NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadaji,

 

Try verse 59.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

>

> advaitin

> [advaitin ] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi sadananda

> 03 April 2009 12:13

> advaitin

> RE: Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

>

>

> PraNAms to all

>

> There is interesting sloka in the VivekachUDAmani. I am

> quoting from memory.

>

> avijnaate pare tatve shaastrAdIstu niShpalaa| vijnaatepi pare

> tatve shaastrAdIstu niShpalaa||

[Guest guest]

Let me attempt here to revisit the issue of shravanam/mananam/nidhidhyasanam and

what exactly do these terms signify in VedAnta - hopefully with this exercise

many of the questions will be clarified.

 

Shravanam means hearing of course – but it is not simply a matter of the

physical act of hearing. It is not meant that a mahAvAkya such as tat tvam asi

is some sort of a Sanskritized abracadabra where as soon as those words are

heard by a qualified seeker the veils of ignorance will magically part and the

Truth revealed. Hearing in this case itself means understanding.

 

If you say e = mc2 to a novice student he may have heard you alright but he has

not really “heard†i.e. he has not understood what you are saying. So the

teacher has to unfold the equation – similarly tat tvam asi has to be unfolded

– what is tat, what is tvam, and what is this aikyam. In what sense is one to

understand this aikyam.

 

The students difficulty in understanding each of three components must be

carefully anticipated by a qualified teacher so that this equation is

communicated to the student with caution and clarity. This entire process is

shravanam alone.

 

In the words of the panchadashi -

" The mode of the introduction of the mind of the student from Paroksha-Jnana to

Aparoksha-Jnana is indicated in the sixth chapter of the Chhandogya Upanishad,

while Uddalaka Aruni instructs the student Svetaketu. While the indirect

knowledge of Brahman is declared in such statements of the Upanishad as

‘Satyam-Jnanam-Anantam Brahma,’ - Truth-Knowledge-Infinity is Brahman, the

direct knowledge of it is the theme of the sixth chapter of the Chhandogya

Upanishad, which expatiates upon the great sentence, ‘Tat-Tvam-Asi’ -

‘That Thou Art’. The demonstrative pronouns, ‘That’ and ‘‘Thou’,

refer to a remote object and an immediate object respectively, as is well known.

In this sentence, ‘That’ indicates Isvara, or God, and the word ‘Thou’

indicates Jiva, or the individual. The separative connotation of these two

indicative words may appear to prevent the identification of Isvara and Jiva,

since, at least from the point of view of

the Jiva, Isvara is a remote object who existed even before creation, and the

Jiva is a subsequent manifestation posterior to creation. But the inseparability

of the cause and its effect requires the recognition of an identical substance

present both in God, the Creator, and the individual, the created embodiment.

The usual illustration offered to explain this basic identity of this Supreme

Cause with the individual effect is the way in which we recognize the identity

of a person here and now with the very same person seen somewhere else at a

different time. In the identification of the single person in this manner, the

associations of the person with a different place and a different time from the

place and the time in which he is recognised now, are ignored, and only the

person concerned is taken into consideration, for instance, when we say ‘This

is that Devadatta’, indicating thereby that this Devadatta who is in this

place at this moment is the

same Devadatta who was seen at some other time earlier in some other place. In

a similar manner, the identity of the basic Substance in God and the individual

is established by a separation of this Substance from the limiting adjuncts of

remoteness and immediacy associated with God and the individual - Isvara and the

Jiva. "

 

Once shravanam has been completed the job of the Shastra and the Guru is over.

In the Kena Upanishad the student actually asks the Guru after the teaching is

concluded – “Sir please tell me about the Upanishad†and the Guru confirms

that “I have already given you that instruction about Brahmanâ€!

 

Suppose a student says – I have completely understood tat tvam asi – now

what? Well now you go back to class and hear all over again! – why? Because

you still have understood nothing! If tat tvam asi is understood it means I have

understood myself to be akarta abhokta nitya asangah nitya shuddha and nitya

mukta etc If after this my question is what now? then with certitude this

understanding is incomplete.

 

Here we need to understand the relationship between knowledge and its result

because there seem to be some misconceptions about this in many people. This

relationship is of two types chodya-chodaka sambandha and

pratipaadya-pratipaadaka sambandha.

 

Suppose I am given a map from google maps – how to reach Pittsburgh from

Philadelphia . This knowledge gained by this map does not actually get me to

Pittsburgh . The map has only informed or better prepared me for that particular

journey. In order to " experience " or " reach " Pittsburgh I now need to act on

that knowledge.  Similarly a cookbook knowledge does not allow me to taste a

gulab jamun. Fortunately this is not the case with brahmavidyA – this is a

extremely crucial point to bear in mind. This belongs to the latter type or

pratipaadya-pratipaadaka. Here the knowledge itself gives the result. How is

this possible? This is possible ONLY when the thing to be attained is already a

given, is already pre-attained, but we are unaware of it due to ignorance. The

best example of this is also Adi Shankara’s favorite example of the tenth man.

Ten men cross the river and each of them tries to get a head count to verify

that all

ten men reached the other bank safely and in the process forget to count

themselves and so always fall short by one. A competent person in whom these men

have faith in tells this man who is counting that you alone are that tenth man.

Here the knowledge conveyed by the words

“That thou art†itself brings about the end of the search. Pratipaadya means

'that which is to be revealed', while pratipaadaka means 'that which reveals'.

The moment we catch the implied meaning, (not the primary meaning) of tat tvam

asi, that very moment the Truth is as though attained. So knowledge gained from

shravam alone is primary. Hence alone does Shankara begin the Brahmasutra

bhashya with his famous treatise on adhyAsa, because without establishing

adhyAsa as a fact, there is no way to establish knowledge gained from the

mahavAkyas - which is direct and immediate - as the means to liberation or

mukti. And once it is established that the only and immediate means to moksha is

understanding of the mahAvAkyas then there is only one primary means to moksha

and that is shravana. If some one thinks that after getting knowledge one has to

perform some actions or sadhana, then more shravana is needed, till the real

implication has been correctly and

comprehensively understood. Hence alone does shraddhA assume paramount

importance – for the words to reveal themselves one must surrender to them and

allow them to work.

 

Now there is a misconception among many (even within the fold of Vedanta) that

the knowledge of " tat tvam asi " so gained is only " indirect "   or " intellectual "

– paroksha jnAnam - and it has to be converted by meditation into direct

knowledge or aparoksha jnanam. Or that mere book knowledge only produces jnanam

and what is needed is put that into practice to gain vijnanam! Some stock

examples will also be provided - one will not get a taste of a mango fruit by

mere book knowledge - only by tasting it can it be known. Shankara categorically

dismisses (in his Up.Sahasri).

 

18.201

(objection)

The Bliss of liberation is not obtained after

ascertaining the meaning of the sentence (tat tvam

asi) unlike the satisfaction which is felt by

eating.

(Sankara's reply)

Indirect knowledge it is true is the result produced

by the sentences regarding the non-Self but it is not

so in the case of those regarding the Innermost self.

It is on the other hand direct and certain knowledge

like that in the case of the tenth boy.

 

Proponents of such types of misconstrued and misconceived views of Vedanta will

say sharvanam is hearing the mahAvAkya, mananam is understanding these words and

nididhyasanam is intensely meditating on those words till a mystic experience of

the Atman - atmasakshatkara - is attained - at some point in time. What leads to

Moksha then is the actual special Atman " experience " brought about by the

meditation (nidhidhyasanam), not the understanding of the mahAvAkya (shravanam)

itself!

 

Once again this is extremely misleading. Using the tenth man example –

paroskha jnAnam or indirect knowledge is simply the instruction that the tenth

man very much is alive – confirming the presence of the tenth man. So when the

Shruti talks about Brahman as the substratum as satyam - that sarvam khalvidam

Brahman - all this Brahman alone, etc - that is paroskha jnAnam. What then is

aparoksha jnAnam? the understanding that " that " Brahman is " me " alone! - in

other words the understanding of " aham brahmasmi " . Again going back to the the

tenth man example when the true identity of the tenth man is revealed and that

too as myself and when this is understood that alone is aparoksha jnAnam. Once I

have gained the conviction based on my shraddha in the shabda pramAna the sense

of closure to my seeking alone is the freedom – knowing that I am what I was

seeking. Shankara affirms this as much in the VakyaVrtti “When, as explained

above, the mutual

identity between the two words ‘thou’ and ‘that’ is comprehended, then

the idea ‘I am not Brahman’, entertained by ‘thou’, shall immediately

end.†And again the same text goes into great length to provide a template as

it were for the teacher to unfold the intended meaning of the mahAvAkya so as to

confer this liberating knowledge. So once again, the mahAvAkya itself and hence

shravana alone is the primary means to moksha.

 

Without shravanam – without gaining a clear and complete and comprehensive

understanding of the words of the mahavAkyas which the Upanishads or Shruti

itself says is the only means to know Brahman (Br. Up 3.9.26 - ....I ask you of

that Purusha who is to be known ONLY from the Upanishads...) - there can be no

jnAnam - without jnAnam - no MokshA. Once this understanding (to say

" intellectual " understanding is tautology - there being no other kind of

understanding) has taken place, there is nothing more to be known, and nothing

more to be done.

 

Then what role does mananam and nidhidhyasanam play. The reason is there may be

lack of either clarity, or conviction, in this knowledge. Lack of clarity is in

the form of doubts – after all the Universe is 14 billion years old and I am

lucky if have 14 more years to live! – how can I possibly resolve this

Universe unto myself. Solar and nuclear powers – so immense – and yet the

Upanishad says I verily am the Source of this power when I cannot benchpress 50

pounds! Isnt this all quite farfethced? is it possible all this could be a

farce? In what way can I understand myself to be equated to God. How can God be

dismissed as being unreal? Many many such doubts may be thrown up again and

again by the mind and this is the job of yukti or mananam - it is not an

independent logical analysis – but a progressive and gradual removal of these

internal intellectual  obstacles by taking recourse to the teaching already

assimilated during the process of

shravanam - by a constant dwelling on the Vedantic teaching and by means of

questioning the Guru as well.

 

Finally nidhidhyasana to fully internalize and assimilate the teaching – in

other words, anubhava , which involves assimilating the knowledge as one's own.

Once again this anubhava is confused by people as meaning some kind of mystic

experience that comes and goes – one keeps on waiting for the Atman experience

– that grand “promised†mega-spectacle - the elusive Atman finally revelas

itself in all its glory and majesty as a reward for years of effort - which one

and for all and forever will end this sense of duality – and sadly this itself

is one of the biggest obstacles – my waiting itself is a sign of my habitual

notions holding sway over my antahkarana. We may keep getting plagued by our

samsaaric anubhava as - I am limited, I am small, I am mortal, I am inadequate,

the world is a source of grief unto me,  - from beginningless time these

vasanas have led to a buildup of habitual notions which do not easily and

readily go away. As

Shankara says in the Br.Up 1.4.10 " Morover false notions do not arise in a

Realized Man........however sometimes memories due to the impressions of false

notions antecendent to the dawning of knowledge, simulating those notions,

suddenyl appear and throw him into the error of regarding them as actual false

notions. "

What is the remedy then so that I can abide in the purNatvam, the wholeness that

is ever my True intrinsic nature??

Directing my thoughts at all times towards the knowledge of my true nature, that

which has already been doubtlessly assimilated by me (through the process of

shravanam) will alone enable an abidance in that knowledge – which is in the

form of full freedom from all limitations. Until when? Until it is spontaneous

– the samsara bhavana goes away. What should be clear here is that for

nidhidhyasana, the understanding of tat tvam asi already needs to be complete!

– one cannot NOT know and do nidhidhyasanam. There is no enquiry – no

vichara involved here. “Aham BrahmAsmi†has to be already and completely

understood and known to me as a fact. The job of nidhidhyasana then is only this

– to not allow my habitual tendencies to come in the way. As Shankara says in

the Br.Up1.4.7 the Jnani needs to “regulate the train of remembrance of the

knowledge of the Self (atmavijnana smrti) by means of renunciation and

dispassion.†And hence alone does

vairagyam and sannyasa become critical - nay indispensable - here.

Now suppose one takes a position - OK I have no interest in shravana - in

scriptural teachings, I will resort to some other means to control the mind and

its flow of thoughts so they be directed inwards - wont I gain a vision of the

Atman? - Shankara categorically dismisses this - " for it is not a means to

liberation...there is no other means for the control of mental states except the

knowledge of the Self and the train of remembrance about it "

 

Note here the very crucial point that knowledge of the Self must already be

present for nidhidhyasana to occur. An ignorant jivA, one lacking in

self-knowledge, cannot do nidhidhyasana - hence there is no equating

nidhidhyasana with meditation - Yogic,etc or any other method that has not been

preceded by Vedanta shravana-manana. The steady recollection of Self-knowledge,

by a constant flow of the mind towards the Self, enabled with renuncation and

dispassion, serves to counter the residual effects of prior karma. When I have a

thought – it is consciousness plus the content of the thought – my attention

previously being focused solely on the content, the consciousness was as though

hidden – similarly when I perceive an object – it is existence plus name and

form – but my attention was previously exclusively on the name and form and

the existence aspect is as though hidden – nididhyasana then is an abidance on

my part in the Atma which is

ever-experienced - in the recognition that at all times - the existence

principle - the consciousness principle - in and through all thoughts and all

perceptions as being of the nature of one’s own Self which is limitless. Then

as the bhaja govindam says – yasya brahmani ramate cittam nandati nandati

nandatyeva – He alone is in Bliss, whose mind is steadily established in

Brahman.

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

--- On Thu, 4/2/09, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

 

ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva

Re: Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

advaitin

Thursday, April 2, 2009, 6:29 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Namaste Shyam-ji,

Just to make my point a little clearer. You

seem to be focusing on sravana on its own as primal whereas others combine

the three, Sravana, Manana and Nidhidhyasana in a sequence together. May

I quote:

" There are three methods of learning, namely Sravana that is to listen,

Manana that is to think over again and Nididhyasana that is to assimilate.

In these three levels of learning, they installed Saraswati, Bharati and

Ida. You have now recognised that these three names are three parts of the

same aspect. Truly what you have listened to cannot be well acquired and

assimilated only by just listening. You have to do some Manana or think it

over and then you have to absorb what you have listened to and this is

Nididhyasana. If you do all three - listen, think over and absorb, then

only you can enjoy the fruits of what you have listened to. " (Sathya Sai

Baba)

 

I remember when

this came up before I asked if there was ever anyone who

had achieved enlightenment on just hearing the mahavaka alone. No one

then was able to come up with a reliable legend even.

 

In B.S.B. IV.i.2; " That being so, one false constituent may be discarded

at one attempt at comprehension, and another at another. In this sense

the dawn of a conception in a progressive manner becomes justifiable " .

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

That is a very pithy statement. Beautiful indeed. Yet, it doesn't seem to fully

answer Michaelji.

 

Let us just admit that Michaelji's question can never be answered. We can at

best give him indirect references and stories (accounts of Janaka et al) that

are in many ways questionable, if one really wants to question.

 

If I say I know someone who has attained realization just by hearing a

mahAvAkya, then I would be claiming that I know a jnAni and thereby staking my

own claim to jnAnihood just by virtue of the fact that I know a jnAni.

Otherwise, it can at best be an expression of faith or at worst even rather

foolhardy.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , " pranipatachaitanya " <pranipatachaitanya

wrote:

 

> It should be known that the entire power (of producing this knowledge) belongs

to the sentence itself, as stated. Indeed, no one can really know the meaning of

the sentence in the absence of the sentence..4..

>

> Translation by Dr. R. Balasubramanian.

>

[Guest guest]

Hari Om! Pranams !Now I get to know the meaning of upanishadic mantra ' kashcit enam shrutvA api na veda eva' {someone although having heard properly don't know it only}. In Shri Guru Smriti Br.Pranipata ChaitanyaMadathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair04 April 2009 10:09advaitin Subject: Re: NididhyAsana and Self-EnquiryNamaste. That is a very pithy statement. Beautiful indeed. Yet, it doesn't seem to fully answer Michaelji. Let us just admit that Michaelji's question can never be answered. We can at best give him indirect references and stories (accounts of Janaka et al) that are in many ways questionable, if one really wants to question. If I say I know someone who has attained realization just by hearing a mahAvAkya, then I would be claiming that I know a jnAni and thereby staking my own claim to jnAnihood just by virtue of the fact that I know a jnAni. Otherwise, it can at best be an expression of faith or at worst even rather foolhardy. Madathil Nair ______________ advaitin , "pranipatachaitanya" <pranipatachaitanya wrote: > It should be known that the entire power (of producing this knowledge) belongs to the sentence itself, as stated. Indeed, no one can really know the meaning of the sentence in the absence of the sentence..4.. > > Translation by Dr. R. Balasubramanian. >

[Guest guest]

Dear Shyam-ji,

A brilliant summary! A bit long for the ‘Terms and Definitions’

section J -

but excellent nevertheless.

Might I suggest that, if any members want to follow up or

question this post that we start a new subject heading of ‘shravaNa, manana and

nididhyAsana’?

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of shyam_md

Friday, April 03, 2009 9:04 PM

advaitin

Re: Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

 

Let me attempt here to revisit the issue of shravanam/mananam/nidhidhyasanam

and what exactly do these terms signify in VedAnta - hopefully with this

exercise many of the questions will be clarified.

<<

>>

[Guest guest]

Nairji - PraNAms

 

Pranipataji answered Michael's question the way it can be answered only. Either

it has to shaastra pramANa or shabda pramANa as aapta vaakyam - of someone

else's realization. Faith goes with it without saying. The question itself asks

that answer.

 

Someone went and asked Swami Tejomayanandaji - Swami Have you ever met a

realized soul in your life?

 

Swamiji said - it means this gentleman who asked already has decided that I have

not realized and wanted to know if there is anyone else who has realized.

 

The question can be answered either by shaastra pramANA or by shabda pramANa

that is aapta vaakyam -and faith in the words is inherent in the pramANa.

 

Michael's question itself demands that type of pramANa only and that was the

answer provided.

 

One can know oneself one has realized and no else -unless one wants to take the

test given in Ch. Up 6th.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

--- On Sat, 4/4/09, Pranipata Chaitanya <pranipatachaitanya wrote:

   

            Hari Om! Pranams !

Now I get to know the meaning of upanishadic mantra ' kashcit enam shrutvA api

na veda eva' {someone although having heard properly don't know it only}.

 

 

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair@ >

 

That is a very pithy statement. Beautiful indeed. Yet, it doesn't seem to fully

answer Michaelji.

 

Let us just admit that Michaelji's question can never be answered.

[Guest guest]

PranAms Peter-ji

Here are a couple of quotes I cam across from the Maharishi which seem to reinforce the idea (that I think we both share) that Bhagwan Ramana very much considered Himself and His teachings to be part and parcel of mainstream VedantA.

 

Talks with Ramana:

 

"Objects perceived by the senses are spoken of as immediate knowledge(pratyaksha). Can anything be as direct as the Self -- always experienced without the aid of the senses? Sense-perceptions can only be indirect knowledge, and not direct knowledge. Only one's own awareness is direct knowledge, as is the common experience of one and all. No aids are needed to know one's own Self, i.e., to be aware. The one Infinite Unbroken Whole (plenum) becomes aware of itself as 'I'. This is its original name. All other names, e.g., OM, are later growths. Liberation is only to remain aware of the Self. The mahavakya 'I am Brahman' is its authority. Though the 'I' is always experienced, yet one's attention has to be drawn to it. Then only knowledge dawns. Thus the need for the instruction of the Upanishads and of wise sages."

 

"Each one knows the Self but is yet ignorant. The person is enabled to realise only after hearing the mAhAvAkya. Hence the Upanishadic text is the eternal Truth to which everyone who has realised owes his experience. After hearing the Self to be Brahman the person finds the true import of the Self and reverts to it whenever he is diverted from it. Here is the whole process of Realisation."Hari OM

Shyam--- On Fri, 4/3/09, Peter <not_2 wrote:

Peter <not_2RE: Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiryadvaitin Date: Friday, April 3, 2009, 5:02 AM

 

 

Dear Shyam-ji,You ask if there are any quotes from Bhagavan on the Scriptures. These arevaried and, I believe, dependent on the temperament and developmental stageof the enquirer. D.: One of the stanzas says that the scriptures so scrupulously studiedin the earlier stages are ultimately of no use. At what stage do theybecome useless?M.: When their essence is realised. The scriptures are useful to indicatetheexistence of the Higher Power (the Self) and the way to gain it. Theiressence is that much only. When that is assimilated the rest is useless.But they are voluminous, adapted to the development of the seeker. Asone rising up in the scale finds the regions one has passed to be only stepsto the higher stage, and so on, the steps ascended become purvapakshasuccessively until the goal is gained. When the goal is reached itremains alone, and all the rest becomes useless. That is how

thesastras become useless. We read so much. Do we remember all thatwe read? But have we forgotten the essentials? The essential soaksin the mind and the rest is forgotten. So it is with the sastras.(Talks; 63)Best wishesPeter

 

 

 

Recent Activity

 

 

6

New MembersVisit Your Group

 

 

 

All-Bran

10 Day Challenge

Join the club and

feel the benefits.

 

Group Charity

Stop Cyberbullying

Keep your kids

safe from bullying

 

 

Weight Management ChallengeJoin others who are losing pounds.

..

[Guest guest]

Great quotes, Shyam-ji. Thank you. Yes the more I study Advaita Vedanta

the better my understanding of Sri Ramana's teaching and vice versa.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

 

________________________________

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On

Behalf Of Shyam

04 April 2009 14:46

advaitin

RE: Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

 

 

PranAms Peter-ji

Here are a couple of quotes I cam across from the Maharishi which

seem to reinforce the idea (that I think we both share) that Bhagwan Ramana

very much considered Himself and His teachings to be part and parcel of

mainstream VedantA.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote:

>

>

>

> Great quotes, Shyam-ji. Thank you. Yes the more I study Advaita Vedanta

> the better my understanding of Sri Ramana's teaching and vice versa.

>

 

The quotations (and the complete book on Talks) are at:

 

http://www.advaitin.net/Vedanta%20Classics/talks_with_sri__comple\

te.pdf

 

p. 100

 

7th November, 1935

 

Talk 92.

[Guest guest]

There is nothing that forecloses on discussion more that stipulative

definition. If you define sravana as a special type of vedic hearing in

which one immediately attains to the purport of the mahavaka on hearing it

then there is no more to be said. It may even be that it is claimed that

to hear something is to be prompted to a mental awareness of what is being

referred to. This is sometimes put as hearing the meaning. This is

questionable epistemology for many reasons. What image or mental

awareness is brought to mind by ‘and’, ‘or’ or ‘but’. In fact

learning a

language or the meaning of words is a cumulative process in which

understanding is built up over time and may even be open-ended.

 

We may further ask the question: Did Janaka who had previous discussions

hear, Did Maitreyi hear, Did Svetaketu hear? There is a problem because

‘That thou art’ is not like saying ‘your letter is on the table’. It is

not to be taken on board just like that in the twinkling of an eye. In

the discussion of the Aim of Vedanta in V.P. both positions are put. It

seems to this reader that the triple action is recognised there preceded

of course by the various disciplines and practices. Then it may well be

that ‘vedic hearing’ will take place.

 

Shankara in Brh.Up. I.iv.7 is very keen on ‘vedic hearing’ as though not

to do so were to impugn the efficacy of the scriptures as pramana. In

B.S.B. IV.i.2 he seems to be more open to other factors or other general

scriptures to abate ajnana.

" That being the case, the sentence " That thou art " cannot produce a direct

realization of its own meaning in those people to who those two entities

remain obstructed by ignorance, doubt and confusion; for the meaning of a

sentence is dependent on the meaning of the words (constituting it). This

it is that for such people it becomes desirable to resort repeatedly to

the scriptures and reasoning that lead to a clarification of the

concepts. "

 

An emphasis on hearing alone perhaps arises because a teacher is promoting

the idea that understanding is the main factor in realization. If by

correct reasoning you get the purport of the mahavaka then you are in

effect realized and waiting for a big flash during meditation or something

of the sort is a will o’ the wisp that will lead you astray. In that case

the teacher’s explanation and unravelling of the mystery is vital to the

pupil’s sense of having got the purport of the mahavaka. There will be no

confirming experience.

 

The problem with this rationalist approach is the position re

enlightenment of those with different explanations and views of ultimate

reality. Are they inevitably in exterior darkness? When even Ramana is

quizzed then who can pass?

[Guest guest]

Shyam - Fantastic.

 

Why this message gets last with some - I just wonder.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- On Sat, 4/4/09, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

 

Talks with Ramana:

 

" Objects perceived by the senses are spoken of as immediate knowledge(pratyaksh

a). Can anything be as direct as the Self -- always experienced without the aid

of the senses? Sense-perceptions can only be indirect knowledge, and not direct

knowledge. Only one's own awareness is direct knowledge, as is the common

experience of one and all. No aids are needed to know one's own Self, i.e., to

be aware. The one Infinite Unbroken Whole (plenum) becomes aware of itself as

'I'. This is its original name. All other names, e.g., OM, are later growths.

Liberation is only to remain aware of the Self. The mahavakya 'I am Brahman' is

its authority. Though the 'I' is always experienced, yet one's attention has to

be drawn to it. Then only knowledge dawns. Thus the need for the instruction of

the Upanishads and of wise sages. "

 

[Guest guest]

Another relevant recorded conversation from Bh.Ramana:

 

The Swami then asked, " What is the best means for Self-

realisation? "

 

Bhagavan: `I exist' is the only permanent, self-evident

experience of everyone. Nothing else is so self-evident (pratyaksha [?]) as `I

am'. What people call `self-evident' viz., the experience they get through the

senses, is far from self-evident. The Self alone is that. Pratyaksha is another

name for the Self. So, to do Self-analysis and be `I am' is the only thing to

do. `I am' is reality. I am this or that is unreal. `I am' is truth, another

name for Self. `I am God' is not true.

 

The Swami thereupon said, " The Upanishads themselves

have said `I am Brahman'. " Bhagavan replied, " That is not how the text is to be

understood. It simply means, " Brahman exists as `I' and not `I am Brahman'. It

is not to be supposed that a man is advised to contemplate `I am Brahman', `I am

Brahman'. Does a man keep on thinking `I am a man' `I am a man'? He is that, and

except when a doubt arises as to whether he is an

animal or a tree, there is no need for him to assert, `I am a man.' Similarly

the Self is Self, Brahman exists as `I am', in every thing and every being. "

 

Day by Day with Bhagavan (22-3-46 Afternoon)

http://bhagavan-ramana.org//books/dbd/dbd116.html

 

Suren

 

 

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> PranAms Peter-ji

> Here are a couple of quotes I cam across from the Maharishi which seem

to reinforce the idea (that I think we both share) that Bhagwan Ramana very much

considered Himself and His teachings to be part and parcel of mainstream

VedantA.

>  

> Talks with Ramana:

>  

> " Objects perceived by the senses are spoken of as immediate

knowledge(pratyaksha). Can anything be as direct as the Self -- always

experienced without the aid of the senses? Sense-perceptions can only be

indirect knowledge, and not direct knowledge. Only one's own awareness is direct

knowledge, as is the common experience of one and all. No aids are needed to

know one's own Self, i.e., to be aware. The one Infinite Unbroken Whole (plenum)

becomes aware of itself as 'I'. This is its original name. All other names,

e.g., OM, are later growths. Liberation is only to remain aware of the Self. The

mahavakya 'I am Brahman' is its authority. Though the 'I' is always experienced,

yet one's attention has to be drawn to it. Then only knowledge dawns. Thus the

need for the instruction of the Upanishads and of wise sages. "

>  

>

> " Each one knows the Self but is yet ignorant. The person is enabled to realise

only after hearing the mAhAvAkya. Hence the Upanishadic text is the eternal

Truth to which everyone who has realised owes his experience. After hearing the

Self to be Brahman the person finds the true import of the Self and reverts to

it whenever he is diverted from it. Here is the whole process of Realisation. "

>

> Hari OM

> Shyam

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sada-ji,

 

It may not be that the message get's " lost " it may just be that different

people have different ways of interpreting what the message implies, or they

differ in the importance they give to different aspects of the message.

 

For example, some people may focus on the phrases, " No aids are needed to

know one's own Self... " ... " Liberation is only to remain aware of the Self. "

From this they may deduce that scripture and even teachers are not necessary

or only have minimal importance after " one's attention has been drawn to

it. "

 

Other people may feel " one's attention has been drawn to it. . [and] . . the

need for the instruction of the Upanishads and of wise sages " are the most

vital parts of the message and therefore focus on these.

 

Even should people agree that one needs to give equal importance to all the

above statements they may still disagree about the 'means' of " instruction "

and the means of drawing the devotees attention to truth of 'I am Brahman'.

 

 

Then we have the usual disagreements as to what realisation entails along

with the tensions between 'intellectual' versus 'experience' which seems to

be a tension common to all spiritual traditions (Vedanta, Buddhism,

Christianity & so on).

 

It only seems to take a few steps for us to get entangled in differences

(sometimes ill will) while losing sight of the larger vision which we may

well share.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

>

> advaitin

> [advaitin ] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi sadananda

> 05 April 2009 02:26

> advaitin

> Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

>

>

> Shyam - Fantastic.

>

> Why this message gets last with some - I just wonder.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

>

> --- On Sat, 4/4/09, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>  

> Talks with Ramana:

>  

> " Objects perceived by the senses are spoken of as immediate

> knowledge(pratyaksh a). Can anything be as direct as the Self

> -- always experienced without the aid of the senses?

> Sense-perceptions can only be indirect knowledge, and not

> direct knowledge. Only one's own awareness is direct

> knowledge, as is the common experience of one and all. No

> aids are needed to know one's own Self, i.e., to be aware.

> The one Infinite Unbroken Whole (plenum) becomes aware of

> itself as 'I'. This is its original name. All other names,

> e.g., OM, are later growths. Liberation is only to remain

> aware of the Self. The mahavakya 'I am Brahman' is its

> authority. Though the 'I' is always experienced, yet one's

> attention has to be drawn to it. Then only knowledge dawns.

> Thus the need for the instruction of the Upanishads and of

> wise sages. "

>  

[Guest guest]

I have just posted Part XXXXVI of Sadananda-ji’s

‘Critical analysis of vedAnta paribhAShA’ in which he points out

that the ‘Who am I?’ enquiry can only eliminate one of the ‘two

layers of ignorance’ covering our true nature. Readers of this thread

might wish to go through it - http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/knowledge/two_layers.htm.

 

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote:

>

>

>

> Great quotes, Shyam-ji. Thank you. Yes the more I study Advaita Vedanta

> the better my understanding of Sri Ramana's teaching and vice versa.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Peter

>

Namaste Peter,IMO,

 

When studying Ramana one has to study the entire revelation and not selected

parts, as they are steps to his ultimate teachings.

 

Many take pieces in the middle and then form a new bhakti type group

worshipping Ramana, and don't realise that if he is still around then he

couldn't be realised. I don't believe that is so and when he talked about being

around he was talking about the Sakti...Which in itself is ultimately illusion.

Ramana reflected the mind and understanding of those in his audience...For

example what would the point in talking about his teachings on Ajativada to an

audience full of purely Bhaktas?

 

He said he had no religious affiliations and if you examine his teaching of self

enquiry you will see that 'Who am I' has no room for figures, idols, gods,

devas, bhakti or whatever.It is the easiest and most direct without the

encumbrances of worship and distraction...Cheers Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> I have just posted Part XXXXVI of Sadananda-ji's 'Critical analysis of

> vedAnta paribhAShA' in which he points out that the 'Who am I?' enquiry can

> only eliminate one of the 'two layers of ignorance' covering our true

> nature. Readers of this thread might wish to go through it -

> http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/knowledge/two_layers.htm.

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

The jIva who is in reality pure consciousness considers himself as a knower

because he identifies himself with his mind. He considers himself as doer and

enjoyer because of the ego which is nothing but the mind with the reflection of

consciousness in it. Thus it is our identification with the mind that makes us

consider ourselves as doers and enjoyers and the world as real. By pursuing the

thought, " Who am I " one will realize that he is the Self and not the mind. Then

the avidya, because of which he identified himself with his mind, is destroyed.

Consequently the notion that the perceived world is real, which is also due to

avidya, also comes to end. Thus ignorance is eliminated completely.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

>> I have just posted Part XXXXVI of Sadananda-ji’s ‘Critical analysis of vedAnta paribhAShA’ in which

>> he points out that the ‘Who am I?’ enquiry can only eliminate one of the ‘two layers of ignorance’

>> covering our true nature. Readers of this thread might wish to go through it

>> - http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/knowledge/two_layers.htm.

 

 

 

Dear Dennis-ji and Sadananda-ji,

 

Your comment above led me to properly read Sada-ji's article and has left me a bit puzzled. Sada-ji writes about two kinds of ignorance - ignorance of the true nature of the world and ignorance of my own true nature:

 

"Firstly, I am ignorant of the fact that the world of objects is nothing but Brahman and secondly that I am none other than Brahman. Hence, advaita vedAnta declares: brahma satyam, jagat mithyA, and jIvo brahmaiva nAparaH. The first statement establishes the nature of Brahman, the second eliminates the ignorance of the world of objects and third eliminates ignorance of myself. The second and third are stated clearly to eliminate this two-layer nescience. It is also important to recognize that, regardless of any claims to the contrary, the ‘who am I?’ inquiry itself does not eliminate completely this two-fold nescience, unless it is also supported by the enquiry ‘what is this world that appears to be separate from me?’. "

 

Isn't the central cause of the mis-perception of the world as 'non-brahman' due to ignorance of our true nature (Atman)? My understanding is that when ignorance of our true nature is removed, which brings the direct realisation 'I am Brahman', then mis-perception of the world is also removed. Are you both saying that the mis-perception of the world as 'non-brahman' still remains after the knowledge that 'I am Brahman' has been realised? Is this even possible?

 

Could you say a bit more, please?

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Peterji,

 

You are right. Realization of one's true nature removes one's misperception of

the world too. There are therefore no two ignorances (one of oneself and the

other of the world) to be removed.

 

However, you state: " My understanding is that when ignorance of our true nature

is removed, which brings the direct realisation

'I am Brahman', then mis-perception of the world is also removed. " .

 

May I ask you to kindly explain if you visualize a " right perception " of the

world to then result. If yes, what will be the nature of that " perception " ? If

it is the perception of the world as nothing but Brahman (as the upanishadic

statemnet 'sarvam khalvidam brahma' signifies), then can that be a perception in

view of the fact that the so-called perceiver is also brahman.

 

Sorry for the bother. Your answer is very crucial to understanding a very

important issue that has vexed us for long.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

> Isn't the central cause of the mis-perception of the world as 'non-brahman'

> due to ignorance of our true nature (Atman)? My understanding is that when

> ignorance of our true nature is removed, which brings the direct realisation

> 'I am Brahman', then mis-perception of the world is also removed. Are you

> both saying that the mis-perception of the world as 'non-brahman' still

> remains after the knowledge that 'I am Brahman' has been realised? Is this

> even possible?

[Guest guest]

--- On Mon, 4/6/09, Peter <not_2 wrote:

 

 

Your comment above led me to properly read Sada-ji's article and has left me a

bit puzzled.   Sada-ji writes about two kinds of ignorance - ignorance of the

true nature of the world and ignorance of my own true nature:

 

" Firstly, I am ignorant of the fact that the world of objects is nothing but

Brahman and secondly that I am none other than Brahman.

-----------

 

 

Peter, PraNAms

 

Shree Sastriji explained.

 

It is the self ignorance - that trickles down to the rest. The self ignorance is

the ignorance of I am - as divisionless; division includes jiiva, jagat and

Iswara - as the substantive of all. If that is understood correctly, then both

components of discussed are automatically included. That requires the mahavaakya

vichaara clearly.

 

Without that part of the knowledge, that knowing oneself as the self does not

NECESSARILY include the self that I am is the self of all - jiiva, jagat and

Iswara - aitadaatmya idagam sarvam tat satyam, sa aatmaa, tat tvam asi - The

essence of all this and this is the truth, that you are. If that is the correct

understanding of who am I inquiry - yes that includes all.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

The two kinds of ignorance have to be removed by two kinds of negation. That is

why 'neti, neti' is always used in the Upanishads twice. First negation is for

the unreality of the outside world. And that brings the truth that 'all this

visible world is unreal'. The second negation is for the unreality of the five

koshas inside this body and sUkshma sharIra. This negation is more difficult

than the first. On the ladder of spirituality the first negation leads to the

truth 'sarvam khalvidam brahma'. But even then that the 'everything' also

includes this one's own body mind, intellect, is the more difficult second

negation!

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

 

 

 

> Dear Dennis-ji and Sadananda-ji,

>

> Your comment above led me to properly read Sada-ji's article and has left me

> a bit puzzled. Sada-ji writes about two kinds of ignorance - ignorance of

> the true nature of the world and ignorance of my own true nature:

>

> " Firstly, I am ignorant of the fact that the world of objects is nothing but

> Brahman and secondly that I am none other than Brahman. Hence, advaita

> vedAnta declares: brahma satyam, jagat mithyA, and jIvo brahmaiva nAparaH.

> The first statement establishes the nature of Brahman, the second eliminates

> the ignorance of the world of objects and third eliminates ignorance of

> myself. The second and third are stated clearly to eliminate this two-layer

> nescience. It is also important to recognize that, regardless of any claims

> to the contrary, the 'who am I?' inquiry itself does not eliminate

> completely this two-fold nescience, unless it is also supported by the

> enquiry 'what is this world that appears to be separate from me?'. "

>

> Isn't the central cause of the mis-perception of the world as 'non-brahman'

> due to ignorance of our true nature (Atman)? My understanding is that when

> ignorance of our true nature is removed, which brings the direct realisation

> 'I am Brahman', then mis-perception of the world is also removed. Are you

> both saying that the mis-perception of the world as 'non-brahman' still

> remains after the knowledge that 'I am Brahman' has been realised? Is this

> even possible?

>

> Could you say a bit more, please?

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Peter

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " V. Krishnamurthy " <profvk wrote:

>

> Namaste

>

> The two kinds of ignorance have to be removed by two kinds of negation. That

is why 'neti, neti' is always used in the Upanishads twice. First negation is

for the unreality of the outside world. And that brings the truth that 'all this

visible world is unreal'. The second negation is for the unreality of the five

koshas inside this body and sUkshma sharIra. This negation is more difficult

than the first. On the ladder of spirituality the first negation leads to the

truth 'sarvam khalvidam brahma'. But even then that the 'everything' also

includes this one's own body mind, intellect, is the more difficult second

negation!

> PraNAms to all advaitins.

> profvk

 

Dear Prof VK,

Shri Shankara gives the significance of the terms `Neti, neti' in his bhAShya on

Br,up. 2.3.6 as below:

How through these two terms, `Not this, not this', is it sought to describe

Brahman, the Truth of truth? By the elimination of all differences due to

limiting adjuncts, the words " Neti, neti " refer to something that has no

distinguishing mark, such as name, form, action, heterogeneity, species or

qualities. Words refer to things through one or more of these marks. But Brahman

has none of these distinguishing marks. Therefore it cannot be described as, " It

is such and such " , as we can describe a cow by saying, " There moves a white cow

with horns " . Brahman is described by means of name, form and action superimposed

on It, in such terms as `Knowledge, Bliss, Brahman' (III.ix.28), and `Pure

Intelligence' (II.iv.12), `Brahman' and `Atman'. When, however, we wish to

describe Its true nature, free from all differences due to limiting adjuncts,

then it is an utter impossibility. Then there is only one way left, namely, to

describe It as `Not this, not this', by eliminating all possible specifications

of It that have been known.

As far as I know, the words `Neti, neti' are not meant to refer to the

elimination of two kinds of ignorances. Actually there is only one ignorance,

because of which both the external world and one's own BMI are looked upon as

real. Everything other than the Atma is anAtma. The world is as much anAtma as

one's BMI. It is no doubt true that giving up attachment to one's BMI is more

difficult than giving up attachment to external objects, which include wife,

son, etc. This has been pointed out in many works. But I have not seen the terms

`Neti, neti' used in this context. If there is any such reference, I shall be

glad to know the same.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

As far as I know, the words `Neti, neti' are not meant to refer to the elimination of two kinds of ignorances.

praNAms

Hare Krishna

Yes, Prof. VK prabhuji's observation is really interesting...I too think this negation has nothing to do with various types of ignorance!!?? As Sri Sastri prabhuji pointed out, shankara uses the pratishedha vAkya just to 'describe' the reality/Atman that is devoid of any name, form or any specific features..shankara time & again emphasizes the fact that this Atman cannot be positively described and through the method of adhyArOpa apavAda Atman sometime described in some positive terms like satyaM, jnAnaM, anantaM etc. but this is not for objectifying the Atman... In chAndOgya bhAshya somewhere shankara says even this term Atman, which we frequently use to point brahman is the vyavahArik term which is there to indicate the entiy which remains after the rejection of body and other not-selfs...

In the kArika bhAshya shankara observes that it is because of the interception of specific features like happiness that Atman does not abide in his own nature and ultimate stage is abiding in one's own real nature...Thus the shAstra brings the notion of not being happy etc. and through which it withdraws the notion of being happy etc. by means of texts like 'neti, neti'..

I humbly request Prof. VK prabhuji to explain more how pratishedha vAkya pramANa can be related to negation of two types of ignorances in shankara bhAshya.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Nairji,

 

You ask what is the nature of that 'perception of the world' which follows

when ignorance of our true nature has been removed along with its effect,

namely, the mis-perception of the world as non-brahman. Devotees regularly

asked Sri Ramana Maharshi that question in the form of " Does the jnani still

see the world? " and he replied that the ajnani cannot understand the jnani,

first remove the ignorance of your real nature then see if the question is

still relevant. So what chance do I have, as a mere student, to give a

sensible answer to this?

 

I feel I appreciate your underlying question though, namely - if the nature

of the jnani (or jnana) is none other than Brahman and if Brahman is one

without a second then how can there be an 'other' to be perceived or a 'who'

separate from the 'other' to do the perceiving? Pure consciousness, or

Awareness, (which is non other than Knowledge/Jnana) is never an object of

perception.

 

I don't know if you would agree with this - perhaps another way of asking

the question is as follows, 'can empirical experience and Knowledge of

Brahman co-exist?' In Upadesha Sahasri, Sri Sankaracarya appears to suggest

it does as a result of prarabdha karma having the power to continue even

after Knowledge has destroyed the ego sense. Sri Ramana also suggests the

same when he states the following in " Forty Verses on Reality " :

 

v.18: The body is the Self, both to him that does not know the Self and to

him that knows. The one that knows not believes himself to be limited to the

body and distinct from God the All. To the knower of the Real Self within,

He shines as the Infinite Being, not other than God. Great indeed is the

difference between the knower of the Self and the non-knower!

 

v. 19: The world is real both to the non-knower and to the knower of the

Real. He that lacks knowledge of the Real believes the Real to be

coextensive with the world. The knower the Real shines as the formless One,

the basic substance of the world. Great indeed is the difference between the

knower of That and the non-knower.

 

Might we say that we refer to a someone as a Jnani only by virtue of the

presence of a upadhi? Without a upadhi of any kind there is no jnani only

jnana.

 

Might we also say that empirical experience is the characteristic of the

upadhi(s) lit up by consciousness, while Knowledge or Jnana is the nature of

the Self?

 

If this is the case then so long as the upadhi remains, there is the

presence of both empirical experience (mithya) and Knowledge (Jnana). What

is absent is the ego sense.

 

Right Knowledge has destroyed the ego sense therefore there is no state of

false identification with the body and mind for the jnani. Properly

speaking, then, there would be no 'one' (no individual independent of the

upadhi) to make this false identification as the 'I thought' has already

been destroyed.

 

However, the ajnani (the unenlightened) can only make sense of the jnani's

existence and actions through the appearance of the upadhi. Ignorant of his

own true nature and falsely identified with his own body the ajnani takes

the jnani to be an individual body/mind separate from himself.

 

To come back to the question can empirical experience co-exist with

Knowledge (Jnana) we have the following in Chapter IV (Verse form) of

Upadesha Sahasri. I have Swami Jagadananda's version and translation of

some of the verses by A.J.Alston's which are similar. I am using

A.J.Alston's translation of verses 4 & 5:

 

Verse 4: The seeds of action which initiate the body of the one who

realises the Absolute bring forth these two fruits - namely, empirical

experience (during the whole term of that body's existence) and knowledge of

the Self. Empirical experience and knowledge of the Self must therefore by

mutually compatible. But all other merit and demerit (except that which is

responsible for the present body) is contrary (to and therefore negated by

knowledge). "

 

Verse 5: Whoever possesses knowledge of the Self, which contradicts the

notion that the Self is the body as clearly as 'knowledge' of the ignorant

man affirms it, is liberated whether he wises it or not. Hence all this (the

logical compatibility of spiritual knowledge with empirical experience and

its incompatibility with all seeds of future activity except those which

initiated the present life) stands proved, and we have declared the manner

of the proof.

 

Note: We might ask how can Knowledge be the result of 'action' as suggested

in the verses. In an earlier verse Sri Sankaracarya has already stated:

 

Ch II: 3. A following Knowledge does not arise without negating the previous

one (e.g. the knowledge of the rope does not come without destroying that of

the snake in a rope-snake).

 

Anyway, Nairji, these are just a few tentative thoughts, for what they are

worth.

 

With best wishes,

 

Peter

 

 

 

 

 

>

> advaitin

> [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Madathil Rajendran Nair

> 06 April 2009 11:40

> advaitin

> Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

>

> Dear Peterji,

>

> You are right. Realization of one's true nature removes one's

> misperception of the world too. There are therefore no two

> ignorances (one of oneself and the other of the world) to be removed.

>

> However, you state: " My understanding is that when ignorance

> of our true nature is removed, which brings the direct

> realisation 'I am Brahman', then mis-perception of the world

> is also removed. " .

>

> May I ask you to kindly explain if you visualize a " right

> perception " of the world to then result. If yes, what will

> be the nature of that " perception " ? If it is the perception

> of the world as nothing but Brahman (as the upanishadic

> statemnet 'sarvam khalvidam brahma' signifies), then can that

> be a perception in view of the fact that the so-called

> perceiver is also brahman.

>

> Sorry for the bother. Your answer is very crucial to

> understanding a very important issue that has vexed us for long.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Peter - I am amazed at the clarity of your expression. Thanks for the post and

My saaShTaaga praNAms.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- On Tue, 4/7/09, Peter <not_2 wrote:

 

 

......

... these are just a few tentative thoughts, for what they are

worth.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadanandaji,

 

Thank you. Yes I understand what Sastriji is saying which is very clear and

corresponds with my own understanding - namely that ignorance of our true

nature is the cause of mis-perception of the world as non-brahman. Gaudapada

explains this in Mandukya Karika Chapter 1 as you know far better than

myself. To remove the cause is to remove the effect. I got the impresssion,

perhaps wrongly, that you and Dennisji were suggesting removing the cause of

ignorance still did not fully remove mis-perception (the effect), hence my

request for clarification.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

>

> advaitin

> [advaitin ] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi sadananda

> 06 April 2009 12:18

> advaitin

> RE: Re: NididhyAsana and Self-Enquiry

>

>

>

> --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Peter <not_2 wrote:

>

>  

> Your comment above led me to properly read Sada-ji's article

> and has left me a bit puzzled.   Sada-ji writes about two

> kinds of ignorance - ignorance of the true nature of the

> world and ignorance of my own true nature:

>  

> " Firstly, I am ignorant of the fact that the world of objects

> is nothing but Brahman and secondly that I am none other than

> Brahman.

> -----------

>

>

> Peter, PraNAms

>

> Shree Sastriji explained.

>

> It is the self ignorance - that trickles down to the rest.

> The self ignorance is the ignorance of I am - as

> divisionless; division includes jiiva, jagat and Iswara - as

> the substantive of all. If that is understood correctly,

> then both components of discussed are automatically included.

> That requires the mahavaakya vichaara clearly.

>

> Without that part of the knowledge, that knowing oneself as

> the self does not NECESSARILY include the self that I am is

> the self of all - jiiva, jagat and Iswara - aitadaatmya

> idagam sarvam tat satyam, sa aatmaa, tat tvam asi - The

> essence of all this and this is the truth, that you are. If

> that is the correct understanding of who am I inquiry - yes

> that includes all.

>

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda