PDA

View Full Version : Mind - Everything?



grames
22 July 2014, 01:25 PM
This message is actually a question on another thread posted by Amrut!

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=118322&postcount=21

Very beautiful message and exhaustive information regarding the power of mind and also its weakness! It cannot go quite, disappear from the field of action and it can act either positive or negative! Lets do some higher order thinking and ask our own wisdom and also find if there are any support for these in our shastra



All sorts of problems starts when mind has nothing left to hold on to. This stillness is frightening as it is a question of existence of mind.


What you are essentially saying is, the organ ( even if it is subtle) mind has to be given up - if that is not the objective, then mind is not going to rest! So, the stand still state is still the state of 'mind' only - and it is also giving an experience that is something momentary! Calling that 'stand still' experience as 'something new' has to have the 'experiencer' active! IOW, there should be something cognizant of the mind whether it has control over the mind or not! It is not possible for a sense to remove itself and every rational person agree to that and you can remove the 'sense' or bring the sense under control by utilizing something even more subtle - mind is the most subtle organ of jiva and thus we know there is something beyond mind - and that something cannot be recognized or experienced by "mind" regardless of its state - "oscillating or stand still'. With drawl action is for this most subtle conscious vastu and we all happily say, its the "Atma"!

So, now technically it is the very "Atma" which is always in the statehood of Brahman which alone can give away the imagined "mind", then the quest of practicing something in "Advaita" is superfluous! ( I am bringing this point just to make sure the statement like "Advaita" is not for everyone is irrational and false). A more detailed argument below...

1. If every sense has to be purified to gain the control of more subtler ones, ( as in Nvrtti), mind is the last sense organ to be conquered - In the complete sequel, it is the Atma that is the actual doer - Not the sense as they are under the control of Atma regardless of the state, stage of reality etc.
2. The symptom of purification does not give away the sense but only the more subtler gains the control over the next gross ( someone who has pure mind will have pure vak - sweet talk, sama darshana - not that such will become mouth less or speech less or cannot hear and deaf - even the JivanMukta still functions with his senses but all under his total control)
3. The subtle mind once gained control over, there is nothing left - Its not a stage of progress but the Ultimatum itself - In otherwords, its not the practice of Advaita but the End Goal, the achievement of Advaitam. Once achieved, its Nishkriya state and there is nothing more to practice or do and its the state of bliss!
4. Equally, any state, stage before the state of Advaitam, is not and should not be called "Advaita" practice! This is now chicken and egg as in advaitam, there cannot be any 'activity" and before "Advaitam" there is no scope for "Advaita"!
5. The transition stage from "Advaita" to "Advaitam" then will be imaginary with no description or manual as there is no bestower or bestowed! This is the very reason Advaita says, there is nothing happened as in creation for you to overcome that - simply meaning there is no Transition - the counter positive statement is something that is not there as well! ( as in, its just realization, its just awakening, its called Moksha, its Nirvana etc.)

Summing up, at least for a insignificant human who is bound by senses, the last authority of imagined or unreal or between real and unreal will be the Mind which itself "from the Atman perspective", the actual doer, non existent! So, there is some other agent that "acts" or at least give the opinion of "doer" and that "Doer" alone assumes it require a great resolve to follow "Advaita" to reach the "Advaitam" state!

Though the entire message is very nice with actual happening events, it is very weak in describing the "doer"ship behind these and also giving out a wrong opinion or conclusion that, Advaita is not for everyone! At least as per the "Advaita", it cannot be gradual progress and it should be the "Advaitam" in a flash! ( like on/off event..either its on or off - be real or in bandha - Gradual mukthi should not be the basis for advaitam at all)

How do you explain an imagined sense revealing the Advaitam when it cannot!

yajvan
22 July 2014, 01:42 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

The answer to this is offered by brahmaṛṣi gauḍapāda-ji . He informs us of the truth from his level of enlightenment.

This is offered in the māṇdūkaya- kārikā some call it the māṇdūkaya-kārikā of gauḍapāda.

It is not entry level reading... for some it will uplift, for others more questions will arise.

iti śivaṁ

grames
23 July 2014, 02:43 PM
Namaste Yajvan ji.,

Reading what you have mentioned gave any uplift to the 'englightment' or message in the link i have posted on the top of the thread? and if the question raised here can have any answer or answer guide it will be interesting to discuss? if you like to share, i request you to please do so.

I have read and understood the Madhva bhasya on it which leaves no confusion and inspiring and motivating to pursue the Turiya!

yajvan
23 July 2014, 03:05 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


Namaste Yajvan ji.,

Reading what you have mentioned gave any uplift to the 'englightment' or message in the link i have posted on the top of the thread? and if the question raised here can have any answer or answer guide it will be interesting to discuss? if you like to share, i request you to please do so.

I have read and understood the Madhva bhasya on it which leaves no confusion and inspiring and motivating to pursue the Turiya!

I am just a bit uncomfortable to discuss ... now why would that be? The concepts are quite profound and not entry level. This in no way suggest that you would not 'get it' , but it does infer that ( IMHO) it would be best suited for the uttara¹ folder of subject matter.

Now that said brahmaṛṣi gauḍapāda-ji speaks from his most refined and whole level of consciousness on this subject matter. His views are most sublime . Yet many that struggle within our world of duality, opposites, and seemingly apparent contradictions we find in every day life may find this wisdom a bit too esoteric for one's liking.
Hence my slight ambivalence to hold off.


iti śivaṁ


1. uttara - higher, upper, most superior; all suggesting higher wisdom

grames
23 July 2014, 03:15 PM
Dear Yajvan ji.,

I perfectly understand and surely it is not a call for judging anyone of us - the original post was to point out there is a open hole and the claim that advaita is not for everyone is in fact a false statement!

Hare Krshna!

Amrut
25 July 2014, 06:52 AM
This message is actually a question on another thread posted by Amrut!

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=118322&postcount=21

...<content clipped>




Namaste Grames ji,

Thanks for your inputs. I tried to read it but my dumb mind could not understand the following.


What you are essentially saying is, the organ ( even if it is subtle) mind has to be given up - if that is not the objective, then mind is not going to rest! Please clarify what exactly it means in simple language. My english is weak, so I request you to please use Hindi, sanskrit words in bracket.

Does it simply mean that mind has to be given up, unless you are in the trinity of observer, object of observation and process of observation or duality - observer and object of observer.

I agree with Yajvan ji that this is very difficult to explain.

Also note that advait sthiti and advaita approach are different. One enters into advaita and there is a GYAna in a flash (there is no time lag), but this is mano laya. Mind will still arise and then again it will drag you (consciousness - by this time you know that you are not body and mind and you are consciousness). Again thoughts and past life desires pop-up, they dissolve into source via OM again mind rests and goes into samadhi. It is not that only after destroying all desires, one will have first glimpse of samadhi and this state remains permanent. so the first experience is last experience. It is not like like this as per my own experience. By repeated entering into samadhi, finally when all that was dumped into mind sinces ages gets destroyed, then mind finally is destroyed. In everytime, whenever one enters into samadhi, it is in a flash, without time lag only. But to remain in samadhi without any effort permanently happens when mind is destroyed, no desire is left to be fulfilled.

Grames ji, I have only heard of first verse of Brahma sutra before few years. I have not read it and will not read it until my guru gives me permission. So I am not in a position to comment on what is brahma-sutra and what did Adi Sankara or madhva has written.

Simple thing is that if mind is not sattvika, then neti-neti or OM meditation (japa) will not be fruitful. So first one has to make mind sattvika, else why would each shastra give pre-requisites? Is is not mentioned in Gita, upanishads and prakatrana granthas? Brahma-jigyasa or moksha as the goal is not enough. moksha has to be the ONLY goal in life and one should be ready to sacrifice everything. To add to it, your mind should support in this decision t renounce mentally or both mentally and physically worldly desires nad responsibilities. If mind is not capable to renounce, there effect will be reverse. It is not due to superiority complex that I am saying it, it is for the good of seeker.


So, the stand still state is still the state of 'mind' only - and it is also giving an experience that is something momentary! and



Though the entire message is very nice with actual happening events, it is very weak in describing the "doer"ship behind these and also giving out a wrong opinion or conclusion that, Advaita is not for everyone! At least as per the "Advaita", it cannot be gradual progress and it should be the "Advaitam" in a flash! ( like on/off event..either its on or off - be real or in bandha - Gradual mukthi should not be the basis for advaitam at all)

How do you explain an imagined sense revealing the Advaitam when it cannot!I think that you have misunderstood me, but still I await your explanation on first line.

Hari OM

Amrut
25 July 2014, 07:04 AM
hello and namaste,

Grames ji, just one more request. Do you practice japa or chant any mantra. I do not need to know which mantra you chant, but would be happy to know it :) .

If yes, then since how many years? and

what is the time you devote to chanting name in isolation. I do not want to know in group chanting where chanting is done loud or a swami is chanting a mantra and people simply listen to it.

Since this is a personal question and not all open up like me, I can understand if you choose not to disclose.

OM

Amrut
25 July 2014, 07:15 AM
hello and namaste,
Sorry grames ji, but one more question. Is this thread about finding reference in shastras or trying to understand the process of meditation and that advaita can be practiced for everybody.

OM

grames
28 July 2014, 03:51 PM
Dear Amrut.,

I do nama japa and its for really long time :). Wondering your intend behind this curiosity but believe me, whether you are chanting in a group or solo, Krshna is very personal and intimate as you connect! The experience of Krshna is sublime and i don't care about any Jada vastu or their promotion demotion of control when He graces His Prema!

The line for which you seek clarification is very simple...in your other message and also here, you are implying MIND has to be won over or given up or Soul has to establish itself over! But, i am seeking your acknowledgement that, MIND Is never the experiencer in any states! and that's all about it.

Hare Krshna!

Amrut
29 July 2014, 03:04 AM
Dear Amrut.,

I do nama japa and its for really long time :). Wondering your intend behind this curiosity

Namaste,

Nice to know :)

The reason behind asking this question is that only when you are alone, chant a mantra then you will understand your own mind better. It is mantra - Silence - Mantra and this flow should remain continuous.

Have you experienced that mind sinks into the source of mantra? Are you aware of silence between two mantra-s? what happens, does the form of Krishna remain?


The line for which you seek clarification is very simple...in your other message and also here, you are implying MIND has to be won over or given up or Soul has to establish itself over! But, i am seeking your acknowledgement that, MIND Is never the experiencer in any states! and that's all about it.



What I say is that mind has to be transcended.

If mind is not the experiencer then who is?

from pArmArthika level, you are correct, but when it comes to us, who try to rise above mind and mAyA, mind does experience. We talk in laymen terms and without any polemical approach, if I wish to progress and meditate, then what will you suggest that I should do? What is the meditative journey of advaita vedantin?

Since you say, that my thinking that advaita is not for everybody is illogical, I request you to please explain why you think, again without entering into polemical debate. Please explain me in simple words. I am a dumb guy.

OM

grames
29 July 2014, 04:16 PM
Dear Amrut.,

Doing Quick Reply...

First, for me Krshna never disappear rather He is the source and in fact for me Krshna and His form, personality never disappear but indulge in very deep exchange that is very personal and intimate. ( If you cannot understand, i cannot help it as it is very individual. Its like saying, taste of sugar is sweet and you asking what is "Sweet")

Mind is not the "Experiencer" ever - because it is not capable - since you said its ok to say in simple term so choosing the simple terms ( though many will not even recognize as it is preached "Mind" is the experiencer - Jada cannot have any experience and that only belongs to the sentient entities thus the experience in all states is only the Jiva - then we require another entity to give 'such' experience of vaishvanara, taijasa and Pragna and that other vastu is the Brahman! and BrahmanuBhava experience is full only in the state of Turiya!

The "We" that you use to talk, write is nothing but the "Jiva" lakshna but only in one school, the We is identified as BM complex and transcending this We is an End itself rather than Beginning! But in my faith and understanding and also experience, the "I" is only wrongly recognized as the BM complex and once it is realized, the Self is realized as JivaSvaRupa and it is the actual beginning of the 'expansion' or GnanaVrtti stage ( BhavaVrtti as well) and not an END or jivan Mukthi!

Hare Krshna!

Amrut
31 July 2014, 12:06 PM
Dear Amrut.,

Doing Quick Reply...

First, for me Krshna never disappear rather He is the source and in fact for me Krshna and His form, personality never disappear but indulge in very deep exchange that is very personal and intimate. ( If you cannot understand, i cannot help it as it is very individual. Its like saying, taste of sugar is sweet and you asking what is "Sweet")

Namaste Grames ji,

Thanks for sharing. I understand what you say. I have chanted Rama nama and also hanuman nama and I have experienced joy. So I do understand (atleast in part) what you say.

But when I shifted to advaita, my mind tries to find the source of mantra rather than mantra itself. So the form used to drop. Earlier when I used to chant Hanumana nama, hanuman ji used to be right on front of me nad he would not disappear (this image was in mind mind, I know and Hanuman ji has not given me darshan). I think the difference is searching for source, just like moving in direction of sound of waves, one can reach ocean. If we keep focus on name then name keeps continues, name or mantra does not end into silence and the bhava increases, so much so that even by muttering name few times one is filled with bhava and hair stands on it's end.


Mind is not the "Experiencer" ever - because it is not capable - since you said its ok to say in simple term so choosing the simple terms ( though many will not even recognize as it is preached "Mind" is the experiencer - Jada cannot have any experience and that only belongs to the sentient entities thus the experience in all states is only the Jiva - then we require another entity to give 'such' experience of vaishvanara, taijasa and Pragna and that other vastu is the Brahman! and BrahmanuBhava experience is full only in the state of Turiya!

I agree. What I was saying was based on my own experience which is related to my own development of consciousness.

When we say 'I', we generally refer to body, until then this body is 'I'. Then this 'I' shifts to subtler thing say 'mind', then 'intellect', then 'ego' and so on until one experiences Brahman (not separately). So w.r.t to body, mind is chetan :)

So in this context, whatever is experienced is experienced by mind. When consciousness further evolves, then one questions - 'who says that mind experiences, intellect? now one separates from mind itself and mind becomes jada (in experience). Mind (and intellect) is nothing but unstable energy (I cant explain it, but have experienced it).

I was saying this in relation to Renuka ji's reply that advaita is for everybody and in this context, I said what I said. as in generally mind is extrovert and it takes time to make it introvert and then dive deep.

See, just saying 'I am jiva' too wont work. It has to be an experience. Till then will must have faith in our guru and shastras.

Getting back on topic, a certain level of purity is required to do atma-chintan. Separating oneself from mind is like separating milk from mixture of milk and water.

In other words, whatever is experienced is experienced *through* mind. Mind is an instrument. Just like mind experiences this world through senses. So this world is world + mind (it is our own perception and interpretation). Even maya becomes jada at one state. Jiva comes within maya, so if one witnesses maya or prapanch is jada (prapancha is the whole world made from 5 elements, air, water, etc), or one sees three gunas, satva, etc then the object of observation becomes jada. Still it keeps acting. Mind keeps thinking and body moves. So being jada does not mean that it is inactive. As you have said, the consciousness is not of it's own. In short jada cannot know itself. Only chetan can know itself.

Now, coming to question of in all states jiva is always the one who is experiencer. (you said 'the experience is always jiva', which I think should be 'the experiencer is always jiva').

This again requires one to enquirer, as you have said, 'who says jiva experiences?' find, dive deep.

To me, if 'I' is taken as jiva is 'I' is the witness, then a witness cannot act, it cannot do anything. If one acts, then one is not a witness. The action is always of jada and the witness is always chetan, as it keeps a watch on all that is happening (all activities)


The "We" that you use to talk, write is nothing but the "Jiva" lakshna but only in one school, the We is identified as BM complex and transcending this We is an End itself rather than Beginning! But in my faith and understanding and also experience, the "I" is only wrongly recognized as the BM complex and once it is realized, the Self is realized as JivaSvaRupa and it is the actual beginning of the 'expansion' or GnanaVrtti stage ( BhavaVrtti as well) and not an END or jivan Mukthi!

Hare Krshna!

I understand. In my personal experience, I have not experienced this cute little thinge, a point of light of size of 100th part of hair :)

Honestly, I have experience of detachment and this jiva is still not yet experienced. There is separateness from 5 bodies, there is separateness from thoughts, images that float in mind and the whole complex. But when I find origin of this thoughts or mind, then it sinks in source. This happens rarely. After that I had felt 'I am the one'. Still this is not final state. But beyond that I cant describe. At any point of time, I didnt experience jiva or my own svarupa is 'jiva'.

But I am not GYAnI, just a toddler in this field.

Thanks for giving the explanation about 'other faith' :)

It is good to speak in simple language, else my head starts to spin ;)

Two questions:

1. Can jiva experience anything on it's own? So if mind is absent from jiva, can jiva experience anything?

2. Is advaita for everybody?

OM

grames
04 August 2014, 02:36 PM
Dear Amrut.,

Wonderful message but hoping that you are going to ask yourself few questions on behalf of me after reading this response! :)

I belong to Theistic school where there is a personal God Who has name and form undifferentiated (in Advaitam) so for us, Krshna, the name is very much same as Krshna the form! (This is confusing and complex initially but ask yourself what does it mean when someone from the theistic schools say name and form has sameness and absolute). Even His forms are undifferentiated from each other and all are Absolute! Searching something beyond what is "Absolute" is in fact, useless effort like devising grand plan to capture a sky flower! This long message is an answer for "Trying to find the source of the Nama" (thus, a question as well in the response to you to identify the flaw that you ought to commit by differentiating Lords name from Lord Himself. Such flaw is in fact due to "Advaita" belief that, Names and forms are created and does not belong to Nirguna Brahman thus, they require a Source which is in fact non-existent as Nirguna Brahman cannot have name or form! This is self shooting - as you believe you are claimbing on a ladder to reach your "Self" utilizing the Nama Japa or OM etc... but dismissing the very name and OM as having source at None?? How can you ask that "Source" of it when the very OM represents the NirgunaBrahman - at least the Nada - sound part of it. Hopefully your shifting to "Advaita" causes more damage here than helping)



If we keep focus on name then name keeps continues, name or mantra does not end into silence and the bhava increases, so much so that even by muttering name few times one is filled with bhava and hair stands on it's end.

Utter one, two, one,two in sequence for say 1008 times! For truth sake and experience sake, please give a try and see if your hair stand up or your legs stands up! :) The BhavaVrtti happens not because of just some name but because the Name of Lord is eternal and has the potency to bear the spritual realization on the Sadhaka. Your observation is perfect but the understanding is somewhat not aligning with your observation as you made the name as just any other name which is not the case!

Mind is never a chit! (This is why we brand such theories which gives the status of insentient as sentient as unsound as it has no real basis!) Its still your wrong assumption and recognition that mind is 'chit' and there is no scope for "WRT" here as MIND IS BODY as well! In the panchaKosha, everything including the Mana (the mind) is not accepted as Chetan ( 'conscious or cognizer) and it is also applicable in the school of Advaita! ( Since, Advaita forcefully nullifies the 'witness' jiva as non-existent or product of "Avidya", Maya etc, you are now on wrong foot to identify Mana as Chetan - Chit- though your very own school will not admit or allow such, as its only a sense. When the truth is allowed that only a "conscious entity can cognize - the entity that congize must be allowed and admitted as "real" jiva rather than Ultimate Brahman - as this Jiva is still in Boga and Bhanda utilizing the instruments of other kosha). The "Jiva" alone cognize the body as "I" and not the Mind - is the truth to be understood!





(I cant explain it, but have experienced it).

This is what i say, your own experience of Truth that you cannot explain to anyone else! No right or wrong here but be sure it is your very own "personal" and individual experience alone!

"Advaita" as the practice is for anyone and everyone - this is my response to your claim of :Advaita: is not for everyone! Advaitm is already for just One! For your better understanding, "Advaitam" is the achievement of "Realization" of The Self and Advaita as we speak is the process of that "Achievement"! Since both are available to anyone and everyone, there is no point is saying "Advaita" is not for everyone! and how far you progress in your practice is individual's talent ( if you admit Lord here, then His blessing) and so whats your point saying its not for everyone! ( Understood its tough to progress as you are fighting against the reals as un real or non-real, really real, relative real etc.)



See, just saying 'I am jiva' too wont work. It has to be an experience. Till then will must have faith in our guru and shastras.

Thats right! If such situation arises, the "I" already knows and experience itself as "The Brahman" and that is the "Advaitam". Its a unique situation as either you are "Brahman" or you don't know you are "That"! (Its even more unique that, you have to be reminded that, "You are That")



Getting back on topic, a certain level of purity is required to do atma-chintan.

This is requirement for every path of spiritual practice and progress - so not a special demand of Advaita alone!



Separating oneself from mind is like separating milk from mixture of milk and water.
Separating milk from water is far more easier process than separating mind from one self!



In other words, whatever is experienced is experienced *through* mind. Mind is an instrument.
Exactly. Here is the statement that is stating the truth - the Experiencer is not the Mind itself - mind is just the instrument - Now you are invalidating all that you have said before!



So this world is world + mind (it is our own perception and interpretation).

Why are you not able to be consistent or at least refrain from confusion? How can be a world is world + mind? Just to add clarity, the "Our" is most significant subject here than the "perception and interpretation" abilities due to the flaws of instruments like "mind". Can you start to ponder on this alone please?



Even maya becomes jada at one state.

Maya is Jada - The sentient entity behind Maya is not Jada! :) Your rest of the theory is because of the wrong notion that, Jiva comes with in Maya! or you have no choice but to declare jiva as Maya itself or product of Maya ( as in Jada, or effect/product of Jada - This is very unvedic and also unscientific to assume a Jada for the status of sentient)



So being jada does not mean that it is inactive.
That's right! But Jada requires the Sentient to make it act! Like how a computer require your program to run! How a robot require you to activate its code! Everything automated require the "Automater" who is a sentient! So, the question is not about the Jada being active but whether it is sentient or insentient and that's it! If it is not sentient, there is no room for it to cognize anything!



As you have said, the consciousness is not of it's own. In short jada cannot know itself. Only chetan can know itself.
No. I did not say the way how you are taking advantage here. I said, Jada can never cognize anything and only a Jiva, sentient can do that!



This again requires one to enquirer, as you have said, 'who says jiva experiences?' find, dive deep.

In fact, its a question to you to explore and deep dive! :). What you cannot admit due to your school of faith is not my problem! In my school of faith and also rationally, a Jiva is equipped with "Cognition" and thus, its self witness! ( Hope you do know the concept of Sakshi and if not, please google for it and know how it is explained in Vaishnava theistic schools)



To me, if 'I' is taken as jiva is 'I' is the witness, then a witness cannot act, it cannot do anything.

Not sure if i understand what you mean here! Self witness or Shakshi does not reduce jiva to non-acting or impotent entity! In fact, the other way around is too sound and fits in to the reality and rationality that, since you act, you pay the price for your action and that is our Karma process!


If one acts, then one is not a witness.
Prove this please or give example for this please! I "Did" write this question to you and i am the 'doer' and also "self witness' of this action of mine!



I understand. In my personal experience, I have not experienced this cute little thinge, a point of light of size of 100th part of hair :)
You will never......cos in your "Advaitam" there is Nothing like that size of 10000th part of the tip of the hair! At least, be clear about your noble destiny!


1. Can jiva experience anything on it's own? So if mind is absent from jiva, can jiva experience anything?
Answer: Yes! For jiva, there can be many bodies and that can come with other improved means to think and act! Yet, its the Jiva who will continue to experience as it is sentient


2. Is advaita for everybody?
If it is a :Philosophy: it must be for everyone - at least as per advaita, everyone is a potential "Brahman" - How well you adopt, practice and progress might differentiate you from others - but the more advanced you are, the less discriminating you will be!

Hare Krshna

Amrut
05 August 2014, 04:24 AM
Namaste Grames ji,

Thank you for taking time to respond. I very much appreciate that.

since you had posted in advaita forums, I responded it in this context. Why are you mixing interpretation of your school and mine.

I have a feeling that you are looking through dvaita (tatvavAda) lens. So if the theory is not refuted / objected by any one than only it is true, is this your aproach? adn here and in other thread where defining mithya was asked by ShivaFan ji, you simply responded by pointing about refutation of advaita concept of mithyA. I do not say this approach is wrong. All I say is that I do not like to think from this other angle. I was never intelligent to think of these debates.


I do consider that name and form are that of ISvara and only his names can cultivate bhAva ad not anything else. As I have said, I have tried and chanted Rama nama and Hanuman nama and have experienced my hair standing on it's tip.

However, if according to advaita, I say that names and forms are not that of brahman, and is true as per advaita, then why is there need to think about about it. If my perception about advaita is wrong, say I believe in one concept, but in reality, advaita does not mean the way I have understood, then anyone is free to correct me and I am open to that.

Are you getting me, my way and your approach are different.


I belong to Theistic school where there is a personal God Who has name and form undifferentiated (in Advaitam) so for us, Krshna, the name is very much same as Krshna the form! (This is confusing and complex initially but ask yourself what does it mean when someone from the theistic schools say name and form has sameness and absolute).Even His forms are undifferentiated from each other and all are Absolute!

I understand, but does advaita says the same? If yes, I will be grateful to you, as I am open.

I sincerely ask you to please be aware of the origin of mantra which is silence, please try this for 10 minutes.


Not sure if i understand what you mean here! Self witness or Shakshi does not reduce jiva to non-acting or impotent entity! In fact, the other way around is too sound and fits in to the reality and rationality that, since you act, you pay the price for your action and that is our Karma process!

A witness cannot act, an actor or enjoyer of fruits cannot be witness at the same time.

If 'I' am witness, then the witness is the one who ‘sees’. A person who sees cannot act at the same time. Even if I say, it is jiva, jiva cannot at the same time act through mind and senses and be a witness of the whole process.

An e.g. is that of umpire in cricket.


Exactly. Here is the statement that is stating the truth - the Experiencer is not the Mind itself - mind is just the instrument - Now you are invalidating all that you have said before!

As I have said that the earlier statement were said on level of evolution. From tatva GYAna, you realize that there is no jiva, but here you say everything experienced by jiva. So what is the truth.


but dismissing the very name and OM as having source at None?? How can you ask that "Source" of it when the very OM represents the NirgunaBrahman - at least the Nada - sound part of it. Hopefully your shifting to "Advaita" causes more damage here than helping)

Grames ji, again thinking from dvaita pov and not advaita POV???? - anyone meditating on OM will know what I am saying.

You cannot deny your own self at any time. So there is no void. If we take OM as a nAda, as a sound, vibration, then it's source is brahman. This brahman is the fourth part of OM - turiya, is silence, is brahman, is 'I' (again a smilie - only 5 are allowed -- more smilies) ---> EDITED LATER


In fact, its a question to you to explore and deep dive! file:///C:\DOCUME~1\SIMPLI~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image001.gif. What you cannot admit due to your school of faith is not my problem! In my school of faith and also rationally, a Jiva is equipped with "Cognition" and thus, its self witness! ( Hope you do know the concept of Sakshi and if not, please google for it and know how it is explained in Vaishnava theistic schools)


:) Grames ji, you know, I do not read anything about other schools, you know i do not like to mix them up, you know that I am not interested in polemical debates. Still why are you mixing both schools? afterall, is it not an advaita forum, and I thought that here we were thinking of meditative approach and practical problems faced by advaitin. Thats why Yajvan ji had said that this thread actually should be in 'uttara' folder :)


That's right! But Jada requires the Sentient to make it act! Like how a computer require your program to run! How a robot require you to activate its code! Everything automated require the "Automater" who is a sentient! So, the question is not about the Jada being active but whether it is sentient or insentient and that's it! If it is not sentient, there is no room for it to cognize anything!

chit and achita philosophy, does advaita think in same way, again the same response as above.

Sorry bro, this is my limitation (sad - smilie), My heart is not like an ocean to accommodate the reading of all philosophies. You are free to say that advaita is faulty, now I am not hurt by these type of statements, all by grace of krishna (smilie), actually it is rama, but they are one and same right? (one more smilie)


Exactly. Here is the statement that is stating the truth - the Experiencer is not the Mind itself - mind is just the instrument - Now you are invalidating all that you have said before!

Mind is very important, hence it is necessary to explain from that level. Please do not bring tatva gyana in this. I still say from one point that mind is not experiencer, yet from another point, joy and sorrow is experienced by mind only. contradictory? (smilie - only 5 are allowed)

brother, the only sentimental or chetan tatva according to advaita is brahman. So from that point, anything 'else' is non-self and is jaDa only. But lets not enter into intellectual debate, lets not please think from rational POV, only meditative approach.

Please spare me brother, as I know my friend is very intelligent and definitely learned than me :) For me, I am more than happy with my 'fault' or 'full-proof' school of advaita. That's what is given to me. I didnt ask it.

coming back


In fact, its a question to you to explore and deep dive!

I have done is many times. and my own spiritual experience says that the form vanishes when you move to the source of sound. I respect other traditions and other approaches.


If dvaitin has not experienced this nirguna brahman, which is beyond attributes, then he has lack of vision. In the same way if I have not had any darshan of Krishna, who will I actually know what you feel, and what you are passing through, your emotional and mental state.

EDIT: In either case, with faulty vision or lack of vision, I personally think that it is not right to think only on intellectual basis what is right and wrong. Intellect is a boon for an acharya, but truth has to be experienced.


"Advaita" as the practice is for anyone and everyone - this is my response to your claim of :Advaita:

This is not claim, as we find pre-requisites in all prakarana granthas, gita and upanishads. If you include the karma done for chitta shuddhi within 'the advaita way', then I agree with you that advaita or any philosophy is for everybody. karma include, vedic karma kand, puja, service to humanity, worship of any form of lord, etc.

EDIT: But if you stick to famous theory of negation, then I will certainly disagree.


OM

Amrut
05 August 2014, 05:34 AM
Namaste,


1. Can jiva experience anything on it's own? So if mind is absent from jiva, can jiva experience anything?
Answer: Yes! For jiva, there can be many bodies and that can come with other improved means to think and act! Yet, its the Jiva who will continue to experience as it is sentient

See, what I am asking is can jiva experience on it's own means, without the help of mind, body / bodies / intellect, ego, etc, only purely on basis of itself (jiva), can jiva experience anything?

Can jiva know anything or experience anything without the help of insentinent (achetan)

I know that again you are thinking from vaishnava school which is thiest and advaita is ... ??? :D

and chitta as given in tatva bodh is a part of 4 divisions of antah-karaNa - mana, buddhi, ahamkAra, chitta

Note to self: I am beginning to think that I should discuss meditative aspects with one who is actually a practising advaitin and meditates on OM and not openly in the public forums. Am I making any mistake by discussing in public forums? certain things should be kept in closed circles

----

not for grames ji, but since this is a public forum ...

mana means mind - that which keeping thinking, or flow of thoughts (sankalp and vikalp) i.e. to think of achieving or think of renouncing anything

buddhi means intellect, decision making power

ahamkAra = ego, 'I' ness, sense of individuality

chitta = retention power.

(note sometimes, in day-2-day language we use chitta for mana)

Hari OM

grames
05 August 2014, 09:47 AM
Dear Amrut.,

The answer for your question is, YES, Jiva in its SvaRupa can function with its own svaRupa lakshanas! ( Mind is a Jada that embodies the Jiva - as an instrument 'only' in the prakriti association - to sense and survive in the prakriti, it associate with the prakriti tattvas or the Koshas- in the svaRupa or in the state of release, it does not require the prakriti tattva but it continues to enjoy with its own svaRupa)

Not sure if i can explain anything more on this ( it should be "uttara" :) )


Thanks
Hare Krshna

Amrut
05 August 2014, 10:25 AM
Dear Amrut.,

The answer for your question is, YES, Jiva in its SvaRupa can function with its own svaRupa lakshanas! ( Mind is a Jada that embodies the Jiva - as an instrument 'only' in the prakriti association - to sense and survive in the prakriti, it associate with the prakriti tattvas or the Koshas- in the svaRupa or in the state of release, it does not require the prakriti tattva but it continues to enjoy with its own svaRupa)

Not sure if i can explain anything more on this ( it should be "uttara" :) )


Thanks
Hare Krshna

Namaste Grames ji,

Thanks for explanation and thank you for spending time on thinking on my thoughts :)

OM

grames
05 August 2014, 02:28 PM
Namaste Amrut.,

I have started this thread in Advaita section for the message "Is advaita for everyone" - and then knowing the play of Mind or Mind being attributed with 'everything' that makes it a Jiva or Brahman! :).



I have a feeling that you are looking through dvaita (tatvavAda) lens.

Not sure where you got this but just curious..even if it is, why it is wrong? or not allowed?? as long as it brings out better clarity to the topic?



So if the theory is not refuted / objected by any one than only it is true, is this your aproach?

Again, not sure as discussion does not mean "Preaching" right. Refutation is not the intend here but discussion is at least a lesser degree of interaction of different views, understanding and with open mind we may learn something and that's about it.


other thread where defining mithya was asked by ShivaFan ji, you simply responded by pointing about refutation of advaita concept of mithyA.

Not sure if ShivaFan ji has any problem clicking that link and actually reading that book. Even though it is a polemic work, it is the only one which actually details every possible understanding of the word "Mithya" - Which i believe is what is requested in the message - Not sure how that is in bad taste when it gives the complete possibilities of meanings and contexts! I think we all are matured enough to understand the knowledge, arguments and differentiate from their content and outcome from our own faith and practice right? Just by reading a polemic, your eyes won't evaporate or you won't become someone else! If you made these statements with an assumption that, it is of bad taste, i would wonder the reason for you to keep a website to post your "Refutations" and your intend behind such? If you are open minded, what stops you from knowing the arguments against your own faith where such arguments, questions in fact will make you more stronger?



I do not say this approach is wrong. All I say is that I do not like to think from this other angle. I was never intelligent to think of these debates.

I am very glad and i appreciate your honesty as you admit that you 'do not like to think from other angle" because, that is in fact the most powerful reason why you sometime get agitated or feel bad about others opinion. We can disagree, be different in our way of understanding and it is all fine and good as long as we keep the respect! Thats my only thing and i assure you that again by responding to this message of yours. So, lets jump in...



I do consider that name and form are that of ISvara and only his names can cultivate bhAva ad not anything else. As I have said, I have tried and chanted Rama nama and Hanuman nama and have experienced my hair standing on it's tip.

Very good. What is the effect of "cultivating the Bhava" - can you elaborate or is it just the experience of "Hair standing on its tip" :D



However, if according to advaita, I say that names and forms are not that of brahman, and is true as per advaita, then why is there need to think about it.

Its fine! But, are you going to say we should not question it? At least for an understanding perspective? What is not understood is not going to convince us fully right?



Are you getting me, my way and your approach are different.

I am. Does that mean, we cannot ask or explain our own views?



I sincerely ask you to please be aware of the origin of mantra which is silence, please try this for 10 minutes.

If you can provide me how or what is it called when you have a conclusion and then fitting everything to suite that conclusion? Where or who said "Origin" of everything is "Silence"? There is one beautiful process of dissolution of tattva which narrates how one gets subdued in to the higher one in sequence - i think its in vishnu purana - Subdued is again not a perfect word but better than "Sublation" - Can you find it and read it and tell me why "Silence" should be the origin!



A witness cannot act, an actor or enjoyer of fruits cannot be witness at the same time.

Its incorrect! You are the first/immanent witness and then anyone or anything else. For you, Brahman has to be the witness as in Ishwara - Ishwara alone cognize the Maya and thus the Cognition and the world comes in to sense perception! The other way around also is true as per advaita - when the Ishwara retracts, He establishes Himself - as Brahman! So, there is no Mana getting the status of Sentient in any vedantic schools! Since He is the witness, He gives you remembrance and forgetfulness as well as put you through the laws of Karma! (How else you understand Karma if the same "You" is not the witness since the Mana or AhamKara does not transmigrate)



If 'I' am witness, then the witness is the one who ‘sees’. A person who sees cannot act at the same time.

I had the deep sleep - this is the state where the mind and body is given up but who is that witness! Its your very own Ishwara and this is our daily experience!



Even if I say, it is jiva, jiva cannot at the same time act through mind and senses and be a witness of the whole process. An e.g. is that of umpire in cricket.
Umpire is the Judge but it does not mean the players don't cognize their six or fours! Do not confuse or refuse to understand! So, the Actor is also the first witness and of course, there are "Other" witness. Imagine a situation where everyone says, they are witness to you murdering "Veda", a girl! but you are not a "Witness" to that very act!



As I have said that the earlier statement were said on level of evolution. From tatva GYAna, you realize that there is no jiva, but here you say everything experienced by jiva. So what is the truth.

At least, i can remind you that, Brahman is all knowing! TattvaGnana cannot disprove the "Jiva" and the very experienced advaitins i have known do admit that, its either Jiva or Brahman and there is nothing in between 'states'! So, as long as "Tattva" exists, its only Jiva and no experience of Brahman! Denouncing Jiva at this level is not possible even for JivanMuktas! (JivanMuktas are not just TattvaGyanins anyways).



If we take OM as a nAda, as a sound, vibration, then it's source is brahman.
Dear brother, the difference is, i am saying that the vibration of OM is Brahman Himself and not that Brahman is the source! Giving some ref here as i dont want to be talking too much about Advaita

From Yajvan JI (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3824&highlight=vibration)

Until you digest this, how can you understand my pointers on top of that?





all by grace of krishna (smilie), actually it is rama, but they are one and same right? (one more smilie)
Surely. Smiling is good and be it heartful!



lets not please think from rational POV, only meditative approach.
Good and this explains your position! But, unbelievable for me that you are ready to fill in so many refutations, posts here but making a statement like this. Thank you though for the honesty part!



If dvaitin has not experienced this nirguna brahman, which is beyond attributes, then he has lack of vision.

Why are you judgmental on this? Since you cannot construct this as qualifying statement, i take no further meaning! ( You will be wondering what i mean here - you understand very well if you know what you have written)



Intellect is a boon for an acharya, but truth has to be experienced.
Very sad to read this.. Acharya is one who has Seen the Truth! :). So, first accept one as Acharya or understand that you haven't seen one!

Hare Krshna!

Amrut
06 August 2014, 02:43 AM
|| Hari OM ||


Namaste Amrut.,

I have started this thread in Advaita section for the message "Is advaita for everyone" - and then knowing the play of Mind or Mind being attributed with 'everything' that makes it a Jiva or Brahman!.


Namaste Grames ji,

Thanks for the response (simlie - only five are allowed )

I will try to give quick response, as falling short of time. May not be able to cover all answers.

Everything means, it is important, not in literal sense (smilie) That's why I have said I talked in day-2-day language, perhaps it is my bad, apologies for improper representation.


Not sure where you got this but just curious..even if it is, why it is wrong? or not allowed?? as long as it brings out better clarity to the topic?



Again, not sure as discussion does not mean "Preaching" right. Refutation is not the intend here but discussion is at least a lesser degree of interaction of different views, understanding and with open mind we may learn something and that's about it.



Not sure if ShivaFan ji has any problem clicking that link and actually reading that book. Even though it is a polemic work, it is the only one which actually details every possible understanding of the word "Mithya" - Which i believe is what is requested in the message - Not sure how that is in bad taste when it gives the complete possibilities of meanings and contexts! I think we all are matured enough to understand the knowledge, arguments and differentiate from their content and outcome from our own faith and practice right? Just by reading a polemic, your eyes won't evaporate or you won't become someone else! If you made these statements with an assumption that, it is of bad taste, i would wonder the reason for you to keep a website to post your "Refutations" and your intend behind such? If you are open minded, what stops you from knowing the arguments against your own faith where such arguments, questions in fact will make you more stronger?

the answer is given by me, as already pointed out by you (smilie)

regarding website, honestly, i was hurt (at that time) and most of them are refutations of accusations and not logical objections. I have already written, logical objections are fine. accusations are the last left in armory in attack (please don't take in literal sense).

Hence I created page understanding advaita to explain what advaita is

Pages like understanding advaita, adhyaropa apavada, Q and A, etc are all of constructive nature. But i have observed that with my little reading, that dvaitins and mostly srila prabhupada, have even refuted advaita position even in devotional text like bhavgavat purana. Why cant you simply explain without refuting? I cant understand this.

I have not quoted the mis-guided missles of srila prabhupada and pointed out logical flaws. Since this is outside HDF, please email me and I will give explanations for what I have done and why I have done.



I am very glad and i appreciate your honesty as you admit that you 'do not like to think from other angle"


I am very glad and i appreciate your honesty as you admit that you 'do not like to think from other angle" because, that is in fact the most powerful reason why you sometime get agitated or feel bad about others opinion. We can disagree, be different in our way of understanding and it is all fine and good as long as we keep the respect! Thats my only thing and i assure you that again by responding to this message of yours. So, lets jump in...

My dear friend, believe me, I am not at all agitated, not even when I read that link that you gave to ShivaFan ji. the reason for stating this was because I thought that you 'see through the lens of dvaita philosophy'.

I have my reason for not reading about polemical debates. Will try to type down again

1. I am not that intelligent and cant understand, many things bounce over my head
2. Weak retention power
3. Poor knowledge of sanskrit and so have to depend upon translation and interpretation of sanskrit words by the translator, which may not may not be correct.
4. It is unnecessary. Why? A little logical reason is ok, but not to dive deeply. See dvaitin does not have the experience of nirguNa brahman and vice versa. So in both cases there is alack of vision. Hence these objections are based more on logical reasoning than on pure experience. Both should be there - shotriya and brhamaniSTha.


As I have said, it is my limitation and my way of approach. I would like to drink water only from my own well, as there is enough water to quench my thirst (smilie)

Sure we can agree to disagree.



Very good. What is the effect of "cultivating the Bhava" - can you elaborate or is it just the experience of "Hair standing on its tip"

bhAva does not cultivate by itself, it cultivates wit the help of ISvara and by removing the importance and clinging of worldly thoughts and objects. No it is not experience similar to that you have when shocked :D

It is joy, your heart throbs with joy, with love and it overflows, tears rolls down your cheeks and all you care to do is to stay in this state, lie down and keep smiling. you can do anything and do not want to do anything, but just stay in this bliss, at times, the intensity is so much that you cant control your self. More can be said, but I would not like to open up in public forums.


Its fine! But, are you going to say we should not question it? At least for an understanding perspective? What is not understood is not going to convince us fully right?


I am. Does that mean, we cannot ask or explain our own views?


There is no need to 'deliberately create' a doubt. If it naturally occurs, then it needs to be answered. But no point in digging and then filling the pit :)

There is no answer if there is no question. If by simple instructions, one gets satisfactory answer, it is more than enough, no need of polemical approach.

e.g. if you say jiva is the experiencer, and I believe as you are my guru, then 'thats it'. you do not need to convince me, as I do not require to be convinced. I will pour my heart and soul in practice what my Guru preaches.



If you can provide me how or what is it called when you have a conclusion and then fitting everything to suite that conclusion? Where or who said "Origin" of everything is "Silence"? There is one beautiful process of dissolution of tattva which narrates how one gets subdued in to the higher one in sequence - i think its in vishnu purana - Subdued is again not a perfect word but better than "Sublation" - Can you find it and read it and tell me why "Silence" should be the origin!

I would have surely tried my best, but again, would like to discuss who actually mediates on OM. s/he is in better position to understand, mere intellectual exercise is not enough. This i my personal opinion. I should have experienced this state, atleast for a moment to explain to you, else there is no backing of power of experience, and it is just a philosophy.

What is important is to answer questions in a way tha tyou move a step forward.


Its incorrect! You are the first/immanent witness and then anyone or anything else. For you, Brahman has to be the witness as in Ishwara - Ishwara alone cognize the Maya and thus the Cognition and the world comes in to sense perception! The other way around also is true as per advaita - when the Ishwara retracts, He establishes Himself - as Brahman! So, there is no Mana getting the status of Sentient in any vedantic schools! Since He is the witness, He gives you remembrance and forgetfulness as well as put you through the laws of Karma! (How else you understand Karma if the same "You" is not the witness since the Mana or AhamKara does not transmigrate)

Mana transmigrates, it is not destroyed until ignorance is not destroyed, else how and why a new born shows a pecular nature.



I had the deep sleep - this is the state where the mind and body is given up but who is that witness! Its your very own Ishwara and this is our daily experience!

when one is not attached to any of three guNa-s, then t is always brahman, nothing else.


Umpire is the Judge but it does not mean the players don't cognize their six or fours! Do not confuse or refuse to understand! So, the Actor is also the first witness and of course, there are "Other" witness. Imagine a situation where everyone says, they are witness to you murdering "Veda", a girl! but you are not a "Witness" to that very act!

See this is where I differ, again, a person meditating on OM is with whom I wish to discuss.

when you are watching or hearing mantra, you are just a listener, mantra goes on by itself, in this way you move to source. Mandukya says santam sivam advaitam and even vishnu purana says it is peaceful (will have to digg the source)



At least, i can remind you that, Brahman is all knowing! TattvaGnana cannot disprove the "Jiva" and the very experienced advaitins i have known do admit that, its either Jiva or Brahman and there is nothing in between 'states'! So, as long as "Tattva" exists, its only Jiva and no experience of Brahman! Denouncing Jiva at this level is not possible even for JivanMuktas! (JivanMuktas are not just TattvaGyanins anyways).

There is no denouncing. If jiva is non-existent than no point in refuting, negating that is non-existent.

You can negate that which appears to is experienced, but yet it is not true. Truth is unchangable, unmoving, eternal, etc and is brahman only.

So with assumption of jiva bhAva, one asks the question, are you jiva and the search begins.



Dear brother, the difference is, i am saying that the vibration of OM is Brahman Himself and not that Brahman is the source! Giving some ref here as i dont want to be talking too much about Advaita

From Yajvan JI (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3824&highlight=vibration)

Until you digest this, how can you understand my pointers on top of that?

Thank you. I will read it and respond back if necessary.

I have told, what I have been taught. source is peace, silence and from it origins words, and all power, it is substratum.


Good and this explains your position! But, unbelievable for me that you are ready to fill in so many refutations, posts here but making a statement like this. Thank you though for the honesty part!

I never thought of refuting. I only thought of given replies to doubts. I dont take them as refutations and with intention - para-mata-bhanga' and sva-mata-vistAra'

Infact, now you have made me to think that in this thread, I have refuted something. Anyways, thank you for pointing out. I will think on this issue and contemplate on it.


Why are you judgmental on this? Since you cannot construct this as qualifying statement, i take no further meaning! ( You will be wondering what i mean here - you understand very well if you know what you have written)


Sorry, but I didnt understand. See, you can talk of thing that you have seen or experienced. You cannot teach that you do not know. Again reading in books is different. This knowledge is actually information. knowledge means direct experience. Else it is just an intellectual exercise.


Very sad to read this.. Acharya is one who has Seen the Truth! :). So, first accept one as Acharya or understand that you haven't seen one!

acharya, as said by Kanchi Paramacharya says that an acharya is versed versed in shastras, follows a siddhanta and is also able to defend siddhanta.

A guru is self realized and may not be a sanskrit scholar. He is above sects and siddhantas. A guru can initiate one in dvaita, murti puja, yoga, and advaita, etc, while an acharya or a saint can initiate anyone in his siddhanta.

Adi Sankara is both a guru and acharya.

Hari OM

Amrut
06 August 2014, 03:05 AM
Namaste,


If dvaitin has not experienced this nirguna brahman, which is beyond attributes, then he has lack of vision.

I will try to explain this with our current e.g. :)

We both practice nama japa. You associate with names and with a feeling or knowledge that they are not different from krishna. Krishna, as person, i.e. his image never drops.

The nature of my sadhana is to drop names and forms and rise above. This I do by taking help of a sound OM.

Now, will you explain the source of sound is not the form, as you start sadhana with the feeling that name, form and krishna are not different.

the very nature of my sadhana is dropping names and forms, disassociating. So can I experience what you are experiencing and can you ever drop name and form and try to seek the source of everything with intention that it is formless?

This is not possible. Fortunately, before I started on advaita path, I had chanted nama japa and so I have a little experience in chanting name of a form of ISvara, else today, I simply cannot experience that you daily and naturally experience.

Brother are you getting me? This is what I call as 'lack of vision' vision is direct experience that you experience naturally as per your own temperament and the nature of sadhana that you do.

Regarding silence, one more member has experienced this, please find this experience here (post #21) (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=13151&page=3)

The more you get detached, the more vasanas are uprooted, the less the desires, more is the peace within. Detach and feel free. (this is not last state :D )

Thank you for your time.

OM

grames
06 August 2014, 10:09 AM
Dear Amrut.,

Thanks for this long response and i want to say thank you for stating your understanding and position regarding Mana! I want to hear view points from other advaitins on this subject as it looks like it can give a lot more information regarding the "Advaita" system itself.

Mana - Transmigrate - I understand your inability to give up on this as for you, the Mana has to be the Jiva!

But, some school of Advaita stick to the Gita declaration and here it is

sarvasya caham hrdi sannivisto
mattah smrtir jnanam apohanam ca
vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham BG 15.15

that the "remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness" - Shankara in fact adds the remembrance,knowledge as gift for good deeds and loss of memory as punishment for evil deeds. Thus, its not the Mana which is transmigrating but it is the "jiva" and the Ishwara is the "Total" controller of the panchaKosha! ( Aham Eva - I alone is the Supreme Self - So a clear distinction of Mana and Self is established by Shri Shankara in his bhasya. Also, interesting verse in BG is 2.22 and it talks about "Self" taking new body - it cannot be translated by any means to indicate "Mana" taking another body!

Is there any better explanation available here?

Thanks
Hare Krshna!

Amrut
06 August 2014, 11:32 AM
Dear Amrut.,

Thanks for this long response and i want to say thank you for stating your understanding and position regarding Mana! I want to hear view points from other advaitins on this subject as it looks like it can give a lot more information regarding the "Advaita" system itself.

Mana - Transmigrate - I understand your inability to give up on this as for you, the Mana has to be the Jiva!

But, some school of Advaita stick to the Gita declaration and here it is

sarvasya caham hrdi sannivisto
mattah smrtir jnanam apohanam ca
vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham BG 15.15

that the "remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness" - Shankara in fact adds the remembrance,knowledge as gift for good deeds and loss of memory as punishment for evil deeds. Thus, its not the Mana which is transmigrating but it is the "jiva" and the Ishwara is the "Total" controller of the panchaKosha! ( Aham Eva - I alone is the Supreme Self - So a clear distinction of Mana and Self is established by Shri Shankara in his bhasya. Also, interesting verse in BG is 2.22 and it talks about "Self" taking new body - it cannot be translated by any means to indicate "Mana" taking another body!

Is there any better explanation available here?

Thanks
Hare Krshna!

Namaste Grames ji

BG and mind and jiva and paramatma

Yes, in BG 15.15, it is said that it is only paramAtmA. But Adi Sankaracharya ji does not state it is jiva. There is a verse in the same adhyAya 15.7. Continuing the explanation Adi Sankara in 15.8 says that [jiva], sixth indriya-s (senses) including the mind - i.e. mind is the sixth, [jiva] takes them with itself. Explanation continues in 15.9 :), where agian, Adi Sankara explains which are these six indriya-s along with mind :).

BG BG 2.22, it has to be taken as jiva and not mind. What I am saying is lower bodies, except karaNa Sarira, are created and destroyed in each cycle of birth and death, but mana (mind) never dies. Agreed that jiva controls the process of transmigration --> see I am admitting there is jiva (smilie). See brother, I am not disagreeing.

Ultimately it is paramAtmA that is enjoying everything or working through senses and mind, it is not even jiva.

Relative terms and gradual rise in consciouness

The words are explained in relative sense. Arjuna in chapter 1 says 'I' will not kill them. This 'I' is related to body, then bhagavAn raises his consciousness to 'jiva' and later on to Brahman.

When in relation to body, senses are subtle, so in ascending order of subtility (cetan) it is.

physical body --> senses --> mind --> intellect --> ego --> jiva --> brahman.

So when we talk from the process of evolution i.e. rise of awareness to a certain level i.e. body or mind, we say, mind is cetan. We do not blast the bomb of paramAtmA directly. Take it step by step. Remember when prajApatI daxa advised indra, he didnt blasted nuclear bomb. Each time he replied that there is something subtle and finally indra realized brahman :). Remember, each time indra deva took the newly experienced state as the final, the best, i.e. Brahman.

mana is not jiva, I agree :peace: --> white flag. But it is important - no I wont quit (teeth showing smilie)

The idea is to rise a person step by step, e.g. by giving step by step instruction of kosha-s, gross to subtle bodies. So when during meditation one suddenly experiences prANamaya kosha, which he has never experienced, he knows - this is not the end, and so I should not get fascinated with it. This is true for other kosha-s too, just incase you experience it.

Finally you rise above them. If you want to climb 108 steps, then you cannot directly jump to 108th, there is no cheat code :D, no bribes can be given, no nitro boost (more teeth showing smilies). Consciousness rises.

Connecting gradual rise in consciouness with neti-neti

This too is neti neti only, though not directly practised. How?, Take the e.g. of climbing steps.

To move further, you will put one foot on the next step, but this is not enough, you will have to renounce the lower step. This renunciation is compulsory and it is natural. If you stick your foot to one step, will you be able to walk ahead? No. So only by renunciation of former step ( gross state), one can progress to a later (subtler state). The one that was subtle, now becomes gross.

Again, 'renounce' simply means detachment -- a-sanga, this a-sanga is our weapon which one has to use it and hit the inverted tree firmly. So no clinging to non-self, the more you cling, the more you take time to up-root this tree, which finally is imaginative (Adi Sankara says so)

All terms including ISvara are relative. Jiva is relative. So the definitions are also relative, in relation to something. The definition of absolute is not possible. Absolute reality is brahman only. But rise and rise above this duality, until you reach a state that there is no duality, there is nothing that is more subtler than that you are, there is nothing left to renounce, there is no non-self. There is only Self, the brahman. This is as far as one can go.

I am thankful to you that you have taken pain to go through my long replies (hey I am assuming that you are going through -- smilies)

Lets wait and see if other members would like to take part in discussion, as generally after certain posts, many loose interest and not all are interested in this topic.

More on mind - it is helpful tool

Lots of psychological explanation can be given to a student w.r.t mind, changing nature, ignoring verbal accusations in professional life and how you should keep the mind steady and detached. When one is emotionally hurt as someone has accused him of dis-loyalty and insults him in front of 10 people, you dont say - See, you are none of these, BMI complex (Body-Mind-Intellect), you are either jiva or Shiva. You will have to soothen this fellow, calm him down and then ask him to detach from this incident, forget it. Still if one is not able to do it, then explain him psychologically, that - now you know that your mind reacts, you have ego, so there is much to work. Again, in meditation when you sit, this indecent of insult will pop up, as you have taken it to your heart. Then mind will show it's force. It is this time, that one is asked to just be aware and say - you are not mind, you are not thought, just detach from mind, but how? be aware of thoughts, let them flow, do not force them to run away, let them come, face them and neglect them. You are give some e.g. of how mind works, how it reacts. So neglect thoughts, do not let yourself to involve in this scene which mind is creating. Be aware of the whole process and be awitness, when the force of thoughts decreases, start chanting OM, focus on OM and have faith that OM can tackle anything, these thoughts, this mind, everything. See, the incident has happended, do not live in past, right now you are sitting in meditation, so just dont pay attention to these mental impulses, and so on ...

This is called as practical training. At times, for time being, this top-most tatva Jnana of mithyAta, has to be left aside.

Then when mind is steady, no thoughts or less thoughts are coming and hat toothey are not powerful enough to push aside OM, then say, oh, this mind is jaDa, there is something above it, else you could not be awitness of mind, you did it, great, now move one, know that it is jaDa, dive deep. Mind is divided into 2 - one pulling towards samsAra, another towards ISvara. So take the help of this part of mind and rise above it, there is no other way. Even Atma--vicAra is done with the help of mind, but this type of thinking, one rises above mind and so with OM. The instruction that this mind is jaDA, do not pay attention is also done with the help of mind only.

Like a poll volt. An Athlete has a long bamboo and there is a cross bar installed at a certain foot high. The athlete runs with this poll volt, the bamboo, and jump with it's help and finally leave this bamboo and jump on the other side of cross bar, into the infinite sky. This bamboo represents mind

Mind is everything i.e. mind is important -- agree. I am not quitting (smilies, teeth showing smilies)

I think too much is said, isnt it? I am exhausted.

OM

Amrut
06 August 2014, 11:59 AM
|| Hari OM ||

Grames bhai, one question

Where are all the vAsanA-s stored? (dis-satisfied desires), where are sanchit karma-s stored? (actions done in past, until they ripe to give fruits).

Inside that cute little thinge, a point of light, jiva? yes, sure? or are they in books of chitrakut, yamadev? - just saying with light heart :)

I agree mind is jaDA and jiva exists until there is ignorace, but mind is important, very critical. Am I getting repetitive, Am I annoying you? I pray not, God forbid.

Hari OM

grames
06 August 2014, 12:15 PM
Doing a Quick Reply...

In your thesis or philosophy, you have no Room to avoid Mana - Now, you have forcefully made the "Mana" the central piece of everything! Now, your mana is.,

1.Jiva in Vyavaharika staya and there cannot be any more Upadhi's - a very dull position as everything else will be then creation of the Mana! ( as you put it in very early messages as "interpretations and perceptions")
2. Maya - The Root Cause as well - as you are now giving the impression that, removal of Mind means "Brahman Realization" as there is nothing else that hinders this realization
3. The circular dependency - Mana has to give up itself with no other help!
4. Mana is now Ishwara as well - in a larger picture there is no difference between the Ishwara and Mana

i can count on the objections because of this understanding of Mana as Jiva and their implications! Again, i might be throwing all this from my lens of vision so no worries!

As i told you earlier, it is not a problem if the Paramatma is admissible - as in the the antrAtma who in fact is the second bird in the tree of life who can remember and give infinite jiva's vasana, karma, bhanda moha etc etc individually. ( Hope you know the ChitraGupt).

Hare Krshna!

Amrut
07 August 2014, 12:41 AM
|| Hari OM ||

Namaste grames ji,


Doing a Quick Reply...

In your thesis or philosophy, you have no Room to avoid Mana - Now, you have forcefully made the "Mana" the central piece of everything! Now, your mana is.,


All I can say is mana is important tool and all vAsanA-s are there inside mana.


1.Jiva in Vyavaharika staya and there cannot be any more Upadhi's - a very dull position as everything else will be then creation of the Mana! ( as you put it in very early messages as "interpretations and perceptions")Nope. Mana is not jiva :)


2. Maya - The Root Cause as well - as you are now giving the impression that, removal of Mind means "Brahman Realization" as there is nothing else that hinders this realizationAs I have said, when you rise above mind, then there are no thoughts, all experience is due to mind. I do not say, mind is ultimate :)


3. The circular dependency - Mana has to give up itself with no other help! Nope. Mana has to be given with the help of itself - one part says, enjoy this world, another says, go towards ISvara, so it has a student and a teacher. Even chanting name is done with the help of mana only, later on when it continues by itself, then you move out of mind. This OM is universal sound going on by itself. If you can be aware, then you can ignore mind. But it keep working.

when all vAsanA-s are uprooted, then mind dies. Now there is no agitation. Hence we say, that when there is no mind, one is in brahmi sthiti. Mind and ego are connected. When there is no mind, no sense of 'I' ness is experienced.

See bro, when we are thinking on something, then that part has to be given importance. nothing more.

All these love letters between us are done through mind only. i.e. mind is used, as a toll, I do not say it has it's own effulgence. Effulgence is jiva, which in turn is nothing but Brahman. Mind is bulb, not electricity.

So anything that you cognize, is due to mind, all the emotions, bhAva, are due to mind. To interpret anything, mind is needed.



4. Mana is now Ishwara as well - in a larger picture there is no difference between the Ishwara and Mana Nope, mana is not ISvara at any time, even in practical purpose. Mind is nothing but continuous flow of thoughts, as said by Adi Sankara - samkalpa-vikalpa iti mana

ISvara is omnipresent, while mana is not.

Without mind you cant do anything, this does not mean, mind is everything. There is something that 'lights' the mind.


i can count on the objections because of this understanding of Mana as Jiva and their implications! Again, i might be throwing all this from my lens of vision so no worries!mana is not jiva, jiva takes mind along with 5 senses, so mana is not jiva :)

When I say, without physical body, you cant even chant God's name - this does not mean, body is everything and that it is jiva or ishvara and it is the ultimate and is enjoyer of fruits of karma. -- I am just giving importance of to physical body, nothing more.


As i told you earlier, it is not a problem if the Paramatma is admissible - as in the the antrAtma who in fact is the second bird in the tree of life who can remember and give infinite jiva's vasana, karma, bhanda moha etc etc individually. ( Hope you know the ChitraGupt).

Hare Krshna!Advaita does not say there are two entities sitting inside heart - it ISvara only. jiva is just a reflection of jiva. In those BG 15 chapter verses that we discussed, Adi Sankara has given pot breaking e.g.

Anyways, I think that time has come for opinions of others on what they think, as atleast I have told everything that I know.

I may have wrongly interpreted. In this case, I think it is time to take a break and come back again.

I will surely read your reply (if you chose to reply).

I must admit and really appreciate the civility maintained by you in this discussion. Honestly, you kept a check on your argumentive and agressive nature (which you get at times). I also appreciate that after my request, you have tried your best to explain things in simple way.

I like simplicity.

So if I got the answer in that thread that - 'Ultimately, on vyavahArika level, it is jiva that is enjoyer and not mind, mind is just a tool', things would have been very very different. and this is your conclusion after reading and contemplating a lot of books, and spending a lot of time in spirituality and is due to the grace of krishna, as whatever we understand even partially, it is due to his grace only.

At anytime, if I have caused hurt to you or to anyone with my writings, please accept my apologies.

Hare Krishna

OM

grames
07 August 2014, 02:05 PM
Dear Amrut.,

Thanks once again for the nice reply and appreciate it. But i fear, you have understood my earlier message and i think i am done questioning you ( as i have understood your stand very clearly)



Nope. Mana is not jiva :)
When mana gives up, you only said
'samadhi and this state remains permanent. so the first experience is last experience". Where is anything beyond Mana - In fact, you are stating the principles of Aja and you are right but i am not able to accept it. ( Take it easy - You cannot say Mana is Jiva, you cannot admit Jiva itself as existent)

You Said:
As I have said, when you rise above mind, then there are no thoughts, all experience is due to mind. I do not say, mind is ultimate

Who or what is 'that' you are saying "Should" raise above "mind"? Jiva? I do not see scope for Jiva here as if it is the "Doer" ( as in "Raising" above mind - it has to be accepted as the "Doer" - such jiva itself then should be admitted as existent and that is what i stated but you cannot given in to that). If i raise above Mana, i am in to "Brahmanhood" - whether such is temporary (as in your case) or temporarily permanent (as in JivanMukta) or permanently temporary (as in unfortunate like me) or just Permanent as in Brahman! In all the cases, there is no scope for something called "Jiva" and thus i assumed that for you "Mana is Jiva" as you haven't pointed out any subject here in your arrow connected list of conscious elevation/progression as Jiva!



Nope. Mana has to be given with the help of itself - one part says, enjoy this world, another says, go towards ISvara, so it has a student and a teacher.
I understand your statement! :) I do not get the meaning because it doesn't make one for me! We do call it "Ego" and ego alone has two sides of action and one that get attached to the glitters of joy of material nature and the other that gets absorbed in to the beauty and majesty of Lord. The positive Ego is the driver for us to be good, spiritually motivated and inspired, serve others, do yoga etc. The negative one is just opposite of it! If you meant the same, i am fine with it. ( But, your statement still does not point out the subject "jiva" as success of mind here is Brahmanhood and not Jiva or Ishwara)



Even chanting name is done with the help of mana only, later on when it continues by itself, then you move out of mind.

Who is that you here? ( Don't say the one asking) Is it Jiva? Is it Brahman? Don't want to leave it as a question... for me, with your so far responses, there is no "You" and that youness is also because of the ego, the driver and who posses this ego? The non existent Jiva or reflection of Brahman - Double Dosha - meaning twin faults - Jiva being reflection cannot act - Brahman must act but Brahman cannot be admitted as "Acting"! Not Brahman - Cause Brahman never looses Brahmanhood so that is not to be obtained and always in established state! So, i still do not see a scope for Jiva - beyond your definition of Mana so why i said, you do not have "jiva" in your thesis. Or you are not ready to admit the Jiva as the Doer and Mana as just the Jada under the control and spell of Jiva)



All these love letters between us are done through mind only. i.e. mind is used, as a tool, I do not say it has it's own effulgence. Effulgence is jiva, which in turn is nothing but Brahman. Mind is bulb, not electricity.
That's your view and your example does not reveal what is possible or what else is possible. AtmaPrema is something you are not aware because, unfortunately you have denied it and there is no "Jiva" for you beyond Mana ( Though you are surprised and explaining again as like you have one in your admissible theory) and so why you are putting your own limitation ignoring the reality of the possibility or the ultimate natural potential of the "Atma" which is prema! So, when Atma is utilized as the expressing subjects, its the ultimate Prema and the end in itself but in continuum! ( Can you even grasp such idea???)



So anything that you cognize, is due to mind, all the emotions, bhAva, are due to mind. To interpret anything, mind is needed.
You are stuck with this - To Cognize the Material manifestation, we require the material agent and instrument Mind! To experience something that is not matter, MIND is not REQUIRED and we are here talking about a subject matter which is not a Jada! ( Jiva is not a Jada - But you have already said, Jiva also will be a Jada eventually - that's your stand and i do understand it as your only choice)



Nope, mana is not ISvara at any time, even in practical purpose.

I don't think i can explain this to you - because it will become a refutation talk :). If you have something called "Ishwara" that is other than Mana, then your understanding of Mana when given up should not result in Brahmanhood but something else as there is still Ishwara! ( As Ishwara is saguna - when you say giving up mind, it means you have given up all "Saguna" aspects - including the Ishwara) - Do not argue here please.



Without mind you cant do anything, this does not mean, mind is everything. There is something that 'lights' the mind.
huh? What you mean there is "something"? And what is that "Something" that lights mind? Care to elaborate this alone?



mana is not jiva, jiva takes mind along with 5 senses, so mana is not jiva :)

U Turn? Where is that Jiva? What is it? Jiva is Jiva or Jiva is always Brahman?
If Brahman with Senses is Jiva, Jiva is just a temporary name - non existent - AjatiVada! Even in this, the Doership should be admitted as "Brahman" and it is the very Brahman who choose to reveal Himself! ( SelfRealization - By the Self - Circular dependency again)
If Jiva is Reflection of Brahman, PratiBimba cannot act on it own! Moon reflecting on the well will not turn red in one, blue in another unless there is an Upadhi ( the water in the well being real - making the color of the moon different in different well) and admitting such Upadhi is very dangerous to Advaitam! ( for the rule that, PratiBimba cannot act on its own - water in the well itself must be a pratiBimba). All the pots made out of the clay, cannot have different diameter, different height if they are "reflection" of the same clay!
Let me stop here...i know its jumping to "Refutation" again...but please consider these are options i am "thinking" with my total ignorance rather an attempt to refute!



Advaita does not say there are two entities sitting inside heart - it ISvara only. jiva is just a reflection of jiva ( correting: You mean Reflection of Brahman). In those BG 15 chapter verses that we discussed, Adi Sankara has given pot breaking e.g.

I did not tell "Advaita" as you have asked for fitting answer! I said, if the Paramatma is admissible, the transmigration is solved and it is supported by BG and Sve.Up! Two bird theory of Advaita has flaw in it but i don't want to jump to refutation here. Remember, Advaita also MUST admit doer ship ONLY to Brahman and i have known advaitin who walk the path of Advaita with just that!



I like simplicity.
Me too! But we complicate simple things with our ego and force it on others as well right? :D

silence_speaks
08 August 2014, 01:14 AM
Friends,
Due to Maya, when the sthula, sukshma, karana [gross, subtle and causal] bodies are taken for Self, the product is jiva.

Jiva is in the identification with the "seen" ... in waking state i see a waking body and carve out a jiva who is that waking body with its thoughts etc. This is the waking jiva!

In dream we see a dream body and carve out a jiva with the dream body and dream world. This is the dream jiva.

In deep sleep we see nothing and so we carve out an ignorant "one" - the jiva.

Ignorance is identification with this jiva. One who sees jiva jagat ishvara as mithya is liberated. He sees and yet does not identify. One need not "Raise" above mind .... one just has to recognize that one is not the mind and this one has to recognize at the level of mind alone ! since body is jada and does not need liberation. Self or Awareness being ever free does not need liberation. Thus, only Mind needs a correction ... and once that is done one leads a liberated life.

One continues to see jiva, jagat and ishvara but knows all three as mithya. Even as one sees the earth as flat but is never confused ! One knows clearly that its only apparent, a mithya.

Love!
Silence

Amrut
08 August 2014, 03:35 AM
Dear Amrut.,

[quote]Thanks once again for the nice reply and appreciate it. But i fear, you have understood my earlier message and i think i am done questioning you ( as i have understood your stand very clearly)

Namaste Grames ji,

I think it must be misunderstood



When mana gives up, you only said
'samadhi and this state remains permanent. so the first experience is last experience". Where is anything beyond Mana - In fact, you are stating the principles of Aja and you are right but i am not able to accept it. ( Take it easy - You cannot say Mana is Jiva, you cannot admit Jiva itself as existent)

You Said:
As I have said, when you rise above mind, then there are no thoughts, all experience is due to mind. I do not say, mind is ultimateno no, no. I gave a long explanation.

when consciousness rises above mind, then there is nothing to experience separately. By referring to mind, we can also take antakaraNa along with it's 4 variants. But mind is enough, as when one rises above mind (as consciousness), then there is no experience of separateness.

Now coming back to -- and this state remains permanent.

I disagree. In yoga, may be?, one thinks that after burning all desires that are inside mind, ther eis the first experience of samadhi, not before and once this state is reached, it is permanent. so first experience is last experience and then there is no change in this state. --> I don't agree with this concept.

Even temporarily, when mind rests or becomes inactive, then one enters into samadhi, but as mind is not dead yet, i.e. all desires are not uprooted / burnet, so it rises again and pulls the consciousness back, again mind detaches and then rises above mind and enters into samadhi. gradualy the time period of samadhi increases and finally mind is destroyed, i.e. all vasanas are destroyed, then this state becomes permanent. Now need to mediate anymore. It is your natural state.


Who or what is 'that' you are saying "Should" raise above "mind"? Jiva? I do not see scope for Jiva here as if it is the "Doer" ( as in "Raising" above mind - it has to be accepted as the "Doer" - such jiva itself then should be admitted as existent and that is what i stated but you cannot given in to that). If i raise above Mana, i am in to "Brahmanhood" - whether such is temporary (as in your case) or temporarily permanent (as in JivanMukta) or permanently temporary (as in unfortunate like me) or just Permanent as in Brahman! In all the cases, there is no scope for something called "Jiva" and thus i assumed that for you "Mana is Jiva" as you haven't pointed out any subject here in your arrow connected list of conscious elevation/progression as Jiva!


Here again, the words like 'should', 'rise' and even 'meditate' are taken as actions. These are not the actions for two reasons

1. the whole attempt is done to clam down mind and the final product is rising beyond mind, which is stillness.

Why So?

Because, this karma of chanting and sitting in meditation does not trap us into the viscous cycle of birth and death, infact it results into the opposite.

2. After reaching a certain state in meditation, everything happens by itself, there is no effort, no chanting of mantra. I have said this before. OM continues by itself and mind is naturally pulled into source. Hence there is no 'effort' no doership. thats why I asked, can witness act at the same time when it is a doer? can it be done doer and witness at the same time.

Trust me, you, as an individual, has no control over it, you as an individual has no role to play and something else is waiting for you. This is nothing but brahman.

But it will be dishonesty on my part to say that before you reach this state of realization and effortless meditation, you say that it is only brahman. It has to be mind, but then this mind is not the most subtlest, so it is jiva (smilie) agree.

But advaita does not stop here, the very process is to ask this question - is this all the work of jiva? who is jiva, who am I? and this is not mental repetition, or not just a thought thought process, it is search, an enquiry and on will know that one is witness of the whole process. IMHO this jiva is nothing but consciousness, but layered with ignorance and 5 mahabhutas, detach this association and what remains is brahman only. Even when you are not into state of samadhi, you are still an awareness and my personal experience is that this consciousness, which we can take it as jiva, does not change at any time, only it detaches itself from that which is non-self. The wrong identification is destroyed with the help of a-sanga sastra. It's like piling layers of onion. Lastly nothing remains. What remains is 'I' and this is completeness. So we say that there is no jiva. Are you getting it. It is too difficult to understand this.



I understand your statement! I do not get the meaning because it doesn't make one for me! We do call it "Ego" and ego alone has two sides of action and one that get attached to the glitters of joy of material nature and the other that gets absorbed in to the beauty and majesty of Lord. The positive Ego is the driver for us to be good, spiritually motivated and inspired, serve others, do yoga etc. The negative one is just opposite of it! If you meant the same, i am fine with it. ( But, your statement still does not point out the subject "jiva" as success of mind here is Brahmanhood and not Jiva or Ishwara)Yes, but ego doe snot think Ego is sense of 'i' and 'mine' al lthinking including the sweet and blissful form of ISvara is done with the help of mind only. Ego does not think. Intellect only gives direction to thoughts, chitta recites the holy name of natkhat nanda-lala, and the whole picture of vrindavan is constructed in the mind.

Mind thinks, it cannot stay without thoughts.

---

I request you to try a simple thing. Will you please?

Inhale and hold the breath. Close your mouth and nose with both hands. Do not let any air to be exhaled. Retain the air as much as you can until you can hold any longer, not even a second. Just before you are about to release your hands, what mind of thoughts you have? or is there any form of ISvara, say krishna and this form stays right to the end? please do let me know.


Who is that you here? ( Don't say the one asking) Is it Jiva? Is it Brahman? Don't want to leave it as a question... for me, with your so far responses, there is no "You" and that youness is also because of the ego, the driver and who posses this ego? The non existent Jiva or reflection of Brahman - Double Dosha - meaning twin faults - Jiva being reflection cannot act - Brahman must act but Brahman cannot be admitted as "Acting"! Not Brahman - Cause Brahman never looses Brahmanhood so that is not to be obtained and always in established state! So, i still do not see a scope for Jiva - beyond your definition of Mana so why i said, you do not have "jiva" in your thesis. Or you are not ready to admit the Jiva as the Doer and Mana as just the Jada under the control and spell of Jiva)

no twin dosha (smilie)

It is a realization. It is more of a search, an inner exploration. Try it and abide in source.

Those explanations are given with the intention of letting us know that there is something beyond jiva.

but now I understand your point and the whole argument that youare saying, perhaps, influenced form mayavada khandan :D, just joking ;)

'I' is always there. Existence of 'I' is self-evident. Why are you hesitant to ask this question? Without 'I', the first person, there cannot be the 'you', the second person, and 'he' the third person.

jiva is non-existent only from parmarthika level. This is realization. We begin with presumption that 'I am jiva'. But it asks the question, 'are you really jiva', search, dive deep within.

Ultimately as you have said, ISvara, who is brahman with name and ofrm, drops, and only nirguNa brahman remains. We use a-sanga to reach this a-sanga brahman (smilie)



That's your view and your example does not reveal what is possible or what else is possible. AtmaPrema is something you are not aware because, unfortunately you have denied it and there is no "Jiva" for you beyond Mana ( Though you are surprised and explaining again as like you have one in your admissible theory) and so why you are putting your own limitation ignoring the reality of the possibility or the ultimate natural potential of the "Atma" which is prema! So, when Atma is utilized as the expressing subjects, its the ultimate Prema and the end in itself but in continuum! ( Can you even grasp such idea???)this prema, or ananda, is not separate to be experienced. AS tap-record, whatever you 'experience' is within the realm of mind only, be it this world, or heaven, or vaikuntha or darshan of ISvara - nope I wont quit



You are stuck with this - To Cognize the Material manifestation, we require the material agent and instrument Mind! To experience something that is not matter, MIND is not REQUIRED and we are here talking about a subject matter which is not a Jada! ( Jiva is not a Jada - But you have already said, Jiva also will be a Jada eventually - that's your stand and i do understand it as your only choice)I disagree. and it is not my choice, it is experience. If theory cannot become experience, then it is useless.


huh? What you mean there is "something"? And what is that "Something" that lights mind? Care to elaborate this alone?Yes, there is something that lits the mind, this is brahman. Jiva is reflection and not the original source. It is moon and not sun.



U Turn? Where is that Jiva? What is it? Jiva is Jiva or Jiva is always Brahman?
If Brahman with Senses is Jiva, Jiva is just a temporary name - non existent - AjatiVada! Even in this, the Doership should be admitted as "Brahman" and it is the very Brahman who choose to reveal Himself! ( SelfRealization - By the Self - Circular dependency again)
If Jiva is Reflection of Brahman, PratiBimba cannot act on it own! Moon reflecting on the well will not turn red in one, blue in another unless there is an Upadhi ( the water in the well being real - making the color of the moon different in different well) and admitting such Upadhi is very dangerous to Advaitam! ( for the rule that, PratiBimba cannot act on its own - water in the well itself must be a pratiBimba). All the pots made out of the clay, cannot have different diameter, different height if they are "reflection" of the same clay!
Let me stop here...i know its jumping to "Refutation" again...but please consider these are options i am "thinking" with my total ignorance rather an attempt to refute!Jiva is jiva until you experience it that way. but it is not an end. jiva is just abhAva, and it looses it's existence (abhAva) only when one realizes brahman.

this theory is non-existence is to be practically applied when one reaches a state of nirvikalp samadhi. ajativada is for those who are just about to enter into this state, not for all. thats why adhikAra bhede. all updeshas are not for everybody. ajativada even refutes vivarta vada and makes a joke of yoga, meditation, etc, as you are always brahman, if you are not is a position to understand then even advaitins are not given this tatva gyana and are not asked to think on this line.

Please consider vyavaharika satya nad paramarthika satya.

All efforts are made to rise one from vyavaharika to parmarthika. Please do not take the word 'rise' literally.



I did not tell "Advaita" as you have asked for fitting answer! I said, if the Paramatma is admissible, the transmigration is solved and it is supported by BG and Sve.Up! Two bird theory of Advaita has flaw in it but i don't want to jump to refutation here. Remember, Advaita also MUST admit doer ship ONLY to Brahman and i have known advaitin who walk the path of Advaita with just that! Now you have one more friend who walk differently :D

Two bird theory is interpreted differently.


Me too! But we complicate simple things with our ego and force it on others as well right? :Dagree (smilie)

Hari OM

silence_speaks
08 August 2014, 03:51 AM
Dear Amrut ji,
:) I have not been following your conversations ... so this is not a comment on the conversation and topic of discussion per say..
I would like to point out :



when consciousness rises above mind


Consciousness raises no where. Consciousness is SAT, Mind is Mithya! Consciousness does not go beyond mind. Consciousness is YOU ... ever Liberated .

Destruction of mind is also not to be taken literally :).
Mind is never alive to be killed.
Mind is a myth.

Sri Annamalai Swami [Ramana's direct disciple] says : Mind is like a shadow. Attempts to kill it are like trying to bury one's own shadow.

Love!
Silence

Amrut
08 August 2014, 09:45 AM
Namast SS ji,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I understand that you did not read the whole conversation. My idea was and still is that advaita and spirituality in general should be practically applied in life.

That is why, I am avoiding the polemical debates. I also admit that I am not strong in this area.

Grames ji knows that I have avoided twin-dosha :)

brahman is never deluded and brahman deluded - yes both are said in advaita, contradictory ?

But answering means that I will enter into this debate.

What I feel is that if we see snake, but keeping saying I see rope, then this is hypocrisy. Those statements are there to arise us. Please understand the context. 'Rise' is not to be taken literally. You got to explain in some way.

Our mind is coloured by 3 colours and so all that is perceived is influenced by this guNa-s. Brahman which is beyond guNa-s cannot be understood. Our vision itself is flawed. It would be unwise to think of it and try to give a judgement.

If jiva or mana didnt exist, if this world didnt exist, i.e. it was non-existent, like rabut's horn, then there was no point to say - jiva is brahman. I know we adhere ot vivarta vAda and not pariNAma vAda, so there is no becoming, but still instead of merely parroting, we should try to rise and take these statement as milestone, rather than our present condition.

Only after realizing the truth, we can say that mana is mithyA or that it is non-existence, else it increases Ego - this is big problem of GYAna mArga - Ego.

As I have said, it is better to try and realize the truth - 'brahman is never deluded and what we thought earlier that it is deluded and lost it's brahmanhood just like sun being veiled by clouds never lost it's shine, never was ever a time when sun was ever veiled clouds' Yet this was true from practical experience. I will stop here, else even after repeatedly trying to avoid it, I myself drag into the discussion.

Though I may philosophically agree with you, each statement has it's own place. ajativAda is not for masses. Ya I know you and also grames ji believe that vedanta is for everybody.

Your comments about mana may trigger yet another discussion :)

Thanks again

OM

silence_speaks
08 August 2014, 11:15 PM
Dear Amrut ji,
:)



Only after realizing the truth, we can say that mana is mithyA or that it is non-existence, else it increases Ego - this is big problem of GYAna mArga - Ego.
And Realization of Truth does not take place until one stops believing that manas is me. Unless one starts to look at the manas as a shadow ... it continues to appear real! It is like a shadow taken to be a ghost. The shadow continues to lurk as a ghost unless i decide to stop believing that it is a ghost.

Annamalai Swami, a direct disciple of Ramana, says :



How to give up this false idea that mind is real ?
Annamalai Swami Answers: the same way that you give up any wrong idea. you simply stop believing in it. if this does not happen spontaneously when u hear the truth from a teacher, keep telling yourself "i am not the mind, i am not the mind. There is no mind; there is no mind. consciousness alone exists". if you have firm conviction that this is the truth, one day this firm conviction will mature to the point where it becomes your direct experience.
We perpetuate the idea that world is real, mind is real by believing it. They thrive upon over interest and attention. I give them the reality on the one hand and i myself want to see it as unreal! On the one hand i tell myself that i am mind and on the other hand i look for a way to "Transcend mind" !!
Do we see this please ?

When there are thoughts of agitation ... we say I am agitated.
when there is a relative calm in mind ... we say I am calm.
And we want to keep mind calm always ...
or kill the mind , as if its something Real.

and since we believe it to be so, it appears to be so. If you believe that the shadow is a ghost and see it as a ghost ... it appears like a ghost. if one stops believing its a ghost ... it eventually would be seen as a shadow. There is no ghost.

Mind is not you ... mind is "Witnessed By You" ... Leave it alone ... give it no attention ... it is helpless !!

Love!
Silence

Amrut
09 August 2014, 12:26 AM
Namaste SS ji,

I agree,

But still we I have said, if a thing didnt existed (though temporarily), then no point in de-hypnotizing.

Yesterday, I just came across some verses from Gaudapada-karika, mostly in chapter 2 and one cited in chapter i talking about mind. I will let you know the verse nos.

What I am saying is that mind is important and yet you will have to use mind only to rise above it. As swami ji says, think - 'I am not mind' - this process is also done with the help of mind only.

I dont deny what you say :)

Hari OM

silence_speaks
09 August 2014, 03:41 AM
Dear Amrut ji,
:)
Of course its to be done with the mind. Though i know that the earth is round , i see it as flat and can relate to it from that standpoint. My knowledge that earth is round does not make the earth appear round to me ! IT still continues to appear flat ... but i know.

same thing with sky. Sky is colorless and yet i see it as blue. Seeing it blue does not affect my knowledge !


So too ... the mind is not... does not mean it will vanish ... it is apparent and continues to remain so.


SAT, ASAT and MITHYA ... are three names.
SAT is what IS and remains so unchanged always.
ASAT is what is not, and does not appear ... like the horns of a hare.
MITHYA is ASAT , but seems to be there ... When i see it as ASAT, it still continues ... like a mirage ... my knowledge does not make the mirage vanish ... my knowledge ensures that i do not run after it hoping for water :)

Love!
Silence

Amrut
09 August 2014, 05:09 AM
Dear Amrut ji,
:)
Of course its to be done with the mind. Though i know that the earth is round , i see it as flat and can relate to it from that standpoint. My knowledge that earth is round does not make the earth appear round to me ! IT still continues to appear flat ... but i know.

same thing with sky. Sky is colorless and yet i see it as blue. Seeing it blue does not affect my knowledge !


So too ... the mind is not... does not mean it will vanish ... it is apparent and continues to remain so.


SAT, ASAT and MITHYA ... are three names.
SAT is what IS and remains so unchanged always.
ASAT is what is not, and does not appear ... like the horns of a hare.
MITHYA is ASAT , but seems to be there ... When i see it as ASAT, it still continues ... like a mirage ... my knowledge does not make the mirage vanish ... my knowledge ensures that i do not run after it hoping for water :)

Love!
Silence

|| Hari OM ||

Dear Silence ji, I agree :) with Love :)

Pranams

Amrut
09 August 2014, 08:52 AM
Yesterday, I just came across some verses from Gaudapada-karika, mostly in chapter 2 and one cited in chapter i talking about mind. I will let you know the verse nos.


Namaste,

Please check the verses 3.31, 1.17 and 3.29 of Gaudapada-karika on mandukya up.

It talks all about mind :)

Hari OM

silence_speaks
09 August 2014, 10:42 PM
Dear Amrut ji,
:) Thank you. I have had the good fortune of studying Mandukya and Gaudapada karikas with shankara bhasyam.

They are exceptional. The highest Truth presented as it IS.

Love!
Silence

Amrut
11 August 2014, 05:38 AM
Namste Grames ji,

Earlier you had quoted


From Yajvan JI (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3824&highlight=vibration)

Until you digest this, how can you understand my pointers on top of that?

This is said from POV of shaiva and not advaita. Shaiva's believe in nirAkAra as formless, but not nirguNa (taken as without guNa-s). they take same meaning as vaishnavas - that which is beyond (does not contain) durguNa (corrections welcome). Shiva is an omnipresent entity.

Yajvan ji says - "Within Śaivāgama this Creation"

Words like vimarSa, etc ar eall used in Siva-sdvaita. Hence it think it was said from that POV

btw I enjoyed the article. Thanks for sharing and thank you Yajvan ji for sharing with us.

OM