Guest guest Posted March 9, 2000 Report Share Posted March 9, 2000 Namaste, Yajnavalkya to Maitreyi: (Brihadaranyaka Upan. II:iv:14) ....yatra tu asya sarvam aatmaivaabhuut.....tat kena kam abhivadet tat kena kam manviita tat kena kam vijaaniiyaat.h yenedam sarvam vijaanaati tam kena vijaaniiyat vij~naataram are kena vijaaniiyat.h . .....when verily everything has become the Self....then by what and to whom should one speak, then by what and on whom should one think, then by what and whom should one understand? By what should one know that by which all this is known? By what, my dear, should one know the knower? [Tr. S.Radhakrishnan Maitri Upan. VI:7 : yatra advaitiibhuutam vij~naanam kaarya-kaaraNa-karma-nirmuktam nirvachanam anaupamyam nirupaakhyaam kim tad avaachyam.h . ...where knowledge being devoid of effort, cause or action, unspeakable, incomparable, indescribable, what is that? It is impossible to say. Hope this helps! Regards, s. >Dennis Waite <dwaite >advaitin >"'advaitin '" <advaitin > > World and Reality; Mind as obstacle >Thu, 9 Mar 2000 21:20:15 -0000 > >It seems so obvious to me that mind is a (the?) problem. By its very nature >it is dualistic. Every thought I think emphasises this presumed duality. It >is only in the silence of meditation, when the mind is absent that one can >intuit the truth of unity. Surely there must be lots of references in the >scriptures? Aren't there? (Help!) > >Dennis ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2000 Report Share Posted March 9, 2000 Help! The list is certainly everything I hoped it might be. Some excellent posts recently but insufficient time to give adequate consideration to all the issues. I'm trying to write a book! In particular, before it recedes too far into the past, my thanks to Sadananda and Profvk for their thoughtful replies to my comments on the 'Logic of Spirituality'. I have printed out the complete dialogue and had intended to comment further. I think, though, that my main concerns have been answered and I was certainly very happy with Sadananda's learned statements on reality vs unreality, as I already mentioned - a very succinct appraisal. However the discussion with Patrick has already branched out into the topic of 'mind being an obstacle to the truth' and now Frank has joined the fray - I (ego) feel obliged to respond. Frank (Good to be amongst you all again - wondered where you had got to!), You say "it's a common misunderstanding that the world is an illusion to be rid of. this is actually the stance of dvaita." Isn't this all to do with bhAda (cancellation/sublation/subration)? The only thing that, ultimately, is 'real' is that which cannot be sublated. Clearly the world is only appearance; once the ignorance falls away there is a paradigm shift in understanding and the world is seen to be none other than the Self. Was this not an 'illusion' before? This, to my understanding, is what is said by advaita (I don't know anything about dvaita). I suppose that, strictly speaking, the world is an appearance whose substratum is consciousness. Consciousness is, of course, real - the only reality there is. It is the appearance that is an illusion. We superimpose the snake illusion of mAyA upon the reality of the rope Self, as Sankara tells us in the vivekacudamANi (sp.?). 'Oh, I am really Consciousness itself. The world is like a juggler's show', says Janaka, upon realisation in the ashhTAvakra gItA. Perhaps we are using different terminology but I would maintain that the world IS (colloquially in advaita) an illusion. Effectively (in so far as there is something to be 'done' or a 'path' to be followed - although I accept this is a fallacy) we need to get rid of it (i.e. sublate this conception). Do you deny this? As far as Patrick's question is concerned, I am less sure. I think it was mentioned occasionally at the school I attended that the mind was one of our greatest obstacles (though paradoxically the tool by which we could ultimately realise the Self - as in the pole vault metaphor, which Sadananda mentioned recently). I think, though, that my conviction regarding this may have come from books I have read by Osho (wash out my mouth!) rather than acknowledged scripture. The only other reference I can find instantly is from a satsang (London, 1997) by V. Ganesan, president of the Ramana Foundation: - "Thought is unreality and therefore death. Scorch it with your attention. Have a taste of the thought, death as a thought. Every thought is death. Every movement away from NOW is death, and you have always the choice to be the NOW, and never identify with the death which is merely a thought. You are eternally in the now! "The 'Now' is what is talking. The 'Now' is what is listening. Whatever matter the 'Now' talks about is immaterial. Whatever you listen to, or understand, or do not understand, or whether you agree or do not agree with the speaker, is absolutely non-essential. Focus your attention on this living principle, without which no talking or listening can be done. Don't waste your energy in understanding 'things'. Understanding is the realm of thinking. And thinking is going to lead you to death, because it is death. Mind is the trap of death. You are not the mind, so there is no death for you. There is no death. Death is a myth." It seems so obvious to me that mind is a (the?) problem. By its very nature it is dualistic. Every thought I think emphasises this presumed duality. It is only in the silence of meditation, when the mind is absent that one can intuit the truth of unity. Surely there must be lots of references in the scriptures? Aren't there? (Help!) Dennis (yes, Anand, I had noticed the advaita - dwaite correspondence. People could get the wrong idea, couldn't they, like Frank!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2000 Report Share Posted March 9, 2000 Dennis Waite wrote: > > Frank (Good to be amongst you all again - wondered where you had got to!), > > You say "it's a common misunderstanding that the world is an illusion to be > rid of. this is actually the stance of dvaita." > Isn't this all to do with bhAda (cancellation/sublation/subration)? The > only thing that, ultimately, is 'real' is that which cannot be sublated. > Clearly the world is only appearance; once the ignorance falls away there > is a paradigm shift in understanding and the world is seen to be none other > than the Self. Was this not an 'illusion' before? This, to my > understanding, is what is said by advaita (I don't know anything about > dvaita). I suppose that, strictly speaking, the world is an appearance > whose substratum is consciousness. Consciousness is, of course, real - the > only reality there is. It is the appearance that is an illusion. We > superimpose the snake illusion of mAyA upon the reality of the rope Self, > as Sankara tells us in the vivekacudamANi (sp.?). 'Oh, I am really > Consciousness itself. The world is like a juggler's show', says Janaka, > upon realisation in the ashhTAvakra gItA. Perhaps we are using different > terminology but I would maintain that the world IS (colloquially in > advaita) an illusion. Effectively (in so far as there is something to be > 'done' or a 'path' to be followed - although I accept this is a fallacy) we > need to get rid of it (i.e. sublate this conception). Do you deny this? > hariH OM! what is stated here i quite agree with; however, i *do* deny that the world (life; manifestation; the dance of siva; brahman's leela) is through and through and utterly unreal. this is what, in my view, has become the common misunderstanding. as sadaji mentioned, the names and forms are the persuasive factors leading us into not illusion, but *delusion*. (which relates to the famous metaphors 'barren woman's son'; 'hare's horns'; etc.) for, illusion, like maya, has real and unreal components, thus it is indescribable. my agument is, to settle on maya being utterly unreal and something to be rid of, causes a permanent antagonism. since maya is eternal, we'd be in a constant battle to eliminate it, if we took, prima facie, the idea that it has to be eliminated. this is dualism pure and simple. *however*, i'm not at all saying that the unreal aspect of it--in terms of the changing names and forms--doesn't need to be overcome. quite the contrary. and this is the fulcrum of our tapas and sadhana. another popular misconception is the idea that one has to achieve, again prima facie, nirvikalpa samadhi, where [on one of its levels] no thoughts exist. however, this is not the sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi state, being the natural and continuous state of the jivanmuktha. this is the stae where--as opposed to the disembodied videhamuktha-- one is still operative within the realm of maya, where one is however no longer attached and manipulated by thoughts in any exclusive, separative way. rather the world of thought is accepted as part and parcel of the projection or outbreath of brahman (Its Play or leela). what has to be eliminated, in terms of Mind, is specifically the ego-Mind given to philosophical speculation. this is, in my view, what is being alluded to in terms of its extinction (manonasa). this is also what the zens mean by mu-shin or no-mind. yet the practical(!) manifest mind must remain in tact, or how could we possibly function in the world? such concepts, like the one made by sri v. ganesan, can be misleading, again, if taken prima facie. the point i believe should be extracted from it--as anandaji referred to--that the [concrete reasoning] ego-Mind is specifically the deterrant to one's natural home in the Self...is, of course, critical to realize. it is "when the mind is absent that one can intuit the truth of unity" implies that when, for example, sri ramana was discussing the evening menu for the ashrama, he had to be deluded and dead by/and in thought. no! the jnani's ego-Mind hellbent on theoretical queries and solutions is the mind that is defused and thus extinguished. the silence comes from the acceptance in the Heart of all that is, manifest and unmanifest, and not exalting/worshipping any aspect within it as greater or more sacred/vital than any other [energy-unit] in brahman. this is also the esoteric meaning of the commandment, "[That] I Am [is] the Lord thy [self] God, thou shalt not have strange gods before Me." thus thoughts, objects, and events within/without have real and unreal aspects. viveka is needed to weed out the unreal. the real is always--as you referred to--sublated beneath the otherwise ignorance-ridden appearance. namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2000 Report Share Posted March 9, 2000 but I would maintain that the world IS (colloquially in >advaita) an illusion. Effectively (in so far as there is something to be >'done' or a 'path' to be followed - although I accept this is a fallacy) we >need to get rid of it (i.e. sublate this conception). Do you deny this? > greetings sir,i paste below a an excerpt from a dialog between sri nisargadatta maharaj and a seeker (i had posted this earlier too) hope you find it helpful: Seeker If both dream and escape from dream are imaginings, what is the way out? Maharaj There is no need of a way out! Don't you see that a way out is also part of the dream? All you have to do is to see the dream as dream. Seeker If I start the practice of dismissing everything as a dream, where will it lead me? Maharaj Wherever it leads you, it will be a dream. The very idea of going beyond the dream is illusory. Why go anywhere? Just realize that you are dreaming a dream you call the world, and stop looking for ways out. The dream is not your problem. Your problem is that you like one part of the dream and not another. When you have seen the dream as a dream, you have done all that needs be done. -- as i understand it-- the world is not an illusion---the world is brahman itself-----but what we are taking to be the world of names and forms----as IT appears to us thru maya; thru mind is an illusion ---the only illusion is the mind,by the mind,of the mind... even the desire for liberation from illusion is a part and parcel of the illusion as long as we are under the "apparent" spell of maya(i agree with you)....of course but we have no other option but to try for liberation---realization only can give the insight that nothing apart from brahman IS --here is another clipping from one of my earlier posts "The desire to become Brahman grows out of a sense of separateness from it.It is a denial of our true nature.We are always Brahman.Therefore as long as this desire remains the consummation is not possible.One has to eradicate even the desire for freedom in order to attain freedom.Freedom is not to be attained ,it is ever attained.We are bound simply because we think ourselves bound." --Swami.Nityaswarupananda. ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2000 Report Share Posted March 9, 2000 Namaste, Saint Jnaneshvara has a telling example in his philosophical work, Amritanubhava. The Sun can never know what darkness is. How can THAT which illumines the Sun itself, have ignorance in it? Thus, it would be impossible to say (anirvachaniya) what a Self-Realised person 'sees', until one experiences that state oneself! Gita 13:17 says: jyotishhaam api tajjyotiH tamasaH param uchyate . j~naanam j~neyam j~naanagamyam hR^idi sarvasya dhishhThitam.h .. He is the Light of lights, said to be beyond darkness. Knowledge, the object of knowledge, and the goal of knowledge,He is seated in the hearts of all. Mundaka II:i:4 : .... aatmakriiDa aatmaratiH kriyaavaan eshha brahmavidam varishhThaH.. Sporting in the Self, delighting in the Self, performing works, such a one is the greatest of the knowers of Brahman. Regards, s. >"K. Sadananda" <sada >advaitin >advaitin >Re: World and Reality; Mind as obstacle >Fri, 10 Mar 2000 07:37:46 -0500 > > this is also emphasized as atmakreeda and atma rati. > >Hari Om! >Sadananda > >K. Sadananda >Code 6323 >Naval Research Laboratory >Washington D.C. 20375 >Voice (202)767-2117 >Fax:(202)767-2623 > > > ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2000 Report Share Posted March 10, 2000 >"Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh > >Namaste, > > Yajnavalkya to Maitreyi: (Brihadaranyaka Upan. II:iv:14) > >...yatra tu asya sarvam aatmaivaabhuut.....tat kena kam abhivadet > >tat kena kam manviita tat kena kam vijaaniiyaat.h yenedam sarvam > >vijaanaati tam kena vijaaniiyat vij~naataram are kena vijaaniiyat.h . > >....when verily everything has become the Self....then by what and to >whom should one speak, then by what and on whom should one think, then by >what and whom should one understand? By what should one know that by which >all this is known? By what, my dear, should one know the knower? > [Tr. S.Radhakrishnan > > > Maitri Upan. VI:7 : > >yatra advaitiibhuutam vij~naanam kaarya-kaaraNa-karma-nirmuktam > >nirvachanam anaupamyam nirupaakhyaam kim tad avaachyam.h . > > >..where knowledge being devoid of effort, cause or action, unspeakable, >incomparable, indescribable, what is that? It is impossible to say. > > Hope this helps! > >Regards, > >s. Very appropriate quatations Sunder - my thanks. > >>Dennis Waite <dwaite >>advaitin >>"'advaitin '" <advaitin > >> World and Reality; Mind as obstacle >>Thu, 9 Mar 2000 21:20:15 -0000 >> >>It seems so obvious to me that mind is a (the?) problem. By its very nature >>it is dualistic. Every thought I think emphasises this presumed duality. It >>is only in the silence of meditation, when the mind is absent that one can >>intuit the truth of unity. Surely there must be lots of references in the >>scriptures? Aren't there? (Help!) >> >>Dennis Dennis - It is not the mind that is the problem - Yes mind is required for projection of the plurality. The problem is not the plurality - but taking the plurality as reality is the problem - That comes from ignorence. One can shoot the mind if one wants to by drugs or by sleep etc. but that ignorence does not go - it can only go by knowledge. Thoughtless state is not what is requried in the meditation. Then it becomes a continous struggle for the mind to be in a state of thoughtless since mind is nothing but thoughts. Knowledge is to see in and through the thoughts the substratum - the consciousness that sustains the thoughts as well as illumines the thoughts. They are in me but I am not in them - is the declaration again and again. That is what is implied in the neti - neti aspect of meditation - it is not the dismissal of the thoughts - dismissal of the identity of the thoughts that as I am that. Hence thoughts and the associated plurality are not the problem - if one recognizes that thoughts are me and knower of the thougths is also me - I am there in the thoughts and I am there without the thoughts - Thoughts raise in me, sustained by me and go back into me- Waves are not the problem for the ocean - it is the glory of the ocean to have the waves. Similarly, the thought waves become my glory or aiswarya of the Lord. Then the world becomes a leela vibhuuti of the Lord - I can fold it or unfold it. - this is also emphasized as atmakreeda and atma rati. Hari Om! Sadananda K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2000 Report Share Posted March 11, 2000 Hi! Dennis Waite <dwaite <It seems so obvious to me that mind is a (the?) problem. By its very nature it is dualistic. Every thought I think emphasizes this presumed duality. It is only in the silence of meditation, when the mind is absent that one can intuit the truth of unity.> Well said. When the mind stops or dissolves the realization sets in. This occurs as much daily life as it does in meditation. -- Vis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.