[Advaita-l] How can prANa be Brahman?

[Sujal Upadhyay]

praNAms,

Sri Ravi ji,

I do not say yoga is necessary or compulsory as a preparatory. It is one of
the way. Please understand that when we eulogize any method, we consider it
the best and necessary. I hope you understand my point.

Sri Venkataraghavan ji,

*But this is precisely the point sir. Brahman is never an object of
> contemplation
>

I understand and agree with you. But ... :) please listen

There are two approaches -
1. Self Enquiry (Who am I) & praNava-upAsanA (Meditation on OM)
2. Neti-Neti (method of negation)

These denote type types of approaches - bottom-up and top-down.

In general, we are in dual plane. Hence Brahman, for a beginner, is an
object of contemplation (even though in reality is cannot be). That is why
it is said,' You are that (Brahman)'. In Self enquiry, it is like peeling
layers of onion. In the need nothing that you are exploring or hope to see
exists. In both, OM chanting and Self Enquiry, we do not know our true
nature but try to find out that the truth is. Just like by moving in the
direction of sound of waves, one can reach ocean shore, (though one has
never seen ocean), in the same way, by trying to find out 'Who am I', one
suddently becomes aware of one's true identity.

In neti-neti, we know that 'I am Brahman' Hence by abiding in Brahman, one
negates all that is non-Self. This path is IMO extremely difficult, hence
most of sanyAsins take AdhAra of OM. OM is given high importance in many
upanishads. In this path there is a danger if not followed properly. Since
you are Brahman - the supreme Self, to whom you will surrender. It may lead
to ego problems :) Ego of knowledge is very dangerous.

Advaita does accept higher authority. Indeed brahman becomes object of
contemplation. In this process too it is neti-neti that is indirectly
followed.

The method you have shown is correct, but we both were speaking from
different standpoint. As I was talking w.r.t. yoga, which is a dualistic
approach and attempts merge Atman in paramAtmAn, I talked the way I talked.

when one realizes one's true identity it is like -

- finding the missing tenth person is yourself
- All years I listened to pravachan-s of Brahman, but now I realize that I
(vaktA, who is Brahman hence 'I') was talking about myself (brahman). vaktA
and shrotA are one :)
- the object of contemplation is myself.

shAstra-s talk about contemplation on Brahman. If you are Brahman, you do
not need to say, 'I am Brahman'. Do you keep repeating your name, 'I am
Venkataraghavan'??? No need to do Self-japa, Venkata-japa :) -- you are
that. In advaita there cannot be any explanation, nor can there be any
instruction, nor there can be any disciple. Advaita sthiti is laxyArtha.
shAstra-s in an attempt to lift us from erroneous duality, talks in dual
terms. vAchyArtha may be dual, but laxyArtha is always non-duality.

Incase of tat-tvam-asi, our AchArya accepts two entities. 'I' and
'Brahman'. So there are two identities. But the laxyArtha is I=Brahman --
Non-duality

Same is the case with jIva and Brahman are non-different.

I agree with the rest of your conclusions. Just trying to explain in a
different way. No contradiction :)

Just know that anything that is experienced is not 'I' and anything that is
born, dies, anything that is achievable is unreal :) - agree??

Hari OM


Sujal

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> //Yes, advaita way is pure and direct way. there is no need of any other
> means *if* one is able to contemplate on Brahman with ease.//
>
> But this is precisely the point sir. Brahman is never an object of
> contemplation - it is not something that one contemplates "on" - it is the
> one contemplating! That is why the Upanishad uses elliptical language to
> describe Brahman, in order to stop the mind's tendency to objectify and
> conceptualise! (नाहं मन्ये सुवेदेति,  etc.)
>
> ​<content clipped>​
>
>