Advaita : Some Basic Explanations - 2

Srikrishna Ghadiyaram srikrishna_ghadiyaram at YAHOO.COM
Sat Feb 23 12:23:53 CST 2002

Hari Om !!

--- hbdave <hbd at DDIT.ERNET.IN> wrote:
> Dear List members,
> Here is the posting no. 2.
> I thank Shri S.V.Subrahmanian for kind words.
> -- Himanshu
> > Advaita : Some Basic Explanations : (2)
>                                                 --
> Himanshu
> I would like to start with the following Shantipath
> from RigVeda.
> May my speech be according to my mind and my mind be
> tuned to what
> I am saying. O Self-Illuminated! manifest in front
> of me. Bring me
> the knowledge of my Universal self.

Q: Is this to be considered to be the words of
'Jivatma or Jiva' the limited self, which I think I am
?, because there is a distinction being made between
'I' and 'my mind' ?

> Let whatever I have understood not leave me.

Q: Who has understood and what ?

> I make this learning a part of my waking and
> non-waking states.

Q: What is the import of statement ?

> I shall speak the Law. I shall speak the Truth.

Q: Would you please differentiate .ritam and satyam

> Let that Truth protect me. May that Truth protect
> the Speaker (who is
> speaking through me.)
> May it protect me, may it protect the Speaker,
> protect the Speaker.

Q: Waht is this distinction between 'me' and the
'speaker' ? Possibly, we do not pray for protection of
the EGO, and there is no need of protection for the
'Atma'. If both words imply 'Jivatma or Jiva', in such
a case why a distinction is made here ?

> Some rare person sees this [Self] like a wonderful
> thing, some rare
> person describes it in wonder, some listens about it
> as a
> wonderful thing and some do not get to know it even
> after hearing about it.
>         (Geeta 2-29)
> The first type of person has a direct and
> unmistakable contact with the
> Ultimate Reality. These are the most profound
> persons and are called
> {\skt paramaha.msa} (those who have finally achieved
> oneness with the Ultimate
> Reality). They generally keep quiet. In recent times
> in our country, two
> persons come to my mind -- {\skt
> paramaha.msa} and
> {\skt} -- who can be called this
> way.
> The second type of person describes it after
> understanding
> the true nature of Ultimate Reality. He is
> considered a little bit defective
> as he tries to describe the undescribable. This
> refers to philosophers who
> talk or argue about nature of Ultimate Reality. They
> try to convince others.
> They teach and guide others. They will have to learn
> to keep quiet.
> The third type of persons knows about Self by
> listening to others who had
> either contact with Self or are able to explain its
> nature. He learns from a
> teacher or from scriptures. He is a good student. He
> has yet to think, get
> convinced and then ultimately keep quiet.
> But some are not able to have any inkling about Self
> even when he has an
> accidental realization, or a teacher or scripture
> shows the way. Such
> persons have yet to take up the path of
> spirituality.

Q: based on the above explanation, I see that the
second, third, and fourth type do not have direct
experience. In a way, I understand that the second
type of people understand or are convinced of the
ultimate principle of 'Self' as a text book knowledge,
and are able to explain about it to others. The third
category of people have listened to the first and
second type of people, but not yet convinced of the
principle of ultimate reality. The fourth type do not
even 'doubt' that the 'Self' may exist. Is this
correct ?

Based on the explanation given by you, I suppose,
'Brahmavid' is a Paramahamsa. Where do the
'Brahmavid-Vara, Brahmavid-Varenya,
Brahmavid-Varishta' fit in ? Is there any parallel
between the words 'Jada, Bala etc.' that Sri Hemant
has used and these 'Brahmavid ... ' words ?

Sri Himanshu wrote:

There are four stages in this teaching :

i.      rejecting {\skt dehaatmabhaava} - "this
body/mind complex is I
        sense", and find out who is real "I";

Q: As I understand, the 'I-sense' is EGO, and the
consciousness behind that is termed as 'Jivatma', at
the first instance, which is a reflection of the
'Atman', the all-pervading. This conception being
forwarded because we can not ascribe the pain and
pleasure to the unattached 'Atman' or the insentient
'EGO'. I am not considering the unity between the
Jivatman and Atman here because it is only an
'Advaitic' view. So, is it appropriate to say that the
goal is to know that I am 'Jivatman' and 'EGO' and its
effects are superimposed on me the 'Jivatman or Jiva'

It is my theoretical understanding that While in
meditation we experience the distinction between the
'EGO' and 'Jivatman' and no third entity as 'Atman' or
'Paramatman' is found. Is this understanding correct ?
Did I use the words correctly ? If so, why are always
talking about three 'entities' ?

ii.     realizing {\skt aikya} - oneness of {\skt
aatmaa} - Self and
        {]\skt paramaatmaa} - brahman;

Q: Where is the question or need to realize the
one-ness of 'Atman' and 'Brahman' as they are the same
by definition, when once we differentiate 'Jivatman'
from the 'Atman' ? Is it not that the nomenclature
'Atman' is for the same all-pervading Consciousness
with respect to the individual (distinct from the
Jivatman  after accomodating the views of
Visishtadvaita or Dwaita) ? Ofcourse, I imagine that I
may realize or 'perceive' the same consciousness in
all the other beings when I realize my own
consciousness 'true nature of Jivatman' which I am.
What you said can not be equal to saying oneness of
Jivatman and Brahman. Kindly explain.

iii.    realizing oneness of brahman and maayaa;

Q: As postulated, because of Maya, we see the Jagat.
That is, the Avarana and Vikshepa of Maya needs to be
sublated to see the 'Asti-Bhati-Priyam' covered by
'Nama-Rupa'. Is this what you mean ?

iv.     ajaatavaada.

Q: Is this only a theory propounded from 'that'  plane
to express the 'state of mind' after complete
realization and 'the one's state of being' after
complete annihilation of 'Individuality' ?

So, the first step is to find out who (or what) is
"I", technically
{\skt saak"si} or {\skt dehin} - the One who owns or
controls the body.

Q: As I understand that the realization of Meditation
is only separation of EGO and Individual Self, why do
not we say that the 'Individual Self' is the Saakshi ?
Why is it attributed to the third concept 'Atman'. I
am particularly confused when Mundaka Up says there
are 'two birds' (interpreted as 1. Jivatma 2. Atma or
Paramatma) or when Aitareya Up says 'He entered the
body of man' (my doubt is he entered as what ? as
Jivatma or Atma ?), or when I see sentences saying,
the Paramatma is witnessing all the Jivas and their
three states.

I am thoroughly disturbed with these confusions.
Kindly do not ignore them or ask me to derive from all
the other posts. I would appreciate direct answers, so
my understanding is not limited by my confused mind
and its limitations of derivation.

Om Namo Naarayanaya !!


Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list