The Real and the Unreal - Part V - Authenticity and the Knot of the Heart

[Guest guest]

Om Gurubhyo Namah

 

 

THE QUESTION OF AUTHENTICITY IN THE BHASHYA

 

It would seem that the topic of authenticity is out of place in a

discussion on Advaita, but the bhashya of Sri Shankaracharya lays

such great stress on authenticity that our study of the bhashya would

not be complete if we do not make an attempt to examine its meaning

in the context of Advaita. This is what Shankara says in the bhashya:

 

1. "And it cannot be that the very thing perceived is non-existent.

How can a man's words be acceptable who while himself perceiving an

external object through sense-contacts still says, 'I do not

perceive, and that object does not exist', just as much as a man

while eating and himself experiencing the satisfaction arising from

the act might say, 'Neither do I eat, nor do I get any

satisfaction?' " (BSB.II.II.v,28).

 

2. "Accordingly, those who accept truth to be just what it is

actually perceived to be, should accept a thing as it actually

reveals itself externally, and not 'as though appearing outside'."

(BSB.II.II.v,28).

 

3. "This conclusion is not honest, since the possibility or

impossibility of the existence of a thing is determined in accordance

with the applicability or non-applicability of the means of knowledge

to it, but the applicability or non-applicability of the means of

knowledge is not ascertained in accordance with the possibility or

impossibility (of the thing)." (BSB.II.II.v,28).

 

4. "As for the view of the absolute nihilist, no attempt is made for

its refutation since it is opposed to all means of valid knowledge.

For human behaviour, conforming as it does to all right means of

valid knowledge, cannot be denied as long as a different order of

reality is not realised; for unless there be an exception, the

general rule prevails." (BSB.II.II.v,31).

 

5. "That being so, it cannot be asserted by a man, who feels the

difference of the two, that the perception of the waking state is

false, merely on the ground that it is a perception like the

perception in a dream. And it is not logical for those who consider

themselves intelligent to deny their own experience."

(BSB.II.II.v,29).

 

6. "Moreover, one who cannot speak of the waking experience as

naturally baseless, just because that would contradict experience,

wants to speak of them as such on the strength of their similarity

with dream experiences. But anything that cannot be the

characteristic of something in its own right cannot certainly be so

because of a similarity with another. For fire, which is felt to be

warm, does not become cold because of some similarity with water."

(BSB.II.II.v,29).

 

 

Why is it that authenticity is so important in Advaita? Why does

Shankaracharya call us back to the world when the world is said to be

unreal? If the world is false, then surely there would be no efficacy

in returning back to the world. And it is also not reasonable to

assume that Shankara, the boldest votary of truth, is being untrue to

his own philosophy by discordantly shifting his stand against the

Buddhists merely as an expedient measure. It appears to me that there

is a logical connection between philosophy and authenticity.

 

 

 

AUTHENTICITY AND THE LAW OF IDENTITY

 

Authenticity leads us back to the truth of experience. A thing seen

in experience is what it is seen to be. The truth is not seen by

rejecting the world, because such rejection is nothing but a twisted

affirmation of the world – it affirms the world by making it the

object of negative attention. Rejection leaves the rejected to be

accounted for and that sows the seeds for 'REDUCTION'. Thus, objects

become nothingness, or impressions, or quantum phenomena. All these

are not truths but reductions of what is seen into something else.

 

Reduction is the weapon of darkness with which Maya bewitches the

mind. It is the perpetuation of the primordial confusion

between 'sameness' and 'difference'. But a thing is what it is; it is

not another. This is the central axiom of logic, and points to the

inviolable truth that a thing is itself. It is the fundamental law of

identity. The law of non-contradiction is posterior to this law, for

unless a thing is identical to itself, and unless such identity

remains persistent, the law of non-contradiction does not hold, for

without the law of identity the thing may be not-itself and hence can

legitimately be contrary to itself. The law of identity is thus the

first and most fundamental law of logic. Reduction contradicts the

law of identity and is therefore illogical and false. Reduction is

known as viparyaya, the mixing up of the meaning of one with the

meaning of another, and a corruption of the vritti whereby the object

is not true to its name. And it is this propensity for reduction that

Shankara attacks when he refutes the doctrine of the Buddhists, which

holds that objects are internal impressions. An internal impression

is not an external object. The meaning of the phrase 'internal

impression' presents a different form than the phrase 'external

object' and the two are not the same. The words 'internal'

and 'external' are the attributions of space, and a metaphysic that

holds that objects are only internal impressions contains the fallacy

of ascribing reality to space and denying it to objects in space. But

an object is just what it is seen to be. An object that we perceive

such as a pillar is a pillar in space to be sure and not any other

thing known by any other name like 'impression' or 'idea'. For the

contrary would mean that we could, with equal justification, call

a 'cow' a 'horse'. A cow is a cow, known as a cow through its cowness

than because of any other reason. It is the same theme that we find

in the dialogues of Plato – in Socrates' unrelenting convergence to

absolute forms, as illustrated beautifully in these words from the

Phaedo:

 

"It seems to me that whatever else is beautiful apart from absolute

Beauty is beautiful because it partakes of that absolute Beauty, and

for no other reason. .... Well, now, that is as far as my mind goes;

I cannot understand these other ingenious theories of causation. If

someone tells me that the reason why a given object is beautiful is

that it has a gorgeous colour or shape or any other such attribute, I

disregard all these other explanations - I find them all confusing -

and I cling simply and straightforwardly and no doubt foolishly to

the explanation that the one thing that makes that object beautiful

is the presence in it or association with it of absolute Beauty."

 

Reduction is non-abidance by the law of identity. It has its roots in

the unknowingness of the known-ness of objects. A thing seen in

experience is what it is seen to be. It is therefore already known.

It is known, for otherwise we could not question it, for we can't

question what we don't know. Yet it is not known because we have

questions about it. Thus, it is known and it is not known. We cannot

know it by rejecting it, because that would be a rejection of what is

to be known. We cannot know it by bringing alien characteristics to

it, for that would be the knowing of an-other and not knowing what

was to be known. To know it, one has to pierce the mysterious

darkness that hides what is already known.

 

The world is Maya, and Maya is Stree. She likes to be looked at. But

when we look at Her through eyes cast with sleep, She hides behind

the veil of Otherness. But when we awaken our eyes, She sublimates

into our very Self, and Her otherness dissolves into the mists of

nothingness.

 

The truth cannot be seen through the mind that warps in seeing. It is

seen through the mind that is transparent to the Witness of seeing.

Reduction is a warp of the mind. It is the non-acceptance of the

object of experience and the consequent bending of the object into an-

other because its non-acceptance leaves the fact of experience to be

still accounted for. Such reduction is a violation of the pramanas,

for according to the epistemological order of the pramanas, a fact of

pratyaksha cannot be negated on the grounds of reason.

 

 

 

THE PERVASIVENESS OF BRAHMAN

 

Abidance by the law of identity fixes the reality of the world and

directs the intellect to the expansive nature of Brahman. It fixes

the universe 'as it is' in its true nature so that in contemplating

Brahman as the material cause, the aperture of our vision may enlarge

to know the sweeping compass of Its presence. Brahman is the material

cause of this world and It pervades the universe like the yarn

pervades the cloth. It pervades the vast expanse of hills and rivers,

mountains and oceans, and everything from the familiar earth to the

farthest galaxies. Brahman is large enough to accommodate the

universe as we see it, and does not require that the universe be

compressed into a restricted conception of what the mind thinks is

possible or impossible of the world to be. The word 'Brahman comes

from the root 'brmh' which means growth, and with the suffix 'man',

it points to an absolute freedom from limitation. Brahman goes

farther than conception can go and stretches farther still beyond the

farthest horizons. It is absolutely not contained or limited by

anything else, as is beautifully articulated in these words of the

Svetasvatara Upanishad:

 

 

"The whole universe is filled by the Purusha, to whom there is

nothing superior, from whom there is nothing different, than whom

there is nothing either smaller or greater; who stands alone,

motionless as a tree, established in His own glory." (III.9)

 

"All faces are His faces; all heads, His heads; all necks His necks.

He dwells in the hearts of all beings. He is the all-pervading

Bhagavan. Therefore he is the omnipresent and benign Lord." (III.11)

 

"He, indeed, is the great Purusha, the Lord who inspires the mind to

attain the state of stainlessness. He is the Ruler and the Light that

is imperishable." (III.12)

 

"The Purusha with a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet,

compasses the earth on all sides and extends beyond it by ten

fingers' breadth." (III.14)

 

"The Purusha alone is all this – what has been and what will be. He

is also the Lord of Immortality and of whatever grows by food."

(III.15)

 

"His hands and feet are everywhere; His eyes, heads, and faces are

everywhere; His ears are everywhere; He exists compassing all."

(III.16)

 

"Grasping without hands, hasting without feet, It sees without eyes,

It hears without ears. It knows what is to be known, but no one knows

It. They call It the First, the Great, the Full." (III.19).

 

"I know this undecaying, primeval One, the Self of all things, which

exists everywhere, being all-pervading, and which the wise declare to

be free from birth. The teachers of Brahman, indeed, speak of It as

eternal." (III.21)

 

"That is Agni; It is Aditya; It is Vayu; It is Chandrama. That Self

is the luminous stars; It is Hiranyagarbha; It is water; It is

Virat." (IV.2)

 

"Thou art woman, Thou art man; Thou art youth and maiden too. Thou as

an old man totterest along on a staff; it is Thou alone who, when

born, assumest diverse forms." IV.3)

 

"Thou art the dark-blue bee; Thou art the green parrot with red eyes;

Thou art the thunder-cloud, the seasons, and the seas. Thou art

beginningless and all-pervading. From thee all the worlds are born."

(IV.4)

 

 

Authenticity leads us to the Infinity and not to the 'nothingness' of

Brahman.

 

 

 

THE KNOT OF THE HEART

 

The mind of a jiva is warped by avidya. It is the primordial warp

that has 'shrunk' the self into the confines of the body. When a jiva

tries to conceive of the Self, it is trying to conceive the Infinite

through the same warp that has compressed the Infinite into the

finite cage of the body. I believe that this knot is what Tantra

calls the coiled kundalini shakti. It is the knot of the heart that

must be released before the self is set free of the shackles of the

finite. It is a knot of contraction. It has contracted the Infinite

into the finite. Thus, when the jiva says that the world is not

separate from consciousness, it is susceptible to the fallacy of

contracting the world to fit into the contracted notion of self it

has created by the warp of its avidya. Brahman cannot be limited to

the consciousness of an individual jiva until that

consciousness 'expands' to encompass the consciousness in all jives,

in all of the universe, in the trees and birds, in the roving animals

of the wild, in the hearts of the immortals of heaven, in short to

attain identity with Brahman. How can Self-knowledge limit the

superabundance, power and grandeur of the Infinite Self? The Supreme

Knowledge is the 'expansion' of consciousness to engulf the universe

rather than its 'compression' into the nothingness of nihilum. The

Self is All-knowing. How can one realise the Self that is All-knowing

if the All has been negated?

 

_______________

 

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

It is absolutely not contained or limited by

anything else, as is beautifully articulated in these words of the

Svetasvatara Upanishad:

 

praNAm prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks a lot for your quotes from shruti-s. But please note these shruti

quotes are directed towards apara brahman. Atleast as I understand,

shankara's ultimate reality of brahman lies in nirguNa, nirvishEsha

brahman. In the same upanishad you'll find the famous verse yeko devaH

sarva bhutEshu gUdAh.....kEvalo nirguNascha. Shruti telling us here about

parabraman's omnipotence, omniscient qualities for those who believe

Ishvaratva & his creation (see the same Up. 6-7 : Him the greatest ruler

of all rulers, him the highest god of all the gods etc.) . Shankara calls

this Ishvaratva of parabrahman as apara. Please see sUtra bhAshya, while

commenting on sa yEnAn bruha gamayati ( he leads these to brahman) shankara

writes : Here the teacher bAdari thinks that it is the kArya (effect),

saguNa (with qualities), aparaM (lower) brahman (tatra kAryamEva saguNam,

aparam), for motion is applicable only to this brahman.

Further he clarifies his position by saying : where brahman is taught by

means of words like astUlam, negating specific features such as name & form

created by avidyA *that is higher brahman*. Where on the other hand, that

same brahman is taught as qualified by some specific features for the

purpose of meditation, as for instance by means of words as maNomayaH,

prANa sharIro, bArUpaH etc. that is the lower brahman.

 

So prabhuji what you have quoted is apara brahman which is ultimately

parabrahman only but cannot be considered as ultimate reality of

parabrahman since it has conditioning adjunct of name & form created by

avidyA.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

The world is Maya, and Maya is Stree. She likes to be looked at.

 

praNAms CN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Very interesting indeed!! Kindly quote single reference from sUtra bhAshya

where shankara equating mAya with stree shakthi. As said several times

earlier, mAya is conjured up by avidyA. Through vidya, when avidya is

removed then the mAya will be falsified meaning & jnAni realises that this

is only a false appearance. For this purpose only shankara has given the

definition of mAya *sA cha mAya na vidyate, mAya iti avidyamanasya AkhyA*

(kArika bhAshya)...pls. tell me prabhuji how would you translate this

shankara's bhAshya. I donot want to do this, if I do that you'll say it is

*my siddhAnta* :-)) not shankara's etc.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Bhaskarji,

 

 

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

> So prabhuji what you have quoted is apara brahman which

> is ultimately parabrahman only but cannot be considered

> as ultimate reality of parabrahman since it has conditioning

> adjunct of name & form created by avidyA.

 

Thank you for commenting on my posting Bhaskarji. Actually, I am not

speaking here about para and apara Brahman. I am trying to speak

about the approach to understanding Brahman in so far as we approach

Brahman through our conceptions -- as the Infinity that pervades all

of this world and beyond. As That which pervades this universe, it is

surely nirguna, because all gunas are what It pervades. But the

subject of this post is not about whether Brahman is Nirguna or

Saguna.

 

> Thanks a lot for your quotes from shruti-s. But please note

> these shruti quotes are directed towards apara brahman. Atleast

> as I understand, shankara's ultimate reality of brahman lies

> in nirguNa, nirvishEsha brahman.

 

Bhaskarji, from what I see, it seems that most of your objections

have their roots in the thesis that Brahman is Nirguna. If you recall

what I had written in Part IV, I intend to come to this topic towards

the end of the discussion. I am not going to ignore this central

issue of Advaita. May I beg for patience until then. If I have seemed

a little impatient with you or arrogant in my words, please accept my

apologies.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Nasmaste Shri Bhaskarji,

 

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

> > The world is Maya, and Maya is Stree. She likes to be

> > looked at.

> Very interesting indeed!! Kindly quote single reference

> from sUtra bhAshya where shankara equating mAya with stree

> shakthi.

 

I cannot quote to you a single reference from the sutra bhashya where

Shankara says that Maya is Stree Shakti. Shankara says it in his

other works.

 

> As said several times earlier, mAya is conjured up by avidyA.

> Through vidya, when avidya is removed then the mAya will be

> falsified meaning & jnAni realises that this is only a false

> appearance.

 

We will take this up when we come to the topic of Ishwara. Maya is

not to be equated with avidya as an absolute identity.

 

> For this purpose only shankara has given the definition of

> mAya *sA cha mAya na vidyate, mAya iti avidyamanasya AkhyA*

> (kArika bhAshya)...pls. tell me prabhuji how would you

> translate this shankara's bhAshya. I donot want to do this,

> if I do that you'll say it is *my siddhAnta* :-)) not

> shankara's etc.

 

Bhaskarji, I have said earlier that I don't know Sanskrit. It would

help me reply to your messages if you translate the Sanskrit verses

you quote. In any case, Maya is often spoken of as avidya just as

Brahman is often spoken of as the world as when we say 'He indeed is

all this.' But the world is not Brahman. There are various senses to

the words we use.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

A study of the following references may be useful:

 

Brihadarnyaka up. 1:4:3

 

Chandogya up. 8:2:9

 

BrahmaSutra 2:1:30-33

 

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/bs_2-1-10.html

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brdup/brhad_I-04a.html

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/chhand/ch_4a.html

 

Relating the occurrence or absence of a particular word in a

particular text can lead to starnge conclusions. For example, the

words vAsanA and Ananda do not occuer in the Gita! nor samAdhi in the

Major upanishads!

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Nasmaste Shri Bhaskarji,

>

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

>

> > > The world is Maya, and Maya is Stree. She likes to be

> > > looked at.

>

> > Very interesting indeed!! Kindly quote single reference

> > from sUtra bhAshya where shankara equating mAya with stree

> > shakthi.

>

> I cannot quote to you a single reference from the sutra bhashya where

> Shankara says that Maya is Stree Shakti. Shankara says it in his

> other works.

>

[Guest guest]

Chittaranjanji - Pranaams.

 

First I must admit that I lost (myself!) in the logic in trying to

follow the logic of your analysis. I have to admire our friend Baskarjji

who is able to filter through the arguments and come up with concrete

discussion.

 

Just curious - Am I wrong in assuming that the bulk of your arguments

about the reality of the world rest on Shankara's refutation of Buddhist

arguments in Ch II of BS. Baashya and not so much on other bhaashya-s of

Shankara related to principle Upanishads.

 

For my clarity - what do you consider 'inner and outer' - is it with

respect to the mind? And what constitutes the boundary of the mind to

define the inner and outer - when we say the world is out there, or

there is pillar out there. That is the experience in the mind. But for

knowledge I need to understand this experience. Perhaps I am trying to

see how is the space where inner and outer are to be categorized which

themselves are cognized by the mind and conclude that (with respect to

that criterion this cognized space is outer or inner) – I may not be

putting the question properly.

 

You may be discussing these when you come to ontological issues, if so

you can ignore these questions.

 

I must admit that failure to follow your logical analysis is a

reflection my own biases and limitations of my intellect. I am storing

your posts and hopefully I will be able to follow the logic after

several readings.

 

--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

> Om Gurubhyo Namah

>

>

> THE QUESTION OF AUTHENTICITY IN THE BHASHYA

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

> This is what Shankara says in the bhashya:

>

> 1. "And it cannot be that the very thing perceived is non-existent.

........

(BSB.II.II.v,28).

>

> 2. "Accordingly, those who accept truth to be just what it is

> actually perceived to be, ........ 'as though appearing outside'."

> (BSB.II.II.v,28).

> 3. ", since the possibility or

> impossibility of the existence of a thing in accordance with the

possibility or

> impossibility (of the thing)." (BSB.II.II.v,28).

> 4. ........

> For human behaviour, conforming as it does to all right means of

> valid knowledge, cannot be denied as long as a different order of

> reality is not realised; for unless there be an exception, the

> general rule prevails." (BSB.II.II.v,31).

>

> 5. "That being so, it cannot be asserted by a man, who feels the

> difference of the two, that the perception of the waking state is

> false, merely on the ground that it is a perception like the

> perception in a dream. And it is not logical for those who consider

> themselves intelligent to deny their own experience."

> (BSB.II.II.v,29).

>

> 6. "Moreover, one who cannot speak of the waking experience as

> naturally baseless,....... For fire, which is felt to be

> warm, does not become cold because of some similarity with water."

> (BSB.II.II.v,29).

 

>

> AUTHENTICITY AND THE LAW OF IDENTITY

>

........

 

I may have to study this section many times before I can understand your

arguments. I am learning that looking into dictionary for word meaning

does not help much!

 

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]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Om Gurubhyo Namah

>

>>

>

> THE KNOT OF THE HEART

>

> The mind of a jiva is warped by avidya. It is the primordial warp

> that has 'shrunk' the self into the confines of the body. When a

jiva

> tries to conceive of the Self, it is trying to conceive the

Infinite

> through the same warp that has compressed the Infinite into the

> finite cage of the body. I believe that this knot is what Tantra

> calls the coiled kundalini shakti. It is the knot of the heart

that

> must be released before the self is set free of the shackles of

the

> finite. It is a knot of contraction. It has contracted the

Infinite

> into the finite. Thus, when the jiva says that the world is not

> separate from consciousness, it is susceptible to the fallacy of

> contracting the world to fit into the contracted notion of self it

> has created by the warp of its avidya. Brahman cannot be limited

to

> the consciousness of an individual jiva until that

> consciousness 'expands' to encompass the consciousness in all

jives,

> in all of the universe, in the trees and birds, in the roving

animals

> of the wild, in the hearts of the immortals of heaven, in short to

> attain identity with Brahman. How can Self-knowledge limit the

> superabundance, power and grandeur of the Infinite Self? The

Supreme

> Knowledge is the 'expansion' of consciousness to engulf the

universe

> rather than its 'compression' into the nothingness of nihilum. The

> Self is All-knowing. How can one realise the Self that is All-

knowing

> if the All has been negated?

 

 

Namaste, Chittaranjan-ji,

 

Your posts have become a profound book to be read carefully several

times before one understands it. I prostrate before the wealth of

scholarship and careful research that goes into your posts.

 

Let me make one comment on the "knot of the heart" and the concept

of the "primordial warp" that you have mentioned above. I think this

is what Bhagwan Ramana calls "cit-jaDa-granthi" - the mysterious

knot of Consciousness with the inert non-self. He explains the "I-

feeling" as follows:

 

"The body does not claim any proprietorship for the I-feeling.

The 'Atman' does no function. so it does not claim the 'I'. In

between, the feeling of 'I' is born in the whole system consisting

of the body and the mind. It is the 'granthi' (knot) between 'cit'

and 'jaDaM'. This knot is the bondage, the individual soul, the

subtle body, egoism, samsAra and the mind". This occurs as verse 24

in his Ullathu nArpathu in Tamil.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

> advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

> <chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> This knot is the bondage, the individual soul, the

> subtle body, egoism, samsAra and the mind". This occurs as verse 24

> in his Ullathu nArpathu in Tamil.

 

Namaste,

 

Translation, by Arthur Osborne, is at:

 

http://www.realization.org/page/namedoc0/40_verses/40_verses_0.htm

 

Other related sites:

 

http://www.hermetic-philosophy.com/6.htm#Forty%20Verses:

 

http://www.nonduality.com/shankar4.htm

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sadanandaji,

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> Just curious - Am I wrong in assuming that the bulk of your

> arguments about the reality of the world rest on Shankara's

> refutation of Buddhist arguments in Ch II of BS. Baashya

> and not so much on other bhaashya-s of Shankara related to

> principle Upanishads.

 

No, I am not asserting the reality of the world based merely on

Shankara's refutation of the Buddhists though I take these

refutations as being an important contribution for understanding

Advaita. To me, the Brahma Sutra Bhashya as well as the bhashyas on

the Upanishads appear realistic. They are certainly not idealistic.

Many many years ago when I first read the BSB through an idealistic

lens (which I used to wear during those days), I was unable to fathom

why Shankara was using the language of realism when the world was

supposedly 'only mind'. But even then something seemed to say that

the BSB wasn't speaking about idealism, but was depicting the world

as seen transparently without the colourations of any 'isms'.

 

> For my clarity - what do you consider 'inner and outer' - is

> it with respect to the mind? And what constitutes the boundary

> of the mind to define the inner and outer - when we say the

> world is out there, or there is pillar out there. That is the

> experience in the mind.

 

I think the last sentence may be the key to the riddle. Experience is

not 'in' the mind. The mind appears in experience as a component of

the cognition of the world, but the world is not mind. While there

can be no experience without the mind, yet the mind is not

the 'container' of experience. What the mind conforms to is the

object. Space is an object, the subtlest of all, and the first

mahabhoota to be manifested, and the characteristic of being extended

is a feature of space. The qualifications 'external' and 'internal'

arise in relation to space (and its extension) together with our

spatial locations in this extended space. The mind conforms to these

qualifications, but that which the mind conforms to is not merely

a 'mental thing' but the object that it cognises. Frege kind of

approached this 'objectiveness' of objects by making it analogous to

mathematical objects.

 

> But for knowledge I need to understand this experience. Perhaps

> I am trying to see how is the space where inner and outer are to

> be categorized which themselves are cognized by the mind and

> conclude that (with respect to that criterion this cognized

> space is outer or inner) – I may not be putting the question

> properly.

 

I am not sure I know how to approach this subject. Firstly, I feel

that the mind cannot stand 'outside' itself and conceive how it

conceives. It is only the witness standing in independence that

witnesses the conceiving. Secondly, objects and their attributions

are not given to us by the mind. The mind itself has no capacity to

determine the nature of the objects that it conforms to. It can only

act and determine according to its own nature. 'Natures' are

objective - they are not determined by the determinations of the

mind. The word 'nature' indicates the nature of a thing - of what it

is in itself. That is why we equate the truth of a thing with 'the

thing's own nature'. That is the thing's svadharma. I think

Ranjeetji's excellent article on svadharma actually captured this

conception of the 'nature' of things. (I don't now remember the

message number, but I feel it is worth reading again in this context).

 

The terms 'external' and 'internal' are also used metaphorically to

indicate that everything is 'in' Brahman and that nothing

is 'outside' Brahman. But these terms can actually become misleading

if the things that are actually seen to be external are denied

possibility so that they may be accommodated into our conception of

a 'conceived Brahman' that is limited to our individual self. Until

the Self is realised as all-pervasive, I feel the metaphorical use

of 'internal' and 'external' carries with it the danger of leading to

a compressed notion of Reality.

 

These are just a few thoughts on the matter.....I don't know if I

have missed the point entirely.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Professor VK-ji,

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

> Your posts have become a profound book to be read carefully several

> times before one understands it. I prostrate before the wealth of

> scholarship and careful research that goes into your posts.

 

I'm afraid that most of what I write is borrowed, and that by myself

I make many mistakes. I bow down to your humility and large

heartedness and to the immense scholarship combined with devotion

that I see in your writings. Indeed, I am planning to download your

explanations on the meaning of Saundaryalahari (provided it does not

violate any copyrights. If it is available in print, I would be

grateful for information on where I can procure it).

 

> Let me make one comment on the "knot of the heart" and the

> concept of the "primordial warp" that you have mentioned above.

> I think this is what Bhagwan Ramana calls "cit-jaDa-granthi" -

> the mysterious knot of Consciousness with the inert non-self.

> He explains the "I-feeling" as follows:

 

Indeed what I wrote was taken from Shri Ramana Maharshi's sayings.

The Maharshi's writings and sayings were my first companions when I

became drawn to Advaita. And then Paramacharya Shri

Chandrashekarendra Saraswati's writings were what gave me a correct

perspective on Sanathana Dharma. I remain always indebted to these

two for whatever little I know.

 

Pranams,

Chittaranjan