Ajativada and Vivartavada (earlier 'Problem of Evil')

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji and others who use Sanskrit:

 

While Dennis is quite correct that some of us do not easily

follow when almost the entire post is in Sanskrit without

translation, I would welcome your posts when you take the

time to at least try to translate what you write with some English

equivalents as you did below. Although there may be difficulty

in language barriers on both ends, it is preferable to total

Nirguna, when we are trying to speak in Saguna, don't you think?

 

This does not mean that I ask for you to drop the Sanskrit,

which is quite beautiful. I have learned much on this forum,

merely by the repetition of certain words and phrases, which

I may not understand the first or even numerous times that

I see them. But, practice makes perfect, as the saying goes,

and I am thankful for the chance to know my perfection!

 

Love,

 

Joyce

 

Let my every word be a prayer to Thee,

Every movement of my hands a ritual gesture to Thee,

Every step I take a circumambulation of Thy image,

Every morsel I eat a rite of sacrifice to Thee,

Every time I lay down a prostration at Thy feet;

Every act of personal pleasure and all else that I do,

Let it all be a form of worshiping Thee."

>From Verse 27 of Shri Aadi Shankara's Saundaryalahari

> DW prabhuji:

>

> Also, I must point out on behalf of the (I believe) many on this forum who

> have scant knowledge of Sanskrit, it is very difficult to understand your

> posts when there are so

> many untranslated words.

>

> bhaskar:

>

> Yes I agree with you...It is because, firstly, I am bit hesitant to give

> synonyms in english to the some confusing sanskrit words. Words like,

> vidyA, mAya, adhyAsa, tattva, avidyA, Atma, avasthA etc. which have been

> substituted by english words will give entirely different picture of the

> original context. We know, according to shankara we should not use words

> like avidyA, mAya interchangeably...but the substitute for these words in

> English have been conveniently used as if they are carrying the same

> meaning!! Secondly, some common Sanskrit words like above are frequently

> being used in advaita works even in English translations. Therefore, I

> think, to maintain the beauty of the original text, it should be kept as

it

> is. Thirdly & finally, my ShAstra pATha & bhAshya ShAnti (lessons on

> shankara's commentary) & most of my studies (adhyayana) are either in

local

> language or Sanskrit, so naturally my thoughts trigger in my mind are in

> that language only...sometimes, I find it very difficult to replace these

> terms with suitable English words due to my language limitation.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Tony:

>

> If there is no time, no world, and the state of bodiless moksha,

then

> we shouldn't writing or discussing. Since we are not at that

level,

> we need to understood Shankara's teaching with respect to the

level

> where we see time, world, etc. Honestly we both are under

illusions -

> you with the illusion that you have already reached the state of

> bodiless moksha and I with the illusion to look for the path to

find

> the state of bodiless moksha!

>

> The discussants do understand your contention which is valid for

the

> realized souls. What the discussants want to know is why we are

in

> the present status and whether the teachings of Sankara can help

us

> to go beyond time, world and body-mind-intellect based

perceptions.

> The question is rather complex and your simplified approach and

> answer can never take us anywhere! We have to remove all notions

> including Saguna and Nirguna before we can get to the state of

> bodiless moksha! At the state of bodiless moksha, there will be

> neither Saguna nor nirguna!!

>

> warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

 

Namaste R,

 

I must admit that of late, I have given up on long writings and

dialectics, somewhat. I suppose I'm in concordance with Nisargadatta

Maharaj when he said all you have to do is give up the idea that you

are a person. I haven't relatively arrived at a state of bodiless

moksha, otherwise I wouldn't be writing on here at all.

 

With regard to time, it only exist between points of reference. A

recent experiment, by Nasa, showed that a plane in sub space or

space-craft even slowed down time. Or rather persons on such a plane

or craft were younger than their colleagues on the planet. This of

course goes into the old story of a spaceship travelling at light

speed to the planets and back. On return the earth has gone through

ages and the returning adventurer knows not a soul or they he.

 

This I feel even scientifically proves that there is no time as we

know it at least and therefore is unreal. Where is the unfolding

now? Without going into subatomic particles going back in time,

science itself is approaching the stage of the mysics it seems--well

lower stage anyway.

 

Sankara's teaching is ultimately Ajata and so is Ramana's to his own

admittance. I must admit that I have never had any formal training

in any kind of philosophy, and I have distilled what I appear to

know from reading various vedanta. This in fact may or may not be an

advantage, for the Truth is very simple. So simple that people don't

understand it, or if educated afraid of it sometimes.

 

I still believe that rising above the mind or negating it is the way

to realise that it didn't exist in the first place. I have been

accused of Buddhism, well as opposed to Buddism the religion,

Gautama the Buddha said there was an 'Unbecoming' so he wasn't a

nihilist. My point is that there never was a creation or becoming. I

do question whether many agree with this position, as it interferes

with their practical rituals and belief systems. Howver sadhana is

necessary to purify the vijnanamayakosa which results in

realisation...........ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

Hi Madathil-ji,

 

Great post! Not sure I want to picnic in a tornado or volcano thought!

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> Hi Tony,

>

> << If there were a real appearance of creation then it would not

disappear

> in deep sleep. It would not disappear on the dropping of

> the body of a Mukta.>>

>

> Surely perception of creation only takes place by virtue of the

mind. Since

> the mind is non-operative during deep sleep, you wouldn't expect

there to be

> such an appearance. Likewise on death of the body. These

statements do not,

> therefore, seem to argue anything.

 

Namaste, D,

 

The fact that the world disappears on bodiless moksha and sushupti

and deep sleep, indicates the unreality and even the unbecoming.

Your point that it exists but the mind is not perceiving it, is not

Vedantic really. Well not Advaita anyway. The mind is still

operative to a certain extent in deep sleep, with the one thought of

ignorance.

However if it were existing even after the mind is dissolved then it

would still exist for those that have become the Universal at

Moksha. However this doesn't happen, it disappears on dropping the

body. (The first step of dropping the individual ego/mind happens at

Moksha whilst in the body).

 

Otherwise what you are saying is that God/Nirguna is unaware of the

world and its existence. This is duality and the reason that Nirguna

is unaware of the world is because it never happened. The mind never

existed at all. This is why I used the example of time, to show how

unreal even scientifically that is.

I haven't experienced Moksha at death so I can only go on the word

of the Sages on this.....However it is logical to

me........ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

I would welcome your posts when you take the

time to at least try to translate what you write with some English

equivalents as you did below.

 

praNAm Lady Joyce mAtAji

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks for your kind suggestion. I'll try my best to stick to your

suggestion in my subsequent mails.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

As for commenting on 'Brahman = world', please fell free to do so bearing

in

mind the above. (I still think that everything must have been said in

earlier discussions!)

 

praNAms Sri Dennis prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes, we have exchanged innumerable mails on the discussion of reality of

the world as brahman. But unfortunately nothing has been concluded in

accordance with shankara's purports. As you said, this topic has been

comprehensively dealt with all sorts of references from shankara's

works...nothing new can be added to the topic now. But, since you asked me

to share my views in simple terms, I'd like to say the following.

 

brahman = world

 

Here before equating brahman with the world, we should first see what do

these two terms mean in shankara / shruti purports. First, the term

*brahman* , for sincere students of advaita brahman means absolute

featureless, name & formless *nirguNa brahman* (attributeless brahman) the

brahman which has been explained as akShara (the imperishable), neither

gross (stUla) nor subtle (sUkShma), neither short nor long, neither it is

air nor ether etc. ( bruhadAraNyaka upanishad says clearly like this).

This subtle principle cannot be grasped by our mundane, conditioned mind

nor speech can explain it as this is not an objective knowledge ( yato

vAcho nivartante aprApya manasa saha - taiterIya upanishad). Shankara even

says, even scriptures can not teach us brahman as such & such thing as it

is no object at all...The realization of this ultimate reality is nothing

but getting rid of or negation of that which is not brahman (anAtma

vastu), thats it!! there is no special efforts required to realize IT as

this is not an adventitious thing. This is how brahman has been outlined

as ultimate reality in our scriptures & shankara's works.

 

Let us take the second term i.e. world which we are equating here with the

above brahman. As we did above, first we have to look at the meaning of

the world (jagat) provided by bhagavadpAda (shankarAchArya) & scriptures

to equate it with above ultimate brahman. Shankara, while explaining the

origination of world & its existence invariably brings in one word i.e.

mAya. What is this mAya?? shankara himself explains this in clear terms

in mAndukya kArika bhAshya (commentary on Sri gaudapAdAchArya's mAdukya

kArika) that *that which is not there is called mAya* Then question

arises, what is the answer for our cognitive world here?? shankara brings

in here three states of consciousness & says it is because of our

beginingless (anAdi) avidyA (ignorance) we are identifying ourselves with

limited adjuncts (upAdhi-s) like body, senses, mind, intellect & ego

(dEhEndriyamanObuddhyaNkAra) & perceiving the world as external object.

But this world cannot be said as real as our true nature since it is

changing its colour from one state to another & it is fictitiously imagined

by avidyA (ignorance). In the sUtra bhAshya ( vEdAnta aphorisms commentary

of shankara) shankara clearly says mAya is fictitiously imagined by avidyA

as though it is identical with the omniscient lord, name & form undefinable

either as (Ishvara) creator or distinct from Him, the cause of this

manifold world of mundane life are called in the shruti (scriptures) and

the smruti ( like bhagavad gIta etc.) as mAya , the causal portentiality

and prakruti. Prabhuji it is amply clear here shankara is saying mAya the

prakruti which is cause of this jagat is the imagination of avidyA

(ignorance) & cannot be defined to be identical with brahman or otherwise.

The same has been explained elsewhere in the commentary by bringing in the

term *anirvachanIya* (indescribable ??) with the illustration of foam &

water. I think shankara would have not struggled this much if the world is

on par with ultimate reality of secondless brahman.

 

Under these circumstance, now, prabhuji, you tell me how can these two (

brahman & world) can be brought into single frame of ultimate reality??

The objective analysation of our three states & appearance of world in two

states will reveal the fact that noway we can equate the empirical reality

of world with that of ultimate reality of parabrahman.

 

I hope, I made my points clear.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

PS : I think I've taken care of Sanskrit words translation this time :-))

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Bhaskarji wrote:

 

QUOTE

 

shankara brings in here three states of consciousness & says it is

because of our beginingless (anAdi) avidyA (ignorance) we are

identifying ourselves with limited adjuncts (upAdhi-s) like body,

senses, mind, intellect & ego (dEhEndriyamanObuddhyaNkAra) &

perceiving the world as external object.

 

UNQUOTE

 

 

The above explanation presupposes a `split' – a `split' of ONE AND

ONLY ONE into too many. Be that `split' ajata in the absolute sense

or vivarta in terms of the mundane `cause-effect' explanation found

in BS, the correct advaitic view is that that ONE AND ONLY ONE only

remains always. I believe there is no dispute on this point.

 

If the Wholeness of that ONE AND ONLY ONE is asserted, creation or

not, there cannot be parts. Any seeming parts, therefore, are the

ONE AND ONLY ONE only. Thus, the world is that ONE AND ONLY ONE as

is the ant and the mountain. That is what we (Dennisji, CNji, I, et

al, if I can speak on behalf of the first two) are trying to drive

home. To see that ONE AND ONLY ONE in everything seen is, therefore,

the practical side of Advaita.

 

That is why a sage of Kerala sang to Lord Guruvayoorappan

(Krishna): "I cannot describe the angst I suffered when I saw the

One You as two!".

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

praNAm Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

MN prabhuji:

 

The above explanation presupposes a `split' ? a `split' of ONE AND

ONLY ONE into too many. Be that `split' ajata in the absolute sense

or vivarta in terms of the mundane `cause-effect' explanation found

in BS, the correct advaitic view is that that ONE AND ONLY ONE only

remains always. I believe there is no dispute on this point.

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, this ONE & ONLY reality does not undergo any *split* at any point of

time. The states in which we are identifying ourselves is mere

superimposition (adyArOpa) on pure witness consciousness. This is the

reason why first, mANdUkya shruti says the vishwa form (the waker) & the

taijasa form (the dreamer) both have 7 limbs & 19 faces (saptAnga

yEkOnaviMSati mukhaH) & subsequently, removes it by saying it has neither

inner consciousness nor outer consciousness nor prajnAna ghana (mass of

consciousness) etc. So, shruti & shankara do not make silly mistake by

splitting the unsplittable. This apparent attribution of avastha-s (states)

to Atman is only from the adhyArOpa point of view.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

If the Wholeness of that ONE AND ONLY ONE is asserted, creation or

not, there cannot be parts. Any seeming parts, therefore, are the

ONE AND ONLY ONE only.

 

bhaskar :

 

this any seeming part / parts is what is called mAya in doctrine of

shankara pholosophy. The perceiption of this seeming parts is due to

avidyA which gets sublated after the dawn of absolute knowledge. anitya

vastu vivEka ( the thing which has only temporal reality) leads us to the

intuitive realization of nitya vastu (absolute reality) which is not get

affected in all the three times (trikAla abhAditaM) i.e. waking, dream &

deep sleep states.

 

praNAms Onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji.

 

You and I are debating in the adhyAropa mode. The unborn 'split' is

very much visible to both of us. The only way we can account for it

is to assert that there has been no split at all. That logically

means the apparent split elements are taken back into the One

Unsplit. As long as the 'split elements' are perceived, we have to

then assert, based on shruti, that the 'split elements' are the

ever 'unsplit'. That is sublation. Otherwise, we will have a

tremendous problem of left-overs and debris in our advaitic dustbins

crying for justice when we retire to the Nirguna abode.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

>..........

> Yes, this ONE & ONLY reality does not undergo any *split* at any

point of

> time. The states in which we are identifying ourselves is mere

> superimposition (adyArOpa) on pure witness consciousness.

[Guest guest]

You and I are debating in the adhyAropa mode. The unborn 'split' is

very much visible to both of us. The only way we can account for it

is to assert that there has been no split at all. That logically

means the apparent split elements are taken back into the One

Unsplit. As long as the 'split elements' are perceived, we have to

then assert, based on shruti, that the 'split elements' are the

ever 'unsplit'. That is sublation. Otherwise, we will have a

tremendous problem of left-overs and debris in our advaitic dustbins

crying for justice when we retire to the Nirguna abode.

 

praNAm MN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Do you really mean it is only *as long as* the *split elements are

perceived?? or these split elements are there forever in brahman?? I

think that is what the main issue we are trying to understand here as per

advaita perspective. If it is only *as long as* then I dont have any

problem, since we have already said that *there is no second entity as

such* apart from it. But issue here is there is an argument that this

apparent split of the unsplit has eternal existence in *unsplit*

irrespective of *time & space frame* (*as long as* in the above case) Do

you agree with this prabhuji??

 

By the way in nirguNa abode there is no debris....after all we know it is

absolute non-dual state & permanent & eternal abode of complete cleanliness

:-))

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji.

 

WOW! We are closer than ever!

 

Your question is tricky and the answer is also going to be tricky.

 

In the concluding sentence of your post, you have already answered

your question. The debris is not there, as Bhaskarji the erstwhile

perceiver is not there, I mean, as a separate entity. The debris and

perceiver Bhaskarji weren't actually there even during the *apparent

split* because they were one, and they continue that way even after

the 'split' is sublated. In other words, they were, are and will be

always one. Time and space are parts of the 'apparent split' and

therefore applicable to only the adhyAropa mode. When the 'split'

is sublated, they are also simultaneously sublated. (By the way,

dont take the meaning of 'removed' in the word 'sublated'. I am

using it in the sense we use 'resolved'.)

 

Besides, this temporal talk of before and after is also in the

adhyAropa mode. It simply means we are talking without talking!

There is only silence!

 

In the adhyAropa mode, we have to therefore assert that both

Bhaskarji and the debris are pUrNa or Brahman because the logic of

Advaita demands that the Absolute cannot be the sum total of parts.

If it were, then It cannot be called Absolute. Thus, both from the

adhyAropa and Absolute perspectives, we are dealing with the

same 'Thing' although we don't realize that due to lack of right

knowledge. If Brahman is, therefore, eternal, the perspective

shouldn't matter any more. We then have to conclude that the world

rightly understood as Brahman is also eternal despite the apparent

changes. The adverb conditional *as long as* appearing in your post

has no meaning then because we are talking about a change that is no

change at all! Right? Besides, why do we have to talk about a

second entity in a situation that doesn't know two!?

 

Will that satisfy you?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________________

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> Do you really mean it is only *as long as* the *split elements are

> perceived?? or these split elements are there forever in

brahman?? I

> think that is what the main issue we are trying to understand here

as per

> advaita perspective. If it is only *as long as* then I dont have

any

> problem, since we have already said that *there is no second

entity as

> such* apart from it. But issue here is there is an argument that

this

> apparent split of the unsplit has eternal existence in *unsplit*

> irrespective of *time & space frame* (*as long as* in the above

case) Do

> you agree with this prabhuji??

>

> By the way in nirguNa abode there is no debris....after all we

know it is

> absolute non-dual state & permanent & eternal abode of complete

cleanliness

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji.

 

praNAms Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

MN prabhuji:

 

WOW! We are closer than ever!

 

bhaskar :

 

yes, this proximity helps us realise ONENESS in us :-))

 

MN prabhuji:

 

Your question is tricky and the answer is also going to be tricky.

 

bhaskar :

 

let it be prabhuji, *as long as* this question & answers are within the

permitted parameters of shankara philosophy :-))

 

MN prabhuji:

 

In the concluding sentence of your post, you have already answered

your question. The debris is not there, as Bhaskarji the erstwhile

perceiver is not there, I mean, as a separate entity. The debris and

perceiver Bhaskarji weren't actually there even during the *apparent

split* because they were one, and they continue that way even after

the 'split' is sublated.

 

bhaskar :

 

how beautifully you have expressed it prabhuji!! you are absolutely right,

the sublated *split* reveals the fact that the apparent split was kEvala

avidyA (ignorance) on the part of perceiver, in reality it was not there

forever.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

In other words, they were, are and will be always one. Time and space are

parts of the 'apparent split' and therefore applicable to only the

adhyAropa mode. When the 'split'

is sublated, they are also simultaneously sublated. (By the way,

dont take the meaning of 'removed' in the word 'sublated'. I am

using it in the sense we use 'resolved'.)

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, this the ultimate knowledge resolves the problem of doubting nature

which is seeing the non-existent *rope* in the snake. Where is the question

of *removing* the non-existent snake once the *ropeness* realised in its

entireity.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

Besides, this temporal talk of before and after is also in the

adhyAropa mode. It simply means we are talking without talking!

There is only silence!

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, this absolute silence we do virtually experiencing everyday in deep

sleep state is it not!! the noise which we are erroneously hearing in

other two states due to avidyA will not be there in our true nature.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

In the adhyAropa mode, we have to therefore assert that both

Bhaskarji and the debris are pUrNa or Brahman because the logic of

Advaita demands that the Absolute cannot be the sum total of parts.

 

bhaskar :

 

yes, that is why shruti says it is not even mass of consciousness when it

is doing apavAda (rescission) from the falsely attributed wings to Atman

such as waker & dreamer in adhyArOpa. How can there be parts, when it is

akhanda (undivided) chaitanya?? parts is our wrong perception in undivided

reality. So, as you said above, bhaskar & debris were, are and will never

ever be there it was/is/will be only undivided, eternal, pure consciousness

forever.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

If it were, then It cannot be called Absolute. Thus, both from the

adhyAropa and Absolute perspectives, we are dealing with the

same 'Thing' although we don't realize that due to lack of right

knowledge.

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, from both the transactional & transcedental (vyavahAra & pAramArthika)

view points there is ONLY ONE reality...if the split were there than it is

due to avidyA coz. of our wrong identification with upAdhi-s (limited

adjuncts)..That is why shankara in his preamble to sUtra bhAshya (adhyAsa

bhAshya) says both loukika & vaidika vyavahAra are in the realm of avidyA &

even thinking about mOksha (final release) also due to our wrong

identification with doer, perceiver, enjoyer etc. Once this is realised

*the very dealership* in *dealing* business will get sublated. This is what

shankara says in gIta bhAshya.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

If Brahman is, therefore, eternal, the perspective

shouldn't matter any more. We then have to conclude that the world

rightly understood as Brahman is also eternal despite the apparent

changes.

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, as said above, we cannot just even imagine the *world* without

changes to equate it with changeless brahman, the very meaning of *jagat*

in Sanskrit tells us that it has ever changing nature...so, I'd like to see

this apparent changes which is purely restricted to waker & dreamer as

avidyAkruta (concocted by our root ignorance) as enunciated by shankara

bhagavadpAda in all through his prasthAna trayi works (his commentaries on

upanishad, sUtra & bhagavad gIta). Having said this, I do admit that

shankara at times elevated this perceived world upto upAsya brahma (apara

brahma) level ( as we see in pUrNamidaM)but never ever equated with

ultimate reality.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

The adverb conditional *as long as* appearing in your post

has no meaning then because we are talking about a change that is no

change at all! Right? Besides, why do we have to talk about a

second entity in a situation that doesn't know two!?

 

bhaskar :

 

then why there are two different terminologies if the jagat itself is

brahman, shankara/shruti would have used single term either jagat or

brahman is it not?? why shankara had to write no. of pages to prove us the

world unreality in sushupti (deep sleep state)?? kindly clarify.

 

My only apprehension after saying all this is, *I am* will be there as

pure consciousness always even though this world & its perceiver are/were

not there...There is an experience (anubhUti) in me that says world has

apparent existence with all its multifarious functions in two avastha-s

under different time & space frame & it is absent in my third avastha when

I look at the three states objectively.

 

Kindly pardon me if I said something wrong.

 

Will that satisfy you?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony,

 

Apologies for delay - only just got back to checking list.

 

<<The fact that the world disappears on bodiless moksha and sushupti

and deep sleep, indicates the unreality and even the unbecoming.

Your point that it exists but the mind is not perceiving it, is not

Vedantic really. Well not Advaita anyway. The mind is still

operative to a certain extent in deep sleep, with the one thought of

ignorance.>>

 

I was not making a statement of Advaitic truths but a statement of how

things are experienced/understood at the level of the phenomenal. I said:

"Surely perception of creation only takes place by virtue of the mind. Since

the mind is non-operative during deep sleep, you wouldn't expect there to be

such an appearance." In vyavahAra, perception takes place by virtue of the

mind. Therefore, what I said holds at this level.

 

<<However if it were existing even after the mind is dissolved then it would

still exist for those that have become the Universal at

Moksha. However this doesn't happen, it disappears on dropping the body.>>

 

Common sense (if nothing else) must differ here. The Sage must still see the

form of 'others' and remember their names since he appears still to

communicate with his disciples. That he now knows that there are no others

and all that he sees is only Brahman is beside the point.

 

<<Otherwise what you are saying is that God/Nirguna is unaware of the world

and its existence. This is duality and the reason that Nirguna

is unaware of the world is because it never happened.>>

 

Not at all. Surely the form of the world is known through the form of the

mind. All is one - no duality. That it was never created does not man that

it doesn't exist.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

advaitin@ mind. Therefore, what I said holds at this level.

>

> Tony<<However if it were existing even after the mind is dissolved

then it would

> still exist for those that have become the Universal at

> Moksha. However this doesn't happen, it disappears on dropping the

body.>>

>

> Dennis.Common sense (if nothing else) must differ here. The Sage

must still see the

> form of 'others' and remember their names since he appears still to

> communicate with his disciples. That he now knows that there are

no others

> and all that he sees is only Brahman is beside the point.

>

>Tony <<Otherwise what you are saying is that God/Nirguna is unaware

of the world

> and its existence. This is duality and the reason that Nirguna

> is unaware of the world is because it never happened.>>

>

>Dennis Not at all. Surely the form of the world is known through

the form of the

> mind. All is one - no duality. That it was never created does not

man that

> it doesn't exist.

>

> Best wishes,Dennis.

 

Namaste Dennis,

 

The Mukti or sage sees the world with his residual

purified ,vijnanamayakosa, which is all that distinguishes him from

the Universal Mind. However there is a function without the

feeling 'I' am doing something.IMO.

 

On dropping of the body all this mind disappears as having never

ever existed. It seems the point you are making, which is the same

as a lot other 'Advaitins' are making is that illusion and Brahman

are one. This has some validity to Saguna Brahman, but as Saguna is

ultimately unreal, we have to fall back on Nirguna and illusion

never having happened at all...........Which is well evidenced in

Sushputi and Samahdi..........ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony,

 

I said: "The Sage must still see the form of 'others'...".

 

You said: "The Mukti or sage sees the world with his residual purified

,vijnanamayakosa...".

 

Apart from the unnecessary confusion of the Sanskrit terms, how do these two

statements differ? The world is still seen, because the appearances are

still there. The forms change, like the waves on the ocean, but it is still

Brahman. Did you not acknowledge this in your Ramana quotation? ("It

signifies that the universe is real if perceived as the Self (an appearance

in consciousness).")

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote:

>

>

>>

> On dropping of the body all this mind disappears as having never

> ever existed. It seems the point you are making, which is the same

> as a lot other 'Advaitins' are making is that illusion and Brahman

> are one. This has some validity to Saguna Brahman, but as Saguna is

> ultimately unreal, we have to fall back on Nirguna and illusion

> never having happened at all...........Which is well evidenced in

> Sushputi and Samahdi..........ONS...Tony.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>From the recent posts on this subject of ajaativaada, are we to

conclude that "brhman is illusion" ?

 

If we do that then Acharyaa's mahaavaakya "brahma satya jaganmithyaa"

need further elaboration.

 

However, it can possibly be satisfied if we say that "a realization

that eveything is only illusion is the truth".

 

This way one can focus on the essence of detachment because all the

manifestations were nothing but all illusion.

 

Thus naShTo moha.... becomes the key for salvation.

 

Any thoughts !!

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Yaduji;

 

Your statement (though with additional clarifications and corrections

may be valid) can be subject to misinterpretation and consequently, I

would like to provide the following observations.

 

I believe that the acharyaa's statement, "brahmaiva satyam,

jagatmityaa' is to focus our mind on the distinction

between 'permanant' and 'transitory' realities of life. The

transitory realities appear to us as the 'true reality of life' and

that is due to illusion. If and when we comprehend all the

transactions that have ever taken place and yet to take place, we can

see the Truth. This is essentially the 'projection show - Viswarupa

Dharsanam' that Lord Krishna exhibited to Arjuna in the battle field

of Mahabharata. Chapter 11 of Bhagavad Gita describes that Arjuna was

unable to bear the pressure of the sudden expansion of consciousness

and was filled with fear. He acutally begged the Lord to assume once

more His usual form. Arjuna further recognizes that the great cosmic

drama is set in motion and controlled by the all-mighty power of the

Lord. His Will alone prevails in all things and actions, both good

and bad. The Lord exhorts him to fight, he being only an apparent

cause of the destruction of his enemies.

 

Shankaracharya in other words want us to recognize that the 'Truth'

is the Brahman and Brahman only knows the Truth and all that we see,

touch, taste, hear, etc. are only the transitory realities projected

by the Brahman. We have to expand our spiritual vision through

sadhana and surrender to the Lord (like what Arjuna did in the battle

field) to comprehend the past-present-future to go beyond the time

and beyond our senses. The Truth can only be revealed and it can

never be told. This is being symbollically said in chapter 11 through

tthe conversation between Lord Krishna and Arjuna. When the Lord

tries to show him the Truth (symbollically through the

Viwarupadarshan) still Arjuna couldn't take it because he was not

ready.

 

In one of the incidents reported about Ramana Maharishi, someone

asked the Maharishi to show him the God. Bhagawan tells that

person that even if he shows him the God, that person may not be

able to recognize it! In conclusion, I would state the following

correction to your statement. Truth includes all illusions but any

illusion alone is not the TRUTH! Brhaman includes the world but the

World is not the Brahman!!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note to Sri Tony: The adjectives Saguna and Nirguna are just the

means to understand the 'Brahman' and Brahman alone is the Truth!

When the adjectives tend to divert our attention, we should recognize

to drop those notions and refocus our mind on the Truth - The

Brahman.

 

 

advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote:

>

> ......

> If we do that then Acharyaa's mahaavaakya "brahma satya

jaganmithyaa"

> need further elaboration.

>

> However, it can possibly be satisfied if we say that "a realization

> that eveything is only illusion is the truth".

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote:

>

> advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery>

wrote:

> >

> >

> >>

> > On dropping of the body all this mind disappears as having

never

> > ever existed. It seems the point you are making, which is the

same

> > as a lot other 'Advaitins' are making is that illusion and

Brahman

> > are one. This has some validity to Saguna Brahman, but as Saguna

is

> > ultimately unreal, we have to fall back on Nirguna and illusion

> > never having happened at all...........Which is well evidenced

in

> > Sushputi and Samahdi..........ONS...Tony.

> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>

> From the recent posts on this subject of ajaativaada, are we to

> conclude that "brhman is illusion" ?

>

> If we do that then Acharyaa's mahaavaakya "brahma satya

jaganmithyaa"

> need further elaboration.

>

> However, it can possibly be satisfied if we say that "a

realization

> that eveything is only illusion is the truth".

>

> This way one can focus on the essence of detachment because all

the

> manifestations were nothing but all illusion.

>

> Thus naShTo moha.... becomes the key for salvation.

>

> Any thoughts !!

>

> Regards,

>

> Dr. Yadu

 

Namaste Dr Y,

 

To me the fact that in sushupti and samadhi or Bodiless Moksha the

world disappears indicates it never ever did appear. So everything

is illusion, even the idea of Brahman associated with illusion

called Saguna..........ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> Hi Tony,

>

> I said: "The Sage must still see the form of 'others'...".

>

> You said: "The Mukti or sage sees the world with his residual

purified

> ,vijnanamayakosa...".

>

> Apart from the unnecessary confusion of the Sanskrit terms, how do

these two

> statements differ? The world is still seen, because the

appearances are

> still there. The forms change, like the waves on the ocean, but it

is still

> Brahman. Did you not acknowledge this in your Ramana quotation?

("It

> signifies that the universe is real if perceived as the Self (an

appearance

> in consciousness).")

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

Namaste, D,

 

We are all speculating to a certain degree, but relying on the word

of Muktas and Sages is helpful.

The Universal Mind uses the vijnanamaykosa of the Sage to see the

world as it appears. There is no ego there just a whirlpool in the

ocean. The statement it is real if it is regarded as a projection of

Brahman is just a step to the fact it never happened that's

all...Ons..Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ramachaandran-Ji:

 

Thank you for your kind explanation.

 

Actually, I wanted to limit the my comments to the expression with

emphasis on the "reorganization & realization" pertaining to the

illusion because of the conventional understanding of brahman as

absolute truth.

 

As we all know the word brahamn is derived from the root word "bR^ih"

meaning to expand. So the real truth is, that the brahman is

constantly expanding. Thus the ever-changing-ness of the brahman is

the truth. So if we limit the "TRUTH" as "CHANGE of Changing

Universe" Then the mahaavaakya can be solved at all levels (physical

as well as metaphysical).

 

What is expanded is also going to change at some point in time.

Therefore the expanded version (the resultant) is not the tri-kaala

abaadhita satya" and gets classified under the untrue maayaa.

 

Nature, including our culture has been dynamic and not static that

includes the concept of constant change.

 

IMO what aacharya has stated is absolutely true about anything and

everything that has been manifested as the jagata which is directly

pertaining to the time factor. jaatasyahi dhhR^ivo mR^ityu -

anything that is born must die. All this signifies is the "change

factor" and thus jagata becomes mithyaa and therefore he must has

emphasized the realization of this concept and advocated detachment

from worldly things.

 

Probably for that reason veda vyasa advises in vana parva

(199.106,107, shanti 2111.17)

 

bijaanyagnyupadagdhaani na rohanti yathaa punaH |

j~naanadagdhaistathaa kleshairnaatmaa sa.mpadyate punaH ||

 

Liberal meaning - Just like a roasted bean can not reproduce (through

re-birth), similarly karma klesha when roasted through j~nana atma

can be liberated.

 

Or when kR^iShNa tell arjana j~naagni sarvakarmaaNi bhasmasaata

kurute.arjuana (giitaa 4.37)

 

or j~naatvaa devaM ucyate sarva paashaiH || shvetaashvatara 5.13;

6.13)

 

Everything about the realizations of that truth. The constant is the

change itself. Even IBM is using this concept of constant change for

their services business model "ON DEMAND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS"

 

Any further thoughts will be appreciated.

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Yaduji;

>

> Your statement (though with additional clarifications and

corrections

> may be valid) can be subject to misinterpretation and consequently,

I

> would like to provide the following observations.

>

> I believe that the acharyaa's statement, "brahmaiva satyam,

> jagatmityaa' is to focus our mind on the distinction

> between 'permanant' and 'transitory' realities of life. The

> transitory realities appear to us as the 'true reality of life' and

> that is due to illusion. If and when we comprehend all the

> transactions that have ever taken place and yet to take place, we

can

> see the Truth.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>

 

we see,

> touch, taste, hear, etc. are only the transitory realities

projected

> by the Brahman. We have to expand our spiritual vision through

> sadhana and surrender to the Lord (like what Arjuna did in the

battle

> field) to comprehend the past-present-future to go beyond the time

> and beyond our senses. The Truth can only be revealed and it can

> never be told. This is being symbollically said in chapter 11

through

> tthe conversation between Lord Krishna and Arjuna. When the Lord

> tries to show him the Truth (symbollically through the

> Viwarupadarshan) still Arjuna couldn't take it because he was not

> ready.

>

> In one of the incidents reported about Ramana Maharishi, someone

> asked the Maharishi to show him the God. Bhagawan tells that

> person that even if he shows him the God, that person may not be

> able to recognize it! In conclusion, I would state the following

> correction to your statement. Truth includes all illusions but any

> illusion alone is not the TRUTH! Brhaman includes the world but the

> World is not the Brahman!!

>

> Warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

> Note to Sri Tony: The adjectives Saguna and Nirguna are just the

> means to understand the 'Brahman' and Brahman alone is the Truth!

> When the adjectives tend to divert our attention, we should

recognize

> to drop those notions and refocus our mind on the Truth - The

> Brahman.

>

>

> advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote:

> >

> > ......

> > If we do that then Acharyaa's mahaavaakya "brahma satya

> jaganmithyaa"

> > need further elaboration.

> >

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji.

 

Sorry for the delay. I was off net for some time. Also, there was a

lot of interesting material from Frankji et al to read incidentally

touching on the issue we are discussing.

 

My comments are in [ }.

 

__________________

>> bhaskarji wrote :

>

> then why there are two different terminologies if the jagat itself

is

> brahman, shankara/shruti would have used single term either jagat or

> brahman is it not?? why shankara had to write no. of pages to

prove us the

> world unreality in sushupti (deep sleep state)?? kindly clarify.

>

> My only apprehension after saying all this is, *I am* will be

there as

> pure consciousness always even though this world & its perceiver

are/were

> not there...There is an experience (anubhUti) in me that says world

has

> apparent existence with all its multifarious functions in two

avastha-s

> under different time & space frame & it is absent in my third

avastha when

> I look at the three states objectively.

________________________________

 

[sankara wrote so many words not for himself but for us who see

the 'snake' *in the place of* another thing - the rope. To apply the

analogy to our situation, the rope is the *real me* and the snake is

the world *divided into two parts - the seeing me and the seen*.

This division is the cause of all my worldy woes - like mortality,

deficient knowledge and limitations.]

 

[in your consideration, the world per se *vanishes or is removed* on

self-realization, as it is a delusional superimposition, like the non-

existent snake on the rope vanishes on the dawning of rope knowledge,

whereas, in my opinion, the world *divided into two parts - the seeig

me and the seen* resolves as Wholeness or Fullness as the real me. If

at all anything is removed here, it is only the sense of duality - my

imagined separateness from the world - my delusion due to which the

division results and generates woes. The pertinent theme of the

analogy is mistaking one thing for another. Our mistake is that we

feel limited, insecure, mortal and ignorant when we are not so in

reality. With the removal of the sense of duality, these imagined

woes are removed. Thus, the world encompassing the perceiving me and

the perceived is not removed per se. Only my wrong idea of it is

removed with the woes generated by that wrong idea. Needless to say,

there is a gaping gap between these two points of view and that is

the only thing that now remains to be bridged between us.]

 

[i would like to elaborate further on my point of view by looking at

the state of sleep which you have brought in as a justification for

your contention.]

 

[You say the world is `absent' in sleep. Let us analyze this

statement.]

 

[i slept last night. Before I retired to bed, there was a bud on the

plant placed on my window-sill. When I rise from bed, I notice that

the bud has blossomed. The blossoming took place without my

knowledge - in the absence of the perceiving me. That would normally

mean that the changeful world where the blossoming took place in time

was very much there during my sleep. Now the question: Where was

it?]

 

[sleep is an event flanked by the pre-sleep waking world and the post

sleep waking world. It is therefore limited as the rest of the

things in the changing world. This applies to samAdhi too if one

enters it and comes out because then it is flanked by the pre and

post samAdhi worlds.]

 

[both sleep and samAdhi, therefore, give us only a clue or pointer to

what we really are. They shouldn't therefore be stretched to imply

that Self-Realization means the total elimination of the world.

During both sleep and samAdhi, I should assume the world exists (It

is not absent!) in us together with its changeful nature folded back

like an umbrella. The umbrella wouldn't say it is only the rod of

the umbrella when its ribs and cloth are folded close to the rod.

It is just a full umbrella folded or unfolded! Similarly, we are

Brahman and therefore Full with the world folded back in us or

unfolded into wakefulness. The only difference is that, while in the

mundane example of the umbrella, the duality of the rod, ribs and

cloth is still evident when it is folded, in the consideration of

ourselves as Brahman, that duality is conspicuously absent in both

deep sleep and samAdhi. Otherwise, we would be imputing change to

Brahman. That won't then be advaita any more. Thus, what is gone is

the duality and the world as such.]

 

[Thus, in my opinion, the trick of advaita is not going into samAdhi

to come out of it `later' to tell the world "I am Brahman" and behave

unabashedly in a dualistic manner, like most of our present-day gurus

do, but to change one's dual outlook to take in the world as "I am".

This advaitic `outlook' (I can't help the pitiful externality of that

word!) is what our CNji beautifully termed " the inversion of

perspective" and its blossoming is dependent on chittashuddhi, which

we are exhorted to acquire through practising values and doing

sAdhana. That is the reason why Sankara wrote so many allegedly

dualistic hymns for our sake and yet didn't forget to pack advaita

fully into them!]

 

[Once this `outlook' fully dawns or `inversion of perspective' takes

place, then you are the plant, the bud, the window sill, sleep and

everything in this world – nay, the whole world. It doesn't then

matter or make any difference whether you are awake or asleep or in

samAdhi. The world is thus not eliminated in our journey to Wisdom

but is fully and spontaneously embraced and taken in in one go.

Then, there is no world for you separate from you either inside or

outside you, because you are it with your woes imposed by your

imagined separateness from the world totally gone. That is why

Bhagawan Ramana said, as quoted by our Frankji, that the world is

only unreal as the world (as a separate entity) but real as Brahman.

Words in brackets mine. Of course, in strict advaitic sense, I would

substitute `mithyA' for the word `unreal' as the statement is an

English translation of Bhagwan's words probably uttered in Tamil.]

 

[After covering so much ground of mutual agreement on the

fundamentals of advaita, if I can carry you with me on this last

quantum jump of `inversion of perspective', then, happily, no

difference remains to be reconciled between our points of view and

no world ever remains out there separate from us begging elimination.]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Bhaskar Prabhuji.

 

In my earlier message, there is a correction required in the

following sentence:

 

"Thus, what is gone is the duality and the world as such."

 

Please read it as: "Thus, what is gone is duality and *not* the

world as such."

 

Thanks.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

> Namaste Ram Chandran,

 

you wrote :

"Brhaman includes the world but the

World is not the Brahman!!"

 

....yes, i beleive this a good explanation...

 

it's difficult to describe the "illusion" of the world...and to

discuss about what exactly by this "illusion" is meant.

 

Brahman is the source of all...sources....nothing else existing,

nothing else but Brahman...

so everything exist "in" Brahman...everything must be encluded in

Brahman

 

whole life long....we get the perception of parts only of Brahman...

as long we perceive forms....enluded our own form (body mind

intellect)....we can be sure that it's only a part of Brahman...

 

if we go "behind" body mind intellect....we can enter into

cosmic "consciousness"....and so experience another consciousness....

 

many different "consciousness" can be experienced....

 

maybe one realized person is constantly conscious that "all"

consciousness that one (person) can have....is not whole of Brahman-

consciousness..........and so that every consciousness related to the

presense of a body mind intellect must be "illusion"....or something

which don't reflect whole of Brahman

 

Brahman itself...as a Whole....can't have "illusions"......

 

i think that as long we identify ourSelf with this body.....this is

illusion....as our real Being has no form....was never born....and

will never die....

 

Regards

 

with love

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji.

 

Humble praNAms Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

MN prabhuji:

 

[sankara wrote so many words not for himself but for us who see

the 'snake' *in the place of* another thing - the rope. To apply the

analogy to our situation, the rope is the *real me* and the snake is

the world *divided into two parts - the seeing me and the seen*.

This division is the cause of all my worldy woes - like mortality,

deficient knowledge and limitations.]

 

bhaskar :

 

this is called avidyA vyavahAra, shankara calls the same as adhyAsa in the

preamble to sUtra bhAshya.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

[in your consideration, the world per se *vanishes or is removed* on

self-realization, as it is a delusional superimposition, like the non-

existent snake on the rope vanishes on the dawning of rope knowledge,

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, this *rope* knowledge brings me the intuitive realization that this

*snake* was never ever existent in the rope & rope was/is/will be there as

my true nature. Anyway, we are objectifying the brahma jnAna / svarUpa

jnAna as *rope* knowledge here whereas svarUpa jnAna is not the source of

objectification like *rope* knowledge...that we have to keep in mind while

discussing this analogy.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

whereas, in my opinion, the world *divided into two parts - the seeig

me and the seen* resolves as Wholeness or Fullness as the real me.

 

bhaskar :

 

can you tell me the *nature of this world* which is got rid of two parts

i.e. the seer & seen & glittering with wholeness/fullness prabhuji...Since

you are holding world itself brahman you are attributing this wholeness of

brahman to it & saying *world* in place of brahman...but how come this *me*

still remains without seeing *you* or other seen objects??

 

MN prabhuji:

 

If at all anything is removed here, it is only the sense of duality - my

imagined separateness from the world - my delusion due to which the

division results and generates woes. The pertinent theme of the

analogy is mistaking one thing for another. Our mistake is that we

feel limited, insecure, mortal and ignorant when we are not so in

reality. With the removal of the sense of duality, these imagined

woes are removed. Thus, the world encompassing the perceiving me and

the perceived is not removed per se. Only my wrong idea of it is

removed with the woes generated by that wrong idea. Needless to say,

there is a gaping gap between these two points of view and that is

the only thing that now remains to be bridged between us.]

 

bhaskar :

 

So, prabhuji here, you are acknolwedging your state of misunderstanding of

the *dual* nature of the world & as well as understanding of the non-dual

*real nature* of the world as brahman is it not?? I mean, when one

understands the rope as snake, *he determines that *this is snake*. This is

nothing but vrutti jnAna (idea of mind...open for better English words)of

snake triggered in mind. After cognising the true nature of the rope (here

in the above analogy *brahman*) he realises that the previous knowledge

which he had got as snake ( here in the above analogy dual nature of world

i.e. *seeing me & seen*) is a wrong notion. This type of cognition of the

real nature of rope (brahman as whole & full) is also a vrutti in the

mind...is it not prabhuji?? So, from the stand point of mind both unreal &

real cognitions are vrutti-s only pertaining to the antahkarana (internal

instrument) alone. In the above analogy, the cognition of snake in rope

called as ajnAna vrutti & cognition of rope as rope called as jnAna

vrutti. But prabhuji please note that *after* knowing the real nature of

rope, he says previously I had misunderstood this rope as snake ( brahman

as dual seer-seen world). Here wrong notion regarding the snake is unreal.

But subtle point here is the judgement that *this type of notion has taken

place previously in my mind* is born now. This judgement triggers out when

one takes his stand in his true nature of the self. By standing on this

platform he is acknowledging & unknowingly objectifying the modifications

of his own mind as misunderstanding & understanding etc. This type of

*determination* regarding misunderstanding & understanding of the mind is

called here as *avagati* or anubhava (??) By this the conclusion that can

be arrived is that the notion of snake is false, but the type of notion

which had arised in my mind previously was real ( This is what CN prabhuji

also trying to say in his mails I think). This judgement is real because

this has arisen on the firm ground of sAkshi anubhava. & This sAkshi is ONE

& ONLY in all the three states & that is why we could able to objectify all

the three states & its respective experience. Shankara elaborates this in

sUtra bhAshya & says when on dreams he feels so many things in his dream.

After waking he says that all of them are false & unreal. But he does not

say that the intuitional experience of the dream which had occurred in him

is false. This means that one says that the dream is false, but the

intuitional expereince of the dream such as a dream had taken place is not

false. Because it concerns to the sAkshianubhava, the uniform entity in

both the states. This type of sAkshyanubhava is called avagati here. This

avagati shows us & helps us to discriminate between jnAna & ajnAna vrutti

which has arisen in the mind & the true nature of the self which illumines

all the vruttis. This true nature which is witnessing these two vruttis

cannot be objectified at any stretch of our imagination as this is purely

subjective in nature. So, the understanding of the world as brahman is

also a vrutti & it is getting light from the ever existing chaitanya which

is devoid of vrutti-s of the mind.

 

I shall take your deep sleep analogy in my next mail...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

praNAm Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

MN prabhuji:

 

[i would like to elaborate further on my point of view by looking at

the state of sleep which you have brought in as a justification for

your contention.]

 

bhaskar :

 

The point to be noted here before taking the state of sleep is, this

analysation should be done from the neutral view point i.e. neutral to all

the three states. We cannot pass judgement on waking from dream neither we

can do so on sleeping holding waking is the only reality & dream & sleep

are experiencing from & in waking state. In my y'days mail I said that

sAkshianubhava which is giving the knowledge of both jnAna vrutti & ajnAna

vrutti...Now, the same witness consciousness to be used to analyse our

three states..shankara calls this in kArikA bhAshya as *avasthAtraya

sAkshi*.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

[You say the world is `absent' in sleep. Let us analyze this

statement.]

 

bhaskar :

 

My saying is based on shankara bhAshya prabhuji, jagad bIja & avidyA bIja

nirAkaraNa (negation of seed form of universe & ignorance) is quite evident

in kArikA bhAshya.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

[i slept last night. Before I retired to bed, there was a bud on the

plant placed on my window-sill. When I rise from bed, I notice that

the bud has blossomed. The blossoming took place without my

knowledge - in the absence of the perceiving me. That would normally

mean that the changeful world where the blossoming took place in time

was very much there during my sleep. Now the question: Where was

it?]

 

bhaskar :

 

I hope you've read my mail on objective outlook of avastha-s. Prabhuji,

pls. note we are not analysing here *our waking state* alone & in it our

experiences, we_are_analysing all the three states for which sAkshi is the

common factor. The bud & its subsequent change comes under waking dept.

But between this you have experienced one more reality that is

dream....while dreaming did you notice & said yourself that just before

coming to this dream, I have seen a bud which will going to blossom after

my waking?? The dream is as real as your waking & its experiences like seed

& sprount etc. while dreaming & the time & space which you are giving

continuity is equally holds water in dream as well.. I'd like to quote Sri

RamaNa's words here from my earlier mail:

 

//quote //

There is no difference between dream and the waking state except that the

dream is short and the waking long. Both are the result of the mind.

Because the waking state is long, we imagine that it is our real state.

But, as a matter of fact, our real state is Turiya or the fourth state

which is always as it is and knows nothing of the three states of waking,

dream or deep sleep. Because we call these three Avastha (states) we call

the fourth state also Turiya Avastha. But it is not an Avastha, but the

real and natural state of the Self. When this is realised, we know it is

not a Turiya or fourth state, for a fourth state is only relative, but

Turiyatita, the transcendent state.

 

//unquote//

 

MN prabhuji:

 

[sleep is an event flanked by the pre-sleep waking world and the post

sleep waking world. It is therefore limited as the rest of the

things in the changing world. This applies to samAdhi too if one

enters it and comes out because then it is flanked by the pre and

post samAdhi worlds.]

 

bhaskar :

 

Again, this is the result of our totally uncalled special affiliation to

waking world & taking it as ultimate reality. The *changing world* what

you are talking to sleep & samAdhi etc. is equally applies to *wholeness &

fullness* of your waking world also...it cannot get entry into our dream is

it not?? This is purely based on our experience that pre & post sessions

are valid only when we are biased to a particular state.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

[both sleep and samAdhi, therefore, give us only a clue or pointer to

what we really are. They shouldn't therefore be stretched to imply

that Self-Realization means the total elimination of the world.

 

bhaskar :

 

No, the question of elimination does not come into picture at all, self

realization reveals the fact that world was/is/will never be there & it is

kEvala avidyA kalpita (figment of imagination) due to our wrong

identification with limited adjuncts.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

During both sleep and samAdhi, I should assume the world exists (It

is not absent!) in us together with its changeful nature folded back

like an umbrella. The umbrella wouldn't say it is only the rod of

the umbrella when its ribs and cloth are folded close to the rod.

It is just a full umbrella folded or unfolded! Similarly, we are

Brahman and therefore Full with the world folded back in us or

unfolded into wakefulness. The only difference is that, while in the

mundane example of the umbrella, the duality of the rod, ribs and

cloth is still evident when it is folded, in the consideration of

ourselves as Brahman, that duality is conspicuously absent in both

deep sleep and samAdhi. Otherwise, we would be imputing change to

Brahman. That won't then be advaita any more. Thus, what is gone is

the duality and the world as such.]

 

bhaskar :

 

By giving this *folded* umbrella example you are saying that in deep sleep

jagat is there in avyAkruta/avyakta rUpa (universe will be there in deep

sleep in seed form), but this is what shankara bhagavad pAda vehemently

refuted in kArika bhAshya. Further, it is totally unacceptable to the

theory that brahman=world here..The problem here is if at all brahman is

equated with world, we have to assume that brahman also getting folded in

deep sleep state!!! if not, then you will have to agree in the presence of

unchanged brahman, the world getting folded & expanding in every night &

day...how can it be reconciled in terms of brahman=jagat kindly clarify.

 

(I've noted the correction in your last sentence prabhuji.)

 

MN prabhuji:

 

[Thus, in my opinion, the trick of advaita is not going into samAdhi

to come out of it `later' to tell the world "I am Brahman" and behave

unabashedly in a dualistic manner, like most of our present-day gurus

do, but to change one's dual outlook to take in the world as "I am".

 

bhaskar :

 

Please note I am not talking about samAdhi here which is purely an

individual experience. We are talking about universal experience

(sAvatrika anubhava) which is one & the same to all. As you know, the

conscious constant state of ours never ever get disturbed due to our false

identification with waker or dreamer...it will be there in its entireity

irrespective of these apparent states..Issue here is not samAdhi, issue

here is our clinging to particular state & validating other states from it.

This is not individual experience like samAdhi, it is common to all & we

ourselves experiencing day-in, day-out..(dont catch me here by asking from

which state you are telling day-in day-out?? etc. :-))

 

MN prabhuji:

 

This advaitic `outlook' (I can't help the pitiful externality of that

word!) is what our CNji beautifully termed " the inversion of

perspective" and its blossoming is dependent on chittashuddhi, which

we are exhorted to acquire through practising values and doing

sAdhana. That is the reason why Sankara wrote so many allegedly

dualistic hymns for our sake and yet didn't forget to pack advaita

fully into them!]

 

bhaskar :

 

Kindly quote me the nearest possible sanskrit word for this *the inversion

of persepctive* prabhuji...so that I can able to understand the context

better. I know dictionary meaning does not going to help me here.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

[After covering so much ground of mutual agreement on the

fundamentals of advaita, if I can carry you with me on this last

quantum jump of `inversion of perspective', then, happily, no

difference remains to be reconciled between our points of view and

no world ever remains out there separate from us begging elimination.]

 

bhaskar :

 

I'd love to join hands with you prabhuji, but what to do my

mis/understanding of shankara philosophy does not allow me to accompany

you..But I earnestly hope we are sailing in the same boat holding different

edges to stand stable :-))

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar