RE:Questioning in Sadhana, etc. madathilnair

[Guest guest]

Dear Anandji / Rajendranji

 

The following verse from BhagavAn Shankara's AparOkshAnubhUti seems relevant

in this discussion;

"nirvikAratayA vrittyA brahmAkAratayA punah

Vritti vismaraNanm samyak samAdhih jnyAna samjnyakah " (verse 124)

 

Meaning: Staying firmly in Brahman, and also ignoring (or forgetting) that

he is in Brahman is samAdhi; This is jnyAna.

 

Commentary: Meditating on the svarUpa of Brahman is BrahmAkAra vritti.

Focused only on Brahman and nothing else is nrvikAravritti. When the

meditation reaches the finality of even forgetting that the sAdhaka is

meditating on Brahman, that state is samAdhi and that is called jnyAna.

I believe this is the final experience of non-duality, devoid of all

objectivity and any sense of duality.

 

Regards,

K. Ramakrishna

_

 

Message: 4

Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:07:08 -0000

"Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair

Re: Questioning in Sadhana, etc. madathilnair

 

Dear Shri Anandaji.

 

My answers to the very pertinent questions you have raised are in

.

______________

 

Anandaji:

 

In particular, it raises a rather delicate and tricky question, about

the kind of logic that is used in Advaita reasoning. Is that logic

merely objective? We use it to examine objective appearances and to

conclude that they all express a common principle of consciousness.

And, as you so rightly say, this conclusion is still an

objectification. A sense of objectivity is still associated with it.

There is still a sense of duality between a universal consciousness

and a variety of appearances that express it.

 

But must Advaita logic come to an end with this seemingly final

conclusion, which is still contaminated with a last remaining sense

of dual and objective appearance?

 

Personally, I would answer here that no, Advaita logic cannot end

like this. We cannot rightly use the words 'advaita' or 'non-dual'

for a logic that remains in duality. If any logic is correctly

called 'advaitic' or 'non-dual', it must somehow go all the way

beyond duality, to a completely non-dual conclusion where no trace

remains of any known objectivity that is in the slightest sense

different from a knowing subject.

 

What would be your position here? How would you answer the question

of how logic can be called 'non-dual'?

____

 

[by advaitic logic, I didn't mean that the logic itself is advaitic

or non-dual. All logic is in the non-dual realm. The adjective only

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

Reality is truly non-dual.]

_____

[Guest guest]

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

____________

 

advaitin, "Krishnamurthy Ramakrishna"

<puttakrishna wrote:

>

> The following verse from BhagavAn Shankara's AparOkshAnubhUti seems

relevant

> in this discussion;

> "nirvikAratayA vrittyA brahmAkAratayA punah

> Vritti vismaraNanm samyak samAdhih jnyAna samjnyakah " (verse 124)

>

> Meaning: Staying firmly in Brahman, and also ignoring (or

forgetting) that

> he is in Brahman is samAdhi; This is jnyAna.

>

> Commentary: Meditating on the svarUpa of Brahman is BrahmAkAra

vritti.

> Focused only on Brahman and nothing else is nrvikAravritti. When the

> meditation reaches the finality of even forgetting that the sAdhaka

is

> meditating on Brahman, that state is samAdhi and that is called

jnyAna.

> I believe this is the final experience of non-duality, devoid of all

> objectivity and any sense of duality.

[Guest guest]

_

 

Message: 4

Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:07:08 -0000

"Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair

Re: Questioning in Sadhana, etc. madathilnair

 

Dear Shri Anandaji.

 

My answers to the very pertinent questions you have raised are in

.

______________

 

Anandaji:

 

In particular, it raises a rather delicate and tricky question, about

the kind of logic that is used in Advaita reasoning. Is that logic

merely objective? We use it to examine objective appearances and to

conclude that they all express a common principle of consciousness.

And, as you so rightly say, this conclusion is still an

objectification. A sense of objectivity is still associated with it.

There is still a sense of duality between a universal consciousness

and a variety of appearances that express it.

 

But must Advaita logic come to an end with this seemingly final

conclusion, which is still contaminated with a last remaining sense

of dual and objective appearance?

 

Personally, I would answer here that no, Advaita logic cannot end

like this. We cannot rightly use the words 'advaita' or 'non-dual'

for a logic that remains in duality. If any logic is correctly

called 'advaitic' or 'non-dual', it must somehow go all the way

beyond duality, to a completely non-dual conclusion where no trace

remains of any known objectivity that is in the slightest sense

different from a knowing subject.

 

What would be your position here? How would you answer the question

of how logic can be called 'non-dual'?

____

 

[by advaitic logic, I didn't mean that the logic itself is advaitic

or non-dual. All logic is in the non-dual realm. The adjective only

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

Reality is truly non-dual.]

_____

 

Dear sir,

What you say is tantamount to the transcendental perception, wherein

there is no distinction between the state of objectified phenomena, and the one

involving the absence of it. But, I am afraid, we cannot conceive this

empirically. As long as the body lasts, there is a trace of duality, however

tenaciously we argue it away. The non-existenece of the phenomeana is possible,

I think, only in the states of deep sleep and the yogic samadhi. But the one of

advaitic knowledge is sure of the fact of the phenomena also being permeated by

the consciousness, being bereft of any seperate reality. It is very difficult to

bring into clear relief through logic something which is alogical. Advaita is a

liberating knowledge rather than a discursive phenomenon capable of being

conceptualized.

Yours etc

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "advaitin" on the web.

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relax. Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!