Time & Space

[Guest guest]

Namaste Anandaji.

 

I notice that you have called my doubts/questions objections!

Honestly, I see a teacher in you. My attempts are aimed at only

prodding you so that we all can enjoy your advaitic efflorescence and

gain deeper insights. Didn't we do that effectively on Atmanandaji?

So, kindly do not treat my musings as objections.

 

In your post 23002, you have given us another outstanding piece of

wisdom. Yet, I can't help musing (not objecting) and hence this

reply.

 

You christen advaitic reflection as "destructive questioning". Do we

need that element of bothersome ahmisa (at least in the linguistic

sense) apparent in your description? Having accepted that all the

rest other than the knowing principle, which is me, as an apparent

distortion of that knowing principle, where is destruction of

anything needed? The reflection in fact is an affectionate fondling

where all seen as other than me is acknowledged as nothing other than

myself. The final result is like a mother's tight, affectionate

embrace in which the child is not destroyed but absorbed into the

fullness of motherhood where mother and child remain in impartite

oneness. Thus, through repeated reflection, the idam sarvam

including the so-called mind and ego is totally `hugged and breathed

in' without destroying anything. What is therefore before and after

is essentially the indestructible oneness. Aren't we to understand

sva-svarUpa-anusandhanam' in this manner? In this universal hug, the

ego, mind and the world are understood for their true worth as

nothing other than the knowing principle. They are then no more an

untrue paradoxical appearance.

 

You said: "It's through the mind that consciousness becomes

expressed in seeming things, and it is therefore back through mind

that we reflect into the perfection of that consciousness." That

naturally raises a question. Through what are mental vrittis, which

are objectified just like the objects of the external world,

expressed? What is the mediate in that expression? Mind itself?

That can't be a sastisfying answer. Are mental vrittis an expression

without mediation? If yes, then, why postulate the mind as a mediate

between the knowing principle and the external? That is why I

suggested classifying all 'mental' expressions and the seeming untrue

world into one category – the other than me category – without any

compartmentalization, in which relationship there is no more any

mediate required. All cognition is thus taking place without any

mediation. Finally on reflection (knowing principle reflecting on

itself without mediates), the kown are `hugged in' and only the

knowing principle remains without divisions. That is my understanding

of Sankara's jAnAmi in which the so-called ego, mind and the world

dissolves without a trace leaving only Universal Love – without lover

and beloved. Isn't this what ultimately happens in true Bhakti?

 

Discovering the lie therefore lies in discerning without the need for

mediates that the apparent division between me and the experienced

world (includes body, mind, ego etc.) is untrue – a

misunderstanding. That constitutes the honest admission you aim at

without any trace of hypocrisy. The only difference is that the one

who takes that path is no more burdened with the thought that he/she

reflecting back through a mediate. A mediate is unwarranted in the

process other than to satisfy the curiosity of the `yours trulys'.

As I said above, it is the reflecting principle reflecting on itself

about its right nature. There is no mediate and mediated there.

When the one reality of self and world (all that are objectified)

is `known' in identity, as you say, even the `reflecting

thithertofore' would turn out to be untrue.

 

Hope I have expressed myself clearly.

 

Thank you immensely Anandaji for finding time to reply my post. With

the dangerous spammer on the prowl, I don't know when this will hit

the List.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Madathil,

 

I do appreciate your prodding messages and thank you for them. In the

latest one (# 23047 of May 29), you ask:

 

"Through what are mental vrittis, which are objectified just like the

objects of the external world, expressed? What is the mediate in that

expression? Mind itself? That can't be a satisfying answer."

 

Yes, I agree. The very idea of mind is inherently a

self-contradiction. On the one hand, mind is what mediates between

consciousness and objects. But on the other, mind is itself an object

that requires mediation to arise from the objectless consciousness

that underlies it. In order to arise from consciousness, mind would

have to mediate between consciousness and itself. And it would have to

do this before it has arisen in the first place. It would have to

perform a mediating act before it has come into existence. That

clearly isn't possible. So how can mind arise at all? The only answer

I find satisfying is that mind does not actually arise into any true

existence. Or, in other words, that all our thoughts of mind and time

are contaminated by a compromising lie.

 

About correcting the lie, you say:

 

"Discovering the lie therefore lies in discerning without the need for

mediates that the apparent division between me and the experienced

world (includes body, mind, ego etc.) is untrue - a misunderstanding."

 

Here, I agree of course that the goal is an unmediated truth. But I

would suggest that your phrase "without the need for mediates" applies

strictly and exclusively to the goal of truth. It does not rightly

apply to the discerning that we use as a means to truth. Discerning

(or vijnyana) is an action of distinction, an action done in the realm

of differences. It is means of pointing from differentiated

appearances to final truth that underlies all differences.

 

Discerning is a means and therefore must involve a mediation. When

truth is reached, beyond all differences of show, the discernment

dissolves itself. Only then is there no need for any mediates.

 

But this way of talking is of course quite paradoxical. As a fellow

sadhaka, I must confess that it is only logic chopping, until it

finally chops itself off.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Anandaji.

 

Immense thanks for your prompt response (# 23046).

 

I understand what you mean and believe I got what I wanted - i.e. a

very satisfactory answer, despite the paradox!

 

My praNAms to your insightful eloquence and clarity.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

> But this way of talking is of course quite paradoxical. As a fellow

> sadhaka, I must confess that it is only logic chopping, until it

> finally chops itself off.