Guest guest Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted 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, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted 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. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2004 Report Share Posted 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2004 Report Share Posted 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2004 Report Share Posted 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, <html><div><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> <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">MD-20783, U.S.A.</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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2004 Report Share Posted 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2004 Report Share Posted 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"). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2004 Report Share Posted 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted 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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.