[Advaita-l] A Perspective - 7

[Anbu sivam2]

Quote: "t is essentially the question: should men declare the glorious
possibility of 'becoming' one with the Creator, Preserver, and Dissolver of
the universe? Or is this a dangerous presumption ?"

Western philosophies were always concerned with 'men' in general.
Philosophically 'unity' is ephemeral and transitory.  The length of time
this unity is sustained could be long enough to be concerned or short enough
to be ignored.  In the ultimate analysis all generalizations never held
water.  This is revealed in our concept of the cycle of yugas and the
pralayas.

So much so the Hindu Dharma had always had the 'individual' in view in
explaining his purushartha, particularly the parama purushartha of escaping
from the cycle.


On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Michael Shepherd <
michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> Anbuji,
>
> This question has dogged Western theology for 2,000 years, and led to
> thousands upon thousands of slaughtered, burnings, and beheadings...
>
> It is essentially the question: should men declare the glorious possibility
> of 'becoming' one with the Creator, Preserver, and Dissolver of the
> universe
> ? Or is this a dangerous presumption ?
>
> I guess the same range of  interpretations of Dwaitaadvaita may be made ?
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Anbu
> sivam2
> Sent: 24 November 2009 11:32
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] A Perspective - 7
>
>
>
> Sunilji,
>
> They have their own way of finding Vedic support to their views.  Advaitins
> too rely on the prasthaanathrayam and advocate dispassionate self-inquiry.
>
> I had found a very old talk by ParamaachaaryaaL (he gave it in 1932!) that
> my father had jotted down and stashed away among the gems of his
> collections
> and when I complete my translation I will post here so you know how the
> advocates of these three philosophies interacted thorugh centuries.
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <
> sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Anbuji,
> >
> > I am asking too many questions. I hope you will not mind. I perfectly
> agree
> > with you statement regarding the Dvaita and Advaita, when you said as
> > follows:
> >
> > ////  Dwaithis hold that the Jeeva and Easwara will remain separate for
> > ever.  In Visishtaadvaitha, these two though separate, can blend in
> > harmoniously. Though there are thaaraathmya or heirarchy among Gods the
> > jeeva can seek to get promoted to those ranks by dint of sat karma. ////
> >
> > Does this not show that the Dvaitins and Visishtadvaitins have a trace of
> > ego in not giving up the separateness from the Brahman? It may mean that
> > they do not intend to leave the last Kosha (the Anandamaya kosha). Any
> > comment?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Sunil
> >
> > --- On Tue, 11/24/09, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] A Perspective - 7
> > To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> > Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2009, 2:00 AM
> >
> > "Now let us discuss some problems or pratibandhakas that inhibit the
> > correct
> > understanding of the mahaavaakya. Mind always has a tendency to project
> or
> > objectify any knowledge, since it works in the field of tripuTi alone.
> tat
> > vijijnaasaswa – one has to inquire into the nature of reality, says the
> > Upanishad. The inquiry can only be done with the mind.  That is, I, with
> > the
> > mind is the enquirer, since mind by itself cannot do any inquiry without
> > the
> > support of a conscious entity. Hence, I say I am conscious of the inquiry
> > too. That is what pramaata means involving the tripuTi-s. Hence even in
> the
> > self-inquiry, the mind habitually has a tendency to project or objectify
> > what that ‘I am’ is, while the scripture is trying to guide the inquiry
> by
> > saying that you are not this – na iti– na iti – not this – not this.
>  Mind
> > is used to objectify and the scripture says it is the subject that is
> > involved in all objectifications.  In the very habitual objectification,
> I
> > miss the subject, the conscious entity, or to state exactly I do not pay
> > attention to the subject. This is the major problem for many spiritual
> > seekers."
> >
> > Yes indeed the inquiry can only be done with the mind, specifically by
> its
> > intellect!
> >
> > The idea that 'I am this body that is different from other bodies'
> > constitutes the awareness of "i" as opposed to the non-i where both "i"
> and
> > non-i are known as bodies.  In this idea the "i" is the witness of both.
> > There is definitely a discord between the "i" and the non-i.  This is
> > jeevathwam (pasu).  In the idea 'I am all the bodies' the awareness does
> > exist of all bodies but they are all identified with "i".  Here too the
> "i"
> > is the witness of both of bodies and the sense of "i" that is not
> specific
> > to any one single body.  However the discord is absent.  This is
> > Easwarathwam (pathi). It is likened to the many parts of human body
> > functioning in concord.
> >
> > Dwaithis hold that the Jeeva and Easwara will remain separate for ever.
> In
> > Visishtaadvaitha, these two though separate, can blend in harmoniously.
> > Though there are thaaraathmya or heirarchy among Gods the jeeva can seek
> to
> > get promoted to those ranks by dint of sat karma.
> >
> > The idea of witness has to be gleaned from the above.
> >
> > *However, for advaitins a witness, whatever is his nature, is part of the
> > guNa-karma or the 'big mind' that I talked about before.  Such witness is
> > entangled.  The Self-realization takes place only when this karma is
> > totally
> > denied of its existence through self-inquiry.** In this inquiry a person
> > travels from 'karmaNye vaa adhikaarasthE..' to 'na karmaNa na prajaya na
> > dhanaa thyaagEnaikE amrithathvamaanasuhu'.
> > *
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > (continued from the previous posting)
> > >
> > > Now let us try to understand the 'mind' in two ways viz.
> > >
> > > (i) the 'big mind' which comprises of (a) the 'small mind', (b) the
> > > intellect, (c) "i" the ahamkara and (d) the chittha the memory and
> > >
> > > (ii) the 'small mind' that presents the world of objects to the "i" the
> > > ahamkara.  The world of objects is indeed body galore!
> > >
> > > The intellect is present only during the waking state and its function
> is
> > > to straighten out the world of objects presented by the 'small mind' in
> > time
> > > and space in a neatly fashioned way.  This is its role of
> determination.
> > The
> > > "i" is the one to which the world of objects is presented to and this
> "i"
> > > 'experiences' the world of objects.  The chittha records these
> > experiences
> > > of the "i" constantly.  Thus in waking state all the four parts of the
> > 'big
> > > mind' are present.
> > >
> > > The intellect is absent during dream time but the 'small mind' that
> > > presents the world of objects to the "i" is present.  Because of the
> > absence
> > > of the intellect during dream time the world of objects are convoluted
> > and
> > > this confounds the "i".  This confusion is recorded by the chittha.
> Thus
> > in
> > > the dream state only the three parts of the 'big mind' viz. the 'small
> > > mind', the "i" and the Chittha are present.
> > >
> > > In deep sleep state both the intellect and the 'small mind' are absent.
> > > That leaves only the two entitites viz. the "i" and the chittha to be
> > > present.
> > >
> > > *The "i" knows itself by identifying itself with a body presented to it
> > by
> > > the 'small mind'.  This is its self-awareness.* In deep sleep the mind
> is
> > > absent and so there is no body presented to be identified with.
>  Thus,
> > > even though "i" is present during deep sleep its self-awareness is not
> > > there.  "Both the world and "i" are not there" is its experience! Such
> > > experience is recorded by the chittha.
> > >
> > > *But this chittha also records the 'Ananda' experienced by the "i"!*
> > > This 'Ananda' was not apprehended by the "i" because of lack of
> > > self-awareness.  The Vedas bring it the attention of "i" of the
> existence
> > of
> > > this 'Ananda'.
> > >
> > > In summation, the "i" is a saakshi for it is present in all the three
> > > states.  Because of its self-awareness is linked to a body that it
> > > identifies itself as "i" it considers itself as kartha and bhoktha in
> > waking
> > > and dream states and non-existent during deep sleep.  However being
> part
> > of
> > > the 'big mind'it is part of the world of karma and thus it is inert.
> > Karma
> > > kim param?  Karma thajjadam exclaims Bhagavan Ramana.  Jadam indeed has
> > no
> > > self-awareness.
> > >
> > > Yet the awareness was ever present despite the jadam nature of the "i".
> > > That indeed was revealed by the experience of 'Ananda'.  This is first
> > > postulated as the True Saakshi (as in the Geetha verse quoted), however
> > when
> > > the false 'big mind' is rejected by the self-inquiry the survivor is
> > known
> > > as the "I" the True Saakshi that has nothing to witness! Yes, the True
> > > Saakshi is beyond anubhava!  It is pure Ananda.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Quote: "The one who was awake even in the deep-sleep state cannot be
> > >> called as pramaata, since the status of pramaata comes with tripuTi
> with
> > >> prameyam and pramANa present. In the deep-sleep state, I am pure
> > saakshii,
> > >> the witnessing consciousness, witnessing ‘nothing or no-thing’.  In
> fact
> > >> Vedanta says I, as witnessing consciousness, am present all the time,
> in
> > the
> > >> waking, dream and deep-sleep states. ‘tvam’ in the ‘tat tvam asi’
> refers
> > to
> > >> that pure witnessing consciousness.  All the states of experience come
> > and
> > >> go; I am ever present and ever awake as saakshii. Krishna says that
> > saakshii
> > >> is the universal consciousness, the ever present, knower of all
> fields,
> > >> KshetrajnaH; Kshetrajnam ca api maam viddhi sarva kshetreShu bhaarata;
> > and
> > >> that forms the mahaavaakya."
> > >>
> > >> The "i" who, in deep sleep, experienced nothing (of the world of
> > >> multiplicity) did experience the Ananda of the Self for that was the
> > only
> > >> thing that kept his company and so he recalls this experience when
> awake
> > in
> > >> the words "I slept happily".  That was his pure positive bhogam.
> While
> > >> dreaming and while awake he experiences the bhogam in the form of
> > misram,
> > >> that is both positively and negatively.  While awake he claims that he
> > is a
> > >> karmi for the mere fault of being pressured into doing karma which is
> > always
> > >> painful while in other two states he is merely a bhogi.  This
> > 'experiencing'
> > >> is suggested as being a witness.  This is vaachyaartham.  In
> > vaachyaartham
> > >> 'i'-who claims to be kartha and bhoktha- is part of the mind which in
> > the
> > >> ultimate analysis is found to be false.  Therefore the 'i' of the
> > >> vaachyaartham is false.
> > >>
> > >> The Kshethragnya is the Self that keeps his company in all three
> states
> > >> and the suggestion is that He is the true Witness.
> > >>
> > >> The jeeva in ordinary course would not know of the Kshethragnya and
> that
> > >> would make him conclude that he is merely a kartha and a bhoktha
> > >> alternatively, who is born and dead either for one time or to repeat
> in
> > >> endless cycles.  It is to the credit of Prasthaanathrayam that brings
> to
> > his
> > >> attention of the existence of the Kshethragnya that sends him into the
> > fresh
> > >> enquiry on the relation between him and the Kshethragnya.
> > >>
> > >> Addvaitins contend that the Jeeva is the Kshethragnya in lakshyaartham
> > and
> > >> if indeed he achieves his lakshya by the Grace of his Guru he is sure
> to
> > >> find that there was never a kshethra in the first place!
> > >>
> > >> The suggestion is: Know the true Witness (the 'one who was awake even
> in
> > >> deep-sleep' as Sadanandaji put it) and that true Witness is none other
> > than
> > >> you!
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>