Atmachaitanyaji - questions for you

[Guest guest]

Sri Sadananda wrote:

"Brahman is not only existence that is indivisible and undifferentiated

but also conscious entity. Hence from the above suutra that csuse

should persist in the effect, the substantive of the world is not only

existence but is also consciousness. Hence the jadam or inert that we

see cannot be real, in the absolute sense but it is only apparent."

 

Namaste Sri Sadananda,

 

 

I am entirely in agreement with you on the point of Brahman being a

conscious entity and that the apparent jadam is also Brahman. Nothing

else resolves the paradox of how the apparent jadam comes to be 'in

us'as the object that we perceive. The difficulties arising in the

present debate are partly due, I believe, to the operation of two basic

principles of rationality that are transcended by Non-dualism. I refer

to the principle of contradiction and its ally the principle of the

excluded middle. The first one refers to the idea that something cannot

both be and not be that thing at one and the same time and that a thing

is either the case or not the case. In short (a)not both P and not-P

(b) either P or not-P .

 

These are basic principles of reason and operate whether or not you know

about them, like gravity. On the one hand you have the being of the

world being that of Brahman. But Brahman is unchanging and the world is

changeful so you have the essence of the world i.e. Brahman, taking on

contrary attributes. A strategy for dealing with that impasse and

staying with the aforementioned principles is to deny the reality of the

world root and branch and devolve into pure illusionism. Another

approach is to hold to a strict division between the world and

Brahman/Ishwara.

 

My own reading of Advaita is that as Nondualism it transcends the

logical/rational principles which are of necessity polarized.

 

Ram Chandranji summarised the debate succintly

 

 

"(1) World is "Real" with the assumption that there is no world

without the Brahman.

(2) World consists of real and unreal (myth) and myth part is due to

ignorance (avidya)

(3) World is a myth and the entire world is due to ignorance (avidya)"

 

The tension is displayed in these positions between the principles (PNC

& EM) and the transcendental force majeure of Advaita.

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

Yes Micheal - and there lies the meditation to evolve out of this

apparent paradox using the negation process - neti -neti. The

contradiction that you mentioned of be and not be is where the maaya

lies. One cannot negate something real and one cannot negate that is

non-existing. As Chittaranjanji mentioned there is more agreement than

disagreement as we all recognize the oneness of the totality while

struggling through the plurality.

 

Anyway it was an interesting discussion that Chittaranjanji started.

One has to resolve these in ones realization of the truth that we all

agree is really real.

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]

--- Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote:

 

Srinivas - most of your comments will be addressed by Prof. VK - in this

introduction to adviata vedanta series.

 

My best wishes

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]

Sadaji,

Pranams, need more clarification on shastra pramanam to understand

this post,

> >

> > - 'pramANa' as such in general (in Advaitic definition "pramAkaraNaM

> > pramANam.h" guarantor of valid knowledge) is itself in the realm of

> > avidya only, as per Sri.Shankara

> > "sarvE pramANapramEyavyavahArA loukikA vaidikAscha pravrutaH sarvANi

> > cha ShAstrANi vidhipratiShEdamOkShaparANi" (in his introduction to

> > sUtra bhAShya)

> > (All conventions of the means (pramANa) and objects (praMEya) of

> > right knowledge-whether loukika or vaidika - & all the ShAstrAs

> > dealing with injuction (vidhi) & pratishEda (prohibition) or final

> > release deliverance (mOkSha) are in the realm of avidya.)

>

> No - that is not correct understanding of adviata or whatexactly

> shankara says. Pramaa karanam pramaanam is only validation of the means

> for valid knowledge, pramaa. Pramaana is anaadigata abhaadita jnaana

> janakam pramaanam - which also ultimately leads to trikaala abhaaditam

> is jnaanam which is brahman. The rest of your arguments seems to me

> coming from dvaitic misunderstanding of adviata.

>

 

Can you please explain the uniqueness of shastra pramana which leads

to "trikaala abhaaditam is jnaanam" in contrast to other pramana?

 

 

thanks & regards

Viraj

[Guest guest]

Hi Sadanada,

 

You said, in reply to Michael:

"Brahman is not only existence that is indivisible and

undifferentiated but also conscious entity. Hence from the above suutra

that cause should persist in the effect, the substantive of the world is

not only existence but that is also consciousness. Hence the jadam or

inert that we see cannot be real, in the absolute sense but it is only

apparent. If a question is raised - why I see or experience jadam if

the substantive is conscious entity, brahman - then we need to examine

more carefully and analyze, whether what we see as jadam, is it real or

unreal."

 

jaDa means 'inert', 'inanimate', 'void of life' etc. and obviously, in

everyday parlance, this means without consciousness. But why, even ignoring

the sarvaM khalvidaM brahma, should it be the case that a lump of matter

does not 'have' consciousness? Obviously there is no expression of

consciousness in a stone but then, in scientific terms, it could just be

that a stone has insufficient complexity to manifest consciousness, whereas

a plant or animal does. When gold takes the form of a bracelet or bangle, we

might just see the jewellery and fail to recognise that it is really only

gold or we might realise the truth that the bracelet/bangle is just a form

and the reality is always only gold. But suppose the gold is in the form of

a shapeless lump of matter and painted black. We might well claim that there

is no gold present at all when, in fact, it is simply that the gold, though

actually present, is unable to manifest itself in a way that is

recognisable.

 

Not a very good extension of the metaphor but I think you will get the

point.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis