Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: great (profound) questions...

  1. #41
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    65
    Posts
    7,676
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: great (profound) questions...

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté vādhai¹

    One last part needs to be put in place before offering rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji’s answer to this question:
    If Self is itself aware why am I not aware of it even (right) now ?
    That is, what did rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji say that stimulated this question ? Well , a previous question was asked: what is this awareness ( you talk of) and can one obtain and cultivate it ?
    Rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji was talking of Reality (brahma-svarupa or the nature of Being, pure consciousness) which is abundant Self-awareness, radiant pure consciousness without the least bit of ignorance ( code for diversity or duality). He answers this person and says, you are awareness - there is no need to attain it or cultivate it.

    (My note here) We know this ourselves... think about it. You do not have to plug anything in, turn on any switch ( neuron, organ, etc.) for awareness to be there. For one to smell or see or touch it all occurs on its own. This is ‘awareness in use’. No one had to go to the store to get more of it for you. It is there.

    Now Rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji continues and says, all that you have to do is give-up being aware of other things that is all of the not-Self and what remains ? Self.

    For many of us this is called ‘practice’ or upāya ( approach or one’s aim), or ābhāsa ( purpose, intent), abhyāsa (repeated discipline). This ‘practice’ is giving up differentiated awareness ( fractured thoughts and feelings of all different things) for one-pointed awareness. This too is at the core of bhakti (devotion). Giving up all things for the one thing ( devotion to the Lord). In both cases one is trading in fractured and diverse thinking for one-pointed thinking.

    Now we are ready to offer rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji’s answer to the original question posed – we will take it up in the next post.

    इतिशिवं
    iti śivaṁ

    1. vādhai - vadhū ( this is the ‘stem’ or aṅga format) can be a wife or any woman; yet vādhū = a boat or vessel and this is the term
    I am working with that is shown as vādhai . We can see how ‘wife’ and ‘vessel’ can align and no need to pursue that. Yet what I am I implying by this term vādhai ? The human is the ‘vessel’ or 'boat' for Self and that is the subject of the last few posts.
    How did I get to this term grammatically? I put this into the singular voice ( eka-vacana)and dative (sampradāna) case as it is ‘to or for you’, it becomes vādhai; if this was plural (bahu-vacana)it would be vādhūbhyaḥ ( if I aligned all the rules correctly).
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  2. #42
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    65
    Posts
    7,676
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: great (profound) questions...

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté vādhai¹


    Now we are ready to offer rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji’s answer to the original question posed: If Self is itself aware why am I not aware of it even (right) now ?

    I’d like to sew a few ideas and answers offered rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji that, in my estimation, brings multiple insights overall. Some are his, others come from my teacher, and still others on a very small scale come from my studies, practice and the like.

    Part 1
    Rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji
    first answers the question by telling the aspirant the following: your present knowledge and is due to the ego (ahaṁkāra)¹ and is only relative. Relative knowledge requires a subject and an object; yet awareness of Self is absolute and requires no object.

    This needs a bit more explanation. Rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji is first telling us ( and the questioner) that the person’s present knowledge-set is based upon something that changes on a regular basis ( the ego) and works within the relative world... that of objects and things that also come and go. It is the ego that wishes to grasp on to things to know or own and possess. Said another way, for this to occur the model is a subject ( the ego) and an object ( a thing to grasp – either physical, emotional , etc.).

    Because of this model of subject & object the ego has come to believe it is the body ( the city of eight¹ ) as the reality of it all. It ( the ego) is part of the city of 8 and right at home. It sees things ( all things) from this reference point. You tell the ego you are not the body ( and the bundle of feelings, experiences within space and time) it says, okay show me then what really is ‘me’ . It is looking for another thing it can grasp and say oh this is who you say I am ... this ‘thing’. Yet Self is not an object and that has been the pickle for eons. Looking for a container that holds Self that the ego can inspect.

    Part 2 - the model of two
    The Self does not have this model of two (dvaya), it is the fabric of only one. Now we have to watch the words that was used in the question ‘why am I not aware of it’ clearly shows this two (dvaya) condition ‘ I aware of it ’ – see the two of ‘I’ and ‘it’ ? Our ego wants to approach Self as an object of some type. This has been its orientation for years.
    Now when I say ego¹ I am not certain how the reader views this... Some automatically think of it as ‘inflated’ or ‘negative’ in some way. That could be. Yet it also can be un-inflated, humble , etc. and still be ego. Ego is ( for this conversation) the sense one has of their individuality; who has an opinion of who they are by race, size, shape, income, value, location, weight, height, male, female, etc. We can mention a zillion things ( manager, student, wife, husband, uncle, prime minister, senator, criminal, trolley driver, astronaut, welder, plumber, housekeeper, coolie, warrior, businessman, etc.) yet at the end of the day it is the frame of mind that you are the collection of body+mind+feelings+ideas+intellect.
    This bundle comes and goes... the Self does not because it is boundless, timeless awareness, Being. It is not empty Being like a vacuum, but perhaps a vacuum
    filled with consciousness itself. It’s ~form~ is silence and that is why perhaps some think oh, it is nothing then. It is existence itself (sat some write satī). Rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji says the luster of that satī is consciousness and its nature is ananda (joy). Well we as humans have consciousness and on occasion we have joy. So we have a flavor of it. We have experienced a ray of it, not the total sunshine of the mid-day sun of it, but a ray of it.

    Part 3 - Back to ‘I aware of it’
    This part is a bit more revealing. The ‘I’ being talked about here ( in ‘I aware of it’) is the ego. It is saying ‘me’ as being individual and localized; why am ‘i’ ( we will use small ‘i’ for ego) not aware of ‘it’ (Self). It is for this reason: the conditioned (i) of limitations cannot grasp the unconditioned (Self); the finite (i) cannot grasp the infinite (Self).

    Remind me again...
    Remind me what Self is again ? Self is ‘all inclusive awareness’ per rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji’s direct personal experience. If Self is infinite, timeless, boundless, endless that means we reside within it now – we are an expression of it now, we cannot be anything other than It. Where then can it be grasped? Rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji says one can only become It (again) in full. Well how ?
    It seems the issue resides in the ego that wishes to remain localized, individual, ‘me’. Rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi-ji says if something comes and goes it is not real. This ego comes and goes ( wake, dream, sleep it rises and falls), so he says look for this ego and it (ego) vanishes. This requires some introspection to look for it. And it requires awareness. It just so happens that this ‘awareness’ that you are using is no less a ray of Self (itSelf). We are using awareness to find ego that really can’t be pinned down ( but you have to prove it to yourself).

    Inward looking
    This whole ‘inward-looking’ is the march of the mind inward taking you from a diverse field of thoughts to a more refined field of going inward. This ‘march’ of the mind inward is called pratiprasava or ‘returning to the original state’. This notion is found in our upaniṣads, āgama-s , tantra’s, yoga-sūtras and the yoga-vāsiṣṭha.
    In one tantra (the parātriṃśikāvivaraṇa) this inward march is called out as parivṛtya and comes from parivṛt defined as turning around. The ‘ya’ suffix for those interested means ‘ pertaining to’ . This parivṛt also means ‘to invert’ , ‘put in reverse’ . It connects to the first term I offered (pratiprasava) by another definition of
    parivṛt as ‘ to be reborn in’ which no doubt is ‘returning to the original state’ from which one comes.
    Yet too here is the beauty of this term... parivṛta = ‘filled by, or full of’. Now what is the connection? By going in reverse one returns to the original state and is filled, becomes full of... but of what ? Self. But what of this ~mind~ that took ‘me’ there? Well, Self is whole, full, and completely independent. It is not dependent on the mind, but the mind is dependent on Self; it cannot exist without Self. So, in this inward march when Self becomes resides in itSelf, mind is left at the door and does not enter. One is filled ( parivṛta ) with Self ( some like to call pure consciousness, stainless, without a spot or mala i.e. blemish).

    Part 4
    Think of it this way. Every day you rise and fall in wake-dream-sleep, every day this occurs. But when you go from day-to-day you always wake-up or fall asleep the same person. You do not wake up as a different personality. What provides the continuity? What is the common thread for this to occur? It is Self. The wise say it is the thread on which a string of pearls reside and are held together buy this common thread.



    इतिशिवं
    iti śivaṁ

    terms used

    • vādhai - vadhū ( this is the ‘stem’ or aṅga format) can be a wife or any woman; yet vādhū = a boat or vessel and this is the term I am working with that is shown as vādhai . We can see how ‘wife’ and ‘vessel’ can align and no need to pursue that. Yet what I am I implying by this term vādhai ? The human is the ‘vessel’ or 'boat' for Self and that is the subject of the last few posts. How did I get to this term grammatically? I put this into the singular voice ( eka-vacana)and dative (sampradāna) case as it is ‘to or for you’, it becomes vādhai; if this was plural (bahu-vacana)it would be vādhūbhyaḥ ( if I aligned all the rules correctly).
    • ahaṁkāra - in saṃskṛta ( sanscrit) ahaṁkāra = ahaṁ+kāra = I + doer = the making of self (or individuality). The English version comes from the Latin term ‘ego’ or ‘egō’ defined as ‘I’ - again we are using small ‘i’ to indicate it. And like many words this ‘i’ has a plural form called ‘we’ (nōs in Latin); and if something has an affect on a group of “i’s” it is in the form of ‘us’ e.g. let ‘us’ go to the store.
    Last edited by yajvan; 27 November 2016 at 05:39 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  3. #43
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    65
    Posts
    7,676
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: great (profound) questions...

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté


    In post 42 above there is a brief conversation of 'ego' or small 'i'. If the reader is wondering what then is the 'ego' or this small 'i' , the small self ( unbounded Self within boundaries) ?
    we may better answer the question in this manner : who or what assumes the role of this small self ? The following post looks to address it:

    http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthr...ight=intellect , post 4 starts the conversation on this matter.

    इतिशिवं
    iti śivaṁ
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  4. #44

    Re: great (profound) questions...

    Namaste yajvan!

    I love how you write at such lengths with educated replies!

  5. #45
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    65
    Posts
    7,676
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: great (profound) questions...

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté
    vādhai¹

    the position of dualism ( or argument of non-duality).

    If SELF ( Being, pure awareness) were single, unified & whole, then when a person becomes liberated (realized,
    pūrṇam, whole) it suggests that all human beings must also become liberated at the same time. Yet we know this not to be so. From this conclusion advaita ( or non- duality) is an aberration and therefore incorrect.

    How is this to be addressed?

    इतिशिवं
    iti śivaṁ


    1. vādhai - vadhū ( this is the ‘stem’ or aṅga format) can be a wife or any woman; yet vādhū = a boat or vessel and this is the term I am working with that is shown as vādhai . We can see how ‘wife’ and ‘vessel’ can align and no need to pursue that. Yet what I am I implying by this term vādhai ? The human is the ‘vessel’ or 'boat' for Self and that is the subject here.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  6. #46
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    65
    Posts
    7,676
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: great (profound) questions...

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté


    The question posed above,

    If SELF ( Being, pure awareness) were single, unified & whole, then when a person becomes liberated (realized, pūrṇam, whole) it suggests that all human beings must also become liberated at the same time. Yet we know this not to be so. From this conclusion advaita ( or non- duality) is an aberration and therefore incorrect.
    The answer to this can be long or short... Let me offer the short answer and then expand upon it later. The answer is provided by gauḍapādacharya1 in his gauḍapādiyakārikā2. I look to the 17th verse:

    प्रपञ्चो यदि विद्येत निवर्तेत न संशयः ।
    मायामात्रमिदं द्वैतमद्वैतं परमार्थतः ॥ १७

    prapañco yadi vidyeta nivarteta na saṃśayaḥ |
    māyāmātramidaṃ dvaitamadvaitaṃ paramārthataḥ || 17

    If the perceived manifold ( world) were real then certainly it would disappear.
    This duality (that is cognized) is māyā.
    Non-duality is paramārthataḥ ( primary, highest reality, substance,)


    This is telling us that Self/Reality is the only thing that exists. If there were something other than this, then surely duality would dis-appear upon its realization for one person and occur for all. But if that is all there is to begin with, what then can fade away ?
    Said another way, there is not Reality for duality ( which is the benchmark for ignorance) and Reality for the non-dual wholeness of Supreme Reality. How can there be two realities? That does not pass one’s common sense test.

    Said from another point of view, that of rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi, if Being, wholeness, Reality was something that was ~gained~ or acquired, then it too can be lost. This Being is ever present. That means it is here for the jñānī (realized) and the ajñānī ( yet to realize).

    Our śāstra-s inform us all this is indeed brahman. There is no additional footnote that informs us of any restriction e.g. brahman does not exist or make-up this seemingly mis-apprehended view of duality. From brahman’s point of view ( code for the jñānī status) there is no such thing as duality.
    How does one get their mind wrapped around this ? A simple example is in order. Let me personify the ocean just for a moment. The ocean does not think a wave as different from itself. To the ocean there is no wave. It is just himself rising up or down. It is no different than you. Does the body take its hand to be different from itself?

    Now to go deeper and wider into this whole discussion requires us to visit wake-dream-sleep and turīya ( the 4th). It is where one experiences the world and helps us come to conclusions about the apparent reality one takes to be true (yet comes and goes), to that which never vacillates at all. It is like the ocean. The changes of wake-dream-sleep are the waves that occur within the ocean itself (turīya). More on this can be said in another post.

    The verse calls out,
    This duality (that is cognized) is māyā. Many are conditioned to read this ~māyā~ as something bad and take it as illusion. They leave it there without going deeper and wider into the the subject, and for this they miss its true nature. With this mis-understanding the possibility of a cloudy understanding is at hand (I see it all the time). Enough has been written on this matter here on HDF that to revisit it would be overdoing it. Yet one would do themselves an injustice by not understanding this ~appreratus~ of māyā in full or at least to the best they can comprehend it. Leaving it as 'illusion' is confusing a rope to be a snake.


    इतिशिवं
    iti śivaṁ


    terms
    1. Gauḍapāda-ji was the guru of govinda bhagavatpāda who, in turn was the guru of ādi śaṅkara (śaṅkara bhagavatpāda); hence gauḍapāda-ji is the teacher’s teacher of ādi śaṅkara, sometimes referred to as one’s grand-master. It is these masters that formed and shaped the knowledge of advaita ( non-dual) vedānta
    2. gauḍapādiyakārikā is also known as māṇḍūkyopaniṣatkārikā (māṇḍūkya-upaniṣad-kārikā) done in 215 verses , 4 chapters of which is his commentary on the māṇḍūkya-upaniṣad.
    Last edited by yajvan; 05 February 2017 at 04:57 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  7. #47
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    65
    Posts
    7,676
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: great (profound) questions...

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté

    Here is a question posited by
    śaṅkara-ji as an objection , that he will answer himself in due course. I found it most apropos for one that reads/studies the śāstra-s & āgama-s.

    objection: how can scriptures (
    śāstra-s, āgama-s, etc), if it cannot make us understand the true nature of Self (ātman, Being, pure awareness) which is , in essence non-dual by nature, free our mind(s) from the idea of duality ?
    reply: forthcoming.

    इतिशिवं
    iti śivaṁ

    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  8. #48
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    65
    Posts
    7,676
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: great (profound) questions...

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté

    Within the śrīmad bhāgavad gītā, kṛṣṇaḥ -jī says the following:
    vedānāṃ sāmavedo’smi devānām asmi vāsavaḥ |
    indriyāṇāṃ manaś cāsmi bhūtānām asmi cetanā
    ||10.22

    this says,
    Of the veda-s (vedānāṃ) I am (asmi) sāma-veda... ( I will leave the other sections for another time)

    Now, why sāma-veda ? Would not one suspect ṛg (rig) veda?


    इतिशिवं
    iti śivaṁ
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  9. #49
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    65
    Posts
    7,676
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: great (profound) questions...

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté
    his says,
    Of the veda-s (vedānāṃ) I am (asmi) sāma-veda... ( I will leave the other sections for another time)
    Now, why sāma-veda ? Would not one suspect ṛg (rig) veda?
    Note that sāma-veda is ~ 95% ṛg veda verses ( sūkta1), yet are set to a specific chant. Most of these verses come from ṛg veda’s 8th and 9th mandala.
    Sāma-veda produces sāman . Here’s 4 definitions:

    • sāman - metrical hymn; praise
    • sāman - possession , property , wealth , abundance
    • sāman - calming
    • sāman – rooted in √ so ( connected to sā) destroying sin


    So, we have a metrical hymn (suggesting chandas or meter) ; in fact it is a flowing hymn (niḥṣyanda = flow), with the abundance of calm , that no less destroys sin.
    Kṛṣṇaḥ -jī says, I am (asmi) sāma-veda, because it delivers one to this calmness , it destroys sin ( code for ignorance) and brings one to pure awareness, that is none other than Being, Self, or kṛṣṇaḥ himself.

    Yet there is more and it centers around '
    sā'. I will leave this for another time.

    इतिशिवं
    iti śivaṁ


    1. sūkta –; well recited ; speaking well
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  10. #50
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    65
    Posts
    7,676
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: great (profound) questions...

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté
    From post 39 above,

    If Self is itself aware why am I not aware of it even (right) now ?
    Even śrī devī asks the same thing to śivaḥ ( this is found in the parātrīśikāvivaraṇa1 tantra)
    etadguhyaṁ mahāguhyaṁ kathayasva mama prabho| 1½ (found between the 1st and 2nd śloka, so we name it 1½ )

    This says,
    tell me this greatest secret (mahāguhyaṁ) O lord ( or O my lord prabhu) who is my own Self (sva mama)
    ~ or ~
    tell me (kathaya) O my lord (mama prabhu) this truth though largely unhidden (mahā aguhyaṁ) yet remains secret (guhyaṁ) |

    Śrī devī is asking, this Self ( Being, pure awareness) which is essential to all yet remains a mystery, it is not evident. Why so? Tell me this O Lord, how can this be?

    Abhinavagupa-ji2 says though it shines in everyone’s heart (code for awareness/consciousness) it is not intimately assimilated by the heart as existent. So, though present it is ~ as if ~ not present, just as grass and leaves are overlooked by one speedily moving in a coach from one place to another.




    इतिशिवं
    iti śivaṁ

    1. parātrīśikāvivaraṇa -
    • parātrīśikā is also known as the trikasūtra-s; others call it anuttarasūtra.
    • still others call it the 30 verses of the Supreme, yet there’s 36 (oops).
    • So, what does this say? Abhihavnavagupta informs us it is ‘the supreme śrī devī of the three’. But what three? Parā, parāparā and aparā – the total, nothing resides outside these 3 (śiva, śakti, and nara).
    • This parātrīśikāvivaraṇa is considered part of the rudrayāmala tantra. It is considered ( too ) in 3 ways: parātrīśikāvivaraṇa , parātriṁśakavivaraṇa , and parātriṁśikāvivaraṇa of which we will not go into . Yet this book is considered the ‘index to the entire subject matter of (the) trika system’ – ref. page xiii of the this parātrīśikāvivaraṇa commentary by jaideva singh; hence my great interest in this śastra.

    2. abhinavaguta-ji is addressed as mahāmaheśvarācharya śrīmad abhinavaguptanatha
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Great Questions...
    By yajvan in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11 December 2010, 05:07 PM
  2. Nilakantha
    By Agnideva in forum Puranas
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 11 May 2009, 10:22 PM
  3. KSITIGARBHA PURVAPRANIDHANA SUTRA
    By shian in forum Buddhism
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03 June 2008, 12:12 AM

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
  •