the mind does too see the Self

[Guest guest]

Dennis, thank you for your

thought-provoking criticism.

> All speech

> and thought about anything, by its nature, grounded in phenomenal

> experience and logic, attributes one thing and excludes another. This

> cannot be done of the Self, which has no such divisions. Surely, then, it

> must follow that we cannot think about it or 'see the Self' in any way

> through the medium of the mind?

 

The self is indeed unknowable simply

because it is infinite --- there is no

need

to invoke here any intrinsic limitations

on human knowing or seeing whether

pertaining

to the mind or any other faculty which

might be capable of apprehending the

Self. (But what

other faculty could there be?)

 

This is not to say that we might as well

all resign from the list on the grounds

that as finite beings

we have no hope of seeing the Self but

it does acknowledge that none of us is

capable of

more than a limited perspective on the

Self. Since the world is infinite no

individual can be

endowed with a 'God's eye' view of the

world but it is the aggregate of these

limited individual

perspectives which constitute what

Spinoza calls 'the infinite intellect of

God'.

(A remark of Goethe also springs to

mind: 'the spectacle of Nature is always

new for she

is always renewing the spectators. Life

is her greatest invention and death her

expert contrivance

to get plenty of life.')

> One of the key aphorisms of advaita is the expression 'neti, neti', to

> remind us constantly that whatever we perceive as being brahman is a

> mistake. Any attribute that could be applied to the Self, by excluding the

> opposite, would have to limit its nature. Since its nature is absolute,

> this cannot be possible. Even the attribute saccidAnanda is really of the

> 'not this' form. By saying that the Self is 'reality' or 'truth' we are

> really only acknowledging that it is not 'unreal' or 'false'.

 

Again, I don't contest that the

expression 'neti, neti' can be

interpreted

as referring to the ineffability of the

Self. But I would like to draw

your attention to a much more

straightforward interpretation which

seems closer

to the intention of the authors of the

early prose Upanishads. Here the student

is routinely discouraged from

identifying his atman with any

particular thing

in the world ('neti, neti') on the

grounds that every particular thing will

sooner or later be destroyed ('I see no

good in this'). The only 'thing' that

will not be destroyed is the world

itself so that after running out of

alternatives

the student may be forced to conclude

that his atman is Brahman. (But note

that this is an *intellectual* leap!)

> After all, it is the mind that gets

> in the way of our realising this right here and now!

 

Perhaps this is the source of our

problems. The identification of the mind

with the ego is something

that crops up frequently on this list

but I don't understand it at all. I

don't ever recall encountering

this idea in the Upanishads or the Gita.

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

[Guest guest]

Once somebody asked Sri Ramana Maharshi as to how to reach the Self,

Bhagavan replied , "Are there two Selves in you that one should be searching for

the

other ? ".

 

The Self is infinite of course , but that is not the main reason why it is

unknowable. To know something or see something , there must be the Knower or the

Seer which YOU ARE.

Therefore you only BE the Self and not Know the Self.

 

"DehaBudhya Thu Dasosmi, Jiva Budhya Twadhamshakaha.

AtmaBudhya Twameham ithi mai Nichitha Mathihi".

 

"Considering myself as the body, I am your servant, considering myself as a soul

, I am a part of you, Considering myself as the Self, I am You, this is my firm

conviction".

Sri Hanumanji's reply to Sri Ramachandra Parabrahma.

 

Anand

 

P.S. Someone correct me, if my sanskrit quotation has mistakes.

 

 

On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 11:09:55 Patrick Kenny wrote:

>The self is indeed unknowable simply

>because it is infinite --- there is no

>need

>to invoke here any intrinsic limitations

>on human knowing or seeing whether

>pertaining

>to the mind or any other faculty which

>might be capable of apprehending the

>Self. (But what

>other faculty could there be?)

 

 

A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology

Network.

Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Anand:

 

The example that you have stated regarding Hanumanji

is a beautiful. This example is also further

elaborated by ProfVK, our respected and beloved member

in his book on Hinduism: (Reference: Essentials of

Hinduism, by V.

Krishnamurthy (1989), Narosa Publishing House, New

Delhi. Page 136.)

 

Shri Ram asked Hanuman, What is your attitude toward

me? How do you look upon, think of and worship me?

 

Hanuman replied, Oh Lord:

 

When I am conscious of my body, when I feel I am this

visible body and I have the conviction that thou art

the Lord and I am thy servant. Thou art to be served

and I am one to serve.

 

When I am conscious of my self as the individual self,

one with the mind, the intellect and the soul, I have

the strong conviction that thou art the whole and I am

thy part.

 

When I remain in Samadhi, in the mood that I am the

Pure SELF devoid of all qualifying adjuncts, I have

the conviction that I am also verily that which Thou

art. Thou and I are one, there is no difference

whatsoever between Thou and I.

 

The first part of Hanuman's answer stresses his

attitude to serve (Karma Yoga). The second part

focuses on the surrender attitude (Bhakti Yoga).

The final part of the answer confirms the

inseparability or non-duality (Jnana Yoga).

 

May be ProfVK may have further comments,

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Ram and Anand,

 

I too was touched by Hanumanji's worshipful and insightful reply to Shri

Ram. Thank you Anand for posting it, and thank you Ram for pointing out

the relationship of Hanuman's expression to the 3 yogas. This is what I

noticed as well.

 

Regards,

 

--Greg

>The first part of Hanuman's answer stresses his

>attitude to serve (Karma Yoga). The second part

>focuses on the surrender attitude (Bhakti Yoga).

>The final part of the answer confirms the

>inseparability or non-duality (Jnana Yoga).

[Guest guest]

Greetings Greg:

 

Hanumanji implicitly points out that the three Yogas -

Karma, Bhakti and Jnana are also inseparatble nondual

reality!

 

In Gita, these Yogas are discussed as separate topics

only visualize the reality from different angle! We

are the blindmen looking at the elephant (reality) and

conceptualize differently! As Sadaji pointed out that

all such differences are only in appearance!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

>From the standpoint of the ego, the world is definitely unreal. Even if you dont

believe in God, you can still prove rationally that what you see or hear need

not be what is actually there. This is Kant's philosophy.

>From the standpoint of the Self, the world is nothing but Brahman and it is our

mind playing riot that causes all these images. Our attachment to these images

is the ego and this "wheel of mis-fortune" goes on.

Adi -Shankara's Bhaja Govindam has many stanzas which ask you to question the

reality of the world such as

"Ka they kantha , Kasthe Putra

Samasarevam Atheeva Vichtra.

Kasya Twam va Kuthaaayath

Thatvam chintaya Thadhiha Braatha"

 

"Who is your wife , who is your child ?

This worldly life is indeed strange.

Who are you and where do you come from ?

Think on these matters , brother ".

 

Anand

 

P.S. Dennis ,How about changing your email id from Dwaite to Adwaite ):-

 

 

On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 19:11:10 f. maiello wrote:

>it's a common misunderstanding that the world is

>an illusion to be rid of. this is actually the

>stance of dvaita. the culprit, among other things,

>seems to surround the misconception that 'neti, neti'

>denies manifestation. at first it's sound to use

>it thus, but sooner or later the sadhaka realizes

>its caveat: not this, *as such*, etc.

 

 

A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology

Network.

Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com

[Guest guest]

>"f. maiello" <egodust

>

>hi dennis-

>

>good to see you found our list.

>

>re your debate with patrick, i have to agree

>with him generally. quite strongly in fact.

>

>it's a common misunderstanding that the world is

>an illusion to be rid of. this is actually the

>stance of dvaita. the culprit, among other things,

>seems to surround the misconception that 'neti, neti'

>denies manifestation. at first it's sound to use

>it thus, but sooner or later the sadhaka realizes

>its caveat: not this, *as such*, etc.

>

>upanishads tell us: "all this is brahman." thus

>the world is also real. delusion enters the picture

>if/when one regards any fragment [within life] to be

>real *as such*, viz. apart from its substratum in

>the brahman Absolute.

>

>advaita delivers a seamless reality...a unified field

>of Being, manifest and unmanifest. no divisions, no

>antagonisms. the mind can thus turn on, tune in, and

>drop out. (leary was/is also right there/here now :-)

>

>adi sankara has also emphasized that maya is eternal.

>(it's a mixture of real and unreal. not just unreal.)

>if that's so, we'd be involved in an eternal battle.

>

>namaste

>

Frank - beautiful explanation.

 

What is negated is only the superficial names and forms - neti, neti -is

for the forms that are perceived. and the notions that these forms are

real. That is, the world that appears to be as plurality. What is negated

is the reality of the plurality. What remains after negation is one's own

self - as Krishna declares

sarvabhuutastam aatmaanam sarvabhuutani ca atmani -

oneself in all beings and all beings in oneself. - Ch.6

 

If I understand Patrick's mail correctly he seems to allude that the world

is not an illusion and that there is no mention of this in the Geeta.

 

1. After discussing what is real and what is unreal - sat and asat - He

emphasizes that the world is the projection of the PrakRiti -

mayaadhyakshena prakRitiH suuyate sa charaacharam|- What is that prakRiti -

maayantu prakRitim vidyaat - know that maaya is that prakRiti - All

philosophers bring 'maaya' as the cause for creation although the meaning

each one associates to maaya is different.

 

2. 'mayaatata midam sarvam jagadavyaktamuurtinaa- I pervade this entire

universe in an unmanifested form' - the changeless substratum among the

changing things. 'mastaani sarvabhuutani nachaaham teshu avastinaH' ' All

beings are in me but I am not in them' - Just as gold declaring that all

golden ornaments are in me but I am not in them in the sense that ring,

bangle etc - the names, forms and their associated attributes, utilities

etc.- their I.D. and O.D. 's etc donot belong to me, the gold.

 

3. "daivii eshaa guNamayi mama maaya duratyayaa" - this maaya with its

three fold qualities (satva-raja and tamo guNa) is of divine origin and is

difficult to transcend. Only by complete surrendance to me one can cross

this maaya- says Krishna.

 

 

Illusion is not correct translation of the mithya - mithya has two aspects

- one is the illusion and the other is the delusion. Illusory appearance

is not the problem but delusion is the problem - delusion is taking the

illusion as real.

 

Illusion stresses the subjective aspect alone. But if one analyzes closely

there is two types of projections:

 

Subjective projection of the objective world - dRishhTi-sRishhTi

and Objective projection of the objective world. - sRishhTi - dRishhTi

 

Subjective projection disappears when knowledge dawns on one - that is the

snake disappears when one sees the rope.

 

Objective projection can remain even after knowledge as long as there is a

seer. But what disappears is the notions (delusions) that the objective

projections are real. - This is like sun-raise and sun set. Even after one

understands that sun neither raises nor sets - one can still enjoy the

beautiful sunrise and sunset. - But there is no more delusion that the

sunrise is real.

 

The same applies to the entire world. Hence illusion can remain while the

delusion disappears with the knowledge. One knows that what appears is

only apparent and one can still transact even with the understanding of the

apparent reality - the way Krishna transacted in the world even knowing

that everything is in Him and He alone is real.

 

Another point raised is with respect to mind and ego.

Ego is only one aspect of the mind. - mind is nothing but thoughts and

broadly there are two kinds of thoughts - idam vRitti - this - this

thoughts and aham vRitti - I am - I am thoughts. - When 'I am - I am-

thought identifies with 'I am - this' thought - then that is called the

ego - it is the notion that arises because I do not know who really I am

and I identify myself with this - this being this body, this mind and this

intellect. - That is the ahankaara - or ego. Since it is a notion due to

not understanding the truth, it can disappear when I know who I am. Hence

mind is not the ego but ego is part of the mind in terms of aham vRitti.

What disappears is the delusory mind that has wrong notions. Illusory mind

can remain as a useful equipment. But there is no more notion that I am

that mind. 'They are in me but I am not in them' . Hence the word of

caution in the use of the term 'illusion' and in the translation of the

world 'mithya' - when Shankara says jagat is mithya. - These are technical

words with precise meaning in advaita vedanta.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Greetings Sadananda,

 

thanks for taking the trouble to address

the concerns that I have raised in such

detail.

Your account of the ego and the mind

makes perfect sense to me but of course

I would

be interested to know if you maitain

that the mind can see the Self, and if

not, by what

means can the Self be seen?

 

As far as I know (but this is only

second-hand knowledge) *in the Gita* the

word maya

does not mean illusion; rather it

is best translated by a phrase such as

'divine creativity' with the

understanding that this creativity is

so overwhelmingly powerful that it

routinely causes the minds of contingent

beings to be deluded. Don't your

citations tend to support this

rendering?

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

> If I understand Patrick's mail

> correctly he seems to allude that the

> world

> is not an illusion and that there is

> no mention of this in the Geeta.

>

> 1. After discussing what is real and

> what is unreal - sat and asat - He

> emphasizes that the world is the

> projection of the PrakRiti -

> mayaadhyakshena prakRitiH suuyate sa

> charaacharam|- What is that prakRiti -

> maayantu prakRitim vidyaat - know that

> maaya is that prakRiti - All

> philosophers bring 'maaya' as the

> cause for creation although the

> meaning

> each one associates to maaya is

> different.

>

> 2. 'mayaatata midam sarvam

> jagadavyaktamuurtinaa- I pervade this

> entire

> universe in an unmanifested form' -

> the changeless substratum among the

> changing things. 'mastaani

> sarvabhuutani nachaaham teshu

> avastinaH' ' All

> beings are in me but I am not in

> them' - Just as gold declaring that

> all

> golden ornaments are in me but I am

> not in them in the sense that ring,

> bangle etc - the names, forms and

> their associated attributes, utilities

> etc.- their I.D. and O.D. 's etc donot

> belong to me, the gold.

>

> 3. "daivii eshaa guNamayi mama maaya

> duratyayaa" - this maaya with its

> three fold qualities (satva-raja and

> tamo guNa) is of divine origin and is

> difficult to transcend. Only by

> complete surrendance to me one can

> cross

> this maaya- says Krishna.

>

> Illusion is not correct translation of

> the mithya - mithya has two aspects

> - one is the illusion and the other is

> the delusion. Illusory appearance

> is not the problem but delusion is the

> problem - delusion is taking the

> illusion as real.

>