Discussions with Nanda Chandran

[Guest guest]

Posting from Swansea:

 

In my sojourns I had an occasion to spend a day with Dennis and his wife and

one day with Nanda chandran. - both of them I met through these vedantic

discussions and a by-products of being a member of this list and had

beatiful satsangh.

 

I am going to present some of the issues that were raised in my discussions

with Nanda. May be he can discuss more eloberately.

 

1. object - reality of the object and consciousness.

 

a)We both agreed that we can only perceive through the senses only the

attributes and never the essense or substratum of the object. The mechanics

of the process is through perception an image is formed in the mind which

becomes a locus for the attibutes - form,color, sound, taste etc from which

mind cognizes that there is an object out there with those attributes. - At

this stage it is the mental inference that the object which let us call as

substratum or substance is out there with those attributes since the

substratum is never seen or experienced by the object. Now qeustion no. 1.

Is the object is really out there or only is it an inference by the mind

since there is inherent conclusions that there cannot be an object without

an attributes. Second question is how did that inherent conclusion or

inference by the mind formed - because we only all the time experience only

the attributes and 'some how' have established that there must be an object

since attributes cannot exist without a substratum - Here the mind is

playing a beginningless inferential game - since normally inference involves

a perseption as the basis of proof - see the anumaana prakaraNa of BSB notes

(chII.)

 

(b) If I understand correctly the adviatic position ( I am not sure if this

Shankara position or post Shankara position) that one in the perception of

the object the substratum is only real and not the attributes - But the

mechanics of the perception process discussed above indicates the existence

of substratum is a conclusion and what is actually perceived are the

attributes - May be this requires some clarification in terms of what

exactly the adviatic position (whether we agree or not).

 

© Consciousness of versus consciousness itself- Qestion which we (agreed

to disagree) is this. Can there be an objectless consciousness. Nanda

argues that conscious of - always involves an object that one is conscious

of - hence one cannot talk of consciousness of or conscious of without an

object. It sounds logical. But my own personal experience as we do japa

yoga where we become aware of the matra or say OM-kaara raising in the mind

- sustaining in the mind and going back in the mind - I am aware of the the

thought raising, sustaining and going back - where there is a silence in

between the japa - I am not aware of absence of thoughts or since I cannot

say I am aware of - I am just awareness or consciouseness. Hence objectless

consciousness is just my self without an object of consciousness but pure

awareness or just myself - I cannot say I am not awere of my self nor I can

say I am aware of myself since I am not an object - Essentially the

discussion of can there be objectless awareness - has a meaning - Nanda as I

understand does not agree - may be he can explain if my understanding of his

discussion is not right.

 

(d) Existence of an object - now if we say an illuminating mind is essential

for the cognition of the object which is jadam, and without the mind

cognizing it we can never know the object exist or not - can we conclude

that world ceases to exist when there is no illuminating mind. Here it is

the qustion of - sR^ishhTi-dR^ishhTi or dR^ishhTi-sR^ishhTi - that is - It

is there, therefore I see it; or I see it, therefore it is there. I know

there are two theories in the advaita. But which one of the two is more

real! - notice that I did not ask which one is real! - I maintain that

world exists becuse the existence of the world is supported by the

consciousess that I am. sarva bhuutastamaatmaanam sarvabhuutani ca aatmani

- Oneself in all beings and all beings in oneself. Oneself being the

consciouness - all raise in consciousness, sustained by consciouness and go

back in to consciousness - Here the consciousness is the independent and the

objects of consciousness dependent- hence they are as though waves in the

consciouness - one can fold it or unfold it - Hence one cannot say that the

obejcts exists independent of consciousness then they become satyam as in

dwaita or vishishhTadviata philosophies. Nanda seems to disagree - may be

he can explain his arguments if I have not presented correctly his openion.

 

II The second topic that concerns - the concept of moksha or jiivanmukta.

 

Nanda's position - As I understand his arguments - purusha is there and

prakR^iti is there and a direct contact (identification) of purusha and

prakR^iti is the concept of jiiva - (I have a feeling he is too involved in

sankhya's position - I will be taking up Sankhya's position from suutra 5 on

- Sorry - Vyaasa and shankara - they will be taking up sankhya position as

puurvapaksha and be dismissing it from suutra 5 on). Realization according

to Nanda is to slowly withdraw this identifcation of purusha with prakR^iti.

When one fully establishes himself as I am that purusha - the state of

realization - where all the distinctions and differentiations drop out-

brahama vit brahma eva bhavati - knower of brahman becomes brahman - one

cannot obviousely say anything about that state other than one is and free

from all distinctions.

Now the question is how does he come back as jiivanmukta - according to

Nanda - he makes contact again with prakR^iti (which is obviously

independent of purusha)and once making contact the differeces again come

back since prakR^iti has differences - there is teacher - tought

differences). I am not sure if when he makes the contact again - does the

jiivan mukta feels that he is undifferiated brahman or not.

 

I maintain that once realized there is no question of coming back. The

apparent coming back is only manifestation of Iswara who utilizes the

eqipments available and teaches the students - It is like golden ring

realizing that he is nothing but gold - understanding that all he pervades

all the golden ornaments yet see the differences between bangle etc and try

to teach them they are also gold not the name and form that they assume to

be. This is actually fundamental question Ramanuja and Madhva ask about

advaita. How can Krishan who is all in all without any differentiation can

teach Arjuna who is inprinciple not different from him. Here the concept of

Brahman and Iswara has to be understood clearly. May Nanda can present in

detail what he discussed with me and clarify his understanding.

 

Any way it was a wonderful time spent - Added to the spicy discussion we had

good South Indian food at the Woodlands - Lunch. As we went out and

discussed in the part the time went past and we were ready for dinner in the

same restaurant.

 

Should I say again this is a by-product of being a member of this list with

mutual respect for each other.

 

Only the very pleasant learning experience was - when I was at the age of

Nanda - I was more involved in Worldly persuits and I am amazed at the

vairagya of this young boy - My hats of for him and all my prayers for his

pursuit of knowledge.

 

Typed as usual with thoughts faster than the fingers can type!

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadananda-ji and Nanda-ji,

 

What a wonderful set of travels you had, Sadananda! And what great

satsangh with Dennis, his wife, and Nanda. Nice illuminating discussions!

And great food too! (Dennis, is your wife interested in vedanta, is she a

list-member??)

 

Sociological (not philosophical) observation: I have had many such warm

discussions myself in different places, countries. I notice that where the

participants are drawn to some of the positions that Nanda is articulating

(as in your post here), they are sooner or later more attracted to

Buddhism. Positions such as no consciousness without an object, or even

the feeling that the individual can somehow willingly or unwillingly "come

back" after liberation.

 

Harih OM!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

>Gregory Goode <goode

>Dear Sadananda-ji and Nanda-ji,

>

>What a wonderful set of travels you had, Sadananda! And what great

>satsangh with Dennis, his wife, and Nanda. Nice illuminating discussions!

>And great food too! (Dennis, is your wife interested in vedanta, is she a

>list-member??)

 

Greg - Penny may be more advaitin than Dennis since she tolerates his

adviatic persuits surrounded by his pluristic world of being an author

authoring multiple objects of authorship using computer instruments. I

enjoyed reading this manuscript in preparation on advaita with lot of

cartoons in it.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

[Guest guest]

You mean I missed out on these interesting discussions as well as the Indian

Restaurant!!! O me miserum.

 

Will have to find consolation in joining discussion now instead (or at least

when I've read the material a little more closely). Incidentally, Greg, in

answer to your question, my wife tolerates my interest in Advaita but

doesn't exactly share it!

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

My simple-minded view on the first topic (always wishing to keep things

simple!) is as follows.

 

1) There is only Brahman.

2) In our perceptions, we erroneously superimpose Name and Form onto parts

of this apparent manifestation of Brahman and believe them to be separate

objects.

3) In fact, even here we are not seeing this 'object' itself but the mental

image constructed as a result of impressions from the senses together with

our thoughts, ideas and memories further superimposed upon these.

4) Because our nature and nurture will always differ from someone else and

the acuity and functionality of our senses will probably differ too, it is

certain that what 'I' see will be different from what 'you' see.

 

So, question 1 - Is the object out there? The answer depends on how you

define the word. There is nothing out there that is separate from Brahman

but there is something that we have chosen separately to identify by name

and form, although you will not see it precisely as I do.

 

Question 2 - How did we reach the conclusion that there was an object in the

first place? Surely this is arbitrary and in accord with social convention,

language etc. We choose to call part of the landscape a 'hill' even though

it is a continuous section with the rest of the land. This is so that (for

example) we can suggest building a castle on top of it so that we can see

attackers coming from a distance.

 

The reality itself is unknowable. The manifested transient forms can be

inferred by perceiving their attributes, relating these to memory and giving

them a name.

 

Question 3 - Can there be Consciousness without an object. Interesting. I

have views but will pass on this for the moment!

 

Question 4 - Does the world exist without an illuminating mind. Surely on

advaitic principles the answer to this must be no. The world being the

manifestation of Consciousness, if Consciousness did not exist then there

could be no manifestation. (I said that I liked to keep things simple!) Now

if what you really meant to ask is, for example, does this chair still exist

after I have left the room, then I think I would like to pass you over to

Greg, who is the expert on Berkeley!

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda@h...> wrote:

> --------------------

> © Consciousness of versus consciousness itself- Qestion which we

(agreed

> to disagree) is this. Can there be an objectless consciousness.

 

Dear Sir,

I trust you are having a good time in Europe. We are having good time

here too.

In my humble opinion, object and consciousness may present themselves

as inseparable from each other just like a person experiencing a

thought.

When an object tries to unravel a thought's identity, there is no

more an object because object is now a thought.

When we say E=mc**2, we have energy and mass as the only elements at

the extreme end of the spectrum. However, in the interim states, we

have both energy and mass.

 

With Love,

Raghava

[Guest guest]

>raghavakaluri

>Dear Sir,

>I trust you are having a good time in Europe. We are having good time

>here too.

>In my humble opinion, object and consciousness may present themselves

>as inseparable from each other just like a person experiencing a

>thought.

>When an object tries to unravel a thought's identity, there is no

>more an object because object is now a thought.

>When we say E=mc**2, we have energy and mass as the only elements at

>the extreme end of the spectrum. However, in the interim states, we

>have both energy and mass.

>

>With Love,

>Raghava

 

 

While I am having a wonderful time here in Europe and my wife has joined me

- I am still wondering if Europe still exists after I leave here and when I

donot perceive it any more!

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

Pardon my intrusion into this discussion. Let me put my

understanding on one point raised by Dennis.

 

On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Dennis Waite wrote:

> My simple-minded view on the first topic (always wishing to keep things

> simple!) is as follows.

>

> 1) There is only Brahman.

> 2) In our perceptions, we erroneously superimpose Name and Form onto

> parts of this apparent manifestation of Brahman and believe them to

> be separate objects.

> [...]

 

I like to comment on point 2. above.

 

It is *not our ignorance* that gives names and forms to

various entities. Brahman, by Itself, differentiated into

these names and forms. Our ignorance did not play any part

here. Even a sarvajna or an ignorant person sees, perceives

these names and forms.

 

Just like a single Sun produces thousands of reflections

in thousands of vessels and on breaking of (individuality

of) the vessel, the reflection merges with the original,

just like one fire breaks up into many sparks without

losing its unity (in all these sparks), the brahman pervades

all objects of the world without losing its essential unity.

 

Now when we see these names and forms, if we see them as

genuine reality and that plurality to be the essence, that

is the result of our ignorance. If we see only the essential

identity of all, then we are sarvajna.

 

The plurality (the sparks, the reflections of the Sun in the

vessels) we see is real, except it is less real than the fire

or the Sun. The sparks, the reflections owe their existence

to the fire and the Sun, and somehow give an idea of plurality

masking the essential unity of all. Our ignorance simply makes

us look at the superficial plurality and make us miss the

essential identity of all the plurality.

>

> Dennis

>

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

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

[Guest guest]

Gummuluru said: -

 

"It is *not our ignorance* that gives names and forms to

various entities. Brahman, by Itself, differentiated into

these names and forms. Our ignorance did not play any part

here. Even a sarvajna or an ignorant person sees, perceives

these names and forms."

 

Sorry to keep disagreeing with you Muthy-ji (I actually very much enjoy and

agree with most of your posts) but: -

 

Brahman did *not* differentiate into these names and forms; Brahman

manifested but all is and always will be still only Brahman. It is our

ignorance that imposes name and form onto this manifestation since we cannot

see the unity. I agree that a sarvajna will also still recognise these names

and forms. But this is only because a) his organs of perception still

function in the same way; b) his memory is still functional and c) for

utility when responding to questions etc. from those who are still deluded.

But my understanding is that he will now know the manifestation to be not

other than Brahman.

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

To my understanding, Brahman did not manifest. It appears to have, but in

reality, nothing ever happened. To say that Brahman manifested is to say

that it transformed itself from one thing into another, in which case it

would no longer be Brahman.

>

> Brahman manifested but all is and always will be still only Brahman.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Rick said: -

>To my understanding, Brahman did not manifest. It appears to have, but in

reality, nothing ever happened. To say that Brahman manifested is to say

that it >transformed itself from one thing into another, in which case it

would no longer be Brahman.

>>Brahman manifested but all is and always will be still only Brahman.

 

Who knows whether anything did or did not happen? I do not see that saying

this is the same as saying that it transformed itself from one thing into

another at all. If gold is made into a bracelet it is still gold. This is

the whole point about the distinction between sat and bhava, reality and

appearance.

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Analogies have their limitations. Perhaps a better one would be: the rope

never became a snake. It never changed or transformed itself into anything.

It was just misperceived as a snake. Brahman alone is. One without a 2nd.

 

Dennis said:

> Who knows whether anything did or did not happen? I do not see that saying

> this is the same as saying that it transformed itself from one thing into

> another at all. If gold is made into a bracelet it is still gold. This is

> the whole point about the distinction between sat and bhava, reality and

> appearance.

 

Dennis

 

 

Sponsor

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at:

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server

For details, visit: /local/news.html

Post message: advaitin

Subscribe: advaitin-

Un: advaitin

URL to Advaitin: advaitin

File folder: advaitin

Link Folder: advaitin/links

Messages Folder: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

Terms of Service

<> .

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> >>Brahman manifested but all is and always will be still only

Brahman.

 

I find this comment advaitin. It is inclusive. It does not separate

something as It & something else as not It.

>

> Who knows whether anything did or did not happen? I do not see that

saying

> this is the same as saying that it transformed itself from one

thing into

> another at all. If gold is made into a bracelet it is still gold.

This is

> the whole point about the distinction between sat and bhava,

reality and

> appearance.

>

> Dennis

 

>From Maharishi :-)

 

"The repeated practice of 'collecting' oneself & arriving at

transcendental consciousness continues to refine the nervous system

until it becomes so pure that it is capable of giving rise to a state

of consciousness described as 'contact with Brahman' ...

 

'Contact with Brahman': it was stated in the commentary on verse 20

that in the transcendental state of consciousness the mind becomes

Being. When Being is retained in a natural manner even while the mind

is out in the relative field, then 'contact with Brahman' is

realized. Such contact means harmony between the absolute & relative

states of consciousness .. The result is 'infinite joy'.

 

It should be noted that it is the 'contact' that is infinite joy, &

not Brahman Itself. Brahman, which is an all pervading mass of bliss,

does not exhibit any quality of bliss. It may be likened to a mass of

energy - matter - which does not exhibit any quality of energy ...

 

Brahman is that which cannot be expressed in words, even though the

Upanishads use words to educate us about Its nature. In the field of

speech, Brahman lies between two contrary statements. It is absolute

& relative at the same time. It is the eternal imperishable even

while it is ever changing. It is said to be both this & That. It is

spoken of as Sat-Chit-Ananda but includes what is not Sat, what is

not Chit & what is not Ananda. It is beyond speech & thought, yet the

whole range of thought & speech lie within it.

 

'Within It' & 'Without It' are just expressions, & like any other

expressions about Brahman they do justice neither to Brahman nor to

the speaker nor to the listener. Brahman is lived by man with ease

but cannot be spoken of, in the sense that words are inadequate to

encompass That which is the unlimited fullness of transcendental

Being & the fullness of active life at the same time. Verse 29 of

Chapter II speaks of It as a 'wonder', for it is not anything that

can be conceived of intellectually; it is not anything that can be

appreciated by emotion."

 

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi ~ commenting on Chapter Six Verse 28 "On the

Bhagavad Gita".

 

~*~

[Guest guest]

Rick said:

 

Analogies have their limitations. Perhaps a better one would be: the rope

never became a snake. It never changed or transformed itself into anything.

It was just misperceived as a snake. Brahman alone is. One without a 2nd.

Dennis said:

> Who knows whether anything did or did not happen? I do not see that saying

> this is the same as saying that it transformed itself from one thing into

> another at all. If gold is made into a bracelet it is still gold. This is

> the whole point about the distinction between sat and bhava, reality and

> appearance.

 

I seem to think a similar discussion has taken place once or twice on the

list before - perhaps before you joined, Rick. I don't disagree that

'Brahman alone is; one without a second'. Also, 'the rope never became a

snake' in the sense that it always is only Brahman. Nevertheless, you seem

to be denying that the world exists as an appearance within Brahman. I, too,

once took the ajativada theory literally and assumed that 'in reality' there

was nothing - a formless soup of Brahman, whatever that might be. Frank and

others, making the point very forcefully and repeatedly to other dissenters

made it clear that the creation is *not* non-existent. There are

appearances, which we in turn endow conceptually with name and form. The

problem is that we tend to believe these things have independent existence

instead of acknowledging them as mere 'waves' on the 'ocean' and being

nothing other than that self-same Brahman. But the fact of the matter is

that these appearances *do* exist (though not independently and not being

different from Brahman) and their form is constantly changing. The 'snake

misperception' is in our not realising that these forms are just that - i.e.

rings or bracelets of the one gold (to mix a couple of metaphors).

 

Dennis