Questioning in Sadhana, etc.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Madathilji,

An excellent clear statement of your position.

When I come up against non negotiable elements

within religion even if I have reservations I tend to

walk away.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

 

||||||||||||||||

Madathilji wrote:

 

 

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".

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Anandaji,

 

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood wrote:

> In Shri Shankara's "aparokShAnubhUti" (116), there is

> an interesting description of non-dual realization --

> as a clarifying shift of meaning, which takes what we

> call 'vision' ("driShtim") and makes of it pure

> knowledge ("jnyAna-mayIm"). Here is the text, with a

> very free English rendering in brackets afterwards.

>

> driShTim jnyAna-mayIm kritvA pashyan brahma-mayam jagat

>

> [Converting sight of objects into

> seeing that just knows, that very

> seeing is none other than

> the world's complete reality.]

 

O beautiful, Anandaji! This is exactly the conclusion i had tried to

present in the summary of the discussions on the 'Real and the

Unreal' through the following words:

 

"Brahman is Nirguna. Forms do not describe Brahman, but Brahman is

Pure Knowledge in which all forms are eternally present as forms that

He Knows. Therefore the highest truth is that Brahman is Nirguna, and

Nirguna Brahman is purna with knowledge. That is His omniscience."

 

"Nirguna Brahman is Itself Its all-knowingness. And Its all-

knowingness is Itself the reality of the all. The All does not

contradict the perfect formlessness, the perfect immutability, the

perfect Oneness, and the sole reality of Brahman. This is the Brahman

of the Vedas. It has to be known through the Divine Third Eye. The

third eye is the eye of Shiva. He who opens it is Shiva."

 

> But can this ultimately non-dual vision be attained

> through pure logic alone? And what could that pure

> reason be?

 

Yes, i would say that pure logic leads one to the ultimate non-dual

vision through a process of purification of the intellect. It is also

the process of purification of logic itself until logic becomes 'pure

logic' as it sinks into the heart. The heart is the cave of the

intellect. What that pure logic is cannot be logically demonstrated

to the intellect whose logic is impure, i think.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik wrote:

>

> Namaste Shri Anandaji,

>

> advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@> wrote:

>

> > In Shri Shankara's "aparokShAnubhUti" (116), there is

> > an interesting description of non-dual realization --

> > as a clarifying shift of meaning, which takes what we

> > call 'vision' ("driShtim") and makes of it pure

> > knowledge ("jnyAna-mayIm"). Here is the text, with a

> > very free English rendering in brackets afterwards.

> >

> > driShTim jnyAna-mayIm kritvA pashyan brahma-mayam jagat

> >

> > [Converting sight of objects into

> > seeing that just knows, that very

> > seeing is none other than

> > the world's complete reality.]

>

> O beautiful, Anandaji! This is exactly the conclusion i had tried

to

> present in the summary of the discussions on the 'Real and the

> Unreal' through the following words:

>

> "Brahman is Nirguna. Forms do not describe Brahman, but Brahman is

> Pure Knowledge in which all forms are eternally present as forms

that

> He Knows. Therefore the highest truth is that Brahman is Nirguna,

and

> Nirguna Brahman is purna with knowledge. That is His omniscience."

>

> "Nirguna Brahman is Itself Its all-knowingness. And Its all-

> knowingness is Itself the reality of the all. The All does not

> contradict the perfect formlessness, the perfect immutability, the

> perfect Oneness, and the sole reality of Brahman. This is the

Brahman

> of the Vedas. It has to be known through the Divine Third Eye. The

> third eye is the eye of Shiva. He who opens it is Shiva."

 

Namaste,C-ji,IMHO,

 

Your description of Nirguna is really a further description of the

Saguna concept. Brahman cannot be purna or omniscient, for there is

nothing to know. Here are a few lines of the last lines in the

creation hymn for the Rig Veda;

"

Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it? Whence was it

produced? Whence is this creation? The gods came afterwards, with

the creation of this universe. Who then knows whence it has arisen?

 

Whence this creation has arisen-perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps

it did not-the one who looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only

he knows-or perhaps he does not know."

 

Rig Veda, 10.29, 1. Nasadiya-Creation Hymn. Wendy

O'Flaherty.Penguin."

 

I think 'does not know' explains it all.

 

 

NirGuna is self explanatory--no gunas, no modes, no potentiality

even. Inexplicable!.......ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir,

 

You have written

> > "Brahman is Nirguna. Forms do not describe Brahman, but Brahman

is

> > Pure Knowledge in which all forms are eternally present as forms

> that

> > He Knows. Therefore the highest truth is that Brahman is Nirguna,

> and

> > Nirguna Brahman is purna with knowledge. That is His

omniscience."

 

Here eternal knower and the forms which are eternally present doest

lead to the dualistic attitude? Again we land up in the knower and

the known.

> >

> > "Nirguna Brahman is Itself Its all-knowingness. And Its all-

> > knowingness is Itself the reality of the all. The All does not

> > contradict the perfect formlessness,

 

If we include say all the phenominal manifested creation certainly it

does contradict formlessness. Can you elaborate the point a little.

 

Withe eyes illumined by wisdon sage perceives the world with the

dualities and he sees that the whole nature with its myriad of name

and form has sprung up from one source brahman. It is said that this

is an apprant manifestation only.

 

In viveka chudamani Acharys says kurtra leenam idam jagat? where this

wrold disappeared? etc. So can we take that formlessness is the only

reality?

 

JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA

 

Yours in the lord,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

 

Namaste,V-ji

 

Only the bottom half of the page is my post. I referred to the Rig

Veda and its question that perhaps 'God' doesn't know anything about

creation to illuminate my point about Saguna, Nirguna and Ajativada.

I believe the Rig phrase can be translated as NirGuna doesn't know

anything for there isn't anything to know.

 

Admittedly we 'see' something and on realisation we see it all has

one unified field of Saguna Brahman.

 

However according to the Sages and logic it all disappears when the

body is dropped, for a Mukta that is. That means it cannot have

existed in the first place for even potentiality in Brahman is

impossibly potentially dualistic.

 

'It never happened at all, not even Saguna or the illusion'....I

think you will find this is the ultimate teaching of Gaudapada and

his expostion on the Mandukya Upanishad..........ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Madathil Nairji,

 

You are right! Once a sAdhaka reaches that state of Brahman, be it by

meditation or otherwise (I don't know how else- shravaNa, manana,

nidhidhyAsana-unless we are talking bhakti), he stays in it, meditating or

not.

 

"EshA brAhmI sthithiH pArtha nainAm prApya vimuhyati

Sthitva asyAm antakAlEpi brahmanirvANa mricchati" ... (2-72)

 

He then lives as described in ....pashyan, shruNvan.... (5-8and 9).

 

Is this fair to say?

 

PraNAms,

Krishnamurthy Ramakrishna.

 

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

Message: 5

Sun, 12 Feb 2006 07:50:16 -0000

"Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair

Re: RE:Questioning in Sadhana, etc. madathilnair

 

Namaste Shri Krishnamurthyji.

 

Thanks for the input.

 

I see that the commentary talks about meditation and samAdhi. SamAdhi

through meditation, however perfect it is, is still an experience

limited by time because the samAdhist returns to the world of non-

duality when meditation ends. His conduct with the world when he

confronts it again is, therefore, of paramount importance to us.

 

This brings to my mind the story of an acclaimed yogi. He was

thirsty and asked one of his disciples to fetch some water from a

nearby stream. The yogi then went into meditation and samAdhi. When

he later emerged to the world, the first thing he did was to scream

for water. The obvious message in this perhaps exaggerated anecdote

is that the yogi was not beyond his physical needs inspite of his

spiritual accomplishments.

 

Rightly, therefore, our discussion has more to do with a sthitaprajna

who is *always* absorbed in his non-dual self and yet apparently

operating in the non-dual conforming to the definitions in BG 12:13 -

12:20.

 

To my eyes, the Sanskrit text of the verse quoted by you seems to

relate to such a spontaneous jnAni because the samAdhi referred to

therein goes in the name of jnAna. He is always in samAdhi

meditating or not meditating. Neither does he have brahmAkAravritti

nor even samAdhi-vritti.

 

Am I right?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

____________

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Madathil, Shri Chittaranjan and others,

 

Thank you, Shri Madathil, for the kind and clarifying explanations

in your posting 30199. I enjoyed reading them (especially the

analogy about the clear sky of knowledge obscured by weeping

clouds), and can happily report a basic agreement with you.

 

In particular, about using logic to clarify meaning, we do indeed

agree that the true conclusion of such logic is a final realization

where, as you say, "logic is no more necessary".

 

I also agree that Advaita does take into account both deductive and

inductive logic, in its investigation of what's truly shown by the

world's appearances. But I would go on to say that the deductive

logic is accounted as an outgoing activity of mind -- which produces

interpretations and descriptions of the apparent world, from

sense-perceptions and assumed beliefs. Accordingly, it is the

inductive logic that's essential to Advaita enquiry, as this enquiry

reflects from the confused duality of seeming world to the clear

knowing of non-dual truth.

 

When the enquiry reflects back all the way to non-duality, the

changing duality of seeming world dissolves entirely in that which

does not change, nor differentiate. It thus turns out that the

changing world and all its differing appearances do not in truth

exist. This world is simply a mistaken confusion, and so is each one

of its appearances. The confusion mixes up what's truly known with

what is falsely imagined; and so it is a self-contradictory pretence

that two things which completely contradict each other are somehow

coupled, so as to cohabit with each other.

 

In Advaita, this false coupling is called 'mithya' -- from the

Sanskrit root 'mith', meaning to 'couple, pair, meet'. It is the

same root as in the words 'mithuna' or 'pair' and 'maithuna' or

'coupling, sexual congress'. The concept of 'mithya' thus implies

that the changing world is a self-contradictory confusion of

opposites. Each physical and mental appearance is born from a

confused coupling of self-contradictory opposites, in some

confusedly believing and imagining mind.

 

Concerning this confusion called 'mithya', nothing can be clearly

said or known about it, unless we reflect from its confused

appearances -- of body, sense and mind. Our bodies, senses and our

minds are included in the confused appearances of world; and so we

must reflect from them as well, in search of clearer knowing. That

reflection is essential to the logic of Advaita. Without it, we

can't clearly know what we mean by saying that the world exists or

does not exist, nor by saying in what way the world exists.

 

Shri Madathil, you explain that by Advaitic logic you don't "mean

that the logic itself is advaitic or non-dual.... The adjective only

means the logic that is employed to arrive at an understanding that

Reality is truly non-dual." As I understand your meaning here, you

are using the word 'logic' to describe a mental activity that comes

to a clearer and deeper understanding, which is found by approaching

closer and closer to the deepest limit of the mind, but without

quite crossing over completely from the mind to non-duality.

 

As you said in a previous posting (30159): "Even the advaitic

conclusion that Consciousness is the common denominator, or 'common

principle' as you say, behind the differing appearances is an

objectification. Till one arrives at this conclusion, the process is

very logical.... [but] , enquiry doesn't end with the still

objective conclusion that Consciousness is the common principle.

This conclusion needs to be assimilated into one's self as one's own

being whereby the denominator swallows the apparent differing rest

to *become* the Whole."

 

In short, you restrict the word 'logic' to a reasoning activity of

mind, which culminates in a logical understanding that is still a

little bit objectified and therefore in duality. Accordingly, you

describe a further way that has to be travelled towards non-duality:

"The way from this logical understanding is not a search but a

process of assimilation or rather of being the understanding

itself." (Quote from your posting 30199 again.)

 

And, to describe this further way that goes beyond logic, you say

(30199) that "an advaitin ... has to live his logical understanding

deliberately till such living becomes spontaneous, totally in sync

with the definitions. All these, come post understanding and the

attitude with which the goal is achieved is advaitic shraddhA."

Thus, at this post-logical stage, an attitude of shraddha or faith

comes in, as a sadhaka learns to live in good faith with a logically

derived conclusion.

 

But, in his posting 30193, Shri Chittaranjan uses the word 'logic'

in a different way. He says that "pure logic leads one to the

ultimate non-dual vision through a process of purification of the

intellect. It is also the process of purification of logic itself

until logic becomes 'pure logic' as it sinks into the heart. The

heart is the cave of the intellect. What that pure logic is cannot

be logically demonstrated to the intellect whose logic is impure, i

think."

 

I must confess that for philosophical purposes, I tend to use the

word 'logic' in this second way that Shri Chittaranjan has so neatly

described. Here, all mental activities of reason are conceived as

expressions of a true knowing in identity, from which they are

inspired and to which they must finally reflect. That true and

non-dual knowing is the essential principle of all that we call

'logic'. Accordingly we can sometimes use the word 'logic' in a

broader and a deeper way -- to include not just the reasoning

activities that appear in our mental processes, but also the

essential principle of non-dual knowing that all reasoning

activities express.

