Enlightened Empirical Engagements!!!

[Guest guest]

Mani - PraNams

 

In a way, yes. knowledge takes place only in the intellect - knowledge involves

reflection of consciousness - that is, when the thought getting reflected by the

light of consciousness then we are conscious two things 1. the thought and 2.

the reflecting light, provided we pay attention to it by mentally rejecting the

object that is reflecting to see only the light that is getting reflected. This

is like seeing any object in the lighted room. We see the object but skip over

the fact that it is the reflected light from that we are seeing, is it not? We

need to shift the attention from the form of the object to recognize the light

with shades getting reflecting from it.

 

In the same way, pure light of consciousness cannot be 'recognized' without the

its reflection. I cannot see my face without a mirror. But when I see the image

of myself in the mirror, I do not mistake it as something other than me - I even

skip the mirror and take the image as I am even though I know it is image.

 

It is in that sense the statement that mind is required for self-realization -

just as mirror is required to see my self. Our problem is we get carried away

with the reflecting medium than the reflecting light that is coming from I. If

there is no mirror then there is no self-realization also as in deep sleep

state. If I drop the BMI, I am pure consciousness - then it is not jiivanmukta -

it is pure Brahman where there is no self-realization too. Brahman does not

self-realization also - it is pure light - being infinite there is no other

medium even to reflect the light of consciousness. re-analize is to re-evaluate

- requires the BMI.

 

Now the throwing away is also mental -and not physical, in the sense Nairji and

Bhaskarji seem to argue - it is understanding that I am not the object but the

light due to which the object is seen- That light because of which I am

conscious of.. That light of consciousness is I am. Technical it is called

upahita caitanya - that is upaadhi sahita caitanya - the consciousness that is

associated with BMI.

Hope this helps

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- On Mon, 2/2/09, R.S.MANI <r_s_mani wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Namaste, Sri Sadaji, and others

Sri Sadaji has mentioned:

<< you need the upaadhi's even for jnaani to recognize that I am not uppadhis

but that because of which upaadhis are known. you need a pot for the potspace to

know that I am - potspace within the pot and at the same time as a space

unlimited and unbroken and infinite - that is upahita space. >>

Is it not like the need of a thorn to remove a thorn embedded under my knee?

And, of course after removal of the thorn from the foot,  both the thorns, i.e.

one that gave pain, and the other that helped to remove the pain, ARE THROWN

AWAY.

Warm regards

R.S.Mani

 

 

 

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now.

[Guest guest]

--- On Tue, 2/3/09, rajkumarknair <rajkumarknair wrote:

 

 

In this mail, you mention six different entities : Ego, intellect,

 

Original Consciousness, Reflected Consciousness, jnani and I.

 

Could you explain how these entities are related to each other, how

 

they exist before realization, and how each would appear after

 

realization?

 

That will hopefully provide more clarity to this discussion.

 

---------

Raj - PraNAms

 

Here is my understanding:

 

'I' is pure existence-consciousness that is limitless - satyam-jnaanam-anantam -

Brahman that I am. That is one without a second - not even with maayaa, which is

called turiiyam in ManDukya. This is also the original consciousness (OC).This

is paaramaarthika.

 

I, when associated with total BMI is Iswara as a locus for maayaa - the power of

projection - the total universe of projection is Iswara sRiShTi. This projection

is called vyavahaara - the rope that I see is not my creation - The people that

are on this list serve etc. including this discussion - involves to major extent

Iswara sRiShTi - In the 13ch - he says - prakRiti (maayaa) does all actions

including creation - of course under Iswara's direction. I am gatiH, bhartaa,

PrabhuH –I am the goal, the supporter and creator - says Krishna - identifying

himself with Iswara. All this is vyaavahaarika. At Iswara level he is sarvajna

– all knower – no ignorance at this level. To create he should have the

knowledge of all the creation.

 

 

I, identified with local BMI is jiiva with its own projecting power of little

maayaa Shakti that manifests in the projection of dream state as well as

projection of jiiva's own samsaara. - This is prAtibhAsika. Ignorance is at this

level - at individual jiiva level. Jiiva has to deal with his projection as well

as the Iswara's projection. - PrAtibhAsika and vyaavahaarika.

 

Any knowledge has to take place at jiiva level only since ignorance is at this

level. Knowledge involves unveiling of ignorance. Any knowledge takes place when

the light of consciousness gets reflected by the vRitti or thought - Detailed

analysis is presented in Knowledge series. - Pure consciousness (OC) is 'as

though' gets reflected by Intellect - is knowledge of .. or conscious of the

vRitti which is nothing but the image of the object seen - This is how I become

conscious of the object and thus the world. Without the mind and intellect,

world is not perceived as in deep sleep state.

 

Reflected consciousness RC is nothing but OC reflected in the medium of BMI.

Without the reflecting medium - I am as I am pure OC, paaramaarthikam. Then

there is no knowledge of .. No self-realization -Brahman does not need any

self-realization. He is pure consciousness - that is what jnaana swaruupam

means. These words to describe it but no words can describe it. So any

description of Brahman is also in vyavahaara only.

 

Ego is jiiva notion where I am this is the notional understanding. When the OC

gets reflected in the BMI, I take the reflected image as ‘I am this’. I am

actually OC that is as though reflecting in the pool of BMI. the reflected light

is my light only. Like sun light getting reflected in the objects that we see.

Ego involves misunderstanding where I take myself instead of RC but the

reflecting medium (BMI)which I am conscious of due to due to RC. That is the

object itself as I am than the light that is reflected by the object. There is

nothing wrong with the object (BMI). Error is taking I am that what I am not.

Taking the objects that reflecting OC as myself.

 

Thus jiiva is one who identifies himself with the objects of refection

(upaadhiis) than with the light that is reflecting the upaadhiis. Note with out

the upaadhiis no light can get reflected and I am pure OC one without a second.

 

Jiivan mukta is one who is with upaadhiis (jiivan) but now self-realized that is

he has realized that he is the RC not the medium (BMI) that is reflecting. But

RC is not different from OC since it is the light of OC alone that is coming out

as reflection - like sunlight that we see. When we recognize that sun is shining

- it is only by seeing the reflected light from the sun. In the same way jnaani

is one who has shifted his attention from 'aham idam - I am this' to that light

that is getting reflected RC as I am. I am not this but I am pure consciousness

that is reflecting all this. When 'this' is no more that is when BMI drops out

(death of the BMI) then jiivan mukta ‘as though’ merges with pure OC since

there is no RC as there is no BMI to reflect.

 

Even I realize I am RC it is the same as recognition that I am that I am - like

pot space knows that I am pot space alright but I am the total space without any

division in space. That understanding is clear for a jnaani. Hence with objects

BMI it is called aatma kriiDa or play or liila and in the deep meditation where

total identification with RC/OC it is aatma rati - reveling in myself.

 

With the knowledge in jiiva – jiiva’s misconceived notions drop out which

are product his ignorance – all his samsaara drops out like snake droping out

in the knowledge of rope since snake is individual projection.

 

Jiivan mukta still sees the Iswara sRiShti – including BMI that he was using

before. Hence RC will still be occurring but he now knows he is really RC and

the object BMI can be seen as just objects that can be used as ‘objects’

only – like using rope after snake drops out since rope is Iswara sRiShTi and

snake is jiiva sRishTi.

 

These are fundamental concepts of Advaita Vedanta that I know.

 

 

Hope this helps.

 

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Sadanandaji,

Thanks a lot for the explanation. Will take some time for me to

contemplate on and digest this, I guess.

 

Regards,

Raj.

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

> ...

>

> These are fundamental concepts of Advaita Vedanta that I know.

>

>

> Hope this helps.

>

> Sadananda

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Mani - PraNams

>

> knowledge takes place only in the intellect - knowledge involves

reflection of consciousness - that is, when the thought getting

reflected by the light of consciousness then we are conscious two

things 1. the thought and 2. the reflecting light,

 

 

 

- it is understanding that I am not the object but the light due to

which the object is seen- That light because of which I am conscious

of.. That light of consciousness is I am. Technical it is called

upahita caitanya - that is upaadhi sahita caitanya - the consciousness

that is associated with BMI.

> Hope this helps

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

 

Namaste Sri Sadanandaji,

 

First of all, thank you so much for your generous

contributions to this list. I have learned a lot

from your posts.

 

I do have a question for you, if you would be so kind

as to answer it.

 

I completely understand your above post. I have no

questions regarding it. I know that the mind can

make the distinction between pure consciousness

and objects which are illumined by that consciousness.

 

My question is this, although I completely understand

that all objects are in the final analysis are brahman

alone, I do not understand how it is that the mind

cognizes this fact, (if indeed it does).

 

My understanding so far is this: Through the analysis

of objects, we come to understand that we cannot find

an object which really and truly exists on its own. As

we analyze any object the only 'thing' about that object

which exists is existence alone, and is known.

 

My assumption (which may be incorrect) is that objects

are known because they are indeed consciousness (jnanam

of satyam/jnanam/anantam.) Thus we can point to any object,

and the only common denominator they have is 'exists' and 'is known.'

(satyam/jnanam, and since all objects share 'exists'

and 'is known,' we can add anantam)

 

When one successfully performs drig/drisha viveka, the

mind differentiates any object, (including the body/mind)

from pure consciousness. But then, it is my understanding,

that the next step is an analysis of the objects themselves

to arrive at the firm knowledge (jnana nishta) that all that

is really here is brahman itself. That all objects are in the

final analysis brahman, as per the drishtantah, all gold ornaments

are in reality gold alone.

 

If my mind can make the distinction between pure

consciousness and any appearing object, then how does

my mind arrive at the knowledge that all objects are in

reality also that brahman? By using the various logics

which Vedanta gives us, I understand that this is so.

 

But in the end, can that understanding be as direct

and immediate as is the knowledge that 'I am' pure

consciousness, which is aparoksha, or is it a knowledge

which is only arrived at through deduction and analysis,

and is then accepted on that basis (paroksha).

 

That there is nothing else which objects can be, except

brahman, I do accept and understand; and yet, it seems

to me that I have not 'cognized' that fact, in the

same sense as one can cognize 'I am pure consciousness

and everything else is an object of that consciousness.'

 

In other words, I understand, and accept that the mind

clearly can deduce that all objects are in the final

analysis brahman, but what I do not understand is how

(of if) the mind recognizes this as clearly as the mind

makes the distinction between pure consciousness and objects.

 

I hope that my question is clear. I have puzzled about

this for many years, and although I feel at one level

I understand it, I wonder if there is some other, more

direct and immediate, aparoksha level at which I have

yet to recognize it, in the same sense that one has

aparoksha jnanam of my self as brahman.

 

My pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Durgaji - PraNAms You have asked very important question. I will try to present

my understanding to the best I can.

 

--- On Tue, 2/3/09, Durga <durgaji108 wrote:

 

 

My question is this, although I completely understand

 

that all objects are in the final analysis are brahman

 

alone, I do not understand how it is that the mind

 

cognizes this fact, (if indeed it does).

 

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

Durgaji - this is exactly where shaastra as pramaaNa comes in. Pure inquiry of

who am I can lead me up to the recognition that I am the pure consciousness that

is getting reflected in or by the mind as cidaabhaasa. Shifting my attention

from 'aham idam' or 'I am this' to pure I am or I am the witnessing

consciousness or reflecting consciousness takes away my identification of myself

with 'this'.

 

But that still leaves with aham that I am and idam that I am not. We are left

with dvaita.

 

Hence idam also has to be understood.

 

Hence scripture says - aitadaatmya idagam sarvam, tat satyam, sa aatmaa, tat

tvam asi -

 

This entire universe - idam sarvam - the essence of all this is nothing but the

reality which is sat swaruupam - The existence part of the idam is Brahman only-

that is the satyam part - that is it is eternal never changing substantive part

of idam sarvam - this entire universe. Hence mind needs to understand that what

ever that is idam that includes even the BMI - the essence of all is the pure

existence only. The rest is only name and form - for transactional purposes.

 

Hence mind has to understand the essence of everything that I see - is Brahman

only. That understanding comes by as though 'brain washing'- wherein without

getting carried out with just the names and forms (includes all the attributes)

but recognizing the ESSENCE of all idams too. It is for that only we need

scriptures.

 

The second aspect of the knowledge that the mind has to grasp is the substantive

of both idam and subject aham is just the same existence/consciousness that I

am. This aspect also comes from the scriptures - you are that.

 

Hence understanding involves - three aspects

 

By understanding that I am the consciousness that is illuminating all idams is

just one aspect.

 

The second aspect involves - all this idam is nothing but Brahman only in the

form of existence.

 

The third part is - the rest of idam is only naama and ruupa - this also comes

scriptures - as vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam - taking the example of

ring, bangle etc. which are just names and forms of the substantive gold.

 

The fourth part is I am the substantive of both aham and idam - in the final

identity of - you are that -statement.

 

Hence inquiry of who am I has to involve all of the above - which is in

condensed form stated as three declarations of advaita

1. Brahma satyam

2. jagat mithyaa

3. jiivo bramaiva na aparaH.

---

In the knowledge series the discussion of how 'idam' becomes 'knowledge of idam'

- the existence of the object is identified with the subject consciousness that

I am to have the knowledge of idam by aham. This is the process of knowing in

the form of vRitti that takes place in the mind.

 

How can the mind to understand this. - this is where shravaNam, mananam and

nidhidhyaasanam come in - because I habitually takes idam as separate from me

during all my transactions - thus subject-object distinctions are taken as real.

 

I have constantly meditate that pure consciousness that I am is the substantive

of both subject and object. That is both jiiva and jagat. In the process Iswara

also comes in as he is jagat kartaa or creator of idams or as the material cause

of idam too.

 

Hence Krishna says - one who sees himself in everything and everything in

himself - he alone sees. That means he is the substantive of all aham and idam

too.

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

Dirgaji:

 

 

My understanding so far is this: Through the analysis

 

of objects, we come to understand that we cannot find

 

an object which really and truly exists on its own. As

 

we analyze any object the only 'thing' about that object

 

which exists is existence alone, and is known.

 

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

KS - yes that existence is I am - has to be understood as there cannot be

separate existence for the objects and for the subject I am - That it is

indivisible has to be understood and that understanding has to be internalized

or has to be sinked in - that is no mistake about it at any time and anywhere.

 

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

Durgaji:

My assumption (which may be incorrect) is that objects

 

are known because they are indeed consciousness (jnaanam

 

of satyam/jnaanam/ anantam.) Thus we can point to any object,

 

and the only common denominator they have is 'exists' and 'is known.'

 

(satyam/jnaanam, and since all objects share 'exists'

 

and 'is known,' we can add anantam)

--------

KS: Yes that is true - but that existence/consciousness that support the objects

cannot support by themselves - I am that existence consciousness that lends

support to them - Hence existence of any object cannot be established without

the knowledge of its existence - to have the knowledge of an object, conscious

entity I is required. That is object cannot establish its existence by itself

-without a conscious entity to say that there is an object there. That involves

knowledge of the existence of the object. Hence in a way I lend the support for

both existence and the knowledge too.

-----------

 

When one successfully performs drig/drisha viveka, the

 

mind differentiates any object, (including the body/mind)

 

from pure consciousness. But then, it is my understanding,

 

that the next step is an analysis of the objects themselves

 

to arrive at the firm knowledge (jnana nishta) that all that

 

is really here is brahman itself. That all objects are in the

 

final analysis brahman, as per the drishtantah, all gold ornaments

 

are in reality gold alone.

 

-----------

KS - Beautiful - yes that knowledge comes from Shaastra only. I need to

contemplate on it to recognize that existence of the objects comes from I am

only, since I have to be conscious of the existence of the object. Study Advaita

Makaranda - that Swami Dayanadaji might have taken - This aspect is beautifully

discussed there.

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

If my mind can make the distinction between pure

 

consciousness and any appearing object, then how does

 

my mind arrive at the knowledge that all objects are in

 

reality also that brahman? By using the various logics

 

which Vedanta gives us, I understand that this is so.

 

---------

KS - Yes Durgaji - that knowledge has to come by constant contemplation of what

you have studied and see clearly in your mind how you are lending the support

for the objects perceived.

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

Durgaji:

But in the end, can that understanding be as direct

 

and immediate as is the knowledge that 'I am' pure

 

consciousness, which is aparoksha, or is it a knowledge

 

which is only arrived at through deduction and analysis,

 

and is then accepted on that basis (paroksha).

----

KS - Durgaji - it is direct in the sense - when I see the object - I have see

that it is nothing but consciousness alone but in this form and that form. That

seeing is direct - which is based on the Vedanta teaching. This is where Vedanta

sravaNa, mananam and nidhidhyaasana help.

 

When you study Vedanta - you have to see right there as you study the truth that

is being pointed out - then it becomes direct. It is like while you are looking

at an object gaagaabuubu and if I say Durgaji that is gaagaabuubu - the

existence of the object and the knowledge of its existence and the name and form

are getting united and that becomes direct knowledge - even though the object is

'out there'.

This is what is called Vedantic meditation. It is direct in the senses - the

subject I am the object idam are both in the mind for me to see directly.

 

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

Durgaji:

That there is nothing else which objects can be, except

 

brahman, I do accept and understand; and yet, it seems

 

to me that I have not 'cognized' that fact, in the

 

same sense as one can cognize 'I am pure consciousness

 

and everything else is an object of that consciousness. '

 

 

In other words, I understand, and accept that the mind

 

clearly can deduce that all objects are in the final

 

analysis brahman, but what I do not understand is how

 

(of if) the mind recognizes this as clearly as the mind

 

makes the distinction between pure consciousness and objects.

-----

KS - You have to shift your attention from some Brahman which is substantive of

all this to your self as the existence consciousness that Brahman which is the

substantive of this too. Hence existence and consciousness gets united into one

as any knowledge of the object takes place. The existence of the object and the

consciousness of the subject get united for perceptual knowledge. To see clearly

- the subject thought I am knower and the object thought this is known are both

in the mind only - I can see both and in the process recognize they arise in me

sustained by me and go back into me - the pure existence/consciousness that I

am.

 

 

This you need to see as you see the object/ or thought of the object. Object is

like a wave in the ocean - appear to be separate but the same ocean in that

form. The more you contemplate on this the more it slowly sinks in - since you

have all the essential knowledge - but you have see crystal clear - That becomes

true meditation.

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

Durgaji

I hope that my question is clear. I have puzzled about

 

this for many years, and although I feel at one level

 

I understand it, I wonder if there is some other, more

 

direct and immediate, aparoksha level at which I have

 

yet to recognize it, in the same sense that one has

 

aparoksha jnanam of my self as brahman.

 

--------

KS - Your question is clear - I hope the process I mentioned is clear - you have

all the knowledge needed to go beyond - to see oneness in both subject and

object. You have to see the existence/consciousness that you are in the vision

of everything that you see. That becomes the constant meditation or

nidhidhyaasana, without getting carried away with names and forms.

 

It comes slowly and steadily by practice - we give up superficial names and

forms and dive deep into the object to see the substantive existence that you

are. Study the sloka of Bhagavaan Ramana

dRisya vaaritam chittamaatmanaH

chitva darshaNam tatva darshanam - I think sloka 16 of upadesha saara. If you

strip out all the objects (name and form)from whatever is seen, the essence left

is nothing but the truth that you are.

 

An easier way to have this is to see HIM in everything you see - as his vibhuuti

only that includes your BMI too - ultimately you and He become one. That means

all idams are first put in HIM into one idam and then unite that idam with aham.

Hence Krishna says - whoever sees Me in all and all in Me, they alone see.

 

Either way it is the same.

 

Hope I am clear.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

>

> It comes slowly and steadily by practice - we give up superficial

names and forms and dive deep into the object to see the substantive

existence that you are. Study the sloka of Bhagavaan Ramana

> dRisya vaaritam chittamaatmanaH

> chitva darshaNam tatva darshanam - I think sloka 16 of upadesha

saara. If you strip out all the objects (name and form)from whatever

is seen, the essence left is nothing but the truth that you are.

>

> An easier way to have this is to see HIM in everything you see - as

his vibhuuti only that includes your BMI too - ultimately you and He

become one. That means all idams are first put in HIM into one idam

and then unite that idam with aham. Hence Krishna says - whoever sees

Me in all and all in Me, they alone see.

>

> Either way it is the same.

>

> Hope I am clear.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

 

Namaste Sri Sadanandaji,

 

You answer was very clear. Thank you so much.

 

I will keep this piece and study it for mananam

and nididhyasana.

 

Heartfelt pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

THANKS Raj

 

Pl visit client site and revert with your concurrence. Also mention current CTC

 

The Client URL is : http://www.javajugglers.com

 

 

 

RegardsP.G.KrishnanPerfect Placer-MumbaiB-3/5/1/2,Sector-2Vashi , navi MumbaiTel : 27826709 / 99 (O) / 27535076 ®/ 9324800743 (M)Alt. E Id : perfectplacerURL: www.perfectplacer.comOther Centres : Chennai , Delhi , Bangalore

 

-

rajkumarknair

advaitin

Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:06 PM

Re: Enlightened Empirical Engagements!!!

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda<kuntimaddisada wrote:> -------------> Shailendraji - PraNAms> > The correct understanding is ego is not just inert but consciousnessidentified with the inert. That 'I am = this' is the ego. > > anaatma being inert cannot realize. aatma need not have to realize.> > Ego also cannot realize since it was notion that 'I am this'.> > Then who realizes - the one who is asking the question. > I, the consciousness identified with 'this' is ego. I have to dropthat identification by realizing that I am 'not this, neti, andrealize that 'I am' that 'I am' as pure I am without the need of this,which is existence-consciousness.> > This realization can only occur in the intellect in the sense thatthe all pervading consciousness gets reflected in the intellect andthis reflection only can be perceived or known. With out the intellectpresent, there cannot be any reflection either. That is why pure lightcannot be seen by itself - you need an object where the light can getreflected even to recognize the presence of light. We say that sun isshining but how do we know that there is sunshine out there - only bythe reflection of the light by the objects outside. Without theobjects present, no sunshine can be recognized even though sun may bebrilliant. It is exactly the same situation. I have to know that I ampure light but reflected in the intellect that I can 'see' - henceKrishna says - One who sees alone sees - yaH pasyati ... saH pasyati.By the reflections I know the original. Original consciousness (OC)without the reflected consciousness (RC) need not have to know and I may> say cannot 'know' also since there are not knower-known-knowingdistinctions in it to 'know'. > > That proves the point which Bhaskarji and Nairji miss - you need theupaadhi's even for jnaani to recognize that I am not uppadhis but thatbecause of which upaadhis are known. you need a pot for the potspaceto know that I am - potspace within the pot and at the same time as aspace unlimited and unbroken and infinite - that is upahita space. > > That is what is involved in self-realization.>Sadanandaji,In this mail, you mention six different entities : Ego, intellect,Original Consciousness, Reflected Consciousness, jnani and I.Could you explain how these entities are related to each other, howthey exist before realization, and how each would appear afterrealization?That will hopefully provide more clarity to this discussion.Regards,Raj.

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Sri Sadaji,

In Self knowledge, there is nothing Physical, as it deals with “Anantam†Atma.

All confusion crops up when one tries to connect Physical aspects with Self Knowledge. Nothing will disappear physically with atmagnAnam, but all that disappears is one’s notions about Aham and Idam, rather all that appear to disappear were never there in reality.

As you rightly said, “I cannot see my face without a mirror.†I cannot have vision of Atma without Shastra, i.e. darpane mukha darshanavat, shastre atma darshanam.

In my humble view, knowing I am Brahman is not enough as that cannot release one from samsara, but knowing the swarupa of Brahman, i.e. Sat Chit Ananda, i.e. I am Sat Chit Anandam only, and this knowledge alone puts a full stop to all our search for so-called Happiness, and releases one from dukha.

I remember the words of Swami Chinmayananda “unhook your attention from aham and idam, and re-hook it to OM†i.e. let us not “look†at the appearances, but at the substratum which only manifests as manifold appearances. However, such words are for teaching purpose only, as through words, sabda, the only pramana for self knowledge, only such teaching can take place. “fromâ€, “toâ€, “in†etc., i.e. vibhakties are possible at Dwaita level only. Shastra unfolds there is “Iâ€, i.e. Brahman, only and falsifies anything other than “I†including Iswara. So, atma or I or Brahman cannot have any Vibhaktie.

Thank you, Sri Sadaji.

Warm regards,

Mani

 

 

Connect with friends all over the world. Get India Messenger.

[Guest guest]

Sadanandaji,

I think I sort of understood your explanation regarding the process

of vritti-jnana, realization, jiva and jivanmukta etc.

 

There are two doubts which still linger for me. Correct me if I am

wrong in any of the assumptions :

 

1. Ignorance is nothing but " I am this " vritti, and jiva is the knower

which has this vritti-jnana. Once that vritti is replaced by the

understanding that " I am OC " , jiva becomes jivan-mukta, right ?

Is the removal of ignorance an intellectual event ? Or does it happen

at a much deeper level without the involvement of BMI (direct

perception of I=OC, as in nirvikalpa samadhi, or in the knowledge that

I am the tenth man ?)

 

2. You have equated RC with OC, but from the description, RC is more

like a reflection, which is known by OC - which puts RC also into the

category of the known along with BMI, right ? Can't we as well say

that RC itself is the intellect, rather than equating it with OC ?

 

Regards,

Raj.

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

>

 

> Raj - PraNAms

>

> Here is my understanding:

>

> 'I' is pure existence-consciousness that is limitless -

satyam-jnaanam-anantam - Brahman that I am. That is one without a

second - not even with maayaa, which is called turiiyam in ManDukya.

This is also the original consciousness (OC).This is paaramaarthika.

>

....

....

> These are fundamental concepts of Advaita Vedanta that I know.

>

>

> Hope this helps.

>

> Sadananda

>

[Guest guest]

Raj - PraNAms

 

 

--- On Wed, 2/4/09, rajkumarknair <rajkumarknair wrote:

 

1. Ignorance is nothing but " I am this " vritti, and jiva is the knower

 

which has this vritti-jnana.

 

-----

KS: Correct way of looking at it is - Ignorance of my true nature becomes a

cause for taking myself as 'I am this'. Hence 'I am this' is a misapprehension

resulting due to non-apprehension of myself as I am. It is like ignorance of

rope causes my mind to project a snake where there is rope.

----------

Once that vritti is replaced by the

 

understanding that " I am OC " , jiva becomes jivan-mukta, right ?

---------

KS. It is not replacement - this is still there but 'I am this' identification

shifts to 'I am the consciousness' because of which this is known - Hence

'this' is still there for RC to operate. My understanding shifts from taking

'this' as 'I am' through 'I am not this', but 'I am the consciousness reflecting

or illuminating 'this'. There is no physical replacement but shifting my

attention to identification with this to the light that illumines this. If that

shift in understanding is abiding, that is firmly rooted then you are jiivan

mukta.

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

Raj:

Is the removal of ignorance an intellectual event ? Or does it happen

 

at a much deeper level without the involvement of BMI (direct

 

perception of I=OC, as in nirvikalpa samadhi, or in the knowledge that

 

I am the tenth man ?)

-----

KS: Raj - when is the time that consciousness is not reflecting in the BMI? Let

us even ask a simple question - when is our mind not thinking, when I am awake

or in dream state? If I am conscious of the mind working, then it involves

knowledge which takes place only through the reflection of consciousness -

cidaabhaasa. All I have to do is shift my attention from the thought to the

light of consciousness that is reflected by the thought by which the thought is

also known. My paying attention may be an event in time but the things are

happening all the time and hence beyond the time concept too. I am RC all the

time even though I may learn to shift my attention to RC slowly in time.

 

It is not deep level but subtle process of trying to see the light that is

reflecting an object thought without getting carried away by the object thought.

It is not another thought or vikalpa but it is not absence of mind either, if

one takes nirvikalapa as absence of thought process. Thoughts are not the

problem - but getting carried away with the thoughts will make us miss the

subtle light of consciousness that is because of which the fleeting thoughts are

known. Hence we use a japa - repeating the same thought so that we have a

thought but not fleeting thoughts - so that we can slowly shift our attention to

the light of consciousness that is reflecting the same thoughts.

 

----------

Raj:

 

2. You have equated RC with OC, but from the description, RC is more

 

like a reflection, which is known by OC - which puts RC also into the

 

category of the known along with BMI, right ?

 

-------

KS - Raj pure OC or consciousness - there is no knower-known being infinite.

Just as I mentioned that if there are no objects, pure light cannot be seen. We

need objects which reflects the light and seeing the reflected light we say that

there is RC which is coming from OC. Without RC, OC cannot be known or

recognized. This happens in deep sleep state where there is no RC because there

are no objects to see or to know.

Hence BMI is required for self-realization. Without that no self-realization

either, even though self exists all the time.

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

 

RC

Can't we as well say

 

that RC itself is the intellect, rather than equating it with OC ?

--------

KS: No. RC is the light - light of consciousness - that is it is the reflected

light by the object, intellect. Intellect is inert. OC is shining all the time

like sun. Its light happens to fall on the object intellect - intellect reflects

that light and because of reflected light the object is Known. Intellect is

required to reflect. It gets automatically reflected, since OC is there all the

time eternally shining. When RC happens, intellect is known. I who is OC can see

myself thought my reflection just as I see myself in a mirror. Intellect is like

a mirror. If I am self shining object in front of a mirror I can see my image

without any other light, right? But without the mirror I cannot see myself. Yet

Intellect is not myself. When I know myself I am RC, I also will know that even

though I am a reflected light of consciousness, I am actually OC but happens to

be reflected by the intellect - just as I am the original but seeing the image

in the

mirror, I see myself as the original not the image. It is exactly the same way.

Intellect need not be destroyed by realization. Like mirror need not be

destroyed by recognizing I am the self-shining object in front of the mirror. In

fact in the realization, I realize that I am not the intellect that I thought I

was, and now I know who I am but still can make us of the intellect as

efficiently as possible for loka kalyaanam. In fact as long as intellect is

there, reflection will go on and RC will be there as OC is always there to for

reflection to occur. Mirror does not get destroyed when I recognize who I am

through the mirror. I know I am not the mirror not the image (RC) but OC that

is shining whether mirror is there or not.

 

That is the secret of self-realization in a nut shell.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

Regards,

 

Raj.

 

 

 

advaitin@ s.com, kuntimaddi sadananda

 

<kuntimaddisada@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

 

 

> Raj - PraNAms

 

>

 

> Here is my understanding:

 

>

 

> 'I' is pure existence-conscious ness that is limitless -

 

satyam-jnaanam- anantam - Brahman that I am. That is one without a

 

second - not even with maayaa, which is called turiiyam in ManDukya.

 

This is also the original consciousness (OC).This is paaramaarthika.

 

>

 

....

 

....

 

> These are fundamental concepts of Advaita Vedanta that I know.

 

>

 

>

 

> Hope this helps.

 

>

 

> Sadananda

 

>

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Sri S prabhuji :

Baskar your last statement does not follow the last statement. None of your scriptual quotes establishes this:

------

Bhaskar:

....This knowledge of non-dual Atman would wipe out all the distinctions of tripod i.e. jnAtru, jnEya & jnAna.

bhaskar :

I am really surprised to see your statements like this...Ofcourse you could have made this comment after sharing your understanding on the below bhAshya vAkya from shankara...Sri Sadaprabhuji, I expect that type of answers from you...not sweeping remarks like above...Kindly see bhAshya vAkya in 1-1-4 and let me know what you understand from it...na hi shAstram idantaya vishayabhutaM brahma pratipipAdayishati kiM tarhi?? pratyagAtmatvena avishayatayA pratipAdayat avidyAkalpitaM vedya, veditru vedanAdi bedhaM apanayati...(a rough translation..shastra does not objectify the brahman as this or that...but it teaches brahman as no object at all, being the inmost self and removes all distinctions created by avidyA such as the knowable, knower and knowledge)...I know you have your own interpretation to these statements...but kindly do it so after quoting the vAkya...so that others would understand what shankara exactly meant here...without doing that if you simply push aside all vAkya-s with one general remark then it does not add any salt to this already staled discussion prabhuji :-))...Hope you would do it henceforth...

You have written comprehesively on reflected consciousness, upAdhi-s of jnAni etc. But have you given atleast a single quote to substantiate these claims?? have you ever commented on the categorical denial of this pratibimba analogy by shankara who says that this upamAna is kEvala avidyAkruta?? Sri Sastri prabhuji had kindly provided some references from gIta bhAshya to show jnAni's vyavahAra, Sri Jai prabhuji aptly quoted sUtra bhAshya to show jnAni's prArabhdha karma..Those type of exchanges I would really enjoy & I think it would help me to enhance my understanding prabhuji...If you keep on pushing aside my quotes by making some general comments...I cannot do anything better than to keep silence :-))

prabhuji, I wholeheartedly appreciate & admire your advaita prakriya, its simplicity & proficiency in presenting the same in a flowery language...But my conscious would not permit me to accept that this is shankara prakriya. coz. you have shown nothing sofar to substantiate that your undersanding is based on shankara bhAshya ( you may call me I am biased & prejudiced...I dont really mind as long as I could see those prejudices in shankara bhAshya:-)) ....There are somany advaita prakriya-s which ultimately teach the nonduality of brahman without any complications and less fuss on some methodology...your prakriya is also, IMHO, one of those beautiful prakriya-s and as we can see it is appealed, impressive & highly influential to most of the advaita sAdhaka-s here in this forum... Kindly accept my humble praNAms to that...

With your kind permission I shall stop here prabhuji....Kindly pardon me if I said anything wrong here..

Hari hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Sri S prabhuji :

It is in that sense the statement that mind is required for self-realization - just as mirror is required to see my self. Our problem is we get carried away with the reflecting medium than the reflecting light that is coming from I.

bhaskar :

As per my understanding there is a problem here in this explanation...Without recognition with the reflecting medium (upAdhi) there is no existence to that *reflecting* I (upahita chaitanya) It is only due to upAdhi sambandha absolute chaitanya can be termed as upahita chaitanya...We cannot think of the upahita chaitanya (reflecting light) without associating it with the reflecting medium...can we think of the jeeva without upAdhi-s?? jeevatva is mere chimera of this conditioned mind...There is no separate entity (chaitanya) that can be called *reflecting light* that which requires a medium to reflect...That is the reason why shankara says pratibimba theory is mere avidyAkruta (concocted by avidyA). Kindly see sUtra bhAshya (2-3-30) yAvadeva cha ayaM buddhyupAdhi saMbandhaH tAvat jeevasya jeevatvaM, saMsAritvaM cha..If we get rid of ignorance that causes our identification with reflecting medium..than what remains is mere *absolute light*...reflecting theory propagates & engergizes the dehAtma buddhi..nothing else.

Sri S prabhuji :

If there is no mirror then there is no self-realization also as in deep sleep state. If I drop the BMI, I am pure consciousness - then it is not jiivanmukta - it is pure Brahman where there is no self-realization too. Brahman does not self-realization also - it is pure light - being infinite there is no other medium even to reflect the light of consciousness. re-analize is to re-evaluate - requires the BMI.

bhaskar :

Yes I agree that 'to know' that I am brahman the instrument called mana (mind) is required...shankara also says that shamadAdi shAstrAchAryOpaesha saMskruta mahaN Atma darshane karaNam...But question is whethe this karaNa maintains its individuality even after brahmadarshana?? First of all what is brahma darshana or brama vidyA?? shruti tells us : brahma vA idamagra Asit tadAtmAnamevAmet ahaM brahmAsmeeti tasmAt tatsarvamabhavat..If this truth is realized in its entireity where there can be scope for any second thought?? The jnAna which is nitya shuddha, buddha, mukta svarUpa cannot be evaluated by conditioned BMI.. That is the reason why I had said that day Atman which is *svayaM prakAsha* (self-effulgent one) does not required any medium to reflect..it is svayaM siddhA..Without the aid of BMI, dont we recongnize our existence in sushupti?? If we badly require a medium of reflection like BMI to prove the existence of light...then we have to conclude that light (chaitanya) cannot prove its existence in sushupti since there is no reflecting medium in that state!! No need to mention it is apasiddhAnta...

Sri S prabhuji :

 

Now the throwing away is also mental -and not physical, in the sense Nairji and Bhaskarji seem to argue - it is understanding that I am not the object but the light due to which the object is seen- That light because of which I am conscious of.. That light of consciousness is I am. Technical it is called upahita caitanya - that is upaadhi sahita caitanya - the consciousness that is associated with BMI.

bhaskar :

prabhuji I dont know why you are bringing in my & Sri Nair prabhuji's names here in the above conclusion of yours!! have we ever said jnAna is like a big disease which would bring immediate death to the body of the jnAni or jnAni has to give up his physical body (suicide:-)) after realization ?? Throwing away is not a mental process either...We cannot throw away anything if it is really out there...jnApakaM hi shAstraM natu kArakaM says shankara in geeta bhAshya...shAstra can remind our real nature without doing anything special on its own!! The throwing away here means is the negation of separate existence to an individual entity (i.e. including BMI of jnAni & his socalled upahita chaitanya) apart from THAT...realization brings him the knowledge (or reminds him) that the jnAni is ever ashareeri only...sarvaM AtmAnaM pashyati..It is not throwing away anything it is the knowledge that reveals him the truth that he is secondless...Hope my stand is clear to you now. However, we contextually use the negation theory in AtmAnAtma vastu viveka & avasthAtraya prakriya to subside the superior reality of waking state over other two state..Anyway, that is a different issue altogether.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Sri S prabhuji :

That proves the point which Bhaskarji and Nairji miss - you need the upaadhi's even for jnaani to recognize that I am not uppadhis but that because of which upaadhis are known.

bhaskar :

Need the upAdhi-s (such as mind) for sAdhaka-s to gain jnAna is OK prabhuji we are with that...But need the upAdhi-s for jnAni 'to show' his jnAna...does not go with shruti's declaration on jnAni...He can see without eyes, he can walk without legs..We only see that upAdhi-s are sticking to Atman, but in Atman there is no upAdhi..he is nirvishEsha..If jnAni thinks that he needs external karaNa-s (instruments) to prove his jnAna then that is paricchinna jnAna and NOT paripUrNa jnAna..That is the reason why we give reality to upAdhi-s from the point of view that there can nothing exist apart from that..but what you are implying above is upAdhi-s are must for the jnAni to prove 'his' jnAna..when his realization is there in the form of brahmaivedam vishwamidaM varishTam..who else will be there to prove his knowledge?? who else will be there to convey this mesg?? Ofcourse, we the ajnAni's cannot see the jnAna without recognising the beholder of that jnAna..So, it is for us (who are ajnAni-s) jnAni's upAdhi-s required not for HIM....If we could able to see that jnAna without upAdhi saMbandha or Atma as *sarvaM* that jnAna is equal to brahma jnAna.

Sri S prabhuji :

you need a pot for the potspace to know that I am - potspace within the pot and at the same time as a space unlimited and unbroken and infinite - that is upahita space.

bhaskar :

If the pot space still identifying its space with pot...then it is nothing better than dEhAtma buddhi...coz. this pot space still thinking " I am the space " within " this pot..but in reality I am mAhAkAsha.This is mere intellectual understanding that I am brahman...nothing else and it is not an absolute realization that it is secondless 'space'....And if this pot space thinks that I have to cast of pot to become mahAkAsha..Then as long as *pot space* is there with the borders of pot (BMI) , it can never ever become mahAkAsha...this yukti goes against shruti verdict that brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati..

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare krishna

This is my reply to your mail dated 27th Jan'2009

Sri S prabhuji :

Now go back to your response to Shree Sastriji comment of Ramana's taking care of his mother. If he does not see the difference between him and his mother what does taking care of means? The fact is he saw the difference and acted on it as a dutiful son. Since he is a jnaani, he is no notion that it is real but mithyaa only. When I am thirsty in dream, the dream thirst is real and only dream water can quench my thirst not the real water that is there on the table. For dream-diseases only dream medicines are the cure not the medicines in the cabinet. For mithyaa problems mithyaa solutions are required.

bhaskar :

This is what exactly we are saying prabhuji...jnAni-s vyavahAra *as we see* is nothing but mithya, we cannot assume any reality in this avidyA vyavahAra..RamaNa, the son, his seva to his mother etc. etc. all are within the realm of avidyA only in which we, the ajnAni-s are participants. if anyone pinches jnAni's body and as a result of it if jnAni exclaims ooh!! ahh!! ouch!! ..it is only our perception of jnAni's body, its suffereing and his painful reaction...If this suffereing is *real* from his point of view also..then we can easily say his realization is only at the intellectual level not assimilated one in absolute sense...coz. he has still that dehAtma buddhi but at intellectual level understands that he is not body!! ( I am not saying here jnAni should wear a granite face & he should be like an inert thing etc..Hope you understand the *dhavani* behind this example:-)) ...anyway prabhuji, you are taking one example of the jnAni's vyavahAra and saying though he knows all these are mithya vyavahAra, he is providing mithyA solutions to the mithyA problems by seeing the difference etc. According to your observation above, jnAni can still see the difference between him and his mother..and accordingly serves her..Since this is son-mother relationship, it goes well...but take the jnAni's husband-wife relationship, friend-foe relationship, guru-shishya relationship etc. Dont we see in all these relationships jnAni's seeming actions are the result of strong sense of duality?? how do you define this reality of duality in jnAni-s?? do you really think jnAni is really feeling this duality or it is only an assumption of onlookers?? Whether it is safe to conclude since jnAni is there in his localized BMI, these feelings & identifications are real to him OR it is better to conclude he looks like he is doing, he looks like he is discharging his duties, he looks like he is walking / meditating etc. by going as per shruti statements?? which is the better option you tell me prabhuji.

By the way, you have not commented on RamaNa maharshi's own words which Sri Mouna prabhuji & Sri peter prabhuji shared with this group about jnAni's vyavahAra & existence of body, jeevanmukti & videha mukti...Kindly dont think I am referring this as a proof to my stand...Just I am curious to know your take on these mahAtma-s words..I know you will say, we have to see the context, we have to see the capabilities of questioner, we have to see the atmosphere in which this question being asked..etc. etc. Would you please mind to explain us under which circumstances, a jnAni like ramaNa could utter those sentences??

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

As this topic seems to be continuing unabated, here is

another view to add to the debate since it happens to coincide with my current

studies.

 

The reference is to gauDapAda kArikA 1.17. (The previous

mantra says that, when the jIva gains self-knowledge, he wakes up (from

ignorance) and realizes that he is not the waker, dreamer or deep-sleeper but

the non-dual turIya.)

 

prapan~cho yadi vidyeta nirvarteta na saMshayaH |

mAyAmAtramidam dvaitamadvaitaM paramArthataH ||

 

prapan~cho yadi vidyeta – if the visible world

actually existed

na saMshayaH – there is no doubt

nirvarteta – that it might stop (i.e. disappear) (as

soon as j~nAna was gained).

idaM dvaitam mAyAmAtram – (But) this (apparent)

duality is merely (mAtra) mAyA

advaitaM paramArthataH – (and) the absolute truth is

non-dual.

 

The key point here is the contention that, upon gaining

knowledge, the world does NOT disappear because it never existed in the first

place. What actually goes away is the mistaken belief that there was a world.

Shankara begins his commentary with a supposed objection

(paraphrased since I do not have the Sanskrit and literal translation):

 

The previous verse states that the jIva realizes advaita when

he ‘wakes up’ from ‘sleep’, i.e. dispels

self-ignorance. If one can only realize advaita when duality has gone, then how

can there be non-duality while the world still exists? Shankara answers this by

pointing out that this would only be a problem if the world actually exists to

begin with. And he refers to the rope-snake metaphor: To speak of the snake

disappearing when knowledge of the rope is gained is incorrect. Since the snake

never existed in the first place, it cannot go away. Similarly, the world never

existed to begin with so to speak of it going away upon enlightenment is wrong.

A non-existent thing neither comes nor goes away. (The world is, of course,

mithyA, being neither real nor unreal but having brahman as its substratum.)

So, what actually goes away upon obtaining j~nAna is not the dvaita prapa~ncha

(the perceived dualistic universe) but the error (bhrama) that we made in

thinking that there *was* a dvaita prapa~ncha.

 

In case anyone misses the connection here, the j~nAnI’s

supposed BMI is obviously equally a part of this supposed prapa~ncha!

 

Swami Paramarthananda points out that knowledge never ‘eliminates’

anything. E.g. once a doctor has correctly diagnosed a disease (i.e. ‘knows’

it), the disease does not go away – medicine is required. A table does

not disappear once we know it is a table. Similarly, j~nAna does not eliminate

the world of duality. In fact, he points out a further problem. If dvaita did

disappear upon gaining j~nAna, this would mean that advaita would have a

beginning (corresponding to the end of dvaita). And, anything that has a

beginning will also have an end. This would mean that mokSha would only be

temporary (which would of course be entirely contrary to what we are told by

shruti).

 

This latter point is important for the ongoing discussion.

If it were the case that, upon gaining j~nAnam, the (now) j~nAnI no longer

perceived a dualistic world, used a mind and senses to communicate with it etc,

then this would be a clear break with what had gone before. And so mokSha would

become an event in time. But the fact of the matter is that all (apparent)

jIva-s are already free and unlimited, being not other than brahman. The

problem is that they do no know it and make the error of thinking themselves to

be separate and limited. Upon realization, all that goes away is this mistake. The

j~nAnI sees the world as brahman and never sees any appearance or

disappearance. He continues to see this brahman-world and interact with it

whilst in the body but (and of course this but makes all the difference) he now

knows that it is all an appearance only. He knows that the world is mithyA and

nothing detracts from the turIya status.

 

In fact, Swami Chinmayananda points out that the first line

of the mantra is ‘anukUla tarka’ and says, in effect: “the

universe does not exist; if it exists it would disappear. it does not disappear,

therefore it does not exist”.

 

(Incidentally, the next verse goes on to discuss the

apparent teacher-pupil-scripture duality and point out that this does not cause

any problem for the argument. And Professor J. H. Dave, possibly quoting

Anandagiri, makes the following statement: The distinction of pupil, teacher

and scripture is opposed to its negation – nivRRitti-pratiyogI, not a

real thing, and is therefore not inconsistent with or opposed to Advaita. I

thought this might be of interest to the ‘Counterpositive’ posters.

Personally, I don’t really understand it!)

 

Best wishes to all those brave souls who are still following

this thread,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

"Dennis Waite" <dwaite wrote:Dear Dennis,Please bear with me this doubt.> duality. In fact, he points out a further problem. If dvaita did disappear

> upon gaining j~nAna, this would mean that advaita would have a beginning

> (corresponding to the end of dvaita). And, anything that has a beginning will

> also have an end. This would mean that mokSha would only be temporary (which

> would of course be entirely contrary to what we are told by shruti).

Not necessarily. According to my undrestanding, Ignorance (ergo duality, world, jiva, etc...) is beginningless but has and end (the dawn of Knowledge). Advaita was there all along, that's why we speak about an illusory surimposition. The end of ignorance actually, would be a non-event, because eternally Brahman. Ignorance of the rope is beginningless, seeing the rope as it is ends snake-misconception.Would you agree on this?Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna

[Guest guest]

Dear Mouna-ji,

I’m not sure what you are saying here. What is ‘not

necessarily’? With which statement in what I said are you disagreeing?

What I am saying is that all duality (including knower-known) is mithyA. That

the reality always was, is and will be advaita.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Mouna

Friday, February 06, 2009 4:59 PM

advaitin

Re: Enlightened Empirical Engagements!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

> duality. In fact, he points out a further

problem. If dvaita did disappear

> upon gaining j~nAna, this would mean that advaita would have a beginning

> (corresponding to the end of dvaita). And, anything that has a beginning

will

> also have an end. This would mean that mokSha would only be temporary

(which

> would of course be entirely contrary to what we are told by shruti).

 

Not necessarily.

According to my undrestanding, Ignorance (ergo duality, world, jiva, etc...) is

beginningless but has and end (the dawn of Knowledge). Advaita was there all

along, that's why we speak about an illusory surimposition. The end of

ignorance actually, would be a non-event, because eternally Brahman. Ignorance

of the rope is beginningless, seeing the rope as it is ends snake-misconception.

Would you agree on this?

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> It is not throwing away anything it is the knowledge that reveals

> him the truth that he is secondless...Hope my stand is clear to

you

> now.

 

Hari OM!

Forgive me for saying the only thing clear to me is, it is unclear.

 

In semi-humorous vein, a saying in Telugu goes to the effect:

Teaching is what happens when speaker knows and listener doesn't.

Discussion is what happens when both speaker and listener both

know something. But when speaker doesn't know what he is talking

and listener doesn't know what he is listening, it is Vedanta.

I am totally lost in this thread. Hard to believe this is all about

one's own nature.

 

While rooted in Maya, how can I ever know really J~nani, no matter

what scriptures of Bhashyas are read?! Even those are interpreted

by my mind which is in Maya only.

 

May be, Lord Krishna must have gotten really tired when discussion

was going on and on even after showing Vishwaroopa Darshan. Finally,

into 18th chapter of Gita, Lord must have thought enough of this

discussion to declare " sarva dharmaan(discussion) parityajya,

maamEkaM SaraNaM vraja " ! Only then Arjuna also must have seen the

light and exclaimed " nashTO mOhaM smRti labdhvA " . Either really

the delusion was gone, or he just got scared Krishna would repeat

again all the earlier chapters. Just my ignorant understanding.

==============================================

Hari OM!

-Srinivas

[Guest guest]

"Dennis Waite" <dwaite wrote:> > I'm not sure what you are saying here. What is 'not necessarily'? With which> statement in what I said are you disagreeing? Dear DennisJi,This one, > If dvaita did disappear > upon gaining j~nAna, this would mean that advaita would have a beginning > (corresponding to the end of dvaita)"Advaita would have a beginning", not necessarily (only a a figure of speech).Please confirm if my understanding is right:Ignorance is beginningless but has an end (Jnana).Dvaita is an offspring of Ignorance.Dvaita is beginningless and has an end.So then, gaining Jnana doesn't mean one "gained" it, it means Ignorance (Dvaita) dissapeared.(I'm not going to go into the perception of a Jnani discussion, I am only discussing this statement of yours.)Ergo, "if dvaita dissapears" that would mean advaita will continue self-efulgent.Please clarify if my logic is wrong.Thanks,yours in Bhagavan,Mouna

[Guest guest]

--- On Fri, 2/6/09, Mouna <carlos wrote:

 

PraNAms

 

As I see it there is jumping from paaramaarthika to vyaavahaarika which is the

core of the problem in these extensive discussions.

 

There is no creation to disappear - that statement is from Paaramaarthika.

 

That also means there is no creation for me to realize also - no ajnaana or

jnaana too including jiivanmukta. No avidya also for it to be anaadi.

 

Once one is taking about ignorance and knowledge we are already in vyaavahaarika

level not paaramaarthika level.

 

The snake that I see is never there to disappear - that statement is from the

paaramaarthika point not from the fellow who was seeing the snake that was never

there! For the fellow who is seeing and running away from it, there is snake

there to avoid.

 

When he sees the rope only the snake drops out - that error is praatibhaasika

error not vyaavahaarika error - he still sees rope different from him! - this

does not apply to when vyaavahaarika is taken as real and not mithyaa as in

sunrise and sunset.

 

Goudapaada also talks about in his kaarika about creation theories and states

that there is no creation -ajaata vaada - for him what is there is

swaabhaavikam or natural - That natural will remain as natural - it will become

unnatural if it disappears, does it not?

 

Hence as a word of caution - one has to be careful from what reference the

points are made too.

 

Hari Om

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

On 2/6/09 11:06 AM, " kuntimaddi sadananda " <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

 

 

> As I see it there is jumping from paaramaarthika to vyaavahaarika

which is the

> core of the problem in these extensive discussions.

 

Dear and Respected Sadaji,

 

One of the problems I have with this discussion is that I have the

" feeling " that Jnanis " transcend " these kind of dichotomy between

Vyavahara and Paramarthika realities, since they are " beyond " those pair

of opposites, that are conceptual in nature anyway.

So, from " their " point of view, is BOTH at the same time.

 

So, as a student of Vedanta I tend to see the point of both sides

(School 1 and 2), plus the common sense statements of Jnanis like

Bhagavan Ramana and Nisargadatta, all of these as all Truths, but none

" more " truth than the other, since Truth can't be described, only

pointed at.

Our mind weaved in duality will never marry the opposites, only Abidance

can.

 

What do you think? Is it a far-fetched intuition of mine? or an error in

understanding?

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

Dear Mouna-ji,

In the context of the Ma. U. & GK, which is where the quoted

statement comes from, Ignorance (the ‘cause’) and Error (‘the

effect’) are ‘properties’ of the waking and dream states.

(Deep sleep has ignorance only.) In turIya, there is neither. Therefore, to be

pedantic, once j~nAna is gained the j~nAnI ‘becomes’ turIya and,

necessarily, knower-known duality is no more. (I.e. the j~nAnitva of the j~nAnI

also disappears!) The concepts of ignorance and error and j~nAnI-hood (and

aj~nAnI-hood and dvaita and advaita!) are only meaningful in vyavahAra.

I don’t really have too much of a problem with your

statements except that I would say that dvaita is the error resulting

from ignorance, rather than any ‘offspring’. Also, when we realize

that the object in front of us is a rope, it does not make sense to say that

the snake disappears, because there never was a snake.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Mouna

Friday, February 06, 2009 6:17 PM

advaitin

Re: Enlightened Empirical Engagements!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

" Dennis Waite " <dwaite

wrote:

>

> I'm not sure what you are saying here. What is 'not necessarily'? With

which

> statement in what I said are you disagreeing?

 

Dear DennisJi,

This one,

> If dvaita did disappear

> upon gaining j~nAna, this would mean that advaita would have a beginning

> (corresponding to the end of dvaita)

 

" Advaita would have a beginning " , not necessarily (only a a figure of

speech).

Please confirm if my understanding is right:

Ignorance is beginningless but has an end (Jnana).

Dvaita is an offspring of Ignorance.

Dvaita is beginningless and has an end.

So then, gaining Jnana doesn't mean one " gained " it, it means

Ignorance (Dvaita) dissapeared.

(I'm not going to go into the perception of a Jnani discussion, I am only

discussing this statement of yours.)

Ergo, " if dvaita dissapears " that would mean advaita will continue

self-efulgent.

 

Please clarify if my logic is wrong.

 

Thanks,

yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

"The key point here is the contention that, upon gaining knowledge, the world does NOT disappear because it never existed in the first place. What actually goes away is the mistaken belief that there was a world."

"it does not make sense to say that the snake disappears, because there never was a snake."

 

Dear Dennis,

 

Just to help clarify my own understanding... we may say there never was a snake... and... the world does not disappear because it never existed in the first place. Is there a slight danger here of making ''snake" and "world" a non-existing thing 'asat' ? If we take snake and world as an appearance, 'mithya', neither real nor unreal, can we say there never was any mithya? Or that there never was any maya?

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Dennis Waite06 February 2009 21:16advaitin Subject: RE: Re: Enlightened Empirical Engagements!!!

 

 

Dear Mouna-ji,

In the context of the Ma. U. & GK, which is where the quoted statement comes from, Ignorance (the ‘cause’) and Error (‘the effect’) are ‘properties’ of the waking and dream states. (Deep sleep has ignorance only.) In turIya, there is neither. Therefore, to be pedantic, once j~nAna is gained the j~nAnI ‘becomes’ turIya and, necessarily, knower-known duality is no more. (I.e. the j~nAnitva of the j~nAnI also disappears!) The concepts of ignorance and error and j~nAnI-hood (and aj~nAnI-hood and dvaita and advaita!) are only meaningful in vyavahAra.

I don’t really have too much of a problem with your statements except that I would say that dvaita is the error resulting from ignorance, rather than any ‘offspring’. Also, when we realize that the object in front of us is a rope, it does not make sense to say that the snake disappears, because there never was a snake.

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

--- On Fri, 2/6/09, Mouna <carlos wrote:

 

 

 

One of the problems I have with this discussion is that I have the

 

" feeling " that Jnanis " transcend " these kind of dichotomy between

 

Vyavahara and Paramarthika realities, since they are " beyond " those pair

 

of opposites, that are conceptual in nature anyway.

 

 

Mounaji - praNAms

 

Jnaani transcend the vyaavahaarik in the sense he understands that it is mithyaa

and not absolutely real.

 

Jnaani firmly abide in paaramaarthika satyam - the absolute reality - there is

nothing beyond - whatever you think beyond is that paaramaarthika only - there

is no absolute of the absolute. Paramaarthika is the ultimate - THE ABSOLUTE.

There are no pairs of opposite in paaramaarthika - All pairs are in

vyaavahaarika and praatibhaasika only. Paramaarthika is defined as free from all

dualities - sajaati, vijaati swagata bhedaas.- see the explanation in Chan. Up

slaka - ekam eva advitiiyam.

 

The pairs of opposites involve pleasure & pain, heat and cold - insult and

praise etc - at BMI levels. BMI may have the heat and cold but he does not

suffer mentally because of that. That is what transcend means. Jnaani eats,

jnaani sleeps, writes, teaches and does the rest of the BMI duties just like

ajnaani as you see any mahaatma. - but at the same time jnaani does not eat,

does not sleep does not do any thing including writing- teaching etc- In the

sense that there is no doer-ship or enjoyer ship at the emotional level.

 

The fact of the matter is - this is also true for ajnaani also - but he takes

himself that I am the doer- enjoyer etc. since he has the notion that He is the

BMI.

 

Hence the difference between jnaani and ajnaani in a nut shell is simply this -

jnaani does not identify himself with the BMI or upaadhiis while ajnaani thinks

that I am the upaadhiis, the BMI. Hence the modifications of BMI is taken as his

modifications and therefore suffers or enjoys depending on the modifications

while jnaani since he knows that he is Brahman without any parts, he witnesses

the modifications of BMI but does not take it as his - they are part of the

nature.

 

Hence when they say that he does not see the duality - that is true for jnaani

and ajnaani too since seeing is done by prakRiti only all the time - as the

coming sloka in Ch. 13 says - prakRityevaca karmaani kriya maanaani sarvashaH -

all actions are done by the prakRiti only - without exception and BMI belongs to

prakRiti only. Jnaani being a jnaani knows this while ajnaani being ajnaani not

knowing this takes himself as the doer - This is called kartRitva bhaava- notion

of doership - that conceptualization is due to ajnaana of his real nature.

 

Real nature of both is Brahman only - one knows his real nature the other does

not know - that is all the difference.

 

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

 

So, from " their " point of view, is BOTH at the same time.

 

So, as a student of Vedanta I tend to see the point of both sides

 

(School 1 and 2), plus the common sense statements of Jnanis like

 

Bhagavan Ramana and Nisargadatta, all of these as all Truths, but none

 

" more " truth than the other, since Truth can't be described, only

 

pointed at.

--------

Mounaji - frankly there are no two sides of the story- I am not making

egotistical statement.

 

Knowledge only eliminates the ignorance and nothing else - both are at

vyavahaarika level only. At absolute level - there is pure

existence/consciousness/limitlessness - that is Brahman and that is

paaramaarthika - there is no duality from that state. Even the so called

tanscendence is also from the point of vyaavahaarika. When I say I transcend

the sunrise and sunset only means I have understood that in spite of seeing

sunrise and sunset, I know that sun does not rise or set.

 

Hence all duality - that include jnaani and ajnaani are at vyaavahaarika level.

Jnaani sees vyavahaara and knows that it is only vyavahaara or relative reality

and at absolute level what is there is only absolute I am.

ajnaani also sees vyavahaara but takes it as absolutely real - the rest is

possibility - that include Brahman that he has to realize ONE DAY!

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

Mouna:

Our mind weaved in duality will never marry the opposites, only Abidance

 

can.

 

What do you think? Is it a far-fetched intuition of mine? or an error in

 

understanding?

 

Mounaji - I have presented correct understanding of the scriptures, as I know.

The rest I leave it to you.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

--- On Fri, 2/6/09, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

 

bhaskar :

This is what exactly we are saying prabhuji...jnAni- s vyavahAra *as we see* is

nothing but mithya, we cannot assume any reality in this avidyA

vyavahAra..RamaNa, the son, his seva to his mother etc. etc. all are within the

realm of avidyA only in which we, the ajnAni-s are participants. if anyone

pinches jnAni's body and as a result of it if jnAni exclaims ooh!! ahh!!

ouch!! .

 

Bhaskarji - PraNAms

 

I notice there is clearly misinterpreting in the above para - what mithyaa means

- just to reinforce:

 

Mithyaa is sat asat vilakshaNam as you are familiar. Not only it is not sat but

it is not asat too. That is the reason why we needed a third category of mithyaa

beside sat and asat. I am sure you are familiar.

 

The correct understanding of mithyaa then is not not-seeing but seeing but not

taking what is seen as real. seeing means it is not asat since asat cannot be

seen. Since it is not asat it is experienced unlike asat but since it is not

sat, it is not taken as real.

 

Hence shankara clearly says - world is mityaa because it is SEEN - dRisyatvaat.

Jnaani knows world is mithyaa. That means he sees but does not take what he sees

as satyam since he knows the seer He is the real satyan.

 

ajnaani is also sees but doesnot know that it is mityaa - for him what he sees

is real - he takes mityaa as satyaa. That is due to ajnaana. Knowledge is

considered as taking place when ajnaana as though covering knowledge is removed

- just as sun is as though revealed when clouds 'covering' the sun is removed -

meghaapaaye amsumaniva says shankara in Atmabhoda.

 

Jnaanis knows the world is mityaa. That means he experiences but does not take

it as real.

 

End of the story.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda