[Advaita-l] Advaita-l Digest, Vol 2, Issue 29
Kotekal, Srinivas [Non-Employee/0200]
srinivas.kotekal at pharmacia.com
Wed Jun 11 15:39:27 CDT 2003
Thanks for your reply and vivid analogy.
>>--- "Kotekal, Srinivas [Non-Employee/0200]"
>><srinivas.kotekal at pharmacia.com> wrote:
>> If you read Shruti vAkya "ekam eva advitiiyam" as "there cannot be
>> than Brahman" ; then following fundamental question arises ;
>Hold it right there Srinivas - when you say the question arises - you
>are already in the realm of ignorance.
I questioned so because you quoted "ekam eva advitiiyam" in the first place.
Right ? If my question is in domain of ignorance, why can't you and your
assertion of "ekam..." is also be in the same domain in the first place ?!?.
For that matter, why can't statement's owner, Shruti, itself be in such
domain ?... you tell me ?
Why do you consider Shruti and its statement is in non-ignorance domain but
any questions about them are in ignorance domain ?
> Then we are coming to dwaita -
>since there is questioner and question and questioning.
Don't forget...questioner,question,questioning and subject of question
(Shruti) are all in the same domain to begin with.
>J~naani will not ask such questions.
Then, what is the difference between non-Hindu and JnAni ? both will not
question about "ekam eva advitiiyam" anyway. Or, if non-questioning is
considered as jnAni laxaNa, every child in this world is jnAni to say so !
>If there is one and I am seeing two, I got to get
>my eyes checked up.
How do you know there is "only one" to begin with ? When I born, I did not
know myself to mention. As I grew, I came to know my existence and other's
(mothers to begin with). In such scenario, how did you assume there is only
one and thought you need to get your eyes checked ?
>You are absolutely right - no need for all that If I have no notions or
>visions of two when there is only one. The upadesha all that is
>therefore relavent only to those who see dwaita when there is only
Please understand the objection. I am asking "if everything is Brahmn, why
do we need all these shAstra?".
>Let me tell you a story - there is this jobn who suddently thought he is
>a rat and not a human - do not ask me how and when he got that notion.
>He has been rat all along, according to him. His wife somehow took him
>to a doctor and after many sittings he was tought that he is a man and
>not a rat. He did everyday that japa - he is a man and not a rat. John
>who are you - he said I am a man and not a rat. Eveybody is happy - He
>went back home. But after some time he came running back to the doctor -
>When doctor asked what is the problem - he said I know I am a man and
>not a rat, but how can I be sure that cat in the street knows that I am
>a man and not a rat.
I am afraid, the analogy is not correct. In your story, John was not
thinking he is a rat to begin with, right ? He was thinking he is human and
suddenly for some reason he started feeling he is a rat, right ?
Now, in our vedantic situation, the reverse is true. To begin with, no one
thinks he/she is Brahmn. Originally everyone thinks he/she is human.
Whatever "I am Brahmn" (aham brahamasmi) comes to mind is only later (after
one reads Veda), right ? Now tell me, which is John and which is Rat ??? :)
In the same line, let me tell another story...
Once an ordinary Bill after reading an newspaper article about Bill Clinton,
ignoring the "Clinton" part, he started thinking he is same as Bill Clinton
and indeed president of US and trying to move his belongings to White House
to live there. Guess what ? you know where he ended up !! "SriKrishna
jnamastLa" a.k.a jail ! No offence intended, but just for humor, we can say,
since Brahmn (Sri Krishna) also born there, "aham brahamasmi" literally came
true for Bill :)
>Srinivas - it is indeed like a dream - when a tiger is chasing in your
>dream, you run for your life - is it not. When when you are awakend to
>higher state of reality that is the waking state only - you realise that
>the whole dream world is your mental projection. It is the similar -
>the plurality is taken as reality and suffer the consequences of this
>misunderstanding - Scriputure is giving a different vision of youself
>than what you think of yourself.
But Sadanada-ji, Tiger is also an real animal in awaken state. Don't you
agree ? But in your school, no tiger nothing apart from Brahmn in absolute
reality, right ?
In the similar lines, T.P.Mahadevan wrote; Advaitic concept of realization
using not-so-real shruti is like awakening to an lion's roar in the dream.
His argument is lion's roar is not real but awakening is real ! But my
problem in understanding his analogy is ; the dreamer got to be aware of
such animal as lion in awakened non-dreaming state in order to get scared
for virtual lion's roar in the dream. If I am not aware of an animal in
reality , how can I wake up from such virtual animal in the dream ? So, in
order to make sense of what Shrutis are conveying now, Shrutis have to be
*as real as* the awakened state, which is Brahmn. Any thoughts ?
This communication is intended solely for the use of the addressee and may
contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the
sender immediately and delete it from his or her computer.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list