Guest guest Posted May 6, 2009 Report Share Posted May 6, 2009 advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > > Accordingly, from the empirical viewpoint, the jIva is real, the world is > real and Ishvara, as the creator of the world, as saguNa brahman, is also > real. The absolute truth is that no jIva has ever been born, no world has > ever been created and Ishvara is also mithyA. That is the teaching of > traditional advaita and, whilst you are posting to this group, you have an > implied responsibility to accept that, whether or not you agree with it. > > Best wishes, > > Dennis Dear Dennis, I actually don't dispute the above at all...and I fail to see where I have said otherwise...I may articulate the logical conclusion of the above tenets that's all. One must remember that Sankara was refuting Buddhism and Jainism so didn't bear to heavily on identical philosophy. If Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi is the truth or natural state where is even the appearance of the world..........Cheers Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > Many continue to try and draw a connection between NirGuna and the Saguna manifestation, when there isn't one. ....Cheers Tony. > Hari Om Shri Tony-ji, Pranaams! brahmaNo hi pratiShThAham amrtasyAvyayasya ca. shAshvatasya ca dharmasya sukhasyaikAntikasya ca..BG 14.27.. 27. For I am the Abode of Brahman-the indestructible and immutable, the eternal, the Dharma and absolute Bliss. Hi, for; aham, I, the inmost Self; am the pratistha brahmanah, Abode-that in which something abides is pratistha-of Brahman which is the supreme Self. Of Brahman of what kind? Amrtasya, of that which is indestructible; avyayasya, of that which is immutable; and sasvatasya, of that which is eternal; dharmasya, of that which is the Dharma, realizable through the Yoga of Jnana which is called dharma (virtue); and aikantikasya sukhasya, of that which is the absolute, unfailing Bliss by nature. Since the inmost Self is the abode of the supreme Self-which by nature is immortal etc.-, therefore, through perfect Knowledge it (the former) is realized with certainty to be the supreme Self. This has been stated in, 'he qualifies for becoming Brahman'. The purport is this: Indeed, that power of God through which Brahman sets out, comes forth, for the purpose of favouring the devotees, etc., that power which is Brahman Itself, am I. For, a power and the possesser of that power are non-different. Or, brahman means the conditioned Brahman, since It (too,) is referred to by that word. 'Of that Brahman, I Myself, the unconditioned Brahman-and none else-am the Abode.' (The abode of Brahman) of what qualities? Of that which is immortal; of that which has the quality of deathlessness; of that which is immutable; so also, of that which is the eternal; which is the dharma having the characteristics of steadfastness in Knowledge; of that which is the absolute, unquestionably certain Bliss born of that (steadfastness);-'I am the Abode' is understood. ------------ In the many who connect saguna(Ishvara) with nirguna Brahman, Lord Shri Krishna, Bhagavan Shankara are included as you can observe from above verse and commentary. Even in laukIka, if a guna should reside in a gunI or vyakti, that gunI or vyaktI has to be nirguna otherwise it becomes guna and it requires to reside in another vyakti and anavastA doSha happens. Hence how can one say there cannot be connection between nirguna and guna while the nirguna vyakti is the pratiShThA of the gunA. The object and attribute have the connection of container and contained. In Shri Guru Smriti, Br. Pranipata Chaitanya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Dear Dennis, thank you very much for your clarity! It is helpful to know what is what - meaning what exactly is the traditional viewpoint and what deviates from it in what way. Om Shanti Sitara advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > > Dear Tony, > > You are clearly perfectly entitled to have your own views (and to call that > view by whatever name you like). The problem only arises, as far as this > group is concerned, when you present these views and pass them off as those > of traditional advaita. You must realize that the consequence of this is > that those members who are not so familiar with the teaching may be > confused. And you must also appreciate that it is the responsibility of the > moderators not to allow this to happen if possible. > > The fact of the matter is that, according to traditional advaita, one has to > speak of two levels of reality, the absolute and the empirical. These have > an relationship to each other which is analogous to that which the waking > state has to the dream state. Whilst we are in the dream, the dream seems > real and is only shown not to be so on awakening. Similarly, the world and > its duality have seeming reality until such time as self-knowledge is > gained. [Thereafter, the appearance continues even though it is now known > that all is mithyA. Note to Bhaskar Prabhu-ji - this is not an invitation to > reopen that discussion! :-)] > > Accordingly, from the empirical viewpoint, the jIva is real, the world is > real and Ishvara, as the creator of the world, as saguNa brahman, is also > real. The absolute truth is that no jIva has ever been born, no world has > ever been created and Ishvara is also mithyA. That is the teaching of > traditional advaita and, whilst you are posting to this group, you have an > implied responsibility to accept that, whether or not you agree with it. > > Best wishes, > > Dennis > > > > advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf > Of Tony OClery > Wednesday, May 06, 2009 4:21 PM > advaitin > Re: Nirvikalpa Samadhi and Self-Knowledge > > > > <<I know my interpretation of ParaAdvaita/Ajativada is unpopular amongst > many who are still into Bhakti or have residual beliefs from Bhakti. In fact > many would say that my interpretation is Buddhistic or that I am a Nastika > or something. What the moderator said above is true, once we try and > describe NirGuna--duality prevails. That is why the old masters were wise in > referring to it in the negative because that is all one can say about it > neti neti NirGuna. > It seems that many cannot let go of the corner on the envelope of surrender, > and it is comforting in some way to not accept literally what NirGuna > actually means. Many continue to try and draw a connection between NirGuna > and the Saguna manifestation, when there isn't one. For if NirGuna projected > the 'appearance' of the world then it would require a mind and that is > duality. As it is impossible for NirGuna to have duality then it can never > have happened at all. That is the 'natural state' that Ramana refers to; A > state above appearance which is consciousness also. > > Where does the appearance go to in Nirvikalpa Samadhi?...Cheers Tony.>> > > _ > > . > > > <http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=4 > 4847/stime=1241638385/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848585/nc3=5579907 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 advaitin , " pranipatachaitanya " <pranipatachaitanya wrote: > > advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > Many continue to try and draw a connection between NirGuna and the Saguna manifestation, when there isn't one. > ...Cheers Tony. > > > Hari Om Shri Tony-ji, Pranaams! > > brahmaNo hi pratiShThAham amrtasyAvyayasya ca. > shAshvatasya ca dharmasya sukhasyaikAntikasya ca..BG 14.27.. > > 27. For I am the Abode of Brahman-the indestructible and immutable, the eternal, the Dharma and absolute Bliss. > > Hi, for; aham, I, the inmost Self; am the pratistha brahmanah, Abode-that in which something abides is pratistha-of Brahman which is the supreme Self. Of Brahman of what kind? Amrtasya, of that which is indestructible; avyayasya, of that which is immutable; and sasvatasya, of that which is eternal; dharmasya, of that which is the Dharma, realizable through the Yoga of Jnana which is called dharma (virtue); and aikantikasya sukhasya, of that which is the absolute, unfailing Bliss by nature. > > Since the inmost Self is the abode of the supreme Self-which by nature is immortal etc.-, therefore, through perfect Knowledge it (the former) is realized with certainty to be the supreme Self. This has been stated in, 'he qualifies for becoming Brahman'. > > The purport is this: Indeed, that power of God through which Brahman sets out, comes forth, for the purpose of favouring the devotees, etc., that power which is Brahman Itself, am I. For, a power and the possesser of that power are non-different. Or, brahman means the conditioned Brahman, since It (too,) is referred to by that word. 'Of that Brahman, I Myself, the unconditioned Brahman-and none else-am the Abode.' > > (The abode of Brahman) of what qualities? Of that which is immortal; of that which has the quality of deathlessness; of that which is immutable; so also, of that which is the eternal; which is the dharma having the characteristics of steadfastness in Knowledge; of that which is the absolute, unquestionably certain Bliss born of that (steadfastness);-'I am the Abode' is understood. > > ------------ > > In the many who connect saguna(Ishvara) with nirguna Brahman, Lord Shri Krishna, Bhagavan Shankara are included as you can observe from above verse and commentary. > > Even in laukIka, if a guna should reside in a gunI or vyakti, that gunI or vyaktI has to be nirguna otherwise it becomes guna and it requires to reside in another vyakti and anavastA doSha happens. Hence how can one say there cannot be connection between nirguna and guna while the nirguna vyakti is the pratiShThA of the gunA. The object and attribute have the connection of container and contained. > > In Shri Guru Smriti, > Br. Pranipata Chaitanya Namaste C, First of all what are you doing on here with all the mayavids? Just a joke.. As you know the decription and understanding of nirguna, Brahman etc in Advaita and Visishtadvaita or even dvaita are different...so how can I answer you. Sankara is different from Ramanuja and Madhava and Caitanya also. I spent time with ISKON people many years ago and could stay at any temple in SE Asia, Australia Pacific Area...I understand about the effulgence idea that they use to describe mayavids and moksha etc.........So I can't really respond without going down two different paths at the same time...Cheers Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Dear Sadaji, Pranam, Thank you for your wisdom. I admire you. You are ocean of scriptural knowledge. I am happy that I am interacting with great spiritual personality. Sir, Can you please tell me, whether man and his world can exist without waking experience. Whatever we are discussing, we are discussing within the waking experience. One has to know: whether physical body and the world are within the mind or the mind is within the physical body? The mind, physical body, ego and the world are present only, when the whole experience of the waking/dream is present. And mind is absent, when the waking/dream experience is absent. Thus one has to conclude the mind as the whole waking/dream experience. Thus the mind appears and disappears as waking/dream experience. All your arguments are truth only on the base of the ego, which is the false self, within the false experience [waking]. The individual experiences within the waking are as real as dream. Please think: suppose the same subject, if we are discussing in the dream and you asked me the same questions in the dream, then whatever you said in dream becomes unreal, when the waking takes place. Whatever you are saying now, you are saying within the waking experience. The waking is unreal on the base of the formless witness, which is Ataman. How does one see various objects, scenes and persons during dreams? If the dream is experienced without the physical body, then what is it that experiences the dream? Therefore, there must be an invisible [formless] experincer [witness/knower] of the dream world. This invisible [formless] experincer [witness/knower] is the same experincer that is experiencing this Waking experience. Therefore the Waking experience and dream both are experienced by one and only invisible [formless] experincer of which the seeker is not aware of. Since he considers the physical body is the self[ experincer/witness/knower] and views and judges the worldview on the standpoint of false self , within the false experience. The formless experincer [witness/knower] can exist with or without the waking/dream. But waking /dream cease to exist, without the formless witness. The gross Waking experience is merged into the mental experience in the sense that, when it is analyzed, it is found to exist inseparably in and as the mind alone. All " spiritual " planes are really mental: those who regard them as different or higher are deceiving themselves. The dream becomes unreal when the waking takes place; similarly the waking becomes unreal when the wisdom dawns. Therefore everything has to be grasped mentally, not argued on the intellectual point of view, which is limited to the false physical entity within the false experience. The unreal is created out of real, and when one views and judges on the standpoint unreal [ego] then there is duality. When one is able to view and judge on the standpoint of real [Ataman/true self] then there is only non -duality. Therefore, when the wisdom dawns then there is neither duality, nor non duality, only reality. This is my views and conviction. All theses confusion will go on, until man thinks, he is an individual and apart from the world, and the world existed prior to him and he is born in it afterwards. Therefore, it is necessary to know the fact the true self is not ego, but the true self is the soul, and stop viewing and judging the worldview on the standpoint of the physical self [ego], and one has to view and judge on the true self [soul/Ataman] to realize the fact that, the world along with man is illusion. The formless substance from which the illusion is created is Ataman. Thus Ataman is Brahman/ultimate reality. Thus no second thing exists on the standpoint of Ataman as self. With respect and regards. Santthosh. advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > > --- On Tue, 5/5/09, santthoshkumaar santthoshkumaar wrote: > ............ > Thus no second thing exists other then Ataman in the > experience of diversity/duality. The mind [world] is non existent on > the standpoint of Ataman which is the true self. The mind/world is myth > on the standpoint of Ataman as self. > > ---- > PraNAms Santhoshkumarji - > > You sound like our friend Tony more and more, but with different name. > > Can you tell me who says that there is no second thing other than Atman and that there is no mind other than the Atman - is it the mind or the Atman that is making these declarations? Atman cannot say that there is no mind; and mind is not there to say that there is no mind as per your statement as you mentioned, after deep thinking by the non-existent mind. Is it not like shouting at the top of my voice that I have no tongue to speak? > > Mithyaa does not mean non-existent - it has no independent existence. Sat asat vilaxanam mithyaa. It has no independent existence therefore it is not sat but it is there to experience therefore it is not asat either. > > It is only from absolute reference there is only one and from that reference nothing can be said - yatho vaacho nivartante apraapya manasaa saha - the words and the mind return back. That is called paaramaarthika satyam and nothing can be said from that reference. Even the word nirguNa is only from the point of seeker to negate that which has guNa cannot be that. One has to be careful from what reference the teaching is - jnaani does not need any teaching and for jignyaasu who wants to learn- the teaching is to the mind only. What one has to drop is the erroneous mind or adhyaasa - that involves wrong conclusions, leaving behind the objective mind as part of the vibhuuti of the Lord or as Goudapaada says - natural or swaabhaavikam. Hence realization is with the mind only as Pranipaataji emphasized. mana eva manushyaanaam kaaraNam bandha moxayoH! -saus amRitabindu Up. Mind is responsible for both bondage as well LIBERATION. Without the mind there is no > liberation also as in deep sleep state as emphasized by Ramana in the sloka - na nidraa .. quoted before. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Shree Santthoshkumar - PraNAms You have raised several questions - But fundamentally the questions, the analysis are done by the mind only. Without the mind - as in deep sleep - there is no knowledge that can take place. Experienced advaita in deep sleep state is only a potential dvaita as it is in dormant condition. Second aspect involves even though mind is required for cognitions (see the knowledge series), what is cognized does not fully depend on the mind. The attributes of the objects that one perceives are not created by the mind - Hence there is Iswra sRiShTi (the creation by the total mind - not the individual mind) and jiiva sRishTi the samsaara that goes with the rise of ahankaara. Hence we have in advaita Vedanta - paaramaathika, vyaavahaarika and praatibhaasika - three levels of truth (as though). From absolute point yes there is no mind no world no jnaani no ajnaani no other thing other than Brahman which is pure sat chit ananda swaruupa without any sajaati, vijaati, swagata bhedaas - That is pure advaita and nothing can be said about that since any saying involves dvaita. At vyavahaara level we have Iswara sRishTi and jiiva sRishTi. Understanding of the Iswra SRiShTi does not eliminate it - as in understanding the sunrise and sunset that the sun never rises or sets does not eliminate the appearance of sunrise and sunset since it is not the creation of jiiva but Iswara. On the other hand all psychological problems that are created in the mind - what we call arishaDvargaas - the six great enemies - kaama krodha moha etc arise from jiiva sRiShTi. I am as turiiyam - not the waker not the dreamer and not the deep sleeper but pure undifferentiated consciousness is the understanding that arises in the mind only - that understanding eliminates the jiiva sRishTi but not the Iswra sRiShTi - these we discussed for more than a month in the past. You can refer to the posts in archives. ahamkaara involves two aspects - I am coming from aatma, the pure sat chit ananda swaruupa and this is - coming from anaatma. Hence it is an error or adhyaasa where Shankara defines adhyaasa as mixing up of truth and untruth - aatma and anaatma - and Viveka (that is using the mind only) is required to sort out the truth from untruth. Since untruth cannot exist independently without the truth supporting it ahankaara vichaara or more correctly called aatma vichaara involves discriminating intellect to sort out the untruth part. Who enquires this - is it ahankaara or is it aatma. Enquiry is done by ahankaara only - aatma does not do the inquiry and anaatma cannot do the inquiry - it is done by the mixer entity - ahankaara only and in the very inquiry the ahankaara falls down since it is false. What that implies is false is understood as false - that is what mithyaatva nischaya jnaanam means - self-realization is realization that I am the self and I am not the non-self. Without the mixture there is no enquiry either but the enquiry is about the mixture. In the understanding that it is mixture (as a fact not as just a thought), I can deal with the mixture knowing that it is mixture since vyavahaara involves mixture only. Right now the problem is I am taking the ahankaara and all the other problems that are associated with it as real and not false. JK calls this as understanding as an understanding as a fact not understanding as an understanding as a thought. Any understanding takes place in the mind only which itself is a mixture. Without the mind there is no self-realization either. To understand this clearly only a shrvanam, mananam and nidhidhyaasanam under competent teacher for a prolonged length of time is suggested for a sincere seeker. There are only two things - aatma and anaatma. All pervading aatmaa does not experience anything. Anaatma being inert cannot experience anything. It is the mysterious mixer - ahankaara - experiences everything. It is not the experience that is the problem - but taking the experience as real and in the process ignoring the substantive that is real - is the real problem! With the correct understanding, all experiences are understood - just as I understand that the sun never rises nor sets inspite of the beautiful experiencee of sunrise and sunset everyday. That is knowledge in relation to experience - that knowledge takes place in the mind only while the mind is still experiencing the sunrise and sunset. These are subtle points that need to be understood by deeper analysis. Understanding that ahankaara is false by the ahankaara is the falsification of ahankaara since right now ahankaara thinks I am real and operates with that notion- In the very falsification, pure aham is recognized as I am and ahankaara along with the observed world is recognized as false as I am not this, inspite of this and that - hence advaita is non-duality inspite of duality, since in pure Brahman there is no duality even to negate. Hope this helps Hari Om! Sadananda --- On Fri, 5/8/09, santthoshkumaar <santthoshkumaar wrote: Can you please tell me, whether man and his world can exist without waking experience. Whatever we are discussing, we are discussing within the waking experience. ................. How does one see various objects, scenes and persons during dreams? If the dream is experienced without the physical body, then what is it that experiences the dream? Therefore, there must be an invisible [formless] experincer [witness/knower] of the dream world. This invisible [formless] experincer [witness/knower] is the same experincer that is experiencing this Waking experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 Sadananda garu, Some embedded questions/comments advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Bhaskarji PraNAms > > Here is my understanding for whatever it is worth. > > Mind is the reflecting pool and the all pervading nirguNa aatma 'as though' gets reflected in the pool of the mind - that is general reflection. I cannot comprehend this 'reflection' of consciousness. Is it accurate to say mind is an instrument powered by consciousness or is it more accurate to say mind is consciousness associated with a form . However, the moment we talk of association with an object (body is an object), the mind should have already existed for an association to exist. Consciousness cannot have an association with an object and mind cannot function without consciousness. Perhaps mind is consciousness modified by individual ahamkara and vasanas ?? >Any reflection of consciousness involves knowledge. Since this does not have any specific VRitti - it can also be called - aham vRitti or constant 'I am'. †" also can be called akhaDaakaara vRitti. For this 'reflection' to take place - there must be some precondition . Trees have life but no self-consciousness. Apparently the subtle body survives the death of the gross body so does it mean subtle body exists independent of atman ? Can we say - mind is inert ? > > > Pure consciousness is all pervading and need not be known, cannot be known either, neither it can know also. That is what nirguNa, niraakaara and nitya caitanya and ananta involves. This is a little hard to digest/comprehend. You say " neither it can know also " . Is this statement from the absolute standpoint ? Isn't the very nature of consciousness to know. I experience my mind all the time - anger, agitation, peace, memories, imagination, random thoughts etc is clearly seen by me. So who witnesses all this ? Isn't it consciousness or kshetrajnana. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 Dear Sadaji, Pranams Thank you, it is very kind of you to write in detail. Bhagwan says: Take Vedanta, for instance: it speaks of 15 pranas the names and functions of it which the student is asked to commit memory. Will it not be sufficient if he thought only one prana does the whole work of maintaining the body? Again the antakaran is said to think, to desire, to will, to reason etc. Why all these details? Has anyone seen antakarana, or all these pranas? Do they really exist? They are conceptual divisions invented by teachers of philosophy by their excessive analysis. Where do all these concepts end? Why should confusion created and then explained away? Fortunate is the man who does not lose him self in the labyrinths of philosophy, but goes straight to the source from which they all arise. (GURU RAMANA .By S.S Cohen -vii Danger of philosophy-Page -58-59) And it is very true. The truth has to be proved without the scriptural authorities. The scriptural authorities cannot be accepted as proof until it is verified thoroughly in pursuit of truth. Intellectually knowing the truth is only an imagination, whereas realizing the truth knows it as such. Truth is not only that which is beyond contradiction, but also that in which is no possibility of contradiction. Such a state can only be realized as non-duality, where there are no secondthing. The illustration for that is deep sleep but sleep is not the ultimate reality. It is merely an analogy. " If one think there is another entity whether man or God there is no truth. " This is the truth of those who have inquired and reasoned on the true base. What is `I'? The `I' disappears in deep sleep, so what is the use of being attached to it? It is illusory. There is really no `I'. It dies in deep sleep. But the notion of its unreality will gradually grasped by the serious and receptive seekers. Individuality is illusory. One is ignorant of the fact that the `I' /mind comes and goes as waking/dream and has no permanent existence, is only a mirage after all. Atman cannot be known in the sense in which one knows objects of thought. It can be known only to the extent to which one knows them, for he can only think of the knower when he is in the presence of the known, i.e. objects, for the latter make him aware that a knower must exist. Thus duality makes one think of the knower, but it cannot make him know the knower. The knower is known in the world / duality/waking only by implication, as one cannot think without knower. The knower is a concept, and cannot be known in itself. Witness/seer is only one. Why and how? The word seer/witness is got at by eliminating the seen [waking/dream] mentally. There never have been two seers/witnesses; if there be two one becomes seen to the other. When one thinks seer/witness is the ego; he is mistaking the Ataman, for the ego which appears and disappears. This is the great stumble block in understanding and assimilation the nondual truth. Everyone thinks that when ego is not, nothing remains. When one is aware of the ego, there must be the formless knower, which is Ataman. This directly opposed to all other system. How can one talk of ego unless there is something which witnesses it as known. Seeker has to analyze the whole mental experiences [dual/nondual].Psychology does not go beyond duality/mind. But who sees this analysis? That which is conscious of the relation between subject and object is the Ataman, the true self. It is that of which everyone is absolutely certain and it cannot be proved. It is self-evident. The witness [Ataman] can never be something known. The ego being known cannot be the witness/true self. Whatever is seen and known cannot be taken as reality. Therefore, mind/waking/dream cannot be considered as real, because they appear and disappear. The witness of the appearance and disappearance of the mind/waking/dream is Ataman. Ataman is ultimate reality. Ultimate truth is known only in the negative way. One cannot make it an object of knowledge. One can know that he cannot have an idea of an object unless he posits a knower, unless the knower is implied already. The witness itself is wisdom, that is, it knows everything else. The self is known only when one sees something else, for that other thing reminds him of it. The self is unknowable as an object. Knowing the ultimate truth means knowing that Ataman exists. The word " know " implies duality, something known; on the other hand Wisdom does imply an object. Ataman knows the ego/waking/dream as an object. The knowing powers, the Formless Witness, the knower can have no statement made about it, other than that its existence cannot be negated. The ultimate truth which one can know is that Ataman is not something to be known. The observation of the three states will depend upon the medium through which the observer views it. Infact, one's mental and intellectual conditions will determine the dual and nondual experiences observed and experienced. The religionists viewing the three states will see it differently from the spiritualist viewing the same three states. Each one interprets the three states that he observes in term of his existing knowledge. The man of truth sees Ataman in everything and everywhere. Because he is fully aware of the fact that, the Ataman pervades in everything and everywhere in all the three states, therefore he has the firm conviction that everything is Ataman/sprit and no second thing exists other then the Ataman in experience of diversity. Then only unity in diversity is possible. The seeker has to perfect and gain an experience of viewing and judging on the base of the beyond [Ataman] transcend consciously all his identification with the false entity within the false experience in order to overcome the illusion or duality. The perfect seer sees Ataman [true self] in everything and everywhere all the time. With respect and regards Santthosh. advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > Shree Santthoshkumar - PraNAms > > You have raised several questions - But fundamentally the questions, the analysis are done by the mind only. Without the mind - as in deep sleep - there is no knowledge that can take place. Experienced advaita in deep sleep state is only a potential dvaita as it is in dormant condition. > > Second aspect involves even though mind is required for cognitions (see the knowledge series), what is cognized does not fully depend on the mind. The attributes of the objects that one perceives are not created by the mind - Hence there is Iswra sRiShTi (the creation by the total mind - not the individual mind) and jiiva sRishTi the samsaara that goes with the rise of ahankaara. Hence we have in advaita Vedanta - paaramaathika, vyaavahaarika and praatibhaasika - three levels of truth (as though). From absolute point yes there is no mind no world no jnaani no ajnaani no other thing other than Brahman which is pure sat chit ananda swaruupa without any sajaati, vijaati, swagata bhedaas - That is pure advaita and nothing can be said about that since any saying involves dvaita. > > At vyavahaara level we have Iswara sRishTi and jiiva sRishTi. Understanding of the Iswra SRiShTi does not eliminate it - as in understanding the sunrise and sunset that the sun never rises or sets does not eliminate the appearance of sunrise and sunset since it is not the creation of jiiva but Iswara. On the other hand all psychological problems that are created in the mind - what we call arishaDvargaas - the six great enemies - kaama krodha moha etc arise from jiiva sRiShTi. > > I am as turiiyam - not the waker not the dreamer and not the deep sleeper but pure undifferentiated consciousness is the understanding that arises in the mind only - that understanding eliminates the jiiva sRishTi but not the Iswra sRiShTi - these we discussed for more than a month in the past. You can refer to the posts in archives. > > ahamkaara involves two aspects - I am coming from aatma, the pure sat chit ananda swaruupa and this is - coming from anaatma. Hence it is an error or adhyaasa where Shankara defines adhyaasa as mixing up of truth and untruth - aatma and anaatma - and Viveka (that is using the mind only) is required to sort out the truth from untruth. Since untruth cannot exist independently without the truth supporting it ahankaara vichaara or more correctly called aatma vichaara involves discriminating intellect to sort out the untruth part. Who enquires this - is it ahankaara or is it aatma. > > Enquiry is done by ahankaara only - aatma does not do the inquiry and anaatma cannot do the inquiry - it is done by the mixer entity - ahankaara only and in the very inquiry the ahankaara falls down since it is false. > > What that implies is false is understood as false - that is what mithyaatva nischaya jnaanam means - self-realization is realization that I am the self and I am not the non-self. Without the mixture there is no enquiry either but the enquiry is about the mixture. In the understanding that it is mixture (as a fact not as just a thought), I can deal with the mixture knowing that it is mixture since vyavahaara involves mixture only. Right now the problem is I am taking the ahankaara and all the other problems that are associated with it as real and not false. > > JK calls this as understanding as an understanding as a fact not understanding as an understanding as a thought. Any understanding takes place in the mind only which itself is a mixture. Without the mind there is no self-realization either. > > To understand this clearly only a shrvanam, mananam and nidhidhyaasanam under competent teacher for a prolonged length of time is suggested for a sincere seeker. > > There are only two things - aatma and anaatma. All pervading aatmaa does not experience anything. Anaatma being inert cannot experience anything. It is the mysterious mixer - ahankaara - experiences everything. It is not the experience that is the problem - but taking the experience as real and in the process ignoring the substantive that is real - is the real problem! With the correct understanding, all experiences are understood - just as I understand that the sun never rises nor sets inspite of the beautiful experiencee of sunrise and sunset everyday. That is knowledge in relation to experience - that knowledge takes place in the mind only while the mind is still experiencing the sunrise and sunset. These are subtle points that need to be understood by deeper analysis. Understanding that ahankaara is false by the ahankaara is the falsification of ahankaara since right now ahankaara thinks I am real and operates with that notion- In the very > falsification, pure aham is recognized as I am and ahankaara along with the observed world is recognized as false as I am not this, inspite of this and that - hence advaita is non-duality inspite of duality, since in pure Brahman there is no duality even to negate. > > > Hope this helps > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > > --- On Fri, 5/8/09, santthoshkumaar santthoshkumaar wrote: > > > Can you please tell me, whether man and his world can exist without > waking experience. Whatever we are discussing, we are discussing within > the waking experience. > ................ > How does one see various objects, scenes and persons during dreams? If > the dream is experienced without the physical body, then what is it that > experiences the dream? > > > Therefore, there must be an invisible [formless] > experincer [witness/knower] of the dream world. This invisible > [formless] experincer [witness/knower] is the same experincer that is > experiencing this Waking experience. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 Shailendraji - PraNAms I have answered to the best of my understanding. Some of the questions you posed are part of the Epistemological issues and addressed exhaustively in the Knowledge series. Dennis has edited them and is posting in his website. I have answered below, in brief, some of the questions. --- On Fri, 5/8/09, bhatnagar_shailendra <bhatnagar_shailendra wrote: I cannot comprehend this 'reflection' of consciousness. Is it accurate to say mind is an instrument powered by consciousness or is it more accurate to say mind is consciousness associated with a form . However, the moment we talk of association with an object (body is an object), the mind should have already existed for an association to exist. Consciousness cannot have an association with an object and mind cannot function without consciousness. Perhaps mind is consciousness modified by individual ahamkara and vasanas ?? --------------------- KS The first sloka in Sat darshanam, which is actually an invocation sloka, answers in brief most of the questions you have posed – The sloka is like PuurNamadaH sloka where Bhagavaan packs the whole Vedanta in one sloka. In answer to your question, first, let us recognize that the questions are posed by a mind which already exists to pose the questions. From Brahman point there is no mind and there is no creation either - it is one without a second. Hence all the discussion is only at Vyaavahaarika level and vyavahaara or transaction implies the preexistence of BMI. It is the mind that asks, who am I?, what is this world?, where did it come from?, etc. Jnaanam and ajnaanam are relevant only from Vyaavahaarika level. To that mind Vedas teach. Vedas and the teachings also come under Vyaavahaarika level only as apara vidyaa, c/o munDaka. This cycle of creation, sustenance and annihilation is beginning less and endless; until one transcends out of the cycle by self-realization. Mind comes out as part of the creation in the cycle. These aspects are discussed in the Ch. Up 6th chap - where the sequence of creation is accounted in brief and mind is proved as a subtle matter. Thus mind is part of anaatma. It is therefore mithyaa. Substantive of any mithyaa is satyam only; and that is Brahman. Thus the essence of mind is also Sat aspect of Brahman since we say Mind IS. Being very subtle, it can reflect consciousness like a mirror reflecting the light. About reflections, when I look out through the window and say the sun is shining brilliantly. I am not looking at the sun in the sky but just outside and still claim that there is Sun out there. What I am seeing is only sun rays getting reflected by the objects around. In fact when I enter a dark room I say I do not see any object. But when I turned the light on, I see and know that there are objects down there. Objects were there before also but I need light reflecting from the objects to see that there is an object that I can see and KNOW. Hence to know the existence of an object, I need the reflection of the light from the object. Same thing happens in the mind – the senses gather info from the object and project as a vRitti or thought. The thought is SEEN only when the light of consciousness illumines the thought and the reflected light of consciousness make me to be conscious of the thought which is essentially a replica of the object outside as perceived. This is what was discussed in the Knowledge series. The existence of the object established via the vRitti or thought is illumined by the consciousness of the subject , I, to establish the knowledge of the existence of the object out there. This is the mechanics. Now how do I know there is mind when I say mind IS. The same process has to take place. The consciousness, which is ever present and ever shining, gets reflected by the pool of the mind and the reflected consciousness by the existent mind is the knowledge of the existence of the mind. In deep sleep, the consciousness is there but the mind is folded and therefore no reflection to know the existence of the mind. Mind functions means, I am conscious of the mind functioning. Hence functioning of the mind is nothing but consciousness getting reflected continuously; tasya bhaasaa sarvam idam vibhaati, is part of the Vedic aarati sloka. It says it is only your illumination because of which all this and this are known, and how can this silly lamp can illumine you? -------------------------- >Any reflection of consciousness involves knowledge. Since this does not have any specific VRitti - it can also be called - aham vRitti or constant 'I am'. †" also can be called akhaDaakaara vRitti. For this 'reflection' to take place - there must be some precondition . Trees have life but no self-consciousness. Apparently the subtle body survives the death of the gross body so does it mean subtle body exists independent of atman ? Can we say - mind is inert ? ------------------------ KS Everything other than sat chit ananda is inert and mithyaa too. Atma is all pervading. Life is when Atma that is all pervading principle gets ‘as though’ reflected by the medium – in the Body it expresses as pure existence as body IS. In the mind of subtle body, which can reflect more light is expressed as life. Death is separation for subtle body from gross body – not from Atma which is all pervading. There are only two things – Atma and anaatma – one is conscious entity and the other is inert and since consciousness is infinite the anaatma is mithyaa only – it is only an apparent entity but taken as real due to ignorance. Moksha is therefore is only to recognize the mithyaa as mithyaa and not satyaa. Hence Ramana says – bondage is also a notion and Moksha is also therefore a notion only – since in truth I AM EVER FREE from both bondage and liberation too. Freedom is required only for those who think they are bound and that freedom is recognize that they are never bound since bondage is only mithyaa. Apparent shackles are make-belief shackles and therefore are not real to be concerned about. --------------------- SB > Pure consciousness is all pervading and need not be known, cannot be known either, neither it can know also. That is what nirguNa, niraakaara and nitya caitanya and ananta involves. This is a little hard to digest/comprehend. You say " neither it can know also " . Is this statement from the absolute standpoint ? Isn't the very nature of consciousness to know. I experience my mind all the time - anger, agitation, peace, memories, imagination, random thoughts etc is clearly seen by me. So who witnesses all this ? Isn't it consciousness or kshetrajnana. --------- KS Shailendraji – All pervading consciousness cannot know also since knowing involves knower-known duality. Hence all this discussion is only at vyavahaara only – including jnaanam, ajnaanam and bondage and Moksha. From Brahman point there is nether jnaani or ajnaani – one without any sajaati, vijaati swagata bhedaas – no difference of any kind. Once you bring knowledge which involves only knowledge off and not pure knowledge which is indefinable (any definition involves objectification which is different from the subject who is objectifying) you have the mind, the reflection and all the nine yards discussed above. Consciousness as though identified with the upaadhiis BMI is what is called conditioned consciousness or upahita chaitanya like space in the pot. Space is infinite but pot-space is finite. Is pot-space different from total space? No, it is part of the total space only. But again can the space be parted as pot space and outside the pot-space. No, space is indivisible. Yet pot-space is limited, is it not? In the same way the infinite-consciousness that I am act though I am limited consciousness like space in the pot. The moods of the mind in terms of kaama, kroda etc are due to value system developed due to attachments. Just as we say you are sitting my space! And this is my house we are dividing that which is indivisible and getting attached to the divisions. Hope this helps Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 From : H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams to all. advaitin , " santthoshkumaar " <santthoshkumaar wrote: " The seeker has to perfect and gain an experience of viewing and judging on the base of the beyond [Ataman] transcend consciously all his identification with the false entity within the false experience in order to overcome the illusion or duality. The perfect seer sees Ataman [true self] in everything and everywhere all the time. " Dear Sri Santtoshkumar, You have stated : " The seeker has to perfect and gain an experience of viewing and judging on the base of the beyond [Ataman] transcend consciously all his identification with the false entity within the false experience in order to overcome the illusion or duality " . A very beatiful statement indeed ! Will you kindly show or reveal a methodology for cognizing/achieving the same within oneself by oneself ? If the methodology is not given the statement does not become a living TRUTH for the reader but it remains as DEAD words. What is the use of dead words for one who wants a LIVING TRUTH? Giving the methodology helps a mumukshu to realize the TRUTH. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.