• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Gaudapada and Nagarjuna

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Atanu,
As I said earlier, the concept of an illusory universe is not to be found in the Mukhya Upanishads, the Gita and the Brahma sutras. At least, not directly.
The Shetashvatara is not counted among the ten principal Upanishads. ...

It is a curious position that seems to suggest that Shankara's advaita darshana is alien to Veda and Vedanta.

Maya, as I understand, is a cosmic hypnosis that veils the Singular Reality and imposes the suggestions of manifestation. The cosmic consciousness of the One Perceiver, experiencing these transformations of maya, becomes correspondingly individualized as many souls. To me this is the essence throughout in Vedas, Upanishads and in Gita. I note below a few selected passages. If required, I can reproduce many many more.

RV 7.098.05 I proclaim the ancient exploits of Indra, the recent deeds that Maghavan has achieved; when indeed he had overcome the un-divine illusion, thenceforth the Soma became his exclusive.

RV 10.054.02 When you proceed, Indra, increasing in form, and proclaiming your prowess among mankind, false is that your (wandering), false the combats which you have narrated; you (find) now no enemy (to attack), did you formerly find one?
RV 10.054.03 Who among the r.s.is before us have obtained the limit of your entire greatness, since from your own person you have generated at once both mother and father (or earth and heaven)?

Mayabheda from Rig Veda

RV 10.177.01 to 10.177.03

पतंगमक्तमसुरस्य मायया हृदा पश्यन्ति मनसा विपश्चितः ।
समुद्रे अन्तः कवयो वि चक्षते मरीचीनां पदमिच्छन्ति वेधसः ॥१॥
पतंगो वाचं मनसा बिभर्ति तां गन्धर्वोऽवदद्गर्भे अन्तः ।
तां द्योतमानां स्वर्यं मनीषामृतस्य पदे कवयो नि पान्ति ॥२॥
अपश्यं गोपामनिपद्यमानमा च परा च पथिभिश्चरन्तम् ।
स सध्रीचीः स विषूचीर्वसान आ वरीवर्ति भुवनेष्वन्तः ॥३॥

The wise behold with their mind in their heart the Sun, made externally manifest by the illusion of the Asura;
The sages look into the solar orb, the ordainers desire the region of his rays.
The Sun bears the word in his mind; the Gandharva has spoken it within the wombs;
Sages cherish it in the place of sacrifice, brilliant, heavenly, ruling the mind. I beheld the protector, never descending, going by his paths to the east and the west;

Isha Upanishad

7) To the seer, all things have verily become the Self: what delusion, what sorrow, can there be for him who beholds that oneness?

Yoga Sutras

2.5 antiya ashuchi duhkha anatmasu nitya shuchi sukha atman khyatih avidya
2:5 Ignorance is perceiving the non-eternal, impure, evil, and what is not atman, to be eternal, pure, good, and the atman.

Gita

दैवी ह्येषा गुणमयी मम माया दुरत्यया।
मामेव ये प्रपद्यन्ते मायामेतां तरन्ति ते।।7.14।।

7.14 Verily, this divine illusion of Mine, made up of the (three) qualities (of Nature) is difficult to cross over; those who take refuge in Me alone, cross over this illusion.

13.17 Avibhaktam cha bhooteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam;
Bhootabhartru cha tajjneyam grasishnu prabhavishnu cha.


13.17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.

.......

Those who are interested may further peruse the following selection from Vedas, Upanishads, and Gita.
Atharva Veda VIII.10.22

She rose. The Asuras saw her. They called her. Their cry was, "Come, O Māyā, come thou hither" !!
Her cow was Virochana Prahradi. Her milking vessel was a pan of iron.
Dvimurdha Artvya milked this Māyā.
The Asuras depend for life on Māyā for their sustenance.

One who knows this, becomes a fit supporter [of gods].

Gita
दैवी ह्येषा गुणमयी मम माया दुरत्यया।
मामेव ये प्रपद्यन्ते मायामेतां तरन्ति ते।।7.14।।

7.14 Verily, this divine illusion of Mine, made up of the (three) qualities (of Nature) is difficult to cross over; those who take refuge in Me alone, cross over this illusion.

13.17 Avibhaktam cha bhooteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam;
Bhootabhartru cha tajjneyam grasishnu prabhavishnu cha.


13.17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.

6.29 One who is thus integrated in yoga sees all with equal eye, seeing himself in all beings all beings in himself.

15.6 Neither sun, nor moon, nor fire illumines this state on attaining which one does not return. And this is My supreme abode.

Upanishads

Kathy Upanishad
"This is That" -- thus they realize the ineffable joy supreme. How can "This" be known? Does he give light or does he reflect light?

There the sun shines not, nor the moon, nor the stars; lightnings shine not there and much less earthly fire. From his light all these give light, and his radiance illumines all creation.


Isha Upanishad

5) It moves and moves not; It is far and likewise near. It is inside all this and It is outside all this.
6) The wise man beholds all beings in the Self and the Self in all beings; for that reason he does not hate anyone.
7) To the seer, all things have verily become the Self: what delusion, what sorrow, can there be for him who beholds that oneness?
…….
15) The door of the Truth is covered by a golden disc. Open it, O Nourisher! Remove it so that I who have been worshipping the Truth may behold It.

KATH U IV, 10--11

10. Whatever is here, the same is there;
whatever is there, the same is here.
Whoever perceives just separateness
passes from death to death without cease.

11. Only by the spirit can this intuition be grasped:
in this world there is nothing whatever separate.
Whoever thinks he perceives separateness
passes from death to death without cease.

BU IV, 4, 13-14

iii) 13. He who has found and awakened to the atman
which has entered the otherwise impenetrable body,
he is the maker of the universe, of all things.
The world is his! The world itself is he
!

14. This we may know, indeed, while here on earth.
If we do not know it, great is the destruction.
But those who know it become immortal.
The others attain only distress.

KATH U IV, 1-2

1. The Self-existent pierced sense openings outward;
therefore a Man looks out, not in.
But a certain wise Man, in search of immortality,
turned his gaze inward and saw the Self within.

2. The foolish go after outward pleasures
and walk into the snare of all-embracing death.
The wise, however, discerning immortality,
do not seek the permanent among things impermanent.



KATH U IV, 10--11

10. Whatever is here, the same is there;
whatever is there, the same is here.
Whoever perceives just separateness
passes from death to death without cease.


11. Only by the spirit can this intuition be grasped:
in this world there is nothing whatever separate.
Whoever thinks he perceives separateness
passes from death to death without cease
.

KATH U IV, 14-15

14. As water descending on mountain crags
wastes its energies among the gullies,
so he who views things as separate
wastes his energies in their pursuit
.

15. But as pure water poured into pure
becomes the selfsame--wholly pure,
so too becomes the self of the silent sage,
of the one, O Gautama, who has understanding.



RV VIII, 58, 2

iv) Only One is the Fire, enkindled in numerous ways;
only One is the Sun, pervading this whole universe;
only One is the Dawn, illuminating all things.
In very truth, the One has become the whole world!


RV X, 114, 5AB

v) By their words the inspired sages impart
manifold forms to that Bird which is the One.



AV XIII, 4, 12-21

vii) 12. Power entered within him.
He is the One, the Onefold, the only One.

13. In him all the Gods become unified.

14. Fame and glory, fruitfulness and fertility,
Brahman splendor, food and nourishment,

15. belong to him who knows this God as One only.

16. Not second or third or fourth is he called--
he who knows this God as One only.

17. Not fifth or sixth or seventh is he called--
he who knows this God as One only.

18. Not eighth or ninth or tenth is he called--
he who knows this God as One only.

19. He watches over all existent beings,
those that breathe and those that breathe not.

20. Power entered within him.
He is the One, the Onefold, the only One.

21. In him all the Gods become unified.


TA III, 11, 1

ix) He who lives in us as our guide, who is one, and yet appears in many forms, in whom the hundred lights of heaven are one, in whom the Vedas are one, in whom the priests are one--he is the spiritual atman within the person.

MAIT U VI, 17

vi) In the beginning this was Brahman, One and infinite, infinite in the East, infinite in the South, infinite in the West, infinite in the North, infinite above and below, infinite in every direction. For him there are, of course, no directions such as the East and so on, no across, no above, and no below.

Inconceivable is this supreme atman, immeasurable, unborn, inscrutable, unthinkable, he whose Self is [infinite] space. He alone remains awake when the universe is dissolved, and out of this space he awakens [again] the world consisting of thought. By him alone is all this thought [into being] and in him it dissolves again. His shining form is that which burns in the sun; it is the multiform light that shines in the smokeless fire and it is that which digests the food in the body. For thus it has been said:

He who dwells in the fire,
he who dwells in the heart,
he who dwells in the sun,
he is One.
The man who knows this,
he verily attains
the Oneness of the One.

KAIV U 23

vii) For me there is no earth, no water, and no fire.
For me there is neither wind nor ether.

The one who has discovered the supreme atman
dwelling in the heart, without parts, without a second,
the universal witness, neither being nor nonbeing,
attains the pure form of the supreme atman.

CU VII, 1; 2, 2; 3-8; 10-18; 21-24; 26

26, 1. The man who sees in this way, who thinks in this way, who knows in this way--from his atman proceeds life, from his atman hope, from his atman memory, from his atman space, from his atman radiance, from his atman water, from his atman proceed the manifestation and disappearance [of the world], from his atman proceeds food, from his atman energy, from his atman wisdom, from his atman contemplation, from his atman thought, from his atman purpose, from his atman mind, from his atman the word, from his atman name, from his atman prayer, from his atman sacred actions, from his atman comes all this.

From Atman, proceed the world. That is what the whole of Sanatana Dharma scriptures teach.
 
Last edited:

shivsomashekhar

Well-Known Member
atanu,

What I am saying is, the word maya is interpreted to mean illusion or false (mithya) only in Advaita. No other branch of Vedanta reads such a meaning into the word.

A commonly acceptable meaning of maya (among Advaitins and non-Advaitins) is the power of Ishwara, through which he brings forth the Universe. But while Advaita considers this Universe mithya, others do not. And this mithyatava is an inference as there is no direct statement in support of it anywhere in the Trayi.

This does not mean that Advaita becomes incorrect. The point simply is that mithyatva (being the product of Maya) is inferred and not directly stated in scripture.

For instance, here is Ramanuja's reading of Gita 7.14 -

7.14 (a) This Maya of Mine consists of the three Gunas, Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. Because it is created by Me, the Divine, for purpose of sport, it is divine in its power and therefore difficult to overcome. The word Maya is used for the effects of the three Gunas, because it has got the power of generating wonderful effects as in the case of the magic of Asuras and Raksasas. See the passages: 'Then the excellent discus, the flaming Sudarsana, was despatched by the Lord to defend the boy. The thousand Mayas or wonderfully created weapons of the evil-designed Sambara were foiled one after another, by that ickly moving discus, for protecting the body of the boy' (V. P., 1.19. 19-20). Here the term Maya does not signify the sense of 'false'. Even with regard to magicians, when the term, Mayavin (one who possesses Maya) is used, there is origination of real impressions with the aid of certain incantations, herbs etc., though the objects created are illusory things. Accordingly the term Maya denotes the incantations, herbs etc., which have got the power of creating real impressions. Inasmuch as the sense of the term should be invariable, following the usage in all cases, the term Maya can be applied to the illusory objects, only in a secondary sense, while its primary sense in regard to the real impressions generated in the mind. It is just like in the statement 'The cots cry.' The Maya of the Lord, which is absolutely real and which consists of the Gunas, is alone taught in the texts like, 'Know then Maya to be the Prakrti and the possessor of the Maya to be the great Lord' (Sve. U., 4.10). It not only obscures the essential nature of the Lord but also creates the condition of the mind that sees its objects as enjoyable. Therefore, the entire universe, deluded by the Lord's Maya, does not know the Lord who is of the nature of boundless beatitude. (On the other hand they feel objects set forth by Maya as enjoyable). Sri Krsna teaches the way of deliverance from Maya: (b) But those who take refuge in Me alone - Me whose resolves are always true, who has supreme compassion, and who is the refuge of all beings without exception and without consideration of their particular status - such persons shall pass beyond this Maya of Mine consisting of the three Gunas. The meaning is that they worship Me alone, renouncing the Maya. Why, then do all not take recourse to refuge in the Lord which is conducive to the worship of the Lord?
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
atanu,

What I am saying is, the word maya is interpreted to mean illusion or false (mithya) only in Advaita. No other branch of Vedanta reads such a meaning into the word.

A commonly acceptable meaning of maya (among Advaitins and non-Advaitins) is the power of Ishwara, through which he brings forth the Universe. But while Advaita considers this Universe mithya, others do not. And this mithyatava is an inference as there is no direct statement in support of it anywhere in the Trayi....

I note that 'Mithya' is not asat (untrue).

I think, there is pointer to 'illusory power-mithyatva' in all the citations that I included. And there are more. The whole of Veda and Vedanta is about piercing the illusion. Mayabheda is a special verse of Rig Veda.

We may however agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
It is a curious position that seems to suggest that Shankara's advaita darshana is alien to Veda and Vedanta.

Maya, as I understand, is a cosmic hypnosis that veils the Singular Reality and imposes the suggestions of manifestation. The cosmic consciousness of the One Perceiver, experiencing these transformations of maya, becomes correspondingly individualized as many souls. To me this is the essence throughout in Vedas, Upanishads and in Gita. I note below a few selected passages. If required, I can reproduce many many more.

RV 7.098.05 I proclaim the ancient exploits of Indra, the recent deeds that Maghavan has achieved; when indeed he had overcome the un-divine illusion, thenceforth the Soma became his exclusive.

RV 10.054.02 When you proceed, Indra, increasing in form, and proclaiming your prowess among mankind, false is that your (wandering), false the combats which you have narrated; you (find) now no enemy (to attack), did you formerly find one?
RV 10.054.03 Who among the r.s.is before us have obtained the limit of your entire greatness, since from your own person you have generated at once both mother and father (or earth and heaven)?

Mayabheda from Rig Veda

RV 10.177.01 to 10.177.03

पतंगमक्तमसुरस्य मायया हृदा पश्यन्ति मनसा विपश्चितः ।
समुद्रे अन्तः कवयो वि चक्षते मरीचीनां पदमिच्छन्ति वेधसः ॥१॥
पतंगो वाचं मनसा बिभर्ति तां गन्धर्वोऽवदद्गर्भे अन्तः ।
तां द्योतमानां स्वर्यं मनीषामृतस्य पदे कवयो नि पान्ति ॥२॥
अपश्यं गोपामनिपद्यमानमा च परा च पथिभिश्चरन्तम् ।
स सध्रीचीः स विषूचीर्वसान आ वरीवर्ति भुवनेष्वन्तः ॥३॥

The wise behold with their mind in their heart the Sun, made externally manifest by the illusion of the Asura;
The sages look into the solar orb, the ordainers desire the region of his rays.
The Sun bears the word in his mind; the Gandharva has spoken it within the wombs;
Sages cherish it in the place of sacrifice, brilliant, heavenly, ruling the mind. I beheld the protector, never descending, going by his paths to the east and the west;
orter [of gods].
RigVeda hymns are not easy to understand. The Atharva Veda quote in the spoiler seems to be a later inclusion. I do not think there is any 'maya' in RigVeda. The concept perhaps did not exist at that time. It came about after Aryans interacted with the indigenous people and settled in India. Therefore, it is in Upanishads, Puranas and BhagawadGita. I want to comment on the verses here, but perhaps tomorrow.
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
What does mithya mean to you?

Yes. Sat is that which is true. Asat is that which is untrue. 'Barren mother's son' is asat -- it is untrue always.

Mithya is neither sat nor asat. Best definition of mithya, that I know of, has come from Madhusudan Saraswati, the authour of Advaita Siddhi. mithyAtva is that which possesses the specific character that it is sublated by knowledge. And Gita indeed says that jnana burns up all sins.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
I have chosen Ralph Griffith’s translation as the first, and the one given by you as second (in red color). It should also be kept in mind that Book 10 is perhaps among the latest portions of RigVeda. (That does not mean that all its hymns are new. There is no exact chronological order in RigVedic hymns).

RV 7.98.5: “.. When he had conquered godless wiles and magic, Soma became his own entire possession.”
".. I proclaim the ancient exploits of Indra, the recent deeds that Maghavan has achieved; when indeed he had overcome the un-divine illusion, thenceforth the Soma became his exclusive."

This has nothing to do with ‘maya’. They are talking about the dasas and ayajnas who, Aryans thought had wiles and magic, basically their adversaries.

RV 10.54.02: “When you were roaming, waxing strong in body, telling your might, Indra, among the people,
All that men called your battles were illusion: you have no foe today, nor anyone has found one.”
“When you proceed, Indra, increasing in form, and proclaiming your prowess among mankind, false is that your (wandering), false the combats which you have narrated; you (find) now no enemy (to attack), did you formerly find one?”

This is simple poetic praise. The poet says that Indra did not roam anywhere, the stories of Indra’s combats are not true, there can be no enemy to Indra because he is all powerful.

RV 10.54.3: “.. For from thy body thou hast generated at the same time the Mother and the Father.”
“.. since from your own person you have generated at once both mother and father (or earth and heaven)?”

Akasha and Bhumi, both have arisen from his body. No conflict. Indra was their principle God.

10.177.1-3: Mayabheda
“1. THE sapient with their spirit and their mind behold the Bird adorned with all an Asura's magic might.
Sages observe him in the ocean's inmost depth, the wise disposers seek the station of his rays.
2. The flying Bird bears Speech within his spirit, when the Gandharva in the womb pronounced it:
And at the seat of sacrifice the sages cherish this radiant, heavenly-bright invention.
3. I saw the Herdsman, him who never rests, approaching and departing on his pathways.
He, clothed in gathered and diffusive splendor, within the worlds continually travels.”
“The wise behold with their mind in their heart the Sun, made externally manifest by the illusion of the Asura;
The sages look into the solar orb, the ordainers desire the region of his rays.
The Sun bears the word in his mind; the Gandharva has spoken it within the wombs;
Sages cherish it in the place of sacrifice, brilliant, heavenly, ruling the mind.
I beheld the protector, never descending, going by his paths to the east and the west; order [of gods].”


This is probably a reference to disappearance of the sun during the arctic night in Netherworld, which was considered to be an ocean of darkness. The sages remember his brilliance and the poet has seen his return. Clothes gathered and diffusive splendor may be a reference to the first brightness of Ushas or Aurora Borialis. But again, I do not see any reference to ‘maya’ as Hinduism knows in now, in all these verses.
 
Last edited:

shivsomashekhar

Well-Known Member
Surely, when the world and yourself disappear (as you knew it) its an experience of a transformation.

If you yourself disappear, there is no more experiencer and therefore, no experience of a transformation.

If you continue to persist in any form and you if are witnessing anything at all (or even nothing), then such a state is predicated on duality and therefore, such a moksha contradicts Advaita. On the contrary, such a moksha is more in line with Bhaskara's bedha abedha doctrine.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Brahman in Vyavaharika is no different from Brahman in Parmarthika. I understand your view Shiva, but differ.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Yeah, both are same. It is only our view point which makes a difference, and that is 'maya'. Consider yourself as 'Shivasomashekhar' or 'Shiva'.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
If you yourself disappear, there is no more experiencer and therefore, no experience of a transformation.

If you continue to persist in any form and you if are witnessing anything at all (or even nothing), then such a state is predicated on duality and therefore, such a moksha contradicts Advaita. On the contrary, such a moksha is more in line with Bhaskara's bedha abedha doctrine.

Yes. This is the advaita state of non dual Seer-Seen-Seeing. Agree.

Then how, since Brahman alone is, anything seen?

Actually, Knower of Brahman is free to see duality in non duality without incurring karma.

As per Brihadaraynaka Upanishad, the functions of seeing, hearing, touch, taste etc. are immortal, whether ego self exists or not.

The knowing/seeing is actually the power of the primeval atman and not of created ego selves.

The following is Shankar's commentary on the subject.

Commentary on Brihadaraynaka Upanishad by Shankara: The self is the witness of vision etc. Vision is of two kinds: ordinary and real. Ordinary vision is a function of the mind when it is connected with the eye. It is an act and as such it is subject to change. But the vision that belongs to the self is like the heat and light of fire. Being the very essence of the seer, it is unchanging. Because real vision appears to be associated with ordinary vision, which is subject to change, it is spoken of as the witness of objects. Ordinary vision is coloured by the objects seen by the eye. It appears to be connected with the real vision of the self, though in reality it is but its reflection. Ordinary vision, moreover, has a beginning and an end, and is pervaded by real vision. Thus the real vision of the self is metaphorically spoken of as the witness, and, although eternally seeing, is described as sometimes seeing and sometimes not seeing. But, as a matter of fact, the vision of the seer never changes.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member

The relevant passages from the Brihadaraynaka Upanishad:

IV-iii-23: That it does not see in that state is because, though seeing then, it does not see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can see.


IV-iii-24: That it does not smell in that state is because, though smelling then, it does not smell; for the smeller’s function of smelling can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can smell.

IV-iii-25: That it does not taste in that state is because, though tasting then, it does not taste; for the taster’s function of tasting can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can taste.

IV-iii-26: That it does not speak in that state is because, though speaking then, it does not speak; for the speaker’s function of speaking can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can speak.

IV-iii-27: That it does not hear in that state is because, though hearing then, it does not hear; for the listener’s function of hearing can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can hear.

IV-iii-28: That it does not think in that state is because, though thinking then, it does not think; for the thinker’s function of thinking can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can think.

IV-iii-29: That it does not touch in that state is because, though touching then, it does not touch; for the toucher’s function of touching can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can touch.

IV-iii-30: That it does not know in that state is because, though knowing then, it does not know; for the knower’s function of knowing can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can know.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
"Samaḿ sarveṣu bhūteṣu, tiṣṭhantaḿ parameśvaram;
vinaśyatsv avinaśyantaḿ, yaḥ paśyati sa paśyati." BG 13.28
Prabhupada's translation: One who sees the Supersoul accompanying the individual soul in all bodies, and who understands that neither the soul nor the Supersoul within the destructible body is ever destroyed, actually sees.

"Prakṛtyaiva ca karmāṇi, kriyamāṇāni sarvaśaḥ;
yaḥ paśyati tathātmānam, akartāraḿ sa paśyati." BG 13.30
Prabhupada's translation: One who can see that all activities are performed by the body, which is created of material nature, and sees that the self does nothing, actually sees.
 

Ekanta

om sai ram
If you yourself disappear, there is no more experiencer and therefore, no experience of a transformation.
If you continue to persist in any form and you if are witnessing anything at all (or even nothing), then such a state is predicated on duality and therefore, such a moksha contradicts Advaita. On the contrary, such a moksha is more in line with Bhaskara's bedha abedha doctrine.
I think others have answered this already, but just in case:

We have to remember that there are two selves... (and atman is the basis of both)
  • Atman can identify with body-mind and believe "thats me" or
  • Atman can realize body-mind is not me, instead "Im Atman" (aham brahmāsmi - I am Brahman)
By "you yourself disappear" is meant that Atman-witness realizes its not body-mind. But Atman-witness remains the same. Its the same with anything else witnessed, the whole universe, it disappears (as such).
But then again, it doesnt disappear. Its realized as "all this is brahman" or "the snake is the rope". Still the sage sees other folks and can say "hello buddy". The sage sees both the snake and the rope (this is the Buddha/Nagarjuna middle-way).
By "seeing" is not meant "seeing brahman as an object" its meant "realizing non-duality"... "the most distant galaxy is non-different from myself in essence".

The non-enlightened sees only the snake.
The living enlightened sees both snake and rope (else they couldnt function in the world... and its not bedha abedha, its the fact that the sage knows all as brahman, but also sees phenomena as long as they live).

... Hope I didnt mess up... :)
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
From Talks with Ramana Maharshi

D: I am only trying to understand the jnani’s point of view about the world. Is the world perceived after Self-realization?
M: Why worry yourself about the world and what happens to it after Self-realization? First realise the Self. What does it matter if the world is perceived or not. Do you gain anything to help you in your quest by the non-perception of the world during sleep? Conversely, what would you lose now by the perception of the world? It is quite immaterial to the jnani or ajnani if he perceives the world or not. It is seen by both, but their viewpoints differ.

D: If the jnani and the ajnani perceive the world in like manner, where is the difference between them?
M: Seeing the world, the jnani sees the Self which is the substratum of all that is seen; the ajnani, whether he sees the world or not, is ignorant of his true Being, the Self.

Take the instance of moving pictures on the screenin the cinema-show. What is there in front of you before the play begins? Merely the screen. On that screen you see the entire show, and for all appearances the pictures are real. But go and try to take hold of them. What do you take hold of? Merely the screen on which the pictures appeared so real. After the play, when the pictures disappear, what remains? The screen again!

So with the Self. That alone exists; the pictures come and go. If you hold on to the Self, you will not be deceived by the appearance of the pictures. Nor does it matter at all if the pictures appear or disappear.

Ignoring the Self the ajnani thinks the world is real, just as ignoring the screen he sees merely the pictures, as if they existed apart from it. If one knows that without the seer there is nothing to be seen, just as there are no pictures without the screen, one is not deluded. The jnani knows that the screen, the pictures and the sight thereof are but the Self. With the pictures the Self is in its manifest form; without the pictures It remains in the unmanifest form. To the jnani it is quite immaterial if the Self is in the one form or the other. He is always the Self. But the ajnani seeing the jnani active gets confounded.
 

DanielR

Active Member
:)

This is most likely because you think there is something to discover...a transformation to happen. An event which you can call enlightenment.

I'm still searching, I don't even know why? Wouldn't the searching process stop by now :(

Whatt I mean is that I'm always looking for more ...
 
Top