To study Brahman? Pseudo Realisation, etc.

December 17, 2004

IMHO

We are in fact not studying Brahman. We are studying the “I”. For those who want

to study the “I”, and gain the knowledge about the “I” the only “Pramana” or

means of knowledge is “Sabda” i.e. the Upanishads, or any other means of

knowledge, if available, which unfolds the real Swaroopa (nature that does not

change) of the “I”. Without a means of knowledge, no knowledge can take place.

If this “I” itself starts enquiring about it, it will be like one thief engages

himself to catch him. As Swamiji puts it, “one cannot stumble upon this

knowledge, as he does not have the right means of knowledge available”. The

means/instruments of knowledge available to us are capable of knowing about

other things (“Idam”), including one’s body, mind and intellect, i.e. other than

the “I” (“Aham”). Without the “I” being there, the instruments of knowledge

cannot register any knowledge of any objects, including one’s body, mind and

intellect, let alone the knowledge about the “I”. Why should we

know/study about the “I”? Or why should we gain the knowledge about this “I”?

This question has been there for time immemorial, because one is not sure about

what exactly this “I” is, and this ignorance rather partial knowledge about the

“I” has resulted in Samsara, i.e. worldly pleasures and pain for the I, and the

resulting sense of unhappiness.

The Upanishads, the means of knowledge for knowing this “I” is addressed to that

“I” which wants to get released from the (burning scorch) samsara, and the

Upanishads declare that this “I” appears to be subjected to samsara is nothing

but the ultimate reality, which is named as “Brahman” only for understanding.

The ultimate reality, or what is real per se, never changes its Swaroopa, and

therefore it is beginingless and endless. Since it is beginingless and endless

it has no form. The Upanishads by this declaration indirectly say that there is

an error of judgment on the part of the “I” that, it is limited, always wanting,

and always seeking liberation from its limitedness or lacking, or it always

seeks to be complete (Poornam) in every respect, and remain as complete. We are

actually, IMHO, seeking freedom from the limitedness, i.e. freedom from Samsara,

i.e. “Dukhanivruthi” (freedom from unhappiness).

The self knowledge i.e. the I, the essence of Jeeva or Ego and the Ultimate

Reality are one and the same, (Jeeva Brahama eva naapara) is like any other

knowledge, and therefore it has to take place in the intellect only.

Samsara itself does not bind one, but the way one looks at the Samsara causes

bondage, as one does not know the reality about the samsara he is confronted

with, because one does not even know what exactly is his real nature.

Once the Ego or Jeeva gets this knowledge (rather once the intellect appreciates

this knowledge) or enlightened with this knowledge, and with the wisdom backed

by this knowledge, its entire attitude towards itself and others (aham and idam)

totally changes. One continues to live but with a totally changed attitude. Such

an Ego, knows for certain with its wisdom resulting from the knowledge that in

essence it is nothing but the ultimate reality, that whatever appears to take

place for it, whether pleasure or pain, are not real, and are just passing

shows, because all such experiences continue to change every minute; and deep in

mind such an Ego is always calm. This calmness itself is the Bliss or Ananda or

whatever one calls.

Realization is to know what is Real. Real is that which never changes (no

“vyabhicharitwam”), i.e. any experience or knowledge, or vastu which never

changes. Awareness is a Fact known and experienced by one and all. AWARENESS is

the only experience or the only knowledge or even Vastu that never changes.

Whatever floats in awareness changes, i.e. all other knowledge, and all other

experiences. Awareness never changes and it is the platform or substratum.

Awareness is also there when there is ignorance or absence of any knowledge. In

deep sleep awareness is there and that is why one knows nothing during sleep. At

no time awareness is absent and in fact time itself floats on awareness only.

Moksha, IMHO, is appreciation of the fact that the Essence of “I” i.e.

ego/jeeva, is Awareness itself.

Any happiness or sorrow experienced as floating on awareness continuously change

and therefore they are not Real in absolute terms. Awareness per se or Pure

Awareness is always free from any floating thereon of any happiness, sorrow,

etc. and it is Neither Happy Nor Unhappy.

Since Awareness is Real, it never changes, and more than that it has no

beginning nor any end, as for knowing its beginning also requires Awareness as

the platform and also for knowing its end. Since Awareness is required to be

there for accommodating all Knowledge, it is one without any limit, i.e. just

Big (termed as “Brahman” in the Upanishads), and therefore it is Complete or

Poornam.

The Awareness per se or Consciousness per se is the Essence of all, known and

unknown, including the Knower.

One comes across statements like “Brahman is beyond intellect or intellect

cannot capture Brahman or Consciousness or Awareness”. Intellect and for that

matter Body and Mind also and all known and unknown are Brahman, or pervaded by

Brahman Itself (“Isavasyam Idam Sarvam”), like gold pervading gold ornaments, or

clay pervading all clay products. This is the declaration by the Upanishads, and

one assimilates this through Teaching. “Manasa aprapya saha” means mind cannot

reach That, because mind is already That and how can the mind therefore reach

That. There is no reaching involved and only knowing is involved. Without

Intellect no knowing is possible. When Intellect itself in essence is Awareness

or Brahman, how can Brahman be beyond Intellect? As if Brahman is sitting

somewhere beyond and Intellect cannot know It or reach It. IMHO, such statements

confuse one.

I do not think (IMHO) any special or new experience will take place on

Realization, nor is it required. Even if any such new/special experience takes

place, that too must be floating on awareness only. Waiting for such an

experience takes one nowhere. We always experience Awareness, or Consciousness

or Brahman, which is one’s Real Nature, which never changes, in and through all

our experiences. Experience of Brahman is never absent, but we miss that

experience, due to ignorance of our own nature.

The purpose of Vedanta particularly Advaita is not to get any new or special

experience. With the assimilation of Self Knowledge, Wisdom shines in one, and

such a person is not disturbed by mental agitations resulting from empirical

transactions, and he is always at peace. He knows, through his wisdom that all

such transactions/ experiences, being unreal, are “passing shows” and he remains

calm always. As swami Chinmayananda puts it, such a person, happy or

unhappy/suffering, knows “that will also pass, that will also pass”.

We all have our lives to live. With the self-knowledge and the resulting wisdom,

we are able to live our lives without running after objective happiness

(vishayananda) or running away from whatever sufferings we face, as we know for

certain they are all just “passing shows”. In short, such a person never

complains that the world, including his own body, mind and intellect binds him

or limits him, or the world brings him unhappiness, as he knows for certain that

his essence is Brahman or awareness per se, or consciousness per se.

Nothing need to be rejected, nor can one reject anything. Only the notions are

to be corrected by knowledge, i.e. “Atmani anatma budhi” and “Anatmani Atma

budhi” {Taking Real (I) for Unreal (whatever is other than “I”, our body, mind

and intellect included) and taking unreal (whatever is other than “I” as real

“I”)} by “Atmani Atma budhi” and “Anatmani Anatma budhi” {Taking Real as Real

and taking unreal as unreal}. Unreal does not mean something which is not there

at all. Unreal is that which continues to change, and existence of which depends

on some other thing, as against Real which never changes, and which exists

itself. Advaita Vedanta calls such Unreals as Mithyas. For example Necklace is

Mithya, unreal, as its existence depends on gold, and compared to necklace Gold

is Real.

There is no detachment required nor is it possible. Necklace to know that it is

nothing but gold, it need not detach from its form, weight, design etc. Only

small children get fooled and quarrel for the different colors, different forms

and different shapes, etc. of candies, and adults know they are all just sugar

only.

I know I have only repeated what most of the other members have already

mentioned in these postings, but I am adding my 2 cents.

Regards,

December 17, 2004

Namaste Mani-ji,

....i'm happy that you are back...has been a while

reading your message....on ocean of wisdom...

we ARE all....without change....even if we don't know....

Regards and love

Marc

December 17, 2004

R.S.MANI wrote:

>IMHO

>

>I do not think (IMHO) any special or new experience will take place on

Realization, nor is it required. Even if any such new/special experience takes

place, that too must be floating on awareness only. Waiting for such an

experience takes one nowhere. We always experience Awareness, or Consciousness

or Brahman, which is one’s Real Nature, which never changes, in and through all

our experiences. Experience of Brahman is never absent, but we miss that

experience, due to ignorance of our own nature.

>

************************************

Thank you Maniji for a wonderful and well thought out post. What you say

makes sense and it contains an important lesson.. The experience of

Realization is simply Recognizing That, which has always been Here. Here

is an example to support what you say about valid means to know the Self

that are needed. Let us say someone has been asleep for a long time and

ill. The person wakes up disoriented and says where am I, what is going

on. The wife (his guru) tells him to go take a shower and look at the

mirror. When the man looks in the mirror, he sees a stranger (beard

growing, long hair, all messed up) and becomes even more confused. His

wife tells him to shave and clean up and have breakfast so the mind can

function optimally. Further she tells him who he really is (her words

are like scriptures in this story). After following the instructions of

his guru the man looks in the mirror again and sees his shaved clean

face and recognizes it. From that point on when the man looks at the

mirror in the morning, he does not feel confused and does not need to

ask his wife, who is that, who is that in the mirror? He knows. It is

only Me.

Love to all

Harsha

December 17, 2004

Namaste Maniji, Harshaji

These are kind words , however, permit me to differ on emphasis.

I think there is over-simplification in order to avoid any level of

complexity.

There are times when some great soul gets early and instant

realization - like a conflagaration happening from a small spark.With

respect to such souls these words are fine- but then they are beyond

needing them.

For most others,especially entry level spiritual aspirants like me,

I'd still go with Madathilji's version of acknowledging the value of

intermediate experiences of visions, horripilations etc.( while

guarding against ego-strengtheneing)

Even lets take Bhagwan Ramana's devotees- Any number of them have

reported loosing body consciousness, having divine visions etc. by

just his divine look of grace. If it were not valuable, why would

bhagwan (or self or grace) let that happen?

In Bhagwan Ramana's precense,after specifically requesting, there is

a particular devotee who had visions of his Ishta Devatha- Sri Rama to

his hearts content. From the many recorded reminiscences of his

devotees I can quote any number of people who have gone through very

many 'special' experiences and the consistency is remarkable.

So why do we persist here that abiding in the self effortlessly is a

very ordinary and easy to gain experience ( but for a minor 'but for

ignorance' caveat) and try to make light of the intermediate

experiences - do they not have a value whatever realm they may be in.

These as someone pointed out must be acknowledged for their value in

confirming that one is on a right track.

For someone like me to be told that 'just being' is my true nature and

that is outstandingly simple does not help. Advise to practise

vichara or SMN ( sravana, Manana etc.) and guidance of what happens

along the way in the Sadhana would.

This is some thinking aloud and as always, i hope that there is no

hurt caused by words.

Many namaskarams to all

Sridhar

advaitin, Harsha wrote:

> R.S.MANI wrote:

>

> >IMHO

> >

> >I do not think (IMHO) any special or new experience will take place

on Realization, nor is it required. Even if any such new/special

experience takes place, that too must be floating on awareness only.

Waiting for such an experience takes one nowhere. We always experience

Awareness, or Consciousness or Brahman, which is one's Real Nature,

which never changes, in and through all our experiences. Experience of

Brahman is never absent, but we miss that experience, due to ignorance

of our own nature.

> >

>

December 17, 2004

Marc,

we ARE all....without change....even if we don't

> know....

>

yes

All And everything are changing

But we are not ready to see

We talk about self/Write more and more pages /Quote

this person and that person

but forget SELF CRITICISM /which is preliminary step

towards undestanding consciousness

namasivayam

--- dennis_travis33 <dennis_travis33 wrote:

>

> Namaste Mani-ji,

>

> ...i'm happy that you are back...has been a while

> reading your message....on ocean of wisdom...

>

> we ARE all....without change....even if we don't

> know....

>

> Regards and love

>

> Marc

>

Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more.

http://celebrity.mail.

December 18, 2004

Namaste Shri Namasivayam.

You have a good point there in suggesting a timely change of focus to

SELF-CRITICISM. Will you kindly volunteer to lead a discussion on

this topic by presenting your views in the matter? I am sure our

Chief Moderator, Sunderji, will be immensely pleased to accommodate

you.

Thanks and praNAms.

Madathil Nair

________________

advaitin, nama siva <nama_sivam> wrote:

> yes

> All And everything are changing

> But we are not ready to see

> We talk about self/Write more and more pages /Quote

> this person and that person

> but forget SELF CRITICISM /which is preliminary step

> towards undestanding consciousness

December 18, 2004

Namaste, Sri Denisji, Sri Nairji, Sri Harshaji,Sri Sridharji, Sri Sayanji, and

others,

I thank you all for having gone through my earlier post and please permit me to

continue a bit more, as I am trying to explain from my analysis, some of the

responses posted by my friends.

In the path of seeking, it may be possible to have visions and/or special

experiences, and that may be a welcome sign. IMHO, it is, at the same time “not

healthy” to hold on to such visions/experiences and to wait for such experiences

taking place, because the goal is not that. May I with all respects to our

learned members humbly ask “how do these experiences help us in our problems.

Such visions and experiences may come and go, but all my problems continue. Even

if I had the vision of Sri Krishna or Sri Rama, how do I recognize them as such?

I have not seen them. Of course, I have read about them from the Puranas etc.

Again, how do I know whether Sri Krishna comes in my vision is the same Sri

Krishna in the vision of others also. How to verify? It applies also to the

“Bliss of Brahman/Atma”. Above all, how long would I be prepared/willing to

hold on to such an experience?

IMHO, our real problem is that we take all our problems as Real. Only Advaita

teaches us that our problems are not Real, including the one trying to solve

them.

I personally went through some “experiences”. During Pujas performed of Lord

Ayyappa, generally a lot of bhajans of loud songs, with all percussion

instruments playing in rhythm, takes place. The whole atmosphere is charged with

the smell of flowers, camphor, sandal, rose water, agarbatties, etc. When the

Bhajan reaches the climax, many people start shouting, dancing, weeping, etc. On

two/three such occasions, I also went through such experiences, when one forgets

himself and the surroundings and starts dancing and making strange sounds, etc.

It is said, one is possessed by the Lord during such times. LORD Ayyappa, (Lord

Dharma Sastha) is symbol of Dharma and He shows Gnana Mudra, like Lord

Dakshinamurthy, to all devotees/seekers. I do not know whether one is possessed

by the Lord during such experiences/ecstasies. Advaita proclaims that we are not

different from the Lord and in front of Sabarimala temple for Ayyappa, in neon

sign in very big letters, it is written “Tat Twam Asi”.

IMHO one need not bother much about such experiences and on the other hand one

should live his life in such a way that it does not disturb HIS Dharma. I do not

think such experiences take one nearer to the Lord as one is never away from the

Lord, rather one cannot be even if he tries. I beg apology if I am hurting the

feeling of anyone in any way. I am only sharing whatever little knowledge I have

and trying to “improve” upon in areas wherever it is required in my journey.

With this short introduction, may I say, as I slowly proceeded with whatever

little teaching I was blessed with, all I could understand is Advaita Vedanta

helps one how to live his life upholding Dharma, facing all the odds with

courage (“Atmana vindate veeryam”). One learns the “Art of Living” and once one

is able to master this art of living, he gets “Shanti”, rather he appreciates

the “Shanti” already he is pervaded/enveloped with, while continuing his life

journey. I do not know whether our goal is to experience “Bliss and Divine

Visions” from time to time. I remember reading, when Sri Tapovan Maharaj asked

Swami Chinmayananda not to leave the Himalayas and continue to stay there

meditating, and maybe “experiencing the bliss”. Swamiji did not agree to that

and wanted to go out in the world to help people to cross the ocean of samsara

through the study of Srimad Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads. It is known to

most of us how he spread the Knowledge of Advaita all over the world,

and left an army of Teachers to continue this most noble service to the people.

The greatest and noblest service one can do is to help one to know what is real

and what is unreal.

Again IMHO, Realisation has nothing to do with loosing body consciousness,

having divine visions etc.

As mentioned in my earlier post, Realisation is knowing what is Real, and

knowledge of what is Real, like any other knowledge helps one to live his life

with wisdom. I also think, and it is not necessary that others should also feel

same way, whether one should worry much about taking birth again after the so

called death. Even if I were to be borne again, if the Self Knowledge is with

me, it is a bonus to me, so that I can continue to enjoy the cosmic dance of

Lord Nataraja, and it will be just wonderful if the Advaitin Group is also

around there at that time with at least some of the members. I say “some of the

members” as many, having attained Moksha, may not be reborn again!

Swami Dayananda Saraswati says “there is a greater purpose to human life than

just birth and death. Without adhering to values such as truth and steadfastness

of conduct, one cannot hope to discover the purpose of human existence, much

less try to achieve it. Two possible interpretations can work in this context as

the message of the Sruti: We can say that the purpose of human existence is to

aspire for heaven or other exalted lokas. This cannot happen without a

commitment to truthful conduct. We can also say that the purpose of human

existence is the pursuit of moksha. Here too, commitment to truth and value for

dharma are important prerequisites for “atma-vidya”, without which moksha cannot

be gained.”

So, how one should live is very important.

One should continue sravana and manana throughout one’s life. At the same time,

one should examine his each and every experience, leading to happiness or

unhappiness with the wisdom (backed by “Isa vasyam idam sarvam”, Iswararpana

Budhi & Prasad Budhi, “Brahma Satyam Jagat Mithya, Jeeva Brahama eva” etc. etc.)

of what is Real. It should be a continuous process, and may not be possible as

one starts, but “abhyasena” (through continuous effort), it should be possible

slowly but definitely. Again, as Swamiji says “the most matured person, the most

learned person, a person who has totally grown up to his potential, that person

can no more grow, and that person is one who is “atmanyeva atmanathushtah”.

The potential is there with every one and it is for us to discover how noble and

precious such growth is and the Upanishads unfolds that to those who approach

the Sruti through a Teacher with Sradha.

