Guest guest Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 Namaste, For one who had no knowledge of Gold, when he sees for the first time a chain, Gold is not “Vyaktam” to him. Once he is told/taught that it is gold only when taken a form that appears as the chain, Gold is no more “Avyaktam” to him. He discerns gold “in” the chain, and though he sees the chain, he knows he is actually seeing gold. The chain has all the “qualities” of gold, yellow color, shining, etc., except that it(?) has a form. Similarly, Brahman (only a name given to the ultimate substratum or “adharam” for all seen and unseen, just like the gold for all types of ornaments) is very much “Vyaktam” to one who is exposed to the Teaching of the Sacred Upanisahds. For such one, what “he” sees is Brahman and “he” himself is Brahman, and the seeing itself is by Brahman. Just like one discerns gold “in” a chain, the Knower of Brahman discerns Brahman “in” whatever he sees, touches, smells, tastes, etc. This “in” is just for understanding as there is no “in” and “out” for a gold chain, with respect to gold, its substratum. It is in reality gold only, though it appears as a chain for the time being. One marvels at the designs/shapes of the various gold ornaments and at the same time his value is actually for the gold. Jus like his attitude towards gold ornaments, the attitude of a Knower of Brahman (Brahma Gnani) is similar i.e. he marvels at the beauty of the entire creation, which is nothing but appearance floating on Brahman, like bubbles/waves floating on water, but at the same time he knows It is all Brahman alone, i.e. Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma. There is no more “neti neti” for him as he rests in peace with “iti iti”. For such Gnani everything is worshipable. Warm regards to all Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2005 Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 Namaste R.S. Mani, thank you for the beautiful "worship" of your words and message.... by Brahman one "know" Brahman...... where is Brahman...? in (deepest) everyone... Regards Marc advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote: > > Namaste, > > For one who had no knowledge of Gold, when he sees for the first time a chain, Gold is not "Vyaktam" to him. Once he is told/taught that it is gold only when taken a form that appears as the chain, Gold is no more "Avyaktam" to him. He discerns gold "in" the chain, and though he sees the chain, he knows he is actually seeing gold. The chain has all the "qualities" of gold, yellow color, shining, etc., except that it(?) has a form. Similarly, Brahman (only a name given to the ultimate substratum or "adharam" for all seen and unseen, just like the gold for all types of ornaments) is very much "Vyaktam" to one who is exposed to the Teaching of the Sacred Upanisahds. For such one, what "he" sees is Brahman and "he" himself is Brahman, and the seeing itself is by Brahman. Just like one discerns gold "in" a chain, the Knower of Brahman discerns Brahman "in" whatever he sees, touches, smells, tastes, etc. This "in" is just for understanding as there is no "in" and "out" for a gold chain, > with respect to gold, its substratum. It is in reality gold only, though it appears as a chain for the time being. > > One marvels at the designs/shapes of the various gold ornaments and at the same time his value is actually for the gold. Jus like his attitude towards gold ornaments, the attitude of a Knower of Brahman (Brahma Gnani) is similar i.e. he marvels at the beauty of the entire creation, which is nothing but appearance floating on Brahman, like bubbles/waves floating on water, but at the same time he knows It is all Brahman alone, i.e. Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma. There is no more "neti neti" for him as he rests in peace with "iti iti". For such Gnani everything is worshipable. > > Warm regards to all > > > > > Mail > Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote: > > Namaste, > namaste shri Mani-ji, This has reference to your post advaitin/message/26643 While I see the point that is made, I must differ from you in the conclusion. The following is my understanding. Brahman (Atman) is avyakta, i.e. is unmanifested. It is unseen and is beyond the senses and is ungraspable by the senses, mind and the intellect. Re the example of gold that you gave: while it is a good one, it is an analogy only. The vital point in these analogies is *as if* (or in sanskrit *iva*). The analogy helps to show that brahman is the essence or the adhiShTAnam just like gold is the essence of the necklace. But the analogy has a limitation. Gold is graspable by the senses. It need not be in the form of necklace for it to be grasped by the mind. The jagat is graspable by the senses , but not the brahman, the jagat's essence. So, brahman is vyaktam as the jagat, but brahman by Itself is avyaktam. Gold is vyaktam as gold or as necklace. I like to conclude this by adding that it is the upAdhi which makes the brahman vyaktam. Without the upAdhi, brahman is avyaktam. I posted sometime in July-August 2004 a small note titled 'perception of the Absolute' and there was some brief discussion on that. I couldn't find that posting either in the escribe or the archives. I tried to show there that it is the upAdhi which allows us to perceive the Absolute. I would be grateful for any corrections you may have. regards gummuluru murthy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 advaitin, "gmurthy_99" <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote: > > > > Namaste, > > > > namaste shri Mani-ji, > > This has reference to your post > > advaitin/message/26643 > I like to conclude this by adding that it is the upAdhi which > makes the brahman vyaktam. Without the upAdhi, brahman is > avyaktam. I posted sometime in July-August 2004 a small note > titled 'perception of the Absolute' and there was some brief > discussion on that. I couldn't find that posting ............. Namaste, The posting is at: advaitin/messages/24277 Message 24277 "gmurthy_99" <gmurthy Tue Aug 17, 2004 9:24 pm Perception of the Absolute Regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2005 Report Share Posted May 15, 2005 > I like to conclude this by adding that it is the upAdhi which > makes the brahman vyaktam. Without the upAdhi, brahman is > avyaktam. I posted sometime in July-August 2004 a small note > titled 'perception of the Absolute' and there was some brief > discussion on that. I couldn't find that posting either in > the escribe or the archives. I tried to show there that > it is the upAdhi which allows us to perceive the Absolute. Respected gummuluruji, Namaste all! This idea is further explained with a beautiful analogy by Shri Sureshwaracharya; quoted by Shri Atmananda adrishyo drishyate rAhu grihitena indunA yathA tathA anubhavamAtra AtmA drishena AtmA vilokyate Rahu is ordinarily invisible.It is made perceptible by the moon which is afflicted by it during lunar eclipse. Similarly, Atman whose nature is Pure Experience, becomes perceptible due to visible objects of the world. (All objects point to the Atman.) Humble praNAms to Sureshwaracharya and Atmananda Ravi Shivde Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2005 Report Share Posted May 15, 2005 advaitin, "gmurthy_99" <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > I like to conclude this by adding that it is the upAdhi which > makes the brahman vyaktam. Without the upAdhi, brahman is > avyaktam. Namaste. In addition to the analogies that you have mentioned, one can add the following: Light per se is avyaktam. But when it falls on a physical object (the upAdhi) it is vyaktam. Without the physical object, Light is avyaktam. PraNAms to all advaitins. profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2005 Report Share Posted May 15, 2005 Namaste Raviji. Our Sankara is immediately available with Rahu. But, he is going in the reverse direction to emphasize the same truth. The verse "rAhugrasta divAkarendu sardrusho....." in DakshiNAmUrti Ashtakam. I think the apparently "avyakta" implication of Maniji's post in the very "vyakta" mundane analogy he used is to be appreciated. In other words, I don't see any essential difference in the points of view expressed by Murthyji and Maniji. The ungraspable is everywhere around us. Then, to say that IT is ungraspable is a contradiction. That is the paradox of vedanta. We don't see THAT. THAT is me. I don't have to 'see' me. I AM, everything else is. Only that Truth is to be 'seen' - nay appreciated, practised and assimilated into our being so that we go total and universal without externalities. The bothersome 'seeing' ceases in that wholeness. You then 'see' only yourself. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ______________ advaitin, Ravi Shivde <shivde@s...> wrote: > This idea is further explained with a beautiful analogy by Shri > Sureshwaracharya; quoted by Shri Atmananda > > adrishyo drishyate rAhu grihitena indunA yathA > tathA anubhavamAtra AtmA drishena AtmA vilokyate > > Rahu is ordinarily invisible.It is made perceptible by the moon which is > afflicted by it during lunar eclipse. Similarly, Atman whose nature is Pure > Experience, becomes perceptible due to visible objects of the world. (All > objects point to the Atman.) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2005 Report Share Posted May 15, 2005 I don't have to 'see' me. I AM, everything else is. > Only that Truth is to be 'seen' - nay appreciated, practised and > assimilated into our being so that we go total and universal without > externalities. The bothersome 'seeing' ceases in that wholeness. > You then 'see' only yourself. Respected Madathilji, Namaste! Another verse from Sureshwaracharya again quoted by Shri Atmananda, exemplifies what you write. This verse I like very much because of its logical process of deduction like a geometrical theorem. yad idam drishyate kinchit, darshanAt tat na bhidyate drasTopi darshanAt nAnyat, drashTaiva tato jagat Whatever is being seen here, is not different from the process of seeing. Seeing is not different from the seer. Therefore seer is the world. Can anybody tell me the original source of these verses? What was Shri Sureshwaracharya's contribution to Advaita literature? Humble praNAms to all advaitins. Ravi Shivde Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2005 Report Share Posted May 15, 2005 Namaste Sri Murthy-ji, Thank you for reading my posting. With reference to what you said I am with you when you say everything is “iva”. <<<Brahman (Atman) is avyakta, i.e. is unmanifested. It is unseen and is beyond the senses and is ungraspable by the senses, mind and the intellect. Re the example of gold that you gave: while it is a good one, it is an analogy only. The vital point in these analogies is *as if* (or in sanskrit *iva*). <<<< The analogy helps to show that brahman is the essence or the adhiShTAnam just like gold is the essence of the necklace. But the analogy has a limitation. Gold is graspable by the senses. It need not be in the form of necklace for it to be grasped by the mind. The jagat is graspable by the senses, but not the brahman, the jagat's essence. So, brahman is vyaktam as the jagat, but brahman by tself is avyaktam. Gold is vyaktam as gold or as necklace. <<I like to conclude this by adding that it is the upAdhi which makes the brahman vyaktam. Without the upAdhi, brahman is avyaktam. I posted sometime in July-August 2004 a small note titled 'perception of the Absolute' and there was some brief discussion on that. I couldn't find that posting either in the escribe or the archives. I tried to show there that it is the upAdhi which allows us to perceive the Absolute.>>> The examples gold-chain, water-wave etc have their limitations just like other examples. However, with reference to whether Brahman is Vyaktam as any other “object”, IMHO, there are other entities like mind, consciousness, intelligence, etc. which are not like any other objects, but are quite “Vykatam” to one and all. Nobody can say he has no mind, but if one were to ask “have you seen your mind” no one can say he has seen his mind, although all the time he is experiencing his mind. Similarly with intellect and consciousness. How are they “vyaktam”? They are “vyaktam” through their effects. I hope I am not wrong. I do not know how we can say “Brahman is beyond the mind” i.e. somewhere yonder. By being all pervading, is It not in and through the mind, i.e. like “tile tailavat”. We cannot say oil is beyond the oil seed. There is nothing “beyond” or “within” when it comes to Brahman with reference to Its Manifestations(?). Space is Vykatam to us and no one cay say space is beyond. How is it Vykatam? In the absence of space nothing can exist. That we know. Similarly, the Upanishads unfolds Brahman as that which pervades like the principle of water pervades water, all waves, bubbles, etc. When the shruti says “aprapya manasa saha” I understand that “It is Aprapya” because mind is but Brahman Itself. One cannot reach a particular place when he is already in that place. He may be ignorant about that fact. But, when an “Apta” tells him he is already in that place, one should try to appreciate the fact with shradha on the apta’s words, which he can also verify that later on. However, in the case of Brahman such verification is not possible/nor is it necessary, as there is no distance between the verifier and Brahman. One cannot or need not verify himself to conclude whether he exists or not. Nevertheless when the Shruti unfolds “You are Brahman” one can still verify that fact by analyzing whether It reflects in his self the Swaroopa of Brahman, i.e. Satyam and Gnanam or Chit. In whatever state one may be but his own Swaroopa that his existence and his having consciousness is never absent. Since Sat is Chit and Chit is Sat, i.e. existence and consciousness cannot be separate as “they” are like two sides of a coin, and since existence and consciousness cannot be there one without the other, his swaropa i.e. Existence and Consciousness can never be absent “in” one and that makes the “I” in him self-effulgent. By saying “Vyaktam” what I tried to mean was it is discernable, though unmanifest. When you say “but brahman by itself is avyaktam”, Brahman is “vyaktam” or “avayatkam” to who? From that standpoint, i.e. Brahman’s standpoint, where is the other to grasp it? I cannot deny my existence, I am self effulgent. This self-effulgence belongs to who? Not to Mani or Sri Murthy. Without the upadhi, which is not Satyam but Mithya, what is Satyam cannot be appreciated. Moreover, if the “other” is not there what is the necessity of the teaching. If the Upadhi is not there is no necessity to appreciate what is Satyam, although the upadhi is not satyam but mithya. All I wanted to say was “one cannot know/experience/perceive Brahman as an object, but one can always recognize Brahman as the AdhistAnam or substratum, (not like a table on which the clock is) of all that is known/perceived/experienced” (prati bodha viditam) or in other words Brahman is immanent, including “in” the “I” in everyone, who tries to know/perceive/experience that Brahman. The “distance” between Brahman and all that is manifest is just because of ignorance of the fact that “Brahman is all pervasive”. There is no physical distance, which is a precondition for objectifying anything. Pardon me if my language is ambiguous. With warm regards Mani Discover Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & more. Check it out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 reference: advaitin/message/26699 namaste shri mani-ji, Please allow me to continue this discussion for one more post. It is not my intention to argue this point too much, but at the same time, the word avyakta is often used in the context of discussing nirguNa brahamn both in upanishads and bhagavadgItA and may be in the brahmasUtra-s as well. Also, avyakta has come up in vishnusahasranAma and lalitAsahasranAma as well and shri shankara's commentary on vishnusahasranAma and upanishads provides many useful leads in understanding this word. Also, much more than the word avyakta, we need to have a feel for the magnificience, all-pervasiveness, the immensity and at the same time minutest of the minutest nature of the brahman (Atman). The analogies help us to understand the nature of brahman, but we can fall into the danger of thinking that the extent of the analogy is the extent of brahman which cannot be the case. Analogies have their limitation and analogies are not the real thing. Vyaktam means clearly expressible, spaShTata. A thing is clear when it is perceived by the sense organs or the mind or the intellect. But brahman is the very cause or the subject which makes the sense organs, mind and intellect function. Being the subject, It cannot be the object for the sense organs. Hence brahman is avyakta, i.e. cannot be defined or described clearly. I am afraid none of the analogies (gold in the necklace, rope-snake, dream etc) touch (reach) on the subject and not-an-object aspect of brahman. Hence the analogies fail here. vishnusahasranAma says "... avykatahshatamUrtishatAnanaH..." While it is saying brahman(vishnu) is avyakta, at the same time it says shatamUrti.., it has many forms. It has many forms because It takes the shape of the upAdhi while being at the same time avyakta, not-clearly definable, lacking spaShTata. from shrilalitAsahasranAmAbhAShya, avyakta is described as "most subtle, not having any identification, acetanam, without birth and death, cause for all the worlds, without any limbs, non-dual, and all-pervasive". Also, it says " .. that that cannot be seen by the eyes, cannot talked about by the tongue, that cannot be known by tapas, karma and devatA-s (indriyA-s)..". The sages have used the word avyakta quite often. shri sunder-ji, from your knowledge and also using the computer programme you said you have, I wonder if you can provide where the word avyakta appears in the Principal upanishads so that I can look at shri shankara's bhAShya on that. I would be most grateful for this. advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote: > > The examples gold-chain, water-wave etc have their limitations just >like other examples. However, with reference to whether Brahman is >Vyaktam as any other "object", IMHO, there are other entities like >mind, consciousness, intelligence, etc. which are not like any other >objects, but are quite "Vykatam" to one and all. Nobody can say he >has no mind, but if one were to ask "have you seen your mind" no one >can say he has seen his mind, although all the time he is >experiencing his mind. Similarly with intellect and consciousness. > How are they "vyaktam"? They are "vyaktam" through their effects. I > hope I am not wrong. > But certainly you are not saying that brahman is like mind etc (?). The closest we have in perceivable things that is closest for the description of brahman is space - all-pervading, very subtle. But the similarity ends there. > I do not know how we can say "Brahman is beyond the mind" i.e. > somewhere yonder. By being all pervading, is It not in and through > the mind, i.e. like "tile tailavat". We cannot say oil is beyond > the oil seed. There is nothing "beyond" or "within" when it comes > to Brahman with reference to Its Manifestations(?). Space is > Vykatam to us and no one cay say space is beyond. How is it > Vykatam? In the absence of space nothing can exist. That we know. > When it is said brahman is beyond the mind, it is meant that mind cannot reach It or mind cannot comprehend It. Your wording seems to project 'beyond' as in terms of distance. As we all know, It is closest to us, but at the same time not-reachable by the senses. Thanks very much for the discussion. It gives me an opportunity to look into avyakta much more deeply. > With warm regards > > Mani > regards gummuluru murthy --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 advaitin, "gmurthy_99" <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > > reference: advaitin/message/26699 > > where the word avyakta > appears in the Principal upanishads so that I can look at shri > shankara's bhAShya on that. I would be most grateful for this. > > advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote: > > Namaste, These are some of the occurrences of the words. Gita has used the words most frequently. There are many other upanishads (Paingala, Subala, , etc.) where these occur also. avyakta Katha 1:3:11; 2:3:7-8 [shvetashvatara 1:8 Maitrayani 2:7; 6:10, 6:22 Mahanarayana 14,15] adRRiShTam Mandukya 7 Taittiriya 2:7:1 Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.