Whence Adhyasa

[Guest guest]

Hari Om !!

 

Thank you for your clarifications.

 

advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote:

>

> Dear K Kathirasan,

>

> You ask: "Now that I know that I am the absolute Brahman, why is

it

> that I still have the fear of Duality? Shastra says that the one

who

> knows this crosses over fear. But why is it that despite

discussions,

> and being convinced 'intellectually', that Brahman alone IS, why do

I

> still feel that I am 'ignorant', a 'seeker', a 'doer' etc…. Or what

> can I do to overcome this?"

>

> AHHH…the $64,000 question? A question that all serious students of

> Advaita have no doubt repeatedly asked themselves, of course,

myself

> included. How is it that I could have studied Vedanta so long, be

> absolutely convinced of the veracity of it assertions, (and

not

> merely because some Guru proclaimed them, but because I had

verified

> P.S. Sri Krishna.Ghadiyaram asked: "Is it your position that

Avidya

> is adhyasa, Avidya is not Maya?" That is exactly correct. It is

due

> to Avidya that Maya is appearing. Avidya is the 'cause', 'Maya' (

the

> world of names and forms) is the effect. According to Shankara they

> are different. Because we don't know the Self, we are misconceiving

it

> as the world. That external and internal 'world' in its totality is

> refered to as Maya It was the Post Shankara Mula Avidya Vadins

who

> identified them as one Avidya/Maya and portrayed it as

a 'primordial

> Power' that inhered in the Absolute and accounted for the

appearance

> of the world. This was the beginning of the end for Shankaras'

> Vedanta.

>

>

 

Would you please explain why Sankara/Advaita had to postulate

Trigunatmika Maya, albeit being different from Avidya. Where are

these three Sattva, Rajas, Tamas (in specific proportions) coming

from, causing the world to appear ?

 

Are these ontological entities of Gunas not part of Advaitic

thought ? If so how and why are they appearing in the Gita ? Why did

Sankara compose so many Devi devotional works including Saundarya

Lahari.

 

Is it that the Vikshepa or Projecting or creative power is unknown in

Sankara's thought ?

 

Is the link between the existance and/or removal of these Gunas

linked to Moksha ?

 

How is the MIND conceived of consisting of these three Gunas even in

the Gita ? Where did the MIND come from which is able to assert as

EGO ?

 

Kindly explain.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya !!

 

Srikrishna

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Atmachaitanyaji,

 

That is yet another brilliant piece! Yet I can't help expressing the

following thoughts:

 

1. Had Shri Kathirasanji asked his question to Bhagwan Ramana, the

answer would have been just one line "Find out who has this doubt,

fear etc.".

 

2. This is not to say that all that you wrote is really

unnnecessary. You have brought in a lot of wisdom and enlightenment

to the reader's mind. Hats off to you for that.

 

3. However, I should say, *from an empirical point of view*, the net

effect is rather depressing because the "disease" referred to by Shri

Kathirasanji has no cure at all till one attains "jnanidom".

 

4. But, is that (jnanidom) anything better than general anaesthesia

(from what you said)!?

 

5. Since there can be only one 'jnani' and since I am not anywhere

near 'jnanidom', there is no 'jnani' 'born' (for want of a better

word) yet. (Logic: If a 'jnani' exists already, then that would mean

that all have already been liberated, nay anaesthetized! That is all

the more reason to prevent anyone from becoming a jnani. President

Bush, beware - there may be terrorists around attempting to become

one in order to obliterate humanity!). So, we are pathetically left

with only our innumerable jnananishtas, whose unending discourses can

never ever free us from the fear of duality.

 

6. I re-read your long post of the past concerning jnani and

jnananishta. The feeling that I get is that a 'jnani' is something

utterly incomprehensible from the mundane point of view. In other

words, he or she (Does the gender matter?) is something like a

blackhole! Is there, therefore, any use worrying about that species

which is any way useless to us, the aspiring advaitins? Let us,

therefore, flock to our jnananishtas, listen to their discourses,

read the stuff that they churn out and do regular satsang staying in

on-campus adhyasa hostels.

 

7. We can also think on the lines suggested by Edmond in his latest

post (although I should say that his Witnesses at Level 1, Level

2...., etc. upto "n"th level make me insecurely feel that I am

standing right under the now gone WTC towers!).

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

________________________

 

P.S. : "Advice" to Shri Kathirasanji: I am best qualified to render

you this advice, Kathirasanji, because I am your co-sufferer and co-

surfer and not your teacher or mentor. I may be wrong. But, still

please try. Like Bhagwan Ramana asked that peasant visitor (Please

refer to a recent story posted by Prof. K. Swaminathan – Post No.

12870), do you have an ishtadevatha, say: Siva, Krishna, the Devi,

Jesus, Buddha? If not, please find one that appeals to your mind.

Just visualize the chithathmika Consciousness/Awareness or whatever

name you call It by, which enables you to cognize duality, as your

ishtadevatha. Deliberately endeavour to see this ishtadevatha in all

that appear in front of you, see Him/Her in each and every atom of

your body, thought and what not. The fear will subside. The

visualization will become spontaneous in course of time. If you know

that the gun that is pointed at your head is your ishtadevatha, can

it or the person wielding it scare you any more? I doubt. Call

Him/Her always. As Bhagwan said: "You will receive all the

blessings needed". He did not say that to the peasant in the story.

He told you and me. You can do this without relinquishing your

advaitic forays! Life then becomes sweet and beautiful. Duality

exists only as long as you care to admit it. You won't ever feel that

you are doing an unintelligent thing because you are seeing that very

Consciousness in everything Who you have very logically concluded to

exist!

 

Best of luck and best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

_________________________________

 

advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote:

>

> Dear K Kathirasan,

>

> You ask: "Now that I know that I am the absolute Brahman, why is

it

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/30/02 2:27:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,

madathilnair writes:

 

> 7. We can also think on the lines suggested by Edmond in his latest

> post (although I should say that his Witnesses at Level 1, Level

> 2...., etc. upto "n"th level make me insecurely feel that I am

> standing right under the now gone WTC towers!).

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

 

No, not scary, just the opposite. I think that the creation always protects

its own, that new information comes along appropriate to the questions being

asked, which questions, of course, are always real and pertinent to the one

asking the question. In addition, such answers are accompanied with a

certain amount of that joyous flowing samadhi, which by definition, negates

insecurity and fear.

 

The flowing samadhi seems to be both the 'great communicator' and

simultaneously the 'maestro' who is orchestrating this whole lila song and

dance routine that we all find ourselves in. It is this samadhi stuff that

is the information transport system, the great communicator among the various

states of consciousness: unity, god, cosmic, transcendental, waking,

dreaming, and sleeping. Undoubtedly, innumerable gradations of consciousness

will appear among such categorically defined states, including various

permutations and combinations. The key to greater discernment, then, would

seem to fall back again, on allowing greater distributions of samadhi to pass

by. The actual flowing paths taken would thus seem to govern the experience

sets brought forward to awareness. The greater the flow, the more subtle the

experiences combined with greater peace, quietness, and sheer bliss.

 

jai guru dev,

 

Edmond

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/25/02 9:07:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,

colette writes:

 

> Dear Edmond, how would you explain that what Advaita calls Self is

> absolute & without objects? Why call it Self? Or would you call it

> inclusive of relative? I am reminded of the Buddhist anatman

> position.

>

> Col

>

 

Dear Colette:

 

Such a question, having potentially long winded responses, has made me slow

to respond. Perhaps I can toss a question back to you that will work better

than lots of breezes: What is the name you use to identify the existence you

perceive when you are in the state of transcendental consciousness? Perhaps,

Self. Are there objects coincident with this stage of existence? Most

likely, not. Is the experience inclusive of the relative? Most commonly,

No. The experience moves from the relative to the transcendental, back and

forth, again and again, initially to be seen as two separate and distinct

entities. Are these experiences of the absolute? Too complicated to try to

answer until we know more about what this 'absolute' word is hinting about,

but in terms of the TM experience, we can say (or think) of transcendental

consciousness as an aspect of the absolute. Do your experiences confirm this

sort of thing, or if not, please do describe them in more detail.

 

jai guru dev,

 

Edmond

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, edmeasure@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 3/25/02 9:07:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> colette@b... writes:

>

>

> > Dear Edmond, how would you explain that what Advaita calls Self

is

> > absolute & without objects? Why call it Self? Or would you call

it

> > inclusive of relative? I am reminded of the Buddhist anatman

> > position.

> >

> > Col

> >

>

> Dear Colette:

>

> Such a question, having potentially long winded responses, has made

me slow

> to respond. Perhaps I can toss a question back to you that will

work better

> than lots of breezes: What is the name you use to identify the

existence you

> perceive when you are in the state of transcendental consciousness?

Perhaps,

> Self. Are there objects coincident with this stage of existence?

Most

> likely, not. Is the experience inclusive of the relative? Most

commonly,

> No. The experience moves from the relative to the transcendental,

back and

> forth, again and again, initially to be seen as two separate and

distinct

> entities. Are these experiences of the absolute?

 

Yes, that is how the absolute experiences itself.

 

In any case Edmond, I can see why Buddhists hint at it as non self.

 

Col

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Atmachaitanyaji and Shri Stig Lundgren,

 

I read the recommended adhyasa article by Shri Subhanu Saxena which,

among other things, states as follows:

 

Quote

 

By the way, this affirms that, in shankara's tradition of advaita, it

is futile trying to establish the cause of avidyA, as, once it is

recognised and removed , it is seen to never have existed at all!

This is why shankara never taxes himself with detailed discussions

concerning where does this avidyA come from, and to whom does it

belong, as these matters become totally irrelevant once atman is

known. Later followers of shankara chose not to let the matter rest,

hence the elaborate theories regarding the root cause of avidyA, and

various discussions of the locus of avidyA. One imagines that, should

these discussions have happened in front of shankara, he would have

given them short shrift by saying something like "its about brahman,

not avidyA! Don't get distracted!")

 

Unquote

 

Quote again

 

 

Thus occurs this superimposition , or adhyAsa, which is beginningless

and endless (anAdiranantah), which is innate (naisargikah adhyAsah),

which is of the nature of a false notion or knowledge

(mithhyApratyayarUpah), is the basis for all notions of agentship and

enjoyership (kartrtwa-bhoktrtwa-pravartakah), and is a matter of

common knowledge to all of us (sarva-loka-pratyakshah). To eradicate

this fundamental source of destruction of true knowledge

(asyAnarthahetoh prahANAya), and establish the unity of Atman

(atmaikatwavidyA pratipataye), all the vedanta's are begun (sarve

vedAntA Arabhyante). That this is the purport of all the vedanta

texts, we shall begin this work on the shArIrika mImAmsa, known as

the brahma sUtram (yathA chAyam arthah sarveSAm vedAntAnAm, tathA

vayam asyAm shArIrika-mImAmsAyAm pradarshayiSyAmah).

 

Unquote

>From the above, are we to conclude the following?

 

1) All our attempts this long were just a futile exercise. We were in

fact chasing a chimera.

 

2) If adhyasa is beginningless, then there cannot be any cause

or "whence" to it, and, therefore, Shri Dennis Waite's

question "Whence Adhyasa?" was a non-question after all (as pointed

out by Shri Gummuluru Murthy before) and that the three thoughts of

Douglas Fox, on which Shri Waite based his question, were, in fact,

invalid as pointed out by me before in my response to Shri Waite.

 

3)If adhyasa is endless too, then it is not possible to eradicate

it. This cannot be true. So, adhyasa is not endless.

 

While on this subject, I would like knowledgeable members to comment

on the acceptability of the word "superimposition" for adhyasa. I am

inclined to think that it does not convey the right sense implied in

the adhyasa article by Shri Saxena (although he has profusely used

it). It sounds slightly inexact like the word "illusion" for

our "maaya".

 

The second point is that we must have a debate on the authorship of

Vivekachoodamani which is ascribed to Sankara. The Advaitin forum

should attempt to set right if there is any error in this regard.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

__________________________

 

advaitin, "Stig Lundgren" <slu@C...> wrote:

> Dear Atmachaitanyaji, namaskaram

>

> Many thanks for your truly excellent posting on the origins of

> Adhyasa!

> Adi Shankara´s "adhyasa bhashyam" (the introduction to the

> Brahma Sutra Bhashya) no doubt offers the key to the

> understanding of Advaita Vedanta as propagated by Shankara.

> Anyone interested to know about genuine Shankara vedanta would

> benefit from studying "adhyasa bhashyam". Therefore, I would like

> to recommend the members of this list to read the following

> article:

> http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/articles/adhyasa_bhashyam.htm

> This article was written by Sri Subhanu Saxena, a disciple of

> Sri Aswattha Narayana Avadhani, who in his turn is a disciple of

> Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati. In other words, Swami

> Satchidanandendra is the paramaguru of Sri Subhanu Saxena.

>

> Very best wishes

> Stig Lundgren

[Guest guest]

Namaste Atmachaitanyaji,

 

After reading your reply twice, I am convinced that my $64,000 question

wasn't answered and I am back to where I was before. You almost ended your

reply with "The one who complains, even to himself, 'How is it that I have

'known' the Self, but I still have problems', is NOT a 'knower' of the Self.

He is the one with a misconception, still under the spell of Adhyasa." I am

already convinced that I am under the spell of adhyasa or avidya or maya or

whatever BUT yet I 'know' that Atma is non of these!! Actually what I

expected was an advice to help me solve my problem. But what I received from

you was a confirmation that I have indeed a problem, which I already knew.

But if you would have quoted the Katha Upanishad "Many there are who do not

even hear of Atman; though hearing of Him, many do not comprehend..... 2:7"

and justified it be NOT the fault of what's being said but rather it is due

to my defect in understanding of the vedantic vakyas, it would have been

acceptable. This will also be agreeable with Shankara as the opening verse

of the Brahma Sutra itself points that the enquiry of Brahman is for the

adhikari or the Qualified alone. And this point is also echoed in many parts

of the Upadesha Sahasri.

 

If it is so, then the next logical question would be "what can I do to make

myself an adhikari?" I would have appreciated much if your answer could

have been more akin to how Lord Krishna answers Arjuna's questions. But as

far as I can remember, Krishna never gave such unassimilable answers to

Arjuna's questions which can be valued more than $64,000 (in my opinion).

Instead Lord Krishna validated Arjuna's problems and TAUGHT him how to get

out of his problems. Unfortunately, I am dissapointed with your reply. I am

sorry atmachaitanayaji.

 

Atmachaitanyaji, could you please explain how a sadhaka's preparedness

(adhikaratvam) plays in establishment of knowledge? And what does the verse

4:4:21 in Brhadaranyaka Upanishad which mentions that seeker of the Self

should practise 'repetition' mean? And how does Manana and Nidhidhyasana

contribute to being a jnani?

 

I shall ask further questions upon your reply. Thanks alot anyway.

 

Kathi

 

 

 

>

> atmachaitanya108 [sMTP:stadri]

> Saturday, March 30, 2002 3:11 AM

> advaitin

> Re: Whence Adhyasa

>

>

> Dear K Kathirasan,

>

> You ask: "Now that I know that I am the absolute Brahman, why is it

> that I still have the fear of Duality? Shastra says that the one who

> knows this crosses over fear. But why is it that despite discussions,

> and being convinced 'intellectually', that Brahman alone IS, why do I

> still feel that I am 'ignorant', a 'seeker', a 'doer' etc.... Or what

> can I do to overcome this?"

>

> AHHH...the $64,000 question? A question that all serious students of

> Advaita have no doubt repeatedly asked themselves, of course, myself

> included. How is it that I could have studied Vedanta so long, be

> absolutely convinced of the veracity of it assertions, (and not

> merely because some Guru proclaimed them, but because I had verified

> the validity of these teachings in my own experience. I was able to

> understand the difference between the Witness and the Witnessed, not

> only intellectually and indirectly, but experientially and directly. I

> was able to see that I am the Witness of the three states and that

> they, and the dualistic dealings that go on within them, don't affect

> me in the least. I was able to corroborate that I am in fact the

> knower of the mind, and in me there never was any fear and sorrow,

> these were just properties of the mind); and nevertheless, I continue

> to see Duality. A serious defect, because it is the one who sees

> duality that fears it, or tries to enjoy it, or escape it. or attempts

> to be effortless in it, or resolves to be indifferent to it, and

> continues on with his worldly life. Why hasn't it come to an end, at

> least the fear and sorrow and confusion part of it? How is it that I'm

> not yet Liberated?

>

> Now there are a few ways in which a sincere seeker of truth can

> deal with this situation. He can conclude that the distinction between

> the Witness and Witnessed must be false and abandon the whole

> Vedantic enterprise and get on with his life. He can conclude that he

> may not yet have the 'final' knowledge, and he should therefore

> continue with his endless discussions, study, try to find some more

> powerful reasoning, get his intellectual doubts resolved, even though

> new doubts keep popping up. Or decide that ultimately the Vedantic

> 'Knowledge' that arises from the study and listening to the Teachings

> is only after all 'intellectual', and that he must do something, get

> the Nirvikalpa Samadhi or some new type of "mystical' experience, the

> final "Sakshatkara", to get the real, final and Experiential knowledge

> of the self, until then he will continue to suffer. Or he may conclude

> (and this perhaps is the most ruinous option) that he is in fact a

> Jnani, he is perfectly convinced that Duality is false, and that even

> though Duality is still appearing, due to his conviction that it is

> false and all that exists is the Self alone, he is unaffected. It has

> been sublated, falsified in his mind, but nevertheless, he still feels

> that he has Pratibundikas, obstacles to that knowledge; ether in the

> form of old vasanas, or that he has to undergo, (even though he

> 'knows' its only apparent), his remaining Prabdha Karma, till he gets

> Videha mukti, or that a trace of Ignorance still remains so he can

> carry out his empirical life.

>

> It was a view similar to the last option mentioned above that I

> myself adopted over the course of 25 years of Vedantic study. A view

> in which the basic difference between a Jnani, a wiseman, and an

> Ajnani, an ignorant man, was that while they both were seeing the same

> "duality' the Ignorant man takes it for real. But the wise man, the

> Jnani, was the one who 'knows', who has the unshakable conviction

> based on his own experience, that the Duality that he is seeing is

> false. A view which I now take to be extremely misguided, and which a

> compassionate teacher took months to disabuse me of, gently kicking

> me off the throne of 'Jnanidom'. A view which in fact is like a noose

> around the seekers throat, keeping him fully bound to his Knowership,

> and the arrogance of thinking himself a Jnani. The thinking goes like

> this: Before I began my study of Vedanta I didn't know Brahman, now

> that I have studied Vedanta, under the guidance of a qualified

> teacher, I do 'know' Brahman, (granting the fact that this knowledge

> was based on my own direct experience), but I continue to see the

> world and have the conviction it is false and that only Brahman

> exists. Now ask yourself, (although it is admittedly quite comforting

> to think that you are a 'Knower of the Self'), who is it that 'knows'

> Brahman, and who is it that now sees the world of duality and who is

> it that now has the conviction that it is false? And who is the one

> bewailing the fact that although he knows only Brahman exists, he

> still fears Duality? Could it be Atman, your Self? Does Atman see

> anything, have convictions about anything or fear anything? It is that

> same Ego, who is in exactly the same situation that it was in before

> his study of Vedanta. He is still a knower (albeit a "Knower of

> Brahman"), still a seer (of duality), still one who has convictions

> about the world or about Brahman. Its just that now the conviction is

> that Duality is false, unlike before studying Vedanta and having the

> conviction that it was real. The Ego is still in full operation. He

> continues to suffer, to have Raga And Dvesha, Shoka and Moha ( likes

> and dislikes, sorrow and confusion). He still feels in his heart of

> hearts, that he is still ignorant or at least he has a trace of

> ignorance, that he is a doer, regardless of his convictions, or of his

> repeating of this 'knowledge' to try to make it stronger.

>

> It is the Ego who wants enlightenment, who wants to be liberated, who

> thinks that it is bound, or has attained the 'Knowledge of the Self'.

> But the Ego is false, unreal; It comes and goes with the States. It is

> the outcome of a misconception, it can never be liberated. It never

> really existed, it could never be bound, nor could it ever get free.

> It is actually Atman who appears as though bound, due to ignorance,

> not the Ego. It is the Atman who seems to be liberated, due to the

> removal of ignorance, not the Ego. This subtle distinction should be

> taken note of. It is not the Ego who is Bound because of ignorance,

> nor is it the Ego who will be Freed upon the removal of that

> ignorance. It is the Self who, because of ignorance, appears as if

> bound and it is the Self that appears as if freed due to the removal

> of Ignorance. We all want our Egos to be free! But it is only Atman

> who is free. Atmans true nature (Svarupa), is eternally liberated

> (Nitya Muktah) unaffected by the appearance or disappearance of

> ignorance itself. This ego will always be a Samsari, as long as he

> appears. He is the product of a misconception, born of ignorance and

> therefore could never be Liberated, Muktah, never free from doubts,

> never free from seeing duality, from having fear and sorrow. Never

> free from being a 'knower', 'doer', 'enjoyer', from being a sadhaka,

> from being a "Jnananishta". And certainly it will never be a Jnani ,

> for a Jnani, in Vedanta, is the Atman. There is only ONE Jnani, not

> many! And Atman is of a nature totally opposed to the Ego. Atman is

> always free from all fears and sorrows, from searching and doubts,

> from being tortured by the question, 'When will I become truly

> Liberated'?.

>

> In Vedanta, Knowing means Being. It doesn't mean that you

> retain your Pramatrutva, Knowership, and that Brahman is now an object

> of your knowledge, It certainly does not mean that you now have an

> "Akhanda Akara Vritti" A special type of mental modification which

> has allowed you to cognize Brahman. TO KNOW BRAHMAN IS TO BE BRAHMAN

> in Vedanta. That is Vedantic knowledge. That is the Final Knowledge.

> That is when all Knowership, doership, enjoyership ceases. Because it

> is only when you are Brahman, not by merely 'knowing' it, but by Being

> it, that all suffering ends, that Samsara is uprooted root and branch.

> "Brahamvid Brahma BhavatiThe knower of Brahman is Brahman" What is

> the meaning of the verse? Should we take it as some type of

> exaggeration or praise? Are we to take it figuratively? Or is it to be

> taken literally, as a statement of an eternal Truth, and if so, what

> are the real implications of that? "Yatra tu Dvaivta iva.... " Where

> there is Duality as it were, then ones sees another, one hears

> another, one 'knows' another. But when, to this knower of the Self,

> all has be come the Self alone, then what will he see and with what?

> What will he Hear and with what? What will he 'know' and with what?"

> Here we have a Sruti text which denies all vyavahara, all empirical

> life to the wise man, to the Jnani. He has no convictions about

> Duality, 'intellectual' or otherwise He doesn't even see Duality, so

> that he could have any convictions about it. Like a man asleep. He is

> the Self, Eternally liberated. That is the meaning of Tat Tvam Asi.

> You are That, not that you are the 'knower of That'. That is the

> meaning of Liberation. That is the meaning of 'He crosses over

> sorrow', in the Sruti. (Not that the Ego got liberated at some point.)

> The one who complains, even to himself, 'How is it that I have 'known'

> the Self, but I still have problems', is NOT a 'knower' of the Self.

> He is the one with a misconception, still under the spell of Adhyasa.

>

> I hope this sheds some light on the common, chronic, and hard to

> cure Vedantic ailment: 'Why is it that I know the Self, yet I'm still

> a Sukhi, Duhki Samasri ?'.

>

> Hari Om

> Atmachaitanya

>

> P.S. Sri Krishna.Ghadiyaram asked: "Is it your position that Avidya

> is adhyasa, Avidya is not Maya?" That is exactly correct. It is due

> to Avidya that Maya is appearing. Avidya is the 'cause', 'Maya' ( the

> world of names and forms) is the effect. According to Shankara they

> are different. Because we don't know the Self, we are misconceiving it

> as the world. That external and internal 'world' in its totality is

> refered to as Maya It was the Post Shankara Mula Avidya Vadins who

> identified them as one Avidya/Maya and portrayed it as a 'primordial

> Power' that inhered in the Absolute and accounted for the appearance

> of the world. This was the beginning of the end for Shankaras'

> Vedanta.

>

>

> >

> > I have one more question for you, that is if you don't mind. Now

> that I know

> > that I am the absolute Brahman why is it that I still have the fear

> of

> > duality? Shastra declares that 'the one who knows this Truth crosses

> fear'.

> > But why is it that despite discussing and being convinced

> 'intellectually'

> > (is this the right word? nevermind) that Brahman alone IS, why do I

> still

> > feel that I am 'ignorant', 'a seeker', 'a doer' etc.....Or what can

> I do to

> > overcome this? Pls advise.

> >

>

> >

> > >

> > > atmachaitanya108 [sMTP:stadri@a...]

> > > Thursday, March 28, 2002 3:06 PM

> > > advaitin

> > > Re: Whence Adhyasa

> > >

> >

>

> > >

>

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

> Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

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

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks Nairji for suggesting that the advaitin group should discuss about

the attributed authorship of Vivekachudamani to shankara. There is also one

more thing that I would like to request. So far in the discussions about

mula avidya and adhyasa, we have yet to see Vedantic scholars like

Sadanandaji, Ramji, Murthyji and many others actively participating in it.

It will be really great to have their comments and inputs to these topics as

well. and I believe that their contributions will certainly benefit many of

us here. Regards.

>

> madathilnair [sMTP:madathilnair]

> Monday, April 01, 2002 4:24 PM

> advaitin

> Re: Whence Adhyasa

>

> Dear Shri Atmachaitanyaji and Shri Stig Lundgren,

>

> I read the recommended adhyasa article by Shri Subhanu Saxena which,

> among other things, states as follows:

>

> Quote

>

> By the way, this affirms that, in shankara's tradition of advaita, it

> is futile trying to establish the cause of avidyA, as, once it is

> recognised and removed , it is seen to never have existed at all!

> This is why shankara never taxes himself with detailed discussions

> concerning where does this avidyA come from, and to whom does it

> belong, as these matters become totally irrelevant once atman is

> known. Later followers of shankara chose not to let the matter rest,

> hence the elaborate theories regarding the root cause of avidyA, and

> various discussions of the locus of avidyA. One imagines that, should

> these discussions have happened in front of shankara, he would have

> given them short shrift by saying something like "its about brahman,

> not avidyA! Don't get distracted!")

>

> Unquote

>

> Quote again

>

>

> Thus occurs this superimposition , or adhyAsa, which is beginningless

> and endless (anAdiranantah), which is innate (naisargikah adhyAsah),

> which is of the nature of a false notion or knowledge

> (mithhyApratyayarUpah), is the basis for all notions of agentship and

> enjoyership (kartrtwa-bhoktrtwa-pravartakah), and is a matter of

> common knowledge to all of us (sarva-loka-pratyakshah). To eradicate

> this fundamental source of destruction of true knowledge

> (asyAnarthahetoh prahANAya), and establish the unity of Atman

> (atmaikatwavidyA pratipataye), all the vedanta's are begun (sarve

> vedAntA Arabhyante). That this is the purport of all the vedanta

> texts, we shall begin this work on the shArIrika mImAmsa, known as

> the brahma sUtram (yathA chAyam arthah sarveSAm vedAntAnAm, tathA

> vayam asyAm shArIrika-mImAmsAyAm pradarshayiSyAmah).

>

> Unquote

>

> From the above, are we to conclude the following?

>

> 1) All our attempts this long were just a futile exercise. We were in

> fact chasing a chimera.

>

> 2) If adhyasa is beginningless, then there cannot be any cause

> or "whence" to it, and, therefore, Shri Dennis Waite's

> question "Whence Adhyasa?" was a non-question after all (as pointed

> out by Shri Gummuluru Murthy before) and that the three thoughts of

> Douglas Fox, on which Shri Waite based his question, were, in fact,

> invalid as pointed out by me before in my response to Shri Waite.

>

> 3)If adhyasa is endless too, then it is not possible to eradicate

> it. This cannot be true. So, adhyasa is not endless.

>

> While on this subject, I would like knowledgeable members to comment

> on the acceptability of the word "superimposition" for adhyasa. I am

> inclined to think that it does not convey the right sense implied in

> the adhyasa article by Shri Saxena (although he has profusely used

> it). It sounds slightly inexact like the word "illusion" for

> our "maaya".

>

> The second point is that we must have a debate on the authorship of

> Vivekachoodamani which is ascribed to Sankara. The Advaitin forum

> should attempt to set right if there is any error in this regard.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

> __________________________

>

> advaitin, "Stig Lundgren" <slu@C...> wrote:

> > Dear Atmachaitanyaji, namaskaram

> >

> > Many thanks for your truly excellent posting on the origins of

> > Adhyasa!

> > Adi Shankara´s "adhyasa bhashyam" (the introduction to the

> > Brahma Sutra Bhashya) no doubt offers the key to the

> > understanding of Advaita Vedanta as propagated by Shankara.

> > Anyone interested to know about genuine Shankara vedanta would

> > benefit from studying "adhyasa bhashyam". Therefore, I would like

> > to recommend the members of this list to read the following

> > article:

> > http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/articles/adhyasa_bhashyam.htm

> > This article was written by Sri Subhanu Saxena, a disciple of

> > Sri Aswattha Narayana Avadhani, who in his turn is a disciple of

> > Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati. In other words, Swami

> > Satchidanandendra is the paramaguru of Sri Subhanu Saxena.

> >

> > Very best wishes

> > Stig Lundgren

>

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

> Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

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

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

[Guest guest]

Learned Seers:

 

You probe deeply among never ending most sophisticated arguments of the

intellect, still to find all sorts of weaknesses in satisfaction over what

has been gleaned. Even after all this time, obviously among many thousands

of dedicated scholars, a feeling of despair arises, knowing that still

something missing, something is not quite right.

 

There need not be anything wrong with the arguments, from either side, even

when they seemingly disagree or appear to be in opposition, or appear to be

inadequate. The world of the intellect exists in a single relatively linear

plane, while existence lies in complex multiple planes. Two seemingly

opposed intellectual arguments may both be quite correct, as laid out

according to the laws of the intellect, when viewed from different planes of

existence. The earlier seen incompatibilities then disappear. To want to

force ourselves to stay only on this seemingly 'superior' intellectual plane

is the cause for more suffering.

 

So long as we insist on sticking to the idea that intellectual analysis alone

is capable of (eventually) leading us to the kingdom of heaven, these

uncomfortable feelings and suffering delusions will continue to persist.

There is no way out when the knowledge being considered is incomplete.

Krishna provides answers to Arjuna simultaneously on many levels of

existence, though many translations of the Bhagavad Gita keep it on that

single plane of intellectual analysis only. For instance, that primal

essence of Gita expressed in G2.48:

 

Established in the field of being, perform action

yogasthah kuru karmâni

established-in-being field perform-action

 

Krishna is telling Arjuna to perform action, all the time being established

in the field of being, in the field of yoga. Yoga = union, unity, self, and

indeed, that field of flowing soma of samadhi itself. Yoga also can mean

yoke, harness, etc, which can erroneously be taken to mean a sort of

subjugation or forcing constraint. Rather, a yoke or harness type influence

is here taken as a total gathering together in union.

 

It is that "Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and all else . . ." routine

that dominates again. Move into unity first, then perform action. This is

the formula for achieving no suffering. This is what the whole Bhagavad Gita

is about. Rather, this portion of G2.48 is often or usually translated

something to the effect:

 

"Be strict in performing your yoga practices (and even intellectual

exercises) and do your duty (as your local culture lays out)." This may all

be fine to establish a little discipline and to support the needed actions

for a just and reasonable society, but it hardly has anything to do with

achieving direct contact with the sources of creation. The gist has been

turned upside down. Rather, go first to samadhi like phenomena, then perform

action (i.e., action according to one's dharma, the only assurance that the

action will be right action, yajñâ, and hence free from suffering). And, the

rest of the Gita further supports this kind of translation. It is Maharishi

Mahesh Yogi that first led me to this more accurate type thinking, three

decades ago, along with the initiatory paths that provide direct experience

for further substantiation.

 

jai guru dev,

 

Edmond

 

 

In a message dated 4/1/02 3:30:16 AM Eastern Standard Time,

kkathir writes:

 

> Namaste Atmachaitanyaji,

>

> After reading your reply twice, I am convinced that my $64,000 question

> wasn't answered and I am back to where I was before. You almost ended your

> reply with "The one who complains, even to himself, 'How is it that I have

> 'known' the Self, but I still have problems', is NOT a 'knower' of the

> Self.

> He is the one with a misconception, still under the spell of Adhyasa." I

> am

> already convinced that I am under the spell of adhyasa or avidya or maya or

> whatever BUT yet I 'know' that Atma is non of these!! Actually what I

> expected was an advice to help me solve my problem. But what I received

> from

> you was a confirmation that I have indeed a problem, which I already knew.

> But if you would have quoted the Katha Upanishad "Many there are who do not

> even hear of Atman; though hearing of Him, many do not comprehend..... 2:7"

> and justified it be NOT the fault of what's being said but rather it is due

> to my defect in understanding of the vedantic vakyas, it would have been

> acceptable. This will also be agreeable with Shankara as the opening verse

> of the Brahma Sutra itself points that the enquiry of Brahman is for the

> adhikari or the Qualified alone. And this point is also echoed in many

> parts

> of the Upadesha Sahasri.

>

> If it is so, then the next logical question would be "what can I do to make

> myself an adhikari?" I would have appreciated much if your answer could

> have been more akin to how Lord Krishna answers Arjuna's questions. But as

> far as I can remember, Krishna never gave such unassimilable answers to

> Arjuna's questions which can be valued more than $64,000 (in my opinion).

> Instead Lord Krishna validated Arjuna's problems and TAUGHT him how to get

> out of his problems. Unfortunately, I am dissapointed with your reply. I

> am

> sorry atmachaitanayaji.

>

> Atmachaitanyaji, could you please explain how a sadhaka's preparedness

> (adhikaratvam) plays in establishment of knowledge? And what does the verse

> 4:4:21 in Brhadaranyaka Upanishad which mentions that seeker of the Self

> should practise 'repetition' mean? And how does Manana and Nidhidhyasana

> contribute to being a jnani?

>

> I shall ask further questions upon your reply. Thanks alot anyway.

>

> Kathi

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, K Kathirasan NCS wrote:

> Thanks Nairji for suggesting that the advaitin group should discuss about

> the attributed authorship of Vivekachudamani to shankara. There is also one

> more thing that I would like to request. So far in the discussions about

> mula avidya and adhyasa, we have yet to see Vedantic scholars like

> Sadanandaji, Ramji, Murthyji and many others actively participating in it.

> It will be really great to have their comments and inputs to these topics as

> well. and I believe that their contributions will certainly benefit many of

> us here. Regards.

>

 

namaste.

 

Firstly, I do not consider myself to be a vedAntic scholar. Yet,

I will present my understanding as that is the only way to clarify

one's own thoughts. My understanding is already presented in various

posts in various threads.

 

1. As I understand, "whence adhyAsa?" is a non-question and cannot

be answered. The intellect, which asks this question is itself a

product of adhyAsa, hence cannot grasp any answer to it (even if

there is an answer). The intellect and the question get melted

away as what may be called an answer to this appears.

 

Yajnavalkya points out the danger of too much of intellectual

probing of this type of question to GArgi in his Br^ihadAraNyaka

u. teachings in king Janaka's court.

 

2. From my understanding, mUla avidyA is not there. In one of my

previous posts, I pointed out the similarity of avidyA to confusion

that one sometimes encounters in solving a problem in an intellectual

science. Once we go past the confusion and understand that perticular

intellectual science, the confusion is gone and we cannot trace it.

If we have a good understanding, the confusion will not re-appear.

Yet, while we have the confusion, it appears very real to us.

Similarly, avidyA has existence only as long as the jIvA does not

know what he/she is. Once a firm understanding is established,

the individuality of the jIvA (which is an expression of avidyA)

vanishes without a trace.

 

Beyond this, there is not much I can add to the present discussion

on this topic. In my last post on this topic, I posed some questions

and I am hoping the learned members will clarify them for me.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

-----

[Guest guest]

 

s.venkatraman [s.venkatraman]

Thursday, April 04, 2002 1:30 AM

advaitin

Whence Adhyasa

 

 

Atmachatanyaji almost sounded like Ramana Maharshi in his last post. So why

don't we

instead follow the Maharshi's teaching:

*******************************************************

I have not kept up with the Sri Atmachaitanayji's posts but was pleasantly

surprised to hear that he is now starting to sound like Sri Ramana Maharshi.

Sounding like Sri Ramana is, no doubt, a good thing.

 

It should be noted that Sri Ramana's main teaching was in silence.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Venkatji,

 

You have presented a very balanced view indeed, despite your doubts

about your own erudition! Venkatji, forget about your "deficient

sthothriyathwam". I doubt you have any reason to feel that you are

deficient at all in any way. You have an astounding clarity of

vision and great commonsense (not to speak of a sparkling sense of

humour as evident from one of your previous posts). That makes your

position worth emulating. I liked your "football team" analogy. In

fact, I feel that we should move ahead from "snakes and ropes" and

find modern parallels. (This is not to underplay the relevance of

snake-rope analogy in understanding the basics.).

 

I am afraid I need to restate my position. I very much enjoyed Shri

Atmachaitanyaji's posts which were very very enlightening. I learnt

many things from him which I did not know before. He is a great

teacher and my respects to him.

 

However about adhyasa, I still feel that the question "Whence

adhyasa?" should never have been asked in the first place, because it

is simply a non-question to which nobody can reasonably expect to get

an answer. I would like to rewrod the question as "What or where is

the locus (not "whence"!) for adhyasa?". The obvious answer then

is "Bhrahman" whether Gaudapada, Sankara or Douglas Fox likes it or

not. Adhyasa is because I am or Consciousness is (as I mentioned

in one of my previous posts). There ends the matter. If this

universe can result due to a "misconception" (I am deliberately

avoiding the English word "superimposition".) without Brahman

undergoing any change or becoming active, as accepted by Sankara and

Shri Atmachaitanyaji, then Brahman remains the ultimate locus for

adhyasa too. It is so simple and should be acceptable to everyone.

I am afraid the whole thing then boils down to mere semantics! Of

course, that cannot be helped.

 

I am doing all this writing and "witnessing" it too, for I know there

lies my salvation. So, as you said we must necessarily keep this

spirit of discussion up and, at the same time, relinquish

all "debatorship". Hope you are with me, Venkatji.

 

Thanks and best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

_______________

 

 

advaitin, s.venkatraman@m... wrote:

> Namaste.

>

> Atmachitanyaji's last post on the subject is really a masterpiece

as every

> one of them that preceded it was. Unfortunately it is clear from

the mails

> of Nairji and Kathirasanji, Swamiji's posts have clearly not

resolved the

> issue either of 'Whence Adhyasa' or even that of 'why Shastra

pramana is the

> only means of knowledge'.

>

> Though admittedly, my erudition on the subject falls far short of my

> interest, on the basis of the discussions that we have had so far

on this

> forum and on the basis of my own studies which have been going on

> incessantly (albeit without proper guidance), I have drawn some

conclusions

> which I present for whatever they are worth. I use as my starting

point an

> excerpt from Murthyji's last post on the subject:

>

> "From my understanding, mUla avidyA is not there. In one of my

> previous posts, I pointed out the similarity of avidyA to confusion

> that one sometimes encounters in solving a problem in an

intellectual

> science. Once we go past the confusion and understand that

particular

> intellectual science, the confusion is gone and we cannot trace it.

> If we have a good understanding, the confusion will not re-appear.

> Yet, while we have the confusion, it appears very real to us.

> Similarly, avidyA has existence only as long as the jIvA does not

> know what he/she is. Once a firm understanding is established,

> the individuality of the jIvA (which is an expression of avidyA)

> vanishes without a trace."

>

> The problem arises because despite knowing who he is, that he is

not this

> body-mind assemblage and that he is the eternal, immutable etc.

etc. self,

> the avidya of the jiva continues. Atleast it does so for me and

from their

> posts I gather it does so for Nairji, Kathirasanji and even

Atmachaitanyaji.

> So here we have a contradiction.

>

> I am reminded of what Ayn Rand once said about

contradictions, "There are no

> contradictions in life. If you come across one, check your

assumptions. One

> of them will be wrong".

>

> Now what are the assumptions that we have made and what possibly

could be

> wrong with them?

>

> 1. We are Adhikarins. (Atleast I am not, apart from Mumukshatvam

I do

> not have any of the other four qualities to the extent I suppose is

> necessary)

> 2. Knowledge alone is necessary to remove ignorance. ( But

Shankara

> says that it does this trick only in the case of an adhikarin. The

way we

> have been defending our individual viewpoints, I get a feeling that

> knowledge only strengthens our Ahamkara, which automatically

disqualifies us

> from being an Adhikarin. A catch22 situation)

> 3. Surrender is not necessary (Giving up the notion 'I' is the

ultimate

> surrender, thereafter you have nothing to surrender. But as long as

the 'I'

> is busy picking up knowledge and flaunting it, how can this

surrender take

> place. Another catch22 situation).

>

> Swami Paramarthananda in his introduction to Vedanta says that the

ladder

> leading to Moksha has 3 steps:

>

> 1. Karma Yoga

> 2. Upasana Yoga

> 3. Jnana Yoga.

>

> He also says that no step can be skipped if we have to reach the

goal. In

> fact any attempt to skip a step may even result in our fall. Has

this

> happened in our case?

>

> I believe karma Yoga makes one an adhikarin, Upasana teaches

surrender and

> finally Jnana clinches the goal. Just because only a 'Forward' in a

football

> team scores goals, are we as a team trying to score goals, after

dispensing

> with the rest of the team and wondering why the team has not scored

despite

> having some of the best forwards in the world like Gaudapada,

Shankara, and

> Sureshwara?

>

> Quite admittedly, the ladder and the football team are examples

from the

> Vyaavahaarika world. But I am convinced the lessons they teach are

very much

> relevant to the Paaramaathika field as well. If a humble rope can

do this,

> why not a ladder and a football team.

>

> The conundrum can be very simply stated, "When you have the

knowledge you

> are not there and if you are not there, who has the knowledge?".

This raises

> another fundamental question, "Is Jeevan Mukti a contradiction in

terms?".

>

> I think we should take the lesson from Kenopanishad and not try to

reach

> something that by definition is unreachable by thought.

Atmachatanyaji

> almost sounded like Ramana Maharshi in his last post. So why don't

we

> instead follow the Maharshi's teaching:

>

> 1. Perform actions without a sense of personal doership.(Karma)

> 2. Enquire into who the I is. (Upasana)

> 3. Constantly expose oneself to the scriptures which job this

forum can

> do for us most admirably. (Jnana)

>

> And let things happen when they have to happen.

>

> Regards,

>

> Venkat.

>

>

> ---DISCLAIMER----------------

> The contents of this E-mail (including the contents of the

> enclosure/(s) or attachment/(s) if any) are privileged and

> confidential material of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited (M&M)

> and should not be disclosed to, used by or copied in any

> manner by anyone other than the intended addressee/(s). If

> this E-mail (including the enclosure/(s) or attachment/(s)

> if any ) has been received in error, please advise the

> sender immediately and delete it from your system. The views

> expressed in this E-mail message (including the enclosure/(s)

> or attachment/(s) if any) are those of the individual sender.

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