PDA

View Full Version : Sat-Cit-Ananda



Soul
10 January 2008, 10:51 PM
Namaste friends,

I have read the translation of the description of our true Self to be Sat-Cit-Ananda. I've read the translation of Cit to be Consciousness, but this isn't a good definition of what is Real, as consciousness has an opposite of unconsciousness.

Consciousness doesn't really describe or point to the truth of who I am, as it is a state... and states come and go.
Who I truly am doesn't come or go....

I was inspired to look in a sanskrit dictionary for a more accurate translation of Cit...

http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&tinput=Cit&country_ID=&trans=Translate&direction=AU

...and found Spirit or Soul to better point to the truth of what was meant by Sat-Cit-Ananda.... Truth-Spirit-Bliss....

Does anyone else have ideas or thoughts on this?

I think at times the English translations of sacred texts don't really accurately translate....

Peace,
Soul

atanu
10 January 2008, 11:57 PM
Namaste friends,

I have read the translation of the description of our true Self to be Sat-Cit-Ananda. I've read the translation of Cit to be Consciousness, but this isn't a good definition of what is Real, as consciousness has an opposite of unconsciousness.

Consciousness doesn't really describe or point to the truth of who I am, as it is a state... and states come and go.
Who I truly am doesn't come or go....

I was inspired to look in a sanskrit dictionary for a more accurate translation of Cit...

http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&tinput=Cit&country_ID=&trans=Translate&direction=AU

...and found Spirit or Soul to better point to the truth of what was meant by Sat-Cit-Ananda.... Truth-Spirit-Bliss....

Does anyone else have ideas or thoughts on this?

I think at times the English translations of sacred texts don't really accurately translate....

Peace,
Soul

From where does the "I' thought come...
Go to That...


Yes, you can say the truth to be 'that' or 'this' from where even the words 'Sat-Cit-Ananda' ot 'that' or 'this' or the awareness of 'I' come.

In itself that is indescribable.

Om

sarabhanga
11 January 2008, 09:59 PM
Namaste Soul,

See: saccidAnandam (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=18379&postcount=54)

Bob G
12 January 2008, 12:14 AM
Hello Soul,

Is this along the lines of what you were saying;(?) excerpt from Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj's "I AM THAT:

"I am not even Consciousness, which is dual and perceivable:
I am the unkown Reality beyond."

I have not studied his works, except for a beginning looks at some pages on the web...There are many schools with various word/interpretations, good fortune to you.

Om

atanu
12 January 2008, 12:26 AM
Hello Soul,

Is this along the lines of what you were saying;(?) excerpt from Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj's "I AM THAT:

"I am not even Consciousness, which is dual and perceivable:
I am the unkown Reality beyond."

I have not studied his works, except for a beginning looks at some pages on the web...There are many schools with various word/interpretations, good fortune to you.

Om


Namaste Bob,




Lord Shiva teaching Vashista in Yoga Vashista

That God is not distant from anyone, O Holy one, nor is he difficult to attain: he is for ever seated in the body and he is everywhere like space. He does everything, he eats, he holds everything together, he goes, he breathes, and he knows every limb of the body. He is the light in which all these limbs function and all the diverse activities take place. He dwells in the cave of one’s own heart. He transcends the mind and the five senses of cognition; therefore he cannot be comprehended or described by them - yet for the purpose of instruction, he is indicated as consciousness.


If you are interested you may go through this link
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=573 (Lord Shiva Teaches)

Turya is not consciousness but it is indescribable Self, which has pure consciousness as its first nature.

Om

Bob G
12 January 2008, 12:59 AM
Hello Atanu,


A very fine quote, thank you. :)


And I think a correlation with the list of tattvas is a good conceptual way to try and relate to this matter.


See you


Om

Bob G
12 January 2008, 01:16 AM
(oops, I believe that may be a copyright form of the list that I attached...perhaps management can remove it? Anyway, such lists in a plain text non-copyright form can be found at many Hindu websites)

yajvan
12 January 2008, 02:41 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste friends,

...what is Real, as consciousness has an opposite of unconsciousness.

Soul

Namte Soul,
you ask a good question here... many have given you nice insights. Let me, if its ok, add one more idea that may help you.

This consciousness is so delicate, refined, it is even subtler then space (akasha, my favorite). So what other word helps here? Think of awareness. This awareness is consciousness applied.

While you are reading this , that consciousness, as awareness is flowing though your eyes, yes? your attention is here. But this consciousness at the same time has its attention available for your ears, and your nose, your fingers too.

So, lets say while you are reading this the smell of pizza or cookies comes from the kitchen. Without a hitch the nose goes there and picks up the sent. Or you hear a plane overhead, the ears are attuned and perhaps dis-misses it as background noise.

Like that this awareness is there for our use. And this awareness can be directed. While you are reading this, just take your awareness and bring it to your foot, or leg or knee. It can be directed.

So with this direction we can also take it to finer levels of the thinking process, within us to experience finer levels of awareness all the way to the SELF. This is the process of transcending. Calming down the mind to go inwards. No effort is needed, just like no effort was needed to smell the pizza, the mind just went there. Same with the proper technique of meditation.

It's like learning to dive... one says ' oh I can never do that I will do a belly flop'. Then someone shows you the proper angle of bending, pointing the arms correctly, and you just let go and gravity takes over. Right into the water with no difficulties. A few more times and you are now comfortable with diving.

In meditation you are diving to satchitananda, it is the water that will surround you when you go within. Atanu mentions turiya... this is so.


Like the space mentioned above (akasha), this space is everywhere, as is consciousness. There is no place it is not.

Happy diving!

pranams

Soul
13 January 2008, 12:02 AM
Namaste Soul,

See: saccidAnandam (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=18379&postcount=54)

Namaste Sarabhanga,

Yes:) Spot on...

Thanks for the link....

Hari Om,

Soul

Soul
13 January 2008, 12:03 AM
Hello Soul,

Is this along the lines of what you were saying;(?) excerpt from Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj's "I AM THAT:

"I am not even Consciousness, which is dual and perceivable:
I am the unkown Reality beyond."

I have not studied his works, except for a beginning looks at some pages on the web...There are many schools with various word/interpretations, good fortune to you.

Om


Namaste Bob,

Yes, also spot on :)

I love where Nisagardatta is at....

Peace,
Soul

Soul
13 January 2008, 12:09 AM
Namaste Bob,



If you are interested you may go through this link
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=573 (Lord Shiva Teaches)

Turya is not consciousness but it is indescribable Self, which has pure consciousness as its first nature.

Om

Namaste Atanu,

Yes, with the use of consciousness , truth is seen or known....

I can't see it or know it in sleep/unconsciousness... although it IS always...

The point of this is to find the best words, in English , to describe the Eternal that we are....

In India, many studied and understood this and so have words to better describe Oneness .... better than English, which has probably better developed materially-focussed words...

The reason to find the best words is to better communicate to people their true Self.... Although it is beyond mind (and body), separation, I'd like to use the best pointers to assist in awakening....

Hari Om,
Soul

Soul
13 January 2008, 12:17 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namte Soul,
you ask a good question here... many have given you nice insights. Let me, if its ok, add one more idea that may help you.

This consciousness is so delicate, refined, it is even subtler then space (akasha, my favorite). So what other word helps here? Think of awareness. This awareness is consciousness applied.

While you are reading this , that consciousness, as awareness is flowing though your eyes, yes? your attention is here. But this consciousness at the same time has its attention available for your ears, and your nose, your fingers too.

So, lets say while you are reading this the smell of pizza or cookies comes from the kitchen. Without a hitch the nose goes there and picks up the sent. Or you hear a plane overhead, the ears are attuned and perhaps dis-misses it as background noise.

Like that this awareness is there for our use. And this awareness can be directed. While you are reading this, just take your awareness and bring it to your foot, or leg or knee. It can be directed.

So with this direction we can also take it to finer levels of the thinking process, within us to experience finer levels of awareness all the way to the SELF. This is the process of transcending. Calming down the mind to go inwards. No effort is needed, just like no effort was needed to smell the pizza, the mind just went there. Same with the proper technique of meditation.

It's like learning to dive... one says ' oh I can never do that I will do a belly flop'. Then someone shows you the proper angle of bending, pointing the arms correctly, and you just let go and gravity takes over. Right into the water with no difficulties. A few more times and you are now comfortable with diving.

In meditation you are diving to satchitananda, it is the water that will surround you when you go within. Atanu mentions turiya... this is so.


Like the space mentioned above (akasha), this space is everywhere, as is consciousness. There is no place it is not.

Happy diving!

pranams

Namaste Yajvan,

Thanks for your reply...

Yes, with awareness we can focus on Self...

To me , the word 'awareness' is much like the word 'consciousness'.... to be aware of... to be conscious of.....

Who we are is existing whether we are aware/conscious or not...

It sure is Happiness diving ... So, happy diving to you also...

There is no greater Happiness... :)

Peace,
Soul

atanu
13 January 2008, 01:18 AM
Namaste Atanu,
---
The reason to find the best words is to better communicate to people their true Self.... Although it is beyond mind (and body), separation, I'd like to use the best pointers to assist in awakening....

Hari Om,
Soul

Namaste Soul,

Thank you for your nice reply. Shri Krishna says that sages have spoken of it in many ways, yet it is also said that words recoil from Him. Mind recoils also. But as a game, I advance one that I like: That which never slumbers (in you) -- it is called Antaryama and it is the Self of Life Force.


I can't see it or know it in sleep/unconsciousness... although it IS always...

How can consciousness see consciousness? That is the original Desire called the Death, to see oneself in beautiful feathers. It is the mind, which is a sort of mirror that reflects consciousness to consciousness, which however, sees the life force as itself (ignorance). In sleep when the mind goes into life-force, a vibration of consciousness, darkness exists; that is death (the one who never slumbers), who has the light of thousand suns -- in the form of immortal Indra-Agni. (the man in the Sun and Man in the Eye).

The immortal man is Death, Aditi-Rudra (Warrior) and the immortal element is Shiva Agni (Brahman). They put up each other and is One -- spoken of using many names. That I am. That you are. That is bliss - Soma.



Om Namah Shivaya

Bob G
13 January 2008, 07:22 AM
Hello Soul and others,

I think there is an important aspect/potential problem related to the Path, namely the path and dharma of the householder and the path and dharma of the renunciate getting mixed up... or a person trying to do both or some of both.

Many of the well recognized Gurus I have read about are not married, do not have several small children to spend 24/7 taking care of, do not have a 9-5 job to hold down, etc., etc.. And obviously householders can not immerse themselves in studies and various yogas as much as renunciates can, for if they did they would be detracting from the householders dharma.

oops, I gotta run - I'm off to the job. Anyway, does anyone want to comment along these lines? Later,

Om

atanu
13 January 2008, 11:25 AM
Hello Soul and others,

I think there is an important aspect/potential problem related to the Path, namely the path and dharma of the householder and the path and dharma of the renunciate getting mixed up... or a person trying to do both or some of both.

Many of the well recognized Gurus I have read about are not married, do not have several small children to spend 24/7 taking care of, do not have a 9-5 job to hold down, etc., etc.. And obviously householders can not immerse themselves in studies and various yogas as much as renunciates can, for if they did they would be detracting from the householders dharma.

oops, I gotta run - I'm off to the job. Anyway, does anyone want to comment along these lines? Later,

Om

Namaste Bob G,

Guru says "The idea 'I am a householder' is equal ignorance as the idea 'I am a renunciate'". In fact, a renunciate may, by having an idea of superiority, have stronger developed ego.

And your post "The Pool" comes to my mind as an answer. Also "The Karma Yoga".

Om

yajvan
13 January 2008, 05:09 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Bob G,

Guru says "The idea 'I am a householder' is equal ignorance as the idea 'I am a renunciate'". In fact, a renunciate may, by having an idea of superiority, have stronger developed ego.


namaste atanu,
yes, a good point made.

My teacher says, men may come and men may go but "I" go on forever.

I am sure he is quoting from the Upanishads, and I have yet to find the sloka.

From his enlightened view, it doesn't matter, man, elephant, householder or an ant, all is Aham.


pranams

Bob G
13 January 2008, 11:16 PM
Hello Atanu,

Well...as far as I know there are the paths for the householder and renunciates in traditional Hinduism as taught and lived by various Satgurus (and or lineage holders) and the millions of Hindu followers of their various orders. Thus if a renunciate or householder said that they were following such a path and the dharma related to same I see zero ignorance in that; which is the tangent to Souls thread that I was trying to bring up...and not the fact of absolute reality but aspects of the paths that I've mentioned to - It - along with the stages and aims that are more compatible with the two types of paths and potential problems a person could have in getting said paths mixed up in their practice.

Also, there are obviously differences in vows for each; thus one does not normally take the life-long-vows and responsibilites of a renunciate one day and a month later drop everything and run off to a live life as a married person or whatever, nor does a good husband suddenly desert his wife and say 6 young children because he has changed his mind and decided to become a wandering forest dweller or whatever.

Btw., who are you quoting in what to me is an out of context reply to my post with: Guru says "The idea 'I am a householder' is equal ignorance as the idea 'I am a renunciate'". ?

Om

atanu
14 January 2008, 01:55 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~
namaste atanu,
yes, a good point made.

My teacher says, men may come and men may go but "I" go on forever.

I am sure he is quoting from the Upanishads, and I have yet to find the sloka.

From his enlightened view, it doesn't matter, man, elephant, householder or an ant, all is Aham.
pranams

Namaste Yajvan Ji,

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad


I-iv-1: In the beginning, this (universe) was but the self (Viraj) of a human form. He reflected and found nothing else but himself. He first uttered, '‘ am he'’ Therefore he was called Aham (I). Hence, to this day, when a person is addressed, he first says, ‘It is I,’ and then says the other name that he may have. Because he was first and before this whole (band of aspirants) burnt all evils, therefore he is called Purusha. He who knows thus indeed burns one who wants to be (Viraj) before him.

and again

V-v-4: Of this being who is in the right eye, the syllable ‘Bhur’ is the head, for there is one head, and there is this one syllable; the word ‘Bhuvar’ is the arms, for there are two arms, and there are these two syllables; the word ‘Svar’ is the feet, for there are two feet, and there are these two syllables. His secret name is ‘Aham’. He who knows as above destroys and shuns evil.
----------------------------------

This "I" itself belongs to Viraj, who is from Prajapati, who is from Hiranyagarbha.

Om

atanu
14 January 2008, 02:12 AM
Hello Atanu,
----
Also, there are obviously differences in vows for each; thus one does not normally take the life-long-vows and responsibilites of a renunciate one day and a month later drop everything and run off to a live life as a married person or whatever, nor does a good husband suddenly desert his wife and say 6 young children because he has changed his mind and decided to become a wandering forest dweller or whatever.

Btw., who are you quoting in what to me is an out of context reply to my post with: Guru says "The idea 'I am a householder' is equal ignorance as the idea 'I am a renunciate'". ?

Om

Namaste Bob,

I understand your point. It is correct that there are obvious differences in vows for each path and there is great scope of confusion. I wrote what I wrote since you wrote: I think there is an important aspect/potential problem related to the Path.

I will try to explain.

A Guru will definitely know which is a suitable path for a householder and a renunciate. There need not be any potential problem. To remove doubt in the mind of sadhakas on this subject, Guru Ramana used to say:"The idea 'I am a householder' is equal ignorance as the idea 'I am a renunciate'".

Whatever be the context, the concept "I am not such and such --", is correct. Eventually five koshas are to be shed. In phenomenal world, such confusions are normal in Sadhaka's mind. But a true Guru should know. And a Sadhaka must have faith in Guru.

Om

sarabhanga
14 January 2008, 04:01 AM
Namaste Bob,

Ignorance (or outright rejection) of varNAshrama dharma has caused serious problems in the interpretation and practice of hindu dharma.

There are in fact TEN fundamental perspectives of the one sanAtana dharma, each colored by the particular conditions of education and age, which together determine the most appropriate vocation and dharma.

The final stage in the matrix of Aryan society is saMnyAsa, which only occurs in the context of brAhmaNa dharma. The brAhmaNa varNa is dedicated to spiritual instruction, and their greatest wisdom is embodied in the Ashrama of saMnyAsa.

In saMnyAsa itself, there is no distinction, and the saMnyAsa dIkshA involves the renunciation of varNa and every previous Ashrama ~ indeed, saMnyAsa involves the renunciation of attachment to the three worlds!

The highest knowledge of saMnyAsAshrama declares that all men are equal in the eye of god, and that varNa, Ashrama, and ultimately even dharma, are superfluous constructs. But this esoteric wisdom has unfortunately become exoteric dogma in some non-brAhmaNa circles, and the dismissal of varNAshrama dharma is especially favored by aspirants who were born without dvija varNa.

sarabhanga
14 January 2008, 05:31 AM
The stability of any natural system over time depends on its balanced internal diversity. It is a delicate balance, but the concordant diversity provides great resilience. And in any artificial monoculture, the harvest may be devastated by the slightest disease.

And likewise, the stability of hindu dharma has been long been assured by its diversified yet internally consistent expression through the whole range of varNa and Ashrama.

And the monoculture of christianity seems especially keen to extinguish any trace of traditional varNAshrama dharma (e.g. the vilification of manu smRti), which would certainly reduce the stability of hinduism as a cultural whole and increase its vulnerability to corruption.

Rajalakshmi
14 January 2008, 09:00 AM
Turya is not consciousness but it is indescribable Self, which has pure consciousness as its first nature.

Om

But turIya is called as the seer in mANDUkya - therefore turIya is indeed the consciousness, the origin of all thoughts that creates the upAdhis of mAyA and avidyA. The consciousness itself is indescribable.

turIya is sat-chit-Ananda, the ocean of universal consciousness. Jiva is an AbhAsa (reflection) of turIya in avidyA and hence ignorant. Ishvara is an AbhAsa (reflection) of turIya in mAyA and hence wise.

Brahman being one without a second does not have any qualities for objective description. We could choose to call Brahman as 'big', 'wise', 'strong', 'happy' etc, but all these qualities becomes useless to describe Brahman in the non dual state. Qualities make sense only if a comparison is made with something else.

Brahman is without description because he is a poor and a lonely chap in the paramArta state! Even to call him 'big' we need a smaller thing to compare with. Such comparison can happen only from vyavahAra. There is no quality in oneness.

~RL

Bob G
14 January 2008, 10:38 AM
Hello Sarabhanga,

In quoting your sentence:
"indeed, saMnyAsa involves the renunciation of attachment to the three worlds!"

Indeed!

Which I interpret as also including going beyond or inside even Sat-Cit-Ananda or the divine Parasakti, and on to Parasiva.

Thus when in the path or on the path of a householder one does not renounce all attachment to the three worlds that culminate with Parasakti for such is their responsibility and duty to work with and through while following the householders aspect of the path, whereas the responsibility and or duty of the renunciate is to go even further (so to speak) to Parasiva.

Does this paraphrase more or less match up with what you are trying to say? I only know a few words of sanskrit and even less of the variations or CapItol type letters that you insert?

Om

Bob G
14 January 2008, 11:17 AM
Hello Atanu,

I say more or less ok in regards to your post #19...

Although I can also see a need to have more context for your quote:
Guru Ramana used to say:"The idea 'I am a householder' is equal ignorance as the idea 'I am a renunciate".

Rhetorically speaking, why do I see the possible need for more context to your Ramana quote? I see such a need in relation to and or in comparison with the well known teaching analogy of the lotus plant...thus we could ask which part of the lotus plant is "equally" ignorant? - the roots - or the stem - or the mature leaves - or the blooming flower - or the flower reaching into akaska - (along with the mud, water, air, etc.) or all of these - or really none of them when seen from or taken as a non-dualistic whole!

Om

Bob G
14 January 2008, 12:58 PM
Hello Soul,

"Does anyone else have ideas or thoughts on this?

I think at times the English translations of sacred texts don't really accurately translate...."

Your sentences above got me to reflecting; and the idea or thought that came up was related to music; thus with most forms of music there is almost always a universal type language that most people can interpret, relate to, and or find common ground in. This is because most forms of music are based on and or reflect universal laws that are also inherent in the make up of our souls and human selves.

Also, a very important aspect of music (that I think has been alluded to several times by Yajvan) are the pauses or spaces in between the notes and chords; for in or with those spaces one hears beyond (so to speak) every-day routine hearing, feels beyond most every-day routine feelings. We might extrapolate further details on this idea but I don't want to over do either.


332

Om

yajvan
14 January 2008, 01:53 PM
Thus when in the path or on the path of a householder one does not renounce all attachment to the three worlds that culminate with Parasakti for such is their responsibility and duty to work with and through while following the householders aspect of the path, whereas the responsibility and or duty of the renunciate is to go even further (so to speak) to Parasiva.


Hello BG,
just wondering as I follow this string, what is your opinion with the term renounce? It is key to this conversation. The notion, in the general term, is considered I am renouncing my possessions, or my house, or even my family.
Yet in the final analysis, what is being renounced is 'I am not those things' say the wise.

I am not my house, my family, my car, or even my body that are all submitted to the 3 gunas ( change, conversion, obsolesce, things that happen in the phenomenal world).

What's your thoughts? just wondered to see if you view them from a Buddhist POV or from another angle. ( no land minds being planted here, he-he! http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

pranams

Soul
14 January 2008, 05:40 PM
Namaste Bob G,

Guru says "The idea 'I am a householder' is equal ignorance as the idea 'I am a renunciate'". In fact, a renunciate may, by having an idea of superiority, have stronger developed ego.

And your post "The Pool" comes to my mind as an answer. Also "The Karma Yoga".

Om

Namaste Atanu and All,

Renouncing the sense of separation, the idea of a separate body/mind is the only true renunciation....

Hari Om,
Soul

Soul
14 January 2008, 05:45 PM
Hello Soul,

"Does anyone else have ideas or thoughts on this?

I think at times the English translations of sacred texts don't really accurately translate...."

Your sentences above got me to reflecting; and the idea or thought that came up was related to music; thus with most forms of music there is almost always a universal type language that most people can interpret, relate to, and or find common ground in. This is because most forms of music are based on and or reflect universal laws that are also inherent in the make up of our souls and human selves.

Also, a very important aspect of music (that I think has been alluded to several times by Yajvan) are the pauses or spaces in between the notes and chords; for in or with those spaces one hears beyond (so to speak) every-day routine hearing, feels beyond most every-day routine feelings. We might extrapolate further details on this idea but I don't want to over do either.


332

Om



Hi Bob,

I love the inspiration we share and dance with in these forums... a true Sangha.....
Everyone here is so dedicated to truth....
All looking... questioning... a true blessing....

Peace to you and All here,
Soul

sarabhanga
14 January 2008, 07:36 PM
Namaste Bob,

Since Sanskrit uses 51 letters, and English has only 26 letters, some unusual typography is unavoidable.

For example: brahma, brahmA, brAhma, and brAhmA, are all different words with particular shades of meaning, and without using capitals, or accents, the only other way to distinguish such words would be as brahma, brahmaa, braahma, and braahmaa.

Please see: transcription (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=18046#post18046)

Also, your interpretation seems quite correct. :)

sarabhanga
14 January 2008, 10:35 PM
turIya is called as the seer in mANDUkya

Namaste RL,

See: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=17363#post17363

Rajalakshmi
14 January 2008, 11:16 PM
Namaste RL,

See: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=17363#post17363

nAtmAnaM na paraM caiva na satyaM nApi cAnRtaM | prAjJaH kiMchana saMvetti turyaM tatsarvadRksadA| (Agama prakaraNa 12)

prAjJa knows neither himself nor others, neither truth nor untruth. But that turIya is ever the all seer.

nivRtteH sarvadukkAnAmIshAnAH prabhuravyayaH | advaitaH sarvabhAvAnAM dEvasturyo vibhuH smRtaH| (Agama prakaraNa 10)

turIya, the Lord powerful to bring about the cessation of all sorrows, is imperishable, is regarded as the non-dual Lord of all entities, and is all-pervading.

So turIya has been referred by names such as sarvadRk( the all-seer), prabhu(Lord), dEva(the shining one) and vibuH( the all pervasive spirit) in mANDUkya kArika - all these are names of maheshvara whose nature is prajJAnaM. prajJAnaM itself is beyond description, but is one with Brahman.

sarabhanga
15 January 2008, 01:13 AM
But turIya is called as the seer in mANDUkya

Namaste RL,

O.K. The mANDUkya upaniSad does not refer to the turya as “all seeing”, but the kArikA of shrI gauDapAda does.

“It is known as the turya, effulgent and all-pervading” and “that turya is ever all-seeing”.

Rajalakshmi
15 January 2008, 02:22 AM
Namaste RL,

O.K. The mANDUkya upaniSad does not refer to the turya as “all seeing”, but the kArikA of shrI gauDapAda does.

“It is known as the turya, effulgent and all-pervading” and “that turya is ever all-seeing”.

Namaste Shri Sarabhanga-giri,

So how in your opinion are these descriptions of tUrya reconciled in light of the indescribability of tUrya?

1. Is tUrya completely indescribable, and the above must be taken to actually refer to Ishvara only.

2. Or, is tUrya partly describable with respect to vyavahAra?

Another question I have for you is:

Is mithyAtva contradicted in the paramArtha satya or in the vyavahArika satya? In other words, what is the status of jagat.

P1. If mithyAtva is contradicted in the paramArtha satya, then jagat is still percieved in the paramArtha state, and known as a dependent reflection of the Advaita Brahman.

P2. If mithyAtva is contradicted in the vyavahArika satya, then jagat has no svarUpa even in vyavahAra, which means it is an essenceless void from the paramArtha satya and completely non existant.

P1 has been agreed upon by many early advaitins and almost all neo vedantins like Vivekananda, Yogananda, Sivananda etc. P1 was rejected by madhusUdhana saraswathy in his advaita siddhi and many advaitins following him uphold P2.

The problem with P1 is that it compromises the purity of Advaita in the paramArtha, where Shankara zealously upholds ekameva advitIyaM brahma. But P1 reconciles many problems in the interpretation of shruti such as the descriptions of turIya as Lord, omniscient etc. P1 also explains the concept of jIvanmukti easily.

The problem with P2 is that it negates the very existance of the world in toto, even as it stands. And makes it hard to reconcile certain shrutis. P2 is excellent in preserving the purity of the advaita brahman, and denies the very knowledge of vyavahAra in the paramArta. ( put in blunt, Nirguna Brahman is unaware of the world of dualty)

So, which of these would you go with, and why so?

Pesonally, I would go with P1.

~RL

atanu
15 January 2008, 04:41 AM
Dear RL and other friends,

The Turya alone is the truth of the truth and His three feet are for having dessert of one feet and of three feet.

You are correct that Turya being the only one is the only Seer. All Upanishads say so. There is no Seer but Him. There is no Doer but Him. There is no Knower but Him.

So, He is the jnana as well as the karma. Yet, alone, He is nothing but Death. He develops an Atma for Himself. Like Agni has Heat, Turya has pure consciousness. Devotees divide these two as Girija and Girijapati.

However, I am not too keen to try to understand this intellectually as it will be useless. Turya is indescribable, neither consciousness nor not consciousness but which is the essence of consciousness of all states of existence. It is the indescribable being -- the I that i do not know.

Om

atanu
15 January 2008, 04:53 AM
Hello Atanu,

I say more or less ok in regards to your post #19...

Although I can also see a need to have more context for your quote:
Guru Ramana used to say:"The idea 'I am a householder' is equal ignorance as the idea 'I am a renunciate".

Rhetorically speaking, why do I see the possible need for more context to your Ramana quote? I see such a need in relation to and or in comparison with the well known teaching analogy of the lotus plant...thus we could ask which part of the lotus plant is "equally" ignorant? - the roots - or the stem - or the mature leaves - or the blooming flower - or the flower reaching into akaska - (along with the mud, water, air, etc.) or all of these - or really none of them when seen from or taken as a non-dualistic whole!

Om

Namaste Bob,

I understood your perspective from the very beginning and it is not that I do not face dillemmas. I often overcome by realising (again and again) that it is not the Lotus that I have to analyse. I have to know the one who is analysing the Lotus.

In this perspective the differences in parts of Lotus plant are all Sama -- equal.

You said:
There is never a time when we are not in meditation.

Om Namah Shivaya

Bob G
15 January 2008, 08:37 AM
Hello Atanu,

You said:
"Yet, alone, He is nothing but Death" (as part of your description of Turya in post 34)

Do you think many Hindus have or use this part of the description mentioned above?

Frankly, such seems out of place to me...being that death is of the dualistic realm and that it dies (so to speak) when seen or realized from The Divine.

Anyway, my view tends towards the concepts of an unlimited, unknowable Potential that is beyond mind; yet with Parasakti - Potential is Become - and always was, is and will be the Endless One.

(several edits made)

Om

sarabhanga
15 January 2008, 05:40 PM
Namaste Rajalakshmi and Atanu,

brahman is pure wisdom, and the ultimate wisdom is the knowledge of existence, and the experience of pure (eternal) existence is remembered as bliss, and the very self of all of this is the essence of “consciousness”.

At the point of extremity all words fail, and it must be remembered that all these terms are only approximate descriptions of that which is ultimately beyond any definition.

sat is prajñA, cit is tejas, and Ananda is vishva; while the turya is undifferentiated saccidAnandam.

The turya is “unseen, unrelated, incomprehensible, indefinable, unthinkable, and indescribable”.

turya is revealed only by “undefinition”, as neti neti, and there are very few positively defining terms. These names, however, are all indicative of perfect advaitam.

As deva, the turya is “divinity” or “god”.

As vibhU, the turya is “infinitely extensive, omnipresent, and eternal”.

As sarvadRksadA, the turya is “ever all-seeing”.

As nivRtti, the turya is “dissolution, cessation, repose or rest”.

As shAntam, the turya is “undisturbed tranquility”.

As shivam, the turya is “grace or bliss”.

And these special terms allow some description of the indescribable turya without implying any limitation or division.

turya is the “ever all-seeing”, because it exists in all seers and all things seen in the vaishvAnara and taijasa states. It is the “supreme place of the all-pervading, that the wise ones ever see”.

turya, however, is neither “all-doing” nor “all-knowing”. And in the mANDUkyopaniSad, the terms “knower of all”, “cause of all”, etc., refer only to the prAjña and Ishvara (who is “able to do”), and not to the advaita turya (which is sarvadRksadAshiva).

The turya comprehends all, but it cannot actually “know” anything. It is not knowledge or knowing, or even the knower, but none of these conditions could exist without it, and the turya itself can only be known ~ “It is the Self, and it is to be realized.”

sarabhanga
16 January 2008, 01:17 AM
What is the status of jagat?


brahmayoni = nivRtti = satyam
brahmabIja = jagat = mithyA (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=18709&postcount=31)

atanu
16 January 2008, 02:02 AM
Hello Atanu,
You said:
"Yet, alone, He is nothing but Death" (as part of your description of Turya in post 34).

Do you think many Hindus have or use this part of the description mentioned above?

Frankly, such seems out of place to me...being that death is of the dualistic realm and that it dies (so to speak) when seen or realized from The Divine.

Anyway, my view tends towards the concepts of an unlimited, unknowable Potential that is beyond mind; yet with Parasakti - Potential is Become - and always was, is and will be the Endless One.

(several edits made)

Om

Namaste Bob G,

"such seems out of place to me --" is correct. Since there is another aspect of knowing the death itself.

Deep sleep (a short death) or Death (a long deep sleep) is thought to be so because of ignorance. When one reaches Pragnya and comes back, failing to know the Self Turya (Atma -- one's true nature), it is death only. Muktas reach Pragnya and being stithi pragnya (remaining aware) attain the knowledge of one's own nature, and thus cross the bank.

Death is actually the immortal being. Scripture says that Death puts up the immortal being. I think that's what Shiva does by wisphering at Kashi. Kala is death (since everything is drawn in by Kala) but then one comes back as one among many. Mahakala is also death, where one attains ONE. Time (Aditya) is death since He draws everything in. That unspeakable Rudra is also death since He is without a second.

Choose your pick.

Om

sarabhanga
16 January 2008, 04:21 AM
Namaste Bob,

advaitam is known as nara nivRtte, the avyakta puruSa, and (from the dvaita perspective of jagat and mAyA) spiritual immortality demands material mortality, and advaitam implies the death of division. And that is why the Isha upaniSad concludes with prayers for death, and exactly why jesus had to suffer the same “death of division” in his inevitable crucifixion. And, as I have often mentioned, it is the same advaita nara, imagined as death personified, that is discarded as satan in the reinterpretations of dvaitavAda misinforming christianity today. That satanic nara has always been known as shiva (which in hebrew means death), and the derogatory propaganda coming from the church regarding the devil is aimed at the true advaitavAda of traditional hindu understanding (warning pious christians away from any investigation of traditional shaivism and hiding the true origins of their divided “monotheism”).

Every sAdhaka must confront “death” (as yama) before admission to brahmaloka.

Rajalakshmi
16 January 2008, 05:41 AM
It is also known that Death ( as yama) is also jagat guru as seen in the kAtha Upanishad. Yama as death judges which people go to hell, heaven, rebirth, or go beyond Death itself, which is immortality.

I feel that Yama is often misinterpreted by many Hindus as some kind of cruel person. Yama as Death is one of the greatest gurus as Katha says:

devairatraapi vichikitsitaM kila tvaM cha mR^ityo yanna suGYeyamaattha .
vaktaa chaasya tvaadR^iganyo na labhyo naanyo varastulya etasya kashchit.h (1.22)

Nachiketa said: O Death, even the gods have their doubts about this subject; and you have declared it to be not easy to understand. But another teacher like you cannot be found and surely no other boon is comparable to this.


Death is very auspicious, because it is in death that another life and opportunity to obtain moksha begins. If there were no death, we would always be stuck in the world.

Bob G
16 January 2008, 10:51 AM
Hello Atanu,
Your meaning was more clear to me after reading your added explanatory information. Still, it sounds to me like giving a possibly misleading and negative connotation to higher forces instead of just saying something simple such as: ego dies when Spirit is fully realized and irrevocably grounded in Itself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Sarabhanga: Every sAdhaka must confront “death” (as yama)
before admission to brahmaloka.

Ok, this is pretty straight-foward to me...although even the Gods and Saints dwelling in Brahmaloka have time limits according to the incredibly long lifespan/cycle of Lord Brahma. Thus to me there is another "death" or price to pay for admission (so to speak) for going beyond Brahmaloka.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Good day

Om

sarabhanga
16 January 2008, 07:45 PM
Namaste Bob,

dvaitam is extinguished when yama is attained.

And in advaitavAda, moksha means NEVER being reincarnated. There is no return from brahmaloka and nothing beyond brahmaloka, and brahma is unborn and immortal. Your comments pertain only to brahmA and dvaitavAda or some dvaitAdvaitavAda (and not to brahma and advaitavAda).

atanu
17 January 2008, 12:11 AM
Hello Atanu,
Your meaning was more clear to me after reading your added explanatory information. Still, it sounds to me like giving a possibly misleading and negative connotation to higher forces instead of just saying something simple such as: ego dies when Spirit is fully realized and irrevocably grounded in Itself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Sarabhanga: Every sAdhaka must confront “death” (as yama)
before admission to brahmaloka.

Ok, this is pretty straight-foward to me...although even the Gods and Saints dwelling in Brahmaloka have time limits according to the incredibly long lifespan/cycle of Lord Brahma. Thus to me there is another "death" or price to pay for admission (so to speak) for going beyond Brahmaloka.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Good day

Om

Namaste Bob G,

Nachiketa is evolved sufficiently that he can enter death and yet bargain -- he could keep up the enquiry.

In deep sleep or during loss of body, if one can convince Death that one's desire is to attain the highest Death (the being) and not the transient pleasures of the world, then the wish may be granted.

The problem is how to keep up the enquiry? So, it is said that if the Atman is not known here, it is a great disaster.

Om

Bob G
17 January 2008, 11:44 AM
Hello Sarabhanga,

Your recent text is in blue with related comments about my pov listed farther down, that is if you are interested? Btw, I'm not of your school and that is ok by me, thus we probably won't agree on some of these points and that is also ok by me...

A. "...And in advaitavAda, moksha means NEVER being reincarnated" See comment #1 below.
B. "...There is no return from brahmaloka" Same as comment #1.
C. "...and nothing beyond brahmaloka" See comment #2
D. "...and brahma is unborn and immortal" See comment #3.
E. "...Your comments pertain only to brahmA and dvaitavAda or some dvaitAdvaitavAda (and not to brahma and
advaitavAda)" See comment #4.
#1. In your school that may be so but I agree with the following pov: "Even after attaining perfect liberation, a being may, after passing into the inner worlds, consciously choose to be reborn to help others on the path. Such a one is called an upadeshi--exemplified by the benevolent satguru--as distinguished from a nirvani, or silent ascetic who abides at the pinnacle of consciousness, whether in this world or the next, shunning all worldly involvement."
#2. Since Brahman is not a thing, to me It is beyond even the highest-heaven, realm or state of brahmaloka, thus brahmaloka could be said to be an exceedingly fine thing.
#3. I use and many others use the word Brahman to allude to the "unborn and immortal"; and as far as I know many people use the trem brahmaloka as being directly related to the Creator Lord Brahma and all the universe(s) that He contains and is the totality of... yet without Brahman, - Lord Brahma and the totality of all that He is would not exist.
#4. Like I said above, we are not of the same school and apparently don't define these descriptions in the same ways.
Good journey,
Om

Bob G
17 January 2008, 12:04 PM
Hello Atanu,

I'm not into the personification of death although I understand the tendency to do so.

Your quoted sentence: "So, it is said that if the Atman is not known here, it is a great disaster."

Agreed, as in not complete freedom!

Good day,

Om

atanu
17 January 2008, 12:28 PM
Hello Atanu,

I'm not into the personification of death although I understand the tendency to do so.


-


Namaste Bob

It is fine, since names are indicatory only of the ultimate refuge.

Om

sarabhanga
17 January 2008, 05:49 PM
Namaste Bob,

This has nothing to do with MY school vs YOUR school !!

In ADVAITA VADA, moksha means NEVER being reincarnated.

Your comments relate only to dvaita vAda or some dvaitAdvaita vAda (e.g. vishiSTAdvaita vAda). And your quote from “Hinduism Today” is NOT referring to advaita vAda.

advaitavAda is the teaching of shrI gauDapAda and shrI shaÑkarAcArya.

advaitavAda is often referred to as the ultimate truth of hindu dharma, but it is certainly not the only truth of hindu dharma.

If one’s understanding does not accord with advaitavAda, then it is NOT advaitavAda.

In advaitavAda, there is no distinction between brahma and brahmaloka, which is exactly the same concept as the advaita brahmayoni, from which there can be NO rebirth !

Your comments here can only be regarding brahmaloka as the brahmabIja, the hiraNyagarbha Ishvara who is brahmA.

brahman is the root form, but it does not distinguish the twin of brahma (absolutely without gender, i.e. neuter) and brahmA (with gender).

Bob G
17 January 2008, 06:07 PM
...Atanu is right about NAMES. If we have not been to the Mystery where names disappear (among other THINGS ) we will continue in the worlds of names. (or attempted names and things)

sarabhanga
18 January 2008, 05:41 AM
Every sAdhaka must confront “death” (as yama) before admission to brahmaloka.

ahiMsAsatyAste ~ ahiMsA satyA aste ~ “Mercy and Goodness, unto Death!”

This is the mortal oath of yama (the bond of ahiMsAsatyAsthe).

yama is the death, and brahma is beyond death, and only by surpassing death may the eternal existence be truly realized.