does (can) jeeva and brahman simultaneously exist?

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Murthygaru:

 

Here is my understanding of the question. The

statement "Brahman always exists" should be restated

as

"Brahman only always exists."

 

The spell of "mAyA" has contributed to the

simultaneous appearance of Jiva and Brahman. MAyA was

also resonsible for the plurality during the

discussion. Stratums and substratums were also due to

mAyA! Jiva implies the presence of mAyA and the real

understanding will emerge when the ignorance is

dispelled. Until then we have to wait!!

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

--- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

wrote:

> 3. Similar to the rope-snake analogy: if we know

> the

> rope to be the rope, snake does not exist. If we

> are under the mistaken impression that it is a

> snake, the rope does not exist. Thus the super-

> -imposed and the substratum cannot

> simultaneously

> exist in our awareness.

 

technically i can agree with the last statement, but

it's not the whole issue involved. even though

something is not in our awareness doesn't mean it

doesn't exist, which is what they're trying to

imply...and by a clever devise in phrasing, think they

can get away with it! :-)

 

without the rope there can be no snake. therefore the

rope must always be in existence. just as the sun is

always in existence whether or not a passing cloud

blocks its light from our view....or at night, even

though none of us considers the fact that the sun is

still shining on the opposite side of the earth, it

still very much is!

 

i would furthermore like to point out for the Lists's

consideration the prospect that brahman is always

experienced *naturally and ordinarily* except if/when

the mind is engaged in reflecting on its merely human

condition. that is, within our ordinary daily

affairs, preoccupied with whatever it is we're doing,

themselves equate to the natural [sahaja!] state

*until* we somehow manage to reflect [and judge

therefore] the status of our condition, ^only then* do

we become at odds with our [otherwise] natural state!!

the difference then becomes--in terms of the

enlightened one--that thereafter no such reflection is

possible. he effortlessly remains thus in the natural

[and ordinary!] state.

 

peace in OM

 

 

 

Get Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!

/

[Guest guest]

-

f maiello

advaitin

Wednesday, June 28, 2000 10:23 PM

Re: does (can) jeeva and brahman simultaneously exist?

 

 

--- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

wrote:

> 3. Similar to the rope-snake analogy: if we know

> the

> rope to be the rope, snake does not exist. If we

> are under the mistaken impression that it is a

> snake, the rope does not exist. Thus the super-

> -imposed and the substratum cannot

> simultaneously

> exist in our awareness.

 

technically i can agree with the last statement, but

it's not the whole issue involved. even though

something is not in our awareness doesn't mean it

doesn't exist, which is what they're trying to

imply...and by a clever devise in phrasing, think they

can get away with it! :-)

 

 

Yes indeed frankji, and this state may be described as

"oblivion" when we are focused on one thing versus the other

- either on form or on formless,..and this has long been a

confusion among many advaitins, who view reality from the latter

standpoint and refute the relative world as maya or illusion.

 

Its like one of those pouchy pot bellied guys who standing up

cannot see his feet and denies that such a thing as feet

exists.

Up comes the guru with a size 14 heavy duty construction

boots and stamps on the poor guy's feet .

"WOWCch!!" he screams, "I thought you had no feet!"

exclaims trhe guru.

 

~dave

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Daveji:

 

Here is another story: The disciple had a long walk in

the morning and fell a sleep. He had a dream that the

king has invited him for a sumptuous dinner party in

the palace. During the dream, he ate plenty of goodies

and he had a stomach ache. He suddently woke up from

his dream and it was lunchtime and he felt very

hungry. He went to his Guru and explained his dream.

 

Should the Guru provide his disciple food for his

hunger or medicine for his stomach pain?

 

Or is it a spell of mAyA?

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

The

--- Dave Sirjue <dsirju wrote:

> Its like one of those pouchy pot bellied guys who

> standing up

> cannot see his feet and denies that such a thing

> as feet

> exists.

> Up comes the guru with a size 14 heavy duty

> construction

> boots and stamps on the poor guy's feet .

> "WOWCch!!" he screams, "I thought you had no

> feet!"

> exclaims trhe guru.

>

> ~dave

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Shankara's famous verse states: jiivo brahmaiva naapare .

 

The question is a 'pseudo-question'; co-existence implies two entities.

 

It is like asking can the river co-exist with the ocean, or the more famous

analogy of space within and outside a pot? Only water or space exists; the

two entities are not different to begin with.

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

>LBIDD

>advaitin

>advaitin

> Re: does (can) jeeva and brahman simultaneously exist?

>Fri, 30 Jun 2000 20:59:31 -0600 (MDT)

>

>Greetings everyone, I'm a sometime lurker and I apologize for

>resurrecting an old thread but this question has everything I'm

>interested in. I believe the question is can jiva and Brahman

>simultaneously exist in awareness. I'm not exactly sure what jiva is. Is

>it the living body, a particular erroneous belief, or something else? a

>false perspective perhaps. What about Brahman? Is Brahman awareness or

>something unspeakable? If so, where does awareness stand? Is there

>awareness _of_ Brahman or Brahman-awareness or something else? Do we

>have any statements from jivanmukti concerning this question? Is there

>jiva for jivanmukti to be aware of? Can they also at the same time be

>aware of Brahman?

>

>Sorry for so many questions. Your discussions are always most

>interesting.

>

>best regards, Larry Biddinger

>

 

______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Greetings everyone, I'm a sometime lurker and I apologize for

resurrecting an old thread but this question has everything I'm

interested in. I believe the question is can jiva and Brahman

simultaneously exist in awareness. I'm not exactly sure what jiva is. Is

it the living body, a particular erroneous belief, or something else? a

false perspective perhaps. What about Brahman? Is Brahman awareness or

something unspeakable? If so, where does awareness stand? Is there

awareness _of_ Brahman or Brahman-awareness or something else? Do we

have any statements from jivanmukti concerning this question? Is there

jiva for jivanmukti to be aware of? Can they also at the same time be

aware of Brahman?

 

Sorry for so many questions. Your discussions are always most

interesting.

 

best regards, Larry Biddinger

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2000, Sunder Hattangadi wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> Shankara's famous verse states: jiivo brahmaiva naapare .

>

> The question is a 'pseudo-question'; co-existence implies two entities.

>

> It is like asking can the river co-exist with the ocean, or the more famous

> analogy of space within and outside a pot? Only water or space exists; the

> two entities are not different to begin with.

>

> Regards,

>

> s.

>

>

> >LBIDD

> >advaitin

> >advaitin

> > Re: does (can) jeeva and brahman simultaneously exist?

> >Fri, 30 Jun 2000 20:59:31 -0600 (MDT)

> >

> >Greetings everyone, I'm a sometime lurker and I apologize for

> >resurrecting an old thread but this question has everything I'm

> >interested in. I believe the question is can jiva and Brahman

> >simultaneously exist in awareness. I'm not exactly sure what jiva is. Is

> >it the living body, a particular erroneous belief, or something else? a

> >false perspective perhaps. What about Brahman? Is Brahman awareness or

> >something unspeakable? If so, where does awareness stand? Is there

> >awareness _of_ Brahman or Brahman-awareness or something else? Do we

> >have any statements from jivanmukti concerning this question? Is there

> >jiva for jivanmukti to be aware of? Can they also at the same time be

> >aware of Brahman?

> >

> >Sorry for so many questions. Your discussions are always most

> >interesting.

> >

> >best regards, Larry Biddinger

> >

>

 

namaste.

 

Yes, it may indeed be a pseudo-question. The following

paragraphs also partly address some points raised by

shri Madhava. The pseudo-question still stands:

When does the jeeva say that he/she is not a jeeva

and that entity is brahman? Or, put another way:

When does the jeeva say that he/she is identical

or co-exist with brahman. I concede the english

above is a bit clumsy. shri sunder is quite right

in saying that they are identical and hence co-existence

does not arise. However, there are two awarenesses here;

one that he/she is a jeeva with name and form;

and two that he/she is brahman without name and form.

The two awarenesses are different. My question is:

can these two awarenesses co-exist?

and I am arguing that they cannot.

 

(a) When we ask the question "are you brahman or

jeeva or both?" to a person completely ignorant

of brahman and advaitic understanding, the answer

we get is, I am a jeeva with individuality of name

and form.

 

(b) If we ask the same question to a person who has

intellectual understanding of advaita, but still

have not lost individuality, the answer we get,

probably, is "I know I am brahman, but I still

have some individualistic aspects and hence I

am a jeeva too."

 

© If we ask the same question to a jivanmukta,

the answer we get is (if He/She cares to answer

such a question) "I am brahman." The individuality

of name and form is no longer there. The jeeva

doesn't exist here.

 

(a) and © above are clear. In category (b), I agree

that the individuality *gradually* dies out and 'I am

brahman' awareness *gradually* evolves. Until, finally,

as shri shankara says in VivekachuDAmaNi, verse 417

"... ahambhAvodayAbhAvo bodhasya paramAvadhiH", the

absence of the rise of the sense of 'I' of the ego

is the culmination of Knowledge. Category (b) people

may say that I am brahman and also I am a jeeva of

name and form. I feel that both awarenesses co-existing

simultaneously in one entity is contrary to our

undestanding of the all-encompassing nirguna brahman

without name and form. A jivanmukta is not bound by

name and form, although the mortals around may ascribe

to that jivanmukta some name and form.

 

As I understand, "jeevo brahmaiva na paraH" does not

mean that the jeeva of name and form is identical

with brahman. "jeevo brahmaiva na paraH" and the

upanishadic mahAvAkya "tat tvam asi" are identical

with "jeeva" and "tvam" having identical meanings.

While what is "jeeva" might not have been discussed

by AcAryAs, "tvam" in tat tvam asi is fully discussed.

Shri shankara says in vAkyavr^tti

 

deheNdriya manaH prANAhaMkr^tibhyo vilakshaNaH

projghitAsheShaShaDbhAvavikAraH tvaM padAbhidaH

 

The indicative meaning of tvaM is that which is

totally distinct from the body, the senses, mind,

prANa and ego; that which is absolutely free from

the six modifications which material things must

necessarily undergo; that is the indicative

meaning of tvaM.

 

The category (b) above can say that jeeva and brahman

can simultaneously co-exit and/or are identical if and

only if jeeva is understood to have the same meaning

as tvaM above. But, then, is the jeeva of name and

form there?

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------------------------------

[Guest guest]

--- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

wrote:

>

>

> there are two awarenesses

> here;

> one that he/she is a jeeva with name and form;

> and two that he/she is brahman without name and

> form.

> The two awarenesses are different. My question is:

> can these two awarenesses co-exist?

> and I am arguing that they cannot.

 

 

hariH OM! murthy-ji-

 

i disagree.

 

to my understanding, the idea that nirguna brahman is

the sole reality discounts what sankara has stated re

maya [and thus jiva] being anirvachaniya (lit.

'indescribable' ... which clearly implicates a real

component therein). this also clarifies the "jiva

brahmaiva na para" axiom of sankara's formula (he

proclaimed the only reality is brahman; followed by

the "world is illusion." and if his message was as

simple as this, he would've stopped there. he didn't.

he went on to state that the jiva itself was

brahman).

 

again, maya is considered anirvachaniya, simply

because there's a real [albeit very subtle] component

within it, integral to brahman. if it were utterly

unreal, sankara and the sastras would have categorized

it so. this gives a compelling hint in the face of

the blanket idea that the sole reality is nirguna

brahman. advaita therefore is not existentailly

selective; it only seeks to weed out the mithya, which

is specifically grounded/founded on ideas of

separation. the brahman substratum underlies

virtually everything [in its leela projection] in the

relative world...all polarities are contained in it,

*including* avidya, himsa, mara and kama. nothing has

been projected into manifestation whose creative

source was not brahman itself! this is what's being

missed. and is specifically what's causing even

adherents of nonduality to unwittingly embrace

dualistic conceptions--and so with zeal!

 

it's possible to get away with interpreting sastric

passages to suit one's perspective or pet ideology;

however there are fortunately some that resist

variable interpretations. within advaita, the one

that will stand up to any debateable interpretation is

the mahavakya "All this is brahman." for, what can

the word 'this' possibly be referring to if it were

not an attribute of some kind? (i.e. 'this'

what?---'this' has to be associated with some object

or perception...which is by definition utterly lacking

in nirguna brahman.) no, in the context of this

statement, 'this' must be referring to maya. also the

word 'all' has to be referring to, in turn, the

[potentially infinite] agglomeration of creations in

maya. therefore, "all this is brahman" isn't merely

deductively but quite clearly/directly pointing to the

nature of the manifest lila.

 

another statement not open to multiple interpretations

is one made by sri ramana [embellishing the above], re

the world and therefore the jivas and isvara being all

real/intrinsic to brahman. (i've posted it numerous

times to the List): "The Vedantins do not say that

the world is unreal. That is a misunderstanding. If

they did, what would be the meaning of the Vedantic

text, 'All this is brahman'? They only mean that the

world is unreal as the world as such, but it is real

as Self." --p.233; DAY BY DAY WITH BHAGAVAN by

Devaraja Mudaliar (1977)

 

the only illusion there is is if the ego sees itself

or anything else as apart from brahman. otherwise it

and everthing else is nothing *but* brahman.

therefore for one to say 'i am not brahman,' is a

patent untruth....a thought dangling in space...which

is only made possible by the exclusively relativistic

judgment that the 'i' is not brahman. this is the

source of all delusion. how can it not be? according

to advaita vedanta, how can it NOT be? the

declaration 'I am not brahman' is the launchpad for

all duality...is the ultimate and most formidable

enemy of advaita.

 

the jiva or ego (that entity regarding itself as

particularly isolated and distinct from everything

else) is something which the path of jnana seeks

deliberately to be defused; however, this does not

imply that there isn't a locus of

individualiy--jivatman--in existence, before and/or

after, its separative overlay (viz. jiva) gets defused

or dissolved in the course of one's sadhana.

moreover, what's revealed is the fact that such jiva,

as defined (as *apart* from its source in brahman),

never really existed in the first place.

 

namaskaar,

frank

 

___________________

 

--- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

wrote:

>

>

> there are two awarenesses

> here;

> one that he/she is a jeeva with name and form;

> and two that he/she is brahman without name and

> form.

> The two awarenesses are different. My question is:

> can these two awarenesses co-exist?

> and I am arguing that they cannot.

> (a) When we ask the question "are you brahman or

> jeeva or both?" to a person completely ignorant

> of brahman and advaitic understanding, the

> answer

> we get is, I am a jeeva with individuality of

> name

> and form.

>

> (b) If we ask the same question to a person who has

> intellectual understanding of advaita, but still

>

> have not lost individuality, the answer we get,

> probably, is "I know I am brahman, but I still

> have some individualistic aspects and hence I

> am a jeeva too."

>

> © If we ask the same question to a jivanmukta,

> the answer we get is (if He/She cares to answer

> such a question) "I am brahman." The

> individuality

> of name and form is no longer there. The jeeva

> doesn't exist here.

>

> (a) and © above are clear. In category (b), I

> agree

> that the individuality *gradually* dies out and 'I

> am

> brahman' awareness *gradually* evolves. Until,

> finally,

> as shri shankara says in VivekachuDAmaNi, verse 417

> "... ahambhAvodayAbhAvo bodhasya paramAvadhiH", the

> absence of the rise of the sense of 'I' of the ego

> is the culmination of Knowledge. Category (b) people

>

> may say that I am brahman and also I am a jeeva of

> name and form. I feel that both awarenesses

> co-existing

> simultaneously in one entity is contrary to our

> undestanding of the all-encompassing nirguna brahman

> without name and form. A jivanmukta is not bound by

> name and form, although the mortals around may

> ascribe

> to that jivanmukta some name and form.

>

> As I understand, "jeevo brahmaiva na paraH" does not

> mean that the jeeva of name and form is identical

> with brahman. "jeevo brahmaiva na paraH" and the

> upanishadic mahAvAkya "tat tvam asi" are identical

> with "jeeva" and "tvam" having identical meanings.

> While what is "jeeva" might not have been discussed

> by AcAryAs, "tvam" in tat tvam asi is fully

> discussed.

> Shri shankara says in vAkyavr^tti

>

> deheNdriya manaH prANAhaMkr^tibhyo vilakshaNaH

> projghitAsheShaShaDbhAvavikAraH tvaM padAbhidaH

>

> The indicative meaning of tvaM is that which is

> totally distinct from the body, the senses, mind,

> prANa and ego; that which is absolutely free from

> the six modifications which material things must

> necessarily undergo; that is the indicative

> meaning of tvaM.

>

> The category (b) above can say that jeeva and

> brahman

> can simultaneously co-exit and/or are identical if

> and

> only if jeeva is understood to have the same meaning

>

> as tvaM above. But, then, is the jeeva of name and

> form there?

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

>

------------------------------

>

>

 

 

 

 

Kick off your party with Invites.

http://invites./

[Guest guest]

namaste,

 

While enjoying this titanic dialectic, I am reminded of Sri

Ramakrishna's parable: One cannot get butter from milk just by uttering the

word 'butter'. One has to follow the necessary steps. Likewise, the butter

of advaita requires all the preparatory steps.

 

The term advaita itself can bind one to the 'dvandva' world. The

original question of whether jiiva and brahman are or are not co-existent is

an unsolvable one. They are, in the sense of time-space, or

purusha-prakriti, or whatever. However, it is logically and experientially

consistent to say that the 'sat' is still beyond both. What is manifest as

'THIS' is still only a fraction of 'THAT' 'sat'.

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

 

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>advaitin

>advaitin

>Re: Re: does (can) jeeva and brahman simultaneously

>exist?

>Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:30:57 -0230 (NDT)

>

 

______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

I am grateful to shri Frank Maiello for his comments. We need

these wise words once in a while to put our thinking back on

track. I really appreciate it.

 

Now, some specific comments on the points raised:

 

On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, f maiello wrote:

>

> --- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

> wrote:

> >

> >

> > there are two awarenesses

> > here;

> > one that he/she is a jeeva with name and form;

> > and two that he/she is brahman without name and

> > form.

> > The two awarenesses are different. My question is:

> > can these two awarenesses co-exist?

> > and I am arguing that they cannot.

>

>

> hariH OM! murthy-ji-

>

> i disagree.

>

> to my understanding, the idea that nirguna brahman is

> the sole reality discounts what sankara has stated re

> maya [and thus jiva] being anirvachaniya (lit.

> 'indescribable' ... which clearly implicates a real

> component therein). this also clarifies the "jiva

> brahmaiva na para" axiom of sankara's formula (he

> proclaimed the only reality is brahman; followed by

> the "world is illusion." and if his message was as

> simple as this, he would've stopped there. he didn't.

> he went on to state that the jiva itself was

> brahman).

>

 

Yes, but what is this jeeva that is none other than brahman?

Is it the jeeva of name and form? As i understand shri shankara's

works, He means by jeeva the inner soul with no attachment of

name, form, body, manas, sense organs or ego. That is the jeeva

which shri shankara says is identical with (or none other than)

brahman.

 

But because of mAyA, we take the jeeva to be limited, or the

jeeva takes him/herself to be limited, limited by the body and

mind, this is my body, my intellect and so on. This limited jeeva

is not brahman in its absolute. This limited jeeva is brahman in

association with mAyA. I read somewhere (in vAkyavr^tti or

aparokshAnubhUti, i believe) the following question: Which is

more difficult for a mortal to comprehend? Is it what is tat,

or is it what is tvaM? And it was answered: recognizing tvaM

is the most difficult (i.e., the recognition that the jeeva is

not the limited entity but is apart from the body, mind,

intellect, sense organs, ego).

 

Now, my point in this thread is:

 

1. Equating (or seeing it as identical) of the *limited* jeeva

as brahman is not correct. As long as we see ourselves as that

limited entity, that identity cannot be made.

 

i am not saying that the *limited* jeeva is apart from brahman.

It is brahman with mAyA. There is nothing apart from brahman.

 

This (limited) jeeva has intellectual knowledge of brahman and

wishes to see him/herself as identical with brahman. At the same

time, he/she cannot give up individuality and ego and hence is

a limited jeeva in spite of his/her wish to identify with brahman

in Absolute. This limited jeeva is still deluded by the mAyA.

 

2. The unlimited jeeva (i.e., the jeeva not identified with body,

mind, intellect, ego, etc, i.e. the jeeva satisfying the

definition of tvaM by shri shankara which I gave in my last post)

is identical with brahman [jeevo brahmaiva na paraH].

 

> [...]

> it's possible to get away with interpreting sastric

> passages to suit one's perspective or pet ideology;

> however there are fortunately some that resist

> variable interpretations. within advaita, the one

> that will stand up to any debateable interpretation is

> the mahavakya "All this is brahman." for, what can

> the word 'this' possibly be referring to if it were

> not an attribute of some kind? (i.e. 'this'

> what?---'this' has to be associated with some object

> or perception...which is by definition utterly lacking

> in nirguna brahman.) no, in the context of this

> statement, 'this' must be referring to maya. also the

> word 'all' has to be referring to, in turn, the

> [potentially infinite] agglomeration of creations in

> maya. therefore, "all this is brahman" isn't merely

> deductively but quite clearly/directly pointing to the

> nature of the manifest lila.

>

> another statement not open to multiple interpretations

> is one made by sri ramana [embellishing the above], re

> the world and therefore the jivas and isvara being all

> real/intrinsic to brahman. (i've posted it numerous

> times to the List): "The Vedantins do not say that

> the world is unreal. That is a misunderstanding. If

> they did, what would be the meaning of the Vedantic

> text, 'All this is brahman'? They only mean that the

> world is unreal as the world as such, but it is real

> as Self." --p.233; DAY BY DAY WITH BHAGAVAN by

> Devaraja Mudaliar (1977)

>

 

I have no difficulty with these two paragraphs. I would

like to add that all the mahAvAkyAs lead to one interpretation

only: aham brahmAsmi.

 

> the only illusion there is is if the ego sees itself

> or anything else as apart from brahman. otherwise it

> and everthing else is nothing *but* brahman.

> therefore for one to say 'i am not brahman,' is a

> patent untruth....a thought dangling in space...which

> is only made possible by the exclusively relativistic

> judgment that the 'i' is not brahman. this is the

> source of all delusion. how can it not be? according

> to advaita vedanta, how can it NOT be? the

> declaration 'I am not brahman' is the launchpad for

> all duality...is the ultimate and most formidable

> enemy of advaita.

 

I have difficulty with the above paragraph. As I stated

above, there is nothing *apart* from brahman. i [the

little i, the jeeva with name and form] is brahman, but

being clouded by mAyA, gets individuality and as such is

brahman with mAyA or delusion.

i has (or thinks it has) individuality, or cannot get out

of individuality, i has a name and a form.

brahman has no individuality, no name, no form.

Hence, how can a straight forward identity between brahman

in its absolute and i is possible?

 

There are many examples in advaita to illustrate this case.

Take the bubble and the ocean. The bubble, if it takes itself

to be the bubble, cannot think itself to be the ocean. Only

when it looses its identification with the bubble, then only

it can identify with the ocean. The physical boundary forming

the bubble is immaterial. The thinking that I am a bubble has

to die out within it before it can see itself as the ocean.

What the other bubbles see this bubble as is immaterial.

It is only this bubble's thinking that matters. Has it lost

its individuality as a bubble?

 

Another example is the gold necklace and the gold. The necklace

has to loose its identification as a necklace before it can see

itself as gold.

>

> the jiva or ego (that entity regarding itself as

> particularly isolated and distinct from everything

> else) is something which the path of jnana seeks

> deliberately to be defused; however, this does not

> imply that there isn't a locus of

> individualiy--jivatman--in existence, before and/or

> after, its separative overlay (viz. jiva) gets defused

> or dissolved in the course of one's sadhana.

> moreover, what's revealed is the fact that such jiva,

> as defined (as *apart* from its source in brahman),

> never really existed in the first place.

>

> namaskaar,

> frank

>

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

-

[Guest guest]

Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

> Yes, but what is this jeeva that is none other than

brahman?

> Is it the jeeva of name and form? As i understand

shri shankara's

> works, He means by jeeva the inner soul with no

attachment of

> name, form, body, manas, sense organs or ego. That

is the jeeva

> which shri shankara says is identical with (or none

other than)

> brahman.

 

 

hariH OM!

 

i agree. however, the name, form, etc are also

infinitesimal fragments of brahman [as is maya Itself

a fragment thereof]. the point becomes: as long as

the substratum brahman is not lost in the course of

the act itself of the perception either through or

in/of one's limited constituents [*within* the egoic

entity], such fragments serve the vital function,

which has been all along, to *entertain*!--being the

very purpose of brahman's Project mayashakthi. the

lila: brahman's existential masterpiece! if this

weren't so, it wouldn't be here at all. what'd be the

purpose of all this, anyway? Life therefore is not a

colossal wastage. It is the divine Play. and the

egos (jivas) within it require their

unique/individualistic attributes for the whole thing

to function. our purpose in the face of what appears

to be 'the problem' is to put the ego back into proper

perspective, taking its rightful backseat to nirguna

brahman. it doesn't need to be destroyed altogether.

that would be critically undoing what we [as brahman]

originally intended! never the did the old saying

better fit: throwing away the baby with the bathwater.

 

note: coincidentally (or rather, synchronistically)

sundarji responded with three points i also made

below. his post stands as an effective summary of

what i'm posting nevertheless herewith...which could

be considered a further elaboration.

 

yes the names and forms and their attending sense data

attached to objects and events are not the issue;

however they're still part and parcel of maya and thus

their attributes cannot be said to be utterly unreal

either. the fact of the matter is they're

*infinitesimal* components within the entirety of What

Is. just as the drop is to the ocean, something so

ephemeral as a single name describing a single form is

as infinitesimal as the entire paradigm of maya

itself(!) is to its substratum source in the Absolute

brahman. as vivekananda stated, "the entire universe

isn't big enough to contain a single particle!" and

here's the special delivery of the Great Mystery

Itself: that simultaneously we can prove yet disprove

there isn't even a single particle in existence, all

made possible by the mind's [secretly humorous] laws

of Relativity--as the sastras have been telling us all

along, "it's all mind stuff." and yet, it appears!

causing further the declaration that "something is

happening here." thus, anirvachaniya! thus the

inscrutable Mystery. even quantum physicists are

coming to see this. an insight i stumbled upon--based

on a surprisingly simple logical experiment--exposes

the fact that matter, *as we think we know it*, cannot

possibly exist. i call it the Zero Mass Theorem.

http://digital.net/~egodust/fmpagezm.html

 

i would like to take a completely different tack on

this. approach the problem from a completely

different angle.

 

to put it bluntly, how do we get 'high' and stay

there? by disallowing the mind to fall into

conceptual traps. we could say there are a number of

ways of affecting this end...of avoiding such traps

[or extricate ourselves from the habit-trap continuum

orchestrated by the ego-Mind, as the case commonly

is]. the best way i know of is to utilize one of

jesus' admonitions: viz. to "resist not evil." that

is, whatever comes into the mindfield, to merely

accept it and allow it to pass...to not get stuck.

since one of the primary ways of getting stuck is the

knee-jerk reflex to resist an idea or thought, concept

or precept. and such resistance comes about when we

are wont to label something as untrue or unreal.

hence by doing so we attempt to avoid it or dispel it

from the field of our awareness. and this is where i

believe the core modus operandi of advaita vedanta

enters the picture, which is the means of apprehending

life as a seamless reality. there is nothing which is

in contradistinction with anything else. all is

basically one essence we call brahman. this approach

in effect neutralizes all battles in the mind...where

eventually we will win the war, resolving in

liberation itself...liberation or emancipation from

the self-wrought prison of the ego-Mind.

 

the way i see it, and as i've mentioned many times

before, the three methods of vedanta are just a means

to an end; as such there's no ultimate truth, per se,

implied in any of these approaches. and the way i

understand advaita is that it attempts to neutralize

the ruminations of the mind regarding the nature of

the data it happens to be processing, and it does so

by uniting virtually everything there is--which in

effect neutralizes the otherwise ongoing battle

between what one would consider to be truth vs

falsehood. as we well know, the end result of any

approach is moksha; which implies--as sundarji pointed

out--that all of this is ultimately a mystery without

resolution...implying, in turn, freedom from all

concepts! while at the same time all concepts as well

as any individual concept has a component of truth to

it...and in this way none of them can or will

thereafter have any abiding affect on the individual.

as long as we feel an attraction toward or repulsion

from anything, is as long as we'll continue to be

bothered by it [which in turn becomes our prison in

the form of our philosophy].

 

when you pause to consider, anything can be said about

anything; we can draw conclusions one way or another,

concerning any matter, with compelling arguments for

or against it. such potentiality is indicative of the

fact that--as j krishnamurti pointed out, that "truth

is a pathless land." where the idea that we have to

seek truth is itself erroneous, because how can we

seek something we not only already have, but something

we already *are*?

 

the message is, nothing can be delivered through words

and ideas, and this is the methodology behind the

advaita: to get beyond words and ideas. (kant did the

legwork for us, exposing the limitations of reason and

knowledge, further buttressing the proposition that

"all this is indeed a mystery.") and its core modus

operandi to achieve such is by leveling the mind down

to an attitude of unity; in this way the mind gets

prepared to receive the impact of its own causal

source, the unknowable Itself, the unapproachable

inscrutable mystery of Being...the holistic radiance

saccidananda. where the elements viveka, vairagya,

abhyasa, tapas, bhakti, and all forms of sadhana

become no longer functional, but are now seen as

merely rungs on the ladder leading to the 'stateless

state' in atmanishtha...the culmination alluded to in

astavakra samhita, where the shift into the essence of

IS, and beyond even this [as concept!], where all

words, descriptions and ideologies are rendered

meaningless. this is the shuddha cidakasa of the

atmabhavana in the hrdayam...the aham sphoorti of the

'i' 'i' 'i' .

 

peacelove in ONE

 

 

 

Send instant messages & get email alerts with Messenger.

http://im./