Gaudapada and Nagarjuna

[Ekanta]

Do we need the intellect to know the Self? Doesnt look like it to me...

Shankara Gita comment 2.18:
…the Self is self-evident…
…what is called the 'self' does not remain unknown to anyone…
By way of merely negating superimposition of qualities that do not belong to the Self, it attains authoritativeness with regard to the Self, but not by virtue of making some unknown thing known. There is an Upanisadic text in support of this: '....the Brahman that is immediate and direct, the Self that is within all' (Br. 3.4.1).

Shankara Gita comment 18.50:
Only the eradication of the superimposition of name, form, etc., which are not the Self, is what has to be undertaken, but not the knowledge of the Self that is Consciousness…
…what is to be undertaken is only the elimination of the superimposition on Brahman through ignorance, but no effort is needed for knowing Brahman (Consciousness), for It is quite self-evident! It is because the intellect is distracted by particular appearances of name and form imagined through ignorance that Brahman, even though self-evident, easily realizable, nearer than all else and identical with oneself, appears to be concealed, difficult to realize, very far and different.
…that which is called the Self is never an object which is not well known, attainable, rejectable or acceptable to anyone at any time…
…knowledge is quite self-revealing, and for the very same reason the knower also is self-revealed. Hence, effort is not needed for knowledge, but only for the removal of the notion of what is not-Self…
Therefore, just as for knowing one's own body there is no need of any other (external) means of knowledge so also there is no need of any other means of knowledge, for the realization of the Self which is innermost (in relation to the body etc.). Hence it is established that steadfastness in the knowledge of the Self is a fact very well known to the discriminating people. Even to those who hold that knowledge is formless and not cognized by direct perception, cognition of an object is dependent on knowledge. Hence it has to be admitted that knowledge is as immediate as pleasure etc. And this follows also from the impossibility of a desire to know (knowledge). Had knowledge been not self-evident, it could have been sought for like any object of knowledge. And in that case, as a knower seeks to perceive through knowledge such objects of knowledge as pot etc., similarly the knower would have sought to perceive knowledge through another knowledge! But this is not the case. Therefore knowledge is quite self-revealing, and for the very same reason the knower also is self-revealed. Hence, effort is not needed for knowledge, but only for the removal of the notion of what is not-Self.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do we need the intellect to know the Self? Doesn't look like it to me .. but only for the removal of the notion of what is not-Self.

And intellect is needed for the latter purpose. Will not happen otherwise.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

This simply means it not an object.

Please answer the question. How is such a Brahman, self-evident?

This simply means I am.

'I am' is not specific to Advaita. No doctrine disputes 'I am'. Neither did I.

But the interesting thing is, why did you ignore my post about Sivananda/Krishnananda?

Unfortunately, I do not know these people.

Which guru do you follow? Do you follow your own intellectual analysis of Shankara/Gaudapada?

This is a strange question. Are you of the opinion that you are not exercising your intellect in this matter? And why do you think that Gaudapada and Shankara are not enough and a third Guru is required?

To me it looks like you follow some form of new age neo advaita. I have seen the type before.

Do you know what neo-vedanta is? It is characterized by -

1. Following advaita as taught by new age Gurus as opposed to traditional Gurus
2. Equating Hinduism with advaita

I have been quoting Gaudapada and the main Upanishads, while you have been quoting people I am not familiar with (presumably new age) and an unfamiliar text named Brahmakara vritti and yet, you are thinking I am the neo-Vedantin?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

We will see the above points from Vivekachudamani -- The Crest Jewel of Discrimination, the number one manual of Advaitic knowledge.

@atanu, this is new. What is your source for calling the VC the number one manual of advaitic knowledge? In case you are not aware, the VC and the Upadesha Sahasri are prakarana texts and prakarana texts are used to teach beginners.

You have still not addressed my question on the meaning of 'non dual self'. You have not reconciled the Mandukya Karika quotes and the Upanishad quotes into your version of advaita. You have also not explained how your position is different from bhedabheda.

But I think we both have said all we have to. Until you can provide a consistent picture which includes all the verses I posted, your view is limited. Just reading the Viveka Chudamani will not get you there. Since you appear to be seriously interested in advaita, I hope you will take the time to reflect over these verses and reconcile them.

Good luck.

 

[Ekanta]

shivsomashekhar... I have again and again put the quotes infront of you, the latest was several quotes by Shankara...

knowledge is quite self-revealing, and for the very same reason the knower also is self-revealed

but you simply refuse to see it and run your own new age agenda.
Since this is so I see no further use to discuss this topic with you.

 

[atanu]

Shivosoma

1. In Mandukya Upanishad Turiya is called 'shivo advaita atman' that must be known. I have a habit of writing 'non dual self' for it in English.

2. You posted no verses that show us wrong. And we have already shown that there cannot be another knower of atman, which itself is the knower. I have debated with many Buddhists who in similar way as you do throw the baby with the bath water. They discard and disregard the knower of 'anatman'.

I ask them "What is that which discards all 'anatman' aspects and remains and comes back to teach? They get angry. That is ego. With ego they try to kill the self.

I sense here that many so called advaitins disregard Shankara and are too much influenced with flowery words of Bauddha interpreters. You want the knower of non dual self to remain as a stone. That is ridiculous. Knower of Brahman is Brahman and It is swatantra-- free.

Arguing pulls one's mind away from the non dual self. I have quoted Shankara throughout and I have nothing more to say.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ekanta said: "But the interesting thing is, why did you ignore my post about Sivananda/Krishnananda?"
Perhaps it is long, it is too academic (and we are generally not that) or makes uninteresting reading. Why not give it in your own words? I think that would be more interesting.
Shiva said: "This is a strange question. Are you of the opinion that you are not exercising your intellect in this matter? And why do you think that Gaudapada and Shankara are not enough and a third Guru is required?"
That is nice Shiva. I like it. Even when we quote a certain portion, we are exercising our intellect.
Non-dual self, IMHO, is Brahman, Shiva.
Yeah, Ekanta, just a little thinking leads you to 'ekameva' Brahman. The problem is not in getting there, but in accepting it, abandoning the centuries-old God concept.
Atanu said: "I ask them "What is that which discards all 'anatman' aspects and comes back to teach?"
Like it Atanu. That is 'Nirvikara', 'Ek Onkar Satnam Kartapurakh Nirmoh Nirvair Akaal Murat Ajuni Sabham' of Sikhism or Brahman.