Is there 'light' in Enlightenment? (Sept. 03 discussion topic)

[Guest guest]

Hi Nairji,

 

I liked your response to Benji's last post - it was a bit more polite than

mine. Apologies, again, Ben!

 

On NDE's, you might like the following brief report from Robert Baker,

entitled "Have you seen the 'light'" - I should have noticed it before by

its relevance to the topic:

 

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

"If you haven't seen "the light" yet then you at least have read about it,

heard about it on radio, or have watched the illuminated discussing it on

talk shows. "The light" refers, of course, to the internal, subjective,

brain-generated experience of an overpowering white or yellow light that

accompanies someone having a typical "near-death experience," or NDE. If you

don't know about "the light" then either you've been blind and deaf from

birth or you are one of the sequestered jurors in the O.J. Simpson case. All

other sentient beings have been exposed interminably to account after

account of having died, encountered "the light," and returned to earth to

tell about it. So many people from all walks of life have done this that we

no longer have to worry about unemployment. Dying has now become one of the

most popular and remunerative ways of earning a living. Writing and talking

about one's NDE is now a major industry.

 

In no way, however, should this be surprising. Over the centuries, man's

impermanence has dominated his thinking and has, inevitably, been uppermost

on his everyday mind. Corliss Lamont long ago reminded us in his book The

Illusion of Immortality (Philosophical Library, 1950) that more books have

been written on death, dying, and what-comes-after than on any other single

subject. In his book Lamont noted that more than 5,000 titles are included

in the bibliography on the subject of immortality compiled in 1862 by Ezra

Abbot and printed as an appendix to W. R. Algor's 1871 Critical History of

the Doctrine of a Future Life (H. J. Widdleton, London). Since that time,

Lamont reported in 1950, the writings on immortality have increased rapidly,

stimulated by two major wars, several minor ones, and the vogue of

spiritualism. Lamont said that he himself had a bibliography on file of more

than 2,200 books and articles-most in English and most written after Abbot's

impressive compilation. If one adds to all of the publications that have

occurred in the 45 years since 1950 we have an impressive pile of paper

indeed. If "the light" titles continue to proliferate at their present rate,

however, this file may well be exceeded, since they are moving and growing

at, obviously, the speed of light.

 

Almost every bookstore in the country now has a special death-and-dying

display or a separate "light" section prominently featured to placate the

eager consumers. "Light" titles currently crowd the nonfiction bestseller

lists. One of the best-known and an almost permanent resident on the list is

Betty J. Eadie's Embraced by the Light (Bantam, 1994), which stresses the

existence of spiritual, physical, and universal laws, including the supreme

law of love. Betty saw the light, met Jesus, and was given a message for

mankind. Another current contender in the sales derby is Dannion Brinkley's

Saved by the Light (Villard Books, HarperCollins, 1994). Its subtitle is: A

True Story of a Man Who Died Twice and the Profound Revelation He Received.

Brinkley, who was struck by lightning, saw a lot of light before he was

propelled to a spiritual realm inhabited by 13 angels made of light who

filled him with knowledge of the future, including, Brinkley says, the

coming of the Gulf War and the break-up of the Soviet Union. Some of the

wonderful side benefits of the "light" experience, in case you didn't know,

include ESP and the power of prophecy. In Melvin Morse's Transformed by the

Light (Villard Books, 1992), for example, Morse argues that the NDE

stimulates one's ESP abilities and increases the number of verifiable

psychic experiences three-fold.

 

To fully appreciate the history of the "light" books one has to go back to

Raymond Moody's Life After Life (Mockingbird Books, 1975) and his follow- up

work Reflections on Life After Life (Bantam Books, 1977). If Moody was not

the originator of the "light" experience as one of the most universal

characteristics of the NDE he certainly deserves credit for its

popularization. His own "light" book The Light Beyond (Bantam) appeared in

1988 and has been followed more recently by Reunions (Villard Books, 1993),

in which Moody shows us how to talk with our dead relatives. Not to be left

out, our old friend, Brad Steiger, hops aboard the gravy train with his 1994

offering One With the Light: Authentic NDEs (Signet Books). Another

fascinating entry in the race is P. M. H. Atwater's Beyond the Light: What

Isn't Being Said About the ND Experiences (Birch Lane Press Books, Carol

Pub. Group, 1994). Atwater herself is an ND survivor as well as an NDE

researcher. She has found there are many different types of NDEs: some are

good and some are bad, and there are strong similarities between NDEs and

hallucinations. Since Atwater had three NDEs in 1977, she is undoubtedly an

expert.

 

As Atwater reveals, not all NDEs lead to heaven. In Angia Fenimore's Beyond

the Darkness: My Near Death Journey to the Edge Of Hell (Bantam Books, 1995)

the author tells of going in the other direction. On January 8, 1991

Fenimore committed suicide and expected to move toward the light. Instead,

she moved into a realm of darkness and a world made up of terrifying visions

and profound psychic disorientation, where all of her worst nightmares were

real. She also met Satan and found him unattractive. Miraculously, however,

after a nice chat with God and an illuminated Christ, she was restored to

life. She is now a child-of-God and after receiving professional help was

inspired to write her book. She warns us all, however, that "God can't force

us to choose the light."

 

Of all the "light" books currently available perhaps the best one is Kevin

D. Randle's To Touch the Light (Pinnacle Books, Windsor Pub. Corp., 1994).

Although this is the same Randle who, along with D. R. Schmitt, turns up

alien bodies in crashed UFOs in the Southwest, e.g., The Truth About the UFO

Crash At Roswell (Avon Books, 1994), he is yet wise enough about the light

business to take all of the supernaturalism with a grain of skepticism. In

fact, Randle quotes Paul Kurtz's insight that a profound personality change

is in no way proof of an afterlife. Failure to fear death after an NDE only

proves that the person having the experience was, indeed, profoundly

affected. Such experiences do, most assuredly, provide a measure of comfort

and hope, and there is nothing wrong with this unless one thereby neglects

his or her material world and the here-and-now in preparation for another

world to come.

 

While most books of this sort are marked by humility and simplicity, this is

not the case for Sidney Saylor Farr's What Tom Sawyer Learned from Dying

(Hampton Roads Pub. Corp., 1993). Farr supposedly learned much more from

dying than he ever learned from living and he is now a source of wisdom on

everything. Today Farr is an authority on the earth's past, present, and

future; the secrets of medicine and healing; humankind's ultimate destiny;

politics, science, psychology, and more.

 

If you are, however, seriously interested in the NDEs and the psychological

experience of seeing the light, you should, of course, read Dr. Susan

Blackmore's excellent Dying to Live (Prometheus Books, 1993). If you have

not yet seen the light, don't worry. The question is irrelevant for both the

living and the dying. Curiously enough, the message from all of those who

have encountered the light and returned is the same. All of the beings of

light are in firm agreement, and they tell the dying: Stay on Earth and

resist the transcendental temptation; focus on life not death; use your

human powers of love and compassion in work to make this material world-the

world of the here and now and the world we all inhabit-a better world, the

best world it can possibly be. This is the one thing on which all of us-the

believer and the skeptic-can unanimously agree. This is the true light we

all should see."

 

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

I can certainly recommend the book by Susan Blackmore - it has very rational

explanations for all of the phenomena traditionally associated with NDE and

generally does an excellent job of debunking the whole mystical aura

surrounding what is undoubtedly the genuine experience of those unfortunate

to be in that position.

 

There is another, longer and more serious article at

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/immortality.html by

Keith Augustine, called 'The Case Against Immortality', which I can

recommend that also puts forward a sceptical view. There is another one at

Blackmore's own site:

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/ShermerNDE.htm .

 

If you want to believe, there is an article refuting Blackmore's book

chapter by chapter at

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/gs_dying_to_live/gs_dying_to_live

1.html (I haven't read it myself!).

 

There are some 90 sites listed at dmoz under various headings:

http://dmoz.org/Society/Death/Near_Death_Experiences/.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Hello All,

Those that offer physiological explanations

for the attendent feeling and visions of the NDE often

imagine that they have explained away the spiritual.

Are they not thereby revealing the dualistic

construction of human nature which underpins their

thinking i.e. if it's physiological it can't be

spiritual. Certain brain events are what is called

dying and the linga sarira begins its exit. Being spun

in a centrifuge produces brain events which are akin to

the fore mentioned and the linga sarira packs its bags.

Yogis leave their bodies and are either invisible or

manifest palpable bodies at other locations.

Reductionist science cannot explain this in the sense

that science as a subject does not have the conceptual

equipment to deal with it. It's like me giving you a

magnifying glass and saying this is an excellent

hearing aid.

 

Recently I have begun to realise that the capacity for

Reductionism, Rationalising and Denial is without limit

and that only God or the Guru can create the conditions

for understanding. Good arguments and demonstrations

are not automatically efficacious.

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

Hi again Benjamin,

Responding to Sri Nair, you said:

"Indeed, any kind of objectification is false, even the more subtle kind,

such as when we say, 'I see a perception.' In this case, nothing is being

said about the 'outside' world, but the perception itself is being treated

as an object. In other words, the mind is so addicted to objectifying

everything that it ** even does this in a subtle way ** with entities that

clearly are in consciousness, such as the perceptions themselves." (my

asterisks)

But EVERYTHING is only perception - we can never see the thing itself. I

thought you were a Berkeley follower? We can only ever be objectively aware

of things in mind; objects existing independently of perception do not

exist.

You go on to say:

 

"So there IS a profound paradox here, which transcends intellectual

understanding. The seen is changing, the seer is unchanging, and the seer

and seen are ultimately the same. These statements all seem true to me,

taken separately, but their union obviously transcends logic. I do accept

this paradox. We must realize that logic only applies to the seen, when

seen as just the seen. (!) But standing back and bringing the seer in

raises us to a new level."

The metaphor of the magician suggests that this need not seem so much of a

'profound paradox'. It is only as children that we see a magician performing

an illusion and believe it to be true. As adults (i.e. advaitins) we still

see the illusion (and probably have no idea as to how it is done) but we

nevertheless know that it is one and are never taken in, believing it to be

real.

Finally, you said:

"And yes, I agree that time is within consciousness, and consciousness is

not within time. So space and time are as illusory as my enemy the material

world! Space, time and matter are all different aspects of the same

illusion. None of them really 'exist' independently of consciousness.

Which is to say that they are illusions."

Yes - Kant said that they are *concepts* for making sense of the appearances

intellectually.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

--- Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote:

> I thought some

> key verses may bring the focus back to

> enlightenment:

 

Namaste all,

For those without any of Shankara's commentary on

Sunder's refs., I am putting the commentary for the

first three. I am using the translation by V. Panoli

although I have Warrier's to hand in case anyone is

not happy with Panoli's.

I hope that I have not cluttered up band-width,

whatever that is. Tell me off if I have.

>

> GYaanena tu tadaGYaanaM yeshhaa.n naashitamaatmanaH

> .

> teshhaamaadityavajGYaanaM prakaashayati tatparam.h

> .. 5\-16..

Gita: 'But in whom ignorance is destroyed by the

wisdom of the Self, in the wisdom, shining like the

sun, reveals the Supreme.'

Shankara Bhashya:

'Veiled by that ignorance are the mortals deluded, and

whose ignorance is destroyed by discriminative wisdom

ie. by the knowledge of the Self, for them wisdom

lights up the ultimate reality, even as the sun

illumines the entire objects.'

 

This obviously promotes a question which Shankara

tries to anticipate as he writes:

'What supreme knowledge is lighted up?'

 

so the next verse may be useful:

Gita: 5.17. 'Thinking on That, directing the whole

conscious being to That, making That the supreme goal,

they reach whence there is no return, their sins

washed away by wisdom.'

 

S.B.: 'They are tadbuddhayah, whose intellects have

pierced into That (ie. Brahman). they, to whom the

Self has become the supreme Brahman, are verily

Tadatmanah. Again, they who, renouncing all actions,

are firmly established in Brahman, are tannishtah.

Similarly they, to whom the Brahman has become the

highest goal, is Tadparayanah, meaning their sole

delight is merelyin the Self. They, whose ignorance is

destroyed by wisdom, reach the state which no more

necessitates the association with the body ( ie.birth)

for their sins etc. which are the evils causing

samsara have been destroyed by the wisdom described as

above.'

 

 

 

>

> na tu maa.n shakyase drashhTumanenaiva

> svachakShushhaa .

> divya.n dadaami te chakShuH pashya me

> yogamaishvaram.h .. 11\-8..

 

Gita: 'Indeed thou are not able to see me with this

thine eye. I give unto thee a divine eye; behold My

divine Yoga.

 

S.B.: 'But you are not able to see Me possessing

Viswarupa with this your own natural eye. I give you

that divine eye with which you can see. With that eye

behold My exceedingly great Aisvaram-yoga ie. yoga

belonging to Ishvara.'

NB. Warrier gives that last part as 'my power that is

supreme'.

>

> yathaa prakaashayatyekaH kR^itsna.n lokamimaM raviH

> .

> kShetra.n kShetrii tathaa kR^itsnaM prakaashayati

> bhaarata .. 13\-34..

Gita: 'Those who perceive thus by the eye of wisdom

the distinction between kshetra and the kshetrajna and

the liberation of beings from prakriti they attain to

the Supreme.'

 

SB: 'Thus, those who perceive the distinction between

the kshetra and the kshetrajna, as already explained,

by the eye of knowledge ie. through the knowledge of

the Self derived from the teachings of the sastras and

the teachers and who perceive the Bhuta-prakriti (ie.

Prakriti which serves as the cause of beings) called

the avyakta with the characterisics of avidya, to be

non-existent, they attain to Brahman, the Real, and

take thereafter no more body.'

 

Always good to keep to the simplicity of scripture. It

helps in this practice of discrimination.

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

 

I was on travel and returned back on wednesday and couldn't reply due

to power outage during the past two days. Your very first statement

below needs to be restated as follows - Most of our confusion is due

to our misperception of the distinction between the paramarthika vs.

vyavaharika levels of reality. Let me follow the Vedic tradition and

understanding and state that no institutions ever existed to grant

a 'license' to a 'jiva' to either practice or preach advaita!

 

As a matter of fact, everything that we see, touch, taste, hear,

write and speak are at the vyavaharika level. The paramarthika level

of reality has no form or name and it is also colorless, odorless and

soundless! I do admire your patriotic suggestion but at the

paramarthika level you are freed also from your patriotism!!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Namaste Dennis-ji

>

> ...................

> It seems to me that the paramarthika vs. vyavahirka distinction

> causes most of the confusion on these advaitin lists. Perhaps we

all

> need to get a licence verifying our technical knowledge, before we

> are permitted to discuss advaita. Also, we need some way of

> informing readers which level we are at when speaking. Perhaps

> colored text. Blue would be paramarthika and red vyavahirka. Or

> maybe I am being too patriotic.

>

> Still, I'd like to see your links to Near Death websites, mentioned

> by Sri Nair ... even if these sites try to debunk the NDEs.

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste

Neither practice nor preaching is involved in Advaita, as Self Knowledge is like

any other knowledge, where what is required is Teaching and Teaching alone.

This is my understanding, as Preaching does not work here nor any practice is

required once the Knowledge has taken place.

I may be wrong, and please do correct me

With kind regards

Mani

 

Ram Chandran <rchandran wrote:

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

 

I was on travel and returned back on wednesday and couldn't reply due

to power outage during the past two days. Your very first statement

below needs to be restated as follows - Most of our confusion is due

to our misperception of the distinction between the paramarthika vs.

vyavaharika levels of reality. Let me follow the Vedic tradition and

understanding and state that no institutions ever existed to grant

a 'license' to a 'jiva' to either practice or preach advaita!

 

As a matter of fact, everything that we see, touch, taste, hear,

write and speak are at the vyavaharika level. The paramarthika level

of reality has no form or name and it is also colorless, odorless and

soundless! I do admire your patriotic suggestion but at the

paramarthika level you are freed also from your patriotism!!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Namaste Dennis-ji

>

> ...................

> It seems to me that the paramarthika vs. vyavahirka distinction

> causes most of the confusion on these advaitin lists. Perhaps we

all

> need to get a licence verifying our technical knowledge, before we

> are permitted to discuss advaita. Also, we need some way of

> informing readers which level we are at when speaking. Perhaps

> colored text. Blue would be paramarthika and red vyavahirka. Or

> maybe I am being too patriotic.

>

> Still, I'd like to see your links to Near Death websites, mentioned

> by Sri Nair ... even if these sites try to debunk the NDEs.

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Maniji.

 

I have not been able to access the web for the last over three days

and find that there has been several inputs from other Members on

L.I.E. Yours being the latest, please let me answer it before I

return to others after I read and ponder over them in due course.

 

Don't you think the term "knowledge taking place" should be properly

defined? Is it just academic, I mean an intellectual appreciation?

If that is the case, I should think I qualify. But, the fact is that

I have a feeling that I have a lot to do!

 

So, in my personal opinion, "knowledge taking place" should be

something entirely different. With just an intellectual

appreciation, what is needed is not preaching as you rightly pointed

out. But, it cannot be teaching either (i.e. taking up 'gurudom' as

Sw. Dayananda Saraswathiji puts it). Sharing, however, as we do on

this electronic forum, would be a better word. But, above all,

constant contemplation on scriptural statements, teacher's words and

listening/reading should also follow for the intellectual

appreciation to fully blossom whereby one 'becomes' verily

Knowledge. That I think is really "knowledge taking place" after

which 'gurudom' becomes spontaneous without any need for it to be

imposed upon.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote:

> Namaste

> Neither practice nor preaching is involved in Advaita, as Self

Knowledge is like any other knowledge, where what is required is

Teaching and Teaching alone.

> This is my understanding, as Preaching does not work here nor any

practice is required once the Knowledge has taken place.

> I may be wrong, and please do correct me

> With kind regards

> Mani

[Guest guest]

pranams to all learned in this forum,

i have been following your discussion on vyavaharika closely. i also find the

ned experience quite interesting.

i hav a few doubts if some one could throw light upon it i would b happy.

firstly is knowledge neccesary for realisation b cos i c knowledge itself

doesnot give realisation .

secondly what is absolute truth b cos i find it quite relative to the observer.

thirdly,

how can one can get information without using their 5 senses i mean is it

possible to gain information in unconcious state.

fourthly,

y do all relegion have god with humanoid features n feelings i think it is

absurd to think god as super attributed human.

i hope i dont i don sound impudent r arrogant.

it is my deepest desire to know answers to these question

with all respect,

 

 

 

k kaushic

engineering year 1

national university of singapore

 

 

 

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benji.

 

Reference your post # 18956.

 

I couldn't reply you before because I was not able to access the web

for over three days. Then, there were other personal preoccupations

too. Appreciate your understanding.

 

Before I plunge into the subject, please let me make a small note of

the Sanskrit terminology we are using. Perhaps, due to your

unfamiliarity with Sanskrit terminology, you seem to be mixing the

words jIvanmuktA and jIvanmukti. The latter stands for liberation

and the former for the liberated (if I have not misunderstood you).

 

I have a feeling that we are just expressing the same idea but at

different wavelengths. To bridge the seeming gap, therefore, let me

go metaphorical.

 

I am a glow-worm. My glow encompasses the whole of creation – mental

and external worlds. The so-called jIvanmuktAs are within that glow

with the rest of all that I experience through the media of my mind

and sense organs. Needless to say the media are also in the glow.

 

As long as I feel that my glow is outside of me, I am a deluded glow-

worm. When I talk of objectification, therefore, I only mean my

feeling of this `outsideness'. (I fully respect your intellectual

appreciation that everything is truly Consciousness.) When

I `realize' that the glow is in fact me, then the feeling

of `outsideness' vanishes and I remain One with the glow or I remain

the glow. The effective removal of that feeling of `outsideness'

without a trace is therefore Enlightenment or Self-realization.

 

Where are the alleged jIvanmuktAs when this happens? They were

apparently there in the glow and I, in my delusion, was trying to

write out descriptions for them, like how they talk, how they behave,

how they see things etc. With my Self-realization, they resolve into

me. That would mean that there is only one Self-realization

possible. That is mine. Further, there can only be one jIvanmuktA.

And that is none other than me the One without a second. So, let us

better stop using plurals for these terms lest they lead us astray.

 

Then, why do Bhagawad GitA and Sankara sing the descriptions of

jIvanmuktA? I am sure they don't mean to tell us that there is just

such a species to be hunted after and studied like we study the

amoeba. They labour so very much in order for me to `understand'

that I am IT. When I `understand' THAT, there is no more any

ordinary understanding warranted or even possible because all

understanding takes place through the media of mind and sense

organs. When they have resolved into me, I am a full glow-worm

abiding in my Fullness. You know I would be committing an

advaitic `sin' if I again vainly try to describe THAT happening. It

cannot be a happening at all!

 

THAT is Enlightenment or Self-realization. I brought in the glow-

worm as an example as that, with the glow, is the fittest for us in

our discussion of L.I.E.

 

I appreciate your objection to the word `subject'. Well, we are just

using the advaitic dichotomy of "I" and the "rest of the world". As

you rightly said, it is just a stick with which we stir the fire and

burns out completely at the end.

 

Now about the profound paradox, which transcends intellectual

understanding. If the seer is ultimately understood as the seen, the

seen is not *actually* changing. The feeling of change, therefore,

is an error. The goal of advaita is to see through this error

whereby the seer becomes verily the seen resolving the erroneous

dichotomy. If we accept that the subject is a stick with which we

stir the fire, the seen too becomes a stick that burns out

ultimately. Into where do they burn out their separate identities

and resolve? Isn't that the fire of Enlightenment, the glow that the

glow-worm really is?

 

If I remember right, in my very first response to you on this forum,

I had requested you to read Sw. Dayananda Saraswathiji's exposition

of the Upanishidic verse "PurNamaTa, pUrnamidam…..". I do still

firmly believe that Swamiji's insight will help you tide over the

profound paradox.

 

As I have always maintained, the English word "illusion" is a very

poor substitute for mAyA. MAyA connotes phenomena afflicted by space

and time. This affliction is the error I mentioned above, which when

seen through, all so-called mAyic phenomena are immediately known as

nothing but Fullness (pUrnAmidam). The shapes, colour, flowers and

children that we `see' are all Fullness!

 

Hope that clears the seeming gap between our different wavelengths.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji.

 

I thank you, Kenji and Prof. Krishnamurthyji for all the NDE links.

 

I share Prof. Krishnamurthyji's view that we have perhaps digressed a

little bit here from our main topic 'L.I.E.'. I mentioned about

N.D.E. only because Benji raised the issue. That has brought in a

deluge of information on the subject now.

 

As our topic relates to Enlightenment, we should consider 'light' in

the context of spiritual sAdhana. The 'light' in N.D.E. is not

exclusive to spiritual aspirtants as all and sundry seem to set a

claim on it. Like Dr. Ashmore, we therefore need to push our high-

heels down into the earth in our consideration of the N.D.E. light.

Afterall, it could well be the work of a dying brain starved of

oxygen. (Incidentally, we need to look at our 'spiritual' flashes

also from the same point of view. Isn't the brain less fed on

oxygen, when the respiration slows down to almost breathlessness

during meditation?)

 

The popular interest on NDEs is an expression of our intuitive

awareness that death is not the end of life. At least to that

extent, therefore, the informaiton provided would be a corollary to

our topic of discussion - an indirect reminder of our immortality.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Thanks Sunderji and Kenji for the 'shining' GItA quotes and their

interpretation.

 

In fact, I was planning to quote the following to clarify Benji's

questions about the subject and objects. It is heartening to see

that you both took it up before me.

 

QUOTE

> > yathaa prakaashayatyekaH kR^itsna.n lokamimaM raviH

> > .

> > kShetra.n kShetrii tathaa kR^itsnaM prakaashayati

> > bhaarata .. 13\-34..

 

Even as the one sun illumines the entire world, so the Lord of the

Field illumines the whole Field, O Bharata.

 

Those who know with the eye of wisdom, the difference between the

field and the knower of the field thus, and also the (means of)

release from the prakriti of elements, attain to the Supreme.

Those who perceive thus by the eye of wisdom

the distinction between kshetra and the kshetrajna and

the liberation of beings from prakriti they attain to

the Supreme.'

 

SB: 'Thus, those who perceive the distinction between

the kshetra and the kshetrajna, as already explained,

by the eye of knowledge ie. through the knowledge of

the Self derived from the teachings of the sastras and

the teachers and who perceive the Bhuta-prakriti (ie.

Prakriti which serves as the cause of beings) called

the avyakta with the characterisics of avidya, to be

non-existent, they attain to Brahman, the Real, and

take thereafter no more body.'

 

UNQUOTE

 

I have added the translation for the first line "yathaa

prakaashayatyekaH kR^itsna.n lokamimaM raviH"

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Dennis,

 

First of all, let me tell Sri Nair that I basically agree with his

response to me in his latest post - the one where he says we are both

saying the same thing at slightly different wavelengths. At least,

what he says is very much Advaita, as much as my words are if not

more so. Of course, a few points still remain a bit obscure to me,

as I am not a Jivanmukta. (Got it right that time!) Just thought

I'd stick this comment here to save on message pollution and to thank

Sri Nair for his efforts (i.e. his long and careful answer).

 

Now regarding what you said, I'd like to make a few points, since

this is a topic that really interests me:

 

BENJAMIN:

Indeed, any kind of objectification is false, even the more subtle

kind, such as when we say, 'I see a perception.' In this case,

nothing is being said about the 'outside' world, but the perception

itself is being treated as an object. In other words, the mind is so

addicted to objectifying everything that it **even does this in a

subtle way** with entities that clearly are in consciousness, such as

the perceptions themselves. (Dennis' asterisks)

 

DENNIS:

But EVERYTHING is only perception - we can never see the thing

itself. I thought you were a Berkeley follower? We can only ever be

objectively aware of things in mind; objects existing independently

of perception do not exist.

 

MY REPLY:

Everything is indeed only a perception, thought or feeling. And the

'external' world is limited to the perceptions, just as Berkeley

said. There is no actual 'unconscious matter' beyond the

perceptions, as there seems to be. We both agree on this.

 

My point, though, is that the mind can falsely treat even these

perceptions - which clearly are within consciousness - as if they too

were 'objects' in some sense. This is clearly indicated by the

phrase I mentioned above, namely, 'I see a perception', where there

seems to be some distinction between the 'I' and the 'perception'.

This is once again the old subject/object distinction, encountered

before at a grosser level as the illusion of consciousness vs. the

material world. Such is the delusory magic of words and their close

relatives the concepts.

 

This new subtlety is something I have discovered by talking to people

on web lists such as this. It finally became clear to me as I was

writing my essay

 

http://www.benjaminroot.com/Philosophy/Hinduism/IndianNondualism.html

 

as you can tell from various comments there. I may need to rewrite that essay.

 

This is an important point, having to do with what my Swamiji calls

the 'I-thought', as opposed to the true I or Self. A picture of my

Swamiji can be seen at

 

http://www.chinmayadc.org/rc_acharyas.htm

 

Of course, he is not responsible for any misunderstanding on my part

of what he says.

 

Let me try to clarify.

 

The ego arises when we take certain perceptions, thoughts and

feelings and draw a boundary around them and label the whole thing as

'me'. This involves a subtle level of objectification, much more

difficult to discern than the gross objectification of the

hypothetical material objects. Anytime we take some cluster of

perceptions and/or thoughts and/or feelings and draw a boundary

around it, we are 'objectifying' it in the sense of positing an

independent entity of some kind. This is the very definition of an

'object', if you think about it. The entire contents of our

consciousness are thus falsely discriminated into a variety of

entities, each of which are ascribed an illusory independent

self-existence. I know this may seem confusing to many people; it

requires a lot of reflection.

 

Of course, all of these supposed entities are really in

consciousness; this is always the case with everything of which we

are aware. But the mind treats even the 'phenomenal self' as though

it were one of many discrete independent objects existing in space

along with other discrete independent objects. This is the

fundamental illusion. Both the space and the various entities are

within consciousness, as we all agree.

 

It is all part of the mind's disease of objectification, which it

will continue to perform on the perceptions, even after convinced

that there is no matter, i.e. even after the gross objectification is

eliminated. The disease of objectification is closely related to the

ego-sense and is basically a manifestation of it.

 

Another way of saying this is that the true saint is not aware of any

self or I. Of course, the Self or Consciousness is always there, but

any sense of an 'I' vanishes, as it requires some subtle degree of

objectification, some drawing of boundaries. That is why the

Mahayana scripture called the Diamond Sutra insists that the

enlightened being does not see any enlightened being, or why the Gita

insists that all sense of doership is eliminated.

 

 

 

 

BENJAMIN:

So there IS a profound paradox here, which transcends intellectual

understanding. The seen is changing, the seer is unchanging, and the

seer and seen are ultimately the same. These statements all seem

true to me, taken separately, but their union obviously transcends

logic. I do accept this paradox. We must realize that logic only

applies to the seen, when seen as just the seen. (!) But standing

back and bringing the seer in raises us to a new level."

 

DENNIS:

The metaphor of the magician suggests that this need not seem so much

of a 'profound paradox'. It is only as children that we see a

magician performing an illusion and believe it to be true. As adults

(i.e. advaitins) we still see the illusion (and probably have no idea

as to how it is done) but we nevertheless know that it is one and are

never taken in, believing it to be real.

 

MY REPLY:

Everything you say here is quite correct. Yet let us not be too

complacent about the profound mystery that the seeming multiplicity

of the seen is really the unity of the seer. (This apparent

multiplicity is in both space and time. In the case of time, it

becomes 'change'.) To fully realize this is much more difficult than

overcoming the gross objectification of matter as something real and

'out there'. By going further and realizing that even apparent

multiplicity is really a unity, the unity of consciousness, we are

defying mathematics, which is much more ambitious!

 

 

 

 

BENJAMIN:

And yes, I agree that time is within consciousness, and consciousness

is not within time. So space and time are as illusory as my enemy

the material world! Space, time and matter are all different aspects

of the same illusion. None of them really 'exist' independently of

consciousness. Which is to say that they are illusions."

 

DENNIS:

Yes - Kant said that they are *concepts* for making sense of the

appearances intellectually.

 

MY REPLY:

Glad you brought up that dead white male called Kant, since I want to

make an interesting point about his philosophy, which just occurred

to me the other day. Kant said that there is a real 'noumenal' world

'out there', much like the tradition material world, but we cannot

see this noumenal world as it is. We can only see it filtered

through the concepts of the mind, such as space, time, causality, etc.

 

Advaita says something similar, except that the true 'noumenal' world

is not 'out there' but *in here*. It is the Self, at the deepest and

most immediate level. So in a sense Advaita is a kind of mirror

reflection of Kant. Just an interesting thought for philosophy

students...

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hi Nairji,

 

I like the glow-worm metaphor and was following you up to the statements

surrounded by asterisks in the quotation below:

 

"Where are the alleged jIvanmuktAs when this happens? They were

apparently there in the glow and I, in my delusion, was trying to

write out descriptions for them, like how they talk, how they behave,

how they see things etc. With my Self-realization, they resolve into

me. ****** That would mean that there is only one Self-realization

possible. That is mine. Further, there can only be one jIvanmuktA. ******

And that is none other than me the One without a second. So, let us

better stop using plurals for these terms lest they lead us astray."

 

There seems to be some confusion here (or at least I am confused!). The

statement cannot be true from either paramArthika or vyAvahArika viewpoint,

can it? In reality there are not two. The Self was always the Self and

cannot be anything other than the Self; the Self is all that there is.

Therefore, the concept of Self-realisation has no meaning. In the realm of

appearances, on the other hand, there seem to be many (people and things)

and, from our limited perspective of ignorance, there seem to be jivanmuktAs

(pural) - Nisargadatta, Ramana, Ramakrishna etc. At the vyAvahArika, level,

it seems that we must agree on this. So, in paramArtha we have no

jiivanmuktAs (and no jiivas either) and in vyavahAra we have many.

 

Now to talk of what happens when 'I' attain Self-realisation causes

problems. In reality, of course, nothing happens. In vyavahAra, something

appears to happen only from the point of view of the jiiva before the

'event' (as it appears to be from the perspective of vyavahAra). My attempts

to explain further falter here, however.

 

It seems that the analogy with the waking vs dream state ought to allow us

to understand the situation. All of the imagined dream characters resolve

into the single waker when we wake up - this would correspond with your

claim that there is only one jiivanmuktA. But after the waking 'event', the

waker is powerless to try to explain the waking state to the characters in

his earlier dream. Nor would he want to. On the other side of the metaphor,

however, it appears (in vyavahAra) that the jiivanmuktA IS able to (try to)

explain what is really going on to we idiots still trapped on a supposed

spiritual path. It is as though, whilst still dreaming, our waking self

makes an appearance in the dream and starts explaining about states of

consciousness to our dreaming self. The metaphor no longer seems to make any

sense.

 

I would appreciate any attempts to unravel this. As things stand it seems

less than satisfactory. (Of course the answer is bound to be anirvacaniiya -

indescribable!)

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benji.

 

Just an irresistible interruption in your dialogue with Dennisji.

 

Kant, at best, could be an 'undigested' reflection of Advaita since

the latter predates him.

 

There is a lot of logical thought in the rest of what you say,

although I have not studied the Diamond Sutra.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madahtil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

> Namaste Sri Dennis,

 

.............So in a sense Advaita is a kind of mirror

> reflection of Kant. Just an interesting thought for philosophy

> students...

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji.

 

Your questions are quite interesting. My comments are in parentheses

within the body of your text:

 

My following statement was quoted by you:

 

****** That would mean that there is only one Self-realization

possible. That is mine. Further, there can only be one jIvanmuktA.

******

And that is none other than me the One without a second. So, let us

better stop using plurals for these terms lest they lead us astray."

 

Then you commented:

 

There seems to be some confusion here (or at least I am confused!).

The

> statement cannot be true from either paramArthika or vyAvahArika

viewpoint,

> can it? In reality there are not two. The Self was always the Self

and

> cannot be anything other than the Self; the Self is all that there

is.

> Therefore, the concept of Self-realisation has no meaning.

 

 

[in a way right. Yet we talk of it in order for us to understand the

simple truth that we are looking for something that is within our

hands (like a person wearing his glasses frantically searching for

them) or tyring to become something which we really are. Self-

realization has, therefore, meaning only till the glasses are

located. That we are ultimately able to locate them is Grace which

incidentally we really are.]

 

 

In the realm of

> appearances, on the other hand, there seem to be many (people and

things)

> and, from our limited perspective of ignorance, there seem to be

jivanmuktAs

> (pural) - Nisargadatta, Ramana, Ramakrishna etc. At the

vyAvahArika, level,

> it seems that we must agree on this. So, in paramArtha we have no

> jiivanmuktAs (and no jiivas either) and in vyavahAra we have many.

 

 

[True. However, it would be helpful to understand paramArtha as a

synonym of jIvanmukti. The apparent multiplicity encountered in the

vyAvahArikA shouldn't mislead us, therefore.]

>

> Now to talk of what happens when 'I' attain Self-realisation causes

> problems. In reality, of course, nothing happens.

 

 

[i already said before that it is not a happening!]

 

 

In vyavahAra, something

> appears to happen only from the point of view of the jiiva before

the

> 'event' (as it appears to be from the perspective of vyavahAra). My

attempts

> to explain further falter here, however.

 

 

[Anybody's attempts for that matter because we are labouring at the

impossible.]

 

> It seems that the analogy with the waking vs dream state ought to

allow us

> to understand the situation. All of the imagined dream characters

resolve

> into the single waker when we wake up - this would correspond with

your

> claim that there is only one jiivanmuktA.

 

 

[Yes.]

 

 

But after the waking 'event', the

> waker is powerless to try to explain the waking state to the

characters in

> his earlier dream. Nor would he want to.

 

 

[That is why, in the paramArthA vs. vyAvahArA, the former is

explained as Silence.]

 

 

On the other side of the metaphor,

> however, it appears (in vyavahAra) that the jiivanmuktA IS able to

(try to)

> explain what is really going on to we idiots still trapped on a

supposed

> spiritual path.It is as though, whilst still dreaming, our waking

self

> makes an appearance in the dream and starts explaining about states

of

> consciousness to our dreaming self. The metaphor no longer seems to

make any

> sense.

 

 

[The problem resolves when we understand that such alleged

explanations by alleged jIvanmuktAs have validity only from the point

of view of the still deluded jIva languishing in the vyAvahArikA. The

jIvanmuktAs and their teachings are his own projections. Their

wisdom is his own. The process is Grace operating and inevitable in

the struggle the jIvA puts in to locate his 'lost' glasses!. All

this can 'happen' only to the jIvA. Can't we extend this to the dream

metaphor where the 'appearance of the waking' then becomes the

dreamer's projection? In fact, I believe that makes the metaphor

more sensible. In the vyAvahArika, the paramArthA beckons and in

dreaming the waking!]

 

Hope I am clear.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Kaushic.

 

Let me try to answer your questions with the most minimum words

possible to the best of my limited knowledge.

 

Q1. firstly is knowledge neccesary for realisation b cos i c

knowledge itself doesnot give realisation .

 

Answ.: If the knowledge of your name is required in your day-to-day

transactions for you to answer the question "Who are you?", then some

knowledge becomes a prequisite for you to understand who you really

are.

 

Q2. secondly what is absolute truth b cos i find it quite relative

to the observer.

 

Answ.: Absolute Truth is what makes relativity apparent. It cannot

be relative to any observer because it cannot be 'observed' in the

ordinary sense.

 

Q3. thirdly, how can one can get information without using their 5

senses i mean is it possible to gain information in unconcious state.

 

Answ.: You need the sense organs and mind to get information. In

unconcious state, no information takes place. However, when you

regain consciousness, the knowledge of unconsciousness takes place

pointing at a continuity between the pre-conscious and post-conscious

states. This knowledge is helpful in understanding advaita.

 

Q4. fourthly, y do all relegion have god with humanoid features n

feelings i think it is absurd to think god as super attributed human.

 

Answ.: I cannot answer for all religions. You are right in

understanding the absurdity of it all. Advaita only says THERE IS

NOTHING BUT GOD and helps you understand that HE IS VERILY YOU. God

here encompasses everything.

 

You didn't sound impudent or arrogant. Best of luck with your

studies.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

pranams pujya nairji,

 

i am very happy to have recieved your reply.

it certainly cleared some of my doubts but i guess some other will b cleared

only thro time n experience

 

i would b happy if u could answer o few more of my innocent doubts.

firstly,

the concept of god,

is it ok if i can call god as the sum total of all conciousness n that v r

godlike in the same way a drop of water from the ocean is same as the ocean

qualitatively.

i percieve god as a continuity of millions of souls strung together and the

term visvarupa as used by krishna doesnot mean a an immense n terrible form but

all the universe.

secondly,

what is conciousness is it distinct from your thinking state.if it is how is it

distinct.n where doesit reside .

thirdly,

what is the difference between reality n virtuality.

i ask this question b cos i feel sometimes that the claims of people to have

experienced god could b well an hallucination.

how does one tell a difference between hallucination n real experience.

fourthly,

i have a doubt when one talks of atma merging with god.

firslty y should an atma take birth in first place.

given v r god r part of god, who is in bliss, it implies, that which is a part

of it must also b in bliss. then y take birth n come to this world y this

creation n pondering et al.

also when an atman merges with paramatma how do we know that that atma will not

take birth again.

if atma has desire it has the will to take birth n experience it implies atma is

intelligent part so when i am living r my wishes n desires the desires of my

atma r are they just a product of interaction of my intelligence n senses.

i would b immensely happy if u could answer my doubts.

with all due regards n respect,

 

 

 

 

k kaushic

engineering year 1

national university of singapore

 

 

 

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kaushicji.

 

Your post # 19006.

 

My answers are in brackets in the body of your text. Please

remember I am only sharing with you what I know. There may be better

explanations available.

 

> firstly,

> the concept of god,

> is it ok if i can call god as the sum total of all conciousness

 

[You can, provided Consciousness (capital 'C') is understood as all

that you know (experiences, objects, thoughts, ideas - everything)

including all that you consider unknown, because, when you say

something is unknown to you, you know that you don't know.]

 

 

n that v r godlike in the same way a drop of water from the ocean is

same as the ocean qualitatively.

 

[Why should you be a drop? Don't be stingy. Be the ocean itself!]

 

> i percieve god as a continuity of millions of souls strung together

and the term visvarupa as used by krishna doesnot mean a an immense

n terrible form but all the universe.

 

[VishwarUpa is terrible only for the samsArin. For one who has seen

through the terribleness, It is he himself. Don't even visualize a

string of souls. It is your homogeneous Fullness.]

 

> secondly,

> what is conciousness is it distinct from your thinking state.if it

is how is it distinct.n where doesit reside .

 

[Mere consciousness (small 'c') occurs in waking and dream states,

although psychology relegates dreams to the sub-conscious level.

Dreams being thoughts, for the purposes of our discussoin, we can

conclude that thinking occurs in dream state too. Then there is a

deep sleep state when no thoughts or awareness of external objects

occur. However, when we awake, we have a knowledge of the fact that

we didn't expereince anything. This means there was 'something'

there that was aware of the not experiencing in sleep.

That 'something' is a continuity which bridges the three states

pervading them effectively like gold pervading all its froms like

rings, chains, bracelets and bangles. Take the forms away, gold

remains. Take away the thoughts, objects and experiences (the three

states), the continuity remains. Gold is independent of its forms.

The forms cannot survive without gold. Similarly, the three states

are there because of the continuity behind them. They cannot exist

on their own without the support of the continuity behind them. In

fact, that continuity is the very fabric they are made of. Please

understand this continuity as Consciousness (capital 'C') as

different from oridinary consciousness where thinking occurs. It is

called TurIya. MAndUkya Upanishad covers this subject very

effectively and exhaustively. Where does this Consciousness reside?

Time and space are expereinced by us. As such, they are within our

awarenes or consciousness. Questions starting with where, when etc.,

therefore, cannot apply to Consciousness. If I therefore answer

Consciousness resides 'everywhere' 'always', I would be misleading

you. Yet, they are the only possible words I can use in my present

state conditioned by space and time.]

 

> thirdly,

> what is the difference between reality n virtuality.

 

[Reality (with capital 'R') in advaita is Consciousness (with

capital 'C') about which I talked above. It is the one Truth behind

everything and pervading everything. I don't know much about

virtuality. The word is used in many contexts and am not sure in

which sense you meant it here. Others can possibly help.]

 

> i ask this question b cos i feel sometimes that the claims of

people to have experienced god could b well an hallucination.

> how does one tell a difference between hallucination n real

experience.

 

[Hallucination is defined as 'perception of something withoiut

reality, the object so perceived, or an unfounded or mistaken

impression or notion'. In hallucinations, there is no consensus

unless it is a mass experience. Even mass experiences are often

questionable. In what we call reality (small 'r'), there is a seeming

consensus. Neither should bother us as advaitins. As a spiritual

aspirant, I too have my share of spiritual experiences where I don't

have consensus with those around me or even with other advaitins.

However, I have no objection if others call my expereinces

hallucinations as long as I make sure that such experiences don't

mislead me to the false conclusion that I have known what I am.

While enjoying such experiences, therefore, like I relish my morning

tea, I endeavour to contemplate on the Reality (capital 'R') that I

really am.]

 

> fourthly,

> i have a doubt when one talks of atma merging with god.

> firslty y should an atma take birth in first place.

 

[AtmA (Reality) has not taken any birth. It, therefore, has no death

too. If Reality is understood as God, there is no question of AtmA

merging with God since both are the same. The feeling that you have

taken birth is an error born of ignorance and advaita helps you see

through it.]

 

> given v r god r part of god, who is in bliss, it implies, that

which is a part of it must also b in bliss. then y take birth n come

to this world y this creation n pondering et al.

> also when an atman merges with paramatma how do we know that that

atma will not take birth again.

> if atma has desire it has the will to take birth n experience it

implies atma is intelligent part so when i am living r my wishes n

desires the desires of my atma r are they just a product of

interaction of my intelligence n senses.

 

[i said before that the feeling of having taken birth and having a

death awaiting out there is an error (ignorance) that can be seen

through. Advaitic knowledge of your real nature removes the

ignorance. Then, why bother about the why and how of that

ignorance. Knowing the prognosis of a disease is helpful. But that

knowledge doesn't cure unless you take the prescribed medicines or

treatment. Stop seeing Atma and paramAtmA as two

difrferent 'entities' awaiting a grand merger. Contemplate on the

logic of what we discussed above, read scriptures, listen to

teachers, do the sAdhanA prescribed by them, be in the company of the

spiritually-bent - Grace will result and you will be able to see

through the game.]

 

Best of luck.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

pranams to pujya nairji,

i thank u for your reply it has cleared some doubts n has give arise to more

doubts.

firstly conciousness is finite but Conciousness is eternal am i correct ,

next,

u mean to say that atman n parabrahma r same in all sense n birth is just but a

product of ignorance.

here is where i have more doubts,

firstly,

Q1what is the nature of ignorance

Q2is knowledge suffecient to remove it.

Q3how is ignorance brought about to the atman while it is being the ultimate

soul.

Q4 what is the nature of brahman.

Q5 if one is the supreme thyself then it obviously implies one is the source of

all knowledge . now

given the COnciousness that connects three states of mind is absolute y then is

it impossible for us to attain complete knowledge in our wake state from the

Conciousness

n even after a person attains realisation y does his physical form exist .

i mean ive heard of saints like ramana n chandreshekara saraswati of kanchipuram

to have been brahm jnani n that they had knowledge of brahman if then how come

their physical forms exist.

now birth is also a physical process it involves creation of a material being

how can one negate it.

i am lost in that part.

i dont understand the reason for atmas delusion n the origin of it.

could u help me out here

i would b greatful if any other member of advaitin could counsel me too.

i really look forward for gaining more knowledge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

k kaushic

engineering year 1

national university of singapore

 

 

 

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kaushicji.

 

Let me quote you:

 

"Q5 if one is the supreme thyself then it obviously implies one is

the source of all knowledge . now given the COnciousness that

connects three states of mind is absolute y then is it impossible for

us to attain complete knowledge in our wake state from the

Conciousnessn even after a person attains realisation y does his

physical form exist"

 

[Yes, one is the source of all knowledge, nay one is Knowledge.

Knowledge (with capital "K"), known as jnAnA, is another synonym for

the Reality or Consciousness we are talking about. It is wrong on our

part to think of It as emanating from a source. There is no

emanation or issuing forth at all for the Absolute. Now tell me who

is this person trying to attain complete knowledge in waking state.

He is the ignorant one and unless his ignorance is removed, he cannot

be Knowledge. You seem to suggest that one should have knowledge

even as one remains ignorant! That is impossible even with regard to

the subjects you are studying. Am I right? And, here that ignorant

person sees another one attaining realization and asks why the

physical form survives after realisation. What validity can you

attach to his questions and observations on a subject about which he

knows nothing at all? Is it not better threfore to leave such

questions to be answered on their own as you progress? If you are

interested, we have discussed this self-realization (jIvanmukti)

question in our recent posts in this thread.]

 

 

 

your reply it has cleared some doubts n has give arise to more doubts.

 

[That is but natural.]

 

 

> firstly conciousness is finite but Conciousness is eternal am i

correct ,

 

[Consciousness no doubt is timeless. Eternal means something that

exists in all times. Consciousness being beyond time is timeless.

The meaning of that word is difficult for our limited intellects to

comprehend as our thinking is conditioned by time. Mere

consciousness limited by mind, sense organs etc. is time-bound and,

therefore, cannot be timeless.]

 

> next, u mean to say that atman n parabrahma r same in all sense n

birth is just but a product of ignorance.

> here is where i have more doubts, firstly,

> Q1what is the nature of ignorance

 

[Your trying to attain all Knowledge being what you currently are

(Ref: Q5 quoted and answered above) is ignorance. You simply want

to remain what you are, see Consciousness as an external source full

of knowledge and tap it. That sense of separation is ignorance.

What more do you want to define ignorance? In scriputres, this

ignorance is termed as anAdi (beginningless).]

 

> Q2is knowledge suffecient to remove it.

 

Through right knowledge you become Knowledge. That knowledge is One

without a second, meaning it has no inside or outside (beyonds). So,

when you are Knowledge, there is no ignorance. I wouldn't like to

use verbs like 'remove' to explain this. This again is impossible to

comprehend with a mind and intellect at the mercy of space and time.

There is, therefore, no describing Knowledge (Consciousness). You

are THAT - meaning you don't have to become that KNOWLEDGE or know it

in the way you know everything else in your daily transactions.]

> Q3how is ignorance brought about to the atman while it is being the

ultimate soul.

 

[The person asking this question is ignorant. Ignorance has not been

brought to the Atman. How can you bring something to something which

is already Fullness?]

> Q4 what is the nature of brahman.

 

[Try to describe what is timelessness and spacelessness. You have the

answer. Any amounts of explanations are available in our scriptures,

particularly the Bhagwad GItA, which *point at* what you are asking

for. But anything that is said in words falls far short of a

description. You talk about the 'nature' of Brahman as though you

are dealing with an object. You (the subject) cannot be the object

to yourself (subject).]

> Q5 if one is the supreme thyself then it obviously implies one is

the source of all knowledge . now

> given the COnciousness that connects three states of mind is

absolute y then is it impossible for us to attain complete knowledge

in our wake state from the Conciousness

> n even after a person attains realisation y does his physical form

exist .

 

[Already answered in the beginning.]

 

> i mean ive heard of saints like ramana n chandreshekara saraswati

of kanchipuram to have been brahm jnani n that they had knowledge of

brahman if then how come their physical forms exist.

 

[Already answered above.]

 

> now birth is also a physical process it involves creation of a

material being

> how can one negate it.

> i am lost in that part.

> i dont understand the reason for atmas delusion n the origin of it.

 

[The question is whether you are convinced there is ignorance or

not. If you answer in the affirmative, do something about it as I

suggested in my last post. You know your body which you know from

the reports of others was born, your mind, your intellect, your ego.

Advaita enquires after the 'knower' of all these and concludes that

there is some error (ignorance) in our understanding of our real

nature. If you can accept that much, the methodology back to your

true identity is available in advaita for your asking. You will then

not be bothered about your current botheration of

brahmajnAnies 'retaining' their bodies.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Kashic:

 

Sri Nair has already provided you answers with greater details to

your questions. These are some additional comments based on my

understanding of Vedanta.

 

The Brahman or the SELF is nirguna which means, He has no form or

name and He can't be described using intellectual knowledge. Our

present status of the non-recognition of our 'True Divine Nature' is

ignorance. SELF is our True Divine Nature. We exhibit our ignorance

is exhibited through exists due to the fact that we identify by

identifying the "SELF" by our 'body, mind and intellect.' Due to this

incorrect identification, we create notions of 'birth' and 'death'

and exhibit our ignorance. Atman/Brahman/SELF is eternal free from

birth and death.

 

Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2

 

Know That, by which all this (universe) is pervaded, to be

indestructible. No one can destroy the indestructible (Atman) .

(2.17)

 

Bodies of the eternal, imperishable, and incomprehensible soul are

said to be perishable. Therefore, fight, O Arjuna. (2.18)

 

The one who thinks that Atman is a slayer, and the one who thinks

that Atma is slain, both are ignorant, because Atma neither slays

nor is slain. (2.19)

 

The Atma is neither born nor does it die at any time, nor having

been it will cease to exist again. It is unborn, eternal,

permanent, and primeval. The Atman is not destroyed when the body is

destroyed. (2.20)

 

O Arjuna, how can a person who knows that the Atma is

indestructible, eternal, unborn, and imperishable, kill anyone or

cause anyone to be killed? (2.21)

 

Just as a person puts on new garments after discarding the old

ones, similarly Atma acquires new bodies after casting away the old

bodies. (2.22)

 

Weapons do not cut this Atma, fire does not burn it, water does not

make it wet, and the wind does not make it dry. (2.23)

 

This Atma cannot be cut, burned, wetted, or dried up. It is

eternal, all pervading, unchanging, immovable, and primeval. (2.24)

 

The Atma is said to be unmanifest, unthinkable, and unchanging.

Knowing this Atma as such you should not grieve. (2.25)

 

Your question (3) is quite tricky and it is mostly raised by

nonadvaitins who want to discredit the advaita philosophy. Vedantic

answer to this question is quite subtle and one needs to pay

attention and need to have faith and conviction while trying to

understand the hidden answer. As a matter of fact, 'I am Brahman' is

the truth and question of 'ignorance' should never arise! When we

know the answer to the question, "Who am I?" we will be able to know

more about the 'nonexisting ignorance!'

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: Let me take this opportunity to congratulate you to raise the

fundamental Vedantic questions while doing your studies at Singapore

University. I also want to make a special request to you. I noticed

that you use short-hand english such as 'u' for you, etc., May I

request you to avoid the short-hand internet notations. Her is my

friendly advice. Since you have a good command of English, there is

no reason why you shouldn't apply it! This will greatly help members

to understand you completely and also help you to improve your

English composition.

 

 

 

advaitin, kaushic kalyan

<kaushickalyanraman> wrote:

 

> Q1what is the nature of ignorance

> Q2is knowledge suffecient to remove it.

> Q3how is ignorance brought about to the atman while it is being the

ultimate soul.

> Q4 what is the nature of brahman.

> Q5 if one is the supreme thyself then it obviously implies one is

the source of all knowledge . now

>.....

> i dont understand the reason for atmas delusion n the origin of it.

> could u help me out here

> i would b greatful if any other member of advaitin could counsel me

too.

> i really look forward for gaining more knowledge.

[Guest guest]

pujya Ram chandraji,

Firstly i thank you for your knowledgable advice . i also accept your

suggestions to write in a more formal language.i am sorry guess i am still young

and dint realise that this was a more serious forum.

 

when u say atma discards body n accepts another body i have doubt here.

when atma is supposed to be aware then why does it need to take body.

 

i also have a doubt regarding the statement that birth and death are but

products of ignorance.

does this statement imply the non existence of a material world.

i mean i find this statement impying a world very similar to the one described

by the movie" the Matrix".

please throw some light here.

i also have a doubt when one tells to read scriptures to further greater

understanding.

firstly,

how can we be certain that scriptures have not been doctored.

secondly,

since i am not very fluent with sanskrit i have to rely on translation and i

find most translation as a reflection and justification of the authors views on

it.which i feel is useless.

lastly,

i in my ignorance can misinterpret or find a justification to my own existing

views of life .

 

the only thing i feel that can lead me to knowledge is by discussion with the

learned and by following a guru.

but alas to be devoted to guru and to do seva is but out of coontext i have to

lead a normal life in this material world.

so my only recourse is to forums like these .

 

i also have a doubt regarding karma . what place does karma hold in advaita.

in scriptures mahabharat to be precise when krishna is killed by the hunter .

the hunter is remorseful n says he has commited a sin by killing krishna to

which krishna laughs and reveals his self as rama and the hunter remembers

himself as angada . he then says during his rama avatar he sinned by killing

vali against rules of comduct and even he is unescapable from law of karma.

can u throw light on it please.

i also read devi mahatyam an english version of course in that they prtray devi

as the absolute truth,

how can that be true giving the fact we are ourselves sampurna jnanam.

also

how can one realise that we ourselves are jnanam.

is it by mantra sadhanam or by logical arguments as proposed by the those

belonging to the school of nyaya.

please throw light here too.

 

also adi shankaracharya who is supposed to have put advaita firmly on indias

spiritual map wrote a lot of sastras on devi. if he was aware of himself as

truth i wonder what purpose do these serve.

also

in the various matam of shankaracharya we find more idol worship of various gods

n goddesses for what purposes are these done i find them highly disturbing

for as a begginer when i look at advaita i find it escapist and totally

contradictory to normal life.

dvaitam is comparably more easy.

so is islamic and christian theology to an extent.

 

i also have a doubt regarding SELf how is self Evident. how should i search

about it. will mantropasana help because i have been inducted into it. i chant

chandi n ganapathi mantram alaong waith gayathri.

 

please advice me as to how to go about realising self.

i find it difficult to accept birth and death are logical errors because we have

so many rite like shraddam for dead .

why then perform them if there is no dead.

why is hinduism so confusing.

it is a like a well cooked pack of noodles can figure out where it starts and

where it ends.

when u say faith will give you deliverance i agree with you for i can see no

other way.

i hope i have not been impudent .

i am just a beginner and looking for someone to help me in advaita.

 

 

 

k kaushic

engineering year 1

national university of singapore

 

 

 

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kaushicji,

 

I am not qualified enough to answer all your doubts. This is just a small try.

 

 

You said:

"i also have a doubt regarding karma . what place does karma hold in advaita.

in scriptures mahabharat to be precise when krishna is killed by the hunter .

the hunter is remorseful n says he has commited a sin by killing krishna to

which krishna laughs and reveals his self as rama and the hunter remembers

himself as angada . he then says during his rama avatar he sinned by killing

vali against rules of comduct and even he is unescapable from law of karma.

can u throw light on it please. "

 

 

Sin or pApa is not inherent in the action. pApa is only in the reaction. Our

action has no pApa or puNya per se. pApa and puNya is associated with the

reaction of our action which obeys the law of karma. We cannot do any sin. We

can only do an action which will produce a reaction. If the reaction is not

positive, because of our ignorance we say that the action is a sin. Factually

since the reaction is not present at the time of action, we cannot sin at all !

 

So in your story the hunter didn't commit any sin per se. And since the reaction

produced by Krishna's action is not positive, we say that Krishna sinned ! Even

He cannot escape the Law. An action will always produce a reaction.

 

 

You said:

"i also have a doubt regarding SELf how is self Evident. how should i search

about it. will mantropasana help because i have been inducted into it. i chant

chandi n ganapathi mantram alaong waith gayathri. "

 

 

We see a pot because of the light coming from the lamp. But do we need another

lamp to see the light itself ?

 

You cannot search the Self. You can only realize it. And the process is only by

negation of anitya (Unreal). In the negation process, the nitya (Real) will

shine forward. An example might help here. Suppose you have some red marbles and

some white marbles in a box. You want only the white marbles in the box. What

will you do? You keep on taking out the red marbles from the box. You are not

even touching the white marbles. Finally when all the red marbles are taken out,

what remains in the box is what you want !

 

mantrOpAsana will purify the mind. It wont reveal the Self.

In Atmabodha, SankarAchArya says:

" Just as the fire is the direct cause for cooking, so without Knowledge no

emancipation can be had. Compared with all other forms of discipline Knowledge

of the Self is the one direct means for liberation. "

 

Chanting of mantra can be compared to the cutting and cleaning of vegetables

before cooking. Finally when it comes to cooking, Fire has to be there.

 

 

You said:

" why is hinduism so confusing.

it is a like a well cooked pack of noodles can figure out where it starts and

where it ends.

when u say faith will give you deliverance i agree with you for i can see no

other way."

 

Even if you lack a bit of all other qualities necessary for a student of

vEdanta, *shradha* (faith in the Guru and scriptures) will lead you safely to

the shores.

 

 

You said:

" i hope i have not been impudent .

i am just a beginner and looking for someone to help me in advaita. "

 

There are only two. The enlightened who realize it, and the enlightened who

don't realize it. There is no beginner or anything in between !

 

Anyway you are in safe hands. This list is indeed a virtual guru for me !!

 

Hari Om

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ranjeetji.

 

Nice to see you writing again.

 

May I add a note to your comment quoted below?

 

"Sin or pApa is not inherent in the action. pApa is only in the

reaction. Our action has no pApa or puNya per se. pApa and puNya is

associated with the reaction of our action which obeys the law of

karma. We cannot do any sin. We can only do an action which will

produce a reaction. If the reaction is not positive, because of our

ignorance we say that the action is a sin. Factually since the

reaction is not present at the time of action, we cannot sin at all !"

 

As I see it, most, if not all, our actions are reactions. The

positiveness or otherwise of an action will differ according to

dharma. What is positive for a Hindu might be negative for one

belonging to or following another faith. In the circumstances, isn't

it better to understand sin as any action that alienates you from

your real nature (Courtesy: Sw. Chinmayanandaji). The best thing

then is to take recourse to karmayoga which prescribes the

performance of non-binding actions. Arjuna was advised just that on

the eve of his setting out to kill his own cousins.

 

Just a thought.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kaushicji:

 

Your question is a loaded one and I am fully aware that I can't

advice you how to go about realizing SELF. As you have correctly

pointed out, Hinduism can be quite confusing for both beginners and

veterans. It is like a famous artist's painting hanging in a museum

wall. Those who can appreciate the art will admire the complexity and

those not familiar may laugh at it!

 

Self-realization happens when we reach the peak of our spiritual

growth. Our scriptures and the sages and saints of the Upanishads

(and also Gitacharya) emphasizes its importance through words and

deeds. Look at the nature, the flower blooms when the appropriate

time comes! All your questions are quite valid and they naturally

occur to seekers like you.

 

When we wake up from a dream, we realize that the 'sumptuous food'

that we ate during the dream is not real. Immediately after eating

heavy food during the dream, we do feel hungry when we wake up! We

are able to understand that the dream is not 'real' even though it

appeared to be 'real' during the dream. This realization came after

waking up from the dream. As long as we remain in the dream, we

can't distinguish between 'real' and 'unreal.'

 

Now we should recognize that our life is also a dream and we are

fully submerged in that dream. SELF-REALIZATION in this context is

waking up from the dream stage. Only those who are awake (self-

realized) know the distinction between 'real' and 'unreal.' The rest

of us just enjoy by speculating our own 'theories' and corallaries!

 

As I have said in the beginning, you have loaded with lots of

questions on the fundamentals of Hinduism and its relevance in the

context of advaita philsophy. You are now in the first year

engineering and after many more years, you will be able to grasp the

intrinsic details of the engineering discipline. The Hindu religion

and advaita philosophy is much deeper than an engineering discipline

and you will be able to appreciate the fine points at the appropriate

time.

 

Let me end this post with a dialog between a mother and a son:

Mother: Listen to your father learn from him

Son (15 years): Father is a dumb and I know what I am doing!

Son (16 years): Father is a dumb and I know what I am doing!

Son (17 years): Father is a dumb and I know what I am doing!

Son (18 years): It is amazing and I don't know how it happened;

within the past three years, father has really become intelligent and

matured! Now I can listen to him and can learn from him!!

Mother: Thank God!!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, kaushic kalyan

<kaushickalyanraman> wrote:

>

> please advice me as to how to go about realising self.

> i find it difficult to accept birth and death are logical errors

because we have so many rite like shraddam for dead .

> why then perform them if there is no dead.

> why is hinduism so confusing.

> it is a like a well cooked pack of noodles can figure out where it

starts and where it ends.