What did Shankara really teach

[Guest guest]

Sri Sastriji wrote:

 

The highest form of non-apprehension is that of realisation where there is

non-apprehension of diversity.(michael)

 

Dear Michael-ji,

Swami Satprakashananda says on page 170 of his book 'Methods of Knowledge'

that the advaita school of Vedanta holds that the absence of multiplicity

is

known directly by non-apprehension in transcendental experience or

immediate

apprehension of non-dual brahman. But he has not stated in which work on

advaita such a statement is found. Perhaps he is referring to the absence

of

all cognition during nirvikalpa samAdhi. When the jIvanmukta comes out of

samAdhi he sees the world, but knows that it has no reality and looks upon

it only as an appearance of brahman. So there would be no non-apprehension

of diversity for him then, i.e., there would be apprehension of

diversity. But there would also be no mis-apprehension of the nature of the

world for him as there is for us who look upon it as real.It has been

stated

in works on advaita that there is vikshepa for the jnAni also, but there is

no AvaraNa and so he is not deluded. Swami Chandrasekhara Bharati's

commentary on Vivekachudamani may be referred to in this connection.

S.N.Sastri

 

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

Namaste Madathilji and Sastriji,

That closing statement of

mine was a paraphrase of Swami Satprakashananda's which seemed to me to be

clear and unexceptionable and in line with the wisdom of the Upanishads.

Brh.Up. IV.iv.20: " Through the mind alone (It) is to be realised. There

is no difference whatsoever in It. He goes from death to death who sees

difference, as it were, in It. "

 

I have been arguing in line with V.P. for the discounting of the idea

that non-apprehension is through any organ and that therefore it is an

immediate presentation to the mind. The senses will always show diversity

of objects but only the understanding made subtle by Sravana, manana and

dhyana can realise the unity of Being. My belief, and it is only that

at the moment, is that for the jnani there is no white-out like for

someone in a blizzard where there is no differentiation between all the

directions. In fact for the jnani perception itself proves the unity of

being. This is the purport of the chapter on Perception in V.P.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michael-ji.

 

You are a diplamat too!

 

May we take a second look at your current belief?

 

A white-out in a blizzard is a perception and there is a yearning for

direction when the eyes find none. Definitely, therefore, a

jnAni's 'perception' (I don't know if this word is admissible with

reference to a jnAni.) should be entirely different.

 

Now, if 'perception proves the unity of being for a jnAni', then we

are perhaps admitting that he is perceiving (like all of us?) and

also perceiving the same thing all the time. That is pedestrian.

Another explanation, for which I would definitely vote (in my current

stage), is that the jnAni *knows* that he is perception and also the

things perceived. I can't explain this latter view in adequate

words. Yet, I can intuit it and also point out that that type of

of 'unity of being' cannot operate with any remnants of the jnAni's

erstwhile individuality still remaining.

 

Has VP elaborated on this issue or you would like to?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

........

> My belief, and it is only that

> at the moment, is that for the jnani there is no white-out like

for

> someone in a blizzard where there is no differentiation between all

the

> directions. In fact for the jnani perception itself proves the

unity of

> being. This is the purport of the chapter on Perception in V.P.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Definitely, therefore, a

> jnAni's 'perception' (I don't know if this word is admissible with

> reference to a jnAni.) should be entirely different.

>

> Now, if 'perception proves the unity of being for a jnAni', then we

> are perhaps admitting that he is perceiving (like all of us?) and

> also perceiving the same thing all the time. That is pedestrian.

> Another explanation, for which I would definitely vote (in my current

> stage), is that the jnAni *knows* that he is perception and also the

> things perceived. I can't explain this latter view in adequate

> words.

 

Namaste,

 

Perhaps better (?) than VP is Shankara Bhashya on Gita 2:16 -

 

nAsato vidyate bhAvo nAbhAvo vidyate sataH ...............

 

[There is never any Being of the Unreal, and never any Non-Being of the

Real...........]

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Sunder Hattangadi " <sunderh wrote:

> Perhaps better (?) than VP is Shankara Bhashya on Gita 2:16 -

>

> nAsato vidyate bhAvo nAbhAvo vidyate sataH ...............

>

> [There is never any Being of the Unreal, and never any Non-Being of the

> Real...........]

 

praNams Shri Sunderji,

 

[When I woke up in the morning today, the verse

nAsato vidya bhAvo was ringing in my ears. I do not know

why. And then I see this post:)]

 

Can we have a series on shankara bhashyam for the

verse 2.16 in which the elders of the group take some

time to explain the material?

 

warm regards

Ramakrishna