Guest guest Posted March 9, 2000 Report Share Posted March 9, 2000 Greetings Sadananda, I must confess that I was arrested by this statement in the very first paragraph of your exposition > I am the conscious entity and the subject because there is only self that I am interested in being: If in the heavens There would come to be the light of a thousand suns rising together It would be like the light of that great Self. There, in the body of the God of Gods, The son of Pandu then beheld the entire world, Divided in manifold ways, all united. My question is how do you see *this* Self if not with the mind? Regards Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2000 Report Share Posted March 9, 2000 This verse from Sad Darsana (Ulladu Narpadu) of Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi gives a beautiful picture of the world. "Shabdadi roopam bhuvanam samastham shabdhadhi-satthendriya vrithi Bhasya. Sathendriyaanaam manaso vashe syaath manomayam thad bhuvanam vadaama." "The entire world is of the form of sound etc. The existence of sound etc is illumined by the functions of the sense organs. The existence of the sense organs is in the control of the mind. Therefore , we say that the world is made up of the mind " - Translation and commentary by Swami Tejomayanandaji , Chinmaya Mission The same question that Patrick Kenny asked about the million sun splendour was asked by a devotee to Ramana Maharshi. He replied ," the answer to that is in what the Lord told Arjuna before he showed him the Viswaroopa, "See in me all that you desire to see"." So the million sun splendour is the mind of Arjuna objectified. It is not the absolute. Om, Anand 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2000 Report Share Posted March 10, 2000 >Patrick Kenny <pkenny > >Greetings Sadananda, > >I must confess that I was arrested by >this statement in the very first >paragraph of your exposition > >> I am the conscious entity and the subject > >because there is only self that I am >interested in being: > >If in the heavens >There would come to be the light of a >thousand suns rising together >It would be like the light of that great >Self. > >There, in the body of the God of Gods, >The son of Pandu then beheld the entire >world, >Divided in manifold ways, all united. > >My question is how do you see *this* >Self if not with the mind? > >Regards > >Patrick Patrick - Shree Sunder's quotation from BRihadaaranyaka of Yajnavalkya's quotation is very appropriate. My thanks to Sunder for bringing this reference. Your question can be answered depending on from which reference the answer is given. >From the point of the absolute self, that one without a second - "akarthaaham abhoktaaham" I am neither doer nor enjoyer - As Yajnavalkya's statement implies - who is the seer and what is seen? - everything is nothing but me the self- since there is nothing other than me. dhyaanenaatmani pasyanti kechit atmaanam aatmanaa B.G. 13-25. In the seat of meditation, one sees oneself in oneself by oneself -since there is nothing other than oneself - since one is self-conscious entity. Here is seeing and being are one and the same. In the projected world of plurality - plurality is seen 'through the mind' - not by the mind- where the mind as an instrument of projection is also the part of the projection too as well as the basis for projection. Hence the dream analogy - Mind projects the plurality in the dream - the objects in the dream world are supported by the mind - yet they too are part of one total mind. The individuals in the dream also have their own tiny minds where each one thinks that he is different from the rest of the dream world. Yet they are all just one total waker's mind. Then who sees what there?. From the total mind the sear is the same and seen is the same - all just one total mind - apparently split into many. Hence it is an appearance since all that plurality is resolved back to the one waker's mind. When I am dreaming the plurality and I am also a part of my own dream - like the fireman trying to put out the fire -- with that set up - now you ask the question - who sees what? From the waker's mind - seer is me and seen is me and the Yajnavalkya's answer applies - from that state of realization. How does the seer-seen duality appears when there is one - that is where anirvacaniiya aspect comes in (inexplicable) that Sunder has pointed out in his mail. - This is from advaita point - From the dwaitic literature - it is all the leela of the Lord - or play of the Lord. You can take what you like. When I identify myself I am only the fireman different from the rest of the dream world, then I am seeing 'through the my mind - meaning fireman's mind' the world of plurality in from of me which is different from me - I am different, my mind is different and the rest of the plurality is different. My tiny mind is required as an instrument for me to see the plurality. If this mind goes to sleep - I cannot see that world of plurality. Hence what you say is correct - mind is required as an instrument for me to see the plurality. Yet from the waking state - even that mind is me only -since that mind along with the rest of the world resolves back into me. Hence from what reference one is asking the question is important. In the dwaitic philosophy - the plurality remains after the realization - They invoke a transcendental mind and body to see the transcendental state of plurality of jiiva-s and paramaatma. >From the advaitic point the very word transcendental implies the transcending the state of duality where there is no more distinction of seer and seen. Everything is in me and I am in everything. Patrick - my sincere appeal for you is to sit back and contemplate over the weekend on all the answers you have received and you will be able to resolve in yourself these issues to your own satisfaction. My pranaams 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 10, 2000 Report Share Posted March 10, 2000 Hi Mr Sadananda, I read your previous message with great interest. Is it possible for you to give us/me more precise reference for your article that you cite below. I searched through e-scribe.com but didn't find it. Thanks a lot, Claude advaitin , "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote >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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2000 Report Share Posted March 10, 2000 Greetings: Here is the reference for Sadaj's Article: http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m1275.html This article appeared last May 1999. "Jeeva, Jagat and Iswara - and who am I?" , Kuntimaddi Sadananda, Sat, 8 May 1999 12:28:06. This article is based on his talk on Shankara Jayanti. Those who are not familiar with Shankara's advaita philosophy should read this article which is quite extensive and exaustive. regards, Ram Chandran 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.