On describing the Infinite

[Guest guest]

--- Ramakrishna Upadrasta <uramakrishna wrote:

> But in describing these profound experiences, the Vedic sage expresses his

> sense of the inadequacy of language. The Veda speaks of four grades of

> speech known to wise men of divine knowledge: " three of these kept in secret

> make no motion; people speak only the fourth grade of speech " [RV 1.164.45].

> So language as popularly spoken can give utterance only to a part of what the

> sage has realized; the rest has to be in silence. " For the finite the eloquent

> man, for the infinite, the mute " , says the Yajurveda [YV. VS. 30.19]. The

> silence is broken symbolic language which expresses a little and suggests much

> more. Symbolic language does not yield to simple logical meaning, it goes

> beyond logic to hint at transcendental significance.

>

 

Ramakrishna - PraNAms

 

Yes, silence communicates many times better than spoken words. - Of course, one

has

to adept to understand that communication. There is saying - mounam ardha

angIkAram

- silence is 50% agreement. It also implies 50% disagreement too. The

understanding

depends on the receiver’s perspective. To understand the language of silence,

the

receiver has to be silent, mentally too.

 

There is a proverb, IF IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SPEAK, IT IS NECESSARY NOT TO

SPEACK.

But until the mind is trained to understand the language of silence, the

communication can be only by speech – Otherwise this list serve will be pages of

empty contents. We have silent majority. It is difficult to have their feed

back

through silence. Since many of them staying back as members we assume, looking

from

the bright side, their silence is angIkAram of the list performance!

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ramakrishna Upadrasta "

<uramakrishna wrote:

....

 

The following excerpt, from Shri Abinash Bose's " Hymns from the

Vedas " , has a sruti reference (a quote from Shukla Yajur Veda) about

describing the infinite. It also contains a translation of the verse

from Asya Vamiya Sukta from Rig Veda, which talks about the

classification of levels of speech. This latter verse, we recently

discussed in another context.

>

> <BEGIN-QUOTE>

> ...

> But in describing these profound experiences, the Vedic sage

expresses his sense of the inadequacy of language. The Veda speaks of

four grades of speech known to wise men of divine knowledge:

 

........

 

Respected Sir,

 

I have a couple of questions for my own clarity. I am not sure if

they are relevant or not to the present Post because I am not clear

about the Initiator's purpose of the Post. I am also ignorant of the

reference made to the earlier discussion (a Ref to the Msg. # will

help me to trace back to the previous postings).

 

My Questions:

 

1. Are you referring to the four levels,viz. paraa, pashyanti,

madhyama and vaikhari?

 

2. Do we have any reference from scriptural texts where sages who

realized the Infinite(Brahman) are also said to have attained

Omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence?

 

If these questions do not match with the main purpose of your Post, I

shall appreciate receiving a private e-mail response.

 

Thanks and regards,

ramesam

[Guest guest]

kuntimaddi sadananda wrote:

>

To understand the language of silence, the receiver has to be silent,

mentally too.

> There is a proverb, IF IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SPEAK, IT IS NECESSARY

NOT TO SPEACK.

> But until the mind is trained to understand the language of silence,

the communication can be only by speech...

 

Dear All:

I would like to give an example of Sri Sadaji's statement. In fact, I

read this example today, before reading the posting. Is an extract

from a book by David Godman on the life and teachings of Annamalai

Swami, one of the closest attendants of Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi for

many years ( " Living by the words of Bhagavan " , page 335).

 

Question: I have read a lot about Bhagavan's method of teaching

through silence. you must have experienced it on many occasions. Can

you explain how it operated?

 

Annamalai Swami: If you enter a dark place with a lamp, light falls on

everyone who is near. You don't have to tell people, " I have a light "

because they will all be aware of its presence. In the presence of a

" jnani " (in italics in the text) like Bhagavan the spiritual darkness

of devotees is put to flight by the radiant light of " jnana " . In

Bhagavan's case this light cleaned and calmed the minds of all who

were near him. When mature devotees basked in this light they

sometimes had an experience of the Self. The radiation of this

spiritual power was Bhagavan's " mouna diksha " (initiation through

silence). He radiated the power quite effortlessly. It was not done by

an act of volition, it was a natural consequence of his realisation.

Bhagavan didn't need to speak about the Self. He " was " the Self and he

radiated its power all the time. Those who were receptive to his power

needed no verbal explanations from Bhagavan. The spoken teachings were

only for those who were not able to tune into his silent radiation.

 

 

Yours in All,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

My dear Shri Ramesam,

 

For the four leves of speech, I would recommend that you take up a

study of the LalitA SahasranAmavali with a good detailed

interpretation. ParA, pashyantI, madhyamA and vaikharI are among the

one thousand names of Mother LalitA, whom I worship as the

Consciousness of Advaita.

 

About your second question, the answer is very simple:

 

'One who has attained Brahman' is verily Brahman according to shruti.

 

Brahman is an *everywhereness* because phenomenal space gets undone

with Brahman. With Brahman, there is nothing more to be known (Ref:

knowing which all other things are as well known). Because there is

nothing other than Brahman, why should Brahman possess any power? To

do what? To rule over whom?

 

Thus, Brahman and therefore the knower of Brahman are omnipresence

(without space), omniscience (without want for knowledge) and

omnipotence (without need for power). You cannot use these words as

adjectives in reference to Brahman because adjectives are

attributive. Although these three words are found in all our

dictionaries, they have no phenomenality and do not convey any

phenomenal meaning. They are, therefore, to be understood in silence

as omnipresence is omniscience is omnipotence. Yet, the paradox is

that we intuit meanings into them and use them here and there in our

daily life without realizing their advaitc import.

 

Thus, I would say, while the words potent, knowledgeable and present

have definite meanings in the phenomenal, omnipotence, omniscience

and omnipresence belong to the transcendental. Perhaps, these

three nouns, which have the same advaitic meaning and which have

infiltrated our languages, are 'parA' expressing Herself

in 'vaikharI'. They reveal us a secret and sacred path back to Mother

Consciousness - the bhaktamAnasahamsikA! No wonder, therefore, that

they are there in the LalitA SahasranAmAvali.

 

I am sure, Anandaji, who has taken up a foray into Bhartrihari's

Vakyapadiya might like to say something here.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

advaitin , " ramesam " <ramesam wrote:

 

> 1. Are you referring to the four levels,viz. paraa, pashyanti,

> madhyama and vaikhari?

>

> 2. Do we have any reference from scriptural texts where sages who

> realized the Infinite(Brahman) are also said to have attained

> Omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence?

>

[Guest guest]

praNAms Shri Ramesam-ji,

 

 

advaitin , " ramesam " <ramesam wrote:

> I have a couple of questions for my own clarity. I am not sure if

> they are relevant or not to the present Post because I am not clear

> about the Initiator's purpose of the Post. I am also ignorant of the

> reference made to the earlier discussion (a Ref to the Msg. # will

> help me to trace back to the previous postings).

 

The message of a recent thread has the subject

" Need for a teacher...questions again " , in which members were

discussing (among other things), whether a teacher and a Jivan Mukta

can communicate through silence. Though there was no conclusive

agreement among the two sides, The possible final arguments of both

sides are presented by Shri Sastriji, Shri Frank-ji and Shri Harsha-ji

on one side and Shri Dennisji and Shri Sadaji on the other.

 

 

> 1. Are you referring to the four levels,viz. paraa, pashyanti,

> madhyama and vaikhari?

 

Shri Nairji has already given an explanation. Here is what I like to

add to it.

 

The RigVeda mantra about speech (1.164.45) just talks about the

four levels of speech, of which the learned people know fully. The

mantra also says that the fourth level is what is known by most

people (meaning common, unlearned people).

 

The names Para, Pashyanthi, Madhyama and Vaikhari are the

names given to the four levels by the followers of Tantra. According

to Sayana Bhashya for this mantra, these are not the only four

names for the four levels.

 

> 2. Do we have any reference from scriptural texts where sages who

> realized the Infinite(Brahman) are also said to have attained

> Omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence?

 

Though this is not pertinent to the subject, I think Shri Nair-ji

has given an explanation.

 

My ideas are following: The above conceps (Omnipresence

etc.) are attributes of Ishvara. When the jiivanmukta is said to be one

with Brahman, it is not to be interpreted as he is beyond the Ishvara.

He is still with a material body, which is subject to the decay and death.

 

On the path to " attaining " the knowledge that Self is Brahman, the

Jivanmukta may attain siddhis, like the 8 siddhis at the end of Shri

Dakshinamurthy Stotra, but attaining them is not said to be a

prerequisite to " attaining " Brahman. In fact, their attaining is usually

said to be orthogonal to the " attainment " of Brahman.

 

Note: Due to the language limitations, I am somehow attaching the

attainment to Brahman. This is known to be false, as Brahman by

definition is beyond subject-object relationships and hence

attainment.

 

My ideas on the above were formed by reading the messages of

the learned members of this group, reading and listening to Swami

Dayananda and reading literature. One such excellent literature reference

is the introduction in Swami Nikhilananda's " Self-knowledge " . This book

is a translation of Shri Adi Shankara's atma-bodha.

 

praNAms again,

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

Sarvam Brahman Mayam,encapsulates all.Is my opinion.

Suresh Balaraman.

 

 

 

 

 

______

Posted through Grouply, the better way to access your like this

one. Check out Grouply at: http://www.grouply.com/?code=post

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ramakrishna Upadrasta "

<uramakrishna wrote:

>

........

The RigVeda mantra about speech (1.164.45) just talks about the

> four levels of speech, of which the learned people know fully. The

> mantra also says that the fourth level is what is known by most

> people (meaning common, unlearned people). The names Para,

Pashyanthi, Madhyama and Vaikhari are the names given to the four

levels by the followers of Tantra. ......

 

2. Do we have any reference from scriptural texts where sages who

> > realized the Infinite(Brahman) are also said to have attained

> > Omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence?

......

My ideas are following: The above conceps (Omnipresence etc.) are

attributes of Ishvara. When the jiivanmukta is said to be one with

Brahman, it is not to be interpreted as he is beyond the Ishvara.

He is still with a material body, which is subject to the decay and

death. ...........

 

 

Respected Sir,

 

Heart-felt thanks.

 

I am obliged for your very precise and to-the-point replies to my two

queries.

 

I did follow the thread you are kind to make a reference to. In fact

I happened to post a Msg (#39967) on that thread and I responded

through my e-mail to two queries (#39969 and 39983) arising out

of my Post. (I hope they recd my mails).

 

I thought that the experimental results of Hebrew University

psychologists (Msg #39967) go to support, in a way, the contention of

Dr. Dennis Waite (a pre-preparation, (perhaps unconsciously stored)

flowered by an opportune trigger).

 

I am not sure that one can call such a triggering `silent

communication' between a sage and disciple as equivalent to the

Silence of paraa. It can be viewed as a break, a gap in articulated

speech, (i.e. language) thus forming essentially a part of speech.

 

I am not an expert on the subject and I am sharing my understanding

(partly conjectural) for possible correction. Let me please explain:

 

Vaak (speech) is held high in Rg Veda as co-extensive to Brahman

(e.g. yaavad brahma vistitam taavat vaak).

 

Vaak is also identified as `ekam sat'.

 

Aitareya and Brihadaranyaka hold vaak as brahma (brahmavai vaak, vaak

vai brahmeti). To me vaak looks to indicate here just basic

raw `sound' rather than any articulated verbalized speech.

 

The basic sound then gets into a definite form like `aum' in

Taitaariya (aum iti brahma, aum idam sarvam). Some popular science

writers compared `aum' to Cosmic Microwave Background (about 380,000

years after Big Bang).

 

By the time of Bhartri hari, vaak is also used for `language'. After

all, `language' can be seen to ride on speech, speech being prior to

language. I shall take language is `articulated speech' by humans

(bhaasaa vyaktaayaam vaaci).

 

As you mentioned, some schools hold more than four levels in vaak

while the Tantraagama (2.13) holds four levels. Accepting for the

present the four levels (also mentioned in Rg Samhitaa), they are :

paraa, pashyanti, madhayama and vaikhari where vaikhari is

the `articulated speech' by humans.

 

One school holds that paraa has its origin near gonads, pashyanti

near navel, madhyama in heart and vaikhari in the throat. Obviously

we cannot take it to be literally true physiologically. But it hints

that a sequential order does exist in the development towards

generating articulated speech.

 

The sequence in reverse order is:

 

4. The visible (audible, uttered sound) level – vaikhari.

 

3. Intermediate (word and meaning get separated) level – madhyama.

 

2. Subtle (undifferentiated word and meaning) level – pashyanti.

 

1. Source (Brahman) level – paraa.

 

Silence of spoken language exists at level 3. itself. Spoken word

emanates through mouth as sound. Before that, activity takes place

understandably in the cortical neurons connected with speech (Broca's

area in the left temporal lobe is identified with speech). Reseach

by Prof. C. Koch and Dr. Quiroga showed in 2005 that a single neuron

represents a specific object.

 

There can be, for example, a " Ramana " neuron identifying a picture, a

word, a song, a symbol connected with Ramana (including even the

letters " R-A-M-A-N-A " ) stored in the brain of a devotee. I suggest

that `madhyama' can possibly be taken to indicate this neuronal

level. There is no articulated sound at this level. Firing by this

neuron triggers further actions required for pronouncing the

corresponding sound by the mouth.

 

About a month ago (Feb 2008) a team of international scientists

demonstrated that a single neuron is capable of `conscious

perception.'

 

The existence of mirror neurons that mimic the activity of the

observed in an observer is known for over a decade. I do not know if

single neurons in Broca's (speech) area that are capable of conscious

perception can also communicate between two persons without

articulated speech. Even if this happens, I hold that it is

happening at `madhyama' level, (that is at the level just before

verbal uttered speech gets formulated). This is two levels later

than `paraa.' Therefore, it can be said that the `silent

communication' between a sage and disciple is not the

Silence of Brahman.

 

My second question in (#40040), as you have rightly responded,

pertained to the sages (physical bodies subjected to " death and

decay " ) and not to Brahman per se. The question I have here, flowing

out of your kind clarification is: Does the description of

Infinite, what the Sages " got " be taken as complementary to or

congruent with the descriptions of what modern Non-Dualist

teachers " got " ? (Have I framed this sentence murkily? I hope you

understood the gist of it).

 

With best of regards,

ramesam