Purnamadah Purnamidam ....revisited (April4)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Maniji,

 

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

>

> Namaste, All

>

> 2) A SNAKE WAS SEEN EARLIER OR SNAKE-KNOWLEDGE/MEMORY WAS THERE

FOR ONE TO SUPERIMPOSE A SNAKE ON A ROPE DUE TO IGNORANCE. IS THERE A

WORLD SEEN EARLIER OR THAT WORLD-KNOWLEDGE/MEMORY ON THE PART OF THE

SUPERIMPOSER WHO SUPERIMPOOSES THE WORLD ON BRAHMAN? IF SO, WHAT WAS

THAT WORLD, WAS IT ALSO A SUPERIMPOSITION ON BRAHMAN AT THAT TIME?

>

> My above questions are based on the pre-requisites for a

superimposition to take place, i.e. (1) superimposer (a sentient

entity), (2) ignorance on the part of that entity (3) an object on

which superimposition is made (4) memory of an object seen earlier at

some other place/some other time so that, that object is superimposed

on the object on which superimposition is made. The object seen

earlier must have some attributes similar to the attributes of the

object appearing before one and on which superimposition is made. For

example, a pot is not superimposed on a rope, it can be a snake or a

stick or a garland, i.e. there must be similarities in the attributes

of both superimposed and on which superimposition is made, say just

like rope and snake.

>

> THESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN OCCUPYING MY MIND FOR A LONG TIME.

>

> I HOPE OUR LEARNED MEMBERS CAN HELP.

>

> WITH WARM REGRDS AND HARI OM

 

 

 

This is a very very very deep question. I've been thinking on it for

the last two months, and though I have a vague feel of something, I

haven't a firm grasp on it. Like you, I would welcome comments on the

topic from our learned members.

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

IMHO, these questions are being asked with the assumption that

the " superimposition of the world on Brahman" is an event in time.

The questions When, Where, Who etc. are meaningful only with regard

to events that happen within time/space. They are not useful in

tracing the origin of Maya for the simple reason that the idea of

time, external world etc. are part of Maya. The origin of Maya can

never be traced by entities which are Maya's creations.

 

The dreamer Stephen Hawkins would argue that his world was

created billions of years ago by a big-bang. The woken up Stephen

Hawkings knows that his dream-world never existed.

Similarly, from jIva's point of view, Maya is anAdi, since its

beginning cannot be traced. From Brahman's point of view, Maya never

existed.

 

Pranaams,

Raj.

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste Shri Maniji,

>

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

> >

> > Namaste, All

> >

> > 2) A SNAKE WAS SEEN EARLIER OR SNAKE-KNOWLEDGE/MEMORY WAS

THERE

> FOR ONE TO SUPERIMPOSE A SNAKE ON A ROPE DUE TO IGNORANCE. IS THERE

A

> WORLD SEEN EARLIER OR THAT WORLD-KNOWLEDGE/MEMORY ON THE PART OF

THE

> SUPERIMPOSER WHO SUPERIMPOOSES THE WORLD ON BRAHMAN? IF SO, WHAT

WAS

> THAT WORLD, WAS IT ALSO A SUPERIMPOSITION ON BRAHMAN AT THAT TIME?

> >

> > My above questions are based on the pre-requisites for a

> superimposition to take place, i.e. (1) superimposer (a sentient

> entity), (2) ignorance on the part of that entity (3) an object on

> which superimposition is made (4) memory of an object seen earlier

at

> some other place/some other time so that, that object is

superimposed

> on the object on which superimposition is made. The object seen

> earlier must have some attributes similar to the attributes of the

> object appearing before one and on which superimposition is made.

For

> example, a pot is not superimposed on a rope, it can be a snake or

a

> stick or a garland, i.e. there must be similarities in the

attributes

> of both superimposed and on which superimposition is made, say just

> like rope and snake.

> >

> > THESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN OCCUPYING MY MIND FOR A LONG TIME.

> >

> > I HOPE OUR LEARNED MEMBERS CAN HELP.

> >

> > WITH WARM REGRDS AND HARI OM

>

>

>

> This is a very very very deep question. I've been thinking on it

for

> the last two months, and though I have a vague feel of something, I

> haven't a firm grasp on it. Like you, I would welcome comments on

the

> topic from our learned members.

>

> Regards,

> Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Maniji.

 

This is my understanding, which I believe I had mentioned here before:

 

1. The rope-snake analogy belongs to the empirical.

2. It is in the empirical that the rope is identified as rope

and its misapprehension as snake removed.

3. At the end, rope remains an object separate from the subject

who had the misapprehension.

4. All analogies belong to the empirical and, therefore, have

limitations. They never can completely elucidate the Absolute.

5. They shouldn't therefore be stretched too far to ask

questions about the Absolute which is not available for our

objectification like the rope.

6. Besides, while the rope is an object, the Absolute is the

questioner himself.

7. Thus, while the analogy establishes the true identity of an

object, advaita reveals the true identity of the seeker himself. It

is the seeker's knowing himself and that is not an ordinary knowing

involving a subject and object.

8. It is to the questioner himself that the misapprehension

occurs, i.e. to the limited entity who isolates himself from the rest

of the world and suffers from seeing it as alien to himself.

9. Self-realization is the de-working of that alienation whereby

the questioner *becomes* himself, whereafter there is no

misapprehension and the need to ask any more questions, because the

rest of the world, which he hithertofore saw as alien to himself,

then fully resolves into his self-identity.

10. This misapprehension (ignorance) is termed anAdi

(beginningless) in vEdanta.

11. Anything beginningless should be endless too. That is

infinity.

12. Are we then creating a parallel reality to the Absolute by

calling ignorance anAdi?

13. I don't think so if we know it as mAyA as associated with the

Absolute (Shiva-ShaktiA yuktO of Soundarya Lahari). (Please note

that here the word `associated' doesn't indicate any duality. It is

just an empirical compulsion.)

14. That is why we propitiate MayAji first when She Herself

reveals as ShivAji who She really is and who we all really are. No

wonder, Sankara has called Her the lIlAnAtakasUtrabhEdanakarI as well

as vijnAna dIpAnkurI in AnnapUrNA StOtram.

15. Advaita is a universal vision, which presents us with a fool-

proof model for the universe we confront. By logically uniting the

enquirer with the whole universe in fullness, it doesn't leave any

external entities, as do all theologies which compel us to ask

unending questions about the Gods they impose on us.

16. As Rajkumar Nair rightly pointed out, empirical

considerations that have validity in space and time cannot be applied

to advaitic Fullness.

17. When we have the advaitic vision – I mean an intellectual or

academic appreciation (I have noted your previous objections to these

terms and I intend to clarify my stand on it in due course, a task I

haven't been able to attend to due to shortage of time.), we then

have to engage in advaitic sAdhanA including contemplation and

reflection on the vision in order to assimilate it into and as our

very being.

18. The saying `the proof of the pudding is in its eating'

applies here. One has to have faith in scriptural guarantees and

endeavour tirelessly. No harm can come from it. There is no danger

of getting waylaid either because you are on your way to be the whole

universe – to be total love in love with everything. Is there any

better goal to be pursued?

19. You will then realize that questions like why my

misapprehension appears as a universe of this shape, have I seen such

a universe before (like the memory of a snake seen before in the

analogy) have no validity.

20. I once asked: "Swamiji, why this ignorance at all?". Curt

was Swamiji's answer: "If you acknowledge that there is ignorance,

find out!".

21. Understand this universe of variety as a city reflected in a

mirror in your awareness (vishwam darpaNadrisyamAna nagarI).

Understand that it is you yourself who expands as the universe (like

a tree sprouting out from a seed) and then folds back

(bIjasyAntarivankurO) (All similes from Sankara's DakshinAmUrti

StOtram).

22. Understand that you are the only subject. The rest are

objects, yet not outside you but in your awareness. You being

awareness known as fullness, they cannot be parts of you but you

yourself. That includes ignorance too. You now know why it is anAdi.

23. The so-called external world is an unraveling of

Consciousness. With self-imposed feelings of limitations, we have no

choice over what unravels or the nature of the unraveling (questions

about why the universe is like this, have I seen another world to do

the superimposition this way, etc.). When the limitations vanish,

you are no more concerned with these questions as you realize that

what you are *witnessing* is your own very being.

24. There can be any number of infinitely regressing worlds to pick

from. That is truly bewildering to the limited jIvA. However,

advaitically, that is immaterial because the subject (the real you)is

the only one fulcrum that operates the unravellings and where all

regress should ultimately rest.

 

Trust I have been able to clarify your doubts with these random

thoughts.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

__________________________

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

> 1) WHO IS SUPERIMPOSING, I.E. WHO HAS THE IGNORANCE FOR THIS

SUPERIMPOSITION, i.e. FOR SUPERIMPOSING A WORLD ON BRAHMAN?

>

> 2) A SNAKE WAS SEEN EARLIER OR SNAKE-KNOWLEDGE/MEMORY WAS THERE

FOR ONE TO SUPERIMPOSE A SNAKE ON A ROPE DUE TO IGNORANCE. IS THERE A

WORLD SEEN EARLIER OR THAT WORLD-KNOWLEDGE/MEMORY ON THE PART OF THE

SUPERIMPOSER WHO SUPERIMPOOSES THE WORLD ON BRAHMAN? IF SO, WHAT WAS

THAT WORLD, WAS IT ALSO A SUPERIMPOSITION ON BRAHMAN AT THAT TIME?