Guest guest Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Hakim wrote: Hi Michael and all, Talking of an object suppose there is a subject who perceive/conceive this object. They are inseparable. You can't consider one of them without bringing, in some way or another, the second. The problem arises, imo, when we try to think of the subject as an object, which is a pure nonsense, of course. So, your question: > What of the > concept of the Self? isn't it a contradiction in terms. If the Self is the " knower " , it must be " unknown " , and beyond any " concept " . Otherwise, it is not the real subject... Just my two cents. Hakim advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote: > > Namaste Sitara-ji, > A further note > What do you have if you have a concept e.g. The concept of white? You > have the capacity to use the word in a way that is correct. You will > recognise white in milk, chalk, cheese etc. There are other general > concepts which might have a layered aspect to them. A standard concept > of > space and a physicist's concept might differ but there is enough > commonality for communication. The concept of an object is understood by > everybody but different systems of metaphysics as they uncover they > layers > of it may come up with different ideas. In effect though they have the > same concept i.e.the concept of an object, their judgments of what an > object is beneath that surface commonality differ. > > What is implicit in our concepts can be uncovered by inquiry. In the > concept of a surface, is it implicit that it have a colour? What of the > concept of the Self? We have one certainly but can it be made explicit? > Some sages will give a definite definition, others will say that it is no > good parroting a catechism, you must examine your own concept and see > whether it is adequate. Clearly having the same concept is not having an Ø object. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Namaste Hakim-ji, The answer to your question, forgive the delay, is conveniently given by Sankara in the preamble to the B.S.B. " The answer of the Vedantin is: The Self is not absolutely beyond comprehension because it is apprehended by the content of the concept " I " ; and because the Self, opposed to the non-Self, is well known in the world as an immediately perceived (i.e. self-revealing) entity. " The method of Self Inquiry (Atma Vichara) in the manner of Ramana Maharshi proceeds by a continuous examination of the various interim concepts of the self until we sink into its reality or something of the kind. Best Wishes, Michael -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 --- On Fri, 5/22/09, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote: > Hakim wrote: > Hi Michael and all, .... > > isn't it a contradiction in terms. If the Self is the > " knower " , it must be > " unknown " , and beyond any " concept " . Otherwise, it is not > the real > subject... >> Namaste Hakim-ji, > The method of Self Inquiry (Atma Vichara) in the manner of > Ramana Maharshi > proceeds by a continuous examination of the various interim > concepts of > the self until we sink into its reality or something of the > kind. ------------------- Michael, Hakim, and all PraNams If I may interject, Bhagavaan Ramana goes directly into it, essentially echoing Shankara's and Scriptural statements too. dhiye prakaasham paramo vitiirya svayam dhiyo2ntaH pravibhaati guptaH| dhiyam paraavartya dhiyo 2ntare2tra samyojanaat na Iswara dRiShTiranyaa|| 24 dhiya - in the mind (intellect) paramaH - the supreme, prakaasham vitiirya - the consciousness is essentially spread out or distributed into the form of the knowledge of various objects or objectifiable concepts. Hence the truth is neither an object nor a concept but that which illumines all the objects and concepts because of which the intellect has the knowledge of all the objects and the concepts -that is when the perceptuality conditions are fulfilled - that is the existence of the object in the form of the vRitti is united with the consciousness of the subject - that is how the consciousness is distributed - prakaasham vitiirya. And that prakaasham or consciousness is being self-effulgent - it shines or illumines all the dhiyontaH pravibhaati - illumines the very inner essence of the intellect too as chidaabhaasa - reflecting in the pool of the intellect - or as conditioned consciousness - and he says this is guptaH - it is as though hidden - it is the witnessing consciousness that is illuminated in the core of the intellect. One side it is ever shining and yet it is hidden only because the mind's attention is not on that - it is always on the objects and concepts but not on the light that illumining the objects and the concepts. Hence Ramana says it is as though hidden - unless one turns inwards and examines or inquires - then dhiyam paraavrtya dhiyontaretra - when the mind turns inwards and examines then the shining witnessing consciousness is realized or recognized - as what as I am is that ever shining ever existent consciousness because of which all the objects as well as concepts are known - That samyojanaat - that turning mind's attention is the vision of the self or the vision of the God - and there is no other vision. aatma darshanam as sat chit darshaNam is Iswara darshanam and not any other vision - reflecting the Vedic sloka - na tatra suuryo bhaati... Mind is required not to illumine the self as a concept but mind is required to see that which illumines the concept. That involves subtle discriminative intellect to see the light of illumination from the object that is being illumined. And then the knowledge from the Shaastra to recognize the consciousness that I am that is illumining is the very essence of both the knower and the known - the subject and the object - as the very substantive for both - dRik and dRisyam. Illumination is there whether or not there are concepts or objects. But recognition of that illumination consciousness is also expressed as - akhaDaakaara vRitti -unbroken thought of I am - I am - I am - that it raises spontaneously when one is fully established in that knowledge of I am. This I am is not the I am as this, but I am as paramam, puurNam and sat chit swaruupam, the supreme, full and illuminating consciousness that I am, without any attributive knowledge involving objects and concepts or even with apparent any attributive knowledge involving objects and concepts. It is beyond the known and the unknown - viditam and aviditam - the very knowing principle because of which both known and unknows are known. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Dear Sada-ji, I'm sure many people would appreciate a straight translation of Sri Ramana's verse(s) whenever you quote these in romanised sanskrit form. It's good to see the verse on its own before reflecting on the translation mixed with commentary and reflections. It's delightful to read your thoughts on Sri Ramana's Forty Verses. Peter > > advaitin > [advaitin ] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi sadananda > 22 May 2009 15:10 > advaitin > Re: Concepts and Objects > > If I may interject, Bhagavaan Ramana goes directly into it, > essentially echoing Shankara's and Scriptural statements too. > > dhiye prakaasham paramo vitiirya > svayam dhiyo2ntaH pravibhaati guptaH| > dhiyam paraavartya dhiyo 2ntare2tra > samyojanaat na Iswara dRiShTiranyaa|| 24 > > dhiya - in the mind (intellect) paramaH - the supreme, > prakaasham vitiirya - the consciousness is essentially spread > out or distributed into the form of the knowledge of various > objects or objectifiable concepts. <snip> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Peter - PraNAms As you know, there are many tanslations and commentaries on this text. As I am studying, I am only quoting the relavent to the topic that is being discussed. The direct word transation would not give much meaning unless you are tuned to Ramanas teaching which is always in very concentrated dose. If one does not have proper vedantic background one can get lost or even misinterpret. Here I am studying and reflecting and sharing the Bhagavaans instructions as I understand from my background but only posting that is relavent to the on-going discussion. How the talks will come out during the weekend, He only knows. Chinmaya Missions Washington center is planning to record the talks and may become available on U-tube some day. Hari Om! Sadananda --- On Fri, 5/22/09, Peter <not_2 wrote: Peter <not_2 RE: Concepts and Objects advaitin Friday, May 22, 2009, 12:03 PM Dear Sada-ji, I'm sure many people would appreciate a straight translation of Sri Ramana's verse(s) whenever you quote these in romanised sanskrit form. It's good to see the verse on its own before reflecting on the translation mixed with commentary and reflections. It's delightful to read your thoughts on Sri Ramana's Forty Verses. Peter > > advaitin@ s.com > [advaitin@ s.com] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi sadananda > 22 May 2009 15:10 > advaitin@ s.com > Re: Concepts and Objects > > If I may interject, Bhagavaan Ramana goes directly into it, > essentially echoing Shankara's and Scriptural statements too. > > dhiye prakaasham paramo vitiirya > svayam dhiyo2ntaH pravibhaati guptaH| > dhiyam paraavartya dhiyo 2ntare2tra > samyojanaat na Iswara dRiShTiranyaa| | 24 > > dhiya - in the mind (intellect) paramaH - the supreme, > prakaasham vitiirya - the consciousness is essentially spread > out or distributed into the form of the knowledge of various > objects or objectifiable concepts. <snip> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Dear Sada-ji: Please let us know when your lectures are available on u-tube and we will make a link to these. Getting stuff on u-tube is very simple and even teenagers are doing it daily. Actually the younger people can figure that stuff out so easily. We need their help! :-). Just get someone to film you with camcorder and that should do it. Namaste and love to all Yours in Bhagavan Harsha advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi sadananda Friday, May 22, 2009 12:36 PM advaitin RE: Concepts and Objects Peter - PraNAms As you know, there are many tanslations and commentaries on this text. As I am studying, I am only quoting the relavent to the topic that is being discussed. The direct word transation would not give much meaning unless you are tuned to Ramanas teaching which is always in very concentrated dose. If one does not have proper vedantic background one can get lost or even misinterpret. Here I am studying and reflecting and sharing the Bhagavaans instructions as I understand from my background but only posting that is relavent to the on-going discussion. How the talks will come out during the weekend, He only knows. Chinmaya Missions Washington center is planning to record the talks and may become available on U-tube some day. Hari Om! Sadananda --- On Fri, 5/22/09, Peter <not_2 wrote: Peter <not_2 RE: Concepts and Objects advaitin Friday, May 22, 2009, 12:03 PM Dear Sada-ji, I'm sure many people would appreciate a straight translation of Sri Ramana's verse(s) whenever you quote these in romanised sanskrit form. It's good to see the verse on its own before reflecting on the translation mixed with commentary and reflections. It's delightful to read your thoughts on Sri Ramana's Forty Verses. Peter > > advaitin@ s.com > [advaitin@ s.com] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi sadananda > 22 May 2009 15:10 > advaitin@ s.com > Re: Concepts and Objects > > If I may interject, Bhagavaan Ramana goes directly into it, > essentially echoing Shankara's and Scriptural statements too. > > dhiye prakaasham paramo vitiirya > svayam dhiyo2ntaH pravibhaati guptaH| > dhiyam paraavartya dhiyo 2ntare2tra > samyojanaat na Iswara dRiShTiranyaa| | 24 > > dhiya - in the mind (intellect) paramaH - the supreme, > prakaasham vitiirya - the consciousness is essentially spread > out or distributed into the form of the knowledge of various > objects or objectifiable concepts. <snip> --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Dear Sadaji, My very best wishes for your talks on Sri Ramana's Sat Darshan (Reality in Forty Verses, Ulladhu Narpadhu). I probably didn't communicate my request to you very well. In your earlier post you quoted Sri Ramana's verse 24 of the above. However, you only put it in the romanised sanskrit version, as below: dhiye prakaasham paramo vitiirya svayam dhiyo2ntaH pravibhaati guptaH| dhiyam paraavartya dhiyo 2ntare2tra samyojanaat na Iswara dRiShTiranyaa|| 24 Would you please post the english for this verse (and any other verses you quote) at the same time. That way members who do not have the translations will be able to reflect on Sri Ramana's verse for themselves and be better able to weigh up your interpretation as to what the verse is getting at and how it relates to scripture and Bhagavan Sankara's teaching. Even though I have a translation of these verses I find it hard to relate your comments to the verse 24. Some translations number these differently, hence I would also find it helpful to have an English translation of the verses you qoute in sanskrit, in case I am looking at the wrong verse. Yes, there are a number of translations - Arthur Osborne, Prof. K. Swaminathan, Sri Ganapati Muni are just some. Lakshmana Sarma's translation is certainly reliable as he received direct and regular instruction from Sri Ramana himself on the meaning of these very verses and submitted his renderings to Sri Ramana over and over again until they could not be further improved. It's true the verses are terse. However, I feel we need at least to let Sri Ramana's words speak to the reader/member for themselves before adding our own interpretations. I've not come across a single statement or hint in all of Sri Ramana's recorded teachings that people should reach a certain stage in scriptural study before they are ready to reflect on his written works. As a 'by the way', Sri Ramana made a point of ensuring that Lakshmana Sarma's commentary was published by Ramanasramam so that it would be widely available. Best wishes, Peter > > advaitin > [advaitin ] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi sadananda > 22 May 2009 17:36 > advaitin > RE: Concepts and Objects > > > Peter - PraNAms > > As you know, there are many tanslations and commentaries on > this text. As I am studying, I am only quoting the relavent > to the topic that is being discussed. The direct word > transation would not give much meaning unless you are tuned > to Ramanas teaching which is always in very concentrated > dose. If one does not have proper vedantic background one can > get lost or even misinterpret. Here I am studying and > reflecting and sharing the Bhagavaans instructions as I > understand from my background but only posting that is > relavent to the on-going discussion. > > How the talks will come out during the weekend, He only > knows. Chinmaya Missions Washington center is planning to > record the talks and may become available on U-tube some day. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > > --- On Fri, 5/22/09, Peter <not_2 wrote: > > > Peter <not_2 > RE: Concepts and Objects > advaitin > Friday, May 22, 2009, 12:03 PM > > Dear Sada-ji, > > I'm sure many people would appreciate a straight translation > of Sri Ramana's > verse(s) whenever you quote these in romanised sanskrit form. > It's good to see the verse on its own before reflecting on > the translation mixed with commentary and reflections. > > It's delightful to read your thoughts on Sri Ramana's Forty Verses. > > Peter > > > > > advaitin@ s.com > > [advaitin@ s.com] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi sadananda > > 22 May 2009 15:10 > > advaitin@ s.com > > Re: Concepts and Objects > > > > If I may interject, Bhagavaan Ramana goes directly into it, > > essentially echoing Shankara's and Scriptural statements too. > > > > dhiye prakaasham paramo vitiirya > > svayam dhiyo2ntaH pravibhaati guptaH| > > dhiyam paraavartya dhiyo 2ntare2tra > > samyojanaat na Iswara dRiShTiranyaa| | 24 > > > > dhiya - in the mind (intellect) paramaH - the supreme, prakaasham > > vitiirya - the consciousness is essentially spread out or > distributed > > into the form of the knowledge of various objects or objectifiable > > concepts. > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 " Peter " <not_2 wrote: > Some translations number these differently, Peter, Pranams, Yes, in Sat-Darshana Bashya the verse in question is numbered 24. But in Ulladu Narpaddu's translations the verse in question is #22. I didn't take the time to see where the altering of the order happens in these two works. As you may know, Sat-Darshana is a little different than Ulladu Naarpadu in some aspects, but the essence stays the same. In any case, for that verse in particular, whichever number it may have (or if it's Ulladu N. or Sat D.), Sri Sadaji's commentary makes not only perfect sense, but expands, at the intellectual level, the sense it has. Yours in Bhagavan, Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 " Peter " <not_2 wrote: > Some translations number these differently, Dear PeterJi, me again, Pranams, Sat-Darshan Bashya takes into account the two first Mangalams of Ulladu Naarpadu as verses. That's why the Osborne translation (that doesn't) numbers the verses at verse #3 of Sat Darshan Bashya. Sat D. has forty two verses, Ulladu Naapadu is " Forty Verse on reality " + 2 introductory ones. This clears the differnce in numerology. Yours in Bhagavan, Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Peter and mouna - PraNAms The differences in numbering is whether they count the first two slokas - which are invocation slokas as part of the text or not. Hence it is 22 in some and 24 in others, depending on how they count. In the chinmaya mission book I have the numbering includes the invocation slokas also. In Satdarshanm we have 40 + 2 invocation slokas and in the end the vashiShTaganapati added 2 slokas in acknowledging both Ramana and the translator of the tamil works. Hence 2+10+2 -we have 44 slokas. Invocation slokas contains the essence of the sat darshanam too. I find the rest of the text is only a commentary on the first invocation sloka. Hari Om! Sadananda --- On Fri, 5/22/09, Mouna <maunna wrote: Mouna <maunna Re: Concepts and Objects advaitin Friday, May 22, 2009, 5:45 PM " Peter " <not_2 wrote: > Some translations number these differently, Peter, Pranams, Yes, in Sat-Darshana Bashya the verse in question is numbered 24. But in Ulladu Narpaddu's translations the verse in question is #22. I didn't take the time to see where the altering of the order happens in these two works. As you may know, Sat-Darshana is a little different than Ulladu Naarpadu in some aspects, but the essence stays the same. In any case, for that verse in particular, whichever number it may have (or if it's Ulladu N. or Sat D.), Sri Sadaji's commentary makes not only perfect sense, but expands, at the intellectual level, the sense it has. Yours in Bhagavan, Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Dear Mounaji and Sadaji, Yes, and Laskshmana Sarma's version in " Revelation " is numbered differently again to the versions you mentioned as he starts numbering from his own invocatory verses. So verse 24 in the original is no 29 in his book. The numbering is not important providing the verse qouted in this forum is in a language that members can understand. I don't read sanskrit hence my doubt as to verse in question. > In any case, for that verse in particular, whichever number > it may have (or if it's Ulladu N. or Sat D.), Sri Sadaji's > commentary makes not only perfect sense, but expands, at the > intellectual level, the sense it has. I'm sure that is the case and it's a delight that Sadaji is sharing his thoughts on these verses. However, I imagine you can only say the above, Mounaji, either because you can read the sanskrit version of verse which Sadaji gave or because you already have a translation - as I do. What I am suggesting is that those who don't have a translated version and don't understand sanskrit will not know what the verse actually says for as long as Sadaji only gives the Sanskrit version. Hence people will not be able to judge for themselves whether his commentary makes good sense etc. There are many translations of Sri Sankara's works but that doesn't prevent members providing an english translation when qouting them. I felt that I was making a simple request. My apologies if it comes across otherwise. Best wishes, Peter > > advaitin > [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Mouna > 22 May 2009 22:46 > advaitin > Re: Concepts and Objects > > " Peter " <not_2 wrote: > > > Some translations number these differently, > > Peter, Pranams, > > Yes, in Sat-Darshana Bashya the verse in question is numbered 24. > But in Ulladu Narpaddu's translations the verse in question is #22. > I didn't take the time to see where the altering of the order > happens in these two works. > As you may know, Sat-Darshana is a little different than > Ulladu Naarpadu in some aspects, but the essence stays the same. > In any case, for that verse in particular, whichever number > it may have (or if it's Ulladu N. or Sat D.), Sri Sadaji's > commentary makes not only perfect sense, but expands, at the > intellectual level, the sense it has. > > Yours in Bhagavan, > Mouna > > > > > --- > > 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.