1. 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!

Tat Tvam Asi

Discussion in 'Hinduism - Philosophy and Theology DIR' started by atanu, Jul 29, 2014.

  1. Makaranda

    Makaranda Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    Messages:
    251
    Ratings:
    +166
    You have confused (sense)perception and knowledge. When the jnani "sees" oneness, it means he knows there is oneness. His sense perception is the same as the ajnani (the senses only know external objects, which are always many), but, unlike the ignorant ones, he has the inner eye of wisdom, the jnana chakshu, which has recognised the essential unity behind the appearance of diversity. His understanding has been corrected, not his perception. It is not perception which is the cause of samsAra, it is ignorance (which distorts it), and the remedy for ignorance is knowledge. So perception does not need to be changed or removed. When a man perceives a rope and through ignorance thinks that it is a snake, it is the ignorance which has to be knocked off through knowledge that it is, in fact, a rope. The perception itself will continue, cleared of errors. He still goes on perceiving the rope, but now he has no delusion or fear about it. In the same way the jnani seems to transact with the world, the body goes on exhausting its karma, but he knows he is Brahman, untouched, the being of everything, and there is nothing but Brahman.

    It is Advaita, for the differences are mithyA, and the oneness alone is the real vastu (and there is no second vastu). The transactional world (vyavaharika) has no independent reality. When the cause is known, all of the effects are known, too, because they are non-different from the cause. They are swallowed up, as it were, in the cause. Only the cause remains, despite appearances.

    You seem to be wrangling a lot with the more technical aspects of Advaita. My sincere recommendation for you would be to go to the Advaita Academy or Advaita Vision websites which clear up a lot of the basic confusions. Or, better yet, find a teacher\study what the Advaitins themselves have to say on the issues you have. There are plenty of resources out there. :)
     
    #21 Makaranda, Apr 27, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  2. shivsomashekhar

    shivsomashekhar Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2015
    Messages:
    992
    Ratings:
    +812
    Religion:
    Hindu
    Again, if the Jnani sees oneness, you are introducing a seer. To see oneness,

    1. He has to be aware of the idea of lack of oneness (or duality).
    2. He has to be able to tell himself that he is now seeing oneness - which he did not before - and this in turn introduces the concept of time.

    I am sure, it is evident that such identifications of oneness can only be in the realm of Vyavaharika.

    Here is the logical flaw that I have been alluding to, all this time. Either, you and I are different (Vyavaharika) or we are the same (which is not logical and also there exists no one who can make such an observation). Unity behind diversity (we are different, but the same) is not Advaita, but bedha-abedha. Most Advaitins have confused one with the other.They think of time as real after Moksha where things will continue status quo, with the individual realizing/knowing/understanding that everything is one, though the differences continue to exist.

    That is correct. Because, I am seeing the logic is failing and am interested to see if anyone can explain it. For a serious seeker, such an inquiry and discussion (without getting emotional, of course) is very important. For those, who are not serious, such an inquiry is not of value because they are content with accepting standard responses to their simple 101 questions, without probing them. Responses like "do not analyze too much; it has to be experienced", "you cannot be so critical" are, in my opinion, cop-outs by people who neither have the answers nor are serious about finding them.

    Thanks,
    Shiv
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Poeticus

    Poeticus | abhyAvartin |

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages:
    6,500
    Ratings:
    +1,271
    My personal favorite: you must feel the mystical vibrations!
     
    #23 Poeticus, Apr 30, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2015
    • Like Like x 3
  4. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,796
    Ratings:
    +3,500
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    Question: I am trying to understand the jnani’s point of view about the world. Is the world perceived after Self-realisation?

    Sri Ramana Maharshi: Why worry about the world and what happens to it after Self-realisation? 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 view-points differ.

    Question: If the jnani and the ajnani perceive the world in like manner, where is the difference between them?

    Sri Ramana Maharshi: 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 screen in 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. 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 and the pictures are only 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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    24,606
    Ratings:
    +10,457
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    You are talking of a 'jnani', a realized person. At one time, he too was 'ajnani'. He has knowledge and experience of both the states. That is why.
     
  6. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    25,885
    Ratings:
    +12,640
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    "Self realization" is a bit ambiguous, Atanu (and I'm assuming you're not talking Maslow, here[​IMG]).
    There are different systems of describing levels of consciousness. If by self realization you mean permanent perception of self as infinite or as an aspect of Brahman, the system I'm most familiar with would peg that as 5th state. In 5th state self/jivanmukti and the world are still distinguishable.
    By seventh state there is no perception of any duality whatever. Self is gone -- or infinite -- depending on how you want to look at it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. shivsomashekhar

    shivsomashekhar Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2015
    Messages:
    992
    Ratings:
    +812
    Religion:
    Hindu
    Except that, such a feeling is still in the realm of Vyavaharika - per Advaita.

    Atanu, when Ramana is having this conversation, he is in the Vyavaharika. Else, if all that exists is the self, there would be no one to talk to. Moreover, there would be no Ramana!

    When Ramana is in the Samadhi state (Paramarthika), we have to understand that there can be no individual, no observer in Paramarthika (no duality, whatsoever). And without Ramana observing anything, how can he talk about it later? When Ramana is talking to us, he can have no recollection of being in such a state as there was no observer in that state. So, for all practical purposes, Ramana the individual, is *always* in Vyavaharika - Jnani or not. There can be no individual in these Samadhi episodes and so there is no Ramana then.

    The Paramarthika is not an experience or a cognizable state that one gets in and out of. Nor, can one be in both V and P at the same time. If anyone makes this claim, they are knowingly or unknowingly, taking Bhaskara's position and that is not Advaita. Paramarthika cannot be cognized or experienced or memorized. It is beyond words, beyond comprehension and no word or thought can touch it. Any word or experience that claims to touch it can only be inside Vyvaharika and is therefore, incorrect.

    Another point is about "experiencing" oneness. What does that even mean? Does Ramana tell himself that he is feeling oneness or do we see anything in his actions that demonstrates such an experience, that is missing in others?

    I think it is possible that some of the well known Jnanis are acutally genuine and that something physical (Kundalini awakening or something on those lines) happened to them, after which the thought process was permanently modified. There is still thought, which lets them function in the world, but it is center-less. The chatter that goes on inside us, with ourselves, the labeling does not happen in them. Hard to explain and impossible to prove.

    Regards,
    Shiv
     
    #27 shivsomashekhar, Apr 30, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2015
  8. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,796
    Ratings:
    +3,500
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    Except that Ramana, the teacher with the body is a mAyA form of Ramana the infinite.

    Ramana, the embodied teacher is never not-aware of the formless infinite Ramana as its reality.
     
  9. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,796
    Ratings:
    +3,500
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    I agree yet Shri Ramana's reply cited above answers this doubt. Absence of world is characteristic of deep sleep but that is not a state of realisation.

    The state of realisation is state of infinity, irrespective of whether it be shunya, devoid of all forms, or whether it be accompanied with kaleidoscopic forms. The Jnani is not an embodied object ever. The Jnani is Self and not another.
     
  10. shivsomashekhar

    shivsomashekhar Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2015
    Messages:
    992
    Ratings:
    +812
    Religion:
    Hindu
    The Self always is the Self and there is no such thing as realizing it. Who is to realize what, and how, when all that exists is the Self and nothing but the Self? – Ramana

    When you speak of a path, where are you now? And where do you want to go? There is nothing to be reached. You are always as you really are. But you don’t realize it. That is all – Ramana
     
  11. Makaranda

    Makaranda Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    Messages:
    251
    Ratings:
    +166
    Shiv,

    .

    The reason why I have recommended to you certain websites is because there are a number of glaring, significant misunderstandings of Advaita basics in your posts, which would take a long time for me to unravel, which is neither practical or desirable on this forum (and not least because I am currently travelling). Please read the Q and A section on the websites I have mentioned, such questions as you have asked are dealt therein.

    Read again what I have said:

    There is no conflict between vyavaharika satyam and paramarhtika satyam as you seem to suggest, because there is only one satyam, which appears variously. From the standpoint of the vastu, there is only the vastu, the differences are apparent only. It is not that oneness and differences both have the same strength of reality to them. There is no conflict. We can dismiss the differences as apparent.

    We may appear to be different, but we are not different, it is a mistake to think that we are really different- the truth is one self, only. So "we are different, but the same" is a misunderstanding of my position.

    Ajnani thinks differences are the reality and goes on experiencing the world in that way which causes him to suffer. He thinks he is a jiva amongst billions of jivas. he thinks the world is separate from him, and that God is separate from him. The Jnani knows the differences are not true and that oneness is the reality, and then goes on experiencing the world, free from samsara. He knows he is Brahman, all jivas are Brahman, the world is Brahman, Ishwara is Brahman.The essence of himself is the essence of everything, and that is the meaning of tat tvam asi . The Self is all.

    It is not a question of empirical experience, but of knowledge and ignorance.
     
    #31 Makaranda, May 1, 2015
    Last edited: May 1, 2015
    • Like Like x 2
  12. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,796
    Ratings:
    +3,500
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    Yes. Ramana spoke from both perspectives, as per the context.
     
  13. shivsomashekhar

    shivsomashekhar Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2015
    Messages:
    992
    Ratings:
    +812
    Religion:
    Hindu
    In both cases, when he speaks, thinks or acts in any manner, he is in Vyavaharika. There can be no individual in Paramarthika for that would be an oxymoron.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,796
    Ratings:
    +3,500
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    That makes no difference to a jnani, however, since this talk of Paramarthika and Vyavarika belongs to Vyvarika only.

    Paramarthika is swatantra. It uses its own mAyA as per its pleasure. That is what I understand.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...