Guest guest Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 GuruRatings , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: GuruRatings , " Durga " <durgaji108@> wrote: > > GuruRatings , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > GuruRatings , " Durga " <durgaji108@> wrote: > > > > > > GuruRatings , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It returns to the litmus test of Vedanta, 'If the world disappears > > > > for the Mukta, it could never have happened in the first place, > > for > > > > the undividable, no mind, no existance Nirguna Brahman cannot be > > > > divided into matter or dream appearance.'.............ONS...Tony. > > > > > > Tony, where do you get this, " the world > > > disappears for the Mukta? " > > > > > > I want chapter and verse please. > > > > > > Thanks, Durga > > > > > Namaste, > > > > Just read Ramana, the Mandukya Upanishad, the Karikas and then > > understand what Sankara means when he says 'means' to something. > > > > Chapter and verse won't really help you Durga. You have chapter and > > verse right now, notwithstanding you stated that Vedanta can be > > studied without the Upanishads. Even though Vedanta means the end of > > the Veda and is based on the Upanishads. > > > > Your chapter and verse right now is having you insist that the only > > education is high school and university under graduate. You dismiss > > the post graduate level of Vedanta and don't really entertain the > > primary school level either..........You really have to stop reading > > and perhaps listen to your teacher's words more carefully. If you are > > listening to her words then change your teacher..........Tony. > > First of all Tony, I do not dismiss, from the point > of view of Brahman, that nothing ever happens. > > But this is not the whole teaching. It does not > explain duality. And to just dismiss duality, > without explanation, as not having happened, does > not encompass the whole of the teaching of Vedanta. > > It seems to me (using your analogy) that you have > attempted to go to graduate school without taking > the prerequisite courses for same. Your > understanding does not seem correct to me, > which is why I asked you for specific references, > to try and see the exact words which you are basing > this statement on " the world disappears for the Mukta? " > > It seems to me that you have attempted to jump up > to the top of the teachings of nonduality, without any > base of understanding supporting you, which has ended > you up with a rather skewed view. > > It also seems to me, that you have never studied with > a teacher. That you have read a few things in books, > which matched up to an idea which you had, > and then you have taken those ideas, without understanding > the entire context, and used them to back up your idea. > > All I know, (and I have heard this from Swami Dayananda > himself,) that all of this apparent duality is Ishwara, > this is God, this is divinity, and we can only look > at it with wonder and awe, and worship it, knowing > that the self of myself is the self of the whole and > the whole is Ishwara. What a wonder! > > And, if the only way you can deal with all of the pain > which you see and perceive, and have in your mind, is > too say, " Well, it never really happened. " That certainly > is a way of coping, but it doesn't seem to me to make for > a very happy or integrated view. > > The jnanis I've met are the happiest people I have > ever encountered. They know that this world is not > a stranger to them. In fact, it is them. The vision > of Vedanta is a total vision, which you seem to have > only got hold of a part of, and that part does not > seem to make you very happy. So why not explore what > Vedanta has to offer about the rest? It might even > lead to happiness, who knows. > > Durga > Namaste,D, A Jnani is a Mukta, so I sincerely doubt that you have met one. Secondly I spent 15-20 years or more going through the various stages of Vedanta. Which all have validity at their different paths, but not at the exclusion of the others. There is a point where teachers or books become superfluous to the task at hand. They just repeat themeselves. Only meditation can really take one to beyond the teachers and books. The problem I see with your post or Dayananda or whatever is that too much validity is given to 'God' or Isvara. When even at the dualistic level Isvara is just the sum total of the jivas, as a forest is sum total of the trees. So there is no reason to explain duality. Wondering at Isvara and illusion is also an impediment for your are nursing the son of a barren mother. One doesn't need an integrated view of illusion, that is just solidifying the delusion into one big one instead of many small ones. When in fact neti neti is more appropriate to negate the whole experience as just mind. You have never answered one question on Sankara's ParmaGuru, Gaudapada who was the 'father of expounded Vedanta'. ajAti vAda :- The notion that mAyA has no reality in itself, and that brahman is the only real, allows the sRshTi-dRshTi vAdin to " graduate " , so to speak, to ajAtivAda, the view that no creation really occured ever. Although one initially starts looking for brahman as the ontological basis of the perceived universe, advaita also recognizes that this search for origins is ultimately futile, as far as moksha is concerned. It is pointed out that moksha means that the Atman is fully known as brahman Itself. Therefore, understand the Atman first, theories about how this creation came about can wait. Until now, the questioner has been concerned mainly with explaining the external world, which (s)he knows only through the operation of the senses. The identity propounded by the upanishads (between the Atman and brahman) opens up an even more fascinating inner world that is not seen by the eye, not heard by the ear and not felt by touch. It is this inner search that allows the sAdhaka to acquire the jnAna to deny mAyA any reality whatsover. At this stage, brahman, which was previously understood to be with attributes, is understood in its essence to be really nirguNa. This essential nature of brahman is described as " svarUpa-lakshaNa " - a description that captures the real nature of brahman. When brahman is apprehended as the nirguNa, without any attributes, mAyA completely disappears. The universe too, consequently has to disappear. This is the most difficult thing for anybody to understand and accept, because the senses constantly seem to remind one of the presence of the universe. But then, the unitary understanding of the Atman as identical to brahman occurs only at the turIya (the fourth) state, not in the jAgrat (waking), svapna (dream) and sushupti (deep sleep) states. As the mANDUkya upanishad reminds us, the turIya is adRshTam (unseeable), avyavahAryam (non-relational), agrAhyam (ungraspable), alakshaNam (without any attributes), acintyam (unthinkable), avyapadeSyam (cannot be indicated as an object), ekAtma-pratyaya- sAram (the essence of cognition of the One Atman), prapancopaSamam (that into which the entire universe is resolved), SAntam (peaceful), Sivam (auspicious), advaitam (non-dual). .....ONS... --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 GuruRatings , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: GuruRatings , " Durga " <durgaji108@> wrote: Namaste Durga, I think the point that you are missing is that 'appearance' is part of the mind, universal albeit. Appearance is also unreal as so is the mind. Yes there is a body/mind of a jnani but the ego is gone, and the body/mind is observing something which it knows is only a non happening appearance. The Jnanis mind is the purified Buddhi or Vijnanamayakosa'Sakti/Awareness sheath. I think you are missing some of the teaching from your teachers or they are deliberately not discussing it with you. For as you know the guru only reflects the mind of the sisha or pupil. However if you use logic, which is a most imperfect way of discussing spirituality but the best in philosophy. If the world disappears for the Jnani/Brahman, it cannot have existed in the first place. For what you are saying if you disagree is that Brahman isn't aware of something, which is impossible. So the lack of awareness is due to the fact it didn't happen at all. That doesn't take away the fact that it is real enough whilst one is in it and we have to deal with it. I'm sorry if you feel that I am insulting but only a Mukta can recognise another Mukta, so unless you are a Mukta you cannot be certain your Jnanis are Jnanis. If you read the Mandukya and Karikas you will appreciate what I am saying. Just because Nisargadatta Maharaj only taught that we are all one as per Praneaswara, doesn't mean he didn't understand Ajativada. As Jesus said to his apostles, 'I teach one thing in public and another to you in private'. You may think I sound like a Buddhist but I am not an Atheist for I accept the concept of Nirguna Brahman. You should try and not be so rigid at one level of teaching in Vedanta, it may be true to you at that level but there may be more truth that you haven't been taught yet---------meditate that is the answer get above the mind! Now where has it gone?....ONS...Tony. --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 GuruRatings , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: GuruRatings , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > GuruRatings , " simon " <sweetseasons@> wrote: > > > > GuruRatings , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In > > Sai: you say that Gaudapa, and Shankara, say what you > > are saying ... > > they don't, Tony. > > You misrepresent them. > > > > " There is no substratum " 'you' say? > > > > I've never come across a jnani agreeing with that? > > It seems also, totally illogical to my mind. > > > > I think you would do well to re-read Durga, and more > > closely this time, Tony. > > > Namaste,Sai2uk, > > Ramana definately states ajativada is the ultimate truth, but that > most cannot understand it, that's why you can quote from different > levels---'Be as you are'. Sankara says the appearance is only a > means to an end. Gaudapada says it never happened. > > I doubt you have ever meta jnana simon, you regard creme, sai baba > and maitreya as jnanis. > > You are in the same stage as Durga and that's ok...........ONS...> Namaste Simon et al, I will add these karikas from Gaudapada and the Mandukya to explain the 'appearance' as such.....Tony. 22. Nothing comes to be whether from itself or from another. Nothing that exists ever comes to be, nothing that does not exist, nothing that both exists and does not exist. 23. The cause cannot come to be from an unoriginate effect, nor does an effect simply happen of itself. The uncaused certainly does not come into existence. 24. Knowledge must have an object, otherwise both will be non- existent. For this reason, as also from the experience of pain, our opponent's assertion of the existence of the object should be admitted. 25. Logic demands an object as the cause of knowledge. But from the standpoint of reality, it is evident the cause is no cause at all. (because nothing comes to be or is caused, knowledge has no object and therefore does not exist!) 26. Consciousness has no contact with objects, and no contact with appearances of objects. Objects are non-existent and appearances of objects non-different from consciousness. 27. At none of the three times (past, present, future) does consciousness make contact with objects. Since there are no objects, how can there be deluded perception of such? 28. Neither consciousness nor its objects ever come into existence. Those who perceive such a coming-to-be are like those who can see footprints in the sky! 29. It is the unoriginate [they say] which comes to be - but it is essentially birthless and the transformation of that nature will not happen in any way whatsoever. 30. If the world has no beginning it will have no end either. Moksa cannot both have a beginning and be eternal. 31. What does not exist in the beginning and does not exist at the end certainly does not exist in the middle! But like illusions, they seem real. --- End forwarded message --- 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.