Who is it who awakens?

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinyaka-ji (and others),

 

 

 

It is amazing how frequently similar questions arise in different contexts,

whether in my writing, on the website or on a discussion group. Regarding

the thread started by Subbu-ji "Help required in understanding a BhAShya

quote", this has metamorphosed into the question of 'Who it is that awakens'

and, coincidentally, this precise question was asked of me at my website

earlier this week.

 

 

 

Here are the questions and my answers (or you can read them at

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/q_and_a/q_and_a.htm#q46):

 

 

 

Q: Since the person can't awaken - as awakening is the seeing through of the

person. And:

 

Since oneness, consciousness, being is the ground of everything (and every

no thing) - IT is already always awake.

 

What exactly is it that awakens?

 

 

 

A: As you say, who you really are is already the Self. The Self is the only

reality so it makes no sense to speak of this Self becoming enlightened.

 

 

 

Although in reality there is no person, it is at this empirical level of

reality (vyavahAra) where there appears to be a separate person. The reason

for this mistaken view of things is ignorance at the level of the mind.

Specifically, the nature of this ignorance is mixing up the real and unreal

- this is called adhyAsa. (Remember we are still talking about the empirical

level, where there seem to be such things as minds.)

 

 

 

The only thing that can remove this ignorance is knowledge, which has to

take place in this mind, since that is where the ignorance is. Accordingly,

like it or not (and despite what other teachers may say - especially

neo-Advaitin ones), enlightenment takes place in the mind. It is the 'mind'

or person that awakens.

 

 

 

Of course, once this awakening has taken place, it is realized that the

seeming person, mind and knowledge were all part of the mistaken view and

that before, during and after, there was only the Self and no actual person

to become enlightened.

 

 

 

adhyAsa is the 'weekly definition' for last week and you may find the essay

on 'Self-knowledge and the Mind' will help understand this topic

(http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/knowingself_durga.htm) .

 

 

 

Q: So since the Self presents as the ignorant/separate person in the first

place (so to speak). It also presents as the separate person seeing through

this illusion of separation.

 

 

 

In this seeing through of the unreal the person is no more.

 

 

 

In a way, it still seems inaccurate to say that the person awakens - since

at the point (I understand it is not an event in time) of awakening, there

is no person.

 

 

 

I suppose it's similar to saying that someone is dead. To say John is dead

is not true since death is the absence of John (John of course does not

experience his own death). Is it a convenience to say that the person

awakens (as in the above example about death)?

 

 

 

Sorry to be picky here - I suspect it's got something to do with the mixing

up of levels.

 

 

 

A: No problems with being 'picky' - I can see you really want to get to the

bottom of this and that is good! But it is very difficult to put clearly

into words!

 

 

 

There is only ever the Self in reality. So the apparent persons and world

that we perceive in our ignorance are already only and always the Self. The

person in ignorance and the person seeing through the ignorance are equally

only the Self. I think this is what you are saying in the first part.

 

 

 

You then say: "In this seeing through of the unreal the person is no more."

In reality, there never was a person to begin with. There only appeared to

be whilst there was ignorance. So, 'in the seeing through', there is not

actually any change in reality. But the mistaken view that there was a

person has now been dissolved.

 

 

 

The confusion of levels occurs when we try to speak of a person being

enlightened. There are only (thought to be) persons in vyavahAra.

Enlightenment means seeing through vyavahAra and knowing that there are no

persons. Thus, enlightenment does not really have any meaning at all for the

'enlightened person'; it only has meaning for the 'person' who is not yet

'enlightened'.

 

 

 

So, yes, you are right when you say that "it still seems inaccurate to say

that the person awakens". I suppose it's a bit like saying 'the bottle is

broken' - as soon as the breaking occurs, there is no longer a bottle. (I

guess this is the same as you are saying in your 'John is dead' example but

that one has complex overtones!) As you further say, it is a convenience to

say that someone has awakened. It seems meaningful to those who are still

asleep.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Pranams,

What a treat this New Year has been with a barrage of

posts from so many wonderful pandits.

 

As a corollary to the who really awakens, and whether

selfknowledge is an event in time...

 

One can take extend this example of the dream..

 

In the dream I am a pauper, while the awake I am a

King.

 

Now who wakes up?

 

It is proper to say the pauper woke up to find out he

was a King.

No.There never was a "real" pauper other than the

King.

 

Did the King wake up?

Yes.

So he got liberated from his "pauper-ness" and

realized who He was and regained his King-ness.

 

No - because he never lost his King-ness to begin

with. Though at all times uninvolved with the pauper

he provided the substratum for the pauper to "exist"

and "suffer his poverty"

 

What time did the pauper wake up?

Would it be the time that the pauper saw in the big

railway station in the clock in the dream?

 

Or would be the the time that the King's dream ended,

and he woke up and checked his golden timepiece?

 

If it is the former it has no relevance to the King at

all, because the time-matrix in that dream was as

illusory as the dream. Can you for example say the

King woke up when it was 5pm on the 5th of April in

the year 1931 in the pauper's dream?

 

If it is the latter it is equally meaningless because

the pauper existed only in the pauper-time. The King

never became a pauper to say that at 6am in my palace

i lost my pauper-ness.

 

This is the problem mixing the vyavaharic(empiric) and

the paramarthic(absolute) viewpoints particularly in

regards to selfrealization.

 

"I am the All, the very basis for the All,Knowledge

itself, Existence itself, Eternal"............"since

10pm last night, preceded by a 20min experience of

this fact"????

 

Humble pranams,

Hari OM,

Shyam

 

 

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite (AT) advaita (DOT) org.uk> wrote:

> Dear Vinyaka-ji (and others),

> 'Who it is that awakens'

> So, yes, you are right when you say that "it still

> seems inaccurate to say

> that the person awakens". I suppose it's a bit like

> saying 'the bottle is

> broken' - as soon as the breaking occurs, there is

> no longer a bottle.

 

 

 

 

Want to start your own business?

Learn how on Small Business.

http://smallbusiness./r-index

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

It is my understanding that it is the jiva who

'gains' self-knowledge. To be more exact, it

is the mind of the jiva which had the ignorance

(of the Self), and it is the mind of the jiva

which looses self-ignorance, and thus 'sees'

correctly, or 'gains the knowledge,' of what has

always been true, that I am Brahman and indeed

always have been.

 

So IMO if one wants to one can say the jiva never

existed in the first place, all that ever exists

is Brahman, one can. However that doesn't seem

to be much help for the poor suffering jiva, who

takes my self to be time bound and subject to death.

 

It is the mind of the jiva which suffers, and it is

the mind of the jiva which 'gains' liberation.

 

This is my understanding. And since there is a theme

here of Vedanta for beginners, and since I feel that

my understanding is very much that of a beginner, I

offer that understanding here.

 

Because all of us who still take our self to be a jiva,

subject to time and to the vissitudes of change, may

want to take heart that Knowledge of the self indeed

exists, in fact exists right now but is seen as other

than it is, and that clear Knowledge can be

'gained' by the jiva's mind in this very lifetime.

 

Hari Om,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Pranams to all,

 

Another beginner's perspective.

My understanding, as of present.

 

Who is it in the waking state who can see the body, gives a sense of I

(sometimes deep thought not even aware of having a sense of body),

which creates emotions, feelings, attachments, sense of superiority,

despondency - that is the one which creates the sense of duality.

 

Who is it in the dreaming state, unaware of having a body but still,

creates worlds and worlds, that alone creates a sense of duality.

 

Who is it that goes to sleep in the dreamless state (which is

explained as the nearest one can explain to the turiya state, the

difference being that the dreamless state is shrouded in a state of

ignorance) and who awakes from that state to an immediate sense of

duality.

 

Of course, the next question would be who is that who wakes up the

sleeper.

 

Ravi

[Guest guest]

Please read the sense of I in the previous message, as sense of ego I,

not the sense of consciousness I.

 

Ravi

 

advaitin, "ravicande" <ravicande wrote:

>

> Pranams to all,

>

> Another beginner's perspective.

> My understanding, as of present.

>

> Who is it in the waking state who can see the body, gives a sense of I

> (sometimes deep thought not even aware of having a sense of body),

> which creates emotions, feelings, attachments, sense of superiority,

> despondency - that is the one which creates the sense of duality.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Durga" <durgaji108 wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> It is my understanding that it is the jiva who

> 'gains' self-knowledge. To be more exact, it

> is the mind of the jiva which had the ignorance

> (of the Self),

 

Pardon me for adding on to my own post, but I realized

upon thinking it over that it isn't really correct to

say that the mind has ignorance of the Self.

 

In keeping with the theme of beginning Vedanta,

one can say quite simply that the mind has `general'

knowledge of the Self, but not the `particular' knowledge

of what that Self is, i.e. Brahman

 

The mind knows the Self quite well in its own way.

 

Thus if someone were to say, "Who are you?"

You might reply, "I am so and so," stating your name.

"I am married to this lady. I am the father of three

children. I am the son of so and so. I am a bank

manager. I am the graduate of such and such university.

I am the owner of a house at this address, etc."

 

All the while mislabeling the 'I' which is actually

Brahman, taking 'I' to be qualified by things which

change.

 

Avidya, or ignorance, is so powerful that the mind

truly does take 'I' to be this body.

 

Our teacher has told us that somewhere Shankara has

written, 'The mind has done the absolutely impossible.'

taking I to be a product of those things which change.

 

So I think it is important to point out (especially for

the beginner) that the mind does know 'I' already,

but completely takes it to be qualified by things

which actually in no way effect it whatsoever, and

that is the mutual superimposition.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Shyam <shyam_md > wrote: Pranams,

What a treat this New Year has been with a barrage of

posts from so many wonderful pandits.

 

As a corollary to the who really awakens, and whether

selfknowledge is an event in time...

 

 

 

 

The above analysis, proving the sole reality of the transcendental view point, is very logical, being only an intellectual siesta. It is not important to analyze as to who wakes up. The advaitic scriptures are full of such things.One has to go beyond all mechanisms of building up theories and should be aware of the fact of what is happening with out any interpretation based on one's own psychological fear and pleasure as well as from the purely intellectual standpoint. At least the former has some existential meaning driving man towards the nausea and emptiness of the self in a hostile and painful world, where one has the immense task of grappling with the sense of individuality imposed on him which is the only fact.

With regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on Answers.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite wrote:

 

> The only thing that can remove this ignorance is knowledge, which

has to

> take place in this mind, since that is where the ignorance is.

Accordingly,

> like it or not (and despite what other teachers may say -

especially

> neo-Advaitin ones), enlightenment takes place in the mind. It is

the 'mind'

> or person that awakens.

 

Dear Dennis-ji,

IMHO we cannot say that ignorance is in the mind. It can be told in

the secondary sense only. Antahakaran itself a product of avidya. So

avidya clearly precedes anthakaran and since the mind is the part of

the anthakaran the ignorance cannot be totally eradicated until and

unless one transcends the mind holding on to the self.

It is very clear in our prism analogy.

 

Brahman

|

Avidya

|

Anthakaranam

|

Our 'Conception' & 'Speculation' on Knowledge, ignorance etc.

 

No knowledge `in the mind' can remove the ignorance totally because

the mind itself is the product of the ignorance. That is why it was

told by Sri Ramakrishna that the self is beyond both knowledge and

ignorance. If you are aware of knowledge you are aware of ignorance

too one cannot help it. It is told also in the scriptural statements

yato vacho nivartante aprapya manasa sah ( From where speech with

the mind recedes back with the mind) and in the Kathopanishad atman

is described as:

 

Beyond the senses are the objects; beyond the objects is the mind;

beyond the mind, the intellect; beyond the intellect, the Great

Atman; beyond the Great Atman, the Unmanifest; beyond the

Unmanifest, the Purusha. Beyond the Purusha there is nothing: this

is the end, the Supreme Goal.

 

In the same Upanishad it has been said that:

 

This Atman cannot be attained by the study of the Vedas, or by

intelligence, or by much hearing of sacred books. It is attained by

him alone whom It chooses. To such a one Atman reveals Its own form.

 

(Unquote)

 

At the level of mind everything is a relative term and speculation.

In the prism example we can `speculate' that the white ray of light

is the real ray and that is `only knowledge' but at the same time we

are also `aware' of the `6 other rays' too. We may argue or reason

out or quote from scriptures with our own conditioned understanding

that the white ray is the substratum of all the colors but the

reality is not so. We will be able to know the `real' light in which

all the 7 colors are latent only when we transcend the prism and

come back to the source of light, which is the `real' light.

 

IMHO the advaita sadhana is the `awakening of the choice less

awareness' to which `we are asleep' (I am very fond of certain words

used by JK) or the real `I', which is the substratum of the mind

itself. When the student with scriptural study and Nidhidhyasana

makes the real progress he will be able to `objectify' and transcend

the mind, intellect and even deep sleep itself. (It was told by a

great advaitin that even deep sleep state can be objectified and he

has done so.) and finally when avidya itself is objectified it will

be no more and that is called 'enlightenment'

 

This awareness bereft of all its association with the gross, subtle

and causal can be `experienced' or `perceived' (it is not created of

course) and that is `realization' and it is not jugglery;

speculation or which can be got form scholarship or its not an even

intellectual understanding. That is why Indian philosophical systems

have developed not only as a result of intellectual speculations but

also mystical intuition. Hence the name `darshana' (lit, `seeing')

usually applied to them.

 

Its very interesting how two distinct schools of thought emerged in

the Shankara's Advaita itself. Neo-Vedantin and Classical Vedantain

etc. etc. Dwaita in Advaita :-)

 

The very definition of virat is vividatwenta rajate iti virat. Virat

might have thought, what is this? all the best minds are agreeing to

shankara's philosophy unanimosly which is threatening my very

existecne :-) so he might have created some 'confusion' to divide!?

 

Yours in the lord,

 

Br. Vinayaka

 

P.S. The views expressed above are my personal opinions and are

subject to correctinos if any.

 

 

Sri Ramakrishna On knowledge and ignorance

 

"Go beyond knowledge and ignorance; only then can you realize

God. To know many things is ignorance. Pride of scholarship is also

ignorance. The unwavering conviction that God alone dwells in all

beings is Jnana, knowledge. To know Him intimately is vijnana, a

richer Knowledge. if a thorn gets into your foot, a second thorn is

needed to take it out. When it is out both thorns are thrown away.

You have to procure the thorn of knowledge to remove the thorn of

ignorance; then you must set aside both knowledge and ignorance. God

is beyond both knowledge and ignorance. Once Lakshmana said to

Rama, 'Brother, how amazing it is that such a wise man as Vasishtha

wept bitterly at the death of his sons!' Rama said: 'Brother, he who

has knowledge must also have ignorance. He who has knowledge of one

thing must also have knowledge of many things. He who is aware of

light is also aware of darkness.' Brahman is beyond knowledge and

ignorance, virtue and vice, merit and demerit, cleanliness and

uncleanliness."

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 22:48 +0000, Durga wrote:

> Thus if someone were to say, "Who are you?"

> You might reply, "I am so and so," stating your name.

 

There is an interesting aspect of language (in Kannada and Sanskrit that

I am aware of) that has relevance with the above question.

 

If someone were to ask me "Who are you?", a proper form of answer would

be "By name, Ramachandra" (kannada - "hesarininda rAmachandra").

 

This is similar to French where, it would be "Je m'appelle

Ramachandra" ("I call myself Ramachandra").

 

The distinction of form (identity) and content (self) is quite evident

with this form of language usage (though it is not as high as "aham

brahmAsmi" -- "I am brahman")

 

Best regards,

Ramachandra

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinyaka-ji,

 

 

 

I think that we can say what we like, as long as it is helpful! Objective

description of the non-dual reality is impossible. All attempts to describe

'how things are' at the level of vyavahAra are meaningful and of value only

to the extent that ignorance is dispelled. Once all ignorance is dispelled,

the descriptions, too, are relegated to the dustbin as of no further use. I

am bound to say (as I would!) that the description I gave seems to me more

useful in this regard than the one that you gave.

 

 

 

Having said that, I would be interested, from a purely academic point of

view, to learn the scriptural source of your statement that the antaHkaraNa

is a product of avidyA.

 

 

 

On the question of the prism analogy, I am bound to say that, coming from a

scientific background, I do not find this at all useful because it does not

seem to make any sense. It is the white beam that is 'really' made up of

many colours (different wavelengths) rather than the coloured beams 'really'

being only the white beam. So it seems that the prism shows us the reality

rather than disguising it. In fact, I would sooner argue that the prism is

introducing knowledge to dispel the ignorance that the white light actually

was white.

 

 

 

<<IMHO we cannot say that ignorance is in the mind. It can be told in the

secondary sense only. Antahakaran itself a product of avidya. So avidya

clearly precedes anthakaran and since the mind is the part of the anthakaran

the ignorance cannot be totally eradicated until and unless one transcends

the mind holding on to the self. It is very clear in our prism analogy.

Brahman

|

Avidya

|

Anthakaranam>>

 

 

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

praNams,

 

Subbu-ji has already calrified this issue from shankara's stand

point By quoting the following verses.

 

Ashrayatva-viShayatva-bhAginI nirvibhAga-chitireva kevalA |

pUrva-siddha-tamaso hi pashchimo nAshrayo bhavati nApi gocharaH ||

 

[ The locus and object of avidya is the undifferentiated Pure

Consciousness alone. The reason: the prior-existing ignorance

cannot have for its locus and object the later-arrived jiva,

individual soul.]

 

(I do not know the source and whether it is attributed to shankara

or not)

 

=========

 

In the Gita, the Lord says: mamiva amsho jIva loke

jeevabhUtaH sanAtanaH (15 th chapter) [ It is My own part, as it

were, that has become the eternal jIva] The Acharya comments: Just

as the reflection, of the Sun, appearing in a water medium, is as

though a part of the Sun, upon the disappearance of the reflecting

water medium becomes inseparably one with the Sun. Again, just as

the space-in-a-pot being a 'segment' of the all-pervading space

becomes inseparably one with the whole-space upon the destruction of

the pot (upaadhi), so too the jIva appears as finite only due to

"avidya-created upaadhis". There is no defect in this explanation as

the truly indivisible Brahman is not really getting divided to

become the jiva. We have extensively dealt with this concept in the

13th chapter.//

 

======

 

Thus we have the approval of Acharya Shankara to the explanation

of the vyavaharika as an appearance due to Brahman being 'subject'

to avidya. There is no problem with this explanation for, after

all, as the Acharya points out, upon the 'eradication of avidya', the

jiva is known to be none other than Brahman.

 

While the above mentioning of avidya 'located' in Brahman is for the

theoretical explanation of the appearance of the vyavaharika, the

practical utility of the concept is appreciated only when we

recognize that it is the jiva who is undergoing samsara that has to

work to remove the ignorance. In this context 'alone' it would be

proper to say that the jiva is the locus of avidya, for it is for

him alone that avidya and its effects are experiencable and the onus

of the eradication of avidya along with its effects lies upon him

alone.

 

============

 

As the point which we are discussing is very complex there seems to

be differences among the opinions of later thinkers in advaita like

bhamati and vivarana which may be summed up as under:

 

Bhamati

 

1. Avidya has jiva as locus and the conditioned Brahman as content.

2. The mind is the instrument for realization.

3. The study of Vedas, yajna, etc., lead only to vividisha, the

desire to know Brahman.

4. There is no injunction for Sravana.

5. The limitation theory is accepted in respect of the nature of the

jiva.

6. There are many primal ignorances.

7. The object of akhanda-akaaravritti is the conditioned Brahman.

 

 

Vivarana

1.Avidya has the pure (unconditioned) Brahman as locus and content.

2. The mahavakya itself generates realization.

3. Yajna, etc lead to jnaana.

4. There is niyamavidhi for Sravana.

5. The reflection theory is propounded.

6. There is only one primal ignorance, but it has different modes.7.

The object is the unconditioned Brahman.

 

(Let me acknowlddge that these informations were given to me by Sri

Subbuji which is helping me very much to progress in my sadhana

oriented study. I would like to thank him for this and i am very

happy to have him in this list.)

 

In my limited exposure to shankara's advaita he seems to hold the

view :

 

The locus and object of avidya is the undifferentiated Pure

Consciousness alone. The reason: the 'prior-existing ignorance'

cannot have for its locus and object the later-arrived jiva,

individual soul

 

May i know where shankaracharya says that the mind is not the

product of avidya or avidya is in the mind?

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> Having said that, I would be interested, from a purely academic

point of

> view, to learn the scriptural source of your statement that the

antaHkaraNa

> is a product of avidyA.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

>

>

> Dear Dennis-ji,

>

> praNams,

>

> Subbu-ji has already calrified this issue from shankara's stand

> point By quoting the following verses.

>

> Ashrayatva-viShayatva-bhAginI nirvibhAga-chitireva kevalA |

> pUrva-siddha-tamaso hi pashchimo nAshrayo bhavati nApi gocharaH ||

 

> (I do not know the source and whether it is attributed to shankara

> or not)

>

 

Namaste,

 

The above verse is from the work:The Sankshepa-shArIraka (I – 319)

 

The full translation of the verse is:

 

((Undifferentiated Consciousness is the locus as well as the object

of Avidya. The embodied soul and the Ishvara ) that come into being

subsequent to Avidya can neither be the locus nor the object of

Avidya which exists prior to them.)

 

 

 

> > Having said that, I would be interested, from a purely academic

> point of

> > view, to learn the scriptural source of your statement that the

> antaHkaraNa

> > is a product of avidyA.

 

One place where we see this mentioned is in the Bhagavadgita Chapter

7 verse 4.:

 

Earth, water, fire, air, ether, thought (manas), reason (buddhi),

egoism (ahankAra) - thus is My PrakRiti eightfold.

 

In the commentary Shankaracharya points out that the items mentioned

here are to be seen to mean their subtle causal forms. The word

manas, for instance, stands for its cause the Ahankara (the cosmic

form). [shankara terms the body-mind complex as an appendage born

of avidya: avidyA-kRita-upAdhi.]

 

What we have above is that the Lord is saying that the Cosmic form

of all the above constitute His lower nature. All these that are

found in the individual, micro, level are the evolutes of the Cosmic

alone. Thus the Great AntaHkaraNa of the Cosmic Being is

represented as the mind, antahkarana, of the jIva. What is called

Prakriti as the cause (of the above items) in the macro level is

called avidya in the macro level.

 

While many PrakaraNa works contain the description of the

antaHkaraNa, here is one from the VivekachUDAmaNi:

 

97. Listen – this subtle body (consisting of the manas, prANa,

buddhi, ahankAra) , called also the Linga body, is produced out of

the elements before their subdividing and combining with each other,

is possessed of latent impressions and causes the soul to experience

the fruits of its past actions. It is a beginningless

superimposition on the soul brought on by its own ignorance.

 

Warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

What is called

> Prakriti as the cause (of the above items) in the macro level is

> called avidya in the macro level.

 

A correction: pl. read the second macro as micro in the above sentence.

 

>

> Warm regards,

> subbu

> Om Tat Sat

>

[Guest guest]

Subramnian-ji, Pranams,

 

>

> ((Undifferentiated Consciousness is the locus as well as the object

> of Avidya. The embodied soul and the Ishvara ) that come into being

> subsequent to Avidya can neither be the locus nor the object of

> Avidya which exists prior to them.)

 

Could you please clarify more on what it is meant by saying

(a) Consciousness is the object of Avidya

(b) Embodied Soul cannot be the object of Avidya

 

I am not able to understand what object implies in both instances.

 

Ravi

[Guest guest]

Subrahmanian-ji,

 

Beg forgiveness for spelling your name wrong.

 

What I am not clear is why should and why should only that comes

later(Avidya, Embodied Soul) have the capability to objectify that was

present earlier (Brahma or Avidya).

 

Is it because that which comes later wasn't present earlier to

objectify. But what about after the occurrence. Or does 'object' mean

something else in this context.

 

For example, the pot comes later to the clay or the potter. And yet it

is the potter who views the pot as the object.

 

I am assuming that the above analogy is wrong here and I would welcome

your correcting my understanding.

 

Regards,

Ravi

 

advaitin, "ravicande" <ravicande wrote:

>

> Subramnian-ji, Pranams,

>

> >

> > ((Undifferentiated Consciousness is the locus as well as the object

> > of Avidya. The embodied soul and the Ishvara ) that come into being

> > subsequent to Avidya can neither be the locus nor the object of

> > Avidya which exists prior to them.)

>

> Could you please clarify more on what it is meant by saying

> (a) Consciousness is the object of Avidya

> (b) Embodied Soul cannot be the object of Avidya

>

> I am not able to understand what object implies in both instances.

>

> Ravi

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "ravicande" <ravicande wrote:

>

> Subramnian-ji, Pranams,

>

> >

> > ((Undifferentiated Consciousness is the locus as well as the

object

> > of Avidya. The embodied soul and the Ishvara ) that come into

being

> > subsequent to Avidya can neither be the locus nor the object of

> > Avidya which exists prior to them.)

>

> Could you please clarify more on what it is meant by saying

> (a) Consciousness is the object of Avidya

> (b) Embodied Soul cannot be the object of Avidya

>

> I am not able to understand what object implies in both instances.

>

> Ravi

 

 

Namaste,

 

The word 'object' is the translation of the Sanskrit

word 'viShayaH'. In the so very finely 'refined' structure of

logic, there is a 'viShaya' for jnAnam and a 'viShaya' for ajnanam.

To explain, when i say 'i know' and remain quiet, there is an

expectation on the part of the hearer ' you know what?' Thus, i have

to specify 'i know the book you are referring to..'. So, here the

book is the object of my knowledge.

 

Similarly when i say 'i do not know', the question that arises is:

what? Thus, for knowledge and ignorance there has to be specified an

object.

 

In the present context, (a)Avidya has an object. Avidya pertaining

to something. That something is Consciousness here. (b) Since the

jiva's appearance is subsequent to the pre-existing avidya (avidya

is the cause of the jiva), the object of avidya cannot be the jiva

who has come later.

 

The idea is this: Avidya obscures the knowledge of (this means the

knowledge pertaining to) Brahman. As a result of this the jiva

comes into being (not knowing his true PUrNa, akhaNDa, advaita,

Ananda nature). The Avidya cannot be said to pertain to the nature

of jiva. Hence it is said the avidya is of Brahman alone.

 

Trust this gives some clarification.

 

Warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

Subrahmanian-ji,

 

Thank you for your explanation.

 

There is a word in Telugu too called Vishayam (roughly translating to

the topic under discussion). I guess it derives from Sanskrit word

'viShayaH'

 

I guess I sort of understand, intuitively if not intellectually.

 

It seems to imply something like -

 

If we are talking Brahman, there is no other topic we can talk about,

because there is naught else.

 

If the topic is Avidya, we have to limit ourselves to talking about

Avidya and it's relation vis-a-vis Brahman

 

If we are talking from the Jiva point of view, then the whole heap

comes falling on our heads. So we can talk merry about Avidya,

Brahman, duality, forms and objects, effects and causes and etc as if

they were objects to be talked about, because all these are from the

point of view of the Jiva only.

 

I am not sure I understood right though.

 

Regards,

Ravi

 

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

>

> advaitin, "ravicande" <ravicande@> wrote:

> >

> > Subramnian-ji, Pranams,

> >

> > >

> > > ((Undifferentiated Consciousness is the locus as well as the

> object

> > > of Avidya. The embodied soul and the Ishvara ) that come into

> being

> > > subsequent to Avidya can neither be the locus nor the object of

> > > Avidya which exists prior to them.)

> >

> > Could you please clarify more on what it is meant by saying

> > (a) Consciousness is the object of Avidya

> > (b) Embodied Soul cannot be the object of Avidya

> >

> > I am not able to understand what object implies in both instances.

> >

> > Ravi

>

>

> Namaste,

>

> The word 'object' is the translation of the Sanskrit

> word 'viShayaH'. In the so very finely 'refined' structure of

> logic, there is a 'viShaya' for jnAnam and a 'viShaya' for ajnanam.

> To explain, when i say 'i know' and remain quiet, there is an

> expectation on the part of the hearer ' you know what?' Thus, i have

> to specify 'i know the book you are referring to..'. So, here the

> book is the object of my knowledge.

>

> Similarly when i say 'i do not know', the question that arises is:

> what? Thus, for knowledge and ignorance there has to be specified an

> object.

>

> In the present context, (a)Avidya has an object. Avidya pertaining

> to something. That something is Consciousness here. (b) Since the

> jiva's appearance is subsequent to the pre-existing avidya (avidya

> is the cause of the jiva), the object of avidya cannot be the jiva

> who has come later.

>

> The idea is this: Avidya obscures the knowledge of (this means the

> knowledge pertaining to) Brahman. As a result of this the jiva

> comes into being (not knowing his true PUrNa, akhaNDa, advaita,

> Ananda nature). The Avidya cannot be said to pertain to the nature

> of jiva. Hence it is said the avidya is of Brahman alone.

>

> Trust this gives some clarification.

>

> Warm regards,

> subbu

> Om Tat Sat

>

[Guest guest]

> On the question of the prism analogy, I am bound to say that,

coming from a

> scientific background, I do not find this at all useful because it

does not

> seem to make any sense. It is the white beam that is 'really' made

up of

> many colours (different wavelengths) rather than the coloured

beams 'really'

> being only the white beam. So it seems that the prism shows us the

reality

> rather than disguising it. In fact, I would sooner argue that the

prism is

> introducing knowledge to dispel the ignorance that the white light

actually

> was white.

 

 

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

Pranams,

 

Here i am in complete agreement with you. I am not from a scientific

background. Like my choosen Guru mathematics and science was always

used to cause headache to me.I litterally used to 'mug up' :-)

theoroms, computer programs etc. and somehow used to clear those

dreadful subjects. I used to get lot of insight into those subject

while undergoing these circus but i always miserably failed to

understand and appreciate it full. But somehow i have got lot of

interest in the advaita vedanta as told by Shakara Bhagavadpada

which is full of dialectics and by his grace i have developed taste

and i am gaining new insights day by day.

 

Coming to the point, i had made a mistake while explaining the

analogy which i accept with an apology.

 

I had written that:

 

At the level of mind everything is a relative term and speculation.

In the prism example we can `speculate' that the white ray of light

is the real ray and that is `only knowledge' but at the same time we

are also `aware' of the `6 other rays' too.

 

=========

 

Here i typed White instead of Violet this caused all the confusion.

I wanted to say that once the refraction happens we may mistakingly

think that violet ray is the real ray of light and it as the

substratum as all light but in reality it is not so. When we are

looking to the seven colors (let us think that we are not aware of

the prism or pure light passing through it which goes perfectly well

with our ignorance about the 'primordial ignorance' and about the

self) we may argue or think that violet light is the light or green

light is the real light but that is not a fact and all our effort to

arrive at the real nature of pure light miserably fails. To know

what is the real light we have to be aware of prism as well as pure

light passing thourgh the prism and causing the different colours.

 

You have written:

 

So it seems that the prism shows us the reality

> rather than disguising it. In fact, I would sooner argue that the

prism is

> introducing knowledge to dispel the ignorance that the white light

actually

> was white.

 

 

This is what i wanted to say exactly. The moment we objectify the

prism or ignorance there dawns the real knoledge. In this case as it

belongs to non-self even you have objectified the pure light itself!

and we have gained a wonderful insight that the pure light contains

so many beautiful colors in the latent form!

 

Similarly i feel all our effort to know the truth is futile untill

and unless we objectify the ignorance or avidya itself. Since the

mind itself is the product of avidya real enlightenment can never

take place.

 

Just now Sri Dhyanasaraswati-ji has quoted from Pujya

Chinmayanandaji's saying. Madam i would like to tell you that my

father is a devotee of Chinmaya Mission and i had privilege to spend

lot of time with monks of chinmaya mission and Arsha Vidya Gurukulam

when we had privelege to serve them at our house and especially with

Swami Brahmannadaji who influnced and inspired me to take up

spiritual life by his beautiful bhajans and his matchless discourses

on Mankutimmana Kagga in kannada which he fondly used to call

Bhagavad Gita of Kannada. Let me reiterate madam i try to avoid

animosity with any monks of any order which is foremost rule taught

by Sri Ramakrishana. Even today my father is trying his level best

with his friends to establish a centre of Chinmaya Mission in our

home town as desired by Swami Brahmanandaji. Infact he might have

completed by this time and is waiting of the deputataion of the

brahmachari.

 

Coming to the point here Chinmayanandaji says that:

 

Swamiji explains this further with these beautiful analogies

"Sunlight passing through a plane glass, in spite of the medium

through which it has passed, emerges in its pure nature, if the

glass be clean, flawless and colourless.

 

Does he referring to Jnani's mind? Where he has the upadhi but the

truth is not distorted to him due to complete eradication of avidya?

 

This statement of his really kept me thinking...

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

Subbuji writes :

 

(The word 'object' is the translation of the Sanskrit

word 'viShayaH'. )

 

The same word 'vishaya ' is used in Narada bhakti sutra in the

following context IN CHAPTER 3 VERSE 35

 

 

tat tu vishaya-tyâgât sañga-tyâgâc ca

 

One achieves bhakti by giving up sense gratification and mundane

association.

 

VISHAYA thus refers to objects of sense enjoyment

 

The same word Vishaya is used in Srimad Bhagvat gita verse 59 ,

chapter 2 thus

 

Vishaya vinivartante niraharasya dehinah

rasavarjam rasopyasya param drishtva nivartate

 

The embodied soul may be restricted from sense enjoyment, though the

taste for sense objects remains. But, ceasing such engagements by

experiencing a higher taste, he is fixed in consciousness.

 

now , subbuji i agree with you 100% when you say

 

(The idea is this: Avidya obscures the knowledge of (this means the

> knowledge pertaining to) Brahman. As a result of this the jiva

> comes into being (not knowing his true PUrNa, akhaNDa, advaita,

> Ananda nature). The Avidya cannot be said to pertain to the nature

> of jiva. Hence it is said the avidya is of Brahman alone.

 

 

This makes perfect sense to even a laywoman like me ! please read

what you have said along with what Dennisji wrote about the

relationship between knowledge and ignorance ! now , we all get the

big picture ! Avidya is ignorance of brahman and knowlege is

knowledge of brahman alone! ''

 

NOW , CAN WE USE AVIDYA AND MAYA INTERCHANGEBLY

 

ARE ATMAN AND BRAHMAN SYNONYMS ?

 

if that is the case , why two different words to explain the same

phenomenon?

 

 

thanx in advance

 

regards

[Guest guest]

My dearest 'SON' ( also 'sun')------

 

 

Yes Dear heart ! All swamijis belonging to different schools try to

explain Brahma vidya using their owm methodology and terminology !

 

as you may know by now , i have traversed through many paths - when

i was in the 'Hare Kkrishna' movement, i learned a lot of beautiful

things on how to serve the Lotus feet of Lord Krishna by making

Garlands for Sri Sri Radha Madanamohana . I learned how to cook

the 'prasadam' for the deities . i also learned how to 'sow' the

dresses for the deities etc... The Sunday lectures at the temple on

The Srimad Bhagavat Gita were also very inspirational ..... but in

due course of time , i slowly realized that the Bhakti Yoga that was

being taught was more of a 'fanatical nature so much so that i was

taught to Love Krishna to the exclusion of all other deities

including Shiva ... not only that , these western devotees of Srila

prabhupada refereed to 'advaitins' as Mayavaadis ... when i read

Srila Prabhupada'S BOOKS . HE REFERRED TO SWAMI VIVEKANANDA AS A

SWAMIJI WHO LOOKED LIKE THE AIR INDIA MAHARAJA ... i got a shock !

how can a true vaishnava ridicule another messenger of God ! Time

for this seeker to graze on greener pastures!

'

then my spiritual quest took me to Maheshi yogi's TM movement ...

after spending a lot of hard earned dollars as Guru dakshina and ----

attending all the Retreats and reading books by Deepak chopra and

Mahesh yogi , i still was spiritually 'hungry'' ... the search went

on ; i also joined the Local chinmaya mission in silver spring and

attended many lectures by Swami Dheerananda prabhuji .... i ilked

Swamiji -he never forced any views on me - it was he who introduced

me to Sri Ramana Bhagwan and the 'koham' inquiry ...

 

but , believe me or not , along the way i did 'gather' a lot of

honey from these various flowers of wisdom ... but this Bee did not

rest .... one day , i met my Guru - that was the Moment i was

waiting for! He was from the Ramakrishna order - the one thing

Gurudeva taught me again and again was never to critize other swamis

or other paths . in this context, he quoted this verse from the

Srmad Bhagavat gita -------

 

The Yoga of the Supreme Person

TEXT 12

 

yad aditya-gatam tejo

jagad bhasayate 'khilam

yac candramasi yac cagnau

tat tejo viddhi mamakam (ch 15)

 

Tranlation

 

The splendor of the sun, which dissipates the darkness of this whole

world, comes from Me. And the splendor of the moon and the splendor

of fire are also from Me.

 

 

Brahma vidya is like the splendor of the Sun and the splendor of the

moon and the splendor of the fire!

 

So all these swamiji's belonging to differnt schools try to

teach the supreme truth the way they understand it ... it does not

mean one approach is superior to the other! Just because Swami

Dayananda does not believe in 'samadhi ' , it does not

mean 'samadhi' does not exist ... just because sri RamanA DOES NOT

BELIEVE IN KUNDALINI YOGA IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE KUNDALINI YOGA

LOSES ALL ITS APPEAL ...

 

my point is this ... we do not look 'good' CRITICIZING other

swamijis in order to promote our own swamijis! so , instead we focus

on the 'positives' and see the 'splendor'in all - because all light

comes only from the one indivisible Divine light !

 

Swami paramarthananda is the least political of all swamijis , i am

told ... in india of today , we need no politics in religion and no

religion in politics... '

 

i know in my heart of hearts , you will attain 'preyas and shreyas'

in your spiritual quest through sheer sincerity and determination!

 

blessings

 

MY LAST POST FOR TODAY

 

 

 

oogroups.com, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

[Guest guest]

Om Om Shradhyey Dhyana Saraswati ji,

 

You have very rightly said that every swamiji, instead of criticising

others, should preach the disciples

Brahman Jnaan (knowledge). One thing more I would like to add, and that is

regarding collection of money, on the preface of doing seva work, towards

preaching Brahman Vidya. Although their preachings are absolutely good, but

it is not good to bring money in this. It is also said in a scripture (don't

exactly know the name)-

 

Griha karma samAsaktaM ahaM Brahmeti vAdinaM.

Karma Brahmo bhayo bhrashtaM taM tyajet dantyajaM yathA.

 

The translation of the above syllable is -- One who is attached to home

affairs and to outer affairs as well and claims being Brahman, must

be known being corrupted from deeds and Brahman both and should be left like

a demon.

 

Thanks. My knowledge is based on the preachings of my Guru Brahmaleen Sh.

Swami Parmanand ji Maharaj.

More could be found about him on www.anandkebeechmain.makeswebsites.com

 

 

On 1/13/07, dhyanasaraswati <dhyanasaraswati > wrote:

>

> My dearest 'SON' ( also 'sun')------

>

> Yes Dear heart ! All swamijis belonging to different schools try to

> explain Brahma vidya using their owm methodology and terminology !

>

> as you may know by now , i have traversed through many paths - when

> i was in the 'Hare Kkrishna' movement, i learned a lot of beautiful

> things on how to serve the Lotus feet of Lord Krishna by making

> Garlands for Sri Sri Radha Madanamohana . I learned how to cook

> the 'prasadam' for the deities . i also learned how to 'sow' the

> dresses for the deities etc... The Sunday lectures at the temple on

> The Srimad Bhagavat Gita were also very inspirational ..... but in

> due course of time , i slowly realized that the Bhakti Yoga that was

> being taught was more of a 'fanatical nature so much so that i was

> taught to Love Krishna to the exclusion of all other deities

> including Shiva ... not only that , these western devotees of Srila

> prabhupada refereed to 'advaitins' as Mayavaadis ... when i read

> Srila Prabhupada'S BOOKS . HE REFERRED TO SWAMI VIVEKANANDA AS A

> SWAMIJI WHO LOOKED LIKE THE AIR INDIA MAHARAJA ... i got a shock !

> how can a true vaishnava ridicule another messenger of God ! Time

> for this seeker to graze on greener pastures!

> '

> then my spiritual quest took me to Maheshi yogi's TM movement ...

> after spending a lot of hard earned dollars as Guru dakshina and ----

> attending all the Retreats and reading books by Deepak chopra and

> Mahesh yogi , i still was spiritually 'hungry'' ... the search went

> on ; i also joined the Local chinmaya mission in silver spring and

> attended many lectures by Swami Dheerananda prabhuji .... i ilked

> Swamiji -he never forced any views on me - it was he who introduced

> me to Sri Ramana Bhagwan and the 'koham' inquiry ...

>

> but , believe me or not , along the way i did 'gather' a lot of

> honey from these various flowers of wisdom ... but this Bee did not

> rest .... one day , i met my Guru - that was the Moment i was

> waiting for! He was from the Ramakrishna order - the one thing

> Gurudeva taught me again and again was never to critize other swamis

> or other paths . in this context, he quoted this verse from the

> Srmad Bhagavat gita -------

>

> The Yoga of the Supreme Person

> TEXT 12

>

> yad aditya-gatam tejo

> jagad bhasayate 'khilam

> yac candramasi yac cagnau

> tat tejo viddhi mamakam (ch 15)

>

> Tranlation

>

> The splendor of the sun, which dissipates the darkness of this whole

> world, comes from Me. And the splendor of the moon and the splendor

> of fire are also from Me.

>

> Brahma vidya is like the splendor of the Sun and the splendor of the

> moon and the splendor of the fire!

>

> So all these swamiji's belonging to differnt schools try to

> teach the supreme truth the way they understand it ... it does not

> mean one approach is superior to the other! Just because Swami

> Dayananda does not believe in 'samadhi ' , it does not

> mean 'samadhi' does not exist ... just because sri RamanA DOES NOT

> BELIEVE IN KUNDALINI YOGA IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE KUNDALINI YOGA

> LOSES ALL ITS APPEAL ...

>

> my point is this ... we do not look 'good' CRITICIZING other

> swamijis in order to promote our own swamijis! so , instead we focus

> on the 'positives' and see the 'splendor'in all - because all light

> comes only from the one indivisible Divine light !

>

> Swami paramarthananda is the least political of all swamijis , i am

> told ... in india of today , we need no politics in religion and no

> religion in politics... '

>

> i know in my heart of hearts , you will attain 'preyas and shreyas'

> in your spiritual quest through sheer sincerity and determination!

>

> blessings

>

> MY LAST POST FOR TODAY

>

> oogroups.com, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

>when i say 'i know' and remain quiet, there is an

> expectation on the part of the hearer ' you know what?' Thus, i

have to specify 'i know the book you are referring to..'. So, here

the book is the object of my knowledge.

> > Similarly when i say 'i do not know', the question that arises

>is: what? Thus, for knowledge and ignorance there has to be

>specified an object.

 

Dear Sri Subramanian,

It is the common experience of one and all that we make the

statements "I know" and "I do not know".

The next question is WHO KNOWS "I KNOW" AND "I DO NOT KNOW"?

Unless I knew that "I know" I could not have made that

statement. Similarly unless I knew that "I do not know" I could not

have made that statement.

Who is this KNOWER of knowledge and ignorance, in other words,

Vidya and Avidya?

Has Sri Shankara answered this question in his commentary on

the mantra 4-4-6 of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad?

Bhagavan Ramana says in Upadeshasaram :

That knowledge is true knowledge which transcends

Knowledge and ignorance both equally.

And this alone is truth. For there is no

Subject or object there that can be known. ||Verse 27

Also Bhagavan Ramana says in UlladunArpadu :

Ignorance and knowledge both depend

The one upon the other. Only thus

can they exist. Searching 'for whom are these?'

Until eventuallt you find their source,

And realizing that it is the Self,

Is WISDOM in PERFECTION. Rest in That! Verse 10

LET ALL OF US REST IN THAT.

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

 

 

 

>

,

>

> The word 'object' is the translation of the Sanskrit

> word 'viShayaH'. In the so very finely 'refined' structure of

> logic, there is a 'viShaya' for jnAnam and a 'viShaya' for

ajnanam.

> To explain, >

> In the present context, (a)Avidya has an object. Avidya pertaining

> to something. That something is Consciousness here. (b) Since the

> jiva's appearance is subsequent to the pre-existing avidya (avidya

> is the cause of the jiva), the object of avidya cannot be the jiva

> who has come later.

>

> The idea is this: Avidya obscures the knowledge of (this means the

> knowledge pertaining to) Brahman. As a result of this the jiva

> comes into being (not knowing his true PUrNa, akhaNDa, advaita,

> Ananda nature). The Avidya cannot be said to pertain to the nature

> of jiva. Hence it is said the avidya is of Brahman alone.

>

> Trust this gives some clarification.

>

> Warm regards,

> subbu

> Om Tat Sat

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite wrote:

 

> The only thing that can remove this ignorance is knowledge, which

has to

> take place in this mind, since that is where the ignorance is.

Accordingly,

> like it or not (and despite what other teachers may say -

especially

> neo-Advaitin ones), enlightenment takes place in the mind. It is

the 'mind'

> or person that awakens.

 

Dear Advaitin,

 

Yesterday i went to a book fair held at a certain place and

purchased book Manukya Karika by Swami Chinmayanandaji from their

book stall. When i was having cursory glance of the book some

portion seemed relevat to our discussion and hence i am presenting

them here.

 

While explaining the termilogies in the 8th mantra Swamiji has given

precise definitiions.

 

prapanchopashamam is defined as-Negation of all phenomenon-The

Turiya state is the realm into which the world of finitude and its

imperfect experiences have no admission. It is only up to the gate

of Turiya that we have the plurality and the experience fo the

plurality. Prapancha, which is constituted of the pluralistic world

of mortality, is experienced only in the waking state, the dream

state and the deep sleep state. Once these three states

are 'transcended', we enter into the world of Reality and there at

Turiya, the worlds of finitude and change, mortality and sorrow,

imperfection and deceits, limitations and tears have no entry.

 

Advaitama is defined as-When the superimposed ghost retires at the

vision fo the post, all super-impositions upon it have retired

and "the One without a second"-The reality of the post alone exists.

The world of duality is available for our experience only in the

worlds of the waking and the dream states. In the deep-sleep-state

there is in fact, an experience of something homogeneous; only we

are not aware of it at the time of experiencing it. But in the world

of reality, when we enter the zone of Turiya, there, the entire

pluralistic world 'rolls away' and the experience of the non-dual

reality alone remains as eternally ture.

 

He also continues and says that:

 

The significance of the concluding words of the Master is very deep

and sacred. After all teh elaborate attempts to arrive at a

satisfactory definition of the Supreme Reality, the master says to

the disciple, "What you have now understood intellectually is not in

itself the fullfillment of a scriptural study." The scriptures are

to be understood through reflection, no doubt, but a mere

understanding through reflection, in itself is not the end of Brahma

Vidya. The meaning arrived at is to be meditated upon.

 

In the end every student should accomplish the feat of detaching

himself from teh outer envelopments of matter and come to rediscover

himself, the Sacred Centre in which the Subject in him 'reveals'

within. The world-of-objects and their preceptions are like the

mirage-water in the desert;not a single grain of sand has ever been

drenched by moisture in the mirage!

 

Similarly, the disciple, it is understood here, is to 'experience'

within himself taht truth which is non dual and beyond all

phenomena. No amount of study and reflection will fulfill the goal

of life. Meditation is the royal path to success and final glory in

spiritual life.

 

I Shall try to conclude his siceere warning to earnest sadhakas

while commenting upon the 32nd Karika

 

There is neither dissolution, nor birth;neither anyone in bondage,

nor any aspirant for wisdom, neither can there be anyone who hankers

after liberation, nor any liberated as such. This alone is the

Supreme Truth.

 

His comments are as under:

 

It is for analysing and understanding the implicatinos of such

stanzas in vedanata that an ordinary student requires the help of

Master. Books, as such, are easily available in these days of

reckless printing at some wayside railway stall. An intelligent,

educated man of the day, if he were to come across such a stanza in

one of the books, would at once jump to a 'suicidal

misunderstanding' that he alone is the Eternal Truth and that there

is nothing for him to do or to 'become'(Here the author himself has

highlighted the word)

 

The philosophy of 'being' as opposed to that of 'becoming' is

dangerous inasmuch as we are so imperfect and we have yet

ot 'become'. Thus, stanzas like this, which arise from the white-

heat intensity of the Master's inner life, experienced as he writes

at his desk, must necessarily be learnt and understood in their

right attitude from 'any of the present' day Masters 'who have

walked the path and tasted the truth'.

 

Hope the message of this great sage clarifies to some extent!

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns > wrote: ---From

Sankarraman

Turiya is not something to be arrived at through an intellectual, analytical and syllogistic reasoning, all these things being possible only in the three states. As Bhaghavan has put it, the consummation of self-enquiry is not coming upon a state by a relative knower, all theories and conclusions, mere products of imagination of the mind, being irrelevant here. While all becoming is understood to be unreal, it is not also the being of the ego to come to any such conclusion, but a death-experience. Because it is not a conceptual knowledge, the Buddha remained silent, his silence having been misunderstood by all intellectual people who understood the transcendental truth to suit their predilections, instead of seeing it as something in regard to which their knowledge is limited to identify it as being or non-being, mere attributes of the thinking mind.

with regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.

Try the free Mail Beta.

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinyaka-ji, (and Peter-ji and others),

 

 

 

I began this thread some time ago in response to what appeared to be a

sincere enquiry from yourself:

 

 

 

"This statement of yours really kept me thinking. Atman need not realize.

Ego Cannot realize. My question is what is the 'mysterious entity that

realizes' that - That I am not the ego but the aatma that is ever from time

wise, space wise and object wise."

 

 

 

Since then, your posts have shown that you are very knowledgeable on the

subject and/or able to research the topic thoroughly. I am not personally

interested in deep academic discussion on any of these topics. (I haven't

got the time!) It seems that this is really just indulging the natural

predisposition of the mind to play with ideas. My aim was rather to give a

clear description to those beginners who were probably intrigued by the

question.

 

 

 

The answer I gave certainly did not suggest that I was inferring that

enlightenment was a mere intellectual appreciation of the shruti. On the

contrary, if there is intellectual ratiocination still going on, this is a

clear indication that there is still ignorance to be removed. I gave a link

to the essay on 'Self-knowledge and the Mind' -

(http://www.advaita.

<http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/knowingself_durga.htm>

org.uk/discourses/teachers/knowingself_durga.htm) - in which akhaNDAkAra

vRRitti is described as the mental 'occurrence' which effectively causes

enlightenment. [This is the vRRitti (thought) in the form of (AkAra) the

formless or undivided (akhaNDa)].

 

 

 

I appreciate the paradox of whether it is brahman or the jIva that is the

locus of the ignorance and it is certainly possible to have interesting

discussions on such things but, at the end of the day, whoever has the

ignorance, it is necessary to get rid of it! And knowledge is also mithyA!

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

<<Yesterday i went to a book fair held at a certain place and

purchased book Manukya Karika by Swami Chinmayanandaji from their

book stall. When i was having cursory glance of the book some

portion seemed relevat to our discussion and hence i am presenting

them here.>>