Two kinds of Negation

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

My post #44513 said:

The two kinds of ignorance have to be removed by two kinds of negation. That is

why 'neti, neti' is always used in the Upanishads twice. First negation is for

the unreality of the outside world. And that brings the truth that 'all this

visible world is unreal'. The second negation is for the unreality of the five

koshas inside this body and sUkshma sharIra. This negation is more difficult

than the first. On the ladder of spirituality the first negation leads to the

truth 'sarvam khalvidam brahma'. But even then that the 'everything' also

includes this one's own body mind, intellect, is the more difficult second

negation!

-----------

Sastriji-ji in #44516 said:

 

As far as I know, the words `Neti, neti' are not meant to refer to the

elimination of two kinds of ignorances. Actually there is only one

ignorance,because of which both the external world and one's own BMI are looked

upon asreal. Everything other than the Atma is anAtma. The world is as much

anAtma as one's BMI. It is no doubt true that giving up attachment to one's BMI

is more difficult than giving up attachment to external objects, which include

wife,

son, etc. This has been pointed out in many works. But I have not seen the terms

`Neti, neti' used in this context. If there is any such reference, I shall be

glad to know the same.

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

Bhaskar Prabhuji said:

Yes, Prof. VK prabhuji's observation is really interesting...I too think this

negation has nothing to do with various types of ignorance!!?? As Sri Sastri

prabhuji pointed out, shankara uses the pratishedha vAkya just to 'describe' the

reality/Atman that is devoid of any name, form or any specific

features..shankara time & again emphasizes the fact that this Atman cannot be

positively described and through the method of adhyArOpa apavAda Atman sometime

described in some positive terms like satyaM, jnAnaM, anantaM etc. but this is

not for objectifying the Atman... In the kArika bhAshya shankara observes that

it is because of the interception of specific features like happiness that Atman

does not abide in his own nature and ultimate stage is abiding in one's own real

nature...Thus the shAstra brings the notion of not being happy etc. and through

which it withdraws the notion of being happy etc. by means of texts like 'neti,

neti'..

I humbly request Prof. VK prabhuji to explain more how pratishedha vAkya pramANa

can be related to negation of two types of ignorances in shankara bhAshya.

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

Yes, Sastri-ji and Bhaskar Prabhuji. I did not pull out that idea from any of

Shankara's works or Bhashya. If I remember right, I think the idea of `neti,

neti' indicating the necessity for two negations, goes back to one of the

speeches of Sathya Sai Baba, which has stuck in my mind for more than fifteen

years now. It is good that you questioned the source now. I have one more

source from which it indirectly stuck in my mind.

It is the book `Advaita Vedanta according to Sankara' by M.K. Venkatrama Iyer.

(Asia Publishing House, 1964). I give some (summarised) extracts from

pp.166-168 of that book. They form the concluding portion of the chapter on

`Theory of Error'. The words are mine but the subject matter is that of M.K.

Venkatrama Iyer.

There are two kinds of errors. One is `nirupAdhika-bhrama', which thinks that

this visible world is what it is, namely, the world; Vedanta says it is Brahman.

So mistaking Brahman for the world is the error. Mistaking nacre for silver is

of this kind.

 

The second kind is `sopAdhika-bhrama', which attributes to an object a certain

quality which does not belong to it. When we attribute agency and enjoyership to

the Self we are making this kind of error. The mistake here is akin to the

mistake we make when we think a white crystal proximate to a red flower is

itself red. The mistake here is not due to superimposition of one object on

another but to the failure to keep the two different things and their qualities

apart. Sankara refers to this case in his commentary on Br. S.I.iii.19

(Gambhirananda's translation: Before the dawn of discriminating knowledge, the

individual soul's nature of Consciousness …… but after the perception of

distinction through the valid means of knowledge, the crystal in its latter

state is said to attain its true nature ….)

 

The crystal and the flower are seen side by side whereas the Self and the body

are not seen as existing separately.This difference does not however alter the

nature of the error. In both cases we transfer the quality of one object to

another. It is the adjunct that accounts for the error. It is therefore called

`sopAdhika bhrama'.

 

In the case of Brahman being mistaken for the world, when right knowledge sets

in (like light illuminating the rope being there instead of the appearance of

the snake), the world of diversity disappears and only Brahman remains. In the

case of Brahman being mistaken for the JIva, the advent of right knowledge does

not mean the total disappearance of the latter. The spiritual element in the

JIva is left intactand only the adventitious part of it disappears. This is what

happens in the case of the crystal. Only its redness disappears, but the crystal

itself remains with its own white colour.

 

Though the world and the JIva are both appearances, yet there is a difference

between them. When right knowledge sets in the former totally disappears whereas

the latter only sheds its adventitious adjuncts and remains in its own true

nature. This is because the world is pure matter whereas the JIva is spirit plus

matter.

 

If we can speak of degrees of error, we may say that mistaking Brahman for the

world is error of the first degree whereas mistaking Brahman for JIva is only

error of the second degree.

 

This much is from M.K. Venkatrama Iyer. My instinctive thought process

connected these two ideas from MK Venkatrama Iyer and from Sathya Sai Baba. The

first error has to be compensated by the negation of the outside world. This is

the first `Neti'. The second error has to be compensated by the negation of the

five koshas inside what we commonly think as `we'. Hence the second `Neti'.

 

Pardon me if I have transgressed the limits of the Knowledge-tradition of

Shankara.

 

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Dear Prof-vk-ji,

You seem to be (perhaps inadvertently) re-introducing the

contentious topic of last month here!

You say: “In the case of Brahman being mistaken for the world,

when right knowledge sets in (like light illuminating the rope being there

instead of the appearance of the snake), the world of diversity disappears and

only Brahman remains.”

I (and some others) would have to disagree here.

The example of rope and snake is certainly one of nirupAdhika adhyAsa.

Once the rope has been clearly seen, the snake disappears. However, the example

usually given to illustrate sopAdhika adhyAsa is that of the sunrise. Even

after we have understood that this is actually caused by the rotation of the

earth, we nevertheless still see the sun apparently rising and setting.

And surely, sunrise is a part of the world of diversity?

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennisji,

Sorry for butting in, I hope you do not mind.

Once one becomes aware of the fact

that Ataman is the true self [rope], the snake [man and world] is mere mirage. It

does not disappear, but one becomes aware of the unreal nature of the snake, which

never exists in reality. If the snake [world and man] does not exist in reality,

then it is the rope [Ataman] alone exists as reality. Since one views and judges the worldview on

the base of `I' which is the false identity, within the false experience he experiences

the duality as reality, and he is unable to cross the threshold of duality.

Until and unless one makes sure of

the fact that, true self is Ataman, and learns to view and judge the worldview

on the base of Ataman, as self, it is impossible

to say world is unreal and illusion. Because.

World and man is unreal only on the standpoint of Ataman as self.

Thus,

viewing and judging the illusion with the illusory identity and within the

illusion, will not unfold the ultimate truth. Since man and the world is part

of the illusion. Therefore, one has to know the fact: what has this illusion? in order to know what

is it that prevails, without the illusion [man and the world]?. Whatever

prevails without the man and world [illusion] is ultimate truth [ Brahman]. This is

personal research and conviction. Please correct me if I am wrong.

With respect and regards

Santthosh

 

advaitin , "Dennis Waite" <dwaite wrote:>> Dear Prof-vk-ji,> > You seem to be (perhaps inadvertently) re-introducing the contentious topic> of last month here!> > You say: "In the case of Brahman being mistaken for the world, when right> knowledge sets in (like light illuminating the rope being there instead of> the appearance of the snake), the world of diversity disappears and only> Brahman remains."> > I (and some others) would have to disagree here.> > The example of rope and snake is certainly one of nirupAdhika adhyAsa. Once> the rope has been clearly seen, the snake disappears. However, the example> usually given to illustrate sopAdhika adhyAsa is that of the sunrise. Even> after we have understood that this is actually caused by the rotation of the> earth, we nevertheless still see the sun apparently rising and setting. > > And surely, sunrise is a part of the world of diversity?> > Best wishes,> > Dennis>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " santthoshkumaar " <santthoshkumaar wrote:

>

>

> Hi Dennisji,

>

> Sorry for butting in, I hope you do not mind.

>

> Once one becomes aware of the fact that Ataman is the true self [rope],

> the snake [man and world] is mere mirage. It does not disappear, but one

> becomes aware of the unreal nature of the snake, which never exists in

> reality. If the snake [world and man] does not exist in reality, then it

 

Namaste,

 

Yes the rope can be mistaken as a rope by our perception...and that has a

certain validity within illusion. However the real truth is that there is no

snake and no rope at all..it didn't happen...Cheers Tony

[Guest guest]

Hi Santthosh-ji,

Your first statement is incorrect. In the rope-snake metaphor,

when one realizes the rope, the snake *does* disappear – it does not

remain as a mirage. This is contrast to another example – that of a clear

crystal appearing to be colored because of an adjacent colored object refracted

in it. One may realize this to be the case but, nevertheless, the crystal *still*

appears to be colored.

As regards realizing the mithyAtva of the world, this has to be

done within that mithyA context because that is where we find ourselves. It is

the mind (which is mithyA) which realizes that the world is mithyA. And it does

this with the help of scriptures and teacher, which are also mithyA.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of santthoshkumaar

Tuesday, April 07, 2009 5:18 PM

advaitin

Re: Two kinds of Negation

 

 

 

 

 

 

<<

Once

one becomes aware of the fact that Ataman is the true self [rope], the snake

[man and world] is mere mirage. It does not disappear, but one becomes aware of

the unreal nature of the snake, which never exists in reality. If the snake

[world and man] does not exist in reality, then it is the rope [Ataman] alone

exists as reality. Since one views and judges the worldview on the base

of `I' which is the false identity, within the false experience he experiences

the duality as reality, and he is unable to cross the threshold of duality.

Until

and unless one makes sure of the fact that, true self is Ataman, and learns to

view and judge the worldview on the base of Ataman, as self, it is

impossible to say world is unreal and illusion. Because. World and man is

unreal only on the standpoint of Ataman as self.

Thus,

viewing and judging the illusion with the illusory identity and within the

illusion, will not unfold the ultimate truth. Since man and the world is part

of the illusion. Therefore, one has to know the fact: what has this

illusion? in order to know what is it that prevails, without the illusion [man

and the world]?. Whatever prevails without the man and world [illusion] is

ultimate truth [ Brahman].

This is personal research and conviction. Please correct me if I am

wrong.

>>

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Hi Santthosh-ji,

>

> Your first statement is incorrect. In the rope-snake metaphor, when one

> realizes the rope, the snake *does* disappear - it does not remain as a

> mirage. This is contrast to another example - that of a clear crystal

> appearing to be colored because of an adjacent colored object refracted in

> it. One may realize this to be the case but, nevertheless, the crystal

> *still* appears to be colored.

>

> As regards realizing the mithyAtva of the world, this has to be done within

> that mithyA context because that is where we find ourselves. It is the mind

> (which is mithyA) which realizes that the world is mithyA. And it does this

> with the help of scriptures and teacher, which are also mithyA.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

Namaste D,

 

If we give this illusion some validity then it is all down to a mistaken view.

It is like examining the relationship between waves on an ocean when they are

just parts of an ocean. We identify with a small packet of energy and we call

that a person or a thought or an attitude or whatever...an everchanging packet

in a flow.

 

We help the poor, we hate the oppressor all just movements in a vast energy

field. We feel sorry for schizophrenics when they are just places where

contradictions appear in the human mind field. All that we do charity, seva,

karma yoga etc is all to realise ourselves, to downsize the ego...it is all

about diluting the ego and overcoming its false premise. As Ramana said it there

is a god that made the world then let him take care of it...If you think there

are Devas then for you there are Devas, if you think there is a world then for

you there is a world.........The whole purpose is to return to the

non-happening.............Cheers Tony.

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAms Prof. VK prabhuji

Hare krishna

 

Thanks a lot for your kind clarification...As a matter of fact sofar I have heard about sopAdhika (saguNa) brahma & nirupAdhika (nirguNa) brahma...It is interesting to note that some advaita acharya has drag these sopAdhika & nirupAdhika terminologies to brama also :-)) Anyway, prabhuji, I dont have inclination to discuss these issues further..However, I'd be grateful if you could explain little more elaborately your following observation :

 

// quote //

In the case of Brahman being mistaken for the world, when right knowledge sets in (like light illuminating the rope being there instead of the appearance of the snake), the world of diversity disappears and only Brahman remains. In the case of Brahman being mistaken for the JIva, the advent of right knowledge does not mean the total disappearance of the latter. The spiritual element in the JIva is left intactand only the adventitious part of it disappears. This is what happens in the case of the crystal. Only its redness disappears, but the crystal itself remains with its own white colour.

// unquote //

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennisji,

Thank you for your guidance,

Whatever appears and disappears is mithya

[world/duality/mind]. But to what the mithya

appears is within the mithya, as its formless substance, and it is apart from

mithya as its formless witness. It is apart because it is not an entity or

identity within the mithya. That formless substance and witness of mithya is

Ataman. And Ataman is the true self.

When the formless substance and the formless

witness of mithya is Ataman/spirit, there is no second thing exists in mithya [diversity]

other then Ataman, hence it is nondual. Thus, whatever appears as real is unreal on

the standpoint of the Ataman as self. The

unreal [world] is created out of real [Ataman], sustained by real, finally it dissolves

as real. Therefore,

the real and unreal are one in essence. This is my conviction derived from

deeper inquiry and reasoning. The true self itself is guru, because the

mithya[world] is created out of

satyam[Ataman].

With respect and regards

Santthosh.

advaitin , "Dennis Waite" <dwaite wrote:>> Hi Santthosh-ji,> > Your first statement is incorrect. In the rope-snake metaphor, when one> realizes the rope, the snake *does* disappear - it does not remain as a> mirage. This is contrast to another example - that of a clear crystal> appearing to be colored because of an adjacent colored object refracted in> it. One may realize this to be the case but, nevertheless, the crystal> *still* appears to be colored.> > As regards realizing the mithyAtva of the world, this has to be done within> that mithyA context because that is where we find ourselves. It is the mind> (which is mithyA) which realizes that the world is mithyA. And it does this> with the help of scriptures and teacher, which are also mithyA.> > Best wishes,> > Dennis> > > > advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf> Of santthoshkumaar> Tuesday, April 07, 2009 5:18 PM> advaitin > Re: Two kinds of Negation> > > > < > Once one becomes aware of the fact that Ataman is the true self [rope], the> snake [man and world] is mere mirage. It does not disappear, but one becomes> aware of the unreal nature of the snake, which never exists in reality. If> the snake [world and man] does not exist in reality, then it is the rope> [Ataman] alone exists as reality. Since one views and judges the worldview> on the base of `I' which is the false identity, within the false experience> he experiences the duality as reality, and he is unable to cross the> threshold of duality. > > Until and unless one makes sure of the fact that, true self is Ataman, and> learns to view and judge the worldview on the base of Ataman, as self, it> is impossible to say world is unreal and illusion. Because. World and man> is unreal only on the standpoint of Ataman as self.> > Thus, viewing and judging the illusion with the illusory identity and> within the illusion, will not unfold the ultimate truth. Since man and the> world is part of the illusion. Therefore, one has to know the fact: what> has this illusion? in order to know what is it that prevails, without the> illusion [man and the world]?. Whatever prevails without the man and world> [illusion] is ultimate truth [ Brahman]. This is personal research> and conviction. Please correct me if I am wrong. > > >>>

[Guest guest]

Dear Tonyji ,

Thank you,

Yes, you are right, in the realm of

truth, nothing exists, other then nondual nature of self/Ataman.

With respect and regards

Santthosh

advaitin , "Tony OClery" <aoclery wrote:>> advaitin , "santthoshkumaar" santthoshkumaar@ wrote:> >> > > > Hi Dennisji,> > > > Sorry for butting in, I hope you do not mind.> > > > Once one becomes aware of the fact that Ataman is the true self [rope],> > the snake [man and world] is mere mirage. It does not disappear, but one> > becomes aware of the unreal nature of the snake, which never exists in> > reality. If the snake [world and man] does not exist in reality, then it> > Namaste,> > Yes the rope can be mistaken as a rope by our perception...and that has a certain validity within illusion. However the real truth is that there is no snake and no rope at all..it didn't happen...Cheers Tony>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Prof VK-ji and all followers of this thread,

 

advaitin , " V. Krishnamurthy " <profvk wrote:

> That is why 'neti, neti' is always used in the Upanishads twice. First

> negation is for the unreality of the outside world. And that brings the

> truth that 'all this visible world is unreal'. The second negation is for

> the unreality of the five koshas inside this body and sUkshma sharIra.

> This negation is more difficult than the first. On the ladder of

> spirituality the first negation leads to the

> truth 'sarvam khalvidam brahma'. But even then that the 'everything' also

> includes this one's own body mind, intellect, is the more difficult second

> negation!

 

We can perhaps think that the two kinds of negations have some basis in the

two declarations by Arjuna, in which he essentially says that his moha has

been destroyed, as part of the teaching he received from Lord Krishna in

gIta.

 

The first one (in 11.1) is almost at the end of Lord Krishna's explanation

of the 'tat-padArtha lakshaNa'. Here, when shown the divine form, Arjuna as

part of his prayer, is seen to be praising or declaring that the Lord is

everything.

 

The second one (in 18.73) is at the end of the teaching, which obviously

also includes the 'asi-padArtha lakshaNa' in chapter 13 (including the

crucial kshetraj~na.n chaapi maa.n viddhi sarvakshetreshhu bhaarata),

the tri-fold classification of everything that is 'idam' in chapter 14, and

the nature of Ishvara vis-a-vis the world in chapter 15 (uurdhvamuulam

adhaHshaakham, dvaavimau-purushhau, etc.).

 

praNAms to all Advaitins

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

namaste,

1. sopAdhika & nirupAdhika terminologies to brama also

2. saguna brahma and nirguNa brahma

3. kShetra and kShetrajna

4. kshara akshara brahma

 

then who is the "purushottma" of the 15th chapter of Bhagavad gita?

Is PuruSHottama is beyond all the above four?

Can any of the enlightened list memebers please explaing this? or if there is a posting in the archives on this tpoic of pururShottama, kindly give the reference

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

[Guest guest]

Dear list mates,

The essence of Vedas is:

DEHUM-NAHAM-KOHUM-SOHUM, spiritually it means--- SELF IS NOT THE BODY - SELF IS

THAT--[that –which is not the body that is formless], when self is not the body,

it is erroneous to seek truth on the base of body or 'I', as self. Since deeper inquiry and reasoning reveals the

fact that, neither the body, nor the `I', is the true self. Thus, seeker of

truth has to make sure of the true self, and then only indulge in the pursuit

of truth.

Until and unless one knows what

truth is, how he can know what is untruth. The negation is possible only when

one becomes fully aware of the fact that, Ataman/sprit, is the true self and

all else is illusion. And the formless

substance witness of the illusion [man +universe] is Ataman, hence everything

is Ataman. And Ataman itself is Brahman.

Thus there is no second thing exists other then Ataman, in the

experience of diversity [waking/dream].

The

diversity is mere illusion, but the formless nondual substance and the witness,

which prevails with or without the illusion, is the ultimate truth. Until and

unless one becomes aware of the fact that, the man and the world is an object

to the true self [Ataman], he will not be able to grasp the nondual truth, and

he bases his theories and judges everything on the base of ego which is the

false self. Thus, it is necessary to learn to view and judge the worldview

mentally, to grasp the nondual truth, to overcome all the doubts and confusions.

 

The pure Advith is nothing to do

with religion, concept of god and scriptures. The duality and non duality is the state of

the self. When the true self [Ataman] is in illusion, then it is mind or

duality. And when the true self [Ataman] is in its formless nondual true nature,

and then it is in non-duality. That is

why Ashtavakra says religion, scriptures and god glorification and yoga are not

the means to self realization, because they exist only in Mithya/duality. Buddha rejected Vedas, concept of god and

religion. He must have verified their validity, and then only he has rejected

it. There is no end in arguing who is correct, and who is wrong on the base of

scriptures and religion, which are based on the false identity within the false

experience. A well directed inquiry and reasoning on the true base, will help

the seeker to realize, the self in lesser time and effort. Nothing has to be accepted as truth unless and

until is it verified, and if it is uncontradictable truth, then only it has to

be accepted as truth , in pursuit of truth.

