Book Of The One

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis and all,

I was going to send you an email re this but then decided it might be

of interest to the group. In Boo, two paragraphs jumped off the page

at me. Page 203, last paragraph, " If you make any attempt whatsoever

to 'get anywhere... " and page 205, last paragraph, " So what can one

do... "

 

Both paragraphs say about the same thing and it's been said in

countless ways endlessly, forever! And I relate it to information

in " No Boundary " , by Ken Wilbur, a book I've been reading/studying

for about 20 years. The implication in both books seems to me non-

resistance to everything in the present. In fact, in the final

chapter of Ken's book titled " The Ultimate State of Concsiousness " ,

he says that the feeling of being a separate self(small " s " ) IS the

same thing as the feeling of resistance. And that since separate

self=resistance, THAT which sees the resistance/separate self cannot

BE the resistance/separate self...the perceiver cannot be perceived.

 

The two paragraphs in Boo that I mentioned put it in a different way

and made something I already was familiar with clearer, coming at it

from a slightly different angle. " If you make any attempt whatsoever

to 'get anywhere...' is a different way of saying don't resist

anything at all in the present. But it DID make a difference to me!

To read/think/about/ponder those words put the matter in a different

light. It didn't change the truth that I intuit, but gave me another

angle/perspective on it...I think this is what reading/study is about

in Advaita; getting the same info over and over in different ways.

 

Best wishes,

Steve

[Guest guest]

Hi Steve,

 

Yes! I wouldn't actually write anything quite like that now. Reading it now,

I can see that my ability to write about these ideas has improved somewhat

with five years' practice!

 

Before Durga-ji (or someone else) points it out, there is a certain degree

of confusion of levels in those quotations (i.e. mixing up of paramArtha and

vyavahAra). It is true that who I really am (brahman) does not have to do

anything to be That. This is the absolute truth. Unfortunately, the seeker

has the mistaken belief that he or she is a separate body-mind. This is the

result of the mind mixing up real and unreal, overlaying the mithyA body on

the satyam 'I'. Who I really am is unlimited sachChidAnanda but who I think

I am is limited, separate and almost certainly unhappy. The only solution to

this ignorant state of affairs is knowledge and that knowledge needs to be

sought - it is unlikely simply to descend on us out of nowhere while we are

'being in the present' and 'attending to what is in front of us'.

 

So the 'person' does have to do something - at the least read and discuss

such ideas, at the best have them explained by an enlightened and proficient

teacher (one who is learned in the scriptures and the various methods of

presenting their knowledge). Only then is that ignorance likely to be

dispelled and the truth realized.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of otnac6

27 May 2007 15:58

advaitin

Book Of The One

 

 

..

 

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

6133/stime=1180277901/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848635/nc3=3848576>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Our Beloved Dennis-ji writes :

 

( So the 'person' does have to do something - at the least read and

discuss such ideas, at the best have them explained by an

enlightened and proficient teacher (one who is learned in the

scriptures and the various methods of presenting their knowledge).

Only then is that ignorance likely to be dispelled and the truth

realized )

 

Yes! Dear Dennis-ji , you seem to lay a lot of emphasis on the

Teacher being a 'Srotriya' ( one who is learned in shrutis or

scriptures) but may i add with your kind permission , how much more

valuable it would be if the Teacher or guru is also

a 'Brahmanishta' ? Yes! Mere Knowledge of the scriptures is not

enough ! Such a knowledgeble person ( one who is well versed in

scriptures and also one who is able to communicate this knowledge

effectively to spiritual aspirants) but such a learned Teacher must

have had the experience of 'atman' internally . ( atmanubjhava)

Therefore how can we take such a scholar seriously if he has

had 'NO' personal experience into that ultimate reality ?

Scholars can write books which are a great way of communicating

ideas but Brahmanishtas like Sri Ramana Bhagwan TEACH by their

very 'way 'of 'living' the Truth and Bliss they have experienced !(

PARDON , THE CLUMSINESS OF THIS STATENMENT) So, as Risiji points

out , a shotriya has to be a Brahmanishta also !

 

May i please recall here an incident that occurred in the Life of

Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa?

 

" Absorbed, one day, in samadhi, Ramakrishna had found that his mind

was soaring high, going beyond the physical universe of the sun,

moon, and stars, and passing into the subtle region of ideas. As it

continued to ascend, the forms of gods and goddesses were left

behind, and it crossed the luminous barrier separating the

phenomenal universe from the Absolute, entering finally the

transcendental realm. There Ramakrishna saw seven venerable sages

absorbed in meditation. These, he thought, must have surpassed even

the gods and goddesses in wisdom and holiness, and as he was

admiring their unique spirituality he saw a portion of the

undifferentiated Absolute become congealed, as it were, and take the

form of a Divine Child. Gently clasping the neck of one of the sages

with His soft arms, the Child whispered something in his ear, and at

this magic touch the sage awoke from meditation. He fixed his half-

open eyes upon the wondrous Child, who said in great joy: 'I am

going down to earth. Won't you come with me?' With a benign look the

sage expressed assent and returned into deep spiritual ecstasy.

Ramakrishna was amazed to observe that a tiny portion of the sage,

however, descended to earth, taking the form of light, which struck

the house in Calcutta where Narendra's family lived, and when he saw

Narendra for the first time, he at once recognized him as the

incarnation of the sage. He also admitted that the Divine Child who

brought about the descent of the rishi was none other than himself. "

 

http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda_biography/03_at_th

e_feet.htm

 

Yes! Dear hearts ! As you can see in the above narration , Sri

Ramakrishna was the young 'diciple ' and Swami Vivekananda was the

'all knowing' Sage ! Sri Ramakrishna saw in young Naren all the

makings of a world Teacher ! Naren was well versed in all the

scriptures ; He was eloquent and articulate ; above all , he was

able to communicate his ideas very effectively to an English

speaking audience and , NAREN was 'self' realized too ! A real

Shotrioya and a Brahmanishta !

 

" A popular view is that without Vivekananda Sri Ramakrishna would

have remained the Sri Ramakrishna of Bengal; to the wider world he

would at most have been a mere name. One may quite reasonably

dispute the point, for no spiritual force of Sri Ramakrishna's

dimensions could lose its dynamism and remain confined within the

narrow limits of one little province. But it goes without saying

that Vivekananda would not have been his mighty self without his

child-like, simple, but towering spiritual Master. "

 

http://www.writespirit.net/authors/.../swami-vivekananda-and-sri-

ramakrishna

 

love and regards

[Guest guest]

Dear Adi-ji,

 

You say: " So, as Risiji points out , a shotriya has to be a Brahmanishta

also ! "

 

I have to disagree with the verb 'has to', I'm afraid. 'Ideally, should be'

I would accept. Clearly one who directly knows the truth is going to be able

to interpret the scriptures through their own experience rather than simply

in a pedantically correct form. And, when questions are asked for clarity, a

jIvanmukta may be able to give an answer directly. (I say 'may' because this

depends upon their skill as a teacher, which has nothing to do with their

status as enlightened.)

 

But it seems that there are two issues at stake here:

 

Firstly, can a jIvanmukta transmit enlightenment without using words? I

would answer 'No'.

 

Secondly, what is it that actually triggers enlightenment? I would answer

'the knowledge that removes the critical self-ignorance and brings about

akhANDAkAra vRRiti'.

 

It follows from both of these that the 'final piece of knowledge' could come

just as well from one who is not enlightened as from one who is. You may

argue relative probabilities but I don't see how you can argue the fact.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of dhyanasaraswati

29 May 2007 14:18

advaitin

Re: Book Of The One

 

 

..

 

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

6145/stime=1180444892/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848544/nc3=3848576>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

" So, as Risiji points out , a shotriya has to be a Brahmanishta also !

"

 

I am in the interesting position of having to disagree with myself

here and agree with Dennis instead... Ideally a guru is a brahmanistha

and a shrotriya but not neccesarily, of course. A guru who is not a

brahmanistha but is a shrotriya is still someone one can learn a lot

from.

 

" And, when questions are asked for clarity, a jIvanmukta may be able

to give an answer directly. (I say 'may' because this depends upon

their skill as a teacher, which has nothing to do with their status as

enlightened.) "

 

I don't really know if this is true. It " seems " like some teachers who

are shrotriya-brahmanisthas can teach better than others (with the

same " credentials " ) but I don't think this really makes a significant

difference. Some teachers give a very text-book Vedantic answer with

no alterations at all, whilst others use a more modernized language. I

think that for someone who is more or less interested in understanding

Vedanta thoroughly (rather than for general advice) and is willing to

spend some time, the teacher's personal teaching skills makes no

difference at all. The learning curve might be a bit different but

thats just a minor matter of time.

 

It surprises me how unrelated people who are (presumably)

brahmanisthas, and who are shrotriyas give the same answer to the same

question even when the answer isn't at all obvious. When dealing with

the nature of the Self, the answers seem to basically be the same all

the time, even same kind of analogies usually.

 

When dealing with purifying the mind, spiritual path in general, etc.

... answers seem to vary much more.

 

" It follows from both of these that the 'final piece of knowledge'

could come just as well from one who is not enlightened as from one

who is. You may argue relative probabilities but I don't see how you

can argue the fact. "

 

Here is the other thing I find interesting. This is very anecdotal, so

I would be very happy to hear other people's opinion on this,

particularly if they disagree. It seems like people who do know the

scriptures well, but who (presumably again) not brahmanisthas do not

answer the questions in the same way.

 

I have an interesting example here. A common question (and one that I

have always struggled with and I still find a bit sketchy) is

something like: " We say that all objects are illuminated by awareness.

This seems to be true with respect to one set of objects (those

associated with one specific upadhi) but not with respect to other

upadhis. " (basically, it is very difficult to see how there are not

multiple awarenesses associated with multiple set of objects)

 

This is a pet-question of mine and I ask it whenever I can to a lot of

people. The answer given invariably by those who I think are

brahmanisthas (and are shrotriyas) is that the objects are non-

different from awareness or not independent of awareness. This is not

at all an obvious answer (many people in this list know a lot about

Vedanta, but is this the first answer that would come to mind?) I

think and since I have thought about it, it makes some sense to me,

but its very non-crisp. Interestingly, I have found this same argument

given by Kshemaraja in the Siva-Sutra-Vimarshini, despite his

tradition being quite different from Advaita Vedanta in many ways.

This seems to be complemented by the pot-space analogy or something

similar.

 

This makes me think that there is an internal logic here, which can

only be known if you know the Self and know the darshana. This

internal logic seems to connect our current perspective with the

paramarthika perspective. Only a Brahmanistha who is Shrotriya knows

all the pieces of this internal logic and can actually connect you to

the paramarthika perspective.

 

This is all extremely speculative of course. Please comment, it would

be very helpful for me.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

" We say that all objects are illuminated by awareness.

This seems to be true with respect to one set of objects (those

associated with one specific upadhi) but not with respect to other

upadhis. " (basically, it is very difficult to see how there are not

multiple awarenesses associated with multiple set of objects)

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question but: Awareness is awareness is

awareness. Isn't it the same awareness irrespective of the upadhi? If

it's a different awareness amoung them, then what is it that can say

what the difference is? That awareness that sees the difference is just

awareness. The awareness of the differences is just one awareness,

isn't it? If there are two awarenesses, one for one set of objects and

one for another set,then how do those awarenesses " communicate " in

order to say " Ah, this is one set, this is another? " To even say there

are two sets of upadhi...yuck, well I was going to go on with this but

that's enough words about it from me! Best wishes, steve.

[Guest guest]

Apologies members. Rishiji's whole message was

posted by me as a 'reply' in error.

Pranams, Durga

[Guest guest]

--- risrajlam <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

 

Rishiji - PraNAms

 

I will try to present my understanding; I urge you to

think about it before you accept or reject it. Either

way is fine with me, since it is only my understanding

based on the study of the scriptures.

 

First let me tell an incident that happened with

Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi. One gentleman came to ask

Bhagavan, sir, I have been asking this question to

many mahaatmaas and no one has given me a satisfying

answer. I came here to ask you since you are a

realized soul and with that introduction he was about

to ask a question. Bhagavan stopped him right there

even before he uttered a word, saying that sir, I am

sorry to disappoint you, I would not be able to answer

your question to your satisfaction. I urge you find

another sage who can satisfactorily answer your

question. Essentially Bhagavan realized that this

gentleman loves his question so much he is not going

to give up whatever may be the answer. Essentially he

is not going to listen to any answer and think about

it since he is not ready to give up his question.

 

> I have an interesting example here. A common

> question (and one that I

> have always struggled with and I still find a bit

> sketchy) is

> something like: " We say that all objects are

> illuminated by awareness.

> This seems to be true with respect to one set of

> objects (those

> associated with one specific upadhi) but not with

> respect to other

> upadhis. " (basically, it is very difficult to see

> how there are not

> multiple awarenesses associated with multiple set of

> objects).

 

First there cannot be many consciousness (es?)-

 

First from scriptural point - The first mahaavaakya

defines - Prajnaanam Brahman - consciousness is

Brahman - it does not say Brahman is consciousness -

By putting in a converse form, it becomes a necessary

and sufficient condition that wherever consciousness

is that is Brahman - that is called swaruupa lakshaNa-

like H2O is swaruupa lakshaNa of water. H2O is water

and water is H2O - it is necessary and sufficient

requirement for water. In the same way Brahman is

consciousness and consciousness is Brahman. If you say

you are a conscious entity - you are by definition

Brahman - which means you are infiniteness - There

cannot be any divisions in infinite - if they are it

cannot be infinite.

 

Scripture defines Brahman also by taTAsta lakshaNa

saying that Brahman is that from which the universe

arose, by which it is sustained and into which it goes

back. Like gold is that from which all the ornaments

(golden) arose, by which they are sustained and into

which they go back - that means Brahman is the

material cause for the universe, like gold is the

material cause for the ornaments. Just as one gold

appears as many ornaments, Brahman appears as the

varieties of objects - chara and achara - movable and

immovable.

 

Question that arise how can Brahman which is of the

nature of consciousness can give rise to materials or

objects which are jadam. The answer it cannot.

Consciousness remains as consciousness. But we see

the world which is inert - yes we see it - that does

not make it real. So what is real - that which

remains the same all the time is real? World is not

real because it is continuously changing and it is

there in the waking state but not in the dream and

deep sleep states. Since it not real but not unreal

either hence it is like the snake I see where there is

rope. Did snake come out of rope - But I see a snake

where the rope is due to inaccurate vision. Same way

I see the world where there is only Brahman- the

homogeneous, infinite consciousness or awareness. To

understand this only Upanishad provide us the analysis

of dream world where both movable and immovable are

projected by the waker's mind that went into sleep.

For a dreamer, many conscious entities in the dream

world are real and are separate from the unconscious

entities like hills and valleys etc. Only when I am

awakened to the higher state of consciousness both

conscious entities as well as unconscious entities

resolve back to my mind which is unconscious but

enlivened by me, the conscious entity. I can say,

under my power, my mind projects the world of

plurality in the dream. Krishna says under my

direction, the prakRiti projects the movable and

immovable. 'maayadhyaskhena prakRitiH suuyate sa

charaacharam'. A shrotriya should be able to answer

this question without a problem.

 

Now let us look at this problem logically too. There

are only two things in this universe- the subject and

the object. As for as I am concerned, other me, the

subject all are objects of my perception. That is way

I could dismiss everyone and everything when I go to

dream and deep sleep states.

I perceive the world through the senses. The senses

can only gather attributes of an object but not

substantive. The mind integrates all the sense input,

puts an image in the mind with all those attributes

that are gathered by the senses - the form, the color,

the hardness or softness, the taste, the smell, the

sound etc. The object is out there but the image is in

the mind as a thought and this image is compared with

those stored in the memory for recognition. When I

recognize, I declare yes that is a chair or this a cow

based on the matching of the image in the mind and

image stored in the memory. Some time the matching

may be fuzzy. Then I may say, this looks like a chair

but I do not what this is, etc. Hence chair out there

is reduced to thought in the mind and I know the chair

thought as the thought is in my awareness. Every

object is therefore reduced thoughts in my minds and

they are thoughts in my awareness. There is no chair

out there unless I have chair thought in my awareness.

In fact even 'out there' is also a concept space in

the mind. Perception of two sequential events

constitutes a time and perception of two simultaneous

events constitutes space. Both time and space are

folded when the mind is folded. Thus the whole world

is nothing but objects our there, which are nothing

but thoughts in the mind which are nothing but

thoughts in my awareness. My awareness is wrong use

of the term since I am the aware full or conscious

being. Any by definition stated above I am Brahman.

 

 

 

> This is a pet-question of mine and I ask it whenever

> I can to a lot of

> people.

 

>. Only a Brahmanistha who is

> Shrotriya knows

> all the pieces of this internal logic and can

> actually connect you to

> the paramarthika perspective.

 

Rishiji - I am sorry to disappoint you. No one, not

even BrahmanishhTa can connect you to the

paaramaarthika satyam. You are already that and you

do not need any connection nor can you be connected.

What you need to recognize your true identity, that

you are that Brahman, one without a second. There

cannot be anything other than Brahman, which is

infinite consciousness-existence. There is nothing to

connect and something to become - it is something to

recognize by dropping all wrong notions about

ourselves.

 

>

> This is all extremely speculative of course. Please

> comment, it would

> be very helpful for me.

 

Your existence and that you are conscious entity are

not speculative - they are facts. We feel that we are

existent as or conscious being as so and so with

qualifications. Anything that is qualified is an

object. Subject I can never be qualified - neither

Brahman - nirguNo, niraakaaro, nityosmi nirmalaH - I

am beyond any qualifications, without any form,

eternal being, one without a second, therefore

immaculately pure.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

>

> Regards,

>

> Rishi.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

>

> Here is the other thing I find interesting. This is very anecdotal, so

> I would be very happy to hear other people's opinion on this,

> particularly if they disagree. It seems like people who do know the

> scriptures well, but who (presumably again) not brahmanisthas do not

> answer the questions in the same way.

>

> I have an interesting example here. A common question (and one that I

> have always struggled with and I still find a bit sketchy) is

> something like: " We say that all objects are illuminated by awareness.

> This seems to be true with respect to one set of objects (those

> associated with one specific upadhi) but not with respect to other

> upadhis. " (basically, it is very difficult to see how there are not

> multiple awarenesses associated with multiple set of objects)

>

> This is a pet-question of mine and I ask it whenever I can to a lot of

> people. The answer given invariably by those who I think are

> brahmanisthas (and are shrotriyas) is that the objects are non-

> different from awareness or not independent of awareness. This is not

> at all an obvious answer (many people in this list know a lot about

> Vedanta, but is this the first answer that would come to mind?) I

> think and since I have thought about it, it makes some sense to me,

> but its very non-crisp.

>

> This makes me think that there is an internal logic here, which can

> only be known if you know the Self and know the darshana. This

> internal logic seems to connect our current perspective with the

> paramarthika perspective. Only a Brahmanistha who is Shrotriya knows

> all the pieces of this internal logic and can actually connect you to

> the paramarthika perspective.

>

> This is all extremely speculative of course. Please comment, it would

> be very helpful for me.

>

> Regards,

>

> Rishi.

>

 

Namaste Rishiji,

 

I find your question very intriguing, and indeed it is

one that I have been struggling with myself in a slightly

different form.

 

It seems obvious that 'my' awareness illumines everything

having to do with 'my' upadhi, but how is it that my 'awareness'

is the awareness which illumines the whole jagat and is the

exact same awareness of every other being?

 

I have asked my teacher about this, and have received

several replies, and I do think that you are correct.

I think it is a 'vision' thing, meaning if one has

the total vision that Vedanta has to give, one does

understand.

 

Some of the replies which my teacher have given me

that seem to make the most sense, are first of

all, if you can eliminate everything from that

awareness, which you had previously thought that

awareness to be one with, (i.e. the body/mind), then

what limits you? Nothing.

 

If nothing limits you, then what limits another?

Nothing. If my and another's awareness are not limited in

any way, by anything, then how can they be separate?

What would separate us? So that is one explanation

which makes total sense to me.

 

Another thing to consider is that we may have

a different concept of what the vision is,

than what the vision actually is. IOW, rather

than recognizing what our experience actually is,

we may be seeking something else which we have a concept

of, that seems to match up with what we interpret the

teachings to say, but perhaps it doesn't.

 

I was listening to a CD of Swami Dayananda's

the other day, and he said, " People say they don't

'feel' the oneness. " Then he said, " You don't

feel it, you know it. "

 

I do sympathize with your question, because it

is my question of the moment. I do not doubt

that there is only one Awareness which lights

up the whole creation, and that Awareness is

'my' Awareness, (and everyone else's as well).

 

I have no doubt or problem with that. But it

does not seem to be evident to me that all

of this so-called duality is actually my

being. And yet it does seem to becoming

clearer that this is true.

 

If we look at this whole jagat as the upadhi of

Ishwara, and then there is this little upadhi

which is 'mine' (which is just a tiny part

of the larger upadhi), then what makes my

awareness separate from Ishwara's awareness,

separate from the whole? If I can do away

with my upadhi as limiting my awareness, then

we can do away with the maya upadhi as limiting

Ishwara's awareness, and then there is only

one awareness which illumines everything.

 

Ishwara's self is called brahman, my self is

called atma. But we now know that self and

this self is the same self. There is

really can be no separation.

 

Then if all of this duality is Ishwara, (brahman and

the maya upadhi), and Ishwara and I have the exact same

self, and all of this duality arises from the self

of Ishwara, through the power of maya, then

all of it arises from me, and in fact is me, as

we have done away with the 'so-called' power of the

different upadhis to seemingly separate the self.

 

I don't know if I am being clear, but this is

one way that I am working with the question.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " adithya_comming "

<adithya_comming wrote:

>

> [...]

>

> >

> > Some of the replies which my teacher have given me

> > that seem to make the most sense, are first of

> > all, if you can eliminate everything from that

> > awareness, which you had previously thought that

> > awareness to be one with, (i.e. the body/mind), then

> > what limits you? Nothing.

>

 

How do you eliminate mind?

 

Who are you, if not mind?

 

Who is mind, if not you?

 

 

Namaste,

Arvind

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane

>

> I have an interesting example here. A common question (and one that

I

> have always struggled with and I still find a bit sketchy) is

> something like: " We say that all objects are illuminated by

awareness.

> This seems to be true with respect to one set of objects (those

> associated with one specific upadhi) but not with respect to other

> upadhis. " (basically, it is very difficult to see how there are not

> multiple awarenesses associated with multiple set of objects)

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Rishi.

>

 

Respected Rishi-ji,

Hari Om. Pranams.

 

Here is my reflection about your question. First, I take an example

to understand this properly.

 

Sun is shining bright in the sky illumining water in the pond. In the

water the shaky reflection of sun is dancing on the waves. The nearby

wall is lit by reflection of shiny waves.

 

1. Reflection of shiny waves that is illumining wall, does not

illumine all other things. It only illumines nearby wall. Similarly,

Feeling/Thinking/Perceiving of Objects by 'jivas' is not 'awareness'.

It is 'experiencing'. It is limited. We 'experience' because

of 'awareness'. When we are conscious of objects, there is a triad

of 'experiencer-experiencing-experienced'. In 'awareness' there is no

triad.

 

2. Sun illumines everything, the wall is seen because of sun, the

water in pond is seen because of sun, shiny sun in the pond is due to

Sun and the reflection of reflection on the wall is also due to Sun.

Similarly, everything is illumined by awareness.

 

This world is made up of 'Jada'(inert matter) and 'Chetan'(conscious

beings). We have to first put our understanding of 'Jada'

and 'Chetan' in perspective. Where does 'Jada'(inert) come

from? 'Jada' cannot come from 'Jada' because there is no knowledge

(sentiency) there to make anything, so 'Jada' must have come from

Consciousness only. But, if it has come from 'Consciousness'

then 'Jada' must be 'Consciousness' itself. However, it does not

appear 'conscious' so only thing we can conclude is -

'Jada' is 'Consciousness APPEARING as Jada'

On the same note, we can conclude that

'Conscious Beings' are 'Consciousness APPEARING as Jivas'

 

So, " ONE " consciousness appears as 'Inert matter' and 'Conscious

Beings'. There is no such thing as 'Consciousness in me'

and 'Consciousness in everybody'. Just ONE CONSCIOUSNESS. All the

rest just APPEARANCES. So we can say that 'All Objects = inert matter

+ Jivas' are illumined by Awareness(Consciousness)'.

 

How to be aware of Awareness, this I don't know. I can only think

this far. Since I am a beginner, there is lot to learn for me and I

am not exactly studious

 

Love and Respect

Padma

[Guest guest]

namaskarams

 

i ask myself also like you.smt.durgaji

 

a drop of water is water as the mighty ocean.

or a wave /surf is also water as the ocean

 

but a drop of water is as powerful as the ocean?

a wave forms and disintegrates but is that ocean?

 

intrinsicaly yes it ia all water.but a drop is a drop.

 

baskaran

 

Durga <durgaji108 wrote:

>

 

Namaste Rishiji,

 

I find your question very intriguing, and indeed it is

one that I have been struggling with myself in a slightly

different form.

 

It seems obvious that 'my' awareness illumines everything

having to do with 'my' upadhi, but how is it that my 'awareness'

is the awareness which illumines the whole jagat and is the

exact same awareness of every other being?

 

I have asked my teacher about this, and have received

several replies, and I do think that you are correct.

I think it is a 'vision' thing, meaning if one has

the total vision that Vedanta has to give, one does

understand.

 

Some of the replies which my teacher have given me

that seem to make the most sense, are first of

all, if you can eliminate everything from that

awareness, which you had previously thought that

awareness to be one with, (i.e. the body/mind), then

what limits you? Nothing.

 

If nothing limits you, then what limits another?

Nothing. If my and another's awareness are not limited in

any way, by anything, then how can they be separate?

What would separate us? So that is one explanation

which makes total sense to me.

 

Another thing to consider is that we may have

a different concept of what the vision is,

than what the vision actually is. IOW, rather

than recognizing what our experience actually is,

we may be seeking something else which we have a concept

of, that seems to match up with what we interpret the

teachings to say, but perhaps it doesn't.

 

I was listening to a CD of Swami Dayananda's

the other day, and he said, " People say they don't

'feel' the oneness. " Then he said, " You don't

feel it, you know it. "

 

I do sympathize with your question, because it

is my question of the moment. I do not doubt

that there is only one Awareness which lights

up the whole creation, and that Awareness is

'my' Awareness, (and everyone else's as well).

 

I have no doubt or problem with that. But it

does not seem to be evident to me that all

of this so-called duality is actually my

being. And yet it does seem to becoming

clearer that this is true.

 

If we look at this whole jagat as the upadhi of

Ishwara, and then there is this little upadhi

which is 'mine' (which is just a tiny part

of the larger upadhi), then what makes my

awareness separate from Ishwara's awareness,

separate from the whole? If I can do away

with my upadhi as limiting my awareness, then

we can do away with the maya upadhi as limiting

Ishwara's awareness, and then there is only

one awareness which illumines everything.

 

Ishwara's self is called brahman, my self is

called atma. But we now know that self and

this self is the same self. There is

really can be no separation.

 

Then if all of this duality is Ishwara, (brahman and

the maya upadhi), and Ishwara and I have the exact same

self, and all of this duality arises from the self

of Ishwara, through the power of maya, then

all of it arises from me, and in fact is me, as

we have done away with the 'so-called' power of the

different upadhis to seemingly separate the self.

 

I don't know if I am being clear, but this is

one way that I am working with the question.

 

Pranams,

Durga

 

 

 

 

 

 

BASKARAN.C.S

 

 

 

Did you know? You can CHAT without downloading messenger. Know how!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Dear Rishiji :

 

You state and rather convincingly :

 

( It " seems " like some teachers who are shrotriya-brahmanisthas can

teach better than others (with the same " credentials " ) but I don't

think this really makes a significant difference. Some teachers give

a very text-book Vedantic answer with no alterations at all, whilst

others use a more modernized language. )

 

You are right ! This is why i find sri Anandaji's posts very

intersting and enlightening . EEven when he posts those poems

explaining Upanishadic statements , they are aesthetically appealing

and not 'boring' and parrot like! But , of course , i am biased !

Smile :-)

 

Then our MOTHER OF all RISHIS says :

 

(This makes me think that there is an internal logic here, which can

only be known if you know the Self and know the darshana. This

internal logic seems to connect our current perspective with the

paramarthika perspective. *Only a Brahmanistha who is Shrotriya knows

all the pieces of this internal logic and can actually connect you to

the paramarthika perspective.*

 

so , rishiji why should i settle down for a Shitriya who can only

give vyahsrika perspective whebn i can get a paramarthika

perspective from A shrotiya-brahmanishta ? now , don't tell me yopu

are going to disagree with your own statement again ! i know , we

are all a bundle of contradictions , eh ? That happens as and when

we evolve in spiritual progreaa ...

 

love and love only