advaitam and Kashmir shaivam

[Hank Young]

Please take me out of this group or off your e-mail list.
Thanks
Hank

----------
> From: Gregory Goode <goode at DPW.COM>
> To: ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU
> Subject: Re: advaitam and Kashmir shaivam
> Date: Thursday, July 31, 1997 1:27 AM
>
> Martin Gifford said:
>
> > >The physical universe is Brahman - so says Ramana Maharshi. He said
> > >that he only denies it's reality for beginners. I think what he is
really
> > >denying is the imposed ideas on physical reality that dualistic
thinking
> > >people have; not the reality itself.
>
> To which Ramakrishnan said:
> >
> > Please! He said no such thing. brahma satya, jagat mithyA is agreed
upon
> > by all advaitins. It is quite clear from RMs writings also. RM merely
> > said if the physical world of name and form is removed, the substratum
> > behind it, i.e., brahman alone is reality. Only in this way the world
is
> > brahman and not otherwise.  Otherwise what is the point in saying that
> > brahman does not undergo any change (which RM has amply elucidated
> > countless times)? If a physical world of name and form is perceived,
> > then it is a superimposition on brahman by mAyA only. The former
> > approach is sarvaM khalvidaM brahma and the latter is the neti, neti
> > approach. They have nothing to do with the maturity of the student ...
> Martin was pretty close to the mark, from what I could find in RM's
> writings.  Below is a quotation where RM explains how he tells seekers
> that the world is illusory based on the level of his questioner,
> the questioner not yet having realized that all is Brahman.  So the
> maturity of the student is relevant.
>
> You also attribute something to RM that I can't find anywhere.
> You say that RM explains the relationship between the physical
> world and Brahman the substratum by way of removing the world of name
> and form.  Nowhere could I find this method of exposition, in terms of
> removing the world of name and form.  Can you provide citations?
> Instead, RM seems to emphasize SEEING the world as Brahman, not
> removing the world and having Brahman left over as substratum.
> Big difference.  In the method you attribute to RM, the world is
> not seen.  In what I could find in the RM quotes below, the
> world is seen, but seen as Brahman.
>
> --Greg
>
> ------------------------
> Various Ramana Maharshi quotes on Brahman and the world:
> ------------------------
> Q: So the world is not really illusory?
> A: At the level of the spiritual seeker you have got to say that
> the world is an illusion.  There is no other way. ... When he
> once realizes his own Self he will know that there is nothing
> other than his own Self and he will come to look upon the whole
> universe as Brahman. ... Take a paper.  We see only the script,
> and nobody notices the paper on which the script is written.
> The paper is there whether the script on it is there or not.  To
> those who look upon the script as real, you have to say that it
> is unreal, an illusion, since it rests upon the paper.  The wise
> man looks upon both the paper and script as one.  So also with
> Brahman and the universe.
>
>      --Letters from Sri Ramanasramam, p. 94
>
> Q: Should I not see the world at all?
> A: You are not instructed to shut your eyes to the world.  You
> are only to 'see yourself first and then see the whole world as
> the Self'.  If you consider yourself as the body the world
> appears to be external.  If you are the Self the world appears
> as Brahman.
>
>      --Talks With Sri Ramana Maharshi, p. 228
>
>
> Q: All are said to be Brahman.
> A: Yes, they are.  But so long as you think that they are apart
> they are to be avoided.  If on the other hand they are found to
> be the Self there is no need to say 'all'.  For all that exists
> is only Brahman.  There is nothing besides Brahman.
>
> Q: _Ribhu_Gita_ speaks of so many objects as unreal, adding at
> the end that they are all Brahman and thus real.
> A: Yes.  When you see them as so many they are asat, i.e.
> unreal.  Whereas when you see them as Brahman they are real,
> deriving their reality from their substratum, Brahman.
>
>      --Talks, p. 269