Brahman is not knowable as an Object of one's mind.

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

"f. maiello" <egodust wrote

........

 

however, moksha embraces not

only the fusion or nonduality of nirguna and saguna

brhaman, it also transcends even this [what is thus

merely a concept!]. therefore it is unknowable in

its ultimate essence. therefore the sage is finally

silent in the face of the question "what is moksha?"

 

........

.........

and from what i can see

is ultimately shrouded in pure mystery. this in fact

relates to what has to be regarded as the unknowable

nature of not only brahman, but also the maya of brahman,

as Its leela manifestation.

 

and it is this unknowable factor that in fact ushers

the soul into moksha (liberation through freedom!).

one is thus released from philosophical speculation

itself, representing the dissolution of the central

obstacle to freedom: the infliction of the endless

obsession commonly inhering in the inquiring mind.

...........

it is in

light of this it's referred to as the 'stateless state.'

....i.e. it is essentially a *pure mystery*.

 

love ONE.

as ever,

frank

 

Jai: I think just saying that Brahman's nature is a 'mystery' and it is

'unknowable' and moksha is a 'stateless state' etc. without proper

explanation is just verbal. It does'nt communicate much to person who is

seeking and who has problems and doubts (samsari) . What one has to

understand is that when the veda says 'Brahman is unknowable' it really

means that 'Brahman is not knowable as an object of one's mind'. But can we

know anything without objectifying it? Yes. There is only one 'thing' we

know without objectifying and that is oneself. If I ask anyone "are you

there?" that person need not use any means of knowledge like sense

perception or inference to say 'I am there'. The knower's existence is

established even before any means of knowledge can be used. This is called

self-revealing or swaprakasha. So the veda is trying to establish the

identity between the individual self and brahman when it says that brahman

is not knowable as an object. There is nothing mysterious here.

 

Reg. Maya being unknowable, Maya means that which is not categorizable as

existent or non-existent, real or unreal, etc. In that sense its nature is

unknowable. But I would say that it is knowable as that which cannot be

categorised.

 

There is nothing mysterious about Moksha. The very word if we look at

etymologically means 'Freedom'. Now freedom from what? Freedom from all the

limitations to which one thinks one is subjected to. That is Moksha and we

have it already but we dont know that fact. So one has to know.

 

So I think if there is proper teaching and communication there is nothing

mysterious or mystical about Vedanta.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar

 

 

 

_</egodust

[Guest guest]

Harih Om Jaishankarji:

 

The points that you have articulated are quite

important and valid.

 

Due to our ignorance and limited knowledge, we are

quick to find inconsistencies in the expressions of

saints and the scriptures. Any contradiction that we

perceive only indicates that we are bounded and

dominated by our ignorance.

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

--- Jaishankar Narayanan <jaishankar_n

wrote:

> ........... If I ask anyone "are you

> there?" that person need not use any means of

> knowledge like sense

> perception or inference to say 'I am there'. The

> knower's existence is

> established even before any means of knowledge can

> be used. This is called

> self-revealing or swaprakasha. So the veda is trying

> to establish the

> identity between the individual self and brahman

> when it says that brahman

> is not knowable as an object. There is nothing

> mysterious here.

> ........................

> So I think if there is proper teaching and

> communication there is nothing

> mysterious or mystical about Vedanta.

>

> with love and prayers,

>

> Jaishankar

</jaishankar_n

[Guest guest]

Jaishankar Narayanan wrote:

> There is nothing mysterious about Moksha. The very word if we look at

> etymologically means 'Freedom'. Now freedom from what? Freedom from all

> the imitations to which one thinks one is subjected to. That is Moksha

> and we have it already but we dont know that fact. So one has to know.

> So I think if there is proper teaching and communication there is nothing

> mysterious or mystical about Vedanta.

 

hariH OM!

 

this isn't even a case of semantics. we're really

saying the same thing. however--and with all due

respect--your statements re moksha and maya are

misleading in claiming that they are *within

themselves* knowable, implying that the relative

mind can [logically] know brahman.

 

brahman and its projected maya are in fact

unknowable mysteries *to the relative mind*

(as you state, "not knowable as an object of

one's mind").

 

the self-evident (svatyaksha or pratyaksha) factor

inheres in the Heart as cidakasa, not as something

reasonably knowable in the mind. if it were, it

would be logical and describable. no! it is thus

anirvachaniya. incidentally, pratyaksha has been

translated by sri ramana as not even self-evident

'knowing' or 'seeing' as per the idea of a sakshi,

but as sathya Itself! can Being be discribed by

relative logic?

 

jnana is Heart wisdom, not head knowledge.

 

what i stated should have clarified what i meant by

moksha being unknowable and mysterious:

"...and it is this unknowable factor ... [whereby] ...

one is thus released from philosophical speculation

itself .. [from] the infliction of the inquiring mind."

 

the Mind, thus, cannot know. manonasa refers to this

extinction of vrittis [in] the reasonable mind; whereas

jnana refers to hridayam or Heart Wisdom (viz. 'knowing'

in the Heart...the direct unqualified Be-ness).

 

namaste