[Advaita-l] APerspective 17-2

[Anbu sivam2]

Dear Sunilji,

If there were no rays of the sun then the clouds cannot be formed so there
can be no identity for the cloud apart from the sun yet the clouds cover the
sun.  Likewise the smoke originates from the fire and therefore it cannot
have a different identity from the fire yet it covers the fire.  Likewise
all the kosas though spoken of as covering the aathman as sword and its
sheath, these kosas have no existence different and apart (such as the sword
and the sheath) from the aathman.

Therefore the kosas are allegorical rather than material.

We thus know of the manas and buddhi and chittha and ahamkara but cannot
point them out to anyone.

So in waking state when the buddhi is alive the mind is under control of the
buddhi (unlike during dream time when the buddhi is absent) except under the
power of the vaasanaas the mind overpowers the buddhi during the waking
time.

If everyone has no buddhi then how would the waking state be different from
the dream state?

(I am aware that you and I talked of the existence or otherwise of the
buddhi in dream time before and we differed on this account.)

Thus in waking time buddhi tries to rule while the manas, aided by the
vaasanaas, tries to overpower the buddhi.

So when buddhi is predominant then you can say that the mind has sunk into
the buddhi ( in your parlance the manomaya kosa is sunk into vignanamaya
kosa).  When the sleep overtakes with both manas and buddhi absent then your
allusion that manomayakosa and vignanamaya kosa has sunk into aanandamaya
kosa can be a correct description.

Regards,
Anbu

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dear Anbuji,
>
> Does not the Katha Upanisahad tell us that we have to still the  mind (or
> call it dissolve the Manomaya kosha) in the Jnanatmana (or the Vijnanamaya
> kosha or the Buddhi), which in turn is to be dissolved in Mahat (the
> Ananadamaya kosha)? Don't you think that Lord Yama knew his subject well?
>
> Regards,
>
> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya
>
> --- On Tue, 2/2/10, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] APerspective 17-2
> To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2010, 3:09 AM
>
>
> Dear Sadanandaji,
>
> Your line of arguments have been quite logical.  I am not disagreeing.
>
> The mind is always there.  As Ramana says, one has to sink it into aathman
> for it to lose its virulence.  To use his own words, the mind then becomes
> a
> burnt rope that cannot tie.
>
> Many came to him, and very many out of them were non-intellectuals, even
> animals and birds, and they all easily attained Moksha and perhaps the
> world
> never even knew of them except a few.  However it were the giants of
> intellects including Ganapathi Muni who brought Ramana to light of the
> world.  But they all had so much of sankalpas and they were happy with
> their
> intellectual delights.  Ramana said that Naayana would be born again.
>
> How useless is the intellect!
>
> Regards,
> Anbesviam
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 5:44 AM, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Kuntimaddi Sadananda <
> > ksadananda108 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Dear Sadanandaji,
> >> >
> >> > PraNaams.
> >> >
> >> > Quote: "Falsification is complete only when the underlying truth
> behind
> >> > both
> >> > knower and the known is recognized."
> >> >
> >> > Logically correct but practically never feasible for only one exists
> in
> >> > time
> >> > (or out of it) - not both!
> >> >
> >> > You need *TWO* to say that one is real and the other is false.  The
> >> > intellect will never apprehend the Reality, can it?
> >> >
> >> > shree Anbuji - PraNAms
> >>
> >>
> >> What was discussed in the original post and the pervious ones as well is
> >> exactly what you have stated. I request the post be read again, perhaps
> >> again by those who are really want to know.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Mind (intellect) is needed to say that I am not the intellect. Hence the
> >> declaration quoted earlier..manaeva.manushyaanaam ..from amRitabindu Up.
> >> The
> >> all pervading reality need not have to realize and the inert intellect
> >> cannot realize. Realization is re-cognition that I am the existence
> >> consciousness that I am, currently identifying with the Intellect,
> >> understand that I am not the intellect, but that which is substantive of
> >> both the subject and the object vRittis or thoughts that arise in the
> >> intellect. This has to be done with the intellect only. With the
> intellect
> >> alone one can apprehend the truth. Hence the statement – tat
> vigijnaasasva
> >> or  brahma jignaasaa etc, where Brahman or atman has to be inquired,
> with
> >> the only available instrument - the intellect only.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Realization is to reject the superficial names and forms of the contents
> >> of
> >> the vRitti that arise in the intellect and shifting attention to the sat
> >> and
> >> chit that is substantive for both the subject and the object. This shift
> >> has
> >> to be by the intellect - that is what viveka means - nitya anitya vastu
> >> viveka - where intelligently shift ones attention for that which is
> >> permanent and eternal substantive truth from the superficial fleeting
> >> names
> >> and forms or attributive contents of the vRittis or thoughts.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It is like I need the mirror and looking at the image in the mirror I
> >> recognize that I am not the image but the original because of which the
> >> image is there. without the mirror I cannot see my face. Using the iamge
> >> in
> >> the mirror I recognzie the orginal. Using the reflected consciousness in
> >> the
> >> intellect I recognize that I am the original consciousness. Using what?
> -
> >> The intellect only. That is what viveka means - original is eternal and
> >> permanent while the names and forms keep changing as attributive content
> >> of
> >> the vRittis. Intellect acts both as the mirror as well as instrument for
> >> re-cognition for realization that I am not instrument of cognition, i.e.
> >> intellect. This has been extensively discussed in the last and previous
> >> posts. This is the subtlest part and that is why chitta suddhi is
> >> important
> >> for me to detach myself from the attributive content of the vRittis to
> >> shift
> >> my attention to the ever present substantive. I have to use the
> intellect
> >> to
> >> say that I am not the intellect. This is also one of the reasons why I
> >> need
> >> a sampradaaya teacher for Vedanta to explain this subtlety correctly.
> >> Shraddhaa is the prerequisite. With this I remain.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hope this helps
> >>
> >>
> >> With praNAms to all
> >>
> >> Hari Om!
> >> Sadananda
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >>
> >> 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/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> 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/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>