[Advaita-l] Being atma versus knowing atma

[Anbu sivam2]

Quote: "

On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Jaldhar H. Vyas
<jaldhar at braincells.com>wrote:An entity that posesses viveka, chetana,
etc. has a different
perspective on being than one which is jada.  Hence the necessity for talk.
"

All talks are possible only when you ignore tne obvious.  Can Viveka not
ignore the obvious and yet operate?

 I thought the Veda exhorted one to abandon the intellect - the viveki.
I suppose the thrill is in opting for this 'vivekam'!

> [Was Re: [Advaita-l] shudra]
>
>
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Anbu sivam2 wrote:
>
> Truly not Knowing Aathma is no bar to being Aathma.  If Being is knowing
>> then unknowing has no meaning!  Question is: can Being be unknowing?  If
>> the
>> answer is no then there is no aathma vichaaram.  All our problem arises
>> when
>> we answer yes!
>> The sanest advise ever been "summa iru, sollara"  (Just be and dom't
>> talk)!!
>>
>>
> What you say is very true however the same is true for a rock, or a tree,
> or a puddle.  All of them have as much Brahman-nature as Shankaracharya. But
> in my previous experience no rock has ever asked to join advaita-l :-)
>
> An entity that posesses viveka, chetana, etc. has a different perspective
> on being than one which is jada.  Hence the necessity for talk.  I have
> often remarked that this darshan is not called aikya ("one") but advaita
> ("not-two.")  Duality is our everyday experience and it must be known to be
> false before we can just "be."
>
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Michael Shepherd wrote:
>
> Jaldhar
>>
>> I've had this answer of yours for a few days, but I'd like to question it
>> :
>>
>> Atmajnana may be even rarer than the merit of a human birth (what must we
>> have done ? Been good dogs ? good snakes ?...)
>>
>
> Sure.  Why not?
>
> -- but surely atmaseva is
>> something within our reach and duty, whether identifiable as our
>> varnadharma
>> or not ?
>>
>>
> Yes it is but consider this.  atma in sanskrit merely means self.  It is
> Vedanta which has given it a meaning above and beyond the dictionary sense.
>  Most people know the self as the enjoyer of material things and feel sorrow
> when those things are taken away.  But this is called being "selfish"  It is
> not what we mean by knowing the (unlimited) self.  Who has transcended the
> limits should be given all respect because he has accomplished a rare feat
> indeed.
>
>
> --
> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>