Fw: Enlightened empirical engagement!

February 16, 2009

Namaste:

I am forwarding this message from Sri Vidyasankar Sunderasan since it pertains to this thread. He is a moderator of Advaita-L list (also a member of this list though not very active due to time constraints) and he is highly respected for his scholarship and unbiased observations.

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

Note: I waited for his permission to forward his message and that is the reason for my delay in posting to the list.

----- Forwarded Message ----"Sundaresan, Vidyasankar (GE Infra, Water)" <vidyasankar.sundaresanramvchandranCc: kuntimaddisada; Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr; pranipataSent: Friday, February 13, 2009 5:26:36 PMEnlightened empirical engagement!

Dear Sri Ram Chandran,

A friend drew my attention to the exchange on the Advaitin list, where you had quoted the FAQ from the Advaita Vedanta home page that I authored many years ago. As you are aware, I have cut down on a number of online exchanges, entering only reluctantly into discussions even on the Advaita-L list. I have been trying to follow SrI paramaSivendra sarasvatI's advice to the young sadASiva brahmendra - tUshNIM bhava! So I had not been following the discussion on the Advaitin for some time now.

Frankly, I think the various participants in the thread have painted themselves into corners and are repeating themselves over and over. I also think Sri Br. Pranipata Chaitanya made the most acute observation on this thread recently. If dehI means dehAbhimAnI, then jnAnI is not a dehI. However, if dehI merely means dehavAn iva lakshyate, then jnAnI can be called a dehI, so long as the prArabdha plays itself out. There is a lot of power in the Skt word "iva", as illustrated beautifully in bhagavatpAda's gItAbhAshya introduction. We can write pages after pages in English without ever capturing it that succinctly.

The two sides of this discussion seem to be falling on two sides of these possible meanings. All the argument then is either just semantics or a lot of misunderstanding, both of which lead to personal recriminations. Another member of the list, Raji Iyer, wrote eloquently about it, but I don't have her email address to cc her!

With warm regards, Vidyasankar

February 16, 2009

Namaste:

Sri Vidyasankara tries to explain why he is not participating in the

list discussions by the stated reference to tUshNIM bhaava. Since

many members may like to know the meaning of the Sanskrit term,

tushnim bhaava, let me explain: SrI paramaSivendra sarasvatI suggests

his young student disciple sadASiva brahmendra to practice silence

(tUshNIM bhaava) as a means to control his senses.

There is a reference to usage of this term in Bhagavad Gita chapter

2, verse 9 which has a different context for the usage of this term:

Sanjaya uvaacha

evam uktva hrishikesham gudaakeshaha paramtapah

na yotsya iti Govindam uktva tushnim babhuva ha || 9 ||

Having spoken thus to Hrishikesha, Arjuna, who is addressed here as

Gudakeshadestroyer of foes, said to Govinda, " I will not fight " and

became silent. (Govinda – winner of the world.)

Sanjaya narrates that Arjuna after surrendering himself to Krishna

and appealing for His guidance stated that he would not fight and

became very silent and quiet (tushnim bhava). The term tushnim bhava

here reflects the attitude of Arjuna who has lost control over his

senses and awareness of things around him.

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

> ----- Forwarded Message ----

> " Sundaresan, Vidyasankar (GE Infra, Water) "

<vidyasankar.sundaresan

> I have been trying to follow SrI paramaSivendra sarasvatI's advice

to the young sadASiva brahmendra - tUshNIM bhava! So I had not been

following the discussion on the Advaitin for some time

now.

February 17, 2009

Namaste.

As I said in my earlier message to Shri Srinivas Kotekal-ji, the crux

of the dispute has got clouded and smudged. Since the exchange

between the two sides is really voluminous, there is every reason to

believe that Shri Vidyasankar Sundaresan-ji might not have perused

the entire thread. Moreover, he has said that he has been in a

withdrawn state for quite some time now.

To reiterate, therefore, the real dispute is whether

JNANI *KNOWS* THAT HE IS BRAHMAN EVEN WHILE EXPERIENCING DUALITY,

DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN THE REAL AND MITHYA AND ENJOYING THE LORD'S

VIBHUTI AND LEELA (HE CONTINUES TO HAVE BMI AND INDIVIDUALITY)

OR

JNANI IS BRAHMAN WITHOUT ANY SCOPE FOR DUALITY (THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR

BMI AND INDIVIDUALITY IN THIS UNDERSTANDING; THERE IS NO MORE ANY

MITHYA TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST. NITYA-ANITYA VIVEKA IS NO MORE

REQUIRED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ANITYA).

Shri VS-ji seems to go with the latter view if excerpts from the FAQ

at his website quoted below are any guide, unless of course he has

changed his stand in recent days:

QUOTE

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html

" The essential identity of the Atman and brahman is the most

important tenet of advaita. brahman is the substratum on which all

phenomena are experienced, and also the antaryAmin, the One Lord who

dwells in all beings. The innermost Atman, the real Self, is the same

as this antaryAmin, and identical to brahman. Liberation (moksha)

consists in realizing this identity, not just as a matter of literal

or intellectual understanding, but as something that is to be grasped

by the individual in his/her own personal experience. "

" When the rope is known, the snake vanishes. Similarly, on brahman-

realization, the world of multiplicity vanishes. This does not mean

that the individual's ignorance creates the external world. However,

the perception of multiplicity in the world, instead of the One

brahman, is due to avidyA, i.e. ignorance. When avidyA is removed,

the individual knows his own Self (Atman) to be brahman, so that

there is no more world and paradoxically, no more individual. Here,

the Self alone IS. Removal of avidyA is synonymous with brahman-

realization, i.e. moksha. "

" In advaita, moksha is synonymous with brahman. Sruti says " brahmavit

brahmaiva bhavati " - He who knows brahman becomes brahman Itself. In

the advaita understanding of this statement, the " becoming " is only

metaphorical. It is not as if something that was not brahman suddenly

becomes brahman. Rather, " knowing brahman " means a removal of the

ignorance about one's own essential nature as brahman. Thus, to " know

brahman " is to " be brahman " . The one who has realized the identity of

his own Atman with the brahman is the jIvanmukta, one who is

liberated even while embodied. Such realization should not and cannot

just be a literal understanding of upanishadic mahAvAkyas. The

jIvanmukta is one who has experienced the truth of the identity

himself. "

UNQUOTE

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

________________________

-- In advaitin , Ram Chandran <ramvchandran wrote:

>

> Namaste:

>

> I am forwarding this message from Sri Vidyasankar Sunderasan since

it pertains to this thread. He is a moderator of Advaita-L list (also

a member of this list though not very active due to time constraints)

and he is highly respected for his scholarship and unbiased

observations.

>

> With my warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

> Note: I waited for his permission to forward his message and that

is the reason for my delay in posting to the list.

>

> ----- Forwarded Message ----

> " Sundaresan, Vidyasankar (GE Infra, Water) "

<vidyasankar.sundaresan

> ramvchandran

> Cc: kuntimaddisada; Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr; pranipata

> Friday, February 13, 2009 5:26:36 PM

> Enlightened empirical engagement!

>

> Dear Sri Ram Chandran,

> A friend drew my attention to the exchange on the Advaitin list,

where you had quoted the FAQ from the Advaita Vedanta home page that

I authored many years ago. As you are aware, I have cut down on a

number of online exchanges, entering only reluctantly into

discussions even on the Advaita-L list. I have been trying to follow

SrI paramaSivendra sarasvatI's advice to the young sadASiva

brahmendra - tUshNIM bhava! So I had not been following the

discussion on the Advaitin for some time now.

> Frankly, I think the various participants in the thread have

painted themselves into corners and are repeating themselves over and

over. I also think Sri Br. Pranipata Chaitanya made the most acute

observation on this thread recently. If dehI means dehAbhimAnI, then

jnAnI is not a dehI. However, if dehI merely means dehavAn iva

lakshyate, then jnAnI can be called a dehI, so long as the prArabdha

plays itself out. There is a lot of power in the Skt word " iva " , as

illustrated beautifully in bhagavatpAda's gItAbhAshya introduction.

We can write pages after pages in English without ever capturing it

that succinctly.

> The two sides of this discussion seem to be falling on two sides of

these possible meanings. All the argument then is either just

semantics or a lot of misunderstanding, both of which lead to

personal recriminations. Another member of the list, Raji Iyer, wrote

eloquently about it, but I don't have her email address to cc her!

> With warm regards,

> Vidyasankar

>

February 17, 2009

Madathil-ji,

Thanks for your formulation of the debate below.

Just to understand your position clearly, I would like to ask a few queries:

1. What do you mean by the word " j~nAnI "

2. What do you mean by " individuality "

3. Assuming a person (a BMI complex) realizes the advaita jn~Ana, do

his physical faculties continue as before or no? Can such a person

breathe, eat, talk and teach or no?

4. The term jIvanmukta translates as " one who is liberated while

living " . Who or what is the living entity here?

Ramesh

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

2009/2/17

Re: Fw: Enlightened empirical engagement!

advaitin

Namaste.

To reiterate, therefore, the real dispute is whether

JNANI *KNOWS* THAT HE IS BRAHMAN EVEN WHILE EXPERIENCING DUALITY,

DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN THE REAL AND MITHYA AND ENJOYING THE LORD'S

VIBHUTI AND LEELA (HE CONTINUES TO HAVE BMI AND INDIVIDUALITY)

OR

JNANI IS BRAHMAN WITHOUT ANY SCOPE FOR DUALITY (THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR

BMI AND INDIVIDUALITY IN THIS UNDERSTANDING; THERE IS NO MORE ANY

MITHYA TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST. NITYA-ANITYA VIVEKA IS NO MORE

REQUIRED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ANITYA).

February 17, 2009

Namste Rameshji.

Thanks for the questions. My answers are in .

1. What do you mean by the word " j~nAnI " ?

[Advaita promises full self-realization. Whoever achieves that

complete realization is jnAni.]

2. What do you mean by " individuality " ?

[That by virtue of which Mr. Ramesh Krishnamurthy says I am Ramesh

Krishnamurthy, I am aged such and such, I am an executive, I am

husband of so and so, father of so and so etc. All these constitute

individuality, the contexts of which are appropriate to just one

single person. In short, individuality connotes all that which sets

a person apart from a crowd.]

3. Assuming a person (a BMI complex) realizes the advaita jn~Ana, do

his physical faculties continue as before or no? Can such a person

breathe, eat, talk and teach or no?

[if I am dead, my body ceases as far as I am concerned. But, others

will still see it, mourn over it, keep it for some time, then either

bury it or consign it to flames, perform certain rites, write

obituaries, build memorials, erect statues for crows to shit on if I

am worth them and remember me till they perish leaving photographs

and accounts for the coming generations who wouldn't even recognize

me.]

[When someone fully realizes, he is truly Brahman (not a realized BMI

as you seem to suggest!). True, it is with the mind that he began

his enquiry. But, when full realization occurs, the mind becomes

Brahman and distinctions in the form of duality cease. For such a

*one*, where is the question of BMI and individuality. He is that

Consciousness which presents as the universe in front of the

ajnAnis. He is the All - not the erstwhile one among the all. This

contention is supported by the JMV quotes of quotes I quoted

yesterday and the recent quotes of Bh. Ramana Maharshi by Peterji and

Mounaji.]

> 4. The term jIvanmukta translates as " one who is liberated while

> living " . Who or what is the living entity here?

[if the term jIvanmukta connotes the fully realized one described by

me above, as far as he is concerned he has no BMI because his status

as Brahman cannot entail any externality. But, he had been Brahman

even before realization and experiencing a BMI till realization due

to ajnAna like the rest of the ajnAnis. His ajnAna having gone now,

he no more needs a BMI to anchor on to. However, the unrealized

ajnAnis wouldn't let him go due to their ajnAna. They will therefore

impose a corporeal continuity, death and ultimate videhamukti on

him. They will make him live, eat, breath and talk. It is their

need. As far they are concerned, he still lives. As far as he is

concerned, he is no more a single 'he' and there are no others to be

emancipated.]

[Rameshji, I am aware of the theory of prArabda. However, it was

only yesterday I quoted Shankara refuting this theory in his

Aparokshanubhuti. I can however accept prArabda with a rider that a

fully realized one is all-pervasiveness with no particular locus.

After all, electricity doesn't own up agency for the movements of a

switched off fan revolving on past momentum. Thus statements like he

lives, lives not, eats, eats not, sees, sees not and BG 5.13, which

have only transactional relevance.]

[Only a jnani can recognize a jnAni. jnAni being Brahman, there

can't be a plurality of jnAnis. So, if someone calls someone else a

jnAni, know that to be bluff. This statement doesn't deny the

existence of learned, wise, knowledgeable preceptors and leaders in

our midst who can guide and help in the process of self-realization.]

[i might not have expressed myself well due to hurry. You are

welcome to ask for any clarifications if you think I am not clear.]

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

February 17, 2009

2009/2/17 Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair:

>

> [Only a jnani can recognize a jnAni. jnAni being Brahman, there

> can't be a plurality of jnAnis. So, if someone calls someone else a

> jnAni, know that to be bluff. This statement doesn't deny the

> existence of learned, wise, knowledgeable preceptors and leaders in

> our midst who can guide and help in the process of self-realization.]

>

I submit that this whole confusion is because you are using the word

jnAnI in a pAramArthika sense. Going by your logic above I should use

the word ajnAnI also in a pAramArthika sense. The ajnAnI is brahman

too, and therefore there cannot be a plurality of ajnAnI-s!!

Further extending that logic - trees, rocks, computers, etc are all

brahman. So one shouldn't be using any of these terms in the plural !!

The simpler way out is to use the word jnAnI in a vyAvahArika sense

and that is also more logically consistent because the distinction

between jnAna & ajnAnI (or between mokSha and saMsAra for that matter)

is itself a vyAvahArika distinction.

I suppose the " learned, wise, knowledgeable preceptors " you mentioned

above are people like sha~Nkara, ramaNa, etc. If you can acknowledge

the plurality of such preceptors (in vyavahAra of course), what is the

harm in referring to such preceptors as jnAnI-s?

If you can do so, then I don't see any meaningful difference between

your position and that of your opponents in this debate.

Ramesh

February 17, 2009

Namaste:

Here is my understanding of what VS (Vidyasankar Sunderasan) has stated

in the email: There can be no dispute between the stand taken by

Nairji along with Bhaskerji , etc. and Sadaji along with Sastriji,

etc.. The apparent differences are semantic and not REAL! The authors

try to describe the nature of Jnani using words and such descriptions

will likely appear different because language is not the correct media

to describe the nature of Brahman. Sruti declares that Sruti (direct

revelation) is the only means to know the Brahman

Those who happened to read all messages like me to try to understand

the words of description at different times by the authors (with or

without quotations from the scriptures) were more entertained than

enlightened. I have no doubt that the authors were very sincere in

describing what they truly believed. I am not disputing that the list

was filled up with large number of scholarly postings of

replies/counter replies with lot more verbiage and not necessarily with

new insights.

This is the right time for us to recognize our short-comings and stop

inventing non-existing disputes. It is time for us to turn our

attention to focus on how to become a jnAni instead of portraying the

jnAni of our dream!

We should take all necessary steps to avoid behaving like newspaper

reporters who use bits and pieces of materials for entertainment. Their

focus is mostly on transactional truth with a limited time-span. As

seekers, what we look for is the eternal TRUTH. Let us keep that in

mind during our conversations.

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin , Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy

wrote:

>

> I submit that this whole confusion is because you are using the word

> jnAnI in a pAramArthika sense. Going by your logic above I should use

> the word ajnAnI also in a pAramArthika sense. The ajnAnI is brahman

> too, and therefore there cannot be a plurality of ajnAnI-s!!

>

> Further extending that logic - trees, rocks, computers, etc are all

> brahman. So one shouldn't be using any of these terms in the plural !!

>

> The simpler way out is to use the word jnAnI in a vyAvahArika sense

> and that is also more logically consistent because the distinction

> between jnAna & ajnAnI (or between mokSha and saMsAra for that matter)

> is itself a vyAvahArika distinction.

>

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------

> Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

> 2009/2/17

> Re: Fw: Enlightened empirical engagement!

> advaitin

>

> Namaste.

>

> To reiterate, therefore, the real dispute is whether

>

> JNANI *KNOWS* THAT HE IS BRAHMAN EVEN WHILE EXPERIENCING DUALITY,

> DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN THE REAL AND MITHYA AND ENJOYING THE LORD'S

> VIBHUTI AND LEELA (HE CONTINUES TO HAVE BMI AND INDIVIDUALITY)

>

> OR

>

> JNANI IS BRAHMAN WITHOUT ANY SCOPE FOR DUALITY (THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR

> BMI AND INDIVIDUALITY IN THIS UNDERSTANDING; THERE IS NO MORE ANY

> MITHYA TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST. NITYA-ANITYA VIVEKA IS NO MORE

> REQUIRED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ANITYA).

>

February 17, 2009

Dear Sri.Ramesh-ji and all followers of this thread,

Please allow me to submit some of my input.

advaitin , Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy

wrote:

>

> 2009/2/17 Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair:

> >

> > [Only a jnani can recognize a jnAni. jnAni being Brahman, there

> > can't be a plurality of jnAnis. So, if someone calls someone

else a

> > jnAni, know that to be bluff. This statement doesn't deny the

> > existence of learned, wise, knowledgeable preceptors and leaders

in

> > our midst who can guide and help in the process of self-

realization.]

> >

>

> I submit that this whole confusion is because you are using the

word

> jnAnI in a pAramArthika sense. Going by your logic above I should

use

> the word ajnAnI also in a pAramArthika sense. The ajnAnI is brahman

> too, and therefore there cannot be a plurality of ajnAnI-s!!

>

> Further extending that logic - trees, rocks, computers, etc are all

> brahman. So one shouldn't be using any of these terms in the

plural !!

>

> The simpler way out is to use the word jnAnI in a vyAvahArika sense

> and that is also more logically consistent because the distinction

> between jnAna & ajnAnI (or between mokSha and saMsAra for that

matter)

> is itself a vyAvahArika distinction.

>

> I suppose the " learned, wise, knowledgeable preceptors " you

mentioned

> above are people like sha~Nkara, ramaNa, etc. If you can

acknowledge

> the plurality of such preceptors (in vyavahAra of course), what is

the

> harm in referring to such preceptors as jnAnI-s?

>

> If you can do so, then I don't see any meaningful difference

between

> your position and that of your opponents in this debate.

>

If we use the term " jnAni " in vyAvahArika sense only, although the

logical problem about dualities of categories (such as jnAna-ajnAna)

is solved, nevertheless there would a new problem. It is as follows;

Since my perception of a jnAni is in vyAvahAra, and by definition

all perception within vyAvahArika is avidyAtmaka and arOpita on

Brahaman due to my avidya only, then it renders my such perception

of " jnAni " is also avidyAtmaka and fictitious on my part only. Then

it follows that such fictitious entity jnAni's all teachings render

fictitious too and therby loosing any validity to reveal any eternal

truth. All the teachings starting from mUla Guru till living Guru

would be useless in revealing the metaphysical truth what so ever.

Entire upadEsha tradition looses its validity. Therefore, logically

it follows that we can not place jnAni in vyavahArika sense by any

means.

To summarize the philosophical issues involved in placing jnAni in

either in vyavahAra or pAramArtha is this :

If posted from vyavahAra, the problem of rendering his teachings

invalid and ineffective to reveal the eternal truth, due to the fact

that it is posted from my vyavahAra perspective.

If posted from pAramArtha perspective, the problem of jnAni's

perception/knowledge of other ajnAni's wanting teachings. If he is

not perceiving/knowing so, then it means it is we ajnAnis are seeing

him teach us and back to first problem. If he himself on his part is

seeing/knowing we ajnAni's wanting teachings, it means we need post

duality of jnAni-ajnAni from the permanent pAramArtha standpoint.

Hence the problem of loosing a-dvaita. Even if Sri.Sadananda's

contention in this regard that jnAni's perception of existence of

ajnAni is not real but mithya and hence it does not cause advaita-

hAni; is not sufficient. Even if we suppose such perception of jnAni

is mithya, we have the dual categories of satya-mithya from

pAramArtha standpoint. Remember, a-dvaita does not means non-duality

of existence of things only, but non-dualty of all categories even

if they are mere notional.

Another major problem in Sri.Sada-ji's position of posting jnAni's

perception/knowledge of mithytva of other ajnAnis is that, since

pAramArtha transcend even the notion of " time " , any such mithyattva

has to remain eternal for a jnAni in pAramArtha. It will never

sublate even if jnAni is done with his mithya body!. This eternality

of mithya category is contradiction to its own definition. " mithya "

has been defined as which being non-existent for all three periods

of time. Classical definition is 'sat chet na bAdhyeta, asat chet na

pratIyeta' (If real, it is never sublated; If absolutely unreal, it

is not perceived). Therefore, saying mithya ever persist from

pAramArtha means contradiction only. Mithya fails to be mithya and

becomes satya, for it is eternal just as Brahman. On the other hand,

if it is said mithyattva perception of jnAni cease to exist after he

shreds his mithya body, it is as good as saying pAramArthata/jnAni

is susceptible to change (vikAra). It is against vEdic teachings of

unchangesness of Brahman.

Hope I have addressed philosophical issues concering jIvanmukta

concept from all possible angles. If I missed any alternates,

comments are welcome.

Regards,

Srinivas.

February 17, 2009

advaitin , Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy

wrote:

> I submit that this whole confusion is because you are using the word

> jnAnI in a pAramArthika sense.

[MN: jnAni is jnAnaM is Brahman is paramArtha. What sense shall I

use then?]

________________

> Going by your logic above I should use

> the word ajnAnI also in a pAramArthika sense. The ajnAnI is brahman

> too, and therefore there cannot be a plurality of ajnAnI-s!!

[MN: That is the absolute understanding. But ajnAnis, unlike jnAni,

lumber in vyavahAra. That is not my making. No harm therefore in

the plurality which is the hallmark of vyavahAra.]

__________________

> Further extending that logic - trees, rocks, computers, etc are all

> brahman. So one shouldn't be using any of these terms in the

plural !!

[MN: What I said above about ajnAnis apply.]

________________

> The simpler way out is to use the word jnAnI in a vyAvahArika sense

> and that is also more logically consistent because the distinction

> between jnAna & ajnAnI (or between mokSha and saMsAra for that

matter)

> is itself a vyAvahArika distinction.

[MN: That may be simple for you. You guys are doing that anyway!

Moksha is a non-existent vyAvahArik projection since there is no one

actually bound to be liberated. Linguistically, I have no problem

with the commonplace use of the word 'jnAni' as the opposite of

ajnAni like moksha to bondage. However, I have real, big difficulty

relating jnAni to vyavahAra when he is understood as the paramArtha.

That jnAni is not an antonym of anything. I can admit that the word

jnAni when used in vyavahAra, in reference to an individual, denotes

a vyAvahArik, distorted projection of jnAni, who is actually

paramArtha, bearing in mind that jnAni can never be apprehended in

vyavahAra.]

___________________

> I suppose the " learned, wise, knowledgeable preceptors " you

mentioned

> above are people like sha~Nkara, ramaNa, etc. If you can acknowledge

> the plurality of such preceptors (in vyavahAra of course), what is

the

> harm in referring to such preceptors as jnAnI-s?

>

> If you can do so, then I don't see any meaningful difference between

> your position and that of your opponents in this debate.

[MN: The problem, as Shri Kotekalji pointed out, is the attribution

of knowership to Brahman (jnAni). When such falsity is propagated in

the name of Advaita, a call for discipline in terminology is

inevitable. No disrespect meant to the sages.]

_______________

Madathil Nair

February 17, 2009

Dear Nair-ji,

I know that I said I wasn’t going to participate further

in this discussion but it seems that Ramesh-ji has perhaps come closer that

anyone else in pinpointing the problem so it seems worth pursuing a little.

You say that “jnAni is jnAnaM is Brahman is paramArtha.”

But (as previously noted), you cannot say anything at all in paramArtha.

paramArtha is non-dual. j~nAnI has no meaning in paramArtha. j~nAnI only has

meaning in opposition to aj~nAnI in vyavahAra. If you insist on talking about

how things are in paramArtha, then you have to concede that ‘everything’

is brahman, i.e. ‘including’ aj~nAnI. If you take the other stance,

with aj~nAnI-s “lumbering in vyavahAra”, then you have to allow

j~nAnI-s to lumber there, too, albeit *they* know that it is all mithyA

and nobody is really lumbering at all. Two views: you can take either one you

like but don’t mix them!

You go on to say: “However, I have real, big difficulty relating

j~nAnI to vyavahAra when he is understood as the paramArtha.” This is

where you are going wrong. As noted above, there are no j~nAnI-s in paramArtha –

there is only brahman. If you want to talk about them at all, you are already

in vyavahAra. And this is the case whether you are viewing the situation from

the j~nAnI’s or the aj~nAnI’s point of view.

paramArtha is a concept in vyavahAra, devised for the purpose of

pointing to the non-dual reality. It is all in the mind. All of the concepts;

the distinction between paramArtha and vyavahAra and between j~nAnI and

aj~nAnI; and the enlightenment when all of this is realized. A j~nAnI is not “actually

paramArtha”. That has no meaning (not even in vyavahAra). From the pAramArthika

standpoint (which is a theoretical viewpoint in vyavahAra), ‘all is

brahman’. From the vyAvahArika standpoint, a j~nAnI is simply a person

who has realized that who-he-really-is is brahman.

Finally, you say that: “The problem, as Shri Kotekalji

pointed out, is the attribution of knowership to Brahman (jnAni).” You

are certainly right that brahman cannot ‘know’, since this would

introduce duality. But a j~nAnI can know because he is in vyavahAra, acting

through a mind which has realized the truth.

Best wishes,

Dennis

February 18, 2009

Madathil-ji quoting Vidyasankar-ji: #43631

"When the rope is known, the snake vanishes. Similarly, on brahman-realization, the world of multiplicity vanishes. This does not mean that the individual's ignorance creates the external world. However, the perception of multiplicity in the world, instead of the One brahman, is due to avidyA, i.e. ignorance. When avidyA is removed,the individual knows his own Self (Atman) to be brahman, so that there is no more world and paradoxically, no more individual. Here, the Self alone IS. Removal of avidyA is synonymous with brahman-realization, i.e. moksha."

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Namaste Madathil-ji,

In B.S.B. III.ii.20 Shankara discusses a very important point which is often neglected in discussions. The background to this comes in B.S.B III.ii.19. ((Background: In the previous sutra the contra- or objector holds that the standard illustration of the sun and bowls of water is non-applicable to Consciousness and conscious entities because - "But the Self is not such a material entity (having form); and since it is all-pervasive and non-different from all, I can have no limiting adjuncts either separate or remote from it. Hence this illustration is inapt."))

Shankara demurs:

"On the contrary, this illustration is quite apt, inasmuch as the point sought to be illustrated is pertinent. For as between the illustration and the thing illustrated, nobody can show equality in every respect over and above some point of similarity in some way, which is sought to be presented. For if such an all-round similarity exists, the very relation between the illustration and the thing illustrated will fall through. Moreover, this illustration of the reflection of the sun in water is not cooked up by anybody's imagination. But this illustration having been already cited in the scripture, its applicability alone is being pointed out here."

The standard illustration of the snake and the rope when used to illustrate how the phenomenon of confusion displays the action of superimposition and that something like this occurs when the inert object gets placed within the consciousness of the subject. There is no all-round similarity otherwise the illustration would be pointless. We could simply go to the adhyasa phenomenon itself. A further error would occur if we turned the illustration into a parallel for reality as such in which the part of the snake is taken by the world. We would have moved the analogy away from the narrow focus which it has and universalised it.

To write as Sri Vidyasankar-ji has done:

"When the rope is known, the snake vanishes. Similarly, on brahman-realization, the world of multiplicity vanishes", is to make just such an illicit move and prepares us for the perplexing impossibility of the mind of the jnani.

I know that I am like the speaking clock on this point but I think it’s fundamental.

Best Wishes,

Michael.

February 18, 2009

Dear Dennis-ji,

You seem to want to respond when you like to do so. Well, having got

your response, I should now respond, lest it would be assumed that I

am accepting what you said.

For the time being, let us suppose that I have accepted your

understanding. How does it bridge the divide between the two

stances, i.e. seeker completely 'being' brahman and seeker 'knowing'

that he is brahman? My problem is with the knowership you are

imposing on jnAni, who is brahman by virtue of the scriptural

statement " A knower of brahman becomes verily brahman " . I can't

accept a diluted definition for jnAni whereby he is anything less

than Brahman. Full stop.

You are saying " j~nAnI only has meaning in opposition to aj~nAnI in

vyavahAra. " . That amounts to saying that Brahman has meaning in

opposition to vyavahAra only since my understanding is that jnAni is

brahman. That is inadvaitic. vyAvahAra (I mean this entire creation -

this Universe) is Brahman misapprehended. Brahman is,

misapprehension is - not the other way around. Thus, jnAni is,

misapprehension is. jnAni cannot, therefore, be 'one' in the

vyAvahAric misapprehension. If you find one or insist on one, then

that is something else. I have already told Rameshji that the jnAni

of advaita is not the antonym of ajnAni. Brahman cannot have

opposites. (Kindly note that I have no problem accepting the

commonplace use of the word of jnAni as the opposite of ajnAni

outside the scope of Advaita.).

Further you said on the lines of Rameshji " If you insist on talking

about how things are in paramArtha, then you have to concede

that 'everything' is brahman, i.e. 'including' aj~nAnI. " Yes. That

is advaitic realization. If we can " really have " that realization

now, then there is nothing to talk about. All this discussion,

scriptures, teachers etc. are there because we have " really not yet

had " that realization. As long as we are in this unrealized state,

we need to deal with the vyAvahAra of plurality or duality and keep a

paramArtha in view untainted by the attributes of vyavahAra. Now

tell me who is mixing up.

Inspite of my repeating umpteen number of times that jnAni is

brahman, towards the end of your message, you have again drawn a

distinction between the two and laboured to erect an impossible

plurality of jnAnis. That gives me the impression that you haven't

carefully read my point of view.

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

_______________________

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>> I know that I said I wasn't going to participate further in this

discussion

> but it seems that Ramesh-ji has perhaps come closer that anyone

else in

> pinpointing the problem so it seems worth pursuing a little.

February 18, 2009

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

....

>

> paramArtha is a concept in vyavahAra, devised for the purpose of

pointing to

> the non-dual reality. It is all in the mind. All of the concepts; the

> distinction between paramArtha and vyavahAra and between j~nAnI and

aj~nAnI;

> and the enlightenment when all of this is realized. A j~nAnI is not

> " actually paramArtha " . That has no meaning (not even in vyavahAra).

From the

> pAramArthika standpoint (which is a theoretical viewpoint in vyavahAra),

> 'all is brahman'. From the vyAvahArika standpoint, a j~nAnI is simply a

> person who has realized that who-he-really-is is brahman.

By definition, vyavhara denotes the transactional existence, which

involves a notion of an agent.

Any day-to-day act of people like us (ajNanis) involve this notion of

being an agent or an enjoyer. (I will do this, I want that, I see him,

I love her, This is my body, I am feeling sad, I want to learn, I

will become a rich man, I will strive towards realization etc. ) .

That is vyavahara drishti. This notion is the basis of all our

actions and our empirical existence itself.

Once an ajnani realizes that it is due to ignorance that he has this

notion of being an agent, and his real nature is absolute, he will

not have the notion of agency again. He has realized his true nature

as Brahman. This is paramartha drishti. From this point, there is

nothing other than our true nature, the Brahman.

It follows that, a jnani will not have any notion of being an agent or

enjoyer. That is he will not have any thoughts like - I want to do

this, I see an ajnani, I have to teach him, I have to save the world,

This is my body etc.) If he still thinks in those lines, that means he

still has the notion of being an agent or enjoyer.

Being ajnanis, we don't want to let go off our individuality and

notion of agency. Maybe that is why some of the seekers would like to

shuttle between vyavahara and paramartha post-realization, so that

their individuality still remains intact and they can continue with

the pre-realization activities.

We like to make plans for post-retirement life ( I will spend six

months with my son and six months with my daughter etc.). In the same

lines, our ignorant minds tend to create plans for our individual

existence post-realization. Our thoughts go like this - " It may be too

boring to exist without any individuality, without having somebody

else to deal with, etc. So I will spend half my time in paramartha and

other half in vyavahara " .

Our real nature is of non-individuality, without any binding to any

particular body, mind or intellect. We are the knowledge that shines

through presence and absence of vyavahara. To realize this, we should

have the courage to give up our individuality, including our

attachment to the body, mind, intellect and any notion of being an

agent/enjoyer.

Regards,

Raj.

February 18, 2009

Dear Respectable Learned Members, and the rest of us,Does anybody here know any Jnani still around, so that we could ask him all these questions to know what he thinks about it?Maybe that will be the way to go, don't you think?You don't have to call, if you give me their phone number (assuming there are several Jnanis around, I'll do the calls!And if you tell me that's Brahman, then it will be a local call, free of charge!!(The saying goes: "Humour is the only thing that needs to be taken seriously".)Yours in Jnana,Mouna(By the way, one day I will ask Sri BhaskarJi to explain me the phrase "Enlightened empirical engagement!", it has been almost two months of discussions and my slow brain still doesn't understand what in the world three words relate to! Definitely some of us still have a lot to learn, isn't it?!!)

February 18, 2009

Dear Michael-ji,

I am fully with you that no analogy shall be extended beyond the

specific focus for which it is employed.

My purpose of quoting Shri VS-ji is to show that he has actually

sided with school 2 in his advaitic understanding contrary to the

impartial equidistance maintained by him in his response to Ramji.

His actual stand is very clear from his other statements too - the

rope-snake analogy apart.

Since I am already guilty of exceeding my daily limit, may I use this

message to express of my appreciation of Shri Rajkumar Nair-ji's

43653. Raj-ji, it is a real beauty - particularly the conclusion.

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

_______________

advaitin , " ombhurbhuva " <ombhurbhuva

wrote:

>> To write as Sri Vidyasankar-ji has done:

>

> " When the rope is known, the snake vanishes. Similarly, on brahman-

realization, the world of multiplicity vanishes " , is to make just

such an illicit move and prepares us for the perplexing impossibility

of the mind of the jnani.

>

> I know that I am like the speaking clock on this point but I think

it's fundamental.

February 18, 2009

Srinivas-ji,

2009/2/17 Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p

> Since my perception of a jnAni is in vyAvahAra, and by definition

> all perception within vyAvahArika is avidyAtmaka and arOpita on

> Brahaman due to my avidya only, then it renders my such perception

> of " jnAni " is also avidyAtmaka and fictitious on my part only. Then

> it follows that such fictitious entity jnAni's all teachings render

> fictitious too and therby loosing any validity to reveal any eternal

> truth.

Yes, the jnAnI is fictitious and so are his teachings. But these

fictitious teachings only remove fictitious ignorance. The Truth is

not revealed by any teaching - once the fictitious teaching removes

the fictitious ignorance, the Truth shines forth on its own. The Atman

is aprameya.

The rest of your points have been addressed by Sadananda-ji.

dhanyavAdaH

Ramesh

All the teachings starting from mUla Guru till living Guru

> would be useless in revealing the metaphysical truth what so ever.

> Entire upadEsha tradition looses its validity. Therefore, logically

> it follows that we can not place jnAni in vyavahArika sense by any

> means.

>

> To summarize the philosophical issues involved in placing jnAni in

> either in vyavahAra or pAramArtha is this :

>

> If posted from vyavahAra, the problem of rendering his teachings

> invalid and ineffective to reveal the eternal truth, due to the fact

> that it is posted from my vyavahAra perspective.

>

> If posted from pAramArtha perspective, the problem of jnAni's

> perception/knowledge of other ajnAni's wanting teachings. If he is

> not perceiving/knowing so, then it means it is we ajnAnis are seeing

> him teach us and back to first problem. If he himself on his part is

> seeing/knowing we ajnAni's wanting teachings, it means we need post

> duality of jnAni-ajnAni from the permanent pAramArtha standpoint.

> Hence the problem of loosing a-dvaita. Even if Sri.Sadananda's

> contention in this regard that jnAni's perception of existence of

> ajnAni is not real but mithya and hence it does not cause advaita-

> hAni; is not sufficient. Even if we suppose such perception of jnAni

> is mithya, we have the dual categories of satya-mithya from

> pAramArtha standpoint. Remember, a-dvaita does not means non-duality

> of existence of things only, but non-dualty of all categories even

> if they are mere notional.

>

> Another major problem in Sri.Sada-ji's position of posting jnAni's

> perception/knowledge of mithytva of other ajnAnis is that, since

> pAramArtha transcend even the notion of " time " , any such mithyattva

> has to remain eternal for a jnAni in pAramArtha. It will never

> sublate even if jnAni is done with his mithya body!. This eternality

> of mithya category is contradiction to its own definition. " mithya "

> has been defined as which being non-existent for all three periods

> of time. Classical definition is 'sat chet na bAdhyeta, asat chet na

> pratIyeta' (If real, it is never sublated; If absolutely unreal, it

> is not perceived). Therefore, saying mithya ever persist from

> pAramArtha means contradiction only. Mithya fails to be mithya and

> becomes satya, for it is eternal just as Brahman. On the other hand,

> if it is said mithyattva perception of jnAni cease to exist after he

> shreds his mithya body, it is as good as saying pAramArthata/jnAni

> is susceptible to change (vikAra). It is against vEdic teachings of

> unchangesness of Brahman.

>

> Hope I have addressed philosophical issues concering jIvanmukta

> concept from all possible angles. If I missed any alternates,

> comments are welcome.

>

> Regards,

> Srinivas.

>

--

santoShaH paramo lAbhaH satsa~NgaH paramA gatiH I

vicAraH paramaM j~nAnaM shamo hi paramaM sukham II

- yoga vAsiShTha

February 18, 2009

Srinivas-ji,

2009/2/17 Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p:

> Since my perception of a jnAni is in vyAvahAra, and by definition

> all perception within vyAvahArika is avidyAtmaka and arOpita on

> Brahaman due to my avidya only, then it renders my such perception

> of " jnAni " is also avidyAtmaka and fictitious on my part only. Then

> it follows that such fictitious entity jnAni's all teachings render

> fictitious too and therby loosing any validity to reveal any eternal

> truth. All the teachings starting from mUla Guru till living Guru

> would be useless in revealing the metaphysical truth what so ever.

> Entire upadEsha tradition looses its validity.

Yes, the jnAnI is fictitious and so are his teachings. But these

fictitious teachings only remove fictitious ignorance. The Truth is

not revealed by any teaching - once the fictitious teaching removes

the fictitious ignorance, the Truth shines forth on its own. The Atman

is aprameya.

The rest of your points have been addressed by Sadananda-ji.

dhanyavAdaH

Ramesh

--

santoShaH paramo lAbhaH satsa~NgaH paramA gatiH I

vicAraH paramaM j~nAnaM shamo hi paramaM sukham II

- yoga vAsiShTha

February 18, 2009

2009/2/18 Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair:

> [MN: The problem, as Shri Kotekalji pointed out, is the attribution

> of knowership to Brahman (jnAni). When such falsity is propagated in

> the name of Advaita, a call for discipline in terminology is

> inevitable. No disrespect meant to the sages.]

If the above is the problem, then the solution is clear. The term

jnAnI actually means " one who knows " . It is linguistically odd to

divorce knowerhood from a jnAnI as that is the very meaning of the

term.

Hence, for logical consistency and discipline in terminology, I think

it better to use the term jnAnI in a vyAvahArika sense. Just as ajnAnI

(also a knower, but a deluded knower), rock, tree, computer, etc are

all brahman, a jnAnI is also brahman. But brahman is not a rock, tree

or computer so also brahman is not a jnAnI, and hence no knowerhood is

attributed to brahman.

On the other hand, if you use the word jnAnI in a pAramArthika sense,

it implies that the jnAnI has transcended knowerhood. I appreciate

your preference for such usage because there is a paradox at the very

heart of this whole business. The Atman is not a doer, yet the BMI

acts; the Atman is not a knower, yet the BMI knows. And the BMI

ultimately is non-different from brahman which is the same as the

Atman.

The usage of terminology is a matter of convenience - the objective

being to communicate the message effectively. I find it more

consistent to use the term jnAnI in a vyAvahArika sense, you may think

otherwise.

But the point is that the using the term jnAnI in a vyAvahArika sense

is quite consistent with brahman not being a knower.

Ramesh

February 18, 2009

Dear Nair-ji,

<< You seem to want to respond when you like to do so.>>

Yes, of course! I simply do not have time (unless I do no work

at all) to read everything, yet I would genuinely like to help put across what

I believe to be the correct understanding. (Not, I assure you, from any wish to

establish ‘my’ viewpoint’ - it is clearly not only mine,

anyway.)

<< My problem is with the knowership you are imposing on jnAni, who

is brahman by virtue of the scriptural statement " A knower of brahman

becomes verily brahman " .>>

Yes, this is also my problem! I realized after I had posted the

last message that I had not pointed out the illogicality. In your previous

message, you said:

a) “jnAni is jnAnaM is Brahman is paramArtha.”

b) “The problem, as Shri Kotekalji pointed out, is the

attribution of knowership to Brahman (jnAni). When such falsity is propagated

in the name of Advaita, a call for discipline in terminology is inevitable.”

You are saying on the one hand that a j~nAnI *is* brahman

and on the other that brahman cannot be a knower. Surely a j~nAnI is one who ‘knows’

the truth, as opposed to the aj~nAnI, who is still ignorant? Does not this

enforce the understanding that the j~nAnI - aj~nAnI differentiation is

necessarily part of duality, i.e. a vyAvahArika distinction?

<< I can't accept a diluted definition for jnAni whereby he is

anything less than Brahman. Full stop.>>

But you cannot have definitions at the pAramArthika level! If you

could, the only one you could make would be ‘brahman is brahman’ –

there is nothing else!

<< That amounts to saying that Brahman has meaning in opposition to

vyavahAra only since my understanding is that jnAni is brahman.>>

I don’t know what you are saying here. The word ‘brahman’

itself only has meaning *within* vyavahAra, yes (language is dualistic).

Thus, we have such opposites as sat and asat.

<< As long as we are in this unrealized state, we need to deal with

the vyAvahAra of plurality or duality and keep a paramArtha in view untainted

by the attributes of vyavahAra. Now tell me who is mixing up.>>

paramArtha is a concept within vyavahAra, made to differentiate

the absolute reality from transactional reality and illusion. As soon as you use

the word, you are automatically making this distinction for the purposes of

conveying some advaitic teaching. How can it not be ‘tainted’? paramArtha

qua paramArtha could only ever ‘exist’ in silence.

Best wishes,

Dennis

__

February 18, 2009

advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote:

>

> (The saying goes: " Humour is the only thing that needs to be taken

> seriously " .)

>

Hari Om! Pranaams!

Scriptures might have been the work of some mindless entity, but mind

it, lest, you will be only mind.

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

February 18, 2009

Dear Nair-ji,

There is another way of looking

at the situation on which I would welcome your view. (I apologize in advance if

this topic has already been discussed as such – it has been going on so

long, my memory is totally overwhelmed!)

What do you believe happens when

an aj~nAnI becomes a j~nAnI? Please answer without using reference to paramArtha

or vyavahAra!

According to Shankara, arguing

against the contention that brahmaj~nAna can be the result of upAsana in B.S.

I.i.4, brahman cannot be the result of knowledge, since brahman is that by

which knowledge is known. He says that the shruti does not provide knowledge of

brahman at all; what it does is to remove the superimposed ignorance so that

the ever-self-effulgent brahman is no longer obscured. *This is an

intellectual process.*

He points out in Br. U. Bh. IV.iv.20:

“The knowledge of Brahman too means only the cessation of the

identification with extraneous things (such as the body). The relation of

identity with It has not to be directly established, for it is already there. Everybody

always has that identity with It, but it appears to be related to something

else. Therefore the scriptures do not enjoin that identity with Brahman should

be established, but that the false identification with things other than That

should stop. When the identification with other things is gone, that identity

with one’s own Self which is natural, becomes isolated; this is expressed

by the statement that the Self is known. In Itself It is unknowable – not

comprehended through any means.”

Best wishes,

Dennis

February 18, 2009

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Nair-ji,

>

> There is another way of looking at the situation on which I would

welcome

> your view. (I apologize in advance if this topic has already been

discussed

> as such - it has been going on so long, my memory is totally

overwhelmed!)

>

> What do you believe happens when an aj~nAnI becomes a j~nAnI? Please

answer

> without using reference to paramArtha or vyavahAra!

>

> According to Shankara, arguing against the contention that

brahmaj~nAna can

> be the result of upAsana in B.S. I.i.4, brahman cannot be the result of

> knowledge, since brahman is that by which knowledge is known. He

says that

> the shruti does not provide knowledge of brahman at all; what it

does is to

> remove the superimposed ignorance so that the ever-self-effulgent

brahman is

> no longer obscured. *This is an intellectual process.*

>

> He points out in Br. U. Bh. IV.iv.20: " The knowledge of Brahman too

means

> only the cessation of the identification with extraneous things

(such as the

> body). The relation of identity with It has not to be directly

established,

> for it is already there. Everybody always has that identity with It,

but it

> appears to be related to something else. Therefore the scriptures do not

> enjoin that identity with Brahman should be established, but that

the false

> identification with things other than That should stop. When the

> identification with other things is gone, that identity with one's

own Self

> which is natural, becomes isolated; this is expressed by the

statement that

> the Self is known. In Itself It is unknowable - not comprehended

through any

> means. "

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

Namaste Dennis,

I don't want to muddy the waters here, and I agree with

everything you have said, although I think the last sentence

could be confusing.

And perhaps what I am going to write just serves to

clarify what you have already written, but just to point

something out according to my understanding and what I

have learned at the time of teaching.

It is true that the scriptures cannot give 'knowledge'

of brahman, in the same way that say the study of

biology gives knowledge of a subject which was

previously unknown by the person studying.

We all already have 'knowledge' of brahman in

what the teachings call a 'general' way, but

we don't known what that brahman is, specifically.

We have knowledge of brahman in this way,

" I know I exist. I know I am a conscious being. "

That existence, consciousness itself is brahman.

So we know our own existence. We know we are

awareful, but we don't have the specific

knowledge that the existence/awareness, which we know

ourselves as, is actually brahman, (because we take

existence/awareness to be a product of the body/mind

which it is not)

You've elucidated that point above.

I think this last sentence which you quoted " In Itself It is

unknowable - not comprehended through any means, " needs to

be elucidated somewhat.

My understanding of the meaning of that sentence (which

is probably the same as your own) is that brahman cannot

be known as an object.

Brahman cannot be known through any of the 'usual' means

of knowledge which we use to cognize objects in the

creation. However, it is my understanding that brahman

can be known as myself, and in fact, is already known

as myself.

Certain 'things' about brahman are pointed out through

the teachings. Brahman is limitless, changeless, partless,

timeless, self-effulgent, self-evident. These words actually

do label my self, brahman.

So then, IMO, when the mind has the big Aha! moment,

and recognizes brahman as distinct from the changing

body/mind phenomena, then that mind can apply those

words to what is recognized, and see why those words

are appropriate. " Why are those words used to describe

my self? Yes, now I see why they are used. "

So, although brahman is not cognized as an object

by the mind using our usual means of knowledge

with which we distinguish objects in the creation,

I would say that brahman can be known as my self,

(and in fact already is known as my self), and when

once recognized as distinct from the body/mind,

then the mind can indeed 'revel' in brahman, knowing that

brahman is the source of all happiness,

and recognizing that brahman is partless, timeless,

ever present, self-evident, self-effulgent, etc.

So I think the distinction has to be made when one

uses the word 'unknowable,' that what the teachings

are trying to point out to us, is that we should not

search for brahman as an object in the creation

to 'know,' because we will not recognize brahman

in that way. Yet, brahman can be known, and is

known because brahman is my self and self-evident.

So brahman isn't something new to know, but it is

something to recognize in a 'new' or different

way than it was previously taken to be.

What is the one 'thing' which is always 'there?'

That one 'thing' is brahman.

Otherwise, if we think that brahman cannot be known,

(which I do think that some people assume) then we

may just despair, which isn't what the teachings

want us to do. Instead by saying that brahman

cannot be known, I think that what they are trying

to point us away from is trying to look for some

brahman 'out there,' and thus missing what is

already here closer than the breath, (and known).

Pranams,

Durga

February 18, 2009

advaitin , " Durga " <durgaji108 wrote:

>

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

> >

> known because brahman is my self and self-evident.

> So brahman isn't something new to know, but it is

> something to recognize in a 'new' or different

> way than it was previously taken to be.

>

> What is the one 'thing' which is always 'there?'

> That one 'thing' is brahman.

>

> Otherwise, if we think that brahman cannot be known,

> (which I do think that some people assume) then we

> may just despair, which isn't what the teachings

> want us to do. Instead by saying that brahman

> cannot be known, I think that what they are trying

> to point us away from is trying to look for some

> brahman 'out there,' and thus missing what is

> already here closer than the breath, (and known).

>

> Pranams,

> Durga

Namaste D,IMO,

Knowing Brahman is not possible per se.. as that insinuates a duality

into the process. A knower and the known. Then that depends on

semantics and what your idea of Brahman or 'all expansivness' means.

There is only one Brahman and that is NirGuna which by its very term

implies not knowing.

It is possible to have an experience of the energy Sakti of the Self

though..even without Moksha. But this is't a knowing but a being

oneself. However even this is in the realm of mind and experience so

ultimately unreal.........

When attains moksha the attainment if that is the word is of Saguna

and Nirguna simultaneously.........Cheers Tony

February 18, 2009

Dear Durga-ji,

I knew when I wrote that you would want to clarify and it is

right that you do so for the benefit of those who might be confused. And you

know that I know how you feel about this! However the words are not mine but

Shankara’s, as translated by Swamis Gambhirananda and Madhavananda and

they do serve, as they stand, to make the point that I wanted to make with respect

to the discussion with Nair-ji.

Best wishes,

Dennis

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Durga

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 5:45 PM

advaitin

Re: Fw: Enlightened empirical engagement!

Namaste Dennis,

I don't want to muddy the waters here, and I agree with

everything you have said, although I think the last sentence

could be confusing.

<< >>

What is the one 'thing' which is always 'there?'

That one 'thing' is brahman.

Otherwise, if we think that brahman cannot be known,

(which I do think that some people assume) then we

may just despair, which isn't what the teachings

want us to do. Instead by saying that brahman

cannot be known, I think that what they are trying

to point us away from is trying to look for some

brahman 'out there,' and thus missing what is

already here closer than the breath, (and known).

Pranams,

Durga

_

February 18, 2009

> known because brahman is my self and self-evident.

> So brahman isn't something new to know, but it is

> something to recognize in a 'new' or different

> way than it was previously taken to be.

>

> What is the one 'thing' which is always 'there?'

> That one 'thing' is brahman.

>

> Otherwise, if we think that brahman cannot be known,

> (which I do think that some people assume) then we

> may just despair, which isn't what the teachings

> want us to do. Instead by saying that brahman

> cannot be known, I think that what they are trying

> to point us away from is trying to look for some

> brahman 'out there,' and thus missing what is

> already here closer than the breath, (and known).

>

> Pranams,

> D

Namaste D,IMO,

Knowing Brahman is not possible per se.. as that insinuates a duality

into the process. A knower and the known. Then that depends on

semantics and what your idea of Brahman or 'all expansivness' means.

There is only one Brahman and that is NirGuna which by its very term

implies not knowing.

It is possible to have an experience of the energy Sakti of the Self

though..even without Moksha. But this is't a knowing but a being

oneself. However even this is in the realm of mind and experience so

ultimately unreal.........

When attains moksha the attainment if that is the word is of Saguna

and Nirguna simultaneously.........Cheers

--- End forwarded message ---

Sign In

Fw: Enlightened empirical engagement!

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest