Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 Namaste Nair-ji and Satyan-ji, If I understand this correctly, we seem to have reached a pass where we are required to judge which of the following two expressions better explains liberation: 1. The oceanic experience of the wave or 2. The igniting spark of understanding But doesn't the igniting spark of understanding reveal the oceanic experience of the wave? :-) Both expressions - the 'igniting spark of understanding' and the 'oceanic experience of the wave' are metaphorical devices to explain the inexplicable. Liberation is not an experience, but the expression 'igniting spark' reduces it (linguistically) to an experience by placing it as an event in temporality. But the point is well taken - the expression has its indicatory mark to convey the nature of Liberation that transcends experience. Likewise, the expression 'oceanic experience' has the indicatory mark of the Infinite that transcends the limitedness of experience. On another note....the discriminating power of the intellect shows the way to Advaita. But the seat of the intellect is the vijnanamayakosha. In the cave of the Heart, the intellect gives way to the anandamayakosha. Here the Heart sings the Song of the living waters of Advaita. Beyond it is the Silence of Plenitude in which there never was birth or death or samsara or liberation. IT IS ALL AT ONCE. That too is only a metaphorical expression. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 Dear Sunderji, It is the same Arjuna who stood in utter awe 'seeing' the vishwarUpa somewhere in the middle of BG and then walked at the end to the battlefield saying nashtO mOha as if nothing had happened. That to me exemplifies experience vs. understanding. I don't want to take sides - I like both. But, when the heart sings the song of plenitude (courtesy CNji), I can't help listening. It is sweet and sugary all the way. Oh, Lord, don't deprive this diabetic of it; pour more of it - the heart (What is it?)sings like Keats to the nightingale! PraNAms. Madathil Nair ________________ advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh> wrote: > > 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! > > 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: > > It is the same Arjuna who stood in utter awe 'seeing' the vishwarUpa > somewhere in the middle of BG and then walked at the end to the > battlefield saying nashtO mOha as if nothing had happened. That to > me exemplifies experience vs. understanding. I don't want to take > sides - I like both. Namaste Madathil-ji, As they say - ruchINAM vaichitryam | chàcun a son goût ! 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 Namaste Dear All: The ongoing discussions on this topic area have been quite scholastic and refreshing. Sri Satyan's posting on the distinction between `experience' and `understanding' is quite persuasive. Sri Nair has pointed out that an experience that brings `happiness and peace' to the heart doesn't require any intellectual understanding! I do agree with Sri Nair's contention because `happiness and peace' through `body, mind and intellect' is only transitional and not transcendental. If I say, that `I am happy' then it is an experience without any attributes and it comes from my `heart or soul.' Any explanation of one's happiness through intellectual means is always false because `happiness' can never be comprehended by the intellect. Sri Satyan argues – "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'." Honestly, `blueness of the sky' is an intellectual understanding of a `mystical experience' and the intellect with further understanding and analysis was able to thrash that understanding! The heart (soul) doesn't require any explanation for its mystical experience such as the experience of "I am" and no word or language is necessary to describe that experience. With ignorance, questions arise, and using the intellect we look for answers and generate further questions and this process only helps us to sharpen our intellect to further elaborate answers and questions! With Wisdom, we learn to subdue the intellect and accept the experience from our `heart.' Unfortunately, I can't explain using words and examples to describe the `experience' because `advaita' is non-dual where we can't have `experience' and `understanding' as two distinguishable entities. The eye sees the sky, the blueness is the acquired knowledge stored in the mind and intellect is able to recognize and declares that the sky is blue. The same intellect with more scientific understanding is able to thrash that understanding! This entire analysis is due to identification of I with body-mind-intellect. As advaitins, we all accept that `I' only exists. Somehow (due to Maya) we got tangled by the `body-mind-intellect' and we need the wisdom for our liberation. Our continued discussions on various questions without getting satisfactory answers that please everyone just confirms that we are still tangled by the `body-mind-intellect.' Warmest regards, Happy Holidays and Happy New Year! Ram Chandran 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. > > I must also congratulate you for your enduring interest. It has > surpassed mine several folds. > > > .... > 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 Namaste, All Friends, Thank you very much for such refreshing views, which has helped in a great measure in “parasparabodhanam” mutual understanding. Some of the doubts got clarified and some of the understanding got confirmed. Sri Chittaranji says: “Liberation is not an experience”. Very well said. Somewhere I read a sloka by Shankara Bhagavadpada (I am not sure), meaning of which is “Advaita is a Bhava, and one cannot help Dwaita while living as Karma is unavoidable, which involves Dvaita.” I do not have that sloka with me just now. Advaita knowledge is a fact for appreciation and it guards one from getting fooled by the effects of Maya. Only children are fooled with the notion that the Sun is circling around the earth, till they are enlightened to the fact(?) that it is actually the earth which is circling around the sun. The “Adhyasa” continues but the knowledge helps one to see/appreiate “what is what”. It is very *heartening* to see that 2004 is ending with such “enlightenment” for us. Wishing all a Very Happy New Year Warm Regards Mani advaitin/ advaitin Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 Namaste Maniji, thank you for your wishes.... Best wishes for 2005 for you... we are not born in the world.... the world is born (around) in us.... ....e new world is created each moment we "read" in it...with Awareness let's share endless more moments of Awareness.... Regards and Love Marc advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote: > > > > > > Namaste, All Friends, > > Thank you very much for such refreshing views, which has helped in a great measure in "parasparabodhanam" mutual understanding. Some of the doubts got clarified and some of the understanding got confirmed. > > Sri Chittaranji says: "Liberation is not an experience". Very well said. Somewhere I read a sloka by Shankara Bhagavadpada (I am not sure), meaning of which is "Advaita is a Bhava, and one cannot help Dwaita while living as Karma is unavoidable, which involves Dvaita." I do not have that sloka with me just now. Advaita knowledge is a fact for appreciation and it guards one from getting fooled by the effects of Maya. Only children are fooled with the notion that the Sun is circling around the earth, till they are enlightened to the fact(?) that it is actually the earth which is circling around the sun. The "Adhyasa" continues but the knowledge helps one to see/appreiate "what is what". > > It is very *heartening* to see that 2004 is ending with such "enlightenment" for us. > > Wishing all a Very Happy New Year > > Warm Regards > > Mani > > > > > Sponsor > > > > Links > > > advaitin/ > > > advaitin > > Terms of Service. > > > > > > > Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 advaitin, "dennis_travis33" <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > Namaste Maniji, > > thank you for your wishes.... > Best wishes for 2005 for you... > > we are not born in the world.... > the world is born (around) in us.... > > ...e new world is created each moment we "read" in it...with Awareness > > let's share endless more moments of Awareness.... > Namaste, Dec. 22, 2004 also happens to be Shuddha Ekadashi (also called Vaikuntha or Mokshada Ekadashi) in the Month of Margashirsha, celebrated as the day on which Sri Krishna conferred His grace on Arjuna and the humanity at large, by the Dialogue known as Bhagavadgita. May this day be a harbinger for all our readers, and their families and friends, of divine inspiration. Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 we are not born in the world.... the world is born (around) in us.... praNAm Marc prabhuji Hare Krishna prabhuji, would it be possible for you to give more details about *the world* born in us & *we are* not born in the *world*... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 Namaste Bhaskar, thank you for your message it's difficult to write lots about it... i can imagine that the message sounded "strange" kind of......sorry about... it would need endless words to explain in detail about the exact meaning of it...and still it would not make realy "sense"....to "understand" it on an intellectual way... ok...few words..... every "concept" of the "world"...any appearing of the world is related to a mind....without mind.....no world appearing.... so..."who" is it who perceive the world.... "who" is it who can't find peace and calmness ...just to perceive a world... is it Brahman? i beleive it's the part of us which is still not "realised"...or enlightended... the real Nature of things....the real Nature Brahman is without change......without perceiving mind.... just like there is birth and death of minds....there must be birth and death of worlds.....as they are related, always... Brahman is untouched by anything "limited"....because the nature of something limited (by time and space and...) can't be the Nature of Brahman... the worlds exist....as we can see.... Brahman exist....as we can feel....and "understand".... the world could exist "outside" Brahman?...... ....many speculations about this...even if it sound easy to answer... it's possible to "escape" the illusions about the world...and to be no more attached to something...which is cause of many change ....all the time.....which Is our mind.....related to Karma....related to "tendencies"....and so on.... it's possible to know that we are all only "moving" minds....which are all the time "moving" material (body mind intellect)from one place to other.... it's possible to know that all this appearence of "different" material is in fact....only One.... maybe the "spirit" of this material....is only One.... it's possible to enter a great "emptiness" and peace.....with this spirit.... it's possible to Be our real Nature.... .....but, ok....we first need to live in complete Oneness with the perceived world...by any practice or "Grace"..... after this..... ...."who" care anymore about any "world"...? hope my words are not more confusing than the two sentences you asked me about.... Regards and love Marc advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote: > > we are not born in the world.... > the world is born (around) in us.... > > > praNAm Marc prabhuji > Hare Krishna > > prabhuji, would it be possible for you to give more details about *the > world* born in us & *we are* not born in the *world*... > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 the real Nature of things....the real Nature Brahman is without change......without perceiving mind.... just like there is birth and death of minds....there must be birth and death of worlds.....as they are related, always... Brahman is untouched by anything "limited"....because the nature of something limited (by time and space and...) can't be the Nature of Brahman... praNAm Marc prabhuji Hare krishna Yes, this is very true...without identifying ourselves with upAdhi-s (limited adjuncts) it is impossible to *perceive* the world outside...Thanks for your kind clarification. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 24, 2004 Report Share Posted December 24, 2004 Dear Ramji, Many praNAms to all who have expressed their views!! Many thanks for sharing your thoughts. What you mention in case of the 'blueness of the sky' is true. The intellect concluded falsely that 'it is blue' due to using a lower pramANa. A higher pramANa sublates the understanding and replaces it with the understanding that 'it is false'. Is not the problem of Samsara very similar? As you point out, the 'I', the Self is there shining in all experiences. The intellect has made wrong conclusions about this 'I'. Over countless janmAs, the intellect has arrived at and accumulated the wrong conclusions due to using the 'laukika pramANas' in evaluating the Self. When the intellect is exposed to the 'shastriya pramANa', then the Self Knowledge thus generated in the intellect negates all the false conclusions about the 'Self' and generates definite knowledge about the Nature of the Self. We only speak of 'Self Knowledge' being generated in the intellect, not in the Self. The Self shines unmodified in all experiences. The Self does not "gain knowledge". The Self never had any problem. It just exists and shines and illuminates the experiences before the seeking, during the seeking and after the dawn of Knowledge!! The intellect has the problem of Samsara. The intellect gets the solution to the Problem with 'Self Knowledge'. We should note that the Problem of Samsara in the intellect is not Real. There is only one Reality, the Self. The Problem of Samsara in the intellect is thus an Imagined Problem. The intellect is really seeking a solution to an 'imagined problem'. An imagined problem only needs an imaginary solution just as Dream Thirst only needs Dream Water. In fact, we can be more aggressive and state that Dream Thirst can only be solved with Dream Water, not with Real Water!! The Real water by the bedside is of no use in quenching the Dream Thirst. Similarly, the imagined problem of Samsara in the intellect can only be solved with the pramANa of the Shruti whose job is to generate the valid knowledge about the Self in the intellect. Once the pramANa does its job of generating the valid Knowledge in the *intellect*, then its job is done. The Self just shines as it always did, unmodified. Only the *understanding* of the Self in the intellect is now modified. Only a jnAni, who is none other than the Self, is above the pramANas and pramANa vyApAra. An ignorant person, on the other hand, is in the clutches of the pramANas. A seeker who is Seeking Knowledge of the Self, being ignorant, is also not above pramANa vyApAra. Hence, the seeker is also not above the duality of 'experience vs knowledge' which is fundamental to pramaNA vyapara. This duality is also in the intellect of the seeker, not in the non dual Self. Advaita Vedanta is addressed to the intellect of the seeker, not to the non dual Self. many regards and thanks again for your thoughts, --Satyan advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...> wrote: > > Namaste Dear All: > > The ongoing discussions on this topic area have been quite scholastic > and refreshing. Sri Satyan's posting on the distinction > between `experience' and `understanding' is quite persuasive. Sri > Nair has pointed out that an experience that brings `happiness and > peace' to the heart doesn't require any intellectual understanding! > I do agree with Sri Nair's contention because `happiness and peace' > through `body, mind and intellect' is only transitional and not > transcendental. > > > > The eye sees the sky, the blueness is the acquired knowledge stored > in the mind and intellect is able to recognize and declares that the > sky is blue. The same intellect with more scientific understanding > is able to thrash that understanding! This entire analysis is due to > identification of I with body-mind-intellect. As advaitins, we all > accept that `I' only exists. Somehow (due to Maya) we got tangled by > the `body-mind-intellect' and we need the wisdom for our liberation. > Our continued discussions on various questions without getting > satisfactory answers that please everyone just confirms that we are > still tangled by the `body-mind-intellect.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 24, 2004 Report Share Posted December 24, 2004 Namaste, All Sri Satyenji has very correctly said that it is the intellect which needs to be corrected/educated, as due to ignorance, it has made wrong conclusions about Aham and Idam, and of course Iswara. (i.e. I, Other than I and God Itself). Intellect of each one makes its own conclusions and not only that it goes on changing its conclusions from time to time. The Shastra corrects the intellect and once this correction takes place there is no more vyabhichara budhi, i.e. the knowledge no more changes. Aparoksha Anubhooti itself means immediate experience. It is not an experience available during “Samadhi” or transcendental etc. IMHO the Upanishads does not talk of any transcendental experience, it only puts an end to the trance we are in due to ignorance. “Experience” of “I” i.e. Brahman, Awareness, is immediate and now, and beginingless and endless. One can escape any experience, but one can never escape experience of Awareness, as experience or no experience, Awareness is always there and experience of Awareness is not different from one’s experience of his existence. When one experiences “I am” or I exist, he is experiencing Awareness only. Other experiences are superimposed on the experience of Awareness. This fact is Aparosksha i.e. immediate and no particular means or instruments of knowledge are required for knowing this fact/or experiencing this. If someone says he is not experiencing himself/Awareness, he does not exist at all (“Asanneva Bhavati”). “Darpane mukha darshanavat Shastre Atma darshanam” just like one sees his face in a mirror, he sees (knows) his own swaroopa through Shastra. One cannot experience one’s own face, but one knows his face. Looking at the mirror helps him to “know” his face. The Swaroopa of Brahman as Satyam Gnanam Aanandam appears to mislead one to waiting for experiencing of some special Aanandam, which is translated as Bliss in English. Swamiji has explained that in the “definition” of Brahman (if at all Brahman can be defined), “Satyam Gnanam Anantham”, the word “Anantham” i.e. limitless is adjective qualifying both “Satyam” and “Gnanam” (i.e. Existence and Consciousness/Awarenss/Knowledge). It means Brahman is Limitless Existence and Limitless Awareness. This limitlessness makes It “Poornam” or complete or lacking nothing. Therefore, it cannot be but a source of Ananda. That is why everyone loves his self most, as self is most dear to everyone, as it is Poornam or complete. Anything to be dear must be a source of happiness for one. Since everything known and unknown are pervaded by this Brahman, which is “Satyam Gnanam Anantham”, i.e. “Anantham Satyam and Anantham Gnanam” therefore “Sat Chit Anand”, everything in the creation has, as its essence, the source of Ananda or Happiness. The problem is we cannot appreciate the Poornatwa or Completeness in everything as, due to ignorance, we expect things to be different by superimposing some qualities on them. Everything in the creation mentions itself as “I” only. If a scorpion were to be asked “who are you”, it will say ““I” am a scorpion”. This is the case with everything. Everything strictly speaking is “I” only, though with manifold appearances, forms, names, qualities, etc. etc. In short everything has its essence “I” or Anantham Satyam and Anantham Gnanm and therefore Sat Chit Anandam, because it is Limitless, and essence of everything. The Upanishad says “Aanando Brahama iti vyajanat” i.e. he knew very well or understood very well Brahman as Happiness. It does not say he experienced Brahman as Happiness. The knowledge is that Brahman or Essence of “I” is source of happiness and that is why one’s Self is most dear to all. Due to ignorance of this fact, he superimposed the source of happiness on the world of objects, and runs after them. This earlier notion is corrected by the Upanishad as “Anando Brahma iti vyjanat”. His budhi or intellect now stands corrected. I hope I have managed to communicate my understanding with regard to “experiencing Brahamananda”. Warm regards Satyan Chidambaran <satyan_c wrote:What you mention in case of the 'blueness of the sky' is true. The intellect concluded falsely that 'it is blue' due to using a lower pramANa. A higher pramANa sublates the understanding and replaces it with the understanding that 'it is false'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2004 Report Share Posted December 25, 2004 advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote: ..... Due to ignorance of this fact, he superimposed the source of happiness on the world of objects, and runs after them. This earlier notion is corrected by the Upanishad as "Anando Brahma iti vyjanat". His budhi or intellect now stands corrected. > > I hope I have managed to communicate my understanding with regard to "experiencing Brahamananda". ________________________ Maniji, perhaps you have been able to communicate your understanding. But, I am sorry to say you haven't been able to understand the understanding of others. The one who has superimposed the source of happiness on objects runs after them and thereby suffers and feels isolated. Brahma jijnAsa begins here as the sufferer looks around for freedom. JijnAsa cannot just sprout without a raison d'etre. (I don't understand the sense of deliberateness suggested by the word 'superimposed'. There is nothing deliberate here as our ignorance is a natural default.) When the Upanishads correct the sufferer's buddhi or intellect, he enjoys real freedom. Does he then 'behave' differently? I for one would anticipate him to do so, as I, still very much in the transactional, see that freedom as a hithertofore unknown 'experience' irrespective of whether we like that word or not. One who worries too much about his health and body and suffers therefrom would certainly be 'happy' to realize that he in fact is not the transient body that changes and perishes. Isn't getting cured of or relief from a condition an experience? Knowing one's eternal existence (Sat) is an enjoyment in itself and, therefore, an experience. The only difference is that it is a 'transformed experience' not in any way afflicted by upAdhis like our other limited experiences. A fool may be aware of himself all the time as he keeps muttering "I am, I am". That doesn't mean that his "I" awareness is the same as that of a realized person who has known himself through PramANa. How can we compare one who strongly believes that he is the body with the one who knows that he is the whole universe? There definitely is a universe of difference between the two. How can we 'measure' that difference without experience as a frame of reference? Scriptural pramANa is an efficient and meticulous methodology unique to Indian thought for the removal of self-ignorance. It is not necessary to insist that self-realization can come about only through pramANa. We have examples of several personages across the world who have realized their real nature without the aid of pramANa. When self- lessness and the chittashuddhi resulting therefrom are natural, the Self reveals. Some persons are born so blessed. Intellect and understanding are inventions too incapable to describe their realization. In fact, to me, the whole gamut of advaita lies not in negating experience but in seeing experience differently. When I have an experience, I am the experience. It is only when we analyze the transaction that we divide it into pieces like the subject (I), the experienced experience (object), the experiencing (the process). Here, we employ a lot of other add-ins like sense organs, mind etc. and bring in another element called intellect as the agency for the analytical exercise. If we know that we are the experience without divisions, as it is invariably in all cases, the add-ins including the great intellect is not necessary because all of them are our objectifications. All experiences then are seen to converge in one point and that point is "EXPERIENCE" - Fullness, Bliss - call it by any other name - it doesn't any more matter. We are that all the time. Due to our eagerness to analyse, we are only inventing more and more add-ins to confound a very simple situation and then arguing the supremacy of one over the others. You yourself once said that all experiences just float on awareness. Are they then anything but awareness? I would like to build on your statement by taking up an analogy. There are these lights of various forms available in the market which have in them different designs of various colours. When the light is switched on, the designs move fast giving us delight. The light as a whole is like awareness. The designs are within it. They keep changing. But, they all are essentially light. The same applies to our experiences which keep on changing and give us suffering if we are unhealthily hooked to them. Be the light of awareness - then you are intellect awareness, mind- awareness, sense-organs awareness, subject awareness, experience awareness, suffering awareness and what not. Yet, you are total awareness whatever way you split it for your analysis. This is the right 'understanding' and there definitely is a joy in it. To me, remaining as that awareness always is experiencing BrahmAnanda (derisively inserted within inverted commas in your post). So, why be so cruel to the word 'experience' when we can easily acknowledge and accommodate other words like 'understanding', 'intellect' etc. which are all any way objectifications from the point of view of awareness. As awareness, we are equally experience awareness and understanding awareness. Or, are we inventing a caste system in Advaita with our intellectual affinity for certain words? PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2004 Report Share Posted December 25, 2004 Namaste dear all: Everyone of us honestly trying our level best to understand each other but our level of understanding varies and that is the problem! Maniji, Satyanji, Madhathilji and the rest of us have indeed been able to communicate each our understanding using a framework that we are comfortable with. Unfortunately, our understanding of Sankara's advaita philosophy though in agreement on general terms, it seems that we have differences on specificity. Let us be not too harsh on each other just because someone disagrees with our thoughts and our specific framework of thought. This is a holiday season and enjoy the holidays by give and take. Give our noble thoughts to others and take the noble thoughts from others. Happy Holidays and Happy and Peaceful New Year, Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > > Maniji, perhaps you have been able to communicate your > understanding. But, I am sorry to say you haven't been able to > understand the understanding of others. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2004 Report Share Posted December 25, 2004 > In fact, to me, the whole gamut of advaita lies not in negating > experience but in seeing experience differently. When I have an > experience, I am the experience. It is only when we analyze the > transaction that we divide it into pieces like the subject (I), the > experienced experience (object), the experiencing (the process). > Here, we employ a lot of other add-ins like sense organs, mind etc. > and bring in another element called intellect as the agency for the > analytical exercise. PraNAm all, Very well said, Madathilji! The drashTaa drishya darshan tripuTee is the cause of all the confusion. Shri Atmananda quotes the following from Sureshwaracharya; which confirms what you say. The quote has the logical clarity of a geometrical theorem- yadidam drushyate kinchit, darshanaat tanna na bhidyate drashTopi darshanaat naanyat, darshTaiva tato jagat! (Whatever is being seen here, does not differ from seeing. The seer also is no different from seeing. Therefore, seer is the world.) With best wishes Ravi Dr. Ravindra S. Shivde, Shivde Hospital, Old Pandit Colony, Nasik 422002 Maharashtra, India Phone (0253)2578019, (0253)2315725 Telefax (0253)2570519 mobile 9823053441 E- Mail: shivde Recently I had the good fortune of seeing our moderator Shri Ananda Wood in person. Spending few hours in such company Merry Christmas and happy new year to all members. Ravi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2004 Report Share Posted December 25, 2004 advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote: > > Namaste, All > > The Upanishad says "Aanando Brahama iti vyajanat" i.e. he knew very well or understood very well Brahman as Happiness. It does not say he experienced Brahman as Happiness. The knowledge is that Brahman or Essence of "I" is source of happiness and that is why one's Self is most dear to all. Due to ignorance of this fact, he superimposed the source of happiness on the world of objects, and runs after them. This earlier notion is corrected by the Upanishad as "Anando Brahma iti vyjanat". His budhi or intellect now stands corrected. > > I hope I have managed to communicate my understanding with regard to "experiencing Brahamananda". > > Warm regards Namaste Maniji and others! I would like to point out that sruti does provide a distinction between the bliss of brahman and the joys of the world. I refer to taittiriya upanishad, the passage starting with: "saishaanandasya meemamsaa bhavati ......" (this then is an evaluation of that bliss) This defines the happiness of a man in his prime blessed with health, wealth and learning as one unit and compares that to the happiness of gandharvas, devas and so on each successive example being a hundred times more than the previous one. The multiplier reaches 10 to the power of 20 - even this is not equalt to the Bliss of brahman! Commenting on this, Sankaraachaarya says: "What is there to be assessed about Bliss? The answer is: Bliss can be studied from this point of view - whether It arises from the contact of subject and object, as is the case with worldly happiness, or whether It is natural. As to that, the worldly bliss attains excellence owing to a concurrence of external and internal means. The bliss, thus attained, is being instanced here as an approach to the Bliss that is Brahman; for through this familiar bliss can be approached the Bliss that is comprehensible by an intellect free from objective thought." He further states: "Even worldly bliss is a particle of the Bliss that is Brahman, which becomes transmuted into impermanent worldly bliss, consequent on knowledge becoming covered up by ignorance..." "But when the division of subject and object, created by ignorance is eliminated by enlightenment, there is only the intrinsic all pervading Bliss that is one without a second." (from Swami Gambhirananda's translation Eight Upanishads - volume one, published by Advaita Ashrama) Imho, there is a qualitative difference in the experience of Brahmananda (perhaps I should say the experience of Brahman itself) as compared to the experience of objects by a subject. I think this is what Nairji has been maintaining as well. Merely reading the above passages, I cannot hope to experience That - I have be enlightened. Learned members may correct my understanding. Harih Om! Neelakantan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2004 Report Share Posted December 25, 2004 Nairji, > Dear Satyanji, > > At the outset, let me say I enjoyed all your posts in this thread. I was aware that I hadn't replied to this post. I needed some time for introspection on this one and hence the delay. > in a personal mail, > has likened all of us to frogs croaking on a log of wood afloat in a > river! I have also received such an email. All I can say is that we have a common friend (its a small world!!) who is very silent and has been having a silent influence on these discussions!! I hope that this post will settle your concerns once and for all and also address your later posts. > 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'? Nairji, I for one certainly do not consider myself to be post praMAna!! Hence, I will tell you what I have heard on this: When there is clarity of understanding that the Self Evident Self in *every* experience, although *apparently* limited, is *really* free and is indeed Bramhan, this is Bramha Jnanam. Bramha jnanam naturally has its phalam that is Bramha Jnana Phalam that includes fullness, fearlessness, compassion, forgiveness and every great virtue that one can imagine begins to manifest in the equipments of the Jnani. There will be anubhava of these Phalams to the extent that Bramha Jnanam has been assimilated. Bramha Jnana Phalam need not and cannot be negated because they causelessly manifest from the Real in the light of the right understanding. Also, there is nothing to negate because the wrong understanding has been already negated. As long as one feels that one needs a *special* experience of Bramhan, that means that Bramhan has not been understood and/or Bramha Jnana has not been assimilated. Once, one gains clarity that Bramhan is none other than the Self Evident Self, then in *every* experience, Bramha Jnana Phalam will begin to manifest and they are a natural consequence of the Jnanam!! Hope that this addressed your concern. Many thanks for all of your ardent/zealous inquiry in your posts. Happy Holidays!! warm regards, --Satyan > > Best regards and praNAms. > > Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2004 Report Share Posted December 25, 2004 Sri Nairji and other learned members, I am one of them trying to know how an elephant looks like, and so far I am able to imagine that the elephant looks like a long rope only, having known only the tail of that animal. Therefore, henceforth I will concentrate on understanding the understanding of others and refrain myself from expecting others understanding my understanding. <<why be so cruel to the word 'experience' when we can easily acknowledge and accommodate other words like 'understanding', 'intellect' etc. which are all any way objectifications from the point of view of awareness. As awareness, we are equally experience awareness and understanding awareness. Or, are we inventing a caste system in Advaita with our intellectual affinity for certain words?>>> If in any way my understanding on the subject appeared to be an attempt in inventing a caste system in Advaita, I am very sorry about that and my apologies. Let the year end not with any harsh/hurtful feelings on the part of anyone, and let us continue our effort to exchange our notes on Advaita. With warmest regards to all and hari om, R. S. Mani Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote: advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote: ..... Due to ignorance of this fact, he superimposed the source of happiness on the world of objects, and runs after them. This Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2004 Report Share Posted December 25, 2004 Satyanji, Thank you for your post # 25597. I am fully satisified with your answer. Happy Holidays! PraNAms. Madathil Nair ________________ advaitin, "Satyan Chidambaran" <satyan_c> wrote: > As long as one feels that one needs a *special* experience of > Bramhan, that means that Bramhan has not been understood and/or > Bramha Jnana has not been assimilated. Once, one gains clarity that > Bramhan is none other than the Self Evident Self, then in *every* > experience, Bramha Jnana Phalam will begin to manifest and they are > a natural consequence of the Jnanam!! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2004 Report Share Posted December 25, 2004 Maniji, You were indeed talking about the whole elephant and not its tail alone. That is my understanding of your understanding. I have no doubts about that. I was delighted with the animal, whereas it looked like you weren't. Perhaps, I thought you were rather matter of fact, while I was all glee. I had to point out this difference. There are no harsh or hurt feelings. Why should there be? HAPPY HOLIDAYS! PraNAms. Madathil Nair _________________________ advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote: >> > I am one of them trying to know how an elephant looks like, and so far I am able to imagine that the elephant looks like a long rope only, having known only the tail of that animal. > > Therefore, henceforth I will concentrate on understanding the understanding of others and refrain myself from expecting others understanding my understanding. ................. > Let the year end not with any harsh/hurtful feelings on the part of anyone, and let us continue our effort to exchange our notes on Advaita. .......... 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.