Guest guest Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 Namaaste. Sri Shyamji, and all FIRST, MAY I WISH YOU ALL A VERY HAPPY DEEPAVALI. Thank you, Sri Shyamji, for a detailed note. For a layman like me who is just trying first only to understand what is it all about this self knowledge, etc., it takes time to study all that you have kindly said. However, more for clarifying myself, I write the following and you and others I am sure will kindly help me by correcting me wherever required.  You have mentioned “I think this needs to be examined. If the Knower is the Known then what is Knowledge?†I think that itself is the Knowledge, i.e. Knowledge of Knower and Known, including the knower knowing the known, are one and the same. Is this possible, i.e. subject itself is the object? No, but it appears to be so, because of Adhyasa due to avidya. However, in the absence of the Knower and Known, what is there? We may say, Shoonya, as in Deep Sleep. Even to know Shoonya, a Knower is required, and though to know the shoonya the knower may appear to be absent during deep sleep, prior to and subsequent to the deep sleep, the knower must be present and then only absence of any knowledge even that of shoonyatwam, can be established. So since this Knower is present prior to and subsequent to deep sleep, the same knower is present therefore also in between. Maybe prior and subsequent to deep sleep he was knower of absence of shoonyatwam and during deep sleep knower of shoonyatwam. Knower is always present whether there is an object or not, including shoonyatwam. Always present as what? As the field or substratum which appears to accommodate presence or absence of shoonyatwam. To be precise as Awareness or Consciouness. I may be wayward, but this is the way I understand the position. Please do correct me. This shoonyatwam appearing in deep sleep is total ignorance where both the knower and known appear to be absent, including the knowing of shoonyatwam, although they both were present before and after the deep sleep. Now, since the knower was not in confrontation with any known, {as he appeared to be absent during deep sleep,} i.e. both desirable and undesirable, likes and dislikes, that state appeared to be totally peaceful for the knower and although he was absent during that state, he could appreciate it as he was present before and after that state. With regard to " waking up " in our context, waking up is by sublation or negation not physical but by Knowledge or by recognization or “pratybhignaâ€. What I want to say is “I†itself is Knowledge or Awareness, as there must be a platform for Knowledge or Awareness and that platform is “Iâ€. Since in the absence of “I†knowledge or awareness cannot exist, as “I†is self evident, and in the absence of knowledge or awareness, existence of “I†cannot be known, both are mutually inclusive, i.e. one cannot exist without the other. That is why “I†is self evident or self illumined. Further, since Knowledge or Awareness or Consciousness has no prAgabhavatwam i.e. prior absence, it has no beginning, as there must be knowledge or awareness or consciousness to know prAgabhavatwam. Equally, it has no end also as it must precede any such end also as otherwise how is that end established? In short Consciousness or Knowledge must continue to exist before any particular knowledge or even in the absence of any particular knowledge, i.e. the so called shoonyatwam, and also after any particular knowledge or absence of any particular knowledge; and therefore it is Infinite. Knowledge or Awareness or Consciousness is beginingless and endless and therefore middleless also. Since infinite lacks nothing, as the shastra unfolds, it is complete or Poornam, and anything that is Poornam, lacking nothing, must be Anandam or Happiness itself and therefore what the shaAstra establishes is “I†alone is the source of any Anandam or Happiness. One may say we do lack many things. This lacking belongs to a mithya entity, i.e. ego, and the lackings are also for mithy things. The Upanishads unfolds “I†being Poornam, does not lack anything which is absolutely real, being infinite.  With regard to AdhyAsa, you state “only thing is the adhyasa or superimposition does not involve an external object but involves the " internal " subject - the " aham " is superimposed onto the anatma.†It is rather about the knowledge of the so called aham and anatma which got affected due to adhyasa. I may be wrong, but there is mutual, i.e. “anyonya†superimposition, Anatma on Atma and Atma on Anata, i.e. Atasmin Tatbudhi and Tasmin Atatbudhi. Please correct me. This two way superimposition alone is responsible for samsaritwam and at the same desire for freedom from samsaritwam. Anatma is just a term used in the prakriya, as anatma has no real existence. Atma itself is anatma as atma is the platform where anatma just appears to exist as nama and rupa. Atma pervades the so called anatma and Anatma has no independent existence. However one tries, Atma cannot be separated from AnAtma, but one can appreciate, by knowledge, as one is just appearance and the other gives the platform for such appearance. This platform is not like the table giving platform for the book on it, but the wood giving platform for the appearance of the table. Why there is desire for freedom from samsaritwam in human beings? One can desire for only something about which he already has some knowledge backed with experience. However, as a result of adhyasa, and that too mutual, one is confused as to where to find it. Similarly, there is a strong desire for immortality. These desires are for as if “going back†to one’s real swaroopa or remaining in one’s own swaroopa. It is like the urge of water to go always down.  Due to ignorance, though knowledge of “I†is self evident, the poornatwa of “I†appears to be covered as this “I†is taken as a doer when it appears to confront with the idam, or a anything other than “Iâ€, and as the enjoyer of the result of any such confrontation. All what the shastra does is removal of this ignorance by unfolding the swaroopa of “I†as Poorna, by establishing the fact that this “I†is nothing but “Brahman†although “ Brahman†itself is introduced by shastra and not self evident like “Iâ€. That is why the mahavakya says “Aham BrahmAsmi†i.e. I am Brahman and not “BrahmAham Asti†or Brahman is I. {My samskrit may be very poor, and do apologise me}.  With regard to “This can only happen when one gradually frees oneself of all karmas - sarvakarmasannyasa - because any karma involves a notional do-ership, and any. .. . . .†13 chap slokas 8 to 12 mentions what is gnAnam and what is agnAnam. So, IMHO, gnAnam itself takes care of “happening of thisâ€.  What I feel is such freeing, (i.e. freeing from agnAnam and remaining in gnAnam as detailed in slokas 8 to 12 of BG} takes place itself without any effort, involuntarily, maybe slowly but definitely as one proceeds in assimilating the knowledge; otherwise it may amount to karma with doership and karmaphala resulting from that karma. IMHO, though gnAnam itself cannot act,  gnAnam reflects in all actions involuntarily and such a gnAni does not even remember any action as if by him that takes place. I will put it this way. Even for an agnAni actions take place, even if involuntarily but such actions are notion based, and maybe with kartutwa bhava, at least when the result is accrued, whereas in the case of a gnAni any action that takes place is just happenings. Therefore there is Akarma in all such karmas and a gnAni appreciates he is not even a witness to such actions as such actions are at mithya level and any such witnessing is also mithya. When you say “These " disturbances " are a pointer to persisting durvasanas which will keep propping up and leading one to perfunctory modes of behavior. . .. .†here again I feel as one proceeds with “Aham BrahAsmi†nidhidhdyAsanam, any durvasanas, slowly but definitely in course of time will disappear themselves, and one cannot force that as the more one forces that it amounts to giving reality to them.  The only self evident knowledge is that of I’s existence. All other pieces of knowledge are possible only through some means of knowledge. Even the existence of Brahman is possible only through Shabda, but that is not the case with “Iâ€. What the shastra proves is the unity of “I†and “Brahman†i.e. jeeva brahma aikyam. I know there are repetitions and also ambiguity here and there in whatever I mention, but as I said, I write all the more for my own clarity. I would request the members to correct me wherever required. With kind regards and Hari Om  R. S. Mani From cricket scores to your friends. Try the India Homepage! http://in./trynew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Pranams Mani-ji Thank you for your warm wishes - a very Happy Deepavali to you and your family. I am as much, if not lesser, of a layperson as you, and am simply sharing with you my perspective, based on my understanding. " Self " -knowledge always is pertient only to the one who is " self " -ignorant. IN the case of one self-ignorant the Self is NOT the " I " but the witness to the idea or concept of " I " , as Shankara clarifies in the sutrabhasya. That Self - which is nothing but the witnessing awareness/consciousness, does not get involved in this vyapara - and is beyond ignorance and knowledge. That is the only point I am/was trying to clarify - it is subtle but crucial. With regards to chittashuddhi - when you say " durvasanas in course of time will disappear themselves " - let me offer a perspective that is a little different. Tremendous degree of deliberate, unceasing, unrelenting and concentrated effort is required here - akin to " emptying an ocean using a blade of grass " - one drop at a time! Shankara says in BG 14.26 that as the characteristics set forth that characterize a sage " Udaseenavat " (Indifference) etc DEMAND EFFORT to achieve - udaasenavat ityadi gunateetah sa uchyate ityetadantah uktam yaavat yatnasaadhyam, hence the sannyasi, the seeker after liberation has to CULTIVATE THEM, they being the means leading to the state of transcendence taavat sannyasinah anushteyam gunaateetatvasadhanam mumukshoh. Elsewhere too Shankara's words are almost identically phrased - 2.55 - thus indeed are these characteristics acquired through DIRECTED EFFORT yatnasadhyatvaat. Only with such stupendous efforts COUPLED WITH an enormous degree of Grace can one, with knowledge, secure the kingdom of Supreme Peace. My humble namaskarams to you. Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam --- On Fri, 10/16/09, R.S.MANI <r_s_mani wrote: R.S.MANI <r_s_mani NidhidhyAsanam " Aham BrahAsmi " " group " <advaitin > Friday, October 16, 2009, 2:42 AM Namaaste. Sri Shyamji, and all FIRST, MAY I WISH YOU ALL A VERY HAPPY DEEPAVALI. Thank you, Sri Shyamji, for a detailed note. With kind regards and Hari Om R. S. Mani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 advaitin , " R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani wrote: > > Namaaste. Sri Shyamji, and all > FIRST, MAY I WISH YOU ALL A VERY HAPPY DEEPAVALI. > Thank you, Sri Shyamji, for a detailed note. > For a layman like me who is just trying first only to understand what is it all about this self knowledge, etc., it takes time to study all that you have kindly said. However, more for clarifying myself, I write the following and you and others I am sure will kindly help me by correcting me wherever required. >  > You have mentioned “I think this needs to be examined. If the Knower is the Known then what is Knowledge?†> I think that itself is the Knowledge, i.e. Knowledge of Knower and Known, including the knower knowing the known, are one and the same. Is this possible, i.e. subject itself is the object? No, but it appears to be so, because of Adhyasa due to avidya. However, in the absence of the Knower and Known, what is there? We may say, Shoonya, as in Deep Sleep. Even to know Shoonya, a Knower is required, and though to know the shoonya the knower may appear to be absent during deep sleep, prior to and subsequent to the deep sleep, the knower must be present and then only absence of any knowledge even that of shoonyatwam, can be established. So since this Knower is present prior to and subsequent to deep sleep, the same knower is present therefore also in between. Maybe prior and subsequent to deep sleep he was knower of absence of shoonyatwam and during deep sleep knower of shoonyatwam. Knower is always present whether there is an object or not, including > shoonyatwam. Always present as what? As the field or substratum which appears to accommodate presence or absence of shoonyatwam. To be precise as Awareness or Consciouness. I may be wayward, but this is the way I understand the position. Please do correct me. This shoonyatwam appearing in deep sleep is total ignorance where both the knower and known appear to be absent, including the knowing of shoonyatwam, although they both were present before and after the deep sleep. Now, since the knower was not in confrontation with any known, {as he appeared to be absent during deep sleep,} i.e. both desirable and undesirable, likes and dislikes, that state appeared to be totally peaceful for the knower and although he was absent during that state, he could appreciate it as he was present before and after that state. > With regard to " waking up " in our context, waking up is by sublation or negation not physical but by Knowledge or by recognization or “pratybhignaâ€. > What I want to say is “I†itself is Knowledge or Awareness, as there must be a platform for Knowledge or Awareness and that platform is “Iâ€. Since in the absence of “I†knowledge or awareness cannot exist, as “I†is self evident, and in the absence of knowledge or awareness, existence of “I†cannot be known, both are mutually inclusive, i.e. one cannot exist without the other. That is why “I†is self evident or self illumined. > Further, since Knowledge or Awareness or Consciousness has no prAgabhavatwam i.e. prior absence, it has no beginning, as there must be knowledge or awareness or consciousness to know prAgabhavatwam. Equally, it has no end also as it must precede any such end also as otherwise how is that end established? In short Consciousness or Knowledge must continue to exist before any particular knowledge or even in the absence of any particular knowledge, i.e. the so called shoonyatwam, and also after any particular knowledge or absence of any particular knowledge; and therefore it is Infinite. Knowledge or Awareness or Consciousness is beginingless and endless and therefore middleless also. Since infinite lacks nothing, as the shastra unfolds, it is complete or Poornam, and anything that is Poornam, lacking nothing, must be Anandam or Happiness itself and therefore what the shaAstra establishes is “I†alone is the source of any Anandam or Happiness. One may > say we do lack many things. This lacking belongs to a mithya entity, i.e. ego, and the lackings are also for mithy things. The Upanishads unfolds “I†being Poornam, does not lack anything which is absolutely real, being infinite. >  > With regard to AdhyAsa, you state “only thing is the adhyasa or superimposition does not involve an external object but involves the " internal " subject - the " aham " is superimposed onto the anatma.†It is rather about the knowledge of the so called aham and anatma which got affected due to adhyasa. > I may be wrong, but there is mutual, i.e. “anyonya†superimposition, Anatma on Atma and Atma on Anata, i.e. Atasmin Tatbudhi and Tasmin Atatbudhi. Please correct me. This two way superimposition alone is responsible for samsaritwam and at the same desire for freedom from samsaritwam. > Anatma is just a term used in the prakriya, as anatma has no real existence. Atma itself is anatma as atma is the platform where anatma just appears to exist as nama and rupa. Atma pervades the so called anatma and Anatma has no independent existence. However one tries, Atma cannot be separated from AnAtma, but one can appreciate, by knowledge, as one is just appearance and the other gives the platform for such appearance. This platform is not like the table giving platform for the book on it, but the wood giving platform for the appearance of the table. > Why there is desire for freedom from samsaritwam in human beings? One can desire for only something about which he already has some knowledge backed with experience. However, as a result of adhyasa, and that too mutual, one is confused as to where to find it. Similarly, there is a strong desire for immortality. These desires are for as if “going back†to one’s real swaroopa or remaining in one’s own swaroopa. It is like the urge of water to go always down. >  > Due to ignorance, though knowledge of “I†is self evident, the poornatwa of “I†appears to be covered as this “I†is taken as a doer when it appears to confront with the idam, or a anything other than “Iâ€, and as the enjoyer of the result of any such confrontation. All what the shastra does is removal of this ignorance by unfolding the swaroopa of “I†as Poorna, by establishing the fact that this “I†is nothing but “Brahman†although “ Brahman†itself is introduced by shastra and not self evident like “Iâ€. That is why the mahavakya says “Aham BrahmAsmi†i.e. I am Brahman and not “BrahmAham Asti†or Brahman is I. {My samskrit may be very poor, and do apologise me}. >  > With regard to “This can only happen when one gradually frees oneself of all karmas - sarvakarmasannyasa - because any karma involves a notional do-ership, and any. .. . . .†> 13 chap slokas 8 to 12 mentions what is gnAnam and what is agnAnam. So, IMHO, gnAnam itself takes care of “happening of thisâ€. >  > What I feel is such freeing, (i.e. freeing from agnAnam and remaining in gnAnam as detailed in slokas 8 to 12 of BG} takes place itself without any effort, involuntarily, maybe slowly but definitely as one proceeds in assimilating the knowledge; otherwise it may amount to karma with doership and karmaphala resulting from that karma. IMHO, though gnAnam itself cannot act,  gnAnam reflects in all actions involuntarily and such a gnAni does not even remember any action as if by him that takes place. I will put it this way. Even for an agnAni actions take place, even if involuntarily but such actions are notion based, and maybe with kartutwa bhava, at least when the result is accrued, whereas in the case of a gnAni any action that takes place is just happenings. Therefore there is Akarma in all such karmas and a gnAni appreciates he is not even a witness to such actions as such actions are at mithya level and any such witnessing is also mithya. > When you say “These " disturbances " are a pointer to persisting durvasanas which will keep propping up and leading one to perfunctory modes of behavior. . .. .†here again I feel as one proceeds with “Aham BrahAsmi†nidhidhdyAsanam, any durvasanas, slowly but definitely in course of time will disappear themselves, and one cannot force that as the more one forces that it amounts to giving reality to them. >  > The only self evident knowledge is that of I’s existence. All other pieces of knowledge are possible only through some means of knowledge. Even the existence of Brahman is possible only through Shabda, but that is not the case with “Iâ€. What the shastra proves is the unity of “I†and “Brahman†i.e. jeeva brahma aikyam. > I know there are repetitions and also ambiguity here and there in whatever I mention, but as I said, I write all the more for my own clarity. I would request the members to correct me wherever required. > With kind regards and Hari Om >  > > > R. S. Mani > > > From cricket scores to your friends. Try the India Homepage! http://in./trynew > > 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.