How to understand 'Brahman as the material cause'?

November 23, 2007

Pranams to all Advaitins,

I am having trouble to understand and appreciate the meaning of the

declaration:

'Brahman is both material and instrumental cause of this universe'

If Brahman is non-dual, impartite, all-pervading, all-knowing, being-

knowledge-bliss etc. then it follows that, all that appears is

mearly a superimposition on Brahman and Brahman is the substratum of

anything that is seen, known, percieved, thought, imagined,

remembered etc. I have no difficulty in understanding the above

statement from scriputural testimony. But this is all 'indirect

knowledge' as gained by 'sravana' (hearing and study).

My difficulty is, how to gain the 'direct knowlegde' of the above

statement by means of reflection. How I can logically and

intellectually understand and gain a 'direct knowledge' of the truth

of the above statement? Can I seek the guidence of your noble selves

for my difficulty? What is the logical way of understanding that all

the objects I see in front of me are, infact, the superimpositions

on Brahman and Brahman is the material cause of all those? How can I

understand that the computer I am using, the table on which the

computer is, the person who is questioning are all in essence one

and nothign but the non-dual Brahman. Can any one explain this? Not

from scriptural stand point. My problem is not understanding what

scripure says, but how to undertstand the truth for myself (as in

reflection, 'manana').

I appreciate your responses very much. If this topic is already

discussed, I appreciate if some one can point me to the old posts.

Regards

Aditya

http://www.maharajnisargadatta.com

November 23, 2007

advaitin , " aditya0908 " <aditya0908 wrote:

> What is the logical way of understanding that all

> the objects I see in front of me are, infact, the superimpositions

> on Brahman and Brahman is the material cause of all those? How can

I

> understand that the computer I am using, the table on which the

> computer is, the person who is questioning are all in essence one

> and nothign but the non-dual Brahman. Can any one explain this? Not

> from scriptural stand point. My problem is not understanding what

> scripure says, but how to undertstand the truth for myself (as in

> reflection, 'manana').

>

hariH OM! adityaji,

yes, at some point one must engage manana on the level where it leads

to first-hand experience, therefore one must also go beyond the

sravana and think independent of virtually everything previously

taught.

here especially, manana needs to be done in tandem with nididhyasana

in order to arrive at the manasic-buddhic level of insight (reason

combined with intuition...where reason interprets what intuitive

insight generates). here, viveka is of course all important.

this method in time reveals the eventual (or it could be sudden!)

awakening [that brahman is the substratum of All], which incidentally

confers nothing less than jivanmukthi itself.

it is not as difficult as virtually everyone believes in the early

stages of the jnanamarga. the problem is twofold: popular concensus

(relentless socio-hypnotic programming) plus the aforementioned early

belief, become systemically hardwired to one's fundamental ideology

(existential conception). and so the idea is strong, that it's a

near impossible mountain to negotiate, let alone climb.

but this is a mistake. a first-rate trick of the colossal ego-Mind.

the fact is, as the mahavakyas reveal, it's nothing more than a

resoundingly simple, commonsensibly inevitable conclusion that

everything *is* one Being. NOT equivalent to, or a part of, but is

ONE Being Itself, expressed in infinite multifarious entities,

events, and dimensions.

thus, commonsense translates the intuitive insight that the base

Reality's primal essence is all pervasive and *unavoidably*

accessible. in other words, we cannot experience anything BUT the

paramatman/parabrahmam, which is also who and what we have always

been, are, and will always be!

namaste,

frank

November 23, 2007

> advaitin , " aditya0908 "

> <aditya0908 wrote:

> > What is the logical way of understanding that all

> > the objects I see in front of me are, infact, the

> superimpositions

> > on Brahman and Brahman is the material cause of

> all those?

Shree Aditya - PraNAms.

Here is my understanding.

'How can we say that Brahman is the material cause for

the universe?' That is the central part of the

question.

First, this question cannot be fully established

without the scriptural support.

Second there is problem in the question because,

Brahman being infinite cannot be cause for anything.

