Guest guest Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 advaitin, Raghavarao Kaluri <raghavakaluri> wrote: > Namaste All. > [...] > > advaitin, S Venkatraman > <svenkat52> wrote: > > Namaste Murthyji, > > > > Without the real, unreal cannot be seen. > > Without the unreal, real cannot be seen. > > > > The first leg of what you say above is quite clear; > not so the > second one. May I seek further elucidation please. > > > > pranAms, > > > > Venkat - M > > > > namaste shri venkat-ji, > > What I meant by the second sentence above is: The > Absolute, the > Real, the Consciousness is beyond the reach of the > senses. But, > It can be visualized through the upAdhI-s and through > the > upAdhI-s only. It is through the jagat that Atman can > be > perceived. If there is no upAdhi, Atman cannot be > perceived. > Atman, subtlest of the subtle, pervades through all > and is > visualized through upAdhi only. > > I hope the observation is not wrong. > > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > --------------------- > > Regarding the second sentence, here is a > reference from "Kapilopadesha" 2.3 > [publ.by Advaita-Ashrama(R.K.Math)] :- > "The Purusha is the beginningless Atman. > He is not constituted of the disposition(Gunas) > of Prakriti(Universal Nature),but is distinct > from, and superior to,Prakriti. > While He reveals everything in its distinctiveness, > He Himself is self-revealing, requiring no other > revealer. He has brought the forces of evolution > together and set them in motion." > --- > What is interesting is the statement, > "He Himself is self-revealing, requiring no other > revealer". > --- > In 1.15, Kaplia states, > "It is the view of wise men that the mind indeed > is the cause of both the bondage and liberation > of embodied beings. If the mind is attached to the > Gunas of Prakriti and their products, it leads to > bondage; but when it begins to feel delight and > attraction for the Lord (Purusha), it leads to > liberation". > > With Love, > Raghava > ---------- namaste shri Raghava-ji, I have taken liberty to change the title of the subject as the present one reflects more correctly the contents. Thanks again for your comments on these two sentences which I posted a few weeks ago. The first sentence "Without the real, unreal cannot be seen" seems to be non-contreversial. The second sentence "Without the unreal, the real cannot be seen" elicited responses from shri venkat-ji a few weeks ago and now shri Raghava-ji expressed the comment above. For this, my comments: The Real, the Consciousness, the Absolute is without form and shape and is avyakta and is always the subject. Let us imagine for a moment that there is no creation as upAdhi. There is only the Absolute. In this case, there is no perception. The Absolute cannot be perceived. Now, if there is an upAdhi, the Absolute pervades through it, and the upAdhi is available for perception, or in other words, the Absolute is available for perception in the form of upAdhi. Thus, the presence of an upAdhi is a necessary condition for the perception. This does not contradict what shri Kapila maharShi is saying in the above quote. The SELF is SELF-revealing, but what will be the form of this revelation? I am saying that It will take the shape of the upAdhi for revelation. Here, the upAdhi is not the revealer, but is simply a necessary aide for the perception. In nirvikalpa samAdhi, the Absolute is by Itself, revealing Itself, but there is no perception in that case. I will be most obliged for any further comments. Regards Gummuluru Murthy - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2004 Report Share Posted August 18, 2004 advaitin, "gmurthy_99" <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > The SELF is SELF-revealing, but what will > be the form of this revelation? I am saying that It will take > the shape of the upAdhi for revelation. Here, the upAdhi is not > the revealer, but is simply a necessary aide for the perception. > In nirvikalpa samAdhi, the Absolute is by Itself, revealing > Itself, but there is no perception in that case. > > I will be most obliged for any further comments. Namaste, A few thoughts: In Gita 11:4, Arjuna beseeches Krishna to to show him His Immutable form - manyase yadi tachchhakyaM mayaa drashhTumiti prabho . yogeshvara tato me tva.n darshayaatmaanamavyayam.h .. In 11:8, Krishna gives him the 'divine eye' to view this. In 11:15-31, Arjuna describes what he sees. and in 11:45 requests the return to a 'normal' vision. In 11:54-55, Krishna gives the secret of how to get that 'vishva-rUpa-darshana'. The question of 'upadhis' would certainly evaporate under these circumstances! Besides, this was just an 'aMsha' (fraction) of His glory. If every moment of our life we can have the 'divya-dRShTi', (divine vision), of which we can make ourselves capable of, our treachorous mind will not be a problem! [Ramana Maharshi once said: "When I have my eyes open, it is savikalpa samadhi. when I close them it is nirvikalpa!"] Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2004 Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 In advaitin, Shree SunderJi wrote: >Ramana Maharshi once said: "When I have my eyes >open, it is (a) savikalpa samadhi. >when I close them it is (b) nirvikalpa!" Namaste Shree SunderJi and thanks for the references. Thinking aloud on Gita 4:24:- (a) Brahman is all that is in all objects, works, and subjects and (b) Brahman is the one to be attained in Samadhi. (a) and (b) are co-related above. Don't know is the co-relation is correct or not. Further comments are appreciated. Thanks, Raghava ______________________ India Matrimony: Find your partner online. http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2004 Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 advaitin, Raghavarao Kaluri <raghavakaluri> wrote: > > Thinking aloud on Gita 4:24:- > (a) Brahman is all that is in all objects, works, and > subjects and (b) Brahman is the one to be attained in > Samadhi. > (a) and (b) are co-related above. Don't know is the > co-relation is correct or not. > > Further comments are appreciated. Namaste Sri Raghavarao, One way of understanding the second line is through 'anvaya' (syntax): brahma-karma-samAdhinA tena brahma eva gantavyam | "Through absorption/contemplation on the objects of actions themselves AS brahman, one reaches (realizes oneself as) brahman." Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.