Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi on the reality of the world

[Guest guest]

praNAms prabhuji-s

Hare Krishna

 

The following copy & paste excerpts from the web page had been sent to

Sri Sundar prabhuji during *world reality* discussion. I am posting it

once again to the forum for the benefit of members who want to know

Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi's stand on world's reality & three states of

our consciousness. More details of the discussions can be had at :

 

http://www.hinduism.co.za/three.htm

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

Question: How are the three states of consciousness inferior in degree of

reality to the fourth (Turiya)? What is the actual relation between these

three states and the fourth?

 

 

Maharshi: There is only one state, that of consciousness or awareness or

existence. The three states of waking, dream and deep sleep cannot be

real. They simply come and go. The real will always exist. The "I" or

existence that alone persists in all the three states is real. The other

three are not real and so it is not possible to say they have such and

such degree of reality. We may roughly put it like this, Existence or

consciousness is the only reality. Consciousness plus waking, we call

waking. Consciousness plus sleep, we call sleep. Consciousness plus dream,

we call dream. Consciousness is the screen, on which all the pictures come

and go. The screen is real, the pictures are mere shadows on it. Because

by long habit, we have been regarding these three states as real, we call

the state of mere awareness or consciousness the fourth. There is however,

no fourth state, but only one state.

 

 

There is no difference between dream and the waking state except that the

dream is short and the waking long. Both are the result of the mind.

Because the waking state is long, we imagine that it is our real state.

But, as a matter of fact, our real state is Turiya or the fourth state

which is always as it is and knows nothing of the three states of waking,

dream or deep sleep. Because we call these three Avastha (states) we call

the fourth state also Turiya Avastha. But it is not an Avastha, but the

real and natural state of the Self. When this is realised, we know it is

not a Turiya or fourth state, for a fourth state is only relative, but

Turiyatita, the transcendent state.

 

 

Question: But why should these three states come and go on the real state

or the screen of the Self?

 

 

Maharshi: Who puts this question? Does the Self say these states come and

go? It is the seer who says these come and go. The seer and the seen

together constitute the mind. See if there is such a thing as the mind.

Then, the mind merges in the Self, and there is neither the seer nor the

seen. So the real answer to your question is, 'They neither come nor go.'

The Self alone remains as it ever is. The three states owe their existence

to non-enquiry and enquiry puts an end to them. However much one may

explain, the fact will not become clear till one attains Self-realisation

and wonders how one was blind to the self-evident and only existence so

long.

 

 

For the Jnani (who is self-realised), all the three states of

consciousness are equally unreal. But the ajnani (ignorant or who is not

self-realised), is unable to comprehend this, because for him the standard

of reality is the waking state, whereas for the jnani the standard of

reality is reality itself. This reality of pure consciousness is eternal

by its nature and therefore subsists equally during what you call waking,

dreaming and deep sleep. To him who is one with that reality there is

neither the mind nor its three states and, therefore, neither introversion

nor extroversion.

 

 

His is the ever-waking state, because he is awake to the eternal Self; his

is the ever-dreaming state, because to him the world is no better than a

repeatedly presented dream phenomenon; his is the ever-sleeping state,

because he is at all times without the "body-am-I" consciousness.

 

 

Question: Is the world that is seen, felt and sensed by us in so many ways

something like a dream, an illusion?

 

 

Maharshi: There is no alternative for you but to accept the world as

unreal if you are seeking the truth and the truth alone, for the simple

reason that unless you give up the idea that the world is real your mind

will always be after it. If you take the appearance to be real you will

never know the real itself, although it is the real alone that exists.

This point is illustrated by the analogy of the snake in the rope. You may

be deceived into believing that a piece of rope is a snake. While you

imagine that the rope is a snake you cannot see the rope as a rope. The

non-existent snake becomes real to you, while the real rope seems wholly

non-existent as such.

 

 

Questioner: It is easy to accept tentatively that the world is not

ultimately real, but it is hard to have the conviction that it is really

unreal.

 

 

Maharshi: Even so is your dream world real while you are dreaming. So long

as the dream lasts everything you see and feel in it is real.

 

 

Question: Is then the world no better than a dream?

 

 

Maharshi: What is wrong with the sense of reality you have while you are

dreaming? You may be dreaming of something quite impossible, for instance,

of having a happy chat with a dead person. Just for a moment, you may

doubt in the dream, saying to yourself, 'was he not dead?', but somehow

your mind reconciles itself to the dream vision, and the person is as good

as alive for the purposes of the dream. In other words, the dream as a

dream does not permit you to doubt its reality.

 

 

It is the same in the waking state, for you are unable to doubt the

reality of the world that you see while you are awake. How can the mind

which has itself created the world accept it as unreal? That is the

significance of the comparison made between the world of the waking state

and the dream world. Both are creations of the mind and, so long as the

mind is engrossed in either, it finds itself unable to deny their reality.

It cannot deny the reality of the dream world while it is dreaming and it

cannot deny the reality of the waking world while it is awake. If, on the

contrary, you withdraw your mind completely from the world and turn it

within and abide there, that is, if you keep awake always to the Self

which is the substratum of all experiences, you will find the world of

which you are now aware is just as unreal as the world in which you lived

in your dream.

[Guest guest]

hariH OM! bhaskar-ji,

 

namaste.

 

in my view, it's a mistake to take anything out of context from a

given teacher and settle upon what's indicated therein as gospel.

one really needs to read everything possible about their teachings

before being capable of reaching an understanding of what they're

trying to convey.

 

each of the world teachers knew they had to speak differently to each

individual's (or groups of individuals) level of understanding. for

example, sri ramana has elsewhere stated that the world is NOT

unreal. he's also said that the world was real as well as unreal,

again, depending on the person's understanding.

 

buddha and jesus used the same method.

 

once it happened that buddha employed the whole of this method in the

course of a single day, well knowing that his disciple, ananda, was

overhearing his different responses to 3 different people, on whether

or not there was a substratum diety. he affirmed to one, denied to

the other, and to the third he neither affirmed nor denied. ananda

was perplexed by his different responses and asked why buddha

contradicted himself. buddha replied: [paraphrasing here] "this

miraculously worked out so that the highest teaching could be

transmitted to *you*, ananda. For it shows how one needs to be

liberated from dwelling on fixed ideas, for such are traps preventing

final enlightenment." (this also shows how most researchers (seekers)

erroneously concluded that buddha was atheist! this was so because

most people at the time were entangled in the *exclusive* [and

therefore delimiting] concept of deity, which he denounced so that

they had the opportunity of freeing their minds of such habit of

limitation. his highest teaching [as were also jesus' and ramana's]

was that the ego-Mind needs to be ideologically transcended and the

primal awareness leftover then has no place left to go but naturally

sinks into the Heart of the Self.)

 

this is NOT to say that one's ishtadevata has no place in one's

sadhana, or even in the case of a jnani, one's practical lifestyle.

rather it's saying that the mind also needs attenuation insofar as

the release of obsessing on any one area, be it bhakthiyog, karmayog

or jnanayog. these are collectively purushotamayog--or as sri ramana

calls it, mahayog--which engages a *blend* of the three as a means or

path to jivanmukthi. as ramakrishna once said, yoga is likened to a

thorn of vidya used to remove the thorn of avidya; and when the thorn

is removed, *both* [thorns] are discarded!

 

OM ramanarpanamasthu!

frank

[Guest guest]

Always a pleasure to read you Sri Frankji!

 

 

 

Will forward this to HS as well.

 

 

 

Sri Ramana used to say that just as an elephant wakes up seeing the tiger in

his dream a devotee wakes up upon seeing the Guru in the dream.

 

 

 

Such is the mystery of grace.

 

 

 

Love to all

 

Harsha

 

_____

 

frank maiello [egodust]

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 10:25 AM

advaitin

Re: Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi on the reality of the world

 

 

 

 

hariH OM! bhaskar-ji,

 

namaste.

 

in my view, it's a mistake to take anything out of context from a

given teacher and settle upon what's indicated therein as gospel.

one really needs to read everything possible about their teachings

before being capable of reaching an understanding of what they're

trying to convey.

 

each of the world teachers knew they had to speak differently to each

individual's (or groups of individuals) level of understanding. for

example, sri ramana has elsewhere stated that the world is NOT

unreal. he's also said that the world was real as well as unreal,

again, depending on the person's understanding.

 

buddha and jesus used the same method.

 

once it happened that buddha employed the whole of this method in the

course of a single day, well knowing that his disciple, ananda, was

overhearing his different responses to 3 different people, on whether

or not there was a substratum diety. he affirmed to one, denied to

the other, and to the third he neither affirmed nor denied. ananda

was perplexed by his different responses and asked why buddha

contradicted himself. buddha replied: [paraphrasing here] "this

miraculously worked out so that the highest teaching could be

transmitted to *you*, ananda. For it shows how one needs to be

liberated from dwelling on fixed ideas, for such are traps preventing

final enlightenment." (this also shows how most researchers (seekers)

erroneously concluded that buddha was atheist! this was so because

most people at the time were entangled in the *exclusive* [and

therefore delimiting] concept of deity, which he denounced so that

they had the opportunity of freeing their minds of such habit of

limitation. his highest teaching [as were also jesus' and ramana's]

was that the ego-Mind needs to be ideologically transcended and the

primal awareness leftover then has no place left to go but naturally

sinks into the Heart of the Self.)

 

this is NOT to say that one's ishtadevata has no place in one's

sadhana, or even in the case of a jnani, one's practical lifestyle.

rather it's saying that the mind also needs attenuation insofar as

the release of obsessing on any one area, be it bhakthiyog, karmayog

or jnanayog. these are collectively purushotamayog--or as sri ramana

calls it, mahayog--which engages a *blend* of the three as a means or

path to jivanmukthi. as ramakrishna once said, yoga is likened to a

thorn of vidya used to remove the thorn of avidya; and when the thorn

is removed, *both* [thorns] are discarded!

 

OM ramanarpanamasthu!

frank

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

hariH OM! bhaskar-ji,

 

Humble praNAms Sri Frank prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

First of all kindly accept my humble prostrations to you prabhuji. I had

seen your serene photograph with ascetic posture in the group moderators

photo file.

 

Kindlly pardon me if I am unduly stretching this conversation .

 

Frank prabhuji:

 

in my view, it's a mistake to take anything out of context from a

given teacher and settle upon what's indicated therein as gospel.

one really needs to read everything possible about their teachings

before being capable of reaching an understanding of what they're

trying to convey.

 

bhaskar :

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you prabhuji. Since I am not well read in Sri

Ramana maharshi's works, I might have wrongly picked his teachings.

 

Frank prabhuji:

 

each of the world teachers knew they had to speak differently to each

individual's (or groups of individuals) level of understanding. for

example, sri ramana has elsewhere stated that the world is NOT

unreal. he's also said that the world was real as well as unreal,

again, depending on the person's understanding.

 

bhaskar :

 

Kindly let me know, to what type of aspirants ramaNa preached world is not

real & both waking world & dreaming worlds are real in its own spheres &

its not an absolute reality?? And also kindly let me know, aspirants coming

under which category deserved to receive the teaching that the waking world

is the only reality & it is nothing but parabrahman itself & dream world is

mere residual memories of waking world. And if possible kindly tell me

where ramaNa says world is the hard core reality & it is as real as

parabrahman.

 

Prabhuji, I do agree with the adhikAra bhEda (different levels of mental

purification in aspirants) in spiritual aspirants. Even shankara himself

adopted different method of teaching when he is dealing with people from

different schools of thought. For exp.: in sUtra bhAshya, when he was

answering the objections by *mind all* vijnAnavAdins, he has given special

emphasization on external objects as if he is a realist. But when he was

commenting on kArika-s & mAndukya upanishad he did advocated ONE & ONLY

reality of the absolute & he hardly see any difference between waking &

dream worlds. Further, Shankara himself clearly says that even saguNa

brahman ( brahman with attributes) is for the aspirants who are not capable

of rising to the level of absolute non-dual, featureless brahman.

Shruti-s also adopted this method & says if at all you perceive world

outside of you as an objective reality that is also upAsya brahma (brahman

intended for meditation & prophitiation) with names & forms since there is

no second entity called *world* apart from IT. shankara calls this apara

brahman by various names such as kArya brahma, saprapaNcha brahma, saguNa

brahma, sOpAdhika brahma etc.

 

Frank prabhuji:

 

this is NOT to say that one's ishtadevata has no place in one's

sadhana, or even in the case of a jnani, one's practical lifestyle.

rather it's saying that the mind also needs attenuation insofar as

the release of obsessing on any one area, be it bhakthiyog, karmayog

or jnanayog. these are collectively purushotamayog--or as sri ramana

calls it, mahayog--which engages a *blend* of the three as a means or

path to jivanmukthi. as ramakrishna once said, yoga is likened to a

thorn of vidya used to remove the thorn of avidya; and when the thorn

is removed, *both* [thorns] are discarded!

 

bhaskar :

 

Thanks a lot for the kind information prabhuji. Kindly clarify why this

blending (samucchaya) of different pAths has been vigorously refuted by

shankara in bruhadAraNyaka bhAshya. As you know, karma-jnAna samucchaya

vAda is the pUrvapakshi (opponent) in shankara's bruhadAraNyaka commentary.

 

 

OM ramanarpanamasthu!

frank

 

Humble praNAms onceagain,

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

hariH OM! bhaskar-ji,

 

namaskaar.

 

much of what follows was originally to be posted in response to adi-

ji. however, due to a back problem, i'm not able to sit for too long

at the computer....but since you devoted considerable time on your

post, i've decided to expand on what i wrote in response to smt adi-

ji, post it here and hopefully address some of your important and

insightful concerns.

 

________________

 

here's a quote of sri ramana's concerning the nature of the world,

and how it's considered real or not. i've posted this many times on

the List in the past. it's taken from DAY BY DAY WITH BHAGAVAN,

second reprint 1977, p233:

 

"The Vedantins do not say the world is unreal. That is a

misunderstanding. If they did, what would be the meaning of "All

this is Brahman"? They only mean the world is unreal as world, but

it is real as Self. [...}."

 

________________

 

your question "...tell me which aspirants coming under which category

deserved to receive the teaching that the waking world is the only

reality & it is nothing but parabrahman itself & dream world is mere

residual memories of waking world."

 

the following addresses this. (tony-ji just posted it as part under

the heading: Yugapat-Srishti of Sri Ramana)

 

Q. `Consciousness is real. The world (jagat) is illusion' is the

stock phrase of Sankara, yet others say `The world is real.' Which

is true?

 

A. Both statements are true. They refer to different stages of

development, and are spoken from different points of view. The

aspirant (abhyasi) starts with the definition, what is real exists

always (never changes). Then the world is eliminated as unreal

because it is constantly changing.

 

The seeker ultimately reaches the Self, and realizes the underlying

substratum (consciousness within which the world appears). Then that

which was originally rejected as being unreal, is found to be part

of (and an appearance in) the unity (consciousness). Being absorbed

in the reality (consciousness), the world is also real. There is

only being in Self-realization, and nothing but being (awareness of

awareness).

 

___________________

 

i believe adi sankara's refutation of the blending of yogas in his

commenatry on the brihandaranyaka referred to the focused effort on

more than one specific yoga. what i'm saying is, that

*subconsciously* the major 3 yogas, collectively called

purushotamayog, are practised by all aspirants of all religions, just

as the format of sravana, manana and nididyasana is equally

*subconsciously* universal in application. the advantage of knowing

this, i believe, ameliorates the progress.

 

___________________

 

 

ok, here's the "augmented" post i mentioned above:

 

 

keeping in mind i can very well be wrong, i offer the following:

 

first of all, aside from the atmavicharamarga (Self-enquiry method),

i learned very little by way of specific psychological concepts from

any teacher *including* my beloved guru, arunachalasiva bhagavan sri

ramana maharshi. this because i became aware at 19yo, triggered by

reading a few pages from THE THREE PILLARS OF ZEN by roshi phillip

kapleau. i developed and wrote a kind of outline on the nature of

what i considered Reality, and since that point i set out to find who

or what teaching aligned with what i discovered [within myself, as

the Self]. after literally hundreds of books and sages, most of whom

i resonated with to one degree or other, [and although i knew about

ramana from a lecture by baba ram dass and even used his vichara

method in 1968] i finally came upon reading about bhagavan's life and

teachings circa 1990....and came to rest.

 

besides reading about a given sage's teachings, i'd say it's even

more important to learn what you can about their lives and how they

conducted themselves. today we have the advantage and unique

opportunity to study the life of a sage of the highest order in sri

ramana. and what the numerous biographies about him reveal is, as i

mentioned, one who is both incomparably compassionate and at the same

time endowed with remarkable vairagya (dispassion activated if/when

the "snake" over-runs the primal experience of the "rope" to such

degree that the rope is hopelessly obfuscated).

 

more: technically, no-one learns anything *from* anyone. if a

concept or perceived behavior resonates with one, it means it's

already developed within the chitta or buddhimanas, and only needed

some stirring or clarification to surface.

 

secondly, the debate on whether the world is real or not has no

bearing on the attainment of so-called atmasakshatkara (Self

realization). to me, jivanmukthi is ridiculously blown out of

proportion (that is, for sincere and open-minded aspirants of any

ilk) in its popular conception of quality/magnitude, especially

concerning the prerequisite attributes the jiva is supposed to

possess. if the jiva simply recognizes it itself is an illusion

*if/when* considered or experienced *apart* from its paramatman,

being thus the substratum brahman Itself, constitutes atmasakshat.

even if the experience itself comes and goes--which it usually does--

such a one is a jnani! sahaja samadhi is the culminating zenith in

the realm of jivanmukthi, and not its requisite.

 

now for the debate. (please note: i will straightaway ask the reader

to be forewarned. simply because if one is not [within

the "emergency of a cathartic gestalt"] capable of defaulting to the

Self (i.e. one who is, in other words, an ajnani), what follows--if

taken to heart--can be quite dangerous indeed! because it can leave

the ego-Mind without its familiar "shields" (viz. finding itself

suddenly plunged on "the windy side" of existential experience, with

no footholds to what was formerly considered one's safeground of

reality). :::: so if the reader considers themselves ajnani, by all

means--no matter how convincing--take what follows with a grain of

salt. this is not being stated for affect or histrionics, because i

know firsthand the dangers involved in pushing one's mind to the

limit and riding the edges of madness. when one uses their mind for

the purpose of experimentation, and is compelled to the point of

daring to try anything for the sake of discovery, the unforeseen has

to be accounted for. i would've been in trouble had i not been able

to fall back naturally into Selfhood. such trouble in ANY event is

temporal anyway and would only constitute a setback. nevertheless,

precaution and respect are important whenever one intends on

embarking the unknown. also bear in mind, as i mentioned, i could

very well be wrong. but i daresay the argument presented is a

compelling one!...a psycho-spiritual onslaught that i myself--playing

devil's advocate--never managed to parry!

 

the idea that brahman's outbreath (leela) is regarded as mithya and

thus to be merely transcended, is a grave mistake. for, what purpose

would [**whatever** it is that's happening] serve?? did the miracle

of prakrit in the form of an elaborate manvantara (creation) happen

as some kind of cosmological practical joke?! it would appear thus

if we settle on the popular consensus regarding the nature of the

world and its functional meaning, being so defined as mere illusion.

no! the idea that brahman--because the way It's defined--is not "an

efficient cause" of mayashakthi, is absurd. for, one must consider

where or how whatever it is that's happeneing (i.e. something

seen/defined even as pure illusion) can possibly arise.

 

the conception that brahman *in Its entirety* is devoid of even a

latent seed or potential for generating maya (note that such

potential is affirmed in rigveda) is the source of the delusion

seekers have been grappling with, which as a result dictates that the

world is something to be shunned and rejected. such rigid

conclusion, as the consequence of abstract philosophical speculations

[based on the notion that brahman's "true nature" is *exclusively*

and DEFINEABLY nirguna] are incomplete, misleading and archaic.

 

brahman is pure mystery; It defies ANY speculations as to what It is

or is not capable of! brahman's leela therefore, if one ascribes to

the common historic line of reasoning, would have no purpose for its

having come into being other than something to be rid of, like an

insideous cancer! again, this [line of reasoning] has all the

trappings of a divinely ordained practical joke!

 

vedantins all agree rig veda is a vital document; sruthi in its

highest essence, no? and if read with awareness emanating the Heart

of the Self--possessing innately thereof the holistic and ageless non-

dual KEY (vijnana; brahmavidya)--what emerges is a holographic,

univrsal matrix that reveals a fusion of [what is witnessed as]

manifest prana with its source AS A SEED (moolaprakrit) in brahman!!

if it is otherwise, we are indeed THEN dealing with abject dualism!

which would then beg the question, as a consequence of this: what is

love?! love unto a singular essence that has no projection into,

yes, the MAYA of a plurality, must be meaningless(!), for love

requires the maya of subject and object to exist!

 

in rigveda's language [which speaks of brahman as if it were

literally anthropomorphic, if not at least supporting such potential

characteristics], brahman would have never grown tired of its

Aloneness (ALL-ONE-ness), and as a result wouldn't have had the

DESIRE to project Itself (exhale its pranic SEED [mulaprakrit],

birthing thus the miracle of mayashakthi in the first namarupa of

hiranyagarba, prajapati, and finally the leela universe)! and this

process--as adi sankara has said re maya having no beginning or end--

is an eternal dynamic inhering in brahman. the conclusion has to be

that there is somehow existing in brahman the latent force of DESIRE

which itself turns out to be the Creator, Sustainer, and Destroyer of

mayashakthi in an eternal breathing process.

 

OM ramanarpanamasthu!

 

pranaam and

best regards,

frank

[Guest guest]

Another of Sri Frankji's short article can also be found on

 

 

 

http://www.yoga-tantra.com/archive/Magazine/EgoDust.html

 

 

 

Please note that www.yoga-tantra.com <http://www.yoga-tantra.com/> is the

same as www..com </> . I have

only added another name that is easier to remember to get to the site.

 

 

 

Frankji, it is time for another one of your articles as we will soon be

coming up with a new volume. By the way, your old website is gone, as you

must know. I would be happy to put all your materials or materials of your

choice on my own website. The same offer is available for prof VK and any of

the sages and scholars here. There is plenty of room.

 

 

 

Lots of love and thanks for all your wonderful company and teachings

 

Harsha

 

_____

 

frank maiello [egodust]

Friday, November 26, 2004 11:54 PM

advaitin

Re: Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi on the reality of the world

 

 

 

 

hariH OM! bhaskar-ji,

 

namaskaar.

 

much of what follows was originally to be posted in response to adi-

ji. however, due to a back problem, i'm not able to sit for too long

at the computer....but since you devoted considerable time on your

post, i've decided to expand on what i wrote in response to smt adi-

ji, post it here and hopefully address some of your important and

insightful concerns.

 

________________

 

here's a quote of sri ramana's concerning the nature of the world,

and how it's considered real or not. i've posted this many times on

the List in the past. it's taken from DAY BY DAY WITH BHAGAVAN,

second reprint 1977, p233:

 

"The Vedantins do not say the world is unreal. That is a

misunderstanding. If they did, what would be the meaning of "All

this is Brahman"? They only mean the world is unreal as world, but

it is real as Self. [...}."

 

________________

 

your question "...tell me which aspirants coming under which category

deserved to receive the teaching that the waking world is the only

reality & it is nothing but parabrahman itself & dream world is mere

residual memories of waking world."

 

the following addresses this. (tony-ji just posted it as part under

the heading: Yugapat-Srishti of Sri Ramana)

 

Q. `Consciousness is real. The world (jagat) is illusion' is the

stock phrase of Sankara, yet others say `The world is real.' Which

is true?

 

A. Both statements are true. They refer to different stages of

development, and are spoken from different points of view. The

aspirant (abhyasi) starts with the definition, what is real exists

always (never changes). Then the world is eliminated as unreal

because it is constantly changing.

 

The seeker ultimately reaches the Self, and realizes the underlying

substratum (consciousness within which the world appears). Then that

which was originally rejected as being unreal, is found to be part

of (and an appearance in) the unity (consciousness). Being absorbed

in the reality (consciousness), the world is also real. There is

only being in Self-realization, and nothing but being (awareness of

awareness).

 

___________________

 

i believe adi sankara's refutation of the blending of yogas in his

commenatry on the brihandaranyaka referred to the focused effort on

more than one specific yoga. what i'm saying is, that

*subconsciously* the major 3 yogas, collectively called

purushotamayog, are practised by all aspirants of all religions, just

as the format of sravana, manana and nididyasana is equally

*subconsciously* universal in application. the advantage of knowing

this, i believe, ameliorates the progress.

 

___________________

 

 

ok, here's the "augmented" post i mentioned above:

 

 

keeping in mind i can very well be wrong, i offer the following:

 

first of all, aside from the atmavicharamarga (Self-enquiry method),

i learned very little by way of specific psychological concepts from

any teacher *including* my beloved guru, arunachalasiva bhagavan sri

ramana maharshi. this because i became aware at 19yo, triggered by

reading a few pages from THE THREE PILLARS OF ZEN by roshi phillip

kapleau. i developed and wrote a kind of outline on the nature of

what i considered Reality, and since that point i set out to find who

or what teaching aligned with what i discovered [within myself, as

the Self]. after literally hundreds of books and sages, most of whom

i resonated with to one degree or other, [and although i knew about

ramana from a lecture by baba ram dass and even used his vichara

method in 1968] i finally came upon reading about bhagavan's life and

teachings circa 1990....and came to rest.

 

besides reading about a given sage's teachings, i'd say it's even

more important to learn what you can about their lives and how they

conducted themselves. today we have the advantage and unique

opportunity to study the life of a sage of the highest order in sri

ramana. and what the numerous biographies about him reveal is, as i

mentioned, one who is both incomparably compassionate and at the same

time endowed with remarkable vairagya (dispassion activated if/when

the "snake" over-runs the primal experience of the "rope" to such

degree that the rope is hopelessly obfuscated).

 

more: technically, no-one learns anything *from* anyone. if a

concept or perceived behavior resonates with one, it means it's

already developed within the chitta or buddhimanas, and only needed

some stirring or clarification to surface.

 

secondly, the debate on whether the world is real or not has no

bearing on the attainment of so-called atmasakshatkara (Self

realization). to me, jivanmukthi is ridiculously blown out of

proportion (that is, for sincere and open-minded aspirants of any

ilk) in its popular conception of quality/magnitude, especially

concerning the prerequisite attributes the jiva is supposed to

possess. if the jiva simply recognizes it itself is an illusion

*if/when* considered or experienced *apart* from its paramatman,

being thus the substratum brahman Itself, constitutes atmasakshat.

even if the experience itself comes and goes--which it usually does--

such a one is a jnani! sahaja samadhi is the culminating zenith in

the realm of jivanmukthi, and not its requisite.

 

now for the debate. (please note: i will straightaway ask the reader

to be forewarned. simply because if one is not [within

the "emergency of a cathartic gestalt"] capable of defaulting to the

Self (i.e. one who is, in other words, an ajnani), what follows--if

taken to heart--can be quite dangerous indeed! because it can leave

the ego-Mind without its familiar "shields" (viz. finding itself

suddenly plunged on "the windy side" of existential experience, with

no footholds to what was formerly considered one's safeground of

reality). :::: so if the reader considers themselves ajnani, by all

means--no matter how convincing--take what follows with a grain of

salt. this is not being stated for affect or histrionics, because i

know firsthand the dangers involved in pushing one's mind to the

limit and riding the edges of madness. when one uses their mind for

the purpose of experimentation, and is compelled to the point of

daring to try anything for the sake of discovery, the unforeseen has

to be accounted for. i would've been in trouble had i not been able

to fall back naturally into Selfhood. such trouble in ANY event is

temporal anyway and would only constitute a setback. nevertheless,

precaution and respect are important whenever one intends on

embarking the unknown. also bear in mind, as i mentioned, i could

very well be wrong. but i daresay the argument presented is a

compelling one!...a psycho-spiritual onslaught that i myself--playing

devil's advocate--never managed to parry!

 

the idea that brahman's outbreath (leela) is regarded as mithya and

thus to be merely transcended, is a grave mistake. for, what purpose

would [**whatever** it is that's happening] serve?? did the miracle

of prakrit in the form of an elaborate manvantara (creation) happen

as some kind of cosmological practical joke?! it would appear thus

if we settle on the popular consensus regarding the nature of the

world and its functional meaning, being so defined as mere illusion.

no! the idea that brahman--because the way It's defined--is not "an

efficient cause" of mayashakthi, is absurd. for, one must consider

where or how whatever it is that's happeneing (i.e. something

seen/defined even as pure illusion) can possibly arise.

 

the conception that brahman *in Its entirety* is devoid of even a

latent seed or potential for generating maya (note that such

potential is affirmed in rigveda) is the source of the delusion

seekers have been grappling with, which as a result dictates that the

world is something to be shunned and rejected. such rigid

conclusion, as the consequence of abstract philosophical speculations

[based on the notion that brahman's "true nature" is *exclusively*

and DEFINEABLY nirguna] are incomplete, misleading and archaic.

 

brahman is pure mystery; It defies ANY speculations as to what It is

or is not capable of! brahman's leela therefore, if one ascribes to

the common historic line of reasoning, would have no purpose for its

having come into being other than something to be rid of, like an

insideous cancer! again, this [line of reasoning] has all the

trappings of a divinely ordained practical joke!

 

vedantins all agree rig veda is a vital document; sruthi in its

highest essence, no? and if read with awareness emanating the Heart

of the Self--possessing innately thereof the holistic and ageless non-

dual KEY (vijnana; brahmavidya)--what emerges is a holographic,

univrsal matrix that reveals a fusion of [what is witnessed as]

manifest prana with its source AS A SEED (moolaprakrit) in brahman!!

if it is otherwise, we are indeed THEN dealing with abject dualism!

which would then beg the question, as a consequence of this: what is

love?! love unto a singular essence that has no projection into,

yes, the MAYA of a plurality, must be meaningless(!), for love

requires the maya of subject and object to exist!

 

in rigveda's language [which speaks of brahman as if it were

literally anthropomorphic, if not at least supporting such potential

characteristics], brahman would have never grown tired of its

Aloneness (ALL-ONE-ness), and as a result wouldn't have had the

DESIRE to project Itself (exhale its pranic SEED [mulaprakrit],

birthing thus the miracle of mayashakthi in the first namarupa of

hiranyagarba, prajapati, and finally the leela universe)! and this

process--as adi sankara has said re maya having no beginning or end--

is an eternal dynamic inhering in brahman. the conclusion has to be

that there is somehow existing in brahman the latent force of DESIRE

which itself turns out to be the Creator, Sustainer, and Destroyer of

mayashakthi in an eternal breathing process.

 

OM ramanarpanamasthu!

 

pranaam and

best regards,

frank

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at:

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<http://us.ard./SIG=129evsb74/M=298184.5639630.6699735.3001176/D=gr

oups/S=1705075991:HM/EXP=1101617647/A=2434970/R=0/SIG=11edksnhv/*http:/www.n

etflix.com/Default?mqso=60185402> click here

 

 

 

<http://us.adserver./l?M=298184.5639630.6699735.3001176/D=groups/S=

:HM/A=2434970/rand=271415872>

 

 

 

_____

 

*

advaitin/

 

*

advaitin

<advaitin?subject=Un>

 

*

<> Terms of Service.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thank you e-go dust ji for another heart-warming post!

 

the last few lines in your post relly appealed to the 'tantrika'

nature in me! smiles!!!

 

(and this process--as adi sankara has said re maya having no

beginning or end-- is an eternal dynamic inhering in brahman. the

conclusion has to be that there is somehow existing in brahman the

latent force of DESIRE which itself turns out to be the Creator,

Sustainer, and Destroyer of mayashakthi in an eternal breathing

process. )

 

Is that not the TRUTH?

 

in kubjika tantra, it is said...

 

BraHmani kurute Sristhim na tu BraHma kadachana

ataaeva maheshwari! brahma is preta na samshayah

 

Vaishnavi hurute raksham na tu vishnu kadachana

ataeava MAHESHWARI! vishnuh preta na samshayaha

 

Rudrani kurute grasam na tu rudrah kadachana

ataeva Maheshwari! rudraha preta na samshayah

 

brhmavushnumaheshadya jadasshachaiva prakrtitah

prakincha vina devi sarve karyakshama dhruvan

 

translation

 

Brahmani (devi) is the creator , not Brahma O Maheshwari! Brahma is

preta (corpse- dead body) there is no doubt about that!

 

Vaishnavi ( devi) is the mAintainer not Vishnu O Maheshwari! Vishnu

is preta (dead body- corpse) no doubt about that!

 

Rudrani is the devourer not Rudra O Maheshweri ! Rudra is preta (dead

body- corpse) no doubt about that!

 

in this verse, Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesha are described as NON-

FUNCTIONAL (jada) for surely they cannot function without Prakriti!

(prakriti is shakti)

 

and as our beloved Shankara Bhagvadapada also says

 

"The Supreme Reality is Pure Consciousness. The primal

manifestation of the creative energy of Pure Consciousness

is the I-consciousness which results in duality. Thus He exists

verily in two parts, on account of which, the two could become

husband and wife representing Pure Consciousness and its creative

energy"

 

 

love and regards

[Guest guest]

harIH OM! harsha-ji,

 

my spirit brother, thanks for offering to put my site on yours! not

sure why it was taken down.. anyway, i re-uploaded it here:

http://geocities.com/egodust

 

and yes, i'll try to come up with something soon for your e-zine.

 

as ever,

in OM shaanthi!

frank

[Guest guest]

hariH OM! bhaskar-ji,

 

Humble praNAms Sri Frank prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

namaskaar.

 

Frank prabhuji:

 

much of what follows was originally to be posted in response to adi-

ji. however, due to a back problem, i'm not able to sit for too long

at the computer....

 

bhaskar :

 

Oh!! kindly pardon me prabhuji for giving you the trouble..

 

Frank prabhuji:

 

but since you devoted considerable time on your

post, i've decided to expand on what i wrote in response to smt adi-

ji, post it here and hopefully address some of your important and

insightful concerns.

 

bhaskar :

 

Very kind of you prabhuji. This time I wont take much of your time.

 

Frank prabhuji:

________________

 

here's a quote of sri ramana's concerning the nature of the world,

and how it's considered real or not. i've posted this many times on

the List in the past. it's taken from DAY BY DAY WITH BHAGAVAN,

second reprint 1977, p233:

 

"The Vedantins do not say the world is unreal. That is a

misunderstanding. If they did, what would be the meaning of "All

this is Brahman"? They only mean the world is unreal as world, but

it is real as Self. [...}."

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, no one says world is unreal when we are verily living in it!!.

Shankara & his parama guru, the great exponent of ajAta vAda Sri

gaudapAdAchArya too accepted & advocated mAya satkArya vAda from the

empirical point of view. Otherwise, there would have been little left for

shankara to fight with SUnya & vijnAna vAdins. & I've been tirelessly

telling the same thing that advaita does not have any problem in accepting

the empirical reality of the world. For that matter, shankara himself says

that the scriptures assert that practical life is possible only wherever

there is seeming duality. We can recall bruhadAraNyaka shruti here which

clearly says where there is duality ( as it were) there one sees another

(thing), there one smells another etc. It is evident that all procedure of

practical life is possible only where there is duality, for practical life

necessarily involves duality or the distinction of the knower

(pramAtru/jnAtru) and the known (pramEya / jnEya)..

 

This practical life covers the whole of life, even liberated souls are not

exception to this. How could shankara write his commentaries to whom if

the vyavahAra is not possible for jnAni-s?? I once again reiterate that

I've absolutely no problem in accepting the world reality as such as this

*reality* is indispensable to do *vyavahAra.

But one should always keep in mind that all this practical life is sublated

when one realises his secondless nature. The same bruhadAraNyaka says this

with no ambiguous terms that in that secondless state what could one see &

with what?? what could one smell & with what?? etc. The significance of

the particle *iva* in the first quoted maNtra (dvaitaM iva bhavati)

clearly tells us after realisation, jnAni realises that there was/is/will

never ever be duality in brahman. But till then all activities of

practical life can continue to be real for all practical purposes says

shankara in sUtra bhAshya.

 

No need to mention here that this *vyavahAra* has the equal reality for

both the waker & dreamer when they are enjoying their respective world of

waking & dreaming. I think that is what Sri ramaNa also implying in that

quoted article.

________________

 

Frank prabhuji:

 

your question "...tell me which aspirants coming under which category

deserved to receive the teaching that the waking world is the only

reality & it is nothing but parabrahman itself & dream world is mere

residual memories of waking world."

 

the following addresses this. (tony-ji just posted it as part under

the heading: Yugapat-Srishti of Sri Ramana)

 

Q. `Consciousness is real. The world (jagat) is illusion' is the

stock phrase of Sankara, yet others say `The world is real.' Which

is true?

 

A. Both statements are true. They refer to different stages of

development, and are spoken from different points of view. The

aspirant (abhyasi) starts with the definition, what is real exists

always (never changes). Then the world is eliminated as unreal

because it is constantly changing.

 

The seeker ultimately reaches the Self, and realizes the underlying

substratum (consciousness within which the world appears). Then that

which was originally rejected as being unreal, is found to be part

of (and an appearance in) the unity (consciousness). Being absorbed

in the reality (consciousness), the world is also real. There is

only being in Self-realization, and nothing but being (awareness of

awareness).

 

bhaskar :

 

Fine prabhuji, as ramaNa elsewhere said, the world is *real* in its

respective spheres (reference article quoted in my earlier mail)...If the

waker thinks that dream is mere vAsana-s accrued in waking..for a dreamer

when he is dreaming, the dreaming world is as real as his waking in the

dream..is it not?? kindly once again clarify me whether ramaNa anywhere

said ONLY waking world is real & dream world is the product of waker's

memory.

___________________

 

Frank prabhuji:

 

i believe adi sankara's refutation of the blending of yogas in his

commenatry on the brihandaranyaka referred to the focused effort on

more than one specific yoga. what i'm saying is, that

*subconsciously* the major 3 yogas, collectively called

purushotamayog, are practised by all aspirants of all religions, just

as the format of sravana, manana and nididyasana is equally

*subconsciously* universal in application. the advantage of knowing

this, i believe, ameliorates the progress.

 

bhaskar :

 

Thanks for the clarification prabhuji..

 

Frank prabhuji:

___________________

the conception that brahman *in Its entirety* is devoid of even a

latent seed or potential for generating maya (note that such

potential is affirmed in rigveda) is the source of the delusion

seekers have been grappling with, which as a result dictates that the

world is something to be shunned and rejected. such rigid

conclusion, as the consequence of abstract philosophical speculations

[based on the notion that brahman's "true nature" is *exclusively*

and DEFINEABLY nirguna] are incomplete, misleading and archaic.

 

bhaskar :

 

Kindly pardon me prabhuji, I beg your goodself to differ here. As I donot

want to trouble you anymore, I shall stop here with disagreement with your

contention that nirguNatva of parabrahman is *abstract philosophical

speculation*...if that is true, I regret to mention that shankara will be

the first person to arrive that speculative conclusion!!! Kindly let me

know, is it possible for your kind self to continue this discussion

further.

 

Humble praNAms once again

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

hariH OM! bhaskar-ji,

hare krishna!

 

namaskkaar.

 

obviously many on our List are in a quandary regarding the reality of

the world (not, as you clearly articulated, in the state leading up

to moksha, but within the paramarthika itself!).

 

(as i said before i believe this has nothing to do with jivanmukthi,

per se; but with our capacity to stabilize such elusive "stateless

state" (elusive due to lifetimes of programmed vasanas). as i

mentioned before, i believe there are many in our community who are

already [*at least* entry level] jnanis, but would not themselves

admit it could possibly be so [even to themselves] since such

conception has erroneously been given such an exclusive, exotic and

lofty status,)

 

re our dilemma, allow me to draw a comparison: as with the christian

bible, orthodox followers believe virtually every word [of it] to be

the direct utterance of "God the Father." they are not open to the

fact that over the centuries passages were removed as well as

inserted by the lineage of popes. sir francis bacon in fact did the

major part of rewriting it, for esoteric purposes (since the masses

were not ready for certain concepts such as reincarnation, or that

jesus was in fact married to mary magdaline, as stated in the gospel

of thomas (which was discovered buried near the sphynx in 1959,

collection of gospels therein known as the "naj hammadi library"),

nor were they ready to hear that he made a pilgrimage through places

like tibet, nepal and india to learn from various yoga masters, as

the buddhist pali cannon reveals [concurrent with the "lost 18

years"] of a seeker/sishya they saw as exceptionally gentle and

humble and referred to him as "saint issa").

 

so i believe this could be possible with the words of shankara, who's

immediate guru was, as we know, govindapada, who's guru in turn was

gaudapada, and the transmission was in effect once removed. however,

this is only part of it, and i'd say the insignificant part.

 

to me, in regards to apprehending the nature of parabrahmam, the idea

of saying it is nirguna is itself putting a definition on it, by

denying that it could as well be *with* gunas, as well as clasically

thought of as beyond gunas. this is why in my heart i can only

settle on anirvachaniya as approaching its essential sathyam. thus,

parabrahmam is a mystery!

 

i could be wrong in all i'm saying. but i will urge all to seek

within for the answerless answer. consider, thus, if "nirguna" is

yet a vritti, a concept.

 

but this is my view.

 

here's another quote from sri ramana, from DAY BY DAY WITH BHAGAVAN,

2nd reprint 1977, p164:

 

"It is not at all correct to say that advaitins or shankara deny the

existence of the world or that they call it unreal. On the other

hand, it is more real to them than to others. Their world will always

exist, whereas to others the world will have origin, grouth and

decay, and as such cannot be real. All is Brahman, nothing exists but

Brahman, and the world as Brahman is real. [...] " the quote is a

long one and needs to be studied to achieve good clarity. the gist

of what guru ramana goes on to say in [it] is that since sankara is

referred to as a "mayavadin" doesn't mean he teaches that maya is

mithya; quite the contrary, he is a *supporter* of the phenomenon of

maya! maya, according to sankara, is equally anirvachaniya as well

as nir-adi and nir-anta (without beginning or end).

 

above all--and this is monumentally important--we can find (i

daresay, if we can be uncompromisingly honest with ourselves), many

*apparent* yet blatant contradictions in the teachings of not only

sankara, but ramana, krishna, buddha, jesus, etc. etc. .... simply

because they are not only speaking to different people on different

levels of comprehension and soul development, but more importantly

because the essence of Reality (brahman) is *inscrutable* and

*ineffable*....an eternal unsolvable Mystery, wherein the relative

mind never was, nor will it *ever* be invited! and we *as brahman

Itself* wouldn't want it any other way. why not? the solution of

the Mystery would spell the existential death of Love, Beauty, and

Truth Itself. truly (as the theosophists say) the Mind is the slayer

of the Real!

 

also consider this: bhagavan ramana was BOTH compassionate and

dispassionate. as one inmate of sri ramananasramam had whispered to

his friend, "you could fall right in front of [him] and break your

skull and he wouldn't even blink an eye." and yet on another

occasion, a mother knelt before ramana with her dying son in her arms

and ramana was not only visibly moved, but had tears in his eyes.

 

so, we can say what we want philosophically, but we have the fortune

of having literally hundreds of firsthand accounts of the living

demeanor of a paramagurudev in modern times, which speak volumes if

we would simply *read* these accounts!

 

OM ramanarpanamasthu!

OM namo bhagavate sri vasudevaya!

OM OM OM svaha!

 

pranaam,

frank

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "frank maiello" <egodust>

wrote:

>

> hariH OM! bhaskar-ji,

> hare krishna!

>

> namaskkaar.

>

> obviously many on our List are in a quandary regarding the reality

of

> the world (not, as you clearly articulated, in the state leading

up

> to moksha, but within the paramarthika itself!).

the

> fact that over the centuries passages were removed as well as

> inserted by the lineage of popes. sir francis bacon in fact did

the

> major part of rewriting it, for esoteric purposes (since the

masses

> were not ready for certain concepts such as reincarnation, or that

> jesus was in fact married to mary magdaline, as stated in the

gospel

> of thomas (which was discovered buried near the sphynx in 1959,

> collection of gospels therein known as the "naj hammadi library"),

> nor were they ready to hear that he made a pilgrimage through

places

> like tibet, nepal and india to learn from various yoga masters, as

> the buddhist pali cannon reveals [concurrent with the "lost 18

> years"] of a seeker/sishya they saw as exceptionally gentle and

> humble and referred to him as "saint issa").

>

> so i believe this could be possible with the words of shankara,

who's

> immediate guru was, as we know, govindapada, who's guru in turn

was

> gaudapada, and the transmission was in effect once removed.

however,

> this is only part of it, and i'd say the insignificant part.

>

> to me, in regards to apprehending the nature of parabrahmam, the

idea

> of saying it is nirguna is itself putting a definition on it, by

> denying that it could as well be *with* gunas, as well as

clasically

> thought of as beyond gunas. this is why in my heart i can only

> settle on anirvachaniya as approaching its essential sathyam.

thus,

> parabrahmam is a mystery!

>

> i could be wrong in all i'm saying. but i will urge all to seek

> within for the answerless answer. consider, thus, if "nirguna" is

> yet a vritti, a concept.

>

> but this is my view.

 

Namaste,Frankiji,

 

First of all, where have you been reading this nonsense about The

Magdalene?

Here is my commentary on the complete gospel of Thomas.

 

http://www.geocities.com/aoclery/Thomasgospel1.htm

 

Now from Sri Atamananda's commentary on the Mandukya Upanisad.

 

"In the

Vaithathya Prakarana we have Sri Gaudapadacharya revealing the world

as ephemeral. by equating the waking state to the dream state. The

approach is purely logical. In the third i.e. the Advaita Prakarana

we have the teacher revealing the non-dual reality again purely on

the basis of logic and then also validating it by appropriate

scriptural statements. In the last chapter called Alata-shanti

prakarana, we have not only the summarisation of the entire book but

also some unique things. In this chapter the Theory of Causality is

shattered to pieces, the illusiory world is compared to a rotating

firebrand which presents illusions of circles which are not really

there, and the Self is thus revealed as the one non-dual reality

itself, free from all cause-effect relationships.

 

One thing which has become a hallmark of this Upanishad is the

Theory of Ajatavada. Normally some scriptures give some theory of

creation, only to later prove the creation to be ephemeral, while

here Gaudapada appears to be very uncompromising. He doesnt like

going the longer way, he declares right from the beginning itself

that there is no creation whatsoever. He considers the compassionate

effort of some to temporarily accept the creation as a compromise.

He thunders the raw truth uncompromisingly. "

 

Frank,

 

What you are arguing about is stages of understanding that's all.

Some have the capacity to see the world as real, others as a

projection, others as within Brahman and lastly not ever having

happened at all. Each is right according to the capacity of the mind

at that time. One must remember we as the Jiva are the Atma are the

Brahman. Distorting this to duality is what causes the problem.....I

choose the Ajata version, which say the world never ever happened

not even as an appearance. How can it, for even an appearance is a

modification and therefore impossible..........ONS...Tony.

 

Only the term Nirguna is a Vritti.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Frank-ji,

 

advaitin, "frank maiello" <egodust> wrote:

> above all--and this is monumentally important--we can find (i

> daresay, if we can be uncompromisingly honest with ourselves),

> many *apparent* yet blatant contradictions in the teachings of

> not only sankara, but ramana, krishna, buddha, jesus, etc.

> etc. .... simply because they are not only speaking to

> different people on different levels of comprehension and

> soul development, but more importantly because the essence

> of Reality (brahman) is *inscrutable* and *ineffable*....an

> eternal unsolvable Mystery, wherein the relative mind never

> was, nor will it *ever* be invited! and we *as brahman

> Itself* wouldn't want it any other way. why not? the

> solution of the Mystery would spell the existential death

> of Love, Beauty, and Truth Itself. truly (as the theosophists

> say) the Mind is the slayer of the Real!

