NIRVANASHATKAM

[un824 at FREENET.VICTORIA.BC.CA]

Namaste,

Ramakrishnan clarifies:

>The so called "concepts" are due to avidyA or mAyA and not the other way
>around.
>
>The causal chain is this way:
>
>--------------
>|self (Atman)| -> (ego, viz the object portion in the consciousness I) ->
>--------------
>                  (intellect) -> (object of cognition, act of cognition)
>
>The dotted lines around Atman illustrate the avidyA or mAyA which obscures the
>true nature of the self. mAyA cannot obscure Atman completely and this is
>apparent by the mANDUkya shruti's saying "ekAtmapratyaya sAram" or the valid
>proof (of turIya) is that the single Atman exists in all three states. I have
>tried to illustrate this fact by putting a dashed box around Atman! This causal
>chain is given both in the gauDapAda kArikA and the upadeshasAhasrI.
>
>shrI sha.nkara says in the upadeshasAhasrI that the object portion in the
>consciousness "I" should be given up. Object portion means what is cognized,
>and
>shrI gauDapAda has clearly shown that if anything is cognized it must be unreal
>in the pAramArthika sense). shrI sha.nkara also adds that the leftover part in
>the "I" after the object portion is rejected is what is meant in the statement
>"aham brahmAsmi" or "I am brahman".
>

This sounds pretty good and tight except for one silly little quibble.

Aren't "Atman", "maya", "ego", "intellect", "object of cognition", "act of
cognition", etc. *all* concepts?  Can we (or anyone) conceive of what is
ontologically prior to the arising of concepts? In the abscence of conceptual
distinctions, is there any "Atman" as opposed to "maya"?  I say no. There
is certainly not nothing but that non-nothing is hardly conceivable either.

If anyone takes up the position prior to the arising of conceptual thought,
they will also find themselves prior to language and might therefore have a
difficult time arguing this point. (perhaps *impassioned* arm waving might
be attempted however  :-)

If anyone does take up the position prior to the arising of conceptual
thought, please don't let anyone's ego talk you out of it. IMO, only this
is Brahman (Tao, Godhead, The One, Truth, etc.) and I bow to it again and
again, my friend. The rest is just a rumor, "forget about it".   :-)

-Allan Curry

P.S.

> ..............................."ekAtmapratyaya sAram" or the valid
>proof (of turIya) is that the single Atman exists in all three states
>

Yes, what I am saying is prior to the arising of conceptual thought is
undoubtedly present periodically in all 3 states.  Are we actually talking
about the same thing here, or is there something other than "the single
Atman" which exists in all 3 states?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    "Intellect is not the Self nor apart from the Self." - Ramana Maharshi
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~