Brahman - Revelation and Confusion

[Guest guest]

Dear Rajkumar Nair,

 

I think that "our own nature" you mentioned is the Brahman. All the experts

out there, am I correct?

 

 

 

rajkumarknair <rajkumarknair wrote:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Religion and spirituality Advaita Bhagavad gita

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "advaitin" on the web.

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photos

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

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste to all Advaitins,

 

In post no 29806 Sri Ram Chandranji said:

 

"With the presence of 'avidya,' only that much we all know, we can

speculate all sorts of theories and justifications, but confusion will

likely remain until the revelation!"

 

I have been thinking on the above statement for the last two to three

days, and i would like to know from any member who might have reflected

on it whether there is an answer to the question: How do we obtain a

theory that is not a speculation?

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namste Chittaranjan-Ji:

 

That is why I am still looking for the correct derivation of various

words derived deom the root verb "bR^ih".

 

If you know someone Linguist in India see if they may be able to

help us.

 

Derivation of various words that developed from "bR^ih - (meaning

to expand)" dhaatu.

 

bR^ihan -

bR^iham -

bR^ihti -

brahman -

brahmam -

brahma -

brahmaa -

brahmaaNi -

braahmaNa -

 

I am trying to understand various shades of difference in meaning

along with samaasa vibhakti ... etc.

 

Thanks,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> Namaste to all Advaitins,

>

> In post no 29806 Sri Ram Chandranji said:

>

> "With the presence of 'avidya,' only that much we all know, we can

> speculate all sorts of theories and justifications, but confusion

will

> likely remain until the revelation!"

>

> I have been thinking on the above statement for the last two to

three

> days, and i would like to know from any member who might have

reflected

> on it whether there is an answer to the question: How do we obtain

a

> theory that is not a speculation?

>

> Warm regards,

> Chittaranjan

>

[Guest guest]

--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

> Namaste to all Advaitins,

>

> In post no 29806 Sri Ram Chandranji said:

>

> "With the presence of 'avidya,' only that much we all know, we can

> speculate all sorts of theories and justifications, but confusion will

>

> likely remain until the revelation!"

>

> I have been thinking on the above statement for the last two to three

> days, and i would like to know from any member who might have

> reflected

> on it whether there is an answer to the question: How do we obtain a

> theory that is not a speculation?

 

Chittaranjanji

 

PraNaams.

Here is my understanding.

 

To start with statement of Ram, 'with the presence of 'avidya' - itself

is a theoretical deduction. How can I be ignorant when I am the very

conscious principle? Adhyaasa that you have been discussing is only

theoretical conclusion brought about recognizing the difference between

who we are vs. who we think we are. The experimental data that show

this disparity are explained by the theory of avidya. Speculation and

theory come into picture when we need to account an experience or

experimental data, which cannot be explained from the knowledge that we

have.

 

Speculation is essentially, what we call in scientific investigations a

hypothesis based on what we know and the new set of data that we cannot

account from what we know so far.

Speculation has a connotation of some randomness while hypothesis is

based on sound principles and logic to some extent. It is leaping to

unknown from the known - all new knowledge takes place only in that way.

That is what intellect does.

 

The theory may end up different from our initial hypothesis as we

examine the data and collect new data with controlled experiments.

Research or investigation helps to evolve new hypothesis that is much

more logical and possible.

 

Only thing in this universe that needs no speculation and theory is your

own existence and that your are a conscious entity. That is what we

call as aprameyam – no pramaaNa is required for that. Hence that it is

the only thing that is true in the universe. Vedanta provides a

pramaaNa relating that existence-conscious principle that you are is

infinite, Brahman. Is it a speculation or theory – It is discovery by

the sages by research scholars in the past based on their investigation.

It is possible that they might have started with an hypothesis before

they arrived at that conclusion. Conclusion is no more a speculation or

theory but is knowledge to be known.

 

I am sure you must have thought about all these, but could not resist

from putting my 2c.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sadananda-ji,

 

Thank you for your reply Sir. I have a few comments to make.

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> Adhyaasa that you have been discussing is only theoretical

> conclusion brought about recognizing the difference between

> who we are vs. who we think we are. The experimental data

> that show this disparity are explained by the theory of

> avidya. Speculation and theory come into picture when we

> need to account an experience or experimental data, which

> cannot be explained from the knowledge that we have.

 

In so far as the self - who we are - is concerned, what you say is

logical. But as regards the world, it still leaves the question

unanswered as to how a theory regarding the world may escape from

being a speculation. There is a popular interpretation of Advaita

that postulates the following equation:

 

world = speculation = adhyasa

 

I would say that this is just another theory, and that the entire

equation cannot escape from being a mere speculation. As you are

aware, I am not convinced that this equation is what Advaita actually

says. The equation escapes answering the question: "What is the

nature of the world?" by giving an answer "The world doesn't exist"

which is not an answer to the question asked, but is an answer to the

different question that has not been asked: "Does the world exist?".

 

The question "What is the nature of the world?" is a question

relating to the swadharma of the world, and it must be answered by

revealing the swadharma of the world in the answer.

 

> Speculation is essentially, what we call in scientific

> investigations a hypothesis based on what we know and

> the new set of data that we cannot account from what

> we know so far. Speculation has a connotation of some

> randomness while hypothesis is based on sound principles

> and logic to some extent. It is leaping to unknown from

> the known - all new knowledge takes place only in that way.

> That is what intellect does. The theory may end up

> different from our initial hypothesis as we examine the

> data and collect new data with controlled experiments.

> Research or investigation helps to evolve new hypothesis

> that is much more logical and possible.

 

This is an accurate description of the scientific process. But the

hypotheses of science are itself 'theory-laden' with the symbolic

framework of science (the premises given to it by the scientific

paradigm) within which they work and which they cannot escape. It is

due to this nexus of the speculative element with the scientific

hypothesis that all efforts to find a verifiability criterion for

scientific hypotheses have been a failure, due to which scientists

have accepted that the scientific method is positivist. The

speculative element cannot be removed from the scientific method

because it is inherent in it.

 

> Only thing in this universe that needs no speculation and

> theory is your own existence and that your are a conscious

> entity. That is what we call as aprameyam – no pramaaNa is

> required for that. Hence that it is the only thing that is

> true in the universe.

 

What is the Nature of That which is the Only 'thing' in the Universe?

 

The Sun reveals the world, but we hardly have the time to look at the

beauty of life that dances in the light of the Sun. We are forever

possessed by activity and do not have the time to look. It is natural

that it should be like this because this world is the dharma-kshetra

of life. When the Sun rises at the break of dawn, the activity of the

world begins: the cock crows, the birds take to the skies, the

drooping leaves begin to laugh, people wake up for their daily

chores, everywhere there is activity and hardly anyone to see the

beauty of the Dance of Life. The Sun is true and the Dance is also

true because they are the One Reality.

 

How may we speak of the magic of trees whispering in far away woods?

How may we sing the song of the waves that wash upon the shores of

night? How may we speak the scriptures that is writ in the stars and

the flowing brook? There is a mystery to this Reality that we do not

behold because we have lost the wonder of our childhood and get

fixated in theories. But what you say is true: the self is self-

revealed.

 

Yes, the Self is self-revealed. But there is the WAY in which it is

SELF-REVEALED. It has no speculation in it because it is untainted by

the purusha and is therefore called APAURUSHEYA. It is called the

VEDAS. It is the way in which the Self is revealed without

speculation. The Vedas are aprameya because there is no prameya that

establishes the Vedas. It is Self-Revealed because it is the WAY OF

THE SELF REVEALING ITSELF.

 

There is more to self-realisation than merely knowing the self as

consciousness. Consciousness must be revealed as it is with all its

mysteries revealed.

 

Revealing is the natural power of Self. It is the Light that reveals

the world. And the world is self-revealed because it is revealed by

the Self. The world revealed by the Self is not a theory. It is the

mantra of the world that is revealed. Those that see it are called

MANTRA-DRISHTAS. They do not speculate; they RECEIVE. They receive

the eternal theory, the theory that is written in the stars, in the

flowing brook, in the rivers and mountains, in the birds that fly in

the sky, in all of this universe. All this is revealed because it is

received into the self when the adhyasa that 'blocks' the reception

is gone. The theory is the natural theory of the universe. It is

called Ritam. Ritam is the yathartha in Brahman. It is simply the way

things are in Brahman. Those that see it are the mantra-drishtas.

Those that have power over it are called mantra-viryas. Virya is the

vigor of Shiva. They therefore become Shiva.

 

Om Namah Shivaya

 

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

> In so far as the self - who we are - is concerned, what you say is

> logical. But as regards the world, it still leaves the question

> unanswered as to how a theory regarding the world may escape from

> being a speculation. There is a popular interpretation of Advaita

> that postulates the following equation:

>

> world = speculation = adhyasa

>

> I would say that this is just another theory, and that the entire

> equation cannot escape from being a mere speculation.

 

Chittaranjanji – Thanks for your response.

 

Yes. You are right - adhyaasa as explained by advaita is a theory – it

is to explain important experimental observations or data or human

experiences. However, adhyaasa itself is not a theory. Let me explain.

Let us first collect all the data we have:

1. I am self-existent self-conscious entity – No proof is needed, since

it is self-evident.

2. Strangely, I take myself to be limited inert body-mind-complex. This

is definitely an error based on datum 1. This is not a subjective error,

like mistaking snake for a rope, since it is universally committed

error.

3. I seem to dismiss this world of objects in the waking world and

experience a new set of world in my dream which appears to be as real

while I am dreaming. This is also a universal experience. Only when

awakened I feel the dream world is unreal.

4. I am conscious of neither world (waking or dream) in the deep sleep

state. We can say I am conscious of the absence of any world of objects

since we are able to remember and talk about that state, as I am doing

just now.

5. Since I am the only the self-existent and self-conscious entity

(datum 1), the world being inert, its existence depends on my existence,

since I have to be there to say the world ‘is’.

6. Data 1 and 5 – imply that the limitless existent-consciousness I

should include the inert worlds (waking-dream-deep sleep). Other wise

the existence-consciousness gets limited which is illogical.

 

Up to this point, I consider them as data. Like any other objective

data, they are based on Universal experience. I fail to see any

speculation or theory involved up to this point. Considering datum 2,

the error or adhyaasa is also not a theory but fact, universally

experienced.

 

Adhyaasa as explained by advaita Vedanta is a theory, since we have one

dependent and the other independent. The dependent is subject to change

while the independent is eternal changeless since it is unlimited.

Vedanta uses three examples to illustrate the dependent-independent

relations of ‘the self-existent conscious I, and the dependent inert

world. Just as the ornaments superimposed on gold, just as mud pots

superimposed on mud, just as iron tools superimposed on iron. In all,

one is the material cause and the other is non-separate from the cause.

Vedanta defines this transformation-less transformation as

‘vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam’ name for a form that has formed

without changing the essence or the material cause – like ornament out

of gold.

 

The advaita brings in the theory of adhyaasa to account for an

independent all pervading conscious existent “I” and dependent existent

ever-changing inert world of objects, inseparable from the first.

 

I do not call it as speculation since it is based on analogy given in

the above using three examples. Hence it is ‘logically consistent’

theory taking into consideration ‘Brahman’ as the material cause of the

universe and considering Vedic maha vaakyas or declarations – ayam aatma

brahma and aham brahmaasmi.

>From my understanding, it remains as a theory, subject to verification

(or realization by the questioner). Here we have the subjective

experience of the sages of the yore confirming the truth, that the world

is only relatively real while the substantive is Brahman, the conscious

entity. Based on datum 1, the adhyaasa extends the error to not only to

body-mind complex but to the whole universe of creation and creator. I

consider that the adhyaasa providing a working hypothesis to proceed

further with saadhana, required proving beyond doubt that basis or

substantive is advaita. Until, this is realized, understanding remains

as a reasonable theoretical possibility.

>

> The question "What is the nature of the world?" is a question

> relating to the swadharma of the world, and it must be answered by

> revealing the swadharma of the world in the answer.

 

Chittaji – if you examine your question objectively, I see that you are

imposing your own speculation in formulating the question.

 

‘What is the nature of the world’, presupposes first that the world

exists. How are you going to establish the swadharma of the world?

You, the conscious entity, is going to establish its swadharma of

something you assume is different from you. It is similar to your

establishing my swadharma – is it not? – But in that very process – two

things are obvious, you are independent entity and the world is

dependent entity. Since world existence is established by the

perception, volition, and cognition by the sense-mind-intellect complex,

its swadharma is going to be subjective based on the evaluation by the

complex and with its biases. Objective sciences are based on the

evaluation of swadharma of the world – its laws and its behavior – up to

some point where the very instruments used to measure the swadharma

become invalid as in quantum mechanics analysis of fundamental nature of

the world. Vedanta says, one can establish its swadharma at a relative

level but not at an absolute level since substantive of the world is

nothing but consciousness (since Brahman is the material cause), which

differs from the inertness of the world and that which cannot be

objectified for analysis.

> This is an accurate description of the scientific process. But the

> hypotheses of science are itself 'theory-laden' with the symbolic

> framework of science (the premises given to it by the scientific

> paradigm) within which they work and which they cannot escape. It is

> due to this nexus of the speculative element with the scientific

> hypothesis that all efforts to find a verifiability criterion for

> scientific hypotheses have been a failure, due to which scientists

> have accepted that the scientific method is positivist. The

> speculative element cannot be removed from the scientific method

> because it is inherent in it.

 

Sorry Chitta – I fail to understand the language here. If you can

translate this into English that I can understand, it will be good. We,

with scientific background, are very poor in language skills.

Nevertheless, I detest a degree of circular argument in the above

paragraph. However, I think the speculative element that you say is

inherent in the scientific method, but could actually be due to the

very nature of the problem involved in acquisition of any new knowledge.

Otherwise, one has to make axiomatic statements about the world and the

Brahman, which essentially shuts of any further investigation. That is

the route, I feel, dvaita and VishishhTaadvaita takes.

> What is the Nature of That which is the Only 'thing' in the Universe?

 

Chittaji – Now we are trying to define that which is the only thing in

the universe? The self-existent-self conscious entity, which is one

without a second, cannot be defined. One, can define only the

unconscious entities or objects. Just as infinity cannot be defined

saying that it is other than finite, only way we can define is by using

negatives – nirguNa, nishkriyo, nityo, niraakaro, nirvikaaro, niranjanaH

– by negation of any properties that makes it as finite. Even sat chit

ananda we call that is its nature also in relation to finite (time wise,

space wise and object wise). Even this process of negation is only a

temporal convenience (like crow sitting on John’s house) but ultimately

the negation has to be applied even to negation process since that one

ultimately includes everything even the negated, at least superficially,

as one gold in many forms, still remaining as one. That is the reason

why the adhyaaropa is not fully speculative since it is intimately based

on our intensive experience.

> The Sun reveals the world, but we hardly have the time to look at the

> beauty of life that dances in the light of the Sun. We are forever

> possessed by activity and do not have the time to look. It is natural

> that it should be like this because this world is the dharma-kshetra

> of life. When the Sun rises at the break of dawn, the activity of the

> world begins: the cock crows, the birds take to the skies, the

> drooping leaves begin to laugh, people wake up for their daily

> chores, everywhere there is activity and hardly anyone to see the

> beauty of the Dance of Life. The Sun is true and the Dance is also

> true because they are the One Reality.

 

Chittaji – you are getting carried away in the beauty of creation. One

can enjoy the beauty and also admire the intelligence behind it. If I

can recognize the One reality in the changing beauty and enchanting

dynamic life, I have become one with the universe. The duality should

cease in the moments of one ness. Krishna declares –pasyam me

yogamaiswaram – Arjuna – behold my glory!

 

Why do we need to bring in the theory of one is true and other is false

– everything is true in its sphere – that truth is evident in the

smiling as well as the crying of a baby, in the beautiful sun rises as

well as in the dark shadows of deadly nights, in the exuberant lives of

the rich in seven stories as well as the starving multitudes in the

slums – It is viswaruupam in all its glories. Do I have the detachment

to enjoy everything in clear perspective without making any theories

without making any conclusions – This is what JK tries to picture in

front of the audience – be one with the creation. Chitta that vision

can be there only if I have the vision of that oneness. That equanimity

that goes beyond good and bad to be one with totality not with selective

plurality – that is what realization is all about – no divisions no

classifications just beauty manifested in multitudes – Then only the

life becomes a dynamic play. Some complain and some cause others to

complain, both are with in the order – some jump with joy while others

are devastated with sorrows, both are with in the order – siitoshhNa

sukhadukheshu yathaa maanaapa maanayoH – equanimity in cold and heat,

happiness and unhappiness and praise and insult – that kind of vision of

the whole life and whole creation, then that is true vision – that

vision can only come when one is one with the oneness as suutre

manigaNaa iva – as the binding substantive that pervades everything yet

unaffected by these changing beauties or ugliness. The gradation is in

the mind – not in the creation. Everything is in the order. Action and

the appropriate reactions, selective action with selective reactions or

results - all are within the creation including the intelligence that

steers one out to shreyas over preyas – all within the order - that is

what I try to bring out in my karma yoga series.

>

> How may we speak of the magic of trees whispering in far away woods?

> How may we sing the song of the waves that wash upon the shores of

> night? How may we speak the scriptures that is writ in the stars and

> the flowing brook? There is a mystery to this Reality that we do not

> behold because we have lost the wonder of our childhood and get

> fixated in theories. But what you say is true: the self is self-

> revealed.

 

Chitta – that self is not only in the beautiful plurality but even

without that too – that is the glory – I am in them but they are not in

me – look at my glory. I am unaffected with the changing beauties as

well ugliness too – they are all within my creation. This is what is

called aatma kreeda and aatma rati? But who cares what it is called.

No need to theorize since that is the fancy of the intellect, even

though that fancy is also within the order. Discovering and becoming one

with the universe in total, in absolute oneness, without any

discrimination what so ever, Chitta is not a theory, it is the very

purpose of life itself. There lies the beauty untouched unadulterated

ever present with overflowing happiness is very nature of

existence-consciousness-bliss that one is. The self is illmining with

all its gloy in the smile of baby as well as in the crying of the baby -

in the beauty of sun raise in the apprent agliness of the Sunaami

devastating helpless multitudes in those who are enjoying of the baby's

play as well in those who are crying for the departed. If you can see

the self in all its gloy without discriminating (intellectual

evaluations and theories)just be one with the total - that is

self-realization.

 

> Yes, the Self is self-revealed. But there is the WAY in which it is

> SELF-REVEALED. It has no speculation in it because it is untainted by

> the purusha and is therefore called APAURUSHEYA. It is called the

> VEDAS. It is the way in which the Self is revealed without

> speculation. The Vedas are aprameya because there is no prameya that

> establishes the Vedas. It is Self-Revealed because it is the WAY OF

> THE SELF REVEALING ITSELF.

 

Chitta – if I can make small correction – The self is aprameyam (meaning

not an object of knowledge). Vedas are pramaaNa or means of knowledge,

which are apaurusheya, but still falls within the creation as apara

vidya – that is how Veda-s declare themselves about themselves. They are

self-revealed in the sense they are true knowledge, which is always

self-revealed –vastu tantra and not purushha tantra. I cannot ‘will’ the

knowledge. It comes only when my mind is well prepared. She is the

Goddess Saraswati.

>

> There is more to self-realisation than merely knowing the self as

> consciousness. Consciousness must be revealed as it is with all its

> mysteries revealed.

 

Chitta – the second statement follows the first. They are not mutually

exclusive. When I know gold, in its totality – that is I also know its

glory or capacity to exist in multitude of forms yet remaining as

advaita. That is precisely the teaching. It is non-duality in spite of

duality, and not non-duality without duality.

> Revealing is the natural power of Self. It is the Light that reveals

> the world. And the world is self-revealed because it is revealed by

> the Self. The world revealed by the Self is not a theory. It is the

> mantra of the world that is revealed.

 

True – all that and much more too – Self is not only self-revealing it

is one without a second – that is what Veda say. Hence whatever it

appear to reveal is within itself . Hence Krishna declares:

sarvabhuutastam aatmaanam sarvabhuutanica aatmani – one who knows that

all are in oneself and oneself in all of them – he is the one who is

self-realized.

Another way – yo maam pasyati sarvatra and sarvatra mayi pasyati – those

who see Me in everything and sees everything in Me – they are seers of

the truth.

>Those that see it are called

> MANTRA-DRISHTAS. They do not speculate; they RECEIVE. They receive

> the eternal theory, the theory that is written in the stars, in the

> flowing brook, in the rivers and mountains, in the birds that fly in

> the sky, in all of this universe. All this is revealed because it is

> received into the self when the adhyasa that 'blocks' the reception

> is gone.

 

Yes absolutely – I will go one step further – all knowledge is only

revelations – that in fact is the statement of Dr. Chandrashekar – but

put in different form – all scientific discoveries are revelations in

intuition – the solutions strikes. That is why Veda word is implied for

all knowledge includes both relative and absolute.

>The theory is the natural theory of the universe. It is

> called Ritam. Ritam is the yathartha in Brahman. It is simply the way

> things are in Brahman. Those that see it are the mantra-drishtas.

> Those that have power over it are called mantra-viryas. Virya is the

> vigor of Shiva. They therefore become Shiva.

 

Chitta – there is no unnatural theories anywhere. Theory of the

universe and theories about the universal laws or behviors – all stem

within the self – they are all valid within their own frame-work. The

self that reveals all, encompasses all these and much more. Krishna

provides a brief account of his vibhuuties or glories in the 10th Ch.

Krishna includes all that and much more as per His own statement.

 

That is Lord Shiva. He is there as the Dakshinamurthy in the seat of

meditation and He is there as Nataraja, dancing joyously to the drums

and music of life created by himself. This, I agree, is not theory but

absolute fact in all its glory. Let us bask in that glory.

 

Well could not resist - thanks for giving a vent for my expression.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

>

> Om Namah Shivaya

>

> Chittaranjan

>

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Just couple of observations from a tyro :

 

KS Prabhuji :

 

3. I seem to dismiss this world of objects in the waking world and

experience a new set of world in my dream which appears to be as real

while I am dreaming. This is also a universal experience. Only when

awakened I feel the dream world is unreal.

 

bhaskar :

 

The unreality of the world should be understood not only from avasthA

traya vivEka but also by means of other two analogies...first, the famous

analogy rope mistaken for a serpent, Second one is the waste land on a

mirage appears & thirdly as you said above objective analysation of our

three states...I think it is mandatory to take all the three analogies

together since the ultimate truth we seek is transcedent and cannot be

explained adequately by means of a single analogy...

 

Ofcourse, one may argue that analogies are not proof especially when we

say the ultimate truth is apramEya..but out Acharya graciously explaining

this subtle truth by means of analogies those which in our day to day

experience..(sarvatrika anubhava).

 

I remember, Prof. VK prabhuji sometime back explained these analogies

beautifully in one of his mails...would some one kindly direct us to that

mail please ( Sri sunder prabhuji..kindly look into it)

 

KS prabhuji:

 

Even sat chit ananda we call that is its nature also in relation to finite

(time wise,

space wise and object wise).

 

bhaskar :

 

Very much true prabhuji...bhagavadpAda's commentary on taitirIya upanishad

maNtra *satyaM jnAnaM ananthaM brahma* & surEshwara's vArtika on it would

be interesting reading in this regard.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sadanandaji,

 

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

 

> > The question "What is the nature of the world?" is a

> > question relating to the swadharma of the world, and

> > it must be answered by revealing the swadharma of the

> > world in the answer.

>

> Chittaji – if you examine your question objectively,

> I see that you are imposing your own speculation in

> formulating the question.

>

> `What is the nature of the world', presupposes first

> that the world exists.

 

No it doesn't. I don't have to presuppose it. It is given to me like

that. And Shankara says:

 

"And it cannot be that the very thing perceived is non-existent. How

can a man's words be acceptable who while himself perceiving an

external object through sense-contacts still says, 'I do not

perceive, and that object does not exist', just as much as a man

while eating and himself experiencing the satisfaction arising from

the act might say, 'Neither do I eat, nor do I get any

satisfaction?' " (BSB.II.ii.28).

 

One can't reach the Truth without being true to oneself.

 

But the basic point is this: When the question relates to the nature

of the world, why should we get into questions regarding its

existence? Shouldn't a question be taken for what it simply is?

 

The question about swadharma is one of the MOST IMPORTANT questions

for the revelation of TRUTH. Without answering the question, there is

neither Vedanta nor Siddhanta nor any knowledge. How do I know that

birds will not start swimming tomorrow? How do I know that tomorrow

when I wake up I will not be King Arthur riding in the woods of

Avalon, or that the Board of Moderators of this Group will not be

Captains of a ship on the Atlantic Ocean by the time this mail flies

off into Cyberspace? (:-)) How do I know that the world will not

become Brahman tomorrow or that Brahman will not become the world the

day after?

 

What does swadharma mean? Does the swadharma of a thing change? If it

does, is it still swadharma? If it does not, then can a thing ever

disappear? When questions about swadharma are first answered clearly,

then the bhashya of Shankara reveals itself of its own accord.

 

Questions about swadharma may not appear explicitly in Advaita

because these questions are assumed to have been asked and answered

prior to the sadhaka coming for the study of Advaita; they belong to

one of the four-fold qualifications. Still Shankara says in the Gita

bhashya as well as in the Sutra bhashya that not even the Vedas can

make fire cold.

 

> Sorry Chitta – I fail to understand the language here.

> If you can translate this into English that I can

> understand, it will be good. We, with scientific

> background, are very poor in language skills.

> Nevertheless, I detest a degree of circular argument

> in the above paragraph.

 

The word 'detest' is a bit strong in the context considering that

every scientific theory is built on an unavoidable circularity. This

circularity was what the experiment with the 'verifiability criteria'

was all about. The language that you find somewhat strange is

actually the language of the Philosophy of Science. The terms 'theory-

ladenness', 'symbolic framework', 'verifiability criteria' are terms

borrowed from the Logical Positivists who tried to arrive at a set

of 'verifiability criteria' for ensuring that scientific hypotheses

are free of the circularity imposed on them by scientific theories

themselves. This circularity results in what came to be called

the 'theory-ladenness' of scientific observations. It is very similar

to the adhyasa of Advaita. The Logical Positivists comprised members

such as Ernst Mach, Moritz Schlick, Rudolph Carnap and Kurt Godel

among others. The experiment with the verifiability criteria was an

infamous failure. You may check all this out in any book on the

philosophy of science.

 

> Why do we need to bring in the theory of one is true

> and other is false – everything is true in its sphere

> – that truth is evident in the smiling as well as the

> crying of a baby, in the beautiful sun rises as well

> as in the dark shadows of deadly nights, in the exuberant

> lives of the rich in seven stories as well as the

> starving multitudes in the slums – It is viswaruupam

> in all its glories.

 

Sir when you speak like this, I love it far more than when you speak

philosophical arguments! These are true and beautiful words.

 

> Chitta – if I can make small correction – The self is

> aprameyam (meaning not an object of knowledge). Vedas

> are pramaaNa or means of knowledge,

 

I realised (after I had posted the message) that i had

written 'prameya' instead of 'pramana'. I stand corrected.

 

> which are apaurusheya, but still falls within the creation

> as apara vidya – that is how Veda-s declare themselves

> about themselves.

 

True, but it doesn't change anything regarding the Vedas being the

WAY of the Self revealing Itself. The world lies (harmoniously) along

this WAY.

 

> > There is more to self-realisation than merely knowing

> > the self as consciousness. Consciousness must be revealed

> > as it is with all its mysteries revealed.

>

> Chitta – the second statement follows the first.

 

Sir, if it is as simple as that, then why is Consciousness being

articulated (more often than not) on this list as if it is a passive

slate from which the scribble of the world is to be wiped off?

 

> When I know gold, in its totality – that is I also know

> its glory or capacity to exist in multitude of forms yet

> remaining as advaita. That is precisely the teaching.

> It is non-duality in spite of duality, and not non-duality

> without duality.

 

'Non-Duality inspite of duality' is either (1) Duality or (2) Apology

for Non-Duality. That is not what the teaching is. The teaching is

Absolute Non-Duality.

 

> Chitta – there is no unnatural theories anywhere.

 

There are. Theories that make statements violating the swadharma

(natures) of things are unnatural theories.

 

 

Lastly, Sir, I may disagree with some of the things that you say, but

my respect for you stands undiminished. I regard you as an elder. I

hope you do not mind my words.

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Respected Shri. Chittaranjanji,

Hari Om. Pranams.

 

The statement below in your post got me confused a little. Can you

kindly clarify. Thank You.

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> How do I know that the world will not become Brahman tomorrow or that

Brahman will not become the world the day after?

 

Is the world separate from Brahman ? Can Brahman become something

else ?

 

I think my confusion is because I really don't know what this Brahman

is. What is it ?

 

Love and Respect

Padma

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Srinivas Kotekal-ji,

 

 

advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p>

wrote:

> My contention, how can one take the question about swadharma

> of a thing without bringing in existence of the same thing?,

> for existence of a thing isn't it part and parcel of swadharma

> of the thing? What does it mean to say swadharma of a thing

> does not include 'existence' of the thing? Can a thing exist

> without 'existence' (either true or false) being its swadharma?

> In my opinion, you should also include 'existence' of the

> world in your analysis of the swadharma of the world.

 

You are right. The swadharma of a thing necessarily involves its

existence. The question I had asked regarding the nature of the world

was to avoid being misled from its existence. The swadharma of a

thing is the very way of its existence. To deny existence in the

swadharma of anything is to slip into nihilism. Shankara says:

 

"There is no distinction, as regards the nature of non-existence,

between the non-existence arising from the destruction of the seed

and the rest and the horns of a hare, both being equally

unsubstantial... If, again, distinctive attributes be ascribed to non-

existence on the analogy of the lotus having blueness etc., then on

that very analogy of the lotus etc., non-existence will turn into

existence by the very fact of possessing distinctive qualities."

(BSB,II,ii,26).

 

> As I understood, Sri.Shankara's is kEvala-advaita or

> nirvishEsha-advaita.

 

I also understand Sri Shankara to be revealing Kevala-Advaita not

limited to visheshas. It is then Unlimited beyond all visheshas.

Trying to articulate It results in vishehas manifesting which It is

not limited to. Each limitation is an eternal principle. It is each

of the eternal principles through amsha and not any of the eternal

principles by Its akhandatva (forgive me my Sanskrit or the lack of

it thereof). Where there is the breath of prana there is Dvaita. It

comes from Advaita which breathes It from Eternity. Forgive me my

Madness which It makes me play.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Respected Padmaji,

 

advaitin, "pjoshi99" <pjoshi99> wrote:

> Respected Shri. Chittaranjanji,

> Hari Om. Pranams.

> The statement below in your post got me confused a little.

 

Welcome to the club!

 

> Can you kindly clarify. Thank You.

 

I will gladly do so because i am a fool. Thank you.

 

> advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

> <chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

 

Question No 1:

-------------

> Is the world separate from Brahman ?

 

Answer:

 

No.

 

 

Question No 2:

--------------

> Can Brahman become something else ?

 

Answer:

 

No (absolutely) and Yes (playfully). No, because Brahman is Akshara;

It does not become. Yes, because Brahman in Its Leela can 'become'

something else. Brahman gives birth to something else that already

exists in It. We need to study dramatology to understand it. A good

drama is one in which the lover and beloved suffer the joys and pains

of separation. Distance makes the heart grow fonder.

 

 

Question No 3:

--------------

> I think my confusion is because I really don't know

> what this Brahman is. What is it ?

 

Answer:

 

Thank you for thinking that i know the answer. I don't. I am confused

as you are. But the answer to the question has been codified in the

text-books of Advaita like this: It is That which is without

confusion. This codification may indicate how the answer to the

question may be found.

 

Thank you. :-)

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

>"Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik

>

>No it doesn't. I don't have to presuppose it. It is given to me like

>that.

 

Chittaranjanji – the presupposition is implied in your question you

posed. Yes, it is given only in the waking state and being negated in

the dream and deep sleep state. The question of its existence as real

although experienced in the waking state therefore arises before one

inquires more about its swadharma. Existence is not swadharma of the

world unless you can recognize the Brahman as its substantive which is

of the nature of existence.

 

Anyway, the point has been made for whatever it is worth.

>But the basic point is this: When the question relates to the nature

>of the world, why should we get into questions regarding its

>existence? Shouldn't a question be taken for what it simply is?

 

Chittaranjanji you can ask. However, before I could, I need to ask

whether the world I take it as granted, is it really as I perceive it,

before I could investigate its properties? The reason is obvious as

pointed in the data 1-5, I have stated before. If I see a snake and

people say it is a rope then I need to know whether the snake exists or

not before I investigate the beauty of the snake. If I have no doubt

that is a snake, no further inquiry is needed. If I have no doubt that

it rope, there no problem either. The doubt comes only because

scripture says there is only one – that is Brahman which is a conscious

entity. When it say one and I am seeing two then the question is it two

or one- i.e does the second that I see exists or not, before I go into

detailed analysis of the swadharma of the second that I see.

 

The whole discussion of adhyaaropa and adhyaasa is based on the

experimental facts of 1 to 5, stated before.

>The question about swadharma is one of the MOST IMPORTANT questions

>for the revelation of TRUTH. Without answering the question, there is

>neither Vedanta nor Siddhanta nor any knowledge. How do I know that

>birds will not start swimming tomorrow? How do I know that tomorrow

>when I wake up I will not be King Arthur riding in the woods of

>Avalon, or that the Board of Moderators of this Group will not be

>Captains of a ship on the Atlantic Ocean by the time this mail flies

>off into Cyberspace? (:-)) How do I know that the world will not

>become Brahman tomorrow or that Brahman will not become the world the

>day after?

 

No problem Chittaranjanji by all account go ahead and investigate about

the swadharma of the world. I would however comment that that is

precisely what objective scientists do.

>What does swadharma mean? Does the swadharma of a thing change? If it

>does, is it still swadharma? If it does not, then can a thing ever

>disappear? When questions about swadharma are first answered clearly,

>then the bhashya of Shankara reveals itself of its own accord.

 

Not necessarily, even if you feel that way. Shankara Bhaashhya as well

as advaita can be understood even without understanding the swadharma of

the world that you think is important to know. For me the swadharma

includes before anything else the validity of its existence, in view of

the data presented earlier.

>Questions about swadharma may not appear explicitly in Advaita

>because these questions are assumed to have been asked and answered

>prior to the sadhaka coming for the study of Advaita; they belong to

>one of the four-fold qualifications.

 

What you need is viveka and vairaagya, shat sampatti and mumukshutvam.

Viveka is defined as nitya anitya vastu viveka – discrimination of real

and unreal – Here the validity of existence and non-existence and

apparent existence is what has been pointed out. I have no reason to

believe that I need to know if the birds are going to swim tomorrow or

walk tomorrow in order for me to understand what is eternal and

ephemeral. The analysis of there states of human experience is suffice

to discard what is eternal self-existent and what has temporal

existence. The five data I presented is sufficient to proceed further.

For example, do I need to know what the swadharma of the water that is

seen is in the reflected sand? Is it not enough to ask how can there be

water in the middle of a desert where there is no water? – How can there

be inert mater when there only Brahman as substantive which is nothing

but sat chit ananda swaruupa. I have no problem with dvaitins since

they assume that Brahman is not the material cause of this universe.

However, advaita starts with datum 1 that I have pointed out in the last

post.

 

Chittaranjanji – again I am not against your inquiry into swadharma. I

only disagree that it is essential for acquiring saadhana chatushhTayam.

 

 

What one needs to do is karma yoga until one comes to a stage to

question – as Vedas say - pariikshalokan karmachitaan brahmano …..- when

one finds out by examination that finite actions cannot give infinite

happiness that one is longing for – then Vedas say approach a teacher

for knowledge. If that is what you mean by the analysis of swadharma

then it involves analysis of fundamental human pursuit in life – longing

for eternal unlimited happiness and failure to get that through finite

actions. Then, does one need to know birds flying and fish swimming for

one to get that dispassion; I doubt it.

 

Still Shankara says in the Gita

>bhashya as well as in the Sutra bhashya that not even the Vedas can

>make fire cold.

 

Yes – I agree. Now would that knowledge help me in gaining saadhana

chatushhTayam required for Brahman inquiry. Laws of nature are part of

Nature. I can spend my whole lifetime in trying to learn and discover

them. The more I investigate the more the nature reveals its mysteries.

That is what science is all about. The more I learn the more ignorant

I become, since in trying to analyze the swadharma of the world I

keeping learning that there is lot more to learn. Every scientific paper

will leave more questions in the end than answers. That is the swadharma

of the world!

 

The above statement of Shankara is to instruct that Veda-s donot discard

the experience of duality –Within the frame work of vyavahaara they are

valid and one need to understand the swadharma of the objects to use it

properly – otherwise we may end up adding salt into coffee rather than

sugar. Some dvaitins stupidly ask advaitans if everything is one then

drik a cup of poison and see the Brahman that is pervading that.

Vyavahaara dharma has to be investigated to operate in vyavahaara.

Therefore what is discarded is the absolute reality that is taken for

granted in the vyavahaara. The plurality is only apparent and not real

where real is that does not undergo any negation.

..

>

>The word 'detest' is a bit strong in the context –

 

Sorry Chittaranjanji – the word should be detect not detest – It is

unfortunate that my typing fingers seem to have their own swadharma, and

do not religiously follow what my mind is dictating. No I did not

detest, I only detected circular argument. My apologies for a wrong

word. Please forgive me.

>The language that you find somewhat strange is

>actually the language of the Philosophy of Science.

………

.. You may check all this out in any book on the

>philosophy of science.

 

No thanks, at my age! I am reminded of Shankara’s Bhajagovindam song.

 

Since I suspect that many of the audience on this list are not experts

in Philosophy of Science, I request you to explain the technical words

for lay man like me to understand, if you think the list readers should

understand what you right. It is difficult to understand if we do not

know the connotational meaning of the words. If I am the only one who

did not understand, then it is O.K for you continue your mode of

communication. I can only admire your language skills but still only

detecting (not detesting) circular arguments.

>Sir when you speak like this, I love it far more than when you speak

>philosophical arguments! These are true and beautiful words.

 

Chittaranjanji – Thanks for your kind words. Unfortunately, I have some

mails that say that they like my philosophical arguments too. I will

change those arguments too if I discover that they are wrong.

>True, but it doesn't change anything regarding the Vedas being the

>WAY of the Self revealing Itself. The world lies (harmoniously) along

>this WAY.

 

Sorry – Since they are pramaaNa and not pramaata, they are only

instruments of knowledge. Only that can be self-revealing is that which

is self-existing and only that is self-existing is self-conscious; and

that is pramaata not pramaaNa. What it means is Vedas do not come under

self-conscious entities, for them to self-reveal. This is no disrespect

to Vedas. I am not sure if we are using the words with the same

connotation either. From my understanding, all Vedas (knowledge) is

apourushheya and more so if that is related to scriptural knowledge –

All pramaaNas provide knowledge of … Vedas provide the self-knowledge,

which, in principle, cannot be object of any knowledge (aprameyam).

Vedas recognize that too and therefore use the words with context to be

explained properly by a proper teacher to a proper student of Vedanta.

A typical example is ‘you are the tenth man’ or tat tvam asi. Hence,

Vedas along with a teacher as a package is required for gaining the

knowledge of that, which is not an object of knowledge using any

pramaaNa.

>

>Sir, if it is as simple as that, then why is Consciousness being

>articulated (more often than not) on this list as if it is a passive

>slate from which the scribble of the world is to be wiped off?

 

If world is to be wiped off, then one is giving a realty to the world

that need to be wiped off. When Vedas teach neti neti – what is being

dismissed is the name and form and not the substantive. That is why a

‘proper’ teacher is required – otherwise a simple teaching ‘tat tvam

asi’ would suffice. Uddaalaka did not think so. He give an exhaustive

discourse to his son, Svetaketu to make him know the meaning of ‘tat

tvam asi’. He repeated nine times to make sure that Svetaketu understood

who he is and why he is substantive of whole universe.

 

Anyway, we are fortunate to have you as well as others to remind us that

world is not something to wipe off.

>'Non-Duality inspite of duality' is either (1) Duality or (2) Apology

>for Non-Duality. That is not what the teaching is. The teaching is

>Absolute Non-Duality.

 

Sorry – I beg to disagree. Advaita teaching is negation of the duality

as reality but recognizing it as only superimposition on the reality.

That is what adhishhTaanam means. That is what adhyaasa and adhyaaropa

is all about. The analysis follows from data 1-5. It is not negation of

duality. A jeevan mukta is the one who sees the plurality but does not

have a misunderstanding that the plurality is reality. If not, we will

never have a realized soul to teach – that in fact is the objection

against advaita by Bhagawaan Ramanuja in his puurvapaksha.

I do not have to negate the ring, bangle and necklace – the name and

forms superimposed on the gold – The truth is non-duality in spite of

duality. It is one gold that pervades as adhishhTaana in spite of

apparent plurality.

asti bhaati priyam ruupam naamam caityanca pancakam|

adhyatrayam brahma ruupam jagat ruupam tathaa dvayam||

 

There are five properties (swadharma!) of the world of objects –

existence, illuminatability, likability, name and form – of which the

first three arising from Brahman (sat chit ananda) and the later two

constitute the world. What is negated in the neti neti is the iti that

is associated with the name and form while still recognizing that iti is

supported by Brahman that I am. It is not negation of the world but

negation of the reality attributed to the world. That which continuously

changes is not real but not unreal either while the substantive, which

is changeless in all these changes lends its existence to the changing

name and form. Ring is a name with a form which differs from bangle

which is another name for a different form of gold. Ring is different

from bangle each with their guNa, attributes and kriya, utility. The

names and forms are projection on the substantive, which is brahman.

One has to see the oneness in spite of the apparent plurality just as a

goldsmith vision of the ornaments - he sees one gold to measure the

quantity of gold rather than name and form of the gold. It is the

vision of non-duality in spite of the apparent duality. I do not have

to negate the world or wipe it off in order to realize the substantive.

I do not have to suppress the waves to see the water. I am only

negating the reality attributed to the world of objects. Apparent

duality is not reality of duality and when I say it is non-duality in

spite of duality; there is no apology either. Apparent duality is not

real duality either.

 

It is violation of the advaita to say that there is Brahman, which is

the substantive for both seer and the seen and still claim that seen is

real. One cannot have inert or jadam with consciousness as the

substantive, if it appears to be so – that is what advaita calls as

maaya - the projection of plurality on the singularity is maaya. If I

give reality to maaya and the world – I am eternally doomed!

 

Anyway sorry for my outburst; as you say, I have to present what I feel

is right.

>There are. Theories that make statements violating the swadharma

>(natures) of things are unnatural theories.

 

Agreed. Any theory that tries to explain the nature of thing but

violates the swadharma of that thing is not a theory. No intelligent

being will accept that as a valid theory.

 

>

>

>Lastly, Sir, I may disagree with some of the things that you say, but

>my respect for you stands undiminished. I regard you as an elder. I

>hope you do not mind my words.

 

Chittaranjanji, we are discussing the issues here and no personalities

are involved. If I have used language that should not be used, my

apologies again.

 

Thanks for reminding me of my age! That is why I mentioned about

Bhajagovindam sloka – sampraapte sannihite kaale.

 

I think I will stop with this since I have run out all my arguments and

I feel nothing further can be gained by my continuing this discussion.

At this stage, let us agree to disagree and leave it with that note.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sadananda-ji,

 

Refer your post 29961

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> Not necessarily, even if you feel that way. Shankara

> Bhaashhya as well as advaita can be understood even

> without understanding the swadharma of the world that

> you think is important to know.

 

No, it can NEVER be understood. Understanding the swadharma of the

world indicates the presence of viveka. Without viveka, Advaita

cannot be understood.

 

> What you need is viveka and vairaagya, shat sampatti and

> mumukshutvam. Viveka is defined as nitya anitya vastu

> viveka – discrimination of real and unreal

 

Viveka, the discrimination between the real and unreal, is the

understanding of the swadharma of things – it is the discrimination

between the real (the swadharma of a thing) and the unreal (that

which it is mistaken to be). Viveka is lack of nescience, and

nescience (as explained by Shankara) is the mistaking of one thing

for another. Mistaking one thing for another is the loss of vision of

a thing's swadharma.

 

> Here the validity of existence and non-existence and

> apparent existence is what has been pointed out.

 

What has been pointed out cannot be understood until the meaning of

existence is first understood. The meaning of existence is not

understood until the meaning of swadharma is understood. The meaning

of swadharma is obtained by the revelation of what a thing is and the

negation of what it is not. The negation of a thing is always the

existence of something else. There are four kinds of negation: mutual

exclusion, previous non-existence, non-existence due to destruction

and absolute non-existence. Shankara explains this as follows:

 

"Moreover, of the four kinds of negation relating to, say, a jar, we

observe that what is called mutual exclusion is other than the jar:

The negation of a jar is cloth or some other thing, not the jar

itself. But the cloth, although it is the negation of the jar, is not

a non-entity, but a positive entity. Similarly, the previous non-

existence, the non-existence due to destruction, and absolute

negation must also be other than the jar: for they are spoken of in

terms of it, as in the case of the mutual exclusion relating to it.

And these negations must also (like the cloth, for instance) be

positive entities. Hence the previous non-existence of a jar does not

mean that it does not at all exist as an entity before it comes into

being." (Brahadaranyaka Upanishad bhashya, Chapter I, Section II)

 

 

> It is violation of the advaita to say that there is Brahman,

> which is the substantive for both seer and the seen and

> still claim that seen is real.

> One cannot have inert or jadam with consciousness as the

> substantive, if it appears to be so – that is what advaita

> calls as maaya - the projection of plurality on the

> singularity is maaya. If I give reality to maaya and the

> world – I am eternally doomed!

 

The wording of these sentences makes it difficult for me to comment

on them. But one thing I can say: According to Advaita, no one is

eternally doomed. Maya is Brahman. She is the Mother of the Universe

and She doesn't doom her children to eternal damnation.

 

> Anyway sorry for my outburst; as you say, I have to present

> what I feel is right.

 

Sir, yesterday it was venting out. Today it is an outburst. I am

sorry for being an irritant. Anyway, I will not be having the time to

participate in these discussions after a day or two. Then the problem

will be automatically solved.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan