Fw: Enlightened empirical engagement!

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy

wrote:

____________

 

> 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.

 

[MN: We are not discussing linguistics!]

________________

 

> 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.

 

[MN: There are two types of opposites. Light is opposed to

darkness. Both are available in our mithyA for perception. They are

a pair of opposites like heat and cold. Now take permanence and

impermanence. The latter is evident everywhere around us. But what

about the former? It is not available for perception. We have only

relative permanence like we say someone has a permanent job which in

reality is not permanent at all. However, we have permanence as a

concept, we have it in our dictionaries. So, permanence, although it

is not directly available in our mithyA is a possibility. It is the

substratum against which impermanence becomes comprehensible to us.

This applies to the sat-asat pair pointed out by Dennisji too. So,

in words like immortality, sat etc. we have an 'opposite' that is not

available in our mithyA but with reference to which their antonyms

which are available in mithyA are comprehended. This applies to

jnAni of advaita too (not the commonplace jnAni who is at best a

knowledgeable one). At the absolute level, that jnAni is jnAnaM

itself, which is Brahman. I can't therefore agree to dragging him

down to our vyavahAra as you propose for your linguistic convenience.

__________________________

>

> 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.

 

[MN: There indeed is a paradox. All the more reason to avoid marshy

ground.]

____________________

 

>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.

 

[MN: True. This is what you have read in books or heard from your

teachers. Your rational mind has accepted the veracity of this

statement. However, it is not yet your 'knowledge' (I am afraid of

using the word 'experience' in this crowd for fear of being pounced

upon.). When it becomes 'your own knowledge', the acting BMI won't

be there for you to bother about. That indeed is the real status of

jnAni to be contrasted with the commonplace understanding of a

vyavahArin.]

_______________

 

>

> 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.

 

[MN: You may communicate with ease and convenience. In the process,

you may create confusion as well. Your choice.]

 

[sorry, I couldn't reply yesterday as I had overshot my daily

ration. I have two messages from Dennisji and one from Dr. Shyamji

to answer. I may have to break the rule. Wonder if we can put a

limit on the number of questions that can be addressed to a single

person in a day!]

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennisji,

 

Kindly see within .

___________

 

> 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.)

 

[MN: As long as it is pressure of work, it is ok. I too have

pressure of work. But some message here in the past implied that some

of School 1 thought School 2 was writing absolute balderdash which

deserved no reply. If that is the thinking, then School 2 has to

reciprocate.]

________________

 

>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?

 

[MN: Kindly refer to my clarification today addressed to Rameshji. I

can't accept the contention that jnAni-ajnAni is a pair of opposites

in vyavahAra.]

 

__________________

 

> 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!

 

[ MN: What about the ocean of scriptures? Aren't we able to

conceptualize?]

____________________

 

> The word 'brahman' itself only has

> meaning *within* vyavahAra, yes (language is dualistic). Thus, we

have such

> opposites as sat and asat.

 

[MN: sat and asat are also not opposites if you read my

clarification to Rameshji. Brahman is, the whole vyavahAra is - is

the understanding. Of course, that understanding or knowledge, for

which faith, intuition, and advaitic logic are the cornerstones, is

in vyAvahAra, which is 'actualized' in self-realization without any

doubt whereby there remains only brahman.]

 

_________________

 

> 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.

 

[MN: Transactional reality and illusion need paramArtha to sustain

them. In fact, they are paramArtha misunderstood is the theme. They

are not therefore two things to be juxtaposed and contrasted with

each other. It is not something like contrasting the properties of

or making out the distinctions between hydrogen sulphide and sulphur

dioxide. NityAnitya viveka doesn't mean a contrasting of nitya and

anitya. anitya is available aplenty. nitya, which is brahman, is

not. The idea then is to make clear the ephemeral nature of anitya

and point out that anitya needs the substratum of nitya to manifest

or shine after. In such clear-cut understanding, there is no

vyAvahAric tainting as you suspect. Tainting occurs when you drag

nityA down to vyavahAra for contrasting.]

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennisji,

 

You ask: " What do you believe happens when an aj~nAnI becomes a

j~nAnI? "

 

That something should 'happen' is a vyAvahAric obsession because you

expect School 2 to say that the BMI of the erstwhile ajnAni will

evaporate and vanish into thin air.

 

Yes, it will. But that is from the paramArtha point of view.

Unfortunately, you don't want me to tread there!

 

I believe Shri Rajkumar-ji has answered your question well in his

43653 when he said:

 

" 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. "

 

Self-realization means the mind's going universal or becoming Brahman

(brahmAkAravritti) where all the things so far understood as anitya

or vyavahAra (BMI and the whole externalized universe) are subsumed

without a trace. (This is what Shankara means by " the identity with

one's own Self, which is natural, becoming isolated.). This means

there are neither any more actions nor any objective knowing. It is

the full blossoming of one's erstwhile intuited self-evidence and it

is the actualization of the concepts of immortality, permanence and

infinite fullness which hithertofore existed only in dictionaries

which all the realized one knows as himself (not as attributes

because attributes relate to finite things). That is knowledge - nay

Self-Knowledge without distinctions, which is not objective. Here,

the realized one himself is that Knowledge. That is the end of all

happenings and, therefore, nothing ever 'happens' in self-realization

would be the correct answer to your question despite my using so many

words to drive the point home.

 

I hope this gels with Shankara's interpretations quoted by you. The

enquiry upto realizaton is done with the intellect. Hence,

Shankara's calling it an " intellectual process " . However, even the

intellect can't remain as an externality in self-realization. It is

burnt in the stoking of the fire of knowledge.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________________

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

>> 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. "

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Nairji,

It seems to me that you have a subtle but fundamental misunderstanding

of the terms paramArtha and vyavahAra.

You will agree that reality is non-dual. There is only brahman.

This is *already and always the case*. There is no such thing as a dualistic

world, with jIva-s awaiting enlightenment. There are no such entities as

j~nAnI-s and aj~nAnI-s.

In this non-dual reality, however, ignorance of the truth in a

mind, leads that mind to think itself separate from other minds and objects in

a seeming universe. It matters not that any given mind is only name and form of

that non-dual brahman, in the same way that rings and bangles are simply forms

of one gold. Using this metaphor, we can differentiate between a ring that

thinks itself totally different from a bangle and a ring that knows that it and

the bangle are simply name and form of one gold. In this scenario, the ‘self-realized’

ring will still only fit on a finger and not round a wrist because that happens

to be its form. The only difference is the knowing that all is only ever gold.

The same applies to the j~nAnI. The only difference is in the

knowing, he/she is still in the form of a man/woman and cannot suddenly fly

like a bird, for example.

The words paramArtha and vyavahAra are only words to enable us

to talk about these different ways of looking at the world. Talking about the

world from a vantage-point of ring and bangle being separate entities is analogous

to a vyAvahArika vantage point; speaking as knowing that all is only gold is

the analogy for a pAramArthika viewpoint.

When you make statements such as “Transactional reality and

illusion need paramArtha to sustain them”, this makes no sense. It is

brahman that is the essential reality of all apparently dualistic things. And

it is the making of statements such as the last one that is spoken of as pAramArthika

– but the statement and the concept are still within body-minds and thus

inescapably dualistic or from a vyAvahArika standpoint.

I asked you what ‘happened’ when an aj~nAnI becomes

a j~nAnI. And you made such statements as:

“That something should 'happen' is a vyAvahAric obsession

because you expect School 2 to say that the BMI of the erstwhile ajnAni will evaporate

and vanish into thin air. Yes, it will. But that is from the paramArtha point

of view.”

and:

“Self-realization means the mind's going universal or

becoming Brahman.”

The point is that something *only* happens from the point

of view of vyavahAra, from the position of seeming duality. From the point of

view of absolute reality, all there was ‘before’ was brahman and

all there is ‘after’ is brahman. In fact, there is not even any

time in reality; this is only a mental concept to help ignorant minds make

sense of the world. To speak of the mind ‘going universal’ makes no

sense from *either* viewpoint!

The only difference between an aj~nAnI and a j~nAnI is that, for

the former, statements such as ‘aham brahmAsmi’ and ‘sarvaM

khalvidaM brahmA’ remain at the level of information only; for the j~nAnI

such statements are known to be true without question. So, if you like, what ‘happens’

when an aj~nAnI becomes a j~nAnI is that information becomes knowledge in the

mind of the person in question. The ignorant and deluded one becomes a ‘knower’.

That is all. There is no need to invent mystical scenarios or

try to make sense of how j~nAnI-s can also be teachers.

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

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.

 

Namaste Michael a chara,et al IMO,

 

Yes for the body and mind of the Jnani the world is known as an

appearance on Brahaman..And it merges with the appearance so to speak.

When the rope is known the snake vanishes,,,but there is in truth no

mind for the jnani only his/her karma.

 

The Jnani has realised unto NirGuna therefore there was no rope in the

first place.......never mind a rope being mistaken for a snake...Cheers

Tony.

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennisji,

 

I have far overshot my daily ration. So, let me answer you with

apologies.

 

I couldn't make head or tail of your response. May be I don't have a

subtle mind. And those who have understood you are busy buying hats!

 

You said: " So, if you like, what 'happens' when an aj~nAnI

becomes a j~nAnI is that information becomes knowledge in the mind of

the person in question. The ignorant and deluded one becomes

a 'knower'. "

 

" That is all. There is no need to invent mystical scenarios or try to

make sense of how j~nAnI-s can also be teachers. "

 

He had always been a knower like he knew chemistry, physics and his

mother-in-law. Tell me, how this new knowership is different from

all such knowerships. Or do you maintain that it is the same like

the transactional ones? Do you equate self-knowledge with the other

types of knowings? If your answer is yes, don't reply me. Like

Russel said, we are then two islands far distant from each other

trying to communicate in total darkness. I have no time for such

advaita. I can remain an island in my aloneness listening to the

song of the waves.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Do you equate self-knowledge with the other types of knowings? If

> your answer is yes, don't reply me. Like Russel said, we are then

> two islands far distant from each other trying to communicate in

> total darkness. I have no time for such advaita. I can remain an

> island in my aloneness listening to the song of the waves.

 

Hari OM!

Who is seeing self-knowledge and other knowings as separate- one who

realized it or one who didn't?!

 

Also, two islands (no! even planets) far distant from each other,

can communicate just fine even in total darkness today. We just need

to listen closely to understand. I am afraid we may be listening too

much to the song of waves- waves of our own thoughts. May His conch

Paanchajanya announce His presence closer, stronger and ever to us.

===========================================================

Hari OM!

-Srinivas

[Guest guest]

Dear Nairji,

I was sorry to hear that you did not understand my post. I felt

I could hardly make it more logical and straightforward. This is what I have

been aiming for in all that I have said on the subject, wanting to avoid the

paradoxes and confusions that arise when we try to speak from different vantage

points in the same breath, as it were.

Of course, I do not mean that Self-knowledge is the same ‘sort’

as knowledge of chemistry. Knowledge of ‘things’, or objective

knowledge, is the sort that, I think Sada-ji, recently spoke of as ‘more

and more about less and less leading towards knowing everything about nothing’.

Self-knowledge = Enlightenment, and is the realization that ‘I am That’,

‘Everything is brahman’ etc. Whereas objective knowledge is always

provisional and can always be supplanted when more information comes along,

Self-knowledge is irrevocable and irrefutable. But it still occurs in the mind.

The ‘event’ is called akhaNDAkAra vRRitti and there have been

extensive discussions on the topic in the past.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Madathil

Rajendran Nair

Thursday, February 19, 2009 6:17 PM

advaitin

Re: Fw: Enlightened empirical engagement!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Dennisji,

 

I have far overshot my daily ration. So, let me answer you with

apologies.

 

I couldn't make head or tail of your response. May be I don't have a

subtle mind. And those who have understood you are busy buying hats!

 

<< >>

Do you equate self-knowledge with the other

types of knowings? If your answer is yes, don't reply me. Like

Russel said, we are then two islands far distant from each other

trying to communicate in total darkness. I have no time for such

advaita. I can remain an island in my aloneness listening to the

song of the waves.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

 

 

.._,___

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennisji,

 

Today is 20th Feb. when the poll closes. Most probably, the vote is

going to be against continuing the discussion if the trending is to

be believed. That option is assured of the Moderators' votes most of

whom belong to Camp 1! It is a GIVEN we have to accept.

 

I don't understand how we can totally discontinue talking about this

issue in future because it is too basic to be avoided while talking

vedanta and it may come up often in the guise of other issues. Well,

that is a future worry for those who worry.

 

You asked me a question and I answered it to the best of my ability

and knowledge. You then called my understanding a fundamental

misunderstanding and built on the gold-gold ornaments analogy to

prove the point that self-realization is just knowing taking place in

a mind.

 

In your current post quoted below, you are saying that the above

knowing is Enlightenment/akhaNDAkAra vritti. Kindly ponder over the

word akhaNDa and find out if a khaNDa mind can exist in it or a

khaNDa mind can contain an akhaNDa vritti. That is why I talked

about the mind going universal or becoming brahman. You called it

esoteric - a fundamental misunderstanding. akhaNDAkaravritti is also

known as brahmAkAra vritti and, recently, Peterji quoted Bh. Ramana

Maharshi on it here. Does your statement imply that Bhagawan had a

basic misunderstanding and was putting forth esoteric explanations?

It is not Bhagawan alone who have made similar remarks. You can read

Sw. Krishnananda too making such remarks at his website.

 

Someone has sent me the story of a lion cub which happened to grow up

among sheep. When it grew up into a full-fledged adult lion, another

lion made it realize that it was not sheep but a lion. The sheep-

lion stopped bleating and instead roared. Is it illogical to

anticipate a cessation human bleating in self-realization? If you

guys can build on the gold-ornaments analogy, stretching it out of

its intended focus, can we not use the sheep-lion or beggar-

millionaire stories to prove our point. And when it comes to a clear-

cut analogy of a river losing its identity upon merger with the

ocean, which immediately precedes the " Knower of Brahman becomes

verily Brahman " satement in Mund. Up., you guys have an altogether

different explanation which suits your point of view! Is this

vedanta? Sw. Krishnananda's interpretation of Mundaka is available

free on line. Kindly read it if you can without the presumption that

he too is esoteric. Chapter 3 to be specific.

 

I quoted Jeevanmuktiviveka here with a Yoga Vaasishta verse which

equates jIvanmukti to videhamukti. I also quoted Shankara from his

Aparokshaanubhuuti. Strangely, no one has any comments on them. Is

it because those quotes are just too hard to chew for Camp 1?

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

 

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Nairji,

>

> I was sorry to hear that you did not understand my post. I felt I

could

> hardly make it more logical and straightforward. This is what I

have been

> aiming for in all that I have said on the subject, wanting to avoid

the

> paradoxes and confusions that arise when we try to speak from

different

> vantage points in the same breath, as it were.

>

> Of course, I do not mean that Self-knowledge is the same 'sort' as

knowledge

> of chemistry. Knowledge of 'things', or objective knowledge, is the

sort

> that, I think Sada-ji, recently spoke of as 'more and more about

less and

> less leading towards knowing everything about nothing'. Self-

knowledge =

> Enlightenment, and is the realization that 'I am That', 'Everything

is

> brahman' etc. Whereas objective knowledge is always provisional and

can

> always be supplanted when more information comes along, Self-

knowledge is

> irrevocable and irrefutable. But it still occurs in the mind.

The 'event' is

> called akhaNDAkAra vRRitti and there have been extensive

discussions on the

> topic in the past.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dear Denis-ji,

 

Pardon me for my intervention between you and Nairji.

 

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Nairji,

>

> It seems to me that you have a subtle but fundamental

misunderstanding of

> the terms paramArtha and vyavahAra.

>

> You will agree that reality is non-dual. There is only brahman.

This is

> *already and always the case*. There is no such thing as a

dualistic world,

> with jIva-s awaiting enlightenment. There are no such entities as

j~nAnI-s

> and aj~nAnI-s.

>

> In this non-dual reality, however, ignorance of the truth in a

mind, leads

> that mind to think itself separate from other minds and objects in

a seeming

> universe

>It matters not that any given mind is only name and form of that

> non-dual brahman, in the same way that rings and bangles are

simply forms of

> one gold.

 

I see, you are equating minds of jnAni and ajnAni to " forms " of non-

dual Brahman, just as bangale-form and ring-form of substance gold.

 

But this is anti-thesis. In Advaita, Brahman is not only non-dual

but also with no-form (nirAkAra), no-attributes

(nirvishESha/nirhuNa). One should not forget this whole picture

about Brahman. Your example ring and bangle forms are ok for the

gold substance because gold was never treated as nirAkAra gold. For

that matter there is no such thing as formless-gold. Gold if it

exist it has to exist in a form (either as bullion, coin, rind,

bracelet etc). Treatment of a concrete object " gold ring " into

separate categories as " gold as a substance " and " ring as a form "

is illogical and does not have any factual support. What is found as

a unitary existence is " gold ring " only. It may have other

attributes such as weight, carot etc, but separating substance from

attributes is illogical. If you say scriptures are saying that

analogy, I would say scriptures were misinterpreted to yield one's

preconception only. In fact, the same scriptures are saying contrary

elsewhere.

 

>Using this metaphor, we can differentiate between a ring that

> thinks itself totally different from a bangle and a ring that

knows that it

> and the bangle are simply name and form of one gold. In this

scenario, the

> 'self-realized' ring will still only fit on a finger and not round

a wrist

> because that happens to be its form. The only difference is the

knowing that

> all is only ever gold.

>

> The same applies to the j~nAnI. The only difference is in the

knowing,

> he/she is still in the form of a man/woman and cannot suddenly fly

like a

> bird, for example.

>

 

There are several difficulties in your metaphor. Let's map the

entities in the metaphor to entities in Vedanta for better

understanding;

 

Self-realized ring = Self realized jnAni

 

Ignorant bangle = Ignorant person (agnAni)

 

Substance Gold = Brahman

 

Is that correct mapping?

 

Now, difficulties are;

 

1. In your model, do you say both realized-ring (RR) and ignorant-

bangle(IB) exist at the same time or at different times? If at the

same time, then it is not the same substance gold which is the basis

for RR and IB. It is two different gold masses at two different

places in two different shapes. Why do you thing it is the same

gold here? If you say it is gold as " chemical element " or " goldness "

which is same in two case, then I would say such element/goldness is

another property and not the substance itself. Thus there is no

basis for you to say ONE " substance " is material basis for RR and

IB. Therefore, the fallacy in application of this analogy to

vedanata is that you can not say both jnAni and ajnAni is that same

ONE Brahman in essence.

 

On the other hand, if you were to say RR and IB exist at different

times using the same mass of gold (melt and reform), then I would

say RR cannot see/know IB at all and therefore where is the question

of any teachings by RR to IB?

 

2. In RR, where exactly do you attribute " knowership " ? To the " ring-

form " or to the " gold-substance " ? If you attribute at substance

level there is one problem, if you do at form level another problem.

If you do at substance level, since you are saying it is the same

ONE substance in both the cases (RR and IB), then it is problem of

posting both jnAna and ajnAna in the same Brahman at the same time!

Alternatively, when RR realizes the truth, since the " same " gold is

also in IB, IB is no more IB but Realized-Bangle (RB) too! Then who

teach who? Then what happens? Both RR and RB will cease to exist as

formed-substance and becomes just substance gold (nay, we can not

even say it is " gold " anymore, for " goldness " is yet another

attribute which is mithya and sublates for that substance)?

 

On the other hand, if you post it at form level, since in advita

doctrine the very perception of " ring-form " or " bangle-form " (or any

other forms equivalent to jIva-bhAva) are due to ignorance of forms

themselves (remember you can not say substance has ignorance, for it

is nirvishEsha), then it is absurd to posit knowledge in ignorance.

It is as good as saying `form is due to ignorance' and `bangle-as-a-

form is realized one' in the same breath) .

 

 

> The words paramArtha and vyavahAra are only words to enable us to

talk about

> these different ways of looking at the world. Talking about the

world from a

> vantage-point of ring and bangle being separate entities is

analogous to a

> vyAvahArika vantage point; speaking as knowing that all is only

gold is the

> analogy for a pAramArthika viewpoint.

>

 

I agree here.

 

But talking about these two point-of-views itself is from which

point-of-view?

 

If from vyavahAra, I am ok as long as that vyavahAra is not

illusion. Otherwise, all these talks about two-viewpoints itself

becomes illusion and the world remains `as is' as currently being

perceived.

 

If from pAramArtha, I am ok here too as long as pAramArtha is not

non-dual and can sustain duality of viewpoints. Otherwise, if it is

non-dual, the difference between these two-viewpoints itself

vanishes and all our talk about two vantage-points becomes useless.

 

> When you make statements such as " Transactional reality and

illusion need

> paramArtha to sustain them " , this makes no sense. It is brahman

that is the

> essential reality of all apparently dualistic things. And it is

the making

> of statements such as the last one that is spoken of as

pAramArthika - but

> the statement and the concept are still within body-minds and thus

> inescapably dualistic or from a vyAvahArika standpoint.

>

 

I think you misunderstood Nairji. His statement " Transactional

reality and illusion need

paramArtha to sustain them " is perfectly valid. Ring-form and Bangle-

form as utilities of transaction need Gold to sustain such forms of

utilities. Without Gold, these forms can not exist on their own. So

also, to sustain this transactional reality (like jnAni and ajnAni)

pAramArha is needed.

 

(Here one small clarification though – you seems to make distinction

between " pAramArtha " and " Brahman " . It is not so. Brahman is not

something which exists in pAramArtha, but Brahman IS pAramArha.

Otherwise duality of Brahman and paramartha).

 

 

> The only difference between an aj~nAnI and a j~nAnI is that, for

the former,

> statements such as 'aham brahmAsmi' and 'sarvaM khalvidaM brahmA'

remain at

> the level of information only; for the j~nAnI such statements are

known to

> be true without question. So, if you like, what 'happens' when an

aj~nAnI

> becomes a j~nAnI is that information becomes knowledge in the mind

of the

> person in question. The ignorant and deluded one becomes

a 'knower'.

>

 

Same problem as pointed above, who exactly " knows to be true without

questions " here? Gold-substance or Ring-form?

 

 

> That is all. There is no need to invent mystical scenarios or try

to make

> sense of how j~nAnI-s can also be teachers.

>

 

Still, this question is not answered from your RR and IB metaphor.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

tUshNIM bhava! So I had not been following the discussion on the Advaitin for some time now.

praNAms Sri Ramachandra prabhuji

Hare krishna

Thanks for bringing this comments to the notice of this forum...Since S it seems, Sri Vidya prabhuji is not following the complete discussion of this thread & he wants to observe tUshNIM bhAva, I think we should not force him to join in this discussion...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Nairji,

Sorry but this won’t work. I am perfectly well aware that

the word akhaNDa kAra means ‘undivided’ but a vRRitti is a mode or

tendency of the *mind*. What it means is not that the mind literally ‘becomes

undivided’ (it already was in reality, since there is only brahman) but

that there is now the realization *in the mind* that there is no

division at all anywhere; that ‘all this is brahman’.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Madathil

Rajendran Nair

Friday, February 20, 2009 4:14 AM

advaitin

Re: Fw: Enlightened empirical engagement!

 

 

 

<< >>

 

 

 

 

In your current post quoted below, you are saying that the above

knowing is Enlightenment/akhaNDAkAra vritti. Kindly ponder over the

word akhaNDa and find out if a khaNDa mind can exist in it or a

khaNDa mind can contain an akhaNDa vritti.

<< >>

[Guest guest]

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

praNAms Sri Michael prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Kindly let me know what is your take on the sUtra 2-3-50 wherein Sri shankara quite categorically says AbhAsasya cha avidyAkrutatvAt tadAshrayasya saMsArasya avidyAkrutatvOpapattiriti...tadvyudAsena cha pAramArthikasya brahmAtmabhAvasya upadeshOpapattihi..(English : Because a refelection is a product of ignorance it is intelligible that the saMsAra that rests on it should also be a product of ignorance.(quoted earlier by me in one of my mails)..Here shankara clearly says sun & its reflection is avidyAkruta metaphor...Anyway, I will look into the original bhAshya portion of 3-2-20 today reply to you on next wednesday.....thanks for quoting this sUtra...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

but that there is now the realization *in the mind* that there is no division at all anywhere; that ‘all this is brahman’praNAms Sri Dennis prabhujiHare KrishnaHow do you differentiate above with mere intellectual understanding of all pervasiveness of brahman...which we vividly enjoying at our minds now :-))?? Kindly clarify...brahma jnAna is ekAtma pratyaya sAraM...it is not mere ekAtma pratyaya of mind..the word 'sAraM' carries lot of weight in undestanding Atma pratyaya & AtmasvarUpa...Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Srinivas-ji,

I also beg your pardon but I really do not have time to enter

into a detailed analysis of your post. Upon brief reading only, it seems that

you are simply trying to push the metaphor beyond the bounds for which it was

intended. Most (all?) metaphors break under such stress. E.g. rope-snake as a

metaphor for reality-world becomes unstable if you try to point out that rope

is itself not absolutely real. The idea is that you use the metaphor to give a

new insight into the problem under discussion and then drop the metaphor.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Srinivas

Kotekal

Friday, February 20, 2009 4:31 AM

advaitin

Re: Fw: Enlightened empirical engagement!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Denis-ji,

 

Pardon me for my intervention between you and Nairji.

 

<< >>

 

There are several difficulties in your metaphor.

[Guest guest]

Dear Nairji,

Another point I would like to make again, because I do not think

anyone ever responded to it when I made it before, is as follows.

Shankara, in his commentary on B.S. I.i.4, points out that

j~nAnam does not produce anything; only karma does this. In particular, j~nAnam

does not produce mokSha, and most certainly could never result in minds

dissolving/merging, worlds disappearing or any such thing. All (!) that

knowledge does is reveal things the way they are already (but which were

previously perceived erroneously).

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> but that there is now the realization *in the mind* that there is no

> division at all anywhere; that ‘all this is brahman’

>

>

> praNAms Sri Dennis prabhuji

>

>

> Hare Krishna

>

>

> How do you differentiate above with mere intellectual understanding

of all

> pervasiveness of brahman...which we vividly enjoying at our minds now

> :-))?? Kindly clarify...brahma jnAna is ekAtma pratyaya sAraM...it

is not

> mere ekAtma pratyaya of mind..the word 'sAraM' carries lot of weight in

> undestanding Atma pratyaya & AtmasvarUpa...

>

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

>

> bhaskar

>

 

Well said Bhaskarji.

Any mental knowledge is divisive. Otherwise why would the mind which

says " all this is brahman " still claim that " this realization happens

in me " , and keep itself different from the rest!

 

Regards,

Raj.

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennisji,

 

If it is so simple, then I should imagine you already have

akhaNDAkAravritti. I too seem to have it! Because we both are not

tired of saying that there is no division anywhere. God bless us both.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Nairji,

>

> Sorry but this won't work. I am perfectly well aware that the word

akhaNDa

> kAra means 'undivided' but a vRRitti is a mode or tendency of the

*mind*.

> What it means is not that the mind literally 'becomes undivided'

(it already

> was in reality, since there is only brahman) but that there is now

the

> realization *in the mind* that there is no division at all

anywhere; that

> 'all this is brahman'.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

>

>

> advaitin [advaitin ] On

Behalf

> Of Madathil Rajendran Nair

> Friday, February 20, 2009 4:14 AM

> advaitin

> Re: Fw: Enlightened empirical engagement!

>

>

>

> << >>

>

>

> In your current post quoted below, you are saying that the above

> knowing is Enlightenment/akhaNDAkAra vritti. Kindly ponder over the

> word akhaNDa and find out if a khaNDa mind can exist in it or a

> khaNDa mind can contain an akhaNDa vritti.

>

> << >>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennisji,

 

Agreed nothing produces mokSha because we are always liberated.

Please leave that part therefore and concerntrate on the second half

where you are quoting that knowledge does reveal things the way they

are already (but which were previously perceived erroneously).

 

What is erroneously perceived is duality in place of non-dual Truth.

So, knowledge should reveal the non-dual. That revelation cannot be

a perception because perception demands a prceiver which non-duality

cannot brook. So, in the revelation that knowledge brings about

there is no perceiver or, in other words, the perceiver *realizes*

that he himself is the non-dual Truth. Now tell me, where is the

question of a BMI - a set of uninvited externalities in the non-dual.

 

I see that Shankara's commentary on I-i-4 runs into several pages. I

am, therefore, not sure how you arrived at such a sweet and short

summary!

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________

 

 

Whether advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite

wrote:

>

> Dear Nairji,

>

> Another point I would like to make again, because I do not think

anyone ever

> responded to it when I made it before, is as follows.

>

> Shankara, in his commentary on B.S. I.i.4, points out that j~nAnam

does not

> produce anything; only karma does this. In particular, j~nAnam does

not

> produce mokSha, and most certainly could never result in minds

> dissolving/merging, worlds disappearing or any such thing. All (!)

that

> knowledge does is reveal things the way they are already (but which

were

> previously perceived erroneously).

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Nairji,

All I can suggest is that you try again to understand my earlier

post that you professed you ‘could not ‘make head or tail of’

because you are again falling into the same trap. I really cannot believe that you

could not follow it if you really wanted to – if you are able to understand

the commentaries of Shankara, I am sure you can understand my own feeble

attempt (which were not even translated from Sanskrit)!

And it is really not necessary to resort to sarcasm – my ‘sweet

and short summary’ was obviously not a summary of the entire sutra but

simply the small part of it that happened to tie in with our discussion.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Madathil

Rajendran Nair

Friday, February 20, 2009 7:39 PM

advaitin

Re: Fw: Enlightened empirical engagement!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Dennisji,

 

<< >>

What is erroneously perceived is duality in

place of non-dual Truth.

So, knowledge should reveal the non-dual. That revelation cannot be

a perception because perception demands a prceiver which non-duality

cannot brook.

<< >>

 

I see that Shankara's commentary on I-i-4 runs into several pages. I

am, therefore, not sure how you arrived at such a sweet and short

summary!

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Hari Om! Pranaams!

 

muktAtmanAM hi saMsAra-saMsAritva-vyavahAra-abhAvaH sarvaiH eva

AtmavAdibhiH iShyate. na ca teShAM shAstra-anarthyAdi-doSha-prAptiH

abhyupagatA. tathA naH kShetrajnAnAM Ishvara-ekatve sati, shAstra-

anarthakyaM bhavatu; avidyAviShaye ca arthavattvam, yathA

dvaitavAdinAM sarveShAM bandha-avasthAyAm eva shAstrAdi arthavattvaM,

na muktAvasthAyAM, evam. (bhAShya BG 13.2)

 

People of all schools of thought who believe in the Self admit that

there is no worldly behaviour or the behaviour of a worldling in the

liberated ones. Yet, in their case (i.e. in those various schools),

it is not admitted that there is any possibility of such a defect as

the scriptures becoming useless, etc. Similarly, in our case let the

scriptures be useless when the knowers of the field become identified

with God, and purposeful within the sphere of ignorance. This is just

as in the case of all the dualists, where it is admitted that the

scriptures etc become useful in the state of bondage, not in the

state of Liberation. (Tr. by Sw. GambhIrAnandaji)

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennisji,

 

Your 43736.

 

Apologies. No sarcasm. It was only friendly banter. I had a belief

that you were immune to it. I will try to avoid it in future.

 

I said I could't make head or tail of your first message for the

following reasons:

 

1. I thought you were trying to say something fresh and was eagerly

looking for a breakthrough statement. I couldn't locate one anywhere

in the message.

 

2. The gold-gold ornaments analogy was an overstretch and I was sort

of bored with it when you raised it again to support your vision of

self-realization. I found it ineffective in the same manner as Shri

Kotekalji did.

 

I need time to go through BS I-i-4, i.e. if my earlier comments are

not sufficient. Kindly let me know. I will then revert with my

understanding if the poll doesn't put a ban on this thread.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Nairji,

 

<< Apologies. No sarcasm. It was only friendly banter. I had a

belief that you were immune to it. I will try to avoid it in future.>>

Sorry – you are right, I was being over-sensitive (it was

late at night)! Carry on as usual; it is fine!

 

<< I thought you were trying to say something fresh and

was eagerly looking for a breakthrough statement. I couldn't locate one

anywhere

in the message.>>

I had thought that, even if not saying anything new, I was at

least putting it in a more convincing, readable way. Ah well, never mind!

 

<< I need time to go through BS I-i-4, i.e. if my earlier comments

are not sufficient.>>

You may find that just reading Swami Gambhirananda’s

commentary is not too enlightening. I have to confess that I have been

listening to Swami Paramarthananda’s talks – and he takes about 10

hours just to cover the word ‘tu’!

 

<< if the poll doesn't put a ban on this thread>>

I see that the majority (if 23 out of 2000 constitutes a

majority) voted for the Moderators to decide. Since there has been no further discussion

yet, I assume it is still open. However, in the spirit of Ram-ji’s recent

post, I think it is probably a good opportunity to call it a day for a while.

After all, if you are happy in your delusion, why should I bother? (**Note for

all readers – this a joke!)

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennisji,

 

It is night where I am. Time I hit the bed.

 

Will be back tomorrow a.m. with some of Acharya's statements from BS

I-i-4. They are Sw. Gambhiranandaji's translation. If our Sanskrit

scholars can accept them as genuine translation, then you should

accept them too. There is then no need to go to Sw.

Paramarthananada's ten hour marathon on 'tu'.

 

You are in my delusion, be sure, very much incurably deluded!

 

The poll has gone against continuing the discussion by a very narrow

margin. I hadn't expected even so many votaries for its

continuation. You have to rememember that the votes of the

Moderators were very crucial. No Moderator would vote for an option

that seeks to curtail their powers and I don't know why such an

option was included. It could have been a straight 'yes' or 'no'.

Well, that was not in my hands.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Nairji,

>

>

>

> << Apologies. No sarcasm. It was only friendly banter. I had a

belief that

> you were immune to it. I will try to avoid it in future.>>

>

> Sorry - you are right, I was being over-sensitive (it was late at

night)!

> Carry on as usual; it is fine!

>

>

>

> << I thought you were trying to say something fresh and was eagerly

looking

> for a breakthrough statement. I couldn't locate one anywhere

> in the message.>>

>

> I had thought that, even if not saying anything new, I was at least

putting

> it in a more convincing, readable way. Ah well, never mind!

>

>

>

> << I need time to go through BS I-i-4, i.e. if my earlier comments

are not

> sufficient.>>

>

> You may find that just reading Swami Gambhirananda's commentary is

not too

> enlightening. I have to confess that I have been listening to Swami

> Paramarthananda's talks - and he takes about 10 hours just to cover

the word

> 'tu'!

>

>

>

> << if the poll doesn't put a ban on this thread>>

>

> I see that the majority (if 23 out of 2000 constitutes a majority)

voted for

> the Moderators to decide. Since there has been no further

discussion yet, I

> assume it is still open. However, in the spirit of Ram-ji's recent

post, I

> think it is probably a good opportunity to call it a day for a

while. After

> all, if you are happy in your delusion, why should I bother?

(**Note for all

> readers - this a joke!)

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji.

Apologies for not responding earlier - I felt I had already

answered this in the earlier message to Nairji:

“Of course, I do not mean that Self-knowledge is the same ‘sort’

as knowledge of chemistry. Knowledge of ‘things’, or objective knowledge, is

the sort that, I think Sada-ji, recently spoke of as ‘more and more about less

and less leading towards knowing everything about nothing’. Self-knowledge =

Enlightenment, and is the realization that ‘I am That’, ‘Everything is brahman’

etc. Whereas objective knowledge is always provisional and can always be

supplanted when more information comes along, Self-knowledge is irrevocable and

irrefutable. But it still occurs in the mind. The ‘event’ is called akhaNDAkAra

vRRitti and there have been extensive discussions on the topic in the past.â€

I suggest that it is the difference between knowing that your neighbor

was born in Sri Lanka and knowing that ‘I exist’. The former is always open to

refutation while the latter is not. ‘Intellectual conviction’ equates to a belief.

This need not be true and may not be justified. ‘Knowledge’ is “justified, true

belief†(according to Western philosophy – definition courtesy of Greg Goode).

And you could certainly argue that knowing that you exist is even more certain

than a justified, true belief! It is so certain that there is no possibility of

later refutation.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Bhaskar

YR

Friday, February 20, 2009 11:28 AM

advaitin

RE: Re: Fw: Enlightened empirical engagement!

 

 

 

 

 

 

<<but

that there is now the realization *in the mind* that there is no

division at all anywhere; that ‘all this is brahman’ >>

How do you differentiate above with mere intellectual understanding of all

pervasiveness of brahman...which we vividly enjoying at our minds now :-))??

Kindly clarify...brahma jnAna is ekAtma pratyaya sAraM...it is not mere ekAtma

pratyaya of mind..the word 'sAraM' carries lot of weight in undestanding Atma

pratyaya & AtmasvarUpa...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar