Relevance of Experience and Glimpses of the Real

[Guest guest]

Hello All,

A little postscript on the issue of what it is we are directly aware of when

we are

 

aware of a chair for instance. According to the analysis of Sadanandaji we

are aware

 

of the form and colour and other attributes which inhere in a substantive

chair. This

 

substantive chair is not something that we can sense directly only its

attributes are

 

sensible by us. Thus the existence of the chair as a substantive thing is

an

 

inference from our perceptions. An inference is distinguished from a

perception as

 

being a logical movement of the mind. (It has no perceptual content though

it may be

 

sparked off by a perception <pun intended see Vedanta Paribhasa pg.26

Advaita Asharam

 

Swami Madhavananda trans.>) Thus it seems that perceptions are

consciousness, arising

 

as they do from the impingment of an unknowable substantive on this

sensitive

 

apparatus and inference being a mental capacity is also consciousness. In

considering

 

itself this consciousness becomes the seer and the seen. There is nothing

but

 

consciousness .

 

I have put into my own words the thoughts of Sadanandaji on this important

topic

 

rather than paste them so it can be objected, if that turns out to be the

case, that I

 

have not understood them. I would compare this view to that of Sankara in

B.S.B.

 

II.ii.28. in which he draws the distinction between cognizing a perception

to be a

 

chair and cognizing a chair. One perceives a chair one does not infer it.

"Not that

 

anybody cognizes a perceptiom to be pillar, a wall, etc. rather all people

cognize a

 

pillar, a wall etc. as objects of perception." This is a frankly realist

position as

 

Dr.Dasgupta remarks in his introduction to Vedanta Paribhasa. It is realism

but not

 

naive realism perhaps it could be called critical realism as he immediately

fields the

 

first 'what about' question put by objectors. What about

 

illusion?(confusion/delusion). Therefore he begins with the adhyasa theory.

 

However to stay with the theme of the immediate given in experience and the

supposed

 

unknowability of the substantive chair Sankara has much to say in the same

section of

 

which the core is ".. because the very likeness of an object is not possible

unless

 

the object itself be there, and also because the object is cognized

outside". Outside

 

here means 'in front', in external physical reality and not just an

inference in your

 

mind.

 

Nairji's chair so to speak is a different beast. Pure Consciousness has

taken that

 

form, is knowing itself as that form by virtue of its self-luminous nature.

Vedanta

 

Paribhasa tries to come at this by means of different analogies in its

discussion of

 

perception (1st.chap)

 

"To be explicit: Consciousness is threefold - as associated with the

object(visaya),

 

with the means of knowledge(pramana) and with the subject or

knower(pramatr). Of

 

these Consciousness limited by a jar etc. is the Consciousness associated

with the

 

object; that limited by the mental state is the Consciousness associated

with the

 

means of knowledge; and that limited by the mind is the Consciousness

associated with

 

the subject.

Now, as the water of a tank, issuing through a hole, enters in the form of

a

 

channel a number of fields, and just like them assumes rectangular or any

other shape,

 

so also the luminous mind, issuing through the eye etc., goes to the space

occupied by

 

objects such as a jar, and is modified into the form of a jar or any other

object.

 

That very modification is called a state(vritti). But in the case of

inference etc.

 

the mind does *not* go to the space occupied by fire <<as in the fire on the

hill

 

indicated by smoke>> for the latter are not in contact with the eye etc.

"(pg.14/15)

 

"The perceptuality of objects such as a jar, however, consists in their not

being

 

different from the (Consciousness associated with the) subject." Pg.25

 

This deserves long and careful meditation on it in order not to be decieved

into a

 

sort of Idealism.

 

The Objector takes on a Realist stance in order to oppose this view. " How

can a jar

 

etc. be one with the Consciousness limited by the mind, since it contradicts

our

 

experience of difference, as when we say, "I see this"?

 

Reply: The answer is this. The absence of difference from the subject does

not indeed

 

mean identity ; it means having no existence apart from that of the

subject."(pg.25)

 

We may ask how a realist stance is maintained in the face of such an

admission. The

 

answer must be that a purely idealist stance would not preserve such things

as

 

concepts and this, that, but (logical modifiers) whiteness, cowhood, as

Sankara

 

demonstrates in B.S.B. II.ii.28. A distinction is preserved between what is

in the

 

mind and what is an object 'in front'. "But in cases of inference etc.,

since the

 

mind does not go out to the space covered by the fire etc., the

Consciousness limited

 

by the fire is not one with the Consciousness associated with the subject,

and

 

therefore the existence of the fire etc. is distinct from that of the

subject. "

 

How does this Pure Consciousness come to be local and individualised by the

 

subject/jiva? A good question but it is going in the wrong direction, for

the

 

existence of Pure Consciousness as the reality of the Self of the Jiva has

first to be

 

established. This is where this thread began with Raghva applying himself

to the

 

discrimination between the real and the unreal. Madathil fielded that one

admirably.

 

If Maya/Avidya cannot be said to begin, the triple division of Knower,

Knowing and the

 

Known which instantiates it cannot be said to begin either. The discovery

of the

 

totality of consciousness classically occurs due to atma vichara/self

enquiry and not

 

through an epistemological analysis of the nature of our knowledge of the

object of

 

awareness. "The self-existent Lord destroyed the outgoing senses.

Therefore one sees

 

the outer things and not the inner Self. A rare discriminating man,

desiring

 

immortality, turns his eyes away and then sees the indwelling Self."

Ka.Up.II.i.1.

 

ciao and blessings, Michael.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Thanks Michael for your thoughts (Post # 15273)

 

You are quite right in your following conclusion:

 

"The discovery of the totality of Consciousness classically occurs

due to Atma vichAra/self enquiry and not through an epistemological

analysis of the nature of our knowledge of the objects of awareness."

 

It is always good to avoid getting entangled in epistemology once it

has helped in the initial stages of equipping us with an

intellectual, advaitic conviction that everything is just

Consciousness.

 

These are personal thoughts. I may be wrong. So, please step in to

correct me if there are discordant notes in my arguments.

 

Take the example: "I see a jar.". I would not see it as

Consciousness taking the shape of a jar or Consciousness being

limited by the shape of a jar because that pre-requires the existence

of a thing called jar outside Consciousnsss or before Consciousness

flows in. I would rather that the jar is verily Consciousness. Then

the question where does the shape come from will naturally arise. My

answer would be that shape is an altogether different issue – shape

is shape-consciousness. Each attribute is an attribute-

consciousness. When shape-consciousness or another attribute

consciousness reigns, jar consciousness is not. These shift so fast

that we are deluded into believing that it is all together in one

single unit of consciousness. Thus, the thing we call jar-

consciousness is not one single `entity' so to say. It is made up of

infinite number of "basic components" each one of which is

infinitesimal in nature. Nevertheless, the important point is that

there isn't an iota of time when Consciousness is not.

 

All this boils down to the truth that the world of attributes is a

sort of spectrum between infinity and infinitesimality (my coinage) –

a field for mathematics. The two ends are blanks and they again are

available for us to objectify. I am afraid we are going to BG

again – the vyakta being between avyaktAs!

 

Once we are through epistemological logic, therefore, I would

recommend that we do away with (override is a better word) even our

means of knowledge like sense organs, mind, intellect, etc. because

they are also consciousness (objects) when they take centre-stage.

If advaita teaches that I am Consciousness and I am convinced of it,

then why do I need to feel constricted by these means and their

demands for recognition. I just become my objects be they internal -

like memories (Please remember these memories are in the now; there

is no past, the sense of past or future is yet "another

consciousness" in the now.), concepts, ideas, thoughts, or even

inferences; or external - like a jar, car, other persons etc. This

applies to mental space and external space as well. Because I am

Consciousness, I can even do away with terms like internal and

external as well. They are no more valid because I have freed myself

from my sense of introversion and extroversion. I am just free

Consciousness. Whether I perceive or not, I remain always.

 

It is then, Michael, that we appreciate your conclusion quoted above.

Certainly, epistemology does not help us reach there. At best, it

can give us the initial push.

 

My wife is worried I may get lost in my "freedom from introversion

and extroversion" because then I am operating without proper maps,

milestones or frames of reference. She may be right from her point

of view. But, that is not advaita which has made her an object in my

awareness and also already assured me: "Surrender unto Me leaving

everything, I will take care of you". If I am totally convinced of

this assurance, then hell with the maps, frames of reference, sense

of internal/external and other means. The brilliance is simply not

chartable! Just gape, be the gape and be the brilliance gaped at!

 

Had to hammer this in a hurry during office time. Please bear with

the sloppiness.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

--- Shanti <shanti wrote:

>

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

> Advaita lies through Dvaita? Please comment.

> Shanti

>

 

Shantiji

 

Namaskaar

 

Any path is in the realm of dviata. There is a seeker and there is

sought. As J. Krishnamuurthy makes a statement "truth is a pathless

land". But that is true from the refrence of a truth or from the point

of j~nani. we in the realm of ignorance are still looking for a path.

Even when the teacher points out that what you searching for you are

searching with, we are not ready to accept it on its merit. The major

problem is our habitual thinking that the truth is out there, since mind

can only think objectively. We need to retrain the mind to trun inward

- not to conceptulize but to see the in and through the concepts. For

that certain degree of detachment with the thoughts is required. For

that there is a path. 'yoginaH karma kurvanti sagham tyaktvaa aatma

sudhhaye' says Krishna - Karma yoga is practiced by yogies with

detachment for the results in order to purify their minds. karma, bhati

and j~naana are three paths for the purification of the mind. Paths

obviously depend on where one is but the goal is adviata which is

understanding. Understanding is not 'purushatantra' or depeds on the

will of the seeker. All he can do is purify the mind and inquire

within. The knowledge has to come by itself when the mind is ready.

This is said Krishna - daviim easha guNamayi mama maaaya duratyayaa,

maamevaye prapadyante maayam etaam tarantite - this maaya of mine is of

divine origin. Only surrendering oneself to me one can cross this mayaa

of mine - implication is one can realization is not in our hands - what

we can do is just surrender. That is the best path. Understanding

takes place automatically when the mind is ready.

In essence there no path for adviata since path itself creates dviata.

But there are paths for purification of the mind.

 

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]

Respected Sadanandji: Thank you. You have given a convincing explanation to my

question. I now understand that there is no 'path' to advaita. There is a path

to purify the mind and once that is achieved, advaita realization springs from

within. Perhaps I am not using the right words; but this is what I understood

from you.

Thank you

Shanti

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Shanti" <shanti@f...> wrote:

>

> Respected Sadanandji: Thank you. You have given a convincing

explanation to my question. I now understand that there is no 'path'

to advaita. There is a path to purify the mind and once that is

achieved, advaita realization springs from within. Perhaps I am not

using the right words; but this is what I understood from you.

 

Namaste.

 

To add more as to why there is no path as told by Shree SadaJi,

please refer to current GitaSatsangh that is just handy.

Message 15258 by Prof.V.K.Ji.

Here some of it is cut-pasted:-

"I am the Vedic ritual, I am the sacrifice, I am the offering to

the departed, I am the herbage; I am the sacred formula, I am

the clarified butter, I am the sacred fire, I am verily the act

of offering oblations into the fire."

"I am the sustainer and the ruler of this universe, its father,

mother and grandfather, the Knowable, the purifier, the sacred

syllable Om, and the three Vedas- Rk, Yajus and Sama."

"I am the supreme goal, supporter, lord, witness, abode, refuge,

friend, origin and end, the resting-place, the store-house and

the imperishable seed."

"Arjuna, I radiate heat as the sun, and hold back as well as

send forth showers. I am immortality as well as death; I am

being and non-being both."

 

What else is left ? Nothing.

In other words, while the Consciousness is everywhere, how can there

possibly be a path ? path to where ? It is all there already.

 

 

Kind Regards,

Raghava

[Guest guest]

--- Shanti <shanti wrote:

>

> Respected Sadanandji: Thank you. You have given a convincing

> explanation to my question. I now understand that there is no 'path'

> to advaita. There is a path to purify the mind and once that is

> achieved, advaita realization springs from within. Perhaps I am not

> using the right words; but this is what I understood from you.

> Thank you

> Shanti

 

 

Shantiji you got the grips of the problems - it took many years for me

realize that truth - lot of agony, particularly with JK books.

 

Bhagavaan Ramana says what you mentioned beautifully. Your words are

echoed by Bhagavaan.

 

ahami naashabaagyahamaham taya|

spurati hRit swayam parama puurna sat||

 

When the false 'i' falls since it is false, spontaneously the 'aham'

aham spurati - I AM - I AM - that understanding occurs in the very heart

meaning the very core of ones personality - and this aham is differnt

from previous aham since it paramam - supreme - since there is nothing

beyond to know or to gain or to become - supreme in terms of desha kaala

vastu - and it is puurNam - it is complete - there is no more inadequacy

to demand I want this or I want that etc and it is of the nature of Sat

swaruupam.

 

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 Shanti-ji

>>

There is a path to purify the mind and once that is achieved, advaita

realization springs from within. Perhaps I am not using the right

words;

>>

 

Since I am travelling on business I haven't been following the

discussions very much but your posting caught my eye.

 

You have hit the nail on the head. Sri Sankara says precisely this in

Vivekachudamani:

 

Therefore purification of the mind should be undertaken with strong

effort by him who seeks liberation; when the mind has been purified,

liberation comes like fruit into his hand (verse 181).

 

The late Acharya of Sringeri mentions in one of the speeches that

every aspirant should strive for Chitta Ekagratha (one-pointedness of

mind). Ekagratha is the result of purification of the mind brought

about by Karma Yoga and other Sadhanas.

 

regards

Sundar Rajan