Atman experience, liberation in time, etc

[Guest guest]

John wrote:

 

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 willing 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 wrongâ€. Don’t all the systems make an attempt to help

 

individuals clarify and go deeper into their particular 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,

You've made your position very clear, thank you.

Still the dilemma remains that if we clarify a position according

to our own lights then differences will emerge. That may not be a

bad thing, as the poet said - "good fences make good neighbours".

Shankara after all was not afraid to advert to the incoherence of

even orthodox teachings.

 

There has been a discussion here of late on the difference

between the direct intuition of the unity of being as

an experience and that intuition in the form of intellectual insight.

To alter a saying; there was more light than heat.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael

[Guest guest]

In rereading some of the previous emails on this topic, which took place before I joined

the group, I notice that people were discussing whether enlightenment takes place "in

time" and is an "experience" or not. To add to this discussion, old Advaita philosophers

took both positions. Those of the Vivarana school or what we could call the "all or nothing"

or "sudden" school would say that moksa is NOT an experience and does NOT take place

in time. Those who say that "nothing ever happens, there are neither enlightened or

unenglightened individuals, there is no teacher, no taught, no teachings, belong to this

school. They would give an analogy, "One is either pregnant or not"; one is either in Rome

or not - there are no half pregnant ladies. As some have noted, this is the position of

speaking from an enlightened position.

There is another school of Advaita, the Bhamati, or gradual school, which speaks from the

point of view of a sadhaka, or unenlightened person. They say that it makes sense to

speak of being part way to Rome and they will delineate what the scenery will look like.

There are good analogies put forth by both schools of thought. There is a certain sense in

both positions. Knowing that these two positions exist and that both have their uses, no

one should be confused or call the other person inconsistent. If one reads how great gurus

teach, one can note that sometimes a guru speaks from the Vivarana position and at other

times the guru speaks from the Bhamati position. As an example, I have heard gurus say

when one of their disciples "makes a mistake, falls in the mud" that they are not the body

nor the mind, that they are the immortal Atman, pure and stainless" - so get up, dust

yourself off and know that you are pure and clean and go forward like a lion. At other

times, the guru encourages the disciple to meditate, do the sadhana, and progress. In the

beginning Love; in the end Love; in the middle - do the sadhana.

Advaita is Advaita - but it seems reasonable to acknowledge that there are many teaching

techniques and that Advaita is not a house divided against itself.

John

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar-ji,

 

Humble praNAms Sri Ramesh Krishnamurthy prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

RK prabhuji:

 

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

intellectually. But is any of us a jnani?

 

bhaskar :

 

I dont know anything about others prabhuji...but if you ask me..my answer

is yes/no...yes coz. I have the firm conviction in shruti/bhagavadpAda's

declaration that ahaM brahmAsmi/tattvamasi etc. And *NO* coz. still I am

talking about *others* & expressing my ignorance about them :-)) by the

way prabhuji, who is jnAni according to you??

 

RK prabhuji:

 

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

your shishya.

 

bhaskar :

 

but prabhuji you know for the jnAni there is no distinction between guru &

shishya...these are all vyavahAra yOgya dialogues :-))

 

RK prabhuji:

 

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

you a jnani?

 

bhaskar :

 

what is needed has already been prescribed by bhagavadpAda himself...why

should I scratch my head prabhuji?? shravaNa, manana, nididhyAsana...see

bruhadAraNyaka shruti shrOtavyO mantavyO nidhidhyAsitavyaH..what is needed

is already abundantly available in shankara siddhAnta, no need to add any

alien theory to self sufficient siddhAnta.

 

RK prabhuji:

 

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*.

 

bhaskar :

 

yes noted...but this sAdhanA is to remove our ajnAna about our true svarUpa

& NOT to get *fresh* connection with brahman in an exalted state like

NS...Hope you have studied shankara's gIta bhAshya in this context.

 

RK prabhuji:

 

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

sadhana. Nirvikalpa Samadhi is also a sadhana.

 

bhaskar :

 

Oh I see, this is news to me...if you see the earlier mails it's been clear

that NS is the end result wherein you establish yourself in brahman from 6

AM to 7.30AM after doing the 7 fold sAdhana. And again shankara nowhere in

the prasthAna traya bhAshya mentioned that experience of NS is also a part

of internal sAdhana. Even in PYS, I dont think NS/asaMprajnAtha samAdhi is

categorized as mere sAdhana & it is an end in itself...Anyway, you are

welcome to have your own opinion on it.

 

RK prabhuji:

 

What sadhana is appropriate for you may not be appropriate for me. But I

can say that some kind of sadhana is needed.

 

bhaskar :

 

Nobody denying the efficacy of sAdhana here...sAdhana is for what?? whether

it is for gaining some fresh & altogether new experience in some peculiar

state or realizing the ever existing truth??

 

RK prabhuji:

 

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.

 

bhaskar :

 

shankara also says same in adhyAsa bhAshya...hence I have no issue with

it...so you are agreeing that *the experience* in NS is also in vyavahAra &

this is time bound *vyAvahArik jnAna* cannot be equated with that of

kAlAtIta, dEshAtIta, self established brahmajnAna.

 

RK prabhuji :

 

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.

 

bhaskar :

 

what are you going to decide about the status of this jnAni bhAskar if all

of a sudden all great Acharya-s stopped visiting him & if this jnAni

bhAskar behaving like a normal ajnAni human being after 5 years:-)) you are

back to square one!! is it not?? you have to keep on changing your

labeling based on your expectation from that jnAni is it not??

 

RK prabhuji:

 

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

unnecessary quibbling.

 

bhaskar :

 

but this quibbling is the punch-point in the tattu samanvayAt sUtra

bhAshya...why shankara has taken all the pains to educate us what is

purusha tantra dhyAna & what is vastu tantra jnAna....this quibbling is an

absolute necessary if we want to understand shankara way of teaching...

 

RK prabhuji:

 

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

 

bhaskar :

 

May be...but I dont care, we are here to follow shankara bhagavadpAda

AchAryOpadEsha...if asking someone to stick to shankara is irritating I

cannot help it...

 

RK prabhuji:

 

You keep jumping between paramartha & vyavahara. Please understand that all

discussion, all sadhana, all concepts, all thinking, are in vyavahara only.

 

bhaskar :

 

If *all* thinking, all concepts etc. etc. are in vyAvahAra where is the

question of paramArtha prabhuji?? Atleast when it comes to the explanation

of paramArtha dont you think we need AchAryOpadEsha??

 

I shall stop here....

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

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.

 

praNAms Sri John prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks a lot for your beautiful explanation of transactional &

transcedental view points...

 

In the above para, your last observation is really the punch-line which

tells it all that Atma jnAna is not a state specific knowledge...yes after

the dawn of knowledge both prAtibhAsika & vyAvahArika satya will get

sublated & jnAni realizes that he is ever established in pAramArtika

satya....This intuitive realization does not make our mind blank &

annihilates the external world....prapaNchOpashamanaM should be understood

in that sense...vyAvahAra will get *sublated* (*bhAdita*/avagati jnAna is

the sanskrit word shankara uses in bhAshya). While commenting on tattu

samanvayAt sUtra bhAshya shankara makes an interesting comment, he says

*AtmAnAtmavivEkinAmapi paNditAnAM ajAvipAlAnAmiva Avivaktau shabdapratyayaU

bhavataH*...(a rough translation....like ordinary shepherds, for the jnAni

too, during vyavahAra, there is *same* experience of sound vibrations in

his internal organs)...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

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. //

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

This is the problem with literal interpretation of selective statements of

shankara out of context..if karma is also one of the *several paths* to

self knowledge, why shruti itself elsewhere says *na karmaNa, naprajaya,

dhanEna tyAgEnaike amrutatvamAnashuH*?? (taittirIya mahAnArayaNa /

KaivalyOpanishat) why shankara vehemently argued against pUrvamImAmsaka-s

karma siddhAnta?? why in gIta bhAshya itself shankara refutes the theory

of karma-jnAna samucchaya vAdins?? why krishna declared in gIta itself

*nahi jnAnEna sadrushaM*?? It should be understood that for *chitta

shuddhi* these are various subsidiary paths meant for people of different

capabilities (adhikAra tAratamya). But this is NOT a *direct means* to

self realization but this is meant in order to prepare them for the

Self-knowledge as taught in Sruti.As far as karmayOga goes,this pAth

includes the performance of actions dictated by Sruti (vEda vihita karma),

with detachment and as an offering to bhagavAn (Ishwara praNidAna), so that

is also not a direct path to self realization & efficacious in mental

purification & can be considered as *sahakAri sAdhana* (subsidiary

practice).

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin, bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> 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. //

>

> praNAms

> Hare Krishna

>

> This is the problem with literal interpretation of selective

statements of

> shankara out of context..if karma is also one of the *several

paths* to

> self knowledge, why shruti itself elsewhere says *na karmaNa,

naprajaya,

> dhanEna tyAgEnaike amrutatvamAnashuH*?? (taittirIya mahAnArayaNa /

> KaivalyOpanishat) why shankara vehemently argued against

pUrvamImAmsaka-s

> karma siddhAnta?? why in gIta bhAshya itself shankara refutes the

theory

> of karma-jnAna samucchaya vAdins?? why krishna declared in gIta

itself

> *nahi jnAnEna sadrushaM*?? It should be understood that for

*chitta

> shuddhi* these are various subsidiary paths meant for people of

different

> capabilities (adhikAra tAratamya). But this is NOT a *direct

means* to

> self realization but this is meant in order to prepare them for the

> Self-knowledge as taught in Sruti.As far as karmayOga goes,this

pAth

> includes the performance of actions dictated by Sruti (vEda vihita

karma),

> with detachment and as an offering to bhagavAn (Ishwara

praNidAna), so that

> is also not a direct path to self realization & efficacious in

mental

> purification & can be considered as *sahakAri sAdhana* (subsidiary

> practice).

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

Srgurubhyo Namah:

 

Namaste Bhaskar ji:

 

It pains me to see that you have laboured in vain in making the

above observation without seeing the relevant portion of that very

post of mine which you have quoted from. This is the relevant

portion which appears a little below in the Bhashyam itself and in

the same order in my post as well:

 

//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.//

 

Please also note that the purpose of my quoting that verse from the

Gita was not at all to show that karma is a path to liberation. Nor

have i 'literally interpreted' it. That this is a part of the verse

is incidental.

 

In Tamil there is a proverb: 'AthirakkAranukku buddhi maTTu'= A

decent translation would be: Haste makes waste. Your penchant to

find fault with others is well known. But make it truly

meaningful. Check out on facts not once, but twice, before

committing your 'thoughts' to posts. And thereby save yourself the

embarrassment.

 

With warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

Pranams

Your points are wonderfully articulated and welltaken.

 

 

For a scholar, Vedantic "philosophy" of course can and

does consist of different schools of thought, with

differences of opinion on things ranging from creation

to enlightenment to means and ends.

 

On the other hand, for a sincere seeker, I would say

Shankara' treatises on the prashtanatraya as well as

the shruti and smrti directly are never in the realm

of a "school of thought".

 

This is primarily thanks to Bhagwan Shankara's display

(in his works) of remarkable internal consistency and

consistent constancy in articulating his positions

about the ideas contained in the principal Upanishads,

and this helps us navigate our understanding in and

through portions of the shruti that seemingly seem to

contradict each other.

 

Nowhere in Bhagwan Shankara's writings does one ever

detect any differences of thought or position or

advice. However a Guru who is traditional in his

approach as well as a shrotriya brahmanishta is an

absolute must for helping a seeker navigate through

this.

 

The central theme of vedanta is the nonduality of

brahman and its attributeless nature. It is that by

which seeing happens but is itself never seen, that by

which hearing takes place but itself can never be

heard, that by which every experience is made

possible, but which itself can never be experienced,

that by which every knowledge is made possible, but

which itself (objectively) can never be known.

This is very very basic fundamental advaita.

 

Hence it is in the Kenopanishad that in reply to his

teacher's statement "If you think: "I know Brahman

well," then surely you know but little of Its form;

you know only Its form as conditioned by man or by the

gods. Therefore Brahman, even now, is worthy of your

inquiry." the student says "He by whom Brahman is not

known, knows It; he by whom It is known, knows It not.

It is not known by those who know It; It is known by

those who do not know It"

 

This sentence is crystalclear. He who knows Brahman as

an object does not know it. He who does not know it as

an object but understands that he the self, the seer,

the witnesser, is brahman "knows it" or "gets it".

 

Hence to entertain notions about "me" experienceing

"brahman" or "me" knowing "brahman" objectively do not

represent "schools" of vedanta, they simply represent

grave misunderstandings of vedanta.

 

One cannot therefore have a timebound "brief" glimpse

of Brahman. One cannot have a timebound brief

"subjective experience" of Brahman either. If at the

end of this trance you say - "I" experienced "brahman"

- then what you experienced was with certitude other

than brahman.

 

Brahman is satyam/ truth, the Jiva is mithya/

nonsubtantive. Mithya can never experience Satyam.

Satyam is only one and cannot "experience" itself. Why

is this so difficult to understand?? A jiva can never

become Brahman, let alone by knowing or experiencing

Brahman. Ignorance about a jiva's true nature can be

removed by means of a pramana and he can realize who

he is.

 

The understanding "aham brahmasmi" is an understanding

about my true nature - "I am". The fact that I am

existence, knowledge and consciousness are derivatives

of this central primary understanding "I am" This

selfrealization verily swallows up the false self -the

jiva - what then to speak of a limited timebound

experience for the jiva.

 

Understanding this "I" clearly for what it ever is

once and for all - this is the goal in Vedanta - not a

limited timebound "experience" of the "I"

 

For a Guru to oscillate between positions(of Vivarna

and bhamati) or to tailor it to each student, will

only confuse the student or group of students.

The Guru should certainly guide the student in his

sadhana and this can and should always be tailormade

to fit the temperaments and growth of the student. The

sadhana should ever be considered an aid, a means, and

the goal of sadhana is not knowledge, but only

preparedness of the mind to acquire knowledge. The

teaching, the goal and the truth should ever be clear

as well as consistent to both the student as well as

to the Guru.

 

Humble pranams

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyo namah

 

Shyam

 

 

 

 

 

--- fair9992002 <fair9992002 > wrote:

 

> In rereading some of the previous emails on this

> topic, which took place before I joined

> the group, I notice that people were discussing

> whether enlightenment takes place "in

> time" and is an "experience" or not. To add to this

> discussion, old Advaita philosophers

> took both positions. Those of the Vivarana school or

> what we could call the "all or nothing"

> or "sudden" school would say that moksa is NOT an

> experience and does NOT take place

> in time. Those who say that "nothing ever happens,

> there are neither enlightened or

> unenglightened individuals, there is no teacher, no

> taught, no teachings, belong to this

> school. They would give an analogy, "One is either

> pregnant or not"; one is either in Rome

> or not - there are no half pregnant ladies. As some

> have noted, this is the position of

> speaking from an enlightened position.

> There is another school of Advaita, the Bhamati, or

> gradual school, which speaks from the

> point of view of a sadhaka, or unenlightened person.

> They say that it makes sense to

> speak of being part way to Rome and they will

> delineate what the scenery will look like.

> There are good analogies put forth by both schools

> of thought. There is a certain sense in

> both positions. Knowing that these two positions

> exist and that both have their uses, no

> one should be confused or call the other person

> inconsistent. If one reads how great gurus

> teach, one can note that sometimes a guru speaks

> from the Vivarana position and at other

> times the guru speaks from the Bhamati position. As

> an example, I have heard gurus say

> when one of their disciples "makes a mistake, falls

> in the mud" that they are not the body

> nor the mind, that they are the immortal Atman, pure

> and stainless" - so get up, dust

> yourself off and know that you are pure and clean

> and go forward like a lion. At other

> times, the guru encourages the disciple to meditate,

> do the sadhana, and progress. In the

> beginning Love; in the end Love; in the middle - do

> the sadhana.

> Advaita is Advaita - but it seems reasonable to

> acknowledge that there are many teaching

> techniques and that Advaita is not a house divided

> against itself.

> John

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shyam-ji,

 

On 06/10/06, Shyam <shyam_md > wrote:

>

> This sentence is crystalclear. He who knows Brahman as

> an object does not know it. He who does not know it as

> an object but understands that he the self, the seer,

> the witnesser, is brahman "knows it" or "gets it".

 

Exactly. He who knows Brahman as an object does not know it.

Similarly, he who experiences Brahman as an object does not experience

it.

 

> Hence to entertain notions about "me" experienceing

> "brahman" or "me" knowing "brahman" objectively do not

> represent "schools" of vedanta, they simply represent

> grave misunderstandings of vedanta.

 

Precisely. When you talk about "knowing" Brahman, you are not talking

about knowing Brahman as an object. Similarly, when we talk about

"experiencing" Brahman we are not talking about experiencing Brahman

as an object.

 

When we use the phrase "knowing Brahman" the sentence construction is

such that Brahman seems to be an object. This is an unavoidable

problem because this is the nature of language itself. Language is

inherently dualistic. The phrase is a concession to vyavahara because

all sadhana is in vyavahara and language is needed to establish a

system for sadhana.

 

Similarly, when we talk of "experiencing Brahman", the sentence

construction is such that Brahman seems to be an object. Again, this

is a problem of language.

 

The word "experience" or "anubhava" is used only to emphasize that

scholarship in Vedanta is not the same as brahmajnana. It is used to

illustrate that Vedanta is not an ideology to be believed in but a

system to enable the sadhaka to realize the truth. It is used to

emphasize that being a shrotriya is not the same as being a

brahmanishtha.

 

> The Guru should certainly guide the student in his

> sadhana and this can and should always be tailormade

> to fit the temperaments and growth of the student. The

> sadhana should ever be considered an aid, a means, and

> the goal of sadhana is not knowledge, but only

> preparedness of the mind to acquire knowledge.

 

That sadhana is meant to prepare the student to acquire knowledge is

quite correct. My only quibble is with the word "only". Preparedness

is no mean thing. The pramana is always there. It is only sadhana that

is in the hands of the student.

 

I have access to the same shaastra pramaana that (say) Sri

Chandrasekhara Bharati Swami or Ramana Maharshi or even Sri Sankara

had. The difference between me and them is only in the level of

preparedness.

 

And therefore even if one talks of a timebound experience (which could

be the mystical rapture of a bhakta or some kind of samadhi), it is

only in the sense of an improvement in the preparedness to acquire

knowledge through a pramana.

 

dhanyosmi

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

I see that there is not much point in continuing this discussion

because our perspectives are totally different. All the points that

you have mentioned are tangential to my arguments.

 

So instead of responding point by point and causing unnecessary

friction, I will just respond to some of the key issues where it is

evident that you have misunderstood what I have been trying to say.

 

On 06/10/06, bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com <bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com> wrote:

 

> yes noted...but this sAdhanA is to remove our ajnAna about our true svarUpa

> & NOT to get *fresh* connection with brahman in an exalted state like

> NS...Hope you have studied shankara's gIta bhAshya in this context.

 

Who talked about a "fresh connection" with Brahman? All sadhana is

only meant to realize the truth as it is.

 

Like all other sadhana-s, NS is also helpful in removing ajnana only.

It is certainly not a fresh connection of any sort.

 

> bhaskar :

>

> Oh I see, this is news to me...if you see the earlier mails it's been clear

> that NS is the end result wherein you establish yourself in brahman from 6

> AM to 7.30AM after doing the 7 fold sAdhana.

 

First of all, NS is a term relevant to Advaita Vedanta. We are not

talking about PY here.

 

Secondly, all these earlier mails that you are talking about are your

own mails.

 

Thirdly, none of us said that NS is the end result. It is only a

sadhana but a very powerful sadhana. And if NS is so irrelevant, why

does Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha say that it is a "wonderful means" for

atmajnana? Please note - I am not saying that NS is absolutely

mandatory. I am only saying that it is a powerful sadhana.

 

> bhaskar :

>

> shankara also says same in adhyAsa bhAshya...hence I have no issue with

> it...so you are agreeing that *the experience* in NS is also in vyavahAra &

> this is time bound *vyAvahArik jnAna* cannot be equated with that of

> kAlAtIta, dEshAtIta, self established brahmajnAna.

 

Aha! So this where the problem is. Actually, nobody is equating NS

with brahmajnana.That is only a strawman you are erecting and then

demolishing. We are only saying that NS is helpful in acquiring

brahmajnana.

 

dhanyosmi

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shyam-ji

>

> Hence to entertain notions about "me" experienceing

> "brahman" or "me" knowing "brahman" objectively do not

> represent "schools" of vedanta, they simply represent

> grave misunderstandings of vedanta.

>

> One cannot therefore have a timebound "brief" glimpse

> of Brahman. One cannot have a timebound brief

> "subjective experience" of Brahman either. If at the

> end of this trance you say - "I" experienced "brahman"

> - then what you experienced was with certitude other

> than brahman.

>

 

As I mentioned before, these discussions are making me take a closer

look at my own understanding..

 

Sankara says in Gita 6.26 commenting on the verse 'yato yato

niscarati' :

 

// evam yogabhyasabhalat yoginah atmanyeva prasamyati manah //

 

// Thus, through the power of practice of Yoga, the mind of the yogi

merges in the Self Itself. //

 

Here the "practice" is the practice of meditation (dhyana) as it is

obvious from the verses preceding it and also by the Gita verse

itself "(The yogi) should bring (this mind) under the subjugation of

the Self Itself, by restraining it from all those causes whatever

due to which the restless, unsteady mind wanders away."

 

I don't know what your reading of Sankara's words would be but to me

it seems very clear that Sankara is clearly talking about a time-

bound practice resulting in "the mind of the yogi merging in the

Self Itself."

 

So, if we apply the logic from your message, Sankara surely must

have a grave misunderstanding of Vedanta :-)

 

In fact, His misunderstanding is even more 'graver' because a couple

of verses later Sankara also says that this same 'practice' also

leads to the Ultimate!.

 

//

"idanim yogasya phalan brahmaikatva darsanam sarvasamsara

vicchedakaranam tat pradarsyate"

 

(6.28) Now is being shown that result of Yoga which is the

realization of identity with Brahman and which is the cause of the

extinction of the whole mundane existence.

//

 

Not only Sankara but Sri Ramana also mentions about a time-bound,

sequenced process:

(advaitin/message/33520)

 

//

one should completely

surrender one's mind, turn it inwards and see `you' the Self

within and then see the Self in `you' in everything.

//

and AGAIN

//

It is only after seeing the Self within that one will be able to see

the Self in everything.

//

 

and AGAIN

//

One must first realise there is nothing but the

Self and that he is that Self , and then only he can see everything

as the form of the Self.

//

 

Sri Ramana repeats this THREE times! The very fact there is a FIRST

and a NEXT step tells me there is a sequence involved and this is a

process in TIME.

 

So does Sri Ramana too have a 'grave misunderstanding of Vedanta'?

 

Finally, let me point to some passages in a book held in very high

esteem by Sri Ramana (Tripura Rahasya). The passage in chapter 17

describes the process for liberation

 

//

I shall now tell you the scheme of liberation.

63. One learns true devotion to God after a meritorious

life continued in several births, and then worships Him for a

long time with intense devotion.

64. Dispassion for the pleasures of life arises in a devotee

who gradually begins to long for knowledge of the truth and

becomes absorbed in the search for it.

65. He then finds his gracious Master and learns from

him all about the transcendental state. He has now gained

theoretical knowledge.

[Note: This is Sravana.]

66. After this he is impelled to revolve the whole matter

in his mind until he is satisfied from his own practical

knowledge with the harmony of the scriptural injunctions

and the teachings of his Master. He is able to ascertain

the highest truth with clearness and certitude.

[Note: This is Manana.]

67. The ascertained knowledge of the Oneness of

the Self must afterwards be brought into practice, even

forcibly if necessary, until the experience of the truth occurs

to him.

[Note: This is Nidhidhyasana.]

68. After experiencing the Inner Self, he will be able

to identify the Self with the Supreme and thus destroy the

root of ignorance. There is no doubt of it.

69. The inner Self is realised in advanced

contemplation and that state of realisation is called

nirvikalpa samadhi.

Memory of that realisation enables one to identify

the Inner Self with the Universal Self (as `I am That').

 

[Commentary: Contemplation is designated in its progressive

stages, as savikalpa samadhi (qualified samadhi) and

nirvikalpa samadhi (unqualified samadhi). Dhyana (contemplation)

leads to the repose consequent on the resolve that

the mind in its absolute purity is only the Self. There are

interruptions by thought obtruding in the earlier stages.

Then the practice goes by the name of Dhyana. When the

repose remains smooth and uninterrupted for some appreciable

time, it is called savikalpa samadhi. If by its constant

practice, the repose ensues without any previous resolve

(i.e., effortlessly) and continues uninterrupted for some

time, it is called nirvikalpa samadhi. The Inner Self glows

in all its purity, in the last stage.

 

After rising from it, the memory of the uncommon

experience of the Self remains; it enables him to identify

the transcendence of the one with that same One which is

in all.] (This is the Sahaja State, as is often said by Sri

Ramana. Translator.)

//

 

Please see how closely the above 'scheme' corresponds to the

sequence indicated by Bhagavan Krishna Himself in verses 25-30 of

the 6th chapter of Gita and Sankara's commentary on it:

 

1. Highest Instruction about yoga:

'atma samstham manah krtva na kincidapi cintayet' (6.25)

Making the mind fixed in the Self, one should not think of ANYTHING

WHATSOEVER.

 

2. Culmination in the practice of yoga = Samadhi:

// evam yogabhyasabhalat yoginah atmanyeva prasamyati manah // 6.26

Thus, through the power of practice of Yoga, the mind of the yogi

merges in the Self Itself.

 

3. Result of the practice of Yoga:

// idanim yogasya phalan brahmaikatva darsanam sarvasamsara

vicchedakaranam tat pradarsyate // 6.28

Now is being shown that result of Yoga which is the realization of

identity with Brahman and which is the cause of the extinction of

the whole mundane existence.

 

4. The fruit of this realization of the unity of the Self:

One who sees Me in everything, and sees all things in Me-I do not

out of his vision, and he also is not lost to My vision. 6.30

 

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

[Guest guest]

I accept where You have placed me,

I don't want to jump the gun,

For You are my ultimate refuge.

Sundar Rajan-ji makes sense,

I will therefore wait for Thee,

Even if it is waiting for Godot.

This waiting is beautiful,

With each call intensely made out to You,

Where the world crashes,

At my feet like Diwali crackers.

Unperturbed I remain,

For that is my nature divine.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin, "Sundar Rajan" <avsundarrajan

wrote:

> I don't know what your reading of Sankara's words would be but to

me

> it seems very clear that Sankara is clearly talking about a time-

> bound practice resulting in "the mind of the yogi merging in the

> Self Itself."

........>

> Not only Sankara but Sri Ramana also mentions about a time-bound,

> sequenced process:

> (advaitin/message/33520)

> ....

> Finally, let me point to some passages in a book held in very high

> esteem by Sri Ramana (Tripura Rahasya). The passage in chapter 17

> describes the process for liberation

>

> //

> I shall now tell you the scheme of liberation.

> 63. One learns true devotion to God after a meritorious

> life continued in several births, and then worships Him for a

> long time with intense devotion.

>...............

[Guest guest]

Thank you Sundar Rajan-ji for sharing your thoughts and knowledge.

Particularly, your knowledge of Sanskrit and your ability to explain the

scriptures and Sri Sankara's commentary in English is much appreciated

by It is much appreciated. I also have to say that what Prof VK has

been offering is a complete treasure house and it makes me see the

parallel between Sri Ramana's teaching and that of the Kanchi

Mahaswamigal's as much as I can ascertain from the discourses on Advaita

Saadhanaa.

 

Namaste to everyone.

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

Sundar Rajan wrote:

>

> As I mentioned before, these discussions are making me take a closer

> look at my own understanding..

>

> Sankara says in Gita 6.26 commenting on the verse 'yato yato

> niscarati' :

>

> // evam yogabhyasabhalat yoginah atmanyeva prasamyati manah //

>

> // Thus, through the power of practice of Yoga, the mind of the yogi

> merges in the Self Itself. //

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

Humble praNAms Sri Ramesh Krishnamurthy prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

my blunt reply to few of your points....

 

RK prabhuji :

 

I see that there is not much point in continuing this discussion because

our perspectives are totally different.

 

bhaskar :

 

But basic premise for these different perspectives is one and the same is

it not?? i.e. shankara vEdAnta.

 

On 06/10/06, bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com <bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com> wrote:

 

> yes noted...but this sAdhanA is to remove our ajnAna about our true

svarUpa

> & NOT to get *fresh* connection with brahman in an exalted state like

> NS...Hope you have studied shankara's gIta bhAshya in this context.

 

RK prabhuji:

 

Who talked about a "fresh connection" with Brahman? All sadhana is only

meant to realize the truth as it is.

 

bhaskar :

 

if an establishment with brahman by oneself is time bound experience, dont

you think it is *fresh* connection to that state??

 

RK prabhuji:

 

Like all other sadhana-s, NS is also helpful in removing ajnana only. It is

certainly not a fresh connection of any sort.

 

bhaskar :

 

The term NS has not been explained as *sAdhana* (practice) in this list but

as an achievement (phala)..it is not pramANa bhUta jnAna here but it has

been described as phalbhUta jnAna...

 

> bhaskar :

>

> Oh I see, this is news to me...if you see the earlier mails it's been

clear

> that NS is the end result wherein you establish yourself in brahman from

6

> AM to 7.30AM after doing the 7 fold sAdhana.

 

RK prabhuji:

 

First of all, NS is a term relevant to Advaita Vedanta. We are not talking

about PY here.

 

bhaskar :

 

PY's highest achievement asaMprajnAtha samAdhi has been called as NS in

vEdAntic circle...if the time bound experience of NS is not PY's

AS/NS...then you will have to educate us the difference between these two.

 

RK prabhuji:

 

Secondly, all these earlier mails that you are talking about are your own

mails.

 

bhaskar :

 

as far as I know, I have ONLY replied to what has been stated & upheld by

other prabhuji's of this list. Anyway, prabhuji, you are welcome to have

your own opinion on my mails :-))

 

RK prabhuji:

 

Thirdly, none of us said that NS is the end result. It is only a sadhana

but a very powerful sadhana.

 

bhaskar :

 

Then I am afraid you have not studied VC fully....according to this text,

the experience (note here it is not sAdhana but *experience*) of NS is a

must to realize your true nature....Hope you know relevant verses in VC

which emphasizes this...

 

> bhaskar :

>

> shankara also says same in adhyAsa bhAshya...hence I have no issue with

> it...so you are agreeing that *the experience* in NS is also in

vyavahAra &

> this is time bound *vyAvahArik jnAna* cannot be equated with that of

> kAlAtIta, dEshAtIta, self established brahmajnAna.

 

RK prabhuji:

 

Aha! So this where the problem is. Actually, nobody is equating NS with

brahmajnana. That is only a strawman you are erecting and then demolishing.

We are only saying that NS is helpful in acquiring brahmajnana.

 

bhaskar :

 

if estalishing oneself with brahman in NS (as claimed by NS advocators) is

not ultimate knowledge, I dont know what else is going to fulfill the

requirement of brahmajnAna...even in vEdAntic terms we say brahma jnAna is

nothing but *tattva pratishTApita*....;Do you mean to say here *the result*

what you've experienced in NS is not brahmajnAna & it is something else

prabhuji?? If yes, what is that??

 

dhanyosmi

Ramesh

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar