PDA

View Full Version : pramāda & pramāṇa ...



yajvan
26 January 2014, 07:08 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


As of late much of my attention has been going to this subject. That is, pramāda & pramāṇa of Self (ātman). What do these words mean ?

pramāda of ātman - negligence , carelessness about, error i.e. forgetfulness of one's own Self. The yoga of ignorance. The ~union~ (yoga) of the Self with the non-Self.
pramāṇa¹ of Self (ātman) - a means of acquiring pramā¹ or certain knowledge of Self.
The recognition of one's own Self or some call svarūpa - one's own form or shape or real nature in full. That is, in ignorance (pramāda) we know only the spark; with the blossoming of pramāṇa we come to know the whole flame. Why so and what can we say or sumise from pramāda & pramāṇa ? The next few posts will offer a few ideas on this matter.

iti śivaṁ

words

pramāṇa
Within vedānta there are generally 6 considered:
pratyakṣa - perception by the senses
anumāna - inference
upamāna ,- analogy or comparison
śabda or āpta-vacana , verbal authority , revelation
an-upalabdhi or abhāva-pratyakṣa - non-perception or negative proof
arthāpatti , inference from circumstances
the nyāya system considers 4 , excluding the last two from above
the sāṃkhya views is of 3 - pratyakṣa , anumāna, and śabda
pramā - right knowledge; correct knowlege; to understand

wundermonk
26 January 2014, 11:48 PM
It would be useful in any discussion of prama and pramana, to know how the concept of knowledge is conceived and discussed in Indian philosophy.

Indian philosophy believes that knowledge is episodic in nature. i.e. to say that I/he/she has knowledge, is to say that a certain episode or event has occurred. Indian philosophy does not subscribe to the view that knowledge is dispositional. An example of dispositional knowledge is that I have dispositional knowledge that Delhi is the capital of India even when I am asleep and have no event/episode occurring within my brain, etc. that corresponds to Delhi being the capital of India.

In Indian philosophy, thus, I do not have (episodic) knowledge that Delhi is the capital of India when I am asleep.

yajvan
27 January 2014, 11:32 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


It would be useful in any discussion of prama and pramana, to know how the concept of knowledge is conceived and discussed in Indian philosophy.

Indian philosophy believes that knowledge is episodic in nature. i.e. to say that I/he/she has knowledge, is to say that a certain episode or event has occurred. Indian philosophy does not subscribe to the view that knowledge is dispositional. An example of dispositional knowledge is that I have dispositional knowledge that Delhi is the capital of India even when I am asleep and have no event/episode occurring within my brain, etc. that corresponds to Delhi being the capital of India.

In Indian philosophy, thus, I do not have (episodic) knowledge that Delhi is the capital of India when I am asleep.


Here are my views on this matter...
In sanātana dharma you ARE knowledge, pure knowledge. Its ~fabric~ is pure consciousness, which is the ~personality~ of Being.
(I will offer a point of view on this matter but do not think it is the right moment as yet); that said, the only episode to know this is re-recognition of one's own Self ( code for Being, atman)

When one's awareness (consciousness applied) is turned outward (sūtta-parāṅ¹), then there is diversity and the world, which we come to know in discrete packets (episodes as you call it). When the awareness is allowed to settled down within itself or turned inwards (sūttāntara¹) then this fertile field of pure awareness comes into play.
This all has to be expanded upon so one sees the ripe fruit that can come from this...
That said, I thought muruganar-ji¹ has said it quite elegantly (poignantly is probably a better term):

That consciousness, the Reality, exists as 'you'; but instead of you becoming still (sūttāntara - my word not muruganar-ji's) as that consciousness through that consciousness , you are ruining yourself by enquiring into the nature of that world that has arisen from that consciousness that is yourself.

I see this as very insightful. It ( to me) is one paragraph that defines the human condition and the rise of relative knowledge in the world.

iti śivaṁ

words

sūtta-parāṅ = sūtta+parāṅ = entirely given + directed outwards or towards the outer world
sūttāntara = sūtta + āntara = entirely given + inwards, interior
muruganar-ji - considered rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi's key putrīya (disciple or śiṣya)

Mana
27 January 2014, 12:20 PM
Namaste,

Yavan Ji thank you for this thought provoking posting.
If I might ask a question as to your interpretation: When you say "Relative knowledge", do you perhaps imply differentiated knowledge, or are you referring to knowledge of the relative nature of knowledge?

Thank you kindly for your clarification.

yajvan
27 January 2014, 02:56 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


Namaste,
Yavan Ji thank you for this thought provoking posting.
If I might ask a question as to your interpretation: When you say "Relative knowledge", do you perhaps imply differentiated knowledge, or are you referring to knowledge of the relative nature of knowledge?

Thank you kindly for your clarification.

What you ask has some finer points... relative knowledge is predicated on differentiated ( fractured, limited) consciousness. It is the world of objects , size, speed, differences of big , small, good/bad, up/down, in/out, wake/dream/sleep, etc. and therefore relative. It is relative because you can only say something is fast compared to something is slow - something is big compared to something that this small.

The relative nature of knowledge within the differentiated level of awareness is by nature a comparison of various levels of knowledge that is gained outside the wholeness of Self, of Being. It is not including the wholeness ( pūrṇā¹) ; it is the investigation of the ~many~ apart from the whole. So, it is relative... this does not say it is not useful - what would we do without physics, chemistry, etc ?

Yet the knowledge of the whole (bhūman¹) by default contains within it all the diversity of the limited ( or relative field of life). This knowledge to know it, is to be it. It is not an object of inspection.

This is where there is some difficulty. We are groomed to be the good student, to inspect, and measure, quantify. Yet this fullness is beyond measure. As muruganar-ji¹ has said, that consciousness, the Reality, exists as 'you' . We are going to look for our hat and its on our head already and we continue to look and look. This is the pickle of being human. We wish to find home as one sits in their own kitchen.

iti śivaṁ

pūrṇā - filled , full , filled ; whole, complete , all , entire
bhūman - plentifully , abundantly

yajvan
27 January 2014, 08:45 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

If we look to the īśavāsyopaniṣad¹ it informs us of ātmahano janāḥ i.e. the person or creature ( janāḥ ) that is the killer (hano) of the Self or ātman.
Not knowing one's Self (ātman) and living in ignorance is equal to one that has killed one's Self. Within this HDF string it is equal to
pramāda of ātman - negligence , carelessness about, error i.e. forgetfulness of one's own Self. This is the gravity the upaniṣad-s offer us regarding this matter.


And what of pramāṇa¹ of Self (ātman) ? One is looked upon as the vīra¹ some use the term dhṛṣaj while others call him/her dhīra.
The word dhīra¹ is that of dhī+ra . The fire (ra) of intelligence (dhī) that is kindled within.

iti śivaṁ

words

īśavāsyopaniṣad = īśavāsya upaniṣad - we find this knowledge in the 3rd śloka
pramāṇa = pramā - right knowledge; correct knowledge; to understand
dhīra is rooted in dhṛ meaning steady , constant , firm , resolute , brave , energetic , courageous , Self-possessed
vīra - heroic , powerful , strong , excellent

wundermonk
28 January 2014, 12:47 AM
See above

Couple of points/thoughts:

(1)What is the difference between knowledge and consciousness?

(2)Is knowledge intentional? i.e. is knowledge always "of" something other than itself? Related to this - what would pure consciousness be? It seems to me pure consciousness is not "of" something other than itself.

(3)Can pure consciousness be an object of another cognition?

yajvan
28 January 2014, 01:06 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté



Couple of points/thoughts:

(1)What is the difference between knowledge and consciousness?

(2)Is knowledge intentional? i.e. is knowledge always "of" something other than itself? Related to this - what would pure consciousness be? It seems to me pure consciousness is not "of" something other than itself.

(3)Can pure consciousness be an object of another cognition?
These are most excellent questions... as is the statement you made in post 2:
I do not have (episodic) knowledge that Delhi is the capital of India when I am asleep.
This sleep needs to be considered at a later date; a very telling level of being.

Addressing your questions on knowledge and consciousness.
We are taught that knowledge is structured in consciousness. Nothing is outside of consciousness is another way to say it.

Is knowledge intentional ? I think you clarify the question, 'is knowledge of some thing other then itself ?' Consciousness has a Self-referral quality to it. In kaśmiri śaivism the notion is that Being in-and-of-itself has this quality of Self-referral - that is , it is considered spanda. This word means vibration, throbbing , throb , quiver. It is the quality that Being (consciousness) is aware of itSelf. So, it does not have to be outward facing.
We find this notion in the bhāgavad gītā , chapter 9 , 8th śloka:

prakṛtim svām avastabhya
visrjami punaḥ punaḥ |
bhūta-grāmam imaṁ kṛtsnam
avaśaṁ prakṛter vaśāt ||

This says, curving back (leaning, resting-upon or avaṣṭabhya) onto my SELF (svām) I create (visṛjāmi) again and again (punaḥ punaḥ) |
All this (kṛtsnam) which exists ( manifestation and variety bhūta-grāmam) , that comes into creation (prakṛti) is done by my authority or command (vaśāt) ||
The quality of the Supreme ( pure & stainless consciousness) has to Itself this Self-referral property.

Yet we as humans are mostly outward facing (sūtta-parāṅ¹). The orientation of 3's (tripuṭā) are front and center i.e. me, you, them or it. We sometimes say 1st person, 2nd person and 3rd person. Our thoughts reside in these 3 arena-s all day until we fall asleep and even 1st person (me-ness) is no longer there.

Can pure consciousness be the object of another ? Pure consciousness is the ~apparatus~ that allows the perception of 'other' to be experienced. It is final, and there is nothing that takes it to be the object. This is why so many adhikārin-s (aspirants of liberation) may miss the point. They are looking for an object to experience as the Self. That in some way there is 'you' and there is this Self that is an object to experience. This final 'you' and this Self are non-different.

There is a bit more I'd like to offer on knowledge and consciousness and it comes to us via the brilliance of śrī siddharameśvara maharāj¹ ; I will offer it in the next post.


iti śivaṁ


sūtta-parāṅ = sūtta+parāṅ = entirely given + directed outwards or towards the outer world
Śrī siddharameśvara maharāj , guru of śrī nisargadatta maharāj ; śrī ranjit maharāj was a co-disciple

yajvan
28 January 2014, 02:30 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


There is a bit more I'd like to offer on knowledge and consciousness and it comes to us via the brilliance of śrī siddharameśvara maharāj¹ ...

śrī siddharameśvara maharāj¹ offers the following -

Knowledge or consciousness presents itself to the aspirant in two ways:

When there is an object in Consciousness it becomes 'objective knowledge' and
one will experience it as knowledge of objects.
When there is no object, it is experienced as objectiveless knowledge or 'pure consciousness'- - - -
The point to be made is this - when there is an object it is objective knowledge; when there is no object there is simply 'knowledge' which is pure awareness. So, by looking at it this way we can see how knowledge and pure awareness are aligned.

One must consider what an object is... sure it is a ball, car, sky, family members, house. But it too are thoughts , they are ~objects~ that are subtle, as are feelings and emotions.
When all objects are extinct within the mind-frame, then what is left with pure awareness, pure knowledge;
As this awareness allows objects to be known,and can be called is pure knowledge.
This is why the wise can infer that knowledge is structured in consciousness.

iti śivaṁ


1. śrī siddharameśvara maharāj - we will find this information in the book titled Master of Self-realization, An Ultimate Understanding, p. 41. ISBN 978-578-02789-0

yajvan
28 January 2014, 05:11 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


Yet we as humans are mostly outward facing (sūtta-parāṅ). The orientation of 3's (tripuṭā) are front and center i.e. me, you, them or it. We sometimes say 1st person, 2nd person and 3rd person. Our thoughts reside in these 3 arena-s all day until we fall asleep and even 1st person (me-ness) is no longer there

This sleep mode of being is quite revealing to the one that may be practicing ātmaiṣṭa¹. I will yield to how ramaṅa mahaṛṣi offers this insight and share it with the reader ( I will add my comments in parentheses along the way):
ramaṅa mahaṛṣi : before we proceed further do you admit you exist in your sleep ?
questioner: yes , I do.
ramaṅa mahaṛṣi: you are the same person that is now awake, it that not so ?
questioner: yes.
ramaṅa mahaṛṣi: so, there is a continuity in sleep and the waking state. What is the continuity ? It is the state of pure being.
questioner: but I am not aware in my sleep.
ramaṅa mahaṛṣi: true, there is no awareness of the body or of the world (objects). But you must exist in your sleep in order to say now 'I was not aware in my sleep'. Who says so now (at this moment of questioning) ? It is the wakeful person. That is to say the individual (ego) who is now identifying the Self (ātman) with the body says that such awareness did not exist in sleep.
- - - - -
The point is, it is the ego that says 'but I am not aware in my sleep'. It is the ego that says ' I am the one that sees' and when this ego does not see anything in sleep it loses hold of the person, of the tight connection of impersonating the Self.
When we are awake and the ego is fed all day, it is this differentiated awareness. It roams in the forest of the senses. At each turn there is something to eat. Even in dream state it has ~food~. Yet in deep sleep the ego has nothing to eat and consciousness becomes undifferentiated and rests in its natural state. There is no object to experience ( no feelings, body-awareness, objects for consumption) so it (the ego) says I was totally unaware of anything. This is true -
totally unaware of A N Y T H I N G , any object of experience. But what remains ? Being, perfect homogeneous Being.

This Being's (sat¹) fabric is pure (stainless¹) awareness. In us we may say it is pure silence - this is beyond keeping one's lips sealed. That is why within the upaniṣad-s we are told uccāra-rahitam vastu - Reality is devoid ( indescribable ) of utterance.

So, one asks, yajvan what fun can there be in only understanding that sleep is undifferentiated awareness if I cannot do anything with it; that I have to wait some 16 hrs. before I dive back into this undifferentiated awareness.

So begins one's practice or sādhana to make this undifferentiated awareness a regular experience for all time.
My teacher called it restful alertness; ramaṅa mahaṛṣi has called it 'distinguished sleep' . He says, it is the glorious state wherein the mind (ego) has died , even deep sleep will become God-consciousness.

There are more technical names for this state of being - one being samādhi¹. But how is this connected to the original post of pramāda & pramāṇa of Self (ātman) ? When one cycles though wake, dream, and sleep and does not have an inclining of one's own Self, this is pramāda (negligence). But when one says wait a minute, even in this cycle of wake , dream and sleep there is this Being and here is one way to begin to think about it... this becomes the dawning of pramāṇa.

iti śivaṁ

words

ātmaiṣṭa = ātma+ iṣṭa = Self + saught i.e. the pursuit of Self.
sat - that which really is , entity or existence , essence (sārāḥ)
stainless - niṣkalaṅka - without blemish
samādhi - union , a whole , aggregate ; wholeness; one-pointedness.

yajvan
29 January 2014, 10:42 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté



yajvan what fun can there be in only understanding that sleep is undifferentiated awareness if I cannot do anything with it; that I have to wait some 16 hrs. before I dive back into this undifferentiated awareness.
A reasonable question to ask is, why then do I wake up ? This Being is there in sleep , what is the reason (stimulus) to wake up ?

In a word , it is vāsanā-s - impressions within the mind; the present consciousness of past perceptions.

Upon awaking the ego is re-engaged and once again a day full of 'me' begins. Yet if one pays very close attention to that initial point of waking, going from slumber to just beginning to wake, one will find this very subtle feeling of 'I am'. It is like the first bubble that is arising from this sleep that begins to take form. It is 'I am' and not I am this or that or what ever one thinks one is, but just this simple feeling of 'I am' that most humans pass off. It is the closest feeling to Being that we can have before the mind becomes fully engaged in once again becoming 'me' for the day.

In the vijñānabhairava kārikā¹ it suggest their is value found just before one falls asleep - it talks of 'where sleep has not yet come, but wakefulness is over'. It is there says śiva , one can find para devī , or pure awareness.

So on both sides of sleep - before sleep and upon waking one may find (experience) a very subtle level of awareness. It is quite delicate and simple.

iti śivaṁ

words

vijñānabhairava tantra - 75th kārikā; this work belongs to the bhairava-āgamas which part of advitīya (~ non dual~, without a second) śaivism
kārikā = a concise statement

yajvan
29 January 2014, 01:15 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

We're told Self (ātman) does not marry. It does not 'marry' the non-Self or anātman¹ . This is hinted by kṛṣṇa-jī in the bhāgavad gītā (4.14). He informs us that , actions do not involve Me. This again is hinted at in chapter 9th chapter and 11th verse ; kṛṣṇa-ji says, those that are mūḍha (foolish , dull , silly , simple) not knowing me as the Supreme (maheśvara) take me to be of human (tanu) form and disrespect (āvajānāti¹) me (mama or māṃ).
That is, they take 'Me' to be just the normal human walking on this earth and they do not have the ability to know My Supreme (maheśvara) nature.

There are a few points that are teased out by this information above:

the mūḍha (foolish , dull , silly , simple) meet the requirements of pramāda of ātman - negligence , carelessness about, error i.e. forgetfulness of one's own Self.
that kṛṣṇa-ji is none other then brahman, he is not the ~normal~ tanu or human form that people 'see' as kṛṣṇa
that kṛṣṇa (Self/brahman/ātman) is beyond actions ... then who is doing them ? The 3 guṇa-s¹.We can then say if we really ( 'throughly'¹ is suggested in the bhāgavad gītā verse 4.14 ) know our Self or kṛṣṇa/brahman/ātman actions do not bind us. Hence the notion of 'thoroughly' meets the notion of pramāṇa of Self (ātman) - acquiring pramā (knowledge) of Self to the fullest.

Why so ? Because to thoroughly know Being, we are constantly facing inward or sūttāntara = sūtta + āntara = entirely given + inwards, interior. We are beyond the notion of action and reaction which is the field of the guṇa-s and also beyond the ego.

iti śivaṁ

words

anātman - non-Self or something different from ātman/brahman.
avajñā = to disesteem , have a low opinion of , despise , treat with contempt
śrī siddharameśvara maharāj informs us that kṛṣṇa-ji tolerates this due to his compassion
guṇa - in the sāṃkhya view of knowledge the guṇa-s are an ingredient of prakṛti , chief quality of all existing things/beings known as sattva , rajas , and tamas

in the nyāya view this notion is taken a bit deeper to offer twenty-four guṇa-s - examples:
1. rūpa , shape or form, color
2. rasa , savor
3. gandha , odor
4. sparśa , tangibility
5. saṃkhyā , number
6. parimāṇa , dimension
7. pṛthaktva , severalty
8. saṃyoga , conjunction
9. vibhāga , disjunction
10. etc. etc.

thoroughly or abhijānāti = abhi +jāna+ati : abhi = expresses superiority, intensity + jāna = origin + ati =expresses beyond

yajvan
10 February 2014, 10:42 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté







If we look to the īśavāsyopaniṣad¹ it informs us of ātmahano janāḥ i.e. the person or creature ( janāḥ ) that is the killer (hano) of the Self or ātman.
Not knowing one's Self (ātman) and living in ignorance is equal to one that has killed one's Self. Within this HDF string it is equal to
pramāda of ātman - negligence , carelessness about, error i.e. forgetfulness of one's own Self. This is the gravity the upaniṣad-s offer us regarding this matter.

I thought to say this another way...

The Supreme is undivided Being ; when we come to think we're different from it by thinking I am this ( I am this manager, this operator, this bus-man, this factory worker , this student ) i.e. I am this body - this constitutes fraud. It is as if we have taken this undivided Being and cut it in two. The one half of being the world
or 'me' ( ego) and the other, that of God. For some even in deeper delusion there is 'me' and 'not me'. In this way, it is considered ātmahano janāḥ . The Self has become completely overshadowed.



iti śivaṁ

words

īśavāsyopaniṣad = īśavāsya upaniṣad - we find this knowledge in the 3rd śloka
pramāṇa = pramā - right knowledge; correct knowledge; to understand
dhīra is rooted in dhṛ meaning steady , constant , firm , resolute , brave , energetic , courageous , Self-possessed
vīra - heroic , powerful , strong , excellent

yajvan
17 February 2014, 01:26 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


Now there is this notion of ābaddhadṛṣṭi - 'having the eyes fixed on' .
It is most interesting notion within the realm of ignorance (pramāda) .

We as humans are outward facing. We view objects. When I say ~objects~ they are with form (prakāra¹) e.g. a house, car, bike, and without form (amūrta¹) like a feeling, thought, etc. We take-in these forms via the filter called ego. This ego ( for now) we can call 'i' ,small 'i'. People have come to believe this 'i' is who they really are.

Yet here is the insight worth one's consideration. This 'i' is also an object. Yet we as humans miss this. Why so ? Because 'i' does not announce itself as an object in front of one's perception. Other objects do. We 'see' an apple . It is distinct. We see a car, boat, house, brother, and they are 'announced' to one's perception as prakāra. Yet this 'i' this ego does not and we miss it.
So, why mention this ? Real knowledge ( pramāṇa ) comes to show this distinction of 'i' from one's Self. This simple idea via inspection of one's personality and behaviors will find there is something behind this ego . It is Self (Being).
Yet for the bound person, this distinction seems a bit difficult to grasp. It is via one's practice that the insight of this distinction comes about. It comes with the maturity of silence (mauna). This is not just keeping one's mouth closed, but the silence of the voice from the lips and the voice of the active mind. That is why the wise say this silence can be found in-between two (consecutive) thoughts. There is no thought there, and the awareness is focused on this gap. When this done in sequence over time , it grooms silence.

iti śivaṁ

words

prakāra - nature, class, species; belonging to a species
amūrta - formless, shapeless, unembodied

yajvan
21 February 2014, 07:42 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté



The Supreme is undivided Being ; when we come to think we're different from it by thinking I am this ( I am this manager, this operator, this bus-man, this factory worker , this student ) i.e. I am this body - this constitutes fraud. It is as if we have taken this undivided Being and cut it in two. The one half of being the world
or 'me' ( ego) and the other, that of God. For some even in deeper delusion there is 'me' and 'not me'. In this way, it is considered ātmahano janāḥ . The Self has become completely overshadowed




'i' is also an object. Yet we as humans miss this. Why so ? Because 'i' does not announce itself as an object in front of one's perception. Other objects do. We 'see' an apple . It is distinct. We see a car, boat, house, brother, and they are 'announced' to one's perception as prakāra. Yet this 'i' this ego does not and we miss it.
So, why mention this ? Real knowledge ( pramāṇa ) comes to show this distinction of 'i' from one's Self. This simple idea via inspection of one's personality and behaviors will find there is something behind this ego

If one considers what is written above it informs the reader of the essence / aim of one's sādhana :

1. having the epiphany that the ego is just one more thing
2. experiencing that behind this 'i' lies Being, undivided Being
3. That this Being is the real 'me'
4. That this real 'me' is non-personal , all inclusive awareness, wholeness, without boundaries

So, one needs to be cognizant of the fact that small 'i' and Being do not exist simultaneously (in a manner of speaking). That one is the proprietor/lord and the other is secondary. Now why do I mention this ? It is because many wish to capture this Being (a.k.a enlightenment, mokṣa) as an object of experience that is ~placed in front~ of the ego as an object to be experienced while the ego remains the proprietor. The ego does not want to give in. It wishes to survive.

You can see by this conversation it is quite convoluted. This ego is always in survival mode. Even during one's sādhana it will allow you to go do your practice, but soon it wishes to drive the bus again! If you have had this experience you know what I am alluding to. The ego says, yes discipline me as you choose, yet I wish to return and be on top again.
That is why one's sādhana takes some time and focus. The ego wishes to get back to its status - and this is the challenge we are faced with.
The ego is like an unruly child - the more you wish to discipline , the more the child pushes back. So, various methods have been offered by the wise to win favor over the ego. Like the unruly child with time, patience, and candy http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif one can begin to make progress.


iti śivaṁ

yajvan
21 February 2014, 08:31 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté





It is because many wish to capture this Being (a.k.a enlightenment, mokṣa) as an object of experience that is ~placed in front~ of the ego as an object to be experienced while the ego remains the proprietor.
For the discerning HDF reader one must think ' who then experiences this Being ? ' .

First how could it possibly be the ego the experiences Being? It cannot . Why so ? Because it is limited in nature . How could it possibly experience (some say swallow) the Infinite? It would be like containing all of the oceans in a sesame seed.
The only thing that can experience the infinite is the infinite itself. It reveals ItSelf to the one It chooses. This is brought to light in the kaṭha upaniṣad and muṇḍaka upaniṣad. The respected T.V. kāpali
śāstri-ji says it in his words ( commenting on the upaniṣad-s aforementioned), 'even when an exclusive choice is made for realizing the Self, it is the Self that reveals its own body to the seeker' . Said another way , 'He chooses the Self who is chosen by the Self'¹.

That is, for the one that is in pursuit of the Self, the Self has chosen this person to do so...

So, again the most astute HDF reader then would say , why do any sādhana at all ? If you have been picked , why bother with any tapas ?

iti śivaṁ

1. 'He chooses the Self' - I have been taught this knowledge by the following words: The Self reveals itSelf to itSelf.

yajvan
22 February 2014, 05:24 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté




So, again the most astute HDF reader then would say , why do any sādhana at all ? If you have been picked , why bother with any tapas ?
This question can be answered in a few ways.
First it would the most rapacious¹ response from the ego's point of view. Why do today what you can put off till tomorrow. With no sādhana the ego gets it way all day long. So, having this response will suit the ego quite nicely and allow it to stay in control.

Yet there is another view... that of the farmer. For a crop to grow one must prepare the soil. Sādhana does just that.


iti śivaṁ

1. rapacious - plundering; living on prey.

markandeya 108 dasa
11 April 2014, 04:29 PM
Pranams yajvan

Thank you for your informative and well written posts.

Ys

Md

yajvan
12 January 2017, 12:00 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté




For the discerning HDF reader one must think ' who then experiences this Being ? ' .

The only thing that can experience the infinite is the infinite itself. It reveals ItSelf to the one It chooses. This is brought to light in the kaṭha upaniṣad and muṇḍaka upaniṣad. The respected T.V. kāpali
śāstri-ji says it in his words ( commenting on the upaniṣad-s aforementioned), 'even when an exclusive choice is made for realizing the Self, it is the Self that reveals its own body to the seeker' . Said another way , 'He chooses the Self who is chosen by the Self'¹.

That is, for the one that is in pursuit of the Self, the Self has chosen this person to do so...

So, again the most astute HDF reader then would say , why do any sādhana at all ? If you have been picked , why bother with any tapas ?

'He chooses the Self' - I have been taught this knowledge by the following words: The Self reveals itSelf to itSelf.

These are grand words (The Self reveals itSelf to itSelf), but
1. why do any sādhana at all ? and,
2. what is occurring when Self reveals itSelf to itSelf ? It sounds almost intelligible, but what is happening?


iti śivaṁ

yajvan
19 January 2017, 05:20 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


These are grand words (The Self reveals itSelf to itSelf), but
1. why do any sādhana at all ? and,
2. what is occurring when Self reveals itSelf to itSelf ? It sounds almost intelligible, but what is happening?

What is sādhana ? It is abhyāsya or repeated discipline. But by whom ? The sādaka – one adapted to a purpose, a ~skillful~ person. And for what? Sādhya – something to be mastered, accomplished. Did you happen to notice one sound form that is repeated in each term (sā सा) ?
This term sā = meditation, knowledge; the 3rd derivation of sā is rooted in san which = giving and bestowing.

hence sā informs us of abhyāsya or discipline -> meditation & knowledge
it tells us that it bestows (san); but what is being bestowed?
the 4th derivation of sā is a name of viṣṇu or śiva also used for lakṣmi or gaurī. Hence what is bestowed? That of viṣṇu or śiva or lakṣmi or gaurī which is also pure Being, pure consciousness.


Now the interesting part...
Many will say, I do sādhana so I can become enlightened, to become realized. This suggests that realization is possible by some action, some doing. Well, this contradicts the second part of the inquiry (which is supported by the muṇḍaka upaniṣad1) that Self reveals itSelf to itSelf.
Well we have ( I have) painted myself into a corner on this argument. On one end one does abhyāsya for one’s realization and on the other end we are informed it is really up to Self , and to whom It reveals itSelf to.

Some things to consider for our way out of this
Rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi informs us, your very existence is realization; if you have not realized your existence how then can you be questioning? How can you be interrogating and wanting to pursue your core Being ( pure awareness) ? He would ask, do you question your very existence? If you say yes, then he would ask who just answered ‘yes’. If you answered ‘no’, then your existence is not questioned and you are on sure footing.
This is quite something isn’t it? You see, existing cannot not occur without Being, so Being ( pure awareness ) must be there, present in you, otherwise one could not question or ponder. Being is a prerequisite for all that one does or does not do, because it is the foundation of one’s existence. If one answered , no I do not exist, then the logical answer would be why worry? Why do you care to do anything if you do not exist? See the point?

So, here is the deal
This Being, existence, pure awareness is such a part of you that there is no contrast for one to notice it. We notice things by contrast ( this is duality). There is me and there is everything else. I can see everything else as an object, but I do not ~easily~ see ‘me’. We have come to think that this ~me~ is the body, others think ~me~ is one’s personality or ego, or intellect ( as the intellect takes on the notion of Self and presents itself as ego/personality).

So, let’s answer the question of why one would do sādhana or abhyāsya. It is to remove obstructions; it is to set the conditions that allows the Self to reveal itSelf to itSelf. It is not an action that ‘makes’ or produces realization. It sets the conditions for It to occur. It prepares one, but in no way that I have heard as yet does it force or cajole realization to occur.
As svāmī lakṣman-jū mentions , it is setting the conditions for the mind to become ‘no mind’. We may go into ‘no mind’ also known as samādhi, yet with time we come back out. Why so ? Due to past impressions ( vāsana-s) that still bubble up.
Vāsana-s & kleśa-s2 are the subject matter of the yogadarśana of patañjali-ji, of which I will not pursue at this time. Yet most of us hear that it is ignorance that keeps one from realization. Svāmī lakṣman-jū informs us that this ignorance is none other than non-fullness, non-wholeness. It surely doesn’t mean absence of knowledge; it is not about academics, it is about the absence of one’s experience of their own true and natural state of Being.
As I have said, it is not that Being is not there ( then one would not exist). It is about the person who wishes to hold it or experience it as if it were an object, the way other things are experienced ( even a feeling or thought). The mind wishes to operate in the same manner as acquiring other ~knowledge~, that of a subject and an object to inspect , and in this arena it does not work. Why does it not work? Because the object that one wants to inspect is the inspector itself !

This brings us to The Self reveals itSelf to itSelf
It is the nature of Self ( I do not like to say ‘the’ Self if I can avoid it) to be Self aware; That is , it is aware of itSelf. It is that awareness that has it’s own Self-referral process built-in. In saying this another way it is ~as if~ Self is object and subject at the same time. It has this ability to know itSelf.
You see if we try to approach the infinite from the finite , how can the finite ( intellect) grasp the infinite? How can an action that is limited in space, time, cause or effect grasp something that is without boundaries, without time or space? See the conundrum?

To even ‘get’ this, to comprehend this, takes some refinement on the observer’s part ( that would be me and you). This is where sādhana & abhyāsya fits in. It hones the intellect and understanding to come to grasp these finer points. It cleans the perception and polishes our abilities to comprehend finer-and-finer levels of ideas, and in many cases obtuse principles that may give us a brain cramp.

iti śivaṁ
terms

1. muṇḍaka upaniṣad – 3.2.3
नायमात्मा प्रवचनेन लभ्यो न मेधया न बहुना श्रुतेन ।
यमेवैष वृणुते तेन लभ्यस्तस्यैष आत्मा विवृणुते तनूं स्वाम् ॥ ३ ॥
nāyamātmā pravacanena labhyo na medhayā na bahunā śrutena |
yamevaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyastasyaiṣa ātmā vivṛṇute tanūṃ svām || 3 ||

Self (ātmā ) is not attained by dint of study or intelligence or much hearing
He (Self) whom He wishes to attain, by that, it can be attained.
To Him this ātmā reveals itSelf. ( some say it this way: to Him the Self unveils Itself)

2. kleśa-s - śeṣa-patañjali calls out 5:

avidyā - ignorance; this is not scholastic ignorance but the inability to differentiate the Self from non-Self termed viveka or discrimination , distinction between Self and non-Self.
asmitā , ‘egotism’ or the notion of me-ness ; One identifies ‘me’ as the body and senses; as a limited being.
rāga - desires ; that which does not allow the mind to rest or be balanced
dveṣa - aversion but to what ? of death; fear of death
abhiniveśa – one’s tenacity to cling to mundane existence


Regarding kleśa-s & samādhi
chapter 2 of patañjali’s yogadarśana


tapaḥsvādhyāyeśvarapraṇidhānāni kriyāyogaḥ || 2.1



samādhibhāvanārthaḥ kleśatanūkaraṇārthaś ca ||2.2
this says, in general that kriyā yoga is the method/practice/ abhyāsya for bringing about samādhi and minimizing kleśa’s

yajvan
23 January 2017, 09:50 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

from post 20 above,


As svāmī lakṣman-jū mentions , it is setting the conditions for the mind to become ‘no mind’.

This ‘no mind’ is called out in gauḍapādacharya’s commentary (ṭīkā) called māṇḍūkyopaniṣatkārikā, also known as gauḍapādiyakārikā. It says the following in the 3rd chapter:
आत्मसत्यानुबोधेन न संकल्पयते यदा ।
अमनस्तां तदा याति ग्राह्याभावे तदग्रहम् ॥ ३२
ātmasatyānubodhena na saṃkalpayate yadā |
amanastāṁ tadā yāti grāhyābhāve tadagraham || 32

this says,
when the mind does not imagine on account of the knowledge of the Truth which is ātman, then it ceases to be mind ( ‘no mind’) and becomes free from all idea of cognition, for want of objects to be cognized.


amanastāṃ = a+manas+tāṁ = no+mind+to stop = ‘no mind’
mind in the widest sense of the term of mental powers = intellect , intelligence , understanding , perception , sense. Some call it the internal organ, the faculty or instrument through which thoughts enter.


The insight that is hidden from view
First note that this śloka is not describing an approach (abhyāsya1) or method, but of the sādaka, or one adapted to a purpose, that has arrived at his/her sādhya1 i.e. we are now in the presence of the jñānī2

Let’s look at what has been said
On account of the Truth ( code for 1st hand knowledge, direct experience) of ātman of Self, Being, pure awareness, when that awakening (bodha) occurs, the mind becomes ‘no mind’ (amanastāṁ) & there is an absence of an objects to be perceived. What is this saying? The mind no longer conceptually imagines (na saṁkalpayate3). In ‘street talk’ terms the mind no longer just percolates ideas, thoughts, emotions , etc. on its own like the every-day person on this good earth. It is quiet, it is no more.

Yet there is something even more interesting in this. In very simple terms :

It is the mind that creates the difference between you and the world
when ‘no mind’ (for the jñānī ) is the ~norm~ no distinction or boundary exists between what he/she perceives and their very selves
from a philosophical point of view there is no distinction between ‘me’ and ‘this’.

the notion of ‘this’ is this world, this tree, this earth, this pot, this sky, this (______ fill in the blank)


due to this revelation of now having an unbounded experience the jñānī proclaims wholeness, the unity of every thing as his/her daily experience. Even to the point of a non-distinction of wake-dream-sleep.


What is the ahhh-ha! here?
The apparatus called mind is that ~organ~ that causes all the mischief, yet it is only doing what it was designed to do: create ~apparent~ diversity. One could strongly argue this is the actual machinery of māyā. Everyone talks of this māyā from a philosophical point of view but it is ( or was) gauḍapādiyakārikā who was able to call out the mechanics behind it. This is why he is a luminary within advaita vedānta and called out as part of the holy tradition4.

iti śivaṁ

terms
1. abhyāsya & sādhya – see post 20 above
2. jñānī – one who knows Self as himSelf.
3. saṁkalpa - conception or idea or notion formed in the mind; hence ‘na saṁkalpa’ = without conceptions or ideas being formed
4. the advaita lineage of luminaries ( masters)
नारायणं पद्मभवं वसिष्ठं शक्तिं च तत्पुत्रपराशरं च।
व्यासं शुकं गौडपदं महान्तं गोविन्दयोगीन्द्रमथास्य शिष्यम्॥
nārāyaṇaṃ padmabhavaṁ vasiṣṭhaṁ śaktiṁ ca tatputraparāśaraṁ ca|
vyāsaṁ śukaṁ gauḍapadaṁ mahāntaṁ govindayogīndramathāsya śiṣyam||

श्री शंकराचार्यमथास्य पद्मपादं च हस्तामलकं च शिष्यम्।
तं त्रोटकं वार्त्तिककारमन्यान् अस्मतगुरून् सन्ततमानतोस्मि॥
śrī śaṃkarācāryamathāsya padmapādaṁ ca hastāmalakaṁ ca śiṣyam|
taṁ troṭakaṁ vārttikakāramanyān asmatagurūn santatamānatosmi||