Guest guest Posted December 1, 1999 Report Share Posted December 1, 1999 Namaste, Jaishankar Narayanan. Thank you for the very fine explanation of what is, for this Westerner at least, a rather difficult topic. (Do you teach this to your children?) And I wholeheartedly share in the following obervation: >Some people are talking about removal of thoughts etc. When I know 'I am not >the thinker' what is the point in removing thoughts. The thoughts come and >go and they are not me. The thoughts are only ripples in the ocean of >consciousness and they are not a seperate reality. So why struggle with >removing thoughts. All thoughts come from me, are sustained by me and die in >me. Thats it. Understand this and happily keep 'thinking'. I want to repeat >that the solution for wrong thinking is right thinking and not non thinking. Namaste, -- Max --------------------------- DAILY NEWS @ http://www.PhilosophyNews.com FREE EMAIL @ http://www.Philosophers.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 1999 Report Share Posted December 1, 1999 Jaishankar Narayanan wrote: > > Some people are talking about removal of thoughts etc. When I know 'I am not > the thinker' what is the point in removing thoughts. The thoughts come and > go and they are not me. The thoughts are only ripples in the ocean of > consciousness and they are not a seperate reality. So why struggle with > removing thoughts. All thoughts come from me, are sustained by me and die in > me. Thats it. Understand this and happily keep 'thinking'. good point. > ... I want to repeat > that the solution for wrong thinking is right thinking and not non thinking. yes, right thinking is vital in the course of one's sadhana. however, the state in moksha isn't dependent on satvic vrittis (viz. right thoughts), either. one must become dispassionate to *all* thinking, since even right thinking is a product in/of Relativity, and can never hope to embrace the Absolute. also, in the advent of experiencing tamo-rajasic vrittis (lower gross or 'negative thoughts') which, i believe, are impossible to entirely avoid, one's awareness remains centered in the jivatman by virtue of being the perennial witness and not the victim attached to *any* thoughts. (as you mentioned, the thoughts are not in/of the nature of oneself to begin with.) this, in effect, is the way of 'choiceless awareness.' OM shaanthiprem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 1999 Report Share Posted December 1, 1999 Dear Friends, It seems that the word 'Illusion' as a translation of 'Maya' is creating some confusion. I don't know how westerners understand the word 'illusion'. But now let us now consider an optical illusion like rope-snake. This is a very traditional analogy used to explain the nature of 'Superimposition' or Adhyaasa. Now when a person sees a snake on a rope traditionally we say there are two types of superimpositions there. One is the 'appearance of snake on rope' and the other is the 'knowledge of rope as snake'. This is technically called Artha-adhyaasa ( appearance of one thing on another) and jnana-adhyaasa ( knowledge of one thing as other). In a case like rope-snake the removal of jnana-adhyaasa (Knowledge Superimposition) results in the removal of Artha-adhyaasa ( Object superimposition) also. But in some other cases like Mirage water the removal of jnana-adhyaasa does not remove the Artha-adhyaasa. i.e. even after we know that it is mirage and not real water still we can see the mirage water. When we talk of removal of the superimposition in the context of Self-knowledge we are only talking about removal of knowledge superimposition (Jnana Adhyaasa) and not Artha-adyaasa (Object superimposition). i.e. Knowing that the individuality itself, is not real, still the individual(Brahman) conducts one's day to day life. Because if we say that after jnanam, the Artha-adhyaasa ( Object superimposition) also will vanish then the body also has to vanish and the individual will be there no more physically. Then Jivanmukthi (liberation while living in the body) also will not be possible. So that is not the case. So Atmajnana only removes the jnana-adhyaasa ( That the world and one's individuality is real) without removing the cognition of the world. That is why we say Advaita is not in the absence of dvaita but inspite of the perception of dvaita. Now an illusion also can be called Maya or mithya because, we cannot say it is totally nonexistent, because we perceive it, but it is not totally real also because it is negated by a later perception or cognition. So illusions are also not categorisable as either real or unreal and so they can be called Maya or Mithya. What one should remember when reading vedanta is that it is talking about 'me' or 'I'. The world is talked about because I have a problem in encountering the world. So the shastra points out 'hey, it is not as real as you think it is. The world cannot do anything to you. It cannot harm you in anyway because it is Mithya and you are Satyam.' How can the dream sword kill a waking person? It is like that. Maya or Mithya is an Ontological term i.e. it is a term which gives us an idea of the reality of any substance. Satyam or truth also is an Ontological term. Thats why chandogya Upanishad says 'Sat Eva Satyam'. - 'Existence (not conditioned by time) alone is real'. Normally we think things like Pot is existent. Thats why we say existent Pot or non-existence Pot. This is the quirk of the language. Actually it should be Potty existence and Platy existence etc. Why ? Because if we try to find where is the pot there is no pot? If I touch the pot I touch clay. If I weigh pot it is the weight of Clay. I can't say either the pot is on the clay or the pot is in the clay. If it in on the pot I should be able to lift it away from clay. If it is in the Clay then in my understanding of what is clay there should be 'potness'. But thats not the case. In my understanding of clay there is no place for a Pot. i understand clay as clay. So where is the Pot? It is there to see. But if I enquire it is gone? Right in front of your eyes the pot is gone and there is only clay. This is Rishi Magic.Infact there can be hundreds of pots but only one clay. Similarly we can also say that the clay is not real and only atoms are real etc. and one will have to arrive at the conclusion that the observering consciouness, which is me, is alone real. Some people are talking about removal of thoughts etc. When I know 'I am not the thinker' what is the point in removing thoughts. The thoughts come and go and they are not me. The thoughts are only ripples in the ocean of consciousness and they are not a seperate reality. So why struggle with removing thoughts. All thoughts come from me, are sustained by me and die in me. Thats it. Understand this and happily keep 'thinking'. I want to repeat that the solution for wrong thinking is right thinking and not non thinking. with love and prayers, Jai. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 1999 Report Share Posted December 1, 1999 HariH Aum Jaishankarji: Your observation - "When I know 'I am not the thinker'what is the point in removing thoughts .... " is quite thorouh and very appealing. You have beautifully summarized the essence of the Vedantic Philosophy of Life in a nutshell. Your focus is more on detachment(Vedanta) rather than on emptiness (Buddhism)! Your observation also explains the distinction between Vedanta and Buddhism with respect to "Desires." Thoughts and desires are just mirror images! The Vedantist detaches himself/herself from the desires and undisturbed from its effects! Removing all desires is a futile attempt but with efforts, we can free ourself from the effects of desires! There is no such thing as "no desire" because no desire becomes the ultimate desire! Vedanta focuses on the positive side of life and applies a positive approach. I agree with the spirit of your statement, "The solution for wrong thinking is right thinking and not non thinking" but I want to be more cautious. Ultimately, should we not be thinking about 'right' and 'wrong' and be separated from all thoughts? regards, Ram Chandran >"Jaishankar Narayanan" <jaishankar_n > >Dear Friends, >.... > >Some people are talking about removal of thoughts etc. When I know 'I am not >the thinker' what is the point in removing thoughts. The thoughts come and >go and they are not me. The thoughts are only ripples in the ocean of >consciousness and they are not a seperate reality. So why struggle with >removing thoughts. All thoughts come from me, are sustained by me and die in >me. Thats it. Understand this and happily keep 'thinking'. I want to repeat >that the solution for wrong thinking is right thinking and not non thinking. > >with love and prayers, > >Jai. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 1999 Report Share Posted December 1, 1999 Namaskar I like your last sentence. :-) > > Jaishankar Narayanan [sMTP:jaishankar_n] > Thursday, December 02, 1999 2:46 AM > advaitin > Maya or Mithya > > "Jaishankar Narayanan" <jaishankar_n > > I want to repeat > that the solution for wrong thinking is right thinking and not non > thinking. > > with love and prayers, > > Jai. > > > 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 > 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.