 

To explain this further, let me consider what happens when Advaita

reasoning is used reflectively, to approach closer and closer back

to the deepest limit of the mind, where dual thought becomes

dissolved in non-duality. As that limit is approached the logic of

the reasoning gets purer and purer and accordingly less tainted by

the confusions of duality.

 

Finally, as soon as the limit has been reached, the turned-back flow

of reasoning there touches base with its non-dual essence -- which

immediately and utterly dissolves all traces of duality and change,

without the need for any further effort. At that non-dual essence,

and only there, logic is completely pure. It is from there that all

processes of logic are inspired in our minds and living faculties,

despite their varying degrees of contamination.

 

In these two ways of using the word 'logic', each has its

effectiveness and problems. On the one hand, the restricted sense is

closer to the everyday use of the word, so it is easier and less

liable to pretentious confusion. But its drawback is that it must be

supplemented with additional ideas of faith and authentic living up

to what has been logically professed.

 

On the other hand, if this word 'logic' is used in its broader and

deeper sense, that sense includes an uncompromising faith in the

pure knowing of plain truth -- to an extreme which is extraordinary

and very unfamiliar, in our everyday affairs and our accustomed

habits of behaviour. This inclusion is of course a positive

advantage, to whatever extent it can be genuinely achieved, in a

sadhaka's understanding. But, to the extent that a sadhaka may fail

to understand that unfamiliar extremity of faith in pure knowing,

the deeper sense of the word 'logic' is dangerous -- because it is

liable to be perverted by pretentious beliefs that could do with

some deflating by a more everyday kind of logic. And here, I must of

course admit that this danger applies all too often to me

personally.

 

But, despite this difficulty, I find it sometimes helpful to

consider the idea of 'logic' in its deeper sense, as it has been

sometimes used in both the Western and Indian traditions (and no

doubt elsewhere that I don't know of).

 

The English 'logic' comes from the Greek 'logos', which means

'speaking' or 'expression'. In Greek philosophy, particularly in

Plotinus's 'Enneads', 'logos' is sometimes used to describe a

principle of reason that expresses 'oinos' (the non-dual 'one') in

the intelligibility of meaningful experience.

 

Some years ago, I was astonished to hear a Christian theologian

speaking of a Plotinian conception, to the effect that the logos

rises from within into the reasoning mind and takes the reasoning

back down into non-duality. I am afraid that I did not follow up on

the exact reference, but it struck me that the idea of 'logos' was

being used here in essentially the same way as my teacher (Shri

Atmananda) used a corresponding concept of 'vidya-vritti' or 'higher

logic'.

 

In the classical Sanskrit tradition, I find essentially the same

approach to reason in Bhartrihari's concept of 'vyakarana'.

Literally, 'vyakarana' means 'making different' or 'analysis' (from

the prefix 'vi-' implying differentiation and the root 'kri' which

means to 'do' or to 'make'). Bhartrihari's treatise, the

'Vakyapadiya', is a major classic in the subject of 'vyakarana' or

Sanskrit 'grammar'.

 

But Bhartrihari does not treat grammar as a formulation of rules

that build up linguistic structure. Instead, he treats grammar as a

reasoned enquiry of 'linguistic analysis', in strict accordance with

the root meaning of 'vyakarana'. And he interprets the idea of

'language' in the broadest and deepest way, to include all

meaningful experience. The entire world, of both physical and mental

appearances, is taken as the expression of an inmost knowing

principle, from which all speaking and all meaning comes.

 

In the 'Vakyapadiya', 1.11-16, Bhartrihari gives us his definition

of 'vyakarana' or 'linguistics'. He calls it "the foremost of the

sciences" (1.11), "a passageway to freedom in all disciplines"

(1.14), and "the direct, royal path for those intent on being freed"

(1.16). And he defines it as "that investigative therapy which may

be used to clear away the taints of speech in what is said" (1.14).

 

In the last quote above, the phrase 'investigative therapy' is a

translation of the Sanskrit 'cikitsa'. This is the desiderative of

the verb 'cit', to 'know'. As such, it plainly implies the 'wish to

know' and hence the reflective logic of philosophy, whose essence is

the love of knowing. As that logic purifies itself reflectively, it

returns to its true essence, without the need of anything further to

attain its own non-duality.

 

This is how I would interpret Bhartrihari's definition of

'vyakarana' ('analysis') as a 'cikitsa' ('investigative therapy').

And I would point out that this is exactly the method professed by

modern linguistic philosophy. The method is to investigate what is

by asking how it is described and interpreted and thus correctly

known. In Advaitic terms, the 'sat' or 'existence' aspect is

examined through reflection into the 'cit' or 'knowledge' aspect --

on the basis of the 'ananda' or 'happiness' aspect, which motivates

the enquiry as an expression of 'prema' or 'love'.

 

The main difference between Advaita and modern academic philosophy

is of course that in the latter, the 'happiness' and 'love' aspect

is rather suppressed and ignored. So the conclusions reached are

very different, although the method professed is basically the same.

 

The relevant passage from Bhartrihari's 'Vakyapadiya' is appended

below, with transliterations followed by rather free English

renderings of the original. Sorry that this post has turned out to

be so long.

 

Ananda

 

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

>From the Vakyapadiya

====================

 

1.11

----

 

AsannaM brahmaNas tasya tapasAm uttamaM tapaH .

prathamaM chandasAm a~Ngam Ahur vyAkaraNaM budhAH ..

 

For those who are intelligent,

the foremost of the sciences

and also the best discipline --

established in reality --

is the analysis of speech.

 

 

1.12

----

 

prApta-rUpa-vibhAgAyA yo vAcaH paramo rasaH .

yat tat puNyatamaM jyotis tasya mArgo 'yam A~njasaH ..

 

This is a direct path to that

same light which is at once the

purest virtue and the final essence

of all speech. This path proceeds

by trying to achieve correct

distinctions in the forms of speech.

 

 

1.13

----

 

artha-pravRtti-tattvAnAM shabdA eva nibandhanam .

 

All tying down of truths perceived,

in objects and their functioning,

consists of words expressed in speech.

 

tattvA-'vabodhaH shabdAnAM nA 'sti vyAkaraNAd Rte ..

 

But we don't clearly recognize

the truth of words, without recourse

to the analysis of speech.

 

 

1.14

----

 

tad dvAram apavargasya vA~N-malAnAM cikitsitam .

pavitraM sarva-vidyAnAm adhividyaM prakAshate ..

 

Linguistics is a passageway

to freedom in all disciplines.

Wherever learning is concerned,

linguistics there appears: as that

investigative therapy

which may be used to clear away

the taints of speech in what is said.

 

 

1.15

----

 

yathA 'rtha-jAtayaH sarvAH shabdA-'kRti-nibandhanAH .

 

All classes of the things we see

are tied back to generic names.

 

tathai 'va loke vidyAnAm eShA vidyA parAyaNam ..

 

So too, among all disciplines,

on this that analyses speech

the others can be seen to start.

 

 

1.16

----

 

idam AdyaM pada-sthAnaM siddhi-sopAna-parvaNAm .

 

It is the starting place on which

the staircase of achievement stands,

from which all steps achieved arise.

 

iyaM sA mokShamANAnAm ajihmA rAja-paddhatiH ..

 

It is the direct, royal path

for those intent on being freed.

[Guest guest]

Namastey Naik ji:

 

Pardon my interjection sir.

 

You state that "Brahman is Nirguna. Forms do not describe Brahman, but Brahman

is

Pure Knowledge in which all forms are eternally present as forms that

He Knows. Therefore the highest truth is that Brahman is Nirguna, and

Nirguna Brahman is purna with knowledge. That is His omniscience."

 

Not so sir, I see a tinge of duality in the statement above. Name and forms

exist only in and as a result of Maya. Even if forms are stamped notionally in

Brahman then they are tantamount to duality. If forms are eternally present in

Brahman then they are in one way immortal. Then anything that is immortal

cannot undergo mortality subsequently. Note that Brahman is immortal and

unborn. Notions of names and forms are subject to the same imortality as they

are percieved in phenomenal world. Brahman is one without a second and cannot

contain notions that do not constitute it in its one-ness.

 

Adi Shankara in Upanishad - Alatasanti-Prakarna (6 & 7) that

 

"A thing that already exists does not pass into birth; and a thing that does

not pre-exist cannot pass into birth. These people, while disputing thus, are

really non-dualists, and they thus reveal the absence of birth"

 

"The immortal can not become mortal. Similarly the mortal cannot become

immortal. The mutation of one's nature will take place in no way whatsoever."

 

Sincerely,

RR

 

 

 

Mail

Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Rajesh-ji,

 

advaitin, Rajesh Ramachander

<rrajeshchander wrote:

> Pardon my interjection sir.

>

> You state that "Brahman is Nirguna. Forms do not

> describe Brahman, but Brahman is Pure Knowledge

> in which all forms are eternally present as forms

> that He Knows. Therefore the highest truth is

> that Brahman is Nirguna, and Nirguna Brahman is

> purna with knowledge. That is His omniscience."

>

> Not so sir, I see a tinge of duality in the statement

> above. Name and forms exist only in and as a result of Maya.

 

Name and form exist eternally. I have already quoted the Acharya many

times on this matter. According to Advaita Vedanta, a word is eternal.

And the above statement is the conclusion that was arrived at after

logical deliberation on various topics including ontology, vivartavada,

and lastly on the nature of the non-existence of 'difference' between

Brahman and the object through a demostration that vishesha is nothing

but the limitedness of the formless samanya. It is the conclusion

derived from avacchedavada. The statement stands logically, but I

wouldn't like to get into another debate on it now. (It was once

debated for more than two months on this list).

 

As regards seeing a tinge of duality, I would say:

 

When there is seeing with duality (with underlying sleep that is also

called avyakta and avidya), then what is seen is an object of

knowledge. When there is Seeing without duality (when Awake, without

sleep), the known is not another thing, and neither is it a predicate

of the Knower i.e., it is the Knower Himself. If we are unable to grasp

It, it is because we try to imagine It. But the way to it is not mere

imagination, but knowledge. It is connected to being embodied and

unembodied. Shankara says that without dispossessing oneself of the

body, this non-duality cannot be known. The notion of embodiedness is

proof of the presence of avidya, and in this state, imagination often

tries to posture itself as knowledge. Therefore, one needs to be un-

embodied. The path to it is not imagination, but deep manana and then

nidhidhyasana.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Rajesh-ji,

>

> advaitin, Rajesh Ramachander

> <rrajeshchander@> wrote:

>

> > Pardon my interjection sir.

> >

> > You state that "Brahman is Nirguna. Forms do not

> > describe Brahman, but Brahman is Pure Knowledge

> > in which all forms are eternally present as forms

> > that He Knows. Therefore the highest truth is

> > that Brahman is Nirguna, and Nirguna Brahman is

> > purna with knowledge. That is His omniscience."

> >

> > Not so sir, I see a tinge of duality in the statement

> > above. Name and forms exist only in and as a result of Maya.

>

> Name and form exist eternally. I have already quoted the Acharya

many

> times on this matter. According to Advaita Vedanta, a word is

eternal.

> And the above statement is the conclusion that was arrived at

after

> logical deliberation on various topics including ontology,

vivartavada,

 

Namaste CN-Ji,IMHO,

 

A form or a word is only as eternal as you are, as a Jiva! If one is

in complete Sahaja Samadhi, where is the world or the word?

Admittedly in deep sleep mind still exists but not in full Samadhi--

Samadhi that is NirviKalpa completely, with no ties to the world.

 

So even for the Mukta the world only exists as an appearance for as

long as the body survives.

 

To me, using my own logic; If the world disappears on full Samadhi

and when the Mukta drops the body it cannot have existed in the

first place. For if it did, that would entail dualism or potential

dualism in Nirguna Brahman. Also as I posted recently on the

Creation Hymn in the Rig--perhaps He doesn't know! For if Brahman

didn't know and the world existed, even as an illusion, it would

compromise Brahman. For something would exist without the knowledge

of Brahman, which is impossible and contradictory to NirGuna. So

when the Rig says perhaps He doesn't know, it means not knowing

ignorance, or anything. For there is not anything to know. There is

nothing that is eternal ultimately for that implies a condition of

some kind of time. That is why to me Ajativada is the only logical

conclusion, and that the other ideas are of Bhakti. Not that there

is anything wrong with Pure Bhakti but one shouldn't be attached to

one's favourite spiritual or religious ideas. For it never

happened.....ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Rajeshji,

 

I think there is a simple way to reach reconciliation with Shri

Chittaranjaniji. I don't know if he will accept my endeavour. I will

mention it here step by step without seeking help from any authority:

 

1. Brahman is Changelessness. I am sure you don't disagree.

 

2. Yet, we confront a universe of diverse phenomena. You won't deny

that.

 

3. This duality, we conclude, is due to an error in our perception.

We call it adhyAsa. No problem if you call it avidyA or mAyA.

 

4. If you accept that there is an error, then naturally, you have to

take whatever you confront as really Wholeness or Fullness or

Changelessness simply because a Wholeness that is Changelessness

cannot brook entities additional to it even as an illusion.

 

5. Thus you are a whole, I am a whole, the ant is a whole, the star

is a whole, and whatever there is is a whole - both individually and

collectively.

 

6. Thus, I, you and the rest is Wholeness - verily the

Changelessness called Brahman.

 

7. All that Advaita exhorts us to do is to acknowledge this Truth,

have firm conviction on it and realize it without an iota of doubt

remaining.

 

8. Thus, everything is eternally Brahman (CNji might have said 'in

Brahman' by way of and for convenience of expression or in the

specific context of his writing).

 

9. If we say the world is an illusion, then we have to look for a

locus for that illusion. If the illusion is to be discarded, then we

are discarding something to reach at something. That implies duality.

 

10. The safest conclusion (rather expression), therefore, is that

there is an error. Correction of that error through sAdhana

including contemplation removes the error and one becomes Knowledge

in which there is no more any error and one realizes that there has

never been an error. Please note that the error has not

been 'discarded' here. It was simply found to be non-existent. Such

a person has no problem with the diverse phenomena because, for him,

it is no more diverse or separate from him. He hasn't rejected them

either.

 

11. Thus, in the paramArthic sense, there is no error at all and

nothing has been discarded in the vyAvaharic process of 'removing

that error'. One who has thus 'removed the error' knows in Himself

that everything is eternally Brahman, i.e. Himself.

 

Now, it is upto Chittaranjanji to say if I am right in understanding

the profundity of his advaitic forays and for you to say if you agree.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Rajeshji.

 

This is an additional clarification to my hasty message on this topic

before:

 

If the world is an illusion and if its removal is sought, it implies

that the whole world is to be removed. However, if the world as it

appears diverse and separate from is an error, what we are removing is

not the world as such but only its diverse appearance and separation

from us, which are actually non-existent. The world remains as us, the

Wholeness. Also, we don't have to look for a locus for the error

because there is no pre or post for that error. That is why avidyA has

been called anAdi - in my humble opinion, of course.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Tony-ji,

 

My understanding of Advaita sees things a bit differently.....

 

 

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery wrote:

> Namaste CN-Ji,IMHO,

>

> A form or a word is only as eternal as you are, as a Jiva!

> If one is in complete Sahaja Samadhi, where is the world

> or the word?

 

The world and the word is not different from Sahaja Samadhi.

 

> Admittedly in deep sleep mind still exists but not in

> full Samadhi--

 

In what manner does the mind exist in deep sleep?

 

> Samadhi that is NirviKalpa completely, with no ties to

> the world.

 

When there is difference between Nirvikalpa and Savikalpa, it is not

Advaita. It is Yoga. When there is no difference between Nirvikalpa

and Savikalpa, it is the Sahaja Samadhi of Advaita.

 

> So even for the Mukta the world only exists as an appearance

> for as long as the body survives.

 

There is no divide of Reality and Appearance for a mukta. There is

only Knowledge. He who has a body to shed is not a mukta. It is only

the ajnani who thinks that the mukta's soul is housed in a body. The

mukta is Eternity, the alpha and omega, He who was, is, and will

be. 'Why do you limit Ramana to this six-feet?' asked Ramana once.

 

> To me, using my own logic; If the world disappears on full

> Samadhi and when the Mukta drops the body

 

The world doesn't 'disappear' for a mukta, and the mukta has no body

to drop. Disappearing entails a movement, whereas jnana is the vision

that movement is not different than Knowing.

 

> it cannot have existed in the first place. For if it did,

> that would entail dualism or potential dualism in Nirguna

> Brahman.

 

It is not Existence that entails dualism, but two existences that

entail dualism. There are no two in Brahman; the world is Brahman.

 

> That is why to me Ajativada is the only logical

> conclusion, and that the other ideas are of Bhakti.

 

Ajativada is a logical conclusion, and vivartavada is not other than

ajativada. It is ajativada explained to show that it doesn't exclude

the world in non-duality.

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Nair-ji,

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair wrote:

> 1. Brahman is Changelessness. I am sure you don't

> disagree.

>

> 2. Yet, we confront a universe of diverse phenomena.

> You won't deny that.

>

> 3. This duality, we conclude, is due to an error in

> our perception. We call it adhyAsa. No problem if you

> call it avidyA or mAyA.

>

> 4. If you accept that there is an error, then naturally,

> you have to take whatever you confront as really

> Wholeness or Fullness or Changelessness simply because

> a Wholeness that is Changelessness cannot brook entities

> additional to it even as an illusion.

>

> 5. Thus you are a whole, I am a whole, the ant is a

> whole, the star is a whole, and whatever there is is a

> whole - both individually and collectively.

>

> 6. Thus, I, you and the rest is Wholeness - verily

> the Changelessness called Brahman.

>

> 7. All that Advaita exhorts us to do is to acknowledge

> this Truth, have firm conviction on it and realize it

> without an iota of doubt remaining.

>

> 8. Thus, everything is eternally Brahman (CNji might

> have said 'in Brahman' by way of and for convenience of

> expression or in the specific context of his writing).

>

> 9. If we say the world is an illusion, then we have

> to look for a locus for that illusion. If the illusion

> is to be discarded, then we are discarding something to

> reach at something. That implies duality.

>

> 10. The safest conclusion (rather expression),

> therefore, is that there is an error. Correction of

> that error through sAdhana including contemplation

> removes the error and one becomes Knowledge in which

> there is no more any error and one realizes that there

> has never been an error. Please note that the error

> has not been 'discarded' here. It was simply found to

> be non-existent. Such a person has no problem with

> the diverse phenomena because, for him, it is no more

> diverse or separate from him. He hasn't rejected them

> either.

>

> 11. Thus, in the paramArthic sense, there is no error

> at all and nothing has been discarded in the vyAvaharic

> process of 'removing that error'. One who has thus

> 'removed the error' knows in Himself that everything

> is eternally Brahman, i.e. Himself.

>

> Now, it is upto Chittaranjanji to say if I am right in

> understanding the profundity of his advaitic forays and

> for you to say if you agree.

 

Nairji, I am gratified that you describe my meagre attempts to

understanding Advaita as profound forays. Thank you. As regards your

explanation, I am in complete agreement with it, and I find your

subsequent clarification to be a perfect articulation on the matter:

 

"If the world is an illusion and if its removal is sought, it implies

that the whole world is to be removed. However, if the world as it

appears diverse and separate from is an error, what we are removing

is not the world as such but only its diverse appearance and

separation from us, which are actually non-existent. The world

remains as us, the Wholeness. Also, we don't have to look for a

locus for the error because there is no pre or post for that error.

That is why avidyA has been called anAdi - in my humble opinion, of

course."

 

 

Would I be deviating from your point no 7 if I were to add that

Advaita asks us to approach sravana and manana (on the Sruti) with

shraddha until the Truth of Advaita becomes established, and then to

attain quiescence from past vasanas through nidhidhyasana until one

abides naturally - 'becomes' stitha-prajna - as the Truth?

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dear Chittaranjanji,

 

That is a very tricky question to answer.

 

Let us say one has the right understanding of his advaitic real

nature and he is serious about truly living it.

 

VAsanAs being a direct result of the three guNAs, such a person knows

that he is actually beyond them.

 

According to Sw. Dayanandaji, if I remember and understood him right,

that knowledge itself is enough to keep himself away from the sway of

vAsAnAs; lest he would be erecting a parallel reality and sadly

succumbing to it.

 

In the latter case, his understanding of advaita is merely academic

without the firmness of conviction. He is simply not serious about

it. In other words, he is not a vIra – a term you used in one of

your earlier posts.

 

I should, therefore, imagine that a person with a firm repeat firm

advaitic conviction is not under the pull of vAsanAs. He is like one

watching the tumultuous currents and whirls of a river standing on

its bank and quite himself unlike another one being carried away by

the waters or drowning in them.

 

So, the big question: Is it at all necessary to attempt or await a

quiescence of past vAsanAs? Let that occur naturally when it does

will be the attitude of the vIra, in my humble opinion. In other

words, he has no time for vAsanAs. No doubt, continued sravaNa,

manana, shraddhA and nidhdhyAsana will help his path to advaitic

spontaneity and are a must.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik wrote:

>

> Would I be deviating from your point no 7 if I were to add that

> Advaita asks us to approach sravana and manana (on the Sruti) with

> shraddha until the Truth of Advaita becomes established, and then

to

> attain quiescence from past vasanas through nidhidhyasana until one

> abides naturally - 'becomes' stitha-prajna - as the Truth?

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Nair-ji,

 

I agree that it is a tricky question. When you say "VAsanAs being a

direct result of the three guNAs, such a person knows that he is

actually beyond them", I would consider that the word 'that' which

follows the word 'knows' implies that there is some way to go for

the 'spontaneity' (that you mention at the end of your post) to

arise. My remarks were only made in this context, and also in

accordance with Sri Gaudapada's description of the path for aspirants

with middling qualities.

 

But you are right about the path of the vira. It is said, however,

that the path of the vira is open to only those who have viryatva and

not to all sadhakas. A vira's complete acceptance of the totality is

the end of the journey. He is stitha even in the "tumultuous currents

and whirls" of this universe because they are not different from His

Wholeness. I think this theme forms the core philosophy of the Kula

System of Kashmir Shaivism: to see the entire universe in every

particle, in everything, everywhere and always. It is the family

(Kula) of Shiva who is indivisible and never different than Shakti.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Dear Chittaranjanji,

>

> That is a very tricky question to answer.

>

> Let us say one has the right understanding of his advaitic real

> nature and he is serious about truly living it.

>

> VAsanAs being a direct result of the three guNAs, such a person

knows

> that he is actually beyond them.

>

> According to Sw. Dayanandaji, if I remember and understood him

right,

> that knowledge itself is enough to keep himself away from the sway

of

> vAsAnAs; lest he would be erecting a parallel reality and sadly

> succumbing to it.

>

> In the latter case, his understanding of advaita is merely academic

> without the firmness of conviction. He is simply not serious about

> it. In other words, he is not a vIra – a term you used in one of

> your earlier posts.

>

> I should, therefore, imagine that a person with a firm repeat firm

> advaitic conviction is not under the pull of vAsanAs. He is like

one

> watching the tumultuous currents and whirls of a river standing on

> its bank and quite himself unlike another one being carried away by

> the waters or drowning in them.

>

> So, the big question: Is it at all necessary to attempt or await a

> quiescence of past vAsanAs? Let that occur naturally when it does

> will be the attitude of the vIra, in my humble opinion. In other

> words, he has no time for vAsanAs. No doubt, continued sravaNa,

> manana, shraddhA and nidhdhyAsana will help his path to advaitic

> spontaneity and are a must.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

>

 

Namaste Chittaranjan Naik,

 

i'm thankfull for your message and clear words....

wish i had such knowledge....

 

reading your words concerning certain statements of Tony...

i don't see big differences....

 

as for example:

 

Tony:

So even for the Mukta the world only exists as an appearance

> > for as long as the body survives.

>

Chittaranjan:

There is no divide of Reality and Appearance for a mukta. There is

> only Knowledge. He who has a body to shed is not a mukta. It is

only

> the ajnani who thinks that the mukta's soul is housed in a body.

The

> mukta is Eternity, the alpha and omega, He who was, is, and will

> be. 'Why do you limit Ramana to this six-feet?' asked Ramana once.

 

-what would be the difference for a Mukta....to divide "Reality and

Appearences"...?.....could a Mukta not very well live in

the "world".....without having any attachments to it....?

are not all this "detachments" what make a Mukta....a Mukta...?

 

Ramana was also the one who told:

"what is called the world is only a thought"

 

i agree with you in the point that what represent a Mukta....has

nothing to do with his form (body-mind-intellect).....

therefore no change for a Mukta...to have a body still....or not....

 

the "soul" of a Mukta maybe is out of size....to still playing a

role ...in a world.....of mind.....of time and space.....

 

maybe a Mukta passed the size....of a "whole" world.....and therefore

exists, mainly "outside" this world perception ....

a drop of him/her remaining....in our deepest heart.....

the inner voice talking to us....in moments of detachments......

 

worlds are coming and going.....is it not?

 

doesn't matter if worlds are real or unreal......this change nothing

realy on our real nature.....which has nothing realy to do....with

the world....

 

only few thoughts....

please feel free to show me mistakes....

 

Best Regards

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik wrote:

>

> Namaste Shri Tony-ji,

>

> My understanding of Advaita sees things a bit differently.....

>

>

> advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery@> wrote:

>

> > Namaste CN-Ji,IMHO,

> >

> > A form or a word is only as eternal as you are, as a Jiva!

> > If one is in complete Sahaja Samadhi, where is the world

> > or the word?

>

> The world and the word is not different from Sahaja Samadhi.

>

>

> > Admittedly in deep sleep mind still exists but not in

> > full Samadhi--

>

> In what manner does the mind exist in deep sleep?

>

>

> > Samadhi that is NirviKalpa completely, with no ties to

> > the world.

>

> When there is difference between Nirvikalpa and Savikalpa, it is

not

> Advaita. It is Yoga. When there is no difference between

Nirvikalpa

> and Savikalpa, it is the Sahaja Samadhi of Advaita.

>

>

> > So even for the Mukta the world only exists as an appearance

> > for as long as the body survives.

>

> There is no divide of Reality and Appearance for a mukta. There is

> only Knowledge. He who has a body to shed is not a mukta. It is

only

> the ajnani who thinks that the mukta's soul is housed in a body.

The

> mukta is Eternity, the alpha and omega, He who was, is, and will

> be. 'Why do you limit Ramana to this six-feet?' asked Ramana once.

>

>

> > To me, using my own logic; If the world disappears on full

> > Samadhi and when the Mukta drops the body

>

> The world doesn't 'disappear' for a mukta, and the mukta has no

body

> to drop. Disappearing entails a movement, whereas jnana is the

vision

> that movement is not different than Knowing.

>

>

> > it cannot have existed in the first place. For if it did,

> > that would entail dualism or potential dualism in Nirguna

> > Brahman.

>

> It is not Existence that entails dualism, but two existences that

> entail dualism. There are no two in Brahman; the world is Brahman.

>

>

> > That is why to me Ajativada is the only logical

> > conclusion, and that the other ideas are of Bhakti.

>

> Ajativada is a logical conclusion, and vivartavada is not other

than

> ajativada. It is ajativada explained to show that it doesn't

exclude

> the world in non-duality.

>

>

> Warm regards,

> Chittaranjan

>

Namaste,C-Ji, IMHO only,

 

1. There is only NirGuna Brahman and that isn't!

 

2. There is an appearance of the world and that isn't.

 

3. We in fact are not different from Brahman, and we aren't.

 

Even one existence or appearance of existence is unreal and

dualistic for it posits a mind to project the appearance which is in

fact an error.

 

The only reason we can perceive a world that doesn't really exist

and has never happened is just because we are not different from

Brahman...............ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Tony-ji,

 

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery wrote:

 

> Namaste,C-Ji, IMHO only,

>

> 1. There is only NirGuna Brahman and that isn't!

 

Isn't that nihilism?

 

> 2. There is an appearance of the world and that isn't.

 

The appearance is - because it is appearing.

 

> 3. We in fact are not different from Brahman, and we aren't.

 

Agreed.

 

> Even one existence or appearance of existence is unreal

> and dualistic

 

Not agreed. The apple is one even though it is red.

 

> for it posits a mind to project the appearance

> which is in fact an error.

 

The mind is the Magic of Non-duality waving without motion. When the

Magic is not seen through, the no-motion is lost sight of. That is

the error.

 

> The only reason we can perceive a world that doesn't really

> exist and has never happened is just because we are not

> different from Brahman...............ONS...Tony.

 

The son of a barren woman can never be perceived. The world is

perceived. The son of a barren woman is never presented even by Maya.

The world is presented by Maya. What is it in the nature of Brahman

that makes one impossible and the other possible? It is called Ritam,

the meaning that exists in Brahman. It is because of this that there

is a sutra in the Brahma Sutra which says:

 

"Objects are not non-existent, for they are perceived." (BS.II.11.28)

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik wrote:

>

> Namaste Shri Tony-ji,

>

> advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery@> wrote:

>

>

> > Namaste,C-Ji, IMHO only,

> >

> > 1. There is only NirGuna Brahman and that isn't!

>

> Isn't that nihilism?

>

>

> > 2. There is an appearance of the world and that isn't.

>

> The appearance is - because it is appearing.

>

>

> > 3. We in fact are not different from Brahman, and we aren't.

>

> Agreed.

>

>

> > Even one existence or appearance of existence is unreal

> > and dualistic

>

> Not agreed. The apple is one even though it is red.

>

>

> > for it posits a mind to project the appearance

> > which is in fact an error.

>

> The mind is the Magic of Non-duality waving without motion. When

the

> Magic is not seen through, the no-motion is lost sight of. That is

> the error.

>

>

> > The only reason we can perceive a world that doesn't really

> > exist and has never happened is just because we are not

> > different from Brahman...............ONS...Tony.

>

> The son of a barren woman can never be perceived. The world is

> perceived. The son of a barren woman is never presented even by

Maya.

> The world is presented by Maya. What is it in the nature of

Brahman

> that makes one impossible and the other possible? It is called

Ritam,

> the meaning that exists in Brahman. It is because of this that

there

> is a sutra in the Brahma Sutra which says:

>

> "Objects are not non-existent, for they are perceived."

(BS.II.11.28)

>

> Warm regards,

> Chittaranjan

>

Namaste,

 

Ajativada indicates that even the illusion or appearance didn't

happen and that we have always been Brahman. That isn't Nihilism for

Brahman is in fact inexplicable by a mind. I know it is hard to

dispute our own eyes, but I still fall back on the position I take

on Samadhi and the dead Mukta. That even the appearance is found

never to have happened. For if the world disappears on full samadhi

and when a Mukta drops the body, it can never have existed in the

first place.....So the world is not perceived at all, an illusion

appears to be perceived but in fact isn't. Maya or the power of Maya

never ever happened. Nothing exists in NirGuna Brahman, only in

Saguna and as Brahman cannot be divided even in concepts, it never

could have happened. That is why the phrase 'son of a barren woman'

is used for it explains and impossibility a never happening.

 

The only way to describe why it seem to have happened is that we

are Brahman, are not different from Brahman, and that is the only

reason we seem to perceive a creation or appearance that never

happened..........And that is inexplicable as is NirGuna..To give it

any validity is not really possible..ONS..Tony

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery wrote:

>So the world is not perceived at all, an illusion

> appears to be perceived but in fact isn't. Maya or the power of Maya

> never ever happened. Nothing exists in NirGuna Brahman, only in

> Saguna and as Brahman cannot be divided even in concepts, it never

> could have happened. That is why the phrase 'son of a barren woman'

> is used for it explains and impossibility a never happening.

 

 

OM TAT SAT

Namaste Tony-ji, All the above statements are also part of Maya so

they have no meaning either. The very fact that you are calling

something mayavi or illusory means you have accepted something

visible/perceptible and then trying to negate it. That statement is

equally to be discarded.

That is why, I personally believe it is best not to debate this issue -

we already know we live in this world, feel this world and even a

Jivanmukta lives without sense of doership. Then, let us accept it as

a wave on the ocean of eternity. When the Bhagavad Gita says

everything animate or inanimate is Atman, then we cannot negate the

existence aspect of anything. I am not saying objects exists eternally

but I am saying that in the statement

"This is a tree"

 

the "is a" part is sat/chit - atman.

 

regards,

OM TAT SAT

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "mahadevadvaita"

<mahadevadvaita wrote:

>

> advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery@> wrote:

> >So the world is not perceived at all, an illusion

> > appears to be perceived but in fact isn't. Maya or the power of

Maya

> > never ever happened. Nothing exists in NirGuna Brahman, only in

> > Saguna and as Brahman cannot be divided even in concepts, it

never

> > could have happened. That is why the phrase 'son of a barren

woman'

> > is used for it explains and impossibility a never happening.

>

>

> OM TAT SAT

> Namaste Tony-ji, All the above statements are also part of Maya so

> they have no meaning either. The very fact that you are calling

> something mayavi or illusory means you have accepted something

> visible/perceptible and then trying to negate it. That statement

is

> equally to be discarded.

> That is why, I personally believe it is best not to debate this

issue -

> we already know we live in this world, feel this world and even a

> Jivanmukta lives without sense of doership. Then, let us accept it

as

> a wave on the ocean of eternity. When the Bhagavad Gita says

> everything animate or inanimate is Atman, then we cannot negate

the

> existence aspect of anything. I am not saying objects exists

eternally

> but I am saying that in the statement

> "This is a tree"

>

> the "is a" part is sat/chit - atman.

>

> regards,

> OM TAT SAT

>

Namaste,

 

Yes I agree it is all within the power of Maya, illusory or not. Sat-

Cit-Atman is Saguna by definition.

 

However if one is on the sadhana of Self Enquiry it is Neti Neti. So

I do negate the existence aspect of creation. Perhaps you can

explain to me where it all goes to on Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi or

bodiless Moksha..?...No snake, no rope........ONS..Tony

[Guest guest]

> Namaste,

>

> Yes I agree it is all within the power of Maya, illusory or not. Sat-

> Cit-Atman is Saguna by definition.

 

There exists a Nirguna Brahman is also a statement by a conscious

entity about an invisible attributeless, infinity. So frankly, your

statement does not make sense to me. Unless you exist and unless you

are conscious, you cannot declare anything about this incomprehensible

entity called Nirguna Brahman, which according to you is not even sat-

chit-ananda. You continuously repeat the non-existense of Saguna or

maya or universe or Sat-chit-ananda when you yourself use the sat-chit

of that infinity to make this declaration.

>

> However if one is on the sadhana of Self Enquiry it is Neti Neti. So

> I do negate the existence aspect of creation. Perhaps you can

> explain to me where it all goes to on Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi or

> bodiless Moksha..?...No snake, no rope........ONS..Tony

 

I am not aware of this bodiless moksha but as far as I know, if

Krishna, Christ, Ramana Maharishi, Acharya Shankar were realized, they

did not disappear from this world - nor did the world disappear for

them.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "mahadevadvaita"

<mahadevadvaita wrote:

>

> > Namaste,

> >

> > Yes I agree it is all within the power of Maya, illusory or not.

Sat-

> > Cit-Atman is Saguna by definition.

>

> There exists a Nirguna Brahman is also a statement by a conscious

> entity about an invisible attributeless, infinity. So frankly,

your

> statement does not make sense to me. Unless you exist and unless

you

> are conscious, you cannot declare anything about this

incomprehensible

> entity called Nirguna Brahman, which according to you is not even

sat-

> chit-ananda. You continuously repeat the non-existense of Saguna

or

> maya or universe or Sat-chit-ananda when you yourself use the sat-

chit

> of that infinity to make this declaration.

>

> >

> > However if one is on the sadhana of Self Enquiry it is Neti

Neti. So

> > I do negate the existence aspect of creation. Perhaps you can

> > explain to me where it all goes to on Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi

or

> > bodiless Moksha..?...No snake, no rope........ONS..Tony

>

> I am not aware of this bodiless moksha but as far as I know, if

> Krishna, Christ, Ramana Maharishi, Acharya Shankar were realized,

they

> did not disappear from this world - nor did the world disappear

for

> them.

>

Namaste,

 

I have often repeated that NirGuna isn't! How can it know or exist?

I fall back on the last line of the Creation Hymn in the

Rig, 'perhaps it does not know?'...Knowing being Avidya or Maya.

Yes all these Muktas, Ramana etc, dropped the body, and where did

the world go then? That is the question! Bodiless Moksha is either

Moksha at death or when a Mukta drops the body. There being no ego

already of course.

 

Yes I am using all 'this' to explain 'this', that is true, but only

if you accept that it all happened which I don't.

 

It is not logical for a person in Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi to not

be aware of the creation, if it exists. For that is dualistic

therefore it cannot exist and didn't ever happen. That is my

simplistic deduction, unfettered by belief systems to the

contrary.....ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Tony-ji,

 

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery wrote:

> I have often repeated that NirGuna isn't!

> How can it know or exist?

 

It is Knowing even though it appears that It is not Knowing because

there is no second thing apart from It that It Knows.

> Knowing being Avidya or Maya.

 

Avidya means 'not knowing'. Your sentence reduces to 'knowing being

not-knowing....' which does not make sense.

 

> Yes I am using all 'this' to explain 'this', that is

> true, but only if you accept that it all happened

> which I don't.

 

This is a form of the liar's paradox. Earlier you said that this

universe is like the son of a barren woman. But that is not how

Advaita looks at it. Shankara says that this world is not like the

son of a barren woman. The only place where he equates non-existence

to the son of a barren woman is when he is arguing against the

Vaisesikas who say that the effect was non pre-existent in the cause

wherein he uses the non-existence of the son of a berren woman to

show that the kind of non-existence the Vaisesikas speak of would

have no distinction from the son of a barren woman. But in Advaita,

he is explicit that even the illusion of Maya is not like the son of

a barren woman. Please see the following two verses from the Advaita

Prakarana of Gaudapada's Karika:

 

Verse #27: "The birth of a thing that exists can reasonably be

possible only through Maya and not in reality. For one who holds that

things take birth in a real sense, there can only be the birth of

what is already born."

 

Verse #28: "There can be no birth for a non-existing object either

through Maya or in reality, for the son of a barren woman is born

neither through Maya nor in reality."

 

Shankara in his commentary on verse 28 says that if one were to hold

the (illusion of) the world to be like the son of a barren woman, it

would reduce to nihilism.

> therefore it cannot exist and didn't ever happen. That is my

> simplistic deduction, unfettered by belief systems to the

> contrary.....ONS...Tony.

 

Isn't this a belief system?

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

>