nirguna and saguna ( a Brahma sutra quote)

[Guest guest]

Dear Padma-ji,

 

My words about 'linguistic nuances' were addressed to Nair-ji, (who is one

of the moderators, and someone with whom I can be more direct, since I have

known him for a few years now!) I agree with the comments of other members

that your own posts are remarkably astute and well written if, as you say,

you are really a novice. I certainly would not wish to disourage you from

writing. It is precisely through such intelligently posed questions that we

can all learn and the group is fortunate to have members like yourself.

 

In your further description below, when the rope is mistaken for the snake,

the rope is not 'doing' anything to bring about the misperception. The

projection takes place in the mind. We see that something exists but cannot

make out the precise details. Memory brings in the similar shape of the

snake and the mind effectively projects that particular object onto the form

of the rope. In the case of the tree, memory would not bring up a snake but

a ghost, perhaps, and that would be projected. Sadananda-ji posted an

excellent series on adhyAsa some years ago and I edited it for the website -

you can read this at http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/real/adhyasa.htm.

 

So, keep writing please!

And best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of pjoshi99

06 May 2007 23:52

advaitin

Re: nirguna and saguna ( a Brahma sutra quote)

 

 

..

 

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

5888/stime=1178491963/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848633/nc3=3848567>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nair-ji,

 

I think the problem here is essentially one of mixing of levels again. I am

happy with causes and effects in vyavahAra but not in paramAtha. Whenever I

hear/use the word 'brahman', I understand paramArtha (although obviously it

is not really so, since all word usage is necessarily in vyavahAra, but you

know what I mean). The original objection that I had, then, was with the

imparting of cauality to brahman. This was confusion of levels, to my mind.

As I pointed out, in paramArtha, brahman is karya-kAraNa-vilakShaNa. If you

want to start talking about something being the cause of effects in

creation, you have to bring in Ishvara and then all subsequent discussion is

at the vyAvahArika level. I agree that locus and adhyAsa are equally

vyavahAra. Clearly, since there is only brahman, all of this apparent

manifestation must 'arise from brahman'. But the arising is apparent.

Nothing has really been created. brahman remains as not a kAraNa.

 

Your idea of weekly definition of English terms is a good one and I

definitely think we ought to do this. The problem, of course, is the

continuing paucity of volunteers to provide any sort of definition! Perhaps

we also ought to precede every sentence in our discussions with a (P) or (V)

according to which level we are referring. At least it will show that this

has been considered!

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Madathil Rajendran Nair

07 May 2007 10:14

advaitin

Re: nirguna and saguna ( a Brahma sutra quote)

 

 

..

 

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

5898/stime=1178529318/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848577/nc3=3848636>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " pjoshi99 " <pjoshi99 wrote:

> So, in that respect, rope (Substratum) plays a role in " causing

> snake " (effect) when thought about with respect to effect. And that

> substratum(cause) is very 'Real' (not the 'causeness' of it

> but 'ropeness' is real..again forgive the words.). When light

> (knowledge) comes in, ONLY rope is seen (substratum). And we

realise

> that 'there never was any such thing as snake' so 'there never was

> any such thing as cause of snake'.

>

> In other words, the two statements below imply one and the same

> thing. It depends what standpoint they are made from, that's all.

>

> Ignorance: Saguna is Nirguna (Ishwara is Brahman)

> Knowledge: There is no Saguna, Nirguna alone is.(There is no such

> thing as Ishwara, Brahman alone is.)

>

> I wouldn't write any more on this :-) Thanks for everybody's

patience

> with me and thanks for insightful writing in this group from all

> learned. I learn a lot from you all.

>

> Love and Respect

> Padma

>

 

Namaste all.

 

I have just read quickly this entire thread. So, finally we have come

to the conclusion that Padma-ji has summarised above. Wonderful!

 

My own understanding is as follows. Every object of perception or

thought has two aspects. One is the 'nAma-rUpa' aspect. The other is

the aspect of 'existence', that is, the 'is-ness'.

The nAma-rUpa aspect is limited by Time and Space. The is-ness is

not so limited.

 

The 'snake' is the nAma-rUpa aspect. It is the rope that gives

the 'is-ness' to it. The rope itself has a nAma-rUpa aspect. It is

Brahman that gives the 'is-ness' to it.

 

Similarly Ishvara itself has two aspects. The nAma-rUpa aspect is

what we call as Ishvara. But Ishvara has an is-ness aspect. And that

aspect is given by Brahman.

 

Brahman has only the is-ness. Nothing else. Because it is nirguNa.

 

I will stop here. Because, if I try to say too much I will get

into 'vAchArambhaNam' and make mistakes!

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji.

 

Any explanation in the phenomenal, be it as locus or as cause, would

invariably demand a warning reminder to go with it as an essential

corollary that Brahman is kArya-kAraNa-*locus* vilakSaNa and that the

explanation itself is an attempt to attribute lakSaNa to the

vilakSaNa in order to impart understanding.

 

Brahman can be neither causative nor locative. However, Brahman is

CAUSE without being causative and LOCUS without being locative!

 

May we allow this issue to rest in peace now? I would still expect

some one to give me the Sanskrit word for `locus' in the context of

this discussion.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

________________________

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

> As I pointed out, in paramArtha, brahman is karya-kAraNa-

vilakShaNa. If you

> want to start talking about something being the cause of effects in

> creation, you have to bring in Ishvara and then all subsequent

discussion is

> at the vyAvahArika level. I agree that locus and adhyAsa are equally

> vyavahAra. Clearly, since there is only brahman, all of this

apparent

> manifestation must 'arise from brahman'. But the arising is

apparent.

> Nothing has really been created. brahman remains as not a kAraNa.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Respected Professorji,

In a very simple language, you have clarified the question very well.

Warm regards

Mani

 

 

R. S. Mani

 

 

 

Get your own web address.

Have a HUGE year through Small Business.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthy-ji.

 

I am not sure if I am getting confused.

 

Shall we take another look at your statement quoted below:

________________

 

QUOTE

 

The 'snake' is the nAma-rUpa aspect. It is the rope that gives

the 'is-ness' to it. The rope itself has a nAma-rUpa aspect. It is

Brahman that gives the 'is-ness' to it.

 

UNQUOTE

 

___________________

 

According to Advaita, only Brahman shines and everything shines

after. That everything includes all the objects like ropes etc.

which have a relative phenomenal existence plus illusions and

appearances that are phenomenally non-existent (like the snake on the

rope perceived due to delusion or a mirage in a desert). All such

everything, irrespective of whether they are phenomenally existent or

otherwise, are called miThyA.

 

So, both the rope and the illusory snake actually shine after

Brahman. We are, therefore, compelled to conclude advaitically that

both derive their 'is-ness' also from Brahman.

 

A phenomenal but inadequate example would be a gem shining in

moonlight. The Sun shines and the Moon shines after. Now the gem

shines after the Moon or the Sun? Since the Moon's shine is borrowed

from the Sun, we have to conclude, in the absolute sense, that it is

the Sun the gem shines after.

 

It thus seems that the 'is-ness' of all things miThyA derive directly

from Brahman (of course Brahman remaining non-causative). Another

way of stating the same: When snake is seen in delusion, it is

Awareness that takes the form of the snake. When rope is recognized,

it is again Awareness.

 

Am I right, Sir?

 

Another doubt: if 'is-ness' is always a given or derived, what about

nAma-rUpA? Where does it come from fundamentally? Isn't that too

coming from Brahman? Can there be 'is-ness' without nAma-rUpa?

Aren't both bound together like space-time?

 

I don't want to be causative of vAcArambhaNaM... But, looks like I

am condemned to play that role!

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

" The 'snake' is the nAma-rUpa aspect. It is the rope that gives

the 'is-ness' to it. The rope itself has a nAma-rUpa aspect. It is

Brahman that gives the 'is-ness' to it. "

 

Dear Nairji,

 

I hope you will forgive me for butting in. The rope and snake is only an

analogy for Brahman and world, basis and superimposition, is-ness and name

and form.

 

Earlier this year I offered some tentative thoughts on the topic of is-ness

and nama-rupa in a reply to Anandadji. I have copied and pasted that mail

below it case it is of any value to the current question. Feel free to

discard if not.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

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

Peter12 January 2007 11:33

advaitin

RE: Weekly Definition - 'Atman' or 'self'

 

Dear Ananda-ji,

 

I enjoyed your reflections on " Atman " and particularly the passage from the

Katha Upanishad 4.1:

 

[This world that happens of itself

has excavated outward holes,

through which perception looks outside

and does not see the self within.

But someone brave, who longs for that

which does not die, turns sight back in

upon itself. And it is thus

that self is seen, returned to self,

to its own true reality.]

 

You draw our attention back to this 'simple' centre of 'inner knowing'

within us which is sensed as the inmost Self. Words are tricky things, but

one could say (or rather, " could one say? " ) this is always our immediate

sense of being, of existing. Its not so much awareness of existing, but an

awareness which is existence, awareness-existence. Like an ever present

current of silence-awareness-existence in which the potency of knowing,

which is formless, throbs eternally. I don't particularly mean to 'wax

poetical', just inadequately searching for words.

 

Would you consider sharing your understanding of how this relates to the

verse in the Bhagavad Gita 2:16 where Bhagavan Krishna speaks of non-being

and being.

 

2:16.

Of the unreal there is no being;

there is no non-being of the real.

The truth of both these is seen

By the seers of the Essence.

 

Shankara's commentary is highly suggestive, and I feel it has important

links with the passage you quoted from the Katha Upanishad and also for our

spiritual practice (sadhana). Shankara writes:

 

" ... Every fact of experience involves twofold consciousness (buddhi), the

consciousness of the real (sat) and the consciousness of the unreal (asat).

Now that is (said to be) real, of which our consciousness never fails; and

the unreal, of which our consciousness fails. Thus the distinction of

reality and unreality depends on our consciousness. " (Gambhirananda's

translation.)

 

As I understand it, " the unreal of which our consciousness fails " is the

world of name-and-form, which is ever changing. It is the world we perceive

and think about and experience through the " excavated outward holes " in the

passage you quoted. It includes the mind and its contents, the body and the

objects of the senses. It has no real being (bhava) of its own.

 

The " consciousness of the real " is this silence-awareness-existence . . . ,

and it is as if all 'things' exist only by virtue of this. A strange thing

to assert! Yet, as Shankara points out, we say " the pot IS " and even when

it is absent we say, " the pot IS not " . While the world of name and form

continuously undergoes modification, coming and going, this

awareness-existence, this IS-ness never fails. . . Even when nothing is

present to consciousness, that 'centre of inner knowing', to paraphrase your

words, is still here.

 

It is the simple 'being' that appears to get lost in all the noise of our

daily lives, pre-occupations and identifications, but in truth never deserts

us.

 

We sometimes say this simple 'being' is in all things. Yet we may also have

moments of recognition that all things are actually in it and derive their

life from it . . .

 

.... and this 'IS', that we refer to, the silence-awareness-existence, is the

'AM' in 'I am'.

 

The above is tentatively offered.

 

Ananda-ji, I look forward to any thoughts and help you can offer on this.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

Namaste Peter-ji.

 

I considered this possibility. But in Professor-ji's statement

quoted it seemed to me that the relation between Brahman, rope and

snake had been considered - I mean all three of them together. The

analogy is parallel, i.e.Rope/Snake and Brahman/World. Hence, my

confusion. If it is an analogy and rope repesents Brahman and snake

the world, then I would not have raised this issue at all.

 

I am in a sort of hurry. Will look at your previous post later as

it would demand a very serious study.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________

 

advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote:

>

>

> I hope you will forgive me for butting in. The rope and snake is

only an

> analogy for Brahman and world, basis and superimposition, is-ness

and name

> and form.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nair-ji,

 

Well, I thought you probably would have done, then thought maybe you missed

the beginning of the thread? My apologies for second guessing you!

 

Now... If Professor VK lived around 1200 years ago and wrote this piece of

his in a book, then you and I (if we felt so inclined) could endlessly

debate what he really meant.. We could even set up different schools of

thought (traditions) based on those interpretations and then we and our

students, and our student's students - rather than getting on with their

sadhana - could write lots of books and papers correcting rival views. We

might even have advaita discussion groups dedicated to arguing over these

very rivalries as to who is right and who is wrong. (Un)-fortunately for us

we have Professor VK to say, " Actually, what I actually meant was...... "

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

(Just kidding!)

 

________________________________

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Madathil Rajendran Nair

08 May 2007 14:06

advaitin

Re: nirguna and saguna ( a Brahma sutra quote)

 

 

 

Namaste Peter-ji.

 

I considered this possibility. But in Professor-ji's statement

quoted it seemed to me that the relation between Brahman, rope and

snake had been considered - I mean all three of them together. The

analogy is parallel, i.e.Rope/Snake and Brahman/World. Hence, my

confusion. If it is an analogy and rope repesents Brahman and snake

the world, then I would not have raised this issue at all.

 

I am in a sort of hurry. Will look at your previous post later as

it would demand a very serious study.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthy-ji.

>

> I am not sure if I am getting confused.

>

> Shall we take another look at your statement quoted below:

> ________________

>

> QUOTE

>

> The 'snake' is the nAma-rUpa aspect. It is the rope that gives

> the 'is-ness' to it. The rope itself has a nAma-rUpa aspect. It is

> Brahman that gives the 'is-ness' to it.

>

> UNQUOTE

>

 

Namaskarams Sri Nairji,

 

To quote Sri ProfVKji fully,

 

QUOTE

 

Similarly Ishvara itself has two aspects. The nAma-rUpa aspect is

what we call as Ishvara. But Ishvara has an is-ness aspect. And that

aspect is given by Brahman.

 

Brahman has only the is-ness. Nothing else. Because it is nirguNa.

 

UNQUOTE

 

For the jiva aware of nama-rupa, Ishvara appears with nama-rupa or as

the Source or Embodiment of nama-rupa. But better than " is-ness " ,

perhaps it is to say the " I " of Ishvara is Brahman.

 

" is-ness " suggests the mental-sense of " being " as opposed to being

this or that (nama-rupa). However Sri Profvkji may mean by is-ness

Existence or Reality, which is self-affirmed; no ego or mental

intervention necessary. " Brahman has only the is-ness " implies same

as saying " All that can be said about Brahman is It exists " .

 

Brahman is that Reality which in the context of distinct reference

frames corresponds or appears distinctly.

 

I must say: your statement " only Brahman shines and everything shines

after " is equally confusing. Is this the standpoint of everything or

the standpoint of Brahman? Somewhere in the middle, it seems. See,

from everything's standpoint, it is Ishvara projecting. From

Brahman's standpoint, no " everything " .

 

I say: no elimination of Ishvara allowed; otherwise we mix things. We

accept our agency, being ignorant, etc. but assert none for Brahman --

the very reason we are to see the Reality in the context of Ishvara

when we see ourselves.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

> ___________________

>

> According to Advaita, only Brahman shines and everything shines

> after. That everything includes all the objects like ropes etc.

> which have a relative phenomenal existence plus illusions and

> appearances that are phenomenally non-existent (like the snake on

the

> rope perceived due to delusion or a mirage in a desert). All such

> everything, irrespective of whether they are phenomenally existent

or

> otherwise, are called miThyA.

>

> So, both the rope and the illusory snake actually shine after

> Brahman. We are, therefore, compelled to conclude advaitically

that

> both derive their 'is-ness' also from Brahman.

 

> Pranams.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

I would still expect

> some one to give me the Sanskrit word for `locus' in the context of

> this discussion.

 

Two words that may point to this are:

 

pratiShThaanam - [Gita 14:27 brahmaNo hi pratiShThA.aham.....]

 

Ashraya - [Gita 71 ......madAshrayaH]

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " advaitins " <advaitins wrote:

>

> advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

> <madathilnair@> wrote:

> >

> I would still expect

> > some one to give me the Sanskrit word for `locus' in the context of

> > this discussion.

 

 

> Ashraya - [Gita 71 ......madAshrayaH]

>

 

Correction: This should read - Gita 7:1

 

 

Addition: another word Gita has used is adhiShThAnam

 

indriyaaNi mano buddhir asya adhishhThaanam uchyate .(3:40)

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Thanks.

 

Is there any specific word used in AdhyAsya BhaSya, which was the

focus of our discussion?

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

 

> advaitin , " advaitins " <advaitins@> wrote:

>

> > Ashraya - [Gita 71 ......madAshrayaH]

> >

>

> Correction: This should read - Gita 7:1

>

>

> Addition: another word Gita has used is adhiShThAnam

>

> indriyaaNi mano buddhir asya adhishhThaanam uchyate .(3:40)

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Putran-ji,

 

My comments are in parentheses .

 

_______________________

 

" Brahman has only the is-ness " implies same

> as saying " All that can be said about Brahman is It exists " .

 

[i agree.]

________________________

 

> I must say: your statement " only Brahman shines and everything

shines

> after " is equally confusing.

 

[That is not my statement. I am only mouthing Shankara's words in

SrI DakshiNAmUrti Stotra like a parrot: " Tameva bhantaM anubhAti

sarvaM " . The same thought is reflected in Advaita Makaranda where

the chid (bhAti) aspect of sat-chit-Ananda (asti-bhAti-priyam) is

discussed.]

_________________________

 

> I say: no elimination of Ishvara allowed; otherwise we mix things.

 

[i wouldn't dare say anything of that sort so emphatically.

Rope/snake analogy can do without Ishwara as it relates to the study

of adhyAsa. I don't think AdhyAsya BhASya of the Acharya has any

reference to Ishwara. I doubt even his basic texts dealing purely

with Advaita refer to Ishwara.]

 

_________________

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

 

>

> Is there any specific word used in AdhyAsya BhaSya, which was the

> focus of our discussion?

 

 

Namaste,

 

The word adhiShThAna is used in the adhyAsa bhAShya. For

Subhanu Saxena's translation:

 

advaitinBrahmasuutra%20Notes/

 

..rtf file has the Itrans version of the original.

 

..doc file has the original in devanagari.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji,

 

At the end of you post to Prof VK on...

08 May 2007 12:28

Re: nirguna and saguna ( a Brahma sutra quote)

 

.... you raised an interesting question / doubt. Namely:

 

[[[ ... if 'is-ness' is always a given or derived, what about

nAma-rUpA? Where does it come from fundamentally? Isn't that too

coming from Brahman? Can there be 'is-ness' without nAma-rUpa?

Aren't both bound together like space-time?]]]

 

If we understand 'is-ness' to be the Sat aspect of Awareness, then it seems

to me your are posing the question, " Is there anything (including nama-rupa)

other than Awareness-existence itself? " In other words, all is Awareness.

Is this something along the lines of what you are suggesting?

 

My first response to your final question is that we cannot imagine nama-rupa

without 'is-ness' (Awareness-Existence).

 

However, I wonder if you would share more of the thinking behind your

penultimate question?

 

" Can there be 'is-ness' with nAma-rUpa?

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

CORRECTION:

 

Nairji's penultimate question is:

 

" " Can there be 'is-ness' WITHOUT nAma-rUpa?

 

apologies,

Peter

 

 

 

 

________________________________

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Peter

17 May 2007 14:06

advaitin

RE: Re: nirguna and saguna ( a Brahma sutra quote)

 

 

 

 

Namaste Nairji,

 

At the end of you post to Prof VK on...

08 May 2007 12:28

Re: nirguna and saguna ( a Brahma sutra quote)

 

.... you raised an interesting question / doubt. Namely:

 

[[[ ... if 'is-ness' is always a given or derived, what about

nAma-rUpA? Where does it come from fundamentally? Isn't that too

coming from Brahman? Can there be 'is-ness' without nAma-rUpa?

Aren't both bound together like space-time?]]]

 

If we understand 'is-ness' to be the Sat aspect of Awareness, then it seems

to me your are posing the question, " Is there anything (including nama-rupa)

other than Awareness-existence itself? " In other words, all is Awareness.

Is this something along the lines of what you are suggesting?

 

My first response to your final question is that we cannot imagine nama-rupa

without 'is-ness' (Awareness-Existence).

 

However, I wonder if you would share more of the thinking behind your

penultimate question?

 

" Can there be 'is-ness' with nAma-rUpa?

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

Dear Peterji and others, Namaste,

Can there be " is-ness " without nama and roopa?

What about " I " ? Does not " I " exist without Nama and Roopa? The Swaroopa, the

unchangeable nature of " I " does exist without nama and roopa and the Swabhava of

" I " does change, whether it is " I's " body, mind and intellect, which are all

" drushya " for " I " .

Hope I am correct and please do correct my " knowledge " .

Wam regards

Mani

 

 

R. S. Mani

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hari Om. Salutations.

 

> Dear Peterji and others, Namaste,

> What about " I " ? Does not " I " exist without Nama and Roopa? The

 

I think " I " is the very first label we put on a body-mind complex. All

other labels come after that. It is just mind boggling how fast we add

so many labels in just one glance. e.g. we just take one look at one

person and like bullets are showerd from a machine gun, we bombard

labels - " living

being " , " human " , " man " , " Indian " , " Old " , " dark " , " retired " , " resembles

XYZ " , " long nose " ...all this for just one person in one glance.

Happens so fast ! Amazing it is. If we don't put that first

label of " I " on the body-mind complex, then we don't put all other

lables too. If we put lable " I " then ...labels labels everywhere.

 

Love and Respect

Padma

[Guest guest]

Namaste Peter-ji.

 

In order not to complicate the issue further, I will provide my

simple comments within parentheses right under your

statements/questions:

_________

 

> If we understand 'is-ness' to be the Sat aspect of Awareness, then

it seems

> to me you are posing the question, " Is there anything (including

nama-rupa)

> other than Awareness-existence itself? " In other words, all is

Awareness.

> Is this something along the lines of what you are suggesting?

 

[Yes. You are absolutely right.]

_____________

 

 

> My first response to your final question is that we cannot imagine

nama-rupa

> without 'is-ness' (Awareness-Existence).

 

[Again, I am fully with you.]

____________________________

 

> However, I wonder if you would share more of the thinking behind

your

> penultimate question?

>

> " Can there be 'is-ness' with nAma-rUpa? "

 

[i see that in your next post, you have corrected my question to

rightly read " Can there be 'is-ness' WITHOUT nAma-rUpa " ? Thanks.]

 

[if the issue was 'is-ness' (sat) alone, we wouldn't be 'discussing'

it here. We are able to discuss because 'is-ness' has expressed

itself through words and forms or, in other words, " is-ness " has very

kindly condescended to appear before us in names and forms. All

nAmAs and rUpAs belong to the phenomenal and all in the phenomenal is

verily Brahman. Shruti is our guarantee and authority here.]

 

[i notice that Mani-ji has raised an interesting poser: " What

about " I " ? Does not " I " exist without Nama and Roopa? " . He is quite

right at the Absolute level. But, in the phenomenal of our

discussion, that " I " understood to be existing without nAma and rUpa

at the Absolute level is just an objective understanding. Any

understanding is an objectification and, to be objectifiable, it

should have a phenomenal tangibility. In other words, that " I "

understood to be existing without name or form is only an " Absolute I-

thought " in the phenomenal and it is lighted up by whom? The very

Brahman that we are endeavouring to realize out of our brahma-

jijnAsA. As a thought, it has a form when it flashes on your mental

screen and you can name it " Absolute I-thought " . Am I right, Peter-

ji? Thus, everying derives from Brahman and that Brahman is the

essential 'is-ness' of things. That 'is-ness' cannot escape a nAma-

rUpa if it decides to express to us mortals in the phenomenal. The

phenomenal is tyrannical. Even Brahman can't escape its whims! Thus,

the snake, rope, the delusion, the deluded and what else - everything

of the phenomenal is Brahman or derived from Brahman alone but with

nAma-rUpa!]

 

[if my thoughts are to be ealborated further, I might have to divert

to Bhartruhari's Vakyapadiya and the Lalita Sahasranama. Ananda-ji

can say something about the former. The latter I can't venture

because I may be dubbed a tAntrik!]

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Nairji writes :

 

(my thoughts are to be ealborated further, I might have to divert

to Bhartruhari's Vakyapadiya and the Lalita Sahasranama. Ananda-ji

can say something about the former. The latter I can't venture

because I may be dubbed a tAntrik!]

 

Nairji : Be bold in the style of Swami Vivekananda ! a TRUE ADVAITIN

OR A TRUE TANTRIK ( MAN/WOMAN OF EXPANDED CONSCIOUSNESS) FOR THAT

MATTER HAS NOTHING TO FEAR ! after all *fear* is only associated

with BMI ! IN ANY CASE , 'ADVAITIN' , TANTRIK, ETC ARE ONLY LABELS

WE PUT ON OURSELVES JUST LIKE COSTUMES - IN THIS SENSE , AS SHIVA

SUTRAS SAY WE ARE ALL ACTORS ! we have to go beyond names and forms -

adi , ds , madathil , nair etc etc etc etc ...SMILE :-)

 

please do us the honor of elaborating on LS - u know that will be

your 'unique' contribution to the discussions ! u know , i luv it!

 

MAY I SHARE THIS FAVORITE VERSE OF SWAMI VIVEKANANDA FROM

BHATRUHARIS VAIRAGYA SHATAKAM !

 

bhoge rogabhaya.n kule chyutibhaya.n vitta nR^ipaalaadbhayaM

maane dainyabhayaM bale ripubhaya.n ruupe jaraayaa bhayam.h .

shaastre vaadibhaya.n guNe khalabhaya.n kaaye kR^itaantaadbhaya.n

sarva.n vastu bhayaanvitaM bhuvi nR^iNaa.n vairaagyamevaabhayam.h ..

31..

 

There is fear of disease in the enjoyment of sensual pleasures;

in lineage fear of decline;

in riches, fear of kings;

fear of humiliation in honor;

fear of enemies when in power;

fear of old age in beauty;

in learning, fear of disputants;

in virtue, fear of the wicked;

in body, fear of death.

All facets of man's life on

earth engender fear; renunciation alone is fearless.

 

 

SO NAIRJI ! RENOUNCE! be bold and fearless ! express yourself freely

and fearlessly in the true spirit of a Sanyassin! BE BOLD !

 

love and regards