 

 

Yes Frankji, you said it all.... Reality is the Mystery where the

relative mind is 'never' invited! It can't go there!

 

And yes, the mind wouldn't want it any other way! It can't - because

the mind is no other thing than 'want of this way'!

 

The cure of 'want' is to drink the Wine of Love and melt in the Heart!

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

hariH OM! bhaskar-ji,

hare krishna!

 

 

praNAm Sri Frank prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Frank prabhuji:

 

namaskkaar.

 

obviously many on our List are in a quandary regarding the reality of

the world (not, as you clearly articulated, in the state leading up

to moksha, but within the paramarthika itself!).

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, I agree that the topic being discussed here is too complex. Hence, to

resolve the riddle, we have to take the help of sri bhagavadpAda himself.

His words are the ultimate authority in settling any of the issues as

regards to advaita. Sofar, I haven't found any better way than this!!

 

Frank prabhuji:

 

(as i said before i believe this has nothing to do with jivanmukthi,

per se; but with our capacity to stabilize such elusive "stateless

state" (elusive due to lifetimes of programmed vasanas). as i

mentioned before, i believe there are many in our community who are

already [*at least* entry level] jnanis, but would not themselves

admit it could possibly be so [even to themselves] since such

conception has erroneously been given such an exclusive, exotic and

lofty status,)

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes prabhuji, I agree with you, jnAni cannot tell himself or other that he

is brahman / jnAni because his realization reveals the fact that his

svarUpa is upAdhi rahita kEvala jnAna ( jnAna which is not tainted by

conditioned limited adjucts)

 

Frank prabhuji:

 

to me, in regards to apprehending the nature of parabrahmam, the idea

of saying it is nirguna is itself putting a definition on it, by

denying that it could as well be *with* gunas, as well as clasically

thought of as beyond gunas. this is why in my heart i can only

settle on anirvachaniya as approaching its essential sathyam. thus,

parabrahmam is a mystery!

 

bhaskar :

 

But as you know, shankara himself enunciated certain guidelines for his

followers as to how to reconcile the *brahman* with guNa-s & brahman which

is taught in shruti-s as mere jnEya vastu which is beyond the scope of any

attributes that can impose by our conditioned mind!! By the way prabhuji,

shankara never said in prasthAna trayi bhAshya (as far as my limited

knowledge goes!!) that brahman is *anivachanIya*, shankara labelled this

*anirvachanIyatva* only to mAya not even to avidya. According to him,

avidyA is *quite natural* to human intellect & brahman is a self-evident

(svataH siddha) one.

 

Frank prabhuji:

 

i could be wrong in all i'm saying. but i will urge all to seek

within for the answerless answer. consider, thus, if "nirguna" is

yet a vritti, a concept.

 

but this is my view.

 

bhaskar :

 

This nirguNatva is not *a* part of saguNa with other all auspicious

qualities as dualists say...the parabrahman nirguNatva as enshrined in

shruti-s is just to drive home the point that it is not a thing for

objectification.

 

Frank prabhuji:

 

here's another quote from sri ramana, from DAY BY DAY WITH BHAGAVAN,

2nd reprint 1977, p164:

 

"It is not at all correct to say that advaitins or shankara deny the

existence of the world or that they call it unreal. On the other

hand, it is more real to them than to others. Their world will always

exist, whereas to others the world will have origin, grouth and

decay, and as such cannot be real. All is Brahman, nothing exists but

Brahman, and the world as Brahman is real. [...] " the quote is a

long one and needs to be studied to achieve good clarity. the gist

of what guru ramana goes on to say in [it] is that since sankara is

referred to as a "mayavadin" doesn't mean he teaches that maya is

mithya; quite the contrary, he is a *supporter* of the phenomenon of

maya! maya, according to sankara, is equally anirvachaniya as well

as nir-adi and nir-anta (without beginning or end).

 

bhaskar :

 

One can find the concept *mAya* has been explained in shankara bhAshya in

four different ways. i.e. (a) mAya is *avidyA kalpita*, This explanation

is the first & foremost which forms the basic platform for the

establishment of non-dual brahman.

 

(b) mAya is vyaka & avyaktAtmaka: this is basically explained for those who

believe *the perception* of the world in waking is a hard core reality & in

this state mAya will be in *vyakta rUpa* & in deep sleep this vyakta rUpa

folded back to its seed form (avyakta / avyAkruta rUpa).

 

© mAya as Ishwara shakti : This is for the one who believes the creation

& distinctions between ordiner & ordained (ruler & beling ruled) etc.

 

(d) mAya is anirvachanIya : Since it cannot be categorically said as

brahman or different from brahman..

 

shankara makes it amply clear that (b), © & (d) are the subdivisions of

(a) because avidyA (ignorance) is the root cause for all these conclusions.

 

Frank prabhuji:

 

above all--and this is monumentally important--we can find (i

daresay, if we can be uncompromisingly honest with ourselves), many

*apparent* yet blatant contradictions in the teachings of not only

sankara, but ramana, krishna, buddha, jesus, etc. etc. .... simply

because they are not only speaking to different people on different

levels of comprehension and soul development, but more importantly

because the essence of Reality (brahman) is *inscrutable* and

*ineffable*....an eternal unsolvable Mystery, wherein the relative

mind never was, nor will it *ever* be invited! and we *as brahman

Itself* wouldn't want it any other way. why not? the solution of

the Mystery would spell the existential death of Love, Beauty, and

Truth Itself. truly (as the theosophists say) the Mind is the slayer

of the Real!

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, as you said, adhikAra bhEda may be one of the causes for this

diversified teaching. But for teaching the jnAna svarUpa which is not an

adventitious thing for us..shakara never tired to denote that *there is no

special effort* required to *know* ourselves since it is a self-evident

thing. what is to be negated here is anAtma vastu which is fictiously

concocted by avidyA, that is what shruti also saying by telling us nEti

nEti. What remains after *anAtma vastu nirAkaraNa* is our svarUpa that

which has been explained by sruti-s as achintyaM, agrAhyam, apramEyaM,

astUlaM, anaNu etc.

 

Frank prabhuji:

 

also consider this: bhagavan ramana was BOTH compassionate and

dispassionate. as one inmate of sri ramananasramam had whispered to

his friend, "you could fall right in front of [him] and break your

skull and he wouldn't even blink an eye." and yet on another

occasion, a mother knelt before ramana with her dying son in her arms

and ramana was not only visibly moved, but had tears in his eyes.

 

so, we can say what we want philosophically, but we have the fortune

of having literally hundreds of firsthand accounts of the living

demeanor of a paramagurudev in modern times, which speak volumes if

we would simply *read* these accounts!

 

bhaskar :

 

Thanks a lot for sharing your insightful thoughts on *jnAnanishTa*..Yes,

nobody can predict jnAnanishTa's vyavahAra.

 

OM ramanarpanamasthu!

OM namo bhagavate sri vasudevaya!

OM OM OM svaha!

 

pranaam,

frank

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar