Is there a need to reintroduce oneself?

[K. Sadananda]

I made my first posting yesterday to the list introducing of myself, since I did
see it#come through, not knowing whether the mail got lost or it is the normal
delay in transmittal, I am venturing to post again. If you get the duplicate my
apologies.
Hari Om!
Sadananda
-----------------
As I returned from India after two months of stay, I found in an e-mail asking
me to join the Advaita list serve based on some of the articles I wrote in alt.
Hindu year ago.

 For the record I was asked to introduce myself before I post any articles.
Although the request appears to be reasonable,  as I started to write, I started
wondering - How can I introduce my self to an Advaitic group.    I am beginning
to realize the dilemma Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi felt in trying to write his
first invocation poems for his Satdarshan text.
         "Satpratyah kinnu vihaaya santum ......"
He says "Oh! Lord I want to think of you.  But how can I think of you, who is
the nature of the existence, that which exists even before any thoughts arise.
All I can do is be established in that existence"  This itself is a prayer
stanza for the rest of the text that followed.

How can I introduce myself to an Advaitic group?  That I am SatChitAnanda?  Such
an introduction is useless and trivial  to this group!  But besides who is there
to whom I have to introduce myself!  Being ananda, in fact being Sadaananda,  by
scriptural statements  that Anantameva anandaha - infiniteness (brahman) alone
is ananda. and Ekameva adviteeyam Brahman (one alone and not two is brahman)
there cannot be anybody else besides myself even to think of the need for any
introduction!

I just read with interest the discussion that is going on in terms of seer and
the seen and that one can negate the seen but not the seer.

Actually seer is there with reference to the seen and the seeing.  What is
negated in the seen is not that the seen does not exist, since the non-existent
seen can never be seen,  even to contemplate the negation.   Since it is seen,
it exists.  What is negated is the dwaita state, that the notion that the seen
is different from the seer.  Since it is a notion the notion can be negated by
understanding that it is only a notion and not a fact.  In the "dR^ikh dR^isya
viveka" (I am trying to use the same ITRS scheme used in the Sanskrit internet)
Bhagawan Sankara says:

     antarh (halanta) dR^ik dR^isyayorbhedam
     bahischa brahma swargayoH
     aavR^inosya paraashaktiH
     saasamsaarasya kaaranam.

The seer and the seen distinction in the mind, and the distinction of brahman
and the created outside are all due to the power of Maya (here of the two powers
the reference is for the projecting power) which is the cause for the apparent
plurality or the resulting samsaara.

In the Advaita Makaranda, Lakshmidharakavi says -of the five- Asti bhati priyam
ruupam namam, the first three are due to brahman and the rest of the two are due
to Maya - that is asti(existence) bhati (awareness), Priyam( likeness - ananda
aspect), ruupam(form), nama(name), the first three is related to SatChitAnanda
aspect of Brahman and the last two are projecting power of the Maya.  For seeing
the ruupam is the essential aspect of the seen and namam an association for
intellectual distinctions, the last two are negated as the aspect of Maya - ya
maa saa maaya - that which appears to be there but does not stand for inquiry.

With that understanding I can now introduce myself, the name and the form that
which is there but not really there- "Professionally, I am a material scientist
working for the Navy.  Personally, I am a disciple of Swami Chinmayananda trying
to pass on what I have learned from Him  to my friends through vedanta classes
and discussion groups in Washington D.C..

Hari Om!

Sadananda

SET  ADVAITA-L  REPRO