Big Doubt - kindly help,

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Sri Sankarramji,

 

I was looking forward to your note, as you said >>The weather in Chennai is

very horrible. Hence, let me revert to the site in the evening giving an

explanatory account of my position.<<

 

However, since you have mentioned a few points in your response to my mail, I

just mention my following thoughts

 

>>>>What I have attempted to convey is that the true Being is beyond all

conceptualizations which take only the above four categories.<<<<

 

I do not think the True Being even if it is beyond all conceptualizations, is

non-existing, or absent. My very little exposure to the study of Advaita makes

me convinced that there is no “prag abhaava”. Maybe the True Being does not

exist with a form etc. and maybe even knowing that True Being is beyond all

conceptualizations, but it requires a Knower. The Knower is never absent even

when there is no particular thing to be known. I may be totally wrong.

One who denies the existence of Self, denies his own existence.

 

>>My approach is only by way of pointing out that one should abandon all

seeking, the seeking being a detour from the present, the now, which contains

all time, which is the only pointer towards truth. I am not being troubled,

except that my approach is not one of repeating the scriptures, which even

though good in the beginning, is fit to be eschewed at some point of time, as it

were, as the word is not the thing.<<

Your this approach itself is the result of your seeking, is it not? One can

say this when one has known what is to be known, and till then one must seek.

By the way, what is “present” and is it available? The moment one says it is,

it has become past. But even in such a case, “I” shines as knower of it.

I am not at all conversant with nor am I competent in quoting shruties, etc.

to support what I have said.

Yes, ultimately, everything amounts to conceptualization, but to WHO? There is

no “praag abhaava” (prior absence) for that Entity and its existence is without

beginning and also no ending as to know any ending also that Entity must exist,

and there must be posterior existence for that entity. And that eternal Knower

is Awareness or Consciousness, which is never non-existent, and which always

shines as “I”

It is equally if not more hot over here in Jamshedpore, but I saw your

response and I thought I would just send my thoughts for whatever it is worth.

With warm regards

Mani

 

 

R. S. Mani

 

 

 

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

Check outnew cars at Autos.

 

 

[Guest guest]

" R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani wrote: Namaste,

Sri Sankarramji,

 

I was looking forward to your note, as you said >>The weather in Chennai is

very horrible. Hence, let me revert to the site in the evening giving an

explanatory account of my position.<<

 

However, since you have mentioned a few points in your response to my mail, I

just mention my following thoughts

 

>>>>What I have attempted to convey is that the true Being is beyond all

conceptualizations which take only the above four categories.<<<<

 

I do not think the True Being even if it is beyond all conceptualizations, is

non-existing, or absent. My very little exposure to the study of Advaita makes

me convinced that there is no “prag abhaava”. Maybe the True Being does not

exist with a form etc. and maybe even knowing that True Being is beyond all

conceptualizations, but it requires a Knower. The Knower is never absent even

when there is no particular thing to be known. I may be totally wrong.

One who denies the existence of Self, denies his own existence.

 

>>My approach is only by way of pointing out that one should abandon all

seeking, the seeking being a detour from the present, the now, which contains

all time, which is the only pointer towards truth. I am not being troubled,

except that my approach is not one of repeating the scriptures, which even

though good in the beginning, is fit to be eschewed at some point of time, as it

were, as the word is not the thing.<<

Your this approach itself is the result of your seeking, is it not? One can

say this when one has known what is to be known, and till then one must seek.

By the way, what is “present” and is it available? The moment one says it is,

it has become past. But even in such a case, “I” shines as knower of it.

I am not at all conversant with nor am I competent in quoting shruties, etc.

to support what I have said.

Yes, ultimately, everything amounts to conceptualization, but to WHO? There

is no “praag abhaava” (prior absence) for that Entity and its existence is

without beginning and also no ending as to know any ending also that Entity must

exist, and there must be posterior existence for that entity. And that eternal

Knower is Awareness or Consciousness, which is never non-existent, and which

always shines as “I”

It is equally if not more hot over here in Jamshedpore, but I saw your

response and I thought I would just send my thoughts for whatever it is worth.

Dear Mani,

Please bear with me. You shall get my reply by evening

since I am preoccupied with other things, feelilng also somewhat jaded. I am

understanding your viewpoint ( underlined), and am in full agreement with you,

except I feel that the existence of the Atman is too transendental to be

squeezed within the emprical categories. I am of opinion that the Great Masters,

whether the Buddha or Sankara and Ramana, or even a maverick teacher like J.K,

speak the same thing, the transendence of thought. I am too eager to come back

to you. Please, don't be disappointed if my words are different. I can assure

you that the inner content is the same, liberation from the painful samsara. You

say, " I may be totally wrong.

One who denies the existence of Self, denies his own existence. " Such denial

is only that of the spurious self which cannot enter the sanctum sanctorium of

the real self

 

with respectful regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Check outnew cars at Autos.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran wrote:

 

 

 

 

>>>>

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Mani,

Please bear with me. You shall get my reply by evening

since I am preoccupied with other things, feelilng also somewhat jaded. I am

understanding your viewpoint ( underlined), and am in full agreement with you,

except I feel that the existence of the Atman is too transendental to be

squeezed within the emprical categories. I am of opinion that the Great Masters,

whether the Buddha or Sankara and Ramana, or even a maverick teacher like J.K,

speak the same thing, the transendence of thought. I am too eager to come back

to you. Please, don't be disappointed if my words are different. I can assure

you that the inner content is the same, liberation from the painful samsara. You

say, " I may be totally wrong.

One who denies the existence of Self, denies his own existence. " Such denial

is only that of the spurious self which cannot enter the sanctum sanctorium of

the real self

Further replies on the above subject.

 

 

With regard to the poser of Sri R.S.Mani, requiring me to explain the position

of the Self averred by me, I am citing reference to the following writings in

the scriptures.

The unreal has no existence, and the real never ceases to be; the reality

of both has been perceived by the seers of truth. ( verse 16 of chapter two of

bhaghavat Gita)

In the above verse, I understand the unreal to be that which is within the

categories of relative states such as existence, non-existence etc, etc.

That supreme Brahman, who is the Lord of the beginningless entities, is said

to be neither Sat ( Existence ) nor Asat (Non-Existence ). ( verse 12 chapter 13

of Bhaghavat Geetha)

I understand the implication of the above verse to be as follows: The true

being is not existent like an empirical object. That is not an entity to be seen

by a relative knower. It is not non-existent in the sense of an illusory object.

It is not both existent and non-existent in the sense of a phenomenal object

that exists at one point of time, and vanishing subsequently. It is not the

negation of both existence and non-existence like the notion of a conceptual

void.

The following are the verses from the Mandukay Upanishads and the Karika of

Gaudapatha echoing the thought of this predecessor Nagarjuna.

 

VII Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor

that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is

conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple

consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated,

incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The essence of the

Consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, It is the cessation

of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual. This is what is known

as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized.

In the above verse, I am sure, all the relative attributes of the empirical

existence such as existence, non-existence etc, etc, are being negated, turiya

being designated as the essence of consciousness, which cannot be predicated of

it. The fact one exists, I believe, is not an understanding of thought, but one

of pure awareness, where no mentation or ideation would arise. The following are

the verses of the karika, where Gaudapatha throws the bombshell on us by

dismissing all fanciful notions foisted on the atman.

The ignorant, with their childish minds, verily cover Atman by predicating of

It such attributes as existence, non—existence, existence and non—existence and

total non—existence, deriving these characteristics from the notions of change,

immovability, combination of change and immovability and absolute negation which

they associate with Atman.

These are the four theories regarding Atman, through attachment to which It

always remains hidden from one's view. He who knows the Lord to he ever

untouched by them indeed knows all. ( Verses 83 and 84 of the karika in the

last chapter)

By denying existence predicated of the atman, the idea of some dualistic

schools like Visesika is being dismissed. This holds good of all the dualistic

schools believing in the separate existence of the phenomena. The idea of

non-existence predicated of the atman is being dismissed to refute the

philosophy of the sauntratika, vaibasika and yoga-chara schools of Buddhism. The

notion of both existence and non-existence foisted on the self is being removed

to refute the views of Jaina philosophers. Lastly, absolute non-existence is

being negated to remove the notions of the Madhyamika Buddhists. It may be seen

in this connection that there is almost a similar verse in the Mulamadhaymika

Karika of Nagarjuna.

Through knowing things and non-things, the Buddha negated both existence and

non-existence in his Advice to Katyayana.

If [things] existed essentially, they would not come to non-existence.

It is never the case that an essence could become something else.

If essences did not exist, what could become something else? Even if essences

existed, what could become something else?

 

“Existence” is the grasping at permanence; “non-existence” is the view of

annihilation. Therefore, the wise do not dwell, in existence or non-existence.

“Since that which exists by its essence is not non-existent,” is [the view

of] permanence. “That which arose before is now non-existent,”leads to [the view

of] annihilation.

with respectful regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Check outnew cars at Autos.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sankaraman:

 

It seems that you are very comfortable with respect your statements in

the last past paragraph of your posting. But from the Vedantic point of

view, your statement is very confusing! I believe that your statement

seems to imply one of the following two possibilities (it is quite

conceivable that it could also imply possibilities which I don't know):

 

(1) Nothing is coming out of nothing

(2) Something is coming out of nothing

 

The first possibility has 'zero' utility toward the understanding of

the Truth. The second possibility denies the scientific truth

that " something can never come out of nothing! "

 

Most importantly, what we are discussing in this list is Sankara's

Advaita Philosophy and your statement has no relevence with respect to

Vedanta. If you believe that I am wrong, please provide a reliable

source for your statements (since you have stated them in quotes, you

probably know the source).

 

Please understand that the purpose of my note is not to point out that

your statement is erroneous but the purpose is mostly to clear all our

doubts. You probably making some assumptions with respect to those

statement and since you didn't explain them, it is confusing (at least

to me).

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

>

>

> " Existence " is the grasping at permanence; " non-existence " is the

view of annihilation. Therefore, the wise do not dwell, in existence or

non-existence.

> " Since that which exists by its essence is not non-existent, " is

[the view of] permanence. " That which arose before is now non-

existent, " leads to [the view of] annihilation.

> with respectful regards

> Sankarraman

[Guest guest]

Ram Chandran <ramvchandran wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

>

> " Existence " is the grasping at permanence; " non-existence " is the

view of annihilation. Therefore, the wise do not dwell, in existence or

non-existence.

> " Since that which exists by its essence is not non-existent, " is

[the view of] permanence. " That which arose before is now non-

existent, " leads to [the view of] annihilation.

>

Dear Mr Ramachandran,

Please ignore the last

portions of my writing which is the teachings of Nagarjuna. You should have no

objection to the rest of the ideas , which are from the gita and the mandukya,

the latter portion being taken from the translation of Nikhilananda. Unlike you,

I seem to find some validity even in the teachings of the yogachara and

madhyamika. I don't say dogmatically that that is alone correct. I am also not a

scholar being interested in intellectually establishing some belief system. I

derive the inspiration from all the teachers. Why can't you take the earlier

portions which are not that of the alien path, and clarify the point raised by

R.S.Mani calling into question what I have said, and attempt to substantiate

from the traditional writing your own views, specifically highlighting my wrong

understanding. Omitting the teachings of the buddhistic schools, you should find

no confusion in rest of the traditional

ideas pinpointed by me, which if it were very confusing, I should like to be

educated on it. Please omit the irrelevant portion, and don't derive any

conclusion from that. The Buddha may be wrong according to your understanding

which you have a right to have.

 

with respectful regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Check outnew cars at Autos.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Ram Chandran <ramvchandran wrote:

 

Further, Ramachandran, might I state that existence, non existence etc, referred

to in the quote, attributed to the buddhistc teachings, do not refer to the

absolute. They are as regards only the empirical categories of existence

assuming absolute existence. There can be, I belive, only a silence in regard to

the ultimate. It is not that I feel comfortable with some so called alien views

as against advaita. Whatever is relevant to my meditation, that should be

helpful in removing the bondage of the samsara-that only I take as a medicine to

remove my illness. I respect advaita highly even though I may not be

traditional. You might be able to appreciate the point that different

individuals have different samskaras. Please, don't coclude that it is due to

some confusion.

with respectful regards

Sankarraman

 

FF.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Check outnew cars at Autos.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sankarraman:

 

First, let me thank you for all your insights and your willingness to

share your thoughts with all of us. I have no quarrel with your

liking and understanding of philosophies other than Sankara's advaita

such as Buddhism, notions of Madhyamika, Mulamadhaymika Karika of

Nagarjuna, notions of J.K., Saiva Siddhanta and others. Our Hindu

philosophical system does serve seekers of all beliefs and faith to

make them comfortable. Hinduism doesn't insist that " one-size should

fit all. " At the same time majority of the members of this list want

to hear the view points focused mostly on Sankara's advaitic

philosophy. Since most of us are only familiar and comfortable with

advaita philosophy, we should avoid mixing various thoughts while

discussing a central theme such as " Existence. "

 

Though you have quoted the Gita chapter 2, Verse 16 correctly, you

quickly move the discussion knowingly or unknowingly (your

interpretation and intuition) farther away from Sankara. The

philosophies that you have quoted and explained may look to be the

same for you (you seem to be very comfortable switching from one to

another) but me and other like me find them to be very different.

Please understand that each of them have a different framework with

associated assumptions and defintions and may in fact

look " Existence " from a different dimension. I have no quarrel with

that either, but while discussing, the readers need to be informed

both the similarities and distinctions between them. Different models

may look alike, but each one of us prefer one over the other! Just

because that you are comfortable, does not ensure that everyone else

will be comfortable without an iota of confusion.

 

Finally, please note that both Sri Mani and me have the same question

with respect to your earlier posting and how can I explain and inform

what is in your mind?

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: We don't need to continue debating these points again because

such debates will unnecessarily divert the focus of the on-going

discussions.

 

 

advaitin , Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

>

Please

ignore the last portions of my writing which is the teachings of

Nagarjuna. You should have no objection to the rest of the ideas ,

which are from the gita and the mandukya, the latter portion being

taken from the translation of Nikhilananda. Unlike you, I seem to

find some validity even in the teachings of the yogachara and

madhyamika. I don't say dogmatically that that is alone correct. I am

also not a scholar being interested in intellectually establishing

some belief system. I derive the inspiration from all the teachers.

Why can't you take the earlier portions which are not that of the

alien path, and clarify the point raised by R.S.Mani calling into

question what I have said, and attempt to substantiate from the

traditional writing your own views, specifically highlighting my

wrong understanding. Omitting the teachings of the buddhistic

schools, you should find no confusion in rest of the traditional

> ideas pinpointed by me, which if it were very confusing, I should

like to be educated on it. Please omit the irrelevant portion, and

don't derive any conclusion from that. The Buddha may be wrong

according to your understanding which you have a right to have.

>

 

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Sri Sankararamanji,

I have read through your very detailed note covering the views of various

schools, for which my thanks.

At the end, all I can say is, if your intuition and understanding leads you to

“believe” non-existence of Self {the ultimate Reality}, this is something your

prerogative to do so. However, I cannot even imagine non-existence of Self, and

the very simple proof for it is that I am able to say all these, and also you

are able to say all what you have said. Though there may be differences in what

we say the power behind what we say is same and that is never non-existent.

You have mentioned:

>>> Such denial is only that of the spurious self which cannot enter the

sanctum sanctorum of the real self<<<

The spurious self to which you refer is real SELF only though it may appear

different. The same Devdatta continues to be there even when he gets aged,

though there may be differences in his appearance. The spurious self is not a

separate entity. The denial can be only of the spuriousness and not of the

entity where the spuriousness seems to appear. “It cannot enter” true, because

“It” is already “Itself”. There is no entering involved, nor is it possible

however one may try, as it is only recognition of a fact, knowledge. As a matter

of fact, everything exists, but the differences are only in the apparent

appearances and that is the ultimate message of Advaita, i.e. Sarvam Khalu Idam

Brahma, Isa Vasyam Idam Sarvam, and there are many more vakyas conveying that.

It has been a pleasure to exchange views with you.

With warm regards

Mani

 

 

 

 

R. S. Mani

 

 

 

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

Check outnew cars at Autos.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sankararamanji.

 

Your post # 35811.

 

I am afraid there is a bit of confusion in the way you have

interpreted BG 2:16 and 13:12. The words sat and asat are used in

both. But, we should not overlook their contextual meaning.

 

I am quoting Sw. Gambhirananda-ji's translation for both including

relevant part of his translation of Shankara's commentary on 13:12:

_________

 

QUOTE:

 

Of the unreal there is no being; the real has no nonexistence. But

the nature of both these, indeed, has been realized by the seers of

Truth (2:16)

 

I shall speak of that which is to be known, by realizing which one

attains Immortality. The supreme Brahman is without any beginning.

That is called neither being nor non-being. (13:12)

 

Part of Shankara's commentary on 13:12 as translated by Sw,

Gambhirananda-ji:

 

From reason it follows that Brahman cannot be expressed by such words

as being, non-being, etc. For, every word used for expressing an

object, when heard by listeners, makes them understand its meaning

through the comprehension of its significance with the help of genus,

action, quality and relation; not in any other way, because that is

not a matter of experience. To illustrate this: a cow, or a horse,

etc. (is comprehended) through genus; cooking or reading, through

action; white or black, through quality; a rich person or an owner of

cows, through relation. But Brahman does not belong to any genus.

Hence it is not expressible by words like 'being' etc.; neither is It

possessed of any quality with the help of which It could be expressed

through qualifying words, for It is free from qualities; nor can It

be expressed by a word implying action, It being free from actions-

which accords with the Upanisadic text, 'Partless, actionless, calm'

(Sv. 6.19). Nor has It any relation, since It is one, non-dual, not

an object of the senses, and It is the Self. Therefore it is logical

that It cannot be expressed by any word. And this follows from such

Upanisadic texts as, 'From which, words turnn back' (Tai. 2.4.1),

etc. Since the Knowable (Brahman) is not an object of the word or

thought of 'being', there arises the apprehension of Its

nonexistence. Hence, for dispelling that apprehension by establishing

Its existence with the help of the adjuncts in the form of the organs

of all creatures, the Lord says: (verses that follow like sarvata

pANipAdaM etc.)

 

UNQUOTE

________________

 

The Real is " Always Existence " (as Maniji has asserted) and It is the

Truth that which is to be known by realizing which one attains

Immortality. Yet, It (the Real or Truth) cannot be understood as

being something mundane we are familiar with allowing an ordinary

mundane comprehension.

 

That I think would be the safest understanding.

 

May I be corrected if I said anything wrong.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Madathil and Sri RS Mani,

 

It appears to me that both of you are misunderstanding Sri

Sankarraman's posts. Sri Sankarraman has clearly stated that terms

like " being " & " non-being " or " existence " & " non-existence " are

applicable only to phenomenal objects (i.e. within vyavahara).

 

Madathil-ji is saying the same in his quote from Swami Gambhirananda:-

" From reason it follows that Brahman cannot be expressed by such words

as being, non-being, etc " .

 

It is meaningless to say " brahman exists " or " brahman doesnt exist "

for brahman is the adhara for both " existence " and " non-existence " . We

cannot sit outside of brahman, point a finger at it and say, " here is

brahman " !

 

Ramesh

 

 

 

 

 

On 01/05/07, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

Namaste Sankararamanji.

>

> Your post # 35811.

>

> I am afraid there is a bit of confusion in the way you have

> interpreted BG 2:16 and 13:12. The words sat and asat are used in

> both. But, we should not overlook their contextual meaning.

>

> I am quoting Sw. Gambhirananda-ji's translation for both including

> relevant part of his translation of Shankara's commentary on 13:12:

> _________

>

> QUOTE:

>

> Of the unreal there is no being; the real has no nonexistence. But

> the nature of both these, indeed, has been realized by the seers of

> Truth (2:16)

>

> I shall speak of that which is to be known, by realizing which one

> attains Immortality. The supreme Brahman is without any beginning.

> That is called neither being nor non-being. (13:12)

>

> Part of Shankara's commentary on 13:12 as translated by Sw,

> Gambhirananda-ji:

>

> From reason it follows that Brahman cannot be expressed by such words

> as being, non-being, etc. For, every word used for expressing an

> object, when heard by listeners, makes them understand its meaning

> through the comprehension of its significance with the help of genus,

> action, quality and relation; not in any other way, because that is

> not a matter of experience. To illustrate this: a cow, or a horse,

> etc. (is comprehended) through genus; cooking or reading, through

> action; white or black, through quality; a rich person or an owner of

> cows, through relation. But Brahman does not belong to any genus.

> Hence it is not expressible by words like 'being' etc.; neither is It

> possessed of any quality with the help of which It could be expressed

> through qualifying words, for It is free from qualities; nor can It

> be expressed by a word implying action, It being free from actions-

> which accords with the Upanisadic text, 'Partless, actionless, calm'

> (Sv. 6.19). Nor has It any relation, since It is one, non-dual, not

> an object of the senses, and It is the Self. Therefore it is logical

> that It cannot be expressed by any word. And this follows from such

> Upanisadic texts as, 'From which, words turnn back' (Tai. 2.4.1),

> etc. Since the Knowable (Brahman) is not an object of the word or

> thought of 'being', there arises the apprehension of Its

> nonexistence. Hence, for dispelling that apprehension by establishing

> Its existence with the help of the adjuncts in the form of the organs

> of all creatures, the Lord says: (verses that follow like sarvata

> pANipAdaM etc.)

>

> UNQUOTE

> ________________

>

> The Real is " Always Existence " (as Maniji has asserted) and It is the

> Truth that which is to be known by realizing which one attains

> Immortality. Yet, It (the Real or Truth) cannot be understood as

> being something mundane we are familiar with allowing an ordinary

> mundane comprehension.

>

> That I think would be the safest understanding.

>

> May I be corrected if I said anything wrong.

>

> Pranams.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ramesh-ji.

 

I accept your understanding of the correct position. However, I

still doubt if Sri Snakaramanji would.

 

This is a problem imposed by language. The sat of sat-chit-Ananda is

invariably translated as Existence (let us say with a capital 'E').

When I said Existence or Always Existence, I meant only that. The

intention was not to point at Brahman as something existing in space-

time! The understanding is that it is beyond time - past, present and

future. Yet, don't we sometimes say that it is the ever-present

present, the eternal now etc. granting it a seeming temporality?

That is where we need to go beyond language and stress that the Truth

is best understood in silence.

 

Reading the very lengthy posts of Sri Sankaramanji, I don't think he

has accepted Existence as explained above. He seemed to be talking

about something entirely different leaning heavily on a void

extraneous to Advaita.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________________

 

 

 

In advaitin , " Ramesh Krishnamurthy " <rkmurthy

wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Madathil and Sri RS Mani,

>

> It appears to me that both of you are misunderstanding Sri

> Sankarraman's posts. Sri Sankarraman has clearly stated that terms

> like " being " & " non-being " or " existence " & " non-existence " are

> applicable only to phenomenal objects (i.e. within vyavahara).

>

> Madathil-ji is saying the same in his quote from Swami

Gambhirananda:-

> " From reason it follows that Brahman cannot be expressed by such

words

> as being, non-being, etc " .

>

> It is meaningless to say " brahman exists " or " brahman doesnt exist "

> for brahman is the adhara for both " existence " and " non-existence " .

We

> cannot sit outside of brahman, point a finger at it and say, " here

is

> brahman " !

>

> Ramesh

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 01/05/07, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

>

> This is a problem imposed by language.

 

Language itself is representative of duality, and hence falls flat in

describing the non-dual, isnt it?

 

 

> That is where we need to go beyond language and stress that the Truth

> is best understood in silence.

 

True, indeed. Language (and therefore, Advaita as a methodology) is

only a boat used to cross the river called samsara. Once the other

bank is reached, the boat too is discarded and we can talk to

ajativada!

 

Its another matter that most of us are not even capable of using the

boat in the first place, so we better be humble

 

>

> Reading the very lengthy posts of Sri Sankaramanji, I don't think he

> has accepted Existence as explained above. He seemed to be talking

> about something entirely different leaning heavily on a void

> extraneous to Advaita.

 

I think Sri Sankarraman mentioned quite clearly that he was referring

to phenomenal objects only. Anyway even a " void " would only have

brahman as its adhara!

 

 

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

" R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani wrote: Namaste,

Sri Sankararamanji,

I have read through your very detailed note covering the views of various

schools, for which my thanks.

At the end, all I can say is, if your intuition and understanding leads you

to “believe” non-existence of Self {the ultimate Reality}, this is something

your prerogative to do so.

Thank you Mr Mani for your kindly response. The above position of your

inference of my understanding, I am afraid, is only rather fragmented. I am not

for that notion, nor any notion for that matter that is predicated of the self.

However, as words are limited, we can respect the views of each other. I am only

a traveler not having arrived. Even if I had arrived, I should not hold any

views. I once again thank you from the bottom of my heart for your non-violent

response, which is a sure pointer for the fact of your being an evolved man

rather than a pundit cross-examining people.

with regards and love

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Check outnew cars at Autos.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Ram Chandran <ramvchandran wrote:

Dear Mr Ramachandran

Still, I don't accept that I am

deviating from the central theme. I am not for debating at all. I may be excused

from further writings on this subject.

 

with warmest regards and love

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Check outnew cars at Autos.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thank you Sri Nair for your kindly response. I am familiar with all the ideas of

Brahman being beyond the Universals, the individual etc. As Sri Ramakrishna says

that it is the same water called by different names that quenches the thirst of

all of us. So let us drink it. I sincerly believe that even if one's language is

incomplete, the inner being will not abandon them.

with respects and love

Sankarraman

 

 

 

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

Check outnew cars at Autos.

 

 

[Guest guest]

After reading all the messages on this thread , i am reminded of the

following words

 

Without going out of your door

You can know the ways of the world

....... The sage knows without travelling

Sees without looking

And achieves without Ado "

(Tao Te Ching)

 

enjoy .....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

>

>

>

> Thank you Sri Nair for your kindly response. I am familiar with

all the ideas of Brahman being beyond the Universals, the individual

etc. As Sri Ramakrishna says that it is the same water called by

different names that quenches the thirst of all of us. So let us

drink it. I sincerly believe that even if one's language is

incomplete, the inner being will not abandon them.

> with respects and love

> Sankarraman

>

>

>

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

> Check outnew cars at Autos.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

We had some interesting insights on this thread on " Big Doubt. " We had

lots of scholarly as well as practical answers to the question raised

by Sri Sai. The following is supposed to be the answers to our

questions from GOD Himself! Interestingly, God answers our doubts by

asking us questions!! The final conclusion is quite profound.

 

God starts with 4 questions to make everyone to think hard. Click on

the link and enjoy!

 

http://www.universalresponse.info/home/?authcode=588_qs3h88py759z

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Enjoyed the conversation with the God. Thanks.

sadananda

 

 

--- Ram Chandran <ramvchandran wrote:

 

> God starts with 4 questions to make everyone to

> think hard. Click on

> the link and enjoy!

[Guest guest]

Namaste Rameshji.

 

I had been extra careful with my language. If ever I sounded not

humble, my apologies. I didn't at all mean to be so.

 

Pranams and best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , " Ramesh Krishnamurthy "

<rkmurthy wrote:

.....> True, indeed. Language (and therefore, Advaita as a

methodology) is

> only a boat used to cross the river called samsara. Once the other

> bank is reached, the boat too is discarded and we can talk to

> ajativada!

>

> Its another matter that most of us are not even capable of using

the

> boat in the first place, so we better be humble

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Sri Ram Chandran ji wrote:

>

> Namaste:

>

> The following is supposed to be the answers to our questions from

> GOD Himself! Interestingly, God answers our doubts by

> asking us questions!! The final conclusion is quite profound.

>

> God starts with 4 questions to make everyone to think hard. Click on

> the link and enjoy!

>

> http://www.universalresponse.info/home/?authcode=588_qs3h88py759z

 

Hari OM!

Thank you very very much for sharing that beautiful link.

It is really beautiful and uplifting- both words and the pictures.

 

Pranams and Hari OM

-Srinivas

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Madathil-ji,

 

Your response below actually shows how fickle language is, and how

easy it is to misunderstand things. I never meant to comment on your

humility. Far from it.

 

On the contrary, I was reminding myself of the need to be humble. I

likened Advaita to a boat that one uses to cross the river, and which

one discards on reaching the other bank. As I was writing that

sentence, I thought to myself - " here I am who cannot even claim to be

a mumukhsu, and therefore not even capable of using the advaitic boat,

and yet I talk about discarding the boat! " With that thought, I added

that sentence on being humble.

 

Just imagine how frail language is, and yet we use it to describe the

non-dual:)

 

Ramesh

 

On 01/05/07, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Rameshji.

>

> I had been extra careful with my language. If ever I sounded not

> humble, my apologies. I didn't at all mean to be so.

>

> Pranams and best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ______________

>

> advaitin , " Ramesh Krishnamurthy "

> <rkmurthy wrote:

> ....> True, indeed. Language (and therefore, Advaita as a

> methodology) is

> > only a boat used to cross the river called samsara. Once the other

> > bank is reached, the boat too is discarded and we can talk to

> > ajativada!

> >

> > Its another matter that most of us are not even capable of using

> the

> > boat in the first place, so we better be humble

>

[Guest guest]

hare krishna

 

thanks to you all who forwarded this link.it was wonderful.the last line is very

striking indeed. " life is simple but not easy to live.dont try to understand

liife just live it " .a profound truth put in such simple a way is very good.

 

baskaran

 

Srinivas Nagulapalli <srini_nagul wrote:

advaitin , Sri Ram Chandran ji wrote:

>

> Namaste:

>

> The following is supposed to be the answers to our questions from

> GOD Himself! Interestingly, God answers our doubts by

> asking us questions!! The final conclusion is quite profound.

>

> God starts with 4 questions to make everyone to think hard. Click on

> the link and enjoy!

>

> http://www.universalresponse.info/home/?authcode=588_qs3h88py759z

 

Hari OM!

Thank you very very much for sharing that beautiful link.

It is really beautiful and uplifting- both words and the pictures.

 

Pranams and Hari OM

-Srinivas

 

 

 

 

 

 

BASKARAN.C.S

 

 

 

Check out what you're missing if you're not on Messenger