Questioning in Sadhana, etc.

[Guest guest]

Ref. Message: 4

 

Mon, 06 Feb 2006 09:40:15 -0000

 

"Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair

 

Re: Objects, consciousness, shraddhA, vivarta and what not!

 

 

 

 

 

Sri Madathil ji wrote:

 

 

 

The tragedy is that we have nothing but objectifications to work with

 

in our vyavahAra. This state of affairs represents the tyrannical hold

 

of adhyAsa. In our vyavahAric labour, terms like vivarta, cause,

 

effect, efficient and material cause etc., why even snake and rope,

 

come as a handy tools to explain the Truth. They, including this

 

writing, are all adhyAsic. Shruti is no exception. We have to accept

 

them for the limited purpose they serve. However, the hand shouldn't

 

leave the touchstone in the pocket. There is, therefore, no point in

 

chasing issues like who used which term first and where as long as the

 

stone is firmly in hand.

 

 

 

Advaitic enquiry, therefore, necessarily entails shifting our focus

 

with the help of shruti to acknowledge and assert that all

 

objectifications are, in fact, Consciousness without a second – the

 

Self-Evidence that I am. That is the only way we can loosen and free

 

ourselves from the adhyAsic grip to the natural freedom of our

 

Wholeness.

 

 

Dear Advaitins:

 

Namaste. These words of Madathilji came at a time when a similar current of

thoughts was passing my mind. I thought I will do some loud thinking spanning a

wide range of topics like Questioning in Sadhana, shraddha, Causehood of

Brahman, etc. Even though some of what I am going to say will have direct

references to some opinions that have appeared on this List, let me assure all

that there is nothing personal involved in the ideas that I propose to place

here:

 

The Lord said in the Gita: Tad viddhi pranipaatena pari prasnena

sevayaa…Endeavour to know (the Truth) by resorting to obeisance, questioning and

service. The Seers will bestow that Knowledge on you. Now there are two types

that questioning can take: 1. Questioning with a view to understanding 2.

Questioning with a view to attacking. In the former, the aspirant asks

questions to understand correctly the teaching offered by the Acharya of his

sampradaya. There is the foregone Shraddha here that the Guru's words are true

and only my understanding of the words is what is lacking. When questioning is

done with this attitude, the compassionate Guru will make the aspirant

understand by even adopting a thousand methods. But in the latter type, the

questioning is done not with a view to understanding the teaching but solely

directed at questioning the very wisdom of the Teacher. Evidently, this type

will have absolutely no Shraddha, namaskara buddhi and seva bhaava towards the

teacher, the teaching and the sampradaya. The place for these in sadhana is to

tell us that unless these essential elements are present, the exalted teaching

will never percolate into the being of the aspirant. A case in point is the

questioning of the Avasthaatraya viveka. An aspirant may not be able to

understand the method involved in the viveka and might question to understand

the same. But the questioning of the very place of, the need for the

avasthatraya viveka and its plausibility in the teaching methodology is

something dangerous.

 

Coming to the material causehood of Brahman, in Vedanta, the Acharya has made

it clear at several places that the Creation Srutis have no purpose other than

pointing to the Brahman, the Infinite. The Taittiriya Up. says: Yato vaa imaani

bhutaani…….Tad vijignasasva, Tad Brahma. Why should that Brahman be known?

because, Brahmavid apnoti Param. The knower of Brahman attains the Supreme.

When the very creation, the created world, is being negated in the ultimate

analysis, where is the question of holding as absolute the causehood of Brahman?

Creation is just an adhyaropa by the Sruti, according to Vedanta. Its apavada

is found in statements like 'Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma', 'neha nana asti

kinchana', mrutyossa mrutyumapnoti.. ' etc. Then, one might ask, why mention at

all in the first place that Brahman is the material cause, the efficient cause

or that it is the Abinna-nimitta-upadana karana, etc and later deny it ?

 

This is where the wise words of Madathilji find a place. The Absolute Truth

is of such a subtle nature that the Sruti has to adopt ingenious means to teach

the same. I recall Swami Paramarthanandaji's explanation. We put a boy in a

school so that the boy may get educated and evolved. Eventually the boy will

have to come out of the school. It is absurd to ask: Anyway the boy will have

to leave the school some day, why put him in the school at all in the first

place? The question regarding the Sruti first talking about creation and later

negating it, has the purpose of preparing the aspirant, who in the realm of

avidya, cannot forsake the concept of cause-effect all on a sudden. First he

has to be shown that all this creation has come from one cause and that the

knowledge of the cause will liberate. He takes to the teaching with shraddha and

turns his attention from the created universe to its cause. When this is

accomplished adequately, the time comes to negate the

creation and the created universe. Only at this stage the causehood of Brahman

is also dropped. Since the scheme involves all these stages, the debate about

the pramana, whether it is sruti or yukti or anubhava, to establish the

material or otherwise causehood of Brahman is meaningless. So, to question

about the correctness of holding Brahman as the material cause and the attempt

to answer the question will never be fruitful. It will result in endless debate

and animosity. The Acharya says: Sarva-kalpana-apanayanaartha-saara-paratvaat

sarvopanishadaam : The avowed objective of all the Upanishads is to uproot all

the concoctions that we have entertained in us regarding so many things.

Creation and cause-effect are just two of them. When the final picture is seen

or at least understood, then no question will arise about the correctness or

otherwise, of holding Brahman as the material cause; it will then be understood

that the Upanishads actually teach that Brahman is not at

all a cause, as transcending the cause-effect realm. The Turiya is taught as

the paada-traya vilakshana, as asparsha. It is not touched by the cause-effect

realm at all. But in the beginning it is essential to teach that the Turiya

pervades the three paadas. The Acharya says that if this is not shown this way,

there will be no way that the aspirant can identify, locate, the Turiya. But

once the identifying, locating, is successfully done, there is no need any

longer to hold on to the earlier teaching. Swami Paramarthananda uses the

example of the parable of the seventeen elephants. Three heirs to a large

estate were faced with the problem of dividing seventeen elephants among

themselves in the willed proportion: half to the first brother, one-third to the

second and the rest to the third. Seeing their predicament, a wise person

'offered' to donate his elephant to the lot of seventeen and accomplished the

task thus: The first man got nine elephants, the second got six and the

third got two. Having distributed the seventeen elephants of the estate thus,

the wise man walked away with his own elephant. The Swami says that the Sruti

first introduces creation, causehood of Brahman, etc and ultimately withdraws

the concept of creation, etc. So, that is the 'fate' of creation and causehood.

Why debate about it? In the same tenor the Swami says: Duality will be

incomplete unless it culminates in Non-duality. And Non-duality is impossible

to attain without first passing through duality.

Asato maa sad gamaya, Tamaso maa jyotirgamaya, Mrutyor maa Amrutam gamaya

Om ShantiH ShantiH ShantiH

 

With warm regards to one and all

subbu

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michaelji.

 

I believe I am writing this in the spirit of rational discourse.

 

1. Accepted - none of us are enlightened sages. But, at least, most

uf us have a logical and rational vision of Reality.

 

2. Our advaitic explanations cannot be 'private opinions' if we are

able to clarify the rational and logical validity of the same.

There cannot be two or more 'private opinions' about Boyle's Law.

Although the Law relates to our mundane plane, a similar logic is

applicable to Advaitic understanding too because it passes the test

of rational questioning and grants us a vision of Reality beyond

doubts.

 

3. This advaitic vision concerns our true nature. Advaitic shraddha

begins when this vision is firmly accepted without doubt. The

acceptance naturally involves a lot of questioning, reasoning and

clarifications.

 

4. This bullet-proof conviction is not the end. One has to really

live the vision. Advaitic shraddhA is solely directed at realizing

and living this vision. What is the point in living in beggarly

misery when one is convinced that one is a billionaire? But, we are

all doing just that even after gaining the necessary conviction!

Living the vision demands a lot of sAdhana, courage, sacrifices, help

from a Master and shruti. These are all ingredients of shraddhA.

 

5. The vision of advaita is one and cannot be different from one

person to another although there may be differences in the manner in

which it is explained. For instance, the differences Shri

Shankaramanji apprehended between Bh. Ramana and Atmanandaji. We all

know that both the sages had the same vision despite the apprehended

difference in style.

 

6. Anybody who has a right understanding of what these sages have

said has a right to express it logically and convincingly. What they

say cannot be construed as different on the ground of 'mental

development' because right understanding necessarily implies the same

level of mental development at least with regard to the vision.

 

7. Finally, I am on this List for the *selfish* end of raising my

game. Not others' simply because I am not an enlightened one. The

name of the game is 'being able to live my true nature'. My

*selfishness* is my love for myself, which is all there is in the

context of the Advaitic teaching "I am all this".

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________

 

 

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

>

> There is a third sort of questioner which is not taken

> account of namely the one that although not

> having shraddha is seeking understanding of

> the position on some point or other. Is it being

> suggested that all explanations whatever require

> shraddha? Hardly because no one of the members

> is claiming to be an enlightened sage. So in fact their

> explanations are no more than private opinions

> as to the meaning of some point and contestable

> for that reason. What they read with shraddha

> leads to an understanding that reflects the level

> of their developement. This understanding is

> different because people are different. Are

> we not here on this list as coach said 'to raise

> one another's game'.

>

> Observations in the spirit of rational

> discourse welcome,