Sat, Chit, Ananda - (with reference to the explanation of eternal)

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi

wrote:

>

> Thankyou Sri Subrahmanian,

>

> Your explanation is very clear and points out the right verses

from the Gita as well. I had understood the statement in this sense

only, I think. Is there an instance in my words that indicates that

I understood incorrectly. Sometimes, it may be that one is thinking

that he has understood well, but his statements will reveal that he

actually understands nothing. I donot want to have a superficial

understanding. So kindly tell me if from any statement of mine it

becomes clear that I misunderstood something. It may be quite

possible you see and I want to avoid that. Maybe, I misconstrued

something as something else and thought I understand. This will

become apparent from my statements if any. If you could point out,

it would be of great help. That way I will know what is the

misunderstanding. Sometimes there may be a very thin difference

between understanding and misunderstanding.

>

> All the same, I wanted to ask you one further question:

>

> If Brahman is eternal - in the sense that it does not come into

existence and go out of existence, then the word eternal does not

mean 'presence in all time'. This is because time, space etc., have

the characteristic of change and since Brahman is beyond the realm

of all that changes, it is not correct to say that it was or will be

present before or after this time etc. This in my opinion is because

time itself has no meaning in the context of Brahman. Therefore, a

statement of 'eternal Brahman' is in the sense of 'changelessness'

and not in terms of 'presence or existence [in the conditioned

manner that we understand] in all time.'

>

> Please comment about the above and tell me if I have misunderstood

Sankara's position by making the above statement(s). If this is

correct, I might have one more question. But I would rather get my

understanding clear before I volley too many questions.

>

> Thanks a lot for your help.

>

> -Bhikku Yogi

>

 

Pranams Bhikku Maharaj,

Thanks for your above post. The clarification that i gave stemmed

from your following statement:

 

advaitin, Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi

wrote:

>

> Dear Mr. Frederico,

>

> 1. I donot think Sankara/Advaita makes the statement: 'Self is

ever-existing'. Our understanding of existence is conditioned by our

knowledge or perception of material and mental existence.

(end)

 

This point was clarified by citing the various Gita II chapter

verses on the Eternality of Brahman. Now, is there a need to

differentiate between 'Ever Existing' and 'Eternal'? Neither the

Gita nor the Bhashyam makes them look different. In Advaita 'Satyam'

is defined as 'Tri-kaala-abaadhyam Satyam'. That is, that which is

not sublated at any time the past, present and the future, is

Satyam. What can this be other than that which is Eternal or Ever

Existing? This also was pointed out in an earlier mail citing the

Taittiriya Upanishad word Satyam and the Bhashyam for it.

 

And further you had said:

 

We cannot fathom the truth revealed by the Upanishads and cannot

understand the nature of Brahman since it is beyond the horizon of

ourexperience. Thus words such as 'ever-existing' donot apply.

Existence and non-existence are terms that donot apply to Brahman.

This is my opinion and in the last few emails of this thread, this

is the very thing that I have tried to ascertain. Are you telling me

that Advaita itself deviates from this position in several places -

that it is inconsistent as a philosphy? Or are you telling me that I

have misunderstood your statement? Or is it the case that I don't

understand Sankara's position on the question of the 'existence' of

Brahman. Or is it that Sri Sankarraman and several others on this

list who have confirmed my understanding are incorrectly

> representing Advaita?

 

Response:

 

Then, the Sutrabhashyam for the Fourth Sutra, Tat tu Samanvayaat,

discusses about the four results that can come out of karma:

1.Utpaadya = bringing into existence a product 2. Aapya = Attaining

something such as reaching a geographical destination by travelling,

3.vikarya = bringing about a change in an object like cooking annam

from raw rice and 4.Samskarya = making something 'pure/r' like

sprinkling holy water on an item before making an oblation. (I have

not given any refined meanings, these are only crude ones. Pl. see

the bhashyam for a very clear translation.) Now, the Acharya says

none of these is possible in the case of Brahman. He calls

it 'BhUta vastu' = that which Is. The first is not possible because

Brahman already Exists. The second is not possible because Brahman

is ever-attained; It is one's Self of everyone already. The third is

not possible because Brahman is Impartite, Nishkalam, Niravayavam,

and cannot undergo any change; only that which has parts can undergo

any change. The fourth is also not possible because Brahman being

the Ever Pure (Nitya shuddha,Niranjanam), no 'improvement'can be

brought about to It.

 

The upshot of all this is that Brahman is Ever Existing. In the

Taittiriya Upanishad, there occurs a vakyam: 'Asan eva sa bhavati,

asad Brahma iti veda chet = He becomes non-existing indeed - like

something non-existent; just as a non-entity has no relation with

any human objective (purushartha), similarly he remains dissociated

from the human objective, viz. liberation. Who is that? He who

perchance knows Brahman as non-existing.

 

'Asti Brahmeti ched veda, santam enam tato viduriti'= As opposed to

the above, if he knows; That - that Brahman, which is the basis of

all diversifiation and the seed of all acitivity, though in Itself

It is devoid of all distinctions - does exist,then the knowers of

Brahman consider him as existing. (Then follows a discusssion that

we already covered about a pot existing, etc.) ....The purport of

the sentence is: Because of this fact, Brahman is to be accepted as

surely existing. (The Shankara bhashyam ends).

 

Sri Shankara's favourite expression about Atman is: Nitya,

shuddha,buddha, mukta-svabhavaH. All this can be said only about

something that Exists.

 

In the Sutrabhashyam He puts in words the Realisation had by a

Jnani: 'Purva-siddha-kartritva-bhoktritva-vipariitam hi Trishvapi

Kaaleshu akartritva-abhoktritva-svarupam Brahma Aham asmi. Na itaH

purvam karta, bhokta vaa aham aasam. Na idaanIm. NApi bhavishyat

kaale iti Brahmavid avagacchati. The meaning is: Just as distinct

from what was (eroneously)considered that i am a karta and bhokta, I

am, at all the three times, akarta and abhokta. I was not karta-

bhokta before now (past) (this instant of Realisation), not now

(present) am i karta bhokta, not even in the future will i be karta

bhokta. Thus knows a Brahmavit, the Knower of Brahman.'

 

In Advaita, Liberation is termed 'Nitya-niratishaya-Ananda-praaptiH'

that is, Liberation is the 'attainment' of Everlasting, unsurpassed

Bliss. If such a 'state' were not existent, would any one attempt

to realise it? Will the Upanishads themselves teach it if it were

non-existent and therefore unreachable?

 

Should we say anything more?

 

Pranams,

subbu

[Guest guest]

>

> In Advaita, Liberation is termed

> 'Nitya-niratishaya-Ananda-praaptiH'

> that is, Liberation is the 'attainment' of Everlasting, unsurpassed

> Bliss. If such a 'state' were not existent, would any one attempt

> to realise it? Will the Upanishads themselves teach it if it were

> non-existent and therefore unreachable?

>

> Should we say anything more?

>

> Pranams,

> subbu

>

 

Namaste Sri Subrahmanian,

 

To be frank, your reply has again brought us to square one. From what

I understand, Bhikku-ji is asking the same question that I had asked a

couple of days back. You had responded to that by referring to

pariNAmi nityatva and kuTastha nityatva in the sUtrabhAShya.

 

Bhikku-ji, pl read my post 30865 and Subbu-ji's reply 30866. That

should clarify the matter. I think what both of us (Bhikku-ji & me)

are saying is that Brahman is beyond any concept of time. Time itself

is a property of the vyavaharika realm and the 'eternality' of Brahman

refers to it beyond the notion of time. This is what Subbu-ji also

said when he referred to kuTastha nityatva which, in Subbu-ji's words,

"transcends the change and un-change duality that persists in

relativity"

 

dhanyosmi

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ramesh Krishnamurthy"

<rkmurthy wrote:

> Namaste Sri Subrahmanian,

>

> To be frank, your reply has again brought us to square one. From

what

> I understand, Bhikku-ji is asking the same question that I had

asked a

> couple of days back. You had responded to that by referring to

> pariNAmi nityatva and kuTastha nityatva in the sUtrabhAShya.

>

> Bhikku-ji, pl read my post 30865 and Subbu-ji's reply 30866. That

> should clarify the matter. I think what both of us (Bhikku-ji & me)

> are saying is that Brahman is beyond any concept of time. Time

itself

> is a property of the vyavaharika realm and the 'eternality' of

Brahman

> refers to it beyond the notion of time. This is what Subbu-ji also

> said when he referred to kuTastha nityatva which, in Subbu-ji's

words,

> "transcends the change and un-change duality that persists in

> relativity"

>

> dhanyosmi

> Ramesh

>

Namaste Rameshji,

 

In fact, when i saw Bhikku Maharaj's post, i could see that it was a

restatement of your question on the subject, which i had already

replied. In any case, there can be replies and replies that are

found all over the Upanishadic and Bhashyam literature. What is

required is : Pondering over the replies that we get and most

important, is to undertake a 'systematic study of the Vedanta under

the guidance of a qualified teacher for a length of time'. This

will be the best course. It is like putting together various things

that do not seem related to each other initially, but when assembled

in a specific way, giving a meanigful picture, like, for instance,

in the building of a house. The study in the above manner will

provide a number of inputs in several ways, in several moods and

when the structure attains a certain height, the clear picture

emerges. Lot of things like pramana-knowledge, shraddha, our own

application, etc. are involved.

 

Thanks for the opportunity for an interaction that was enjoyable to

me, for sure.

 

Pranams,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Note from the List Moderator: The questions that you have raised in the very

first paragraph often arises to all of us and your own answer, "yes, partly it

is due to ignorance." Sankara's advaita philosophy can only be consistent if and

only those who tries to understand exhibits 'shraddha on the scriptures

especially the upandishads part of the Vedas and Brahma Suutra and the Bhagavad

Gita." Your point, that Brahman is beyond the horizon of our experience is well

stated by the sages of the Upanishad. Words, language and philosophy are only

helpful to develop the 'shraddha' and only with 'shraddha' we can avoid falling

into the pitfalls of inconsistencies. Inconsistencies will exist as long as the

intellect questions the validity of the Truth and with shraddha, it is possible

to overcome. The importance of shraddha is very well stated in Bhagavad Gita,

chapter 9, verse 3. Actually, the entire chapter 9 describes the secret of

Brahma Vidhya, here again, we can only understand provided we have shraddha!

 

 

 

Thanks Sri Subrahmanian,

 

I am still not able to see where I misunderstand the position. Perhaps it is

ignorance!

 

Still here is my response:

 

We cannot fathom the truth revealed by the Upanishads and cannot

understand the nature of Brahman since it is beyond the horizon of

our experience. Thus words such as 'ever-existing' donot apply.

Existence and non-existence are terms that donot apply to Brahman.

This is my opinion and in the last few emails of this thread, this

is the very thing that I have tried to ascertain. Are you telling me

that Advaita itself deviates from this position in several places -

that it is inconsistent as a philosphy? Or are you telling me that I

have misunderstood your statement? Or is it the case that I don't

understand Sankara's position on the question of the 'existence' of

Brahman. Or is it that Sri Sankarraman and several others on this

list who have confirmed my understanding are incorrectly

> representing Advaita?

 

 

Response:

 

Then, the Sutrabhashyam for the Fourth Sutra, Tat tu Samanvayaat,

discusses about the four results that can come out of karma:

1.Utpaadya = bringing into existence a product 2. Aapya = Attaining

something such as reaching a geographical destination by travelling,

3.vikarya = bringing about a change in an object like cooking annam

from raw rice and 4.Samskarya = making something 'pure/r' like

sprinkling holy water on an item before making an oblation. (I have

not given any refined meanings, these are only crude ones. Pl. see

the bhashyam for a very clear translation.) Now, the Acharya says

none of these is possible in the case of Brahman. He calls

it 'BhUta vastu' = that which Is. The first is not possible because

Brahman already Exists. The second is not possible because Brahman

is ever-attained; It is one's Self of everyone already. The third is

not possible because Brahman is Impartite, Nishkalam, Niravayavam,

and cannot undergo any change; only that which has parts can undergo

any change. The fourth is also not possible because Brahman being

the Ever Pure (Nitya shuddha,Niranjanam), no 'improvement'can be

brought about to It.

I think this is fine. Perhaps you thought that by saying the Brahman cannot be

categorized as existent or non-existent, I mean to say that it is non-existent.

I only mean to say that it is indescribable or can not be conceptualized by our

conditioned minds that can only fathom the meaning of existence in the manner

that we understand - like that of a pot.

 

So the existence of Brahman is not like the existence of a pot. This is why I

say that the term existence is used incorrectly for Brahman since the word Sat

means more than just existence. The reason is that for unenlightened people the

word existence means something that is like a pot and non-existence is something

that does not exist. But the case of Brahman is entirely different and is beyond

the horizon of our senses - from which words return [yato vaacho nivartante].

Therefore the word Sat applies to Brahman, but the translation as existence does

not apply correctly.

 

Now comes the point of eternal. I still ask, if one were to understand that

Brahman has a second to it called time according to which it can be defined? In

other words, can we say Brahman WAS at some point in time and IS in some point

in time and WILL BE at some point in time. As I understand Sankara's position,

time and space both have no meaning to Brahman and therefore, neither is it

correct to localize Brahman in space nor in time. In other words, eternality of

Brahman is not like immortality, or existence in all points of time or space,

since our understanding of existence is far removed from the nature of existence

of Brahman. So Brahman is nitya, but the word eternal would not apply. The word

nitya would mean that it neither comes into existence, nor goes out of existence

[consisting of negations]. There is no transience in it. But the word eternal is

more of a positive statement. In my understanding since Sankara asserted the

importance of the apophatic approach to

enlightenment, the word nitya is more apt than the word eternal. In the same

way the word Sat is more apt than the word existence. Nitya does not mean

eternal. It only means changeless. The distinction might sound puritanistic or

even stupid, but for the Buddhists who understand the difference due to their

experience of anitya in all phenomena, the difference is large and the words

nitya and eternal are distinct words.

 

It might sound stupid but my attempt was to clarify the translation into

English. Very often the words of an ancient Indian language may have seeming

similarities with Enlgish words, and have a very large number of shades in

meanings. But it becomes important to understand the meanings of the words

ancient Indian languages to understand things in the right perspective.

 

Perhaps I am still ignorant of what you may be trying to affirm. So please tell

me if the above is wrong.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

 

 

 

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

with Messenger with Voice.

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi

wrote:

>

> Note from the List Moderator: The questions that you have raised

in the very first paragraph often arises to all of us and your own

answer, "yes, partly it is due to ignorance." Sankara's advaita

philosophy can only be consistent if and only those who tries to

understand exhibits 'shraddha on the scriptures especially the

upandishads part of the Vedas and Brahma Suutra and the Bhagavad

Gita." Your point, that Brahman is beyond the horizon of our

experience is well stated by the sages of the Upanishad. Words,

language and philosophy are only helpful to develop the 'shraddha'

and only with 'shraddha' we can avoid falling into the pitfalls of

inconsistencies. Inconsistencies will exist as long as the intellect

questions the validity of the Truth and with shraddha, it is

possible to overcome. The importance of shraddha is very well

stated in Bhagavad Gita, chapter 9, verse 3. Actually, the entire

chapter 9 describes the secret of Brahma Vidhya, here again, we can

only understand provided we have shraddha!

>

>

>

> Thanks Sri Subrahmanian,

>

> I am still not able to see where I misunderstand the position.

Perhaps it is ignorance!

>

> Still here is my response:

>

>

> I think this is fine. Perhaps you thought that by saying the

Brahman cannot be categorized as existent or non-existent, I mean to

say that it is non-existent. I only mean to say that it is

indescribable or can not be conceptualized by our conditioned minds

that can only fathom the meaning of existence in the manner that we

understand - like that of a pot.

>

> So the existence of Brahman is not like the existence of a pot.

This is why I say that the term existence is used incorrectly for

Brahman since the word Sat means more than just existence. The

reason is that for unenlightened people the word existence means

something that is like a pot and non-existence is something that

does not exist. But the case of Brahman is entirely different and is

beyond the horizon of our senses - from which words return [yato

vaacho nivartante]. Therefore the word Sat applies to Brahman, but

the translation as existence does not apply correctly.

>

> Now comes the point of eternal. I still ask, if one were to

understand that Brahman has a second to it called time according to

which it can be defined? In other words, can we say Brahman WAS at

some point in time and IS in some point in time and WILL BE at some

point in time. As I understand Sankara's position, time and space

both have no meaning to Brahman and therefore, neither is it correct

to localize Brahman in space nor in time. In other words, eternality

of Brahman is not like immortality, or existence in all points of

time or space, since our understanding of existence is far removed

from the nature of existence of Brahman. So Brahman is nitya, but

the word eternal would not apply. The word nitya would mean that it

neither comes into existence, nor goes out of existence [consisting

of negations]. There is no transience in it. But the word eternal is

more of a positive statement. In my understanding since Sankara

asserted the importance of the apophatic approach to

> enlightenment, the word nitya is more apt than the word eternal.

In the same way the word Sat is more apt than the word existence.

Nitya does not mean eternal. It only means changeless. The

distinction might sound puritanistic or even stupid, but for the

Buddhists who understand the difference due to their experience of

anitya in all phenomena, the difference is large and the words nitya

and eternal are distinct words.

>

> It might sound stupid but my attempt was to clarify the

translation into English. Very often the words of an ancient Indian

language may have seeming similarities with Enlgish words, and have

a very large number of shades in meanings. But it becomes important

to understand the meanings of the words ancient Indian languages to

understand things in the right perspective.

>

> Perhaps I am still ignorant of what you may be trying to affirm.

So please tell me if the above is wrong.

>

> -Bhikku Yogi

>

> Namaste Bhikku Maharaj,

Much of the discussion has now come to a finality. The note by the

Moderators is quite to the point on this thread. May i request you

to kindly see my response to Sri Sankararamanji, just now posted? It

contains the reply about the Brahman-and-Time question. As there is

no alternative to words, we have to contend with thier limitations,

untill we are able to grasp the 'teaching-in-silence'. I think it is

time we moved on to other topics as and when they come up.

 

Pranams,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Yogendra Bhikku wrote:

> We cannot fathom the truth revealed by the Upanishads and cannot

> understand the nature of Brahman since it is beyond the horizon of

> our experience.

*If one is undisturbed and serene and free from doubt and anxiety due to

having faith in the words of the Guru, then at some point grace acts and

the Truth reveals it self from within us and makes us see the identity

of Atman (our individual self) and Brahman (Supreme Self) as simply the

Self. Since Self is One without a second, the Self reveals It Self to be

our very own Self. Then the Mahavakya, "I myself am Brahman" is

understood upon hearing it even once. Since Self-Knowledge is filtered

through the mind in the relative world, it is expressed in a variety of

ways by the Sages. Self-Realized sages are fully content knowing their

own inherent completeness and become perfectly harmless, having nothing

to attain.

 

The Supreme Goddess (making her appearance in Chapter 20 of Tripura

Rahasya) explains the nature of ultimate reality in a straight forward

way to the Sages who evoked her (translation by Pandit Rajmani

Tigunait). "This state has been called identical with the Self by wise

men. That is Moksha. It occurs when the knower, knowledge, and that

which is attained become One." Again, later, Devi states, "There is no

siddhi superior to Self-Realization.........Self-Realization is the only

siddhi which leads one beyond the sphere of time."

 

Love to all

Harsha

*

 

 

 

 

community blog is at

 

http://.net/blog/

 

"Love itself is the actual form of God."

 

Sri Ramana

 

In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma