the mind does too see the Self

March 8, 2000

Namaste,

The concluding verse of Adi Shankara's 'maniishhaa-pa~nchakam.h' has

the same purport:

daasaste.aha.n dehadR^ishhTyaa.asmi shaMbho

jaataste.n.asho jiivadR^ishhTyaa tridR^ishhTe .

sarvasyaa.a.atmannaatmadR^ishhTyaa tvameve\-

tyevaM me dhiirnishchitaa sarvashaastraiH ..

>From the standpoint of the body,O Siva, I am thy servant;

from the standpoint of the soul, O Thou with three eyes, I become a part of

thine;

and O the Self of all, from the standpoint of the Self, I am verily Thou:

this is my settled conclusion reached with the help of all Sastras.

tr. T.M.P.Mahadevan

Regards,

s.

>Ram Chandran <ramvchandran

>advaitin

>Re: the mind does too see the Self

>Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:38:27 -0800 (PST)

____

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

March 8, 2000

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

March 9, 2000

>Patrick Kenny <pkenny

>

>Greetings Sadananda,

Greetings to you too Patrick - Here is my understanding for the issues you

have raised.

>

>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?

The answer lies in correct understanding of the mind and the self. If you

classify the mind as 'this' - and since I am different from this - then

'this' is inert and object; and I am the conscious entity and the

subject. Obviously object can not become the subject and the subject

cannot become an object.

In principle mind can only see the objects as the thoughts and subject

cannot be objectified as a thought. Hence in one way a direct answer to

your question is no - the mind cannot see the self.

Then who sees the self. Inquiry into seer-seen distinction itself is

invalid for this case. Let me give you a simple example. Partick you are

in very pitch dark room. and I call out from outside - Hai! Patrick are you

there? - What would be your answer? - You cannot say that I cannot see a

thing here and I donot know if I am here or not! - That is, your presence

is known to you but not by means of perception - like the way all the

objects are known.

Nor you cannot say that - yes I hear you therefore I must be here

somewhere in the room! - That is your existence as well as the knowledge of

your existence are not established by logic.

Now answer me - by what means you know that you exist and as well as you

are conscious of your existence. - No means is required to know that I am

- I standing for conscious entity and am standing for existent entity.

Thus no pramaaNa or means of knowledge can establish nor is required to

establish that I exist and I am conscious entity. I do not need scriptures

to tell me that either - In fact all the scriptures and pramaaNa-s are

valid as well as applicable only because I exist and I am conscious entity.

Hence 'self' is called -self-effulgent entity - or swayam prakaashatvam -

you donot need a light to see the light - It is called joytirjoytiH - light

of all lights.

If you go an Indian Temple they to Vedic aarati and chant -

natatra suuryo bhaati na chadra taarakam

nemaa vidhyuto bhaanti kotoyamagniH|

tvameva bhaanti anubhaati sarvam

tasyabhaasaa sarvamidam vibhaati||

While showing the light to the Lord, one reminds oneself the fact that -

neither sun shines there nor the moon nor the electricity - none of them

can illuminate you since you are not an object for illumination. Then what

to talk of this silly lamp that I am showing. Everything is illumined

after you and by your illumination only. It is like I can see the Sun as

luminous body only because my consciousness illumines the sun too so that

I can say 'this is the sun'. - Not only that - it illumines even the

darkness too without destroying it since I can say - ' I see it is very

dark here' - I see that I cannot see anything here since it is pitch dark.

- Yet I know that I am there to see 'nothing'. To see myself I donot need

any means -

Hence who sees oneself - Here the seer-seen distinction is dissolved. I am

the seer and I am the seen since I know myself I exist and I am

consciousness - how - because I am self-consciousness. I am aware of

myself.

Normally only I know myself partially - that I am there (sat) and

consciousness (chit). But I donot know that I am ananda too. Hence I go

after things to gain happiness. This is where scripture comes to our

rescue - it says you are anada - limitless is ananda - you are that - that

which everyone is seeking - that is happiness or state of limitlessness.

Tat tvam asi is the declaration of the Veda-s. Brahman means infiniteness

and 'aham brahmaasmi' is the true knowledge.

Actually the notions in the mind as "I am this' etc drops out and pure

knowledge ' I am' raises in the mind only - but this 'I am' is without any

attributes since attributes belong to objects and not to subject.

Hence even if Lord comes and we ask who he is - he can only say "I am that

I am" as was revealed to Moses.

Mind that dissolves is the mind with notions - all the notions about myself

drop out once I know myself.

'who really knows that self' - the one who is asking the question - He is

the conscious entity since he is asking the question - but he has right now

a notion that he is ignorant since he is identifies that he is only the

body, mind and intellect different from the rest of the world. He realizes

himself that He is not just the body, mind and intellect but everything

else - the whole world raises from him, sustained by him and goes back in

to him - I am the waker, I am the dreamer and I am the deep sleeper and yet

I am these three states yet beyond the three states - a stateless state

that pervades all the three states - that I am.

But in the realization "I am" without limitations - one automatically

realizes that I am everything too. Hence mind is not different from me.

Hence one can say in a way that mind realizes - since mind is not different

from the self in that understanding. Hence Krishna's statement from Ch. 6.

that I quoted ' All being are in me and I am in all beings" - There is no

more subject-object distinction in that knowledge - no more seer-seen

distinction or knower-known distinctions. All distinctions are only

apparent and not real. Analysis is self-consistent. I hope it is clear

now in terms of seer-seen problem where there is only one without a second.

>

>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?

Depend how you interpret the word maaya - in the talk summery of which

Prof. VK provided I touched base exactly on this creation aspect.

Definition of maaya - ya maa saa maayaa - that which appears to be there

but not there upon inquiry. Creation is only modification of what is

already there - sat - This is what is implied in the description of the

creation in Chadogya Upanishad - starting from 'sadeva soumya .... etc' - I

wrote an article 'advaita Vedanta by Shankara Bhagavadpaada' some time back

-last June-July time - it may be in the archives of the list serve. There

these aspects are discussed exhaustively.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

March 9, 2000

Thank you for Sadaji for this brilliant exposition to Patrick's question.

The Advaita list is fortunate for your gifted presence and that of many

others here. I will take the liberty to pass on this part of the

conversations to those who might be interested on and

NondualitySalon.

For those who don't know on the other lists, Sadaji is one of the most

profound exponents of nonduality as well as a sanskrit scholar and a

brilliant scientist. His intellectual power would be quite overwhelming if

it was not for his spiritual insight, loving heart, and a benevolent

presence. We are grateful for such elevated company.

Harsha

K. Sadananda [sada]

Thursday, March 09, 2000 11:54 AM

advaitin

Re: Re: the mind does too see the Self

"K. Sadananda" <sada