Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Madathilji wrote: My intention was to point to a source that explains adhyAsa well. Shri Saxena, in my opinion, has done a splendid job. If he is understood, then I thought the other questions that are asked here become irrelevant. ||||||||||||||| Namaste Madathilji, We must agree to disagree on that assesment of Sri Saxena's paper. He misses the initial point that the question which Shankara puts is the classic one: How is knowledge possible? Having gone wrong there he continues to stray. Having read his C.V., it's there on the google page, I know he's a bright boy, he tells us so himself. He works for Pepsi which is dissapointing as working for Coca Cola would be much more advaitic. After all 'it's the real thing'. Happy New Year to All, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Reference post number 29660 OMB: ( Having read his C.V., it's there on the google page, I know he's a bright boy, he tells us so himself. He works for Pepsi which is dissapointing as working for Coca Cola would be much more advaitic. After all 'it's the real thing'.) In this group of solemn seekers, such humor is needed to bring home the truth of 'non-duality' at all levels even in the choice of one's vocations. Even the 'coke' in the Coca-Cola is not the 'real' thing just as the 'Beer' in the 'Root Beer' is not the real thing. After reading all the messages in this thread, I am convinced that all these hair-splitting discussions about vedantic terms like Adhhyasa, Apavada, Adhyaropa etc are mere semantics only and take us further away from the 'real' self to the unreal realm of 'duality'. Would you not agree ? PS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Dear Purusha, "After reading all the messages in this thread, I am convinced that all these hair-splitting discussions about vedantic terms like Adhhyasa, Apavada, Adhyaropa etc are mere semantics only and take us further away from the 'real' self to the unreal realm of 'duality'. Would you not agree ?" Absolutely not, it is very important practically that we have a clear understanding of what our position is (whatever it may be), especially on a topic such as adhyasa. Sabda gives both paroksha jnana and aparoksha jnana. When one is sufficiently qualified, then a well-imparted teaching will give aparoksha jnana. When one is not sufficiently qualified, the same teaching will give paroksha jnana. Aparoksha jnana is liberation. The purpose of having a strong paroksha jnana is to deepen and improve one's qualifications, which is of vital practical importance. With strong paroksha jnana, one can understand how wordly things are limited and how one cannot get lasting hapiness from them. One understands what liberation means, and therefore a desire for it can arrise. Now one of the most important ideas in Advaita to understand is of course avidya, since it describes our condition and how it relates to Ultimate Reality. It gives us a framework to relate to the world since it explains the way in which we should look at the world. By looking at the world correctly, one can gain both detachment and tranquility (the gist of the qualifications). I will try to explain how the different positions on avidya, adhyasa, etc... make a big difference on a practical level. If one thinks of avidya as an anirvachaniya power that is neither the same nor different from Brahman but veils Brahman, then one's understanding of the world is that it is a product of this universal, mysterious avidya shakti. Its an illusion created by this bhava-rupa avidya. If a problematic desire arrises, you can perhaps look at the object of desire as an illusion created by this avidya. If on the other hand, one thinks of the world as an illusion that one has personally superimposed upon Brahman, the way of looking at things changes somewhat. It is no longer a mysterious universal ignorance that has produced this and that, but it is the individual who creates things of the world whereas really there is only Brahman devoid of absolutely everything. The realist positions would look at things completely differently since the world can be directly seen as Brahman, with only the seperation from Brahman being unreal. The position I was taught is similar since it holds that there are no things but only cognition/knowledge and this is essentially Brahman. The way an Advaitin looks at avidya determines the way that this Advaitin looks at the world, so it is not just hairsplitting, Regards, Rishi. (PS: Not sure about this quota policy, how does it work?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Hari OM! Dear Michealji, Pepsi is not the right thing, yes it might be the right thing to get intestinal and other internal bodily diseases! A real Advaitin should never touch that, if he want to do real Sadhana, it is a tamasic drink. With Love & OM! Krishna Prasad On 1/3/06, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote: > > Madathilji wrote: > My intention was to point to a source that explains adhyAsa well. Shri > Saxena, in my opinion, has done a splendid job. If he is understood, then > I thought the other questions that are asked here become irrelevant. > > ||||||||||||||| > > Namaste Madathilji, > We must agree to disagree on that assesment of > Sri Saxena's paper. He misses the initial point > that the question which Shankara puts is > the classic one: How is knowledge possible? > Having gone wrong there he continues to > stray. Having read his C.V., it's there on > the google page, I know he's a bright boy, > he tells us so himself. He works for Pepsi > which is dissapointing as working for Coca > Cola would be much more advaitic. After > all 'it's the real thing'. > > Happy New Year to All, > Michael. > > > > 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 > > > > > > > -- 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 THE CULTURED GIVES HAPPINESS WHEREVER THEY GO, THE UN-CULTURED WHENEVER THEY GO! - Swami Chinmayanada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Dear Sri Nair-ji, Sri Rishi-ji, Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji, and Sri Purusha-ji I am combining all my replies in one post with the hope that the moderators will not mind my posting this one extra post for today. To Sri Nair-ji, My disagreement was not so much with Sri Saxena's interpretation of Advaita as it was with the way he had treated adhyasa in the context of the preamble. It is possible that his interpretation of Advaita is right and that I might have been too hasty in doubting it (without knowing his full position). The real point of disagreement however was with regards to the worth of his article as a source for clearing our doubts on adhyasa. In my opinion, the treatment of adhyasa as given in the preamble of Sri Shankaracharya is very clear whereas the explanation provided by Sri Saxena makes it needlessly complicated by bringing into it the interpretation of Advaita. I feel that an explanation loses its lucidity by bringing in additional factors into it. In any case, I don't think it is worth debating Sri Saxena's article further when you and I seem to agree fairly well on the interpretation of Advaita, notwithstanding the syntax that sometimes comes in the way. :-) ____________ To Sri Rishiji, > I believe I agree with you in general, but there are some > points of contention. From the Paramartha perspective the > world can be described either as unreal or as real depending > on the way one uses the term (note: this is not some kind of > anirvacaniya). The fact that the jagat is mithya is correct, > and it is not correct from the vyavaharika perspective, so > it must be correct from the paramarthika perspective. In order for us to say that something is unreal, we would need to know what its real nature is. It is only when the real nature of a thing is known that the nature superimposed on it can be identified as not belonging to its intrinsic nature. It follows therefore that it is only by knowing the true nature of the world that what constitutes its unreality becomes known. Thus the knowledge of paramartha (in which the world is known to be one with Brahman) and the knowledge of mithyatva of the world in vyavahara (in which the world is seen to be separate from Brahman) is rooted in the same revelation of Knowledge. > To make it simpler, lets take the example of a table. We > believe there is a single, independent object called a > table - this in fact is implied in the word "table". The > table in reality is just a collection of transitory > knowledge acquired through the senses. This collection > has no particular unity that one can call a "table" but > this table has been superimposed on the knowledge. Thus > the table is mithya, it has to be absolutely rejected. In Advaita, the table is not merely a conglomeration of sense-data. It is a unitary thing, being the unitary meaning of the unitary word 'table'. This unitariness of things is not merely imagined - it is given to us in an irrevocable manner as the distinct furniture of the world in phenomena. These unities that are presented in phenomena as existing entities are called dravya (substance). The table is the substantive (dravya) of which its attributes (guna) are predicated as its very nature. The gunas are one with the dravya. Sri Shankaracharya argues the case accordingly with the Vaisesikas. The table is not mithya. In the para state of the word, it is one with Brahman. In other states of the word (pashyanti, madhyama and vaikhari) it presents the illusion of being differentiated from the subject. That is why it is said that speech differentiates the effect from the material cause (with which it is essentially one even in the seeming difference). The difference is namadheyam - it belongs to the intrinsic power of speech to differentiate. ______________ To Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji, > and at any stretch of our imagination we cannot conclude > vikAra-s in nAma rUpa are eternally real in brahman to > accommodate your understadning of shankarAdvaita!! My understanding says that Advaita is beyond the mind. So it is quite natural that Advaita cannot be accomodated in the mind even if the mind should be stretched to great lengths. :-) Don't take me too seriously Prabhuji, I am merely avoiding having to debate again all those points that we have debated earlier. :-) ________________ To Sri Purusha-ji, > After reading all the messages in this thread, I am convinced > that all these hair-splitting discussions about vedantic > terms like Adhhyasa, Apavada, Adhyaropa etc are mere semantics > only and take us further away from the 'real' self to the > unreal realm of 'duality'. Would you not agree ? No. What takes us away from the Self is not words but ignorance. Ignorance of the Self is also the ignorance of the nature of semantics. The nature of semantics is sabda-Brahman. _______________ Pranams to all, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 advaitin, "Purusha" <purush_artha> wrote: > After reading all the messages in this thread, I am convinced that all > these hair-splitting discussions about vedantic terms like Adhhyasa, > Apavada, Adhyaropa etc are mere semantics only and take us further away > from the 'real' self to the unreal realm of 'duality'. Would you not > agree ? > > PS > Namaste Purusha, I tend to agree with you. It is like debating why the sun always rise in the east and not in the west. In our everyday experience, sun seems to rise from one particular direction. And that direction is termed "East" by convention. There is no point in debating why sun rises only in east. >From an absolute view of the solar system, sun never rises, and there is no absolute direction that can be termed "East". Similarly, in our everyday experience, adhyAropa, the superimposition of non-self on Self seems to exist. This is defined as avidyA or wrong knowledge by convention. There is no point in debating how avidyA causes adhyAropa. >From an absolute view, the Self alone exist - neither avidyA, nor adhyAropa. Regards, Raj. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Moderator's Note: Ref. message no. 29684 Will the real Subhanu Saxena stand up please? http://isb.edu/Insight/Insight_Apr05.pdf Subhanu Saxena is the Global Head, Business Development and Licensing Primary Care of Novartis Pharma, Switzerland. He is an unusual executive who combines seemingly disparate interests in modern business and traditional Vedic knowledge. He is an Engineer from Oxford University and a management graduate from INSEAD. He has worked with international firms such as Citicorp Investment Bank, BCG, and PepsiCo. He is also a Sanskrit teacher at Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, London, and Ramakrishna Centre, Geneva. He is the author of publications on Advaita Vedanta and is also interested in Urdu poetry. He is a rare blend of the East and the West and is an excellent role model for all those young Indians who are raring to be successful. Here are excerpts from an interview with him on what one should look for in a career. ================================================================ advaitin, Krishna Prasad <rkrishp99@g...> wrote: > > Pepsi is not the right thing, > On 1/3/06, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: > >> > > > Namaste Madathilji, > > Having read his C.V., it's there on > > the google page, I know he's a bright boy, > > he tells us so himself. He works for Pepsi > > which is dissapointing as working for Coca > > Cola would be much more advaitic. After > > all 'it's the real thing'. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Ref post 29679 Rishi: I have no problem with any discussion as long there is some kind of real understanding at the end of it all. But, I find more often than not, such discussions end in a impasse . You state : (The way an Advaitin looks at avidya determines the way that this Advaitin looks at the world, so it is not just hairsplitting,) In Advaita, the one who looks ( for example yourself) and the world the advaitin looks at ( the object that is seen) as well as this whole process of looking all are 'ONE' - so, your statement of the seer (advaitin) and the object seen ( the world) being distinct or seperate is itself an 'Illusion' .To a real Jnani, there is no seer and nothing to be seen. For a jnani, there is no rope and there is no snake. Both are non- existent. Who is to see whom or what? Ref post no 29680 CRN: You state : (No. What takes us away from the Self is not words but ignorance. Ignorance of the Self is also the ignorance of the nature of semantics. The nature of semantics is sabda-Brahman.) I thought the the nature of semantics is Sabda-jaalam. What is Brahman? The knower of Brahman is Brahman. Are you One? PS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Dear Sri Purusha-ji, Ref your post 29688. advaitin, "Purusha" <purush_artha> wrote: > I have no problem with any discussion as long there is some > kind of real understanding at the end of it all. But, I find > more often than not, such discussions end in a impasse . How would we come to know whether there has been real understanding or not? Where does real understanding happen? Discussions like these have always happened and they will always happen even though the great Acharyas have come and gone. These discussions are merely a means on the path; they are not the end of the path. We are not likely to see the end in these discussions, but they have their use nevertheless. > For a jnani, there is no rope and there is no snake. Both > are non-existent. A jnani is then one who knows no thing? > Who is to see whom or what? The All-Seeing One sees All. > I thought the the nature of semantics is Sabda-jaalam. Who is it that had the thought here? And how does it think if the capacity of thinking is not there in it? A rock cannot flow and the wind cannot be still. What is it that gives the capacity for the thinker to think? How does thought come to have meaning? Where do meanings come from? > What is Brahman? The knower of Brahman is Brahman. Are you One? The answer is Yes and No. It is the neurosis of samsara that needs to be cured. The neurosis is the loss of authenticity. It is what makes us say that there is no snake and no rope even when we see snakes and ropes. Does it matter to you whether I am One or Two? If the answer is 'no', then there is no need for me to give an answer (since it doesn't matter). If the answer is 'yes', then you need to tell me why it matters to you even when you dismiss all these discussions as mere semantics. What is it in the semantics of this discussion that makes you feel the need to disagree or agree with what is said here? Merely saying that there is no snake and no rope for a jnani does not by itself bring about the quiescence to abstain from agreeing and disagreeing with what is said. What is said has meaning. As long as the semantics invokes us to agree and disagree, these discussions are not meaningless, and the assertion that there is no snake and no rope fails to be authentic. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2006 Report Share Posted January 5, 2006 This is going to be a long post, since I'm replying to a lot of people here. Dear Chittaranjanji, "It follows therefore that it is only by knowing the true nature of the world that what constitutes its unreality becomes known." Agree. "Thus the knowledge of paramartha (in which the world is known to be one with Brahman) and the knowledge of mithyatva of the world in vyavahara (in which the world is seen to be separate from Brahman) is rooted in the same revelation of Knowledge." First, I understand you are defining mithya as "no independent existence apart from Brahman". If this is so, you are saying that final understanding is thus: because the world is Brahman, it has no independent existence of its own apart from Brahman. So that ties together the fact that the world is Brahman and the fact that it has no independent existence from Brahman (ie: it is mithya). If that is so, then you have accepted that the world is mithya in paramartha, by what I take to be your definition of mithya. "It is a unitary thing, being the unitary meaning of the unitary word 'table'. This unitariness of things is not merely imagined - it is given to us in an irrevocable manner as the distinct furniture of the world in phenomena." I don't disagree that generally an object gains its unitary existence and its seperation from its material cause only by virtue of name (or the equivalent of the actual name in other stages of speech). However, the name is not intrinsic in the object in any real sense, the name is given to it by the mind. Dear Purusha, "I have no problem with any discussion as long there is some kind of real understanding at the end of it all. But, I find more often than not, such discussions end in a impasse ." It depends what you mean by "real understanding" but there doesn't have to be agreement for it to be useful. Discussions help to finetune one's understanding. "In Advaita, the one who looks ( for example yourself) and the world the advaitin looks at ( the object that is seen) as well as this whole process of looking all are 'ONE' - so, your statement of the seer (advaitin) and the object seen ( the world) being distinct or seperate is itself an 'Illusion' .To a real Jnani, there is no seer and nothing to be seen." This is a common mistake that Advaitins make. In discussions, the paramartha level is so much nicer, safer and more comfortable than the vyavhara. In the vyavahara there are some many objects, some many relations, so many things to understand - intellectually very annoying. The paramartha level is always nice and peaceful, only Brahman, everything is an illusion, nothing changes, it is inconcievable, etc... As a result of this, when discussing Advaitins like to run to the safety of this wonderful paramartha and if there is a problem in their position they can just say "Well, its all unreal anyway". As a side note, outside of intellectual discussion Advaitins tend to be very happy to run to the safety of Vyavahara which requires little courage, re-examination and vairagya. This is not the correct approach. If you can't understand the basics of relative reality, how can you expect to understand ultimate reality? If everything is Brahman, and for a jnani, all things are unreal, then why even practice, hear teachings, etc...? You can now say "well it is true from a relative point of view". If that is the case, then you should start thinking about how avidya works and not just dismiss it in the name of some abstract ultimate reality. I will reply to Subrahmanianji's very nice post later as I must be off now, Regards, Rishi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2006 Report Share Posted January 5, 2006 Ref Post 29693 CRN: ( You state Great Acharyas have come and gone.) Sankaracharya, Madhavacharya, Ramanujacharya, Vallabacharya , Nimbakacharya have come and gone. What is the Truth ? Has it changed? Many commentaries have also been written on these Brahma sutras by the Acharya's disciples and others but has the understanding any clearer now? These commentators themselves disagree on the real meaning of the Brahma sutras. What does the word 'Athato' mean. From Now onwards. `athato brahmajigyasa' says the brahma sutras. It means, from this point on the spiritual aspirant is qualified to learn about Brahman - that he has purified himself to obtain this great knowledge. I agree with Rishi when he says we need to be qualified even to receive this knowledge. I also agree with you, CRN, when you claim discussions have use. So do Drishtantas. The rope-snake Analogy has a limited use only. One need to go beyond the analogy to see the 'Reality' behind the analogy. CRN , you conclude " A jnani is then one who knows no thing? " This is a valid statement. A Jnani is one who after knowing what is to be known desires to know nothing elses. From jignasu, he become mumukshu. Discussions are not just about agreeing and disagreeing. Discussions are also about reaching common meeting grounds. Would you rather be a Young Abimanyu who knew how to enter the 'Chakravyuha' but did not know how to come out of it Or would you rather be like Arjuna who says at the end of Bg that all his doubts have now been clarified and he is ready to move on. Brahma sutras are a forest as someone said and it is easy to get lost. It does not matter whether you or anyone else is a Brahma-jnani but the fact remains only a Brahma Jnani can show you Brahman . All others can only talk about it. I liked the tone of Rishi's email better than yours. You have style, he has substance. Together, you maske a winning combination. Athato ..... let the discussions continue in a spiirit of mutual love and respect. ps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2006 Report Share Posted January 5, 2006 Namaste Sri Purusha-ji, Ref your post 29696 advaitin, "Purusha" <purush_artha> wrote: > ( You state Great Acharyas have come and gone.) > Sankaracharya, Madhavacharya, Ramanujacharya, Vallabacharya , > Nimbakacharya have come and gone. > What is the Truth ? Has it changed? The Truth does not change. > Many commentaries have also been written on these Brahma > sutras by the Acharya's disciples and others but has the > understanding any clearer now? These commentators themselves > disagree on the real meaning of the Brahma sutras. Yes, the understanding is clearer because of these Acharyas and their disciples - even when there are errors in the commentaries of the disciples. As far as the great Acharyas are concerned, I accept all of them as having revealed truth. There is more mystery to the nature of Reality than we see in samsara. The mystery that is in the nature of language (matrika) lends itself to many visions all of which are true. In fact, I find myself deeply indebted to Sri Madhvacharya for my understanding of Advaita. It may sound strange that I should be saying this, but it is my firm belief that anyone who cannot counter- argue against the charges brought forth by Sri Madhvacharya against Advaita has still a long way to go in his understanding of Advaita. The arguments of Sri Madhvacharya against Advaita are not merely what Madhvacharya says, but they are the eternal doubts that exist in the nature of Reality and may be made manifest in 'creation'. The sadhaka has to become stitha without doubts. Both samsaya and nirnaya are ontological entities and the one is resolved with the other. For me nothing is unreal except the loss of genuineness. I understand the Acharya to be saying exactly this. > What does the word 'Athato' mean. From Now onwards. > > `athato brahmajigyasa' says the brahma sutras. > > It means, from this point on the spiritual aspirant is > qualified to learn about Brahman - that he has purified > himself to obtain this great knowledge. > I agree with Rishi when he says we need to be qualified > even to receive this knowledge. And I agree with both of you. > I also agree with you, CRN, when you claim discussions have > use. So do Drishtantas. The rope-snake Analogy has a limited > use only. One need to go beyond the analogy to see the > 'Reality' behind the analogy. I realise this. In fact, I would say that beyond a point relying on the analogy alone becomes dangerous. An analogy only shows what is to be illustrated through a similarity between two things, but the sadhaka has to pierce to the truth of the thing through the illumination of the thing to be known in his own understanding. When it relates to objects, it is vritti-jnana, and when it relates to brahman it is brahma-jnana. > CRN , you conclude " A jnani is then one who knows no > thing? " > This is a valid statement. A Jnani is one who after knowing > what is to be known desires to know nothing elses. From > jignasu, he become mumukshu. If there is an 'else' left for the jnani to know, then he isn't a jnani. So, the correct statement would be 'there is nothing that the jnani does not know'. That is how he becomes mumukshu. There is another reason why he is mumukshu. He has no limitations in him for him to want anything. Brahma-jnana is purna-anubhava. > Discussions are not just about agreeing and disagreeing. > Discussions are also about reaching common meeting grounds. > Would you rather be a Young Abimanyu who knew how to enter > the 'Chakravyuha' but did not know how to come out of it Or > would you rather be like Arjuna who says at the end of Bg > that all his doubts have now been clarified and he is ready > to move on. Dear Purusha-ji, it is the fond hope of the heart that we may reach common grounds in these discussions, and I don't deny that they sometimes happen, but, more often than not, they do not. I believe you are missing an important element here. There can be a meeting ground only when the discussants have a common level of knowledge. When you are into brahma-jignasa, you are soon likely to reach a stage where many layers of darkness have been peeled off, and then you begin to see things that you cannot speak to others about except to those few who have also experienced or seen the same thing. It is a stage at which you begin to leave aside public approval for the knowledge that is revealed and begin to rely on the stamp of truth within your self and on only those few people whom you take to be aptas. For those of us who have shraddha in the Vedas we take it to be the supreme apta (or agama). At such a stage, reaching common grounds in discussions is very unlikely to happen. Discussions may still take place, and even agreements may happen, but there would be very few real particpants in the discussion. There would however be many people who would be disagreeing. > Brahma sutras are a forest as someone said and it is easy > to get lost. Not if the aspirant has the four qualifications. > It does not matter whether you or anyone else is a Brahma- > jnani but the fact remains only a Brahma Jnani can show you > Brahman . All others can only talk about it. It is true that only a brahma-jnani can show you Brahman. I will go still further and say that only that brahma-jnani who is marked to be your Guru can show you Brahman. But that is no reason to belittle the efficacy of vada. Is manana not a means on the path? Vada is nothing but externalised manana and it is part of the Vedic way. > I liked the tone of Rishi's email better than yours. Yes, I was more abrasive. My apologies. > You have style, he has substance. Yes, Rishi has substance. I saw it in his first post (the first one I read). Now I see you to be implying that I have style but not much substance. I am then a hollow reed that is beatifully painted on the exterior. :-) Actually, I take it to be a compliment. It is good to be hollow, in fact to be so hollow that you are nothing at all and it is only He that fills your entire being through and through. Is there anything more rapturous and beautiful than to be the hollow flute through which the Divine Singer sings His ineffable music? :-) > Together, you maske a winning combination. It is good to have a comrade like Rishi. :-) > Athato ..... let the discussions continue in a spirit of > mutual love and respect. Cheers to that. :-) Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2006 Report Share Posted January 5, 2006 Dear Sri Rishi-ji, advaitin, "risrajlam" <rishi.lamichhane@g...> wrote: > Dear Chittaranjanji, > If this is so, you are saying that final understanding is > thus: because the world is Brahman, it has no independent > existence of its own apart from Brahman. Yes. > So that ties together the fact that the world is Brahman and > the fact that it has no independent existence from Brahman > (ie: it is mithya). What you say is correct except for the last part in the parenthesis: 'it is mithya'. The world having no independent existence from Brahman is sathya and not mithya. It is due to knowledge of this sathya that one is able to see that the world as seen in samsara is mithya. It is like seeing the true of nature of a thing removing the false 'nature' superimposed on it. > If that is so, then you have accepted that the world is > mithya in paramartha, by what I take to be your definition > of mithya. Mithya is seeing the same world that one sees in paramartha but with its material cause hidden. Then paramarthika 'becomes' vyavaharika. The inert world then comes to be taken as existing in itself. But existence - sat - is Brahman. The existence of the inert world is in reality Brahman. So any existence spoken about without equating the meaning of 'existence' to Brahman is mithya. I believe the basic problem here (in trying to see the world as Brahman) arises because of the disparity in natures: Brahman is consciousness whereas the world is inert. So how can the world be Brahman when the two are of opposite natures? It seems logically contradictory to say that the world is Brahman. Is there a logical basis for saying that these two disparate things are One? I believe there is, but Rishi-ji, I cannot give you a reply here except to point out two approaches through which it may logically be seen that the world is Brahman. The first approach is to investigate (do vichara) on the natures of samanya and vishesha. The second approach is to investigate it through vichara on the nature of sabda. I do not know of any other logical way to see that the world is Brahman. In fact, this problem forms the crux of the great debates between Advaita and the other schools. Advaita is the only school which says that a word points only to samanya. Vishistadvaita holds that a word points both to samanya and vishesha. As far as I understand Dvaita, it holds that objects in the world are vishesha only and they have sadrishya between themselves, and that the samanya in them is seen only by virtue of the witness. In Advaita also the samanya is in the Self, but the samanya comes to be also in the objects of the world because these objects are nothing but Brahman Itself. There is a great significance in Advaita saying that words point only to samanya - it is this doctrine that leads coherently to Brahman being nir-vishesha. Brahman being nir-vishesha means that all seen things (visheshas) find their saman in sabda-Brahman. Samanya is that in which opposites may reside without contradiction. A particular apple may be red and another particluar apple may be green, but both redness and greenness have no contradiction in appleness. The samanya 'appleness' is the purnam of all visheshas. We do not find appleness in the world (by itself) but appleness is one with Brahman because samanya is sabda-Brahman. It is the eternal word in Brahman. Taking these approaches to logically establish the oneness of the world with Brahman is nowadays a less beaten track, but you will find it in the great debates of the yesteryears. I am convinced that there is no other way to logically approach the topic of the identity of the world with Brahman. While it is not easy to take these approaches, at the same time I believe that it is a rewarding experience. > "It is a unitary thing, being the unitary meaning of the unitary > word 'table'. This unitariness of things is not merely imagined - it > is given to us in an irrevocable manner as the distinct furniture of > the world in phenomena." > > I don't disagree that generally an object gains its unitary > existence and its seperation from its material cause only by > virtue of name (or the equivalent of the actual name in other > stages of speech). You are right. > However, the name is not intrinsic in the object in any real > sense, the name is given to it by the mind. The Vedas say that this universe was created by speech. What is created is the 24 tattvas starting from ahamkara, chitta, manas, buddhi down to prithvi. So, speech (name) is prior to manas. We normally tend to think of speech as articulated speech. But the eternal speech (sabda) in Brahman is anahata - it is the unstruct sound. The name and object are are united in Brahman. The name is not given by the mind, but the name-object (nama-rupa or pada-artha) appears in the mind as pashyanti vak. It is the undifferentiated speech - the unformed embryo, so to speak - and corresponds to the state of deep sleep. When the differentiation occurs, it becomes madhyama. Then the name and object stand apart as distinct things. The grammarians and yoga philosophers call the phenomenon of differentiation 'sphota' - as the explosion in which the word and object get illuminated in consciousness. Advaita does not adhere to the principle of sphota. It says that when the phonemes are pronounced, they fall in line like ants falling in place to manifest the line (of ants). The madhyama stage corresponds to the state of dream. The last stage is when speech takes the gross form and it is called vaikhari. It corresponds to the waking state. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2006 Report Share Posted January 5, 2006 Dear Chittaranjan-ji, At the outset, please note that I am fairly new to this group and I enjoy the discussions from the sidelines. At times it feels I am trying to get a drink of water from a fire hydrant! advaitin, in his reply to Rishi-ji, Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote: I believe the basic problem here (in trying to see the world as Brahman) arises because of the disparity in natures: Brahman is consciousness whereas the world is inert. So how can the world be Brahman when the two are of opposite natures? It seems logically contradictory to say that the world is Brahman. Is there a logical basis for saying that these two disparate things are One? I believe there is, but Rishi-ji, I cannot give you a reply here except to point out two approaches through which it may logically be seen that the world is Brahman. Chitta-ji, your posting on this topic, reminds me of relevant writing by Swami Krishnananda in his book Yoga, Meditation and Japa Sadhana, published by The Divine Life Society, Sivananda Ashram, Rishikesh. http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/ymj_0.html Pertinent text is reproduced below - "You may ask, "How do you know there is Consciousness everywhere?" I ask you, "How do you know your friend has consciousness?" You know you have consciousness, but you cannot see consciousness in your friend. But you infer from his intelligent activity that he has consciousness. Likewise, from the activity of the cosmos, we can infer the presence of a Cosmic Intelligence. Now, this Cosmic Intelligence, immanent in all objects, is what is called God, the Supreme Being. You call it the Absolute, because it is Complete Consciousness, and there is nothing outside it. When there is something outside it, you call it relative consciousness. When there is nothing outside it, and it is All-in-All, all-pervading, you call it Absolute-Consciousness. Now, you are a part of the Absolute-Consciousness, because you are a part of the universe. You are an organic part of the universe, not a mechanical part (like a stone in a heap). You are vitally related to the whole cosmos, so that you are an essential part of the cosmos. From this analysis we come to the astounding conclusion that the whole universe may be compared to a vast individuality. This is what the Vedas call the Parama-Purusha or the Supreme Being. When they use such terms in the texts, what they mean is that our salvation lies in being friendly with the universe as a whole. … … … The substance of the world is not matter or inorganic stuff. There is a misconception among most people that the world is made up of non-intelligent dead matter. This is not so. You cannot see consciousness with your eyes. You cannot see the consciousness or intelligence in another person. How can you see the Consciousness in the world outside? But, inasmuch as it is possible to infer the presence of consciousness in another individual by his activity, you can also infer the presence of Consciousness in the universe by an analysis of a peculiar activity called perception. The analysis of the process of perception of objects will give you an indication that the world is made up of Consciousness, and not matter. It is only by inference that you can come to this conclusion, not by direct, visible, sensory perception. You look at an object, a mountain which is a mile off, in front of you, and say, "I see it." I ask you, "What do you mean when you say that you see it?" You will reply, "Eyes are open, light rays which fall on the mountain travel from the mountain and impinge on the retina of the eyes, and then I am given a picture of the existence of the mountain." But I ask you, "Is light intelligent or non-intelligent?" You know very well that light rays have no consciousness, they are inert; and the mountain is inert. A non-intelligent principle cannot create intelligence; because the principle of logic demands that the cause must be at least as rich as the effect. The perception of the mountain is a conscious, intelligent activity (i.e. effect). So, the cause, the movement of light rays, must contain Consciousness inherently, otherwise, it would be inferior to the effect and consciousness cannot be produced by the inferior effect which is the light rays. Also, take another aspect of this very problem. The mountain which is outside you does not jump into your eyes. It is far off. How do you come to know that there is a mountain in front of you? Your eyes do not touch the mountain and the mountain does not touch your eyes. Both are far from each other. There is a connecting link between the mountain and your eyes. That is the reason why you are able to know that there is a mountain. But what is the connecting link? You may say, light-rays. No. Light-rays are inert. Inasmuch as inertness cannot produce an intelligent perception, we cannot accede that the light-rays which are inert can be the connecting link, really. The connecting link between an object and the seeing consciousness can be only one of two things, because there are only two things in this world, consciousness and matter, there is nothing else. Now, the connecting link between the mountain and the perceiving consciousness would be one of the two either it is consciousness or it is matter. If you say that matter or any thing material is the connecting link between the mountain and your consciousness, there will be a gap between consciousness and the object. Because consciousness cannot become matter and matter cannot become consciousness, they being characterised differently, just as milk cannot become stone and stone cannot become milk. Thus, if the connecting link is matter, there would be a gap between matter and consciousness and there would be no connection between the two, and you cannot know that there is mountain in front of you. So, that cannot be. And, naturally, the other alternative is that the connecting link is consciousness. Consciousness can mix with Consciousness. By this inference we come to the conclusion that consciousness must be hidden behind even material objects; otherwise perception itself would be impossible. Just as we infer the presence of intelligence by the activity of people outside, we infer the presence of intelligence in the world by the analysis of the activity of the individual known as perception. What we are driving at with all this analysis is that world is ultimately Consciousness in its nature, it is not matter. You are also not matter, because your whole personality remains unaffected even though the limbs are cut off. You are Consciousness. You are not a body. You are something far more than a body. Likewise, there is an immanent principle of Consciousness in the whole cosmos. This immanent Consciousness is what is called the Absolute, or Brahman, or the Atman. We call it the Self (i.e. the Atman), because it always remains hidden in the individual as the seeing principle, and not the seen object (because Consciousness cannot become an object which you can see with your senses). So, the Universal Consciousness, being incapable of being converted into an object, remains ever as a subject, as the Self. The Supreme Consciousness, which is the Absolute, is the Self of everyone." If my observation on the relevance of this text from Swami Krishnananda's book to your posting seems out-of-place, please forgive the trespass, and wish to be corrected. With warm regards, Mangesh DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 (Note: I'll reply to Subrahmanianji and Chittaranjanji's messages here) Dear Subrahmanianji, Thank you for your message and the beautiful quotes it contained. One thing I would like to note is that I presented three different opinions on adhyasa, and not two. Keep in mind these were general examples to show how the different understandings can lead to a different way of using the teachings to reduce fear. More generally, I was not saying that there is an entirely different method of dealing with ignorance/desires but the approach will differ depending on one's understanding. The paroksha jnana is not meant to be kept just for intellectual debate but it should be used to look at events that happen to us. If the paroksha jnana with respect to something like avidya is different, then the way we analyze occurances will also be different. Dear Chittranjanji, "Mithya is seeing the same world that one sees in paramartha but with its material cause hidden. Then paramarthika 'becomes' vyavaharika. The inert world then comes to be taken as existing in itself. But existence - sat - is Brahman. The existence of the inert world is in reality Brahman. So any existence spoken about without equating the meaning of 'existence' to Brahman is mithya." Yes, well I agree with your ontological position then, but the verbalization is different. The only difference between our positions is that I think if something has a material cause other than itself, then as "itself" it is not real. I agree that as the "material cause" it is absolutely real. However, I would suggest that when we talk about an object we talk about the object "as itself" and not as its essence or material cause. Anyway, this is purely semantics - we both agree that there is no illusory substance (whether personal or universal). I will reply about the the stages of speech and so on in another post later, Regards, Rishi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 Ref Post number 29700 Pranams CRN: You write (In fact, I find myself deeply indebted to Sri Madhvacharya for my understanding of Advaita. It may sound strange that I should be saying this, but it is my firm belief that anyone who cannot counter- argue against the charges brought forth by Sri Madhvacharya against Advaita has still a long way to go in his understanding of Advaita. The arguments of Sri Madhvacharya against Advaita are not merely what Madhvacharya says, but they are the eternal doubts that exist in the nature of Reality and may be made manifest in 'creation'. The sadhaka has to become stitha without doubts. Both samsaya and nirnaya are ontological entities and the one is resolved with the other. For me nothing is unreal except the loss of genuineness. I understand the Acharya to be saying exactly this.) This is not at all strange. Rather, very Profound. Clarification of doubts is the first step.(Sandeha Nivaranam). Doubts are just like the dark clouds that hide the Sun. Once the doubts are removed , one can experience the full Effluegence of the Sun. Who is the Acharya you are referring to? Is it Madhava or Sankara? CRN, you say : (I realise this. In fact, I would say that beyond a point relying on the analogy alone becomes dangerous. An analogy only shows what is to be illustrated through a similarity between two things, but the sadhaka has to pierce to the truth of the thing through the illumination of the thing to be known in his own understanding. When it relates to objects, it is vritti-jnana, and when it relates to brahman it is brahma-jnana. ) Is it Vritti jnana or Vastu jnana ? You say : (It is true that only a brahma-jnani can show you Brahman. I will go still further and say that only that brahma-jnani who is marked to be your Guru can show you Brahman.) This is true. Even Sankara says that. And it is said if you read Scriptures specially upanishads etc on your own , it will lead to more confusion and not knowledge. ( i think it is Vidyaranya who says that without Guru , one should not even study the scriptures) I like the analogy of the Hollow reed. That is very poetic and has a tone of extreme humility. Just breathe into the reed and the Sound that emanates is the eternal music of Shabda Brahman - OM. In that sound , there is no more singer , no more song - only Silence- the eternal state of Pranava merging into Atman. . Regards PS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 Dear Sri Rishi-ji, advaitin, "risrajlam" <rishi.lamichhane@g...> wrote: > Yes, well I agree with your ontological position then, but > the verbalization is different. The only difference between > our positions is that I think if something has a material > cause other than itself, then as "itself" it is not real. True. > I agree that as the "material cause" it is absolutely real. > However, I would suggest that when we talk about an object > we talk about the object "as itself" and not as its essence > or material cause. That is beautifully and sincerely said. You have articulated a doubt that I believe is the knot that lies between the mithyatva and sathyatva of the world. It is a profound topic because what lies at its heart is a profound mystery. It is the mystery of difference. It is the mystery where a thing becomes different than what it essentially is. What you are saying is that a thing is different from its essence. We often articulate this difference by using such terms as 'abstract' and 'concrete'. But there is no difference between the abstract and the concrete except that the concrete is the limitedness of the abstract. Somehow, we are used to thinking that essences are archetypes in the self whereas the object is that thing out there in space. This dulaity arises because the all-pervasive Self has somehow become limited as the self-in-the-body. But the Self is not merely here; It is there as well. So the archetype in the Self is not here; it is that very thing out there in space made manifest in some of its aspects i.e., in its limitedness. What we see is the very essence, but we do not see it completely; we see it limitedly. Now look at it logically which is also the same as tautologically because ultimately all things are only tautologies in the Self. Now the essence of a thing is what makes the thing what it is. Otherwise the meaning of the word 'essence' would be lost. So how is it possible for a thing to be different than its essence? If a thing were to be different from its essence, it would mean that the thing has something more or something less in it than its essence. But such a state of affairs would make the essence not be that which makes a thing what it is, and that would be a contradiction in terms. Therefore an object is not different from its essence. Let us take the same example of the table (and the same analysis) that you had given in a previous post to investigate this further. Is it ever possible for anyone to sense the complete table all at once? One can see the front of the table but not the back at the same time, one can see its form and colour while one is not feeling its hardness, one may feel it without seeing its colour, and so on and so forth. If one were to assume that the table is a collection of the various sense-data that may be gathered from perception, one can go on listing such elements of sense-data without end. In short, there would be an infinite number of sense-data elements of the table, and even one thing that we call a sense-data element would in its turn have an infinite number of elements that can be sensed in infinite ways and there is no end to it all. So, what is this thing that we call a table? Since we are both Advaitins, I do not need to convince you (or you me) that the table is a vritti in consciousness. Resorting to a metaphorical device (because there is no other way), we may say that a vritti is a wave in consciousness. The form of this wave is the object. There cannot be waves in consciousness if such a capacity does not exist in consciousness itself. The forms that lie as pure capacities of consciousness are the tattvas. The tattvas are principles and they exist in consciousness even if consciousness is not waving. The table is one such capacity or principle in consciousness even when consciousness is not waving into a table. That is the essence of the table and it is not different from the table which is consciousness waving to the essential table-principle that lies in its Infinitude. Sri Sri Sri Shankaracharya has used the example of the statue, that is existent already in the rock even before it is carved, to explain this same thing. Coming into existence and going out of existence, says the Acharya, is nothing but eternally existing things coming into the range of perception or going out of the range of perception. (Br.Up. bhashya) We have used the metaphorical device of 'consciousness waving' to describe the table-principle becoming manifest as the table-object. But it is now time to go beyond metaphors. The Truth is that Consciousness does not move. It is akshara and immutable. So how does consciousness wave? This is the crux of the matter. It waves by not waving. This principle is called spanda. It is the movement that has no movement. It is the silent vibration. The movement of spanda is that which is known, and what is known as movement is not a movement of Knowledge. Knowledge is stitha because the movement is nothing but the mere knowledge of such a thing i.e., knowledge of movement. One who knows this Truth is Himself the Knower who is the Pure Knowledge that is stitha. And there is no second entity because all things are the spanda that is not moving in that very Knowledge that is eternally stitha. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Dear Chittaranjanji, I will reply to the Words post first since it gets to the heart of our positions. I find that we agree on everything except on what can be taken from: "It does make sense. But it all relates to the cognition of the unity of objects and not to the essential unity of objects which are always existing in Brahman as the Divine Ritam." You are saying that the world is carved out (as it were) from Brahman by Names at a universal level and these Names are in a sense the basis for the niyati's operation. According to my position, objects don't have an essentially unity outside of cognition and their unity in cognition is provided by name on a personal level. In a sense, in this particular case, I am considering the importance of names in jiva-srishti whereas you are considering its importance with respect to ishvara-srishti. Of course I do believe that the world has been unfolded with an order. In fact in a position such as mine where there are no objects, but just cognitions, an ordered manifestation becomes a logical neccesity. Without ordered manifestation, one cannot account for how the perceptions are always ordered in a manner so as to even have the possibility to give rise to the illusion of objects. This also means that all possible cognitions exist as possibilities in the Absolute (which is similar to your position). The question that is now important is what each of us means by name. When I used the word abstract before, all I meant by it was a use different from everyday use. In my use, name refers to either a fully verbally elaborated word that refers to an object, or the pre-verbal state that precedes. Could