aSarIratva (Unembodiedness)

[Guest guest]

sreenivasa murthy <narayana145 wrote:

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

Dear readers,

I wish a very happy UGADI TO ALL.

 

Here are two excerpts from Sri Shankara's commentaries:

 

A) aSarIratvamEva dharmakAryaM iti cEt, na |

tasya svABAvikatvAt ||

[brahmasutra; 1-1-4]

opponent: Unembodiedness can itself be the product of

virtuous deeds.

Vedantin: Not so; for unembodiedness is inherent in the

Self.

 

B) aSarIratA hi AtmanaH svarUpam || CAMdOgya; 8-3-4

The nature (svarUpa) of the Atman is surely unembodiedness.

 

I am under the notion that I am an embodied being. But Sri Shankara

declares that my true svarUpa is unembodiedness. This Truth has to be cognised,

according to mantra from Bruhadaranyaka Upanishad which says

" AtmanyEva AtmAnam paSyati " (4-4-23). Sri Shankara in his commentary to this

mantra says " AtmanyEva Atmani svE kAryakaraNasaMGAtE " which means 'in his own

psychosomatic complex one cognizes Atman' .

 

How can I realze that MY TRUE NATURE IS UNEMBODIEDNESS ?

What is the prakriya or methodology to be adopted for realising this

as a LIVING TRUTH, as AN ACTUAL FACT?

 

Can this be discussed in this august platform?

 

Dear Murthy,

Does not embodiedness consit in I thought alone? If the I

were real, embodiedness should also be real. As long as there is identification

with the kosas, embodiedness should be there. Unless one goes to the foremost

kosa to understand the unobjectifed I, one cannot understand the essential

disembodiedness of the Self. All systems other than that of Ramana and Sankara

presuppose the reality of embodiedness, assuring freedom with the kosa existing

at some level. Bhaghavan is free from all systems even advaita, which is

confounded to be a system.

 

with respectufl regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

>

>

>

> sreenivasa murthy <narayana145

wrote:

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

 

Bruhadaranyaka Upanishad which says

> " AtmanyEva AtmAnam paSyati " (4-4-23). Sri Shankara in his

commentary to this mantra says " AtmanyEva Atmani svE

kAryakaraNasaMGAtE " which means 'in his own psychosomatic complex

one cognizes Atman' .

>

> How can I realze that MY TRUE NATURE IS UNEMBODIEDNESS ?

> What is the prakriya or methodology to be adopted for

realising this

> as a LIVING TRUTH, as AN ACTUAL FACT?

 

 

Namaste,

 

Mantra 4:4:22 in Brihadaranyaka upan. gives the 'neti

neti' prakriya. The Bhagavad-gita, however, cautions in Ch 12:5 that

the path is far harder than the worship of the Form.

 

Shankara's Nirguna-manasa Puja may also be regarded in the

same light.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin , sreenivasa murthy <narayana145

wrote:

>

 

>

> How can I realze that MY TRUE NATURE IS UNEMBODIEDNESS ?

> What is the prakriya or methodology to be adopted for

realising this

> as a LIVING TRUTH, as AN ACTUAL FACT?

>

> Can this be discussed in this august platform?

>

> With warm and respectful regards,

> Sreenivasa Murthy

 

Namaste Sreenivas Murthyji,

 

In the teachings of Vedanta, it is pointed out

that the initial meaning and understanding of

all words point to something in duality.

 

For instance, take the word 'unembodiedness.'

To the western mind that word might conjure

up some ghostly type of apparition. A being

no longer in a physical body, but existing

as a separate entity floating about

somewhere.

 

In the teachings of Vedanta the initial,

primary meaning of the word needs to be

knocked off so that the word can be used

as a pointer to the Self.

 

So from the Vedantic standpoint what would

the word unembodieness point to?

 

First of all, just examine who you, at this

very moment, take yourself to be. Most people

take it that they are the body/mind/sense organs

individual, and that their actual existence

depends upon the body and the mind.

 

But Vedanta teaches us, That which you take

to be one with the body and the mind is

actually the Self which you are.

 

One of the strongest convictions the

mind has is the 'dehatmabuddhi.'

The strong conviction in the mind, the buddhi,

that the atma, the Self, is the deha, the body,

(literally that which will be burned).

 

One of the best means which I know of for

breaking the dehatmabuddhi is the practice

of dRRigdRRishya viveka, which was previously

discussed.

 

Everything you need for this practice is

readily at hand, your mind, your body,

and the atma.

 

It is clear that everything external to one's

body is an object. No one takes himself

to be an object which he is looking at,

(unless perhaps he is mentally unbalanced.)

 

We don't think, " I am that car which passed by.

I am those clouds in the sky. I am that

person over there. "

 

But when it comes to the body and everything

'interior' to it, it's a completely different story

altogether. My mind does take the body

and everything associated with it to be me.

 

So how do we disentangled this dehatmabuddhi?

One way is just by becoming rather quiet, and

then observing what changes and what does not.

 

I sit, and I watch the sensations of the body.

They definitely change. I am aware of them.

 

I am aware of my sense organs. I am aware of

hearing, seeing, smelling, feeling, tasting,

etc., and all of these things change.

 

I am aware of my mind. I am aware of what

the mind is thinking. I am aware of my moods,

my emotions, whether the mind is quiet or

agitated. I am aware of all of that.

 

Then one might ask oneself the question,

" Just who is it that is aware of all of

these changing phenomena, which are occurring

in the body and mind? Who is that? "

 

Does that which is aware of everything which

changes, does that in itself change?

 

Eventually, and through time, and through practice,

one might begin to notice that that which is aware

of all of the changing phenomena is in itself

never changing.

 

Now there is a jump to be made here.

 

Is that which is aware, never changes and is always present,

Is that dependent upon the body and the mind which

are constantly changing?

 

How can that which never changes be influenced in

any way by that which does? Is it limited by

anything whatsoever? If that which never changes

is not limited by anything, then it is limitless.

 

If it is limitless then it is not dependent on

the body. If it is not dependent on the body

then is it embodied or not?

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

> Now there is a jump to be made here.

>

> Is that which is aware, never changes and is always present,

> Is that dependent upon the body and the mind which

> are constantly changing?

>

> How can that which never changes be influenced in

> any way by that which does? Is it limited by

> anything whatsoever? If that which never changes

> is not limited by anything, then it is limitless.

>

> If it is limitless then it is not dependent on

> the body. If it is not dependent on the body

> then is it embodied or not?

>

 

 

Durga ji, Thanks for the nice analysis. However, another thing comes to

mind here - Isn't this all intellectual analysis ? Isn't the knower the

intellect itself ?

 

If I counter argue that the mind itself is aware of the mind, where is

that logic gone awry ?

 

regards,

 

Shailendra

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " bhatnagar_shailendra "

<bhatnagar_shailendra wrote:

 

>

> Durga ji, Thanks for the nice analysis. However, another thing comes to

> mind here - Isn't this all intellectual analysis ? Isn't the knower the

> intellect itself ?

>

> If I counter argue that the mind itself is aware of the mind, where is

> that logic gone awry ?

>

> regards,

>

> Shailendra

 

Namaste Sri Shailendraji,

 

This is not at all an intellectual analysis.

If by 'intellectual' you mean not experiential.

 

The knower is not the buddhi, the mind.

 

When practicing dRRigdRRishya viveka, at first,

the principle of 'witness' or sakshi, is introduced.

 

'I' am the witness (the seer), or 'sakshi'

and everything else, including

the body/mind/sense organs, is an

object of my observation.

 

But in the end of dRRigdRRishya, when

the prakriya finally works, the witness

is seen to have been only a teaching

device. There really is no witness,

per se. The 'witness' itself resolves,

as it were, into the Self.

 

The reason it takes time for dRRigdRRishya

to work, IMO, is that at first, the mind still

takes itself as the Self, and the Self

as the mind.

 

So it is in order to untangle, or break, this

'mutual superimposition,' the cause

of self-ignorance, that the prakriya

is used.

 

So the sakshi or witness is introduced, as

it were, to separate out the seer from the

seen. When the mind has separated out these

two, noticing that one is always constant,

the dRRig (the seer/or witness),

and the dRRishyas (the seen), always changing,

then there does seem to be a leap, as it were,

when the prakriya works, and one sees quite clearly,

in a flash, 'I' am not the mind. 'I' am not the

body, nor am `I' the sakshi, the knower. 'I' just am.

 

But your objection is IMO the most very logical

and normal one to make, and one which I worked

with a long time myself.

 

Prior to the prakriya doing its job, my advice

would be to just notice, what changes, and then

to ask is there anything about 'me' which does not.

 

Have you ever heard an older person remark, " When I

look in the mirror, my face looks very old, but

I feel that I am the same person I always was. "

 

Or, as my niece once said when we were discussing

things which happened prior to her birth,

and I remarked, " It must seem strange to hear

about things which happened before you were born. "

And she replied, " Yes, it seems as if I always was. "

 

These types of statements point directly to the Self

which one actually is. These are our own intimations of

immortality, as it were.

 

It seems to me that the way the pranama of Vedanta

really works, is that it leads the mind step by step to

the direct recognition of the Self. So, dRRigdRRishya

works by guiding the mind in this way. Seer/seen, Seer/seen, Seer/seen.

 

And then eventually the Seer is seen, but not as an object.

(and I apologize that that statement may sound contradictory).

Perhaps it might be better to say, eventually `I' am recognized

as the ultimate subject. 'I' cannot be objectified, and yet

I am `known,' as my Self, for the nature of the Self is

`Knowledge,' jnanam.

 

The best way to practice dRRigdRRishya, IMO, is to

find oneself a very good Vedanta teacher, who

can clear all doubts, and answer all questions,

who is a brahmanishta, and a shotria.

 

May all who desire liberation find a one such

as that one.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

>

> But your objection is IMO the most very logical

> and normal one to make, and one which I worked

> with a long time myself.

>

> Prior to the prakriya doing its job, my advice

> would be to just notice, what changes, and then

> to ask is there anything about 'me' which does not.

>

 

 

Namaste Durga ji, Let me confess something - does not matter how silly

it may sound. A lot of times, when the situation is unfavorabale,

discomforting or difficult, resulting in mental agitation or potential

anger, I try to intellectually plead that " I am that awareness because

of which I am aware of this BMI. " Sometimes this really works to calm

yourself but mostly the feeling of peace and calm is spontaneous - no

'effort' is required as such. My personal experience is that one mala of

Gayatri japa works wonders on your mind even if the mind is distracted

during the japa. The calm that results from Gayatri japa proves to me

that there is some higher power - the pure awareness which has the

subtle impact of calming the mind. But this is just an experience and

experience has a beginning and an end. The key is to abide in that

knowledge that I am simply nirguna awareness.

 

I will try to follow you advice above.

 

regards,

 

Shailendra

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " bhatnagar_shailendra "

<bhatnagar_shailendra wrote:

>

>

> >

> > But your objection is IMO the most very logical

> > and normal one to make, and one which I worked

> > with a long time myself.

> >

> > Prior to the prakriya doing its job, my advice

> > would be to just notice, what changes, and then

> > to ask is there anything about 'me' which does not.

> >

>

>

> Namaste Durga ji, Let me confess something - does not matter how

silly

> it may sound. A lot of times, when the situation is unfavorabale,

> discomforting or difficult, resulting in mental agitation or

potential

> anger, I try to intellectually plead that " I am that awareness

because

> of which I am aware of this BMI. " Sometimes this really works to

calm

> yourself but mostly the feeling of peace and calm is spontaneous -

no

> 'effort' is required as such. My personal experience is that one

mala of

> Gayatri japa works wonders on your mind even if the mind is

distracted

> during the japa. The calm that results from Gayatri japa proves to

me

> that there is some higher power - the pure awareness which has the

> subtle impact of calming the mind. But this is just an experience

and

> experience has a beginning and an end. The key is to abide in that

> knowledge that I am simply nirguna awareness.

>

> I will try to follow you advice above.

>

> regards,

>

> Shailendra

>

Namaste,

 

No higher power calming the mind at all. You are just retreating from

the mind by concentrating on one thought repetitively..Tony.

[Guest guest]

> Shailendra

> >

> Namaste,

>

> No higher power calming the mind at all. You are just retreating from

> the mind by concentrating on one thought repetitively..Tony.

>

 

 

Well then according to you, I could as well do one mala of

abracadabra. Sorry - but I disagree completely with you. Secondly, my

mind is distracted during gayatri japa so there is not much

concentration anyway but the mind is still calmed.