BEING THE MIRROR ? was Dakshinamurthy Stotra & Buddhist view from ramananr_rramanan r_ramanan@...

July 31, 2006

do you know someone who "is the mirror" ?

Are there any people "being the mirror" ?

Where can i meet someone or a group of people who "are the mirror" ?

or are there any people here with the intention of "becoming the mirror"

please reply!

Buddhist saying

Being the Mirror

When we say that we have knowledge, or that we have discovered our

real nature and we are in this nature, that means that we are "being

the mirror."

You see, "being the mirror" or "looking in the mirror" are two

completely different things. If we "are the mirror," then we have no

concept of dualistic vision.

If a reflection manifests in the mirror, why is it manifesting? There

are two reasons. One is because the mirror has the capacity to

manifest infinite reflections. This is the mirror's quality. If there

is an object in front of the mirror, whose capacity it is to reflect,

naturally a reflection will appear in the mirror. Furthermore, the

mirror has no idea of checking or accepting the object it is

reflecting. The mirror doesn't need any program for that. This is

what is called its qualification, or infinite potentiality.

In the same way, when we "are the mirror" we have the quality to

reflect infinite objects. When we have infinite potentiality,

we conceive every object as a reflection of our real nature.

If we discover that we are like a mirror, then of course we also function

like a mirror. When you discover that you are like the mirror, then

there is a possibility that you also function like the mirror.

When you are the mirror, then you have no problems with reflections--

they can be big, small, nice, ugly, any kind. For you, the

reflections are a manifestation of your quality, which is the quality

of a mirror.

When you have problems with reflections, is when you start identifying

with them, then you turn self-liberation into attachement. You are not

changing or transforming something. You are only being in your real nature.

--from Dzogchen Teachings by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, edited by Jim

Valby, Adriano Clemente and Lulu Dong, published by Snow Lion Publications

DAKSHINAMURTHY STOTRA

To Him who, by MAYA, sees in Himself the universe which is

inside Him as if it were outside, just as in a dream, like unto a

city that is seen in a mirror, to Him who apprehends on awakening,

His own Self as the One without a second, to Him of the form of the

Guru, (the ancient of all) the blessed Dakshina-Murti, is this

prostration.

Verse 1, 2 and 3 (dwell on the origin of the universe and its

philosophical implications.)

In this verse there are two analogies cited. One is that of the

dream, and the other that of the appearance of reflection in a

mirror. Each serves a purpose.

The dream analogy says that unless we wake up from the dream we

cannot see the falsity of the dream.

The mirror analogy says that even as we experience the reflection

of ourselves in the mirror as falsity; it is our true self; so also as we

experience the presence of this universe 'outside' of us as falsity, we

must realise this falsity to be the true nature of ourselves, because

where nothing ever was, only falsity can ever persist, falsity is the projection

of the real Self within.

There is another point of distinction between the dream analogy and

the mirror-reflection analogy.

In the mirror-reflection analogy what is really 'within' appears as 'outside'.

In the analogy of the dream what is really dream appears dream.

We have to extrapolate both the analogies and understand that

mirror and dream are actually within us but appear as outside of us

by the sheer force of the projecting power of MAYA.

The purport of this verse is to tell us that FALSITY is the Truth,

that the visible universe is only a dream appearance to the extent

that it is real.

When false knowledge appears to us by reason of the MAYA power

we have this false knowledge and think that there is something other

than FALSITY outside the dream, but there is not, the falsity starts

with the ego and self, and ends with all things the real self projects.

But when the Realization dawns on us by the grace of the Guru we will

then realize that there is nothing other than Falsity, that we are indeed

this falsity ourselves.

Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.

August 1, 2006

advaitin, Lulu Dong <lulu.dong wrote:

>

> But when the Realization dawns on us by the grace of the Guru we will

> then realize that there is nothing other than Falsity, that we are

indeed this falsity ourselves.

Namaste,

Can you kindly expatiate on this conclusion that '.....we are indeed

this falsity ourselves'?

Regards,

subbu

August 1, 2006

Lulu Dong <lulu.dong > wrote:

Buddhist saying

Being the Mirror

When we say that we have knowledge, or that we have discovered our

real nature and we are in this nature, that means that we are "being

the mirror."

You see, "being the mirror" or "looking in the mirror" are two

completely different things. If we "are the mirror," then we have no

concept of dualistic vision.

From

Sankarraman

Sir,

You say that the beingness of the mirror, as it were, which is our true nature, has got infinite potentialities, and is by itself aloof and isolated with the variegated reflections; the identity with that as our self-created egos, by virtue of our looking at it as individuals, constitutes our bondage, according to you. You say that self-liberation is turned into attachment by virtue of our identification with the reflection. Are you trying to drive at that even the search for our true nature is turned out to be an ego-trip by virtue of our converting it into yet another phenomenal reality? What you are trying to extrapolate from the dream and reflection analogy, would require some elucidation. You say that, " When false knowledge appears to us by reason of the MAYA power

we have this false knowledge and think that there is something other

than FALSITY outside the dream, but there is not, the falsity starts

with the ego and self, and ends with all things the real self projects." Does this mean that there is no permanent reality outside the reflection, which is not advaita Are you trying to reconcile the Buddhistic and Vedantic metaphysics, as has been done by Dr S.Radhakrishnan and professor Dasgupta? That the reflection, with all its variegated objects, is not different from the prototype is alright, but to say that outside the false there is no reality is not Vedanta, which surely accepts the reality of a primal being whose illusory projection is this world and the individuals trafficking in it. This is only either the Sunyavada of Nagarjuna or the doctrine of momentariness, traces of which are found in the teachings of J.Krishnamurthy.

sincerely yours,

Sankarraman

__Ss,_sSSsis._,___

Get on board. You're invited to try the new Mail Beta.

August 1, 2006

Hello subbu...

....looking into the mirror one undoubtedly recognises the falsity of the reflection inside the mirror ... and concludes... the image inside the mirror is false... my image... the image on this side of the mirror is real... therefore i am real... my image in the mirror is false.

but this is indeed the false conclusion of the false image...

it is the false image which arrives at the false conclusion...

we think... the false image inside our mirror would never arrive at the conclusion, that it is indeed our real self... but that's exactly what it does... in much the same way... we never arrive at the conclusion that we are indeed the false image on the other side of our mirror.

we live our live like a dream... similar... the false image inside our mirror lives a false live in a false dream... we would never arrive at the conclusion... that we are indeed the false image inside a mirror living a false live inside a false world.

but that is who we are... the false self inside our mirror is our real self... like in a dream unable to realise it's falsness.

the false self inside our mirror would never tell us that we are in fact the false self, living in a false world... so would we never tell the image inside our mirror that it is our false self, why, we assume that the image inside our mirror knows that it is false, but the false image inside our mirror doesn't know that it is false, it has no awareness that it lives inside a mirror, it wanders through the mirror without knowing that it wanders through a mirror, it wanders through the dream without knowing that it wanders through a dream... we wander through the same dream... without knowing that we are indeed the false image inside our false mirrors wandering through a false world.

when all we do is to look through the mirror at the falsity of our world, we eventually realise the falsity of this world, and no longer need the mirror to see it's falsness... enough if we look through our own eyes... it is then as if the image inside our mirror was looking through it's false eyes... seeing the false world it lives in... accepting it as false... accepting itself as false... accepting everything as false.

If the false image inside our mirror accepts itself as the false image inside our mirror... we accept our real self to be false... we accept our real eyes to be false...

we accept the real world to be false... simultaneous.

We wake up in our dream and realise... that what we thought was real is now false...

Above all... our false identity.

Our false identity truly has no limits...

our false identity is our own false mirror.

...expatiating that we are indeed this falsity ourselves...

Lulu

advaitin, Lulu Dong <lulu.dong wrote:

>

> But when the Realization dawns on us by the grace of the Guru we will

> then realize that there is nothing other than Falsity, that we are

indeed this falsity ourselves.

Namaste,

Can you kindly expatiate on this conclusion that '.....we are indeed

this falsity ourselves'?

Regards,

subbu

August 1, 2006

Dear Sankarraman Sir,

The primal being and it's false identity are synonym for infinite false identites trafficking this world... each of whose not only potentially... ...the original primal being.

To the extent that there is no difference... except for the false sense of a false identity arising over time... between the primal identity... which is prototype for every false identity... and every other false form or manifestation of infinite potential identities (which of course all are as false as the primal source).

The primal mirror, which is the source for all potential arising false identities... is at birth for each creature equal... over time and life identifies with one of the infinite potential false identities... and returns at it's death to it's original identity... the primal mirror.

The search for the real identity... the real mirror... or the original false identity... is no other than the search from the original primal mirror to recognise itself... but the original primal mirror does not have an identity... except it's falseness... and has every potential identity.

i hope the extrapolation from dream and mirror-reflection analogy which are elucidated in the prior mail give some clarity.

There is no permanent reality outside the permanent reflection, that is persistent with the teachings of Nagarjuna's Sunyavada and Nietzsche's Nihilismus. Buddhahood is permanent reflection, Nirvana is perishable and happens within permanent reality as long as the mirror is unified with the body.

One of the first things the mirror wants us to learn is that we are not human beings and that our mind is not limited to the believe that we are human beings but that our human being is a false identity and that our true identity is the identity of the mirror which reflects all things and identifies all things as potential identities.

Namaste

Lulu Dong

From

Sankarraman

Sir,

You say that the beingness of the mirror, as it were, which is our true nature, has got infinite potentialities, and is by itself aloof and isolated with the variegated reflections; the identity with that as our self-created egos, by virtue of our looking at it as

August 1, 2006

Namaste Sri Lulu:

First let me remind you that this is a list for discussing Vedantic

thoughts and associated other thoughts that can bring better

understanding of Vedanta. I am of the opinion that your posting does

not represent the Vedantic understanding of the SELF. And more

importantly, I am finding it rather difficult to see what you attempt

to convey about our True Nature.

For your information, Vedanta also recognizes that our True Nature

can't be visualized through any Mirror nor it can be understood

through logic developed with false notions of any kind which include

your explanations. The Paramarthika Satya – Absolute Truth can never

be established through analogies, examples and through debates using

logic and jugglery of words. At the Vyavaharika level (relative

level), we could reject certain false notions such as our experience

of a dream during the waking stage.

Adi Sankara who synthesized the Advaita Vedanta philosophy has

recognized the fact that everything that we do and experience in

DELUSION is false. Consequently, the mirror is `false' and the image

that we see in the mirror is also `false' and finally, the analysis

and logic using the mirror are also false! The delusion is the cause

for the duality and false identity and when the delusion goes, the

false identity along with the mirror also disappears.

May I request you to review the advaita philosophy by reading

necessary articles from the archive and relate your analysis with

respect to Vedantic interpretation? Be specific with what you

believe are in correct in the Vedantic interpretation and

understanding of the SELF.

Look forward to hear clarifications from you with respect to what

want to convey to the Vedantins of this list.

Warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

Note: please contemplate on the idea of the mirror and explain where

does the mirror come from?

advaitin, Lulu Dong <lulu.dong wrote:

>

> Hello subbu... n

>

> ....looking into the mirror one undoubtedly recognises the

falsity of the reflection inside the mirror ... and concludes... the

image inside the mirror is false... my image... the image on this

side of the mirror is real... therefore i am real... my image in the

mirror is false.

>

> but this is indeed the false conclusion of the false image...

>

> it is the false image which arrives at the false conclusion...

>

August 1, 2006

....which of course all are as false as the primal source.

.. is no other than the search from the original primal mirror to

recognise itself... but the original primal mirror does not have an

identity... except it's falseness...

...Buddhahood is permanent reflection, Nirvana is perishable and

happens within permanent reality as long as the mirror is unified with

the body.

Nothing false can ever be a source for anything true.

Nothing true can ever be a source for anything false.

The "primal" source can never be false.

The primal source is. It is neither primal nor is it a source. It is.

The source of the falsehood is the Error, and this error has no

beginning - i.e.it is not a primal error(as in having a beggining)

but like any error it has an end.

Nagarjuna's Sunyavada and Nietzsche's Nihilismus are nowhere close to

this viewpoint, and it is perhaps risque to attempt a synthesis of

their views with the truth that it is advaita.

Shyam

August 2, 2006

advaitin, "shyam_md" <shyam_md wrote:

>

> "Nothing false can ever be a source for anything true.

> Nothing true can ever be a source for anything false.

> The "primal" source can never be false.

> The primal source is. It is neither primal nor is it a source. It

is.

>

> The source of the falsehood is the Error, and this error has no

> beginning - i.e.it is not a primal error(as in having a beggining)

> but like any error it has an end. ......"

>

> >

> Shyam

Namaste Shyam,

thank you for this source of clear words....

maybe the source which identify the "falsehood" as the "falshood" is

of "true source"

just like the source which identify the "true source" as the "true

source"......is of "true source"....

the "falshood" itself....is missing "true identity"

and therefore can't identify "true source"

for some duration of time...

few words only

Marc

>

August 2, 2006

advaitin, Lulu Dong <lulu.dong wrote:

>

> Hello subbu...

>

> ....looking into the mirror one undoubtedly recognises the

falsity of the reflection inside the mirror ... and concludes... the

image inside the mirror is false... my image... the image on this

side of the mirror is real... therefore i am real... my image in the

mirror is false.

>

> but this is indeed the false conclusion of the false image...

>

> it is the false image which arrives at the false conclusion...

>

> we think... the false image inside our mirror would never arrive

at the conclusion, that it is indeed our real self... but that's

exactly what it does... in much the same way... we never arrive at

the conclusion that we are indeed the false image on the other side

of our mirror.

Namaste,

>From the explanation contained in the above post, it would be

possible to say this:

In Vedanta the 'seen' or experienced world called prameya is false.

Also the 'seer', the experiencer called pramata is also false. The

seeing, the experiencing called pramanam is also false. This

constitutes the triputi that is negated by Advaita. In the language

of the Mandukya Upanishad, the vishva, the taijasa and the praajna

who are the experiencers of the gross, the subtle and the causal

worlds, are all a projection of ignorance; the Turiya transcending

all these three alone is the True Self.

If what is meant by you as 'we are ourselves false' is actually the

pramata, then there is no objection. Vedanta shows that the pramata,

the conscious entity, divested of his pramatritva, the

experiencerhood is the sole Reality. This attributeless Absolute

Consciousness is not negatable.

Pranams,

subbu

August 2, 2006

subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote: advaitin, Lulu Dong <lulu.dong wrote:

>

In Vedanta the 'seen' or experienced world called prameya is false.

Also the 'seer', the experiencer called pramata is also false. The

seeing, the experiencing called pramanam is also false. This

constitutes the triputi that is negated by Advaita. In the language

of the Mandukya Upanishad, the vishva, the taijasa and the praajna

who are the experiencers of the gross, the subtle and the causal

worlds, are all a projection of ignorance; the Turiya transcending

all these three alone is the True Self.

If what is meant by you as 'we are ourselves false' is actually the

pramata, then there is no objection. Vedanta shows that the pramata,

the conscious entity, divested of his pramatritva, the

experiencerhood is the sole Reality. This attributeless Absolute

Consciousness is not negatable.

Dear Subramanium,

No doubt, the pramata, the experiencer, divested of his individuality as well as object of experience, is the sole reality, which is the Witness, not witnessing anything outside of himself. But, here, I have a doubt as regards the falsity of experiencing also. The experiencing, I believe, is the Light of the Self. Swamy Atamananda says that the experiencer and the experienced are simultaneous illusions, but the experiencing is the constant Light. Or, is it a matter of only semantics, and can be ignored, with the position being held on to that the individual I, confused with the Witness, is unreal? I have heard it also said by Bhaghavan that at the time of actual perception there is only the Light, the experiencer-experience arising only subsequently.

Sincerely Yours,

Sankarraman

How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

August 2, 2006

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

..

> Dear Subramanium,

> No doubt, the

pramata, the experiencer, divested of his individuality as well as

object of experience, is the sole reality, which is the Witness, not

witnessing anything outside of himself. But, here, I have a doubt as

regards the falsity of experiencing also.

Namaste Sir,

The dream analogy explains this well. In a dream i listen to a song

that is my favourite. Upon waking it is clear that the 'person' who

listened, the listening as well as the song that came from a distant

radio, are all false. There is a famous verse in Vedanta:

pramaataa cha pramaanam cha prameyam pramitis tadA |

yasya prasaadaat prasidhyanti tat siddhau kim apekshate ||

The pramaataa, the pramanam, the prameyam and the resultant of the

operation of this triputi, all depend upon the One Consciousness for

their revelation. However, that One Consciousness does not need

anything else to reveal Itself.

Regards,

subbu

August 3, 2006

Namaste Marc-ji

At its heart the advaitic doctrine is very simple.

There is only one nondual "vastu".

It cannot be said to be either true nor false.

It itself is Truth, and it Alone is truth. And because it is truth

it is anantam - it is beyond time.

The perceived plurality we experience is because of error.

This error is anaadi - beginingless.

The problem we encounter is due to our position or placement in the

cosmic time-space-dust matrix. We are by default only able to

conceive in linearity based on time and space and this introduces to

us the phenomenon of causality. Our intellect has to think this way -

it is its very nature to think this way. So we go on asking how did

the truth get the error, or get mixed in with error, or

get "covered" by error and so on and on.

And these questions themselves are erroneous as they are based on

the matrix of time-space - time-space itself being part of the error.

>From the standpoint of the Truth - it is. period.

>From the standpoint of the error - there is no "cause" as in there

was never a time when the error was not (and we had the

vastu "developing" as it were an error or so on).

This is where advaita differs from every other doctrine because it

talks directly about the vastu the underlying unchanging substratum

which even though indicated by "not this not this" is

itself "everything" and is alone "everything"

No matter how hard we try we cannot connect the error and the truth

in any kind of relationship or nonrelationship as they are not even

opposed to each other. From the standpoint of the vastu the error

simply does not exist.

Hari Om

Shyam

advaitin, "dennis_travis33"

<dennis_travis33 wrote:

>

> advaitin, "shyam_md" <shyam_md@> wrote:

> >

> > "Nothing false can ever be a source for anything true.

> > Nothing true can ever be a source for anything false.

> > The "primal" source can never be false.

> > The primal source is. It is neither primal nor is it a source.

It

> is.

> >

> > The source of the falsehood is the Error, and this error has no

> > beginning - i.e.it is not a primal error(as in having a

beggining)

> > but like any error it has an end. ......"

> >

> > >

> > Shyam

>

> Namaste Shyam,

>

> thank you for this source of clear words....

>

> maybe the source which identify the "falsehood" as the "falshood"

is

> of "true source"

>

> just like the source which identify the "true source" as the "true

> source"......is of "true source"....

>

> the "falshood" itself....is missing "true identity"

> and therefore can't identify "true source"

> for some duration of time...

>

> few words only

>

> Marc

>

> >

>

August 4, 2006

List Moderator's Note: List wants to thank the members for their continued support to list policies and guidelines. Please do not include the previous posters' messages in the tail end (or in the beginning) of your message while sending your replies. Both the new members and other members do seem to continue to repeat doing this. The list appreciates your cooperation in keeping the message crisp and clear by removing all unnecessary parts of previous messages. (As it is done in this message!)

Namaste Shyamji,

I am just a beginner student of Vedanta and I would like to ask a

question in this thread.

Your description of the Advaitic concept is very clear. The

fundamental text Tatvabodha also says that " Atma satyam

tadnyatsarvam mithyeti". But I have difficulty in understanding who

is the one who gets the knowledge, is it the real Self or the False

Self? Kindly explain your understanding on this.

Hari Om,

Suku

advaitin, "shyam_md" <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Namaste Marc-ji

>

> At its heart the advaitic doctrine is very simple.

>

> There is only one nondual "vastu".

> It cannot be said to be either true nor false.

> It itself is Truth, and it Alone is truth. And because it is truth

> it is anantam - it is beyond time.

>

August 4, 2006

advaitin, "shyam_md" <shyam_md wrote:

>

Namaste Shyam,

thank you for your message....

will try to write/answer few words in between

> >

> At its heart the advaitic doctrine is very simple.

>

> There is only one nondual "vastu".

> It cannot be said to be either true nor false.

> It itself is Truth, and it Alone is truth. And because it is truth

> it is anantam - it is beyond time.

yes....agree with it

no deep "intiution" is necessary to "accept"....that all is One

so from absolute point of view.....everything is exactly like it

could/should be

your definition of "truth"...in being behind time....is a deeper one

because it need to cross already "time and space"....by some

deep "awareness of the absolute".....

in order to "see" the "truth" as behind time

>

> The perceived plurality we experience is because of error.

> This error is anaadi - beginingless.

>

> The problem we encounter is due to our position or placement in the

> cosmic time-space-dust matrix. We are by default only able to

> conceive in linearity based on time and space and this introduces

to

> us the phenomenon of causality. Our intellect has to think this

way -

> it is its very nature to think this way. So we go on asking how did

> the truth get the error, or get mixed in with error, or

> get "covered" by error and so on and on.

>

> And these questions themselves are erroneous as they are based on

> the matrix of time-space - time-space itself being part of the

error.

yes...i agree in what you say...

the perciever "world/plurality" is due, i think....only because It is

seen through time&space....through/by mind

by an entity....which identify him/herself with a body-mind-intellect

therefore....the appearing plurality is the prove of missing

awareness (of the absolute)

>

> From the standpoint of the Truth - it is. period.

> From the standpoint of the error - there is no "cause" as in there

> was never a time when the error was not (and we had the

> vastu "developing" as it were an error or so on).

if i understand your words.....

yes...from the standpoint of Truth.....

things are coming and going....

"errors"....and whatever appearences.....

all this appearences don't change anything on "Truth"....or on

the "Absolute"

>

> This is where advaita differs from every other doctrine because it

> talks directly about the vastu the underlying unchanging substratum

> which even though indicated by "not this not this" is

> itself "everything" and is alone "everything"

>

> No matter how hard we try we cannot connect the error and the truth

> in any kind of relationship or nonrelationship as they are not even

> opposed to each other. From the standpoint of the vastu the error

> simply does not exist.

yes...thank you for your clear words

>

> Marc

August 4, 2006

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy:

Pranams to all.

krithivasan_sukumaran <krithivasan_sukumaran > wrote:

Dear Sri Krithivasn_Sukumaran,

It is you who is asking the question that gets the answer. It is as simple as that. Further, please investigate and find out whether there are two selves viz., True Self and True Self as you have stated.

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers

August 4, 2006

Namaste Sri Suku:

You have raised an interesting and often asked question, Who am I?

When the wave from the ocean asks the same question, there will be

two answers - I am the ocean in absolute and I am also the wave in

transient. Similarly the gold bangle will answer the same question

by stating – I am gold (absolute) and I am a bangle (transient). I

could be the king in my dream and also I am the beggar when I awake

from the dream! Ultimately there is only the SELF - the self immersed

in Mithya is transient and the SELF without Mithya in the absolute .

According to Sankara, when the delusion goes completely, the wisdom

emerges. It is just like the SUN which always shines but in the

presence of clouds, we don't recognize its presence. In Vedantic

terminology, the self in transient is the vyavaharika reality and

the absolute SELF is the paramarthika reality.

The delusion or ignorance is anaati, it has no beginning but it ends

with the emergence of wisdom. The question, who am I, arises also in

the presence of Mithya and the answer will emerge only with the

disappearance of Mithya! The disappearance of Mithya or emergence of

wisdom (vidya) is SELF realization. Vedanta declares that SELF has no

attributes which negates the presence of `False Self.'

Please note that my answer comes with one of the many perspectives by

which we can convince our faith of Vedanta. Consequently there are

many other perspectives using different frameworks and I do look

forward to posting from other learned members who can bring better

insights to your question.

Warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin, "krithivasan_sukumaran"

<krithivasan_sukumaran wrote:

>

> The fundamental text Tatvabodha also says that " Atma satyam

> tadnyatsarvam mithyeti". But I have difficulty in understanding who

> is the one who gets the knowledge, is it the real Self or the False

> Self? Kindly explain your understanding on this.

>

> Hari Om,

> Suku

August 4, 2006

"V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk > wrote: advaitin, "krithivasan_sukumaran"

<krithivasan_sukumaran wrote:

The

> fundamental text Tatvabodha also says that " Atma satyam

> tadnyatsarvam mithyeti". But I have difficulty in understanding who

> is the one who gets the knowledge, is it the real Self or the False

> Self? Kindly explain your understanding on this.

From

Sankarraman

Bhaghavan Ramana puts it very pithily in Ulladu Narpathu:"

If one enquires 'Who am I?' within the mind, the individual 'I' falls down abashed as soon as one reaches the Heart and immediately Reality manifests itself spontaneously as 'I-I'. Although it reveals itself as 'I', it is not the ego but the Perfect Being, the Absolute Self." (verse 30)> This is the best commentary on who gets self-realization. Upadesasahasri clarifies as to which of the two, the intellect or the Witness, gets realization.. But it is very difficult to understand, atleast for a mediocre person like me. Bhaghavan's explanation is very simple, but profound.

Sankarraman>

Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

August 4, 2006

advaitin, "krithivasan_sukumaran"

<krithivasan_sukumaran wrote:

>

But I have difficulty in understanding who

> is the one who gets the knowledge, is it the real Self or the False

> Self? Kindly explain your understanding on this.

>

> Hari Om,

> Suku

Namaste,

Knowledge has to come only in the locus of ignorance. Ignorance is

present in the False Self, also called jiva. In Vedantic terminology

this is called the 'antahkarana'where the reflection of the Real

Self, Pure Consciousness, is available. It is this admixture of the

antahkarana (mind)and the Pure Consciousness that is called Jiva.

This is the false self. It is this jiva that experiences ignorance,

samsara. It is this jiva that strives for knowledge. Ultimately it

is this jiva that gets the Realization. It happens through a

peculiar vritti (transformation of the mind) called

akhandakaravritti. When due to prolonged practice, the mind takes on

the form of Brahman, there occurs the destruction of the ignorance

located in the jiva and thereby the jiva gets liberated. Once this

happens that person is no longer jiva, but Brahman.

If the above explanation is too complicated, just this much would

suffice: It is the False Self that gets the realization. This marks

the end of the 'false' and just the 'Self' remains.

Pranams,

subbu

August 5, 2006

subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote: ---