Atman experience, liberation in time, etc

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar-ji,

 

The Atman is self-established. Fine. All of us on this list know that

intellectually. But is any of us a jnani?

 

If you are a jnani, please forgive me and please consider accepting me

as your shishya.

 

If your are not, please ask yourself the question - what is needed to

make you a jnani?

 

Let us leave out the details for the time being. At a broad level, I

can say that some kind of sAdhanA is required. Please note the word

*sAdhanA*.

 

Studying the Upanishads is a sadhana. Karmayoga is a sadhana. Bhakti

is a sadhana. Nirvikalpa Samadhi is also a sadhana. What sadhana is

appropriate for you may not be appropriate for me. But I can say that

some kind of sadhana is needed.

 

Sadhana is a process that happens in time. It happens in vyavahara.

The sadhaka also exists in vyavahara, and so does the guru. The whole

system of Advaita-Vedanta is in vyavahara. Sankara also existed in

vyavahara. The Upanishads are also in vyavahara.

 

Suppose a person named Bhaskar is deeply into Vedantic sadhana. For

the moment, let us not bother about what specific sadhana he

practises. All we know is that he is trying to realize the truth. I

visit Bhaskar's house and find him doing some sadhana.

 

Five years later, I meet Bhaskar again. I find that he is a changed

person. He has all the laxaNa-s (symptoms?) of a sthitapraj~na. Many

great sadhu-s & acharya-s come to meet him and learn from him. Bhaskar

has become a jnani.

 

Now, from my perspective, I infer that something happened that turned

Bhaskar into a jnani. He was not a jnani 5 years back when I met him.

He is a jnani today. Obviously something happened to him in the

interim. Whether it was an instantaneous jump or a gradual process is

immaterial. From my perspective (the vyavahara perspective), all I can

say is that something *happened* to Bhaskar.

 

What does Bhaskar feel about it? I am an ajnani and have no idea what

Bhaskar feels or thinks, or even whether he feels or thinks anything.

But I read the scriptures and try to understand Bhaskar

intellectually. I understand that as a jnani, Bhaskar has gone beyond

time itself. Bhaskar has realized what his true nature is. From

Bhaskar's perspective, there never was any change. ajAtivAda. But

also, there was *no sadhana, no sadhaka and no moksha*. That is the

paramartha perspective. Bhaskar never *became* a jnani. He remains

what he always was.

 

But from a vyavahara perspective, which is my perspective, and which

is also any sadhaka's perspective, I see very clearly that Bhaskar was

an ajnani 5 years back and he is a jnani now. In that sense,

realization is an event in time, and in that sense alone, it is also

an "experience".

 

The word "experience" generally connotes something deeper than

"knowledge" or "understanding". Atma-sAxAtkAra is not an experience

*of* something, neither is AtmajnAna knowledge *of* something. Both

words have their limitations, because the Atman is not an object of

experience nor an object of understanding. It is not an object of

anything. Maybe we could use the word "insight" or "realization"

instead. That is immaterial.

 

IMO, arguing whether AtmajnAna involves "experience" or "knowledge" is

unnecessary quibbling. Focusing too much on the word "experience" may

make it seem as if realization is a temporal experience like the

sweetness of a rasgulla. At the same time focusing too much on

"knowledge" may make it seem as if it is purely an intellectual thing

like (say) knowledge of electrical engineering, or knowledge of

accounting policies. AtmajnAna is neither of these.

 

To be frank, Bhaskar-ji, I find some of your mails rather

exasperating. You keep jumping between paramartha & vyavahara. Please

understand that all discussion, all sadhana, all concepts, all

thinking, are in vyavahara only.

 

And most of your arguments against nirvikalpa samadhi also sound like

quibbling. None of us ever said that NS is a pramana. Shyam-ji,

Jaishankar-ji, et al, kindly note. None of us votaries of samadhi ever

said that any samadhi is a pramana. No personal experience is a

pramana. No personal knowledge or understanding is a pramana either.

But Sruti is a pramana (along with pratyaxa, anumana, etc) *because

Sruti is impersonal*.

 

But NS is a sadhana and a very powerful sadhana that has a lot of

importance in our tradition. Many acharya-s have spoken highly of it.

If you say that NS is not absolutely mandatory, I'll accept that

without any reservations. But then there is no particular sadhana that

is absolutely mandatory. However, some kind of sadhana is mandatory.

Even if you are an uttamAdhikarI, you still need sravana. Everyone

else needs a lot more of sadhana & different kinds of sadhana.

 

So let us focus on sadhana. And let us not belittle any sadhana.

 

IMO, a lot of the debate in recent times has happened because of two

reasons:

 

1. People confuse between paramartha & vyavahara

2. People confuse between pramana & sadhana (by loosely using words

such as "means" or "aids")

 

Jaishankar-ji's post on 14th Sep (#33225) and Shyam-ji's post today

(#33510) also betray the 2nd confusion above.

 

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ramesh-ji.

 

That is some common-sense, level-headed thinking. Thank you very

much for the same.

 

If I am permitted to add a corollary to reason # 1 for confusion

mentioned at the end of your post, it would be the following:

 

We confront mithyA, i.e. anityA, and take it for granted that what is

Real is really nityA - the opposite of anityA. The Brahman of

vedanta can never be the opposite of anityA. An opposite needs its

opposite to derive sustenance from. Brahman doesn't need sustenance

from another entity. Then where do we have to look for it? The

simplest answer to that is all anityA is nityA - the Brahman of

vedanta.

 

The defect is in our perception. Saying 'neti, neti' ad nauseum, we

are discarding all that we have here to work with and looking for

something that exist in a non-existent 'beyond'. We are just chasing

a chimera. That is our undoing.

 

It is navarAtri. All that I see is She - the Consciousness of

vedanta. Why do I debate so much when She is right in front of me

and all around? All I need to do is to read and appreciate the 5th

Chapter of Devi Mahatmya in total surrender to Her, for She makes and

is my every moment and movement. She is the nityA in all that I

intellectually term anityA.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________

 

advaitin, "Ramesh Krishnamurthy"

<rkmurthy wrote:

>

>> IMO, a lot of the debate in recent times has happened because of

two

> reasons:

>

> 1. People confuse between paramartha & vyavahara

> 2. People confuse between pramana & sadhana (by loosely using words

> such as "means" or "aids")

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Rameshji,

 

Thanks for adding another fresh viewpoint to the discussions. May I

request you to answer the following question keeping in view your

distinction between Pramana & Sadhana:

 

Here is a popular Vedantic analogy of wave and water. If I am a wave

(jiva) in water (brahman), what sadhana do I have to do to realise

that I am water (brahman)?

 

Awaiting your reply.

 

Om Shanti,

Kathirasan

 

On 9/30/06, Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy > wrote:

> Namaste Bhaskar-ji,

>

> The Atman is self-established. Fine. All of us on this list know that

> intellectually. But is any of us a jnani?

>

> If you are a jnani, please forgive me and please consider accepting me

> as your shishya.

>

> If your are not, please ask yourself the question - what is needed to

> make you a jnani?

>

> Let us leave out the details for the time being. At a broad level, I

> can say that some kind of sAdhanA is required. Please note the word

> *sAdhanA*.

>

> Studying the Upanishads is a sadhana. Karmayoga is a sadhana. Bhakti

> is a sadhana. Nirvikalpa Samadhi is also a sadhana. What sadhana is

> appropriate for you may not be appropriate for me. But I can say that

> some kind of sadhana is needed.

>

> Sadhana is a process that happens in time. It happens in vyavahara.

> The sadhaka also exists in vyavahara, and so does the guru. The whole

> system of Advaita-Vedanta is in vyavahara. Sankara also existed in

> vyavahara. The Upanishads are also in vyavahara.

>

> Suppose a person named Bhaskar is deeply into Vedantic sadhana. For

> the moment, let us not bother about what specific sadhana he

> practises. All we know is that he is trying to realize the truth. I

> visit Bhaskar's house and find him doing some sadhana.

>

> Five years later, I meet Bhaskar again. I find that he is a changed

> person. He has all the laxaNa-s (symptoms?) of a sthitapraj~na. Many

> great sadhu-s & acharya-s come to meet him and learn from him. Bhaskar

> has become a jnani.

>

> Now, from my perspective, I infer that something happened that turned

> Bhaskar into a jnani. He was not a jnani 5 years back when I met him.

> He is a jnani today. Obviously something happened to him in the

> interim. Whether it was an instantaneous jump or a gradual process is

> immaterial. From my perspective (the vyavahara perspective), all I can

> say is that something *happened* to Bhaskar.

>

> What does Bhaskar feel about it? I am an ajnani and have no idea what

> Bhaskar feels or thinks, or even whether he feels or thinks anything.

> But I read the scriptures and try to understand Bhaskar

> intellectually. I understand that as a jnani, Bhaskar has gone beyond

> time itself. Bhaskar has realized what his true nature is. From

> Bhaskar's perspective, there never was any change. ajAtivAda. But

> also, there was *no sadhana, no sadhaka and no moksha*. That is the

> paramartha perspective. Bhaskar never *became* a jnani. He remains

> what he always was.

>

> But from a vyavahara perspective, which is my perspective, and which

> is also any sadhaka's perspective, I see very clearly that Bhaskar was

> an ajnani 5 years back and he is a jnani now. In that sense,

> realization is an event in time, and in that sense alone, it is also

> an "experience".

>

> The word "experience" generally connotes something deeper than

> "knowledge" or "understanding". Atma-sAxAtkAra is not an experience

> *of* something, neither is AtmajnAna knowledge *of* something. Both

> words have their limitations, because the Atman is not an object of

> experience nor an object of understanding. It is not an object of

> anything. Maybe we could use the word "insight" or "realization"

> instead. That is immaterial.

>

> IMO, arguing whether AtmajnAna involves "experience" or "knowledge" is

> unnecessary quibbling. Focusing too much on the word "experience" may

> make it seem as if realization is a temporal experience like the

> sweetness of a rasgulla. At the same time focusing too much on

> "knowledge" may make it seem as if it is purely an intellectual thing

> like (say) knowledge of electrical engineering, or knowledge of

> accounting policies. AtmajnAna is neither of these.

>

> To be frank, Bhaskar-ji, I find some of your mails rather

> exasperating. You keep jumping between paramartha & vyavahara. Please

> understand that all discussion, all sadhana, all concepts, all

> thinking, are in vyavahara only.

>

> And most of your arguments against nirvikalpa samadhi also sound like

> quibbling. None of us ever said that NS is a pramana. Shyam-ji,

> Jaishankar-ji, et al, kindly note. None of us votaries of samadhi ever

> said that any samadhi is a pramana. No personal experience is a

> pramana. No personal knowledge or understanding is a pramana either.

> But Sruti is a pramana (along with pratyaxa, anumana, etc) *because

> Sruti is impersonal*.

>

> But NS is a sadhana and a very powerful sadhana that has a lot of

> importance in our tradition. Many acharya-s have spoken highly of it.

> If you say that NS is not absolutely mandatory, I'll accept that

> without any reservations. But then there is no particular sadhana that

> is absolutely mandatory. However, some kind of sadhana is mandatory.

> Even if you are an uttamAdhikarI, you still need sravana. Everyone

> else needs a lot more of sadhana & different kinds of sadhana.

>

> So let us focus on sadhana. And let us not belittle any sadhana.

>

> IMO, a lot of the debate in recent times has happened because of two

> reasons:

>

> 1. People confuse between paramartha & vyavahara

> 2. People confuse between pramana & sadhana (by loosely using words

> such as "means" or "aids")

>

> Jaishankar-ji's post on 14th Sep (#33225) and Shyam-ji's post today

> (#33510) also betray the 2nd confusion above.

>

> Ramesh

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

praNAm my dear advaitins,

 

 

advaitin, "Ramesh Krishnamurthy"

<rkmurthy wrote:

>

>

> IMO, a lot of the debate in recent times has happened because of

two

> reasons:

>

> 1. People confuse between paramartha & vyavahara

>

 

A small question about above advaitic view points… any explanation

would help in the sAdhana and is much appreciated.

 

Advaita vEdAnta holds that there are two view points viz, vyavahAra

and pAramArtha. The question thats been haunting from long time is

this ;

 

Form who's point of view is this bi-fold classification of

viewpoints? Is it from jnAni's? or ajnAni's? or none of them but

objectively `it is' ?

 

Regrads,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

One's enquiry into Brahman asks: Is Brahman cosmic or acosmic? Is It the cause of the

world, and if so, are both real? Is It endowed with attributes or is It attributeless? The

Upanisads posit Brahman as both: (1) the all-inclusive ground of the universe, and (2) the

reality of which the universe is but an appearance. It is the difference between these two

views that made possible the subsequent divergence between the later Vedantic schools.

To understand, let alone appreciate, any philosophical system, demands that one

comprehend correctly its perspective. It is crucial that one comprehends the distinction

that Advaita makes between the Absolute (paramarthika) and the relative (vyavaharika)

points of view. Actually the Advaitin admits of three levels of reality: the apparently real

{pratibhasika), the empirically real {vyavahdrika), and the Absolutely

real {paramarthika)—but for our purpose here, the first two may be grouped together.

This distinction pervades the entire system and what is true from one point of view is not

so from another. Without being absolutely clear in regard to this distinction, it is likely that

one will accuse the Advaitin of inconsistencies, contradictions, and absurdities.

There are not two types of being nor two truths, but one reality, one truth, as seen from

two different perspectives:

Brahman is known in two forms as qualified by limiting conditions owing to the

distinctions of name and form, and also as the opposite of this, i.e. as what is free from all

limiting conditions whatever...thus many (sruti) texts show Brahman in two forms

according as it is known from the standpoint of vidya or from that of avidya.[brahma-

sutra-bhaysa, 1.1.11.]

This distinction allows Advaita to move freely in both levels with no contradictions.

>From the empirical point of view, Advaita admits of numerous distinctions. Metaphysically,

there is the problem of the One and the many. Individuals are recognised as different from

one another and there exists a seeming plurality of things. Epistemologically, there is the

subject-object dichotomy, as well as the problem of truth and error. Ethically, there is the

problem of bondage and freedom. Yet, from the absolute point of view, there is only

Brahman/ Atman—one and non-dual.[ Chandogya Upanisad 6.2.1. ekam eva advitiyam.]

Either one is involved at the relative level of duality or one realizes the non-dual Brahman

as the truth. The pluralism that is experienced at the empirical level, and with which

philosophical enquiry commences, is not the final truth. Advaita admits all kinds of

distinctions at the empirical level, from an empirical point of view, yet denies them from

an absolute point of view.

Advaita avers that anything which is experienced is real, in some sense or other.[ "Just as

the notion of one's identity with the body is assumed to be valid knowledge exactly so is

this ordinary knowledge—till the Self is truly known."] Therefore, Advaita's epistemology is

realistic and posits that every cognition points to an objective reference—whether veridical

or erroneous. The question becomes: Exactly how real are the things that are experienced

in the empirical world? Advaita replies that the things of the empirical world are real so

long as the empirical order lasts:

The division of real and unreal depends upon knowledge or experience: that is real whose

knowledge does not miscarry; the unreal on the contrary, is the object of a knowledge

which fails or goes astray.

Thus, according to an Advaitin, the real is that which lasts, which suffers no

contradictions, and which is eternal and unsublatable. Things of the world may be said to

be real until they suffer sublation. Thus they are called 'what is other than the real or the

unreal' (sadasad-vilaksana), illusory (mithya) and indescribable (anirvacaniya). Since they

are cognized, they are not unreal (asat). Since they are sublated, they are not real (sat). By

this criterion, Brahman alone is the absolutely real; never being subject to contradiction.

All else can be called 'real' only by courtesy. The distinction between one individual and

another, the existence of a plurality of things, the attribution of attributes to the Absolute

are all concessions to the Truth made from the relative point of view.

Obviously, according to Advaita philosophy, it is from the vyavaharika or relative or

ajnani's point of view that there are two levels - from a jnani's point of view, there is only

Brahman. Philosophy should eventually give rise to experience - "words turn back . . .

vedah becomes avedah . . ." Yet, isn't it interesting that the Upanisads are willing to accept

either position?! I don't believe Advaita philosophy is - but that pertains to one's sadhana.

Isn't it the case that any classification must necessarily arise from an ajnana position?

One can talk; one need not talk; or one can talk otherwise - such are the rules governing

talk. How eloquent is Dakshinamurti's silence!

John

 

 

advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p wrote:

>

>

> praNAm my dear advaitins,

>

>

> advaitin, "Ramesh Krishnamurthy"

> <rkmurthy@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > IMO, a lot of the debate in recent times has happened because of

> two

> > reasons:

> >

> > 1. People confuse between paramartha & vyavahara

> >

>

> A small question about above advaitic view points… any explanation

> would help in the sAdhana and is much appreciated.

>

> Advaita vEdAnta holds that there are two view points viz, vyavahAra

> and pAramArtha. The question thats been haunting from long time is

> this ;

>

> Form who's point of view is this bi-fold classification of

> viewpoints? Is it from jnAni's? or ajnAni's? or none of them but

> objectively `it is' ?

>

> Regrads,

> Srinivas.

>

[Guest guest]

My dear Fair9992002 John,

 

Your post 33561 is absolutely fantastic. I haven't seen anyone in

recent times dealing with vyAvahArikA and paramArtikA so well. Your

post so brilliantly concluding on ShrI DakSiNAmUrti has indeed

edified us.

 

You said it all in your following statement:

 

">Things of the world may be said to

> be real until they suffer sublation. Thus they are called 'what is

other than the real or the

> unreal' (sadasad-vilaksana), illusory (mithya) and indescribable

(anirvacaniya). Since they

> are cognized, they are not unreal (asat). Since they are sublated,

they are not real (sat). By

> this criterion, Brahman alone is the absolutely real; never being

subject to contradiction. "

_____________

 

Now, dear Shri Srinivas Kotekal-ji, you asked:

 

">Form who's point of view is this bi-fold classification of

> > viewpoints? Is it from jnAni's? or ajnAni's? or none of them but

> > objectively `it is' ?"

 

My simple answer would be this:

 

A jnAni has no viewpoint. So, kindly leave him in his 'aloneness'.

As for ajnAni's viewpoint, well, why are you asking us advaitins?

You could answer that yourself!

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Johnji,

 

Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us. We met and spoke briefly

almost a decade ago when you were teaching in the NUS (Singapore). I

have benefitted much from your books, esp. The Seven Great Untenables

and The Dictionary on Indian Philosophy. Next on the table for my

study is your Naishkarmyasiddhi. Pls accept my pranamas.

 

Kathirasan

 

On 10/3/06, fair9992002 <fair9992002 > wrote:

> One's enquiry into Brahman asks: Is Brahman cosmic or acosmic? Is It the cause of the

> world, and if so, are both real? Is It endowed with attributes or is It attributeless? The

> Upanisads posit Brahman as both: (1) the all-inclusive ground of the universe, and (2) the

> reality of which the universe is but an appearance. It is the difference between these two

> views that made possible the subsequent divergence between the later Vedantic schools.

> To understand, let alone appreciate, any philosophical system, demands that one

> comprehend correctly its perspective. It is crucial that one comprehends the distinction

> that Advaita makes between the Absolute (paramarthika) and the relative (vyavaharika)

> points of view. Actually the Advaitin admits of three levels of reality: the apparently real

> {pratibhasika), the empirically real {vyavahdrika), and the Absolutely

> real {paramarthika)—but for our purpose here, the first two may be grouped together.

> This distinction pervades the entire system and what is true from one point of view is not

> so from another. Without being absolutely clear in regard to this distinction, it is likely that

> one will accuse the Advaitin of inconsistencies, contradictions, and absurdities.

> There are not two types of being nor two truths, but one reality, one truth, as seen from

> two different perspectives:

> Brahman is known in two forms as qualified by limiting conditions owing to the

> distinctions of name and form, and also as the opposite of this, i.e. as what is free from all

> limiting conditions whatever...thus many (sruti) texts show Brahman in two forms

> according as it is known from the standpoint of vidya or from that of avidya.[brahma-

> sutra-bhaysa, 1.1.11.]

> This distinction allows Advaita to move freely in both levels with no contradictions.

> From the empirical point of view, Advaita admits of numerous distinctions.. Metaphysically,

> there is the problem of the One and the many. Individuals are recognised as different from

> one another and there exists a seeming plurality of things. Epistemologically, there is the

> subject-object dichotomy, as well as the problem of truth and error. Ethically, there is the

> problem of bondage and freedom. Yet, from the absolute point of view, there is only

> Brahman/ Atman—one and non-dual.[ Chandogya Upanisad 6.2.1. ekam eva advitiyam.]

> Either one is involved at the relative level of duality or one realizes the non-dual Brahman

> as the truth. The pluralism that is experienced at the empirical level, and with which

> philosophical enquiry commences, is not the final truth. Advaita admits all kinds of

> distinctions at the empirical level, from an empirical point of view, yet denies them from

> an absolute point of view.

> Advaita avers that anything which is experienced is real, in some sense or other.[ "Just as

> the notion of one's identity with the body is assumed to be valid knowledge exactly so is

> this ordinary knowledge—till the Self is truly known."] Therefore, Advaita's epistemology is

> realistic and posits that every cognition points to an objective reference—whether veridical

> or erroneous. The question becomes: Exactly how real are the things that are experienced

> in the empirical world? Advaita replies that the things of the empirical world are real so

> long as the empirical order lasts:

> The division of real and unreal depends upon knowledge or experience: that is real whose

> knowledge does not miscarry; the unreal on the contrary, is the object of a knowledge

> which fails or goes astray.

> Thus, according to an Advaitin, the real is that which lasts, which suffers no

> contradictions, and which is eternal and unsublatable. Things of the world may be said to

> be real until they suffer sublation. Thus they are called 'what is other than the real or the

> unreal' (sadasad-vilaksana), illusory (mithya) and indescribable (anirvacaniya). Since they

> are cognized, they are not unreal (asat). Since they are sublated, they are not real (sat). By

> this criterion, Brahman alone is the absolutely real; never being subject to contradiction.

> All else can be called 'real' only by courtesy. The distinction between one individual and

> another, the existence of a plurality of things, the attribution of attributes to the Absolute

> are all concessions to the Truth made from the relative point of view.

> Obviously, according to Advaita philosophy, it is from the vyavaharika or relative or

> ajnani's point of view that there are two levels - from a jnani's point of view, there is only

> Brahman. Philosophy should eventually give rise to experience - "words turn back . . .

> vedah becomes avedah . . ." Yet, isn't it interesting that the Upanisads are willing to accept

> either position?! I don't believe Advaita philosophy is - but that pertains to one's sadhana.

> Isn't it the case that any classification must necessarily arise from an ajnana position?

> One can talk; one need not talk; or one can talk otherwise - such are the rules governing

> talk. How eloquent is Dakshinamurti's silence!

> John

>

>

> advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p wrote:

> >

> >

> > praNAm my dear advaitins,

> >

> >

> > advaitin, "Ramesh Krishnamurthy"

> > <rkmurthy@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > IMO, a lot of the debate in recent times has happened because of

> > two

> > > reasons:

> > >

> > > 1. People confuse between paramartha & vyavahara

> > >

> >

> > A small question about above advaitic view points… any explanation

> > would help in the sAdhana and is much appreciated.

> >

> > Advaita vEdAnta holds that there are two view points viz, vyavahAra

> > and pAramArtha. The question thats been haunting from long time is

> > this ;

> >

> > Form who's point of view is this bi-fold classification of

> > viewpoints? Is it from jnAni's? or ajnAni's? or none of them but

> > objectively `it is' ?

> >

> > Regrads,

> > Srinivas.

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Rameshji,

 

I was reading your reply to Bhaskarji about vyavahara, etc... and

found it quite informing.

 

I agree that there is some kind of process or path that takes place

over a course of time at the beggining of which a person is ignorant

and at the end of which, the person is no longer ignorant. This is as

you, say, from the relative point of view only. I agree that arguments

invoking the absolute point of view to show that no such thing is

needed is not appropriate.

 

However, I think we have to understand the implications of the Self

being self-established on the nature of our sadhana. The self being

self-established means that it is something already present but that

is not understood correctly. So everyone knows there is a Self but

misunderstands its real nature. We all know this to death of course.

The fact that the Self is already present means that what is needed is

to get rid of the misunderstanding.

 

This is done simply through understanding the meaning of "tat tvam

asi." In this case, there are two aspects to this understanding. First

one understands that tvam is a principle that is other than the body

and mind and then one understands that that this principle is not in

fact something co-existing with the body and mind (like Samkhya) but

is that "tat," all that exists. So the process involves understanding

that the Self is not the body or mind and understanding that this

Self, which is not the body or mind, is all that exists.

 

In this process, first we have to understand the Self in relationship

with non-self and then understand it in its own nature. So with

respect to the known, the Self is called the Knower, with respect to

the witnessed objects, it is the Witness, with respect to effects, it

is the cause, etc... In all these cases, the scriptures advance a

provisional view so we can understand the Self in relation to the

world or to experience and after that show that in fact this same

Principle is non-dual so it is in reality not the Witness, the Knower,

or the Cause, etc... These are all words that narrow down what the

Self can be by excluding effects, witnessed objects, etc... But after

that, what is left is not left in relation to other objects but has to

be explicated as being the non-dual reality.

 

This process of first explaining the Self provisionally by relating it

to experience in a specific way and then negating this to show the

Self in its own nature is a process that I cannot possible imagine

being done without words. How do you advance a provisional view

without words?

 

Here I think the big difference between sravanam, etc... and samadhi.

Sravanam, etc... are a process based on words. Because they are based

on words, they can reveal what is self-established. But nirvikalpa

samadhi, etc... have nothing to do with words - in fact in nirvikalpa

samadhi is the state where there are no vrittis at all. Thus it cannot

help in showing the Self in the same way as sravanam, etc...

 

One might say that it is still useful for self-purification. It is

possible, but the scriptures clearly don't talk about attaining

nirvikalpa samadhi for self-purification. Neither does Shankara. I

think all authorities on this subject agree that karma yoga and

upasana are what is needed for self-purification. Further, karma yoga

and upasana are much easier to practice succesfully than something

like nirvikalpa samadhi which even great Yogis with enormous powers of

concentration struggle to attain after many years of practice. Thus it

seems to me like nirvikalpa samadhi and so on have no useful role in

Vedanta and would be primarily time mispent.

 

Also, keep in mind that Nirvikalpa samadhi is a state where there is

no vrittis. This cannot help purification becuase purification means

we get rid of bad vrittis and put good vrittis in their place. When

abiding in nirvikalpa samadhi there are not vritits at all so no

purification can be taking place.

 

Please correct my mistakes and in particular, I would be quite

thrilled if you could explain why exactly samadhi is useful,

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Madathil wrote:

My dear Fair9992002 John,

 

Your post 33561 is absolutely fantastic. I haven't seen anyone in

recent times dealing with vyAvahArikA and paramArtikA so well. Your

post so brilliantly concluding on ShrI DakSiNAmUrti has indeed

edified us.

 

||||||||||||||

 

Namaste Madathilji,

An author is entitled to quote without quotes.

You will find that passage in his book 'The

Seven Great Untenables' (John Grimes) publ.

Motilal Banarsidass(1990). I doubt if it is available

in the sandy place where you reside due to

difficulties about alternative views.

Regards,

Michael

[Guest guest]

Namaste John,

In reference to your post #33561:

 

There are a great many people who would dispute

the distinction between the apparently real and the empirically

real. It is this distinction which is the major point of

discussion between the Advaitin and the Vijnanavadin in

B.S.B. II.ii.28.

 

The belief that there is nothing to distinguish them is one that

beginners to the study of Eastern thought find most seductive.

After all to be told that there is no difference between what

is supposed to be esoteric and the deliverances of common

sense is deflating to say the least. It is no wonder then that

the take up of Sunyavada and 32 kinds of emptiness is greater.

 

You reject the notion that Advaita is a form of Subjective

Idealism. To quote you /'The Seven Great Untenables'

"Individual ignorance and cosmic ignorance arise

together and one cannot be thought of without

the other. The advaitin is neither an out and out

Materialist nor a Subjective Idealist. The individual

is there and the world is there and both are facts

of experience." (pg.67)

 

There are many sorts of Realism. Some would hold

that our knowledge of the external world is mediated

by sense-data so that when we know, we know merely

indirectly. Direct Realism opposes this. There is no need

to give you chapter and verse but my general question

would be: do these categories have any application

to the epistemology of Advaita and what do we know

when we know?

 

You write:

"Therefore, Advaita's epistemology is realistic and posits

that every cognition points to an objective

reference—whether veridical or erroneous. " (pg.10 op.cit.)

 

The objective reference which you refer to, how

does that work in the case of the outright hallucination

or even the after-image?

 

Best Regards,

Michael

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michael,

Ontologically speaking, for an Advaitin both the apparently real (dreams/hallucinations/

etc) and the empirically real are both ultimately maya/avidya - not really real, for both will

eventually be sublated. But the Advaitin DOES make a distinction between them in

philosophical discussions as it notes that one is subjective and personal and the other is

objective and universal, relatively speaking. Thus, one should be clear as to what a

particular topic is discussing.

Advaita's final position (siddhanta) is that it is neither Realism, Subjective Idealism, or

any other ism. There is ultimately neither a subject who knows, objects to be known, or

the process thereto. If there were a second, then an ism could occur - but Advaita's final

word denies these three. Obviously, at the level of philosophy, many things can be said -

even if such discussions are not Advaita's true aim.

Epistemology necessarily entails means of knowledge (pramana), objects to be

discussed (prameya) and truth and falsity (prama). Advaita philosophers are willilng to

enter into such discussions but one should never forget that they do so only to clarify, the

main function of a dialectics is to both define, distinguish, and clarify one's own

philosophical position such that it will enable one to reach the goal of life, i.e. moksa.

It is often said that Advaita's epistemology is realistic (vyavaharika level) and that its

metaphysics is Idealistic. One of my professors used to say that one could even make the

claim that it is only the Advaitins who are true Realists - Absolute Realism - in that their

doctrine speaks of that which is really real!!! An interesting concept isn't it?

Again, my personal opinion is that all the "fights" between different philosophical

systems should not be antagonistic and "I am right and you are wrong". Don't all the

systems make an attempt to help individuals clarify and go deeper into their particuar

definition of what constitutes the Ultimate? Any ladder's job is to get one to the rooftop.

Any boat's job is to get one across the river. Whatever the analogy, words are nice and

helpful, but map never constitutes territory.

John

>

> Namaste John,

> In reference to your post #33561:

>

> There are a great many people who would dispute

> the distinction between the apparently real and the empirically

> real. It is this distinction which is the major point of

> discussion between the Advaitin and the Vijnanavadin in

> B.S.B. II.ii.28.

>

> The belief that there is nothing to distinguish them is one that

> beginners to the study of Eastern thought find most seductive.

> After all to be told that there is no difference between what

> is supposed to be esoteric and the deliverances of common

> sense is deflating to say the least. It is no wonder then that

> the take up of Sunyavada and 32 kinds of emptiness is greater.

>

> You reject the notion that Advaita is a form of Subjective

> Idealism. To quote you /'The Seven Great Untenables'

> "Individual ignorance and cosmic ignorance arise

> together and one cannot be thought of without

> the other. The advaitin is neither an out and out

> Materialist nor a Subjective Idealist. The individual

> is there and the world is there and both are facts

> of experience." (pg.67)

>

> There are many sorts of Realism. Some would hold

> that our knowledge of the external world is mediated

> by sense-data so that when we know, we know merely

> indirectly. Direct Realism opposes this. There is no need

> to give you chapter and verse but my general question

> would be: do these categories have any application

> to the epistemology of Advaita and what do we know

> when we know?

>

> You write:

> "Therefore, Advaita's epistemology is realistic and posits

> that every cognition points to an objective

> referenceâ€"whether veridical or erroneous. " (pg.10 op.cit.)

>

> The objective reference which you refer to, how

> does that work in the case of the outright hallucination

> or even the after-image?

>

> Best Regards,

> Michael

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Michaelji,

 

It is indeed very reassuring to see that you are around guarding

over us advaitins as a heavenly angel.

 

I should have known better and seen through Shri Grime's disguise.

This is not to claim that I have read his works. I haven't and I

now have to having seen the clarity of his thoughts. Now that we

have realized the truth of the real persona beheind the

superimposition "Fair9992002", here is a request to Shri Grimes.

 

Veena Nairji here had recently quoted Naishkarmyasiddhi 1.52 to seek

a clarification on chittashuddhi. From a reading of different

vedantic texts, I had gathered that chittashuddhi is penultimate or

even simultaneous to Realization. The Naishkarmyasiddhi verse

referred to above places it much down the ladder. As the translator

of that monumental Sureshwaracharya classic, could Shri Grimes

kindly enlighten us on the right connotation for chittashuddhi with

reference to Naishmarmyasiddhi as well as other vedantic texts?

 

PraNAms to all.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________________

 

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

> An author is entitled to quote without quotes.

> You will find that passage in his book 'The

> Seven Great Untenables' (John Grimes) publ.

> Motilal Banarsidass(1990). I doubt if it is available

> in the sandy place where you reside due to

> difficulties about alternative views.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "risrajlam" <rishi.lamichhane

wrote:

>

> Dear Rameshji,

>

> I was reading your reply to Bhaskarji about vyavahara, etc... and

> found it quite informing.

>

> I agree that there is some kind of process or path that takes

place

> over a course of time at the beggining of which a person is

ignorant

> and at the end of which, the person is no longer ignorant. This is

as

> you, say, from the relative point of view only. I agree that

arguments

> invoking the absolute point of view to show that no such thing is

> needed is not appropriate.

> This process of first explaining the Self provisionally by

relating it

> to experience in a specific way and then negating this to show the

> Self in its own nature is a process that I cannot possible imagine

> being done without words. How do you advance a provisional view

> without words?

>

> Here I think the big difference between sravanam, etc... and

samadhi. Sravanam, etc... are a process based on words. Because

they are based on words, they can reveal what is self-established.

But nirvikalpa samadhi, etc... have nothing to do with words - in

fact in nirvikalpa samadhi is the state where there are no vrittis

at all. Thus it cannot help in showing the Self in the same way as

sravanam, etc...

 

SrIgurubhyo namaH

 

Namaste Rishi ji,

 

Welcome back after a long silence. While many other points you have

made in this post have been covered already in a very lengthy, fiery

discussion, this one aspect i think has not been touched upon. That

is regarding the use of 'words' that you have spoken of above. In

the following, you can see that sadhana 'without words' as well

as 'with words' is perfectly possible, successfully leading to the

Direct Realization of the Atman:

 

In the 13th chapter of the Bhagavadgita, there occurs the following

verse:

 

DhyAnena Atmani pashyanti kechid AtmAnam AtmanA |

Anye sAnkhyena yogena, karma yogena cha apare || 24||

 

 

The Commentary of our Acharya Shanakara is:

 

// Now, there are several paths to Self-knowledge, and they are

mentioned here as follows. By meditation some behold the Self in the

self by the self, others by Sankhya yoga, and others by Karma

yoga. //

 

(no use of 'words'):

 

//Meditation (dhyana) consists in withdrawing by concentration (of

the) hearing and other senses into the manas away from sound and

other sense-objects, then withdrawing manas into the inner

inteligence, and then contemplating that inner intelligence. Hence

the comparison, `the crane meditates as it were; the earth meditates

as it were… the mountains meditate as it were (chandogya Upanishad

7.6.1). Dhyana is a contiuous and unbroken thought like a line of

flowing oil. By meditation the Yogins behold the Self…. by the

antahkarana refined by dhyana. (These yogins, who are of the highest

class of aspirants – uttamaadhikaris – behold the Self, by

meditation, to be identical with the Paramatman - Anandagiri's gloss

on the bhashya).//

 

(use of 'words'):

 

//Sankhya consists in thinking thus: `these sattva, rajas and tamas,

are gunas, Atman is the witness of their acts, eternal, and distinct

from the gunas'. (Sankhya is knowledge got through intellectual

investigation (vichara). As leading to Yoga, it is spoken of as

Yoga itself. These are the aspirants of the middling class,

madhyamaadhikaris - Anandagiri). By sankhya yoga some behold the

Self in the self by the self.

 

Karma yoga, ie., that karma or action which is performed in the

service of the Lord. Such a course of

action is yoga, only by a figure of speech, inasmuch as it leads to

yoga. Some behold the Self by this Yoga of action, which, causing

purity of the mind, sattva, gives rise to knowledge.

 

In the next verse we have:

Anye tu evam ajaanantaH shrutvaa anyebhyaH upaasate

Te'pi cha atitarantyeva mrutyum shrutiparaayanaaH

 

Yet others, not knowing thus, worship, having heard from others;

they, too, cross beyond death, adhering to what they heard.

 

The commentary:

 

But there are yet others, who, not able to know the Self described

above by any one of the several methods already pointed out, learn

from others, from acharyas or teachers who tell them, `Do thou thus

meditate upon this'; they then engage in worship, ie. They

contemplate the idea in full faith. Even they cross beyond death,

beyond samsara ….//

 

The above is just to point out the two 'types'. This is not to

start another discussion on the topic. Kindly read through the

various posts that appeared on this and related threads to get

information on the several references where samadhi (adhyAtma Yoga)

is spoken of in the Prasthana traya and their Bhashyas, implicitly

and explicitly. If you are inclined to see the Panchadashi, you may

read the Chapter IX 'Dhyana Deepa prakaraNam' consisting of 158

verses. This chapter, in English, is available in the Advaitin

Library and Sankaracharya.org. In case you are versed in Sanskrit,

you can read this chapter with enhanced understanding along with a

commentary by Sri Ramakrishna Pandita, now available in new print.

 

Warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

Namaste Rishi-ji,

 

Sorry for not being able to reply to you earlier. I hope Subbu-ji's

post gave you some answers.

 

We have had a lot of discussion on samadhi in recent times. At the

moment, I strongly feel that I need to do more svAdhyAya and graduate

to a higher level of understanding of this topic before posting

anything more.

 

So I will just put in a few summary points.

 

To the best of my understanding, all samadhi practices can be

considered a constituent of manana-nididhyasana. Sri Sundar Rajan has

also mentioned this in his earlier posts.

 

Sravanam can probably be understood as a "passive sadhana". It is

something that may just happen without any initiative at all on the

part of the sadhaka. In that sense, one can debate whether it is a

sadhana at all but let us leave that for the time being. You are

walking on the road and somebody shouts "tat tvam asi" from a nearby

rooftop. If you are an uttamAdhikarI, you should get liberated

instantly. This may sound comical but I am only trying to illustrate

the operation of a pramana. Sravanam is the mechanism through which

the Sruti pramana operates.

 

If you are not an uttamAdhikarI, then you need sadhana depending on

where you are. This is where the whole of yoga-shaastra comes in:

 

All this is explained very nicely by Sw. Dayananda Saraswati in his article:

http://www.avgsatsang.org/hhpsds/pdf/Samadhi_Two.pdf

 

In page 6 of the article, Swamiji explains the relevance of the

yoga-shaastra and also teaches "shabda anuvidha savikalpa samadhi".

You can clearly see how well it fits in with manana-nididhyasana.

 

Specific to nirvikalpa samadhi, let me mention again that this term

itself is specific to Advaita Vedanta. But I dont have anything much

to say about this except that Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha Swami of

Sringeri has vouched for its usefulness.

 

You wrote:

------

Further, karma yoga

> and upasana are much easier to practice succesfully than something

> like nirvikalpa samadhi which even great Yogis with enormous powers of

> concentration struggle to attain after many years of practice.

------

 

Can you practise manana-nididhyasana without '"great powers of

concentration"? Can there be atmavichara without great powers of

concentration?

 

One thing I can say very clearly about samadhi is that it is not

karmayoga. Therefore, its main objective is not citta shuddhi (though

it might help there also). Samadhi is a sadhana that is traditionally

practised after sannyasa.

 

dhanyosmi

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

Thank you Ramesh-ji for your eloquent and well organized thoughts. You

are right that Samadhi is easier after sannayas. However, Sri Ramana

often pointed out that one's station in life does not bar anyone from

self-inquiry and Jnana. In fact, as well known to you, some of our

greatest sages and rishis were house holders.

An intense desire to know the Truth (mumukshtva) such as demonstrated by

Nachiketa (in Katha Upanishad) is the main pre-requisite.

 

Upanishads tell us that he who longs for the Self--by him alone is the Self attained and to him does

the Self reveal His true being.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

Ramesh Krishnamurthy wrote:

>

> Samadhi is a sadhana that is traditionally

> practised after sannyasa.

>

> dhanyosmi

> Ramesh

>

>