. Earnest Regards, Madhava > > Kuntimaddi Sadananda [sMTP:k_sadananda] > Monday, June 14, 1999 4:15 AM > advaitin > Re: Nature of Reality > > Kuntimaddi Sadananda <k_sadananda > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 1999 Report Share Posted June 15, 1999 On Sat, 12 Jun 1999, Madhava K. Turumella wrote: > "Madhava K. Turumella" <madhava > > We are told that the individual is nothing but "satchidAnanda". Here I am > trying to understand, thinking out loud, how I am a satchidAnanda. > > We feel that we lost something and searching for it.... > In reality, Can we ever loose any thing that we do not have!? > namaste. I did not follow this thread closely before. As there is a bit of pause on the discussion in this thread, I thought that I should jump in with the following response to Shri Madhava's post. Firstly, as per my understanding, the *individual* is *not* sat-cit-Ananda. Only when the individuality perishes, sat-cit-Ananda evolves out. > sat: (immortality) > ============ > *I* want to be immortal. I will never hesitate to kill a snake, because as > long as the snake lives, I am not sure whether I can live with out getting > harm. Either I kill the snake or I try to flee. Only because I can live at > some other place for some more time. The real intention was that "I want to > live, if possible for ever". Why do *I* want to live? because *I* knew > what it was to live for ever (immortality) > The I in the first sentence above that *wants* to be immortal is the lower case i. This i is the ego, the aham- which is an antahkaraNavr^tti (modification of the internal sense organ) with its possessions of buddhi, manas and deha (intellect, mind and body). This i wants to be immortal but can never be immortal. The upper case I, the Consciousness, does not want anything, and is immortal whatever the wish of the i (the lower case i) is. In the above quote, the snake is killed by the lower case i in its desparate quest for immortality. However, as Shri Shankara says in Bhaja Govindam "...samprApte sannihite kAle, nahi nahi rakshati ...": when the time comes, how much effort is made (and how many snakes killed), the little i will have to face its death and there is no saving for it. Shri Madhava asks the question above "... Why do *I* want to live ? " and answers it " because *I* knew what it was to live for ever (immortality)". I am afraid the *I* referred in the question and the answer refer to two different I's. In the question, the I refers to the lower case i, which wants to live for ever (I frankly do not know why the lower case i wants to live for ever). In the answer, the I referred is the Consciousness, the immortal. > cit: (knowledge) > ============ > I want to know everything. *I* feel I lost some thing because of not > knowing some thing. For example, I do not know the meaning of "gaagaabubu" > and *I* desperately search for it. Because, as long as I do not know the > meaning of "gaagaabubu" I am limited in my knowledge. That feeling makes me > frustrated! > > Most of the people in this world are bestowed by universities with > "certificate of ignorance". I am a Systems Engineer, I know computers. > That means, I don't know civil engineering, I don't know medicine, I don't > know thousands of other things. A great amount of ignorance, a little > amount of knowledge. > > If you question me: "do you know the meaning of gaagaabubu?", I will reply > that *I* do not know.". Then, you question "how do you know that you do > not know the meaning of gaagaabubu?", I will reply "I know that I do not > know"... > > Having the knowledge of some thing has made *me* secure, loosing it is > making *me* frustrated. Hence, in the beginning I was knowledgeable, but > now *I* feel that *I* am ignorant. > But, isn't this "gaagaabubu", the Systems Engineering etc the lower knowledge ? It does not make a difference whether one has this lower knowledge or not. It is the lower i, in its continuous struggle to cross this saMsAra, somehow mistakes the parA and apara vidyAs and feels frustrated and insecure giving importance to the lower knowledge. If we have the higher Knowledge (which we have and which we are), we can never loose It. We may think we have lost it. > ananda: (happiness) > =============== > *I* search for happiness, because I feel that *I* lost it. In reality, some > where before the known time, *I* must be totally happy. Since, *I* know > what it means to be totally happy, *I am* struggling to gain that happiness > again. > > > The genuine question is: "How did it happen that I lost it?"... > Answer is: "You never lost. In deed, you are thinking that you lost it. That > thinking makes it real." > > sat+chit+ananda = parabhrahma > (sat+chit+ananda) + jeevabhaava = The resplendent world of the individual. > Remove the "jeevabhava" (individuality) you are *that*. tat-tvaM-asi. > In contemplating on tat tvam asi, one has to be careful what the tvam is. Tvam is *not* the individual with this body, mind and intellect. Tvam is not the thoughts or the emotions that go through, but tvam is the substratum on which all these are superimposed [dehendriya manah prANAhmkr^tibhyo vilakshaNah: Shri Shankara's vAkyavr^tti) > Hari Om! tat sat! > > -mAdhava Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 1999 Report Share Posted June 15, 1999 Thank you very much Murthygaru. Frankly, I do not know that there is this much difference between the "Big I" and the "Small I" :-) Best Regards, Madhava > > Gummuluru Murthy [sMTP:gmurthy] > Tuesday, June 15, 1999 5:39 PM > advaitin > Re: Nature of Reality > > Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 1999 Report Share Posted June 15, 1999 At 06:03 PM 6/15/99 +0300, you wrote: >"Madhava K. Turumella" <madhava > >Thank you very much Murthygaru. > >Frankly, I do not know that there is this much difference between the "Big >I" and the "Small I" :-) Only that the small "i" (the ego/mind complex) is pure illusion and ignorance, while the "Big I" (the Atman/Brahman) is real, eternal, formless and all-pervasive. Some difference, huh? :-) In Sadhana, Tim ----- Visit The Core of the WWW at: http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 1999 Report Share Posted June 15, 1999 At 09:41 AM 6/15/99 -0700, Tim Gerchmez wrote: >Tim Gerchmez <fewtch > >At 06:03 PM 6/15/99 +0300, you wrote: >>"Madhava K. Turumella" <madhava >> >>Thank you very much Murthygaru. >> >>Frankly, I do not know that there is this much difference between the "Big >>I" and the "Small I" :-) > >Only that the small "i" (the ego/mind complex) is pure illusion and >ignorance, while the "Big I" (the Atman/Brahman) is real, eternal, formless >and all-pervasive. Some difference, huh? :-) The Big "I" is the unseen see-er, and the small "i," which never sees, is one of the things seen. --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 1999 Report Share Posted June 15, 1999 Tim Gerchmez <fewtch At 06:03 PM 6/15/99 +0300, you wrote: >"Madhava K. Turumella" <madhava > >Thank you very much Murthygaru. > >Frankly, I do not know that there is this much difference between the "Big >I" and the "Small I" :-) Only that the small "i" (the ego/mind complex) is pure illusion and ignorance, while the "Big I" (the Atman/Brahman) is real, eternal, formless and all-pervasive. Some difference, huh? :-) In Sadhana, Tim Harsha: There is only One I. That is The Eye. Small I is the Big I. Self is the Eye. 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.