PDA

View Full Version : Ignorance - an example



yajvan
22 June 2007, 05:20 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

I can recall talking to a person that was a hunter... as usual he talked of hunting and eating the meat he rendered. I talked of animals from a different view point - other then being my nutrition.
The conversation progressed to what was spiritually the right thing to do.
I had my view points as did he, the hunter. And this was how he justified that this 'hunt' this 'sport' was OK.

He said, 'I aimed my rifle at the rabbit and said, God, if this is not the right thing to do, let me shoot and miss hitting the rabbit.' Well, he blew the brains outta that rabbit and at the same time, said "Thank you, now I know'.

This is avidya, the poster-child of ignorance... this pretending to be in communication with the Lord without the credentials. Pretending to be King, without a kingdom. To be attuned with the Lord without the level of Consciousness that puts one with Him or Her. This post compliments the Surrender post http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1576 from a different angle.

Genesis Chapter 1 verse 29 and 30:
29: And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.
30: And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.

Kaos
24 June 2007, 06:03 AM
Ignorance and pride is not only to be found among the deluded, the atheists, or those who practice the Abrahamic religions. Ignorance and pride, a sickness of the mind is also found quite commonly amongst those who subscribe to Hinduism, Buddhism, etc, even from the pontificating, self-righteous, self-proclaimed, holier-than-thou, know-it-all, members of this forum.

Ganeshprasad
24 June 2007, 08:17 AM
Pranam kaos



Ignorance and pride is not only to be found among the deluded, the atheists, or those who practice the Abrahamic religions. Ignorance and pride, a sickness of the mind is also found quite commonly amongst those who subscribe to Hinduism, Buddhism, etc, even from the pontificating, self-righteous, self-proclaimed, holier-than-thou, know-it-all, members of this forum.





"The religious duty of a Vaishnava is to offer respectful obeisances to everyone. But that is something the hypocrites, who proudly wrap themselves with the flag of religion, do not like."

Wow ignorance and pride stems from this very statements, no need to wrap everyone else other then vaisnava to be beyond pride and ignorance.

Dharma enjoys us to respect all forms of life irrespective of what school of thought you belong to.

Would a true vaishnav distinguish a hypocrite?

A true vaishnav as narshimehta wrote
2. SakaL lok maan sahune vande, nindaa ne kare keni re ... [Bowing to everyone humbly and criticising none]

Vaach-kaacch-man nischaL raakhe, dhan-dhan janani teni re .. [He keeps his speech, deeds and thoughts pure; blessed is the mother who begets such a one]

Simply making broad statements with half truth and baseless accusation as below would not befit a true vaishnav.



"The Vedas say that one should touch the dust of a saintly person's feet. But a proud sannyasi will not humbly bow down before anyone.

This practice of touching the feet,even today still is the custom in India to respect the elders what to speak of saintly person.

Can there be such a thing as proud sannyasi?
Would they be expected to bow down, do we expect our elders to touch our feet?

yajvan
24 June 2007, 08:25 AM
Wow ignorance and pride stems from this very statements, no need to wrap everyone else other then vaisnava to be beyond pride and ignorance.

Namaste Ganeshprasad,
a very good and true observation...

The example I originally gave of the hunter is disturbing, yes? This mind set of values is upside down. And what is taught here, is the person's actions are not in concert with Universal Principles. It is not an exercise in finding fault of the individual - its lesson's learned in life on how avidya manifests. With the same set of incongruent notions of the Divine, it brings us the grief of Kala Yuga. People today are getting their heads cut off on TV no less and thinking they [the aggressors] are winning favor of the Lord and will attain heaven. This is the power of avidya we can observe. For them, how many lifetimes will it take for them to wakeup? And in their path, they leave a wake of sadness, grief, hate behind.


The thief only sees the pockets of the saint; the saint only sees the divine of the sinners.

willie
24 June 2007, 10:00 PM
People say one thing and to another all the time so I don't see anything new to it . Just walk on past and let everyone figure it out on their own.

The thing about these forums is that they are like small rooms, and eventually a couple of 2 year olds show up and soon it's a trip to knuckle junction.

Get it over with and get on to a real discussion.

sm78
25 June 2007, 01:37 AM
Namaste Yajvan,

Your observations are apt. and I realized them back in college and it brought me much distress.

As far as Kaos's 'observation', it is true that ignorants are rampant in every faith and not restricted to athestic or abrahamic religious groups, hence the observation of Yajvan is even more relevant here.

yajvan
25 June 2007, 11:47 AM
Get it over with and get on to a real discussion.

Willie,
we look to you to lead the way... we're ready and willing to discuss the provocative.

satay
25 June 2007, 02:36 PM
Admin Note:


Ignorance and pride, a sickness of the mind is also found quite commonly amongst those who subscribe to Hinduism, Buddhism, etc, even from the pontificating, self-righteous, self-proclaimed, holier-than-thou, know-it-all, members of this forum.

namaste Kaos,

What are you trying to say? Please say it clearly. Your post as it is written here could be misunderstood as flaming (other members) or trolling (attempt to drive the thread off its OP topic).

Flaming on this forum is not allowed.

Please also review the forum rules by going to FAQ section.

Thanks,

Znanna
25 June 2007, 08:18 PM
Namaste,

Aren't we all ignorant, sort of, by definition?

To attempt to "apprehend" the Holy is self defeating, as the infinite belies definition.


Love,
ZN
/just sayin'

Kaos
27 June 2007, 03:33 PM
From the perspective of non-duality, there is no ignorance.

Otherwise, paradoxically, we are only using the dualism of ignorance to overcome ignorance.

Kaos
21 July 2007, 09:04 AM
Namaste Yajvan,

Your observations are apt. and I realized them back in college and it brought me much distress.

As far as Kaos's 'observation', it is true that ignorants are rampant in every faith and not restricted to athestic or abrahamic religious groups, hence the observation of Yajvan is even more relevant here.




Indeed, very good 'observation', sm78.

Yes, we are only using ignorance to overcome ignorance and observe and discuss the ignorance of others.

In non-duality, there is no discussion, no observation, differentiation of this and that, because only the One exists.

yajvan
22 July 2007, 10:40 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Indeed, very good 'observation', sm78.

Yes, we are only using ignorance to overcome ignorance and observe and discuss the ignorance of others.

In non-duality, there is no discussion, no observation, differentiation of this and that, because only the One exists.

Namaste Kaos and sm78,
A very good point. My teacher says its like using a thorn to remove the thorn stuck in one's foot. Like that , we use ignorance as a tool to remove the ignorance stuck in ones being.


pranams,

Kaos
22 July 2007, 12:03 PM
Namaste satay, sm78, yajvan and all,

When the atman (jiva) merges with the Paramatman Bhagavan, there is no more discussion.

Thank you.
Kaos

yajvan
22 July 2007, 01:40 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste satay, sm78, yajvan and all,

When the atman (jiva) merges with the Paramatman Bhagavan, there is no more discussion. Thank you. Kaos

Namaste Kaos,
yes, a very desirable state.

pranams,

Ganeshprasad
22 July 2007, 06:06 PM
When the atman (jiva) merges with the Paramatman Bhagavan, there is no more discussion.

Thank you.
Kaos

Pranam Kaos and all

Does this mean the individual jiva having merged ceases to be?

Jai Shree Krishna

Kaos
22 July 2007, 06:24 PM
Pranam Kaos and all

Does this mean the individual jiva having merged ceases to be?

Jai Shree Krishna


Namaskar Ganeshprasad,

We can reframe the question to be:

Does this mean that God ceases to be separated from the jiva?
God cannot separate Himself from us.



He who knows God as the Life of life, the Eye of the eye, the Ear of the ear, the Mind of the mind-- he indeed comprehends fully the Cause of all causes.
Shukla Yajur Veda, brihadharanyaka upanishad 4.4.18

yajvan
22 July 2007, 08:21 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Pranam Kaos and all

Does this mean the individual jiva having merged ceases to be? Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste Ganeshprasd, (et .al)
A very resonable question. In the final analysis, there never was a distinction between jiva and Brahman. This Brahman, is all, is Fullness ( Bhuma). May we all approach this state soon...

pranams,

Znanna
22 July 2007, 08:38 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste Ganeshprasd, (et .al)
A very resonable question. In the final analysis, there never was a distinction between jiva and Brahman. This Brahman, is all, is Fullness ( Bhuma). May we all approach this state soon...

pranams,


Namaste,

I'd like to suggest that we are already One, we just need to (take time to) remember it!



Love,
ZN

Kaos
23 July 2007, 12:03 AM
Namaste,

I'd like to suggest that we are already One, we just need to (take time to) remember it!



Love,
ZN

Namaste Znanna,

That's very true.
We are already One this very moment.

Ganeshprasad
23 July 2007, 04:45 PM
Pranam Kaos


Namaskar Ganeshprasad,

We can reframe the question to be:

Does this mean that God ceases to be separated from the jiva?
God cannot separate Himself from us.



He who knows God as the Life of life, the Eye of the eye, the Ear of the ear, the Mind of the mind-- he indeed comprehends fully the Cause of all causes.


Shukla Yajur Veda, brihadharanyaka upanishad 4.4.18



With respect your question does not satisfy my query. I agree God can never cease to be. I do not understand the complexity of all the concepts that exist in sanatan dharma although like satay, I respect Hindu mind set because all of them are based on Dharmic acharan. I am guided mostly by Bhagvat Gita and to some extent Ramayana and may be some puranas, also Shree Chetanya Mahaprabhu Achintya bhed Abhed philosophy (simultaneous one and difference) does appeal to me

I quote two verses that stands out as regards to jivas and gods apparent separateness from us.