Warm regards and Namaskarams

December 19, 2004

Namaste Maniji.

Thank you for your brilliant message.

Nobody questions you on what you have written as all who participated

in this discussion already appreciate the minute nuances of advaita

and its relevance to human suffering elaborated by you.

The point of discussion here was whether Self-knowledge is just

understanding alone or is there any element of experience involved in

it, and, if it is both, which of the two should be asserted.

The opinion I laboured to present is that experience goes hand in

hand with understanding and at the peak of knowledge the two are just

indistinguishable. A reading of Sankara's Yatipanchakam and analysis

of the world 'ramantaM' employed therein, I believe, is sufficient to

underscore this contention.

En route, I also mentioned that the other experiences mentioned by

you like visions etc. could be helpful. You are now asking why? The

only answer I can think of: they are a sort of incentive and would

help keep the aspirant healthily involved in his pursuit -

particularly if he is under able tutelage. However, as an advaitin,

I hold that such experiences have only minor significance.

P.S.: The experiences I mentioned were those of persons who know

what advaita is all about and not of the general crowd that goes

hysterical during ceremonies.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

December 19, 2004

Nairji,

Many PraNAms.

Self Knowledge involves experience as much as Self ignorance

involves experience. Seeing the snake is also experience. Seeing the

rope is also experience!! The latter liberates, the former binds.

Why? The difference is understanding...

I do not think that Ajayji, Maniji and myself who have been laboring

to present the supremacy of understanding contend that Self-

Knowledge involves no experience. The problem that we see is

that 'everything is an experience'.

Since Pujya Swami Dayanandaji has been extensively quoted on these

discussions, here is an excellent interview with Swamiji which is

*VERY RELEVANT* to this topic. Personally, in my Sadhana, I found

Swamiji's teachings, in particular related to this topic, very

helpful. This brought me to a turning point in my Sadhana several

years ago. The reason traditional advaita teachers downplay the

experience aspect is because there is a major brand of

seekers/teachers whose goal is 'a special experience' when really

everything is an 'experience' only. Unless the role of experience is

clarified, the role of SHruti as a PramANA remains vague.

http://www.wie.org/j14/dayananda.asp

Many regards,

--Satyan

>

> The point of discussion here was whether Self-knowledge is just

> understanding alone or is there any element of experience involved

in

> it, and, if it is both, which of the two should be asserted.

>

> The opinion I laboured to present is that experience goes hand in

> hand with understanding and at the peak of knowledge the two are

just

> indistinguishable.

December 19, 2004

Thanks Satyan for posting the link to Swami Dayananda's brilliant interview.

I had read this interview earlier also but had forgotten the link.

During my stay at rishikesh, I had the good fortune to discuss this issue

with several swamis of advaita tradition. Swami Dayananda is of course a

rare swami who can spontaneously communicate with a modern mind and a

traditional mind with equal ease. However, most of the other advaitin

achaaryas will find it difficult to teach to a western educated mind.

Initially when I started attending sessions of traditional swamis at

rishikesh, I realized that many of these acharyaas had probably spent all or

nearly-all of their lives in and around those ashrams and had little touch

with outside world. Maximum that they travelled beyond rishikesh was

Haridwar -- about 15 miles -- and that too only for Kumbha. Sometimes, you

felt that the time was frozen in these ashrams as these swamis were still

talking in terms of "chandra-loka" and "surya-loka". You find it difficult

to relate to their examples. However once you realize that those examples

are just that-- examples, not the main points-- then you can appreciate the

strength of their teaching style. Their emphasis on understanding -- as

against transcendental experience -- is unapologetically and unabashedly

robust. So much so that, even achaaryas from other traditions also do not

harbour any misconceptions about advaitin's position on this issue.

I spent two weeks at kovilur-mathalayam -- a dvaitin order -- just to expand

my perspective of Vedanta. Acharya there devoted whole days to explain why

spiritual experiences are important and why advaitin's emphasis on "mere"

understanding is misplaced. He considered emphasis on understanding -- as

against on spiritual experience-- a core advaita tenet. Incidentally, when I

was there, the earlier maThadhIsh of kovilur-maThalayam had died and till

that time they had not found any suitable replacement. Since they did not

have any formal administrative head, their day-to-day affairs were being

assisted by a neighboring advaitin maTha though otherwise both have

staunchly opposite ideological standings.

I understand that someone following spiritual path need not necessarily be

unduly finicky about finer ideological nuiances, however just wanted to

present the advaita perspective of those who are actually finicky about

these issues.

Regards,

<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><STRONG>Sanjay Kumar

Srivastava</STRONG></SPAN></P>

<H1 class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=1>8102, 14th

Avenue, Apt # 3</FONT></H1>

<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Hampshire Village

Apartments</P>

<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Ph: 301-332-9082 (Cell)

301-434-3773 (Res)</P>

<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><IMG height=2

src=" " width="100%"

vspace=9></P></SPAN></div></html>

_______________

All the news that matters. Just the way you like it.

http://www.msn.co.in/News/ Only at MSN News!

December 19, 2004

Namaste All

To all those who by contributing in this thread have taken me further

in my understanding- many namaskarams.

I will try a simplistic presentation of the issue at hand.

It seems like a means and end debate - experiences the means and

knowledge the end? .

There are valid views in favour of both and it appears to me that each

saadhak will find his/her own answers basis the way he/she has evolved.

First the 'means School' -There are those that hold the view that it

is foolish to forever be obsessed with the destination that one fails

to enjoy the journey.

Supporting this I can think of the puranic story of two sages

practising austerities asking Narada to check from Vaikunta as to when

they'll get mukti. Narada on his return from Vaikunta has a different

answer for each of them.

The first one,On being told it will take him three more births, weeps

inconsolably that it should still take him so long after so much sadhana.

The second sage,On being told that it will take him as many more lives

as there are leaves in a tree in front of him is ecstatic that mukti

awaits him at some time and continues his sadhana in an ecstatic state.

Further, does not lord Krishna's prescription apply in the spiritual

path as well? Do your Sadhana and leave the endresult (Mukti?) to him?

