Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: shivoadvaitam atma

  1. #11
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: shivoadvaitam atma

    Quote Originally Posted by vedanta_learner View Post
    Namaste,

    Ok..then how the "Nirvisesha Brahman" can be explained ?

    As per your post I can understand that "Knower knows himself as Pure-knowledge self is the final state to be achieved in Adviata"..am I right?

    If that is the case what is the concept of "Nirvisesha" ?

    Thank you
    "Nirvisesha" ?

    Namaste,

    See I am not literate. During meditation questions sprout, followed by intuitive knowledge, which often I see supported in Upanishads and Gita and also in Vedas.

    I cannot answer from book. But what I have been given I can tell you. I have repeated the meaning of certain verses often. This meaning is not very often explicitly stated by gurus, but I have found it logical conclusion arising from shruti.

    Both Gita and many upanishads state that the non-dual atma is knowable and must be known, though it is described simply as indescribable, ungraspable and advaita.

    Ungraspable is not an object that you can take hold of. The Atma name cannot ever be mis-translated as something other than the 'very you' (not the sense percieved you). It is that which knows everything including I as this body. Similarly advaita can never be mis-translated as many, though some thinkers say that Advaita may mean the ONE (supreme) among many but you will see the fallacy the moment you combine advaita and atma together. It is ONE. EKO.


    So, when Upanishad teaches you to know the EKO, can you remain a dvittiya and still know the EKO? Contemplate and meditate on your own. The answer lies in silence and not in movement. The description of Turiya Self given in mandukya Upanishad may help you.

    You have remained what you are always.

    In Shankar Vijayam, I read about a debate Shankara had with a VA proponent. Both had similar goal and similar concept of atma as pure knowledge. But VA proponent held a part concept, which Shankara was not interested to refute. He simply said "Moksha is not possible for you with this belief". I later understood that a second cannot know the truth as another. A part cannot know the whole.

    Om Namah Shivayya
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  2. #12

    Re: shivoadvaitam atma

    Quote Originally Posted by Atanu Banerjee View Post
    "Nirvisesha" ?


    Ungraspable is not an object that you can take hold of. The Atma name cannot ever be mis-translated as something other than the 'very you' (not the sense percieved you). It is that which knows everything including I as this body. Similarly advaita can never be mis-translated as many, though some thinkers say that Advaita may mean the ONE (supreme) among many but you will see the fallacy the moment you combine advaita and atma together. It is ONE. EKO.


    So, when Upanishad teaches you to know the EKO, can you remain a dvittiya and still know the EKO? Contemplate and meditate on your own. The answer lies in silence and not in movement. The description of Turiya Self given in mandukya Upanishad may help you.



    Om Namah Shivayya
    Ok..thanks a lot.

    But still some doubts at logical ground, may be your statements are fully true that in "Meditation" grounds .

    leave the Nirvisesha concept, what I mean't of Nirvisesha is "without any attributes"
    I thought Advaita means "EKO" without any attributes to be experienced..but from your posts I can understand that "EKO" experincing its existence(ofcourse it should also experience its Bliss).

    Leave that nirvisesha concept...

    Now the question about your part theory of VA in the debate between Shankara and VA proponent.(though I am not fully aware of VA)

    If moksha means know thyself as pure knowledge-self, then why that knowledge-self is not aware of its own self till this point ? what made it to be ignorant after all it is "knowledge-self" ?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: shivoadvaitam atma

    Quote Originally Posted by vedanta_learner View Post
    Ok..thanks a lot.

    ---------
    Now the question about your part theory of VA in the debate between Shankara and VA proponent.(though I am not fully aware of VA)

    If moksha means know thyself as pure knowledge-self, then why that knowledge-self is not aware of its own self till this point ? what made it to be ignorant after all it is "knowledge-self" ?
    Namaste,

    See, a dream hunger needs a dream food. You cannot prepare rice in waking state to assuage a dream hunger. Answers on Self are available in Turiya and not in waking state.

    Some questions are unanswerable. Like Shankara does not answer the origin of ignorance. But do not think that VA or Dvaita have all solutions. For example, VA says karma is without a beginning but has same ambiguity wrt to karma as has advaita about ignorance. And Dvaita leaves no scope for 'moksha' and 'no-return', when scripture gives the moksha as goal to us. I am not saying that VA or Dvaita are wrong. Gurus knew what and why they were teaching certain things.

    Now Lord Krishna says: Know that you are not the doer. So, that a man feeling that it has karma is the ignorance.

    Anyway, the above is not a direct answer to your question. The direct answer is a counter question. How do you you know that Atma (pure knowledge self) is ignorant? Has it told your mind so? Or this presumption is of your mind? To determine the locus of the ignorant knower and differentiating it from the 'knowledge' is sadhana.

    Lord Krishna has said: Forgetfulness is death. Forgetfulness of what? And who forgets? Since Lord Krishna has also said that Param Atma appears divided in bodies but is ONE.

    About nirvishesha I will add that it is upto you as to how you want Atma to appear. Check up Gita and see that Lord Krishna says: See also whatever you wish to see in me. And in Vedas, it is Indra who slays the Visvarupa.


    Om Namah Shivayya
    Last edited by atanu; 14 March 2007 at 12:27 PM.
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  4. #14

    Re: shivoadvaitam atma

    Quote Originally Posted by Atanu Banerjee View Post
    Namaste,

    See, a dream hunger needs a dream food. You cannot prepare rice in waking state to assuage a dream hunger. Answers on Self are available in Turiya and not in waking state.
    Namaste,

    Every dream will come to an end without any sankalpa by the dreamer..but I don't think that is the case with Turiya , if that is the case ..then no need of any discussions about "Self" because it would be achieved automatically.

    Some questions are unanswerable. Like Shankara does not answer the origin of ignorance. But do not think that VA or Dvaita have all solutions. For example, VA says karma is without a beginning but has same ambiguity wrt to karma as has advaita about ignorance. And Dvaita leaves no scope for 'moksha' and 'no-return', when scripture gives the moksha as goal to us. I am not saying that VA or Dvaita are wrong. Gurus knew what and why they were teaching certain things.
    If some thing is unanswerable , the theory can't be taken as fully valid
    I think every thing was answered by Vedas(sabdha pramana) which can't be with pratyaksha pramana..otherwise how can I believe the Vedas as fully valid.


    Now Lord Krishna says: Know that you are not the doer. So, that a man feeling that it has karma is the ignorance.

    Anyway, the above is not a direct answer to your question. The direct answer is a counter question. How do you you know that Atma (pure knowledge self) is ignorant? Has it told your mind so? Or this presumption is of your mind? To determine the locus of the ignorant knower and differentiating it from the 'knowledge' is sadhana.
    I don't know that Atman is ignorant in first place..but I know that what I am thinking as "I" is not actual "I"..and what I am thinking is "I am this body"..and what Vedas told that "I am not body but Atma(knowledge-self)"..there the question arised that "why that knowledge-self don't know its actual state?"

    Lord Krishna has said: Forgetfulness is death. Forgetfulness of what? And who forgets? Since Lord Krishna has also said that Param Atma appears divided in bodies but is ONE.
    To whom it appears ? when the appearence started? why it needed that appearence after all it again needs to go to its ONE state?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: shivoadvaitam atma

    Quote Originally Posted by vedanta_learner View Post
    Namaste,

    ---------
    I don't know that Atman is ignorant in first place..-------..there the question arised that "why that knowledge-self don't know its actual state?"
    Namaste Vedanta Learner

    See the fun. You say "I do not know that Atman is ignorant in first place". Then you say "why that self self knowledge don't know its actual state?".

    There is one who does not know whether Atma is ignorant or not and another who asserts that there is lack of self knowledge.


    hehe. Still you don't see the fallacy? You truly may not see, since you are cooking food in waking state to be consumed by Turiya.

    A small intellect like me can also see that all VA and dvaita efforts are such; arguments based on superimposition of the waking experiences on Turiya. And Shankara has already spoken about superposition.

    Discussion with you is throwing up good light, I feel.

    Om
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  6. #16

    Re: shivoadvaitam atma

    Quote Originally Posted by Atanu Banerjee View Post
    Namaste Vedanta Learner

    See the fun. You say "I do not know that Atman is ignorant in first place". Then you say "why that self self knowledge don't know its actual state?".

    There is one who does not know whether Atma is ignorant or not and another who asserts that there is lack of self knowledge.


    hehe. Still you don't see the fallacy? You truly may not see, since you are cooking food in waking state to be consumed by Turiya.

    A small intellect like me can also see that all VA and dvaita efforts are such; arguments based on superimposition of the waking experiences on Turiya. And Shankara has already spoken about superposition.

    Discussion with you is throwing up good light, I feel.

    Om
    Namaste sir,

    I think there is some mis-understanding .

    Let me explain my understanding in some what clear terms:

    I asked the question about "Moksha" ..which you said as "knowing thyself" , which is certainly not the current experience of mine..that was the reason I asked question that "why the "knowledge-self" doesn't know its atual nature?"

    In other words :

    "Until I read your posts or vedic knwoledge I was thinking "I am this body" , after reading your posts I came to know that my thoughts are wrong and actual "I" is pure consious knowledge , that means what I thought in previous was ignorance"

    In more clear terms :

    "I found my previous ignorance after you revealed that my actual nature as "knowledge-self" ..otherwise what I thought in previous would be still not considered ignorance".


    Regarding Turiya and waking states..I am not aware and not able to understand your words.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: shivoadvaitam atma

    Quote Originally Posted by vedanta_learner View Post
    Namaste sir,

    I think there is some mis-understanding .

    ------- "why the "knowledge-self" doesn't know its atual nature?"

    -----
    -----
    Namaste Vedanta learner.

    I asked: Who is saying that ?"

    You cannot say in same breath two things. One, that you do not know whether Atma is ignorant or not? And second, that the "knowledge-self" doesn't know its actual nature.

    Resolve this problem first please.

    Om Namah Shivayya
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  8. #18

    Re: shivoadvaitam atma

    Quote Originally Posted by Atanu Banerjee View Post
    Namaste Vedanta learner.

    I asked: Who is saying that ?"

    You cannot say in same breath two things. One, that you do not know whether Atma is ignorant or not? And second, that the "knowledge-self" doesn't know its actual nature.

    Resolve this problem first please.

    Om Namah Shivayya
    Namaste ,

    Frankly , I am not getting your point perfectly..

    Let me explain what I understood from your question :

    you mean "I was asking this question at mind level , which is not graspable by mind about "knowledge-self" " .

    Or

    " I was asking the question at mind level , and "knowledge-self" is beyond mind ...so you mean "knowledge-self" knows its nature if it is knowledge-self .."

    If that is what your explanation..then let me explain my doubt more clearly :

    who is the experiencer of my all bodily experiences?

    is knowledge-self "I" which is within this body experiencing its "knowledge" , "Bliss" which is its atual state?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: shivoadvaitam atma

    Quote Originally Posted by vedanta_learner View Post
    Namaste ,

    Frankly , I am not getting your point perfectly..

    Let me explain what I understood from your question :

    you mean "I was asking this question at mind level , which is not graspable by mind about "knowledge-self" " .

    Or

    " I was asking the question at mind level , and "knowledge-self" is beyond mind ...so you mean "knowledge-self" knows its nature if it is knowledge-self .."

    If that is what your explanation..then let me explain my doubt more clearly :
    Namaste Dear Vedanta Learner,

    No I am not inferring anything on your or on my behalf. I am simply asking:


    You cannot say in same breath two things. One, that you do not know whether Atma is ignorant or not? And second, that the "knowledge-self" doesn't know its actual nature.
    Are there two beings? One says it does not know whether Atma is ignorant or not? And another being who has definite knowledge that the "knowledge-self" doesn't know its actual nature.


    I am emphasising this point since I do not know whether atma is ignorant or not?, Whether I am ignorant or not?, Whether I have any relation to Atma or not?

    The point is: how I can know that the knowledge self is ignorant, if I do not know the knowledge self? How can I know whether the self that I think I am is same as knowledge self or not?

    Vedas simply say that all is known when Brahman is known.

    who is the experiencer of my all bodily experiences?

    is knowledge-self "I" which is within this body experiencing its "knowledge" , "Bliss" which is its atual state?
    These two are excellent questions, answer to which must be sought. I only know that Goddess Durga kills Bhandasura (a false demon). The sense that I am a body has other sensations on which a world is built.

    Om Namah Shivayya
    Last edited by atanu; 16 March 2007 at 01:49 AM.
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  10. #20

    Re: shivoadvaitam atma

    Quote Originally Posted by Atanu Banerjee View Post
    Namaste Dear Vedanta Learner,

    No I am not inferring anything on your or on my behalf. I am simply asking:




    Are there two beings? One says it does not know whether Atma is ignorant or not? And another being who has definite knowledge that the "knowledge-self" doesn't know its actual nature.


    I am emphasising this point since I do not know whether atma is ignorant or not?, Whether I am ignorant or not?, Whether I have any relation to Atma or not?

    The point is: how I can know that the knowledge self is ignorant, if I do not know the knowledge self? How can I know whether the self that I think I am is same as knowledge self or not?

    Vedas simply say that all is known when Brahman is known.


    Namaste sir,

    My thinking capability is not upto your level .

    There are no two beings ..but one is my self experience and another is knwoledge obtained from Vedas.

    My experience says "I am this body" , where as Vedas reveal that "you are not your body but you are "knowledge-self" " , so why can't I experience that real nature revealed by Vedas at present moment.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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
  •