pUrNamadah pUrNamidam... revisited (April 04 topic)

April 29, 2004

He poured the water in the cups back to the jar and said "when the water in

the cups is added to the water in the jar, water alone remains".

praNAms Mani prabhuji

Hare Krishna

prabhuji do you agree cup water going back to jar water?? Yes, this is what

exactly our state in sushupti. *This* Jar water & *that* cup water

remains water only ultimately . This millionaire Amitabh Bacchan & That

beggar Amitabh Bacchan is always ONLY Amitabh Bacchan. am I correct Sri

Nair prabhuji :-)) This reminds me mundaka shruti yathA nadyaH syandamAnAH

samudrEstham gacchanti nAma rUpe vihAya tathA vidyAnnAmarUpAdvimuktaH parAt

paraM puruShaM upaithi divyam.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

April 29, 2004

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji,

Humble praNAms Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

CN prabhuji:

I think the primary point of contention between our respective

interpretions of Shankara Bhashya is: whether we should consider

Brahman as including or excluding the universe.

bhaskar:

My contention is very simple & straight forward prabhuji. the nirguNa,

niravayava, nirAkAra, nirviShEsha para brahman is the ONLY reality, the

universe what we are perceiving with limited adjuncts of dEha, Indriya manO

bhuddhi is due to avidyA. So, neither inclusion nor exclusion of universe

arises since Atman is One & ONLY reality. From the vyavahArika stand point

upAsana of sOpAdhika brahman with nAma rUpa is OK but in reality it is

avidyAkruta.

CN prabhuji:

Ultimately, we seem to be saying the same thing, but while you persist with

the claim

that the world stands negated when the truth is known, I would say that the

negation negates nothing because what is negated resolves itself into

Brahman in the revealing light of truth.

bhaskar:

I am not saying world will be negated after truth, I am saying after truth

is revealed jnAni will realise that there is no world as such in bhUta,

vartamAna & bhavishyat kAla. To deny something jnAni should see something

out of him as viShaya & sit himself in vishayi seat to negate viShaya is it

not?? but jnAni's realisation is beyond triputi jnAna prabhuji.

CN prabhuji:

As for the claim that avidya is the cause of the universe, I don't

think it is a correct interpretation of the Acharya's exposition.

bhaskar:

then prabhuji kindly tell me the *correct interpretation* of avidyA

according to shankara. I remember he says avidyA kalpita mAya in sUtra

bhAshya & avidyA lakshaNa mAya in gIta bhAshya when talking about prakruti

& I'll get you the exact references tomorrow. I humbly request you also to

bring your interpretation of avidyA citing sUtra bhAshya reference. I am

happy to stand corrected if my understanding is wrong.

CN prabhuji:

Avidya cannot even make me drive my car to the office; I would most

likely end up on a tree by the roadside. Cause entails intelligence,

whereas avidya means loss of intelligence. Hasn't this been argued at

length in the first adhyaya of the Bhashya? Hasn't it been said

unequivocally that Brahman is the efficient cause of the universe?

bhaskar:

its all depends on how do you interpret avidyA. One thing to be noted here

is we are discussing here avidyA as has been described in shAstra drushti.

IMHO, giving mundane materialistic examples like driving car etc. is

irrelevant here. For that matter prabhuji if you think you've intelligence

to drive your car on track is also in the realm of avidyA only. Do you

want me to quote shankara's commentary where he says sarva loukika vaidika

vyavahAra & even mOksha are in the realm of avidyA??

CN prabhuji:

What is the dividing line between Maya, the power of the lord, and

avidya, the deluding darkness of the jeeva? Where lies the razor's

edge here?

bhaskar:

prabhuji, if you are familiar with the sUtra bhAshya, I dont think you

would find it difficult to get shankara's answer to these questions.

Anyway, let us keep these questions for our July discussion coz.we've

already walked far away from pUrNamidam :-)) Otherwise, if you are

interested we can continue the discussion off the list. But I cannot assure

you the continuity...tomorrow my collegue may come & occupy his work

station & PC :-))

CN prabhuji:

I feel it is necessary to resolve the tension between

seemingly opposing statements in the Bhashya for a proper

interpretation of Advaita. For example, when you say: "It is called

mAyA (illusory appearance) clearly coz. it cannot be defined to be

identical with Ishvara or brahman", you are presenting only one side

of the Acharya's statement. The Acharya actually says: "It cannot be

said to be EITHER identical OR different FROM Brahman".

bhaskar :

May be U R right, I quoted it from my memory. Nevertheless, shankara

subsequently cleared either case as avidyAparyupastita, addition of *either

identical or different from parabrahman* hardly matters here.

CN prabhuji:

The interpretation must resolve this tension and not take only one aspect

of it as the truth.

bhaskar:

Yes, the interpretation should be sychronised with mUla shankara siddhAta

of Atmaikatva, nothing more, nothing less than that. is it not prabhuji??

CN prabhuji:

Of course, it would be a digression to undertake

such an excercise here. We will take it up when it comes up for

discussion later (which I believe would be in July or August).

bhaskar:

I think, we better continue this discussion off the list also leisurely

whenever time permits ( I am bit free now & PC also available). I am very

eager to rectify my misunderstandings of advaita siddhAnta.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

bhaskar

April 29, 2004

Namaste Savithri-ji,

You wrote:

Upanishads have both kinds of statements - jnAna vAkyas and upAsanA vAkyas.

Examples such as

"aham brahmAsmi", "tadeva brahma tvam viddi.." etc., are the jnAna vAkyas. By

earing (sravaNa)

these from a suitable guru, moksha is

possible in an eligible aspirant immediately. On the other hand there are

upAsanA vAkyAs also in

the Upanishads. For example "sarvam khalvidam brahma", "pUrNamadah..", etc.

These are fit for

dhyAna or upAsana. Even an eligible aspirant cannot attain moksha by hearing

these from a

suitable guru.

This interests me greatly and as you are likely far more knowledgeable about the

lore of saints

and sages than me, I would like to know if there is any record of someone

attaining liberation

merely on hearing the mahavakya and whether there was preparation beforehand or

not.

Most of us will be slow learners:

Ch.VI.viii.7: 'That which is this subtle essence, all this has got that as the

Self. That is

Truth. That is the Self. Thou art That, O Svetaketu'

'May the venerable sir explain to me *again*'

He said, 'Let it be so, O good-looking one.'

Best Wishes, Michael.

April 29, 2004

praNAm Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji prabhuji

Hare krishna

prabhuji you wrote :

when you say: "It is called

mAyA (illusory appearance) clearly coz. it cannot be defined to be

identical with Ishvara or brahman", you are presenting only one side

of the Acharya's statement. The Acharya actually says: "It cannot be

said to be EITHER identical OR different FROM Brahman".

bhaskar:

prabhuji, I've re-read my mail, yes I missed your above point in the first

sentence. But subsequently, I've addressed this issue in shankara's foam &

water example. I think you might have not noticed it. For your ready

reference I am quoting the relevant para here prabhuji:

//quote//

It is called mAyA (illusory appearance) clearly coz. it cannot be defined

to be identical with Ishvara or brahman. This is where exactly

anirvachanIya of prakruti

comes into picture, which has been explained by shankara by giving example

of foam which is not quite the same as water but yet not a different entity

apart from water either. But this anirvachanIyatva of prakruti / mAyA has

been explained as avidyAkalpita, avidyApratyupastApita, avidyAkruta etc.

which in short mean that the objective appearance is due to avidyA.

//unquote//

I hope it is clear now prabhuji.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

April 29, 2004

praNAms

Hare Krishna

Michel prabhuji:

Most of us will be slow learners:

Ch.VI.viii.7: 'That which is this subtle essence, all this has got that as

the Self. That is Truth. That is the Self. Thou art That, O Svetaketu'

'May the venerable sir explain to me *again*'

He said, 'Let it be so, O good-looking one.'

bhaskar:

After *hearing* the mahAvAkya *tattvamasi* from uddAlaka nine times

svetaketu realised the ultimate. does it not prove only SravaNa is enough

for uttama adhikAri-s.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

April 29, 2004

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji,

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

> praNAm Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji prabhuji

> Hare krishna

>

> //quote//

> It is called mAyA (illusory appearance) clearly coz. it cannot

> be defined to be identical with Ishvara or brahman. This is

> where exactly anirvachanIya of prakruti comes into picture,

> which has been explained by shankara by giving example

> of foam which is not quite the same as water but yet not

> a different entity apart from water either. But this

> anirvachanIyatva of prakruti / mAyA has been explained as

> avidyAkalpita, avidyApratyupastApita, avidyAkruta etc. which

> in short mean that the objective appearance is due to avidyA.

> //unquote//

>

> I hope it is clear now prabhuji.

No, Prabhuji, it is not clear. Of course anirvacaniya arises only in

avidya, for there cannot in truth be something that is both real and

unreal, but how to interpret the real from the matrix of real-unreal

is the question.

If you say that attributing existence to foam separately from the

water is avidya, I can understand it. But if you simply say that foam

is unreal, then I would request you to please explain how foam is

unreal when water is real.

The nature of name and form needs a discussion of the nature of word

and meaning.

Regards,

Chittaranjan

April 29, 2004

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji,

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

> its all depends on how do you interpret avidyA. One thing to

> be noted here is we are discussing here avidyA as has been

> described in shAstra drushti. IMHO, giving mundane

> materialistic examples like driving car etc. is irrelevant

> here. For that matter prabhuji if you think you've

> intelligence to drive your car on track is also in the

> realm of avidyA only. Do you want me to quote shankara's

> commentary where he says sarva loukika vaidika vyavahAra &

> even mOksha are in the realm of avidyA??

>

Why is it irrelevant to provide examples from the materialistic

world? From where does the snake-rope example come? :-)

If avidya is the cause of the world, then the Acharya's arguments

against the doctrine of the Samkhyas showing that pradhana can't be

the cause of the universe breaks down. Your argument that avidya (and

not intelligence) is the cause of the world is (essentially) the same

as the Samkhya argument in so far as it places the cause elsewhere

than in the intelligence of Brahman. How does the Acharya refute the

claim of the Samkhyas? Isn't it by showing that a sentient Being is

necessarily required as the source of action?

Again, if the entire universe is only constituted by Maya (which you

equate to avidya), then the words that we speak are also constituted

by avidya and hence the statement that "avidya is the cause of the

universe" would also be constituted by avidya and would make the

entire argument self-refuting. The proposition reduces to what is

called the liars-paradox -- one which is false if it is true, and

true if it is false.

Moksha is in the realm of avidya because the attainment that we

attribute to a jeeva when say that it has "attained" moksha is false.

Nothing is attained when what is always there is revealed.

Regards,

Chittaranjan

April 29, 2004

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji.

>

> I have reread your messages. Although I understand your point of

> view expressed therein, i.e. doubts about pUrNamidam, I haven't

seen

> you conclusively produce Sankara's statement in full support

thereof.

> What I am, therefore, requesting you to quote is one single

> categorical statement from Sankara that corroborates your view

that

> this jagat is not pUrNam as implied in the pUrNamadah... prayer.

By

> this, I don't mean the refutation by him of some other statement

by

> somebody else.

>

Namaste Sri Nair-ji,

Would this help?

>From GaudapAdakArika

swapnamAye yathA dRshTe gandharvanagaram yathA|

tathA vishvamidam dRshTam vedAnteshu ecaxanaiH ||

also

brahma satyam jagan mithyA jIvo brahmaiva nAparaH |

jIvanmuktastu tadvidhvAn iti vedAnta didimaH ||

I guess the confusion here is akin to that in bhagavadgIta where

bhangavAn says in chapter 9 - all these worlds are in me. And in the

same breath he also says they are not. Now, we can't say one of

these are wrong. Assuming they are both right - one has to be the

pAramAthika satya (that there are no worlds) and the other is

explained as the sa-upAdhika relative satya.

Savithri

> From his recent statements, I note that our Stigji is a

prastAnatraya

> stOtriya. If he has some free time, I would request him to kindly

> look at this issue and give us his understanding of the prayer.

>

> Bhaskar Prabhuji, I am not at all annoyed. Why should I? In

fact, I

> am happy. This pUrNamadah... being my baby this month, I have a

> selfish interest in seeing that it receives maximum attention and

I

> have been unabashedly canvassing the same.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

April 29, 2004

Namaste Sri Michael -ji,

you said

>

> This interests me greatly and as you are likely far more

knowledgeable about the lore of saints

> and sages than me, I would like to know if there is any record of

someone attaining liberation

> merely on hearing the mahavakya and whether there was preparation

beforehand or not.

>

Although this is an interesting question, who is to really say?

Many sages/saints live in the caves and mountains of the world -

Only a jnAni can truly recognize a jnAni. Unless we hear about them

in itihAsas, purANas or in the sruti, who can really say?

Suka muni, son of vyAsa might belong to this category. There may be

many others.

I am only parroting what I have read and what I believe in. The

point is - for a eligible mumukshu the veda vAkyas very clearly

indicate his oneness with brahman, just as clearly as the 10th man

finds himself on being told so. The word "again" that you have

highlighted below is not very relevant in my opinion. What is a few

repetitions versus a few lifetimes? I think the point is - only

sravaNa is enough for such aspirants, they have already been

cleansed off of all the dross and impurities, there is no more pre-

requisites, no more preparatory steps.

Regards,

Savithri

> Most of us will be slow learners:

> Ch.VI.viii.7: 'That which is this subtle essence, all this has got

that as the Self. That is

> Truth. That is the Self. Thou art That, O Svetaketu'

> 'May the venerable sir explain to me *again*'

> He said, 'Let it be so, O good-looking one.'

>

> Best Wishes, Michael.

April 30, 2004

Dear Savithri-ji,

The

> point is - for a eligible mumukshu the veda vAkyas very clearly

> indicate his oneness with brahman, just as clearly as the 10th

man

> finds himself on being told so. The word "again" that you have

> highlighted below is not very relevant in my opinion. What is a

few

> repetitions versus a few lifetimes? I think the point is - only

> sravaNa is enough for such aspirants, they have already been

> cleansed off of all the dross and impurities, there is no more

pre-

> requisites, no more preparatory steps.

Thank you for posting this. I perfectly agree with you. The point

made by Shankara by saying that shravana leads to liberation for

the higest rank of aspirants, is not make us speculate whether

10%, 1% or even 0.0000000000001% of all aspirants attains moksha

from hearing "Tat tvam asi" from the guru once. Attaining moksha

from shravana is possible, beause of the very fact that Shruti

texts deals with the true Self. We can not attain this Self by

looking anywhere else but "behind" our misconceptions of Atman.

In the same way as one needs a mirror in order to see one´s own

eyes, in the same way one needs shruti in order to see one´s true

and inner Self. Shruti helps us eradicate our misconceptions of

ourselves.

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren

April 30, 2004

I perfectly agree with you. The point made by Shankara by saying that

shravana leads to liberation for the higest rank of aspirants, is not make

us speculate whether

10%, 1% or even 0.0000000000001% of all aspirants attains moksha from

hearing "Tat tvam asi" from the guru once. Attaining moksha from shravana

is possible, beause of the very fact that Shruti texts deals with the true

Self.

praNAm Stig prabhuji

Hare Krishna

You are absolutely right prabhuji, at a practical level, for the vast

majority of us who are manda & madhyama adhikAri-s all types of antaranga &

bahiranga sAdhana-s are indispensable. However, the philosophical

underpinnings should not be at any cost compromised, correct prabhuji? The

possibility that there is an uttama adhikArI living in the world now,

however remote it is, should not be dismissed. yEshAm punaH nipuNamatInAm

na ajnAnasaMshaya viparyayalakShaNaH....tattvamasi vAkyArtham anubhavitam

iti...(dont remember the full quote) shankara says in sUtra bhAshya.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

April 30, 2004

our beloved Stgi comments ...

In the same way as one needs a mirror in order to see one´s own

eyes, in the same way one needs shruti in order to see one´s true

and inner Self. Shruti helps us eradicate our misconceptions of

ourselves.

SHASTRASYA CHAKSHUHU !

through the eyes of the scriptures!

on another note,

"And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book,

and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of

darkness."(Isiah)

to open, the 'ajna' chakra (the third eye) , one needs the Guru !

dhyAnamUlaM gurormUrtih:

pUjAmUlaM guroh: padam

mantramUlaM gurorvAkyam

mokSamUlaM guroh: kRpA

"The root of meditation is the Guru's form;

The root of worship is the Guru's feet;

The root of mantra is the Guru's word;

The root of moksha is the Guru's grace "

Saltuations to the LOtus feet of the Guru!

Jaya jaya shankara !

Hara hara shankara !

PS - enjoy reading smt. savitri's posts! Full of LIGHT!

April 30, 2004

Dear Bhaskarji,

> However, the philosophical

> underpinnings should not be at any cost compromised, correct

prabhuji? The

> possibility that there is an uttama adhikArI living in the

world now,

> however remote it is, should not be dismissed.

Exactly! That such uttama adhikari can attain moksha just from

hearing Shruti once is the unrefutable implication of the fact

that Shruti gives direct knowledge of the true Self. 1) Moksha

comes from the eradication of ignorance. 2) Shruti eradicates

ignorance when one perfectly grasps the true and inner meaning of

the Shruti-parts such as "Tat tvam asi". 3) At what time one

eradicates ignorance through Shruti is a matter of when one

perfectly grasps its meaning. 4) At what time one grasps the

meaning of Shruti is a matter of ones qualifications and

preparedness. 5) Someone with very high qualifications (probably

attained through studies of the shastras in earlier lives)

standing on the very edge of moksha, may fully eradicate the

ignorance of the Self just by hearing Shruti once.

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren

April 30, 2004

advaitin, "Stig Lundgren" <slu@b...> wrote:

> Dear Bhaskarji,

>

> > However, the philosophical

> > underpinnings should not be at any cost compromised, correct

> prabhuji? The

> > possibility that there is an uttama adhikArI living in the

> world now,

> > however remote it is, should not be dismissed.

>

> Exactly! That such uttama adhikari can attain moksha just from

> hearing Shruti once is the unrefutable implication of the fact

> that Shruti gives direct knowledge of the true Self. 1) Moksha

> comes from the eradication of ignorance. 2) Shruti eradicates

> ignorance when one perfectly grasps the true and inner meaning of

> the Shruti-parts such as "Tat tvam asi". 3) At what time one

> eradicates ignorance through Shruti is a matter of when one

> perfectly grasps its meaning. 4) At what time one grasps the

> meaning of Shruti is a matter of ones qualifications and

> preparedness. 5) Someone with very high qualifications (probably

> attained through studies of the shastras in earlier lives)

> standing on the very edge of moksha, may fully eradicate the

> ignorance of the Self just by hearing Shruti once.

>

> Warmest regards

> Stig Lundgren

Namaste All!

This may be total speculation, but I would like to ask whether a

person can realize oneself without even the aid of shruti. Is it

possible for someone to intuitively gain self-knowledge? For, this

knowledge is ever present, and shruti vaakyas only indicate it.

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

April 30, 2004

Neelakantan wrote:

Namaste All!

This may be total speculation, but I would like to ask whether a person can

realize oneself without even the aid of shruti. Is it possible for someone

to intuitively gain self-knowledge? For, this knowledge is ever present, and

shruti vaakyas only indicate it.

Namaste Neelakantan,

Sri Ramakrishna would certainly have agreed with you as

he realised God along the lines of the sadhana of various faiths and

recognised their founders as divine incarnations. Mystical experience of

various kinds is reported all over the world from those who never heard of

the Vedas or belong to no faith. It is a naturally occuring thing because

it is our nature and our nature can express itself if in some way or other

we come to surrender ourselves to it. Ken Knight has been gathering stories

of such events and of course self-knowledge and self-identity is the staple

diet of philosophy world wide. By all means have faith in the Vedas

particularly when delivered by a perfect master but to limit self-knowledge

to that would ironically be contra the core of Sanatana Dharma.

Best Wishes, Michael.

May 2, 2004

Namaste Savitriji.

I am happy I have been able to drag you, the usual silent spectator,

in! Half the war is therefone won!

I couldn't access the Net for the last three days due to several

preoccupations. I know there is another post before this from you

which I would be addressing in due course.

About the following authorities which you have quoted, here are my

thoughts:

1. > Would this help?

>

> From GaudapAdakArika

>

> swapnamAye yathA dRshTe gandharvanagaram yathA|

> tathA vishvamidam dRshTam vedAnteshu ecaxanaiH ||

>

[The dream gandharvanagaram is projected by the dreaming me. This

vishvam is projected by the wakeful me. Both are thus projected by

me. In other words, I myself am 'expanding' (The verb vijrumbayati

is used by Sankara in DakshinAmUrti Ashtakam!) to 'be' the dream

gandharvanagram as well as the vishvam of wakefulness. So, I am the

gandharvanagaram as well as the vishvam when they are perceived. If

I am brahman, then they too are brahman!]

2. > also

>

> brahma satyam jagan mithyA jIvo brahmaiva nAparaH |

> jIvanmuktastu tadvidhvAn iti vedAnta didimaH ||

>

[jIvO brahmaiva nAparaH supports my point of view. The limited

jIvA, who sadly understands himself to be a part of the whole

vishvam, is declared as brahman here! So, what to say about the

whole vishvam where the jIvA is just a part!?]

3. > I guess the confusion here is akin to that in bhagavadgIta

where

> bhangavAn says in chapter 9 - all these worlds are in me. And in

the

> same breath he also says they are not. Now, we can't say one of

> these are wrong. Assuming they are both right - one has to be the

> pAramAthika satya (that there are no worlds) and the other is

> explained as the sa-upAdhika relative satya.

[There is no confusion in Chapter 9. Krishna's statement connotes

that Brahman pervades everything - "I am in everything". But "They

are not in me" only signifies Brahman's indivisibility, whereby

plurality of the world is negated and the fullness of Brahman is

asserted.]

Thank you, Savitriji, for your learned input.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

May 2, 2004

Dear Bhaskarji, Madathilji and others,

> With this I'd rest my case prabhuji. I donot have anything

worthy to add

> further to this. Hope our Shivashankar (Stig Lundgren)

prabhuji would

Well, I don´t know if there is much for me to add here. There

have been tons of postings on this subject already, and I´m

afraid I have not had the time to study them all. Therefore,

there may perhaps be passages in this mail of mine, presenting

views that have been pointed out several times already by others.

What is the ontological status of the world (jagat)? From

Shankara´s preamble to his bhashya on the Brahma Sutras it is

perfectly clear that the world is superimposed upon Brahman in

the same sense as the snake is superimposed upon the rope. Hence,

the appearance of the world is due to ignorance of Brahman in the

same sense as the appearance of the snake is due to ignorance of

the rope. In other words, the world is Brahman misconcieved just

as the snake is the rope misconcieved. Due to innate ignorance,

we are unable to concieve Atman/Brahman as it really is, and the

result is the world of manifoldness, separatness, birth, death,

transmigration, hunger, fear etc. etc. In this sense, ignorance

is the cause of the world. But one may keep in mind that this

explanation of Adi Shankara differs from the view often

propagated by the post-shankara advaitins, who claim that a

root-ignorance (mulaavidya) is the material cause of the

superimpositions (adhyasa) and hence the world (jagat).

The world (jagat) do not exist apart from Brahman. The world has

no existence in itself whatsoever. Neither is it (from

paramarthika drishti) created by Brahman. After quoting Mandukya

Up. 7 (Atman is "Completely free from the manifold phenomenal

world, perfectly unpertubed, the highest good, one without a

second"), Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati conludes: "So it is

not right to hold that this world consisting of animate and

inanimate entities is come from the Supreme Self." (Salient

Features of Sankara´s Vedanta, s.61). The world is completely

dependent on

Brahman since it is a misconception of Brahman. The world is

mithya (phenomenal) only, and the knowledge of the world is

mithya-jnana, that is knowledge of something false, in other

words false knowledge. Regarding this question, I belive one

would

also benefit by keeping in mind what Shankara says in his bhashya

on Gaudapada´s karika on Mandukya Upanishad: What is real is

never created or born. Hence, the world can not be real. Only

Brahman is real.

Then what about texts teaching about creation of the world?

According to Shankara such texts plays the role of preparing the

mind for the highest truth, namely that there are no distinctions

whatsoever, and that Brahman is all that exists. In his bhashya

on Gaudapada Karika, Shankara explains: "True, creation has been

described in several ways and has been elaborated and richly

illustrated by examples like that of clay, iron and sparks. All

that description is only a means to prepare the mind for

understanding the unity of the individual and the Supreme Self."

(G.K.Bh.3-15) Hence, Shruti dealing with creation is teaching

about brahman from the vyavaharika perspective, and not from

paramartikha drishti.

So, the teaching of creation, and teachings about Brahman as the

cause of this creation, is utilized only in order to help the

aspirant gain higher and higher insights. Step by step he is

taken to the final and highest thruth, namely that there is no

such thing as a creation and that brahman is the only real, while

the world and the individual souls are mere phenomena due to

ignorance. Satchidanandendra Swamiji says the following about

this:

"But this existence [of the creation, the world etc.] is only

accepted from the standpoint of practical worldy experience. All

creation is admitted to enjoy its illusory existence before the

illusory play of name and form set up by Ignorance (avidya) has

been cancelled. But when the aim is to identify the Absolute in

its true nature, then it is declared that it is the Absolute

alone that is referred to by every word and comprehended in every

idea. For even when they are manifest, it is impossible to

explain name and form either as identical with or as different

from the Absolute. And if they are spoken of from the standpoint

of vision of the Absolute, they do not in truth exist. Thus it

stands proved that the Absolute has no second, is beyond all

empirical experience and is eternally and constantly

selfestablished." (Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati, The Method

of the Vedanta, s.78)

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren

May 2, 2004

Dear Michaelji,

Mystical experience of

> various kinds is reported all over the world from those who

never heard of

> the Vedas or belong to no faith.

Yes, this is no doubt true. However, mystical experiences is not

the same as attaining Brahmavidya as expounded by Vedanta.

Realization the vedantic way is about dispelling the

superimpositions, the wrong conceptions the Self. What do we

actually know about these "Mystical experiences of various

kinds"? They may actually be very far from the Self-knowledge as

described by Shankara, or Ramana Maharshi for that matter. And

they are most apparently so, if they are only temporary in

character.

It is a naturally occuring thing because

> it is our nature and our nature can express itself if in some

way or other

> we come to surrender ourselves to it.

But it is also fully possible that such mystical experiences are

in fact mental or emotional states different from

everyday-experience, but nevertheless not at all anything such as

Brahmavidya.

> By all means have faith in the Vedas

> particularly when delivered by a perfect master but to limit

self-knowledge

> to that would ironically be contra the core of Sanatana

Dharma.

But this is completely contra the standpoints of Adi Shankara,

Sureshvara and traditional Advaita. Of course, it is not

mandatory to to their standpoints, but one can hardly

put them outside the core of Sanatana Dharma. This is their

standpoint regarding the Vedas and Self-knowledge:

"Because this entity [the Absolute] has no attributes like

colour, it is not an object for perception. And because it has no

signs which can be used as a basis for inference (since these,

too, depend on perception) or any other features that could lead

to indirect forms of knowledge, it is not within the realm of

inference or other forms of indirect knowledge either. This

entity can only be known through the traditional texts".

(Shankara, Bh. Su. Bh. 2.1.6.)

"For the Absolute cannot be known as the Self without the help of

Vedic texts like 'That thou art'." (Shankara, Bh. Su. Bh. 1.1.4.)

"The Spirit proclaimed in the Upanishads, and only in the

Upanishads, is the Absolute." (Shankara, Bh. Su. Bh. 1.1.4.)

"That which has ultimately to be known, which is initially

unknown and which transcends the individual knower and his

knowledge and its objects -- that can be known in this world from

the Veda and from no other source." (Sureshvara, Brihad. Bh.

Vartika 1.4.339.)

The final reality can be known only

through the upanishadic texts, the sole means for knowing it."

(Sureshvara, Brihad. Bh. Vartika 4.3.401.)

"The fact that the true Self is identical with the Absolute and

the Absolute identical with the true Self is the special topic of

the metaphysical texts in the Upanishads like 'That thou art';

and it cannot be known through any other means of knowledge".

(Sureshvara, Brihad. Bh. Vartika 4.3.1115.)

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren

May 2, 2004

Namaste Sri Nairji,

The world (jagat) as perceived with the notions of knower/seer,

means and known/seen is called the empirical standpoint or

vyavahaara dR^ishhTii. When these notions are truly abandoned, it is

the standpoint of supreme reality or paramaartha dR^ishhTii. It is

important to understand which standpoint is being adopted for an

argument, otherwise it can lead to lots of confusion. I believe this

is one major cause of most confusions and seeming contradictions in

sruti and bhagavad gIta too.

> > From GaudapAdakArika

> >

> > swapnamAye yathA dRshTe gandharvanagaram yathA|

> > tathA vishvamidam dRshTam vedAnteshu ecaxanaiH ||

> >

> [The dream gandharvanagaram is projected by the dreaming me. This

> vishvam is projected by the wakeful me. Both are thus projected

by

> me. In other words, I myself am 'expanding' (The verb

vijrumbayati

> is used by Sankara in DakshinAmUrti Ashtakam!) to 'be' the dream

> gandharvanagram as well as the vishvam of wakefulness. So, I am

the

> gandharvanagaram as well as the vishvam when they are perceived.

If

> I am brahman, then they too are brahman!]

>

The superimposition of the aatman on the anAtman (viz., mind,

senses, body, etc) is the topic of adhyAsa bhAshya. Your last

sentence above seems like reverse-adhyAsa or contra-adhyAsa to me.

As you know, the MandUkya and the kArika are about the ultimate

reality - paramArthA satya, Gaudapada declares elsewhere "maayaa-

maatraM idaM dvaitaM, advaitaM parama-arthataH", this world of

duality is false, the supreme reality is advaita.

> 3. > I guess the confusion here is akin to that in bhagavadgIta

> where

> > bhangavAn says in chapter 9 - all these worlds are in me. And in

> the

> > same breath he also says they are not. Now, we can't say one of

> > these are wrong. Assuming they are both right - one has to be

the

> > pAramAthika satya (that there are no worlds) and the other is

> > explained as the sa-upAdhika relative satya.

>

> [There is no confusion in Chapter 9. Krishna's statement connotes

> that Brahman pervades everything - "I am in everything".

But "They

> are not in me" only signifies Brahman's indivisibility, whereby

> plurality of the world is negated and the fullness of Brahman is

> asserted.]

>

This is a very simplistic view. Maybe I will revisit it some other

time.

Regards,

Savithri

May 2, 2004

Namaste Stigji,

Thank you for your detailed reply. Yes, the traditional position is

very clear on this question. My question was whether any text is

really required. I realize the futility of such speculation. I was

reading about Peace Pilgrim and her account of her spiritual

awakening. There seemed to be a strong advaitic current in these and

I was rather struck by it. Hence the question. Of course, I may be

finding the similarity because I have some background in advaita :-)

That said, I am happy that I have access to shruti and the word of

the masters. But my mind gets curious at times :-)

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

PS: If you are interested, you can read about Peace Pilgrim at the

following link:

http://www.peacepilgrim.net/steps1.htm

May 3, 2004

Namaste Sunderji.

Referemce your post 22459.

I am sorry I am late due to preoccupations.

Sunderji, you are a great life-saver. Thanks a lot for Sankara's

comments in Sanskrit together with Sw. Madhavanandaji's translation.

I hope your quote, together with all the explanations offered by

Sadaji, Chittaranjanji and Maniji clarifies the fullness of idam.

I may need a few days more to wind this topic up. In the meanwhile,

I have an exchange of mails with my brother, Shri Narendran. Will

you permit to me post it here? We did that with the LIE last

September. He is a devotee of Lord Shiva and has therefore laid more

stress on bhakti.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

_______________

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> I cannot think of a third party better than Shankara himself!

>

> Here is his commentary on the mantra:[Translation by Sw.

Madhavananda]..............................

>

> tadeva idaM sopAdhikaM nAmarUpasthaM vyavahArApannaM pUrNaM svena

> rUpeNa paramAtmanA vyApyeva, na upAdhiparichchhinnena visheShAtmanA

|

> So also is this conditioned Brahman, manifesting through name and

> form and coming within the scope of relativity (the universe),

> infinite or all-pervading indeed in its real form as the Supreme

> Self., not in its differentiated form circumscribed by the limiting

> adjuncts.

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

>

> yadyapi kAryAtmanA udrichyate tathApi yatsvarUpaM pUrNatvaM

> paramAtmabhAvaM tanna jahAti, pUrNameva udrichyate |

> Although it emanates as an effect, it does not give up its nature,

> infinitude, the state of the Supreme Self; it emanates as but the

> infinite.

>

> pUrNasya kAryAtmano brahmaNaH, pUrNaM pUrNatvaM, AdAya gR^ihItvA

> AtmasvarUpaikarasatvamApadya vidyayA, avidyAkR^itaM

> bhUtamAtropAdhisa.nsargajaM anyatvAvabhAsaM tiraskR^itya,

> pUrNameva anantaramabAhyaM praj~nAnaghanaikarasasvabhAvaM

kevalaM

> brahma avashiShyate |

> Taking the infinitude of the infinite, or Brahman as effect, i.e.

> attaining perfect unity with its own nature by removing through

> knowledge its apparent otherness that is created by ignorance

through

> the contact of limiting adjuncts, the elements, it reamins as the

> unconditioned Brahman alone, without interior or exterior, the

> homogeneous Pure Intelligence.

>

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

> >

> ataH adaHshabdavAchyaM pUrNaM brahma, tadeva idaM pUrNaM kAryasthaM

> nAmarUpopAdhisa.nyuktaM avidyayA udriktaM tasmAdeva

> paramArthasvarUpAt anyadiva pratyavabhAsamAnaM - tat, yat

> AtmAnameva paraM pUrNaM brahma viditvA - ahaM adaH pUrNaM

> brahmAsmi ityevaM, pUrNamAdAya, tiraskR^itya apUrNasvarUpatAM

> avidyAkR^itAM nAmarUpopAdhisaMparkajAM etayA brahmavidyayA

> purNameva kevalaM avashiShyate |

> Hence the 'Infinite', denoted by the word 'That' is Brahman. That

> again is 'this infinite' (universe)- Brahman manifested as effect,

> connected with the limiting adjuncts of name and form, projected by

> ignorance, and appearing as different from that real nature of its

> own. Then knowing itself as the supreme, infinite, Brahman, so as

to

> feel, 'I am that infinite Brahman', and thus taking its infinitude,

> i.e. removing by means of this knowledge of Brahman its own

> limitation created by ignorance through the contact of the limiting

> adjuncts of name and form, it remains as the unconditioned infinite

> alone.

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

May 3, 2004

Brahman since it is a misconception of Brahman. The world is

mithya (phenomenal) only, and the knowledge of the world is

mithya-jnana, that is knowledge of something false, in other

words false knowledge. Regarding this question, I belive one

would

also benefit by keeping in mind what Shankara says in his bhashya

on Gaudapada´s karika on Mandukya Upanishad: What is real is

never created or born. Hence, the world can not be real. Only

Brahman is real.

praNAm Sri Shivashankar prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Thanks a lot for your kind intervention & clarification prabhuji. This

would definitely confirms & strengthen my conviction in shankara's

assertion that *brahmaiva satyam, jaganmithyA* But it is really surprising

& painful to note that despite giving ample references from shankara

bhAshya itself, despite giving shankara's refutation of dvaitAdvaita

school's interpretation of pUrNamadaH mantra ( which upholds the theory of

pUrNatva of both kAraNa & kArya), despite repeatedly telling that jagat

satyatva is in complete contradiction with universal experience (sArvatrika

anubhava) based on avasthA traya, despite proving that this shanti matra is

meant for upAsana of sOpAdhika brahman from the transactional view point (

tadeva idaM sopAdhikaM nAmarUpasthaM vyavahArApannaM pUrNaM svena rUpeNa

paramAtmanA vyApyeva, na upAdhiparichchhinnena visheShAtmanA etc. etc.), we

are not able to come to the amicable conclusion among ourselves (shankara

sampradAya followers!!!) as regards to shankara's siddhAnta on jagat

satyatva.

May that Almighty lead us to the right path.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

May 3, 2004

Namaste Savitriji.

You wrote:

"> The world (jagat) as perceived with the notions of knower/seer,

> means and known/seen is called the empirical standpoint or

> vyavahaara dR^ishhTii. When these notions are truly abandoned, it

is

> the standpoint of supreme reality or paramaartha dR^ishhTii. It is

> important to understand which standpoint is being adopted for an

> argument, otherwise it can lead to lots of confusion. I believe

this

> is one major cause of most confusions and seeming contradictions in

> sruti and bhagavad gIta too."

[My lead post on this topic is an attempt to study the mantra from

the vyavahAric point of view. First the pluralistic world that

baffles us was considered and the certain infinitude of it was then

established in order to relate it to the paramArta - the THAT of tat

tvam asi and the BRAHMAN of aham brahmAsmi. We can only look at the

subject from the vyavaharika. Never from the paramArta driSti - from

where there is no point of view and, therefore, no controversial idam

at all.]

You then continued:

"> The superimposition of the aatman on the anAtman (viz., mind,

> senses, body, etc) is the topic of adhyAsa bhAshya. Your last

> sentence (If I am brahman, then they too are brahman!) seems like

reverse-adhyAsa or contra-adhyAsa to me.

> As you know, the MandUkya and the kArika are about the ultimate

> reality - paramArthA satya, Gaudapada declares elsewhere "maayaa-

> maatraM idaM dvaitaM, advaitaM parama-arthataH", this world of

> duality is false, the supreme reality is advaita.

[Now I am going to take on your last sentence. No one argued against

the accepted fact that advaita is the supreme truth. It is the only

truth - there is nothing other than it. If that is the case, all

that we perceive differently and as different from us or the error

through which we perceive them so(the so-called adhyAsa) cannot be

outside the truth. They can't be inside the truth either because

that again creates duality. The only advaitic possibility then is

that they are verily the truth. What is then needed to understand

that they are verily the truth is the resolution of the error through

right knowledge, whereby nothing is in fact done away with. It is a

simple shift of focus whereby the Unity reigning in the various and

different is realized. You can call it reverse-adhyAsa or contra-

adhyAsa as you please. It doesn't matter to me. No one will dare

disagree if I say self-realization is de-adhyAsa.]

About my following comment on BG Ch. 9:

[There is no confusion in Chapter 9. Krishna's statement connotes

that Brahman pervades everything - "I am in everything".

But "They are not in me" only signifies Brahman's indivisibility,

whereby plurality of the world is negated and the fullness of Brahman

is asserted.]

you remarked:

"> This is a very simplistic view. Maybe I will revisit it some other

> time."

[You are welcome to revisit. The word simplistic also

means 'affectedly simple' and, therefore, unfortunate. The BG verse

concerned was discussed threadbare last year and I, among others, had

commented on it at length. The relevant reference is there in our

archives.]

[Lastly, referring to your first post on this topic, I very much

appreciate your efforts to clarify Bhaskarji's stand. I understand

Bhaskarji very well despite our seeing two different imports in

pUrNamidam. I would illustrate our respective positions this way.

There is a person called 'A'. He is appearing in disguise before

Bhaskarji and me. I tell Bhaskarji that it is 'A' in disguise.

Remove the wig, beard and moustache - you will know that he is 'A'.

Bhaskarji doesn't agree. He vehemently says that the one appearing

before us is not the original 'A'. It is a figment of imagination

(to quote his own words), or an apparition or at best a clone

of 'A'. He asks me to ignore the clone and look for the real 'A'

situated somewhere else. Which of these two is more advaitic? I see

that in the first position there is no two whereas in the second,

there is a second one for which we have to hunt for a locus. That

therefore is dvaita, as Chittaranjanji rightly pointed out to you.

Brahman as we all know and assert is beyond attributes. If we,

therefore, use terms such as saguna or nirguna, it is only for the

purpose of elucidating ultimate attributelessness and not in the

sense we normally say 'delicious food' and 'tasteless food'. So,

brahman is always brahman whether saguna or nirguna. It will,

therefore, be unfortunately inadvaitic if the two adjectives are used

to drive in a dichotomy.]

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

May 3, 2004

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> I hope your quote, together with all the explanations offered by

> Sadaji, Chittaranjanji and Maniji clarifies the fullness of idam.

>

> I may need a few days more to wind this topic up. In the

meanwhile,

> I have an exchange of mails with my brother, Shri Narendran. Will

> you permit to me post it here? We did that with the LIE last

> September. He is a devotee of Lord Shiva and has therefore laid

more

> stress on bhakti.

Namaste Madathilji,

We all look forward with great interest to your summary and

the correspondence with Shri Narendran.

Regards,

Sunder

May 3, 2004

Prabhuji, Namaste.

The sruti corrects the mithyajnana, and neti neti is for this mithyagnana and

not for the world itself. The world itself does not bind anyone, it is the

mithyagnana i.e. my happiness depends on the world, that binds one. Moksha is

nothing but getting oneself freed from this mithyagnana. Punarabhijananm is not

a problem. Samsara is not a problem. The problem is Samsara makes me dukhi or I

am dukhi because of samsara. Desire to do is not problem, but desire to be happy

is problem, and that desire springs from mithyagnanam.

This is my understanding.

Hari Om

bhaskar.yr wrote: