Who is it who awakens?

[Guest guest]

Dennis-ji wrote:

 

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 . . .

 

<snip>. . . .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.

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

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

 

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

Your views are clearly noted and understood.

 

May I just point out that I have not made any posts on this thread.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite wrote:

>

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

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.

 

Dear Sir,

 

Let me reiterate from my side at least, there is no intention of

mere intellectual exercise or to play with ideas. As an aspirant I

am very serious.

 

You had mentioned in you earlier mail that:

 

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.

 

===========

 

As you have spent considerable time in study of advaita vedanta I

was surprised with this question of yours. Because the avidya,

anthakaran and locus of avidya etc. are very important in the study

of advaita, I felt that I have to get clarification in this issue

and hence I quoted whatever little knowledge I had and I requested

you to quote the opposite view if it has been stated elsewhere.

Since you have no time I do not want to pursue it further.

 

Secondly you have written:

 

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

that

Enlightenment was a mere intellectual appreciation of the shruti.

 

 

In the very first mail of yours you have written as under:

 

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.

 

==========

 

 

I was trying to give my understanding/perspectives from different

sources to this precise pointer towards the neo-advaitins as this

definitely has to do something with 'experience/understanding'

issue.

 

As the list is not moderated I am trying my level best to keep the

discussions highly focused and I am not introducing unwanted things

in the thread as far as possible.

 

=========

 

> 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!

 

 

Thank you for reiterating this point repeatedly. It has been noted.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

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

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.

Dear Dennis, What you say is hundred percent true. It doesn't make us move an inch in understanding if we indulge in intellectual acrobatics. All these ideas have been dealt with very well by Bhaghavan Ramana, and Sankara in his work Upadesasahastri. Even Samkhya philosophy is very clear that the bondage or liberation pertains only to the reflected consciousness, which in our ignorance is confounded to be the Self. Gathering too much information on these things after one is acquainted with the preliminaries, would be like, to use the words of Bhaghavan, counting the shaved remains, instead of throwing them in the dustbin.

with best regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail beta.

[Guest guest]

Dennis=ji writes :

 

(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!)

 

Wow ! Dennisji, if Knowledge is 'mithya' then what about Brahman? Is

not brahman the ULTIMATE KNOWLEDGE ? bY KNOWLEDGE , I ALWAYS THOUGHT

WE MEANT BRAHMA-VIDYA AND NOT BOUTHIKA KNOWLEDGE !

 

ANYWAY ....

 

The following discourse is attributed to the Chinese Zen master

Ch'ing yuan Wei-hsin of the T'ang Dynasty and provides a window into

the understanding of Zen:

 

Thirty years ago, before I began the study of Zen, I

said, 'Mountains are mountains, waters are waters.' After I got

insight into the truth of Zen through the instructions of a good

master, I said, 'Mountains are not mountains, waters are not

waters.' But now, having attained the abode of final rest, (that is,

Enlightenment) I say, 'Mountains are really mountains, waters are

really waters.'

 

 

sAarvam brahma mayam !

 

PS ... i am taking a two weeks break and take this time to look

inwards ! the free bird wants to retire into a cage bird for

sometime and 'Rest in That' !

 

love and regards

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "dhyanasaraswati"

<dhyanasaraswati wrote:

>

> Dennis=ji writes :

>

> (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!)

>

> Wow ! Dennisji, if Knowledge is 'mithya' then what about Brahman? Is

> not brahman the ULTIMATE KNOWLEDGE ? bY KNOWLEDGE , I ALWAYS THOUGHT

> WE MEANT BRAHMA-VIDYA AND NOT BOUTHIKA KNOWLEDGE !

>

Namaste D et al,

 

Brahman as Suguna Brahman or Isvara is a myth and is only as real as

you are. The delusory Isvara is only the sum total of all the

Jivas...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Dear Tony-Ji,

 

Are you included in those Jivas?

 

Harsha

 

Tony OClery wrote:

> Namaste D et al,

>

> Brahman as Suguna Brahman or Isvara is a myth and is only as real as

> you are. The delusory Isvara is only the sum total of all the

> Jivas...Tony.

>

>

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>As you have spent considerable time in study of advaita vedanta I

>was surprised with this question of yours. Because the avidya,

> >anthakaran and locus of avidya etc. are very important

> in the study of advaita, I......

 

Dear Sri Vinyaka,

Advaita is only concerned with realizing ONE'S TRUE SVARUPA.

That means one should study oneself only under the guidance

of a GURU who has realised what he is teaching.

Study of all the other things other than oneself

is fruitless and worthless if ONE'S AIM or GOAL IS

SELF-KNOWLEDGE.

Knowledge about Avidya, antahkarana, locus of avidya , the

question of who, how etc. etc. are something to be discarded. Why

waste time over such things which are to be discarded finally? A

genuine and sincere sadhaka should devote himself to the study of

ONESELF only. Other things will drop off by themselves when once the

journey towards Self-Realzation is over. That is what my Guru

instructed me when I started my spiritual journey. That precious

advice of my Guru has helped me a long way in my journey.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

 

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "narayana145" <narayana145 wrote:

 

>

> Dear Sri Vinyaka,

> Advaita is only concerned with realizing ONE'S TRUE SVARUPA.

> That means one should study oneself only under the guidance

> of a GURU who has realised what he is teaching.

> Study of all the other things other than oneself

> is fruitless and worthless if ONE'S AIM or GOAL IS

> SELF-KNOWLEDGE.

> Knowledge about Avidya, antahkarana, locus of avidya , the

> question of who, how etc. etc. are something to be discarded. Why

> waste time over such things which are to be discarded finally?

 

Dear Sir,

 

Namste,

 

I can understand the spirit behind your words. All my study/meditation

and indulgence in dialectics are based on the following saying of

Swami Vivekananda.

 

(Quote)

To get any reason out of the mass incongruity we call human life, we

have to transcend our reason, but we must do it scientifically,

slowly, by regular practice, and we must cast off all superstition. We

must take up the study of the superconscious state just as any other

science. On reason we must have to lay our foundation, we must follow

reason as far as it leads, and when reason fails, reason itself will

show us the way to the highest plane. When you hear a man say, "I am

inspired," and then talk irrationally, reject it. Why? Because these

three states -- instinct, reason, and superconsciousness, or the

unconscious, conscious, and superconscious states -- belong to one and

the same mind. There are not three minds in one man, but one state of

it develops into the others. Instinct develops into reason, and reason

into the transcendental consciousness; therefore, not one of the

states contradicts the others. Real inspiration never contradicts

reason, but fulfills it. Just as you find the great prophets

saying, "I come not to destroy but to fulfil," so inspiration always

comes to fulfil reason, and is in harmony with it.

 

(Unquote)

 

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

Pranams to all,

 

Additional reading has produced the following understanding

 

Ignorance(Avidya) implies "someone's" ignorance of "something". So it

should be located in a certain entity and the this ignorance should be

of some object. Where something exists in - is called AshrayaH and the

object this ignorance hides is called viShayaH.

 

So where is this ignorance(Avidya) located and what is this ignorance of?

 

We have two items to talk about here - the Self(Real) and then we have

the Unreal(the world, body etc). What is eternal is Self and the rest

is the Unreal(Maya).

 

Avidya cannot be in the Unreal. Because the UnReal itself is born

because of Avidya(Ignorance). Neither can it be said that the object

which Avidya is hiding is the UnReal.

 

So inference leads us to that the Self is the AsrayaH and the viShayaH

of Avidya. So ignorance is located in Self and the object of ignorance

is Self (Avidya hides the Self).

 

In such a case, the

1. Knowledge to remove Avidya is possible because of the Self

2. Since Self is eternal and doesnt come into existence after

Ignorance (unlike the UnReal), so Avidya(Ignorance) is capable of

hiding the Self

3. Self has an existence apart from Avidya and hence can act as an

AshrayaH for Avidya

4. But the Self is not affected by this Avidya (like in the example of

snake and the rope). And the the concept of a subject, object and

knowledge only comes because of ignorance (Avidya).

 

(The above is according to Suresvara. There seem to be differences

though as to where the locus of the Avidya is - some say in the Jiva

and some say in Self/Brahman. )

 

I am still working on understanding this better. Corrections on my

understanding are most welcome.

 

Regards,

Ravi

[Guest guest]

> Avidya cannot be in the Unreal. Because the UnReal itself is born

> because of Avidya(Ignorance). Neither can it be said that the

object

> which Avidya is hiding is the UnReal.

>

> So inference leads us to that the Self is the AsrayaH and the

viShayaH

> of Avidya. So ignorance is located in Self and the object of

ignorance

> is Self (Avidya hides the Self).

 

 

Dear Ravi-ji,

 

Thanks for this excellent explanation. To reiterate, the locus and

the object of avidya is the self itself. It cannot be non-self

because the very birth and existence of the non-self is an

impossiblity without avidya. I feel, it is absurd to say jiva is the

locus of avidya because it amounts to telling literally that first

jiva or mind is created and avidya takes its seat in it!

 

Avidya is the cause and the non-self is effect. With my limited

knowledge in Shanakara's advaita, he seems to uphold this view. The

suject is very complex and we can have other members views also to

get more clarification/corrections.

 

You have written:

 

> 2. Since Self is eternal and doesnt come into existence after

> Ignorance (unlike the UnReal), so Avidya(Ignorance) is capable of

> hiding the Self

 

Not only it is capable of hiding the self, but it has 'no' option

than to hide the 'self', because nothing else exists! For avidya

there is no other choice and if we say to the contraty it amounts to

saying that it makes 'itself' an object which is absurd.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka