Intuition Of Reality

[Guest guest]

H.N. Sreenivasa Murthy

 

Pranams to you all.

 

The following is an excerpt from the book " Studies in Zen" written

by Prof.D.T.Suzuki of Japan, an authority on Zen Buddhism and a very highly

respected person in the Buddhistic world for his scholarship and realization. I

read the book in 1980 and it left a lasting impression on me. I request the

members to go through the article as it throws a clear light on Intuition.

 

QUOTE:

There are two kinds of information we can have of Reality; one is

knowledge about it and the other is that which comes out of Reality itself.

Using "Knowledge" in its broadest sense, the first is what I would describe as

knowable knowledge and the second as unknowable knowledge.

Knowledge is knowable when it is the relationship between subject and

object. Here are the subject as the knower and the object as the known. As long

as this dichotomy holds, all knowledge based on it is knowable because it is

public property and accessible to everybody. On the contrary, knowledge becomes

unknown or unknowable when it is not public but strictly private in the sense

that it is not sharable by others.( In order to avoid any possible

misunderstanding on the part pf the reader , I add this: The experience is

altogether private inasmuch as it is a form of feeling, but at the same time

there is in it an ELEMENT OF UNIVERSALITY. It is at once unsharable and

sharable. It has in itself no paradox, but as soon asit expresses itself we

encounter a paradox.) Unknown knowledge is the result of an inner experience;

therefore it is wholly individual and subjective. But the strange thing about

this kind of knowledge is that the one who has it is absolutely

convinced of its UNIVERSALITY in spite of its privacy. He knows that everybody

has it, but eveybody is not CONSCIOUS of it.

Knowable knowledge is relative, while unknown knowledge is absolute

and transcedental and is not communicable through the medium of ideas. Absolute

knowledge is the knowledge which the SUBJECT HAS OF HIMSELF DIRECTLY WITHOUT

ANY MEDIUM BETWEEN HIM AND HIS KNOWLEDGE.

He does not divide himself into factors such as subject and object in order to

know himself. We may say that it is a state of inner awareness. And this

awareness is singularly contributive to keeping one's mind free of fears and

anxieties.

Unknown knowledge is intuitive knowledge. We must remember, however,

that Prajna-intuition is altogether different from perceptual intuitions. In the

latter case there is the seer and the object which he sees, and they separable

and separate, one standing over against the other. They belong to the realm of

relativity and discrimination. Prajna-intuition obtains where there is oneness

and sameness. It is also different from ethical intuitions and from mathematical

intuitions.

For a general charecterization of Prajna-intuition we can state

something like this: Prajna-intuition is not derivative but primitive; not

inferential,not mediational, but DIRECT, IMMEDIATE; not analytical but

integrating; not cognitive, nor symbolical; not intending but merely expressive;

not abstract, but CONCRETE; not processional, not purposive, but FACTUAL and

ULTIMATE, final and irreducible; not eternally receding, but infinitely

inclussive; etc. If we go on like this, there may be many more predicates which

could be ascribed to Prajna-intuition as its charecteristics. But there is one

quality we must not forget to mention in this connection; the uniqueness of

Prajna-intution consists in its authoritativeness, utterly convincing and

contributive to the feeling that " I am the ultimate reality itself'', that " I

am absolute knower", that "I am free and know fear of any kind".

Prajna-intuition is absolutely certain and infalliable. It produces

the highest peace and virtue of the mind.

UNQUOTE.

Is there any Upanishadic flavour in the above?

The learned members of the group have to decide.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jiyo cricket on India cricket

Messenger Mobile Stay in touch with your buddies all the time.

 

 

[Guest guest]

sreenivasa murthy <narayana145 wrote: H.N. Sreenivasa

Murthy

 

Pranams to you all.

 

 

Knowable knowledge is relative, while unknown knowledge is absolute

and transcedental and is not communicable through the medium of ideas. Absolute

knowledge is the knowledge which the SUBJECT HAS OF HIMSELF DIRECTLY WITHOUT

ANY MEDIUM BETWEEN HIM AND HIS KNOWLEDGE.

He does not divide himself into factors such as subject and object in order

to know himself. We may say that it is a state of inner awareness. And this

awareness is singularly contributive to keeping one's mind free of fears and

anxieties.

Dear sir,

I am to able to see from your above account of

Suzuki, this is surely the knowledge of the Self, unmediated by the phenomenon

of the mind. This knowledge is possible, I believe, only, when the mind is

relieved from the conventional way of looking at objects superimposing on them

its past memories, where there is no mixing up of the word, the idea behind the

word, and the actual object- in the words of Patanjali Maharishi- in which

perception there is only the object in its intrinsic light; this is known as

ritambra, the truth-bearing insight. This knowledge is not possible for the

ordinary intellect involving the knower-known phenomenon; but is available only

in what is known as asamphrajna samadhi in its last stage, the earlier stages of

savitarka, nirvitarka, savichara, nirvichara, and finally ananda, and asmita,

having been crossed. In that stage, only the discriminating knowledge-

meditation on the distinction between satva and purusa- is

there, which does not lead to further pratyaya to be controlled. It is not one

of control, there being no volition involved in it. Patanjali Maharishi calls it

dharmamega samadhi. According to Patanjali, most of the yogis stop at that

level, getting dissolved into the unmanifest, not having destroyed the knot

between the impassive purusa and prakriti. Patanjali's yoga has deep insights on

this topic. There are many similarities between the Buddhistic concept of Pranja

and Patanjali's idea of the truth bearing knowledge, which he calls

viveka-kyati, a direct perception, a knowledge which does not divide itself

into factors such as subject and object in order to know oneself, as you have

put it beautifully, which is free from the attendant fears involved in all the

relative knowledge, involving the duality of the knower-known dyad. Unless this

knot is cut asunder, liberation is not possible. I think one has to look at life

universally in order to come upon this insight. It

involves the focussing of the attention, rather perceiving choicelessly, all

phenomena in our relative states of consciousness, in which we move constantly

along the principle streams of pleasure and fear. In fact, the idea that there

is pleasure is our confoundment born of inattention. All experiences constitute

only pain as long as we move along this dualistic stream of life. Even in our

ideas of moksa etc, there is unconsciously an urge to perpetuate our individual

existence; we think there is salvation at the end of which we will exist as

individuals. We crave for experiences. Unless we are free from any motive,

whatsoever, we will land up in illusions, mistaking some mental states to be

final, as the motive will dictate our quest.

with warm regards,

sankarraman

 

 

 

Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min

with Messenger with Voice.

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, sreenivasa murthy <narayana145

wrote:

>

> H.N. Sreenivasa Murthy

>

> Pranams to you all.

>

> The following is an excerpt from the book " Studies in

Zen" written by Prof.D.T.Suzuki of Japan, an authority on Zen

Buddhism and a very highly respected person in the Buddhistic world

for his scholarship and realization. I read the book in 1980 and it

left a lasting impression on me. I request the members to go through

the article as it throws a clear light on Intuition.

 

 

Pranams Srinivasa ji,

Your post is excellent. When i saw the Title, 'Intution of Reality'

what i expected see in the body of the post was an excerpt from the

book of the same title published by the Karyalaya, Holearasipur.

This book is a collection of Lectures by the Swamiji of that

Institution.

 

Regarding the 'Upanishadic flavour' queried by you, the

Brihadaranyaka (3.4.1) vakyam 'Yat-saakshaat aparokshaat Brahma, Yah

SarvaantaraH'(Brahman that is immediate and direct, Self that is

within all) occurred to my mind. A great vakyam, a marvellous

concept of the Upanishad!!. It is a Mahavakya signifying the

identity of Brahman and the Self (sarvaantaraH).

Thanks once again.

Regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr. Murthy,

 

This is true not only with Zen Buddhism but with all other forms of Buddhism

too. You have picked the part that every Buddhist accepts, other than the

Vajrayana Buddhists.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

 

sreenivasa murthy <narayana145 wrote: H.N. Sreenivasa

Murthy

 

Pranams to you all.

 

The following is an excerpt from the book " Studies in Zen" written

by Prof.D.T.Suzuki of Japan, an authority on Zen Buddhism and a very highly

respected person in the Buddhistic world for his scholarship and realization. I

read the book in 1980 and it left a lasting impression on me. I request the

members to go through the article as it throws a clear light on Intuition.

 

QUOTE:

There are two kinds of information we can have of Reality; one is

knowledge about it and the other is that which comes out of Reality itself.

Using "Knowledge" in its broadest sense, the first is what I would describe as

knowable knowledge and the second as unknowable knowledge.

Knowledge is knowable when it is the relationship between subject and

object. Here are the subject as the knower and the object as the known. As long

as this dichotomy holds, all knowledge based on it is knowable because it is

public property and accessible to everybody. On the contrary, knowledge becomes

unknown or unknowable when it is not public but strictly private in the sense

that it is not sharable by others.( In order to avoid any possible

misunderstanding on the part pf the reader , I add this: The experience is

altogether private inasmuch as it is a form of feeling, but at the same time

there is in it an ELEMENT OF UNIVERSALITY. It is at once unsharable and

sharable. It has in itself no paradox, but as soon asit expresses itself we

encounter a paradox.) Unknown knowledge is the result of an inner experience;

therefore it is wholly individual and subjective. But the strange thing about

this kind of knowledge is that the one who has it is absolutely

convinced of its UNIVERSALITY in spite of its privacy. He knows that everybody

has it, but eveybody is not CONSCIOUS of it.

Knowable knowledge is relative, while unknown knowledge is absolute

and transcedental and is not communicable through the medium of ideas. Absolute

knowledge is the knowledge which the SUBJECT HAS OF HIMSELF DIRECTLY WITHOUT

ANY MEDIUM BETWEEN HIM AND HIS KNOWLEDGE.

He does not divide himself into factors such as subject and object in order

to know himself. We may say that it is a state of inner awareness. And this

awareness is singularly contributive to keeping one's mind free of fears and

anxieties.

Unknown knowledge is intuitive knowledge. We must remember, however,

that Prajna-intuition is altogether different from perceptual intuitions. In the

latter case there is the seer and the object which he sees, and they separable

and separate, one standing over against the other. They belong to the realm of

relativity and discrimination. Prajna-intuition obtains where there is oneness

and sameness. It is also different from ethical intuitions and from mathematical

intuitions.

For a general charecterization of Prajna-intuition we can state

something like this: Prajna-intuition is not derivative but primitive; not

inferential,not mediational, but DIRECT, IMMEDIATE; not analytical but

integrating; not cognitive, nor symbolical; not intending but merely expressive;

not abstract, but CONCRETE; not processional, not purposive, but FACTUAL and

ULTIMATE, final and irreducible; not eternally receding, but infinitely

inclussive; etc. If we go on like this, there may be many more predicates which

could be ascribed to Prajna-intuition as its charecteristics. But there is one

quality we must not forget to mention in this connection; the uniqueness of

Prajna-intution consists in its authoritativeness, utterly convincing and

contributive to the feeling that " I am the ultimate reality itself'', that " I

am absolute knower", that "I am free and know fear of any kind".

Prajna-intuition is absolutely certain and infalliable. It

produces the highest peace and virtue of the mind.

UNQUOTE.

Is there any Upanishadic flavour in the above?

The learned members of the group have to decide.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jiyo cricket on India cricket

Messenger Mobile Stay in touch with your buddies all the time.

 

 

 

 

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

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.

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

>

>

>

> sreenivasa murthy <narayana145 wrote: H.N. Sreenivasa

Murthy

Even in our ideas of moksa etc, there is unconsciously an urge to

perpetuate our individual existence; we think there is salvation at

the end of which we will exist as individuals. We crave for

experiences. Unless we are free from any motive, whatsoever, we will

land up in illusions, mistaking some mental states to be final, as

the motive will dictate our quest.

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

You have put in these words beautifully the last barrier that exists

between the sadhaka and the sadhya. It is very very difficult to be

free from motive. The mind decieves us in many ways and somehow we

land ourselves up in the net of maya. As JK puts it when the both

experiencer and the experienced both cease to exist then only truth

will shine.

 

I had mentioned earlier in one of my postings that this Master of Zen

was met by H.H.Ranganathanandaji Maharaj and suzuki opined that the

crux of the zen and advaita philosophy is one and the same.

 

JAI JAI RAGHUVEERA SAMARTHA

 

Yours in the lord,

 

Br. Vinayaka