sada at ANVIL.NRL.NAVY.MIL
Thu May 21 09:58:12 CDT 1998
Gummaluru Murthy wrote:
>Namaste. Please correct me if I am wrong in the following:
>I see only two states.
Here is my understanding:
In actuality, there is only one state all the time. Aham Brahma -
The rest are all adhyaasa - a superimposition on Brahman - It is not a
superimposition of something on top it but some thing as - just as gold as
- now from gold point it is one - when gold exists as many ornaments - is
it one or many? - it is one as many, yet remaining one. Now who sees that -
two ways to look at it - a ring identifying as I am only a ring can learn
that there is a cause for the creation -
yatova imaani bhutaani jaayante - yena jaataani jeevanti - yat
prayam tyabhisham vishanti - That from which this whole world of beings
arise, by which they are sustained and into which they go back is Brahman -
That is it is a material cause - ring looks for gold. When rings realizes
that I am the gold - what happens to the rest of the ornaments - they are
still there - but the gold in the ring realizes that I am not the ring but
gold that pervades all the golden ornaments - this is what we call jeevan
mukta ringly gold. The ring has realized does not mean that the necklace
has realized. From the ring point it realizes the self in me is the self
in all -It can go and teach the necklace that it is nothing but gold. In
the 6th Ch of B.G. Krishna says:
sarva bhuutastham aatmaanam
sarvabhuutaani ca aatmani|
I see myself as the self in all beings and I see that all beings are in me
- The one who sees is the jeevanmukta - this is from the yogi's point who
has realized. In the very next sloka the same thing Krishna repeats from
the point of Iswara (or one can take as from Bhakti point)- as your
question relates to -
yo mam pasyati sarvatra
sarvam ch mayi pasyati
tasyaaham na praNasyaami
sa ca me na praNasyati||
whoever sees me everywhere and sees everything in me, he will never be away
from me nor I am from him. - here there is yah - whoever he may be he who,
and there is mam and mayi - Krishna identifying with Iswara.
Of course as I noted in my last mail which states what you mentioned
>> The second and third, Iswara and Jeeva are interconnected since it is the
>> Jeeva's notion that there is a creation and there is a creator, iswara, who
>> can even comedown and teach us B.G. and there is a shastra as a pramaana
>> etc., etc.
Hence in the seat of mediation when one is reveling in oneself by oneself -
it is atma rati - non-dual state
When one is playing one as many - it is called atma kreeDa or from the
point of Iswara as leelaa vibhuuti (Ch. 10 of B.G.) - This is an apparent
state since creation is apparent. Hence ChanDugya that quoted before
explaining the creation:
sadeva soumya idamagram aasiit - ekamevaa adviteeyam
Existence was there in the beginning before creation and it is one without
a second - this is the Brahman
tad aikshata, buhusyam, prajaayeyeti.
that saw and decided to become many and became many.
This is the state of iswara where there is a creative urge.
There was no talk of delusion yet - but the teaching is to a deluded
So you can interpret any way you want.
>The jeeva state, or the state of ignorance, and
>The nirguNa state, the state of jnAna.
>The jeeva state includes the saguNa state mentioned above. In the state of
>ignorance, jeeva sees creation, and with jeeva incapable of creation,
>invokes Ishwara, the creator. But jeeva can never be the creator, and
>hence, can the saguNa state have the status of a state ? However, it is
>an important sub-state which allows us (i) to see the limitations of the
>jeeva, and (ii) to surrrender the ego with humility to a superior power.
No disagreements since all states are just superimposition on Brahman and
none of them are real. When Jeeva understands the self in him is the self
in all - all that appears does not have to disappear. All that happens is
the realization of oneself as oneself and the rest is also my own self in
different forms and beings. They are in me but I am not in them - ref to
Ch.9 Krishna's statement.
>In that way, I take Bhagavad-gita, not as a narration by Lord Krishna
>(Ishwara) to his disciple Arjuna, but as a discussion that goes on within
>any individual between the consciousness (Krishna) and the ego (Arjuna).
>I realize I am opening Pandora's box with this, but is that thinking
- there is no validity or invalidity in this. If you are happy with that
explanation that is as good as any. - what you say is true if one
understands the truth of the world in correct perspective. Otherwise it
is not. Remember the B.G. you had to learn from the books and from the
teachers who are apparently out there - it is not directly the imagination
of your mind which never heard of B.G., before you heard from your
teachers. Vyavahaara has to be understood correctly. Shankara gives
beautiful slokas in the end of vivekachuuDamani from the mouth of the
student who has just realized. Although he has realized that he is
everything, the student does not fail to recognize the teacher and says it
is only because of the grace of the teacher that he has realized - there is
no advaita bhaavana there in front of the teacher - although in principle
the guru and grace have no meaning in absolute sense. - Vyavahaara is
played with the understanding that it is a play. That is what is leela
Yes, in the ultimate analysis the whole world of creation is nothing but
the mental projection - in the mind of the Jeeva. Going back to Bhagavan
Ramana he says in Upadesha saara in concurrence with your statements
chitta darshanam tatvadarshanam||
The whole world that one sees is nothing but objects (since subject is the
seer) and they are seen though the mind - without the mind the world is
not there - mind is nothing but thoughts - hence every object is nothing
but a thought in the mind - chair outside is recognized by chair thought
inside ( I discussed once how the mind works - in terms of volition etc).
In the first line he establishes that the whole world seen is nothing but
the thoughts in the mind (this obviously includes creation - creator,
including B.G.as you implied - as well as this discussion!). In the next
line with one stroke he takes us to the ultimate - vision of the essence of
the mind is the vision of the truth. - So the sequence is - every object
out there is a thought in the mind, and if one examines the contents of
each thought - it is nothing but consciousness, since one is conscious of
the thought of the object - consciousness has to pervade the thought,
otherwise one cannot be conscious of the thought. Hence contents of the
thought is nothing but consciousness - therefore chitta darshanam is tatva
darshanam - one of the most beautiful slokas of Upadesha saara. Just as
every wave is pervaded by water and without water, wave cannot exist, and I
donot have to suppress the wave to see the water - in fact wave is nothing
but water in different form - same is the consciousness - every thought
wave is nothing but consciousness itself - I donot have to suppress the
thought to see the consciousness. All I have to do is to shift my
attention and examine what is essence of the thoughts - it is nothing but
consciousness and I am that consciousness since I am conscious of the
thought - the subject and object distinction is superficial - just as gold
in the ring declares I am gold and not the ring which is the name and the
form which are superficial. - Ch says this too -
yathaa soumya ekena loha maniNaa sarvam lohamayam viJNaata
syaat vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naama dheyam
lohamityava satyameva -
just as by knowing the essence of one ornament that it is gold, all
ornaments are known - they are nothing but the name and form for apparent
projection or modification- of the gold only.
But this knowledge does not have to destroy the creation. It is only a
realization I am the gold that pervades in all ornaments.
The correct way to look at is that the objective world is the projection
in the total mind not the individual mind - When I identify I am the total
mind I become Iswara - identifying with the individual mind I become Jeeva.
- the differnce is as I stated once:
I see it, therefore it is - the world is individual projection -
It is, therefore I see it - the world is total projection -
Bottom line - all are explanations to quench the intellect. One has to
discover one self by oneself what the real truth is.
uddare atmana maatmaanam atmaanamavasaadhayet|
one has to realize oneself by lifting oneself by oneself. There is no other
way since ignorance is in oneself about oneself.
>> Hari Om!
>Yadaa sarve pramucyante kaamaa ye'sya hr^di shritaah
>atha martyo'mr^to bhavatyatra brahma samashnute Katha Upanishhad II.3.14
>When all the desires that dwell in the heart fall away, then the mortal
>becomes immortal, and attains Brahman even here.
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington D.C. 20375
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list