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. (15.7)bg.

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


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)

Jai Shree Krishna




Namaste Ganeshprasd, (et .al)
A very reasonable question. In the final analysis, there never was a distinction between jiva and Brahman. This Brahman, is all, is Fullness ( Bhuma). May we all approach this state soon...

pranams,

Pranam yajman

Can there ever be a final analysis I wonder.

I do not know how it was, if there was no distinction, why and how it came about.

If I were to read your post correctly, what you are saying is we are to strive to become Brahman.

Question is can we ever become some thing that we are not.
If we were always Brahman but at present we are in ignorance then the question arises, how can sarvajyna the all knowing Brahman be deluded?

Jai Shree Krishna

yajvan
23 July 2007, 05:24 PM
Pranam yajman

Can there ever be a final analysis I wonder. I do not know how it was, if there was no distinction, why and how it came about.

If I were to read your post correctly, what you are saying is we are to strive to become Brahman.

Question is can we ever become some thing that we are not.
If we were always Brahman but at present we are in ignorance then the question arises, how can sarvajyna the all knowing Brahman be deluded?
Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste Ganeshprasad,
yes a reasonable observation... as with words, they seem to get in the way, yes? The 'strive' I wish to acknowledge is that of our intent, our will. This Brahman is svatasiddha, self proved. It is the SELF revealing itself to itSELF. So what of this word strive then? It is to make the resolve.

Sa kratum kurvita, or one should make the resolve. What is this resolve for us to consider? To realize Brahman, that 'that this is so, not otherwise' That Brahman is our core value and our true nature. I have no doubt of this what so ever, for this I am blessed.

It is not turn an apple into horse. It is for me to realized all along that I am That. And somehow I have found a way to forget this vidya. To this I have the resolve, to remember who I am.
LIke a scuptor that chizels out a statue. They carve away everything that is not the satute, as it lives inside the rock.
LIke that, these kosha's that surround atman, are the parts that need to be transcended to reveal the core of our Being, Brahman.

Yet once this is done, even the shells or kosha's (pieces of rock) that are chipped away are also Brahman. This is even-ness ( sama) of seeing the world with a balanced mind. That a gold coin is the same (essentially) as a stone. How so? Essentially they are expressions of the same Brahman, of pure consciousness , pure intelligence, so say the wise. I am blessed to finally comprehend this and see this possibilty.


pranams,

Kaos
23 July 2007, 05:42 PM
Pranam Kaos


I quote two verses that stands out as regards to jivas and gods apparent separateness from us.

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. (15.7)bg.

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


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)

Jai Shree Krishna





Namaste Ganeshprasad,

The jiva is Siva.
A simple analogy would be a drop of water and the source, the ocean.

The drop of water has the same essence as that of the ocean, yet the drop of water is not the ocean.

Some say (monists) that at mahapralaya, all creation is withdrawn into Siva. He alone exists. Others, the pluralistic theists, contend that the world and souls (jivas) persists in seed form to re-emerge later.

Znanna
23 July 2007, 07:00 PM
Namaste Ganeshprasad,
yes a reasonable observation... as with words, they seem to get in the way, yes? The 'strive' I wish to acknowledge is that of our intent, our will. This Brahman is svatasiddha, self proved. It is the SELF revealing itself to itSELF. So what of this word strive then? It is to make the resolve.

Sa kratum kurvita, or one should make the resolve. What is this resolve for us to consider? To realize Brahman, that 'that this is so, not otherwise' That Brahman is our core value and our true nature. I have no doubt of this what so ever, for this I am blessed.

It is not turn an apple into horse. It is for me to realized all along that I am That. And somehow I have found a way to forget this vidya. To this I have the resolve, to remember who I am.
LIke a scuptor that chizels out a statue. They carve away everything that is not the satute, as it lives inside the rock.
LIke that, these kosha's that surround atman, are the parts that need to be transcended to reveal the core of our Being, Brahman.

Yet once this is done, even the shells or kosha's (pieces of rock) that are chipped away are also Brahman. This is even-ness ( sama) of seeing the world with a balanced mind. That a gold coin is the same (essentially) as a stone. How so? Essentially they are expressions of the same Brahman, of pure consciousness , pure intelligence, so say the wise. I am blessed to finally comprehend this and see this possibilty.


pranams,


Beautifully put, yajvan.

You are indeed blessed!



ZN

atanu
24 July 2007, 10:35 AM
Pranam Kaos

----I quote two verses that stands out as regards to jivas and gods apparent separateness from us.

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. (15.7)bg.



Namaskar Ganesh Prasad Ji,

Sorry to be butting in late. Just wanted to point out a few things.

"mamaivamso jiva-loke". So, the so-called fragmentation is in Jiva loke. Does this mean something new? Of course the jiva lok bodies are parts of what is eternal. On the other hand, compare the above verse with the one below:

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

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

So, division is apparent, since He is indivisible.





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)

Jai Shree Krishna


Now, I think this must be a bit clearer that the so called beings (fragmentation) is not in Lord, who is Turiya. Fragmentation appears in Jagrat and Svapna but not in Pragnya or Turiya. Thus it is also said "--yuktatma yogis see Me in everyone and everyone in me." I think, this does not leave scope for any other real entity besides Lord.

Me in you and you in me --- and sarvatra.

More. Lord says that the truth is known in Samadhi.

Jnaana vijnaana triptaatmaa kootastho vijitendriyah;
Yuktah ityuchyate yogee samaloshtaashmakaanchanah.

The Yogi who is satisfied with the knowledge and the wisdom (of the Self), who has conquered the senses, and to whom a clod of earth, a piece of stone and gold are the same, is said to be harmonised

Finally,

Shrutivipratipannaa te yadaa sthaasyati nishchalaa;
Samaadhaavachalaa buddhistadaa yogam avaapsyasi.

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

So, let us strive for that at least, without bothering much before hand. How does it matter whether we are particles and thus fragments or we are waves and thus pervasive. We may check out our own awareness to find out.


Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

Ganeshprasad
24 July 2007, 02:45 PM
Pranam yajvan



yes a reasonable observation... as with words, they seem to get in the way, yes? The 'strive' I wish to acknowledge is that of our intent, our will. This Brahman is svatasiddha, self proved. It is the SELF revealing itself to itSELF. So what of this word strive then? It is to make the resolve.


Yes you are right the word will always fall short of actual realisation, as the saying goes the proof is in the pudding.
I am not here to rock the boat and I realize, most on this forum follow advaita, please do let me know if I irritate any one, then I would stop.
If I may continue with your permission and ask, what need is there for self to reveal to the self since the supreme self would always be aware of it self.



Sa kratum kurvita, or one should make the resolve. What is this resolve for us to consider? To realize Brahman, that 'that this is so, not otherwise' That Brahman is our core value and our true nature. I have no doubt of this what so ever, for this I am blessed.

I agree Atatho Brahm Jigyasa. of course our nature is of Brahman because we are part of it.
And I like this bhajan as composed by one of the recent Sankrachrya I believe. one line goes like this Mujme tujme bas bhed yahi me nar hu tum Narayan ho.



It is not turn an apple into horse. It is for me to realized all along that I am That. And somehow I have found a way to forget this vidya. To this I have the resolve, to remember who I am.
LIke a scuptor that chizels out a statue. They carve away everything that is not the satute, as it lives inside the rock.
LIke that, these kosha's that surround atman, are the parts that need to be transcended to reveal the core of our Being, Brahman.

Again I agree that this covering of material body is to be transcended and thus our true nature will be revealed. As I stated before Brahman has no possibility to forget, it is always sat chit and ananda

So I ask again who is forgotten how did I forgot this vidya who am I?



Yet once this is done, even the shells or kosha's (pieces of rock) that are chipped away are also Brahman. This is even-ness ( sama) of seeing the world with a balanced mind. That a gold coin is the same (essentially) as a stone. How so? Essentially they are expressions of the same Brahman, of pure consciousness , pure intelligence, so say the wise. I am blessed to finally comprehend this and see this possibilty.

Again, I can not but agree, as Lord Narsingh dev proved and makes his appearance from a pillar.

Jai Shree Krishna

Ganeshprasad
24 July 2007, 02:49 PM
Namaste Ganeshprasad,

The jiva is Siva.
A simple analogy would be a drop of water and the source, the ocean.

The drop of water has the same essence as that of the ocean, yet the drop of water is not the ocean.

Some say (monists) that at mahapralaya, all creation is withdrawn into Siva. He alone exists. Others, the pluralistic theists, contend that the world and souls (jivas) persists in seed form to re-emerge later.

Pranam Kaos

Yes I can relate to what you say. Sivo ahem sivo ahem, that is not to say I am shiva the great god.
Manvantar after manvantar the jivas those who have not librated, keep coming back,
Sarg and visarga goes on for eternity.

Jai Shree Krishna

Kaos
24 July 2007, 03:07 PM
Pranam Kaos

Yes I can relate to what you say. Sivo ahem sivo ahem, that is not to say I am shiva the great god.
Manvantar after manvantar the jivas those who have not librated, keep coming back,
Sarg and visarga goes on for eternity.

Jai Shree Krishna


Namaste Ganeshprasad,

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, in the introduction part of his translation of the Bhagavad Gita, explains it well, as thus:

The position of God is supreme consciousness.
The entities, (souls, jivas) being part and parcel are also consciousness.

The entity is prakrti, or nature, and so also is material energy; but the living entities are conscious, and matter is not.

Therefore, the living entity is called the higher energy. But the living being is never supremely conscious at any stage.

The supreme consciousness, explained in Bhagavad-gita as the Lord, is conscious, and the living beings are conscious; the entity of his limited body, and the Lord infinitely.

The Lord lives in the heart of every being.
Therefore, He has consciousness of all living beings.


Hare Krishna!

Kaos
24 July 2007, 04:07 PM
Pranam Kaos

Yes I can relate to what you say. Sivo ahem sivo ahem, that is not to say I am shiva the great god.




Namaste Ganeshprasad,

I am not sure if I am addressing your post properly, but in Saivite Hinduism, God is Siva, both Creator and creation. The world is a manifest expression of Siva Himself.

That a direct and personal experience that God to be both immanent (within) and transcendent, on seeing God everywhere and in everyone, on knowing God within oneself, achieved through non-intellectual spiritual disciples - sadhana. This is the view of the Nandinatha Sampradaya tradition of Saivite Hinduism

Ganeshprasad
24 July 2007, 06:47 PM
Pranam Atanu ji

You are always welcome to but in.

Yes I have compared the two verses unfortunately I do not see it the way you do.
Verse 15.7 takes about jivas and it condition while the verse you quote is about the Parmatma the super soul within each beings.



Now, I think this must be a bit clearer that the so called beings (fragmentation) is not in Lord, who is Turiya. Fragmentation appears in Jagrat and Svapna but not in Pragnya or Turiya. Thus it is also said "--yuktatma yogis see Me in everyone and everyone in me." I think, this does not leave scope for any other real entity besides Lord.

Me in you and you in me --- and sarvatra.
As clear as one want its to be. I can accept the lord is indivisible but yet its his creation and therefore I am part of him, but because we can not exist apart from him therefore we are within him. Yogis see the parmatma in all and then in turn he sees all in that undividable parmatma, this does not negate other entity within this brahman.
He clearly says that
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.




More. Lord says that the truth is known in Samadhi.

Jnaana vijnaana triptaatmaa kootastho vijitendriyah;
Yuktah ityuchyate yogee samaloshtaashmakaanchanah.

The Yogi who is satisfied with the knowledge and the wisdom (of the Self), who has conquered the senses, and to whom a clod of earth, a piece of stone and gold are the same, is said to be harmonised

Finally,

Shrutivipratipannaa te yadaa sthaasyati nishchalaa;
Samaadhaavachalaa buddhistadaa yogam avaapsyasi.

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

I agree



So, let us strive for that at least, without bothering much before hand. How does it matter whether we are particles and thus fragments or we are waves and thus pervasive. We may check out our own awareness to find out.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

My friend for the first time, I detect frustration in you, for that I am sorry.
I absolutely agree it does not matter one iota, important thing is to strive for self realisation

yat sankhyaih prapyate sthanam
tad yogair api gamyate
ekam sankhyam ca yogam ca
yah pasyati sa pasyati

Whatever goal a Samnyasi reaches, a Karma-yogi also reaches the same goal. One who sees the path of renunciation and the path of work as the same, really sees. (See also 6.01 and 6.02) (5.05)

Jai Shree Krishna

Ganeshprasad
24 July 2007, 06:58 PM
Pranam Kaos


Namaste Ganeshprasad,

I am not sure if I am addressing your post properly, but in Saivite Hinduism, God is Siva, both Creator and creation. The world is a manifest expression of Siva Himself.

That a direct and personal experience that God to be both immanent (within) and transcendent, on seeing God everywhere and in everyone, on knowing God within oneself, achieved through non-intellectual spiritual disciples - sadhana. This is the view of the Nandinatha Sampradaya tradition of Saivite Hinduism

even if you have not answered my query directly your contribution is welcome. i have not heard of Nandinatha Sampradaya tradition of Saivite Hinduism i will look in to this. i like to make clear here i do not belong to any sampradaya.

Hare Krishna

Jai Shree Krishna

Kaos
24 July 2007, 08:48 PM
Pranam Kaos

Yes I can relate to what you say. Sivo ahem sivo ahem, that is not to say I am shiva the great god.




Namaste Ganeshprasad,

Adi Shankara, (788-820), doesn't think so. In fact, he explained the entirety of Advaita Vedanta in six stanzas, the Nirvana Shatkam. Obviously, there is a big difference between an Adi Shankara than most of us.



Nirvana Shatkam
By Adi Sankaracharya, Translated by P. R. Ramachander

Mano budhyahankara chithaa ninaham,
Na cha srothra jihwe na cha graana nethrer,
Na cha vyoma bhoomir na thejo na vayu,
Chidananada Roopa Shivoham, Shivoham.

Neither am I mind, nor intelligence ,
Nor ego, nor thought,
Nor am I ears or the tongue or the nose or the eyes,
Nor am I earth or sky or air or the light,
I am Shiva, I am Shiva, of nature knowledge and bliss

Na cha praana sangno na vai pancha vaayuh,
Na vaa saptha dhathur na va pancha kosa,
Na vak pani padam na chopastha payu,
Chidananada Roopa Shivoham, Shivoham.

Neither am I the movement due to life,
Nor am I the five airs, nor am I the seven elements,
Nor am I the five internal organs,
Nor am I voice or hands or feet or other organs,
I am Shiva, I am Shiva, of nature knowledge and bliss

Na me dwesha raghou na me lobha mohou,
Madho naiva me naiva matsarya bhava,
Na dharmo na cha artha na kamo na moksha,
Chidananada Roopa Shivoham, Shivoham.

I never do have enmity or friendship,
Neither do I have vigour nor feeling of competition,
Neither do I have assets, or money or passion or salvation,
I am Shiva, I am Shiva, of nature knowledge and bliss

Na punyam na paapam na soukhyam na dukham,
Na manthro na theertham na veda na yagna,
Aham bhojanam naiva bhojyam na bhoktha,
Chidananada Roopa Shivoham, Shivoham.

Never do I have good deeds or sins or pleasure or sorrow,
Neither do I have holy chants or holy water or holy books or fire sacrifice,
I am neither food or the consumer who consumes food,
I am Shiva, I am Shiva, of nature knowledge and bliss

Na mruthyur na sankha na me jathi bhedha,
Pitha naiva me naiva matha na janma,
Na bhandhur na mithram gurur naiva sishyah,
Chidananada Roopa Shivoham, Shivoham.

I do not have death or doubts or distinction of caste,
I do not have either father or mother or even birth,
And I do not have relations or friends or teacher or students,
I am Shiva, I am Shiva, of nature knowledge and bliss

Aham nirvi kalpo nirakara roopo,
Vibhuthwascha sarvathra sarvendriyanaam,
Na chaa sangatham naiva mukthir na meyah
Chidananada Roopa Shivoham, Shivoham.

I am one without doubts , I am without form,
Due to knowledge I do not have any relation with my organs,
And I am always redeemed,
I am Shiva, I am Shiva, of nature knowledge and bliss

Ganeshprasad
25 July 2007, 04:59 AM
Namaste Ganeshprasad,

Adi Shankara, (788-820), doesn't think so. In fact, he explained the entirety of Advaita Vedanta in six stanzas, the Nirvana Shatkam. Obviously, there is a big difference between an Adi Shankara than most of us.


Pranam Koas


Since you agree there is a big difference between Adi Shankra and most of us, can you not see how big a difference is between jivas and Bhagvan.
Thank you for the stanzas they are wonderful. I look upon them as an inspiration for Vairagya. The stanzas are defination of atma, as such it in essence and quality the same as the super soul, and then again some say Adi Shankra is incarnation of Lord Shiva on that score it would be perfect for him to say that.

Jai Shree Krishna

Kaos
25 July 2007, 09:53 AM
Pranam Koas


Since you agree there is a big difference between Adi Shankra and most of us, can you not see how big a difference is between jivas and Bhagvan.




The difference is in the degree of quantity not quality. As a drop of water has not the same quantity as an ocean, but in essence, they are the same. For the jiva, it is in the degree of maturity or evolution.



As there is non-difference when water is poured in water, milk in milk and ghee in ghee, so is the case with the individual Self
and the supreme Self.


- Paingala Upanishad (4-15)




Also, in Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 10, texts 19-42, Krishna explains His all-pervading nature, and that his all-pervading nature is not the totality of his Divinity.



19. The Blessed Lord said: Yes, I shall tell you of My splendorous manifestations, but only those which are prominent, Or Arjuna, for my opulence is limitless.


22. Of the Vedas I am the Sama Veda, of the demigods I am Indra, of the senses I am the mind, and in living beings I am consciousness.


38. Among punishments I am the rod of chastisement, and of those who seek victory, I am morality.Of secret things I am silence, and of the wise I am wisdom.


40. O mighty conqueror of enemies, there is no end to My divine manifestations. What I have spoken to you is but a mere indication of My infinite opulences.


42. But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge?
With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe.

Kaos
25 July 2007, 10:17 AM
So I ask again who is forgotten how did I forgot this vidya who am I?





Sorry, but I think, you're getting a little mixed up.

The Lord is infinitely conscious.
The jiva is conscious of his limited body.

It is not the Supersoul that forgets.
The jiva forgets due to maya (she who covers) when form is manifested.

atanu
25 July 2007, 11:00 AM
Pranam Atanu ji

You are always welcome to but in.

Yes I have compared the two verses unfortunately I do not see it the way you do.

Verse 15.7 takes about jivas and it condition while the verse you quote is about the Parmatma the super soul within each beings.
------
Jai Shree Krishna

Namaskar Ganesh Prasad ji,

But have you not noted Jiva Loke?

Are you assuming that eternally there are infinite Jivas and there is one Paramatma, who is indivisible? If both (one Paramatma and infinite jivas)were existing eternally separately then how would the Gita verse "Yogi in Me and Me in Yogi" be true?

And if there is one Paramatma to start with then, HE IS INDIVISIBLE.

You asked a question of Yajvan: Why Self is striving for Self Realisation? I will ask you "Has the Self told you that it is striving to attain Self?". Who has told you that Self is srtiving to attain Self?

When the Self is known all is known. From the point of view of mind a thousand questions will be followed by millions and then more, without coming anywhere near the truth. Since the Self is the peaceful Seer, who has given the mind a riddle "Wherefrom I am?".



Jai Shree Krishna

Kaos
25 July 2007, 02:06 PM
Pranam Kaos

Yes I can relate to what you say. Sivo ahem sivo ahem, that is not to say I am shiva the great god.




There is seems to be a misunderstanding of the term atman (soul, jiva, purusha) and it's use. It's use and meaning must be determined according to context.

The atman is three-fold, the outer, physical person (bahyatman), antaratman, the inner person, excluding the physical person, who perceives, thinks and is involved in cognition, and Paramatman, the transcendent Self God within.

So, yes, jiva is Siva.



In the Katha Upanishad, it is mentioned:

“This Brahman, this Self, deep-hidden in all beings, is not revealed to all; but to the seers, pure in heart, concentrated in mind– to them is He revealed.”3 (http://www.atmajyoti.org/up_katha_upanishad_18.asp#3A) Who sees Brahman? The sukshma-darshibhih–those who can see the subtle, the inmost Reality.

This is where inner work and "going inside" in meditation and not merely relying in mental intellectualization comes in.

Also, in the the Taittiriya Upanishad it says: “Seek to know Brahman by meditation.”4 (http://www.atmajyoti.org/up_katha_upanishad_18.asp#4A) And: “Om is Brahman. Om is all. He who meditates on Om attains to Brahman.”5 (http://www.atmajyoti.org/up_katha_upanishad_18.asp#5A)


Therefore, since Om is Brahman, and Om is all,
yes, indeed, jiva is Siva.

Ganeshprasad
25 July 2007, 05:07 PM
Pranam Kaos


Sorry, but I think, you're getting a little mixed up.

The Lord is infinitely conscious.
The jiva is conscious of his limited body.

It is not the Supersoul that forgets.
The jiva forgets due to maya (she who covers) when form is manifested.



Well that is nothing knew, I am bit confused by it all.
It is a question of word or speech, what one try to convey and what one understands could be totally different.
But what you state about the lord and the jivas is in perfect harmony of what I think.

Ps
I read your other post since, where you claim jiva is Shiva.
I must say my head is spinning, I cant keep up with this circular logic I like to keep it simple.
From what you are saying now and my understanding of it, correct me if I am wrong, that jivas are god but simply we have forgotten that we are god. and when we realize our true nature we become once again Siva the god.
Which is not what you said ealier and I quote The drop of water has the same essence as that of the ocean, yet the drop of water is not the ocean. un quote.
When you make your position clear we may continue.

Jai Shree Krishna

Ganeshprasad
25 July 2007, 05:15 PM
Pranam Atanu ji


Namaskar Ganesh Prasad ji,

But have you not noted Jiva Loke?



Yes I read that loud and clear but then is Jiva Loke separate from God may i ask?




Are you assuming that eternally there are infinite Jivas and there is one Paramatma, who is indivisible? If both (one Paramatma and infinite jivas)were existing eternally separately then how would the Gita verse "Yogi in Me and Me in Yogi" be true?

And if there is one Paramatma to start with then, HE IS INDIVISIBLE.
I am not assuming any thing, I see jivas, the conscious beings, this reality is apparent to all, the same jivas that assumes karma, jivas whom Shree Krishna describes them as indestructible and eternal in chapter two of the Gita.
The yogi sees the parmatma within and without, just as I can see the seeds on a tree and a tree in the seeds.




You asked a question of Yajvan: Why Self is striving for Self Realisation? I will ask you "Has the Self told you that it is striving to attain Self?". Who has told you that Self is srtiving to attain Self?

Here the word fails us all it all depends what we mean by the word self, in my case the self is ‘me’ and its obvious from your point of view there is only one self.



When the Self is known all is known. From the point of view of mind a thousand questions will be followed by millions and then more, without coming anywhere near the truth. Since the Self is the peaceful Seer, who has given the mind a riddle "Wherefrom I am?".

Great and then you ask me who ‘Who has told you that Self is srtiving to attain Self?’
If there was only one self the question does not arise. You say ‘When the Self is known all is known’ so ask you whose needs is it to know the self?
You say the seer has given mind a riddle, can I ask whose mind? As far as I know mind is jada, not conscious.
Is this just a big game for the Seer?




Jai Shree Krishna

Kaos
25 July 2007, 09:17 PM
As far as I know mind is jada, not conscious.



If mind is not conscious, then you are currently unconscious? Yes?? ;)





so ask you whose needs is it to know the self?




Did the Self ask you to know to help Him know Himself?
:)






Is this just a big game for the Seer?




Just a game of words for the seer, not the Seer.

Another case of ego-personality arising and intellectualizing things over and over again, ad infinitum...

yajvan
25 July 2007, 10:52 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Pranam yajvan

I am not here to rock the boat and I realize, most on this forum follow advaita, please do let me know if I irritate any one, then I would stop.
If I may continue with your permission and ask, what need is there for self to reveal to the self since the supreme self would always be aware of it self.

So I ask again who is forgotten how did I forgot this vidya who am I?
Jai Shree Krishna


Namaste Ganeshprasd,
I have been following the conversation and I think 'rock the boat' to insure you are comfortable with the answers given. One must settle in with the concepts and not let them be foreign to our understanding.

I think you have been having an excellent conversation Kaos and Antanu. Much good comes from this. Now are you comfortable as yet or is there a sticking point?

Let me ask. Do you see a difference between self and SELF? one is the everyday world of size, shape, good not so good, 3 guna's permutations of life. The other is the SELF, of turiya - unchangeable, infinite, without bounds.

If you are comfortable with those two , then we can ask a few questions on who forgot whom. We can ask one of the best questions from Atanu, ' Who has told you that Self is striving to attain Self? ' - this is a most profound question, yes?

If I never knew the SELF, never told of it, where would I get this idea from? And this itch to become this SELF, it is wired in us all...the desire for more. We misread this desire and we acquire more things thinking this will make us full, Bhuma. The only thing that will satisfy us completely , is the Infinite. This is within us as SELF. How could it not ? as all things are an expression of Brahman. It is us... the spark.

Like Kaos said, and I think it was brilliant, that of quantity and quality. We are the wave of the Ocean, of the Infinite. A wave, yet it is the complete quality of the Ocean, yes? Nothing less.

If you are ok with all this and feel good about where the conversation is at and need no more, then we needn't pursue. Yet if there are doubts, continue with poking around. There are only benefits to be gained.

pranams,

Kaos
26 July 2007, 02:50 AM
Pranam Kaos


From what you are saying now and my understanding of it, correct me if I am wrong, that jivas are god but simply we have forgotten that we are god. and when we realize our true nature we become once again Siva the god.
Which is not what you said ealier and I quote The drop of water has the same essence as that of the ocean, yet the drop of water is not the ocean.

When you make your position clear we may continue.





Let me repeat,
It's not that the Supersoul forgets.
The jiva forgets due to maya (she who covers) when form is manifested.

All the above statements are the same thing. No offense, but it's your perception that sees the difference.

When you have caught up with this, as you say "circular" logic, then we can proceed.
:)

atanu
26 July 2007, 04:36 AM
Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,


Pranam Atanu ji

Yes I read that loud and clear but then is Jiva Loke separate from God may i ask?


No Jiva loke is not separate. But Jiva loke is only a station not the full.




Great and then you ask me who ‘Who has told you that Self is srtiving to attain Self?’
If there was only one self the question does not arise. You say ‘When the Self is known all is known’ so ask you whose needs is it to know the self?
You say the seer has given mind a riddle, can I ask whose mind? As far as I know mind is jada, not conscious.
Is this just a big game for the Seer?


Mind (brain) is said to be jada since it is full of jada objects. In deep sleep there are no objects and no jada mind.

But the awareness power of mind is surely not jada. It is the power of Pragnya Sarvesvara. The problem is that many think it to be the power of jada brain. That is as if the awareness power is of the jada brain-body.

Since at present Atanu does not know the Self, the question whether Self is ignorant is moot and futile. That's why scriptures and especially Guru Ramana exhorts "Know thy real Self".

Can I (as Atanu the body-personality) and Ganeshprasad ji (as body-personality) claim that we know the Self? If I do not know the Self, then how can I question "Why the Self does not know itself?".

At present it is the mind, engaged in objects of the Prakriti, that does not know its source -- THE ATMA. And so does not know its real nature.

On removal of the ignorance (through samadhi), one becomes ONE with shivoadvaitam Atma (where there is no name), but does not become ONE with Mahesvara Shiva -- the controller.

And the goal is not to become the controller Mahesvara. Since, with even a trace of desire present one cannot attain samadhi. And one who is in Samadhi has no personal self and name, so he cannot become anything other than ONE.

It is just being what ONE is.

Om Namah Shivaya

Ganeshprasad
26 July 2007, 02:56 PM
Pranam Koas



The jiva forgets due to maya (she who covers) when form is manifested.

Both statements are the same thing. No offense, but it's your perception that sees the difference.

When you have caught up with this, as you say "circular" logic, then we can proceed.

No offence taken, my perception sees the difference and I acknowledge the difference.
How can both your statements be the same, one says in the final analysis I am God and the other says I am the same quality as god but not the quantity there is a fundamental difference in it.
God never forgets never comes under the influence of Maya but jiva does, can you not see the difference here



If mind is not conscious, then you are currently unconscious? Yes??


No mind has no independent existence, it is only a tool, it only active due to the presence of a conscious living being.




Did the Self ask you to know to help Him know Himself?


Where have I said any thing like what you are suggesting.
Please read the question I repeat whose need is it to know the self? Put it simply
Is it mine is it jivas.




Just a game of words for the seer, not the Seer.

Another case of ego-personality arising and intellectualizing things over and over again, ad infinitum…


No matter how hard one tries, this ego never goes away, it is the part of ones pakriti.
But to be Nirmani that is another thing. Krishna say

nirmana-moha jita-sanga-dosa
adhyatma-nitya vinivrtta-kamah
dvandvair vimuktah sukha-duhkha-samjnair
gacchanty amudhah padam avyayam tat

One who is free from illusion, false prestige, and false association, who understands the eternal, who is done with material lust and is freed from the duality of happiness and distress, and who knows how to surrender unto the Supreme Person, attains to that eternal kingdom. 15.4

Jai Shree Krishna

Kaos
26 July 2007, 03:11 PM
God never forgets never comes under the influence of Maya but jiva does, can you not see the difference here.




You claim to see the "difference". You do not see the similarity.
It is your perception. Here is where the ego-personality comes in.
This thread could go on being re-cycled forever. Do you still not get it?

Ganeshprasad
26 July 2007, 03:17 PM
Pranam Yajvan




I have been following the conversation and I think 'rock the boat' to insure you are comfortable with the answers given. One must settle in with the concepts and not let them be foreign to our understanding.

I think you have been having an excellent conversation Kaos and Antanu. Much good comes from this. Now are you comfortable as yet or is there a sticking point?


Thank you for your patience and true understanding as to how to approach a concept and understanding the subject. There are a few doubts that remains I will try explain as we go along. I like to think I am aspiring to be a bhakta, unfortunately I have no formal training, I can only relate to what I have picked up bit here and there. I realize I am out of my depth debating various concepts that do prevail in this vast ocean what we call Hindu Dharma.




Let me ask. Do you see a difference between self and SELF? one is the everyday world of size, shape, good not so good, 3 guna's permutations of life. The other is the SELF, of turiya - unchangeable, infinite, without bounds.

There is an obvious distinction between the two. Since I know only the small self let us keep it simple. The SELF of turiya is unknown to me we may refer to infinite the un changeable to as Brahman or what ever you like.




If you are comfortable with those two , then we can ask a few questions on who forgot whom. We can ask one of the best questions from Atanu, ' Who has told you that Self is striving to attain Self? ' - this is a most profound question, yes?

Atanu ji has assumed that I was referring to the SELF.
Where have I made such a statement any way?
The small self (jivAtama) bound by the pakruti is striving for self realisation is it not?



If I never knew the SELF, never told of it, where would I get this idea from?


It is natural thing to inquire who is my creator. Just as I would inquire from my mother who my father is, as we progress it would be fitting to know the source.



And this itch to become this SELF, it is wired in us all...the desire for more. We misread this desire and we acquire more things thinking this will make us full, Bhuma. The only thing that will satisfy us completely , is the Infinite. This is within us as SELF. How could it not ? as all things are an expression of Brahman. It is us... the spark.

Now this is my main sticking point, I have no urge to become this SELF. How can I become that which I am not?
It is true nothing will satisfy us but the re connection with the infinite.

That is what bhakti does, that is where knowledge lead us to that what yoga do, to reconnect. the SELF is within and with out that is also made very clear by Krishna in the Gita. Yes every thing is an expression of Brahman. But spark is not the whole, a drop is not the ocean, a ray is not the son yet is non difference Acintya bhed Abhed tatva.







Like Kaos said, and I think it was brilliant, that of quantity and quality. We are the wave of the Ocean, of the Infinite. A wave, yet it is the complete quality of the Ocean, yes? Nothing less.

Yes I agreed, but any material example, falls short in opinion, to fully satisfy the true nature of ParmAtma and jivaAtma.



If you are ok with all this and feel good about where the conversation is at and need no more, then we needn't pursue. Yet if there are doubts, continue with poking around. There are only benefits to be gained.

To discuss and broaden the horizon is good, even better is to follow dharma, in due course the parmatma within leads us out of darkness.

With their minds absorbed in Me, with their lives surrendered unto Me, always enlightening each other by talking about Me; they remain ever content and delighted. (10.09)
I give the knowledge, to those who are ever united with Me and lovingly adore Me, by which they come to Me. (10.10)


Jai Shree Krishna

Ganeshprasad
26 July 2007, 03:24 PM
Pranam Atanu ji



No Jiva loke is not separate. But Jiva loke is only a station not the full.

Some may argue it is purna.
Also we forgot it is jiva loke sanatan (eternal).




Mind (brain) is said to be jada since it is full of jada objects. In deep sleep there are no objects and no jada mind.

But the awareness power of mind is surely not jada. It is the power of Pragnya Sarvesvara. The problem is that many think it to be the power of jada brain. That is as if the awareness power is of the jada brain-body.

I don’t think either one of us at least in theory, believe the body the brain, mind and the senses to be any thing other then a tool.
In my understanding the awerness is of the Small self that suffers that accumulates the karma.




Since at present Atanu does not know the Self, the question whether Self is ignorant is moot and futile. That's why scriptures and especially Guru Ramana exhorts "Know thy real Self".

Please make clear which self we are referring to?
This small i is making a gross mistake, this is a sorry state of most jivas,
to give an example of mistaken identity, travelling in a car, some one comes from behind and hit the car. You come out of the car and says to other driver how did you mange to hit me.
It is so easy to falsely identify with a car how much more easy it is to falsely identify with this body. The consciousness permeates all through the body and therefore when the body is injured or in discomfort we feel the pain.

Krishna says
indriyani parany ahur
indriyebhyah param manah
manasas tu para buddhir
yo buddheh paratas tu sah
The senses are said to be superior (to matter or the body), the mind is superior to the senses, the intellect is superior to the mind, and Atma is superior to the intellect. (3.42)

evam buddheh param buddhva
samstabhyatmanam atmana
jahi satrum maha-baho
kama-rupam durasadam

Thus, knowing the Atma to be superior to the intellect, and controlling the mind by the intellect (that is purified by Jnana), one must kill this mighty enemy, Kaama, O Arjuna. (3.43)






Can I (as Atanu the body-personality) and Ganesh Kumar (as body-personality) claim that we know the Self? If I do not know the Self, then how can I question "Why Self does not know itself?".

But I am the small self that is conscious acting and reacting reaping the fruits of my action my problem is I false identify this self to be this body and thus all the pain and therefore it is important to know who I am?



At present it is the mind, engaged in objects of the Prakriti, that does not know its source -- THE ATMA. And so does not know its real nature.

As stated before mind is just a tool.




On removal of the ignorance (through samadhi), one becomes ONE with shivoadvaitam Atma (where there is no name), but does not become ONE with Mahesvara Shiva -- the controller.

If becoming one with sivoadvaitam Atma means to be peaceful and the identity of jiva has not disappear but the true nature of atma has been established then I can agree.




And the goal is not to become the controller Mahesvara. Since, with even a trace of desire present one cannot attain samadhi. And one who is in Samadhi has no personal self and name, so he cannot become anything other than ONE.

It is just being as what ONE is.

We can not become Mahesvara how ever hard we may try.
But I can fully agree to be ‘just what one is‘. Whatever that may be we will find out eventually. Long way for me to go

Jai Bhole



Om Namah Shivaya
Jai Shree Krishna

Kaos
26 July 2007, 03:30 PM
One who is free from illusion, false prestige, and false association, who understands the eternal, who is done with material lust and is freed from the duality of happiness and distress, and who knows how to surrender unto the Supreme Person, attains to that eternal kingdom. 15.4





That is true.

However, as an example, also in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says:
One who sees the Supersoul accompanying the individual soul in all bodies and understands that neither the soul nor the Supersoul is ever destroyed actually sees.
- Bhagavad Gita 13.28

That implication is that the Supersoul is within the individual soul, whether one is free from illusion or not.

Do you see the similarity or do you still see the difference?

Ganeshprasad
26 July 2007, 03:52 PM
Pranam Kaos


That is true.

However, as an example, also in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says:
One who sees the Supersoul accompanying the individual soul in all bodies and understands that neither the soul nor the Supersoul is ever destroyed actually sees.
- Bhagavad Gita 13.28

i can see no argument on this, if this is your position there is no further discussion. i agree.

Jai Shree Krishna

Kaos
26 July 2007, 03:55 PM
Quote:
Like Kaos said, and I think it was brilliant, that of quantity and quality. We are the wave of the Ocean, of the Infinite. A wave, yet it is the complete quality of the Ocean, yes? Nothing less.
Yes I agreed, but any material example, falls short in opinion, to fully satisfy the true nature of ParmAtma and jivaAtma.




If your attitude is "that any material example, falls short in opinion, to fully satisfy the true nature of ParmAtma and jivaAtma" then, it follows that "any material discussion, falls short in fully satisfying the true nature of ParmAtma and jivaAtma. Then, why are you eargerly pursuing this debate??? :rolleyes:

If according to you, nothing material, which includes discussion in this forum, will fully satisfy you, why do you engage in it? In other words, why are you here?? Hmmm...

Kaos
26 July 2007, 04:01 PM
Consider this, if you believe in an Unlimited Creator, where do you think maya (she who covers), illusion, came from?

Kaos
26 July 2007, 04:18 PM
Pranam Koas

God never forgets never comes under the influence of Maya ...



How do you know that?

Have you talked to Him lately, is this from personal experience? or just faith, like blind faith? ;)

Kaos
26 July 2007, 04:35 PM
Namaste Ganeshprasad,

I think part of the problem is that when one tries to study, understand Dharma, be it Hindu, or Buddhist, one takes the appropriate mindframe.

Many people try to understand Sanatana Dharma while attached to their present (conditioned?) mindset, especially a mindset heavily influenced by Christianity.

This is similar to someone wanting to become physically free, while wearing a strait-jacket.

It can become frustrating in a discussion, when someone coming from a Christian background comes out as trying to "Christianize" Hinduism.

However, it can be a learning experience for many of us, including myself. In Hinduism, we can learn from everything, from people, from nature itself, since the Self pervades His entire creation.

Ganeshprasad
26 July 2007, 04:45 PM
pranam


If your attitude is "that any material example, falls short in opinion, to fully satisfy the true nature of ParmAtma and jivaAtma" then, it follows that "any material discussion, falls short in fully satisfying the true nature of ParmAtma and jivaAtma. Then, why are you eargerly pursuing this debate??? :rolleyes:

If according to you, nothing material, which includes discussion in this forum, will fully satisfy you, why do you engage in it? In other words, why are you here?? Hmmm...

Good question indeed.

Vedas proclaim with trepidation naiti naiti not this not this.
the knowledge of the parabrahman is beyond this trigunatik sansar.
the sastra and guru points the way but in the end it is our own effort that will take us beyond.
if you like i stop my discussion with you, i have no desire to argue.

Jai Shree Krishna

Ganeshprasad
26 July 2007, 05:13 PM
pranam all
For those who may want to know


tribhir guna-mayair bhavair
ebhih sarvam idam jagat
mohitam nabhijanati
mam ebhyah param avyayam

Deluded by the three modes [goodness, passion and ignorance], the whole world does not know Me who am above the modes and inexhaustible. 7.13

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

This divine energy of Mine, consisting of the three modes of material nature, is difficult to overcome. But those who have surrendered unto Me can easily cross beyond it. 7.14

Jai Shree Krishna

Kaos
26 July 2007, 06:18 PM
pranam

the sastra and guru points the way but in the end it is our own effort that will take us beyond.
if you like i stop my discussion with you, i have no desire to argue.




pranam

but in the end it is our own effort that will take us beyond.





Namaste Ganeshprasad,

There is no other path than the one you are already on.

To discuss and argue are two different things.
One is healthy, the other one is not.
Done in a positive manner and in the spirit of mutual respect, discussion can lead to clarity and light.

The alternative is to be mired in doing the same things over and over again. If one stays fixed and rigid in his conditioned beliefs, then there can be no meaningful discussion.

There is only so much that the intellect can comprehend.

Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita (2.28):

O Arjuna, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, I know everything that has happened in the past, all that is happening in the present, and all things that are yet to come. I also know all living entities; but Me no one knows.

At the same time, He states (11.55):

My dear Arjuna, he who engages in My pure devotional service, free from the contaminations of fruitive activities and mental speculation, he who works for Me, who makes Me the supreme goal of his life, and who is friendly to every living being - he certainly comes to Me.


And lastly, Krishna explains clearly, "Krishna consciousness" in Chapter 6,

Chapter 6. Sankhya-yoga:



TEXT 30



yo mam pasyati sarvatra
sarvam ca mayi pasyati
tasyaham na pranasyami
sa ca me na pranasyati


TRANSLATION


For one who sees Me everywhere and sees everything in Me, I am never lost, nor is he ever lost to Me.



Hare Krishna!

Kaos
26 July 2007, 07:13 PM
Now this is my main sticking point, I have no urge to become this SELF. How can I become that which I am not?



Whether or not you have the urge to "become" the Self, the Self is already within you.

Better to rest in conscious calm-abiding, that the Self is in everyone and pervades everywhere, everything, rather than being bewildered.

This is called dancing with Shiva. This whole universe is Shiva's dance.
Yes, we are all dancing with Shiva, and He with us.
Ultimately, we are Shiva dancing.


Aum Namah Shivaya

Kaos
26 July 2007, 07:57 PM
Now this is my main sticking point, I have no urge to become this SELF. How can I become that which I am not?





For the same reason, that how can you un-become that which you already are? :)

Kaos
27 July 2007, 08:19 AM
Pranam Koas


Since you agree there is a big difference between Adi Shankra and most of us, can you not see how big a difference is between jivas and Bhagvan.

Adi Shankra is incarnation of Lord Shiva on that score it would be perfect for him to say that.

Jai Shree Krishna


Relatively, an Incarnation is different from an ordinary man or even a saint.

However, from the standpoint of Brahman, no difference exists between an Incarnation, a saint and an ordinary man.

Why?

Since the Self is within each soul, every soul, in reality, is the Self.

atanu
27 July 2007, 09:51 AM
For the same reason, that how can you un-become that which you already are? :)

Pranams,

How can one un-become? Excellent.

Yes, there is no way, whatever one may imagine. Even if one is self -- the karana sarir, then whose is that karana sarir? Did the body generate the karana sarir or did the Self self generate it? Shayambhu.

Mandukya Upanishad exhorts us to know the advaitam Atma Turiya. If someone says "I know the self as another", then neither the Atma is known (since another cannot be atma) nor the Advaita is known (since when another is there advaitam is not there).

The clue is to know the Sarvesvara Pragnya as ALL, first. And then to enquire whose is this Pragnya?

It is another matter to worship Sarvesvara Pragnya as Lord, but Lord will also exhort "Know the atma".

Om

atanu
27 July 2007, 10:07 AM
Pranam Atanu ji

----

But I am the small self that is conscious acting and reacting reaping the fruits of my action my problem is I false identify this self to be this body and thus all the pain and therefore it is important to know who I am?

As stated before mind is just a tool.



Boss, don't you see the contradiction? You say that the mind is just a tool. And then you say "I am the small self that is conscious acting and reacting ---".

This is the delusion. What you think as I has no power to act. It is just a tool.



If becoming one with sivoadvaitam Atma means to be peaceful and the identity of jiva has not disappear but the true nature of atma has been established then I can agree.



As reasoned above

Mandukya Upanishad exhorts us to know the advaitam Atma Turiya. If someone says "I know the self as another", then neither the Atma is known (since another cannot be atma) nor the Advaita is known (since when another is there advaitam is not there).


God cannot be known by reason alone. But Svet Upanishad also says that God cannot be known without reason as well.


Jai Shree Krishna
Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
27 July 2007, 10:25 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste Ganeshprasad (et.al)

Lots of information and insights have been offered for your consumption.
Just like any meal it takes some time to consume and digest.

Take your time and not to worry. Some of the concepts may seem convoluted. Yet with time things come clear.

It is the sipping of wisdom that tastes the best. Ask questions along the way.

pranams,

Ganeshprasad
27 July 2007, 05:23 PM
Boss, don't you see the contradiction? You say that the mind is just a tool. And then you say "I am the small self that is conscious acting and reacting ---".

This is the delusion. What you think as I has no power to act. It is just a tool.


Jai Shree Krishna
Om Namah Shivaya

No my friend and hope we are still friends I do not see any contradiction. I is not the mind
Mind is jada
bhumir apo 'nalo vayuh
kham mano buddhir eva ca
ahankara itiyam me
bhinna prakrtir astadha

Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego--all together these eight comprise My separated material energies. 7.4

If i as Atanu or Ganesh has no power to act then you have to tell me who is the one that accumulate the Karmas.

First let us establish who i is, the one that accumulates karma one that is perpetually taking birth, then we can move forward. otherwise we are simply going round in circle talking about self that gets interchanged between Brahman and jiva self.

So yes tell us or at least me who this i is, that repeatedly take birth.
I can tell, what i am not,i am not this senses nor this mind or budhi or ego.

Jai Shree Krishna

Kaos
27 July 2007, 06:15 PM
...otherwise we are simply going round in circle talking about self that gets interchanged between Brahman and jiva self.




Is there a separate Brahman and a separate jiva self??

Kaos
27 July 2007, 06:22 PM
So yes tell us or at least me who this i is...




Everyone, everything, everywhere, manifested, unmanifested... etc.

Who do you bother to know who this "i" is? Will it lead to the end of suffering?

Kaos
27 July 2007, 06:53 PM
First let us establish who i is, the one that accumulates karma one that is perpetually taking birth, then we can move forward. otherwise we are simply going round in circle talking about self that gets interchanged between Brahman and jiva self.








That is what bhakti does, that is where knowledge lead us to that what yoga do, to reconnect. the SELF is within and with out that is also made very clear by Krishna in the Gita. Yes every thing is an expression of Brahman. But spark is not the whole, a drop is not the ocean, a ray is not the son yet is non difference Acintya bhed Abhed tatva.





Pardon me, but from the tone of your posts, your insistence of a separate "self" practicing bhakti and a separate "Self" towards which bhakti is offered is getting a bit, quite repetitive, to put it gently.

You insist that members of this board, in your own words, "establish their position, before we can move forward," at the same time, you insist on holding on to your rigid, conditioned view. This is typical of the Western Christian mindset. As I mentioned before, you cannot study, understand Dharma whether Hindu or Buddhist, if your mind is full of fixed notions of what should or should not be.

This is like trying to fill an overflowing cup.
How can you learn Dharma if your cup is full.
First you have to empty the cup.


Going back on topic.

A separate "self" and a separate "Self" means there is other.

A separate "drop" of water and a separate "ocean" means there are two separate entities. Can you take water out of water?

If there is other, there in no Oneness.

Kaos
27 July 2007, 09:22 PM
But spark is not the whole, a drop is not the ocean, a ray is not the sun




Relatively, yes, a drop of water is not the ocean.

But in a sense, they are the same.


Not only is their essence, the same, but in potential as well.

Using a rough analogy, consider this:

Both a drop of water and the ocean are the same, in the sense that one can greatly expand and and the other can be broken up innumerably.

If one goes down to the atomic level a drop of water consists of hydrogen and oxygen molecules. Hydrogen by the way, is the stuff that hydrogen bombs are made of. So, hydrogen, the basic component of water can expand.

Similarly, using a rough analogy, the ocean can be broken up, into innumerable drops of water.

atanu
28 July 2007, 05:41 AM
No my friend and hope we are still friends


Namaste my dear friend,

Why is there any doubt? Did I hurt you unknowingly? You are a wise friend.





I do not see any contradiction. I is not the mind
Mind is jada

bhumir apo 'nalo vayuh
kham mano buddhir eva ca
ahankara itiyam me
bhinna prakrtir astadha

Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego--all together these eight comprise My separated material energies. 7.4


Then what is I? Hope the following helps.

Mahanarayana Upanishad (ekavi.nsho.anuvaakaH)
.
iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaM
brahmaadhipatirbrahmaNo.adhipatirbrahmaa shivo me astu sadaashivom.h


XXI-1: May the Supreme Lord who is the ruler of all knowledge, controller of all created beings, the preserver of the Vedas and the one overlord of Hiranyagarbha, be auspicious to me. I am the Sadasiva described thus and denoted by Pranava.

Known properly, I is the Pranava. I is the auspicious. I is Sadashiva. I is Sarvesvara. I is Ishana. When one has reached the conviction of the stage that there is no embodied I, but this I itself comes from unlimited Sadasiva, the Supreme Lord -- what he needs? Just let the mind play with Him.


-----------------

Thank you for this opportunity to expose that ‘As it is’ is not ‘As it is’. This ‘As it is’ is ‘As I think it is’. Following are 5 translations of the same verse. All will note that PRAKRITI and MATERIAL have different meanings. Prakriti is NATURE.

I am I, but it is my prakriti to imagine that I am a General Manager. Prakriti is one’s nature but Prakriti is not the being. Prakriti is not Me. Prakriti is not the I.

Moreover, the ‘separated’ word in Prabhupada translation is introduced to support a bias. No translator says that Prakriti is separated out. What is Lord’s Prakriti is His eternal prakriti. The Prakriti has not separated out and has not become another being. How can one’s Prakriti separate out? But, still one is not the Prakriti. One is that which has the Prakriti. One can definitely know the pure Self that has no tinge of Prakriti. That is what Lord Indra does.

Four translations follow:

Bhoomiraapo’nalo vaayuh kham mano buddhireva cha;
Ahamkaara iteeyam me bhinnaa prakritirashtadhaa.

4) Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intellect and egoism—thus is My Nature divided eightfold.
4) Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind and understanding self-sense-this is the eightfold division of My nature.
4)This Prakrti of Mine is divided eight-fold thus; earth, water, fire, air, space, mind, intellect, and also egoism. (7.04)
4)The mind, intellect, ego, ether, air, fire, water, and earth are the eightfold division of My material energy. (7.04)


I am I. But my Prakriti is to question the vaidity of Prabhupada translations.




If i as Atanu or Ganesh has no power to act then you have to tell me who is the one that accumulate the Karmas.

First let us establish who i is, the one that accumulates karma one that is perpetually taking birth, then we can move forward. otherwise we are simply going round in circle talking about self that gets interchanged between Brahman and jiva self.

So yes tell us or at least me who this i is, that repeatedly take birth.
I can tell, what i am not,i am not this senses nor this mind or budhi or ego.

Jai Shree Krishna


Yes, very profound questions, which if pursued with a free mind will show that I is not born. The ‘I’, who is the Lord acquires bodies but Lord is not born. Lord acquires un-Lordly and Lordly bodies, but is ever unborn Mahesvara, which Lord Krishna says He is in truth.

And the question “Who am I?” very sharply and very fast will make one realize that I is a sphurana (spontaneous generation) from the pure consciousness and it has no linkage with Prakriti, which comes after that. To question “Who AM I?” the following is a result and will also help to further enquire and meditate, so I reproduce.


Mandukya Upanishad exhorts us to know the advaitam Atma Turiya. If someone says "I know the self as another", then neither the Atma is known (since another cannot be atma) nor the Advaita is known (since when another is there advaitam is not there).



Karma resides in Mind as memory. In deep sleep no one has any karma, since there is no mind and no ego. On waking, the mind-ego replays the memory. Lord has said 'Atma na lipayete'. If still one insists that I am not atma but something else, then that something else may be brought forward and shown.

Tyaktwaa karmaphalaasangam nityatripto niraashrayah;
Karmanyabhipravritto’pi naiva kinchit karoti sah.

4.20. Having abandoned attachment to the fruit of the action, ever content, depending on nothing, he does not do anything though engaged in activity.

Prakriteh kriyamaanaani gunaih karmaani sarvashah;
Ahamkaaravimoodhaatmaa kartaaham iti manyate.

3.27. All actions are wrought in all cases by the qualities of Nature only. He whose mind is deluded by egoism thinks: “I am the doer”.

Karma is for the delusion of mind and resides in the mind of ignorant, who thinks that he has a separate cognition apparatus that is different from Saevesvara Pragnya. There is no Karma for the one who has successfully removed the thought of small I and that “I am the doer”.


Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Ganeshprasad
28 July 2007, 09:03 AM
Pranam



Pardon me, but from the tone of your posts, your insistence of a separate "self" practicing bhakti and a separate "Self" towards which bhakti is offered is getting a bit, quite repetitive, to put it gently.

Fine, you do not have to read my post if you don’t like it.




You insist that members of this board, in your own words, "establish their position, before we can move forward," at the same time, you insist on holding on to your rigid, conditioned view. This is typical of the Western Christian mindset. As I mentioned before, you cannot study, understand Dharma whether Hindu or Buddhist, if your mind is full of fixed notions of what should or should not be.

I have demanded no such thing, I have asked this off Atanu ji, you are the one who has butt in(I don’t mind really) it is a reasonable request to inquire, if you don’t like that or think that is alien to Hindu way of thinking then I think you would be far off the line. Chetanya Mahaprabhu, Ramajunacharya, Madvachrya held similar views next you will be accusing them of rigid condition views.
You make a horrendous assumption and insult my Hindu upbringing and I don’t mean any disrespect to western Christian mindset for as a Hindu I respect their right of having god given views even if I may not agree with that.



This is like trying to fill an overflowing cup.
How can you learn Dharma if your cup is full.
First you have to empty the cup.


Wrong, just add sugar and you find that the cup that was full is now sweeter.

Jai Shree Krishna

atanu
28 July 2007, 09:10 AM
I somehow feel that it is very appropriate that this discussion has taken place under the category of Abrahamic religions.

Somewhere in the thread there was a reference to verse 13.28 (some refer to it as 13.27), which is shown below with four translations on one side and another with special words that are not there in the original.



13.28 0r 13.27 Samam sarveshu bhooteshu tishthantam parameshwaram;
Vinashyatswavinashyantam yah pashyati sa pashyati.


28. He sees, who sees the Supreme Lord, existing equally in all beings, the unperishing within the perishing.

(
27) One who sees the Supreme Lord abiding equally in all beings, never perishing when they perish, he, verily, sees.

He sees who sees the supreme Lord as existing equally in all beings, and as the Imperishable among the perishable. (13.27)

The one who sees the same eternal Supreme Lord dwelling as Spirit equally within all mortal beings truly sees. (13.27)

-------------------------------
Prabhupada’s Translation

One who sees the Supersoul accompanying the individual soul in all bodies, and who understands that neither the soul nor the Supersoul within the destructible body is ever destroyed, actually sees. (13.28)
-------------------


Where the original says 'Vinashyatswavinashyantam' (imperishable within the perishable), Shri Parabhupada says neither the soul nor the Supersoul within the destructible body is ever destroyed.

Where is 'Supersoul accompanying the individual soul in all bodies in the original'? Also note that there is no mention of imperishable individual soul in the verse.

Om Shanti

Ganeshprasad
28 July 2007, 09:21 AM
Namaste my dear friend,

Why is there any doubt? Did I hurt you unknowingly? You are a wise friend.

yes that doubts had crept in your tone had changed also calling me boss may be i was reading too much in it.
thank you i will take a break from this diccussion may be try digest whats been said so far.






Moreover, the ‘separated’ word in Prabhupada translation is introduced to support a bias. No translator says that Prakriti is separated out. What is Lord’s Prakriti is His eternal prakriti. The Prakriti has not separated out and has not become another being. How can one’s Prakriti separate out? But, still one is not the Prakriti. One is that which has the Prakriti. One can definitely know the pure Self that has no tinge of Prakriti. That is what Lord Indra does.

not wanting to question the translation you provide nor i am any paticularly partial to sri Prabhupadas translation i just wish to point the word Bhina= seprate.
Regards

Om Namah Shivaya[/quote]

Jai Shree Krishna

Kaos
28 July 2007, 09:25 AM
Chetanya Mahaprabhu, Ramajunacharya, Madvachrya held similar views next you will be accusing them of rigid condition views.




Nothing wrong with asking questions.

But you say that Chetanya Mahaprabhu and you, hold similar views, then why do you ask so many questions?

Since obviously you still didn't get them, it means that you and Chetanya Mahaprabhu didn't hold similar views. :)

Kaos
28 July 2007, 09:28 AM
Wrong, just add sugar and you find that the cup that was full is now sweeter.

Jai Shree Krishna


Wrong again. Actually, why still add sugar, when the water in the cup is already perfect.

:)

Kaos
28 July 2007, 09:42 AM
I have asked this off Atanu ji, you are the one who has butt in(I don’t mind really) it is a reasonable request to inquire




Pardon me, but it is you who is being disrespectful.

As in any discussion board, any post in a forum is open for anyone to comment on or ask for further clarification.

If you and someone else are engaged in a two-way discussion, then it would have been more appropriate to discuss in private.

atanu
28 July 2007, 10:00 AM
yes that doubts had crept in your tone had changed also calling me boss may be i was reading too much in it.
thank you i will take a break from this diccussion may be try digest whats been said so far.


Namaste Ganeshprasad ji

Thanks for being forthright. That is what is endearing of you. I am sad and sorry both, if a dose of lightness created a mis-understanding. Please have no doubt of my respects for you.

But pausing to digest is good for everyone. Lest, you think that as an Advaitin, I think it proper to equate the material self to the Advaita SELF. No, never. Shankara had very specifically pointed this out while commenting on 'Thou Art That'.

Thou is Vishnu Himself.

But I am often surprised by the tactics of some Bhaktas, who do not hesitate to kill off the God who never slumbers by their translations and purports (you know of that of course).




not wanting to question the translation you provide nor i am any paticularly partial to sri Prabhupadas translation i just wish to point the word Bhina= seprate.


bhinnaa prakritirashtadhaa

Bhinna is different and not separate. It can be used as separate also but not in this context. There is no mention of separating out, as translated by Prabhupada. Eight different aspects of lower Prakriti is indicated (as translated by every one else).

Then, if you think logically, how can anyone's nature separate out?



Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Kaos
28 July 2007, 10:20 AM
You make a horrendous assumption and insult my Hindu upbringing and I don’t mean any disrespect to western Christian mindset for as a Hindu I




Namaste Ganeshprasad,

I do not mean any personal disrespect to you at all.

But I do not know you, I do not see you. I do not know if your intent in this forum is to study/learn about Hindu Dharma or to merely inject some form of "Christianity" to Sanatana Dharma. It's quite common for Christian proselytisers to join this forum and pretend to be followers of Sanatana Dharma, when in fact, their only motive and intent is to attack and disrupt Hindu Dharma forums such as this one.

You claim to have a Hindu upbringing. Yet, you seem to struggle to find your place with basic concepts such as the "self" and ones relationship with the "Self". I'm sorry, but I just find this quite odd and striking for someone who claims to be have a Hindu upbringing.

Having said that, I am not discouraging you from questioning. Questioning is good. We all learn from everything, but please do so appropriately. Then, you will get an appropriate response.

Regards,
Kaos

Ganeshprasad
28 July 2007, 01:41 PM
Pranam



Nothing wrong with asking questions.

But you say that Chetanya Mahaprabhu and you, hold similar views, then why do you ask so many questions?

Since obviously you still didn't get them, it means that you and Chetanya Mahaprabhu didn't hold similar views.

don’t try and deflect the context of my statement you accused me of being rigid for holding my views and question was do you consider those great personalities as rigid ?



Pardon me, but it is you who is being disrespectful.

As in any discussion board, any post in a forum is open for anyone to comment on or ask for further clarification.

And then you don’t allow me to hold my views and ask question, be consistent.
I have no more to say, thank you for your input.

Jai Shree Krishna

Kaos
28 July 2007, 04:04 PM
....Chetanya Mahaprabhu, Ramajunacharya, Madvachrya held similar views next





The difference is in the degree of quantity not quality. As a drop of water has not the same quantity as an ocean, but in essence, they are the same. For the jiva, it is in the degree of maturity or evolution.



Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu said we are all one and different from Him, one in quality but different in quantity, which is exactly the one I posted and tried to explain to you, earlier in the thread.

As a devotee, did you not get a copy of the A Devotee's Handbook of Pure Devotion? :)

While you claim to practice bhakti and mention the name of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and yet, fail to grasp at the concept of "self" and one's relationship to the "Self" by this never ending rehashing of the same, recycled theme, over and over again, shows that there is a disconnect on your part.

Also, in the Bhagavad Gita (Chapter 18.9) Krishna says:
Give up all varieties of religion and just surrender to Me. I shall protect you from all sinful reactions. Therefore you have nothing to fear.

This implies that when one sincerely surrenders to the Lord, endless questioning and pious speculation of the "self" and one's relationship to the "Self" coming from someone who claims to be a devotee, is rather moot, and quite pointless...

Kaos
28 July 2007, 07:13 PM
How can both your statements be the same, one says in the final analysis I am God and the other says I am the same quality as god but not the




Since you are not comfortable with contradictions, in this realm of creation, obviously, whatever bhakti you professed to have been practicing, didn't work... :)

It only proves, you still have a rigid mind.
A mind, which by the way, you declare to be "unconscious".

Since you say, that mind is unconscious, then, who does your thinking for you?

If your mind is unconscious, is God thinking for you then?

Therefore, if God is thinking for you, then, if you are confused, it means, God is confused... : )

Ganeshprasad
28 October 2007, 11:06 AM
Pranam friends

Sorry I have not been active lately on the forum,
All of you are wonderful souls, vastly knowledgeable in Shastra, this a wonderful forum, may it continue for a long time in this sprit.

I have reached an impasse unable to comprehend various concept that does exists in this vast ocean of Vedic knowledge.

I had been contemplating advaita concept, as very elaborately put forward by many on this forum, I am still non the wiser, for me It is bhakti that rules, no matter how hard I try I can not get my head round advaita, I feel that the omnipotent and omniscient brahman can not be deluded the delusion is mine. Who am I ?Therefore I have decided to take a break from discussion on the subject, not that my input is of any significant, I still like to thank Atanuji Yajvan and others to engage me in the past, on this subject, I know I am out of my depth even to speak on the subject for which I have very little knowledge.

Besides it is about time I pack my little bag and head towards Bharat the land of devas . Just waiting for my travel agent to confirm the dates
Whenever I get time I shell look up the forum while I am out there.

I wish all in advance a very happy Diwali. May it bring joy and light in our lives.

Jai Shree Krishna

atanu
28 October 2007, 11:56 AM
Pranam friends

Sorry I have not been active lately on the forum,
All of you are wonderful souls, vastly knowledgeable in Shastra, this a wonderful forum, may it continue for a long time in this sprit.

I have reached an impasse unable to comprehend various concept that does exists in this vast ocean of Vedic knowledge.

I had been contemplating advaita concept, as very elaborately put forward by many on this forum, I am still non the wiser, for me It is bhakti that rules, no matter how hard I try I can not get my head round advaita, I feel that the omnipotent and omniscient brahman can not be deluded the delusion is mine. Who am I ?Therefore I have decided to take a break from discussion on the subject, not that my input is of any significant, I still like to thank Atanuji Yajvan and others to engage me in the past, on this subject, I know I am out of my depth even to speak on the subject for which I have very little knowledge.

Besides it is about time I pack my little bag and head towards Bharat the land of devas . Just waiting for my travel agent to confirm the dates
Whenever I get time I shell look up the forum while I am out there.

I wish all in advance a very happy Diwali. May it bring joy and light in our lives.

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,

Happy Diwali to you. Will you be visiting Gujarat (and especially Vadodara) by any chance?

Personally for me, any input from you is valuable. You are correct that bhakti rules, since Shankara himself has said it so. Without Bhakti both Karma and Jnana would be dry and as abrasive as sand.

Wish you best and long for your input here again.

Regards,

Om

Ganeshprasad
28 October 2007, 01:41 PM
Pranam Atanuji

thank you for your kind words
yes It is Porbandar in Gujrat that is my base, as it happens one of my friend may also come to India and he has a house in Vadodara, so there is every chance i might come there.
are you by any chance based in Vadodara?

Jai Shree Krishna

yajvan
28 October 2007, 01:47 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~


Pranam friends

Sorry I have not been active lately on the forum,
All of you are wonderful souls, vastly knowledgeable in Shastra, this a wonderful forum, may it continue for a long time in this sprit.

I have reached an impasse unable to comprehend various concept that does exists in this vast ocean of Vedic knowledge.

I had been contemplating advaita concept, as very elaborately put forward by many on this forum, I am still non the wiser, for me It is bhakti that rules, no matter how hard I try I can not get my head round advaita, I feel that the omnipotent and omniscient brahman can not be deluded the delusion is mine. Who am I ?Therefore I have decided to take a break from discussion on the subject, not that my input is of any significant, I still like to thank Atanuji Yajvan and others to engage me in the past, on this subject, I know I am out of my depth even to speak on the subject for which I have very little knowledge.

Besides it is about time I pack my little bag and head towards Bharat the land of devas . Just waiting for my travel agent to confirm the dates
Whenever I get time I shell look up the forum while I am out there.

I wish all in advance a very happy Diwali. May it bring joy and light in our lives. Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste Ganeshprasad,
I wish you safe travels.
Regarding knowledge... having the path of the head, the heart and the hands is the boon for us humans. You have contributed much with your balanced approach and open mindedness. HDF form is a better place from your participation. I am in hopes you visit here as you wish.

So this head, heart and hands approach:

Head for those oriented it jnana yoga.
Heart for those that find delight and aspire to bhakti yoga
Hands for those that are action oriented and gravitate to karma yoga.

They all have the same destination ( all roads lead to Rome they say) - that of Brahman. One finds along the path that all 3 are of interest and of value.

Safe travels and hope to hear how your yatra unfolds.

pranams