Sridakshinamurtistotram (Part IX – i)

[Guest guest]

ShrIgurubhyo namaH

 

Sridakshinamurtistotram

(Part IX – i)

 

sva-pAda-pankeruha-namra-panka-

vinAsha-dakShair-gurubhis-supUjitam |

shankAshma-TankAyita-pAda-pankajam

shrI-shankaraaryam satatam namAmi ||

 

[Ever do I salute ShrI ShankarAcharya whose lotus-like feet are the

axe that cuts the stone of doubt. These very Holy Feet have been

worshipped by the Guru-s who are skilled in eradicating the dirt of

those who devoutly submit themselves to their Lotus Feet. {a verse

from a hymn on Acharya Shankara bhagavatpada composed by Sri

Chandrashekhara Bharati Mahaswami ji of Sringeri.} (Sourced from the

book `Bhakti-sudhaa-varShiNi)]

 

 

Further embellishment of Drishti-srishti-vAda – drishtireva srishtiH

 

 

A more detailed consideration of the above may now be undertaken.

The VedAnta-siddhAnta-muktAvalI (17) says:

 

//If by the view expounded thus far that existence is

contemporaneous with cognition, is meant that existence is merely

cognition, it is acceptable to me as well, as not opposed to mine.

If it is held that there is a difference (between the cognition and

the cognized) pray, declare the proof thereof.//

 

Is the proof, if it exists, perception, inference, Shruti or

presumptive evidence? Of the two, viz., the knowledge and its

object, the `object' is commonly regarded as being revealed by the

knowledge of it. The difference, however, of the object from the

knowledge is not tenable. There is no object which carries with

itself any mark that it is different from the knowledge of it. A

knowledge of the object is not a knowledge of its difference from

the object or vice versa, nor is the difference given as the object

of any special knowledge; even if it were, that special knowledge

will not be evidenced as different from the knowledge of it.

Another knowledge would be required to cognize the difference

between that and its object and so on ad infinitum. Thus perception

is not a proof of this difference.

 

If an inference – such as `All knowledge, qua knowledge is different

from its object, like any one or two accepted cases of such

difference' – is advanced as a proof, it may be asked as to whether

this very inference, as a case of knowledge, is different from its

object. This is to ask whether the `All' contains the very

statement itself. If not, nothing is achieved, as one is confronted

with the same regress. If included, it will be a palpable case of

knowledge being at once its own subject and object, which cannot be

accepted.

 

The Shruti which has its purport in non-difference only, can never

be supposed to teach difference.

 

It might be said that presumption (arthApatti) adduces the evidence

for the difference between the knowledge and the object. The object

changes; and for the perception of change, a stationary

consciousness is indispensable. If, of two things, one changes and

the other is immutable, the things in question are essentially

different: the change of the one and the immutability of the other

are untenable without their being different. This presumption would

be acceptable if it were not concerned with knowledge, for at each

stage it demands an apprehension of the togetherness of the object

with the knowledge of it. Togetherness can only mean objective

toetherness; and since knowledge is not an object, this apprehension

of togetherness is not available; without this the presumption is

inapplicable. Thus the independence of object cannot, with any

plausibility, be upheld.

 

The bhashya on the Mandukyakaarika (IV.67), read with the gloss of

Anandagiri clarifies:

 

// One cannot experience a jar without the cognition of the jar,

nor can one have cognition of a jar without the jar. In the case of

the jar and the cognition of the jar, it is not possible to conceive

the distinction between the instrument of knowledge and the object

of knowledge. If it be asked as to what the proof is in respect of

the jar, the answer cannot be that it is `knowledge' as it is

unwarranted. Nor can the answer be that it is the `knowledge of the

jar' because of the reciprocal dependence involved. Therefore there

is no possibility of the relationship of `the revealed and the

revealer' between the (so-called) jar and cognition thereof.//

 

There being no proof whatsoever in support of the difference between

the cognition and the cognized, this universe, animate and

inanimate, which appeared in consciousness is nothing but

cognition.

 

This puts it in line with the common experience in respect of

illusions. In the case of shell-silver, for example, there is

merely cognition `as silver' although there is no silver, as the

Sutra bhashya IV.i.5 points out. Further, there is experience of

wild imagination of the cognition of objects that are not there.

The Panchadashi (XIII.96, 98) says:

 

//96. Different mental creations are formed every moment, while

those which pass are lost for ever. The objects of the practical

world should be looked upon similarly.

 

98. How do the objects of the practical world, which are destroyed

every moment, differ from the forms created by the mind in

imagination? Though they appear, the idea of their reality should be

given up.//

 

Considering the case of dream, the Vivekachudamani states:

 

//170. In dreams, when there is no actual contact with the external

world, the mind alone creates the whole universe consisting of the

experiencer etc. Similarly in the waking state also; there is no

difference. Therefore all this (phenomenal universe) is the

projection of the mind.

 

171. In dreamless sleep, when the mind is reduced to its causal

state, there exists nothing (for the person asleep), as is evident

from universal experience. Hence man's relative existence is simply

the creation of his mind, and has no objective reality.//

The term manas, mind, occurring in these lines must be taken to be

the creative power i.e., vikshepashakti of Avidya as has been

already pointed out.

 

The Mandukya bhashya (4) points out that the waking consciousness,

being associated with many means (such as subject-object

relationship, agency, instrumentality etc.,) and appearing as

revealing external objects, as it were, is nothing but states of

mind.

 

Thus, the so-called existence of objects accepted in parlance, when

analysed, turns out to be a case of mere appearance. The production

of one object from another would also be a case of superimposition

only. In other worlds, creation or srishti means merely

superimposition or adhyaropa, and lapse or laya means negation or

apavada. The Kaivalya and the Kaushitaki Upanishads when carefully

considered in consonance with the Vaachaarambhana shruti (chandogya)

are seen to be expressive of this point of view. Inferential

evidence in support of this may be cited:

 

Just as dream which is obliterated in deep sleep is mere cognition,

so indeed is the waking which is obliterated in deep sleep, mere

cognition. Further, the pot is not different from the clay; for, as

a rule, the knowledge of its existence arises always with the

knowledge of the existence of the clay. Similarly as the experience

of the existence of the world in waking is seen invariably along

with the experience of the existence of its cognition, as also the

experience of the absence of both these in deep sleep is in

evidence, the world is not different from its cognition, as made

clear by the Shruti.

 

The jivas, as also their objects, are not apart from the mind of the

perceiver, since they are observed by the waking mind like the jivas

etc., which are observed by the mind of the dreamer.

 

This analysis makes it clear that instead of the view that creation

is coeval with cognition – drishti-sama-samayA-srishti, it would be

more appropriate to adopt the view that cognition is creation –

drishtireva srishti. Commenting on the Siddhantalesha-sangraha (2),

the Advaitasiddhanta-guru-chandrika (6 -8) says:

 

//Like an object in dream, this world of waking that is directly

experienced is the illusory cognition only; so declare the wise, the

experts who decide about the reality of the world in accordance with

the Vaachaarambhana shruti etc. The view that is to be given up is

next mentioned. `By jagat that is cognised is meant something

endowed with parlance reality or apparent reality as distinguished

from the previously mentioned illusory cognition' is the view of

others who, in delusion, entertain corrupt views because of their

ignorance of the illustration of dream as mere cognition, which is

the view of the Shastra which declares that the jagat is dissolved

in deep sleep etc.//

 

Not Buddhism in disguise:

 

In this connection it may be pointed out that it is sometimes

alleged that this way of reducing the entire world to the

modifications of the mind is only Buddhism in disguise. But this is

baseless, for, the dream analogy herein used points out that (1)

Atman is the ground of illusion and (2) as the Witness-self, Atman

is the constant perceiver of these mental modifications – two issues

on which this prakriyaa differs vitally from Buddhism.

 

The Sutrabhashya II.i.28 says:

 

28. For thus it is in the (individual) Self also, and various

(creations exist in gods 1, &c.).

 

//Nor is there any reason to find fault with the doctrine that there

can be a manifold creation in the one Self, without destroying its

character. For Scripture teaches us that there exists a multiform

creation in the one Self of a dreaming person, 'There are no

chariots in that state, no horses, no roads, but he himself creates

chariots, horses, and roads' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 10). In ordinary life

too multiform creations, elephants, horses, and the like are seen to

exist in gods, &c., and magicians without interfering with the unity

of their being. Thus a multiform creation may exist in Brahman also,

one as it is, without divesting it of its character of unity.//

 

Dream analogy resolves every doubt:

 

It is thus seen that the best way of understanding the dristisristi

vaada is on the dream analogy which resolves every possible doubt

that might arise therein. It is in this light that the Panchadashi

(VII 172,173) enjoins:

 

172. After directly seeing his own dream and seeing his own

waking state, he must, without any remissness think about them both,

every day again and again.

 

173. Contemplating for long the similarity between them (the

dream and the waking states) in all respects and giving up the sense

of reality of the world in the waking state, he will not have

attachment for it as before.

 

Indeed considerations of the parallelism between the two take one

even further. The latter half of the Mandukya karika IV - 64 and 66

and their Bhashya may be perused to appreciate this point.

 

Cognition means the Self-effulgent Consciousness Itself. ….the

wrong-sighted, being deluded, see this world as having an existence

apart from that of Consciousness. Thus by negating the view of the

difference in Existence, the latter half of the verse establishes

one and the same Exitence for both of them. (A commentary on an

advaitic work.)

 

That this is the view of the Shruti and the Bhashya is shown in the

Ratnaprabha gloss (Su.Bh. I.3.8.30) which says that, because there

is nothing like unknownness in the case of this world of mere

imagination, as in the case of a dream, creation and destruction

would mean cognition and non-cognition. The point crucial to this

understanding is this:

 

When it is said `cognition arises', `cognition is destroyed', it is

to be understood that it is the cognizer who takes the form of

cognition and who is also the locus of its destruction (i.e., the

substratum of either creation or destruction of the universe).

 

[it is this crucial point that has the Abiding Consciousness (that

is the Seeker, investigator) as the substratum of the `created'

universe that differentiates this view from the Buddhistic view

which ascribes a momentary consciousness alone.]

 

World is naught:

 

Thus the cognized has no existence apart from Consciousness. The

Mandukya karikas IV – 47 to 52 illustrate this by the example of the

motion of the firebrand:

 

47 As the line made by a moving fire-brand appears to be straight,

crooked, etc., so Consciousness, when set in motion, appears as the

perceiver, the perceived and the like.

 

48 As the fire-brand, when not in motion, is free from all

appearances and remains changeless, so Consciousness, when not in

motion, is free from all appearances and remains Changeless.

 

49 When the fire-brand is set in motion, the appearances that are

seen in it do not come from elsewhere. When it is still, the

appearances do not leave the motionless fire-brand and go elsewhere,

nor do they enter into the fire-brand itself.

 

50 The appearances do not emerge from the fire-brand, because their

nature is not that of a substance. This applies likewise to

Consciousness, because of the similarity of the appearances.

 

51—52 When Consciousness is associated with the idea of activity, as

in the waking and dream states, the appearances that seem to arise

do not come from anywhere else. When Consciousness is non-active, as

in deep sleep, the appearances do not leave the non-active

Consciousness and go elsewhere, nor do they merge in it. The

appearances do not emerge from Consciousness, for their nature is

not that of a substance. They are incomprehensible, because they are

not subject to the relation of cause and effect.

 

The Yoga vAsishtha (V – 78 – 1,2,3) too gives the same and other

illustrations as well. It concludes (in III.14.1):

 

//Thus the so-called world of cognition starting from the ego, is

naught, for it never originated; and that which exists is verily the

Supreme alone.//

 

Jivahood is naught:

 

The same situation holds in respect of the so-called jiva which

concoction is at the root of the world-concoction. Ref. Mandukya

Karika: II.16. The Yo.Va. says:

 

The All-pervading Self-effulgent Supreme assumes by itself the

jivahood as it were, like the water in the still ocean forming into

a whirl. From this jiva arise, as it were, many other jiva-s like

many flames from one, in waking as in dream.

 

The Karikas (IV.68,69,70) add:

 

//As the dream-jiva, magician's jiva or the artificial jiva (brought

into existence by incantation, medicinal herb etc.) comes into being

and disappears, so also all jivas (including the perceiver-jiva)

appear and disappear.//

 

The Bhashya says jiva-s such as human beings, etc., seen in the

waking state, though really non-existent, are merely the imagination

of the mind.

 

In reply to the question posed by Sri Ramachandra regarding the

number of jiva-s, Sage Vasishtha says:

 

//There is not even a single jiva; where then is a possibility of a

host of them? What you have said is similar to saying that the horn

of a hare flies up and moves. Raghava! There is neither a single

jiva nor multitudes of them. Whichever may be regarded as the

meanings of the term jiva accompanied by all other concoctions, they

do not exist at all. May this conviction be established firmly in

you.//

 

It would be of immense benefit to study the Bhashya on the Sutra

I.iii.19 to attain great clarity on this point of the jiva's unreal

nature of jivahood. This text of the Bhashya, by using the

words `avidya' and `maya' synonymously serves to dispel the notion

that they are different; the use of both the words together is to

emphasize on its two aspects, viz., concealment (AvaraNa) and

concoction (vikShepa). To convey that it is Brahman alone that is

involved in transmigration and not any jiva as distinguished from

It, is the end and aim of the Upanishads. If it be asked as to why

the SutrakAra Sri Vyasa speaks of Brahman as different from jiva,

the answer is that it is to convey firmly the idea of the

transcendence of ParamAtman. If this transcendence is not firmly

grasped, even though the non-difference is declared, the notion of

transmigration in respect of jiva would not be dispelled. Even

though the substratum is different from the superimposed, the

superimposed is no other than the substratum. The erroneous notion

that the Sutras do not speak of identity is dispelled by pointing to

the Sutra quoted and others such as IV.i.3. But the Upanishads

acknowledge Brahman as Atman and also teach to realize It as such.

There is neither bodage nor liberation for anyone, at any time,

anywhere. All is verily Atman, the Peace Supreme. This alone is

clearly the right knowledge.

 

Conclusion: ApavAda-drishti:

 

The detailed exposition of the Eighth verse of the Hymn is now being

concluded. It is abundantly clear that the expressions employed in

connection with the so-called world of waking or of dream, are

empty, vikalpa, like the `barren woman's son'. In reality what is

experienced as the world is the Self-effulgence of the All-pervading

Shine that is one's Atman. An interesting question is raised and

answered in this connection by the Vedanta-siddhanta-muktaavali

tiikaa (56):

 

//Further, is this vision of duality pertaining to Atman, due to a

pramANa or to an illusion? Not the former, for, this would

contradict Shruti passages teaching non-duality; neither to the

latter, because a thing made known by an illusion is invariably non-

existent, as otherwise it would not be an illusion. Thus the vision

of duality never indeed pertains to Atman; so also Shruti debars

vision of duality from Atman that is of the nature of uninterrupted

vision – `Verily, he does not see because although he is verily

seeing then, he does not see'. In tune with this, the absence of

vision of duality pertaining to Atman is expressed by the Smriti:

For the immature, it is taught that the whole world is the

transfiguration of Brahman (vivarta vaada). The emancipated always

revel in Bliss uncontaminated by transfiguration'.

 

This is the happy consummation, the final word of the Upanishads to

which one is led by the dristi-sristi vaada. The seeker of the

utmost competence, the uttamottamAdhikArii who is established firmly

in it is extraordinarily rare and richly deserves all praise and

reverence. To that MahAtman I offer obeisance in millions. The

three stages of evolution of a seeker are stated in this unique

verse of the Sankshepa-shAriiraka (II.89):

 

//When the mind is not free from desire (for enjoyment here or

hereafter) one considers the world to be the transformation

(pariNAma) of Brahman; when his mind is free from sin, he regards

the universe as the transfiguration (vivarta) of Atman. On the

other hand when his mind becomes steady, he sees the Supreme Self

which is free from duality.//

 

This final view, apavAda drishti, does away with even the vivarta

vaada advanced by the Vedanta. It is this highest view that

constitutes the direct means for liberation as it annuls all

illusion of duality; and its only concern is Atman, the Bliss

incomparable.

 

Thus the Great Dream of parlance does not include merely the world

outside of oneself; it also includes one's individualized existence,

the causal ignorance and the very saving knowledge that dissolves

this ignorance. When this Dream goes, no problem remains. One is

just free from the illusion of duality. (See M.Kaarikaa I.16).

The recognition of the parallelism between the dream and the waking

states, nay, their non-difference, leads one to this culmination.

That is why the Shruti speaks in terms of `three dreams' (Aitareya

Upanishad I.iii.12). Commenting on this passage, Sri Vidyaranya

Swamin says:

 

The objection – that all the three are dream states is not

appropriate, since the waking and the deep sleep states are

different from the dream – does not stand; because they have the

dream characteristics. The dream has the characteristics viz.,

concealment of the existing reality and showing it as otherwise.

The waking and the deep sleep states also partake of these

characteristics viz., the concealment of the existing Reality that

is Brahman and showing it as jiva which is otherwise. Therefore

even though only one of these states is well known as dream in

parlance, going by the characteristics all the three fall into the

category of dream.//

 

The M.Karika I.15 too mentions the same. The Sridakshinamurti

stotram itself gives expression to this point of view and the

concomitant realization as well in the opening stanza.

Obeisance to the Glorious Guru who dispels this Great Dream and

establishes the seeker in his true state of Brahman the Bliss.

 

(Here ends the Eighth Verse of the Hymn. The penultimate verse, the

ninth, will be taken up for detailed exposition in the next part.)

 

(To be continued)

 

Om Tat Sat

 

A SubhAShita:

 

akritvA para-santApam agatvA khala-namratAm

anutsrijya satAm mArgam yat svalpamapi tadbahu

[by not causing pain to others and by not seeking the favour of the

wicked and by not transgressing the path of the noble, even what

little is accomplished is great indeed.]

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir,

Do all these painstakings suggest the idea of the sole reality of knowledge, the duality of knowledge and being not being tenable. Maharishi has in very simple terms thrashed this issue in the very first verse of Ulladu Narpadu, even a post card being too unnecessarily large for writing this.

yours

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

>

> Dear Sir,

> Do all these painstakings suggest the idea of the

sole reality of knowledge, the duality of knowledge and being not

being tenable. Maharishi has in very simple terms thrashed this

issue in the very first verse of Ulladu Narpadu, even a post card

being too unnecessarily large for writing this.

> yours

> Sankarraman

 

 

Namaste,

 

I agree with you that there is immense beauty in brevity. The Great

Masters of the tradition have displayed their ability to convey the

most abstruse cncepts in the most concise as well as in the most

elaborate manner. Consider this: Shankaracharya encapsulates the

vast teaching of the scriptures in just half a verse:

 

shlokArdhena pravakShyAmi yaduktam grantha-koTibhiH

Brahma satyam jagan mithyA, jivo brahmaiva na aparaH

 

[Let me say in just half-a-verse what has been said in millions of

verses.....]

 

He has done that in one verse: Eka-shloki, a decad of verses: Dasha-

shloki, a century of them: Shatashloki and a thousand verses:

Upadesha-sAhasrI.

 

The Upanishads themselves have shown the way for this method: The

entire upanishadic literature, why, even the karma-kAnDa portions

included, is only a commentary on the Maha Vakyas: PrajnAnam Brahma,

etc. Going a step further, this vast literature is just an

elucidation of the symbol: Om, which itself is the shortest

commentary on the Silence of Sri Dakshinamurti.

 

Now, coming to the point, we have to note a distinction between

these two things:

 

A. What Bhagavan Ramana has said in the Ulladu Narpadu opening

verse,."Can there be Being other than the Awareness of Being. Because

Being exists as what is, who is to know it...... To be what is, is

to know the Being in the Heart. ", in my understanding, is the

position that Pure Existence/Being is not divorced of Pure

Consciousness/Awareness. The former is appreciated only with the

awareness of the latter. This has been brought out in the 10th

verse of the Advaita Makaranda:

 

Na hi bhAnat-Rte sattvam

na-Rte BhAnam chito'chitaH

chit-sambhandho'pi na adhyAsAt-

Rte tena aham advayaH ||

 

[being is not bereft of Awareness/Consciousness.....]

 

B. What has been delineated on the refinement of the Drishti-srishti

vaada is a different concept: The objective world is none other than

Pure Consciousness alone that is the essence of the experiencer.

 

In other words, while the very existence of the inert objective

world is questioned in this vaada, what point 'A' above drives at

is: Pure Being is non-different from Pure Awareness.

 

Thanks for raising the question.

 

Warm Regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

suThank you Subramanium Sir for your kindly response enlightening me further and strengthening my understanding of advaita. I shall quote in the next mail the verse of Paranjotimuni conveying the transcendental position in the very benedictory verse itself. I want to choose the correct English words. Further, the Ribu Gita abounds in verses highlighting the oneness of Being and Awareness, which also I shall quote. If they were different-god forbid-we are condemned forever, there being no scope to be free from this dreadful samsara, with death looming round the corner to catch hold of us, and we not having ( I mean only myself) understood the wisdom of nonduality.

yours ever in Bhaghvan

Sankarraman>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir,

There was some inaccuracy in my earlier version. The translation should be as follows

.. If Reality did not exist, could there be any knowledge of existence? Free from all thoughts, Reality abides in the Heart, the Source of all thoughts. It is, therefore, called the Heart. How then is one to contemplate it? To be as it is in the Heart, is Its contemplation.( Translated by Osborne)

 

But I would like it to be as follows

 

Other than Existence how can there be knowledge of existence. Because Existence abides in the Heart as what is free from thoughts ( conceptualizations), who is to contemplate it and how is one to contemplate. To abide as what is, is to be aware of it.

Existence or Reality I understand in the above context to be pure consciousness or awareness. The knowledge of existence refers to the existence part of it, the objective part of it. In simple words, the reality does not exist as an object apart from the awareness of it.>In the traditional context I understand the Atman to be Awareness and Brahman to be the awareness of existence which is only awareness of awareness by awareness. Language involves predication of truth which is not correct. One can understand it only in silence.Saint Thayumanavar says, " Other than shining as one's true Being it does not admit of any external object. Then who or how can one understand it. The awareness only can understand awareness swallowing all objectivity. It is like the camphor burning itself out. Devoid of the notions of knower, knowledge and the known is the self which is nothing but awareness."

with regards

Sankarraman>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sankararaman-ji observes :

 

(If they were different-god forbid-we are condemned forever, there

being no scope to be free from this dreadful samsara, with death

looming round the corner to catch hold of us, and we not having ( I

mean only myself) understood the wisdom of nonduality.)

 

Well, There are two kinds of 'death' - one is the death of the

physical body which is inevitable for no man/woman is mortal but

there is the 'higher ' death - the death of the E-go! Which one is

our friend talking about ?

 

May i please share the Wisdom of a Kabir poem ?

 

On The Living Death

 

Death after death, the world dies,

but no one knows how to die:

The servant Kabir has died such a death,

that he will never have to die again! . . . . . .

[clarification] . . . . (15)

 

When the saint dies, why do you cry?

he is going home ...

Weep over the wretched Sakta,

who is sold from market to market! . . . . .

 

( Sakta means slave. Market symbolises human life, which has to

undergo countless rebirths in the unending cycle of the world. )ck ]

 

 

I yearn for death, but if I die,

may it be at Ram's door!

And may Hari not ask: `Who is he

who has fallen at my door?' . . . . . . . . . .

 

http://www.vidyasoft.com/interest/poems/kabir.html

 

Sankara-ji ,

 

The following is verse 40 of "Reality in 40 verses" by Sri Ramana

Maharshi:

 

 

 

40. "If asked:

 

 

 

`Which of these three is final liberation: -

 

 

 

with form, without form, or with and without form?'

 

 

 

I say,

 

 

 

`Liberation is the extinction of the ego which inquires

 

 

 

`With form, without form, or with and without form?'"

 

 

 

Verse 40 above is from "The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi"

 

 

 

Liberation is the extinction of the ego that inquires.

 

Liberation is the extinction of the ego.

 

Liberation is the extinction of the ego that speculates about what

liberation is or is not.

 

Liberation is the extinction of the ego that wonders

 

if the experience it has had is liberation or not.

 

Liberation is the extinction of the ego that imagines the Self has

parts or qualities

 

or aspects or form.

 

Liberation is the end of the ego that experiences.

 

Liberation is the end of experience.

 

Liberation is the end of the experiencer.

 

Glad to see you back in the group shining like a true Spiritual

warrior!

 

love and regards

[Guest guest]

dhyanasaraswati <dhyanasaraswati > wrote: Sankararaman-ji observes :

 

(If they were different-god forbid-we are condemned forever, there

being no scope to be free from this dreadful samsara, with death

looming round the corner to catch hold of us, and we not having ( I

mean only myself) understood the wisdom of nonduality.)

 

Well, There are two kinds of 'death' - one is the death of the

physical body which is inevitable for no man/woman is mortal but

there is the 'higher ' death - the death of the E-go! Which one is

our friend talking about ?

 

Dear dhyanasaraswati Madam,

The death of the ego is a transcendental affair, which if it comes shall be our Glory. I mean only the death of the body, with the mind still clinging to it on account of error of duality we labour in timelessly. Most of us do not seem to have understood the fact of the inevitability of physical death; we hope to survive by hook or crook, the unconscious belief in the immortality of the body and the personal ego being there very much nourished. Even when we talk about liberation we seem to think that we will be there as personal individuals interacting with others through pleasure and fear.

 

with regards

Sankarraman