The Need for a specific Atman-experience for Liberation - Part I

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

Dear Sri Shyam,

I would like to add further to your clarification an excerpt

from Sri Sankara's commentary on Mantra 4-4-20 of Bruhadaranyaka

Upanishad :

Quote:

j~jAnaM ca tasmin parAtmaBAvanivRittirEva |

na tasmin sAkShAt AtmaBAvaH kartavyaH |

vidyamAnatvAt AtmaBAvasya |

nityO hi AtmaBAvaH sarvasya atadviShaya iva

pratyavaBAsatE ||

The knowledge of Brahman too means only the cessation of the

identification with extraneous things.

It has not to be directly established,for

IT IS ALREADY THERE.

Everybody ALWAYS has that identity with It, but it

appears to be related to something else.

[Translator: Swami Madhavananda]

Note: The translation may not carry the complete meaning

of the Bhashya in Sanskrit.

The above quoted Bhashya clearly reveals that no new experience is

required for abiding in one's True Nature.

 

Srigurubhyo NamaH

Namaste Sadhakas,

 

The above post of our Respected member Sri Srinivasa Murthy set me

thinking about the problem of understanding the true teaching of the

Acharya. Sri Murthy is a senior person with several decades of

exposure to Vedanta, especially the Acharya's Bhashyams. The above

quotation from the Upanishad Bhashyam, although correct, does not,

in my humble opinion, substantiate the conclusion that Sri Murthy

has arrived at. Let me make my points under three heads:

The conclusion of Sri Murthy // The above quoted Bhashya clearly

reveals that no new experience is required for abiding in one's True

Nature.// appears to me to be flawed on 1. Facts, 2. Logic and 3.

Experience.

 

1. Flawed on Facts: The above quote is from the bhashya on the

Brihadaranyaka mantra: 4.4.20. The previous mantra 4.4.19 reads, in

part, thus: `manasA eva anu-draShTavyam na iha nAnA asti kinchana…

Meaning: Through the mind alone It is to be realized. There is no

difference (separateness or diversity) whatsoever in It.(unquote)

 

The Bhashya reads: The means of the realization of that Brahman is

being described. Through the mind alone, purified by the knowledge

of the supreme Truth, and in accordance with the instructions of the

teacher, It is to be realized.

 

Now, coming to the mantra 4.4.20, which reads: yekadhA eva anu-

draShTavyam etad apramayam dhruvam…Meaning: It should b realized in

one form only, for, It is unknowable and enternal.

 

The Bhashya for this is: Because It is such, therefore It should be

realized in one form only, namely as homogeneous Pure Intelligence.

(unquote)

 

What is to be noted here is: Even though Brahman is ALWAYS THERE as

oneself, yet, to bring about the cessation of the wrong identity

with non-Atman, there is a need to have an experience of Atman in

its Pure form, through the purified mind as shown by the earlier

mantra. It is this experience, called sAkshAtkaara, that dispels

the identity with the non-Atman once for all.

 

There are a few more places that the Acharya makes this kind of a

statement. For example, in this very Upanishad in 3.5.1, He says:

//All that one who has understood Brahman from the words of Guru and

the scripture needs to do is to eliminate all notions of the non-

Atman. Having done so, he becomes a Yogin who has accomplished his

task.//

 

Immediately after stating this, He says: `Brahmaiva sarvam iti

pratyayaH upajAyate. Sa brAhmaNaH '…Meaning: the vritti, mental

modification, `All is Brahman' comes about. He is a BrAhmaNaH…

 

So, what is to be noted is, the Acharya first said what is the

understanding and immediately follows it up with the actual

experience, the sAkshAtkAra. Thus, we saw in both the cases of the

BrihadAraNyaka Upanishad quoted above, that the actual realization,

the experience, that brings about the cessation of identity with the

non-Atman is explicitly stated by the Acharya based on the

Upanishadic teaching.

 

Again, in the Chandogya Upanishad 8.6.7.1, there occurs an

expression: `so anveShTavyaH, sa vijijnAsitavyaH' = He has to be

enquired into and directly realized. The Bhashyam for this

expression is:

 

// What will result from knowing It and enquiring into It for

realization? That is being answered:

He attains all the worlds and all the desires. For him is the

attainment of all the desires and all the worlds, who having known

this Self as described, through the means as instructed by the

scriptures and teachers, (vijAnAti) = makes It an object of his own

realization, i.e. the result comes in the form of becoming the Self

of all. ……The perceptible result is the cessation of the contrary

comprehension of the Self as characterized by the qualities of the

body, on the comprehension of Its true nature. And this cessation

is a perceptible result. //

 

So, in all the above cases we saw that the Acharya states explicitly

that there is an experience that PRECEDES the experience of

cessation of all duality. This sequence is unmistakable for a

discerning reader.

 

Finally, let me quote one more instance, from the Bhagavadgita

Bhashya 18th chapter 50th verse:

 

//What is to be undertaken is only the elimination of the

superimposition on Brahman through avidya, but no effort is needed

for knowing Brahman, for It is quite self-evident. It is because

the intellect is distracted ….appears to be concealed, difficult to

REALIZE….But to those whose intellect has become freed from external

appearances…..there is nothing more blissful, manifest, well known,

easily REALIZED…//

 

Here too, we see the two types of statements appearing in close

proximity to each other; one about the `elimination of the

superimposition' and the other about `the realization'. The

sequence, again, is unmistakable.

 

Here is a quote from the book `Yoga Enlightenment and Perfection'

just above this Gita-bhashya quote:

 

//The scripture advocates realization of Brahman not in the sense of

knowing what is unknown but in the sense of getting rid of the

avidya-based superimposition on It. Whether foused on the Atman or

distracted, the mind is but an inert entity illumined by the Atman.

HOWEVER, THE MENTAL VRITTI OF THE FORM OF BRAHMAN DESTROYS, AS

DECLARED BY THE SCRIPTURE, AVIDYA THAT RESTS IN AND VEILS BRAHMAN

AND PRESENTS IT WRONGLY.//

 

What is quoted in caps above (emphasis mine only) is what is known

as the sAkshAtkAra vritti, akhaNDAkAra-vritti, Brahma-vidyA, etc.

variously. This is what is known as realization, or direct

experience. It is this alone that destroys avidya and liberates a

person and brings about the cessation of wrong identification.

Thus, we saw that the Acharya's bhashya quotes have to be carefully

culled out, without leaving out the crucial portions. If this is

ensured, there will be no misconception about the teaching and we

will not be misleading others also.

In the Panchadashi 2nd chapter we have, for example:

 

//104. `At the last moment' means the moment at which the mutual

identification of the illusory duality and the one secondless reality

is annihilated by differentiating them from each other; nothing

else.//

In the above, the `moment' is the instant at which the realization

occurs and avidya annihilated along with its effects.

 

(To be continued in Part II)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Subramanianji,

 

A quick reply.

 

What does it mean when someone says you do not need a new Atma

expreience? Let me explain it briefly due to lack of time. In every

cognitive experience there is always duality of the subject and

object. A simple experience of an apple (let's call it the 'apple

experience') has the 'experiencer' and the 'apple (experienced)'. A

'tourist experience' has the 'tourist' and the 'tour'. Similarly any

experience is transactional by nature and will have the duality of

subject (experiencer) and object (experienced objects). Let's analyze

the example of the apple experience. Before the experience of the

apple there was not an apple experience. After the apple experience,

the apple is also not there. But there was a short time I exeprienced

the apple. So it is but an event in time. Therefore it has a beginning

and an end in time. This is the conventional definition of any

experience.

 

However in the case of Atma, which is svatah siddhah

(self-established), the experience is not the same as the above.

Therefore it is not another NEW experience. Let's analyze it. Lets us

ask ourselves: Was there a time where I was not the Atma? the answer

is NO. Am I not Atma now? The answer is NO. Will I not be Atma in the

future? The answer is also NO. Then what is seemingly separating me

from my Self? It is purely avidya and it is notional. If that is the

case, then I have been experiencing this Atma all the time, but

without the knowledge of it. So when the teacher teaches this

knowledge of Atma using the Shruti, one comes to know that he has

always been the Atma since beginningless time. Is this a NEW

experience? The answer is YES & NO.

 

>From one standpoint this dawn of knoweldge is a new event in time

(this was what you have proven in your post). From another

standpoint, it is not an event because I have always been experiencing

this Atma even when I was ignorant. The former view can be said as the

Vyavaharika view and the latter the paramarthika view. Therefore, both

you and Srinivasa Muthyji are viewing the same subject from different

standpoints. Both of you are right.

 

Here is my take based on the utility of both views. If I happen to be

an academic I would agree with your statements 100% as it explains the

psychological phenomenon of realization. In fact such analysis may

serve a purpose in trying to understand Vedanta but it may not help a

sincere seeker. If I am a seeker, I would prefer to be anchored at the

Paramartha view. This view alone can help me facilitate my manana and

nididhyasana. For a seeker (mumukshu or jijnasu), committed to the

vision of Vedanta, the dawn of knowledge that took place in time will

also be a false notion that has to be negated in the seat of

Meditation (Manana or Nididhyasana).

 

Of course if the seeker had been an uttama adhikari, do we even need

to discuss about this? :-)

 

Hari Om,

Kathirasan

 

 

 

On 9/28/06, subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote:

> H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

> Pranams to all.

>

> Dear Sri Shyam,

> I would like to add further to your clarification an excerpt

> from Sri Sankara's commentary on Mantra 4-4-20 of Bruhadaranyaka

> Upanishad :

> Quote:

> j~jAnaM ca tasmin parAtmaBAvanivRittirEva |

> na tasmin sAkShAt AtmaBAvaH kartavyaH |

> vidyamAnatvAt AtmaBAvasya |

> nityO hi AtmaBAvaH sarvasya atadviShaya iva

> pratyavaBAsatE ||

> The knowledge of Brahman too means only the cessation of the

> identification with extraneous things.

> It has not to be directly established,for

> IT IS ALREADY THERE.

> Everybody ALWAYS has that identity with It, but it

> appears to be related to something else.

> [Translator: Swami Madhavananda]

> Note: The translation may not carry the complete meaning

> of the Bhashya in Sanskrit.

> The above quoted Bhashya clearly reveals that no new experience is

> required for abiding in one's True Nature.

>

> Srigurubhyo NamaH

> Namaste Sadhakas,

>

> The above post of our Respected member Sri Srinivasa Murthy set me

> thinking about the problem of understanding the true teaching of the

> Acharya. Sri Murthy is a senior person with several decades of

> exposure to Vedanta, especially the Acharya's Bhashyams. The above

> quotation from the Upanishad Bhashyam, although correct, does not,

> in my humble opinion, substantiate the conclusion that Sri Murthy

> has arrived at. Let me make my points under three heads:

> The conclusion of Sri Murthy // The above quoted Bhashya clearly

> reveals that no new experience is required for abiding in one's True

> Nature.// appears to me to be flawed on 1. Facts, 2. Logic and 3.

> Experience.

>

> 1. Flawed on Facts: The above quote is from the bhashya on the

> Brihadaranyaka mantra: 4.4.20. The previous mantra 4.4.19 reads, in

> part, thus: `manasA eva anu-draShTavyam na iha nAnA asti kinchana…

> Meaning: Through the mind alone It is to be realized. There is no

> difference (separateness or diversity) whatsoever in It.(unquote)

>

> The Bhashya reads: The means of the realization of that Brahman is

> being described. Through the mind alone, purified by the knowledge

> of the supreme Truth, and in accordance with the instructions of the

> teacher, It is to be realized.

>

> Now, coming to the mantra 4.4.20, which reads: yekadhA eva anu-

> draShTavyam etad apramayam dhruvam…Meaning: It should b realized in

> one form only, for, It is unknowable and enternal.

>

snipped

[Guest guest]

Pranams Subbu-ji

I have humbly outlined my understanding of why Shri

Murthy-ji and others are not flawed in their

understanding, as humbly suggested by you. I have

limited myself to only what you quoted and wrote.

_

--- subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote:

 

> 1. Flawed on Facts: The above quote is from the

> bhashya on the

> Brihadaranyaka mantra: 4.4.20. The previous mantra

> 4.4.19 reads, in

> part, thus: `manasA eva anu-draShTavyam na iha nAnA

> asti kinchana…

> Meaning: Through the mind alone It is to be

> realized. There is no

> difference (separateness or diversity) whatsoever in

> It.(unquote)

>

> The Bhashya reads: The means of the realization of

> that Brahman is

> being described. Through the mind alone, purified

> by the knowledge

> of the supreme Truth, and in accordance with the

> instructions of the

> teacher, It is to be realized.

__________

 

"It is to be realized"

what is to be realized? I the saakshi, the self, the

witness.

I the self am the very substratum of all. "I" am not

an object to be experienced.

_____________________________

 

> Now, coming to the mantra 4.4.20, which reads:

> yekadhA eva anu-

> draShTavyam etad apramayam dhruvam…Meaning: It

> should b realized in

> one form only, for, It is unknowable and enternal.

 

 

Precisely.

It is unknowable and eternal - it cannot be

objectified. it is my own Self, the subject, the

witness. Hence objectification in the form of an

experience is not possible.

_____________________________

 

> The Bhashya for this is: Because It is such,

> therefore It should be

> realized in one form only, namely as homogeneous

> Pure Intelligence.

> (unquote)

______________

Yes. This has to be realized.

__________________

 

>there is a need to have an experience of Atman in

>its Pure form.

_______________

 

There is no pure and impure forms of Atman.

Atman is everpure. If anything needs to be removed it

is removal by right understanding of the

non-subtantive existence of the ego. I the atman am

selfrevealing and already everpresent - as the

witnesser not as an object of experience.

 

There is no "real" impurity covering as it were the

pure self. It is only in ignorance that we have

concepts of koshas etc. These need to be clearly

understood as mithya. Taking these koshas for real or

believing that the atman is actually being covered by

them is folly.

______________________

in this very Upanishad in

> 3.5.1, He says:

> //All that one who has understood Brahman from the

> words of Guru and

> the scripture needs to do is to eliminate all

> notions of the non-

> Atman. Having done so, he becomes a Yogin who has

> accomplished his

> task.//

> `Brahmaiva sarvam iti

> pratyayaH upajAyate. Sa brAhmaNaH '…

_______________________________

 

The realization the I the self am the substratum of

everything, I the self am the vastu is clearly

understood by him and he alone is a brahmanah.

_____________________________

> Again, in the Chandogya Upanishad 8.6.7.1, there

> occurs an

> expression: `so anveShTavyaH, sa vijijnAsitavyaH' =

> He has to be

> enquired into and directly realized. The Bhashyam

> for this

> expression is:

>

> // What will result from knowing It and enquiring

> into It for

> realization? That is being answered:

> He attains all the worlds and all the desires. For

> him is the

> attainment of all the desires and all the worlds,

> who having known

> this Self as described, through the means as

> instructed by the

> scriptures and teachers, (vijAnAti) = makes It an

> object of his own

> realization"

___

If "he" makes "it" an "object" of "his" realization

then "he" and the "it" are two entities. Such is not

the case. What this means is that He attains

self-realization. He knows and understands himself to

be the very self which is verily the substratum. He

understands clearly that he, the subject, the witness,

is nonseparate from Brahman. If he is everything then

there is no "other" thing left for him to desire or

experience.

___________________________

 

> So, in all the above cases we saw that the Acharya

> states explicitly

> that there is an experience that PRECEDES the

> experience of

> cessation of all duality.

____________________________

 

In none of these cases do we see the Acharya say

anything about an "atman experience" or a "Brahman

experience" let alone anything that "precedes" another

"experience of the cessation of duality"

_

 

> Finally, let me quote one more instance, from the

> Bhagavadgita

> Bhashya 18th chapter 50th verse:

>

> //What is to be undertaken is only the elimination

> of the

> superimposition on Brahman through avidya, but no

> effort is needed

> for knowing Brahman, for It is quite self-evident.

> It is because

> the intellect is distracted ….appears to be

> concealed, difficult to

> REALIZE….But to those whose intellect has become

> freed from external

> appearances…..there is nothing more blissful,

> manifest, well known,

> easily REALIZED…//

>

 

 

That there is no sequence is clear from this bhashya.

The effort required is only elimination in ones

understanding of the so-called superimposition - then

the Self being ever evident is readily realized.

Again, not as an object of experience but as the very

substratum myself. "In me alone is everything created

sustained and destroyed" is the immediate realization

in the very dropping of the so-called superimposition.

____

>Thus, we saw that the Acharya's bhashya quotes have

>to be carefully

>culled out, without leaving out the crucial

>portions. If this is

>ensured, there will be no misconception about the

>teaching and we

>will not be misleading others also.

_______

Please clarify "who" is "misleadingwhom"?

 

 

> 2. Now, let us see how the `conclusion' (that there

is no need for

> any new experience of Brahman/Atman in order to

abide as one's own

> Self) is flawed logically:

>

> Whenever logic, tarka, is taken up, there is a need

for

> a `driShTAnta', analogy. To make things simple, let

us take a well-

> known analogy, the rope-snake.

> Exactly as in this manner, to eradicate the error of

samsara, what

> is needed is a perception of the substratum,

Atman/Brahman AS IT

> IS.

But what is essentially needed is to HAVE A DIRECT

PERCEPTION OF THE

> PURE SELF WITHOUT ANY SUPERIMPOSTION. The `torch'

that sheds light

> on the `spot' is the Vedanta Shastra taught by the

Guru.

_______

In the case of the rope/snake example, the rope as a

substratum is not you, the self. So one cannot

overextend the analogy. In our case, we are the

"snake"! The snake itself has to understand it is not

the rope. (The pot has to understand it is clay.) It

has to derive right knowledge about itself. It need

not "perceive" the rope as an object of its experience

- it needs to know by upadesha shravana and manana

that it is indeed the rope in the past present and

future and its snakeness is a misconception. Asking

the snake to "see" or "experience" the rope to know

that it is not a nonexistent snake, but a everexistent

rope, is absurd.

________________________________

> So, we saw that logically too, the view that `there

> is no need for a

> new experience' is incorrect.

__

So we see logically too that the view there is a need

for a new experience is incorrect.

____

> 3. Now, finally, we shall see how even on the

grounds

> of `experience' the above view that `there is no

need for a new

> experience' is flawed:

`Bhidyate Hridaya-

> granthiH…….tasmin dRiShTe para-avare' of the Mundaka

Upanishad

> (2.2.8).is a very famous instance where it is said:

>

> The Bhashya introduces this mantra thus: // The

result of this

> knowledge of this Supreme Self is being stated.

(And proceeds) When

> that which is….. realized, then, …. All this

(results mentioned)

> happens when that One, the omniscient and

transcendent who is both

> para, the high, as the cause, and avara, the low, as

the effect – is

> seen directly as `I am this'. The idea is that one

becomes free on

> the eradication of the cause (avidya) of the worldly

state. //

______

The direct realization "I am this" is what is the

immediate "nonsequential" result of attaining

selfknowledge. This is being clearly and beautifully

stated here.

_____

In quantitative terms, if our understanding

> of the Bhashya without any commentary is stated to

be `x', what the

> sub-commentaries do is to make our understanding `x

to the power of

> n'.

_______

So subcommentaries by others of Shankara's bhashyas on

the prasthanatrayas are far more valuable than the

bhasyas themselves and that too to the power of "n"??

_______

 

"Just think: Why did Shankara Himself ask Sri

Sureshwaracharya

> to write the Vaartika "

______

I don't know. Do you think he felt his own bhashyas

were inadequate? or not easily understandable? And

Sureshwaracharya's would be more understandable? and

more adequate?

___

> Finally, let us not commit the mistake of rejecting

the various

> seminal works on Advaita, especially the ones like

the

> Vivekachudamani, the Panchadashi, the Bhamati, the

other

> commentaries, etc. It would be suicidal. All these

works are like so

> many diamonds, rubies, emeralds, etc., embedded on

the dazzling

> crown of Advaita. Take them away, and what you are

left with is

> just gaping holes; not only in the crown, but also

in the

> understanding of Advaita.

______

What we are left with I find are the wonderful

bhashyas of Bhagwan Shankara on the prasthanatrayas,

the AtmaBodha, the Upadesha Sahasri, Tattvabodha,

Vakyavrtti, Sadhana Panchakam, etc

If these are "gaping holes" in the crown of advaita,

and also in the understanding of advaita, I have

nothing further to say except

 

Shruti smrti puranamalayam karunalayam

Namami Bhagavatpada sankaram lokasankaram

 

I salute the compassionate abode of the Vedas, Smritis

and Puranas known as Shankara Bhagavatpada, who makes

the world auspicious.

_____

 

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyo namah

 

Shyam

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

How can an experience, no matter how profound, help to attain the Self

which is the Ultimate Subject and beyond experience?

 

The questions sometimes arises whether there is a need for a specific spiritual/psychic experience or experiences like Nirvikalpa Samadhi to achieve Self-Realization and therefore liberation.

 

The framing of the question assumes the relative (Vyavaharika) perspective and therefore a useful answer has to be given at that level.

 

Although such questions (or answers to it) are not meaningful from the perspective of the Absolute Self, from a relative point of view, many answers can be given.

 

The difference between Parmarthika (Absolute) and Vyavaharika (Relative) perspectives has been discussed before and it has been pointed out that if we mix the two in our logic, there is bound to be confusion.

 

Both the Parmarthika view (Absolute perspecive) and the Vyavaharika view (Relative perspective) are expressed only in Vyavaharika (at the level of relativity). If the parmarthika (Absolute) perspective is expressed, no matter how eloquently, it is still at its foundation a vyahvaharika (Relative) view.

 

Self is Always Self-Realized. The problem is not for the Self. The difficulty is for the Jiva (Individual Soul) who does not recognize its identity with Brahman (Universal/Supreme Soul) as the Self. It is the Jiva that experiences bondage. Therefore, it is the Jiva which must experience freedom. There should be no mystery here.

 

It is the Jiva that upon receiving the right knowledge recognizes its identity with Brahman as Sat-Chit-Ananda. This moment of recognition that contains eternity and is eternity itself can certainly be called an experience from the perspective of the Jiva. The experience of Jiva that reveals the Self reveals knowledge of Identity with the Self.

 

There is the example of castor oil which some people take as a laxative for constipation. If one takes castor oil to relieve the stomach of its contents, does one also have to worry about how the castor oil it self will come out? Will one have to take an extra second dose of castor oil to get the first dose out of the body? No. Castor oil after doing its job, also disappears. The nature of the experience of Self-Realization is like that. By grace, what starts out as experience in duality ends up in pure nonduality. The experience which removes ignorance and reveals knowledge also then dissappears in the Heart of Knowledge.

 

Certainly, our sages have talked about this experience (in terms of their own personal experience) at length. No one who has read the biographies of the great seers can miss it.

 

Where does the term Sat-Chit-Ananda come from if not from experience of the Jiva? This term is not a mere sanskrit book term but comes from direct experience of men and women whose mind became immersed in the Self.

 

The ancient sages were very precise and did not waste words.

 

Sat-Chit-Ananda, Nityam, Poornum.

 

Existence-Consciousness-Bliss as eternal wholeness is the nature of the Self as experienced by the Jiva and as expressed by our sages. The pure fullness and the complete bliss that does not have any support other than itself, that is the nature of the Self. This space of bliss (devoid of sorrow) as pure Self-Nature is unmistakable. It cannot be understood by logic. It can be approached through logic and reasoning but these must be left behind in order to enter the Heart of one's own mystery.

 

In his poem, Atma Vidya (Self-Knowledge)

overwhelming with sacred beauty, Bhagavan Ramana mentions Bliss at the end of virtually each stanza in describing Self-Realization. Here are examples of the last sentences of Sri Ramana's poem

Atma Vidya (Self-Knowledge) in the various five verses.

 

1. Bliss wells up.

2. This stillness, this abode of bliss.

3. The blossoming of bliss.

4. The experience of Eternity: absence of all fear; the ocean vast of bliss.

5. True, Grace is needed; Love is added. Bliss wells up.

 

These words are coming from direct realization and what comes from the Truth, if meditated upon, leads us back to their source.

 

 

Love to all

Harsha