Locus of ignorance?

[Guest guest]

PraNams to all

 

Without going to discussions of who said what or from

what Upanishad, I present my understanding for

whatever it is worth.

 

There is nothing other than Brahman - by definition.

 

If one sees, assumes, deduces, infers, concludes,

contradicts, etc, that there is something other than

Brahman, then that must be mithyaa or unreal since

Brahman alone real and it is one without a second.

This includes even Vedas that meant to educate a

deluded. Hence Vedas themselves declare that they are

apara vidya.

 

Brahman cannot be locus of anything and at the same

time Brahman is the locus of everything. These two

are not contradictory statements written out of

confusion; but each statement is valid from its frame

of reference. If the reference from which the

statements are made is not clear, then there is a

scope for contradiction and confusion.

 

Ignorance is a fact, from the reference point of

jiiva, since it is obvious that he does not realize

that he is existent-conscious entity that is one

without a second therefore he is - sat-chit-ananda

swaruupam. When he realizes that he is Brahman, then

asking for the locus of ignorance is more than silly.

 

Since jiiva sees creation that is different from Him,

a creator is brought in as the cause for creation.

Since creator has to be sarvajna, all knowledge, he

cannot be ignorant and he cannot be different from

Brahman. Ignorance at the jiiva level is termed as

'maaya' at Iswara level and it becomes his power for

the creation of plurality. Now unqualifiedly (since

qualities can belong to only finites and not to

infinite) Brahman is getting qualified from jiiva's

perspective as Iswara as the creator with the power of

creation, maaya, we equate Iswara as all knowledge

Brahman, as the locus for maaya (we do not use the

term ignorance) since He (Iswara) is not engulfed by

maaya. Swetaaswatara mantra provides the basis for

this - maayantu prakRitim vidyaat maayinantu

maheswaram - Know that maaya is PrakRiti and the

wielder of maaya as his power is Iswara. Krishna says

'mayaa adhyaksheNa prakRitiH suuyate sa charaacharam'

- Under my presidentship, the prakRiti projects the

movables and immovable. Hence Krishna say - diivam

eshaa guNa mayi mama maayaa duratyaya - this maaya of

mine is of divine origin is very difficult to cross -

This is teaching to a jiiva, Arjuna.

 

Hence who is the locus of ignorance - the one who has

the ignorance is not Iswara or Brahman but jiiva who

does not know who he is. This is accepted also by

Bhagavaan Ramanuja that jiiva is ignorant of his true

nature. According to him, of course, is Jivaa has

ignorant about his true nature - the true nature being

he is eternally dependent on Iswara as part of His

Viraat Swaruupa. Liberation comes when he realizes his

true nature that he is an eternal servant of the Lord

and his relation to the Lord is like relation of any

organ to the body - called organic relationship.

 

Ramanuja, of course, criticizes the 'ignorance' as

presented in advaita doctrine. In his Shree Bhaashya,

he provides the seven untenable against advaitin

description of 'avidya'. There he questions that

Jiiva cannot be locus of ignorance, since he is the

product of ignorance nor Brahman can be the locus of

ignorance, since Brahman ceases to be Brahman.

Ramanuja's criticism and an advaitin's response to the

criticism - one can get from advaitin's archives, as

this was discussed extensively before.

 

What is the nature of avidya in advaita? - it is

sat-asat the same as maaya and hence anirvacaniiyam or

inexplicable. anirvachaniiyam aspect is also one of

the points of criticism of Ramanuja. Jiiva - is he

cause or product of ignorance - the question is like

is the seed the cause or an effect for a tree. Since

the creation is beginningless, the question is

anirvacaniiyam - like chicken-ego situation.

 

If one says - ignorance or avidya - then Jiiva is the

locus. If you use the term maaya - the creative

power, then Iswara is the locus. Brahman includes

jiiva, Iswara and Creation, maaya and anything else

you want to add since there cannot be anything other

than Brahman. As a working hypothesis, one can say -

Brahman in the form of Iswara is the locus of maaya

and Brahman in the form of jiiva is the locus for

avidya or ignorance.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

 

 

> " We agree that the Absolute is not the author of

> Ignorance and that it is

> not deluded by it either. Even so, there is nothing

> other than the Absolute

> which is the author of Ignorance, and no other

> conscious being apart from

> the Absolute that is deluded by it. " from

> bRRihadAraNyaka upaniShad bhAShya

> I.iv.10,

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadananda,

 

Mameste.

 

This was a great summary.

 

I imagine that my teacher might respond to the question,

 

" Jiiva - is he cause or product of ignorance - the question is like

is the seed the cause or an effect for a tree. "

 

by asking someting like, 'What is the cause of something that does

not exist?'

 

This makes the seeker look within for an answer. Trying to answer

with the mind, with the intellect, is not going to come to any

satisfactory conclusion. I do not think it is the indicated meaning

of the spiritual instruction.

 

Not two,

Richard

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> PraNams to all

>

> Without going to discussions of who said what or from

> what Upanishad, I present my understanding for

> whatever it is worth.

>

> There is nothing other than Brahman - by definition.

>

> If one sees, assumes, deduces, infers, concludes,

> contradicts, etc, that there is something other than

> Brahman, then that must be mithyaa or unreal since

> Brahman alone real and it is one without a second.

> This includes even Vedas that meant to educate a

> deluded. Hence Vedas themselves declare that they are

> apara vidya.

>

> Brahman cannot be locus of anything and at the same

> time Brahman is the locus of everything. These two

> are not contradictory statements written out of

> confusion; but each statement is valid from its frame

> of reference. If the reference from which the

> statements are made is not clear, then there is a

> scope for contradiction and confusion.

>

> Ignorance is a fact, from the reference point of

> jiiva, since it is obvious that he does not realize

> that he is existent-conscious entity that is one

> without a second therefore he is - sat-chit-ananda

> swaruupam. When he realizes that he is Brahman, then

> asking for the locus of ignorance is more than silly.

>

> Since jiiva sees creation that is different from Him,

> a creator is brought in as the cause for creation.

> Since creator has to be sarvajna, all knowledge, he

> cannot be ignorant and he cannot be different from

> Brahman. Ignorance at the jiiva level is termed as

> 'maaya' at Iswara level and it becomes his power for

> the creation of plurality. Now unqualifiedly (since

> qualities can belong to only finites and not to

> infinite) Brahman is getting qualified from jiiva's

> perspective as Iswara as the creator with the power of

> creation, maaya, we equate Iswara as all knowledge

> Brahman, as the locus for maaya (we do not use the

> term ignorance) since He (Iswara) is not engulfed by

> maaya. Swetaaswatara mantra provides the basis for

> this - maayantu prakRitim vidyaat maayinantu

> maheswaram - Know that maaya is PrakRiti and the

> wielder of maaya as his power is Iswara. Krishna says

> 'mayaa adhyaksheNa prakRitiH suuyate sa charaacharam'

> - Under my presidentship, the prakRiti projects the

> movables and immovable. Hence Krishna say - diivam

> eshaa guNa mayi mama maayaa duratyaya - this maaya of

> mine is of divine origin is very difficult to cross -

> This is teaching to a jiiva, Arjuna.

>

> Hence who is the locus of ignorance - the one who has

> the ignorance is not Iswara or Brahman but jiiva who

> does not know who he is. This is accepted also by

> Bhagavaan Ramanuja that jiiva is ignorant of his true

> nature. According to him, of course, is Jivaa has

> ignorant about his true nature - the true nature being

> he is eternally dependent on Iswara as part of His

> Viraat Swaruupa. Liberation comes when he realizes his

> true nature that he is an eternal servant of the Lord

> and his relation to the Lord is like relation of any

> organ to the body - called organic relationship.

>

> Ramanuja, of course, criticizes the 'ignorance' as

> presented in advaita doctrine. In his Shree Bhaashya,

> he provides the seven untenable against advaitin

> description of 'avidya'. There he questions that

> Jiiva cannot be locus of ignorance, since he is the

> product of ignorance nor Brahman can be the locus of

> ignorance, since Brahman ceases to be Brahman.

> Ramanuja's criticism and an advaitin's response to the

> criticism - one can get from advaitin's archives, as

> this was discussed extensively before.

>

> What is the nature of avidya in advaita? - it is

> sat-asat the same as maaya and hence anirvacaniiyam or

> inexplicable. anirvachaniiyam aspect is also one of

> the points of criticism of Ramanuja. Jiiva - is he

> cause or product of ignorance - the question is like

> is the seed the cause or an effect for a tree. Since

> the creation is beginningless, the question is

> anirvacaniiyam - like chicken-ego situation.

>

> If one says - ignorance or avidya - then Jiiva is the

> locus. If you use the term maaya - the creative

> power, then Iswara is the locus. Brahman includes

> jiiva, Iswara and Creation, maaya and anything else

> you want to add since there cannot be anything other

> than Brahman. As a working hypothesis, one can say -

> Brahman in the form of Iswara is the locus of maaya

> and Brahman in the form of jiiva is the locus for

> avidya or ignorance.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

[Guest guest]

QUOTE from Sadaji's post:

 

Since jiiva sees creation that is different from Him,

a creator is brought in as the cause for creation.

Since creator has to be sarvajna, all knowledge, he

cannot be ignorant and he cannot be different from

Brahman.

 

UNQUOTE

 

Sri Sadaji,

 

This above point you also mentioned in your explanation in May. It is quite

rational. I take it as identifying Ishvara as the Supreme Being that

appears/manifests as this universe of jiva and jagat. It is the

unifying-recognition (made by jiva) of the substratum of Consciousness (Brahman)

that appears as jiva-jagat to the jiva.

 

However, I do not understand why Ishvara is not darshana, and is rather a

logical postulate. Is this stated anywhere in the scripture or Bhashya? Your

statement is that it is we who bring in Ishvara as Creator and then superimpose

on our postulation of Creator all the notions of supremacy. Once we make the

assumption, we start treating Ishvara as a separate Reality; however the first

place of " bringing in " Ishvara seems dubious.

 

On the other hand, if one accepts the BG, then Sri Krishna's words almost

represent the assertion of Ishvara in his incarnation about His Reality. Also

sages have experienced (or so they say) the Personality of Ishvara to whatever

degree it has been revealed.

 

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

 

Sick sense of humor? Visit TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on,

when.

 

 

[Guest guest]

namaste Sadanandaji

 

you said

 

" Brahman includes jiiva, Iswara and Creation, maaya and anything else you

want to add since there cannot be anything other than Brahman. As a working

hypothesis, one can say -

Brahman in the form of Iswara is the locus of maaya and Brahman in the form

of jiiva is the locus for avidya or ignorance. "

 

I agree with this, why cant we say maya as some thing which is true and

untrue both at the same time, just like being attacked by a lion in the

dream, which is true during dream and untrue during wakeup.....same as this

avidya

 

bangle,necklace, ring etc looks different but basically made from gold (for

explanation purpose taken as gold, can say iron,silver, copper, etc...but

these differ only in their atomic combination, but lies in the category of

having same protons, electrons, neutrons but in different combinations,

basically cant take it as charges which is nothing other than

Brahman)...same as is the case, Maya , avidya, are said in point of

reference for explanation purpose, in true nature there is only brahman as

the root for every thing, so point of reference is the key,

correct me if i am wrong

thanks

Narendra

 

 

 

On 8/15/07, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Is it Focus of Ignorance?

 

Virendra

 

narendra sastry <narendra.sastry wrote:

namaste Sadanandaji

 

you said

 

" Brahman includes jiiva, Iswara and Creation, maaya and anything else you

want to add since there cannot be anything other than Brahman. As a working

hypothesis, one can say -

Brahman in the form of Iswara is the locus of maaya and Brahman in the form

of jiiva is the locus for avidya or ignorance. "

 

I agree with this, why cant we say maya as some thing which is true and

untrue both at the same time, just like being attacked by a lion in the

dream, which is true during dream and untrue during wakeup.....same as this

avidya

 

bangle,necklace, ring etc looks different but basically made from gold (for

explanation purpose taken as gold, can say iron,silver, copper, etc...but

these differ only in their atomic combination, but lies in the category of

having same protons, electrons, neutrons but in different combinations,

basically cant take it as charges which is nothing other than

Brahman)...same as is the case, Maya , avidya, are said in point of

reference for explanation purpose, in true nature there is only brahman as

the root for every thing, so point of reference is the key,

correct me if i am wrong

thanks

Narendra

 

On 8/15/07, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Putran Maheshwar <putranm wrote:

 

 

> However, I do not understand why Ishvara is not

> darshana, and is rather a logical postulate. Is this

> stated anywhere in the scripture or Bhashya? Your

> statement is that it is we who bring in Ishvara as

> Creator and then superimpose on our postulation of

> Creator all the notions of supremacy. Once we make

> the assumption, we start treating Ishvara as a

> separate Reality; however the first place of

> " bringing in " Ishvara seems dubious.

>

Shree Putran Maheshwar -PraNAms

 

It looks like I am consistent in my explanation, if I

have given the same explanation before!

 

Here is my understanding:

 

Mandukya Upanishad discusses the waking, dream and

deep sleep states - 'I am' from jiiva point and 'I am'

from Iswara point - sloka 5 and 6 talks about laya and

pralaya's perspectives and sloka 7 talks about the

turiiyam - and prapanchopasaman - all the worlds are

folded into 'I am'. I am jiiva from the point of

individual and I am Iswara from the point of totality.

From absolute point - I am pure

existence-consciousness. Goudapaada emphasizes this

aspect in proposing 'ajaata vaada' - where there is no

creation but appears to be one; and ignorant one takes

it as real and therefore jiiva jagat and Iswara

notions arise. But from the reality point, there is no

real creation and all are from one, the

sat-chit-ananda that I am.

 

If I consider myself with the body-mind and intellect,

then world is real and the Iswara is also real with

his own body-mind-and intellect. Only when I

understand who I am, that 'I am' is the one that

pervades everything. Krishna also says the same thing

– sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutaanicha

aatmani – the one who sees himself in all and all in

himself – he alone sees. Also says – ‘brahma vid

brahmaNi sthitaH’- the knower of Brahman gets

established in Brahman – echoing the Vedic statement

‘brahma vid brahmaiva bhavati’ – knower of brahman

becomes brahman. That jiiva-jagat-Iswara all merge

into one that I am. Plurality is only perceived but

perceived plurality is taken as reality by jiiva while

the scripture emphasizes that it is only apparent and

not real as creation as in ‘vaachaarambhanam vikaaro

naama dheyam’ thus creation is only projection of the

total mind just as the dream world is the projection

of the individual mind. Scriptures emphasizes the

creation and creator but this is negated as one

inquires further – This is what advaita calls as

adhyaaropa apavaada. In Kena – it emphasizes the

nature of Brahman taking the student from external to

internal – tadeva brahma tvam viddhi nedam yad idam

upaasate – that alone is brahman not this that you

worship here – and repeats this five times to

emphasize the point – that which mind cannot conceive

but because of which the mind has the capacity to

conceive, that which eyes cannot see but because of

which the eyes have the capacity to see – etc.

 

> On the other hand, if one accepts the BG, then Sri

> Krishna's words almost represent the assertion of

> Ishvara in his incarnation about His Reality. Also

> sages have experienced (or so they say) the

> Personality of Ishvara to whatever degree it has

> been revealed.

 

Yes from the yoga shaastra point - this is negated

when one comes to kshetra and kshetrajna - 13th Ch.- I

am the knower in all fields - kshetrajnam chaapimaam

viddhi sarva kshetreshhu bhaarata.

 

Hari Om

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

--- narendra sastry <narendra.sastry

wrote:

 

 

> I agree with this, why cant we say maya as some

> thing which is true and

> untrue both at the same time, just like being

> attacked by a lion in the

> dream, which is true during dream and untrue during

> wakeup.....same as this

> avidya

>> Narendra

 

 

Shree Narendra - PraNAms

 

Yes you are right - that is precisely how maaya is

defined - yaa maa saa maaya - that which appears to be

there but not really there.

In VivekachuuDaamani -Shankara defines in the terms of

what you have stated

 

Sannapyasanna ubhaayaatmikaano

bhinaapyabhinnaa ubhayhaatmikaano

saangaapyasangaa ubhayaatmikaano

mahad bhuuta anirvacaniiya ruupa||

 

You can not say it exists, you cannot say it does not

exists, you cannot say it exist-not exists;

you cannot say it is different from Brahman nor you

can say it is same as brahman; nor both;

you cannot say it has parts, nor you can say it does

not have, nor both

it is wonder indeed and it is of the nature of

'inexplicable'.

 

In the next sloka it says clearly it is of the nature

of unmanifested and is the power of the Lord and of

the nature of the beginning less 'ignorance' - the

very cause for the creation - 'avyakta naamnii

paramesha shaktii ....'etc.

 

Hari Om!

sadananda

..

[Guest guest]

--- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

> Mandukya Upanishad discusses the waking, dream and

> deep sleep states - 'I am' from jiiva point and 'I

> am'

> from Iswara point - sloka 5 and 6 talks about laya

> and

> pralaya's perspectives and sloka 7 talks about the

> turiiyam - and prapanchopasaman - all the worlds are

> folded into 'I am'. I am jiiva from the point of

> individual and I am Iswara from the point of

> totality.

> From absolute point - I am pure

> existence-consciousness. Goudapaada emphasizes this

> aspect in proposing 'ajaata vaada' - where there is

> no

> creation but appears to be one; and ignorant one

> takes

> it as real and therefore jiiva jagat and Iswara

> notions arise. But from the reality point, there is

> no

> real creation and all are from one, the

> sat-chit-ananda that I am.

 

Sri Sadaji, this is beautiful; I have to beat my head

a bit and assimilate what this I really IS. I make

some further comments below: please note a certain

dichotomy that I observe later on.

 

>

> If I consider myself with the body-mind and

> intellect,

> then world is real and the Iswara is also real with

> his own body-mind-and intellect.

 

This is a stunning statement, since I would not have

expected it. If this is taken literally, then Ishvara

is as Individual as i am individual, a direct

correspondence. However I will make (below) an

alternate observation that your comment below

suggests.

 

 

Only when I

> understand who I am, that 'I am' is the one that

> pervades everything. Krishna also says the same

> thing

> – sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutaanicha

> aatmani – the one who sees himself in all and all in

> himself – he alone sees. Also says – ‘brahma vid

> brahmaNi sthitaH’- the knower of Brahman gets

> established in Brahman – echoing the Vedic statement

> ‘brahma vid brahmaiva bhavati’ – knower of brahman

> becomes brahman. That jiiva-jagat-Iswara all merge

> into one that I am.

 

This is also very illuminating: it says don't get lost

with the calculations here; the real Truth is not this

duality, no matter how it seems to add.

 

 

Plurality is only perceived but

> perceived plurality is taken as reality by jiiva

> while

> the scripture emphasizes that it is only apparent

> and

> not real as creation as in ‘vaachaarambhanam vikaaro

> naama dheyam’ thus creation is only projection of

> the

> total mind just as the dream world is the projection

> of the individual mind.

 

Here is my comment: earlier it is stated that Ishvara

has his own mind, body, intellect. But here we have to

re-evaluate that his own mind is really the total mind

and hence his body must also be (or include) the total

universe. We have to abandon the Individual

perspective of Ishvara and replace with a

superimposition of Individuality to the Totality. Or

the Totality is recognized as (or realized as) the

supreme Being that manifests/creates the jiva-jagat

and in Whom we exist, etc. etc. This is reasonable as

well since the manifest Creation/Order admits to some

inherent Power/Being and that we call Ishvara, and His

Self-operation and Control we identify with the total

Mind.

 

And to individual mind, the total Mind might

correspond as Individual if sought as such.

 

(It seems the two ways of looking at Ishvara: as

corresponding to his own mind and to the total mind,

are often difficult to separate, especially in

Advaita, where the question is ultimately considered

like a ponderance on dream-realities.)

 

 

> Scriptures emphasizes the

> creation and creator but this is negated as one

> inquires further – This is what advaita calls as

> adhyaaropa apavaada.

 

For the Truth to realize is Brahman, and not the

apparent dualities corresponding to our presumed

individualities.

 

 

– that which mind cannot

> conceive

> but because of which the mind has the capacity to

> conceive, that which eyes cannot see but because of

> which the eyes have the capacity to see – etc.

 

And that is Brahman, the pure Consciousness that I am

(?), and that I relate to as Atman in the individual

context and as Ishvara in the total context. (as per

your first paragraph).

 

 

>

> > On the other hand, if one accepts the BG, then

> Sri

> > Krishna's words almost represent the assertion of

> > Ishvara in his incarnation about His Reality. Also

> > sages have experienced (or so they say) the

> > Personality of Ishvara to whatever degree it has

> > been revealed.

>

 

Actually here I may have emphasized wrongly. Sages

speak from various standpoints according to the bhava

they take and according to the suitability of the

seekers. Krishna who is Jnana-incarnate has no doubt

with regard to what I IS.

 

Sri Sadaji, Thank you for the clarifications.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Luggage? GPS? Comic books?

Check out fitting gifts for grads at Search

http://search./search?fr=oni_on_mail & p=graduation+gifts & cs=bz

[Guest guest]

Ignorance is a fact, from the reference point of jiiva, since it is obvious

that he does not realize that he is existent-conscious entity that is one

without a second therefore he is - sat-chit-ananda swaruupam. When he

realizes that he is Brahman, then asking for the locus of ignorance is more

than silly.

 

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

You are absolutely right prabhuji..Shankara himself insisted that when jIva

realized he is secondless brahman, there is no avidyA & question on locus

of ignorance ( avidyA) does not arise...In sUtra AtmEti tUpa gacchaNti

grAhayanticha, in his commentary, shankara, puts the following dialogue

between pUrvapaxi & vEdAntin :

 

Opponent : To whom this avidyA pertain ?

 

vEdAnti : to you who are asking this question..

 

Opponent : Is it not mentioned in the shruti-s that I am Ishwara i.e.

absolute non-dual brahman??

 

vEdAnti : if you have realized this truth, then you are already a realized

one and there is no avidyA to anybody.

 

Opponent : But if advaitins accept the avidyA as a second entity besides

Atman, there there will be no advaita (because this gives room to duality

since avidyA exists with Atman as a separate entity & causes thread to

nirvikAri, nirguNa parabrahman)

 

vEdAnti : this objection which is raised by you on advaita philosophy is

also refuted by this answer (i.e. shankara hints here superimpositiion

(adhyArOpa) & rescission (apavAda) of the dealing of vidyA & avidyA )

 

The commentary on this sUtra by shankara bhagavadpAda is really very

interesting one with regard to concept of Ishwara also. Shankara, clearly

says here jIva should think himself as Ishwara by negating his notional

saMsAritva.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Here is my comment: earlier it is stated that Ishvara has his own mind,

body, intellect. But here we have to

re-evaluate that his own mind is really the total mind and hence his body

must also be (or include) the total

universe. We have to abandon the Individual perspective of Ishvara and

replace with a superimposition of Individuality to the Totality. Or the

Totality is recognized as (or realized as) the supreme Being that

manifests/creates the jiva-jagat and in Whom we exist, etc. etc. This is

reasonable as well since the manifest Creation/Order admits to some

inherent Power/Being and that we call Ishvara, and His Self-operation and

Control we identify with the total Mind.

 

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I think we can accommodate both view points (i.e. Ishwara is an individual

entity & Ishwara is collective mind) from different standpoints. See, if

we hold the samashti or collective antaHkaraNa (mind) as the upAdhi for

Atman, then it is what you are presenting above i.e. Ishwara is the

*totality* of minds. Whereas, if we hold the individual antaHkaraNa-s as

they are many, then there is an Individual powerful (sarvajnA,

sarvashakta) entity which bestows the karmaphala to these individuals

(karmAdhyAksha, karmaphaladAta). In this case, it is logical to think

Ishwara is a separate entity who is controlling & monitoring the

individuals' fate...IshwaraH sarvabhUtAnAm hruddEshe arjuna

tishTati...bhrAmayan sarva bhUtAni yaNtrArUdhAni mAyaya...etc. etc.

supports this view point. Shankara talks about this Ishwara, hiraNyagarbha

or prathamaja etc. taking samshti antaHkaraNa into consideration.

 

As sri Sadananda prabhuji clarified, the statement " various types of

jIva-s exist in this world " is made from the empirical or the waking point

of view alone. But when the same scenario observed from the comprehensive

view point of all the three states i.e. jAgrat (waking), svapna (dream) &

sushupti (deep sleep), ONE & ONLY Atman exists. Nothing whatsoever exists

second to or apart from him like multiple jIva-s & their controller in the

form of individual superman Ishwara:-)). From this view point, Atman or the

self is the only reality and it has no gradations, yAkaM cha punaH satvaM

says shankara in sUtra bhAshya.

 

I think Sri Sadaji further clarified this with dream analogy. The dream

state occurs or takes place in one's own being which is the substratum of

the whole multifarious nature of dream state. During the dream time,

naturally, the dreamer, feels that I am an individual jIva, residing in

this world and there are so many other jIva-s and creatures like me in this

world etc..From the standpoint of this notion, during the dreaming, it is

acceptable that there are multiple jIva-s with individual capabilities,

taste & tendencies. But when we observe the same experience with the stand

point of the substratum (adhishTAna)/real nature of the self, as there is

no other source for the dream state apart from this self. So, only this

non-dual self appeared as if it has taken the form of many jIva-s!! And

the same Self has appeared in the form of samashti antaHkaraNa (collective

mind) and from that standpoint the same self has been called hiraNyagarbha

through this collective upAdhi (limited adjunct).

 

The same methodology can be applied to waking state also & shankara talks

about it while commenting on the vaishwAnara concept of Atman in mAndUkya

upanishad.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

--- bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

> The same methodology can be applied to waking state

> also & shankara talks

> about it while commenting on the vaishwAnara concept

> of Atman in mAndUkya

> upanishad.

 

Bhaskar - PraNAms

 

You have presented the truth beautifully. Thanks.

 

Yes, the Lord has provided a beautiful analogy of

dream as well as deep sleep state to understand the

waking state too.

 

We are looking for Iswara, the creator, in some form

high up in the skies - some look for without forms,

and some with forms. Any form limits Iswara - hence

it is only aalambanam or means for the mind to

contemplate as the mind can only contemplate on a form

or can only conceptualize; but the truth is that which

is the very basis that supports the form - ya yedam

dhyaarate jagat - 'mayaa tatam idam sarvam jagat

ayvakta muurthinaa' - I pervade this entire universe

in a unmanifested form - a formless form - says

Krishna. avataaram is what comes down, taking the form

suitable to solve a given situation, with all the

tools that are needed to solve.

 

Hence Kena Up. takes the saadhak beyond the forms or

concepts to indicate that which is beyond the names

and forms - it is the eye of the eye, ear of the ear,

mind of the mind and life of the life, etc. The

slokaas that I have quoted last time are most

beautiful that takes the mind beyond the mind like

pole vault - use the pole to go beyond the pole,

leaving the pole behind.

 

As I mentioned before, in my practice I use these

slokaas for my meditation. Just as in the dream,

there is a total mind (waking mind supported by

consciousness 'I am " )that pervades all the dream

subjects, who seems to have their own

body-mind-intellect complexes, which is both material

cause as well as the intelligent cause for the dream

world creation, the waking world is also projected by

the total mind supported by the 'I am' - the

existence-consciousness which is the same as the

Iswara. The total mind is nothing but prakRiti which

is the same as maayaa. It is the mind with some total

of all vaasanaas of all jiivas put together - that is

the mind that goes to sleep in the pralaya. When the

creation starts, 'I am' uses the impression of the

mind that was there before as the basis for next

creation. Hence 'sa kaamayata' - he desired - the

desire to create comes from the pressure of total

vaasanaas stored in the total mind that went to sleep

during pralaya. 'bahu syaam, prajaayeyeti' - let me

become many - 'I am' cannot become many since 'I am'

is existence consciousness, like space cannot become

many. What becomes many is the subtler impressions

that were there before total went to sleep are now

sprouting forth as many - just like how the many is

projected by the waking mind, by the support of Iswara

that I am.

 

Seeing that which pervades this waking world, with all

names and forms, that which has no form of its own,

but because of that all forms are so dynamic and

vibrant - is the essence of meditation - it is not

just 'who am I' enquiry alone. It is the recognition

that I am this total world too that I am is that which

provides the substantive to the whole world too.

Hence adivata involves three things, as I mentioned

before.

1. brahma satyam - Brahman alone is real.

2. jagat mithyaa - the world is just projection of the

total mind and hence is only apparently real.

3. jiivo brahaiva naaparaH , jiiva is none other than

brahman, in essence.

 

My humble praNAms to all those great scientific minds

(great sears, the Rishiis of the yore) for able to

present so beautifully the cause-effect relationships

and show that which is beyond the cause-effect

relationships.

 

Our Rishi RiNa or aachaarya RiNa is at least to

inherit the treasures left behind by these great sears

of the yore and pass it on to the next generation,

without destroying them. This advaitin list is formed

only to help in accomplishing that.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Pranams Sadananda-ji and Bhaskar-ji

I enjoyed both your messages. Thank you Sadananda-ji for a wonderful

series of explanations on this subbject; and thanks to Putran-ji for

some insightful questions.

 

One small point I would like to make, and this is not in response to

something specific in your posts but just a general point where there

may be scope for possible misunderstanding on the part of the casual

reader -

 

When we say that the Cosmic mind is the some total of all the minds, I

think we should add " ...and then some " ....and that " some " of course is

infinity.

In the words of the Purushasuktam - " atyatishTad daSAngulam " - beyond

ten fingers - meaning beyond count i.e.infinity(what a wonderful

perfect manner of indicating infinity!!)

Also, " utAmRtatvasyeshAnaH " not only is he the past,present,and

future, he is beyond time as well - i.e.immortal

And most importantly - pAdo 'sya vishvA bhUtAni | tripAdasyAmRtam divi

All that was created in this world is but one quarter of Him.

In fact Bhagawan Shankara makes reference to this precise shloka in

his commentary to the BG where in the same context, Bhagawan Krishna

declares

" vistabhyaham idam krtsnam ekamsena sthito jagat "

With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire

universe.

 

So when we say that jiva is vyashti and Ishwara is samashti, given our

limited way of conceptualizing it may appear akin to multiple

individual potentials and One Grand Summation potential - in which

case Ishwara's mind will be a sum total of all the deluded minds -

(which is fortunately not the case!)

 

So in answer to Putran-ji's original poser, purely from the standpoint

of the jiva, an individuality has to be ascribed/assigned to Ishwara

in our understanding, where if i, the jiva, has a limited icchashakti,

His is the Divine Will or Dharma, and if i, the jiva, have limited

knowledge, He is All-knowing, and if i, the jiva, has limited

kriyashakti, he is the bestower of the fruits of my karma as the

karmaphaladaata, and so on.

 

But once again this is purely from a standpoint of the mithya jiva.

What is indeed " beyond the ten fingers " is verily the Sat that in

reality is the jiva's real nature, and this after all is the reality

of Ishwara as well - at that point the beginning-less notional

separation ends - and what remains is Being Alone, Ekameva, One,

Adviteeyam, without a second.

 

My humble pranams to you Sadananda-ji for tirelessly spreading the

message of Vedanta.

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

>

> --- bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> > The same methodology can be applied to waking state

> > also & shankara talks

> > about it while commenting on the vaishwAnara concept

> > of Atman in mAndUkya

> > upanishad.

>

> The total mind is nothing but prakRiti which

> is the same as maayaa. It is the mind with some total

> of all vaasanaas of all jiivas put together - that is

> the mind that goes to sleep in the pralaya. When the

> creation starts, 'I am' uses the impression of the

> mind that was there before as the basis for next

> creation. Hence 'sa kaamayata' - he desired - the

> desire to create comes from the pressure of total

> vaasanaas stored in the total mind that went to sleep

> during pralaya. 'bahu syaam, prajaayeyeti' - let me

> become many - 'I am' cannot become many since 'I am'

> is existence consciousness, like space cannot become

> many. What becomes many is the subtler impressions

> that were there before total went to sleep are now

> sprouting forth as many - just like how the many is

> projected by the waking mind, by the support of Iswara

> that I am.

>

[Guest guest]

--- bhaskar.yr wrote:

Hare Krishna

>

> I think we can accommodate both view points (i.e.

> Ishwara is an individual

> entity & Ishwara is collective mind) from different

> standpoints. See, if

> we hold the samashti or collective antaHkaraNa

> (mind) as the upAdhi for

> Atman, then it is what you are presenting above

i.e.

> Ishwara is the

> *totality* of minds. Whereas, if we hold the

> individual antaHkaraNa-s as

> they are many, then there is an Individual

powerful

> (sarvajnA,

> sarvashakta) entity which bestows the karmaphala to

> these individuals

> (karmAdhyAksha, karmaphaladAta). In this case, it

> is logical to think

> Ishwara is a separate entity who is controlling &

> monitoring the

> individuals' fate...IshwaraH sarvabhUtAnAm

hruddEshe

> arjuna

> tishTati...bhrAmayan sarva bhUtAni yaNtrArUdhAni

> mAyaya...etc. etc.

> supports this view point. Shankara talks about

this

> Ishwara, hiraNyagarbha

> or prathamaja etc. taking samshti antaHkaraNa into

> consideration.

 

 

Sri Bhaskarji, Thanks for this explanation. I will

contemplate more on how you and Sri Sadaji are

reconciling the two positions on Ishvara. If it is not

really confusion to others, that itself is a relief;

then I should be able to get it straightened out. If

it doesn't make sense still, then I may once again get

back to the (same old) question-mode and start

troubling the forum :-) But for now, will leave for

later.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Luggage? GPS? Comic books?

Check out fitting gifts for grads at Search

http://search./search?fr=oni_on_mail & p=graduation+gifts & cs=bz

[Guest guest]

--- shyam_md <shyam_md wrote:

 

Shyamji - PraNAms. Thanks for your kind comments.

Here is my understanding.

 

> When we say that the Cosmic mind is the some total

> of all the minds, I

> think we should add " ...and then some " ....and that

> " some " of course is

> infinity.

> In the words of the Purushasuktam - " atyatishTad

> daSAngulam " - beyond

> ten fingers - meaning beyond count i.e.infinity(what

> a wonderful

> perfect manner of indicating infinity!!)

> Also, " utAmRtatvasyeshAnaH " not only is he the

> past,present,and

> future, he is beyond time as well - i.e.immortal

> And most importantly - pAdo 'sya vishvA bhUtAni |

> tripAdasyAmRtam divi

> All that was created in this world is but one

> quarter of Him.

> In fact Bhagawan Shankara makes reference to this

> precise shloka in

> his commentary to the BG where in the same context,

> Bhagawan Krishna

> declares

> " vistabhyaham idam krtsnam ekamsena sthito jagat "

> With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and

> support this entire

> universe.

>

> So when we say that jiva is vyashti and Ishwara is

> samashti, given our

> limited way of conceptualizing it may appear akin to

> multiple

> individual potentials and One Grand Summation

> potential - in which

> case Ishwara's mind will be a sum total of all the

> deluded minds -

> (which is fortunately not the case!)

 

If one considers the divya vubhuuti as part of

creation by Iswara - then that constitutes that which

is beyond the dashaangulam that is being referred to -

That is being referred to in a way as part of

saptaangaH - the seven limbs that MaanDukya refers

using Chan. Up. as the basis. The head constitutes the

upper lokas - including Brahma loka. The purusha is

the indweller of that virat who is beyond the

body/mind/intellect concept but that which is sat

-chit-ananda swaruupa where there are no angaas as it

has no sajaati, vijaati and most importantly swagata

bhedaas, where internal differences of any kind

disappears. Just as waker's mind is folded into

subtler form into the deep sleep state and is

projected again in waking similarly the universe of

all forms including the minds of all are folded into

His mind- When we say total vaasanaas or samashhTi

vaasanaas constitutes the guiding cause for projecting

the waking world, it is the only in that sense like 'I

am' using the individual vaasanaas as the basis for

projecting in the mind or by the mind the world of

plurality in the dream.

 

If Iswara has mind of His/Her own - then what

constitutes that His/Her mind - here we are not

referring to the samashTi vaasanaas of all jiivas

-That is pure mind unadulterated by any of the

individual minds or their vaasanaas. Swami

Chinmayananda answered this beautifully. When I and

my wife join as one - it is not the differences that

make us join - but love that unites us into one. Hence

the differences and distinguishing aspects or

tendencies have to be filtered out and only those that

uniting aspects combine to become one -It is the love

that brings people togther. Hence pure love only

solidifies as His total mind. Similarly all noble

tendencies join while dissipating tendencies drop out.

Hence He/She is all love, all compassion, all glory,

all beauty - Hence Bhagavaan Ramanuja says - He is

with infinite auspicious qualities - ananta kalyaana

guNa aashraya. Each quality is infinite - and all

auspicious qualities rest with Him.

 

Hence even though the minds all put together

constitutes the cause for the creation, they are only

one aspect - and they do not affect Him - hence

Krishna also as follow up the sloka - mayaa tatam idam

sarvam ... 'mastaani sarva bhuutani na caaham teshu

avasthitaH' na cha mastaani bhuutaani pasyam me yogam

aiswaram' - all being are in me, but I am not in them

(I am not responsible for their avasthaas or states of

experiences - good or bad). In fact, they are not in

me (I being pure consciousness/existence) - look at my

glory Arjuna!

It is one of those -one becoming many - yet one does

not become many - gold becoming many ornaments yet

gold does not become any ornaments - gold remains as

gold - look at the glory of gold! Creation is nothing

but 'vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam' it is only

apparent transformation of one appearing as many - the

problems of the appearances do not belong to the one.

Like actor taking many roles - roles will have

problems but problems of the roles do not belong to

the actor- look at the glory of the actor who can play

beautifully in all scenes but unaffected by the roles

or by the problems of the roles he plays.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda