TAT TVAM ASI

[Guest guest]

hariH OM!

 

just as each dna cell has coding for entire body, so

is the jiva a microcosmic hologram of macrocosmic

brahman.

 

thus virtually every aspect of the jiva is a

projection of brahman, down to the minutest detail,

including all vrittis, siddhis, samskaras, samadhis,

vasanas, joys, fears, loves, tragedies, the stratae of

wisdom and ignorance weaving through the jiva,

*necessarily*... all are brahman Itself projected.

 

"as above, so below."

 

thus TAT TVAM ASI is the advaitam between what amounts

to being the mysteries of Life and its Cause.. between

the Mind Child and its Unknowable Progenitor

(brahamn).. between the phenomenon Matter and its

noumenon Spirit.

 

TAT TVAM ASI has its counterpart nondual conception in

the cabalistic "I AM THAT I AM," as well as in jesus'

pronouncement "I and my Father are one."

 

now, the important stipulation here is that if/when

the jiva mistakes a given thought, event, or thing,

within or beyond itself, as something existent apart

from its reality *as* brahman, represents the birth of

[what i believe is much more accurate to refer to as]

mithya and not maya. simply because the latter word

has a strong implication to that which isn't real or

unreal, and not merely unreal [as mithya is defined].

 

more:

TAT TVAM ASI, whether you know it or not. and when

you become *aware* that you know it, you will also

realize that you've known it in your Heart all along.

 

namaste,

frank

 

 

 

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/4/2002 12:20:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

profvk writes:

 

> On this subject there was an interesting discussion in December 1998

> on this list. May I draw your attention to my posting on 7th December

> 1998, (Post No.652) and allied postings by learned members of this

> list both before and after?

> PraNAms to all advaitins

> Yours, profvk

>

 

Yes, this Post No. 652 is beautiful indeed and so very easy to understand.

There is a point that I should be delighted to hear reflections upon, from

your expertise on this matter, as picked up in the following quote from your

#652:

 

< . . . But once we reach the fifth one, namely space or âkâsa,

the negation of that and the conception of something beyond, where

even the âkâsa is merged into something more subtle, is not for the

finite mind. The Vedas therefore only declare the existence of this

entity and call it 'sat' ( = existing entity). . . . >

 

Perhaps it is that finite minds can get into things yet more subtle than

âkâsa, but of course, this implies perhaps a reevaluation of the

mathematician's and philosopher's meaning of âkâsa, as distinct from the yoga

practitioner's meaning among subtle events that might be seen among the

various floating levels of consciousness.

 

I often think in terms of a subtle prakriti, the subtlest of all energy

transformation packets, something that moves as a communicator between atman

and brahman, that first faint movement and breath as siva slides into sakti.

Indeed, possibly even much of that same stuff with which physicists 'know'

that empty space must be filled, from which particles (electron-positron

pairs for instance) are created out of the 'nothingness' of vacuum state and

later annihilate back into the same vacuum state of nothingness (the three

gunas, et al). In the same way, the experience toward brahman is often

discussed in terms of a fullness of everything, back and forth, to a fullness

of nothingness as we move from focussing in duality to full transcendence.

Here might lie such very tiny energy packets, infinitesimal potential little

saktijis, all ready to sprout this way or that way according to an integrated

will of atmans, here thought of as brahman. The subtle prakriti packets are

much tinier than the particles composing an atom, virtually unseeable

communicators, beyond a now more refined concept and imagery of âkâsa, yet

something also to be experienced through the never ending subtle and subtler

transformation properties of consciousness.

 

Please tear this argument apart for me if you will be so kind -- of how it

does not, cannot, fit into your long developed skillful intellectual

knowledge of advaita and vedanta. I assure you that such concepts are far

away from purely speculative idle thinking. Of some dozen sophisticated

electro-optical experimental platforms now in action, dealing with

mind-matter interrelationships, six programs explicitly deal with notions

surrounding these human sense related tattvas: earth, water, fire, air,

âkâsa, and yes, sat, all the while as mind floats about in consciousness

through various mental protocols (and holy traditions). Fascinating, just

fascinating.

 

jai guru dev,

 

Edmond

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

On this subject there was an interesting discussion in December 1998

on this list. May I draw your attention to my posting on 7th December

1998, (Post No.652) and allied postings by learned members of this

list both before and after?

PraNAms to all advaitins

Yours, profvk

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, f maiello <egodust> wrote:

> hariH OM!

>

> just as each dna cell has coding for entire body, so

> is the jiva a microcosmic hologram of macrocosmic

> brahman.

>

> thus virtually every aspect of the jiva is a

> projection of brahman, down to the minutest detail,

> including all vrittis, siddhis, samskaras, samadhis,

> vasanas, joys, fears, loves, tragedies, the stratae of

> wisdom and ignorance weaving through the jiva,

> *necessarily*... all are brahman Itself projected.

>

> "as above, so below."

>

 

Namaste FrankJI,

 

More thoughts on this line:

 

There is something within the purusha call it prakriti or

something else. Whatever the purusha percieves is nothing

but the same prakriti seen from slightly different angles.

Hence we find that it is possible to comeup with mappings

between microcosm-A and microcosm-B, different parts of

macrocosm, and microcosm and macrocosm.

 

Best regards

Shrinivas Gadkari

[Guest guest]

This seems like a fairly silly excercise.The Jiva does

not "literally" exist, it is part and parcel of maya.

You must perceive things from the perspective of the

Eternal Witness; then you will realize the fallacy of

an actual jiva.

--- sgadkari2001 <sgadkari2001 wrote:

> advaitin, f maiello <egodust>

> wrote:

> > hariH OM!

> >

> > just as each dna cell has coding for entire body,

> so

> > is the jiva a microcosmic hologram of macrocosmic

> > brahman.

> >

> > thus virtually every aspect of the jiva is a

> > projection of brahman, down to the minutest

> detail,

> > including all vrittis, siddhis, samskaras,

> samadhis,

> > vasanas, joys, fears, loves, tragedies, the

> stratae of

> > wisdom and ignorance weaving through the jiva,

> > *necessarily*... all are brahman Itself projected.

>

> >

> > "as above, so below."

> >

>

> Namaste FrankJI,

>

> More thoughts on this line:

>

> There is something within the purusha call it

> prakriti or

> something else. Whatever the purusha percieves is

> nothing

> but the same prakriti seen from slightly different

> angles.

> Hence we find that it is possible to comeup with

> mappings

> between microcosm-A and microcosm-B, different parts

> of

> macrocosm, and microcosm and macrocosm.

>

> Best regards

> Shrinivas Gadkari

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, f maiello <egodust> wrote:

> hariH OM!

>

> just as each dna cell has coding for entire body, so

> is the jiva a microcosmic hologram of macrocosmic

> brahman.

>

> thus virtually every aspect of the jiva is a

> projection of brahman, down to the minutest detail,

> including all vrittis, siddhis, samskaras, samadhis,

> vasanas, joys, fears, loves, tragedies, the stratae of

> wisdom and ignorance weaving through the jiva,

> *necessarily*... all are brahman Itself projected.

>

> "as above, so below."

 

 

Tat srishtwa tad evanupravishat

 

(Taittriya Upanishad, 2.6.2)

 

Having created the creation, the Creator - Cosmic Creative

Intelligence - entered into it.

 

Translation by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/5/2002 7:42:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

vikrammasson writes:

 

> This seems like a fairly silly excercise.The Jiva does

> not "literally" exist, it is part and parcel of maya.

> You must perceive things from the perspective of the

> Eternal Witness; then you will realize the fallacy of

> an actual jiva.

>

 

How about if the jiva exists, literally, and the eternal witness exists,

literally, and that the great flexibility of our minds has us floating about

from state to state on demand, as we will, according to where the attention

make direct itself. First we are here and then we move there, sometimes

slowly and other times more quickly, back and forth.

 

It is simply easier to go on in life among things that exist, than among

things that don't exist. The joy and happiness (and misery) of life is in

the playing around among these states of existence. If we play by the rules

of universal law we can find a heaven on earth. If we repeatedly ignore

universal law we can find a hell on earth. Finding the universal law has

little to do with intellectually devised intentions as compared with

innocently allowing a breath of subtle impulses from nature to come through

to awareness.

 

If it were not for maya, I would simply not be able to have all the fun in

life that I presently am blessed with. Maya is the joy of life, the grand

stage of fulfillment. This is what I want, that magnificent maya,

infiltrated with lots of real deep turiya gaps that provide the never ending

flows of energy, bliss, and joy. Maya is good.

 

jai guru dev,

 

Edmond

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- edmeasure wrote:

>. Maya is good.

>

> jai guru dev,

>

> Edmond

>

>

Yes maaya is good and even the good and bad is in

maaya. but it is good if one knows it is maaya and

nothing like it! If one longs for it then one depends

on it and there comes the problem the so called good

can turn in to bad - but that is maaya too! if one

knows that.

camping in maya of Stockholm!

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.

[Guest guest]

Edmond wrote:

 

Perhaps it is that finite minds can get into things yet more subtle

than

âkâsa, but of course, this implies perhaps a reevaluation of the

mathematician's and philosopher's meaning of âkâsa, as distinct from

the yoga

practitioner's meaning among subtle events that might be seen among

the

various floating levels of consciousness.

 

I often think in terms of a subtle prakriti, the subtlest of all

energy

transformation packets, something that moves as a communicator

between atman

and brahman, that first faint movement and breath as siva slides into

sakti

..

Indeed, possibly even much of that same stuff with which physicists

'know'

 

that empty space must be filled, from which particles

(electron-positron

pairs for instance) are created out of the 'nothingness' of vacuum

state and

later annihilate back into the same vacuum state of nothingness (the

three

 

gunas, et al). In the same way, the experience toward brahman is

often

discussed in terms of a fullness of everything, back and forth, to a

fullness

of nothingness as we move from focussing in duality to full

transcendence.

 

Here might lie such very tiny energy packets, infinitesimal potential

little

saktijis, all ready to sprout this way or that way according to an

integrated

will of atmans, here thought of as brahman. The subtle prakriti

packets are

much tinier than the particles composing an atom, virtually unseeable

 

communicators, beyond a now more refined concept and imagery of

âkâsa,

yet

something also to be experienced through the never ending subtle and

subtler

transformation properties of consciousness.

 

Please tear this argument apart for me if you will be so kind.

--

Dear Edmond,

You are trying to objectify – put into the language and construct of

the physical science of matter- by postulating a ‘communicator’

between brahman and atman. The first movement of breath as siva

‘slides into’ sakti is your scientific way of imagining a process of

‘transformation’ from siva into sakti. Your unseeable communicators,

in the form of ‘little potential packets of saktijis’ constitute an

innovative concept both for the physicist and the advaitin.

But as an advaitin I would not speculate into how siva became sakti

or ‘when’ it became. Because they are non-different.

As a scientist , I would require proofs from you or at least some

traces of ‘experimentally verifiable conjectures’ that this way

perhaps lies the truth. Because you are only theorising.

As a philosopher, I would appreciate you for having made a daring

speculation and encourage you to go on with your speculations. A

philosopher likes to speculate even without basis.

As Krishnamurthy, I would humbly plead ignorance.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

Yours, profvk

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/6/2002 9:54:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

profvk writes:

 

> Dear Edmond,

> You are trying to objectify – put into the language and construct of

> the physical science of matter- by postulating a ‘communicator’

> between brahman and atman. The first movement of breath as siva

> ‘slides into’ sakti is your scientific way of imagining a process of

> ‘transformation’ from siva into sakti. Your unseeable communicators,

> in the form of ‘little potential packets of saktijis’ constitute an

> innovative concept both for the physicist and the advaitin.

> But as an advaitin I would not speculate into how siva became sakti

> or ‘when’ it became. Because they are non-different.

> As a scientist , I would require proofs from you or at least some

> traces of ‘experimentally verifiable conjectures’ that this way

> perhaps lies the truth. Because you are only theorising.

> As a philosopher, I would appreciate you for having made a daring

> speculation and encourage you to go on with your speculations. A

> philosopher likes to speculate even without basis.

> As Krishnamurthy, I would humbly plead ignorance.

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins

> Yours, profvk

>

 

Thank you so much for your very wise, and in my opinion, accurate

observations. Absolutely, it is necessary to 'objectify' the relationship

between atman and brahman and between siva and sakti, and all the other

name-forms that 'magically' slide from one state to another state. Though

advaita undoubtedly expresses the truth, and moreover, though I've even

experienced such truths many times over, nevertheless, this advaita wizardry

of calling out two distinct things by giving them two distinct identities

with separate qualities, and then wanting to be satisfied my merely waving

the turiya wand to say, tat-tvam-asi, without explaining whatever happened to

the original two, IS UNACCEPTABLE. Do not misunderstand: The tat-tvam-asi

implied truism is the reality and is so witnessed to be the truth; however,

the intellectually devised explanation of the happenings is incomplete and

illogical.

 

We give a name to something that can be described, to something which can be

experienced. When it vanishes, it is unacceptable to me to use advaita

reasoning alone, essentially saying to the effect: the two are one and the

same; or human mind cannot know infinity; or that one cannot know god; or

that it is god's will; and on and on with excuses to avoid coming to grips

with this internal irrational conflict. What is being said is true but the

reasoning behind the truth is not complete.

 

Now, one way out of this enigma is to perhaps use the word transformation,

that is, siva transforms into sakti; the many transforms into one and vice

versa; that is, tat-tvam-parinama. The meaning is virtually the same from a

less analytical perspective but it has more delineated implications, so that

we can extend the influence of the expression from just idle philosophy to

perhaps the mathematician and to pragmatic shoptalk. This shoptalk

expression will certainly need to allow the transformation to go in either

direction as with the original 'asi'. Whether this means we have to also

state tvam-tat-parinama and or tat-tvam-adhiparinama, or the like, I'm not

sure.

 

The thing is that we have changed nothing from the point of view of prayers

and bhakti and all of the various subtle gymnastics with the devas. Nothing

is changed accept one slight expression surrounding the intellectual, buddhi,

manipulations of explanation. Advaita likes to say that this ONE is

inclusive of everything, but expresses itself in a manner so as to make it

difficult to check out the relationships among the pieces. This is that

avidya force in action again -- no matter where we go. The avidya forces

within me are always grumbling away to try to keep the status quo of maya

unchanged, whatever it is.

 

God can be known. Indeed, that's the whole essence of advaita as this

results in knowing oneself. The pieces that are all ONE obviously must have

a communication path among one another. This implies the reality of

parapsychology, especially as that is also the experiential reality. We must

deal with such communication paths. It is easier to deal with these

potential communication paths than to deal with a misguided avoidance answer

like, 'it's the nature of god, etc'. Nothing else has to change (though

later we might also want to get a closer look into akasa). Indeed, nothing

has really changed and our approach to the most holy corners remains the same

as do the responses. A specific 'parinama' can specify 'asi'. The mode of

explanation has merely got slightly more sophisticated.

 

Hence we look for more logical reasoning behind the advaita expressions of

wisdom and truth. Tying into the physical science of matter may sound

terribly unholy and/or paganly materialistic to some, but that is only

because there may not be sufficient experiences to understand that

theoretical physics is considerably more mystical than mysticism itself. In

any event, not to consider the paganly materialistic as part of the ONE would

surely be anti advaita in spirit. So long as our heart moves, unaffected as

always, nothing new has happened.

 

Some traces of ‘experimentally verifiable conjectures’ are already in place,

hopefully with yet more refined ramifications coming soon, but first we need

establish some reasonable development of a suitable stage setup upon which to

cast such a subtle show of actors. I will continue to follow up.

 

Thank you again for the very thoughtful and appreciated overview.

 

jai guru dev,

 

Edmond

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

> I often think in terms of a subtle prakriti, the subtlest of all

> energy

> transformation packets, something that moves as a communicator

> between atman

> and brahman, that first faint movement and breath as siva slides

into

> sakti

 

This is beautiful, & to be sure finite & infinite meet & entwine.

 

Col

[Guest guest]

advaitin, edmeasure@a... wrote:

 

nevertheless, this advaita wizardry

> of calling out two distinct things by giving them two distinct

identities

> with separate qualities, and then wanting to be satisfied my merely

waving

> the turiya wand to say, tat-tvam-asi, without explaining whatever

happened to

> the original two, IS UNACCEPTABLE. Do not misunderstand: The tat-

tvam-asi

> implied truism is the reality and is so witnessed to be the truth;

however,

> the intellectually devised explanation of the happenings is

incomplete and

> illogical.

>

> We give a name to something that can be described, to something

which can be

> experienced. When it vanishes, it is unacceptable to me to use

advaita

> reasoning alone, essentially saying to the effect: the two are one

and the

> same; or human mind cannot know infinity; or that one cannot know

god; or

> that it is god's will; and on and on with excuses to avoid coming

to grips

> with this internal irrational conflict.

 

Hi Ed, :-) I am smiling here because reason gives birth in the

relative. For the limited expression to want to capture the ocean in

reasoning doesn't make sense to me. It cannot be.

 

Love doesn't want to know why. It is enough to be loved.

 

Colette

[Guest guest]

Sorry, Krishnamurthyji, you are being unnecessarily polite. That

does not serve the advaitins well. Just tear him apart as he has

asked us to do. The unseeable communicators in the form of 'little

potential packets of saktijis' are not an innovative concept for the

advaitin (I don't know anything about the physicist as I am not

one.). Above all, don't encourage anybody to make daring

speculations without any basis. And, as an advaitin, don't plead

ignorance! That is the last thing you can do.

 

Sorry, Edmondji, if I am plain-spoken. Can't just help it.

 

Pranams.

 

Madthil Nair

_

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

> Dear Edmond,

> You are trying to objectify – put into the language and construct of

> the physical science of matter- by postulating a `communicator'

> between brahman and atman. The first movement of breath as siva

> `slides into' sakti is your scientific way of imagining a process of

> `transformation' from siva into sakti. Your unseeable communicators,

> in the form of `little potential packets of saktijis' constitute an

> innovative concept both for the physicist and the advaitin.

> But as an advaitin I would not speculate into how siva became sakti

> or `when' it became. Because they are non-different.

> As a scientist , I would require proofs from you or at least some

> traces of `experimentally verifiable conjectures' that this way

> perhaps lies the truth. Because you are only theorising.

> As a philosopher, I would appreciate you for having made a daring

> speculation and encourage you to go on with your speculations. A

> philosopher likes to speculate even without basis.

> As Krishnamurthy, I would humbly plead ignorance.

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins

> Yours, profvk

>