Knower and Known

[Srikrishna Ghadiyaram]

Hari Om !!

Sri Nanda Chandran

I am waitng for your comments, to my post, in reply to
my present understanding of 'Knower'.

Om Namo Narayanaya !!

Srikrishna

--- Srikrishna Ghadiyaram
<srikrishna_ghadiyaram at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> Hari Om !!
>
> --- nanda chandran <vpcnk at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> > > > example like many of this
> > > > list I too initially thought that according to
> > > > Advaita the “knower” is the
> > > > Atman – but such an understanding is negated
> for
> > a
> > > > higher understanding in
> > > > the Upadesha Saahasri.
> > >
> > >Would you please clarify on this. What is negated
> > and
> > >what is proven to be the 'knower'. Would you
> please
> > >give me reference to particular verses of upadEsa
> > >SAhasrI which talk about the 'knower'.
> >
> > Check the chapter called "tat tvam asi".
> >
> > In a previous post some months back I've actually
> > provided the whole set of
> > quotes regarding this issue.
> >
> > >I am currently
> > >thinking on this point, and need help.
> >
> > But first tell us what you're thinking with
> regards
> > this issue. Let us hear
> > your ideas first.
> >
>
> Based on the ultimate Truth of Advaita, the Knower,
> Known, and Knowledge are the same 'Brahman/Atman'.
>
> From a simpleton's 'perception', there seem to be
> three different 'entities', so to say, Knower,
> Known,
> Knowledge.
>
> The 'Object of Knowledge' being insentient can not
> be
> the 'Knower'. On a similar argument, 'EGO' which is
> a
> 'thought object' can not be the 'Knower'. Also,
> during
> deep sleep 'EGO' is absent and still when we get up,
> we say. 'I knew nothing'. So, 'EGO' is not the
> 'Knower'. So, it should be the 'consciousness',
> Atman
> which should be the 'Knower', being the only
> 'intelligent' 'entity' left out.
>
> But, 'Atman' being 'non-dual' what is there for it
> to
> 'Know' ? Whom should it say 'I know' ? So, it can
> not
> be Atman either. But, we still say, 'I know'. So,
> there must be an 'entity' which claims this agency
> of
> knowing which is called 'jIva'. jIva is akin to the
> serpant on the rope, which exists on
> mis-apprehension
> and dissolves on correct knowledge of the rope.
>
> So, 'Knowledge' exists while there is
> 'mis-apprehension' and even the 'Knowledge of
> SOMETHING' disappears on knowing that 'I' simply
> 'am'.
>
> In summary, while in delusion, the snake aking jIva
> is
> the 'Knower' which itself is mithyA.
>
> Om Namo Narayanaya !!
>
> Srikrishna
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/