[Advaita-l] Inward and outward contemplation

[Ven Balakrishnan]

Jaldhar-ji

On the other Brhad Up talks in two ways about Knowledge - identity with all and disidentification with body-mind (like a snake sloughing its skin).  Group  identification  is as much a limiting factor as body-mind identification; it is an outcome of the latter.

And of the world ‘out there”, Gaudapada in MK2.6:
“That which is non-existent at the beginning and in the end, is necessarily so in the middle. The objects are like the illusions we see, still they are regarded as real.”

Sankara: “Though they are of the same nature as illusory objects, such as mirage, on account of their non-existence at the beginning and at the end, still they are regarded as real by the ignorant, the persons that do not know the Atman.”

Also in BSB 4.1.3, Sankara writes:
"The criticism is also unfounded that no one will be left over to practise the Vedantic path and that direct perception etc. will be outraged. For the transmigratory state is conceded before enlightenment, and the activities like perception are confined within that state only, because texts as this, "But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what?" (Br. II. iv. 14), point out the absence of perception etc. in the state of enlightenment.”

The thrust of Gaudapada and Sankara is to regard the world - and most particularly the body-mind - as unreal, illlusory.  Ramana’s ‘who am I’ is doing just this.

Best wishes,
venkat

> On 25 Aug 2021, at 00:34, jaldhar at braincells.com wrote:
> 
> (was Re: [Advaita-l] Anugita bhasya)
> 
> 
> Owing to all kinds of things going on in my life most of all Shravana masa where daily abhishek takes precedence over everything, I am way behind in taking part in this list.  Hopefully over the next few days I can remedy this.
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021, Ven Balakrishnan via Advaita-l wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Ramana it always seemed to me that the quest of ‘who am I’ is the fundamental question that Advaita is trying to address.  His essay "Nan Yar” essentially summarises the key aspects of advaitic teaching, without going into the logical reasoning that Sankara does.  Also this ‘who am I’ diving inwardly contemplation, strikes me as comparable to BG in its recommendation to have a constant stream of thought towards the Self.  It is also I think the implication of Brhad Up 3.5.1 when it talks about living on the strength of that knowledge and dwelling on it - as Sankara says in Brhad Up 4.5.15:  neti, neti and renunciation is the final conclusion of it all.
> 
> Certainly "who am I?" should be the question every sadhaka should ask but why should that require only "inward" contemplation.  It should defintely include inward focus but sometimes I think it gets forgotten that Brahman is "pervades all this and ten fingers beyond" as the purushasukta puts it.  The root bR^inn from which brahman is derived also means growth or increase.  Brahman is as much "out there" as "in here."
> 
> I think where the emphasis gets placed depends a lot on the experience of individual mystics.  Some experience a massive collapse of sense of self where one seems to be nothing at all. Others have an equally massive expansion of consciousness where one becomes everything.  Think of Arjunas vishvarupa darshana (though that experience did not go well for him.)  One of the reasons I think Ramana appeals to more "modern" types is that in the current culture one is taught to think of oneself as an individual, and the conditions of modernity leave many as alienated individuals at that.  Personally though I am also steeped in modernity, my group identity(ies) is/are more important to me and perhaps that's why I don't "get" Ramana the way others do.
> 
> -- 
> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>