Until and unless one is able to know what is

mind, and what is the substance of the mind, he will not be able to think

beyond duality. This is my conviction. I

humbly request all the list mates to

ignore my views, if it does not suit their conviction.

With respect and regards

Santthosh

 

advaitin , "Ramakrishna Upadrasta" <uramakrishna wrote:>> Namaste Shri Prof VK-ji and all followers of this thread,> > advaitin , "V. Krishnamurthy" profvk@ wrote:> > That is why 'neti, neti' is always used in the Upanishads twice. First> > negation is for the unreality of the outside world. And that brings the> > truth that 'all this visible world is unreal'. The second negation is for> > the unreality of the five koshas inside this body and sUkshma sharIra.> > This negation is more difficult than the first. On the ladder of> > spirituality the first negation leads to the> > truth 'sarvam khalvidam brahma'. But even then that the 'everything' also> > includes this one's own body mind, intellect, is the more difficult second> > negation!> > We can perhaps think that the two kinds of negations have some basis in the> two declarations by Arjuna, in which he essentially says that his moha has> been destroyed, as part of the teaching he received from Lord Krishna in> gIta.> > The first one (in 11.1) is almost at the end of Lord Krishna's explanation> of the 'tat-padArtha lakshaNa'. Here, when shown the divine form, Arjuna as> part of his prayer, is seen to be praising or declaring that the Lord is> everything.> > The second one (in 18.73) is at the end of the teaching, which obviously> also includes the 'asi-padArtha lakshaNa' in chapter 13 (including the> crucial kshetraj~na.n chaapi maa.n viddhi sarvakshetreshhu bhaarata),> the tri-fold classification of everything that is 'idam' in chapter 14, and> the nature of Ishvara vis-a-vis the world in chapter 15 (uurdhvamuulam> adhaHshaakham, dvaavimau-purushhau, etc.).> > praNAms to all Advaitins> Ramakrishna>

[Guest guest]

Dear santosh,

 

Does vedas say *deham naham koham soham* ? I am afraid.

 

Pl. don't misinterpret the veda. This is my request as a great grandson of Vashishta Ganapati Muni.

 

regs,

sriram--- On Fri, 10/4/09, santthoshkumaar <santthoshkumaar wrote:

santthoshkumaar <santthoshkumaar Re: Two kinds of Negationadvaitin Date: Friday, 10 April, 2009, 1:44 PM

 

 

 

Dear list mates,

The essence of Vedas is: DEHUM-NAHAM- KOHUM-SOHUM, spiritually it means--- SELF IS NOT THE BODY - SELF IS THAT--[that –which is not the body that is formless], when self is not the body, it is erroneous to seek truth on the base of body or 'I', as self. Since deeper inquiry and reasoning reveals the fact that, neither the body, nor the `I', is the true self. Thus, seeker of truth has to make sure of the true self, and then only indulge in the pursuit of truth.

Until and unless one knows what truth is, how he can know what is untruth. The negation is possible only when one becomes fully aware of the fact that, Ataman/sprit, is the true self and all else is illusion. And the formless substance witness of the illusion [man +universe] is Ataman, hence everything is Ataman. And Ataman itself is Brahman. Thus there is no second thing exists other then Ataman, in the experience of diversity [waking/dream] .

The diversity is mere illusion, but the formless nondual substance and the witness, which prevails with or without the illusion, is the ultimate truth. Until and unless one becomes aware of the fact that, the man and the world is an object to the true self [Ataman], he will not be able to grasp the nondual truth, and he bases his theories and judges everything on the base of ego which is the false self. Thus, it is necessary to learn to view and judge the worldview mentally, to grasp the nondual truth, to overcome all the doubts and confusions.

The pure Advith is nothing to do with religion, concept of god and scriptures. The duality and non duality is the state of the self. When the true self [Ataman] is in illusion, then it is mind or duality. And when the true self [Ataman] is in its formless nondual true nature, and then it is in non-duality. That is why Ashtavakra says religion, scriptures and god glorification and yoga are not the means to self realization, because they exist only in Mithya/duality. Buddha rejected Vedas, concept of god and religion. He must have verified their validity, and then only he has rejected it. There is no end in arguing who is correct, and who is wrong on the base of scriptures and religion, which are based on the false identity within the false experience. A well directed inquiry and reasoning on the true base, will help the seeker to

realize, the self in lesser time and effort. Nothing has to be accepted as truth unless and until is it verified, and if it is uncontradictable truth, then only it has to be accepted as truth , in pursuit of truth.

Until and unless one is able to know what is mind, and what is the substance of the mind, he will not be able to think beyond duality. This is my conviction. I humbly request all the list mates to ignore my views, if it does not suit their conviction.

With respect and regards

Santthosh

advaitin@ s.com, "Ramakrishna Upadrasta" <uramakrishna@ ...> wrote:>> Namaste Shri Prof VK-ji and all followers of this thread,> > advaitin@ s.com, "V. Krishnamurthy" profvk@ wrote:> > That is why 'neti, neti' is always used in the Upanishads twice. First> > negation is for the unreality of the outside world. And that brings the> > truth that 'all this visible world is unreal'. The second negation is for> > the unreality of the five koshas inside this body and sUkshma sharIra.> > This negation is more difficult than the first. On the ladder of> > spirituality the first negation leads to the> > truth 'sarvam khalvidam brahma'. But even then that the 'everything' also> > includes this one's own body mind, intellect, is the

more difficult second> > negation!> > We can perhaps think that the two kinds of negations have some basis in the> two declarations by Arjuna, in which he essentially says that his moha has> been destroyed, as part of the teaching he received from Lord Krishna in> gIta.> > The first one (in 11.1) is almost at the end of Lord Krishna's explanation> of the 'tat-padArtha lakshaNa'. Here, when shown the divine form, Arjuna as> part of his prayer, is seen to be praising or declaring that the Lord is> everything.> > The second one (in 18.73) is at the end of the teaching, which obviously> also includes the 'asi-padArtha lakshaNa' in chapter 13 (including the> crucial kshetraj~na. n chaapi maa.n viddhi sarvakshetreshhu bhaarata),> the tri-fold classification of everything that is 'idam' in chapter 14, and> the nature of Ishvara vis-a-vis

the world in chapter 15 (uurdhvamuulam> adhaHshaakham, dvaavimau-purushhau , etc.).> > praNAms to all Advaitins> Ramakrishna>

Did you know? You can CHAT without downloading messenger. Click here

[Guest guest]

advaitin , venkata sriram <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

>

> Dear santosh,

>  

> Does vedas say *deham naham koham soham* ? I am afraid.

>  

> Pl. don't misinterpret the veda. This is my request as a great grandson of

Vashishta Ganapati Muni.

>  

> regs,

> sriram

 

Dear Sriram,

Very glad to know that you are the great-grandson of the great Vasishta Ganapati

Muni. That explains your very knowledgeable article on Tantra a few days ago.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Dear Lakshmi-ji

 

While we are waiting for the enlightened list members to respond, here are a few thoughts on your question. This is how I understand it:

 

In the 15th Chapter of Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavan Krishna refers to three aspects of purusha:

 

- kshara purusha

- akshara purusha

- uttama purusha (purushottama)

 

Kshara-purusha is the manifested one-ness which 'appears' as the universe of variety.

 

Akshara-purusha is the unmanifested one-ness as referred to in the 'cosmic unmanifested' associated with pralaya, the deep-sleep of the whole cosmos. It holds the unmanifest potential of everything that appears during the manifested state.

 

So, kshara-purusha is effect (karya) and akshara is cause (karana). Akshara in its usage in this chapter refers to the unmanifest as found in the deep sleep state (karanopadhi).

 

Kshara-purusha and akshara-purusha together are saguna and include the three states of waking, dream and deep sleep. Thy are both subject to change.

 

Uttama-purusha (purushottama) refers to that transcendental reality which both pervades and is the support/basis of the kshara and akshara. It relates to Atman, Turiya, Brahman - changeless and nirguna.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Lakshmi Muthuswamy10 April 2009 04:22advaitin Subject: Re: Two kinds of Negation

 

 

 

 

 

namaste,

1. sopAdhika & nirupAdhika terminologies to brama also

2. saguna brahma and nirguNa brahma

3. kShetra and kShetrajna

4. kshara akshara brahma

 

then who is the "purushottma" of the 15th chapter of Bhagavad gita?

Is PuruSHottama is beyond all the above four?

Can any of the enlightened list memebers please explaing this? or if there is a posting in the archives on this tpoic of pururShottama, kindly give the reference

 

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

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Lakshmi Muthuswamy <lakmuthu wrote:

>

> namaste,

> 1. sopAdhika & nirupAdhika terminologies to brama also

> 2. saguna brahma and nirguNa brahma

> 3. kShetra and kShetrajna

> 4. kshara akshara brahma

>  

> then who is the " purushottma " of the 15th chapter of Bhagavad gita?

> Is PuruSHottama is beyond all the above four?

> Can any of the enlightened list memebers please explaing this? or if there is

a posting in the archives on this tpoic of pururShottama, kindly give the

reference

 

Dear Lakshmi-ji,

Regarding nirupadhika and sopadhika adhyAsa, please see ---

www.geocities.com/snsastri/vedaadhyasa.html

 

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

From : H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin , Lakshmi Muthuswamy <lakmuthu wrote:

>

> namaste,

> 1. sopAdhika & nirupAdhika terminologies to brama also

> 2. saguna brahma and nirguNa brahma

> 3. kShetra and kShetrajna

> 4. kshara akshara brahma

>  

> then who is the " purushottma " of the 15th chapter of Bhagavad gita?

> Is PuruSHottama is beyond all the above four?

 

Dear Smt. Lakshmi Muthuswamy,

 

I draw your Kind attention to the following two mantras Of Upanishads :

 

( 1 )sadEva sOmya idamagra AsIdEkamEvAdvitiyam || Chandogya 6-2-1

 

( 2 ) Om AtmA vA idamEka EvAgra AsIt |

nAnyatkiMcana miShat |

sa IkShata lOkAnnu sRujA iti|| Aitareya 1-1-1

 

It is this sat/ Atman which is our own TRUE svaroopa that appears as the above

enumerated ones which you have mentioned.When there are no two where is the

question of four?

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Lakshmi Muthuswamy <lakmuthu wrote:

>

> namaste,

> 1. sopAdhika & nirupAdhika terminologies to brama also

> 2. saguna brahma and nirguNa brahma

> 3. kShetra and kShetrajna

> 4. kshara akshara brahma

>  

> then who is the " purushottma " of the 15th chapter of Bhagavad gita?

> Is PuruSHottama is beyond all the above four?

> Can any of the enlightened list memebers please explaing this? or if there is

a posting in the archives on this tpoic of pururShottama, kindly give the

reference

 

Dear Lakshmi-ji (and also Peter-ji),

 

Regarding kshara-purushha and akshara-purushha and purushhottama, there is a

long exposition in a pdf document by me. Please go to my website

www.geocities.com/profvk/ and on the home page click on

Who is the doer-experiencer?

I hope that will be of use to you.

 

With regards and praNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Dear Smt. Lakshmi-ji: Pranams. In addition to the references, and explanations

provided by Shri. Sastri-ji, Profvk-ji and Peter-ji, please also refer to the

following posts: 42956, 42991, 42993 and 42994. Regards. Jan Nagraj

 

advaitin , Lakshmi Muthuswamy <lakmuthu wrote:

>

> namaste,

> 1. sopAdhika & nirupAdhika terminologies to brama also

> 2. saguna brahma and nirguNa brahma

> 3. kShetra and kShetrajna

> 4. kshara akshara brahma

>  

> then who is the " purushottma " of the 15th chapter of Bhagavad gita?

> Is PuruSHottama is beyond all the above four?

> Can any of the enlightened list memebers please explaing this? or if there is

a posting in the archives on this tpoic of pururShottama, kindly give the

reference