Understanding Sada's position- PartI

[Guest guest]

This is part of discussion between Shree Nanda Chandran and myself.

He responded to my post in three parts, asking me to respond to each

part separately addressing items individually. I have done that to

the best of my knowledge. There is a lot of overlapping in the

responses since the comments and the responses are interrelated. One

can see that our ignorance is at least self-consistent. I have

absolutely no doubt in my mind that what Shree Nanda calls as Sada's

position is the essence of Advaita Vedanta. I have responded in

detail only to make sure that the concepts are clear.

 

Sada: Nanda - As I study your responses, it became obvious to me that

I have to make my statements in the previous post more clear. It

looks like I gave you the impression that by Brahman inquiry,

involves just an objective analysis. This is not what I had implied

in the Brahman inquiry. It is an inquiry all right but not objective

intellectual inquiry.

 

According to scriptures, Brahman is that which is the substratum for

everything and is not different from 'I', the subject'. Otherwise

there is a duality. It is not an objective analysis but analysis of

the objective-and subjective worlds in total. Please rest assured

that I am not deviating from scriptures anywhere. Please point out

to me if I do. I may be presenting slightly a different way based on

my understanding of the operation of senses and mind. Or as I said

before, I may be using a different jargon, but fundamental tenets of

the scriptural statements are not violated. Scriptural pramaaNa is

needed and relayed upon in this understanding. It is shaastriiya

anumaana and not laukika anumaana. It involves understanding not as

understanding as a thought but understanding as a fact - It is the

means and the goal too, as Advaita has to be. It is no more

intellectual understanding, but understanding becomes 'being' - since

it is an understanding that involves realization that there is

nothing other than 'I am'. Brahma vit brahma eva bhavati, the

scriptural statement becomes a factual understanding. If this is

understood clear, I am sure most all your objections in the three

posts will get resolved.

 

Let me explain this step by step, for the benefit of everyone.

Viveka as Shankara defines is nitya anitya vastu viveka -

discrimination of what is real and what is ephemeral - Now I suggest

that we should go back and read my notes with correct implication of

what this viveka involves. Thought consists of naama and ruupa, name

and form that, as I stated, is the locus for an object. Senses can

only feed to the mind data consisting of attributes of the object in

front. Mind integrates all the sense input data into a locus, since

there is an inherent assumption that there cannot be attributes

without a locus for it. From childhood on, the mind is fed with

information relating the forms, colors and other sense input data to

a locus by naming the forms to the thoughts that are crystallized in

the mind as this is a cow, this is horse etc. Thus each thought is

associated with an object either out-side or from the memory. What I

presented also is that since I am aware of the 'object thought', the

thought is in awareness, for me to be aware of. Awareness is the

very substratum of the thoughts, otherwise I cannot be aware of the

thoughts. Awareness is Brahman, as I used the example, like the

waves in the ocean - praj~naanam brahma says scriptures - awareness

or consciousness is brahman.

 

Up to this is epistemological issue. Now let us look at the

ontological aspects by applying Vedanta to this understanding of how

'knowledge' of objects takes place. Nitya anitya vastu viveka

involves discarding neti - na iti - not this - 'this' being the

object and it involves naama and ruupa or the name and form of the

object - I have explained that correct understanding of 'neti' is not

rejection of the thought in total nor indirectly rejection of an

object that is connected to the thought. It is only rejection of the

superficial or superimposed naama and ruupa of the thought.

Otherwise it is not advaita any more since we end up in duality

-'this' idam vastu and 'I' who is rejecting 'this'. This aspect has

to be understood correctly.

 

We are able to reject the naama and ruupa which are just attributes

and the locus of the attributes that is inferred by the mind only

because it is anitya or not real according the Advaitic doctrine

which defines nitya as tri kaala abhaadhitam - that which remains the

same in all periods of time. Because it is only an adhyaasa or error

of superimposition happened for the purpose of vyavahaara, I am able

to reject it also, provided I have that viveka, the discriminative

knowledge of what is nitya and anitya. I have explained the process.

 

I want to emphasize the fact that it is not a rejection of the

thought in total but seeing the essence of the thought while

rejecting only the superficial aspects of the thought or the object

in turn. It is not rejecting the wave but looking at the very essence

of the wave. In fact this involves very deep meditation involving

very alert and vigilant mind- so that it does not get carried away

with the superficial names and forms but diving deeply into the very

core of the thought wave. In order to do that, one requires complete

detachment from the thought so that one can look at it 'objectively'.

The more one is detached the more one can dive easily into the very

core of the thoughts. If you examine correctly, meditation or

nidhidhyaasana is an inquiry of the mind by the mind- here I am using

the mind in a general sense that includes both samshayaatmika manas

and nischayaatmika budhhi, or mind and intellect as one. This

process is the same as dhyaanam or should I say involves dhyaanam-

dyanena aatmani pasyanti kechit aatmaanam aatmanaa - one meditates

on oneself in oneself by oneself - says Giita. By intense dhyaanam

one develops intuition or j~naana kshakshu or 'wisdom-eye' - what

Ramanuja calls as 'bhakti-ruupa j~naanam'.

 

If you really follow my statements, you can see the logic of japa

yoga too. If I sit down for meditation to do exactly what I

suggested, the knowledge that arises is precisely this. Normally

when an unprepared mind tries to meditate, before he is aware, he

gets lost and easily gets carried away with the thoughts - what you

called objective thoughts - essentially riding along the waves

without diving deep into the waves. Since thoughts are many, and

rapid, it is very difficult to get detached from the flood of the

thoughts to do the inquiry of the nature of the thoughts. Hence in

japa yoga, mind is given the same thought - a repeated thought with

silence in between the two thoughts. There is no more 'wool

gathering' thoughts, since the field is limited as each thought is

being identical to one another. Since the thought is centered on the

Lord and not on the world outside, one is less likely to drift along

with the thought waves. Japa is not mechanical repetition of the

thought. Intensely observing the very nature of the thoughts by the

mind, while a part of the mind repeats the thought. This is possible

if I have devotion where the emotional aspects and the intellectual

aspects get intensified on the object of inquiry - here the very

source of the thoughts. Here the observer is the mind and observed is

also the mind (self being the substratum for both aspects of the

mind). - Here I am giving you an example of how one mind can split

into two - subject and an object - This distinction as I said before

is play of the mind. To give you another example when someone says I

am very much disturbed or agitated - agitated mind and the mind which

can see this disturbed state of the mind - both seer and seen are the

dualistic play of the mind - both are supported by the awareness, the

self - since I am aware that 'my mind is disturbed' and also aware

of the knowledge of the disturbed mind. We will address this

subject-object split later, but we know that it happens.

 

Coming back to the main topic, it is not an objective analysis but

very subtle analysis without rejecting or suppressing the thoughts

at the same time without getting carried away with the thoughts

either. Neti neti - process is not rejection of the thoughts - it

involves nitya anitya vastu viveka (understanding of eternal and

ephemeral aspect of the thought) using the subtle intellect - called

in Vedanta as suukshama bhuddhi (subtle intellect) in contrast to

thiikshNa buddhi (sharp intellect) that we are familiar in the

laukika anumaana or scientific logical analysis what is normally

understood as ' intellectual analysis'. Intellectual understanding

is only objective analysis -word analysis - that is required before

one sits down for nidhidhyaasana - to do what I am suggesting here as

an inquiry. Understanding of the scriptures is required before my

mind is convinced that it has to dive deep within. Vairagya, shhat

sampatti and mumukshutvam (the four-fold qualifications) are all

necessary for my mind to able to stand apart from the names and forms

of the thoughts which are superficial or anitya and examine it

objectively to see their essence- I am using this word 'objectively'

specifically - it does not mean looking at the objects and getting

carried away. It involves out right detachment from the superficial

'object-oriented' nature of the thoughts, but inquiring the thoughts

very objectively without any attachment - since attachment is

attachment to the superficial names and forms which are not

real(attachment is for vishaya or objects which are names and forms

and is called vishaya aasakta). Obviously karma, bhakti and j~naana

yoga prepares the mind just for this diving in.

 

If objects are really out there, you will be deceiving yourself to

claim that they are not real and all is illusion. Because they are

not really out there, mind can dismiss them since if you follow my

analysis, they are nothing but thoughts in the mind and thoughts are

nothing but consciousness which is all pervading - since there cannot

be anything other than consciousness - one without a second - and

scriptural pramaaNa forms a basis for factual knowledge. This is

precisely what is involved as saadhana in advaita.

 

In contrast, eliminating the thoughts involves an effort, a struggle

or internal conflict in the mind. One gets tired and one can easily

fall asleep in the process since that is exactly what happens when

the thoughts get eliminated. It is a struggle because you are

dealing intuitively with dvaita while the truth is advaita- the

thoughts that locused on objects as I am not this body, not this

mind, etc.' that are to be rejected and I the conscious entity

different from inert objects that are being rejected. There is an

intrinsic dvaita involved in the very rejection process. The

struggle becomes inherent in the very process as in any struggle that

deviates from the truth, and soon enough the mind gets tired and goes

to sleep, since one is suppressing the mind which is not natural. It

is better in that case to think of the Lord and which involves no

rejection but acceptance of the duality and surrender the meditator,

where 'i' is dissolved at the alter of the Lord, leading to advaita

only where Lord alone is. Hence the statement of Lord from that

perspective as well - yo mam pasyati sarvatra sarvancha mayi pasyati

- who sees Me everywhere and everthing in Me - says giita.

 

That is why I said it is not discarding the thoughts but looking at

the essence of the truth or reality of the thoughts. It is like

standing apart and taking a salute from the thoughts that are

parading. To your surprise, the thoughts slow down and naturally get

eliminated since you are not paying attention to the superficial

names and forms. It is at that time when thinking and non-thinking

makes no difference for the mind and for you in the background - the

mind makes no more effort to think unless it has to -nor there is any

effort not to think either. Mind then thinks only in response to the

nature not out of habit as we do now where it cannot keep quiet- At

that time you are naturally with your self. This is called

sublimation of the thoughts rather than suppression of the thoughts.

You are in your natural state. With thoughts you are with yourself,

without thoughts you are with yourself - This exactly what sahaja

samaadhi means. That is why I said thoughts are not the problem - in

fact thinking that thoughts are the problem is itself a problem.

This puts a strain on the mind in trying to eliminate the thoughts by

effort and it can not do it since mind is but thoughts.

 

With this understanding if you study my previous posts - it becomes

obvious. There is no real object out there - it is only thought in

the mind - the reality of the object is superficially imposed by the

mind - But as I have showed that thought again is ones own

consciousness itself - nitya and anitya vastu viveka involves

essentially discarding the superimposed reality (adhyaasa) to the

objects out there - since object out there is nothing but subject I

am - since there is no 'out there' to start with, since even 'out

there' is only a thought in my mind! How can you call this as

objective analysis or just intellectual analysis - it is that

analysis of the very content of the intellect by the intellect. If

you can meticulously do this, and to the extent you do this to that

extent the intellect goes blank leaving you to yourself - or

realizing that everything including the thoughts and the associated

intellect or should I say the whole world itself is nothing but you.

aham brhama asmi becomes natural and factual. Scripture stands as

pramaaNa for this understanding.

 

 

Nanda, please examine this so-called- process of 'self-realization'

carefully. Atma, the self, does not need any self-realization. The

mind and intellect are jaDam or inert - Then who needs self

realization? It is only a mistaken notions in the mind with which

self identifies itself - as I am 'this' - This is what I have

discussed in my notes in shankara's adhyaasa bhaashyam. 'This' or

'idam' is an object and from my above analysis it is just a name and

form that has only a superimposed existence - or adhyaasa. Nitya

anitya vastu viveka involves automatically discarding what is not

real since 'this' object notion is not real and rejecting it as na

iti and understanding what is real by diving deep into the very

nature of 'this' thought- that involves viveka or understanding. By

diving down deep into the so-called 'this' - sublimates 'this' -

leaving only 'I am' - 'I am' - 'I am- since 'I am 'this' ' is gone.

In all - there is only 'I am' -since all is nothing but objects

thoughts and essence of all those thoughts is nothing but "I am' the

existent-consciousness - as I have outlined in my posts. Hence true

understanding that ' aham brahma asmi' - instead of the current

understanding that 'aham jiiva asmi' follows. That 'I am' is all

pervading existent consciousness that I am, and that I was, and that

I will be. I am satyam and nityam - the eternal truth.

 

You wanted me to respond item by item and post by post. The above

analysis responds to most of your objections which are based on

incorrect interpretation of my analysis as involving just superficial

intellectual understanding - if that is the case you are right -

that involves again thoughts and one is again riding superficially on

the waves without diving deep within to understand the very core of

the thoughts waves that one is resolved to analyze.

ŠŠŠŠŠŠ.

Nanda:

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 understands 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.

ŠŠŠŠŠŠ..

Sada: True. I have explained about why Brahman inquiry involves

intellect but as you see now it is not just intellectual analysis.

Shankara says in Atma bodha -

sada sarvagataH api aatma

na sarvatraava bhaasate|

budhyaaveva bhaaseta

swachcheshu pratibinbavat||

Although consciousness is all pervading, it does get illumined

everywhere. It shines forth in the pure intellect, just as light

gets fully illumined in a clean mirror.

ŠŠŠŠŠŠ.

Nanda: 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?

ŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ..

Sada: I have given account of what is actually involved - No. Self

is not considered as the object - 'this thought' and 'I thought' both

are thoughts - one is centered on the object as locus and the other

is centered on the subject I - Superficially both are thoughts which

are nothing but the mind that I am aware of. The subject-object is

play of the mind. Examination of this interplay is what is involved

without getting entangled in the superficial names and forms involved

in the loci. How it is done is explained above. It involves

intensive meditation of the mind with the mind since that is all the

tools we have! When the scripture says - naishaa tarkena matiraapa

neyaa - one cannot gain self by logical analysis- it implies one can

not comprehend by the intellect as the object of comprehension -

since it is the very subject or the very substratum that is behind

the comprehension. Logical analysis involves thoughts - and one gets

carried away riding superficially on the thought waves. Viveka or

analysis that calls for is diving deep into the very content of the

thoughts, rejecting the superficial unreal name and form and

understanding the reality or the essence of the very thoughts

involved. For that, one needs to get detached from the thoughts and

examine it "very objectively''- what is the very essence of the

thoughts. In the process the subject-object distinctions gets

sublimated. That is what is implied in the statement 'use the very

intellect to go beyond the intellect' - Examine now the Kena

statement below in the light of my discussion above and you will see

clearly what exactly the implication is :

yasyaa matam tasya matam matam yasya na veda saH|

He understands IT who comprehends it not, and he understands it not

who feels he has comprehended it. Hence comprehension is the

intellectual comprehension as a thought - where as understanding is

the understanding in its essence as a fact and not as a thought,

since superficially thoughts have no reality while as a conscious I,

the thoughts are nothing but consciousness or awareness which is real

and is their essence.

ŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ..

Nanda: 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 Saankhya for trying to reconcile reality with

logic?

ŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ.

Sada: Nanda, only to establish what I am saying is factual based on

Shruti pramaaNa, I have brought in shruti's statements. I have

discussed extensively in Ch. II of my notes on Brahmasuutra bhaashya,

BSB, the difference between loukika anumaana and shruti based

anumaana. I strongly recommend every one to study 2nd and 3rd

chapters -of my notes on BSB where shruti and anumaana pramaaNa

(Ch.2) and adhyaasaa (Ch. 3) are discussed exhaustively. If you

study my previous posts again, I have deduced that world is nothing

but thoughts and thoughts on the superficial count are not real.

What is real is the very substratum behind the thoughts. Upto this is

an intellectual analysis.

 

Now having understood all the theory, that is enough reason to dive

into the thoughts to see what is intellectually understood is

factually true. This is what nidhidhyaasana is all about. In spite

of the intellectual understanding, habitually one gets carried away

with the superficiality of the thoughts like riding on the thought

waves. It is like a chain smoker who intellectually knows smoking is

bad for his health but cannot get out because of mental habit.

Sadhana is required to constantly shifts ones attention from

superficial naama and ruupa, name and form to the very contents of

the thoughts. Hence Krishna statement:

yato yato nishcharati manas chanchalam asthiram|

tatastato niyamyaitat aatmanyva vasham nayet|| 6-26

This can be rightly interpreted as : Whenever and whenever the mind

wanders away by getting carried away on the 'objects' thoughts -

superficially riding away on the names and forms - when one becomes

conscious of this - right there and there one should bring it back to

see the self which is the very substratum of both subject and object

thoughts. This is what is implied in nidhidhyaasana. Here Shruti

comes as pramaaNa the very substratum of all this, this, and this, is

nothing but existence-consciousness - sadeva smoumya idam agra aseet

- ekam eva advitiiyam - tad aikshata - vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naama

dheyam - tat tvam asi swetaketo- etc. Existence-consciousness is

alone there before creation and it is the support for all creation

and creation is nothing but names and forms. and you are that sat and

chit swaruupa. In the discussion of my notes on BSB, I have

explained why shruti is required as pramaaNa.

 

Your objection, Nanda, is therefore not valid, although you may have

valid objection that I might not have made myself clear in my posts.

ŠŠŠŠŠŠ.

Nanda: 2. Shankara himself says Advaita theory is in the realm of

ignorance as theory being in the realm of pramaaNa-s and since the

pramaaNa-s 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 reconciliation is the same as atma jnaanam?

ŠŠŠŠŠŠ.

Sada: I think I have explained above what is involved. Analysis I

have provided in my post is intellectual analysis that involves both

shruti pramaaNa and anumaana pramaaNa. That world is nothing but

thoughts and thoughts are nothing but the consciousness that is the

very substratum. From intellectual understanding one has to gain

factual understanding by contemplation on this intellectual

understanding. This is what is known as nidhidhyaasana - and in my

last post related to suutra 4- tat tu samanvyayaat - I have

explained or I should say Shankara explained the role of

nidhidhyasana. It was posted three weeks ago.

ŠŠŠŠ..

Nanda: 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?

ŠŠŠŠ.

Sada: I think I have explained this taking Kena statement above. I

hope I am clear now.

ŠŠŠŠŠ

Nanda: 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?

ŠŠŠŠŠ.

Sada: Nanda, please think it over clearly since the answer lies in

the question itself. In YogavaashishhTa, Rama asks vashishhTa - why

did you run away from the chasing elephant when you mentioned that

the whole world is unreal including the chasing elephant. VashishhTa

smilingly answered -Hai! Rama! - why do you think my running away is

any different from the chasing elephant. Both are equally unreal.

They all have only relative reality- one wave is different from the

other wave. One thought is different from another thoughts - but

essence or substratum of all the thoughts is the same. Ramana

answers your question in a way-

iisha jiivayoH vishhadhii bidaa|

satva bhaavato vastu kevalam||

The iiswara and jiiva are different in terms of the costumes they are

wearing. But from the point of their essence, which is existence,

they are the same.

Look at this way - as a scientist I know in essence the food and

garbage are one and the same - both are assemblage of electrons,

protons and neutrons. But that understanding does not deprive me in

my enjoying the food and throwing away the garbage - is it not? If

it so true even at this empirical level, why should there be a

confusion in mixing up the vyavahaara and paaramaarthika levels. The

point I am making by understanding the essence of vyavahaara is

indeed paramaarthika only, one does not ignore vyavahaara but one

understands its relative role and also understands it has no role at

absolute level. At the fundamental particle level there is no

difference in the apparently different materials - but at the utility

level or vyavahaara level the difference exists at that level only.

ŠŠŠŠ.

Nanda: 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?

ŠŠŠŠŠ.

Sada: Since now I have clearly discussed what is involved, the

question has no more validity, I suppose.

 

May not be relevant here, but let me state my opinion here, which I

have stated many times in the past before. What is needed in

understanding the essence of the thoughts and thus the subject-object

world is ones complete detachment from the thoughts - vairaagya - if

one is not detached one will get carried away with the superficial

naama and ruupa. Hence vairaagya at the mental level is needed for

the analysis - there is no question about it.

 

This does not necessarily translates to as 'external renunciation is

essential' - I would only say it may be very much helpful to develop

the maanasika sanyaasa which is essential but there is no guarantee

and therefore not essential. One can get attached to ones koupiinam,

the piece of the cloth or stone one is resting for meditation.

Others may differ on this topic. so be it.

ŠŠŠŠ

Nanda: 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?

ŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ

 

Sada: I think I have answered this in a way. "I am the body", I am

the mind" are also thoughts when I am conscious of the body and mind

as objects. Now go back to the analysis of the thoughts - in terms

of superficial aspect involving name and form and the very essence of

the thoughts as consciousness. Everything should fit in. Ocean can

say, I am not the wave. but yet the waves are in me and I am in the

wave as well as outside the wave. I pervade not only this body but

all bodies and minds too - if one understand clearly since 'there is

body out there' is also a thought in my mind!

ŠŠŠŠ..

Nanda: 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?

ŠŠŠŠ.

Sada: As usual there is mixing up of vyavahaara and paramaathika

levels here. First the scriptural statement that everything is

nothing but Brahman violates your separating 'I am not the body since

it is disgusting' and 'I am pure self'. Neti neti has to be

correctly understood - It is not emphasizing duality that iti or idam

is different from me. It is only emphasizing the mental detachment

for a sadhak who is getting entangled in the superficial aspects -

name and forms that the thoughts stand for. It is the rejection of

these unreal names and forms - but accepting in their essence they

are not different from me, the self which is consciousness. na iha

naanaa asti kinchana - there is absolutely no plurality here - con be

absolutely true if one follows the analysis of the objects and

thoughts that I have presented. That is what advaita Vedanta is all

about - otherwise 'not this' will leave you with dvaita and this is

different from me who is chaitanya vastu or conscious entity and this

is jaDa vastu or inert entity. neti neti has to be understood

correctly and not to be misinterpreted. Hence a proper teacher is

essential for aadhyaatma vidya. Nanda please read my previous posts

again how everything is integrated as one and not as two as this and

I.

ŠŠŠŠŠŠ.

Nanda: 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"?

ŠŠŠŠŠŠ..

Sada: That is what a jiivanmukta is all about - is it not?

ŠŠŠŠŠŠ

Nanda: 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.

ŠŠŠŠŠŠ..

Sada: Nanda, indirectly you are asking me how far I have realized the

truths that I am implying in my analysis. It is a good question for

me to pose to myself but an invalid question for me to answer to you.

The reason is very simple. And it also has relevance to a recent

post by a gentleman who posted that he has realized in 1993, and

there were lot of responses some mocking at his post. The question

is improper to answer only because any answer - yes or no- cannot be

validated or invalidated by any others. It is just one word against

the other. Normally no teacher of aadhyaatma vidya in the past has

announced publicly he has realized since there is no way to prove or

disprove that fact- it is an understanding of ones own true state.

Only a disciple will have to feel in his own mind that my teacher has

realized since it is that faith that will help him to proceed further

in his sadhana.

 

Next the criteria you mentioned as mark or realization also cannot be

established objectively. Hence they by themselves are not marks of

realization. One should not have self-centered desires or selfish

desires - since having selfish or ego-centric desires indirectly

points the misunderstanding that by the fulfillment of them only, one

will be happy other wise one will be miserable. That automatically

implies that one is not understood what one is. But even this,

others cannot judge the motivation behind ones actions. Hence it is

better not to judge others, whether others are realized or not. One

can play in the world without getting affected by it. The play and

involvement or samsaara - there is very thin line between the two and

one who is playing only knows the difference. Look at how Shree Rama

played in every incidence particularly when he learned that Sita was

abducted, yet he is considered as j~naani, jiivanmukta - was he

playing or was he suffering like other samsaarii-s. He only knows -

is it not. So who is the judge? Hence Krishna says one knows

oneself in oneself by oneself.

 

Let me ask you a counter question - not that I want you to answer

that. Are you able to suppress all your thoughts and realize the

truth. Only time I can suppress my thoughts is when I go to deep

sleep. But there is no knowledge in that since viveka is required

for sadhana and intellect is not available for knowledge to take

place or for wrong notions in the mind to drop completely. The

singularity that pervades the apparent duality has to be understood

and that is exactly what I am emphasizing.

 

Hence duality is not the problem, thoughts are not the problem,

raising desires in the mind are not the problem, writing on Vedanta

is not the problem, teaching Vedanta is not the problem - They are

valid within vyavahaara. One has to understand clearly the shruti's

declarations. Taking the vyavahaara satya as the satyasya satya or

absolute reality is the problem - understanding clearly the true

import of the shaastra is important and that is where the true

knowledge lies. Considering all the list you gave above as problem

lends a sense of reality to the apparent things - That is the

central problem resulting in samsaara. Shruti declarations of neti

and sadhana is intended to develop vairagya needed to stand apart so

that one can apply viveka to understand the apparent as apparent and

recognize the reality underlying the apparent. That is the essence of

my analysis that says the world is only naama and ruupa and

subject-object distinctions are play in the mind. Mind cannot but

play since that is the nature of the mind. There is no problem in

playing as long as it is taken as a play - There is no problem in

acting the roles as long as one is acting recognizing that one is

actor who is the substratum or adhaara for the roles that one is

playing. If one does not play there is no problems, if one plays

there is no problem that becomes a liila. Roles in the drama have

problems in their roles and they beautify the drama; otherwise it

will be boring to watch. But taking the problems of the roles as one

own problem is then becomes a real problem. Now go back to my post -

thoughts are not the problem - mind cannot but think -but considering

that thoughts are problem and one should avoid them becomes a problem

since in the process one is giving a reality to the problem that is

not really there - Then the apparent problem becomes a real problem -

and there my friend lies the essence of samsaara.

 

I have answered your question impersonally since that is the only way

it can be answered correctly. The rest is a faith which has no

relevance here for the public. A disciple should have a faith in his

teacher other wise he will not gain that knowledge. He has to

establish that faith in his own mind - that faith cannot be imparted

by anyone other than by himself. Not even the teacher can install

that faith in him. It develops as he recognizes that he is getting

immense help from the teacher for his evolution.

ŠŠŠŠŠŠ.

Nanda: 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.

ŠŠŠŠŠ.

Sada: Nanda, your above points from what I discussed are irrelevant

to the topic. By the criteria you have stated one can neither

validate nor invalidate ones status of realization. What Krishna

stated in the IInd chapter as sthita praj~na lakshaNa, are meant for

subjective evaluation not to prove to others that one has realized

nor intended for one to evaluate the others. They are milestones

provided for ones own growth.

ŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ..

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?

ŠŠŠŠŠ.

Sada: No. Apparent is always apparent whether one knows that it is

apparent or not. Knowledge involves realizing apparent as apparent

and real as real and that is the viveka. - 'ignorance' is brought in

to explain why apparent appears to be real and real does not seem to

appear. Even this ignorance becomes apparent when the apparent is

seen as apparent and real as real. The analysis I have presented

points to how what appears to be real is only apparent or name and

form and what is real lies behind the apparent as it very substratum.

One needs to realize the truth indicated by the analysis.

ŠŠŠŠŠ.

Nanda: Yes, there's some similarity between the "knowledge and

ignorance" here and the tenets of Advaita - but are these the

knowledge and ignorance that Advaita is talking about?

ŠŠŠŠŠŠ..

Sada: Nanda, I am not going to convince you, yes or no. I have

provided both analysis and the scriptural support. It is up to you

to take it or discard it. If you find fault in my logic and that my

statements are contradictory to scriptural declaration (not some

X,Y,Z interpretations of the scriptures) please point out those to

me. I am maintaining that what I am presenting is Advaita and not

contradictory to Advaita. That 'this is semi-vij~naana vada etc' in

the final analysis is irrelevant to me. If that is so, let that be

so. If you can prove that what I am preaching is not the true import

of advaita then please let me know what and where I am deviating.

ŠŠŠŠŠ.

Nanda: 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.

ŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ..

Sada: The so-called phenomenal self is the self that identifies with

'I thought" as I am itself. Hence as long as mind is operating, the

I-thought is crystallized - this is the same as ego or ahankaara.

When there is no mind as in deep sleep there is no identification

with any thought. Vedanta says there is only an identification with

kaaraNa shariira - which is pure ignorance. In understanding my

true nature as the very essence of all, I am the totality that

pervades all the states. There is no more misunderstanding as I am

this any more. So I don't see any problem. Whatever Advaitic

explanation of the three states and turia all are valid - because I

am not saying anything different from the tenets of advaita. The

basis of all your questioning is your understanding that I am talking

about intellectual understanding. I think I have made myself clear

now. It is understanding of the very intellect itself not

intellectual understanding.

ŠŠŠŠŠŠ.

Nanda: 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?

ŠŠŠŠŠ.

Sada: The question is again based on the incorrect understanding.

Please read my notes - I said I am that substratum from which

thoughts raise, sustain and go back like waves in the ocean. If I am

there to watch the movie, obviously I am present to watch the movie.

I am there to sleep, then I have to be there sleeping. Waking,

dreaming, sleeping states that occur in my presence but they are not

me. Whole of Mandukya Up. follows. I don't see any problem.

ŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ.

Nanda: 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?

ŠŠŠŠŠ..

Sada: It is obvious that I have not made myself clear in my previous

posts. I hope it is clear now. Nanda, you wanted me to answer item

by item. But actually all are answered in my introductory statement

itself above.

 

I hope I have made myself clear now.

ŠŠŠŠ.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623