A Perspective - 7

[Guest guest]

Jnaana yoga and Self Realization – V

 

We discussed that Jnaanam is immediate and direct, since the object of Jnaanam

is the very subject itself which is ever present. Shree Sureswara says in

Naiskarmyasiddhi that by Shravanam alone one can gain the knowledge –tat tvam

asi– once I have the clear understanding of the terms – tvam- the subject of

the sentence, and tat asi, the meaning of the predicate involving ‘tat’ and

the identity relation implied in ‘asi’. The knowledge will take place

immediately, if the terms are understood the way Vedanta implies. For knowing

‘tvam’ or who that ‘I am’ is, one has to use anvaya vyatireka knowledge

to differentiate the subject, I am, from any object, this is. That

discriminative intellect is called viveka. Shankara defines it as nitya anitya

vastu viveka – discriminative intellect that differentiates the subject, I,

from the object, this. In all objective or transactional knowledge, there is a

tripuTi or three fold aspect of

pramaata-prameya-pramANa, knower-known-and the means of knowing are involved.

Among the three, only pramaata remains the same while prameya, the object of

knowledge, and pramANa, the means of knowledge keep changing. In the waking

state, mind in conjunction with conscious entity, I, becomes pramaata, while

prameya, the world of objects, keep continuously changing, and the means,

pramANa, also changes depending on the objects to be known. As we go to dream

state, mind that has been a part pramaata, now itself becomes an object of my

perception as it projects multitude of plurality. The projections of the mind

keep changing and I, using part of the mind become pramaata or knower of the

field. In the deep-sleep state the mind is essentially folded and I alone am

there – as a saakshii, a witnessing consciousness, without any knowledge of

objects, and therefore no associated thoughts present. Thus in the deep-sleep

state, the absence of all projections

or absence of duality becomes the subject of knowledge, thus itself forming an

experience. The common experience is I was there in the deep-sleep state, but I

do not know anything. I would not even go to sleep, if I think there is even a

remote chance that I am not going to be there during that time. When the mind

awakes, the recollection of the absence of the mind (as in missing 18.5 min of

Nixon tapes in the Watergate case) occurs but expressed as ‘I slept well’

and ‘I did not know anything – space, time or object-wise. The one who was

awake even in the deep-sleep state cannot be called as pramaata, since the

status of pramaata comes with tripuTi with prameyam and pramANa present. In the

deep-sleep state, I am pure saakshii, the witnessing consciousness, witnessing

‘nothing or no-thing’. In fact Vedanta says I, as witnessing consciousness,

am present all the time, in the waking, dream and deep-sleep states. ‘tvam’

in the ‘tat tvam

asi’ refers to that pure witnessing consciousness. All the states of

experience come and go; I am ever present and ever awake as saakshii. Krishna

says that saakshii is the universal consciousness, the ever present, knower of

all fields, KshetrajnaH; Kshetrajnam ca api maam viddhi sarva kshetreShu

bhaarata; and that forms the mahaavaakya.

 

Now let us discuss some problems or pratibandhakas that inhibit the correct

understanding of the mahaavaakya. Mind always has a tendency to project or

objectify any knowledge, since it works in the field of tripuTi alone. tat

vijijnaasaswa – one has to inquire into the nature of reality, says the

Upanishad. The inquiry can only be done with the mind. That is, I, with the

mind is the enquirer, since mind by itself cannot do any inquiry without the

support of a conscious entity. Hence, I say I am conscious of the inquiry too.

That is what pramaata means involving the tripuTi-s. Hence even in the

self-inquiry, the mind habitually has a tendency to project or objectify what

that ‘I am’ is, while the scripture is trying to guide the inquiry by saying

that you are not this – na iti– na iti – not this – not this. Mind is

used to objectify and the scripture says it is the subject that is involved in

all objectifications. In the very habitual

objectification, I miss the subject, the conscious entity, or to state exactly

I do not pay attention to the subject. This is the major problem for many

spiritual seekers. Even the advanced student of Vedanta, although understands

that he is that witnessing consciousness, he still looking for some Brahman out

there. Everybody says I understand Vedanta but I have not realized. That the

understanding itself is realization, is missed completely. One of the problem is

that during the saadhana time, the mind is set to look ‘out there’ for

Iswara, while the scriptures keep pounding at us repeatedly – na idam yat idam

upaasate- not this that you worship is Brahman, since any worship involves

objectification. One has to switch from karma yoga to jnaana yoga in the

evolution of self-realization. Hence we understand Vedanta but mind is not ready

to switch. Vedanta is good to listen in the class but when problems come, I rush

to the temple to take shelter

in Bhagavaan. Vedantin is one who understands Vedanta, and when the problems

come seeks solace in that understanding – as Krishna says ‘maatrasparshaastu

kounteya shiitoShNasukhaduHkhadaaH, aagamaapaayino2nityaaH, tan titikshaswa

bhaarata|| - only because of sense-contact one undergoes suffering, they come

and go and therefore forbear them; as what comes and goes is only mithyaa or

anaatma, while I am ever free and effulgent ever present consciousness. What

comes and goes is due to praarabda. That teaching has to sink in. Then the

world that comes and goes is seen as vibhuuti of the Lord or vibhuuti of myself.

 

The confusion for many Vedantic students can be formulated in terms of four

ways:

1. I have an understanding, but I am not a jnaani, since I have no knowledge of

Brahman.

2. I have understanding, but I have not realized; I am not a jiivan mukta.

3. I have understanding, but I have no experience or Brahma anubhava, I need to

meditate on it; no more these intellectual gymnastics.

4. I have understanding, but I am not liberated or I am not mukta.

 

These confusions are interlinked. They get confounded by statements by some

experts. Here are some statements. It is very difficult to realize. Advaita is

very difficult to understand, why the teaching cannot be simplified. Bhagavaan

Ramanuja says jnaana yoga is paradharma, while karma yoga is swadharma; it is

better to do swadharma than paradharma, said Bhagavaan Krishna. Best and simple

path is prapatti or sharaNaagati. In kaliyuga, all one has to do is bhagavat

naama samkeerthana, that is singing the glories of the Lord with the faith that

He will take care of everything. To added difficulties, some say, one has to

take up sanyaasa to realize; even if one is a jnaani. As a gRihastha, one cannot

realize; may be possible then, but not now. Even those gRihastha, who have

claimed that they have realized have not really realized, because of the

previous proposition that only sanyaasins can realize. There is a difference

between jnaani and jiivan mukta.

There are several types of jiivanmuktas (dvaita in advaita!), and the list goes

on and on, and the confusion perpetuates. In contrast, Vedanta says you are

nitya mukta swaruupaH, you are eternally free. There seems to be big

misunderstanding here.

 

The statements that I have understood Vedanta but I have not realized, and I am

looking for aatma anubhava or the experience of self-realization, I need to

meditate on it, etc., are all in a way reflections of objectification of that

Brahman with inherent remoteness associated with it. The Vedic statement is

aham brahma asmi – I AM BRAHMAN – it is not I will become Brahman or I have

to realize Brahman, but I am right now and right here, ihaiva, Brahman only. The

tendency to objectify Brahman occurs at subtle level, in the very longing to

know Brahman, and thereby resulting in the loss of discrimination or viveka at

that subtle level. ‘aham dhyaata param dhyeyam akhanDam khaDate katham?- how

can you divide that indivisible as meditator and meditated, asks dattaatreya in

avadhuuta gita. That I am the very existence-consciousness that pervades the

subject and the object, the meditator and the meditated, has to be clearly

understood using the

discriminative intellect. Such a suukshma buddhi or subtle mind develops as one

constantly listens to the teachings of the scriptures taught by a competent

guru, and reflects on it until the indivisible substantive of the subject-object

duality is clearly understood. Then one recognizes that I am – the substantive

of both the subject and the object without destroying the subject or object. It

is pure understanding a fact as a fact. That is the knowledge that removes the

wrong notions of taking ‘this’ as ‘I am’, which is the very essence of

ego. That knowledge is immediate and direct, if the pratibandhaas or obstacles

for the knowledge are removed. It is like seeing the midday sun, direct and

immediate, as soon as the obstacles, the clouds ‘covering the sun’ move out.

The clouds can never cover the sun, yet clouds appear to cover the sun. The

clouds that are covering the sun, I can see them only because of the sun that is

being covered. In

the very seeing of the clouds, if I should ‘see’ the sun covered by the

clouds by seeing the sunlight that is illuminating the clouds, then I see the

sun all the time. I cannot see the sun directly anyway, but I can recognize the

sun by the reflection of the sunlight by the objects, objects include the clouds

that are covering the sun. This discriminative faculty to differentiate the

eternal from ephemeral can develop only if the attachments to the ephemerals are

given up. Hence, vairaagya or dispassion is extremely important in order to

shift my attention from the objects to the subject.

 

The following provides a glimpse of the process of self-realization. If bright

light is all over the room I cannot see that light. In the middle of a

room-space even though there is light all over, I can not recognize it. However

if I place an object, then I can see the object, since there is light falling on

the object for me to see the object, and I say there is an object out there.

Interestingly, the truth is I can never see the object. What do I see? I see the

reflected light that falls on the object. The IMAGE of the object based on the

light of reflection, forms as vRitti or thought in the mind. The content of the

vRitti is the attributive content of the object (starting from form, which is

based on reflected image of the original). Extending the analogy further, it is

again not the vRitti that I ‘see’. The vRitti is like an object that forms

in the mind, but as it raises it reflects the light of consciousness that is all

pervading and ever

shining. The reflected light of consciousness is the knowledge of the vRitti

– just as the reflected light from object makes the object known. I cannot see

the all pervading sun light if there are no objects reflecting that light. In

the same way I cannot ‘see’ the all pervading light of consciousness without

the vRitti or thought reflecting the light of consciousness. In the outside

light case, even though it is the reflected light from the object that I am

actually seeing, my attention is not on the reflected light but on the

form-attribute or attributive content of the object that is reflecting. I do not

even recognize the light but recognize that this is the object different from

the other object purely based on the images formed based on reflected lights. In

the same way, I do not pay attention to the reflected light of consciousness

from the vRitti or thought but get carried away with the contents of the

thought. The discrimination or

viveka or meditation is to shift my attention from the contents of the thoughts

to the light of consciousness reflected by the thought. The thought content is

the object ‘this’. Meditation therefore is to shift my attention from the

contents of the thought to the light of consciousness reflected by the thought,

because of which I have the knowledge of the thought. Without the thought, there

is no reflection; yet it is not the contents of the thought that I must pay my

attention, but to the reflected light of consciousness by the thought.

 

Now, here is what true renunciation or sanyaasa involves. True renunciation, in

simple terms, is renouncing my attention from the contents of the thoughts

without getting carried away by them, and then shifting my attention to the

light of consciousness that is reflecting the thoughts. This is the essential

meaning of the statement- ‘tyaagenaike amRitatvamanasuH’. The

thought-contents are the attributes of the world of objects. Thus renouncing the

world is renouncing the world of objects. When I say I am attached to the sense

objects means that I am getting attached to the sense-contents of those

thoughts. Sanyaasa yoga involves, then, renouncing my attention from the

thought-contents (sanyaasa) and attaching my attention (yoga) to the light of

consciousness reflecting from the thoughts. This process is easier, if the

contents of the thoughts are centered on the thought of the Lord, than on the

sense objects, because of the possibility of getting

hijacked by the sensuous thoughts. This, in the essence, is japa-yoga. If

thoughts are not there, then we have a mind without the thoughts. That is pure

reflecting pool of mind which forms the basis for the thoughts. Thoughts are

natural for the mind. If there are no thoughts the mind goes to sleep. When the

mind is free from thoughts, it is ‘as though’ non-functioning as in the

deep-sleep state. Light of consciousness also gets reflected by the mind-pool

as the background reflection and is called chidaabhaasa or just saakshii or more

correctly upahita chaitanya. If the thoughts are there in the mind, besides the

background mind reflection, the localized thoughts also get reflected by the

all-pervading light of consciousness. Thus if thoughts are there, I am

conscious of the thoughts and if thoughts are not there I am conscious of the

absence of the thoughts. That is the silent mind, in say nirvikalpaka samaadhi.

This is our normal outlook,

since we are looking at the contents and the absence of the contents of the

thoughts. It is like looking at a bag, full or empty. In either case, we are not

paying attention to the light of consciousness because of which I have the

knowledge of the thoughts and knowledge of the absence of the thoughts. As long

as there are upaadhi-s, the mind and intellect, the light of consciousness will

be getting reflected as the thoughts rise or subside. If thoughts are not there,

in the silent mind, I am aware of the silent mind. That means the light of

consciousness getting reflected by the silent mind and I am aware of the absence

of the thoughts. Thus awareness involves the reflecting light of consciousness

either of the thoughts or of the absence of the thoughts. I am not the silent

mind or the mind with the thoughts. Meditation is shifting my attention all the

time to the reflecting consciousness and recognizing or realizing from the

reflected light of

consciousness that I am the light of consciousness that is getting reflected.

That is the essence of self-realization. Firmly abiding in the knowledge that I

am pure knowledge or pure light of consciousness in whose light the reflections

are taking place in the mind with the thoughts or without the thoughts. Looking

at the reflections, I have to be conscious of myself since it is my light that

is getting reflected. This is similar to looking at the reflected image in the

mirror, I recognize my original face since it is my face that is getting

reflected. Now, the scriptures come and teach me that I am, in fact, the all

pervading the eternal light of consciousness that is ever existing, and it is

that light alone that is getting reflected in multitude of BMI and all the

distortions and abrasions in the reflections are due to the nature of the

reflecting media. Chinmayam vyaapi yat sarvam trilokyam sa charaacharam|, tat

patham darshitam yena, tasmi shree

gurave namaH|| The light of consciousness pervades everything, in all three

fields of experiences, the waking, dream and deep-sleep states. To that teacher

who is pointing to that reality, my prostrations.

 

In essence, the all-pervading self by itself cannot realize and need not

realize. The inert mind cannot realize, being inert. The one who needs to

realize is the intermediate pseudo ‘I’, who is confused between the subject

and the object, and identifies himself with the inert object as, I am this; the

essence of my ego. Because of this confusion, I am taking myself what I am not

as I am and suffering as a consequence of that misunderstanding.

It is to that confused I, Vedanta teaches through a teacher and it is that

confused I that needs to realize by seeing the truth clearly. The

self-realization is then shifting my attention first to the reflection of the

light of consciousness from the mind or from the thoughts that rise in the mind

and see myself as myself using the reflected light of consciousness as I am the

light that is getting reflected. Thus self-realization is possible ONLY when

there is light of consciousness (which is always there), and there is the mind

and there is reflection by the light of consciousness by the mind, that is the

knowledge of the mind, with or without thoughts. I, the upahita chaitanya,

currently identifying myself with the contents of the mind or thoughts in the

mind as I am this – now pay more attention to my light of consciousness that

is getting reflected by the mind with the thoughts or without the thoughts that

is involved in all jnaana prakriyas. By

recognizing that I am that light of consciousness that is getting reflected by

the mind with or without thoughts, I recognize or realize that I am in fact the

pure all pervading eternal light of consciousness that Vedanta is teaching in

the statement – tat tvam asi.

 

This is similar to recognize or realize the beauty of my face by looking at the

reflected image of my face in the mirror. I am not the image in the mirror but I

am the original but I cannot see the face without the mirror. I cannot see the

light of consciousness that I am without any reflecting medium present – that

medium can be either the silent mind or the mind with the thoughts. This is what

Vedanta calls as upahita chaitanya – that is upaadhi sahita chaitanya,

consciousness that is reflected by the localized equipments, the mind. Constant

awareness of the reflecting light of consciousness – is the knowledge of the

consciousness or constant awareness of I am – I am – what Ramana calls as

– aham aham tayaa sphurati hRit swayam, spontaneously rising in the very core

of my personality as I am – I am – I am. This constant ‘I am’ or

‘aham spuraNa’ realization is termed also as akhanDaakaara vRitti or

continuous reflections by the

mind with thoughts or without thoughts. The aham sphuraNa or I am thought again

and again rises in the mind only, since saakshii is akarthaa, abhoktaa, and

ajnaata too. Hence realization is only in the waking state, where the mind is

active. It is not the absence of the mind, but the mind that is dynamically

involved in the inquiry, with the help of conscious entity behind, but now in

the direction provided by Vedanta shravana and manana. What is absent or gets

dissolved is the mind that is extrovert. The introvert mind, which is now called

pure mind, is turned inwards to enquire within, and is now able to shift its

attention from the thought to the reflected light of consciousness from the

thoughts that arise, and then realize that saakshii the witnessing consciousness

or the upahita chaitanya that I am is, in fact, is pure infinite absolute

consciousness, that I am as Brahman. This understanding is clearly expressed by

the example of –pot space. Pot

space is Upahita Akaasha – or space enclosed by the pot walls, the upaadhi of

the pot. As long as pot is there, pot-space is there. Self realization for

pot-space is to recognize that I am not the pot, but I am the space in the pot.

Up to this part is tvam padaartha jnaanam –i.e., understanding of ‘who that

I am’ is. Now, Vedanta further teaches the pot that the pot-space, that you

think you are, is in fact the total space, that is eternal, indivisible and

immaculately pure in spite of the apparent limitations due to enclosure of the

pot walls, sometimes even stinking due to something other than the space put in

there – that is the tat tvam asi- statement. For pot-space to realize that I

am the total space, it has to understand the mahaavaakya - tat tvam asi

statement. Similarly via anvya-vyatireka I understand that I am the upahita

chaitanya. To that student, Vedanta teaches that - You, the upahita chaitanya

is, in fact, – tat asi - that

all pervading Brahman which is satyam, jnaanam and anantam. Pot-space does not

have to break the walls of the pot to recognize that I am the all pervading

space. It recognizes that even the pot-walls are in me and not that I am in the

pot. They are in me but I am not in them- look at my glory, Arjuna.

