Guest guest Posted March 8, 2005 Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 Namaste all! When 'I' am seeing the world around 'me', who is exactly doing the seeing? So far as my understanding of Advaita goes, I would infer the following- The body is not doing the seeing as body is just a physical instrument that is providing the visual apparatus. It lacks 'consciousness', which is an essential quality for a perceiver or seer. The mind is not doing the seeing as it too lacks 'consciousness'. It is just a repository of ideas and thoughts and memories which are nothing but edited sensory inputs. It is not intellect as intellect is just discriminatory power, slightly higher than mind but still lacking consciousness. But there is a seer! So that leaves only what Advaita calls Atman which is identical with Brahman which is inseparable from the world around. The Atman is doing the seeing, or in other words, the world around is being perceived by Atman. OK. Atman by definition is supposed to be all pervading, all knowing, eternal, limitless etc. Now my question is, if it is the Atman seeing the world, why is its vision limited by the visual fields of this body? If I am the Atman why do I see only limited objects in this world at a time? Does it mean that Atman is seeing 'through' this body, a few surrounding objects at a time ? Why not a panoramic cosmic view of everything? So, the conclusion is that something which is 'limited' is doing the seeing. Is it the embodied being i.e.'Jeeva'? Is it a fragment of Atman spoken of as 'Mamaivansho jeevaloke' in Shrimad Bhagadgeeta? Is Atman liable to fragmentation? Or is such fragmentation only apparent (because of Maya)? Does a realised soul, who is Atman itself, have a panoramic cosmic vision of the universe at all times? I request our esteemed members to enlighten me. Ravi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2005 Report Share Posted March 8, 2005 Namaste Ravi, thank you for your interesting message and questions..... i imagine that many words can be followed to this "views" and question.... excuse me if i try to answer to part of it... you wrote: "If I am the Atman why do I see > only limited objects in this world at a time? Does it mean that Atman is > seeing 'through' this body, a few surrounding objects at a time ? Why > not a panoramic cosmic view of everything?" .....depends on the definition, or how you percieve this "limited objects".....maybe the essence of this different objects is same...... ....maybe the essence of this different objects is even same that your own..... means...Atman...Self.....envelopped in "limited" consciousness... you wrote: "Or is such fragmentation only apparent (because of Maya)?" ....i believe yes without Maya....i think you have constant "panoramic cosmic view of everything".... maybe one who crossed Maya....even by open eyes....."percieve or see" this panoramic view not outside*....but mainly inside* him/herSelf * or "outside and inside" melting in One when so the "seer" of Maya wake up in truth....there is only Being remaining.....nothing else.... this Being is formless....infinite.... so far few words....don't know if this can help to "see" things more clear..... wish us to be filled up with endless Love....to "see" the truth.... love and peace Marc advaitin, Ravi Shivde <shivde@s...> wrote: > Namaste all! > > When 'I' am seeing the world around 'me', who is exactly doing the seeing? > > So far as my understanding of Advaita goes, I would infer the following- > The body is not doing the seeing as body is just a physical instrument that > is providing the visual apparatus. It lacks 'consciousness', which is an > essential quality for a perceiver or seer. The mind is not doing the seeing > as it too lacks 'consciousness'. It is just a repository of ideas and > thoughts and memories which are nothing but edited sensory inputs. It is not > intellect as intellect is just discriminatory power, slightly higher than > mind but still lacking consciousness. > But there is a seer! So that leaves only what Advaita calls Atman which is > identical with Brahman which is inseparable from the world around. The Atman > is doing the seeing, or in other words, the world around is being perceived > by Atman. OK. > Atman by definition is supposed to be all pervading, all knowing, eternal, > limitless etc. > > Now my question is, if it is the Atman seeing the world, why is its vision > limited by the visual fields of this body? If I am the Atman why do I see > only limited objects in this world at a time? Does it mean that Atman is > seeing 'through' this body, a few surrounding objects at a time ? Why > not a panoramic cosmic view of everything? > > So, the conclusion is that something which is 'limited' is doing the > seeing. Is it the embodied being i.e.'Jeeva'? Is it a fragment of Atman > spoken of as 'Mamaivansho jeevaloke' in Shrimad Bhagadgeeta? Is Atman liable > to fragmentation? Or is such fragmentation only apparent (because of Maya)? > > Does a realised soul, who is Atman itself, have a panoramic cosmic vision of > the universe at all times? > > I request our esteemed members to enlighten me. > > Ravi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 Namaste All. Shree Ravi Shivde wrote:- When 'I' am seeing the world around 'me', who is exactly doing the seeing? Raghava:- This is beautifully explained in Vedanta-Pancadasi. Please refer to the following thread also- http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m12406.html As to the next interesting question on, "if it is the Atman seeing the world, why is its vision limited by the visual fields of this body? " - I happened to come across Patanjali-yoga-sutras yesterday and this conveys that this is not so. Scope of perception is enormous to cover anything in all off space-time-mind domains, although the jnani is not interested in any of it. Love & Regards, 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 March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Namaste Raviji. I would have loved to dwell in detail on this topic. Unfortunately, I am in a rush. As Marc seems to point out, the problem is with the sense of 'limitedness'. The goal of advaita is removal of this 'limitedness'. So, when a realized advaitin 'views' a sand particle or a small insect, I should imagine he doesn't 'see' anything limited. Instead, he 'sees' fullness which he himself is. And that 'seeing' cannot be our ordinary seeing. The difference, therefore, is that ordinary seeing is plagued by 'limitedness' whereas the 'seeing of the realized', if I can call it so, is totally free from it. The latter is 'seeing' in fullness - a term which, in the mundane sense, carries within itself a contradiction like an oxymoron. In truth, the contradiction is only seeming. Thus, the answer to the question 'Who sees?' is the unrealized, deluded one who is plagued by limitedness. Call it by the name jIvA or anything else. It doesn't matter. When the limited jIvAhood drops, limited seeing also stops. The Truth pre and post remains the same. In fact, there hasn't been any pre. So, where is post? There is only Truth. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ____________________ advaitin, Ravi Shivde <shivde@s...> wrote: > Namaste all! > > When 'I' am seeing the world around 'me', who is exactly doing the seeing? ........ > So, the conclusion is that something which is 'limited' is doing the > seeing. Is it the embodied being i.e.'Jeeva'? Is it a fragment of Atman > spoken of as 'Mamaivansho jeevaloke' in Shrimad Bhagadgeeta? Is Atman liable > to fragmentation? Or is such fragmentation only apparent (because of Maya)? > > Does a realised soul, who is Atman itself, have a panoramic cosmic vision of > the universe at all times? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Namaste shivji, Madathilji and all As Madathilji says, a jnani 'sees' the fullness which he himself is. For some one who has shed identification with the 5 koshas, three worlds etc what is there left to be seen and who is left to see it? I take the liberty of presenting below a message ( which incidentally appeared just yesterday) from the Ramana Maharshi group which addresses Shivji's question beautifully and squarely. "" RamanaMaharshi/message/10784 Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya A Polish lady told Sri Bhagawan about how she had a vision of Siva. She wanted to know how to make such visions permanent and continuous. Bhagawan Sri Ramana Maharshi.: You speak of a vision of Siva. Vision is always of an object. That implies the existance of a subject. The value of the vision is the same as that of the seer. ( That is to say, the nature of the vision is on the same plane as that of the seer.) Appearance implies disappearance also. Whatever appears must also disappear. A vision can never be eternal. But Siva is eternal. The 'pratyaksha' (vision) of Siva to the eye signifies the existance of the eyes to see; the 'buddhi' (intellect) lying behind the sight; the seer behind the 'buddhi' and the sight; and finally the Consciousness underlying the seer. This 'pratyaksha' (vision) is not as real as one imagines it to be, because it is not intimate and inherant; it is not first-hand. It is the result of several successive phases of Conciousness. Of these, Conciousness alone does not vary. It is eternal. It is Siva. It is the Self. The vision implies the seer. The seer cannot deny the existance of the Self. There is no moment when the Self as Consciouness does not exist; nor can the seer remain apart from Consciousness. This Conciousness is the eternal Being and the only Being. The seer cannot see himself. Does he deny his existance because he cannot see himself with the eyes as 'pratyaksha' (in vision)? No ! So, 'pratyaksha' does not mean seeing, but BE-ing. " To BE " is to realise - Hence I AM THAT I AM. I AM is Siva. Nothing else can be without Him. Everything has its being in Siva and because of Siva. Therefore enquire " Who am I ?" Sink deep within and abide as the Self. That is Siva as BE-ing. Do not expect to have visions of Him repeated. What is the difference between the objects you see and Siva? He is both the subject and the object. You cannot be without Siva. Siva is always realised here and now. If you think you have not realised Him it is wrong. This is the obstacle for realising Siva. Give up that thought also and realisation is there."" Many namaskarams to all Sridhar advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > > Namaste Raviji. > > As Marc seems to point out, the problem is with the sense > of 'limitedness'. The goal of advaita is removal of > this 'limitedness'. So, when a realized advaitin 'views' a sand > particle or a small insect, I should imagine he doesn't 'see' > anything limited. Instead, he 'sees' fullness which he himself is. > And that 'seeing' cannot be our ordinary seeing. The difference, > therefore, is that ordinary seeing is plagued by 'limitedness' > > > Madathil Nair > ____________________ > > > advaitin, Ravi Shivde <shivde@s...> wrote: > > Namaste all! > > > > > > > > Does a realised soul, who is Atman itself, have a panoramic cosmic > vision of > > the universe at all times? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Namaste Shree Ravi Ji, I do not know how much is correct, but here is my understanding. It is the knowledge, by which, everything else is known - Sv.Upanishad. Consciousness is the witness even in deep-sleep. After waking from deep-sleep, one would say, "I was not aware of anything". This same perception also perceives in the dream state as well as in waking. The perception of the 'I' which we had 20 years ago would be the same now except that the body and mind are different and this same perception also perceives visual seeing and such also. [ C-(jivatma) = Consciousness (Jivatma)] Visual seeing--<---> Hearing--------<---> C-(jivatma) Touching-------<---> Waking --------<---> Dream-state----<---> C-(jivatma) Deep sleep-----<---> Thinking-------<---> C-(jivatma) Feeling--------<---> Perception now-----------------<---> Perception 20 yrs ago----------<---> C-(jivatma) Perception billions of yrs ago-<---> Perception for eternity -------<---> All 5 kosas/3 sariras----------<---> C-(jivatma) Further, it is said that this Jivatma is That-Brahman (That Thou Art). Thus, the Self is always known at all times and hence it is said to be self-relealing as well as not-revealing because it is hidden like one blade among a million blades. Kind Regards, 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 March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Dear members, Humble pranams. Thanks for your responses which have led to better understanding. Dilipji, it's a pity that I can understand almost nothing of quantum physics; but it seems to be going along same lines as our scriptures, using terminology of science rather than vedant. On further reflection I feel that there is no 'who'. There is only seeing. And the One who perceives all seeing in all bodies as identical with Himself is Atman. Bhagvadgita 5:8-9 corroborate this- naiva kinchit karomeeti yukto manyeta tattvavit | pashyanshruNvansprushyanjighranashnangachhanswapanshvasan || PralapanvisrujangruhNannunmishannimishannapi | indriyaNeendriyaartheShu vartanta iti dhaarayan || ' I am not doing anything, ' so thinks the Knower united with Truth; as he goes about seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, going, sleeping or even breathing. He know all these activities to be just an interaction between senses and their objects. Ravi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Ravi Shivde wrote : > On further reflection I feel that there is no 'who'. There is only seeing. > And the One who perceives all seeing in all bodies as identical with > Himself is Atman. > > Namaste, While on this topic, I would like to quote 2 related verses from Bhagwat Geetha (chapter 15) "7. An eternal portion of Myself, having become a living soul in the world of life, and abiding in PRAKRITI, draws (to itself) the (five) senses, with mind for the sixth. 9. Presiding over the ear, the eye, the touch, the taste and the smell, so also the mind, He enjoys the sense-objects. " Who is the subject in the above sentence (verse 9)? In other words, can somebody please elaborate on the significance of lighting up the material senses vs perceiving what they perceive ? regards, Shailendra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Dear Shailendra, The problem is with the words 'eternal' and 'portion'. If Consciousness gets portioned (fragmented) and the fragments are eternal how can there ever be liberation for the Jiva in the sense of Advaita? Does this verse go in favour of Dvaita? Ravi - "bhatnagar_shailendra" <bhatnagar_shailendra <advaitin> Friday, March 11, 2005 2:45 AM Re: Who is seeing the world? > > > Ravi Shivde wrote : > > On further reflection I feel that there is no 'who'. There is only > seeing. > > And the One who perceives all seeing in all bodies as identical > with > > Himself is Atman. > > > > > > Namaste, While on this topic, I would like to quote 2 related verses > from Bhagwat Geetha (chapter 15) > > "7. An eternal portion of Myself, having become a living soul in the > world of life, and abiding in PRAKRITI, draws (to itself) the (five) > senses, with mind for the sixth. > 9. Presiding over the ear, the eye, the touch, the taste and the > smell, so also the mind, He enjoys the sense-objects. " > > Who is the subject in the above sentence (verse 9)? In other words, > can somebody please elaborate on the significance of lighting up the > material senses vs perceiving what they perceive ? > > regards, > Shailendra 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 > > > Links > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Namaste I just came out of six days of darkness when there was no internet connection for me. Hereafter I hope I will be able to interact on the net. Well, here is a quick note on this thread 'Who is seeing the world?'. This is one of the fundamental questions that every advaitin should ask and seek answers. As has been already remarked on this thread by some learned member, whether it is the Self that 'sees' or it is the non-Self that 'sees', both ways our advaita is contradicted. Since I happen to have dealt with this problem of who it is that acts in Chapter 10 of my book 'Live Happily the Gita Way', I do not want to elaborate it here. The chapter is entitled 'The Second Secret of Secrets' and can be seen at http://www.geocities.com/profvk/livehappily_10.html PraNAms to all advaitins. profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2005 Report Share Posted March 11, 2005 Namaste All, Shree Shailendra Ji wrote:- >can somebody please elaborate on the significance >of lighting up the material senses vs perceiving >what they perceive ? Raghava:- Here is an attempt to clarify with my limited understanding. Srimad Bhagavad Gita 15:9 > 9. Presiding over the ear, the eye, the touch, >the taste and the smell, so also the mind, >He enjoys the sense-objects. An analogy is made with a car and its driver. A car, although has all its tyres, engine etc in great shape; unless there is a driver, it does not have any chaitanya. It is, as we know, like jivatma to a body. The driver who is driving is the same who was driving an airplane yesterday. While a car moves forward on the road, airplane moves in the air, normally. The driver may get 2 types of knowledge while driving:- 1.1) Of the trees, while driving a car 1.2) Of the mountains, while driving an airplane. In both cases, while the type knowledge is different, internally, it goes as knowledge/perception to the same person. Similarly, a person also gets many types of knowledge :- 2.1) By hearing 2.2) By seeing In both these cases also, while the type knowledge is different, internally, it all goes as knowledge/perception to the same person. This perceptive knowledge moves among sense organs under the command of prana-and-such, which in turn depend on the jivatma for being active. A deadbody, where jivatma is missing, for example, would not be able to perceive anything eventhough all sense organs are fit to receive information. All knowledge moves among sense-organs, but it is useless without the jivatma. It will then incorrectly look like jivatma is seeing or hearing etc. To know how this witnessing is done, one may imagine the deep- sleep state. The process of witnessing in the deep- sleep state is same that is witnessed in the waking state. Hence, the perception due to the sense-organs, mind, intelligence etc moves among themselves, but the real witnesser is the jivatma who really does not see or hear like in deep-sleep witness. This may also look like leading to the sunya theory of the buddhists. But, atma is sat-chit-ananda as well. Srimad Bhagavad Gita 15:7 > "7. An eternal portion of Myself, having become a >living soul in the world of life, and abiding in >PRAKRITI, draws (to itself) the (five) > senses, with mind for the sixth. In the former description[15:9], jivatma is the eternal portion of the brahman abiding in prakriti. This jivatma is That - - Tattvamasi, from the shruti, needing sravanam and mananam. Love & Regards, 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 March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Hello and greetings to all, I have been accompanying this forum for quite sometime, but quietly reading the topics which called my interest. Now I see a topic has arisen which has called my attention. I will tell the problem I am having, as it relates to my Atma-Vichara practice and this topic of "Who is seeing". Often, when I look myself in the mirror, I feel like I am not seeing myself. It is a rather panicking feeling of annihilation. I feel that "I" am non-existent or non-identifiable, although I want to identify it. I have told about it to my Sadguru, and he told me that I am afraid of death. He said I am afraid of physical death and of death of the Jiva (ego) into the Atman. Of these two, he says I must not worry about because first of all, I never left the Atman. So he says this is a symptom of irrational fear, although it has basis on recognition of Atman, but it is my interpretation of Atman which is wrong, so I panic. I am now taking a tranquilizer which calms me down and brings me back to the sense of "I AM" when I have these annihilation attacks. The funny thing is that most often they happen when I look myself in the mirror and feel that "I" am not there. I think this is wrong because "I" am there all along. Jiva is inseparable from Atman. Jiva is seeing the world and other Jiva-s as different from himself, while Atman is sustaining all the Jivas, seeing all Jivas as Himself. To cross between the Jiva viewpoint to the Atman viewpoint is Advaita (non-duality), but it is not necessary since the Atman is there all the time! The one who is seeing is, alternatively: - The mind or intellect perceiving the world as different from itself. - The limited Jiva perceiving the world as different from himself. - No one, only the seeing is happening and there is no seer. - The Atman perceiving the world as itself, as not different from Itself. This last stage, I humbly believe, is the objective of Advaita, but is it necessary? Is it necessary to remove ignorance, if in fact it does not exist? Sometimes I am drawn to Atma-Vichara and sometimes I feel like just living and coming back to birth again and again because there is no need to unite with the Atman. Or is there? Greetings to all, Frederico advaitin, Ravi Shivde <shivde@s...> wrote: > Dear members, > > Humble pranams. Thanks for your responses which have led to better > understanding. Dilipji, it's a pity that I can understand almost nothing of > quantum physics; but it seems to be going along same lines as our > scriptures, using terminology of science rather than vedant. > > On further reflection I feel that there is no 'who'. There is only seeing. > And the One who perceives all seeing in all bodies as identical with > Himself is Atman. > > Bhagvadgita 5:8-9 corroborate this- > > naiva kinchit karomeeti yukto manyeta tattvavit | > pashyanshruNvansprushyanjighranashnangachhanswapanshvasan || > > PralapanvisrujangruhNannunmishannimishannapi | > indriyaNeendriyaartheShu vartanta iti dhaarayan || > > ' I am not doing anything, ' so thinks the Knower united with Truth; as he > goes about seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, going, sleeping or > even breathing. He know all these activities to be just an interaction > between senses and their objects. > > Ravi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 hariH OM! fred-ji, to my understanding, advaita embraces dvaita, whereas dvaita does not embrace advaita. the end result of the advaita path or Self-realization is when one sees the world in the ordinary sense, as distinct from oneself [within, let's call it the "frontal awareness,"..a necessity for functioning in the relative world, as well as appreciating its wonder and beauty, PLUS the sense that one has "company" in the form of "others"...maya to be sure; but that's the inevitable and *desired* set-up emananting the I AM or brahman], while *simultaneously* one is experiencing [variously subconsciously as well as consciously, in a fluctuating rhythmic pattern based on numerous factors] the world AS oneself. this naturally blended experience happens quite automatically and effortlesly once the atmavichara reaches critical mass in the conscious ego-mind, whereupon the lower ego takes its rightful [sublimated] place in the constitution of the manifest jivatman. namaste, frank ______________________ advaitin, "Fred" <atmadarshanam> wrote: > > > Hello and greetings to all, > > I have been accompanying this forum for quite sometime, but > quietly reading the topics which called my interest. Now I see a > topic has arisen which has called my attention. I will tell the > problem I am having, as it relates to my Atma-Vichara practice and > this topic of "Who is seeing". > Often, when I look myself in the mirror, I feel like I am not > seeing myself. It is a rather panicking feeling of annihilation. I > feel that "I" am non-existent or non-identifiable, although I want > to identify it. I have told about it to my Sadguru, and he told me > that I am afraid of death. He said I am afraid of physical death and > of death of the Jiva (ego) into the Atman. Of these two, he says I > must not worry about because first of all, I never left the Atman. > So he says this is a symptom of irrational fear, although it has > basis on recognition of Atman, but it is my interpretation of Atman > which is wrong, so I panic. I am now taking a tranquilizer which > calms me down and brings me back to the sense of "I AM" when I have > these annihilation attacks. > The funny thing is that most often they happen when I look myself > in the mirror and feel that "I" am not there. > I think this is wrong because "I" am there all along. Jiva is > inseparable from Atman. Jiva is seeing the world and other Jiva-s as > different from himself, while Atman is sustaining all the Jivas, > seeing all Jivas as Himself. > To cross between the Jiva viewpoint to the Atman viewpoint is > Advaita (non-duality), but it is not necessary since the Atman is > there all the time! The one who is seeing is, alternatively: > - The mind or intellect perceiving the world as different from > itself. > - The limited Jiva perceiving the world as different from himself. > - No one, only the seeing is happening and there is no seer. > - The Atman perceiving the world as itself, as not different from > Itself. > This last stage, I humbly believe, is the objective of Advaita, > but is it necessary? Is it necessary to remove ignorance, if in fact > it does not exist? Sometimes I am drawn to Atma-Vichara and > sometimes I feel like just living and coming back to birth again and > again because there is no need to unite with the Atman. Or is there? > Greetings to all, > Frederico > > > > > advaitin, Ravi Shivde <shivde@s...> wrote: > > Dear members, > > > > Humble pranams. Thanks for your responses which have led to better > > understanding. Dilipji, it's a pity that I can understand almost > nothing of > > quantum physics; but it seems to be going along same lines as our > > scriptures, using terminology of science rather than vedant. > > > > On further reflection I feel that there is no 'who'. There is only > seeing. > > And the One who perceives all seeing in all bodies as identical > with > > Himself is Atman. > > > > Bhagvadgita 5:8-9 corroborate this- > > > > naiva kinchit karomeeti yukto manyeta tattvavit | > > pashyanshruNvansprushyanjighranashnangachhanswapanshvasan || > > > > PralapanvisrujangruhNannunmishannimishannapi | > > indriyaNeendriyaartheShu vartanta iti dhaarayan || > > > > ' I am not doing anything, ' so thinks the Knower united with > Truth; as he > > goes about seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, going, > sleeping or > > even breathing. He know all these activities to be just an > interaction > > between senses and their objects. > > > > Ravi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Dear Ravi, advaitin, Ravi Shivde <shivde@s...> wrote: > If Consciousness gets portioned (fragmented) and the fragments are > eternal how can there ever be > liberation for the Jiva in the sense of Advaita? Two statements "Consciousness gets portioned (fragmented)" and "fragments are eternal" are contradiction in terms. If fragments (of Consciousness) are eternal (no orgin and no end), then how can they supposed to be "got" fragmented from a single Consciousness to begin with ? Note the verb "got", this action is an event in time with fixed starting point. Hence, fragments can not be understood as eternal. So, either "Consciousness gets portioned (fragmented)" is false or "fragments are eternal" is false. Regards, Srinivas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 advaitin, "Fred" <atmadarshanam> wrote:......... > This last stage, I humbly believe, is the objective of Advaita, > but is it necessary? Is it necessary to remove ignorance, if in fact > it does not exist? Sometimes I am drawn to Atma-Vichara and > sometimes I feel like just living and coming back to birth again and > again because there is no need to unite with the Atman. Or is there? ............... ________________________ Namaste Fredji. It is necessary to remove ignorance if you think that it exists. If you are convinced that it doesn't, then you are already done. You are always 'united' with Brahman because you are That. What is sought to be removed is only the feeling of alienation and isolation if at all it is there. Once the alienation is gone, there is no birth or death. That is Existence (Sat). Only the limited, alienated one 'comes' and 'goes'. PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Namaste Srinivasji. It is nice that you pointed out this contradiction. By the way, would you accept it if we reword Raviji as follows: "Consciousness, misunderstood fragmentally, is eternal."? To me, that sums up the message of advaita. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ________________ advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p> wrote: >.... > Two statements "Consciousness gets portioned (fragmented)" > and "fragments are eternal" are contradiction in terms. ........> > So, either "Consciousness gets portioned (fragmented)" is false > or "fragments are eternal" is false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2005 Report Share Posted March 13, 2005 Dear Friends. I am forwarding the transcript of a recent chat session on the RM- List which I feel may be helful. RamanaMaharshi, swathi dora <doraksp> wrote: Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya. I had an opportunity to participate in todays chat for a short period. There was an interesting discussion that was going on between Mr.Miles and John. It was so interesting and I manually recored a portion of that chat. I would like to share it for the benifit of other members ( hope .... I am in order ). John.: " Silence is eternal Speech " Mr.Miles.: Is Silence eternal Speech or the Speech of the Eternal ? John.: Silence is Eternal Speech . I feel I understand it very well, deep inside, yet not logically. John.: Yes I see your question now. Mr.Miles.: Interms of 'vyakarna' and the ancient grammarians Silence is that form from which speech falls. John.: OK, I understand that speech falls away from it , in the way that waves flow or fall away from the ocean ..... Mr.Miles.: That which is the speech of the Eternal cannot fall it is 'paSyantI' ( the eternal shining one ) that is the Silent core of every speaker. John.: I only sort of get it ... Mr.Miles.: Speech comes from 'no where' forms and is then spouted forth in gross form .... that Silent space remains unchanged .... also the hearer understands speech by the light of 'paSyantI' - Speech comes from and returns to exactly the same Silent space. John.: Yes I think the understanding is dawning now. Mr.Miles.: Speech comes from no where ( or looks like it does ) it forms ( from the formless ) and then is spouted forth ...... the three fold speech is often referred to and largely ignored by commentators ... paSyanti > madhyamA > vaikhari formless > forming > formed. when the threefold speech is traced it is in effect vichara. ( John's comment after Mr.Miles left the chat room .: The one with Miles just now was a veritable jewel ..... it would be nice to have saved it ) Let me thank Mr.Miles & John for this wonderful discussion. If there are any errors pls correct me. I don't know whether I am in order in reporting this coversation because I am not fully aware of RM rules and regulations .... I only hope that I am in order. Dora India Matrimony: Find your life partneronline. --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Namaste Srinivas and All, thank you for the interesting point of view about the "fragmentation" of consciousness.... few words about consciousness....coming out of mind....: maybe there is consciousness of Oneness....Atman....unity with all the percieved "objects"..... "from where" do "we" get this consciousness...?...... This consciousness relate everything with everything.....it include All ...wherever....whenever...... This consciousness belong to us?...to all?....to a few only?.... i believe it Is our real Nature to BE......this consciousness. This consciousness let appear "different point of views"...."different objects"......."fragmentations of...whatever" This consciousness is untouched by this appearing "objects"....and so, by our own ego-mind .....without This consciousness....nothing ever can happen.....means, nothing could ever "appear"....as fragmented....or non fragmented....or however. Maybe This consciousness only let appear "things".... As long one make indentification with body mind intellect...."things happen".... when one wake up in This consciousness....one "see" the world.... ....just "seeing".......as a "whole".....as the projection of the Self.....of Atman....of This consciousness ....Being ....the ego-mind let appear a "confusing" projection....means, a projection which give "attachment" to fragmentation....and so...to birth and death....good and bad.......to something "Unreal" kind of.... so far few words.... about the words: "Two statements "Consciousness gets portioned (fragmented)" > and "fragments are eternal" are contradiction in terms. and : "Two statements "Consciousness gets portioned (fragmented)" > and "fragments are eternal" are contradiction in terms. the ones who loose ego-mind....i imagine....they make identification with All "fragments"....as a "whole".... Atman. .....the "pojected messages" of this discussion about "who is seeing the world" shows well....that we all are much interested in This consciousness.....that This consciousness let appear many good explanations and views...... i'm much thankfull for this "projections"....and i feel to share some "viewpoints"...... there is constant "sharing".....with This consciousness....without end..... i understand the wish to be able to "share" realy the "right" viewpoints...... let's continue to "project" love and peace....also by writing deep words in this group..... ....it keep the mind focused on the Real..... Love and peace Marc advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p> wrote: > > > Dear Ravi, > > advaitin, Ravi Shivde <shivde@s...> wrote: > > > If Consciousness gets portioned (fragmented) and the fragments are > > eternal how can there ever be > > liberation for the Jiva in the sense of Advaita? > > Two statements "Consciousness gets portioned (fragmented)" > and "fragments are eternal" are contradiction in terms. > > If fragments (of Consciousness) are eternal (no orgin and no end), > then how can they supposed to be "got" fragmented from a single > Consciousness to begin with ? Note the verb "got", this action is an > event in time with fixed starting point. Hence, fragments can not be > understood as eternal. > > Two statements "Consciousness gets portioned (fragmented)" > and "fragments are eternal" are contradiction in terms. > > Regards, > Srinivas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Namaste Sri.Nair-ji, advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > > Namaste Srinivasji. > > It is nice that you pointed out this contradiction. > > By the way, would you accept it if we reword Raviji as follows: > > "Consciousness, misunderstood fragmentally, is eternal."? > > To me, that sums up the message of advaita. > Consciousness misunderstood as fragmented ? I beg to differ for several reasons, both by logically and scripturally: 1. Misunderstood by whom? When there are no fragments in reality, misunderstanding, if at all, got to be by the undivided Consciousness, right? If so, when any single apparent fragment(such as any of our jnyAni-s in the past) realized the truth (that there are no fragments at all), then other apparent fragments (such as 'me') can possibly continue to 'misunderstand'? In other words, how can both 'correct understanding' and 'misunderstanding' (i.e. both vidya and avidya) coexist simultaneously in an undivided Consciousness? 2. In gIta II.12, it was said : na tvevAhaM jAtu nAsaM na tvaM neme janAdhipAH | na chaiva na bhavishhyAmaH sarve vayamataH param.h || 12 || (But certainly (it is) not (a fact) that I did not exist at any time; nor you, nor these rulers of men. And surely it is not that we all shall cease to exist after this.) (Swami Gambhirananda's translation). What is that Sri Krishna is talking about many fragments (as implied in the form of 'I('SriKrishna)', 'you (Arjuna)' and 'rulers of men')? As I see, only two options exist; either He meant "fragments" by physical BMI(s) (of Him,Arjuna & others), or jIva-s in them. First option is unacceptable, for how can anyone say physical BMIs are eternal? Then that leads to accepting second option, i.e. jIva-s or consciousness in those plural subjects are eternal. Then our initial understanding of 'Consciousness is misunderstood fragmentally' is itself possibly an misunderstanding. Else, 'Consciousness is misunderstood fragmentally' can be true only if we were to consider SriKrishna was also under the misunderstanding about fragmentations. If so, how can we trust entire gIta then? What guarantees that SriKrishna is not confused about many other things He said in gIta? That means, 'undivided Consciousness' theory holds good only if one were to reject gIta outright. But then, this thread started because of a quote from gIta itself ! With warm regards, Srinivas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 > Misunderstood by whom? When there are no fragments in reality, > misunderstanding, if at all, got to be by the undivided > Consciousness, right? If so, when any single apparent fragment(such > as any of our jnyAni-s in the past) realized the truth (that there > are no fragments at all), then other apparent fragments (such > as 'me') can possibly continue to 'misunderstand'? In other words, > how can both 'correct understanding' and 'misunderstanding' (i.e. > both vidya and avidya) coexist simultaneously in an undivided > Consciousness? Namaste Sri Srinivasji, These are few riddles in Advaita which do not seem to have answers- for the unrealised. After realisation the questions and the questioner both disappear. So, rather than keeping on asking questions, we should work for realisation. But then, asking questions itself is supposed to be kind of work for realisation (Atma-vichar), which we are already doing. So--------We are OK after all! ;-) Ravi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 advaitin, Ravi Shivde <shivde@s...> wrote: >> These are few riddles in Advaita which do not seem to have answers- for the > unrealised. After realisation the questions and the questioner both > disappear. So, rather than keeping on asking questions, we should work for > realisation. But then, asking questions itself is supposed to be kind of > work for realisation (Atma-vichar), which we are already doing. > > So--------We are OK after all! ;-) > > Ravi Well said Ravi-Ji: Precisely for this reason raamadaasa svaami tell us in his "daasabodha" tasmaata vicaara karaavaa | deva koNa to voLakhaavaa | aapalyaa aapaNa shodha ghyaavaa | antarayaami || Overall it is the responsibility of the individual to perform the journey of self enquiry to reallize the realization. Regards, Dr. Yadu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Namaste Srinivasji. I hope this explanation satisfies you. You have arrayed formidable logic in your post. I may get lost if I try to answer you from your angle. All that I know is that I am face to face with an infinite limitlessness within which things limited by space and time arise and perish. That itself is a paradox because limitlessness and limitedness cannot coexist. But, then it is the sheer innumerability of limited things that point at limitlessness. It is not vice versa. Thus, I have to infer that limitlessness is indeed the Truth and not a non-situation of innumerable perishables. This is the premise from which I like to begin my advaitic foray. Advaita attempts to look at the confusing non-situation by categorizing everything into two, (a) `I' (the one and only subject) and (b) the rest of the world (plural objects – not plural subjects as you say). It can't afford a classification into several groups or subjects like I, Lord Krishna, Arjuna, Advaitin List Members etc. Here, ``I" (a) is the Awareness that witnesses the limited `I' and the variegated world it confronts (b). Thus, (a) should exist for (b) to come into being and shine. In other words, (a) self-shines and (b) shines after, or, Awareness is – everything is lighted up. This is a lighting up where all the things lighted up are right there in the light. They are not external to the light because the light's fullness doesn't leave any scope for externality. I am that Awareness or lighting up where everything lighted up truly exist without distinctions. The seeming distinctions are an error. Keeping this in mind, let us consider a rather inadequate analogy. There is a saturated solution. It is homogeneous and uniform all through. Due to some reason, let us say a drop in temperature, precipitation occurs in this solution. Projection of the world of distinct objects on Awareness can be described to `occur' in a similar manner as a precipitation if we can consider Awareness as a `solution of Self-Awareness'. (Of course, I am sure you will know that the world doesn't require an `external' stimulus for its projection as Awareness has no outside. Neither has it any parts too as outsidelessness implies an absence of inside.) The limited `I" and all that is seen by it constitute the `precipitation'. That is the universe. The `fragmental misunderstanding' is also there in the midst of that precipitation. `Self-realization' is the resolution of this precipitation back into solution or sublation of precipitate (object) awareness into Self-Awareness. The advaita in our example thus is: *The solution is a solution* whether it is saturated or supersaturated with precipitation. Extending it to advaita, we then say : Projection or no projection, *Awareness is Awareness* or *both object awareness and self-awareness are basically Awareness*. Thus, it is not a `single apparent fragment' that is getting self- realized with a jnAni's self-realization. It is the whole scenario sublating, i.e. (b) dissolving in (a) where (b) was never ever other than (a). This is borne out by Sankara's repeated stress in Dakshinamurthy Stotra like bIjasyAnkuriva, vishwam darapaNadrishyamAnanagarI, mAyAvIva vijrumbhayati etc. These are all illustrative examples. Splitting them into pieces to raise questions does not serve to promote understanding, at least of advaita.. The general idea conveyed is of paramount importance. In the example of the solution, our vyAvahArika point of view compels us to look at the precipitate as something other than the solution. However, what is of import to an advaitin is that each and every particle of the precipitate is representative of the solution. Similarly, with the universe, each and every fragment of it is representative of Chaitanya (Awareness) or, considered from the point of view of the indivisibility of Fullness, is verily Brahman (sarvam khalvidam brahma). Thus, in this understanding there is no Srinivasji or Madathil Nair getting self-realized separately. There is no self-realization occurring as an event at all because, if it is an event, which sensible advaitin would want it. Where does that take us? Right to the inescapable conclusion that `I' (Awareness) only remain - projection or no projection. I am Fullness all the way. So, how do we understand what the GItA implies? For that we have to return to the basic statement: I am, or, Awareness is, all that I am aware of is. Thus, Awareness is, Krishna is, Krishna's statements are, Arjuna is, SrImad Bhagwad GItA is, the kings on the battlefield are, the fragmental misunderstanding is, the concept of an undivided consciousness is. I don't need any proof for `I AM' because I am self-evidence. Just like the solution remaining solution - precipitation or otherwise, I remain Awareness, fragmentation or otherwise. Thus, the fragmental misunderstanding is an object vis a vis Awareness occurring to and plaguing the limited "I" which again is yet another object in that Awareness. The misunderstanding doesn't plague Awareness. Thus, Lord Krishna, if understood as that Awareness, is not confused. Finally, the logic of the transactional cannot be applied to the Absolute as it is the Absolute that lights up logic. There is, therefore, no question of understanding Fullness. Yet, I am It. I don't need to explain what I am when I am always available to me. PraNAms and warmest regards. Madathil Nair _____________________ advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p> wrote: ....... > Consciousness misunderstood as fragmented ? > > I beg to differ for several reasons, both by logically and > scripturally: > > 1. Misunderstood by whom? When there are no fragments in reality, > misunderstanding, if at all, got to be by the undivided > Consciousness, right? If so, when any single apparent fragment (such > as any of our jnyAni-s in the past) realized the truth (that there > are no fragments at all), then other apparent fragments (such > as 'me') can possibly continue to 'misunderstand'? In other words, > how can both 'correct understanding' and 'misunderstanding' (i.e. > both vidya and avidya) coexist simultaneously in an undivided > Consciousness? > > 2. In gIta II.12, it was said : > > na tvevAhaM jAtu nAsaM na tvaM neme janAdhipAH | > na chaiva na bhavishhyAmaH sarve vayamataH param.h || 12 || > > (But certainly (it is) not (a fact) that I did not exist at any time; > nor you, nor these rulers of men. And surely it is not that we all > shall cease to exist after this.) (Swami Gambhirananda's translation). > > What is that Sri Krishna is talking about many fragments (as implied > in the form of 'I('SriKrishna)', 'you (Arjuna)' and 'rulers of men')? > As I see, only two options exist; either He meant "fragments" by > physical BMI(s) (of Him,Arjuna & others), or jIva-s in them. > > First option is unacceptable, for how can anyone say physical BMIs > are eternal? Then that leads to accepting second option, i.e. jIva- s > or consciousness in those plural subjects are eternal. Then our > initial understanding of 'Consciousness is misunderstood > fragmentally' is itself possibly an misunderstanding. > > Else, 'Consciousness is misunderstood fragmentally' can be true only > if we were to consider SriKrishna was also under the misunderstanding > about fragmentations. If so, how can we trust entire gIta then? What > guarantees that SriKrishna is not confused about many other things He > said in gIta? That means, 'undivided Consciousness' theory holds good > only if one were to reject gIta outright. But then, this thread > started because of a quote from gIta itself ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p> wrote: > > > >> Consciousness misunderstood as fragmented ? > > I beg to differ for several reasons, both by logically and > scripturally: > > 1. Misunderstood by whom? When there are no fragments in reality, > misunderstanding, if at all, got to be by the undivided > Consciousness, right? If so, when any single apparent fragment (such > as any of our jnyAni-s in the past) realized the truth (that there > are no fragments at all), then other apparent fragments (such > as 'me') can possibly continue to 'misunderstand'? In other words, > how can both 'correct understanding' and 'misunderstanding' (i.e. > both vidya and avidya) coexist simultaneously in an undivided > Consciousness? Response: Namaste Srinivas ji, This question was answered by me recently in a reply to another member. Since you have based your objection on logic, let me give an explanation based on logic: Let us suppose that a rare kriti of Saint Tyagaraja has come to light, as a result of some research effort. Now, the entire world of musicians practise that song as per the raga and tala, also originally specified by the Saint. Supposing in a hypothetical competition only five singers pass the test of delivering that song to the satisfiaction of a panel of judges. What is wrong in holding that the five alone have mastered that song and the rest have not? Some of the rest, owing to their perseverence,ingenuity, etc. might master that song over a period of time. That will only increase the number of 'masters'. We have an instance of 'masters' and 'non- masters' or amateurs coexisting. Similarly, a jiva in ajnana-avastha, when tivra mumukshaa develops in him, puts in great effort,and comes under the grace of an enlightened Guru and as a result secures atma-jnanam and becomes liberated. The others remain ignorant of the atma-svarupam and continue as ajnanis/sadhakas. We do have in the world several instances of a handful of people knowing a concept/subject thoroughly and several others not possessing that much expertise. The handful is specially sought after for guidance, consultancy etc. and are indeed distinct. In Advaita, there is the example of a pot- space being realised as non-distinct from the all-pervading space. Irrespective of the number of pots, the all-pervading space continues to be so. The presence or absence of the upadhis does not affect the One Space. When a jiva gives up its limiting, avidya- krita, upadhi, it realises its true nature of Akhandatvam. From such a jnani's point of view nothing apart from him exists. The other jivas who continue to experience bondage are seen by the Jnani as none other than His Akhanda Brahma Svarupa even though those jivas themselves are ignorant of this. The Acharya says in the Adhyasa bhashya: Tatra evam sati, tatkruta-gunena-doshena vaa aNu- mAtrNApi na sa sambadhyate: The adhisthana is not affected by the least by either the virtuous or vilifying qualities of that which is aaropita. The Akhanda Brahman is not affected the least by the presence or absence of Muktas or baddhas. The Mukta has no difficulty in empathising with them and guiding them if they seek his guidance - Upadekshyanti te jnanam JnaninaH Tattva-darshinaH. This statement of Bhagavan clearly places before us the possibility of Jnanis and ajnanis co-existing. It is like a teacher who has known the subject thoroughly teaching others who do not know it in that thoroughness. It is only the point of view that makes the difference. For the one who has solved a puzzle, it no longer exists. For the ones still solving it, it is very much there to be solved. It is wrong to conclude that one person passing a test means all others have automatically passed it. It is perhaps this understading of yours with respect of the Advaitic concept of Jnana- prapti and Mukti that has given rise to the question. Surely, the Great Advaita Acharyas and the Great Jivanmuktas of the past and present do not lack the intelligence to think of such questions. In fact it is trivial to them. That is why such questions are not even discussed in Advaitic learning circles. Every sadhaka knows at the start itself that it is for him to work out his salvation. The Vivekachudamani teaches: One has to take the medicine if one has to cure oneself; others taking it will not cure him. I think it is enough to say this much. The position of Advaita regarding the Brahma-Akhandataa and the perfect possibility of co-existence of Jnanis and ajnanis must be clear from the above explanation. Warm regards, subbu Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. 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.