Vedanta - Discussion Forum I (introductory))

[Guest]

If someone says : A is beyond reality.

Then the use of word 'is' in the sentence is highly questionable. 'is' implies existense, being, 'sat' or the reality. If something IS beyond reality, then how can you use the word "IS" to describe its state.

[gangajal]

<!--QuoteBegin-Ashok Kumar+Jan 27 2005, 04:22 AM-->QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Jan 27 2005, 04:22 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> I define something called 'non-brahman'.  Since brahman according to the quote is 'everything' , is brahman also the non-brahman?

In the quote the words 'unreal' and 'exists' have been used to basically say thet 'unreal exists', which is same as saying 'non-existent exists'. Also  'brahman transcends reality and unreality' can be rephrased as 'reality transcends reality and unreality'. 

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There can be no non-Brahman if Brahman is everything. The quote that Brahman is beyond the reality-unreality paradigm is only another way of saying that the human mind can not grasp Brahman in its entirety.

[Guest]

Sridhar, it appears that you used the term 'unreality' for maya or jagat, but in fact perhaps you wanted to call it REAL.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There can be no non-Brahman if Brahman is everything. The quote that Brahman is beyond the reality-unreality paradigm is only another way of saying that the human mind can not grasp Brahman in its entirety.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Gangajal, if brahman IS beyond reality, you couldn't use the term 'IS" in the sentence.

I think what you are trying to say is that brahman, maya and jagat and jivas are equally REAL. Calling something (which presumably 'is') beyond 'reality', is a fallacy.

[gangajal]

<!--QuoteBegin-Ashok Kumar+Jan 27 2005, 04:37 AM-->QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Jan 27 2005, 04:37 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Gangajal, if brahman IS beyond reality, you couldn't use the term 'IS" in the sentence.

I think what you are trying to say is that brahman, maya and jagat and jivas are equally REAL.  Calling something (which presumably 'is') beyond 'reality', is a fallacy. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ashok Kumar,
When one says Brahman is beyond reality one means that Brahman is beyond the reality grasped by the ordinary human mind. For example, I am not seeing Brahman right now. Yet our scriptures and sages and saints are saying Brahman is ALL. So in some sense the reality that my mind is telling me is not the ENTIRE reality. If the reality that my mind is telling me is all then there can be no Brahman. It is only in this sense that Brahman is beyond reality. A more exact way to say this is that Brahman is beyond the limited reality seen by my mind. There is no fallacy here.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->When one says Brahman is beyond reality one means that Brahman is beyond the reality grasped by the ordinary human mind. For example, I am not seeing Brahman right now. Yet our scriptures and sages and saints are saying Brahman is ALL. So in some sense the reality that my mind is telling me is not the ENTIRE reality. If the reality that my mind is telling me is all then there can be no Brahman. It is only in this sense that Brahman is beyond reality. A more exact way to say this is that Brahman is beyond the limited reality seen by my mind. There is no fallacy here.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Gangajal, Here you are saying that after transcending the 'percieved reality' we come to a 'higher' reality. This is what the method of Shankaracharya's advaita is too. So, brahman is situated in a 'higher' reality. Brahman is not 'beyond reality'.

[gangajal]

Ashok Kumar,
No one can "see" or experience Brahman without chittasuddhi. So in that sense Brahman is indeed higher reality. It is not just Shankaracharya's Advaita but all Vedantic systems involve some form of japa and dhyana to take us beyond the rather limited reality seen by us. So I do not disagree with you when you say that Brahman is higher reality. It may just be semantics.

[Guest]

Brahman is said to be beyond dualities. I think that was the intent of Sridhar too. Thats why most statemnts like 'brahman is beyond A and not-A' are fine. But treating 'reality-unreality' also as a similar duality is risky.

Existence and non-existence can't be put on opposite but equal levels. Brahman is reality itself, thats why 'sat' in sacchidananda.

Existence 'IS" and non-existence 'IS-NOT'. They can't be put on equal and opposite levels.

Existence (sat) doesn't require the reference of non-existence to be. It is self-existent. While non-existence requires a reference to existence.

Think about light and darkness. Light is made of real photons. Darkness is not made of real dark photons. It is the absence of real photons. Darkness can only be defined by a negation. Light can be defined directly in terms of photons, it doesnt need to be defined as a negation of darkness.

[Guest]

AKji,
I did say unreal for jagat. I thought that i was wearing a advaitic hat and was questioning the example that Gangajalji gave. Isn't Jagat unreal from an advaitic standpoint?

When i said reality in 'beyond reality', i was talking about the reality which is beyond mind and the intellect can grasp. If the arguements are within the logical boundaries, . is not nirguna brahman beyond mind and intellect. If logic itself is limited to mind and intellect how do we account for nirguna brahman without Chida sudhi(which is beyind mind and intellect?).

PS: I am not taking sides here. Just trying to understand what the philosophy says and where i stand.

From my apology of a knowledge, my position is advaita is the ultimate reality and Vishitadvaita is valid *within* the reality that a human mind and intellect can comprehend. Since, we won't talk about reality-unreality when we transcend maya and when we are within it, i take Vadvaita as valid as long as i am within maya.

[Guest]

Light and darkness paradigm,- LOL , i got reminded on my theory about TSP. TSP (darkness) is an entity which can only defined as the negation of India(light) <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

doing what i always do best, i.e ctrl+c , ctrl +v

from Ramanuja bhasya on Srimad Bhagavat Gita,
chapter 2. 12 Link :

Select Ramanujacharya's english commentary or best original Sanskrit from select text on the left side
************************************************************

2.12 Indeed, I, the Lord of all, who is eternal, was never non-existent,
but existed always. It is not that these selves like you, who are subject to
My Lordship, did not exist; you have always existed. It is not that 'all of
us', I and you, shall cease to be 'in the future', i.e., beyond the present
time; we shall always exist. Even as no doubt can be entertainted that I,
the Supreme Self and Lord of all, am eternal, likewise, you (Arjuna and all
others) who are embodied selves, also should be considered eternal.
The foregoing implies that the difference between the Lord, the
sovereign over all, and the individual selves, as also the differences
among the individual selves themselves, are real. This has been declared
by the Lord Himself. For, different terms like 'I', 'you', 'these', 'all' and
'we' have been used by the Lord while explaining the truth of eternality in
order to remove the misunderstanding of Arjuna who is deluded by
ignorance.


[Now follows a refutation of the Upadhi theory of Bhaskara
and the Ignorance theory of the Advaitins which deny any ultimate
difference between the Lord and the Jivas.]

If we examine (Bhaskara's) theory of Upadhis (adjuncts), which states that the apparent differences among Jivas are due to adjuncts, it will have to be admitted that mention about differences is out of place when explaining the ultimate truth,
because the theory holds that there are no such differences in reality.
But that the differences mentioned by the Lord are natural, is taught by
the Sruti also:

'Eternal among eternals, sentient among sentients, the
one, who fulfils the desires of the many' (Sve. U. VI. 13, Ka. U. V. 13).

The meaning of the text is: Among the eternal sentient beings who are
countless, He, who is the Supreme Spirit, fulfils the desires of all.' As
regards the theory of the Advaitins that the perception of difference is
brought about by ignorance only and is not really real, the Supreme
Being --- whose vision must be true and who, therefore must have an
immediate cognition of the differencelss and immutable and eternal
consciousness as constituting the nature of the Atman in all authenticity,
and who must thereby be always free from all ignorance and its effects -
-- cannot possibly perceive the so-called difference arising from
ignornace.

It is, therefore, unimaginable that He engages himself in
activities such as teaching, which can proceed only from such a
perception of differences arising from ignorance. The argument that
the Supreme Being, though possessed of the understanding of nomduality,
can still have the awareness of such difference persisting even
after sublation, just as a piece of cloth may have been burnt up and yet
continues to have the appearance of cloth, and that such a continuance
of the subltated does not cause bondage --- such an argument is invalid
in the light of another analogy of a similar kind, namely, the perception of
the mirage, which, when understood to be what it is, does not make one
endeavour to fetch water therefrom. In the same way even if the
impression of difference negated by the non-dualistic illumination
persists, it cannot impel one to activities such as teaching; for the object
to whom the instruction is to be imparted is discovered to be unreal. The
idea is that just as the discovery of the non-existence of water in a
mirage stops all effort to get water from it, so also when all duality is
sublated by illumination, no activity like teaching disciples etc., can take
place. Nor can the Lord be conceived as having been previously
ignorant and as attaining knowledge of unity through the scirptures, and
as still being subject to the continuation of the stultified experiences.
Such a position would stand in contradiction to the Sruti and the Smrti:
'He, who is all-comprehender' (Mun. U., 1. 1. 9); all knower and supreme
and natural power of varied types are spoken of in Srutis, such as
knowledge, strength and action' (Sve. U. 6. 8); 'I know, Arjuna, all beings
of the past, present and future but no one knows Me,' etc. (Gita 7. 26).
And again, if the perception of difference and distinction are said to
persist even after the unitary Self has been decisively understood, the
question will arise --- to whom will the Lord and the succession of
teachers of the tradition impart the knowledge in accordance with their
understanding? The question needs an answer. The idea is that
knowledge of non-duality and perception of differences cannot co-exist.
If it be replied by Advaitins holding the Bimba-Pratibimba (the original
and reflections) theory that teachers give instructions to their own
reflections in the form of disciples such as Arjuna, it would amount to an
absurdity. For, no one who is not out of his senses would undertake to
give any instruction to his own reflections in mediums such as a precious
stone, the blade of a sword or a mirror, knowing, as he does, that they
are non-different from himself. The theory of the persistence of the
sublated is thus impossible to maintain, as the knowledge of the unitary
self destroys the beginningless ignorance in which differences falling
outside the self are supposed to be rooted. 'The persistence of the
sublated' does occur in cases such as the vision of the two moons,
where the cause of the vision is the result of some real defect in
eyesight, nor removable by the right understanding of the singleness of
the moon. Even though the perception of the two moons may continue,
the sublated cognition is rendered inconsequential on the strength of
strong contrary evidence. For, it will not lead to any activity appropriate
for a real experience. But in the present context (i.e. the Advaitic), the
conception of difference, whose object and cause are admittedly unreal,
is cancelled by the knowledge of reality. So the 'persistence of the
sublated' can in no way happen. Thus, if the Supreme Lord and the
present succession of preceptors have attained the understanding of
(Non-dual) reality, their perception of difference and work such as
teaching proceeding from that perception, are impossible. If, on the
other hand, the perception of difference persists because of the
continuance of ignorance and its cause, then these teachers are
themselves ignorant of the truth, and they will be incapable of teaching
the truth. Further, as the preceptor has attained the knowledge of the
unitary self and thereby the ignorance concerning Brahman and all the
effects of such ignorance are thus annihilated, there is no purpose in
instructing the disciple. It it is held that the preceptor and his knowledge
are just in the imagination of the disciple, the disciple and his knowledge
are similarly the product of the imagination of the preceptor, and as such
can not put an end to the ignorance in question. If it is maintained that
the disciple's knowledge destroys ignorance etc., because it contradicts
the antecedent state of non-enlightenment, the same can be asserted of
the preceptor's knowledge. The futility of such teachings is obvious.
Enough of these unsound doctrines which have all been refuted.
*****************************************************************

[Guest]

The following may be relevant here especially after the following

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In the same way even if the impression of difference negated by the non-dualistic illumination persists, it cannot impel one to activities such as teaching; for the object
to whom the instruction is to be imparted is discovered to be unreal. The
idea is that just as the discovery of the non-existence of water in a
mirage stops all effort to get water from it, so also when all duality is
sublated by illumination, no activity like teaching disciples etc., can take
place <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Kanchi Paramacharya in his explanation on Soundarya lahiri, answers .

Not sure whether AKji got time to read this when Sunderji posted. Being a Shakta, he may really enjoy it.
***********************************************************************
“How could Adi Shankara, who preached the jnAna mArga, have
promoted this work (Soundaryalahari) of bhakti? It cannot be his,” say
some who profess ‘Philosophy’. But our Acharya was not a professor
who isolated philosophy as a separate discipline. Having written very
profoundly on advaita and its deepest implications in his several
commentaries and the other works of his, he promoted the spiritual
pursuit of the common man by writing and talking about the need to
follow one’s swadharma by Karma and Bhakti. His intent was to raise
the common man from his own level. For this purpose he went from
one pilgrim centre to another all his life and composed hymns after
hymns and also established yantras in temples.

The philosophers argue: JnAni says everything is One. But Bhakti
can happen only when there is the duality of the devotee and the deity.
Therefore, they say, the jnAni can never be a bhakta. These
philosophers cannot themselves claim to have the Enlightenment of
advaita ! But there have been those who could have so claimed, like the
sage Suka, Madhusudana Saraswati or Sadasiva-brahmam. If we
carefully study their lives we will know that they had been devotees of
God in the fullest sense of the word and have themselves written works
of Bhakti. Even in our own times Ramakrishna Paramahamsa has been
a great devotee of Mother Goddess. Ramana Maharishi has done works
of devotion on God Arunachalesvara. Again, on the other side, great
devotees like Manikka-vasagar, Nammazhvar, Arunagiri-nathar,
Tayumanavar, etc. have themselves been convinced advaitins, and this
is reflected in innumerable flashes in their compositions.

If a jnAni should not do a Bhakti composition, then I would say
that he should not also do a work of jnAna. Why am I saying this? Let
us go back to the definition of a jnAni. ‘ The world is all mAyA; the
thinking of people as if they were separate separate jIvAtmAs is nothing
but Ignorance’ - with such a conviction through personal experience,
they have thrown away that Ignorance as well as its basic locus, the
mind, and they live in the non-dualistic state of ‘ ‘I’ am everything’ –
such should be the status of the jnAni; shouldn’t it be so? Such a
person preaching, or writing a book, even if it be about the subject of
jnAna – is it not a contradiction? Unless such a person thinks there is a
world outside of him and there are jIvAtmAs outside, how can he think
of ‘teaching’? Teaching whom? And when we look at it this way, all
those great teachers of jnAna should really not be jnAnis ! What power
will there be for such a teaching about jnAna from teachers who are not
jnAnis themselves?

On the other hand what do we observe in our experience? Whether
it is the teaching about jnAna in the Gita, or the Viveka Chudamani of
our Acharya, or the Avadhuta Gita of Sri Dattatreya or the teaching in
the Yoga-vASiShTa, or a song of Tayumanavar – even as we just read
these we feel we are being taken beyond the curtain created by mAyA to
some distant peaceful state of Calm. Just by reading, in one’s spiritually
ripe stage, such teachings, there have been people who have renounced
the world and reached the state of Bliss-in-one-Self! If these teachings
had not been written from that spiritual apex of Experiential Excellence,
how could such things have ever happened?

Therefore, however much by our intellectual logic, we may argue
whether a jnAni can get bhakti, how the jnAni can do any preaching
and so such possibilities cannot exist and so on, these are certainly
happening, by the Will of the Lord which is beyond the Possible and the
Impossible.

<b>It is only the Play of the Lord that, the jnAni, who is non-dualistic
internally, appears to do things in the dualistic world. His mind may
have vanished, mAyA might have been transcended by him; but that
does not mean the outside world of jIvAtmAs has disintegrated. What do
we gather from this? There is a Super-Mind which does all this and in
some mysterious way is compering and directing the entire universe. And
it also means it is the same Supra-Mind that is making the minds of
men revolve in the illusion of mAyA. It is that Power which is known in
advaita scriptures as saguNa-brahman or Ishvara. In the scriptures
devoted to Shakti or Shiva , whenever they call the Actionless nirguNa-
Brahman as ‘ShivaM’ they call this saguNa-brahman as ‘Shakti’, ‘parA-
shakti’ or ‘ambAL’. Just as that nirguNa-Brahman exhibits itself and acts
</b>

as the saguNa-brahman, so also, it must be presumed, that the
enlightened jnAni also does his external actions and that again, is the
work of the saguNa-brahman!

What is the path of jnAna? It is the effort through self-enquiry and
meditation for the eradication of the mind and vanquishing of mAyA.
But the other path is to dedicate oneself and all one’s thoughts and
actions to that very parA-shakti (who produced this mAyA on us) with an
attitude of devotion. It is like giving the house-key to the thief himself !
However much the parA-shakti may play with you and toss you and your
mind hither and thither, Her infinite compassion cannot be negated.
Only when we separate and rejoin, we realise the value of that union. To
pray to Her for that reunion and for Her to get us back to Her in answer
to our prayers – this is the great LeelA of Duality wherein She exhibits

Her Infinite Compassion ! So when one prays with Bhakti for such
release She releases Him by giving Him that Wisdom of Enlightenment.
It is wrong to think that the goal of Bhakti lies in the dualistic
attitude of being separate from God. It is by this wrong assumption that
people ask the question: How can a jnAni exhibit Bhakti? In the very path
of Bhakti wherein it appears there is an embedded duality, the same
Bhakti would lead the practitioner to the stage where he will ask: Oh
God! May I be one with You! This is the subtle point which the
questioning people miss. When that stage comes to the devotee, the very
parA-shakti known as kArya-brahman or saguNa-brahman will bless him
with that jnAna that takes him to the non-dual kAraNa-brahman or
nirguNa-brahman.

Not everybody can practise the path of jnAna that brings the
realisation of the mahA-vAkyas by sravaNa (hearing), manana (thinking
and recalling) and nididhyAsana (contemplating). Only when the mind
vanishes one can realise the Self as the Absolute Brahman. If that is so,
the real question is: How to kill the truant mind, which refuses to be
subdued, much less vanquished ? The very effort of vanquishing the
mind has to be done by the mind only. How can it kill itself ? The palm
can slap another; but it cannot slap itself. Though we are thus brought
to a dilemma, there is a supreme power which has created all these
minds. So instead of self-effort to kill our minds, we should leave it to the
parA-shakti and surrender to Her. Instead of falling at the feet of the
witness for the prosecution we fall at the feet of the prosecutor himself !
Then She will help us quell the mind; She will grace us with the
necessary jnAna.

Either She might totally eradicate your mind and give you the
peaceful state of ‘I am shiva’ (shivoham) or She might tell you from
within:

“Look, after all, all this is My Play. The Play appears real to you
because of mAyA. I shall totally erase that mAyA-view for you. Then you
can also be like me, with that calm non-dual bliss inside and having on
the outside a mind which is untouched by mAyA. Thereby you can also
be a witness to all this worldly Dance. You will thus see yourself in Me
and see Me in all the worldly multiplicities. In other words instead of
making the mind non-existent, your mind will then be full of Me”
And She might make you just exactly that way. But I know your
worry. You constantly worry about the impossibility of transcending
mAyA, of eradicationg this worldly vision and of vanquishing the mind.

You keep worrying to the extent of almost weeping over it. To such a
weiling seeker She replies:
“Why do you worry and weep like this? You are worrying that you
cannot discard the world from your view. But you forget that the world
was not your making. This Sun and Moon, mountains, trees, oceans,
animal kingdom, and the millions of living beings and categories – all this
was not created by you.
“When that is so, you are worrying about the little ‘you’ that you
are, and you forget that this little ‘you’ also was not your creation.
Instead of thinking all this is not only one but one with Me, your mAyA-
clouded view makes you think they are all different and distinct. And
even that mAyA-view that clouds you, again was not your making!
“My dear child, you are caught up in the web of the world, a mind
and a MAyA-cloud -- all this is My making. Did I not make Krishna say
to you: mama mAyA duratyayA ? (My mAyA is intranscendable). I have
also told you there that it is ‘daivI’ (made by the Power of God). If you
had made it all, then you could have overcome them. But it was all made
by Me in the fullness of Power.
“You jIvas have only little fragments of that Power. So if you cannot
eradicate the world, the mind and the MAyA that I have made, you don’t
have to cry over it. It is not in your Power. It has to take place only by My
Grace. Come nearer to Me through Devotion ! I shall do the eradication
in proper doses for you.
“That somebody is able to control his mind and is able to walk on
the path of jnAna – that again is My own Grace. It is I who have granted
that privilege to him. What appears as many and different must be seen
as one. To crave for that view is what is called ‘advaita-vAsanA’. One gets
it only by My Grace”.
(Now the Mahaswamigal, who has been talking in the words of the
Mother Goddess, continues on his own).
There is another novelty here. Even the jnAni who has had the
non-dual Enlightenment, still enjoys the play of mAyA. He sees the
different things; but knows they are all one. Just as a spectator of a play
who is not playing any role in it, the jnAni enjoys the playful novelties of
mAyA and revels in his devotion to that parA-Sakthi who is the author of
it all. To be keeping such jnAnis in this dual-non-dual state is also the
A Digest of Discourses on Soundaryalahari 6
work of Mother Goddess. Mark it. It is not that the jnAni is showing
Devotion just for the sake of others only. No, By himself he is indeed
thinking
( I think the Mahaswamigal is here
letting out an autobiographical tip !)
‘What a pleasure to witness this dualistic play of the non-dualistic
One ! What a multiplicity of beauty, panoramic variety and continuity of
Love !’ . Thus revelling in that blissful vision, he continues to pour out
his own love (bhakti) to that Transcendental Power from the bottom of his
heart. This tribute to the jnAni has been given by the great Teacher Suka
himself.
(Cf. Bhagavatam 1-7-10:
AtmArAmAshca munayaH nirgranthA apy-urukrame;
kurvanty-ahaitukIm bhaktim itham-bhUta-guNo hariH. – meaning,
Those who revel in the Self, even though rid of all attachments,
show a causeless bhakti towards the Lord, just naturally.)
On the one hand the devotee who has yet to get the
Enlightenment enjoys the devotional state for the very reason of getting
the Enlightenment; on the other hand, the one who is already
enlightened and is a jIvan-mukta shows his bhakti for the sake of
enjoyment of that bhakti and not for any other reward or purpose.
*******************************************************************

Link : Sundar A(I)ya, can u help with the link:

[Sunder]

<!--QuoteBegin-sridhar k+Jan 27 2005, 07:21 AM-->QUOTE(sridhar k @ Jan 27 2005, 07:21 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Link : Sundar A(I)ya,  can u help with the link: <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There you go.. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/DPDS01-05.html

I have been reading the posts. however, as work is hectic, I haven't posted yet. Shall do so tomorrow or sooner..

[Guest]

Thanks Sridhar & Sunder,

Those comments on Saundarya Lahari by the Paramacharya are priceless!

Sridhar, I wasn't sure whether you were taking the advaitic view about jagat etc being unreal or the vishstadvaitic view. I assumed you wanted to take the vishstadvaitic view of brahman=narayana+jivas+jagat , everything is brahman and real.

[Guest]

I would like to further dissect the 'Ocean model of brahman'.

It has been said that the ocean model represents the multitudes of forms appearing from a unit formless. Ocean is compared to the formless Nirguna brahman, and the ice etc the various forms that arise from it.

I have a very hard time accepting this. The ocean model is actually a model for the 'prakriti', not for the brahman.

1. It is prakriti which is the material cause. The disequilibrium of the gunas lead to various forms arising in it.
2. Prakriti has divisions already in it, just like the ocean which is inherently divided into many water molecules. Its formlessness is the formlessness in prakriti when it is not disturbed by the disequilibrium of gunas.

An calm ocean is still a collection of inert parts that just happen to be in a formless configuration. Brahman on the other hand is all consciousness and Self and one without a second.

As far as models are concerned, I prefer the upside down Ashwathha tree model where brahman is the root, and jivas and other things branches.

[gangajal]

Those who follow Jnana marga find Shankara's Kevalaadvaita model admirable. Those who do japa and dhyana of Sagun Brahman do not like Shankara's model. After all why should anyone do japa of an ultimately unreal Saguna Brahman? It is from this perspective that Ramakrishna model, which incidentally is close to Tantric model, is very useful.

As an aside we all know the advatic explanation of TAT TWAM ASI.

Ramanujacharya says that this mahavakya means: Narayana with individual jivas as body = Narayana with the entire universe as the body.

Madhavacharya says that the Advaitists and Vishsitadvaitists have gotten the Mahavakya completely wrong. Actually it is ATAT TWAM ASI. It means Vishnu (Brahman) is eternally different from Jiva.

[Sunder]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Those who do japa and dhyana of Sagun Brahman do not like Shankara's model. After all why should anyone do japa of an ultimately unreal Saguna Brahman? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The spiritual infants practise Japa, Pooja, Dhyana, Mudra, Pranayama, Prathyahara etc because they have not realized their identity as the Universal Consciousnness. The reason kids play with barbie-dolls is not because Barbie is a living person. The imagination of the child brings the doll alive. The child imposes her thoughts on 'Barbie' and speaks for her, walks her, dresses her etc. Shodasa-Upachara pooja is similar. The Jeeva imagines the Brahman and invites the Universal spirit into a confined moorthy. Ahvaanam (invitation), Praana-Prathishta (breathing life into the idol), and upasthaanam (sending it back), and visarjanam (dissolving the idol.) is common. This does not prove the realness or falseness of anything.
Now, as an Advaitin, I say that the Japa/Pooja and Dhyana are all Samvadhi Bhrama (leading errors.) Instead of my repeating it here, I shall post the link and quote a small portion here. http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/panch/panch_09.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Meditation on Brahman leads to its realisation, as in the case of Samvadi-bhrama, or erroneous notion of a thing leading to a successful result in relation to that thing. Hence in the Upanishads various kinds of Upasanas, or meditations, are described. Take the instance of a person seeing from a distance the ray of a light, situated within the walls of a room. He sees a gleam of light passing through the window of a house and getting reflected outside, and mistakes the ray of the light seen outside for a gem shining. He commits this error in his mind because he has not seen the source of the light, but only its reflection outside. Suppose this person runs after that reflection thinking that it is a gem. We can imagine the mistake that he is making in cherishing that notion. But, suppose, at another place, there is a gem kept inside a room at a distance and the light emanating from it through an aperture is also reflected outside. If this reflection of light outside is mistaken for the gem itself, there is, naturally an erroneous perception, for the light of the gem is not the gem. In the two instances cited, where one person sees the gleam of the lamp and takes it for a gem, and another where one sees the ray of light emanating from a gem and thinks it is the gem itself, though there is similarity in so far as there is a mistaken notion regarding the gem, yet, there is a difference in the results that they would achieve in pursuing the objects of their quests. While the one who has mistaken the light of the lamp for the gem would not acquire the gem by approaching it, the other who has mistaken the light of the gem for the gem itself would, by going near it, obtain it. This is an illusion in perception called Samvadi, because, though initial perception is a mistake, the end reached is the desired one. Where the end reached is something quite different from the desired one, the mistaken perception is called Visamvadi-bhrama.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As an aside we all know the advatic explanation of TAT TWAM ASI.

Ramanujacharya says that this mahavakya means: Narayana with individual jivas as body = Narayana with the entire universe as the body.
Madhavacharya says that the Advaitists and Vishsitadvaitists have gotten the Mahavakya completely wrong. Actually it is ATAT TWAM ASI. It means Vishnu (Brahman) is eternally different from Jiva. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

How does this even attempt to explain Tath Thvam Asi? This occurs in the Chandogya Upanishad NINE times. Yes, Aruni tells this to Svethakethu nine times. If you go thru each example, the "individual cellular-bodies making up a universal body" theory does not even come close to fitting the case. Take the pippala seed example or the saltwater example (ref Chandogya), and you will see there is no two. There is only ONE.

BTW, I never said "Brahman is ALL". I maintain that Brahman alone exists, or... not even that. (Quote Chandogya chapter 7, bhaumavidhya.)

[Sunder]

Tejobindu Upanishad
This is one of my ALL TIME favourite Upanishad. The Sheer beauty and tone makes you lose consciousness of this tiny little relative world.

Tejobindu Upanishad (Starting from chapter 2) is the instruction of Sri Shiva to His Son Sri Karthikeya. The 'Aham Brahmasmi Mantroyam....' series, and the 'Akandaika Rasam' series can be read over and over.

It is a keeper.

[gangajal]

Sundar ji,
You have hit the nail right on the head. Of course, I am a spiritual infant It is not just Sridhar ji who uses ^v. There is still a problem with the Kevala Advaita system. Is Maya Shakti real or unreal or anirvachaniya? We who come from the Shakta tradition will never accept that Mahamaya is anything other than Brahman. Sages and saints of the Shakta tradition are unanimous that MahaMaya is Brahman. Let me post a poem by the Shakta Master Ramprasad:
************************************************************************************
Once for all, this time, I have thoroughly understood.
From one who knows it well, I have learnt the secret of bhava(spiritual
mood).
A man has come to me from a country where there is no night,
And now I can not distinguish day from night any longer:
Rituals and Devotions have all grown profitless for me.

My sleep is broken: how can I sleep any more?
For now I am wide awake in the sleeplessness of Yoga.
O Divine Mother, made one with thee in yoga-sleep at last,
My slumber I have lulled asleep evermore.

I bow my head, says Prasad, before desire and liberation;
Knowing the secret that KALI IS ONE WITH THE HIGHEST BRAHMAN,
I have discarded, once for all both righteousness and sin.
*****************************************************************************************
Once You accept MahaMaya as real then you have to accept Jiva, Jagat and Sagun Brahman as real.

Also even if you say that ONLY Brahman exists you still have the problem of Maya. Shankaracharya says in BrahmaSutra Bhasya that Maya is the paramesha Shakti. If Maya is Brahman's shakti and only Brahman exists then does Maya exist or not? If you say Maya does not exist and only Brahman exists then it will lead to a very peculiar situation.

You are right about TAT TWAM ASI. I do not think Ramanujacharya's interpretation as correct.

[Guest]

Sunder, Tejobindu is very refreshing. Reads as inspiring as some of Swami Vivekananda's speeches. Very good use of verse to hammer away at bheda-buddhi.

It seems it were you, who transliterated the text. If yes, then congratulations and thanks as it is a pretty large sized text.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->bhaavavR^ittyaa hi bhaavatva.n shuunyavR^ittyaa hi shuunyataa .
brahmavR^ittyaa hi puurNatva.n tayaa puurNatvamabhyaset.h .. 42.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

In this quote, shunya-vR^itti is perhaps referring to Buddhist mediation on shUnya. What does bhAva-vR^itti refer to? Saguna meditation?

P.S. There may be a minor typo, an extra 'a' in the following:
<i>samaadhau kriyamaaNe tu vighnaanyaaayaanti vai balaat.h .
anusandhaanaraahityamaalasyaM bhogalaalasam.h .. 40..</i>

vighnaani-aayaanti = vignaanyaayaanti