Guest guest Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 namaste. The following arose out of recent dicussions (on aShTAvakragItA) in our local discussion group. To think that we *experience* the SELF is a fallacy. SELF-realization (AtmavidyA) is *not* an experience. Experience *is* an act. AtmavidyA is not an act. adaH (in pUrNamadaH) is not an act. idam (in pUrNamadaH pUrNamidam) is an act and to realize fully that it is an act is adaH. I would appreciate if the learned members care to dissect/clarify/ comment/improve on the above "sequence" of statements. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 Namaste Sri Gummuluru: You have provided a list of commonly used notions of Vedanta and ultimately all these notions will have no place at the paramarthika level of reality. At the vyavaharika level, we introduce notions for getting clarity of our understanding of Vedanta. Suddenly, notions tend to increase in geometric progression because our intellect is able to find the logical inconsistency of a notion sooner or later. I agree that "SELF-REALIZATION" can never be explained. We want to employ the notion of 'experience' to explain SELF-REALIZATION with the statement, "Self-Realization is an experience." The next question that arises naturally is, "What is experience?" We created the answer - 'Experience is an act.' The paradoxical (I find the terminology of paradox superior to fallacy) statements stated by you confirm why "SELF-REALIZATION" can't be explained! The notion of 'act' imply an 'actor' or 'doer' or 'experiencer.' This may partly explain why Vedanta emphasizes why we should be just a witness of an 'act' and become a 'nondoer.' As long as we remember all the implied ifs and buts of the Vedantic notions, we can avoid confusion. But at the appropriate time, we also remember to give up all notions including the notion of Vedanta! And that is 'SELF- REALIZATION.' Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > namaste. > > > To think that we *experience* the SELF is a fallacy. > > SELF-realization (AtmavidyA) is *not* an experience. > > Experience *is* an act. > > AtmavidyA is not an act. > > adaH (in pUrNamadaH) is not an act. > > idam (in pUrNamadaH pUrNamidam) is an act and to realize fully > that it is an act is adaH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 Namaste Murthyji, Gummuluru Murthuji : " To think that we *experience* the SELF is a fallacy. SELF-realization (AtmavidyA) is *not* an experience. Experience *is* an act. AtmavidyA is not an act." Experience can only revolve around an object. Self is not an object. Moreover Self is Self-evident. It is Knowledge itself. No effort is needed to gain knowledge about the Self or to experience the Self. As a matter of fact, it is impossible. The efforts and sAdhana-s are just to negate the non-Self using vivEka. And finally only the Self remains. When we talk about *experiencing* the Self, the experiencer is still the Non-Self. So the negation is not complete. Hari Om Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 Namaste Murthyji. My two cents worth in brackets . > To think that we *experience* the SELF is a fallacy. [Why call it fallacy? Please call it ignorance as the urge to *experience* everything is the root of our alienation from our real nature.] > SELF-realization (AtmavidyA) is *not* an experience. [it cannot be, because there is logically no experiencer and experienced in Self-realization. To keep quiet is the best policy here. As Dennisji pointed out on this Forum before, when the dreamer becomes the 'waker' on waking up, there is no urge on his part to explain to his dream compainions that whatever happened was a dream. The waker became the waker - not the dreamer the waker as the dreamer was only a copy of the waker. In this example, however, waking is still an experience for the waker due to the remembrance of dreaming. It is so simply because it was a transition between two relative states, whereas, in self-realization, it is a 'transition'(sorry for that word; I am forced to use it just for the sake of conveying) to the Ultimate or Original. Being the Original cannot be 'experience'. It can be an 'experience' only for the copy (our present state). But, in self-realization, the copy vanishes as the Original is One without a second! > Experience *is* an act. If you apply the logic of 'nakaschitkshanamapi......', even the minutest of impulses in the brain represents an act. So, if there is an experience, there is some brain-function behind it and that is an act. > AtmavidyA is not an act. AtmavidyA, if known as JnAnA (more precisely Consciousness in our present context), cannot be an act as It encompasses the mortal brain and sustains it. The logic: Consciousness Is, therefore the brain is, the acts are. However, all our sAdhanA towards AtmavidyA are acts as there are corresponding brain impulses produced in the process. > adaH (in pUrNamadaH) is not an act. > > idam (in pUrNamadaH pUrNamidam) is an act and to realize fully > that it is an act is adaH. [i am taking them up together as I cannot visualize a separation here. pUrNamadaH (adah) is the synonym of pUrNamidam (idam) in the Upanishidic verse. Why, therefore, treat them separately? The entire gamut of advaita is effectively covered in that verse. Remove the actually pUrnam but misunderstood as apUrnam idam (all this), still pUrNam remains - meaning you are pUrnam with your eyes open as well as closed. So, adaH (the Truth) and idam (all this that you experience) are actually Fullness. It is only due to our ignorance that we see deficiencies in the latter. Since the deficiencies are experienced and appreciated, they belong to idam and, therefore, they are also *actually* Fullness. Even our ignorance is Fullness. If both adah and idam are both Fullness, i.e. one and the same, where is any act in them? (Ref: 'AtmavidyA is not an act' above). Acts cannot afflict Fullness. Since acts are also experienced and apprciated, they are also Fullness. Then, where are the acts? That is the crux of the error yelling at us to see through! We are dreaming. Time me we woke up as Original when the thought of acts cannot pester us anymore. PUrNam remains then and shines on Its own (That last part is to keep in line with our discussin on L.I.E.)] PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2003 Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 > To think that we *experience* the SELF is a fallacy. who experiences? if it is somebody else, then what use is it to you? > SELF-realization (AtmavidyA) is *not* an experience. > > Experience *is* an act. > > AtmavidyA is not an act. all action is at the level of the body/mind/senses. if you're the self that's apart from all these then action doesn't belong to you. that's the reason that advaita exhorts one to abandon all action. in normal expereince it is only in deep sleep that a person experiences perfect calm/peace. So what do you do to achieve this? Nothing - we just abandon all action. also tat tvam asi means that you are the truth. how/why should you know yourself? who will know? by what will they know? what is to be known? and why? the mind always wants to know. so it is natural for those who "seek the truth" to want to find out/know something. But this instinct has to be given up. that is the first step to serious self knowledge (which is non-conceptual). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2003 Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 Namaste, I have tried to answer the questions raised. The questions are within brackets. {that's the reason that advaita exhorts one to abandon all action.} Advaita does not exhort one to abandon action. On the other hand advaita exhorts one to do action, as Lord says no one can remain without doing any action, even for a second. What advaita says is to understand that the doer of action is in reality a fictitious figure i.e. the Jeeva. That is, there is no Karthutwa (doership) on the part of the Self, but it is with a fictitious Jeeva. {in normal experience it is only in deep sleep that a person experiences perfect calm/peace.} Why only in sleep? When you stand before the sea, or when you look at a small baby, or when you look at a flower, do you not feel peace or happiness? When there no demanding on the part of the “looker” or rather when the “looker” does not looks at things with a pre-conceived structure, he feels peace. We look at things with pre-conceived notions and that is the problem. We do not look at the objects as objects, but we color the objects with our pre-conceived notions. {also tat tvam asi means that you are the truth. how/why should you know yourself?} Because we do not know what is the Swaroopa of that Truth. Swabhava of a thing can change, but not swaroopa, i.e. there is no vyabhicharitwam in swaroopa. {who will know?} Who has ignorance will know. {by what will they know?} Any knowledge can take place only through a Pramana i.e. instrument of knowledge. For knowing the Swaroopa of Self, the instrument of knowledge is Sabda i.e the Upnishads. {what is to be known?) Already mentioned above. {and why?} Knowing that, will release you, i.e. the fictitious jeeva from the structure we have about everything including our own self. This leads to inner peace, which is what we are all seeking. {the mind always wants to know. so it is natural for those who "seek the truth" to want to find out/know something. But this instinct has to be given up. that is the first step to serious self knowledge} Like any other knowledge, if you leave up the effort to know it or search for it through the right instrument, how will you know it? Hari Om R.S.Mani 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Ram Chandran wrote: > Namaste Sri Gummuluru: > > [...] > > I agree that "SELF-REALIZATION" can never be explained. We want to > employ the notion of 'experience' to explain SELF-REALIZATION with > the statement, "Self-Realization is an experience." The next > question that arises naturally is, "What is experience?" We created > the answer - 'Experience is an act.' > > The paradoxical (I find the terminology of paradox superior to > fallacy) statements stated by you confirm why "SELF-REALIZATION" > can't be explained! > > The notion of 'act' imply an 'actor' or 'doer' or 'experiencer.' This > may partly explain why Vedanta emphasizes why we should be just a > witness of an 'act' and become a 'nondoer.' As long as we remember > all the implied ifs and buts of the Vedantic notions, we can avoid > confusion. But at the appropriate time, we also remember to give up > all notions including the notion of Vedanta! And that is 'SELF- > REALIZATION.' > > Warmest regards, > > Ram Chandran > namaste. Although we have a reasonable feel what paramArthika satyam is, we cannot describe It in words. The more we try to put It in words, the more difficult we make it to convey what we really mean. This is the inadequacy of the language, the sounds and limitations of the sensory perceptions so that It cannot be transmitted adequately. This is, I think, what is meant by that SELF-Knowledge is guhyAti guhyam, the most secretive of the secret Knowledge. Secret here does not mean It should not be conveyed; secret means It cannot be conveyed. Yet, the sages and the guru-s make it a point to show the road to SELF-Knowledge. On that road, the sAdhaka has to travel alone knowing by him/herself what AtmajnAnam is. What I meant by an act, I have amplified in my response to shri Nanda. There is an actor in an act and the actor knows he/she is playing a role. There is no confusion in the actor's mind between the role he is playing and himself. All through the vyavahArika-jnAnam, we are suffering from the confusion of mixing up between the role and the actor. We ignorantly get deeply involved in the role and take the role itself to be real and we forget we are the actor. While it may lead to a splendid academy-award-winning performance, it gets delusional for the actor. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, vpcnk wrote: > > To think that we *experience* the SELF is a fallacy. > > who experiences? namaste. That is exactly the reason why I said SELF-realization is not an experience. > if it is somebody else, then what use is it to you? > Really, no use. But, in general, the very purpose of any of these discussions is toward a common and proper understanding of the model. I like to stress that we are discussing a model only which may lead to the Truth. We have a clear intellectual idea of what the Truth is. We may not need a model to realize that truth. Yet, a consensus model understood by like-minded persons, is sometimes useful. > > SELF-realization (AtmavidyA) is *not* an experience. > > > > Experience *is* an act. > > > > AtmavidyA is not an act. > > all action is at the level of the body/mind/senses. if you're the > self that's apart from all these then action doesn't belong to you. > that's the reason that advaita exhorts one to abandon all action. > > in normal expereince it is only in deep sleep that a person > experiences perfect calm/peace. So what do you do to achieve this? > Nothing - we just abandon all action. > > also tat tvam asi means that you are the truth. how/why should you > know yourself? > > who will know? > > by what will they know? > > what is to be known? and why? > > the mind always wants to know. so it is natural for those who "seek > the truth" to want to find out/know something. But this instinct has > to be given up. that is the first step to serious self knowledge > (which is non-conceptual). > I agree with what is said above. Let me expand on what I mean by saying experience is an act. In any act, there is an actor. And the actor knows what he/she is performing is an act. Hence the actor keeps himself/herself apart from the role that is being acted. The important thing is: the actor knows that he/she is acting a role. He/she will never confuse his/herself with the role. That knowledge that the role and the actor are different is what I mean that idam is an act. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote: > > > SELF-realization (AtmavidyA) is *not* an experience. > > [it cannot be, because there is logically no experiencer and > experienced in Self-realization. To keep quiet is the best policy > here. As Dennisji pointed out on this Forum before, when the dreamer > becomes the 'waker' on waking up, there is no urge on his part to > explain to his dream compainions that whatever happened was a dream. > The waker became the waker - not the dreamer the waker as the dreamer > was only a copy of the waker. In this example, however, waking is > still an experience for the waker due to the remembrance of > dreaming. It is so simply because it was a transition between two > relative states, whereas, in self-realization, it is > a 'transition'(sorry for that word; I am forced to use it just for > the sake of conveying) to the Ultimate or Original. Being the > Original cannot be 'experience'. It can be an 'experience' only for > the copy (our present state). But, in self-realization, the copy > vanishes as the Original is One without a second! > > namaste and thanks for the comment. I fully agree with what is stated. I do not want to put any more words because the words would only cause more confusion and in any case are inadequate to convey what is to be conveyed. Another analogy to this is a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. > > [i am taking them up together as I cannot visualize a separation > here. pUrNamadaH (adah) is the synonym of pUrNamidam (idam) in the > Upanishidic verse. Why, therefore, treat them separately? The entire > gamut of advaita is effectively covered in that verse. Remove the > actually pUrnam but misunderstood as apUrnam idam (all this), still > pUrNam remains - meaning you are pUrnam with your eyes open as well > as closed. So, adaH (the Truth) and idam (all this that you > experience) are actually Fullness. It is only due to our ignorance > that we see deficiencies in the latter. Since the deficiencies are > experienced and appreciated, they belong to idam and, therefore, they > are also *actually* Fullness. Even our ignorance is Fullness. If both > adah and idam are both Fullness, i.e. one and the same, where is any > act in them? (Ref: 'AtmavidyA is not an act' above). Acts cannot > afflict Fullness. Since acts are also experienced and apprciated, > they are also Fullness. Then, where are the acts? That is the crux > of the error yelling at us to see through! We are dreaming. Time me > we woke up as Original when the thought of acts cannot pester us > anymore. PUrNam remains then and shines on Its own (That last part is > to keep in line with our discussin on L.I.E.)] > > PraNAms. > > Madathil Nair > Idam is what our senses perceive and infer by various logical procedures (pratyaksha, upamAna, anumAna, etc). Idam is full in the sense that if we extrapolate by some logical or intellectual advancement, it falls into the idam and hence idam is always full. But I would argue idam is an act in the sense I defined what act, actor and role are in my responses to shri Nanda and shri Ram Chandran in the same thread. I like to participate in a more full discussion of pUrNamaaH pUrNamidam... at some appropriate time without impinging on the other monthly discussions presently underway. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Namaste Murthygaru: I agree that a fully discussion of pUrNamaaH pUrNamidam .... is quite appropriate for a month long discussion. Since we are already bookded till December, why don't I request you to be the leader for the January 2004 (your new year gift to the list!). Let us begin the new year with this most appropriate topic. OM PURNAMADAH PURNAMIDAM PURNAT PURNAMUDACHYATE PURNASYA PURNAMADAYA PURNAMEVAVASHISHATE OM SHANTIH, SHANTIH, SHANTIH. Quick Translation: Om That (God) is infinite, this (world) is infinite. >From the infinite (God), the infinite (world) becomes manifest. >From the infinite (God), the infinite (world) is negated, what remains is again the infinite Om Peace, Peace, Peace. Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > > I like to participate in a more full discussion of pUrNamaaH > pUrNamidam... at some appropriate time without impinging on > the other monthly discussions presently underway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Ram Chandran wrote: > Namaste Murthygaru: > > I agree that a fully discussion of pUrNamaaH pUrNamidam .... is quite > appropriate for a month long discussion. Since we are already > bookded till December, why don't I request you to be the leader for > the January 2004 (your new year gift to the list!). Let us begin the > new year with this most appropriate topic. > > > Warmest regards, > > Ram Chandran > > namaste shri Ram Chandran-ji, pUrNamadaH pUrNamidam ... is indeed an excellent topic for a month-long discussion. However, I will not be able to accept your invitation for me to lead this discussion in January as I will be, at that time, hopefully, in the middle of a six-month spiritual journey to India. I have noted in the past, both shri Madathil Nair-ji and profvk-ji have presented insightful comments on this mantra. I think these two together or either of them will be excellent leaders for this discussion. I will be able to participate in the discussion but will not find time to lead at that time. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 - Gummuluru Murthy namaste. How can the non-SELF, which is jaDa (inert) be an experiencer ? It cannot be. How can the SELF be an experiencer of Itself ? It cannot be. Thus, AtmajnAnam is not and canot be an experience. It is neither an experience, nor there is an experincer. ------ Namaste Shri Murthy-ji, Sankaracharya explains in detail the Knowledge of the Self or experience of the Self in his Gita Bhashyam. For members who don't have a copy with them, I am producing it here. It is a bit long. But it is really worth it. This is taken from the bhashyam for Chapter 18, Verse.50. Translation is by Swami Gambirananda I am not typing the Verse and its word meaning. I will start with the Objection. ------ " Objection: Is it not that knowledge takes the form of its object? But it is not admitted anywhere that the Self is an object, or even that it has form. Pseudo-Vedantin: Is it not heard of in such texts as, 'radiant like the sun' (Sv 3.8), 'Of the nature of effulgence' (Ch 3.14.2) and 'Self-effulgent' (Br 4.3.9), that the Self has form? Objection: No, because those sentences are meant for refuting the idea that Self is of the nature of darkness. When the Self is denied of possessing forms of substance, quality, etc., the contingency arises of the Self's being of the nature of darkness. The sentences, 'radiant like the sun', etc are meant for rebutting this. And this follows from the specific denial of form by saying, 'Formless' (Ka 1.3.15), and from such texts as, 'His form does not exist within the range of vision; nobody sees Him with the eye' (Ka 2.3.9, Sv 4.20), 'soundless, touchless' (Ka 1.3.15), etc., which show that the Self is not an object of perception. Therefore it remains unproved that there can be any knowledge which takes the form of the Self. How, then, can there be knowledge of the Self? For, all knowledge that there can be with regard to objects assumes their respective forms. And it has been said that the Self has no form. Moreover, if both knowledge and the Self be formless, then how can there be the consummation of the repeated contemplation on that (knowledge of Self)? Vedantin: No. Since it can be established that the Self is supremely taintless, pure and subtle, and it can also be established that the intellect can have taintlessness etc like the Self, therefore it stands to reason that the intellect can take a form resembling the consciousness of the Self. The mind becomes impressed with the semblance of the intellect; the organs become impressed with the semblance of the mind; and the body becomes impressed with the semblance of the organs. Hence it is that the idea of the body itself being the Self is held by ordinary people. The lokAyatika-s (materialists), who hold that the body is identical with consciousness, say that a person is a body endowed with consciousness; so also there are others who say that the organs are identical with consciousness; there are others who say that the mind is identical with consciousness, and still others who say that the intellect is identical with consciousness. Some accept as the Self the Unmanifest (antaryAmin), called the Undifferentiated, which is more internal than the intellect and is within the domain of primordial ignorance. Indeed, in every case, beginning from the intellect to the body, the cause of mis-conceived Selfhood is the semblance of the Consciousness that is the Self. Hence, knowledge about the Self is not a subject for injunction. What then? Only the eradication of the superimposition of name, form, etc., which are not the Self, is what has to be undertaken, but not the knowledge of the Self that is Consciousness. For it is the Self which is experienced as possessed of the forms of all various objects that are superimposed on it through ignorance. It is evidently because of this that the Buddhists who uphold the view of momentary consciousness have concluded that there is no substance at all apart from momentary consciousness, and that it is not in need of any other valid proof since they hold that it is self-cognized. Therefore, what is to be undertaken is only the elimination of the superimposition on Brahman through ignorance, but no effort is needed for *knowing* Brahman, for It is quite self-evident ! It is because the intellect is distracted by particular appearances of name and form imagined through ignorance that Brahman, even though self-evident, easily realizable, nearer than all else and identical with oneself, appears to be concealed, difficult to realize, very far and different. But to those whose intellect has become free from external appearances and who have obtained the grace of a teacher and serenity of mind, there is nothing more blissful, manifest, well known, easily realized and nearer to oneself than this Self. And thus it has been declared, 'directly realizable, righteous'. However, some wiseacres assert that the intellect cannot comprehend the entity called the Self since It is formless; hence, complete steadfastness in Knowledge is impossible. This is truly so for those who have not associated with a traditional line of teachers; who have not heard the Upanishads; whose intellects are too much engrossed with external objects; and who have not applied themselves diligently to the perfect means of knowledge. For those, on the other hand, who are the opposite of these, it is absolutely impossible to have the idea of reality with regard to empirical objects, which are within the realm of duality involving the knower and the known, because in their case there is no perception of any other thing apart from the Consciousness that is the Self. We have already said how this is certainly so and not otherwise. It has been stated by the Lord also, 'That during which creatures keep awake, it is night to the seeing sage' (Gita 2.69). Therefore, the cessation of the perception of differences in the form of external things is alone the cause of resting in the reality of the Self. For, that which is called the Self is never an object which is not well known, attainable, rejectable or acceptable to anyone at any time. Were the Self to be indeed not self-evident, all activities would become meaningless. For it cannot be that pleasure is for pleasure's sake, or that sorrow is for sorrow's sake. Moreover, all empirical dealings are meant for culminating in the realization of the Self. Therefore, just as for knowing one's own body there is no need of any other external means of knowledge, so also there is no need of any other means of knowledge for the realization of the Self which is innermost (in relation to the body etc). Hence it is established that steadfastness in the knowledge of the Self is a fact very well known to the discriminating people. Even to those who hold that knowledge is formless and not cognized by direct perception, cognition of an object is dependent on knowledge. Hence it has to be admitted that knowledge is as immediate as pleasure etc. And this follows also from the impossibility of a desire to know Knowledge. Had knowledge been not self-evident, it could have been sought for like any object of knowledge. And in that case, as a knower seeks to perceive though knowledge such objects of knowledge as pot etc., similarly the knower would have sought to perceive knowledge though another knowledge ! But this is not the case. Therefore knowledge is quite self-revealing, the for the same reason the knower also is self-revealed. Hence, effort is not needed for knowledge, but only for the removal of the notion of what is Not-Self. Consequently, steadfastness in Knowledge is easy of accomplishment. " ------ Hari Om Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar" <thefinalsearch> wrote: > - > Gummuluru Murthy > namaste. > > How can the non-SELF, which is jaDa (inert) be an experiencer ? > It cannot be. > > How can the SELF be an experiencer of Itself ? It cannot be. > > Thus, AtmajnAnam is not and canot be an experience. It is > neither an experience, nor there is an experincer. > > > Namaste Shri Murthy-ji, > > Sankaracharya explains in detail the Knowledge of the Self or experience of the Self in his Gita Bhashyam. > For members who don't have a copy with them, I am producing it here. It is a bit long. But it is really worth it. > > This is taken from the bhashyam for Chapter 18, Verse.50. > Translation is by Swami Gambirananda ------------------------------- Namaste, Ranjeet Shankarji I think Murthygaru is right when he said that AtmajnAna is not an exerience. The passage you quote from Shankara bhAshya exactly says that. All that explanation by the Acharya is to say that the word 'Apnoti' in the text, which means 'one obtains' does not mean that jnAna is something which is out there and we go and 'get' it by making'proper efforts'. The proper efforts are only to remove our own ignorance, our own false notions and so on. That is why The Acharya says "No effort is needed to 'obtain' knowledge" . I mark the key sentences from your own quotes from Gambhirananda's translation below: > >> > What then? Only the eradication of the superimposition of name, form, etc., which are not the Self, is what has to be undertaken, but not the knowledge of the Self that is Consciousness. For it is the Self which is experienced as possessed of the forms of all various objects that are superimposed on it through ignorance. ...... Therefore, what is to be undertaken is only the elimination of the superimposition on Brahman through ignorance, but no effort is needed for *knowing* Brahman, for It is quite self- evident ! It is because the intellect is distracted by particular appearances of name and form imagined through ignorance that Brahman, even though self-evident, easily realizable, nearer than all else and identical with oneself, appears to be concealed, difficult to realize, very far and different....... However, some wiseacres assert that the intellect cannot comprehend the entity called the Self since It is formless; hence, complete steadfastness in Knowledge is impossible. > > Therefore, the cessation of the perception of differences in the form of external things is alone the cause of resting in the reality of the Self. For, that which is called the Self is never an object which is not well known, attainable, rejectable or acceptable to anyone at any time. Were the Self to be indeed not self-evident, all activities would become meaningless. For it cannot be that pleasure is for pleasure's sake, or that sorrow is for sorrow's sake. Moreover, all empirical dealings are meant for culminating in the realization of the Self. Therefore, just as for knowing one's own body there is no need of any other external means of knowledge, so also there is no need of any other means of knowledge for the realization of the Self which is innermost (in relation to the body etc). Hence it is established that steadfastness in the knowledge of the Self is a fact very well known to the discriminating people. > Even to those who hold that knowledge is formless and not cognized by direct perception, cognition of an object is dependent on knowledge. Hence it has to be admitted that knowledge is as immediate as pleasure etc. And this follows also from the impossibility of a desire to know Knowledge. Had knowledge been not self-evident, it could have been sought for like any object of knowledge. And in that case, as a knower seeks to perceive though knowledge such objects of knowledge as pot etc., similarly the knower would have sought to perceive knowledge though another knowledge ! But this is not the case. Therefore knowledge is quite self-revealing, the for the same reason the knower also is self- revealed. Hence, effort is not needed for knowledge, but only for the removal of the notion of what is Not-Self. Consequently, steadfastness in Knowledge is easy of accomplishment. " VK: The entire argument is to get the right meaning of 'Apnoti' and also to say that 'jnAnasya nishhTA' (Steadfastness in Knowledge) is possible. Whatever effort we make should be for the removal of the non-Self. The Self is already and always there! praNAms to all advaitins profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Ranjeet Sankar wrote: > > Namaste Shri Murthy-ji, > > Sankaracharya explains in detail the Knowledge of the Self or experience > of the Self in his Gita Bhashyam. For members who don't have a copy with > them, I am producing it here. It is a bit long. But it is really worth > it. > > This is taken from the bhashyam for Chapter 18, Verse.50. > Translation is by Swami Gambirananda > > [...] > > Hari Om > > namaste shri Ranjeet-ji, Thanks very much for the reference of BG 18.50 bhAShya. I do not think there is any contradiction between what I stated and swami Gambhirananda-ji's translation of shri shankara bhAShya. As profvk-ji pointed out, the excerpt posted by you says how 'obtaining' knowledge is simply the removal of ignorance because the knowledge is already there and there is nothing to obtain. Coming to whether the SELF as Absolute without attributes can be experienced (and by whom ?) I still like to reiterate what I said in my post of yesterday. The following is what my understanding of *experience* is. When we say we experience something, there is an experiencer who is the subject, and there is an event, object or whatever which is experienced. The result of this experience is the generation of some sort of a feeling (either joy or sorrow, or heat or cold etc one of the pairs of opposites) in the experiencer. The test whether we have experienced something is the generation of this feeling. If the feeling does not arise in us, we can say we did not experience it. SELF does not fall in this category. Firstly It is not an object. Secondly, the so-called experiencer is none other than the SELF but wrongly identified as the experiencer. Also, I noticed in the whole quote you presented in your post, and also in swami Gambhirananda-ji's translation that I have, the word "experience" is used only in one sentence (page 721, line 8). If you have access to shankara bhAShya original, What is shri shankara's word in sanskrit which resulted in the translation "experience" in swami Gambhirananda's work ? Following the bhAShya in BG18.50, can we say (if we have to use the word 'experience' associated with the SELF) something like: non-experience of the non-SELF is recognition of the 'experience' of the SELF. There is difficulty with saying this way also. The 'experience' of the SELF is always there, the word 'experience' being used here to mean that SELF is self- evident. If we have non-experience of the non-SELF, the so-called 'experience' of the SELF shines in its glory. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ---- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: shankara bhAShya > original, What is shri shankara's word in sanskrit which > resulted in the translation "experience" in swami > Gambhirananda's work ? Namaste, Hope this reference is helpful: http://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/ "avidyaadhyaaropitasarvapadaarthaakaaraiH avishiShTatayaa dR^ishyamaanatvaat iti ." [shankara Gita Bhashya] "For it is the Self which is experienced as possessed of the forms of all the various objects that are superimposed (on It) through ignorance." [sw. Gambhirananda] "it (Self) is invariably comprehended in association with all objects of perception which are set up by avidya." [ Allady Mahadeva Shastry]. (1st ed. 1897, 7th ed. 1977) Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2003 Report Share Posted September 26, 2003 Namaste Shri Murthy-ji, ------- You said: " Coming to whether the SELF as Absolute without attributes can be experienced (and by whom ?) I still like to reiterate what I said in my post of yesterday. The following is what my understanding of *experience* is. When we say we experience something, there is an experiencer who is the subject, and there is an event, object or whatever which is experienced. The result of this experience is the generation of some sort of a feeling (either joy or sorrow, or heat or cold etc one of the pairs of opposites) in the experiencer. The test whether we have experienced something is the generation of this feeling. If the feeling does not arise in us, we can say we did not experience it. SELF does not fall in this category. Firstly It is not an object. Secondly, the so-called experiencer is none other than the SELF but wrongly identified as the experiencer. " ---- The *experience* as we know it (of objects) is parOkshAnubUthi. We have been so accustomed to it that whenever we say the word *experience*, all the requisites (subject, object, result, sense