To what extent is the world a product of the mind?

March 27, 2006

List Moderator's Note to Sri Frederico: Your usage of the term, 'samskara' is

inappropriate in the context of your question. If you read the recent posts for

an explanation of the terms - samsara (worldly or materialistic life) and

samskara (vedic rituals associated to various religious occasions such as

marriage, thread ceremony, death, etc.) A more preferable word is "vasanas"

which is the accumulated stored memory in mind experienced through the senses.

The list archives contains lots of articles on the subject of your question.

You will certainly get response from the learned members of the list.

Namaste all,

I have often read in Advaita that the world is an illusion and a

product of the mind. But to what extent can we say this? Can one say

for example that it is memory (samskara) which produces similar forms

as appearances, sounds, smells, solids, tasteables and mental

formations in the Jagrat state? Is this correct? Or is the world said

to be a mental projection just on the basis that what we see is

actually different because we project our own notions into what we

see, therefore we don´t see the same thing, we see a thing with all

our notions superimposed on it. But the question arises: how did this

world come into being? How is it being produced? It SEEMS to me that

memory or samskaras are stored and re-played continuously, creating

the illusion of the world. Can anyone clarify this to me?

Pranams,

Frederico

March 28, 2006

Shree frederico - PraNAms

The world is not illusion - that is the wrong translation of the word

mithyaa. Mithyaa is what apprears to be real in its frame of reference

but get sublated at higher frame of reference.

The dream world is real for a drem subject but when awakened to higher

state, gets resolved into the waker's mind.

Similarly the waking world is real for a waker until he is awakened to

the higher state of consciousness that he is.

Just as dream is the projection of waker's mind, this world is

projection of the total mind. The reality is relative. Absolute

reality alone is the truth and in that there is no creation either.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

--- atmadarshanam <fsgss wrote:

> Namaste all,

>

> I have often read in Advaita that the world is an illusion and a

> product of the mind. But to what extent can we say this? Can one say

> for example that it is memory (samskara) which produces similar forms

> as appearances, sounds, smells, solids, tasteables and mental

> formations in the Jagrat state? Is this correct? Or is the world said

> to be a mental projection just on the basis that what we see is

> actually different because we project our own notions into what we

> see, therefore we don´t see the same thing, we see a thing with all

> our notions superimposed on it. But the question arises: how did this

> world come into being? How is it being produced? It SEEMS to me that

> memory or samskaras are stored and re-played continuously, creating

> the illusion of the world. Can anyone clarify this to me?

> Pranams,

> Frederico

>

March 28, 2006

atmadarshanam <fsgss wrote:

How is it being produced? It SEEMS to me that

memory or samskaras are stored and re-played continuously, creating

the illusion of the world. Can anyone clarify this to me?

Pranams,

Frederico

My dear sir,

Who is going to answer this question, what is the instrument that

is going to receive the answer and understand its meaning? What is the motive

behind the question? What is going to happen to us if we can understand

intellectually that the world is the projection of the mind? Is it a liberating

knowledge? What is going to be liberated? Is it a psycho-somatic apparatus

labouring under the idea that in and behind it there is a permanent

individuality as different from other individualities, someone particular

individuality being supposed to be liberated? Can thought an error in the

cognitive mechanism, a posthumous phenomenon, understand that which is apriori,

the very basic enduring structure transcending time, space and causation? Or as

Immanuel Kant says is it impossible to arrive at the knowledge of thing- in-

itself, the mind being constituted to accept everything in terms of time, space

and causality, the underlying noumenon being incapable of perception? Or is it

that, however assiduous your search through the mind be, you confront only the

five elements, as the yogavasishta puts it? Do not human and animal minds think

in the same way, as Samkara says in the Brahmasutras, reacting to the empirical

events in the same way?

Sankarraman

Advaita vedanta

Brahman

Visit your group "advaitin" on the web.

advaitin

Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates

starting at 1¢/min.

March 29, 2006

Namaste Shree Sadananda,

So, the world is relatively real. I misused the word ´samskara´

there referring to ´vasana´, as the list moderator pointed out.

Anyway, so if only the Absolute has Absolute existence -- and

this is pretty simple because it is logic -- then can one talk of

the Absolute? Is the Absolute (Brahman) reachable in any way? How to

get at it?

Thank you for your kind response and your clarification as to

the reality of the world and the erroneous translation of the word

mithyaa.

Pranams,

Frederico

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Shree frederico - PraNAms

>

> The world is not illusion - that is the wrong translation of the

word

> mithyaa. Mithyaa is what apprears to be real in its frame of

reference

> but get sublated at higher frame of reference.

>

> The dream world is real for a drem subject but when awakened to

higher

> state, gets resolved into the waker's mind.

>

> Similarly the waking world is real for a waker until he is

awakened to

> the higher state of consciousness that he is.

>

> Just as dream is the projection of waker's mind, this world is

> projection of the total mind. The reality is relative. Absolute

> reality alone is the truth and in that there is no creation either.

>

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

>

> --- atmadarshanam <fsgss wrote:

>

> > Namaste all,

> >

> > I have often read in Advaita that the world is an illusion

and a

> > product of the mind. But to what extent can we say this? Can one

say

> > for example that it is memory (samskara) which produces similar

forms

> > as appearances, sounds, smells, solids, tasteables and mental

> > formations in the Jagrat state? Is this correct? Or is the world

said

> > to be a mental projection just on the basis that what we see is

> > actually different because we project our own notions into what

we

> > see, therefore we don´t see the same thing, we see a thing with

all

> > our notions superimposed on it. But the question arises: how did

this

> > world come into being? How is it being produced? It SEEMS to me

that

> > memory or samskaras are stored and re-played continuously,

creating

> > the illusion of the world. Can anyone clarify this to me?

> > Pranams,

> > Frederico

> >

>

March 29, 2006

Namaste Shree Sankaraman,

You askedme:

Who is going to answer this question, what is the instrument that is

going to receive the answer and understand its meaning?

R: The mind-body apparatus called Frederico.

What is the motive behind the question?

R: To know the truth.

What is going to happen to us if we can understand intellectually

that the world is the projection of the mind?

R: Intellectually understanding this can probably be of some

use, as in a dream when I know I am dreaming everything is softer,

so in the Jagrat state, if I know it to be a dream, everything can

become a play, softer and with more love.

Is it a liberating knowledge?

R: Yes, I think so.

What is going to be liberated?

R: The mind, which is going to come to rest in Samadhi; once

this is attained, the mind will be peaceful and joyous. Thus say the

sages.

Is it a psycho-somatic apparatus labouring under the idea that in

and behind it there is a permanent individuality as different from

other individualities, someone particular individuality being

supposed to be liberated?

R: Yes, the mind being, by its nature, born from Consciousness,

I presume it must revert back to Consciousness attaining Samadhi and

then realizing its unreality or insubstantiality, or its total

dependance on Brahman, depending on the mind´s background for

interpreting the experience.

Can thought an error in the cognitive mechanism, a posthumous

phenomenon, understand that which is apriori, the very basic

enduring structure transcending time, space and causation?

R: No it cannot, hence the need of Samadhi to go beyond thought.

Or as Immanuel Kant says is it impossible to arrive at the

knowledge of thing- in- itself, the mind being constituted to

accept everything in terms of time, space and causality, the

underlying noumenon being incapable of perception?

R: The underlying Noumenon, being that which is the very basis

of existence and from which everything springs; being that which is

indestructible, is to be perceived in some way or the other by the

mind; the mind must merge in It in Samadhi. Thus say the sages.

Or is it that, however assiduous your search through the mind be,

you confront only the five elements, as the yogavasishta puts it? Do

not human and animal minds think in the same way, as Samkara says in

the Brahmasutras, reacting to the empirical events in the same way?

R: No, human and animal minds are different in the sense that

animal minds have no awareness of their awareness. While human minds

are aware that they are aware. This indicates that the human mind

was made to aspire to some higher goal, the understanding of Reality

absolute and the merging of the mind with this Reality (or in

Sanskrit the merging of Jiva in Brahman).

Pranams,

Frederico

>

> Visit your group "advaitin" on the web.

>

> advaitin

>

> Terms of

Service.

>

> Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.

Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

>

March 30, 2006

Shreee Frederico - PraNaams.

Brahman, which is absolute, is infiniteness or limitlessness, and

therefore it is pure ananda or happiness. Any limitation causes

suffering. It is of the nature of consciousness and existence. SAT-

CHIT - ANANDA . How to gain it?

Can one reach infinity? It is illogical, is it not?. On the other hand,

any liberation cannot be of finite type, since the finiteness cause

limitation and thus cause suffering. Moxa or Liberation, which is

freedom from all limitations, cannot be of the form of gaining something

that I do not have. I cannot gain infinity, and I cannot stop longing

for absolte freedom. whatever I can gain by any means can only be of

finite type. In addition, what ever that is gained will have a

beginning and therefore an end. However, struggles for freedom from

limitations are inborn and they will not stop until one attains that.

At the same time, infinite cannot be gained. To solve this puzzle only,

one need to understand Vedanta correctly. It says you are that. It is

not something to gain but something to understand. That is you are

already what you want to become. To Understand the significance of

this, please study the notes on mAnDUkya Upanishad that I posting in the

list.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

--- atmadarshanam <fsgss wrote:

> Anyway, so if only the Absolute has Absolute existence -- and

> this is pretty simple because it is logic -- then can one talk of

> the Absolute? Is the Absolute (Brahman) reachable in any way? How to

> get at it?

March 30, 2006

Namaste Sri Frederico;

I believe Sankarraman-ji will properly reply to you and point out what

could be considered mis-conceptions or mis-interpretation of the

pre-supposed concepts that became evident in your messages. However,

never take any of it as a negative, and instead of making an effort to

understand the world as a product of the mind, make a simpler but much

more effective effort in becoming devoid of pride and vanity (which

will likely be tickled by what's comming your way :-).

The beauty of self-enquiry is that all of its means and tools have to

be properly interpreted individually, whereas there is no conceptual

absolute or any universal truth hidden behind concepts (concepts can

only be pointers, universals are beyond pointers). The truth lying

beyond concepts is obviously reached in an exclusive individual level,

fact which renders all descriptions inaccurate at best (as brilliantly

exposed by profvk-ji in his last post). Fact also which renders this

series of thoughts devoid of validity in your own quest for truth

(unless all of it makes sense from your own point of view). Finally,

truth is nothing more than a conclusion, and is absent in words by

themselves.

The fundamental mistake you make (from my own point of view) is:

*** Who is going to answer this question, what is the instrument that

is going to receive the answer and understand its meaning?

R: The mind-body apparatus called Frederico. ***

This statement separates you from the possibility of reaching beyond

concepts. The mind-body is inert. The mind-body is made animate by the

total mind, which is of the nature of pure-consciousness, hence there

is nothing that the mind-body apparatus could "know" by itself. The

light of consciousness is ever-present in sustaining the mesh of

concepts tied together in the mind-body you witness from the closest

point of view. However, devoid of this light there is no knowledge.

It is puzzling to me how such a statement as "the world is a product

of the mind" would not be considered arrogant when the possibility

"the mind is a product of the world" is not contemplated. The world

"could" be a product of the mind, but of the total mind. Not the mind

that relates to the mind-body. But of the mind that is unreachable

while the ego still stands between awareness and awareness of

awareness, trapping the apparent individual in the latter. That is why

i don't even bother discussing whether animals are self-aware or not.

Do animals have egos?

Shift the focus from the world to the mind.

The mind is as much a product of the world as the world is of the

mind. But the world is too big to fit inside the mind that relates to

the mind-body. Give the mind to the world (which fits it nicely) and

contemplate on the mind from the world. When you move and look around,

understand that it is not "you" that looks. Seeing, hearing, tasting,

smelling, touching, are not actions. But are the world flooding the mind.

When your eyes are open, the world is the one looking at you...

Ps: if possible, i would request from Sunder-ji the link to that book

by "WHO" that was provided a while back, which answers this series of

questions nicely...

Thanks and my warmest regards...

March 30, 2006

advaitin, "fcrema" <fcrema wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Frederico;

>

>> The fundamental mistake you make (from my own point of view) is:

>

> *** Who is going to answer this question, what is the instrument

that

> is going to receive the answer and understand its meaning?

>

> R: The mind-body apparatus called Frederico. ***

>

> This statement separates you from the possibility of reaching

beyond

> concepts. The mind-body is inert. The mind-body is made animate by

the

> total mind, which is of the nature of pure-consciousness, hence

there

> is nothing that the mind-body apparatus could "know" by itself. The

> light of consciousness is ever-present in sustaining the mesh of

> concepts tied together in the mind-body you witness from the

closest

> point of view. However, devoid of this light there is no knowledge.

>

Namaste Fcrema ji,

The above writing of yours is a little confusing to me. There is

this question: To whom is bondage, samsara? To the Atman or to the

mind? Who has to come out of bondage? Atman or the mind?

Evidently, the Atman is ever free and there cannot be bondage for

the Atman. What we are left with is the mind. It is the mind that

experiences bondage and struggles (sadhana) to get out of bondage

and finally attains release. The Vedanta teaches that the mind is

inert only to enable the 'person' to separate himself from the mind

and realize his identity with the Consciousness, the Atman. Again,

who is this 'person' that experiences bondage? It is neither the

Pure Atman nor the inert mind. It is a 'blunderous' mixture of

both. This is what is known as 'anyonya-adhyasa'. We have ample

scriptural evidence for this concept of the 'person', jiva. The

technical definition is: jiva is the Consciousness reflected in the

mind. Since the mind is a product of the 'sattva' amsha of all the

five elements, it is regarded as 'svaccha' or 'clean' so as to take

the reflection of Consciousness in it. (This, the body cannot).

For example, in the Gita Chapter 13, verse 20, the Acharya Shankara

says:

How could there be samsara at all without Prakriti transforming

itself as causes and effects, as the body and the senses, as

pleasure and pain, and without the counscious Purusha experiencing

them? When, on the other hand, there is a CONJUNCTION – in the form

of Avidya or nescience – of Purusha, the experiencer, with Prakriti,

the opposite, the object of experience, in all its transformations

as the body and the senses, as pleasure and pain, as causes and

effects, then only is samsara possible. What then is this samsara?

(Here the Acharya defines samsara) Samsara is the experience of

pleasure and pain; and Purusha is the samsarin, as the experiencer

of pleasure and pain.

And in the next verse, the Acharya adds:

Because he is seated in Prakriti, in avidya or nescience that is to

say because he identifies himself with the body and the senses which

are emanations of Prakriti, he experiences pleasure and pain and

delusion….(End of commentary).

There is nothing wrong in calling the mind as avidya, prakriti,

etc. There is a famous verse:

Mana eva manushyanaam kaaranam bandha-mokshayoH |

Bandhaaya vishayaasaktam muktyai nirvishayam smrutam ||

This means: The mind is the cause of both bondage and release.

Attachment to sense objects constitutes bondage and a mind free from

sense-attachments is fit for release.

And finally, it is in this 'inert' mind that the Atma-jnanam, the

sakshatkara, the Liberating Knowledge dawns and frees the person

from samsara. It is this Liberating knowledge that finally, once

and for all, frees him from the identity with the mind. Till then

the connectedness with the mind does not cease; it is this

connectedness that 'carries' the soul from birth to birth and keeps

accumulating samskaras. The Gita Ch.15, verses 7,8,9 and 10 speak

about this.

In the light of the foregoing, I feel there is nothing wrong in Sri

Frederico ji making that statement. My objective is only to show

the scriptural position on this matter. Often, a teacher of Vedanta

puts such questions to the student and sees how far the grasping of

the teaching is on right lines.

Warm Regards,

subbu

March 31, 2006

Namaste subbu-ji;

All in all, i understand the confusion generated by my point of view.

However, i do not see what is there to disagree. In fact, shifting the

focus from the world to the mind is the central point of what i tried

(apparently not so successfully...) to convey, maybe due to the lack

of usage of proper terms.

What i meant is that, as i have witnessed from several different

sources (scriptural vedantic or otherwise), and from my intuition

also, liberation is in itself an act of grace. I too understand the

individual mind as a mirror of consciousness (this is what i meant by

awareness of awareness), and to my knowledge the best we as jivas are

able to do is to clean the surface of this mirror as much as possible,

so we are fit to be liberated through this act of grace (not even

Sankara Bhagavatpada got released by his own effort, we all know the

crocodile episode and the attitude of total surrender that followed).

However, since we cannot become the infinite, and liberation cannot

start (otherwise it would have an end as well), i understand the

entanglement in the world and its relation to the mind to be a matter

of pure focus.

Understanding the mind to be merely a mirror (nevertheless endowed

with the power to retain imagery) seems to me to be a clearer approach

to understanding the surface, as opposed to understanding it to be the

self-supporting repository of knowledge. Hence, i take the mind to be

inert. To put it simply, the mirror does not even holds the image by

itself, a mirror in the dark is as invisible as the existent world

placed in front of it. In day-break both the mirror and the world seen

thru it become visible, but the world is still ungraspable. Turning

your back to the mirror (realising it as a mirror) and starting to

face the world makes grasping the world and "truth" possible and so forth.

So what i meant, in laymen's terms, is i take awareness of awareness,

or ascribing doership to the jiva, to be the first step in taking the

reflection in the mirror to be the world itself. Understanding the

jiva (to my understanding the result of the contraction generated by

the thoughts associated with differentiated existence, such as "this

body-mind" is the self) to be the knower would be the second step in

ascribing doer-ship to the ego, and the result of taking the mirror to

be the world and the repository of knowledge etc. Regardless of thru

how many births would the mirror be able to retain the image, it still

is a mirror.

So i take mind to be a knot in the line that supports all life, or the

only real life there is, a mere mirror capturing the reflection of the

self. Taking mind to be not inert, and the repository of knowledge,

means ignoring its mirror like attributes, and forgetting that there

is a real world that "lends" its light to the mirror.

Finally, in light of the context ("find out who is the knower"), which

i think was a reference that Sankarraman-ji made to Bhagvan Ramana,

answering "the body-mind is the knower" would exemplify a deep

attachment and understanding that the self is the body. Hence, i only

meant that mind is inert, since devoid of the light of the self there

is no knowledge mind could hold. Jnana is of one kind alone.

My warmest regards, and call me felipe subbu-ji...

March 31, 2006

Namaste subbu-ji;

On a side note, all the yaddayadda i have written could have been

synthesized by saying that the right questions followed by the right

answers would lead to a "re-positioning" of the mirror that would

reveal the "sought after" aspects of the all-knowing eventually (given

that the mirror is clean enough to display them).

And i guess i would not have answered the question "who is going to

receive the answers". If the truth really was "my mind-body", the

question would not have risen, since it would have been already

answered by the questioner himself...

my warmest regards...

March 31, 2006

advaitin, "fcrema" <fcrema wrote:

>

> Ps: if possible, i would request the link to that book

> by "WHO" that was provided a while back, which answers this series of

> questions nicely...

>

Namaste,

The link is: http://ramana-maharshi.org/ [Downloads page]

The book referred to is - Maha Yoga or Upanishadic Lore by "WHO".

Regards,

Sunder

March 31, 2006

Hari OM!

Dear Advaitins,

This question leads to a funny incident of Q&A Session:

*A disciple to Swamiji,*

Swamiji, If this life is an Illusion then Nothing can harm me?

*Swamiji replies:*

Yes that is correct.

*Disciple:* Then If I harm a Dog he won't bite me?

*Swamiji:* Wrong, The Illusion dog will give you an Illusion of a bite!

With Love & OM!

Krishna Prasad

On 3/30/06, Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote:

>

> advaitin, "fcrema" <fcrema wrote:

> >

> > Ps: if possible, i would request from Sunder-ji the link to that book

> > by "WHO" that was provided a while back, which answers this series of

> > questions nicely...

>

> Namaste,

>

> The link is: http://ramana-maharshi.org/ [Downloads] - Maha Yoga is

> the book referred to.

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

>

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

> Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

>

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/<http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin\

/>

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

> ------------------------------

>

> - Visit your group "advaitin<advaitin>"

> on the web.

>

> -

>

advaitin<advaitin?subjec\

t=Un>

>

> - Terms of

> Service <>.

>

> ------------------------------

>

--

Krishna Prasad

Dare to give up the comfort of the 'known' and venture into the 'unknown'

if we want to achieve our true potential and live life to the fullest.

As Poojya Gurudev said it,

"Open your eyes. Burst your shell.

Spread your wings and fly!"

Swami Chinmayananda

Hate not the sinner - hate the sin; and always hate the sin even with an

excess of hatred."

March 31, 2006

Namaste:

Friday evening is an ideal time for another funny story. I heard this

from Gurudeve Swami Chinmayanadaji and I don't believe that I will be

able to do good justice to his excellent narrative style. Mr. X had a

strange psychological problem. He believed that "he is really a rat!"

He didn't want to come in the open and he was afraid that he is going

to be eaten by a stray cat. His friends tried to convince him but he

didn't want to change his mind and finally they took him to the

hospital for psychological consultation. After several weeks of

treatment, the doctors finally convinced him that he is infact a human

and definitely not a rat. He along with his friends started walking

back to his house. On the way, suddenly they came across a stray cat.

When Mr.X saw the cat, he immediately rushed into a shop and closed the

door. His friends started wondering, and asked Mr. X what is the

problem? Mr. X replied, "Didn't you see the cat? it was just ready to

bounce over me." The friends laughed at him and said, "Aren't you not

convinced that you are not a rat?" Mr. X replies, "Yes, I am convinced

that I am not a rat; I have no doubt that you know that I am not a rat;

but the cat may still think that I am a rat! That is why I have to run

and hide!!

Harih Om!

Ram Chandran

advaitin, "Krishna Prasad" <rkrishp99 wrote:

>

> Hari OM!

>

> Dear Advaitins,

>

> This question leads to a funny incident of Q&A Session:

>

March 31, 2006

advaitin, "fcrema" <fcrema wrote:

>

> Namaste subbu-ji;

>

> All in all, i understand the confusion generated by my point of

view.

> However, i do not see what is there to disagree. In fact, shifting

the

> focus from the world to the mind is the central point of what i

tried

> (apparently not so successfully...) to convey, maybe due to the

lack

> of usage of proper terms.

>

Namaste Felipe ji,

As you observe, there is not much to disagree. That the mind is

inert is certainly the teaching of the Vedanta. The only point that

i tried to make was: the 'apparatus' status of the mind should be

recognised and is not to be jettisoned on the grounds of its being

inert and therefore anatma. Because, by default, we have this only

apparatus to undertake enquiry, vichara, and to finally receive the

answer. When not guided properly, there is a tendency to give up

the endeavour to purify the mind by quoting misunderstood

statements like 'who has the mind?'.

Thank you for mentioning the Great role of 'Grace'. This is a

positive fall-out of this exchange between us. I am reminded of a

song of the composer Saint Purandara Dasa. In a song, 'Hari chitta

satya..' he concludes by saying, 'The human mind longs for (union

with) God, Purandara Vitthala, but the removal of obstacles (durita

= sins)is the will of Hari, the Lord'.

warm regards, Felipe ji,

subbu

A Note: Just to avoid using up another post from the quota...:, i

would like any Kannada-knowing member to present us a selection of

the soul-stirring songs of the Haridasas which are soaked in Bhakti

and viveka, vairagya, etc. I invite Sri Srinivas Kotekal to take up

this and give us one song a week. A poetical rendering would be

wonderful. Songs like 'aachaaravillada naalige', 'Daasanaaagu

visheshanaagu' are simply great. Regards, subbu.

April 1, 2006

Namaste Subbu-ji;

"The only point that

i tried to make was: the 'apparatus' status of the mind should be

recognised and is not to be jettisoned on the grounds of its being

inert and therefore anatma."

This is a point very well taken... At times i feel like walking along

a very thin line between dispassion and the hypocrisy of a disregard

for the only tool. Nevertheless i would rather believe i still am

standing on "the razor's edge". I truly, deeply enjoyed our exchange.

By the way, when i said that mind should be given to the world, i said

it only in the spirit of it being offered as an oblation.

My warmest regards...

April 1, 2006

Namaste Shree Sadananda,

Thanks you for pointing out very basic and obvious issues to me.

It is not possible to GAIN liberation, as it is already present here

and now. In fact I was never bound -- thus say the Sages such as Sri

Ramana Maharshi.

So there is no "getting at it", just understanding and merging

deeper in ananda. I often feel very peaceful and blissfull for no

reason at all. Then of course this is SAT-CHIT-ANANDA making me feel

its presence.

Pranams,

Frederico

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Shreee Frederico - PraNaams.

>

> Brahman, which is absolute, is infiniteness or limitlessness, and

> therefore it is pure ananda or happiness. Any limitation causes

> suffering. It is of the nature of consciousness and existence.

SAT-

> CHIT - ANANDA . How to gain it?

>

> Can one reach infinity? It is illogical, is it not?. On the other

hand,

> any liberation cannot be of finite type, since the finiteness

cause

> limitation and thus cause suffering. Moxa or Liberation, which is

> freedom from all limitations, cannot be of the form of gaining

something

> that I do not have. I cannot gain infinity, and I cannot stop

longing

> for absolte freedom. whatever I can gain by any means can only be

of

> finite type. In addition, what ever that is gained will have a

> beginning and therefore an end. However, struggles for freedom

from

> limitations are inborn and they will not stop until one attains

that.

> At the same time, infinite cannot be gained. To solve this puzzle

only,

> one need to understand Vedanta correctly. It says you are that.

It is

> not something to gain but something to understand. That is you are

> already what you want to become. To Understand the significance of

> this, please study the notes on mAnDUkya Upanishad that I posting

in the

> list.

>

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

>

> --- atmadarshanam <fsgss wrote:

>

> > Anyway, so if only the Absolute has Absolute existence --

and

> > this is pretty simple because it is logic -- then can one talk

of

> > the Absolute? Is the Absolute (Brahman) reachable in any way?

How to

> > get at it?

>

April 1, 2006

Namaste Shree Fcrema,

You wrote:

The fundamental mistake you make (from my own point of view) is:

*** Who is going to answer this question, what is the instrument that

is going to receive the answer and understand its meaning?

R: The mind-body apparatus called Frederico. ***

This statement separates you from the possibility of reaching beyond

concepts. The mind-body is inert. The mind-body is made animate by

the

total mind, which is of the nature of pure-consciousness, hence there

is nothing that the mind-body apparatus could "know" by itself. The

light of consciousness is ever-present in sustaining the mesh of

concepts tied together in the mind-body you witness from the closest

point of view. However, devoid of this light there is no knowledge.

Yes I understand that. Thank you for the answer. Another pointer

to me.

As to vanity and pride, I don´t know if I am that vanish...I was

just exposing my thoughts from deep of my heart with all sincerity,

without false modesty because I have been "studying" Vedanta for

some seven or eight years. But it´s always good not to think of

myself as someone who understands Advaita more than anyone else. In

fact, the day I really understand Advaita, you will see me no more

on the list, I´ll just lay back and enjoy SAT-CHIT-ANANDA for the

rest of this lifetime. When I reach Samadhi I will be quiet like a

log for the rest of my lifetime, so you can be sure that while I´m

still here with all my vanity and pride, I am a fool and have

understood nothing, so don´t bother about a fool! (laughs).

The world may be a product of the Consciousness, that is what I

meant by MIND. It´s just that I´ve been into Buddhism lately and

they use the term MIND to refer to Consciousness as well as to the

mind-body apparatus. So I didn´t make this distinction clear here.

I´m talking about the world being a product of CONSCIOUSNESS and not

of my personal mind, which is also a product of CONSCIOUSNESS (If I

am grasping this right).

Thanks a lot for the response and my best regards and pranams,

Frederico

advaitin, "fcrema" <fcrema wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Frederico;

>

> I believe Sankarraman-ji will properly reply to you and point out

what

> could be considered mis-conceptions or mis-interpretation of the

> pre-supposed concepts that became evident in your messages.

However,

> never take any of it as a negative, and instead of making an

effort to

> understand the world as a product of the mind, make a simpler but

much

> more effective effort in becoming devoid of pride and vanity (which

> will likely be tickled by what's comming your way :-).

>

> The beauty of self-enquiry is that all of its means and tools have

to

> be properly interpreted individually, whereas there is no

conceptual

> absolute or any universal truth hidden behind concepts (concepts

can

> only be pointers, universals are beyond pointers). The truth lying

> beyond concepts is obviously reached in an exclusive individual

level,

> fact which renders all descriptions inaccurate at best (as

brilliantly

> exposed by profvk-ji in his last post). Fact also which renders

this

> series of thoughts devoid of validity in your own quest for truth

> (unless all of it makes sense from your own point of view).

Finally,

> truth is nothing more than a conclusion, and is absent in words by

> themselves.

>

> The fundamental mistake you make (from my own point of view) is:

>

> *** Who is going to answer this question, what is the instrument

that

> is going to receive the answer and understand its meaning?

>

> R: The mind-body apparatus called Frederico. ***

>

> This statement separates you from the possibility of reaching

beyond

> concepts. The mind-body is inert. The mind-body is made animate by

the

> total mind, which is of the nature of pure-consciousness, hence

there

> is nothing that the mind-body apparatus could "know" by itself. The

> light of consciousness is ever-present in sustaining the mesh of

> concepts tied together in the mind-body you witness from the

closest

> point of view. However, devoid of this light there is no knowledge.

>

> It is puzzling to me how such a statement as "the world is a

product

> of the mind" would not be considered arrogant when the possibility

> "the mind is a product of the world" is not contemplated. The world

> "could" be a product of the mind, but of the total mind. Not the

mind

> that relates to the mind-body. But of the mind that is unreachable

> while the ego still stands between awareness and awareness of

> awareness, trapping the apparent individual in the latter. That is

why

> i don't even bother discussing whether animals are self-aware or

not.

> Do animals have egos?

>

> Shift the focus from the world to the mind.

>

> The mind is as much a product of the world as the world is of the

> mind. But the world is too big to fit inside the mind that relates

to

> the mind-body. Give the mind to the world (which fits it nicely)

and

> contemplate on the mind from the world. When you move and look

around,

> understand that it is not "you" that looks. Seeing, hearing,

tasting,

> smelling, touching, are not actions. But are the world flooding

the mind.

>

> When your eyes are open, the world is the one looking at you...

>

> Ps: if possible, i would request from Sunder-ji the link to that

book

> by "WHO" that was provided a while back, which answers this series

of

> questions nicely...

>

> Thanks and my warmest regards...

>

April 1, 2006

subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v wrote: The only point that

i tried to make was: the 'apparatus' status of the mind should be

recognised and is not to be jettisoned on the grounds of its being

inert and therefore anatma. Because, by default, we have this only

apparatus to undertake enquiry, vichara, and to finally receive the

answer. When not guided properly, there is a tendency to give up

the endeavour to purify the mind by quoting misunderstood

statements like 'who has the mind?'.

The query, ' Who has the mind?' is not a misunderstood statement, but

an authentic enquiry into the self, directing the attention away from the second

and third persons, thereby allowing objectivity not to swell. This is a direct

confrontation of the mind steering clear of the entire belt of the non-self. Of

course, in the process, thoughts, legion, would crop up, which are not to be

attended to, but the question turned back to the basic I. Hence, the

questioning, ' who has the mind?' is not irrelevant, but is basic to transcend

thought. To raise this question, much of dialectic knowledge is not necessary,

and is also not a superior virtue, but only an impediment.

Sankarraman

New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

April 1, 2006

Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran wrote: