Guest guest Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 advaitin , " durgaji108 " <durgaji108 wrote: > > Namaste Vedantins, > > I have a question I would like to ask to respected members > here. I have heard the phrase 'pot-space' used by many > of Swami Dayanandaji's older students. It seems to me > that Swamiji himself may have used this analogy in teaching quite > often in the past, but I myself have never heard him unfold it, > nor does my teacher refer to it. > Vedanta often compares brahman to space, as space is all > pervasive, (although the teachings further point out that, > unlike brahman, there are things which space is not.) > > Is it that brahman being all-pervasive and nothing ever > apart or separate from brahman, and everything in fact > being brahman, that as the body/mind moves from place to > place, there is no encapsulation of brahman, but rather > a moving through brahman, as it were? > So all of this pondering has brought to my mind the > pot-space analogy, which I've heard referred to, but > feel that I've never properly understood. Would some > respected member kindly explain that metaphor again > if indeed it applies to understanding that Awareness is > not contained, but rather is all-pervasive. > > Thank you. > > My pranams, > Durga > Dear Durgaji, The analogy of pot-space is used to point out that though the Atma or self is in the body, it is not affected by anything that happens to the body. The space enclosed in a pot is not affected at all if the pot breaks or if it is heated, etc. If the pot is moved from one place to another the space within it does not also move. Any substance placed inside the pot does not taint the space inside. A pot limits the space which is unlimited. But the space within the pot is not different from the total space. Similarly, brahman is present as the individual self in each body, but it is not affected by anything that happens to the body. The individual self is not different from brahman. Brahman is compared to space because both are all-pervading, though the all-pervasiveness of space is only relative. There are two main theories regarding the nature of the jiva. One says the jiva is a reflection of consciousness or brahman in avidya or the mind. This is known as the reflection theory. The other theory is that the jiva is brahman limited by the BMI. This is similar to space being limited by a pot. This is known as limitation theory. Regards, S.N.Sastri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Hi Durga, We discussed this at some length on Advaitin some time ago. I summarized the views that I expressed in Q. 168 at my website - http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/q_and_a/q_and_a17.htm#q168 but I guess you can find the original discussions in the archive. You will probably find Swamiji’s discussions of it in his Mandukya lectures since it is used (originated?) by Gaudapada (kArikA III.3-9). Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of durgaji108 Wednesday, November 04, 2009 3:20 PM advaitin Pot-space Namaste Vedantins, I have a question I would like to ask to respected members here. I have heard the phrase 'pot-space' used by many of Swami Dayanandaji's older students. It seems to me that Swamiji himself may have used this analogy in teaching quite often in the past, but I myself have never heard him unfold it, nor does my teacher refer to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Namaste Smt. Durga-ji, advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > You will probably find Swamiji's discussions of it in his Mandukya > lectures since it is used (originated?) by Gaudapada (kArikA III.3-9). > I have a question I would like to ask to respected members > here. I have heard the phrase 'pot-space' used by many > of Swami Dayanandaji's older students. It seems to me > that Swamiji himself may have used this analogy in teaching quite > often in the past, but I myself have never heard him unfold it, > nor does my teacher refer to it. May I refer you to the two places when gItAchAryA Himself uses the same analogy of space, once in chapter 9 and again in chapter 13? Here are the verses and their translation by Swami Gambhirananda-ji yathaakaashasthito nitya.n vaayuH sarvatrago mahaan.h . tathaa sarvaaNi bhuutaani matsthaaniityupadhaaraya .. 9.6.. Understand thus that just as the voluminous wind moving everywhere is ever present in space, similarly all beings abide in Me. yathaa sarvagataM saukshmyaadaakaashaM nopalipyate . sarvatraavasthito dehe tathaatmaa nopalipyate .. 13.33.. As the all-pervading space is not defiled, because of its subtlety, similarly the Self, present everywhere in the body, is not defiled. One can very easily see the similarity of the above verse to gauDapAchaArya's verse in mAnDUkya. Also, the second theory of reflection, that Shri Sastri-ji mentioned incidentally is the next verse in chapter 13! Perhaps the best introduction to anyone of pot-space are the vedios of Swami Dayananda-ji, which are freely available on the Youtube (thanks to Jorge Luis-ji), but maybe you are aware of them. Namaste Ramakrishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Dear Durgaji, Pranams. Vedanta uses a jargon called " ghaTAkasa " for pot space. The all-pervasive space is " mahAkAsa " . Here, " akAsa " is not the physical space but is defined as " asamantAt prakAsatah iti akAsah " ie., " that which shines everywhere " which is usually referred to as Dahara Akasa or Chidakasa. It is in this Chidakasa, the " Aham " sphurana or the throb of " I-ness " shines. BTW, one of the old disciples of Shri Dayananda Saraswati is Shri Tatvavidananda Saraswati whose purva asrama nama is Dr. Rani Ramakrishna who holds Post-doctoral degree in Organic Chemistry, who himself is a great vedic scholar and studied entire Yajurveda and Sanskrit Vyakarana from his father the great Srividya Upasaka and Vedic Scholar of Kamakoti Pitha Shri Rani Narasimha Sastry of Narendrapuram. Shri Tatvavidananda hails from a family of great vedic & srividya scholars who have mastered tarka, vyakarana, mimamsa, vedanta and mantra sastra. I had the honour of meeting Shri Tatvavidananda's father Shri Rani Narasimha Sastry who is the saha adhyayi of Mahamahopadhyaya Shri Goda Subramanya Sastrigal of Kanchipuram. My pranams to the illustrious family of Shri Tatvavidananda Saraswati. regs, sriram advaitin , " durgaji108 " <durgaji108 wrote: > > Namaste Vedantins, > > I have a question I would like to ask to respected members > here. I have heard the phrase 'pot-space' used by many > of Swami Dayanandaji's older students. It seems to me > that Swamiji himself may have used this analogy in teaching quite > often in the past, but I myself have never heard him unfold it, > nor does my teacher refer to it. > > Recently I attended a conference in San Rafael, CA, titled, > 'The Conference on Science and Nonduality.' At that conference, > one of the moderators of this list, Greg Goode, gave a talk > whose subject matter was the number one stumbling block to > nondual realization. > > What Greg pointed out in his talk, is that most people > feel that Awareness is located somewhere in the body, > which in reality is not the case. > > I am wondering if the analogy of 'pot-space' standing > for Awareness, is the same as the feeling that Awareness > is localized in the body. > > Vedanta often compares brahman to space, as space is all > pervasive, (although the teachings further point out that, > unlike brahman, there are things which space is not.) > > Is it that brahman being all-pervasive and nothing ever > apart or separate from brahman, and everything in fact > being brahman, that as the body/mind moves from place to > place, there is no encapsulation of brahman, but rather > a moving through brahman, as it were? > > We are told that brahman doesn't move, has no parts, and > is all pervasive, the adishthana of all. And then we have > this mithya reality of experience, which although brahman true, moves, and has parts, and objects within it have separate locations. > Thus a tree is located in my garden and not in my living room. > > I suppose the purpose of this musing is that indeed > I found Greg Goode's thesis to be correct. One does > feel that Awareness is localized in the body, even > if one has recognized that Awareness is very different > from the body, i.e. Awareness never changes, is present > in all three periods of time, present to > all mental states of experience, is the source of > all love and happiness. And yet, despite all this, > it does seem to me that Awareness is contained in > the body, even while at the same time seeing that > everything to do with the body, takes place in unchanging > Awareness. > > So all of this pondering has brought to my mind the > pot-space analogy, which I've heard referred to, but > feel that I've never properly understood. Would some > respected member kindly explain that metaphor again > if indeed it applies to understanding that Awareness is > not contained, but rather is all-pervasive. > > Thank you. > > My pranams, > Durga > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Namaste, Durgaji, You have in your recent post mentioned : <I have heard the phrase 'pot-space' used by many of Swami Dayanandaji' s older students. It seems to me that Swamiji himself may have used this analogy in teaching quite often in the past,>, while talking about the recent conference that you attended in San Rafael, CA, titled, 'The Conference on Science and Nonduality. You further said <Greg pointed out in his talk, is that most people feel that Awareness is located somewhere in the body, which in reality is not the case.>> May I say I have had the blessing of listening to Swami Dayanandaji and his unfolding the upanishadic truth where he used the Pot Space and Space analogy. This is just an example only to understand the Oneness i.e. “Anthar Bahir cha tat sarvam Narayanaâ€. Awareness is neither inside nor outside the body, but everywhere, as there is no inside or outside when it comes to Awareness or Consciousness. Swamiji used to ask “can you be aware of awarenessâ€? Just impossible as Awareness cannot or need not be aware of Awareness. It appears to give a platform for something as if floating on it. Any such floating itself is just appearances only just like pictures on a movie screen.Such appearances appear and disappear and they never stay permanently, but the platform or screen remains permanently, as if a substratum or platform for such appearances. . All these examples have limitations and they are used to drive home one particular point. One cannot extend it as it will lead to a lot of confusion. Once one gets the principle that is conveyed through an example, he should not unnecessarily do “mananm†on the example. Similar is the Rope Snake Analogy used for explaining ignorance and the result of ignorance. When I use this analogy to understand self ignorance, I get very confused, as in the case of rope snake, there are three entities, true or false, viz: rope, snake and myself, whereas in the case of self-ignorance there are only myself and the ignorance resulted world of objects. In reality myself i.e. i is also result of self ignorance. I request our learned members to correct my undersanding. Kind regards and hari om Mani Add whatever you love to the India homepage. Try now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 advaitin , " uramakrsna " <uramakrishna wrote: > > Namaste Smt. Durga-ji, > > > May I refer you to the two places when gItAchAryA Himself uses the same analogy of space, once in chapter 9 and again in chapter 13? Namaste. Here is a reference from the GitAbhAshyam where at one place itself Shankara gives the examples of the 'refelection' as well as the 'limitation' concepts. His sentences in the commentary for the verse 15.17 are: // yathaa jalasUryakaH sUryaamsho jala-nimittApAye sUryameva gatvA na nivartate, tenaiva AtmanA sangacchati, evameva, yathA vA ghaTAdyupAdhi-paricchinno ghaTAdyAkAshaH aakAshAmshaH san ghaTAdi-nimittaapAye aakaasham prApya na nivartate. // The context and the meaning of the above: In this verse the Lord says 'My 'part' alone has 'become' the jiva (individual soul) in the world of samsara/samsaris.' Shankara raises a question: How can there be a 'part' of the Lord, for Brahman is impartite? Answering this question Shankara uses these two analogies: 1. Just as the Sun reflected in a water-medium 'returns' to the original Sun in the sky upon the water-medium vanishing (due to evaporation, etc.) and never returns, becoming one, undifferentiated, with the prototype Sun....OR 2. Just as the pot-space, etc. limited by the delimiting adjunct (upAdhi) caused by the pot, etc. remaining as a 'part' of the unlimited space, upon the destruction of the upAdhis pot, etc. 'attains' the unlimited space and never returns... The Lord says in this verse that this individual soul, jiva, which is only a 'part' of Him, 'returns' to Him, upon being liberated, and never returns to samsara. To explain the aspects of 'part of Brahman' and 'non-return' from Brahman, Shankara employs the analogies. Shankara achieves His twin-objective in each of the two analogies, separately, completely. While one analogy itself would be sufficient, He gives another too, to clearly drive home the point. Of course, He makes it clear, both by implication and also explicitly that the 'part' is only a result of ignorance-created upAdhis and therefore not real. The examples also make this clear: the 'reflected' Sun is not real and the 'limited' space is also not real. And the 'return' to the original Sun or space, is also not physical. It may also be noted that the pratibimba (reflection) theory and the 'avaccheda' (limitation) theory are NOT the concoctions of post-Shankara Advaitins. Shankara feels, just as the later commentators have justly felt, that while one analogy would appeal to certain types of sadhaka-s, the other will help some others. Of course, both could also help the same aspirant clearly grasp the idea of 'amsha'. That is the reason He chooses to give both the analogies, in one place. Brahman's 'Consciousness' aspect is found in the reflection analogy and the 'All-pervasiveness' in the limitation (pot-space) analogy. Om Tat Sat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > > > advaitin , " durgaji108 " <durgaji108@> wrote: > > > > Namaste Vedantins, > > > > I have a question I would like to ask to respected members > > here. I have heard the phrase 'pot-space' used by many > > of Swami Dayanandaji's older students. It seems to me > > that Swamiji himself may have used this analogy in teaching quite > > often in the past, but I myself have never heard him unfold it, > > nor does my teacher refer to it. > > Vedanta often compares brahman to space, as space is all > > pervasive, (although the teachings further point out that, > > unlike brahman, there are things which space is not.) > > Dear sir As one can see the space between words,symbols,signs is what is called space.This was called pot space.Before going in to advaitha philosophy one has to investigate what is duality.All linguistic phenomena is dual in its nature,properties and characters.Unless one refuses totally one set of proposition can not understand freshly proposed.That was the reason there is more of an explanation of duality. thank you sekhar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 It may also be noted that the pratibimba (reflection) theory and the 'avaccheda' (limitation) theory are NOT the concoctions of post-Shankara Advaitins. Shankara feels, just as the later commentators have justly felt, that while one analogy would appeal to certain types of sadhaka-s, the other will help some others. praNAms Hare Krishna I dont think this catholic approach has been entertained by either of avaccheda or pratibimba vAdins. Those who favoured either one of the above theories did not have any hesitation to refute the other theory. By the way, shankara elsewhere says pratibimba theory is avidyAtmaka. Anyway, let us no go deep into it, as these two theories ultimately serving the 'same' purpose. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Namaste Maniji. I haven't read all the posts in this thread. So, there is the danger that I have missed some important explanations given by other learned members. With regard to your statement exercepted below, please permit me to give my thoughts: You said: QUOTE " Swamiji used to ask: " Can you be aware of awareness " ? Just impossible as Awareness cannot or need not be aware of Awareness. It appears to give a platform forÂsomething as if floating on it. Any such floating itself is just appearances only just like pictures on a movie screen. Such appearances appear and disappear and they never stay permanently, but the platform or screen remains permanently, as if a substratum or platform for such appearances. " UNQUOTE Right. Awareness cannot or need not be aware of Awareness. I, as awareness, can only be aware of the 'concept' of awareness. But the platform or screen analogy has perils in it. A platform or screen can remain without supporting or projecting anything. However, from our phenomenal point of view of analysis, can there ever be any scope for us to deduce Awareness without the projection of the diversity we confront? No. We deduce Awareness from the fact that we are all aware of things other than us. So, is it that Awareness cannot remain independent of the mithya world projected? Vedanta says no. How can we reconcile these two mutually opposing possibilities? The answer lies in the statement " All this is verily Brahman " . Thus, the screen and the projections on it are ONE. In other words, it is a self-iridescent screen. The projections that shine on the screen are not from an external projector. They are the screen themselves. The iridescence dies down into the screen when projections cease like the world dissolves into Awareness when we fall asleep. It is that Awareness the existence of which is declared by every Tom, Dick and Harry when they assert thumping their chests " I exist " . Extending this to 'pot-space', the 'I-am-the-limited-pot-thought' or 'pot-jivahood' is just an erroneous thought appearing in 'total space'. The contours of the pot which provide shape to it and the very material it is made of are not aside from or external to the totality of space. They are verily space and are assimilated into the Fullness of total space when Realization occurs to the pot that it verily is nothing but total space. Maniji, you are right about the rope-snake analogy. There are three entities in it whereas in our ignorance of our real nature there are only two. Perhaps, we have to reduce the analogy to the rope deluding itself into believing that it is a horrible snake. Well, then it is no more an effective analogy. A king deluding himself into a beggar would serve us much better. I had thought on these lines during the Bhaskarji-led debate on AdhyAropa apavAda. Best regards. Madathil Nair ____________________ Maniji wrote: > Similar is the Rope Snake Analogy used for explaining ignorance and the result of ignorance. When I use this analogy to understand self ignorance, I get very confused, as in the case of rope snake, there are three entities, true or false, viz: rope, snake and myself, whereas in the case of self-ignorance there are only myself and the ignorance resulted world of objects. In reality myself i.e. i is also result of self ignorance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Dear Nair-Ji, Pranams. ///Maniji, you are right about the rope-snake analogy. There are three entities in it whereas in our ignorance of our real nature there are only two ....// Shri Vasudevananda Saraswati (Vasudeva Yati) in his prakarana grandha " Laghu Vasudeva Mananam " while explaining this " Rajju-Sarpa Nyaya " says that even if the Jiva is conscious of his brahman-hood, there are three entities ie., paramarthika satta, pratibhasika sattva and vyavaharika satta depending on the 2 types of srishtis ie., Ishwara srishti & Jiva srishti. Vyavaharika satta falls under Jiva srishti; pratibhasika satta under ishwara srishti and paramartika satta that transcends these is beyond this 2 srishtis. So, even if i am aware of my " brahma-tattva " , i am still holding to the Ishwara srishti when i observe the akasa-vayu ityadi pancha bhutas. Shri Vasudeva Yati further says that if there is no awareness of this pratibhasika satta, then there is no guru-sishya / jnani-ajnani relationship. Only when Guru is aware of the pratibhasika satta, he would be in a position to make the sishya " aware " of his ignorance. Just my 2 cents. Correct me if i am wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 2009/11/10 babi <sriram_sapthasathi <<Vyavaharika satta falls under Jiva srishti; pratibhasika satta under ishwara srishti and paramartika satta that transcends these is beyond this 2 srishtis.>> It's the other way round. Pratibhasika satta is jiva srishti and Vyavaharika satta is Ishvara srishti. However, this classification is tenable only if one uses srishti-drishti-vada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 praNAms Hare Krishna When it comes to the question with regard to 'creator' of dream world (or prAthibhAsika satya), the discussion would always be interesting. Who creates our dream world?? First hand information & ready answer to this question is, it is jeeva who creates this world!! But if I ask, if we, the jeeva-s, are the creators of our dream world, why dont we have absolute control over it?? why it is not possible for us regulate it & 'put' a stop to it whenever we donot want it to continue?? Ofcourse, bruhadAraNyaka says jeeva is the creator of the dream world & in that he creates chariots, paths everything...(aTha raThAn rathayOgAn paThaH srujate)...mAndUkya says both vishva & taijasa are equally potential with 'saptAnga, ekOnavimshati mukhaH'....and shankara observes that sometime this prAtibhAsika satta (dreams) would act as a 'future teller' also :-)) he says in Itareya bhAshya, if one sees a black man with black teeth in dream, it should be understood that he is nearing his 'death'...Ofcourse, this type of dreams cannot be 'jeeva srushti', nobody wants to 'create' dreams like this :-)) chAndOgya says, when jeeva retires & rest in 'hrudaya sthAnaM' from netra sthAnaM, after getting tired in netra sthAna (i.e. waking state), he would get dreams!! Elsewhere shruti itself makes a point that the brahman is the 'kartru' of this 'svapna prapancha' (dream world)..ya eshu supteshu jAgarti kAmaM kAmaM purushO nirmimANaH and it continue to say this purusha is nothing but brahma (tadeva 'amruta' tadeva 'brahma' etc.)...If we go by this shruti, then we will have to say the 'srushti karta' (the creator) of the dream world is 'brahman' & not 'jeeva' :-)) And, again, prashna shruti (4.2) hints that svapna is nothing but the 'manOvyApAra'... there it is said that all senses would merge in 'parama deva' mind (mana) and this mind is the creator of dreams..atraisha devaH svapne mahimAnaM anubhavati...So, finally question still remains : Who is the creator?? whether it is jeeva or jeeva's mind or brahman?? No need to mention shankara reconciles this confusion in sUtra bhAshya & upholds the 'avirOdhatva' of shruti vAkya-s. Hari Hari Hari Bol!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > praNAms > Hare Krishna > > When it comes to the question with regard to 'creator' of dream world (or > prAthibhAsika satya), the discussion would always be interesting. Who > creates our dream world?? First hand information & ready answer to this > question is, it is jeeva who creates this world!! But if I ask, if we, > the jeeva-s, are the creators of our dream world, why dont we have > absolute control over it?? why it is not possible for us regulate it & > 'put' a stop to it whenever we donot want it to continue?? Ofcourse, > bruhadAraNyaka says jeeva is the creator of the dream world & in that he > creates chariots, paths everything...(aTha raThAn rathayOgAn paThaH > srujate)...mAndUkya says both vishva & taijasa are equally potential with > 'saptAnga, ekOnavimshati mukhaH'....and shankara observes that sometime > this prAtibhAsika satta (dreams) would act as a 'future teller' also :-)) > he says in Itareya bhAshya, if one sees a black man with black teeth in > dream, it should be understood that he is nearing his 'death'...Ofcourse, > this type of dreams cannot be 'jeeva srushti', nobody wants to 'create' > dreams like this :-)) chAndOgya says, when jeeva retires & rest in > 'hrudaya sthAnaM' from netra sthAnaM, after getting tired in netra sthAna > (i.e. waking state), he would get dreams!! Elsewhere shruti itself makes > a point that the brahman is the 'kartru' of this 'svapna prapancha' (dream > world)..ya eshu supteshu jAgarti kAmaM kAmaM purushO nirmimANaH and it > continue to say this purusha is nothing but brahma (tadeva 'amruta' tadeva > 'brahma' etc.)...If we go by this shruti, then we will have to say the > 'srushti karta' (the creator) of the dream world is 'brahman' & not > 'jeeva' :-)) And, again, prashna shruti (4.2) hints that svapna is > nothing but the 'manOvyApAra'... there it is said that all senses would > merge in 'parama deva' mind (mana) and this mind is the creator of > dreams..atraisha devaH svapne mahimAnaM anubhavati...So, finally question > still remains : Who is the creator?? whether it is jeeva or jeeva's mind > or brahman?? No need to mention shankara reconciles this confusion in > sUtra bhAshya & upholds the 'avirOdhatva' of shruti vAkya-s. > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!! > bhaskar Namaste B, The problem lies in presuming there is in the first place a creator, that there is a jiva and there is a dream. The reason why you don't think that you have anything to do with it all, is the false identification with the body/jiva and not the Universal Consciousness or Brahman. If you identified with the Universal Consciousness 'I Am' then you would be able to answer your own questions if there were any need to ask...Ultimately it is AjatiVada...it never happened...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 advaitin , " aoclery " <aoclery wrote: advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr@> wrote: > > praNAms > Hare Krishna > > When it comes to the question with regard to 'creator' of dream world (or > prAthibhAsika satya), the discussion would always be interesting. Who > creates our dream world?? First hand information & ready answer to this > question is, it is jeeva who creates this world!! But if I ask, if we, > the jeeva-s, are the creators of our dream world, why dont we have > absolute control over it?? why it is not possible for us regulate it & > 'put' a stop to it whenever we donot want it to continue?? Ofcourse, > bruhadAraNyaka says jeeva is the creator of the dream world & in that he > creates chariots, paths everything...(aTha raThAn rathayOgAn paThaH > srujate)...mAndUkya says both vishva & taijasa are equally potential with > 'saptAnga, ekOnavimshati mukhaH'....and shankara observes that sometime > this prAtibhAsika satta (dreams) would act as a 'future teller' also :-)) > he says in Itareya bhAshya, if one sees a black man with black teeth in > dream, it should be understood that he is nearing his 'death'...Ofcourse, > this type of dreams cannot be 'jeeva srushti', nobody wants to 'create' > dreams like this :-)) chAndOgya says, when jeeva retires & rest in > 'hrudaya sthAnaM' from netra sthAnaM, after getting tired in netra sthAna > (i.e. waking state), he would get dreams!! Elsewhere shruti itself makes > a point that the brahman is the 'kartru' of this 'svapna prapancha' (dream > world)..ya eshu supteshu jAgarti kAmaM kAmaM purushO nirmimANaH and it > continue to say this purusha is nothing but brahma (tadeva 'amruta' tadeva > 'brahma' etc.)...If we go by this shruti, then we will have to say the > 'srushti karta' (the creator) of the dream world is 'brahman' & not > 'jeeva' :-)) And, again, prashna shruti (4.2) hints that svapna is > nothing but the 'manOvyApAra'... there it is said that all senses would > merge in 'parama deva' mind (mana) and this mind is the creator of > dreams..atraisha devaH svapne mahimAnaM anubhavati...So, finally question > still remains : Who is the creator?? whether it is jeeva or jeeva's mind > or brahman?? No need to mention shankara reconciles this confusion in > sUtra bhAshya & upholds the 'avirOdhatva' of shruti vAkya-s. > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!! > bhaskar Namaste B, The problem lies in presuming there is in the first place a creator, that there is a jiva and there is a dream. The reason why you don't think that you have anything to do with it all, is the false identification with the body/jiva and not the Universal Consciousness or Brahman. If you identified with the Universal Consciousness 'I Am' then you would be able to answer your own questions if there were any need to ask...Ultimately it is AjatiVada...it never happened...Tony. --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 The problem lies in presuming there is in the first place a creator, that there is a jiva and there is a dream. The reason why you don't think that you have anything to do with it all, is the false identification with the body/jiva and not the Universal Consciousness or Brahman. If you identified with the Universal Consciousness 'I Am' then you would be able to answer your own questions if there were any need to ask...Ultimately it is AjatiVada...it never happened...Tony. praNAms Sri Tony prabhuji Hare Krishna Kindly remember we are talking here about 'Pot-space', so the talk about consciousness & its 'seeming' association with different states is very much necessary from the 'pot-space' perspective. This birth & death, going & coming back from different states, staying in a particular place etc. as we know, seemingly pertain to this 'pot-space' oly and not to 'mahAkAsha'...But as you said above, from the pAramArthik point of view, Atman is NOT an inward consciousness (antaH prajna) nor an outward consciousness (bahirprajna) and IT IS NOT of an consciousness in either direction...by saying this shruti negates all contact of states of consciousness and declares that Atman is free from all specific features. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 Dear Tony-ji, Pranams, ////// The problem lies in presuming there is in the first place a creator, that there is a jiva and there is a dream. The reason why you don't think that you have anything to do with it all, is the false identification with the body/jiva and not the Universal Consciousness or Brahman. If you identified with the Universal Consciousness 'I Am' then you would be able to answer your own questions if there were any need to ask...Ultimately it is AjatiVada...it never happened...Tony. //// Yes and it is absolutely true that from the angle of paramarthika satya, it is ajativada and there is NO Creation. But what could be the state of Mind of the Jivanmuktas for eg., 1) When Bhagavan Ramana composed Aksharamanamalai and addressed Lord Siva as " Thou Art My Lord " ; " I " , " Myself " etc. 2) When Acharya Sankara composed Dakshinamurthy Stotra and visualised 8 Murtis as an evolutionary step with Ahamgrahopasana, when Sankara wrote " muDhamatE " in Bhajagovindam etc. 3. When Sadasiva Brahmendra Saraswati composed " pibare rama rasam " , " manasa sanchara re " 4) When Madhusudana Saraswati says that his mind is bewitched by the grand scene of Lord Krishna playing with Radha at the banks of Yamuna? Probably they might have visualised the Creation just as we did but with *different angle of vision*. That is what Shri Vasudeva Yati, who is a great avadhuta, who used to be in trance for several days together said that even after attaining the Jnana, for him there would be Vyavaharika & Pratibhasika Satya but at the back of their minds, they are " AWARE " of the Paramarthika Satya. Otherwise there is no dissipation of Knowledge between Guru & Disciple. Regs, sriram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 Namaste Bhaskarji. You said it. Mandukya employs the prefixes antar- (internal) and bahi- (external). Naturally, then the question arises internal and external to what. The answer is jIva in total identification with the BMI. Thus, the Upanishad indirectly tells us that the teaching has to begin from the ground reality of total ignorance before the 'mahAkAsha' of ajAtivAda is scaled. In your previous post on this same topic, you raised the very pertinent question of if the jIva has any control over dreams. IMHO, despite Brihad. Up., the recent concepts of lucid dreaming, willing a dream and all that, one has to admit that we have no control at all over our dreams. Otherwise, we will all retire to bed with vivid designs of our wish-dreams. Most of us will apply for a Green Card in the dream-world. We can't and don't do that. It is common experience that we do get inexplicable nightmares when there is no obvious reason for them. I would extend this to waking too. I can will to make a cup of tea, do that and enjoy drinking it too. But, even here, there are so many imponderables like it may so happen that my boss might force me to attend an emergency leaving the boiling kettle to its own destiny. It is, therefore, desirable for a vedantin to studiously eschew the idea of control over dreams and also incidents of waking state and leave all responsibility at the Feet of the Lord(ess) (Consciousness) who has His/Her own inscrutable way of revealing. Afterall, we have been taught that this phenomenal of ours, where I include dreams too, is the inter-play of the three guNAs (triguNAtmika mAyA) despite Shanakara's mention of kartuM shakyaM, akartuM shakyaM, anyaThAwA kartuM shakyaM (can do, can choose not to do and can do differently). The best reconciliaton between the two, IMHO, is to give all credit to MAyAji. She is ever willing and kind to take the sense of agency away from us. All the more reason to worship Mayaji. I remember someone recently asked here about the relevance of worshipping Her. Sriramji - in your 46900, you say " Correct me if I am wrong " while quoting Shri Vasudeva Yati. How can I ever dare correct him? He is a mahApuruSa. Your quote is very valid and, as Shri Rameshji rightly clarified in 46901, it is contextual to sriSti-driSti vAda. Best regards to all. Madathil Nair ______________ advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > Kindly remember we are talking here about 'Pot-space', so the talk about > consciousness & its 'seeming' association with different states is very > much necessary from the 'pot-space' perspective. This birth & death, > going & coming back from different states, staying in a particular place > etc. as we know, seemingly pertain to this 'pot-space' oly and not to > 'mahAkAsha'...But as you said above, from the pAramArthik point of view, > Atman is NOT an inward consciousness (antaH prajna) nor an outward > consciousness (bahirprajna) and IT IS NOT of an consciousness in either > direction...by saying this shruti negates all contact of states of > consciousness and declares that Atman is free from all specific features. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 Pranams Nair-ji, ************** The best reconciliaton between the two, IMHO, is to give all credit to MAyAji. She is ever willing and kind to take the sense of agency away from us. All the more reason to worship Mayaji. I remember someone recently asked here about the relevance of worshipping Her. *************** Yes Sir and very well said. My pranams to you. Unless Maya-ji opens the Gate of Wisdom, nothing is possible. But again beware of Kevala Advaitins!!! (they say " yA mA sA mAya " ..... lol...). There is a legend associated with Mother Annapurna of Kasi. When Lord Vishwanatha uttered " brahma satyma jagat mithya " , Mother Annapurna said " yes Jagat is Mithya but then Hunger is also Mithya, so i am disappearing " , saying so disappeared from Kasi. Result was Famine and Pangs of Hunger. Lord Siva realising the importance of material world, held the begging bowl and uttered " Bhavati Bhiksham Dehi " before Annapurna. Out of compassion Mother served Rice Porridge to Siva and Her children who were inhabitants of Kasi. Since then till date, Mother Annapurna nourishes Her children with food at Kasi. So, this is the legend of Kasi and how Annapurna came about. There is an esoteric essence in this that is told in Annadakalpa Tantra and to discuss them here in this forum is out of topic. Annapurna & Siva denote the " AgniShomIyAtmaka tattva " ie., Agni & Soma. Agni is Siva and Soma is Sakti which is the Nourisher in the form of Anna, Oushadhi etc. Soma derives its lusture from Sun and shines. Both are Dharmi & Dharma. with regs, sriram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 Dear Sriramji, Your 46907 addressed to Tony-ji. You have asked some very good questions which I believe we had taken up here in a raging debate a few months ago. As Bhaskarji apprehended here last week, we might end up opening a virtual Pandora's box going back over them again. I tend to look at the 'state of a jnAni's mind' in the following manner. The question involves two levels - the level where I am, i.e. the phenomenal of ignorance, and the 'level' (sorry for the word; a jnAni has no level) of a jnAni. From my level, all your questions are excellent. There is Bh. Ramana addressing Lord Shiva, Shankara composing Dakshinamurthi Stotra mentioning the aStamUrtIs etc. There is also Shri Vasudeva Yati saying that both vyAvahArika and pratibhAsika are valid for him and that he is aware of his real nature at the back of his mind and you suspecting that it could be a totally *different angle of vision*. On top of all that, as I pointed out in my previous post, there is the lofty Mandukya mentioning antar- (internal) and bahi- (external) in relation to the biggest ignorance known to us - the BMI. All these are valid only repeat only in the phenomenal. Even the apprehended channel of communication between a jnAni and his disciple and dissipaton of knowledge between the two are purely matters of the phenomenal. In contrast, we have no first-hand 'experience' of the jnAni's 'level' per se. All that we have are descriptions of it available in our phenomenal coming from scripures, philosophical works and the words of our teachers. Such information is highly refracted because it is information in the first place and secondly because it is processed by our ignorant minds which tend to treat jnAni as an entity aside and outside it. Yet, vedanta declares the knower of Brahman to be none other than Brahman - the non-dual Truth. The ultimate is ajAtavAda as Mandukya beautifully concludes. These are truths we don't question despite the glaring contradictions we confront in the phenomenal. We can, therefore, say with all certainty that the 'level' of a jnAni is purely non-dual, where there is no mind with a backyard awareness of Brahman, there is no Lord Shiva as a separate entity to be supplicated, no disciples to be taught through the composition of a Dakshinamurthy stotra. We have the stamp of authority of the scriptures in holding on to such an opinion despite just the opposite unravelling before our eyes day in and day out. Thus, Sriramji, you are absolutely right from the phenomenal point of view in asking all the questions you have asked and Tony-ji is equally right with regard to his paramArThik ajAtavAda. All said and done, a jnAni per se is the Non-Dual. That is not debatable. A jnAni in the eyes of a denizen of the phenomenal might appear to be dual. That is an astigmatism Vedanta is meant to cure (not aggravate). Best regards. Madathil Nair _________________ advaitin , " babi " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: > > But what could be the state of Mind of the Jivanmuktas for eg., > > 1) When Bhagavan Ramana composed Aksharamanamalai and addressed Lord Siva as " Thou Art My Lord " ; " I " , " Myself " etc. > > 2) When Acharya Sankara composed Dakshinamurthy Stotra and visualised 8 Murtis as an evolutionary step with Ahamgrahopasana, when Sankara wrote " muDhamatE " in Bhajagovindam etc. > > 3. When Sadasiva Brahmendra Saraswati composed " pibare rama rasam " , " manasa sanchara re " > > 4) When Madhusudana Saraswati says that his mind is bewitched by the grand scene of Lord Krishna playing with Radha at the banks of Yamuna? > > Probably they might have visualised the Creation just as we did but with *different angle of vision*. > > That is what Shri Vasudeva Yati, who is a great avadhuta, who used to be in trance for several days together said that even after attaining the Jnana, for him there would be Vyavaharika & Pratibhasika Satya but at the back of their minds, they are " AWARE " of the Paramarthika Satya. > > Otherwise there is no dissipation of Knowledge between Guru & Disciple. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 But again beware of Kevala Advaitins!!! (they say " yA mA sA mAya " ..... lol...). praNAms Hare Krishna However, a kevala advaitin, Sri shankara bhagavatpAda while commenting on his paramaguru Sri gaudapAdAchArya's kArika says: sA cha mAya na vidyate, mAya iti avidyAmanasya AkhyA...As you know anything that describes the concept of mAya is 'mAyA' ONLY :-)) Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 All said and done, a jnAni per se is the Non-Dual. That is not debatable. A jnAni in the eyes of a denizen of the phenomenal might appear to be dual. That is an astigmatism Vedanta is meant to cure (not aggravate). praNAms Sri MN prabhuji Hare Krishna That is well said prabhuji...Y'day I was reading a story about Krishna's celibacy & dUrvAsa's hungry...this story would give a perfect naration to 'socalled' jnAni's activity in this phenomenal world!! Though rAdha could 'see' krishna's married life & his householder activity, though she could see dUrvAsa having lunch....For the jnAni like krishna & dUrvAsa, there is no 'lunch' no dinner whatsoever and absolutely no bitter/sweet taste of householder life :-)) It is kevala madaiva cheshtA mAtra in the eyes of an ajnAni. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 advaitin , " aoclery " <aoclery wrote: > The problem lies in presuming there is in the first place a creator, >that there is a jiva and there is a dream. The reason why you don't think that you have anything to do with it all, is the false >identification with the body/jiva and not the Universal Consciousness or Brahman. If you identified with the Universal Consciousness 'I Am' >then you would be able to answer your own questions if there were any >need to ask...Ultimately it is AjatiVada...it never happened...Tony. Is there a 'you' to identify with anything such as the notion of Jiva or Universal Consciousness? Or any other dualistic relationship? Ajativada----if nothing ever happened then how can even the *appearance* of Richard replying to Tony seemingly be happening? If nothing happens, lila does not happen. If nothing happens if seen from a certain perspective, perspectives do not happen, nor does the seeing of it, nor does the recurring postulations that nothing ever happened. Not by a never happened Tony nor a never happened Gaudapada. If nothing happens there would be only stillness and quiet and not even these attributes. So, what's happening group? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Dear Shri Richarkar, You wrote to Tony-ji in your 46917: " If nothing happens, there would be only stillness and quiet and not even these attributes. " . 1. Can that stillness and quiet have any validity without an intelligence perceiving them. Something has to be there to say that there is stillness and quiet - to appreciate their presence. 2. That perceiving intelligence is the Consciousness of Advaita. 3. Thus, that Consciousness IS, everything else is - names, forms, variety, diversity, time, space and the happenings involving them, like in the analogy gold is, gold ornaments are. 4. Thus, in a manner of speaking, everything is 'within' Consciousness - not aside from or outside it - like all gold ornaments are in gold. Consciousness is 'KNOWING' in which the knower, known and the process of knowing are inseparably merged. 5. Since even space and time are 'within' Consciousness (as we are aware of them), there can be no 'where' and 'when' to Consciousness considered as a whole or per se. 6. Consciousness is thus an insidelessness and beyondlessness and, therefore, a nothing-happening-ness. 7. If we therefore do see happenings, then there sure is an error somewhere. It could only be seeming. There is no other answer to the conundrum. 8. Advaita endeavours to correct that error. That is what Mandukya achieves. 9. No samAdhi is needed to understand this much. 10. However, an intuitive quantum leap is needed to 'be the understanding'. Call that leap any name by. 11. That leap is not possible without our cellular minds of pettiness and isolated individuality, so totally brainwashed, conditioned and condemned to toil with this phenomenal, dissolving in the universal. Thus, the need for all the sAdhana we talk about. Sorry for barging in between you and Tony-ji. Couldn't resist it. An Advaitin's frailty and failing! Best regards. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Dear Tony, // If you identified with the Universal Consciousness 'I Am' then you would be able to answer your own questions if there were any need to ask...Ultimately it is AjatiVada...it never happened...Tony. // Well much debate can be done on the theories of creation, whether it is created or not created and it can only be grasped by tapping the ecstasy of the Seer Parameshti who is the mantra drashta of Nasadiya Sukta of Rg Veda. The Seer makes the statement that EVEN THE GODS CANNOT KNOW THIS SECRET OF CREATION EXCEPT THE SUPREME PURUSHA. This the Seer exclaims in the 6th mantra by saying that // kah addha veda kah ihah pra vochat kutah ajaata kutah iyam visrushti arvaak devah asya visarjanena adha kah vedah yatah aababhuva (vi) Further, the Seer Parameshti declares boldly that ONLY THE SUPREME PURUSHA IN THE HIGHEST HEAVENS (PARAME VYOMAN) CAN ONLY BEAR AND COMPREHEND THIS ENTIRE CREATION. OTHERS CANNOT. The 7th mantra which is the last rik of Nasadiya Sukta in Rg Veda runs like this: // iyam visrushtih yah aababhuva yadi vaa dadhe yadi va na yah avya adhiakshah PARAME VYOMAN sah anga veda yadi va na eda //(vii) Parame is " utkrishte sarvabhute " ie., most superior of all and Vyoman is Sva-prakasa or the Consciousness. It is also called Akasa. " A samantaat prakasate iti akasaha " ie., that which shines everywhere as Consciousness is Akasa or the Highest Heavens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Dear SirsProblem lies in translation.Unless imposed is verified length of discussion remains futile.As an example take the case of an apple.Word apple can never be the real apple.But because of name say apple there is agriculture,plant breeding,economy,chemistry,health etc etc.When knowledge based on symbols becomes null and void there is neither the seer nor the seen.That is what is Ajathi Vada By Sri Goudapada.thank yousekhar The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Homepage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.