Logic of Spirituality a la Dr.Sadananda

[Guest guest]

I had the great pleasure of listening to Dr.

Sadananda on this topic. I could not resist the

temptation of sharing my enjoyment with the

members of the advaitin list. Below is given the

gist of his speech as understood by me. Right now

he is already all set on his return trip to the

U.S. and will be there in a few days. As soon as

he is able to see this, I hope he will make the

necessary corrections or modifications, if any.

 

Logic of Spirituality

(Shri R. Visvanatha Sastri Memorial Lecture by

Dr. Sadananda

at the Kuppuswami Sastri Research Institute,

Mylapore, Chennai

on 24th February, 2000)

 

(As per the understanding of profvk)

 

The first thing that strikes me as I start

thinking, is my own existence. I exist. There is

no denial of the fact: I am. Not because of my

choice, certainly. I am, and I see this world.

Why do I exist? I don't know. Science does not

know either. Science has an answer to 'How I

came to exist', but it does not have an answer to

the question: Why? The same thing with this

infinite universe that we see before us, of which

we are a part. Science keeps on giving answers

and keeps on improving its answers to the

question: How did the universe come to exist? But

Why did it come to exist? -- is a difficult

question for Science. The Big Bang occurred and

we are all here now after several millions of

years. But why did the Big Bang have to occur?

Let me look at myself now. I am not just matter.

I am living. I am full of Life. I am something

more than Matter -- far more than Matter. I am

told that the very fact I exist is an expression

of Life, -- whatever that means. I am told I have

evolved from less evolved beings. I am told that

the universe itself has evolved from more

fundamental forms of matter and energy. Every

stage of evolution presupposes something at an

earlier stage from which other things evolved.

What was that something at the very beginning of

evolution? Where did it come from? Was it an

accidental existence, that Something? What were

the rules of that accident? The very fact that

something called Big Bang occurred presupposes

some conditions for the 'accident'. What were

they? Going along this way, we come to a

deadlock because Science does not provide the

answer. In fact Science refuses to ask the

question: What caused the Big Bang?

Scriptures say there was Creation before the

chain of Evolution started. Creation itself is

not out of Nothing. For there is the categorical

declaration to this effect in the scriptures. A

representative declaration is in the very

beginning of the Lord's teaching in the gItA:

nAsato vidyate bhAvo nAbhAvo vidyate satah /,

meaning,

Whatever 'is not', does not exist at any point of

time (irrespective of its appearance for a

limited period of time); whatever really 'is',

does not cease to exist at any point of time.

Thus the so-called Creation is only a

transformation of something that was really

latent in the Existence already.

Now let us look at this 'created' universe. It

has three characteristics: it is well-behaved (in

the sense that we can reasonably predict its

behavior); it is an ordered system (scientific

observation tells us so); and, it is regulated

(in the sense there is an inherent discipline in

the system, rather than chaos). Nobody can deny

these characteristics. Nor can anybody deny that

whatever and whoever created this ordered system,

must contain the full knowledge of it as its

Creator. But where is this Creator? He cannot be

outside the creation because in that case He

cannot be Infinite; He cannot be inside the

creation because in that case He cannot know all

of it. This only means that the Creator and the

Created Universe are the same.

Rightly therefore does the most ancient Upanishad

begin with the invocation:

pUrNam adaH pUrNam idam pUrNAt-pUrNam-udacyate /

pUrNasya pUrNam-AdAya pUrNam-evA-vaSishyate //

Here there are two things which are declared to

be 'complete' , 'full' or 'infinite'. One is

called 'this' (idaM) and the other is called

'that' (adaH). And to clarify the meaning for

us, the Upanishad then begins with the universal

declaration:

ISAvAsyam-idam sarvam …

Meaning, 'this' (idam) all is pervaded by 'that'

the Lord. What is there in 'that' which is not

included in 'this'? When we point out 'this' it

means the universe which includes ourselves. But

whoever is the pointer is not included in the

pointed. Therefore 'idam sarvaM' excludes the

pointer. But the pointer is right here. Then why

call it 'that'? It is actually myself who is the

pointer. It is called 'that' as if it were a

remote being because, the remoteness is in the

understanding. Though I am the pointer, I do not

still know who I am. It is this remoteness in

understanding that generates the word 'that'.

Scripture is telling me: I am Infinite. But it

is also saying: 'this' excludes 'that' and 'that'

excludes 'this'. In that case how can either be a

pUrNa? The Upanishad says: From 'that complete

infinite one' , 'this complete infinite one'

emerges. This is the mystery and enigma of

Creation. Any creation involves two kAraNas

(causes). The Creator has to have the full

knowledge of what to create and also must have

the full material (ingredient) of creation. So

He is both the material cause and the intelligent

cause of the Universe.

But still there is the enigma of the 'conscious'

versus 'unconscious'. This material universe

which includes my body is an unconscious entity.

But I, the 'pointer' of 'this' universe, am a

conscious entity. Then, are there two things?

Can the unconscious come from the conscious? How

can the unconscious be a transformation of the

conscious? The Chandogya Upanishad declares:

Only the 'sat', that is, Existence, alone

remained originally. It observed. It wanted to

become the many. And it became. It was conscious

of itself. Therefore the Existence is also

Knowledge and because of its 'pUrNatva' it is

also Happiness. So it is the sat, chit and

Ananda. However, this does not satisfy our

question, how can the Conscious transform as the

unconscious?

The Mandukya-upanishad now comes to our rescue.

It says: Don't stop with your waking experience.

See all kinds of experience. The dream experience

is very valuable for the understanding of the

waking experience. For me to dream I have to have

a knowledge of the dream. In fact I am all

knowing (sarva-jna) as far as my dream is

concerned. All my dream creatures come from my

mind. Therefore I am both the intelligent cause

as well as the material cause of my dream. In

the same way, the scriptures say: The Conscious

entity, which is 'that', is the intelligent and

material cause of all the universe of which we

have what is called the 'waking' experience. In

the dream I see a house burning, people calling

for help and I myself go for help. The house is

created by me in my dream, the people who are

conscious entities, are also my dream crea6tions,

and the very self of me is also created in my

dream; and all these dream creations merge back

into my own mind from where they emerged. So

also, say the scriptures, the unconscious

universe that we see before us in our 'waking'

experience, is a creation of our mind.

Look at the three different experiencers: the

waker, the dreamer, and the deep sleeper. What

is unaffected by the three states ? What remains

as the unchanging (anAbhAdhita) factor in the

three?

I am the waker, I am the dreamer and I am the

deep sleeper.

So 'I am' is the unchanging factor in the three.

It is this unchanging factor that is the Reality.

 

But again, the question still remains: How did

the material universe ever come into the picture?

The unchanging factor is the Conscious Entity

which is Infinite and all-knowing. OK. But where

came the unconscious? We cannot deny its

presence. We see it before us. But hold! This

question is being asked by the intellect. It is a

question at the intellectual level. The answer,

say the scriptures, is beyond the intellectual

level. Here Ramana's upadeSa sAraM comes to our

help.

dRSya-vAritaM cittam-AtmanaH / cittva-darSanaM

tattva-darSanaM //

meaning, The mind, turned away from objectivity,

recognizes its own conscious nature. This is the

Vision of Ultimate Reality. So what we have to do

is to remove from the mind everything that it

'sees'! What remains is 'I'.

There are two ways of looking at the concept of

creation. The objects of the universe -- Do they

exist, because I see them? Or do I see them and

therefore they exist? The first mode is called

dRSTi-sRSTi (Creation via Cognition) and the

second mode is called sRSTi-dRSTi (Cognition of

Creation). In the case of the rope-snake

analogy, I see the snake, therefore it exists.

This belongs to the first mode. Whereas, I see

the rope, because it is there. In either case,

what really is active is 'I', the conscious

entity. What depends for its existence on some

other consciousness, is not the conscious entity.

The snake that we see because of our own

cognition, is a subjective creation of the mind

and so has no status of Absolute Reality. On the

other hand the rope that we see because it is

there, raises the question: Does the rope have an

absolute existence without me? Let us now dissect

the existence of the rope. Is the rope real?.

Dissect it fiber by fiber. Now there is only the

fiber, but no rope. Dissect it further; now there

are only molecules, atoms and sub-atomic

particles - no rope, no fiber. It is here that

modern Physics intervenes and says: The Conscious

entity is always interfering with your

observation!

To understand this Conscious entity we have to

take the view point of the scriptures. There is

an Eternal (nitya) Reality - which has Existence

all the time. There is an asatya (that is, asat,

the Unreal) which never existed any time (like

the son of a barren woman); and then there is the

third reality called satya, which is actually the

phenomenal reality of the universe -- which

appears as if it exists, but does not exist in

the absolute sense. It is called mithyA by the

advaitic literature. For its existence it needs

a substratum, a basis, an AdhAra. This substratum

is the Conscious entity. It is in this sense that

the Conscious appears as the Unconscious.

Sage Ramana therefore says: Remove the objects

from the thought. That is, remove the name and

form that occupy the mind. When all names and

forms have been removed, the essential entities

that sustain these thoughts get removed. What

remains is only Consciousness -- just as, in a

dark room, we don't see anything, but the

awareness of the non-seeing of any object is

certainly there. It is the chain of thoughts that

appear as objects in my awareness. Unwind this

chain and all objects will vanish. But what will

not be unwound is myself. Mind cannot recognize

anything without attributes. When all attributes

have been negated, there is no recognition or

thought of anything external. There remains only

Consciousness. Consciousness is not an attribute;

it is a lakshaNa of the Ultimate Reality. Just

as, H2O is not a quality or attribute of water,

but the essential nature, lakshaNa of water.

It is this Conscious entity, which is also

Existence-Bliss, that is present all the time.

The concept of Time itself is dependent on our

experience. Science says that Time is the gap

between two sequential events. But the concept of

'event' has a mixture of 'objectivity' in it. So

Vedanta declares: Time is nothing but the gap

between two experiences. It is the Observer, the

Seer, that experiences. If there is only One

Experience. There cannot be any concept of Time.

Time, in its own course, consumes the entire

universe: kAlo jagad-bhakshakaH. But Time itself

is consumed by that single unique experience of

the Realization of the Ultimate.

 

praNAms to all advaitins.

Profvk

 

 

 

 

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

The simplified URL of my website on Science and Spirituality is

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can also access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice from the same address.

 

 

Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

http://im.

[Guest guest]

Provocative material on a fascinating topic! (Of course, whilst it remains

fascinating we will never see the truth!)

 

I became tied up in the logic of the presentation part way in. Perhaps

Profvk (or Sadananda) could clarify?

 

In respect of the statement from the Gita, you said: -

 

nAsato vidyate bhAvo nAbhAvo vidyate satah /, meaning, Whatever 'is not',

does not exist at any point of

time (irrespective of its appearance for a limited period of time);

 

Is this not contradictory? i.e. if it appears 'for a limited period of

time', surely it exists at a point in time (even if it is limited)?

 

whatever really 'is', does not cease to exist at any point of time.

Thus the so-called Creation is only a

transformation of something that was really

latent in the Existence already.

 

The use of 'Thus' implies that the statement follows from what has just

been said. I cannot see how. Also I do not understand what is meant by

'latent' in this context.

 

Now let us look at this 'created' universe. It

has three characteristics: it is well-behaved (in

the sense that we can reasonably predict its

behavior); it is an ordered system (scientific

observation tells us so); and, it is regulated

(in the sense there is an inherent discipline in

the system, rather than chaos).

 

The distinction between these properties is unclear. i.e. 'well-behaved'

and 'inherent discipline' seem like the same thing. Also, I thought science

in fact showed that there was a considerable amount of chaos. Are not

things like the weather system chaotic? (Certainly not behaved and

disciplined in this country - UK - at least!)

 

 

Nobody can deny these characteristics. Nor can anybody deny that

whatever and whoever created this ordered system,

must contain the full knowledge of it as its Creator.

 

Why does this follow? If part of the creation is autonomous (I know it

isn't, but the discussion is not about free-will) does it not effectively

'go off on its own' once it has been set in motion? And could it not

reasonably follow that its creator would not have foreknowledge of what was

going to happen? (In fact, isn't this part of the object? i.e. if the

Creator knew in advance everything about the creation, there would have

been no point in creating it - lila.)

 

 

But where is this Creator? He cannot be

outside the creation because in that case He

cannot be Infinite; He cannot be inside the

creation because in that case He cannot know all

of it.

 

I don't follow these 'becauses'.

 

 

This only means that the Creator and the

Created Universe are the same.

 

Ignoring the truths of advaita for a moment (! - are we allowed to do

this?), from a linguistic point of view, the word we chose to talk about

creation implicitly refers to a creator. If we just called it the

'observable universe' for example, would we feel the same need to try to

explain a 'creator'?

 

 

Rightly therefore does the most ancient Upanishad

begin with the invocation:

pUrNam adaH pUrNam idam pUrNAt-pUrNam-udacyate /

pUrNasya pUrNam-AdAya pUrNam-evA-vaSishyate //

Here there are two things which are declared to

be 'complete' , 'full' or 'infinite'. One is

called 'this' (idaM) and the other is called

'that' (adaH). And to clarify the meaning for

us, the Upanishad then begins with the universal

declaration:

ISAvAsyam-idam sarvam ...

Meaning, 'this' (idam) all is pervaded by 'that'

the Lord. What is there in 'that' which is not

included in 'this'? When we point out 'this' it

means the universe which includes ourselves. But

whoever is the pointer is not included in the

pointed.

 

There is a contradiction again here - 'the universe which included

ourselves' and 'the pointer is not included'. Why is this latter the case

anyway? Do we not often point by waving an arm, to indicate that we refer

to all that we see including ourselves?

 

 

Therefore 'idam sarvaM' excludes the

pointer. But the pointer is right here. Then why

call it 'that'? It is actually myself who is the

pointer. It is called 'that' as if it were a

remote being because, the remoteness is in the

understanding. Though I am the pointer, I do not

still know who I am. It is this remoteness in

understanding that generates the word 'that'.

Scripture is telling me: I am Infinite. But it

is also saying: 'this' excludes 'that' and 'that'

excludes 'this'.

 

Is this true? I thought this passage was saying everything is 'pervaded by'

That, meaning 'occupying the same place'?

 

In that case how can either be a

pUrNa? The Upanishad says: From 'that complete

infinite one' , 'this complete infinite one'

emerges. This is the mystery and enigma of

Creation. Any creation involves two kAraNas

(causes). The Creator has to have the full

knowledge of what to create and also must have

the full material (ingredient) of creation. So

He is both the material cause and the intelligent

cause of the Universe.

But still there is the enigma of the 'conscious'

versus 'unconscious'. This material universe

which includes my body is an unconscious entity.

But I, the 'pointer' of 'this' universe, am a

conscious entity. Then, are there two things?

Can the unconscious come from the conscious? How

can the unconscious be a transformation of the

conscious?

 

This seems to be making things more complicated than they really are. Does

not the metaphor of bubbles on the ocean explain this more simply? The

bubbles are only a transient name and form and are actually not other than

the water itself. Then we don't have to worry about trying to justify the

creation and make sense of cause and effect; we can see that, in reality,

there simply is no separate creation to begin with.

 

 

The Chandogya Upanishad declares:

Only the 'sat', that is, Existence, alone

remained originally. It observed. It wanted to

become the many. And it became. It was conscious

of itself. Therefore the Existence is also

Knowledge and because of its 'pUrNatva' it is

also Happiness. So it is the sat, chit and

Ananda. However, this does not satisfy our

question, how can the Conscious transform as the

unconscious?

The Mandukya-upanishad now comes to our rescue.

It says: Don't stop with your waking experience.

See all kinds of experience. The dream experience

is very valuable for the understanding of the

waking experience. For me to dream I have to have

a knowledge of the dream. In fact I am all

knowing (sarva-jna) as far as my dream is

concerned. All my dream creatures come from my

mind. Therefore I am both the intelligent cause

as well as the material cause of my dream. In

the same way, the scriptures say: The Conscious

entity, which is 'that', is the intelligent and

material cause of all the universe of which we

have what is called the 'waking' experience. In

the dream I see a house burning, people calling

for help and I myself go for help. The house is

created by me in my dream, the people who are

conscious entities, are also my dream crea6tions,

and the very self of me is also created in my

dream; and all these dream creations merge back

into my own mind from where they emerged. So

also, say the scriptures, the unconscious

universe that we see before us in our 'waking'

experience, is a creation of our mind.

Look at the three different experiencers: the

waker, the dreamer, and the deep sleeper. What

is unaffected by the three states ? What remains

as the unchanging (anAbhAdhita) factor in the

three?

I am the waker, I am the dreamer and I am the

deep sleeper.

So 'I am' is the unchanging factor in the three.

It is this unchanging factor that is the Reality.

 

But again, the question still remains: How did

the material universe ever come into the picture?

The unchanging factor is the Conscious Entity

which is Infinite and all-knowing. OK. But where

came the unconscious? We cannot deny its

presence. We see it before us. But hold! This

question is being asked by the intellect. It is a

question at the intellectual level. The answer,

say the scriptures, is beyond the intellectual

level. Here Ramana's upadeSa sAraM comes to our

help.

dRSya-vAritaM cittam-AtmanaH / cittva-darSanaM

tattva-darSanaM //

meaning, The mind, turned away from objectivity,

recognizes its own conscious nature. This is the

Vision of Ultimate Reality. So what we have to do

is to remove from the mind everything that it

'sees'! What remains is 'I'.

There are two ways of looking at the concept of

creation. The objects of the universe -- Do they

exist, because I see them? Or do I see them and

therefore they exist? The first mode is called

dRSTi-sRSTi (Creation via Cognition) and the

second mode is called sRSTi-dRSTi (Cognition of

Creation).

 

I'm afraid I gave up at this point! I seem to remember getting lost the

last time I encountered dRSTi-sRSTi etc. I gather that Sankara's view was

that external objects, being actually perceived, must exist (at the

relative level of experience). But then what happens when we awake from

deep sleep? Do we not effectively 'bring the universe into existence'? I

would very much like to see a simple and clear exposition of all of this!

Any offers?

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

namaste,

 

You have applied the "Law of Parsimony" most effectively indeed!

 

As regarded by many scholars, Gita is not a metaphysical treatise, and does

not go into such explanations for its statements.

 

What I gather from the verse is the duality that every concept generates.

Here, it is:

 

sataH abhAvaH na vidyate ; &

 

asataH bhAvaH na vidyate .

 

Elsewhere, Gita says, sat asat cha aham arjuna [9:19]

 

I am existence and non-existence

 

or mattaH smR^itiH j~nanam apohanam cha [15:15]

 

From me arise memory and knowledge, and their loss

 

 

The "Eureka" of spiritual insight is best expressed in Trishanku's

exclamation [Tattiriyia upanishad, I:x:1]

 

ahaM vR^ikshasya rerivA ....etc.

 

I am the mover of the tree (of the world)...etc

 

 

Regards,

 

sunder

 

 

 

>Dennis Waite <dwaite

>advaitin

>"'advaitin '" <advaitin >

> RE: Logic of Spirituality a la Dr.Sadananda

>Tue, 29 Feb 2000 21:28:14 -0000

>

>>

>

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

My Hearful of thanks to Professor V. Krishnamurthy, first for inviting me to

deliver this Shri R. Visvanatha Sastri Memorial Lecture which was

established in the memory of his father Shree R. Visvanatha Sastri who was a

great scholar of Advaita. The lecture was at the Kuppuswami Sastri Research

Institute, Mylapore, Chennai, which is located within the sanskrit college

in Mylapore. I had met Shree V. Krishnamurthy only through this great

advaitin list and met personally only last week in his wonderfully kept

personal library. I became humble by learning so much about his father's

works and his discipline of study. Shree Krishnamurthy an erudite scholar

by himself, as we can see from his Websites, and an author, is himself

trying to bringout publications of his father's contributions. We have

something common in that respect since we still have many unpublished works

of my father on VishishhTaadvaita.

 

Professor Krishnamurthy has presented gist of my talk on the Logic of

Spirituality at the institute and I am very thankful to him. It is extremely

satisfying for any speaker if the lister provides such a lucid and detailed

summary of the speach, since it is a clear indication that the communication

between the speaker and the listener is completed successfully. My

compliments to Prof. V.K. for taking such a detailed notes.

 

I am back to my NRL desk and would slowly respond to the comments made on

the summary of the talk by the fellow advaitins, that is when once I could

clear off the piled-up mail on my desk.

 

My hats off to the advaintin list server, its moderators and to Ram

Chandranji specially to bring together like minds who can communicate and

learn from each other. I am fortunate to be a part of this study group. I

was able to meet Prof. V.K. only because of this advaitin list serve.

 

My pranaams to all

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

by

>Dr. Sadananda

>at the Kuppuswami Sastri Research Institute,

 

whom I knew only through this advaintin list serve had a good fortune of

meeting him personally in Madras in a quiet atmosphere of his well kept

library.

 

>"V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk

>advaitin

>advaitin

> Logic of Spirituality a la Dr.Sadananda

>Sun, 27 Feb 2000 08:23:06 -0800 (PST)

>

>I had the great pleasure of listening to Dr.

>Sadananda on this topic. I could not resist the

>temptation of sharing my enjoyment with the

>members of the advaitin list. Below is given the

>gist of his speech as understood by me. Right now

>he is already all set on his return trip to the

>U.S. and will be there in a few days. As soon as

>he is able to see this, I hope he will make the

>necessary corrections or modifications, if any.

>

>Logic of Spirituality

>(Shri R. Visvanatha Sastri Memorial Lecture by

>Dr. Sadananda

>at the Kuppuswami Sastri Research Institute,

>Mylapore, Chennai

>on 24th February, 2000)

>

>(As per the understanding of profvk)

>

>The first thing that strikes me as I start

>thinking, is my own existence. I exist. There is

>no denial of the fact: I am. Not because of my

>choice, certainly. I am, and I see this world.

>Why do I exist? I don't know. Science does not

>know either. Science has an answer to 'How I

>came to exist', but it does not have an answer to

>the question: Why? The same thing with this

>infinite universe that we see before us, of which

>we are a part. Science keeps on giving answers

>and keeps on improving its answers to the

>question: How did the universe come to exist? But

>Why did it come to exist? -- is a difficult

>question for Science. The Big Bang occurred and

>we are all here now after several millions of

>years. But why did the Big Bang have to occur?

>Let me look at myself now. I am not just matter.

>I am living. I am full of Life. I am something

>more than Matter -- far more than Matter. I am

>told that the very fact I exist is an expression

>of Life, -- whatever that means. I am told I have

>evolved from less evolved beings. I am told that

>the universe itself has evolved from more

>fundamental forms of matter and energy. Every

>stage of evolution presupposes something at an

>earlier stage from which other things evolved.

>What was that something at the very beginning of

>evolution? Where did it come from? Was it an

>accidental existence, that Something? What were

>the rules of that accident? The very fact that

>something called Big Bang occurred presupposes

>some conditions for the 'accident'. What were

>they? Going along this way, we come to a

>deadlock because Science does not provide the

>answer. In fact Science refuses to ask the

>question: What caused the Big Bang?

>Scriptures say there was Creation before the

>chain of Evolution started. Creation itself is

>not out of Nothing. For there is the categorical

>declaration to this effect in the scriptures. A

>representative declaration is in the very

>beginning of the Lord's teaching in the gItA:

>nAsato vidyate bhAvo nAbhAvo vidyate satah /,

>meaning,

>Whatever 'is not', does not exist at any point of

>time (irrespective of its appearance for a

>limited period of time); whatever really 'is',

>does not cease to exist at any point of time.

>Thus the so-called Creation is only a

>transformation of something that was really

>latent in the Existence already.

>Now let us look at this 'created' universe. It

>has three characteristics: it is well-behaved (in

>the sense that we can reasonably predict its

>behavior); it is an ordered system (scientific

>observation tells us so); and, it is regulated

>(in the sense there is an inherent discipline in

>the system, rather than chaos). Nobody can deny

>these characteristics. Nor can anybody deny that

>whatever and whoever created this ordered system,

>must contain the full knowledge of it as its

>Creator. But where is this Creator? He cannot be

>outside the creation because in that case He

>cannot be Infinite; He cannot be inside the

>creation because in that case He cannot know all

>of it. This only means that the Creator and the

>Created Universe are the same.

>Rightly therefore does the most ancient Upanishad

>begin with the invocation:

>pUrNam adaH pUrNam idam pUrNAt-pUrNam-udacyate /

>pUrNasya pUrNam-AdAya pUrNam-evA-vaSishyate //

>Here there are two things which are declared to

>be 'complete' , 'full' or 'infinite'. One is

>called 'this' (idaM) and the other is called

>'that' (adaH). And to clarify the meaning for

>us, the Upanishad then begins with the universal

>declaration:

>ISAvAsyam-idam sarvam …

>Meaning, 'this' (idam) all is pervaded by 'that'

>the Lord. What is there in 'that' which is not

>included in 'this'? When we point out 'this' it

>means the universe which includes ourselves. But

>whoever is the pointer is not included in the

>pointed. Therefore 'idam sarvaM' excludes the

>pointer. But the pointer is right here. Then why

>call it 'that'? It is actually myself who is the

>pointer. It is called 'that' as if it were a

>remote being because, the remoteness is in the

>understanding. Though I am the pointer, I do not

>still know who I am. It is this remoteness in

>understanding that generates the word 'that'.

>Scripture is telling me: I am Infinite. But it

>is also saying: 'this' excludes 'that' and 'that'

>excludes 'this'. In that case how can either be a

>pUrNa? The Upanishad says: From 'that complete

>infinite one' , 'this complete infinite one'

>emerges. This is the mystery and enigma of

>Creation. Any creation involves two kAraNas

>(causes). The Creator has to have the full

>knowledge of what to create and also must have

>the full material (ingredient) of creation. So

>He is both the material cause and the intelligent

>cause of the Universe.

>But still there is the enigma of the 'conscious'

>versus 'unconscious'. This material universe

>which includes my body is an unconscious entity.

>But I, the 'pointer' of 'this' universe, am a

>conscious entity. Then, are there two things?

>Can the unconscious come from the conscious? How

>can the unconscious be a transformation of the

>conscious? The Chandogya Upanishad declares:

>Only the 'sat', that is, Existence, alone

>remained originally. It observed. It wanted to

>become the many. And it became. It was conscious

>of itself. Therefore the Existence is also

>Knowledge and because of its 'pUrNatva' it is

>also Happiness. So it is the sat, chit and

>Ananda. However, this does not satisfy our

>question, how can the Conscious transform as the

>unconscious?

>The Mandukya-upanishad now comes to our rescue.

>It says: Don't stop with your waking experience.

>See all kinds of experience. The dream experience

>is very valuable for the understanding of the

>waking experience. For me to dream I have to have

>a knowledge of the dream. In fact I am all

>knowing (sarva-jna) as far as my dream is

>concerned. All my dream creatures come from my

>mind. Therefore I am both the intelligent cause

>as well as the material cause of my dream. In

>the same way, the scriptures say: The Conscious

>entity, which is 'that', is the intelligent and

>material cause of all the universe of which we

>have what is called the 'waking' experience. In

>the dream I see a house burning, people calling

>for help and I myself go for help. The house is

>created by me in my dream, the people who are

>conscious entities, are also my dream crea6tions,

>and the very self of me is also created in my

>dream; and all these dream creations merge back

>into my own mind from where they emerged. So

>also, say the scriptures, the unconscious

>universe that we see before us in our 'waking'

>experience, is a creation of our mind.

>Look at the three different experiencers: the

>waker, the dreamer, and the deep sleeper. What

>is unaffected by the three states ? What remains

>as the unchanging (anAbhAdhita) factor in the

>three?

>I am the waker, I am the dreamer and I am the

>deep sleeper.

>So 'I am' is the unchanging factor in the three.

>It is this unchanging factor that is the Reality.

>

>But again, the question still remains: How did

>the material universe ever come into the picture?

>The unchanging factor is the Conscious Entity

>which is Infinite and all-knowing. OK. But where

>came the unconscious? We cannot deny its

>presence. We see it before us. But hold! This

>question is being asked by the intellect. It is a

>question at the intellectual level. The answer,

>say the scriptures, is beyond the intellectual

>level. Here Ramana's upadeSa sAraM comes to our

>help.

>dRSya-vAritaM cittam-AtmanaH / cittva-darSanaM

>tattva-darSanaM //

>meaning, The mind, turned away from objectivity,

>recognizes its own conscious nature. This is the

>Vision of Ultimate Reality. So what we have to do

>is to remove from the mind everything that it

>'sees'! What remains is 'I'.

>There are two ways of looking at the concept of

>creation. The objects of the universe -- Do they

>exist, because I see them? Or do I see them and

>therefore they exist? The first mode is called

>dRSTi-sRSTi (Creation via Cognition) and the

>second mode is called sRSTi-dRSTi (Cognition of

>Creation). In the case of the rope-snake

>analogy, I see the snake, therefore it exists.

>This belongs to the first mode. Whereas, I see

>the rope, because it is there. In either case,

>what really is active is 'I', the conscious

>entity. What depends for its existence on some

>other consciousness, is not the conscious entity.

>The snake that we see because of our own

>cognition, is a subjective creation of the mind

>and so has no status of Absolute Reality. On the

>other hand the rope that we see because it is

>there, raises the question: Does the rope have an

>absolute existence without me? Let us now dissect

>the existence of the rope. Is the rope real?.

>Dissect it fiber by fiber. Now there is only the

>fiber, but no rope. Dissect it further; now there

>are only molecules, atoms and sub-atomic

>particles - no rope, no fiber. It is here that

>modern Physics intervenes and says: The Conscious

>entity is always interfering with your

>observation!

>To understand this Conscious entity we have to

>take the view point of the scriptures. There is

>an Eternal (nitya) Reality - which has Existence

>all the time. There is an asatya (that is, asat,

>the Unreal) which never existed any time (like

>the son of a barren woman); and then there is the

>third reality called satya, which is actually the

>phenomenal reality of the universe -- which

>appears as if it exists, but does not exist in

>the absolute sense. It is called mithyA by the

>advaitic literature. For its existence it needs

>a substratum, a basis, an AdhAra. This substratum

>is the Conscious entity. It is in this sense that

>the Conscious appears as the Unconscious.

>Sage Ramana therefore says: Remove the objects

>from the thought. That is, remove the name and

>form that occupy the mind. When all names and

>forms have been removed, the essential entities

>that sustain these thoughts get removed. What

>remains is only Consciousness -- just as, in a

>dark room, we don't see anything, but the

>awareness of the non-seeing of any object is

>certainly there. It is the chain of thoughts that

>appear as objects in my awareness. Unwind this

>chain and all objects will vanish. But what will

>not be unwound is myself. Mind cannot recognize

>anything without attributes. When all attributes

>have been negated, there is no recognition or

>thought of anything external. There remains only

>Consciousness. Consciousness is not an attribute;

>it is a lakshaNa of the Ultimate Reality. Just

>as, H2O is not a quality or attribute of water,

>but the essential nature, lakshaNa of water.

>It is this Conscious entity, which is also

>Existence-Bliss, that is present all the time.

>The concept of Time itself is dependent on our

>experience. Science says that Time is the gap

>between two sequential events. But the concept of

>'event' has a mixture of 'objectivity' in it. So

>Vedanta declares: Time is nothing but the gap

>between two experiences. It is the Observer, the

>Seer, that experiences. If there is only One

>Experience. There cannot be any concept of Time.

>Time, in its own course, consumes the entire

>universe: kAlo jagad-bhakshakaH. But Time itself

>is consumed by that single unique experience of

>the Realization of the Ultimate.

>

>praNAms to all advaitins.

>Profvk

>

>

>

>

>

>

>=====

>Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

>The simplified URL of my website on Science and Spirituality is

>http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

>You can also access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision

>and Practice from the same address.

>

>

>Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

>http://im.

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Sadanandaji:

 

Welcome back and good to hear from you. Greg, Frank, Gummuluru, Madhava, Dennis,

Nanda, Raju, Shyam, Solanki, Vikram and so many others have been waiting for

your arrival and active participation.

 

Let me take this opportunity and send a paragraph of introduction of Sadanandaji

to the new members of the list.

 

Sri Sadanandaji is one of the founding member of this list, very knowledgeable,

unselfish and quite active. For the past one year, he was on a work assignment

to India and couldn't participate as much as he wanted to do. He is quite well

versed in all the Vedantic systems and is an active teacher at Chinmaya Mission,

Washington Regional Center. He has conducted classes on several of Shankara's

Texts including Atmabodh, Panchadasi, etc. At the Chinmaya Mission Virginia

Center, he conducted the Gita classes for several years. He is a scientist by

profession and consequently, he is able to understand and expose Vedanta with a

scientific perspective. Most importanat, he is unassuming, pleasant and is

always willing to listen to the view points of others.

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

At 12:11 PM 3/2/00 -0500, Ram Chandran wrote:

>Sri Sadanandaji is one of the founding member of this list, very

knowledgeable, unselfish and quite active. For the past one year, he was

on a work assignment to India and couldn't participate as much as he wanted

to do. He is quite well versed in all the Vedantic systems and is an active

teacher at Chinmaya Mission, Washington Regional Center. He has conducted

classes on several of Shankara's Texts including Atmabodh, Panchadasi, etc.

At the Chinmaya Mission Virginia Center, he conducted the Gita classes for

several years. He is a scientist by profession and consequently, he is able

to understand and expose Vedanta with a scientific perspective. Most

importanat, he is unassuming, pleasant and is always willing to listen to

the view points of others.

 

I heartily second this -- welcome back Sadananda-ji!

 

OM!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Advaitin Satsang,

Hari OM & pranams.

 

I am happy to join Shri Ramchandranji in welcoming Dr.Sadananda, a PHd in

engineering and publisher of more than hundred scientific papers.

 

I was fortunate to meet him during my visit to Madras in Jan 2000. Apart

from his acknowledged Vedantic knowledge, he is also socially conscious and

has helped many young people who were in difficult circumstances. In the

brief hours I spent with him, I learnt the basic theological difference

between Vadagalai & Thegalai Iyengars. He also explained how our Hindu

approach to religion is scientific, although I confess, I could not

comprehend it.

 

Ever since I have been thinking that the various divisions with in our Hindu

fold such as this Thegalai-Vadagalai and similarly Iyengars Vs Smarthas etc

must be debated so as to unify the groups who are dedicated to learning our

Vedic scriptures. Social individual identity, seems to have overtaken basic

theological congruence in our Hindu Philosophy. Perhaps this list is not the

forum to discuss an action plan, so I close once again expressing happiness

to be intouch with Dr sadanand alteast electronically.

 

P.B.V.Rajan

>"Ram Chandran" <chandran

>advaitin

>"advaitin" <advaitin >

>Re: Logic of Spirituality a la Dr.Sadananda

>Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:11:08 -0500

>

>Hari Om Sadanandaji:

>

>Welcome back and good to hear from you. Greg, Frank, Gummuluru, Madhava,

>Dennis, Nanda, Raju, Shyam, Solanki, Vikram and so many others have been

>waiting for your arrival and active participation.

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

I have tried below to supplement my earlier

posting on the Logic of Spirituality a la Dr.

Sadananda. This supplement adds a few

explanations in view of Dennis Waite's comments

raising questions on the Logic. For clarity I

quote portions from my posting (referred to as

VK) and from Dennis's posting (referred to as

DW).

 

1. VK: (quoting the gItA) nAsato vidyate bhAvo

nAbhAvo vidyate sataH / meaning, Whatever 'is

not' does not exist at any point of time

(irrespective of its appearance for a limited

period of time).

DW: Is this not contradictory? i.e., if it

appears 'for a limited period of time', surely it

exists at a point of time (even if it is

limited)?

 

Explanation: In the translation of the gItA

verse, the English language used by me does not

show the real meaning of 'sat' and 'asat' . In

advaita Vedanta 'sat' is that which exists or

'is' at all points of time - past, present and

future. Something which 'appears' for 'a limited

period of time' is not 'sat'. That which

absolutely exists, ever and ever, is 'sat'.

Something which does not absolutely exist, is not

supposed to (absolutely) exist at any point of

time, even though it 'appears' to exist. This is

the status of the universe. It 'appears' ; that

is all. Its 'existence' is temporary, phenomenal,

not permanent. It does not have the status of

absolute existence.

 

2. VK: Whatever really 'is' does not cease to

exist at any point of time. Thus the so-called

Creation is only a transformation of something

that was really latent in the Existence already.

DW: The use of 'thus' implies that the statement

follows from what has just been said. I cannot

see how. Also I do not understand what is meant

by 'latent' in this context.

 

Explanation: Again 'is' means 'absolutely is'.

'exist' means 'absolutely exist'. So what

'appears' before us as the universe, since it

does not exist in the absolute sense as the

universe, cannot be something which came up from

a state of (absolute) non-existence. So there

must not have been a creation out of nothing. It

is only a manifestation of something which was

not manifest earlier, and this is what I mean

when I say it was 'latent' . Whatever is visible

to us as the universe is nothing but a

manifestation of the Absolute Reality - actually

a little spark of it.

 

3. VK: …. Nor can anybody deny that whatever and

whoever created this ordered system, must contain

the full knowledge of it as its Creator.

DW: Why does this follow? If part of the creation

is autonomous does it not effectively go off on

its own once it has been set in motion? And could

it not reasonably follow that its creator would

not have foreknowledge of what was going to

happen? (In fact, isn't this part of the object?

i.e., if the Creator knew in advance everything

about the creation, there would have been no

point in creating it - lila).

 

Explanation: That is the point! The Creator had

no point in creating what He created, if at all.

There was no purpose for Creation. That is the

meaning of 'lila'. If the Creator created

something and then allowed it to evolve on its

own, without having the knowledge of what was

going to come out of it, then the order that we

see in the universe must have long ago

miscarried. The so-called 'chaos' in the universe

that we see is probably a type of 'order' that

the Creator visualised and injected into the

system ; we say it is chaos from our limited

understanding. What appears as a chaotic

incurable disease once later turns out to be an

ordered behaviour by the invasion of a virus or

the like and responds, in an orderly way, to

proper treatment of the virus. When our

understanding increases, chaos turns out to be

order! The comment about the foreknowledge of the

Creator about His creation is right from a human

perspective, but it may not be right to

extrapolate it to a 'super-human' perspective.

 

4. VK. But where is this Creator? He cannot be

outside the creation because in that case He

cannot be Infinite; He cannot be inside the

creation because in that case He cannot know all

of it.

DW: I don't follow these 'becauses'.

 

Explanation: After paragraph No.3 I assume that

the Creator must be Infinite and all-knowing.

Therefore the 'becauses'.

 

5.VK. This only means that the Creator and the

Created Universe are the same.

DW. … If we just called it the 'observable

universe' for example, would we feel the same

need to try to explain a 'creator'?

 

Explanation: For the observable universe there

would be an 'observer'. Then the statement would

be: The Observer and the Observed Universe are

the same!

 

6.VK: ….Here there are two things which are

declared to be 'complete' , 'full' or 'infinite'.

One is called 'this' (idaM) and the other is

called 'that' (adaH). And to clarify the meaning

for us, the Upanishad then begins with the

universal declaration:

ISAvAsyam-idam sarvam …

Meaning, 'this' (idam) all is pervaded by 'that'

the Lord. What is there in 'that' which is not

included in 'this'? When we point out 'this' it

means the universe which includes ourselves. But

whoever is the pointer is not included in the

pointed. …

DW: There is a contradiction again here - 'the

universe which included ourselves' and 'the

pointer is not included'. Why is this latter the

case anyway? Do we not often point by waving an

arm, to indicate that we refer to all that we see

including ourselves?

 

Explanation: The mischievous word here is

'ourselves'. For clarity's sake let me change

everything to the singular and use the word

'myself'. When I say 'this universe' and point to

it, of course it includes myself. But which

'myself'? It is this body-mind-intellect

personality called 'myself'. But who is the

pointer? The body-mind-intellect personality is

not the pointer. The pointer points at the

pointed. The pointer is other than everything

that is pointed. How can the pointer be pointed?

 

7. VK: Therefore 'idam sarvaM' excludes the

pointer. But the pointer is right here. Then why

call it 'that'? It is actually myself who is the

pointer. It is called 'that' as if it were a

remote being because, the remoteness is in the

understanding. Though I am the pointer, I do not

still know who I am. It is this remoteness in

understanding that generates the word 'that'.

Scripture is telling me: I am Infinite. But it

is also saying: 'this' excludes 'that' and 'that'

excludes 'this'.

DW: Is this true? I thought this passage was

saying everything is 'pervaded by' That, meaning

'occupying the same place'?

 

Explanation: Yes. Everything is pervaded by

That' . But this does not mean that 'That'

occupies the same place as 'This'. 'That'

occupies not only the place occupied by 'this'

but it goes beyond. The scripture says in another

place (purusha-sUktaM) atyatishTad-daSAngulaM.

It transcends everything that goes by the name

'this'.

 

Dennis, there are two more questions in your

letter. I hope I will come back to it soon.

 

praNAms to all advaitins.

Profvk.

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

The simplified URL of my website on Science and Spirituality is

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can also access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice from the same address.

 

 

Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

http://im.

[Guest guest]

Professor VK has provided answers to the points raised by Dennis. There is

not much to add than couple of points from my own understanding. -

 

In terms of objects that we percieve one can think of three categories: -

1) Those that exist absolutely - trikaala abhaaditam satyam - those that

are not negated in three periods of time are 'truth - or sat' - or

absolutely existent. - Krishna's statement refers to these sat - 'that

which exists can never cease to exist'. Krishna calls this category as

'sat' - or 'satyam' - in the satyam-Jnaanam and anatam - Brahma. - These

are 'real'. Sat cannot be negated any time.

 

2) Those that have no existence ( no locus for existence) at any time. -

Krishana calls this as 'asat' or 'non-existence'- Typical vedantic example

is vandyaa putraH - son of a barren women - (obviously we are not talking

about an adopted son!) - or horns of a rabbit - etc. They have no

existence in any locus - these are truely unreal - or 'non-existent' -Hence

Krishna's statement 'that have no-existence cannot come into existence' -

- I used this statement to conclude that something cannot be created out of

nothing - Hence creation which is obviously 'something' cannot comeout of

'nothing'.

 

3) Now we have a third variety - which neither falls under the category of

sat nor under asat - They can be negated in the locus where they appears

to exist; and since they appear to exist they cannot be non-existent in

any locus - The world comes under this category. It is there since I see

it - but it is not there when I go to dream state or deep sleep state. It

is neither absolutely 'existence' since it does not fulful the defination

on non-negatability at any time - it is neither absolutely 'non-existence'

since it is apprears to exist temporally in some locus. In advaita Vedanta

this is separately classified under a category different from 'sat' and

'asat'. And it is called 'mithyaa'

 

Like a pot - pot was not there before -pot is there now and pot may not be

there later - Hence it is creation - since no thing can came out of nothing

- the creation must be some thing out of something else - Hence it is a

modification of something - The implication is in every mithya there has to

be a substratum which is 'sat' that does not undergo modifications while

supporting all the modifications on it. In the pot example - it is clay -

on which now pot is seen, next may be a cup - next something else.

 

Is clay different from pot - No! - Is clay exactly the same as the Pot? -

No! - But without clay, pot cannot exist. But yet if one inquires deeply

pot is not really different from clay except for the 'name' and 'form'.

 

Hence in every mithya there is sat that remains the same - Since creation

cannot be something out of nothing - it is only a transformation of

something into something else - It is not a permanent irrevesible

trasformation since it is the substratum that support all the

transformation without itself undergoing any trasformation. This is called

'material cause' of the universe.

 

Hence scripture provides a declarative statement - 'etova imaani bhuutani

jaayante, ena jaataani jivanti, yatprayam tyabhisham visanti| tat

viJnaasaswa| tat brahmeti| - From which the world arose, by which it is

sustained and into which it goes back - know that that is Brahman.

>From which all the pots arose, by which they are sustained and into which

they go back - must be their material cause or upaadaana kaaraNa.

 

Clay can exist without being a pot but pot cannot exist without being clay!

- one is dependent and another is independent. Apply this to Brahman.

 

As a material cause - He cannot be different from the created. Hence

creation cannot be separated from the creator - This is different from

normal creation like making a pot where the pot-maker is different from the

created pot. Hence the point that Creator cannot be outside the creation

nor inside the creation - I discussed logically as well as from the

scriptural evidence in my talk. It is a peculier creation where the

material cause and the intelligent cause have to be one and the same.

That such a creation where the two causes can be one and the same, can

indeed be possible is brought by Mandukya Upanishad's analysis of the dream

state. The analysis of the creator and the created - cannot be fully

understood by analysing one datam point. It is the glory of our scriptures

that made absolute scientific analysis pointing out that one has to examine

the whole system - consisiting of all three states of experience - waking,

dream and deep sleep states - in order to full undersand the relation

between the observer and the observed. 'Puurna adaH, puurnamidam' is the

condensation of the whole thing in a simple looking 'sloka'. That was the

essence of my talk - the logic of spirituality.

 

How can a conscious entity which is sat - can be transformed in unconscious

entity? - that was the gist of the talk as well as the gist of advaita

vedanta - Since that is not possible -then the creation is not real

trasformation but only an apparent trasformation - Hence creation is

adhyaasa or superimposition and not pariNaama or permanent transformation.

Hence the rest of the lines in the sloka - from puurNam puurNam came, when

puurNam is added or substracted from puurNam, puurNam alone remains.

 

The world as a creation involves an ordered- well behaved system and hence

has to be govered by the intellegence to keep the system well behaved

within the unversal laws (space-time invarient). Hence so called

atonominity comes from the intelligence which cannot be separated from the

universe. Hence limitations in physical or objective analysis of the

system enter when one tries to separate observer from the observed since in

the final analysis observer is only independent of the system obseved,

while the observed system depends on the observer. - in a way it is

similar to clay is independent of pot while pot depends on the clay. The

substratum is independent while the superimposed depends on the substratum.

How this applies to consciousnes which is the substratum and the

unconscious which is the superimposition was presented in the talk as prof.

VK discussed in his summary.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

>"V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk

>

>I have tried below to supplement my earlier

>posting on the Logic of Spirituality a la Dr.

>Sadananda. This supplement adds a few

>explanations in view of Dennis Waite's comments

>raising questions on the Logic. For clarity I

>quote portions from my posting (referred to as

>VK) and from Dennis's posting (referred to as

>DW).

>

>1. VK: (quoting the gItA) nAsato vidyate bhAvo

>nAbhAvo vidyate sataH / meaning, Whatever 'is

>not' does not exist at any point of time

>(irrespective of its appearance for a limited

>period of time).

>DW: Is this not contradictory? i.e., if it

>appears 'for a limited period of time', surely it

>exists at a point of time (even if it is

>limited)?

>

>Explanation: In the translation of the gItA

>verse, the English language used by me does not

>show the real meaning of 'sat' and 'asat' . In

>advaita Vedanta 'sat' is that which exists or

>'is' at all points of time - past, present and

>future. Something which 'appears' for 'a limited

>period of time' is not 'sat'. That which

>absolutely exists, ever and ever, is 'sat'.

>Something which does not absolutely exist, is not

>supposed to (absolutely) exist at any point of

>time, even though it 'appears' to exist. This is

>the status of the universe. It 'appears' ; that

>is all. Its 'existence' is temporary, phenomenal,

>not permanent. It does not have the status of

>absolute existence.

>

>2. VK: Whatever really 'is' does not cease to

>exist at any point of time. Thus the so-called

>Creation is only a transformation of something

>that was really latent in the Existence already.

>DW: The use of 'thus' implies that the statement

>follows from what has just been said. I cannot

>see how. Also I do not understand what is meant

>by 'latent' in this context.

>

>Explanation: Again 'is' means 'absolutely is'.

>'exist' means 'absolutely exist'. So what

>'appears' before us as the universe, since it

>does not exist in the absolute sense as the

>universe, cannot be something which came up from

>a state of (absolute) non-existence. So there

>must not have been a creation out of nothing. It

>is only a manifestation of something which was

>not manifest earlier, and this is what I mean

>when I say it was 'latent' . Whatever is visible

>to us as the universe is nothing but a

>manifestation of the Absolute Reality - actually

>a little spark of it.

>

>3. VK: Ö. Nor can anybody deny that whatever and

>whoever created this ordered system, must contain

>the full knowledge of it as its Creator.

>DW: Why does this follow? If part of the creation

>is autonomous does it not effectively go off on

>its own once it has been set in motion? And could

>it not reasonably follow that its creator would

>not have foreknowledge of what was going to

>happen? (In fact, isn't this part of the object?

>i.e., if the Creator knew in advance everything

>about the creation, there would have been no

>point in creating it - lila).

>

>Explanation: That is the point! The Creator had

>no point in creating what He created, if at all.

>There was no purpose for Creation. That is the

>meaning of 'lila'. If the Creator created

>something and then allowed it to evolve on its

>own, without having the knowledge of what was

>going to come out of it, then the order that we

>see in the universe must have long ago

>miscarried. The so-called 'chaos' in the universe

>that we see is probably a type of 'order' that

>the Creator visualised and injected into the

>system ; we say it is chaos from our limited

>understanding. What appears as a chaotic

>incurable disease once later turns out to be an

>ordered behaviour by the invasion of a virus or

>the like and responds, in an orderly way, to

>proper treatment of the virus. When our

>understanding increases, chaos turns out to be

>order! The comment about the foreknowledge of the

>Creator about His creation is right from a human

>perspective, but it may not be right to

>extrapolate it to a 'super-human' perspective.

>

>4. VK. But where is this Creator? He cannot be

>outside the creation because in that case He

>cannot be Infinite; He cannot be inside the

>creation because in that case He cannot know all

>of it.

>DW: I don't follow these 'becauses'.

>

>Explanation: After paragraph No.3 I assume that

>the Creator must be Infinite and all-knowing.

>Therefore the 'becauses'.

>

>5.VK. This only means that the Creator and the

>Created Universe are the same.

>DW. Ö If we just called it the 'observable

>universe' for example, would we feel the same

>need to try to explain a 'creator'?

>

>Explanation: For the observable universe there

>would be an 'observer'. Then the statement would

>be: The Observer and the Observed Universe are

>the same!

>

>6.VK: Ö.Here there are two things which are

>declared to be 'complete' , 'full' or 'infinite'.

>One is called 'this' (idaM) and the other is

>called 'that' (adaH). And to clarify the meaning

>for us, the Upanishad then begins with the

>universal declaration:

>ISAvAsyam-idam sarvam Ö

>Meaning, 'this' (idam) all is pervaded by 'that'

>the Lord. What is there in 'that' which is not

>included in 'this'? When we point out 'this' it

>means the universe which includes ourselves. But

>whoever is the pointer is not included in the

>pointed. Ö

>DW: There is a contradiction again here - 'the

>universe which included ourselves' and 'the

>pointer is not included'. Why is this latter the

>case anyway? Do we not often point by waving an

>arm, to indicate that we refer to all that we see

>including ourselves?

>

>Explanation: The mischievous word here is

>'ourselves'. For clarity's sake let me change

>everything to the singular and use the word

>'myself'. When I say 'this universe' and point to

>it, of course it includes myself. But which

>'myself'? It is this body-mind-intellect

>personality called 'myself'. But who is the

>pointer? The body-mind-intellect personality is

>not the pointer. The pointer points at the

>pointed. The pointer is other than everything

>that is pointed. How can the pointer be pointed?

>

>7. VK: Therefore 'idam sarvaM' excludes the

>pointer. But the pointer is right here. Then why

>call it 'that'? It is actually myself who is the

>pointer. It is called 'that' as if it were a

>remote being because, the remoteness is in the

>understanding. Though I am the pointer, I do not

>still know who I am. It is this remoteness in

>understanding that generates the word 'that'.

>Scripture is telling me: I am Infinite. But it

>is also saying: 'this' excludes 'that' and 'that'

>excludes 'this'.

>DW: Is this true? I thought this passage was

>saying everything is 'pervaded by' That, meaning

>'occupying the same place'?

>

>Explanation: Yes. Everything is pervaded by

>That' . But this does not mean that 'That'

>occupies the same place as 'This'. 'That'

>occupies not only the place occupied by 'this'

>but it goes beyond. The scripture says in another

>place (purusha-sUktaM) atyatishTad-daSAngulaM.

>It transcends everything that goes by the name

>'this'.

>

>Dennis, there are two more questions in your

>letter. I hope I will come back to it soon.

>

>praNAms to all advaitins.

>Profvk.

>

>

>=====

>Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

>The simplified URL of my website on Science and Spirituality is

>http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

>You can also access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision

>and Practice from the same address.

>

>

>Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

>http://im.

>

>------

>PERFORM CPR ON YOUR APR!

>Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as

>0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.

>Apply NOW!

>http://click./1/2121/2/_/489436/_/952431206/

>------

>

>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/ To

>from the list, send Email to <advaitin- > For other

>contact, Email to <advaitins

>

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Hari Om ProfVK & Sadaji:

 

I enjoyed reading your analysis with compelling logic

and with little room for questions! Let me try to

state my understanding of the definitions of sat and

asat and some potential unresolved (unresolvable)

problems in the logic of spirituality.

 

Sat is the residual after the negation of asat. The

definition of asat is quite clear but our negation on

the basis of our perception has pitfalls. Sadaji

rightly pointed out the third category (world) which

is neither ‘sat' nor ‘asat.' Consequently everything

that we see, hear, touch, etc. will fall into this

third category - mithyaa. We can neither accept nor

negate mithyaa. The reason is simple. Our perception

is ‘asat' because it can be negated with more

knowledge. Now the entire logic is based on our

perceptions - the inappropriate measuring yard ! This

implies that we are back to square one.

 

The statement, that we have to go beyond our

perception to find ‘sat' is quite compelling and

right. Does it mean that logic has no role in Vedanta?

The answer is evidently no. Sadaji used to give the

example of the Pole-vault jumper who can use the pole

to jump beyond the pole. Still the jumper has to leave

the pole while jumping! If we use this analogy, we can

conclude that we need the logic (intellect) to go

beyond the logic and to go beyond, we also have to

leave the logic!

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

--- "K. Sadananda" <sada wrote:

>...

> In terms of objects that we percieve one can think

> of three categories: -

> 1) Those that exist absolutely - trikaala abhaaditam

> satyam - those that

> are not negated in three periods of time are 'truth

> - or sat' - or

> absolutely existent. - Krishna's statement refers to

> these sat - 'that

> which exists can never cease to exist'. Krishna

> calls this category as

> 'sat' - or 'satyam' - in the satyam-Jnaanam and

> anatam - Brahma. - These

> are 'real'. Sat cannot be negated any time.

>

> 2) Those that have no existence (no locus for

> existence) at any time. -

> Krishana calls this as 'asat' or 'non-existence'-

> Typical vedantic example

> is vandyaa putraH - son of a barren women -

> (obviously we are not talking

> about an adopted son!) - or horns of a rabbit - etc.

> They have no

> existence in any locus - these are truely unreal -

> or 'non-existent' -Hence

> Krishna's statement 'that have no-existence cannot

> come into existence' -

> - I used this statement to conclude that something

> cannot be created out of

> nothing - Hence creation which is obviously

> 'something' cannot come out of

> 'nothing'............=

[Guest guest]

>Ram Chandran <ramvchandran

>

>Hari Om ProfVK & Sadaji:

>

>I enjoyed reading your analysis with compelling logic

>and with little room for questions! Let me try to

>state my understanding of the definitions of sat and

>asat and some potential unresolved (unresolvable)

>problems in the logic of spirituality.

>

>Sat is the residual after the negation of asat. The

>definition of asat is quite clear but our negation on

>the basis of our perception has pitfalls.

 

Ram - just one correction - "sat is the residual after the negation of

asat' is not the correct view of advaita vedanta - Madhusuudhana Saraswati

has dealt this exhaustively in his "Advaita Siddhi".

 

Asat is not subject to negation since it is never there to negate. - Hence

there is no locus for its existence and even for negation.

 

Sat can never be negated.

 

What is negated is that which appears to have a locus but subject to

modification - and that is the world and it is mithya, the third kind.

If things are chaning there has to be changless entity which remains the

same in all changes and that is the substratum which then fulfills the

definition of sat.

 

Hence your statement can be modified as "sat is the residual after the

negation of mithya" - mithya is only the name and form - like different

ornaments of gold. Ring and bangle have a locus but they do not fulfil the

definition of non-negatability or abhaadhitvam - But in the negation of the

name and form the substratum remains unnegated - and that is the gold part

- which was gold and is gold even in the form of ring and will remain as

gold even if the ring is destroyed.

 

The negations can only be done for the mithya vastu.

>Sadaji

>rightly pointed out the third category (world) which

>is neither ësat' nor ëasat.' Consequently everything

>that we see, hear, touch, etc. will fall into this

>third category - mithyaa. We can neither accept nor

>negate mithyaa.

 

Acutally within the realm of empirical world mithya appears to be real, and

but it is only apparent. Hence it is called as "vyaavahaarika satyam" -

transactional reality. Hence we can accept at the vyaavahaarika level but

at paaramaarthika level it is negated. Confusion between the two or

jumping in the logic between the two states causes a problem and confusion

in the seekers mind. Hence Krishna's declaration in the second part of the

sloka in the "naasato ...." Only the wise know the difference between the

sat and asat. Hence Krishna emphasizes the need of wisdom to know the

difference - not just intellectually but in one's trasactions on a day to

day basis - I am remained of JK statement - "it is not an understanding as

in understanding as a thought - but an understanding as in understanding as

a fact".

>The reason is simple. Our perception

>is ëasat' because it can be negated with more

>knowledge. Now the entire logic is based on our

>perceptions - the inappropriate measuring yard ! This

>implies that we are back to square one.

 

Ram - there is a difference in outlook from different achaaryaa-s. Direct

percetion is considered as the supreme pramaaNa ultimately - provided if

one defines what constitutes that pratyaksha - Because Veda-s only provide

a 'saamaanya Jnaana" that there is Brahman and that you are that Brahman.

That is the bookish knowledge. Ultimate litmus test is to see the truth as

the truth which is indicated by the shaastra. Here the 'so called

subjective' experience is - still considered as 'direct perception of the

truth as that truth' where it is not perceiving an object but perceiving

oneself as oneself.

 

Logic is important but secondary - since logic itself depends on pratyaksha

for its proof.

 

Scritptures are logical but also point out that which is beyond the logic

and that can only be experienced by oneself in oneself - And that is the

direct means - That is going over the pole yet one is experiencing using

the pole to go beyond the pole leaving it aside.

 

Words fall short in the description of the goal as well as the means - just

like how one goes to sleep. As long as one is trying to sleep one is still

awake. But one prepares to go to sleep renouncing every thing that the

mind is preoccupied with. Sleep is the direct experience but how and when

it downs no one can intellecutally grasp since intellect cannot be there to

grasp.

 

I donot call this as square one, since this understanding the nature of the

pursuit and the goal correctly is required to arrive at the correct goal.

>

>The statement, that we have to go beyond our

>perception to find ësat' is quite compelling and

>right. Does it mean that logic has no role in Vedanta?

>The answer is evidently no.

 

Sorry to disagree. Logic has every role to play. Otherwise we can through

the vedant books. Vedanta is logical all the way to the point to indicate

that the goal is beyond the logic. One has to hang on to the logic to go

beyond the logic - 'Neti and neti is the process - basis is very logical

and the goal is not by logical deduction.

>Sadaji used to give the

>example of the Pole-vault jumper who can use the pole

>to jump beyond the pole. Still the jumper has to leave

>the pole while jumping! If we use this analogy, we can

>conclude that we need the logic (intellect) to go

>beyond the logic and to go beyond, we also have to

>leave the logic!

 

Yes - logic is in the relm of intellect - we have to use the intellect to

go beyond the intellect. But these are words -words and words - it is the

understanding of what is so self-evident. All it means it is not by

deduction that one arrives at the goal - Since the goal is one own self

which is self-evident whether the logic is there or not there - it is

gettting rid of misunderstanding that comes with the identification of the

equipments that one is intellect etc. It is stripping of the wrong notions

logically - when everything is stripped out the truth shines itslef in its

full glory. Nothing to reach, nothing to cross, and nothing to go beyond -

even these notions have no meaning. Since it is all the time the

self-evident fact. But for us who are getting carried away with the

superfluous names and forms as reality, getting carried away with the

gopies ignoring the Lord Krishna the substratum of all the thoughts, it

appears to be a struggle.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

>Ram Chandran

>

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Agree whole-heartedly with the analysis, with one caveat that

'leaving the mind' includes self-control:

 

One point that needs endless emphasis is that logic has to come to

terms with the need for restraint of the senses, and the pursuit of virtue;

ONLY then will it lead to spiritual perfection.

Otherwise one will have to accept those who understand Quantum Physics as

also Self-realised!

 

Gita 18:51

 

buddhyaa vishuddhayaa yukto dhR^ityaatmaana.n niyamya cha .

 

shabdaadiinvishhayaa.nstyaktvaa raagadveshhau vyudasya cha .. .....

 

 

Purified intellect, firm self-control, dispassion for sensual pleasures,

abandoning attachment and hatred.....

 

These are basic requirements. viveka[discrimination] without

vairagya[dispassion] will not take one far on this path.

 

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

 

>"R. Viswanathan" <RVis

>advaitin

>advaitin

>Re: RE: Logic of Spirituality a la Dr.Sadananda

>Sat, 11 Mar 2000 18:01:47 -0800

>

>"R. Viswanathan" <RVis

>

>Hi!

>

>Ram Chandran <ramvchandran

>

><Does it mean that logic has no role in Vedanta?

>The answer is evidently no. Sadaji used to give the

>example of the Pole-vault jumper who can use the pole

>to jump beyond the pole. Still the jumper has to leave

>the pole while jumping! If we use this analogy, we can

>conclude that we need the logic (intellect) to go

>beyond the logic and to go beyond, we also have to

>leave the logic!>

>

>That is the real point. The mind and its logic is useful and essential

>to enquire relentlessly. Just as the Pole-vault jumper can not fly

>higher unless he leaves his grip on the pole which propelled him to a

>certain height, one can not be enlightened till one's mind is left

>behind. Very well said Mr Ram Chandran.

>

>-- Vis

>

>

>------

>GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 2.9%

>Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW!

>http://click./1/936/2/_/489436/_/952826413/

>------

>

>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/ To

>from the list, send Email to <advaitin- > For other

>contact, Email to <advaitins

>

>

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Hi!

 

Ram Chandran <ramvchandran

 

<Does it mean that logic has no role in Vedanta?

The answer is evidently no. Sadaji used to give the

example of the Pole-vault jumper who can use the pole

to jump beyond the pole. Still the jumper has to leave

the pole while jumping! If we use this analogy, we can

conclude that we need the logic (intellect) to go

beyond the logic and to go beyond, we also have to

leave the logic!>

 

That is the real point. The mind and its logic is useful and essential

to enquire relentlessly. Just as the Pole-vault jumper can not fly

higher unless he leaves his grip on the pole which propelled him to a

certain height, one can not be enlightened till one's mind is left

behind. Very well said Mr Ram Chandran.

 

-- Vis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadanandaji!

 

This is in reference to post #4212 by Prof VK of 27 Feb 2000.

Prof VK summarized your 'Logic of Spirituality' discussion in

Chennai. The topic came up last week, even though this month is

supposed to be devoted to Jnana and Bhakti. What I read in this post

is so much in accord with what I was trying to say about 2 months

ago, when you were away, that I will ask the moderators for the

liberty to make some comments now, for those who care. This is a

topic that is irresistably fascinating to me and to which we will

return in October with Gregji as discussion leader.

 

Basically, the essence of what I was trying to argue is that

we must take so-called Subjective Idealism quite seriously, the

notion that only Consciousness exists and that any notion of object

is purely a construct of the mind. I know that you agreed with me a

few days ago, but I feel it is all very much worth repeating, because

of its centrality to Advaita, and because it makes so many obscure

statements clear, as I will try to elaborate.

 

Subjective idealism basically says that as far as the

'external' world is concerned, there is nothing more than our

perception of it. There is no 'material substance' out there, i.e.

'outside' of our consciousness, that is causing our perceptions (as

science commonly believes). The illusion of an external world is

created in the waking state by the fact that our perceptions are

orderly (obey the laws of physics) and that we share similar

perceptions when we are in the waking state and 'in the same place'.

(Being in the same place simply means that we are sharing similar

perceptions regarding what we are pleased to think of as objects.)

In other words, in the waking state, we are simply sharing the same

dream in common. There is absolutely no way to refute this view.

The notion of object or material substance thus turns out to be

utterly unverifiable and utterly useless and should therefore be

discarded as irrelevant. One doesn't need scriptures to realize

this, and one doesn't need to believe in God. It is simply 'science'

taken to the ultimate, i.e. do not believe in what cannot be

experienced.

 

This philosophical view was enunciated in the 18th century by

a Western philosopher named Berkeley. Almost all Western

philosophers have rejected it as too extreme, although most have

been profoundly influenced by it and have often formulated their own

philosophies as a kind of reaction to it.

 

Why do I think that this is so important to Advaita? Simply

because I think that it makes perfectly clear and rational the great

mahavakyas, which, according to my paraphrase, say that Reality and

Consciousness are *identical* and that there is *nothing else* (i.e.

no object or matter). This in turn makes credible the 'insane'

belief that 'We are God', i.e. that we are the Infinite Consciousness

which is the 'substratum' of all existence.

 

The only point that I wish to add is this. You said later

in the article that one must transcend the intellect in order to

realize that the object is unreal. Here is where I disagree. The

beauty of subjective idealism is that it makes the unreality of the

object perfectly clear to the rational intellect, at least to mine.

 

Now, please do not think that I am so presumptuous as to

imply that I am realized. I fully comprehend the huge gulf between

intellectual understanding and spiritual realization. The usefulness

of the philosophical viewpoint of subjective idealism, for me, is

that it stops my chattering mind from asking questions such as,

'What do the mahavakyas really mean?', 'What does Advaita mean?',

'What does nondualism mean?', 'Is it not all nonsense?', etc., etc.

These disturbing questions are an obstacle to spiritual progress,

since I cannot simply sweep legitimate questions under the rug, so to

speak.

 

But once the doubts are silenced, then spiritual progress

consists of absorption in the realization of our fundamental nature

as consciousness, like plunging into a deep ocean of Consciousness.

This is not intellectual but experiential. It is Ramana's inquiry

into the 'I-I' in which ultimately even the notion of 'I Am' is

burned in the fire of realization like the stick used to stir it.

 

Om!

Benjamin

 

P.S. My earlier discussion involved the difficulty I have in

reducing my consciousness to yours in one Supreme Consciousness. In

my mind, I can easily eliminate the objective world and remain with

my own consciousness, but I must confess that I can think of no good

reason to reduce your consciousness to mine ... that seems like a

different issue than the elimination of the material world. At the

same time, I also agree that the same Brahman or Consciousness or

Ultimate Source of Reality must underlie your consciousness and mine.

Hence my perplexity. I read what you said earlier this month to me

on this issue. I did not fully understand or agree with all of it

but did not wish to pursue it, and the topic of this month is

something else. First let me see if coming to your Upadesha Sari

lectures sheds some light on this.

[Guest guest]

At 01:22 PM 5/12/2003 -0400, Benjamin Root wrote:

 

liberty to make some comments now, for those who care. This is a

>topic that is irresistably fascinating to me and to which we will

>return in October with Gregji as discussion leader.

>

> Basically, the essence of what I was trying to argue is that

>we must take so-called Subjective Idealism quite seriously, the

>notion that only Consciousness exists and that any notion of object

>is purely a construct of the mind.

 

....

 

dream in common. There is absolutely no way to refute this view.

 

....

 

Hi Benjamin-ji.

 

I won't say too much about this now, since it's a topic for later. But let me

make some suggestions, and if you wish, we can treat it in more detail offline.

 

1. As you describe subjective idealism, there *is* a way to refute it. I have

heard that even Berkeley, whose arguments are a bit different from what you

present here, changed his position later in life. It was in a little-known work

called "Tarwater." He didn't retract his position. Instead, he took it

further....

 

2. In preparation for October, would you care to draw up an article summarizing

Berkeley's arguments? They are the most approachable in "3 DIALOGUES BETWEEN

HYLAS AND PHILONOUS," which is in almost all the Berkeley editions you find at

the library or bookstores. I don't want to say too much now. Actually, a close

look at Berkeley's arguments is a bit off-topic for this list, and even in

October!

 

Om!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Hi Benjamin and Greg,

 

As you both know, I am also very interested in this subject. Please do not

'indulge' (!) in an off-line discussion. I'd go along with Greg's suggestion

to Ben and a request to the moderators to allow the inclusion of Berkeley

material in the October discussion. (I'm happy that it is relevant to

Advaita even if some others aren't.)

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis!

 

You said:

>As you both know, I am also very interested in this subject.

>Please do not'indulge' (!) in an off-line discussion. I'd

>go along with Greg's suggestion to Ben and a request to the

>moderators to allow the inclusion of Berkeley material in the

>October discussion. (I'm happy that it is relevant to Advaita

>even if some others aren't.)

 

The only off-line conversation between Greg and myself so far

resulted in: (1) an agreement that I would write a summary of

Berkeley for the October session, and (2) Greg would send me some

relevant literature and/or URLs as he finds them. That way I can

study them and be better prepared for October. So I hope that Greg

does do this. Do not worry ... I will keep all the material

together in one place, and I can forward it privately to you or

whomever on this list when I get something interesting. Just contact

me offline at my email address.

 

I think that some discussion of Berkeley would be most

relevant to October's discussion. The moderators can always

'moderate' if the discussion gets too far away from Advaita. As I've

extensively argued, Berkeley's philosophy is one possible way to get

an 'intellectual' insight into Advaita, however partial and

imperfect. Greg seems less enthusiastic about this notion that I am

.... but that's his prerogative! ;-)

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

I definitely agree on Berkeley. It's just that one must push further than

merely showing that material substance can't exist....

 

OM!

 

--Greg

 

At 06:13 PM 5/13/2003 -0400, Benjamin Root wrote:

 

As I've extensively argued, Berkeley's philosophy is one possible way to get

>an 'intellectual' insight into Advaita, however partial and

>imperfect. Greg seems less enthusiastic about this notion that I am

>.... but that's his prerogative! ;-)