Why Transmigration?

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Atreya,

 

You asked: "... why is there is transmigration in the first

place?... In other words, why is there a need for us and the

universe to exist in the first place?"

 

Your questions take for granted an assumption that transmigration

and the changing universe must exist in what you call 'the first

place'. But is this assumption correct?

 

Yes, it is true that before a person can search for truth, this

person must assume that she or he is a changing person -- searching

in a changing universe which already exists, before any search that

takes place in it.

 

This is just one of those assumptions that are thrown into question

by Advaita enquiry. What the enquiry points out is that no change

can appear without a knowing presence which continues through the

change.

 

Or, in other words, the appearance of change must be secondary.

Change can only appear on the basis of a knowing presence which

stays present through the change.

 

That knowing presence must be there in the first place, before any

change can appear -- in any universe that is perceived or thought or

felt to change, by any changing person.

 

All changes are known through perceived and thought and felt

appearances, which come and go in personal experience. Appearances

thus come and go, while a knowing presence carries on through their

comings and their goings.

 

That knowing presence does not come into appearance, nor does it

ever go away. It is just there, in the first place. And it stays

there always, implied by every change that anyone perceives or

thinks or feels. All changes are known through appearances and

disappearances that take place before its ever-present knowing.

 

It can't itself be known to change, for this would require it to

appear and disappear before itself. So it stays changeless in

itself, as it has always been. Its changelessness is primary, before

all changes that appear.

 

Accordingly, Advaita enquiry proceeds by throwing into question this

very assumption which a person makes, that we changing persons and

our changing universe are found to exist 'in the first place'.

 

And the enquiry is aimed reflectively, at asking one's way back, to

just what it is that truly exists, from before all appearances of

changing time and differentiated space.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Your questions take for granted an assumption that transmigration

and the changing universe must exist in what you call 'the first

place'. But is this assumption correct?

 

Yes, it is true that before a person can search for truth, this

person must assume that she or he is a changing person -- searching

in a changing universe which already exists, before any search that

takes place in it.

 

 

 

Or, in other words, the appearance of change must be secondary.

Change can only appear on the basis of a knowing presence which

stays present through the change.

 

That knowing presence must be there in the first place, before any

change can appear -- in any universe that is perceived or thought or

felt to change, by any changing person.

 

All changes are known through perceived and thought and felt

appearances, which come and go in personal experience. Appearances

thus come and go, while a knowing presence carries on through their

comings and their goings.

 

That knowing presence does not come into appearance, nor does it

ever go away. It is just there, in the first place. And it stays

there always, implied by every change that anyone perceives or

thinks or feels. All changes are known through appearances and

disappearances that take place before its ever-present knowing.

 

 

Sir,

Is the above also not an assumption. Does the intellectual conclusion alter a wee of our existence? Should not one abandon all conclusions and conceptualizations, when one proceeds to take a quest, look at the fundamentals. It is as much an assumption that there is some presence looking at the changes, as the idea that there is transmigration of an individual entity.

yours

 

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate

in the Answers Food & Drink Q&A.

[Guest guest]

narayana145 <narayana145 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

 

Dear Sri Ganesan Sankarraman,

You have said:

. "It is as much an assumption that there is some presence looking at

the changes, as the idea that there is transmigration of an

individual entity."

 

Is it not a fact of EVEYONE'S LIFE that THERE IS A CHAGELESS

PRESENCE LOOKING AT THE CHANGES IN THE PSYCHOSOMATIC APPARATUS?

Please verfy in your own psychosomatic apparatus (

kAryakaraNasaMGhAta) and you yourself will see how erroneous is

your statement. In this connection you may please refer to verse 7

of Dakshinamurthystotra of Sri Sankara .The first line of the verse

is as follows:

bAlyAdiShvapi jAgradAdiShu tathA sarvAsvasthAsvapi

------.

Acarya Sankara draws our attention to this undeniable presence of

the IMMUTABLE CONSCIOUS PRESENCE , which everybody has ignored due to

ignorance.

May Bhagavan Ramana bless you with realization of this fact.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

Dear Murthy,

You have mischaracterized my statements. It is not as if I were unaware of the basic premise, rather the unformulated intuition of the existence of a changeless presence behind the changing phantasmagoria of existence. What I have pointed out is that that knowledge, rather perception is not accessible to the conceptualizing knowledge, nor is it a conclusion. If we were to take intellectually the standpoint of the changing presence, we should be committing the sad mistake of foisting it on the changing ego, which wants permanence. Eternity is different from immortality. Eternity is the timeless state of the Being which cannot be come upon by the changing fiction of the ego, whereas immortality is the persistence in time of the fiction of the ego. Even the assumption that it is a fiction is only a conclusion. My standpoint is that both the intellectual advaitin and the stark materialist are in the same predicament. The inner state of realizing the crisis

of the incarceration of oneself in time is a different thing from a mere conclusion. It is not that I am not aware of these basics. The intellect has no place beyond the preliminaries, lest one should find oneself caught in the intricate labyrinth of conclusions. Ramana posed only the question as to for whom all these thoughts arise, and warned all against dwell ling too much on mere theorizing and philosophizing. Still, how does it entitle me to assume that I have understood the exalted the teaching; I may be finding some solace in the intellectual ideas, which is a different thing.

 

with kind regards and respects

Sankarraman

 

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

[Guest guest]

Dear Murthy,

I have read Dakshinamurthy Stotra, commented by the late Mahadeva Sastry as well as a voluminous and ponderous one ( two big volumes ) written by one Subbha Rama Iyya, a great devotee of Sringeri Acharya. Still, how does it entitle me to the assumption that I have understood it, that is non-verbally. I may be theorizing, and finding some solace in it, which is different from the true non-dual wisdom. I am not devaluing the great scriptures, but one has to translate into action that in perception, not through mind-begotten dualistic ideas.

 

with kind regards and respects

Sankarraman

 

 

 

Looking for earth-friendly autos?

Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Autos' Green Center.

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

 

Dear Sri Ganesan Sankarraman,

> Dear Murthy,

> I have read Dakshinamurthy Stotra, commented by the late Mahadeva

Sastry as well as a voluminous and ponderous one ( two big volumes )

written by one Subbha Rama Iyya, a great devotee of Sringeri Acharya.

Still, how does it entitle me to the assumption that I have

understood it, that is non-verbally. I may be theorizing, and finding

some solace in it, which is different from the true non-dual wisdom.

I am not devaluing the great scriptures, but one has to translate

into action that in perception, not through mind-begotten dualistic

ideas.

>

> with kind regards and respects

> Sankarraman

>

>

>

>

>

> Looking for earth-friendly autos?

> Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Autos' Green Center.

>

>

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy,

Pranams to all.

 

Dear Moderator,

I request you to ignore my previous posting dated today and the same

may please be withdrawn . By mistake and oversight instead of clicking

on "CANCEL" I clicked on "SEND". Please excuse me for this mistake of

mine.

 

Ever yours in The Divine,

Sreenivasa Murthy.