[Advaita-l] On the forms of Guru

Kuntimaddi Sadananda ksadananda108 at gmail.com
Wed Mar 10 20:52:49 CST 2010

Anbuji - PraNAms

As I read the statement below, I find there is a shift in reference state.

You are right from Brahman point - nothing can be said - yat gatvaa na
nivartante apraapya manasaa saha| - words and the mind cannot reach there.
That is from the absolute point. From that reference there is neither jnaani
nor ajnaani nor jnaanam also. That state as Goudapaada says is not even
advaita - since the statement advaita is only with reference to dvaita.

There is no self realization also. Brahman does not have to realize neither
aatmaa does not have to realize - nitya mukta swaruupaH - ekam eva
advitiiyam etc.

Hence the discussion of jnaani and ajnaani is only with reference to
vyaavahaarika only. I am Brahman is the understanding in the mind that
negated the  notion that I am a jiiva. From Brahmna point I am neither jiiva
nor Brahman - just silence since no words can be expressed also.

Given these two references we are asking what is the role of the mind? I had
discussed this in my several posts on tat tvam asi series where tvam
padaartham and tat padaartha vicaara and the identity relation involved in
these two are involved. The scenario is all pervading aatmaa does not have
to realize. The mind which is inert cannot realize. Then who realizes what?
- that has to be understood clearly - without shifting the reference states.

If the light is shining everywhere, there is no way to know it. Same applies
to all pervading consciousness. If there is an object there where the light
can fall, two things are known. 1. the object is now known and it could not
have been known without the light. 2. Interestingly now the light is also
known because it is falling on the object and getting reflected by the
object. Without that object even though the light is all pervading it cannot
be RECOGNIZED as even existing. More important is it is not really the
object that is seen but only the reflected light from the object as the
image of the object is formed by the reflected light. Hence when we perceive
the object, it is not really the object but the light coming from the
object. That the perceptual object is really there is only established by
transactions or vyavahaara by kramendriyas as discussed in my Knowledge
series based on Vedanta paribhaasha.

Saakshii is nothing but all pervading self but it gets the role of a
Saakshii only when the light of the consciousness gets illumined by the
object mind. This in Vedanta is called upahita chaitanya - like space in the
pot. Without the object mind, even thought I am all-pervading I can never
know myself - just as I need a mirror to see my face. Self realization is
looking at the image in the mirror and recognize that I am not really the
image but the original face that is getting reflected in the mirror.
Similarly self-realization is looking at the reflected consciousness called
chidaabaasa in the mind and using the reflected consciousness RECOGNIZE that
I am the original consciousness independent of the quality of the reflection
due to the impurities in the medium of reflection that is the mind. The
reflection of consciousness in the mind is called vRitti and constant
awareness of that reflection and abiding in the knowledge I am not the
vRitti but that because of which I am aware of the vRitti. This is also
called akhanDaakaara vRitti. Henec the statement of Kena- yan manasaa na
manute yenaahur manomatam - tat eva Brahman tvam viddhi nedam yadidam
upaasate| that which mind cannot think off, but because of which the mind
has the capacity to think of - know that alone is Brahman not this that you

>From the posts of Shree Subramanianji and Shree Vidyashankarji - one can see
that this is the essence of advaita doctrine, whether one agrees with it or
not. It i s not their adviata and my adviata - theres is no dvaita in
advaita doctrin.

I must say after studying Bhagavaan Ramana texts Upadesa saara and sat
Darshanam and teaching those texts for Chinmaya Mission, I find that
Bhagavaan Ramanas teaching does not differ from the above. Vedanta is the
ultimate pramANa irrespective who the teacher is - whether it is Goudapaada,
Shankara Bhagavatpaada, Sureswara, Vidyaaranya or Bhagavan Ramana - all echo
the essence of advaita Vedanta discussed above. The wording and answers to
the disciples could be different depending on the way the questions were
formatted. Hence the need of live sampradaaya teacher that Krishna advises
in the statement - tat viddhi praNipaatena pariprashnena sevayaa - so that
one can forumate the questions to relieve ones doubts.

Anyway from my perspective I saw the difference in arguments stemming from
the change of reference state.

Hari Om!

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry, this is not my position for nothing positive can be said of Brahman.
> A gnyaani is Brahman.  He is simply anirvachaneeya and I have said this
> before.   One may or may not need the mind to know that he is Brahman (and
> I
> have said that it is actually an impediment) but definitely won't keep the
> mind or anything else when he knows he is Brahman.  What was once his body
> before his realization operates under the spell of Easwara even though the
> person has broken the mutual superimposition.  That is the praaptham with
> regard to the body.  Only because it, the body, is operating the entity is
> called Jeevan Muktha.  If the body had dropped he would be vidhEha muktha.
> A Jeevan Muktha is a total asangan and adhvitheeyan.  Who can say what are
> and what are not his powers?  Tell me if any Bhaashya or Primary Texts are
> to be quoted to say this.
> Agnyaanis see and describe the gnyaanis in their own fancy.  That is what
> the agnyaanis do. Until such time a person realizes that he does not know
> there is no impulse in him to know.  His avidya will keep asserting.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list