Beethoven and Advaita

April 14, 2003

Dear Benjamin-jI,

>What you say is intriguing, but could you please elaborate a bit

>more? For example, do you really think that a present day Shankara

>would be inclined to listen to passionate music, or, heaven forbid,

>watch cricket or American football? (And let's not even mention

>Bollywood and Hollywood!)

Of course not. We should not even bring the names of our Acharyas

into such discussions.

In adhyAsa-theory, once knoweledge dawns, this world will

vanish along with it goes the 'I' and 'non-I' dichotomy. The

world of 'I' and 'non-I' is the object of avidyA.

But what I am trying to say is that correct knowledge does

not destroy the object of incorrect-knowledge. The object

stays the same, but the correct knowledge corrects the

incorrect knowledge. For example, the incorrect flat-earth

theory got corrected by the round-earth theory, but it

did not destroy the earth !!.

-

Benjamin Root

advaitin

Monday, April 14, 2003 3:53 PM

Re: Beethoven and Advaita

Namaste Sri Jay Nelamangala:

You said:

>Every 'mundane' experience that we have (such as

>tooth-ache or enjoying beethoven music) if they are 'real',

>then they will continue to be real irrespective of the so

>called 'enlightenment'. The dawn of knowledge has never

>destroyed anything (except correcting itself) for anyone.

>

>But those of us who declare every 'mundane' experience that

>we have is "unreal", "superimposed" etc and make theories

>about why it is "unreal", are the same people who run to a

>dentist.

What you say is intriguing, but could you please elaborate a bit

more? For example, do you really think that a present day Shankara

would be inclined to listen to passionate music, or, heaven forbid,

watch cricket or American football? (And let's not even mention

Bollywood and Hollywood!)

Doesn't it seem that true saints tend to prefer meditative peace and

quiet? Think of Ramana ... an interesting case, considering he was a

boxer in his youth. He did not remain a boxer...

Pranams

Benjamin

Sponsor

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

April 15, 2003

Dear Jay, You wrote :In Advaita, Brahman is chaitanya. So it can't be pen and

paper which

is 'jada'. All the vEdAntins agree that Brahman is not jada.

Shruti presents Brahman as "nityO nityAnAm chEtanaschEtanAnAm" -no where

in prasthAna-traya you will find that Brahman is a lifeless 'jada'

object.**************************** Reply : I am not much conversant with

Sanskrit. Can you translate the above line please ? All right then, I'll put it

this way :All is matter. And all matter can finally be reduced to the subtlest

of all matter. Akasa; Ether or Space.All exist in space. So there is really no

object that we call Jada. It is there because our senses tell so.And our senses

are themselves in the body that we occupy. Our body itself is again made up of

Ether.As soon as prana leaves it also becomes Jada. It is just that a

biological body may decay and disintegrate faster than a pure material body. But

all will be reduced to air.All matter can be reduced to this. So the universe is

made of primal energy and matter; prana and akasa. These are Brahman; in the

primordial state. So any object we see is the way it appears so due to the

uncanny power of Maya. Aren't all the idols in Hindu temples made of stone

images ? If they are all considered Jada, why should anyone be going to a temple

at all ? Unless of course you are against idol worship. Also, you say that "All

the vEdAntins agree that Brahman is not jada." . Are you sure about this ? Don't

the yagnas mean : the fire that is Brahman , the ghee is brahman, the offering

is brahman : and all again goes to Brahman ? Om Tat SatGuru Venkat

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

April 15, 2003

Hello Scott and All Advaitins,

A stimulating post which I try to tie in to the Fate and Free Will question

with more questions than answers.

You Wrote: This may shed some light on my previous posts regarding

reflected

selves and

the question by Benjamin about enjoying Beethoven after

enlightenment.

To have an 'I' and a 'that' means a reflected self, to have

simply

an 'I',

self, of itself means the non-reflecting totality.

The 'I' and the 'that' both rely on being. So too does the 'I'

SELF,

of itself,

it is BEing The AM, the beingness.

The 'I' and 'that' only exist ''when'' the whole is reflecting

on

itself.

*''When'' the whole is a self existent whole and is

NOT-reflecting

then there

is NO THAT!!*

This is a perceptual analysis taking as a basic given, primitive situation

the knowing self and its world. Unexceptionable you might say neverthless

what Advaita posits is really quite different. The adhyasa preamble to the

B.S.B. looks at that apparent given and asks, how is that possible? It does

not take that Self and World as bedrock at all but questions it. Analysis

starting from there will only lead one into a fog of Idealism,

phenomenon/noumenon, skandhas and the like. (( Sankara offers a metaphysics

that is an intuition of how things must fundamentally be for things to

appear as they do. This intuition does not come from nowhere. In a

non-dual world analogy is a spoor of the Real.))

Also without understanding this the witness (Saksin) will merely seem like

the reintroduction of Mental Subject/Mental Object dualism. It is due to

the difference in nature of the Saksin that the perceptability of the

cognition comes into play. pg.44 Vedanta Paribhasa calls this 'the

perceptuality of cognition'. 'Capable of being perceived' and 'of the nature

of the perceivable' would be long hand for both those terms. This is not a

well understood element of Advaita. Personally though I have been aquainted

with the terrain for 30 years it's only since I in the last 3 years have

really read closely the B.S.B. that this issue stands out. That it is

treated in authorititive texts like the V.P. suggests that it is not a quirk

of my overheated mind.

Another question especially for the Fate and Free Will issue: Is the

separation of the Absolute and the Relative actually strictly valid within

Advaita? That they can be distinguished is admitted. The other question is

the one of causality. If you accept the non-difference of cause and effect

should that impinge on the problem? Does this sit more comfortably with

Chaos (Complexity) theory and the Uncertainty Principle and prediction as

statistical etc?

Could the considerations of Vasishta be accepted by a determinist? In this

view of things will is admitted as another force in the equation and

'free-will' interpreted as coming from nowhere is unsustainable. Can the

Atma bearing the burden (upadhi) of the Jiva as doer operate as a principle

analogous to that of the Saksin in relation to cognition? This would avoid

the backtracking from cause to cause and be similar to the rebuttal of

infinite regress in B.S.B. This would preserve the actual non-unity of

things within the experience of the Jiva. Choosing Dharma it chooses that

which reflects its own nature.

Best Wishes, Michael

_______________

The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*

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

April 15, 2003

Dear Jay,

>

> I did not mean it in a condescending way. Every one has to start

somewhere.

> But the fact remains that Veda is apourushEya and any translation

of it is pourushEya

> and therefore is not Veda.

>

> As long as we realize the fact that there are no alternatives to

Veda, it is ok to start

> with any coloquial translation.

>

> I hope you understand my point.

I'll just say that I cannot learn to bicycle without falling down a

few times.

Firstly, to clarify my earlier point : Jada is Brahman.

In the Suddhatvaita of Vallabacharya; He says that Jada is created

from Sat part of Brahman. The Jiva under Avidya views it in illusory

forms. It is quite real since it is from Brahman.

I understand this is not Sri Shankara's view. This is just something

that makes sense to me right now, given my frame of mind.

Now wait a minute! before you pull your boxing gloves again!! I do

not intend to get into a debate with you about this.

Just wanted to get this cleared since I knew I've read this

somewhere.

Regarding 'Nada Brahman' , I found a very interesting link. Actually

Sri Benjamin might like it very much. It has a good article about

this. I've asked the list moderators if it would be ok to post this

article.

Om Tat Sat

Guru Venkat

April 16, 2003

Dear Ranjeet,

>But what do you believe? And where did your belief come from? Please dont tell

>me that your belief is solely rooted in the Scriptures and your academic

>knowledge and that it has no other grounds.

Belief or faith comes from religion, and the job of religion is to introduce

concepts such as God, dharma, etc.

It is through the study of Philosophy(brahma-vidyA) that one gets the knowledge

of those concepts that were introduced by religion.

Many people stop at religion and put an end to their enquiry.

>Tell us what you feel (no inner >meanings here please..I just mean plain old

>FEEL). Atleast we will know what >we are up against !!

Why do you think I am up against you? Why do you think you are up against me?.

I may disagree with adhyAsa-theory because I think adhyAsa-theory is not what

one gets out of shruti when understood in the light of brahma-sootras, and of

course it is not what one gets out of geetha either.

It is not about 'my belief' vs 'your belief'.

We are talking of vEda as pramANa here, and not vEda as some authority text.

I hope I have answered your question.

April 16, 2003

--- Jay Nelamangala <jay wrote:

>

> Belief or faith comes from religion, and the job of

> religion is to introduce

> concepts such as God, dharma, etc.

Namaste Jay,

I am dipping a toe into the flowing waters of this

discussion because you have planted an obstacle that

needs to be smoothed out a bit.

Why are there two words 'Faith' and 'Belief' used if

they mean the same thing (which is how many equate the

words these days). Faith is sraddha which comes from,

as you know, the root sru, to listen. Whereas belief

is a construct arising out of a dualistic approach

(although again, etymologically it does not mean what

people use it to mean these days); faith arises 'in

listening' (non-dualistic) rather than 'listening to'

(dualistic). Religion itself is etymologically...this

is a disputed statement but I offer it

here........rooted in 'yuj', union. It is allowing

that all-pervading unity to appear 'in' the veils of

duality but it is an error to locate its source in

that duality. It is that error which leads to your

final statement below (I am not saying that you are in

error but just trying to smooth the edges here) which

is correctly observed, but the limits are not in

religion but in the notion 'I am separate from you.'

>

> It is through the study of Philosophy(brahma-vidyA)

> that one gets the knowledge of those concepts that

> were introduced by religion.

>

> Many people stop at religion and put an end to their

> enquiry.

I hope that this is not a distraction from the main

flow of this discussion which I am enjoying from the

river bank,

Ken Knight

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo

http://search.

April 16, 2003

Dear Guru Venkat,

>Firstly, to clarify my earlier point : Jada is Brahman.

>In the Suddhatvaita of Vallabacharya; He says that Jada is created

>from Sat part of Brahman. The Jiva under Avidya views it in illusory

>forms. It is quite real since it is from Brahman.

upanishats present brahman as :

"sAkshI chEtaa kEvalO" etc. Brahman is chEtana.

Jada coming out of Brahman, does not make Brahman Himself 'jada'

Just as cob-web ( jada) coming out of a spider (chEtana). Does it make

spider a 'jada' ?

The shuddhAdvaita of Sri VallabhAchArya says that this world is created

by Brahman. It is real and it is different from Brahman. The world is

jada. It is Brahman's adhi-bhoutika-form.

Brahman is sat-chit-Ananda-swaroopa. The relationship between this world

and Brahman is the same relationship that exists between cob-web and the

spider.

Brahman creates the world with 28 principles (5 gross elements,5 motor organs,

5 subtle elements, 5 sensory organs, sattva,rajas,

tamas, purusha, prakrti, mahat, ahamkAra,and mind).

That my friend, in a nutshell is shuddhAdvaita ontology.

Brahman is sat-chit-Ananda-swaroopa. The fact that Brahman is 'chit' tells us

that Brahman is not jada even in shuddhAdvaita.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

-

v_vedanti

advaitin

Tuesday, April 15, 2003 9:38 PM

Re: Beethoven and Advaita

Dear Jay,

>

> I did not mean it in a condescending way. Every one has to start

somewhere.

> But the fact remains that Veda is apourushEya and any translation

of it is pourushEya

> and therefore is not Veda.

>

> As long as we realize the fact that there are no alternatives to

Veda, it is ok to start

> with any coloquial translation.

>

> I hope you understand my point.

I'll just say that I cannot learn to bicycle without falling down a

few times.

Firstly, to clarify my earlier point : Jada is Brahman.

In the Suddhatvaita of Vallabacharya; He says that Jada is created

from Sat part of Brahman. The Jiva under Avidya views it in illusory

forms. It is quite real since it is from Brahman.

I understand this is not Sri Shankara's view. This is just something

that makes sense to me right now, given my frame of mind.

Now wait a minute! before you pull your boxing gloves again!! I do

not intend to get into a debate with you about this.

Just wanted to get this cleared since I knew I've read this

somewhere.

Regarding 'Nada Brahman' , I found a very interesting link. Actually

Sri Benjamin might like it very much. It has a good article about

this. I've asked the list moderators if it would be ok to post this

article.

Om Tat Sat

Guru Venkat

Sponsor

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

April 16, 2003

praNAm prabhuji

Hare Krishna

upanishats present brahman as :

"sAkshI chEtaa kEvalO" etc. Brahman is chEtana.

> Prabhuji, here I think you are quoting ShvetAshvEtara upanishad this

mantra's last word is *kEvalO nirguNaShcha* I've seen you are raising some

objections about nirguNa brahman also, any comments on this prabhuji. With

my minimum understanding of adv. I can say that adv. emphasizes on nirguNa

brahman of upanishads. You are framing your responses based on saguNa

brahman i.e. Ishwara = creator with all auspicious qualities.

>Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

April 16, 2003

Jay Nelamangala wrote:

>

> Brahman is sat-chit-Ananda-swaroopa.

*********************

True. Brahman is Sat-Chit-Ananda swaroopa. We all accept that.

The question is how to know it.

Sri Krishna has said, " I am in the Heart of all beings......"

The "Heart" here can mean many things at different levels. We can take

it to mean our essence or core. Thus the Lord illuminates our existence

being Himself Existence. Lord illuminates our knowledge, being Himself

Knowledge. Lord illuminates our bliss or Ananda, being Himself Ananda.

Brahman is Sat-Chit-Ananda swaroopa. That is the essential truth. The

complexity of our minds makes us look other than where we already are.

However, the instruction of the Lord is crystal clear...."I am in the

Heart of all...."

Love to all

Harsha

April 16, 2003

Dear Harsha,

>

> Brahman is sat-chit-Ananda-swaroopa.

*********************

>True. Brahman is Sat-Chit-Ananda swaroopa. We all accept that.

>The question is how to know it.

Just as your 'eye' is the pramANa for your knowledge of color-green,

so also Veda is the pramANa for the knowledge of parabrahman.

"Veda as pramANa" and "Veda as authority" are quite different.

-

Harsha

advaitin ;

Wednesday, April 16, 2003 9:37 AM

Re: Re: Beethoven and Advaita