Why

[atanu]

Dear Atanu:

Thank you! I appreciate your input.
-
One needs to stop looking into “either” “or” logic that is: either the pure one-ness of Adviata or that of oneness being broken or shattered in creation. Somewhere between these two extremes lies the reality in which the “one-ness” is transformed. -

Namaste Nirotu,

The last point.

Yes, what you say is the VA theory and which is not same as your original premise of Advaita in the beginning and Advaita in the End. VA considers the jivas eternally as parts of Brahman as opposed to your premise of Advaita in the beginning and Advaita in the end. You are somehow mixing concepts.

Part of spirit is not tenable and Advaita Atma is Absolute unchangeable -- transformation is impossible. It is Samaan. Dvaitins (similar as Advaitins) point out that any difference in Brahman is untenable since that will contradict the shruti.

The transformation theory is a mental attempt to reconcile what is not amenable to mental re-conciliation. But it is easy to appreciate the UNITY CONSCIOUSNESS, if you reconsider the equivalence (for example purpose) of a wave form and an ego form, which (as discussed earlier) changes from being a sperm to an old shriveled form in cycle of awareness.

A wave form will vanish next moment and I am sure that you do not know your ego forms of your last births. Wave forms change continuously and Ego forms also change continuously. A wave form is made of salty water as an ocean is also made of, though the forms are not comparable at all. A small bound ego is a form of consciousness. OTOH, Ishwara is infinite consciousness -- not different from Brahman. Consciousness is the common and samaan.

Advaita teachers and Gurus such as Ramana teach us to transcend the delineating limits of the forms and become yuktatma with the underlying consciousness. But with any 'karma attachment' that requires participation of a body in activities, it is well nigh impossible to transcend the form and name. Attachment may be towards sensual gratification or for educating others.

We are not saying that we have transcended the attachments. We are only saying that the Atman is known to the Atman alone (in unity) and not to a separate mind, which is a form and incomplete since it is separate from Atman.

Om

[atanu]

Dear Atanu:

Thank you! I appreciate your input.

The way I understand is that Sri Ramana Maharishi in his ultimate state when he uttered, “I am that”, it could possibly have been said in reference to “Dvaita”.

Namaste Nirotu,

A question now. I am surprised. Can you show us where Shri Ramana uttered "I am that"? As far as I know, he never said such a partial mahavakya. You must give the full reference.

Om

[ohmshivaya]

The way I understand is that Sri Ramana Maharishi in his ultimate state when he uttered, “I am that”, it could possibly have been said in reference to “Dvaita”. If everything is one or united already into one, there would not be any need for him to utter “I (Jivatma)” and “that (Paramatma)” as separate from each other.

Namaste:

Just wanted to clarify this particular point of yours. I have NEVER heard, or read, of Sage Ramana Maharishi declaring "I am that!" I certainly would be interested in knowing from where (the source) you have taken this information. A citation from you would certainly be most welcome.

Sri Ramana is most famously known for propounding the self-inquiry process to understanding the true self, through "Who am I?"

According to some of his followers' later writings on Sri Ramana's discourses, his teachings on true self can be summed up in the phrase " I am that I am," which is NOT to be read, or understood, as "I am THAT."

In fact, Sri Ramana's emphasis has always been on not limiting oneself to the notion of " I am this, or I am that, or I am so and so..."

[saidevo]

Nameste Nirotu.

In your view

• The Vedas and Upanishads speak in "double voice" and "It is difficult to decide which the final teaching of the parent Gospel is." (post #21)

• In the Vedas, "Both 'Karmakanda' and 'jnanakanda' belong to the same Veda, yet you see Jnanakanda negating and lashing out karmakanda. I do have difficulty here, or perhaps, may be in my understanding." (post #25)

• Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva, the three great Acharyas of Hinduism, dispute each other's view of the Absolute Truth and create "a great divide" among the their followers. (post #25)

• This "great theological divide" created by the three great Acharyas has resulted in an eternal infighting between the Shaivas and Vaishnavites, as to who is the superior of the gods, Shiva or Vishnu. (post #26, with a reference to the OP)

• "I do believe, a man with a perfectly balanced view that recognizes the need of both Dvaita and Advaita is clearly ahead in his pursuit, who will undoubtedly progress faster towards that goal." (post #21)

• "A good example", (of "a man with a perfectly balanced view",) I find (is) in Jesus Christ; While Jesus knew Himself to be of the same nature as Brahman (Advaita), yet, He was aware of the Father (Brahman), and therefore, aware of Himself as the Son (atman), purely Dvaita. This is an outstanding example to mankind that in the manifest creation, the singular awareness of both the unity (Advaita) and the duality (Dvaita) co-exist and is needed." (post #25)

• "Because, Advaita has sprung up Dvaita in the manifest creation and, therefore, it is implicit that now Dvaita needs recognition of the Adviata to complete the journey. Therefore, Advaita and Dvaita co-exist which is what Jesus portrayed and also demonstrated through His life on earth." (post #25)

Alright, Nirotu, with these points of yours, what are you driving at? Is it right to say that your points have the following implications?

• Because Hinduism recognizes countless personal gods, the One God Brahman is forgotton in practice, and therefore, the paths to liberation that Hinduism provides are confusing and inadequate, if not invalid.

• Even the three great Acharyas of Hinduism have not just contradicting views but also negate each other's view, and this speaks of the extent and quality of their realization; where Jesus Christ is a better realized teacher who realized and recognized both Advaita and Dvaita in his life.

• The rishis as seers of the Vedas had no unified vision as evident from the different points of views presented in the Vedas and Upanishads, and this speaks of the lack of unity of approach that the Bible provides.

• In conclusion, therefore, Christianity is a better and superior religion for the common people to practice, than the different sects of Hinduism.

HDF members know you to be a devout Christian who follows the teachings of Jesus in letter and spirit. So there is nothing wrong to present your views of the Christian religious concepts vis-a-vis the Hindu concepts, though you might need to extrapolate the Christian teachings here and there and try to find the Hindu concepts of Advaita and Dvaita in them.

The only thing is that if you agree on the above implications I have derived from your points, we can continue it here in HDF as a debate on the supremacy and shortcomings of the Hindu and Christian religions, instead of camouflaging our views and points.

[atanu]

Dear Saidevo:
The Advaita considers the prime source of “Sansara” is beginning less ignorance (avidya), but Dvaita considers it as real. For sage Ramanuja, the world and the Shakti, which produces it, are both real whereas, Shankara makes clear distinction between that which is real and that, which is illusion caused by ignorance.

Namaste,

Om ! That (Brahman) is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite
The infinite proceeds from the infinite.
(Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe),
It remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone.
Om ! Peace ! Peace ! Peace !

One must understand what is meant by illusion in Shankara's terminology. Maya, when merely translated as 'illusion' is inadequate. Maya is a mistake -- a wrong identification of something as something else due to sensual superimposition.


For example, a dead body cannot say "I", yet most of us identify "I" with "I am this'. Something animates a body (an object) and makes it conscious and to this consciousness all other objects and the Universe are known. It is surprising yet this mistake is without beginning and very deep rooted so as to cause pain to body and mind and as if the pained body and grieving mind are 'Me'.

The most apt example that elucidates the above upanishadic passage is the modern day example of pictures playing on a cinema screen. Pictures keep playing and the seer may cry or laugh and sometime may associate with a character also. But the Seer is the screen, which is unchanging and support for the pictures that ever change.

Advaita teaching is about the way of AUM to the silence of the OM -- To dissociate from a character of the pictures (preferably before a particular picture show changes to another show) and find out the Seer as the screen, which appears to change with the pictures but which actually never transforms.


(Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe),

It remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone.

Om

[atanu]

The most apt example that elucidates the above upanishadic passage is the modern day example of pictures playing on a cinema screen. Pictures keep playing and the seer may cry or laugh and sometime may associate with a character also. But the Seer is the screen, which is unchanging and support for the pictures that ever change.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad [1]
Translated by Swami Madhavananda
Published by Advaita Ashram, Kolkatta

Om ! That (Brahman) is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite.

The infinite proceeds from the infinite.

(Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe),

It remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone.

Om ! Peace ! Peace ! Peace !

I-i-1: Om. The head of the sacrificial horse is the dawn, its eye the sun, its vital force the air, its open mouth the fire called Vaisvanara, and the body of the sacrificial horse is the year. Its back is heaven, its belly the sky, its hoof the earth, its sides the four quarters, its ribs the intermediate quarters, its members the seasons, its joints the months and fortnights, its feet the days and nights, its bones the stars and its flesh the clouds. Its half-digested food is the sand, its blood-vessels the rivers, its liver and spleen the mountains, its hairs the herbs and trees. Its forepart is the ascending sun, its hind part the descending sun, its yawning is lightning, its shaking the body is thundering, its making water is raining, and its neighing is voice.

I-i-2: The (gold) vessel called Mahiman in front of the horse, which appeared about it (i.e. pointing it out), is the day. Its source is the eastern sea. The (silver) vessel Mahiman behind the horse, which appeared about it, is the night. Its source is the western sea. These two vessels called Mahiman appeared on either side of the horse. As a Haya it carried the gods, as a Vajin the celestial minstrels, as an Arvan the Asuras, and as an Asva men. The Supreme Self is its stable and the Supreme Self (or the sea) its source.
----------


The sacrifice, the yajna is All. The Yajna's stable and source is the unchangeable Supreme Self -- the highest shivo abode of fast moving vishnu who is the yajna.


Om

[sarabhanga]

I am surprised. Can you show us where Shri Ramana uttered "I am that"?
As far as I know, he never said such a partial mahavakya.

I have NEVER heard, or read, of Sage Ramana Maharishi declaring "I am that!"
Sri Ramana is most famously known for propounding the self-inquiry process to understanding the true self, through "Who am I?"

Namaste,

“Partial mahavakya” ??? Only with a partial understanding !! And I am quite sure that every Dashanami Sannyasin would disagree !

“I am That” assumes “I am that 'I am'”. And the Chandogyopanishad makes this quite clear. “I am That!” is the answer to the question “Who am I?”

If Ramana Rishi never explained the Chandogyopanishad to anyone, and never recited its words to himself, that omission has no bearing on the greatness of the saying, which is essential to the Vidya of Sharada Math (Dvaraka) and especially to the Tirtha Sannyasins (whose title presumes immersion in this very Mahavakya).


Chandogyopanishad, 6th Prapathaka, 1st Khanda.

1. There lived once Svetaketu Aruneya. To him his father (Uddalaka, the son of Aruna) said: “Svetaketu, go to school; for there is none belonging to our race, darling, who, not having studied (the Veda), is, as it were, a Brahmana by birth only.”

2. Having begun his apprenticeship (with a teacher) when he was twelve years of age, Svetaketu returned to his father, when he was twenty-four, having then studied all the Vedas ~ conceited, considering himself well-read, and stern.

3. His father said to him: “Svetaketu, as you are so conceited, considering yourself so well-read, and so stern, my dear, have you ever asked for that instruction by which we hear what cannot be heard, by which we perceive what cannot be perceived, by which we know what cannot be known?”

4. “What is that instruction, Sir?” he asked.

That final instruction to Svetaketau is the Upadesha Vakya of the Sama Veda ~ the completion of the Veda, and the very essence of Vedanta. And the Upadesha is repeated nine times by Uddalaka, the son of Aruna.

Thou, O Svetaketu, art That which is the subtle essence, in which all that exists has its self, that which is the True, that which is the Self. [8.7, 9.4, 10.3, 11.3, 12.3, 13.3, 14.3, 15.3]

Thou, O Svetaketu, art That in which all that exists has its self, that which is the True, that which is the Self.
He understood what he said, yea, he understood it. [16.3]

Svetaketu finally understood, but it would seem that some followers of Ramana Rishi have missed the point.

[atanu]

Namaste,
“Partial mahavakya” ??? Only with a partial understanding !! And I am quite sure that every Dashanami Sannyasin would disagree !
“I am That” assumes “I am that 'I am'”. And the Chandogyopanishad makes this quite clear. “I am That!” is the answer to the question “Who am I?”

Namaste,

Yes, “I am That” assumes “I am that 'I am'”. So, without understanding the 'assumption' it can be very incomplete. Shankara devotes a lot of explanation to show that. And without understanding the complementary "You are that", "I am that" may not be complete Upadesha in itself.

The upansihad you have cited indeed says: Thou, O Svetaketu, art That. (And it is repeated nine times).

Svetaketu finally understood, but it would seem that some followers of Ramana Rishi have missed the point.---

If Ramana Rishi never explained the Chandogyopanishad to anyone, and never recited its words to himself, that omission has no bearing on the greatness of the saying,

Omission?

The point was simply that Shri Ramana never said "I am that" as Shri Nirotu claimed. He said "Find out who you are?" And that leads not only to "I am that" but also to "You art that". Since, Ramana knew Chandogya not intellectually but as living experience, so he taught "Find out who you are?"

Most Dvaitins (and Shri Nirotu herein) imply that "I am that" could mean "This I (the body-mind) is that". Shankara has devoted considerable explanation towards this and that should be clarified. The inquiry surely brings out "The true I is that" and "The true you are that". The grudge has no place in it.


Om

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Atanu,

“Thou art That” is received from the Guru ~ as jñAna. But once known by personal experience and “taken to heart”, the vijñAna becomes “I am That” ~ i.e. this jIvAtman is truly identified with that paramAtman. And “I am That” could only be expressed with absolute veracity from the perspective of samAdhi, which absolutely denies the possibility of dvaitam.

If the words uttered by Shri Ramana “in his ultimate state” (which I assume refers to his being in, or on the verge of, samAdhi) were not “I am That”, what where they? It could not have been “You are That”, for You refers to a second person, and in samAdhi no other is distinguished. [Not that any particular words need have been actually spoken or overheard at this extremity.]

tad = tattvam = brahman

tat-tvam (“thou [art] that”) is a mahAvAkyam, and ahaM brahmAsmi (“I am brahman”) openly declares “I am that”.

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu,

-If the words uttered by Shri Ramana “in his ultimate state” (which I assume refers to his being in, ---samAdhi)

Namaste sarabhanga,

In ultimate state Shri Ramana was just silent. As far As I know, he never uttered "I am That", except when explaining "I am that I am" of The Bible.

Om