Understanding Sada's position

[Guest guest]

Sada, my reply to you will be in three posts.

 

Philosophy in the Indian sense is the reconciliation with reason the

spiritual experience of the sages. So not only should our understanding of a

particular school of philosophy be reconciled with the metaphysical concepts

of the school, it should also reconcile with the psychological and

epistemological tenets of the school and also the spiritual practice

suggested to reach the truth. This is what I'll concentrate on in the first

post.

 

My second post will deal with the validity of your arguments in their

own sphere of relevance and explore how far they are true in their own

field of suppositions.

 

My third post will push deeper and deal with the conceptions themselves -

subject, object, consciousness, mind etc - and see how true our

understanding of these concepts are.

 

First let's try to reconcile your understanding of Advaita with what we know

of Vedanta.

>From what I can make of your arguments - it seems purely intellectual. With

the metaphysical conception of Brahman as taught by Advaita - one without

another; all in itself - itself in all - you have intellectually reconciled

it with your own self/world as you understand them. And the knowledge that

has arisen out of this reconciliation, you say is the truth of Advaita.

Since Advaita is a path to liberation and it teaches jnaana/knowledge as not

only the path but also the end, 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.

 

I want to you consider the following :

 

1. All thinking is fundamentally objective in character. Intellectual

thinking too is necessarily so. The subject thinks of an object. Even with

thoughts about our own self the subject thinks of itself/its attributes as

an object. But the shruti clearly says that the Self is not to be known as

an object i.e it is beyond the intellect - that's also the reason there's

the teaching of silence, simply because brahman cannot be intellectually

apprehended or expressed. But you've comfortably reconciled the metaphysical

Brahman with the world and your own self and have no problem about

expressing it. So is intellectual understanding the same as atma jnaanam?

 

Also if Brahman was to be known by the intellect then what's the role of the

shruti - according to traditional opinion the shruti teaches two things

which are considered beyond human understanding and for which the shruti is

the only pramaana to establish their existence - dharma and brahman.

Wouldn't your intellectual reconciliation contradict this traditional stand?

And why is Badarayana rebuking the Saamkhya for trying to reconcile reality

with logic?

 

2. Shankara himself says Advaita theory is in the realm of ignorance as

theory being in the realm of pramaanas and since the pramaanas do not have

ultimate validity, Advaita theory is of a lower level of reality than

Brahman. By theory it is meant intellectual understanding. So is it right to

say that your intellectual reconcilation is the same as atma jnaanam?

 

3. If liberation is only the intellectual understanding/reconciliation of

Advaita theory with phenomenal life, then anybody who understood your post

(and there've been many in the Advaitin list who said what you said is the

true reading of Advaita) and understood it, would have been liberated? So do

they consider themselves liberated now?

 

One of the qualities of jeevanmuktas is that they're supposed to have lost

all fear - since fear is a product of the mind over what it imagines can

happen to itself or the body. Ramana used to refer to his body as "this" and

even when some thugs attacked him is said to have borne the blows without

any sign of such action affecting him. Simply because the body wasn't him.

So has your intellectual reconciliation given you this fearlessness? Can you

go and stand in a cage with a lion (only in the hypothetical sense) or in

any dangerous situation, without any fear, because any harm caused is only

to the body and it is not you?

 

4. If by atma jnaanam is meant only intellectual understanding then what's

the relevance of ethics, austerity, meditation etc which have been

practiced/preached by all the Advaitic saints? And why should anybody take

sanyaasam/renunciation?

 

5. If by atma jnaanam is meant only intellectual understanding, then what's

the meaning of all the expositions of atma vichaaram using the pancha kosha

doctrine etc that we see in the praakarna grantha texts? The teachings in

those texts don't seem to be mere intellectual understanding - but a

physical seeing/feeling of the body/mind etc as something physically apart

from us. Did Yaganavalkya mean by "neti, neti" only an intellectual

understanding of ourselves as different from the body/mind etc or a physical

knowledge of differentiation - which should be similar to the view we view

objects external to us - that we're not the body and mind?

 

Sure according to Advaita metaphysics everything is ultimately brahman -

even the senses, the mind and body. But again why do the Advaitic teachers

also keep insisting that you're not the body and mind? The whole of

Dashashloki of Shankaraachaarya is in this vein - where he distinguishes

between himself and all that is known. Why does Shankara call his body a

disgusting bag of bones, flesh, urine, etc and asks you to reject it as not

your true self? Isn't this what neti, neti is about? But how would you

reconcile this with your theory?

 

Observe the kind of knowledge/certainty you have when you say "I" in

reference to your psycho/physical being. Is this the same kind of knowledge

that you have when you look at an object and think that "it is in me and I

am in it"?

 

6. According to the shruti/Advaita liberation would mean the end of all

desire - as dear GMurthy used to post often the quote from Katha

Upanishad : "When all the desires that dwell in the heart fall away, the

mortal becomes immortal and attains brahman even here" - after this

intellectual understanding are you really free from all desire? Even as you

read this post does your mind thirst to clear up any misunderstanding that I

might have regarding your views? I think you are particularly fond of

writing/talking about Vedanta. Can you totally give it up for say, a month

and be unaffected by it? Can you sit in a place for a couple of hours

without your body/mind thirsting to perform their functions - all of which

imply underlying desire. Sada, please do not think of it as a challenge from

me - just reflect on this and test the validity of your jnaana.

 

In another sense jnaana/reality is equal to self existence i.e, for the

normal human apart from the things that (s)he experiences/finds pleasure in

the world he has no existence/identity. (People who doubt this, all you have

to do is test this out - give up the top 5 things which give you the most

satisfaction/pleasure for just 1 week and see how you feel - without all

that external to give you pleasure/satisfaction/happiness and thus sustain

your identity, you'll feel like your whole life has been overturned and lost

purpose). Do you think your intellectual understanding has given you the

capability to reject the pleasures of the world and abide in yourself? Test

it out.

 

7. According to Advaita the Atman always is. But doesn't intellectual

understanding necessarily imply that which you are ignorant of that

understanding first and then knowledge arises?

 

Yes, there's some similarity between the "knowledge and ignornace" here and

the tenets of Advaita - but are these the knowledge and ignorance that

Advaita is talking about?

 

8. Also according to Advaita it is "brahma vid brahmaiva bhavati" - that is

on liberation you'll become reality - consciousness. So the knowledge that

you're not only yourself but you are everything should always be present.

One of the reasons the phenomenal self is the false self is that it is not

always present - for when your mind is lost in the object like say when

you're watching a movie etc or in deep sleep the phenomenal self - the "I"

feeling that you have when you are conscious of yourself, is not present.

Please differentiate between this "I" sense as the self awareness of the

person who's experiencing the state and the inferential reasoning like :

you're present in deep sleep since you wake up as the same person etc.

 

Is your intellectual understanding of the Advaitic metaphysical self always

present? Even when your mind is lost when answering this post or watching a

movie or in deep sleep?

 

Also intellectual understanding is what is retained by the mind. Many things

that we intellectually understood during school/college, we've already

forgotten. So will your understanding stand the test of time? When you grow

old and your mind becomes weak and forgetful, will it still be retained?

 

Sada, take your time to think on all these issues. I don't expect/rather do

not want answers from you immediately. Wait for my other two posts too.

After all three, you can present further arguments.

 

_______________

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

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

If I can venture to express an opinion on the topic of this

fascinating discussion. The questions I raise on shri Sadananda's

position are similar to what shri Nanda raised in the first post.

The referred text, here, is taken from shri Sadanandaji's post

with the subject "understanding sada's advaita".

 

On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, K. Sadananda wrote:

> [...]

> 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.

>

 

What was presented here is a theory of advaita. This theory falls in

the category as any theory - a product of the intellect, a brilliant

product but still a product of the intellect - and is within the realm

of ignorance. Am I right?

 

Now, some specific comments on what shri Sadananda garu presented

above, as per my understanding:

 

(a) brahman does not have mind as an instrument.

(b) jIvA has mind as his/her instrument

© jIvA of (b) is not the same as brahman of (a)

(d) when jIvA looses the mind as the instrument, then jIvA is

identical with brahman (jIvo brahmaiva naH paraH). A better

way to put is: when the instrument has dropped of its own

accord, then the jIvA is identical with brahman.

(e) jIvA of (b) above, whatever he/she understands with

that instrument the mind, that is not AtmavidyA.

 

shri sadananda garu uses " ... - I, the conscious entity, using

the mind as an instrument -..." .

 

Is there not adhyAsa (giving the attributes of the subject to

the object and of the object to the subject) here?

 

Is not the correct usage here one of the following?

 

"I am the Consciousness..." or "I am the jIvA with the mind as

the instrument....". What I mean is: in the former case, there

is no instrument. In the latter case, the jIvA is not the brahman.

 

I have no difficulty with the points 1 to 8 which shri Sadananda

garu presented as part of that post. It shows how we cognize different

objects and that is still within the theory. That theory is required

to satisfy the intellect. My point is: when the intellect itself is

an upAdhI, why attempt to cater to its needs? I am not saying, have

a blind faith, but it is still an unnecessary and fruitless exercise

to try to appease the intellect. I have raised this question a few

times on the List and I wonder if shri sadanandaji and shri nandaji

address this as part of their fascinating discussion. Again, I am

stressing I am not saying have a blind faith, but to bow down to the

intellectual demand, knowing full well that satisfying intellect is

not the objective and also knowing that intellect has to finally bow

down, then what is the purpose of incisive intellectual analysis?

I wonder if the participants take time to address this point also

in this debate. This point also appears in the other post I made

this evening quoting shri swami satchidanandendra saraswatiji.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

----

[Guest guest]

Gummuluru Murthy worte:

 

I responded in detail to Shree Nanda's posts to clarify my

understanding. I request you to study and see if some of the

questions you raised are answered or not. I am only addressing some

aspects that pertain to your specific comments.

>

>

>What was presented here is a theory of advaita. This theory falls in

>the category as any theory - a product of the intellect, a brilliant

>product but still a product of the intellect - and is within the realm

>of ignorance. Am I right?

 

Murthy gaaru - I do not think so.

 

Please note that Advaita is not a theory. Interpretation of advaita

by achaarya-s could be theories. See the comments of Shree

Siddharthaji referring to Shankara's advaita. Shree T.P. Mahadevan

puts it beautifully - In the Non-dualism, the non- refers not only

to duality but to ism as well.

 

Because, my presence is absolute, non-dual and it is aprameyam - that

is, no means of knowledge is required to establish that I exist and I

am consciousness. That is the advaita that remains the essential

truth. All other things depends on pramaaNa. Shaastra is pramaaNa to

establish that I am not only sat and chit but I am ananda or

unlimited or brahman - Please see the adhyaasa bhaashya of Shankara

again.

>

>Now, some specific comments on what shri Sadananda garu presented

>above, as per my understanding:

>

>(a) brahman does not have mind as an instrument.

 

In adviata - there is a two level brahman - The absolute

non-differnentiable brahman. Your statement applies to that - since

if he has mind, he gets qualified as possessor of the mind.

 

The second level of brahman - is called Iswara - he is the one who is

the creator. He is the saguNa brahman- and the total mind of all

beings put together (it is an algebraic sum) is the mind of the

Iswara. To put it correctly - the Brahman identified with the total

mind is Iswara.

>(b) jIvA has mind as his/her instrument

 

Brahman identified with the individual mind is jiiva. This statement

is different from yours. aham brahma asmi automatically follows if

the identification ceases. Hence it is swataH siddham.

>© jIvA of (b) is not the same as brahman of (a)

 

Yes or no! Brahman identified with the individual mind is jiiva and

identified with the total mind is Iswara. Brahman is the same and one

without a second. What I brought out in the discussion with Nanda is

the mind is also nothing but brahman since mind is nothing but

thoughts and thoughts if you follow the analysis is nothing but

brahman which is sat-chit-ananda swaruupa who is also the contents of

the thoughts since thoughts are in the consciousness.

Hence Ramana says - the costumes are different -If you get carried

away with the costumes you think they are different - but that is

superficial. But the contents is the same.

 

Like Nageswara Rao in telugu movies playing a duel role and you see

big posters showing the two roles shaking hands with each other! -

That is Brahman on the screen!

>(d) when jIvA looses the mind as the instrument, then jIvA is

> identical with brahman (jIvo brahmaiva naH paraH). A better

> way to put is: when the instrument has dropped of its own

> accord, then the jIvA is identical with brahman.

 

One has to be careful here and that is what I was emphasizing. It is

not the lose of the mind - it is the identification with the mind as

I am this. Mind can still remain but identification can cease ones

one understands that 'I am' that pervades all this including the

mind. Then only the correct understanding that aham brahma asmi will

follow. I am in all and all in me is the truth that Krishna says.

>(e) jIvA of (b) above, whatever he/she understands with

> that instrument the mind, that is not AtmavidyA.

 

Murthy gaaru - we have to be very careful here. The problem I see is

the statement - jeeva has the instrument mind. Brahman identified

with the mind is jiiva. The wrong notions are in the mind - It is

these wrong notions that need to be corrected - that occurs because

of giving reality to mind. Please read my analysis of thoughts and

what is the real part and what is unreal part. Meditation is done by

the mind to understand the mind. Brahman does not need any

understanding. One can say for the purpose of clarity - Brahman

identified with the correctly understood mind is jiiva who is

liberated or jiivan mukta. - Aham brahma asmi follows immediately

since wrong notions are dropped and calling any more as jiiva is also

not valid. - It only means that jiivan mukta still sees plurality

within the local mind but he has no misunderstanding that the

plurality he sees is reality - because factually it is not real as I

have outlined in terms of the analysis of the thoughts.

 

I hope my understanding 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]

What a fantastic triad of posting, Sadanandaji! My praNAms to you

in appreciation and admiration. The three parts could form one of

the clearest expositions of advaita viewpoint for every one to read. I

am enjoying it thoroughly. Thanks.Thanks are also due to Nanda

Chandran who motivated you into writing this. All of us members are

benefitted by this nanda-sada discussion.

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

[Guest guest]

Prof. VK - I am doubly blessed by the comments, especially coming

from scholars like you. My shatakoTi pranaams to Shree Gududev,

Swami Chinmayanandji and all other teachers who helped in educating

me. There is nothing I can give in return for the kindness they

showered on me other than offering these bits and pieces of their

wisdom. - tvadeeyam vastu govinda tubhyam eva samarpaye.

 

My humble praNaams to you for your kind words of appreciation.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

> All of us members are

>benefitted by this nanda-sada discussion.

>praNAms to all advaitins

>profvk

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, K. Sadananda wrote:

> Gummuluru Murthy worte:

>

> I responded in detail to Shree Nanda's posts to clarify my

> understanding. I request you to study and see if some of the

> questions you raised are answered or not. I am only addressing some

> aspects that pertain to your specific comments.

>

 

namaste.

 

Thanks very much shri Sadananda garu. I join profvk in congratulating

on your presentation in these series of posts. I need to digest them

but certainly they are as clear an exposition as I have seen

anywhere. Certainly our forum is blessed by these presentations.

And I congratulate shri Nandaji also for putting vigorous questions

and maintaining a dialogue. I would like to see his viewpoint also

and where he differs from your position.

 

In this post, I will elicit for a few more points from you

on the few questions that I raised.

 

[ >> GM's earlier post; > Sadanandaji's reply ]

> >

> >What was presented here is a theory of advaita. This theory falls in

> >the category as any theory - a product of the intellect, a brilliant

> >product but still a product of the intellect - and is within the realm

> >of ignorance. Am I right?

>

> Murthy gaaru - I do not think so.

>

> Please note that Advaita is not a theory. Interpretation of advaita

> by achaarya-s could be theories. See the comments of Shree

> Siddharthaji referring to Shankara's advaita. Shree T.P. Mahadevan

> puts it beautifully - In the Non-dualism, the non- refers not only

> to duality but to ism as well.

>

> Because, my presence is absolute, non-dual and it is aprameyam - that

> is, no means of knowledge is required to establish that I exist and I

> am consciousness. That is the advaita that remains the essential

> truth. All other things depends on pramaaNa. Shaastra is pramaaNa to

> establish that I am not only sat and chit but I am ananda or

> unlimited or brahman - Please see the adhyaasa bhaashya of Shankara

> again.

>

 

I do not doubt that. However, my question is: the theory is fine,

what is the need for the theory. Advaita is establishing firmly

in the brahman irrespective of the knowing that I am brahman.

This is the same question that Shri Nandaji raised also, and

I have to go through your answer more fully before I know fully

your position. My point is: there is an oceanic difference

between knowing that I am brahman and be established in the

brahman. I will go through your series of posts more fully.

> >

> >Now, some specific comments on what shri Sadananda garu presented

> >above, as per my understanding:

> >

> >(a) brahman does not have mind as an instrument.

>

> In adviata - there is a two level brahman - The absolute

> non-differnentiable brahman. Your statement applies to that - since

> if he has mind, he gets qualified as possessor of the mind.

>

> The second level of brahman - is called Iswara - he is the one who is

> the creator. He is the saguNa brahman- and the total mind of all

> beings put together (it is an algebraic sum) is the mind of the

> Iswara. To put it correctly - the Brahman identified with the total

> mind is Iswara.

>

 

In the advaita that I am speaking, there is only one brahman. Once

we put a second level of brahman, we are getting into the theory.

> >(b) jIvA has mind as his/her instrument

>

> Brahman identified with the individual mind is jiiva. This statement

> is different from yours. aham brahma asmi automatically follows if

> the identification ceases. Hence it is swataH siddham.

>

> >© jIvA of (b) is not the same as brahman of (a)

>

> Yes or no! Brahman identified with the individual mind is jiiva and

> identified with the total mind is Iswara. Brahman is the same and one

> without a second. What I brought out in the discussion with Nanda is

> the mind is also nothing but brahman since mind is nothing but

> thoughts and thoughts if you follow the analysis is nothing but

> brahman which is sat-chit-ananda swaruupa who is also the contents of

> the thoughts since thoughts are in the consciousness.

> Hence Ramana says - the costumes are different -If you get carried

> away with the costumes you think they are different - but that is

> superficial. But the contents is the same.

>

> Like Nageswara Rao in telugu movies playing a duel role and you see

> big posters showing the two roles shaking hands with each other! -

> That is Brahman on the screen!

>

> >(d) when jIvA looses the mind as the instrument, then jIvA is

> > identical with brahman (jIvo brahmaiva naH paraH). A better

> > way to put is: when the instrument has dropped of its own

> > accord, then the jIvA is identical with brahman.

>

> One has to be careful here and that is what I was emphasizing. It is

> not the lose of the mind - it is the identification with the mind as

> I am this. Mind can still remain but identification can cease ones

> one understands that 'I am' that pervades all this including the

> mind. Then only the correct understanding that aham brahma asmi will

> follow. I am in all and all in me is the truth that Krishna says.

>

 

I think we have slightly different understandings of what mind is.

I consider mind as perturbation from a steady state. Mind comes

into being when there is an antahkaraNavr^itti from a steady state.

When there is no antahkaraNavr^itti, there is no mind. When I say

mind has to drop out, I mean that perturbations have to cease.

 

You seem to be saying that mind is an instrument where thought

is developed and also you seem to imply that mind is where some

decisive or some deliberations are taking place.

 

I say mind IS the deliberation. You seem to separate the mind

and the deliberation.

> >(e) jIvA of (b) above, whatever he/she understands with

> > that instrument the mind, that is not AtmavidyA.

>

> Murthy gaaru - we have to be very careful here. The problem I see is

> the statement - jeeva has the instrument mind. Brahman identified

> with the mind is jiiva. The wrong notions are in the mind

 

my understanding: wrong notions ARE THE mind, not IN the mind.

> - It is

> these wrong notions that need to be corrected - that occurs because

> of giving reality to mind. Please read my analysis of thoughts and

> what is the real part and what is unreal part. Meditation is done by

> the mind to understand the mind. Brahman does not need any

> understanding. One can say for the purpose of clarity - Brahman

> identified with the correctly understood mind is jiiva who is

> liberated or jiivan mukta. - Aham brahma asmi follows immediately

> since wrong notions are dropped and calling any more as jiiva is also

> not valid. - It only means that jiivan mukta still sees plurality

> within the local mind but he has no misunderstanding that the

> plurality he sees is reality - because factually it is not real as I

> have outlined in terms of the analysis of the thoughts.

>

 

We also seem to differ in another important aspect, and this, I am

inferring from your post. If I wrongly inferred your position,

please let me know.

 

I am differentiating here between AtmavidyA and the knowledge of

advaita. I see the transformation of the human (AtmavidyA) as

taking place from within to the outside. What I mean by this is:

transformation from the most subtle to the least subtle. Let me

explain in terms of antahkaraNavr^itti. As you very well know,

the internal sense organ, the antahkaraNa, is from the most subtle

to the least subtle is citta, ahaMkAra, buddhi and manas. While

the knowledge enters the sAdhaka through the sense organs (ears),

guruvAkyA-s, manana, nidhidhyAsana, etc, the transformation of

the sAdhaka from an ignorant jIvA to the Atman [very similar to

from a caterpillar to a butterfly] takes place from within to

the outside. As the citta becomes pure and pure, and aided by

the guruvAkyA-s, the Atman shines through more and more as

ajnAna is slowly eroded.

 

What you seem to be saying is (and this, I am inferring from your

post; if I have misunderstood you, my apologies and I hope you

would correct me): shravaNa, manana, nidhidhyAsana enter the mind

which you call an instrument. It is also implied in your writing

[i think] that the analysis takes place at the mind (and intellect)

and transformation takes place from mind to intellect to ahaMkAra

to citta. Did I represent your position right?

 

I will go through your series of postings more fully and come

back again with a few more queries. In the meanwhile, my

congratulations to both you and shri Nandaji for these series of

articles.

> I hope my understanding is clear.

>

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

> --

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

---

[Guest guest]

>On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, K. Sadananda wrote:

>

> > Gummuluru Murthy worte:

>>

 

 

>In the advaita that I am speaking, there is only one brahman. Once

>we put a second level of brahman, we are getting into the theory.

 

I would say, we are getting into vyavahaara, where sadhak is right

now. Any dhyana to realize the absolute involves sadhaka and saadhya

and apparent dvaita where saguNa Brahma is inevitable e When the

seeker realizes that he is the sought too - or tat tvam asi - then

absoluteness of Brahman as a fact is realized. There is only one

Brahman always. In the upanishad when it says sa kaamayata - he

desired - we all ready have saguNa brahman - it is not a theory. It

is shruti pramaaNa. Theory is an interpretation - in the

interpretations, Shankara takes the view that nirguNa Brahman is

absolute and suguNa Brahman is relative since it related to the

creation and he is the creator. Ramanuja takes the view that niguNa

brahman means no dosha guNa and is a negative way of describing the

saguNa Brahman. These are theories to account for the seemingly

opposite views of the scriptures. But scriptures have both aspects

discussed along with the statements of equations of unity of jiiva

and brahman, like aham brahma asmi, ayam aatma brahma.

 

Existence of iron and gold and all the other elements are vyavahaara

satya. The satyasya satya is that they are just assemblage of

fundamental particles that pervade both iron and gold. The dualistic

visions - unity at the absolute level and diversity at the relative

level - is it theory or fact? Another example may be the light

existing in wave form or particle form. Nature is teaching us in so

many ways the truth of advaita!

>

>

>I think we have slightly different understandings of what mind is.

>I consider mind as perturbation from a steady state. Mind comes

>into being when there is an antahkaraNavr^itti from a steady state.

>When there is no antahkaraNavr^itti, there is no mind. When I say

>mind has to drop out, I mean that perturbations have to cease.

>

>You seem to be saying that mind is an instrument where thought

>is developed and also you seem to imply that mind is where some

>decisive or some deliberations are taking place.

>

>I say mind IS the deliberation. You seem to separate the mind

>and the deliberation.

 

I am not saying anything different from you are. Mind is

perturbation in the consciousness. That perturbation is the 'thought'

Hence thought or flow of thoughts is the mind. If you give reality to

that perturbation, then it becomes an instrument - that is also

called antaH karaNa.

>

>> >(e) jIvA of (b) above, whatever he/she understands with

>> > that instrument the mind, that is not AtmavidyA.

>>

>> Murthy gaaru - we have to be very careful here. The problem I see is

>> the statement - jeeva has the instrument mind. Brahman identified

>> with the mind is jiiva. The wrong notions are in the mind

>

>my understanding: wrong notions ARE THE mind, not IN the mind.

 

Having a perturbations is the glory of the ocean. But identification

that the perturbations are different from the ocean is the ignorance.

Mind is thoughts. 'notions' are 'I am the mind' thoughts. Not all

thoughts are wrong. If so jiivan mukta will not have a mind to think.

Then no teaching can occur and whole of Giita has to be thrown out

since it is taught by a mind who knows brahman. to a mind which still

have wrong notions.

>

>We also seem to differ in another important aspect, and this, I am

>inferring from your post. If I wrongly inferred your position,

>please let me know.

>

>I am differentiating here between AtmavidyA and the knowledge of

>advaita.

 

Atmavidya is advaita that ultimately involves realization of brahma

aatma aikyatve or identity between the two. That may first involve

shravana and manana understanding firmly at the intellectual and

nidhidhyaasaN realizing that understanding or factual understanding,

or firm abiding knowledge. All this occurs at the intellectual

level where there is currently a misunderstanding that aatma means a

limited entity.

>

>I will go through your series of postings more fully and come

>back again with a few more queries. In the meanwhile, my

>congratulations to both you and shri Nandaji for these series of

>articles.

 

Please do that and thanks for your comments and will be happy to

share my understanding for whatever it is worth.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

> > --

>

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy

>---

>

Sponsor

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

HM/A=734165/R=0/*https://www.crossings.com/mybookclub/familyfaith/bookclubs/crs/\

JoinFast/c6/c6_coupon.htm/?src=015_02_gj_273_181_2124>

>

>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]

namaste.

 

I would like to get back to one of the points that arose out

of the List's discussion on shri Sadananda garu's recent

presentations.

 

I am still contemplating on how AtmavidyA dawns on the jIvA.

 

I am of the view that with the prerequisite of cittashuddhi

satisfied, guruvAkyA-s (or nowadays studies) followed by manana

and nidhidhyAsana result in Atman shining through from the

inside more and more clearly. This will continue resulting

in the jIvA getting transformed into Atman, so that it is

only Atman there is although it appears as a jIvA (an embodiment)

to others. That is, in this understanding, the transformation

of the jIvA takes place from the inside to the outside (i.e.

from the most subtle part of the jIvA to the least subtle).

 

Shri sadananda garu seems to be (in his presentations) giving

more importance to the manas, the mind. He is saying (as I

understand) that an active mind doing incisive analysis of

the shAstrA-s is a prerequisite and that is where AtmavidyA

takes place. Please correct me if I have misunderstood his

position.

 

I think we all recognize that meditation (not that much a yoga

meditation but an advaitic meditation; I think one of the members

differentiated this in one of the recent posts) is an important

step in AtmavidyA. During the meditation, the mind is to be

calm, with no perturbation and is concentrated on one (either

on saguNa brahman the personal God, or nirguNa brahman).

Obviously the incisive analysis, which shri Sadananda garu says

is a must, cannot take place during the meditation stage. I am

wondering how much importance shri Sadananda garu says does

meditation have in AtmavidyA?

 

Pardon me, I am still not convinced of the need of a highly

incisive analysis. That is why, these questions arise.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

--

[Guest guest]

Gummuluru Murthy gaaru writes:

>namaste.

>

>I would like to get back to one of the points that arose out

>of the List's discussion on shri Sadananda garu's recent

>presentations.

>

>I am still contemplating on how AtmavidyA dawns on the jIvA.

>

>I am of the view that with the prerequisite of cittashuddhi

>satisfied, guruvAkyA-s (or nowadays studies) followed by manana

>and nidhidhyAsana result in Atman shining through from the

>inside more and more clearly. This will continue resulting

>in the jIvA getting transformed into Atman, so that it is

>only Atman there is although it appears as a jIvA (an embodiment)

>to others. That is, in this understanding, the transformation

>of the jIvA takes place from the inside to the outside (i.e.

>from the most subtle part of the jIvA to the least subtle).

 

 

 

 

Murthy gaaru - If one thinks deeply, there is not much difference

between what I said and what you wrote. The analysis that I

described is MEDITATION to inquire within - what is the essence of

the thoughts? - that inquiry demands calm and consistent mind - not

agitated and disturbed mind. In fact any inquiry demands that and

more so if one is inquiring the very intellect itself. Atmabhoha

sloka that I quoted says Atma shines in its full glory in the

intellect, when it is clean that is when it is not agitated- that

reflected light pervades the rest - mind and body and the world

around.

 

What I stated involves intensive meditation process by the mind into

the mind. In discovering the truth or essence of the mind (mind is

nothing but thoughts), all wrong notions in the mind drops out. "I

am, I am, I am" shines forth - again in the mind-intellect complex

discarding prior notions as "I am this, I am this, I am this" etc. I

advise that the first post of reply to Nanda should be studied again

and again in terms of what is involved in meditation in the brahman

inquiry - that is nidhidhyaasana - realization of the truth that is

understood intellectually. The disparity between the intellectual

understanding and factual understanding is due to habitual notional

mind or stating differently due to the pressure of Vasana-s.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

>

>Pardon me, I am still not convinced of the need of a highly

>incisive analysis. That is why, these questions arise.

>

>

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy

>--

Sponsor

>

><http://rd./M=211550.1562866.3121829.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:\

HM/A=763352/R=0/*http://www.classmates.com/index.tf?s=5085>

>

>

>

>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]

Dear Gurumurthy Garu,

I feel the same. It is rather difficult for the incisively enquiring mind to

be or become calm. On the contrary, the incisive mind makes one more

egotistic, till it gives up all its achievements. It is at that point the

meditation sets in, since the mind has nothing to fight with!

-- Vis

------

-

"Gummuluru Murthy" <gmurthy

<advaitin>

Tuesday, August 21, 2001 7:55 AM

Re: Understanding Sada's position

 

> Shri sadananda garu seems to be (in his presentations) giving

> more importance to the manas, the mind. He is saying (as I

> understand) that an active mind doing incisive analysis of

> the shAstrA-s is a prerequisite and that is where AtmavidyA

> takes place. Please correct me if I have misunderstood his

> position.

>

> I think we all recognize that meditation (not that much a yoga

> meditation but an advaitic meditation; I think one of the members

> differentiated this in one of the recent posts) is an important

> step in AtmavidyA. During the meditation, the mind is to be

> calm, with no perturbation and is concentrated on one (either

> on saguNa brahman the personal God, or nirguNa brahman).

> Obviously the incisive analysis, which shri Sadananda garu says

> is a must, cannot take place during the meditation stage. I am

> wondering how much importance shri Sadananda garu says does

> meditation have in AtmavidyA?

>

> Pardon me, I am still not convinced of the need of a highly

> incisive analysis. That is why, these questions arise.