This is because - 1. Cause-effect involves pariNaam or

vivarta or a transformation and only finite can

undergo transformation. 2. cause-effects result in

time factor or the relation is time bound while

Brahman is beyond time. Hence scripture when it

defines Brahman as both upaadaana and nimitta kaaraNa,

for a creation, it is considered as only a taTasta

laxana or incidental qualification the creation

involves trasformationless transformation - as

scripture points out -gold becoming ornaments.

Taking gold example - when we say gold is the cause

for bangle, ring, bracelet, etc, Gold does not

transform since it remains as gold while the ring,

bangle and bracelets appears to be created from gold,

sustained by gold and go back into gold, while gold

does not become anything - ring, bangle, bracelet etc

since it remains as gold all the time with out any

transformation.

Hence when the scripture says Brahman is the material

cause, I cannot really look for Brahman but should see

the Brahman as the very creation itself - just as I

have to look for gold in the ring, bangle and

bracelet. That which is the common factor in all the

three ornaments and that which does not undergo any

change as the ring deforms or melts etc is the very

essence of ring, bangle or bracelet which is nothing

but gold.

Now use the same analogy - what is the common factor

in all the objects of the world, nay the world itself

since that which does not undergo any changes in all

changes that is happening must be its material cause.

You will find that which is common for all objects is

- their existence since we cannot talk about

non-existent objects, right? Second thing that is

common is about their existence is the knowledge of

their existence - this is because the existence of an

object is established by the knowledge of its

existence. - Scripture says that these two aspects,

existence and knowledge are the essential nature of

Brahman. Since the world is infinite, the cause has to

be infinite. Hence scripture says Existence-knowledge

is Brahman that is infinite.

Another way to prove is using dream world where one

becomes many as both material and intelligent cause

while in deep sleep state all merge into one. The

analysis of waking, dream and deep sleep states as

done by Mandukya establishes even logically that

existence- consciousness that I am is the root cause

for creation, sustenance and annihilation.

Last point is you are that Brahman that you are

looking for. How can you say that you exist and that

you are conscious? you are there when the waking world

is there and you are there when there is a dream world

and you are there in the deep sleep state - you are

the only one that is common factor in all the three

states - Hence scripture says you are the material

cause as well for the universe. Without you present

the existence of the world cannot be established. You

are there world is there and if you are not there

world is not there either. This is called anvaya and

vyatireka in logic. The world is not there but you are

there. Therefore you are independent of the world

while the world depends on you. You have independent

existence while the world has dependent existence.

Hence you are the substantive existence for the world

too.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

November 23, 2007

Dear Aditya:

Within your question there is a hidden misconception.

You wrote:

" My difficulty is, how to gain the 'direct knowledge' of the above

statement by means of reflection. How I can logically and

intellectually understand and gain a 'direct knowledge' of the truth

of the above statement? "

As I read behind your lines, you are equating, on an almost even

basis: logic, intellectual understanding and reflection, with

Self-Realization. We can feel also that the real question that is

coming from within is: How to attain Self-Realisation!? (this what I

mean by 'direct knowledge') but is transforming itself on your

question maybe because of your particular inclination to the

intellectual world. Being an intellectual inclined person I can only

speak for myself, but this is my understanding.

Intellect alone won't make it, the dimension/equation that is missing

in your statements is Surrender... You can learn all the shastras and

be a prodigious scholar, winner of million battles with the sword of

quotations and intellectual skills, but you will always bump like a

bumble-bee on the glass of your mind, trying to reach that that you

can see!

Look at Shankara or Ramana Maharshi, to name a few, both with a solid

intellectual understanding and at the same time singing praises of

Surrender.

Intellect and Heart must be together. Intellect without Heart, is like

the Bumble Bee trying to escape knocking the window but also Heart

without intellect, the Bumble Bee keeps knocking on the walls and will

never find the window!

Intellect takes you to the window of Escape and allows you to see what

is beyond. Heart melts the glass with its fire.

Intellect can be " faked " , Surrender cannot, because eventually is the

total disappearance of that " one " that is trying to do it. And when

" we " disappear, tell me, what is left?

Warmest blessings,

Mouna

November 24, 2007

Thank you Sadanandaji and others for your kind responses. But my

doubt still persists.

Gold and Ornaments analogy

--------------------------

In gold-ornaments analogy, we can admit gold as the material cause

of the ornaments because gold is the unchanging entity and the

common factor among the various ornaments. But here, gold is a

material. I could not understand how we can apply same relation

between gold and ornaments to 'existance-knowledge' and the 'world

of objects'. Here existance-knowledge is not material. I can see the

logic in saying " gold manifests as ornaments " , but to me, it is hard

to see the logic behind saying " 'existance-knowledge' manifests as

the 'book' " (here book stands for an object in the world) " . Now when

we say, 'I percieve a book', I understand that my knowledge of the

existance of the book is caused by the projection of the mind in the

form of book. But even, for that to happen there should be a book in

the first place. So the reality of the book can not be denied. Is it

not? I instead say, " I get the knowledge of

the being of the book " (because there is a book outside). You may

say, that " the book has a begining and end, so it is not real " , but

the 'existance-knowledge' of the book also has begining and ending

for that book. So are these also not real?

So when I look at the book I am reading, I could not quite make the

statement to myself with conviction that " this book is a

superimposition on 'being-knowledge' " or " this book you are seeing

in not infact real, but just the 'existance-knowledge' is appearing

as this book " .

Just because 'being and knowledge' is the common denominator for all

objects in this world, how can we deny a separate existance of

objects apart from 'being-knowledge'?

Dream analogy

--------------

The non-existance of the objects percieved in the dream is admitted

in the waking state. So you say (or the Mandukya upanishad teaches)

that when one wakes up to the state of 'Aparoksha-Brahma-Anubhava'

he can similarly see the non-existance of the world. Or more

accuratly, as we can admit mind (or latent impressions) is the

substratum of un-real dream world, so also, the 'existance-knowledge-

infinity' factor is the substartum of this apparent material world.

Is such a state possible in flesh-and-blood in the waking world? Or

is it only possible in the highest samadhi state (dubbed paroksha-

Brahma-Anubhava or turiya state which is neither dream, deep sleep

or waking state)? From that state, there will be no questions

anyways, so is this a futile quest?

To deny the non-existance of dream world and to understand that its

only a superimposition on latencies, first I have to come out of

dream state. In the same way, it follows that, to realise the non-

existance of waking world and to realise that the waking-world is

just a superimposition on Brahman, I have to go out of waking state.

Does that mean that I can not gain an intellectual understanding of

the statement that the 'world is a superimposition on Brahman'

or 'Brahman is the subsratum or material cause of this world'?

should I have to only rely on the faith on the scriptural teaching?

Can this knowledge, not verifiable through intellect? If so what is

the meaning of introspection or manana or reflection on the

sriptural teaching?

I am basically undergoing a period of confusion. So I seek guidence

from the greatest people that grace this forum. I am not refuting

any scriptural statement. Just that I could not get an intellectual

understanding. Or it is not the way to the goal? Perhaps not trying

to understanding, but the faith on the holy word is the way to go?

Please do guide me.

Pranams!

Aditya

November 24, 2007

Adityaji

I detect two problems in the understanding.

1. First is 'if the scripture says - sat and chit is

the material cause and you are asking where is the

material that constitutes the world?

The question to pose however is - is there a real

material out there to ask and who says there is?

Let us take one step before we go into dream analogy.

1. Let us pose a simple question, how do you know

there is a real material in the waking state? - you

have to respond saying that I can see. touch, taste

etc. Essentially perception is the basis for the

proof of existence of the material. But how does that

perception occur? Mind through sense organs grasp the

attributes of the objects and puts an image in the

mind with those attributes and say there is a chair

out there. But what you actually seeing are an image

of the chair out there with those attributes that the

senses gather. Senses can gather only attributes and

not substantive (the material). Hence it is an

inference based on the perception of the attributes -

vyaapti for this comes from accumulation of the

knowledge from child hood through the teachings of

mother and others - yes that is a chair, this is a

table etc.

Hence what is there is from your mind's point only an

image of the object with the form and color and other

attributes and that is all the knowledge of the world.

All transactions are done with that knowledge.

Next Question is who put those attributes for my mind

and your mind to see? - that is the total mind which

projects and that is what Sat + naama and ruupa which

is nothing but maaya that Ch. Up talks about.

To understand this only Mandukya is helpful. For the

dream subject x, the material out there is real. The

objects that the individual minds see in the dream

world are real from those individual minds. But that

is projection of the total mind which is the waker's

mind. The analogy is exact.

The waking world appears to be real for the waker's

mind and dream world appears to be real for the dream

subject mind. In the deep sleep, both worlds are not

there. They go into subtler form and come back again

when one is awake from sleep.

Only when one realizes that, just as the dream world

is a projection of one waker's mind - projecting many

dream subjects with their own individual minds plus

the world of objects -, in the same way the waking

world is also a projection of the total mind (called

Iswara) with lot of individual minds and objects.

What is real is that remains the same all the time and

that is only I myself as I am - the

existence-consciousness that I am. Everything else is

mithyaa or naama ruupa just as ring and bangle etc on

gold.

The point is when I say the world is because I see it

what senses can see are only attributes and not

substnative or material. That there is a real

material is only inference at the mind level. To

confirm this understanding exactly we need a dream

analogy.

Now where is sat, my friend. You are that - is the

essence of teaching too. Now are you looking for your

self - do you need a means to know that you exist or

you are conscious? - That which is self-existent is

self-conscious and it requires no proof to establish

its existence and it is self-revealing.

What scripture provides as a pramaaNa is to show the

identity of you and the Brahman since from the point

essential nature, sat and chit, they can only be

identical.

Why I do not see Brahman? Do I see myself - I see

myself as I am and I know that I am. I can not see

Brahman out there or sat out there only because there

is no other sat other than you, since even out there

is only in there in your mind, ultimately. I have to

see myself as existence consciousness that is 'all

pervading'. I only see (or perceptions only can

reveal) the naama/ruupa or attributes of the finite

objects. I have to see in and through the existence

that I am. It is like I want to see ocean but I am

only seeing waves. How do I see the sea without waves?

I have to learn to see the sea in and through the

waves- that my fried is the meditation.

Imagind your self in your dream world asking the same

question. I want to see that total mind that pervades

this dream material world and jiivas. Everything that

you see is only sustained by that waking mind and they

go back in to the waking mind. You are the conscious

entity because of which the waking mind is able to

project the world of matter and plurality that you

see. There is no real material out there in the dream

world since it is just a projection of the waker's

mind.

There is no real material in the waking world too

since it is projection of the total mind, which is

Iswara. Iswara is Brahman+ maaya shakti, just as you

are Brahmna for your dream world with maaya shakti

which helps you to project the world of plurality. Tha

analogy is exact.

Hope this helps.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--- aditya0908 <aditya0908 wrote:

> Thank you Sadanandaji and others for your kind

> responses. But my

> doubt still persists.

.. I could not understand how we can apply

> same relation

> between gold and ornaments to 'existance-knowledge'

> and the 'world

> of objects'. Here existance-knowledge is not

> material. I can see the

> logic in saying " gold manifests as ornaments " , but

> to me, it is hard

> to see the logic behind saying

> " 'existance-knowledge' manifests as

> the 'book' " (here book stands for an object in the

> world) " . Now when

> we say, 'I percieve a book', I understand that my

> knowledge of the

> existance of the book is caused by the projection of

> the mind in the

> form of book. But even, for that to happen there

> should be a book in

> the first place. So the reality of the book can not

> be denied. Is it

> not? I instead say, " I get the knowledge of

> the being of the book " (because there is a book

> outside).

.........>

>

> I am basically undergoing a period of confusion. So

> I seek guidence

> from the greatest people that grace this forum. I am

> not refuting

> any scriptural statement. Just that I could not get

> an intellectual

> understanding. Or it is not the way to the goal?

> Perhaps not trying

> to understanding, but the faith on the holy word is

> the way to go?

> Please do guide me.

>

> Pranams!

>

> Aditya

>

November 24, 2007

advaitin , " aditya0908 " <aditya0908 wrote:

> So when I look at the book I am reading, I could not quite make the

> statement to myself with conviction that " this book is a

> superimposition on 'being-knowledge' " or " this book you are seeing

> in not infact real, but just the 'existance-knowledge' is appearing

> as this book " .

>

> Just because 'being and knowledge' is the common denominator for all

> objects in this world, how can we deny a separate existance of

> objects apart from 'being-knowledge'?

Dear Aditya-ji,

Here is a related excerpt:

" So long as there has not been the knowledge of the unity of the real

Atman, the notion of **unreality** regarding the 'valid means' and

'objects of knowledge' as well as that of the 'resultant knowledge',

never occurs to any one. Every living soul looks upon the effects

themselves as 'me and mine'- related to one another as one's own self

and something belonging to oneself, disregarding one's own nature of

identity with brahmAtman. Therefore, every secular and vedic procedure

is consistent till awakening to one's identity with brahman. This is

just like the idea of certainty about the perception striking to a

common man, who seems things of various grades of existence in a dream

before waking, but never suspects at the time that it might be only a

semblance of perception. "

B.S.B. 2-1-14. (Translated by Sri SSS in his book entitled

'Misconceptions about shankara').

Well, as told by you, we have to wake up from the so called waking

state; till that happens, these questions are bound to recur.

avasthAtraya vichAra (deliberation on three states of existence) is

one of the best methods available for that.

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

Br. Vinayaka.

November 24, 2007

advaitin , " aditya0908 " <aditya0908 wrote:

>

>Aditya wrote-

> I am basically undergoing a period of confusion. So I seek guidence

> from the greatest people that grace this forum. I am not refuting

> any scriptural statement. Just that I could not get an intellectual

> understanding. Or it is not the way to the goal? Perhaps not trying

> to understanding, but the faith on the holy word is the way to go?

> Please do guide me.

>

> Pranams!

>

> Aditya

>sanjeeva murthy replies-

Namaste dear friend. First of all very happy to know your eagerness.

now coming to the point. to understand that you are Brahman

(atman)three steps are a must. 1. shruti( upanishads) 2. yukti(anvaya

- vyatirEka tarka) and 3. anubhava( saarvatrika paripoorNaanubhava).

one has to analyse all the three states from that state point of view

only. Shankara says in Br. Su. Bh.- anubhavaavasaanatvaat bhoota

vastu viShayatvaaccha Brahmajnaanasya.( accept only if what shruti or

any one say as in your anubhava otherwise reject) . there are only 3

states for any one in the world. 1. jaagrat(waking), 2. swapna(dream)

and 3. sushupti ( deep sleep)

1. There is no scope for confusion in Shaankaraa's Vedaanta.

2. just analyse as in your anubhava( experience- it is not

indriyaanubhava or vEdanaanubhava).

3. recollect one of your dream.

4. in your dream can you know that it is a dream ?

5. No, it is nothing but jaagrat is it not ?

6. now identify what all objects, surroundings, sound, sparsha, roopa,

rasa & smell that you enjoyed( within you only) in that state.

7. after you wakeup you say it was a dream....( i have not done

anything- akartru)

8.now from that(dream) state point of view as you analysed that it is

jaagrat, this jaagrat becomes dream.

9. because two things cannot occupy the same space in same time is it not?

10.so from this jagrat point of view , that jaagrat (you say

dream)becomes dream and from that jaagrat point of view this jaagrat

become dream.

11.in that dream state what all things happen as real becomes futile

from this jagrat point of view.

12. similarly we have to wake up in this jaagrat that it is nothing

but dream.

13. then what all things like your system, electricity, room, house,

road, locality, town, state, nation, globe, solar system,space , etc,

appeared in this jaagrat which is nothing but your dream is not

different from you. even though all other things are ever changing you

the witnessor is unchangable.

14.now jaagrat,swapna since one & the same becomes one (

darshanaavastha) and the second deep sleep( adarshanaavastha) becomes

two. so the 3 states are now 2 states.

15. in these 2 states atman is nitya chEtana means he is not inert(jada).

16. he is (that is myself without any organs , just witnessor or

tureeya) called in shruti- nitya shuddha , nitya buddha, nitya mukta

swaroopa.

17. so 2 states becomes one which is secondless.

18. this is the real fact as in deep sleep as u say after waking that

even though i was there i could not know anything.

19. you are analysing all the 3 states thro' mind , standing at

tureeya(analyser) & confirm as in anubhava is it not?

20. this tureeya is unchangable -niravayava.

The person who analyses by this methodology called ADHYAAROPA

APAVAADA ( superimposition & immediate nagation)identified by Shankara

as in shruthi's is a MUKTA swaroopa.

SADGURU PRASAADA SIDDHIRASTU,

shubhamastu,

sanjeeva murthy

November 24, 2007

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

> Now use the same analogy - what is the common factor

> in all the objects of the world, nay the world itself

> since that which does not undergo any changes in all

> changes that is happening must be its material cause.

> You will find that which is common for all objects is

> - their existence since we cannot talk about

> non-existent objects, right? Second thing that is

> common is about their existence is the knowledge of

> their existence - this is because the existence of an

> object is established by the knowledge of its

> existence. - Scripture says that these two aspects,

> existence and knowledge are the essential nature of

> Brahman. Since the world is infinite, the cause has to

> be infinite. Hence scripture says Existence-knowledge

> is Brahman that is infinite.

Hello Sadananda,

a) I think we CAN talk about non-existent objects. A rabbit with

horns. There, I have just talked about a non-existent object.

Another non-existent object often spoken of is the Jiva.

b)Knowledge of their existence --- unless you speak here of

intrinsic knowledge, such as a rock knowing itself, or the

omniscient knowledge of the Divine, there are many objects even here

on earth of which we have no knowledge of their existence. Example:

a flower growing in the middle of a forest which no one will ever

see.

c) The world is infinite? Is it?

If you would like to further explain, I am all ears (another example

of something non-existent).

November 24, 2007

In the fist case you have just assembled from known

things like rabbit and horns that we are familiar but

there is not rabbit with horn that we both can

transact with. Non-existent means lack of locus for

the object with those attributes that you have

mentioned with which we can transact. How about

gaagaabuubu with dum and dim, can we communicate

intelligently about it? Non-existent object is there

is no locus for its existence - like vandhyaa putraH -

son of a barren woman.

Jiiva has notional existence just like existene of a

snake where there is rope. This is error in the

knowledge of existence not that there is no jiiva.

What exists is Brahman but mistaken as jiiva due to

wrong notions that I am this body, mind and intellect

BMI. There is a false knowledge (error) associated

with notional existence of jiiva.

> b)Knowledge of their existence --- unless you speak

> here of

> intrinsic knowledge, such as a rock knowing itself,

> or the

> omniscient knowledge of the Divine, there are many

> objects even here

> on earth of which we have no knowledge of their

> existence. Example:

> a flower growing in the middle of a forest which no

> one will ever

> see.

Then its existence cannot be established - is it not.

You can make a theory that there is a flower that no

one will ever perceive. But it remains as a theory

only, since as you mentioned that no one will ever

see. It will be like my gaagaabuubu 's existence with

dum and dim that no one will ever see!

> c) The world is infinite? Is it?

Space is infinite - if it is finite we would ask the

question what is there on the other side of the finite

space. If there is other side, then space is also on

the other side. This is what we define as - puurnam

idam - this is infinite - this being the creation.

Creation starts with space.

Science has not found finiteness for the space.

Hope this helps.

> If you would like to further explain, I am all ears

> (another example

> of something non-existent).

>

November 24, 2007

hariH OM! adityaji,

i neglected to mention the most important factor of all, re the

matter of apprehending the causal nature of Reality (i.e.

satchidananda, which is the outbreath of brahman).

the intellectual " end game " shift into moksha occurs in the wake of

the ability to allow the ego-Mind to surrender to the actuality of

What Is: which is finally recognized to be, in fact, an unfathomable

Mystery. for, any attempt at embracing a concept or ideology in the

form of a hands-on " understanding " of the nature of Reality (or

whatever It is that appears before and within us) is a trap that in

effect perpetuates the delimitation of one's experience, maintaining

the stubborn barrier to one's natural state of moksha.

the need is to be able to befriend the Mystery.

as sadanandaji has stated, " There is no real material in the waking

world too since it is projection of the total mind, " i came up with a

proof of this through quantum theory...which i call the Zero Mass

Theorem (before i give the link to this page, it's worth mentioning

that it was ranked 11th under keywords " quantum theory " in google, as

well as the website itself being ranked no. 1 under

keyword " metaphysics " and no. 2 in " advaita " before the entire site

was taken down [i have good reason to believe] by the US govt, for

having criticized the republican Right on one of the pages (original

site was http://digital.net/~egodust .. which had over 1100 other

sites linked to it, hence its ranking)...i mention this so that you

and others might put some confidence in my posts, as well as not

dismissing them as the ravings of some pseudo-vedantin): see

http://www.geocities.com/egodust/fmpagezm.html

namaste,

frank

November 25, 2007

Thanks a ton Sadanandji, Frank, Mauna and others who responded to my

post.

Sadanandji, You have provided some an invaluable line of analysis for

understanding the scriptural teaching. I am trying to digest what you

said and I need some time for that. I am indeed fortunate to come in

contact with some one like even through this noble forum. Thank you

very much!

BTW, do you know how I can get a copy of Shankaracharya's bhashya for

the Madukya Upanishad (with Gaudapada Karika) in english? Looks like

that's some thing I must study. Do you know of a place from where I can

buy that work?

Pranams

Aditya

November 25, 2007

Namaste Sadanandaji,

You quoted as -

> Jiiva has notional existence just like existene of a

> snake where there is rope. This is error in the

> knowledge of existence not that there is no jiiva.

> What exists is Brahman but mistaken as jiiva due to

> wrong notions that I am this body, mind and intellect

> BMI. There is a false knowledge (error) associated

> with notional existence of jiiva.

Does this mean that every non-living thing in this universe has

realized Brahman, since it doesn't contain mind /intellect to create

wrong notions as Jiva does and is just being " beingness " ?

Please clarify...

--

saipadaarpanamastu,

Gopinath

November 25, 2007

advaitin , " aditya0908 " <aditya0908 wrote:

>

> Thanks a ton Sadanandji, Frank, Mauna and others who responded to my

> post.

>

> Sadanandji, You have provided some an invaluable line of analysis for

> understanding the scriptural teaching. I am trying to digest what you

> said and I need some time for that. I am indeed fortunate to come in

> contact with some one like even through this noble forum. Thank you

> very much!

>

> BTW, do you know how I can get a copy of Shankaracharya's bhashya for

> the Madukya Upanishad (with Gaudapada Karika) in english? Looks like

> that's some thing I must study. Do you know of a place from where I can

> buy that work?

>

> Pranams

> Namaste, to get & see prasthaana traya Bhaashya of Shankaracharya

visit wwww.gitasupersite.com

shubhamastu,

sanjeeva murthy

> Aditya

>

November 25, 2007

advaitin , " sanjeeva murthy " <casmurthy

wrote:

>

> advaitin , " aditya0908 " <aditya0908@> wrote:

> >

> > BTW, do you know how I can get a copy of Shankaracharya's bhashya

for

> > the Madukya Upanishad (with Gaudapada Karika) in english? Looks

like

> > that's some thing I must study. Do you know of a place from where

I can

> > buy that work?

> > Namaste, to get & see prasthaana traya Bhaashya of Shankaracharya

> visit wwww.gitasupersite.com

The above site is only for Gita Bhashyas and commentaries.

Mandukya Upanishad and Karika translations are at:

http://www.sankaracharya.org/mandukya_upanishad.php (Sw.

Nikhilananda)

http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/mandukya.html (V. Panoli)

The Mandukya bhashya is not online.

It can be purchased from any Vedanta Society Bookstore (Ramakrishna

Mission) 1-800-816-2242 (Los Angeles,CA, USA)

November 25, 2007

aditya asks

( BTW, do you know how I can get a copy of Shankaracharya's bhashya

for the Madukya Upanishad (with Gaudapada Karika) in english?

Looks like that's some thing I must study. Do you know of a place

from where I can buy that work?)

Aditya, please go to

http://www.sastraprakasika.org

and you can order Swami Paramarthanandaji's 91 casettes on Mandukya

upanishad and learn all about this great work by listening to these

tapes . Our sadaji spends an hour listening to swamiji's tapes -

now , of course - he can listen to swamiji in person as sadaji is in

Chennai where Swamiji resides!

Also , a book on this is available written by swami chinmayananda at

amazon.com !

Discourses on Mandukya Upanishad, with Gaudapada's Karika by Swami

Chinmayananda (Paperback - 1994)

1 Used & new from $24.00

PARAMACHARYA once said in Telugu " mandukyam velugulatu velugu "

(Mandukya is the Light of the Lights.)

and adityaji , who can throw light on this light of all lights ?

only one who knows ! Your best bet is to approach all the learned

men in this satsangha! Sadaji is the expert on Mandukya!

Om shanti! Shanti ! Shantihi!

November 26, 2007

--- Gopinath Panduranga <brahmaprajna

wrote:

> Does this mean that every non-living thing in this

> universe has

> realized Brahman, since it doesn't contain mind

> /intellect to create

> wrong notions as Jiva does and is just being

> " beingness " ?

>

> Please clarify...

Sree Gopinathji - PraNAms.

There are several ways to answer the question posed.

1. First in stead of we making a judgment call about

the non-living beings whether they have realized or

not, we should ask them whether they have realized or

not? Of course they will answer in silence, but we

will not understand that unless we are realized! A

student went to sage and asked - sir what is the

truth? - there was no answer. Again he asked? No

answer. The sage was just looking at him. Third time

he said - Sir I am asking you a question - what it the

truth and you are not answering. The sage smilingly

replied, " I am answering, but you are not listening " .

In silence there is the truth. Since we do not

understand the silence of the non-living beings - we

need to turn to Scripture to see what they say; It

says -'sarvam khalu idam brahma'- all this (this

stands for all non-living beings or any thing that I

can point out as this) - is indeed nothing but

Brahman. 'Neha naanaansti kincana' - there is nothing

other than Brahman. So through their very silence,

they are teaching us that they are realized! For

Hindus, every thing is considered as devata. The

pancabhuutaas are direct descends of Brahman. In

Bharata Natyam, before (as well as in the end) a

dancer starts dancing, she/he puts namaskaaram to

earth - requesting forgiveness for she is going to be

stamping on her. Rivers, mountains, trees, you name

it, are glorified as goddesses and gods. Of every

animal we can think of starting from mouse to monkey

to tiger, we glorify them as vehicles of the gods and

goddesses. That is the vision of our great sages, who

could see the Lord everywhere.

2. Anyway that is not what you wanted to hear.

Realization is to recognize that I am not this and I

am Brahman. To have that notion (notion is

misunderstanding that I am a jiiva) mind is required.

When there is no mind or even the notion is not there

for it to drop that notion. So the non-living beings

are just 'being' since they just BE, as the very

existence manifested. We with out minds give names to

them. So the second answer is they are already Brahman

and have no wrong notions for them to realize now that

they are Brahman. There is no need to falsify any

notions since they do not have any.

3. The third answer is - no one can judge whether

someone else (living or non-living) or something else

is realized or not. In Ch. Up Sad vidya the last

section involves a test to see if someone is realized

or not. Uddalaka give an example. Someone was brought

into the court as a thief. King asked him, are you a

thief? The fellow said 'I am not'. Then the king asked

a guard to bring red hot iron, asked the captive to

touch it. If he is saying the truth, then the truth

will protect him and his hand does not get burn and he

will be released with due honors. If his hand burns

then he is telling a lie and not only burning, he will

be thrown into jail. This is a good test for a

realization! If one has realized 'aham brahmaasmi'

then when he touches the red hot world of experiences,

which everybody gets burned-out, they will not burn

him ( he may infact enjoy as an entertainment) and He

will be released from the cycle of birth and deaths (

no jail term). But if one have notions (notion means

lies) that I am a jiiva, since that is a lie and not

the truth, the contact with the world will burn the

person. The jail term is, he will be born again and

again. Since non-living beings do not seem to cry

because of any samsaara, they seems to be perfectly

content with what they have, atmanyeva aatmanaa

tuShTaH - they revel in themselves not needing

anything else for them to be happy. So by that account

they are realized. It is up to you now to prove that I

am wrong! Of course, I will accept it only if they

tell me that they are not realized, since they have to

make that judgment call and not you.

4. Last answer that follows from above is it is more

important to be concerned about whether we are

realized or not than about others, since no one other

than themselves will be able to ascertain whether they

are realized or not. Let us assume that everybody is

a realized soul and thus respect them and be concerned

about our own realization.

I hope I have answered your question.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

November 26, 2007