Perspective - 1

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Sri Ramji,

You have kindly mentioned:

<<<Isvara (Lord) is not Mythia but our understanding (knowledge) of Isvara is

Mythia. Brahmaiva Sathyam .....

....The act of washing the baby with all care and attention and throwing the

washing water and the baby is also Mythia,>>>

Yes, that is the ultimamte Truth. However, this is a piece of knowledge and

where does it exist? It must exist in some sentient entity only. Who or what is

that entity?

Maybe I am entering into some " kutharka " . My apology in that case.

Warm regards, Hari Om

 

R. S. Mani

 

 

Keep up with people you care about with India Mail. Learn how.

http://in.overview.mail./connectmore

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Maniji:

 

All that I can say that " We can't describe that entity by words and why we can't

do it is also Mythia! " All that we know is that the Entity exists because " I "

exist. If we start using more and more words to describe our own perception of

that entity, we will likely entertain endless exchange of words. Since " I " only

exists, the piece of knowledge has to exist within " I. " We have ask ourselves

" Who am I? " no one else can explain it by using words.

 

With my warm regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , " R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani wrote:

>

> Namaste, Sri Ramji,

> You have kindly mentioned:

> <<<Isvara (Lord) is not Mythia but our understanding (knowledge) of Isvara is

Mythia. Brahmaiva Sathyam .....

> ...The act of washing the baby with all care and attention and throwing the

washing water and the baby is also Mythia,>>>

> Yes, that is the ultimamte Truth. However, this is a piece of knowledge and

where does it exist? It must exist in some sentient entity only. Who or what is

that entity?

> Maybe I am entering into some " kutharka " . My apology in that case.

> Warm regards, Hari Om

>

> R. S. Mani

>

>

> Keep up with people you care about with India Mail. Learn how.

http://in.overview.mail./connectmore

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Maniji,

Isvara is not mithya since He is none other than Brahman. But Isvaratva or

Isvarahood is mithya. Similarly, the jiva is not mithya since he is identical

with Brahman, but jivatva is mithya. Jivatva consists of doership, enjoyership,

etc which are attributed to the jiva because of ignorance of his real nature.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

 

advaitin , " R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani wrote:

>

> Namaste, Sri Ramji,

> You have kindly mentioned:

> <<<Isvara (Lord) is not Mythia but our understanding (knowledge) of Isvara is

Mythia. Brahmaiva Sathyam .....

> ...The act of washing the baby with all care and attention and throwing the

washing water and the baby is also Mythia,>>>

> Yes, that is the ultimamte Truth. However, this is a piece of knowledge and

where does it exist? It must exist in some sentient entity only. Who or what is

that entity?

> Maybe I am entering into some " kutharka " . My apology in that case.

> Warm regards, Hari Om

>

> R. S. Mani

[Guest guest]

--- On Sat, 10/24/09, R.S.MANI <r_s_mani wrote:

 

 

Maniji - PraNAms

 

Shree Sastriji has explained beautifully. Brahman is one - But appears as jiiva

- jagat and Iswara. Mithyaatva of prapanca involves understanding - Brahma

satyam, jagat mithyaa and jiva braham eva. In the process of that understanding

of aham brahmaasmi - the jagat and jagat karthaa, Iswara, both can be understood

as mithyaa at superficial level and satya brahman that I am at substantive

level. Either I can say I pervade this entire universe or I can just say Iswara

pervades this entire universe - Krishna makes both statements; sarvabhuutastam

aatmaanam sarva bhuutanica aatmani – one who sees himself in all beings and

all beings in himself and also the very next sloka - yo mam pasyati sarvatra

and sarvam ca mayi pasyati - one who sees Me everywhere and everything in Me

Both will means the same since I am the substantive of all the three. That is

essentially what mithyaatva knowledge involves. Iswara, jagat and jiiva are

understood as one at the

substantive level.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda 

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Sri Sastriji,

I also always feel the same way. It is the " hood " or " hoodness " that is mithya

and we negate that only, always remmbering that the negator itself is with

" hoodness " and we are not to disregard the " hoodness " as it is useful for

another mithya, It ll amounts to recognizing this fact i.e. there is That only

which is none other than " I " though the apparent " hoodness " appears to be there,

rather That appears to be different with " hoodness " , just like the rope appears

as snake.

I may be wrong, but let me get myself cleared with the kind help of our

respected m embers.

With kind regards, Hari Om

 

 

R. S. Mani

 

--- On Sat, 24/10/09, snsastri <sn.sastri wrote:

 

 

snsastri <sn.sastri

Re: Perspective - 1

advaitin

Saturday, 24 October, 2009, 6:17 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Maniji,

Isvara is not mithya since He is none other than Brahman. But Isvaratva or

Isvarahood is mithya. Similarly, the jiva is not mithya since he is identical

with Brahman, but jivatva is mithya. Jivatva consists of doership, enjoyership,

etc which are attributed to the jiva because of ignorance of his real nature.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

 

advaitin@ s.com, " R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani@.. .> wrote:

>

> Namaste, Sri Ramji,

> You have kindly mentioned:

> <<<Isvara (Lord) is not Mythia but our understanding (knowledge) of Isvara is

Mythia. Brahmaiva Sathyam .....

> ...The act of washing the baby with all care and attention and throwing the

washing water and the baby is also Mythia,>>>

> Yes, that is the ultimamte Truth. However, this is a piece of knowledge and

where does it exist? It must exist in some sentient entity only. Who or what is

that entity?

> Maybe I am entering into some " kutharka " . My apology in that case.

> Warm regards, Hari Om

>

> R. S. Mani

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

India has a new look. Take a sneak peek http://in./trynew

 

 

[Guest guest]

Pranams Mani-ji

This topic has been discussed previously and I submit two articles where I have

provided my perspective.

 

http://www.adi-shankara.org/2007/09/does-advaita-consider-ishwara-real-or.html

http://www.adi-shankara.org/2008/04/ishwara-and-brahman.html

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

--- On Sat, 10/24/09, R.S.MANI <r_s_mani wrote:

 

 

R.S.MANI <r_s_mani

Re: Re: Perspective - 1

advaitin

Saturday, October 24, 2009, 9:44 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Namaste, Sri Sastriji,

I also always feel the same way. It is the " hood " or " hoodness " that is mithya

and we negate that only, always remmbering that the negator itself is with

" hoodness " and we are not to disregard the " hoodness " as it is useful for

another mithya, It ll amounts to recognizing this fact i.e. there is That only

which is none other than " I " though the apparent " hoodness " appears to be there,

rather That appears to be different with " hoodness " , just like the rope appears

as snake.

I may be wrong, but let me get myself cleared with the kind help of our

respected m embers.

With kind regards, Hari Om

 

R. S. Mani

 

--- On Sat, 24/10/09, snsastri <sn.sastri (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

 

snsastri <sn.sastri (AT) gmail (DOT) com>

Re: Perspective - 1

advaitin@ s.com

Saturday, 24 October, 2009, 6:17 PM

 

 

 

Dear Maniji,

Isvara is not mithya since He is none other than Brahman. But Isvaratva or

Isvarahood is mithya. Similarly, the jiva is not mithya since he is identical

with Brahman, but jivatva is mithya. Jivatva consists of doership, enjoyership,

etc which are attributed to the jiva because of ignorance of his real nature.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

 

advaitin@ s.com, " R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani@.. .> wrote:

>

> Namaste, Sri Ramji,

> You have kindly mentioned:

> <<<Isvara (Lord) is not Mythia but our understanding (knowledge) of Isvara is

Mythia. Brahmaiva Sathyam .....

> ...The act of washing the baby with all care and attention and throwing the

washing water and the baby is also Mythia,>>>

> Yes, that is the ultimamte Truth. However, this is a piece of knowledge and

where does it exist? It must exist in some sentient entity only. Who or what is

that entity?

> Maybe I am entering into some " kutharka " . My apology in that case.

> Warm regards, Hari Om

>

> R. S. Mani

 

India has a new look. Take a sneak peek http://in.. com/trynew

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Namaste, Sri Shyamji, and others,

Thank you, Sri Shyamji for your two Notes on Jiva and Iswara. They have put to

me to do further mananm on these two.

Is it like the salt doll losing its identity as a doll, i.e. its nama and rupa,

once it enters the sea?

If that is the case, again my doubt, how will such a state, if a one calls it a

state, or any other state, be experienced as the experiencer itself disappears?

What I am just trying to make out is once Moksha is attained what will happen to

the one who desired Moksha and will there be any experience of any sort, if so

for whom, as the seeker of moksha itself will disappear once and for all?

In this context, I remember what Poonthanam prayed for. He prayed for not Moksha

but punarjanma again and again, but with devotion for the Lord, so that he could

continue to be a devotee of Lord Guruvayoorappan.

What would one prefer, a life or rebirth with the self knowledge or total

annihilation after Moksha?

The shastra does unfolds Moksha itself is actually mithya as bandhanam itself is

Mithya.

If that be the case where will I put myself, i.e. as one suffering from

bandhanam and seeking moksha or in Reality I am not there, because in moksha the

one seeking moksha disappears totally? Nevertheless, I do know I exist very much

now.

I know I am confused a lot on these points and hope I have managed to state what

is in my mind.

With kind regards and Hari Om

Mani

 

 

 

 

 

Pranams Mani-ji

This topic has been discussed previously and I submit two articles where I have

provided my perspective.

 

http://www.adi- shankara. org/2007/ 09/does-advaita- consider- ishwara-real-

or.html

http://www.adi- shankara. org/2008/ 04/ishwara- and-brahman. html

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

R. S. Mani

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Add whatever you love to the India homepage. Try now!

http://in./trynew

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani wrote:

>

>  

> Namaste, Sri Shyamji, and others,

> Thank you, Sri Shyamji for your two Notes on Jiva and Iswara. They have put to

me to do further mananm on these two.

> Is it like the salt doll losing its identity as a doll, i.e. its nama and

rupa, once it enters the sea?

> If that is the case, again my doubt, how will such a state, if a one calls it

a state, or any other state, be experienced as the experiencer itself

disappears? What I am just trying to make out is once Moksha is attained what

will happen to the one who desired Moksha and will there be any experience of

any sort, if so for whom, as the seeker of moksha itself will disappear once and

for all?

> In this context, I remember what Poonthanam prayed for. He prayed for not

Moksha but punarjanma again and again, but with devotion for the Lord, so that

he could continue to be a devotee of Lord Guruvayoorappan.

> What would one prefer, a life or rebirth with the self knowledge or total

annihilation after Moksha?

> The shastra does unfolds Moksha itself is actually mithya as bandhanam itself

is Mithya.

> If that be the case where will I put myself, i.e. as one suffering from

bandhanam and seeking moksha or in Reality I am not there, because in moksha the

one seeking moksha disappears totally? Nevertheless, I do know I exist very much

now.

> I know I am confused a lot on these points and hope I have managed to state

what is in my mind.

> With kind regards and Hari Om

> Mani

>

>  

>  

>  

>

> Pranams Mani-ji

> This topic has been discussed previously and I submit two articles where I

have provided my perspective.

>  

> http://www.adi- shankara. org/2007/ 09/does-advaita- consider- ishwara-real-

or.html

> http://www.adi- shankara. org/2008/ 04/ishwara- and-brahman. html

>  

> Hari OM

> Shri Gurubhyoh namah

> Shyam

>

> R. S. Mani

>

> ---

>

> Gaudapada's karika on the Mandukya Upanisad is an example of the rational

epistemics of ultimate reality. His rational arguments prove the irrationality

of experience. The experience of varied consciousness-states, for instance,

proves that none of them can be considered to be real.[2] How does one know a

magician's rabbit from a 'real' one? And as the Chinese philosopher Chuang Tzu

questioned: If I were asleep and dreamt I was a butterfly, and then awoke to

find myself a man, how will I know if I was a butterfly dreaming I was a man or

am a man dreaming I was a butterfly?' Also considered is the cosmological

question: something can't come out of nothing; yet, experience looks for

something beyond this something which is logically unattainable; therefore, the

only truth is that all this experience is false and the only reality is

non-dualism. However, Gaudapada's portrayal of maya as real yet non-dual in his

example of the firebrand tries to provide a cosmological answer. The empirical

dimension cannot be totally avoided.

>

>

>Extracted from Word Web

sekhar

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Add whatever you love to the India homepage. Try now!

http://in./trynew

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Maniji.

 

Your 46768 refers.

 

May I endeavour to answer your doubts? Please see within under your

statements.

 

> Is it like the salt doll losing its identity as a doll, i.e. its nama and

rupa, once it enters the sea?

 

[i should imagine there is no more any nAma rUpa. It is a " There is nothing

other than me " situation. That is why we call it advaita. There is no doll,

there is no salt, there is no water, there is no sea. There is only Me.]

 

> If that is the case, again my doubt, how will such a state, if a one calls it

a state, or any other state, be experienced as the experiencer itself

disappears? What I am just trying to make out is once Moksha is attained what

will happen to the one who desired Moksha and will there be any experience of

any sort, if so for whom, as the seeker of moksha itself will disappear once and

for all?

 

 

[Call it anything by, Maniji. We can't help without 'calling names' in this

phenomenal of ours. The experiencer has not disappeared. He is always there.

Only that he now knows that there is nothing other than him. That may not be an

experience of an experiencer in our usual manner, like our mango or ice-cream

enjoyment. Yet, what other word do we have in our inadequate dictionaries to

describe it? So. it goes by the name of experience, Ananda, Bliss and what not.

We can't do without the calling game, as I pointed out before!]

 

> In this context, I remember what Poonthanam prayed for. He prayed for not

Moksha but punarjanma again and again, but with devotion for the Lord, so that

he could continue to be a devotee of Lord Guruvayoorappan.

 

[That is P's personal preference. Personally, I also like to go the P way

singing Her hymns unendingly. There is nothing wrong with it. Call it bhakti

vedanta, if you so desire. That too is advaita. As AbhirAmi Bhattar sang in

AbhirAmi AntAdi " pArkum disai tOruM pAshAnkushamuM..... " (In whichever direction

I look, I see only you - to make it very short. You can view the translation of

our Ramachanderji on the net - Verse 85.). If you see only Her/Him everywhere,

then that too is advaita. Isn't it, Maniji?

 

> What would one prefer, a life or rebirth with the self knowledge or total

annihilation after Moksha?

 

[Oh, Maniji. What total annihilation. Which weapon can annihilate you. Recall

nainaM cintati pAvakaH in BG. If you can annihilate fullness - I would like to

learn about it from you. Rebirth is a corporeal continuity. Remove the body

out of it. You alone is there then - a continuousness, an alwaysness, an

incorporeal continuity. Strange - I was writing these very same words this

morning to Ivan of Poetry Chaikhana in a condolence message. He lost his

mother. Yet, he takes it in his stride with immense philosophical poetry.]

 

> The shastra does unfolds Moksha itself is actually mithya as bandhanam itself

is Mithya.

 

[bondage is miThyA. Moksha isn't. It is you, Maniji. The problem is that we

see in it the literal meaning 'liberation from bondage'.]

 

 

> If that be the case where will I put myself, i.e. as one suffering from

bandhanam and seeking moksha or in Reality I am not there, because in moksha the

one seeking moksha disappears totally?

Nevertheless, I do know I exist very much now.

 

[in mokshA, you alone shine as Yourself. You don't disappear. Only the illusory

bondage disappears. You always exist. You are Existence - the incorporeal

continuity I mentioned above.]

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Maniji.

 

The mistake in my quote below is due to sheer negligence, which is very much

regretted.

 

The verse concerned (BG 2:23) begins: " NainaM cindanti shastraNi, nainaM dahati

pAvakaH " .

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin , " madathilnair " <madathilnair wrote:

 

> [Oh, Maniji. What total annihilation? Which weapon can annihilate you?

Recall nainaM cintati pAvakaH in BG. ....]