advaita is not dvaita or bliss!

[Guest guest]

>

> 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..

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

>

> Dear Tony ( and All) ,

>

> Some thoughts on your use of the terms ajatavada and nirguna:

>

> There is a difficulty for us, is there not, when we are using words

to

> explore and communicate with others about that which is ultimately

beyond

 

Namaste,

 

Like Sankara I accept that it is 'real enough whilst one is in it',

but

I don't accept it as reality. To me ajativada not only means

everything

is an appearance which is false but that the appearance itself is

false

and never happened. It it happened how come the sages say it

disappears

on moksha/dropping the body?

So one cannot debate apples and oranges, I suppose if one is talking

of

apples stick to apples.........Tony.

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote:

>

> Dear saraswati-ji,

>

> At the beginning of Sri Ramana's translation of Atma Bodha he

placed the

> following lines:

>

> " Can Sankara, the enlightener of the Self, be different from one's

own Self?

> Who but he, does this day, abiding as the inmost Self in me, speak

this in

> Tamil language. "

>

> best wishes,

>

> Peter

>

> ________________________________

Namaste,IMHO,

 

The Self that Ramana talked of was 'Saguna Brahman concept'. How is

it possible to talk of Nir Guna?

Ramana definately said that sat-cit-ananda were 'qualities', now

whether a quality is an attribute is a matter of semantics. The

bottom line is that stopping ones belief and search at Saguna only

doesn't confer moksha but a stay in brahmaloka consciousness...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Tony-ji writes:

 

" Happiness and Bliss only rise to the illusory state of Saguna Brahman

and thus are unreal and illusory. "

 

" Happiness and Bliss only rise to the illusory state of Saguna Brahman

and thus are unreal and illusory. "

 

" The Self that Ramana talked of was 'Saguna Brahman concept'. How is

it possible to talk of Nir Guna? "

 

-------------------

 

Dear Tony-ji,

 

I guess we can talk about anything providing we realize that the word is not

the thing and that words just act as hints and pointers towards the

thing-in-itself. For you to refer to something as Brahman and then say it

is Nirguna is already to ascribe labels and ideas to that something and then

use this definition to agree or disagree with other views.

 

In the passages previously quoted from Sri Ramana he clearly differentiates

between the happiness which is transitory and the bliss which is 'eternal'

and our true nature. He points out that the former arises in the anandamaya

kosa, and that such happiness is merely a reflection of the bliss of the

Real Self.

 

There are plenty of places where Sri Ramana says similar things about Bliss

being the Real Self as we find in just some of his quotes below (from Talks

353, 618, 619):

 

" Bliss is your real nature. . . "

" The Self is bliss, pure and simple. "

" You are the Self. So you cannot but be bliss. "

" It lies beyond waking, dreaming and deep sleep. That is

the Reality and consists of true bliss (nijananda). "

 

None of the above support the view that Sri Ramana believed true Bliss was

an illusory state. Please give us some references and passages from his

Talks or Works that support this view. We might well argue the reverse of

your view is the case for Sri Ramana explains that the illusory state is

actually misery and the belief that happiness is *not* our real nature. For

to the inquirer who doubted happiness was the Self, Sri Ramana says,

 

" 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. "

 

and in another passage:

 

" The primal bliss is obscured by the non-self

which is synonymous with non-bliss or misery. "

 

While the misery associated with the waking and dream state and the

happiness associated with the anandamaya kosa are 'illusory', Sri Ramana

says this about what lies beyond the three states, namely Turiya:

 

" It lies beyond waking, dream and deep sleep. That is

the Reality and consists of true bliss (nijananda). "

 

" 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. "

 

Again, this does not support the view that Sri Ramana regarded the true

Bliss which is the Self as unreal or illusory.

The repeated references to Turiya and the Real Self as " the only Truth " ,

" the only Reality " also do not support the assertion that Sri Ramana was

referring to an illusory Saguna Brahman which in turns experiences the

illusion of bliss.

 

Perhaps you could give us some reference to where Sri Ramana says that by

Turiya he really means " the illusory state of Saguna Brahman " (to use your

words).

 

Sri Ramana asserts the same as Sri Gaudapada in his Mandukya Karika. At the

end of section III where Gaudapada affirms that the only Reality is

Ajatavada we find he brings together the following three ideas in the last

three verses of that section.

 

- that which is Real is where the mind does not give rise to appearances.

- this is the highest Bliss, which is the unborn Self and indescribable

Brahman.

- this unborn Self is the nature of Reality, which Reality is that nothing

whatsoever is born.

 

When the mind does not merge in the inactivity of oblivion,

or become distracted by desires, that is to say,

when the mind becomes quiescent and does not give rise to appearances,

it verily becomes Brahman. [iII. 46]

 

The highest bliss is based upon the realization of Self,

it is peace, identical with liberation, indescribable and unborn.

It is further described as the omniscient Brahman,

because it is one with the unborn Self

which is the object sought by Knowledge. [iII. 47]

 

No jiva is ever born.

There does not exist any cause which can produce it.

This is the highest Truth

that nothing is ever born. [iII.48]

 

Sri Gaudapada, like Sri Ramana, links the true bliss of the unborn Self to

Turiya (the only Reality) and hence the doctrine of Ajatavada. This is

affirmed by Sankara's commentary to verse III. 47, given below:

 

" The above-mentioned Bliss, which is the highest Reality, and which is

characterised by the knowledge of Atman is centred in the Self. It is all

peace, characterised by the cessation of all evils. It is the same as

liberation. It is indescribable as nobody is able to describe it; for it is

totally different from all objects. This ultimate bliss is directly realised

by the Yogis [the Masters of Asparsa Yoga, not ordinary yoga and samadhi].

It is unborn because it is not produced like anything resulting from

perceptions. "

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

Correction:

 

While the misery associated with the waking and dream state and the

happiness associated with the anandamaya kosa are 'illusory', Sri Ramana

says this about what lies beyond the three states, namely Turiya:

 

" It lies beyond waking, dream and deep sleep. That is

the Reality and consists of true bliss (nijananda). "

 

------------

 

This should say,

 

" ..., Sri Ramana says the following about what lies beyond the three states,

namely Turiya: "

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote:

>

> Correction:

>

> While the misery associated with the waking and dream state and the

> happiness associated with the anandamaya kosa are 'illusory', Sri Ramana

> says this about what lies beyond the three states, namely Turiya:

>

> " It lies beyond waking, dream and deep sleep. That is

> the Reality and consists of true bliss (nijananda). "

>

> ------------

>

> This should say,

>

> " ..., Sri Ramana says the following about what lies beyond the three

states,

> namely Turiya: "

>

> Peter

>

Namaste,

 

The Saguna Brahman concept is beyond all the states as it projects

them anyway. Sankara and Ramana only ever discussed the 'Self' which

is Saguna. Not every word Ramana and Sankara spoke is the absolute

truth for they both had bodies therefore some prarabda. Those that

hang on to Saguna as the Self of Bliss are only hanging on to another

'body/mind' so to speak.

The reality is Nir Guna which is self definitive. Hanging on to Bliss

is giving away the envelope but hanging on to the corner. It is not

letting go of the final superstition..........Tony.

[Guest guest]

Dear Tony-ji,

 

I like the point you make, albeit implicitly, that we need to be careful not

too hold on too strongly to set ideas.

 

With regards the rest of your email, I felt disappointed that apart from the

odd 'catchy' phrase you simply restated your original opinion without

offering anything from Sri Ramana or Sri Sankara to substantiate the claims

you make on their behalf.

 

Both myself and Sri Ram-ji (and others in the past) have asked you to

substantiate your claims with actual reference to the works or talks of the

sages in question or from the Upanishads. It seems you are unwilling to do

so. I have asked you, for example, to show us where Ramana supports your

view that when he refers to Turiya, the Real Self, which he says is the Only

Reality, unborn and true Bliss, he really means he is referring to " the

illusory state of Saguna Brahman " (to use your words).

 

On the other hand, a number of other people have put forward many passages

from these Sage's works which illustrate that Sri Ramana and Sri Sankara

(and the main Upanishads come to that) express views that are quite the

opposite to what you claim.

 

You may well be able to source and reference such material in support of

what you say. All well and good. In fact that would be very helpful for us

all. It would just be good to see you offer such material and move beyond

the stance of 'this is true because I say so.'

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

 

 

 

________________________________

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Tony OClery

20 April 2007 16:19

advaitin

Re: advaita is not dvaita or bliss!

 

 

The Saguna Brahman concept is beyond all the states as it projects

them anyway. Sankara and Ramana only ever discussed the 'Self' which

is Saguna. Not every word Ramana and Sankara spoke is the absolute

truth for they both had bodies therefore some prarabda. Those that

hang on to Saguna as the Self of Bliss are only hanging on to another

'body/mind' so to speak.

The reality is Nir Guna which is self definitive. Hanging on to Bliss

is giving away the envelope but hanging on to the corner. It is not

letting go of the final superstition..........Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote:

>

>

> Dear Tony-ji,

>

> I like the point you make, albeit implicitly, that we need to be

careful not

> too hold on too strongly to set ideas.

>

> With regards the rest of your email, I felt disappointed that apart

from the

> odd 'catchy' phrase you simply restated your original opinion without

> offering anything from Sri Ramana or Sri Sankara to substantiate the

claims

> you make on their behalf.

>

> Both myself and Sri Ram-ji (and others in the past) have asked you to

> substantiate your claims with actual reference to the works or talks

of the

> sages in question or from the Upanishads. It seems you are unwilling

to do

> so. I have asked you, for example, to show us where Ramana supports

your

> view that when he refers to Turiya, the Real Self, which he says is

the Only

> Reality, unborn and true Bliss, he really means he is referring to " the

> illusory state of Saguna Brahman " (to use your words).

>

> On the other hand, a number of other people have put forward many

passages

> from these Sage's works which illustrate that Sri Ramana and Sri Sankara

> (and the main Upanishads come to that) express views that are quite the

> opposite to what you claim.

>

> You may well be able to source and reference such material in support of

> what you say. All well and good. In fact that would be very helpful

for us

> all. It would just be good to see you offer such material and move

beyond

> the stance of 'this is true because I say so.'

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Peter

 

Namaste Peter,

 

I think the mere fact that Ramana says that Ajativada is the ultimate

truth explains my position entirely. I wrote as much when I submitted

the entry on wikipedia named ajativada. There are enough references to

creation theories in there. Also in 'Be as you are' page 181 onwards.

A perfect example is the reaction of dhyanasar offering prayers for my

soul so to speak. I don't know where the prayers go but the change

nothing. This is just the superstition I am discussing no offence

meant. If a person has a body/mind the cannot be fully realised unless

they are a jivanmukta. Sankara and Ramana became jivanmuktas, but the

prarabda karma is still there if they are not. For a body to take

birth there has to be a thought so that means they are not fully

realised but have put it off to return as avatars, godmen, or

whatever. It is just a concept anyway.

I don't like to quote chapter and verse for we are supposed to develop

our own Self Enquiry-Who am I?

The sages have said it disappears on mukti and dropping the body...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Tony,

 

In message #35694, Fri Apr 20, you say:

 

" The Saguna Brahman concept is beyond all the states as it projects

them anyway... The reality is Nir Guna which is self definitive.

Hanging on to Bliss is giving away the envelope but hanging on to

the corner. It is not letting go of the final superstition. "

 

Yes, you are clearly right that the concept of 'bliss' or

'happiness' has its downside as a mental construct. The downside in

this case is indeed its association with a qualified and thus

passing state of pleasure or comfort, which alternates with an

opposingly qualified state of pain or discomfort.

 

So, as you say, the qualified or saguna concept of 'bliss' has to be

left behind, in search of a truth that may thus be described as

'unqualified' or 'nirguna'.

 

But here, I have a question for you. Isn't this description

'unqualified' or 'nirguna' another mental construct which also must

be left behind?

 

The problem here is that when we speak or think of truth or reality

as 'unqualified', this way of speaking or thinking inevitably refers

to a sort of qualification, albeit a negative one. This negative

qualification describes a truth that has no qualities. And the

negative qualification remains here a limiting description or idea

that must in the end be left behind, in search of a truth that is

directly known beyond all mental constructs and descriptions.

 

This problem is brought into focus by the Advaita analysis of deep

sleep. From our habitual waking state assumptions, it is habitually

considered to be a blank state, without any qualities found present

in it. Accordingly, it is habitually mistaken by viewing it

negatively, as 'nirguna' or 'unqualified'.

 

Here, in order to correct our habitually mistaken assumptions,

Advaita points out that deep sleep is not merely negative. It only

seems negative when viewed externally, through the misleading

appearances of waking world.

 

But seen in itself, from its own point of view, deep sleep is more

positively experienced as pure consciousness and unmixed happiness,

beyond all limiting qualifications. In that sense, the seeming

blankness of deep sleep points to an unqualified consciousness and

happiness that may well be described as 'nirguNa j~nAna' or

'nirguNAnanda'.

 

These are of course descriptions that must somehow point beyond

their intellectual construction. They must point beyond the ideas of

'j~nAna' or 'knowledge' and 'Ananda' or 'happiness'. And they must

also point beyond the idea of 'nirguNa' or 'unqualified'.

 

Would you agree here that your favoured description 'nirguNa' is

also a mere pointer that must be left behind, in search of a truth

where it is meant to point? Or are you saying that this 'nirguNa'

description must somehow overrule all other descriptions which other

people might find useful? Which even you might find useful as

alternative modes of enquiry?

 

From what I understand of Advaita enquiry, it tends to start out

with the nay-saying negativity that is indicated by the concept of

'nirguNa'. But this negativity is meant to lead on to a realization

that is ultimately positive, as indicated by affirmative concepts

like 'sat' or 'cit' or 'Ananda'.

 

As Ramana Maharshi put it, the negativity is required to " go deeper

[so that] you lose yourself, as it were, in the abysmal depths; then

the Reality which is the Atman [self] that was behind you all the

while takes hold of you " . And he goes on to say that the realization

of true self is positive as " an eternal expression of the Self " , so

that realization does not " mean becoming a stone, an inert mass " .

 

The full quote from Ramana Maharshi is appended below. I find it

interesting to show how pragmatically and delicately the negative

and positive aspects get blended together, in a sage's teachings

towards a non-dual truth.

 

Ananda

 

 

From Kapali Sastri, 'Sat-darshana

Bhashya and talks with Maharshi'

 

 

M: Yes, when you go deeper you lose yourself, as it were, in the

abysmal depths; then the Reality which is the Atman [self] that was

behind you all the while takes hold of you. It is an incessant flash

of 'I-consciousness'; you can be aware of it, feel it, hear it,

sense it, so to say. This is what I call 'aham sphUrti'.

 

D: You said that the Atman is immutable, self-effulgent, etc. But if

you speak at the same time of the incessant flash of

I-consciousness, of this 'aham sphUrti', does that not imply

movement, which cannot be complete realization, in which there is no

movement?

 

M: What do you mean by complete realization? Does it mean becoming a

stone, an inert mass? The aham vRtti ['I'-acting] is different from

aham sphUrti. The former is the activity of the ego, and is bound to

lose itself and make way for the latter which is an eternal

expression of the Self. In Vedantic parlance this aham sphUrti is

called Vritti J~nAna [the pure activity of knowledge].… Svarupa [the

true nature of reality] is J~nAna [knowledge] itself, it is

Consciousness.

[Guest guest]

Tony-ji writes:

 

>> I don't like to quote chapter and verse for we are supposed to develop

our own Self Enquiry-Who am I?<<

 

>> I think the mere fact that Ramana says that Ajativada is the ultimate

truth explains my position entirely.<<

 

The " mere fact " that Sri Ramana says Ajativada is the ultimate doctrine does

not by itself justify your claim that whenever Ramana says 'The Self is

Bliss " and adds 'this is the highest truth', what he really means is that

'this is not the highest truth, the Bliss of the Self is an illusory state,

and by 'the Self' I (Ramana) only really mean " an illusory Saguna Brahman " .

 

 

I support your view that we each need to develop our own Self Enquiry.

However, when we refute other peoples views on that basis of what the Sages

or the Scriptures state we should be able to support what we are saying by

pointing people to the source of the those claims. Self Enquiry is not a

reason to avoid substantiating our views and claims about what the sages

have said.

 

The doctrine of Ajatavada, which Ramana and Gaudapada say is the highest

truth is essentially that 'there is no creation, no one who is born, no one

who is bound, no one to be liberated. All is the unborn Brahman, One without

a second.' This is what we find Sr Ramana saying, for example, in Talks 383

and 399. It is also what Sri Gaudapada says in Mandukya Karika II 32, III

48, and other places.

 

'Lesser theories' presented in different forms - emphasising either creation

or perception - are said to be relative truths. The relative truths speak

of a jiva, world and Isvara (Saguna Brahman). From this perspective the

jiva travels the path, having various experiences, misery, happiness, trying

to attain something he believes he has not got, whether we call that

something liberation, Bliss, Knowledge, Reality or the Self.

 

When Sri Ramana says 'you already are the Self, unborn, the One without a

Second', this is in line with what he says about the doctrine of Ajatavada.

 

Also, when Sri Ramana, Sri Gaudapada and Sri Sankara each say that 'the

Highest Bliss is nothing other than the Self which you already are'; 'the

highest Bliss is the unborn Self and indescribable Brahman', this is in line

with what they say about the doctrine of Ajatavada.

 

When you, Tony, talk about:

 

- jivas hanging on to bliss,

- happines and bliss as the last impediment to Reality

- jivas having a false experience of happiness

- happiness and bliss arising to Saguna Brahman "

 

All these are from Vyavaharika and Drishti Srishtivada standpoint of

relative truth, this is not the Ajatavada view which Sri Ramana and Sri

Sankara point towards in their words.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter