Re:universal koan - typos fixed; please ignore former

[Guest guest]

hariH OM! Raghava-

namaste.

 

i respectfully disagree.

 

if it can be stated that there is something in existence

apart from brahman, we'd readily agree that thoughts would

fall into that category. however, is there?

 

this of course depends on whether thoughts can be said to

exist or not to begin with.

 

if they really *are* mere illusion, then where does the

need to name them as 'illusion' arise? the act of pointing

toward something that in turn compels one to give it a

name--be it a 'dream,' 'an apparition,' an 'illusion'--

indicates there must be a real component within or behind

it, somewhere somehow [for the need to arise to allude to

it as 'such and such,' or 'so and so']. it becomes clear

that this is precisely how sankara came to 'understand'

that the nature of maya is anirvachaniya (indescribable

and *incomprehensible*), presenting itself as a blend of

the real and unreal.

 

when advaitins call a thing unreal, the inference, ramana

tells us, is that "They are unreal *as such*! Otherwise

they are naught but brahman itself." [paraphrased]

 

thus all thoughts, *as such* (taken as things *unto

themselves*) are unreal. otherwise they indeed *are*

the essence of THAT (the Absolute brahman Self-Being).

 

the leela itself is crystallized thought: shards of

infinite expression emanating the universal mahamahat

(brahman's projected or first-breath manifestation of

the 'Mind of God' [isvara's seed form as hiranyagharba

or prajapati])..

 

"all there is is brahman." maya, leela, lokas, koshas,

sariras, sankalpas, vrittis, manvantaras, pralayas,

karmas, svadharmas, devas, asuryas.. all one brahman.

no *real* distinctions. this is [the ultimate fusion

of] advaita as the vedic perennial wisdom-philosophy of

all ages, cultures and literally intergalactic events:

black holes, quasars, pulsars to quantum theoretical

superstring sub and macro-atomic mind adventures and

spontaneous creation theories.. all brahman..

 

what or when or where is brahman not?

 

the jiva is not brahman?

 

you are *merely* a jiva?

 

**these** are the illusions, because the implication

is that you [jiva] exist *unto yourself* and *apart*

from brahman! seeing this distinction is viveka.

(viveka is not the discrimination associated with

separating the real from the unreal *in terms of*

the jagat from brahman, for example; but specifically

as jagat *isolated* and *separated* from brahman.)

this viveka speaks to the classic snake in the rope,

barren woman's son or the horn on a hare..

 

if it can be named or placed or timed, *as such*,

it's [the mistake of believing in the lone truth of]

dvaita *on it's own terms*!

 

how many ways can it be written or described? it's

simply the act of regarding something as apart from

its substratum source in the ONE (the unified field of

sat-chit-ananda).

 

within the framework of the overview of the above, we

should realize that yes in fact madhava's dvaita *is*

real and true, but **not real and true apart** from

its mother source in parabrahmam!

 

it isn't uncommon in the study of vedanta, that the two

apparently opposing systems get mixed-up in the course

of our attempt at understanding them.

 

my wife's guru, swami sivanada said this (taken from

his LECTURES ON YOGA AND VEDANTA, p.291): "The sage

who is realized knows there is no other reality in the

universe than brahman. That he is brahman Himself.

And that everything is brahman."

 

if we're told that this is the realization of the sage,

how do we stubbornly philosophically rebel, supporting

the notion that something can exist other than brahman?

 

OM ramanarpanamasthu!

OM namah sivaya!

OM svaha!

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, f maiello wrote:

> hariH OM! Raghava-

> namaste.

>

> i respectfully disagree.

>

> if it can be stated that there is something in existence

> apart from brahman, we'd readily agree that thoughts would

> fall into that category. however, is there?

>

> this of course depends on whether thoughts can be said to

> exist or not to begin with.

>

> if they really *are* mere illusion, then where does the

> need to name them as 'illusion' arise? the act of pointing

> toward something that in turn compels one to give it a

> name--be it a 'dream,' 'an apparition,' an 'illusion'--

> indicates there must be a real component within or behind

> it, somewhere somehow [for the need to arise to allude to

> it as 'such and such,' or 'so and so']. it becomes clear

> that this is precisely how sankara came to 'understand'

> that the nature of maya is anirvachaniya (indescribable

> and *incomprehensible*), presenting itself as a blend of

> the real and unreal.

>

> when advaitins call a thing unreal, the inference, ramana

> tells us, is that "They are unreal *as such*! Otherwise

> they are naught but brahman itself." [paraphrased]

>

> thus all thoughts, *as such* (taken as things *unto

> themselves*) are unreal. otherwise they indeed *are*

> the essence of THAT (the Absolute brahman Self-Being).

>

> the leela itself is crystallized thought: shards of

> infinite expression emanating the universal mahamahat

> (brahman's projected or first-breath manifestation of

> the 'Mind of God' [isvara's seed form as hiranyagharba

> or prajapati])..

>

> "all there is is brahman." maya, leela, lokas, koshas,

> sariras, sankalpas, vrittis, manvantaras, pralayas,

> karmas, svadharmas, devas, asuryas.. all one brahman.

> no *real* distinctions. this is [the ultimate fusion

> of] advaita as the vedic perennial wisdom-philosophy of

> all ages, cultures and literally intergalactic events:

> black holes, quasars, pulsars to quantum theoretical

> superstring sub and macro-atomic mind adventures and

> spontaneous creation theories.. all brahman..

>

> what or when or where is brahman not?

>

> the jiva is not brahman?

>

> you are *merely* a jiva?

>

> **these** are the illusions, because the implication

> is that you [jiva] exist *unto yourself* and *apart*

> from brahman! seeing this distinction is viveka.

> (viveka is not the discrimination associated with

> separating the real from the unreal *in terms of*

> the jagat from brahman, for example; but specifically

> as jagat *isolated* and *separated* from brahman.)

> this viveka speaks to the classic snake in the rope,

> barren woman's son or the horn on a hare..

>

> if it can be named or placed or timed, *as such*,

> it's [the mistake of believing in the lone truth of]

> dvaita *on it's own terms*!

>

> how many ways can it be written or described? it's

> simply the act of regarding something as apart from

> its substratum source in the ONE (the unified field of

> sat-chit-ananda).

>

> within the framework of the overview of the above, we

> should realize that yes in fact madhava's dvaita *is*

> real and true, but **not real and true apart** from

> its mother source in parabrahmam!

>

> it isn't uncommon in the study of vedanta, that the two

> apparently opposing systems get mixed-up in the course

> of our attempt at understanding them.

>

> my wife's guru, swami sivanada said this (taken from

> his LECTURES ON YOGA AND VEDANTA, p.291): "The sage

> who is realized knows there is no other reality in the

> universe than brahman. That he is brahman Himself.

> And that everything is brahman."

>

> if we're told that this is the realization of the sage,

> how do we stubbornly philosophically rebel, supporting

> the notion that something can exist other than brahman?

>

> OM ramanarpanamasthu!

> OM namah sivaya!

> OM svaha!

>

 

namaste shri Frankji,

 

It is always a pleasure to get into a discussion on a point

raised by you. This particular thought expressed by you above,

earlier also many times, has always aroused interest in me to

respond and to learn more. Now again, I think I should put my

present thought on this.

 

What you said above is quite true. However, I think there is

something more to It than what was stated above. What was stated

above says we see the jagat of name and form and thay are real

*as brahman*. These things of name and form taken as such (i.e.,

without brahman) are unreal.

 

That 'explanation' above is not full yet, as I understand. Let

me expand and give two possible extensions to what you stated.

 

1. If what you stated above is the ultimate Truth, then what

does neti, neti (not this, not this) of the upanishads mean?

Doesn't neti, neti negate all that is perceivable (as brahman).

As I understand, neti, neti mean (1) that whatever perceivable

inferrable is not brahman, (2) that which is the substratum for

all that is perceivable, inferrable is the brahman.

 

What you are saying above is everything is brahman (sarvam

khalv idam brahma). That is a statement of Truth indeed,

but still, that is not the *final* statement of Truth.

 

2. What you said above accepts the names and forms, but

accepts it as brahman. That is, the names and forms are

the subject and brahman is the object. The ultimate statement

of Truth is: brahman is the subject, the names and forms are

the objects. This is also beautifully brought up by shri

shankara in His bhAShya on bhagavadgItA 4.24 brahmArpanam

brahma haviH... That verse commented on by shri shankara states

"brahman is what is offered (in a yagna), brahman is the means

by which offering is made, brahman is the fire.. brahman is

doing the offering, brahman is the receptor...". Note, it is

not stated "the offering is brahman, the ladle is brahman etc..".

Brahman is THE subject, and what is perceivable (of names and

forms), inferrable is all objects.

 

As I said at the beginning, it is always a pleasure to discuss

this particular topic with you and refine my understanding.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

 

[Guest guest]

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>

> 2. What you said above accepts the names and forms, but

> accepts it as brahman. That is, the names and forms are

> the subject and brahman is the object. The ultimate statement

> of Truth is: brahman is the subject, the names and forms are

> the objects. This is also beautifully brought up by shri

> shankara in His bhAShya on bhagavadgItA 4.24 brahmArpanam

> brahma haviH... That verse commented on by shri shankara states

> "brahman is what is offered (in a yagna), brahman is the means

> by which offering is made, brahman is the fire.. brahman is

> doing the offering, brahman is the receptor...". Note, it is

> not stated "the offering is brahman, the ladle is brahman etc..".

> Brahman is THE subject, and what is perceivable (of names and

> forms), inferrable is all objects.

>

 

Namaste GMji,

 

That is very succinctly put, indeed. Svaami Dayaananda Sarawati says the same

thing by saying : A is B, but B is not A !

 

Think of an actor (A) playing the role of a criminal © on the stage. He

does it very

realistically. The spectators feel that they are seeing C himself on the stage.

Then A is C.

But C is not A . C is only a naamaruupa of A assumed for the purposes

of the stage.

A plays the role of C on the stage , but A is also a Father (F) to his son,

a (H) husband to his wife, an employee (E) to his boss etc, all at the same

time.

F,H,&E are also only naamaruupas of A . They are all real within their

respective

roles in life. But none of them belongs to the same level of reality as A.

There is only one A who is at a higher level of reality, than F,H,&E.

 

[This is only an analogy]

>From the absolute Truth point of view, A is also only a naamaruupa of

Brahman which is the only thing that exists in the absolute sense.

All the naamaruupas have only a relative

reality (being based in the absolute reality of Brahman). They are called

mithyaa.

They are not unreal, nor are they real in the absolute sense.

 

So, when we talk of reality,existence, truth, etc of something we must be clear

about what level of reality we are talking about.

 

Corrections and comments are welcome.

 

Regards

V.M.Sundaram