Guest guest Report post Posted February 26, 2002 Dear Sri Madathilnair What a beautiful letter. I cannot add anything to it so I will just tell you that it seems to me to display a perfect balance of commonsense and a real longing for the Divine. Love Warwick - madathilnair advaitin Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:51 PM Re: Whence adhyAsa? 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 26, 2002 Dear Brian, When you write: " He also, I believe is taking value from his participation by testing his mettle in various aspects of his sadhana…so that he can be a worthy carrier of the "true" message of Shankara.", you have hit the nail on the head. Please allow me a quote from Suresvaracharyas' opening verses to his NaishkarmyaSiddhi: "On the philosophy of the Veda, presented by my preceptor, I can say nothing because of my incompetence. What can a glow worm do towards illumining what has already been flooded by the light of the thousand-rayed sun?" " It may appear then, as the preceptor himself has composed the exposition of the import of the Vedas, the work on hand proceeds from invalidating motives like love of fame. Such a supposition is ruled out in what follows." "This work in not composed by me for the sake of fame, gain or reverential consideration: It is for the purposes of purifying my own understanding by the testimony of those who know Brahman." (Nais. 5 - 6) (He then goes on to refute the false doctrines of other Advaitins, all of whom believed in the truth of the sentence 'Tat Tvam Asi', but who, according to his understanding, had deviated from the true methodology, as presented by his Guru, Shankaracharya.) -- Dear Warwick, You may not believe me, but when you write: "Are there Any members of this list who long to receive a real, non-conceptual answer to this question "Who am I?" It might take the form of a longing to disappear in 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 any one like that?" I agree with you 100%. Vedanta is not about intellectual questions and answers. The problem is not an intellectual one, but a spiritual one. It can't be solved by the 'intellectual faculty' of the mind. It has to be solved by the 'spiritual faculty' of the mind; i.e: The minds' capacity to turn inwards and directly intuit the Self as it is (which is beyond the mind). It's not about refuting the Buddhists, the Prasankyanavadins or the Mula Avidy theorists. Vedanta is about purifying the mind, turning inwards and taking a stand in your True Self. As I said in a previous post: "There are only two kinds of 'Real Vedantins': 1) Those who have taken a stand in the True Self. 2) Those who are trying to take a stand in their True Self. For those Vedantins of the second category, the qualities which you mention in your above quoted passage, and which can be described as intense 'Mumuksutva', are the most important and indispensable qualifications for a Vedantin. --- Dear Gummuluru Murthy, You ask: "If you to the points made in A to H of your post (I still like to think that you are only paraphrasing Vaisnava Acharyas objections to Advaita) you seem to have a wrong understanding of Advaita." I am sorry to say that you seem to have missed the whole point of my post. What I was paraphrasing was the Vaisnava critique of Bhavarupa Mula Avidya. A critique which is absolutely valid, because once you accept Mula Avidya as an actually existing 'thing' that is the 'material cause' of the universe, you have abandoned Advaita. My main point is that Shankara never in his wildest dreams ever propounded such a fallacious theory. And if in fact there was such a 'thing' as Mula Avidya, that is made up of three gunas, knowledge could never destroy it. --- Dear Jaishankar, Please allow me to address your comments on Prasankyana Vada. Your other points about Mula Avidya, and Avidya in deep sleep, as well as your 'notions' about Prakriya Bedas will have to be dealt with at a future date. You say that: "Swami Dayananda doesn't support Prasankyanavada . Those who hold onto Prasankyanavada say that Sabda Pramana doesn't give aparoksha Jnana (direct or immediate knowledge). They talk about converting indirect knowledge (paroksha Jnana) gained from the sruti to direct knowledge (Aparoksha Jnana) by doing meditation (similar of modern Vedanta). Swami Dayananda doesn't accept this view. He has rejected Prasankyanavada many times in the classes that I have attended. When we say the 'KNOWLEDGE' has to be recollected (Nidhidyasana) it is part of the pramana vyapara which leads to a knowledge without any obstacles (apratibandikajnana)." Now I would like to ask you: Is this " knowledge that has to be recollected " indirect knowledge, or direct knowledge? It can't be indirect knowledge, because no amount of recollecting indirect knowledge will convert it into direct knowledge as Swami Dayananda himself admits.. The only other alternative is that it is the 'direct knowledge' (aparoksha Jnana) that has to be repeatedly recollected to remove the remaining obstacles, AFTER the direct knowledge has been attained from the shabda Pramana. But this is exactly the false doctrine that Shankara has over and over again refuted throughout his Prastana Traya Bhashyas, and in his Upadesha Sahasri. Shankaras position is that after the attainment of Apararoksha Jnana, there is absolutely nothing left to do, no obstacles left that have to be destroyed, and no individual left to do any recollecting. Let me cite a few examples: To begin, lets see what Suresvara has to say about this recollecting of knowledge (which by the way you wrongly identify with nididhyasana, but that is another story): so as to remove the 'obstacles that remain after direct knowledge has been attained: "At this conclusion, some supported by their own tradition, aver that this knowledge of the form 'I am Brahman' arising out of the hearing of the Vedantic text, does not at all remove ignorance at its very inception; but by this same knowledge being repeated day by day for a long time, is wiped off all ignorance without a residue." "What follows is in refutation" "The understanding of the Scripture at once, without repetition, destroys the ignorance that bears the forms of action and the factors involved in action" (Nias. 1-67) And Shankara writes: " Just as in a sentence which stipulates an injunction Karma, even after the meaning of the sentence is understood, the activities which are to be performed by gathering many instruments of action remains,-- the deliberation on the Vedanta Vakya which teaches the Knowledge of the Supreme Self is not like that at all; at the very instant of our understanding the meaning to the Vedantic sentence, the whole process gets completed." (Mun. Bha>1-1-6) Note: Here is has been clearly stated that after understanding the meaning of the Vedanta Vakya there does not remain any thing whatsoever to be done, including the repeated recollection of the meaning to destroy the remaining obstacles. It amounts to saying that the teaching of Sri Vachaspati Mishra ( Bhamatikara) and Swami Dayananda, who opine that Some such practice as the Jnana abhyasa should be performed, is opposed to the Sampradaya of Shankara. And again: "Because of the reason that after Knowledge accrues Ignorance has disappeared…this Avidya can no longer exist. Just as, even after the knowledge that fire is hot and it illumines - to that person who has that knowledge- to such a person the false knowledge (Mithyajnana) to the effect that fire is cold or that it does not illumine- can never occur; further, either Samshaya (doubt), about it or its non-knowledge (ajana) can NEVER exist."( Isa Bbha 18) Note: Here, not only are the 3 types of ignorance recognized by Shankara enumerated 1) not knowing 2) doubt 3) misconception. (There is no Mula Avidya ever mentioned by him anywhere in his writings), but also the fact that after apraroksha Jnana there is no possibility of any "doubts or vagueness" as Jaisankaar would have it. While I could go on and on with quotes which demonstrate that for Shankara, after Aparokha Jnana, there is nothing more to do, no more doer, no one to recollect anything, and that All Pramana Prameya Vyvahara completely ceases, but. I will spare you all, and end these quotes with a final clincher, and then quote the BramaSiddhi to demonstrate that Swami Dayananda and Jaisankar both belong to a different Sampradaya than Shankara. "The repetition of concepts may be of use in the case of results to be achieved by meditation, in as much as it is possible that some intensity is effected in them by repeated practice. But in the case of the knowledge of the higher Brahman, which reveals Brahman that is the very self of the seeker, eternally pure, conscious and free, what purpose would be served by its repletion?" " If it be said that the knowledge of the identity of Brahman and atman is not born by listening to the text merely once, and hence its repletion is held to be necessary, we reply that this can not be so: for, the result is not conceivable even in the case of repetition. (To explain): If hearing the Vedantic text once, does not produce the knowledge of the identity of Brahman and Atman, Where is the hope that the same repeatedly heard, (or recollected) would produce that knowledge?" (SBh.4-1-2) ( Swami Dayananda, it would seem, belongs to Mandana's Sampradaya not Shankaras) Mandana writes: " Even when the knowledge of the truth has dawned, but a sufficiently strong impression of it has not been stored up, while the impressions born of false knowledge are stronger, even correct notions may present false objects, as for example in the case of one who is confounded with regard to the cardinal directions, but does not keep up the memory of the testimony of a friend; for, he is found to proceed in the wrong direction even then as before. This is the case also with regard to a rope ascertained to be such, which is found to give rise to fear through a misconception that it is a snake, in case one does not keep up the memory (keep recollecting) of his correct knowledge…..Therefore even after True Knowledge has dawned by the help of the right means of knowledge, the repeated maintenance of correct knowledge, is deemed to be necessary for the purpose of overcoming or destroying the stronger impression that has arisen out of continued repetition of false perception" (Brahama Siddhi pg. 35) Both Madana, Padmapada and Swami Dayananda, think that even after the dawn of knowledge of Atman there is a possibility of its being obstructed by some external factor (pratibandikas)-Impressions of wrong knowledge in the case of Madana, and suspicion that it is not probable in the case of Padmapada (And probably a combination of both in the case of Swami Dayananda). It is clear that this fear, while applicable to empirical knowledge, can have no place in the case of the Knowledge of the Non-Dual Self, since there is no scope for any ' external obstructive cause' in the state of this Knowledge. Witness the Sruti quoted so often by Shankara;("Where to this enlightened one everything has become the Self alone, there one could see whom and with what?….there one could know whom and with what?") which emphatically denies the distinction of the knower, knowledge and the knowable in that state. ---- - Dear K Sadananda I hope to address some of your points when I deal with the to outstanding questions; "Whence Adhyasa" and "How the Shastra is the only Pramana for Atmavidya. Let me just remark that I don't think that the answers are as "Anirvachaniya" (inexplicable) as you make them out to be. Lets hope not. Please be patient for my next post , I am sure you all need a break from my verbosity. .. Hari Om Atmachaitanya Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 26, 2002 Namaste Atmachaitanyaji, May I know what does 'intuiting the self' mean in this context? I would be grateful if you could clarify this. With regards to 'ignorance' being 'bhavarupa' & existing in a seed form in sleep, I will post 2 references from the brahmasutra shankarabhashya tomorrow. The two verses seem to support the idea that ignorance does exist in a seed form in sleep. If you do know the verses I am referring to, could you please quote them and explain how you would reconcile them with your claim that ignorance is non-existent in deep sleep. Pls, could you also address Jaishankarji's line of reasoning mentioned below, taken from his last post: '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.' Thank you. > > atmachaitanya108 [sMTP:stadri] > Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:31 PM > advaitin > Re: Whence adhyAsa? > > Dear Brian, > > When you write: " He also, I believe is taking value from his > participation by testing his mettle in various aspects of his > sadhana...so that he can be a worthy carrier of the "true" message of > Shankara.", you have hit the nail on the head. Please allow me a quote > from Suresvaracharyas' opening verses to his NaishkarmyaSiddhi: > > "On the philosophy of the Veda, presented by my preceptor, I > can say nothing because of my incompetence. What can a glow worm do > towards illumining what has already been flooded by the light of the > thousand-rayed sun?" > > " It may appear then, as the preceptor himself has composed > the exposition of the import of the Vedas, the work on hand proceeds > from invalidating motives like love of fame. Such a supposition is > ruled out in what follows." > > "This work in not composed by me for the sake of fame, gain > or reverential consideration: It is for the purposes of purifying my > own understanding by the testimony of those who know Brahman." (Nais. > 5 - 6) > > (He then goes on to refute the false doctrines of other Advaitins, > all of whom believed in the truth of the sentence 'Tat Tvam Asi', but > who, according to his understanding, had deviated from the true > methodology, as presented by his Guru, Shankaracharya.) > > -- > > Dear Warwick, > > You may not believe me, but when you write: > "Are there Any members of this list who long to > receive a real, non-conceptual answer to this question "Who am I?" It > might take the form of a longing to disappear in 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 any one like that?" > I agree with you 100%. Vedanta is not about > intellectual questions and answers. The problem is not an intellectual > one, but a spiritual one. It can't be solved by the 'intellectual > faculty' of the mind. It has to be solved by the 'spiritual faculty' > of the mind; i.e: The minds' capacity to turn inwards and directly > intuit the Self as it is (which is beyond the mind). It's not about > refuting the Buddhists, the Prasankyanavadins or the Mula Avidy > theorists. Vedanta is about purifying the mind, turning inwards and > taking a stand in your True Self. As I said in a previous post: > > "There are only two kinds of 'Real Vedantins': 1) Those > who have taken a stand in the True Self. 2) Those who are trying to > take a stand in their True Self. > > For those Vedantins of the second category, the qualities which you > mention in your above quoted passage, and which can be described as > intense 'Mumuksutva', are the most important and indispensable > qualifications for a Vedantin. > > > --- > > Dear Gummuluru Murthy, > > You ask: "If you to the points made in A to H of > your post (I still like to think that you are only paraphrasing > Vaisnava Acharyas objections to Advaita) you seem to have a wrong > understanding of Advaita." > > I am sorry to say that you seem to have missed the whole point of my > post. What I was paraphrasing was the Vaisnava critique of Bhavarupa > Mula Avidya. A critique which is absolutely valid, because once you > accept Mula Avidya as an actually existing 'thing' that is the > 'material cause' of the universe, you have abandoned Advaita. My main > point is that Shankara never in his wildest dreams ever propounded > such a fallacious theory. And if in fact there was such a 'thing' as > Mula Avidya, that is made up of three gunas, knowledge could never > destroy it. > > > --- > > Dear Jaishankar, > > Please allow me to address your comments on Prasankyana Vada. Your > other points about Mula Avidya, and Avidya in deep sleep, as well as > your 'notions' about Prakriya Bedas will have to be dealt with at a > future date. > > > You say that: > "Swami Dayananda doesn't support Prasankyanavada . Those who > hold onto Prasankyanavada say that Sabda Pramana doesn't give > aparoksha Jnana (direct or immediate knowledge). They talk about > converting indirect knowledge (paroksha Jnana) gained from the sruti > to direct knowledge (Aparoksha Jnana) by doing meditation (similar of > modern Vedanta). Swami Dayananda doesn't accept this view. He has > rejected Prasankyanavada many times in the classes that I have > attended. When we say the 'KNOWLEDGE' has to be recollected > (Nidhidyasana) it is part of the pramana vyapara which leads to a > knowledge without any obstacles (apratibandikajnana)." > > Now I would like to ask you: Is this " knowledge that has to be > recollected " indirect knowledge, or direct knowledge? It can't be > indirect knowledge, because no amount of recollecting indirect > knowledge will convert it into direct knowledge as Swami Dayananda > himself admits.. The only other alternative is that it is the 'direct > knowledge' (aparoksha Jnana) that has to be repeatedly recollected to > remove the remaining obstacles, AFTER the direct knowledge has been > attained from the shabda Pramana. But this is exactly the false > doctrine that Shankara has over and over again refuted throughout his > Prastana Traya Bhashyas, and in his Upadesha Sahasri. Shankaras > position is that after the attainment of Apararoksha Jnana, there is > absolutely nothing left to do, no obstacles left that have to be > destroyed, and no individual left to do any recollecting. Let me cite > a few examples: > > To begin, lets see what Suresvara has to say about this recollecting > of knowledge (which by the way you wrongly identify with nididhyasana, > but that is another story): so as to remove the 'obstacles that remain > after direct knowledge has been attained: > > "At this conclusion, some supported by their own tradition, aver > that this knowledge of the form 'I am Brahman' arising out of the > hearing of the Vedantic text, does not at all remove ignorance at its > very inception; but by this same knowledge being repeated day by day > for a long time, is wiped off all ignorance without a residue." "What > follows is in refutation" > "The understanding of the Scripture at once, without repetition, > destroys the ignorance that bears the forms of action and the factors > involved in action" (Nias. 1-67) > > > And Shankara writes: > > " Just as in a sentence which stipulates an injunction Karma, > even after the meaning of the sentence is understood, the activities > which are to be performed by gathering many instruments of action > remains,-- the deliberation on the Vedanta Vakya which teaches the > Knowledge of the Supreme Self is not like that at all; at the very > instant of our understanding the meaning to the Vedantic sentence, the > whole process gets completed." (Mun. Bha>1-1-6) > > Note: Here is has been clearly stated that after understanding the > meaning of the Vedanta Vakya there does not remain any thing > whatsoever to be done, including the repeated recollection of the > meaning to destroy the remaining obstacles. It amounts to saying that > the teaching of Sri Vachaspati Mishra ( Bhamatikara) and Swami > Dayananda, who opine that Some such practice as the Jnana abhyasa > should be performed, is opposed to the Sampradaya of Shankara. > > And again: > "Because of the reason that after Knowledge > accrues Ignorance has disappeared...this Avidya can no longer exist. > Just as, even after the knowledge that fire is hot and it illumines - > to that person who has that knowledge- to such a person the false > knowledge (Mithyajnana) to the effect that fire is cold or that it > does not illumine- can never occur; further, either Samshaya (doubt), > about it or its non-knowledge (ajana) can NEVER exist."( Isa Bbha 18) > > Note: Here, not only are the 3 types of ignorance recognized by > Shankara enumerated 1) not knowing 2) doubt 3) misconception. (There > is no Mula Avidya ever mentioned by him anywhere in his writings), but > also the fact that after apraroksha Jnana there is no possibility of > any "doubts or vagueness" as Jaisankaar would have it. > > While I could go on and on with quotes which demonstrate that for > Shankara, after Aparokha Jnana, there is nothing more to do, no more > doer, no one to recollect anything, and that All Pramana Prameya > Vyvahara completely ceases, but. I will spare you all, and end these > quotes with a final clincher, and then quote the BramaSiddhi to > demonstrate that Swami Dayananda and Jaisankar both belong to a > different Sampradaya than Shankara. > > "The repetition of concepts may be of use in the case > of results to be achieved by meditation, in as much as it is > possible that some intensity is effected in them by repeated practice. > But in the case of the knowledge of the higher Brahman, which reveals > Brahman that is the very self of the seeker, eternally pure, conscious > and free, what purpose would be served by its repletion?" > > " If it be said that the knowledge of the identity of > Brahman and atman is not born by listening to the text merely once, > and hence its repletion is held to be necessary, we reply that this > can not be so: for, the result is not conceivable even in the case of > repetition. (To explain): If hearing the Vedantic text once, does not > produce the knowledge of the identity of Brahman and Atman, Where is > the hope that the same repeatedly heard, (or recollected) would > produce that knowledge?" (SBh.4-1-2) > > ( Swami Dayananda, it would seem, belongs to Mandana's Sampradaya > not Shankaras) > > Mandana writes: > > " Even when the knowledge of the truth has dawned, but a > sufficiently strong impression of it has not been stored up, while the > impressions born of false knowledge are stronger, even correct notions > may present false objects, as for example in the case of one who is > confounded with regard to the cardinal directions, but does not keep > up the memory of the testimony of a friend; for, he is found to > proceed in the wrong direction even then as before. This is the case > also with regard to a rope ascertained to be such, which is found to > give rise to fear through a misconception that it is a snake, in case > one does not keep up the memory (keep recollecting) of his correct > knowledge.....Therefore even after True Knowledge has dawned by the > help of the right means of knowledge, the repeated maintenance of > correct knowledge, is deemed to be necessary for the purpose of > overcoming or destroying the stronger impression that has arisen out > of continued repetition of false perception" (Brahama Siddhi pg. 35) > > > Both Madana, Padmapada and Swami Dayananda, think that even > after the dawn of knowledge of Atman there is a possibility of its > being obstructed by some external factor (pratibandikas)-Impressions > of wrong knowledge in the case of Madana, and suspicion that it is not > probable in the case of Padmapada (And probably a combination of both > in the case of Swami Dayananda). It is clear that this fear, while > applicable to empirical knowledge, > can have no place in the case of the Knowledge of the Non-Dual Self, > since there is no scope for any ' external obstructive cause' in the > state of this Knowledge. Witness the Sruti quoted so often by > Shankara;("Where to this enlightened one everything has become the > Self alone, there one could see whom and with what?....there one could > know whom and with what?") which emphatically denies the distinction > of the knower, knowledge and the knowable in that state. > > ---- > - > > Dear K Sadananda > > I hope to address some of your points when I deal with the to > outstanding questions; "Whence Adhyasa" and "How the Shastra is the > only Pramana for Atmavidya. Let me just remark that I don't think that > the answers are as "Anirvachaniya" (inexplicable) as you make them out > to be. Lets hope not. Please be patient for my next post , I am sure > you all need a break from my verbosity. > . > Hari Om > Atmachaitanya > > > > > > 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 Hari Om !! Thank you for your kindness for continuing to present your logical thinking and true representation of Sankara Sampradaya, as you understand, without being deterred by impatient folks. It defenitely opens new doors. I for one am very happy, because this Avidya business has been bothering me and have asked about the sopurce and components of this Avidya, so I can struggle to get rid of this Avidya etc. Om Namo Narayanaya !! Srikrishna advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote: > Dear Brian, > > When you write: " He also, I believe is taking value from his > participation by testing his mettle in various aspects of his > sadhana…so that he can be a worthy carrier of the "true" message of > Shankara.", you have hit the nail on the head. Please allow me a quote > from Suresvaracharyas' opening verses to his NaishkarmyaSiddhi: > > "On the philosophy of the Veda, presented by my preceptor, I > can say nothing because of my incompetence. What can a glow worm do > towards illumining what has already been flooded by the light of the > thousand-rayed sun?" > > " It may appear then, as the preceptor himself has composed > the exposition of the import of the Vedas, the work on hand proceeds > from invalidating motives like love of fame. Such a supposition is > ruled out in what follows." > > "This work in not composed by me for the sake of fame, gain > or reverential consideration: It is for the purposes of purifying my > own understanding by the testimony of those who know Brahman." (Nais. > 5 - 6) > > (He then goes on to refute the false doctrines of other Advaitins, > all of whom believed in the truth of the sentence 'Tat Tvam Asi', but > who, according to his understanding, had deviated from the true > methodology, as presented by his Guru, Shankaracharya.) > > -- > > Dear Warwick, > > You may not believe me, but when you write: > "Are there Any members of this list who long to > receive a real, non-conceptual answer to this question "Who am I?" It > might take the form of a longing to disappear in 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 any one like that?" > I agree with you 100%. Vedanta is not about > intellectual questions and answers. The problem is not an intellectual > one, but a spiritual one. It can't be solved by the 'intellectual > faculty' of the mind. It has to be solved by the 'spiritual faculty' > of the mind; i.e: The minds' capacity to turn inwards and directly > intuit the Self as it is (which is beyond the mind). It's not about > refuting the Buddhists, the Prasankyanavadins or the Mula Avidy > theorists. Vedanta is about purifying the mind, turning inwards and > taking a stand in your True Self. As I said in a previous post: > > "There are only two kinds of 'Real Vedantins': 1) Those > who have taken a stand in the True Self. 2) Those who are trying to > take a stand in their True Self. > > For those Vedantins of the second category, the qualities which you > mention in your above quoted passage, and which can be described as > intense 'Mumuksutva', are the most important and indispensable > qualifications for a Vedantin. > > > -- - > > Dear Gummuluru Murthy, > > You ask: "If you to the points made in A to H of > your post (I still like to think that you are only paraphrasing > Vaisnava Acharyas objections to Advaita) you seem to have a wrong > understanding of Advaita." > > I am sorry to say that you seem to have missed the whole point of my > post. What I was paraphrasing was the Vaisnava critique of Bhavarupa > Mula Avidya. A critique which is absolutely valid, because once you > accept Mula Avidya as an actually existing 'thing' that is the > 'material cause' of the universe, you have abandoned Advaita. My main > point is that Shankara never in his wildest dreams ever propounded > such a fallacious theory. And if in fact there was such a 'thing' as > Mula Avidya, that is made up of three gunas, knowledge could never > destroy it. > > > -- - > > Dear Jaishankar, > > Please allow me to address your comments on Prasankyana Vada. Your > other points about Mula Avidya, and Avidya in deep sleep, as well as > your 'notions' about Prakriya Bedas will have to be dealt with at a > future date. > > > You say that: > "Swami Dayananda doesn't support Prasankyanavada . Those who > hold onto Prasankyanavada say that Sabda Pramana doesn't give > aparoksha Jnana (direct or immediate knowledge). They talk about > converting indirect knowledge (paroksha Jnana) gained from the sruti > to direct knowledge (Aparoksha Jnana) by doing meditation (similar of > modern Vedanta). Swami Dayananda doesn't accept this view. He has > rejected Prasankyanavada many times in the classes that I have > attended. When we say the 'KNOWLEDGE' has to be recollected > (Nidhidyasana) it is part of the pramana vyapara which leads to a > knowledge without any obstacles (apratibandikajnana)." > > Now I would like to ask you: Is this " knowledge that has to be > recollected " indirect knowledge, or direct knowledge? It can't be > indirect knowledge, because no amount of recollecting indirect > knowledge will convert it into direct knowledge as Swami Dayananda > himself admits.. The only other alternative is that it is the 'direct > knowledge' (aparoksha Jnana) that has to be repeatedly recollected to > remove the remaining obstacles, AFTER the direct knowledge has been > attained from the shabda Pramana. But this is exactly the false > doctrine that Shankara has over and over again refuted throughout his > Prastana Traya Bhashyas, and in his Upadesha Sahasri. Shankaras > position is that after the attainment of Apararoksha Jnana, there is > absolutely nothing left to do, no obstacles left that have to be > destroyed, and no individual left to do any recollecting. Let me cite > a few examples: > > To begin, lets see what Suresvara has to say about this recollecting > of knowledge (which by the way you wrongly identify with nididhyasana, > but that is another story): so as to remove the 'obstacles that remain > after direct knowledge has been attained: > > "At this conclusion, some supported by their own tradition, aver > that this knowledge of the form 'I am Brahman' arising out of the > hearing of the Vedantic text, does not at all remove ignorance at its > very inception; but by this same knowledge being repeated day by day > for a long time, is wiped off all ignorance without a residue." "What > follows is in refutation" > "The understanding of the Scripture at once, without repetition, > destroys the ignorance that bears the forms of action and the factors > involved in action" (Nias. 1-67) > > > And Shankara writes: > > " Just as in a sentence which stipulates an injunction Karma, > even after the meaning of the sentence is understood, the activities > which are to be performed by gathering many instruments of action > remains,-- the deliberation on the Vedanta Vakya which teaches the > Knowledge of the Supreme Self is not like that at all; at the very > instant of our understanding the meaning to the Vedantic sentence, the > whole process gets completed." (Mun. Bha>1-1-6) > > Note: Here is has been clearly stated that after understanding the > meaning of the Vedanta Vakya there does not remain any thing > whatsoever to be done, including the repeated recollection of the > meaning to destroy the remaining obstacles. It amounts to saying that > the teaching of Sri Vachaspati Mishra ( Bhamatikara) and Swami > Dayananda, who opine that Some such practice as the Jnana abhyasa > should be performed, is opposed to the Sampradaya of Shankara. > > And again: > "Because of the reason that after Knowledge > accrues Ignorance has disappeared…this Avidya can no longer exist. > Just as, even after the knowledge that fire is hot and it illumines - > to that person who has that knowledge- to such a person the false > knowledge (Mithyajnana) to the effect that fire is cold or that it > does not illumine- can never occur; further, either Samshaya (doubt), > about it or its non-knowledge (ajana) can NEVER exist."( Isa Bbha 18) > > Note: Here, not only are the 3 types of ignorance recognized by > Shankara enumerated 1) not knowing 2) doubt 3) misconception. (There > is no Mula Avidya ever mentioned by him anywhere in his writings), but > also the fact that after apraroksha Jnana there is no possibility of > any "doubts or vagueness" as Jaisankaar would have it. > > While I could go on and on with quotes which demonstrate that for > Shankara, after Aparokha Jnana, there is nothing more to do, no more > doer, no one to recollect anything, and that All Pramana Prameya > Vyvahara completely ceases, but. I will spare you all, and end these > quotes with a final clincher, and then quote the BramaSiddhi to > demonstrate that Swami Dayananda and Jaisankar both belong to a > different Sampradaya than Shankara. > > "The repetition of concepts may be of use in the case > of results to be achieved by meditation, in as much as it is > possible that some intensity is effected in them by repeated practice. > But in the case of the knowledge of the higher Brahman, which reveals > Brahman that is the very self of the seeker, eternally pure, conscious > and free, what purpose would be served by its repletion?" > > " If it be said that the knowledge of the identity of > Brahman and atman is not born by listening to the text merely once, > and hence its repletion is held to be necessary, we reply that this > can not be so: for, the result is not conceivable even in the case of > repetition. (To explain): If hearing the Vedantic text once, does not > produce the knowledge of the identity of Brahman and Atman, Where is > the hope that the same repeatedly heard, (or recollected) would > produce that knowledge?" (SBh.4-1-2) > > ( Swami Dayananda, it would seem, belongs to Mandana's Sampradaya > not Shankaras) > > Mandana writes: > > " Even when the knowledge of the truth has dawned, but a > sufficiently strong impression of it has not been stored up, while the > impressions born of false knowledge are stronger, even correct notions > may present false objects, as for example in the case of one who is > confounded with regard to the cardinal directions, but does not keep > up the memory of the testimony of a friend; for, he is found to > proceed in the wrong direction even then as before. This is the case > also with regard to a rope ascertained to be such, which is found to > give rise to fear through a misconception that it is a snake, in case > one does not keep up the memory (keep recollecting) of his correct > knowledge…..Therefore even after True Knowledge has dawned by the > help of the right means of knowledge, the repeated maintenance of > correct knowledge, is deemed to be necessary for the purpose of > overcoming or destroying the stronger impression that has arisen out > of continued repetition of false perception" (Brahama Siddhi pg. 35) > > > Both Madana, Padmapada and Swami Dayananda, think that even > after the dawn of knowledge of Atman there is a possibility of its > being obstructed by some external factor (pratibandikas)- Impressions > of wrong knowledge in the case of Madana, and suspicion that it is not > probable in the case of Padmapada (And probably a combination of both > in the case of Swami Dayananda). It is clear that this fear, while > applicable to empirical knowledge, > can have no place in the case of the Knowledge of the Non-Dual Self, > since there is no scope for any ' external obstructive cause' in the > state of this Knowledge. Witness the Sruti quoted so often by > Shankara;("Where to this enlightened one everything has become the > Self alone, there one could see whom and with what?….there one could > know whom and with what?") which emphatically denies the distinction > of the knower, knowledge and the knowable in that state. > > -- -- > - > > Dear K Sadananda > > I hope to address some of your points when I deal with the to > outstanding questions; "Whence Adhyasa" and "How the Shastra is the > only Pramana for Atmavidya. Let me just remark that I don't think that > the answers are as "Anirvachaniya" (inexplicable) as you make them out > to be. Lets hope not. Please be patient for my next post , I am sure > you all need a break from my verbosity. > . > Hari Om > Atmachaitanya Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 27, 2002 --- Warwick Wakefield <nomistake wrote: Good morning Warwick, If we get enough people joining in with your postings we should be able to keep you at the keyboard all day replying to us and your satsang will become so consistent that you will disappear in a flash of light. > 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. This will always happen and your 'maintaining' the observation in yourself will maintain it in the world. Last year I took a Swami around to three groups here in UK:Westernized Hindus who listened politely but did not engage in dialogue out of respect for the Swami, some academics who wrangled and writhed in their own opinions and a group of sincere seekers who wanted their questions to be answered from sruti and to have their misunderstandings unveiled. He spoke appropriately to each group and although showing a preference for the latter he served each fully as to their needs and moved on. For each group he lifted a veil appropriate to their limitations. Sincere seekers are very rare and if we find ourselves in their company then we are very grateful. We can only attend to the veils of ignorance that we experience 'in ourselves' and in so doing we become channels, for a moment or two, for the light to shine for those in a similar 'mind-set.' For example, if we have a craving for doughnuts and overcome that attachment before obesity limits our movement in the world then we provide the space for other doughnut freaks to be healthy....we are never alone in all this.( Until we understand the fullness of kaivalya) So we look not to causes and effects in others but to causes in ourselves. If you liked the Rumi then here are some more quotes, on this theme, which are relevant to the the question of adhyasa, its origin and its destination. 'People look at secondary causes and think that they are the origin of everything that happens. But it has been revealed to the saints that secondary causes are no more than a veil.' (Fihi ma Fihi. 68/80) 'These secondary causes are veils upon the eyes for not every eye is worthy of seeing His Craftsmanship. One must have an eye that cuts through secondary causes and tears aside all veils, To the end that it may see the First Cause in No-place and know that exertion, earnings and shops are nonsense. Every good and evil arrives from the First Cause. Oh father, secondary causes and means are naught But a phantom upon the highway, so that the period of heedlessness may endure sometime longer.' (Mathnavi 5, 1551-55) 'The unbeliever's argument is only this: "I see no home but this outward." He never reflects that every outward gives news of a hidden wisdom. Indeed, the profit of every outward thing lies hidden in the inward, like the benefits within medicine.' (M. 4, 2878-80) 'Light is the First Cause and every secondary cause is its shadow.' (Divan'i Shams'I Tabriz 525) 'We are all darkness and God is Light; this house receives its brightness from the Sun. The light here is mixed with shadow….if you want light, come out on the surface of the roof.' (D. 30842-43) > 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. Why should we 'bear' such a burden? They have done that one for you, they have 'got the T-shirt etc'. Why not just reflect on St John of the Cross's words: 'I will lead thee by a way thou knowest not to the secret chamber of love.' Times and contexts change. When I began teaching in schools more than thirty years ago I would have been in serious trouble for encouraging my pupils to meditate as I was practising. At that time such 'foreign' nonsense was tantamount to corruption of the child. Now I would be praised for such a contribution to the child's development. Again, by seeking Reality individually, the conditions 'around us', because all is Brahman, are refined or the veils removed. The veils are only there because the paradox is that without them there would be no revelation. We become like the man in the tenth picture of the Zen Ox-herding pictures and 'Enter the market-place with bliss bestowing hands.' Happy typing 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 27, 2002 Hullo Ken, it is a very sweet and clear and deep letter you have sent me. I have read it now and I will read it again later. Some bits, although they may be true, are a bit hard to follow. You say, "This will always happen and your 'maintaining' the observation in yourself will maintain it in the world." What does that mean? If I maintain that Al Quaeda, with their policy of massacring civilians, are a menace that we would be well rid of, does my maintaining that observation keep Al Quaeda in business? What do you mean by this one, Ken? I loved the Rumi quotes about secondary causes and first causes. Believe it or not, I once had a revelation regarding that same subject, thirty years ago, when I was riding the Underground home from work at the London County Council. I had been contemplating a spot of bother that I had been involved in at work. And suddenly it was revealed to me what had been going on. It was I who had been unconsciously trying to get into a row with the (male) head of the department. And that was because, in the drama I was creating, he was a substitute for my father, who had been very stern, very angry with me when I was a child. And then I saw that deep down I welcomed my father's sternness, that it was the only form of love that he knew how to give and it was the only form of love that I was capable of receiving. And then there was a great illumination and I saw that every action fitted perfectly into every other action, that it was all love manifesting itself in a myriad of different forms, and that nothing, even seeming horrors, was either unnecessary or unholy. Or, to put it the other way, everything that happened was both holy and necessary. But it is a strange thing, Ken, that although it was perfectly clear then, and I have never doubted, either then or since, that this was a real Divine revelation, it was like a lightning flash; it illuminated me and the world, in many realms, but then the light was turned out and I was once again in the darkness. I can only assume that, to use the language of duality, and to give very rough expression to the operation of the Divine, God deemed it fitting for me to see it at that moment and then she deemed it fitting for me to grope some more in the dark. And I don't even know that I can say that I know now what I saw then. Now it is a memory. Maybe the revelation was an invitation to live in accordance with what had been revealed, for it is not knowing but being that is important. What do you think? But thanks again for the Rumi quotes, they are very beautiful and they ring clear as a bell. What are the titles of the books that you got them from? Love Warwick Dear Atmachaitanyaji Yes, it must be right that you are doing what is the appropriate thing for you and it is silly of me to expect you to adopt my approach to seeking God. Namaste Warwick - ken knight advaitin Wednesday, February 27, 2002 8:39 PM Re: Re: Whence adhyAsa? --- Warwick Wakefield <nomistake wrote: Good morning Warwick, If we get enough people joining in with your postings we should be able to keep you at the keyboard all day replying to us and your satsang will become so consistent that you will disappear in a flash of light. > 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. Last year I took a Swami around to three groups here in UK:Westernized Hindus who listened politely but did not engage in dialogue out of respect for the Swami, some academics who wrangled and writhed in their own opinions and a group of sincere seekers who wanted their questions to be answered from sruti and to have their misunderstandings unveiled. He spoke appropriately to each group and although showing a preference for the latter he served each fully as to their needs and moved on. For each group he lifted a veil appropriate to their limitations. Sincere seekers are very rare and if we find ourselves in their company then we are very grateful. We can only attend to the veils of ignorance that we experience 'in ourselves' and in so doing we become channels, for a moment or two, for the light to shine for those in a similar 'mind-set.' For example, if we have a craving for doughnuts and overcome that attachment before obesity limits our movement in the world then we provide the space for other doughnut freaks to be healthy....we are never alone in all this.( Until we understand the fullness of kaivalya) So we look not to causes and effects in others but to causes in ourselves. If you liked the Rumi then here are some more quotes, on this theme, which are relevant to the the question of adhyasa, its origin and its destination. 'People look at secondary causes and think that they are the origin of everything that happens. But it has been revealed to the saints that secondary causes are no more than a veil.' (Fihi ma Fihi. 68/80) 'These secondary causes are veils upon the eyes for not every eye is worthy of seeing His Craftsmanship. One must have an eye that cuts through secondary causes and tears aside all veils, To the end that it may see the First Cause in No-place and know that exertion, earnings and shops are nonsense. Every good and evil arrives from the First Cause. Oh father, secondary causes and means are naught But a phantom upon the highway, so that the period of heedlessness may endure sometime longer.' (Mathnavi 5, 1551-55) 'The unbeliever's argument is only this: "I see no home but this outward." He never reflects that every outward gives news of a hidden wisdom. Indeed, the profit of every outward thing lies hidden in the inward, like the benefits within medicine.' (M. 4, 2878-80) 'Light is the First Cause and every secondary cause is its shadow.' (Divan'i Shams'I Tabriz 525) 'We are all darkness and God is Light; this house receives its brightness from the Sun. The light here is mixed with shadow..if you want light, come out on the surface of the roof.' (D. 30842-43) > 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. Why should we 'bear' such a burden? They have done that one for you, they have 'got the T-shirt etc'. Why not just reflect on St John of the Cross's words: 'I will lead thee by a way thou knowest not to the secret chamber of love.' Times and contexts change. When I began teaching in schools more than thirty years ago I would have been in serious trouble for encouraging my pupils to meditate as I was practising. At that time such 'foreign' nonsense was tantamount to corruption of the child. Now I would be praised for such a contribution to the child's development. Again, by seeking Reality individually, the conditions 'around us', because all is Brahman, are refined or the veils removed. The veils are only there because the paradox is that without them there would be no revelation. We become like the man in the tenth picture of the Zen Ox-herding pictures and 'Enter the market-place with bliss bestowing hands.' Happy typing Ken Knight Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion! http://greetings. 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 27, 2002 ramvchandran [rchandran] Tuesday, February 26, 2002 8:45 AM advaitin Re: Whence adhyAsa? 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? _____________________ The same way we verify any other claim Sri Ramji. Using our intuition, experience, learning, judgment, etc. It seems to me that Sri Wakefield is actually asking an authentic question that many sincere people have asked and is certainly entitled to ask it. Why should we be embarrassed by his question and discourage it? No one requires that we say yes or no or maybe, etc. There is a strong precedent in the Indian Hindu tradition of seekers asking questions like the ones raised by Sri Wakefield. I am reminded that Naren (later Swami Vivekananda) had this same habit as well as a teenager. He would go to the so-called learned people of his day and ask them directly whether they knew God. Naturally, these well-known and wise people were shy in answering. It is not easy to look into the eyes of someone like Naren and beat around the bush and play with words and counter with questions like how will you verify, etc.. When Naren met Ramakrishna and asked him the same question (have you seen God?), Ramakrishna's reply was quick, straightforward, and blunt. Ramakrishna said that not only did he see God as he was seeing Naren but, in fact, he saw God more intensely. Well, we all know the story. Although initially thinking that Ramakrishna was crazy, Naren was unable to keep himself away. Sri Wakefield asked a simple question. Is there anyone on this list who knows? Your counter argument that how will Sri Wakefield verify such a claim does not speak to the value of the question but instead to Sri Wakefield's capacity to verify such an answer. It is an effective way to silence someone but it is a forced silence. Love to all Harsha Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 27, 2002 Hari Om !! advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote: > 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, Would some of you, throw more light on this date and authorship issue on Vivekachudamani. Also, any comments about other popular works of Sankara such as Atma- Bodha, Tattva Bodha will help. What is the Prakarana Grantha of Sankara accepted by all ? Om Namo Narayanaya !! Srikrishna Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 28, 2002 Dear Jaisankar, Please accept my apologies for not having understood your position properly. But when I read your post which clearly stated "After gaining 'doubtless knowledge that I am Brahman" from Guru and Shastra, one has to recollect this knowledge till all previous conditioning goes." I naturally took your words literally. And when you further clarified your position by later posting that what you actually ment was that: "When we say that knowledge has to be recollected it is part of the Pramana Vyapara which leads to a knowledge without any obstacles." I naturally interpreted this to mean that the knowledge that you were referring to was the knowledge that was obtained from the Guru and the shastra and that this knowledge had to be either 'indirect knowledge' with obstacles, or 'direct knowledge' with obstacles. But now I am clear that what you ment by the expression 'doubtless knowledge that I am Brahman ', doesn't refer to knowledge at all, and what the sadhaka has to 'recollect' is neither indirect knowledge nor direct knowledge, but rather, what he has to recollect is the words of the guru and the shastra so that he can gain the 'direct knowledge' i.e.: 'The doubtless knowledge that I am Brahman, without any obstacles at all. For certainly no one would want to maintain a view where by a wise man, who had Aparoksha Jnana, still had obstacles (A Jnani with Pratibandhikas!). You have rectified my misconception when you explicitly state in your last post: " All three (Sravana , Manana, Nididhyasana)are for gaining this Aparokshajnana only" And in this I am in perfect agreement with you. To quote Shankara: " Repetition will be unnecessary for one who can realize the Self as Brahman after hearing "That Thou Art" only once. But for one who cannot do so, repetition is a necessity. Thus it is noticed in the Chandogya Upanishad that Uddalaka teaches his son, "That Thou Art, O Svetaketu"(Chan. 4-8-7-), and then being requested by his son again and again, "Oh revered sir, explain to me again", he removes the respective causes of his (Svetaketu's) misconceptions, and teaches that very same fact "That Thou Art" repeatedly. That process is referred to by citing the text "It is to be heard of (Sravana), reflected on (Manana), to be contemplated upon (Nididhyasana)."Sutra Bh.4-1-2 So once again my apologies, I honestly had no intention of putting up a strawdog and then beating it. Hari Om Atmachaitanya Hari Om Atmachaitanya advaitin, "Jaishankar Narayanan" <srijai@e...> wrote: > Dear Friends, > > Atmachaitanya wrote > > "Now I would like to ask you: Is this " knowledge that has to be > recollected " indirect knowledge, or direct knowledge? It can't be > indirect knowledge, because no amount of recollecting indirect > knowledge will convert it into direct knowledge as Swami Dayananda > himself admits.. The only other alternative is that it is the 'direct > knowledge' (aparoksha Jnana) that has to be repeatedly recollected to > remove the remaining obstacles, AFTER the direct knowledge has been > attained from the shabda Pramana. But this is exactly the false > doctrine that Shankara has over and over again refuted throughout his > Prastana Traya Bhashyas, and in his Upadesha Sahasri. Shankaras > position is that after the attainment of Apararoksha Jnana, there is > absolutely nothing left to do, no obstacles left that have to be > destroyed, and no individual left to do any recollecting. Let me cite > a few examples: ....." > > We dont claim that one has to do nidhiddhyasana (recollection) after one attains aparokshajnAna. What is to be understood is that manana and nidhidhyAsana are really angas (part) of sravana. Infact sureshvara in naishkarmyasiddhi even states that repeated sravanam itself is nidhiddhyAsana. So both recollection of what is heard already and repeated listening to the sastra are nidhiddhyAsana. All three (sravana, manana and nidhiddhyAsana) are for gaining this aparokshajnAna only. What is recollected is neither direct nor indirect knowledge but it is the words of the sruti and guru which leads to the destruction of ajnAna. Even in the case of objective knowledge an insight has to be repeated for it to be truly effective. This does not contradict what shankara says in all his bhasyas. What shankara actually rejects is the jnAnakarmasamucchayavAdi who says that one has to do a mental karma like meditation (upAsana) after gaining knowledge from the sastras (similar to modern vedantins). nidhiddhyAsana is not a mental karma to produce an adrstaphala but part of the pramanavyApAra to gain knowledge by destroying ignorance. You are actually putting up a straw man (prasankhyAnavAdi) and beating it. Try to understand what the other person says. > > In brhadAranyaka bhAsya sankara says nischayena dhyAtavyam (should be meditated upon) explaining the sentence AtmA vAre.. nidhidhyAsitavya: .How do you explain this? > > Further sankara while commenting on BG 7.2 'jnAnam teham savijnAnam idam vaksyAmi...." explains savijnAnam as svAnubhavayuktham (along with one's own anubhava). How do you explain jnAnam and vijnAnam here? > > with love and prayers, > > Jaishankar > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 28, 2002 Namaste Harshaji: Thanks for pointing out my shortcomings in my answer to Sri Warwick. My intention is not to enforce a forced silence but to just to inform him that only the person who asks the question, "Am I in the right place?" can only resolve that question. The question, "Who am I?" is a self enquiry and no one except the person makes the enquiry knows who that person really is. When someone makes the claim, "I am self realized," I believe that it can never be verifiable. But I do believe such a claim is quite appropriate and also acceptable to many. At the same time, quite a few may not accept such a claim. Saints and sages from different religions faced similar experiences. Each of us based on our background, knowledge and perception may accept or reject someone as a Jnani or Jivamukta. This is based on our own intuition and each of our perceptions are likely different. Our subject matter of discussion is metaphysics and we are not conducting an experiment in a laboratory to verify the presence of a known element. You have sited the well known story of Swami Vivekananda's first meeting with the Paramahamsa and I believe that reference is not quite relevant in the present context. Sri Warwick seems to assume that - "most of the discussants of this list have the conviction that just by reading the scriptures, they can get the answers to the question, Who I am?" None of the discussants that I know have ever stated that by reading the scriptures, one can get enlightened. Even the scriptures have stated categorically that by reading the scriptures alone, one can't learn the Brahma Vidya. Shankara in Vivekachoodamani describes the distinction between Paravidya (Self knowledge) and Aparavidya (knowledge other than self knowledge which includes the scriptures). I just want to state that Scriptures referenced in Vedanta - Vedas, Upanishads, Brahmasuutras and Gita are not dogmatic and they are very different from Bible and Koran. Finally let me conclude by saying that I fully respect what you have stated regarding my post to Sri Warwick but I respectfully disagree. Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "Harsha" wrote: > > Sri Wakefield asked a simple question. Is there anyone on this list who > knows? Your counter argument that how will Sri Wakefield verify such a claim > does not speak to the value of the question but instead to Sri Wakefield's > capacity to verify such an aswer. It is an effective way to silence someone > but it is a forced silence. > > Love to all > Harsha Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 28, 2002 Hari Om !! advaitin, "ramvchandran" <rchandran@c...> wrote: > Namaste Harshaji: > > Thanks for pointing out my shortcomings in my answer to Sri Warwick. > My intention is not to enforce a forced silence but to just to inform > him that only the person who asks the question, "Am I in the right > place?" can only resolve that question. The question, "Who am I?" is a > self enquiry and no one except the person makes the enquiry knows who > that person really is. > Reserving my right to agree to disagree, I would like to state the following: It is quite natural for either a curious person or a keen spiritual seeker to question if some one has seen GOD. Based on how one is perceived by the other, he/she will get an appropriate response. It was understood that when Narendra went about asking different religous preachers if they saw the God, for him the purpose was clear, 'To find the Truth seer' so he can decide his own course of action. He did not want to follow an unverified path. Here our situation is different; Here I am with some mis-conceptions, and a bundle of arrogance that I had some unexplicable experience and I strongly believe I know the REAL TRUTH, and I built up some underestimation of others that they are all ignorant, and I am the best of the East and West. I wish to talk to only those who match up my level of (mis)understanding. If I were to challenge, will any one affirm their true spiritual progress for my sake ??? We have seen the result, none .. including Sri Harsha and Sri Ken and others who are at higher level of spiritual experience (based on their earlier posts) have responded. Let us look at the reason, the questioner lacked real desperation to seek the Truth and Truth seers, for own development. The questioner lacked real yearning for the company of those; neither did the questioner had compassion towards novices like me to share the true spiritual experiences with love and kindness which are true reflections of the Self. ((I heard someone saying all of us are connected and are the same consciousness.) We all know Vivekachudamani also says a True teacher will not and should not refuse a True disciple, not an arrogant sceptic who comes to derogate even a little being. (Some one said today that a snake should Hiss but not bite, hence, what Sri Ram Chandran did was suited for the situation) Anyway, all of us have the right to agree to disagree ! ( new terminology on the list) Om Namo Narayanaya !! Srikrishna Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 28, 2002 Namaste Srikrishna: Very well said and I am glad that you said it. For a change, let me say that I exercise my right to agree with you and you have articulated it very well. warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "srikrishna_ghadiyaram" > > Anyway, all of us have the right to agree to disagree ! ( new > terminology on the list) > > Om Namo Narayanaya !! > > Srikrishna Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 28, 2002 Dear Srikrishna Firstly, will you tell me what Hari Om means. It sounds very pleasant - if I knew what it meant I might employ it Now, Krishnaji, there is a little piece here in your posting where I am inclined to think you are being very naughty, in a particularly Indian way. (I can hear the howls of horror from the Indian Diaspora all over the world, but let us press on.) You write, "Here our situation is different; Here I am with some mis-conceptions, and a bundle of arrogance that I had some unexplicable experience and I strongly believe I know the REAL TRUTH, and I built up some underestimation of others that they are all ignorant, and I am the best of the East and West. I wish to talk to only those who match up my level of (mis)understanding. If I were to challenge, will any one affirm their true spiritual progress for my sake ??? We have seen the result, none" And then you write. " the questioner lacked real desperation to seek the Truth and Truth seers, for own development. The questioner lacked real yearning for the company of those; neither did the questioner had compassion towards novices like me to share the true spiritual experiences with love and kindness which are true reflections of the Self." Now, it seems me that it is little Warwick that you mean when you write "Here I am with some mis-conceptions, and a bundle of arrogance" and "the questioner lacked real desperation to seek the Truth and Truth seers, for own development." Now this is exactly what I had in mind when I used the term "straight talking". If you want to say that I'm arrogant, that I have misconceptions, that I think I'm the "best of East and West", that's fine. But out with it! Do it directly. Don't be so wishy-washy. I remember someone writing about a particular politician here and he said, "He doesn't have any scruples about sinking the knife between his opponents shoulder blades but he doesn't want to be seen with blood on his hands." Krishnaji, I might well be arrogant, nearly everyone else here is so why not me? And maybe your other accusations are also true to a greater or lesser extent. But that's not really the point - the point is that none of those things is who I really am. Who I really am, and who you really are, is forever pure, without any qualities at all. And whether you believe it or not is irrelevant, but I am only interested in abiding in who I am. I have seen who I am and I would like to be able to abide in that knowledge. I am not a jnani, I am not enlightened, (whatever you might mean by that), I am not looking for any deference or special respect, but (speaking from the viewpoint of a "person") I have seen that the person is an object, a perceived thing, a light show, and I would like to be able to abide in that knowledge. Or, speaking from the viewpoint of Consciousness, perhaps you could say that God got tired of identifying with this "person", this actor in Her drama, and remembered who She is. My complaint (and yes it was a complaint) previously, was that many here seem to be more interested in discussing the finer points of very advanced matters than in getting the first answer to the first question, "Who am I?" But I take it back. In my searching, before I got even my first answer, I went up thousands of blind alleys, and I am still doing so. It is everyone's right, so why should I object if others do it also? And when I say that I have seen who I am, that is not boasting, it is not a big deal, it is not terribly complicated, it is what I have always been, it is what you have always been, there is in essence absolutely no difference or distinction between us. I still harbour many false beliefs. They have been around a long time and they cause suffering of one sort or another. I guess the Lord will remove them in good time. But, as my Guru said, while ever you harbour any fragment that you are a separate entity capable of doing things independently then you are obliged to continue searching. Which is why I am here amongst you jolly chaps. Kind regards Warwick - srikrishna_ghadiyaram Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 28, 2002 ramvchandran [rchandran] Thursday, February 28, 2002 6:48 PM advaitin Re: Whence adhyAsa? Namaste Srikrishna: Very well said and I am glad that you said it. For a change, let me say that I exercise my right to agree with you and you have articulated it very well. warmest regards, Ram Chandran Thank you Sri Ramji and Srikrishnaji for eloquently articulating your thoughts. I will exercise my right to not exercise any rights. :-). Lots of love Harsha Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 28, 2002 Hari Om !! advaitin, "Warwick Wakefield" <nomistake@o...> wrote: > Dear Srikrishna First of all let me ask your forgiveness, if I hurt you, as I have been wearing this mask of 'harshness' in my writings. It was intentional. For What right do I have to hurt you, even if be for teaching. God has made all of us with the same little consciousness in our core. I am not this body which is thousands of miles away from you; I am not this mind which wanted to teach you the right way; I am not the limited organs of vision which can not show you to me; I am neither an Easterner nor a Westerner for all directions are in me. I am that consciousness of God witnessing all the happenings of this universe; But, alas, I do not abide as my own nature and start putting others hats on my head. We all gathered ( a few 500 + people who could afford internet) here to share the same concerns; trying to look for floating straws on this vast ocean with a hope that some straw may help us cross this ocean. It is not our hope that talking at cryptic intellectual stuff is any more worthy than worrying about Al-Quada or Hubble Telescope; but with a conviction that it is better than getting lost in the ocean of recession and recovery. We all have conceptual understanding of the fact i.e 'what we are not'; and not all of us 'KNOW' what we are. Some of the others have glimpses or rather frequent glimpses. How does it matter to me ...; for I have to travel on my own; I am not going to challenge any one to compare with my feelings and experiences for I know at 'That' stage I will have no 'experience'; what is there to 'experience' otehr than me ? > Now, it seems me that it is little Warwick that you mean when you write "Here I am with some mis-conceptions, and a bundle of arrogance" and "the questioner lacked real desperation to seek the Truth and Truth seers, for own development." > > Now this is exactly what I had in mind when I used the term "straight talking". If you want to say that I'm arrogant, that I have misconceptions, that I think I'm the "best of East and West", that's fine. But out with it! Do it directly. Don't be so wishy- washy. I remember someone writing about a particular politician here and he said, "He doesn't have any scruples about sinking the knife between his opponents shoulder blades but he doesn't want to be seen with blood on his hands." > > Krishnaji, I might well be arrogant, nearly everyone else here is so why not me? > You are divine, spotless and Absolute. How can I say you are arrogant; I should blame my own mind for it sees arrogance and other evils. For this reason, all the evil is of me; not of 'little Warwick'. I thank the mind for allowing me to witness your frankness, honesty, and enthusiasm. You are endowed with all these positive qualities. But,infront of your divine qualities, my mind has nothing to offer, so let me not claim any great epithets. By the way this is the Eastern/Indian culture I learnt. >I have seen who I am and I would like to be able to abide in that knowledge. I am not a jnani, I am not enlightened, (whatever you might mean by that), I am not looking for any deference or special respect, but > (speaking from the viewpoint of a "person") I have seen that the person is an object, a perceived thing, a light show, and I would like to be able to abide in that knowledge. Or, speaking from the viewpoint of Consciousness, perhaps you could say that God got tired of identifying with this "person", this actor in Her drama, and remembered who She is. > You are a changed man from a few days. The members of this have done a great help to you; for they made a mashed potato of your EGO. Now you are doing 'real talking' and left your 'original talking' or rather 'straight talking'. Let the flame glow; let it burn down the world, but before that, that 'BIG little Warwick EGO' When 'I' do not exist God will exist. To do a little straight talking ... When Warwick does not Exist, the 'Real Warwick' will Exist. > My complaint (and yes it was a complaint) previously, was that many here seem to be more interested in discussing the finer points of very advanced matters than in getting the first answer to the first question, "Who am I?" But I take it back. In my searching, before I got even my first answer, I went up thousands of blind alleys, and I am still doing so. It is everyone's right, so why should I object if others do it also? > And so, many of us. All the discussion going on is the topic that 'Warwick' is having hard time Realising Who he is; but Vedantic Maha Vakya such as 'That Thou Art', and Sri Sankara is saying that only by 'listening' to them from a competent Guru, a Pre-qualified student/aspirant will attain Realisation. How can that be ? So, we are investigating the 'finer points of very advanced matters'; for that is the answer to 'Who Am I'. It is not a ritual that you have to listen and do some actions before you can get the results of such listening. For 'Brahma-Jignasa' will lead to 'Being Brahman' this is what Sri Sankara says. Sri Sankara is only for Eastern, rather Indian; but Sri Sankara's teachings are for the entire humanity who can not accept any thing other than for 'himself Being THAT'. When you are one such you become a 'Advaitin' (Hindu, Indian). For such exaltation of thought will not let you remain separate. Who does not wish to claim relationship to 'That' supreme who came to save this world of this confusion that we are able to depend on Him after 1200 years. So much said on East and West. > And when I say that I have seen who I am, that is not boasting, it is not a big deal, it is not terribly complicated, it is what I have always been, it is what you have always been, there is in essence absolutely no difference or distinction between us. > > I still harbour many false beliefs. They have been around a long time and they cause suffering of one sort or another. I guess the Lord will remove them in good time. But, as my Guru said, while ever you harbour any fragment that you are a separate entity capable of doing things independently then you are obliged to continue searching. Which is why I am here amongst you jolly chaps. > You are already Realised; your mind is fooling you saying 'you are not'; just take care of it though you are here amongst we jolly guys. See, small lessons have already start working. Now you are surrendering to God, and intensifying your faith in your GURU. Sri Sankara says this is one of the essential characteristics for a seeker of Liberation: 'Sradha'. So many have split their hair just to teach you this. If they became 'straight talk' wetserners of your description, you would have been busy reading some other garbage. May Lord Hari .. Narayana .. Protect you. Om Namo Narayanaya !! Srikrishna Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 28, 2002 - srikrishna_ghadiyaram advaitin Friday, March 01, 2002 2:29 PM Re: Whence adhyAsa? Hari Om !! advaitin, "Warwick Wakefield" <nomistake@o...> wrote: > Dear Srikrishna First of all let me ask your forgiveness, if I hurt you, as I have been wearing this mask of 'harshness' in my writings. No Srikrishna, you didn't hurt me. There is something so sweet about your nature, and the way it is expressed though your writing, that I don't think you could hurt if you tried. I am that consciousness of God witnessing all the happenings of this universe; YES! YES! YES! You are a changed man from a few days. The members of this have done a great help to you; Yes, Krishnaji, the members of this group HAVE done a great service. Thank you. When 'I' do not exist God will exist. To do a little straight talking ... When Warwick does not Exist, the 'Real Warwick' will Exist. Krishnaji, you are as good a friend as any man could have. You are already Realised; your mind is fooling you saying 'you are not'; just take care of it though you are here amongst we jolly guys. See, small lessons have already start working. Now you are surrendering to God, and intensifying your faith in your GURU. Sri Sankara says this is one of the essential characteristics for a seeker of Liberation: 'Sradha'. So many have split their hair just to teach you this. If they became 'straight talk' wetserners of your description, you would have been busy reading some other garbage. Krishnaji, I do not understand everything you write but there is an unmistakable fragrance. May Lord Hari .. Narayana .. Protect you. Om Namo Narayanaya !! Srikrishna Krishnaji, May the Lord hold you in the palm of Her hand Warwick Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 1, 2002 Namaste Shri Jaisankarji and Shri Atmachaitanyaji, That you have found common ground on this issue is great relief to me personally. Otherwise, I would have had to question what I have been doing the last over twelve years. I was about to request Shri Atmachitanyaji to tell us what Sankara had to say in his Geetha Bhashya about references like "abhyasena thu Kaunteya", "mayyarpithamanobuddhi" etc. in the Bhagwathgeetha, as practice is indicated by the former and a surrendering of mind and intellect, which, in effect, means fully utilizing both mind and intellect to reflect on Truth, by the latter. Also, what Bhagwan Ramana did after he took the train to Thiruvannamalai until he began guiding seekers would have been hard for me to explain. Reflection on sastra and guru's words are a must for academic appreciation of Truth to fully blossom into self-realization. In other words, may I say continuous contemplation is the price that we have to pay for our train journey from impulsive existence to advaitic spontaneity? Thanks and best regards. Madathil Nair ____ advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote: > Dear Jaisankar, > > Please accept my apologies for not having understood your position > properly. But when I read your post which clearly stated "After > gaining 'doubtless knowledge that I am Brahman" from Guru and Shastra, > one has to recollect this knowledge till all previous conditioning > goes." I naturally took your words literally. And when you further > clarified your position by later posting that what you actually ment > was that: "When we say that knowledge has to be recollected it is part > of the Pramana Vyapara which leads to a knowledge without any > obstacles." I naturally interpreted this to mean that the knowledge > that you were referring to was the knowledge that was obtained from > the Guru and the shastra and that this knowledge had to be either > 'indirect knowledge' with obstacles, or 'direct knowledge' with > obstacles. But now I am clear that what you ment by the expression > 'doubtless knowledge that I am Brahman ', doesn't refer to knowledge > at all, and what the sadhaka has to 'recollect' is neither indirect > knowledge nor direct knowledge, but rather, what he has to recollect > is the words of the guru and the shastra so that he can gain the > 'direct knowledge' i.e.: 'The doubtless knowledge that I am Brahman, > without any obstacles at all. For certainly no one would want to > maintain a view where by a wise man, who had Aparoksha Jnana, still > had obstacles (A Jnani with Pratibandhikas!). You have rectified my > misconception when you explicitly state in your last post: > " All three (Sravana , Manana, Nididhyasana) are > for gaining this Aparokshajnana only" And in this I am in perfect > agreement with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 1, 2002 Namaste all! Let us stop sitting in judgement of others. Let us listen and answer to only points Advaitic. Shri Sri Krishnaji could have avoided this. After all, Shri Warwick wrote to Shri Ram Chandranji. Pranams. Madathil Nair advaitin, "Warwick Wakefield" <nomistake@o...> wrote: > Dear Srikrishna > > Firstly, will you tell me what Hari Om means. It sounds very pleasant - if I knew what it meant I might employ it > > Now, Krishnaji, there is a little piece here in your posting .............. continue searching. Which is why I am here amongst you jolly chaps. > > Kind regards > Warwick > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 2002 Hi Venkatji, (Have we scored a record for the longest running topic yet?!) I enjoyed your attempt to use the dream-waking metaphor to look at this problem. Certainly someone once said (on the list?) that the true value of the dream state is to enable us to realise its analogy with our waking condition viz. a viz. reality. However, I feel you may be stretching the comparison a little too far this time. You say: << Objection: How do you know that there is a Paramarthika level at all? Reply: I know it because people like Ramana Maharshi and Ramakrishna Paramahamsa in the recent past have woken up to that level and described it to the world.>> But all of this has taken place in your 'dream'. Ramana et al are only figments of your imagination aren't they? Everything that 'happens', together with all supposed objects and people, is part of the dream. We, at the vyAvahArika level cannot interact or be aware of any'thing' at the pAramArthika level, just as the dreamer cannot communicate with the waking level. All that someone in a dream tells you about what waking life is like is ultimately meaningless - it is still part of the dream. I'm afraid I did not follow your explanation of objection and reply based on anubhava - surely all anubhava is part of vyavahAra? There can be no experience at the paramArtha level because, by definition, there can be no experiencer and experience (duality). The metaphor is very precarious anyway, since all three states are actually part of vyavahAra and reality is the background of all states. I must also agree with Greg's recent comment that we, on awakening, can never know that we are the 'same person' who went to sleep. All of our so-called knowledge' about the past is based on present memories that come from we know not where. Continuity is just as much an illusion as everything else. I agree with your final sentiment, however, and to quote from T. S. Eliot: "For us there is only the trying. The rest is not our business". sukham chara, Dennis ______________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 2002 Namaste all! Shri Dennis Waite is absolutely right here. The way this adhyasa thing is heading, it seems we are operating at maximum entropy right now! Is it not a paradox that all our vedantic logic is built on our seeming sense of continuity?! As I have always felt, all our logical attempts to reach at the Very Root of everything are a mere effort to systematize this "continuity" called Ignorance! This continuity will collapse like a pack of cards on closer examination. Interestingly, in one of the very early posts on this forum (Post No. 7 to be exact), a knowledgeable member (f.maiello) had called attention to Carlos Castaneda, an American student of anthropology, and his work "A Separate Reality". Castaneda, in the course of his studies, apprenticed himself under a Yaqui Indian sorceror called Don Juan. "A Separate Reality" and other works of Castaneda, which I read some time in 1976, deal with his paranormal experiences and conclude that this "seeming consensus reality of ours" can just crumble if looked at from the point of view of Don Juan's teachings and that there are possibly other parallel realities existing between which a trained sorceror can transfer himself at will. What unravels the very next moment is not within our control. What already happened and became part of the past was also not within our control. This present moment is a gift we know not from where! This realization is surrender and sufficient reason for the very big Quest Venkatji and all of us here are currently on. Like Gregji said, a person going to sleep can never know that he is the "same person" who went to sleep. I can never know if the "next" moment that follows this one is not from my so-called past or my farthest so-called future. It could also be someone else's past or future! Each moment possibly is full with all required details. Thus, a seeming continuity is appreciated amidst randomness. That could be another definition for Ignorance! Alas! We, who see this continuity, fail to appreciate the Oneness behind it all! What a tragedy! If this line of thinking is accepted, then we can perhaps understand the roots of omniscience better (thrikalajnana). The omniscient is the one who has worked his way through the labyrinths of reality (ies!). May be omniscience results spontaneously when a person stands outside the tumultuous "Lifetide" (courtesy: Lyal Watson) and watches the goings on as an unaffected, unsullied witness. I had laboured to espouse similar thoughts in my posts of the past (Ref: 12225 and 12708). However, I then felt that this forum was not much inclined to hold on to those threads. Now with the recent posts of Gregji, Edmondji, Harshaji and Dennisji, there is an evident bustle and a rekindling of interest. I would, therefore, request other Members to express their points of view and make this discussion really exhilarating and enlightening. Pranams to all advaitins. Madathil Nair advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote: > > Hi Venkatji, > > (Have we scored a record for the longest running topic yet?!) > > > I must also agree with Greg's recent comment that we, on awakening, can > never know that we are the 'same person' who went to sleep. All of our > so-called knowledge' about the past is based on present memories that come > from we know not where. Continuity is just as much an illusion as everything > else. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 8, 2002 Namaste: The thread, "Whence AdhyAsa" or the question, "Whence Vedas?"will continue to exist for ever. Here `Vedas' refers to `knowledge,' and its origin is mystic and beyond human perception. All that we can say is that "Vedas have no beginning and it will continue to exist with the existence of Brahman." We need to make distinction between `knowledge' and `true knowledge.' Knowledge is responsible for all notions including the notion of "AdhyAsa" and "Vedas - knowledge." True knowledge will free us from `seeking (chasing) knowledge' and liberate us from "AdhyAsa." Our problem started with the manifestation of notions, developing logic to expand the knowledge of understanding the notions of our creation. If we continue this "endless do loop" of new notions and/or new logic we are unlikely to resolve the question "Whence AdhyAsa," and continue this thread by manifesting our own theorems and corollaries. In all likelihood `Whence AdhyAsa' will likely reappear with a new name, form of definition. Once again, we can't answer why it is so? It is so because it is that! Swami Krishnananda presents a thorough analysis of "Whence AdhyAsa" in the presentation of the philosophy of Panchadasi (URL:http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/panch/panch_06.html). The Panchadasi is a standard text on the philosophy of the Vedanta, consisting of fifteen chapters, written by Sage Vidyaranya. The chapter 6 of his presentation is quite relevant to the on going discussions of the thread and especially his observation: "Avidya exists as Avarana and Vikshepa, on account of the operation of which one makes the assertion " I do not know the Atman; and it is not there". This is the work of the Abhana and Asatta aspects of Avarana. Though the Atman is the Centre of everyone, it is not known, and its existence is practically denied in the daily business of life. That such an Avidya exists is self-evident to everyone, though it will not stand the scrutiny of logic. The existence of Avidya is a mystery which is accepted by everyone in experience, but none can investigate into its nature, as the process of investigation, logical analysis, etc., is a working of the intellect, which itself is an outcome of Avidya." warmest regards, Ram Chandran Note: Almost all the time, we seems trying very hard to gain new 'knowledge' but at the end learnt the fact that 'we are more ignorant than ever before!" The Upanishads has a clear statement regarding this, "the more we know, we learn that more we don't know!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 9, 2002 Thought for the day! Mathematically speaking, 'Knowledge' is the perimeter of an ever expanding (non-existing) circle with 'ignorancce' at its center! The circle, its perimeter and its center have no dimension!! regards, Ram Chandran Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 9, 2002 Concise thought for the day! Knowledge ultimately is a big Zero. Regards, Venkat Note : Srikrishna Ghadiyaramji gave me a big Zero for my last post on the subject. Was he in fact telling me that I had the ultimate knowledge? ramvchandran [sMTP:rchandran] Tuesday, April 09, 2002 6:27 PM advaitin Re: Whence adhyAsa? Thought for the day! Mathematically speaking, 'Knowledge' is the perimeter of an ever expanding (non-existing) circle with 'ignorancce' at its center! The circle, its perimeter and its center have no dimension!! regards, Ram Chandran ---DISCLAIMER---------------- The contents of this E-mail (including the contents of the enclosure/(s) or attachment/(s) if any) are privileged and confidential material of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited (M&M) and should not be disclosed to, used by or copied in any manner by anyone other than the intended addressee/(s). If this E-mail (including the enclosure/(s) or attachment/(s) if any ) has been received in error, please advise the sender immediately and delete it from your system. The views expressed in this E-mail message (including the enclosure/(s) or attachment/(s) if any) are those of the individual sender. ----------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 9, 2002 --- s.venkatraman wrote: > Concise thought for the day! > > Knowledge ultimately is a big Zero. > > Regards, Venkat > > Note : Srikrishna Ghadiyaramji gave me a big Zero > for my last post on the > subject. Was he in fact telling me that I had the > ultimate knowledge? > > > ramvchandran [sMTP:rchandran] > Tuesday, April 09, 2002 6:27 PM > advaitin > Re: Whence adhyAsa? > > Thought for the day! > > Mathematically speaking, 'Knowledge' is the > perimeter of an ever > expanding (non-existing) circle with 'ignorancce' > at its center! The > > circle, its perimeter and its center have no > dimension!! Namaste all, Can we get out of the flat earth society and at least jump up one dimension and use a bit of Plato for the analogy: 'God is a sphere whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.' You can substitute 'True knowledge' for God or Brahman as it follows the same theme. Just a thought in passing by this thread which I usually stand back from and just enjoy, Ken Knight Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes./ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 9, 2002 Namaste, Let me rephrase your thought within the confinement of Advaita by the following: God (Brahaman) is everywhere and everywhere is nowhere! regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote: > > Namaste all, > Can we get out of the flat earth society and at least > jump up one dimension and use a bit of Plato for the > analogy: > 'God is a sphere whose centre is everywhere and whose > circumference is nowhere.' > > You can substitute 'True knowledge' for God or Brahman > as it follows the same theme. > > Just a thought in passing by this thread which I > usually stand back from and just enjoy, > > Ken Knight Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
