Fw: Enlightened empirical engagement!

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear Nairji:

 

Since I have designed the questions with the choices, let me take

this opportunity to explain:

 

21 out of 66 (31%) have opted for no time limit for list discussions

and 45 out of 66 (69%) wanted to limit the discussions – 11 opted for

one month time limit, 12 for 3 month time limit and 23 for the

moderators to intervene and limit the discussions.

 

If you so wish, we can have another poll using questions designed by

you. Please let me know as soon as possible.

 

With my warm regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: Since you have every right to ask my credentials, I volunteer

to provide you the same: I have a Ph. D. in Statistics from North

Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC) and (M. S. in Survey Sampling

from University of Manitoba, Canada). I have been teaching Economics

and Statistics for over 25 years and I have received a Fulbright

Scholarship to teach Statistics at University of Mysore during 2006-

2007 Academic Year.

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> The poll has gone against continuing the discussion by a very

narrow

> margin. I hadn't expected even so many votaries for its

> continuation. You have to rememember that the votes of the

> Moderators were very crucial. No Moderator would vote for an

option

> that seeks to curtail their powers and I don't know why such an

> option was included. It could have been a straight 'yes' or 'no'.

> Well, that was not in my hands.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair-ji,

<< You have to rememember that the votes of the

Moderators were very crucial. No Moderator would vote for an option

that seeks to curtail their powers and I don't know why such an

option was included.>>

I did… and I think you will find others did too.

The moderators have not, in any case, yet stated that

discussions should end, at least as far as I am aware.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Ramji.

 

My comments were based on poll results announced through 43745 which

were:

____________________

 

CHOICES AND RESULTS

- This thread and similar threads may be provided a 3 month time

limit, 12 votes, 17.91%

- Moderators should intervene using their own judgment to curtail the

discussions, 23 votes, 34.33%

- There should be no time limit for this discussion , 21 votes, 31.34%

- This discussion should be truncated at the end of February 2009, 11

votes,16.42%

_______________________

 

I never questioned your credentials. It is therefore a little odd

that you chose to enumerate them. No doubt, they are simply splendid.

 

I have no credentials and no experience at designing surveys. I

wouldn't therefore like to initiate another poll. Thanks for the

offer.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

________________________

 

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran

wrote:

>

> Namaste dear Nairji:

>

> Since I have designed the questions with the choices, let me take

> this opportunity to explain:

>

> 21 out of 66 (31%) have opted for no time limit for list

discussions

> and 45 out of 66 (69%) wanted to limit the discussions – 11 opted

for

> one month time limit, 12 for 3 month time limit and 23 for the

> moderators to intervene and limit the discussions.

>

> If you so wish, we can have another poll using questions designed

by

> you. Please let me know as soon as possible.

>

> With my warm regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

> Note: Since you have every right to ask my credentials, I volunteer

> to provide you the same: I have a Ph. D. in Statistics from North

> Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC) and (M. S. in Survey

Sampling

> from University of Manitoba, Canada). I have been teaching

Economics

> and Statistics for over 25 years and I have received a Fulbright

> Scholarship to teach Statistics at University of Mysore during 2006-

> 2007 Academic Year.

>

> advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

> <madathilnair@> wrote:

> >

> > The poll has gone against continuing the discussion by a very

> narrow

> > margin. I hadn't expected even so many votaries for its

> > continuation. You have to rememember that the votes of the

> > Moderators were very crucial. No Moderator would vote for an

> option

> > that seeks to curtail their powers and I don't know why such an

> > option was included. It could have been a straight 'yes'

or 'no'.

> > Well, that was not in my hands.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennisji,

 

Thanks Dennisji for prodding me into BS I.i.4. I read Acharya's

commentary translated by Sw. Gambhirananda several times and didn't

find anything to support School 1's point of view. However, there

are statements which support School 2 which are quoted below. I hope

you will have no problem accepting them if Sanskrit scholars in the

List can testify to the accuracy of Sw. Gambhiranandaji's translation:

 

QUOTE

 

Opponent: did we not say that a statement about Brahman cannot be

useful like the statement about the nature of the rope, since it is a

patent fact that even a man who has heard of Brahman continues to

have his mundane life just as before?

 

Vedantin: To this the answer is being given: For one who has

realized the state of unity of the Self and Brahman, it cannot be

proved that his mundane life continues just as before; for this

contradicts the knowledge of the unity of Brahman and the Self

arising from the Vedas which are a valid means of knowledge. From

noticing the fact that a man can have sorrow, fear, etc. as a result

of his identifying himself with the body etc., it does not follow

that this very man will have sorrow etc. contingent on false

ignorance, even when his self-identification with the body etc.

ceases after the realization of the unity of Brahman and the Self,

arising from the Vedas which are a valid means of knowledge. Just

because a householder, who had been rich and prided himself on that

account, had been seen to be sorrowing for the theft of his wealth,

it does not follow that this every man will be miserable for any loss

of that wealth even after he has become a monk and given up the idea

of being wealthy. From the fact that a man wearing an ear-ring had

been seen to be happy by thinking of himself as the possessor of that

ear-ring, it does not follow that he will have that very happiness

arising from the possession of an ear-ring even after he dissociates

himself from that ear-ring and givens up the idea of his being its

possessor. Thus it is stated in the Vedic text. " Happiness and

sorrow do not touch one who has become definitely unembodied " (Ch.

VIII. Xii.1).

 

Opponent: Suppose we argue that this unembodiedness comes when the

body falls, but it cannot be so for a living man.

 

Vedantin: Not so, for the idea of embodiedness is a result of false

nescience. Unless it be through the false ignorance of identifying

the Self with the body, there can be no embodiedness for the Self.

And we said that the unembodiedness of the Self is eternal, since it

is not a product of action………….

 

Thus since embodiedness is the result of false perception, it is

established that the enlightened man has no embodiedness even while

living. ….

 

For once the non-dual Self, that is neither acceptable nor

rejectable, is realized, there can be no possibility of the

persistence of the means of knowledge that become bereft of their

objects and subjects. Moreover, they (the knowers of Brahman)

say " When on the realization of the Existence-Brahman as I, the body,

son, etc. become sublated and consequently the secondary and false

selves cease to exist, how can there be any action (prompted by

injunction and prohibition)?.. "

 

UNQUOTE

 

These quotes clearly say that a realized one is unembodied and, as

far as he/she is concerned the erstwhile means of knowledge are of no

avail. The statement " with no eyes, as though with eyes " etc. are

therefore for the ajnAni onlooker only.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Nairji,

I want to make another attempt to bring this discussion back to

what I believe to be the crux of the matter – and it is a simple (though

subtle) problem, which does not require detailed scriptural analysis.

You will agree (I hope!) that reality is non-dual. This is

expressed by such statements as ‘all there is - is brahman’, ‘I

am brahman’, ‘thou art That’ etc. But these statements are

made by necessarily dualistic language in dualistic scriptures, from a teacher

to a seeker – all dualistic.

So far so good?

Now, if reality is non-dual, and everything is brahman, that

must be the case always – brahman is nitya (eternal); there is nothing

that is not brahman. So, in reality, there cannot be any jIva-s, j~nAnI-s or

aj~nAnI-s, bondage or liberation. It could make no sense to say that anyone

sees anything or doesn’t see anything – there is no ‘one’;

there is only brahman. Agreed so far?

This being the case, what can it mean to say that there is a

jIva and he is a saMsArin, in bondage, seeking liberation? Even if we say he is

‘not really in bondage’ and ‘in reality is already free’,

what can this possibly mean? There is no-one, there is only brahman as we have

already agreed. And yet, this is our experience. We seem to be born as separate

entities, live a life of happiness and misery (not always apparently in

equitable proportion) and are seemingly doomed to die. This is the experience

of what we call an aj~nAnI. Unquestionably it seems to be dualistic. Again, I

assume that we do not disagree so far?

Now what is happening here? Reality is non-dual but we experience

a duality. This is where the scriptures start to postulate erroneous

superimposition as a result of error – and so on; but let us not get

sidetracked. The point is that we begin from the position of believing that

there is really duality and then the scriptures and teachers come along and

plant doubt in our mind about our prior conclusions; provide prakriyA-s and

pointers that begin to persuade us that perhaps reality might be non-dual after

all. Finally, hopefully, by grace or good teaching or whatever you like, maybe

the realization dawns that what has been taught really is true. The previous,

faulty way of looking at things has gone forever; we now know, rather than

believe, that there really is nothing separate out there. I am everything.

Again, I am sure we are still in agreement. It is just that you

are about to disagree with whatever I might say next!

In reality, nothing has happened. Before this ‘story’

(to use a neo-advaitin term – and it has actually occurred to me that

your position is not that different from neo-advaita!), there was only brahman;

during and after there is only brahman. There was no aj~nAnI, no teacher, no

grace, no dispelling of non-existent ignorance, no realization and therefore no

j~nAnI.

See – you don’t disagree after all!

So, what has all this endless discussion actually been about?

Well, you have been trying to say that the seeming aj~nAnI

seemingly becomes a j~nAnI from an aj~nAnI’s viewpoint and then ‘goes

universal’ so that, for him henceforth there is no more seeming duality

at all, no body-mind, no other aj~nAnI-s etc. But, in making such a statement,

you are attempting to describe a movement from mistaken duality to real

non-duality. There is never such a movement. In reality, there are no j~nAnI-s

or aj~nAnI-s, as agreed earlier. So, if you want to make any statements about

reality, the only one which is meaningful is one of the sort ‘there is

only brahman’. You cannot talk about a j~nAnI ‘in reality’

because there are none; there is only brahman. As soon as you speak of a j~nAnI

or an aj~nAnI, you are in the world of seeming duality. It matters not whether

you are talking about an ignorant jIva, an advanced seeker or someone who has realized

that reality is non-dual - *all* of this is in seeming duality.

So where does that leave us? Well, it seems to me that you have

two choices. Either you talk about how things seem to be from a dualistic

standpoint, *including the vision of one who has realized that reality is

non-dual* or you restrict yourself to repeating ‘there is only

brahman’ or some such variant. There is no other choice.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennisji,

 

Yours 43776.

 

As you anticipated, I have no quarrels with you upto the penultimate

para.

 

The last two paras are quoted below with my comments inserted in .

_____________

 

> So, what has all this endless discussion actually been about?

>

> Well, you have been trying to say that the seeming aj~nAnI

seemingly becomes

> a j~nAnI from an aj~nAnI's viewpoint and then 'goes universal' so

that, for

> him henceforth there is no more seeming duality at all, no body-

mind, no

> other aj~nAnI-s etc. But, in making such a statement, you are

attempting to

> describe a movement from mistaken duality to real non-duality.

There is

> never such a movement.

 

[MN: If you admit what I meant was a 'seeming duality', where is the

question of a movement? " ]

__________________

 

In reality, there are no j~nAnI-s or aj~nAnI-s, as

> agreed earlier.

 

[MN: In reality there is only jnAni and that jnAni is Brahman has

always been my contention.]

________________

 

So, if you want to make any statements about reality, the

> only one which is meaningful is one of the sort 'there is only

brahman'. You

> cannot talk about a j~nAnI 'in reality' because there are none;

there is

> only brahman.

 

[MN: May I reiterate that jnAni is Brahman is reality. There is no

question of a jnAni in reality like pickle in a jar.]

__________________

 

As soon as you speak of a j~nAnI or an aj~nAnI, you are in the

> world of seeming duality.

 

[MN: Yes. Always. Speaking is possible only in seeming duality.]

______________

 

It matters not whether you are talking about an

> ignorant jIva, an advanced seeker or someone who has realized that

reality

> is non-dual - *all* of this is in seeming duality.

 

[MN: It matters even in seeming duality at leat to me even if the

difference between them is just seeming. Besides, in that seeming

duality, as an unrealized one, I have no qualification to judge if

the so-called realized one is really realized or not. That is the

crux of the matter and the reason why I don't want to place a

realized one in with the ignorant jIva, an advanced seeker etc.]

 

[MN: Nevertheless, from within thet seeming duality, I can write out

a description for the realized one based on the wisdom I find in

scriptures. Please look at the prayer verse below, which I chant

twice every day, about an ideal guru. I think it fits the

description of jnAni. If you can, with real conviction, point to one

such guru in our seeming duality, who fully fits in with that

description, then I would say you are self-realized:

 

Om, brahmanandaM paramasukhadaM kevalam jnAnamUrthiM

dwandAtItaM gaganasadrishaM tatwamasyAdilakhShyaM

ekaM nityaM vimalamacalaM sarvadhIsAkShibhUtaM

bhAvAtItaM trigunarahitaM sadguruM taM namAmi

 

(Sorry for the poor transliteration.)

 

That guru is jnAni is brahman. Every time we fondly remember our

respective gurus or prostrate to them, we are actually invoking the

Grace of the above ideal guru (brahman or jnAni) and taking our Guru

to be representative of the Grace of that paramaguru.]

___________________

>

> So where does that leave us? Well, it seems to me that you have two

choices.

 

> Either you talk about how things seem to be from a dualistic

standpoint,

> *including the vision of one who has realized that reality is non-

dual* or

> you restrict yourself to repeating 'there is only brahman' or some

such

> variant. There is no other choice.

 

[MN: I have only one choice which I have detailed above and I have

talked about it from the duality standpoint - the only standpoint

from which I am condemned to speak at all. Even if I take up your

second choice 'There is only Brahman', that too will be spoken of

from duality standpoint alone, firstly because I am stationed in

duality and secondly because that word 'only' suggests an exclusion

of something.]

_________________

 

Best regards. MahAshivarAtri Greetings to all.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Nairji,

<<[MN: May I reiterate that jnAni is Brahman is reality.

There is no question of a jnAni in reality like pickle in a jar.]>>

 

<< Besides, in that seeming duality, as an unrealized one, I have

no qualification to judge if the so-called realized one is really realized or

not. That is the crux of the matter and the reason why I don't want to place a realized

one in with the ignorant jIva, an advanced seeker etc.>>

 

That “a j~nAnI equates to a ‘realized’ one and

‘is brahman is reality’” is a pAramArthika statement. The

question of your judging whether such a one is ‘ really realized or not’

is a vyAvahArika consideration. How can you not be mixing levels of reality?

 

In reality there is only brahman. This means that ‘everything’

and ‘everyone’ is brahman already (in paramArtha). So the key

difference (in vyavahAra) between a j~nAnI and an aj~nAnI is that the

former ‘knows’ this to be the case while the latter doesn’t. Isn’t

this what j~nAnI means?

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

Kindly see within .

_______

 

>> That " a j~nAnI equates to a 'realized' one and 'is brahman is

reality' " is a

> pAramArthika statement. The question of your judging whether such

a one is

> ' really realized or not' is a vyAvahArika consideration. How can

you not be

> mixing levels of reality?

 

[MN: There is no paramArthika consideration as such. We only have

vyAvahArika considerations of what paramArtha is all about. In

paramArtha, there are no considerations. Thus, there is no mix up.]

_________

>

> In reality there is only brahman. This means that 'everything' and

> 'everyone' is brahman already (in paramArtha). So the key

difference (in

> vyavahAra) between a j~nAnI and an aj~nAnI is that the

former 'knows' this

> to be the case while the latter doesn't. Isn't this what j~nAnI

means?

 

[MN: Very cleverly worded! It all depends on that word 'knows'.

jnAni's 'knowing' can't be of a vyAvahArik nature; so, I can't relate

him to vyavahAra in any way. I can therefore only admit that the key

difference you mention is what separates Shri Dennis Waite (or his

vyvahArikA concept of jnAni) and a stark ajnAni, not jnAni and

ajnAni, assuming that you are not a jnAni yet. I have already told

you, terminologically, I can't place jnAni as the antonym of ajnAni

because he is Brahman and, therefore, everything in a paramArthika

sense and the substratum which lights up the vyAvahArika where

distinctions are made out between ajnAni and the concept (projection)

of jnAni.]

 

[MN: To deviate slightly from 'tautology', may I look at the probem

from another angle:

 

(a) Perceiver + BMI + Objectified World (Duality/vyAvahAra - a

'concept of jnAni' is available here)

(b) Self or Brahman (Non-duality/jnAni/paramArtha/Knowledge)

 

In the 'no movement' movement from (a) to (b) called self-

realization, what disappears is only ignorance. That ignorance is

the reason for the apparent split in (a). Your position implies the

removal of that ignorance with the split remaining intact wherefter

the erstwhile perceiver now edowed with a 'wise mind' continues to

perceive duality, but at the same time revels in the knowledge that

he indeed is non-dual. School 2 cannot even think of such a scenario

because, to them, effective removal of ignorance is non-duality,

whereafter there is no question of any split, which was there before

only due to the existence of ignorance. They think that the former

view is like one continuing to be astigmatic even after the

astigmatism has been effectively cured.]

 

[MN: Hope the above re-statement helps. This is as simple as I can

possibly put it. Hope you won't need anecdotes from the lives of

great teachers like Ramakrishna Paramahamsa to understand this. I

have non in my armoury.]

___________

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Any mental knowledge is divisive. Otherwise why would the mind which

says " all this is brahman " still claim that " this realization happens

in me " , and keep itself different from the rest!

praNAms Sri Rajkumar Nair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

The identification with ahaMkAra, manObuddhi upAdhi is the avidyA which shankara talks all through his prasthAna traya bhAshya...If this knowledge that 'all is brahman' is just another pratyaya in an individualiized mind, it is nothing but mere intellectual understanding which is far away & quite inferior to the absolute 'samyak jnAna'...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Similarly, in our case let the

scriptures be useless when the knowers of the field become identified

with God, and purposeful within the sphere of ignorance. This is just

as in the case of all the dualists, where it is admitted that the

scriptures etc become useful in the state of bondage, not in the

state of Liberation.

praNAms Sri praNipath chaitanya prabhuji

Hare krishna

Yes, this is an apt quote to establish the fact that socalled scriptural validity & scriptural teaching & its teacher are all valid & good to entertain ONLY in avidyAtmaka vyavahAra...Shankara expresses this same opinion in sUtra bhAshya also 4-1-3 ...Here shankara says, we do admit shruti will cease to exist when one is awakened to truth...Shankara continues to clarify that there is the shruti text which endorses this. Beginning with the statement 'the father becomes no father here' (pitA apitA, deva adeva, veda aveda etc.), it proclaims that the veda-s become no veda-s in the state of enlightenment...Infact this bruhadAraNyaka maNtra relating to sushupti...Nevertheless shankara quotes it here in connection with enlightened state...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

“Of course, I do not mean that Self-knowledge is the same ‘sort’ as knowledge of chemistry. Knowledge of ‘things’, or objective knowledge, is the sort that, I think Sada-ji, recently spoke of as ‘more and more about less and less leading towards knowing everything about nothing’. Self-knowledge = Enlightenment, and is the realization that ‘I am That’, ‘Everything is brahman’ etc. Whereas objective knowledge is always provisional and can always be supplanted when more information comes along, Self-knowledge is irrevocable and irrefutable. But it still occurs in the mind. The ‘event’ is called akhaNDAkAra vRRitti and there have been extensive discussions on the topic in the past.â€praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhujiHare KrishnaThanks for clarification...If self-knowledge in mind what you are talking is equal to enlightenment (absolute non-dual state) then this tiny upAdhi, mind, cannot be the container of this akhanda jnAna...Yes, ofcourse jnAna can happen only in mind...But after the dawn of this jnAna mind cannot be a tiny conditioned mind to claim that it has the possession of that absolute jnAna..Here, after that 'event', mind cannot be an individual mind...an individual mind & its identification is avidyA & this avidyA cannot be there in an absolute jnAni...In 'that' state mind is not a mind...it is brahman nothing but brahman only coz. there remains nothing apart from THAT...Hence there is a statement : idaM brahmaM ekarasaM AptavyaM Atmaiva na anyadasteeti....A tireless 'tautological assertion' from the minorities :-))Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!bhaskar