Guest guest Posted August 7, 2001 Report Share Posted August 7, 2001 Sada, before we go any further let's first discuss your interpretation of Advaita. If I understand you right you say all the world exists only because you perceive it and apart from your perception/consciousness of it, the world doesn't exist. So you are in it and it is in you. This stance would not only include the external world but also include the body since you're aware of it. Not only this we have to consider the mind too. You've said : "I include the mind and everything else". When you perceive an object - say the computer before you - yes, it may exist only because you perceive it, but again are you the computer? Since you've said that it is *you* who perceives the computer, I take it that you're the subject and the computer is the object (this definition I would think is reasonable irrespective of whether the object exists only because you perceive it - you're in it and it is in you). So even if the object is in you and you are in the object, still you are different from the object. Right? Please verify this for me. Clearly explain what you are and what the object that you perceive is and the relation between you two. Then we'll take this discussion further. _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2001 Report Share Posted August 7, 2001 >Sada, before we go any further let's first discuss your interpretation of >Advaita. O.K. Nanda - your title is amusing - by definition advaita cannot be sada's? - is it not true? >If I understand you right you say all the world exists only because you >perceive it and apart from your perception/consciousness of it, the world >doesn't exist. So you are in it and it is in you. One has to be careful - I, the conscious entity, using the mind as an instrument- since mind also jadam as it is considered a upaadhi within the vyavahaarika level - see the world. The mind, through the senses, observes the attributes - form, color, sound etc and integrates and concludes or infers that there is an object out there, with these attributes. That is the mechanism that we know is operating. 1. Mind can only know the attributes through the senses. Advaita doctrine questions the reality of even these attributes too. 2. Existence of the object can not be perceived but inferred by the mind since it gains the knowledge of attributes through the senses. 3. Object is now nothing but a thought in the mind - this is a chair - for example. That thought is in my consciousness since I am conscious of the thought - thus consciousness pervades the thought. Existent consciousness essentially lending its existence to the thought and thus to the object - so called object out there thought. 4. Without my mind and my consciousness backing it up - there is no way - no way is underlined - the existence of the world is established or proved. Be my guest if you can do that. 5. The correct understanding advaita is the world is projection of the mind and the mind is in me or in my consciousness and not apart from me. Hence I pervade the totality and I am the totality as well. 6. So I am in it and it is in me - is the knowledge - call it true knowledge of the self - Then only I the self is all pervading makes sense. That is true advaita not sada's advaita! 7. The duality is only apparent at the mind level - no mind no duality either - The so called object thought and subject that - This is chair and I am the seer of the chair - both thoughts are actually pervaded by consciousness since I am aware of both thoughts. It is like same gold appearing as two - a bangle and a ring for example - This split of duality is the play of the mind. As long as the mind is there we can never avoid this duality. Even jiivan mukta sees this duality. But he will not take it as reality. 8. Taking this duality as reality is the ignorance. Realizing the one-ness of both is the knowledge - that is the meaning of aham brahm asmi - That is why we need Shruti to confirm the fact I am the Brahman - which Brahman - from which the whole world arises, it is sustained and it goes back into . Now look the world - world is nothing but thoughts in my mind - thoughts raise in my mind, sustained by my mind and goes back into my mind - The mind is in my consciousness only - Identifying myself with the upaadhi I become Iswara or the creator of the world. I can fold the mind and see the creation or unfold the mind and be myself as in sushupti or samaadhi. Now your can read the rest of your comments in the light of the above statements. > >This stance would not only include the external world but also include the >body since you're aware of it. Not only this we have to consider the mind >too. You've said : "I include the mind and everything else". Yes along as this is the body as well as the thought this is my body or I am the body etc arise in the mind. They become objects for my mind as thoughts- in the dream state, there is no perception of this gross body - no body conscious thoughts. Mind also can become object of my own mind when I say - that my mind is disturbed or agitated - then it is object of my awareness - When I am perceiving the objects out there through the mind as thoughts, I forget the screen but see the projections only as in a movie. I am no more conscious of the scree on which these projections are taking place since I am getting lost in the multitude of projections that are running so fast in the mind like a movie going on. Essentially I am not conscious of the mind on which the thoughts play and I take the projections are real out there. > >When you perceive an object - say the computer before you - yes, it may >exist only because you perceive it, but again are you the computer? Since >you've said that it is *you* who perceives the computer, I take it that >you're the subject and the computer is the object (this definition I would >think is reasonable irrespective of whether the object exists only because >you perceive it - you're in it and it is in you). > >So even if the object is in you and you are in the object, still you are >different from the object. Right? > >Please verify this for me. Clearly explain what you are and what the object >that you perceive is and the relation between you two. Then we'll take this >discussion further. This is what is called dR^ik - dR^isya viveka - Seer/seen distinctions. I would not recognize that I am the computer that I am seeing because I give reality to the object projected in my mind. Only a proper inquiry would lead you to correct understanding that this seer/seen distinctions are only apparent - I pervade this thought and I thought as the very essence as consciousness. From the consciousness that I am, computer exists, the world exists as entities in me - I am the one who pervades every thought and thus the world. Once I crystallize each thought- 'this is computer' and 'this is me' - each thought is different - These are like paying attention to this is bangle, this is ring - to names and forms - names for each thought forms - or loci - but in and through these thoughts the substratum is' I am'. The consciousness-existence that I am. They are in me but I am not them! in the sense that I am not the names and forms etc. Now go back to my wave analogy - do not dismiss that that is elementary. Each wave is different from one another with date of birth and death - but in and through each wave is the water from which it rose, it is sustained and goes back into. That pervading water is similar to the consciousness. If I get carried away with the names and forms, the world will hit me. But if pay attention to the essence of the thoughts waves - it is nothing but consciousness alone. Now I am effectively transcending the names and forms and paying attention to their essence - the very existence which pervades everything. This is not my logic - Bhagavaan Ramana says in Upadesha saara: dR^isya vaaritam chittam aatmanaaH chittva darshanam tatva darshanam| dR^isyam is what is seen as objects - Ramana says if you remove the names and forms of the objects as perceived by the mind -in all this this thoughts - idam vR^itti-s- what remains is the essence of the mind which is nothing but the essence of the reality or tatvam - That I am - is the truth of that tatvam. Hence I think what I am discussing is the essence of advaita that I know of. Hari Om! Sadananda -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2001 Report Share Posted August 7, 2001 advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote: > >Sada, before we go any further let's first discuss your interpretation of > >Advaita. > > O.K. > Nanda - your title is amusing - by definition advaita cannot be > sada's? - is it not true? Dear Sada, sorry for the unfortunate choice of words in the subject line - I didn't mean anything by it. In my mind even Advaita as a philosophy is only for the ignorant for the wise have not utility for it. Nor would the word "Advaita" mean anything to the wise - for Brahman neither speaks nor thinks. Advaita as a philosophy is the intellectual reconciliation of the spiritual experience with the phenomenal world. Depending on the level of intellect each of us frame our philosophical scheme - it is not necessary that everybody's should tally - if we see carefully there're differences of opinion even between Gaudapaada, Shankara and Sureshvara. Anyway we'll try our best to reconcile with logic what we understand of Advaita. Our guiding principle will be that if anything truth cannot be contradicted. So all that fails the test of reason is to be rejected as false. I'll reply to your post soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 > > >Dear Sada, sorry for the unfortunate choice of words in the subject >line - Nanda - No need to apologize. We both know each other very well. I still cherish extended discussions we had in London five months ago sitting on the semi-wet grass and forgetting the rest of the world. I am equally curious to know if the Advaita that I understand is really different from the traditional Adviata that you are familiar and in what way. Shreeman Chari thinks it is. Hence the title may be appropriate if there is a real difference. I also want to make sure that everyone understands that meditation or nidhidhyaasana does not mean attempts to eliminate the thoughts but involves redirecting the thoughts. - or rechannelling the thoughts. These discussions are important to look at the issues correctly. I am sure there are many scholars in the list who are well versed in scriptures and watching the discussions and will not hesitate to jump in to correct us if we are wrong. I know you are very analytical and deeply involved in the inquiry. My respect for you never diminishes even though you are half of my age. Moreover from my analysis these are all only thoughts, including you, and the substratum that is behind the thoughts is that eternal, all pervading, immaculately pure consciousness. So where is the need for any regrets. Hari Om! Sadananda -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 Dear Sadananda, Is not meditation dissolve the thoughts rather than eliminate or redirect them? Also how can the thoughts sustain themselves when all objects vanish -- in the wakeful or dream state? The redirection or channeling of thoughts is the preliminary step (just as the diver diving into the ocean from the surface) before the deep meditation sets in when the thoughts disappear. Is it not so? I am neither a scholar nor an authority on scriptures -- just another analytical mind! Pardon my mind if the questions are too trivial. -- Vis ---- - "K. Sadananda" <sada <advaitin> Wednesday, August 08, 2001 3:17 AM Re: Understanding Sada's Advaita> > I also want to make sure that everyone understands that meditation or > nidhidhyaasana does not mean attempts to eliminate the thoughts but > involves redirecting the thoughts. - or rechannelling the thoughts. > Moreover from my analysis these are all only thoughts, including you, > and the substratum that is behind the thoughts is that eternal, all > pervading, immaculately pure consciousness. So where is the need for > any regrets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2001 Report Share Posted August 9, 2001 >Dear Sadananda, >Is not meditation dissolve the thoughts rather than eliminate or redirect >them? >Also how can the thoughts sustain themselves when all objects vanish -- in >the wakeful or dream state? >The redirection or channeling of thoughts is the preliminary step (just as >the diver diving into the ocean from the surface) before the deep meditation >sets in when the thoughts disappear. Is it not so? >I am neither a scholar nor an authority on scriptures -- just another >analytical mind! Pardon my mind if the questions are too trivial. >-- Vis >- Shree Viswanathan, Greetings. You have raised an important issue. As suggested by Shree Nanda Chandran, I am waiting to study all three parts before I address the issues. At that time I will definitely address the point you have raised. Hari Om! Sadananda -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2001 Report Share Posted August 13, 2001 There have been ten posts on this fascinating topic. May I name them and give them a number tag before I make my comments? USA1. Understanding Sada's advaita . by nanda chandran 7th Aug. USA 2. Understanding Sada's advaita by K. Sadananda 7th Aug. USA 3. Understanding Sada's advaita by vpcnk 7th Aug. USP1. Understanding Sada's position by nanda chandran 8th Aug. USA 4. Understanding Sada's advaita by K. Sadananda 8th Aug. USA 5. Understanding Sada's advaita by R. Viswanathan 9th Aug. USA 6. Understanding Sada's advaita by K. Sadananda 9th Aug. USP 2. Understanding Sada's position - 2 by nanda chandran 9th Aug. USP3. Understanding Sada's position -3 by nanda chandran 10th Aug. USP4. Understanding Sada's position by Gummuluru Murthy 11th Aug. I have read carefully what Sada wrote in USA 2. It is difficult to agree with nanda's reading of it as is stated in USP 1 : >From what I can make of your arguments ...... >And the knowledge that has arisen out of > this reconciliation, you say is the truth of advaita. ... we have to >take it that understanding the truth of advaita is nothing but >liberation itself. So in other words if we understand what you say is >the truth of advaita then we should be liberated. Most of what follows in nanda's post USP 1, is formulated on the above reading. Gummuluru Murthy clinched the issue in USP 4: > when the intellect itself is an upAdhi why attempt to cater to its >needs .... knowing full well that satisfying intellect is not the >objective and also knowing that intellect has to finally bow down, >what is the purpose of incisive intellectual analysis? The whole point is that intellect has to intellectually understand that brahman is beyond the understanding of the intellect. The inescapable incapability of 'understanding' of 'brahman' by the intellect, is what has to be understood and known by the intellect. This is not a dogmatic repetition of a statement made repeatedly by scriptures, but a confirmation obtained by 'nidhidhyasana' of scriptural statements. This is why I have said in another post, that scripture, reason and experience are all necessary. On the question of meditation vis-a-vis disappearance of thoughts raised by Viswanathan in USA 5, I would like to say the following. Meditation as described by advaita Vedanta and Meditation as described by Patanjali in his yoga-sUtra are subtly (only subtly ) different - particularly in respect of description of samAdhi state. In the former it is not the thoughtless state. 'Atma-samstham manah kRtvA' is a characteristic description from the gItA. When the mind is 'established' in the Self, the mind is full of the Self. In that sense there is no mind, because the Self is there . The Self was and is already there. But the mind was earlier occupied by other thoughts. So when the mind is full of the Self and the Self alone, there is no mind now, there is only the Subject, the Self. And so there is no 'thought of the Self' - there is only the Self. 'Thought of the Self' contradicts the 'One and Only One' lakshana of the Self. In USP 2, nanda chandran says: > Without external objects there cannot be impressions either and >consciousness would be pure. Also while perceived objects differ >why does the perceiving > consciousness remain the same? Here comes the difficulty of attempting to reduce everything to an intellectual understanding. First of all what is wrong in 'consciousness being pure'? In fact that is what exactly advaita says. It is 'prajnAna ghana'. That is, a bundle of Consciousness and nothing else. That Consciousness can be pure without there being any 'object' to be conscious about is a tricky thing for the intellect. But the intellect can extrapolate as follows. Think of the series of entities: Architecture - Sculpture - Painting - Poetry - Music. Each is a form of expression. Architectural expression is full of concrete images . But as we go down the line in the series, sculpture uses less of concrete and painting uses still less. But sculpture expresses more of the essence and painting perhaps still more with less and less of concrete help. As we go to poetry, we have only words to help but we are taken in rapture by the poetic expression. And lastly in music there is not even the spoken word, by just the musical tone and tune we are taken to dizzy heights. Thus even in the ordinary world of experience we are having entities which are so devoid of concrete substance but are full of the core of our experience. If that is so, what prevents our intellect from imagining that instead of our mind being so full of concrete external impressions and images, on the other extreme it could be devoid of any external impression or image but still full in itself of the core, namely, Consciousness, pure and simple. In USP 3 nanda chandran asks: > If the subject were consciousness itself, then what is the difference >between itself and consciousness which perceives objects? What perceives objects is not consciousness, but the physical mind. But without the presence of consciousness, the mind cannot perceive. Consciousness always remains as consciousness. In its presence, all actions, including perception, takes place. Recall 'mayAdhyaksheNa prakRtiH sUyte sacarAcaraM'. So the question asked above does not arise. The ten posts that I have listed above deserve to be carefully studied again by me before I make further comments. In the meantime, I am open to corrections on what I have written above. praNAms to all advaitins profvk You may access three on-line books of mine at the following site: http://www.geocities.com/profvk The books are: Science and Spirituality - A Vedanta Perception Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought, Vision & Practice Overview of Hindu worship with spl. refce. to South India _______ Get your free @ address at Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2001 Report Share Posted August 18, 2001 Shree Viswanathan, In my response to the first part to Shree Nanda chandran, I think I have clarified what I meant by redirecting the thoughts. You are right at the initial stage what is involved is what you mentioned. When the mind is involed in worldly thoughts, the mind is flooded. When the river is flowing with such a speed with huge quantity of water we cannot control that river. For one to control we need to have three pronged approach. 1. change the quality of the thoughts 2. reduce the quantity of thoughts and 3. then redirecting the thoughts. Quality of the thoughts can be done by the study of the scriptures. Quantity of the thoughts by the karma, bhakti and j~naana yoga and finally changing the direction by meditation. The last part involves dhyaanam - saguno paasna for the bhakata-s but for adviata meditation or Brahman inquiry involves diving deep into the very source of the thoughts by rejecting neti neti the names and forms and that is what I implied the redirection and have explained to the best I can in the said part. Please feel free raise the issue if I am not clear in my posts. Hari OM! Sadananda >"R. Viswanathan" <drvis >advaitin ><advaitin> >Re: Re: Understanding Sada's Advaita >Thu, 9 Aug 2001 06:46:06 -0700 > >Dear Sadananda, >Is not meditation dissolve the thoughts rather than eliminate or redirect >them? >Also how can the thoughts sustain themselves when all objects vanish -- in >the wakeful or dream state? >The redirection or channeling of thoughts is the preliminary step (just as >the diver diving into the ocean from the surface) before the deep >meditation >sets in when the thoughts disappear. Is it not so? >I am neither a scholar nor an authority on scriptures -- just another >analytical mind! Pardon my mind if the questions are too trivial. >-- Vis _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2001 Report Share Posted August 18, 2001 Hari OM! Narayana Smrithis! Blessed Self, As Ramakrishna Pramahamsa said, "The salt crystal went to measure the depth of the ocean, Ultimately the salt cystal itself became diluted in the Ocean" People who want to attain Brahman is like that Only. With Prem & OM! Krishna Prasad Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger http://phonecard./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2001 Report Share Posted August 18, 2001 Namaskar. > > > >Is not meditation dissolve the thoughts rather than eliminate or redirect > >them? Meditation is sticking to one thought. that single thought keeps away other thoughts; distraction of mind is a sign of its weakness. By constant meditation it gains strength, i.e, to say, its weakness of fugitive thought gives place to the enduring background free from thoughts. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharishi) Sundar Rajan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.