A clarification on the ShAnkaran view of Self-Realization

[Guest guest]

ShrIgurubhyo namaH

 

Dear Shyam ji,

 

The following is an excerpt from your post on Atman definition:

 

 

//On a different note - regarding Brahman and

beyond....there is only one thing that is "beyond" the

perceived world of forms and names - and that is the

perceiver the witnesser, the Self.

 

And in reality what is perceived is nondifferent from

the witnessing principle. The witnessing principle

alone is Real, is Brahman. And this witnessing

principle you are. right now. Cognition is removal of

ignorance about this fact.

 

The "beyond" is not in the sense of objectifying

something else in the future that is yet

unobjectified, in a pure and pristine form, but a

re-cognition about I the witnessing principle, the

SUBJECT alone, being what is "beyond" the seen, the

sense organs and the mind, in the very now.

 

Trust this helps clarify to some extent.//

 

 

In the light of the foregoing, it would be pertinent to know for

certain, without doubt, the position of the UpaniShads, Acharya

Shankara and the scriptural tradition on the matter of Self-

Realization. This is required in the light of various other views

that are certainly not that of Shankara and the sampradaya on this

topic. The salient feature of the Shankaran teaching of Self-

Realization is that it is an experience brought about by the

akhandAkAravritti which is the special mode of the mind which 'takes

on' the form of Atman/Brahman, bereft of all upAdhis (in other

words, the Pure Consciousness without the least admixture of the

anAtman). This vritti is the one that rises abruptly and destroys

avidya and itself gets sublated leaving the Non-dual Pure

Consciousness as the sole reality to the realized person. The most

prominent mention of this, as it appears to me, is the Mandukya

Upanishad bhashya for the seventh mantra which i had quoted recently

asking for help in understanding. We have seen several times before

the classic example of the Brihadaranyaka statement: Atma vaa arey

drashtavyaH, shrotavyo..... for which Shankara writes: Atman has to

be 'made an object of seeing/experience'(darshana-VISHAYATAM

ApAdayitavyaH. vishayataa means objecthood. For a saampradaayic

vedanta saadhaka, the Atma-sAkShAtkara is the goal). The early

Sutra bhashya : anubhavAvasAnatvAt brahmajnAnasya (Knowledge of

Brahman culminates in direct experience). The BhAmati gloss

clarifies this word 'anubhava' used by Shankara by pointing out that

this means that one becomes endowed with the akhandAkAravritti. The

traditional way of teaching Self realization is this alone.

 

Contrary to this is the view that Self Realization is

an 'understanding', 'cognition', 're-cognition' etc. This is not

the view to which Shankara or the traditional Masters .

While they value the role of understanding, re-cognition, etc., yet,

in the scheme of liberation taught by them, the coming up of the

akhandAkAravritti abruptly, in a flash, as it was recently quoted

from Sw.Chinmayananda's work, that instantly destroys avidya.

Elaborate methodology is worked out by the tradtional masters to

explain what this special Vritti is, its content, role, nature,

etc. It is this vritti, once having come up, catapults the sadhaka

to the state of a Jnani. It has been said that even for the

extremely advanced sadhaka the difference between the bound state

(just prior to his saakshAtkAra) and the liberated state is

something phenomenal; it is a quantum jump.

 

When you say:

 

//.....but a

re-cognition about I the witnessing principle, the

SUBJECT alone, being what is "beyond" the seen, the

sense organs and the mind, in the very now.//

 

Is such a recognition not there now? Has such a recognition

destroyed (your) avidya and given you a firm conviction that you are

liberated? If no, you might say that you require something else to

bring about such a conviction. Why is there not the recognition of

the witnessing principle now itself? All of us know from the basic

study of the Vedanta, in a few day's time, that we are the

witnessing principle. Then why are we not able to assert, if not to

others, to ourselves, that we are Jnanis and are already

liberated? When that something happens and puts you in the

unshakable position of a Jnani, essentially you have come out of a

specific experience that has brought about this specific change in

you.

 

In several places throughout the Bhashya Shankara talks of the pre-

enlightenment state and the post-enlightenment state; in one place

indicating His own case. Shankara inserts this episode of self-

realization in between two consecuitive mantras in the Kenopanishad.

In the first mantra the aspirant heard of the nature of the Aman.

He resorted to a secluded place and deliberated and acquired the

direct experience -svaanubhavam, as Shankara calls it. He returns

to the class and expresses his personally experienced view of the

Atman. The unassailable position of the Shankaran advaita

sampradaya is that only he is liberated for whom the

akhandakaravritti has occurred and freed him by destroying his

ignorance once for all, in one go. It is in this context only it

becomes possible for the truly realized to recall their pre-

enlightenment days, their sadhana, its culmination in the dawn of

realization (a word 'utpatti of Atma vijnAna' Shankara uses often),

recount it to his disciples who are fit to understand it, etc.

Shankara never glosses over the issue. In one place he asks: How

can anyone deny someone else's experience of the Brahmaatva bhava

and the coexistence of the body? In fact, the word 'Atma-

sAkshAtkAra' (direct perception of the Atman) is not a figure of

speech. It is used in the context of the akhandaakAravritti where

one has the perception of the Atman bereft of any tinge of

anaatman. It is definitely not a recognition of the fact that one

is the witnessing principle beyond the mind and intellect. All this

is essential to strengthen the manana and aid nididhyaasana but the

culmination of the sadhana, in the ShAnkaran method, is in the

abrupt arising of this A.vritti.

 

The above clarification is given to show that the teaching of the

Upanishads and Shankara on the topic of Self-realization, the

culmination of sadhana, is not the one proposed by using terms such

as 'understanding', recognition, etc. The two views are different

from each other. They are not the same thing put in different ways

either. The former subsumes the latter and specifies a distinct

apprehension of the Pure Consciousness as a sine qua non for

conferring liberation. It is not unknown to the followers of

Shankara that the Self is ever the subject and never an object and

it is never objectifiable. Shankara himself teaches this several

times. Yet in order to become liberated, in the Upanishadic sense,

it is required on the part of the sadhaka to generate, by virtue of

his sadhana aided by the Shastra and the Guru, this specific avidya-

destroying vritti and be done with it.

 

The statement of the ShAnkaran view may not be to the taste of those

who decry an experience as having a beginning and an end, etc., and

therefore not to be resorted to, being invalid. In vEdAnta,

although samsara is anAdi, beginningless, it is sa-anta, endable.

And it ends in time. The experience of the enlightened persons who

have spoken about it cannot be thrown overboard. The comparing of

the time consciousness of the bound person and that of the liberated

person to establish that there is no need for an event to occur for

liberation is also not admissible in the shAnkaran scheme. Shankara

never indulges in any such quibbles. He calls a spade a spade and,

in the manner of the Upanishads, makes a neat delineation, without

mixing up of paramaartha and vyavahaara, of bondage, sadhana, Guru,

Shastra, and the culmination of it in liberation and the post-

enlightened state (all of which Shankara himself calls are in the

realm of duality and have a beginning and an end. Yet these very

things are resorted to to bring about the cessation of bondage).

Nowhere he says: 'realization is for the ignorant alone and for the

enlightened there is no such thing called realization, he knows he

is ever realized, never bound, etc.' Not in one place in the

prashtana traya bhashya have i found such arguments.

I have addressed not just you, Shyam ji, but some others too who

might have put forth views on the subject.

 

With warm regards and Pranams,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

Dear Subbu-ji,

 

Many thanks for your email to 'Shyam ji and others'. Let me see if I have

followed your line of thought and share with you where I don't quite

understand.

 

As you may know, my own limited understanding is that Brahman cannot be an

object of knowledge or experience - ie as 'a something' distinct from us to

be known. However, we could also say that Realisation would entail

Knowledge which is also Immediate Experience. The two - 'knowledge' and

'immediate experience' - are one as awareness-existence - at least these are

the words I use to give form to my understanding. Would I be correct in

saying this is supported by Brahma Sutra Bashya I.i.2.:

 

"...in the former case [deliberation on Brahman],

the Vedic texts, personal experience, etc,

are the valid means as far as possible,

for the knowledge of Brahman culminates in *experience*,

and it relates to an existing entity." (BSB I.i.2)

 

Now, the above is Gambhirananda's translation (page 16) to Shankara's

introduction to BSB, and Gambhirananda adds a footnote to the word

*experience* and states that it means as follows:

 

"The mental modification having the form

'I am Brahman', culminates in the revelation

of the real nature of Brahman."

 

We should acknowledge this is what Gambhirananda is adding, rather than what

Shankara is stating in his text.

 

I can appreciate the idea of one vritti (knowledge) destroying another (of

ignorance). Where I am not following you (and you may well say I have not so

far in the above!) is where you describe this "mental modification"

(akhandAkAravritti) as a direct perception of Brahman and support this by

saying that according to Shankara, "Atman has to be 'made an object of

seeing/experience'." Have I misunderstood?

 

I guess I am struggling with the the phrase that Atman has to be made an

'object of seeing/experience'.

 

For we have, "You cannot see the seer of seeing.." (Brihad. III.iv.2)

 

And, although Gaudapada states in his Karika, something similar to what you

qoute:

 

"The immutable and birthless Brahman

Is the sole object of Knowledge."

 

Guadapada qualifies this statement in his final sentence.

 

"The immutable and birthless Brahman

is the sole object of Knowledge.

The birthless is known by the birthless."

(Karika II.33)

 

And Shankara's commentary to the Karika is:

 

"The Essence of the Self, which is the object of knowledge, verily knows

itself by means of unborn knowledge, which is the very nature of Atman . . .

[it] does not depend upon another instrument of knowledge [pramana] (for its

illumination)."

 

Also, we have these interesting verses from Upadesha Sahasri XVIII:

 

203. "...accept the Self as self evident

which means the same as self knowable.

The knowledge of the inmost Self, according to us,

thus becomes possible when the ego vanishes."

 

 

205. "The Witness is known by itself

which is of the nature of knowledge only.

It is the birth of the modification of the intellect

Pervaded by the reflection of Consciousness

that is what is known as knowledge of the Self."

 

These last two lines may well give support to what you are saying, though we

should note "The Witness is known [only] by itself". Also, the modification

of the intellect, if that is the akhandAkAravritti you are referring to, is

pervaded by only a "reflection of Consciousness", it is not a direct seeing

of the Self.

 

As a by the way, Ramana Maharshi also refers to the akhandAkAravritti in a

passage in talks. I have put his words below as they suggest this vritti is

more than a modification of mind.

 

[Talk 307:

Mr. Shamanna from Mysore asked Sri Bhagavan: Kindly explain Aham Sphurana

(the light of 'I-I').

 

Sri Ramana.: 'I' is not known in sleep. On waking 'I' is perceived

associated with the body, the world and non-self in general. Such associated

'I' is Aham vritti. When Aham represents the Self only it is Aham Sphurana.

This is natural to the Jnani and is itself called jnana by jnanis, or bhakti

by bhaktas. Though ever present, including in sleep, it is not perceived. It

cannot be known in sleep all at once. It must first be realised in the

waking state, for it is our true nature underlying all the three states.

Efforts must be made only in the jagrat [waking] state and the Self realised

here and now. It will afterwards be understood and realised to be continuous

Self, uninterrupted by jagrat, svapna [dream state] and sushupti [deep

sleep]. Thus it is akhandakara vritti (unbroken experience). Vritti is used

for lack of a better expression. It should not be understood to be literally

a vritti. In that case, vritti will resemble an 'ocean-like river', which is

absurd. Vritti is of short duration, it is qualified, directed

consciousness; or absolute consciousness broken up by cognition of thoughts,

senses, etc. Vritti is the function of the mind, whereas the continuous

consciousness transcends the mind. This is the natural, primal state of the

Jnani or the liberated being. That is unbroken experience. It asserts itself

when relative consciousness subsides. Aham vritti ('I-thought') is broken,

Aham sphurana (the light of 'I-I') is unbroken, continuous. After the

thoughts subside,the light shines forth.]

 

Looking forward to your thoughts, Subbu-ji.

 

With best wishes,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

Pranams Subbu-ji

Thank you for your response to my post.

 

Could you please clarify for me, when you say the

infinite undifferentiated Brahman is to be

"apprehended" and "made an object of one's

experience", who is the subject who apprehends this

nondual Brahman?

 

 

Hari OM

Shyam

 

--- subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote:

 

>

>

> ShrIgurubhyo namaH

>

> Dear Shyam ji,

>

> The following is an excerpt from your post on Atman

> definition:

>

>

> //On a different note - regarding Brahman and

> beyond....there is only one thing that is "beyond"

> the

> perceived world of forms and names - and that is the

> perceiver the witnesser, the Self.

>

> And in reality what is perceived is nondifferent

> from

> the witnessing principle. The witnessing principle

> alone is Real, is Brahman. And this witnessing

> principle you are. right now. Cognition is removal

> of

> ignorance about this fact.

>

> The "beyond" is not in the sense of objectifying

> something else in the future that is yet

> unobjectified, in a pure and pristine form, but a

> re-cognition about I the witnessing principle, the

> SUBJECT alone, being what is "beyond" the seen, the

> sense organs and the mind, in the very now.

>

> Trust this helps clarify to some extent.//

>

>

> In the light of the foregoing, it would be pertinent

> to know for

> certain, without doubt, the position of the

> UpaniShads, Acharya

> Shankara and the scriptural tradition on the matter

> of Self-

> Realization. This is required in the light of

> various other views

> that are certainly not that of Shankara and the

> sampradaya on this

> topic. The salient feature of the Shankaran

> teaching of Self-

> Realization is that it is an experience brought

> about by the

> akhandAkAravritti which is the special mode of the

> mind which 'takes

> on' the form of Atman/Brahman, bereft of all upAdhis

> (in other

> words, the Pure Consciousness without the least

> admixture of the

> anAtman). This vritti is the one that rises

> abruptly and destroys

> avidya and itself gets sublated leaving the Non-dual

> Pure

> Consciousness as the sole reality to the realized

> person. The most

> prominent mention of this, as it appears to me, is

> the Mandukya

> Upanishad bhashya for the seventh mantra which i had

> quoted recently

> asking for help in understanding. We have seen

> several times before

> the classic example of the Brihadaranyaka statement:

> Atma vaa arey

> drashtavyaH, shrotavyo..... for which Shankara

> writes: Atman has to

> be 'made an object of

> seeing/experience'(darshana-VISHAYATAM

> ApAdayitavyaH. vishayataa means objecthood. For a

> saampradaayic

> vedanta saadhaka, the Atma-sAkShAtkara is the

> goal). The early

> Sutra bhashya : anubhavAvasAnatvAt brahmajnAnasya

> (Knowledge of

> Brahman culminates in direct experience). The

> BhAmati gloss

> clarifies this word 'anubhava' used by Shankara by

> pointing out that

> this means that one becomes endowed with the

> akhandAkAravritti. The

> traditional way of teaching Self realization is this

> alone.

>

> Contrary to this is the view that Self Realization

> is

> an 'understanding', 'cognition', 're-cognition' etc.

> This is not

> the view to which Shankara or the traditional

> Masters .

> While they value the role of understanding,

> re-cognition, etc., yet,

> in the scheme of liberation taught by them, the

> coming up of the

> akhandAkAravritti abruptly, in a flash, as it was

> recently quoted

> from Sw.Chinmayananda's work, that instantly

> destroys avidya.

> Elaborate methodology is worked out by the

> tradtional masters to

> explain what this special Vritti is, its content,

> role, nature,

> etc. It is this vritti, once having come up,

> catapults the sadhaka

> to the state of a Jnani. It has been said that even

> for the

> extremely advanced sadhaka the difference between

> the bound state

> (just prior to his saakshAtkAra) and the liberated

> state is

> something phenomenal; it is a quantum jump.

>

> When you say:

>

> //.....but a

> re-cognition about I the witnessing principle, the

> SUBJECT alone, being what is "beyond" the seen, the

> sense organs and the mind, in the very now.//

>

> Is such a recognition not there now? Has such a

> recognition

> destroyed (your) avidya and given you a firm

> conviction that you are

> liberated? If no, you might say that you require

> something else to

> bring about such a conviction. Why is there not the

> recognition of

> the witnessing principle now itself? All of us know

> from the basic

> study of the Vedanta, in a few day's time, that we

> are the

> witnessing principle. Then why are we not able to

> assert, if not to

> others, to ourselves, that we are Jnanis and are

> already

> liberated? When that something happens and puts

> you in the

> unshakable position of a Jnani, essentially you have

> come out of a

> specific experience that has brought about this

> specific change in

> you.

>

> In several places throughout the Bhashya Shankara

> talks of the pre-

> enlightenment state and the post-enlightenment

> state; in one place

> indicating His own case. Shankara inserts this

> episode of self-

> realization in between two consecuitive mantras in

> the Kenopanishad.

> In the first mantra the aspirant heard of the nature

> of the Aman.

> He resorted to a secluded place and deliberated and

> acquired the

> direct experience -svaanubhavam, as Shankara calls

> it. He returns

> to the class and expresses his personally

> experienced view of the

> Atman. The unassailable position of the Shankaran

> advaita

> sampradaya is that only he is liberated for whom the

>

> akhandakaravritti has occurred and freed him by

> destroying his

> ignorance once for all, in one go. It is in this

> context only it

> becomes possible for the truly realized to recall

> their pre-

> enlightenment days, their sadhana, its culmination

> in the dawn of

> realization (a word 'utpatti of Atma vijnAna'

> Shankara uses often),

> recount it to his disciples who are fit to

> understand it, etc.

> Shankara never glosses over the issue. In one place

> he asks: How

> can anyone deny someone else's experience of the

> Brahmaatva bhava

> and the coexistence of the body? In fact, the word

> 'Atma-

> sAkshAtkAra' (direct perception of the Atman) is not

> a figure of

> speech. It is used in the context of the

> akhandaakAravritti where

> one has the perception of the Atman bereft of any

> tinge of

> anaatman. It is definitely not a recognition of the

> fact that one

> is the witnessing principle beyond the mind and

> intellect. All this

> is essential to strengthen the manana and aid

> nididhyaasana but the

> culmination of the sadhana, in the ShAnkaran method,

> is in the

> abrupt arising of this A.vritti.

>

> The above clarification is given to show that the

> teaching

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

 

Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast

with the Search weather shortcut.

http://tools.search./shortcuts/#loc_weather

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear Subbu-ji:

 

Happy Sankaranthi (Pongal) and thanks for bringing to the attention

of the members of this list, the following profound

statement: "Realization is an experience brought about by the

akhandAkAravritti which is the special mode of the mind which `takes

on' the form of Atman/Brahman (the Pure Consciousness) without an

iota of anAtman." I believe that this is more or less identical to

the saying that "The Brahman alone knows the Brahman." Can anyone

ever challenge any of the above statements? The answer is obviously

no. At the same time if I ask the question, does the above

statement provide us the answer to the fundamental question, "What

is the Brahman?" The answer is obviously no because none of us know

exact nature of "akhandAkAravritti." When we reach the state of

akhandAkAravritti we also attain the paramarthika reality of Truth.

 

It seems that we are making futile attempts to find an answer to a

question in the vyavaharika level that can only be answerable at the

paramarthika level. The scriptures carefully avoided spelling out

the answer using words and allow us to conceptualize and to

formulate our understanding using various frameworks of thoughts.

Great saints and sages like Sankaracharya did the same to help us to

contemplate by focusing our mind on the ultimate reality. It is

inevitable that we have varied frameworks of thoughts in the

conceptualizing the nature of ultimate reality and how to reach it.

Hopefully, we may not need these frameworks once we reach a higher

state where discussions become meaningless. One of fundamental

question often comes to our mind is – do these available frameworks

contradict any of the facts stated by the Acharya and/or the hints

provided through the scriptures. This is a big question and there

are no fully satisfactory answers to such questions. I do honestly

believe that there are frameworks of thoughts conceptualized by the

saints and sages of yesterday or today which can neither be

validated nor can be discarded. We are dealing with the

metaphysical field where we don't have empirical data to verify the

right or wrong of a framework regarding their validity and

authenticity.

 

The only helping tool for all of us to accept or deny a framework

is "faith and conviction." I do believe that the importance

of "faith and conviction" is ENGRAVED all over the scriptures such

as the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita. Each one of us have our own

faith which help us to understand and appreciate the "ultimate

reality" using the framework that falls within our comfort zone.

Unfortunately faith and conviction varies and accordingly questions

arise and answers provided by others raise more questions! I have

been following discussions on Vedanta from 1993. I think that

vedantic discussions started first at the Social.religion.hindu

Usernet site sometime during early 1990s. Few years later Sri Ravi

Mayavaram along with Vidyasankar Sunderasan started the advita list.

This list (advaitin) moved out of the advaita list during 1998 to

facilitate both traditional and nontraditional discussions on

advaita. At that time both the list moderators agreed that it will

be more beneficial to run the two parallel lists focusing on

Sankara's advaita Vedanta philosophy. The reason that I am bringing

the above fact is to point out that these discussions of various

means of conceptualization have had positive effect on conducting

meaningful and beneficial discussions and respecting other view

points with an open heart. Our discussions are purely (honestly

speaking) intellectual and that is the only means available and

probably these discussions help us hopefully to sharpen our

intellect and purify our mind. This is also `faith' based

assessment. The same faith is responsible for us to believe that we

can grow spiritually through this cyber satsangh by enhancing our

understanding of the facts buried within our scriptures.

Hopefully we can all agree that the knowledge of the existence of an

object takes place in our minds. The mind is conscious of the

various `objects' by using the `faculties' available to it. In order

to sense the knowledge about different objects, the mind takes

resort of different means. For Vedantins, these `means of knowledge'

are known as the Pramanas. The teachers of Advaita Vedanta

philosophy have gone into this aspect of the process of knowledge in

great detail, and have enumerated `six' pramanas. The choice of the

appropriate pramana depends on the nature of the object and the

context. These six means of knowledge are Pratyaksha (Perception),

Anumana (Inference), Upamana (Comparison), Arthapatti (Postulation),

Anupalabdhi (Non-apprehension), and Sabda (Verbal Testimony either

by a trustworthy person or written words in a trustworthy

document). We do consciously or unconsciously use the above six

valid means of knowledge almost daily in our life. Clear

understanding of each of these Pramanas is extremely important so

that we will be able to use them appropriately to recognize various

objects of life. The knowledge of Sabda Pramana is specifically

vital when we seek to know the Self, the Atman, the non-dual truth

referred to as the Brahman in the Upanishads. Clear understanding

and applications of all the above six Pramanas are quite essential

(and we do consciously and unconsciously apply them) during the list

discussions.

 

 

We have an imperfect mind and we possess an imperfect intellect to

understand and resolve questions that often arises in our mind. As

long as questions arises in minds, we are in the vyavaharika level

and all our discussions are at the vyavaharika level only. It seems

that we should prepare to wait for the time when questions either

disappear or get dissolved. Faith is our only hope to dissolve our

thoughts and our questions. Until then these discussions will likely

continue!

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

Note: Please note that these are random thoughts that occurred in my

mind and I felt like sharing with you all. There will be likely

errors and please feel free to correct me when and where I am wrong!

 

 

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> In the light of the foregoing, it would be pertinent to know for

> certain, without doubt, the position of the UpaniShads, Acharya

> Shankara and the scriptural tradition on the matter of Self-

> Realization. This is required in the light of various other views

> that are certainly not that of Shankara and the sampradaya on this

> topic. The salient feature of the Shankaran teaching of Self-

> Realization is that it is an experience brought about by the

> akhandAkAravritti which is the special mode of the mind

which 'takes

> on' the form of Atman/Brahman, bereft of all upAdhis (in other

> words, the Pure Consciousness without the least admixture of the

> anAtman). This vritti is the one that rises abruptly and destroys

> avidya and itself gets sublated leaving the Non-dual Pure

> Consciousness as the sole reality to the realized person.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Pranams Subbu-ji

> Thank you for your response to my post.

>

> Could you please clarify for me, when you say the

> infinite undifferentiated Brahman is to be

> "apprehended" and "made an object of one's

> experience", who is the subject who apprehends this

> nondual Brahman?

 

 

Dear Shyam-ji,

 

Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective)

world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world,

nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of

consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It

unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible,

uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The essence of the

Consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, It is the

cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual.

This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this

has to be 'KNOWN' or 'REALISED' (vijneyah)

 

It has to be known or realized by the aspirant, sadhaka, ajnani

because for a jnani there is nothing new which has to be known, as

he has known the one thing by knowing which everthing else is known.

 

Yours in Sri RAmakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

--- Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns > wrote:

 

Dear Shyam-ji,

 

Turiya is

unperceived,

unrelated,

incomprehensible,

uninferable,

unthinkable and

indescribable.

 

This is Atman, (one's own Self), and this has to be

'KNOWN'

____________________

Pranams Vinayaka-ji

Precisely.

 

Hari OM

Shyam

 

 

 

 

8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time

with the Search movie showtime shortcut.

http://tools.search./shortcuts/#news

[Guest guest]

ShrIgurubhyo namaH

 

Namaste Peter ji,

 

Thanks for that beautiful response. Your deep interest in and

understanding of the Vedanta is certainly admirable. One example of

this is despite my not citing the appropriate references you were

able to match my perfunctory quotes accurately to their sources.

Kindly find my responses, as per my limited understanding, in

between

 

Namaste Shyam ji,

As I felt that this reply will cover the question you have raised, I

request you to kindly go thru this.

advaitin, "Peter" <not_2 wrote:

>

> Dear Subbu-ji,

>

> Many thanks for your email to 'Shyam ji and others'. Let me see

if I have

> followed your line of thought and share with you where I don't

quite

> understand.

>

> As you may know, my own limited understanding is that Brahman

cannot be an

> object of knowledge or experience - ie as 'a something' distinct

from us to

> be known. However, we could also say that Realisation would entail

> Knowledge which is also Immediate Experience. The two -

'knowledge' and

> 'immediate experience' - are one as awareness-existence - at least

these are

> the words I use to give form to my understanding. Would I be

correct in

> saying this is supported by Brahma Sutra Bashya I.i.2.:

>

> "...in the former case [deliberation on Brahman],

> the Vedic texts, personal experience, etc,

> are the valid means as far as possible,

> for the knowledge of Brahman culminates in *experience*,

> and it relates to an existing entity." (BSB I.i.2)

>

> Now, the above is Gambhirananda's translation (page 16) to

Shankara's

> introduction to BSB, and Gambhirananda adds a footnote to the word

> *experience* and states that it means as follows:

>

> "The mental modification having the form

> 'I am Brahman', culminates in the revelation

> of the real nature of Brahman."

>

> We should acknowledge this is what Gambhirananda is adding, rather

than what

> Shankara is stating in his text.

 

[ Actually, the 'addition' of Sw. Gambhirananda is the (partial)

translation of the BhAmati gloss for that sentence of the BhAShya.

The BhAmatI, in its original, is this : //anubhavo antaHkaraNa-

vRRittibhedaH, brahmasAkShAtkAraH, tasya avidyA-nivRRitti-dvAreNa

brahmasvarUpa-AvirbhAvaH pramANa-phalam.//

 

This Bhaamati quote gives this extra information: The

akhandAkAravritti - it is the common name of this vritti, sometimes

referred to as Brahmavidyaa, anubhava, sAkshAtkAra, etc. - itself is

the pramaaNa, which, by destroying avidya, brings about the

revelation of the aspirant's Brahman nature. Although Shankara is

not stating this explicitly, that this is what he implies is not

disputed by Vedantins. ]

 

 

> I can appreciate the idea of one vritti (knowledge) destroying

another (of

> ignorance). Where I am not following you (and you may well say I

have not so

> far in the above!) is where you describe this "mental modification"

> (akhandAkAravritti) as a direct perception of Brahman and support

this by

> saying that according to Shankara, "Atman has to be 'made an

object of

> seeing/experience'." Have I misunderstood?

>

> I guess I am struggling with the the phrase that Atman has to be

made an

> 'object of seeing/experience'.

>

> For we have, "You cannot see the seer of seeing.." (Brihad.

III.iv.2)

 

[ It looks like there is a paradox, but actually there is none.

Actually, the BhAmati, in this very context raises a question: //Let

it be that the enquiry into Brahman is undertaken with a view to

culminate in Brahman Experience; but this experience itself is

impossible, Brahman can never become the 'object' of such an

experience'. The reply is provided therein: The Bhaashya uses the

word: BhUta-vastu-viShayatvAccha = "It relates to an existent

entity". The purport of this word of the Bhashya is this,in the

words of the BhAmati: In all forms of experiences there will be some

object. But in this special case, the 'object' is Brahman as

qualified by 'non-existence of the world'. It is possible to have a

subject-object relationship, although notionally, with this 'kind'

of Brahman.// Hence, no problem in Shankara's statement of the

Brihadaranyaka that Atman has to be made an

'object of seeing/experience'.

 

Peter ji, it is like this: The above quote you have cited: 'The Seer

of the seeing cannot be seen, etc.' are the teaching 'about' the

seer. But there is another set of teaching in the UpaniShads

on 'how' to apprehend the Truth. The former, we can call, is theory

part of it and the latter is the practical part of it. Equipped

with the theory, the aspirant has to embark upon the practical part,

by carefully clearing the apparent contradictions, this is called

mananam, ratiocination, with the help of the Guru/colleagues, and

proceed.

The case is similar to another seeming paradox of the

Upanishads: 'The mind cannot know the Atman' is one teaching.

Another is the teaching: 'By the mind alone the Atman can be

known'. The Acharyas have clarified that the former means that an

unprepared mind cannot know the Atman and the latter means that a

suitably cultivated mind can know the Atman. ]

 

> And, although Gaudapada states in his Karika, something similar to

what you

> qoute:

>

> "The immutable and birthless Brahman

> Is the sole object of Knowledge."

>

> Guadapada qualifies this statement in his final sentence.

>

> "The immutable and birthless Brahman

> is the sole object of Knowledge.

> The birthless is known by the birthless."

> (Karika II.33)

>

> And Shankara's commentary to the Karika is:

>

> "The Essence of the Self, which is the object of knowledge, verily

knows

> itself by means of unborn knowledge, which is the very nature of

Atman . . .

> [it] does not depend upon another instrument of knowledge

[pramana] (for its

> illumination)."

 

[Here, the idea is that which i referred to in the earlier

paragraph. The Anandagiri's gloss points out that since there is

the injunction that through the mind alone It has to be known, and

also that It cannot be known without any medium, we have to conclude

that the mind is no-mind when it comes to the knowing of the Atman.

The idea is this: The mind, in AkhandAkAravritti, assumes the form

of the Atman and virtually becomes no different from the Atman. You

may refer, in case of need, to the note that Sri Sunder Hattangadi

brought up as written by Shri S.N.Shastri on A.Vritti involving the

study of vritti-vyApti and phala-vyApti. This will prove useful in

setting aside any inconsistency in understanding the above

Karika/commentary.]

>

> Also, we have these interesting verses from Upadesha Sahasri XVIII:

>

> 203. "...accept the Self as self evident

> which means the same as self knowable.

> The knowledge of the inmost Self, according to us,

> thus becomes possible when the ego vanishes."

>

>

> 205. "The Witness is known by itself

> which is of the nature of knowledge only.

> It is the birth of the modification of the intellect

> Pervaded by the reflection of Consciousness

> that is what is known as knowledge of the Self."

>

> These last two lines may well give support to what you are saying,

though we

> should note "The Witness is known [only] by itself". Also, the

modification

> of the intellect, if that is the akhandAkAravritti you are

referring to, is

> pervaded by only a "reflection of Consciousness", it is not a

direct seeing

> of the Self.

 

[ Upon reading the AnandajnAnaachArya¡¦s commentary, for these two

verses, this is the purport we gather: In verse 203, it is sought to

be pointed out that the Self does not need another instrument,

pramana, medium, to show its presence; It is self-luminous. This is

in our daily experience of sleep where, when the ego onwards all the

adjuncts are resolved, the Self is experienced by us. Thus, even

without any pramana, the experience of the Self is possible.

Peter ji, pl. note that this verse has come to prove that the Self

is self-luminous and not in need of any pramana, instrument to

reveal it. It does not speak of the liberating realization that has

to be secured by having a direct experience of the Self. This is

spoken of in the other verse, 205, you have quoted above. The

commentary makes it crystal clear that:

(This is a free translation of the gloss, in my wordsļ

How can the anubhavaH, experience, ¡¥I am Brahman¡¦ become possible,

as in absolute terms, Brahman is not related to anything? The first

line of the verse answers this. The experience, anubhava, of Atman,

itself is clarified by the latter half of the verse: (The

explanation is quite interesting; it actually gives the definition

and the nature of the akhandaakAra vritti): As being completely

pervaded by the reflection of the Immutable Self, the intellect,

having been shorn of its own form, is ¡¥born¡¦ owing to the grace of

the ShAstra and the Guru. This ¡¥birth¡¦, coming forth, of the

intellect in such a manner is termed ¡¥the experience of the Atman¡¦

by the Knowers of Brahman. (unquote)

 

That the a.vritti carries only a reflection of Consciousness is no

defect, for the reflecting medium, the mind, is at the most capable

of only this. But this does not discount the value of the a.vritti

in any manner. Since the mind, when it receives this reflection of

Consciousness, is ¡¥wholly¡¦ given to It, this vritti-bearing mind

succeeds in destroying avidya. Just like when you have a joyful

thought you recognize that you have had such a thought, it is

possible to recognize that the mind has had the a.vritti. The

extraordinarily special nature of this vritti makes its appearance

unmistakable to the aspirant who is blessed with it. For, in the

very instant he will experience that he is freed from ignorance and

is Brahman, the Secondless Itself. Also, we must bear in mind that

a mind that is wholly drenched in Pure Consciousness is no different

from PC itself. It is therefore flawless to say that a direct

perception of the Atman is had then.

Both the verses use the word ¡¥anubhavaH¡¦ and the commentary too uses

the same term in the two verses. ]

 

 

 

>

> As a by the way, Ramana Maharshi also refers to the

akhandAkAravritti in a

> passage in talks. I have put his words below as they suggest this

vritti is

> more than a modification of mind.

>

> [Talk 307:

> Mr. Shamanna from Mysore asked Sri Bhagavan: Kindly explain Aham

Sphurana

> (the light of 'I-I').

>

> Sri Ramana.: 'I' is not known in sleep. On waking 'I' is perceived

> associated with the body, the world and non-self in general. Such

associated

> 'I' is Aham vritti. When Aham represents the Self only it is Aham

Sphurana.

> This is natural to the Jnani and is itself called jnana by jnanis,

or bhakti

> by bhaktas. Though ever present, including in sleep, it is not

perceived. It

> cannot be known in sleep all at once. It must first be realised in

the

> waking state, for it is our true nature underlying all the three

states.

> Efforts must be made only in the jagrat [waking] state and the

Self realised

> here and now. It will afterwards be understood and realised to be

continuous

> Self, uninterrupted by jagrat, svapna [dream state] and sushupti

[deep

> sleep]. Thus it is akhandakara vritti (unbroken experience).

Vritti is used

> for lack of a better expression. It should not be understood to be

literally

> a vritti. In that case, vritti will resemble an 'ocean-like

river', which is

> absurd. Vritti is of short duration, it is qualified, directed

> consciousness; or absolute consciousness broken up by cognition of

thoughts,

> senses, etc. Vritti is the function of the mind, whereas the

continuous

> consciousness transcends the mind. This is the natural, primal

state of the

> Jnani or the liberated being. That is unbroken experience. It

asserts itself

> when relative consciousness subsides. Aham vritti ('I-thought') is

broken,

> Aham sphurana (the light of 'I-I') is unbroken, continuous. After

the

> thoughts subside,the light shines forth.]

>

> Looking forward to your thoughts, Subbu-ji.

>

> With best wishes,

>

> Peter

 

 

[The observation made by you at the beginning of this quote is quite

pertinent and I fully agree with you, with admiration for your keen

sense of observation of the subtle point. Technically, the a.vritti

is used in the sense of the momentary vritti that arises abruptly,

destroys ignorance, and subsides. The use of the term to mean the

constant Atman- experience that alone is the Truth, Absolutely,

after obtaining the initial a.vritti and abiding in it by Jnanis is

not uncommon. There is no doubt about this.

 

As an aside point, when an experience is dubbed ¡¥time-bound¡¦, quite

interestingly, the a.vritti that dispels avidya and establishes the

aspirant in the Non-dual Truth, itself is technically defined as a

momentary one. Its function is just to arise, show to the aspirant

who he is in truth, destroy avidya and subside. In that sense, the

a.vritti where the direct experience of the PC is had is time-

bound. This fact does not make it any undesirable; in fact that is

the very goal and culmination of sadhana as taught by the Most

Knowledgeable and Revered Masters of the Advaita SampradAya.

 

To conclude, it is the bound jiva that takes up the study of the

scripture, learns that his true nature is that of the Subject,

witness to all anAtma. The scripture, after informing him about the

Self, goes on to teach that this knowledge has to be internalized by

way of a specific experience of the Self, if liberation is to

result. As it is the very definition of the jiva that he is the

Consciousness delimited by the antaHkarana, mind/intellect, the

experience of the Self has to be had with this instrument, the

mind. For the Pure Consciousness, there is no intellect; no need

for it to get enlightened. For the jiva, there is the need. Hence

he has to get the experience of the Self. Of course, the prior

teaching of the Shastra that he is in Truth the Self/Brahman, devoid

of the intellect/world, etc., is the samskara that he has

assimilated. With this samskara, when he apprehends the Atman in

the process detailed above with the a.vritti, he promptly comes to

realize his true nature and becomes liberated. This is the

experience of the genuinely enlightened people.

 

Thank you once again, Peter ji and Shyam ji, for the excellent

questions raised and for the sincere interest in the topic.]

 

Warm regards,

Subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

You

> may refer, in case of need, to the note that Sri Sunder Hattangadi

> brought up as written by Shri S.N.Shastri on A.Vritti involving the

> study of vritti-vyApti and phala-vyApti. This will prove useful in

> setting aside any inconsistency in understanding the above

> Karika/commentary.]

 

 

Dear Subbu-ji/Sunder-ji,

 

Can you get me the link to read the notes. I am still struggling to

appreciate the post fully. Hope notes will help me to understand it

more clearly.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns > wrote: advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Pranams Subbu-ji

> Thank you for your response to my post.

>

> Could you please clarify for me, when you say the

> infinite undifferentiated Brahman is to be

> "apprehended" and "made an object of one's

> experience", who is the subject who apprehends this

> nondual Brahman?

Dear Vinayka,

Do we need elaborate intellectual exposition to understand the basic truth that turiya is not an object of experience to be known by an individual observer, but awareness per se? What we need is a strenuous and indefatigable effort, which is not the effort to find out something, but is the very base of the objective tendency of all our efforts, which is a state of search and not a seeking for anything in particular, and at once an effortless and choiceless awareness, to use the words of J.K. As you have very well read, any effort to squeeze the almanac will not produce any rain. If you go into the different theories of perception of advaita, and the subsequent developments contributed by the post-Sankaraite Advaitins, you will land up in the terrible labyrinth of the forest of words. What special significance could the terms Vritti Vyapya and Phala Vyapyha have except that there is no differentiation of Being and Awareness in so far as the Self is

concerned, as is the case in objective knowledge. Self is not a specialized knowledge, but presupposes the knowing of the fact in even in the so-called objective knowledge everything is only the one unbroken Light of the Self.

yours in Bhaghavan

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time

with the Search movie showtime shortcut.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

> advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v@>

> wrote:

 

by Shri S.N.Shastri on A.Vritti involving the

> > study of vritti-vyApti and phala-vyApti. >

> Can you get me the link to read the notes.

 

Namaste,

 

Hope these links are useful:

 

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2006-

January/016542.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/247q27

 

 

http://www.geocities.com/snsastri/panchadasi-chapter-5.html

http://www.geocities.com/snsastri/panchadasi-chapter-7.html

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

If you go into the different theories of perception of advaita, and the

subsequent developments contributed by the post-Sankaraite Advaitins, you

will land up in the terrible labyrinth of the forest of words. What special

significance could the terms Vritti Vyapya and Phala Vyapyha have except

that there is no differentiation of Being and Awareness in so far as the

Self is concerned, as is the case in objective knowledge. Self is not a

specialized knowledge, but presupposes the knowing of the fact in even in

the so-called objective knowledge everything is only the one unbroken Light

of the Self.

 

praNAms Sri Shankararaman prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

This is really beautifully said..my heartfelt praNAms to you

prabhujiu...Yes, these differentiations in jnAna like vruttivyApti jnAna,

phalavyApti jnAna etc. etc. are the concocted theories unnecessarily

introduced by later commentators like paNchapAdika, vivaraNA etc. in the

name of shankarAdvaita...You can hardly find any references to these

terminologies & their utilities in shankara's prasthAna trayi bhAshya.

According later vyAkhyAnakAra-s out of these *vyApti-s*, first, vrutti

vyApti should pervade thing so that the curtain of avidyA will be removed

from that...and secondly, phalavyApti like chidAbhAsa comes there to get us

the right knowledge of that thing!!! Needless to mention this is quite

contrary to shankara's position, according to shankara there are no two

separate functions of the process. First of all, it is absurd to say there

is AvaraNa of avidyA on outer things. Nobody says in rope-snake analogy,

there is an avidyAvaraNa on rope to appear it as snake!! avidyA according

to shankara non perception, misconception and doubting (reference vide

gItAbhAshya) alone and this is tAmasic AvaraNa which pertains to

antaHkaraNa not anyway related to outer things!! When we try to get the

knowledge of a thing with the help of teaching, observation etc. vrutti

pervades the outer thing simultaneously with chidAbhAsa...without pervaded

by the nature of consciousness of the self it is impossible to even imagine

the very existence of the vrutti!! Hence, once the pramANa removes the

agrahaNa (non perception), anyathAgrahaNa (mis conception) of a thing the

chidAbhAsa phala vyApti jnAna will happen automatically...there is no two

fold process involved here...Ofcourse, nobody say first I shall try to

remove the ignorance pervaded on rope & then I will sit in an isolated

place to realize the ropeness of the rope:-)) When sufficient light

removes the darkness the knowledge regarding the object takes place

automatically. Likewise, in the knowledge of the self, the function of

pramANa is to remove the misconception alone...the pramANa, shAstra, does

not create anything new on its own to present it to pramAtru afresh!! Since

AtmajnAna is self established (svayaM siddhA), what has to be done is

negation of our identification with anAtma vastu with the help of shAstra &

AchAryOpadEsha. Shankara's bhAshya on 4th sUtra tattusamanvayAt would be

a referential source material for this stand.

 

While on the subject, I am quite surprised to see the definition of

*self-realization* in advaita...I never heard/read that realization is like

*flash in a pan* once in blue moon day & it is a time bound event for a

jnAni:-)) I shall try to clarify my stand on realization according to

advaita in my subsequent mail. Till then...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

List Moderator's Note: Please do not include the previous posters' messages in the tail end (or in the beginning) of your message while sending your replies. Both the new members and other members do seem to continue to repeat doing this. The list appreciates your cooperation in keeping the message crisp and clear by removing all unnecessary parts of previous messages. (As it is done in this message!)

 

 

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

>

> ShrIgurubhyo namaH

>

> Namaste Peter ji,

>

 

Subbuji,

Pranams.

I have tried to follow this thread and as a beginner student I have

found it mostly difficult and I have become more confused!

For I have been listening to Swami Tatvavidanandji and also Swami

Paramarthanandhaji's talks and the Swamijis time and again point out

that there is no knowing of Brahman but there is only being Brahma,

and that is by not being Abrahma. The mind has a tendency to

verbalize and objectify and Sruthi wants you to get rid of it! The

whole point of it is not by definition, but by negating and

rejection. The Satyam, Jnanam Anantham of Brahma is only Laksyartha

and not the attributes or Mukyartha.

Then what is this theory part and practical part? Again, I have

heard the Swamijis mention that the Vrittis, that arise in Samadhis

are temporary only and the Self is nothing but the Pure Awareness

that is there in all times like Jagrath, Swapna and Sushupti.

Could you please throw some light so that students like me can

understand better as to what the Acharyas are telling?

Shri Gurubhyo Namaha,

Suku

[Guest guest]

Dear Subbu-ji,

 

Thanks for your explanations. I feel I have a better understand of your

viewpoint after reading your mail which I found to be a very interesting

read, and food for more reflections. I am still left with some questions and

some differences of view, in places. That said, I feel it is important that

in a discussion forum like ours that different viewpoints should be able to

rest alongside each other in appreciation, rather that opposite it other in

antagonism. That way we are more likely to learn from each other and build

on common understanding and agreements.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

 

________________________________

 

advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf

Of subrahmanian_v

16 January 2007 10:14

advaitin

Re: A clarification on the ShAnkaran view of

Self-Realization

 

 

 

 

ShrIgurubhyo namaH

 

Namaste Peter ji,

 

Thanks for that beautiful response. Your deep interest in and

understanding of the Vedanta is certainly admirable. One example of

this is despite my not citing the appropriate references you were

able to match my perfunctory quotes accurately to their sources.

Kindly find my responses, as per my limited understanding, in

between

 

<snip>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Peter" <not_2 wrote:

That said, I feel it is important that

> in a discussion forum like ours that different viewpoints should

be able to

> rest alongside each other in appreciation, rather that opposite it

other in

> antagonism. That way we are more likely to learn from each other

and build

> on common understanding and agreements.

 

Dear Peterji,

 

Well said.

 

I feel it is one of the most interesting as well as enlightening

thread. I request all advaitins to participate with open mind

without trying to 'defend' ones own 'conditioning' and with a

learning spirit without antagonism and hatred or hastily coming to

conclusions and without true and sincere understanding of the

opponents view.

 

The link given by Sunder-ji is very much enlightening on this issue.

I would like to quote the paragraph which is written by S.N. Sastri-

ji where the point which is being discussed appears.

 

(Quote)

 

 

There is a distinction between the cognition of an external object

such as a pot, which is of the form `this is a pot' and the direct

knowledge of Brahman, which is of the form `I am Brahman'. In the

former case, the mind first becomes modified in the form of the pot.

This modification is known as vritti. This vritti removes the

ignorance covering the pot. Then the reflection of Brahman or pure

Consciousness on the vritti produces the knowledge `this is a pot'.

 

(Unquote)

 

Here there is an effort to show the process of cognition of an

external object. I am not very sure whether this tallies exacly with

the scientific explanation of perceiveing an object by the mind with

the help of the eye, like formation of the image on the retina,

transmission of the stimulus to the brain etc. Hope some learned

member in science or sankhyan philosophy can try to explain.

 

(Quote)

 

In the case of the knowledge of Brahman also, there is a vritti in

the form of Brahman, known as akhanda-aakaara-vritti. After this,

the second step of the reflection of Brahman falling on the vritti

is not necessary here, because Brahman is self-luminous, unlike

inert objects. This is similar to the difference between perceiving

a pot and perceiving a lighted lamp. In the former case both the eye

and a light are necessary, but in the latter case another light is

not necessary. Therefore, while in the case of external objects the

reflection of Brahman in the vritti is necessary, in the case of

realization of Brahman it is not necessary. The reflection of

Brahman or Consciousness in the vritti is known as `phala'. Thus the

cognition of an external object is brought about by 'phala', but the

direct knowledge (which is called realization) of Brahman is brought

about by the vritti itself, without the aid of any phala. It is

therefore said in Vedanta that all objects are `phala vyapya', while

Brahman is `vritti vyapya'.

 

It has been stated above that the mind takes the form of Brahman.

The question arises-- since Brahman has no form, what is meant by

saying that the mind takes the form of Brahman? This is explained by

Svami Vidyaranya himself in Jivanmuktiviveka, chapter 3, by taking

an example. A pot made of clay is full of the all-pervading space as

soon as it is made. Filling it afterwards with water, rice or any

other substance is due to human effort. Though the water, etc, in

the pot can be removed, the space inside can never be removed. It

continues to be there even if the mouth of the pot is hermetically

sealed. In the same manner, the mind, in the act of being born,

comes into existence full of the consciousness of the self. It takes

on, after its birth, due to the influence of virtue and vice, the

form of pots, cloths, colour, taste, pleasure, pain, and other

transformations, just like melted copper, cast into moulds. Of

these, the transformations such as colour, taste and the like, which

are not-self, can be removed from the mind, but the form of the

self, which does not depend on any external cause, cannot be removed

at all. **Thus, when all other thoughts are removed from the mind,

the self is realized without any impediment.**

 

 

It has been said-"One should cause the mind which, by its very

nature, is ever prone to assume either of the two forms of the Self

and the not-Self, to throw into the background the perception of the

not-Self, by taking on the form of the Self alone". And also—"The

mind takes on the form of pleasure, pain and the like, because of

the influence of virtue and vice, whereas the form of the mind, in

its native aspect, is not conditioned by any extraneous cause. To

the mind devoid of all transformations is revealed the supreme

Bliss". **Thus, when the mind is emptied of all other thoughts Self-

knowledge arises.**

 

(Unquote)

 

It has been very clearly and disticnly shown in the above paragraph

that the perception of brahman is entirely different from that of

perception of an external object.

 

It has been told that:

 

Therefore, while in the case of external objects the reflection of

Brahman in the vritti is necessary, in the case of realization of

Brahman it is not necessary. The reflection of Brahman or

Consciousness in the vritti is known as `phala'. Thus the cognition

of an external object is brought about by 'phala', but the direct

knowledge (which is called realization) of Brahman is brought about

by the vritti itself, without the aid of any phala. It is therefore

said in Vedanta that all objects are `phala vyapya', while Brahman

is `vritti vyapya'.

 

(Unquote)

 

This tallies exactly with the Ramana Maharshi's saying that vritti

is used only figuratively. It should not be taken as vritti or the

modification of the mind in the literal sense of the term. Here the

vritti means is *getting rid* of thoughts or to be more precise

avidya. We can very well reiterate the when the mind is emptied of

all other thoughts self-knowledge arises or manifests in its full

glory.

 

Can we say then, that when the chidabhasa of reflected consciousness

alone perceived bereft of its identification with the mind, self

knowledge dawns? Here it is not at all a vritti because it is

resting in one's own nature. This is what maharshi empasises too.

 

I would like to bring out another passage which appears in some

other thread in the advaita list:

 

(Quote)

 

No doubt aham sphurana is svarUpa j~nAna. But it is eternally

present and

avidyA co-exists with it. So obviously svarUpa j~nAna does not

destroy

avidya. Only vRtti j~nAna destroys avidyA. Please see Madhusudana

Sarasvati's commentary on gItA 5.16: When avidya is destroyed, its

effect,

namely, identification with the body-mind complex also comes to an

end. Then

the person remains in his own true nature as Brahman. This is

liberation.

 

(Unquote)

 

Hearing of scriptures gives rise to swarupa jnana no doubt but with

that one has got avidya too. That is why even after hearing the

shruti for a long time, even with a strong intellectual conviction

gained through constant hearing of scriptures one will not be able

to say that he knows the truth, which is the case with most of us.

 

So far so good. But one thing i am unable to under stand is:

 

Subbuji has written:

 

The observation made by you at the beginning of this quote is quite

pertinent and I fully agree with you, with admiration for your keen

sense of observation of the subtle point. Technically, the a.vritti

is used in the sense of the momentary vritti that arises abruptly,

destroys ignorance, and subsides. The use of the term to mean the

constant Atman- experience that alone is the Truth, Absolutely,

after obtaining the initial a.vritti and abiding in it by Jnanis is

not uncommon. There is no doubt about this.

 

Shastri-ji also has written that:

 

Therefore the vRitti j~nAna destroys avidyA and then it itself

disappears

and the person remains as Brahman. You may know the classical

example. The

heat of the sun cannot by itself burn a piece of straw. But when

this heat

is focussed through a lens it burns the straw. svarUpaj~nAna is like

the sun

and vRtti j~nAna is like the heat through the lens. svarUpa j~nAna

is no

doubt beyond the intellect because it alone is pAramArthika (absolute

reality), while the intellect is only vyAvahArika (empirical

reality).

ramaNa mahaRshi's staements do not at all contradict the

above.

 

(Unquote)

 

Here vritti or consciousness bereft of all other thoughts (as i

understand it) destroying avidya is all right but why it is said

that it disappears and the person remains as brahman?

 

Technically speacking the vritti should not get disappeared right?

As maharshi says that will lead an aspirant to aham sphurana where

he will be able to percieve it in all the three states as its

sustratum as he puts it:

 

It will afterwards be understood and realised to be

continuous

> Self, uninterrupted by jagrat, svapna [dream state] and sushupti

[deep

> sleep]. Thus it is akhandakara vritti (unbroken experience).

Vritti is used

> for lack of a better expression. It should not be understood to be

literally

 

(Unquote)

 

Hope to get some calrifications from Subbu-ji/Peter-ji and others.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

peterji writes :

 

( I feel it is important that in a discussion forum like ours that

different viewpoints should be able to > rest alongside each other

in appreciation, rather that opposite it other in

antagonism. )

 

wow! peterji ! that is the spirit of a true 'advaitin' ! you

captured the essence of the advaitic spirit in this one profound

statement !

 

Whoever sees all beings in the soul

and the soul in all beings

 

does not shrink away from this.

 

In whom all beings have become one with the knowing soul

 

what delusion or sorrow is there for the one who sees unity?

 

It has filled all.

 

It is radiant, incorporeal, invulnerable,

 

without tendons, pure, untouched by evil.

 

Wise, intelligent, encompassing, self-existent,

 

it organizes objects throughout eternity.

 

Isha Upanishad Verses 6, 7, & 8

 

 

Aum Shanti Shanti Shantihi

[Guest guest]

Pranams to dear advaitins.

To begin with a recap of some basics:

 

Brahman is the only satyam.

The jiva is in reality Brahman alone.

Aside from this reality everything else about the jiva is mithya.

The jiva minus Brahman is incapable of perceiving even a blade of

grass. Anything that the jiva knows or experiences or hears or sees

or apprehends is because of the substratum, Brahman, that the jiva

(thankfully) already IS.

 

This knowledge/existence/awareness of the jiva is its only satyam.

Understanding this self-evident everexistent truth is self-knowledge.

 

Now when you say the jiva is the "subject" and the "object"

of "experience"/"to be apprehended" is Brahman, this is an

impossibility.

 

Why?

 

The jiva is incapable of objectifying its own SELF, its very

substratum.

Any blessed thing that I can objectify, that i can develop a subject-

object relationship is decidedly other than Me.

This is a Truth.

 

A illusory jiva cannot apprehend Brahman, its very substratum, its

very existence.

 

Brahman cannot objectify Brahman -it is allpervasive, there are no

internal boundaries.

 

There is no question of the jiva "seeing" the reflected Brahman,

because Brahman being infinite there is no question of there being a

real "other" thing in which it can be reflected in. How can

the "mind" which is mithya reflect Brahman which is satyam?

 

It is like saying the "snake" which never existed has to see the

reflection of the rope, which alone everexisted, in the snake's

nonexistent mind, before decidedly knowing for sure, that I am not a

snake!!

 

If the jiva were to truly apprehend Brahman where would it do so?

For Brahman is neither inside nor outside, it is beyond space, it is

beyond time. You cannot have a "date" with Brahman.

 

The logical inconsistencies of such a postulate are too numerous to

count.

 

This notion of there being a theory and a practicals for brahmavidya

is absurd.

First of all vedanta is not a theory, it is the truth about yourself.

This has to be realized.

For this to happen, false modes of self-identification born out of

beginingless ignorance need to be sublated. Period. The self-

luminous everpresent Atman will shine of its own accord. No effort

on a person's part is needed to apprehend that which never

disappered to begin with.

 

What is jiva? An infinitesmally infinitesmal illusory entity

consisting of a mithya ahankara which has a notional sense of

separateness from the Whole.

 

What is Brahman? Verily the One, the Whole, the Limitless.

 

And this "jiva" will "apprehend" Brahman??? by a reflection its mind?

 

(How these convoluted theories by Bhamati et al, none of which are

even remotely touched upon by Shankara, have any credence is beyond

me.)

 

All that this jiva can do is stop his mis-identification born out of

beginingless ignorance. For this the ONLY pramana is shastra. To

say "theoretical" understanding of shastra has to be followed by

pramana no.2 which is a.vrtti, means pramana no.1 is no longer

really a valid pramana!

 

If shastra is understood, aham poornaha - i am the the Whole is

understood.

If shastra is not understood, then exalted experiences of any nature

cannot supplant this understanding. What is needed? better

understanding. Of what? of the shatra only.

 

"If "i" well-understand the shastra, and hence well-understand "i"

am "Brahman", then will "i" experience a.vrtti?"

The "i" asking this question has yet to even begin to understand the

shastra!

 

Objections to this by ignoramuses by saying "Liberation is not

achieved by a "mere" understanding of the word meaning of the

sentence "tat tvam asi" (That Thou Art)" have been mentioned by

Bhagwan Shankara himself in his work Upadesha Sahasri, and these

objections have been shorn to threads byt the Acharya. A thorough

reading especially of this chapter "Tat Tvam Asi" in this most

celebrated and authentic of Bhagwan Shankara's works, preferably

under a competent Guru, will help clear many of these misconceptions

that students of Brahmavidya may harbor.

 

May Ishwara bless us all with the right knowledge.

 

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Hari OM

Shyam

 

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

The above quote you have cited: 'The Seer

of the seeing cannot be seen, etc.' are the teaching 'about' the

seer. But there is another set of teaching in the UpaniShads

on 'how' to apprehend the Truth. The former, we can call, is theory

part of it and the latter is the practical part of it. Equipped

with the theory, the aspirant has to embark upon the practical part,

by carefully clearing the apparent contradictions, this is called

mananam

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "shyam_md" <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Pranams to dear advaitins.

> To begin with a recap of some basics:

>

> Brahman is the only satyam.

> The jiva is in reality Brahman alone.

> Aside from this reality everything else about the jiva is mithya.

> The jiva minus Brahman is incapable of perceiving even a blade of

> grass. Anything that the jiva knows or experiences or hears or sees

> or apprehends is because of the substratum, Brahman, that the jiva

> (thankfully) already IS.

>

> This knowledge/existence/awareness of the jiva is its only satyam.

> Understanding this self-evident everexistent truth is self-knowledge.

>

> Now when you say the jiva is the "subject" and the "object"

> of "experience"/"to be apprehended" is Brahman, this is an

> impossibility.

>

> Why?

>

> The jiva is incapable of objectifying its own SELF, its very

> substratum.

> Any blessed thing that I can objectify, that i can develop a subject-

> object relationship is decidedly other than Me.

> This is a Truth.

>

> A illusory jiva cannot apprehend Brahman, its very substratum, its

> very existence.

>

>

> Shri Gurubhyo namah

> Hari OM

> Shyam

 

Namaste Shri Shyamji,

 

I'm not sure if I totally understand your post, but

a few things occur to me. Why is Brahman sometimes

called satyam/jnanam/anantam? Why is Brahman not

a knower, and yet that by which all (including the

mind) is known?

 

Brahman is not a knower in that Brahman does not

perform a function of knowing, as in 'Now I know

an object. Now I don't.'

 

The nature of Brahman is Knowing. All known.

 

Because we as individuals have minds which are

limited, it appears that Brahman is limited by

that which our sense organs can cognize.

 

-

 

An individual mind can make a distinction between

that which changes, and is mithya, and that about

myself which is never changing, and is Brahman.

 

What about me never changes? This is what the

drik/drisha viveka (seer/seen differentiation)

and triavashtha sakshi (witness to the three

states of experience, waking, dream and deep

sleep) attempt to get the mind to see.

 

Once the mind has made the distinction between

itself (i.e. all that changes) and Brahman,

that which doesn't change, then the jiva

needs to go back and revisit the creation

and see how is it that this creation is

actually Brahman. What about this creation

never changes? Why is Brahman the substrate

reality of it?

 

It is known. It is known. It is known.

All objects are known. It exists. It exists.

It exists. It is. It is. It is.

 

This knowness. This isness. This existence

constantly remains stable. While all of the

apparent objects constantly change, they do

so in this stable isness, knowness, existence.

 

If I have removed the boundaries from myself

as being the body/mind/or sense organs,

if my mind has made this differentiation

between that which never changes and that

which does, then if I remove the boundaries

of the apparent separation of objects, while

existence, isness remains, then what separates

my isness from their amness? Nothing.

 

So that is my understanding.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "krithivasan_sukumaran"

<krithivasan_sukumaran wrote:

> Could you please throw some light so that students like me can

> understand better as to what the Acharyas are telling?

> Shri Gurubhyo Namaha,

> Suku

>

 

Dear Sukumaran,

Namaste.

 

This is to request you to read the following resources available in

the List archives:

 

1. Discourses on Advaita Sadhana posted by Prof.VKji. The

concluding, say, ten parts could be of use to you. You will find

this uploaded in the Files section.

 

2. Message no. 33976 of myself

 

3. A Post titled: Shankara on Shravana, etc., also by myself. I

could not search it and hence can't provide the msg.no.

 

With best wishes,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Durga" <durgaji108 wrote:

 

> Namaste Shri Shyamji,

>

> I'm not sure if I totally understand your post, but

> a few things occur to me. Why is Brahman sometimes

> called satyam/jnanam/anantam? Why is Brahman not

> a knower, and yet that by which all (including the

> mind) is known?

>

> Brahman is not a knower in that Brahman does not

> perform a function of knowing, as in 'Now I know

> an object. Now I don't.'

>

> The nature of Brahman is Knowing. All known.

 

Namaste,

 

Sat-Cit-Ananda, and Satyam-Jnanam-Anantam, only refer to the concept

of Saguna Brahman or delusory Brahmam. They are qualities as Ramana

would term them. I would say that qualities are attributes and

therefore only refer to the Saguna-Self. The Self is as Real or

unreal as oneself is...........Tony.

[Guest guest]

Dear Saraswati-ji, (this may also be of interest to Subbu-ji and perhaps

others)

 

I meant to respond to you before but thought you were going on holiday. You

wrote:

 

"just because sri RamanA DOES NOT BELIEVE IN KUNDALINI YOGA IT DOES NOT MEAN

THAT THE KUNDALINI YOGA LOSES ALL ITS APPEAL..."

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi did recognise Kundalini. He said it resided in the

Heart. Below are a some passages where he makes some valuable replies to

questions on Kundalini. These replies also have a bearing on our topic of

Realization, hence my reply in this thread, rather than the original thread

of "Who is it who awakens?" where you made your remarks, above. Here are the

passages:

 

Devotee: Is the manifestation of kundalini sahkti (kundalini power)

possible only for those who follow the yogic path of acquiring sahkti

[power], or is it possible also for those who follow the path of devotion

[bhakti] or love[prema]?

 

Maharshi : Who does not have kundalini shakti? When the real nature of that

shakti is known, it is called akhandakara vritti [unbroken consciousness] or

aham sphurana [effulgence of `I-I']. Kundalini shakti is there for all

people whatever path they follow. It is only a difference in name.

(Letters from Sri Ramanasramam p202/3)

 

....and again in "Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi":

 

Devotee : They say that Kundalini must be roused before Realisation and that

its awakening makes the body feel hot. Is that so?

 

Maharshi : The yogis call it Kundalini Sakti. It is the same as vritti of

the form of God (Bhagavatakara vritti) of the bhaktas and vritti of the form

of Brahman (Brahmakara vritti) of the jnanis. It must be preliminary to

Realisation.

(Talk 392.)

 

In relation to the 'vritti' which destroys ignorance, which is the subject

of discussion brought up by dear Subbu-ji, we note that in "Self Enquiry"

Ramana talks about the destruction of the 'I-thought' as a result of

bringing the mind back to its source, the Heart.

 

"The mind should be made to rest in the heart till

the destruction of the 'I'-thought which is of the

form of ignorance, residing in the heart. This itself

is jnana; this alone is dhyana also. The rest are

a mere digression of words, digression of the texts.

Thus the scriptures proclaim. Therefore, if one gains

the skill of retaining the mind in one's Self through

some means or other, one need not worry about other matters."

("Self Enquiry:p 31)

 

Sri Ramana explained that Realisation came with the removal of ignorance

(the 'I am the body' idea) which in turn took place as a result of the

Direct Path of "Self Enquiry" (Atma Vichara"), seeking the source of the

'I'.

 

" (v) jnana is the annihilation of the mind in which

it is made to assume the form of the Self through

the constant practice of dhyana or enquiry (vichara).."

 

....a little further on in this section Ramana explains what is meant by the

'mind assuming the form of the Self' through enquiry:

 

"Those who follow the path of enquiry realize that

the mind which remains at the end of the enquiry

is Brahman."

(Spiritual Instruction: page 47 in "Words of Grace")

 

Perhaps one gets a sense from this what Ramana meant by 'diving into the

Heart':

 

"Diving into the Heart - restraining both speech and mind

and seeking 'where shines the (original) I-Consciousness -

is the direct means of winning the Awareness of the Self."

(Forty Verses on Reality v28 [sad Vidya / Ulladhu Narpadhu])

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

________________________________

 

advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf

Of dhyanasaraswati

13 January 2007 17:08

advaitin

Re: Who is it who awakens?

 

 

<snip>

 

just because sri RamanA DOES NOT

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

LOSES ALL ITS APPEAL ...

 

<snip>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

> advaitin, "Peter" <not_2@> wrote:

 

>I feel it is one of the most interesting as well as enlightening

> thread. I request all advaitins to participate with open mind

 

Namaste,

 

Self-Realization - svAtmAnubhUti, Atma-sAkShAtkAra - occurs

ONLY with Divine Grace. It is as indescribable as describing the

sweetness of honey.

 

If mAyA itself is anirvachanIya, how much more so the ONE

mAyAvI who wields that power? (Gita 9;10)

 

If Reality Itself is Time also(kAlo.asmi .... Gita 11:32), why

discount time-related events?

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Om Namo Narayanaya.

Forgive me for jumping in. But this is a very interesting post, extremely

helpful.

I think Subbuji hit bulls-eye when he said that "All of us know from the

basic study of the Vedanta, in a few day's time, that we are the witnessing

principle. Then why are we not able to assert, if not to others, to

ourselves, that we are Jnanis and are already liberated?" and the answer?

 

In Subbuji words, "'Atma-sAkshAtkAra' (direct perception of the Atman) is

not a figure of speech. It is used in the context of the akhandaakAravritti

where one has the perception of the Atman bereft of any tinge of anaatman.

It is definitely not a recognition of the fact that one is the witnessing

principle beyond the mind and intellect. All this is essential to strengthen

the manana and aid nididhyaasana but the culmination of the sadhana, in the

ShAnkaran method, is in the abrupt arising of this A.vritti."

I was leafing through the Vivekachudamani (I have a copy that I use as an

"inspirational" book rather than for daily reading which is what I think I

should be doing!) and found these verses which I think are relevant here:

 

sloka 215, starting "Tat-sAkshikam bhavetatt....nop-Ujyate" meaning *That

which is witnessed by something else has the latter as its witness. When

there is no entity to witness a thing, we cannot say that it has been

witnessed at all.* My copy is Swami Chinmayananda's English translation

(2003 issue from the Chinmaya Mission); Swamiji elaborates on this by saying

that (in brief) -- A Witness is with reference to finite experiences. *In

the realm of the world when it is having experiences within and without, It

can be called a Witness. ...But when all happenings are removed, there

cannot be any Witness hood. The Witness itself has become the Reality (p.

270). *

**

This also helped explain Subbuji's statements that Shankara's view of

Atma-sAkshAtkAra subsumes the view of 'perception' understanding,

're-cognizance' etc.

I found this explanation quite appealing and I think Durgaji also makes the

same point in her post: "if I remove the boundaries

of the apparent separation of objects, while existence, isness remains, then

what separates my is-ness from their am-ness? Nothing!"

 

Then Vinayakaji's post with the quotes were also a great help. Vinayakji

finally wrote:

 

"Here vritti or consciousness bereft of all other thoughts (as i understand

it) destroying avidya is all right but why it is said

that it disappears and the person remains as brahman? " Recall Ramakrishna

Paramhamsa's analogy of a salt doll and the ocean. The moment the doll

touches water, what remains? Nothing.

 

I also found the following helpful, again from the Vivekachudamani: sloka

421, starting, "yaddhUtarottaraBhavaha purva-purvantu

NishPhalam.....Anupamah Swataha", meaning -- *When there are no succeeding

stages the preceding ones are useless. (In a perfect series), automatic

cessation of the objective world, supreme satisfaction and unequalled Bliss

follow as a matter of course (p. 493). *

My understanding of all this -- the bottom line is that I can indulge in all

the mind-blowing intellectual exercises and be an ardent sadhaka, but the

jump from beyond all the five koshas, to Atma-SakShatkara, however near that

goal may appear to be, is indeed a quantum leap.

 

PraNams.

Veena.

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Pranams,

 

> If I have removed the boundaries from myself

> as being the body/mind/or sense organs,

> if my mind has made this differentiation

> between that which never changes and that

> which does, then if I remove the boundaries

> of the apparent separation of objects, while

> existence, isness remains, then what separates

> my isness from their amness? Nothing.

_

> The notional mind drops out. The objective mind

> remains. The understanding is no more at the thought

> level. It is not understanding as a thought that I

am

> brahman - I am period

> A glimpse of that

> understanding beaming forth as the vial of ignorance

> keeps dropping like a mist.

 

 

Very nicely put.

In a similar vein, I would like to present these

verses from the concluding portion of Bhagwan

Shankara's Brahmajnanavalli - which

are both beautiful and a wonderful aid for

contemplation on these metaphysical truths...

 

"There are only two things in the world

And they are between themselves the most contrary

Of them the Subject is the Supreme Truth

And the object is mere delusion

Thus roars Vedanta

 

Through knowledge and repeated discrimination

One comes to realize that one is but a witness

Established in the "I am witness" Consciousness

Lives the liberated wise man

Thus roars Vedanta

 

Pots,cup,saucers

Are all in essence but the mud from which they were

shaped

So too, the entire world of phenomenal objects

Is nothing but the Supreme truth

Thus roars vedanta

 

Brahman is Truth; the world of objects and beings is

false

And the ego is itself, in fact, nothing but Brahman

alone

 

That by which this Truth is known is the truest

science

The science of all sciences.

Thus roars Vedanta

 

Within am I Light without am i Light

Deep within the depth of myself am i light

Beyond the beyond

Light of lights, the Self-effulgent light,

The Self's own light, Shiva am I,

Auspiciousness am I."

 

Hari OM

Shyam

 

 

 

--- Durga <durgaji108 > wrote:

>

> So that is my understanding.

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't pick lemons.

See all the new 2007 cars at Autos.

http://autos./new_cars.html

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Tony:

 

Vedantins in general refer Brahman as Atman or as SELF or as Absolute

Reality or as True Divine Nature or by using the compound undefinable

expression of "Sat-Cit-Ananda." You seem to imply that they represent

qualities or attributes and may I ask you what qualities do they

represent? What is Sat (TRUTH)? What is Cit (pure mind)? What is Ananda

(Happiness)? Qualities are attributable only to objects and Vedantic

reference of Sat-Cit-Ananda is the subject!

 

In the ongoing discussions, I have noticed that several of the posters

wanted to maintain that their way of "expressing the Brahaman" is the

only way and seem to believe that others have not 'rights' to express

the Brahman in their own way! A recent post by Sri Peter also

recognizes this problem and his workable solution is one of the best

way for all of us to progress in spiritual journey together.

 

Mathematical understanding and intuition can help us to direct our

thinking to appreciate and enjoy alternative mathematical formulations

and to learn from what others try to say! The

terminology, "mathematically equivalent" is a useful terminology for us

to adapt during our discussions! This concept is quite profound for all

of us respect others expressions and help us to take time to read and

respect others and their 'rightful' expressions. For example if someone

wants to prove that the "earth is round" there exist more than one way

to prove this. All those methods are equivalent and acceptable! Here is

another example for mathematical equivalance using the most popular

puzzle of the world - SUDOKO!

 

Two Sudoku puzzles are mathematically equivalent if one can transform

the first into the second via a series of zero or more operations,

where the allowed operations are:

• Relabel the 9 digits

• Swap any 2 rows in a floor

• Swap any 2 columns in a tower

• Swap any 2 floors

• Swap any 2 towers

• Swap rows with columns (i.e. matrix transpose operation)

 

In other words, two Sudoku puzzles are mathematically equivalent if

they have the same canonical form.

 

If a puzzle P can be solved using a set of solving techniques, then any

puzzle that is mathematically equivalent to P can also be solved using

the same set of solving techniques. However, Sudoku Programs may rate

two mathematically equivalent puzzles slightly differently because a

different solving path is used. When a program checks for patterns one

digit at a time, relabeling the digits may cause the solver to find

patterns of similar nature in a different order.

A symmetrical puzzle can be mathematically equivalent to an

asymmetrical puzzle. From an aesthetic point of view, these puzzles are

completely different.

 

It is quite easy for all of us to get easily logically convinced on the

validity of mathematical equivalence of expressions of mathematical

truths and puzzles. Since Vedanta deals with metaphysics, it is

naturally more complicated and we need to "open our mind" so that we

can respect others' expressions and contemplate on what others express

so that we recognize the new insights that we get to broaden our mind!

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> Sat-Cit-Ananda, and Satyam-Jnanam-Anantam, only refer to the concept

> of Saguna Brahman or delusory Brahmam. They are qualities as Ramana

> would term them. I would say that qualities are attributes and

> therefore only refer to the Saguna-Self. The Self is as Real or

> unreal as oneself is...........Tony.

>

[Guest guest]

If Reality Itself is Time also(kAlo.asmi .... Gita 11:32), why

discount time-related events?

 

Humble praNAms Sri Sunder Hattangadi prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

it is just because nirvikAri brahman & the *socalled* its realization

cannot be restricted to time bound/related events...Shankara in sUtra

bhAshya says both dEsha & kAla *vishaya* and anAtma vastu...and in mAndUkya

bhAshya shankara says Atman is dEsha & kAlAtIta while describing deepsleep

state...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar