the pure form of atman

[Guest guest]

Pranams,

Something Shri Subbu-ji wrote deserves a little more

detailed scrutiny because it may bring about a

dangerous misconception in some early vedantic

seekers.

 

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

its Pure form"

"HAVE A DIRECT PERCEPTION OF THE

PURE SELF WITHOUT ANY SUPERIMPOSTION"

"the `covering' that prevents our `experiencing' the

Self AS IT IS"

 

This is what I want to explain.

 

Everything we see/perceive IS Atman or Brahman.

It already is Brahman as it is.

In fact it alone IS.

 

The plurality we perceive, we experience, we objectify

is not "hiding" or "covering" Brahman - it IS verily

Brahman. This has to be very clearly understood.

 

Let us take the example of a flower.

What do you see? a flower.

What do you really see? Brahman.

Then what is flower - it is a namaroopa - name and

form.

Is it for a nanosecond different from Brahman? no.

In order to see its "Brahmanness" in an unalloyed,pure

and pristine, do i need to remove the corolla, the

corona, the pistils, the stamen, etc etc one by one

because they are not letting me see the Brahmanness in

the flower.

Of course not. The flower IS Brahman in its pure form.

It is only in understanding that we say flower is

Brahman plus "flower" namaroopa. In reality there is

no "plus". There is no "flower" other then Brahman.

In fact there is only Brahman.

 

How many times is this idea repeated in the Upanishads

 

Ishavasyam Idam Sarvam

All this IS Ishwara.

 

Omityetadaksharamidam sarvam

Om IS the whole of this universe

 

Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma

All this IS Brahman.

 

Every leaf, every drop of water, every cloud in the

sky, every object animate and inanimate, is all

Brahman.

Whatever you perceive at any time at any place is only

Brahman and nothing but Brahman.

 

And the Self or Brahman is everpure, everpristine.

Impurity is possible only when there is duality.

When one alone IS where is the question of impurity in

relation to it?

This has to be clearly understood.

 

Any concepts of impure form of Brahman, adulterated

form of Brahman, partially pure form of Brahman,

purest form of Brahman, real form of Brahman, need to

completely squashed, if we are to progress in our

right understanding of Vedanta. In fact Atman is

formless. What then to talk about a pure form??

 

Let us take the example of a claypot.

The potness is only a notion. The pot is clay.

there is no "pure" form of clay that needs to be

objectively experienced to know that the pot is a

namaroopa only for clay. The claypot IS clay in its

pure form. The potness is only in the

(mis)understanding.

 

Now suppose there is a particular "form of clay" which

is available for viewing in Vaikuntha or Kailasha or

is available for special viewing between 9am to 10am

(like a matinee show). If this clay is in essence any

different from the clay that constitutes the claypot

then the two clays are decidedly different.

Then the statement all this(in the pot world) is

verily clay becomes unsubstantiated.

If all this is clay is a truth in the potworld then

every pot IS clay. every pot is "pure" clay.

 

Now another point. The pot does not cover the clay.

The pot CANNOT cover clay. For the pot to cover clay

it needs existence. The "pot" borrows its notional

existence from clay. SOmething unreal cannot "cover"

something real. In panchakosha prakriya when we negate

the gross body, we do not need to peel off our skins

to know what is underneath - it is a "negation" only

in the understanding that this gross body is

nonseparate from the vastu and does not exist separate

from the vastu. Not for a moment should we think of

the gross or the subtle body in any way "covering" the

atman.

 

In the immortal verse of Shri Gaudapadacharya

 

Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner

(subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the

outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious

of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It

is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness.

It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible,

uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The

essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self

in the three states, It is the cessation of all

phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual.

This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is

the Atman and this has to be known.

 

The Atman can NEVER be objectified. It can never be

perceived. It can never be inferred. It is not a "mass

of consciousness" It is the Subject, the Witness, the

Self. This has to be known or realized.

 

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Shyam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Pranams,

 

That's very nice and correct.

That's why we like to compare the Brahman with the Mirror, since the Mirror has the potential to reflect every form and still remains a Mirror. And since the Self sees itself in all things, all things Mirror the Self.

However you than say

"Impurity is possible only when there is duality".

But impurity is itself Brahman for there is no thing, no flower and no being seperate from Brahman. We do not need to remove the impurity to see Brahman, Brahman is all things. And if we are Brahman than we are also the impure things.

The mirror is not that which is conscious of the mirror, the mirror is not conscious of anything, it is the image which is conscious of the mirror.

So it is not Brahman that is conscious of the body, it is the body which is conscious of brahman. Because Brahman is not conscious of anything, it is the body which is conscious of Brahman.

Every pot is pure Brahman wheter it believes it is a pot or a Brahman, and if you believe you are clay, you are every pot, those who believe they are clay, those who believe they are pot, and those who believe they are Brahman.

The misunderstanding does not derive from the pot, it derives from the clay, it is the clay which does not understand that it is clay, it is the clay which thinks it is a pot, it is the clay which thinks it is impure. So it is Brahman itself which doesn't understand itself. It is Brahman which does not understand that it is Brahman, it is Brahman which thinks it is a body, it is Brahman which thinks it is impure.

The misunderstanding does not derive from the body, it derives from the mirror, it is the mirror which does not understand that it is a mirror, it is the mirror which thinks it is a body, it is the mirror which thinks it is impure.

Shari Ohm,

Hari Bohm

Lulu

Pranams,

Something Shri Subbu-ji wrote deserves a little more

detailed scrutiny because it may bring about a

dangerous misconception in some early vedantic

seekers.

 

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

its Pure form"

"HAVE A DIRECT PERCEPTION OF THE

PURE SELF WITHOUT ANY SUPERIMPOSTION"

"the `covering' that prevents our `experiencing' the

Self AS IT IS"

 

This is what I want to explain.

 

Everything we see/perceive IS Atman or Brahman.

It already is Brahman as it is.

In fact it alone IS.

 

The plurality we perceive, we experience, we objectify

is not "hiding" or "covering" Brahman - it IS verily

Brahman. This has to be very clearly understood.

 

Let us take the example of a flower.

What do you see? a flower.

What do you really see? Brahman.

Then what is flower - it is a namaroopa - name and

form.

Is it for a nanosecond different from Brahman? no.

In order to see its "Brahmanness" in an unalloyed,pure

and pristine, do i need to remove the corolla, the

corona, the pistils, the stamen, etc etc one by one

because they are not letting me see the Brahmanness in

the flower.

Of course not. The flower IS Brahman in its pure form.

It is only in understanding that we say flower is

Brahman plus "flower" namaroopa. In reality there is

no "plus". There is no "flower" other then Brahman.

In fact there is only Brahman.

 

How many times is this idea repeated in the Upanishads

 

Ishavasyam Idam Sarvam

All this IS Ishwara.

 

Omityetadaksharamid am sarvam

Om IS the whole of this universe

 

Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma

All this IS Brahman.

 

Every leaf, every drop of water, every cloud in the

sky, every object animate and inanimate, is all

Brahman.

Whatever you perceive at any time at any place is only

Brahman and nothing but Brahman.

 

And the Self or Brahman is everpure, everpristine.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<< That's very nice and correct.

That's why we like to compare the Brahman with the Mirror, since the Mirror has the potential to reflect every form and still remains a mirror. And since the Self sees itself in all things, all things are a mirror of the self.

Impurity is possible only when there is duality.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><< But impurity is itself Brahman for there is no thing, no flower and no being seperate from Brahman. We do not need to remove the impurity to see Brahman, Brahman is all things. And if we are truly Brahman than we are also the impure things.

When one alone IS where is the question of impurity in

relation to it?

This has to be clearly understood.

 

Any concepts of impure form of Brahman, adulterated

form of Brahman, partially pure form of Brahman,

purest form of Brahman, real form of Brahman, need to

completely squashed, if we are to progress in our

right understanding of Vedanta. In fact Atman is

formless. What then to talk about a pure form??

 

Let us take the example of a claypot.

The potness is only a notion. The pot is clay.

there is no "pure" form of clay that needs to be

objectively experienced to know that the pot is a

namaroopa only for clay. The claypot IS clay in its

pure form. The potness is only in the

(mis)understanding.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>< But the misunderstanding does not derive from the pot, it derives from the clay, so it is Brahman itself which doesn't understand itself.

 

Now suppose there is a particular "form of clay" which

is available for viewing in Vaikuntha or Kailasha or

is available for special viewing between 9am to 10am

(like a matinee show). If this clay is in essence any

different from the clay that constitutes the claypot

then the two clays are decidedly different.

Then the statement all this(in the pot world) is

verily clay becomes unsubstantiated.

If all this is clay is a truth in the potworld then

every pot IS clay. every pot is "pure" clay.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>< Every pot is pure Brahman wheter it believes it is a pot or a Brahman, and if you believe you are clay, you are every pot, those who believe they are clay, those who believe they are pot, and those who believe they are Brahman.

 

Now another point. The pot does not cover the clay.

The pot CANNOT cover clay. For the pot to cover clay

it needs existence. The "pot" borrows its notional

existence from clay. SOmething unreal cannot "cover"

something real. In panchakosha prakriya when we negate

the gross body, we do not need to peel off our skins

to know what is underneath - it is a "negation" only

in the understanding that this gross body is

nonseparate from the vastu and does not exist separate

from the vastu. Not for a moment should we think of

the gross or the subtle body in any way "covering" the

atman.

 

In the immortal verse of Shri Gaudapadacharya

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<< The mirror is not that which is conscious of the mirror, the mirror is not conscious of anything, it is the image which is conscious of the mirror.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>< So it is not Brahman that is conscious of the body, it is the body which is conscious of brahman. Because Brahman is not conscious of anything, it is the body which is conscious of Brahman.

Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner

(subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the

outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious

of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It

is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness.

It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible,

uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The

essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self

in the three states, It is the cessation of all

phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual.

This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is

the Atman and this has to be known.

 

The Atman can NEVER be objectified. It can never be

perceived. It can never be inferred. It is not a "mass

of consciousness" It is the Subject, the Witness, the

Self. This has to be known or realized.

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Shyam

 

 

All-new Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Pranams,

> Something Shri Subbu-ji wrote deserves a little more

> detailed scrutiny because it may bring about a

> dangerous misconception in some early vedantic

> seekers.

Shrigurubhyo NamaH

 

Namaste Shyam ji,

 

You have said:

 

Ishavasyam Idam Sarvam

All this IS Ishwara.

 

Omityetadaksharamidam sarvam

Om IS the whole of this universe

 

Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma

All this IS Brahman.

 

Every leaf, every drop of water, every cloud in the

sky, every object animate and inanimate, is all

Brahman.

Whatever you perceive at any time at any place is only

Brahman and nothing but Brahman.

 

And the Self or Brahman is everpure, everpristine.

Impurity is possible only when there is duality.

When one alone IS where is the question of impurity in

relation to it?

This has to be clearly understood.

 

Any concepts of impure form of Brahman, adulterated

form of Brahman, partially pure form of Brahman,

purest form of Brahman, real form of Brahman, need to

completely squashed, if we are to progress in our

right understanding of Vedanta. In fact Atman is

formless. What then to talk about a pure form?? //

 

Response:

True, as you have said, Atman/Brahman alone IS. But the problem is,

that statement is true for a sadhaka only AFTER he has realized

Atman as Alone. The association with the objective world is so deep

that it is impossible for one to perceive the Alone Atman along with

the objects. That is the reason why sadhana is prescribed in the

Upanishads and the Gita and all other works on Vedanta. It would be

the most dangerous thing to teach that one does not need to have a

vision of the Atman in its `Pure form'. Let me explain what I mean

by 'Atman in its Pure Form':

 

The ultimate teaching of the Vedanta is Brahman bereft of the

world. The teaching: `Brahman is in and through everything' is only

a concession. This is clear from the Mandukya Upanishad seventh

mantra: `prapanchopashamam'. The Bhashya says:

 

// In `Prapanchopashamam = The One in whom all phenomena has

ceased', are being denied the attributes of the states of waking

etc.//

 

For the word `eka Atma-pratyaya-sAram of the Upanishad, the

Bhashyam gives two explanations:

 

1. The Atman is to be spotted by the unchanging thought that It is

the same Self that subsists in the states of waking and so on.

 

2. Or, the Turiya that has for Its `sAra', valid proof (pramANam),

the single thought, eka Atma pratyaya, for Its (the Turiya's)

realization. //

 

 

Now, on the face of it, it would look like the Bhashyam is giving

two alternative explanations. But on deeper enquiry, it is revealed

that the Bhashyam is actually speaking about paroksha jnanam in the

first explanation and aparoksha jnanam in the second. The first

explanation which amounts to saying: Atman is to be known as

subsisting in and through all phenomena, is definitely required, for

this alone ensures the existence, astitvam, of Atman. The seeker

takes hold of this to gain the knowledge that Atman `exists' no

doubt.

 

But this knowledge is not enough to gain liberation. Because, here,

the Atman exists `along with' the objects. It is Atma with

upadhis. What is required for liberation is the perception of the

Atma without any upadhis. It should be a situation where it is

impossible to talk of ANY relationship between Atma and something

else. These relationships can be of the nature of `Atman is the

source of the objective world', `Atman is the substratum of the

world', `Atman is in and through the world', etc. In other words,

the `immanence' of Atman is still in the world of duality only. When

we speak of immanence, it is immanent `in' the world. What is

required for the Upanishadic liberation is the clear perception of

the `Transcendental' Atman, sarva-upaadhi-sambandha-rahitam. This

is what is conveyed by the word prapanchopashamam, by negating all

the different states (and all their contents). This alone is

Advaitam. This is had through aparoksha jnanam that the second

explanation that the bhashya gives. (This is not my personal

interpretation of the Bhashyam; it is pointed out by the

Anandagiri's gloss.)

 

In the teaching `Atman is in and through everything', there is

mananam involved. In the teaching `Atman is transcendental',

intense nididhyasanam is involved, culminating in direct realization

where avidya is destroyed. That is what is meant by gaining the

perception of Atman in Its Pure Form. No doubt Atman is ever pure

and can never become impure. Yet, because of ignorance it appears

as though it has become impure, like the `akAsha impurity' that the

Brahma sutra talks about. That is the reason why the AdhyAtma Yoga

of the Upanishads require turning away from the senses and the

activity of the mind and intellect during the process of

realization. For, only when this is done, the Upanishads say, one

can gain the darshanam of the Pure Atman. Equipped with this

darshanam of the Pure Atman in the state of realization, and

suitably strengthening it, the Jnani never becomes deluded even

while remaining in the world of duality. In the absence of such an

exclusive exercise to secure the shuddha Atma darshanam, according

to the Upanishads, there is no liberation.

 

That such a realization takes place and destroys avidya is mentioned

by the Mandukya Bhashyam on mantra seven:

 

// tathA cha vakShyati: `~jnAte dvaitam na vidyate' iti. ~jnAnasya

dvaita-nivritti-kShaNa-vyatirekeNa kShaNAntara-anavasthAnAt. //

 

[ So also it will be said, `Duality ceases to exist after

realization' (Kaarika I.18), for knowledge (as a mental vritti) does

not continue for a second moment following the moment of the

cessation of duality.]

 

(Note the sequence: First realization, after that duality ceases to

exist for the seeker/Jnani. In the above Sanskrit passage, the

word `jnAte' is in the locative case, in Sanskrit, called `sati-

saptamI'. This case has the power of conveying a sequence. `When X

happens, Y follows'. In all the passages that I had paraphrased in

my earlier post, in the original, this case-ending is present. For

example, in the Mundaka quote: Bhidyate……tasmin DRISHTE' this last

word is in sati-saptami, teaching that when the Atman is perceived,

directly realized, …..(the results follow).

 

And also note the word `kshana', `moment' in the Bhashyam quoted

above. This is the akhandAkAra-vritti that arises abruptly,

destroys avidya and subsides. As a vritti is always admitted to be

of a moment's duration, the Acharya specifies it as such. This is

the Advaitic Realization of the Pure Atman resulting in

instantaneous liberation. No matter what sadhana leads to such a

culmination, that it happens this way and this way alone, is the

conclusion of the Upanishads/Bhashyam. There are a large number of

instances all over the Upanishad/Bhashyam that speak of this

realization. Only an expert teacher will be able to identify it and

show it to the student. But this above quote from the Mandukya

Bhashya is perhaps the only most explicit mention of this `veda

rahasyam'.

 

And the bhashya says a little further down,

// tasmAt pratiShedha-vi~jnAna-pramANa-vyApAra-samakAlA-eva Atmani

adhyAropita-antaH-pra~jnatvAdi-anartha-nivrittiriti siddham //

 

[Therefore, the conclusion arrived at is that all evils, such as

being `conscious of the internal world', superimposed on the Self,

cease simultaneously with the application (i.e. birth) of the

instrument (pramAna) (of illumination, sAkshAtkAra) which is nothing

but a valid knowledge arising from negation of duality.]

 

Does not the All-knowing Ishwara, the Acharya, know that `what is

born is anitya' ? Would He be overlooking this at this all-

important juncture of teaching the most crucial liberating

knowledge ? Something to ponder.

 

(The Anandagiri gloss points out that in this liberating vritti that

apprehends the Atman, Turiya, there is no phala-vyApti as Turiya is

Itself the Consciousness that illumines the vritti.) (Shyam ji, you

will recall that some time back Shri Sundar Hattangadi ji retrieved

a note by Shri SN Shastri ji on AkhandAkAravritti and the

distinction between vritti-vyapti and phala-vyapti. You admirably

demonstrated your understanding of these concepts in your subsequent

post. This is just to remind you of that.)

 

The following verses from the Panchadashi clarify:

 

Panchadashi Ch. II: (It would be of special interest to note that

the title of this chapter is: pancha-bhUta-viveka-prakaraNam',

or `the chapter on the discrimination of the five elements'.

 

//44. Brahman the pure existence (without any reference to the

world) can be experienced without an iota of doubt, when all

mentations cease. And what we experience is not nothing (shunya),

for we are not conscious of the perception of nothing.

 

45. (Objection): The idea of existence is also absent in the state

of quiescence. (reply): It does not matter. Brahman is self-

revealing and the witness of the tranquil mind. It can be easily

perceived by men inasmuch as it is the witness of the cessation of

all mentations.

 

46. When the mind is void of all mentations, we experience the

witness or consciousness (in its purity) as calm and unagitated.

Similarly prior to the functioning of Maya the existence, Sat,

remained (in its purity) as quiescence, calm and unruffled. //

 

(Here, I suppose, is a reference to the NAsadIya sUkta of the

Rg.Veda)

 

If you have the Panchadashi, pl. read these verses in the original,

to see the word shuddham, sanmAtram, etc.

 

Trust this clarifies quite a number of points.

With humble pranams

Subbu

Om Tat Sat