Identity between awareness and existence

[Guest guest]

Sanjay Srivastava <sksrivastava68 wrote:

>Could anyone elaborate the logic behind the declaration that existence and

>awareness are one and the same thing? Supposing they are not the same, what

>will be the logical conclusions?

>

>When we say that Brahman is existence-awareness does it not mean that we

>are giving attributes to the attributeless?

 

Here is my understanding.

 

Existence is fundamental for anything that exists. If Brahman is,

then Brahman exists and the very essence of that 'is-ness' is the

existence itself. If Brahman does not exist then no further

discussion is needed on Brahman.

 

In Ch. Up. in discussing creation - Uddalaka starts with 'existence

alone was there before creation and it is one without a second' -

Since other than existence is only non-existence and one cannot say

non-existence existed - a contradiction in terms. Hence existence

alone was there in the beginning and it is one without a second.

 

Question is what is the nature of that existence that is one without

a second. Uddalaka himself answers - it is not of the nature of jadam

or inert like - premordial cause for a big bang in science. It is of

the nature of conscience, or a chaitanya vastu. 'It is conscious of

what?'- one may question. Since there is nothing other than that one

existence which is consciousness, it is thae same conscious-existence

- as its swaruupa lakshaNa - or intrinsic nature of that existence is

consciousness. To say this differently, since there is nothing else

there for it to be conscious of, it is self-consciousness itself. Let

us analyze this further.

 

Since we cannot talk of non-existent consciousness, which makes no

sense, that consciousness is an existent consciousness - This again

makes it existent consciousness or existence -consciousness is the

very nature of that what existed before the creation. Since that is

one without a second, there it unlimited or limitless- if there is a

limit for existence, we run into another problem - what is there

beyond the limits. If some thing is there then that some thing must

be existent since it is there. If it exists then it is part of

existence only and not other than existence. One can also look at

from consciousness point - if there is something other than

consciousness then how does one know? If one knows that something

exists then it must be within that consciousness itself to be aware

that there is something out-there. Hence consciousness is also

boundless - Hence 'ikam eva advitiiyam' - one without a second

applies to both aspects of consciousness-existence. That which is

limitless is ananda or happiness since any limitation causes

samsaara. Hence what was there before is sat-chit and ananda - and

these are called swaruupa lakshaNa - its intrinsic nature.

 

Now what is an intrinsic nature - that because of which the thing is

defined and without which the thing is not defined - In mathematics

we call this necessary and sufficient condition - Like H2O is water

and water is H2O - Is H2O an attribute of water? - No - it is its

swaruupa lakshaNa or intrinsic nature. Similarly whatever that was

existent before creation is sat-chit-and ananda.

 

Next, KrishNa says that which exists can never cease to exist and

that which is non-existent will never come into existence. - nasato

vidyate bhaavo naabhaavo vidyate sataH|. Hence creation is not some

thing new or something out of nothing but just a modification of

whatever that exists into a different form. This is an absolute

statement of 'law of conservation' that we are all familiar. Hence

Advaita Vedanta s to the understanding that creation is only

an apparent modification of that which exists - just as gold

transforming into different ornaments - the nature of god is not lost

in this transformation. The creation is just naama and ruupa - name

and form - bangle, ring, etc yet remaining as gold. - Uddalaka gives

there examples to illustrate this and says - vaachaarambhanam vikaaro

naamadheyam - to indicate that it is only an apparent transformation

involving names and forms - just as mud into mud pots, gold into

ornaments or iron into iron-based objects - these examples are from

Ch. Upanishad itself.

 

Hence Brahman as sat-chit-ananda stating same thing in terms of

intrinsic nature or swaruupa lakshaNa-s.

 

Hope this is clear.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Shree Sanjay worte:

 

 

"and it is one without a second."

>

>Can this assertion be proved even without Sruti pramAna?

 

 

Yes - I thought I did - Here it is again - If there is a second, that

second has be different from the first to say it is second. Hence if

there is some thing other than existence, it has to be non-existence

alone since that alone is different from existence - Hence a second

existence which is different from an existence it amounts to saying

non-existence exists - Is it not a contradiction in terms? Hence

that non-existence exists it cannot be different from existence that

exists- Hence there is - is involves existence) no second. In a

recent post in adviatin list under the title of Infinity and Brahman,

Professor V.K. has presented that existence cannot have sajaati,

vijaati and even swagata bheda-s - that is no internal or external

differences which is needed to establish the second. Please refer to

that article.

>

>

>" One can also look at from consciousness point - if there is

>something other than consciousness then how does one know? "

>

>I am loosing track. Who does not know?

>

>

>"If one knows that something exists then it must be within that

>consciousness itself to be aware that there is something out-there"

>

>I do not think I am following.

>

>"Hence consciousness is also boundless"

>

>Not at all clear.

 

I think Nanda has presented the same thing using slightly different

arguments - but the logic is the same.

 

Let us ask the question - Let us question first, how do I know if

some thing exists or not, I being the knower or a conscious entity.

If I say a chair exists there, chair being inert cannot declare

itself that it exists. Conscious entity, I, can only declare that

'there is a chair'. For me to declare that' there is a chair out

there' means the chair thought exists in my mind and I am conscious

of that chair thought in my mind - is it not? - my mind and sense

organs plus I, the conscious entity, all have to be there to declare

that 'there is chair out there'. So chair out there is chair thought

in my mind - since mind is nothing but thoughts. Going further -

chair thought in my mind is evident or I know only because I am aware

of that thought. That is chair thought has to be in mind which is in

my awareness since I know my mind. Awareness is consciousness.

Essentially it only means the chair thought is in my consciousness

for me to declare that - there is a chair or chair exists. Hence to

establish anything that exists that existence has to be in the

consciousness so that a conscious entity can say that existence is.

Since we already established that existence is one without the

second, it follows that consciousness-existence are two sides of the

same coin.

 

If consciousness is limited - then the question is what is there

outside the limited consciousness. If there is something and I know

it, it means that it is in my consciousness for me to know there is

something outside. Now you are back to the argument that that

so-called outside is inside my consciousness. Hence consciousness

cannot have boundaries.

 

Now how do I know I exist and I am conscious - Here I do not need any

means to know that I exist and I am conscious. It is called

self-evident fact - We call this a aprameyam - no means of knowledge

required to establish my own existence or my own consciousness.

Hence it is called swayam siddham or swayam prakaashatvam -self is

self-effulgent entity.- like no other light is needed to see the

light.

 

Please read this carefully since it is easy to get lost in the words.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

K. Sadananda wrote:

>Now how do I know I exist and I am conscious - Here I

>do not need any means to know that I exist and I am

>conscious. It is called self-evident fact - We call

>this a aprameyam - no means of knowledge required to

>establish my own existence or my own consciousness.

>Hence it is called swayam siddham or swayam

>prakaashatvam -self is self-effulgent entity.- like

>no other light is needed to see the light.

 

If the question pertains only to existence and

awareness, the above explanation is all that is

required.

 

You(I) exist, You(I) know it for sure, and You(I)

don't need to convince any one else about your(my)

existence. Thus existence(sat) is proved.

 

You(I) are aware, You(I) know it for sure, and You(I)

don't need to convince any one else about your(my)

awareness. Thus awareness(chit) is proved.

 

These are facts that each one of us know for sure. Is

there any need to even say that these facts are

necessarily Shruti.

 

Now for "One without a second"

Imagine: Your mind is clear, no thoughts, all senses

withdrawn from their objects, you are just aware of

your existence. What exists other than you ? You are

the only One, without a second.

 

Best Regards

Shrinivas

 

 

 

Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger

http://phonecard./

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

The Advaitic Expression of last statement of your email is the

following:

 

"SELF is pure, with no thoughts, all senses withdrawn from objects,

Self is just aware of the SELF existence. What exists other than the

SELF? SELF is the only one, without a second!"

 

But "self with full of thoughts is impure and all its senses are fully

engaged on the objects; it is unaware of the True Existence and its

awareness is fully focused on the body, mind and intellect. When does

the self become aware of its true existence? With Wisdom, self become

aware that "SELF is the only without a second!"

 

According to Bhagavad Gita, self can attain the wisdom and

SELF-REALIZATION by undertaking Yoga Sadhana (Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga

and Jnana Yoga). The very fact that we ask an explanation of the

"Identity between awareness and existence" implies that our senses are

fully engaged!

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

advaitin, Shrinivas Gadkari <sgadkari2001> wrote:

> .........

> Now for "One without a second"

> Imagine: Your mind is clear, no thoughts, all senses

> withdrawn from their objects, you are just aware of

> your existence. What exists other than you ? You are

> the only One, without a second.

>

> Best Regards

> Shrinivas

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

The person you are looking at you in front of the mirror is you and

this awareness is the identity of your existence!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

>"and it is one without a second."

> >

> >Can this assertion be proved even without Sruti pramAna?

>

>

>Yes - I thought I did - Here it is again - If there is a second, that

>second has be different from the first to say it is second.

 

Why should it be so, Sada? There can be two exactly identical things and

there are still two different entities. I've two telephones in front of me

right now and both are the same make, model etc Absolutely no difference

between them. But still they are two things are they not? You can even take

a couple of eggs and cannot see any difference between them - but that

doesn't in anyway deny that they are two distinct entities, right?

>Hence if

>there is some thing other than existence, it has to be non-existence

 

Why can't there be two things of existence? I who write this mail and you

who read it both exist right? So why should one of us be non-existent for

another to be existent?

 

 

 

_______________

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

[Guest guest]

> >"and it is one without a second."

>> >

>> >Can this assertion be proved even without Sruti pramAna?

>>

>>

>>Yes - I thought I did - Here it is again - If there is a second, that

>>second has be different from the first to say it is second.

>

>Why should it be so, Sada? There can be two exactly identical things and

>there are still two different entities. I've two telephones in front of me

>right now and both are the same make, model etc Absolutely no difference

>between them. But still they are two things are they not? You can even take

>a couple of eggs and cannot see any difference between them - but that

>doesn't in anyway deny that they are two distinct entities, right?

 

I do not thinks so - if there are two things there is boundary

between the two - when there is only one there is no boundary - the

boundary is the form or shape - it is an attribute of the object -The

boundary also defines that something is there that separate one

object from the other. You eliminate the boundary between the two

telephones you have or two eggs you have and then pose the question

if there are two telephones or eggs.

 

 

> >Hence if

>>there is some thing other than existence, it has to be non-existence

>

>Why can't there be two things of existence? I who write this mail and you

>who read it both exist right? So why should one of us be non-existent for

>another to be existent?

 

Existence is indivisible, akhanDam. you are looking from the

boundaries of the bodies - but not from the existence aspect. Please

think it over. Both are within the existence only - Hence it is

called praj~naana ghanam - Indivisible all pervading consciousness.

Fundamentally there cannot be anything other than existence - hence

it is sarvagatam - all pervading and eternal.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

>

>

>

>_______________

>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

><http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

> Sponsor

><http://rd./M=210156.1528653.3092245.1456761/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:\

HM/A=734163/R=0/*https://www.joinonespirit.com/mybookclub/healthyliving/bookclub\

s/osp/JoinFast/c2/c2_coupon.htm/?src=015_02_hh_273_181_1429>

>

>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of

>nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at:

><http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advait\

in/

>To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

>Messages Archived at:

><advaitin/messages>\

advaitin/messages

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to the

><>

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

(server problems, sorry for any duplications)

 

Namaste Nanda and Sadananda,

 

There are good arguments that identicals are indiscernable. That is, there

cannot be two discernable identical things. When looked at very closely,

the notion of multiple identical things dissolves. In everyday speech,

however, we speak of identical things. It's a pragmatic notion, "good

enough for government work." Or, some characteristics are purposefully

left out of the comparison. But under close scrutiny, the notion of

identical things doesn't stand up. Take the example of the two eggs. When

they are examined either close up, one will have a flaw the other doesn't

have. But even at the gross eye level, they are not strictly identical.

The two eggs have different properties -- one egg has an egg to the left of

it. The other egg has an egg to the right of it. They are different. If

both eggs lacked these properties, there would be only one egg!

 

Maybe Sadananda was getting at something like this - consciousness cannot

be like the eggs. Let's say for the purposes of this discussion that there

were two consciousnesses. OK, tht entail that they appear to something.

What would THAT be? What knows the two consciousnesses? Whatever the word

we give it, awareness, etc., THAT, is what there are not-two of.

 

Om!

 

--Greg

 

 

 

At 09:48 AM 8/7/01 -0400, nanda chandran wrote:

>>"and it is one without a second."

>> >

>> >Can this assertion be proved even without Sruti pramAna?

>>

>>

>>Yes - I thought I did - Here it is again - If there is a second, that

>>second has be different from the first to say it is second.

>

>Why should it be so, Sada? There can be two exactly identical things and

>there are still two different entities. I've two telephones in front of me

>right now and both are the same make, model etc Absolutely no difference

>between them. But still they are two things are they not? You can even take

>a couple of eggs and cannot see any difference between them - but that

>doesn't in anyway deny that they are two distinct entities, right?

>

>>Hence if

>>there is some thing other than existence, it has to be non-existence

>

>Why can't there be two things of existence? I who write this mail and you

>who read it both exist right? So why should one of us be non-existent for

>another to be existent?

>

>

>

>_______________

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

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

>Maybe Sadananda was getting at something like this - consciousness cannot

>be like the eggs. Let's say for the purposes of this discussion that there

>were two consciousnesses. OK, tht entail that they appear to something.

>What would THAT be? What knows the two consciousnesses? Whatever the word

>we give it, awareness, etc., THAT, is what there are not-two of.

>

>Om!

>

>--Greg

 

Thanks Greg for the input.

 

I am getting more than the fact that consciouness /existence is

indivisible. In the realted mails to Nanda - trying to establish

there is nothing other than existence/consciousness that I am - since

world existence cannot be independently established away from my

existence/consciousness. That is the essence of aham brahma asmi too.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

>

>At 09:48 AM 8/7/01 -0400, nanda chandran wrote:

>>>"and it is one without a second."

>>> >

>>> >Can this assertion be proved even without Sruti pramAna?

>>>

>>>

>>>Yes - I thought I did - Here it is again - If there is a second, that

>>>second has be different from the first to say it is second.

>>

>>Why should it be so, Sada? There can be two exactly identical things and

>>there are still two different entities. I've two telephones in front of me

>>right now and both are the same make, model etc Absolutely no difference

>>between them. But still they are two things are they not? You can even take

>>a couple of eggs and cannot see any difference between them - but that

>>doesn't in anyway deny that they are two distinct entities, right?

>>

>>>Hence if

>>>there is some thing other than existence, it has to be non-existence

>>

>>Why can't there be two things of existence? I who write this mail and you

>>who read it both exist right? So why should one of us be non-existent for

>>another to be existent?

>>

>>

>>

>>_______________

>>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

>><http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>>

>>

>

> Sponsor

><http://rd./M=210156.1528653.3092245.1456761/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:\

HM/A=734163/R=0/*https://www.joinonespirit.com/mybookclub/healthyliving/bookclub\

s/osp/JoinFast/c2/c2_coupon.htm/?src=015_02_hh_273_181_1429>

>

>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of

>nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at:

><http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advait\

in/

>To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

>Messages Archived at:

><advaitin/messages>\

advaitin/messages

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to the

><>

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Greetings Shri Sadananda,

 

You have posted an excellent article. You deserve to

be congratulated for having achieved a clear

understanding of Vedanta. Your eight-point description

of the nature of reality is very much to the point.

 

Regards

Shrinivas

 

 

 

Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger

http://phonecard./

[Guest guest]

Hi Sadananda,

 

That's right, I know you were getting at those other aspects too. I was

saving my input on the associated topics for another message....

 

On the existence of objects external to and independent of consciousness.

It is logically impossible to prove the claim that there are such objects.

Not only that, but since (i) our experience starts within consciousness and

(ii) all observed objects are not seen to be separate from consciousness,

the burden of proof is on the one who claims that objects are really Out

There independent of consciousness. Even a purported proof that a teacup

exists outside of awareness cannot get outside of awareness to prove the

teacup. So the very proof is self-defeating and points only within

conciousness. All evidence points to consciousness only.

 

That leaves the question of whether consciousness and what could be called

the "I-principle" are separate. They either are or they are not. If they

were separate, WHAT would know this? What would be knowing both

consciousness and "I" to establish that they are different? That which

would know these two things would then be the consciousness that is the

"I-principle" itself. This proves that consciousness and the "I-principle"

cannot be separate. The luminous knowingness of consciousness doesn't

exlude anything and it doesn't happen somewhere else separate from what I

am. It doesn't happen in two places, because it doesn't even happen in

once place. Any "place" would be an arising within it. This is true

regardless of who utters these words.

 

Hari OM,

 

--Greg

 

At 01:33 PM 8/7/01 -0400, K. Sadananda wrote:

>>>>

>

>

>Maybe Sadananda was getting at something like this - consciousness cannot

>be like the eggs. Let's say for the purposes of this discussion that there

>were two consciousnesses. OK, tht entail that they appear to something.

>What would THAT be? What knows the two consciousnesses? Whatever the word

>we give it, awareness, etc., THAT, is what there are not-two of.

>

>Om!

>

>--Greg

 

Thanks Greg for the input.

 

I am getting more than the fact that consciouness /existence is

indivisible. In the realted mails to Nanda - trying to establish

there is nothing other than existence/consciousness that I am - since

world existence cannot be independently established away from my

existence/consciousness. That is the essence of aham brahma asmi too.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

>

>At 09:48 AM 8/7/01 -0400, nanda chandran wrote:

>>>"and it is one without a second."

>>> >

>>> >Can this assertion be proved even without Sruti pramAna?

>>>

>>>

>>>Yes - I thought I did - Here it is again - If there is a second, that

>>>second has be different from the first to say it is second.

>>

>>Why should it be so, Sada? There can be two exactly identical things and

>>there are still two different entities. I've two telephones in front of me

>>right now and both are the same make, model etc Absolutely no difference

>>between them. But still they are two things are they not? You can even take

>>a couple of eggs and cannot see any difference between them - but that

>>doesn't in anyway deny that they are two distinct entities, right?

>>

>>>Hence if

>>>there is some thing other than existence, it has to be non-existence

>>

>>Why can't there be two things of existence? I who write this mail and you

>>who read it both exist right? So why should one of us be non-existent for

>>another to be existent?

>>

>>

>>

>>_______________

>>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

>><<http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp><http:

//explorer.msn.com/intl.asp>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>>

>>

>

> Sponsor

><<http://rd./M=210156.1528653.3092245.1456761/D=egroupweb/S=170507

5991:HM/A=734163/R=0/*https://www.joinonespirit.com/mybookclub/healthyliving

/bookclubs/osp/JoinFast/c2/c2_coupon.htm/?src=015_02_hh_273_181_1429>http://

rd./M=210156.1528653.3092245.1456761/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:HM/A=

734163/R=0/*https://www.joinonespirit.com/mybookclub/healthyliving/bookclubs

/osp/JoinFast/c2/c2_coupon.htm/?src=015_02_hh_273_181_1429>

>

>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of

>nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at:

><<http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/a

dvaitin/><http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/cu

lture/advaitin/

>To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

>Messages Archived at:

><<advaitin/messages>/g

roup/advaitin/messages><advaitin/messages>http

://advaitin/messages

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to the

><<>>

! Terms of Service.

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

 

 

Sponsor

<http://rd./M=195705.1453857.3031277.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17050759

91:HM/A=675976/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N1977./B39898.3;sz=4

68x60;ord=997205441?>www.nissandriven.com

www.nissandriven.com

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at:

<http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/adv

aitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at:

<advaitin/messages>/gro

up/advaitin/messages

 

 

 

Your use of is subject to the

<>

<<<<

[Guest guest]

>Greetings Shri Sadananda,

>

>You have posted an excellent article. You deserve to

>be congratulated for having achieved a clear

>understanding of Vedanta. Your eight-point description

>of the nature of reality is very much to the point.

>

>Regards

>Shrinivas

 

Thank you Shrinivas for your kind words. I cannot claim as my

knowledge. This is the essence of what I learned from my teachers.

Trying to pass it on to those like me within my poor vocabulary of

English language. Thanks again for taking time to express your

appreciation.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>Hi Sadananda,

>

>That's right, I know you were getting at those other aspects too. I was

>saving my input on the associated topics for another message....

>

>On the existence of objects external to and independent of consciousness.

>It is logically impossible to prove the claim that there are such objects.

>Not only that, but since (i) our experience starts within consciousness and

>(ii) all observed objects are not seen to be separate from consciousness,

>the burden of proof is on the one who claims that objects are really Out

>There independent of consciousness. Even a purported proof that a teacup

>exists outside of awareness cannot get outside of awareness to prove the

>teacup. So the very proof is self-defeating and points only within

>conciousness. All evidence points to consciousness only.

>

>That leaves the question of whether consciousness and what could be called

>the "I-principle" are separate. They either are or they are not. If they

>were separate, WHAT would know this? What would be knowing both

>consciousness and "I" to establish that they are different? That which

>would know these two things would then be the consciousness that is the

>"I-principle" itself. This proves that consciousness and the "I-principle"

>cannot be separate. The luminous knowingness of consciousness doesn't

>exlude anything and it doesn't happen somewhere else separate from what I

>am. It doesn't happen in two places, because it doesn't even happen in

>once place. Any "place" would be an arising within it. This is true

>regardless of who utters these words.

>

>Hari OM,

>

>--Greg

 

Beautiful Greg. Thanks for this clear post. Hence shruti declares

that it is indivisible since who will know the divisions even if one

divides it - even those divisions will be within the consciousness -

just as space is indivisibl - dividers in space are also in space -

like the walls that separate my kitchen from my bed room etc. This

is again Shankara's example from Atma bhoda.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Shrinivas Gadkari wrote:

> Greetings Shri Sadananda,

>

> You have posted an excellent article. You deserve to

> be congratulated for having achieved a clear

> understanding of Vedanta. Your eight-point description

> of the nature of reality is very much to the point.

 

HariH OM! shrinivasji, all-

 

i quite agree. beautifully clear!

 

namaste,

frank

[Guest guest]

Hi Sadananda,

 

As you yourself said in a previous message, thanks for taking time to

express your appreciation.

 

Hari OM!

 

--Greg

 

At 02:14 PM 8/7/01 -0400, K. Sadananda wrote:

 

 

Beautiful Greg. Thanks for this clear post. Hence shruti declares

that it is indivisible since who will know the divisions even if one

divides it - even those divisions will be within the consciousness -

just as space is indivisibl - dividers in space are also in space -

like the walls that separate my kitchen from my bed room etc. This

is again Shankara's example from Atma bhoda.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Greetings dear Sada,

You presentations are always based upon deep and

thorough study and sincerity.They are excellent and

you deserve to be congratulated for your clarity and

knowledge of Vedanta!

Regards

Sagar

 

Shrinivas Gadkari <sgadkari2001 wrote:

> Greetings Shri Sadananda,

>

> You have posted an excellent article. You deserve to

> be congratulated for having achieved a clear

> understanding of Vedanta. Your eight-point

> description

> of the nature of reality is very much to the point.

>

> Regards

> Shrinivas

>

>

>

> Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute

> with Messenger

> http://phonecard./

>

 

 

 

 

Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger

http://phonecard./

[Guest guest]

>

> Beautiful Greg. Thanks for this clear post. Hence

> shruti declares

> that it is indivisible since who will know the

> divisions even if one

> divides it - even those divisions will be within the

> consciousness -

> just as space is indivisibl - dividers in space are

> also in space -

> like the walls that separate my kitchen from my bed

> room etc.

 

Hehho to you both on this discussion. There is a

beautifully simple formulation of this which slips

easily into the wallet for frequent reflection:

'Only that which has a boundary can be divided.'

Best wishes

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger

http://phonecard./

[Guest guest]

>

>Hehho to you both on this discussion. There is a

>beautifully simple formulation of this which slips

>easily into the wallet for frequent reflection:

>'Only that which has a boundary can be divided.'

>Best wishes

>Ken Knight

>

 

Lovely Ken - Profound truths are so simple to express. You are

absolutely right. Thanks for sharing with everyone.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Ken. Sometimes boundaries get special, mysterious treatment.

Sometimes people treat them as though they are mysteriously outside of the

world of things. Instead of being things themselves, just like the things

they circumscribe.

 

Hari OM!

 

--Greg

 

At 02:38 AM 8/8/01 -0700, ken knight wrote:

>>>>

>

> Beautiful Greg. Thanks for this clear post. Hence

> shruti declares

> that it is indivisible since who will know the

> divisions even if one

> divides it - even those divisions will be within the

> consciousness -

> just as space is indivisibl - dividers in space are

> also in space -

> like the walls that separate my kitchen from my bed

> room etc.

 

Hehho to you both on this discussion. There is a

beautifully simple formulation of this which slips

easily into the wallet for frequent reflection:

'Only that which has a boundary can be divided.'

Best wishes

Ken Knight

<<<<

[Guest guest]

> Hehho to you both on this discussion. There is a

> beautifully simple formulation of this which slips

> easily into the wallet for frequent reflection:

> 'Only that which has a boundary can be divided.'

 

But can you point to anything in this world which doesn't have a

boundry? Only thing I can think of is space. But we are not space are

we? We're limited human beings trying to be unlimited. In such

an effort what's the utility in merely speculating/theorizing about

the unlimited?

[Guest guest]

> > 'Only that which has a boundary can be divided.'

>We're limited human beings trying to be unlimited.

 

How can that which is limited become unlimited?...It

cannot.

How can the unlimited become limited? It cannot.

>In such an effort what's the utility in merely

> speculating/theorizing about

> the unlimited?

The statement at the top of this page is not

speculation. It is direct experience.

(speculation...or we should say using the organs of

mind to reflect upon Brahman...is better practise

than the dreamful imprisonment in delusion through the

ahankaric attachments.)

The words that you read at the top of the page, and

the letters that you perceive, are limited; without

connection through and in direct experience they are

meaningless except superficially in the limited.

The reason that the other three main correspondents in

this discussion connected with the beauty of the words

is because they have known and been known by and in

the direct experience. They are not alone. In England

we have an archived collection of thousands of

religious/spiritual experiences that point to an

ineffable yet 'knowing' consciousness.

> But can you point to anything in this world which

> doesn't have a

> boundry? Only thing I can think of is space. But we

> are not space are

> we?

Between the molecular structure of all forms there is

space as there is within the form and outside of the

form. This space therefore is unbroken. The finite

aspects of mind cannot conceive of infinite space but

such a thing can be inferred but it is still only a

symbol for the substratum that is the single

consciousness, Brahman, that pervades all but is not

in contact with anything...Sanskrit word slesh.

You use the word 'point' and that is useful here.

A point has no dimension and therefore has no place in

the dimensional world you wish me to perceive. However

that point is everywhere at the centre of whatever we

perceive. As long as you perceive the maya with

consciousness so attached then this point becomes the

Jiva. When you consider the secondary meaning of Tat

Tvam Asi then Brahman is Brahman: the point in

dimensionless space is revealed as the space itself.

So to is the revelation of the Jiva in Brahman.

In this you will find the meaning of the brief saying

we are discussing.

A question may be asked.

How can such abstract ideas be sensibly discussed in

finite words?

Ideally we should be using oral communication but here

is some help from Shankara's Upadesa Sahasri

18v202,203:

'It is true that all sentences conveying information

about the not-self yield abstract knowledge only. But

it is not so with sentences about the inmost Self, for

there are exceptions, as in the case of the one who

realised he was the tenth.

(I assume you are familiar with this story)

One should accept that the Self is its own means of

knowledge (sva-pramaanaka) which is synonomous with

being directly knowable to itself (svayamvedyatva). On

our view, whenm the ego is dissolved experience of

one's own Self is realised.'

Happy studying

Ken Knight

>

 

 

 

 

Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger

http://phonecard./

[Guest guest]

Hari OM! Narayana Smrithis!

 

Blessed Self,

> we? We're limited human beings trying to be unlimited. In such

> an effort what's the utility in merely speculating/theorizing about

>

> the unlimited?

>

 

We actually are UNLIMITED trying to be LIMITED, because of our

Vasanas, that will be the right thing to Quote.

> But can you point to anything in this world which doesn't have a

> boundry? Only thing I can think of is space. But we are not space

> are

> we?

 

Yes, everything in this world is having boundary, but as you yourself

saying space is not having boundary right, the Brahman is subtler

than the space!, Which cannot be understood by our Intellect.

 

With love & OM!

 

Krishna Prasad

 

 

--- vpcnk wrote:

>

> > Hehho to you both on this discussion. There is a

> > beautifully simple formulation of this which slips

> > easily into the wallet for frequent reflection:

> > 'Only that which has a boundary can be divided.'

>

> But can you point to anything in this world which doesn't have a

> boundry? Only thing I can think of is space. But we are not space

> are

> we? We're limited human beings trying to be unlimited. In such

> an effort what's the utility in merely speculating/theorizing about

>

> the unlimited?

>

>

 

 

 

 

Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger

http://phonecard./

[Guest guest]

Sorry for any duplication, the previous copy seemed not to arrive.

 

===================================================================

 

Hello,

 

We're limitlessness seeming to think it's limited. In the everyday sense,

any pointing is to something that has a boundary (even when we point at

"space," we try to be clear and not point in the direction of a tall

building, etc. :-) ) But in the sense of this thread, any pointing never

lands anywhere, never points to any object but to awareness only.

 

Hari OM,

 

--Greg

 

At 01:04 PM 8/8/01 -0000, vpcnk wrote:

>>>>

> Hehho to you both on this discussion. There is a

> beautifully simple formulation of this which slips

> easily into the wallet for frequent reflection:

> 'Only that which has a boundary can be divided.'

 

But can you point to anything in this world which doesn't have a

boundry? Only thing I can think of is space. But we are not space are

we? We're limited human beings trying to be unlimited. In such

an effort what's the utility in merely speculating/theorizing about

the unlimited?

[Guest guest]

>

> Lovely Ken - Profound truths are so simple to

> express.

Dear Sadananda, Madhava and Greg,

Assuming that you are all in US, don't you lot sleep?

By midday here in UK I had your replies to my 11am

(here) e-mail. Thank you for your encouragement.

Can we follow this line a bit further please?

In your recent e-mails you have all expressed how

beautiful or lovely the shared words and reasoning

with each other have been.

When we hear something like 'Only that which has a

boundary can be divided' there is instant recognition

and in that moment of knowing we can speak of it as

being 'beautiful' or 'lovely'.

May I use another word 'sweet'. For which I have in

mind the Sanskrit 'Madhur'. A quick skim through

Jacob's concordance shows us the importance of this

word in relation to sruti. Also, it is my own???

experience that at times a great sweetness prevails

when studying scriptures, in special, physical places

as well, that can then be known to pervade all. I

could give times and places for such experiences but

the e-mail would grow too long.

It seems to me that this sweetness is a veil but one

so fine that it veils Absolute as but the lightest

cloud does the sun.

At the moment, with some friends, I am studying the

practical application of the Mahavakyas....oh no, not

again do I hear you cry?....and one group member spoke

of the sweetness she experienced while reading the

Chandogya Upanishad. This was echoed by another who

reported an identical experience from her home life.

It was very clear that they were speaking of a very

special quality and yet they know nothing of Sanskrit

and the use of the word madhur in the sruti. They had

never discussed the word before.

When we experience the truth behind some words

presented as a sutra there is awareness and

existence...I would prefer to use the words feeling

and memory both. From this point arises the sweetness

and the words...pasyanti level...that emerge will

indeed be sweet if they are not clouded by the

ahankara. No doubt if we sat with Adishankara we would

describe his words as sweet as honey as they awakened

truth in us....Giri/Totakacharya's experience for

example.

People in the group have asked me to talk a little

more about this 'sweetness' and I wonder if any of you

have any observations to pass on to them,

Thank you all

Om sri ram jai jai ram

 

 

 

 

Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger

http://phonecard./

[Guest guest]

Greetings all,

 

There is a heated discussion going on in this forum.

All that I would like to say is the following: Any

amount of reading on the subject of Self, is nothing

but empty words if they are not substantiated by

direct experience. Meditate, and with time all doubts

will clear on their own. Meditation is the essence of

all sadhana.

 

Regards

Shrinivas

 

 

 

Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger

http://phonecard./