PDA

View Full Version : ātman - Stretched Out



yajvan
03 April 2008, 07:05 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

I was just reading a bit on this ātman ( आत्मन्).

We know this ātman as the individual soul , the self. It also has roots in aN - अण् to breathe, अत् to move, to वा to blow, etc. so says Monier Williams Dictionary.

Yet svami muni Narayana Prasad suggests an extended view and that is of ātata. His definition is 'that which pervades the entire being' . I can see this.

This ātata (आतत) is defined as extended , stretched, drawn or spread. I can then see how this ātman is stretched or drawn to pervade the entire being. Yet when we think of this some may say its stretched or drawn to fill my being, my physical dimensions.


If we look to the Chandogya ( some write chAndogya and even Chhandogya) Upanishad 4.15.1 says the following (beautifully):
The person seen in the eyes , that indeed is the ātman ( or SELF); It is the Immortal; It is the fearless, it is Brahman.


So that ātman that pervades me, is not limited to just my physical boundaries, by the recognition of ātata. It is That which is extended or stretched to pervade the entire being… being = BEING of Brahman.


Our body some call puri (purī) is considered a town, a city¹, yet also the sanctuary or temple. It is the temple because it houses the ātman, that we sometimes refer as the soul, the SELF, yet this is none other than resident Brahman. Our being and His BEING , there is no difference.



pranams



1. Our body, as a city, has been called the city of 9 gates ( or openings): 2 Ears, 2 eyes, 2 nostrils, 2 excretion and the mouth. The Katha Upanishad calls out 11 gates - that is add the navel and the brahmaranshra ( found at the top of the skull) and we arrive at 11 openings.

Visvamitra
01 September 2010, 10:27 PM
In the Katha U. it is stated near the end of chapter 2, "Sitting down, he roams afar. Lying down, he goes everywhere." It appears as if this means the atman extends beyond the physical body.

atanu
02 September 2010, 01:16 AM
Hari Om
Namaste,

If we look to the Chandogya ( some write chAndogya and even Chhandogya) Upanishad 4.15.1 says the following (beautifully):
The person seen in the eyes , that indeed is the ātman ( or SELF); It is the Immortal; It is the fearless, it is Brahman.
So that ātman that pervades me, is not limited to just my physical boundaries, by the recognition of ātata. It is That which is extended or stretched to pervade the entire being… being = BEING of Brahman.



Namaste yajvanji,

This is of great import and IMO, can never be over-emphasized and over-repeated (when the motive is good).

Upanishads further say that the Man in the right eye and the man in the Sun are same. So, the Man is that, streched out from here to there, in the waking state.

In the dreaming state, the same man becomes light and creates chariots, cities, elephants, sweets to eat -- though those things are not there.

Further the same infinite man (purusha), embraced by the Supreme Purusha is made to lose all distinction in deep sleep.

All these three infinite men (Purushas) are sustained by the Turiya Purusha, called Atman that is Brahman.

Om Namah Shivaya

purnapragya
02 September 2010, 08:25 AM
Namaste yajvanji,

This is of great import and IMO, can never be over-emphasized and over-repeated (when the motive is good).

Upanishads further say that the Man in the right eye and the man in the Sun are same. So, the Man is that, streched out from here to there, in the waking state.

In the dreaming state, the same man becomes light and creates chariots, cities, elephants, sweets to eat -- though those things are not there.

Further the same infinite man (purusha), embraced by the Supreme Purusha is made to lose all distinction in deep sleep.

All these three infinite men (Purushas) are sustained by the Turiya Purusha, called Atman that is Brahman.

Om Namah Shivaya
Lets know that the real meaning of upanishad is "Parang ba brahma gamayati"which give us the brahma."Avidyadisamsara karanancha Atyantam abasadayati" that mean Avidya,Kam,Karma -they r the cause of "Samsara".If we not know ourself we belive in duality.If we belive in duality then we have many desire.The cause of "kam " is come from the duality that think jiva is a object and brahma another object.That mean they not know the gyan "Ahom brahmashmi" .
Illiteracy give us many view of greediness.This tamoshik desire then work hard to get that object.That mean worshipping karma give us only karma.
Then how a man become selfrealised?He must practice brahma vidya.wat is it?
"Om,Brahma dabanam prathama sambhubaI
Vishaysha karta vubanashya goptaII
Sa brahma vidyam Sarvavidyam-pratishtham
Arthabya jayshthaputriya prahaII1II"-Mundaka Upanishad
Brahma is defined by two mastro as follows.
"Sa purbeshamopi gurukalenanbachadyat"-patanjali(1/26) brahma is the universal teacher.
"Brahma paribredho mahan"-Sankaracarya.Brahma is ultimate.
The meaning of word "Sambhuba" is "Avibakta samakya swatantranetyavipraya" Who come from all direction with all existance.
He is satantra that mean self without bind."Vishaysha karta vubanashya goptaII"-he creat and preserv the universe.He is the brahmavidy ,all knowledge come and unified with this ultimate knowledge.That proves its the mother of all knowledge.Brahma give this massage to his elder son.Who is his elder son?none but the self of full knowledge.In that point u may say do u belive ultimate has son? no I dont belive so I said its answer.
In this point upanishad also said "Atmabat Sarvabhutasu" that mean treat all as u trat urself.
From this point I want to recite to u another hymns of Isha upanishad.
"yastu sarvani bhutÀni ÀtmanyevÀnupasyati,
sarvabhutesu cÀtmÀnam tato na vijugupsate."
But he who sees everywhere the Self in all existences and all
existences in the Self, shrinks not thereafter from aught.
"yasmin sarvÀni bhutÀni ÀtmaivÀbhud vijÀnatah,
tatra ko mohah kah soka ekatvamanupasyatah."
He in whom it is the Self-Being that has become all existences that
are Becomings,1 for he has the perfect knowledge, how shall he be
deluded, whence shall he have grief who sees everywhere oneness?
The degrees of the Lord's self-manifestation in the universe of
motion and in the becomings of the one Being are set forth and the
inner law of all existences declared to be by His conception and
determination.
Vidya and Avidya, Becoming and Non-becoming are reconciled
by their mutual utility to the progressive self-realisation which proceeds
from the state of mortality to the state of Immortality.
If a man knows Atman here, he then attains the true goal of life. If he does not know It here,
a great destruction awaits him. Having realised the Self in every being, the wise relinquish
the world and become immortal.-kena Upanishad
All this, verily, is Brahman. The Self is Brahman. This Self has four quarters.
The first quarter is vaiśvānara. Its field is the waking state. Its consciousness is outward-turned. It is seven-limbed and nineteen-mouthed. It enjoys gross objects.
The second quarter is taijasa. Its field is the dream state. Its consciousness is inwardturned. It is seven-limbed and nineteen-mouthed. It enjoys subtle objects.
The third quarter is prājña, where one asleep neither desires anything nor beholds any dream: that is deep sleep. In this field of dreamless sleep, one becomes undivided, an undifferentiated mass of consciousness, consisting of bliss and feeding on bliss. His
mouth is consciousness.
This is the Lord of All; the Omniscient; the Indwelling Controller; the Source of All.
This is the beginning and end of all beings.
That is known as the fourth quarter: neither inward-turned nor outward-turned consciousness, nor the two together; not an indifferentiated mass of consciousness; neither knowing, nor unknowing; invisible, ineffable, intangible, devoid of characteristics, inconceivable, indefinable, its sole essence being the consciousness of its own Self; the coming to rest of all relative existence; utterly quiet; peaceful; blissful: without a second: this is the Ātman, the Self; this is to be realised.
This identical Ātman, or Self, in the realm of sound is the syllable OM, the above described four quarters of the Self being identical with the components of the syllable, and the components of the syllable being identical with the four quarters of the Self. The components of the Syllable are A, U, M.

Vaiśvānara, whose field is the waking state, is the first sound, A, because this encompasses all, and because it is the first. He who knows thus, encompasses all desirable objects; he becomes the first.
Taijasa, whose field is the dream state, is the second sound, U, because this is an excellence, and contains the qualities of the other two. He who knows thus, exalts the
flow of knowledge and becomes equalised; in his family there will be born no one ignorant of Brahman.
Prājña, whose field is deep sleep, is the third sound, M, because this is the measure, and that into which all enters. He who knows thus, measures all and becomes all.
The fourth is soundless: unutterable, a quieting down of all relative manifestations, blissful, peaceful, non-dual. Thus, OM is the Ātman, verily. He who knows thus, merges his self in the Self; - yea, he who knows thus.
Om śantih; śantih; śantih
Om Peace! Peace! Peace!

Ekanta
02 September 2010, 09:48 AM
Namaste yajvan and others.

