Guest guest Posted April 3, 2002 Report Share Posted April 3, 2002 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. ----------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2002 Report Share Posted April 6, 2002 Namaste Nairji, Many thanks for your kind words and if enough advaitins repeat them, I may even become a Jnani. I was with you till the very end of your last post and will now attempt to carry on from where you left. Wise men say that we have to inquire into these matters with the aid of Shruti, Yukti and Anubhava. What follows will predominantly be based on the last two. So I may make errors with reference to Shruti and I would request Atmachaitanyaji, Sadanandaji, Murthyji and other Shrotriyas in this group to step in and correct me. Hopefully I should not be contradicting Logic or experience. Venkat in the waking state is the Financial controller of a company. Let us assume that Venkat goes to sleep and dreams that he is a beggar and becomes extremely sorrowful. Now this is a clearly a case of Adhyasa - Venkat has superimposed on himself the qualities of a beggar that clearly do not belong to him. That sets the stage for Mr. Douglas Fox to come in and ask the question 'Whence Adhyasa?' and suggest 3 possible answers for us to choose one from: a) Waking Venkat (Brahman) does the superimposing. b) Adhyasa is an independent process outside Waking Venkat. c) Dreaming Venkat (Jiva) does it. In my opinion while putting the question to us, Mr. Fox has left out something very important : In what state the question is being asked - in the dream state or in the waking state? Let us first assume that the question is asked in the Dream State: a) Not possible, Waking Venkat does not exist. b) Not possible, If Waking Venkat does not exist , 'outside Waking Venkat' cannot denote anything. c) There is no Adhyasa, the Dreaming Venkat is really a beggar in the dream. So in the Dream state the question is a no-brainer and can be answered even by a Dream Child. Let us now assume that the question is asked in the waking state: But in the waking state, Mr. Fox cannot even ask us the question because there is no Adhyasa at all. Venkat is a Financial Controller and he is not superimposing it on himself. Now Nairji, even if I replaced the above question with 'Where is Adhyasa?' the answer is not going to change. So in my opinion the more important question to ask is, 'How can the Dream Venkat realize that he is not a beggar but a Financial Controller?'. The answer is simple - he has to get out of the dream. That leads to the next logical question how does he get out of the dream? The question again can be put to Venkat in the dream state or the waking state. First let us assume that it is put to him in the dream state? What is dream Venkat's best option? Can he get out of the dream by reading dream text books or attending dream lectures on Accountancy in his dream? Or does he stand a better chance by doing 'Who am I?' inquiry in his dream? Or should he attend a dream commune of a dream Osho? The answer will depend on the dream school of thought that the dream Venkat currently s to in his dream. And whatever answer he gives, the dream Venkat will have a nagging doubt in his dream that he may not be right. Poor Venkat in his dream can do no better. Now let's assume that the question is put to him in his waking state: I am very sure that science has already found out the answer to the question, 'Why a man wakes up from sleep?'. All that he has to do is to access these answers by either reading books on the subject or asking knowledgeable people. Even this may not be necessary. Common sense tells us that even simple things like hunger or any other biological need can do the trick for him? So it seems to me that the dream Venkat will wake up from his dream very naturally without having to do anything in his dream. I don't think one needs to resort the esoteric concept of 'Mula Avidya' to answer this question. If one has to that, then what does one resort to, to answer why the waking Venkat goes to sleep? Apart from ensuring that the environment is comfortable and conducive for sleep, there is nothing that the waking Venkat can do to go to sleep. In fact the more he tries, the more he will be awake. Sleep just has to happen through natural processes. Now let us come back to the Vyavaharika life and try to apply the above conclusions to the question 'Whence Adhyasa?'. Our Vyavaharika life is analogous to the dream state and the Paramarthika level is the one to which we want to 'wake up' to. So if the question is asked to me in the Vyavaharika level the answer is simple - superimposition is being done by me. If it is due to avidya, the locus of avidya is me. And at the Paramarthika level the question as we saw above cannot even be asked because there is no superimposition whatsoever. Now to the famous $64000 question, 'How do I wake up to the Paramarthika level? Objection: How do you know that there is a Paramarthika level at all? Reply: I know it because people like Ramana Maharshi and Ramakrishna Paramahamsa in the recent past have woken up to that level and described it to the world. Objection: if Vyavaharika is like dream and Paramarthika like the waking state, when the waking Venkat cannot communicate at all with the people populating the dream Venkat's dream world, how is it being said that a Ramana from his Paramarthika level communicated with the Vyavaharika world. Reply: The objection is based on Anubhava. The reply to it is also the very same Anubhava. A Paramarthika Ramakrishna did communicate with the Vyavaharika Vivekananda and Vivekananda woke up to the Paramarthika state. Objection: May be the Paramarthika is not as different from the Vyavaharika as waking is from sleep. So the anubhava quoted by you does not prove anything. Reply: That's semantics; so let us leave all that and deal with just facts. Here I am the unhappy Venkat full of worries and anxieties - worried about his son's education and anxious about the possible reaction of his boss to the mistake he committed yesterday. He had a sense of lack when he did not have a house of his own. Now that he has one, his problems have multiplied - the lift should be working, the water pump should be in order, the security man should not take a day off etc. etc. All his life he has been going after one thing or the other but the peace he has really been after kept eluding him. And here there were other people like Ramana and Ramakrishna who radiated peace and tranquility all the time, who were comfortable both with themselves and with the world around whatever the circumstances were. Last month, 105 years after Ramana had his death experience in a room on the first floor of a small house in Madurai, I was in that very room. The peace that I was after all my life was very much there and I was not imagining it. You can give whatever name you want, but certainly Ramana was at a level different from mine. You can even say that Ramana was really not at a different level and that it was my ignorance that was making me conclude that. If you say that, it's the removal of that ignorance that I am after. So my only hope is to follow the teachings of people who can remove my ignorance. Arguing about the cause and locus of my ignorance is a lot of fun but is not going to take me anywhere. I find a remarkable consistency in the teachings of Ramana a few decades back, the Bhashyas of Shankara a few centuries ago and the Upanishads of the Sages of even greater antiquity. This remarkable, consistent and non-contradictory teaching tradition of Advaita coming down to me through the ages is my only hope. Even this as Sadanandaji has pointed out sometime back can take me only up to a point. Just as a pole-vaulter has to let go of the pole after it has taken him to a certain height and take a leap to get over the bar, so too this teaching can take me only upto a certain level beyond which I have to depend purely on Grace - be it the Grace of God or that of a Guru. This again is a part of the teaching tradition coming down to us. So let us just do our bit - Karma, Upasana and Jnana all within the framework of Bhakti, and the Grace will happen when it has to happen. Sukam Chara, Priyam Vada, Venkat. madathilnair [sMTP:madathilnair] Friday, April 05, 2002 4:12 PM advaitin Re: Whence Adhyasa 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. ---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. ----------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2002 Report Share Posted April 6, 2002 Namaste Venkatji, That was extraordinarily brilliant. I can't help saying that. Now, please don't become a jnani and disappear! We, on this forum, need persons like you. I am taking a print of your message for several readings at leisure. It demands repeated rumination and slow digestion. I don't, however, intend to question the points raised. That is beyond me. I accept them. Let our scholars contribute their comments as requested by you. I started giving expression to my thoughts in writing very lately. I was, till recently, afraid that the desire to "flaunt" what I know was hindering my peaceful meditation, prayers and contemplation. I even made up my mind once to desist from writing any further. However, looking back and trying to take stock of the situaiton, I am now becoming more and more convinced that I have, in fact, been benefitted by my association with this forum. In the last couple of months, I have learnt a lot from our knowledgeable members and that is more than adequate material for contemplation for a long time to come. Like you, I also have a great fascinatin for Bhagwana Ramana and His teachings. I am a devi bhaktha. I have been able to reconcile my devotion to Her with my vedantic forays. In fact, I have rightly discovered that both are inter-complementary. Otherwise, Sankara would not have written Saundaryalahari and other Devi stuthis. I endeavour to see Her in everything because She is Consciousness to me. And, to tell you frankly, that is ecstasy. Imagine everything that you "click" opening up in brilliant Devi form! Doubting Thomases may say I am auto-suggesting or brainwashing myself. So what? If my devotion, backed by advaitic logic, can give me a sense of universality ("everythingness"), then is it not worth it? Is it not that same thing about which Lord Krishna said in BG that even a little knowledge of it can save one from the worst of fears? Permit me to conclude by thanking you again for your wonderfully expressed wonderful thoughts. May Meenakshi be always with you! Is not Madurai, where you had that special feeling about Bhagwan Ramana, her abode?! Best regards. Madathil Nair ______________ advaitin, s.venkatraman@m... wrote: > Namaste Nairji, > > Many thanks for your kind words and if enough advaitins repeat them, I may > even become a Jnani. I was with you till the very end of your last post and > will now attempt to carry on from where you left. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2002 Report Share Posted April 6, 2002 Hari Om !! advaitin, s.venkatraman@m... wrote: First of all I want to hint this new virus which is spreading: > > Sukam Chara, Priyam Vada, > I am under the impression that our Tradition which you emphasise so muu.......ch only said, "Satyam Vada Dharmam Chara". In the recent times, on this list, you and Dennis have discovered this new, fancy slogan. Priyam at the cost of Satyam, and Sukham at the expense of Dharma are both useless and non-traditional. > Hopefully I should not be contradicting Logic or > experience. > But, this is precisely what you are doing. > Venkat in the waking state is the Financial controller of a company. Let us > assume that Venkat goes to sleep and dreams that he is a beggar and becomes > extremely sorrowful. > > Now this is a clearly a case of Adhyasa - Venkat has superimposed on himself > the qualities of a beggar that clearly do not belong to him. Here venkat IS the begger. There is no Superimposition of a begger on venkat (though there is no name of venkat in Dream). This naming ceremony is done in waking state only. Truth of the matter is : The CONSCIOUSNESS called VENKAT IS Superimposed once with the image of a Financial controller called venkat and once as a begger who is later matched with venkat. > That sets the > stage for Mr. Douglas Fox to come in and ask the question 'Whence Adhyasa?' > and suggest 3 possible answers for us to choose one from: > > a) Waking Venkat (Brahman) does the superimposing. > b) Adhyasa is an independent process outside Waking Venkat. > c) Dreaming Venkat (Jiva) does it. > > In my opinion while putting the question to us, Mr. Fox has left out > something very important : In what state the question is being asked - in > the dream state or in the waking state? > Your interpretation of the original questions is away from tradition !!! > Let us first assume that the question is asked in the Dream State: > > So in the Dream state the question is a no-brainer and can be answered even > by a Dream Child. > Your logic is faulty, but I am not writing more because it is irrelevant. > Let us now assume that the question is asked in the waking state: > > But in the waking state, Mr. Fox cannot even ask us the question because > there is no Adhyasa at all. Venkat is a Financial Controller and he is not > superimposing it on himself. > This very point is discussed here because the Financial Contoroller venkat has been Superimposed on VENKAT. > Now Nairji, even if I replaced the above question with 'Where is Adhyasa?' > the answer is not going to change. So in my opinion the more important > question to ask is, 'How can the Dream Venkat realize that he is not a > beggar but a Financial Controller?'. In the above paragraph you concluded that even a dream child can answer this and it is no barrier !! So, you should not revisit that question to prove some other point. In addition when one is in a dream world, that one does not know that there is some 'waking world'. So, one does not have such questions in a dream. So, the dream venkat will never realize that he is the financial controller venkat. >The answer is simple - he has to get > out of the dream. It is not the 'dream venkat' who realizes. It is the 'financial controller venkat' who thinks he dreamed he was a begger in his dream. The waking venkat is answering the dreaming venkat's ssuperimposition !!!! >That leads to the next logical question how does he get > out of the dream? The question again can be put to Venkat in the dream state > or the waking state. First let us assume that it is put to him in the dream > state? > > What is dream Venkat's best option? Can he get out of the dream by reading > dream text books or attending dream lectures on Accountancy in his dream? Or > does he stand a better chance by doing 'Who am I?' inquiry in his dream? Or > should he attend a dream commune of a dream Osho? The answer will depend on > the dream school of thought that the dream Venkat currently s to in > his dream. And whatever answer he gives, the dream Venkat will have a > nagging doubt in his dream that he may not be right. Poor Venkat in his > dream can do no better. > The dream venkat will not have any nagging doubt about his dream realisation. He would have done his best by his dream standards. It would not have any co-relation to the waking state sadhana. > Now let's assume that the question is put to him in his waking state: I am > very sure that science has already found out the answer to the question, > 'Why a man wakes up from sleep?'. All that he has to do is to access these > answers by either reading books on the subject or asking knowledgeable > people. Even this may not be necessary. Common sense tells us that even > simple things like hunger or any other biological need can do the trick for > him? So it seems to me that the dream Venkat will wake up from his dream > very naturally without having to do anything in his dream. I don't think one > needs to resort the esoteric concept of 'Mula Avidya' to answer this > question. If one has to that, then what does one resort to, to answer why > the waking Venkat goes to sleep? Apart from ensuring that the environment is > comfortable and conducive for sleep, there is nothing that the waking Venkat > can do to go to sleep. In fact the more he tries, the more he will be awake. > Sleep just has to happen through natural processes. > > Now let us come back to the Vyavaharika life and try to apply the above > conclusions to the question 'Whence Adhyasa?'. Our Vyavaharika life is > analogous to the dream state and the Paramarthika level is the one to which > we want to 'wake up' to. So if the question is asked to me in the > Vyavaharika level the answer is simple - superimposition is being done by > me. If it is due to avidya, the locus of avidya is me. Your anology is incorrect. If you could have answered in the Vyavahara level, so emphatically, in case 2, in the same way you should have answered in your dream state in case 1. But, you concluded that it was a non-question in that case 1 state. Being analogous it should be a non-question here too. So, your conclusion about 'you' the Vyavahara venkat being the locus is obviously incorrect. So, your assumptions are incorrect if you are the locus, or you are rally the locus and but your arguments/logic is incorrect and out of context. >And at the > Paramarthika level the question as we saw above cannot even be asked because > there is no superimposition whatsoever. > Based on your logic and my corrections (if accepted) Superimposition never existed. You are already realised and hence no Bhakti, Karma, Jnana are needed as proposed by you at the end of your treatise. Here Sruthi comes and tells you that you can Realise, so there exists a release. So, better accept that "Avidya" is Superimposition. And continue to engage discussing Mula Avidya !!!!!! (until you accept one side or the other) > Now to the famous $64000 question, 'How do I wake up to the Paramarthika > level? > > Objection: How do you know that there is a Paramarthika level at all? > > Reply: I know it because people like Ramana Maharshi and Ramakrishna > Paramahamsa in the recent past have woken up to that level and described it > to the world. > > Objection: if Vyavaharika is like dream and Paramarthika like the waking > state, when the waking Venkat cannot communicate at all with the people > populating the dream Venkat's dream world, Here you are talking sense. But, remember all this is within venkat's realm only. >how is it being said that a > Ramana from his Paramarthika level communicated with the Vyavaharika world. > > Reply: The objection is based on Anubhava. The reply to it is also the very > same Anubhava. A Paramarthika Ramakrishna did communicate with the > Vyavaharika Vivekananda and Vivekananda woke up to the Paramarthika state. > This is incorrect. This is your definition in your Vyavaharika state, not in Sri Ramakrishna's Paramarthika state. In Sri Ramakrishna's Paramarthika state there would be no Vivekananda and no teaching. (I know. I saw it. !!!!!!!!!! ???????? ..) ..) ) > Objection: May be the Paramarthika is not as different from the Vyavaharika > as waking is from sleep. So the anubhava quoted by you does not prove > anything. > Just as a pole-vaulter has to let go of the pole after it has taken him to a > certain height and take a leap to get over the bar, so too this teaching can > take me only upto a certain level beyond which I have to depend purely on > Grace - be it the Grace of God or that of a Guru. This again is a part of > the teaching tradition coming down to us. > > So let us just do our bit - Karma, Upasana and Jnana all within the > framework of Bhakti, and the Grace will happen when it has to happen. > > Sukam Chara, Priyam Vada, > > Venkat. > > Before this post I thought you were only jovial, but now I realise you are funny too. ..) ..) If you want to prove me wrong, do not talk about comparisons and anologies between different states where Sruthi says 'Ekameva Advitiyam' what will you compare and with what ? Lest you will arrive at such funny conclusions. Moral of the story: Accoutants and financial Controllers can not prove that Logic and Anubhava is the overriding authority over Sruthi. Om Namo Narayanaya !! Srikrishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2002 Report Share Posted May 8, 2002 Hari Om !! advaitin, sophia & ira schepetin <stadri@a...> wrote: > Dear Dennis, and all others interested in this subject, namaste, > > When you originally asked the question, 'Whence Adhyasas' you did > so in the context of a seeming problem that was raised by Douglas Fox's' > Om Tat Sat > Atmachaitanya > > P.S. ` How the Shastra is the only means of knowledge for the Self' is > coming Is it still in the making ???? Om Namo Narayanaya !! Srikrishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.