Now to the 'Ends School' -These maintain that nothing inbetween

matters. What matters is the dawn of the realization that our true

nature is the liberated state. Hence they suggest, please be

dismissive of any experience because any experience means that the EGO

is active and is actually counter-productive to understanding one's

own nature as the True self.

To my mind any debate on this could be as inconclusive as those on

'Fate and Freewill'- (fate and freewill has been extensively discussed

in this group and concluded with a reference to Kaanchi

Mahaperiavaal's kind and brilliant handling of the subject).

I'd further aver ( gathering some courage) that it really does not

matter. Neither the 'means' nor the 'end' can be avoided by any of us

as aspirants in the spiritual path. Depending upon what his head and

heart ( or Guru?)tell him in his sadhana he could place an emphasis on

either and will be fine still.

Many namaskarams and thanks again to all for an opportunity to reflect

Sridhar

advaitin, "Sanjay Srivastava"

<sksrivastava68@h...> wrote:

>

> Thanks Satyan for posting the link to Swami Dayananda's brilliant

interview.

December 19, 2004

Maniji, a very noble thought indeed!! and Sridharji, along the lines

of the story that you posted, I am reminded of the following writing

by Mahaswamigal::

"Saastram saareera meemaamsaa

Devastu paramesvarah !

Aacaaryaah Sankaraachaaryaah

Santu janmani janmani

Every one of us is anxious that he should not be born again, that he

should not have another janma. All Saastras have been propounded to

show the way to get rid of future births. They teach us how to bring

about the cessation of the alternations of birth and deaths, Sankara

says: punarapi jananam punarapi maranam. But the sloka I have quoted

seems to contradict this universal desire to annul all future

births. On the other hand, it seems to contain a prayer for any

number of janmas in the future. But, the prayer also contains three

conditions. it says, "if, in every future birth the sheet anchor of

my faith and understanding is the Saarera Meemaamsa, is my study, if

the God I worship is Paramesvara Himself, if the Guru who will be my

refuge is Sri Sankaracharya, it does not matter how many janmas I am

to take. May these three be granted to me in life after life." This

is the prayer of one among the crores of sishyas (disciples) of our

Sri Sankara Bhagavatpada."

PraNAms to all,

--Satyan

advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote:

> With this short introduction, may I say, as I slowly proceeded

with whatever little teaching I was blessed with, all I could

understand is Advaita Vedanta helps one how to live his life

upholding Dharma, facing all the odds with courage ("Atmana vindate

veeryam").

December 19, 2004

Namaste Satyanji.

Satyanji:

Self Knowledge involves experience as much as Self ignorance

involves experience. Seeing the snake is also experience. Seeing the

rope is also experience!! The latter liberates, the former binds.

Why? The difference is understanding...

MN:

Understanding can also be either right or wrong like experience. The

difference, therefore, is right understanding. Aren't we playing

with words here? Let us take Neelakantanji's jackfruit example. If

the passerby named a different fruit in Marathi, the Maharashtrian,

who didn't know what jackfruit meant, would have left supremely

satisfied with a wrong understanding. Instead, if he is shown a

jackfruit, right understanding through experience will result.

Satyanji:

I do not think that Ajayji, Maniji and myself who have been laboring

to present the supremacy of understanding contend that Self-

Knowledge involves no experience. The problem that we see is

that 'everything is an experience'.

MN:

Thanks for this statement. Everything is an understanding too –

false or right.

Satyanji:

Since Pujya Swami Dayanandaji has been extensively quoted on these

discussions, here is an excellent interview with Swamiji which is

*VERY RELEVANT* to this topic.

MN:

I had read that interview when it originally appeared in "What Is

Enlightenment" and it is right there in my favourites. Re-reading it

last night removed `cobwebs' in my understanding and was indeed a

great *experience*! You are right - it is especially relevant to

those who cling to seekers/teachers whose goal is special

experience. I have never held a brief for them.

Satyanji:

Personally, in my Sadhana, I found Swamiji's teachings, in particular

related to this topic, very helpful.

MN:

So it is to me too.

Every advaitin should have a vision to begin with. (Mine is

essentially founded on Swamiji's teachings.) A vision undoubtedly is

an understanding - quite academic but very logical in the beginning.

As he then contemplates on that vision, it grows on him as an

experience of his totality. That is assimilation – the process by

which knowledge percolates into and shines in all fields and states

of life to remove even the last vestiges of ignorance. I don't think

Swamiji has denied this in his interview or teachings. If we go

further down the interview, there is the example of the miserable

wave that feels isolated. That isolation is an experience resulting

from ignorance or false understanding. When that false understanding

is replaced by the *assimilation* of right understanding, the

wave `becomes' the ocean which it already was unknowingly. Being the

ocean is an experience – a delight - for the wave much different from

its erstwhile experience of isolation. That is why Sankara says in

Yatipanchakam "VedAntavAkyeshu sadA ramantaM". That is all what I

wanted to contend. There is understanding/experience all through –

false or right. I am – understanding/experience is, be it isolation

or self-realization.]

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

December 19, 2004

Namaste Satyanji and All

Along these lines is a prayer i had jotted down from Swami

Vivekananda's literature long ago- within quotes - and pardon the

non-availability of a accurate reference:

"Lord, I do not want wealth, nor children, nor learning. If it be Thy

will, I shall go from birth to birth, but grant me this, that I may

love Thee without the hope of reward — love unselfishly for love's sake."

Many namaskarams to all

Sridhar

advaitin, "Satyan Chidambaran" <satyan_c>

wrote:

>

> But the sloka I have quoted

> seems to contradict this universal desire to annul all future

> births. On the other hand, it seems to contain a prayer for any

> number of janmas in the future. But, the prayer also contains three

> conditions.

December 20, 2004

Namaste Satyanji.

The Mahaswamigal is very right.

He is *experiencing* himself as eternity through *right

understanding*. Then why fret about birth and death which are not

his experience any way! To the Mahaswamigal, who knows that he is

always liberated, there is no worry about mukti too.

Mukti, like birth and death, is a concept in the minds of the

ignorant and, due to ignorance, they chase it like the desert

traveller does a mirage.

Punarapi jananam, punarapi maranam is meant for them at the very

basic level to do contemplation and find out that there is afterall

no jananam or maranam at all. The contradiction therefore is only

seeming when viewed in the right perspective.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

_______________

advaitin, "Satyan Chidambaran" <satyan_c>

wrote:

............

I am reminded of the following writing

> by Mahaswamigal::

>

> "Saastram saareera meemaamsaa

> Devastu paramesvarah !

> Aacaaryaah Sankaraachaaryaah

> Santu janmani janmani

>

> Every one of us is anxious that he should not be born again, that

he

> should not have another janma. All Saastras have been propounded to

> show the way to get rid of future births. They teach us how to

bring

> about the cessation of the alternations of birth and deaths,

Sankara

> says: punarapi jananam punarapi maranam. But the sloka I have

quoted

> seems to contradict this universal desire to annul all future

> births. On the other hand, it seems to contain a prayer for any

> number of janmas in the future. But, the prayer also contains three

> conditions. it says, "if, in every future birth the sheet anchor of

> my faith and understanding is the Saarera Meemaamsa, is my study,

if

> the God I worship is Paramesvara Himself, if the Guru who will be

my

> refuge is Sri Sankaracharya, it does not matter how many janmas I

am

> to take. May these three be granted to me in life after life." This

> is the prayer of one among the crores of sishyas (disciples) of our

> Sri Sankara Bhagavatpada."

December 20, 2004

advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19> wrote:

>

> Namaste All

> To all those who by contributing in this thread have taken me further

> in my understanding- many namaskarams.

> I will try a simplistic presentation of the issue at hand.

> It seems like a means and end debate - experiences the means and

> knowledge the end?

Namaste,

To further my understanding also, I still need to reconcile

this with Rishi Yajnavalkya's declaration to Maitreyi:

yenedaM sarvaM vijAnAti taM kena vijAnIyAt.h |

vij~nAtAraMare kena vijAnIyAt.h | Bri. up.

2:4:14; 4:5:15

"By what should one know Him by whom all this is known?"

"By what would one know the knower?"

I would greatly appreciate Sw. Dayanandaji's commentary

on this, if someone has it available. Thanks.

Regards,

Sunder

December 20, 2004

Sunder Hattangadi wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> To further my understanding also, I still need to reconcile

> this with Rishi Yajnavalkya's declaration to Maitreyi:

>

> yenedaM sarvaM vijAnAti taM kena vijAnIyAt.h |

>

> vij~nAtAraMare kena vijAnIyAt.h | Bri. up.

> 2:4:14; 4:5:15

>

> "By what should one know Him by whom all this is known?"

>

> "By what would one know the knower?"

>

> I would greatly appreciate Sw. Dayanandaji's commentary

> on this, if someone has it available. Thanks.

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

>

Here is my commentary readily available.

Self is fully known by the Self alone as it cannot be made into an

object to It Self.

“I” cannot look from the outside and say that “I” know the Self as an

object. The consciousness manifesting as “I” itself rises from the Self.

That is what makes the Sadhana of introverting the mind possible.

The utility of Rishi Yajnavalkya's questions is to introvert the "I"

towards the source of its existence and to recognize its Full Identity

with the Self!

"By what should one know Him by whom all this is known?"

"By what would one know the knower?"

Harsha

December 20, 2004

PraNAms Nairji,

First of all, let me thank you for your endurance in continuing with

the pursuit for the truth of this matter and many thanks for sharing

your thoughts.

> MN:

>

> Understanding can also be either right or wrong like experience.

Nairji, you are right that understanding can be right or wrong.

But Experience can never in itself be right or wrong. Experience just

presents itself to the knower just as the 'snake' or the 'blueness of

the sky'. Maybe it is a real snake. Maybe it is not a snake but a

rope. Only an understanding of the experience can be right or wrong

based on the particular situation!!! When I use the term

understanding (equivalent to knowledge), I very specifically mean

(technically) the result of the operation of a pramANa (means of

knowledge) to analyze an experience.

If Understanding and Experience are mixed up into one

indistinguishable entity, then we are left with no word to describe

the "experience" of the blueness of the sky' whose analysis reveals

the "right understanding" that 'it is false'. Hence, the 'blueness of

the sky' is the experience and 'it is false' is the understanding. We

need two words here, I hope that you are with me. I request you to

look at all of my mails and all of the statements with this

distinction in mind. Otherwise, we will keep going in circles.

This is sort of what Sunderji has also alluded to.

> MN: The

> difference, therefore, is right understanding. Aren't we playing

> with words here? Let us take Neelakantanji's jackfruit example. If

> the passerby named a different fruit in Marathi, the Maharashtrian,

> who didn't know what jackfruit meant, would have left supremely

> satisfied with a wrong understanding. Instead, if he is shown a

> jackfruit, right understanding through experience will result.

>

In the interesting jackfruit example extension that you propose, the

Maharashtrian gaining the incorrect knowledge employed an invalid

PramANa which was the testimony ('Sabda') of an uninformed or

untrustworthy passerby in this case. Hence it is no surprise that he

gained an incorrect understanding!! If he had instead employed the

valid PramANa, which is either 'Pratyaksha' (direct perception) or

the testimony of an informed person ('Sabda'), and there are no other

obstructions, he would have gained instant knowledge without any

exercise of his will, as you say. This is not an instance of a

problem that experience would have solved which understanding

(through a valid pramaNA) cannot solve.

Let us say that even if he was shown the jackfruit, he is now

experiencing whatever his senses report to him, let us say that his

vision was bad and he mistakes it for a pumpkin, then too he has

gained the wrong understanding because he hasn't removed the

obstruction necessary for the pramANa of 'pratyaksha' to effectively

operate. Knowing instead that his vision is flawed, if he uses the

valid pramaNA, 'sabda' of a trustworthy source to determine what he

is looking at, he can gain understanding of the jackfruit. Someone

can tell him that even though it looks to you like a mango but in

fact it is a jackfruit!!

This is what Swami Dayandanaji says in the interview:

----

"But any experience is only as good as one's ability to interpret it.

A doctor examining you interprets your condition in one way, a

layperson in another. Therefore, you need interpretation, and your

knowledge is only as valid as the means of knowledge you are using

for that purpose."

----

The basic advaitic tenet is that Experience of anything in itself can

never give rise to 'right understanding'. Only employing a PramANa to

analyze the experience can give rise to 'an understanding'. Whether

the understanding itself is 'right' or 'wrong' depends on the

validity of the 'PramANa' visavis the object whose knowledge is to be

gained and whether there were any obstructions in employing the

PramANa. By blurring the distinction between experience and

understanding, the advaitin is deprived of the words required to

express this basic truth.

> MN:

>

> Thanks for this statement. Everything is an understanding too –

> false or right.

>

Yes, Only understanding, generated by analysis of an experience can

be false or right, not the experience itself. The experience is the

raw material to be analyzed by a PramANa to generate understanding.

> As he then contemplates on that vision, it grows on him as an

> experience of his totality. That is assimilation – the process by

> which knowledge percolates into and shines in all fields and states

> of life to remove even the last vestiges of ignorance.

All that really matters in case of the Self is the spark of right

understanding getting ignited and not any special experiences.

Advaita contends that this spark of right understanding can only be

produced by the operation of a pramANa, which happens during Sravanam

of the Sruti. This valid knowledge alone liberates, not any

subsequent experiences or lack thereof. Also subsequent special

experiences do not add anything that the understanding did not

already accomplish fundamentally.

The advaitic teacher can only bring the student to a point where he

cannot but see the truth of the Sruti VAkya. This is done by removing

the obstructions in the student and also employing the 'sabda

pramana' of the Sruti. This is like igniting the spark that

eventually burns down all of Samsara.

This ignition of Knowledge (Understanding) takes place during

Sravanam, and is sustained by Manana (doubt removal) and

Nidhidhyasana (assimilation), all through the triple process the

orientation of the Sadhaka is to subject every experience to the

light of the new understanding and seeing the truth of this

understanding until he begins to abide in the understanding by seeing

that all experiences are only apparently so like the 'blueness of the

sky'. The Self, is and always has been free.

What liberates is essentially the understanding of the experiences

which makes him see that he is beyond the triad of 'experienced,

experience and experiencer. He is the substratum of all the three.

Nairji, everything in the body and the mind is subject to the

vagaries of Prarabdha. There is no guarantee that anyone can generate

or sustain any experience in the body/mind. The only thing that we

can do is whatever experience Prarabdha presents to us in the

body/mind, we look at it with the light of Knowledge. Let there be

health or sickness. Let the mind be calm or not, sattvic or rajasic,

Let there be pleasure or pain. The carefully nurtured spark of

Knowledge will burn down every experience into its essence that is Me

and I recognize in this 'understanding' that I am ever free.

Many regards,

--Satyan

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

December 20, 2004

How fortunate for us that the Self is beyond words and language and thought

itself! :-).

_____

Satyan Chidambaran [satyan_c]

Monday, December 20, 2004 6:37 PM

advaitin

Re: To study Brahman? Pseudo Realisation, etc.

PraNAms Nairji,

First of all, let me thank you for your endurance in continuing with

the pursuit for the truth of this matter and many thanks for sharing

your thoughts.

> MN:

>

> Understanding can also be either right or wrong like experience.

Nairji, you are right that understanding can be right or wrong.

But Experience can never in itself be right or wrong. Experience just

presents itself to the knower just as the 'snake' or the 'blueness of

the sky'. Maybe it is a real snake. Maybe it is not a snake but a

rope. Only an understanding of the experience can be right or wrong

based on the particular situation!!! When I use the term

understanding (equivalent to knowledge), I very specifically mean

(technically) the result of the operation of a pramANa (means of

knowledge) to analyze an experience.

December 20, 2004

Excellent post Satyan-ji. Thanks for lucidly elaborating the place of

understanding and experience in advaita context. praNAms to all who have

very patiently contributed their views to make it a lively discussion.

_______________

All the news that matters. Just the way you like it.

http://www.msn.co.in/News/ Only at MSN News!

December 20, 2004

Namaste, Sri Sunderji,

"By what should one know Him by whom all this is known?"

"By what would one know the knower?"

My understanding is:

The Knower mentioned in the second line is not the one by whom all this is

known. "By whom", mentioned in the first line, refers to Awareness in the

absence of which no knowing is possible, that is "tasya sannidhye eva idam

sarvam vijanati" (sorry for my very poor sanskrit) This "sannidhi" or

"sannidhyam" shines always itself whether knower/knowing/known is there or not.

Whether knowing takes place or not, the presence of That is there, i.e.

Awareness.

Knower is the one who knows the objects, i.e. the Jeeva. The knowing is made

possible for the knower by Awareness. The knower is you and me.

Now coming to "by what" the two (?) knowers are to be known:

Awareness/Consciousness need not be known, or cannot be known as an object, as

it shines always, as the basis for all knowing ("yena sarvam idam protam"). It

shines itself.

The knower is the "I" we all know, i.e. individual I. In deep sleep this

Individual I along with its upadhis seem to be absent and therefore there is no

special knowing at that time, though awareness was there.

My two cents.

In this context, may I request the members to clarify:

"Kena ishitam patathi pre-shitam manaha" (Kena Up)

Here we see "directed by who the directed mind goes" There are two "directed".

The first is "directed" (ishitam) the second is "specially directed"

("preshitam"). What is doing this "directing" and "specially directing"? Are

these both the same or different?

Or, "preshitam" means "so directed".

Warm regards,

Mail - You care about security. So do we.

December 20, 2004

Namaste Sundar,

""By what should one know Him by whom all this is known?"

>

> "By what would one know the knower?"

.....by the heart....

.....by the Self....

nice question...

few more more words....

"Him" is the door to everything....

we Are what we Love....if we Love Him....the door become open....to

Love everything...and to be loved by everything.....to become One

with everything.....

Oneness with "Him" is Self-Realisation....by the Self we would know

the knower

you asked for Sw. Dayanandaji's commentary....forget my words if they

were not expected....

Regards and love

Marc

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

>

> advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19>

wrote:

> >

> > Namaste All

> > To all those who by contributing in this thread have taken me

further

> > in my understanding- many namaskarams.

> > I will try a simplistic presentation of the issue at hand.

> > It seems like a means and end debate - experiences the means and

> > knowledge the end?

>

> Namaste,

>

> To further my understanding also, I still need to

reconcile

> this with Rishi Yajnavalkya's declaration to Maitreyi:

>

> yenedaM sarvaM vijAnAti taM kena vijAnIyAt.h |

>

> vij~nAtAraMare kena vijAnIyAt.h | Bri.

up.

> 2:4:14; 4:5:15

>

> "By what should one know Him by whom all this is known?"

>

> "By what would one know the knower?"

>

> I would greatly appreciate Sw. Dayanandaji's

commentary

> on this, if someone has it available. Thanks.

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

December 21, 2004

Dear Satyanji,

At the outset, let me say I enjoyed all your posts in this thread.

However, the last one to which this refers is nothing but a marvel

due to its lucidity.

I must also congratulate you for your enduring interest. It has

surpassed mine several folds.

I don't want to make this lengthy. Besides the allusion you have

apprehended in Sunderji's post, a friend of mine, in a personal mail,

has likened all of us to frogs croaking on a log of wood afloat in a

river! I am sure we have not been croaking as this exchange of mails

has been very informative and educative to me personally. I am sure

there are others on this List sharing my frequency.

So, let us skip those parts of your post where you have very

effectively pointed out the danger of mixing understanding and

experience. I am totally with you there when it concerns the

transactional. You have educated me.

Let us, therefore, concentrate on your following conclusion, which is

the crux of the matter:

"The carefully nurtured spark of Knowledge will burn down every

experience into its essence that is Me and I recognize in

this 'understanding' that I am ever free."

I have taken note of the very insistent quotation marks around the

word understanding. I assume that the `carefully nurtured spark of

Knowledge' is the advaitic vision I wrote about in my previous post

(like the wave being oceanic in its understanding of itself). I

notice that you have not addressed that part of my post. Of course,

the vision is in full bloom now having been realized as the Truth

without even a trace of doubt. So, we are already post-pramANA with

the ignition already begun. I agree about the process of every

experience getting burnt into its essence that is Me. We have, until

this point, been treating experience as something that is experienced

by an experiencer. However, when experiences burn into their Real

Essence, which is me, they are verily becoming me. Can't that be

termed from our transactional point of view as the TOTALITY OF

UNDIVIDED EXPERIENCE – that is both rapture and delight (not in the

mundane sense, of course!)? Can't it be the revelling we see in our

sacred texts? Or, are you denying even that by your assertion on the

word `understanding'? Have our sages employed such words without a

purpose? [Kindly differentiate this totality from all

the `experiences of experiencer' like jackfruit, Niagra,

horripilation, visions etc., which we have till now been dealing

with.] What happens to the understanding? Doesn't it also burn into

the Essence? Who is there to understand? Who is there to recognize

the freedom when the recognizer is himself Freedom?

Satyanji, from all your posts I perceive that you are a person with

your head in its right place. I have lost mine with the heart having

pushed it off. We may, therefore, be talking at two different

wavelengths. While I therefore appreciate the clarity of your

thoughts, I suspect that you are missing something right at the very

end-point, which my heart sees. May be, I am totally wrong both in

my approach and conclusion. Yet, the usual answer that the `peak' is

beyond description will not satisfy me. The heart, whatever it

means, has a way here over the head and that I believe is the reason

behind all the descriptions we encounter in our sacred texts

(revelling, Love, rapture, ecstasy etc.), which the head chooses to

deride mercilessly.

Best regards and praNAms.

Madathil Nair

December 21, 2004

What liberates is essentially the understanding of the experiences

which makes him see that he is beyond the triad of 'experienced,

experience and experiencer. He is the substratum of all the three.

praNAm Sri Satyan prabhuji

Hare krishna

Very beautifully put indeed prabhuji. Yes, shankara makes it amply clear

in gIta bhAshya that after the dawn of ultimate knowledge *the very notion

of pramAtrutva* born out of avidyA ceases...bruhadAraNyaka shruti saying

the same thing if all become one ONLY without second Atman what could one

see & with what, what could one smell with what etc. It is natural human

tendency of using pramANas to know or deal with pramEya, but in the above

mentioned shruti it has been absolutely denied for one who has intuited

Atman as the ONE without a second. It is quite evident in this text of

shruti that it negates all pramANa-s & their function in general terms.

For that matter we all know in that state even vEda-s are no vEda-s where

is the question of pramAtrutva in that state??

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

December 21, 2004

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Dear Satyanji,

>

> At the outset, let me say I enjoyed all your posts in this thread.

> However, the last one to which this refers is nothing but a marvel

> due to its lucidity. Yet, the usual answer that the `peak' is

> beyond description will not satisfy me. The heart, whatever it

> means, has a way here over the head and that I believe is the reason

> behind all the descriptions we encounter in our sacred texts

> (revelling, Love, rapture, ecstasy etc.), which the head chooses to

> deride mercilessly.

Namaste,

It is amusing to see Heart and Intellect pitted against

each other , on more than one occasion! Both annihilate the 'knot of

ignorance' (chit-jaDa-granthi), one by dissolving it, the other by

cutting it!

The view I am beginning to assimilate is as follows:

Objects can be experienced ( Gita - 2:14 - maatraasparshaastu....)

Metaphysics can be understood ( Gita - 3:42-43 - indriyaaNi

paraaNyaahuH.....)

Immanent Reality can be intuited (Gita - 5:18 - vidyaavinayasampanne....

18:20 -

sarvabhuuteShu yenaikam.....)

Transcendent Reality ineffable sat-chit-aananda-svaruupa(Gita -

15:18 -

yasmaatkSharamatiito.............)

Thanks again to all contributors to this thread.

Regards,

Sunder

Sign In

To study Brahman? Pseudo Realisation, etc.

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest