Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: Mind - Everything?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    June 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    572
    Rep Power
    820

    Re: Mind - Everything?

    Dear Amrut.,

    Doing Quick Reply...

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

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

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

    Hare Krshna!

  2. #12
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1364

    Re: Mind - Everything?

    Quote Originally Posted by grames View Post
    Dear Amrut.,

    Doing Quick Reply...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thanks for giving the explanation about 'other faith'

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

    Two questions:

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

    2. Is advaita for everybody?

    OM
    Only God Is Truth, Everything Else Is Illusion - Ramakrishna
    Total Surrender of Ego to SELF is Real Bhakti - Ramana Maharshi

    Silence is the study of the scruptures. Meditation is the continuous thinking of Brahman which is to be meditated upon. The complete negation of both by knowledge is the vision of truth – sadAcAra-14 of Adi SankarAcArya

    namah SivAya vishnurUpAya viShNave SivarUpiNe, MBh, vanaparva, 3.39.76

    Sanskrit Dict | MW Dict | Gita Super Site | Hindu Dharma

  3. #13
    Join Date
    June 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    572
    Rep Power
    820

    Re: Mind - Everything?

    Dear Amrut.,

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

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


    If we keep focus on name then name keeps continues, name or mantra does not end into silence and the bhava increases, so much so that even by muttering name few times one is filled with bhava and hair stands on it's end.
    Utter one, two, one,two in sequence for say 1008 times! For truth sake and experience sake, please give a try and see if your hair stand up or your legs stands up! The BhavaVrtti happens not because of just some name but because the Name of Lord is eternal and has the potency to bear the spritual realization on the Sadhaka. Your observation is perfect but the understanding is somewhat not aligning with your observation as you made the name as just any other name which is not the case!

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



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

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

    See, just saying 'I am jiva' too wont work. It has to be an experience. Till then will must have faith in our guru and shastras.
    Thats right! If such situation arises, the "I" already knows and experience itself as "The Brahman" and that is the "Advaitam". Its a unique situation as either you are "Brahman" or you don't know you are "That"! (Its even more unique that, you have to be reminded that, "You are That")

    Getting back on topic, a certain level of purity is required to do atma-chintan.
    This is requirement for every path of spiritual practice and progress - so not a special demand of Advaita alone!

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

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


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

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

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

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

    This again requires one to enquirer, as you have said, 'who says jiva experiences?' find, dive deep.
    In fact, its a question to you to explore and deep dive! . What you cannot admit due to your school of faith is not my problem! In my school of faith and also rationally, a Jiva is equipped with "Cognition" and thus, its self witness! ( Hope you do know the concept of Sakshi and if not, please google for it and know how it is explained in Vaishnava theistic schools)

    To me, if 'I' is taken as jiva is 'I' is the witness, then a witness cannot act, it cannot do anything.
    Not sure if i understand what you mean here! Self witness or Shakshi does not reduce jiva to non-acting or impotent entity! In fact, the other way around is too sound and fits in to the reality and rationality that, since you act, you pay the price for your action and that is our Karma process!

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

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


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


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

    Hare Krshna

  4. #14
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1364

    Re: Mind - Everything?

    Namaste Grames ji,

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Exactly. Here is the statement that is stating the truth - the Experiencer is not the Mind itself - mind is just the instrument - Now you are invalidating all that you have said before!
    As I have said that the earlier statement were said on level of evolution. From tatva GYAna, you realize that there is no jiva, but here you say everything experienced by jiva. So what is the truth.

    but dismissing the very name and OM as having source at None?? How can you ask that "Source" of it when the very OM represents the NirgunaBrahman - at least the Nada - sound part of it. Hopefully your shifting to "Advaita" causes more damage here than helping)
    Grames ji, again thinking from dvaita pov and not advaita POV???? - anyone meditating on OM will know what I am saying.

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

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

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

    That's right! But Jada requires the Sentient to make it act! Like how a computer require your program to run! How a robot require you to activate its code! Everything automated require the "Automater" who is a sentient! So, the question is not about the Jada being active but whether it is sentient or insentient and that's it! If it is not sentient, there is no room for it to cognize anything!
    chit and achita philosophy, does advaita think in same way, again the same response as above.

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

    Exactly. Here is the statement that is stating the truth - the Experiencer is not the Mind itself - mind is just the instrument - Now you are invalidating all that you have said before!
    Mind is very important, hence it is necessary to explain from that level. Please do not bring tatva gyana in this. I still say from one point that mind is not experiencer, yet from another point, joy and sorrow is experienced by mind only. contradictory? (smilie - only 5 are allowed)

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

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

    coming back

    In fact, its a question to you to explore and deep dive!
    I have done is many times. and my own spiritual experience says that the form vanishes when you move to the source of sound. I respect other traditions and other approaches.


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

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

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

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


    OM
    Last edited by Amrut; 05 August 2014 at 10:43 AM. Reason: edited typos
    Only God Is Truth, Everything Else Is Illusion - Ramakrishna
    Total Surrender of Ego to SELF is Real Bhakti - Ramana Maharshi

    Silence is the study of the scruptures. Meditation is the continuous thinking of Brahman which is to be meditated upon. The complete negation of both by knowledge is the vision of truth – sadAcAra-14 of Adi SankarAcArya

    namah SivAya vishnurUpAya viShNave SivarUpiNe, MBh, vanaparva, 3.39.76

    Sanskrit Dict | MW Dict | Gita Super Site | Hindu Dharma

  5. #15
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1364

    Re: Mind - Everything?

    Namaste,
    1. Can jiva experience anything on it's own? So if mind is absent from jiva, can jiva experience anything?
    Answer: Yes! For jiva, there can be many bodies and that can come with other improved means to think and act! Yet, its the Jiva who will continue to experience as it is sentient
    See, what I am asking is can jiva experience on it's own means, without the help of mind, body / bodies / intellect, ego, etc, only purely on basis of itself (jiva), can jiva experience anything?

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

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

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

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

    ----

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

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

    buddhi means intellect, decision making power

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

    chitta = retention power.

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

    Hari OM
    Last edited by Amrut; 05 August 2014 at 05:36 AM. Reason: added first line
    Only God Is Truth, Everything Else Is Illusion - Ramakrishna
    Total Surrender of Ego to SELF is Real Bhakti - Ramana Maharshi

    Silence is the study of the scruptures. Meditation is the continuous thinking of Brahman which is to be meditated upon. The complete negation of both by knowledge is the vision of truth – sadAcAra-14 of Adi SankarAcArya

    namah SivAya vishnurUpAya viShNave SivarUpiNe, MBh, vanaparva, 3.39.76

    Sanskrit Dict | MW Dict | Gita Super Site | Hindu Dharma

  6. #16
    Join Date
    June 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    572
    Rep Power
    820

    Re: Mind - Everything?

    Dear Amrut.,

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

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


    Thanks
    Hare Krshna

  7. #17
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1364

    Re: Mind - Everything?

    Quote Originally Posted by grames View Post
    Dear Amrut.,

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

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


    Thanks
    Hare Krshna
    Namaste Grames ji,

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

    OM
    Only God Is Truth, Everything Else Is Illusion - Ramakrishna
    Total Surrender of Ego to SELF is Real Bhakti - Ramana Maharshi

    Silence is the study of the scruptures. Meditation is the continuous thinking of Brahman which is to be meditated upon. The complete negation of both by knowledge is the vision of truth – sadAcAra-14 of Adi SankarAcArya

    namah SivAya vishnurUpAya viShNave SivarUpiNe, MBh, vanaparva, 3.39.76

    Sanskrit Dict | MW Dict | Gita Super Site | Hindu Dharma

  8. #18
    Join Date
    June 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    572
    Rep Power
    820

    Re: Mind - Everything?

    Namaste Amrut.,

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

    I have a feeling that you are looking through dvaita (tatvavAda) lens.
    Not sure where you got this but just curious..even if it is, why it is wrong? or not allowed?? as long as it brings out better clarity to the topic?

    So if the theory is not refuted / objected by any one than only it is true, is this your aproach?
    Again, not sure as discussion does not mean "Preaching" right. Refutation is not the intend here but discussion is at least a lesser degree of interaction of different views, understanding and with open mind we may learn something and that's about it.

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

    I do not say this approach is wrong. All I say is that I do not like to think from this other angle. I was never intelligent to think of these debates.
    I am very glad and i appreciate your honesty as you admit that you 'do not like to think from other angle" because, that is in fact the most powerful reason why you sometime get agitated or feel bad about others opinion. We can disagree, be different in our way of understanding and it is all fine and good as long as we keep the respect! Thats my only thing and i assure you that again by responding to this message of yours. So, lets jump in...

    I do consider that name and form are that of ISvara and only his names can cultivate bhAva ad not anything else. As I have said, I have tried and chanted Rama nama and Hanuman nama and have experienced my hair standing on it's tip.
    Very good. What is the effect of "cultivating the Bhava" - can you elaborate or is it just the experience of "Hair standing on its tip"

    However, if according to advaita, I say that names and forms are not that of brahman, and is true as per advaita, then why is there need to think about it.
    Its fine! But, are you going to say we should not question it? At least for an understanding perspective? What is not understood is not going to convince us fully right?

    Are you getting me, my way and your approach are different.
    I am. Does that mean, we cannot ask or explain our own views?

    I sincerely ask you to please be aware of the origin of mantra which is silence, please try this for 10 minutes.
    If you can provide me how or what is it called when you have a conclusion and then fitting everything to suite that conclusion? Where or who said "Origin" of everything is "Silence"? There is one beautiful process of dissolution of tattva which narrates how one gets subdued in to the higher one in sequence - i think its in vishnu purana - Subdued is again not a perfect word but better than "Sublation" - Can you find it and read it and tell me why "Silence" should be the origin!

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

    If 'I' am witness, then the witness is the one who ‘sees’. A person who sees cannot act at the same time.
    I had the deep sleep - this is the state where the mind and body is given up but who is that witness! Its your very own Ishwara and this is our daily experience!

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

    As I have said that the earlier statement were said on level of evolution. From tatva GYAna, you realize that there is no jiva, but here you say everything experienced by jiva. So what is the truth.
    At least, i can remind you that, Brahman is all knowing! TattvaGnana cannot disprove the "Jiva" and the very experienced advaitins i have known do admit that, its either Jiva or Brahman and there is nothing in between 'states'! So, as long as "Tattva" exists, its only Jiva and no experience of Brahman! Denouncing Jiva at this level is not possible even for JivanMuktas! (JivanMuktas are not just TattvaGyanins anyways).


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

    From Yajvan JI

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



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


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

    If dvaitin has not experienced this nirguna brahman, which is beyond attributes, then he has lack of vision.
    Why are you judgmental on this? Since you cannot construct this as qualifying statement, i take no further meaning! ( You will be wondering what i mean here - you understand very well if you know what you have written)

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

    Hare Krshna!

  9. #19
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1364

    Re: Mind - Everything?

    || Hari OM ||

    Quote Originally Posted by grames View Post
    Namaste Amrut.,

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

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

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

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

    Not sure where you got this but just curious..even if it is, why it is wrong? or not allowed?? as long as it brings out better clarity to the topic?
    Again, not sure as discussion does not mean "Preaching" right. Refutation is not the intend here but discussion is at least a lesser degree of interaction of different views, understanding and with open mind we may learn something and that's about it.

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

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

    Hence I created page understanding advaita to explain what advaita is

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

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


    I am very glad and i appreciate your honesty as you admit that you 'do not like to think from other angle"
    I am very glad and i appreciate your honesty as you admit that you 'do not like to think from other angle" because, that is in fact the most powerful reason why you sometime get agitated or feel bad about others opinion. We can disagree, be different in our way of understanding and it is all fine and good as long as we keep the respect! Thats my only thing and i assure you that again by responding to this message of yours. So, lets jump in...
    My dear friend, believe me, I am not at all agitated, not even when I read that link that you gave to ShivaFan ji. the reason for stating this was because I thought that you 'see through the lens of dvaita philosophy'.

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

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


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

    Sure we can agree to disagree.


    Very good. What is the effect of "cultivating the Bhava" - can you elaborate or is it just the experience of "Hair standing on its tip"
    bhAva does not cultivate by itself, it cultivates wit the help of ISvara and by removing the importance and clinging of worldly thoughts and objects. No it is not experience similar to that you have when shocked

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

    Its fine! But, are you going to say we should not question it? At least for an understanding perspective? What is not understood is not going to convince us fully right?
    I am. Does that mean, we cannot ask or explain our own views?

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

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

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


    If you can provide me how or what is it called when you have a conclusion and then fitting everything to suite that conclusion? Where or who said "Origin" of everything is "Silence"? There is one beautiful process of dissolution of tattva which narrates how one gets subdued in to the higher one in sequence - i think its in vishnu purana - Subdued is again not a perfect word but better than "Sublation" - Can you find it and read it and tell me why "Silence" should be the origin!
    I would have surely tried my best, but again, would like to discuss who actually mediates on OM. s/he is in better position to understand, mere intellectual exercise is not enough. This i my personal opinion. I should have experienced this state, atleast for a moment to explain to you, else there is no backing of power of experience, and it is just a philosophy.

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

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


    I had the deep sleep - this is the state where the mind and body is given up but who is that witness! Its your very own Ishwara and this is our daily experience!
    when one is not attached to any of three guNa-s, then t is always brahman, nothing else.

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    Good and this explains your position! But, unbelievable for me that you are ready to fill in so many refutations, posts here but making a statement like this. Thank you though for the honesty part!
    I never thought of refuting. I only thought of given replies to doubts. I dont take them as refutations and with intention - para-mata-bhanga' and sva-mata-vistAra'

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

    Why are you judgmental on this? Since you cannot construct this as qualifying statement, i take no further meaning! ( You will be wondering what i mean here - you understand very well if you know what you have written)
    Sorry, but I didnt understand. See, you can talk of thing that you have seen or experienced. You cannot teach that you do not know. Again reading in books is different. This knowledge is actually information. knowledge means direct experience. Else it is just an intellectual exercise.

    Very sad to read this.. Acharya is one who has Seen the Truth! . So, first accept one as Acharya or understand that you haven't seen one!
    acharya, as said by Kanchi Paramacharya says that an acharya is versed versed in shastras, follows a siddhanta and is also able to defend siddhanta.

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

    Adi Sankara is both a guru and acharya.

    Hari OM
    Only God Is Truth, Everything Else Is Illusion - Ramakrishna
    Total Surrender of Ego to SELF is Real Bhakti - Ramana Maharshi

    Silence is the study of the scruptures. Meditation is the continuous thinking of Brahman which is to be meditated upon. The complete negation of both by knowledge is the vision of truth – sadAcAra-14 of Adi SankarAcArya

    namah SivAya vishnurUpAya viShNave SivarUpiNe, MBh, vanaparva, 3.39.76

    Sanskrit Dict | MW Dict | Gita Super Site | Hindu Dharma

  10. #20
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1364

    Re: Mind - Everything?

    Namaste,

    If dvaitin has not experienced this nirguna brahman, which is beyond attributes, then he has lack of vision.
    I will try to explain this with our current e.g.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Regarding silence, one more member has experienced this, please find this experience here (post #21)

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

    Thank you for your time.

    OM
    Only God Is Truth, Everything Else Is Illusion - Ramakrishna
    Total Surrender of Ego to SELF is Real Bhakti - Ramana Maharshi

    Silence is the study of the scruptures. Meditation is the continuous thinking of Brahman which is to be meditated upon. The complete negation of both by knowledge is the vision of truth – sadAcAra-14 of Adi SankarAcArya

    namah SivAya vishnurUpAya viShNave SivarUpiNe, MBh, vanaparva, 3.39.76

    Sanskrit Dict | MW Dict | Gita Super Site | Hindu Dharma

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Creation and Advaita !
    By nirotu in forum Advaita
    Replies: 174
    Last Post: 28 April 2015, 10:34 PM
  2. Penances
    By Eric11235 in forum New to Sanatana Dharma
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04 February 2011, 09:30 PM
  3. Ashtanga Yogam-2 Sandilya Upanishad
    By brahman in forum Advaita
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04 July 2009, 01:23 AM
  4. Meditation and Concentration
    By atanu in forum Jnana
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 28 October 2007, 05:09 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06 June 2007, 09:40 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •