SEEKING YOUR HELP - ATMANUBHAVA-1

[Guest guest]

Dear Group Members, Moderators and Friends,

 

 

I am a new member located in Bangalore, India. After retirement from what one

could call ‘ active service ‘, I have been taking keen interest in understanding

Vedanta. I have had several spiritual experiences in this life and have had a

burning interest in spirituality all along. This got me into all sorts of

situations but the most fascinating experience was the Mantropadesham at the

hands of a Brahmaswaroopi just before my retirement. This sort of organized my

Sadhana and got me into meditation in a rigorous sort of way.

 

 

 

Intuitively I was always oriented to ‘Bhakti’ ! Bhajans and prayers etc would

easily move me.

 

Although I am from what one could call a fairly orthodox Tamil background, my

early childhood in the colony attached to the goldmines at Kolar Gold Fields

near Bangalore and an upbinging in the midst of English children and

Anglo-Indians was not exactly what one could term Hindu in content nor in any

way ‘orthodox ‘!

 

Indeed the very first spirituality I got to know about was Christianity

…although there was this bewildering variety like Roman Catholicism,

Presbyterianism , Methodist etc …

 

When I was in Madras Christian College ( those were the heydays of Dr Billy

Graham and I was very impressed by him and got my family worried they were going

to lose the eldest of the family to some form of Christianity !) …the Upanayana

ceremony was performed and it became a turning point for me ..as someone very

aptly remarked in one of the listings recently the Sandhya Vandanam ritual is

indeed a composite of very many upasanas … and when I got to IIT Kharagpur I

was ready for Swami Vivekananda … he really got me into an understanding of

Vedanta. Although when I think of it , ‘ understanding ‘ may not be the really

correct word .. more ‘ misunderstanding ‘ than ‘ understanding ‘ ..but

everything has to start somewhere I suppose ….

 

 

 

It was a matter of time for me to get involved in the Ramakrishna Mission in

London ( I was in UK for about five years ) and later when we got back to

Bombay, India , to discover the Mission in Khar, Bombay… I was initiated into

Diksha by Swami Vireswarananda ..but I cant say I was totally satisfied because

I could have no personal interaction …

 

Years later this need was satisfied by my meeting Sri Ajit Dalvi in Bombay and

his Mantropadesham .

 

Now nearly a decade after that I seem to have discovered the advaitin listings

thanks to the tremendous technological changes that have taken place in the

interregnum ..and the advent of the ‘WEB ‘ as a Guru par excellence !!!

 

 

 

As I proceed with my Sadhana ( nothing orthodox although I am re-discovering a

lot of the meanings of Vedic rituals recently ) , new and creative meanings have

started presenting themselves to me on the content and import of many of the

thoughts expressed in the Veda Sukthas, the Upanishads and the Gita and so on .

Because of my involvement all through my worldly career in Management in various

parts of the organization and an early realization of the importance of

psychology for understanding oneself better and others in the bargain, I have

been a keen student of Western Psychology. I am naturally attracted to the

psychologists and there are so many of them who are involved in spirituality

also these days. Strong correlations have started presenting themselves in my

mind between Sankara’s teachings and the Gita and psychological revelations of

the Freudian variety.

 

 

 

Of late there is a deep urge to ‘ EXPERIENCE ‘ all that is stated by these

writers. So with the relative ( I say relative because one cannot really be a

recluse when one has a family to serve ! ) relaxed time at one’s disposal

nowadays, I have started trying to ‘ EXPERIMENT IN ORDER TO EXPERIENCE ‘ , so

to speak. This has started a kind of crystallization of ideas on what I would

like to term

 

‘ ATMANUBHAVA ‘ and the crying need to write it all down . But more than that,

one feels the need to share it all with learned people and ask for advice . I am

not at all learned in Sanskrit , or in fact , thanks to Kolar Gold Fields, any

Indian or foreign language except English . Of course, reading and hearing the

texts makes one slightly familiar with meanings … but when I look into the

Sanskrit Dictionary by Sri Apte which I recently procured, I am amazed at the

variety of meanings for a sound !

 

 

 

This is the brief ( sorry, it has become longer than intended ! ) background

to this posting and a series of postings which the advaitins group may have to

bear with ! Let me express how moved I get when I read some of the postings … I

seem to have gone through all those doubts myself sometime or the other . The

responses I read are compassionate learned and courteous . That is what gives me

the courage to expose my humble thoughts to this group . Please bear with

ignorance which you will definitely find …

 

 

 

For me the GURU principle has manifested itself in you all . I bow to you and

start my questions .

 

 

 

Question 1 :

 

 

 

I wonder whether there can be a ‘ Double Affirmation ‘ ! I set out below a set

of

 

‘ statements ‘ :

 

 

Prajnanam Brahma Awareness is Brahman

 

 

Aham Brahmasmi I am Brahman

 

 

 

Hence, Prajnanam Aham ! I am Awareness !

 

 

 

Would this be a correct conclusion ?

 

 

 

This has occurred because of a statement attributed to Bhagavan Ramana Maharishi

( I think this is mentioned in the book of Conversations ) where he states that

the optimum point where you can know your Self is in the transition from ‘

dreaming ‘ to ‘ waking ‘ …

 

I am what one can call a ‘ prolific ‘ dreamer. Observing the dream carefully, I

have become more and more ‘ aware ‘ that I am ‘ aware ‘ ! I presume this ‘

awareness’ ( a kind of witness state where one is observing the dream, the

waking and even one’s mind during meditation ) is what is called “ Prajna “.

 

 

 

I came thus to the conclusion that the state of ‘ I am aware “ is one condition

… one can call a ‘ Dualistic ‘ state where there are ‘ I ‘ and the ‘ object ‘ I

am aware of .

 

 

 

Logically, therefore, the ‘ realization ‘ that ‘ I ‘ am myself nothing but ‘

awareness’ should be the next step.

 

 

 

This could be the ‘ advaitic ‘ stage. I am nowhere near it, although I can feel

that merging the ‘ I ‘ with ‘ awareness ‘ would be a unique condition, where all

that one is witnessing would vanish.

 

 

 

I humbly seek your guidance .

 

 

 

India Mobile: Ringtones, Wallpapers, Picture Messages and more.Download

now.

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- S Mohan <mohanirmala wrote:

 

Good Morning,

This is just a note for you re. dictionaries. In

addition to Apte, a Monier Monier Williams is very

helpful.

And you do not have to buy one these days. Go to:

www.flaez.ch

which is an excellent site for the study of the

RgVeda.

You can access the dictionary from there. ( you can

also practise your German as it is a Swiss site.)

 

Also, ISKCON recently produced a scanned version, on a

CD, that can be searched. It is free of any

interference by that organisation's dvaitin approach.

I purchased one from a site in India for just a few

rupees.

Hope this is helpful.

I will leave your other observations to the care of

the experts on this site.

Ken Knight

 

 

 

New Photos - easier uploading and sharing.

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mohanji.

 

This is the way I go about undoing the problem of duality, if it is

of any help. I have repeated this idea several times on this forum

and was, therefore, a little wary of making another boring attempt.

Then I thought I might as well do it again as your thoughts on

awareness seemed to resonate well with mine suggesting a convergence

of frequencies.

 

I ask the question: When I am aware of something, am I aware of

myself? The answer is no. When I am aware of my being aware, I am

not aware of the something I was just a microsecond ago aware of.

 

So, where is duality? There is only knowledge taking place all the

time. Duality, if at all it exists, should be a situation where I am

aware of more than one thing at a time. That can never happen. Yet,

we proclaim aloud that there is duality. That proclaimed duality is

yet again a thought occurring in awareness at a particular point in

time when no other objectification can tread in there to create a

real duality. There is, therefore, no duality in awareness. The

sense of duality is an error. We are in fact constructing an

unwarranted problem and worrying about it without valid reasons. The

obvious conclusion is that I am awareness always. There is therefore

no need for the things we are aware of to vanish for us to understand

that we are awareness first and last.

 

You said, you were aware of the newspaper boy, the cat on the fence,

the disturbed crows and birds, their cacophony etc. I would rather

restate that you were the newspaper boy, the cat, crows, birds and

the cacophony. Tell me now please when were you really you and for

what an infinitesimal fraction of your twentyfour hour day you were

you and what was that 'you' composed of? The answer would be that I

was my face, I was my eyes, I was a pain on one of the fingers, I was

this thought and that thought etc. It can go on ad infinitum! The

glaring fact we often miss in this seeming procession of

objectifications is that you are everything you are aware of. If you

are everything, where is duality? And why should we then divide that

everything into different, dissimilar pieces and yearn for the death

of an alleged, non-existent duality, which is our own erroneous

imposition?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________________

 

advaitin, S Mohan <mohanirmala> wrote:

> I came thus to the conclusion that the state of ` I am aware " is

one condition … one can call a ` Dualistic ` state where there are `

I ` and the ` object ` I am aware of .

>

>

>

> Logically, therefore, the ` realization ` that ` I ` am myself

nothing but ` awareness' should be the next step.

>

>

>

> This could be the ` advaitic ` stage. I am nowhere near it,

although I can feel that merging the ` I ` with ` awareness ` would

be a unique condition, where all that one is witnessing would vanish.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadanandaji, Benjaminji, Nairji and Kenji and all,

Can I express in words adequately how grateful I am for your patience and

kindness in dealing with the 'mad outpourings' of an aspirant !

I am carefully studying your comments ... because of my inadequate knowledge of

so many facets of philosophy I may take a little time to respond .

Many questions are welling up in the mind ...but I want to be cautious to

reflect carefully before responding .. lest I take up your valuable time in the

wild meanderings of my mind !

There is so much of universality in all your responses. So much of what is dear

to me and is the basis of my very existence has been validated by you. The

languages seem to be different ... but the content is one .

Please be patient with this humble aspirant and continue to bear with some

bumblings and stumblings.

I will be writing again after 'chewing the cud' , so to speak, over the weekend!

This last week has been one of the most auspicious and thrilling weeks in my

life.

Thanks for everything again ...please enjoy the weekend !

Warm regards and pranams to all advaitins

Mohan

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

Namaste Mohanji.

 

This is the way I go about undoing the problem of duality, if it is

of any help. I have repeated this idea several times on this forum

and was, therefore, a little wary of making another boring attempt.

Then I thought I might as well do it again as your thoughts on

awareness seemed to resonate well with mine suggesting a convergence

of frequencies.

 

I ask the question: When I am aware of something, am I aware of

myself? The answer is no. When I am aware of my being aware, I am

not aware of the something I was just a microsecond ago aware of.

 

So, where is duality? There is only knowledge taking place all the

time. Duality, if at all it exists, should be a situation where I am

aware of more than one thing at a time. That can never happen. Yet,

we proclaim aloud that there is duality. That proclaimed duality is

yet again a thought occurring in awareness at a particular point in

time when no other objectification can tread in there to create a

real duality. There is, therefore, no duality in awareness. The

sense of duality is an error. We are in fact constructing an

unwarranted problem and worrying about it without valid reasons. The

obvious conclusion is that I am awareness always. There is therefore

no need for the things we are aware of to vanish for us to understand

that we are awareness first and last.

 

You said, you were aware of the newspaper boy, the cat on the fence,

the disturbed crows and birds, their cacophony etc. I would rather

restate that you were the newspaper boy, the cat, crows, birds and

the cacophony. Tell me now please when were you really you and for

what an infinitesimal fraction of your twentyfour hour day you were

you and what was that 'you' composed of? The answer would be that I

was my face, I was my eyes, I was a pain on one of the fingers, I was

this thought and that thought etc. It can go on ad infinitum! The

glaring fact we often miss in this seeming procession of

objectifications is that you are everything you are aware of. If you

are everything, where is duality? And why should we then divide that

everything into different, dissimilar pieces and yearn for the death

of an alleged, non-existent duality, which is our own erroneous

imposition?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________________

 

advaitin, S Mohan <mohanirmala> wrote:

> I came thus to the conclusion that the state of ` I am aware " is

one condition … one can call a ` Dualistic ` state where there are `

I ` and the ` object ` I am aware of .

>

>

>

> Logically, therefore, the ` realization ` that ` I ` am myself

nothing but ` awareness' should be the next step.

>

>

>

> This could be the ` advaitic ` stage. I am nowhere near it,

although I can feel that merging the ` I ` with ` awareness ` would

be a unique condition, where all that one is witnessing would vanish.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

India Education Special: Study in the UK now.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mohanji,

>Dear Sadanandaji, Benjaminji, Nairji and Kenji and all,

>

>Can I express in words adequately how grateful I am for

>your patience and kindness ...

 

 

It is great to hear your enthusiasm. I am sure it will endure and blossom.

 

I only wish to make one more point. Sometimes it seems that we talk

about all this as though it were so easy. I assure you that I

frequently lose my spiritual equipoise over trivial issues, which is

a fancy way of saying that I do not have that much control over my

mind. If I ever seem too strong in my beliefs, it is not with any

feeling of spiritual authority. Rather, it is merely a personal

conviction regarding certain intellectual matters, which I rate much

lower in importance anyway, regardless of whether I am correct or not.

 

At the same time, I think that the Indian religions are correct to

take a positive attitude and emphasize enlightenment and liberation,

rather than getting obsessed with 'sin' and personal inadequacy, as

Christianity and Islam often do. Whatever spiritual progress I have

made was never because I was wallowing in guilt but rather because

something in a scripture (usually Indian) triggered some kind of

light bulb in my mind or heart. I think that is the way to go.

 

Still, life can get depressing, and we underestimate our ego and

weakness. For example, I think we would all get quite upset if we

lost even a small fraction of our wealth, and most of us are doing

fairly well, as far as our lifestyle is concerned. So we should

remain sober and realistic, but not get morbid, which is useless.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hi Nairji,

 

This is such a critical topic that I would like to play devil's advocate

with your reply if I may in order to clarify the points you are making.

 

"So, where is duality? There is only knowledge taking place all the

time. Duality, if at all it exists, should be a situation where I am

aware of more than one thing at a time. That can never happen. Yet,

we proclaim aloud that there is duality. That proclaimed duality is

yet again a thought occurring in awareness at a particular point in

time when no other objectification can tread in there to create a

real duality. There is, therefore, no duality in awareness."

 

You say that I am only ever aware of one thing at a time and conclude

therefore that there is no duality. Does this follow? If it were true that

awareness were a function of the brain, could it not then simply be the case

that the mechanism could only process one transaction at a time, in just the

same way as a serial processor in a computer?

 

"Tell me now please when were you really you and for

what an infinitesimal fraction of your twentyfour hour day you were

you and what was that 'you' composed of? The answer would be that I

was my face, I was my eyes, I was a pain on one of the fingers, I was

this thought and that thought etc. It can go on ad infinitum! The

glaring fact we often miss in this seeming procession of

objectifications is that you are everything you are aware of."

 

You go on to talk about the process of identification - e.g. I am the pain

in my finger - and this is indeed how it often seems to be. And, of course,

in reality this is how it is. What I don't see, however, is how you make the

logical (i.e. mental - intellectual) connection. Because I seem to be

something does not in itself mean that I am. In fact, a non-advaitin would

never dream of drawing this conclusion. Can you expand, please?

 

(Sorry if you've been through all of this before - but you did raise it

again!)

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste D.A. Dennisji.

 

I can't expand, because the answer is very short and it is there in

seed form in your own following words:

 

"What I don't see, however, is how you make the

logical (i.e. mental - intellectual) connection."

 

You want a logical connection? For a connection, you need two and

you see that I don't see two. If there is someone who demands a

logical connection, that also is an objectification (awareness) and

like everything else verily you. With what am I then going to

establish a mental or intellectual connection.

 

Having said this, do you now think I have to answer your brain

conundrum?

 

The idea of a "mechanism that can only process one transaction at a

time in just the same way as a serial processor in a computer" is a

concept (or discovered knowledge if it were to be true) occurring at

a single point in time and shines alone just like "all other single

transactions". The knowledge that 'the brain is' is yet another

single transaction. Please note that I have borrowed the

word 'transaction' from you. In the context of what I have written

above, it should be understood as a transaction involving no

transactor or transactee, i.e. there is only transaction and that is

you without division although apprently seen as a brain, serial

computer, the one demanding a logical answer, D.A. etc.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

 

......> You say that I am only ever aware of one thing at a time and

conclude

> therefore that there is no duality. Does this follow? If it were

true that

> awareness were a function of the brain, could it not then simply be

the case

> that the mechanism could only process one transaction at a time, in

just the

> same way as a serial processor in a computer?

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

> You go on to talk about the process of identification - e.g. I am

the pain

> in my finger - and this is indeed how it often seems to be. And, of

course,

> in reality this is how it is. What I don't see, however, is how you

make the

> logical (i.e. mental - intellectual) connection. Because I seem to

be

> something does not in itself mean that I am. In fact, a non-

advaitin would

> never dream of drawing this conclusion. Can you expand, please?

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji,

 

I think it can be shown that awareness, or even perception, is not

caused by the mechanism of the brain. An investigation of the brain-

model would reveal that the brain operates as an instrumental medium

of consciousness rather than as the cause of awareness or perception.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> If it were true that awareness were a function of the brain,

> could it not then simply be the case that the mechanism could

> only process one transaction at a time, in just the same way

> as a serial processor in a computer?

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

[Guest guest]

Hi, Chittanranjanji,

 

You seem to have misunderstood my post in response to Nairji's comments. I

was not suggesting that awareness was anything to do with the brain - I know

that this is not so. I was using it as an example to question what was being

claimed. (I actually said: "If it were true that awareness were a function

of the brain...".)

 

Having said that, I read Nairji's response several times without really

following it.

 

Hi, Nairji!

 

Are you just saying that it is all 'anirvachaniiya'? This I can accept - but

then it was you who set out to 'explain' it to begin with. You said in your

original post: "Duality, if at all it exists, should be a situation where I

am aware of more than one thing at a time." Surely this is not logical to

begin with - even if 'you' are aware of 'one' thing, that must be duality?

But the point I was making (I think!) is that you say:

1) I am only ever aware of one thing at a time.

2) Therefore, there is no duality.

 

Surely your own use of the word 'therefore' is dependent upon 'logic'? You

say: "For a connection, you need two and you see that I don't see two." But

you do! You are making first statement 1 and then making a logical

connection in statement 2 - aren't you?

 

I'm not trying to be awkward or pedantic. It is inevitable that, using words

to communicate, we must follow the internal (and non-dual) nature of

language to do so. It certainly makes it very difficult when we are

discussing Advaita, as has been discovered on this list many times, but

that's the way it is.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji,

 

I'm genuinely sorry if I gave the impression that I was finding fault

with your words. That was not my intention. I was merely using the

opportunity provided by your words to digress into a topic that has

been playing on my mind for some time. It's just that I feel restless

whenever the brain-centric model of perception makes an appearance in

these discussions.

 

The brain model, if true, seems to sweep away the foundations of

Vedanta, and of spirituality and religion in general. A belief in the

brain model would commit us to the belief that the purest flight of

love is not that sublime virtue that religion makes of it, but a

result of chemical deposits in the brain. Or again, that religious

experience is the outcome of electro-chemical-neural mechanisms in

the brain.

 

I feel it is necessary, in the context of Advaita, to critically

examine the brain model. But I realize that the need I feel may be a

reflection of my own bent of mind which may not be of much interest

to others. If the moderators feel that the topic is relevant, I would

like to post a critique of the brain-centric theory of perception and

the manner in which the brain may be logically placed in the

cognitive process of the Advaita doctrine.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> Hi, Chittanranjanji,

>

> You seem to have misunderstood my post in response to Nairji's

comments. I

> was not suggesting that awareness was anything to do with the

brain - I know

> that this is not so. I was using it as an example to question what

was being

> claimed. (I actually said: "If it were true that awareness were a

function

> of the brain...".)

>

> Having said that, I read Nairji's response several times without

really

> following it.

>

> Best wishes,

> Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranji

I'll attempt a very simplistic post. (Since this is a digression I'll

quickly cover myself behind your post ).

 

The key organs of perceptions and the organs of action are known to

us. Advaita accords them the rightful place.

 

By themselves these do not accomplish anything... hence there is Mind

to which sense data is presented and it passes comments like I like

this etc.. which in turn cause the organs of action to act in a

certain way.

 

the 5 pranas ( circulatory system , excretion, assimilation ...) have

also their rightful place. They facilitate the interactions between

the organs of perception, action and the mind.

 

There are many other 'things' like tenons, ligaments, arteries,

veins, hormones etc... which will be participate/ facilitate the

above interactions. Brain is just one other such thing.

 

In the precense of That [That power of seeing behind the eyes, that

illuminator of thoughts etc.] brain functions.

 

Many pranams to all

Sridhar

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" interest

> to others. If the moderators feel that the topic is relevant, I

would

> like to post a critique of the brain-centric theory of perception

and

> the manner in which the brain may be logically placed in the

> cognitive process of the Advaita doctrine.

>

> With regards,

> Chittaranjan

>

>

> advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> I feel it is necessary, in the context of Advaita, to critically

> examine the brain model. But I realize that the need I feel may be

a

> reflection of my own bent of mind which may not be of much interest

> to others. If the moderators feel that the topic is relevant, I

would

> like to post a critique of the brain-centric theory of perception

and

> the manner in which the brain may be logically placed in the

> cognitive process of the Advaita doctrine.

 

Namaste,

 

As Advaita is an 'all-inclusivist' perspective, (aparokSha-

j~nAna-dR^iShTi), any model can be tested against it! Fear not! abhIH!

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Suderji,

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> > If the moderators feel that the topic is relevant, I would

> > like to post a critique of the brain-centric theory of

> > perception and

> > the manner in which the brain may be logically placed in the

> > cognitive process of the Advaita doctrine.

>

> Namaste,

>

> As Advaita is an 'all-inclusivist' perspective, (aparokSha-

> j~nAna-dR^iShTi), any model can be tested against it! Fear not!

> abhIH!

>

> Regards,

> Sunder

 

Thank you, Sir. I will post it as soon as I write it down as a

cohesive set of arguments.

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sridharji,

 

Indulging a bit more in the digression (:-)) let me say that I agree

with you, especially that last part about the brain functioning in

the presence of That.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19> wrote:

> Namaste Chittaranji

> I'll attempt a very simplistic post. (Since this is a digression

I'll

> quickly cover myself behind your post ).

>

> The key organs of perceptions and the organs of action are known to

> us. Advaita accords them the rightful place.

>

> By themselves these do not accomplish anything... hence there is

Mind

> to which sense data is presented and it passes comments like I like

> this etc.. which in turn cause the organs of action to act in a

> certain way.

>

> the 5 pranas ( circulatory system , excretion, assimilation ...)

have

> also their rightful place. They facilitate the interactions between

> the organs of perception, action and the mind.

>

> There are many other 'things' like tenons, ligaments, arteries,

> veins, hormones etc... which will be participate/ facilitate the

> above interactions. Brain is just one other such thing.

>

> In the precense of That [That power of seeing behind the eyes, that

> illuminator of thoughts etc.] brain functions.

>

> Many pranams to all

> Sridhar

>

> advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" interest

> > to others. If the moderators feel that the topic is relevant, I

> would

> > like to post a critique of the brain-centric theory of perception

> and

> > the manner in which the brain may be logically placed in the

> > cognitive process of the Advaita doctrine.

> >

> > With regards,

> > Chittaranjan

> >

> >

> > advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...>

wrote:

[Guest guest]

My apologies to readers trying to make sense of my ramblings! I said in my

last post: "... we must follow the internal (and non-dual) nature of

language...". I did, of course mean the *dual* nature of language!

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste persisting D.A. Dennisji.

 

I 'seem' to be enjoying my weekend (Thursday/Friday) and, therefore,

will be back to ruin yours (Saturday/Sunday) with my answer, if the

pressure of work at office permits. Is that ok, Sir?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________________

 

Shri Dennis Waite wrote:

>

> Are you just saying that it is all 'anirvachaniiya'? This I can

accept - but

> then it was you who set out to 'explain' it to begin with. You said

in your

> original post: "Duality, if at all it exists, should be a situation

where I

> am aware of more than one thing at a time." Surely this is not

logical to

> begin with - even if 'you' are aware of 'one' thing, that must be

duality?

> But the point I was making (I think!) is that you say:

> 1) I am only ever aware of one thing at a time.

> 2) Therefore, there is no duality.

>

> Surely your own use of the word 'therefore' is dependent

upon 'logic'? You

> say: "For a connection, you need two and you see that I don't see

two." But

> you do! You are making first statement 1 and then making a logical

> connection in statement 2 - aren't you?

>

> I'm not trying to be awkward or pedantic. It is inevitable that,

using words

> to communicate, we must follow the internal (and non-dual) nature of

> language to do so. It certainly makes it very difficult when we are

> discussing Advaita, as has been discovered on this list many times,

but

> that's the way it is.

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennisji,

 

Your post # 20912.

 

The issue has become muddy. Let us, therefore, begin on fresh even

ground with the following situation:

 

1. `A' sees `B'

2. `A' knows that he is seeing `B'

 

# 1 is very simple and straight. In # 2, the object is A's knowing

himself as the seer of `B'. `A' here acquires his knowership or

seership due to his identifying himself as the subject of the

transaction, i.e., in other words, due to his `choosing' to be

limited to a particular role in the transaction.

 

This transaction is like any other transactions that keep on

occurring continuously and more than one such transaction constitute

what we call duality.

 

Now `A' takes to advaita. He observes the following:

 

(a) Life is a continuous experiencing where things and situations

just light up. These include the so-called memories, thoughts,

concepts, dreams, etc. He has no control over the lighting up. It

was not for his asking that the lighting up began in the first

place. He is thus skeptic and unsure about his seeming ability to

put an end to it.

 

(b) His knowledge of himself as the subject in various transactions

so far gave him an impression that he was only a part of the lighting

up consisting of the three divisions - knower, knowing and known.

However, now he knows that that idea of being the limited knower is

also another total lighting up. Besides, the seeming limitation of

being the subject in a transaction doesn't end in itself because

there appears to be another knower of that subject.

 

( c) That brings in the possibility of an infinite regress of

knowership. Even that possibility is another total lighting up.

 

(d) However, the undeniable truth is that there is lighting up. The

seeming subjects (knowers) are relative and are lighted up or are in

the lighting up. `A' knows that he cannot be so many, so unendingly

divided.

 

(e) Each lighting up occurs individually. When one occurs, another

one can't occur simultaneously with it.

 

(f) Individual lighting ups thus occur in time. This knowledge is yet

another lighting up. But, time is also lighted up as time

awareness. If time is lighted up, then how can lighting up occur in

time? Are individual light ups, therefore, an illusion or miTyA as

advaitins call them?

 

(g) There is, therefore, an error somewhere. Lighting up cannot be

afflicted by time. It should be beyond time. If indeed it is, then

the diversity of experiences and objects, which we call duality, is

also an error. It is non-existent with reference to the timelessness

of lighting up. In that lighting up, there can't therefore be any

limited knower, knowing or known.

 

(h) In essence, therefore, there really is only the lighting up. A

compound "I-know" or "jAnAmi" in Sanskrit. `A' should be that

lighting up.

 

(h) Duality can thus exist only in relation to a limited knower.

With reference to the totality of lighting up, which is `A' in

reality, there cannot be diversity.

 

Now Dennisji, it is upto you to say whether there is any logic or

connection in what I have said above or is it all anirvacanIyA. I

only hope that I have been able explain my point of view (not claim!)

effectively.

 

I notice that we had discussed duality before. Kindly refer to my

post # 13475 of 27th May 2002, which you kindly replied on 28th May

2002 in # 13483. Looks like you were more receptive then to the

lighting up idea. In fact, what I have elaborated above is not my

discovery in any way. I owe it all to the way I understand

Sankara's "nAnAshcidraghatOdarastita mahA dIpaprabhAbhAswaram…….."

verse in DakshinAmurtyashTakam.

 

Now about brain, I know I have a brain. I also know that, on the

streets of New York, there is a species called muggers who know where

exactly to hit me to put my brain out of service. Let us suppose I

am hit. There is a temporary black-out during which I end up poorer

on a hospital bed. All that happened to me in the process are

individual lighting ups attributed to a mass of cells called the

brain excluding the stretch of unconsciousness, where I had the

experience of not experiencing anything. Now the question is: What

happened then to the timeless lighting up which I concluded is ever

present? The logical answer is that that lighting up was `ever

there' (tragedy of *dual* language!) divested of time and diversity.

Nothing could happen to it. Happenings are for things like the

limited knower and his brain in time and not for timelessness. I was

unconscious simply because I chose to be the limited knower in total

alienation with the lighting up. Only the conscious can become

unconscious. Consciousness cannot.

 

Whether there is a brain or not, therefore, is of absolute

unimportance to advaita. Brain, body, birth and death are in the

lighting up and are seen and feared only by the knower who chooses

limitations. They can't affect the one who knows that he himself is

the total lighting up.

 

Personally, I use advaita and my Devi bhakti to remove the feelings

of limitation and isolation. I liken the individual lighting ups as

clicks with a thumbnail cursor of the Devi's form. Each time an

experience occurs or an object is perceived, I visualize that I am

clicking with the cursor to get a full-screen image of the

thumbnail. Thus, to me everything that happens is She blossoming

including my thoughts about my identity and my physical feelings.

Then, only She remains always – the total lighting up and nothing

else! If you aren't fastidious, you can try this.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

___________

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste persisting D.A. Dennisji.

>

> I 'seem' to be enjoying my weekend (Thursday/Friday) and,

therefore,

> will be back to ruin yours (Saturday/Sunday) with my answer, if the

> pressure of work at office permits. Is that ok, Sir?

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> _____________________

>

> Shri Dennis Waite wrote:

>

> >

> > Are you just saying that it is all 'anirvachaniiya'? This I can

> accept - but

> > then it was you who set out to 'explain' it to begin with. You

said

> in your

> > original post: "Duality, if at all it exists, should be a

situation

> where I

> > am aware of more than one thing at a time." Surely this is not

> logical to

> > begin with - even if 'you' are aware of 'one' thing, that must be

> duality?

> > But the point I was making (I think!) is that you say:

> > 1) I am only ever aware of one thing at a time.

> > 2) Therefore, there is no duality.

> >

> > Surely your own use of the word 'therefore' is dependent

> upon 'logic'? You

> > say: "For a connection, you need two and you see that I don't see

> two." But

> > you do! You are making first statement 1 and then making a logical

> > connection in statement 2 - aren't you?

> >

> > I'm not trying to be awkward or pedantic. It is inevitable that,

> using words

> > to communicate, we must follow the internal (and non-dual) nature

of

> > language to do so. It certainly makes it very difficult when we

are

> > discussing Advaita, as has been discovered on this list many

times,

> but

> > that's the way it is.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Dear Dennisji,

>

> Your post # 20912.

>

> The issue has become muddy. Let us, therefore, begin on fresh

even

> ground with the following situation:

>

> 1. `A' sees `B'

> 2. `A' knows that he is seeing `B'

>

> # 1 is very simple and straight. In # 2, the object is A's

knowing

> himself as the seer of `B'. `A' here acquires his knowership or

> seership due to his identifying himself as the subject of the

> transaction, i.e., in other words, due to his `choosing' to be

> limited to a particular role in the transaction.

>

 

Namaste, Nair-ji

I am not commenting on the rest of your post. I tried to read it

but did not have the patience to go through it carefully. But here

is my quick comment on #s 1 and 2 above. (Not that you don't know

it, but that I know you know it!)

 

#1 is paroksha-jnAna, indirect knowledge.

 

#2 is aparoksha-jnAna, direct knowledge. Here it is that the

Consciousness within comes in the picture. This is the 'jAnAmi' of

Dakshinamurthy ashTakam, that you have also mentioned.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

 

No problem - no offence taken at your words and I did not think you were

finding fault, just that I hadn't made myself sufficiently clear.

 

I would be happy for you to digress into a critique of the brain-centric

model. I do feel that we can accept the attribution of an awful lot of our

behaviour to the brain without impacting on the tenets of Advaita. That

could include (at least the mundane varieties of) the feelings of love,

though many may wish to disagree with this. It has certainly been proposed

that the feelings of love for another are an evolutionary development. After

all, if we feel a strong attachment to our partner, we are likely to stay

with them through the rearing of children and thereby help ensure the

continuation of the species and the propagation of the gene that predisposes

us towards love. A candidate gene has even been proposed for this function.

 

I would be interested to read what you have to say. Presumably you do not

claim that perception is not a function of the brain?

 

Best wishes, Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthyji.

 

Thanks for bringing in the parOkshA and aparOkshA categorization

which indeed is helpful in the analysis and undestanding of

experiences.

 

But don't you think the DakshinAmUrthi verse I referred to demands a

different type of categorization, i.e. that which shines (bhAti) and

those which shine after (anubhAti)? All our experiences including

our ideas about what we are and our seeming involvement in an

infinite regress fall into the second category of anubhAti simply

because they are all objectified. What cannot be objectified and the

proof of which is we ourselves (self-evidence) is the only one that

shines (bhati).

 

Thus, the following conclusions derive from 'jAnAmIti tamEvabhAntam':

 

(a) The "I know" (jAnAmi) light up is an expression (iti) of the One

that shines (bhAti) which facilitates the emergence of both the

anubhAti external and internal worlds - all that are known and (known

as) unknown.

 

(b) JAnAmi, therefore, applies to parOksha and aparOksha knowledge

both of which are of the anubhAti variety.

 

© *Realizing* what shines (Self-realization) is essentially a

spontaneous resolution of our mundane lighting up of duality, which

shines after, into a timelss Unity that is ever ineffable.

 

(d) "I" of "I know" (indicated by the 'ami' inflection of jAnAmi)am

that ineffability, the total, timeless lighting up (Knowledge -

JnAnam)which I am ever despite the seeming plurality and without

which creation is naught.

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

 

[1. `A' sees `B'

2. `A' knows that he is seeing `B']

 

........here

> is my quick comment on #s 1 and 2 above. .......>

> #1 is paroksha-jnAna, indirect knowledge.

>

> #2 is aparoksha-jnAna, direct knowledge. Here it is that the

> Consciousness within comes in the picture. This is the 'jAnAmi' of

> Dakshinamurthy ashTakam, that you have also mentioned.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> But don't you think the DakshinAmUrthi verse I referred to demands

a

> different type of categorization, i.e. that which shines (bhAti)

and

> those which shine after (anubhAti)? All our experiences including

> our ideas about what we are and our seeming involvement in an

> infinite regress fall into the second category of anubhAti simply

> because they are all objectified. What cannot be objectified and

the

> proof of which is we ourselves (self-evidence) is the only one

that

> shines (bhati).

>

> Thus, the following conclusions derive from 'jAnAmIti

tamEvabhAntam':

>

> (a) The "I know" (jAnAmi) light up is an expression (iti) of the

One

> that shines (bhAti) which facilitates the emergence of both the

> anubhAti external and internal worlds - all that are known and

(known

> as) unknown.

>

> (b) JAnAmi, therefore, applies to parOksha and aparOksha knowledge

> both of which are of the anubhAti variety.

>

> © *Realizing* what shines (Self-realization) is essentially a

> spontaneous resolution of our mundane lighting up of duality,

which

> shines after, into a timelss Unity that is ever ineffable.

>

> (d) "I" of "I know" (indicated by the 'ami' inflection of jAnAmi)

am

> that ineffability, the total, timeless lighting up (Knowledge -

> JnAnam)which I am ever despite the seeming plurality and without

> which creation is naught.

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ________________

 

Namaste, Nair-ji

 

I certainly admire your command of the English language, which you

use very effectively and comfortably to rephrase Vedantic statements

in several different ways! So I tend to generally agree with what

you state above. But at one point where you say that "JAnAmi

applies to (also) aparoksha knowledge", I would like to differ.

Aparoksha knowledge is not knowledge of the "I know" kind. It

is "svayam siddhaM".

I think we are touching here a fundamental advaita concept relating

to Cid-AbhAsa. Cid-AbhAsa is the reflection of KUTastha (Brahman-

Consciousness) in the mirror of the mind. The cognition that "This

is a pen" is due to Cid-AbhAsa. The knowledge of the knowledge of

the pen is due to Brahman-Consciousness. In other words The

knowledge "I know the pen" is derived from Brahman-Consciousness"

This is the 'anubhAnam' following the 'bhAnam'.

My source for these ideas is 'Pancadashi' by Vidyaranya, Chapters 7

and 8. In fact these two chapters called 'tRpti-deepa' and 'KUTastha-

deepa' are fit chapters for being taken up as a monthly topic on

this list.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

My very little knowledge says both "kowledge of the pen" and the knowledge of "I

know the pen" are vritties of the Mind only.

With Pranams to all learned members and Hari Om

Mani

 

"V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote:

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote:

> (d) "I" of "I know" (indicated by the 'ami' inflection of jAnAmi)

> am

> > that ineffability, the total, timeless lighting up (Knowledge -

> > JnAnam)which I am ever despite the seeming plurality and without

> > which creation is naught.

> > PraNAms.

> >

> > Madathil Nair

> But at one point where you say that "JAnAmi

> applies to (also) aparoksha knowledge", I would like to differ.

> Aparoksha knowledge is not knowledge of the "I know" kind. It

> is "svayam siddhaM".

 

Prof. VK

 

Here is my understanding.

 

aparoksha essentially involves immediacy - pratyaksha is considered as

aparoksha j~naana in contrast to anumaana pramaaNa - since cognition is

immediate. From the Advaitic point, the immediacy since "I am knower'

and 'this is known' are immediate - that is both subject and the object

are directly known in the background of consciousness. Swayam siddaH is

the consciousness aspect is always there in any knowledge - direct or

indirect. What is immediate is that where no medium of analysis

required as in anumaana. But even in aumaana where logical analysis may

require sometimes an intensive preparation of the mind and intellect,

the substantantive of the whole process of analysis still remains as the

consciousness which is swayam siddhaH.

 

Jaanaami - if refers to 'consciousness' it self - it looses its direct

meaning as knower - It is like 'I am that I am' The knower, known and

knowing all resolve into one and it remains as just a statement of

realization - aham ahma swayam spurati - says Ramana - I am, I am, I am

-raises spontaneously in one core of individuality. These are just

statements made to convey some thing that cannot be conveyed by words.

In that sense Jaanaami - has the direct sense of realization too.

Otherwise - it could lead to one says I understand it - he understands

it not.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

> I think we are touching here a fundamental advaita concept relating

> to Cid-AbhAsa. Cid-AbhAsa is the reflection of KUTastha (Brahman-

> Consciousness) in the mirror of the mind. The cognition that "This

> is a pen" is due to Cid-AbhAsa. The knowledge of the knowledge of

> the pen is due to Brahman-Consciousness. In other words The

> knowledge "I know the pen" is derived from Brahman-Consciousness"

> This is the 'anubhAnam' following the 'bhAnam'.

>> profvk

>

>

 

 

=====

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

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

Dear Nairji,

 

Thank you for your extensive response to my query. I had to read it about

four times and interspersed it with a reference back to the earlier post on

the subject that you mentioned. Namaste! I must be going through a low point

of my biorhythm cycle at the moment I think! In the end, I think I

understand, appreciate and even agree with what you are saying. I would

like, with your permission, to use this post and the previous one for a 'key

issue' page at my website. Perhaps by the time I have formatted it and read

it a further couple of times, I will feel genuinely comfortable with it!

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennisji.

 

If you are sure you are not imposing an honour that I cannot carry,

please go ahead and include the information at your website. But,

please do remember to insert a picture of our Mother there, for She

is the One who inspires my words and whom I have to call to help me

carry your appreciation. I have a beautiful picture of Hers. When

you are ready, please remind me to mail it to you. When you see it,

I am sure, She is going to have another convert.

 

Immense thanks, regards and praNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

 

In the end, I think I

> understand, appreciate and even agree with what you are saying. I

would

> like, with your permission, to use this post and the previous one

for a 'key

> issue' page at my website.