seuraava »

[sideman]

Maharishi Mahesh Yogin Transsendenttinen Meditaatio® -tekniikka perustuu meitsin miälestä
 voittopualisesti MaharSi Patañjalin aSTaan.ga-yogaan (eri asia kuin Pattabhi Jois'in "astangajooga" eli aSTaan.ga-vinyaasa-yoga!), eli 8 (aSTa) osaiseen (an.ga; ang-ga) joogaan, kun taas sen taustalla oleva vilosohvia lienee ensisijaisesti Shankaran ei-dualistista advaita-vedaantaa. Olihan näet MMYn guru Svaamii Brahmaananda Sarasvatii Joytir MaTha -luostarin Shankaraacaarya eli Shrii Shankara Bhagavatpaadan perinteen ylläpitäjä Intian pohjoisosissa.
(Shankara on itse asiassa Shivan epiteetti eli lisänimi; em. Shankaraa pidetään Shivan eli Hyväntahtoisen inkarnaationa; sham/shang = "hyvä(n)" kara = tekijä, tjsp).

Tässä ainakin meitsin vakuuttanut pätkä Maadhava-vidyaaraNyan laatimasta Shankaran "elämäkerrasta" (josta suurin osa vaikuttaa ns. hatusta vedetyltä, pakko todeta...)

The Real Meaning of Identity of the Jiva and Iswara

(Wiktionary: Common transliteration of Sanskrit तत्त्वमसि (tattvamasi [tat tvam asi - sidis]), literally meaning "that are you". Originally occurs in the Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7. Muistaakseni olen nähnyt tuon luettavan dualistien taholta näin: tattvam asi eli sinä olet totuus, tattva, tjsp.)

Huom! Sekä jiiva (dsiiva, yksilöllinen sielu, tai jotain) että iishvara (jumala) ovat siis illuusioita!?
 
(49-60) Thus, just as an elephant creates' a stir in a lotus lake,
he tried to shake the foundations of the Vedantic doctrine of
non-duality. Having heard all his cri.ticism, Sankara said: "I
shall now tell you the real meaning of 'Tat tvam asi' as understood
according to the Vedantic tradition. It is true that there is a formal
difference indicated by these words, Tat and tvam, as is the case
with 'he' and 'man' in the sentence 'He is that man.' This is only
in regard to the simple direct meaning of the word (Vachyartha).
But, if the indirect and implied meaning (lakshana) is taken, there
is identity in the purport of both the terms, the entity i.ndicated by
'he' and 'that person' being identical. So also in Tat tvam asi,
it is Pure Consciousness, the entity indicated by the indirect meaning
of Tvam- an entity that is wrongly identified with body, mind, ego,
etc. through super-imposition caused by A vidya- that is declared
to be identical with the indirect meaning of the word 'That', namely,
Pure Consciousness, which is the background on which Iswara is
superimposed just as body, mind, ego, etc., are superimposed in
the case of the Jiva. This is how the identity is to be understood
and not in regard to the direct meanings- the insignificant limited
individual and the omnipotent and omniscient Iswara. In the
case of 'horse' and 'cow', which you have cited as example, there is
no common indirect meaning to which they can refer. So by
elimination of 'horseness' and 'cowness' no identical entity can be
arrived at. Your example is, therefore, inappropriate. Besides, in
the case of Jiva and Iswara, the ignorance of the former and the
omniscience of the latter are both superimpositions on the non-dual
Pure Consciousness. This Pure Consciousness is the implied
meaning of both the superimpositions of the Jivahood and Iswarahood. The body, mind, intellect and othe! entities that constitute
the personality of man-all belong to the realm of objectivity,
and are, therefore, by nature insentient. If these are eliminated

from the Jiva, one arrives at the real nature of the Jiva. In the
same way, this objective, phenomenal world is a superimposition,
just as a snake is on a rope; and when the superimposed nature of
the world is seen and its basis arrived at, the true nature of Iswara,
too, is understood. The adjuncts of both the Jiva and Iswaraignorance and littlene"ss in the case of Jiva, and omniscience and
all-mightiness in the case of Iswara-do not actually inhere in
their substratum, Pure Consciousness. Due to proximity, they are
only reflected in it, just as the colour of a flower is in a crystal. The
substratum is never affected by the adjuncts. It is ever pure and
untainted. Unless difference were unreal, Sruti could not have
condemned in such statements as: "From death to death he goes
who perceives reality here as many." It would not also have said,
"He who sees even a little difference here, is overcome by fear."
Conversely, if non-difference were unreal, the Veda would not
have declared its realisation to be the acme of human attainment,
in sentences like, "For him who sees unity, where is infatuation,
where is sorrow?" The ordinary direct experience which man
has of himself as a small and imperfect being is as incorrect as the
immediate apprehension he has of the moon as a limited disc of
six inches diameter. Just as in the above case, this immediate
apprehension, being a mere attribution, does not affect the real
size and nature of the moon, so also, the real nature of Reality as
non-dual and perfect is not affected by man's ordinary ignorant
apprehension to the contrary. What further proof do you require
for the teaching that duality is sublated by the apprehension of
Non-duality?"
(61-72) At this stage, N eelakantha intervened and said: "Great
sages like Kapila and others have described the Supreme Reality
and the supreme end of man in terms of duality. How can your
contention that it is unity, stand against the view of sages?" To
this, Sankara replied: "Before the clear statement of the Sruti,
statements contrary to it found in Smritis are ineffective. So, if a
Rishi's teaching is contrary to the teaching of the Veda, the former
becomes unacceptable." Neelakantha again objected: "My position is that the statements of the Rishis, whenever they are true to
experience and reasoning, are equal to Vedic statements and are,
therefore, acceptable. Our experience shows that in each body, it
is a separate spirit that experiences joy and sorrow. If difference
172 SANKARA-D1G-VIJAYA: CANTO IS
is not true, there will be mutual juxtaposition of the distress of a
suffering man and the enjoyment of a king. In other words, how
these two have contrary experiences cannot be explained. The
diversity of experiences.in different bodies, say of a king and a
beggar, becomes inexplicable if the spirit in them all is one. Agency
can accrue only to a sentient self. Nothing insentient can experience itself to be an agent. Enjoyership should also accrue to
the same one as the agent. To contend otherwise is to be irrelevant.
Again, Mukti means the termination of all sorrows and not a state
of happiness. For, sorrow l;\lways goes with happiness like a
shadow. SQ, just like food mixed with poison, a Mukti that is a
state of happiness is reprehensible". To this, Sankara replied:
"The differences between happiness and misery are certain imaginary modes or states of mind. They do not pertain to the Atman,
nor do they indicate multiplicity of the Atman. They indicate
only several mental modes, the difference being only in the adjuncts
through which the one Atman manifests. Though the body-mind
combination is inert· in itself, when consciousness is associated
with it, it gets the sen~e of agency. Because in grass and similar
entities there is no association of consciousness, they have no
sense of agency also. The contention that happiness and sorrow
go together, is no doubt applicable to happiness born of sense
contacts. It has no relevancy in the bliss of Brahman, which is
non-contactual. The attainment of it is the highest object of
human life, and not the mere eradication of some sorrows." With
such powerful arguments, logical, meaningful and based on Vedic
authority, the Acharya refuted the doctrines of the Saiva and
established the supremacy of the Vedanta philosophy. Thus
defeated, Neelakantha abandoned his own commentary along with
his pride, and became a disciple of the Acharya with all his followers like Haradatta. Hearing that Neelakantha was defeated
by the great Sannyasin, Udayana and other dualists lost nerve
and felt their position very shaky.
The Acharya at Dwaraka and at Ujjayini