[Advaita-l] Being atma versus knowing atma
anbesivam2 at gmail.com
Sat Aug 29 07:01:55 CDT 2009
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Jaldhar H. Vyas
<jaldhar at braincells.com>wrote:An entity that posesses viveka, chetana,
etc. has a different
perspective on being than one which is jada. Hence the necessity for talk.
All talks are possible only when you ignore tne obvious. Can Viveka not
ignore the obvious and yet operate?
I thought the Veda exhorted one to abandon the intellect - the viveki.
I suppose the thrill is in opting for this 'vivekam'!
> [Was Re: [Advaita-l] shudra]
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Anbu sivam2 wrote:
> Truly not Knowing Aathma is no bar to being Aathma. If Being is knowing
>> then unknowing has no meaning! Question is: can Being be unknowing? If
>> answer is no then there is no aathma vichaaram. All our problem arises
>> we answer yes!
>> The sanest advise ever been "summa iru, sollara" (Just be and dom't
> What you say is very true however the same is true for a rock, or a tree,
> or a puddle. All of them have as much Brahman-nature as Shankaracharya. But
> in my previous experience no rock has ever asked to join advaita-l :-)
> An entity that posesses viveka, chetana, etc. has a different perspective
> on being than one which is jada. Hence the necessity for talk. I have
> often remarked that this darshan is not called aikya ("one") but advaita
> ("not-two.") Duality is our everyday experience and it must be known to be
> false before we can just "be."
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Michael Shepherd wrote:
>> I've had this answer of yours for a few days, but I'd like to question it
>> Atmajnana may be even rarer than the merit of a human birth (what must we
>> have done ? Been good dogs ? good snakes ?...)
> Sure. Why not?
> -- but surely atmaseva is
>> something within our reach and duty, whether identifiable as our
>> or not ?
> Yes it is but consider this. atma in sanskrit merely means self. It is
> Vedanta which has given it a meaning above and beyond the dictionary sense.
> Most people know the self as the enjoyer of material things and feel sorrow
> when those things are taken away. But this is called being "selfish" It is
> not what we mean by knowing the (unlimited) self. Who has transcended the
> limits should be given all respect because he has accomplished a rare feat
> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list