 

All these examples – reflected consciousness – or pot-space, etc, are meant

for only 1) to recognize that I am that light of consciousness that is

constantly getting reflected by the mind with or without the objective thoughts

and 2) and as long as upaadhis are there as in the case of pot-space, the

consciousness ‘as though’ is limited as the upahita chaitanya. Hence the

scriptures says – yo veda nihitam guhaayaa parmevyoman – recognize that

param brahma in the very core of one’s own individuality – the heart or the

essence of the individual – the hero of ones individual’s autobiography.

Therefore, Upaadhi-s are required for reflecting the light of consciousness.

Recognition of myself is only via reflecting medium of the upaadhi-s. As long as

the upaadhi-s are there upahita chaitanya is being recognized as I am that. It

is direct and immediate since it is the recognition of ever present and ever

evident fact. The ignorance of I am

this and this will go away immediately once I understand that I am that because

of which the knowledge of this and this can arise. yan manasaa na manute,

yenaahurmano matam| tadeva brahma tvam viddh, nedam yadidam upaasate|| - that

which you cannot think of but because of which you are able to think of, that

alone is Brahman, not this that you worship – says Kena.

 

We will address in the next post the four ways of getting confused by a Vedantic

student mentioned above, as this write-up is getting too long.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

In fact Vedanta says I, as witnessing consciousness,

am present all the time, in the waking, dream and deep-sleep states. ‘tvam’

in the ‘tat tvam

>

> We will address in the next post the four ways of getting confused by a

Vedantic student mentioned above, as this write-up is getting too long.

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

Dear sir

 

Commentaries,explanation,description, etc require lot of names to identify

objects as well as incidents and circumstances but basic problem is that name is

not the thing.

As you say I am witnessing consciousness can not hold true discussion since I am

the consciousness.I am watching is a duality.

Ethena sarve vyakhyatha vyakhyatha

evam mukthi phalani avastha dhruthe thadavastha dhruthe

anavrithi sabdath navriththi sabdath. Veda vyasa

Nomenclature refers to either a list of names and/or terms, or to the system of

principles, procedures and terms related to naming - which is the assigning of a

word or phrase to a particular object or property.[1] The principles of naming

vary from the relatively informal conventions of everyday speech to the

internationally-agreed principles, rules and recommendations that govern the

formation and use of the specialist terms used in scientific and other

disciplines.

Wikipedia

That is how people can not understand non duality and remained a mere theory.

If one says that seer and seen are one indicates advaitha.

Seer is the collected knowledge so also seen.Both are pictures but not

seeing.One can not picture seeing which is true action.

Seer seeing is duality since seeing the seen only which was stored as memory.

thank you

sekhar

[Guest guest]

--- On Sun, 11/22/09, void <rgoteti wrote:

 

As you say I am witnessing consciousness can not hold true discussion since I am

the consciousness. I am watching is a duality.

 

Sir - my praNAms.

 

I do not remember making any specific statement that you just mentioned above.

Witnessing consciousness is just witnesses the comments that are made and also

not made! That is what the term witness means not involved in the crime.

 

Since langauge is meant for communication and communication involves duality, I

give up in trying to understand what you were trying to communicate.

 

What I discussed is Vedanta as I understand passed on by gurushishya parampara.

 

Understanding is - the perceived or witnessed duality is mityaa that is sat asat

vilakshaNam - neither real nor unreal. Hence witness can watch the apparent

duality and both the witness and the witnessed sublimates into one at absolute

reality where there is no witness or witnessed. When that understanding sinks

in our communication become redundent.

 

If that understanding is not there, it is better to approach a teacher for clear

understanding of mahavaakyam that was discussed. Anything else is a futile

attempt to communicate. Therefore I remain.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

>

> --- On Sun, 11/22/09, void <rgoteti wrote:

>

> As you say I am witnessing consciousness can not hold true discussion since I

am the consciousness. I am watching is a duality.

>

> Sir - my praNAms.

>

> I do not remember making any specific statement that you just mentioned above.

Witnessing consciousness is just witnesses the comments that are made and also

not made! That is what the term witness means not involved in the crime.

>

> Since langauge is meant for communication and communication involves duality,

I give up in trying to understand what you were trying to communicate.

>

> What I discussed is Vedanta as I understand passed on by gurushishya

parampara.

>

> Understanding is - the perceived or witnessed duality is mityaa that is sat

asat vilakshaNam - neither real nor unreal. Hence witness can watch the

apparent duality and both the witness and the witnessed sublimates into one at

absolute reality where there is no witness or witnessed. When that

understanding sinks in our communication become redundent.

>

> If that understanding is not there, it is better to approach a teacher for

clear understanding of mahavaakyam that was discussed. Anything else is a futile

attempt to communicate. Therefore I remain.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>We begin with assertion and live in assertions and end in assertions.

So called words like consciousness, me,they,we, mind etc are all logically

asserted.

Act of assertion are many like, affirmation, charge,claim, contention,

denial,testimony, dis affirmation and many more.

This assertiveness blocks true communication between people.To say so one should

feel so but both are conditional and asserted from certain parameters.Instead of

seeing the conditions for the generated feeling people feel so and say so.

 

thank you

sekhar

[Guest guest]

--- On Sun, 11/22/09, void <rgoteti wrote:

 

>We begin with assertion and live in assertions and end in assertions.

 

Sir - PraNAms

 

That sounds like Godel's incomplete theorm.

 

I give up.

 

Thanks for this failure in communication with your assertions.

 

My perspective is related to apurusheya vaakyam which is beyond human

assertions.

 

It is important to follow - vedic advise - tat vijnaanaartham gurum EVA

abhigacchet, of course with samit paaNiH.

 

Since I fail to communicate, I will not respond on the above assertions.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Acharya Sadaji,

 

I might have totally misunderstood you. I request a clarification.

 

You said:

 

QUOTE

 

In all objective or transactional knowledge, there is a tripuTi or three fold

aspect of pramaata-prameya-pramANa, knower-known-and the means of knowing are

involved. Among the three, only pramaata remains the same while prameya, the

object of knowledge, and pramANa, the means of knowledge keep changing. In the

waking state, mind in conjunction with conscious entity, I, becomes pramaata,

while prameya, the world of objects, keep continuously changing, and the means,

pramANa, also changes depending on the objects to be known. As we go to dream

state, mind that has been a part pramaata, now itself becomes an object of my

perception as it projects multitude of plurality. The projections of the mind

keep changing and I, using part of the mind become pramaata or knower of the

field. In the deep-sleep state the mind is essentially folded and I alone am

there †" as a saakshii, a witnessing consciousness, without any knowledge of

objects, and therefore no associated thoughts present. Thus in the deep-sleep

state, the absence of all projections or absence of duality becomes the subject

of knowledge, thus itself forming an experience.

 

UNQUOTE

 

I would like to know what is the authority you go by in arriving at your above

conclusion.

 

As I view it, the moment we accept the existence of a triad (tripuTi), we are

accepting a split of the Non-Dual. No part of the split can therefore set any

claims to changelessness (can remain the same). So, if pramAta is the first

part of the triad, then that pramAta is also subject to change.

 

As a ten year old, I knew only Malayalam. However, today, I know a few more

other languages. As pramAta per se, it then is a fact that I have undergone a

change - I am now more knowledgeable.

 

So, it is not the pramAta (a mere part of the apparent split) that is

changeless, but the Consciousness that seems to project the seeming split.

Consciousness is not the pramAta.

 

That Consciousness is there in all three states and that is the only one

unchanging truth there is. The plurality including the pramAta, be it of waking

or dreams, is a seeming projection on it. When we try to explain it in terms of

the whole mind or part of the mind, aren't we likely to be misinterpreted? This

is my humble doubt, with great respect to your knowledge and erudtion.

 

I think the mis-communication between you and Sekharji arises from the above.

Of course, I am not quite sure about it as I have not read the complete exchange

of mails between the two of you.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Nair Ji , Sada Ji and Sekar Ji

 

If there is a conscousness that is acting as the pramaata and the same "concousness" is also acting as the prameya, the object of knowledge, and also as the pramANa, the means of knowledge , "Advaita" is established once if we abide in that consciousness and not indulge in the tripuTi unless in sport. Would this be what is being sought here ?

 

Om Namo Narayanaya

Rammohan

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nairji and Rammohanji - PraNAms

 

Rammohanji - the analysis presented so far is based on the tvam padartham. I

have not yet analyzed the tat padartham. That needs to be done to complete the

story before the identity of tvan amd tat is to be established.

-----

Nairji

 

First thanks for your comments. Not sure anybody is reading these.

 

Yes you are right and your comments suggest that the statements require more

clarification.

 

From the point of aatmaa - pramaataa, prameya and pramANa are superimpositions -

 

jnaatRijnaanajneyabhedaH

pare naatmani vidhyate|

chidaanandaika ruupatvaat

dhiipyate svayameva hi||

 

There are no pramANa-prameya-pramaataa distinctions in the SUPREME SELF, on

account of its being pure consciousness-limitless. It shines in all its glory by

itself - says Shankara in Atmabodha.

 

The whole analysis is therefore from the point of jiiva who wants to realize,

since jnaana yoga and self-realization topic pertain to him not to pure

consciousness which is shining in its full glory all by itself.

 

Therefore the whole analysis is within vyavahaara.

 

Hence the statements are only within vyaavahaarika knowledge where I, the

conscious entity take myself a knower, pramaataa, the world in front of me is

the known, prameya and the knowledge that takes place via the mind and

intellect, the essential instruments of knowledge, besides the other pramANas

required depending on the objects, pratyaksha, anumaana, etc. I am the same

knower that studied when I was a child from grade 1, graduating class after

class, until I finished my Ph.D. If the pramaataa keep changing, then the

knowledge I gained will not be available for me to do my Ph.D. I will never be

able go beyond class 1.

 

Extending this argument further:

 

Krishna says all this vedantic knowledge will not go waste, even if one does not

realize in this life. He will be borne in a suitable environment for him to

progress rapidly in the next life. Hence the samskaara will not go away even

after life. That pramaataa is being referred here with the subtle body that

travels with him. Hence the statements that within vyavahaara, I, in conjunction

with the mind and intellect, the subtle body, act as pramaataa.

 

Yes, pure consciousness is not pramaataa as Atmabodha sloka says.

 

But pure mind is not pramaataa either.

 

The combination I am this - is what swami Chinmayanandaji calls as born of the

unholy wed-lock - that ego is pramaataa, with one leg in the I am as the

conscious entity and one leg in the -this- the inert entity. Hence, if I recall

the statement that was made was - I with the mind is pramaataa. Even in dream

state, the statement involves I with part of the mind looking at the rest of the

mental projection, which is now prameya.

 

When I recognize that I am pure consciousness, the problem is solved and no

further discussions are warranted.

 

I recognize there are other ways of expressing what I wrote - Hence the super

title - A perspective. Of course I have no intension of doing wrong

communication.

 

Hope this clarifies. If not let me know.

 

With shree shekar - I did not have any communication! since I did not understand

what was said in his posts for any communication to happen. May be you can help

in translating what he said in relation to the topic of the discussion, if it is

pertinent.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- On Mon, 11/23/09, madathilnair <madathilnair wrote:

 

 

 

I would like to know what is the authority you go by in arriving at your above

conclusion.

 

As I view it, the moment we accept the existence of a triad (tripuTi), we are

accepting a split of the Non-Dual. No part of the split can therefore set any

claims to changelessness (can remain the same). So, if pramAta is the first part

of the triad, then that pramAta is also subject to change.

 

As a ten year old, I knew only Malayalam. However, today, I know a few more

other languages. As pramAta per se, it then is a fact that I have undergone a

change - I am now more knowledgeable.

 

So, it is not the pramAta (a mere part of the apparent split) that is

changeless, but the Consciousness that seems to project the seeming split.

Consciousness is not the pramAta.

 

That Consciousness is there in all three states and that is the only one

unchanging truth there is. The plurality including the pramAta, be it of waking

or dreams, is a seeming projection on it. When we try to explain it in terms of

the whole mind or part of the mind, aren't we likely to be misinterpreted? This

is my humble doubt, with great respect to your knowledge and erudtion.

 

I think the mis-communication between you and Sekharji arises from the above. Of

course, I am not quite sure about it as I have not read the complete exchange of

mails between the two of you.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

------

--- On Mon, 11/23/09, Rammohan <s_rammohan wrote:

 

 

 

 

If there is a conscousness that is acting as the pramaata and the same

" concousness " is also acting as the prameya, the object of knowledge, and also

as the pramANa, the means of knowledge , " Advaita " is established once if we

abide in that consciousness and not indulge in the tripuTi unless in sport.

Would this be what is being sought here ?

 

Om Namo Narayanaya

Rammohan

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Rammohan <s_rammohan wrote:

>

> Hari Om Nair Ji , Sada Ji and Sekar Ji

>  

> If there is a conscousness that is acting as the pramaata  and the same

" concousness " is also acting as the prameya, the object of knowledge, and

also as the pramANa, the means of knowledge ,  " Advaita " is established once if

we  abide in that consciousness and not indulge in the tripuTi unless in sport.

Would this be what is being sought here ?

>  

> Om Namo Narayanaya

> Rammohan

>  

> Dear Mr rammohan

 

We all understand the different out put from different structures like

sentence,paragraph,essay etc.How do we infer meaning or sense from all these

things?

State of advaitha is not established but real.Where as dwaitha is established

for our day to day errands.

That is why Adi Sankara advised Kriyadwaitham na kar hi chit.

Bhavadwaitham sada kuryat.

 

Feeling is non dual where as all verbatim is dual 

 

thank you

sekhar

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadanandaji,

 

You mentioned that you were not sure if anybody is reading these posts, so I

just wanted to say that I have been carefully reading all your posts and

learning a lot from them. I haven't replied b/c I had nothing to say but I hope

you will continue!

 

Thanks,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

DearSada-ji,

According to vedAnta paribhAShA the mind has three main divisions in the process

of seeing, namely,

(1) the part within the body,

(2) the part that extends from the body to the object perceived,

(3) the part that coincides with the object.

The first part above is known as pramaataa and the consciousness manifest in it

is called pramaata-chaitanya. This is the perceiver. The consciousness manifest

in the second part is called pramaana-chaitanya, or the means of knowledge. The

consciousness manifest in the third part is pramiti-chaitanya or percept.

The object perceived is called prameya. Since the third part of the mind

mentioned above coincides with the object, prameya-chaitanya, the consciousness

underlying the object and pramiti-chaitanya become identical.

Thus pramaata is the part of the mind within the body with the reflection

of consciousness on it. You have expressed the same idea by saying that I with

the mind is pramaataa. The subtle body undergoes change all the time by the

addition and deletion of knowledge, karmaphala and vaasanas. The br. up. says

that this subtle body carries with it at the time of death whatever has been

learnt, karmaphala and vaasanas. The subtle body is changing all the time,

though I always recognize it as mine, just as I recognize my gross body as mine

even though it goes on changing. So it would be correct to say that pramaata,

being the changing mind itself,with the reflection of consciousness,undergoes

change just like the pramaaNa and prameya, whenever any knowledge takes place.

Neither the mind by itself nor consciousness by itself is the pramaata. THe

pramaata is the blend of these two.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

> The combination I am this - is what swami Chinmayanandaji calls as born of the

unholy wed-lock - that ego is pramaataa, with one leg in the I am as the

conscious entity and one leg in the -this- the inert entity. Hence, if I recall

the statement that was made was - I with the mind is pramaataa. Even in dream

state, the statement involves I with part of the mind looking at the rest of the

mental projection, which is now prameya.

>

> When I recognize that I am pure consciousness, the problem is solved and no

further discussions are warranted.

>

> I recognize there are other ways of expressing what I wrote - Hence the super

title - A perspective. Of course I have no intension of doing wrong

communication.

>

> Hope this clarifies. If not let me know.

>

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

>

> --- On Mon, 11/23/09, madathilnair <madathilnair wrote:

>

>

>

> I would like to know what is the authority you go by in arriving at your above

conclusion.

>

> As I view it, the moment we accept the existence of a triad (tripuTi), we are

accepting a split of the Non-Dual. No part of the split can therefore set any

claims to changelessness (can remain the same). So, if pramAta is the first part

of the triad, then that pramAta is also subject to change.

>

> As a ten year old, I knew only Malayalam. However, today, I know a few more

other languages. As pramAta per se, it then is a fact that I have undergone a

change - I am now more knowledgeable.

>

> So, it is not the pramAta (a mere part of the apparent split) that is

changeless, but the Consciousness that seems to project the seeming split.

Consciousness is not the pramAta.

>

> That Consciousness is there in all three states and that is the only one

unchanging truth there is. The plurality including the pramAta, be it of waking

or dreams, is a seeming projection on it. When we try to explain it in terms of

the whole mind or part of the mind, aren't we likely to be misinterpreted? This

is my humble doubt, with great respect to your knowledge and erudtion.

>

> I think the mis-communication between you and Sekharji arises from the above.

Of course, I am not quite sure about it as I have not read the complete exchange

of mails between the two of you.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

> ------

> --- On Mon, 11/23/09, Rammohan <s_rammohan wrote:

>

>

>

>

> If there is a conscousness that is acting as the pramaata and the same

" concousness " is also acting as the prameya, the object of knowledge, and also

as the pramANa, the means of knowledge , " Advaita " is established once if we

abide in that consciousness and not indulge in the tripuTi unless in sport.

Would this be what is being sought here ?

>

> Om Namo Narayanaya

> Rammohan

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sastriji,

 

Thank you very much for your explanation based on VP.

 

Let me accept it with respect to the process of one's 'seeing an external

object'. Let us say pramAta in this case is the part of the mind within the

body with the reflection of consciousness on it.

 

But, then, how can we account for our being aware of our own mind - I mean the

flow of thoughts? How can we define pramAta here? There are no pramAnAs in

operation now. Is it a part of the mind just being aware of other parts of it

with reflection of Consciousness on it? Does VP say anything about it?

 

Even in 'seeing an external object', the pramANAs (sense organs - most

importantly eyes here) themselves are objects. When I say " I see " ,the existence

of the pramANa - the eyes - are immediately acknowledged. That is knowledge

for which there is no need for any external pramANa.

 

Can we therefore deduce that Consciousness itself is the ony pramANa both in

one's knowing one's mind as well as the external world of objects (since

pramANAs themselves are objects to something other than themselves)? That

raises the possibility that one can be aware even without a body or mind.

Aren't we all unconsciously trying to achieve just that in our quest for the

truth about ourselves?

 

Sorry for the garbled thinking if I really sound garbled.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Naoir

_____________________

 

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> DearSada-ji,

> According to vedAnta paribhAShA the mind has three main divisions in the

process of seeing, namely,

> (1) the part within the body,

> (2) the part that extends from the body to the object perceived,

> (3) the part that coincides with the object.

> The first part above is known as pramaataa and the consciousness manifest in

it is called pramaata-chaitanya. This is the perceiver. The consciousness

manifest in the second part is called pramaana-chaitanya, or the means of

knowledge. The consciousness manifest in the third part is pramiti-chaitanya or

percept.

> The object perceived is called prameya. Since the third part of the mind

mentioned above coincides with the object, prameya-chaitanya, the consciousness

underlying the object and pramiti-chaitanya become identical.

> Thus pramaata is the part of the mind within the body with the reflection

of consciousness on it. You have expressed the same idea by saying that I with

the mind is pramaataa. The subtle body undergoes change all the time by the

addition and deletion of knowledge, karmaphala and vaasanas. The br. up. says

that this subtle body carries with it at the time of death whatever has been

learnt, karmaphala and vaasanas. The subtle body is changing all the time,

though I always recognize it as mine, just as I recognize my gross body as mine

even though it goes on changing. So it would be correct to say that pramaata,

being the changing mind itself,with the reflection of consciousness,undergoes

change just like the pramaaNa and prameya, whenever any knowledge takes place.

> Neither the mind by itself nor consciousness by itself is the pramaata. THe

pramaata is the blend of these two.

> Regards,

> S.N.Sastri

>

[Guest guest]

Satriji - PraNams

 

Thanks for clarification. Yes you are absolutely right.

 

Although I had discussed in the knowledge series, I do not agree the concept of

mind going out part. For me that is a minor part, but the end result is the

same. The one who wants to realize is also this combined- I am identified with

this is - where this stands for the substle body, that transmigrates life after

life.

 

Hari Om

Sada

 

 

--- On Mon, 11/23/09, snsastri <sn.sastri wrote:

 

 

DearSada-ji,

According to vedAnta paribhAShA the mind has three main divisions in the process

of seeing, namely,

(1) the part within the body,

(2) the part that extends from the body to the object perceived,

(3) the part that coincides with the object.

The first part above is known as pramaataa and the consciousness manifest in it

is called pramaata-chaitanya. This is the perceiver. The consciousness manifest

in the second part is called pramaana-chaitanya, or the means of knowledge. The

consciousness manifest in the third part is pramiti-chaitanya or percept.

The object perceived is called prameya. Since the third part of the mind

mentioned above coincides with the object, prameya-chaitanya, the consciousness

underlying the object and pramiti-chaitanya become identical.

Thus pramaata is the part of the mind within the body with the reflection of

consciousness on it. You have expressed the same idea by saying that I with the

mind is pramaataa. The subtle body undergoes change all the time by the addition

and deletion of knowledge, karmaphala and vaasanas. The br. up. says that this

subtle body carries with it at the time of death whatever has been learnt,

karmaphala and vaasanas. The subtle body is changing all the time, though I

always recognize it as mine, just as I recognize my gross body as mine even

though it goes on changing. So it would be correct to say that pramaata, being

the changing mind itself,with the reflection of consciousness, undergoes change

just like the pramaaNa and prameya, whenever any knowledge takes place.

Neither the mind by itself nor consciousness by itself is the pramaata. THe

pramaata is the blend of these two.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

--- On Mon, 11/23/09, madathilnair <madathilnair wrote:

 

 

Nairji - PraNAms - Thanks again.

 

 

I think we are saying the same thing differently.

 

We need to separate the knowledge vs memory which is stored knowledge and/or

experience.

 

During knowledge process we are bringing pramaataa -prameya and pramaaNa - the

triad together for knowledge to takes place.

This knowledge is stored in the memory of the individual.

The recollection of the previous knowledge is also done by the mind only.

Hence chitta is taken as part of the subtle body only.

The conscious entity by itself is akartaa, abhoktaa and ajnaata too.

The combination of I with the subtle body that includes - mind, intellect,

ahankaara and chitta are involved but the agency role is taken by ahankaara - as

I am the doer- knower too. If everything changes continuously then we run into

problem of kshaNika vijnaana vaada. we need to accept a knower who is able to

recollect the knowledge that he knew and build on that knowledge future

knowledge. His knowledge may be evolving - which is separate from the knowing

agent who knows the past and use it to udnerstand the present knowledge.

 

One can perhaps express this in some other way - but the idea is the same.

 

Anyway I hope this clarifies.

 

The analysis of the main post is more on the anvaya vyatireka to zero in as I am

the witnessing consciousness witnessing the jnaana prakriya too.

 

Shankara in that sloka is referring to the sakshii chaitanya after using anvaya

vyatireka. The original post was trying to arrive at that only. I do not see any

disagreements.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

[There exactly lies the crux of my disagreement. I can look at the example from

another angle. Had I, the old 1st grader, not acquired additional knowledge of

English language,I wouldn't be able to understand John Milton now after taking

an M.A. in English literature. Although I use the pronoun " I " in saying 'I was a

1st grader' and 'I am an M.A. in English literature', from the phenomenal sense

of the apparent split of the non-dual into a triad, the pramAta of the first

statement is sans English knowledge and, hence, qualitiatively inferior to the

'I am M.A.' braggart. So, we have two pramAtAs - the innocent 1st grader and the

later braggart. The unchanging 'I' that Advaitins apprehend in them is therefore

the substratum which sustains the two pramAtAs during their ephemeral existence

and bridges them across time. Like Shankara said in Dakshinamurti Stotram:

" bAlyAdishwapi jAgradAdishu sadA.....). If we take that unchanging 'I' (ahaM iti

antasphurantaM

sadA) as the pramAta of the ephemeral triad, then we would be working against

the very spirit of the verse.]

__

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair-ji,

I suppose your question is, what, according to advaita, is the process by which

we become aware of our states of mind such as happiness, sorrow, anger, etc.

This has been dealt with in VP.

The fundamental principle in advaita is that pure consciousness, by itself, is

not a cognizer. It can become a cognizer only through a vRitti of the mind. In

the case of external objects the mind needs the help of the external sense

organs to form a vRitti. But in the case of mental states such as happiness,

etc., the mind itself forms a vRitti of that nature. This vRitti is illumined by

consciousness and cognition of the happiness, etc., arises immediately. Such

cognition, without the aid of the sense organs, is known as kevala sAkShi

pratyaksha (direct cognition by the witness alone). VP makes it clear that even

for such a cognition a vRitti is essential.

When VP speaks of the mind stretching out and taking the form of the

object, what is meant is only that the mind comes into contact with the object

through the eyes. When a sound is heard, the mind stretches out through the ear

and comes into contact with the sound. Sound has no form and so the statement

that the mind takes the form of the object cannot be taken literally when the

object of cognition is sound. The same applies to smell and taste also. What is

intended to be conveyed by the description of such a process is only that

consciousness needs a vRitti to become a cognizer and the mind needs the

external organs to form a vRitti in the case of external objects. In the case of

mental states such as happiness, the mind itself is in contact with the state

and so it can form a vRitti of the nature of happiness.

Here also the pramAtA is the mind with the reflection of consciousness as in the

case of external objects.

In view of the above I suppose the further questions do not arise. No pramANa is

necessary for the mind to contact its own state, as is necessary in the case of

external objects (where the external sense organs have to serve as pramANa).

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

 

 

advaitin , " madathilnair " <madathilnair wrote:

>

> Dear Sastriji,

>

> Thank you very much for your explanation based on VP.

>

> Let me accept it with respect to the process of one's 'seeing an external

object'. Let us say pramAta in this case is the part of the mind within the

body with the reflection of consciousness on it.

>

> But, then, how can we account for our being aware of our own mind - I mean the

flow of thoughts? How can we define pramAta here? There are no pramAnAs in

operation now. Is it a part of the mind just being aware of other parts of it

with reflection of Consciousness on it? Does VP say anything about it?

>

> Even in 'seeing an external object', the pramANAs (sense organs - most

importantly eyes here) themselves are objects. When I say " I see " ,the existence

of the pramANa - the eyes - are immediately acknowledged. That is knowledge

for which there is no need for any external pramANa.

>

> Can we therefore deduce that Consciousness itself is the ony pramANa both in

one's knowing one's mind as well as the external world of objects (since

pramANAs themselves are objects to something other than themselves)? That

raises the possibility that one can be aware even without a body or mind.

Aren't we all unconsciously trying to achieve just that in our quest for the

truth about ourselves?

>

> Sorry for the garbled thinking if I really sound garbled.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Naoir

[Guest guest]

The fundamental principle in advaita is that pure consciousness,

by itself, is not a cognizer. It can become a cognizer only through a vRitti

of the mind.

praNAms

Hare Krishna

Yes, in the ultimate reality, the socalled

individual soul is essentially brahman itself and NOT a cognizer. The

jnAni's realization is that he is eternally pure, self-known and devoid

of all distinction of knower, knowledge and the object thereof. This

has been beautifully explained by shankara while commenting on the tattusamanvayAt

sUtra. He quotes three verses at the end of this sUtra commentary,

the second one goes like this : The individual self is a cognizer only

till the intuition dawns on the Atman to be sought after, but when He is

sought out, the very cognizer himself will have become that Atman free

from the evils of sin and the like.

Again, it is in this light only we have

to understand shruti vAkya : There is no seer other than HE (br. up. 3-7-23)

!!

Sri Sastri prabhuji, kindly correct me

if I said anything wrong here.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namasthe,

 

A study of the BG verse 13/18 - "jyotiShAmapi .....viShThitam" - with Swami Chinmayanandaji's commentary, I feel, will throw some 'light' in this continuing discussion. To know that ''That light in the sun...' ( Shree Shankara's comm.) requires a different set of 'eyes' which one can attempt to acquire through the ways of smriti & shruti. Though 'technical' learning might help one cannot say exactly 'how' does that paradigm shift in 'awareness' happens.

 

Regards

 

Balagopal

 

The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

The unchanging 'I' that Advaitins apprehend in them is

therefore the substratum which sustains the two pramAtAs during their ephemeral

existence and bridges them across time.

praNAms MN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

And another way of saying this is, the

unchanding 'I' pervades these two pramAtA-s without attaching itself into

any of these conditioned pramAtru-s...And this truth, the jnAni will come

to know when he is nomore he but HE..That is the reason why shankara clarifies

in geeta bhAshya : The final pramANa indeed removes the very knowership

of Atman.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar