Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2002 Warwick Wakefield [nomistake] Friday, February 22, 2002 5:54 PM advaitin Re: Re: Whence adhyAsa? "Does having a sense of humor fit anywhere in the scheme of things here? :-). Love to all Harsha" Harsha, that's WONDERFUL Warwick Thank you Sri Warwickji. You are very bright and perceptive, as many here have noted. Love to all Harsha /join Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2002 madathilnair [madathilnair] Saturday, February 23, 2002 12:35 AM advaitin Re: Whence adhyAsa? advaitin, "Warwick Wakefield" <nomistake@o...> wrote: > "Does having a sense of humor fit anywhere in the scheme of things here? :-). > > Love to all > Harsha" > > Harsha, that's WONDERFUL > Warwick ______________ Namaste Harsha and Warwick: If you are laughing at the goings-on standing on the sidelines, you can find me right behind you. Otherwise, you ought to elaborate on your crispy comments. Madathilnair Dearest Sri Madathilnairji, Sri Venkatji already has attempted that. Greatly enjoyed your post. Too bad, Sri Madhvaji has given me the credit for it. Love Harsha Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 24, 2002 | | Madathil Nair [madathilnair] If you feel | offended, then I am not to be blamed. The villain is | Mr. EGO right inside you without whom neither you nor | I can operate. And operate we must to make this | group tick. Ego is the villain, and while ever a vestige remains, so moksha will elude realisation. Brian Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 24, 2002 Namaste Nairji You need not study that dissertation if you don't feel the need to, sir. However, I discovered that some of the views represented by Atmachaitanyaji do not belong to the existing Advaita Vedanta tradition. And the one point that the whole Vedantic tradition can disagree with is the 'non-existence of avidya in deep sleep'. I managed to find 2 verses in the Brahma Sutra Shankara Bhashya that suggests the existence of avidya in a seed-form during sleep. And another verse in Chandogya Upanishad also suggests the same. Therefore, to say otherwise would mean to deviate from the tradition of Vedanta. I must confess that I have learnt alot from Atmachaitanyaji's posts and I found his arguments really well supported by the many references he has provided. For that I am indebted to him. However, on the point of 'avidya being non-existent in deep sleep' is a deviation from the teachings if Vedanta. Since you have quoted the Tattva Bodha, it is also worthy to note that the presence of avidya is also mentioned in the Tattva Bodha in the chapters that discuss the 3 bodies and the five sheaths, specifically the karana sharira and anandamaya kosha. Just a little history: Supposedly there was a formal debate held in Karnataka organised by the Sringeri mutt to ascertain if Shankara suggested the absence of avidya in deep sleep in his various bhashyas on the prasthana traya. The debate was between the Advaitins, who d to the view that avidya was indeed present in deep sleep, and the disciples of Swami Satchitanandendra who believed otherwise. This debate was also presided over by the pontiff of the Sringeri mutt as well. In the end, the position of the traditional advaitins (the ones who subcribed to the view that avidya indeed present in deep sleep) was found tenable. This subject may not be of interest to many and to them I apologise. And I also apologise to Venkatji for making him wait longer for the responses from Atmachaitanyaji. Kathi > > Madathil Nair [sMTP:madathilnair] > Sunday, February 24, 2002 6:29 PM > advaitin > Re: Re: Credit belongs to Sri Madathilnairji's / > Whence adhyAsa? > > Namaste: > > Shri Srikrishnaji, first I thought I will ignore your > criticism and endeavour to imbibe your advice. > However, upon rereading your mail, I felt I ought to > reply. Now, how can I do that without an "EGO"? No > way. So, for the time being, I am not surrendering my > EGO to any bank vault or to the Lord Himself. Anyway, > the Lord would not like to have it, I am sure. The > banks too would frown as they don't like to see even > Dollars (American, I mean) these days. An Indian ego > depleted by the vagaries of "adhyaasa" has no use for > them. > > Let us take the "donkey part" of your message. Since > I have an EGO, I feel immensely offended by your > bringing in the donkey image. Even that animal would > object for being drawn into a group of blabbering (of > course, from the point of view of the donkey), > humourless advaitins. You could have tried a gibbon > or chimpanzee as we can behaviourally empathize with > them more effectively. Anyhow, that is a suggestion > for your future consideration. > > If you have not understood it yet, I did not object to > Shri Atmachainaji's views or erudition. In fact, I > admire them, as does Shri Svenkat and others in the > group. My objection was simply to his using the word > "misguided". As Shri Atmachaitanyaji is a wise man, I > am sure he has weighed and measured each of his words > before sending them to print. So, you don't have to > defend his case, Shri Srikrishnaji. > > What is that statement of yours: "Some people think, > they exist, and hence their Gurus exist."? I "know" > that I exist and, since I do exist, my gurus do too. > This was one of my first lessons in Advaita. You, an > advaitin, shouldn't have any doubts about it. > > Now about having proof, I believe you are referring to > that "adhyaasa" thing again. I said I have no proof; > I know that it can never be empirically understood; > questions like "where" and "when" (which I also used > to pester my teachers with) have no relevance to it; > as such I would not like to waste my time hunting for > an answer to that intractable conundrum; I don't think > anybody, including Shri Atmachaitanyaji, has an > answer, although, as Shri Svenkat said, we are all > waiting with bated breath for his return to the ring; > and if at all and when his "answer" comes (because, > going through past mail, I find that he has a record > of default on at least one previous promise), many > pugilists (again to borrow from Shri Svenkat) other > than me are out there who have intractable questions > up their sleeves for Shri Atmachaitanyaji to answer > interminably till eternity. What a waste of human > existence that is going to be, particularly, for a > renunciate, assuming that Shri Atmachaitanyaji is one! > > Since you are enjoying the goings on, Shri > Srikrishnaji, please do not commit the mistake of > surrendering your EGO as yet, because, after all, you > need to have an enjoyer-EGO for the promised matinee > show. And, my guru parampara, whom I am accused of > using as a defence shield, has taught me that the EGO > cannot be surrendered without having a > surrenderer-EGO. So, let us reach a compromise, you > keep your EGO and I keep mine for the proceedings to > continue. > > I am with you in calling all this a promoted riddle. > However, I feel that you should have apostrophied the > word "promoted". I would have used the adjective > "engineered" or, at best, "contrived". Shri > Srikrishnaji, you are prepared to withdraw from all > that you "know" to focus your gaze on the "knower" > called "I". Why don't you simply include this > "adhyasa" riddle also among those things you are aware > of (That is the truth, isn't it?) and look at that "I" > only? You would be much better off; you would not > have wasted your time watching the matinee show. Shri > Atmachaitanyaji can follow suit and leave the ring. > (Those who have bought the tickets can quietly go home > taking their refund.) Let us hope the dissertation he > is currently reading enlightens him to do so and puts > him right on the path of Advaitic "ahimsa" (a la the > most "inadvaitic" Shah Rukh Khan). Coming from a > disciple of our indomitable Poojya Swami Dayananda > Saraswathiji, I can certainly hope the book to do the > impossible. (I have not seen that dissertation. Do I > need to read it too, Shri Kathirasanji!? Please be > forthcoming.). > > And, about your psychological technique of learning by > doing the exact opposite, let us all sing in unison as > Lotos Eaters trapped in the unending Lotos Island > afternoon a la Lord Tennyson (and our own Charvakas > who perished without a trace): > > "If death is the end of life, why should life all > labour be?". > > and expect advaitic knowledge to drop down on us like > Newton's apple. We can then shout "Eureka", "Eureka" > and run out of our "adhyaasa" bathtubs naked (in puris > naturalibus! > > No offence meant, Shri Srikrishnaji. All this is > written in a very light vein as there is already a > feeling that we have no sense of humour. If you feel > offended, then I am not to be blamed. The villain is > Mr. EGO right inside you without whom neither you nor > I can "operate". And "operate" we must to make this > group tick. > > Apologies and pranams to all. > > EGOistically yours, > > Madathil Nair > > > --- srikrishna_ghadiyaram > <srikrishna_ghadiyaram wrote: > > > Someone said to me, "You are a donkey", and I > > accepted it, > > superimposed a donkey on myself, and did not like > > the image of > > myself, so shouted back, "you are a donkey", and > > possibly do some > > more breying. Ofcourse, my donkey friends joined me > > applauding me > > with their breying. > > > > Even if someone truly said to me some thing wrong, > > if it be out of > > their mis-apprehension, why should I superimpose > > that image on > > myself ? > > > > Some people think, they exist, and hence their Gurus > > exist. And they > > can not bear a word against their opinions, hence > > they bring in their > > guru parampara to defend their EGO, and existance, > > for they have no > > other proof to offer. > > > > Sri Atmachaitanya is offering and challenging us to > > think from a > > different point of view. However, he did not > > contradict the > > possiblity of Realisation based on Sankara's own > > words which are > > likely to be less controversial. > > > > yes, there has been some heat. Nevertheless, it has > > provoked > > thinking, so it has been worth it. Why should anyone > > be cowed to > > accept one view. This is very important for a > > beginner like me to > > know all sides and choose a course that takes me to > > realisation. I > > believe, there must have been a solution to this > > promoted riddle, for > > there have been great thinkers before me. > > > > In Psychology we learn to teach someone correct > > spelling of a word, > > and by making the student do the exact opposite > > consciously, the > > correct one can be learnt. So, discussing > > exhaustively both sides of > > the argument, one can clearly know the truth. It is > > said, the most > > accurate way of learning is to know the similarities > > and difference > > of two things. > > > > Om Namo Narayanaya !! > > > > Srikrishna > > > > > Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games > http://sports. > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of > Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: > http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 24, 2002 Dear K. Sadananda, Let me begin by congratulating you for your courage to articulate your doubts about Mula Avidya, your recognition of the 'conceptual problem that it entails, and your admitted inability to reconcile it, as well as your willingness to doubt the authenticity of the claim that the Vivekachudamani is from the pen of Adi Shankaracharya. (In fact Vivekachudamani is a 16th century work that is filled with doctrines that are completely opposed to Shankaras Siddhanata, including the Identification of Avidya and Maya and that Avidya is Tri-Guna Atmika, as well as the erroneous doctrine that even after the attainment of the Knowledge of the Self, the sadhaka has to repeat this knowledge over and over again to make it 'STRONG' (Prasankyanavada-A pet view of Swami Dayananda, who holds that;: 'Just like a born beggar who has just won the lottery and is now a millionaire, but still his hand goes out automatically when someone is offering free food due to his old habits. So also for the one who has got the 'knowledge of the Self', the old vasanas keep coming back and in order to make his 'knowledge' firm, that knowledge should be repeated till it becomes natural'. His student,. Jaishankar writes; "Similarly after gaining doubtless Knowldege that 'I am Brahman' from Guru and Shastra one has to recollect this knowledge till all previous conditioning goes"(Post Sat. Nov. 27 1999) and again Sri Madathilnair writes to Orbitsville;: "Once we have the basic Advaitic vision, what is needed is contemplation on it"(Sun Feb 3). And this view has been shared by every other Post Shankara Vedantin till this day! A view that is extensively and completely refuted by Shankara in his Upadesha Sahasri, - Mundaka Up.Bh 1-1-6, - Isha. Up. Bh 18, - Bri Bh,1-4-10 etc.etc.). You are absolutely correct in stating the in the Upanishads it is only Maya(Prakriti) that is described as tri-guna-atmika (made up of three gunas), and the same is the case with Shankara, in that you will not be able to find one instance of him describing Avidya in such a manner. For Shankara, Maya, Prikrati, The Three Gunas, Shakti , Avyakta, Nama Rupa, are all the effect of Avidya (Avidya Kalpita -Imagined by ignorance: Avidya Krita-created by ignorance: Avidya Pratusapita-projected by ignorance etc.,etc. In other words Avidya is the cause and Maya is the effect. Our ignorance of the rope is the cause-and the effect of that ignorance is the snake. Our ignorance of Brahman is the cause; the dualistic Universe (Maya) is the effect of that ignorance. You are also correct that Ramanuja has totally demolished this dogmatic and indefensible theory of Mula Avidya in his Shri Bashya, but so has Bashkaracharya Madva, and it has been done with even greater force by Vallahba and his followers. And lastly, you ask me to provide a chronological analysis of how this concept of Bhavarupa Avidya came about if it is from the Post Shankara scholars. While a complete answer would require an elaborate paper, here follows the short version: History of Mula Avidya The first hint that we have that there was a school of Advaita Vedantins who were upholding some form of the theory that there was a 'Mula Avidya' that served as the 'material cause' of the Universe is to be found in a casual allusion found in Madana Mishras'( A contempory of Shankara) Brahma Siddhi, for he writes : "Thata cha uktum avidya upadana bheda vadhibihi-'anadi aprathjanaa cha Avidya" ("The supporters of the theory that Avidya is the material cause of the manifold, aver the Avidya is beginningless a serves no teleological purpose.") However it is clear that these thinkers, whoever they were, did not claim to be in Shankaras Sampradaya for the simple reason that they came before him. So the first 'Post Shankara Vedantin who claimed allegiance to Shankaras tradition and upheld this erroneous doctrine of Mula Avidya has to be ascribed to Padmapada, the author of the Pancapadika, and whose work includes an exaimintion and commentary on Shankaras Adhyasa Bhasya. As I have stated before, ignorance for Shankara is only the mutual superimposition of the Self and the non-self, superimposition being understood to mean no more than mistaking one thing for another (atasmin tat budhi) As for instance taking nacre for silver. This ignorance of course need not be proved, for it is recognized to be such as soon as it is pointed out, being within the experience of all of us ("sarva loka pratyakshaha"). For the author of the Panchapadica, however, Avidya is an indefinable inert power (anirvahaniya jada atmka avidya shakti) which clings to the very being of both the Self and the external things, and is capable of transforming itself into an illusory object.. This Avidya, he further surmises, must be presumed to cling to everything, self and external objects, for otherwise we cannot account for the origin of 'illusory objects'. And in the case of the Jiva, we have to postulate this Avidya on the strength of the Srutis which declare the identity of the Jiva with Brahman; for, how else could we explain the absence of the knowledge of this identity except by supposing that Avidya envelops the Brahmic effulgent nature (Brahma svarupa prakasha chadikaa) of the individual self? It is obvious that Shankaras' is a rational system based on universal experience, and Vidya and Avidya in his scheme of arguments are quite intelligible to all who are familiar with the antipathy between knowledge and error in everyday life. The system offered by the writer of the Panchapadika on the other hand, speculates on the basis of a hypothetical Mula Avidya presumed to exist just to account for the appearance of illusory phenomena by a series of controvertible and easily refuted arguments with a view to justify the theological dogma that the knowledge of Brahman destroys the world of duality of which the postulated and unsubstantiated Mula Avidya is the material cause. I will give two specific instances were he totally distorts Shankaras Adhayasa Bhashya so as to insert his false ideas: Shankara states, "Although the subject and the object are of completely different natures, 'DUE TO FALSE KNOWLEDGE' (MITHYAJNANA NIMTAHA) having mixed up the real self and the unreal non-self, this natural worldly dealing of 'I am this' and 'this is mine' comes about" (Adhyasa Bashya) Padmapada takes this word Mithya Jnana (false knowledge) and breaks it up into Mithya (false) and Ajnana (ignorance)= and reads false ignorance (which no one has ever heard of, as it become then a tautology) instead of Shankaras clear and uncontroversial reading that we are all familiar with i.e." 'false knowledge', and remarks as follows: "The commentary says ' Mithyaajnana nimttah'. 'Mithyaajnana' means 1) that which is false (mithya) and 2) that which is ignorance (ajnana)' By 'false' is ment 'indeterminability'. And 'Ignorance' means the inert power of ignorance'. 'Tat nimitaha' (that cause), means, having that (Adhyasa) for its MATERIAL cause." (Panchapadika pg 26 Madras ed.1938) Note: Here it is claimed that the "power of Ignorance" is the material cause for Adhyasa (superimposition). The doctrine that Adhyasa requires a 'material' cause, the doctrine that ignorance is an 'inert power', and the doctrine that the word 'mithya (false) means 'indeterminable'- It is to be noted that none of these doctrines are found or even implied in Shankaras commentary. And again: Padmapada writes- "This begingingless Ignorance is referred to in the Vedas, Smrits, Epics and Puranas as Name and Form, the Unmanifest (avyayakta), Ignorance, Maya, Prikrati, Darkness, Power (Shakti), The Great Sleep, The Indestructible. In different places it is spoken of in many different ways. It is spoken of as preventing the manifestation of Consciousness (Avarana Shakti) in its true form as the Absolute, and the producing the appearance (Vikshepa Shakti) of the individual soul." (Panchpadika pg.98. Madras ed. 1938) Note" Here, perhaps for the first time in Vedantic literature, Ignorance is specifically presented as having the same meaning as Maya, Shakti, Avyakrita (Unmanifest), etc., As well as having the power to cover the absolute, and project the world. The author regards Ignorance in the form of Adhyasa (superimposition), which was the form that it was explained by Shankaara in his introduction to his Brahma Sutra Commentary, as an effect, and he clings to the idea that the 'power of Ignorance' is its material cause (A Bhava Rupa). Prakashatman Yati, who wrote a commentary on the Panchapadika, and founded the Vivarana school of Aadvaita Vedanta, followed in his teachers footsteps in upholding the doctrine of Mula Aavidya, and Vachaspati Mishra, the author of the Bhamati, and founder of the 'Bhamati' school, adopted this very same point of view. Since then every Advaita Vedantin, while paying lip service to the Great Shankaracharya, and claiming to belong to his Sampradaya , has tried to uphold this false and irrational doctrine of Mula Avidya. Thus Advaita Vedanta has been degraded into a dogmatic and speculative system, divorced from universal experience and merely a system which demands unquestioning and uncritical faith. And even if we grant the existence of this hypothetical Avidya, there is no way that either Knowledge, or any other conceivable means could ever destroy it!. Hari Om Atmachaitanya P.S. And yes, I am aware of the fact that I have not yet answered Dennis's question 'Whence Adhyasa', nor 'How the Shastra is the only pramana for Atmavidya'.. > > > >The problem is so simple that it defies my imagination how anyone who > >has even the slightest capacity to think for themselves could possibly > >be seduced into thinking that : > > > >Mula Avidya is an existing thing (Bhava Rupa),( i.e. It actually has > >an ontological status) but it can be destroyed by knowledge! > > Fantastic! > > There is a conceptual problem in thinking ignorance as bhavaruupa > type as Shree atmachaitanyaji rightly pointed out. Personally I have > been struggling with this problem and unable to reconcile it. I am > not sure at what stage of the adviata doctrine development the > bhavaruupa aspect of the avidya has been introduced. In > Vivekachuudamani - there are two slokas that define maya - > > avyaktanaamnii parameshha shaktii > anaadyavidyaa triguNaatmikaa para > kaaryaanumeya sudhiyaiva maaya > yayaa gatsarvamidam prasuuyate|| > > sannapya sanna ubhayaatmikaano > bhinnaapyabhinna ubhayaatmikaano > saangaapyasangaa ubhayaatmikaano > mahat bhuuta anirvachaniiya ruupa|| > (typos could be there since typed from memory) > > > where anaadi avidya is qualified by three guNa-s and identified with maaya. > There is of course a consideration that VivekachuuDamaNi is not of Shankara. > I am not sure if there are equivalent slokas in Upadesha sahashri. > > The triguNa aspect of maya comes from Sw. Up. statement -of > identification of maaya with prakR^iti which is triguNaatmikam - > maayantu prakRitim vidyaat - > > atmachaitanyaji is right - Ramanuja takes this bhaavaruupa aspect of > avidya as puurvapaksha as in his maahaa puurvapaksha in his > shreebhaashya. > > I would appreciate if Shree Atmachaitanyaji provides a > chronological analysis of how this concept of bhaavaruupa avidya came > about if it is from post Shankara scholars. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > > -- > K. Sadananda > Code 6323 > Naval Research Laboratory > Washington D.C. 20375 > Voice (202)767-2117 > Fax:(202)767-2623 > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 24, 2002 Dear Atmachaitanya Surely you must remember that you are in fact infinite consciousness and not simply a show-off member of an obscure debating team. So, being infinite consciousness, how can you carry on like this? Please, remember who you are. Love Warwick This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 24, 2002 Dear Warwickji, Let us appreciate the hard work done by Shri Atmachaitanyaji to meet Shri Sadanandaji's request. A lot of reading and research has gone into writing that post, which is just impossible for me within my original and current (situational) limitations. Best regards. Madathilnair __________________ Dear Shri Atmachaitanyaji, I, like other group members, am looking forward to reading your promised posts on the two pending issues. Please don't make us wait too long. Best regards. Madathilnair __________________ advaitin, <nomistake@o...> wrote: > Dear Atmachaitanya > > Surely you must remember that you are in fact infinite consciousness and not simply a show-off member of an obscure debating team. > So, being infinite consciousness, how can you carry on like this? > > Please, remember who you are. > > Love > Warwick > > > This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 25, 2002 Shree Atmachaitanyaji, Thanks for taking time for detailed response. It will take some time for me to digest before I continue the discussion on the topic. If you have patience with me I will get back to you as soon as I can resolve my thoughts. Thanks again for the wonderful discussion. Hari OM! Sadananda -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 25, 2002 - Madhava K. Turumella advaitin Monday, February 25, 2002 9:03 PM AW: Re: Whence adhyAsa? I wouldnt suggest any such thing to Sri Atmachaitanya. It is an acadamic debate he is engaging in! So sending him oneline answers and suggesting him to look into himself will do no good but harm the spirit of discussion. I think all the people in this list are aware of the basics of "Who am I", "Where am I from" sort of questions. Let there be a healthy discussion. I am personally enjoying the scholarly discussions that are taking place among scholars like Sri Atmachaitanya, Sri Sadanandaji and Brian Miles... May Lord Siva bless them with infinite knowledge. Yours, Madhava Dear Sri Madhava There is something that is very important to discuss here. You write, "I think all the people in this list are aware of the basics of "Who am I", "Where am I from" sort of questions." I would agree that everyone, or practically everyone, will have heard the question. And I agree that many will have read books, or heard someone say, "you are not the body, you are not the mind ". Many, or most, will be familiar with the concept of Atma. But, and this is VERY important, this is crucial - knowing the question, and knowing the book-answers, is an utterly different thing from receiving a real answer. If all you know are the book answers, you don't know anything. Receiving an answer is an existential experience. If you have received an answer then you know it on your own authority. Before you see it, it is an impenetrable mystery. Once you see it, it is obvious. After you see it, it doesn't make you smarter or kinder or in any way more praiseworthy, because all those attributes belong to the person in the world, and who you really are is in another dimension altogether. I think that many people are seeking spiritual understanding so that they will be more knowledgeable, and hence have greater control over their lives. Maybe they are subconsciously attempting to fulfil their parents' desire that they should be clever and knowledgeable. And I must add here that I am not putting myself above anyone else here. All egos swim in the same drain. But once it is seen, even if only as a glimpse, who "I" really is, then it is obvious that these things - gaining control over your life, becoming knowledgeable and becoming successful, having friends, being well-liked, avoiding illness and misfortune - these things are totally irrelevant. And if it is not intended to assist in the process of making one ready to receive that answer, academic discussion about Advaita, or Christianity, or Hinduism generally, is just a waste of time. And furthermore, it is possible, after receiving a glimpse of who "I" really is, to continue as if, for every PRACTICAL PURPOSE, it wasn't true, to continue living as if "I" is a body/mind, living in the "world", a body/mind subject to misfortune and good fortune. OK, some of the members of this list are confirmed academics and debaters. But I would like to know, are there ANY members of this list who long to receive a real, non conceptual, answer to this question "Who am I?". It may not exactly take the form, "Who am I?". It might take the form of a longing to disappear into God, it might take the form of great longing to know, "What is really true, of what can I be so certain that, for the sake of it, I would surrender my position in society, the affection of all my friends, the respect of the world, all my possessions and also my life? Is there a truth that is known with one's totality, not just one's mind?" Is there anyone like that? If not, I am certainly in the wrong place. Love Warwick Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 25, 2002 Namaste Shri Warwick, > OK, some of the members of this list are confirmed academics and debaters. But I would like to know, are there ANY members of this list who long to receive a real, non conceptual, answer to this question "Who am I?". > > Is there anyone like that? If not, I am certainly in the wrong place. ------------------ >From what I have seen on this list, practically everyone here is ineterested in "real" and not "theoritical" answer to the question "Who am I ?". So you are certainly not in the wrong place. ------------------ > you see it, it is obvious. After you see it, it doesn't make you smarter or kinder or in any way more praiseworthy, because all those attributes belong to the person in the world, and who you really are is in another dimension altogether. > > I think that many people are seeking spiritual understanding so that they will be more knowledgeable, and hence have greater control over their lives. ------------------ I am not so sure that Atmajnana and these so called "wordly" items are disconnected. Best regards Shrinivas Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 25, 2002 Namaste Shri Warwickji and all! Shri Warwickji, you are at the right place. You are not alone. The final answer when we receive it is always non-conceptual however much we debate and conceptualize en route. So, let us benefit mutually and collectively. Actually, I wanted to respond the moment I read Shri Turumellaji's post as it reminded me of a certain happening here where I operate from. But, then I decided against it because I was already feeling depressed and dispirited. (An advaitin should not!). Now that Shri Warwickji has joined issue, I think I should mention what I was reminded of and also what I feel is right. We, here in the Arabian Gulf, have access to the various gurus only when they happen to visit our place. And, that is not so frequent. So, the normal practice for every group is to organize "self-study classes" in the absence of their preceptors where members gather regularly to discuss philosophical topics. A friend of mine once invited me to such a "class". It was a renowned set up with many local Indian elites participating. I would not like to name the group because I have great respect for its founder. The topic of discussion was Bhagwat Geetha - "karmanyevadhikaarasthe...." and prasaadabudhi to be specific. I joined as a passive listener but could not remain quiet for long (as is my wont) because I felt the discussion was mainly centering on trivialities and failed to get into the crux of the matter. So I jumped into the fray only to emerge bloody-nosed within seconds. Be sure, not due to any heavy philosophical bash up (for which, anyway, I felt, I was well-equipped) but due to the flagrant philosophical elitism the assembled personalities so unabashedly evinced. I was asked to reveal my vedantic status - i.e. if I were an "undergraduate", "graduate", "postgraduate" or "holder of a doctorate" - i.e. my position on the vedantic ladder! I was asked if I had "done" Brahmasutras, Vivekachudamani etc. etc. Finally, the "moderator" told me, in so many words, that my presence, not to speak of my words, was unwelcome! Shri Warwickji has contributed immensely to the ongoing discussion on adhyaasa. He and others may not have read as many references as the other hard-working and more fortunate members. This may be due to reasons beyond their control like being busy grihasthas or being in places where there is no immediate access to philosophical works etc. etc. For instance, I don't even have a copy of the Bhagwat Geetha right now with me and I often find that, in my current circumstances, I am starved of reference material when doubts arise or people ask questions. So, I can't be expected to be as "scholarly" as another member who is more fortunate, better-read with a vast library and has innumerable references at his or her fingertips. And, yet again, one can be really "scholarly" and continue refuting opposite points of view even at the peril of neglecting the practical aspects of vedanta. I have perused Shri Warwickji's posts time and again. While he is well-read, he is vedantically much evolved too. I can quote several gems from his mail which point at a perceptive (to borrow from Shri Harshaji)mind engaged in the practical aspects of spiritualism. To conclude, I, like many others among us, would like to share experiences on advaita as it is practiced and applied in life. My own point of view is that advaitic contemplation leads to insights which books or gurus cannot, perhaps, impart and that each and evert experience can be beneficially analyzed from the advaitic angle. It is during contemplative meditation that recalcitrant conundrums are normally resolved and advaitic principles are better appreciated. Let our members, "scholars" and "non-scholars" alike, express their views in order that all are benefitted and well-guided. There is a growing complaint, an unfounded one at that, that vedanta is "dry". Let us show everyone that vedanta is poetry. That is where we triumph. I have seen poetry in differential calculus. A colleague of mine thinks there is more poesy in probability. We need poeple like her to show the world that advaita is sweeter than ectasy! This is not to discourage "scholarly" discussions. Let them continue, generate heat and light. We need everything. And, above all, we need you, Shri Warwickji! So, don't leave us yet. Best regards and pranams. Madathilnair -- In advaitin, "Warwick Wakefield" <nomistake@o...> wrote: (1) But, and this is VERY important, this is crucial - knowing the question, and knowing the book-answers, is an utterly different thing from receiving a real answer. If all you know are the book answers, you don't know anything. Receiving an answer is an existential experience. If you have received an answer then you know it on your own authority. Before you see it, it is an impenetrable mystery. Once you see it, it is obvious. After you see it, it doesn't make you smarter or kinder or in any way more praiseworthy, because all those attributes belong to the person in the world, and who you really are is in another dimension altogether. (2) OK, some of the members of this list are confirmed academics and debaters. But I would like to know, are there ANY members of this list who long to receive a real, non conceptual, answer to this question "Who am I?". It may not exactly take the form, "Who am I?". It might take the form of a longing to disappear into God, it might take the form of great longing to know, "What is really true, of what can I be so certain that, for the sake of it, I would surrender my position in society, the affection of all my friends, the respect of the world, all my possessions and also my life? Is there a truth that is known with one's totality, not just one's mind?" > > Is there anyone like that? If not, I am certainly in the wrong place. > > Love > Warwick > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 26, 2002 | madathilnair [madathilnair] | This is not to discourage "scholarly" discussions. Let them | continue, generate heat and light. We need everything. And, above | all, we need you, Shri Warwickji! So, don't leave us yet. You see, Warwick, no worries mate! Brian PS. I too, find the brusque, uncompromising and sometimes arrogant style of Atmachaitanya so far removed from everyday practicality AND from experiential reference that I've thought of leaving. But there is a deeper reason for his participation in this group and I have actually learnt much from the debates with his participation. He also, I believe is taking value from his participation by testing his mettle in various aspects of his sadhana (especially laukika anumanam and shastreya anumanam) so that he can be a worthy carrier of the "true" message of Shankara. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 26, 2002 --- Warwick Wakefield <nomistake wrote: Dear Warwick, While appreciating your point of view here are a couple of points you might like to consider. > And if it is not intended to assist in the process > of making one ready to receive that answer, academic > discussion about Advaita, or Christianity, or > Hinduism generally, is just a waste of time. Unnecessarily codemnatory so may I suggest an antidote: Isha Upanishad: 'Purnamada Purnamidam etc..... Perfect comes from Perfect. .....Take Perfect from Perfect and the remainder is Perfect.' > And furthermore, it is possible, after receiving a > glimpse of who "I" really is, to continue as if, for > every PRACTICAL PURPOSE, it wasn't true, to continue > living as if "I" is a body/mind, living in the > "world", a body/mind subject to misfortune and good > fortune. > > OK, some of the members of this list are confirmed > academics and debaters. But I would like to know, > are there ANY members of this list who long to > receive a real, non conceptual, answer to this > question "Who am I?". It may not exactly take the > form, "Who am I?". It might take the form of a > longing to disappear into God, it might take the > form of great longing to know, "What is really true, > of what can I be so certain that, for the sake of > it, I would surrender my position in society, the > affection of all my friends, the respect of the > world, all my possessions and also my life? Is there > a truth that is known with one's totality, not just > one's mind?" You may like the following from Rumi: ‘Moses saw a shepherd on the way, crying, “O Lord who choosest as Thou wilt, where art Thou that I may serve Thee and sew Thy shoes, comb Thy hair? That I may wash Thy clothes and kill Thy lice and bring milk to Thee, O worshipful One; that I may kiss Thy little hand and rub Thy little feet and sweep Thy little room at bed-time.” On hearing these foolish words, Moses said, “Man, to whom are you speaking? What babble! What blasphemy and raving! Stuff some cotton into your mouth! Truly the friendship of a fool is enmity; the High God is not in want of such service.” The shepherd rent his garments, heaved a sigh and took his way into the wilderness. Then came to Moses a revelation: “Thou hast parted My servant from Me. Wert thou sent as a prophet to unite or wert thou sent to sever? I have given everyone a particular mode of worship. I have given everyone a particular form of expression. The idiom of Hindustan is excellent for Hindus, the idiom of Sind is excellent for the people of Sind. I look not at tongue and speech, I look at the spirit and the inward feeling. I look into the heart to see whether it be lowly, though the words uttered be not lowly. Enough of phrases and conceits and metaphors! I want burning, burning; become familiar with that burning! Light up the fire of love in thy souls, burn all thought and expression away! O Moses, they that know the conventions are of one sort, they whose souls burn are another.” The religion of love is apart from all religions. The lovers of God have no religion but God alone.’ Mathnavi II 1720-1738 > > Is there anyone like that? If not, I am certainly > in the wrong place. > > Love The burning to which Rumi refers is the burning of the upadhis, the superimpositions so often based in sentences that begin with 'I'. Love may be seen as the fire and water flowing from Absolute in order achieve the Will of Absolute. The yearning of which you speak is not your yearning but that necessary force enabling That Will. In that process there is no 'right place' or 'wrong place' for, to use the language of duality, you always are where you need to be 'to be' in the 'placeless'. To be 'in the right place' or 'to be on the right path' are expressions of a dualistic viewpoint which arises from a claim of the ego..ahankara..to the knowledge that has been awakened in a state of consciousness that pre-exists the ego. In this state the memory of the Divine Will engenders a feeling which informs the action. The knowledge, the action and the fruits of the action are not our concern. If we can understand the lesson that Moses had to learn in the story above, then we can stand back and enjoy the wonders of the apparently divers approaches of the members of this wonderful site. Thank you for your contributions. Peace and Happiness Ken Knight Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 26, 2002 Dear Friends, Atma Chaitanya wrote: "(In fact Vivekachudamani is a 16th century work that is filled with doctrines that are completely opposed to Shankaras Siddhanata, including the Identification of Avidya and Maya and that Avidya is Tri-Guna Atmika, as well as the erroneous doctrine that even after the attainment of the Knowledge of the Self, the sadhaka has to repeat this knowledge over and over again to make it 'STRONG' (Prasankyanavada-A pet view of Swami Dayananda, who holds that;: 'Just like a born beggar who has just won the lottery and is now a millionaire, but still his hand goes out automatically when someone is offering free food due to his old habits. So also for the one who has got the 'knowledge of the Self', the old vasanas keep coming back and in order to make his 'knowledge' firm, that knowledge should be repeated till it becomes natural'. His student,. Jaishankar writes; "Similarly after gaining doubtless Knowldege that 'I am Brahman' from Guru and Shastra one has to recollect this knowledge till all previous conditioning goes"(Post Sat. Nov. 27 1999) and again Sri Madathilnair writes to Orbitsville;: "Once we have the basic Advaitic vision, what is needed is contemplation on it"(Sun Feb 3). And this view has been shared by every other Post Shankara Vedantin till this day! A view that is extensively and completely refuted by Shankara in his Upadesha Sahasri, - Mundaka Up.Bh 1-1-6, - Isha. Up. Bh 18, - Bri Bh,1-4-10 etc.etc.)." I want to clarify that Swami Dayananda does'nt support Prasankyanavada. Those who hold on to Prasankyanavada say that Sabda Pramana does'nt give aparoksha jnana (direct or immeadiate knowledge). They talk about converting indirect knowledge (parokshajnana) gained from sruti to direct knowledge (aparoksha jnana) by doing Meditation ( similar to Modern Vedanta). Swami Dayananda does'nt accept this view. He has rejected Prasankyanavada many times in the classes that I have attended. When we say that the knowledge has to be recollected (Nidhidhyasana) it is part of the Pramana vyapara which leads to a knowledge without any obstacles (apratibandhakajnanam). Depending on the qualifications of the seeker (mumukshu) there can be many different kinds of obstacles like doubts, vagueness and prior conditioning. All these obstacles have to be overcome to attain clear knowledge of the self as revealed by the sruti. A uttamaadhikari ( a fully qualified person) may not need any recollection (Nidhidhyasana). For such a person only sravanam may be enough, but such persons are very rare. If Atma chaitanya rejects recollection of knowledge for everyone, how does he explain Nidhidhyasana? He cannot reject Nidhidhyasana as something introduced by the later acharyas ! Regarding Mulavidya and whether Avidya is a Bhavapadartha I have to say from my reading of Bhagavad Gita,Upanishad and Brahma Sutra Bhasyas that Shankara takes Avidya as jnanavirodhi (opposed to knowledge) rather than jnanaabhAva (absence of knowledge). If Atmachaitanya disagrees with this then he has to give alternate explanations to Gita verses like "ajnAnena Avrtam jnAnam tena muhyanti jantava:" "jnAnena tu tadajnAnam yeshAm nAshitamAtmana: teshAm adityavad jnAnam prakashayati tatparam" etc. " The beings are deluded by ignorance which covers jnAnam. For whom this ignorance is destroyed by knowledge the consciousness shines forth like the Sun." The other problem if ajnanam is taken as jnanaabhAva is that in sleep there cannot be any jivabija or karanasarira (causal state). This is the position which Atmachaitanya takes which leads to lot of illogical implications. If ignorance is not there in sleep then all you have to do to be liberated is sleep. But thats not the case in this world. Further this position is contradicted by shankara's bhasyam on Mandukya Karika's Agamaprakaranam and chandogya upanishad's 6th chapter. I can send a seperate post on that as I dont carry the texts with me now. Finally I want to state that all these things are only prakriyAbheda ( differences in the methodology of teaching) as we all agree on what is to be taught which is 'tat tvam asi'. That being the case, to claim that all others after Shankara and Sureshvara in the guruparampara are wrong or ajnanis, is adhikaprasanga or sheer arrogance. For different people different methodologies work but one cannot dismiss the parampara which has been coming for more than thousand years and has produced so many enlightened people as wrong, with flimsy reasoning. with love and prayers, Jaishankar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 26, 2002 namaste shri Atmachaitanya-ji, I went through your respose to shri Dennis Waite and particularly the objections you raised to what is adhyAsa, particularly in points labelled A, B, C....H. You have presented them as objections raised by vaishnava AcAryA-s. But the force with which you presented them lead me to believe that you yourself to that thinking. I would like to categorically know whether you yourself accept that line of thinking (as presented in points A, B...H of your post). I find the points made there without basis and, in my view, a complete misrepresentation of what is advaita. And I am surprised that a learned person like you, a disciple of swami satchidanendra saraswati, to that misrepresentation. I like to present here my understanding on these points. For brevity, I will not reproduce your post but will label my points the same as yours, viz. A, B...etc. A. The locus of ignorance is in the feeling of individuality (ahaMkAra) of the jIvA. In answer to question whose is avidyA, shri shankara says it is in the person who is asking the question. There is no outside to the Absolute. Absolute, Itself, is without qualities, yet because of avidyA, the jIvA concept is born. B. I suggested in my earlier post the analogy of confusion (about any subject even in aparavidyA). When we do not know the subject, confusion really exists for us in that state of mind. However, when we have full knowledge (of the subject), confusion is no longer there. Is the confusion existent or non-existent? It is existent in one state of mind and non-existent in another state of mind. Similarly, avidyA has real existence in our state of ignorance, but once knowledge dawns, avidyA is no longer there. I will refer to this again in a later point where you raised whether knowledge ever destroyed ignorance. C. The mind, engulfed by avidyA and created by avidyA, makes the jIvA not see the infiniteness of the Atman. I do not see why it is such an impossible thing to understand. Surely, the existence of avidyA (in our ignorant state) and the destruction of it as knowledge dawns is fully demonstated. Take any of the standard examples in advaita. I cannot presume I can teach you here, but I am utterly dismayed by your seeming acceptance of what you called the vaishnava AcAryas' objections. D avidyA is anAdi but is not endless. avidyA is anAdi is shown by shri shankara in His shri lalitA trishatIbhAShya (name: havirbhoktrI). avidyA has an end at knowing what we are. JIvA feeling has no beginning but ends when ahaMkAra does not rise its ugly head anymore. The statements which you presented in D do not make any sense to me. E. Knowledge destroys confusion in aparavidyA and the Knowledge of the Absolute destoys ignorance. Whether you take ignorance as an existing thing is up to you. You cited the example of knowledge of the pot. The Absolute knowledge makes us see the pot what it is, just clay. That does not mean Knowledge destroys the pot. It destroys the ignorance of what the pot really is. Similarly, the Absolute Knowledge does not destroy the world, but it makes one to see what the jagat really is. F. You brought in nirvikalpa samAdhi into discussion. Bringing in that is a bogey. The discussion here is of adhyAsa and let us concentrate on that rather than introducing various other things into discussion. G, H and I are repetitions. Finally, shri Atmachaitanya-ji, I bow to your scholarship. I cannot presume I can get into debate with you on intellectual expression and exposition of matters spiritual, but I must say: If you to the points made in A to H of your post (I still like to think that you are only paraphrasing vaishnava AcAryAs' objections to advaita), you seem to have wrong understanding of advaita. My apologies if I have expressed my points a bit too forcefully. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, atmachaitanya108 wrote: > Dear Dennis, > > Your question on Adhyasa is a very important one, and demands a > satisfactory answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 26, 2002 Jaishankar Narayanan [srijai] Tuesday, February 26, 2002 7:41 AM Advaitin Egroup Re: Whence adhyAsa? The other problem if ajnanam is taken as jnanaabhAva is that in sleep there cannot be any jivabija or karanasarira (causal state). This is the position which Atmachaitanya takes which leads to lot of illogical implications. If ignorance is not there in sleep then all you have to do to be liberated is sleep. But thats not the case in this world. Further this position is contradicted by shankara's bhasyam on Mandukya Karika's Agamaprakaranam and chandogya upanishad's 6th chapter. I can send a seperate post on that as I dont carry the texts with me now. Finally I want to state that all these things are only prakriyAbheda ( differences in the methodology of teaching) as we all agree on what is to be taught which is 'tat tvam asi'. That being the case, to claim that all others after Shankara and Sureshvara in the guruparampara are wrong or ajnanis, is adhikaprasanga or sheer arrogance. For different people different methodologies work but one cannot dismiss the parampara which has been coming for more than thousand years and has produced so many enlightened people as wrong, with flimsy reasoning. with love and prayers, Jaishankar Namaste Sri Jaishankarji What you say makes sense to me. Sleep does not bring upon liberation. The phrase Sat-Chit-Ananda contains the clue. Chit refers to consciousness. The nature of consciousness is to be Awake. Pure Consciousness is Always Self-Awake. The ancient sages did not say the nature of Self is Sat-Nidra-Ananda (Existence - Sleep - Bliss). They say it is Sat-Chit-Ananda (Existence, Consciousness, Bliss). Love to all Harsha Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 26, 2002 Namaste Warwickji: First, let me honestly admit that I do not have an answer to your question. I am also quite confident that any answer that I attempt to provide can easily be challenged by both the academic debaters and also by the imaginary person with the stated attributes. In spite of my limitation, let me state my 2 cents worth! The thought that "I am in the wrong place" confirms that I am ignorant about my existence. We can succeed in negating this thought when we become aware, "Who am I?" Here the question and the answer has to merge so that the duality dissolves into non-duality. When someone asks the question - `Where is the postoffice?" someone else answers, "It is next to the cinema theater." In continuation of the question "Where is cinema theater?" if the answer is, "It is next to the postoffice" then the series of questions and answers are quite logical but with zero utility! The entire Vedantic discussions could face similar consequences with no clear cut answers to the question: "Who am I?" The answer is quite subtle, it is to divert inward instead of looking for outside answers. The focus should be on "I" rather than on "place." You have declared that you consider yourself to be in the right place if a person in this list makes a claim that he/she possesses all the stated attributes. I am quite puzzled with your assessment of the definition for the "right place." If a person from this list makes such a claim, how do you verify that he/she is real? warmest regards, Ram Chandran Then how do we remove the thought that "I am in the wrong place?" advaitin, "Warwick Wakefield" <nomistake@o...> wrote: > OK, some of the members of this list are confirmed academics and debaters. But I would like to know, are there ANY members of this list who long to receive a real, non conceptual, answer to this question "Who am I?". It may not exactly take the form, "Who am I?". It might take the form of a longing to disappear into God, it might take the form of great longing to know, "What is really true, of what can I be so certain that, for the sake of it, I would surrender my position in society, the affection of all my friends, the respect of the world, all my possessions and also my life? Is there a truth that is known with one's totality, not just one's mind?" > > Is there anyone like that? If not, I am certainly in the wrong place. > > Love > Warwick Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 26, 2002 I think the discussion is beautiful and we all can gain from these discussions if we focus on the topic or the subject without bringing individuals here. That is my humble request to all. In the final analysis we will all be winners. Hari Om! Sadananda -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 26, 2002 Here is my understanding on the topic of the discussion: Shree aatmachaitanyaji has provided information related to chronological development(?) of the avidya concept in Advaita Doctrine . First I want to thank him for the wonderful discussion he has provided. I would like to present my understanding of the concept more as a clarification as well as discussion from the point of my understanding. Before I do that I would like to mention the following in response to Shree Warwick post related to the pertinence of the current discussion versus 'who am I inquiry?' - True- in the final analysis that is the bottom line - but we should recognize that 'Who am I' is an inquiry -and not a japa - and inquiry involves intellectual investigation of the nature of who I am? - or nature of myself? -One can keep questioning -who am I and who am I until the heaven freezes but nothing will happen since question requires an answer and who is going to provide the answer and how do I know that the answer that the intellect acquires during that inquiry is the right answer. Hence Scripture is only pramaaNa to confirm that what I have learned out of that inquiry is the right answer. - One can end the inquiry of 'who am I' with one sentence answer "tat tvam asi' ' you are that'? But that only leads to more questions in the intellect and answer will only be incomplete unless the inquiry is done appropriately. The fundamental question that needs to be resolved in the inquiry is - How is that which is one without a second ended up as many (jiiva-s) and multiplicity of the world? How is that one which is conscious entity ended up with unconscious entities involving the world of plurality? Unless that is resolved, any inquiry will be incomplete or involves blind acceptance - hence does not resolve into knowledge. Bottom line that I would like to stress is that 'who am I inquiry cannot be separated out from What is the world? And what is my relation with the world? If I am that how come I do not recognize I am that or what prevents me from that understanding? - These are inter related and buried in the 'who am I' inquiry - Hence scripture has recognized that inquiry of oneself is not different from inquiry of the Brahman - and Brahman who or which is defined as 'jagat kaaraNam Brahman' - who is the cause of the world? - then back to the question - how is that which is of the nature of existence-consciousness- bliss - satyam j~naanam anantam brahma - that one without a second becomes manifold universe consisting of chara and achara - movable and immovable - jiiva-s and jadam-s. Brahman implies the totality - 'I am' implies a singularity - how is that singularity can be equated to the totality - That is what is involved ultimately. Hence statements like "what is involved is only ' who am I inquiry' and what is the use of all this intellectual debate" involve non-recognition of the fundamental problem - how is that I who is satyam j~naanam anantam - one without a second - ended up as many involving multitude of conscious entities and unconscious entities. - in the who am I enquiry - I have to resolve I am that eternal unlimited, anantam or Brahman, entity - otherwise I have not understood who am I. Hence all aachaarya-s addressed these questions and tried to answer these taking scripture as pramaaNa. Inquiry is intellectual - and since it involves a subjective inquiry or inquiry of the very nature of the subject who is doing the inquiry -the solution resolves into the true understanding or understanding of the truth of the subject-object distinctions as apparent and not real. Thus one goes beyond the very intellect that is instrumental in the inquiry - like pole vault. Until that happens one cannot forsake the pole since that is all one has, to go beyond! Hence one should not think that intellectual inquiry is contradictory to the spiritual saadhana. - Of course I do recognize that it can make one as egotistical if one does not watch out - hence scripture says - it is like a razor path - one can fall down any time - kshurasya dhaara duratyayaa durgam pathanaat kavayo vadanti - this is true in any path one can become arrogant or fanatic even in Bhakti sadhana - ego is very subtle and it has a way of rising up unnoticed. Now back to the intended discussion. Concept of adhyaasa is essentially Advaitic doctrine's explanation of how one appears as many - That is what ultimately is involved in the inquiry - adhyaasa means an error of judgement by the one who is committing the error. Root cause for an error is the ignorance of the truth. error analysis - khyati vaada- involves recognition of the truth as truth and false as false (each involves the other) along with the understanding of why false appears as truth and truth appears as false - or cause for the error. When the truth is recognized as truth - the cause of the original error -ignorance obviously eradicated. Let us be clear about the facts - from the point of truth or Brahman there is no error. Brahman is one without a second and there is nothing other than Brahman - that is from the Advaita doctrine based on the Scriptural statement - All Advaitic masters endorse that -sadeva soumya idam agra asiit Š. etc. Existence alone was there alone in the beginning and that is one without a second - That eliminates all duality involving three types of differentiation - sajaati, vijaati and swagata bhedaas - difference of the same species, differences of different species and no internal differences - One mass of homogeneous existent consciousness - praj~naana ghana - Hence existence of error is only from the point of the one who is committing the error - that is jiiva's point alone and not from the point of Brahman. This implies jiiva to be there to commit the error - and there rises a fundamental problem in Advaita - How to account the existence of jiiva who himself is a product of error for jiiva to be a locus of the error. This is an unresolved problem since there is an inherent interdependence - to get around this problem one can say that Brahman is the locus of avidya or ignorance but that does not also make sense either when Brahman is one without a second. The other way is to accept the interdependence as unresolvable problem as a part of anirvachaniiyam - in explainable. It is not completely illogical and also experiential (since logic or anumaana rests on pratyaksha or direct perceptual experience as the basis for cause-effect relations which are vyaapti j~naanam or concomitant relations required for logic to operate) - The familiar example is the chicken-egg situation - it is anirvachaniiyam . The second way of accounting the inexplicable nature of the avidya that the problem that is being addressed is not a real problem for a real solution exist. The apparent problem can only have apparent solution, which cannot be logical, since the problem is not real. Ultimate solution to the problem is to recognize that the whole problem is only apparent and not real and there cannot be any logical answer to this non-existent problem. Intrinsic in the analysis of this problem is the very limitation of the logic and intellectual inquiry to resolve the problem with an intellect which itself is a product of the avidya. I am beginning to think that Shankara recognized the intrinsic nature of the problem and rightfully left without emphasizing who or what is the locus of avidya - as part of the anirvachaniiyam - I will come back to this aspect of anirvachaniiyam or inexplicability aspect again. Anaadi aspect of the ignorance: Any ignorance has to be anaadi or beginningless and all aacharya-s (at least I know Ramanuja does) have accepted that for if it has a beginning then before ignorance started I must have been not having ignorance that is I must have been knowledgeable. If one ask me - do you know chemistry - and If I am ignorant of chemistry - now the next question is whey did my ignorance of chemistry started. Ignorance of chemistry cannot start - it has to be beginningless - but it can end when I learn chemistry. Any ignorance is abaavaruupa only - Ignorance is the absence of knowledge and in the above example it is the absence of chemistry knowledge. Chemistry knowledge is opposite to chemistry ignorance. Ignorance of chemistry cannot project some other false knowledge. This is what Shree Atmachaitanyaji is addressing. I do not think he is questioning the anaadi aspect of it but its projecting power. Ignorance cannot project anything it is just the absence of knowledge or negative quantity. Somewhere in the line of thinking Advaita, the concept got mixed-up with the projecting power attributing it to avidya or ignorance. Let us address the problem correctly - When I do not know that the object that I am seeing is a rope (ignorance of the object as a rope not complete ignorance of the object )- I project that it is a snake. Where did the projection of the snake or how did the projection of the snake arose. Can I say ignorance projected the snake - which does not make any sense. But yet ignorance of the rope is in a way inherent cause for the projection of the snake in the sense that If I had known that it is rope, there is no need for me to project the snake in the place of the rope. If you look at the sentence, ignorance is a cause but it is neither the material cause nor the intelligent cause nor the instrumental cause - it is a root cause for the subsequent projection. But the projecting power should rest with I the conscious entity - Hence although ignorance is the root cause or muula - it is neither the material cause nor the efficient cause. That is one of the reasons why one can get rid of it. The material and instrumental cause must rest with conscious entity alone. Ignorance of the truth is the cause for projection of the false as the truth - that aspect is indisputable. When ignorance is removed by knowledge, which is antidote for ignorance, then the root cause is removed and the projection of the false falls down since it is false in the awakening of the true knowledge. Now projection of the snake involves some other aspects too - why snake if one asks - there are similarities in terms of some attributes that are recognized and dissimilarities in terms of some attributes that are not recognized in the perception of the object (here it is rope). Ignorance of the rope covered the (knowledge of the) rope is a statement does not make full sense other than it is just the absence of the knowledge of the rope which is called ignorance due to non-comprehension of full attributes of the rope. Now for the projection of the snake where the rope is, I, the conscious entity, should have the knowledge of the attributes that are similar to both rope and snake and lack of knowledge of any attributes that differentiates the rope and the snake in the object that I am perceiving. This implies that I should have the prior samskaara or knowledge of the snake - at least a false snake if not a real snake for me to project the snake where rope is. Here where the problem comes in accounting the jagat and jiiva aspect - since for me to project all that on Brahman, I should have prior knowledge of the jagat and jiiva just as the I should have knowledge of a snake to project on the object where the rope is. One can escape the answer by saying that prior samskaara comes from prior life and for the prior life projection the previous to the prior life provides the samskaara and this can go on - and when forced to answer when did the first projection or how did the first projection started we can say - the ignorance is anaadi and the projection is also anaadi. or beginningless. We are back to chicken-egg situation and we can say it is just anirvachaniiyam - because there is actually no real projection or real ignorance either for anybody to account. The fundamental problem arises because an illegitimate guy is asking an illegitimate question and any answer will be illegitimate only since in reality there is no problem to solve. Only solution to the illegitimate problem is to recognition of the illegitimacy of the problem - it is not ignoring the problem but understanding the problem from correct perspective. This aspect all Advaitic masters emphasize. Looking from the total perspective - avidya is just ignorance of lack of knowledge of the truth and projecting power rests with the chaitanya vastu - you can say Iswara in terms of the total universe (macrocosm) or jiiva in the microcosm. 'Covering aspect' that Jaishankar brought to our attention is not real coving either but 'as though covering' since these are explanations within the realm of anirvachaniiyam aspect. The locus of avidya should rest with the jiiva since he is the one who is asking the question and trying to find who am I? - How did jiiva who is the product of avidya be locus of avidya - true if one puts it that way - but the fact of the matter is both jiiva and avidya are anaadi - which one started first is the chicken-egg situation and we are back to anirvachaniiyam. Thanks to aatmachaitanyaji I am beginning to appreciate more Why Sankara left it as such without giving unnecessary explanations that which cannot be explained logically since it is an indeterminate problem. Coming back to deep sleep - there is avidya alone without the projecting power and since the instruments of projection - mind and intellect are also folded during the deep sleep. What is there at the time - but before we answer that question - let us look at first who is asking that question? - Deep sleeper cannot ask the question since he is comfortably sleeping and waker has no passport to go and find out the fact of the deep sleep state. 'I slept well' is only a inferential statement of the waker - I would resort back to indeterminate problem within the realm of anirvachaniiyam since mind and intellect supported by the chitanyavastu is required for the projection. Ignorance was there in deep sleep since I did not know I slept well when I am sleeping well. - Experience of the sleep was there in terms of the absence of the mind and intellect and that will be left as the memory to recall that experience of its absence during deep sleep state. Even though ignorance was there, there is no projecting power and hence it is incorrect to say ignorance is of bhavaaruupa - it is just the absence of knowledge of - of everything. - hence even if I recall that experience - it is just I did not know anything is only the knowledge of that experience. Without the mind and intellect active - is there a world out there - refer back to my extensive discussion with Nanda few months ago - this is again indeterminate problem - the subject - object distinctions are superficial and raise in the mind and intellect - how that occurs one can say - I have the power to project and also power to split into the subject and object - What remains in deeper analysis is consciousness alone - idam thoughts and aham thoughts both are pervaded by consciousness that I am. Projection itself is not problem that is my power to project. But if that projection is backed by the ignorance - then I can mistake it as real and forget I am the substratum for both seer and the seen. But if the projection is backed by knowledge since I can still project since I have the mind and intellect - since that power rests with me and not with ignorance - then I can see the plurality but not mistake the seen plurality is real since I have knowledge that seer and seen are one and the same. Hence plurality is not the problem per say - but taking the plurality as reality is the problem and that is called moha or delusion - Illusion is the projection and delusion is taking the illusion as real. I presented my understanding of the problem and of course open for discussion as always. Hari Om! Sadananda -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 26, 2002 Memebrs of Advaitin Satsang, Hari Om Tha agenda set by Shri Sadanadji on the subject "adhyasa" and its elucidation by Shri Atmachaitanya and other participants is fascinating and important. However such discussions may go on for a long time. One possible reason, is as posted by Shri Madhavji recently in his Gita satsang, Lord Krishna mentions the day of Brahma as 4.32 million years. And the yuga goes on for several multiples of this, huge number to start with. So theoratically speaking, if "Advaitin" means there is no universe except him who realizes it as such, then a realization is possible only at the end of yuga. Till that time, Lord Krishna in his own wisdom (presumably greater than us) has decided that the universe has to go on in some state of ignorance till that time, at the end of which it will merge with him. So if in this life, I am unable to comprehend the finality of Advaitin, but take efforts in that direction, then there is still hope for me. In the next birth, whenever that is, I will hopefully be able with his Grace, to continue this search, probably somewhat closer to the truth. We are not at the end of the universe and therefore let Shri Artmachaitanya have his say and those who disagree would still have time to find out. Pranams to all. P.B.V.Rajan Get Your Private, Free E-mail from Indiatimes at http://email.indiatimes.com Buy Music, Video, CD-ROM, Audio-Books and Music Accessories from http://www.planetm.co.in Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 26, 2002 Namaste all, > One possible reason, is as posted by Shri Madhavji > recently in his Gita satsang, Lord Krishna mentions > the day of Brahma as 4.32 million years. And the > yuga goes on for several multiples of this, huge > number to start with. So theoratically speaking, if > "Advaitin" means there is no universe except him who > realizes it as such, then a realization is possible > only at the end of yuga. Till that time, Lord > Krishna in his own wisdom (presumably greater than > us) has decided that the universe has to go on in > some state of ignorance till that time, at the end > of which it will merge with him. > So if in this life, I am unable to comprehend the > finality of Advaitin, but take efforts in that > direction, then there is still hope for me. In the > next birth, whenever that is, I will hopefully be > able with his Grace, to continue this search, > probably somewhat closer to the truth. There is a story to illustrate this in the Taittiriya Brahmanaa, ' The sage Bharadvaja devoted himself to the study of the Vedas for his hundred year life span but could not finish it. So he prayed to Brahma to extend his life for another full span. The boon was granted but there was still not enough time so he prayed again. Brahma was pleased with his devotion and religious austerity so he gave him the second boon. At the end of this life the conclusion of his study was nowhere in sight. Thereupon there was a spontaneous utterance in his heart ..ananta vai veda .....infinite indeed are the Vedas. ' May spontaneity be our guide, Om sri ram ken knight Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion! http://greetings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 26, 2002 Namaste Ram Chandran, There is a method of investigating what we might call "objective reality". Broadly speaking, it is known as science. For the moment, let's leave quantum mechanics out of the picture. But spiritual enquiry is not the same as science. The motivation is different, the goal is different and the methods are different. One can investigate the size of distant galaxies without being personally involved, in regard to one's happiness or misery, at all. Not so in the case of spiritual enquiry. And that is something that seems to be conspicuously absent from this forum. The participants , with a few notable exceptions, seem to have no real involvement, apart from displaying their erudition. I have not once read somebody saying where and when they understood something, and what difference it made to their general understanding or to their lives. Dry as dust. But Advaita, as it has affected me, is not dry as dust. When I read your views on Advaita it is like listening to someone say that the essence of poetry is the number of syllables in a line, or the chemicals that are released into the brain as a result of the associations of the metaphors. And now, to tell you the truth, I don't care very much. My choice would be to recognise all of you as infinite consciousness, even as I am, but you seem determined to regard me and yourselves as complicated mechanical devices. Shame on you. You are betraying God, you are betraying me, you are betraying yourselves. And Ram Chandranji, in regard to the question, "Who am I?", why don't you just admit that you haven't got a clue? Why go on with all that empty waffle? Cheers Warwick Original Message ----- ramvchandran Namaste Warwickji: First, let me honestly admit that I do not have an answer to your question. I am also quite confident that any answer that I attempt to provide can easily be challenged by both the academic debaters and also by the imaginary person with the stated attributes. In spite of my limitation, let me state my 2 cents worth! The thought that "I am in the wrong place" confirms that I am ignorant about my existence. We can succeed in negating this thought when we become aware, "Who am I?" Here the question and the answer has to merge so that the duality dissolves into non-duality. When someone asks the question - `Where is the postoffice?" someone else answers, "It is next to the cinema theater." In continuation of the question "Where is cinema theater?" if the answer is, "It is next to the postoffice" then the series of questions and answers are quite logical but with zero utility! The entire Vedantic discussions could face similar consequences with no clear cut answers to the question: "Who am I?" The answer is quite subtle, it is to divert inward instead of looking for outside answers. The focus should be on "I" rather than on "place." You have declared that you consider yourself to be in the right place if a person in this list makes a claim that he/she possesses all the stated attributes. I am quite puzzled with your assessment of the definition for the "right place." If a person from this list makes such a claim, how do you verify that he/she is real? warmest regards, Ram Chandran Then how do we remove the thought that "I am in the wrong place?" advaitin, "Warwick Wakefield" <nomistake@o...> wrote: > OK, some of the members of this list are confirmed academics and debaters. But I would like to know, are there ANY members of this list who long to receive a real, non conceptual, answer to this question "Who am I?". It may not exactly take the form, "Who am I?". It might take the form of a longing to disappear into God, it might take the form of great longing to know, "What is really true, of what can I be so certain that, for the sake of it, I would surrender my position in society, the affection of all my friends, the respect of the world, all my possessions and also my life? Is there a truth that is known with one's totality, not just one's mind?" > > Is there anyone like that? If not, I am certainly in the wrong place. > > Love > Warwick Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages Your use of is subject to Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 26, 2002 Dear Jaishankarji I found this very helpful-"Just like a born beggar who has just won the lottery and is now a millionaire, but still his hand goes out automatically when someone is offering free food due to his old habits. So also for the one who has got the 'knowledge of the Self', the old vasanas keep coming back and in order to make his 'knowledge' firm, that knowledge should be repeated till it becomes natural" Thank you Warwick Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 26, 2002 Yes Ken, I take your point, especially about the Rumi poem. And I take your point that any yearning an individual may have is God looking for Herself. And I maintain, more than ever, that a tremendous amount of what happens here is no more uninvolved with a yearning for the Divine than the hair-splitting, logic-chopping and one-up-manship of theological debate in the various Christian churches. We aught to bear in mind that Saint John of the Cross and Saint Teresa of Avila, while they are revered today, were in big trouble while they were alive. Sincerely Warwick Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 26, 2002 Hullo Brian do you think I'm being too pompous, taking myself too seriously? Could well be. Do you really think that the contempt and arrogance, and the mediocre but relentless argumentation of our mate Atmachaitanya has any purpose other than to remind us what happens when we forget that we have a heart beating in our breasts? You might be right. If I can muster up the energy I might make another attempt to explore that forbidding desert. I'll take it to heart and see what happens. Very best regards Warwick - Brian Milnes 'advaitin' Tuesday, February 26, 2002 7:26 PM RE: Re: Whence adhyAsa? | madathilnair [madathilnair] | This is not to discourage "scholarly" discussions. Let them | continue, generate heat and light. We need everything. And, above | all, we need you, Shri Warwickji! So, don't leave us yet. You see, Warwick, no worries mate! Brian PS. I too, find the brusque, uncompromising and sometimes arrogant style of Atmachaitanya so far removed from everyday practicality AND from experiential reference that I've thought of leaving. But there is a deeper reason for his participation in this group and I have actually learnt much from the debates with his participation. He also, I believe is taking value from his participation by testing his mettle in various aspects of his sadhana (especially laukika anumanam and shastreya anumanam) so that he can be a worthy carrier of the "true" message of Shankara. Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages Your use of is subject to Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
