[Advaita-l] The essence of advaita

[S Jayanarayanan]

Prabha,

Your question(s) can be rephrased as: "If the Supreme Self is of the
very nature of Itself, how can it come under Ignorance? If not the
Self, who or what is the locus of Ignorance?"

The above are very valid question(s), and the way that advaita
handles the question(s) is to categorize Ignorance as
neither-reality-nor-unreality. In other words:

  Self: Reality
  Maya: Neither Reality nor Unreality

The above does not violate the basic conclusion of advaita that
Reality is One, because Maya is relegated to a lower status than
Reality.

As for answering your original question directly: Yes, it is the Self
that is the locus of Ignorance.

But how is the above compatible with the fact that the Self is of the
very nature of Wisdom of Itself?

According to advaita, the Self is One, and It is of the very nature
the Knowledge of Itself. It is impossible to destroy the Self, just
as it is impossible to destroy the Knowledge of the Self; however it
is possible to cover the Knowledge of the Self and make it appear to
be something that it is not -- through the veiling power of Maya.

An analogy is: it is impossible to destroy the Sun (-> Self) by an
ordinary human being, and it is equally impossible to stop the Sun
from giving out Sunlight (-> Self-knowledge) by an ordinary human
being, but it is nevertheless possible for a human being to prevent
Sunlight from reaching a spot by "hiding" the spot from the Sun by a
shield. Thus, Maya can neither destroy the Atman, nor destroy
Atma-GYAna, but it can however make Atma-GYAna appear like something
else -- i.e. the Jagat.

The above is of course a short discussion, but I hope it helped to
clarify at least some of the doubts.

Thanks,
Kartik


--- prabha <prabhagc at gmail.com> wrote:

> PraNAms Shyamji!
> 
> Again, an excellent example. Your examples are great fun to read.
> 
> But, why do I have dreams? My answer has been that its because I am
> limited.
> I consider having a dream delusional/limiting. In the dream I saw
> an old man
> who I did not know before. He explained things that I did not know
> before. I
> could have this dream because I am limited in knowledge (plus
> space, time,
> and all other dimensions), but if I had infinite knowledge (and was
> not
> limited in anyway) would I have a dream? I think not. Hence I
> assume that
> Brahman could not have a dream. That is causing me to have these
> doubts. Do
> you think that my assumption is wrong?
> 
> Hari OM!
> 
> Prabha
> 
> 
> On 9/24/07, Shyam <shyam_md at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Pranams Prabha-ji
> > " >If the two are essentially the same, how can we talk about one
> being
> > deluded (by Maya)  > but not the other?"
> >
> > A few points/examples may help in this regard.
> > First of all when we say the two are essentially the same, we are
> not
> > talking about two identical entities.
> > We talk about a identity of two things - jivatma and paramatma -
> which are
> > seemingly different.
> > It is like saying energy and mass are essentially the same, when
> they are
> > seemingly different.
> > So let us not lose sight of the very key words - "essentially" or
> "in
> > essence".
> >
> > What Vedanta says is that there is the Whole, the Infinite and
> there is a
> > something that is (taken to be) infinitesmally small, but which
> is in
> > essence swallowed up in the Infinite, the Whole, and its
> small-ness is
> > purely notional, and disappears when subject to proper enquiry or
> > atma-vichara.
> >
> > I shall try to explain this with a second "stock-example" (- my
> apologies
> > for my complete lack of creativity!)  - the dream example.
> >
> > I see a dream. Two friends in this dream go on a hike. It starts
> raining.
> > They rush into a hut they see along the way. They are glad to see
> an old man
> > with a long beard in the hut. He is kind enough to give them food
> and water.
> > They then sit to talk with him, and they talk about how fortunate
> they were
> > to find his abode, whereupon he tells them - listen, do you know
> something -
> > the two of you, me, this hut, this forest, are all nothing but
> brahman. And
> > who or what is brahman? - he/she/that which is pervading the
> entire dream.
> > Now the two friends look very surprised - with due respect dear
> sir, how can
> > it be - they claim! You are doing the talking, we are listening,
> we just had
> > warm rotis, our clothes were drenched in the rain - and all this
> was nothing
> > but brahman? who is this brahman?
> > He is both the efficient and material cause of that dream.
> > He is the sleeper "I"
> >
> > As far as that dream Universe is concerned I lent both satta -
> existence -
> > and sfurti - consciousness - to the dream. The hill, the trees,
> the rain
> > clouds, the rain, the water, the food, my friend, the old man,
> everything in
> > and through was me and me alone.
> > And yet, did I for a second become old to become the old man. Did
> a
> > particle of me get wet in that rain? Did i develop both the two
> friends'
> > hunger and again its lack of on eating the dream food which was
> again only
> > me? no. Now let us reverse the question - was the old man me> ?
> yes. were
> > the two friends me? yes. Once i resorb the dream unto me, and the
> old man,
> > the friends, even that mountain, all are destroyed - will i still
> continue.
> > yes. So the dream friends and the "real" sleeper me are in
> essence the same
> > - yet he the dream "jiva" was as though created and i, the
> sleeper, am as
> > though the creator - the vishwanatha for that dream vishwa.
> > I pervade the dream, i am immanent in the dream, i transcend the
> dream,
> > and yet i remain unsullied, unattached, pure, auspicious -
> shivoham
> > shivoham.
> >
> > How did i do this? Using my power called maya.
> > Where is maya? It is my intrinsic power.
> > So there are two things - me and maya?
> > No ..no..there is only one, thing, Me. maya is not a separate
> thing that i
> > wield like a spectre.
> > I cannot distill or separate out this power of mine called maya -
> you can
> > perceive it by its effect - in having successfully given an
> appearance
> > consisting of this universe of plurality that was perceived.
> > When there was the dream I was, when there is no dream or rather
> when the
> > next dream is in potential form, i still am. In fact i alone am.
> >
> > Now what prevents the dream people from recognizing their innate
> oneness
> > with me? ignorance or avidya alone - about what? their true
> nature.
> >
> > [of course one crucial difference between this example and with
> Brahman is
> > - Brahman is in complete control over his Maya - our maya in
> "creating" a
> > dream is so-called "borrowed maya".]
> >
> > With due respect, I would certainly disagree with Shri Senani-ji
> - Brahman
> > is without any parts, and is completely unattached. There is no
> question of
> > Brahman coming under the influence of maya or a part of Brahman
> being
> > susceptible this or any such conceptualization.
> >
> > Strictly speaking omnipotence, omniscience are all never
> applicable to
> > Brahman - Brahman is the Whole, One, without a second. These
> adjectives
> > apply to Brahman only from the standpoint of the jiva, - the jiva
> regards
> > himself as an entity with limited power - so he has to  look to
> Brahman as
> > all-powerful, he regards himself as being a mortal - so Brahman
> is
> > Omniscient - he regards himself as being a karta-bhokta - so
> regards Brahman
> > as a karma-phala-daata. And this Brahman, in relation to this
> jiva, is said
> > to be "saguna" Brahman or maya-sahitam Brahman.
> > This does not mean there are two Brahmans - or two parts of
> Brahman - or
> > two levels of Brahman - or two anything - this is precisely what
> advaita -
> > Non-duality - is all about.
> >
> > It is simply from the perspective of the ignorant jiva that these
> terms
> > have any relevance.
> > So yes, while the wave with a sense of an individual wave-ness
> and water
> > are in essence one and the same -from the perspective of the
> water - it is
> > ever water alone.
> >
> > [It is only to answer meaningless questions like when did brahman
> become
> > ignorant [- for the benefit of someone at that stage of
> development -] do
> > some people talk about the fall of man or that man is "brahman
> that got
> > deluded" or irrational hypotheses of this sort. Ignorance on the
> part of the
> > jiva is ever-beginingless - if he had a-priori knowledge he would
> not and
> > could not get ignorant "to begin with".]
> >
> > The two names of Mother become more clear now "nirmoha" - without
> moha -
> > Herself being in complete control of Her Maya-shakti and
> "mohanashini" - the
> > one who, by means of the Shruti words, removes the cause of
> delusion on the
> > part of the hapless jiva!
> >
> > Ya Devi Sarva Bhuteshu Bhrantirupena Samsthita
> > Namastasyei Namastasyei Namastasyei Namo Namaha
> >
> > My prostrations to you Mother.
> >
> > Humble pranams
> > Hari OM
> > Shri Gurubhyoh namah
> > Shyam
> >
> >
> > prabha <prabhagc at gmail.com> wrote:
> > PraNAms, Krisji.
> >
> > Shyamji has explained this very well before. Perhaps I shouldn't
> belabour
> > this point too much, but your answer would seem to imply that the
> > enery+action aspect (Maya) prevailed upon the water (Brahman) to
> make a
> > wave
> > and give the wave a separate identity (the "I" ness). That makes
> the water
> > (Brahman) the subject of manipulation - which seems to make it
> less than
> > complete, ultimate, unaffected etc. That is my discomfort with
> the whole
> > idea. Anything that can violate it's unaffected-ness shows it to
> be less
> > than perfect. That bothers me. I take it that examples are
> inadequate or
> > that my conclusion is incorrect.
> >
> > I thank you very much.
> >
> > Hari OM!
> >
> > Prabha
> >
> > On 9/24/07, Kris Manian wrote:
> > >
> > > >Thank you very much, Shyamji. I am still having great
> difficulty with
> > the
> > > >concept. I realize that all analogies are limited when applied
> to
> > > Brahman
> > > >but in the Ocean-wave analogy, I get the sense that the water
> > > (Paramaatma)
> > > >is not deluded, but the wave (Jivaatma) is.>
> > > Prabhaji,
> > > Let me share my understanding from the Ocean-wave analogy.
> > > Wave is nothing but water with (kinetic) energy and action.
> Energy and
> > > action brings forth ego and the "I" ness.
> > > This brings new characteristics to the wave even though it is
> > essentially
> > > water. So is the delusion of
> > > Jivaatma.
> > >
> > > Another analogy is when Hydrogen and Oxygen combine you get
> water that
> > is
> > > completely different
> > > from where it came from.
> > >
> > > Hari Om.
> > >
> > > Kris
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > >
> > > 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/
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from
> someone who
> > knows.
> > Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >
> > 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/
> 
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> 
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
http://sims.yahoo.com/