two questions

[Guest guest]

Namaste all,

 

I have the following two questions:

 

1. Is Self-Knowledge intellectual?

 

2. secondly, some people have the view that after going through "sravanam",

"mananam" , niddhidhyasanam should be undertaken to culminate in aparoksha

anubhuti or direct experience of the atman. What does acharya shankara say about

this? can the learned members of the list please elaborate?

 

pranams

 

harih om

Shyam Venkataraman

 

 

 

Shopping

Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Shopping

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hari OM,

 

Dear Shyam Sundar ji,

 

Luxury is that when we have we will enjoy, when we do not have that, then

we do not have problem, we do not miss it.

 

The need is we will feel deepest sorrow when something regularly was there

and when it is no more there. we have a longing for that any worldly affairs

are in need only.

 

But for a Jnani even worldly affairs are a Luxury!

 

So Janani is in Poornathwam always. everything in this world is a luxury for

a Jnani, means when it is there he will enjoy the fullest, when it is not

there

he do not have any problem.

 

If Self Knowledge is intellectual then is it need or Luxury???

We are mostly attached to intellectual exercises, The self is the power

which gives even to think. so how can self knowledge be intellectual??

 

With Love & OM!

 

Krishna Prasad

 

 

On 12/9/05, Shyamsundar Venkataraman <sundar_venkat007 wrote:

>

> Namaste all,

>

> I have the following two questions:

>

> 1. Is Self-Knowledge intellectual?

>

>

 

 

--

Krishna Prasad

 

.. Yad yad aacarati sreshtah, tad tad eva itaro janah. As the Gita puts it,

consistency of purpose and a spirit of dedication and, if necessary,

sacrifice, should characterize the new spirit.

We Must - Swami Chinmayanada

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Shyamsundar Venkataraman <sundar_venkat007 wrote: Namaste

all,

 

I have the following two questions:

 

1. Is Self-Knowledge intellectual?

 

2. secondly, some people have the view that after going through

"sravanam", "mananam" , niddhidhyasanam should be undertaken to culminate in

aparoksha anubhuti or direct experience of the atman. What does acharya

shankara say about this? can the learned members of the list please elaborate?

From

Sankarramn

According to Acharya Sankara, I believe, that the listening to the Mahavakya

immediately results in the apperception of the Self, which does not admit of

the idea of meditation, this belonging to the realm of avidya involving the

triputi also the metaphysical ignorance of superimposition of the

charcteristics of the non-self on the Self. Sankara is of the opinion that

knowledge alone can lead to liberation, this being Vastutantra as against

meditation which is Kartutantra, these two being essentially antagonistic to

each other. Of course, I think, the Bamiti school of Advaita gives importance

to meditation realizing its validity as a preparatory exercise to attain

one-pointedness of mind the requisite for the apperception of the Self in its

own glory. However, I feel that these aspects can be known only through sadhana

and not through intellectual clarification, the intellect itself being an

instrument of avidya, and practically speaking, the intellect having its own

self-centred goals masquerading behind the search for truth.

 

with warm regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sri Shyamsundar Venkataraman wrote:

> 1. Is Self-Knowledge intellectual?

 

Namaste Shyamsundar-ji

 

All knowledge is intellectual. There is no faculty with human beings

other than intellect where knowledge can occur -- self or otherwise.

Knowledge of true nature of self often gives rise to mystical

experiences, but those experiences are not the self-knowledge. Since

we often tend to equate "intellectual" with "superficial", hence the

doubt.

 

Arsha Vidya gurukulam has brought out a Gita self study course by

Swami Dayananda. If I correctly remember, in the introduction chapter

he has given proof from shruti that the knowledge of the self occurs

only in the intellect. ( I do not remember the exact wordings but

shruti goes something like "..manasa ev..". If someone has a copy, I

request him to check and confirm.)

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava

<sksrivastava68@g...> wrote:

>

> Sri Shyamsundar Venkataraman wrote:

>

> > 1. Is Self-Knowledge intellectual?

>

> Namaste Shyamsundar-ji

>

> All knowledge is intellectual. There is no faculty with human

beings

> other than intellect where knowledge can occur -- self or

otherwise.

> Knowledge of true nature of self often gives rise to mystical

> experiences, but those experiences are not the self-knowledge.

Since

> we often tend to equate "intellectual" with "superficial", hence

the

> doubt.

>

> Arsha Vidya gurukulam has brought out a Gita self study course by

> Swami Dayananda. If I correctly remember, in the introduction

chapter

> he has given proof from shruti that the knowledge of the self

occurs

> only in the intellect. ( I do not remember the exact wordings but

> shruti goes something like "..manasa ev..". If someone has a copy,

I

> request him to check and confirm.)

>

> praNAm

>

 

Namaste,

 

More on this at:

 

http://www.katha.org/Academics/Appendix1.html

 

ADVAITA VEDANTA

D Krishna Ayyar

 

APPENDIX 1

EXPLANATORY NOTES

 

Note No.1 - Can Brahman be known

1. A problem faced by the Advaita preceptor is to explain the

apparent contradiction between the Taittiriya Upanishad Mantra

II.1.i which says "The knower of Brahman attains Brahman" ,

Brhadaranyaka Upanishad II.iv.5 which says that Brahman is to be

known, and many similar passages and, on the other hand, the later

passage in Taittiriya Upanishad itself II.9.i which says that words,

along with the mind, return, unable to reach Brahman ,

Kenopanishad I.5. "It cannot be known by the mind" and various

other Upanishad passages which talk of Brahman as " aprameyam"

i.e., unknowable. Kenopanishad I.4 – "That (Brahman) is surely

different from the known; and again, It is above the unknown." In

fact, in Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, IV.iv.20 says "Through the mind

alone It is to be realised" ("manasa eva anudrashtavyam") and the

immediately following IV.iv.21 says "It is unknowable" ("etat

apramayam")". Sankaracarya says, in his Bhashyam, that, in respect

of Brahman, none of the criteria by which we know things applies.

The criteria are attributes ("guna"), species ( "jati"),

relationship ( "sambandha") and function (" kriya"). Brahman can't

be known through any of these criteria, Brahman being attributeless

("nirguna"), without a second (" advayam"), relationsless,

("asanga") , and actionless ("akarta").

2. How we reconcile the apparently contradictory statements is

explained below.

 

 

Regards

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Hari OM!

 

Sanjay Srivastava Wrote:

All knowledge is intellectual. There is no faculty with human beings

other than intellect where knowledge can occur -- self or otherwise.

Knowledge of true nature of self often gives rise to mystical

experiences, but those experiences are not the self-knowledge. Since

we often tend to equate "intellectual" with "superficial", hence the

doubt.

 

 

Sanjay Please note this verses from Advaita list alone.

 

*naayam aatmaa pravacanena labhyo na medhayaa, na bahunaa shrutena

**yamevaishha vR^Nute, tena labhyas tasyiashha aatmaa vivR^Nute tanu svaam*

**

*----Katha upanishhhad verse I.2.23*

 

translations of this passage:

 

This Self cannot be known through much study, nor through

the intellect, nor through much hearing. It can be known

only through the Self alone that the aspirant prays to;

this Self of that seeker reveals Its true nature.

[ Gambhiraananda ]

 

This Atman cannot be attained by the study of the Vedas,

*nor by the intellect *, *nor even by much learning*; *by him

it is attained whom (1) it chooses -- this (2), his (own)

Atman, reveals its own (real) form.

*

(1) Whom it chooses -- Shrii Shankaraacaarya points out

in his commentary that the pronoun yam stands for the

Atman and eshhaH for the saadhaka or aspirant. The

passage is thus interpreted by him: chosen by that very

Self which the aspirant seeks, the Self is known. To

explain: the Self is realised by the Self of the aspirant

who does not desire anything whatsoever except the Self

or Atman. But non-advaitic commentators interpret eshhaH

as `the Supreme Atman (God)' and yam as `whomever', i.e.

"It is attained by him alone whomever God chooses."

 

(2) This his (own) Atman, etc. -- Atman which is in himself

reveals Its true nature to him. This passage explains

the real significance of the attaining of Atman.

[ Sharvaananda ]

 

The exact same verse occurs in MuNDaka Up. 3.2.3:

 

This Self is not attained through study, nor through the

intellect, nor through much hearing. By the very fact that

he (i.e. the aspirant) seeks for It, does It become attainable;

of him this Self reveals Its own nature.

[ Gambhiraananda ]

 

The Self is not attained through discourses, nor through

intellectuality, nor through much learning. It is only

gained by him who longs for It with the whole heart. For

to such a one the Self (1) reveals its own nature.

 

(1) Self reveals Its own nature -- the Self is always of

the nature of one's innermost being; it has not to be

brought from anywhere else. Only ignorance veils it.

True longing of the heart dispels that ignorance, and

then the Self, which was always there, reveals itself.

[ Sharvaananda ]

 

The next verse in the MuNDaka may help to clarify this:

 

This Self is not attained by one devoid of strength, nor

through delusion, nor through knowledge unassociated with

monasticism. But the Self of that knower, who strives

through these means, enters into the abode that is Brahman.

[ Gambhiraananda]

 

Katha 2.3.12--13 should also help:

 

It cannot be attained through speech, nor through the mind,

nor through the eye. How can It be known to anyone apart

from him who speaks of It as existing?

 

The Self is (first) to be realised as existing, and (then)

as It really is. Of these two (aspects), the real nature

of the Self that has been known as merely existing, becomes

favourably disposed (for self-revelation).

[ Gambiraananda ]

 

As regards study etc. to purify/enlarge/still the mind in order

to transcend it, the description of the types of knowledge given

in Gita 18:20--22 is pertinent:

 

That by which a man sees the one Indestructible Reality in

all beings, inseparate in the separated -- that knowledge

know thou as Sattvic.

 

But that knowledge which by differentiation, sees in all the

creatures various entities of distinct kinds, that knowledge

know thou as Rajasic.

 

But that which clings to one single effect as if it were all,

without reason, having no real object, and narrow, that is

declared to be Tamasic.

[ A.M.Sastry ]

 

Finally, the essence of all this is expressed pithily in another

tradition:

 

Be still, and know that I am God.

[ Bible, Psalm 46:10 ]

 

The above are in the advaita-l list here is the link

 

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/1997-April/006480.html

 

With Love & OM!

 

-

Krishna Prasad

 

.. Yad yad aacarati sreshtah, tad tad eva itaro janah. As the Gita puts it,

consistency of purpose and a spirit of dedication and, if necessary,

sacrifice, should characterize the new spirit.

We Must - Swami Chinmayanada

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sri Krishna Prasad wrote:

> *naayam aatmaa pravacanena labhyo na medhayaa, na bahunaa shrutena

> **yamevaishha vR^Nute, tena labhyas tasyiashha aatmaa vivR^Nute tanu svaam*

> **

> *----Katha upanishhhad verse I.2.23*

>

> translations of this passage:

>

> This Self cannot be known through much study, nor through

> the intellect, nor through much hearing. It can be known

> only through the Self alone that the aspirant prays to;

> this Self of that seeker reveals Its true nature.

> [ Gambhiraananda

> ]

 

Namaste Krishna-ji:

 

May be I am missing something here. I do not see anything in the above

to suggest that this knowledge does not occur in the intellect.

"labhyo na medhayA" only tells me that being intelligent does not

offer me any edge in self-knowledge.

 

Last part of the verse is a subject matter of separate debate as it is

one of the trickier shrutis to fit into advaita framework.

"yamevaishha vR^Nute" would simply mean "to whom it choses" which is

not easily reconcilable to attributeless reality but more to

v.advaitic brahman.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

Hari OM!

 

Namaskaram Sanjayji,

 

Please read the complete email, "Labhyo na Medhaya" is enough to know that

Self knowledge is not occuring in the intellect, and the trick part, for

whom the trick is???? for the self or to you???

 

With Love & OM!

 

Krishna Prasad

 

 

On 12/10/05, Sanjay Srivastava <sksrivastava68 wrote:

>

>

> Namaste Krishna-ji:

>

> May be I am missing something here. I do not see anything in the above

> to suggest that this knowledge does not occur in the intellect.

> "labhyo na medhayA" only tells me that being intelligent does not

> offer me any edge in self-knowledge.

>

> Last part of the verse is a subject matter of separate debate as it is

> one of the trickier shrutis to fit into advaita framework.

> "yamevaishha vR^Nute" would simply mean "to whom it choses" which is

> not easily reconcilable to attributeless reality but more to

> v.advaitic brahman.

>

> praNAm

>

>

>

>

> --

> Krishna Prasad

>

> . Yad yad aacarati sreshtah, tad tad eva itaro janah. As the Gita puts it,

> consistency of purpose and a spirit of dedication and, if necessary,

> sacrifice, should characterize the new spirit.

> We Must - Swami Chinmayanada

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sanjayji and Krishnaprasadji.

 

I have also heard Sw. Dayanandaji's assertion of the intellect in

Self-Knowledge. However, I can't lay my finger on the exact

reference.

 

I understand him differently on this point. If my memory is right,

he has said that one needs the intellect till the very end when the

intellect itself is sublated in Knowledge, which would mean that our

ordinary understanding that the intellect (I have intellect.) and the

world (There is a world other than me.) are separate from oneself

ceases in Ultime Wholeness or Fullness. Fullness is not explainable

in words with which intellect (as a possession separate from Oneself)

is familiar in the vyAvahArika. Thus, it is in a way right to say

that that the understanding of the Self takes place in the

intellect. However, the intellect itself is completely sublated in

that Awareness like the stick that stokes the fire. In the Fire of

Knowledge that blazes forth whoever would look for the stick again?

 

This explanation satisfies my common-sense with regard to the

apparent contradiction pointed out in shruti.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

 

advaitin, Krishna Prasad <rkrishp99@g...>

wrote:

>> Please read the complete email, "Labhyo na Medhaya" is enough to

know that

> Self knowledge is not occuring in the intellect, and the trick

part, for

> whom the trick is???? for the self or to you???

[Guest guest]

Hari Om. Namaskaram.

 

Presenting my understanding on this subject based on lectures of

Chinmaya Mission Acharyaji.

 

In Bhagwad Geeta Chapter 6, 21st shloka Bhagwan says

 

sukham atyantikam yat tad "buddhigrahyam" atindriyam

Vetti yatra na chaivayam sthitaschalati tattvatah ||21||

 

(When Yogi feels that Infinite bliss- "which can be grasped by the

intellect" and which transcends the senses-wherein established he

never moves from the Reality.)

 

So we find these seemingly contradicting statements in shruti. If I

know It through intellect then it is "objective experience" and if

intellect doesn't know It then it will be like "deep sleep" which I

certainly don't want. Then what does Bhagwan mean when he says

that "it can be known through the intellect?" The key to

understanding this statement is "which intellect can understand?"

Not worldly mind, not disturbed mind but "drsyate tu agraya buddhya

(Kathopanishad)". Sharp and Subtle, purified intellect. Jnana

prasaden vishuddha sattwah pashyanam dhyaymanam (Purified mind +

Which has Gained Knowledge + Meditating) will only know.

 

It is the "Akhandakar Akarita Vritti Brahmakar Vritti" that is

talked here. Intellect has to have thought that pervades

consciousness. E.g. Say it is summer in the desert and temperature

is soaring very high. It is noon time and sun is blazing up in the

sky. We look at that sun just for a moment and our eyes get closed

right away due to that brightness. Like that, that Vritti dies away

after sakshatkar. Just like after seeing sun our eyes cannot remain

open like that intellect cannot go on pervading consciousness.

Kritwa Jnanam Swayam Nashyet. It doesn't continue but experience is

already attained and so it is there.

 

(Please don't ask me questions on this as I don't know much. I just

shared what I heard in lecture hoping that it will help.)

 

Love and Respect

Padma

advaitin, Krishna Prasad <rkrishp99@g...>

wrote:

"Labhyo na Medhaya" is enough to know that

> Self knowledge is not occuring in the intellect,

> On 12/10/05, Sanjay Srivastava <sksrivastava68@g...> wrote:

> > May be I am missing something here. I do not see anything in the

above

> > to suggest that this knowledge does not occur in the intellect.

> > "labhyo na medhayA" only tells me that being intelligent does not

> > offer me any edge in self-knowledge.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Padma-ji.

 

You are quite right. So, there is no need to bother you with any

more questions. Your posts, I have noticed, are very simple and to

the point.

 

However, just one point. You said:

______________________________

 

"The key to

> understanding this statement is "which intellect can understand?"

> Not worldly mind, not disturbed mind but "drsyate tu agraya buddhya

> (Kathopanishad)". Sharp and Subtle, purified intellect. Jnana

> prasaden vishuddha sattwah pashyanam dhyaymanam (Purified mind +

> Which has Gained Knowledge + Meditating) will only know. "

_______________________________

 

When there is ultimate chittashuddhi, Knowledge is spontaneous and

instantaneous. 'jnAnaprasAdena vishuddha sattwah' is jnAna Itself!

So, there is no more any +'es any more. No meditating. The

meditation is erstwhile. To use a mundane analogy, it is like the

bright sky without clouds. The clouds (like intellect and meditation

in our case) were erstwhile. The sky is no more a 'known'. The

knower is the sky - the sky of Fullness.

 

Shri Bhattathiri - the jnAni author of NArAyanIyam - sang in

ecstasy: "Agre pashyAmi". He sure didn't 'see' anything. It was

Himself. However, that is the only way he could express it to us

unfortunates. So, I should imagine the agrAya buddhyA in your quote

is the Self or Knowledge Itself. In no way can it be the intellect

as we 'know' it in a very mundane sense. The 'drishyate' is only a

manner of speaking like Shri Bhattathiri's 'pashyAmi'.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

I do have Swami Dayananda's Gita Homestudy notes and let me restate

his assertion:

 

"When we say that something is beyond one's inference or perrception,

we do not mean that is beyond the mind. We mean that it is not

available for one's inference or perception. Still, it has to be known

and any knowldege takes place only in the mind. Therefore, where does

self-knowledge take place? Only in the mind (manasaa eva

anudrastavyam). Because all knowledge has to take place in the mind,

yo cannot go 'beyond the mind' to gain self-knowledge."

 

He further elaborates that Self-knowledge is apeculiar knowledge in

that it is not knowledge of an object. The means of self-knowledge

is 'Vedanta' (the end of Veda. The word Veda itself means "a body of

knwledge" and Vedanta, the end of veda becomes the means for the

ultimate knowledge that everyone seeks. According to Swamiji, to say

that Vedanta is 'revealed knowledge' is not an immature statement. But

further explanations do require in order for us to understand why it

is so? This means one should study the entire Gita Home Study notes of

over 2000 pages to understand the reason for his assertion. His final

word regarding Vedanta is quite profound - "My definition of Vedanta is

that it is a means of knowledge, a pramaana in the form of words." In

this quotation, Swamiji assumes that the spherre of this means of

knowledge is the Self - or real I.

 

The vision of the sages of Upanishads as spelled out in words is

Vedanta and the mind should be prepared for the full absorption of

the 'Self-Knowledge' buried under those words. This mind preparation

is known as the 'anthakarana suddhi' and only the purified mind will

be able to absorb self-knowledge.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Harih Om!

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Namaste Sanjayji and Krishnaprasadji.

>

> I have also heard Sw. Dayanandaji's assertion of the intellect in

> Self-Knowledge. However, I can't lay my finger on the exact

> reference.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <ramvchandran>

wrote:

>

> Namaste:

>

> I do have Swami Dayananda's Gita Homestudy notes and let me

restate

> his assertion:

>

>

>

>

His final

> word regarding Vedanta is quite profound - "My definition of

Vedanta is

> that it is a means of knowledge, a pramaana in the form of

words." In

> this quotation, Swamiji assumes that the spherre of this means of

> knowledge is the Self - or real I.

>

>

> Ram Chandran

 

 

Namste Ram Chandran-Ji:

 

To get a better understanding of Swami Dayananda-Ji's assertions one

can get that road map in the pata~Njali's yoga suutra where it

explains the term "japa".

 

tatjjapastadarthabhaavanama 1.28

 

Japa is not just sitting in one place and reciting something

mechanically, but it is trying to understand the meaning of the

bhaavanaa (essence) expressed in the words.

 

Therefore the word "mantra" is defined as "mantraH mananaata"

 

Combining these two gives us the mechanism of understanding it

self. I like to compare the "words of mantra" with "the Cage -

(Mantra)" of a "bird -(Meaning)". The purpose of that cage is to

keep the bird so that one can look at it and appreciate it. One

when a Guru gives guru-mantra he transfers the bird in a cage to the

disciple. It is up to the disciple to understand the meaning

through his own nidhidhyaasana. It is process of releasing the bird

from the cage or recognizing the meaning of the mantra. One this is

accomplished then the word is free like the bird and the saadhaka

has no need to be attached to the cage (mantra).

 

Vedadanta helps us understand the deeper meanings expressed in veda

and often sages used words with multiple meanings and it is up to us

to discover the relevant meanings and appply to the current

situation.

 

In the context of our current topic of bhakti, I would like to say

that all the names from aShTottra-shata-naamavali or sahasra-

naamaavali that all identify the specific attributes of the deity.

Name is a "NOUN" and the object for saadhaka is to utilize

those "NOUNS" in his own life by making them "VERBS".

 

Just some thoughts of my partial understanding.

 

hariH OM tat sat !

 

Dr. Yadu