pure advaita

[M & E Shearn]

>All our talk about the nature of knowledge, experience--how relevant one is
>over the other, how real they might be, etc., has nothing to do with jnana.
>These attributes, by definition, relate to a presumed individual subject.
>If there really *is* a separative, individual subject in existence, then
>these attributes are relevant.
>
>We might consider that brahman, with its universal Totality, is utterly
>ONE massive subject.  The idea there are objects within it, is based on the
>mistaken notion that there exists something *other* than brahman.  But this
>is only a way of looking at the uncontemplatable nature of It.  A 'subject'
>unto itself is absurd...it can only exist in contrast to an 'object.'
>Therefore there can be no 'subject' that experiences or witnesses or knows.
>This represents the supreme assault on the logical Mind.  And to the degree
>that it fights back the natural current of the Self Being, is the degree
>that the snake prevails.
>
>On the other hand, nirvana is the flame of ego-Mind blown out.  It
>constitutes the obliteration of phenomenal sensationalism, in any and all
>conceivable forms it can take, including knowledge, experience, the idea
>of a subject, a sane subject, a good or evil subject, etc.
>
>Self-realization is the most unsophisticated thing there is.  The moment
>we abstract ourselves from this *everpresent* truth in/of Being, is the
>moment some snake-thought strangles our soul with folly!
>
>OM namo Sivaye.
>
namaste dude and dudettes,

can pure advaita be spoken by other than pure silence?

Talk is for those of lesser ripeness,

like us.

Ignorance speaks to illusion,

while Jnana knows only it Self.

Yet through the Guru's Grace,

bahkti ends in emptiness,

karma gives way to stillness,

intelect is absorbed into silence

all of which always is only and ever

Brahman.

AUM
ej

>From  Sun Nov 10 18:13:35 1996
Message-Id: <SUN.10.NOV.1996.181335.GMT.>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 18:13:35 GMT
Reply-To: kstuart at mail.telis.org
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ken Stuart <kstuart at MAIL.TELIS.ORG>
Subject: Re: pure advaita
Comments: To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <M.111096.105210.56 at ddi.digital.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello,

On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 15:52:10 GMT, egodust <egodust at DIGITAL.NET> wrote:

>We might consider that brahman, with its universal Totality, is utterly
>ONE massive subject.  The idea there are objects within it, is based on the
>mistaken notion that there exists something *other* than brahman.  But this
>is only a way of looking at the uncontemplatable nature of It.  A 'subject'
>unto itself is absurd...it can only exist in contrast to an 'object.'
>Therefore there can be no 'subject' that experiences or witnesses or knows.
>This represents the supreme assault on the logical Mind.

And is a clear example of why logic is only a tool, not an end unto
itself.

There is no foolproof philosophical system that doesn't have some
logical contradiction in it.   There is a lot of dancing around done
in advaita, vishishtadvaita, dvaita, madhyamika, etc. to try and avoid
that logical contradiction, when it is part of the nature of reality
itself.

For example, there is only one subject, there exists nothing other
than this subject, yet all objects are contained within it.

Abhinavagupta said:

"If the Highest Reality did not manifest in infinite variety, but
remained cooped up within its solid singleness, it would neither be
the Highest Power nor Consciousness, but something like a jar."

I find the best systems to be those that begin with the fundamental
assertion, the one that requires no assumptions, ie that without
consciousness there is no meaning, therefore consciousness is
fundamental (as opposed to "being" being fundamental - although we
ultimately find them to be the same).

Ramana takes this same path (which is where I first encountered it)
when he promotes Self-Enquiry - who is it that is asking these
questions?


Namaskar,

Ken

kstuart at mail.telis.org
http://www.zynet.com/~castlerx/kstuart/KSphilosophy.html