01-26-2005, 11:25 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What you have written is the classic Kevala Advaita philosophical position. Ramakrishna Advaita which I follow differs from the classic Advaita position. Ramakrishna Advaita says that there is a step further than a Jnani which it calls Vijnani. The state of Vijnana is described in Gita 7.2
:Jnanam teham SAVIJNANAM idam vaksyamy asesatah
yaj jnatva neha bhuyonyaj jnatavyam avasisyate<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As far as we know, there is only One Advaita. There cannot be two or ten advaitas. There are different view points, and those who know 'it' speak of it in different terminologies. As I had mentioned earlier, the term Ramakrishna-Advaita confuses me. How can Advaita itself be branded as Muniyandi-Advaita or Iyyanar-Advaita? It does not sound right.
I am fully aware of Thothapuri's interaction with Sri Ramakrishna. I am aware and agree with Sri Ramakrishna's examples of "form and formless" for even the Vishnu Sahasranamam mentions 'Anur Brihad Krusha Sthoola Gunabrin Nirguno Mahaan.' He is atomic, cosmic, subtle, gross, qualified, unqualified, and great.. But here, we maintain that SaGuna is <b>Nirguna seen thru the veil of gunas</b> and Saguna is always for the sake of someone ELSE (i.e. Bhaktha), and thus Saguna is limited, while the Nirguna aspect is Truly independent of time, space, and cause. Hence Sri Lalitha Tripurasundari is called <b>"Ekaakini bhoomaroopA nirdvaitA dvaitavarjita". </b>
In our discussion, we should stick to Shruthi Pramana. Here, we are asking for Shruthi Pramanas for a simple reason. If I were to take Sri Ramakrishna's definition as a Pramana without backing from Shruthi/Smrithi, then we are begging upon someone's first-person experience as opposed to relying on the Vedas which are the Shabdham (the APAURUSHEYA - "Word of God".) [I know I am using the xtian cliche for Shabdham, and it's time we reclaim the phrase back like we claim back the Swastika.]
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The jnani gives up his identification with worldly things, discriminating, 'Not this, not this!' Only then can he realize Brahman. It is like leaving the roof of a house by leaving the steps behind, one by one. But the Vijnani, who is more intimately acquainted with Brahman, realizes something more. He realizes that the steps are made of the same materials as the roof: bricks, lime, and the brick-dust. That which is realized intuitively as Brahman through the eliminating process of 'Not this, not this' is then found to have become the universe and all its living beings. The Vijnani sees that the Reality which is nirguna, without attributes, is also saguna with attributes.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What you call Vignani is what an Advaitin calls Brahmagnani or Gnani for short. Chandogya upanishad says Vignana (experience) is higher than Dhyana (contemplation), but BHALAM is higher than Vignana, as a bhalavaan can shake up a 100 vignanis. "Balam vava vijnanad-bhuyah api ha satam vijnanavatam eko balavan akampayate" (http://swami-krishnananda.org/chhand/ch_3b.html#8)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This universe consists of three gunas - sattva, rajas, and tamas. They are in Brahman. But Brahman is unattached. (Gunatita does NOT mean that the Gunas are not in Brahman. It means that Gunas do not affect Brahman.)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is this three gunas in Maya (Prakrithi) or in Brahman? For Samkhya says 'Prakrithi consists of three Gunas.' Purusha does not have Gunas. I quote:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>Prakrithi is neither atomic substance nor consciousness, but it possesses the three gunas of sattva, rajas and tamas. They are not the qualities but the intrinsic nature of Prakrithi. The balanced nature of sattva, rajas and tamas is Prakrithi and thus they cannot be Prakrithi attribute's or qualities. They are called gunas i.e. ropes because they are intertwined like three strands of a rope that bind the soul to the world. According to Samkhya philosophy, sattva, rajas and tamas are the root causes from which the universe is derived. These gunas cannot be perceived but can only be inferred. </i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thus Saguna is Brahman when He identifies Himself with the Gunas, and is by His own nature a Nirguni. Hence Advaita maintains the reflection concept. Brahman when reflected on Maya (Shuddha Sattva) is Ishvara or Narayana, and the very same Brahman, when reflected on Avidya (Ashuddha Sattva) is Jeeva. (Ishvara controls Maya, whlie Jeeva is in control of Avidya.)
Thus, whenever you mention Saguna, it is the reflection of NIRGUNA which associates itself with Gunas. It does not HAVE the Gunas. A guna cannot be HAD and DROPPED voluntariliy.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->P.S. All I would like to say is that Brahman is both Saguna and Nirguna.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"What color is the sky ?", asked the teacher.
A tiny hand shot up. "Blue", said the boy.
"No," said the little girl, "the sky is really black. We see it as blue."
The teacher smiled and gave each a candy.
She then looked up at the sky, which was a vast expanse of Space. It was neither black, nor blue, not had any colors it could call its own.
:Jnanam teham SAVIJNANAM idam vaksyamy asesatah
yaj jnatva neha bhuyonyaj jnatavyam avasisyate<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As far as we know, there is only One Advaita. There cannot be two or ten advaitas. There are different view points, and those who know 'it' speak of it in different terminologies. As I had mentioned earlier, the term Ramakrishna-Advaita confuses me. How can Advaita itself be branded as Muniyandi-Advaita or Iyyanar-Advaita? It does not sound right.
I am fully aware of Thothapuri's interaction with Sri Ramakrishna. I am aware and agree with Sri Ramakrishna's examples of "form and formless" for even the Vishnu Sahasranamam mentions 'Anur Brihad Krusha Sthoola Gunabrin Nirguno Mahaan.' He is atomic, cosmic, subtle, gross, qualified, unqualified, and great.. But here, we maintain that SaGuna is <b>Nirguna seen thru the veil of gunas</b> and Saguna is always for the sake of someone ELSE (i.e. Bhaktha), and thus Saguna is limited, while the Nirguna aspect is Truly independent of time, space, and cause. Hence Sri Lalitha Tripurasundari is called <b>"Ekaakini bhoomaroopA nirdvaitA dvaitavarjita". </b>
In our discussion, we should stick to Shruthi Pramana. Here, we are asking for Shruthi Pramanas for a simple reason. If I were to take Sri Ramakrishna's definition as a Pramana without backing from Shruthi/Smrithi, then we are begging upon someone's first-person experience as opposed to relying on the Vedas which are the Shabdham (the APAURUSHEYA - "Word of God".) [I know I am using the xtian cliche for Shabdham, and it's time we reclaim the phrase back like we claim back the Swastika.]
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The jnani gives up his identification with worldly things, discriminating, 'Not this, not this!' Only then can he realize Brahman. It is like leaving the roof of a house by leaving the steps behind, one by one. But the Vijnani, who is more intimately acquainted with Brahman, realizes something more. He realizes that the steps are made of the same materials as the roof: bricks, lime, and the brick-dust. That which is realized intuitively as Brahman through the eliminating process of 'Not this, not this' is then found to have become the universe and all its living beings. The Vijnani sees that the Reality which is nirguna, without attributes, is also saguna with attributes.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What you call Vignani is what an Advaitin calls Brahmagnani or Gnani for short. Chandogya upanishad says Vignana (experience) is higher than Dhyana (contemplation), but BHALAM is higher than Vignana, as a bhalavaan can shake up a 100 vignanis. "Balam vava vijnanad-bhuyah api ha satam vijnanavatam eko balavan akampayate" (http://swami-krishnananda.org/chhand/ch_3b.html#8)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This universe consists of three gunas - sattva, rajas, and tamas. They are in Brahman. But Brahman is unattached. (Gunatita does NOT mean that the Gunas are not in Brahman. It means that Gunas do not affect Brahman.)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is this three gunas in Maya (Prakrithi) or in Brahman? For Samkhya says 'Prakrithi consists of three Gunas.' Purusha does not have Gunas. I quote:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>Prakrithi is neither atomic substance nor consciousness, but it possesses the three gunas of sattva, rajas and tamas. They are not the qualities but the intrinsic nature of Prakrithi. The balanced nature of sattva, rajas and tamas is Prakrithi and thus they cannot be Prakrithi attribute's or qualities. They are called gunas i.e. ropes because they are intertwined like three strands of a rope that bind the soul to the world. According to Samkhya philosophy, sattva, rajas and tamas are the root causes from which the universe is derived. These gunas cannot be perceived but can only be inferred. </i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thus Saguna is Brahman when He identifies Himself with the Gunas, and is by His own nature a Nirguni. Hence Advaita maintains the reflection concept. Brahman when reflected on Maya (Shuddha Sattva) is Ishvara or Narayana, and the very same Brahman, when reflected on Avidya (Ashuddha Sattva) is Jeeva. (Ishvara controls Maya, whlie Jeeva is in control of Avidya.)
Thus, whenever you mention Saguna, it is the reflection of NIRGUNA which associates itself with Gunas. It does not HAVE the Gunas. A guna cannot be HAD and DROPPED voluntariliy.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->P.S. All I would like to say is that Brahman is both Saguna and Nirguna.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"What color is the sky ?", asked the teacher.
A tiny hand shot up. "Blue", said the boy.
"No," said the little girl, "the sky is really black. We see it as blue."
The teacher smiled and gave each a candy.
She then looked up at the sky, which was a vast expanse of Space. It was neither black, nor blue, not had any colors it could call its own.