Is brahman in the universe or the universe in brahman?

yajvan (or someone else) could you explain the following verses from varāha Upanishad? The meaning of "cit-mātra" & "cit-maya"?

cid-ihāstīti cin-mātram-idaṃ cin-mayam-eva ca |
cit-tvaṃ cid-aham ete ca lokāś-cid iti bhāvaya || 2.47 ||
2.47 Whatever is cit (consciousness) in the universe is only cit-mātra. This universe is cit-maya only. You are cit. I am cit; contemplate upon the worlds also as cit.

It relates to your post, but I'd like an explanation of how the words are used if possible. As I figured out so far:

"cit-maya" would mean: "made of, consisting of cit"
"cit-mātra" would mean: "element of cit" or "measure, quantity, sum, size, duration of cit"

ah... lets see what happens...

atanu
02 September 2010, 10:38 AM
Namaste yajvan and others.

Is brahman in the universe or the universe in brahman?

yajvan (or someone else) could you explain the following verses from varāha Upanishad? The meaning of "cit-mātra" & "cit-maya"?

cid-ihāstīti cin-mātram-idaṃ cin-mayam-eva ca |
cit-tvaṃ cid-aham ete ca lokāś-cid iti bhāvaya || 2.47 ||
2.47 Whatever is cit (consciousness) in the universe is only cit-mātra. This universe is cit-maya only. You are cit. I am cit; contemplate upon the worlds also as cit.

It relates to your post, but I'd like an explanation of how the words are used if possible. As I figured out so far:

"cit-maya" would mean: "made of, consisting of cit"
"cit-mātra" would mean: "element of cit" or "measure, quantity, sum, size, duration of cit"

ah... lets see what happens...

Namaste Ekanta

Dictionaries can be misleading.

Actually mAtrA means measure and mAtra means 'Sheer' or 'Only'. The meaning here, as per me, is 'Only' or 'Sheer'. For example, using both mAtra and maya, we have a word: hetumAtramaya
(Noun) which means serving (or full of - maya) only (mAtra) as a pretext (hetu).

maya means in this context 'full of' and mAtra means 'only'. Hope it helps.

Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
02 September 2010, 11:40 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté ekanta,


Namaste yajvan and others. Is brahman in the universe or the universe in brahman?

In kaśmir śaivism it is said that all this is contained within śiva. No part of Him is used up in the least.

When talking of brahman it is most associated with śiva in kaśmir śaivism and at times called the 3rd brahman or tṛtīyam brahma. But what does this mean?
Many times we think of brahman as oṃ tat sat. In this triad the 3rd is sat or sát defined as Being, Existence itself. Above all else this rings true of the nature of Being, of this All.

This sat is significant. From this sat we get sa, and from sa we get sauḥ , one of the most important bīja sounds . It is considered the heart of śiva, and we can see form were it comes.

I mention this just as a perspective not to change the course of the overall conversation.

praṇām

Ekanta
02 September 2010, 11:58 AM
Oki Atanu I can agree on cit-mātra when checking it closer.

But cit-maya... I wonder...
If it here means "Full of" it means "something is full of cit", what? OR if its full of cit (100%), then there is nothing else.
If it means "made of cit" then the universe is made of cit...

I cant help viewing every phenomena as cit... maya, shakti, universe etc.

WHICH brings me to my point. Brahman is described as sat-cit-ānanda (eternal characteristics) & nāma rūpa (changing).

On one hand the universe is said to be name & form. On the other the upanishad tells us the universe is cit.
Now... Can it be said that universe/ phenomena/ name & form is a play of cit? A changing play, but still made of cit which is an eternal characteristic of brahman?

??? (hope Im not kidnapping your thread yajvan)

atanu
02 September 2010, 12:53 PM
Oki Atanu I can agree on cit-mātra when checking it closer.

But cit-maya... I wonder...
If it here means "Full of" it means "something is full of cit", what? OR if its full of cit (100%), then there is nothing else.
If it means "made of cit" then the universe is made of cit...



Namaste Ekanta

Both 'full of' and 'made of' are nearly ok by me. The form of Universe is full of cit. This can be appreciated if we compare with Aitereya U., where the word praGYaanaM is used.

........ sarva.n tatpraGYaanetraM praGYaane pratishhThitaM praGYaanetro lokaH praGYaa pratishhThaa praGYaanaM brahma

All these have Consciousness as the giver of their reality; all these are impelled by Consciousness; the universe has Consciousness as its eye and Consciousness is its end. Consciousness is Brahman.

(praGYaanaM brahma is a mahavakya).

I am sure that this discussion should be able to complement Shri Yajvan's meanings for this full thread, rather than derail it.

Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
02 September 2010, 02:00 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté ekanta



On one hand the universe is said to be name & form. On the other the upanishad tells us the universe is cit.
Now... Can it be said that universe/ phenomena/ name & form is a play of cit? A changing play, but still made of cit which is an eternal characteristic of brahman?

This is a reasonable assessment. Note that this condition you mention does not have to be one or the other. That is why this māyā is so important in the śloka.
This māyā is rooted in mā - measured. It is as if the Infinite is measured out into the finite. To us it looks as though this is true, yet it is not. The infinite never loses its dignity even in the constraints of the finite.

This is way the word comes to be known as illusion, deception , fraud , trick. Just as I look at an iceberg, it seems to be a small hill that sticks up above the water, yet with knowledge we know it is a huge mountain that goes very deep. That is the illusion. Like that - this Infinite Being cannot be constrained. It is us that is not seeing clearly.

It is by the application of the ointment of knowledge applied to our eyes ( says the upaniṣads) that gives us clarity.

Good questions - keep them coming.
praṇām

yajvan
03 September 2010, 11:43 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté ekanta




This is a reasonable assessment. Note that this condition you mention does not have to be one or the other. That is why this māyā is so important in the śloka.


Please note that I do not have a reliable copy of the varāha upaniṣad to CONFIRM this śloka says indeed māyā , maya or māya.
Note that māyā and māya are relatively equal, yet maya is a different word and meaning.


That said, my point in the last post is, if it indeed says māyā I can
understand why this would be. I will continue to look for a copy of this upaniṣad that is clear ( to me ) .

praṇām

atanu
03 September 2010, 01:18 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté ekanta
Please note that I do not have a reliable copy of the varāha upaniṣad to CONFIRM this śloka says indeed māyā , maya or māya.
Note that māyā and māya are relatively equal, yet maya is a different word and meaning.

That said, my point in the last post is, if it indeed says māyā I can
understand why this would be. I will continue to look for a copy of this upaniṣad that is clear ( to me ) .
praṇām

Namaste Yajvan ji

As discussed, i think it is mayam, since it is associated with cin. cinmaya, means consisting of pure thought. I may be wrong. Ekanta will be able to confirm from his original script.

Om Namah Shivaya

Ekanta
03 September 2010, 01:26 PM
you can find devanagari version here:
http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_sa/varaha_sa.html
Since I cant read devanagari I just get my stuff there and run it through transliterate program to get IAST (sanskrit editor).
http://www.sanskrit-sanscrito.com.ar/en/essentials_software/index2_software.shtml

Translation to english is another story... But at least its nice to be able to check sanskrit. Makes me half-blind instead of totally blind.

Ekanta
03 September 2010, 01:30 PM
चिदिहास्तीति चिन्मात्रमिदं चिन्मयमेव च .
चित्त्वं चिदहमेते च लोकाश्चिदिति भावय .. ४७..

turns into:

cidihāstīti cinmātramidaṃ cinmayameva ca .
cittvaṃ cidahamete ca lokāściditi bhāvaya .. 47..

magic!

atanu
03 September 2010, 02:06 PM
Translation to english is another story... But at least its nice to be able to check sanskrit. Makes me half-blind instead of totally blind.

:D Wide grin.

yajvan
03 September 2010, 06:00 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté ekanta and atanu,


चिदिहास्तीति चिन्मात्रमिदं चिन्मयमेव च .
चित्त्वं चिदहमेते च लोकाश्चिदिति भावय .. ४७..

turns into:
cidihāstīti cinmātramidaṃ cinmayameva ca .
cittvaṃ cidahamete ca lokāściditi bhāvaya .. 47..
magic!

cidihāstīti cinmātramidaṃ cinmayameva ca |
cittvaṃ cidahamete ca lokāściditi bhāvaya || 47


चिन्मय - cinmaya - consisting of pure thought.

Yes, makes sense.

praṇām

yajvan
03 September 2010, 08:20 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Yet what is this varāha upaniṣad we have been discussing- what is it all about?
Varāha is a boar, yet is also suggests superiority. The wise muni ṛbhu, meaning clever , skilful , inventive , prudent ( also a son of brahman) does his tapas for some time; Who appears before him? The Supreme, bhagavān as varāha.

He asks the Supreme to impart to him the wisdom/knowledge of brahman i.e. brahmavidyāṃ. He talks of the tattva's numbering 24, 36, and some say ninty-six. To this He says listen as I will review them in order. He concludes there are 24 and there are 36. He also adds 60 more such as the changes the tattva's mentioned as they go through i.e. existence, birth, growth, transformation, decay and destruction. He adds more such as hunger, thirst, grief, delusion, old age and dealth as the various infirmities one can experience.

Then in the 2nd chapter the great ṛbhu (ṛbhurnāma mahāyogī) wishes to know more about this brahmavidyāṃ ( wisdom of brahman).
The Lord says much, yet mentions I alone am happiness . If it is said that if there is another, then there is not happiness.

This is most insightful as this infers the wisdom of another upaniṣad . The Lord is saying if there is another, then there is 2.
Any time there is a sense of 2, fear arises i.e. dvitiyad vai bhayam bhavati - Fear is born of duality. This is from the bṛhadaraṇyaka upaniṣad - puruṣavidha-brāhmaṇa, 2nd śloka.

dvitiyad or dvitīya द्वितीय - 2nd or two , couple,
bhayam or bhaya भय- fear , alarm dread apprehension
rooted in bhī to fear for , be anxious about
vai an emphasis and affirmation , generally placed after a word
and laying stress on it (it is usually translatable by 'indeed' ,
'truly' , 'certainly' )
bhavati or bhava भव arising or produced from , being inHence we can see from the orientation of this varāha upaniṣad that it is advaita --> a=not + dvaita = duality , duplicity , dualism.

And there is more as one whould think, and this why I mentioned māyā as being relvent to this upaniṣad in the posts above. Why so? Because the Supreme is talking of advaita ,
He says, the universe, jīva, māyā , īśvara and others really do not exist - only ( or except) My fullness of ātma i.e. the Supreme Self, the highest personal principle of life , brahma.
There is more, but I will stop here and let others contribute as they see fit.
praṇām

yajvan
05 September 2010, 08:23 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Continuing within the varāha upaniṣad ...

asti brahmeti cedveda parokṣa-jñānameva tat |
ahaṃ brahmeti cedveda sākṣātkāraḥ sa ucyate || 41

A man is said to to know (cedveda = who knows) or has parokṣa¹ (limited or indirect) knowledge (jñāna) where he knows there is brahman;
yet he is said to attain sākṣātkāraḥ¹ (direct seeing of an extraordinary nature , cognition) when he realizes or knows (cedveda) he himself (ahaṃ or I) is brahman ( brahmeti)


What does this say? Many of us (me) know of this brahman, we read of it, we have somewhat a clear understanding of it but we are yet to bathe in this Being in all its fullness.

What does the Supreme say next? When the yogin comes to know his own ātman to be this fullness, this brahman, then he/she becomes the jīvanmukta.

praṇām

words

parokṣa - , in the absence or without the knowledge ;out of sight , behind one's back
sākṣātkāraḥ - sākṣa+ at+ kāraḥ
sākṣa - having eyes ~seeing~ cognizing
at = ati - extraordinary
kāraḥ or kāra has many definitons - the one that applies here is 'gain'

yajvan
06 September 2010, 08:55 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Continuing within the varāha upaniṣad ...


mameti badhyate janturnirmameti vimucyate |
bāhyacintā na kartavyā tathaivāntaracintikā |
sarvacintāṃ samutsṛjya svastho bhava sadā ṛbho || 44

The following is not my translation, but I thought it very insightful.

It says,
There are two words for bondage and mokṣa . They are 'mine' and
'not mine' . Man is bound by 'mine' and released by 'not mine'.

What do you think this is saying?

praṇām

Onkara
07 September 2010, 03:07 AM
Man is bound by 'mine' and released by 'not mine'.
What do you think this is saying?

Namaste Yajvan and friends
This is a most interesting topic, may the momentum continue! :)

We can categorise more names or concepts under the two categories of “mine” and “not mine” to broaden our understanding. This categorical understanding will help us in an answer to the question you included above for our interaction.

We can categorise "mine" as body-mind and ego.

The body is “Mine”, “Mine” too is the mind and it is held together with the I-sense (ahaṃkāra). Whilst we are compelled to maintain this personal perspective we are bound by “mine” (contrasted to "yours"). Whilst we take ourselves to be the body-mind and ego we are compelled to act in our interest, bound by our attractions and repulsions, i.e. by “mine”.

We are released when all that was once “mine” becomes known as “not mine” which is Brahman. Brahman is the liberation of "not mine".

However we must go further than to just cateogrise and label, we must come to know the “not mine” from the “mine” intuitively; by way of our sādhanā. This intuitive knowing too, can be dissolved further (a topic for another post perhaps).My point is that you touch on this subtle difference of knowing the categorical facts from the intuitive knowing in an earlier post you offered us for thought:



What does this say? Many of us (me) know of this brahman, we read of it, we have somewhat a clear understanding of it but we are yet to bathe in this Being in all its fullness.

Released by “not mine” man bathes in Brahman’s fullness for Brahman is all that is. This release is the expansion or stretching out of atman, for atman is Brahman when known as being without limitation.

purnapragya
07 September 2010, 08:19 AM
Dear all divine Soul,
I also,before post comment in this matter with the view of Upanishad,Now I want to describe Atman or self in other view.
The Holy Bible also states that God is Spirit (John 4:23-24) and he who worships Him worships in Spirit. Psalm 139: 7-10 states that God is a Spirit that is everywhere. Luke (24:39) states that Spirit does not have flesh and bones. No word or image can express or describe the magnitude of God.
That mean Atman is self and self is God,In this point the Hastamalaka Stotra Give a great philosophical thought.
Who is I?
Ans.-I am neither man, God, yaksha, brahmin, kshatriya,
vaisya, sudra, brahmachari, householder, forest-dweller, nor
sannyasi; but I am pure awareness alone.
That mean I m pureawarness.But how i m pure awarness,when I have desire?
Ans:-


"Desire is the root cause of Sorrow", says Buddha. The desire ridden mind is impure. Other impurities like anger or jealousy are its side products. When obstructed desire becomes anger, when someone else enjoys what one desires, it turns into jealousy. When one gets what one wanted, greed or pride arises.


Mind is considered as two-fold: pure and impure. It is impure with the resolve of personal desire. It is pure when devoid of all selfish desires -AMRITABINDU UPANISHAD


Mind binds, mind liberates! Thoughts are the medium through which the ego, the limited Self, appears and paves the way for all our likes and dislikes, pleasure and pain. Innocence of a child is free from attachment or hatred. As we reach deep within ourselves--we see this childlike nature of pure--undivided awareness due to attachment to sense objects. We pursue pleasure out of mere habit and not as a true need. Paying attention to the subtle ways our mind is indeed desire-less state. This thought is reflected in the 2nd mantra: "Mind alone is the cause of bondage and liberation for human beings. The mind attached to sense objects leads to bondage and that which is free of sense objects sets one free. So it is said". -


AMRITABINDU UPANISHAD
So u need to purify ur Citya or mind that u can attained pure awarness.
Wat is the quality of this Atman?
Ans.-Just as the sun causes all worldly movements, so do I
-- the ever-present, conscious Self -- cause the mind to be
active and the senses to function. Again, just as the ether is
all-pervading, yet devoid of any specific qualities, so am I
free from all qualities.
How this self is define?
Ans.-Just as the reflection of the sun on agitated waters
seems to break up, but remains perfect on a calm surface, so
also am I, the conscious Self, unrecognizable in agitated
intellects though I clearly shine in those which are calm.
How this self act when in bondage and when without bondage?
Ans.-Self under bondage "I am the conscious Self, ever-present and associated
with everything in the same manner as heat is always
associated with fire. I am that eternal, undifferentiated,
unshaken Consciousness, on account of which the insentient
mind and senses function, each in its own manner."
Self withoutbondage or libaration.
Jehovah said to enquiring Moses who asked Him His name, came the reply, ―I am Who I am‖(Exodus 3:14). Jesus Christ said the same thing by saying that: ―Before Abraham was, I am‖ Jesus also said, ―I and the Father are one‖(John,10:30). Jesus Christ made more than seven statements beginning with ―I am‖in the New Testament .
Several times Jesus said, ―God is Spirit, Spirit meaning Brahman, Atman, Truth etc. He also said, ―The Father abiding in me doeth His work‖ So, all that shows that God is within you and everything is God‖
From Ashtavakra Gita (॥ अष्टावक्र गीता ॥)

Janaka: How is knowledge to be acquired? How is liberation to
be attained? And how is dispassion to be reached? Tell me this,
sir.

Ashtavakra: If you are seeking liberation, my son, shun the
objects of the senses like poison. Practise tolerance, sincerity,
compassion, contentment and truthfulness like nectar.

You do not consist of the elements - earth, water, fire, air or even
ether. To be liberated, know yourself as consisting of
consciousness, the witness of these.

If only you will remain resting in consciousness, seeing yourself
as distinct from the body, then even now you will become happy,
peaceful and free from bonds.

You do not belong to the brahmin or any other caste, you are not
at any stage, nor are you anything that the eye can see. You are
unattached and formless, the witness of everything - so be
happy.

Righteousness and unrighteousness, pleasure and pain are
purely of the mind and are no concern of yours. You are neither

the doer nor the reaper of the consequences, so you are always
free.

You are the one witness of everything, and are always
completely free. The cause of your bondage is that you see the
witness as something other than this.

Since you have been bitten by the black snake, the opinion about
yourself that "I am the doer", drink the antidote of faith in the
fact that "I am not the doer", and be happy.

Burn down the forest of ignorance with the fire of the
understanding that "I am the one pure awareness", and be happy
and free from distress.

That in which all this appears - imagined like the snake in a rope,
that joy, supreme joy and awareness is what you are, so be
happy.

If one thinks of oneself as free, one is free, and if one thinks of
oneself as bound, one is bound. Here this saying is true,
"Thinking makes it so".

Your real nature is as the one perfect, free, and actionless
consciousness, the all-pervading witness - unattached to
anything, desireless and at peace. It is from illusion that you
seem to be involved in samsara.

Meditate on yourself as motionless awareness, free from any
dualism, giving up the mistaken idea that you are just a
derivative consciousness, or anything external or internal.

You have long been trapped in the snare of identification with
the body. Sever it with the knife of knowledge that "I am
awareness", and be happy, my son.

You are really unbound and actionless, self-illuminating and
spotless already. The cause of your bondage is that you are still
resorting to stilling the mind.

All of this is really filled by you and strung out in you, for what
you consist of is pure awareness - so don't be small minded.

You are unconditioned and changeless, formless and immovable,
unfathomable awareness and unperturbable, so hold to nothing
but consciousness.

Recognise that the apparent is unreal, while the unmanifest is
abiding. Through this initiation into truth you will escape falling
into unreality again.

Just as a mirror exists everywhere both within and apart from its
reflected images, so the Supreme Lord exists everywhere within
and apart from this body.

Just as one and the same all-pervading space exists within and
without a jar, so the eternal, everlasting God exists in the totality
of things.
So atman is like space when its free.
Jesus often said ―The kingdom of God is within you‖
This is the kingdom of god.Self without bondage.
Thanks

yajvan
07 September 2010, 01:40 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté snip (et.al)




We can categorise "mine" as body-mind and ego.

The body is “Mine”, “Mine” too is the mind and it is held together with the I-sense (ahaṃkāra). Whilst we are compelled to maintain this personal perspective we are bound by “mine” (contrasted to "yours"). Whilst we take ourselves to be the body-mind and ego we are compelled to act in our interest, bound by our attractions and repulsions, i.e. by “mine”.

We are released when all that was once “mine” becomes known as “not mine” which is Brahman. Brahman is the liberation of "not mine".

However we must go further than to just cateogrise and label, we must come to know the “not mine” from the “mine” intuitively; by way of our sādhanā. This intuitive knowing too, can be dissolved further (a topic for another post perhaps).My point is that you touch on this subtle difference of knowing the categorical facts from the intuitive knowing in an earlier post you offered us for thought:

Released by “not mine” man bathes in Brahman’s fullness for Brahman is all that is. This release is the expansion or stretching out of atman, for atman is Brahman when known as being without limitation.

I enjoy the perspective you offer... it suggests 'mine' as limited, constrained, or bound . 'Not mine' suggest just the opposite - without boundries, boundless. And we know this boundless to be brahman, fullness ( bhūman¹).

praṇām

words
bhūman - the aggregate of all existing things ; plentifully , abundantly

yajvan
07 September 2010, 07:28 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Note that in mameti it is 'ma' that means 'me'. It is from this 'me' we come to the word 'mine' as offered in post 19 i.e. the 44th mantra of the varāha upaniṣad.

The 'ma' also means 'measure' as the individual 'me' is measured out i.e. a boundry of person or individual. When 'not mine' occurs in the 44th śloka it is said as nirmameti or 'not me' nirma. This means then
not measured. If it is unmeasured, it infers unmeasurable and unbounded, and we arrive a brahman.

ma and nirma - me and not me. mine and not mine , bondage and mokṣa.

Where do we find this 'ma' used? In the infinite measured out or māyā. The first definition of māyā is measuring.

praṇām

Ekanta
07 September 2010, 10:16 PM
cool... I cant comment on all, but I read it. Yajvan your posts are gonna take some time to digest. Snip's comments seems to be in line with the other lines in the same upanishad. purnapragya... nice... but a lot at once.

Anyway... a few more lines form varāha upaniṣad:

māyātatkāryavilaye neśvaratvaṃ na jīvatā || 2.52 ||
tataḥ śuddhaścidevāhaṃ vyomavannirupādhikaḥ |
2.52(b)-53(a). Should Maya and its effects (the universe) be annihilated, there is no state of Ishvara, there is no state of Jiva. Therefore like the Akasa without its vehicle, I am the immaculate and Chit.

aviśeṣeṇa sarvaṃ tu yaḥ paśyati cidanvayāt |
sa eva sākṣādvijñānī sa śivaḥ sa harirvidhiḥ || 2.63 ||
2.63. If he sees everything as Chit without any difference, he alone is an actual Vijnani. He alone is Shiva. He alone is Hari. He alone is Brahma.

adyāstametu vapurāśaśitāramāstāṃ, kastāvatāpi mama cidvapuṣo viśeṣaḥ |
kumbhe vinaśyati ciraṃ samavasthite vā, kumbhāmbarasya nahi ko'pi viśeṣaleśaḥ || 2.66 ||
2.66. Whether the body perishes now or lasts the age of moon and stars, what matters it to me having Chit alone as my body? What matters it to the Akasa in the pot, whether it (the pot) is destroyed now or exists for a long time.

bhātītyukte jagatsarvaṃ bhānaṃ brahmaiva kevalam |
marubhūmau jalaṃ sarvaṃ marubhūmātrameva tat |
jagattrayamidaṃ sarvaṃ cinmātraṃ svavicārataḥ || 2.72 ||
2.72. If it is said that the universe shines, then it is Brahman alone that shines. (The mirage of) all the water in an oasis is really no other than the oasis itself. Through inquiry of one’s Self, the three worlds (above, below and middle) are only of the nature of Chit.

nahi nānāsvarūpaṃ syādekaṃ vastu kadācana |
tasmādakhaṇḍa evāsmi yanmadanyanna kiṃcana || 3.1 ||
3.1. “The One Principle cannot at any time become of manifold forms. As I am the partless, there is none else but myself.

sarvaṃ sukhaṃ viddhi suduḥkhanāśātsarvaṃ ca sadrūpamasatyanāśāt |
cidrūpameva pratibhānayuktaṃ, tasmādakhaṇḍaṃ mama rūpametat || 3.4 ||
3.4. Know all to be happiness through the annihilation of sorrow and all to be of the nature of Sat (be-ness) through the annihilation of Asat (not-be-ness). It is only the nature of Chit (Consciousness) that is associated with this visible universe. Therefore my form is partless.

janmamṛtyusukhaduḥkhavarjitaṃ, jātinītikulagotradūragam |
cidvivartajagato'sya kāraṇaṃ, tatsadāhamiti maunamāśraya || 3.7 ||
3.7. It (Brahman) is not subject to birth and death, happiness and misery. It is not subject to caste, law, family and Gotra (clan). Practise silence – I am Chit, which is the Vivarta-Upadana (viz., the illusory cause) of the universe.

----

There seems to be a lot of chit in this upanishad, or should we say chit is one?
Note that Akasa is often used symbolically referring to chit (not elemental akasa) as in verse 2.52-53 & 2.66. Ishvara/Jiva is the "vehicle" for chit & Ishvara/Jiva is māyā. So māyā is the "vehicle" for chit. And māyā is that which is said to not exist. [my conclusions]... This is more like a few more verses on the chit-issue. But the rabbit hole goes deeper... and so... -->

I find verse 3.1 / 3.4 / 3.7 interesting.
In verse 3.1 its said: "The One Principle cannot at any time become of manifold forms"
This seems to imply that even though there are many forms, there is but one chit.

In verse 3.7 its said: "I am Chit, which is the Vivarta-Upadana (illusory cause) of the universe"
This seems to imply that chit is the illusory cause

In verse 3.4 its said "only the nature of Chit is associated with this visible universe. Therefore my form is partless"
This one is GOOD. And here I would like someone to elaborate. I think this verse holds some interesting info. What do YOU make of it?