Seeking Clarification

[Guest guest]

Namaste All!

 

Shruti says, 'Brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati' - 'The knower of brahman

becomes brahman'.

 

I seek some clarification about this. Since brahman cannot be an

object of knowledge, what is meant by 'knower of brahman'?

Secondly, realization is not a matter of becoming anything. That being

the case, why does this statement say 'becomes brahman'?

 

Harih Om.

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Neelakantanji.

 

This statement is found in Mundaka Upanishad. The stanza that precedes

it mentions the analogy of the river losing its boundaries and identity

at the point of merging with the ocean. I don't have the Upanishad

with me to give you the correct verse numbers. Bhaskarji had quoted

them here before.

 

From the above analogy, you can yourself decide if your current

understanding is right.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin , " Neelakantan " <pneelaka wrote:

>

> Namaste All!

>

> Shruti says, 'Brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati' - 'The knower of brahman

> becomes brahman'.

>

> I seek some clarification about this. Since brahman cannot be an

> object of knowledge, what is meant by 'knower of brahman'?

> Secondly, realization is not a matter of becoming anything. That being

> the case, why does this statement say 'becomes brahman'?

>

> Harih Om.

> Neelakantan

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Neelakantan " <pneelaka wrote:

>

> Namaste All!

>

> Shruti says, 'Brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati' - 'The knower of brahman

> becomes brahman'.

>

> I seek some clarification about this. Since brahman cannot be an

> object of knowledge, what is meant by 'knower of brahman'?

> Secondly, realization is not a matter of becoming anything. That being

> the case, why does this statement say 'becomes brahman'?

>

> Harih Om.

> Neelakantan

>

Hari Om Shri Neelakantanji, Pranaams!

 

'saH yaH ha vai tat paramam brahma veda brahma eva bhavati' - Anyone

who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed. (Mundaka

III.ii.9)

 

'brahmavit apnoti param' - The knower of Brahman attains the highest

(Supreme Brahman) (Taittriya II.i.1)

 

The clarifications sought by you are answered in the bAshya of

Taittriya Upanishad. In case you want the exact bAshya and translation

of Sw. GambhIrAnandaji, I can post it.

 

Before entertaining the doubt, Acharyaji puts a logical question, na hi

anyasya vijnAnAt anyasya prAptiH - The attainment of something doesnot

logically follow from the knowledge of something else.

 

Hope this helps.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

Nilakantanji - PraNAms

 

I think I explained this in response to Shree Srinivas post couple of weeks ago.

 

Here is my understanding of the statement in my layman's words.

 

Knower of Brahman becomes Brahman - is the statement.

 

In our normal parlance knower is different from known - there subject object

distinction is there - that duality is inherent in all objective knowledge. If I

know Table, the table that I know is different from the knower, I. By knowing

the table I cannot (in principle!) become a table.

 

But Here is a declaration of the shruti that knower of Brahman becomes Brahman.

Brahman means infinite. First we cannot know infinite - if we know the infinite

becomes finite which negates the infiniteness.

Second I cannot become infinite - finite cannot become infinite - that is

mathematically illogical.

 

Thus as you rightly pointed there is double illogicality in the statement - one

I cannot 'know' Brahman and second I cannot 'become' Brahman.

Since scripture says so and is a means of knowledge - it applies first that we

have to drop the logic (loukika anumaana or worldly logic) to appreciate the

language of the Upanishad - for that only help of teacher is needed.

 

The only possibility as Shankara explains is If I already infinite, knower of

Brahman therefore involves realization of my true nature that I am sat chit

ananda - and not that I take myself as I am 'this' which involves an equation of

conscious entity, I am, with unconscious entity, 'this is'.- The last equation,

I am this more absurd we do not seem to question that equation since we are so

used to accepting finitization of I am than its accepting its infinite nature.

 

Hence when scriptures points out that you are infinite - that knowledge involves

recognition (re-cognition)that I am Brahman - and not this finite BMI that I

take myself to be.

 

Hence knower of Brahman therefore involves realization of one true identity than

misapprehension that I am =this , due to error. Hence knowing Brahman is not

objective knowledge like knowing table but knowing myself.

Now if you look at the statement of the Upanishad then obviousness of the

statement immediately follows - the knower of Brahman becomes Brahman - it is

not finite becoming infinite - it is infinite 'as though' realizing its true

nature. I do not become Brahman since I am Brahman but now I am not only Brahman

but recognize that I am.

 

Again - it is not Brahman recognizing Brahman -The statement is not for Brahman

but to the seeker who thinks he is finite BMI. It is I, the individual or

egotistical entity who mistook myself to be a finite - drop those notions of

finiteness to recognize my true nature.

 

Hence Brahma vit brahma eva bhavati - involves recognition aham bhrahmaasmi - I

am Brahman - That is the only way the equation and the statement is fulfilled.

That is how Vedanta teaches.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

--- On Thu, 2/19/09, Neelakantan <pneelaka wrote:

 

Shruti says, 'Brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati' - 'The knower of brahman

becomes brahman'.

 

I seek some clarification about this. Since brahman cannot be an

object of knowledge, what is meant by 'knower of brahman'?

Secondly, realization is not a matter of becoming anything. That being

the case, why does this statement say 'becomes brahman'?

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Pranipata-ji.

 

I do have Sw. Gambhrananda's translation. I will look it up.

 

Harih Om.

 

advaitin , " pranipatachaitanya "

<pranipatachaitanya wrote:

>

> advaitin , " Neelakantan " <pneelaka@> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste All!

> >

> > Shruti says, 'Brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati' - 'The knower of brahman

> > becomes brahman'.

> >

> > I seek some clarification about this. Since brahman cannot be an

> > object of knowledge, what is meant by 'knower of brahman'?

> > Secondly, realization is not a matter of becoming anything. That being

> > the case, why does this statement say 'becomes brahman'?

> >

> > Harih Om.

> > Neelakantan

> >

> Hari Om Shri Neelakantanji, Pranaams!

>

> 'saH yaH ha vai tat paramam brahma veda brahma eva bhavati' - Anyone

> who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed. (Mundaka

> III.ii.9)

>

> 'brahmavit apnoti param' - The knower of Brahman attains the highest

> (Supreme Brahman) (Taittriya II.i.1)

>

> The clarifications sought by you are answered in the bAshya of

> Taittriya Upanishad. In case you want the exact bAshya and translation

> of Sw. GambhIrAnandaji, I can post it.

>

> Before entertaining the doubt, Acharyaji puts a logical question, na hi

> anyasya vijnAnAt anyasya prAptiH - The attainment of something doesnot

> logically follow from the knowledge of something else.

>

> Hope this helps.

>

> In Shri Guru Smriti,

> Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

>

[Guest guest]

Pranams and thank you very much, Sada-ji! I think I understand this

better now. I am sure this has been explained before in this group,

but it is good to get a refresher for me.

 

Thank you again for the detailed reply. This along with your other

post on fundamentals are of immense help to beginners like me.

 

Harih Om.

Neelakantan

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

>

> Nilakantanji - PraNAms

>

> I think I explained this in response to Shree Srinivas post couple

of weeks ago.

>

> Here is my understanding of the statement in my layman's words.

>

> Knower of Brahman becomes Brahman - is the statement.

>

> In our normal parlance knower is different from known - there

subject object distinction is there - that duality is inherent in all

objective knowledge. If I know Table, the table that I know is

different from the knower, I. By knowing the table I cannot (in

principle!) become a table.

>

> But Here is a declaration of the shruti that knower of Brahman

becomes Brahman.

> Brahman means infinite. First we cannot know infinite - if we know

the infinite becomes finite which negates the infiniteness.

> Second I cannot become infinite - finite cannot become infinite -

that is mathematically illogical.

>

> Thus as you rightly pointed there is double illogicality in the

statement - one I cannot 'know' Brahman and second I cannot 'become'

Brahman.

> Since scripture says so and is a means of knowledge - it applies

first that we have to drop the logic (loukika anumaana or worldly

logic) to appreciate the language of the Upanishad - for that only

help of teacher is needed.

>

> The only possibility as Shankara explains is If I already infinite,

knower of Brahman therefore involves realization of my true nature

that I am sat chit ananda - and not that I take myself as I am 'this'

which involves an equation of conscious entity, I am, with unconscious

entity, 'this is'.- The last equation, I am this more absurd we do

not seem to question that equation since we are so used to accepting

finitization of I am than its accepting its infinite nature.

>

> Hence when scriptures points out that you are infinite - that

knowledge involves recognition (re-cognition)that I am Brahman - and

not this finite BMI that I take myself to be.

>

> Hence knower of Brahman therefore involves realization of one true

identity than misapprehension that I am =this , due to error. Hence

knowing Brahman is not objective knowledge like knowing table but

knowing myself.

> Now if you look at the statement of the Upanishad then obviousness

of the statement immediately follows - the knower of Brahman becomes

Brahman - it is not finite becoming infinite - it is infinite 'as

though' realizing its true nature. I do not become Brahman since I am

Brahman but now I am not only Brahman but recognize that I am.

>

> Again - it is not Brahman recognizing Brahman -The statement is not

for Brahman but to the seeker who thinks he is finite BMI. It is I,

the individual or egotistical entity who mistook myself to be a finite

- drop those notions of finiteness to recognize my true nature.

>

> Hence Brahma vit brahma eva bhavati - involves recognition aham

bhrahmaasmi - I am Brahman - That is the only way the equation and the

statement is fulfilled. That is how Vedanta teaches.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Neelakantanji.

>

> This statement is found in Mundaka Upanishad. The stanza that precedes

> it mentions the analogy of the river losing its boundaries and identity

> at the point of merging with the ocean. I don't have the Upanishad

> with me to give you the correct verse numbers. Bhaskarji had quoted

> them here before.

>

> From the above analogy, you can yourself decide if your current

> understanding is right.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ________________

 

Namaste Nair-ji!

 

Thank you for the reference. I will reflect on this further as suggested.

 

Harih Om

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

"Neelakantan" <pneelaka wrote:> I seek some clarification about this. Since brahman cannot be an> object of knowledge, what is meant by 'knower of brahman'?> Secondly, realization is not a matter of becoming anything. That being> the case, why does this statement say 'becomes brahman'? Dear NeelakantamTrying to elucidate this question myself also, I found this passage in "Talks" by Ramana Maharshi that addresses your question.Interestingly enough, through the explanation that is given, one thing I noticed is that both the so-called schools that have been trying to discuss the natre of Jannis mind are represented here.That is to say, seems that a Jnani, operating beyond duality (according to me in the waking state), can accomodate both views without problems.But I leave that to the readers' judgement.Enjoy it,Mouna*****Ramana Maharshi on Self-Illumination (Talk #204) The `I' concept is the ego.

I-illumination is the Realisation of the Real Self. It is ever shining

forth as `I-I' in the intellectual sheath. It is pure Knowledge;

relative knowledge is only a concept. The bliss of the blissful sheath

is also but a concept. Unless there is the experience, however subtle

it is, one cannot say "I slept happily". From his intellect he speaks

of his blissful sheath. The bliss of sleep is but a concept to the

person, the same as intellect. However, the concept of experience is

exceedingly subtle in sleep. Experience is not possible without

simultaneous knowledge of it (i.e. relative knowledge). The

inherent nature of the Self is Bliss. Some kind of knowledge has to be

admitted, even in the realisation of Supreme Bliss. It may be said to

be subtler than the subtlest.

The word vijnana [?]

(clear knowledge) is used both to denote the Realisation of the Self

and knowing the objects. The Self is wisdom. It functions in two ways.

When associated with the ego the knowledge is objective (vijnana). When divested of the ego and the Universal Self is realised, it is also called vijnana. The word raises a mental concept. Therefore we say that the Self-Realised Sage knows by his mind, but

Page 178his mind is

pure. Again we say that the vibrating mind is impure and the placid

mind is pure. The pure mind is itself Brahman; therefore it follows

that Brahman is not other than the mind of the sage.

The Mundaka Upanishad

says: "The knower of Brahman becomes the Self of Brahman." Is it not

ludicrous? To know Him and become Him? They are mere words. The sage is

Brahman - that is all. Mental functioning is necessary to communicate

his experience. He is said to be contemplating the unbroken expanse.

The Creator, Suka and others are also said never to swerve from such

contemplation.Here is quoted, in sanskrit, the Tejo Bindu Upanishad. 1 - 47

Such `contemplation' is again a mere word. How is that to be

contemplated unless it is divided (into the contemplator and the

contemplated). When undivided, how is contemplation possible? What

function can Infinity have? Do we say that a river after its discharge

into the ocean has become an ocean-like river? Why should we then speak

of contemplation which has become unbroken, as being that of unbroken

Infinity? The statement must be understood in the spirit in which it is

made. It signifies the merging into the Infinite.

Self-Illumination or Self-Realisation is similar to it. The Self is

ever shining. What does this `I-illumination' mean then? The expression

is an implied admission of mind function.

The gods and the sages experience the Infinite continuously and

eternally, without their vision being obscured at any moment. Their

minds are surmised by the spectators to function; but in fact they do

not. Such surmise is due to the sense of individuality in those who

draw inferences. There is no mental function in the absence of

individuality. Individuality and mind functions are co-existent. The

one cannot remain without the other.

The light of the Self can be experienced only in the intellectual sheath. Therefore vijnana of whatever kind (of object or of the Self) depends on the Self being Pure Knowledge.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote:

>

> " Neelakantan " <pneelaka@> wrote:

>

> > I seek some clarification about this. Since brahman cannot be an

> > object of knowledge, what is meant by 'knower of brahman'?

> > Secondly, realization is not a matter of becoming anything. That being

> > the case, why does this statement say 'becomes brahman'?

>

> Dear Neelakantam

> Trying to elucidate this question myself also, I found this passage in

> " Talks " by Ramana Maharshi that addresses your question.

> Interestingly enough, through the explanation that is given, one thing I

> noticed is that both the so-called schools that have been trying to

> discuss the natre of Jannis mind are represented here.

> That is to say, seems that a Jnani, operating beyond duality (according

> to me in the waking state), can accomodate both views without problems.

> But I leave that to the readers' judgement.

>

> Enjoy it,

> Mouna

>

Dear Mouna-ji!

 

Thank you for sharing this.

 

I am grateful for the fact that jnanis such as Bhagavan walked and

talked among us as if they were just like us. That is how we have

received their teachings.

 

Harih Om

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

Dear Neelakantan-ji,

 

Namaste.

 

 

advaitin , " Neelakantan " <pneelaka wrote:

> Dear Mouna-ji!

>

> Thank you for sharing this.

>

> I am grateful for the fact that jnanis such as Bhagavan walked and

> talked among us as if they were just like us. That is how we have

> received their teachings.

 

 

But the question still remains, why do jnAni " walked and talked

among us " if they are said to be seeing no dualities what so ever?

What is the necessity to talk to ajnAnis who is non-existing in such

a jnAni's view?

 

To address this issue, some hold that jnAni will still " see "

duality, but know that it is not real. But, why do duality appear

for such jnAni at all? It is the still more basic question to be

addressed and I beleieve it is not addressed at all in these

discussions.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

--- On Fri, 2/20/09, Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote:

 

 

 

To address this issue, some hold that jnAni will still " see "

duality, but know that it is not real. But, why do duality appear

for such jnAni at all? It is the still more basic question to be

addressed and I beleieve it is not addressed at all in these

discussions.

 

Srinivas - PraNAms

 

I have addressed this many times before but you keep asking the same question

again.

 

As long as there is mirror there is reflection. If the mirror is not there, then

there is no reflection.

 

As long as the mirror of BMI is there the world is there and the plurality is

there.

 

When I realize that I am not the image in the mirror but the original - the

mirror and image would not bother me - I can still see the image and marvel at

myself seeing myself in the image.

 

a jnaani is one who realizes the self (or the essence in him) is the essence in

all - sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutani ca aatmani - so sarva bhuutani

is there to recognize in aatmani.

 

The reflection is not the problem - taking the reflection as real is the basic

problem

 

Duality is not the problem - taking the duality as reality is the problem.\

Why does he see - he sees but he does not see. see the sloka ...pasyan sRinvan..

idriyaartheshu ..

 

Thus as long as indriyaas are there functioning which are part of the Iswra

sRiShTi - seeing goes on - but seeing doing etc are done by prakRiti in the

presence of purusha.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Srinivas-ji!

 

I see that Sada-ji has already provided a reply. I will limit my

response to one or two specifics. See below for my reply.

 

advaitin , " Srinivas Kotekal " <kots_p

wrote:

>

>

> Dear Neelakantan-ji,

>

> Namaste.

>

>

>

> But the question still remains, why do jnAni " walked and talked

> among us " if they are said to be seeing no dualities what so ever?

> What is the necessity to talk to ajnAnis who is non-existing in

such

> a jnAni's view?

 

I did not say jnani's see duality. I really cannot say what a jnani

sees or does not see. But I can see him moving about and teaching and

I see no contradiction in this, based on Gita 5:13 (navadvAre

pure dehi...) and Acharya's commentary on that verse. It seems

perfectly possible that a jnani can 'dwell in the body' just as we

ajnani's dwell in a house. Just as I do not mistake my house for me,

the jnani never mistakes the body for the Self.

 

As to why they should do anything, I do not have an answer. Perhaps,

it is their compassion that makes them teach. The reality is some of

them do.

 

>

> To address this issue, some hold that jnAni will still " see "

> duality, but know that it is not real. But, why do duality appear

> for such jnAni at all? It is the still more basic question to be

> addressed and I beleieve it is not addressed at all in these

> discussions.

>

 

Again, whether a jnani sees what you and I see, or whether duality

appears to him, is not for me to say. But as I explained above, this

is not a problem. So your question is not relevant to me at least.

Still, I do think that this has been addressed in the discussions.

 

I hope I have explained my position. If not, we can both appreciate

how difficult it is for us to see eachother's point of view, let

alone a jnani's :-)

 

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

Srinivas-ji pranAms.

 

When you understand the reality of a claypot to be clay, you

understand the potness to be a namarupA and hence mithyA. It does not

mean " seeing " (or perceiving) the " pot " is an unnecessary

inconvenience that you then have to consider to be " false " !

 

You can still freely make use of the claypot to store water - this

does not mean you are seeing " duality " viz. two things - a clay and a

pot!!

 

Understanding that there is really no separate substantive called pot

and all is clay alone is advaita.

 

Again and again, you are harping on what you understand mithyA to be

and then proceeding to talk about advaita-hani when in fact, if I may

humbly submit, you may be better served improving upon your own

understanding of mithyA to begin with. You have taken mithyA to mean

false or asat, and with that presumption, you will never get very far

in being able to understand Advaita, if that be your interest. Please

read through your own posts and see how everytime you talk about

mithyA you talk about it as being false or illusory. There is nothing

false about the potness of the pot - the error is in ascribing a

separate distinct discrete reality to the pot and saying there are

two things - a pot and clay.

 

For a jnAni there is naught else but Brahman - there is no plurality

in his vision. But if a particular jivA who is none other than

Brahman has a notional self-ignorance, the jnAni takes his word for

it and instructs him - fully knowing that his own teaching, the

ajnAni's bondage and his subsequent liberation are all mithyA-

vyavahara alone. Please understand that there is no duality here.

 

It is only when reality is lent to this world that one has an

expectation for it to disappear for a " true jnAni " inasmuch as one

waits for the " pot " to disappear to appreciate its reality as clay to

be satisfied that one has " truly known " the pot to be clay!

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

advaitin , " Srinivas Kotekal " <kots_p

wrote:

>

> But the question still remains, why do jnAni " walked and talked

> among us " if they are said to be seeing no dualities what so ever?

> What is the necessity to talk to ajnAnis who is non-existing in

such

> a jnAni's view?

>

> To address this issue, some hold that jnAni will still " see "

> duality, but know that it is not real. But, why do duality appear

> for such jnAni at all? It is the still more basic question to be

> addressed and I beleieve it is not addressed at all in these

> discussions.

>

> Regards,

> Srinivas.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dr. Shyamji.

 

Isn't there a contradiction in your statement quoted below:

 

QUOTE

 

> For a jnAni there is naught else but Brahman - there is no

plurality

> in his vision. But if a particular jivA who is none other than

> Brahman has a notional self-ignorance, the jnAni takes his word for

> it and instructs him - fully knowing that his own teaching, the

> ajnAni's bondage and his subsequent liberation are all mithyA-

> vyavahara alone. Please understand that there is no duality here.

 

UNQUOTE

 

For jnAni (not *a* jnAni), he is Brahman (Forgive the masculine).

There is nothing aside from him. Then, where is scope for any

ignorance or ignorant one to exist apart from him?

 

In the pot analogy, your following observation has only limited

validity:

 

QUOTE

 

It is only when reality is lent to this world that one has an

> expectation for it to disappear for a " true jnAni " inasmuch as one

> waits for the " pot " to disappear to appreciate its reality as clay

to

> be satisfied that one has " truly known " the pot to be clay!

 

UNQUOTE

 

However, it is not self-realization but an on-looker's clay-

realization. The erstwhile individuality and utility of the pot can,

therefore, continue with refrence to the onlooker. The pot analogy

is therefore another anlogy overstretched out of focus. If the pot

were to self-realize, then in your own words it would exclaim:

 

" For me, there is naught else but clay - there is no plurality

in my vision. "

 

Shrinivasji (irrespective of where he belongs) has asked a very

sensible question (Why is it claimed that duality exists for jnAni at

all?) which hasn't been answered.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Neelakantanji.

 

I can fully accept your position statement. Yours is the right

attitude for a sincere seeker.

 

However, you seem to imply that you can recognize jnAni. That is

something I find difficult to chew. No problem. Let us accept

BG5.13 to the very letter. Even then, how come you or I get the

ability to recognize jnAni? Is that possible without our being

jnAni? You will kindly recall that this is the question I asked Dr.

Shyamji.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , " Neelakantan " <pneelaka wrote:

 

> I did not say jnani's see duality. I really cannot say what a jnani

> sees or does not see. But I can see him moving about and teaching

and

> I see no contradiction in this, based on Gita 5:13 (navadvAre

> pure dehi...) and Acharya's commentary on that verse. It seems

> perfectly possible that a jnani can 'dwell in the body' just as we

> ajnani's dwell in a house. Just as I do not mistake my house for

me,

> the jnani never mistakes the body for the Self.

>

> As to why they should do anything, I do not have an answer.

Perhaps,

> it is their compassion that makes them teach. The reality is some

of

> them do.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Neelakantanji.

>

> I can fully accept your position statement. Yours is the right

> attitude for a sincere seeker.

>

> However, you seem to imply that you can recognize jnAni. That is

> something I find difficult to chew. No problem. Let us accept

> BG5.13 to the very letter. Even then, how come you or I get the

> ability to recognize jnAni? Is that possible without our being

> jnAni? You will kindly recall that this is the question I asked Dr.

> Shyamji.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ______________

>

 

Namaste Nair-ji!

 

You are absolutely right. I cannot answer that question. But where

does that leave a seeker? What do we do with upanishadic injunction to

seek a shrotriya brahmaniShTha and learn? Or Gita verse 4:34 (tad

viddhi praNipAtena...) which assures us that jnAnis will teach us?

There is no way for us to even know if a jnAni exists. Everything

becomes futile, does it not?

 

I take the position that jnAnis over the ages have out of infinite

compassion have found a way to communicate to ordinary folks like us

and I can hope to be taken under the wings of a jnAni if I, with

shraddhA, sincerely seek a satguru. IMHO, this is possible only if the

jnAni continues to operate through his erstwhile BMI.

 

On the other hand, you hold that a jnAni cannot be associated with a

BMI and will not operate through one. At the same time, you quote the

words of a jnAni to support that. I find this untenable. I hope I did

not misrepresent your position.

 

Let me end with a shlokam from VidyAraNya's shankara vijayam and bow

out of this debate.

 

ajnAnAntar.gahana.patitAn Atmavidypadeshaih

trAtum.lokAn.bhavadavashikhAtApapApacyamAnAn |

muktvA.mounam vatavitapinor.mUlato.niShpatanti

shambhor.murtish.carati.bhuvane.shankarAcArya.rUpAh ||

 

(The form of Lord Shambhu has descended from the base of the banyan

tree, giving up His silence, and is moving about the world in the

form of Sankaracharya in order to save the humanity suffering from

the disease of samsara, having fallen into the jungle of ignorance,

through the teaching of atmavidya - translation is mine, so please

bear with any errors.)

 

Harih Om.

Neelakantan

 

PS: Incidentally, I realized that I had quoted this verse in response

to one of your posts back in 2005. Please look up message #29127. It

was interesting to read what you wrote then :-)

[Guest guest]

Pranams dear Nair-ji

Thank you for your question.

Let us take a close look at the analogy of the pot universe.

There are innumerable clay pots each of different ages, colours, and appearances. Some have just been born and some are close to being wornout.

Each of these pots has a sense of a limited potness as in I am such and such days old, am of such colour, am fat,thin,short,tall etc.

 

Please note here - the sense of individuality, stemming from self-ignornace, here belongs only to the pot. The clay - the substratum of this pot universe in this example - has no ignorance.

 

One of the pots - Pot R - gains self-knowledge thanks to another pot-teacher - again - please note that the teacher is also a pot alone - the clay is a witness an enabling principle - "upadrshta anumanta cha" - in the words of the BG - it is a realized "pot" alone that can teach and enable Pot R to gain self-knowledge - and what is that knowledge? - of course that I am in reality always clay not from today not from the time i gained this knowledge but across all time - eternally. And that everyother pot in this pot universe is also in reality clay alone. That there is no discrete thing called potness separate from clay.

 

After gaining this knowledge, pot R can safely pay respects to, do namaskarams to the teacher pot, (just as Shankara in many texts he authors always begins with a eulogy to his teacher Acharya Govinda Bhagwatpada). His having realized that all there is in Reality is only clay does not impede this transaction in any way.

 

Now when one of the other innumerable pots - pot I - comes to pay respects to this pot R in his hut. What is the vision of pot R? All he sees is clay - sarvam khalvidam brahma. There is no duality in his vision. But this clay with this particular namarupA is unfortunately ignorant about its reality - it has come to him with a list of problems [not the least of which is fear its mortality and those it consideres its pot relatives] - so pot R proceeds to tell this pot "asochyan anvvasochastvam" - "you, who are clay, and thinking yourself to be a pot, grieve over what is not be grieved" and finally "tat tvam asi" - "that clay you are" - please consider here now - the very fact that the pot R can say "tat tvam asi" is because he sees pot I to be clay alone! He is not telling pot I - drop your potness and become clay - he is telling him that clay you ARE - it is a statement of fact.

Now the ball is in pot I's court. pot I may be well qualified and immediately realize that it is indeed clay, and there is nothing more it needs to do and than anything it does it can only do as a pot and that as clay it is always a non-doer unattached eternal etc.

 

Or it can tell pot R or one of its friends (perhaps a on a e-list) - I understand i am clay - in fact I have no doubt that I am clay, but i am still shaped like a pot. Until my potness disappears from my vision I can never "feel" I am clay. Only the day I feel or experience my clayness can i attain aparoksha knowledge of the fact that I am clay!" Or he may exclaim "how can i vouchsafe I am clay when all i can see is pots everywhere! Did not pot R show me that the Shruti clearly says the knower of clay becomes clay. How then as clay can i be seeing anything other than clay - the very fact that i am still seeing pots tells me i have yet to fully experience my clayness - there is a lot more for me the pot to do before i can ascertain the fact that i am clay in actuality!"

 

Of course a pot D can now get into this conversation and say - "Hey pot I - this is quite a tall tale that pot R is spinning - that clay alone is the one non-dual truth! look at pot R - he says he is seeing only clay but if he is seeing only clay how can he still see you as a pot. Dont you see he is seeing two separate things - clay and you the pot. If you really are only clay how can you appear as a pot to him, and then again, why should he teeach you you are not a pot - after all he cant see that you are a pot can he? And if he can then there is no nonduality because he is seeing two things pot and clay!"

 

Please note here there can NEVER be two opinions about the fact that the vision of a jnAni is ever non-dual alone. No one will say that a jnAni sees any duality at any point. His vision is of the wood alone - even though he knows the wood table to be different from the wood chair.

 

Trust this clarifies.

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

--- On Fri, 2/20/09, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair Re: Seeking Clarificationadvaitin Date: Friday, February 20, 2009, 11:29 PM

 

 

Namaste Dr. Shyamji.Isn't there a contradiction in your statement quoted below:QUOTE> For a jnAni there is naught else but Brahman - there is no plurality > in his vision. But if a particular jivA who is none other than > Brahman has a notional self-ignorance, the jnAni takes his word for > it and instructs him - fully knowing that his own teaching, the > ajnAni's bondage and his subsequent liberation are all mithyA-> vyavahara alone. Please understand that there is no duality here.UNQUOTEFor jnAni (not *a* jnAni), he is Brahman (Forgive the masculine). There is nothing aside from him. Then, where is scope for any ignorance or ignorant one to exist apart from him?In the pot analogy, your following observation has only limited validity:QUOTEIt is only when reality is lent to this world that one has an > expectation for it to

disappear for a "true jnAni" inasmuch as one > waits for the "pot" to disappear to appreciate its reality as clay to > be satisfied that one has "truly known" the pot to be clay!UNQUOTEHowever, it is not self-realization but an on-looker's clay-realization. The erstwhile individuality and utility of the pot can, therefore, continue with refrence to the onlooker. The pot analogy is therefore another anlogy overstretched out of focus. If the pot were to self-realize, then in your own words it would exclaim:"For me, there is naught else but clay - there is no plurality in my vision."Shrinivasji (irrespective of where he belongs) has asked a very sensible question (Why is it claimed that duality exists for jnAni at all?) which hasn't been answered.Best regards.Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Shyam <shyam_md wrote: Or it can tell pot R or one of its friends (perhaps a on a e-list) - I understand i am clay - in fact I have no doubt that I am clay, but i am still shaped like a pot. Until my potness disappears from my vision I can never "feel" I am clay. Only the day I feel or experience my clayness can i attain aparoksha knowledge of the fact that I am clay!" Or he may exclaim "how can i vouchsafe I am clay when all i can see is pots everywhere! Did not pot R show me that the Shruti clearly says the knower of clay becomes clay. How then as clay can i be seeing anything other than clay - the very fact that i am still seeing pots tells me i have yet to fully experience my clayness - there is a lot more for me the pot to do before i can ascertain the fact that i am clay in actuality!"Dear All, this paragraph in Sri Shyamji's post made me think of a certain analogy to understand deeper the meaning of it.There is a shift when one is completely identified with a character in a movie (while in the movie theater) and suddenly the realization comes that we are the spectator of the film, seated within a room full of people. That subtle shift in awareness is a good analogy about the realization of the Self.While the movie continues, now the "vision" is global, and neither any of the roles involved in the play are seeing separately, since the vision now resides in the understanding that is a play. No more personal bias or involvement towards this or that character.Within the limitations of this example, some questions arise:Is this shift of "experiential" nature? yes, but of a subtle nature, since it's a shift that involves the mind. I've been watching the movie all along, the only difference is that now the involvement, the identification is not there anymore. My "attention" shifted.Are we seeing the different names and forms of the characters still? yes, but the "context" changed. The fact we are no longer involved (in "depth") takes care of the "three dimensional" aspect of our identification with the movie. We now see images dancing on a flat screen, we understand their relationship, in fact we now see "only" relationships. The characters don't have a choice, since they are weaved by the threads of the plot, but if we were to identify again with the roles, then we would have experienced again the uncomfortable feeling of doubt and choice and insecurity of outcome that the roles are "experiencing".How is my relationship with the images, can I alter the script of the movie? no, although before, while deeply involved, I had the feeling that I could do it.Do I want to alter the way the play develops? no, since I am not involved anymore (besides the fact that I can't anyways).So then, with this kind of attention shift, is there anything that really changed? For an "outside" observer, nothing changed, I'm still seated in a movie theater, surrounded by people, watching a movie, images on a flat blank screen...From "my" point of view, EVERYTHING changed, since the relationship to the movie has changed, and in fact, it disappeared.Now the question is, who would want to go see a movie where you can't be involved and identified with one or several of the characters (or the play), right? It seems it takes away all the fun! The answer lies in the different way children of a young age and adults see movie. While the child is completely absorbed into it, suffers the death of his/her hero, and even can't really established the boundaries from the screen and reality, an adult enjoys the movie because he "knows" is fiction, and at this point there is no longer necessary to shift one's attention "out" and "feel" that we are seated in a movie theater (except if we have been duped and we went to a horror movie!), because there is the underlying understanding that "it's only a movie". This understanding allows us again to enjoy the movie, even if it makes us cry. The witness and the witnessed merged again, but now in a complete different way.Is Life a movie? played in the flat screen of our mind, illumined by the potent light behind the projector, and passing through the lens of our body/minds? Are there any spectators of this film, or is it playing in an empty theater?If we try to answer these questions, we are starting to watch another movie..., maybe it's time to leave the cinema and enjoy the fresh air of a spring day's evening.Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna

[Guest guest]

(This is my full posting, the other one got truncated for some "mysterious" reason)

 

Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

 

Or it can tell pot R or one of its friends

(perhaps a on a e-list) - I understand i am clay - in fact I have no

doubt that I am clay, but i am still shaped like a pot. Until my

potness disappears from my vision I can never "feel" I am clay. Only

the day I feel or experience my clayness can i attain aparoksha

knowledge of the fact that I am clay!" Or he may exclaim "how can i

vouchsafe I am clay when all i can see is pots everywhere! Did not pot

R show me that the Shruti clearly says the knower of clay becomes clay.

How then as clay can i be seeing anything other than clay - the very

fact that i am still seeing pots tells me i have yet to fully

experience my clayness - there is a lot more for me the pot to do

before i can ascertain the fact that i am clay in actuality!"

 

Dear All, this paragraph in Sri Shyamji's post made me think of a

certain analogy to understand deeper the meaning of it.There is a shift

when one is completely identified with a character in a movie (while in

the movie theater) and suddenly the realization comes that we are the

spectator of the film, seated within a room full of people. That subtle

shift in awareness is a good analogy about the realization of the Self.

While the movie continues, now the "vision" is global, and neither any

of the roles involved in the play are seeing separately, since the

vision now resides in the understanding that is a play. No more

personal bias or involvement towards this or that character.

Within the limitations of this example, some questions arise:

Is this shift of "experiential" nature? yes, but of a subtle nature,

since it's a shift that involves the mind. I've been watching the movie

all along, the only difference is that now the involvement, the

identification is not there anymore. My "attention" shifted.

 

Are we seeing the different names and forms of the characters still?

yes, but the "context" changed. The fact we are no longer involved (in

"depth") takes care of the "three dimensional" aspect of our

identification with the movie. We now see images dancing on a flat

screen, we understand their relationship, in fact we now see "only"

relationships. The characters don't have a choice, since they are

weaved by the threads of the plot, but if we were to identify again

with the roles, then we would have experienced again the uncomfortable

feeling of doubt and choice and insecurity of outcome that the roles

are "experiencing".

 

How is my relationship with the images, can I alter the script of the

movie? no, although before, while deeply involved, I had the feeling

that I could do it.

Do I want to alter the way the play develops? no, since I am not involved anymore (besides the fact that I can't anyways).

 

So then, with this kind of attention shift, is there anything that really changed?

For an "outside" observer, nothing changed, I'm still seated in a movie

theater, surrounded by people, watching a movie, images on a flat blank

screen...

From "my" point of view, EVERYTHING changed, since the relationship to the movie has changed, and in fact, it disappeared.

 

Now the question is, who would want to go see a movie where you can't

be involved and identified with one or several of the characters (or

the play), right? It seems it takes away all the fun!

 

The answer lies in the different way children of a young age and adults

see movie. While the child is completely absorbed into it, suffers the

death of his/her hero, and even can't really established the boundaries

from the screen and reality, an adult enjoys the movie because he

"knows" is fiction, and at this point there is no longer necessary to

shift one's attention "out" and "feel" that we are seated in a movie

theater (except if we have been duped and we went to a horror movie!),

because there is the underlying understanding that "it's only a movie".

This understanding allows us again to enjoy the movie, even if it makes

us cry. The witness and the witnessed merged again, but now in a

complete different way.

 

Is Life a movie played in the flat screen of our mind, illumined by the

potent light behind the projector, and passing through the lens of our

body/minds?

Are there any spectators of this film, or is it playing in an empty theater?

If we try to answer these questions, we are starting to watch another

movie..., maybe it's time to leave the cinema and enjoy the fresh air

of a spring day's evening.

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Shyamji,

 

Kindly see within .

_______

 

> Let us take a close look at the analogy of the pot universe.

> There are innumerable clay pots each of different ages, colours,

and appearances. Some have just been born and some are close to being

wornout.

> Each of these pots has a sense of a limited potness as in I am such

and such days old, am of such colour, am fat,thin,short,tall etc.

>  

> Please note here - the sense of individuality, stemming from self-

ignornace, here belongs only to the pot. The clay - the substratum of

this pot universe in this example - has no ignorance.

 

[MN: No problem upto here.]

_________________

 

> One of the pots - Pot R - gains self-knowledge thanks to another

pot-teacher - again - please note that the teacher is also a pot

alone - the clay is a witness an enabling principle - " upadrshta

anumanta cha " - in the words of the BG - it is a realized " pot " alone

that can teach and enable Pot R to gain self-knowledge - and what is

that knowledge? - of course that I am in reality always clay not from

today not from the time i gained this knowledge but across all time -

eternally.

 

[MN: A realized pot can't be a teacher pot. It is already one with

his original nature of " clayness " where potness of either itself or

another pot can't tread. If it is really realized, it has no action

to perform. Kindly see my quotes from Shankara's commentary on BS

I.i.4 in my message today to Dennisji.]

_____________

 

And that every other pot in this pot universe is also in reality clay

alone. That there is no discrete thing called potness separate from

clay.

 

[MN: Where is 'every other' and 'pot universe' for the pot who has

totally identified itself with the Truth of Clayness?]

_______________________

>  

> After gaining this knowledge, pot R can safely pay respects to, do

namaskarams to the teacher pot, (just as Shankara in many texts he

authors always begins with a eulogy to his teacher Acharya Govinda

Bhagwatpada). His having realized that all there is in Reality is

only clay does not impede this transaction in any way.

 

[MN: When pot R completely identifies itself with its original clay

nature, then it would know that the erstwhile teacher-pot was none

other than himself. Where is the question of prostrating then. If

at all there are prostrations seen, they simply belong to the realm

of other unrealized pots like Shankara's eulogies are in the realm of

Dr. Shyamji.]

_________________________

>  

> Now when one of the other innumerable pots - pot I - comes to pay

respects to this pot R in his hut. What is the vision of pot R? All

he sees is clay - sarvam khalvidam brahma. There is no duality in his

vision.  But this clay with this particular namarupA is unfortunately

ignorant about its reality - it has come to him with a list of

problems [not the least of which is fear its mortality and those it

consideres its pot relatives] - so pot R proceeds to tell this

pot " asochyan anvvasochastvam " - " you, who are clay, and thinking

yourself to be a pot, grieve over what is not be grieved " and

finally  " tat tvam asi " - " that clay you are " - please consider here

now - the very fact that the pot R can say " tat tvam asi "  is because

he sees pot I to be clay alone! He is not telling pot I - drop your

potness and become clay - he is telling him that clay you ARE - it is

a statement of fact.

 

[MN: Dr. Shyamji, in one breath, your are makinig two contradictory

statements. If there is no duality in vision where is the question

of realized pot R seeing an ignorant pot with nAmarUpa?]

 

[MN: Pot R has no teachership. Teachership is the need of pot I.

It is his imposition on R. No doubt, it is helpful to I. That is

what I called Grace.]

___________________

 

> Now the ball is in pot I's court. pot I may be well qualified and

immediately realize that it is indeed clay, and there is nothing more

it needs to do and than anything it does it can only do as a pot and

that as clay it is always a non-doer unattached eternal etc.

 

[MN: Dr. Shyamji, there is a mix up here. A realized pot is clay in

full without doership. There is no question of any action for it 'as

a pot'. If it has, it has not realized.]

_______________

>  

> Or it can tell pot R or one of its friends (perhaps a on a e-list) -

I understand i am clay - in fact I have no doubt that I am clay, but

i am still shaped like a pot. Until my potness disappears from my

vision I can never " feel " I am clay.

 

[MN: If the pot is really realized, even when the potness is seen,

it is not seen as potness but only as Self is the correct

implication.]

_______________

 

Only the day I feel or experience my clayness can i attain aparoksha

knowledge of the fact that I am clay! " Or he may exclaim " how can i

vouchsafe I am clay when all i can see is pots everywhere! Did not

pot R show me that the Shruti clearly says the knower of clay becomes

clay. How then as clay can i be seeing anything other than clay - the

very fact that i am still seeing pots tells me i have yet to fully

experience my clayness - there is a lot more for me the pot to do

before i can ascertain the fact that i am clay in actuality! "

 

[MN: There is no problem with that statement till Knowledge takes

place.]

________________

>  

> Of course a pot D can now get into this conversation and say - " Hey

pot I - this is quite a tall tale that pot R is spinning - that clay

alone is the one non-dual truth! look at pot R - he says he is seeing

only clay but if he is seeing only clay how can he still see you as a

pot. Dont you see he is seeing two separate things - clay and you the

pot. If you really are only clay how can you appear as a pot to him,

and then again, why should he teeach you you are not a pot - after

all he cant see that you are a pot can he? And if he can then there

is no nonduality because he is seeing two things pot and clay! "

 

[MN: Pot D is right.]

__________________

 

> Please note here there can NEVER be two opinions about the fact

that the vision of a jnAni is ever non-dual alone. No one will say

that a jnAni sees any duality at any point. His vision is of the wood

alone - even though he knows the wood table to be different from the

wood chair.

>  

> Trust this clarifies.

 

[MN: A jnAni sees the Self alone and there is no non-duality in

his 'vision'. Yet, to ajnAnis, he/she appears as performing actions

and differentiating between a table and a chair as though he is

experiencing duality. If this is your contention, then I would say

you have clarified. There is a rider attached to this, however, and

that is that 'actions attributed to jnAni and plurality of jnAnis'

purely belong to the realm of ajnAnis.]

___________________

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Neelakantanji.

 

Kindly see within .

_____________

 

> I take the position that jnAnis over the ages have out of infinite

> compassion have found a way to communicate to ordinary folks like us

> and I can hope to be taken under the wings of a jnAni if I, with

> shraddhA, sincerely seek a satguru. IMHO, this is possible only if

> the jnAni continues to operate through his erstwhile BMI.

 

[MN: I have today quoted to Dennisji extracts from Acharya's

commentary on BS I.i.4. It clearly says that a realized one is

beyond actions. So, if we see a jnAni 'as though operating even when

he is truly beyond action', then we have to assume that his apparent

operativeness belongs only to realm of the yet-to-be-realized and

exists only in their eyes. I call this Grace.]

__________________

 

> On the other hand, you hold that a jnAni cannot be associated with a

> BMI and will not operate through one. At the same time, you quote >

> the words of a jnAni to support that. I find this untenable. I hope

> I did not misrepresent your position.

 

[MN: Hope my explanation above clarifies. Whatever words I have

quoted exist around me as Grace to help and guide me.]

________________________

>

> Let me end with a shlokam from VidyAraNya's shankara vijayam and bow

> out of this debate.

>

> ajnAnAntar.gahana.patitAn Atmavidypadeshaih

> trAtum.lokAn.bhavadavashikhAtApapApacyamAnAn |

> muktvA.mounam vatavitapinor.mUlato.niShpatanti

> shambhor.murtish.carati.bhuvane.shankarAcArya.rUpAh ||

>

> (The form of Lord Shambhu has descended from the base of the banyan

> tree, giving up His silence, and is moving about the world in the

> form of Sankaracharya in order to save the humanity suffering from

> the disease of samsara, having fallen into the jungle of ignorance,

> through the teaching of atmavidya - translation is mine, so please

> bear with any errors.)

 

> PS: Incidentally, I realized that I had quoted this verse in

response

> to one of your posts back in 2005. Please look up message #29127. It

> was interesting to read what you wrote then :-)

 

[MN: Thanks for pointing to the above message. Will my

understanding stated above change the spirit of what I said?

Shankara, Aurobindo and the Indian scenario referred to then - all

these belong to the transactional including this I who commented on

them.]

___________

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair-ji

***

MN: A realized pot can't be a teacher pot. It is already one with his original nature of "clayness" where potness of either itself or another pot can't tread. If it is really realized, it has no action to perform. Pot R has no teachership. Teachership is the need of pot I. It is his imposition on R. No doubt, it is helpful to I. That is what I called Grace.

 

***

If that be so then the scripture will not be advising a seeker to approach a shrotriya brahmanishta - would it? A brahmanishta is a realized One who is established in his nature. Hence alone can he be a teacher. A brahmanishta is as much Brahman as is the ignorant jivAtma just as pot I is as much clay as pot R is.

Also there is no "original" nature of clayness for the pot - clay is its "only" nature through all time.

***[MN: Dr. Shyamji, in one breath, your are makinig two contradictory statements. If there is no duality in vision where is the question of realized pot R seeing an ignorant pot with nAmarUpa?]

***

You are seeing a contradiction where there is none Nair-ji. Duality is seeing two things as real. Understanding that substratum alone is real is advaita.

 

With regards to the teaching being a projection of the ajnAnis and the need for the ignorant pot to do something to know it is clay - i thinnk I have already covered this previously at length, and shown you not only the logical absurdity but as well as how it goes against what is taught in traiditonal Vedanta.

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

--- On Sun, 2/22/09, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair Re: Seeking Clarificationadvaitin Date: Sunday, February 22, 2009, 1:39 AM

 

 

Dear Dr. Shyamji,Kindly see within .

 

 

Change settings via the Web ( ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Terms of Use | Un

 

 

 

 

Recent Activity

 

 

8

New Members

 

4

New FilesVisit Your Group

 

 

 

Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

 

Y! Messenger

All together now

Host a free online

conference on IM.

 

10 Day Club

on

Share the benefits

of a high fiber diet.

..

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Shyamji,

 

When I said " the realized pot can't be a teacher " , I meant that it

was beyond agency.

 

Yes, there is a scriptural injunction that an aspirant should

approach a stotriyaM brahmaniShtaM. I take it to mean one well-

versed in scriptures and immersed in purusuing brahmajnAna. Whatever

meaning you attribute to those words, you will admit that there is no

way an aspirant can know if the guru he approaches is really a

realized one. THAT ONE REACHES THE RIGHT GURU IS AFTER A MATTER OF

GRACE.

 

I cannot accept your contention that merely understanding that the

substratum alone is real is advaita. Advaita is swarUpajnAna. Kindly

refer to the interpretation of Ulladu Narpadu (Verse 3) of Bh. Ramana

Maharshi, which Prof. VK-ji is serializing at luthar.com., where it

is described thus:

 

QUOTE

 

In Self Realisation, on the other hand, the mind is lost in the jnAna-

svarUpa and is one with it; so there is no mind now. And so there is

no scope for the mind to rise again, the world to appear and the

samsAra to envelop you. Further, the experience of the Atman is a

complete one.

 

UNQUOTE

 

Regarding the last part of your message, I only said that all

teachings, gurus, the thought of mukti and our rush towards it - all

these are part of adhyAsa. Where is absurdity in that understanding?

 

Best regards. MahAshivarAtri Greetings to all.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________

 

 

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Dear Nair-ji

> ***

> MN: A realized pot can't be a teacher pot. It is already one with

> his original nature of " clayness " where potness of either itself or

> another pot can't tread. If it is really realized, it has no action

> to perform. Pot R has no teachership. Teachership is the need of

pot I.

> It is his imposition on R. No doubt, it is helpful to I. That is

> what I called Grace.

>  

> ***

> If that be so then the scripture will not be advising a seeker to

approach a shrotriya brahmanishta - would it? A brahmanishta is a

realized One who is established in his nature. Hence alone can he be

a teacher. A brahmanishta is as much Brahman as is the ignorant

jivAtma just as pot I is as much clay as pot R is.

> Also there is no " original " nature of clayness for the pot - clay

is its " only "  nature through all time.

> ***

> [MN: Dr. Shyamji, in one breath, you are makinig two contradictory

> statements. If there is no duality in vision where is the question

> of realized pot R seeing an ignorant pot with nAmarUpa?]

> ***

> You are seeing a contradiction where there is none Nair-ji. Duality

is seeing two things as real. Understanding that substratum alone is

real is advaita.

>  

> With regards to the teaching being a projection of the ajnAnis and

the need for the ignorant pot to do something to know it is clay - i

thinnk I have already covered this previously at length, and shown

you not only the logical absurdity but as well as how it goes against

what is taught in traiditonal Vedanta.

>

> Hari OM

> Shri Gurubhyoh namah

> Shyam

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji:

 

I appreciate your thoughts and your insights on this thread and

especially the following conclusion of yours:

 

Quote: " I only said that all teachings, gurus, the thought of mukti

and our rush towards it - all these are part of adhyAsa. Where is

absurdity in that understanding? " Unquote.

 

Is it not true that those with convictions to such an understanding

should be " silent " and refrain from discussing, talking or writing?

 

I have no doubt in my mind that what you have stated is an

undisputable truth. Statements such as like yours belong to the logic

of TAUTOLOGY. No one can find fault with the logic of tautology and

it fails to provide any clues to how we should refine our life.

 

I have come to the conclusion that we don't gain by continuing this

conversation on this subject matter.

 

With my warm regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: For the benefit of members, tautology means the following: (1)

needless repetition of an idea or a statement; (2) true by virtue of

its logical form alone; (3) use of redundant language. Here is an

example: Kris lives near the post office and post office is next to

Kris's residence. This is undisputable truth and doesn't provide the

path to reach either Kris's residence or the post-office.

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

>

> Regarding the last part of your message, I only said that all

> teachings, gurus, the thought of mukti and our rush towards it -

all

> these are part of adhyAsa. Where is absurdity in that

understanding?

>

> Best regards. MahAshivarAtri Greetings to all.

[Guest guest]

SrI Nair ji, sa-prem namaste,

 

You wrote:

 

Yes, there is a scriptural injunction that an aspirant should

approach a stotriyaM brahmaniShtaM. I take it to mean one well-

versed in scriptures and immersed in purusuing brahmajnAna.

[uNQUOTE]

 

Sir, by the one immersed in pursuing brahmajnAna, do you mean a

sAdhaka who hasn't yet realized? or a fully realized jnAni?

 

Further, does not the word brahmanishTa mean the one " established " in

brahman?

 

We have the following gIta verses relevant here:

 

4.33 O destroyer of enemies, Knowledge considered as a sacrifice is

greater than sacrifices requiring materials. O son of Prtha, all

actions in their totality culminate in Knowledge.

 

4.34 Know that through prostration, inquiry and service. The wise ones

who have realized the Truth will impart the Knowledge to you.

 

AchArya bhAshya:

 

#Being pleased with humility, jnAninaH(= the wise ones, the teachers);

tattva darSinaH(who have realized the Truth); upadEkshyanti(will

impart, will tell) te(you), jnanam(= the Knowledge as described above.)

 

Although people may be wise, some of them are apt to know Truth just

as it is, while others may not be so. Hence the qualification, 'who

have realized the Truth'. The considered view of the Lord is that

Knowledge imparted by those who have *full enlightenment* becomes

effective, not any other.# -- Source:

http://www.sankaracharya.org/gita_bhashya_4.php#1

 

## According to my knowledge,

mAyA has projected this world out of brahman, our innermost Self.

avidyA which is mAyA with tamas preponderance is the inherent property

of jIva because of which he experiences jIvatva. jIva is real and is

brahman himself while jIvatva is mithyA and stems from avidyA. aviydA

makes one identify himself with the things those are not-Self like

body and mind.

Now, realization means losing avidyA. When this avidyA is gone, which

means, right knowledge comes in the form of, " I am brahman " , mithyAtva

of not-self is ascertained. As we know, mithyA is not unreal. Nor is

it real. It is sat asat vilakshaNa.

 

This knowledge as " I am brahman " has been gained even by me. This

knowledge is in no way different from what a jnAni has, for Knowledge

comes only through SravaNa. But jnAni differs from me in the sense

that he is established all the time in this knowledge which is a

result of constant Reflection(manana) and Contemplation(nidhidhyAsana)

on it and also because of vivEka or the power of discrimination

between the Self and the Not-Self.

 

In all this, where is the question of mind dissolving and world

disappearing from the view of a jnAni? Do not such statements

contradict the very basis of distinction between jIvan mukti and

vidEha mukti?

 

IMO, a jIvan mukta has samSkAra nASa which is achieved through manana

and nidhidhyAsna and he has perfect power of discrimination to be

established all the time in brahman. while vidEha mukti is a result of

manOnASa, dissolution of Mind itself. Any effect once produced, has to

die itself. So, the mind etc., not being utterly unreal like the horn

of a hare, having phenomenal reality, must follow the theory of cause

and effect. Since a jnAni accrues no new karmas, he doesn't create new

cause for his future births, hence all the elements that constituted

all his 3 bodies(Physical, Mental and Causal), dissolve directly in

the Supreme Brahman at the time of his death as the brahma sUtras say!

 

So, as I believe, realization doesn't mean disappearance of the world

from ones view or anything like that. I even find the descriptions

like " whole world appearing like brahman " etc., much metaphorical and

misleading because, we are led to think from such statements that a

jnAni does not see the world as made up of material, but he sees it as

made up of brahman. Such a thinking is flawed because brahman cannot

be perceived through senses. Senses themselves are a part of world.

So, the Senses perceive the world as it is, just as Krishna says that

the " guNas act in themselves " , while purusha attributes such action

falsely to himself. In a jnAni or jIvan mukta, such false attribution

is absent. It means, he does not confuse the actions of Senses and

Mind with those of Atman. To be more technical, he does not *mutually*

superimpose the qualities of Self and Not-Self. This in no way means

that a jnAni does not act. He acts, but he knows who is really acting!

 

The term, " Mutual Superimposition " is the key here. AchArya vAsudEva

yati in his laghuvAsudEva mananam gives a beautiful example to

illustrate this:

 

" When we go in a boat through a channel or river, we experience that

all the trees on the banks are moving and that boat is stationary. But

in fact trees are stationary, what is moving is the boat. In this

example, we say that the movement of the boat is superimposed on the

trees and the stationary nature of the trees on the boat. In the same

way, the activities of the three organs(Mind, Speech and the Body) are

superimposed on the Atman and the non-agent nature of the Atman on the

organs. This is the result of ignorance. This is why it is said that

it is due to superimposition that the Atman is experienced as an

agent. " -- Translation by Swami Tapasyananda, Sri Ramakrishna Math,

Mylapore, Chennai.

 

 

The logical conclusion that world is made up of brahman follows from

the observation that everything in this world is being known in and

through Consciousness alone, hence all this must be of the nature of

Consciousness only. So, a jnAni or jIvanmukta is the one whom I

strictly define as possessing a Body and Mind which are sustained due

to his prArabdha karma. He is established in his Innermost Self

through vivEka and he lives in this world and worships God in both

saguNa and nirguNa forms. It is apt to quote one incident from Sri

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa's biography here:

 

" Totapuri, a wandering monk from the daSanAmi tradition of Adi Sankara

was the advaita Guru of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. He first did not

believe in the worship of Gods and Godesses. But he himself said later

that his Enlightenment was complete after Ramakrishna's full Awakening

when he walked out into the river and saw the Kali temple gleaming in

moonlight and experienced a sudden deep Awakening. He recognized sheer

divine power and consciousness, moving through all beings and

controlling all events, including his own attempt to discard the body.

Totapuri thus accepted the manifest universe and its energy as a

radiant expression of the Absolute. The demarcation between form and

formless no longer existed for him. " -- Source:

http://www.angelfire.com/realm/bodhisattva/totapuri.html

 

Thanks for patient reading.

 

Ever yours in the Lord,

 

Sampath ~

 

 

!! Aum namO brahmavidbhyaH !!