Intellectual Knowledge

[Guest guest]

Dear Harsha and Ramachandran,

 

I apologise to you if I have hurt you in anyway. My intention was to point

out that, discussing on the basis of analogies, one might lose focus of the

subject matter. Ramachandran had agreed to what I had written in the

beginning of his posting and then gave an analogy which was pointing to a

different conclusion. So I wrote that way. I agree that Ahimsa is the

highest dharma and I am trying my best to be non-violent in thought,word and

deed. I will be more careful with my words in future.

 

Harsha wrote

 

" Hari Om Jaishankar Ji! Your wisdom and knowledge is much to be admired.

Your willingness to share is greatly appreciated. But the tone of your

message towards Sri Ramji appears to me to be unnecessarily harsh and

assumes a posture of superior knowledge and knowing. No doubt there is a

valid foundation for such an assumption in your mind."

 

I dont think I am superior or inferior to anyone. I only want to share the

traditional knowledge which I received at the feet of my guru. I may

disagree with many of the views posted in this list but that does'nt mean I

am belittling others. Others have the right to disagree with me.

 

Harsha wrote

" It seems to me that the Same Self-Light appears to reflect differently and

uniquely through each embodied

soul. Our strength of conviction, when it leads to belittlement of others,

reveals our own attachments which obscure Self-Knowledge. Our strength of

conviction, when it leads to deep and abiding faith in the words of our

Gurus and Scriptures leads to Self-Realization. Our Sages, based on their

strength of experience and understanding (and not just intellectual

knowledge of scriptures) have given us the pearls of wisdom...."

 

I dont understand the use of the adjective intellectual to knowledge. If

there is dental knowledge or guttural knowledge then there is a need to

differentiate knowledge as intellectual knowledge. All knowledge takes place

only in the intellect and so all knowledge is only intellectual knowledge

including this Self-knowledge. Thats why the Veda with respect to

Self-knowledge says 'Manasa Eva Anudrshtavyam' - 'To be understood by the

Mind or Intellect alone'.

 

Harsha wrote

"The fact is that great Sages rise in every tradition and Truth is not a

monopoly of any particular system of thought as Truth cannot be captured by

thought."

 

We have to understand what is meant by 'Truth cannot be captured by

thought.' The Veda also says 'Yato vacho nivartante aprapya manasa saha' -

'From which the words and mind return without reaching' and 'Yan manasa na

manute yenahur mano matam' - 'That which cannot be objectified by the mind

and by which the mind itself is objectified'. This only means that the Self

cannot be an object of the mind. In fact it is self-revealing and need not

be objectified to establish its existence. Thats why If I ask a question

'Are you there?' one need not use any means of knowledge like perception or

inference to say 'I am there'. The knower's existence is established even

before any Pramana-vyapara i.e any knowing takes place.

 

In fact we dont claim that the Veda establishes the existence of the Self.

That 'I am' is known to every person whether wise or otherwise. But the

problem is the ignorance of the True nature of the self. People take

themselves to be limited and thats the problem. So the Veda only reveals the

true nature of the self as limitless. In fact it only removes all the wrong

notions about self from different standpoints and thats enough. Because the

self is always available the removal of ignorance is enough and the

objectification of the self need not take place. Really Self-knowledge is

nothing but removal of the ignorance which is in the form of the wrong

notions about oneself. This removal of ignorance takes place only in the

intellect and thats why the Veda also says 'Manasa eva Anudrshtavyam'. So

telling that the self is beyond mind etc. is OK if one understands that

still the ignorance of the self is to be removed only by 'intellectual'

knowledge. Otherwise one will just be sitting closing one's eyes for the

self to reveal itself as a 'special experience' resulting in head ache etc.

when it is available in every cognition/experience as the invariable

consciousness. Thats why Kenopanishad says 'Pratibodha viditam matam' -

'Thats which is known in every cognition'.

 

The diffuculty with self knowledge is that in all other knowledge the

removal of ignorance of the object is followed by the objectification of

that object by the mind. But in this case only ignorance is removed and no

objectification is possible. To know without objectifying is not easy

because we are always used to objectifying the object of knowledge.But we

need not objectify the Self because it is Self-luminous.

 

I think what Harsha and others mean is that just reading the scripture

without understanding its real import is not enough. Thats true. But Please

dont use the word intellectual knowledge to denote this because it is

misleading.

 

Harsha writes

" The Same Truth which is the Light of Self and only Pure Self-Awareness

that is Sat-Chit-Ananda is reflected

through the appearance of different mediums and hence communicated and

spoken of differently. This is demonstrated by the number of commentaries on

each major scripture. Let us make space for others to express in an attitude

of understanding. In making space for others we only make space for

ourselves and we are no where other than in the Space of Awareness."

 

True the same self lights up both knowledge and ignorance because it is not

opposed to anything. The same Sun reveals the presence of the cloud which is

supposedly covering the Sun. But truth does'nt tolerate many opinions. Truth

is one inspite of many commentaries and it can be arrived at only by proper

inquiry without any attachment to any pet ideas etc.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar.

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Jaishankar Narayanan wrote:

> "Jaishankar Narayanan" <jaishankar_n

>

> [...]

>

> Harsha wrote

> " It seems to me that the Same Self-Light appears to reflect differently and

> uniquely through each embodied

> soul. Our strength of conviction, when it leads to belittlement of others,

> reveals our own attachments which obscure Self-Knowledge. Our strength of

> conviction, when it leads to deep and abiding faith in the words of our

> Gurus and Scriptures leads to Self-Realization. Our Sages, based on their

> strength of experience and understanding (and not just intellectual

> knowledge of scriptures) have given us the pearls of wisdom...."

>

> I dont understand the use of the adjective intellectual to knowledge. If

> there is dental knowledge or guttural knowledge then there is a need to

> differentiate knowledge as intellectual knowledge. All knowledge takes place

> only in the intellect and so all knowledge is only intellectual knowledge

> including this Self-knowledge. Thats why the Veda with respect to

> Self-knowledge says 'Manasa Eva Anudrshtavyam' - 'To be understood by the

> Mind or Intellect alone'.

>

 

namaste.

 

I must say I have a different understanding. Knowledge of the

SELF (Atma vidyA, brahma vidyA) is not that gained by the intellect,

as far as I understand. Brahma vidyA (or Atma vidyA) and intellectual

knowledge can be clearly distinguished.

 

The nishcita, inviolable Knowledge (upper case K) that we are

Brahman is brahma vidyA. That is part of us, inseparable, so that

we are that Knowledge.

 

Intellectual knowledge is the knowledge (lower case k) we have

from books and other sources. This is the knowledge carried by

the intellect and is not an integral part of us. Dental knowledge

and the knowledge of the SELF carried by the intellect have the

same weight. That knowledge is separate from us.

 

In brahma vidyA, you are the Knowledge; in intellectual knowledge,

knowledge and you are separate.

 

Intellect is a product of mAyA. The knowledge of the SELF carried

by the intellect is good for debates, just like knowledge of any

profession is good for worldly prosperity.

 

Being brahma vidyA, one would not worry about joys and sorrows,

of prosperity and poverty. With only intellectual knowledge of

the SELF, while we intellectually know that joy and sorrow,

prosperity and poverty have no meaning, we will still be affected

by these pairs of opposites.

 

If the SELF Knowledge is beyond intellect, beyond cit and beyond

any of jeeva's equipment, then only that Knowledge is part of us.

 

I assume that shri Harsha is referring to this distinction between

intellectual knowledge and brahma vidyA.

 

> [...]

>

> with love and prayers,

>

> Jaishankar.

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Dear Gummuluru Murthy,

 

You wrote

 

"namaste.

 

I must say I have a different understanding. Knowledge of the

SELF (Atma vidyA, brahma vidyA) is not that gained by the intellect,

as far as I understand. Brahma vidyA (or Atma vidyA) and intellectual

knowledge can be clearly distinguished.

 

The nishcita, inviolable Knowledge (upper case K) that we are

Brahman is brahma vidyA. That is part of us, inseparable, so that

we are that Knowledge."

 

I want to ask you where does the knowledge 'I am Brahman' takes place. It of

course takes place only in the intellect. The mental vritti " I am Brahman'

alone washes away the ignorance which is the cause of samsara. Thats why the

shruti very clearly states 'Manasa Eva Anudrshtavyam'. There is also a

saying in the tradition 'Mana eva Manushyanaam BandhaMokshayoho karanam' -

'Mind alone is the cause of the bondage and freedom of Human beings'.

 

In my view this unnecessary classification of intellectual knowledge only

confuses people and makes them think that studying the Vedantas is not

required for knowing the self and makes them just meditate as though it is

an end in itself. Meditation is only a means to prepare the mind to receive

this knowledge.

 

I want to clarify one thing. Not everyone studying the Vedantas will gain

Moksha. We have see for what purpose one studies Vedanta? Whether one

studied it to gain moksha or just to get a Phd Degree. Whether one looked at

the Veda as a Pramana ( A valid means of knowledge) or just another book?

These are very important things to be considered. If one studies the Vedanta

just make a living out of it may be you can call it intellectual Knowledge.

But I think the better way to put it is 'factual knowledge without proper

understanding'.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar.

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

Please read this along with my earlier post on the same topic

where I gave a detailed listing of why the intellectual knowledge

of the SELF is not the same as Atma vidyA. For that list, please

add also the following:

 

Atma vidyA permeates from the inside to the outside of the entity.

Intellectual knowledge of the SELF goes through the mind to the

intellect (from the outside to the inside or from less subtle to

more subtle).

 

Let me expand.

 

Atma vidyA is always with us and is us. Except that it will not

show up because it is obscured by the veil of ignorance and (as)

the five koshAs [ from inward to the outward Anandamaya,

vij~nAnamaya, manomaya, prANamaya, and annamaya ]. The light of

the Atman gradually shines through as the five koshAs gradually

thin out as ignorance is removed and they become transparent.

 

On the other hand, intellectual knowledge of the SELF is what is

picked up by the mind and accepted by the intellect.

 

There is a distinct differenc between the two.

 

On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Jaishankar Narayanan wrote:

> "Jaishankar Narayanan" <jaishankar_n

>

> Dear Gummuluru Murthy,

>

> You wrote

>

> "namaste.

>

> I must say I have a different understanding. Knowledge of the

> SELF (Atma vidyA, brahma vidyA) is not that gained by the intellect,

> as far as I understand. Brahma vidyA (or Atma vidyA) and intellectual

> knowledge can be clearly distinguished.

>

> The nishcita, inviolable Knowledge (upper case K) that we are

> Brahman is brahma vidyA. That is part of us, inseparable, so that

> we are that Knowledge."

>

> I want to ask you where does the knowledge 'I am Brahman' takes place. It of

> course takes place only in the intellect. The mental vritti " I am Brahman'

> alone washes away the ignorance which is the cause of samsara. Thats why the

> shruti very clearly states 'Manasa Eva Anudrshtavyam'. There is also a

> saying in the tradition 'Mana eva Manushyanaam BandhaMokshayoho karanam' -

> 'Mind alone is the cause of the bondage and freedom of Human beings'.

>

 

The knowledge 'I am brahman' (aham brahmAsmi), if it is in the intellect,

it cannot be Atma vidyA. This knowledge 'I am Brahman' can be in the

intellect; I am not denying it. My contention is: if it is in the

intellect, it is not Atma vidyA. As I mentioned in my earlier post,

if this knowledge is in the intellect (buddhi), intellect being a product

of mAya, this knowledge is also in the realm of the lower knowledge. The

entity, while intellectually knowing joys and sorrows and other pairs of

opposites are not real, still suffers through these pairs of opposites.

My understanding,(supported by various works including Science of the

soul by swami Yogeshwarananda; shri Shankara's brahmasUtrAbhAShya,

specific sUtrA number, I can dig it out; the concept of the mind in

Indian philosophy by S. Chennakesavan; Spiritual Science by swami

vishadananda) is that manas, which is itslef an antahkaraNavr^tti,

(along with buddhi, ahamkAra, and cit) is itself ignorance. For Atma

vidyA, should we not transcend antahkaraNa and hence, manas, buddhi

and cit? You cannot grasp Atma vidyA by antahkaraNa !.

> In my view this unnecessary classification of intellectual knowledge only

> confuses people and makes them think that studying the Vedantas is not

> required for knowing the self and makes them just meditate as though it is

> an end in itself. Meditation is only a means to prepare the mind to receive

> this knowledge.

 

Yes, there is that danger. What is important is the citta shuddhi.

But, I feel that saying Atma vidyA is an intellectual activity is

contrary to the teachings of shri Shankara. Shri Shankara says this

clearly in His debates with ManDana Mishra (as presented in Shankara

digvijaya by MadhvacArya): Shri Shankara's argument that Atma vidya

is not an intellectual activity is as follows: If it is an intellectual

activity, and if it is the result of an action, then moksha will be an

effect of action. Any action can be done, or not done, or done in a

contrary fashion. The implication of making moksha an effect is to make

it impermanent like swarga and all attainments generated by human

activity. This is the very negation of Atma vidyA and moksha.

> I want to clarify one thing. Not everyone studying the Vedantas will gain

> Moksha. We have see for what purpose one studies Vedanta? Whether one

> studied it to gain moksha or just to get a Phd Degree. Whether one looked at

> the Veda as a Pramana ( A valid means of knowledge) or just another book?

> These are very important things to be considered. If one studies the Vedanta

> just make a living out of it may be you can call it intellectual Knowledge.

> But I think the better way to put it is 'factual knowledge without proper

> understanding'.

>

 

I agree that not everyone studying vedanta will gain moksha.

I also agree that the vedAs are a unique source of knowledge,

as you were saying. In support of this latter point, I present

the following excerpt from Shankara digvijaya by MadhvAcArya of

part of the debate between ManDana Mishra and Shri Shankara.

 

MaNDana: The Vedic passage speaking of difference gets only

greater strength and validity from the support it gets from another

means of valid knowledge like Pratyaksha (sense experience). It is

not thereby weakened, as you say, because of sense knowledge confirming

it. Therefore these dualistic passages surely affect the validity of

non-dualistic passages, which are without the support or confirmation

of any other means of knowledge.

 

Sankara: O Learned one, The strength of the Vedic passage is not

affected, because no other means of knowledge can confirm it. If

your contention is conceded, the Veda ceases to be a means of valid

knowledge, self-validating in itself. This is the uniqueness of the

position of the Veda among the means of right knowledge - namely,

**that it gives knowledge that cannot be derived through any other

means. If your position is accepted, Shruti becomes merely a means for

confirming knowledge that can be got through other means also. It

becomes very weak and purposeless thereby.** (GM's emphasis on this

part).

 

------

 

But apart, from vedAs being a unique source of Knowledge (for which

we do not have a difference in understanding), still, coming to saying

that Atma vidyA is an intellectual knowledge, I think it is an erroneous

interpretation of shri Shankara, as per my understanding of His

writings.

> with love and prayers,

>

> Jaishankar.

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

At 10:32 PM 11/11/99 -0330, you wrote:

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>The knowledge 'I am brahman' (aham brahmAsmi), if it is in the intellect,

>it cannot be Atma vidyA. This knowledge 'I am Brahman' can be in the

>intellect; I am not denying it. My contention is: if it is in the

>intellect, it is not Atma vidyA.

 

Absolutely true. Atma VidyA is beyond the intellect... in fact, it does

not involve the intellect (mind) in the slightest way.

>But, I feel that saying Atma vidyA is an intellectual activity is

>contrary to the teachings of shri Shankara.

 

I feel that it's contrary to the perspective of Advaita, period. "I am not

the mind" is necessary to be realized. Atma VidyA goes beyond the mind,

beyond thought, and is a realization of the essential nature of reality.

Yet, what it is really is something of a mystery to those who do not have

Atma VidyA, and it cannot be described accurately in words. It must be

known directly, and talking about it cannot explain it.

>I agree that not everyone studying vedanta will gain moksha.

 

Not necessarily in this lifetime, but there is a much greater chance of

gaining it in the next lifetime (as per the words of the Gita). No

spiritual knowledge gained is ever lost, no ignorance that is genuinely

lost is ever regained.

>But apart, from vedAs being a unique source of Knowledge (for which

>we do not have a difference in understanding), still, coming to saying

>that Atma vidyA is an intellectual knowledge, I think it is an erroneous

>interpretation of shri Shankara, as per my understanding of His

>writings.

 

Definitely; I agree, to say Atma VidyA involves the mind (intellect) in any

way is erroneous and untruthful. Not only Shankara teaches this, but all

other genuine teachers of Advaita as far as I know, including Ramakrishna

and Vivekananda. Even Buddha hints at it strongly, although Buddhism tends

to look at practical matters from an agnostic standpoint. For instance,

Zen Buddhism refers to "Buddha-Nature" (same as Atma VidyA) and

acknowledges that it is beyond the mind.

 

Hari OM,

 

Tim

 

-----

"Truth is One; Sages call It by various names."

 

Visit "The Core" Website at http://coresite.cjb.net -

Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics.

Tim's other pages are at http://core.vdirect.net

[Guest guest]

At 06:26 PM 11/13/99 IST, you wrote:

>I want add one more thing here for those who want to use the greeting 'Hari

>Om'. According to sanskrit grammar 'Hari OM' is wrong and the correct from

>is 'Harihi OM'.

>

 

So you mean to say there is *no* meaning in using the word as "Hari Om"?

Could you please explain your point? Thank you very much.

 

Regards,

Madhava

[Guest guest]

Correct or incorrect, "Hari" has been used for years in the West, and can

perhaps be seen as a 'contraction' of "Harihi." There is no possible means

or reason to change it now. Saying (and especially writing) "Harihi"

probably would cause misunderstanding or puzzlement. So whoever originally

translated or heard incorrectly as "Hari" is 'at fault,' but it's too late

now. "Hari" is the commonly used expression. Why should that be good or

bad--language is just language and has no magical properties. The

sincerity behind the greeting is infinitely more important than the words

themselves (except for OM, which is not a word at all in the common sense).

 

*However* - thank you for the information. I think it's good to know it.

 

Hari(hi) OM,

 

Tim

 

At 05:50 PM 11/12/99 +0300, you wrote:

>Madhava K Turumella <madhava

>

>At 06:26 PM 11/13/99 IST, you wrote:

>

>>I want add one more thing here for those who want to use the greeting 'Hari

>>Om'. According to sanskrit grammar 'Hari OM' is wrong and the correct from

>>is 'Harihi OM'.

>>

>

>So you mean to say there is *no* meaning in using the word as "Hari Om"?

>Could you please explain your point? Thank you very much.

>

>Regards,

>Madhava

 

 

-----

"Truth is One; Sages call It by various names."

 

Visit "The Core" Website at http://coresite.cjb.net -

Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics.

Tim's other pages are at http://core.vdirect.net

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote

 

 

" Atma vidyA permeates from the inside to the outside of the entity.

Intellectual knowledge of the SELF goes through the mind to the

intellect (from the outside to the inside or from less subtle to

more subtle).

Let me expand.

Atma vidyA is always with us and is us. Except that it will not

show up because it is obscured by the veil of ignorance and (as)

the five koshAs [ from inward to the outward Anandamaya,

vij~nAnamaya, manomaya, prANamaya, and annamaya ]. The light of

the Atman gradually shines through as the five koshAs gradually

thin out as ignorance is removed and they become transparent.

 

On the other hand, intellectual knowledge of the SELF is what is

picked up by the mind and accepted by the intellect.There is a distinct

differenc between the two."

 

Jai: I think you have confused the Suddha Jnanam or Pure Consciousness with

vritti jnanam or Knowledge born of mental modification. What is needed in

the case Self-knowledge is vritti jnanam because that alone is ajnana

virodhi or destroyer of ignorance. Suddha jnanam or Consciousness by itself

is not opposed to anything and in fact it reveals the ignorance also.

Vritti jnanam is born out of a pramana vyapara or operation of a valid means

of knowledge and in the case of self-knowledge the words of the Guru are the

valid means of knowledge. Now the words of the mind are picked up by the

mind and the resulting modification of mind or Vritti alone causes the

destruction of ajnana or ignorance. SO Self-knowledge and all knowledge is

only intellectual only.

 

Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote

"The knowledge 'I am brahman' (aham brahmAsmi), if it is in the intellect,

it cannot be Atma vidyA. This knowledge 'I am Brahman' can be in the

intellect; I am not denying it. My contention is: if it is in the intellect,

it is not Atma vidyA. As I mentioned in my earlier post,if this knowledge is

in the intellect (buddhi), intellect being a product of mAya, this knowledge

is also in the realm of the lower knowledge. The entity, while

intellectually knowing joys and sorrows and other pairs of opposites are not

real, still suffers through these pairs of opposites.

My understanding,(supported by various works including Science of the

soul by swami Yogeshwarananda; shri Shankara's brahmasUtrAbhAShya,

specific sUtrA number, I can dig it out; the concept of the mind in

Indian philosophy by S. Chennakesavan; Spiritual Science by swami

vishadananda) is that manas, which is itslef an antahkaraNavr^tti,

(along with buddhi, ahamkAra, and cit) is itself ignorance. For Atma

vidyA, should we not transcend antahkaraNa and hence, manas, buddhi

and cit? You cannot grasp Atma vidyA by antahkaraNa !."

 

Jai: If Atma Vidya does not take place in antahkaranam where does it take

place? Does it take place in outer space! Further if you can give the exact

sutra of Brahma sutra I can tell you whether your understanding is correct.

I have not heard of the other people you have mentioned and I dont want to

discuss what they have said. Ignorance and its products manas etc. being

maya the Self-knowledge also is maya only. Because there was never anyone

bound to be liberated. The solution is only as real as the problem.

Regarding transcending manas etc. I think words like 'transcend' and

'beyond' have really created lot of confusion and mystified Vedanta. The

transcending and going beyond etc. are only in terms of knowledge. When you

know you are not the mind you have transcended it. Its that simple. But the

mental modification 'I am not the mind etc.' itself takes place only in the

mind and negates the mind itself. In the tradition they give the analogy of

alum used for purifying dirty water. The mental vritti born out of Guru's

words is like the alum. It washes away and settles down all the dirt and

also itself settles down so that we have pure water. Vedanta is purely

cognitive and it is not mysticism. But unfortunately Modern vedantins have

made it into some sort of mysticism and confused people in the process.

 

Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote

" But, I feel that saying Atma vidyA is an intellectual activity is

contrary to the teachings of shri Shankara. Shri Shankara says this

clearly in His debates with ManDana Mishra (as presented in Shankara

digvijaya by MadhvacArya): Shri Shankara's argument that Atma vidya

is not an intellectual activity is as follows: If it is an intellectual

activity, and if it is the result of an action, then moksha will be an

effect of action. Any action can be done, or not done, or done in a contrary

fashion. The implication of making moksha an effect is to make it

impermanent like swarga and all attainments generated by human activity.

This is the very negation of Atma vidyA and moksha."

 

I think you are confused between what is mental action and knowledge. Mental

action like meditation or upasana are done willfully for a particular

result. You can meditate or not meditate or meditate differently. Thats the

argument with Mandana because Poorva mimamsakas believe that doing upasana

and karma and going to heaven is Moksha.

Knowledge is different. Although knowledge involves mental modification (

similar to meditation) it does'nt involve the will because knowledge is

vastu-tantram or dependent only on the object of knowledge. So if I show a

rose flower and your eyes are open and you are attentive, then you have to

know it as a rose. There is no role for your will. You cannot know or not

know or know differently when the subject , means of knowledge and the

object are properly aligned. You cannot know a rose flower as jasmine just

because you like jasmine and dont like rose. This is knowledge where there

is no role for your will once the Pramana-vyapara takes place. For your

reference you can read the introductory portion of shankara's chandogya

Upanishad bhasyam. Since knowledge is not an action the limitations of

actions don't apply to knowledge.

I can give hundreds of quotations from sankara's writings to show that atma

vidya is only a mental modification or vritti jnanam. But I will give

Pravesha Shruti here. In the Veda, Brahman is presented as having entered

into this manifold creation after becoming many. Now when sankara analyses

this 'entering' he looks at all the different meanings which he shows as

illogical and then concludes that 'entering' really means that the atman or

brahman is available for knowing in the intellect or buddhi. Because when we

say somebody has entered a room it really means he is available there.

Similarly brahman having entered the sristi is available in the jiva's

buddhi or intellect to be recognised. In fact wherever words like 'hrdi' or

'atmani' comes in the context of atma vidya he translates them as 'buddhou'

which itself clinches the matter I think.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar.

[Guest guest]

Dear friends

 

Tim Gerchmez <core1 wrote

" Atma VidyA is beyond the intellect... in fact, it does

not involve the intellect (mind) in the slightest way."

 

and

 

" I feel that it's contrary to the perspective of Advaita, period. "I am

not the mind" is necessary to be realized. Atma VidyA goes beyond the mind,

beyond thought, and is a realization of the essential nature of reality.Yet,

what it is really is something of a mystery to those who do not have Atma

VidyA, and it cannot be described accurately in words. It must be known

directly, and talking about it cannot explain it."

 

Jai : I want to know where the so called realization takes place if not in

the mind. The above paragraph only makes Vedanta into mysticism. I think

people who dont know the teaching sampradya only end up confusing people

because they dont have the methodology to teach this jnanam.

 

Tim Gerchmez <core1 wrote

" I agree, to say Atma VidyA involves the mind (intellect) in any

way is erroneous and untruthful. Not only Shankara teaches this, but all

other genuine teachers of Advaita as far as I know, including Ramakrishna

and Vivekananda. Even Buddha hints at it strongly, although Buddhism tends

to look at practical matters from an agnostic standpoint. For instance, Zen

Buddhism refers to "Buddha-Nature" (same as Atma VidyA) and acknowledges

that it is beyond the mind."

 

I dont know where shankara has said atma vidya does not involve mind in any

way. It will be enlightening if Tim can give some quotations. With regards

to 'Buddha-Nature' it is indeed beyond the mind but the ignorance wrt that

'Buddha-nature' is certainly only in the mind and it has to removed only by

the mental-vrtti born out of the words of the vedas and the guru.

 

I want add one more thing here for those who want to use the greeting 'Hari

Om'. According to sanskrit grammar 'Hari OM' is wrong and the correct from

is 'Harihi OM'.

 

Harihi OM,

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar.

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

I am grateful to shri jaishankar for his contribution to this thread.

Obviously, we have difference in understanding which will remain so

for the moment. There is not much else I can add to this thread

except respectfully agreeing to disagree and leave it at that.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

I find this thread very interesting and I think it has brought up a key

issue within the Advaita Vedantic tradition.

>From my reading of Sankara's Brahma Sutras as well as other materials on

Advaita, I have to agree with Gummuluru Murthy that Atma Vidya is not an

intellectual activity. As he suggested in his post, Atma Vidya orginates in

the Atman and permeates through the other sheaths of consciousness. At a

certain point, the intellect comes into contact with this knowledge, but the

knowledge itself does not reside in he intellect.

 

Jaishankar asks where does Atma Vidya take place. My answer would be that it

doesn't take place, but is always there, and in certain conditions reveals

itself to the mind. Depending on environmental conditions, the 'form' that

this realization takes will differ. Those with no formal preparation in this

lifetime may be led from this point to seek out instruction while others who

have had a degree of preparation in a certain tradition may see it through

the framework of its teachings.

 

I am intrigued however by Jaishankar's understanding of Atma Vidya as a

mental modification and would like to request reference to some of the

passages in the Brahma Sutras where he feels his interpretation is borne

out.

 

I also feel that one of the problems in discussing this complex issue is

concerns terminology. In particular, what do Gummuluru Murthy and

Jaishankar, respectively, accept as the English translation of buddhi and

manas. When you write "mind" and "intellect" which Sanskrit terms are you

referring to? I take 'buddhi' to be a seat of spiritual intuition or a

higher mind which is receptive to the Pure Consciousness or Atman. Perhaps

I'm mistaken. It's been awhile since I did any formal study! Jaishankar

appears to take buddhi as intellect and I am interested in knowing his

reasons for doing so.

 

In terms of religious history, many many people have experienced an

awakening and realization of non-dual reality. Particularly in the Mahayana

Buddhist tradition. The Indian authors and dedicated followers of the

Avatamsaka (Flower Ornament) Sutra, the Prajnaparamita (Perfection of

Wisdom) Sutras, the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra, and the Sri-mala Sutra all

testified to a realization of non-dual reality (advaita). During my graduate

studies, I read these in detail and it is clear beyond doubt that they refer

to a non-dual Reality. As did and do their subsequent followers in Tibet,

China, Korea, Japan, England, and North America. Realization of non-duality

as well as a formal training in a spiritual discipline on its basis is not

the exclusive property of the Vedic tradition. I'm not suggesting that

anyone believes otherwise, I just feel that that point needs to be made

unequivocally.

 

Bliss to you all

 

D. Hill

 

>"Jaishankar Narayanan" <jaishankar_n

>advaitin

>advaitin

>Re: Intellectual Knowledge

>Sat, 13 Nov 1999 18:14:03 IST

>

>Dear Friends,

>

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote

>

>

>" Atma vidyA permeates from the inside to the outside of the entity.

>Intellectual knowledge of the SELF goes through the mind to the

>intellect (from the outside to the inside or from less subtle to

>more subtle).

>Let me expand.

>Atma vidyA is always with us and is us. Except that it will not

>show up because it is obscured by the veil of ignorance and (as)

>the five koshAs [ from inward to the outward Anandamaya,

>vij~nAnamaya, manomaya, prANamaya, and annamaya ]. The light of

>the Atman gradually shines through as the five koshAs gradually

>thin out as ignorance is removed and they become transparent.

>

>On the other hand, intellectual knowledge of the SELF is what is

>picked up by the mind and accepted by the intellect.There is a distinct

>differenc between the two."

>

>Jai: I think you have confused the Suddha Jnanam or Pure Consciousness with

>vritti jnanam or Knowledge born of mental modification. What is needed in

>the case Self-knowledge is vritti jnanam because that alone is ajnana

>virodhi or destroyer of ignorance. Suddha jnanam or Consciousness by itself

>is not opposed to anything and in fact it reveals the ignorance also.

>Vritti jnanam is born out of a pramana vyapara or operation of a valid

>means

>of knowledge and in the case of self-knowledge the words of the Guru are

>the

>valid means of knowledge. Now the words of the mind are picked up by the

>mind and the resulting modification of mind or Vritti alone causes the

>destruction of ajnana or ignorance. SO Self-knowledge and all knowledge is

>only intellectual only.

>

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote

>"The knowledge 'I am brahman' (aham brahmAsmi), if it is in the intellect,

>it cannot be Atma vidyA. This knowledge 'I am Brahman' can be in the

>intellect; I am not denying it. My contention is: if it is in the

>intellect,

>it is not Atma vidyA. As I mentioned in my earlier post,if this knowledge

>is

>in the intellect (buddhi), intellect being a product of mAya, this

>knowledge

>is also in the realm of the lower knowledge. The entity, while

>intellectually knowing joys and sorrows and other pairs of opposites are

>not

>real, still suffers through these pairs of opposites.

>My understanding,(supported by various works including Science of the

>soul by swami Yogeshwarananda; shri Shankara's brahmasUtrAbhAShya,

>specific sUtrA number, I can dig it out; the concept of the mind in

>Indian philosophy by S. Chennakesavan; Spiritual Science by swami

>vishadananda) is that manas, which is itslef an antahkaraNavr^tti,

>(along with buddhi, ahamkAra, and cit) is itself ignorance. For Atma

>vidyA, should we not transcend antahkaraNa and hence, manas, buddhi

>and cit? You cannot grasp Atma vidyA by antahkaraNa !."

>

>Jai: If Atma Vidya does not take place in antahkaranam where does it take

>place? Does it take place in outer space! Further if you can give the exact

>sutra of Brahma sutra I can tell you whether your understanding is correct.

>I have not heard of the other people you have mentioned and I dont want to

>discuss what they have said. Ignorance and its products manas etc. being

>maya the Self-knowledge also is maya only. Because there was never anyone

>bound to be liberated. The solution is only as real as the problem.

>Regarding transcending manas etc. I think words like 'transcend' and

>'beyond' have really created lot of confusion and mystified Vedanta. The

>transcending and going beyond etc. are only in terms of knowledge. When you

>know you are not the mind you have transcended it. Its that simple. But the

>mental modification 'I am not the mind etc.' itself takes place only in the

>mind and negates the mind itself. In the tradition they give the analogy of

>alum used for purifying dirty water. The mental vritti born out of Guru's

>words is like the alum. It washes away and settles down all the dirt and

>also itself settles down so that we have pure water. Vedanta is purely

>cognitive and it is not mysticism. But unfortunately Modern vedantins have

>made it into some sort of mysticism and confused people in the process.

>

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote

>" But, I feel that saying Atma vidyA is an intellectual activity is

>contrary to the teachings of shri Shankara. Shri Shankara says this

>clearly in His debates with ManDana Mishra (as presented in Shankara

>digvijaya by MadhvacArya): Shri Shankara's argument that Atma vidya

>is not an intellectual activity is as follows: If it is an intellectual

>activity, and if it is the result of an action, then moksha will be an

>effect of action. Any action can be done, or not done, or done in a

>contrary

>fashion. The implication of making moksha an effect is to make it

>impermanent like swarga and all attainments generated by human activity.

>This is the very negation of Atma vidyA and moksha."

>

>I think you are confused between what is mental action and knowledge.

>Mental

>action like meditation or upasana are done willfully for a particular

>result. You can meditate or not meditate or meditate differently. Thats the

>argument with Mandana because Poorva mimamsakas believe that doing upasana

>and karma and going to heaven is Moksha.

>Knowledge is different. Although knowledge involves mental modification (

>similar to meditation) it does'nt involve the will because knowledge is

>vastu-tantram or dependent only on the object of knowledge. So if I show a

>rose flower and your eyes are open and you are attentive, then you have to

>know it as a rose. There is no role for your will. You cannot know or not

>know or know differently when the subject , means of knowledge and the

>object are properly aligned. You cannot know a rose flower as jasmine just

>because you like jasmine and dont like rose. This is knowledge where there

>is no role for your will once the Pramana-vyapara takes place. For your

>reference you can read the introductory portion of shankara's chandogya

>Upanishad bhasyam. Since knowledge is not an action the limitations of

>actions don't apply to knowledge.

>I can give hundreds of quotations from sankara's writings to show that atma

>vidya is only a mental modification or vritti jnanam. But I will give

>Pravesha Shruti here. In the Veda, Brahman is presented as having entered

>into this manifold creation after becoming many. Now when sankara analyses

>this 'entering' he looks at all the different meanings which he shows as

>illogical and then concludes that 'entering' really means that the atman or

>brahman is available for knowing in the intellect or buddhi. Because when

>we

>say somebody has entered a room it really means he is available there.

>Similarly brahman having entered the sristi is available in the jiva's

>buddhi or intellect to be recognised. In fact wherever words like 'hrdi' or

>'atmani' comes in the context of atma vidya he translates them as 'buddhou'

>which itself clinches the matter I think.

>

>with love and prayers,

>

>Jaishankar.

>

>------

>Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

>focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives

>are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ Contact Email

>Address: advaitins

>

><< text3.html >>

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Harshaji:

 

Thanks for your generous comments and for inviting

members from other lists to join advaitin. The list

moderators want to acknowledge how much we appreciate.

The list is quite fortunate to associate with members

like you,

 

regards,

 

 

=====

Team of Moderators

Advaitin List

Memebers can contact the moderators at the Email Address: advaitins

 

========================

[Guest guest]

I am wondering if the following message was posted in response to my post on

Nov 16 - D.Hill Re: Intellectual Knowledge. If it was, I would like to

remind the co-moderators and everyone else on the list that I have been a

subscribing member since early September.

 

On a related point, I would like to thank Harsha for his reply. However, I

would like to apologize for any impression that I am unfamiliar with the

terminology used in Vedanta. Rather I am fully aware of what is meany by

Atma Vidya and the difference between it and Atman.

 

My original post sought among other things a response to the question of

what the traditional and/or variant renderings of the term buddhi are in

English.

 

with love and joy

 

D. Hill

>advaitins moderators <advaitins

>advaitin

>Advaita Philosophy advaitin <advaitin >, Gummuluru Murthy

><gmurthy, "Madhava K. Turumella" <madhava

>Re: Intellectual Knowledge

>Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:38:37 -0800 (PST)

>

>Hari Om Harshaji:

>

>Thanks for your generous comments and for inviting

>members from other lists to join advaitin. The list

>moderators want to acknowledge how much we appreciate.

>The list is quite fortunate to associate with members

>like you,

>

>regards,

>

>

>=====

>Team of Moderators

>Advaitin List

>Memebers can contact the moderators at the Email Address:

>advaitins

>

>========================

>------

>Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

>focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives

>are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ Contact Email

>Address: advaitins

>

><< text3.html >>

[Guest guest]

Gummuluru Murthy

 

Thank you for your clarification of how you understand the terminology. It

helps me a lot. And please excuse my inability to check traditionals sources

on my own as all my books (Upanisads, Brahma-Sutra, etc) are in another

residence.

 

Earlier you wrote that you felt that the intellect had a minimal role in the

realization of identity with Brahman/Atman. Could you write briefly on what

role you do see the intellect as having in the process, and also mention

whether or not you regard your view as one generally accepted in Advaita

Vedanta?

 

with love and joy

 

D. Hill

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 17 Nov 1999, D Hill wrote:

> "D Hill" <bestisle

>

> I am wondering if the following message was posted in response to my post on

> Nov 16 - D.Hill Re: Intellectual Knowledge. If it was, I would like to

> remind the co-moderators and everyone else on the list that I have been a

> subscribing member since early September.

>

> On a related point, I would like to thank Harsha for his reply. However, I

> would like to apologize for any impression that I am unfamiliar with the

> terminology used in Vedanta. Rather I am fully aware of what is meany by

> Atma Vidya and the difference between it and Atman.

>

> My original post sought among other things a response to the question of

> what the traditional and/or variant renderings of the term buddhi are in

> English.

>

> with love and joy

>

> D. Hill

>

 

namaste.

 

I am guilty of not responding to the earlier post by shri D. Hill

right away. It is a lapse on my part.

 

My understanding is as follows: The internal sense organ (called

antahkaraNa in sanskrit) has to be behind the external sense organs

for any (external) knowledge to be received. This antahkaraNa is in

four parts. They are manas (mind), buddhi (intellect), ahamkAra (ego),

and cit (mind-stuff). This is gradationally from less subtle to more

subtle. The word cit is the difficult one to translate here. Swami

Yogeshwaranandaji in his book Science of the Soul translates cit as

mind-stuff, although noting the awkward nature of the translation.

My repeated requests to various swamijis for info on the exact

english equivalent word for cit resulted in their suggestion to use

the word cit itself. All these are antahkaraNavr^ttis (or modifications

of the internal sense organ). If the antahkaraNa is in equilibrium,

there will no modifications (or perturbations) and the four parts

of antahkaraNa will not be there, and we are in an equanimous state.

 

I touched on some of these aspects in some random "thoughts on the

mind" thread in early May on this List.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 17 Nov 1999, D Hill wrote:

> "D Hill" <bestisle

>

> Gummuluru Murthy

>

> Thank you for your clarification of how you understand the terminology. It

> helps me a lot. And please excuse my inability to check traditionals sources

> on my own as all my books (Upanisads, Brahma-Sutra, etc) are in another

> residence.

>

> Earlier you wrote that you felt that the intellect had a minimal role in the

> realization of identity with Brahman/Atman. Could you write briefly on what

> role you do see the intellect as having in the process, and also mention

> whether or not you regard your view as one generally accepted in Advaita

> Vedanta?

>

> with love and joy

>

> D. Hill

>

 

namaste.

 

Again, the following is my understanding: Intellect is that part of

antahkaraNa which discriminates between what is real and what is

unreal; i.e., intellect is where viveka resides.

 

The realization of identity with Brahman/Atman is not that which can

be gained by human effort. kaTha upanishad 1.2.23 says

 

nAyam AtmA pravacanena labhyo na medhayA, na bahunA shrutena

yamevaiSha vr^Nute, tena labhyas tasyaiSha AtmA vivr^Nute tanUm svAm

 

This SELF cannot be attained by instruction, nor by intellectual power,

nor even through much hearing. He is to be attained only by the one whom

the (SELF) chooses. To such a one the SELF reveals his own nature.

 

i.e., this knowledge of identity with Atman/Brahman dawns or arises from

within in such jeevAs where the SELF wishes to identify Itself with

Itself.

 

The primary qualification of the jeeva in recognizing this identity is

citta shuddhi (purity of the heart). I use the word heart here in an

all-encompassing way and it means the inner purity of the jeeva.

As jeeva's actions are guided by the intellect, the intellect has

to do the following for the jeeva to achieve citta-shuddhi.

 

1. use the viveka appropriately

2. throw the negative thoughts out and let the pure thoughts come in.

manas is a highway for the flow of thoughts. Only if the thoughts

make repeat visits, they can get foothold and take root in a jeeva.

The intellect has to use its viveka so that the negative thoughts

based on ariShaDvarga [kAma (desire), krodha (anger), lobha (miserli-

ness), moha (passion, delusion), mada (pride), mAtsarya (jealousy)]

do not take root. Thus, gradually, manas, buddhi, and citta are

purified. And the ego concept that I am the doer and I am the

enjoyer of fruits of action, also weakens, and that particular

jeeva looses its individuality [ahaMbhAvodayAbhAvo bodhasya

paramAvadhiH : the end of the rise of the sense of I of the ego

is the culmination of Knowledge; VivekachUDAmaNi].

 

Such a jeeva's antahkaraNa is a fertile ground for Atmavidya. At

this stage, with citta shuddhi, and with divine grace (even achieving

citta-shuddhi is itself by divine grace), the light of Atman shines

through from the inside, with no impurity of the jeeva to mask this

light. That jeeva is a jeevanmukta.

 

Thus, I see the intellect's role only for the purification of the

citta. The intellect cannot command AtmavidyA.

 

Finally, in answer to your question whether my thinking is consistent

with advaita vedanta, I would like to think so, yes. I think it is

consistent with what shri Shankara says in His various bhAShyAs.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

----

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 13 Nov 1999, Jaishankar Narayanan wrote:

> "Jaishankar Narayanan" <jaishankar_n

>

> Dear Friends,

>

> Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote

>

>

> " Atma vidyA permeates from the inside to the outside of the entity.

> Intellectual knowledge of the SELF goes through the mind to the

> intellect (from the outside to the inside or from less subtle to

> more subtle).

> Let me expand.

> Atma vidyA is always with us and is us. Except that it will not

> show up because it is obscured by the veil of ignorance and (as)

> the five koshAs [ from inward to the outward Anandamaya,

> vij~nAnamaya, manomaya, prANamaya, and annamaya ]. The light of

> the Atman gradually shines through as the five koshAs gradually

> thin out as ignorance is removed and they become transparent.

>

> On the other hand, intellectual knowledge of the SELF is what is

> picked up by the mind and accepted by the intellect.There is a distinct

> differenc between the two."

>

> Jai: I think you have confused the Suddha Jnanam or Pure Consciousness with

> vritti jnanam or Knowledge born of mental modification. What is needed in

> the case Self-knowledge is vritti jnanam because that alone is ajnana

> virodhi or destroyer of ignorance. Suddha jnanam or Consciousness by itself

> is not opposed to anything and in fact it reveals the ignorance also.

> Vritti jnanam is born out of a pramana vyapara or operation of a valid means

> of knowledge and in the case of self-knowledge the words of the Guru are the

> valid means of knowledge. Now the words of the mind are picked up by the

> mind and the resulting modification of mind or Vritti alone causes the

> destruction of ajnana or ignorance. SO Self-knowledge and all knowledge is

> only intellectual only.

>

 

namaste.

 

In the past two days, I was trying to understand and reflect on shri

jaishankar's post referred here, in response to my earlier post on the

topic. While his usage of words is curt and harsh, his answer is

fascinating (I must say I cannot agree with it but) I am trying to

understand it with my limited knowledge.

 

I wonder if shri jaishankar can expand on his above paragraph about

shuddha j~nAnam and vr^ttij~nAnam.

 

He says that SELF-knowledge is modification of the mind as

antahkaraNavr^tti. I say antahkaraNavr^tti is the root cause for

aj~nAna.

 

His last sentence says says that SELF-knowledge is intellectual.

Does it mean, then, that a person with high intellectual calibre

(like Einstein, for e.g., there may be other example also) will

have attained Atmaj~nAna easier than a person with a pure heart?

In my distinguishing intellectual Atmaj~nAna with real AtmavidyA

(my apologies to shri jaishankar, but I have to use the adjective

'intellectual' a few times to distinguish it from what I consider

real Atma vidyA), I alluded to the following case:

A person with only intellectual knowledge of atmavidya will suffer

through joys and sorrows, in spite of knowing them (intellectually)

to be unreal.

whereas a person of real Atma vidyA does not suffer these joys and

sorrows.

I wonder if shri jaishankar's person of self-knowledge (gained by

intellect through manovr^tti) would or would not suffer these pairs

of opposites.

> Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote

> "The knowledge 'I am brahman' (aham brahmAsmi), if it is in the intellect,

> it cannot be Atma vidyA. This knowledge 'I am Brahman' can be in the

> intellect; I am not denying it. My contention is: if it is in the intellect,

> it is not Atma vidyA. As I mentioned in my earlier post,if this knowledge is

> in the intellect (buddhi), intellect being a product of mAya, this knowledge

> is also in the realm of the lower knowledge. The entity, while

> intellectually knowing joys and sorrows and other pairs of opposites are not

> real, still suffers through these pairs of opposites.

> My understanding,(supported by various works including Science of the

> soul by swami Yogeshwarananda; shri Shankara's brahmasUtrAbhAShya,

> specific sUtrA number, I can dig it out; the concept of the mind in

> Indian philosophy by S. Chennakesavan; Spiritual Science by swami

> vishadananda) is that manas, which is itslef an antahkaraNavr^tti,

> (along with buddhi, ahamkAra, and cit) is itself ignorance. For Atma

> vidyA, should we not transcend antahkaraNa and hence, manas, buddhi

> and cit? You cannot grasp Atma vidyA by antahkaraNa !."

>

> Jai: If Atma Vidya does not take place in antahkaranam where does it take

> place? Does it take place in outer space!

 

As shri D. Hill pointed out later on, Atma vidyaA does not take place

anywhere. As shri jaishankar very well knows, Atma vidyA is not something

that is taking place or added on or created newly. It is always there.

> Further if you can give the exact

> sutra of Brahma sutra I can tell you whether your understanding is correct.

> I have not heard of the other people you have mentioned and I dont want to

> discuss what they have said. Ignorance and its products manas etc. being

> maya the Self-knowledge also is maya only. Because there was never anyone

> bound to be liberated. The solution is only as real as the problem.

 

I agree. There was never anyone bound to be liberated. But in vyavahArika,

there is someone bound and that bound one feels that he/she is to be

liberated. When you say the solution is as real as the problem, then are

you saying there is an intellectual hugging of the Atman ? The problem

(of being bound and needing to be liberated) is real in vyavahArika, and

if the solution is also real and obtainable in vyavahArika itself (as

you seem to imply with an intellectual solution itself), then Atman and

intellect can and should co-exist in the same plane. But, intellect being

a superimposition on Atman;, when Atman is known, intellect can no longer

be there. I would be most grateful if you can expand on your understanding

of what I think is an anomaly that results from your explanation.

> Regarding transcending manas etc. I think words like 'transcend' and

> 'beyond' have really created lot of confusion and mystified Vedanta. The

> transcending and going beyond etc. are only in terms of knowledge. When you

> know you are not the mind you have transcended it. Its that simple.

 

I would be very happy if it is that simple. Even if something from inside

says that I am not this body-mind-intellect complex, still the association

of joys and sorrows, still the jagadIshajeevabhedam, still the sutadAra-

gehamoham, ahaMkAravyAghravyathitam will all be there unless the real

AtmavidyA takes over. AtmavidyA, gained by the manovr^tti and intellect,

from my understanding, does not prevent these mAyA-generated delusions.

> But the

> mental modification 'I am not the mind etc.' itself takes place only in the

> mind and negates the mind itself. In the tradition they give the analogy of

> alum used for purifying dirty water. The mental vritti born out of Guru's

> words is like the alum. It washes away and settles down all the dirt and

> also itself settles down so that we have pure water. Vedanta is purely

> cognitive and it is not mysticism. But unfortunately Modern vedantins have

> made it into some sort of mysticism and confused people in the process.

>

 

Yes, the alum example is a good one. When you say Vedanta is purely

cognitive, are you putting AtmavidyA in the same category as other

apara vidyAs? I am referring here to the MuNDaka upanishad classification

of knowledge.

> Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote

> " But, I feel that saying Atma vidyA is an intellectual activity is

> contrary to the teachings of shri Shankara. Shri Shankara says this

> clearly in His debates with ManDana Mishra (as presented in Shankara

> digvijaya by MadhvacArya): Shri Shankara's argument that Atma vidya

> is not an intellectual activity is as follows: If it is an intellectual

> activity, and if it is the result of an action, then moksha will be an

> effect of action. Any action can be done, or not done, or done in a contrary

> fashion. The implication of making moksha an effect is to make it

> impermanent like swarga and all attainments generated by human activity.

> This is the very negation of Atma vidyA and moksha."

>

> I think you are confused between what is mental action and knowledge. Mental

> action like meditation or upasana are done willfully for a particular

> result. You can meditate or not meditate or meditate differently. Thats the

> argument with Mandana because Poorva mimamsakas believe that doing upasana

> and karma and going to heaven is Moksha.

> Knowledge is different. Although knowledge involves mental modification (

> similar to meditation) it does'nt involve the will because knowledge is

> vastu-tantram or dependent only on the object of knowledge. So if I show a

> rose flower and your eyes are open and you are attentive, then you have to

> know it as a rose. There is no role for your will. You cannot know or not

> know or know differently when the subject , means of knowledge and the

> object are properly aligned. You cannot know a rose flower as jasmine just

> because you like jasmine and dont like rose. This is knowledge where there

> is no role for your will once the Pramana-vyapara takes place. For your

> reference you can read the introductory portion of shankara's chandogya

> Upanishad bhasyam. Since knowledge is not an action the limitations of

> actions don't apply to knowledge.

 

I will certainly re-read the Chandogya bhAShyam. I wonder if you can

expand on the above on the topic of knowledge. I recall seeing in one of

your other posts that you are intending to write on that topic.

> I can give hundreds of quotations from sankara's writings to show that atma

> vidya is only a mental modification or vritti jnanam.

 

Please do. I would like to make sure that my understanding is correct.

> But I will give

> Pravesha Shruti here. In the Veda, Brahman is presented as having entered

> into this manifold creation after becoming many. Now when sankara analyses

> this 'entering' he looks at all the different meanings which he shows as

> illogical and then concludes that 'entering' really means that the atman or

> brahman is available for knowing in the intellect or buddhi. Because when we

> say somebody has entered a room it really means he is available there.

> Similarly brahman having entered the sristi is available in the jiva's

> buddhi or intellect to be recognised. In fact wherever words like 'hrdi' or

> 'atmani' comes in the context of atma vidya he translates them as 'buddhou'

> which itself clinches the matter I think.

>

 

Again, I would request an example of shri Shankara's statement here.

> with love and prayers,

>

> Jaishankar.

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

-----

[Guest guest]

Perfect. Thank you, Gummuluru Murthy. This is exactly what I remember. Thank

you for putting it so beautifully and for choosing the exact passage I was

looking for.

 

 

"The realization of identity with Brahman/Atman is not that which can be

gained by human effort. kaTha upanishad 1.2.23 says

 

'nAyam AtmA pravacanena labhyo na medhayA, na bahunA shrutena

yamevaiSha vr^Nute, tena labhyas tasyaiSha AtmA vivr^Nute tanUm svAm

 

This SELF cannot be attained by instruction, nor by intellectual power, nor

even through much hearing. He is to be attained only by the one whom the

(SELF) chooses. To such a one the SELF reveals his own nature.'

 

i.e., this knowledge of identity with Atman/Brahman dawns or arises from

within in such jeevAs where the SELF wishes to identify Itself with Itself."

 

 

The emphasis here on reliance on the Self for realizing one's true nature is

important. It reveals, I believe, that Self-realization is not something

attained by intellectual effort. Realization is dependent rather on the

Self. This is also very significant with regard to who is capable of

realizing their true nature. Since Brahman/Atman resides in or is All,

everyone is open potentially to liberation (moksha).

 

But what is needed to prepare the way so to speak is very eloquently

summarized by Gummuluru Murthy. Again thank you for your words and effort. I

agree completely when you say:

 

 

"The primary qualification of the jeeva in recognizing this identity is

citta shuddhi (purity of the heart). I use the word heart here in an

all-encompassing way and it means the inner purity of the jeeva.

As jeeva's actions are guided by the intellect, the intellect has

to do the following for the jeeva to achieve citta-shuddhi.

 

1. use the viveka appropriately

2. throw the negative thoughts out and let the pure thoughts come in.

manas is a highway for the flow of thoughts. Only if the thoughts

make repeat visits, they can get foothold and take root in a jeeva.

The intellect has to use its viveka so that the negative thoughts based on

ariShaDvarga [kAma (desire), krodha (anger), lobha (miserli-ness), moha

(passion, delusion), mada (pride), mAtsarya (jealousy)] do not take root.

Thus, gradually, manas, buddhi, and citta are purified. And the ego concept

that I am the doer and I am the enjoyer of fruits of action, also weakens,

and that particular

jeeva looses its individuality [ahaMbhAvodayAbhAvo bodhasya

paramAvadhiH : the end of the rise of the sense of I of the ego

is the culmination of Knowledge; VivekachUDAmaNi]."

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

 

 

In line with the true spirit of Vedanta, (citta shuddi) purity of the heart

is where much of our energy should focus in making of ourselves a tranquil

ground where the Self may shine forth. This can not be emphasized enough as

all the great sages, whose words and vision lead us, have time and time

again stressed that a pure heart is the most essential characteristic for

those who will know.

 

Thanks again, Gummuluru

 

May we all be pure in heart

 

D. Hill

[Guest guest]

Namaste to all, as I seek to better understand the ideas

expressed in this fascinating thread.

 

Jaishankar wrote:

>> . . . I think you have confused the Suddha Jnanam or Pure Consciousness with

>> vritti jnanam or Knowledge born of mental modification. What is needed in

>> the case Self-knowledge is vritti jnanam because that alone is ajnana

>> virodhi or destroyer of ignorance. Suddha jnanam or Consciousness by itself

>> is not opposed to anything and in fact it reveals the ignorance also.

>> Vritti jnanam is born out of a pramana vyapara or operation of a valid means

>> of knowledge and in the case of self-knowledge the words of the Guru are the

>> valid means of knowledge. Now the words of the mind are picked up by the

>> mind and the resulting modification of mind or Vritti alone causes the

>> destruction of ajnana or ignorance. SO Self-knowledge and all knowledge is

>> only intellectual only.

 

Is the distinction here sort of one between "self knowledge"

(vritti jnanam) vs. "self realization" (Suddha Jnanam)? Or

would it be incorrect to equate Pure Consciousness (Suddha Jnanam)

with "Self realization"?

 

If we distinguish Suddha Jnanam from vritti jnanam, are we

implying that there is nothing 'known' in Suddha Jnanam,

because 'knowing' requires modifications?

 

Jaishankar:

>> I can give hundreds of quotations from sankara's writings to show that atma

>> vidya is only a mental modification or vritti jnanam.

 

I would like to know some of these quotes. I may be in substantial

agreement with this view, but I normally think in Western terms

and I'm not sure if I yet understand, correctly, Shankara's view.

 

Jaishankar continues:

>> But I will give

>> Pravesha Shruti here. In the Veda, Brahman is presented as having entered

>> into this manifold creation after becoming many. Now when sankara analyses

>> this 'entering' he looks at all the different meanings which he shows as

>> illogical and then concludes that 'entering' really means that the atman or

>> brahman is available for knowing in the intellect or buddhi. Because when we

>> say somebody has entered a room it really means he is available there.

>> Similarly brahman having entered the sristi is available in the jiva's

>> buddhi or intellect to be recognised. In fact wherever words like 'hrdi' or

>> 'atmani' comes in the context of atma vidya he translates them as 'buddhou'

>> which itself clinches the matter I think.

 

Is the basic idea here that in order for one to attain knowledge

of Self or Brahman, one's mind, the knowing instrument, must be

engaged, and therefore atma vidya is not the transcendence of

vritti jnanam, but rather the union of vritti janam with Self

or Brahman, a union which destroys advidya without destroying

the knowing itself, the vritti jnanam?

 

Namaste,

-- Max

 

---------------------------

DAILY NEWS @ http://www.PhilosophyNews.com

FREE EMAIL @ http://www.Philosophers.net