Guest guest Posted July 9, 2006 Report Share Posted July 9, 2006 Dear Advaitins, When i was going through talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi i came across an interesting portiong where Sri Ramana Maharshi explains advaita philosophy as propogated by Acharya. It runs as under Talk 315 One of the attendants asked: Sri Bhagavan has said:'Reality and myth are both the same'. How it is so? Maharshi: The tantrikas and others of the kind condemn Sri Shankara's philosophy as maya vada without understanding him aright. What does he say? He says. 1.Brahman is real. 2. The universe is a myth. 3. Brahman is the universe. He does not stop at the second statement but continues to supplement it with the third. What does it signify? The universe is conceived to be apart from Brahman and that perception is wrong. The antagonists point to his illustration of rajju sarpa (rope snake). This is unconditioned superimposition. After the truth of the rope is known, the illussion of snake is removed once for all. But they should take the unconditioned superimposition also into consideration, e.g. marumarichika or mrigatrishna(Water of mirage). The mirage does not disappear even after knowing to be a mirage. The vision is there but the man does not run to it for water. Sri Shankara must be understood in the light of both the illustrations. The world is a myth. Even after knowing it, it continues to appear. It must be known to be Brahman and not apart. If the world appears, yet to whom does it appear, he asks. Wha is your reply? You must say the self. If not, will the world appear in the absence of the congnising self? Therefore the self is the reality. That is his conclusion. The phenomena are real as the self and are myths apart from the self. Now, what do the tantriks etc. say? They say that the phenomena are real because they are part of the reality in which they appear. Are not these two statements the same? That is what i meant by reality and falsehood being one and the same. The antagonists continue: With the conditioned as well as the unconditioned illusions considered, the phenomenon of wate in mirage is purely illusory because that water cannot be used for any purpose. Whereas the phenomenon of the world is different, for it is purposeful. How then does the latter stand on a par with the former? A phenomenon cannot be a reality simply because it serves a purpose or purposes. Take a dream for example. The dream creations are purposesful: They serve the dream-purpose. The dream water quenches dream thirst. The dream creation is however contradicted in the other two states. What is not continuous cannto be real. If real, the thing must ever be real and not real for a short time and unreal at other times. So it is with magical creations. They appear real and are yet illusory. Similarly the universe cannot be real of itself-that is to say, apart from the underlying reality............. This conversation proves the saying 'Only a jnani can understand another jnani.' JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA Yours in the lord, Br. Vinayaka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2006 Report Share Posted July 12, 2006 hariH OM! vinayaka-ji, since the past week i was intending to post this very excerpt, and since you have done so, i will leave your original post in tact. (this is a unique synchronicity, since it has to do with something itself that is metaphysically highly significant.)(no need to doubt that ramana has been and still is present in our midst.) with all due respect, however, i fail to see how this is difficult to understand. namaskaaram, frank ___________________ advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote: > > > Dear Advaitins, > > When i was going through talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi i came > across an interesting portiong where Sri Ramana Maharshi explains > advaita philosophy as propogated by Acharya. It runs as under > > Talk 315 > > One of the attendants asked: Sri Bhagavan has said:'Reality and myth > are both the same'. How it is so? > > Maharshi: The tantrikas and others of the kind condemn Sri > Shankara's philosophy as maya vada without understanding him aright. > What does he say? He says. > > 1.Brahman is real. > 2. The universe is a myth. > 3. Brahman is the universe. > > He does not stop at the second statement but continues to supplement > it with the third. What does it signify? The universe is conceived > to be apart from Brahman and that perception is wrong. The > antagonists point to his illustration of rajju sarpa (rope snake). > This is unconditioned superimposition. After the truth of the rope > is known, the illussion of snake is removed once for all. > > But they should take the unconditioned superimposition also into > consideration, e.g. marumarichika or mrigatrishna(Water of mirage). > > The mirage does not disappear even after knowing to be a mirage. The > vision is there but the man does not run to it for water. Sri > Shankara must be understood in the light of both the illustrations. > The world is a myth. Even after knowing it, it continues to appear. > It must be known to be Brahman and not apart. > > If the world appears, yet to whom does it appear, he asks. Wha is > your reply? You must say the self. If not, will the world appear in > the absence of the congnising self? Therefore the self is the > reality. That is his conclusion. The phenomena are real as the self > and are myths apart from the self. > > Now, what do the tantriks etc. say? They say that the phenomena are > real because they are part of the reality in which they appear. > > Are not these two statements the same? That is what i meant by > reality and falsehood being one and the same. > > The antagonists continue: With the conditioned as well as the > unconditioned illusions considered, the phenomenon of wate in mirage > is purely illusory because that water cannot be used for any > purpose. Whereas the phenomenon of the world is different, for it is > purposeful. How then does the latter stand on a par with the former? > > A phenomenon cannot be a reality simply because it serves a purpose > or purposes. Take a dream for example. The dream creations are > purposesful: They serve the dream-purpose. The dream water quenches > dream thirst. The dream creation is however contradicted in the > other two states. What is not continuous cannto be real. If real, > the thing must ever be real and not real for a short time and unreal > at other times. > > So it is with magical creations. They appear real and are yet > illusory. > > Similarly the universe cannot be real of itself-that is to say, > apart from the underlying reality............. > > > > This conversation proves the saying 'Only a jnani can understand > another jnani.' > > JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA > > Yours in the lord, > > Br. Vinayaka > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2006 Report Share Posted July 14, 2006 hariH OM! vinayaka-ji, forgive me for failing to see why you concluded that the exceprt of the talk with the maharshi was confusing to you. there is clearly contradiction within the excerpt, but if we were to side with the conception that maya is ONLY illusion, [and not its converse *simultaneously*] we would be pigeonholed into an ideology and thereof veiled to the wonder and mystery of that which Is: the ineffable satchidananda or parabrahman, or Being Itself. i have often mentioned the contradiction factor inherent in much of not only vedantic metaphysics, but in all major approches in spiriual philosophy in general. failing to recognize such is a tendency toward denial, since accepting [contradictions] is an assault on reason, which frightens the insecure ego-Mind. OM ramanarpanamasthu! frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2006 Report Share Posted July 15, 2006 advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote: > > > Dear Advaitins, > > When i was going through talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi i came > across an interesting portiong where Sri Ramana Maharshi explains > advaita philosophy as propogated by Acharya. It runs as under > > From Sankarraman In the work, "Ulladu Narpatu," ( Reality on Forty Verses) Bhaghavn says that both for the ajnani and the jnani, the body and the world are real, except that the ajnani confines and confounds the latter to be the intrinsic reality, whereas the jnani knwows that, bereft of the informing Light of the Self, the world and body are unreal. But it must be clearly understood that Bhaghavan considers it an essential prerequisite to eliminate the perception of the drisya to understand the drik, which has to happen through akhandahara vritti for self-realizaton to transpire. Bhaghavan is very emphatic that as long as the dristi of the world is there, the perception of the self is an impossibility even though he, in the higer context, cocedes the fact of the dirsya being subsumed in the drik, which should not be taken at the sadhana level. To inculcate vairagyam in the heart, the constant idea that the world is unreal and sorrowful is necessary. If we are entrenched in the idea of the reality of the world in the way we think, we will conclude rather confound that God is also yet another object, but the supreme object, which will be suicidal to the advaita thought. Sankarraman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 >From :H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams to all. > >advaitin, "shnkaran" <shnkaran wrote: >But it must be clearly understood that Bhaghavan considers it an essential prerequisite to eliminate the perception of the drisya to understand the drik, which has to happen through akhandahara vritti for self-realizaton to transpire.> I have a few points which needs clarification. (A)Who has to eliminate the perception of the drisya? Does the perceiver do it? (B)Does he come within the drisya? If he is within the drisya how can he eliminate the drisya? Is it ever possible? ©The entity has to see first the existence of the drisya before eliminating the drisya. Then he is the drik and not drisya. Since he will be the drik, the question of eliminating the drisya does not arise at all. (D) The reference to that particular idea attributed to Sri Bhagavan may please be provided by the member. With respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy. 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.