How Advaita seeks the Infinity that the self never was not

[Guest guest]

Dear Brothers and Sisters, and Elders of the Holy Community of Non-

Dualists,

 

There is an insight that has come into my being regarding the self

that is inside-out and also outside-in and i wish to speak about it

(with brevity and clarity) to the children in your hearts and to the

swords called the Excaliber that is in your intellects. Please allow

me to deliver.

 

Thank you giving me the permission to do so. The sight that the

insight brought into my being is as follows:

 

The self which is Brahman is not Brahman because it is limited and

made smaller than Brahman. It is like this somehow. Please do not

interrupt. Knowing it as consciousness alone does not prevent the

self from being invoked and provoked to look outside for things that

are not in its self. Therefore, knowing that the self is only

consciousness would not make it be the Consciousness which is in

Stillness, but it will continue to be moving for looking outside its

self for making up the loss by which it has lost something that was

inside its self to now being outside of its self. In order that the

self may be in Stillness (which also has been called Nirvana or the

cessation of the self looking outside of its self), the self has to

be known as the Great Self that has everything in It so that nothing

may have to be looked for outside Its Self. That Great Self, that It

actually is, is called Brahman. It is so Great that Its name had to

be brought from a meaning that is the greatest that is,

namely 'brahat', which is greater than anything that can be conceived

of, and when It is conceived of, It is still greater than what It is

conceived to be. That is Brahman. That Great Self, which is so

endless that there is no outside Its Self, cannot therefore lose

anything and It is therefore Full and Absolutely Still. There is

nothing for it to look for. That is why Brahman comes to be spoken

about as That which is to be attained even though it is only one's

self that is to be sought for and seeked out. The Self is to be known

as That Great Self for the Stillness to come. That is the meaning of

knowing the self to be Brahman. The means of Knowing It is Negation.

 

Negation is the opening of the gates of Infinity but it has nowadays

become among the scholars a grave in which to lie. It therefore

causes the Spirit of Gravity to fall upon the hearts of scholars that

do it. Negation must therefore be done carefully so that it opens the

door to the gates of Heaven and not to the gates of the Graves that

lie under the ground. To do negation carefully, one must learn the

art of Careful Negation. Careful Negation only does the negation of

negating a thing as it really is not. When applied with care, it

negates all things that are seen as outside of the self so that the

negating self may see that the negated thing is actually inside the

self and thereby the self begins to see that the negating self is

bigger than it earlier was seen to be. The limited self thus grows to

its actual Great Size by the process of negation. And as it grows,

the Spirit of Gravity that was earlier in it gets gradually replaced

by the Spirit of Levity because the grave in which the self earlier

was gets gradually opened out into the Wide Open Sky that is Endless.

The self then begins to fly into the Sky. Flying into the sky is the

art of Levitation. This is how the Spirit of Levity comes.

 

When the Spirit of Levity comes into the heart of the growing self,

it begins to sing and dance madly, singing to the strains of the

ineffable music that carries it off its feet into unspeakable

raptures of ecstasy even while its feet are dancing softly upon the

meadows of earth, and the naiad spirits then come and play once again

on the banks of honeyed streams and timeless rivers.

 

The insight, as you can see, is about the limited self growing into

the Great Self that It always is.

 

Thus has it been insighted.

 

I thank the Children for listening to It in wonder, the Sword of

Excaliber for separating It in discrimination, and all those who are

no-bodies for Seeing it in the Heart.

 

As i have become a little bit infected with Madness recently, it

might have happened that i have caused some perturbations to come

into the minds of the listeners while sharing this insight. I

therefore beg and pray to your generous selves that i may be forgiven

for any transgression of etiquette, netiquette, and other such

important improprieties that i might have unwittingly committed

during this broadcast.

 

Lastly and not leastly, i would like to thank the Honourable Members

of the Board of Moderators of the Holy Community of Non-Dualists for

providing me a Canvas to paint this Mad Picture.

 

I remain yours truly,

the fool,

 

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste, All

I am putting down the following only with the idea of getting my knowledge

corrected.

 

<<The self which is Brahman is not Brahman because it is limited and made

smaller than Brahman.>>

 

Yes, the “self” is Jeeva and the Mahavakya itself is “Aham Brahma Asmi” i.e. I

am Brahman and not Brahman is I (small i), just like necklace is gold and gold

is not necklace. However, the essence of necklace is gold, similarly essence of

this self, jeeva is Brahman.

<<<It is still greater than what It is conceived to be. That is Brahman. That

Great Self, which is so endless that there is no outside Its Self, cannot

therefore lose anything and It is therefore Full and Abs….>>

IT is not only Greater than the Greatest, but also Smaller than the smallest,

because It is Vishnu and It pervades any known and unknown, like gold pervades

all sorts of ornaments.

<<Careful Negation only does the negation of negating a thing as it really is

no>>

As for Negation, is it negation of a thing or negation of the knowledge i.e.

mithya-knowledge of a thing? I cannot/need not negate Necklace, but the

knowledge that the thing is Necklace can be negated as the unchanging knowledge

of that thing appearing as necklace, is Gold.

Warm regards and respects to all

 

 

 

R. S. Mani

 

 

 

Photos

Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays,

whatever.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Chittaranjanji,

 

Thank you for your very interesting insights.

 

"The insight, as you can see, is about the limited self growing into

the Great Self that It always is."

 

One way that I find it useful of thinking of something similar to what

you mention here is by considering the word "self".

 

The "self" in general is the referrent of the word "I". The referrent

of the word "I" is indeed the individual self (or we could say its the

individual conciousness) for everyone. However, the same word also

points to the unlimited Self. If I point at a table, I am pointing

both at the table and at wood. Similarly, the word "I" points both to

the individual self and Brahman.

 

The individual conciousness carves its existence out of the Absolute

by thinking itself to be a limited part of the Whole. In the course of

Sadhana, the limited part it took itself to be increases and increases

in size and in the course of Sadhana it might feel like it is the

creator, it is the whole universe, etc... Eventually the limited

referrent of the "I" expands and expands until it becomes identical to

the unlimited referrent, the All. The two referrents of the "I" become

one. In that sense, moksha is the end of schizophrenia.

 

This is not a merger of one entity with the other since that would be

unnecesarily tiresome. The table never has to merge with wood. The

apara referrent of the "I", the jiva, is just the idea: "I am a jiva".

When this expands and vanishes into the para referrent, all is

acomplished,

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Namastey Rishi:

 

Kindly bear with me for interjecting in the discussion.

 

You state “In the course of Sadhana, the limited part it took itself to

be increases and increases in size and in the course of Sadhana it might feel

like it is the creator, it is the whole universe, etc”

 

The limited self need not to grow to feel that is the creator. The barriers

that it conceives because of the notions of phenomenal world are broken during

the Sadhana. One therefore will experience the connectedness and

non-separateness with the universal self during the sadhana.

 

You state “Eventually the limited referrent of the "I" expands and expands

until it becomes identical to the unlimited referrent, the All.”

 

What is there to expand when there is nothing that has contracted in the

first place? I think the emphasis of realization in Advaita is a higher order

experience. The experience that the notion of individual self is unreal for

nothing is separate from it already. But until that experience reality as

perceived is different.

 

You further state that “The apara referrent of the "I", the jiva, is just

the idea: "I am a jiva".”

 

No, it is just not an idea if you meant it to be synonymous to thought. The

notion “I am a Jiva” is a real experience in the phenomenal world. The notion

that “I am Brahman” is a higher experience. Both these experiences are not mere

ideas. A higher experience serves to invalidate the lower experience. If it

were just mere ideas then one can have ideas of high order and conclude that “I

am Brahman”. Experience is the gist of Sadhana and Jnani is an outcome of that

higher experience.

 

Sincerely,

RR

 

 

 

 

Photos

Got holiday prints? See all the ways to get quality prints in your hands ASAP.

 

 

[Guest guest]

ref post 29892

 

Rishiji , Namaste! Chitta-hi, the starter of this thread,Namaste !

 

The size of the individual soul in relation to the super soul :

 

The following verses From Svetasvatara Upanishad comes to mind :

 

 

Subtle as the point of a goad, and pure, effulgent and infinite like

the sun, He alone is seen assuming as another *the size of a thumb*

on account of the finiteness of the heart (in which He appears), and

associating Himself with egoism and Sankalpa on account of the

limitations of the intellect.(5.8)

 

That individual soul is as subtle as a *hairpoint divided and sub-

divided hundreds of times.* Yet he is potentially infinite. He has to

be known. (5.9)

 

Soul is thus described as 'angush matra' (size of a thumb)

and "hairpoint divided and subdivided hundreds of times."

 

 

http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/Svetasvatara Upanishad.html

 

Om Shanti! Shanti!Shatihi!

 

Regrds

 

ps

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "risrajlam" <rishi.lamichhane@g...>

wrote:

>

> Dear Chittaranjanji,

>

> Thank you for your very interesting insights.

>

> "The insight, as you can see, is about the limited self growing into

> the Great Self that It always is."

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Rishiji and Sri Ramchanderji,

 

Rishiji i feel a thrill go through me whenever i read your posts and

see just how closely our understandings coincide.

 

Ramchanderji, I believe you've missed the key words in Rishiji's

post. The key words in regards of the self's identification are 'took

itself to be' and 'referent of the word "I"'. The self never changes,

but the limited referent that it takes itself to be is replaced by

the unlimited referent 'All'. This is what is meant by 'expansion' of

the self. The 'expansion' may be experiential or non-experiential

depending on the course of sadhana. In Vishishtadvaita, it is

experiential - the consciousness of the self is said to expand. In

Advaita, it is not experiential, but the revealing of the innate

unlimitedness of Self. When you say (in your post) that "the emphasis

of realization in Advaita is a higher order experience" I'm afraid

the articulation is not accurate. Advaita is the 'revelation of what

always is' and is not an experience, which is the reason why the

Advaita jnani says "there is no bandha, no moksha, no one seeking

liberation and no one liberated."

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, Rajesh Ramachander

<rrajeshchander> wrote:

> Namastey Rishi:

>

> Kindly bear with me for interjecting in the discussion.

>

> > You state "In the course of Sadhana, the limited part it

> > took itself to be increases and increases in size and

> > in the course of Sadhana it might feel like it is the

> > creator, it is the whole universe, etc"

>

> The limited self need not to grow to feel that is

> the creator. The barriers that it conceives because

> of the notions of phenomenal world are broken during

> the Sadhana.

> > You state "Eventually the limited referrent of the

> > "I" expands and expands until it becomes identical

> > to the unlimited referrent, the All."

>

> What is there to expand when there is nothing that

> has contracted in the first place?

> I think the emphasis of realization in Advaita is a

> higher order experience.

[Guest guest]

Namastey Chitaranjan Ji:

>> The self never changes, but the limited referent that it takes >>itself to

be is replaced by the unlimited referent 'All'.

I understand your position and agree with it. Our difference seem more

in the terminologies we use to understand it. I see that essentially nothing

has been replaced by anything here. The notional barrier surrounding the

limited referent is torn down and limited referent sees itself as the unlimited

referent ‘All’.

>>I'm afraid the articulation is not accurate. Advaita is the >>'revelation

of what always is' and is not an experience,

I am willing to be corrected in the articulation. If there were

no experience of revelation then how is the revelation related by the subject?

The revelation or exposure can occur to the seeker under the context of an

experience. The reasoning for this view point is based on the fact that the

phenomenal world that appeared as reality to the seeker is now mere

‘appearance’ after the revelation. This ‘appearance’ perspective of the world

to the Jnani can only due to the experience of Brahman. The intellectual values

that the seeker attached to the world earlier are invalidated through a new

experience. Brahman can be self revealed but an experience is needed to

comprehend the revelation in spite of the fact that the known, knowledge and

the knower are indistinct at realization. If there is nothing to experience

then there is nothing to be revealed either. That is why self realization is

called in Advaita as Brahma-Anubhuva.

>>which is the reason why the Advaita jnani says "there is no >>bandha, no

moksha, no one seeking liberation and no one >>liberated."

 

From the standpoint of the ‘jnani’ all these terms such as ‘liberation,

liberated, moksha, bondage are all duality and hence figments of imagination.

Since duality does not exist, the highest truth consists in the non-existence

of liberation and the rest and not otherwise.

 

Sincerely,

RR

 

 

 

 

 

Photos

Got holiday prints? See all the ways to get quality prints in your hands ASAP.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ramchanderji,

 

 

advaitin, Rajesh Ramachander

<rrajeshchander> wrote:

 

>> I'm afraid the articulation is not accurate. Advaita is

>> the 'revelation of what always is' and is not an experience

> I am willing to be corrected in the articulation. If there

> were no experience of revelation then how is the revelation

> related by the subject?

 

It is not related as an experience. All experience is pure knowledge

that is unmoving and is hence not an experiential movement.

> The revelation or exposure can occur to the seeker under

> the context of an experience.

 

Yes, I agree with this.

 

But it would be better to refrain from ascribing notions of

experience to a jnani and instead rely on what agama says. Sri

Shankaracharya says that it is not an experience. When we have to

adjudicate the truth between two statements as made from the

standpoint of an ajnani and the jnani, the statement of the jnani

prevails even though we may not be able to imagine how such a

possibility exists. I am inclined to consider it from the spanda-

principle - the vibration that is not in reality a movement. The

word 'experience' connotes a movement. In the Madukya Karika, Sri

Gaudapadacharya's interpretation of spanda indicates the negation of

movement in it. Therefore, in truth there is no experience

of 'realisation'. In any case, we may agree to disagree, as there

seems to be an overall agreement between us except for this point

which we shall not be able to decide from our current perspectives.

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dear Rajeshji,

 

I will try to use this message to make a wider point.

 

"What is there to expand when there is nothing that has contracted in

the

first place? I think the emphasis of realization in Advaita is a

higher order

experience. The experience that the notion of individual self is

unreal for

nothing is separate from it already. But until that experience reality

as

perceived is different."

 

We need a name for this - something like "Advaitin-Paramartha

Syndrome". If there is nothing that is contracted or limited in any

way whatsoever, then there is absolutely no need for sadhana. If there

is a complete negation of a limited being, then you cannot even play

the Vyavahara card.

 

If you are talking of sadhana, you are talking from vyavhara

perspective. You cannot avoid vyavahara and yet choose to talk about

sadhana.

 

If Advaita were about experience, then Advaita would be entirely

samsaric because experiences come and go. To speak of a permanent

experience is relatively meaningless. Furthermore, experiences require

an experient. If the Jnani has this higher experience, then he is the

higher experient. However, upon final realization, there is no

experient or experience or object of experience. For it to be of any

use, Advaita has to be about direct knowledge that ends all

experiences.

 

"No, it is just not an idea if you meant it to be synonymous to

thought. The

notion "I am a Jiva" is a real experience in the phenomenal world. The

notion

that "I am Brahman" is a higher experience. Both these experiences are

not mere

ideas. A higher experience serves to invalidate the lower experience.

If it

were just mere ideas then one can have ideas of high order and

conclude that "I

am Brahman". Experience is the gist of Sadhana and Jnani is an outcome

of that

higher experience.

 

How can your relative truth exist in light of your ultimate truth?

What is the relationship between the relative truth and the absolute

truth? You have to be able to account for why there can be a relative

truth at all given your model of absolute truth,

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Namastey Rishi Ji:

 

I am sure you would agree that words become crucial as we model our

understanding of Advaita.

 

You state “We need a name for this - something like "Advaitin-Paramartha

Syndrome". If there is nothing that is contracted or limited in any way

whatsoever, then there is absolutely no need for sadhana. If there

is a complete negation of a limited being, then you cannot even play the

Vyavahara card.

If you are talking of sadhana, you are talking from vyavhara perspective.

You cannot avoid vyavahara and yet choose to talk about sadhana.”

Let us use the analogy of space in jar. The space inside is neither

contracted nor expanded. The space inside is the same space as the space

outside. The jar exists in the vyavaharika plane. In the Paramarthika plane the

space or Brahman is all that is and there is nothing second to it. Sadhana’s

are means to realize the space inside is one with the space outside. Adi

Shankara says “Jivo Brahmaiva Na parah’ meaning that the limited referent of

self is non-different from the unlimited ‘ALL’. Why do we then want to bring in

expansion and contraction theory of the self?

 

You state “If Advaita were about experience, then Advaita would be

entirely samsaric because experiences come and go. To speak of a permanent

experience is relatively meaningless. Furthermore, experiences require an

experient. If the Jnani has this higher experience, then he is the higher

experient. However, upon final realization, there is no experient or experience

or object of experience. For it to be of any use, Advaita has to be about

direct knowledge that ends all experiences.”

Are we making it from the standpoint of Vyavaharika or Paramathika.

To step out from the quandary let us analyze this. From a Vyaharic plane the

seeker has the experience when he realizes Brahman. After realization the

‘Jnani’ alone can claim that he has realized Brahman and this was not another

experience. I reiterate that only a Jnani alone can state that this was not an

experience for it is no more transient anymore.

You further state “How can your relative truth exist in light of your

ultimate truth? What is the relationship between the relative truth and the

absolute truth? You have to be able to account for why there can be a relative

truth at all given your model of absolute truth,”

The world we see as distinct name and forms are reality in

Vyavaharika. The distinction is no more only in Parmarthika. The ultimate truth

is that there is only one. These two are related as the canvas and the

painting. The canvas remains all the time but we perceive only the painting.

When we are able to realize the canvas the paintings become irrelevant for we

see that the paintings as folds of the same canvas and nothing more. Higher

truth is in realizing the substratum of everything including us and not the

mere denial of world.

 

Sincerely,

RR

 

 

 

 

Photos

Got holiday prints? See all the ways to get quality prints in your hands ASAP.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Ramchanderji,

 

advaitin, Rajesh Ramachander

<rrajeshchander> wrote:

 

> You state: "We need a name for this - something like

> 'Advaitin-Paramartha Syndrome'. If there is nothing

> that is contracted or limited in any way whatsoever,

> then there is absolutely no need for sadhana. If there

> is a complete negation of a limited being, then you

> cannot even play the Vyavahara card."

> Let us use the analogy of space in jar. The space

> inside is neither contracted nor expanded. The space

> inside is the same space as the space outside.

 

Ramchanderji, I think you have explained the "Advaitin-Paramartha

Syndrome" beautifully. As you rightly say, the "space in the jar and

the space outside" is an analogy. What it is analogous to is the jiva

and Brahman. The jiva currently having the name of Ramchanderji is

writing to the jiva currently having the name Rishiji because it sees

Rishiji as a separate being while it sees itself as being the body

that it writes from. That is called being 'contracted'. It is a stark

fact of experience. The contracted being using the analogy of

the "space in the jar and the space outside" to say that it is not

contracted is the "Advaitin-Paramartha Syndrome".

 

When sage Vyasa called out to his son, Suka, the trees and the

creepers turned around to answer him. Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa

couldn't ask the Mother to make it possible for him to eat food when

he was already eating from a million mouths. That is their closeness

to Paramartha in which there is no "Advaitin-Paramartha Syndrome".

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Chittaranjan Ji:

 

Another analogy is to imagine Jiva’s as conscious points. Jiva named

Chitta ji writes to another Jiva named RR. In essence these conscious points

are not distinct and they are always connected and 'One'. Advaita is about

realizing the connection that was not normally apparent to the Jiva’s already.

The act of realizing in Advaita is about realizing the connections amongst all

these disparities and nothing more. Kindly let me know if Adi Shankara ever

mentions about any expansion or contraction in his Bashya.

>>"Advaitin-Paramartha Syndrome"

 

Syndromes are aspects of only Vyavaharika and must we not name the

expansion and contraction of soul as Advaitin-Vyavahrika Syndrome. ;-)

 

Finally, I am able to understand your point but at the same time feel

that I am perhaps unable to articulate mine as well for you to understand my

point. Maybe we can agree to disagree on this 'One' point.

Sincerely,

RR

 

 

 

 

Photos

Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays,

whatever.