RE: The Real and the Unreal - Part I - The Razors Edge

[Guest guest]

Hi Chittaranjan,

 

An auspicious beginning! I do not want to quibble (too much!) with what you

have said but perhaps early clarification of points might prevent later

confusion.

 

You said:

 

"A philosophy that seeks to answer these questions must explain the world

and not negate the very thing that is to be explained. To negate the thing

that is asked about is not answering the question."

 

Is this strictly true? In respect of the snake-rope, if you ask whether the

snake is poisonous, do I not provide an effective answer by saying that

there is no snake? Admittedly a little more explanation is desirable but, in

essence, the question is answered.

 

And then you said:

 

"Experience is never negated. If I see a tree this morning, it is true for

all time - for all of eternity - that I saw a tree this morning

irrespective of the fact that any subsequent experience negates it or not."

 

I'm not sure that I agree with this. At the time of seeing, there was just

seeing - no you or tree. What is happening 'now' is that there is thinking

'I saw a tree'. As long as it goes no further, there is just thinking - no

you or thought. But as soon as you postulate a 'you' having this thought and

an 'event' in a 'past', you have crossed over into duality and unreality. In

reality, 'you' never saw a 'tree' and the memory is an illusion.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Thank you Shri Chitranjan!

 

It is significant that you offered prayers to both Tryambaka ( LORD

SHIVA) and Mata ANNAPUENESHWARI ( GAURI)!

 

Mata Annapurneshweri not only gives us 'food' for the nourishment for

our body but also food for the Soul.

 

Please give me alms,

Ocean of kindness and compassion.

Hey , Mother Annapurneswari,

Who is the darling of Sankara,

Please give me alms,

Of knowledge and renunciation.,

For me forever.

 

Yes! She is the 'way' to liberation ! Bhukti-mukthi Pradayini! In

Fact, Lord shiva ( Maheshwera) himself goes with an alms bowl to beg

for food from his consort , Annapurneshwei! This is very significant.

Why should the Lord of the universe beg for food ? NO! the almighty

Lord is not begging for ordinary 'food' , he is begging for the 'food

of Knowledge' ( the milk of knowledge) ! For, Goddess represents all

the three shaktis, ICCHA, KRIYA AND JNNA SHAKTIS !

 

Yes, she is the Maha-maya without whose help , mukthi or liberation

is impossible.

 

Kenji said in one of his posts that generally Maya has been always

used to denote 'illusion' but in the vedic texts , Maya refers

to 'MAGIC' or mystical power through which 'Indra assumed various

forms. '

 

Call Maya any name - Illusion , deception, Magician she is the Berlin

wall what comes between 'real and 'unreal' or 'sat and 'asat' or

jivatma and paramatma ! in fact, in Ramayana, sita is considered

the 'maya' who stands between Lakshmana, the jivatma and Shri RAMA,

THE PARAMATMA. rAMA pARAMATMA. what

 

yes! chitta-ji! Maya is anirvachinya- inexpicable. BUT, IS MAYA

INSURMOUNTABLE? can we overcome Maya or transcend it?

 

and that is why

 

Katha Upanishads say...

 

" Arise, awake and learn spirituality by approaching the Excellent

One (Realized Master). The wise one describes the path to be as

impassable as a sharp razor´s edge, which when sharpened, is

difficult to tread on."

 

YES, CHITTA-JI !

 

Razor's edge ! The great novelist Somerset Maugham had a novel by the

same name!

 

Larry Darrell in his novel The Razor's Edge says

 

 

"He has no desire for fame. To become anything of a public figure

would be deeply distasteful to him; and so it may be that he is

satisfied to lead his chosen life and be no more than just himself.

He is too modest to set himself up as an example to others; but it

may be he thinks that a few uncertain souls, drawn to him like moths

to a candle, will be brought in time to share his own glowing belief

that ultimate satisfaction can only be found in the life of the

spirit, and that by himself following with selflessness and

renunciation the path of perfection he will serve as well as if he

wrote books or addressed multitudes."

 

YES! does that not remind of you all the great sages and saints! Like

shri Ramana Maharishi , Adi Shankara and shri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa

who represent this Divine Spirit , perfect masters who lead a life of

utter renunciation and followed a path of perfection?

 

On this day of Swami Vivekananda's Mahasamadhi ,

 

Let us recall his famous words ...

 

Arise ! Awake ! Stop not till the Goal is reached!

 

also, this famous verse from Bhatruhari's Vairagya-Shatakam (31).

 

In wealth is the fear of poverty, in knowledge the fear of ignorance,

in beauty the fear of age, in fame the fear of backbiters, in success

the fear of jealousy, even in body is the fear of death. Everything

in this earth is fraught with fear. He alone is fearless who has

given up everything.

 

" the spark of Divinity is within"

 

and how does Chitta-ji describe this?

 

"The truth lies within us. It is not given to us from

outside. It is the heart of the discriminative capacity in us. It is

the stamp within our souls by which we seek to know the world and

understand the shruti. We cannot understand the shruti by violating

this innate stamp of truth within us for that would be a ravishment

of the intellect rather than an understanding of the shruti. "

 

ADI SHANKARA SAYS in ViVEKA-CHUDAMANI

 

First is listed discrimination between unchanging and changing

realities, and after that dispassion for the enjoyment of the fruits

of action both here and hereafter, and then the group of six

qualities including peace and of course the desire for liberation.

 

and we will wait for chiita-ji to describe in detail how to develop

this power of discrimination !

 

Aum Tat SaT!

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji,

 

Your questions are very valid questions, and though the second one is

difficult for me to answer at this stage, I shall nevertheless make

an attempt.

 

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> Hi Chittaranjan,

>

> "A philosophy that seeks to answer these questions must explain

> the world and not negate the very thing that is to be explained.

> To negate the thing that is asked about is not answering the

> question."

>

> Is this strictly true? In respect of the snake-rope, if you ask

> whether the snake is poisonous, do I not provide an effective

> answer by saying that there is no snake? Admittedly a little

> more explanation is desirable but, in essence, the question is

> answered.

 

The snake in the rope is already an error in the world. Thus the

question that is asked of the snake (in the rope), in so far as

this "snake" is a constituent of the world, is a question about what

is known as an unreal snake by virtue of it being presented in the

world as such. That is how the answer that there is no snake becomes

an effective answer to the question as it answers to the question

about the world taking into consideration the manner in which the

snake in the rope is seen already in the world.

 

> "Experience is never negated. If I see a tree this morning, it is

> true for all time - for all of eternity - that I saw a tree this

> morning irrespective of the fact that any subsequent experience

> negates it or not."

>

> I'm not sure that I agree with this. At the time of seeing, there

> was just seeing - no you or tree. What is happening 'now' is that

> there is thinking 'I saw a tree'. As long as it goes no

> further,there is just thinking - no you or thought.

> But as soon as you postulate a 'you' having this thought

> and an 'event' in a 'past', you have crossed over into duality

> and unreality.

 

One experience is not same as another. The seeing of the tree is not

the same as the seeing of the stars. One thought is not the same as

another. Thinking about the tree is not the same as thinking about

the stars. Experience has content, and that content has various

forms. When I see a tree, the "I" and the "tree" are the contents of

my experience in which the "existentiality of the tree" is also

constituted as its content. Whether the existential status of the

contents are true or false is the question that we need to enquire

about, but the experience in the manner in which it is presented

cannot be denied. That is the point I was trying to make, but as I

mentioned in the beginning of this post, I would beg for patience as

this is a subject that I intend to treat more fully in the sixth part

of my postings.

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dear Adi-ma,

 

Thank you for enriching this discussion with so many precious

spiritual gems. You mentioned that Maya is 'MAGIC' or mystical power.

This is truly after my own heart. For me, Maya is the magical Shakti

of Lord Shiva. With whatever understanding I have of Advaita, it does

not permit me to equate Maya with illusion. Illusion may be Her

trick, but She is not illusion Herself.

> BUT, IS MAYA INSURMOUNTABLE? Can we overcome Maya or transcend it?

 

Isn't Maya insurmountable as long as we resist Her? But when we

surrender, She takes us to the Self, for She is the Self when

everything is surrendered, no?

 

Love and regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

wrote:

> Thank you Shri Chitranjan!

>

> It is significant that you offered prayers to both Tryambaka ( LORD

> SHIVA) and Mata ANNAPUENESHWARI ( GAURI)!

>

> Mata Annapurneshweri not only gives us 'food' for the nourishment

> for our body but also food for the Soul.

>

> Please give me alms,

> Ocean of kindness and compassion.

> Hey , Mother Annapurneswari,

> Who is the darling of Sankara,

> Please give me alms,

> Of knowledge and renunciation.,

> For me forever.

>

> Kenji said in one of his posts that generally Maya has been always

> used to denote 'illusion' but in the vedic texts , Maya refers

> to 'MAGIC' or mystical power through which 'Indra assumed various

> forms. '

>

> BUT, IS MAYA INSURMOUNTABLE? can we overcome Maya or transcend it?

>

> and that is why Katha Upanishads say...

>

[Guest guest]

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> "Experience is never negated. If I see a tree this morning, it is true

> for

> all time - for all of eternity - that I saw a tree this morning

> irrespective of the fact that any subsequent experience negates it or

> not."

>

> I'm not sure that I agree with this. At the time of seeing, there was

> just

> seeing - no you or tree. What is happening 'now' is that there is

> thinking

> 'I saw a tree'. As long as it goes no further, there is just thinking

> - no

> you or thought. But as soon as you postulate a 'you' having this

> thought and

> an 'event' in a 'past', you have crossed over into duality and

> unreality. In

> reality, 'you' never saw a 'tree' and the memory is an illusion.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

Dennisji

 

I am sure Chittaranjaji is going to unravel the mystery involved. From

my understanding, experience of duality is never negated in Advaita. But

experience is not knowledge (prama) or a pramaaNa. Knowledge involves

the understanding of the duality that is experienced - it is not

negation but understanding the reality behind the duality. What is

negated is only the notional understanding of the reality of the duality

that is different from negation of the experience of duality. Knowledge

should resolve even the contradictions in experiences without negating

the experiences.

 

I know Chittaranjanji is going to discuss these elaborately from his

perspective. But it is difficult to keep quite when such beautiful

exposition is being presented, as Dennisji himself could not contain. So

here I go following the footsteps of Dennis.

 

If ‘the reality is ever is and unreality never is’ – then there is no

real problem, since, then, 'whatever is' is only a reality and no one

needs to be concerned about 'whatever is not'. No one is afraid of

vandya purtraH. The problem lies is taking what is real as unreal and

what is unreal is taken as real. The byproduct of this misunderstanding

is judgement and resulting agony - of 'what is' is not 'what one

wanted' or ' what one expected it to be'. In this confused state of

understanding lies the human life – hence the need to analyze and

discriminate what is real and what is unreal and in the pursuit of

discovering the reality of the real is the fundamental pursuit of human

life - as one mailer wanted to know the what is goal of human life?

 

Although the reality of unreality is known only when the reality of

reality (satyasya satyaM) is known, even without fully knowing the

reality of the reality, there is suspicion of reality of unreality and

quest for the true reality continues as inherent pursuit of human

intellect– with the intensity for that quest increasing with the pursuit

until one gets engulfed by the reality - when the seeker becomes the

sought. Hence Krishna does not stop with the quoted statement - naasato

....

 

I guess it is difficult to keep quiet - first it is difficult to be

silent second it is more difficult to communicate that silent

admiration. Hence this real noise.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort.

Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only

the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chitteranjanji,

Excellent opening to a difficult subject all the more so

since your line runs counter to commonplace illusionism which has practically

become the recieved doctrine. Another problem in bringing out the Realist

tendency in Advaita is the fact that the early explainers of Vedanta came

under the influence of Idealism because it was then in its heyday in the late

19th. and early 20th. century, ie.Kant, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Bradley. The

word 'sublate' is drawn from Hegel's Logic and having been first introduced

by Radhakrishnan is now customary. It might not be too portentous to suggest

that the shadow of the bank lies across such borrowing.

 

The Realist strain in Western thought has to a certain extent been occluded

by sectarian bias. Aristotle was the proto-realist and his great mediaeval

champion Aquinas would not have been studied in the centres of Protestant

learning. Bertrand Russell gave Aquinas a page in his History of Western

Philosophy which has been called a monument to one man's bias. Peter Geach

and his wife Elizabeth Anscombe wrote a classic called '3 Philosophers' on

Aristotle, Acquinas and Frege. Geach's 'Mental Acts' is an overlooked

refutation of abstraction in the formation of concepts.

 

You are setting the scene nicely,

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

Chitteranjan:

 

"Experience is never negated. If I see a tree this

morning, it is true for

all time - for all of eternity - that I saw a tree this

morning

irrespective of the fact that any subsequent experience

negates it or not."

 

Dennis:

I'm not sure that I agree with this. At the time of

seeing, there was just seeing - no you or tree. What is

happening 'now' is that there is thinking'I saw a

tree'. As long as it goes no further, there is just

thinking - no you or thought. But as soon as you

postulate a 'you' having this thought and an 'event' in

a 'past', you have crossed over into duality and

unreality. In reality, 'you' never saw a 'tree' and the

memory is an illusion.

 

Hi Dennis,

A small tiny nay microtomic point. Is

Dualisim the contrary to Non-Dualism within Vedanta?

Because concepts come in pairs of opposites it is easy

to fall into the way of supposing because there is Non-

Dualism there must be Dualism. What could this Dualism

be? It must located in the subject-object dyad. Thus

ordinary perception becomes a falsity compared to the

truth of Non-Dualism. In fact Non-Dualism is a

theory/transcendental postulate of how perception is

possible cf. Preamble to B.S.B. It does not negate or

set itself up against perception or the subject/object

dyad as such.

 

Now of course as you know there is such a thing as

Dualism in Western thought or the psycho-physical

dualism that Descartes expounded. This again is often

confused with the soul/body theory of Aristotle and

Acquinas........

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>

> If `the reality is ever is and unreality never is' – then there is no

> real problem, since, then, 'whatever is' is only a reality and no one

> needs to be concerned about 'whatever is not'. No one is afraid of

> vandya purtraH. The problem lies is taking what is real as unreal and

> what is unreal is taken as real. The byproduct of this misunderstanding

> is judgement and resulting agony - of 'what is' is not 'what one

> wanted' or ' what one expected it to be'. In this confused state of

> understanding lies the human life – hence the need to analyze and

> discriminate

 

Namaste Sadaji Chittaranjanji and all

Chittaranjanji - The start is indeed like a sprinter's, off the block

, on time and packed with momentum. Some of the ideas in your first

post are finding a mark and some are asking me to wait and be patient.

Sadaji has brought the focus on our life's problem, articulated so

beautifully in the excerpt above. I hope this relevance of the

understanding of the Real and the unreal to actually contemplating on

life's problem at a layman's level will form a significant and

explicit part of the subsequent essays and discussions. Already

beginning to enjoy this thread,

Many thousand namaskarams to all

Sridhar

[Guest guest]

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

> Chitteranjan:

>

> "Experience is never negated. If I see a tree this

> morning, it is true for

> all time - for all of eternity - that I saw a tree this

> morning

> irrespective of the fact that any subsequent experience

> negates it or not."

>

> Dennis:

> I'm not sure that I agree with this. At the time of

> seeing, there was just seeing - no you or tree. What is

> happening 'now' is that there is thinking'I saw a

> tree'. As long as it goes no further, there is just

> thinking - no you or thought. But as soon as you

> postulate a 'you' having this thought and an 'event' in

> a 'past', you have crossed over into duality and

> unreality. In reality, 'you' never saw a 'tree' and the

> memory is an illusion.

>

Namaste Dennisji and all

If I were to stretch your line of thinking a bit.... I just hope I am

not being foolish about it... there was'nt even seeing. you would

probably stop at 'there was'. Seeing/perceiving/experiencing is

attributable to the mind and sensory equipment. climbing another rung

in this ladder of thinking, , you would'nt say there was and probably

remain silent as you are now on the unmanifest, there is probably only

'being'. There is no seeing unless the subsequent steps of an ahamkara

and mind equipment at work. Again, my apologies in advance if i am

splitting hairs or stretching it too far or just being plain foolish.

Many thousand namaskarams to all

Sridhar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sadanandaji, Shri Michaelji, Shri Shridharji, Shri

Maniji,

 

 

To Shri Sadanandaji,

-------------------

 

Thank you for explaining beautifully how "knowledge should resolve

even the contradictions in experiences without negating the

experiences", and especially for the following words:

> No one is afraid of vandya purtraH

> Although the reality of unreality is known only when the reality

> of reality (satyasya satyaM) is known, even without fully knowing

> the reality of the reality, there is suspicion of reality of

> unreality and quest for the true reality continues as inherent

> pursuit of human intellect.

 

These words are so much in consonance with what I have to say in the

next few posts that it gives me consolation that I am not entirely on

the wrong track. Thank you Sir.

 

 

 

To Shri Michaelji,

-----------------

 

Thank you for your kind words.

> Another problem in bringing out the Realist tendency in

> Advaita is the fact that the early explainers of Vedanta

> came under the influence of Idealism because it was then

> in its heyday in the late 19th. and early 20th. century,

> ie.Kant, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Bradley. The word 'sublate'

> is drawn from Hegel's Logic and having been first introduced

> by Radhakrishnan is now customary.

 

I am in agreement with you when you say that the modern

interpretation of Vedanta has been unduly influenced by European

Idealism. Also, I have often wondered about the origins of the

word "sublation", and while I have been using it as an equivalent of

the word "negation", I could not avoid feeling discomfort with the

connotation that it has indicating complete effacement. I shall try

to be more careful with the word, but given that it is so ubiquitous

in English translations of Advaita works, it is going to be a

difficult task.

 

 

 

To Shri Shridharji,

------------------

> The start is indeed like a sprinter's, off the block, on time

> and packed with momentum. Some of the ideas in your first

> post are finding a mark and some are asking me to wait and

> be patient.

 

Your words give me much support.

> I hope this relevance of the understanding of the Real and

> the unreal to actually contemplating on life's problem at a

> layman's level will form a significant and explicit part of

> the subsequent essays and discussions.

 

Actually, it doesn't form a part of what I've (pre-)written, but we

could take a diversion to the topic at a suitable point.

 

 

Pranams,

Chittaranjan