Advaita "haa, wooo, haa, wooo"

[Guest guest]

Namaste, all respected members,

 

I find a lot of postings on “isms”, reality of world of objects, etc. etc. I

hope there is space to accommodate my following Posting in the Group:

 

We directly perceive that there is creation. No body can deny that. Creation

means “putting together things intelligently to serve some purpose.” It is only

rational to conclude that when we perceive a creation, there must be a creator,

who must be intelligent to create. I do not want to go into the details of what

was the material available for the creation, where was or is the creator

sitting, why did he or she or it created, how did he or she or it created, etc.,

because Creation is not my problem. I see a creation and I conclude there is a

creator, which we call as Ultimate God.

 

All sentient beings, including we human beings, of the creation are blessed with

“Gnana Shakti, Ichha Shakti and Kriya Shakti” i.e. power of knowing, desiring,

and acting. I think we should use these powers, but how and where, is the

question?

 

What is special with human beings, at least from what appears from the behavior

of other sentient beings, is in addition to the three above powers, man is also

blessed, in a much greater degree, with the power of discrimination, i.e.

Viveka, and also choice of action, i.e. Karma swathanthyram, as compared to

other sentient beings. Not only that, man is “self conscious” again in a much

more greater degree, and that is why we are always engaged in improving our lot

by making adjustments both externally and internally. Though he is

self-conscious, he is ignorant or there is ignorance about the nature i.e.

Swaroopa of the self. This self ignorance has resulted in superimposition, not

one way, but mutual superimposition. He is unable to draw the line at the right

place separating the (his?) self from what is not self, or what is I and what is

other than I.

 

Partial knowledge of the self has resulted in “Atmani anathabudhi” and

Anatmaniatmabudhi” or “Atasmin tatbudhi, and tasmin atatbudhi”, i.e. taking self

for non-self and taking non-self for self. To be more precise the Dharmas,

“qualities” of self are superimposed on non-self and vice-versa.

 

Because of “atmani anatmabudhi” he feels he is mortal, he is ignorant, he is

dukhi, i.e. he always lacks and this feeling pushes him to act or not act. If

this feeling of mortality, etc. is a fact, he should have no problem, but his

knowledge about the (his) self is not full. It is because of this partial

knowledge only he has “anatmani atmabudhi” and therefore he can’t stand

immortality, ignorance and unhappiness, and he always to strive be free from

these qualities, the qualities non-self.

 

The mutual superimposition, i.e. “Anyonya midhuneekaranam” of the Dharmas of

Atma and Anatma, has resulted in “Moha or confusion”, forcing man to engage in

eternal search of his own dharmas i.e. self’s swaroopa or nature.

 

In the process of “making adjustments” because of my “confusion” I take the

world of objects, including my body, mind and intellect, as the cause for my

happiness and unhappiness. In my understanding, it is not correct to say that

there is “emptiness in the world of objects”; as a matter of fact the emptiness

lies in my Budhi, or knowledge that the world of objects is the cause for my

happiness and unhappiness, or in general I am bound by the world of objects, or

Idam, which, if the line separating the self is drawn at the right place,

includes also “my” body, mind and intellect, and Eswara.

 

There is nothing wrong in having desires. In fact the creation itself has

provided objects to fulfill our natural desires, rather needs. For example for

desire for appeasing hunger, nature provides food, desire for appeasing thirst,

nature provides water, desire urge for sexual relation or for progeny, nature

provide the opposite sex, and thanks to Science, by manipulating and making

adjustments with the creation, we have so many gadgets, and means to fulfill our

never ending desires and make our living more and more comfortable and easy.

There is nothing wrong in desiring to have a comfortable life, but we err when

we conclude that fulfillment of desires will end our striving for Happiness, or

our notion that the cause of our happiness is fulfillment of desires. Happiness

has nothing to do with the world of objects (WOO), though WOO they are also part

of the creation and they have some purpose to serve. They can only “woo”

(allure) one.

 

(We have studied “Asti Bhati Priyam, Nama and Roopa, the first three belongs to

the self or atma, and the first three plus the apparent last two, belong to

non-self or anatma, i.e. there is atma without anatma, but there is no anatma

without atma being there.) Strictly speaking there is no “anatma” as anatma is

nothing but atma only but with nama and roopa or guna, kriya etc. to serve some

purpose. Atma, or consciousness, directly serves no purpose, like electricity,

but when it shines though a media, say anatma, like electricity through a fan,

it serves some purpose. So atma serves no purpose, but atma serves all

purposes!

 

What we experience when a purpose is fulfilled is pleasure or a temporary state

of satisfaction. It is not “the happiness” I am really striving for. Moksha

means the end of “this striving for”, and not going to any lokas, or not

experiencing any special bliss etc.

 

Since I cannot know the swaroopa or nature of the self through the means of

knowledge available to me, i.e. perception, direct, inference, etc., as they

have ability only to know anything other than me, (like a torch bulb cannot

direct its light towards its own batteries, but it can direct its light towards

anything other than its batteries) the means of knowledge implemented to know

the self, rather to know the nature or swaroopa of self, is Upanishads, which

are in sound (Shabda) form, or words uttered.

 

All the Upanishads unfolds the nature of the self.

 

The Upanishads all through unfolds “I am Brahman” or “I am that, which is

Poorna, lacking nothing, and which is Consciousness itself, therefore infinite”.

 

For knowing existence of Idam, i.e. the world of objects, I use the means of

knowledge available to me, and it is direct knowledge. What is the means I

employ to know that “I exist”? The knowledge “I exist” is not

perceptual/inferential, etc. as it is self-effulgent knowledge, requiring no

media, and therefore it is “immediate knowledge” or “aparoksha”. The experience

of my existence is also therefore definitely “aparaoksha” requiring no medium of

experience.

 

Te moment I know my, rather the self’s nature, all my confusion about the world

of objects, vanishes, and I rest in “Shanti”; remember the expression “haa,

wooo, haa wooo, etc,” at the end of Bhruguvalli, of the Taithiriya Upanishadd.

An expression coming from a person who has got what he was seeking, or who has

known what he was seeking. I neither accept nor reject the world of objects. I

am rather indifferent to them, i.e. Udaseenah, as I know I am that Happiness,

and my erstwhile knowledge that the world of objects, I venture to say including

Easwara, was the cause for my happiness or suffering etc. was mithya, or result

of ignorance, which itself was not real, as, though it had no beginning, it has

ended with the “discovery” of the knowledge of my real nature.

 

TO MY UNDERSTANDING, THE WHOLE TEACHING OF ADVAITA VEDANTA IS TO CORRECT MY

WRONG CONCLUSIONS ABOUT MY SELF, AND ONCE THIS CORRECTION TAKES PLACE, AS PER

PRATHAMA MALLA NYAYA, MY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE WORLD OF OBJECTS, INCLUDING MY

BODY, MIND, INTELLECT AND EVEN ESWARA STANDS CORRECTED. (AS SWAMIJI SAYS, IN ONE

SHOT).

 

Before ending, dear learned members, I maybe permitted to ask a few questions:-

 

(a) How many of us are prepared to go to sleep, where we experience

Ananda, if we know after the sleep we will not wake up?

 

(b) How many of us would like to remain as “pure consciousness” which

is in reality we are?

 

The purpose of Advaita Vedanta is not that.

 

I do not know what you all have to say, but the above is my understanding of the

whole subject. And, I may say with all humility, this understanding has helped

to totally change my approach to my living, my attitude towards, first of all,

myself, and idam, including Easwara.

 

Thank you very much for your patience and with warm regards, hari om

 

Mani

 

 

 

 

 

Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Maniji.

 

I like your clarity.

 

Your following question set me thinking.

 

QUOTE

 

How many of us are prepared to go to sleep, where we experience

Ananda, if we know after the sleep we will not wake up?

 

UNQUOTE

 

I have another question. Do we have to sleep to sleep? Sleep, as

everything else, is beyond our control. Perhaps, Coleridge knew this

well when he sang in "The Ancient Mariner":

 

"Oh, Sleep is a beautiful thing

Beloved from pole to pole.

To Mary Queen the praise be given,

For she sends the sweet sleep from heaven."

 

Yes. She sends it down - our Mary Queeen called Consciousness, who

is my iSta-dEvatA DEvI. We cannot choose to sleep. We are put to

sleep by Her. One who knows this won't dither even if he knows that

he is not going to wake up, for he is certain that She is always

around to kick him up in the morning to watch her pranks again.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Hello Maniji,

 

It was a wonderful write-up! I really wonder if you are Shankar in

person - it was so wonderful. But your questions in the end provoked

me to rather ask

 

(1) How many of us know that the sleep is full of Ananda? How could

it be Ananda? I am skeptical about it. If it is truely so, tell me

how to sleep, I want to experience that Ananda. I don't care about

the nature of that Ananda as long as I can do away with my anguish.

 

(2) Where is this unreal world, for me to come back? If you say this

world is unreal, and if I also realize it, how can I come back? And

why should I?

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Balaji,

 

It is good of you to have gone through my posting.

 

With regard to what you said

 

<<<(1) How many of us know that the sleep is full of Ananda? How could it be

Ananda? I am skeptical about it. If it is truely so, tell me how to sleep, I

want to experience that Ananda. I don't care about

 

the nature of that Ananda as long as I can do away with my anguish.>>>

 

During deep sleep, the culprit “mind” (rather Anthakarana which includes also

the “I thought”, intellect, memory, and mind), along with its agents that

indulge in reporting to it all sorts of ignorance generated (mithyagnanam)

knowledge, which covers “I’s” Swaroopa, is temporarily absent. There is no

“live” broadcast during that time of what is happening, but when the mind comes

back, when the sleep withdraws, “a recording” of what happened during the deep

sleep is played, and the “recording” is “I slept very pleasantly (in Tamil we

say “Nan “sukhamaka” thooginen”) and I did not know anything”.

 

Where does this recording take place, who records it?

 

Consciousness continues, as a super recorder, whether it is sleeping state,

waking state, or dream state (I cannot talk about Turiya, as I do not think it

is a state), and the recording of all the states takes place there, but without

the “play back” equipment, what recording takes place, cannot be known. The

“play back” equipment is mind rather Anthakarana.

 

So, even if Balaji was absent in a live music concert, when the tape of that

concert is played back, he could understand what were the ragas, played and he

would have enjoyed it much better had he been present at the live concert. It

is just an example, but as far as the music of deep sleep is concerned Balaji

can never be at the “live concert”, though the recording is available and he

does play back it.

 

I know this example may look a little absurd.

 

Before we know whether Aananda was there during sleep or not, we should first

know what exactly is this “Aananda” not “Ananda”.

 

Recently I read a “question/answer” of Swami Bodhananda. I quote “I used three

words: pleasure, pain, and happiness. Pleasure is opposed to pain. Or pleasure

leads to pain. But happiness is a higher category. The word for happiness in

Sanskrit is sukham. Su means plenty or boundless while kha means space. So sukha

means boundless space, meaning accommodation. You are able to accommodate all

experiences without getting disturbed or displaced.”

 

Even Balaji and Mani are accommodated in that state. There is nothing to be

accommodated during deep sleep other than “total ignorance” which is very well

accommodated also. So there is Sukham during deep sleep.

 

Similarly, the word “Aananda” also can be explained.

 

You remember “Nandati, Nandati, Nandati”. The cause for Nandati makes one

Nandati. If you take it as “Nand” (I have no knowledge of Sanskrit, I must

admit), but when you add A to Nand, it becomes Anand, i.e. opposite to Nand, and

when you add another A to Anand it becomes Aanand.

 

I hope Balaji now one can understand what is the meaning when people say “Nan

Sukhamaka Thoonginen” or “I slept happily”.

 

Sleep is not a voluntary action i.e. Purushataanthram. It takes place, like

hunger takes place. You cannot become hungry, but you can create causes for

hunger to take place. As you get up in the morning, you gulp a glass of warm

water mixed with a large quantity of epsum salt. You will go on emptying your

‘madhya pradesh’ i.e. stomach, and by evening hunger automatically takes place.

So, there may be ways maybe swallowing one or two sleeping pills for sleep to

take place.

 

When Mani mentioned “to go to sleep” Mani did not mean to say that “sleeping”

was an action. Sleep takes place and it does not ask one, that is the one for

whom the sleep takes place, permission, and if it asks, permission will always

be granted.

 

 

 

<<<(2) Where is this unreal world, for me to come back? If you say this world is

unreal, and if I also realize it, how can I come back? And why should I?>>>

 

 

 

Before one attempts to answer your query, did you (I) first of all go any where?

By “unreal” what exactly you, i.e. Balaji, mean? Is it like “the horns of a

hare?”. The word used to describe the world is “mithya” and mithya is not

unreal. Mithya swakale asthivad bhadi, mithya is that which shines at a given

time, for example the dream horse shines during dream for the dreamer, but

disappears on waking. Whatever shines during waking state is Mithya, but on

analysis only you know it is mithya, because mithya is ignorance generated. When

ignorance itself is mithya as its power is defused, once knowledge gets

unfolded, it cannot explode and cause devastation to Balaji and Mani. So long as

Mani and Balaji remain as Mani and Balaji; the world does appear for them as

real, and when both Mani and Balaji, after “sravana manana and nidhidhyasana”

know that they are not Mani and Balaji, but just sentient beings, floating on

That, they also know the world of objects are also a mixture of both

sentients and insentients floating on That. (This floating is not like a boat

floats on water, and I hope you understand what I mean by the word floating. It

is waves floating on the sea, or a necklace floating on gold).

 

Hope Mani has been able to make his understanding clear.

 

Hari Om

 

 

Balaji Ramasubramanian <balajiramasubramanian wrote:Hello Maniji,

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Maniji,

 

When I questioned you thus?

> <<<(1) How many of us know that the sleep is full of Ananda? How

could it be Ananda? I am skeptical about it. If it is truely so, tell

me how to sleep, I want to experience that Ananda. I don't care about

>

> the nature of that Ananda as long as I can do away with my

anguish.>>>

 

I meant to ask you, something between the lines:

 

Do you know some path that would take away my sorrow? I just don't

want to accept your words, I want to test them. Please tell me the

path to remove my sorrow and to reach that absolute bliss. I donot

care what that absolute bliss is like or what is the nature of

Ananda, as long as this ignorance is away from me.

 

Please note that I have asked only to tell me HOW TO SLEEP - not to

give me that bliss or to tell me what it is like. I will find that

for myself and I am confident of doing so. Just tell me how to sleep.

I was subtly asking you to teach me the path to self-realization.

Please remember I am asking only for the path.

>

>

>

> <<<(2) Where is this unreal world, for me to come back? If you say

this world is unreal, and if I also realize it, how can I come back?

And why should I?>>>

>

>

>

> Before one attempts to answer your query, did you (I) first of all

go any where? By "unreal" what exactly you, i.e. Balaji, mean? Is it

like "the horns of a hare?". The word used to describe the world

is "mithya" and mithya is not unreal. Mithya swakale asthivad bhadi,

mithya is that which shines at a given time, for example the dream

horse shines during dream for the dreamer, but disappears on waking.

Whatever shines during waking state is Mithya, but on analysis only

you know it is mithya, because mithya is ignorance generated. When

ignorance itself is mithya as its power is defused, once knowledge

gets unfolded, it cannot explode and cause devastation to Balaji and

Mani. So long as Mani and Balaji remain as Mani and Balaji; the world

does appear for them as real, and when both Mani and Balaji,

after "sravana manana and nidhidhyasana" know that they are not Mani

and Balaji, but just sentient beings, floating on That, they also

know the world of objects are also a mixture of both

> sentients and insentients floating on That. (This floating is not

like a boat floats on water, and I hope you understand what I mean by

the word floating. It is waves floating on the sea, or a necklace

floating on gold).

>

 

Beautiful answer sir. Are you a professor somewhere? But probably you

did not get my question, which was a counter-question to yours. Your

question was:

 

(2) How many of us would like to remain as "pure consciousness" for

ever?

 

My counter-question attempted to answer that by subtly trying to say:

 

'It is not possible for one to become ignorant after realizing pure

consciousness. How can one become ignorant again after becoming

knowledgable? Hence there is no room for "liking to remain as pure

consciousness". We are pure consciousness already, so it is said. (I

don't know if it is true) So even if I don't want to be pure

consciousness, I cannot help it. It is my very nature (so it is said)'

 

I know my questions seemed to ask something directly. But there was

subtlity in it. Anyway your answer was very satisfying. The nature of

ignorance and freedom from bondage has been explained beautifully,

although only at an intellectual level.

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam