PDA

View Full Version : All are in Me, but I not in them....



yajvan
10 March 2007, 01:16 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,
The beauty of the Bhagavad-gita is how profound the knowledge (veda) is, and is offered for different levels of understanding. In sutra one (BG 9.1) Krsna tells arjuna that this information He will depart to him is the most secret wisdom (guhyatamam) some say this guhya-tamam, secrets of secrets.

Krsna says in BG 9.2 that this is raja-vidya ( king of knowledge or royal knowledge) and can be practically experienced and understood (pratyaksh avagamam).
What is this profound secret? (BG9.4 -the 2nd line reads)
mat-sthani sarva-bhutani na ca aham tesu-avasthitah.

Sri Krsna is saying All beings are in Me, but I am not in them. another author says it like this: Every being is located (or situated) in Me but I am not situated in them.

What does this say? what does this mean to you? Perhaps looking at the Gita a bit and ponder this , we can have a discussion on this great knowledge.


pranams,

atanu
14 March 2007, 02:13 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,
The beauty of the Bhagavad-gita is how profound the know is, and is offered for different levels of understanding. In sutra one (BG 9.1) Krsna tells arjuna that this information He will depart to him is the most secret wisdom (guhyatamam) some say this guhya-tamam, secrets of secrets.

Krsna says in BG 9.2 that this is raja-vidya ( king of knowledge or royal knowledge) and can be practically experienced and understood (pratyaksh avagamam).
What is this profound secret? (BG9.4 -the 2nd line reads)
mat-sthani sarva-bhutani na ca aham tesu-avasthitah.

Sri Krsna is sayingAll beings are in Me, but I am not in them. another author says it like this: Every being is located (or situated) in Me but I am not situated in them.

What does this say? what does this mean to you? Perhaps looking at the Gita a bit and ponder this , we can have a discussion on this great knowledge.


pranams,



Namaskar Yajvan Ji,

You verily have brought out the most important verse of Gita. Counterpoised with another verse where Lord says: 'Yogis see me in everybeing and every being in me', the present verse is truly a matter of meditation.

Please take a lead on this.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivayya

yajvan
14 March 2007, 10:26 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaskar Yajvan Ji,

Counterpoised with another verse where Lord says: 'Yogis see me in everybeing and every being in me', the present verse is truly a matter of meditation. Please take a lead on this.
Om Namah Shivayya

Namaste Atanu,
Thank you for your post....
Krsna's wisdom and insight on reality:
All beings are in Me, but I am not in them. another author says it like this: Every being is located (or situated) in Me but I am not situated in them.

'Yogi's see me in everybeing and every being in me'

I will await other's to consider these words before submitting my opinions and understanding.

Yet, one way to think about, All beings are in Me, but I am not in them, is the example (metaphor) of akasha , also considered Brahman. All things are contained in this akasha ( not visible, or space...I think the root word ksi plays a role here, as to destroy or parish. add in the 'a' for not, you have not + perishable, as in aksara). LIke that, all of this we see, feel, think , act, is contained in akasha. It is the background for all manifestation to occur, And if you add aksara to this, then all the Unmanifest. So Krsna is the foundation, substratium for all manifest and unmanifest. Then all beings are in HIM , end of story, because there is no thing that is not Him.

That is one idea for this... lets see what others who have thoughts on how they view these sutra's of Kesava.

pranams,

saidevo
14 March 2007, 01:15 PM
Namaste Yajvan and Atanu.



1. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.
2. Every being is located (or situated) in Me but I am not situated in them.
3. Yogi's see me in everybeing and every being in me.


AkAsha as a metaphor contained in Statement no.1 seems to be an appropriate way to go about analyzing the statement. AkAsha as space is unmanifested. Everything that is created manifests only in space (and time? No, because time itself is a manifestation in space!) The very effect of manifestation gives a state of duality and a differentiation as a form with attributes. But the puzzle is, is the space of AkAsha contained in the manifested form or not? Surely, everything exists in space, but does space exist in everything? The pot of clay is in space, but I think Shankara said that the space is also in them, so if we break the pot only the space remains.

It is rather obvious to our senses and intellect that everything that exists, even the infinitesimal sub-atomic particle does contain space in the sense that space is found inside even such a particle. Can this mean that the form of a particle contains space? If it does, space should not be found outside it! Since space fills it and overflows it, we can't say that a form contains space, only the space contains it.

Since everything is contained in space, we can say that all forms are rooted in space or that space is the cause and the forms are the effect. But even these statements are wrong because if something is rooted in something that creates two things whereas here we have only one thing--space. So the conclusion could be that it is only space that appears as the forms--Advaita. Space cannot be the cause because in a cause-and-effect duality, both the cause and the effect do undergo change, whereas space is changeless and eternal.

Perhaps we can think of an analogy in the times of a day, the dawn and the dusk, beautifully termed as sandhi in Sanskrit. The dawn is when the night meets the day; the dusk is when the day meets the night. Yet both dawn and dusk are neither day nor night, there is no duality during that time. The world in such times exists as a dreamy silhouette and the mind finds it easy to transcend this outline. Perhaps this is the reason our rishis have advised us do sandhya vandanam, Gayatri japam and prANA yAma, and meditate at dawn and dusk.

Sri Krishna's statement emphasizes that though everything is in Him, they can't be He and have His wholesomeness. The part can only be in the whole and can never become the whole. Since nothing can be He, it can be said that He is not in everything.

atanu
16 March 2007, 01:17 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~~


Namaste Atanu,
Thank you for your post....
Krsna's wisdom and insight on reality:
All beings are in Me, but I am not in them. another author says it like this: Every being is located (or situated) in Me but I am not situated in them.

'Yogi's see me in everybeing and every being in me'

I will await other's to consider these words before submitting my opinions and understanding.

Yet, one way to think about, All beings are in Me, but I am not in them, is the example (metaphor) of akasha , also considered Brahman. All things are contained in this akasha ( not visible, or space...I think the root word ksi plays a role here, as to destroy or parish. add in the 'a' for not, you have not + perishable, as in aksara). LIke that, all of this we see, feel, think , act, is contained in akasha. It is the background for all manifestation to occur, And if you add aksara to this, then all the Unmanifest. So Krsna is the foundation, substratium for all manifest and unmanifest. Then all beings are in HIM , end of story, because there is no thing that is not Him.

That is one idea for this... lets see what others who have thoughts on how they view these sutra's of Kesava.

pranams,





From Gaudapada Karika on Mandukya

97
To those ignorant people who believe that Atman can deviate from Its true nature even in the slightest measure, Its eternally unrelated character is lost. In that case the destruction of the veil is out of the question.
98
All jivas are ever free from bondage and pure by nature. They are illumined and free from the very beginning. Yet the wise speak of the jivas as capable of knowing Ultimate Reality.
99
The Knowledge of the wise man, who is all light, is never related to any object. All the jivas, as well as Knowledge, are ever unrelated to objects. This was not told by Buddha.


This is the pivot of Sanatana Dharma. It is brilliant and it is Sanatana Dharma's triumph over Buddhism. Though Buddha did not emphasize the role of a transcendental being for a particular reason, which He himself explained separately (----so that an embodied being may not equate his tarnished I as same as the transcendental I).


But the real I in everyone is of the nature of knowledge. It has no commonality and no contact with objects. How can a thought which has no contact point with an organ like hand, still be able to move the hand?

After removing all objects, the eternal being remains in full. The eternal being has no part in the objects. But objects are all His forms alone, so Upanishad says: You are the old man with bent back and you are blue bird. Forms gone, all that remains is that EKO Lord.

This is the triumph of Sanatana Dharma and of Advaita.


Om Namah Shivayya

Ganeshprasad
16 March 2007, 10:38 AM
Sri Krishna's statement emphasizes that though everything is in Him, they can't be He and have His wholesomeness. The part can only be in the whole and can never become the whole. Since nothing can be He, it can be said that He is not in everything.


Pranam saidevo

This is also my understanding. The example of the sun and the rays fit the bill some what, both are same in quality but the ray is not the sun, they are simultaneous one and different.

mamaivamso jiva-loke
jiva-bhutah sanatanah
manah-sasthanindriyani
prakrti-sthani karsati

The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal, fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling very hard with the six senses, which include the mind. (15.07)

yathakasa-sthito nityam
vayuh sarvatra-go mahan
tatha sarvani bhutani
mat-sthanity upadharaya

As the mighty wind, blowing everywhere, always rests in ethereal space, know that in the same manner all beings rest in Me.(9.06)


Jai Shree Krishna

Ganeshprasad
16 March 2007, 10:49 AM
After removing all objects, the eternal being remains in full. The eternal being has no part in the objects. But objects are all His forms alone, so Upanishad says: You are the old man with bent back and you are blue bird. Forms gone, all that remains is that EKO Lord.


Om Namah Shivayya


Pranam Atanu ji
My understanding is that EKO Lord is never devoid of varieties within,
as you know i do not subscribe to any concept, that is why for me, only important thing is to follow Dharma, I leave it to the Lord to reveal what is the truth.
It is futile for me to worry about what Himalayas looks like but it is important for me to make preparation to get there that is if I want to go there.

bahir antas ca bhutanam
acaram caram eva ca
suksmatvat tad avijneyam
durastham cantike ca tat

He is inside as well as outside all beings, animate and inanimate. He is incomprehensible because of His subtlety. He is very near as well as far away.(13.16)


He is not knowable by perception, turned inward or outward, nor by both combined.He is neither that which is known, nor that which is not known, nor is he the sum of all that might be known.
He can not be seen, grasped, bargained with.
He is undefineable, unthinkable, indescribable.The only proof of his existence is union with him.
He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.
This is the fourth condition of the self- the most worthy of all. (Mandukya Upanishad)


Bhagvan has already described the eternal nature of jivas in chapter 2.12. And further described eternal parts, as to what binds them in chapter 15.7


Jai Shree Krishna

atanu
16 March 2007, 12:25 PM
Pranam Atanu ji

My understanding is that EKO Lord is never devoid of verities within,
-------

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaskar Ganeshprasad Ji,

Absolutely.

Additionally, whether the verities are inside or outside, He does not depend on the verities and without the verities He remains as the absolute nondual Lord.

Svet. Upanishad

IV-18: When light rises, there is neither day nor night, neither being nor non-being. There is only that Shiva who is imperishable, and who is worthy of being adored by the creator. From Him has proceeded the ancient wisdom (Pragnya).

Om

Ganeshprasad
17 March 2007, 07:17 AM
Namaskar Ganeshprasad Ji,



Svet. Upanishad

IV-18: When light rises, there is neither day nor night, neither being nor non-being. There is only that Shiva who is imperishable, and who is worthy of being adored by the creator. From Him has proceeded the ancient wisdom (Pragnya).

Om
Pranam Atanu ji

Please can you expand on this,is Shiva different from the creator?
for who and why the ancient wisdom proceed.

Jai Shree Krishna

atanu
17 March 2007, 08:20 PM
Pranam Atanu ji

Please can you expand on this,is Shiva different from the creator?
for who and why the ancient wisdom proceed.

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaskar Ganeshprasad Ji,

In the context, Shiva is the absolute (not a being), neither a being nor a non-being, and beyond time (as there is no day no night). Whereas the Creator is endowed with a sense of I and is in the domain of time.

Though it is the Turiya Self that is ONE and ALL (since Pragnya is His), yet this Self is transcendental which has no connection to objects of Taijjassa and Vaisvanara, since there is no mind, which sprouts from Pragnya.


The point is that this timelessly true Turiya constitutes the stable core of Jivas that remains while objects exist and exists even if all objects are removed (when in samadhi or in deep sleep). This is said to be constant substratum while the play goes on and the lone auspicious truth when the play is paused/stopped.

Regards

Om Namah Shivayya

Ganeshprasad
18 March 2007, 10:34 AM
Namaskar Ganeshprasad Ji,

In the context, Shiva is the absolute (not a being), neither a being nor a non-being, and beyond time (as there is no day no night). Whereas the Creator is endowed with a sense of I and is in the domain of time.

Though it is the Turiya Self that is ONE and ALL (since Pragnya is His), yet this Self is transcendental which has no connection to objects of Taijjassa and Vaisvanara, since there is no mind, which sprouts from Pragnya.


The point is that this timelessly true Turiya constitutes the stable core of Jivas that remains while objects exist and exists even if all objects are removed (when in samadhi or in deep sleep). This is said to be constant substratum while the play goes on and the lone auspicious truth when the play is paused/stopped.

Regards

Om Namah Shivayya

Pranam atanu ji


Krishna also say similar

jneyam yat tat pravaksyami
yaj jnatvamrtam asnute
anadi mat-param brahma
na sat tan nasad ucyate

I shall fully describe the object of knowledge, knowing which one attains immortality. The beginningless Supreme Brahman is said to be neither Sat nor Asat.(13.13)



Undivided, yet appears as if divided in beings; He, the object of knowledge, is the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of (all) beings. (13.17)



Still you have not satisfied my query. Is the absolute not aware of it self is the creator different from the absolute?
The domain of time is only a ref. Point, for the creation and dissolution of this bhovtik sansar.

So I am confused I do not comprehend your answer, what creator are we talking about? Whose turya are you refering to and in this state is eko unaware?

Even the bhovtik sansar is difficult to fathom because of its ever-changing nature.


The real form of this tree cannot be perceived in this world. No one can understand where it ends, where it begins, or where its foundation is. But with determination one must cut down this tree with the weapon of detachment. So doing, one must seek that place from which, having once gone, one never returns, and there surrender to that Supreme Personality from whom everything has began and in whom everything is abiding since time immemorial.

This is why the lord asks us to seek that place from where there is no return and what is this abode of his?

na tad bhasayate suryo
na sasanko na pavakah
yad gatva na nivartante
tad dhama paramam mama

That abode of Mine is not illumined by the sun or moon, nor by fire. One who reaches it never returns to this material world. (15.06)

Here there is no day or night





Since everything that exists is eternal, only play that is paused/ stopped are only temporary phenomena of this material world.




Jai Shree Krishna

atanu
18 March 2007, 12:01 PM
Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,


Pranam atanu ji
----

Still you have not satisfied my query. Is the absolute not aware of it self is the creator different from the absolute?

So I am confused I do not comprehend your answer, what creator are we talking about? Whose turya are you refering to and in this state is eko unaware?




Hirayanagarbha is the creator whose microcosmic counterpart is Taijjassa. The Creator creates using Pragnya in Taijjassa and Vaisvanara states and knows fully well its own nature as pure knowledge.




Since everything that exists is eternal, only play that is paused/stopped are only temporary phenomena of this material world.


Yes, definitely. Nature never stops. But to unravel the unmoving unchanging substratum, it will be necessary to stop the mind and become the controller of Maya.

Shrutivipratipannaa te yadaa sthaasyati nishchalaa;
Samaadhaavachalaa buddhistadaa yogam avaapsyasi.

2.53. When thy intellect, perplexed by what thou hast heard, shall stand immovable and steady in the Self, then thou shalt attain Self-realisation.




This is why the lord asks us to seek that place from where there is no return and what is this abode of his?



Precisely so. Only with the jnana of the non-dual atma (attained with settled samadhi), moksha is granted. The abode of all beings is consciousness. Thats why it is said that Pragnya (sarvesvara) yoni sarvasya (Pragnya is birth place of all: mandukya). But the Turiya remains unchanged. It is transcendental, non-dual and auspicious.

Om Namah Shivayya

Ganeshprasad
18 March 2007, 01:35 PM
Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,




Hirayanagarbha is the creator whose microcosmic counterpart is Taijjassa. The Creator creates using Pragnya in Taijjassa and Vaisvanara states and knows fully well its own nature as pure knowledge.


Surely pure knowledge is an attribute, how can someone be just the knowledge?


By Hirayanagarbha you mean Brahma yes?




Yes, definitely. Nature never stops. But to unravel the unmoving unchanging substratum, it will be necessary to stop the mind and become the controller of Maya.

Shrutivipratipannaa te yadaa sthaasyati nishchalaa;
Samaadhaavachalaa buddhistadaa yogam avaapsyasi.

2.53. When thy intellect, perplexed by what thou hast heard, shall stand immovable and steady in the Self, then thou shalt attain Self-realisation.

Om Namah Shivayya


How can I control Maya? Krishna says


daivi hy esa guna-mayi
mama maya duratyaya
mam eva ye prapadyante
mayam etam taranti te

My divine Maya consisting of three Gunas or states of mind is difficult to overcome. Only they who surrender unto Me cross over this Maya. (7.14)


Jai Shree Krishna

atanu
19 March 2007, 02:45 AM
Namaskar Ganesh Prasad Ji,

Discussing with you, I always learn something of value.


Surely pure knowledge is an attribute, how can someone be just the knowledge?

Where is that some one? When scripture says, beyond day and night, only the auspicious, which is neither being nor non being, remains, who is that some one?

The some one you are talking about is the same indescribable Atma, having acquired a body using Maya.



How can I control Maya? Krishna says
daivi hy esa guna-mayi
mama maya duratyaya
mam eva ye prapadyante
mayam etam taranti te
My divine Maya consisting of three Gunas or states of mind is difficult to overcome. Only they who surrender unto Me cross over this Maya. (7.14)
Jai Shree Krishna


Yes this helps to harmonize the understanding, since Shree Krishna also says:

Shrutivipratipannaa te yadaa sthaasyati nishchalaa;
Samaadhaavachalaa buddhistadaa yogam avaapsyasi.

2.53. When thy intellect, perplexed by what thou hast heard, shall stand immovable and steady in the Self, then thou shalt attain Self-realisation.

And pure samadhi, without a tinge of I remaining, alone is total surrender into the Self, which Shri Krishna truly is. A person/personality has a boundary that can only define the personality. Brahman has no such boundary.


The main point of this discussion, however was the verse: All beings are in Me, but I am not in them, which apparently contradicts the following verses (and many others):

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.

13.23. The Supreme Soul in this body is also called the spectator, the permitter, the supporter, the enjoyer, the great Lord and the Supreme Self.

18.20. That by which one sees the one indestructible Reality in all beings, not separate in all the separate beings—know thou that knowledge to be Sattwic (pure).

On this I wish to write a few lines more.

It is Indra in Vedas who is famed for His act of separating Mother and Father and having kept them separate. It is not a cruel act. Indra, helps us to know the time unlimited infinite unchanging Atma and its play with ever changing Prakriti within consciousness that is us.

Sanatana Dharma upholds that Lord is transcendental and fully immanent and exhorts us to find the transcendental part in us. So, Atma is said to be unchanging and unborn. Atma invested with an I sense is Purusha, who may reamain aloof from Prakriti (as in the case of Ishwara) or may go down trapped by Prakriti (as in Jivas). All through Atma still remains untarnished. As Lord says: Atma Na Lipayate.

Lord says: know this Atma. Mandukya Upanishad says: know this Atma.

Buddha, for some particular reason perhaps, did not mention anything about a non-changing SEER of this dance of Prakriti. He recognised only the ever changing flux. Though He asked devotees to find the shantam within.

This is the suble difference, wherein the particular verse "I am not in beings", comes into play. The same knowledge is imparted by Upanishad in the verse:


Om ! That is infinite, and this is infinite.
The infinite proceeds from the infinite.


(Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe),
It remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone.


There are unlimited forms that arise from Sarvesvara Pragnya, which is known as Sarvasya Yoni. But the Turiya Self remains Turiya Self --- shivoadvaitam, whether one sees forms or not. With the consciousness settled in the Self (without movement of thoughts as in samadhi), only the self effulgent infinite remains.


The forms that teach us about dharma are different in different cultures. But the Self is ONE AND SAME. AND IT HAS ONE PRAGNYA.


Regards (and YMMV, which I respect),


Om Namah Shivayya
Om Namah Shivayya
Om Namah Shivayya

yajvan
21 March 2007, 12:00 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaskar Ganesh Prasad Ji,

Discussing with you, I always learn something of value.
... When scripture says, beyond day and night, only the auspicious, which is neither being nor non being, remains, who is that some one?


Namaste Atanu and Ganesh Prasad,

What a wonderful, robust and insightful post.. this is the dignity of HDF exemplifed!


I only have little to add, as both of you are adding great value....

When the veda's talk of day and night, they describe the opposites;
Day and night can be used as time, yet day is the brightness of the divine rays of consciousness... night is ignorance, or those ( that would be me) not establish as yet in the brilliance of Self. In the Rig Ved we find the 'rays' as luminious cows (gau). Come here you aspirants for the light (gavyanta); Let us reach Indra (Divine MInd) who increases our needed thought, (pramatim); Invinvible, he bestows on us the supreme (param) ray of the Light (gavam) Rig Ved 1.33.1. This concept of luminus rays i.e. cows, can be found ~ 900 times of so inb the Rig Vedsa we have to use today. No wonder India has a history of repsect for the the divine bovine that walks the steets as equals.

Over all, the day-night concept also can be considered the battle between the daitya's and A-diaitya's. The Aditya' are the devata with expansion and light; the daitya's are considered pani's( sense trafficker's as R.L.Kashap calls them), and vrtra, (the wolf) or lower vital forces that keeps the one amused and tied to possessions, anger, greed, etc. the usual suspects, of which most sadhu's, including me, are breaking aware from).

pranams,

Ganeshprasad
21 March 2007, 06:18 PM
Pranam Atanu ji




Where is that some one? When scripture says, beyond day and night, only the auspicious, which is neither being nor non being, remains, who is that some one?


You see when scriptures say nether being nor non-being it leaves no scope for doubt that the supreme is everything. Sagun as well as nirgun.
Our rishis left no stone unturned and declared neiti neiti. Why? It like describing a bottle half empty or half full. As soon as one says a person then it becomes localized the boundaries are drawn as you like to put it, but to think without form is even harder one can not limit the supreme to be devoid.
To think that supreme is devoid of a form is like thinking creator is less than the creation.
And to think that, a person, is sarva is a difficult notion to digest also.
Energy and energetic constitute the whole that is my understanding of neither being nor non-being.




The some one you are talking about is the same indescribable Atma, having acquired a body using Maya.


ajo 'pi sann avyayatma
bhutanam isvaro 'pi san
prakrtim svam adhisthaya
sambhavamy atma-mayaya

Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all sentient beings, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form.(4.6)

avyaktam vyaktim apannam
manyante mam abuddhayah
param bhavam ajananto
mamavyayam anuttamam

Unintelligent men, who know Me not, think that I have assumed this form and personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is changeless and supreme.(7.24)


For this, neither being nor non-being, there is nothing to acquire everything is transcendental, it is perhaps our own sorry nature we try to superimpose on to the lord.






The main point of this discussion, however was the verse: All beings are in Me, but I am not in them, which apparently contradicts the following verses (and many others):

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.


13.23. The Supreme Soul in this body is also called the spectator, the permitter, the supporter, the enjoyer, the great Lord and the Supreme Self.

18.20. That by which one sees the one indestructible Reality in all beings, not separate in all the separate beings—know thou that knowledge to be Sattwic (pure).


I do not see the contradiction, the ParmAtma who dwells in every living this is what 13.17/13.23 is telling us, And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings this is so true of parmAtma. If you contemplate on this verse then 18.2 becomes easy to understand in the context of parmAtma.
Just as space or ether pervades in different vassal as if divided such is the nature of the supersoul pervades all and yet appears divided.




On this I wish to write a few lines more.

It is Indra in Vedas who is famed for His act of separating Mother and Father and having kept them separate. It is not a cruel act. Indra, helps us to know the time unlimited infinite unchanging Atma and its play with ever changing Prakriti within consciousness that is us.

Sanatana Dharma upholds that Lord is transcendental and fully immanent and exhorts us to find the transcendental part in us. So, Atma is said to be unchanging and unborn. Atma invested with an I sense is Purusha, who may reamain aloof from Prakriti (as in the case of Ishwara) or may go down trapped by Prakriti (as in Jivas). All through Atma still remains untarnished. As Lord says: Atma Na Lipayate.

Lord says: know this Atma. Mandukya Upanishad says: know this Atma.

Buddha, for some particular reason perhaps, did not mention anything about a non-changing SEER of this dance of Prakriti. He recognised only the ever changing flux. Though He asked devotees to find the shantam within.

This is the suble difference, wherein the particular verse "I am not in beings", comes into play. The same knowledge is imparted by Upanishad in the verse:

Om ! That is infinite, and this is infinite.
The infinite proceeds from the infinite.
(Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe),
It remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone.
There are unlimited forms that arise from Sarvesvara Pragnya, which is known as Sarvasya Yoni. But the Turiya Self remains Turiya Self --- shivoadvaitam, whether one sees forms or not. With the consciousness settled in the Self (without movement of thoughts as in samadhi), only the self effulgent infinite remains.
The forms that teach us about dharma are different in different cultures. But the Self is ONE AND SAME. AND IT HAS ONE PRAGNYA.


The unlimited forms that do arise, then i understand that, The infinite proceeds from the infinite.

Therefore when krishna says na tv evaham jatu nasam
na tvam neme janadhipah
na caiva na bhavisyamah
sarve vayam atah param
Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.(2.12)



Regards (and YMMV, which I respect),

Please explain I am not good at this.


Om Namah Shivayya
Om Namah Shivayya
Om Namah Shivayya

Jai Shree Krishna

Ganeshprasad
21 March 2007, 06:25 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

I only have little to add, as both of you are adding great value....

When the veda's talk of day and night, they describe the opposites;
Day and night can be used as time, yet day is the brightness of the divine rays of consciousness... night is ignorance, or those ( that would be me) not establish as yet in the brilliance of Self. In the Rig Ved we find the 'rays' as luminious cows (gau). Come here you aspirants for the light (gavyanta); Let us reach Indra (Divine MInd) who increases our needed thought, (pramatim); Invinvible, he bestows on us the supreme (param) ay of the Light (gavam) Rig Ved 1.33.1. This concept of luminus rays i.e. cows, can be found ~ 900 times of so inb the Rig Vedsa we have to use today. No wonder India has a history of repsect for the the divine bovine that walks the steets as equals.

Over all, the day-night concept also can be considered the battle between the daitya's and A-diaitya's. The Aditya' are the devata with expansion and light; the daitya's are considered pani's( sense trafficker's as R.L.Kashap calls them), and vrtra, (the wolf) or lower vital forces that keeps the one amused and tied to possessions, anger, greed, etc. the usual suspects, of which most sadhu's, including me, are breaking aware from).

pranams,

Pranam yajvan ji

Thank you for your kind words, your addition is of great import (it is your greatness that considers it as little)

The concept of day –night, equated as satva and tama could be further expanded as Hari and Hara or Vishnu and Shiva ( part of the same coin)

and what to me I find very interesting is that the satva is dark complexion while the tamas is of white.


Jai Shree krishna

atanu
21 March 2007, 10:11 PM
Pranam Atanu ji

I do not see the contradiction, the ParmAtma who dwells in every living this is what 13.17/13.23 is telling us, And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings this is so true of parmAtma. If you contemplate on this verse then 18.2 becomes easy to understand in the context of parmAtma.

Just as space or ether pervades in different vassal as if divided such is the nature of the supersoul pervades all and yet appears divided.



Namaste Ganesh Prasad Ji,


a) All beings are in Me, but I am not in them, -------

b)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.


If pervasion was the only case then the above two verses would definitely be contradicting. The full import is that Brahman remains intact and infinite, even when infinite forms are isolated as spandan through sadhana:

Om ! That is infinite, and this is infinite.
The infinite proceeds from the infinite.
(Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe),
It remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone.






Therefore when krishna says na tv evaham jatu nasam
na tvam neme janadhipah
na caiva na bhavisyamah
sarve vayam atah param
Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.(2.12)


Now, what is this You and I? And what is this Future?

If param atma was only apparently divided then where from this I and You came into being? Isn't the I and You also apparent? Isn't 'I' after Pragnya? And what is this 'future'? Isn't this about after awareness of time? Does this verse represent the truth beyond time?

Dear Ganeshprasad Ji, Turiya is beyond Pragnya and Time. This cited verse on 'i and you and kings' cannot overrule the fully advaitic verse: And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings. And it also does not over-rule the ONE WITHOUT A SECOND (shivoadvaita atma). This also does not speak of the condition: '---when light arises there is no day and night, only the blessed one exists -----'.


YMMV is a borrowed term meaning 'Your mileage may Vary'.


Om Namah Shivayya
Om Namah Shivayya
Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
21 March 2007, 10:23 PM
Pranam yajvan ji

Thank you for your kind words, your addition is of great import (it is your greatness that considers it as little)

The concept of day –night, equated as satva and tama could be further expanded as Hari and Hara or Vishnu and Shiva ( part of the same coin)

and what to me I find very interesting is that the satva is dark complexion while the tamas is of white.


Jai Shree krishna


Jai Shree Krishna Ganesh Prasad Ji,

The verse is '----when there is no day and no night only that Shiva exists from whom proceeds the Pragnya of Savitur'.


Constancy is to be known beyond --- when there is no day no night ---- in whatever fashion one draws the meaning of day and night; Tamas/Sattwa or Knowledge/'lack of knowledge' or Asur/Sur etc. etc.


Pragnya of Savitur (Sun) only creates Time, Day/Night and all the Universe. The awareness of I is also post Pragnya. Since Savitur has an I, there are You. The constant Lord that sees all the flux remains all the time.

Forms change in flux. What is there today will not be there tommorrow. Turiya remains changeless and remains so when the flux is isolated through sadhana.

Shrutivipratipannaa te yadaa sthaasyati nishchalaa;
Samaadhaavachalaa buddhistadaa yogam avaapsyasi.

2.53. When thy intellect, perplexed by what thou hast heard, shall stand immovable and steady in the Self, then thou shalt attain Self-realisation.


Om
Jai Shree Krishna
Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
21 March 2007, 10:47 PM
Pranam Atanu ji

----
ajo 'pi sann avyayatma
bhutanam isvaro 'pi san
prakrtim svam adhisthaya
sambhavamy atma-mayaya

Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all sentient beings, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form.(4.6)

avyaktam vyaktim apannam
manyante mam abuddhayah
param bhavam ajananto
mamavyayam anuttamam

Unintelligent men, who know Me not, think that I have assumed this form and personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is changeless and supreme.(7.24)

-----


Namaskar Ganesh Prasad Ji,

avyaktam vyaktim apannam
manyante mam abuddhayah
param bhavam ajananto
mamavyayam anuttamam

Unintelligent men, who know Me not, think that I have assumed this form and personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is changeless and supreme.(7.24)


And consider:

4.6 Ajo’pi sannavyayaatmaa bhootaanaam eeshwaro’pi san;
Prakritim swaam adhishthaaya sambhavaamyaatmamaayayaa.

4.6. Though I am unborn and of imperishable nature, and though I am the Lord of all beings, yet, ruling over My own Nature, I am born by My own Maya.


I Agree. This is what I am telling again and again. Only immature will use these verses to prove that the Lord's form is as they have clothed Him. Actually it is Lord's maya form. And what Arjuna saw will not be seen by an englishman ever. These visions are as per culture and as per pre-dilections.

4.6 Ajo’pi sannavyayaatmaa bhootaanaam eeshwaro’pi san;
Prakritim swaam adhishthaaya sambhavaamyaatmamaayayaa.

4.6. Though I am unborn and of imperishable nature, and though I am the Lord of all beings, yet, ruling over My own Nature, I am born by My own Maya.

What underlies the Maya body? That same Atma is the substratum knowledge and the knower in every form. And that is Paratpara. Beyond cognition by any means since by that only, all cognitions is effected.

What cognizes my eyes cannot be cognized by my eyes. What cognizes my hearing cannot be cognized by my ears. Thus:


Shrutivipratipannaa te yadaa sthaasyati nishchalaa;
Samaadhaavachalaa buddhistadaa yogam avaapsyasi.

2.53. When thy intellect, perplexed by what thou hast heard, shall stand immovable and steady in the Self, then thou shalt attain Self-realisation.


HK claims of knowing the transcendental form of Lord is a bag of gas, as if Prabhupada has seen the transcendental form. It is their imagination they love, since Rig Veda says: Those who have clothed Him, surely from them He is hidden (Asiya Vamiya Sukta).



For this, neither being nor non-being, there is nothing to acquire everything is transcendental, it is perhaps our own sorry nature we try to superimpose on to the lord.



Cannot agree more, since this is what I have been saying.


Om Namah Shivayya

Ganeshprasad
26 March 2007, 05:55 AM
Pranam Atanu ji
sorry for the delay in answering, i am bit busy for the next few weeks.



I Agree. This is what I am telling again and again. Only immature will use these verses to prove that the Lord's form is as they have clothed Him. Actually it is Lord's maya form.


So let us not cloth him, not even with maya, he is not saying anywhere that this is his maya form, infact he say he menifests, cotroling the nature, and using maya he is born.
He further explains in verse 9 that one who understands his divyam janma nd karma reaches him.point is his menifestion is divya and not mayic. Also there is no question of him being devoid of form as he explains in verse 11.52

sri-bhagavan uvaca
su-durdarsam idam rupam
drstavan asi yan mama
deva apy asya rupasya
nityam darsana-kanksinah

The Blessed Lord said: My dear Arjuna, the form which you are now seeing is very difficult to behold. Even the Devas are ever seeking the opportunity to see this form which is so dear.




And what Arjuna saw will not be seen by an englishman ever. These visions are as per culture and as per pre-dilections.


I do not understand the conection, care to explain further if you see fit.



What underlies the Maya body? That same Atma is the substratum knowledge and the knower in every form. And that is Paratpara. Beyond cognition by any means since by that only, all cognitions is effected.

What cognizes my eyes cannot be cognized by my eyes. What cognizes my hearing cannot be cognized by my ears. Thus:


Without first knowing the small I,all this discussion will fail to unravel the paratpara.
Whose upadhi is to cognize, who is karma bound, what is its nature?
What is the purpose of our very existance?

As you say Turiya Self remains Turiya Self --- shivoadvaitam, never affected by its maya so who is suffering the pangs of material nature?




HK claims of knowing the transcendental form of Lord is a bag of gas, as if Prabhupada has seen the transcendental form. It is their imagination they love, since Rig Veda says: Those who have clothed Him, surely from them He is hidden (Asiya Vamiya Sukta).


I don’t think it is fair to single out hk, the whole off Bhakti movement woluld fall in this category of yours, weather srila Prabhupada, who has achieved in his own way, a lot of following and brought Krishna to whole world, weather he has seen the transcendental form, I can not elabrate.what one see or taste can not be explained in words or proved, we can only campare notes. Krishna does say

naham vedair na tapasa
na danena na cejyaya
sakya evam-vidho drastum
drstavan asi mam yatha
The form which you are seeing with your transcendental eyes cannot be understood simply by studying the Vedas, nor by undergoing serious penances, nor by charity, nor by worship. It is not by these means that one can see Me as I am. (11.53)

bhaktya tv ananyaya sakya
aham evam-vidho 'rjuna
jnatum drastum ca tattvena
pravestum ca parantapa

My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding. (11.54)






a) All beings are in Me, but I am not in them, -------

b)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.


If pervasion was the only case then the above two verses would definitely be contradicting. The full import is that Brahman remains intact and infinite, even when infinite forms are isolated as spandan through sadhana:


There is nothing clear-cut as Krishna explains

na ca mat-sthani bhutani
pasya me yogam aisvaram
bhuta-bhrn na ca bhuta-stho
mamatma bhuta-bhavanah


And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities, and although I am everywhere, still My Self is the very source of creation.

The contradictions, if at all, is in our understanding. There is no argument in Brahman being neither intact nor there is any doubt in my mind that all that be are in this Brahman.





Therefore when krishna says na tv evaham jatu nasam
na tvam neme janadhipah
na caiva na bhavisyamah
sarve vayam atah param
Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.(2.12)

Now, what is this You and I? And what is this Future?

If param atma was only apparently divided then where from this I and You came into being? Isn't the I and You also apparent? Isn't 'I' after Pragnya? And what is this 'future'? Isn't this about after awareness of time? Does this verse represent the truth beyond time?


The verse spoken by Krishna represent the truth, what is apparent is param atma being divided, there is no question of I and you being apparent only. The fact is we are eternal, everything that exist is eternal, only difference is this jivas are caught in this material world which has apparent beginning and end and identifying with the material existence one conceives the idea of timeframe. While the param atma who remains beyond the material existence and always in control, as witness to our karma is perceived to be apparently divided.

Indeed what is this you and I what is this future? Question does not arise in advaitic Turiya so whose questions are this whose upadhi is it?




Dear Ganeshprasad Ji, Turiya is beyond Pragnya and Time. This cited verse on 'i and you and kings' cannot overrule the fully advaitic verse: And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings. And it also does not over-rule the ONE WITHOUT A SECOND (shivoadvaita atma). This also does not speak of the condition: '---when light arises there is no day and night, only the blessed one exists -----'.


There is no question of overrule anything, it is our understanding of the truth or the lack of it (me) and the facts that are present in front of us, trying to make sense of it all. The truth is beyond explanation only self-realization can reveal what is the essence that lies beyond the material manifestation. We all are conscious being aware of this existence, param atma is never deluded but we are, we can not become that we are not.

Shrutivipratipannaa te yadaa sthaasyati nishchalaa;
Samaadhaavachalaa buddhistadaa yogam avaapsyasi.

2.53. When thy intellect, perplexed by what thou hast heard, shall stand immovable and steady in the Self, then thou shalt attain Self-realisation.

tam eva saranam gaccha
sarva-bhavena bharata
tat-prasadat param santim
sthanam prapsyasi sasvatam

Seek refuge in Him alone with all your heart, O Arjuna. By His grace you shall attain supreme peace and the eternal abode. (18.62)


Jai Shree Ram

atanu
27 March 2007, 07:41 AM
Namaste Ganesh Prasad Ji,

You have posted a beautiful piece. I agree to most of your views except a few differences, which we may agree to keep for future consideration. Diversity arising out of Pragnya is the nature. Only a handful can enter Turiya, since that will require absence of ego desires. Even deep sleep happens when there is no desire. Turiya cannot be attained unless individuality and its desires are not discarded as false. What do we do? Worship the highest form of Turiya – the SARVESVARA who is Lord Pragnya – SARVASYA YONI. The highest form is desireless. Worshiping Him, being at his feet, all desires are fulfilled and desires are attenuated. For 99% jivas this is true.

Every time a painful thought/experience surfaces, I have enquired who is pained? I have not found the ‘Atanu’ that feels the pain. Atanu is just a name which thinks that it is separate from the Universe and is pained when the world is perceived to be kicking Atanu.
I realize that every act of pain is an act of grace of God, to push the mind to the Self. Lord says: Do not desire anya devata, desire only Me. I am the Self. And the Self is indeed defined as shivo advaita atma. As per my understanding, knowing the advaita atma as another being is impossible. Shri Krishna also teaches the same but many do not recognize it. Lord says: I am the Self. Abide in ME. Then He says: Yogis who abide ceaselessly in Me, I am in him and He is in ME. In such a case there is no scope of any boundary here.




Shrutivipratipannaa te yadaa sthaasyati nishchalaa;
Samaadhaavachalaa buddhistadaa yogam avaapsyasi.

2.53. When thy intellect, perplexed by what thou hast heard, shall stand immovable and steady in the Self, then thou shalt attain Self-realisation.

tam eva saranam gaccha
sarva-bhavena bharata
tat-prasadat param santim
sthanam prapsyasi sasvatam

Seek refuge in Him alone with all your heart, O Arjuna. By His grace you shall attain supreme peace and the eternal abode. (18.62)



Yes I agree.

This param santim sasvatam is the abode, goal and advaita. One without a second. We have already seen

13. 17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings;


And we have seen:

Svet. Upanishad

IV-18: When light rises, there is neither day nor night, neither being nor non-being. There is only that Shiva who is imperishable, and who is worthy of being adored by the creator. From Him has proceeded the ancient wisdom (Pragnya).


The experience while one is in ignorance cannot be true. Ignorance cannot be proven by saying it is Pratayksha that we exist. A mirage is also Pratayksha. Sun rotating around the earth is Pratayksha. That an apple falls is Pratyaksha. But an apple does not fall, it is attracted towards earth. Up-down; today-tommorrow etc. seem pratyaksha but they are just concepts of mind, which is nature of Pragnya.




So let us not cloth him, not even with maya, he is not saying anywhere that this is his maya form, infact he say he menifests, cotroling the nature, and using maya he is born.
He further explains in verse 9 that one who understands his divyam janma nd karma reaches him.point is his menifestion is divya and not mayic. Also there is no question of him being devoid of form as he explains in verse 11.52


Yes. Rig Veda says that those who know the divine birth of Vishnu know correctly. The birth is from the divine source but only using the potency, which is not a being. So, Dvaita never actually happens. It happens is sahasra sira. And then sahasra sira only teaches us that: ATMA CANNOT BE CUT.



sri-bhagavan uvaca
su-durdarsam idam rupam
drstavan asi yan mama
deva apy asya rupasya
nityam darsana-kanksinah

The Blessed Lord said: My dear Arjuna, the form which you are now seeing is very difficult to behold. Even the Devas are ever seeking the opportunity to see this form which is so dear.


Visvarupa form is such -- unique, since an englishman’s visvarupa form will not match Arjuna’s visvarupa vision. Visvarupa vision is in the domain of experience but who is the experiencer? Even while Arjuna envisioned Visvarupa, who really cognized it? What is cognition in you and me? It is Pragnya.

So, Lord says: Also see whatever you desire to see in me. The seeing is always tinged with wish of the seer. As long as Seer is separate from the Seen, there is appearance of Dvaita.


And remember that Arjuna was afraid. Is God scary? It is kala form that is ugram -- scary. Lord said: I am kala. But you yourself said: This param santim sasvatam.



As you say Turiya Self remains Turiya Self --- shivoadvaitam, never affected by its maya so who is suffering the pangs of material nature?


Whose are the pangs of suffering? Who is suffering and who is claiming it? Can you find the one who is lamenting? Do you suffer from pangs in your deep sleep? Do you not exist then?





I don’t think it is fair to single out hk, the whole off Bhakti movement woluld fall in this category of yours, weather srila Prabhupada, who has achieved in his own way, a lot of following and brought Krishna to whole world, weather he has seen the transcendental form, I can not elabrate.what one see or taste can not be explained in words or proved, we can only campare notes. Krishna does say


Well, I beg to differ here. True, that the Turiya is indescribable. So, how does Prabhupada say that He alone knows it and uses language such as rascal, fool etc., for other saintly people?? A god realized man will first accept that ALL IS LORD’s Form.

On the other hand, what is transcendental (Atita) – the Turiya, is described as advaita atma. Isn’t it true that God himself (Varuna) as Mandukya rishi exhorts us to know the advaitam Atma? If one sees/knows it as another then there is neither advaitam nor atma. Another cannot be your Atma. Another cannot be advaitam.




The verse spoken by Krishna represent the truth, what is apparent is param atma being divided, there is no question of I and you being apparent only. The fact is we are eternal, everything that exist is eternal, only difference is this jivas are caught in this material world which has apparent beginning and end and identifying with the material existence one conceives the idea of timeframe.

Many are in the states. But the source of the many is ONE and the truth is beyond time. Thus Mandukya says: What is there in three division of time is OM. And whatever beyond the time is also OM.

If I as Atanu or a Jiva is eternally separate from Param Atma then I can never have any chance. This is not sanatana dharma position. There is a promise of no-return or there is a promise of enjoyment of karma fruits in heaven and then a return. Also, if jivas are eternal and different from Param Atma then the verse that ‘Param Atma appears divided in bodies but is ONE’ is falsified.



-------The truth is beyond explanation only self-realization can reveal what is the essence that lies beyond the material manifestation. We all are conscious being aware of this existence, param atma is never deluded but we are, we can not become that we are not.


It is a beautiful statement: We all are conscious being aware of this existence, param atma is never deluded but we are, we can not become that we are not.

Yes, you said: self-realization can reveal what is the essence that lies beyond the material manifestation. The Self is advaitam atma. When one realizes it as I and they and He, one has lost the atma as well as the Advaita. One cannot know Advaita remaining a second to it.

It is true that we have never become anything that we are not. Atma cannot ever become non-atma and vice versa. So called 'we' cannot be separate from Brahman either, since then no one can cognise 'we' as Brahamn is Pragnya. Anything outside Brahman simply does not exist. So, being within Brahman how can something become non-atman?

It is a different matter that the advaita atma has unlimited forms with different functions and different powers. The Supreme Lord is manifested with Supreme functions and supreme powers. But He has the same atma as anyone else. On the other hand, Param Parastad is beyond the defintion of supreme. It remains auspicious ever and hence is called Sada Shiva.



Regards,

Om Namah Shivayya

Znanna
28 March 2007, 06:30 PM
What a beautiful post, thanks Atanu.

:)



Namaste,
ZN

atanu
31 March 2007, 06:54 AM
What a beautiful post, thanks Atanu.

:)

Namaste,
ZN

Namaste Znanna,

I feel glad that you liked the post. I take it as an approval from Mother, conveyed through you.

Thanks, Regards.

Namaste

Om Namah Shiva Om Namah Shiv
Om Namah Aswin -- Hara Parvati.
Om Namah Aswin -- who protect and nurture Indra and Vishnu.

Om

atanu
31 March 2007, 07:30 AM
Namaste Ganesh Prasad Ji,
------
I realize that every act of pain is an act of grace of God, to push the mind to the Self. ------

Om Namah Shivayya

And today, I realize that it is the eternal power play between Shiva and Parvati.

Parvati wants to bath in her own beauty. Lord wants Her attention--- so some pain ensues. But it is so sweet. Lover's tiff.

Om Namah Shivayya

Ganeshprasad
02 June 2007, 06:00 PM
Pranam Atanu ji

Sorry to have kept you waiting for a reply we may restart if you wish, I also agree to most of your views or at least appreciate it



I agree to most of your views except a few differences, which we may agree to keep for future consideration. Diversity arising out of Pragnya is the nature.

Differences are healthy and it will persist that is the nature of individual being.
Please define Pragnya and its nature and the reason for diversity arising out it.



Only a handful can enter Turiya, since that will require absence of ego desires. Even deep sleep happens when there is no desire. Turiya cannot be attained unless individuality and its desires are not discarded as false. What do we do? Worship the highest form of Turiya – the SARVESVARA who is Lord Pragnya – SARVASYA YONI. The highest form is desireless. Worshiping Him, being at his feet, all desires are fulfilled and desires are attenuated. For 99% jivas this is true.

manusyanam sahasresu
kascid yatati siddhaye
yatatam api siddhanam
kascin mam vetti tattvatah

Scarcely one out of thousands of persons strives for perfection of Self-realization. Scarcely any one of the striving, or even the perfected persons, truly understands Me. (7.03)



Having entered the turiya for those handful what would be their position vis the supreme Brahman?
Desires are unlimited from where does this desires sprout?
(Turiya – the SARVESVARA who is Lord Pragnya – SARVASYA YONI.) These are all impersonal definition where else Worshiping Him, being at his feet, I can relate and have a meaningful relationship.




Every time a painful thought/experience surfaces, I have enquired who is pained? I have not found the ‘Atanu’ that feels the pain. Atanu is just a name which thinks that it is separate from the Universe and is pained when the world is perceived to be kicking Atanu.

we may get lost in the words or name which certainly has no value other then identification but the person that is conscious, the individual living being, certainly feels the pain and pleasure however temporary it may be, brought upon due to ignorance of the real identity of the jivatma, the perceiver.






I realize that every act of pain is an act of grace of God, to push the mind to the Self. Lord says: Do not desire anya devata, desire only Me. I am the Self. And the Self is indeed defined as shivo advaita atma. As per my understanding, knowing the advaita atma as another being is impossible. Shri Krishna also teaches the same but many do not recognize it. Lord says: I am the Self. Abide in ME. Then He says: Yogis who abide ceaselessly in Me, I am in him and He is in ME. In such a case there is no scope of any boundary here.

above statement at least for me is very confusing if I were to understand your line of thinking i.e. advaita.
These are full of devaita statements for instance it is some one else feeling the pain that seeks the grace of god, abide in me is an instruction to some one else.

And yet beings, in reality, do not remain in Me. Look at the power of My divine mystery. Though the sustainer and creator of all beings, I do not remain in them. (9.05)

Consider that all beings remain in Me as the mighty wind, moving everywhere, eternally remains in space. (9.06)

There are no boundaries, that which is eternal eko advaita, contains everything within, you me and everyone else that which is conscious are definitely here, and that which exists never cease to be Krishna say very clearly.
In this bhovtic sansar(material word) which is only a tiny part compared to the spiritual word, we desire various things for our happiness but we are constantly disappointed because this world is of temporary nature the soul which is eternal can never be satisfied by it, the result of looking in wrong direction.


purusah sa parah partha
bhaktya labhyas tv ananyaya
yasyantah-sthani bhutani
yena sarvam idam tatam

This Supreme abode, O Arjuna, is attainable by unswerving devotion to Me within which all beings exist, and by which all this universe is pervaded.(8.22)




Svet. Upanishad

IV-18: When light rises, there is neither day nor night, neither being nor non-being. There is only that Shiva who is imperishable, and who is worthy of being adored by the creator. From Him has proceeded the ancient wisdom (Pragnya).


I do not understand this, more I try less clear it become. Where from the light rises? neither being nor non-being, what do you understand by this? Why would eko Shiva need being adored by creator? There is only eko where is the need for worship, for this to happen there must be other.




The experience while one is in ignorance cannot be true. Ignorance cannot be proven by saying it is Pratayksha that we exist. A mirage is also Pratayksha. Sun rotating around the earth is Pratayksha. That an apple falls is Pratyaksha. But an apple does not fall, it is attracted towards earth. Up-down; today-tommorrow etc. seem pratyaksha but they are just concepts of mind, which is nature of Pragnya.

Ignorance is also a tatva of some kind, one may appreciate light by experiencing darkness





Quote:
So let us not cloth him, not even with maya, he is not saying anywhere that this is his maya form, infact he say he menifests, cotroling the nature, and using maya he is born.
He further explains in verse 9 that one who understands his divyam janma nd karma reaches him.point is his menifestion is divya and not mayic. Also there is no question of him being devoid of form as he explains in verse 11.52
Yes. Rig Veda says that those who know the divine birth of Vishnu know correctly. The birth is from the divine source but only using the potency, which is not a being. So, Dvaita never actually happens. It happens is sahasra sira. And then sahasra sira only teaches us that: ATMA CANNOT BE CUT.

I have not known or heard of birth of Vishnu.
It is very clear that atma can not be cut but then ditintion has always been made for Atma and ParamAtma neither is perished or cut.





Visvarupa form is such -- unique, since an englishman’s visvarupa form will not match Arjuna’s visvarupa vision. Visvarupa vision is in the domain of experience but who is the experiencer? Even while Arjuna envisioned Visvarupa, who really cognized it? What is cognition in you and me? It is Pragnya.

So, Lord says: Also see whatever you desire to see in me. The seeing is always tinged with wish of the seer. As long as Seer is separate from the Seen, there is appearance of Dvaita.


And remember that Arjuna was afraid. Is God scary? It is kala form that is ugram -- scary. Lord said: I am kala. But you yourself said: This param santim sasvatam.

The seer has to be different or else what is there to be seen?
Arjun was perplexed when he saw the visvarup and that was natural too.
The Englishman you and me can only speculate what Arjun saw.

arjuna uvaca
drstvedam manusam rupam
tava saumyam janardana
idanim asmi samvrttah
sa-cetah prakrtim gatah

Arjuna said: O Krishna, seeing this gentle human form of Yours, I have now become composed and I am normal again. (11.51)



As you say Turiya Self remains Turiya Self --- shivoadvaitam, never affected by its maya so who is suffering the pangs of material nature?
Whose are the pangs of suffering? Who is suffering and who is claiming it? Can you find the one who is lamenting? Do you suffer from pangs in your deep sleep? Do you not exist then?



In deep sleep man knows no pain here there is no awareness a temporary amnesia but as the copiousness begins to wake the nightmare begins, we exist in all this state we are not different and our problem do not disappear in any of this different states.





Well, I beg to differ here. True, that the Turiya is indescribable. So, how does Prabhupada say that He alone knows it and uses language such as rascal, fool etc., for other saintly people?? A god realized man will first accept that ALL IS LORD’s Form.

I can not defend this but then I am not his follower I but do have some gratitude to his accomplishment and the spread of Hare Krishna Mantra.



On the other hand, what is transcendental (Atita) – the Turiya, is described as advaita atma. Isn’t it true that God himself (Varuna) as Mandukya rishi exhorts us to know the advaitam Atma? If one sees/knows it as another then there is neither advaitam nor atma. Another cannot be your Atma. Another cannot be advaitam.

This is yours and mine upadhi, you are looking through advaita glasses I through don’t know what (fog) may be one day I will be granted by his Krupa so that I can see clearly.









It is true that we have never become anything that we are not. Atma cannot ever become non-atma and vice versa. So called 'we' cannot be separate from Brahman either, since then no one can cognise 'we' as Brahamn is Pragnya. Anything outside Brahman simply does not exist. So, being within Brahman how can something become non-atman?

It is a different matter that the advaita atma has unlimited forms with different functions and different powers. The Supreme Lord is manifested with Supreme functions and supreme powers. But He has the same atma as anyone else. On the other hand, Param Parastad is beyond the defintion of supreme. It remains auspicious ever and hence is called Sada Shiva.



Regards,

Om Namah Shivayya

We have different take and understanding or may be not, we all know energy is never destroyed and there is different source type of energy, perhaps atma and parmatma is like that same but different, I don’t know weather you heard this bhajan aub sompdiya is jivan ko
MujMe tujMe bas bhed yahi me nar hun tum Narayan ho

I can not see or differentiate between the supreme lord and Sada Shiva


aham sarvasya prabhavo
mattah sarvam pravartate
iti matva bhajante mam
budha bhava-samanvitah

I am the origin of all. Everything emanates from Me. Understanding this, the wise ones worship Me with love and devotion. (10.08)

Jai Shree Krishna

atanu
03 June 2007, 02:30 AM
On the other hand, what is transcendental (Atita) – the Turiya, is described as advaita atma. Isn’t it true that God himself (Varuna) as Mandukya rishi exhorts us to know the advaitam Atma? If one sees/knows it as another then there is neither advaitam nor atma. Another cannot be your Atma. Another cannot be advaitam.


Pranam Ganesh Prasad Ji,

A nice and painstaking post you have put in. Thanks.

The above quote is my own that is not product of filtration through many colored glasses but pure logic based on well known non-controversial shruti. And this revelation of logic gains strength from my Guru's teaching as well as well established Advaita knowledge.

That does not deny the phenomenal world but only gives a pointer that the world (with God and jivas) cannot be outside the consciousness, else these would not be known. The Jagat is a pointer to the transcendental being and the transcendental being is the Jagat.

Can one break or partition the consciousness?

The particular divisions that make our Jagat however does not exist in Lord, since He is of the nature of knowledge -- which cannot have partitions. That, I feel, is the true purport of the scripture in question.

This will be easier to understand if we consider wave-matter duality of matter. Yogis see waves whereas we see just the boundaries. When I ask, 'What I am?', I find that I cannot be particularised and cannot be a solid fleshy thing, since the fleshy body is not capable of saying I. Proceeding from there one finds that the I itself is ONE.


And then,

aham sarvasya prabhavo
mattah sarvam pravartate
iti matva bhajante mam
budha bhava-samanvitah

I am the origin of all. Everything emanates from Me. Understanding this, the wise ones worship Me with love and devotion. (10.08)



In short, Lord exists not as "I am Atanu" and "I am Ganeshprasad" but as awareness of I everywhere and in everyone, without any break.


Regards

Om

atanu
03 June 2007, 01:12 PM
I have not known or heard of birth of Vishnu.
------



Book 9 RV Book 9 HYMN XCVI. Soma Pavamana


5 Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward the Father of the earth, Father of heaven: Father of Agni, Surya's generator, the Father who begat Indra and Visnu.


Om

Krsna Das
29 December 2009, 06:46 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,
The beauty of the Bhagavad-gita is how profound the knowledge (veda) is, and is offered for different levels of understanding. In sutra one (BG 9.1) Krsna tells arjuna that this information He will depart to him is the most secret wisdom (guhyatamam) some say this guhya-tamam, secrets of secrets.

Krsna says in BG 9.2 that this is raja-vidya ( king of knowledge or royal knowledge) and can be practically experienced and understood (pratyaksh avagamam).
What is this profound secret? (BG9.4 -the 2nd line reads)
mat-sthani sarva-bhutani na ca aham tesu-avasthitah.

Sri Krsna is saying All beings are in Me, but I am not in them. another author says it like this: Every being is located (or situated) in Me but I am not situated in them.

What does this say? what does this mean to you? Perhaps looking at the Gita a bit and ponder this , we can have a discussion on this great knowledge.


pranams,

Hare Krsna,

Our understanding of this verse is that one should not conclude that because Lord is omnipresent, so he has lost His personal existence also. To refute such an argument the Lord says, "I am everywhere, and everything is in Me, but still I am aloof."

Kumar_Das
13 July 2011, 09:10 PM
Namaskar Yajvan Ji,

You verily have brought out the most important verse of Gita. Counterpoised with another verse where Lord says: 'Yogis see me in everybeing and every being in me', the present verse is truly a matter of meditation.

Please take a lead on this.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivayya

Dear Atanu,

It appears as if you admit that the verse yajvan quoted is dualistic. And you are relying upon this verse you quoted to maintain Advaita.:Cool: What does that mean? Does the Gita ever contradict itself? It can only be either one right?

Pranams

Kumar_Das
13 July 2011, 09:23 PM
Dear Atanu,

It appears as if you admit that the verse yajvan quoted is dualistic. And you are relying upon this verse you quoted to maintain Advaita.:Cool: What does that mean? Does the Gita ever contradict itself? It can only be either one right?

Pranams


Namaskar Yajvan Ji,

You verily have brought out the most important verse of Gita. Counterpoised with another verse where Lord says: 'Yogis see me in everybeing and every being in me', the present verse is truly a matter of meditation.

Please take a lead on this.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivayya

Question for Atanu,

Doesnt "seeing God" in every being seem contradictory to the concept of Maya?

Hope to hear your response

I take it that every person I come across is due to my fate, which God has intended for me, and so they are important.

When I meet someone, I don't just see him/her for what he/her is. But what God means to me by them. So when I face someone, I don't just face them, I face God too.

iksvakave
24 July 2011, 11:34 AM
You would not believe this if I told you. I read this post and that night I opened my Gita to a radom page and I opened it to this very verse. I was puzzled and intrigued by the verse. :)

Iksvakave