Relevance of Experience and Glimpses of the Real

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

I am venturing into starting this discussion based

on a past discussion on the relevance of experience.

--------------------------

It is common knowledge that a worldly experience

does not provide lasting happiness.

This has to be true with any and all worldly experiences.

 

Why?

Because,

the very statement 'provide' implies a

pre-condition of non-blissfull nature. As long as

there are non-blissfull states, a lasting bliss, going

by a pure linguistic definition of 'lasting', is therefore

not possible in any worldly experience.

 

Hence, any worldly experience alone cannot provide

'lasting' bliss.

 

The catch however, is, whether there is a worldly experience

which can produce true bliss even for a moment.

 

Let us say there is one such.

What this implies is that from unreal things,

'real' emerged somehow, like 'cause & effect'.

>From a 'Mirage' example, we know that this is not

possible- No 'water' in any unreal mirage however we

make permutations and combinations out of a mirage.

 

Hence, this implies that no worldly experience alone can

show the 'Truth'.

This is consistent with the statement that

'Truth' is beyond non-permanent things such as

intelligence,physical aggregates, etc.

-----------------------

This then leaves us two questions:

1) How is then 'Truth' known ?

2) What about glimpses of Truth originating from worldly

experiences.

 

1)By definition, what is 'real' is always 'real'.

 

This then implies that the underlying reality will

remain unchanged despite a temporary nature of experience,

physical things,etc.

 

When the 'real' is thus always 'real', therefore,

'Truth' is always present.

Thus if 'Truth' is ever present, one needs only to

separate out the ever-present 'Truth' from the 'unreal'.

 

'Experience' being unreal,

and 'experiencer' being unreal,

therefore,

the underlying reality which is independant

of 'experience' and 'experiencer' needs to be separated out.

 

How does one go about to do such a seperation ?

As we know, we have the four yogas and Scriptures to go by.

 

2) As we know from (1), 'real' needs to be distinguished

out of the worldly 'unreal' as we know.

Bits and pieces of such an exercise

would possibly produce such glimpses accordingly.

A previous post from Shree Sunder Rajan I guess is

an example where the then Shree Shankaracharya during meditation

declares to become the 'bliss' itself rather than he who

experiences bliss.

---------------------------

Some extra thoughts:-

Underlying reality being ever real, therefore the unreal

also must dwell on the real and must owe its existence to the

'real'. For eg.,an unreal dream though does not independantly

exist, however, owes its existence to the real dreamer.

The dream is in the dreamer but the dreamer is not in

the dream physically.

--------------------------

Chandogya Upanishad:-

Svetaketu breaks open the seed of a banyan tree and replies

to his father that he cannot find anything inside. His

father corrects him "Dear one, this subtle essence which

you do not perceive, out of it the whole banyan tree stands.

Out of it, the whole universe has come.

That thou art, O Svetaketu".

--------------------------

Comments and clarifications are welcome.

--------------------------

Kind Regards,

Raghava

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

Raghav Kaluri writes

'Experience' being unreal,

and 'experiencer' being unreal,

therefore,

the underlying reality which is independant

of 'experience' and 'experiencer' needs to be separated out.

-------------------------------

 

I am afraid, Raghavji, you are slipping here. 'Experiencer' is

the reality. Without him there is no experience. Without the

dreamer, there is no dream. So the so-called 'underlying

reality' is the experiencer.

That is the situation when you are talking of 'experience'.

 

But when you want to talk about the 'experiencer' you have to be

careful not to bring in any duality, which is what is implied by

any 'experience'. There is no second object and so there is no

'experience' and so the word 'experiencer' may not be the right

word. There is only the Reality.

 

praNAms to all advaitins

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.

 

 

 

Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site

http://webhosting.

[Guest guest]

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

>

> I am afraid, Raghavji, you are slipping here. 'Experiencer' is

> the reality. Without him there is no experience. Without the

> dreamer, there is no dream. So the so-called 'underlying

> reality' is the experiencer.

> That is the situation when you are talking of 'experience'.

>

> But when you want to talk about the 'experiencer' you have to be

> careful not to bring in any duality, which is what is implied by

> any 'experience'. There is no second object and so there is no

> 'experience' and so the word 'experiencer' may not be the right

> word. There is only the Reality.

>

Namaste Shree Prof.V.K.Ji

Thanks for the clarification.

 

In the first paragraph, we have only the

'underlying reality' at the core.

The fact that it actually is the 'Experiencer' implies

that a virtual 'experiencer' is unreal.

 

In the second paragraph, we once again have the

'underlying reality' only.

There is no 'experience' implies that

'experience' is unreal.

 

When we combine the above two paragraphs, we end up

with what was stated earlier,which is,

>>'Experience' being unreal,

>>and 'experiencer' being unreal,

>>therefore,

>>the underlying reality which is independant

>>of 'experience' and 'experiencer' needs to be separated out.

 

Am I missing something ?

 

Kind Regards,

Raghava

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

Raghavji, I think we have started spinning words. Let us not add

to this spinning by my trying to sort this out. Because I am

likely to go the same earlier path of mine. And we might be

wasting cyberspace.

 

I am therefore leaving it open for scholars like Sadanandaji to

sort it out. Only a third person can remove the knot of this

'experience' between two word-spinners!

The relevant three posts (for their reference) are #s. 15241,

15242 and 15244.

 

praNAms to all advaitins

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.

 

 

 

Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site

http://webhosting.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Profvkji:

 

First, ProfVKji's assertion is quite right. "The one who is analyzing

the distinction between the experience and experiencer and posing all

these questions is real!" There is a famous quotation from JK on

understanding as a fact (truth) and as a thought. Real understanding

is the understanding of an understanding as the fact and is different

from an understanding of an understanding as thought.

 

Thoughts change where as fact remains the same. The person who

experiences the truth can't distinguish between 'experience'

and 'experience.' Without superimposition of the 'experience'

and 'experiencer' we indulge only in 'thoughts' and trapped within

the unending loop of intellectual paradigm.

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

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

> Namaste

>

> Raghavji, I think we have started spinning words. Let us not add

> to this spinning by my trying to sort this out. Because I am

> likely to go the same earlier path of mine.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Yes, Raghava-Ji, I am afraid you are missing something and, if you

don't mind my intrusion, please let me try to tell you how.

 

The basic problem in your analysis is that you have already concluded

that the experience and experiencer are unreal and you see both as

separate from the "underlying reality". Then, there is a need to

separate that "reality" out. Who will do the separation here is an

unanswered question. I don't want to go into that. It will better

be addressed by you yourself.

 

Philosophically, when we say something is "unreal", we only mean that

it is impermanent. It is there today and it is not there tomorrow

or, more simply, it is conditioned by space and time. But the fact

is that the "unreal" cannot be without a sustainer and that sustainer

is Consciousness.

 

In an experiential statement like "I see a star", I am the

experiencer of seeing, seeing is the experiencing, and star is the

experienced (seen). If this statement is reduced to its basics, it

simply means "star consciousness". See, the duality comprising "I,

my seeing and the star" has condensed into one single focus – "star

consciousness"! Similarly, you can have a Moon consciousness, Sun-

consciousness, Advaitin-consciousness, so on and so forth. Everything

is consciousness irrespective of whether it is by sight, smell,

touch, hearing, tasting, thinking, remembering, dreaming,

intellectual analysis etc. Thus, all our transactions are simply

consciousness or consciousness is the common denominator in all of

them. That common denominator without which transactions cannot be

is "Consciousness" with a capital "C".

 

That Consciousness is the "underlying reality" you are after and It

is ever there whatever the transactions. To acknowledge that It

exists (asti - sat), It shines on Its own (bhAti - chit) and

everything else shines after It (anubhAti) and It is full (poornam)*

without deficiencies or nothing can be added to it or subtracted from

it, you simply don't have to "weed out" the unreal. The very

experience of the so-called unreal shows you without any doubt that

there is that "underlying reality" you are looking for.

 

When you appreciate that "underlying reality", the appearances of the

so-called unreal are no more. They merge back into their Mother

(Consciousness) without any need for a separation process. If you

permit me to quote from BhadrakAli Stuti", this is how it is

succinctly stated there: "YasyA unmIlite netre, jagatetat prakAsate,

nimIlite to nischeshtam, namastasyai namastasyai namastasyai namo

namaha" ( Salutations to Her again and again, in whose eyes this

universe shines when they are open and withdrawn when they are

closed).

 

To make it short, this universe of experiences is full (poornam) on

its own. To know that it is, what is required is a simple shift of

focus. We don't have to pour it over a filter to remove "unreal"

residues and obtain the pure solution of "underlying reality".

 

If I am not considered self-indulgent, please also read my post #

14926.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

 

*This fullness is real Ananda resulting from the cessation of all

wants.

 

_

 

advaitin, "raghavakaluri" <raghavakaluri> wrote:

>

> >>'Experience' being unreal,

> >>and 'experiencer' being unreal,

> >>therefore,

> >>the underlying reality which is independant

> >>of 'experience' and 'experiencer' needs to be separated out.

>

> Am I missing something ?

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

Nairji, Thank you for giving me, at the relevant time, a

glimpse of the 'experience' of your clarity of perception.

>From your quote of the Bhadrakali stuti I am also reminded of

'unmeSha-nimiShotpanna-vipanna-bhuvanAvaLiH' and

'IkShaNa-sR^iShTANDa-kotiH'.

-----------------------------

 

Postscript: Pardon me, Nairji, since I know you would recognise

the source and the meanings of the two names of Mother that I

have quoted, I did not care to add their meanings. But there

may be lay readers on this list who should not be led into

thinking we two are converting this into a private mailing

system between individual members. So for them, here is a little

explanation.

The two names of Mother Goddess Lalita are, one from

Lalita-sahasranama and the other from Lalita-Trishati. The first

means:

'She whose eye-closure and eye-opening cause the dissolution and

creation, respectively, of the universe'.

The second means:

'She by whose very look, the crores of universe-multiplicities

are created'.

 

praNAms to all advaitins

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.

 

 

 

Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site

http://webhosting.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Thank you, Sir, for your kind words. I owe you immensely because it

was you who sent me the Lalita Trishati a few months back. I am

regularly chanting it in addition to Lalita SahasranAma and other

Devi stutis. If there is any "clarity" in what I say, it verily

belongs to Her.

 

May Mother Lalita bless us all.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________

 

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

> The two names of Mother Goddess Lalita are, one from

> Lalita-sahasranama and the other from Lalita-Trishati.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shree Nair Ji.

 

Thank you Sir, for the detailed reply. I have

gone thru both your posts.

It was indeed a very clear and thorough expression.

However, please permit me to express my doubts.

 

The 'unreal' is no doubt not seperate;

it is just a projection from the 'real'. Being so,

why is it incorrect to separate it out from the 'real' ?

Here, we are not talking about an actual seperation, but,

a fictional one so as to feel Consciousness.

 

Let me illustrate this from a Sloka:-

'Mano buddha ahmkara chittani... naa ham

na ...

chidaa-nanda-roopam sivoham.'

 

Here, in this sloka, the unreal is stated as though

seperated from Consciousness. Fine, the unreal merges

into Consciousness, but, while the 'unreal' dominates,

the need to tell the 'Real' from the 'Unreal' seems

to be a useful method.

Once the 'Real' is appreciated, then,

we can undo the separation again and see

the Consciousness supporting the Unreal also.

 

Kind Regards,

Raghava

[Guest guest]

Namaste Raghava-Ji.

 

You are asking a very tricky question which, indeed, calls for a

tricky answer. Let me make it really short.

 

Let us take the usual rope-snake analogy. Are you really separating

the snake in order to appreciate the reality of the rope? No. You

are just correcting an error and, once that is done, the rope remains

ever. Similarly, if you correct the error of perceived multiplicity

and sense of separation from the objects perceived (the entire

experienced universe)through advaitic vichAra, the Truth shines forth

and in Its brilliance multiplicity gives way to unity.

 

I don't think even a "fictional" separation is required here. And,

there is no "feeling" Consciousness. You, with all the perceived

universe, are THAT already. Then, where is the question of 'feeling'

it?

 

As I understand it, your sloka rightly says, I am not the mind, I am

not the intellect, I am not the ego. I am THAT FULLNESS (Ananda)

that SHINES on its own(CHIT), which all these shine after. By the

initial negation, what is avoided is a compartmentalization of

awareness and, by the later assertion, an acceptance of reality in

toto. Nothing indeed has been separated out or left out. There is

nothing to be removed. All is embraced and included in the LOVE for

the Self (priyam).

 

I just fed milk to a stray kitten outside my house. It is pretty

cold out there. I was so happy I sat by its side and wept. Tears of

joy, of course. Is the perceived kitten separate from me? Do I have

to remove it from me in order to appreciate the reality of me? The

kitten, the distant star that smiled on us, the dark cold night and

the biting wind - all these are indeed me. When such realization

dawns, the sigh automatically goes out: Maa!, because She is the

Absolute Truth that ever remains! Is there a better bliss then?

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

 

__________________

 

advaitin, "raghavakaluri" <raghavakaluri> wrote:

> The 'unreal' is no doubt not seperate;

> it is just a projection from the 'real'. Being so,

> why is it incorrect to separate it out from the 'real' ?

> Here, we are not talking about an actual seperation, but,

> a fictional one so as to feel Consciousness.

>

> Let me illustrate this from a Sloka:-

> 'Mano buddha ahmkara chittani... naa ham

> na ...

> chidaa-nanda-roopam sivoham.'

>

> Here, in this sloka, the unreal is stated as though

> seperated from Consciousness. Fine, the unreal merges

> into Consciousness, but, while the 'unreal' dominates,

> the need to tell the 'Real' from the 'Unreal' seems

> to be a useful method.

> Once the 'Real' is appreciated, then,

> we can undo the separation again and see

> the Consciousness supporting the Unreal also.

[Guest guest]

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

 

After reading the excellent post by Nairji in response to Shree

Raghavakaluri, I could not contain myself.

 

Here I go.

 

The analysis provide by Nairji is stated by Bhagavaan Ramana which I

quote quite often, -

 

drisyavaaritam chittam aatmanaaH

chitta darshanam tatva darshanam

>From Upadesha saara.

 

When I see an object out there (star or even a chair) I say there is a

chair out there. But actually the mechanics of perception is such that

the senses see the form and color which are attributes. The senses can

see only the attributes and not substantive. Since there cannot be

attributes without a locus, mind infers a locus and sees the locus -

here the mind splits as seer and seen - aham vritti and idam vritti - I

see the chair and there is the chair. but both vritti-s or thoughts

arise in the consciousness - one can think of as waves in the

consciousness. The contents of the waves are noting but consciousness

alone -this is true in both idam and aham vritti-s. Hence Ramana says,

if you remove the superficial forms of the seen - drishyebhyaH vaaritam

manaH - that is if one look through the waves (one does not have to

remove the wave but develop a knack of seeing in and through the waves)

what is seen in both seer-seen is only the supporting both these - the

consciousness alone. They rise in consciousness and sustained by

consciousness and go back into consciousness. Hence it is nothing but

consciousness. Vision of that Bagavaan says is the vision of the

reality. I am that consciousness. Every object out there is thought in

the mind and thought in the mind is nothing but consciousness that makes

one aware of the thought and thus the object out there. Real or unreal

as Nairji pointed out is just in terms of permanency.

 

I wanted to follow up the slokas on the panchadasi, that I left after

discussing the vikalpa and nirvikalpa - since this is relevant here I

have to say something.

 

Shree Vidyaranya points out after answering the puurvapakshi, that the

truth is beyond both vikalpa and vikalpa abhaava. What is pointed out is

non-duality is not opposite to duality. Let us take golden ring for

example. Ring cannot exits with out the presence of gold. Gold is there

therefore ring is there. If I remove gold there cannot be a ring there.

On the other hand look at from rings point. Ring is there gold is

there. That is vikalpa is there, nirvikalpa is there. Now remove ring,

can gold be there. Remove the ring by say melting the ring! There is no

more ring but gold is still there. Hence vikalpa abhaava, still

nirvikalpa is still there. Nirvikalpa is not opposite to vikalpa or

non-duality is not opposite to duality or absence of duality. Go back to

thoughts - thoughts are there I am there, thoughts are not there I am

there. I am independent of presence of thoughts (vikalpa) or absence of

thoughts( vikalpa abhaava). Hence Non-duality is not opposite of

duality. Non-duality is in spite of duality. All duality are finites -

the infinite includes all finites - it cannot exclude finites - if it

does it is no more infinite. Apply to meditation, I don’t have to

eliminate thoughts, since I am there when the thoughts are there and I

am there when the thoughts are not there. I am there all the time.

Process of meditation is not elimination of thoughts but seeing in

through the thoughts the contents of the thoughts. This may be easire

if one has the same thoughts as in japa or thoghts of divinity as in

lalita naamaavali. Now we read Bhagavaan Ramana's sloka it becomes

crystal clear what the implication is.

 

Whether mother closes or opens, she is there all the time. Things that

come and go are all apparent for her to see since they appear and

disappear. I am that mother becomes knowledge. I can close or open my

eyes and I don’t disappear when things appear and go. That is the

meditation.

 

Thanks Nairji.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site

http://webhosting.

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

'Non-duality is IN SPITE OF duality'

 

Oh, what a cryptic sUtra-like way of putting the entire

advaita!, Sadanandaji, It deserves to be the logos for any group

which professes advaita.

 

I wonder if there is a Sanskrit quote which says exactly this

and no more! I think it is an inspired sentence from

Sadanandaji.

 

praNAms to all advaitins

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.

 

 

 

Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site

http://webhosting.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Yes, inspired indeed!

 

How about : [Ashtavakra Gita 5:3]

 

pratyakShamapyavastutvAdvishvaM nAstyamale tvayi |

 

( pratyakSham api avastutvAt vishvaM na asti amale tvayi | )

 

In spite of being in front of your eyes, all this, being

insubstantial, does not exist in you, spotless as you are.

 

http://www.realization.org/page/doc0/doc0004.htm

[tr. by John Richards]

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

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

> Namaste

>

> 'Non-duality is IN SPITE OF duality'

>

> Oh, what a cryptic sUtra-like way of putting the entire

> advaita!, Sadanandaji, It deserves to be the logos for any group

> which professes advaita.

>

> I wonder if there is a Sanskrit quote which says exactly this

> and no more! I think it is an inspired sentence from

> Sadanandaji.

[Guest guest]

My dear noble devotee of Sri Sankara

Bhagavatpujyapada,

 

How sweet to read this in the morning:

 

Maa!, because She is the

Absolute Truth that ever remains! Is there a better

bliss then?

 

 

Yours in Sri Sankara Bhagavatpujyapada,

 

Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

wrote:

<HR>

<html><body>

 

 

<tt>

Namaste Raghava-Ji.<BR>

<BR>

You are asking a very tricky question which, indeed,

calls for a <BR>

tricky answer.  Let me make it really short.<BR>

<BR>

Let us take the usual rope-snake analogy.  Are

you really separating <BR>

the snake in order to appreciate the reality of the

rope?  No.  You <BR>

 

 

______________________

Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, TV.

visit http://in.tv.

[Guest guest]

My dear noble devotee of Sri Sankara

Bhagavatpujyapada,

 

Thank you very much for your lucid and pointed

explanation of the relationship between the universe

and God. Is it not the same as sahaja nirvikalpa

samadhi as outlined by Sri Ramana Maharshi?

 

May I request you to kindly throw more light on the

mechanics of how gold becomes the ring; consciousness

becomes the thought.

 

You have explained the gold - ring phenomenon

so clearly that it is refreshing one's understanding

more sharply.

 

 

Thank you very much.

 

Yours in Sri Sankara Bhagavatpujyapada,

 

Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar

--- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote: >

> --- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

> wrote:

>

> After reading the excellent post by Nairji in

> response to Shree

> Raghavakaluri, I could not contain myself.

>

> Here I go.

>

> The analysis provide by Nairji is stated by

> Bhagavaan Ramana which I

> quote quite often, -

>

> drisyavaaritam chittam aatmanaaH

> chitta darshanam tatva darshanam

> From Upadesha saara.

>

> When I see an object out there (star or even a

> chair) I say there is a

> chair out there. But actually the mechanics of

> perception is such that

> the senses see the form and color which are

> attributes. The senses can

> see only the attributes and not substantive. Since

> there cannot be

> attributes without a locus, mind infers a locus and

> sees the locus -

> here the mind splits as seer and seen - aham vritti

> and idam vritti - I

> see the chair and there is the chair. but both

> vritti-s or thoughts

> arise in the consciousness - one can think of as

> waves in the

> consciousness. The contents of the waves are noting

> but consciousness

> alone -this is true in both idam and aham vritti-s.

> Hence Ramana says,

> if you remove the superficial forms of the seen -

> drishyebhyaH vaaritam

> manaH - that is if one look through the waves (one

> does not have to

> remove the wave but develop a knack of seeing in and

> through the waves)

> what is seen in both seer-seen is only the

> supporting both these - the

> consciousness alone. They rise in consciousness and

> sustained by

> consciousness and go back into consciousness. Hence

> it is nothing but

> consciousness. Vision of that Bagavaan says is the

> vision of the

> reality. I am that consciousness. Every object out

> there is thought in

> the mind and thought in the mind is nothing but

> consciousness that makes

> one aware of the thought and thus the object out

> there. Real or unreal

> as Nairji pointed out is just in terms of

> permanency.

>

> I wanted to follow up the slokas on the panchadasi,

> that I left after

> discussing the vikalpa and nirvikalpa - since this

> is relevant here I

> have to say something.

>

> Shree Vidyaranya points out after answering the

> puurvapakshi, that the

> truth is beyond both vikalpa and vikalpa abhaava.

> What is pointed out is

> non-duality is not opposite to duality. Let us take

> golden ring for

> example. Ring cannot exits with out the presence of

> gold. Gold is there

> therefore ring is there. If I remove gold there

> cannot be a ring there.

> On the other hand look at from rings point. Ring is

> there gold is

> there. That is vikalpa is there, nirvikalpa is

> there. Now remove ring,

> can gold be there. Remove the ring by say melting

> the ring! There is no

> more ring but gold is still there. Hence vikalpa

> abhaava, still

> nirvikalpa is still there. Nirvikalpa is not

> opposite to vikalpa or

> non-duality is not opposite to duality or absence of

> duality. Go back to

> thoughts - thoughts are there I am there, thoughts

> are not there I am

> there. I am independent of presence of thoughts

> (vikalpa) or absence of

> thoughts( vikalpa abhaava). Hence Non-duality is not

> opposite of

> duality. Non-duality is in spite of duality. All

> duality are finites -

> the infinite includes all finites - it cannot

> exclude finites - if it

> does it is no more infinite. Apply to meditation, I

> don’t have to

> eliminate thoughts, since I am there when the

> thoughts are there and I

> am there when the thoughts are not there. I am

> there all the time.

> Process of meditation is not elimination of thoughts

> but seeing in

> through the thoughts the contents of the thoughts.

> This may be easire

> if one has the same thoughts as in japa or thoghts

> of divinity as in

> lalita naamaavali. Now we read Bhagavaan Ramana's

> sloka it becomes

> crystal clear what the implication is.

>

> Whether mother closes or opens, she is there all the

> time. Things that

> come and go are all apparent for her to see since

> they appear and

> disappear. I am that mother becomes knowledge. I can

> close or open my

> eyes and I don’t disappear when things appear and

> go. That is the

> meditation.

>

> Thanks Nairji.

>

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

>

> =====

> What you have is His gift to you and what you do

> with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami

> Chinmayananda.

>

>

>

> Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site

> http://webhosting.

>

> 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

>

>

>

 

______________________

Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, TV.

visit http://in.tv.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Immense thanks, Sada-Ji, for your kind words (Post # 15255).

 

As you and Sunderji (Post # 15257) rightly pointed out, we can't be

adding to advaitic knowledge. Nothing can be added to it or taken

away from it. It is already full! All that you and I said are there

in the books in one form or the other.

 

Yet, people keep asking questions and expressing doubts. I am sure

most of them have read the books concerned and listened to teachers.

Why then do doubts arise? Going through Advaitin archives, I am

surprised to see that the same kind of questions, which had already

been answered before, pop up again and again periodically. I think

this will keep happening unless we act on the following:

 

(a) All of us advaitins should endeavour to assimilate a basic,

intellectual, advaitic vision with the unfailing simple logic that

goes with it. This vision should be our goldsmith's touchstone to be

always carried in the pocket. Whenever there is doubt, the issue that

generates the doubt should be rubbed on the vision to judge its

validity.

 

(b) In the meanwhile, continuous vichAra on the vision and related

advaitic statements should continue unabated. Thus, what we have

read and heard, which are the infallible conclusions arrived at by

our saints and sages through their vichAra, become our own knowledge

through our own vichAra, so that the knowledge that we are not apart

from the perceived grows on us and consumes our individual identities

and sense of isolation in toto.

 

This Group ought to think seriously about what could possibly be done

regarding (a) above.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shree Nair-Ji, Shree Sada-Ji.

 

Thanks for the detailed explanations. I am indeed grateful.

 

Shree Nair states,

>As I understand it, your sloka rightly says, I am not the mind,...

>...what is avoided is a compartmentalization of awareness

 

The meaning of the Sloka in layman's terms, when taken

without complex understanding, does indeed ask for

negation of the unreal to see the real. In my humble opinion.

By 'see', we know now that is is not like seer-seen,

but 'see' or 'feel' for lack of a better word.

Had the composer intended to state about

'compartmentalization', probably something like the

following would have been in place:-

 

'Manasseva buddhaiva ahamkarameva chittaiva... naa ham

na ...

chidaa-nanda-roopam sivoham.'

Meaning:-

Not Manas-alone, not buddhi-alone ..am I....

I am chidaa-nanda-roopam.

> Let us take the usual rope-snake analogy.

>Are you really separating

> the snake in order to appreciate the reality of the rope? No.

 

While there is the knowldege of snake alone, yes !

such a method of separation would possibly work.

How can one directly see the

rope while a snake is apparent ? Shift of focus

is alright, but there has to be effort in place

to negate the unreal from a practical point of view.

 

However, in all these transactions, it is understood and

agreed that the unreal also is projected from the Real.

There is no dispute in this.

Regards,

Raghava

[Guest guest]

Dear Raghavaji,

 

You are admirably indefatigable.

 

I will try one last example before closing shop. I am beginning to

feel that we are talking at cross-purposes. The example is Sada-

Ji's "Soyam Devadatta - He is that Devadatta").

 

I have seen this Devadatta chap for long. I even have a dislike for

the way he looks and conducts himself.

 

One fine morning, a friend formally introduces me to the guy and

tells me: "See, this is that Devadatta, the famous novelist."

 

My impression changes inexorably. I had read and loved his famous

work for which he won the Booker prize. He is a real genius! How

sad, I didn't know his real identity! The old Devadatta simply

vanishes to give place to the famous novelist. It is something like

an image-metamorphosis where the old simply transforms into something

new.

 

Is there any separation here?

 

By the way, I only meant that there is no "separation of anything" in

the process of enlightenment. I didn't mean that one doesn't have to

put in efforts. You seem to have read me that way.

 

And, in your shloka, we are not asked to "separate" our bodies, minds

or intellects. We are only asked to undo our false identity with

them even as they remain where they are and what they are for. I

used the word "compartmentalization" from the point of view of the BG

verse which states that "I am not in the objects." so that my

interpretatoin is in line with my previous post # 14926 which you

said you had already read.

 

I have nothing more to say on this topic.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Prof. VK while my humble pranaams for your kind words, but I really do

not deserve them. If I rember correctly these come from the definition

of what is real and what is false - from the text of Shree Madhusuudana

saraswati's Advaita siddhi. There are five definitions of falsity that

were discussed in the text. In answering to puurvapakhsa he ascertains

that sat is not opposite to asat and mithya is sat asat vilakshaNam

Some aspects of this text have been discussed by Shree Anand Hudli in

Advaita-L. After he went back to India, he must have been too busy to

continue the series. This is one text I want to study when I go to India

under a good teacher who can explain it since there is lot of arugments

based on navya nyaaya. This is one of those ' I have to do-lists'.

 

Hari OM

Sadananda

 

 

--- "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote:

> Namaste

>

> 'Non-duality is IN SPITE OF duality'

>

> Oh, what a cryptic sUtra-like way of putting the entire

> advaita!, Sadanandaji, It deserves to be the logos for any group

> which professes advaita.

>

> I wonder if there is a Sanskrit quote which says exactly this

> and no more! I think it is an inspired sentence from

> Sadanandaji.

>

> praNAms to all advaitins

> 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.

>

>

>

> Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site

> http://webhosting.

>

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site

http://webhosting.

[Guest guest]

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

>

> Yet, people keep asking questions and expressing doubts. I am sure

> most of them have read the books concerned and listened to teachers.

> Why then do doubts arise? Going through Advaitin archives, I am

> surprised to see that the same kind of questions, which had already

> been answered before, pop up again and again periodically. I think

> this will keep happening unless we act on the following:

 

> This Group ought to think seriously about what could possibly be done

> regarding (a) above.

>

> Pranams.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Nairji I appreciate your enthusiasm. You remember Krishna's statement

manushyaanam sahasreshu .. . The questions have been asked and the same

questions will be keep coming - same questions but from different

people. This is part of the nature too as one evolves - and the part of

growing up. This is what is involved as part of age-old sadhana -

shravana, manana and nidhidhyaasana. There are no short cuts in this.

When a knowledge that is appears to be contradictory to conventional

wisdom, questions are bound to come. By repeated shravaNa and manana

one has to confirm to ones own satisfaction without any trace of doubt

what is declared in the scriptures is indeed true. Doubts will always

be there until shravana and mananam have taken roots. When I first got

exposed to Vedanta, I too have lot of doubts and used to trouble my

teachers as much as I could afford. Raising the doubts is part of

thinking process. I am sure they must have heard those questions many

time before. Yet they answered very patiently since quetions may be

old, the questioner is new.

 

It is not easy to ask the right questions. I find in Science much more

of a problem - people do not ask the right questions. It requires lot

of intelligence and thinking even to ask the right questions. Half the

problems are solved if the questions are right. When the question is

right, the seeker will find the answer one way or the other.

 

Since I know what I have gone through in the learning process and I also

how much my own teachers have to answer patiently, now it becomes my

achaarya RiNa to share my knowledge with those who are seeking. This is

again an established tradition too. It is my sadhana too. Since in the

process my mind is thinking of the nature of reality rather than mundane

stuff where mind can get lost. To see that non-duality in all duality

requires a knack of seeing - as the witnessing agent as you mentioned

and that is the sadhana too. By constant shravana and manana one has to

do nidhidhyaasana where one can see non-duality in spite of duality.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site

http://webhosting.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada>

wrote:

>> Since I know what I have gone through in the learning process and

I also

> how much my own teachers have to answer patiently, now it becomes my

> achaarya RiNa to share my knowledge with those who are seeking.

This is

> again an established tradition too.

 

Namaste,

 

Well said, Sadaji!

 

Taittiriya Upan. [1:11:1] has a pointed reminder:

 

svAdhyAya-pravachanAbhyAM na pramaditavyam.h |

 

Let there be no neglect of study and teaching!

 

This has to balanced with what Gita says in 4:40-42 -

 

aGYashchaashraddadhaanashcha sa.nshayaatmaa vinashyati .

naayaM loko.asti na paro na sukhaM sa.nshayaatmanaH .. 4\.40..

 

yogasa.nnyastakarmaaNaM GYaanasa.nchhinnasa.nshayam.h .

aatmavantaM na karmaaNi nibadhnanti dhana.njaya .. 4\.41..

 

tasmaadaGYaanasaMbhuutaM hR^itstha.n GYaanaasinaatmanaH .

chhittvainaM sa.nshayaM yogamaatishhThottishhTha bhaarata .. 4\.42..

 

 

Even Arjuna kept on requesting repetitions of the explanations

because he just enjoyed listening to them, even after having

understood them!

 

Arjuna

vistareNaatmano yogaM vibhuuti.n cha janaardana .

bhuuyaH kathaya tR^iptirhi shR^iNvato naasti me.amR^itam.h ..10.18..

 

Krishna

sarvaguhyatamaM bhuuyaH shR^iNu me paramaM vachaH .

ishhTo.asi me dR^iDhamiti tato vakshyaami te hitam.h .. 18\.64..

 

Sanjaya

tachcha sa.nsmR^itya sa.nsmR^itya ruupamatyadbhutaM hareH .

vismayo me mahaanraajanhR^ishhyaami cha punaH punaH .. 18\.77..

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji:

 

For explaining analytical geometry, almost all mathematicians label

the orizontal axis as X and the vertical axis as Y. In one class the

student asked a student to solve a problem on the board and student

changed the normal tradition and label the vertical axis as X and the

horizontal as Y. At the same time, the student correctly solved the

question asked, but none of the student could figure out. Then the

teacher intervened and explained the solution using the normal

convention of labeling the axes and everything became clear

momentarily. The above stated problem exists in almost all situations

and each of us try to formulate our ideas using our own frameworks

and definitions. After reading the original post of Raghavaji and his

replies, I am of the impression that Sri Raghavaji has no

disagreement with the explanations provided by you, ProfVK and

Sadaji. But at the same time, he truly believes that his

interpretation doesn't contradict the excellent points made by you,

ProfVK and Sadaji. This may explain why he repeats his position

without spelling out the details of the framework and terminology.

 

Raghavaji's point of view may restated as follows: The ultimate

reality is the Witness, the illusionary reality is the dreamer and

the worldy experience is the dream. It is often said that we are just

the Witness and the witness is completely detached (separate)from the

dreamer and the dream. While indulging in worldly activities, we play

different roles - father, son, teacher, worker etc and our roles

constantly change. However, the true "I" is detached from the roles

and the consequences of those roles. This framework of understanding

is stress the importance of detachment and Raghavaji seems to imply

the same.

 

The intellectual understanding of 'non-duality' may become easier

using a framework that we are comfortable. But at the same time we

need to be aware that the intellectual understanding is an ever

changing entity and consequently is not sufficient for realizing

the 'ultimate reality.'

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair>

wrote:

> Dear Raghavaji,

>

> You are admirably indefatigable.

>

> I will try one last example before closing shop. I am beginning to

> feel that we are talking at cross-purposes.

[Guest guest]

-

V. Krishnamurthy

advaitinlist

Monday, November 18, 2002 6:39 PM

Re:Relevance of Experience and Glimpses of the Real

 

 

Namaste

 

'Non-duality is IN SPITE OF duality'

 

 

 

Namaste: Is it right to say that the path of true understanding of Advaita

lies through Dvaita? Please comment.

Shanti

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...> wrote:

> Namaste Nairji:

> After reading the original post of Raghavaji and his

> replies, I am of the impression that Sri Raghavaji has no

> disagreement with the explanations provided by you, ProfVK and

> Sadaji. But at the same time, he truly believes that his

> interpretation doesn't contradict the excellent points made by

you,

> ProfVK and Sadaji. This may explain why he repeats his position

> without spelling out the details of the framework and terminology.

>

 

Thanks Sri Ram-Ji. Your inference is quite correct. I was also not

aware that we do not have a common framework. 'Detachment'

and 'Subsequent unification', I thought was universal. I will spend

some time now to understand popular and other frameworks.

> Raghavaji's point of view may restated as follows: The ultimate

> reality is the Witness, the illusionary reality is the dreamer and

> the worldy experience is the dream. It is often said that we are

just

> the Witness and the witness is completely detached (separate)from

the

> dreamer and the dream. While indulging in worldly activities, we

play

> different roles - father, son, teacher, worker etc and our roles

> constantly change. However, the true "I" is detached from the

roles

> and the consequences of those roles. This framework of

understanding

> is stress the importance of detachment and Raghavaji seems to

imply

> the same.

 

Quite correct. Just to state a complete framework, we also have

an 'integration' as the'Truth' starts to get clearer than before.

By 'Integration' we mean 'braharpanam brahma vihi ...'

Also, 'detachment' must not be a painful thing 'giving up'. Rather,

it must be pleasure so as to ramp up to the next step of Integration.

 

Thanks again to all.

Regards,

Raghava

[Guest guest]

Namaste Raghavaji:

 

 

The framework of "Detachment" is indeed quite common and often stated

in Bhagavad Gita. But some confusion was created when you used the

term "separated," in stead of 'Detached.' Though the dictionary

meaning of 'detach" is eqivalent to 'separate,' but in Vedantic

discussions they imply a different meaning. Unfortunately, the

Vedantins are equivally inflexible when ideas are presented by words

using words that do not confirm to 'the vedantic jargons.'

 

This is part of the reasons behind we are more comfortable using the

familiar Sanskrit words instead of English. In many situations, no

English word can fully convey the intended meaning behind the

original Sanskrit word. Recently somebody commented that the list

should focus more on the subject matter rather than focusing on the

Sanskrit grammar. But in many instances, grammar is quite essential

for clearer understanding of the subject matter.

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "raghavakaluri" <raghavakaluri> wrote:

> Namaste.

> I was also not

> aware that we do not have a common framework. 'Detachment'

> and 'Subsequent unification', I thought was universal. I will spend

> some time now to understand popular and other frameworks.

>