advaita is not dvaita or bliss!

April 17, 2007

Namaste,

Apparently if one posts an advaita comment one is inundated with

dvaita bhaktis quoting different levels of scriptures. There is

nothing wrong with being dvaitic it just isn't the ultimate truth

that's all, and posting all kinds of written down scriptures to

bolster it doesn't make it so.Why? For many sages including Ramana and

Sankara have prarabda in the body/mind complex and the things they say

would have been said realisation or no realisation....Tony.

April 17, 2007

advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

Namaste,

Apparently if one posts an advaita comment one is inundated with

dvaita bhaktis quoting different levels of scriptures. There is

nothing wrong with being dvaitic it just isn't the ultimate truth

that's all, and posting all kinds of written down scriptures to

bolster it doesn't make it so.Why? For many sages including Ramana and

Sankara have prarabda in the body/mind complex and the things they say

would have been said realisation or no realisation....Tony.

--- End forwarded message ---

April 18, 2007

tc-ji says in the most authoritative tone on the two great sages sri

Sankara and Sri Ramana

(For many sages including Ramana and Sankara have prarabda in the

body/mind complex and the things they say would have been said

realisation or no realisation....)

Oh! Really! so , Both these great saints are in BMI complex and IS NOT in BMI complex? Lol! The biggest joke of the century... AND

TCJI HAS NO PRARABDA , AGAMI AND SANCHITA KARMA - HE IS A KARMALESS

ENTITY! ...

Let me ASK YOU THIS , tc-ji ! Is there no bliss in advaita ? what is

advaitic 'union' but Bliss ...

...............

April 18, 2007

dhyanasaraswari - praNAms

With due respects, TONY's statement may be wrong, but

let us refrain ourselves from criticizing him than

criticizing his statement. Remember hate not the

sinner but the sin. By all means show him why his

statement is wrong, without addressing at personal

level.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--- dhyanasaraswati <dhyanasaraswati wrote:

> tc-ji says in the most authoritative tone on the

> two great sages sri

> Sankara and Sri Ramana

>

> (For many sages including Ramana and Sankara have

> prarabda in the

> body/mind complex and the things they say would

> have been said

> realisation or no realisation....)

>

> Oh! Really! so , Both these great saints are in BMI

> complex and > IS NOT in BMI complex? Lol! The biggest joke of the

> century... AND

> TCJI HAS NO PRARABDA , AGAMI AND SANCHITA KARMA - HE

> IS A KARMALESS

> ENTITY! ...

>

> Let me ASK YOU THIS , tc-ji ! Is there no bliss in

> advaita ? what is

> advaitic 'union' but Bliss ...

>

> ..............

>

April 18, 2007

Sadaji :

i stand corrected. But , please do us the honor of showing all of

us ( including Tonyji) how Advaita is bliss !

Our beloved Sunderji has quoted divine verses from the upanishads

and the Gita on this ! For those of you who want to read an

explanation of verse 27 , chapter 14 from Srimad bhagvat gita ,

please read my post 35367 where i have provided Swami chinmayaji's

complete explanation of this verse ...

brahmaNo hi pratiShThaahamamR^itasyaavyayasya cha .

shaashvatasya cha dharmasya sukhasyaikaantikasya cha ..

vk ji has alsready penned beautiful thoughts on advaitic bhakti -

Tonyji and others can benefit from reading them .

for now , i will leave you with this Kabir poem

What is seen is not the Truth

What *is* cannot be said

Trust comes not without seeing

Nor understanding without words

The wise comprehends with knowledge

To the ignorant it is but a wonder

Some worship the formless God

Some worship His various forms

In what way He is beyond these attributes

Only the Knower knows

That music cannot be written

How can then be the notes

Says Kabir, awareness alone will overcome illusion

(my last and final post for today!

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> dhyanasaraswari - praNAms

>

> With due respects, TONY's statement may be wrong, but

> let us refrain ourselves from criticizing him than

> criticizing his statement. Remember hate not the

> sinner but the sin. By all means show him why his

> statement is wrong, without addressing at personal

> level.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

April 18, 2007

--- dhyanasaraswati <dhyanasaraswati wrote:

> Sadaji :

>

> i stand corrected. But , please do us the honor of

> showing all of

> us ( including Tonyji) how Advaita is bliss !

PraNams to everybody

advaita means a-dvaita - non-dual. Nonduality is the

nature of the reality. Hence the scriptures says what

was there before creation is 'existence' itself and it

is non-dual - ekama eva advitiiyam - one without a

second. Other than existence is only non-existence and

one cannot say non-existence existed, since that is a

contradiction in terms. Hence existence alone was

there in the beginning. That existence is of the

nature of consciousness- since to know that existence

was there, the knowledge of that existence can only be

possible by a consciousness entity and that conscious

entity has to be existent entity to that existence was

there. Hence existence that was there before creation

has to be of the nature of conscious-existence. That

sat is of the nature of chit and it is one without a

second. Hence it is of the nature of infiniteness or

limitless. Limitless is ananda swarauupa or nature of

bliss since and finiteness causes limitations and

hence sorrow. Hence sat-chit that was there before

and that which is one without a second (advaita) has

to be infiniteness or limitless (anantam) or bliss.

Hence scripture says satyam - jnaanam - anantam

brahma. Brahman is of the nature sat-chit- and ananda

or bliss.

Non-duality is bliss - hence scripture says - even a

spec of difference or dvaita can cause sorrow or fear

- says Ti. Up.

In deep sleep state there is no duality either hence

one is blissful in deep sleep state. Only problem is

one has no knowledge of oneself in that state or there

is only ignorance of oneself. The instruments of

knowledge, mind and intellect are folded in the deep

sleep state. Hence it is called anandamayam not

ananda swaruupam. One cannot realize in deep sleep

state, since the instruments of realization - mind and

intellect are folded.

Meditation is to recognize that in non-dual in spite

of apparent duality. Firm abidance in that knowledge

is moksha or liberation. Analysis of the scriptures,

understanding and contemplating on the reality pointed

out by the scriptures is the only means of firmly

abiding in that knowledge that I am advaita. That is

moksha. It is not negation of duality but negation of

reality to the seaming duality. I am advaita in spite

of apparent dvaita. Hence advaita philosophy

recognizes that there are three aspects involved in

this realization: 1) brahma satyam 2) jagat mithyaa 3)

jivaH braham eva na aparaH. Brahma is real (that which

can never be negated) 2) the duality that I see (or

the whole world) is neither real nor unreal and is

only apparently real (mithyaa). Since it is

experienced it is not unreal, since it is negatable it

is not real. But the substantive of the world is

Brahman only which is real- (like substantive of the

snake that I see is the rope that is real. Finally 3)

I am that Brahman - aham brahmaasmi or I am that

reality that pervades everything. All three aspects

are involved in the realization of my advaitic nature.

Then only there is realization that I am one without

a second and seconds are only apparent and not real-

like gold declaring all (gold) ornaments are myself in

different forms and names and I am non-dual, advaita,

in all dvaitic expressions of varieties of ornaments.

I am not them but I am not different from them. I am

in the ring, bangle and bracelet, but I am not the

ring, bangle and bracelet. I am the very substantive

of all of them.

Similarly I am brahman, the very substantive of jiiva,

jagat and Iswara- but I am not any of them - yet I am

in all of them- as their very heart or essence in all

of them. That realization is advaitic understanding

and firm abidance in that is moksha or bliss and

nothing else. That is advaita.

Hence - mandukya Up. says - '.... shantam, shivam,

advaitam, caturtham manyante, sa aatmaa sa vijneeyaH'

- I am that peace that passth understanding, that

auspiciousness, that one without a second, that people

call as the fourth state of consciousness, that aatmaa

that I am -and this is to be contemplated upon and to

be realized.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

April 18, 2007

oh! Sadaji !

Tonyji did not commit any 'sin' - at best , he only committed

an 'aberration' but we will be committing the worst sin if we call

him a 'sinner'... in the dictionary of a true advaitin, there is no

such thing as 'paapa ' or 'punya' - such concepts exist only in the

realm of duality!

AS ADI sHANKARA BHAGVADAPADA sings joyously in Nirvana Shatakam

Na punyam na paapam na soukhyam na dukham,

Na manthro na theertham na veda na yagna,

Aham bhojanam naiva bhojyam na bhoktha,

Chidananada Roopa Shivoham, Shivoham

I have neither merit (virtue),

nor demerit (vice).

I do not commit sins or good deeds,

nor have happiness or sorrow,

pain or pleasure.

I do not need mantras, holy places,

scriptures (Vedas), rituals or sacrifices (yagnas).

I am none of the triad of

the observer or one who experiences,

the process of observing or experiencing,

or any object being observed or experienced.

I am indeed,

That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva,

love and pure consciousness

so , as the saying goes let the first man (woman) without sin cast a

stone!

THANX , ONCE AGAIN !

advaitin , " dhyanasaraswati "

<dhyanasaraswati wrote:

>

> Sadaji :

>

> i stand corrected. But , please do us the honor of showing all of

> us ( including Tonyji) how Advaita is bliss !

>

April 18, 2007

Dear Friends,

As I understand it....

Sri Ramana Maharshi states that 'happiness' / 'bliss' is our real nature and

not something to be acquired. The search for happiness through the various

sense pleasures and psychological pleasures is an attempt (albeit

unconscious) to return to our natural state. The desire to grasp objects

that appear to give us pleasure/happiness and the desire to avoid objects

which appear to bring us pain leads to suffering, for the objects themselves

are only temporary appearances, dependent on causes and conditions and

therefore not truly existing in their own right. The happiness/bliss

arising in this way and also in deep sleep (when the mind is in obscuration)

is in the anandamaya kosa (sheath) only, which is the reflected bliss of the

Real Self.

Some passages from Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi are given below.

Best wishes,

Peter

In response to a man who said there was no happiness beyond the intellect,

the Maharshi replied:

M.: 'There is no happiness' is only a thought. The Self is bliss, pure and

simple. You are the Self. So you cannot but be bliss; being so, you cannot

say here is no happiness. That which says so cannot be the Self; it is the

non-Self and must be got rid of in order to realise the bliss of the Self.

(Talk 618)

-----

And in a discussion about pleasure, passing happiness and true bliss, the

Maharshi stated:

M.: The desire for happiness (sukha prema) is a proof of the everexisting

happiness of the Self. Otherwise how can desire for it arise in you? If

headache was natural to human beings no one would try to get rid of it. But

everyone that has a headache tries to get rid of it, because he has known a

time when he had no headache. He desires only that which is natural to him.

So too he desires happiness because happiness is natural to him. Being

natural, it is not acquired. Man's attempts can only be to get rid of

misery. If that be done the ever-present bliss is felt. The primal bliss is

obscured by the non-self which is synonymous with non-bliss or misery.

Duhkha nasam = sukha prapti. (Loss of unhappiness amounts to gain of

happiness.) Happiness mixed with misery is only misery. When misery is

eliminated then the ever-present bliss is said to be gained. Pleasure which

ends in pain is misery. Man wants to eschew such pleasure. Pleasures are

priya, moda and pra-moda. When a desired object is near at hand there arises

priya: when it is taken possession of moda arises; when it is being enjoyed

pra-moda prevails. The reason for the pleasureableness of these states is

that one thought excludes all others, and then this single thought also

merges into the Self. These states are enjoyed in the Anandamaya kosa only.

As a rule Vijnanamaya kosa prevails on waking. In deep sleep all thoughts

disappear and the state of obscuration is one of bliss; there the prevailing

body is the Anandamaya. These are sheaths and not the core, which is

interior to all these. It lies beyond waking, dream and deep sleep. That is

the Reality and consists of true bliss (nijananda).

(Talk 619)

April 18, 2007

advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote:

>

> Dear Friends,

>

> As I understand it....

>

> Sri Ramana Maharshi states that 'happiness' / 'bliss' is our real

nature and

> not something to be acquired. The search for happiness through the

various

> sense pleasures and psychological pleasures is an attempt (albeit

> unconscious) to return to our natural state. The desire to grasp

objects

> that appear to give us pleasure/happiness and the desire to avoid

objects

> which appear to bring us pain leads to suffering, for the objects

themselves

> are only temporary appearances, dependent on causes and conditions and

> therefore not truly existing in their own right. The happiness/bliss

> arising in this way and also in deep sleep (when the mind is in

obscuration)

> is in the anandamaya kosa (sheath) only, which is the reflected

bliss of the

> Real Self.

>

Namaste,Peter,

The point I'm making I suppose is that the 'Self' that everyone is

talking about sat-cit-ananda is the Saguna Brahman concept. At that

level all this conversation about happiness being the self etc has

some validity. However at the 'real' level of Nir Guna Brahman this

never happened at all........And as there are no feelings like bliss

etc it is hard for people's minds to grasp........Even Ramana states

that ajativada is the ultmate reality..Tony

April 18, 2007

Dear Tony,

" The point I'm making I suppose is that the 'Self' that everyone is

talking about sat-cit-ananda is the Saguna Brahman concept. "

This is a common misunderstanding, you should check out Shankara's

commentary on the Taittiriya Upanishad verse which states that Brahman

is satyam jnanam anantam. These words (and also ananda) are not

attributes (guna) of Brahman, but they are the very nature of Brahman

(svarupa lakshana). These words serve a negative function (eg: satyam

negates change, jnana negates insentiency, etc...).

Regards,

Rishi.

April 18, 2007

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

>

> Dear Tony,

>

> " The point I'm making I suppose is that the 'Self' that everyone is

> talking about sat-cit-ananda is the Saguna Brahman concept. "

>

> This is a common misunderstanding, you should check out Shankara's

> commentary on the Taittiriya Upanishad verse which states that Brahman

> is satyam jnanam anantam. These words (and also ananda) are not

> attributes (guna) of Brahman, but they are the very nature of Brahman

> (svarupa lakshana). These words serve a negative function (eg: satyam

> negates change, jnana negates insentiency, etc...).

>

> Regards,

>

> Rishi.

>

Namaste,Rishi,

I don't think Sankara talked much about saguna, nirguna. Ramana says

that sat-cit-ananda are qualities of the Self, that is attributes in

my book. Nir Guna by definition has no nature. Everyone is talking

about Saguna for there is nothing to say about Nir Guna.........Tony.

April 18, 2007

Dear Tony,

Please check out the commentary on the Taittiriya Upanishad verse.

That sat-cit-ananda are not the attributes of Brahman but are the very

nature of Brahman is Advaita 101. If Ramana Maharshi says something to

the contrary, then, from a traditional Advaita Vedanta viewpoint, he

was either speaking provisionally or he was mistaken.

" Everyone is talking

about Saguna for there is nothing to say about Nir Guna "

This may be the position of some people but the traditional position

is that the Self is directly known through verbal teachings.

I think non-traditional views are fine, but they remain non-

traditional.

Regards,

Rishi.

April 18, 2007

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

>

> Dear Tony,

>

> Please check out the commentary on the Taittiriya Upanishad verse.

> That sat-cit-ananda are not the attributes of Brahman but are the very

> nature of Brahman is Advaita 101. If Ramana Maharshi says something to

> the contrary, then, from a traditional Advaita Vedanta viewpoint, he

> was either speaking provisionally or he was mistaken.

>

> " Everyone is talking

> about Saguna for there is nothing to say about Nir Guna "

>

> This may be the position of some people but the traditional position

> is that the Self is directly known through verbal teachings.

>

> I think non-traditional views are fine, but they remain non-

> traditional.

>

> Regards,

>

> Rishi.

Namaste Rishi,

Qualities, nature etc are all Saguna. Move from 101 to 401. Saguna can

only ever be dvaita. If you can attribute or describe anything about

Brahman then by default you are talking about Saguna....Tony.

April 19, 2007

On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:52 PM, risrajlam wrote:

" . . . the traditional position is that the Self is directly known

through verbal teachings. "

I am not aware of ever having had direct experience of anything

through verbal teachings, especially direct knowledge of the Self.

Peace.

Arthur King

April 19, 2007

Namaste Sri Tony:

You have been assuming for over so many years that Sat-Chit-Ananda is

an 'attribute' and consequently it has to be a reference to Saguna

Brahman. Knowledgeable scholars of this list such as Sri Sadananda,

ProfVK and others have provided you detailed explanations (quoting the

Upanishads) why Sat-Chit-Ananda is not an attribute. Ananda, True-

Happiness, and Bliss is not a quality and it is " our True Nature " and

Ananda, True-Happiness and Bliss CAN NOT BE DESCRIBED!

It seems that you try to make your own inference on 'Bliss' as a

quality and no where in Vedic Scripture, it is being described. If you

believe that it is described somewhere, may I request you to quote with

appropriate source. Bliss is not an experience and it is a recognition

of the True SELF. True Happiness is also the recognition of one's True

SELF. Please recognize the fact that Sat-Chit-Ananda is another name

for Brahman and there is only ONE BRAHMAN. For our own understanding,

we try to designate Brahman as Nirguna or Saguna. These different

terminologies are useful for our progress and Brahman is beyond all

terminology as you seem to have implicitly recognized.

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

>

> Namaste Rishi,

>

> Qualities, nature etc are all Saguna. Move from 101 to 401. Saguna can

> only ever be dvaita. If you can attribute or describe anything about

> Brahman then by default you are talking about Saguna....Tony.

>

April 19, 2007

Tony OClery <aoclery wrote: --- In

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

>

> Dear Tony,

>

> Please check out the commentary on the Taittiriya Upanishad verse.

> That sat-cit-ananda are not the attributes of Brahman but are the very

> nature of Brahman is Advaita 101. If Ramana Maharshi says something to

> the contrary, then, from a traditional Advaita Vedanta viewpoint, he

> was either speaking provisionally or he was mistaken.

>

> " Everyone is talking

> about Saguna for there is nothing to say about Nir Guna "

>

> This may be the position of some people but the traditional position

> is that the Self is directly known through verbal teachings.

>

> I think non-traditional views are fine, but they remain non-

> traditional.

>

> Regards,

>

> Rishi.

Dear Tony,

Ramana speaks of the highest advaita which has

been watered down even by the great acharya when he indulges in dialectical

debates to unwit the Buddhists of yogachara and madhyamika school. Sankara takes

the stand that the waking state is not an illusion unlike the dream state, this

being purely for the purpose of logic. Whereas Ramana is an unalloyed advaitin,

his refrain being only the unreality of all the three states, he not even

conceding a provisional reality to the waking state for some other purpose.

Raman does not concede the highest reality even to Iswara and Brahman supposedly

existing outside of oneself by frequently saying, " Let Brahman and Iswara take

care of themselves. You ask where from the I that poses these questions,

believing in the reality of all these things, arises. Raman's implacable wisdom

is the sole reality of the unassociated I to understand which also Ramna's

vichara marga is similarly implacable, not meandering

in the concepts, Brahman, Atman, which will be a pleasurable escape for a

mediocre mind. Never did Ramana say that sat-chit-ananda is an attribute. More

than the traditional advaita Raman recommended only the works such as

yoga-vasishta and ribugita, which are austerely free from the painful logic of

the Vedanta sutras which can delight only a pundit and not a seeker after truth.

You have horribly mischaracterized Ramana. Please introspect. I am not saying

this out of devotion to Ramana, this stemming only from an intellectual clarity

and freedom from biases. Let Saraswathi not kindly misunderstand me to have

downgraded the universal acrhtype of advaita, the great Acharya.

with respectful regards

Sankarraman

..

Ahhh...imagining that irresistible " new car " smell?

Check outnew cars at Autos.

April 19, 2007

Ram Chandran <ramvchandran wrote:

Namaste Sri Tony:

You have been assuming for over so many years that Sat-Chit-Ananda is

an 'attribute' and consequently it has to be a reference to Saguna

Brahman. Knowledgeable scholars of this list such as Sri Sadananda,

ProfVK and others have provided you detailed explanations (quoting the

Upanishads) why Sat-Chit-Ananda is not an attribute. Ananda, True-

Happiness, and Bliss is not a quality and it is " our True Nature " and

Ananda, True-Happiness and Bliss CAN NOT BE DESCRIBED!

Dear friends,

Ever word of Ramana is a pointer to the fact that

sat-chit-ananda is not an attribute, this coming only from Rithambara, the

truth -bearing consciousness unlike the discursive logic indulging in

conceptualization as is the case with scholars. Only spiritually realilzed

beings should be quoted as authorities and not scholars however great their

wisdom in conceptualzation be since truth is not a conceptualilzation that can

be passed on to one person from another person who might have gathered some

shells which are unreal.

with regards

Sankarraman

Ahhh...imagining that irresistible " new car " smell?

Check outnew cars at Autos.

April 19, 2007

Dear Sankarramanji,

With all due respect, this will be my final post on this topic. My

primary reason for participating in this group is because it affords a

chance to discuss " Advaita as established by Shankara and carried on

by succeeding traditions of living teachers, with principal reference

to the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and the Brahmasutras. " Discussion of

allied subjects based on logic and scripture is very pertinent but

discussions grounded in the authoritativeness of single individuals

(no matter how great they may be) is orthogonal to the purpose of this

group, as far as I understand.

This is not to put down Ramana Maharshi, but this is a list concerning

traditional Advaita and not a " Teachings of Ramana Maharshi " list. The

two teachings may perfectly coincide, but if they don't, I think it is

important to remember which one has epistemological primacy in the

context of these discussions.

I apologize if I sound harsh. Regards,

Rishi.

April 19, 2007

Bravo Rishiji !

You write :

( Please check out the commentary on the Taittiriya Upanishad verse.

That sat-cit-ananda are not the attributes of Brahman but are the

very nature of Brahman is Advaita 101.)

Rishji , for your reading pleasure , i reproduce here the

following :

" Brahman is described as Sat Cit Ananda. Ananda is translated in

English as Bliss. But the word ananda used to define Brahman's

nature, does not refer to experiential happiness. It should be

equated with anantatvam i.e. infinitude – infinitude not only space

wise, but time wise and entity-wise – indicated by the

word " anantam' occurring in the Taittiriya Upanishad mantra II.i –

" Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahma " . This anantatvam (or poornatvam) is

reflected in the pure, calm mind of a Jnani who has identified

himself with the infinite Brahman. And so, he has a sense of utter

fulfilment and such a sense, we can say, is supreme happiness. Thus,

we have to distinguish between " swaroopa ananda " , ananda as the

nature of Brahman and " kosa ananda " , the ananda experienced by a

jnani. (The ananda experienced by a jnani is unconditional

happiness., i.e., it is not dependent on contact with objects and it

has no gradation.; happiness experienced by others is conditional

and graded.)

<<<<<<snip snip snip snip snip >>>>>>

please read the entire article by D. Krishna ayyar ., a disciple of

sri Paramatmanada at

http://www.katha.org/Academics/AdvaitaPT3b.htm

Sathyam, Jnaanam, Anantham ! ( Anandam )

BTW,RISHIJI - NOBODY CAN PUT BELOVED RAMANA DOWN ( RAMANA ALSO MEANS

BELOVED)-

SANKARARAMANJI ! NOBODY CAN CREATE DOUBTS ABOUT SHANKARA

BHAGVADAPADA'S Advaita philosophy for the very word Shankara also

means one who dispels doubts !

Have you read the story (vaishvanara vidya) of the six great men

who approached a 'king' to know about the location of the self from

the chandogya upanishads ? SOMETIMES , KINGS CAN ALSO BECOME GURUS

TO BRAHMA NISHTAS!

Rishiji, durgaji is waiting for you to write and explain

on 'reflected consciousness' - you cannot bow out of your

responsibilities so easily .... smile .....

OM SHANTI! SHANTI! SHANTIHI!

April 19, 2007

Sankararamanji :

may i please bring to your kind attention the following passage ?

" The nearest example to the ananda aspect of Brahman is our state

of deep sleep. Cf. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.3.xxi - Just as a man

embracing his beloved wife becomes one with her and does not know

anything at all, external or internal, so does this Infinite Jivatma

fully embraced by the Paramatma does not know anything at all,

external or, internal. `Being embraced by Paramatma' is not to be

taken literally. When there is no contact with objects and when

there is no thought either, in the dormant mind, in that calmness,

the ananda aspect of Paramatma as sakshi is reflected. The reflected

ananda is not known at that time but it is recollected when the

person wakes up. In the next mantra, it is said, " in this state,

father is no more father, mother is no more mother, worlds are no

more worlds, gods are no more gods, Vedas are no more Vedas " . (

i.e., all relationships and the consequent samsara are due to the

notion of individuality. Since ahamkara is suspended during

sushupti, there is no notion of individuality and there is no notion

of relationships. There is no notion of means and ends, either.

Vedas are means for moksha. There is no idea of wanting to have

recourse to Veda.) However, sushupti should not be mistaken to be

moksha. Sushpti is only a rough example for the state of liberation.

In sushupti, only empirical dealings (vyavahara) are suspended.

Avidya is still there. In the state of liberation, in jivan mukti,

empirical dealings are seen as mithya and, in videha mukti, there

are no empirical dealings at all. Moreover, in sushupti, there is no

awareness of happiness at that time, whereas in jivanmukti, there is

unconditional happiness arising out of the sense of poornatvam and

in videha mukti one is pure infinite consciousness itself. "

http://www.katha.org/Academics/AdvaitaPT3b.htm

CHINNA THAMBI Avargale ( my younger brother) listen to your Akka (

elder sister) :

did you also know that our beloved Ramana Maharishi Translated the

work of Viveka Chudamani ( supposed to be composed by Shankara

bhagvadapada ? ) ..... Ramana had no problem acknowledging the

greatness of Adi shankara Bhagvadapada or the Shaiva saints , SO WHY

SHOULD WE MORTALS FIGHT OVER All THIS !

Since you like Yoga Vasishta so much , let me quote a verse from

that great text

The mind is bound on account of firm idea, " I am not Brahman "

ko hi eva anyat pranat yat esha akasa (Brahman) ananda na syat "

( " Who indeed will inhale, who will exhale, if this Bliss be not

there in the supreme space within the heart) - Taittiriya upanishad!

I is not a personal pronoun - it is a divine 'space' in the Heart

love and regards

( Let Saraswathi not kindly misunderstand me to have downgraded the

universal acrhtype of advaita, the great Acharya.)

April 19, 2007

risrajlam <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

Dear Sankarramanji,

This is not to put down Ramana Maharshi, but this is a list concerning

traditional Advaita and not a " Teachings of Ramana Maharshi " list. The

two teachings may perfectly coincide, but if they don't, I think it is

important to remember which one has epistemological primacy in the

context of these discussions.

I apologize if I sound harsh. Regards,

Dear friend,

You are not being harsh. You are following the tradition to

the letter. That is your way. But my way is that of a non-conformist. My views

are not by way of downgrading anything, but only by way of articulating my

thoughts. Though not related to the traditional thought, I am sure that my views

are not by way of contradicting the wisdom of any particular teacher in relation

to someone else. Approaches may be different, but the consummation, which cannot

be anything other than silence, the common ground, is the same. The wisdom of a

self-realized jnani, I am sure, cannot be assayed by any epistemology.

with respectful regards

Sankarraman

Ahhh...imagining that irresistible " new car " smell?

Check outnew cars at Autos.

April 19, 2007

dhyanasaraswati <dhyanasaraswati wrote: