pUrNamadah pUrNamidam... revisited (April 04 topic)

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

 

I looked up the

> dictionary but couldn't locate it.

> Whether udrichyate or udacyate, please understand that my

> understanding does not involve the creation of a new thing. In

that

> sense, the quoted sentence reflects my understanding but for the

> ambiguity in udrichyate, if at all any.

 

Namaste,

 

The following definitions are given in Monier-Williams

dictionary:

 

 

udric

 

Meaning

Pass. %{-ricyate} (pf. %{-ririce} RV.) to be prominent , stand out ,

exceed , excel , preponderate RV. i , 102 , 7 ; vii , 32 , 12 ;

to increase , abound in: Caus. %{-recayati} , to enhance ,

cause to increase Ra1jat.

 

====================================================================

udgam

 

Meaning

P. %{-gacchati} (Ved. impf. 1. pl. %{-aganma})

to come forth , appear suddenly , become visible RV. i , 50 , 10 R.

Ragh.:

Vikr. &c. ; to go up , rise (as a star) , ascend , start up MBh.

VarBr2S.

Ratna1v. &c. ; to go out or away , disappear R. BhP. Bhartr2. &c. ;

to spread , extend Ragh.: Caus. %{-gamayati} , to cause to rise

Pat. ;

to cause to come out or issue (as milk from the mother's breast) ,

suck.

=====================================================================

 

Sw. Madhavanandaji's translation has the word "emanation" to

include all - uadachyate, udrichyate, and udgachchhati.

 

I take it to have the same sense as the rays and light of

the sun, or heat and light of fire, having no separate (dvaita)

reality.

 

The argument that what comes with upadhis (adjuncts) cannot

be 'purna' is weak, because upadhis can be infinite too! Whatever

is 'seen' is an emanation of the 'seer', and hence 'advaya'

and 'purna' only.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Stigji and all Advaitins,

 

Stigji was able to extract some quotations re the

Vedas which seemed to have an absolutist bias against

other scriptures. For instance he quotes from B.S.B.

II.i.6:

"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

traditional texts"

 

My Gambhirananda trans. is slightly different but the

purport of it is the same viz. "But like the

religious acts (producing virtue) this entity is

known from the scriptures alone".

 

What is the context of this statement which seems so

damming for other scriptures? It is and this shows how

dangerous it is to quote out of context - what are the

means of knowledge that apply to Brahman? Perception

will not apply to it, neither will inference; the

only valid means of knowledge that will apply to it

are the Vedas. What is at issue is means of

knowledge. It has to do with reason and it has

nothing to do with other religions at all. Reason

cannot establish the existence of Brahman/the

Absolute (by whatever name the sages call it)

Christianity and probably Islam would agree with this.

 

Below the quote which you extracted you will see:

These two verses show that the world is inscrutable

even to the perfected lordly (divine) beings. There

is also the Smrti text:"Entities that are beyond

thought are not to be approached through logic..

 

Your next quote is taken from B.S.B.I.i.4: "For the

Absolute cannot be known as the Self without the help

of Vedic texts like 'That thou art'.

 

Here again the main point of the discussion is the

rejection of perception and inference as a means to

the knowledge of Brahman. The previous sutra which

establishes this thread of the argument has the title

('Brahman is not known from any other source), since

the scriptures are the valid means of Its

knowledge." In I.i.4 this is teazed out and logic

and inference are completely ruled out as a means of

knowledge applicable to Brahman, no mention of other

paths good or bad, reason is the issue. Gambhirananda

: Nor is Brahman an object of perception, even though

It stands as an established, positive entity, for

the unity of the Self and Brahma, as stated in "That

thou art" (Ch.VI.viii.7), cannot be known otherwise

than from the scriptural texts."

 

Further down (pg.23 for those reading the Advaita

Asrama '72 edn.)Nor is the validity of the Upanisads

to be established by inference, in which alone it

would have been necessary to cite analogous cases.

Therefore it is proved that Brahman is known from the

scriptures alone."

 

Once however the existence of Brahman is accepted from

the Vedas then rationality comes into play "the Vedic

texts rely on the intelligence of man"(I.i.2) Part of

this application of nous is the sensitivity to

context. In B.S.B.II.i.27 a slightly different

urging of the supra-rationality of the scriptures is

given. "Even the things of this world like gems,

incantations, herbs and so on are seen to possess

many powers capable of producing incompatible effects

under the influence of a variety of space

(environment), time, and cause. And even these powers

can be known not from mere reasoning but from such

instruction as, "Such a thing has such kinds of

potency with the aid of such things, on such things,

and for such purposes". So what need has one to

argue that the nature of Brahman, whose power is

beyond all thought, cannot be ascertained unless it

be through the Vedas? So also has it been said by

the author of a Puran, " So also it has been said

by an author of a Purana

"Do not bring those things within the range of

argumentation which are beyond thought. The

nature

of a thing beyond thought consists in its being

other than the things within Nature." Hence a

supersensuous thing is truly known from the Vedic

source alone.

from B.S.B.pg.355 II.i.27

 

Here we have the Vedas related to faith in the occult.

Again no derogation of other faiths.

 

When discussing the Anatta/annica theory of Buddhism

he points out its inner incoherence as unless there

be a persistent entity to want

liberation.B.S.B.II.ii.19 to whom should it happen.

He does not rubbish their idea of liberation

(nirvana) but the philosophical background is

dismissed.

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

 

 

 

 

 

Stig Lundgren wrote:

 

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.)

[Guest guest]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Y'day I posted this but didn't come through in the list. Kindly ignore if

there is any duplication.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

Namaste Bhaskarji.

 

Humble praNAms Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

MN prabhuji:

 

You have again picked the convenient first line (single sentence)

and are then building on it. The rest of Sankara's text, where he

is emphatic about the fullness of idam, is sadly ignored.

 

bhaskar:

 

No prabhuji I've not ignored it, just I brought the first sentence to your

kind notice which is the punch line of that whole commentary. That is the

reason why shankara at the very beginning (in his introductory commentary)

educated us what he is going to tell us in rest of his commentary.

Prabhuji, it is very important for us to first pick the context in which it

has been said otherwise it would be difficult for us to get the gist of the

whole purport. Why shankara had to write pages of commentary on the single

word *atha* in the first word of first sUtra *athAtho brahjignAsa* coz. it

is important to grasp the contextual meaning of the whole sUtra. Just we

cannot go by vAkyArtha when vAchyArtha or lakshyArtha is something

different.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

My point of view in a nutshell is, as I have mentioned before, 'A'

is in front of me disguised as 'B'. I see through the game and know

that the fellow before me is 'A'. I am not fooled. In a similar

manner, I don't want to be fooled by what I perceive. I am in

fact 'looking at' myself - Brahman, and, when I write this to you,

these letters are Brahman and my knowledge that you are somewhere

there in beautiful Bangalore is also Brahman. You are thus Brahman

Prabhuji. I only have to see through the argumentative attribute

that you wear to disguise yourself!

 

bhaskar:

 

All this is well & good if you consider our paramArtha jnAna is an

objective knowledge. But shruti emphatically saying it is not an objective

knowledge. parabrahman described as astUlaM, agrAhyam, anaNu etc.

Moreover, in gIta bhAshya shankara says after the dawn of ultimate

knowledge the very nature of pramAtrutva of knower will get vanished. So,

that state (if at all we can call it a state!!) is na tatra chakshurgachati

na vAgacchati nO manaH! na vidmO na vijAnImO yathaitadanuShiShyAt--kEna

shruti.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

You are trying to corner me on that particular Sanskrit sentence

which I said resonates well with my point of view. I still maintain

that opinion, although, on rethinking, I now see a bit of dvaita

in 'udrichyate', a verb I thought conveys the same meaning

as 'udacyate' in the verse under discussion. I looked up the

dictionary but couldn't locate it. Perhaps, our Sunderji can help.

Whether udrichyate or udacyate, please understand that my

understanding does not involve the creation of a new thing. In that

sense, the quoted sentence reflects my understanding but for the

ambiguity in udrichyate, if at all any.

 

bhaskar:

 

No prabhuji, it is not at all my intention. Kindly pardon me if I made you

feel like that prabhuji.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

I see that Chittranjanji has built a formidable fort based on

scriptural texts and logic to support the pUrNatwam of idam. Maniji

has ably helped. It is now up to you to refute them by presenting a

better understanding.

 

bhaskar:

 

yes, they are all so kind to me & taking lot of pain to clear my doubts. I

too have shared my understanding to their mails. sAvithri mAtAji &

shivashankara prabhuji have already shared their understanding. Let us see

prabhuji, where it leads us.

 

MN prabhuji:

In conclusion, I quote Sankara from AnnapUrNA Stotram:

 

bhaskar:

 

thanks a lot for sharing this beautiful stotra with me prabhuji.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Bhaskarji,

 

 

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

> bhaskar:

>

> AVIDYA according to my understanding:

>

> (1) avidyA is not a shakti & it does not have its own

> existence so, no question of its efficient & material cause

> in srushti prakriya.

>

> (2) Whenever I mention the word *avidyA* it is to be

> understood that it is natural (naisargikaH) to human mind.

>

> (3) The basic 3 natures of avidyA are firstly, non-perception

> or non-apprehension also called in sanskrit agrahaNa

> (tattvAgrahaNa), secondly, misconception or misunderstanding

> also famously called adhyAsa/anyatha grahaNa/ anyatha

> jnAna/viparIta grahaNa/mithyA pratyaya etc.etc. & finally

> doubting also called samShaya.

>

> (4) This avidyA which is quite natural to *human mind* & it

> has neither avaraNa nor vikShEpa shakti as mUlAvidyAvAdins say.

> So, no question of efficient & material cause either!!

 

 

CN:

 

Okay, let's see what your assertions lead to. This world is seen. It

needs no shruti to tell us that. Now, even if this world is an

illusion, the fact that there is illusion cannot be denied i.e., it

cannot be denied that there is a projection of world appearance.

Since avidya has no vikshepa shakti, avidya cannot be the origin of

this projection. What you call the first "nature" of avidya, i.e.,

non-perception, cannot generate the world appearance because non-

perception cannot present perceptions. The second nature,

misconception, cannot present the world appearance because

misconception has no power of presentation but only of misconceiving

presented things. The third "nature", doubt, cannot present the world

appearance because doubt can only flit between presented things and

not present the things themselves. So what is the origin of this

world appearance?

 

You say that avidya is not a shakti. Do you admit that there is

shakti at all?

________________

> CN:

>

> Do you realise what you are asserting? It is like saying "All

> of this world, including all the sentences I speak, are false,

> but this statement is true!".

>

> bhaskar:

>

> I am not telling this or that statement is true, I am tellin

> ONLY parabrahman is true & which is beyond our speech &

> mind..yatO vAcho....

 

CN:

 

When you say "I am telling ONLY parabrahman is true", it is still in

the realm of speech and is therefore false because you claim that the

entire world including all sentences are false. Based on your own

position, even statements asserting the existence of Self also become

false. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, you are a kind of a

nihilist.

__________________

 

 

We will discuss the other things in your post after we resolve the

two issues presented above.

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dear Michaelji,

 

Your message points to a mystical element in Advaita that I feel is

often missed in our discussions.

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote:

> Namaste Stigji and all Advaitins,

>

> These two verses show that the world is inscrutable

> even to the perfected lordly (divine) beings. There

> is also the Smrti text:"Entities that are beyond

> thought are not to be approached through logic..

 

> And even these powers

> can be known not from mere reasoning but from such

> instruction as, "Such a thing has such kinds of

> potency with the aid of such things, on such things,

> and for such purposes". So what need has one to

> argue that the nature of Brahman, whose power is

> beyond all thought, cannot be ascertained unless it

> be through the Vedas? So also has it been said by

> the author of a Puran, "So also it has been said

> by an author of a Purana

> "Do not bring those things within the range of

> argumentation which are beyond thought. The

> nature of a thing beyond thought consists in its being

> other than the things within Nature." Hence a

> supersensuous thing is truly known from the Vedic

> source alone.

>

> Here we have the Vedas related to faith in the occult.

> Again no derogation of other faiths.

>

> When discussing the Anatta/annica theory of Buddhism

> he points out its inner incoherence as unless there

> be a persistent entity to want

> liberation.B.S.B.II.ii.19 to whom should it happen.

> He does not rubbish their idea of liberation

> (nirvana) but the philosophical background is

> dismissed.

>

> Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji.

 

Thanks a lot for your kind clarifications on udrichyate. Yes,

against the meanings elaborated, the word looks harmless and doesn't

suggest any dvaita. Perhaps, Sankara was objecting to cause

producing an effect. I don't have the whole context and, therefore,

venture any more guesses.

 

Thanks specially for your concluding remarks.

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

________________

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> The following definitions are given in Monier-Williams

> dictionary:

>

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

> The argument that what comes with upadhis (adjuncts)

cannot

> be 'purna' is weak, because upadhis can be infinite too! Whatever

> is 'seen' is an emanation of the 'seer', and hence 'advaya'

> and 'purna' only.

>

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAms Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

This is my last mail on this thread. It is painful to note that oflate,

these discussions are producing more heat than light.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

Okay, let's see what your assertions lead to. This world is seen. It

needs no shruti to tell us that. Now, even if this world is an

illusion, the fact that there is illusion cannot be denied i.e., it

cannot be denied that there is a projection of world appearance.

Since avidya has no vikshepa shakti, avidya cannot be the origin of

this projection. What you call the first "nature" of avidya, i.e.,

non-perception, cannot generate the world appearance because non-

perception cannot present perceptions. The second nature,

misconception, cannot present the world appearance because

misconception has no power of presentation but only of misconceiving

presented things. The third "nature", doubt, cannot present the world

appearance because doubt can only flit between presented things and

not present the things themselves. So what is the origin of this

world appearance?

 

bhaskar:

 

Kindly pardon me prabhuji. I cannot continue this *beating over the bush*

business anymore. It is really surprising to see questions on avidyA like

this from a scholars like you. I've already explained my understanding of

avidyA to the best of my ability. Despite that, without stating anything

about your stand on avidyA you are coming out with question *what is the

origin of this world appearance* Do you think what, when, where is

something outside of avidyA?? do you think you are standing outside of

avidyA & asking these questions prabhuji?? pls. think it over. Further,

you kindly enlighten me what is that avidyA U R holding in advaita apart

from what I have stated in my earlier mail. So that I can also know your

understanding of it. Simply asking one side questions does not serve any

purpose here..correct prabhuji.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

You say that avidya is not a shakti. Do you admit that there is

shakti at all?

 

bhaskar:

 

shakti/power?? what for it is?? hope you are mixing the word shakti with

chaitanya. when it is akhanda chaitanya to whom it show its *shankti* &

for what??

 

CN prabhuji:

 

When you say "I am telling ONLY parabrahman is true", it is still in

the realm of speech and is therefore false because you claim that the

entire world including all sentences are false. Based on your own

position, even statements asserting the existence of Self also become

false. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, you are a kind of a

nihilist.

 

bhaskar :

 

avishatve brahmahaH shAstrayOnitvAnupapattiriti cheth! na!

avidyAkalpitabhEdanivruttiparatvAt shAstrasya! *na hi shAstram idamtayA

vishaya bhUtaM brahma pratipipAdaishati...shankara in sUtra bhAshya.

 

There is something called anubhava gamya realisation in advaita which is

what is called as beyond your speech & mind in shruti-s. I think you are

aware of the analogies given to refute your above objections in sUtra

bhAshya. Why go to sUtra bhAsya here in this list Sri rAmachandra prabhuji

given beautiful example of pole vault. If you are not aware of it & if you

think only flowery statements are the proven pramANa for ultimate

realisation, so be it prabhuji. pls. accept my humble praNAms.

 

Thanks for calling me as a nihilist. If you feel shankara's followers are

nihilist in disguise, so be it. I'll take that compliment with both hands.

 

 

CN prabhuji:

 

We will discuss the other things in your post after we resolve the two

issues presented above.

 

bhaskar:

 

prabhuji I think there is nothing left out between a nihilist & a vEdAntin

to discuss here. Sofar, I've learnt a lot from your goodself, for that I am

forever indebted to you prabhuji.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Bhaskarji,

 

 

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

>

> Humble praNAms Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> This is my last mail on this thread. It is painful to note

> that of late, these discussions are producing more heat than

> light.

 

I am sorry if what I said has caused you pain. That was not at all my

intention.

________________

> CN:

>

> Okay, let's see what your assertions lead to. This world is seen. It

> needs no shruti to tell us that. Now, even if this world is an

> illusion, the fact that there is illusion cannot be denied i.e., it

> cannot be denied that there is a projection of world appearance.

> Since avidya has no vikshepa shakti, avidya cannot be the origin of

> this projection. What you call the first "nature" of avidya, i.e.,

> non-perception, cannot generate the world appearance because non-

> perception cannot present perceptions. The second nature,

> misconception, cannot present the world appearance because

> misconception has no power of presentation but only of

> misconceiving presented things. The third "nature", doubt,

> cannot present the world appearance because doubt can only flit

> between presented things and not present the things themselves.

> So what is the origin of this world appearance?

>

> bhaskarji:

>

> Kindly pardon me prabhuji. I cannot continue this *beating

> over the bush* business anymore. It is really surprising to

> see questions on avidyA like this from a scholars like you.

 

CN:

 

I am not a scholar Bhaskarji. And I don't see what is wrong in asking

for the origin of world-appearance. It may seem perfectly

satisfactory in your eyes to explain the world-appearance by

postulating an avidya that has no capacity of vikshepa shakti, but it

doesn't fulfil the requirements of a logical explanation. What I am

asking for is logical sufficiency of the arguments to reconcile the

shruti statements regarding efficient cause, on the one hand, and

avidya, on the other. There is nothing wrong in employing logic that

does not contradict shruti.

_________________

> CN:

>

> You say that avidya is not a shakti. Do you admit that there is

> shakti at all?

>

> bhaskarji:

>

> shakti/power?? what for it is?? hope you are mixing the word

> shakti with chaitanya. when it is akhanda chaitanya to whom

> it show its *shankti* & for what??

 

CN:

 

That akhanda chaitanya shows things which have names. This showing is

vikshepa. And in this world where we use names, we must use it in

accordance with the manner in which chaitanya shows it as true. And

it is within the realm of these word-meanings, that Shakti appears

meaningfully as the power by which akhanda chaitanya shows the world.

The capacity by which Chaitanya shows Itself as creating is kriya

shakti. When you read the Dakshinamurty Stotra, you will come across

these words: jnana shakti, kriya shakti, etc.

 

You ask: For whom is this shakti? It is for those that are looking

for meanings. Ontologically, it is Brahman in its creative aspect.

_________________

 

> CN:

>

> When you say "I am telling ONLY parabrahman is true", it is

> still in the realm of speech and is therefore false because

> you claim that the entire world including all sentences are

> false. Based on your own position, even statements asserting

> the existence of Self also become false. Therefore, as far as

> I am concerned, you are a kind of a nihilist.

>

> bhaskarji:

>

> avishatve brahmahaH shAstrayOnitvAnupapattiriti cheth! na!

> avidyAkalpitabhEdanivruttiparatvAt shAstrasya! *na hi shAstram

> idamtayA vishaya bhUtaM brahma pratipipAdaishati...shankara i

> n sUtra bhAshya.

>

> There is something called anubhava gamya realisation in

> advaita which is what is called as beyond your speech & mind

> in shruti-s. I think you are aware of the analogies given to

> refute your above objections in sUtra bhAshya.

 

CN:

 

Dear Bhaskarji, I am aware that in Advaita the Truth is beyond speech

and mind. It is this very fact that I have been trying to point out

by saying that Brahman is THAT from which the world cannot be said to

be either same or different whenever you said that the world is not

there in Brahman. In my reading of the Acharya's Bhashya, the way to

Brahman is via "not this, not this", but the Brahman that is realised

is all of this.

________________

 

Bhaskarji:

> Why go to sUtra bhAsya here in this list Sri rAmachandra prabhuji

> given beautiful example of pole vault. If you are not aware of it

> & if you think only flowery statements are the proven pramANa for

> ultimate realisation, so be it prabhuji. pls. accept my humble

> praNAms.

 

CN:

 

Why are you getting so upset Bhaskarji? I am only presenting the

logical conundrum that arises from the premises of your statements.

You have the option of countering it logically.

________________

 

Bhaskarji:

> Thanks for calling me as a nihilist.

 

CN:

 

Nihilism is the logical conclusion that derives out of the position

you take when you say that this entire world, including all

sentences, is false. But I can see how my words came across as a

personal remark, and for that I offer my apologies to you. I

shouldn't have said that you are a nihilist.

_________________

 

 

With Regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> We all look forward with great interest to your summary and

> the correspondence with Shri Narendran.

____________________

 

Namaste all.

 

The above correspondence, which mainly leads with bhakti in the

context of pUrNamadah, is given below. It is a little too long.

Please bear with me.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

___

 

Shri Narendran commented as follows on the pUrNamadah lead post:

 

….. I fully concur with your exposition of Purnamadah Purnamidam

from the jnAna angle ….. Maybe in future works, you could consider

giving greater stress on devotion and detachment (Bhakti & Vairagya),

the other two aspects of spirituality to which His Holiness

Sankaracharya, the greatest exponent ever of Vedanta philosophy,

devoted equal attention. Of course, this is only a personal opinion

and I am not in any way attirbuting any shortfall in your article. I

fully understand that Jnana, Bhakti and Vairagya are one to an

enlightened person. But to those attached to experiences, Bhakti

could be more appealing and Vairagya could be a necessity to ascend

the steps of Jnana.

 

The question to which I am seeking an answer is, how can I, having

attained this indirect knowledge (aparoksha jnana) of the Absolute

Truth, face all the rockings of temporal experiences and still stay

attached to that Truth, from which I had for quite some time detached

myself and ran after the unreal experiences and perhaps still do.

In other words, how to avoid Atmavismrthi in the present and

future. I see is Atma as Absolute reality and experiences as

temporal reality. This is how I interpret Brahma Satyam, Jagan

Mithya, since jagat though unreal in absolute terms is a reality in

time. Therefore, as long as the self attaches himself to time, it

is possible for him to forget the Truth and run after unreal

experiences. The only solution as I see is to attach oneself to

Kalakala (The destroyer of time) which again is only the true form of

Self (Sivoham) to ensure that Atmavismrthi does not occur. Vairagya

(detachment towards expriences) in the form of Vibhuthi is the prasad

I am seeking.

__________________________

 

Shri Narendran wrote again:

 

 

I commented as follows about your lead post to our eldest brother:

 

QUOTE

….. The write-up was fully in conformity with the scriptural views of

advaita. Since I am also an ardent r to advaita philosophy,

most

of the thoughts were familiar to me.

 

Of course, to fully appreciate the contents of the write-up one needs

to

have some initiation into the basics of Indian philosophy.

 

Indian philosophy looks inward to comprehend the Truth, rather than

to the

outside world. It is based on the concept that dead matter could

never have

given birth to consciousness, but consciousness being all powerful can

easily give birth to anything. It, therefore, bases its theory on an

eternal consciousness. All efforts are then directed to realize this

eternal consciousness, of which the individual consciousness is a

part.

 

To put it in very simple terms, The infinite referred to in the write-

up

as "That" is the eternal consciousness and "This" is the individual

consciousness. The infinite individual consciousness comes from the

eternal

consciousness which is also infinite, but the extraction of the

individual

consciousness does not in any way affect the eternal consciousness

which

still remains infinite. For example, lighting a lamp from another

lamp does

not in anyway diminish the brilliance of the lamp from which the

light is

considered to have been "taken".

 

The whole idea is to give our thoughts a different dimension. Having

been

fully engrossed in the material world, which is finite, we are never

in a

position to comprehend infinity. But look inward for once, what we

see

there is infinity. Is anyone's internal world finite? Infinity,

therefore,

can be comprehended only by looking inwards. Of course, you may find

Rajan (Madathil) not in agreement with using the terms "inward and

outward". It is also

correct. In real terms there is nothing outside. Because everything

exists

only in "consciousness". Take away consciousness - what is there?

 

UNQUOTE

 

Let me know, if I diluted your article a little too much.

 

____

 

Madathil replied:

 

In your (first) message, you are a little concerned that, despite

your current level of appreciation of the Truth, the miTyA world

still carries you away. This happens to most people. There is no

point worrying about it. When you worry, you are getting into a

role - the role of a seeker or aspirant who is after a goal.

Deliberate reaffirmation that the worry concerns only the role and

not the real you would help tide over such depressing moments. After

a while, that knowing becomes spontaneous and natural. The

question 'when' is better not asked then as that also relates to the

role! As advaitins, we already know that we are immortal.

Immortality doesn't have to set dates and targets. This universe,

when it is continuously understood properly as us and not apart from

us, becomes our very being. Then, we begin to 'heave' as the whole

infinitude of the universe when everything now seen or experienced

transforms as our very being. That is liberation because then there

is not a second thing other than us for us to liberate from. We are

already there, the worries of the role, which we are not,

notwithstading.

 

Please don't take this as preaching or advice. This is my

understanding although my way of living might apparently seem the

farthest thing from it. Anyway, that belongs to a role. LOL!

_________________________________

 

Shri Narendran wrote:

…….

Let me explain my concerns a little more, to make them clearer.

I am totally in agreement with your comment that for being Immortal

there

is no need to yearn after it. But I still think that attachments to

mundane matters can take away that knowledge of Immortality leading

to the old

state of ignorance and all that I am seeking is to prevent that

happening. Rather how to turn knowledge to realization. How to

overcome vagaries of memory?

 

To put it allegorically, I consider my mind is still in the stage of

the

Gopika (Cow-herd woman) who after hearing Krishna play his flute

Vaguely from a distance is full of his thoughts and yearning for him.

But unlike the Gopika, many times I fail to stand at the doorsteps to

have a

glimpse of Krishna when he goes in the morning to graze cattle and

returns

home in the evening. Daily chores, sheer laziness or desire to read

newspaper or watch silly TV programmes prevent from going to the

doorstep to have a look at his heart-filling beauty. But what is

consoling is that his

thoughts do keep popping up in me most of the time I engage myself in

other

activities or even when I laze around. But knowing Krishna to be not

the

individual consciouness as the Gopika misconceived, but the eternal

consciousness, I will not say like Sugathakumari (a renowned

Malayalam poetess) "Krishna nee enne ariyille" (Don't you know me

Krishna?). I know that

he knows me well and is only waiting for me to mature further

and develop the right qualities to become a Radhika, so that this

Gopika

becomes worthy of him and he can ever hold her in his arms as his

beloved.

 

To truly understand the significance of the "Krishna" I am referring

to,

please look at 98th Dasaka of Narayaneeyam.

 

I am sure that the above explanation will remove any misconceptions

raised

in my earlier messages. I am indeed glad to have been blessed

with the knowledge of Truth which has come from within. I have the

happy

feeling of having found my roots and is proud of the traditions of my

forefathers who have left such a rich heritage for me. I am only

sorry that I

may not be able to pass much of this to my heirs as most of them have

no

inclination for this at this stage. But then, I was also no

different at

their age. So, may be, they will also realize the Truth that all life

is

essentially non-dual in nature though they may appear as dual all the

time.

 

Let me end by quoting one Sloka from Narayaneeyam

 

KashtA thE srshtichEshta Bhavathara KhethAhavA SrshtibhAjAm

ithyEvam

pUrvamAlochita mayA nyvamadyAbhijAne

No cEjIva katham vA tvatvabhu citrasArdram nEtry srOtryscha

pItva

parmarasAmbhodipUrE ramEran.

 

(Thy creative activities, I used to think in the past, as the

cause of worldly miseries to living beings. But without life, how can

eyes and ears drink Thy omniscient & merciful form and swim in the

ocean of

supreme joy).

 

Sorry if the translation is imperfect.

________________

 

Madathil said:

 

Your visualization of yourself as a Gopika reminds me of a beautiful

Malayalam poem, which, if I remember right, we both enjoyed together

at your house `Namassivaya' in Palghat sometime in 1990/1991.

 

The theme - Krishna wants to find out who amongst the gopikas are his

true devotees. He gives them a test. They are asked to carry a

vessel full of water on the head and walk on a rope across a river

to the opposite bank. If the water spills or their steps falter,

they will fail. All except Radha lose. Asked by Krishna how she

accomplished the feat, Radha demurely answers: "I didn't see the

rope, I didn't see the river, I didn't see the gopikas, I saw only my

Kannan (Kanaiya)!".

 

The answer to whatever you expressed is there in Radha's words,

although it is not that easy to be another Radha. Yet, there is a

definite pointer there that, I strongly believe, can't fail if

tried. It is not that Radha didn't see anything else. On the

contrary, she saw everything like all other gopikas. But, there was

an essential difference. Everything that she saw was Kanaiya for her!

 

When the heat irritates, the cold wind bites, hunger burns, visualize

Lord Shiva, your iStadEvata, in all of them and call out to Him.

Although deliberate initially, the visualization will become

spontaneous in course of time and consume you totally simply because

He can't resist your persistent calls. That is why they call him

AshutoSa – the easily pleased!

 

Then why worry about television and other distractions? They are all

Shiva! You are always in his company. Look closely at the silly

serial you are watching. There will be a hidden message there for

you. He has planted it there for you. He always has surprises up His

sleeves. No situation in life is without meaning for a devotee.

When the Malayalam song says: "Oh, Indumukhi, what are you doing

tonight?", I normally try to see that as addressed to my iStadEvata,

the Devi. Thus, even film songs are not taboo for a devotee. Now try

humming the Malayalam love song "Oh, You who have woken on the lotus

of my heart with the mANikya vINA!". Instantly it becomes a

devotional addressed to Mother Saraswati! You simply forget that

original situaiton in the film where the foolish hero croons it for

his lady love to hear. The song is there for you not to remember the

film but to remember Her. She has planted it for you there. Look,

how affectionate She is!

 

I know I am carrying coal to New Castle. That helps me more than

you. So I have to do it.

 

_______________________

 

Shri Narendran replied:

 

Thank you very much for your message. No doubt, you have

understood my viewpoint very clearly and all your suggestions are very

appropriate. In fact all my efforts are to see "one" in the many.

I know for

sure that even the TV programs which I described as silly is

His "Leela". What

makes it silly is my failure to see it in its true form. If only I

could. Maybe my desire to see the Truth everywhere is little too

high.

 

Although I devote more of my time for Siva, I do not consider

Devi or Vishnu as separate from him. To me Siva is the Cosmic Self,

Devi

(Sakthi) His power of creation and Vishnu the realization of His true

form.

While Siva meditates on Vishnu, He also engages in Creation through

Devi.

While being the SamhAramUrthi He is also the Creator. Both SamhAra

and

Srshti are His sport. He is present in all living beings as their

Self. That

is why He is described as impartial to Devas and Asuras at the same

time in

PurAnAs. While Vishnu, the knowledge of His true form is partial and

reveals only to those with DaivIsampathy (as described in the

GItha).

 

Other than the Self and its thoughts (creation) what else is

there in the Universe. Therefore, to me there is no difficulty in

intellectually comprehending this universe as Sivasakthimaya. Pangs

of

separation experienced by the individual soul is only a demonstration

of

this understanding, but failure to remember it all the time.

 

I wish I could write to you more about my understanding of the

PurAnas in relation to the VedAnta view of the world, but since I am

writing this from office, I cannot make it longer.

__________________________

 

Madathil wrote:

 

I am just editing this exchange of ideas to present them at

Advaitin before the end of this month when the discussoin on

pUrNamadah is

scheduled to close. I hope I have your permission to do so.

_____

 

Shri Narendran said:

 

Certainly you have.

 

All that I was trying to make clear was the need to have constant

memory of

the Truth. About what is Truth (the non-duality of universe and its

creator), I am sure that we have agreed. Where, we perhaps differ,

is on the methods we are adopting to keep this Truth in constant

memory. Do not, for a moment, think that I am disagreeing to

anything that you wrote to me in my last message. I fully endorse

those views and in fact

these methods were what I had recommended to the few people who

attended my

classes on GItha and NArayanIyam which I had conducted in Abu Dhabi

some

years back. Some of the popular romantic songs are still great hymns

to me.

Whatever helps in keeping the memory of Truth alive is praise-worthy.

 

While on this subject, let me re-count a PurAnic story from GanEsa

PurAna.

Of course, there are several stories on how Lord Ganesa happened to

become

elephant-headed. Here is an interesting one which I am interpreting

on my

own in the way I understand it. As we all know, Lord Ganesa is the

son of

Siva and PArvathi. Siva is the Cosmic Self and PArvathi that part

of His

creation which ascends to be the better half of the Cosmic Self

through

love, devotion and dedication. To them is born Lord Ganesa, the

child that

represents strong faith, power to overcome all evil and remove all

obstacles

in the way of Truth. On the birth of Ganesa, Sani (Saturn) is eager

to have

a glimpse of the child. All devAs recommend against it, as misery

will fall

on anyone on whom Sani sets his eyes. Disregarding the advice, Sani

goes to

Kailasa and takes a peep on the child. Alas, it causes Lord Ganesa

to lose

his head. (In my interpretation, Sani represents the worldly

misfortunes and

loss of Lord Ganesa's head the loss of memory of Truth). PArvathi is

all

in tears at the loss of Her child's head and seeks the help of Her

Lord. On

the request of Siva and PArvathi, Vishnu cuts the head of an elephant

reared

by PArvathi and attaches it to Lord Ganesa's torso and lo Lord Ganesa

comes

back to life and his own old self, full of resplendence. Elephant,

you may

note, is an animal known for its memory in legends. To me the

elephant head

of Lord Ganesa stresses the need to ever remember the Truth. I think

this

and his close resemblance of his form to the letter "OM" in Sanskrit

makes him, definitely, the first to be worshipped.

___

 

END OF CORRESPONDENCE

[Guest guest]

Namaste Madathilji and Narendranji,

 

Thank you very much for sharing this stimulating dialogue.

 

A few thoughts that occurred to me:

 

The Brahma-Sutras begin with:

 

athAto brahmajiGYAsA [Now, therefore, the desire to know Brahman].

 

Sri Sankara comments on 'atha' as the requisite preparation

by the disciple in the 'sAdhana-chatuShTaya' - the four-fold

qualifications, namely:

 

nitya-anitya-vastu-viveka [discriminating eternal from ephemeral

entities]

vairAgya [dipassion - to results of actions here and hereafter]

 

shamAdi-ShaTka-sampatti [6-fold achievements - control of mind

control over senses

austerity

endurance

faith

concentration]

 

mumukShutvam [desire for liberation from bondage of repeated

births & deaths]

 

 

Both Narada and Shandilya Bhakti-Sutras begin with:

 

atha bhaktijiGYAsA [Hence the desire to know Devotion].

 

However, commentators are divided over 'atha' implies any

requisite qualifications, as there are scriptural passages which

state everybody is qualified for the practice of this path.

 

The goal achieved by both is the same.

 

It seems to me, however, that the 4 qualifications for the

jnana-marga [path of knowledge], only the emphasis on Viveka is less

in bhakti-marga. All the others apply with the same, if not greater,

force to the latter.

 

The intensity [niSThA] of any one also has the power to

gather together all the rest.

 

Therefore, the 'Atma-vismRRti' [forgetfulness of the Self]

can be overcome only to the degree that the intensity in any one of

the 3 qualifications is achieved.

 

Trying to enjoy the sense pleasures by trying to look in

them the Supreme, is perhaps the 'Veera' [bold] approach of Tantra,

unsuitable for the vast majority of devotees. As said in the

scriptures, it is like trying to 'extinguish a fire with clarified

butter.'

 

Gita describes one of the 'vibhutis' [glories] as :

 

yaGYAnAM japa yaGYaH asmi | [among all sacrifices 'I' am japa -

repetition of My name]

 

Every action that promotes this is sure to find the goal.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> The above correspondence, which mainly leads with bhakti in the

> context of pUrNamadah, is given below. It is a little too long.

> Please bear with me.

> Shri Narendran commented as follows on the pUrNamadah lead post:

>

> ….. I fully concur with your exposition of Purnamadah Purnamidam

> from the jnAna angle ….. Maybe in future works, you could consider

> giving greater stress on devotion and detachment (Bhakti &

Vairagya),

> the other two aspects of spirituality to which His Holiness

> Sankaracharya, the greatest exponent ever of Vedanta philosophy,

> devoted equal attention. Of course, this is only a personal

opinion

> and I am not in any way attirbuting any shortfall in your article.

I

> fully understand that Jnana, Bhakti and Vairagya are one to an

> enlightened person. But to those attached to experiences, Bhakti

> could be more appealing and Vairagya could be a necessity to ascend

> the steps of Jnana.

>

> The question to which I am seeking an answer is, how can I, having

> attained this indirect knowledge (aparoksha jnana) of the Absolute

> Truth, face all the rockings of temporal experiences and still stay

> attached to that Truth, from which I had for quite some time

detached

> myself and ran after the unreal experiences and perhaps still

do.

> In other words, how to avoid Atmavismrthi in the present and

> future. I see is Atma as Absolute reality and experiences as

> temporal reality. This is how I interpret Brahma Satyam, Jagan

> Mithya, since jagat though unreal in absolute terms is a reality in

> time. Therefore, as long as the self attaches himself to time,

it

> is possible for him to forget the Truth and run after unreal

> experiences. The only solution as I see is to attach oneself to

> Kalakala (The destroyer of time) which again is only the true form

of

> Self (Sivoham) to ensure that Atmavismrthi does not occur.

Vairagya

> (detachment towards expriences) in the form of Vibhuthi is the

prasad

> I am seeking.

 

> All that I was trying to make clear was the need to have constant

> memory of

> the Truth. About what is Truth (the non-duality of universe and

its

> creator), I am sure that we have agreed. Where, we perhaps

differ,

> is on the methods we are adopting to keep this Truth in constant

> memory. Do not, for a moment, think that I am disagreeing to

> anything that you wrote to me in my last message.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji.

 

Thanks a lot.

 

I am forwarding your message to my brother, although the suggestion

there applies most to me the one who is endeavouring to extinguish

the fire with clarified better. Shri Narendranji is almost a

sanyAsi lightyears ahead of me - the unceasing bhavarOgi!

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________________

 

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> Trying to enjoy the sense pleasures by trying to look in

> them the Supreme, is perhaps the 'Veera' [bold] approach of

Tantra,

> unsuitable for the vast majority of devotees. As said in the

> scriptures, it is like trying to 'extinguish a fire with clarified

> butter.'

>

> Gita describes one of the 'vibhutis' [glories] as :

>

> yaGYAnAM japa yaGYaH asmi | [among all sacrifices 'I' am japa -

> repetition of My name]

>

> Every action that promotes this is sure to find the goal.

[Guest guest]

Thank you sunderji for your stimulating comments with appropriate

references .

 

i will like to quote my favorite verse from srimad bhagvat gita

 

sarva-dharman parityajya

mama ekam saranam vraja

aham tvam sarva-papebhyo

moksayisyami ma sucah

 

One should give up all other processes of self-realization and simply

execute devotional service to Lord Krishna ( ishtadevata) That will

enable one to reach the highest perfection of life. There is no need

for one to consider the sinful actions of his past life, because the

Supreme Lord fully takes charge of him. Therefore one should not try

to deliver himself in spiritual realization. Let everyone take

shelter of the supreme omnipotent Godhead, Krsna. That is the highest

perfection of life.

 

THERE MAY BE AN ADWAITIC INTERPRETATION OF THE ABOVE VERSE. Feel free

to share .

 

Sounds easy ! bhakti -yoga is not for the faint-hearted . It starts

with "sharanagati" - surrender to the lotus feet of the lord . and of

all the thinhs, complete surrender is the hardest.

 

what comes in the way of total surrender?

 

Hari AUM!

[Guest guest]

Dear Madathilji,

 

 

You wrote:

***************************************************

Thank you very much for your post 22537.

 

A very balanced and most objective opinion indeed where you have

very

beautifully stringed seemingly contradictory statements and

reconciled them to Sw. Satchitanandendra Saraswatiji's final

conclusion.

*****************************************************

 

 

 

My answer: Thank you very much for your kind words!

 

It is clear (I believe!) from your reply to my mail that you

share the following standpoints with me:

 

1) The world (jagat) is superimposed on Brahman in the same sense

that the snake is superimposed on the rope. Moreover, the world

is Brahman misconcieved in the same sense that the snake is the

rope misconcieved.

 

2) The appearence of the world is due to ignorance of Brahman,

just as the appearence of the snake is due to ignorance of the

rope.

 

3) The ontological status of the world is that it is a

superimposition on Brahman.

 

4) Due to innate ignorance, we are unable to concieve Brahman as

it really is.

 

 

However, you disagree with me on some further points. At first I

was a bit puzzled by your arguments, because I did not have any

clear picture of your standpoint on this issue. However, a

couple of days later or so you summoned up the gist of your

position in a reply to Bhaskarji. You wrote:

 

"My point of view in a nutshell is, as I have mentioned before,

'A' is in front of me disguised as 'B'. I see through the game

and

know that the fellow before me is 'A'. I am not fooled. In a

similar manner, I don't want to be fooled by what I perceive. I

am in fact 'looking at' myself - Brahman, and, when I write this

to

you, these letters are Brahman and my knowledge that you are

somewhere there in beautiful Bangalore is also Brahman."

 

So, this is what you wrote to Bhaskarji, and from this I think it

would be easier for me to give a reply to the following points

made by you:

 

 

 

You wrote:

*****************************************

[We need not digress into mUlaavidya. We haven't done that so

far in

this thread.]

*****************************************

 

 

 

My answer: Ok. I did my remark on mulavidya not in order to make

this discussion turn into something else, but because there where

some arguments earlier on this thread whether avidya or brahman

is the cause of the world. When I talk about avidya as something

innate that makes us unable to concieve Brahman as it really is,

I do not mean the mulavidya (root-ignorance) propagated by the

post-Shankarites, thats all.

 

 

 

 

You wrote (your reply in brackets):

******************************************************

> 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.

[When we say world is brahman misconceived, we are not claiming

independent existence for it. If it is a misconception, no

creation

can be justified even from the vyavahArika drishti.]

************************************************************'

 

 

 

My answer: But there is nevertheless a fact that the Upanishads

contain passages that deals with creation. All these passages are

there only for the less qualified aspirant in order to point out

that Brahman is the only source for everything. So, from the

vyavaharika drishti, where everything is concieved within time

and space, this world is concieved of as something created.

However, this view is then later refuted through adhyaropa

apavada, the method for interpretating seemingly contradicting

statements in the shastras. From the paramarthika drishti there

is no such things as creation or adhyasa (superimposition) and

hence no jagat, which appears to us only because of

ignorance/superimposition.

 

 

 

You wrote:

******************************************

[ It is the world's *perceived* appearance that is

miTyAjnAna and not what it really is, i.e. Brahman. If this is

accepted, then I believe it would be easier to accept the

pUrNatwa of

the world.]

******************************************

 

 

 

My answer: I am afraid I have some trouble trying to figure out

your point here. Do you talk about wrong conceptions

of something phenomenal? For instance, the world is a phenomenal

world (something that appears due to avidya/adhyasa), and we can

have wrong conceptions about things in this world. For instance,

one can have wrong conceptions about a house, a person, an atom

or a mountain. This is evident from our everyday experiences. Do

you claim that the meaning of mithyajnana (misconceptions/wrong

knowledge) is wrong conceptions about the phenomenal world? If

so, then I do not agree with you.

 

Mithyajnana is misconceptions (wrong knowledge) about Brahman.

Mithyajnana is not misconceptions about the things superimposed

upon brahman, like forrests, birds, computers or discussion-lists

on the Internet :-) From Shankara it is clear that ignorance

(avidya) = superimposition (adhyasa) = misconception

(mithya-jnana). Hence the world is due to

avidya/adhyasa/mithyajnana. In other words, the world is due to

our ignorance, our superimpositions, our misconceptions (of

Brahman). (There is no causal relationship between these three).

 

 

 

You wrote:

**************************************************

[Yes. It is impossible to explain *names and forms* (with all

their

limitations) as either identical or different from the Absolute.]

***************************************************

 

 

 

Yes, and I think this is the very core of the problem discussed

on this thread. According to Shankara, the subjective defect of

the mind (avidya) gives rise to the objective false appearance

(maya). Thus, avidya gives the existence of maya. In his Brahma

Sutra Bhashya (2.1.14), Shankara describes the nature of maya by

the following terms: avidyakalpita (imagined by avidya),

avidyapratyupasthaapita (brought forth or projected by avidya),

avidyaakrita (cooked up by avidya), avidyakaarya (made up by

avidya), avidyaatmaka (of the nature of avidya, that is, in the

sence that avidya is the very essence or root of maya) and

finally avidyaalakshana (indicated by avidya, that is, the

appearance of maya indicates the existence of avidya). In his

lucid and informative booklet "Teaching of Brahman through the

Attributions of Avidya and Maya", Sri Devarao Kulkarni (a direct

disciple of Holenarsipur Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati),

summons up this as follows: "Maya, then, according to Shankara,

is the objective false apperance due to ignorance or Adhyasa."

(p.50)

 

One significance given to that of maya is anirvachaniya, meaning

indefinable. So, how does that help us in this discussion? Well,

if we stick to the meaning given to this word by Adi Shankara, I

think we would be helped a great deal. In Brahma Sutra Bhashya

(2.1.14 and 2.1.27) maya is described as being anirvachaniya,

just as the snake superimposed on the rope is not the reality or

substratum (the rope), nor does the superimposed snake exist

independent of the substratum (the rope). In this sence, maya

(the false appearance of the snake) is indefinable as either the

substratum or something independently existing. The snake is

neither the rope, nor something existing independently of the

rope.

 

Hence, in the same sence the world superimposed on Brahman can

not (in any absolute sense) be described as Brahman (the

substratum), nor as something existing independent of Brahman.

The world is maya, and hence anirvachaniya in the meaning given

by Shankara. By overlooking this, one will have a hard time

trying to define whether the world belongs to or is a part of

Brahman or not.

 

So, since the world from an empirical standpoint is not identical

with Brahman, nor something independent of Brahman, it is mainly

a pedagogical question whether one prefers to describe and

understand the world as Brahman or not. I have noticed that some

teachers of advaita prefer to explain advaita vedanta by the help

of the "everything is Brahman"-perspective, while others prefer

to explain advaita vedanta by the help of "neither of this is

Brahman"-perspective. And from vyavaharika drishti both these

viewpoints are valid, since maya is anirvachaniya and hence the

world is not defineable as identical with Brahman, nor as

independent of Brahman.

 

For example, one can say that "this world in front of me, these

trees, hills, seas, mountains etc. are all Brahman and nothing

but Brahman. Nothing can exist apart from Brahman". But one can

also say that "nothing of all this is front of me is Brahman.

Brahman is the non-dual reality devoid of any imperfections and

attributes. Hence the world in front of me is merely superimposed

on the Absolute reality that is Brahman."

 

Of course, one must keep in mind that the world is something

superimposed on Brahman. That is a fundamental tenet of

Shankara´s advaita. The world, jagat, is due to the

ignorance/superimposition/misconception of Brahman. So, if one is

describing the status of the world in absolute terms, it would

not be correct to say that the world is something truly existing

or something perfectly real. After all, the world is there only

because of the inability to grasp Brahman as it really is.

 

 

 

You wrote:

********************************************************

[if time permits, Stigji, I would request you to kindly study

Sunderji's quote of Sankara's text (Post # 22459) and tell us how

you

understand it in the light of Sw. Satchitanandendra Saraswatiji's

teachings.]

********************************************************

 

 

Regarding the "purnamadah purnamidam..." -- shanti mantra, its

appearance also in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, and the Shankara

bhashya thereupon: Just as already have pointed out in this

discussion, the passage in question from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

(5.1.1.) deals with pranavaopasana, that is, Brahman as an object

for meditation. And we don´t have to rely on mere guesswork here,

because in his Bhashya -- just before commenting upon "purnamadah

purnamidam..." -- Adi Shankara explains this very clearly. He

writes:

 

"That Brahman which is immediate and direct, the Self that is

within all, unconditioned, beyond hunger etc., and is described

as 'Not this, not this,' and the realisation of which is the sole

means of immortality, has been presented in the last four

chapters. Now certain meditations, not mentioned before, of that

same Self as conditioned and coming within the scope of words,

their meanings, and so on -- meditations that do not clash with

rites, lead to great prosperity, and take one through a gradual

process of liberation, have to mentioned; hence the present

chapter. It is also the intention of the Sruti to enjoin the

meditation on Om as forming a part of all other meditations, and

the practice of self-control, charity and compassion."

 

Hence it is obvious that the bhashya on the "purnamadah..." --

mantra is not dealing with the ontological status of the world,

but with worship. This has already been pointed out by Bhaskarji.

I don´t think that the present discussion would gain that much by

studying this passage from the Brihadaranyaka bhashya.

 

 

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren

[Guest guest]

Dear Stigji.

 

Reference your post 22881.

 

Again another beautiful fortress against the point of view that this

jagat is indeed Brahman. Your inimitable eloquence swept me off my

feet for a second!

 

However, I have to disagree finally. To begin with and to make it

short and crisp, may I first of all say that I agree with whatever

you have said except one thing. And that one thing unfortunately

is very crucial and the crux of the matter.

 

You said:

 

[>In his lucid and informative booklet "Teaching of Brahman through

>the Attributions of Avidya and Maya", Sri Devarao Kulkarni (a direct

> disciple of Holenarsipur Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati),

> summons up this as follows: "Maya, then, according to Shankara,

> is the objective false apperance due to ignorance or Adhyasa."

> (p.50)

>

> One significance given to that of maya is anirvachaniya, meaning

> indefinable. So, how does that help us in this discussion? Well,

> if we stick to the meaning given to this word by Adi Shankara, I

> think we would be helped a great deal. In Brahma Sutra Bhashya

> (2.1.14 and 2.1.27) maya is described as being anirvachaniya,

> just as the snake superimposed on the rope is not the reality or

> substratum (the rope), nor does the superimposed snake exist

> independent of the substratum (the rope). In this sence, maya

> (the false appearance of the snake) is indefinable as either the

> substratum or something independently existing. The snake is

> neither the rope, nor something existing independently of the

> rope.

>

> Hence, in the same sence the world superimposed on Brahman can

> not (in any absolute sense) be described as Brahman (the

> substratum), nor as something existing independent of Brahman.

> The world is maya, and hence anirvachaniya in the meaning given

> by Shankara. By overlooking this, one will have a hard time

> trying to define whether the world belongs to or is a part of

> Brahman or not.

>

> So, since the world from an empirical standpoint is not identical

> with Brahman, nor something independent of Brahman, it is mainly

> a pedagogical question whether one prefers to describe and

> understand the world as Brahman or not.]

 

 

Beautiful!

 

Yet, I disagree. Why?

 

I see a snake and panic. However, on investigating, I find out that

it is really a rope. Another guy passes by. He also panics and

asks me what it is. I tell him it is a rope. As far as I am

concerned, the snake has resolved into the rope. The snake perceived

hithertofore is only a rope. There was only rope before when the

misconception occurred to me. There is only rope now when the

misconception has been removed. The reality of the rope thus

becomes important. In a similar manner, it is the reality of the

world that is important. That it is in reality Brahman is

important. Whether I am realized or not, the world is Brahman only,

like the rope is rope only whether I panic or have found out the

truth. That is why we have been saying here that it is only the

appearance that is all there to be negated like we undo the

appearance of the snake to reveal the identity of the rope. That

appearance is the hiraNmayapAtra. Uncover it. Reality shines forth.

 

Thus, I don't find any need to bring in the word anirvacanIyA here

and build on it. What Sankara perhaps did was to call the

apparence (I know that that word is archaic, but I need it in the

current situation to clarify the point I am trying to present.) of

the world mAyA and not its reality. Other scholars can corroborate

my surmise.

 

In the meanwhile, I am puzzled to see you quote BSB II.1.14 in

support of your point of view. I have here the interpretation by

Sw. Sivananadaji (http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/bs_2-1-

06.html). The topic title is Arambhanadhikaranam (The world

(effect) is non-different from Brahman (the cause). The whole

discussion presents exactly the opposite of what you have

concluded. To quote only certain pertinent statements from the

interpretation of II.1.14 – 16:

 

1. That the effect is not different from the cause is shown

here (in II-1-14)

2. Rope appears as a snake. It is not transformed into actual

snake.

3. The phenomena of the universe manifest only because Brahman

exists. They cannot certainly appear without Brahman. Therefore,

the world (effect) is not different from Brahman, the cause.

4. The effect (world) is non-different from the cause (Brahman)

because it is existent in the cause, identically even, prior to its

manifestation, though in time it is posterior.

5. Brahman is in all time neither more nor less than that which

is. So the effect also (the world) is in all time only that which

is. That which is, is the only. Hence, the effect is non-different

from the cause.

6. As a piece of cloth is not different from the threads, so

the effect (world) is not different from its cuase (Brahman).

7. Thus, it is established that the effect, the world, is

identical with its cause, Brahman. Therefore, by knowing Brahman

everything is known. As the whole world is an effect of Brahman and

non-different from it, the promise held out in the scriptural

text `what is not heard is heard, what is not perceived is

perceived, what is not known is known (Chh. Up. VI.I.3) is fulfilled.

 

I wanted to cross-check with Sadaji's notes in our files section.

However, they do not open. Sadaji, will you kindly clarify?

 

# 6 above is the analogy elaborated by Sw. Dayanandaji in great

detail in his interpretation of the pUrNamadah… verse now uploaded

in our files section. I hope a reading of that beautiful

interpretation will clarify without any trace of doubt that the

point of view that this world is indeed Brahman is not pedagogic.

World is not a *part* of Brahman. Neither does it *belong* to

Brahman. The world is Brahman.

 

PraNAms and warmest regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

nairji writes

 

"The world is Brahman."

 

have you realized this Nairji!

 

then ananta koti namsakarams !

 

but i still think this world is 'maya' that and too full of 'avidya'

maya.

 

maybe you can take me under your wings and enlighten me!

 

regards

[Guest guest]

Adiji, no, I haven't realized. Just being academic as usual because

I am logically convinced of what I say. I can change if you can

give me better solutions. So, please take back those anantakoti

namaskArams. You can only break your back doing that!

 

MN

 

_________________

 

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16"

<adi_shakthi16> wrote:

> nairji writes

>

> "The world is Brahman."

>

> have you realized this Nairji!

>

> then ananta koti namsakarams !

>

> but i still think this world is 'maya' that and too full

of 'avidya'

> maya.

>

> maybe you can take me under your wings and enlighten me!

>

> regards

[Guest guest]

oops! i take that back! i realized you were just quoting the well

known truth!

 

for a bhakta, there is no reason or intellect or logic

 

only faith!

 

i would luv to break my back doing namaskarams to you ! after all,

how many of us are fortunate like you to be so near 'truth'

 

love and regards

 

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Adiji, no, I haven't realized. Just being academic as usual

because

> I am logically convinced of what I say. I can change if you can

> give me better solutions. So, please take back those anantakoti

> namaskArams. You can only break your back doing that!

>

> MN

>

> _________________

>

> advaitin, "adi_shakthi16"

> <adi_shakthi16> wrote:

> > nairji writes

> >

> > "The world is Brahman."

> >

> > have you realized this Nairji!

> >

> > then ananta koti namsakarams !

> >

> > but i still think this world is 'maya' that and too full

> of 'avidya'

> > maya.

> >

> > maybe you can take me under your wings and enlighten me!

> >

> > regards

[Guest guest]

Thank you Sundar Ji.

 

Could the learned members of this group try to shed some light of the

difference between "brahma" and "brahman"?

 

Is there a difference between these two terms?

 

Thank you all in advance.

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> Namaste Madathilji and Narendranji,

>

> Thank you very much for sharing this stimulating dialogue.

>

> A few thoughts that occurred to me:

>

> The Brahma-Sutras begin with:

>

> athAto brahmajiGYAsA [Now, therefore, the desire to know Brahman].

>

> Sri Sankara comments on 'atha' as the requisite preparation

> by the disciple in the 'sAdhana-chatuShTaya' - the four-fold

> qualifications, namely:

>

> nitya-anitya-vastu-viveka [discriminating eternal from ephemeral

> entities]

> vairAgya [dipassion - to results of actions here and hereafter]

>

> shamAdi-ShaTka-sampatti [6-fold achievements - control of mind

> control over senses

> austerity

> endurance

> faith

> concentration]

>

> mumukShutvam [desire for liberation from bondage of repeated

> births & deaths]

>

>

> Both Narada and Shandilya Bhakti-Sutras begin with:

>

> atha bhaktijiGYAsA [Hence the desire to know Devotion].

>

> However, commentators are divided over 'atha' implies any

> requisite qualifications, as there are scriptural passages which

> state everybody is qualified for the practice of this path.

>

> The goal achieved by both is the same.

>

> It seems to me, however, that the 4 qualifications for the

> jnana-marga [path of knowledge], only the emphasis on Viveka is

less

> in bhakti-marga. All the others apply with the same, if not

greater,

> force to the latter.

>

> The intensity [niSThA] of any one also has the power to

> gather together all the rest.

>

> Therefore, the 'Atma-vismRRti' [forgetfulness of the Self]

> can be overcome only to the degree that the intensity in any one of

> the 3 qualifications is achieved.

>

> Trying to enjoy the sense pleasures by trying to look in

> them the Supreme, is perhaps the 'Veera' [bold] approach of Tantra,

> unsuitable for the vast majority of devotees. As said in the

> scriptures, it is like trying to 'extinguish a fire with clarified

> butter.'

>

> Gita describes one of the 'vibhutis' [glories] as :

>

> yaGYAnAM japa yaGYaH asmi | [among all sacrifices 'I' am japa -

> repetition of My name]

>

> Every action that promotes this is sure to find the goal.

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

>

>

>

>

>

>

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

> <madathilnair> wrote:

> >

> > The above correspondence, which mainly leads with bhakti in the

> > context of pUrNamadah, is given below. It is a little too long.

> > Please bear with me.

>

> > Shri Narendran commented as follows on the pUrNamadah lead post:

> >

> > ….. I fully concur with your exposition of Purnamadah

Purnamidam

> > from the jnAna angle ….. Maybe in future works, you could

consider

> > giving greater stress on devotion and detachment (Bhakti &

> Vairagya),

> > the other two aspects of spirituality to which His Holiness

> > Sankaracharya, the greatest exponent ever of Vedanta philosophy,

> > devoted equal attention. Of course, this is only a personal

> opinion

> > and I am not in any way attirbuting any shortfall in your

article.

> I

> > fully understand that Jnana, Bhakti and Vairagya are one to an

> > enlightened person. But to those attached to experiences, Bhakti

> > could be more appealing and Vairagya could be a necessity to

ascend

> > the steps of Jnana.

> >

> > The question to which I am seeking an answer is, how can I,

having

> > attained this indirect knowledge (aparoksha jnana) of the

Absolute

> > Truth, face all the rockings of temporal experiences and still

stay

> > attached to that Truth, from which I had for quite some time

> detached

> > myself and ran after the unreal experiences and perhaps still

> do.

> > In other words, how to avoid Atmavismrthi in the present and

> > future. I see is Atma as Absolute reality and experiences as

> > temporal reality. This is how I interpret Brahma Satyam, Jagan

> > Mithya, since jagat though unreal in absolute terms is a reality

in

> > time. Therefore, as long as the self attaches himself to time,

> it

> > is possible for him to forget the Truth and run after unreal

> > experiences. The only solution as I see is to attach oneself to

> > Kalakala (The destroyer of time) which again is only the true

form

> of

> > Self (Sivoham) to ensure that Atmavismrthi does not occur.

> Vairagya

> > (detachment towards expriences) in the form of Vibhuthi is the

> prasad

> > I am seeking.

>

>

> > All that I was trying to make clear was the need to have constant

> > memory of

> > the Truth. About what is Truth (the non-duality of universe and

> its

> > creator), I am sure that we have agreed. Where, we perhaps

> differ,

> > is on the methods we are adopting to keep this Truth in constant

> > memory. Do not, for a moment, think that I am disagreeing to

> > anything that you wrote to me in my last message.

[Guest guest]

sri nairji,

 

i want you to do me a favor. please!

 

your brother brought up the beautiful point of Radharani's one

pointed devotion to Krishna. Correct?

 

there is one gopi among the many gopis whose devotion for Krishna far

exceeds that of Radharani.

 

her name is Chandravali!

 

While Radha always says "krishna is in my heart"

 

Chandravali always says " i am in krishna's heart."

 

that is the most exalted bhava of a true devotee in the vaishana

tradition.

 

God does not belong to you ! you belong to God !

 

Could you kindly share this with your devotee brother Narendraji!

 

regards

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote:

> difference between "brahma" and "brahman"?

>

> Is there a difference between these two terms?

 

Namaste,

 

"brahman" is the 'stem' word; "brahma" is nominative,

accusative, and vocative singular inflexion.

 

brahmA of course refers to the creator God.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Adiji, Nairji aned Others,

 

Adiji asked Nairji: “Have you realized the world is Brahman?”

 

Nairji: “No I have not realized”.

 

IMHO, the word “realize” is very confusing. Upanishads unfolds a Knowledge i.e.

Tattwam Asi, Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma. One just knows it. Is there any

realization?

 

When I enter a jewellery, do I realize the various types of ornaments, such as

bangles, chains, rings, necklaces, etc. etc. as Gold? I just know them.

 

If I were to be asked “Do you know the world is Brahman?” I can reply “Yes It

is”. Just like you “value” gold in the ornaments, I “value” the all pervading

Brahman in all the objects including my own self, and this way I am not fooled

by the various forms and names that seem to be appearing apparently “on”

Brahman, like the various forms appearing on gold.

 

Again IMHO, our waiting for “realization” is the problem.

 

If we say “we do not know the world is Brahman” it means either we have no

Sradha for the Pramanam i.e. the Upanishads and our Teachers, or we are yet to

know that.

 

Sabda Pramana is like other Pramanas, and when we know through other Pramanas,

what is the problem in knowing through Sabda Pramana also. Pramanas are there

for us to “know” and not us to “realize”.

 

This is my understanding and please correct me.

 

Hari Om and Warm Regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:Adiji, no, I haven't

realized. Just being academic as usual because

I am logically convinced of what I say. I can change if you can

give me better solutions. So, please take back those anantakoti

namaskArams. You can only break your back doing that!

 

MN

 

_________________

 

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16"

<adi_shakthi16> wrote:

> nairji writes

>

> "The world is Brahman."

>

> have you realized this Nairji!

>

> then ananta koti namsakarams !

>

> but i still think this world is 'maya' that and too full

of 'avidya'

> maya.

>

> maybe you can take me under your wings and enlighten me!

>

> regards

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SBC - Internet access at a great low price.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Maniji.

 

You are again right, Maniji. I only gave the answer Adiji's

question demanded.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

_______________________________

 

advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote:

...................

> IMHO, the word "realize" is very confusing. Upanishads unfolds a

Knowledge i.e. Tattwam Asi, Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma. One just knows

it. Is there any realization?

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

> Again IMHO, our waiting for "realization" is the problem.

>

> If we say "we do not know the world is Brahman" it means either we

have no Sradha for the Pramanam i.e. the Upanishads and our

Teachers, or we are yet to know that.

>

> Sabda Pramana is like other Pramanas, and when we know through

other Pramanas, what is the problem in knowing through Sabda Pramana

also. Pramanas are there for us to "know" and not us to "realize".

>

> This is my understanding and please correct me.

[Guest guest]

thank you maniji!

 

when gargi posed questions to sage Yagnavalkya (sp) , she was able to

elicit answers from the sage, much to the satsifaction of all

present . You understood my question and i am pleased with your

response. Thank you.

 

MUNDAKA UPANISHAD

 

Since the manifold objects of sense are merely emanations of

Brahman , to know them in themselves is not enough. Since

all the actions of men are but phase s of the unversal process of

creation, action alone is not enough.

 

The sage must distinguish between Knowledge and Wisdom. Knowledge is

of things, acts, and relations. But wisdom is of

Brahman alone: and beyond all things ,acts, and relations, he abides

foreever.To become one with him is the only wisdom.

 

OM . . .

 

With our ears may we hear what is good.

 

With our eyes may we behold thy righteousness.

 

Tranquit in Body,may we who worships the find rest.

 

OM . . . Peace - Peace - Peace.

 

Aum shanti! aum shati! Aum shantihi!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

> Namaste Adiji, Nairji aned Others,

>

> Adiji asked Nairji: "Have you realized the world is Brahman?"

>

> Nairji: "No I have not realized".

>

> IMHO, the word "realize" is very confusing. Upanishads unfolds a

Knowledge i.e. Tattwam Asi, Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma. One just knows

it. Is there any realization?

>

> When I enter a jewellery, do I realize the various types of

ornaments, such as bangles, chains, rings, necklaces, etc. etc. as

Gold? I just know them.

>

> If I were to be asked "Do you know the world is Brahman?" I can

reply "Yes It is". Just like you "value" gold in the ornaments,

I "value" the all pervading Brahman in all the objects including my

own self, and this way I am not fooled by the various forms and names

that seem to be appearing apparently "on" Brahman, like the various

forms appearing on gold.

>

> Again IMHO, our waiting for "realization" is the problem.

>

> If we say "we do not know the world is Brahman" it means either we

have no Sradha for the Pramanam i.e. the Upanishads and our Teachers,

or we are yet to know that.

>

> Sabda Pramana is like other Pramanas, and when we know through

other Pramanas, what is the problem in knowing through Sabda Pramana

also. Pramanas are there for us to "know" and not us to "realize".

>

> This is my understanding and please correct me.

>

> Hari Om and Warm Regards

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair> wrote:Adiji, no, I

haven't realized. Just being academic as usual because

> I am logically convinced of what I say. I can change if you can

> give me better solutions. So, please take back those anantakoti

> namaskArams. You can only break your back doing that!

>

> MN

>

> _________________

>

> advaitin, "adi_shakthi16"

> <adi_shakthi16> wrote:

> > nairji writes

> >

> > "The world is Brahman."

> >

> > have you realized this Nairji!

> >

> > then ananta koti namsakarams !

> >

> > but i still think this world is 'maya' that and too full

> of 'avidya'

> > maya.

> >

> > maybe you can take me under your wings and enlighten me!

> >

> > regards

>

>

>

> 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

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Links

>

>

> advaitin/

>

>

> advaitin

>

> Terms of

Service.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> SBC - Internet access at a great low price.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Adiji.

 

It was I who brought in Radha's devotion by reminiscing a poem my

brother and I had read together long back. I have no idea about

Chandravali. As far as I am concerned, the statements "Krishna is in

my heart" and "I am in Krishna's heart" do not differ much if it is

understood that there is only Krishna.

 

I am forwarding your message to my brother, however.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

wrote:

>

> your brother brought up the beautiful point of Radharani's one

> pointed devotion to Krishna. Correct?

>

> there is one gopi among the many gopis whose devotion for Krishna

far

> exceeds that of Radharani.

>

> her name is Chandravali!

>

> While Radha always says "krishna is in my heart"

>

> Chandravali always says " i am in krishna's heart."

>

> that is the most exalted bhava of a true devotee in the vaishana

> tradition.

>

> God does not belong to you ! you belong to God !

>

> Could you kindly share this with your devotee brother Narendraji!