Parabrahman

[Guest guest]

Being new here, I have not yet seen if this topic was previously

discussed. I've read over the more recent posts and have read of

Brahman, the Self, Knowledge.

 

I would be very interested in hearing about that which is said to be

prior to the Self and beyond both ignorance and knowledge, namely the

Parabrahman.

 

As I understand it, Knowledge is the 4th state (turya), the other 3

states being deep sleep, dreaming, and the waking state. And the

Parabrahman is beyond these. It is called turyatita and is not a

state. It is attributeless.

 

All comments will be appreciated.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Richard:

 

Welcome to the list and we look forward to see your active

participation with insightful questions and discussions. Advaitic

philosophy consists of 'mathematics like' conjectures such as:

Atman = Brahman = Parabrahman = Consciousness = Ultimate Reality =

TRUTH. Consequently, you may not have noticed discussions directly

centered on Parabrahman, the list did discuss indirectly about

Parabrahman. In the messages site,

advaitin/ just search for the term,

<parabrahman>, you will be able to pick up over 400 messages discussing

on that topic. I also suggest that you read the weekly definitions of

key terms which started from January 2007. I would characterize

Parabraman as everything that 'we know' and everything that 'we don't

know.'

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

advaitin , " Richard " <richarkar wrote:

>

> Being new here, I have not yet seen if this topic was previously

> discussed. I've read over the more recent posts and have read of

> Brahman, the Self, Knowledge.

>

> I would be very interested in hearing about that which is said to be

> prior to the Self and beyond both ignorance and knowledge, namely the

> Parabrahman.

>

> As I understand it, Knowledge is the 4th state (turya), the other 3

> states being deep sleep, dreaming, and the waking state. And the

> Parabrahman is beyond these. It is called turyatita and is not a

> state. It is attributeless.

>

> All comments will be appreciated.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Richard,

 

Just another brief comment: I assume you are picking up on turIyatIta from

the writings of Ramana Maharshi. This is not a scriptural/Shankaran term. In

the mANDUkya upaniShad, turIya, though literally maning 'fourth' is not a

state. It is the 'background' on which the three states appear. It is the

(only) non-dual reality and is therefore effectively another word for the

Self, (para)brahman or whichever term you prefer. Verse 7 of the MU is the

one you want for a 'description'. Here is the translation from the Celextel

version (not the best but I don't want to type it all in!): " The Fourth is

thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor

conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense

with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is

unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable,

indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all

states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is

unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be

known. "

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

..

 

<http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=3

5446/stime=1174961424/nc1=3848550/nc2=3848586/nc3=3848569>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thanks to those who responded to my post.

 

My thoughts concerning the Parabrahman was probably mainly influenced

by Siddharameshwar Maharaj and his disciples, Nisargadatta Maharaj and

Ranjit Maharaj. And also by the book " Dasbodh " by Ramdas.

 

From these sources I gathered that Parabrahman is prior to/beyond the

Self (Brahman). Thus the prefix " Para- " . It is what is prior to bodily

birth, after death, and present now.

 

Dennis's explaination also makes sense and what is implied about the

Parabrahman might also be called the 4th, or Self. Semantics.

 

I suppose none of these divisions makes much sense in non-duality.

[Guest guest]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

I suppose none of these divisions makes much sense in non-duality.

 

> Yes, however, there are two different view points in approaching

non-dual philosophy of Shankara...From the transactional (vyAvahArik) view

point we do have divisions in brahman like saguNa - nirguNa,

sAkAra-nirAkAra etc. etc. shankara makes it clear that brahman with

attributes designed for manda & madhyama adhikAri-s for doing upAsana &

dhyAna...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Hi Richard,

 

I am somewhat familiar with the teachings of Siddharameshwar Maharaj

and I think it is an issue of word definition.

 

What he refers to as Parabrahman is what in Vedanta is referred to as

Brahman/Atman. What he refers to as Brahman/Atman is the " I am " or

Mahat-tattva or Hiranyagarbha which is the first object that emmerges

when we come out of deep sleep.

 

When using such language, turiya is that state where one is

established in " I am, " meaning that state where identification with

the body and mind has been suspended. This is not liberation though,

because it is just a state/experience whereas knowledge alone is

liberation. Using this kind of Yogic language, turiyatita can refer to

the state of liberation. The state of liberation is said to be beyond

knowledge because not only is ignorance absence but vritti-jnana

(mental activity which negates ignorance) is also absent.

 

However, as Dennis points out, in traditional Advaita, the word Turiya

does not refer to a state or experience, but it refers to the Self,

which is the reality of all states and free from all states.

 

Please correct me if you think my interpretation of Siddharameshwar

Maharaj's teachings is incorrect.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

Below is an extract from a post I made last year, to another group where

this topic of Brahman/Parabrahm, Turya/Turyatita arose. I wondered if it

might be of relevance here so I have given the edited extract below:

 

.. . . .

 

The traditional view is that Turiya is the non-dual, unconditioned

consciousness (eg see Guadapada's Mandukya Karika). Sri Ramana refers to it

as Pure Consciousness. It is the Atman. As it is " unconditioned

consciousness " it is nirguna brahman, which is also referred to as the

parabrahman.

 

Gaudapada explains that the three states of consciousness namely waking,

dreaming, and dreamless sleep (deep sleep) are characterised by two things:

 

- " non-apprehension of reality "

- " mis-apprehension of reality " .

 

" Reality " standing for Turya-Atman-Brahman. Tuyra is not a fourth state but

rather the unconditioned consciousness which is the substratum for all three

states. It is the one without a second, with no thing to know it and no

other for it to know.

 

Non-apprehension of Atman is the cause of ignorance.

Mis-apprehension is the resultant effect which leads us to see ourselves and

the world as other than we are - pure consciousness.

 

For example, in the rope and snake analogy often used in Vedanta -

non-apprehension of the rope is the cause of ignorance as to its true

nature. Because of this non-apprehension we mistake it for a snake

(mis-apprehension). As soon as we realize it is a really a rope, the snake

disappears for it had no real existence apart from the rope, its substratum.

In the same way, because we are ignorant of our true nature, we mistakenly

identify ourselves with the body mind and see a separate world of objects.

The sages tell us that when we recognise our true nature, Turya, then the

duality of 'me' and 'other' (ego and world) disappears and non dual brahman

is directly 'experienced' as alone existing.

 

In his Mandukya Karika, Sri Gaudapada gives us a handy way of looking at

Turya and the three states and which summarises what is said above. Each may

be characterised as follows.

 

Turya (Atman): non-apprehension of duality.

Prajna (deep sleep): non-apprehension of Reality and of duality.

Taijasa (dream state): non-apprehension of and misapprehension of Reality.

Visva (waking state): non-apprehension of and misapprehension of Reality.

 

As far as I know, turyatita is not referred to in the major upanishads.

Perhaps someone else has a reference, if it is? However, some of the minor

Upanishads refer to five states: visva, taijasa, prajna, turya and

turyatita. For example:

 

" 4. There are five Avasthas (states): Jagrat (waking), Swapna (dreaming),

Sushupti (dreamless sleeping), the Turya (fourth) and Turyatita (that beyond

the fourth)... "

" 5. The Yogin is one that has realised Brahman that is all-full beyond

Turya. "

 

(from " Mandala Brahmana Upanishad " , Translated by K. Narayanasvami Aiyar)

 

and

 

" 5. There is nothing other than Brahman of the five padas (i.e. the

turyatita).

 

(from " Para-Brahma Upanishad " , Translated by Prof. A. A. Ramanathan)

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi also refers to Turyatita in a few places, though he

normally explains the traditional view. The way I understand this is that

the reference to Turyatita has more to do with meditation practice than with

the traditional view of metaphysics. Certain types of samadhi (eg Kevala

Nirvikalpa) don't really fit easily into the 3 states. It seems Kevala

Nirvikalpa Samadhi certainly isn't the 'waking' or 'dream' state, and it

also doesn't quite equate with 'deep sleep' for the latter is characterised

by 'non-apprehension' of Reality. Nor does it quite equate with direct

Realisation of Atman and therefore liberation, as it is a temporary state.

 

Another reason for five states, rather than four, is due to the stage of

establishing oneself in the Witness State and recognising that 'I am' is not

any of the other three states. Perhaps here, the term 'Turya' is used to

stand for the fourth state as the Witness State. However, the spiritual

aspirant has yet to realize herself as the non-dual Brahman - a fifth

'state' (so called). Hence this latter stage is referred to as Turyatita,

beyond the fourth (turya). Sri Ramana says as much when asked, " Why is the

Self described both as the fourth state (turiya)and beyond the fourth state

(turyatita)? " He replies:

 

" Turiya means that which is the fourth. The experiencers (jivas) of the

three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep, known as visva, taijasa and

prajna, who wander successively in these three states, are not the Self. It

is with the object of making this clear, namely that the Self is that which

is different from them and which is the witness of these states, that it is

called the fourth (turiya). When this is known, the three experiencers

disappear and the idea that the Self is a witness, that it is the fourth,

also disappears. That is why the Self is described as beyond the fourth

(turiyatita). "

(from, " Spiritual Instruction " no. 8.)

 

Apart from one or two passages like the above, Sri Ramana generally refers

to Turya in the traditional way, as follows:

 

D.: What is turiya?

M.: There are three states only, the waking, dream and sleep. Turiya is not

a fourth one; it is what underlies these three. But people do not readily

understand it. Therefore it is said that this is the fourth state and the

only Reality. In fact it is not apart from anything, for it forms the

substratum of all happenings; it is the only Truth; it is your very Being.

The three states appear as fleeting phenomena on it and then sink into it

alone. Therefore they are unreal.

(Talk 353.)

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

 

________________________________

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Dennis Waite

27 March 2007 19:33

advaitin

RE: Re: Parabrahman

 

 

 

Hi Richard,

 

Just another brief comment: I assume you are picking up on turIyatIta from

the writings of Ramana Maharshi. This is not a scriptural/Shankaran term. In

the mANDUkya upaniShad, turIya, though literally maning 'fourth' is not a

state. It is the 'background' on which the three states appear. It is the

(only) non-dual reality and is therefore effectively another word for the

Self, (para)brahman or whichever term you prefer. Verse 7 of the MU is the

one you want for a 'description'. Here is the translation from the Celextel

version (not the best but I don't want to type it all in!): " The Fourth is

thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor

conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense

with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is

unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable,

indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all

states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is

unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be

known. "

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Hi Rishi,

 

I appreciate your definitions and explanations. These make sense to

me. Not being able to read the original language of Siddharameshwar

Maharaj (Marathi), I am at the mercy of interpreters; and even worse,

at the mercy of my own conceptions.

 

In your post there is an apparent contradiction which I hope you will

clarify for us. In your post you say, " ...whereas knowledge alone is

liberation. " And then you say, " The state of liberation is said to be

beyond knowledge... "

 

Along these lines Siddharameshwar Maharaj's disciple, Ranjit Maharaj

has said, " Knowledge is the highest ignorance. " and " The truth is

beyond ignorance and knowledge. "

 

Best regards,

Richard

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote:

>

> Dear All,

 

> Non-apprehension of Atman is the cause of ignorance.

> Mis-apprehension is the resultant effect which leads us to see

ourselves and

> the world as other than we are - pure consciousness.

>

> For example, in the rope and snake analogy often used in Vedanta -

> non-apprehension of the rope is the cause of ignorance as to its true

> nature. Because of this non-apprehension we mistake it for a snake

> (mis-apprehension). As soon as we realize it is a really a rope, the

snake

> disappears for it had no real existence apart from the rope, its

substratum.

> In the same way, because we are ignorant of our true nature, we

mistakenly

> identify ourselves with the body mind and see a separate world of

objects.

> The sages tell us that when we recognise our true nature, Turya,

then the

> duality of 'me' and 'other' (ego and world) disappears and non dual

brahman

> is directly 'experienced' as alone existing.

 

> Best wishes,

>

> Peter

 

Namaste Peterji,

 

Thank you for that brilliant exposition on Parabrahman.

 

Sometimes the snake/rope analogy is also used in this

way: If one compares the creation to a snake, and

brahman to the rope, then upon self-knowlegde, the

snake does not actually disappear (that is the creation

and world of objects are still seen), but now known

to be actually nondual brahman (the rope).

 

Although this description may not sound different

from the one which you so elegantly presented, I

myself was at times confused, thinking that if

the 'snake' were to disappear, somehow, the

world of objects would also vanish from

physical sight.

 

It is my understanding that with self-knowledge

the world of objects does not vanish from physical,

but is rather now known to be nothing but nondual brahman.

 

I only bring this up because (as silly as it may

seem to some) it once presented a point of confusion

for me, and it is said that clearing doubts

and confusions is necessary for self-knowledge.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Durga " <durgaji108 wrote:

>

> Namaste Peterji,

>

> Thank you for that brilliant exposition on Parabrahman.

>

> Sometimes the snake/rope analogy is also used in this

> way: If one compares the creation to a snake, and

> brahman to the rope, then upon self-knowlegde, the

> snake does not actually disappear (that is the creation

> and world of objects are still seen), but now known

> to be actually nondual brahman (the rope).

>

> Although this description may not sound different

> from the one which you so elegantly presented, I

> myself was at times confused, thinking that if

> the 'snake' were to disappear, somehow, the

> world of objects would also vanish from

> physical sight.

>

> It is my understanding that with self-knowledge

> the world of objects does not vanish from physical,

> but is rather now known to be nothing but nondual brahman.

 

Namaste,

 

The problem is that there was no rope or snake in the first place. The

appearance of the world is only evident to the Sakti as the jiva has

moksha and doesn't exist to see anything.It/the body, just operates on

past karmas if the body still exists.On dropping the body there is no

connection at all, how could there be for there never was anything to

be connected to, not even illusion or appearance...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Peter-ji in #35489 very correctly writes

 

" For example, in the rope and snake analogy often used in Vedanta -

non-apprehension of the rope is the cause of ignorance as to its true

nature. Because of this non-apprehension we mistake it for a snake

(mis-apprehension). As soon as we realize it is a really a rope, the

snake disappears for it had no real existence apart from the rope,

its substratum. In the same way, because we are ignorant of our true

nature, we mistakenly identify ourselves with the body mind and see a

separate world of objects. The sages tell us that when we recognise

our true nature, Turya, then the duality of 'me' and 'other' (ego and

world) disappears and non dual brahman is directly 'experienced' as

alone existing. "

 

Durga-ji in 35493 writes (and raises a doubt):

 

" Sometimes the snake/rope analogy is also used in this

way: If one compares the creation to a snake, and

brahman to the rope, then upon self-knowlegde, the

snake does not actually disappear (that is the creation

and world of objects are still seen), but now known

to be actually nondual brahman (the rope).

 

Although this description may not sound different

from the one which you so elegantly presented, I

myself was at times confused, thinking that if

the 'snake' were to disappear, somehow, the

world of objects would also vanish from

physical sight. "

 

Now Ramana Maharishi comes to our help: (I quote from my website:

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/livehappily_6.html

 

There is a gradation in the different analogies, namely the snake-

rope analogy, the water in the mirage analogy and the dream analogy,

says Ramana Maharishi. First it may be questioned, with reference to

the analogy of the rope and the snake that when the lighting

situation improves the appearance of the snake is no more there,

whereas, in the case of brahman versus universe, even after learning

that brahman is the substratum of truth, and the universe is only a

superimposition like the snake on the rope, we still continue to see

the universe; it has not disappeared! For this the Maharishi wants

you to go to the analogy of the mirage. Once you understand it is the

mirage and no watershed, the appearance of water does not confuse you

into thinking that it is real. But now there is another

objection. `Even after knowing that there is only brahman and the

universe is only an appearance, one gets certain wants fulfilled from

this appearance of a universe: one gets one's hunger satisfied,

thirst quenched and so on. But the water that appears in a mirage

does not quench one's thirst; so to that extent the analogy is

inappropriate'. The analogy of the dream meets this objection, says

the Maharishi. The dreamer has his thirst quenched in the dream. The

thirst itself is a dream thirst and it is quenched by drinking

(dream) water in the dream; so also the wants that one feels in this

universe like hunger and thirst are also quenched by corresponding

objects in this universe. Thus in this sense the analogy of the dream

is reasonably perfect. Maybe that is why Sankara uses the analogy of

the dream so emphatically to describe the reality or unreality of the

universe.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " V. Krishnamurthy " <profvk wrote:

>

 

> Now Ramana Maharishi comes to our help: (I quote from my website:

> http://www.geocities.com/profvk/livehappily_6.html

>

> There is a gradation in the different analogies, namely the snake-

> rope analogy, the water in the mirage analogy and the dream analogy,

> says Ramana Maharishi. ...

 

 

...the analogy of the dream

> is reasonably perfect. Maybe that is why Sankara uses the analogy of

> the dream so emphatically to describe the reality or unreality of the

> universe.

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins.

> profvk

 

Namaste,

 

Thank you so much for those beautiful words

of the Maharshi.

 

The drishtantahs used in Vedanta are wonderful.

They each have their uses and their limitations.

Usually they serve to illustrate one point in

particular.

 

Often times a student (and even some untrained teachers)

will try to 'stretch' a drishtantah beyond the point

which it was meant to illustrate, and thereby end up

becoming confused.

 

The dream example (if properly handled) is a very

very powerful one. It has been sometimes said

to point out 'the Achilles heel of the whole creation.'

 

The dream comes from me, is sustained by me,

and resolves into me. Upon awakening from the

dream I realize that the dream and everything

in it, animate and inanimate, was only myself.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

It is my understanding that with self-knowledge

the world of objects does not vanish from physical,

but is rather now known to be nothing but nondual brahman.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Yes, world as such does not disappear for a jnAni since world as such

never was/is/will be there!! there is never a time where you can say the

rope is snake..this is the sublated knowledge (bhAdita jnAna) of the

jnAni...The vyavahAra of Sun rise & set donot disappear from the sight of

the person even though he knows the truth behind this drama!!

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Durga-ji,

 

Thank you (and profvk-ji) for the very important clarification you have

added to my post. Without wishing to take anything away from your valuable

additions, I think if you were to read that particular part of my post again

you might find we are saying the very same thing. However, you have brought

it out in a much clearer fashion than I have.

 

As far as the snake-rope analogy goes, the snake does indeed disappear when

the rope is seen to be a rope, in the sense that one no longer treats it and

reacts to it as if it were a snake from that point onward. As Sri Gaudapada

stresses in his Karika: apprehension of Reality destroys ignorance

(non-apprehension) of Reality and along with it the consequent

misapprehension of Reality (the projection of the snake). With the

'disappearance' of the snake comes the realization that it never existed in

the first place - there only ever was the rope.

 

In my post I don't go so far as to say the world of objects disappears. I

suggest, rather, that what disappears is " the DUALITY of 'me' and 'other'

(ego and world) " . Perhaps I should have used capital letters first time

around to show that the key word is " duality " .

 

What is realized to be there all along?

 

The " non dual brahman is directly 'experienced' as alone existing. " Like

the snake and rope analogy, there only ever was the 'non dual brahman' all

along.

 

best wishes,

 

Peter

 

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

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

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

 

Peter-ji in #35489 very correctly writes

 

" For example, in the rope and snake analogy often used in Vedanta -

non-apprehension of the rope is the cause of ignorance as to its true

nature. Because of this non-apprehension we mistake it for a snake

(mis-apprehension). As soon as we realize it is a really a rope, the

snake disappears for it had no real existence apart from the rope,

its substratum. In the same way, because we are ignorant of our true

nature, we mistakenly identify ourselves with the body mind and see a

separate world of objects. The sages tell us that when we recognise

our true nature, Turya, then the duality of 'me' and 'other' (ego and

world) disappears and non dual brahman is directly 'experienced' as

alone existing. "

 

Durga-ji in 35493 writes (and raises a doubt):

 

" Sometimes the snake/rope analogy is also used in this

way: If one compares the creation to a snake, and

brahman to the rope, then upon self-knowlegde, the

snake does not actually disappear (that is the creation

and world of objects are still seen), but now known

to be actually nondual brahman (the rope).

 

Although this description may not sound different

from the one which you so elegantly presented, I

myself was at times confused, thinking that if

the 'snake' were to disappear, somehow, the

world of objects would also vanish from

physical sight. "

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote:

>

>

>

> Namaste Durga-ji,

>

>

> In my post I don't go so far as to say the world of objects

disappears. I

> suggest, rather, that what disappears is " the DUALITY of 'me' and

'other'

> (ego and world) " . Perhaps I should have used capital letters first time

> around to show that the key word is " duality " .

>

> What is realized to be there all along?

>

> The " non dual brahman is directly 'experienced' as alone existing. "

Like

> the snake and rope analogy, there only ever was the 'non dual

brahman' all

> along.

>

> best wishes,

>

> Peter

>

Hi Peterji,

 

Thanks for your reply. I knew that you were using

the analogy correctly. I just introduced what had

previously been a doubt, which I had had in my mind in

the past, in case others might have been carrying

the same doubt.

 

You never once implied that the appearance of

objects disappeared, but sometimes one's doubts

are amazingly simple (and even kind of childlike), but

I think it's good to bring them up anyway, and I believe

that Shankara often introduced simple (and sometimes

not so simple) doubts in his commentaries, in order that

he could explain them away.

 

Perhaps we should have a topic entitled " Doubts I have

had concerning the various prakriyas and drishtantahs,

used in the teachings of Vedanta. " That might be very

useful. I could probably write out a huge list. :-)

 

Om Namah,

Durga

 

I think that the misunderstanding of drishtantahs points

to the limitations which, in some ways, all drishtantahs

have. That is they are using an example in duality

to try and describe something else. So they are

pointers only (lakshanas), and sometimes the student's

mind can really misunderstand them, no matter how well

the drishtantah is used or explained.

 

And then again some drishtantahs work for

some students and some don't work for others.

[Guest guest]

Hi Richard,

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

" These make sense to

me. Not being able to read the original language of Siddharameshwar

Maharaj (Marathi), I am at the mercy of interpreters; and even worse,

at the mercy of my own conceptions. "

 

I am at the mercy of the exact same things.

 

" In your post there is an apparent contradiction which I hope you will

clarify for us. In your post you say, " ...whereas knowledge alone is

liberation. " And then you say, " The state of liberation is said to be

beyond knowledge... "

 

Yes, this is what I mean about the different language. Knowledge to

either svarupa-jnana or vritti-jnana. Knowledge when considered

svarupa-jnana is the very nature of the Self. The Self is Knowledge.

 

However, the other kind of knowledge is vritti-jnana, which is

knowledge that is a modification of the mind. Such knowledge negates

ignorance whereas the Knowledge that is the Self does not negate

ignorance, because it is the substratum of both mental ignorance and

mental knowledge.

 

If we talk about the Self as Knowledge, then there is no question of

going beyond it. If we talk of knowledge as mental activity which

negates ignorance, then this mental activity also has to dissolve

after performing its function. Ranjit Maharaj quotes Jnaneshvar to

this end:

 

" Fire, in the process of annihilating camphor,

Annihilates itself as well.

This is exactly what happens to knowledge

In the process of destroying ignorance. "

 

I hope this makes some sense. Keep in mind that my geuss on

Siddharameshwar's teachings is as good as yours, so please tell me if

you think there is something that doesn't fit.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Hello Rishi,

 

Thank you for your recent reply concerning the types of knowledge.

 

It was well said, and cleared up my confusion.

 

Best wishes,

Richard

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Richard " <richarkar wrote:

>

> Hello Rishi,

>

> Thank you for your recent reply concerning the types of knowledge.

>

> It was well said, and cleared up my confusion.

>

> Best wishes,

> Richard

 

Namaste Richard and Rishi,

 

Yes, that was very well said!

 

For several years in a row Ranjit Maharaj visited

the area where I live. He was a disciple of

Sri Siddharameshwar Maharaj, and in my estimation

Ranjit Maharaj was a great jnani.

 

He was also one of the kindest people I had ever met,

and he graced my house by staying

with me as my guest on one occasion.

 

I have to say that as much as I loved and admired

Maharaj, and appreciated his genuiness, I never

had the slightest idea of what he was talking

about when he taught.

 

I'm sure that first of all, this indicated my

very limited abilities to assimilate the

subject matter at the time, but I also think

that it had to do with the fact that there

was no 'pramana,' no teaching methodology

involved.

 

Maharaj's primary teaching method was `satsang,'

although he would also privately give mantra initiation

along with meditation instruction if requested.

In satsang he would ask for questions, and often

one satsang of several hours duration was

spent in answering only one or two questions,

so thoroughly did he try and answer the question.

 

Sometimes people had trouble making out Maharaj's

actual words, as he spoke very quietly, with a thick

Indian accent, using an old fashioned vocabulary.

But beyond that, the words which he used in teaching

as pointers were used in his own particular way,

and he didn't seem able to 'unfold' their meaning to

us in a way that we could easily understand.

 

Oftentimes, when questioned as to what a particular

word meant, or how he was using it, he would try

and explain, and then seeing the blank look on

the questioner's face, he would laugh, shrug his shoulders,

and kindly say, " What to do? These are my words.

This is my language. " So I think his usage was

particular to himself.

 

Now, after finding the teachings of Vedanta, which

do employ a very logical pramana, if I look back on

Maharaj's sayings, I can understand some of them.

But again the exact same words he uses are used

quite differently in the teachings of Vedanta.

 

Have you seen this website?

http://www.wayofthebird.com/

I think that Andrew understood Maharaj quite well,

and he has devoted much of his time making what

Maharaj said accessible to others.

 

However, it may be that Maharaj was more in the

category which in Vedanta is called a `mystic.'

And what that means in the tradition is a person

who 'knows,' (a jnani), but it is said that a

mystic can't make another mystic, (or perhaps

only a very few), meaning that person does not

have a proven methodology which they can employ in

teaching others.

 

I have immense respect for Maharaj. He showed

everyone total kindness and love. The last

years of his life were entirely devoted to

teaching, and traveling the world to speak

to seekers wherever he was asked, despite

the fact that he was over 80 years old. And

his own complete dedication to his guru was

a lesson and inspiration for us all.

 

Sometimes now, I remember some of the little

phrases he used, and think " Oh, so that's what

Maharaj meant. " But I believe that had I not

been blessed to find Vedanta, Maharaj would

have only remained in my memory as a very kind

and loving man, who 'knew,' but whose knowledge

remained completely obscure and inaccessible to me.

 

I'm glad that his lineage has served you well.

Ishwara blesses those who really want to know

with teachers each mumukshu can understand.

 

Best wishes,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Hi Durga,

 

Thank you for your reply. Just to make sure that I am not projecting

things by accident - my knowledge of Ranjit Maharaj is only from

reading. I never met him or someone else from his lineage so I have no

special insight into the teachings. I was referred to the teachings by

someone and so spent some time reading them - this was after I was

exposed to more traditional Vedanta.

 

In any case, I agree with what you are saying - as they stand, the

teachings seem to be very difficult to approach for someone without a

background. In traditional Vedanta, there is generally a graded way of

being introduced to the teachings. First, one generally learn simple

prakarana granthas which give an idea of the whole Vedantic path (and

how all the pieces fit together) and form the basis for revealing the

nature of the Self. Then in terms of the prasthana-trayi, one learns

the Gita first and this gives a solid preparation together with more

Vedantic knowledge. This is supposed to be followed by the Upanishads

(in the Isha, Kena,..., Chhandogya, Brhadaranyaka order) and then

finally a study of the Brahma Sutra (of course this is a bit ideal and

a person in practice will rarely follow this kind of scheme exactly).

Even after such a study, there are other Vedantic treatises which are

meant for people with a thorough grounding in Vedanta. I think a lot

of these treatises would be rather difficult to understand for someone

without a very solid background.

 

I find Ranjit Maharaj's teachings are also something like that. It is

internally coherent and does make sense, but it seems confusing

without a fairly good understanding of Vedanta (of course not

neccesarily implying a study of all the Upanishads and the Brahma

Sutra). I personally found some of those teachings helpful in

clarifying some specific concepts, such as the distinction between the

reflection of conciousness and the Self (which is a topic that he

seems to dwell on a lot compared to most Vedantic teachings).

 

I would agree with characterizing him as a mystic as long as you are

using it in Swami Dayananda's sense (which you seem to be), as a

brahmanishta who isn't a srotriya. Of course we shouldn't do this to

put traditional Vedanta above other teachings, as inherently superior

and feel good about ourselves or to create some kind of heirarchy of

teachers. But I think such classifications help us to come to terms

with our belief (probably not unjustified) that there are people who

are enlightened that do not seem to be teaching Vedanta precisely.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

>

> Hi Durga,

 

>

> I find Ranjit Maharaj's teachings are also something like that. It is

> internally coherent and does make sense, but it seems confusing

> without a fairly good understanding of Vedanta (of course not

> neccesarily implying a study of all the Upanishads and the Brahma

> Sutra). I personally found some of those teachings helpful in

> clarifying some specific concepts, such as the distinction between the

> reflection of conciousness and the Self (which is a topic that he

> seems to dwell on a lot compared to most Vedantic teachings).

 

>

> Regards,

>

> Rishi.

 

Thank you for your comments, Rishi,

 

Perhaps I should revisit Maharaj's

teachings again. I have been hesitant

to do so however, (as well as hesitant

to revisit the words of other of my

former teachers of advaita) as still I

feel that my grasp of the teachings

of Vedanta is not totally solid. So

rather than risk confusion, I have tried

to stay focused on just this one.

And that seems to have served me well.

 

Perhaps some day when I feel more grounded

within this tradition and very clear what

the words are pointing out, I will feel brave

enough to venture out into the wide world of

nontraditional nondual teachings again. I'm sure

there may be much to learn thereby.

 

However, for now, like a little bird in

the nest, I think I will remain here until

strong enough to fly on my own.

 

And I do agree with you when you say, " that

there are people who are enlightened that do

not seem to be teaching Vedanta precisely, "

that there are brahmanishtas who are not

srotriyas, and some of them are very well known

and very well respected for good reason.

 

And as you may be aware, there are also those

who are neither brahmanishtas nor srotriyas,

and yet who nevertheless purport to be

teachers of nonduality, and these are not very

effective teachers in my experience

 

Traditionally it is said that if you have to

chose between a brahmanishta or a srotriya

for a teacher it is better to choose a srotriya,

because that person will know the pramana, the

methodology. Of course, it is also said that it

is best if the teacher is both a brahmanishta and

a srotriya, (and I would add one who can wield

Vedanta as a pramana).

 

Luckily these days, I have not had to make a choice.

 

Would you care to expand on what you meant by

" the distinction between the reflection

of consciousness and the Self " ?

 

I, for one, would be very interested to hear that,

as the phrase 'reflected consciousness' has never

made sense to me.

 

Best wishes,

Durga

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Durga " <durgaji108 wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> Thank you so much for those beautiful words

> of the Maharshi.

>

> The drishtantahs used in Vedanta are wonderful.

> They each have their uses and their limitations.

> Usually they serve to illustrate one point in

> particular.

>

> Often times a student (and even some untrained teachers)

> will try to 'stretch' a drishtantah beyond the point

> which it was meant to illustrate, and thereby end up

> becoming confused.

>

> The dream example (if properly handled) is a very

> very powerful one. It has been sometimes said

> to point out 'the Achilles heel of the whole creation.'

>

> The dream comes from me, is sustained by me,

> and resolves into me. Upon awakening from the

> dream I realize that the dream and everything

> in it, animate and inanimate, was only myself.

>

> Pranams,

> Durga

 

Dear Durga mAtAji,

 

Namaste,

 

Well said. I would like to quote from the shankara bhashya on the

mAndukya upanishad and notes given by Swami Nikhilananda which is

very much useful in understanding the limitation of the rope and the

snake analogy.

 

(Quote)

 

Objection: How,1 again, do such attributes as 'conscious of the

subjective' etc,. which are (directly) perceived to subsist in Atman

become non-existent only by an act of negation as the snake etc.

(perceived) in the rope etc., become non-existent by (means of an

act of negation)?

 

Vedantin's Reply: Though2 the states (waking and dream)are really of

the essense of consciousness itself, and as such are non-different

from each other (from the point of view of the substratum), yet one

state is seen to change3 into another as their substratum the rope

etc. But the consciousness itself is real because it never changes.

 

Objection: Consciousness is seen to change (disappear) in deep sleep.

 

Reply: No, the state of deep sleep is a matter of experience.4 For

the Shruti says, 'Knowledge of the knower is never absent.

 

Notes:

 

1. How etc.-The contention of objector is this: That the idea of the

snake etc., in the rope is an illusion is a matter of common

experience. When the error is pointed out, the idea of the snake

disappears. Therefore the idea of such a snake can be said to be non-

existent. But this is no the case with the attributes of Atman which

are sought to be negated. Such attributes are directly perceived by

everyone and do not 'vanish' even though they are negated. Therefore

the phenomena of the three states cannot be said to be non-existent

on the analogy of the rope and the snake.

 

2. Though etc.-The reply is that the attributes, viz, the three

states, can be demonstrated to be non-existent (unreal) by the act

of negation. The illustration of the snake and the rope is quite

opposite. The ideas of the snake, the water-line etc., for which the

rope is mistaken are first pointed out to be illusion because they

are subject to change. Therefore, such objects are indicated by the

ideas are non-existent. Similarly it is a matter of common

experience that the states of jAgrat, swapna and suShupti are

subject to chage. Therefore they are negetable. In any one state the

other states are negated. Besides, in the state of waking one can

realize the three states as following one another. Therefore the

three states partake of the nature of unreality as distinguished

from the reality which is never subject to any change. Now, what is

Reality? From the examination of the three states it becomes clear

that though the states are changing and negatable the consciousness

which is present therein is constant and invariable. Change of one

state to another cannot affect the unchanging nature of

Conssiousness itself. Therefore pure consciousness is real. Hence it

follows that by constantly examining the changeable and negatable

character of the attributes, viz., the three states one can realize

their non-existent of unreal nature.

 

" The fallacy of the contention of the objector is due to the partial

examination of Reality in only one state in which case the

changeable nature of the attributes cannot be realized. " But the

examination of the three states at once demonstrates their

changeable and negatable nature and points out that consciousness

itself which is the substratum of the changing attributes in

the 'only Reality'.

 

3. Change- That is, no one is aware of the consciousness in deep

sleep.

 

4. Experience- Consciousness cannot be dissociated from the state of

deep sleep. suShupti is experienced from the jAgrat state, that is

to say, turIya in jAgrat state knows that it experienced deep sleep.

Otherwise suShupti would have never been known to exist at all.

 

(Unquote)

 

Bhagavan Ramana also has said while clarifying this analogy given by

shankara has told that- " A phenomenon cannot be a reality simply

because it serves a purpose or purposes. Take a dream for example.

The dream creations are purposesful: They serve the dream-purpose.

The dream water quenches dream thirst. The dream creation is however

contradicted in the other two states. " What is not continuous cannot

be real. If real, the thing must ever be real and not real for a

short time and unreal at other times. "

 

V. Subramanya Iyer has written about the upanishad in the preface of

the book that- " The most advance modern sciences and modern

philosophies are approaching its conclusions, it gives to the world

of our own times its central doctrine that 'partial data'

give 'partial truth', where as the totality of data alone gives

perfect truth. The 'Totality' of data we have only when the three

states of waking, dream and deep-sleep are co-ordinated for

investigation. Endless will be the systems of philosophy, if based

on the waking state only. "

 

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.