[Advaita-l] On the forms of Guru

[Anbu sivam2]

Sadanandaji,

Pranaams.

"Anyway from my perspective I saw the difference in arguments stemming from
the change of reference state."

True.  It is precisely the nature of human discussion which is always
partial because of the standpoint.

Arjuna's contention in chapter I and II should be right if standpoint is
holy.  The rest of the Geetha's 18 chapters are in repudiation of Arjuna's
false notions.

My intervention arose from what I considered to be the undue importance to
the mind which is the generator of falsehood.  I felt it to be a technical
discussion rather than objective enlightenment as in my view the mind is not
only useless but the greatest impediment and a fetter.

You may differ with me on that.  So be it.

Regards,


On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Kuntimaddi Sadananda <
ksadananda108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Anbuji - PraNAms
>
>
> As I read the statement below, I find there is a shift in reference state.
>
>
>
> You are right from Brahman point - nothing can be said - yat gatvaa na
> nivartante apraapya manasaa saha| - words and the mind cannot reach there.
> That is from the absolute point. From that reference there is neither
> jnaani
> nor ajnaani nor jnaanam also. That state as Goudapaada says is not even
> advaita - since the statement advaita is only with reference to dvaita.
>
>
>
> There is no self realization also. Brahman does not have to realize neither
> aatmaa does not have to realize - nitya mukta swaruupaH - ekam eva
> advitiiyam etc.
>
>
>
> Hence the discussion of jnaani and ajnaani is only with reference to
> vyaavahaarika only. I am Brahman is the understanding in the mind that
> negated the  notion that I am a jiiva. From Brahmna point I am neither
> jiiva
> nor Brahman - just silence since no words can be expressed also.
>
>
>
> Given these two references we are asking what is the role of the mind? I
> had
> discussed this in my several posts on tat tvam asi series where tvam
> padaartham and tat padaartha vicaara and the identity relation involved in
> these two are involved. The scenario is all pervading aatmaa does not have
> to realize. The mind which is inert cannot realize. Then who realizes what?
> - that has to be understood clearly - without shifting the reference
> states.
>
>
>
> If the light is shining everywhere, there is no way to know it. Same
> applies
> to all pervading consciousness. If there is an object there where the light
> can fall, two things are known. 1. the object is now known and it could not
> have been known without the light. 2. Interestingly now the light is also
> known because it is falling on the object and getting reflected by the
> object. Without that object even though the light is all pervading it
> cannot
> be RECOGNIZED as even existing. More important is it is not really the
> object that is seen but only the reflected light from the object as the
> image of the object is formed by the reflected light. Hence when we
> perceive
> the object, it is not really the object but the light coming from the
> object. That the perceptual object is really there is only established by
> transactions or vyavahaara by kramendriyas as discussed in my Knowledge
> series based on Vedanta paribhaasha.
>
>
>
> Saakshii is nothing but all pervading self but it gets the role of a
> Saakshii only when the light of the consciousness gets illumined by the
> object mind. This in Vedanta is called upahita chaitanya - like space in
> the
> pot. Without the object mind, even thought I am all-pervading I can never
> know myself - just as I need a mirror to see my face. Self realization is
> looking at the image in the mirror and recognize that I am not really the
> image but the original face that is getting reflected in the mirror.
> Similarly self-realization is looking at the reflected consciousness called
> chidaabaasa in the mind and using the reflected consciousness RECOGNIZE
> that
> I am the original consciousness independent of the quality of the
> reflection
> due to the impurities in the medium of reflection that is the mind. The
> reflection of consciousness in the mind is called vRitti and constant
> awareness of that reflection and abiding in the knowledge I am not the
> vRitti but that because of which I am aware of the vRitti. This is also
> called akhanDaakaara vRitti. Henec the statement of Kena- yan manasaa na
> manute yenaahur manomatam - tat eva Brahman tvam viddhi nedam yadidam
> upaasate| that which mind cannot think off, but because of which the mind
> has the capacity to think of - know that alone is Brahman not this that you
> worship.
>
>
>
> From the posts of Shree Subramanianji and Shree Vidyashankarji - one can
> see
> that this is the essence of advaita doctrine, whether one agrees with it or
> not. It i s not their adviata and my adviata - theres is no dvaita in
> advaita doctrin.
>
>
>
> I must say after studying Bhagavaan Ramana texts Upadesa saara and sat
> Darshanam and teaching those texts for Chinmaya Mission, I find that
> Bhagavaan Ramanas teaching does not differ from the above. Vedanta is the
> ultimate pramANa irrespective who the teacher is - whether it is
> Goudapaada,
> Shankara Bhagavatpaada, Sureswara, Vidyaaranya or Bhagavan Ramana - all
> echo
> the essence of advaita Vedanta discussed above. The wording and answers to
> the disciples could be different depending on the way the questions were
> formatted. Hence the need of live sampradaaya teacher that Krishna advises
> in the statement - tat viddhi praNipaatena pariprashnena sevayaa - so that
> one can forumate the questions to relieve ones doubts.
>
>
>
> Anyway from my perspective I saw the difference in arguments stemming from
> the change of reference state.
>
>
>
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Sorry, this is not my position for nothing positive can be said of
> Brahman.
> > A gnyaani is Brahman.  He is simply anirvachaneeya and I have said this
> > before.   One may or may not need the mind to know that he is Brahman
> (and
> > I
> > have said that it is actually an impediment) but definitely won't keep
> the
> > mind or anything else when he knows he is Brahman.  What was once his
> body
> > before his realization operates under the spell of Easwara even though
> the
> > person has broken the mutual superimposition.  That is the praaptham with
> > regard to the body.  Only because it, the body, is operating the entity
> is
> > called Jeevan Muktha.  If the body had dropped he would be vidhEha
> muktha.
> >
> > A Jeevan Muktha is a total asangan and adhvitheeyan.  Who can say what
> are
> > and what are not his powers?  Tell me if any Bhaashya or Primary Texts
> are
> > to be quoted to say this.
> >
> > Agnyaanis see and describe the gnyaanis in their own fancy.  That is what
> > the agnyaanis do. Until such time a person realizes that he does not know
> > there is no impulse in him to know.  His avidya will keep asserting.
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>