Guest guest Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 Nan Chandran wrote #15002 (arrowed Prof.V.Krishnamurthy). Excuse full message as it represents complex commentary and extracts would distort. >It is important to realize that buddhahood is not just a mental > >enlightenment experience, a realization of the Dharma, a >doctrinal >truth. But even the latter is only a mental experience, no? Nirvaana though expressed in phenomenal terms like "end of suffering" or "elimination of kleshas" still has to be a metaphysical truth for it to represent a permanent end to suffering. Shankara's dialectic against Patanjala Yoga and the Svaatantra Vijnaanavaada Buddhists has to be understood in this regard. >Buddhahood must be realized in the body just as surely as it must be >realized in the mind. Sure – but it is to be noted that one needs the mind for the body itself to work. And the mind is more acutely "conscious" than the body. That's the reason the mind represents the gateway to nirvaana and not the body. Reality is not the psycho physical faculties. But on release it does have its effect on the psycho physical faculties. So when talking about liberation you can talk from the standpoint of the spirit or you can talk from the standpoint of the psycho physical faculties. Historically the differences we find in the darshanas is due to each school talking about reality from its own preferred standpoint – for eg while Advaita talks from the standpoint of the spirit (atman/Brahman), Buddhism talks about it from the phenomenal sense as end of suffering, elimination of kleshas etc, while yoga talks it from the standpoint of the mind – chitta vritti nirodah. >What embodies the Buddha are the perfections he >practiced in his past >lives. Thus the Pali text devoted to >describing the "great man's" >thirty-two physiognomic marks – the >marks of the wheel on the Buddha's >hands and feet, the >protuberance (uSnISa) on the top of his head, the >circle of hair >(UrNA) between his eyebrows, his long tongue, etc. Actually this is personally very surprising to me because right from childhood I've had a circle of hair right between my eyebrows – this was actually first noticed by an aanchaneya upaasakar (one who preaches the tales and virtues of Lord Hanuman) and pointed out to my grandfather as something auspicious, when I was a small baby. Message 15002 12:50G.M.T. 16/10/2002 Hello All, But isn't it the case that what is liberated in Buddhism and Hinduism is the person or jiva. The notion of a mind yoked to a body does not have any influence in systems that have sprung out of the Vedic matrix. The consciousness that is spoken of (cit) is not personal awareness (knower, knowing and the known) but an overarching reality that fuses that tripartite division. Those that are fully realised; remembering that this 'fully' is an indication that each of us lives the reality in some measure - those fully realised beings see the total continuum as a single reality. The theory of 'Upadhis' stresses the integrity of this continuum. The manifestation is unreal when it is taken as self established. But that is to get away from the point that psycho-physical yoking which in Western philosophy has been associated with the thinking of Descartes and Leibniz, where it is also known as Dualism has not had any influence in Yoga or 'Vedic' philosophy. There is no puzzling as to how Mind and Body could be connected, in Yoga they are assumed to be a unity. With that view in mind auspicious marks are not accidental and darshan is a good thing. Wittgenstein said somewhere (from memory) 'the human face is the best picture of the human soul'. Ciao & Blessings, Michael. _______________ Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free! Try MSN. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2002 Report Share Posted October 18, 2002 >But isn't it the case that what is liberated in Buddhism and Hinduism >is the person or jiva. But what is the jiva? It is not the true self but only the phenomenal identity. The true self – the atman or the purusha - is already and always liberated. Jiva is merely a nominal identity which has sprung out of the coming together of the psycho/physical faculties and the true self. >The notion of a mind yoked to a body does not have any >influence in systems that have sprung out of the Vedic matrix. All systems of Indian philosophy including the aastika darshanas, develop their systems only on the understanding of the phenomenal identity – which necessarily includes the body and mind. Chitta, antakarna, buddhi – are various names for the manifestations of what is commonly referred to as the mind. Shankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutras itself is called Sareeraka Bhaashyam (sareeram = body) – the text is supposed to provide solution to the liberation of the embodied self. We do not find explicit concentration on the relation between the mind and the body fundamentally because Indian philosophy is more interested in the reality and the way to it. But it is clearly recognized that to control the mind is to control the body. So the numerous ways to control and calm the mind. Hatha yoga represents the practices related to the control/perfection of the body – but Hatha yoga is only a minor part of the yoga system where the main emphasis is on achieving chitta vritti nirodah or the cessation of mental modifications. >The consciousness that is spoken of (cit) is not personal awareness > (knower, knowing and the known) but an overarching reality that fuses >that tripartite division. But that's a metaphysical reality – which IMO is best left alone. Else it causes so much misunderstanding. People then keep talking of "everything is one" without really understanding how it is so. >Those that are fully realised; remembering that this 'fully' is an >indication that each of us lives the reality in some measure - >those fully realised beings see the total continuum as a single >reality. See – you're talking about a "single reality" here – such definitions are best left alone. There are verses in Advaita which teach reality is neither one nor many. It is precisely to avoid misinterpretations. It is not that such a statement is wrong – but 99.99% of the people will necessarily be misinterpret it. A "single reality" is only meaningful to the enlightened and not for seekers - if you are seriously treading the path a misinterpretation will be counterproductive to your spiritual progress. It is better to think more in terms of non-dualism rather than a single reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2002 Report Share Posted October 18, 2002 Hello Nanda Chandran, (excuse the inadvertant abbreviation in my post). I've tried to address some of the points you raised. Thank you for your attention. (#15024) >Sure - but it is to be noted that one needs the mind for the body itself to >work. And the mind is more acutely "conscious" than the body. That's the >reason the mind represents the gateway to nirvana and not the body.< >But what is the jiva? It is not the true self but only the phenomenal >identity. The true self - the atman or the purusha - is already and always >liberated. Jiva is merely a nominal identity which has sprung out of the >coming together of the psycho/physical faculties and the true self.< My understanding is that the Jiva is a single entity with various levels of operation viz. intellect, mind, body, senses; which can be conceptually distinguished but are not distinct. Thus any activity of the person may have a sensual, mental or perceptual/judgmental aspect to it. To say that any one of these powers is especially favoured in the attainment of nirvana - >That's the reason the mind represents the gateway to nirvana and not the body< is contrary to this view of the jiva/person. When I said that it is the Jiva that is liberated I was stressing that it is the whole rather than an aspect that is so favoured. In ordinary language it is said that such and such a one was freed during his/her lifetime. If the jiva is not the locus of liberation then a fortiori no aspect of the jiva i.e. the mind, is the locus of liberation. >But it is clearly recognised(in Indian philosophy) that to control the mind >is to control the body.< Yes Hatha or Raja yoga focus on one aspect or the other of a single unity. For this reason there are no questions about the mysterious nature of the interaction between body and mind. About the metaphysical: "The Self is (first) to be realised as existing, and (then) as It really is. Of these two (aspects), the real nature of the Self that has been known as merely existing, becomes favourably disposed (for self-revelation). Katha Up.II.iii.13. I'm in the first class. The Upanishads throughout speak of unity, Aham Brahmasmi, Tat tvam asi, etc. In Taittriya Upanisad II.i.1 Sankara expounds on "Satyam, jnanam, anantam brahma" and he clearly thinks that this is a rational unpacking of its implications. Non-duality I understand to be more a summary of a metaphysical argument i.e. an account of how things must fundamentally be for things to appear as they do, rather than as a terminus to aim for. Ciao and Blessings, Michael. _______________ Broadband? Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 >My understanding is that the Jiva is a single entity with various >levels of operation viz. intellect, mind, body, senses; This is true if viewed from the standpoint that the jiva is the coming together of the psycho/physical faculties. But if you are talking of jiva as a single/homogeneous metaphysical entity based on the Advaita vision of the absolute, I would suggest that you pay heed to the hundreds of statements in Vedaanta literature – the most basic fact which is hammered again and again, that the Self is neither the mind nor body nor the senses. Brahman as a single, homogenous entity is one thing and the Advaita way of discriminating between the self and the non-thing is something else. Without the latter there would be no meaning to the mahaavaakya of "neti, neti" itself. >which can be conceptually distinguished but are not distinct. It is common experience to know that neither the mind nor body nor sense is oneself. Can't you objectively experience each of them. That which experiences is the self/knower – but again that knower is not the Atman. >Thus any activity of >the person may have a sensual, mental or >perceptual/judgmental aspect to it. To say that any one of these >powers is especially favoured in the attainment of nirvana >- is contrary to this view of the jiva/person. Consciousness is the link to reality. If the mind doesn't work – suppose there's brain damage – then normal conscious existence is impossible. On the contrary even if the body is incapacitated – say due to paralysis – still with the mind, one can have a conscious existence. Simply put conscious life is impossible without the mind. But possible without the body. Fundamentally because mind represents a closer connection to consciousness than the body. It is also to be noted that the body exists only in the waking state. The mind exists both in the waking and the dream states. >I'm in the first class. The Upanishads throughout speak of unity, Aham >Brahmasmi, Tat tvam asi, etc. In Taittriya Upanisad II.i.1 Sankara >expounds on "Satyam, jnanam, anantam brahma" and he clearly thinks >that this is a rational unpacking of its implications. But the Upanishads also teach neti, neti - not this, not this. The way to metaphysics (aham brahmaasmi, tat tvam asi) is through self analysis/introspection (neti, neti). This is actually one of the reasons I'm opposed to Advaita. People are naturally seduced by its absolutistic metaphysics ("one without another", "non-dualism" etc) and neglect the psychological/epistemological teachings. Read Shankara's praakarna graanthas – Upadesha Saahasri, Atma Bodha, Vivekachoodaamani. In these works you'll find that more than ninety five percent of the book is about discriminating between the self and the non-self. Only about five percent of the book talks about metaphysics, non-dualism, absolutism etc. IMO the Upanishads are only for people who have studied Advaita for a while and also have complemented their study with meditation. Again as noted before, the way to non-dual absolutism lies in the discrimination of the self from the non-self. Metaphysics is to be experienced and not thought/conceptualized about. Read a free translation of the Vacchagotta Sutta at : http://home.earthlink.net/~pushpasri/buddhism/budh_meta.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 Namaste Sri Nanda: Likes and dislikes are parts of our human nature and I am not surprised to see that you are opposed to advaita. Our likes and dislikes are mostly influenced by our beliefs and convictions. Your entire discussion uses a different framework and accordingly you find advaita non appealing. For those who like me who have strong conviction to Shankara's advaita philosophy, it is quite appealing and convincing. At the same time, I fully respect your understanding based on a different framework even though I disagree. Warmest regards, Ram Chandran Note: The French people oppose English and vice-versa, the English people oppose French (quite common in Canada). Neither of them can convince the other on the superiority of one over the other! advaitin, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote: > ........ > But the Upanishads also teach neti, neti - not this, not this. The > way to metaphysics (aham brahmaasmi, tat tvam asi) is through self > analysis/introspection (neti, neti). > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2002 Report Share Posted October 23, 2002 >I am not > surprised to see that you are opposed to advaita. Ram please re-read what I've written. I'm not opposed to advaita. I'm only opposed to people who ignore the psychological/epistemological issues in Advaita (which generally forms above 90% of any advaita work) and talk only about the metaphysical aspect of advaita - "one without an other", "everything is one" etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2002 Report Share Posted October 23, 2002 Dear VPCNK: I have been a recent and dormant member of this group. Of all the postings I have read so far, I enjoyed your posting of Buddha having a conversation with his deciple. Even in that discussion the story which Buddha tells the questioner about the man shot with an arrow is most illuminating. I believe it is Isha Upanishad which says somewhere that Agnyanis go to darkness and Gnyanis go to bigger darkness.(My spellings of Sanskrit words may not be correct). I for one am searching for some utilitarian value in our discussion which can help me understand how a true Advaitin lives, functions, behaves, thinks, develops interpersonal relationships in his life and so on. Buddha's message was helpful. Shanti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2002 Report Share Posted October 23, 2002 Hari OM! Blessed VPCNK ji, Advaita is Subjective Science not Objective science, Absolute cannot be described through words because you are one. Whatever you read, understand, or analyze you can never under stand Brahman you can only stand under Brahman. Since you recommend to learn Prakarana Granthas of Sri sankaracharyaji, then what is the use of reading & learning other paths also, we should only choose one path not different paths eventhough all the paths are pointing to one Absolute the one without a second. Just for intellectual arguments we can discuss all these, but the aim is to realize and to be THAT. THAT THOU ART. With Love & OM! Krishna Prasad --- vpcnk <vpcnk wrote: > >My understanding is that the Jiva is a single entity with various > >levels of operation viz. intellect, mind, body, senses; > > This is true if viewed from the standpoint that the jiva is the > coming together of the psycho/physical faculties. But if you are > talking of jiva as a single/homogeneous metaphysical entity based > on > the Advaita vision of the absolute, I would suggest that you pay > heed > to the hundreds of statements in Vedaanta literature – the most > basic > fact which is hammered again and again, that the Self is neither > the > mind nor body nor the senses. > > Brahman as a single, homogenous entity is one thing and the Advaita > > way of discriminating between the self and the non-thing is > something > else. Without the latter there would be no meaning to the > mahaavaakya > of "neti, neti" itself. > > >which can be conceptually distinguished but are not distinct. > > It is common experience to know that neither the mind nor body nor > sense is oneself. Can't you objectively experience each of them. > That > which experiences is the self/knower – but again that knower is not > > the Atman. > > >Thus any activity of >the person may have a sensual, mental or > >perceptual/judgmental aspect to it. To say that any one of these > >powers is especially favoured in the attainment of nirvana > >- is contrary to this view of the jiva/person. > > Consciousness is the link to reality. If the mind doesn't work – > suppose there's brain damage – then normal conscious existence is > impossible. On the contrary even if the body is incapacitated – say > > due to paralysis – still with the mind, one can have a conscious > existence. Simply put conscious life is impossible without the > mind. > But possible without the body. Fundamentally because mind > represents > a closer connection to consciousness than the body. > > It is also to be noted that the body exists only in the waking > state. > The mind exists both in the waking and the dream states. > > >I'm in the first class. The Upanishads throughout speak of unity, > Aham > >Brahmasmi, Tat tvam asi, etc. In Taittriya Upanisad II.i.1 Sankara > > >expounds on "Satyam, jnanam, anantam brahma" and he clearly thinks > > >that this is a rational unpacking of its implications. > > But the Upanishads also teach neti, neti - not this, not this. The > way to metaphysics (aham brahmaasmi, tat tvam asi) is through self > analysis/introspection (neti, neti). > > This is actually one of the reasons I'm opposed to Advaita. People > are naturally seduced by its absolutistic metaphysics ("one without > > another", "non-dualism" etc) and neglect the > psychological/epistemological teachings. Read Shankara's praakarna > graanthas – Upadesha Saahasri, Atma Bodha, Vivekachoodaamani. In > these works you'll find that more than ninety five percent of the > book is about discriminating between the self and the non-self. > Only > about five percent of the book talks about metaphysics, > non-dualism, > absolutism etc. IMO the Upanishads are only for people who have > studied Advaita for a while and also have complemented their study > with meditation. > > Again as noted before, the way to non-dual absolutism lies in the > discrimination of the self from the non-self. Metaphysics is to be > experienced and not thought/conceptualized about. Read a free > translation of the Vacchagotta Sutta at : > http://home.earthlink.net/~pushpasri/buddhism/budh_meta.html > > > Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2002 Report Share Posted October 24, 2002 >I believe it is Isha Upanishad which says somewhere that Agnyanis go >to darkness and Gnyanis go to bigger darkness. Though the intellect cannot grasp the truth and is to be ultimately discarded for reality to manifest, still it is a very useful instrument when treading the path. Without the right conception of the truth, the truth cannot be attained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2002 Report Share Posted October 27, 2002 Namaste Nanda, advaitin, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote: > >I believe it is Isha Upanishad which says somewhere that Agnyanis go > >to darkness and Gnyanis go to bigger darkness. > > Though the intellect cannot grasp the truth and is to be ultimately > discarded for reality to manifest, still it is a very useful > instrument when treading the path. Without the right conception of > the truth, the truth cannot be attained I understand that intellect cannot grasp the truth because it is the content of the intellect, but i am not getting the sense in which you used "discarded" You mean intellect gains secondary importance as the appreciation of truth is vastu tantra, as any means of knowledge reveals its object of knowledge, in this case shastra reveling the truth? Viraj 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.