Ulladu Narpadu - first mangalam (contd.)

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

Now let me go to the second meaning of the first line of the Mangalam-

1 verse.

 

Text: uLLadaladu uLLavuNarvu uLLado?

 

1st meaning: Can there be a sense of existence without something

that is? (This was commented on in the previous post).

 

2nd meaning: Is Real Consciousness a thing other than That?

 

These two meanings are given as the first two sentences of the

translation posted by Peter.

 

Now for the commentary by WHO (on the second meaning):

 

What exists – false or real – what sense makes it explicit? This

consciousness is not different from what absolutely exists. That

itself is a bundle of consciousness – of the form of Knowledge

(jnAna-svarUpa). In order for this to express itself there is no

cognizing source other than itself. That which exists expresses

itself by its own luminiscence of consciousness. It is self-

effulgent. This is the substance of the 2nd meaning.

 

At the time of Ignorance brahman appears as the universe. At the

state of jnAna that itself expresses as the sat-cid-Atman (and

nothing else). For both expressions it is the knowledge-factor of

brahman that is the shining Light. [ Footnote: For the universe to

appear it is again the Light of brahman that shines. The Light of

brahman is not totally hidden by the universe. The akhaNDa-brahma-

chaitanyam itself sparks as the speck of ego and that shows up the

universe] .

 

There is one more implication in this sentence. Since we said there

is no other consciousness distinct from brahman, the universe that

appears to be different must be only a false sensation. And he who

sees this universe as a real show, is also having only a false

sensation. Bhagavan says the seer or jIva who sees this universe is

also part and parcel of this show of universe. This same idea comes

again in the verse beginning with `nAmulagam'.

 

In the Appendix (anubandham) to this text Bhagavan calls this `false

soul' or `false jIva'. Vedanta books call this `cidAbhAsa' (also

false consciousness). Ignorant people think of this jIva as AtmA;

they call this jIvAtmA and call God as paramAtmA, as if there are two

AtmAs. This text-line tells us that other than this ever-existent

brahman there is no one to be called jIva. Therefore we, that is, the

AtmA is brahman and not something else. This is the brahmAtmaikya

conclusion of all Upanishads. This is also the considered conclusion

of Adi Shankara. This is the Absolute pAramArthika truth that will

be clear by the experience of jnAna. We think in our Ignorance, that

the false jIva is AtmA and other things are different from it.

 

All this means: Brahman is what exists. It is the only Reality. It

is also the Consciousness that expresses itself. Therefore brahman is

AtmA. There is nothing different from it either sentient or not. It

has no differences like the seer and the seen. This is the conclusion

of advaita.

 

Note that this text-line does not tell you that brahman HAS

consciousness. Brahman IS consciousness – that is the teaching. If

something has consciousness it means it has consciousness as a

quality or qualification. In that case it will be callled buddhi.

Actually this is not different from the mind. For mind, to be

conscious is not its nature. It is its quality or qualification.

Therefore consciousness of the mind is not permanent or stable. In

sleep the mind's consciousness vanishes. The consciousness that is

the nature of brahman is not of this kind. It is eternal and

unchanging. It is unaffected by time and space. Even when all the

universe disappears, even in that primordial state, it exists.

 

That brahman is jnAna-svarUpa is to be known by the teaching that we

receive. But it can also be inferred by logic. Such a logic appears

in the first meaning of this text line. We saw therein that it is

brahman that is the origin as well as destination of all thoughts of

the mind. So brahman is the source of this sentient mind; so this

brahman has either sentience or is itself sentience. If it HAS

sentience it is like the mind and so not a reality. Thus it is

neither insentient nor an entity which has sentience. Then what is

it? It IS sentience, consciousness (chit or chaitanyam). This is the

conclusion of all Vedanta. Therefore it is called sat-chit.

 

Alternatively we can also argue as follows:

 

It is not correct to say that brahman HAS sentience. Therefore it has

to be either insentient or Caitanyam (Sentience, Consciousness)

itself. If you accept it is insentient then it means it is not self-

effulgent; for all insentient things show up only by an external

intelligence. Then the question arises: how is brahman effulgent,

by what intelligence? The opponent would say it is effulgent by an

intelligence outside of it. Now the question is: That caitanyam – is

it *sat* (existent) or *asat* (non-existent)? Certainly not non-

existent; for a non-existent thing never lights up anything. If you

say it is *sat* then it becomes *sat* and *cit* . Thus we have

accepted that the same entity can be both *sat* and *cit*. In that

case, the earlier mentioned brahman which exists, can as well be also

*cit*. This is the easy way out. Thus it turns out that the existent

Brahman which is the adhishhTAnam for the universe is self-effulgent,

in other words, in order to show it there is no other intelligence

necessary. On the other hand, if we say that this existent thing is

not self-effulgent, then in order to show it there must be another

cit (intelligence). That also cannot be said to be self-effulgent, by

the above logic. Thus another intelligence has to be postulated. So

we have to go on postulating non-self-effulgent intelligences, -- a

series of them. This is then an infinite regress (anavasthA-doshha).

Thus the conclusion is the brahman which is the Reality is self-

effulgent.

 

Thus it is clear that brahman is by nature Existence as well as

Intelligence. That is why it is called *sat-cit*. But this does not

exhaust the svarUpa of brahman. Its svarUpa can be understood only by

experience not by any other means.

 

So the mind which appears to have sentience is really not so. It is

also insentient (jaDa) like the universe.

 

In fact this brahman is our AtmA. But then why does it not show up

like that for us? Why are we thinking that we are finite beings who

suffer all the unhappiness and revolve in this samsAra? The answer

comes in the next portion of the Mangalam first verse.

(To be Continued)

 

PraNAms to all seekers of Truth.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Kishnamurthy

 

Please tell us your web site address. I would like to visit. Thanks for your helpful postings.

 

Alan --- On Fri, 6/2/09, V. Krishnamurthy <profvk wrote:

V. Krishnamurthy <profvk Re: Ulladu Narpadu - first mangalam (contd.) Date: Friday, 6 February, 2009, 6:44 AM

 

 

Namaste all.Now let me go to the second meaning of the first line of the Mangalam-1 verse. Text: uLLadaladu uLLavuNarvu uLLado?1st meaning: Can there be a sense of existence without something that is? (This was commented on in the previous post).2nd meaning: Is Real Consciousness a thing other than That?These two meanings are given as the first two sentences of the translation posted by Peter.Now for the commentary by WHO (on the second meaning):What exists – false or real – what sense makes it explicit? This consciousness is not different from what absolutely exists. That itself is a bundle of consciousness – of the form of Knowledge (jnAna-svarUpa) . In order for this to express itself there is no cognizing source other than itself. That which exists expresses itself by its own luminiscence of consciousness. It is self-effulgent. This is the

substance of the 2nd meaning.At the time of Ignorance brahman appears as the universe. At the state of jnAna that itself expresses as the sat-cid-Atman (and nothing else). For both expressions it is the knowledge-factor of brahman that is the shining Light. [ Footnote: For the universe to appear it is again the Light of brahman that shines. The Light of brahman is not totally hidden by the universe. The akhaNDa-brahma-chaitanyam itself sparks as the speck of ego and that shows up the universe] .There is one more implication in this sentence. Since we said there is no other consciousness distinct from brahman, the universe that appears to be different must be only a false sensation. And he who sees this universe as a real show, is also having only a false sensation. Bhagavan says the seer or jIva who sees this universe is also part and parcel of this show of universe. This same idea comes

again in the verse beginning with `nAmulagam'.In the Appendix (anubandham) to this text Bhagavan calls this `false soul' or `false jIva'. Vedanta books call this `cidAbhAsa' (also false consciousness) . Ignorant people think of this jIva as AtmA; they call this jIvAtmA and call God as paramAtmA, as if there are two AtmAs. This text-line tells us that other than this ever-existent brahman there is no one to be called jIva. Therefore we, that is, the AtmA is brahman and not something else. This is the brahmAtmaikya conclusion of all Upanishads. This is also the considered conclusion of Adi Shankara. This is the Absolute pAramArthika truth that will be clear by the experience of jnAna. We think in our Ignorance, that the false jIva is AtmA and other things are different from it.All this means: Brahman is what exists. It is the only Reality. It is also the Consciousness that expresses itself.

Therefore brahman is AtmA. There is nothing different from it either sentient or not. It has no differences like the seer and the seen. This is the conclusion of advaita.Note that this text-line does not tell you that brahman HAS consciousness. Brahman IS consciousness – that is the teaching. If something has consciousness it means it has consciousness as a quality or qualification. In that case it will be callled buddhi. Actually this is not different from the mind. For mind, to be conscious is not its nature. It is its quality or qualification. Therefore consciousness of the mind is not permanent or stable. In sleep the mind's consciousness vanishes. The consciousness that is the nature of brahman is not of this kind. It is eternal and unchanging. It is unaffected by time and space. Even when all the universe disappears, even in that primordial state, it exists. That brahman is

jnAna-svarUpa is to be known by the teaching that we receive. But it can also be inferred by logic. Such a logic appears in the first meaning of this text line. We saw therein that it is brahman that is the origin as well as destination of all thoughts of the mind. So brahman is the source of this sentient mind; so this brahman has either sentience or is itself sentience. If it HAS sentience it is like the mind and so not a reality. Thus it is neither insentient nor an entity which has sentience. Then what is it? It IS sentience, consciousness (chit or chaitanyam). This is the conclusion of all Vedanta. Therefore it is called sat-chit.Alternatively we can also argue as follows: It is not correct to say that brahman HAS sentience. Therefore it has to be either insentient or Caitanyam (Sentience, Consciousness) itself. If you accept it is insentient then it means it is not self-effulgent; for

all insentient things show up only by an external intelligence. Then the question arises: how is brahman effulgent, by what intelligence? The opponent would say it is effulgent by an intelligence outside of it. Now the question is: That caitanyam – is it *sat* (existent) or *asat* (non-existent) ? Certainly not non-existent; for a non-existent thing never lights up anything. If you say it is *sat* then it becomes *sat* and *cit* . Thus we have accepted that the same entity can be both *sat* and *cit*. In that case, the earlier mentioned brahman which exists, can as well be also *cit*. This is the easy way out. Thus it turns out that the existent Brahman which is the adhishhTAnam for the universe is self-effulgent, in other words, in order to show it there is no other intelligence necessary. On the other hand, if we say that this existent thing is not self-effulgent, then in order to show it there

must be another cit (intelligence) . That also cannot be said to be self-effulgent, by the above logic. Thus another intelligence has to be postulated. So we have to go on postulating non-self-effulgent intelligences, -- a series of them. This is then an infinite regress (anavasthA-doshha) . Thus the conclusion is the brahman which is the Reality is self-effulgent.Thus it is clear that brahman is by nature Existence as well as Intelligence. That is why it is called *sat-cit*. But this does not exhaust the svarUpa of brahman. Its svarUpa can be understood only by experience not by any other means. So the mind which appears to have sentience is really not so. It is also insentient (jaDa) like the universe.In fact this brahman is our AtmA. But then why does it not show up like that for us? Why are we thinking that we are finite beings who suffer all the unhappiness and revolve in this

samsAra? The answer comes in the next portion of the Mangalam first verse.(To be Continued) PraNAms to all seekers of Truth.profvk

[Guest guest]

, Alan Jacobs

<alanadamsjacobs wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Kishnamurthy

>  

> Please tell us your web site address. I would like to visit. Thanks

for your helpful postings.

>  

> Alan

>

 

Namaste,

 

My website address:

 

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

 

With regards,

profvk

[Guest guest]

ProfVK writes:

 

>> 1st meaning: Can there be a sense of existence without something that

is? (This was commented on in the previous post).

 

>> 2nd meaning: Is Real Consciousness a thing other than That?

>> Now for the commentary by WHO (on the second meaning):

 

" What exists - false or real - what sense makes it explicit? This

consciousness is not different from what absolutely exists. That itself is

a bundle of consciousness - of the form of Knowledge (jnAna-svarUpa). In

order for this to express itself there is no cognizing source other than

itself. That which exists expresses itself by its own luminiscence of

consciousness. It is self- effulgent. This is the substance of the 2nd

meaning. "

 

--------------------

Dear All,

 

" That which exists expresses itself by its own luminiscence of

consciousness. It is self-effulgent. "

 

Perhaps we could say - while the world and objects need the light of

awareness for them to be revealed, awareness itself requires no other

awareness for it to know itself. It is self revealing, self luminous.

There is an interesting and relevant exchange between Bhagavan and a devotee

who asks 'is there life in a stone'. From that simple question Bhagavan

gives in response the profound teachings of Advaita.

 

D.: How can there be life in stone? It is unconscious.

 

M.: The whole universe is full of life. You say the stone is unconscious. It

is your self-consciousness which now speaks of unconsciousness. When a

person wants to see if there is an article in a dark room he takes a lamp

to look for it. The light is useful for detecting the presence and the

absence of the thing. Consciousness is necessary for discovering if a thing

is conscious or not. If a man remains in a dark room one need not take a

lamp to find him. If called, he answers. He does not require a lamp to

announce his presence. Consciousness is thus self-shining.

Now you say you were unconscious in sleep and self-conscious in the wakeful

state. Which is the Reality? The Reality must be continuous and eternal.

Neither the unconsciousness nor the self-consciousness of the present is the

Reality. But you admit your existence all through. The pure Being is the

reality. The others are mere associations. The pure Being cannot be

otherwise than consciousness. Otherwise you cannot say that you exist.

Therefore consciousness is the reality. When that consciousness is

associated with upadhis you speak of self-consciousness, unconsciousness,

sub-consciousness, super-consciousness, humanconsciousness,

dog-consciousness, tree-consciousness and so on. The unaltering common

factor in all of them is consciousness.

 

(Talks: 591)

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

Dear Alan,

 

Sri Krishnamurthy's (ProfVK) web site is

 

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

 

I quoted some passages from Kanchi Maha-Swamigal's "Advaita Sadhana" recently. This was translated from the Tamil by ProfVK and is on this site. My apologies to ProfVK for being too lazy(!) to give the web page at the time. I'm sure it was Kanchi Maha-Swamigal who Paul Brunton met and writes about in "A Search in Secret India" and who directed Brunton to Sri Ramana.

 

Best wishes,

Peter

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Alan Jacobs06 February 2009 06:51 Subject: Re: Re: Ulladu Narpadu - first mangalam (contd.)

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Sri Kishnamurthy

 

Please tell us your web site address. I would like to visit. Thanks for your helpful postings.

 

Alan --- On Fri, 6/2/09, V. Krishnamurthy <profvk wrote:

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Peter,

 

Many thanks for this information.

 

All best wishes and regards,

 

Alan --- On Fri, 6/2/09, Peter <not_2 wrote:

Peter <not_2RE: Re: Ulladu Narpadu - first mangalam (contd.) Date: Friday, 6 February, 2009, 9:01 PM

 

 

 

Dear Alan,

 

Sri Krishnamurthy' s (ProfVK) web site is

 

http://www.geocitie s.com/profvk/

 

I quoted some passages from Kanchi Maha-Swamigal' s "Advaita Sadhana" recently. This was translated from the Tamil by ProfVK and is on this site. My apologies to ProfVK for being too lazy(!) to give the web page at the time. I'm sure it was Kanchi Maha-Swamigal who Paul Brunton met and writes about in "A Search in Secret India" and who directed Brunton to Sri Ramana.

 

Best wishes,

Peter

 

 

 

 

 

[HarshaSatsa ngh ] On Behalf Of Alan Jacobs06 February 2009 06:51Re: Re: Ulladu Narpadu - first mangalam (contd.)

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Sri Kishnamurthy

 

Please tell us your web site address. I would like to visit. Thanks for your helpful postings.

 

Alan --- On Fri, 6/2/09, V. Krishnamurthy <profvk > wrote:

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishnamurthyji:

 

I already wrote you privately. You are most welcome to become a contributor

to the Luthar.com. I looked for your user name but could not locate it on

the blog.

 

If you write me privately and let me know under what name you are

registered, I can designate you as a contributor and you will be able to

upload anything that you like by yourself to the Luthar.com site.

 

Please let me know if you received my earlier message.

 

Enjoying as always your writing very much. Look forward to hearing from you.

 

Namaste and love to all

 

Yours in Bhagavan

Harsha

 

 

 

On Behalf Of V. Krishnamurthy

Friday, February 06, 2009 2:25 AM

 

Re: Ulladu Narpadu - first mangalam

(contd.)

 

, Alan Jacobs

<alanadamsjacobs wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Kishnamurthy

>  

> Please tell us your web site address. I would like to visit. Thanks

for your helpful postings.

>  

> Alan

>

 

Namaste,

 

My website address:

 

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

 

With regards,

profvk

 

 

 

---

 

is supported by . New articles are added

there on a continuous basis. Please register at . You will

be kept updated and get the new articles which are posted on the site very

nicely formatted in your e-mail.

 

Friends, after registering at , if you wish to contribute

your writing to the site, please let me know. Your articles should be

original, well written, using subtitles, and be carefully proofread and

polished. For a list of topics considered, please go to

and take a look at the site. Thanks.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha