'AWARENESS', 'CONSCIOUSNESS' AND 'UNDERSTANDING' IN THE CONTEXT OF VEDANTA

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mohan-ji,

An interesting post that brings to our attention a topic about which there is much confusion. ‘Awareness’, ‘consciousness’ etc. carry different meanings for each school of philosophy whether in German, English, Sanskrit or Urdu. The precise varience is gauged by the reading of those thinkers that represent the leading lights in those various schools. An English or a Sanskrit dictionary will not be of much use to you in discerning the precise shades of meaning and different connotations. It is part of the reading of philosophy that it takes time and patience to gain a sense of the context in which a word is used and its specific meaning. Dictionaries of philosophy may give you a generic sense of the word. In a sense there is an element of translation to all reading of philosophy and theology etc. The idea that certain terms are untranslateable is missing the barn door.

However in the translation of works from one language into another it is important that there is consistency of terminology in the treatment of any particular school of thought. We are fortunate that the Advaita Asrama have translated the commentaries of Shankara and that there is a uniformity in the rendering of key concepts.

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michaelji.

 

I am two hundred percent with you.

 

Vedantic terminology can't be properly understood with dictionaries

in hand. We must necessarily rely on consistent terminology.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

________________

 

advaitin , " ombhurbhuva " <ombhurbhuva

wrote:

> However in the translation of works from one language into another

it is important that there is consistency of terminology in the

treatment of any particular school of thought. We are fortunate that

the Advaita Asrama have translated the commentaries of Shankara and

that there is a uniformity in the rendering of key concepts.

[Guest guest]

Dear Mohan-ji,

As pointed out by Michael-ji and Nair-ji, one only really gains

a genuine feel for the way in which these concepts are used in Vedanta by familiarity

through reading, discussion (and best of all studying with a shrotriya!). Nevertheless,

I think this is an excellent introduction to the confusion that is inevitable

for beginners and, with your permission, I will add it to the files section and

my own website in the ‘Definition of Terms’ section for the words ‘awareness’

and ‘consciousness’ - my own feeling is that there is less of a problem

with ‘understanding’. And I will point the Sanskrit words praj~nA, chit,

j~nAna and vij~nAna to it as well. It will, of course, be necessary to edit in

the correct ITRANS representations of Sanskrit words for consistency with all

of the other definitions.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin

[advaitin ] On Behalf Of smnm1010

Saturday, December 27, 2008 6:41 AM

advaitin

'AWARENESS', 'CONSCIOUSNESS' AND 'UNDERSTANDING' IN

THE CONTEXT OF VEDANTA

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pranams to the Advaitin Group and Wishes for

the New Year!

I have been grappling with certain terms in English renderings of

Vedanta. Seeking your guidance, a small note is appended below:

 

A CONSIDERATION OF THE ENGLISH TERMS `AWARENESS', `CONSCIOUSNESS'

AND `UNDERSTANDING' FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF VEDANTA

 

The English terms `Awareness', `Consciousness' and `Understanding'

are used interchangeably and to mean the same concept in Western

philosophy.

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

Pranams Sri Dennisji, Sri Nairji, Sri Michaelji, and Sri Sadanandaji,

 

Many thanks for your valuable comments. I have attempted to assimilate them as follows:

 

 

Epistemology – Theory and Means of Knowledge – Discussions and Summary

The topic comes under the field of ‘Epistemology’. The Advaitin Group has been discussing this question under the topic ‘Vedanta Paribhasha’ and the content is being summarized by Sri Dennisji. In this content, a list of acceptable English terms is also being compiled.

I traced the original extensive discussions at least back to July 2008 (Discussion No 13). Frankly I got a bit lost and decided that it will require a separate study by itself.

 

 

Dictionaries as Aid to Translation

 

Dictionaries are not a reliable aid to translation. It is necessary to grasp the essence of what the original statement conveys. This is a problem faced in many languages.

Early in my studies, I leaned on Sri Apte’s Dictionary. However, last year I acquired a Monier Williams (a suggestion that emanated from this group in 2004). It is itself a veritable treasure of knowledge.

 

 

Consistency in Terminology

 

With particular reference to translations from Sanskrit to English, the terminology used by the Advaita Ashrama (a wing of the Ramakrishna Mission at Kolkatta and Almorah) is considered to be most consistent.

This comment indicates to me that the English words used by the Advaita Ashrama could be a possible reliable basis for my own work.

 

 

iTRANS for Transliteration of Sanskrit

 

It is noted that the Advaitin Group recommends iTRANS for transliteration of Sanskrit into English. I have noticed this and have seen some posts in this regard in July 2008 archives. I will study and adopt the same for Advaitin group postings.

Could you please guide me how I can access a guide for this on the web?

 

I hope my understanding of your valuable comments is correct. If not, kindly correct me.

Sri Dennisji states that he would like to add my original comments suitably modified with iTRANS corrections to the files section and his own website. I am humbly grateful to you. Please feel free to do so. Can you please guide me to your website?

From this comment I surmise that Sri Dennisji is tacitly approving the following:

 

The terms ‘Awareness’ and ‘Consciousness’ can be considered to be synonymous;

The term ‘Understanding’ can be treated separately;

The term ‘Pragnya’ can be equated to ‘Awareness’ and ‘Consciousness’.

A slight confusion continues in my mind on whether the term ‘Chit’ (as in ‘Sat-Chith-Ananda’) can be used synonymously with ‘Pragnya’.

Similarly, I have confusion between ‘Chith’ and ‘Chitta’ (as in Mandukya Upanishad Sloka 2). The latter term ‘Chitta’ is said to represent ‘memories’.

I seek Sri Dennisji’s advice on these two points.

 

Warm Regards and Pranams

Mohan--- On Sun, 28/12/08, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

Dennis Waite <dwaiteRE: 'AWARENESS', 'CONSCIOUSNESS' AND 'UNDERSTANDING' IN THE CONTEXT OF VEDANTAadvaitin Date: Sunday, 28 December, 2008, 4:34 PM

 

 

 

 

Dear Mohan-ji,

As pointed out by Michael-ji and Nair-ji, one only really gains a genuine feel for the way in which these concepts are used in Vedanta by familiarity through reading, discussion (and best of all studying with a shrotriya!). Nevertheless, I think this is an excellent introduction to the confusion that is inevitable for beginners and, with your permission, I will add it to the files section and my own website in the ‘Definition of Terms’ section for the words ‘awareness’ and ‘consciousness’ - my own feeling is that there is less of a problem with ‘understanding’. And I will point the Sanskrit words praj~nA, chit, j~nAna and vij~nAna to it as well. It will, of course, be necessary to edit in the correct ITRANS representations of Sanskrit words for consistency with all of the other definitions.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin@ s.com [advaitin] On Behalf Of smnm1010Saturday, December 27, 2008 6:41 AMadvaitin@ s.com 'AWARENESS', 'CONSCIOUSNESS' AND 'UNDERSTANDING' IN THE CONTEXT OF VEDANTA

 

 

 

 

Pranams to the Advaitin Group and Wishes for the New Year!I have been grappling with certain terms in English renderings of Vedanta. Seeking your guidance, a small note is appended below:A CONSIDERATION OF THE ENGLISH TERMS `AWARENESS', `CONSCIOUSNESS' AND `UNDERSTANDING' FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF VEDANTAThe English terms `Awareness', `Consciousness' and `Understanding' are used interchangeably and to mean the same concept in Western philosophy.

 

..

 

Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now

[Guest guest]

Dear Mohan-ji,

The website that I maintain is at www.advaita.org.uk. I have been editing

and serializing Sri Sadananda’s series on vedAnta paribhAshA and there are

currently 35 parts beginning at http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/knowledge/intro1.htm.

These correspond with about the first 14 – 15 parts originally posted to the

group since I am making the weekly parts much shorter. (This is because it

takes me significant time to work through them myself and understand them and I

feel that any readers will not want to work through them any faster either. It

should be noted that this work is  not an ‘essential’ one for anyone studying

advaita and it is a very difficult one. So certainly no one should worry about ‘getting

lost’!

As regards dictionaries, one is certainly valuable for many of

the posts to the list! And Monier Williams is excellent. You should note that

you can also download this together with a utility that enables you to enter a

word and immediately get back the translation. This was written by Louis Bontes

a number of years ago but is still available from his website - http://members.chello.nl/l.bontes/.

 

I have compiled a ‘dictionary’ of commonly used terms which is

available at my website – this is currently available under the ‘Terms’/’Dictionary’

menu from any page of the site. This will soon change to ‘Sanskrit’/’Dictionary’

since I am about to modify the menu structure. Unfortunately this is never up

to date since I keep coming across new words and it is a major task to update

it!

There is an introduction to ITRANS at my website - http://www.advaita.org.uk/sanskrit/itrans.htm

or much more information is available at the website of the person who devised

it, Avinash Chopde - http://www.aczoom.com/itrans/.

There is an excellent free utility to translate ITRANS to devanAgarI from Omkarananda

Ashrama - http://www.omkarananda-ashram.org/Sanskrit/Itranslt.html.

There are many other links from the Sanskrit Resources page of my site - http://www.advaita.org.uk/sanskrit/sanskrit_resources.htm.

 

Regarding your post on awareness, consciousness etc, my view was

that your analysis was very useful for other members in pointing out the various

interpretations, scope for misunderstanding etc. It is not possible to say that

‘awareness’ and ‘consciousness’ are equivalent because it depends upon who is

using them. If, for example, you are reading Nisargadatta, then they are

certainly not the same and he uses these words in the opposite way to most

other teachers.

As regards the precise meaning of Sanskrit words, I would have

to defer to someone like Sunder-ji, since I am not remotely an expert on the

subject. Certainly, you are correct to differentiate chit and chitta. The

latter is one of the aspects of the antaHkaraNa (mind), relating to memory as

you point out, whereas chit is one of the ‘attributes’ of brahman, usually

interpreted as ‘consciousness’.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of sundararajan

mohan

Monday, December 29, 2008 4:30 AM

advaitin

RE: 'AWARENESS', 'CONSCIOUSNESS' AND 'UNDERSTANDING'

IN THE CONTEXT OF VEDANTA

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

Pranams Sri Dennisji,

I am overwhelmed by all that you have conveyed in your message.

Thank you very much indeed.

I have noted all that you say and will certainly work on all these

points.

Your website, which I have just visited, as well as the archives are a

veritable treasure trove for students of Advaita and Vedanta. How can

one appreciate adequately the wonderful patience and care with which

you and the many other contributors of the group have been serving the

cause of knowledge?

Warm regards and Pranams

Mohan

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Mohan-ji,

>

> The website that I maintain is at www.advaita.org.uk. I have been

editing and serializing Sri Sadananda’s series on vedAnta paribhAshA

and there are currently 35 parts beginning at

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/knowledge/intro1.htm. These >

> Dennis

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji.

 

I would like to submit a few words with regard to your statement

quoted below:

 

QUOTE

 

" Certainly, you are correct to differentiate chit and chitta. The

latter is one of the aspects of the antaHkaraNa (mind), relating to

memory as you point out, whereas chit is one of the attributes of

brahman, usually interpreted as " consciousness " . "

 

UNQUOTE

 

1. 'cit' is not an attribute of Brahman. 'cit' in sat-cit-Ananda is

Brahman Itself. sat, chit and Ananda are synonyms for Brahman - not

aspects or attributes.

 

2. 'citta' is the mind as a whole (antaHkaraNa)which includes all

mental faculties including memory and intellect.

 

3. The purification of 'citta' leads to antaHkaranAshuddhi which

bestows realization (akhaNda-AkAravritti). In other words, the

erstwhile 'citta', when purified, goes 'cit' (Brahman). That is why

vedantic teachings insist on sAdhana aimed at

achieving 'cittashuddhi'.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair-ji,

As you rightly say, cit is the very nature of brahman and not an

atribute.

The word cittam is used in two different senses. In slokas such gItA,

10.9, in the word 'maccittAh'the word citta is a synonym for the nind

itself, as you have said. But in the shloka 'mano buddhi ahankAra

cittAni na aham', the word citta is used to denote the function of the

antaHkaranam of storing memories. As you no doubt know, here manas

stands for the function of cogitation, buddhi stands for the function

of deciding, and ahankAra for the function of owning these actions in

the form " I cogitate', 'I decide', etc. THe same mind is given these

four different names according to the function.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

 

-

[Guest guest]

Dear Respected Shri Sastriji,

 

I can't agree less.

 

Looks like it is safer to understand citta, when used alone, as the

mind inclusive of all its functions. However, when it is separately

listed with the other mental faculties as in 'mano buddhi ahankAra

cittAni na aham', it is advisable to look for a different meaning.

 

Besides, what is the significance of the 'Ani' inflection on citta in

the above quote? Is it a collective plural for mana, buddhi,

ahankAra and citta? Kindly clarify.

 

It is interesting to note that MW also attributes the meanings of

intelligence, reason etc. to citta in addition to memory.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>> As you rightly say, cit is the very nature of brahman and not an

> atribute.

> The word cittam is used in two different senses. In slokas such

gItA,

> 10.9, in the word 'maccittAh'the word citta is a synonym for the

nind

> itself, as you have said. But in the shloka 'mano buddhi ahankAra

> cittAni na aham', the word citta is used to denote the function of

the

> antaHkaranam of storing memories. As you no doubt know, here manas

> stands for the function of cogitation, buddhi stands for the

function

> of deciding, and ahankAra for the function of owning these actions

in

> the form " I cogitate', 'I decide', etc. THe same mind is given

these

> four different names according to the function.

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair-ji,

cittani is the plural of cittam. Since four words--mans, buddhi,

ahankAra and cittam are combined to form one word, the last word

becomes plural.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Dear Respected Shri Sastriji,

>

> I can't agree less.

>

> Looks like it is safer to understand citta, when used alone, as

the

> mind inclusive of all its functions. However, when it is

separately

> listed with the other mental faculties as in 'mano buddhi ahankAra

> cittAni na aham', it is advisable to look for a different meaning.

>

> Besides, what is the significance of the 'Ani' inflection on citta

in

> the above quote? Is it a collective plural for mana, buddhi,

> ahankAra and citta? Kindly clarify.

>

> It is interesting to note that MW also attributes the meanings of

> intelligence, reason etc. to citta in addition to memory.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

> _______________

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

> 1. 'cit' is not an attribute of Brahman. 'cit' in sat-cit-Ananda is

> Brahman Itself. sat, chit and Ananda are synonyms for Brahman - not

> aspects or attributes.

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> Dear Nair-ji,

> As you rightly say, cit is the very nature of brahman and not an

> atribute.

> Regards,

> S.N.Sastri

>

Hari Om Shri Nairji and Shri Sastriji, Pranaams!

 

Sat, cit and Ananda are not synonyms for Brahman as they have different

word meanings. Had they been synonyms, using in same sentence will look

like ghaTa kumbha kalasha.

 

But in Brahman saccidAnandatA are not different because the three words

without giving up their word meaning denot a single common entity

Brahman by their intended meaning.

 

Sat, cit and Ananda are not attribute, aspect, nor very nature of

Brahman. In that case Brahman cannot be called homogeneous.

 

Sat, cit and Ananda are not descriptive definitions - lakShana (anvayi

visheShaNa) but are denoting indicators - upalakShana

(ananvayi/taTastha/jnApika visheShaNa).

 

Thus by bhAgathyAga lakShaNa the sentence indicate Brahman by their

intended meaning.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Dear Respected Shri Sastriji,

>

> I can't agree less.

>

> Madathil Nair

> _______________

>

> advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri@> wrote:

> >> As you rightly say, cit is the very nature of brahman and not

an

> > atribute.

> > The word cittam is used in two different senses. In slokas such

> gItA,

> > 10.9, in the word 'maccittAh'the word citta is a synonym for the

> nind

> > itself, as you have said. But in the shloka 'mano buddhi

ahankAra

> > cittAni na aham', the word citta is used to denote the function

of

> the

> > antaHkaranam of storing memories.

 

Pranams Sri Sastriji and Sri Nairji,

I have been reading your posts with great interest.

My basis of understanding the concept is the commentary by Swami

Sivananda on the Mandukya Upanishad.

 

Sloka 2 states:

sarvam hyethath brahma ayam AtmA brahma

soyamAtmA chathuspath

 

All this is verily Brahman. This Atma is Brahman. This Atma has four

quarters.

 

Sloka 3 states:

jagarithasthano bahishpragnaha sapthAnga

ekonavimshatimukhaha sthUlabhugvaishvanaraha prathamaha pAdaha

 

The first quarter is Vaisvanara whose sphere is the state of waking,

who is conscious of the external objects, who has seven limbs and

nineteen mouths and who enjoys the gross objects.

 

Commenting on the nineteen mouths, Swami Sivananda states :

1. The five Jnana Indriyas ….

2. The five Karma Indriyas …

3. The five Pranas ….

4. The fourfold Antahkarana consists of Manas (mind), Buddhi

(intellect), Chitta (subconscious mind or the faculty by which

things are remembered) and Ahamkara (egoism or self-arrogating

principle).

 

I have noted Sri Sastriji's comments clarifying the source of the

concept of `Chitta' as Gita 10.9. Could you kindly clarify the

source of the statement 'mano buddhi ahankAra cittAni na aham' ?

 

Warm regards and Pranams

Mohan

[Guest guest]

The VivekachUdamani also defines as follows:

(translation based on Sringeri Acarya's commentary)nigadyatentaHkaraNaM manodhiiH ahaMkR^tishchittam iti svavR^ttibhiHmanas tusaMkalpavikalpanaadibhiH buddhiHpadaarthaadhyavasaayadharmataH. 93atraabhimaanaadaham ity ahaMkR^tiH svaarthaanusandhaanaguNena chittam. 94According to its differing activities, the Inner Organ, although one only, isdistinguished into four as manas, buddhi (dhih), aham.krti and citta.Manas - mind - is responsible for cogitating. Sankalpa refers to its determinateaspect, and vikalpa is indeterminate or doubting aspect. vikalpa means vividhamkalpana : imagining in various waysBuddhi determines the real nature of its objects;Aham.krti arises from attachment to the body,etc and a false sense ofsuperimposition of them as "I"Citta - is the memory aspect.

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam--- On Wed, 12/31/08, smnm1010 <smnm1010 wrote:

smnm1010 <smnm1010 Re: 'AWARENESS', 'CONSCIOUSNESS' AND 'UNDERSTANDING' IN THE CONTEXT OF VEDANTAadvaitin Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 9:44 AM

 

 

advaitin@ s.com, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair@ ...> wrote:>> Dear Respected Shri Sastriji,> > I can't agree less.> > Madathil Nair> ____________ ___> > advaitin@ s.com, "snsastri" <sn.sastri@> wrote:> >> As you rightly say, cit is the very nature of brahman and not an > > atribute.> > The word cittam is used in two different senses. In slokas such > gItA, > > 10.9, in the word 'maccittAh'the word citta is a synonym for the > nind > > itself, as you

have said. But in the shloka 'mano buddhi ahankAra > > cittAni na aham', the word citta is used to denote the function of > the > > antaHkaranam of storing memories. Pranams Sri Sastriji and Sri Nairji,I have been reading your posts with great interest.My basis of understanding the concept is the commentary by Swami Sivananda on the Mandukya Upanishad. Sloka 2 states:sarvam hyethath brahma ayam AtmA brahma soyamAtmA chathuspathAll this is verily Brahman. This Atma is Brahman. This Atma has four quarters.Sloka 3 states:jagarithasthano bahishpragnaha sapthAnga ekonavimshatimukhah a sthUlabhugvaishvana raha prathamaha pAdahaThe first quarter is Vaisvanara whose sphere is the state of waking, who is conscious of the external objects, who has seven limbs and nineteen mouths and who enjoys the gross objects.Commenting on the nineteen

mouths, Swami Sivananda states :1. The five Jnana Indriyas ….2. The five Karma Indriyas …3. The five Pranas ….4. The fourfold Antahkarana consists of Manas (mind), Buddhi (intellect), Chitta (subconscious mind or the faculty by which things are remembered) and Ahamkara (egoism or self-arrogating principle).I have noted Sri Sastriji's comments clarifying the source of the concept of `Chitta' as Gita 10.9. Could you kindly clarify the source of the statement 'mano buddhi ahankAra cittAni na aham' ?Warm regards and PranamsMohan

[Guest guest]

Pranipatachaitanyaji - PraNAms

 

From my understanding:

 

satyam jnaanam anantam are described as swaruupa lakshaNams - Swaruupa

lakshaNams from mathematical rigor are necessary and sufficient qualifications -

like H20 is water and water is H2O - there are no two ways about it. In math we

learn that to satisfy both necessary and sufficient condition not only the

direct but converse statement has to be valid. As an example sugar is sweet -

sweetness is necessary (swaabhaavika) lakshaNam but it is not sufficient

requirement - for that to be valid the statement - sweet is sugar - should be

satisfied - but sweet can be Equal or any other besides sugar. Hence sweetness

is necessary but not sufficient.

 

Scriptures define Brahman using converse statement - prajnaanam Brahman - making

it both necessary and sufficient requirement - Hence it is swaruupa lakshaNam

for Brahman - Similarly Shankara argues in his Ti. Up bhaashya that satyam,

jnaanam, anantam - are swaruupa lakshaNam for Brahman - anantatvaat is his

basis. There is nothing wrong by saying Brahman is homogeneous

existence-consciousness limitless - prajnaana ghanam - since all these

descriptors are not from vyaavahaarika point only or upaaya to discriminate -

that which is eternal from ephemeral. From absolute nothing can be said or need

to be said.

 

Incidentally no object in the universe has swaruupa lakshaNam that can be

defined since they are made up of parts. Only Brahman has swaruupa lakshaNam -

for the world of objects the swaruupam is nothing but Brahman only He or it is

the substantive of all objects.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

--- On Wed, 12/31/08, pranipatachaitanya <pranipatachaitanya wrote:

 

 

 

Sat, cit and Ananda are not attribute, aspect, nor very nature of

 

Brahman. In that case Brahman cannot be called homogeneous.

 

 

 

Sat, cit and Ananda are not descriptive definitions - lakShana (anvayi

 

visheShaNa) but are denoting indicators - upalakShana

 

(ananvayi/taTastha/ jnApika visheShaNa).

 

 

 

Thus by bhAgathyAga lakShaNa the sentence indicate Brahman by their

 

intended meaning.

 

 

 

In Shri Guru Smriti

 

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> The VivekachUdamani also defines as follows:

>

> (translation based on Sringeri Acarya's commentary)

>

> nigadyatentaHkaraNaM manodhiiH ahaMkR^tishchittam iti svavR^ttibhiH

> manas tusaMkalpavikalpanaadibhiH

buddhiHpadaarthaadhyavasaayadharmataH. 93

> atraabhimaanaadaham ity ahaMkR^tiH svaarthaanusandhaanaguNena

chittam. 94

>

Pranams Sri Shyamji,

Thanks for that reference from VivekachUdAmani.

Is an English translation of Sringeri Acharya's commentary available?

Is this Sri Chandrashekara Bharati?

Warm regards and Pranams

Mohan

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair-ji,

I actually thought I had put ‘attribute’ in

quotation marks. My understanding is that brahman has no attributes, strictly speaking.

chit is regarded as a svarUpa lakShaNa – a ‘definition’ or ‘pointer’

so as to give the enquiring mind an idea to latch on to prior to enlightenment.

I do not see how chitta can be regarded as the *same* as antaHkaraNa when

the latter is said to be ‘made up of’ buddhi, manas, chitta and

ahaMkAra.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Madathil

Rajendran Nair

Wednesday, December 31, 2008 5:08 AM

advaitin

Re: 'AWARENESS', 'CONSCIOUSNESS' AND 'UNDERSTANDING'

IN THE CONTEXT OF VEDANTA

 

1. 'cit' is not an attribute of Brahman. 'cit' in sat-cit-Ananda is

Brahman Itself. sat, chit and Ananda are synonyms for Brahman - not

aspects or attributes.

 

2. 'citta' is the mind as a whole (antaHkaraNa)which includes all

mental faculties including memory and intellect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennisji,

 

You might have seen that I have already accepted Shri Sastriji's

clarification that chitta is contextually understood as the faculty

of memory - a part of the whole mind.

 

Now, I have to counter your question quoted below with another

question. When we say chittashuddhi, do we really mean the shuddhi

of the whole mind or only a 'washing' of the memories? If your

answer is the former, then you have understood me and the meaning I

attribute to chitta. If your answer is unfortunately the latter,

then I haven't understood you and will never.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________

 

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>I do not see how chitta can be regarded as the *same* as

antaHkaraNa when the latter is said to be 'made up of' buddhi,

manas, chitta and ahaMkAra.

[Guest guest]

Yes it is an ecellent and detailed and obviously authoratative commentary, by His Holiness Sri Chandrasekhara BhArati of Sringeri, published by Bharati Vidya Bhavan (- should be available through their website I would think)

Best wishes,

Hari OM

Shyam

--- On Wed, 12/31/08, smnm1010 <smnm1010 wrote:

smnm1010 <smnm1010 Re: 'AWARENESS', 'CONSCIOUSNESS' AND 'UNDERSTANDING' IN THE CONTEXT OF VEDANTAadvaitin Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 11:04 AM

 

 

advaitin@ s.com, Shyam <shyam_md@.. .> wrote:>> The VivekachUdamani also defines as follows:> > (translation based on Sringeri Acarya's commentary)> > nigadyatentaHkaraNa M manodhiiH ahaMkR^tishchittam iti svavR^ttibhiH> manas tusaMkalpavikalpana adibhiH buddhiHpadaarthaadh yavasaayadharmat aH. 93> atraabhimaanaadaham ity ahaMkR^tiH svaarthaanusandhaan aguNena chittam. 94> Pranams Sri Shyamji,Thanks for that reference from VivekachUdAmani.Is an English translation of Sringeri Acharya's commentary available?Is this Sri Chandrashekara Bharati?Warm regards and PranamsMohan

[Guest guest]

PraNAms - there is an English translation of the commentary and also a telugu

translation of that work -

 

There is also commentary on VivekachuuDamaNi by Malayala swami in Telugu that I

found is excellent. He was called Malayala Swami since he came from Kerala and

settlled in Tirupati and established an ashram there. He wrote in Telugu!

Excellent work. His disciple's disciple is now running that ashram.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--- On Wed, 12/31/08, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

 

 

Yes it is an ecellent and detailed and obviously authoratative

commentary, by His Holiness Sri Chandrasekhara BhArati of Sringeri, published by

Bharati Vidya Bhavan (- should be available through their website I would think)

Best wishes,

Hari OM

Shyam

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " smnm1010 " <smnm1010 wrote:

> Pranams Sri Sastriji and Sri Nairji,

>

> I have noted Sri Sastriji's comments clarifying the source of the

> concept of `Chitta' as Gita 10.9. Could you kindly clarify the

> source of the statement 'mano buddhi ahankAra cittAni na aham' ?

>

> Warm regards and Pranams

> Mohan

>

Dear Mohan-ji,

The words `manobuddhyahankAracittani nAham' form the first line of the

work known as nirvANaShaTkam of 6 shlokas. These are given with

English translation at

www.geocities.com/snsastri/nirvanashatkam.pdf

 

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Pranipatachaitanyaji - PraNAms

>

> From my understanding:

>

> satyam jnaanam anantam are described as swaruupa lakshaNams -

>

> - Similarly Shankara argues in his Ti. Up bhaashya that satyam,

jnaanam, anantam - are swaruupa lakshaNam for Brahman - anantatvaat

is his basis.

 

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

Hari Om Shri Sadanandaji, Pranaams!

 

If I am not wrong, Acharyaji describes Satyam, Jnanam and Anantam as

lakShaNArthapradhAnavisheShaNAni only and not as svarupa lakShaNa.(na

visheShaNapradhAnAni eva).

 

visheShaNAni because among themselves they are unrelated and only in

connection with brahman by mutually limiting and getting limited

indicate brahman. lakShaNAni because they denote a positive entity.

 

Bhagavan also does apavAda in the same breath and concludes affirming

the siddhAnta that It is not the import of the sentence in accordance

to the same shruti declaring 'yato vaco nivartante aprApya manasA

saha'.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

--- On Wed, 12/31/08, pranipatachaitanya <pranipatachaitanya wrote:

 

 

If I am not wrong, Acharyaji describes Satyam, Jnanam and Anantam as

 

lakShaNArthapradhAn avisheShaNAni only and not as svarupa lakShaNa.(na

 

visheShaNapradhAnAn i eva).

 

Brahmachariji - PraNAms.

 

If I have implied that you are wrong - my apologies. I only state what I

understand. What you say is right. Here visheShaNapradhAnAn is in terms of

attributive definition applies to objective definitions - Hence Shankara says it

is not of that type - satyam jnaanam anantam or not visheShaNas in that sense as

attributive of Brahman - Swaruupa lakshaNam is not visheShaNas lakshaNa - It is

intrinsic nature without being attributive at the same time not suunyam either.

Infinite cannot be defined yet it is defined from the point of finite as not

finite - even the definition jnaanam cannot be defined and same applies to

satyam too. Tai. Up provides both definitions – taTasta and swaruupa lakshNas

for Brahman. In contrast to Brahman definition using taTasta lakshaNa -yatova

imaani... which is condensed as janmaadyasya yathaH - the above definition

satyam jnaanam anantam are only indicative definition of the real nature of

Brahman but expressed from the

point of vyavahaara to differentiate it from all finite objects and objects of

knowledge not knowledge itself and those who are mithyaa (sat asat

vilakshaNam_)and not sat. Hence as you mentioned that they are indicative

definitions only but what I have pointed out is they are intrinsic nature (not

taTasta lakshaNas or visheShaNas) - like H2O is not a property of water but its

very content. Satyam jnaanam and anantam are the very essence of Brahman -

swaruupa means that - although I realize the words are limited to indicate the

essence. None of the three words can be defined but can only intuitively

recognized just as when I say I am existing and conscious entity - as I AM –

existence and being conscious is my intrinsic nature – to differentiate from

existence as .. or conscious of ..where visheShaNas apply. My real nature is

existence-consciousness – that is my intrinsic swaruupa laksaNa only but not

definable – since any definition is

objectification and attributive.

 

I will have to go back to the original bhaashya to give you the specifics.

Anyway I tried to present my understanding for whatever it is worth.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

> >

> Dear Mohan-ji,

> The words `manobuddhyahankAracittani nAham' form the first line of

the

> work known as nirvANaShaTkam of 6 shlokas. > Best wishes,

> S.N.Sastri

 

Pranams Sri Sastriji,

Many thanks and the website is wonderful !

Warm regards, Pranams and Happy New Year

Mohan

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " pranipatachaitanya "

<pranipatachaitanya wrote:

> Hari Om Shri Nairji and Shri Sastriji, Pranaams!

>

> Sat, cit and Ananda are not synonyms for Brahman as they have

different

> word meanings. Had they been synonyms, using in same sentence will

look

> like ghaTa kumbha kalasha.

>

> But in Brahman saccidAnandatA are not different because the three

words

> without giving up their word meaning denot a single common entity

> Brahman by their intended meaning.

>

> Sat, cit and Ananda are not attribute, aspect, nor very nature of

> Brahman. In that case Brahman cannot be called homogeneous.

>

> Sat, cit and Ananda are not descriptive definitions - lakShana

(anvayi

> visheShaNa) but are denoting indicators - upalakShana

> (ananvayi/taTastha/jnApika visheShaNa).

>

> Thus by bhAgathyAga lakShaNa the sentence indicate Brahman by

their

> intended meaning.

>

> In Shri Guru Smriti

> Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

 

Dear Br. Pranipata Chaitanya-ji,

The chandogya up. says: " sad eva somya idam agre Asit " . Here sat

means brahman. So the word sat is used as a synonym for brahman. The

taitt. up. says: " Anando brahmeti vyajAnAt " . (This is the final

conclusion and not a provisional one as in the case of " annam

brahmaeti vyajAnAt " , etc.). Here Ananda is used as a synonym for

brahman. In the mahAvAkya " prajnAnam brahma " prajnAnam is the same

as cit or Consciousness. Thus cit is also a synonym for brahman.

Each of the words sat, cit, Ananda is a synonym for brahman. But

because of this these three words do not become synonyms of one

another and so the defect that it would be like saying

ghatakumbhakalasha does not arise. This is because sat, cit and

Ananda are three different aspects of brahman. The fact that brahman

has three aspects does not militate against its being one

indivisible whole. As explained in Chapter 15 of Panchadasi, the

three aspects do not all manifest always and so they can be

considered as different aspects of the one indivisible brahman. The

sat or existence aspect alone is manifested in inanimate objects.

The sat and cit aspects are manifested always in all living beings

even when the Ananda aspect is not manifested, as we see that even a

person who is unhappy is conscious. But the Ananda aspect is

manifested only when the mind is calm. Thus it is clear that though

brahman is one and indivisible, akhanda, it has these three aspects.

So by saying that the words sat, cit and Ananda individually refer

to brahman and can therefore be said to be synonyms of brahman, it

does not follow that they are themselves synonyms of one another.

It is true that the words sat, cit and Ananda can denote brahman

only by their implied meaning (lakshyartha) as pointed out by you.

brahman has no quality, action or relationship and so it cannot be

denoted by the primary meaning (vAcyArtha) of any word.

 

In the bhAshya on taitt. up. it has been made clear that the words

sat, cit and Anantam only mean that brahman is different from

everything that is asat, i.e., changing, from everything that is

insentient and from everything that is limited.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

 

Hari Om Shri Sastriji, Pranaams!

 

I fully respect your views. I beg to differ. Kindly bear with me.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya