Gita Satsangh Chapter 11 Verses 29 to 30

[Guest guest]

Putranji, Madathilji,

 

You are very correct to question the notion of 'transformationless

transformation' of gold into rings, bangles etc. This is the case of an

analogy that has broken free from its source and has ceased to make sense.

 

The relation that is being explained is that between Absolute Being and

Relative Being. The analogy that is used to give a sense of that

relationship is that of material identity. Technically speaking it is

called the Analogy of Proportionality. It works thus:

 

Absolute Being : Relative Being :: Gold : Rings, Bangles etc.

 

In the case of Being. Being is always being. From the standpoint of

being there has been no change. If reality is that which is not

sublated/contradicted then being has not changed and change in being is

apparent.

 

The unchanged material identity of gold is supposed to give a sense of

this unchanged reality of being in a homely way that we can understand.

The analogy is unidirectional and focused. Gold is like being in that it

is unchanged as gold. It is not a legitimate use of the Analogy of

Proportionality to say that gold is like being in all respects namely

that the change from a nugget of gold into ornaments is apparent only.

 

Best Regards,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

________________________

>

> > " Shankara says in the brihadAraNyaka bhAshya that:

> > When anubhava contradicts anumAna the latter must be rejected

> > and anubhava must be accepted as pramANa. (na cha anumAnam

> > pratyakshavirodhe prAmANyam labhate-Br. Up. BhAshya, II.i.20).

>

> [i can't understand the relevance of this quote to your statement

> above. What is anubhava here? Have you actually *seen* a liberated

> one to have an " anubhava of liberation " ? Even if you think you have,

> how do you know his liberation for sure? Do we have the capacity to

> appreciate his liberation in its true sense? I am asking this

> question for the logic of it and not to cast aspersions on our long

> lineage of sages all of whom I rever.]

 

Dear Nair-ji,

 

In my humble opinion, we have to ultimately transcend the intellectual

understanding of I am brahman, all that is out there is brahman etc.,

and it should culminate in 'anubhava' in which the concepts like

knower, known and knowledge gets 'completely dissolved' in our real

nature which is called as Brahman/Consciousness/Real Self etc. Same

should be the fate of all the models presented by the shruti and the

utterances of the sages from different perspectives to drive home this

simple fact, including our own understanding/inference about the

world, creation etc.

 

In fact, there will not be second thing to perceive and reiterate

that, that is Brahman etc.

 

Here is one passage culled from Swami Vivekanadna's poem which puts it

in a beautiful way:

 

There is but One — The Free — The Knower — Self!

Without a name, without a form or stain.

In Him is Maya dreaming all this dream.

The witness, He appears as nature, soul.

Know thou art That, Sannyâsin bold! Say —

" Om Tat Sat, Om! "

 

Hope I have answered you question to some extent. If not, please

excuse me; I don't want to speak more on this topic.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

When an analogy is used to illustrate an abstract fact, we do need to

make sure to understand the context and the specific purpose of that

illustration. In the excellent example and explanation by Sadaji, one

should look at how the Goldsmith view the ring or value the ring. For

the goldsmith, the only consideration is the 'gold.' If an ounce of

gold is made into a ring or necklace, still its value for the goldsmith

is the same. But others will likely perceive a golden ring different

from a golden necklace.

 

Most of the problems in understanding Vedantic concepts arises because

we want to comprehend those concepts using words and language alone

(even though we know they are barriers. Perceptions can vary (as

evidenced from various comments that we witnessed now) between the

discussants even though the Truth remains the same!

 

with my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , putranm <putranm

> wrote:

>

> >

> > How does the sage view the ring? Is the sage aware

> > of the gold or only

> > aware of the unreality of the ring? .

[Guest guest]

Sri Nairji, Michaelji, Sadaji, Ram Chandranji: thanks for all your

inputs. Don't mind barging in; I want to get some settlement in

understanding.

 

I will present the two viewpoints that I am wrestling with. Please

give a vote to which is closer to the truth and any comments at

clarifying. Sadaji, the first is what I gather from your post; the

second is what I was holding as the " ideal " picture. Please also give

some opinion as to the status-of-vyavahaarika comments in each

Position.

 

Position I.

 

Basis: Sadaji's statement: " Knowledge can never eliminate the object;

it makes us to understand the truth of the object. "

 

My conclusion:

 

There is objective fixed vyavahaarika reality. There are " objects out

there " even if I don't know of them.

 

Its assessment will depend on the subject/mind. But its essential

objective existence is there independent of mind.

 

The Gold/Being/Isness is the constant factor. This is the

paramaarthika satya; whereas the vyavahaarika objective reality is

continually changing and therefore unreal. [Note this is not same as

the apparent change of Brahman; it is real time-based change within

vyavahaarika]

 

So a sage sees the same objects at the vyavahaarika level as anyone

else except is simultaneously aware of the nondual Being aspect as

only Reality.

 

Position II.

 

Basis: Michaelji's quote of Shankara's commentary in post 38379: " The

absence of difference from the subject does not indeed mean identity;

it means having no existence apart from that of the subject. "

 

My Conclusion:

 

There is NO objective fixed vyavahaarika reality that is independent

of subject. Rather it is a subject-object reality. We avoid saying

further but simply that the basic truth of vyavahaarika is relativity.

 

Change is not of the object; rather it is a shift in (subject's?)

consciousness of the subject-object duality (that to the subject

appears as if change belongs to object). Thus vyavahaarika is non-

absolute/unreal due to being different in different referential

contexts.

 

The objects cease to be for the enlightened sage; the sage is only

aware of the Being aspect. Where then is the question of objects? The

ignorant person thinks the sage sees objects, but for the sage the

reality is only Brahman and not that the reality behind the object is

Brahman. The sage's vyavahaarika is entirely different from the

ignorant person's: world is eliminated in some higher sense. See also

my Ishvara-Bhaktha paragraph in post 38541 to get one possible

conceptualization of this.

 

[This is hard to understand and is a bit of mind-stretch, perhaps

mystery-mongering. But one can quote Big people like Sri Ramana

saying such things. Not clear.]

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

>

> Hence I am this, I am this etc is our current

> understanding and I am, not this, not this etc would

> bring back to that because of which the very existence

> that 'I am' is supporting even this and that. I lend

> my existence to this and that too. Understanding this

> is the true knowledge. Knowledge can never eliminate

> the object; it makes us to understand the truth of the

> object. This desk is nothing but wood, if I say, that

> knowledge does not eliminate the desk, but make us

> understand that it is only wood in the form of the

> desk. The existence of the desk is due to the

> existence of the wood.

>

> Sarvam khalu idam brahma - all this is nothing but

> Brahman says scripture- it is to be understood without

> of course eliminating the world.

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

[Guest guest]

--- putranm <putranm wrote:

 

 

> Position I.

>

> Basis: Sadaji's statement: " Knowledge can never

> eliminate the object;

> it makes us to understand the truth of the object. "

>

> My conclusion:

>

> There is objective fixed vyavahaarika reality. There

> are " objects out

> there " even if I don't know of them.

 

Putranmji - praNAms

 

First question to ask putranmji is - If you do not

know, how do you establish the existence of an object.

That is what I called it as indeterminate problem. In

a way this is fundamental to advaita Vedanta. Hence

the statement has been made - existence of an object

is established by the knowledge of its existence -

satta ya hi chit. Is gaagaabuubu there in the

universe? Could we say there are objects like

gaagaabuubu out there even if I do know them? Hence

Vidyaranaya says - asti, bhaati, priyam, ruupam naama

catyanca pancakam, adhyatrayam brahma ruupam jagat

ruupam tathodvayam| - it is, and it is illumined or

known and it is experience able, with name and form

are five aspects of an object- of which the first

three come from Brahman and the last two from the

world. Naming an object involves knowing an object.

Knowledge and its existence go together. If I do not

know, then the existence of an object cannot be

established. Hence mind is required to know the

existence of the object. Otherwise it is an

inderminate problem. I do not say that mind creates

the object (that becomes vijnaanavaada). Please think

about it let me know if you can prove any object

without a mind supported by consciousness establishing

it. It may be there or may not be there like my

gaagaabuubus. But who is going to prove one way or the

other?

 

 

>

> Its assessment will depend on the subject/mind. But

> its essential

> objective existence is there independent of mind.

 

The second statement does not follow from the previous

one. The assessment is different from the proof of

its existence. Hopefully I will be addressing these

in my series on mind. Yes objects (vyaavahaarika and

not praatibhaasika) exist independent of the mind

since it is not the local mind but global mind that

has created. Hence without the global mind there

cannot be objects but without the local mind

vyaavahaarika objects exists - as I said the mind and

the objects are ontological in par. When the mind is

folded, there is no perception of the objects and mind

as well as the objects (including all the objective

knowledge) gets folded) - Hence in the sushhupti one

'appears' to merge into ones own true nature of

advaita - it is called 'swapiti' sva svaruupa apiiti -

merging into ones own true nature which is nothing but

sat swaruupam.

 

>

> The Gold/Being/Isness is the constant factor. This

> is the

> paramaarthika satya; whereas the vyavahaarika

> objective reality is

> continually changing and therefore unreal. [Note

> this is not same as

> the apparent change of Brahman; it is real

> time-based change within

> vyavahaarika]

 

The statement before the parenthesis is right and the

statement within the parenthesis - there is confusion.

The fact is time and space both are within vyavahaara

- there is no time and space in deep sleep state.

Change itself defines a time and time involves change.

Sequence defines time and simultaneous defines space -

but that is true provided a reference is there which

is independent of space and time - otherwise like

Einstein definition, time and space become relative to

the observer. Hence the correct statement vyavahaara

(meaning transactional involves both time and space

inherent in the transactions - there is no other real

time and space. In praatibhaasika there is different

time/space relevant to praatibhaasika. In the absolute

there is no time and space.

 

>

> So a sage sees the same objects at the vyavahaarika

> level as anyone

> else except is simultaneously aware of the nondual

> Being aspect as

> only Reality.

>

 

To put it correctly - the eyes see and the mind

registers and body transacts - the sage remains as

witnessing agent for all the transactions through

jnaana and karma indriyas. He is akartaa and abhoktaa

- neither doer nor enjoyer. What you mean is he sees

the objects of the creation as they are without any

emotional value attached to it. Remember Gita sloka -

vidya vineyard sampaane braahmaNe gavi hastini|

Shunicaiva Svapaake ca panditaaH samadarShinaH|| Hence

vision and understanding is different although eyes

and mind do see and differentiate shuni (dog) and

shvapaakaH (dog eater).

There is a story of Kanaka daasa who was running after

a dog that snatched his bred saying, " Lord, please

wait, let me apply some butter to the bred, otherwise

it is difficult to eat " - that is the vision of the

sage who can see the dog and the bread too.

 

 

> Position II.

>

> Basis: Michaelji's quote of Shankara's commentary in

> post 38379: " The

> absence of difference from the subject does not

> indeed mean identity;

> it means having no existence apart from that of the

> subject. "

 

Michel is incomplete in his statement. Absence of

difference could be and could not be identity. Is ring

same as gold - yes or no and depends on the vision.

Hence maaya is defined in VivekachuuDamani

 

Sannapyasanna ubhaatmikaano

bhinaapyabhinaa ubhayaatmikaano

saangaapanangaa ubhayaatmikaano

mahadbhuuta anirvacaniiya ruppa|

 

There goes your anirvacaniiya definition.

 

it is not there or is it there or it is both exists

and not exists;

It is not different from brahman nor it is the same as

brahman or nor it is both

It has no parts or it has parts, nor both,

It is wonderment and of the nature of inexplicable -

and that my friend is all the creation.

 

Hence Michel is only partly correct.

 

> My Conclusion:

>

> There is NO objective fixed vyavahaarika reality

> that is independent

> of subject.

 

Not true - if you define the subject as chidaabhaasa

or local mind illumined by consciousness.

It is true only if you define the 'I am " as the

absolute consciousness (or witnessing consciousness)

which is same as Iswara and ultimately Brahman where

all these statements have no validity.

 

Rather it is a subject-object reality.

> We avoid saying

> further but simply that the basic truth of

> vyavahaarika is relativity.

 

That is true - by this statement your above statement

refers to the local subject and not global subject.

 

>

> Change is not of the object; rather it is a shift in

> (subject's?)

> consciousness of the subject-object duality (that to

> the subject

> appears as if change belongs to object).

 

I am not sure I understand the statement. There is no

shift in the consciousness - but shift in

understanding the relative vs the absolute by the

mind.

 

Thus

> vyavahaarika is non-

> absolute/unreal due to being different in different

> referential

> contexts.

 

Again non-absolute or unreal only from the point of

vyaavahaarika - The other reference is only

paaramaarthika - where all differences resolve into

one.

 

>

> The objects cease to be for the enlightened sage;

> the sage is only

> aware of the Being aspect.

 

Not correct - as long as upaadhiis exist - mind, eyes

etc, objects are perceived and exist. But

understanding that they are absolutely different from

him is dropped in the understanding of the reality of

the absolute.

 

Where then is the

> question of objects?

 

Objects remain as part of vibhuuti of the Lord.

 

The

> ignorant person thinks the sage sees objects, but

> for the sage the

> reality is only Brahman and not that the reality

> behind the object is

> Brahman.

 

No even the sage upaadhiis see the object and transact

and he remains as witnessing agent for the upaadhiis.

Hence sage sees but he does not see since he has no

kartRitva bhaava. Look at the life of Krishna - that

is the example of jiiva mukta.

 

The sage's vyavahaarika is entirely

> different from the

> ignorant person's: world is eliminated in some

> higher sense. See also

> my Ishvara-Bhaktha paragraph in post 38541 to get

> one possible

> conceptualization of this.

 

I would put is differently - world is understood as

not different from him - not that it is eliminated.

what is eliminated are wrong values associated with

the world of objects - read the B.G sloka again quoted

above.

 

Hope I am clear.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

 

> In fact, there will not be second thing to perceive and reiterate

> that, that is Brahman etc.

 

Dear Nair-ji,

 

I think above statement requires some explanation. What I meant was

when a sage is in Samadhi or on the fall of the body, there is

absolutely no duality. There is neither jiva, ishwara or jagat. But

when he descends from the Samadhi, then, he sees the world. I am

quoting the words of Swami Vivekananda on the issue on hand. As far

as perspective of a jnAni is concerned, since I don't consider

myself as jnAni, I am bound to quote someone, whom I feel is an

accomplished sage.

 

Why duality continues even after non-dual experience is a question

for which there is no answer. Varieties of reasons are given by the

advaita AchAryAs on which elaborate discussions have taken place.

Personally, I don't want to dwell too much on post realization state

of jnAni;I feel it is wiser to gain the advaita anubhava first.

 

Here is the relevant passage from the complete works of Swamiji:

 

" Once in Western India I was travelling in the desert country on the

coast of the Indian Ocean. For days and days I used to travel on

foot through the desert, but it was to my surprise that I saw every

day beautiful lakes, with trees all around them, and the shadows of

the trees upside down and vibrating there. " How wonderful it looks

and they call this a desert country! " I said to myself. Nearly a

month I travelled, seeing these wonderful lakes and trees and

plants. One day I was very thirsty and wanted to have a drink of

water, so I started to go to one of these clear, beautiful lakes,

and as I approached, it vanished. And with a flash it came to my

brain, " This is the mirage about which I have read all my life, " and

with that came also the idea that throughout the whole of this

month, every day, I had been seeing the mirage and did not know it.

The next morning I began my march. There was again the lake, but

with it came also the idea that it was the mirage and not a true

lake. So is it with this universe. We are all traveling in this

mirage of the world day after day, month after month, year after

year, not knowing that it is a mirage. One day it will break up, but

it will come back again; the body has to remain under the power of

past Karma, and so the mirage will come back. This world will come

back upon us so long as we are bound by Karma: men, women, animals,

plants, our attachments and duties, all will come back to us, but

not with the same power. Under the influence of the new knowledge

the strength of Karma will be broken; its poison will be lost. It

becomes transformed, for along with it there comes the idea that we

know it now, that the sharp distinction between the reality and the

mirage has been known. "

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.