Some Thoughts In the Context Of Recent Debates

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

Srinivas Kotekalji's questions addressed to Sadaji made me pen the

following outline on vedanta. I personally feel that unnecessary

debates on the locus of avidya, nature of Ishwara etc. can be

avoided, if we can deliberately fall back on this outline whenever an

urge for debate arises:

_____________

 

I know I exist. That I exist is a self-evident.

I know the world. The world and all that it encompasses and connotes

are objects of my perception.

I know I have BMI (Body-Mind-Intellect).

I know that the others with whom I associate have B. I infer that

they do have M and I like me. But, what is going on in or happening

about their BMI is privy to them only. I have only their words to

go by in that respect.

There is no way I can grant others a status equal to mine because I

am unique and different from them in the sense that I am the subject

and the rest are all objects.

The realm of my knowledge therefore has two sides, I (the subject)

and the rest of the world (objects).

When I get down to analyzing `I', the subject, I don't reach

anywhere. I only know that I exist as something to which the rest

including my BMI are objects.

`I' am therefore just Awareness. An `I know'.

The world of objects including my BMI is lighted up by this Awareness

that `I' am. Sans the Awareness that `I' am, they have no validity or

claim to `existence'.

In other words, each object of my knowledge is Awareness condensed in

the phenomenal. Divested of nAma-rUpa, they are Awareness alone.

nAma-rUpa are also Awareness! There is nothing other than Awareness.

I see the world (both external and internal worlds) changing every

micro-second.

As ego, which I can objectify and, therefore, which I am not, but

which cannot be without Awareness, I often entertain a half-baked

conviction that I have certain control over the changing world.

However, right analysis tells me that my assumption is utterly

fallacious.

The world manifesting every moment in front of my physical and mental

eyes is pure Grace.

It is the Grace of Awareness. It can switch on and off on its own.

When, as the analyzing entity (Even the power of analysis is a boon

granted to me!), I prostrate before the might, grandeur and

splendour (vibhUti) of Awareness, I am a bhakta. Awareness then

becomes Ishwara and His vibhUti mAyA. Shiva-Shakti compendium where

the two compendium 'parts' are just One.

In ultimate analysis, `I' – Awareness - is Ishwara, i.e. as pure

Awareness, `I' am Ishwara. `I' am the miracle-maker.

The world that manifests for my external and internal vision can be

figuratively called the vritti of Ishwara from the phenomenal

perspective.

Sans my BMI individuality, the world then is my vritti – again to put

it figuratively.

The world is no more an objectified world then. It is me.

One who has woken up to this Truth in self-realization through

antahkarana shuddhi doesn't sleep any more. He is always awake to

himself although his body sleeps, wakes, moves about and ultimately

dies.

______________

 

I may be charged of absolute naivety by those who spot, enjoy and

thrive on seeming contradictions in our scriptures? But the

questiion is " Do we need hair-splitting? Won't a comprehensive

vision suffice? "

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair-ji,

 

Excellent post. Just one thing - you ask: " But the question is " Do we need

hair-splitting? Won't a comprehensive vision suffice? "

 

Well, surely the answer is that some do and some don't (need hairsplitting).

Fortunately, the prasthAna trAya caters for everyone!

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

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

7072/stime=1188289613/nc1=4507179/nc2=4776369/nc3=3848577>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennisji.

 

Sorry. I didn't mean to discourage any one. I just thought we have

been talking the same thing over and over again ad nauseum and might

be triggering inevitable audience ennui.

 

Of course, prastAnatraya caters. But the question is whose

interpretation of it when we have original statements in the bhAshyAs

which cater equally to the fancies of rival sides in a debate.

 

In the circumstances, what we need is a solid, comprehensive vision

of what advaita is all about. In my personal opinion, Sw.

Dayanandaji first imparts such a vision to the logical and rational

mind before letting it touch the various texts. Once we have an

intellectual conviction of the subject matter imparted by a logical

vision, then the various interpretations are no more a problem

because we are then well armed and equipped to wade through them. As

I said before, such a vision is a sort of touchstone which we badly

need when we confront the numerous know-all fake swami jewellers of

the vedanta market-place. Otherwise, we may get enmeshed in the

apparent contradictions and, once that happens, it is difficult to

free our entangled wings to soar again in the vedanta skies.

 

What all that is needed to establish such a vision is a systematic

approach at sat-chid-Ananda from the 'I exist', 'I know' and 'I am

fullness' angles, subject-object differentiation and understanding

what is nitya and what is anitya. Once the beginner has this vision,

he/she can be encouraged to answer his/her questions/doubts on

his/her own. Others can step in to help only when necessary.

Otherwise, we would be only spoon-speeding hungry stomachs incapable

of digesting the feed causing unnecessry verbal diarrhoea which then

recurs every summer, winter and autumn.

 

Leaders like Dr. Shyamji, DS-ji, Putranji, Rishiji, Vinayakaji, et al

(only to name a few) can then support and enrich the discussions by

quoting insights and experiences from their personal sAdhana.

 

An opportunity for self-study will only boost the morale of the

beginners.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

.... Just one thing - you ask: " But the question is " Do we need

> hair-splitting? Won't a comprehensive vision suffice? "

>

> Well, surely the answer is that some do and some don't (need

hairsplitting).

> Fortunately, the prasthAna trAya caters for everyone!

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sirs,

I fully agree with the thoughts expressed by Rajendranji in this post

and am eagerly waiting to see, go through and digest the resulting meaningful

discussions. The present discussions are indeed thought provoking and defenitely

fruits of careful research etc but not easy to digest for persons like me

without deep knowledge of the subject.Please be considerate to us also. G J

Nair

 

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

Dear Dennisji.

 

Sorry. I didn't mean to discourage any one. I just thought we have

been talking the same thing over and over again ad nauseum and might

be triggering inevitable audience ennui.

 

In the circumstances, what we need is a solid, comprehensive vision

of what advaita is all about. . Once the beginner has this vision,

he/she can be encouraged to answer his/her questions/doubts on

his/her own. Others can step in to help only when necessary.

Leaders like Dr. Shyamji, DS-ji, Putranji, Rishiji, Vinayakaji, et al

(only to name a few) can then support and enrich the discussions by

quoting insights and experiences from their personal sAdhana.

 

An opportunity for self-study will only boost the morale of the

beginners.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " wrote:

.... Just one thing - you ask: " But the question is " Do we need

> hair-splitting? Won't a comprehensive vision suffice? "

>

> Well, surely the answer is that some do and some don't (need

hairsplitting).

> Fortunately, the prasthAna trAya caters for everyone!

>