Yoga Vasistha on the Mind

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

We have spent a lot of time here discussing the non-existence of

matter and body, but according to Advaita the mind is equally

non-existent. Yet it is the source of all the trouble!

 

The Yoga Vasistha is highly respected by such authorities as Ramana

Maharshi (according to Sri Sunder) and Swami Tejomayananda (head of

the Chinmaya Mission). Here is a typical interesting passage for

your reading pleasure. The clarity of the words will show you why I

like this text.

 

By the way, Sadanandaji, let me comment on what you just said to

Michael regarding BSB II.2.28 and so-called 'idealism'. You are

quite right to say that idealism is false (from an Advaitin

perspective) if taken to assert the unreality of the *substratum* of

consciousness. It may seem that the vijnanavadins are saying this,

when they state categorically that the world does not exist. That is

how I understood your message to Michael. This may sound like

denying the rope as well as the snake. My definition of idealism is

quite different: it is the assertion that *only* the substratum of

consciousness exists, which is certainly an Advaitin view. I

identify thoughts and perceptions with the substratum of

consciousness, as I have said many times. I do not view them

objectively, as I recently explained to Anandaji.

 

There is indeed a certain sense in which 'mind' is unreal. If

idealism is taken to assert the fundamental reality of this erroneous

view of mind, then of course that kind of idealism is incompatible

with Advaita. The following text discusses this unreal mind and

helps to clarify this subtle distinction (between the unreal

objective mind which posits ego and world and mind seen properly as

an aspect of consciousness).

 

Finally I will add that what is said below is also Gaudapada's

ajativada (nothing is created) from the Mandukya Karika, unless I am

seriously mistaken (which I don't think I am).

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

 

____

 

 

 

Yoga Vasistha, trans, Sw. Venkatesananda, p. 454-456

 

SIKHIDHVAJA said:

 

Hole one, pray instruct me in such a way that it will be perfectly

clear to me that the mind is non-existent.

 

KUMBHA said:

 

O King, there is not and there never has been an entity known as the

mind. That which shines here and is known as the mind is indeed the

infinite Brahman (consciousness). It is ignorance of its true nature

which gives rise to the notion of a mind and the world and all the

rest of it. When even these are insubstantial notions, how can 'I',

'you' etc. be considered real? Thus, there is no such thing as the

'world', and whatever appears to be is uncreated. All this is indeed

Brahman. How can that be known and by whom?

 

Even in the beginning of the present world-cycle the world was not

created. It was described as creation by me only for your

comprehension. In the total absence of any causative factors, all

these could not have been created at all. Therefore, whatever there

is is Brahman and naught else. It is not even logical to say that

the Lord who is nameless and formless created the world! It is not

true. When thus the creation of the world is seen to be false, then

surely the mind that entertains the notion of such a creation is

false, too.

 

Mind is but a bundle of such notions that limit the truth. But,

then, division implies divisibility. When the infinite consciousness

is incapable of division, there is no divisibility and hence no

division. How can mind, the divider, be real? Whatever appears to

be here is perceived in Brahman, by Brahman, and such perception is,

by courtesy, known as the mind! It is the infinite consciousness

alone which is spread out as the universe. Why then call it the

universe? In this plane or dimension of consciousness, whatever

slight appearance there seems to be is but the reflection of

consciousness in itself: hence there is neither mind nor the world.

Only in ignorance is all this seen as the 'world'. Hence the mind

is unreal.

 

Only creation is negated by this, not what *is*. The reality that is

seen as this world is beginningless and uncreated. [. . .]

 

When the world does not exist as such, where is 'I' or 'you'? Hence,

remaining at peace with yourself, engage yourself in non-volitional

actions as are appropriate from moment to moment. All this is but

Brahman which is peace; 'I' and the 'world' are but words without

substance. When the insubstantiality of such expressions is

realized, then what is seen as the world is realized as Brahman.

 

The creator Brahma is but an idea or notion. Even so is 'self' or

'I'. In their right or wrong comprehension lies liberation or

bondage! The notion 'I am' gives rise to bondage and self

destruction. The realization 'I am (is) not' gives leads to freedom

and purity. Bondage and liberation are but notions. That which is

aware of these notions is infinite consciousness which alone is. The

notion 'I am' is the source of all distress. The absence of such a

feeling is perfection. Realize 'I am not that egosense' and rest in

pure awareness.

 

When such pure awareness arises, all notions subside. There is

perfection. In the pure awareness, perfection or the Lord, there is

neither causality nor the resultant creation of objects. In the

absence of objects, there is no experience nor its concomitant

egosense. When the egosense is non-existent, where is samsara (the

cycle of birth and death)? When thus samsara does not exist, the

supreme being alone remains. In it the universe exists as carvings

in uncarved stone. He who thus sees the universe, without the

intervention of the mind and therefore without the notion of a

universe, he alone sees the truth. Such a vision is known as nirvana.

 

Even as the ocean alone exists when the word 'wave' is deprived of

its meaning, Brahman alone exists when when the word 'creation' is

seen as meaningless. This creation is Brahman; Brahman alone is

aware of this creation. When the word-meaning of 'creation' is

dropped, the true meaning of 'creation' is seen as the eternal

Brahman. When one enquires into the word 'Brahman', the ALL is

comprehended. When one similarly enquires into the word 'creation',

Brahman is comprehended. However, that consciousness which is the

basis and the substratum for all such notions and their awareness is

known by the word 'Brahman'. When this truth is clearly realized and

when the duality of knowledge and known is discarded, what remains is

the supreme peace which is indescribable and inexpressible.

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin <orion777ben wrote:

>

>

> By the way, Sadanandaji, let me comment on what you just said to

> Michael regarding BSB II.2.28 and so-called 'idealism'. You are

> quite right to say that idealism is false (from an Advaitin

> perspective) if taken to assert the unreality of the *substratum* of

> consciousness. It may seem that the vijnanavadins are saying this,

> when they state categorically that the world does not exist. That is

> how I understood your message to Michael.

 

Benjamin - If you read carefully, what I have discussed is based on the

commentary of Shankara. I know nothing about the Buddhism. Neither I

know about the western Idealism either. But B.S. and commentary of

Sankara and Ramanjua as well center on the dismissal of Bhuddhistic

philosophies as they understood. I have also presented my views too

based on my understanding - in terms of indeterminacy of the problem.

Everyone including Michael agrees that substantive is Brahman for both

jiiva and jagat. I am still waiting for him to show how he accounts the

consciousness as the material cause of the world - that is, how a achit

comes out chit other than through the mind.

 

This may sound like

> denying the rope as well as the snake.

 

No it is not. One is subjective objectificaion and the other is

objective objectification. 'I see it, therefore it is' - is the first

case (snake awareness) and 'It is and therefore I see it' is the second

(rope awareness) - but if you notice both have 'I see it'. The vision

of both snake or rope are experiences by a conscious entity. The degree

of reality of each is different - we say snake is not real since it is

negated at the vision of rope. But even rope is negated as name and

form in the vision of Brahman which is my self. Both are apparently real

with different degrees of reality. One is praatibhaasika, other is

vyavahaarika and ultimate is paaramaarthika. All are part of adviatic

concepts.

 

My definition of idealism is

> quite different: it is the assertion that *only* the substratum of

> consciousness exists, which is certainly an Advaitin view. I

> identify thoughts and perceptions with the substratum of

> consciousness, as I have said many times. I do not view them

> objectively, as I recently explained to Anandaji.

 

Benjanmin - I have no arguments against your definition of 'idealism'

ether. Personally I do not need 'Idealism' since adviata can adequately

explain to me all that needs to be explained - no offence is intended.

If your idealism is different then rest assured that Shankara is

negating the false idealism! that involves just thoughts only as the

basis.

 

>

> There is indeed a certain sense in which 'mind' is unreal. If

> idealism is taken to assert the fundamental reality of this erroneous

> view of mind, then of course that kind of idealism is incompatible

> with Advaita.

 

According to Adviata - mind is not real or unreal - it falls in the same

category of shariira - or body. it is only a subtle body. It is only

consciousness but apparently splitting as subject-object as vRitti's or

thoughts. If you analyze deeply the thoughts - one can 'see' or

understand that is nothing but Consciousness that I am. In that sense

mind is not unreal either since its substantive is Brahman only. It is

not real either since real is defined that which remains the same in

three periods of time. Hence it is part of the mithyaa too - neither

real nor unreal - the real part is substantive and unreal part is the

naama and ruupa as thought which is locused on object or objectified

subject - I am seer and this is seen.

 

The following text discusses this unreal mind and

> helps to clarify this subtle distinction (between the unreal

> objective mind which posits ego and world and mind seen properly as

> an aspect of consciousness).

 

I think you are zeroing on what I have discussed above. The unreality is

only at the superficial part invoving name and form - reality part is

the substantive - the very contents of the mind.

>

> Finally I will add that what is said below is also Gaudapada's

> ajativada (nothing is created) from the Mandukya Karika, unless I am

> seriously mistaken (which I don't think I am).

 

If I interpret correctly - Ajativaada is from the absolute point where

Goudapaada rejects apparent as real jaati. Otherwise his very vaada

itself gets rejected as part of the ajaati creation!

>

>

> Yoga Vasistha, trans, Sw. Venkatesananda, p. 454-456

> KUMBHA said:

>

> O King, there is not and there never has been an entity known as the

> mind. That which shines here and is known as the mind is indeed the

> infinite Brahman (consciousness). It is ignorance of its true nature

> which gives rise to the notion of a mind and the world and all the

> rest of it.

 

Benjamin - that is beatiful. As you see until one relizes, (or when one

is ignorant) the notional mind is taken as real mind and the within that

reference it is indeed real as it is perceived.

>When even these are insubstantial notions, how can 'I',

> 'you' etc. be considered real? Thus, there is no such thing as the

> 'world', and whatever appears to be is uncreated.

 

I would say whatever appears to be is apparently created (rather than

uncreated. Otherwise this apparent teaching itself gets nullified in

the bud.

> All this is indeed

> Brahman. How can that be known and by whom?

 

Yes indeed - that is the declaration of the scriptures too- that is what

we call paaramaarthika level.

> Even in the beginning of the present world-cycle the world was not

> created. It was described as creation by me only for your

> comprehension. In the total absence of any causative factors, all

> these could not have been created at all. Therefore, whatever there

> is is Brahman and naught else. It is not even logical to say that

> the Lord who is nameless and formless created the world! It is not

> true. When thus the creation of the world is seen to be false, then

> surely the mind that entertains the notion of such a creation is

> false, too.

 

Yes from the point of absolute. Otherwise one notices the subtle

logical contraditions inherent in the system dealing with vyavahaara -

if you scritinize the paragraph. But I maintain that the logical

contraditon is apparent only since the apparent is taken as real.

> Mind is but a bundle of such notions that limit the truth. But,

> then, division implies divisibility. When the infinite consciousness

> is incapable of division, there is no divisibility and hence no

> division. How can mind, the divider, be real? Whatever appears to

> be here is perceived in Brahman, by Brahman, and such perception is,

> by courtesy, known as the mind!

 

See here lies the problem - If you go deep down - how can the mind limit

the truth that is Brahman which is infinite- Therefore even the limition

of the truth also becomes a notion too. One cannot divide infinite like

space cannot be divided - but yet one have your house separate from my

house (at least for tax purposes). Percetion is an experience by the

mind and that courtesy is given is part of the creation - as long as it

is understood as just a perception with the divisions of perceiver and

perceived and perceiving - all on the undivided substantive I - the

self. The problem is correctly perceived! Otherwise the very teaching

gets negated without understanding the truth.

 

It is the infinite consciousness

> alone which is spread out as the universe. Why then call it the

> universe? In this plane or dimension of consciousness, whatever

> slight appearance there seems to be is but the reflection of

> consciousness in itself: hence there is neither mind nor the world.

> Only in ignorance is all this seen as the 'world'. Hence the mind

> is unreal.

 

Benjamin the teaching itself has to be understood with correct

perspective too. When it is said 'In this plane or dimension ....nor the

world ' obviously looking from the paaramaarthika point explaing the

vyavahaarika. One can say mind and the world are apparently real.

Apparently real are not absolutely real. Apparently real can be taken

as real by the ignorant who has no knowledge of the absolutely real.

For those who have knowledge of the absolutely real, can see the mind

and the world as apparently real. The apparently real is neither truly

unreal (like vandya putraH - son of a barren woman) or real real as

unnegatable eternal entity.

> Only creation is negated by this, not what *is*. The reality that is

> seen as this world is beginningless and uncreated. [. . .]

 

- true - if I replace the 'seen' as 'understood'. Since 'seen' involves

as experience while understood is knowledge based on the analysis of the

experience.

>

> When the world does not exist as such, where is 'I' or 'you'? Hence,

> remaining at peace with yourself, engage yourself in non-volitional

> actions as are appropriate from moment to moment. All this is but

> Brahman which is peace; 'I' and the 'world' are but words without

> substance. When the insubstantiality of such expressions is

> realized, then what is seen as the world is realized as Brahman.

 

The logical absurdities in the first few lines are inherent in the

teaching where there is apparent dualtiy. The final statement is the

non-duality inspite of dualtiy!

> The creator Brahma is but an idea or notion. Even so is 'self' or

> 'I'. In their right or wrong comprehension lies liberation or

> bondage! The notion 'I am' gives rise to bondage and self

> destruction. The realization 'I am (is) not' gives leads to freedom

> and purity. Bondage and liberation are but notions. That which is

> aware of these notions is infinite consciousness which alone is. The

> notion 'I am' is the source of all distress. The absence of such a

> feeling is perfection. Realize 'I am not that egosense' and rest in

> pure awareness.

 

Beautiful - when I discussd about moksha as knowledge of knowing oneself

as the total self, our dvaitin friends told me that I have not defined

the bondage even to start with. Let us not tell eveybody that 'bondage

and liberation are but notions' - we will not have any body to read our

posts from tomorrow on.

> When such pure awareness arises, all notions subside. There is

> perfection. In the pure awareness, perfection or the Lord, there is

> neither causality nor the resultant creation of objects.

 

Yes - frankly pure awarenss does not arise also - what happens is in the

so-called unreal mind(!) the notions drop out leaving the pure awareness

as knowledge of oneself.

 

 

In the

> absence of objects, there is no experience nor its concomitant

> egosense. When the egosense is non-existent, where is samsara (the

> cycle of birth and death)? When thus samsara does not exist, the

> supreme being alone remains. In it the universe exists as carvings

> in uncarved stone. He who thus sees the universe, without the

> intervention of the mind and therefore without the notion of a

> universe, he alone sees the truth. Such a vision is known as nirvana.

 

I would interpret as intervention of notional mind - One can see the

universe through the mind without having notions that what is seen is

not real but apparent.

>

> Even as the ocean alone exists when the word 'wave' is deprived of

> its meaning, Brahman alone exists when when the word 'creation' is

> seen as meaningless. This creation is Brahman; Brahman alone is

> aware of this creation. When the word-meaning of 'creation' is

> dropped, the true meaning of 'creation' is seen as the eternal

> Brahman. When one enquires into the word 'Brahman', the ALL is

> comprehended. When one similarly enquires into the word 'creation',

> Brahman is comprehended. However, that consciousness which is the

> basis and the substratum for all such notions and their awareness is

> known by the word 'Brahman'. When this truth is clearly realized and

> when the duality of knowledge and known is discarded, what remains is

> the supreme peace which is indescribable and inexpressible.

 

Yes - one can still have waves in the ocean - but waves are only the

glories of the ocean and no more misunderstood as separate from ocean

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

>

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Find out what made the Top Searches of 2003

http://search./top2003

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadanandaji,

 

I have a proposal. Let us banish the word 'idealism' from this list!

It has caused nothing but trouble. I only raised it originally to

show that there is *some* degree of similarity between the thought of

the East and the West. That was done in the same spirit as when

Ramakrishna said there was the same core of truth underlying all

religions. I guess that not being a Ramakrishna, my innocent efforts

backfired on me. Let us forget this vexing and sterile issue.

 

However, I do appreciate when you used the word 'beautiful' to

describe several of my quotations from the Yoga Vasistha. That will

make the rest of my vacation beautiful! The beautiful words of the

Vasistha say all that I ever intended to say regarding the slippery

topic of 'idealism', without introducing confusion into a Hindu

audience.

 

Yet I do notice one tiny grain of possible trouble. You reject the

Vasistha's use of the word 'uncreated' to describe the world; you

prefer 'apparently created'. At least now we are reduced to a

relatively innocuous splitting of hairs. Still, I do believe that

Gaudapada says 'uncreated'. Is that not the translation of

'ajativada'?

 

Of course, a lot has to do with the paramarthika vs. vyavaharika

distinction, as you go on to say. Perhaps we need to spend more time

here clarifying that distinction, so we don't keep getting confused

and wasting time. If you ever have time, I would like you to read

this short article I wrote on paramarthika vs. vyavaharika. Do you

think I got it more or less right? Thank you.

 

http://superprajna.com/Advaita/AdvaiticInconsistency.html

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin <orion777ben wrote:

>

> Namaste Sadanandaji,

>

> Yet I do notice one tiny grain of possible trouble. You reject the

> Vasistha's use of the word 'uncreated' to describe the world; you

> prefer 'apparently created'. At least now we are reduced to a

> relatively innocuous splitting of hairs. Still, I do believe that

> Gaudapada says 'uncreated'. Is that not the translation of

> 'ajativada'?

>

 

Benjamin - the context should speak -if it is uncreated, then there is

nothing to talk about that which is not created. VashishTa would not

have given that discourse to Rama where there is a duality - VashishhTa,

Rama and the yoga vashishhTa. Because I see creation and student is

different from the teacher and the teaching - the plurality is apparent

in the very teaching itself. What is negated as not real is the

appearances - which appear to be there but not there - That is what is

called maaya - neither real nor unreal, neither created nor not created.

This appears to be logically untenable but appearances need not follow

any logic! It is only apparently illogical and that is why it is called

maaya!

 

ajaati vaada - too - what you say is right in terms of direct

translation. But the very word coined involves a vaada or theory - Now

is that theory created or not. If not what is there to discuss?

Goudapaada would not have written a kaarika if there were nothing to

discuss. The very creation of kaarika or birth of the kaarika itself

dismisses the ajaativada if one takes it literally. Essentially from

the absolute point, he dismisses the creation. That is why in advaita

Vedanta reality is defined as trikaala abhaadhitam - that which remains

all the time.

 

> Of course, a lot has to do with the paramarthika vs. vyavaharika

> distinction, as you go on to say. Perhaps we need to spend more time

> here clarifying that distinction, so we don't keep getting confused

> and wasting time. If you ever have time, I would like you to read

> this short article I wrote on paramarthika vs. vyavaharika. Do you

> think I got it more or less right? Thank you.

>

 

Let me go over the article slowly and I will get back with you.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

> http://superprajna.com/Advaita/AdvaiticInconsistency.html

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

>

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Find out what made the Top Searches of 2003

http://search./top2003

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadanandaji,

>ajaati vaada - too - what you say is right in terms of

>direct translation. But the very word coined involves

>a vaada or theory - Now is that theory created or not.

>If not what is there to discuss? Goudapaada would not

>have written a kaarika if there were nothing to discuss.

>The very creation of kaarika or birth of the kaarika itself

>dismisses the ajaativada if one takes it literally.

>Essentially from the absolute point, he dismisses the creation.

>That is why in advaita Vedanta reality is defined as trikaala

>abhaadhitam - that which remains all the time.

 

Yes, this reminds me of the baseless charge of 'nihilism' levied

against our Buddhist friends, simply because they tried to use a

quasi-poetic word like 'emptiness' to describe the indescribable.

 

Of course, consciousness is undeniable, especially by the one trying

to deny it! Hence, it is absurd to suppose that any reasonable

person would assert that absolutely nothing exists. It is

mind-created discriminations which are illusory, namely, the egos and

objects.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin <orion777ben wrote:

 

> Of course, consciousness is undeniable, especially by the one trying

> to deny it! Hence, it is absurd to suppose that any reasonable

> person would assert that absolutely nothing exists. It is

> mind-created discriminations which are illusory, namely, the egos and

> objects.

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

 

 

Benjamin - Congratulations - You have now become a true advaitin-

without even having a guruparampara to back you up! Only we need to be

careful from what reference state one discusses these realities.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Find out what made the Top Searches of 2003

http://search./top2003

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

(Dec.30, 2003 9.27AM)

>

> Namaste Sadanandaji,

>

> Of course, a lot has to do with the paramarthika vs. vyavaharika

> distinction, as you go on to say. Perhaps we need to spend more

time

> here clarifying that distinction, so we don't keep getting

confused

> and wasting time. If you ever have time, I would like you to read

> this short article I wrote on paramarthika vs. vyavaharika. Do

you

> think I got it more or less right? Thank you.

>

> http://superprajna.com/Advaita/AdvaiticInconsistency.html

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

 

Namaste, Benjamin-ji

 

I browsed through your article quoted above. Yes, the whole point

reduces to the distinction between the pAramArthika and the

vyAvahArika levels. Your article does point this out clearly; but I

can't understand how, when you certainly know the difference between

these two levels, your discussions with Sadaji sometimes don't

reflect that. I have a feeling that you are playing the devil's

advocate against Sadaji's posts!

 

"na bandho na mokshhaH" -- that is, 'There is no bondage, no

liberation'. This is a standard statement of advaita teachers. This

is said at the pAramArthika level.

 

"mana eva manushhyANAM kAraNaM bandha-mokshhayoH" -- 'It is the mind

that is responsible for bondage as well as liberation'. This is also

a standard statement of advaita teachers (I have a vague

recollection that this comes from Yoga-VAshishhTa; I could be wrong

on this). But now this is said at the VyAvahArika level.

 

"I don't see the rope; I see only a snake" -- This is at the

prAtibhAsika level.

 

"The snake is not there; there is only the rope" -- This is at the

vyAvahArika level.

 

"Even the rope is not there; there is only Brahman" -- This is at

the pAramArthika level.

 

I am only reminding you, not educating you; because you certainly

know all this. But a reader or a student can easily confuse between

the three levels, particularly between the vyAvahArika and the

pAramArthika and, humbly, I think this is what Sadaji is warning us

against.

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Prof VK,

 

Thank you for your kind comments. I assure you that I am not playing

devil's advocate with Sadaji. I am quite sincere and serious. I

think the problem is that the exact same words can be interpreted

differently by different people, especially in philosophical and

esoteric discussions such as ours.

 

A prime example is a statement such as 'the world does not exist'.

This loaded statement can be interpreted in a correct and false way.

The false way is to take it too literally as some kind of nihilism,

which is absurd. The correct way is to realize that the world does

not exist independently of the substratum, which is consciousness.

 

Now, in addition to the paramarthka and vyavaharika levels, you

mention a *third* ... the pratibhasika. Now that you mention this, I

do remember hearing about it, but I had completely forgotten! So

these discussions are useful.

 

To prove it, I will make an annoying 'devil's advocate' comment

regarding what you just said:

>"The snake is not there; there is only the rope" --

>This is at the vyAvahArika level.

>

>"Even the rope is not there; there is only Brahman" --

>This is at the pAramArthika level.

 

 

I would have said that 'snake' corresponded to seeing a world

distinct from the substratum of Brahman or Consciousness, and 'rope'

was in fact the substratum in this analogy. This is logically

different from what you say, but we don't need to dwell on it. The

only point is to show that some discussion is needed, even on the

basics.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

namaste.

sadanandaji's calling benjamin a true advaitin could

be equated to vasishtta accepting viswamitra as

brahma rishi ? !

a.v.krshnan

 

 

 

 

 

______________________

Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"

your friends today! Download Messenger Now

http://uk.messenger./download/index.html

[Guest guest]

--- av krshnan <avkrshnan wrote:

> namaste.

> sadanandaji's calling benjamin a true advaitin could

> be equated to vasishtta accepting viswamitra as

> brahma rishi ? !

> a.v.krshnan

>

Krshnan, I am honored by the comparison as long as Benjamin does not

start fighting with me throwing all his astra-s - I have to run to

vashisshTa or yoga VaashishhTa.

 

Happy new year to all.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Find out what made the Top Searches of 2003

http://search./top2003

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadaji,

>Krshnan, I am honored by the comparison as long as Benjamin

>does not start fighting with me throwing all his astra-s - I have

>to run to vashisshTa or yoga VaashishhTa.

 

 

My New Year's resolution: No more throwing of astras and no more

mention of 'idealism'.

 

However, I might provide you with some more excerpts from the Yoga

Vasistha ... at least until I feel I am taking too much advantage of

'fair use'. The more I read it, the more I agree with every single

word. It's amazing!

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

 

I am very happy to support your assertion that `you are sincere and

serious.'Everything that we do in this forum is at the vyavaharika

level only and even the description and explanation of paramarthika

are also at the vyavaharika level. No one except the Brahman knows

what the paramarthika level is and even this assertion is only at

the vyavaharika level.

 

The sages and saints are always careful and they have avoided making

any false claims. Our problem is the lack of understanding of what

they say and most of the time, we attribute our mistakes as theirs.

 

They employ a `reference point' to illustrate the Truth at the

vyavaharika level and they are aware of our limitations. It seems

that we overextend their assertions and try to go beyond! In the

rope and snake example - the reference point (rope) is the Truth at

the vyavaharika level. Due to darkness (ignorance) the rope appears

as the nonexistent snake. But with the correct understanding (torch

light) the truth is revealed.

 

Now reasoning is employed to illustrate the Truth at the

paramarthika level - the rope of vyavaharika became the Brahman of

paramarthika and the nonexistent snake of vyavaharika became the

nonexistent World of parmarthika. We do need to recognize that

that this illustration with additional explanation is only at the

vyavaharika level! This example or analogy does not provide any clue

about paramarthika or the Brahman to those who determine not to

accept any analogy. The `dream' analogy is another example that

again falls as the explanation of paramarthika reality using a

vyavaharika frame work.

 

The Truth at the paramarthika level does require us to extend our

understanding beyond vyavaharika level. Any of our claims about the

TRUTH at the paramarthika level is just another speculation. TRUTH

can't be understood analytically by any `brilliant mind (intellect)'

and that is the bottom line.

 

This may explain why scripture becomes relevant for us to accept or

reject a `speculated truth.' For Hindus, the `Vedas or sruti – the

revealed truth' became the authority for resolving issues related to

the establishment of the Truth. The `sruti' is the experience of

the `SELF' by the `jeevamukta.' Any documentation of Vedas will not

qualify for the term – `sruti.' All documented versions of Vedas

become `smriti – a diluted form of Truth.' Consequently TRUTH

(Self-Realization) can never be described in words. Everything that

is written, spoken or remembered will fall into the vyavaharika

level.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: The quality of a `smriti' depends on the author of such texts

and most of the Hindu scriptures are written by rishis who are

considered realized souls. Faith is an integral part for acceptance

of `TRUTH' and for believers, Vedas are the Truth. For non-

believers, Truth is a pathless land!

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

> Namaste Prof VK,

>

> Thank you for your kind comments. I assure you that I am not

playing

> devil's advocate with Sadaji. I am quite sincere and serious. I

> think the problem is that the exact same words can be interpreted

> differently by different people, especially in philosophical and

> esoteric discussions such as ours.

>

> A prime example is a statement such as 'the world does not exist'.

> This loaded statement can be interpreted in a correct and false

way.

> The false way is to take it too literally as some kind of

nihilism,

> which is absurd. The correct way is to realize that the world

does

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

 

Please remember that during Mahabharat War, Arjuna also took a

similar stand and declared not to throw any more astras during the

war! (Gita Chapter 1, verses 29 to 47). I suggest you should either

approach Lord Krishna or alternately read Gita during the new year

and get ready to throw the astras during 2005!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

>

>

> My New Year's resolution: No more throwing of astras and no more

> mention of 'idealism'.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ram,

>I am very happy to support your assertion that 'you are sincere

>and serious.' Everything that we do in this forum is at the

>vyavaharika level only ...

 

 

You are making life difficult for me! I just told Sadaji offline

that I was making a New Year's resolution to talk less on this list

during the coming year. But your latest message was so substantial

and made so many good points that I cannot help but make a few brief

comments...

 

 

(1) You are right that all analogies must be at the vyavaharika

level, and we should not take the rope and snake analogy too

literally. However, the scriptures also say that 'all is Brahman',

even though we do not recognize it due to ignorance. Even the

ignorance is ultimately Brahman, and I can find you a jivanmukta who

says that!

 

So I think it is fair to say that as we silently contemplate our

immediate awareness without allowing ego-based thoughts to arise, we

*approach* the paramarthika truth to some extent. Sometimes this

produces an insight and illumination which fills us with enthusiasm,

so that we get carried away and exaggerate, saying we have had a

glimpse of the truth. In fact, this glimpse is closer to the truth

than our previous ordinary ego-based discursive mind, but you are

right that we should remain humble and not exaggerate, even with

naive enthusiasm.

 

 

(2) All analogies are vyavaharika, as you say, but I think that the

dream analogy comes quite close to the paramarthika state of

consciousness. My humble opinion only. The dream analogy, if

properly understood, is in some sense the most profound at helping us

understand that all is Consciousness.

 

And by the way, this dream analogy is close to my understanding of

certain Western 'idealists', which is why I kept mentioning this

topic. But no more! I have also made a New Year's resolution not to

mention the dread word 'idealism' again. (I have not broken it since

it is still December 31 where I am.)

 

 

(3) I like what you say regarding scriptures, since you say that they

are the vision of paramarthika truth or SELF as experienced by a true

jivanmukta. What I like about this statement is that ANY true

jivanmukta can then author some valid scripture. What I rebel

against is the human tendency to say 'Only the Bible' or 'Only the

Koran' or 'Only the Vedas'. Not only does this lead to intolerance

and political trouble, but it presumes that we are in such a dark age

that no more jivanmuktas are possible. I am not so defeatist! I

look around and see great souls who have lived recently or are even

still alive, e.g. Ramana, Nisargadatta, Atmananda and others.

Things are not that gloomy!

 

However, we vyavaharika mortals then have the task of deciding which

scriptures are valid, which is inherently impossible, since we are

wrapped in ignorance. Under such circumstances, it is probably best

for those born into the Hindu tradition to place their faith in the

Vedas. I agree that they won't go wrong, if their intentions are

pure. That is what really counts ... the sincerity and purity of

intentions. I am quite convinced that good intentions will lead one

to the truth, even if one's birth and environment cause one to be

indoctrinated by an inferior scripture. (I will mention no names!)

 

 

(4) But your most important point is that the ultimate truth is

inexpressible. Advaita and Buddhism agree wholeheartedly on this

crucial point. Someone who likes words such as me tends to forget

this. I plead guilty! Thank you for pointing that out.

 

 

Finally you said:

>For non-believers, Truth is a pathless land!

 

I guess this places poor J. Krishnamurti outside of the astika

family! Are we really going to be so bold as to say that he was not

realized in some sense? I am not so bold.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

 

Our problem is that we too often quickly want to jump into

conclusions! I never said that Sri J. Krishnamurti is a non-

believer. JK's statement is quite paradoxical and his statement

implies that statement comes with the 'reference point - non-

believer.' Isn't ironical that only believers (those believe in JK)

become his followers - there by violating his statement!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

>

> Finally you said:

>

> >For non-believers, Truth is a pathless land!

>

> I guess this places poor J. Krishnamurti outside of the astika

> family! Are we really going to be so bold as to say that he was

not

> realized in some sense? I am not so bold.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Respected Ramchandran and Benjaman:

>

> The sages and saints are always careful and they have avoided

making

> any false claims. Our problem is the lack of understanding of what

> they say and most of the time, we attribute our mistakes as theirs.

>

> They employ a `reference point' to illustrate the Truth at the

> vyavaharika level and they are aware of our limitations. It seems

> that we overextend their assertions and try to go beyond! In the

> rope and snake example - the reference point (rope) is the Truth at

> the vyavaharika level. Due to darkness (ignorance) the rope

appears

> as the nonexistent snake. But with the correct understanding (torch

> light) the truth is revealed.

>

> Now reasoning is employed to illustrate the Truth at the

> paramarthika level - the rope of vyavaharika became the Brahman of

> paramarthika and the nonexistent snake of vyavaharika became the

> nonexistent World of parmarthika. We do need to recognize that

> that this illustration with additional explanation is only at the

> vyavaharika level! This example or analogy does not provide any

clue

 

 

That is why when ascetics saadhakaa, regardless of the belief system

(dviata, viShTha dvaita and advaita) in their personal rituals say a

covenant –

 

R^itaM vacami; satyaM vachami

 

I think the confusion can be displelled easily trhrugh peroper

understanding of this expression that is commonly incporported in the

daily upaasanaa.

 

Both of these words apparently designate the expression of truth.

Thee question comes why did our ancestors said two expression when

they men the same thing? However, a close examination reveals the

shades of differences.

 

The vowel R^I is associated to express gati (movement). and satyam is

trikaala abaadhita.

 

Whatever one perceives is not necessarily the ultimate truth.

Therefore dnyaana (existing) is used to determine it's validity. If

it is found correct then vyavahaarika R^ita become satya.

 

In R^igveda words such as R^itaavaa (the ones who acquitted R^ita)

and R^itaaapaa (the ones who protect that R^ita) are used to

designate various Gods.

 

The path of Gods and pious individiduals (sajjana)is referred

as "R^itasya panthaaH"

 

paijavaana sudaasa says to indra –

 

vayamidra tvaayavaH sakhitvamaa ramaamahe |

R^itasya naH pathaa nayaa_ati vishvaani duritaa || R^igveda 10.133.6

||

 

Meaning – hey indraa, we trust you. We are are deserious of your

grace (kR^ipaa). Please take us on the "R^ita paatha" across the

all sins (paatakaa).

 

Later on this concept of R^itaa became almost equivelant to yadnyaa

(yaj~na) as in karma kaaDa. This is evidenced again by the silght

diveation of the meaning of R^ita and being equivalent to Brahman.

 

"R^ita_M satya_M para_M brhma" in mahaanaaraayaNa uapanishada.

 

A good example is the realization that "gold is the truth" from

the "gold bangles" although it being perceived as different for the

observer and the bangles just remain the vyavahaarika reference point

for the precious metal.

 

Lot of the answers of confusions can be found and resolved easily by

understanding the correct associated significance of R^ita

 

Just my 1 an 1/4th Cents

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...>

wrote:

> Namaste Sri Benjamin:

>

> I am very happy to support your assertion that `you are sincere and

> serious.'Everything that we do in this forum is at the vyavaharika

> level only and even the description and explanation of paramarthika

> are also at the vyavaharika level. No one except the Brahman knows

> what the paramarthika level is and even this assertion is only at

> the vyavaharika level.

>

> The sages and saints are always careful and they have avoided

making

> any false claims. Our problem is the lack of understanding of what

> they say and most of the time, we attribute our mistakes as theirs.

>

> They employ a `reference point' to illustrate the Truth at the

> vyavaharika level and they are aware of our limitations. It seems

> that we overextend their assertions and try to go beyond! In the

> rope and snake example - the reference point (rope) is the Truth at

> the vyavaharika level. Due to darkness (ignorance) the rope

appears

> as the nonexistent snake. But with the correct understanding (torch

> light) the truth is revealed.

>

> Now reasoning is employed to illustrate the Truth at the

> paramarthika level - the rope of vyavaharika became the Brahman of

> paramarthika and the nonexistent snake of vyavaharika became the

> nonexistent World of parmarthika. We do need to recognize that

> that this illustration with additional explanation is only at the

> vyavaharika level! This example or analogy does not provide any

clue

[Guest guest]

>Our problem is that we too often quickly want to jump

>into conclusions! I never said that Sri J. Krishnamurti

>is a non-believer. JK's statement is quite paradoxical

>and his statement implies that statement comes with the

>'reference point - non-believer.' Isn't ironical that only

>believers (those believe in JK) become his followers -

>there by violating his statement!

 

 

Touche! That's a good answer.

 

Well, the good news is that there are at least two of us in this

world on New Year's Eve who won't have headaches and hangovers

tomorrow ... you and me. I'll probably be reading this site and

maybe even posting until well after midnight.

 

Actually, I think I'll refrain from posting as part of my new

austerities. Watch out for those who practice austerities!

Sometimes they make the earth shake, and Gods and Demons tremble!

But only if they keep it up for more than a few hours...

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

respected sirs,

am honoured to be replied to by sada ji.

a.v.krshnan.

 

 

 

 

--- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote: >

> --- av krshnan <avkrshnan wrote:

> > namaste.

> > sadanandaji's calling benjamin a true advaitin

> could

> > be equated to vasishtta accepting viswamitra as

> > brahma rishi ? !

> > a.v.krshnan

> >

> Krshnan, I am honored by the comparison as long as

> Benjamin does not

> start fighting with me throwing all his astra-s - I

> have to run to

> vashisshTa or yoga VaashishhTa.

>

> Happy new year to all.

>

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

>

> =====

> What you have is His gift to you and what you do

> with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami

> Chinmayananda.

>

>

>

> Find out what made the Top Searches of 2003

> http://search./top2003

>

 

______________________

Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"

your friends today! Download Messenger Now

http://uk.messenger./download/index.html