Guest guest Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Namaste Shri Rajesh Ramachander-ji, advaitin, Rajesh Ramachander <rrajeshchander wrote: >> Namasthey Chittranjan -ji > "Name and form exist eternally". > I think there is a gross error in your > above statement. I don't think so. > The world is Name and form. True. > If we accept your argument that "Name and form exist > eternally" then there is no need to realize Brahman. There is. Names and forms don't have independent existence. Their existence is Brahman. To try to know names and forms without knowing Brahman is to know 'nothing' as it were because their very existence is Brahman. It is only by knowing Brahman that all this (the true nature of names and forms) is known. > Name and forms are created and destroyed. That is the doctrine of Nyaya-Vaisesika, not of Vedanta. In Vedanta, words are held to be eternal. You may check this out by reading the great debates between Nyaya and Vedanta on this topic. > Anything that is caused cannot be eternal. Names and forms are not caused. Names and forms are said to be caused (created) only in a secondary sense in so far as they are manifested as modes of existence that are used in ordinary language to predicate to them 'existence' depending on their presence to the senses. > Name and form is an association of mind whereas Brahman > is pure without a mind. Name and form is not merely an association of mind. The nature of the mind itself is independent of the mind. Mind is a tattva, and like all tattvas, its nature is independent of the mind. The pure mind is not different from Brahman. > In Advaita Brahman is described as formless and > transcendental. Yes, this is also what I am saying. The fullness (purnatva) of form has no specific form. > To associate name and form to it is to almost tend > it towards Vishitaadvaita position where Brahman is > a composite and inclusive of world. No, it is not so. Please read my words again: "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." I had said that forms DO NOT DESCRIBE Brahman. Brahman has no predicate. In Visistadvaita, forms are predicates of Brahman. In Visistadvaita, forms are the body of Brahman. In Advaita, they are not the body of Brahman, and they do not predicate Brahman. If you read Sri Ramanujacharya's Sri Bhashya, you will see that one of the key points on which he disagrees with Advaita is with regard to the words 'sat', 'chit' and 'ananda', which he says are predicates of Brahman. In Advaita, they are not predicates of Brahman, but are the pure essence of Brahman. Likewise, in Visistadvaita, the forms that constitute the world abide as the predicative attributes of Brahman, whereas in Advaita they are (a relationless) non-difference from Brahman and the non-duality cannot be articulated by any relation whatosever. Secondly, in Visistadvaita, the visistas of forms displayed by specific perceptions are considered to abide eternally in Brahman. In Advaita, visista is mere limitedness (upadhi), and the specific manifestation of a form is completely subsumed in the fullness of the word-denotation (which is its samanya) and it is therefore not limited to any manifested form. It is the fullness in which it is nir- vishesha. The vada to arrive at this nature of Brahman is called avacchedavada. There is an interesting parallel here with Nyaya because even in Nyaya, an attribute (guna) has no form. In the great Navya-Nyaya work called Tattvachintamani, Gangesa says that all perceptions are originally indeterminate (because they are not limited to the specific vishesha-forms) before they spring into the form that is manifestly perceived. It is the Navya-Nyaya theory of indeterminate perception. But still, Nyaya considers words as non-eternal because it conforms to pada-arthas (word-meanigs) wherein words are used to designate existence and non-existence of objects in consideration of the delimitations in time that they show forth in their manifestions. But Mimamsa is the interpretation of the Vedas, and it borrows its authority for going beyond padarthas due to its reliance on the supreme pramana of Shruti. In Dvaita, they have a good word to describe the power of Brahman by which He is said to be gunapurna. It is called achinta-adbhuta- shakti. In Dvaita, the primary meaning of a word is Brahman, and the secondary meaning of the word is said to be borrowed from the primary meaning for its utility in the world of prakriti. In Advaita, the denotation of the word is its samanya, and the samanya of all forms is Brahman Itself, and hence the nature of Brahman in this respect may also be said to be achintya. Shankara says in the BSB (while explaining how Brahman undergoes no modification even when the world that is non-different from Brahman is changing) that the nature of Brahman that makes this possible is not obtained by mere logic without the aid of the Vedas. > To quote from Manduka Upanishad iii.ii.8 "As river > flows down, become indistinguishable on reaching the > sea by giving up their names and forms, so also the > illumined soul, having become freed from name and > form, reach the self effulgent Purusa that is higher > than the higher (Maya)." We cannot reach the Ocean of Brahman unless we free ourselves from names and forms. It is by Knowing Brahman that all this is known. The Katha Upanishad says: "Svayambhuh, the great Lord, injured the outgoing senses. Therefore, one sees the outer things and not the inner Self. A rare discriminating man, turns his eye away and sees the indwelling Self." (Ka.Up. II,i,1) The way to knowledge is by turning one's senses and mind away from the realm of names and forms, and the goal to be reached is the Ocean in which names and forms abide in their formless fullness. The word in Brahman is 'anahata', the unstruck sound. > I have no argument if your position is Vishitaadvaita > but tend to dis-agree if this is meant to be your > portrayal of Advaita. My 'portrayal' is of Advaita, not of Visistadvaita. The sole Reality according to this portrayal is Nirguna Brahman. I know it all sounds paradoxical, but that is the way it is. Anyway, it is okay with me if you don't agree with me. We are both learners on the path of Advaita. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 advaitin, Rajesh Ramachander <rrajeshchander wrote: > > Namasthey Chittranjan -ji > >>Name and form exist eternally. > > I think there is a gross error in your above statement. The world is Name and form. If we accept your argument that "Name and form exist eternally" then there is no need to realize Brahman. Name and forms are created and destroyed. Anything that is caused cannot be eternal. Name and form is an association of mind whereas Brahman is pure without a mind. > > In Advaita Brahman is described as formless and transcendental. To associate name and form to it is to almost tend it towards Vishitaadvaita position where Brahman is a composite and inclusive of world. > > To quote from Manduka Upanishad iii.ii.8 "As river flows down, become indistinguishable on reaching the sea by giving up their names and forms, so also the illumined soul, having become freed from name and form, reach the self effulgent Purusa that is higher than the higher (Maya)." > > I have no argument if your position is Vishitaadvaita but tend to dis-agree if this is meant to be your portrayal of Advaita. > > Sincerely, > RR > > > Namaste, "name and form"...... Brahman, in reality, is witness..... Brahman is formless and changeless.....and therefore Is witness of this names and forms...... Witnessing is only possible ....in being "out" of "name and form".... So, by Brahman....names and forms....appear..... (the mirror allow us to see ourself....and a whole world.....looking into the mirror but the mirror is not....what is seen....is also not seer....and not seeing...... looking inside....instead of outside......is becoming aware of This mirror Itself.... but then.....the "world" dissolve....in this moment of complete awareness....into complete emptyness) if this names and forms "are" Brahman......maybe this is a detail only.......means, however it is.......a body-mind-intellect can never be this witness him/self few thoughts Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Namaste Shri Marc-ji, advaitin, "dennis_travis33" <dennis_travis33 wrote: > Brahman, in reality, is witness..... > > Brahman is formless and changeless.....and therefore > Is witness of this names and forms...... You are right. > if this names and forms "are" Brahman......maybe this > is a detail only.......means, however it is.......a > body-mind-intellect can never be this witness him/self No, it simply means the the object is not different than the subject. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik wrote: > > Namaste Shri Marc-ji, > > advaitin, "dennis_travis33" > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > Brahman, in reality, is witness..... > > > > Brahman is formless and changeless.....and therefore > > Is witness of this names and forms...... > > You are right. > > > > if this names and forms "are" Brahman......maybe this > > is a detail only.......means, however it is.......a > > body-mind-intellect can never be this witness him/self > > No, it simply means the the object is not different than the subject. > > > Warm regards, > Chittaranjan Namaste Chittaranjan, thanks for your answer... so "Chittaranjan" and "Marc"....and "wave7".....are all the object.....of subject Brahman isn't it? Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik wrote: > > Namaste Shri Marc-ji, > > advaitin, "dennis_travis33" > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > Brahman, in reality, is witness..... > > > > Brahman is formless and changeless.....and therefore > > Is witness of this names and forms...... > > You are right. > > > > if this names and forms "are" Brahman......maybe this > > is a detail only.......means, however it is.......a > > body-mind-intellect can never be this witness him/self > > No, it simply means the the object is not different than the subject. > > > Warm regards, > Chittaranjan > Namaste, >From advaita-vedanta.org..The middle paragraph starting--;When Brahman is apprehended explains it all...............ONS...Tony. ajAti vAda :- The notion that mAyA has no reality in itself, and that brahman is the only real, allows the sRshTi-dRshTi vAdin to "graduate", so to speak, to ajAtivAda, the view that no creation really occured ever. Although one initially starts looking for brahman as the ontological basis of the perceived universe, advaita also recognizes that this search for origins is ultimately futile, as far as moksha is concerned. It is pointed out that moksha means that the Atman is fully known as brahman Itself. Therefore, understand the Atman first, theories about how this creation came about can wait. Until now, the questioner has been concerned mainly with explaining the external world, which (s)he knows only through the operation of the senses. The identity propounded by the upanishads (between the Atman and brahman) opens up an even more fascinating inner world that is not seen by the eye, not heard by the ear and not felt by touch. It is this inner search that allows the sAdhaka to acquire the jnAna to deny mAyA any reality whatsover. At this stage, brahman, which was previously understood to be with attributes, is understood in its essence to be really nirguNa. This essential nature of brahman is described as "svarUpa-lakshaNa" - a description that captures the real nature of brahman. When brahman is apprehended as the nirguNa, without any attributes, mAyA completely disappears. The universe too, consequently has to disappear. This is the most difficult thing for anybody to understand and accept, because the senses constantly seem to remind one of the presence of the universe. But then, the unitary understanding of the Atman as identical to brahman occurs only at the turIya (the fourth) state, not in the jAgrat (waking), svapna (dream) and sushupti (deep sleep) states. As the mANDUkya upanishad reminds us, the turIya is adRshTam (unseeable), avyavahAryam (non-relational), agrAhyam (ungraspable), alakshaNam (without any attributes), acintyam (unthinkable), avyapadeSyam (cannot be indicated as an object), ekAtma-pratyaya- sAram (the essence of cognition of the One Atman), prapancopaSamam (that into which the entire universe is resolved), SAntam (peaceful), Sivam (auspicious), advaitam (non-dual). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Namasthey Sri Naik Ji: Thanks for the nice and illuminating insight. I am able to now see where you are coming from. The all knowing brahman must definitely know all the nama-rupa that constitute the world. There is difference in something being notionally declared and known versus the same thing being instantiated. Instantiation is the specific act of projection of the name-form. Name -form may notionally and declaritively exist in Brahman but its physical projection is completely relationless with Brahman. Anything that is relationless with Brahman cannot be eternal. The projected name-form exist only on the supposition that it is instantiated by Brahman and cannot be eternal. The declartive name-form is notional and cannot be but within the knowledgeble all knowing Brahman. Again we are not debating the knowledge of it being eternal but the instantiation of name and form being eternal. Now coming to the arguement on word being eternal. A 'word' is in essense only 'sound'. Sound requires physical reverberation for manifestation. Any word that is eternal in formless Brahman is essentially unstruck sound. Again anything that is unstruck or un-instantiated exists only as pure knowledge in the all knowing Brahman. In essense are we saying that nothing is unknown to Brahman. Which is completely agreeable to me but at the same token asscoiating the physicality (nama-rupa) of everything as eternal just because it is not unknown to the all knowing seems not comprehensible. Sincerely, RR Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote: Namaste Shri Rajesh Ramachander-ji, advaitin, Rajesh Ramachander <rrajeshchander wrote: >> Namasthey Chittranjan -ji > "Name and form exist eternally". > I think there is a gross error in your > above statement. I don't think so. > The world is Name and form. True. > If we accept your argument that "Name and form exist > eternally" then there is no need to realize Brahman. There is. Names and forms don't have independent existence. Their existence is Brahman. To try to know names and forms without knowing Brahman is to know 'nothing' as it were because their very existence is Brahman. It is only by knowing Brahman that all this (the true nature of names and forms) is known. > Name and forms are created and destroyed. That is the doctrine of Nyaya-Vaisesika, not of Vedanta. In Vedanta, words are held to be eternal. You may check this out by reading the great debates between Nyaya and Vedanta on this topic. > Anything that is caused cannot be eternal. Names and forms are not caused. Names and forms are said to be caused (created) only in a secondary sense in so far as they are manifested as modes of existence that are used in ordinary language to predicate to them 'existence' depending on their presence to the senses. > Name and form is an association of mind whereas Brahman > is pure without a mind. Name and form is not merely an association of mind. The nature of the mind itself is independent of the mind. Mind is a tattva, and like all tattvas, its nature is independent of the mind. The pure mind is not different from Brahman. > In Advaita Brahman is described as formless and > transcendental. Yes, this is also what I am saying. The fullness (purnatva) of form has no specific form. > To associate name and form to it is to almost tend > it towards Vishitaadvaita position where Brahman is > a composite and inclusive of world. No, it is not so. Please read my words again: "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." I had said that forms DO NOT DESCRIBE Brahman. Brahman has no predicate. In Visistadvaita, forms are predicates of Brahman. In Visistadvaita, forms are the body of Brahman. In Advaita, they are not the body of Brahman, and they do not predicate Brahman. If you read Sri Ramanujacharya's Sri Bhashya, you will see that one of the key points on which he disagrees with Advaita is with regard to the words 'sat', 'chit' and 'ananda', which he says are predicates of Brahman. In Advaita, they are not predicates of Brahman, but are the pure essence of Brahman. Likewise, in Visistadvaita, the forms that constitute the world abide as the predicative attributes of Brahman, whereas in Advaita they are (a relationless) non-difference from Brahman and the non-duality cannot be articulated by any relation whatosever. Secondly, in Visistadvaita, the visistas of forms displayed by specific perceptions are considered to abide eternally in Brahman. In Advaita, visista is mere limitedness (upadhi), and the specific manifestation of a form is completely subsumed in the fullness of the word-denotation (which is its samanya) and it is therefore not limited to any manifested form. It is the fullness in which it is nir- vishesha. The vada to arrive at this nature of Brahman is called avacchedavada. There is an interesting parallel here with Nyaya because even in Nyaya, an attribute (guna) has no form. In the great Navya-Nyaya work called Tattvachintamani, Gangesa says that all perceptions are originally indeterminate (because they are not limited to the specific vishesha-forms) before they spring into the form that is manifestly perceived. It is the Navya-Nyaya theory of indeterminate perception. But still, Nyaya considers words as non-eternal because it conforms to pada-arthas (word-meanigs) wherein words are used to designate existence and non-existence of objects in consideration of the delimitations in time that they show forth in their manifestions. But Mimamsa is the interpretation of the Vedas, and it borrows its authority for going beyond padarthas due to its reliance on the supreme pramana of Shruti. In Dvaita, they have a good word to describe the power of Brahman by which He is said to be gunapurna. It is called achinta-adbhuta- shakti. In Dvaita, the primary meaning of a word is Brahman, and the secondary meaning of the word is said to be borrowed from the primary meaning for its utility in the world of prakriti. In Advaita, the denotation of the word is its samanya, and the samanya of all forms is Brahman Itself, and hence the nature of Brahman in this respect may also be said to be achintya. Shankara says in the BSB (while explaining how Brahman undergoes no modification even when the world that is non-different from Brahman is changing) that the nature of Brahman that makes this possible is not obtained by mere logic without the aid of the Vedas. > To quote from Manduka Upanishad iii.ii.8 "As river > flows down, become indistinguishable on reaching the > sea by giving up their names and forms, so also the > illumined soul, having become freed from name and > form, reach the self effulgent Purusa that is higher > than the higher (Maya)." We cannot reach the Ocean of Brahman unless we free ourselves from names and forms. It is by Knowing Brahman that all this is known. The Katha Upanishad says: "Svayambhuh, the great Lord, injured the outgoing senses. Therefore, one sees the outer things and not the inner Self. A rare discriminating man, turns his eye away and sees the indwelling Self." (Ka.Up. II,i,1) The way to knowledge is by turning one's senses and mind away from the realm of names and forms, and the goal to be reached is the Ocean in which names and forms abide in their formless fullness. The word in Brahman is 'anahata', the unstruck sound. > I have no argument if your position is Vishitaadvaita > but tend to dis-agree if this is meant to be your > portrayal of Advaita. My 'portrayal' is of Advaita, not of Visistadvaita. The sole Reality according to this portrayal is Nirguna Brahman. I know it all sounds paradoxical, but that is the way it is. Anyway, it is okay with me if you don't agree with me. We are both learners on the path of Advaita. Warm regards, Chittaranjan 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 Advaita vedanta Visit your group "advaitin" on the web. advaitin Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and used cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 Namaste Shri Rajesh Ramachanderji, You have articulated your points well, and have also touched upon a point that (I would say is) the final frontier of philosophy - the question of 'difference'. advaitin, Rajesh Ramachander <rrajeshchander wrote: > The all knowing brahman must definitely know all the > nama-rupa that constitute the world. There is difference > in something being notionally declared and known versus > the same thing being instantiated. I would say that the NOTIONAL is not the knowledge in Brahman, but the NOTION of DIFFERENCE between the knowledge in Brahman and the instantiated world. This NOTIONAL DIFFERENCE (or NOTION of DIFFERENCE) is the illusion of duality. The dissolving of this notion is Advaita. Brahman knows all nama-rupa. Now, if His knowledge were to be different than the instantiated thing, then Brahman would be knowing something that is different than the instantiated thing. An instantiated tree, for example, would be different than the tree that Brahman knows thus making Brahman not know any tree at all. No, there is no difference between the knowledge of Brahman and the instantiated world. (There is a classic argument by Madhusudhana Saraswati to show that the tree is the same wherever it is instantiated and that all these trees are same as Brahman. Madhusudhana Saraswati actually demonstrates that the tree reflected in the mirror is the tree itself.) > Instantiation is the specific act of projection of the > name-form. Name -form may notionally and declaritively > exist in Brahman but its physical projection is completely > relationless with Brahman. If you distinguish the physical projection from the knowledge that is in Brahman, then there arises a relationship between knowledge and instantiated object, and then it is no more relationless. This is how the subject-object duality arises. But in reality, the world of name- form is not different than Brahman, and what is not different from something cannot have a relation with it. > The projected name-form exist only on > the supposition that it is instantiated by Brahman > and cannot be eternal. The declartive name-form > is notional and cannot be but within the knowledgeble > all knowing Brahman. Again we are not debating the > knowledge of it being eternal but the instantiation > of name and form being eternal. You have converged to the crux of the problem. It is Time that is the womb of instantiation. Time presents the bowl of illusion in which eternal names and forms are seen partially in each instance (or in each instantiation). Change, the attribute of Time, is the veil of Maya that transfers itself to eternal names and forms to give them the illusion of temporality - of being instantiated. In this respect you are right in saying that instantiated things are different from the knowledge in Brahman because these instantiated objects are tainted with the attribute of falsity - change which is not their inherent attribute. It is this 'changing object' that is mithya and which gives rise to the locution of 'jagan-mithya'. > Now coming to the arguement on word being eternal. > A 'word' is in essense only 'sound'. Sound requires > physical reverberation for manifestation. There is nothing physical that is apart from the knowledge of Brahman. The physical is knowledge itself just as the physical mountain in a dream is knowledge itself. > Any word that is eternal in formless Brahman is > essentially unstruck sound. Again anything that > is unstruck or un-instantiated exists only as pure > knowledge in the all knowing Brahman. The struck sound is also Pure Knowledge because it is known. The struck sound is the spanda of Brahman, and it is not different than Brahman even when struck because It is fully and wholly nothing but His Pure Immovable Knowledge. If it were not so, it would result in real duality. > In essense are we saying that nothing is unknown to > Brahman. Which is completely agreeable to me but at > the same token asscoiating the physicality (nama-rupa) > of everything as eternal just because it is not > unknown to the all knowing seems not comprehensible. I appreciate this point.... I believe that its incomprehension is samsara where nothing is permanent, and its comprehension is moksha where nothing changes. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Namasthey Chitaranjan Ji: I understand your model and have a few questions. Please find my observations or deductions based on your points for further comments. >>This NOTIONAL DIFFERENCE (or NOTION of >>DIFFERENCE) is the illusion of duality. You mean to say that the instantiated nama-rupa is not distinct from the declarative nama-rupa abiding in Brahman permenently. For this statement to be true then the projected nama-rupa is non-different from the un-projected nama-rupa. In other words the ‘projection’ itself is an illusion of the eternal nama-rupa abiding in Brahman. We see the projection or form whereas in reality the nama-rupa is un-projected & formless and known within Brahman >>then Brahman would be knowing something >>that is different than the instantiated >>thing. If we take this argument to be true then nothing is unknown to Brahman in phenomenal world even if the event is yet to occur in time. >>But in reality, the world of name-form is >>not different than Brahman, and what is not >>different from something cannot have a >>relation with it. This implies that the form is projected from the formless. We normally then only see the projection and not the underlying truth behind the projection. This tie's up with Vikshepa Shakthi of Advaita Vedanta. >>Time presents the bowl of illusion in which >>eternal names and forms are seen partially >>in each instance (or in each instantiation). So according to you then time is the canvas where different segments of eternal name & forms are uncovered. Does is it then imply that our choice of our action then determine what parts of the eternal name – form is uncovered? If this is so then Brahman does not completely determine the revelation of nama –rupa in phenomenal world. The eternal nama-rupa has infinite permutations or variations and all of them abide as ‘One’ in Brahman. The Brahman has no particular interest in any one way of revelation of projected name-form but witnesses all emerging nama – rupa in phenomenal world without any pre-determination and thereby is un-attached with any particular outcome in phenomenon world. Or is our choices that we make in world an illusion whereby we in reality are only undergoing the motions mistakenly thinking that we are performing it? If this is to be true then we will deduce that all phenomenal event occurrences in world are nothing but ordered sequences of events based on eternal nama-rupa abiding in Brahman. So then even choices we consciously make are pre-determined and we only have an illusion that we do it. A pre-determined sequence of events in world does not seem to gel with karmic theory. >> I believe that its incomprehension is >>samsara where nothing is permanent, and its >>comprehension is moksha where nothing >>changes. So then the nama-rupa that resides eternally and known to Brahman only has also to be formless. At the same time eternal nama-rupa also has to be formless so that it is non-distinct from Brahman itself. For it to be known non-distinctively in Brahman would be only possible when it is part of the infinite knowledge that Brahman itself is in essence. Thus Samsara is also an illusionary degradation of true knowledge through ignorance and moksha is tracing back to the perennial source of knowledge by removing ignorance. Sincerely RR What are the most popular cars? Find out at Autos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Namaste Sri Rajesh Ramchanderji, Refer your post 30334 As I was reading your message I felt a thrill go through me.... so closely do some of your words echo the words spoken by the Lord in Bhagavad Gita. advaitin, Rajesh Ramachander <rrajeshchander wrote: CN: >> This NOTIONAL DIFFERENCE (or NOTION of DIFFERENCE) >> is the illusion of duality. RR: > You mean to say that the instantiated nama-rupa is > not distinct from the declarative nama-rupa abiding > in Brahman permenently. For this statement to be true > then the projected nama-rupa is non-different from > the un-projected nama-rupa. In other words the > `projection' itself is an illusion of the eternal > nama-rupa abiding in Brahman. CN: Your deduction is perfect, projection is the illusion -- but it is an illusion only when this projection is seen as an action. It is a play of Maya within which is hidden the Nature of the Lord, the Higher (para) Prakriti which is also by Itself the Lower (apara) Prakriti. The Lord says that His Maya is very difficult to comprehend or overcome, and that "among thousands of men, one perchance strives for perfection; even among those who strive and are perfect, only one perchance knows Me in truth" (VII.3) It would therefore be in order for us to pause and consider the matter deeply. The Lord says that he who sees action in inaction, and inaction in action, is the one who sees rightly. Shankara says that Brahman's creative power is not other than His mere presence. We normally associate action and movement with the Vikshepa Shakti of the Lord. But the Lord's Vikshepa Shakti is not His action, but is His mere presence. The Lord is by His mere existence His own Vikshepa Shakti because He is the Effulgence of Consciousness. For unlike the jiva who acts through accessories such as the body, Brahman has no need of any accessories, no need to act because His Knowledge is Itself all actions, He is by His mere presence the actor who acts as it were. Shankara says in BSB,I,v,5: "For like the effulgence of the sun, Brahman has eternal consciousness by Its very nature, so that It has no dependence on the means of knowledge. Moreover, in the case of the transmigrating soul, subject to ignorance, the rise of knowledge depends on body etc., but not so in the case of God whose knowledge is free from obstacles. And thus it is that the following two mantras show how God is not dependent on body etc., and how His knowledge has no covering: 'He has no body and no organ; none is seen to be either equal or superior to Him. The Vedas speak of His diverse supreme powers as also of His spontaneous action that is accomplished by His vigour arising from Knowledge.' (Sv.VI.8)." Note that His diverse powers and His spontaneous action are accomplished by His vigour arising from Knowledge which is nothing but His unobstructed Knowledge having no covering. His vigour is His Knowledge Itself. His action is actionless because there is no effort in His action. His omnipotence means that He is so infinitely powerful that He requires no effort at all to create this universe, because His mere presence is His 'act' of creation. His Maya is He Himself. No words can describe it, no mind can comprehend it, because words and mind are the play of this Maya Itself. When the Lord is beheld, Maya is beheld. When the Lord is not beheld, Maya transforms Itself through that very blindness into action, and then the world becomes a projection that is illusion. But when the Lord is beheld, the projection is not an illusion because it is the unmoved nature of the Lord Himself. RR: > We see the projection or form whereas in reality the > nama-rupa is un-projected & formless and known within > Brahman CN: True. In the projection of Maya in which avarana hides the eternality of names and forms, we see merely the vishesha forms, but Brahman is purnam whose form is nirvishesha. CN: >> then Brahman would be knowing something >> that is different than the instantiated thing. RR: > If we take this argument to be true then nothing > is unknown to Brahman in phenomenal world even if > the event is yet to occur in time. CN: True. Lord Krishna tells Arjuna that all these Kaurava warriors have been killed already, and that he, Arjuna, shall be the mere instrument of the Lord's Will. CN: >> But in reality, the world of name-form is >> not different than Brahman, and what is not >> different from something cannot have a >> relation with it. RR: > This implies that the form is projected from the > formless. We normally then only see the projection > and not the underlying truth behind the projection. > This tie's up with Vikshepa Shakthi of Advaita Vedanta. CN: True. The concealment of the underlying truth is avarana. Within the darkness of this avarana, vikeshepa appears as an action, and this appearance of vikshepa (as an action) follows from avarana. This is also the context within which the omnipotence and omniscience of Ishvara is said to be contingent upon avidya, but when the veil of avarana is lifted, the omniscience and omnipotence of Ishvara is Brahman Itself. CN: >> Time presents the bowl of illusion in which >> eternal names and forms are seen partially >> in each instance (or in each instantiation). RR: > So according to you then time is the canvas where > different segments of eternal name & forms are uncovered. CN: Rajeshji, these words of yours resonate with what I had said on earlier occasions: "Time is the canvas against which manifestative possibilities actualise. The paradox of the world is that what changes not is seen to change. The paradox is change itself in its passing of eternal forms before our eyes. " (TPM On-line, 7 March 2000) "Time is the bewitching power of Maya that drapes itself over eternally unchanging forms. She is Mahakali, the Great Night behind creation." (Discussions on 'Real and Unreal', July 2004) In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna says: "I am Time, see in me all that is to be seen." (I don't remember the exact verse no.) RR: > Does is it then imply that our choice of our action > then determine what parts of the eternal name – form > is uncovered? CN: Yes. RR: > If this is so then Brahman does not completely > determine the revelation of nama –rupa in phenomenal > world. CN: Every determination that follows from our actions are determined by Brahman because the self of the acting jiva is not other than Brahman. Brahman determines by His mere presence. The manner of His determination is called Dharma Chakra. RR: > The eternal nama-rupa has infinite permutations > or variations and all of them abide as 'One' in > Brahman. The Brahman has no particular interest in any > one way of revelation of projected name-form but > witnesses all emerging nama – rupa in phenomenal world > without any pre-determination and thereby is un-attached > with any particular outcome in phenomenon world. CN: It is correct to say that Brahman has no particular interest in any one way of revelation of projected name-form. There is a sutra for this in the Brahma Sutras, and Shankara comments that the action of the Lord is without motive. RR: > Or is our choices that we make in world an illusion > whereby we in reality are only undergoing the motions > mistakenly thinking that we are performing it? CN: Perfect. See what Lord Krishna says: "Actions are wrought in all cases by the gunas of Prakriti. He whose mind is deluded by ahamkara thinks 'I am the doer.'" (Bh.Gita.III.27) "O Arjuna, as a blazing fire reduces pieces of wood to ashes, similarly the fire of Knowledge reduces all actions to ashes." (Bh.Gita.IV.37) RR: > If this is to be true then we will deduce that all > phenomenal event occurrences in world are nothing > but ordered sequences of events based on eternal > nama-rupa abiding in Brahman. So then even choices > we consciously make are pre-determined and we only > have an illusion that we do it. A pre-determined > sequence of events in world does not seem to gel > with karmic theory. CN: The karmic-theory states that sequences of events arise only in the illusion of identification of self with the body. There is only the Truth and the Truth is One. Any act, even the smallest of acts, in this illusion is a partial uncovering of the One Truth, but the Truth is whole, purnam. Time is a prism that presents the Truth broken up into parts, and one part is the action and the other part is the fruit of the action, and together they are the One that appears split in Time. It forms a Wheel in Time called the Dharma Chakra, held together by the Satya of Oneness in which the Ritam, the eternal nama- rupa, appears to revolve through partial uncovering and covering to present acts and their fruits. "Good and bad deeds are not the direct causes in transformations, but they act as breakers of obstacles to nature, as a farmer breaks the obstacles to the course of water, which then runs down by its own nature." (YS,IV,3). In Yoga, the water is said to run down by its own nature, and this own nature is prakriti. In Vedanta this 'own nature' is Ritam which is not different from Brahman, and Ritam in Time is the Dharma Chakra. Again, the word 'pre-determined' is a bit tricky. The fruits that accrue from past actions is pre-determined by those past actions, but the freedom we feel in choosing to act is part of the same freedom (swatantriya) of the Lord that appears partially in us. It is His own swatantriya through which He plays this vast Leela of His in which He appears as the actor in many jivas. If we were to apply the term 'pre- determined' even to our actions which we choose to do, then we would be using the term 'pre-determined' in a sense that is not given by word-meanings; if we follow word-meanings we would need to logically admit our 'free-will' interpenetrating the inexorable movement of the world that is brought to us from forces not in our control. I would say that our experience is an interpenetration of both pre-determined forces and our free-will. Our free-will is free only to a limited extent and cannot change the pre-determined fruits that are being unfolded by actions of the past, but the Lord is completely free even though He is the One actor in which the partial free-wills of all the jives are His own swatantriya. His Will has no opposition from any pre-determined fruits, and hence it is completely free. CN: >> I believe that its incomprehension is >> samsara where nothing is permanent, and its >> comprehension is moksha where nothing >> changes. RR: > So then the nama-rupa that resides eternally and > known to Brahman only has also to be formless. At > the same time eternal nama-rupa also has to be > formless so that it is non-distinct from Brahman > itself. For it to be known non-distinctively in > Brahman would be only possible when it is part of > the infinite knowledge that Brahman itself is in > essence. Thus Samsara is also an illusionary > degradation of true knowledge through ignorance > and moksha is tracing back to the perennial source > of knowledge by removing ignorance. CN: Rajeshji, you have echoed in these words the perennial message of the Upanishads. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 Namasthey Chitaranjan Ji: Your model of Advaita negates seeming contradictions between Brahman and Nama-rupa and affirms the correlations between them brilliantly. I have some more questions for your comments. >projection is the illusion -- but it is an >illusion only when this projection is seen >as an action. Going by the above argument then as the action of ‘projection’ itself is non-existent so also is the outcome of action i.e. ‘projection’ is also non existent. So you are in essence stating that there was never any creation or destruction. This seems so akin to Ajati-vada of Sri Gaudapada. According to Mdky.Up Vaithya-Prkarna 32: "There is no dissolution, no birth, none in bondage and none aspiring for wisdom, no seeker of liberation and none liberated. This is the Absolute Truth. " >When the Lord is not beheld, Maya transforms >Itself through that very blindness into action, and >then the world becomes a projection that is illusion. The corollary of the above statement is that having realized Brahman there is no world as there is no projection of eternal name & form. Again needless to state I am only reminded of Ajati-vada here. >The concealment of the underlying truth is avarana. >Within the darkness of this avarana, vikeshepa appears >as an action, and this appearance of vikshepa >(as an action) follows from avarana. According to you then avarna and vikshepa together collaborate to conceal the underlying truth that is Brahman. But Avarna & action of vikshepa are never directly perceptible to the mind. For if they are indeed perceptible then the underlying truth will be revealed. At the same token Avarna & vikshepa are not just factual creations of mind for they exist independent of the mind. It is the mind that is bewildered by avarna & vikshepa. When the mind becomes subtle & pure there is no more avarna or vikshepa existing except as knowledge. >This is also the context within which the >omnipotence and omniscience of Ishvara >is said to be contingent upon avidya, but >when the veil of avarana is lifted, the >omniscience and omnipotence of Ishvara >is Brahman Itself. Are you saying that Ishwara’s power and knowledge perception rests on avidya? Is it not that avidya or ignorance is an association of mind? If we agree with your argument then would your position not tend to state that Ishwara is a subjective product of mind? Since avarna & vikshepa exist independent of the mind so the controlling force of our phenomenal world ‘Ishwara’ is also beyond the realm of our mind and not a subjective product. >Time is a prism that presents the Truth broken up >into parts, and one part is the action and the other >part is the fruit of the action, and together they are >the One that appears split in Time. It forms a Wheel > in Time called the Dharma Chakra, held together >by the Satya of Oneness in which the Ritam, the >eternal nama-rupa, appears to revolve through partial >uncovering and covering to present acts and their fruits. Naik ji, these are very beautiful words that effectively tie-up our dharma with Brahman. Sincerely, RR Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 advaitin, Rajesh Ramachander <rrajeshchander wrote: > > Namasthey Chitaranjan Ji: .. > Are you saying that Ishwara's power and knowledge perception rests on avidya? Is it not that avidya or ignorance is an association of mind? If we agree with your argument then would your position not tend to state that Ishwara is a subjective product of mind? Since avarna & vikshepa exist independent of the mind so the controlling force of our phenomenal world `Ishwara' is also beyond the realm of our mind and not a subjective product. Namaste,RR,IMHO, Isvara is as real as you are! Isvara is the sum total of all the Jivas, both in illusion really. Isvara is really the I-I mind projector, and ultimately is superflous. It is a concept to explain the seeming association of Brahman with creation. For ultimately the creation is but an appearance, and even that 'never happened'.....according to the Mandukya and Gaudapada. As Nisargadatta Maharaj says we are all really Praneawswara, I-I instead of I, and again this is all in illusion. So Isvara is posited as having existence and attributes because the illusory jiva also appears that way.......The truth is AjatiVada of course....ONS..Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2006 Report Share Posted February 26, 2006 Dear Sri Rajesh Ramachanderji, Refer your post 30363 advaitin, Rajesh Ramachander <rrajeshchander wrote: > So you are in essence stating that there was never any > creation or destruction. This seems so akin to Ajati-vada > of Sri Gaudapada. According to Mdky.Up Vaithya-Prkarna 32: > "There is no dissolution, no birth, none in bondage and > none aspiring for wisdom, no seeker of liberation and > none liberated. This is the Absolute Truth. " Yes, ajati-vada is the logical culmination of Advaita. Ajati-vada is the same as vivarta-vada though it may appear to be different. (In the Mandukya Karika, Sri Gaudapada speaks about spanda, about the vibration of Consciousness from which the world seemingly arises. The same ajati-vada explained from within the context of spanda, as the three-fold spheres of prajna, taijasa and vishva being non-different from Turiya, is vivarta-vada.) > According to you then avarna and vikshepa together collaborate > to conceal the underlying truth that is Brahman. It is avarana that gives it that appearance. I look at it this way. Concealment belongs to avarana and revelation to vikshepa. Even though Viskhepa is the unobstructed revealing power of Brahman, it comes to have two connotations, one as the Effulgence of Brahman that is eternally revealing, and the other as the revealing power that seems to reveal what is hidden. In reality, there is nothing hidden in Brahman because Vikshepa Shakti is Brahman Itself. But avarana conceals Brahman, and vikshepa then takes on the appearance of bringing something into creation from its concealment. It thus seems to be an 'acting' power that brings forth the world. The revealing power belongs naturally and effortlessly to vikshepa, but avarana has made it appear as if vikshepa 'acts' to show forth a partial vision of Brahman as creation. Just as a stick appears bent in water, the vikshepa of Brahman appears to 'act' in showing the world. That 'action' of vikshepa is an illusion, but vikshepa itself is not illusion. The vikshepa-avarana distinction is sharp like a razor's edge and it makes us susceptible to the error of transferring the characteristics of one to the other. I believe that it is such a conflation that makes many Advaitins say that vikshepa is a result of avarana. If we take the example of a river that is dammed and its waters let out of the sluice gates, then it becomes clear that the capacity of the water to flow belongs innately to the water, and that the dam is only obstructing the flow. Similarly, the power to show this world belongs innately to Brahman irrespective of the avarana that obstructs the vision. > But Avarna & action of vikshepa are never directly > perceptible to the mind. For if they are indeed > perceptible then the underlying truth will be revealed. This is brilliant. (In Tantra, the power to perceive avarana and vikshepa is called aghora). > At the same token Avarna & vikshepa are not just > factual creations of mind for they exist independent > of the mind. It is the mind that is bewildered by > avarna & vikshepa. When the mind becomes subtle & > pure there is no more avarna or vikshepa existing > except as knowledge. When the mind becomes subtle and pure, there is no more avarana, and vikshepa, which under avarana appeared like an action, now appears as it is - as the Effulgence of Brahman Itself. So, you are right in saying that Vikshepa exists as Knowledge when there is no more avarana and (acting) vikshepa. It is the vision of the stitha prajna. >> This is also the context within which the >> omnipotence and omniscience of Ishvara >> is said to be contingent upon avidya, but >> when the veil of avarana is lifted, the >> omniscience and omnipotence of Ishvara >> is Brahman Itself. > Are you saying that Ishwara's power and knowledge > perception rests on avidya? No. I am saying that Ishvara as seen through avidya gets to be tainted with the notions that the impure jiva superimposes on Ishvara, and that the idea of omnipotence and omniscience as tainted with such notions (as powers distinct from Brahman) are contingent upon avidya. When the avidya goes, Ishvara's omniscience and omnipotence are seen to be what they are - as Brahman Itself. Ishvara is the Lord of Maya and jiva is the victim of Maya. Ishvara's Lordship, or Aishvarya, is Ishvara Himself. > Is it not that avidya or ignorance is an association > of mind? Yes, it is. > If we agree with your argument then would your > position not tend to state that Ishwara is a subjective > product of mind? No, since Ishvara is Brahman Himself. > Since avarna & vikshepa exist independent of the mind > so the controlling force of our phenomenal world > 'Ishwara' is also beyond the realm of our mind and not > a subjective product. That is well said. It has been a pleasure discussing with you, Rajeshji. You are very perceptive. But now I'm afraid I will have to ask you to forgive me, as I'll not be able to continue this discussion further due to some pressing personal engagements. But let me thank you once again for a wonderful discussion. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.