Brahman

[Guest guest]

A few small comments, interspersed in the text below. Thanks.

 

Prabhakar Chitrapu

 

> ----------

> Vivekananda Centre[sMTP:vivekananda]

> Reply advaitin

> Thursday, July 01, 1999 7:15 AM

> Self Knowledge List; ramakrishna ; advaita list

> Brahman

>

> "Vivekananda Centre" <vivekananda

>

> Recently in a discussion on comparing pantheism with ideas of Brahaman - I

> sent the following posting which may be of interest to others on this

> list.

>

> Hindu scriptures are subdivided into two classes. That which have

> authority

> like the Upanishads and that which have lower authority (relative

> importance) like books of mythology and books of ethics, codes of conduct

> etc.

>

> 'Alan Watts' may be a good Western Scholar, but learning Hinduism from

> him?

>

>> I don't see a need for this sort of criticism.

> If anyone is serious about learning Hinduism he should look up the

> contributions of these recent figures

>

> (1) Sri Ramakrishna

> (2) Sri Raman Maharshi

> (3) Vivekananda

>

> Ron has given very good response on comparison/contrasts between ideas of

> Pantheism and Brahman so let me attempt to develop this thread further.

>

> From teachings of Special Relativity we get the idea that matter and

> energy

> are interchangeable. One is a dynamic concept the other is a static

> concept.

> If you wish to define energy you can say 'that which moves matter'

>

>> Here, Energy is defined in terms of Matter, which does not seem to be

suggested by the interchangeability principle. In fact, Interchangeability

puts Energy and Matter on an equal level, does it not ?

> If you wish to define matter you can say 'that which can be moved by

> energy'

> Now special relativity tells us that they are interchangeable. Matter is

> really coiled up energy! So as Ron said it seems that surely everything is

> 'same'.

>

> Seems like it -- but there is a difference says Hinduism.

> There is a scale attached to all manifestations.

> The scale does not show itself between matter and energy in the physical

> sense but between - What we call physical and mental realms. Hence

> consciousness is not a by-product of physical forces but something that is

> higher up the scale of manifestation.

>

> Now the word 'divine' takes on a serious role - it becomes this scale we

> attach to everything physical as well as mental as well as to idea of

> consciousness.

>

> Matter is 'divine' -- Thoughts are more 'divine' and Consciousness is

> highest form of 'divinity'. The difference between a lump of clay and a

> prophet is the level of divinity manifesting through them says Hinduism

> :-)

>

>> Could one define/describe the notion of scale more precisely ? What is

the basis/dimension of this scale ?

> jay

>

>

>

>

> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

> With more than 20 million e-mails exchanged daily...

>

> ...ONElist is home to the liveliest discussions on the Internet!

>

> ------

> 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

>

>

[Guest guest]

Today, Vivekananda Centre wrote:

 

<snip>

VC>'Alan Watts' may be a good Western Scholar, but learning Hinduism

VC>from him? If anyone is serious about learning Hinduism he should

VC>look up the contributions of these recent figures

VC>

VC>(1) Sri Ramakrishna

VC>(2) Sri Raman Maharshi

VC>(3) Vivekananda

<snip>

 

An excellent list, but I'd add some others to it as well:

 

(4) Sri Aurobindo

(5) Swami Prabhavananda

(6) Christopher Isherwood (educated western perspective of an

actual student of the Dharma as opposed to Watts, who

was a Zen Buddhist/Taoist).

 

And really, anyone *serious* about Hinduism should go as close to the

original texts as possible. I'd suggest these five reads (all available

at Vedanta Press, I think) for beginners:

 

1. THE UPANISHADS: BREATH OF THE ETERNAL. Swami Prabhavananda/Frederick

Manchester. English paraphrase of the principal Upanishads.

2. THE UPADESHA SAHASRI (THOUSAND TEACHINGS) of SRI SHANKARACARYA. If I

knew how easy this text was to follow, I would have ordered it two

years ago. The Ramakrishna Math edition is *highly* recommended.

3. HOW TO KNOW GOD: THE YOGA APHORISMS OF PATANJALI. Prabhavananda/

Isherwood. Good general introduction to the only school of

Indian philosophy instantly comprehensible to beginners.

4. CRADLE TALES OF HINDUISM. Sister Nivedita. What we call Hinduism

isn't just a philosophy, after all.

5. THE BHAGAVAD-GITA. It's hard to pick a favorite translation; Sir

Edwin Arnold's is still my favorite as a translation even though

it's not entirely faithful to the text at times, as Arnold was

a gifted literary genius and his translation reads like

Shakespeare. Still, Arnold's translation is free on the Web

(URL available upon request), so for money-spending I'd splurge

$10 or so and get the Gambhirananda translation of the Gita

with Shankara's commentary from Advaita Ashrama, skipping all

of the Sanskrit passages. It's 600+ pages, but very easy to

read.

 

In addition, for those of a strong Christian background I recommend:

 

6. THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT ACCORDING TO VEDANTA. Swami Prabhavananda.

 

I second Jay's recommendation of Swami Vivekananda, and third, and fourth

it -- it's worth the $30 to buy his eight-volume collected works, IMHO, as

the man is an excellent popularizer and explains many difficult concepts

painlessly.

One caveat: almost all names on this list are Advaitins. When

Vivekananda says Hinduism, he means Advaita. When Shankara writes, he's

describing Advaita. Many Hindus by birth actually living the life are not

technically dedicated to the specific ideals of Advaita; it is one of six

sampradaayas (paths). So for an alternative perspective, check out

Shrisha Rao's most excellent Dvaita/Tattvavaada FAQ at

http://www.dvaita.org. You will not be disappointed. (I myself

contribute to this site and find its mailing list to be absolutely

indespensible.) When you get a little more advanced in your studies,

splurge at Vedanta Press for a copy of:

 

7. THE BRAHMA-SUTRAS ACCORDING TO SRI RAMANUJA.

 

Even though Ramanuja was a non-dualist just as Shankara was, his

philosophy is regarded as being more in line with the ideal of

personalized bhakti and the extremely linear/rational Brahma-Sutras,

particularly with Ramanuja's commentary, will be a striking contrast to

the other works described above. I warn you, though: this *is* a somewhat

difficult text, and you probably don't want to read it until you're

comfortable in your skin with the other texts.

Oh, one other caveat: I'm not an expert. Still, if you run into a

word you don't understand or would like my recommendations on anything,

feel free to drop me a line.

 

 

 

 

Peace,

 

Tom

 

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth

and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

-- Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

Tom Head legitimately added a few more books to the list which the

Vivekananda Centre suggested. Yes, the cumulated list forms a good

grounding for those who are confused about the 'contradictions' in

Hinduism and its philosophy, particularly, the advaita. I would like to

add a more elementary book for two reasons: 1. It is written for 'moderns'

who usually look at ancient Hindu writing with more of disbelief than

belief; and 2. It discusses several elementary doubts about dharma and all

its nuances. The book is:

The six-volume set entitled: KRISHNAVATARA, by K.M. Munshi, published by

the Bharatiya vidya bhavan. Though it is just the story of the

mahabharata that goes into the book it is a fantastic 'introduction' to

the nuances of Hindu dharma.

Having mentioned the mahAbharata, I cannot but mention another book, which

is a must for all of us. The book is a treat to the novice as well as the

scholar alike: It is:

The lore of mahabharata, published by Aurobindo Ashram. I forget the name

of the author. It is a Bengali name. Actually it was written in Bengali,

and then translated into English. A most wonderful book. The only

comparison I can give to the book is this. It is like watching a cricket

match live on the TV, and also hearing a running commentary on the radio.

Thus one sees not only the strokes and bowling, but one is recalled all

earlier similar incidents, one is shown the slow-motion flash-back, and

one is also given the choice of several commentaries.

PraNAms to all advaitins

Prof V. Krishnamurthy

===

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

You are invited to visit my latest book entitled GEMS FROM THE OCEAN OF HINDU

THOUGHT VISION AND PRACTICE at

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/2952/gohitvip/contents.html

_______

 

Get your free @ address at

[Guest guest]

The Consciousness of Atman as opposed to the existence of Atman

 

We may all agree that there is nothing

but Consciousness.

 

Yet, because there is One, thus - must there be infinity.

An infinity …… of multiplicity identifying itself;

Just as the count of one begets infinite number.

 

Unbound - except to itself

Knowing - by the re-cognition of itself!

Pre-cognition of itself, It IS –

yet the re-cognition has not yet occurred.

 

The constituents of Pre-cognition are

Time and consciousness in unity;

Spatial or physical reality is not yet manifest.

 

Because re-cognition constitutes awareness itself –

and of itself – re-cognition -

is that which constitutes the infinite consciousness.

 

Because consciousness exists Pre-recognition

e.g we are conscious of other things before the recognition

of something else, consciousness thus exists Pre-cognition.

 

Consciousness therefore exists beyond mind itself.

 

Consciousness in this way is existent beyond cognition;

and is thus self-aware!

 

In a creation…….

Of a timeless birth – born of itself, within itself, out of itself.

Thus! - we have Cosmos.

 

Cosmos, an ocean of concepts

An ocean of the unformed flashes forth

An ocean of potency –

Ultimately!

Of Concept itself!

 

Hence –

the never ending ladder of evolution

evoluting, changing, manifesting.

 

Of beings and objects,

of worlds,

from dreams to waking

>From young to old,

from ignorant to aware;

Manifesting -

from the light of Consciousness

 

Ever conscious,

Consciousness conscious of being conscious.

 

Car knows car, table knows table

for the light vibration has given it form, texture, hardness

which form is not only defined by its physical attributes

but also by it’s interaction with Consciousness/Light

through Consciousness/Light in various forms.

 

Thus a car knows car-ness

through being driven by light in the form of a human,

through light in the form of air,

on light in the form of road,

moving with light in the form of tyres.

Thus, the car is conscious as a car,

perceiving as only a car can.

 

As humans,

So too are we defined by the same light.

Yet, looking at this from the level of energy

So can we understand -

That a human is conscious as a human.

 

The “I-ness” that allows us to perceive as a human

Is based on the perception that we are the doer, the controller

Where the consciousness manifests due Mind delusions of individual I-ness

of physicalness – of I am - body

of emotion – of anger, sadness, happiness, being measures of the validity of

individual I

of thought – I am the thinker

of sense – smell, taste, seeing..etc

of cosmic I-ness -

All of which are that non-different light/Consciousness

which maintains the existence of car and table.

 

Consciousness, is constantly conscious of Itself.

Yet the very awareness as Consciousness being conscious of Itself is denied,

blinded -

by the very I-ness of individuality

 

Where separation -

Of I am the doer,

The perceiver, the controller -

Demanding interaction with separation -

isolates the Oneness from acknowledgement of itself -

within the consciousness of that perceiver

into the multiplicity of Cosmos.

 

In This-ness –

By perception we have Thing-ness

Again we are deluded by cognition itself.

 

We name a thing (conceptualize) this or that

Ascribing this or that as this or that;

In that moment we then have I-ness.

 

***********************************

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, Vivekananda Centre wrote:

> "Vivekananda Centre" <vivekananda

>

> Recently in a discussion on comparing pantheism with ideas of Brahaman - I

> sent the following posting which may be of interest to others on this list.

>

> [...]

> Now the word 'divine' takes on a serious role - it becomes this scale we

> attach to everything physical as well as mental as well as to idea of

> consciousness.

>

> Matter is 'divine' -- Thoughts are more 'divine' and Consciousness is

> highest form of 'divinity'. The difference between a lump of clay and a

> prophet is the level of divinity manifesting through them says Hinduism :-)

>

> jay

>

 

namaste.

>From my understanding, that is exactly what the Hinduism does not say.

 

What is the difference between a lump of clay and a prophet ? In my

view, it is only the intellectual capability of one versus the lack

of it in the other. Both have the same Brahman as the substratum, and

unless one identifies with the upAdhi, they (the lump of clay and the

prophet) are one and the same. And as I understand, that is what the

upanishads teach.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

At 12:50 AM 7/3/99 -0230, you wrote:

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>What is the difference between a lump of clay and a prophet ? In my

>view, it is only the intellectual capability of one versus the lack

>of it in the other. Both have the same Brahman as the substratum, and

>unless one identifies with the upAdhi, they (the lump of clay and the

>prophet) are one and the same. And as I understand, that is what the

>upanishads teach.

 

It is all Divine. Everything. All of creation is Divine, and all that is

uncreated is Divine. No "levels" to Divinity, only layers of ignorance

that hide Divinity.

 

There is nothing to "do" to get rid of that ignorance, but to annihilate

the sense of doership. To become utterly selfless.

 

With Love,

 

Tim

 

-----

Visit The Core of the WWW at:

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

Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics.

[Guest guest]

>Tim Gerchmez <fewtch

>

>

>List,

>

>One time, I tried to to another list with the topic being Advaita

>Vedanta as expounded by Shankara. This list was, unfortunately, mired in

>dogma. When I made some comment like "upon realization, Brahman is seen to

>be a concept without meaning," it provoked some vociferous return messages,

>and a stern warning from the list moderator (who said he thought I was

>closer to a Buddhist than a Vedantist). Needless to say, I d

>from this list immediately.

 

Tim - Greetings

 

That comment of yours on aother list must have come after I left that list.

 

Acutally 'Brahman" is a concept before realization, with no particular

meaning since meaning involves trying to understand with finite mind about

the infinite! But "upon realization" Brahman is no more concept but reality

as ones own self - no more meaning in the thought level - concepts and

thoughts raise in Brahman, sustained by Brahmn and go back into Brahman- yet

nothing to do with Brahman since He is one without a second.

 

If you allow me to make amend to your statement - "upon realization, Brahman

means nothing since it is always everything"

>

>I am grateful that the moderator here is open-minded and nondogmatic, in

>the spirit of Advaita Vedanta. I think we should all keep in mind that

>until moksha, maya at least seems real to us through the senses... and

>there seems to be a difference between things -- I.E. there is duality

>until there is no more duality.

 

Well said.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

At 04:19 AM 7/4/99 PDT, you wrote:

>Kuntimaddi Sadananda <k_sadananda

>If you allow me to make amend to your statement - "upon realization, Brahman

>means nothing since it is always everything"

 

Yes, that is a much better way to state it - thank you.

>>I am grateful that the moderator here is open-minded and nondogmatic, in

>>the spirit of Advaita Vedanta. I think we should all keep in mind that

>>until moksha, maya at least seems real to us through the senses... and

>>there seems to be a difference between things -- I.E. there is duality

>>until there is no more duality.

>

>Well said.

 

And thank you again,

 

Hari OM,

 

Tim

 

 

 

-----

Visit The Core of the WWW at:

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

Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics.

[Guest guest]

> Further, Mr. Gerchemez wrote " a lump of clay cannot become aware of its

> true nature- it is bound completely to samsara"

>

> Upon reflection, this does not appear plausible. Bondage seems to be a

> function of mind and the lump having no mind has no bondage or

liberation.

 

You may be right, but I'm not completely convinced. If all is Divinity

(Being-Awareness), then a lump of clay is just as "aware" as a human being,

it is conscious. It has no mind, true, but is having a mind any real kind

of advantage? It allows us to think, which only interferes with

Self-realization.

 

Perhaps the clay is bound to samsara (it certainly is a part of maya),

perhaps it's not. With no offense intended, your argument didn't convince

me one way or the other.

 

Hari OM,

 

Tim