Brahman - Revelation and Confusion - some clarifications

[Guest guest]

>

> Namaste,

> Why do we have to realize Brahman ? Maybe striving to realize our

> own nature will be more useful rather than chasing a conceptual entity

> called "Brahman".

>

> Regards,

> Raj.

 

I feel compelled to write based on my understanding to clear out some

confusion that is being generated.

 

1. Shree Raj - If you feel that chasing your own nature is more useful

than chasing the 'conceptual' Brahman - go for it. However, just for a

second, examine why one wants to realize aatma also. What are we going

to do with that 'aatma' once we have realized it - Then what next or is

there next? Please think it over. Fact of the matter is - I do not need

'aatma' nor do I need 'brahman'. Both remain as concepts. What I

longing for in all my pursuits is happiness. If I can get that eternal

unlimited happiness that I am longing for, I do not need either aatma

or Brahman. What scripture tell us that 'anantam eva aanandam' -

unlimited infiniteness alone is aanandam or happiness since any

limitation cause unhappiness. In addition, Brahman means infiniteness.

Now we have a reason to go after Brahman since that is 'source' of

infinite or unlimited happiness. However, I cannot get infinity nor I

can become infinity -finite cannot become infinity - but longing for

absolute uninterrupted happiness seems to be inherent drive that I

cannot stop. We have a dichotomy here - I cannot stop longing for

infinite happiness and I cannot get that infinity. Scripture comes to

our rescue indicating that you are that infinite happiness - This self

is Brahman and tat tvam asi. Hence, the equation is complete - I am the

self and not this and this and this (Body, mind and intellect),that I

identify with; and the self that I am is nothing but Brahman. Hence

going after self-realization is nothing but going after Brahman

realization. However, if I am already that, why should I go after –

hence the problem lies in my not knowing my true nature. Hence, the

happiness that I am longing for is myself. ‘tat tvam asi’ says Vedanta.

Hence, what I need is only knowledge of my true nature.

 

You mentioned about 'conceptualization'. Yes, that is the topic of

discussion -intellect can only conceptualize. Conceptualization is

objectification and that is precisely what Ram is discussing - It is not

an intellectual pursuit in the sense that it is not an objective

understanding. We have lot of hair splitting logicians - but that is not

what is implied in the inquiry of Brahman.

Just to diverge -One gentleman use to come to our study group. He was an

ardent scholar and he used to bring at least a dozen books to our class.

For any topic he used to refer to at least six or seven books - what

this says and what that says etc.- and in the process he got us all

totally confused. He thought he was providing us lot of knowledge.

Hence JK says - It is not an understanding as an understanding as a

thought, it is an understanding as an understanding as a fact'. One has

to go beyond the pole leaving the pole behind.

 

Now some comments on 'avidya - and knowledge' -and Brahman inquiry.

Inquire into the nature of Brahman – and that brahman is yourself –

since prajnaanam is brahman, consciousness is Brahman and you are a

conscious entity and by definition, you are brahman. True - knowledge

alone eliminates the avidya as Chitta discussed. However, here we are

not taking about objective knowledge that intellect is capable of doing.

It is the knowledge of the ‘subject – I’ and the subject cannot be

objectified. Hence, knowledge and intellect can become a barrier if one

sits down starts inquiry – of course using intellect. Hence, it is not

any inquiry – it is an inquiry using the scripture as the basis,

obviously guided by a guru since scripture is a revealing knowledge.

 

It is not that the statement ‘it is beyond the intellect’ to be made by

one who has realized. Such kind of statement is useless once one has

realized. It is a statement for the saadhak only who is trying to

conceptualize ‘brahman’ or conceptualize ‘aatman’ using the intellect.

Hence, it is not knowledge of .. where means of knowledge or pramaaNa

are to be used. Here Vedanta pramaaNa is not the means in that sense.

It use the words to guide the student to go beyond the words. Vedanta

is required for saadhak only – not for a realized soul. Intellectual

understanding is needed before one can transcend the intellect – as one

needs the pole to go beyond the pole. Yet it is not intellectual nor

logical since it is yourself, the very subject that is doing the

inquiry. Hence, Bhagavaan Ramana says ‘analyze the analyst’ – in the

very process, the very intellect that is trying to analyze goes blank.

 

As long as we do not understand the whole process clearly, we will be

arguing like six blind people trying to define the elephant. Intellect

is required for inquiry but yet it is not intellectual inquiry. Viveka

that is required is defined as nitya anitya vastu viveka – a

discriminative intellect to differentiate that which is eternal and that

which is not. Vedanta is logical but the truth is beyond the logic.

People can get bogged down with logic failing to see, that which is so

self evident, obvious and right in front since you are that all the

time, since we are all looking for it. Since the sought is the same as

the seeker, any amount of seeking (intellectual or otherwise) is going

to fail miserably since in the very seeking, seeker assumed that sought

is different from the seeker. We need an inquiry that unites the

seeker, sought and the seeking into one. That is what Vedanta

recommends using neti, neti, not this not this – that ‘iti’ includes all

the intellectual concepts too.

 

Some time a simple and honest mind is better suited than highly

intellectual mind. There was famous ‘Sastry’ who was an erudite scholar

and could give endless discourses on Vedanta – but was not able to be

happy with himself in spite of his knowledge. He at last approached

Bhagavaan Ramana who had no formal study of scriptures. With Bhagavan’s

grace he got the required help. Bhagavaan Ramana confirmed the

scriptures. The Shaastrigal was the one who called the boy –

‘Venkataramana’ as Bhagavaan Ramana Maharshi. Nisargadatta maharaj was

a roadside shopkeeper – He transformed into a mahaatma not by using

intellectual analysis, by simply rejecting what he is not since his

teacher told him so. What we need is a ‘subtle’ intellect that

integrates many into one and not the ‘sharp intellect’ that divides one

into many – that is what hair-splitting logic does. This subtle

intellect cannot be acquired by intellectual jugglery but by full faith

in the words of the scriptures and purity of the mind to inquire and to

discard what one is not. Again, it is not an intellectual inquiry but

still inquiry using the intellect to reject ruthlessly what one is not,

thereby establishing what one is.

 

If this causes more confusion my apologies, since I had no intension of

writing all this– Since I felt compelled to do I will leave it to Him

to account – even the silly typos if one notices.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>

>

<snip>

 

Namaste Sadanandaji,

Thanks for this long and insightful post.

The reason I mentioned that self-enquiry may be more useful than

Brahman-enquiry is the following :

For most of us here, Brahman is like Lochness Monster. None of us

have seen it, but there are so many wonderful theories floating around

about it. Lots of scholarly debates are going on about whether Brahman

is the material cause or efficient cause, whether world exists in

Brhaman or world does not exist at all, and these debates are never

going to end as none of us knows what Brahman is.

In my simplistic view, all these debates still focus on the object

- whether it is Lochness Monster or Brahman. What may be more useful

is to focus the enquiry into the subject.

 

The only avidya that we need to remove is our own mis-conceptions

about ourselves. We wrongly identify ourselves with so many things :

body (I am fat), feelings (I am sad), ideology (I am a socialist),

nationality (I am an Indian), occupation (I am an engineer) etc.

As a seeker, all that we need to do is to remove all these wrong

identifications.

As Ashtavakra advises Janaka :

"If only you will remain resting in consciousness, seeing yourself

as distinct from the body, then even now you will become happy,

peaceful and free from bonds." (Ashtavakra Gita 1.4)

>

> As long as we do not understand the whole process clearly, we will be

> arguing like six blind people trying to define the elephant. Intellect

> is required for inquiry but yet it is not intellectual inquiry. Viveka

> that is required is defined as nitya anitya vastu viveka � a

> discriminative intellect to differentiate that which is eternal and that

> which is not. Vedanta is logical but the truth is beyond the logic.

> People can get bogged down with logic failing to see, that which is so

> self evident, obvious and right in front since you are that all the

> time, since we are all looking for it. Since the sought is the same as

> the seeker, any amount of seeking (intellectual or otherwise) is going

> to fail miserably since in the very seeking, seeker assumed that sought

> is different from the seeker. We need an inquiry that unites the

> seeker, sought and the seeking into one. That is what Vedanta

> recommends using neti, neti, not this not this � that �iti� includes all

> the intellectual concepts too.

>

 

This paragraph tells it all. All that a seeker needs to do is to use

his discriminative intellect to differentiate the non-self from self.

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

>

 

Regards,

Raj.

[Guest guest]

--- rajkumarknair <rajkumarknair wrote:

> This paragraph tells it all. All that a seeker needs to do is to use

> his discriminative intellect to differentiate the non-self from self.

>>

> Regards,

> Raj.

Shree Raj - the statement above comes after clear understanding that the

self that I am trying to differentiate includes also the so-called

non-self. Otherwise, we will end up in dvaita with self different from

non-self. That is only when I understand clearly Vedic statement that

'sarvam khalvidam brahman' - this entire universe that I point out as

idam or non-self is also brahman that I am. That is, I am the

substantive for the non-self too.

sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutaanica aatmani - self in all

beings and all beings in the self.

 

Hence what I am discriminating is rejecting only the superficial naama

and ruupa - the topic of discussion in the adhyaaropa-apavaada.

 

If that is clear then you can call it self-inquiry or Brahman inquiry -

both mean the same.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda