Guest guest Posted December 1, 2003 Report Share Posted December 1, 2003 Hello Ananda, thank you for your detailed reply. Indeed there is less between us than you might think. The view that I was trying to represent was the construction of the Witness as Pure Consciousness with the upadhi of the mind. You will know that an upadhi is that which appears to create a change in that to which it is contiguous, if you will pardon the spatial analogy. An example given is that of a rose near a crystal appearing to turn the crystal red. In fact the crystal is not red and the rose in this case is an upadhi. When pure consciousness has the upadhi of mind that means that Pure Consciousness is in fact unchanged though it appears to individualised. In the Sankara passage Pure Consciousness was going by its other style and title of the Self. My emphasis on *next* was supposed to bring out the contiguous aspect of the intellect. The Self seems to take that shape because the intellect is an upadhi for it. Really the Self is unchanged. " The intellect, being transparent and *next* to the self, easily catches the reflection of the intelligence of the self. Therefore even wise men happen to identify themselves with it first;" (from Brh.Up) The apparent individuality of the Witness allows for the rebuttal of the vijnanavadin's charge of infinite regress against the advaitin B.S.B.II.ii.29. It is a subtle point and going into it would only give rise to confusion and a distraction from your excellent elaboration of the teaching of Shri Atmananda. Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 Dear Ananda, Just read your 2 December statement, in which you allude to Shakespeare's perfection in expression of advaita: >That witness is thus common to all personalities, anytime and >everywhere. It is the same universally, as it is individually. It is >the common basis of all understanding between different persons, just >as it is the common basis of all different memories and anticipations >in each person's mind. >That common presence of the witness is illustrated in one of Nitya >Tripta's 'Notes on Spiritual Discourses of Shri Atmananda' (11th Nov >1952, # 375): >conflicting types, each with a perfection possible to perfection alone. >A writer who has an individuality and character of his own can >successfully depict only characters of a nature akin to his own. It is >only one who stands beyond all characters, or in other words as >witness, that can be capable of such a wonderful performance as >Shakespeare has done. Therefore I say Shakespeare must have been a >jivan-mukta." >Is it stretching things to far to think of Shakespeare as an advaitin? >To suggest that this may not be so, three of Shakespeare's verse >compositions are appended, as a postscript to this message. Your >phrase, "structure and paradox", comes particularly to my mind in >relation to the third composition (from 'The Phoenix and the Turtle'). >Ananda -------------------------------- Sonnet 146 Poor soul the centre of my sinful earth, My sinful earth these rebel powers array, Why dost thou pine within and suffer dearth Painting thy outward walls so costly gay? Why so large cost having so short a lease, Dost thou upon thy fading mansion spend? Shall worms inheritors of this excess Eat up thy charge? is this thy body's end? Then soul live thou upon thy servant's loss, And let that pine to aggravate thy store; Buy terms divine in selling hours of dross; Within be fed, without be rich no more, So shall thou feed on death, that feeds on men, And death once dead, there's no more dying then. Sonnet 116 Let me not to the marriage of true minds Admit impediments, love is not love Which alters when it alteration finds, Or bends with the remover to remove. O no, it is an ever-fixed mark That looks on tempests and is never shaken; It is the star to every wand'ring bark, Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken. Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks Within his bending sickle's compass come, Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks, But bears it out even to the edge of doom: If this be error and upon me proved, I never writ, nor no man ever loved. >From 'The Phoenix and the Turtle' So they lov'd, as love in twain Had the essence but in one; Two distincts, division none: Number there in love was slain. Hearts remote, yet not asunder; Distance, and no space was seen 'Twixt the turtle and his queen: But in them it were a wonder. So between them love did shine, That the turtle saw his right Flaming in the phoenix' sight; Either was the other's mine. Property was thus appall'd, that the self was not the same; Single nature's double name Neither two nor one was call'd. Reason, in itself confounded, Saw division grow together; To themselves yet either neither, Simple were so well compounded, That it cried, 'How true a twain Seemeth this concordant one! Love hath reason, reason none, If what parts can so remain.' It seems to this reader/observer that Shakespeare does in fact express advaita in his dramas and poetry in such a way as to melt the hearts of those who cannot do so by themselves. His expression of the real truth of human being is such as to elevate his audiences. When such spiritual truth is heard and this raising up occurs, a flavor of Love is felt. Attention is greatly sharpened. It is hard to avoid the appreciation that Shakespeare was a jivan-mukti, as improbable as that may seem (especially to Oxfordians). One could quote many more examples of consciousness in his sonnets --as well as scenes in his plays--to support this view. All the best, Kenneth L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 respected advaitins, any achiever of extraordinary and exemplary proportions is able to do so because he has grown himself out of his own limitations, and reached a state of an uninvolved "witness ", a "bystander", who is now able to see the world around him as a drama playing out, unrelated to his own self. he has thus become a visionary who is able to foresee the future to some extent, and becomes a "pied piper". he has also become selfless. thus it is true that while shakespeare is seen to be an advaitin, it is equally true that men of science like einstein, the curies, newton,bose,raman, edision, jenner,--- of philosophy , like socrates, plato, radhakrishnan, vivekananda,---- literateurs like shakespeare, kalidasa, valmiki,vyasa,tagore, ---- leaders like chandragupta, asoka, washington, lincoln, mahatma gandhi, nehru, churchill----- are also jivan muktas, and have remained in that state at least for the duration of their peak -achieving-times. SORRY IF I HAVE INTERRUPTED. with regards, a.v.krshnan. --- kvl1949 wrote: > Dear Ananda, > Just read your 2 December statement, in which > you allude to Shakespeare's > perfection in expression of advaita: > > >That witness is thus common to all personalities, > anytime and > >everywhere. It is the same universally, as it is > individually. It is > >the common basis of all understanding between > different persons, just > >as it is the common basis of all different memories > and anticipations > >in each person's mind. > > >That common presence of the witness is illustrated > in one of Nitya > >Tripta's 'Notes on Spiritual Discourses of Shri > Atmananda' (11th Nov > >1952, # 375): > > >conflicting types, each with a perfection possible > to perfection alone. > >A writer who has an individuality and character of > his own can > >successfully depict only characters of a nature > akin to his own. It is > >only one who stands beyond all characters, or in > other words as > >witness, that can be capable of such a wonderful > performance as > >Shakespeare has done. Therefore I say Shakespeare > must have been a > >jivan-mukta." > > >Is it stretching things to far to think of > Shakespeare as an advaitin? > >To suggest that this may not be so, three of > Shakespeare's verse > >compositions are appended, as a postscript to this > message. Your > >phrase, "structure and paradox", comes particularly > to my mind in > >relation to the third composition (from 'The > Phoenix and the Turtle'). > > >Ananda > > -------------------------------- > > Sonnet 146 > > Poor soul the centre of my sinful earth, > My sinful earth these rebel powers array, > Why dost thou pine within and suffer dearth > Painting thy outward walls so costly gay? > Why so large cost having so short a lease, > Dost thou upon thy fading mansion spend? > Shall worms inheritors of this excess > Eat up thy charge? is this thy body's end? > Then soul live thou upon thy servant's loss, > And let that pine to aggravate thy store; > Buy terms divine in selling hours of dross; > Within be fed, without be rich no more, > So shall thou feed on death, that feeds on men, > And death once dead, there's no more dying then. > > > Sonnet 116 > > Let me not to the marriage of true minds > Admit impediments, love is not love > Which alters when it alteration finds, > Or bends with the remover to remove. > O no, it is an ever-fixed mark > That looks on tempests and is never shaken; > It is the star to every wand'ring bark, > Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken. > Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks > Within his bending sickle's compass come, > Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks, > But bears it out even to the edge of doom: > If this be error and upon me proved, > I never writ, nor no man ever loved. > > > From 'The Phoenix and the Turtle' > > So they lov'd, as love in twain > Had the essence but in one; > Two distincts, division none: > Number there in love was slain. > > Hearts remote, yet not asunder; > Distance, and no space was seen > 'Twixt the turtle and his queen: > But in them it were a wonder. > > So between them love did shine, > That the turtle saw his right > Flaming in the phoenix' sight; > Either was the other's mine. > > Property was thus appall'd, > that the self was not the same; > Single nature's double name > Neither two nor one was call'd. > > Reason, in itself confounded, > Saw division grow together; > To themselves yet either neither, > Simple were so well compounded, > > That it cried, 'How true a twain > Seemeth this concordant one! > Love hath reason, reason none, > If what parts can so remain.' > > > > It seems to this reader/observer that > Shakespeare does in fact express > advaita in his dramas and poetry in such a way as > to melt the hearts of those > who cannot do so by themselves. His expression of > the real truth of human > being is such as to elevate his audiences. When > such spiritual truth is heard > and this raising up occurs, a flavor of Love is > felt. Attention is greatly > sharpened. It is hard to avoid the appreciation that > Shakespeare was a > jivan-mukti, as improbable as that may seem > (especially to Oxfordians). > One could quote many more examples of > consciousness in his sonnets --as well > as scenes in his plays--to support this view. > All the best, > Kenneth L. > ______________________ BT Broadband - Save £80 when you order online today. Hurry! Offer ends 21st December 2003. The way the internet was meant to be. http://uk.rd./evt=21064/*http://bt..co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 Namaste. Sw. Dayananda Saraswathiji has very succinctly put it in answer to one of my doubts some time ago. He said advaitic knowledge exists all over the world in most cultures. But, the logic and methodology of the upanishads, Bhagwad GItA and Sankara's teachings in expounding and establishing that knowledge is unique. As I said once before on this forum, during my attempt to elaborate on the 'karmanyEvAdhikArastE..." verse of Bhagwad GiTA to a friend - a Muslim scholar, he expressed his surprise by saying: "Nair! You talk like a true Muslim!". There is, therefore, a meeting of hearts and that exactly is the reason why advaita has fascinated innumerable friends across the continents. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ___________________ advaitin, av krshnan <avkrshnan> wrote: > thus it is true that while > shakespeare is seen to be an advaitin, it is equally > true that men of science like einstein, the curies, > newton,bose,raman, edision, jenner,--- of philosophy , > like socrates, plato, radhakrishnan, vivekananda,---- > literateurs like shakespeare, kalidasa, > valmiki,vyasa,tagore, ---- leaders like > chandragupta, asoka, washington, lincoln, mahatma > gandhi, nehru, churchill----- are also jivan muktas, > and have remained in that state at least for the > duration of their peak -achieving-times. > 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.