PDA

View Full Version : Self and Maya



khalidrawat
20 March 2011, 05:51 AM
Upanishads philosophy is as old as anything can be, and it so meaningful that its significance cannot be estimated unless one sincerely and seriously approaches it. So how this sacred thought can be best described?

Upanishads give us a true way of understanding this world and the meaning of human existence in it; it gives us a true sense of human life and the values one should cherish if one wants to stay calm and happy. Vedic philosophy is a way towards true happiness and peace of mind; it regulates human life in a way that enables one to stay in complete control of ones self and ones powers.

This sacred philosophy mainly is the philosophy of Atman, the true self or supreme ego. The teachings of Vedas lead a person towards a true understanding of this ultimate reality thus take a person out of the turmoils of meaninglessness of life. It is at times difficult to understand Vedic philosophy, but once one understands it one at once finds that one has achieved something precious.

In this preliminary lesson we will start with an important concept ' maya' or false consciousness. People in this world are mainly living in a false consciousness about themselves and about the world. So, the first and the most important thing to do is to leave this false consciousness.

What is false consciousness? In Upanishads , the great teachers have described three levels of false consciousness; these are:

Nama, Roopa and Karma.

Brhad-aranyaka Upanishads writes:

" Verily ,this (world) is a triad of Name, Form and Work(nama, rupam, karma). Of these regards names, speech is the source, for from it all names arise. ... it is their Brahman, for it sustains all names."

" of the form eye is the source, for from it all shapes arise. ...it is their Brahman"

"of works, body is the source for from it all works arise.... it is their Brahman."

The Upanishads declares that the real or the existent, the world of matter in which we live , is but a combination of these three ; Nama(Name) , Rupa(Form) and Karma(work).

What is self then? The Upanishads goes on to say that ," these three(Rupa, Nama and Karma) are one... the self , though one is this triad."

So self is a unity but is also a triad of the three realities(satyam), Rupa , Nama and Karma.

However, self is hidden behind these three, it is veiled by Rupa , Nama and Karma. The self , the Atman the Brahman is veiled behind the elements of triad.

This gives us the idea that if self is goal of life , then one has to break through this veil , the veil of Rupa , Nama and Karma.

It is neither easy to do nor to understand , however, Upanishads emphasizing the knowledge and achievement of self , ask man to understand that what ever man loves, understands and desires, is for nothing but for the Self.

Sat, reality or truth is the veil , behind this veil is the Self , Atman.

So Upanishads ask us to break this Veil, commonly known as Veil of Maya. How this can be done? Upanishads offer us a detailed and all embracing way to achieve this end.

In the nutshell, to break the Veil of Nama one has to abandon belief in personal attributes or qualities like being a this or that type of man or being a this or that type of character. According to some ascetics the only attributes that a person can retain are his or her sexual identity and faith. All other attributions are false including nationality, profession etc.

So, the first step towards breaking the Veil of Maya or False Consciousness is to renounce false attributes for the sake of Self.

The second step is to renounce worldly pleasures for the sake of Self. Rupa or form , the most pleasing to the eyes , is not desirable in-itself. Rupa or form is desirable for the sake of Self. Thus one should learn to renounce sensuous pleasure of viewing forms.


The third step is the renunciation of Karma. Karma is not ان-itself desirable. Karma or action is desirable for the Self. So one should learn to renounce action for the sake of Self.

This threefold doctrine is much emphasized strongly.

By. Dr. Khalid Jamil Rawat

devotee
20 March 2011, 10:49 AM
Namaste Dr Khilawat,

That is a very good post ! :)

However, your name is a little confusing. Are you a Hindu or a Muslim ?

OM

yajvan
20 March 2011, 12:11 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté khalidrawat



In this preliminary lesson we will start with an important concept ' maya' or false consciousness. People in this world are mainly living in a false consciousness about themselves and about the world. So, the first and the most important thing to do is to leave this false consciousness.


Thank you for your post and the notion of this discussion. It should be noted that the view of māyā you may wish to offer is from a vedāntic point of view ( as obvious from mentioning the ved, the upaniṣads and being in the advaita HDF folder).

That said, in śāntabrahmavāda ( another name for advaita vedānta) māyā is neither real or unreal¹ ( this can be explained on a future post).

In kaśmir śaivism the universe is perfectly real and māyā is the play and display of śakti. Why mention this? Both systems here are anchored in a non-dual ( advaita) view of Reality.

What's my point? I do not see māyā as false consciousness. How so? Māyā - this word is rooted in mā , meaning to measure. Hence this the notion of the Infinite, being as if measured out into finite things.

Many come to the conclusion that this māyā is anchored in the notion of illusion found in ādi śaṃkara's view of advaita vedānta (as mentioned, some call śāntabrahmavāda). This is not the case as I see it. This māyā brings about the experience of differences for us e.g. good , small, hot cold, good bad, right , wrong. It is the Supreme measured out in differences. In ignorance this māyā may be limiting, yet in liberation it is cinmayī.



praṇām

1. ādi śaṅkara-ji's offer in his Vivekacūḍāmaṇi - 111th śloka

Kumar_Das
20 March 2011, 12:35 PM
Interesting.

@devotee

It wouldn't suprise me if he was a Muslim but one who draws inspiration and also follows parts of Hinduism.

You will find that intellectual Muslims who have read extensively find a certain liking for Vedanta.

But of course I will leave him to answer the question himself.

satay
20 March 2011, 12:37 PM
namaste,


All other attributions are false including nationality, profession etc.

By. Dr. Khalid Jamil Rawat

Even the profession and titles, Dr.?

anirvan
20 March 2011, 01:10 PM
what is the line" sat,truth,reality is veil,whet is behind is atman" means???

what"s the practical inference of this post. to renounce and follow sat-sampati of jnanamargi sannyas?

how sat could be a veil.its the swaroop.

khalidrawat
21 March 2011, 04:30 AM
I am a Muslim. There is nothing to be confused about it. Upanishads are strongly recommended , for instance by Prince Dara Shikoh , for reading and understanding. Moreover, people like Schopenhauer (German Philosopher) considered the reading of Upanishads as essential.

Upanishads are amazing because one can have rational discourse on important matters. Furthermore, Upanishads present philosophical understanding, if a Muslim can read Western philosophy why he cannot like and read Upanishads. Being a part of our culture , originating from the Indus valley civilization, Upanishads are our own books.

Upanishads are far more understandable for south Asians than any Western thought. Words and concepts are already familiar to us , and there is a general air of familiarity throughout the text. So why not imbibe from one's own well than to beg wisdom from the others.

khalidrawat
21 March 2011, 05:06 AM
Sat, or reality, existence, as perceived in different forms, understood as name or concept, action with a belief in cause and effect , is a veil, for it is false consciousness. So if I recognize a car as a car, it is just a groundless belief, on the other hand the name car does not correspond to the form that I perceive.

Similarly , the particular form Rupa , that particular car is identified because of a habit , otherwise it is only a part of the larger background, it is my intention that highlighted the silhouette, or the particular form.

So, reality or Sat is illusion, a veil. But a veil hides something. So this reality also hides something , and something is the Atman.

However, the important question is how Maya works to create these illusions?

Second part of the question : In my opinion practical inference is that a person following Sat sampati and Jnana sanyas will be more practical.

Swaroop is sat , but it is not Vishv Rupa, the goal of Jnana Sanyas.

Khalid Rawat

khalidrawat
21 March 2011, 05:11 AM
Yes, all attributes are false, this is the realization, I will defend myself not my attribute, in a desert fighting for my life, I am neither KJR nor a Doctor. Had I not followed the course of life that I followed( it was not my choice) I would not have the name and attribute I now have.

khalidrawat
21 March 2011, 05:13 AM
I am a Muslim . But Upanishads are the revealed books of Sub Continent. Prince Dara Shikoh said so. Its a great experience to discuss on this forum.

khalidrawat
21 March 2011, 05:28 AM
Thankyou very much for your most enlightened reply. I feel that what you have said about Maya as presenting the one as many , is what I also believe. But my question is how this Maya works? Can you please give any explanation of this?

yajvan
21 March 2011, 11:19 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté khalidrawat


Sat, or reality, existence, as perceived in different forms, understood as name or concept, action with a belief in cause and effect , is a veil, for it is false consciousness. So if I recognize a car as a car, it is just a groundless belief, on the other hand the name car does not correspond to the form that I perceive.

What is false here is not consciousness - it is moha. That is, moha = bewilderment , perplexity , distraction , infatuation ,
delusion , error. It is one's inability to discriminate (viveka) that I think you may be offering to the reader. What is my point?


To mis-take a snake for a rope is the inability to discriminate. Consciousness has done its part - to provide the field of experience
appropriately to the faculty of the mind and intellect . There is nothing false about consciousness here.

Take the sun. It shines everywhere the same . In some places weeds grow, in other paces, a beautiful flower. The sun provided
the light-energy for this to occur. Do we fault the sun for growing the weeds?
The light of consciousness is prakāśa = clearness , brightness , splendor , luster , light. It provides the 'field' for all occurances.
There can be no fault found in this prakāśa.

praṇām

devotee
21 March 2011, 10:12 PM
Namaste Khalidrawat,


Thankyou very much for your most enlightened reply. I feel that what you have said about Maya as presenting the one as many , is what I also believe. But my question is how this Maya works? Can you please give any explanation of this?

Maya means delusion i.e. perception of something else than the reality. This whole world is nothing but creation of great delusion created by Maya. How ? Let me give you an example :

You don't see the reality. You see what your mind let's you see. Let's take example of a solid wall of Iron in front of us. You don't see any hole therein. You can never think of going through it. Now, what is this wall made of ? This wall is made up of very tiny iron molecules and if you see with the help of some very advanced instruments and penetrating rays you can see that there are lots of voids between those molecules. Now, every molecules is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. What will be the ratio of volume of all those molecules taken together as compared to the whole volume of the atom ? It would be too less. You break those molecules and again see ... you would find even smaller sub-atomic particles like quarks and anti-quarks all within a lots of voids.

===>Now, what is the ratio of void/space within the solid wall ? It would be more than 99.99 %. But then , you don't see the void. You cannot utilize that available void to pierce a needle through that wall ! ... and that is Maya.

You see this colourful world ... not because there are colours in reality. You see the colours because your mind is designed to see a particular colour when your eyes meet a light wave of certain frequency/wavelength. There is no colour inherent in the waves. It is only different frequencies. It is your mind which translates the change in wavelengh of light into change of colours. In absence of your mind, you cannot see colours. .... and that is Maya.

Have you observed, when you see a dream, how your own one consciousness creates many individual consciousness of many characters in your dream world ... each character acting as the will of its own consciousness (as if they had free will) ... when the reality is that there always remains only one Consciousness in the entire process .... i.e. that of the dreamer ?? Just think deeply about it.

There are many threads dedicated to Advaita philosophy on this forum. You may like to read these in the Advaita sub-forum :

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=5123

Again, there are threads with names like "Aham Brahmasmi", "Aham Brahmasmi-2", "Aham-Brahmasmi-3" etc. which can clear many doubts on Advaita philosophy.

OM

nirotu
25 March 2011, 04:40 PM
Maya means delusion i.e. perception of something else than the reality. This whole world is nothing but creation of great delusion created by Maya.

Dear Devotee:

With all due respect, I cannot understand why you have to associate everything that is not correctly perceived as delusion. I disagree with that conclusion. Or is it that the term “delusion” is very loosely used? What about acquired knowledge? Our knowledge is not necessarily faulty but can be partial and incomplete. The misapprehension of reality can also be due to inappropriate application of knowledge. Incomplete knowledge does not necessarily lead us into delusional experience. Back in the 30s we only knew protons/neutrons/electrons to be the building blocks but later these ideas were dismissed when we found quarks and other particles with fractional charges. Does that mean those who won Nobel prizes, at the time based on prevailing theories, are delusional? Sorry, I am lost here.

According to the “Theory of unconscious inferences in perception”,which I quote, “Our perceptions are heavily influenced by our unconscious knowledge and experience of the environment. When faced with a complex configuration, our perceptual system adopts the most plausible interpretation in terms of our knowledge of the environment. That knowledge at that time happens to be incomplete or partial and not necessarily faulty.Perceptions are useful for figuring out what’s happening around us. Errors of perception (phenomena of illusions) can be due toknowledge being inappropriate or being misapplied.”

There is a lot of confusion these days about what is and is not illusion. Some say “all is illusion” while others say it’s only perception that is illusory. I tend to agree with the latter definition: Illusion is a distorted form of perception whereby one sees things not as they truly are. Here again, it is illusion and not delusion and, Illusion cannot be delusion.

The natural world and all creatures in it are not illusions; however, the way we perceive the natural world and other sentient life is an illusion. As to the illusion or falsehood of materiality, Advaita cannot deny the existence of material world. There is a reality to the material world. The reality cannot be unreal. It is a contradiction in terms. Besides, if there is no separation or clear distinction, there would not be any need to discuss mind, ego etc.

IMO, “The God alone is real and everything else is unreal” is incorrectly interpreted by many advaitins. Do you agree?

It is my opinion that a proper interpretation would be to attribute a relative, not absolute, status or worth to it. Sage Shankara must have implied whatever worth material has is derived from the spiritual. Therefore, we must first accept that the illusion is not unreality but proper reality. Shankara may have meant that when the knowledge is complete our perception will represent correct apprehension of real reality. But, however hard man may try, it may be impossible for man to reach that state though the aspiration is there.

The key then in my opinion is to learn to transcend perception and experience life directly through inner knowing. In general, the entire creation (mankind) has this inherent propensity to go either way. We either choose to do His will or that of the world. The problem is, it’s usually when the ego trying to do this, which invariably tries to place us in the direction opposite to God. The ego obviously cannot transcend itself, but perhaps it can understand itself well enough to realize its true position as servant and not master. When the ego stops trying to control everything, the higher senses (psychic, intuitive, clairvoyant, etc.) are able to arise, and perception changes. Self-awareness is the key to transcendent perception.” It is only when we realize who we are in relation to God, do we understand our relationship with each other. All our fighting among ourselves will stop when we realize the common enemy for all is one and the same – ego (evil) lurking in our hearts. It is only then, will we realize that the Kingdom of God is right here within us. (Used from different sources).


Have a blessed weekend!

Blessings,

kd gupta
25 March 2011, 10:11 PM
To look neighbour's wife as more beautiful is MAYA :Cool: .

Shreyaanswadharmo vigunah paradharmaat swanushthitaat;
Swabhaavaniyatam karma kurvannaapnoti kilbisham.

Better is one’s own duty (though) destitute of merits, than the duty of another well
performed. He who does the duty ordained by his own nature incurs no sin...47/18 gita

saidevo
26 March 2011, 12:48 AM
namaste everyone.

Thanks to shrI khalidrawat that this thread is developing with nice perceptions about sat--absolute reality, and mAyA--practical/conditional reality.

Let us try to approach the distinction between sat and mAyA in this way:

• On the dining table, I find apples in a bowl. The apples are red, green and gold.

• I find two red apples to be the same in color--a visible attribute, but not in form--perceptible attribute, and yet I know them to be apples.

• I taste a piece of the red, golden and green apples: the red apple is the sweetest, the golden one is a bit sour and the green is distinctly tart. Yet I would call them all apples by their taste--a sensory attribute of a karaNa-indrya--sensory organ, jihva--tongue, in this case.

• In all the three cases above, I can identify the apples as apples although they differ in color, form and taste. Of these attributes, color, form and taste, which one looks the most real?

Color of course, because it is the most objective attribute perceived identically by everyone. Form is a mixture of the objective and the subjective, because it varies with the angle of vision and the visual skill of the viewer. Taste is perhaps the most subjective among the three kinds of attributes.

• How do I know them all to be apples in the first instance? Now that I know that this knowledge is not due to their rUpa--form, or karma--tasting slightly differently, is it because of their nAma--name, which has been embedded in my memory since my childhood, by teaching?

‣ It seems so, but then, if someone keeps me in a dark room with my eyes further secured with a black cloth and gives a piece each of those apples, I would still recognize them to be apples, because of the immanent nature of appleness in them.

‣ In the same way, if someone gives me a glass of juice from these apples, I would easily recognize it to be apple juice, although their form and color are dissolved.

‣ In both the above cases, notice that the nAma--name, remains, even after the rUpa--form and karma--action, are dissolved.

• So what does the appleness of the apples, and their three attributes nAma, rUpa and karma, show us? They show that

‣ nAma--name, is the most powerful, practical reality of the world, as a tag of identification to the mind, for thinking in concrete terms instead of abstract. Even to think in abstract we need a name.

For example, identifying the appleness is abstract thinking, and yet we required a label, name 'appleness' for it.

‣ rUpa--form, which is perceived by the senses and identified as concrete by the mind, is a practical reality of the next inner level, because it can and does change.

When I was in high school, we had a teacher whom we had known for many years only by his form, the most distinguishing feature of which was his long beard. Of course, we knew his name too, but then only to associate it with his form.

One morning, we saw a thoroughly clean-shaven stranger walking briskly into our classroom, sporting an understanding smile. It took us almost ten minutes to get reconciled to the fact that he was the same teacher minus his beard now! At that moment, I understood how name was more powerful, although it is associated with a form.

‣ karma--taste in the case of apples, is the next level of practical reality, which forms its lasting impression in mind. Where name and form are no longer there, we would still remember the karma--action. Thus we associate the action of a person, something good or bad he did, to remember him, after his form is gone on death and his name is forgotten eventually.

• That gets us to the immanent reality, appleness in our main example. This appleness has no attributes because it is the very nature of the apples. We cannot realize the appleness unless we cut or crush an apple and taste it, dissolving its form and color partially or completely.

‣ A person--an aborigine perhaps--who has not tasted apples ever or won't even know the name, would still find the taste of the three apples to have the same nature. This fact is a pointer to sat--the ultimate reality.

‣ The speciality of this nature of immanent reality--appleness is in its realization. We can't explain it, but everyone can taste it. The appleness is that sat--ultimate reality.

‣ We should also note that the immanent reality--appleness, is for ever manifest with a form and name. This is the interactive play of mAyA: sat--absolute reality, becomes sat--the existing reality, only through an instance of its manifestation, acquiring name, form and action.

‣ Because and when it manifests, it appears as different levels of reality, prompting some to remain to enjoy and be satisfied with just the surface reality, and a few others get deep into the inner levels.

Extending the concept of appleness, we would find that an apple and an orange are the same in their fruitness and recognize their sameness with a vegetable by the reality of their being an agricultural produce and so on.

• Directing our consciousness and exploring the levels of reality of our objective world guides us to their ultimate physical reality.

• Directing it to the inner levels of reality with us, guides to the ultimate spiritual reality, which our Self-Realized sages have found to be the substratum of the ultimate physical reality.

According to their teachings, this ultimate spiritual reality is the consciousness of Brahman, and its nature is sat--reality/existence, chit--consciousness/knowledge and Ananda--bliss. They also teach us that as manifest discrete reality, we are all of that same nature at the level of Self--Atman/Brahman.

devotee
26 March 2011, 06:10 AM
Namaste Nirotu,


I cannot understand why you have to associate everything that is not correctly perceived as delusion. I disagree with that conclusion. Or is it that the term “delusion” is very loosely used? What about acquired knowledge? Our knowledge is not necessarily faulty but can be partial and incomplete. The misapprehension of reality can also be due to inappropriate application of knowledge. Incomplete knowledge does not necessarily lead us into delusional experience. Back in the 30s we only knew protons/neutrons/electrons to be the building blocks but later these ideas were dismissed when we found quarks and other particles with fractional charges. Does that mean those who won Nobel prizes, at the time based on prevailing theories, are delusional? Sorry, I am lost here.

You have to go deeper to understand the whole thing & then you will be able to appreciate why the use of word “delusion” is apt and correct. And for doing that you must leave your conditioned way of seeing things. You must question each and every concept, every word you use and everything that you have taken for granted till now. The Truth is alone sacred … apart from that there is nothing which is sacred. Everything is subject to rigorous logical and other ways of scrutiny before the same is accepted.

You have a strong Christian background and it is going to be very difficult for you to leave aside your biases which are built over several decades of “worldly learning”. But still I will try to explain this :

The illusion is not because of your delusion if your mind is capable of perceiving the reality but is not able to do that due to certain factors which hide the Truth. However, if you are not able to see the reality mainly because of your “faulty” mental construct then it is delusion. That is the case here and let’s see how it works :

a) Colour : Let’s take the example of perception of colour of a flower. What is the real cause behind the colour of the flower ? Even if you have the power to see the light-wave travelling as it is …. you cannot see colour unless your mind “sees” it ! Is there existence of colour in absence of mind ? Could you have seen colour if your mind was not designed to deceive you in a particular manner ? Is it not delusion ?

b) Touch : There is no touch in literal sense as no two atoms ever “touch” each other … they cannot come near each other less than a specified distance. But you still feel the touch … you are able to say by “touching” if something is soft or hard, rough, smooth etc. How ? The sense of touch only originates in mind … it is a reactionary feeling of some signal which is certainly not “touching”.

c) Unawareness about Itself : If I am really not deluded, I must know who I am … wherefrom I came into this world & why ! But we don’t know. We keep identifying ourselves with our body the whole life & one fine day we just leave this body. How does the Consciousness within a mother's body generates another consciousness in a separate body which has its own individuality completely different from the mother ? Wherefrom this consciousness comes ? Does the consciousness arise in unconscious things of this world from nowhere & then again goes back to nowhere once the form is destroyed ? Does it sound logical ? Why does this conscious being doesn’t know anything about itself if it is not deluded ?

Nobel Prize winners ? : They are better than most of us in relative sense. They can think and analyse more logically but they can explain only things which are in nature … they are as deluded as anyone else in terms of spirituality …. because they also don’t see the reality in the same manner as has been stated above. They don't know anything about consciousness. They see body working ... they don't know how the consciousness works. They don't know who they are ... they also think that they are just a body with a mind ... they start thinking of spirituality when they see that one day they have to leave this body which they are so proud of ... which has earned so many laurels in various field ... is going to be destroyed like anything else ... then they must be thinking that they were as ignorant as anyone else on this issue.

There is need to have a paradigm shift in logical analysis to understand the above. You can’t keep your Christian (or a dualist) mentality intact and see the above in right perspective. It is not possible.



The natural world and all creatures in it are not illusions; however, the way we perceive the natural world and other sentient life is an illusion. As to the illusion or falsehood of materiality, Advaita cannot deny the existence of material world. There is a reality to the material world. The reality cannot be unreal. It is a contradiction in terms. Besides, if there is no separation or clear distinction, there would not be any need to discuss mind, ego etc.

Reality is perceived in different manner depending upon from which reference point you are seeing the things. The Atman is unborn, deathless, ever free, omniscient, omnipotent & untainted which is what you are and that is what everything in this world is. However, we don’t perceive ourselves as the Atman … we don’t see this world as Atman. It is like the Atman is the Sea and there are a number of waves taking births and dying every moment. The one wave which is nothing but Sea identifies itself with the form, name & action of the wave & sees itself helpless … taking births and dying too. That exactly is our status. We think that we are born ... as if consciousness can be born ! ... we think that we would die ... as if consciousness dies !


IMO, “The God alone is real and everything else is unreal” is incorrectly interpreted by many advaitins. Do you agree?

How do you say so ? Something which is difficult to understand doesn’t become wrong. Right ?


It is my opinion that a proper interpretation would be to attribute a relative, not absolute, status or worth to it. Sage Shankara must have implied whatever worth material has is derived from the spiritual.Therefore, we must first accept that the illusion is not unreality but proper reality. Shankara may have meant that when the knowledge is complete our perception will represent correct apprehension of real reality. But, however hard man may try, it may be impossible for man to reach that state though the aspiration is there.

I don’t know what is in your mind but yes, Advaita does recognize relative truth and the absolute truth. The world as world is the relative truth … the world as Atman/Self/Brahman is the absolute truth. The world is what deludes you and it is again the world which helps you to understand what/who you really are !


The key then in my opinion is to learn to transcend perception and experience life directly through inner knowing. In general, the entire creation (mankind) has this inherent propensity to go either way. We either choose to do His will or that of the world. The problem is, it’s usually when the ego trying to do this, which invariably tries to place us in the direction opposite to God. The ego obviously cannot transcend itself, but perhaps it can understand itself well enough to realize its true position as servant and not master. When the ego stops trying to control everything, the higher senses (psychic, intuitive, clairvoyant, etc.) are able to arise, and perception changes. Self-awareness is the key to transcendent perception.” It is only when we realize who we are in relation to God, do we understand our relationship with each other. All our fighting among ourselves will stop when we realize the common enemy for all is one and the same – ego (evil) lurking in our hearts. It is only then, will we realize that the Kingdom of God is right her.

Dear Nirotu, this Advaita theory is not only a theory which is based on certain book/books or born in someone’s mind. It has been directly experienced by many and you also can experience it. Let me tell you that This is the Truth … and it offers you to verify it by experiencing it yourself. … and if you are happy with your dualist philosophy … Advaitins (including me) have no issues. We don’t want to change anyone’s beliefs. If it appeals to you, we may help … if you think you don’t need any help, it is perfectly OK. You can not be attracted towards it unless you are spiritually "ready".

OM

khalidrawat
26 March 2011, 11:28 AM
Dear Saidevo,

as far as form , and concept or nama are concerned , I think your account is quite in place. However, in the case of action , or karma, I think I need a few clarifications from you.

What does karma mean? Does it mean to undergo an effect as you have mentioned in the case of apple? In the mention of giraha, Upanishads tell us about eight senses in which we can know the world, I believe that taste is also one of them. So, how you have attached the action of an apple on the tongue, to produce a taste, as karma.

I am in fact confused why form is so different from other giraha that it is separately mentioned as the element of sat.

can you explain this to to me?

yajvan
26 March 2011, 12:04 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

A recommendation for the posters to kindly consider

Within these conversations the subject matter of māyā is being discussed. It would be helpful to offer your point of View -
that from the POV of ignorance or that from the point of view of a liberated being.This does make a difference.
Saidevo places some good ideas in front of us on name and form. For those with the blemish of ignorance, name and from
is front and center. Yet one that is an exponent of Reality, name and form is now secondary.

So, the conversation shifts. For the reader to 'keep score' - please consider stating your case by
informing us of POV the examples are given - from ignorance or from a liberated soul.


praṇām

khalidrawat
26 March 2011, 02:53 PM
namaste everyone.

Thanks to shrI khalidrawat that this thread is developing with nice perceptions about sat--absolute reality, and mAyA--practical/conditional reality.

Let us try to approach the distinction between sat and mAyA in this way:

• On the dining table, I find apples in a bowl. The apples are red, green and gold.

• I find two red apples to be the same in color--a visible attribute, but not in form--perceptible attribute, and yet I know them to be apples.

• I taste a piece of the red, golden and green apples: the red apple is the sweetest, the golden one is a bit sour and the green is distinctly tart. Yet I would call them all apples by their taste--a sensory attribute of a karaNa-indrya--sensory organ, jihva--tongue, in this case.

• In all the three cases above, I can identify the apples as apples although they differ in color, form and taste. Of these attributes, color, form and taste, which one looks the most real?

Color of course, because it is the most objective attribute perceived identically by everyone. Form is a mixture of the objective and the subjective, because it varies with the angle of vision and the visual skill of the viewer. Taste is perhaps the most subjective among the three kinds of attributes.

• How do I know them all to be apples in the first instance? Now that I know that this knowledge is not due to their rUpa--form, or karma--tasting slightly differently, is it because of their nAma--name, which has been embedded in my memory since my childhood, by teaching?

‣ It seems so, but then, if someone keeps me in a dark room with my eyes further secured with a black cloth and gives a piece each of those apples, I would still recognize them to be apples, because of the immanent nature of appleness in them.

‣ In the same way, if someone gives me a glass of juice from these apples, I would easily recognize it to be apple juice, although their form and color are dissolved.

‣ In both the above cases, notice that the nAma--name, remains, even after the rUpa--form and karma--action, are dissolved.

• So what does the appleness of the apples, and their three attributes nAma, rUpa and karma, show us? They show that

‣ nAma--name, is the most powerful, practical reality of the world, as a tag of identification to the mind, for thinking in concrete terms instead of abstract. Even to think in abstract we need a name.

For example, identifying the appleness is abstract thinking, and yet we required a label, name 'appleness' for it.

‣ rUpa--form, which is perceived by the senses and identified as concrete by the mind, is a practical reality of the next inner level, because it can and does change.

When I was in high school, we had a teacher whom we had known for many years only by his form, the most distinguishing feature of which was his long beard. Of course, we knew his name too, but then only to associate it with his form.

One morning, we saw a thoroughly clean-shaven stranger walking briskly into our classroom, sporting an understanding smile. It took us almost ten minutes to get reconciled to the fact that he was the same teacher minus his beard now! At that moment, I understood how name was more powerful, although it is associated with a form.

‣ karma--taste in the case of apples, is the next level of practical reality, which forms its lasting impression in mind. Where name and form are no longer there, we would still remember the karma--action. Thus we associate the action of a person, something good or bad he did, to remember him, after his form is gone on death and his name is forgotten eventually.

• That gets us to the immanent reality, appleness in our main example. This appleness has no attributes because it is the very nature of the apples. We cannot realize the appleness unless we cut or crush an apple and taste it, dissolving its form and color partially or completely.

‣ A person--an aborigine perhaps--who has not tasted apples ever or won't even know the name, would still find the taste of the three apples to have the same nature. This fact is a pointer to sat--the ultimate reality.

‣ The speciality of this nature of immanent reality--appleness is in its realization. We can't explain it, but everyone can taste it. The appleness is that sat--ultimate reality.

‣ We should also note that the immanent reality--appleness, is for ever manifest with a form and name. This is the interactive play of mAyA: sat--absolute reality, becomes sat--the existing reality, only through an instance of its manifestation, acquiring name, form and action.

‣ Because and when it manifests, it appears as different levels of reality, prompting some to remain to enjoy and be satisfied with just the surface reality, and a few others get deep into the inner levels.

Extending the concept of appleness, we would find that an apple and an orange are the same in their fruitness and recognize their sameness with a vegetable by the reality of their being an agricultural produce and so on.

• Directing our consciousness and exploring the levels of reality of our objective world guides us to their ultimate physical reality.

• Directing it to the inner levels of reality with us, guides to the ultimate spiritual reality, which our Self-Realized sages have found to be the substratum of the ultimate physical reality.

According to their teachings, this ultimate spiritual reality is the consciousness of Brahman, and its nature is sat--reality/existence, chit--consciousness/knowledge and Ananda--bliss. They also teach us that as manifest discrete reality, we are all of that same nature at the level of Self--Atman/Brahman.
Saidevo,

I totally agree with what you have said on the issue of rupa and nama. But on the issue of karma, in your examples of apple, I am not quite clear. For I believe that in Upanishads there are cited eight grahaas, and eight corrosponding objects. Tongue(jivah) is one of the sense organs. So, to consider the action of apple on it, or its action on apple to feel its taste, as karma, is not clear to me.

I believe that in Brhad Aranyaka Upanishad, Karma is discussed separately , and it says that it is the karma that decides the fate of a person after death.

Moreover, Rupa and rasan are separately discussed , at equal footing under the category of grahaas, jivah is as much a graha, as eye is.

So, first thing is to feel the taste of an apple does not appear to be the karma, if it is karma then to to see a form is also karma. So, this means that by which ever of the eight grahaas one perceives one performs a karam.

The question then remains as it is , why atman is called the union of the triad of rupa , nama and karma?

There must be some reason other than rupa and namas' merely being objects of perception, for there are six other objects of perception as well, so this shows that , in case of describing maya, truth and atman, upanishad refers to rupa and nama in some other context; there being objects of perception is not intended in it.

May be it has something to do with what remains of a person when he is dead? For, in after the discussion on grahaas, the question about what is left of a dead man is answered in the terms of nama and karma. And rupa is the result of karma.

So sat has a relationship with rebirth, with the life after death, for every life, according to the Upanishads is a life after death. every form is a result of karma, every name is a memory of what is dead?

Kindly enlighten me on these issues:

Om

Khalid Jamil Rawat

khalidrawat
26 March 2011, 03:12 PM
Saidevo ji, your post has clarified a lot. But what you mentioned , and this was my earlier position as well, is related to the discussion of grahaas. Rupa and nama are objects of grahaas, and tasting of an apple , which you have cited as a karma also belongs to the category of grahaa. Jivah is among the eight grahaas alongwith eye and speech.

So, it should be differentiated from karma as such. However, to see a form, to know a name and taste something are all are actions , hence karma.

But the question of maya and sat revolved around the assertion of Upanishad that sat is the triad of rupa nama and karma, sat is the veil of atma , but atma itself is the union of rupa, nama and karma.

I believe in what sense rupa , nama and karma are used in relationship with atma and maya becomes clear after the discussion og grahaas.

The question that what left of a person after death is answered in terms of nama. It is the name that remains, and also it is the karma that remains. And form itself is a result of karma.

So sat, karma , nama , rupa , karma and maya are to be understood in terms of life after death.

For according to Upanishad, every life is a life after death, every form is a result of karma and every name is a memory of dead?

So kindly enlighten me on this issue , how reincarnation and maya are related to each other, now that we understand how the triad of rupa , nama and karma is atma?

khalidrawat
26 March 2011, 08:17 PM
I believe that there is something to be further clarified in rupa , nama and karma, for after the discussion on eight grihaas, the question of what remains of a person after death was raised, and answered in terms of nama and karma. So what remains there of a person is the name and the action. Rupa or form eventually is the result of karma.

So, the question that how the triad of rupa , nama and karma is atma is clarified.

According to Upanishads every life is a life after death, every form is a fruit of karma and every name is a memory of dead?

So, the triad of rupa, nama and karma actually is the person, the atma .

This means that reincarnation has a lot to do with this triad, its being the person and how maya hides this from the vision. Obviously maya can only hide atma from an ignorant person, a liberated person already knows ...?

So what maya hides is the fact that the form is a result of karma, the name is what is left of a dead person, that is it is also something from the past.

In the case of language, linguistic sign as a combination of a concept and a sound, is actually presented as a dead in a tomb. The tomb is the sound image and dead is the concept, a memory of a past experience.

So, maya hides our past memories from us. But it is difficult to understand what is actually implied by nama here , is it the name a person has in his present status in the world?

How someone's name bears the memories of his previous births in the world, or of his karma, in his previous births, and how maya veils it? For it is in veiling or hiding these memories that maya hides from us our past.

Please enlighten me on these issues.

brahman
27 March 2011, 07:15 AM
namaste everyone.

Thanks to shrI khalidrawat that this thread is developing with nice perceptions about sat--absolute reality, and mAyA--practical/conditional reality.

Let us try to approach the distinction between sat and mAyA in this way:

• On the dining table, I find apples in a bowl. The apples are red, green and gold.

• I find two red apples to be the same in color--a visible attribute, but not in form--perceptible attribute, and yet I know them to be apples.

• I taste a piece of the red, golden and green apples: the red apple is the sweetest, the golden one is a bit sour and the green is distinctly tart. Yet I would call them all apples by their taste--a sensory attribute of a karaNa-indrya--sensory organ, jihva--tongue, in this case.

• In all the three cases above, I can identify the apples as apples although they differ in color, form and taste. Of these attributes, color, form and taste, which one looks the most real?

Color of course, because it is the most objective attribute perceived identically by everyone. Form is a mixture of the objective and the subjective, because it varies with the angle of vision and the visual skill of the viewer. Taste is perhaps the most subjective among the three kinds of attributes.

• How do I know them all to be apples in the first instance? Now that I know that this knowledge is not due to their rUpa--form, or karma--tasting slightly differently, is it because of their nAma--name, which has been embedded in my memory since my childhood, by teaching?

‣ It seems so, but then, if someone keeps me in a dark room with my eyes further secured with a black cloth and gives a piece each of those apples, I would still recognize them to be apples, because of the immanent nature of appleness in them.

‣ In the same way, if someone gives me a glass of juice from these apples, I would easily recognize it to be apple juice, although their form and color are dissolved.

‣ In both the above cases, notice that the nAma--name, remains, even after the rUpa--form and karma--action, are dissolved.

• So what does the appleness of the apples, and their three attributes nAma, rUpa and karma, show us? They show that

‣ nAma--name, is the most powerful, practical reality of the world, as a tag of identification to the mind, for thinking in concrete terms instead of abstract. Even to think in abstract we need a name.

For example, identifying the appleness is abstract thinking, and yet we required a label, name 'appleness' for it.

‣ rUpa--form, which is perceived by the senses and identified as concrete by the mind, is a practical reality of the next inner level, because it can and does change.

When I was in high school, we had a teacher whom we had known for many years only by his form, the most distinguishing feature of which was his long beard. Of course, we knew his name too, but then only to associate it with his form.

One morning, we saw a thoroughly clean-shaven stranger walking briskly into our classroom, sporting an understanding smile. It took us almost ten minutes to get reconciled to the fact that he was the same teacher minus his beard now! At that moment, I understood how name was more powerful, although it is associated with a form.

‣ karma--taste in the case of apples, is the next level of practical reality, which forms its lasting impression in mind. Where name and form are no longer there, we would still remember the karma--action. Thus we associate the action of a person, something good or bad he did, to remember him, after his form is gone on death and his name is forgotten eventually.

• That gets us to the immanent reality, appleness in our main example. This appleness has no attributes because it is the very nature of the apples. We cannot realize the appleness unless we cut or crush an apple and taste it, dissolving its form and color partially or completely.

‣ A person--an aborigine perhaps--who has not tasted apples ever or won't even know the name, would still find the taste of the three apples to have the same nature. This fact is a pointer to sat--the ultimate reality.

‣ The speciality of this nature of immanent reality--appleness is in its realization. We can't explain it, but everyone can taste it. The appleness is that sat--ultimate reality.

‣ We should also note that the immanent reality--appleness, is for ever manifest with a form and name. This is the interactive play of mAyA: sat--absolute reality, becomes sat--the existing reality, only through an instance of its manifestation, acquiring name, form and action.

‣ Because and when it manifests, it appears as different levels of reality, prompting some to remain to enjoy and be satisfied with just the surface reality, and a few others get deep into the inner levels.

Extending the concept of appleness, we would find that an apple and an orange are the same in their fruitness and recognize their sameness with a vegetable by the reality of their being an agricultural produce and so on.

• Directing our consciousness and exploring the levels of reality of our objective world guides us to their ultimate physical reality.

• Directing it to the inner levels of reality with us, guides to the ultimate spiritual reality, which our Self-Realized sages have found to be the substratum of the ultimate physical reality.

According to their teachings, this ultimate spiritual reality is the consciousness of Brahman, and its nature is sat--reality/existence, chit--consciousness/knowledge and Ananda--bliss. They also teach us that as manifest discrete reality, we are all of that same nature at the level of Self--Atman/Brahman.






Dear Sri Sai.

I respect your efforts as usual, for the way it wonderfully elucidates topics.

It has profited my perception in this manner:

The form of appearance called apple, the color of apple, the juice of apple, the taste of apple, the one who relishes the taste , all emanate from the same source ‘ appleness’. This application pertains to the manifestation of the immanent reality as the knower, the known and the knowledge.

The whole attributes stated above is determined by the one who tastes it (knower). In the absence of the taster, only the appleness remains indefinable.

Pondering on the above, we experience that in the absence of the knower, only the chit --consciousness/ knowledge remains, which is sat--reality/existence in essence.

So, it is the endless Maya in consciousness that manifests itself in infinite expressions of everything the physical elements, attributes and wholeness of this world.

Note: Appleness cannot exist without its nama, rupa, as gold can only exist in its ornamental form.
Thanks

-------------


Now Sri. Sai, I have a small doubt about the Karma you related in the example here

is it the Karma the taste or is it the creative urge in the one ultimate Reality, that is the Sat and Chit at same time, to emanate from Itself all the conditioned or superimposed form from Itself, resulting in the appearance of the constantly flowing world,

Because Srimad Gita in defines Karma as “the specific creative urge that causes the emanation of beings is to be understood by the term Karma.”

भूतभावोद्भवकरो विसर्गः कर्मसंज्ञितः ||८-३||
bhUtabhAvodbhavakaro visargaH karmasa.nGYitaH .. 8\-3


I look forward to your most precise thoughts on this.

Lots of love and respect:)

saidevo
28 March 2011, 09:49 AM
namaste sarvashrI khalidrawat, yajvan, brahman and others.

I am glad that my post no.16 with its illutstrations is well received, except for some doubts about the karma part of a particular manifestation. Let me try to explain it below.

01. Let us first remember that there is no term as karma or karmA in SaMskRtam! The term karma is only for comparative usage of the actual term karman, which has the following meanings:

01. Action, work, deed. 02. Execution, performance. 03. Business, office, duty.
04. A religious rite. 05. A specific action, moral duty.
06. Performance of religious rites as opposed to jnAna--knowledge of Brahman.
07. Product, result. 08. A natural or active property.
09. Fate, the certain consequence of acts done in a former life.
10. (gram.) the object of action.
11. Motion, considered as one of the seven categories of things vaisheShika darshanam.

We are so overwhelmingly aware of only the fateful consequences of actions by the term karma, that we often tend to forget that the term is used in several contexts in the other meanings. In my illustration, the term karma means action (specially as it pertains to the nature--svabhAva, of a thing or person) and movement.

*****

02. In dealing with Brahman, mAyA or shakti and universe or prakRti, we use the following terms:

‣ chit-sat-Ananda--consciousness, being/existence, bliss.
‣ jnAna-shakti, kriyA-shakti, ichChA-shakti--powers to know, think and desire.
‣ sattva, rajas, tamas--qualities of illumination, mobility, denial/inertia.
‣ guNa, karma, dravya--quality, movement, substance/matter.

How do they relate to each other in the countless manifestations of Brahman through his shakti as this universe--prakRti with its chetana--sentient and acheta--insentient life?

*****

03. BhagavAn DAs, in his book The Science of Peace gives us the relationship thus:

• The first triad is the three aspects of Brahman: chit-sat-Ananda.

• The corresponding triad of Shakti manifesting as individual consciousness is: jnAna-shakti, kriyA-shakti, ichChA-shakti.

• The corresponding triad of guNas in PrakRtti--universal matter, is: sattva, rajas, tamas.

• and the corresponding triad in particularised matter is: guNa, karma, dravya.

It may be noted that the usual order of the first triad--sat-chit-Ananda, has been changed above, to relate them to the lower triads that arise in manifestation.

As to why/how the triads relate to each other in this specific manner:

Brahman vs shakti--individual consciousness

• sat and kriyA, or existence and creation: sat as existence relates to kriyA-shakti--power of creation.

• chit and jnAna, or consciousness and knowledge: chit as consciousness relates to jnAna-shakti--power of knowledge.

• Ananda and ichChA, or bliss and desire: Ananda as bliss relates to ichChA-shakti--power of desire.

Brahman vs PrakRti--universal matter

• sat and rajas, or actionless Being and alterable movement: At the substratum, sat is actionless Being; at the manifested level it relates to rajo-guNa, as alterable movement.

• chit and sattva, or cognitionless Consciousness and cognisable quality: At the substratum, chit is cognitionless Consciousness; at the manifested level it relates to sattva-guNa, as the quality of cognition.

• Ananda and tamas, or desireless Bliss and desirable substantiality: At the substratum, Ananda is desireless bliss; at the manifested level it relates to tamas-guNa, as the propensity towards desire, in manifestation.

Brahman vs chetana-achetana life--particularised matter and life-form

• sat and karma: actionless Being manifests as karma--alterable movement, in life-forms.

• chit and guNa as cosciousness and its power of cognition, manifests as guNa--quality, of a life-form.

• Ananda and dravya: as desireless bliss, manifests as dravya--substance, or the natural content of a life-form.

In summary, creation manifests from Brahman to a specific life-form in the following relationship of its nature.

chit--jnAna shakti--sattva guNa--guNa
sat--kriyA shakti--rajas guNa--karma
Ananda--ichChA shakti--tamas guNa--dravya

*****

04. Let us now try to apply this knowledge to our example of the apples.

• Since the apple is sweet in taste, we can say that its specific and universal guNa is sattva, which is the result of Brahman's chit through jnAna-shakti.

• Although a sattvic fruit, apples ripe and rot, with their svadharma is being food to other life-forms, so its karma--movement/action, that corrsponds to rajo-guNa is the result of the kriyA-shakti of Brahman's sat.

• The substance--dravya, an apple is made of, belongs to the realm of tamas guNa, since the apple a life-form of lesser consciousness (with no desire or free will), which in turn, corresponds to Brahman's Ananda.

*****

Knower, knowledge and known

The apple is a life-form of lesser consciousness. Can it be a knower of what it is, and can that knowledge lead it to Brahman as the ultimate known?

Since no human can speak with empirical certainty about it, we need to take the words of shruti as the ultimate truth, which is:

sarvaM khalvidaM brahma tajjalAniti shAnta upAsIta |
--Chandogya upaniShad, 3.14.1

"Verily, all this universe is Brahman. From Him do all things originate, into Him do they dissolve and by Him are they sustained."

At least in the case of an apple we know that it never swerves from its svakraman--action of being sweet, and svadharma--being a fruit for consumption.

*****

As to Brahman's question in post no.23:
"is it the Karma the taste or is it the creative urge in the one ultimate Reality?"

I think it is both, because there are two points of view. From the relationship of triads explained above, we know that the apple is a specific instance of manifestation of Brahman's creative urge, which has given this life-form its own karma--action/movement, of taste, with the corresponding other attributes.

I urge every member to peruse the book The Science of Peace by BhagavAn DAs, which I have serialized in many threads starting here:

'adhyAtmavidyA' in Synthesis: 1. The Great Questioning
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2598

Corrections to my explanations above are welcome.

*****

devotee
28 March 2011, 10:23 AM
Namaste Khalid,


First of all I cannot understand why you equated me with zakir naik?

Because you are facing the problem of not getting gems from the Upanishads but instead getting pebbles each time you are taking a dip into the sea full of gems. :(


Second thing that my question was niether out of context, nor it was so meaningless.

It was ridiculous, if I use the correct term. ... and it is not to offend you. Please try to understand why your understanding & your questions are absurd. Please see the inferences you are drawing :

a)
Sat , or real is not Atman, Sat is the veil of atman ===> when the Atman alone is the Truth, the ultimate reality. The use of "sat" in the verse taken by you to draw this conclusion doesn't refer to the Absolute Truth.

b)
Even sat is a hindrance in the path of Self realization ===> Tell me, shall I laugh or weep at such a conclusion ? Is this the message of the Upanishads ?

c)
Why then sat is searched for or valued in-itself, for everything is deer only for the Atman, and nothing is deer in-itself

??? what do you want to say ?

d)
Truth is Shiv and Shiv is Sunder, yet they are not to be desired in themselves, for everything is deer for the sake of Atman. So even Satyam Shivam Sundram can be a veil for Atma?

This is simply height of absurdity !

****************

I tried to explain this at http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=6767&page=2 however, you have not learnt anything from that. Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote. I again advise you to read the answer given.

... and now you claim that you have found the answers yourself ?


I have myself found the answer to my question. So if you are interested in knowing you can ask me to share it with you.


Can you share those answers with this forum ?

OM

khalidrawat
29 March 2011, 05:06 PM
Yes , I will share the answer. But first thing that I want to say , and I must say is this , to ask questions and to answer questions , is the way of acquiring knowledge in Upanishads.

Second, I don't want to say a lot of things, only on the basis of my imagination and speculation, that I have not experienced. But I will share my answer , even though I believe that I don't have experienced these things.

Styam, Shivam , Sundaram, this beautiful line , in the context of monism of advaita philosophy, means that existence or sat( For I consider sat as that which exists) so whatever exists is shiv and shiv is , as you have said is attractive.

But the supreme Brahma is never manifested , and Shiv , since Shiv is manifest is not Brahma . So, the argument cuts both ways, on the one hand whatever is , is Shiv, and that it is attractive, on the other hand, whatever is , is Shiv, but Shiv is not Brahman, the ultimate(I am not going to use the word reality, for reality for me is that which exists), so, being different from Brahman , Shiv is a Veil that hides the realization of Brahma. Because advaita philosophy takes us towards oneness , undivided monism.

But , I think that a devotee has to resolve this issue while keeping everything intact, however, monism means an annihilation of everything else, it means that there is a unity in which the triad of Chit-Sat-Anand is dissolved and becomes one .

This means that if one sees sat as distinct from himself, shiv as distinct from himself, than he has not yet achieved that unified blissful consciousness.

This consciousness can be achieved through dissolving the distinction between consciousness and a particular object, and at a higher lever through dissolving the different between universe and self. The aim however , is to attain anand through overcoming the difference between consciousness and Sat, or reality , or even a particular object.

devotee
30 March 2011, 10:04 AM
Namaste Khalid,


I want to say , and I must say is this , to ask questions and to answer questions , is the way of acquiring knowledge in Upanishads.

That is right. But please read/listen to answers given to understand the things in correct perspective. There are more than 200 Upanishads and 108 Upanishads are important ones. Then there is Bhagwad Gita and explanations given by exemplary Hindu saints which should be kept in mind for correct understanding of the Upanishads. Instead you are taking one sentence out of context and trying to formulate your own understanding which is actually contrary to the teachings of the Upanishads. You have chosen Brihdaranyak Upanishd which is written in story style & the idea develops slowly to finally come to the Ultimate Truth.


Second, I don't want to say a lot of things, only on the basis of my imagination and speculation, that I have not experienced. But I will share my answer , even though I believe that I don't have experienced these things.

But what is the basis of such an understanding ?


But the supreme Brahma is never manifested , and Shiv , since Shiv is manifest is not Brahma.

Again you got it wrong. Mandukya Upanishad tells us that Brahman has four states. The first two states are manifested, the third is God-state and the Fourth is attributeless which cannot be described.

Moreover, you must understand that manifestation or non-manifestation has meaning only within mental realm. The Brahman is neither manifested nor non-manifested. It is neither form nor formlessness. These are nothing but mental concepts and have no meaning in real sense. That what you think is manifested is the same that is non-manifest ... the essence of everything is same i.e. the Brahman.


So, the argument cuts both ways, on the one hand whatever is , is Shiv, and that it is attractive, on the other hand, whatever is , is Shiv, but Shiv is not Brahman, the ultimate(I am not going to use the word reality, for reality for me is that which exists), so, being different from Brahman , Shiv is a Veil that hides the realization of Brahma. Because advaita philosophy takes us towards oneness , undivided monism.

The concepts Satyam, Shivam & Sundaram are within the mental realm. These re the perceived attributes of God (the Controller, the Lord of all, the origin and end of all beings in the first two states) is the third state of Brahman. It is not that Shiv is the veil that hides the realisation of Brahman. It would be ridiculous understanding. These are the attributes of Brahman in the third state. In fact, these attributes draw the devotees to the path of devotion ... these attributes for Brahman to act as the God which is the Lord of all.


But , I think that a devotee has to resolve this issue while keeping everything intact, however, monism means an annihilation of everything else, it means that there is a unity in which the triad of Chit-Sat-Anand is dissolved and becomes one.

You can't resolve it mentally and achieve realisation of Brahman. It is not only a mental exercise. Realisation of Brahman or Self-realisation is a path of rigorous discipline, devotion and discrimination. Self-realisation is the ultimate goal when all your questions are answered when all restlessness stops and when complete freedom is achieved.


This means that if one sees sat as distinct from himself, shiv as distinct from himself, than he has not yet achieved that unified blissful consciousness.
This consciousness can be achieved through dissolving the distinction between consciousness and a particular object, and at a higher lever through dissolving the different between universe and self. The aim however , is to attain anand through overcoming the difference between consciousness and Sat, or reality , or even a particular object.

The One-ness is attained through the path of Yoga under the guidance of Guru.

If you are really interested in learning the basics of Advaita please go through carefully the thread http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4824 .

OM

khalidrawat
31 March 2011, 06:23 AM
than kyou for providing this thread.

devotee
31 March 2011, 10:35 PM
You are welcome ! Please read the whole thread & then if you have any questions, please free to ask. :)

OM

brahman
01 April 2011, 05:28 AM
*****

As to Brahman's question in post no.23:
"is it the Karma the taste or is it the creative urge in the one ultimate Reality?"




I think it is both, because there are two points of view.

Dear Sri Sai, I think only you are right because I kept my post a personal illustration alone, overlooking Sri. Khalid's views, as I read through the initial post. You were absolutely right, as I see it now through his eyes. love and respect:)

charlebs
01 May 2011, 05:58 AM
sometimes maya shows me the most disturbing things....

khalidrawat
17 August 2011, 05:24 PM
What does brahman consciousness symbolizes?

devotee
17 August 2011, 10:46 PM
What does brahman consciousness symbolizes?

There is no question of any symbolisation. Consciousness is Brahman (the third state of Brahman).

OM

Brian
17 August 2011, 11:28 PM
In Hindu Dharma there are lots of Upanishads,Epics and Sacred books.These books describe how to maintain culture,tradition and maintain piece in the society.People believe that Maya has negative effects.If anyone can balance his mind and attitude then Maya cannot do anything.

yajvan
17 August 2011, 11:41 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


In Hindu Dharma there are lots of Upanishads,Epics and Sacred books.These books describe how to maintain culture,tradition and maintain piece in the society.People believe that Maya has negative effects.If anyone can balance his mind and attitude then Maya cannot do anything.

Māyā in ignorance is mischief; māyā in the fullness of Being is joy, the dance of the universe.

praṇām

kallol
18 August 2011, 02:55 AM
Good that the thread is still live. Topic is great too.

My understanding :

We as humans are limited by our senses - the 5 senses eye, ear, skin, tongue and nose. anything and everything we try to understand are though the signals we receive through these.

Beyond this, if anything is there, we can only infer and assume but hardly have the capability to prove.

Again the objects which are identified by these senses are only appreciated and dealt with.

Take our everyday life - our environment, ecology, relationships, belongings, our actions towards those, etc are all related to these 5 senses. Through these senses, we get stuck to the above entities and lead the life.

Do general people think anything beyond that ? answer is NO.

Again do you think that all these objects and actions towards these objects are permanent ? again the answer is NO.

When we get attached to impermanence thinking that it is permanent, we are subjected to the fluctuations in mental state. The impermanence of these objects and related actions bring the change in the state of mind and those create the pains and pleasures.

What happens if we know that these are not permanent ?

I have built a beautiful sand house in the beach. Real beautiful. If I take the house as permanent, then the impermanence brought to it by the sea waves, will affect me. If I know that the house is impermanent and the sand is more permanent (and mentally get more attached that), I am not subjected to the fluctuations.

Expand the time and maturity of the mind to grasp the whole creation right from the lowest form to the universe. The impermanence is written everywhere. Only the time varies.

Actions are towards nama and rupa - that is why till one reaches the knowledge part of SD fully, he / she is still in the maya state. The nama, rupa and the actions towards those, are under the purview of maya.

Now with the dissolution of the perceivable objects / universe, the system returns back to permanent state of Brahman. Just like any entity which is consisting of matter and consciousness, Brahman also has the same. The consciousness part is linked to the "self" and the matter part is linked to the energy.

Lest there is confusion, we need to keep in mind that, the existence is at systems level i.e. both together is 1 entity. Just like me - body without consciousness is not kallol. Or the consciousness is not kallol. Together is kallol and this is out of the same raw material called Brahman. This percolates at all level - highest to lowest.

Love and best wishes

khalidrawat
22 August 2011, 09:37 AM
There is no question of any symbolisation. Consciousness is Brahman (the third state of Brahman).

OM
By symbolization I mean this:

When we see something our consciousness represents that thing to us. Our imganition presents things in their absence , and our senses in the presence of things present them. The third element is our though in which reason operates.

Now, for time being let us forget about the knowledge coming through senses. Focus only on imagination. Imagination presents a picture or a moving film of whatever we imagine, and our consciousness receives it. It becomes a symbol of the reality of which the image it receives(for the real situation is different from its imagined picture). If I imagine myself playing cricket in a match that I actually played, I also watch myself playing, whereas I was not given to my own sense experience when I was playing.

This shows that imagination is first of all a symbol or reality(what we know through senses, or what actually happened). In this manner my consciousness becomes what I passed through" in the past'.

Now let us talk about Brahma consciousness. What situation is this, is it the image of a thing, or reality, as perceived by the senses , and later on presented to the consciousness as an image, or it is thought, which tells us that all images are un real, only symbols or reality, presenting it in their absence.

Or this brahma consciousness is neither imagination, nor thought, and in it consciousness becomes completely empty, nothing , and has no reception. If it is this nothingness, or the state of being conscious of nothing, then what is its importance.

As a conclusion Brahma consciousness is neither the awareness or reality(things) nor imagination, neither reason, or thought. Then what it is , whatelse we have besides these enumerated above? Is it not nothing?

khalidrawat
22 August 2011, 09:40 AM
Good that the thread is still live. Topic is great too.

My understanding :

We as humans are limited by our senses - the 5 senses eye, ear, skin, tongue and nose. anything and everything we try to understand are though the signals we receive through these.

Beyond this, if anything is there, we can only infer and assume but hardly have the capability to prove.

Again the objects which are identified by these senses are only appreciated and dealt with.

Take our everyday life - our environment, ecology, relationships, belongings, our actions towards those, etc are all related to these 5 senses. Through these senses, we get stuck to the above entities and lead the life.

Do general people think anything beyond that ? answer is NO.

Again do you think that all these objects and actions towards these objects are permanent ? again the answer is NO.

When we get attached to impermanence thinking that it is permanent, we are subjected to the fluctuations in mental state. The impermanence of these objects and related actions bring the change in the state of mind and those create the pains and pleasures.

What happens if we know that these are not permanent ?

I have built a beautiful sand house in the beach. Real beautiful. If I take the house as permanent, then the impermanence brought to it by the sea waves, will affect me. If I know that the house is impermanent and the sand is more permanent (and mentally get more attached that), I am not subjected to the fluctuations.

Expand the time and maturity of the mind to grasp the whole creation right from the lowest form to the universe. The impermanence is written everywhere. Only the time varies.

Actions are towards nama and rupa - that is why till one reaches the knowledge part of SD fully, he / she is still in the maya state. The nama, rupa and the actions towards those, are under the purview of maya.

Now with the dissolution of the perceivable objects / universe, the system returns back to permanent state of Brahman. Just like any entity which is consisting of matter and consciousness, Brahman also has the same. The consciousness part is linked to the "self" and the matter part is linked to the energy.

Lest there is confusion, we need to keep in mind that, the existence is at systems level i.e. both together is 1 entity. Just like me - body without consciousness is not kallol. Or the consciousness is not kallol. Together is kallol and this is out of the same raw material called Brahman. This percolates at all level - highest to lowest.

Love and best wishes

I believe that you are right that the pain is felt because reason tells that the nothing is permanant, yet the reality is there. Things are there, though temporarily, so how do you think that reason is united with images or temporary reality, in a unified consciousness. Can you tell me about any symbols representing the permanance and temporary nature as a blend?

khalidrawat
22 August 2011, 09:41 AM
In Hindu Dharma there are lots of Upanishads,Epics and Sacred books.These books describe how to maintain culture,tradition and maintain piece in the society.People believe that Maya has negative effects.If anyone can balance his mind and attitude then Maya cannot do anything.
What do you mean here by balancing of mind and attitude? Is it merely a behavioral issue?

devotee
22 August 2011, 11:01 PM
By symbolization I mean this:

When we see something our consciousness represents that thing to us. Our imganition presents things in their absence , and our senses in the presence of things present them. The third element is our though in which reason operates.

Now, for time being let us forget about the knowledge coming through senses. Focus only on imagination. Imagination presents a picture or a moving film of whatever we imagine, and our consciousness receives it. It becomes a symbol of the reality of which the image it receives(for the real situation is different from its imagined picture). If I imagine myself playing cricket in a match that I actually played, I also watch myself playing, whereas I was not given to my own sense experience when I was playing.

This shows that imagination is first of all a symbol or reality(what we know through senses, or what actually happened). In this manner my consciousness becomes what I passed through" in the past'.

Now let us talk about Brahma consciousness. What situation is this, is it the image of a thing, or reality, as perceived by the senses , and later on presented to the consciousness as an image, or it is thought, which tells us that all images are un real, only symbols or reality, presenting it in their absence.

Or this brahma consciousness is neither imagination, nor thought, and in it consciousness becomes completely empty, nothing , and has no reception. If it is this nothingness, or the state of being conscious of nothing, then what is its importance.

As a conclusion Brahma consciousness is neither the awareness or reality(things) nor imagination, neither reason, or thought. Then what it is , whatelse we have besides these enumerated above? Is it not nothing?

Your question is too hazy and mixed up to understand what you want to ask. However, let me give some indication which may perhaps, help you :

a) Consciousness works at three levels :


Waking Consciousness - helps us in our day-to-day functions, witnessing, recording data for subconsciousness

Sub-Consciousness : re-play of impressions gathered through sense organs or directly through mind ==> in Dreams/on death

Super-Consciousness : This is untainted Consciousness which is the light of God within us


b) Imagination is creative action of the waking consciousness wherein it takes the data from the sub-consciousness (i.e. the gathered impressions from the past) for creating the desired subtle objects

c) Any gross object or an imagined picture or memory is neither real nor unreal ... it depends from what state you are looking at them (from waking state, the dream objects are unreal but from dreaming state, the dream objects are real within the dream)

d) The Consciousness though one can appear to be many different consciousness. The Consciousness that you are is not the "you" that you think. It is something much bigger than that. Why ? If you are only what you think you are ... why are you not aware of what is going on inside your body ? The Consciousness which drives your heart/kidney/stomach/defense mechanism "unconsciously" is the same Consciousness from where the thought of "I" arises.

OM

khalidrawat
23 August 2011, 04:28 PM
Devotee, if that is true that my consciousness of myself encompasses those things of which apparently I am not conscious, then what is the meaning of Freudian ego, that acts merely as an intelligence working to carry out the demands of Id. Ego, in Freudian psychology does not include the whole self, the inner function(for what my organs are doing now is not given to me). And what does it mean to know this "I" , the one you pointed out, the real self that commands the ' worldly intelligence operating for life necessities in the material world."

khalidrawat
23 August 2011, 04:32 PM
My point about imagination is this , as you also have pointed out: Things in imagination are neither real nor fake, however our reason tells us that this is only a phantasy and not the reality. This question comes to my mind because, the source of existence is unknown, and keeping in view the temporary nature of existence, one can say that , like a phantasy it is and it is not(obviously reasoning is required to reach this conclusion). So how 'isness' and ' non being' are simultaneuously present in the things.

khalidrawat
23 August 2011, 04:35 PM
If I know myself , in the fullest sense, I will be aware of it, and will it be an image of myself that I will have or a rational description, or an amalgamation of the two. There is another question, and please answer it separately. What is the relationship between reason, or " Aql(in Urdu)" and imagination. How these two can be combined in a third.

devotee
23 August 2011, 11:08 PM
Namaste Khalidrawat,


Devotee, if that is true that my consciousness of myself encompasses those things of which apparently I am not conscious, then what is the meaning of Freudian ego, that acts merely as an intelligence working to carry out the demands of Id. Ego, in Freudian psychology does not include the whole self, the inner function(for what my organs are doing now is not given to me). And what does it mean to know this "I" , the one you pointed out, the real self that commands the ' worldly intelligence operating for life necessities in the material world."

I am an engineer by profession and so my inclination has been naturally towards science. However, I did try to study Psychology books at one point of time and I was not impressed at all by the Freudian postulations. How can you conduct experiments on mentally deranged people and come out with a theory for all mentally sound people ? Moreover, Freud appears too much bogged down with his own sense of excessive importance of sex in everyone's behaviour.

Though Freud is still respected being one of the pioneers in the field of Psychology, his theories are more or less useless. When managing people in working environment, we hardly use Freudian theory ... there are many other theories which are able to explain human behaviour better.

So, frankly speaking, I have little respect for Freud and his theories. So, I won't like to discuss his theories here. Moreover, the psychology doesn't discuss Consciousness. It discusses how a person behaves in a certain circumstances and why ! That is not Consciousness.

*******

"I"-ness is a wave of thought arising in the field of Consciousness that you are. What is it ? There is something appearing to be very-very real and primary to our existence ... the though that I am different from others ... "I" is that which feels tha pain and pleasure within this body-mind entity ... that which takes the ownership of all doing by body and mind ... It is "I" within you which claims that you are Khalidrawat.

This "I" keeps changing from one time to the other depending upon our mental status ... depending upon whether we are waking or dreaming, imagining etc. The actor-"I" in your dream is not the same as the "I"-the dreamer. This "I" can also change by a shock to your brain or mental derangement. The "I" disappears when you are in deep sleep. This "I" is not real ... it is a just a wave of thought ... this "I" is the proof that you exist but it is not the whole of your existence. The whole of your existence is the Consciousness that you are. This Consciousness gives rise to the "I" in you, it ensures that all organs within your body work as per their role. This Consciousness creates the dream when you are sleeping ... this Consciousness is the dreamer when you dream ... it is also the actor-"I" and also all characters participating in your dream. This One Consciousness that you really are ... is capable of apparently manifesting itself in multitude.

********

Imagination is unreal when you are seeing from your waking state. Within the field of imagination, everything is relatively real. If you go to the definition of how we define "real" or "unreal" ... it is all our mental concepts. The things that we see or perceive are actually not the way we see/perceive ... they appear to be so within a given mental framework.

*******

"Aql" is an Urdu word for intelligence but its meaning is too limited. It refers to only waking intelligence. However, the intelligence that you are is not limited ... it works even when you are not awake ... it is not dependent on your brain ... but is related with your existence. So, we can say that "Aql" is nothing but waking intelligence & doesn't represent "you" in reality. This "Aql" is dependent on many circumstances which affect it positively or negatively. The "intelligence" that you are is unaffected by circumstances .... the "aql" is a phenomena within Consciousness that you are.

Imagination is a waking mental effort and is therefore, dependent on "Aql". Reasoning too is a waking mental effort and therefore, this too is dependent on "Aql".

OM

kallol
24 August 2011, 01:38 PM
I believe that you are right that the pain is felt because reason tells that the nothing is permanant, yet the reality is there. Things are there, though temporarily, so how do you think that reason is united with images or temporary reality, in a unified consciousness. Can you tell me about any symbols representing the permanance and temporary nature as a blend?

Dear Khalid,

Generally the pain is felt because we assume each state as permanent, which is not correct.

It is the knowledge and upliftment of mind which bring in the stability and maturity of mind. As we get matured, we are not emotionally swayed as do the youngsters. This is because we have gathered wisdom and are able to learn that the extreme joy or pain is temporary.

The factors which affects the emotions varies with age and maturity. The perfect position is when one can get stuck with brahman which is the permanent state. Then these temporary states will not be looked at separately. Then the these temporary states will be used accordingly.

Again this is the perfect happiness / blissful state. We can only incrementally move towards it.

I did not understand the symbol part. In knowledge there is no symbol - it is only knowledge - a knowledge to live with

Love and best wishes

khalidrawat
27 August 2011, 09:05 AM
"This One Consciousness that you really are ... is capable of apparently manifesting itself in multitude. "

This is true.
Now the question is about another consciousness that is of the wonder on the question, why I am , why I am not? Why there are things or Being, why there isn't nothing? This they regard as the basic question of philosophy. And in this question my own existence , or being in general is presented to me as separated from nothingness? But the thing as as soon as I realize that I am , beingness in general, I also come across the question , how it was , or it is made possible that I/ Being is and not nothing? This question seems to be the most general question.

khalidrawat
27 August 2011, 09:07 AM
"This One Consciousness that you really are ... is capable of apparently manifesting itself in multitude. "

This is true.
Now the question is about another consciousness that is of the wonder on the question, why I am , why I am not? Why there are things or Being, why there isn't nothing? This they regard as the basic question of philosophy. And in this question my own existence , or being in general is presented to me as separated from nothingness? But the thing as as soon as I realize that I am , beingness in general, I also come across the question , how it was , or it is made possible that I/ Being is and not nothing? This question seems to be the most general question.

khalidrawat
27 August 2011, 09:12 AM
Thankyou, and both you and devotee have given the perfect answers, which actually satisfied the curiosity on this subject.

However one question that always comes to mind is about the knowledge of previous births, how come that a person knows about previous births.

Spiritualseeker
27 August 2011, 11:22 AM
Namaste all,

Khalidrawat I think Wahdat al-Wujud also is this experience of pure consciousness and that path of being Wahdat al-Wujud is seeing that the ego is illusion, which occurs with Annihilation into God. I wonder what your views concerning this eternal truth that is explained in two supposedly different traditions.

devotee
28 August 2011, 02:25 AM
Deleted ... double posting

devotee
28 August 2011, 03:05 AM
Namaste Khalid,

This "being" or "non-being" ... "existence" or "non-existence" ... are all mental concepts. A being is perceived as a "being" ... or a non-being is perceived as "non-being" ... that is all. The real character of everything which includes both being and non-being is not graspable by mind.

There is no difference between "anything", "everything" and "nothing" ... they are perceived as such because of the mind and the vibration of consciousness which creates the illusion of all this multitude.

*********

Some people can carry the memory of their past births. However, everyone of us carries the impressions of his Karma/tendencies in our past births. This because the individual consciousness carries the past impressions with it just as wind blowing over a flower carries the fragrance of the flower with it. This mind is destroyed ( When the Self is realised the mind vanishes ) in Samadhi. The false attachment of our ego-self is broken and the self realises that it is nothing but the Cosmic Self.

OM

khalidrawat
29 August 2011, 07:29 AM
Namaste all,

Khalidrawat I think Wahdat ul-Wujud also is this experience of pure consciousness and that path of being Wahdat al-Wujud is seeing that the ego is illusion, which occurs with Annihilation into God. I wonder what your views concerning this eternal truth that is explained in two supposedly different traditions.

Wahdat ul wajood is a consciousness of unity. My views about Wahdat ul Wajood are inspired by " Phenomenological Tradition in European Philosophy."I find all these traditions, European philosophy, Wahdat ul Wajood and Upanishads talking similarly about the reality.
I am manifested in different states like dream, waking, imaginative, pure thought and silence. In each of these states I am manifested in several ways , and the number of these possibilities reaches infinity. However, the one that manifests itself in all these infinite manifestations is the " one" and the same.
This is the meaning of wah dat ul wajood for me, that " Wajood" or reality or " Sat is one.
Second tier of this thought starts with this question: Whether or not there is a bigger cosmic whole , or " form" of which all these many are parts? To conceive such a unity is beyond my powers , and I cannot see everything as a part of a bigger whole. This higher realization is the aim of all philosophy. The knowledge of the metaphysical principle behind reality or " Sat".
I take reality , wajood , existence and Sat, and truth in the similar meaning.
From a dualist perspective, Sat, reality, existence , or truth are different from the metaphysical cause behind them. From a wahdat ul wajood perspective these are one with their cause.
For instance if we differentiate " I" from its various manifestaion, then we reach a dualistic point of view. If we take all manifestations one with the manifested " I" , then it might be called wahdat ul wajood.
However, for the greatest exponent of Wahdat ul wajood, like Hallaj bin Mansoor, or Ibn al Arabi, there is a link between the Sat and what manifests itself in Sat or existence. That link also exists between the higher realization that " reality is illusion" and perception of reality, and that link is provided by human ego.
I want to learn about this particular link.