of feeling et al) comes to our mind as part and parcel of the experience. We have this perconceived notion of *experience* and our intellect cannot grasp any sort of *experience* short of these requisites. But the knowledge of the Self in terms of experience is aparOkshAnubUthi. So the problem comes when we try to explain aparOkshAnubUti with the same set of requisites of parOkshAnubUti. The *feeling* which you have mentioned cannot be there in Self-realization. As far as I understand, the result of aparOkshAnubUti cannot be some sort of feeling of joy, sorrow, heat, sorrow. All these are anityam; all of them come and go (Gita 2.14). The result of Self-realisation cannot be something impermanent ! As a matter of fact, there can't be any results from Self-realization. Action, reaction, effort, result etc are in the realm of ignorance. The crux of the problem is that we all want to *experience* Self-realization and we all expect a *result*. ------ You said: " Following the bhAShya in BG18.50, can we say (if we have to use the word 'experience' associated with the SELF) something like: non-experience of the non-SELF is recognition of the 'experience' of the SELF. There is difficulty with saying this way also. The 'experience' of the SELF is always there, the word 'experience' being used here to mean that SELF is self- evident. If we have non-experience of the non-SELF, the so-called 'experience' of the SELF shines in its glory. " ------- Yes, you are right. All we have to remove is the non-experience of the non-Self. Just as the Sun shines by itself when the cloud passes away (Atmabodha 4). But we cannot say that the experience of the Self comes as a *result* of the non-experience of the non-Self. It is always there. It is just that we don't realize it since our intellect is engrossed with name and form. Well I have my own pet theory for the *experience* of the Self. I request the learned members to correct the ignorant me. For every experience, there is a subject and an object. For an unenlightened, the subject is the subtle body and the object is the name and form. Here the seer and the seen are different. For an enlightened jIvan-mukta, the subject will be the Self (within) and the object will also be the Self (substratum of the earlier name and form). Since the Self within and the Self in the perceived object is one and the same, we say that the Knower, Known and the Knowing becomes one. This also points our finger at the state of samAdhi. If the objectless state of samAdhi is Self-realization, the phrase would have been "only the Knower exist". If we argue that since the Knower knows Himself in the state of samAdhi, then as Sankaracharya says it is just something similar to deep-sleep ! Sankaracharya says " It is because the intellect is distracted by particular appearances of name and form imagined through ignorance that Brahman, even though self-evident, easily realizable, nearer than all else and identical with oneself, appears to be concealed, difficult to realize, very far and different. ". These words are to be reflected upon. " Self-evident, easily realizable, nearer than all else and identical with oneself ". Sankaracharya continues " (For a realized soul, ) it is absolutely impossible to have the idea of reality with regard to empirical objects, which are within the realm of duality involving the knower and the known, because in their case there is no perception of any other thing apart from the Consciousness that is the Self. ". He is not saying perception ceases per se. The perception still continues. Sankaracharya uses the words "Identical with oneself". If the object perceived as the Self is indeed the Self within (during samAdhi state), then these words will becomes meaningless. When we say "identical with oneself", the "oneself" is the Self within. Now what is identical to the Self within? The Self which is being percieved. So it follows that there ought to be the Knower and the Known to use the term "identical with". Sunderji, thanks for the link. I had the Bhashyam in Sanskrit only for the first 2 chapters ! Krishnamurthyji, what you said is right. And that is why I put "knowing" inside asterisks in my message. " Therefore, what is to be undertaken is only the elimination of the superimposition on Brahman through ignorance, but no effort is needed for *knowing* Brahman, for It is quite self-evident ! ". What you have done is exactly what everyone should do. Thinking of Brahman, reflecting upon the Truth while engaged in all actions (such as coffee making ! ). Hari Om Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2003 Report Share Posted September 26, 2003 Namaste Murthyji. I am fully with you on your *vyAvahArika* opinion quoted below. All in idam vyAvahArikA are acts till they are understood as otherwise. The problem with me is that the centrifugal parAmartA (our vAgdEvatA called kakArartA) pulls me down to Herself whenever I spin words around Her to talk about the idam that Her aNimAdi devatAs so beautifully reveal. She is a real kAlahantrI! I hope She will help me spin more yarn in January when we take purnamadah....., as She has done with L.I.E. I believe calling out to Her is the only solution when all this 'experiencing' stuff bothers us (Ref: the currently ongoing discussion initiated by Ranjitji.). If She is *seen* in experiences, then where are the *experiences*? I would rather remain in Her centrifuge in silenece as the aNimAdi spin the universe. Why bother? She *shines* in everything. Isn't that the L.I.E.? With Her Grace, therefore, I would be most willing to initiate the pUrNamadah discussion in Jan. 04. However, I would be most grateful if either you or Ramji can let me have an electronic copy of PUjya. Sw. Dayananda Saraswathiji's exposition of the verse, as I don't have it with me now and am relying on old age memory of having read it about twenty years ago. Secondly, in my current circumstances, I don't have much acces to scriptural texts. I would, therefore, rely on personal understanding and expect other Members to supplment me on the scriptural part. PraNAms. Madathil Nair __________________ advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > Idam is what our senses perceive and infer by various logical > procedures (pratyaksha, upamAna, anumAna, etc). Idam is full > in the sense that if we extrapolate by some logical or > intellectual advancement, it falls into the idam and hence > idam is always full. > > But I would argue idam is an act in the sense I defined what > act, actor and role are in my responses to shri Nanda and > shri Ram Chandran in the same thread. > > I like to participate in a more full discussion of pUrNamaaH > pUrNamidam... at some appropriate time without impinging on > the other monthly discussions presently underway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2003 Report Share Posted September 26, 2003 Namaste Ranjeetji. I believe what Murthyji is trying to point out is that Self- realization is the spontaneous transformation of all parOkshAnubhUti into aparOkshAnubhUti whereby the distinction between so-called experiences evanesces and coalesces into a *single* mass of Self- evidence. The knowledge of an experiencer, which is an experience, also evanesces in the process and resolves into Self-evidence. At the height of each and every experience, this coalescence is very much there. However, experiencership vitiates the situation whereby an unfortunate outsideness is imposed. That is the error which is seen through in Self-realization. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ______________________________ advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar" <thefinalsearch> wrote: > > The *experience* as we know it (of objects) is parOkshAnubUthi. We have been so accustomed to it that whenever we say the word *experience*, all the requisites (subject, object, result, sense of feeling et al) comes to our mind as part and parcel of the experience. We have this perconceived notion of *experience* and our intellect cannot grasp any sort of *experience* short of these requisites. But the knowledge of the Self in terms of experience is aparOkshAnubUthi. So the problem comes when we try to explain aparOkshAnubUti with the same set of requisites of parOkshAnubUti. > > The *feeling* which you have mentioned cannot be there in Self- realization. As far as I understand, the result of aparOkshAnubUti cannot be some sort of feeling of joy, sorrow, heat, sorrow. All these are anityam; all of them come and go (Gita 2.14). The result of Self-realisation cannot be something impermanent ! As a matter of fact, there can't be any results from Self-realization. Action, reaction, effort, result etc are in the realm of ignorance. The crux of the problem is that we all want to *experience* Self-realization and we all expect a *result*. > > > Yes, you are right. All we have to remove is the non-experience of the non-Self. > Just as the Sun shines by itself when the cloud passes away (Atmabodha 4). > > But we cannot say that the experience of the Self comes as a *result* of the non-experience of the non-Self. It is always there. It is just that we don't realize it since our intellect is engrossed with name and form. > > Well I have my own pet theory for the *experience* of the Self. I request the learned members to correct the ignorant me. > > For every experience, there is a subject and an object. For an unenlightened, the subject is the subtle body and the object is the name and form. Here the seer and the seen are different. For an enlightened jIvan-mukta, the subject will be the Self (within) and the object will also be the Self (substratum of the earlier name and form). Since the Self within and the Self in the perceived object is one and the same, we say that the Knower, Known and the Knowing becomes one. This also points our finger at the state of samAdhi. If the objectless state of samAdhi is Self-realization, the phrase would have been "only the Knower exist". If we argue that since the Knower knows Himself in the state of samAdhi, then as Sankaracharya says it is just something similar to deep-sleep ! > > Sankaracharya says " It is because the intellect is distracted by particular appearances of name and form imagined through ignorance that Brahman, even though self-evident, easily realizable, nearer than all else and identical with oneself, appears to be concealed, difficult to realize, very far and different. ". These words are to be reflected upon. " Self-evident, easily realizable, nearer than all else and identical with oneself ". > > Sankaracharya continues " (For a realized soul, ) it is absolutely impossible to have the idea of reality with regard to empirical objects, which are within the realm of duality involving the knower and the known, because in their case there is no perception of any other thing apart from the Consciousness that is the Self. ". He is not saying perception ceases per se. The perception still continues. Sankaracharya uses the words "Identical with oneself". If the object perceived as the Self is indeed the Self within (during samAdhi state), then these words will becomes meaningless. When we say "identical with oneself", the "oneself" is the Self within. Now what is identical to the Self within? The Self which is being percieved. So it follows that there ought to be the Knower and the Known to use the term "identical with". > > Sunderji, thanks for the link. I had the Bhashyam in Sanskrit only for the first 2 chapters ! > > Krishnamurthyji, what you said is right. And that is why I put "knowing" inside asterisks in my message. " Therefore, what is to be undertaken is only the elimination of the superimposition on Brahman through ignorance, but no effort is needed for *knowing* Brahman, for It is quite self-evident ! ". What you have done is exactly what everyone should do. Thinking of Brahman, reflecting upon the Truth while engaged in all actions (such as coffee making ! ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.