you please explain what exactly you mean by "Name" (when you have time, this would of course take a while)? I am somewhat familiar with the Sadadhva model in Kashmir Shaivism (evolution through varna, kalaa, etc...) and wondering if your position is similar since in general your positions resembles Kashmir Shaivism a lot. Now some comments about the first post. "So how does consciousness wave? This is the crux of the matter. It waves by not waving. This principle is called spanda. It is the movement that has no movement. It is the silent vibration. The movement of spanda is that which is known, and what is known as movement is not a movement of Knowledge. Knowledge is stitha because the movement is nothing but the mere knowledge of such a thing i.e., knowledge of movement." Advaitins have a problem of how to explain the every-changing world if Brahman remains unchanging. The classical Advaitin explains this by saying that all things that seem to be changing are absolutely unreal. So just wipe off the world, and then you see there is no change. Since you talk about the Spanda principle, I find what Ksemaraja says in the relevant portion of the Spanda-Nirnaya very interesting (I don't have the text with me so I'm paraphrasing). He asks how can Shiva bring about the world if Shiva is unchanging? He says that Shiva's power (ie: the spanda principle) has the ability to acomplish that which is beyond the boundries of possibility. Do you agree with this presentation? Interesting, he even advances an ajatavada position in the same section. He says something like "In reality nothing arrises, and nothing subsides, it is just the spanda principle flashing as if in succession [since its beyond time]." What I find interesting is that this ajatavada is similar to yours, but completely different from classical Advaitin ajatavada. If something is unborn, it either always existed or it never existed. According to classical Advaitins (as well as Madhyamakas), phenomena never existed and are ajata in that sense. Ksemaraja (and you) are saying that phenomena are essentially Brahman, and therefore from this point of view, they have always existed (ie: they are eternal). I agree with this second position, but would not say phenomena are eternal because of the terminological issue we discussed previously. I would not have a problem saying that the essence of the phenomena (which the phenomena truly are) are Eternal. I think Gaudapada also means it in this sense since he refutes those who hold that selves are created (out of Brahman I imagine): "If, as you say, the effect is non—different from the cause, then the effect too must be unborn." So he suggests that any created thing is unborn because they are of the same nature as their cause (in other words, their essence is eternal). Classical Advaitins seem to agree sometimes that Brahman is the cause of the world, but hold that Brahman is unborn in one sense and everything else is unborn in another. This has been a long post, Regards, Rishi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Dear Sri Purushartha-ji, Ref your post 29715 There is something I seem to recognise in your style, but of this I am not sure. Also I feel that I should be annoyed at the authoritative manner in which you say things (especially since you speak in an even more authoritative manner than I do), but so far I have not succeeded in possessing this annoyance. Sri Felipe tried to do so (on my behalf also) but I feel that he failed too. The next time I will try harder. :-) advaitin, "Purusha" <purush_artha> wrote: > > For me nothing is unreal except the loss of genuineness. > > I understand the Acharya to be saying exactly this. > Who is the Acharya you are referring to? Is it Madhava or > Sankara? Shankara. According to my reading of Sri Shankaracharya, he says that the unreal is a loss of genuineness. That is adhyasa, one thing appearing as another – as not genuinely itself. Shankara also says the same thing to the seeker – be genuine and you will shine in the revelation of your Self. Shankara chided the Buddhists for not being genuine, but many Advaitins think it applies only to the Buddhists and not to the Advaitins, and thus the Shankara they see is (I believe) not the genuine Shankara. > > sadhaka has to pierce to the truth of the thing through > > the illumination of the thing to be known in his own > > understanding. When it relates to objects, it is vritti- > > jnana, and when it relates to brahman it is brahma-jnana. > > Is it Vritti jnana or Vastu jnana ? It depends on what 'vastu' means. By vritti I understand all that is nama-rupa or pada-artha. If vastu means 'object' is the same sense as 'artha', then vritti jnana is the same as vastu jnana. If vastu is limited to gross objects, then vritti-jnana is more encompassing than vastu-jnana as it includes in it all the tattvas from ahamkara to prithvi. > Just breathe into the reed and the Sound that emanates > is the eternal music of Shabda Brahman - OM. In that > sound, there is no more singer, no more song - only > Silence- the eternal state of Pranava merging into Atman. These are beautiful words. Yes, She merges into Him in the Music of Eternity. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Ref Post 29725 Pranams CNS: I do not want to sound authoritative for that would make me a Fool for I am still a jignasu only. That was the least of my intentions. As far as a 'genuine' Shankara is concerned , you know that there are many questions about that too. Let us leave it at that. CRN, between you and Rishi , sometimes it is hard to understand if we are discussing the Vritti Jnana of Trika Saivism or Shankara's Advaita Vedaanta. Vritti has many meanings whereas Vastu has only one meaning as you have explained with such expertise. hOW can one ignore the 36 cosmic principles while discussing this great topic. Hence that 'authoritative' sounding question but in reality was only a 'leading' question. Rishi mentioned about Kshemaraja. You mention about 'Spanda'. Therefore ,When one reads the two posts in the sequence , one gets into the realm of Kshemaraja's Spanda Karika. Whether Gaudapada Karika or Spanda Karika, it is all about 'spiritual' transcedence. Is it not, CRN? The discussion is very illuminating and all the participants are 'real' as you mentioned earlier. But the ones who are not participating are also 'real' for in their silence lies the eternal wisdom. I will say this with authority though as long as we know what is our 'Real' self as distinguished from our 'Empirical' self, we have recognized the 'spanda' priciple. Athato ..... play the flute and let us drown in the melody of Divine music of Shabda Brahman. regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Dear Sri Rishi-ji, I just read your post of today addressed to Sri Subrahmanian-ji and I was wondering if I were you or you me. :-) Somebody wrote a mail to me asking whether I was writing under the pseudonym of Rishi! Rishi-ji, you will have to excuse me for not replying to your queries regarding Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta as this topic deserves a full discussion in its own right. I intend to write about it one of these days, and when I do so I will post relevant parts from it to the list, and then you can contribute to my understanding as you seem to be more familiar with Kashmir Shaivism than I am. Apart from an introductory book by Swami Lakshman Joo, I have read only the Ishvara Pratyabhijna Karika of Utpaladeva and I am presently reading the Siva Sutras with Kshemaraja's Vimarshini. But my understanding of Advaita from Sri Shankaracharya's bhashyas seems to have a lot of coherence with the Trika System. I see that your understanding is very close to mine, and, considering that this kind of understanding is considered somewhat heretic by many people, I welcome your comaradarie. By the way, did you know that the object being restricted to pashyanti, madhyama and vaikhari would take the position close to Dvaita? The Dvaitins say that Brahman is Gunapoorna, and that the prakritic objects are different from Brahman. But here is an interesting bit of information. Just as in Advaita, the samanya of all things in Brahman allows contradictory characteristics to abide in the sameness of Brahman, the Dvaitins speak of something called the acintya-adbhuta-shakti of Brahman that makes possible Brahman's Gunapoornatva in which contradictory characteristics may abide. I shall close this message with two statements regarding samanya and vishesha: 1. Samanya cannot be thought because what comes into thought is a vishesha. 2. The Nyayayikas say that the colour 'red' is colourless. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Mangashji wrote: (snip) # 29742 "But, inasmuch as it is possible to infer the presence of consciousness in another individual by his activity, you can also infer the presence of Consciousness in the universe by an analysis of a peculiar activity called perception. The analysis of the process of perception of objects will give you an indication that the world is made up of Consciousness, and not matter. It is only by inference that you can come to this conclusion, not by direct, visible, sensory perception."(Swami Krishnananda) |||||||||||||||||| Namaste Sri Mangashji, Strictly speaking there is no inference involved in the ascription of consciousness to another human being any more than a dog ascribes doghood to another dog on the basis of doggy behaviour. Are we not higher mammals than dogs? If we were to ask however if dogs are conscious or whether dogs have a rudimentary representation of the world we should infer from their behaviour whether or not this was the case. Does adhyasa operate in dogs or to put it in another way do dogs represent the world to themselves? I would say yes to that. Can dogs practice vichara to overcome or to see through it? I would say no. Must knowledge always be justified? Are there not things that we *just* know? Inference in Vedanta Paribhasa (Chap.II) and in Methods of Knowledge (Chap VI) by Swami Satprakashananda requires invariable concomitance. Inferring from one's own case or just one instance cannot be a safe inference. Philosophers call this sort of knowledge intuition or park it in the non-categorical bay. Whether there is an external world and whether our representations of it are true are also matters, in my opinion, of intuitive knowledge. So, you may ask, if it is such a matter of direct awareness without the intervention of reasoning why is it not apparent to everyone and why in particular should Swami have to direct such ingenuity to persuade us of it? "If the doors of perception were but cleansed then we should see everything as it is, infinite." (William Blake) To get the intuitive vision of the object shining within the mind being the identical same object as the one that is there in external reality requires profoundly focussed meditation. I should say that a step on the way towards that vision is the sense of the mental representation being exactly similar to the external object. Perhaps C.N. will come in here and relate this to the 'word' that he has been talking about. >From exactly similar to identical is no baby step, Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Dear Sri Michael-ji, Refer your post 29767 advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: > Perhaps C.N. will come in here and relate this to > the 'word' that he has been talking about. CN will try, but the magic of words may slip out of his grasp. :-) > Must knowledge always be justified? > Are there not things that we *just* know? Yes, there surely are. In the Meno, Plato speaks about 'just' knowing as the intrinsic knowledge that lies within the soul and which is recollected by a process that is ordinarily called 'knowledge'. In Vedanta, the basis of this recollection is called pratyabhijna - recognition. In his commentary on the Dakshinamurthy Stotra of Sri Shankaracharya called 'Manasallosa', Sri Sureshvaracharya concludes that the basis of all pramanas is recognition (pratyabhijna). Recognition is the core of the great Pratyabhijna philosophy of (the Advaita of) Kashmir Shaivism. The 'just knowing' is intimately connected to 'words' because what is recognised in the 'just knowing' is word-meanings, the pure sabda- artha, that lies in Brahman as Ritam. And since Brahman is the witness in all beings, the meanings of things in Brahman comes to be present in the witness (sakshi) of all beings (including dogs and humans) and its recognition is the sakshi-pramana that operates in all beings before the pramana suffers the abuse of the filters of impurities that embodied beings possess. I believe that Godel's proof eminently demonstrates that there are certain things we 'just' know which cannot be proved from within the structure of any formalism. This I think is true when there is loss of pratyabhijna as there is in the life of samsara. They say that Nyaya is a system of logic that is derived from the pure pratyabhijna of the Sabda-Brahman of the Vedas, and that this is the reason why Nyaya comes to be called an upanga (subsidiary arm) of the Vedas. In this view, the foundation of Nyaya is pratyabhijna - knowledge of things as the word-objects or pada-arthas (the logos of the Greeks?) as they are in Reality (read Consciousness). > Inference in Vedanta Paribhasa (Chap.II) > and in Methods of Knowledge (Chap VI) > by Swami Satprakashananda requires > invariable concomitance. Inferring > from one's own case or just one instance > cannot be a safe inference. This is a tricky one to comment on. There is a sense in which we may say that even one instance of perception is sufficient for it to be taken as vyapti because that instance wouldn't have been possible if the invariant concomitance didn't exist in Reality. But for it to be valid as a vyapti it must remain unsublated at the time when it is employed. In any case, I shall not pursue this argument for the simple reason that there are many arguments for and against the proposition in the text-books of Nyaya and I am not sure how they come to the conclusion that one instance is sufficient or even that that is the final position of Nyaya. > Strictly speaking there is no inference > involved in the ascription of consciousness > to another human being any more than a dog > ascribes doghood to another dog on the basis > of doggy behaviour. You are right in so far as you speak about the situation we are in wherein we have lost the innate ability to be transparent to the inner recognition that we already have. We then ask that the invariable-concomitance should be justified through external perception. But still, it is partyabhijna which William Blake seems to be hinting at when he speaks the following words: > "If the doors of perception were but cleansed then we should > see everything as it is, infinite." (William Blake) When one is transparent to the word, one receives naturally. I just read that the root of the Jewish word Qaballah means 'to receive'. > To get the intuitive vision of the object > shining within the mind being the > identical same object as the one that > is there in external reality requires > profoundly focussed meditation. I should > say that a step on the way towards that > vision is the sense of the mental > representation being exactly similar > to the external object. And I say, Wow! These words are a mirror of a part of the Patanjali Yoga Sutras. > From exactly similar to identical is no baby step, It is the step to Infinity! (An aside question: Was it William Blake who saw infinity in the palm of his hand?) > Are we not higher mammals than dogs? > If we were to ask however if dogs are > conscious or whether dogs have a rudimentary > representation of the world we should infer > from their behaviour whether or not this was > the case. Does adhyasa operate in dogs or to > put it in another way do dogs represent the > world to themselves? I would say yes to that. > Can dogs practice vichara to overcome or to > see through it? I would say no. Because dogs are dogs (by virtue of being dog-tattva) they have not the innate power of buddhi that is found in the innate nature of humans (i.e., in manava-tattva). But it is said that some animals too have attained moksha. The cow Lakshmi in Sri Ramana ashram is said to have attained moksha. It is said in the Bhagavata Purana that the elephant Gajendra attained moksha. I think it all has to do with the tattva the Self is identified with. But you are right, the dog-tattva does not have the buddhi sufficiently manifested in it for the Self identified with the dog-tattva to do vichara. Perhaps the souls of the cow Lakshmi and the elephant Gajendra had already transcended the cow-tattva and elephant-tattva (respectively) and were close to just Being. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Dear Sri Hoskote-ji and Sri Rishi-ji, advaitin, Mangesh Hoskote <mhoskote2000> wrote: To Sri Hoskote-ji, > Chitta-ji, your posting on this topic, reminds me of > relevant writing by Swami Krishnananda in his book Yoga, > Meditation and Japa Sadhana, published by The Divine > Life Society, Sivananda Ashram, Rishikesh. http://www. > swami-krishnananda.org/ymj_0.html > > Pertinent text is reproduced below - Thank you for sharing this article with us. It has some excellent arguments to show that the knowledge of the world has to ultimately find its ground in Consciousness. Dear Sri Rishi-ji, On reading your reply to Bhaskar Prabhuji on the topic of avidya and Ishvara, I couldn't help admiring the logical coherency you maintain between the frame of reference and the observed manifest world in accordance with the frame of reference. Such keen insight is most important for insulating oneself from getting befuddled between the paramarthika and the vyavaharika perspectives. Congratulations! Warm regards, Chittaranjan 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.