PDA

View Full Version : What I Find to be 'Maya'



yajvan
27 July 2007, 10:34 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~~~

Namaste,

When I think of this maya, I have settled in to the definiton given by a muni I have great respect for S.Shankaranarayanan, who follows Sri Vidya, and Devi tradition. He has a distinction between maya and avidya that just resenates with me.

This maya is this notion that the Infinite , ananta ( a= not + anta= end) without end, can be metered out as the many , as diversity. This I see every day on how it is incongruent with Brahman, that Bhuma , fullness.

This avidya is not the total absence of knowledge, but it is the incompleteness, the partial knowledge, incomplete awareness, that is the crux of this avidya.

So , from this, what I found to be maya, from my seat, is the following
[ please add to the list if you wish ] :

That the earth is rotating at over 1,000 mph and I do not feel the wind in my face. That I cannot, though my senses, feel this movement.
That I see the sun go from east to west, yet one tells me it is me that is moving.
That I have grown over time but cannot point to any one moment to measure the difference.
That my nature is Infinite, yet I would have never discovered this notion on my own, without the help of the Tradition as a guide.
That people are genuinely good and satvic, yet will kill their own kind when provoked.
That we love dogs and cats and invite them in our homes, but will eat a cow for supper.
That we are compelled to pursue happiness, yet it is within us, and look elsewhere for this miracle.
That many on this earth will kill in the name of the Lord
That some on this good earth think that the 'truth' (satyam) can be measured with numbers and by science
That we are Whole and Full yet we feel incomplete.
That we acquire finite things to bring us joy and it only burdens us with more things to take care of.
That one group believes their God is better then another's and that He/She is qualitatively and quantitively different.
That we are told we have been here before, yet we cannot remember the occasion or the time spent
That some think the veda's are book and should be read as such , as if it was written by man
And - that the world is as we are... if one is having a good day , then all is well. If one is having a bad day, then the world is dark, yet the only thing that changed was the persons view of life.Nalpe sukham asti - 'finite things do not contain happiness' - rishi Sanatkumara


pranams,

Kaos
27 July 2007, 06:51 PM
When God enters the world of His creation as jiva, under the influence of His own energy, maya (she who veils), he becomes bewildered.

That too is maya.

yajvan
27 July 2007, 07:06 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

When God enters the world of His creation as jiva, under the influence of His own energy, maya (she who veils), he becomes bewildered. That too is maya.

Namaste Kaos,
yes , this maya you state does apply.

I was thinking of others today .... without making a list, another that stands out for me that is a combination of maya+avidya is the notion of actions.

That many may think actions we perform on our own perhaps even in our own home, behind closed doors only impact and travel no further then the doer of that action. As if a bell was rung, and the vibrations stay secluded to ones property (ether of the body or the home).
I am in hopes others will add in their ideas and observations on this matter. All are welcomed.

pranams,

mirabai
28 July 2007, 12:05 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~


That many may think actions we perform on our own perhaps even in our own home, behind closed doors only impact and travel no further then the doer of that action. As if a bell was rung, and the vibrations stay secluded to ones property (ether of the body or the home).I am in hopes others will add in their ideas and observations on this matter. All are welcomed.

pranams,

I think Goswami said that if you eat food prepared by a wicked person you will become wicked.
It could be the vibrations from the agitated mind of the cook go into the food and then into the person eating the food?

suresh
28 July 2007, 06:04 AM
When God enters the world of His creation as jiva, under the influence of His own energy, maya (she who veils), he becomes bewildered.


But if God becomes bewildered, wouldn't that amount to a stain on God's status as an omniscient entity?

Kaos
28 July 2007, 08:38 AM
But if God becomes bewildered, wouldn't that amount to a stain on God's status as an omniscient entity?


Yes and no.


Siva creates, sustains the form absorbs back into Himself His creations.

Shiva is creator, sustainer and destroyer.

Kaos
28 July 2007, 10:16 AM
But if God becomes bewildered, wouldn't that amount to a stain on God's status as an omniscient entity?


In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna explains:

I enter into each planet, and by My energy these stay in orbit. I become the moon and thereby supply the juice of life to all vegetables. (15.13)

I am the fire of digestion in every living body, and I am the air of life, outgoing and incoming, by which I digest the four kinds of foods. (15.14)

I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas, I am to be known. I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I know the Vedas as they are. (15.15)

Clearly these are references to Krishna pervading His entire creation, entering the realm of maya (illusion), form and yet unaffected by it. Yet, the jiva is bewildered by this creation, this form, due to maya which is inherent in Ultimate Reality.

yajvan
28 July 2007, 12:56 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

I think Goswami said that if you eat food prepared by a wicked person you will become wicked.
It could be the vibrations from the agitated mind of the cook go into the food and then into the person eating the food?

Namate mirabai,
This also happened in the Mahabharata. Draupadi's cloths are seized by force.
We know the story. As much as Duhsasana pulled the garments off of Draupadi, more fresh garments appeared. This came about from her request for Divine intervention that was fulfilled.

This could have been stopped by Bishma, yet was not. Bishma references 'bad food' that influenced to his rational thinking later in the Mahabharata.


pranams,

yajvan
28 July 2007, 01:23 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste,

A few more ideas on this maya .

In the Mahabharata, a Yaksha asks Yudhishthira (also known as Dharmaraj) , What is the most unbelievable thing in this world?

Yudhishthira answers, That people perpetually die in this world, but man acts and lives as though he will never die.

When we are young this death is the furthest from our minds. Death happens to others not to me, one thinks.

What of this death is it too maya? And who rules death Yama. And if we take Yama's name, and reverse it we get Maya.

Could this death be maya also? For many this brings fear...the fear of dying. Could it be we have done it before and we have an iniate feeling of what happens? Or could it be we know that death also means rebirth and we start again?

pranams,

Kaos
28 July 2007, 05:46 PM
What of this death is it too maya? And who rules death Yama. And if we take Yama's name, and reverse it we get Maya.

Could this death be maya also?




Namaste Yajvan,

Yes, another wonderful insight and observation.

Death is indeed maya also...

Why?

Because whatever is unborn cannot die. And whatever has no beginning has no ending.

Whatever is here is Purusha.


"Brahman alone, the Greatest, is this whole universe." - Mundaka Upanishad II. 2. 11.

yajvan
07 August 2007, 08:14 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste,
I Have added another item to my list of maya. This notion of suffering as a driver and cornerstone of spiritual development. Some take 'tapas' as spiritual hardship to suffering. Tapas , is that of heating up, of purification. Like the blacksmith as he heats up and fires gold and the impurities are removed by this process and the pure gold remains.

One sisya asked my teacher, 'did Christ suffer ?' - He responded 'anyone that says I and my Father are One does not suffer.'

For me this whole sufferng thing has distorted ones view of spiritual progress. For the native on the path, is suffering possible ? - sure. Yet its ala carte, its on the side. How much of the suffering is that of ones own making from past actions? To this I do not know, as ones actions over eons is unfathomable ( so says Krsna, Bhagavad Gita 4.17)


So adding to the list: [ please add to the list your ideas and assumptions]

That suffering is needed for spiritual advancement;
That the earth is rotating at over 1,000 mph and I do not feel the wind in my face. That I cannot, though my senses, feel this movement.
That I see the sun go from east to west, yet one tells me it is me that is moving.
That I have grown over time but cannot point to any one moment to measure the difference.
That my nature is Infinite, yet I would have never discovered this notion on my own, without the help of the Tradition as a guide.
That people are genuinely good and satvic, yet will kill their own kind when provoked.
That we love dogs and cats and invite them in our homes, but will eat a cow for supper.
That we are compelled to pursue happiness, yet it is within us, and look elsewhere for this miracle.
That many on this earth will kill in the name of the Lord
That some on this good earth think that the 'truth' (satyam) can be measured with numbers and by science.
That we are Whole and Full yet we feel incomplete.
That we acquire finite things to bring us joy and it only burdens us with more things to take care of.
That one group believes their God is better then another's and that He/She is qualitatively and quantitively different.
That we are told we have been here before, yet we cannot remember the occasion or the time spent.
That some think the veda's are book and should be read as such , as if it was written by man And - that the world is as we are... if one is having a good day , then all is well. If one is having a bad day, then the world is dark, yet the only thing that changed was the persons view of life.
That many may think actions we perform on our own perhaps even in our own home, behind closed doors only impact and travel no further then the doer of that action. As if a bell was rung, and the vibrations stay secluded to ones property (ether of the body or the home).
In the Mahabharata, a Yaksha asks Yudhishthira (also known as Dharmaraj) , What is the most unbelievable thing in this world?Yudhishthira answers, That people perpetually die in this world, but man acts and lives as though he will never die.

yajvan
29 September 2007, 04:27 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~



Namaste,

One sisya asked my teacher, 'did Christ suffer ?' - He responded 'anyone that says I and my Father are One does not suffer.'

For me this whole sufferng thing has distorted ones view of spiritual progress. For the native on the path, is suffering possible ? - sure. Yet its ala carte, its on the side. How much of the suffering is that of ones own making from past actions? To this I do not know, as ones actions over eons is unfathomable ( so says Krsna, Bhagavad Gita 4.17)

That suffering is needed for spiritual advancement;
That the earth is rotating at over 1,000 mph and I do not feel the wind in my face. That I cannot, though my senses, feel this movement.
That I see the sun go from east to west, yet one tells me it is me that is moving.
That I have grown over time but cannot point to any one moment to measure the difference.
That my nature is Infinite, yet I would have never discovered this notion on my own, without the help of the Tradition as a guide.
That people are genuinely good and satvic, yet will kill their own kind when provoked.
That we love dogs and cats and invite them in our homes, but will eat a cow for supper.
That we are compelled to pursue happiness, yet it is within us, and look elsewhere for this miracle.
That many on this earth will kill in the name of the Lord
That some on this good earth think that the 'truth' (satyam) can be measured with numbers and by science.
That we are Whole and Full yet we feel incomplete.
That we acquire finite things to bring us joy and it only burdens us with more things to take care of.
That one group believes their God is better then another's and that He/She is qualitatively and quantitatively different.
That we are told we have been here before, yet we cannot remember the occasion or the time spent.
That some think the veda are books and should be read as such , as if it was written by man
That the world is as we are... if one is having a good day , then all is well. If one is having a bad day, then the world is dark, yet the only thing that changed was the persons view of life.
That many may think actions we perform on our own perhaps even in our own home, behind closed doors only impact and travel no further then the doer of that action. As if a bell was rung, and the vibrations stay secluded to ones property (either of the body or the home).
In the Mahabharata, a Yaksha asks Yudhishthira (also known as Dharmaraj) , What is the most unbelievable thing in this world?Yudhishthira answers, That people perpetually die in this world, but man acts and lives as though he will never die. Adding to my list above:

That on this earth we can produce a saint that brings the wisdom and glory of the Divine to the earth he walks on; on the same dirt being walked, there are those that want to bring evil to the family of man.
That one can do good deeds and take a life-time to accompish this and another can take that life, in one second with a bad deed.
That we talk of time, and zillions and billions of years² that this creation has been in place but what matters is only now.pranams,

atanu
30 September 2007, 07:39 AM
I need the following answers. To me these vrittas are manifestations of one Maya.

What is there in curves and flesh? Why orgasmic bliss is mistakenly related to symmetry or oomph etc of another? What is there in sensuality?

All other otherness are easy to tackle. God is one who killed Kama yet nourished the essence in His own heart.


Om

Madhavan
30 September 2007, 11:13 PM
What of this death is it too maya? And who rules death Yama. And if we take Yama's name, and reverse it we get Maya.

Could this death be maya also? For many this brings fear...the fear of dying. Could it be we have done it before and we have an iniate feeling of what happens? Or could it be we know that death also means rebirth and we start again?



yama reversed is maya, and not mAyA.

maya means a vikAra(transformation) or prAcurya(abundance) as in Anandamaya.

mAyA means something supernatural(power), or an illusion.
In advaita tradition, mAyA is typically read as mA yA meaning "not there".

When you call dvaita as mAyA, it means dvaita is "not there" though you think it is there. How far the "not there" can be interpreted is not uniform for all advaitic traditions and even followers of Shankara are not fully agreed.

In the view of some advaitins, the world of name and form should be considered as modifications of Brahman, like different gold objects are made from gold, and jnAna consists of intuting Brahman in all names and forms. This view also holds that the names and forms are eternal(in as much as it is realized that their substrate is Brahman), and the ajAti vAda is used to justify that these were never created.

However, mANDukya kArikas of gauDapAda would tell us that, all names and forms of temporary, and are actually sublated in jnAna, and that the jnAni has no knowledge other than Brahman, the reality. In the mAndUkya upanishad nAntaH prajnam mantra all types of prajna is negated totally including the simultaneous awareness of all the objects.

The second proposition runs into some logical problems because no perfect teacher of advaita can be found if the perfect jnAnin no longer percieves any dualty. That would also render Ishvara and avataras as "non perfect jnAnins" because they percieve dualty. Infact, the kind of dualty percieved by an avatAra is of the former type - all names and forms are seen through their Brahman substratum.

There is thus, no uniform view regarding the scope of mAyA.

yajvan
01 October 2007, 01:17 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

yama reversed is maya, and not mAyA.
maya means a vikAra(transformation) or prAcurya(abundance) as in Anandamaya.
mAyA means something supernatural(power), or an illusion.
In advaita tradition, mAyA is typically read as mA yA meaning "not there".



Namaste Madhavan,
and this mAyA माय as used in the posts are that of what some deem illusion. I see a pure definition of this mAyA as the infinite measured out , from mA, to measure.

As if the Infinite can be divy'ed up that is the illusion. As if one can cut up Brahman into parts. As if we look up and see the sun pass overhead and one tells you it is the earth that is moving not the suun.

I do not see this as 'supernatural' as that is considered conventional wisdom and in vogue as of late. What is supernatural about the very core of life? I do not see this. [ no need to answer as this is asked rhetorically ]

I appreciate your input , yet my intent on its use is clear in my application and in my mind.


pranams,

Kaos
01 October 2007, 08:02 PM
From the Para-Brahma Upanishad:

With distinctions like teacher and disciples (also), Brahman alone
appears.
From the point of view of truth, pure Brahman alone is.



It seems to me, that, since Brahman alone is, distinctions, i.e., creation is maya.

yajvan
01 October 2007, 08:16 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


From the Para-Brahma Upanishad:

With distinctions like teacher and disciples (also), Brahman alone
appears.
From the point of view of truth, pure Brahman alone is.

It seems to me, that, since Brahman alone is, distinctions, i.e., creation is maya.

Namaste Kaos,
and Welcome back. Thank you for your post! Yes I see your point on this maya. The truth is, as I have been taught and now begin to see-appreciate day-by-day, each and every particle of creation is THAT also.

So in the final-final analysis, This is THAT, and even This that we thought was maya, is THAT infinity, that fullness some like to call samasta or wholeness Brahman. So say the wise.

This allows me to wake evey day with a new vision, that all is good.


pranams,

Kaos
02 October 2007, 04:30 AM
Namaste yajvan,

Thank you for your response.



Tat Avam Asi (Thou Art That).

Brahman is All. Brahman alone thou art and Brahman alone exists.
True, even maya is of Brahman.


Could it be for the same reason that Buddhists, pay homage, respect, gratitude, pray? to their own true nature.






Hari Om
~~~~~



Namaste Kaos,
and Welcome back. Thank you for your post! Yes I see your point on this maya. The truth is, as I have been taught and now begin to see-appreciate day-by-day, each and every particle of creation is THAT also.

So in the final-final analysis, This is THAT, and even This that we thought was maya, is THAT infinity, that fullness some like to call samasta or wholeness Brahman. So say the wise.

This allows me to wake evey day with a new vision, that all is good.


pranams,

atanu
02 October 2007, 05:35 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~
Namaste Madhavan,
and this mAyA माय as used in the posts are that of what some deem illusion. I see a pure definition of this mAyA as the infinite measured out , from mA, to measure.

As if the Infinite can be divy'ed up that is the illusion. ---
I do not see this as 'supernatural' as that is considered conventional wisdom and in vogue as of late. ----
pranams,

Pranam to all,

There is Jaganmaya -- which indeed is supernatural. That is the instantaneous power of consciousness to conjure objects (the world).

But this leads to Avidya for Jiva (who may see 'Me and World') and measuring out for Vishnu (who spans the full and knows and resides in the highest).

Om

Kaos
02 October 2007, 07:18 AM
There is Jaganmaya -- which indeed is supernatural. That is the instantaneous power of consciousness to conjure objects (the world).




Namaste Atanu,

Yes, I agree.
Therefore, it can be said that for humans, the world around us (creation?) is based on the power of human consciousness to conjure objects.

As a human being perceives and divides the world differently than that of a frog or a bat.

Madhavan
02 October 2007, 07:56 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~



Namaste Madhavan,
and this mAyA माय as used in the posts are that of what some deem illusion. I see a pure definition of this mAyA as the infinite measured out , from mA, to measure.

As if the Infinite can be divy'ed up that is the illusion. As if one can cut up Brahman into parts. As if we look up and see the sun pass overhead and one tells you it is the earth that is moving not the suun.

I do not see this as 'supernatural' as that is considered conventional wisdom and in vogue as of late. What is supernatural about the very core of life? I do not see this. [ no need to answer as this is asked rhetorically ]

I appreciate your input , yet my intent on its use is clear in my application and in my mind.


pranams,

I would think the representation of mAyA are 'pure illusion' or other custom definitions is that of later day advaitins, who had very different and confused views regarding the nature of reality.( eg: ekajIva, bahujIva etc).

Sri Shankara frequently uses mAyA in the meaning of daivIshakti, meaning a glorious power of the Lord.(read his BSB 1.1.2 & 1.1.3) From the POV of Ishvara, mAyA is indeed an expression of his infinite power, while from the POV of the jIva it is avidyA which needs to be crossed over.

It is very surprising to see you say that there is nothing supernatural about mAyA, while many saints have glorified the Lord about his acintya adbhuta shakti.

Kaos
02 October 2007, 08:27 AM
It is very surprising to see you say that there is nothing supernatural about mAyA, while many saints have glorified the Lord about his acintya adbhuta shakti.





While the post was not directly addressed to me, allow me to join in.

It seems to me, that if creation is maya, therefore, it is both supernatural and natural. Therefore, if Brahman is All, ultimately, there is no distinction between natural and supernatural...

yajvan
02 October 2007, 10:58 AM
Namaste yajvan,

Thank you for your response.
Tat Avam Asi (Thou Art That).

Brahman is All. Brahman alone thou art and Brahman alone exists.
True, even maya is of Brahman.


Could it be for the same reason that Buddhists, pay homage, respect, gratitude, pray? to their own true nature.


Namaste K,

This is a brilliant assessment. The Highest vidya, level of meditation, is to adore oneself as Brahman. Many are use to praising the devata, Purusa, etc. outside of ones self. There are a few vidyas that teach the adoration of oneSELF non-distinct from Brahman.

Now there may be a few that will say you are not that - how can you say you are Brahman? Because of Brahman's homogeneity. Is the spark differnent then the flame?

The Chandogya Upanishad [3.17.6] says: Indestructable (akshitamasi) you are, Unchangable (achyutamasi) you are, You are the subtle essence of Prana (pranasamshitamasi).

This in itself is a subtle vidya one should practice. The rishi is Ghora Angiras, and he suggests one remembers this at the time of dropping the body.

Thanks again Kaos for your insights...

pranams,

atanu
02 October 2007, 01:32 PM
Namaste Atanu,

Yes, I agree.
Therefore, it can be said that for humans, the world around us (creation?) is based on the power of human consciousness to conjure objects.

As a human being perceives and divides the world differently than that of a frog or a bat.


Yes. Consciousness is said to be kalpataru or chintamani of Lord. But what we see is sensual. The point is that maya is a wonderful power of Brahman. And Maya can lead to Avidya or to Vidya.


Om

Kaos
02 October 2007, 01:43 PM
But what we see is sensual at least for us.





Agreed. Since creation is maya, and maya is none other than THAT also,
it goes to show that what we see and perceive around us is merely a product of our consciuosness, quite different from how a frog or a bat interprets the world.

Since creation as we see around us is merely a product of our evolved consciousness, ultimately, there is no difference between the "this" and "that".

yajvan
02 October 2007, 03:59 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Yes. Consciousness is said to be kalpataru or chintamani of Lord. But what we see is sensual. The point is that maya is a wonderful power of Brahman. And Maya can lead to Avidya or to Vidya. Om


Namasate,

What we see in this state of consciousness, before Brahma Sakshtkara ( Self Realization).

Yet each day I see just a little more of this... the strands/ropes are coming loose!

pramams

Kaos
02 October 2007, 04:17 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namasate,

What we see in this state of consciousness, before Brahma Sakshtkara ( Self Realization).

Yet each day I see just a little more of this... the strands/ropes are coming loose!

pramams



Pranams yajvan,

In the Bhagavad Gita, it is written:

The Supreme Lord said: There is a banyan tree which has it's roots upward and it's branches down and whose leaves are the Vedic hymns. One who knows this tree is the knower of the Vedas.

Srila Prabupada's commentary:

The entanglements of this material world is compared here to a banyan tree. For one who is engaged in fruitive activities, there is no end to this banyan tree. He wanders from one branch to another, to another, to another. The tree of this material world has no end, and one who is attached to this tree has no possibility of liberation. The Vedic hymns, meant for elevating oneself, are called the leaves of this tree. This tree's roots are upward because they begin from where Brahma is located, which is the topmost planet of this universe. One should understand this indestructible tree of illusion, and then one can break away from it.


Bhagavad Gita 15.1

Kaos
04 October 2007, 04:46 PM
Therefore, it can be said, that under the influence of maya (creation), the individual forgets "Thou Art That" (Tat Avam Asi).

yajvan
04 October 2007, 08:21 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Therefore, it can be said, that under the influence of maya (creation), the individual forgets "Thou Art That" (Tat Avam Asi).


Namste Kaos,
Yes, this makes sense as the operative word 'forgets'. Just as one perhaps 'forgets' where they have placed their keys. Now one needs to remember where they are. They own the keys already.

So we are looking for the keys to samvid.

pranams,

Kaos
04 October 2007, 08:46 PM
Namaste yajvan,

It is said, that the veiling of maya, creates the illusion "me" and "mine", of "this" and "that", and creates the ignorance in the individual consciousness. This ignorance comes through the mind. That is why, the ancients practiced yoga, to keep the mind in check, to go beyond the mind, to realize one's true nature.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on these.

Thank you.

yajvan
04 October 2007, 10:38 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

It is said, that the veiling of maya, creates the illusion "me" and "mine", of "this" and "that", and creates the ignorance in the individual consciousness. This ignorance comes through the mind. That is why, the ancients practiced yoga, to keep the mind in check, to go beyond the mind, to realize one's true nature. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on these.
Thank you.


Namaste Kaos,
Yes, What you are suggesting is a reasonable view. Many also consider the 5 koshas, some write kosa, that surround the Self, the veils. I am sure you are aware of these but let me list them out for others not familiar with them as they will fit into the post discussion:

anamaya - or the physical level (ana from food that nourishes the body-mind)
pranamaya - vital level fueled by prana
manomya - that of the mind
vijnanamaya - the intellect from jna = to know + vi or apart - this is to discern; this points to the intellect; I mention this as some say this kosa is 'consciousness' and is too broad a term for this conversation
anandamaya - that of blissAs you say the ancients went beyond the mind (manomaya), and then to continue also. the notion of transcending to finer levels, until there is that yoga, union with the Divine, with Brahman. Yet in the Chandogya Upanishad they talk of the knot in the heart that must be overcome, the ego, and I see that as this individual feeling of 'me'. That attachment to the 'me'.

There is someone there to assist to break that knot when the time is ripe, so says the Upanishad in Chapt 7 that brings one to parama purusartha, or final liberation.
This is the teaching - Narada approaches Sanatkumara and asks him to take him from a mantra-vit (one who knows the shastra) to the atma-vit, one that knows his SELF, Brahman. It is my favorite part of this Upanishad because it is so insightful. The last sloka ( 7.26.2) talks of the release of all the knots, and that being Sanatkumara shows one this shore beyond darkness ( ignorance), and they call him [Sanatkumara] Skanda.


Now as you have mentioned the ancients practiced yoga, which was various sadhana. It was also ahara shuddhi or purity of food. Whats this? The religion of the kitchen and what one eats? The word of ahara in essence means what is brought near to us. What is near is food, yes , but what else?

It is also the sense contacts that we have - what we see, feel, think, entertain, smell, friends and social conditions, movies, like that. It's the purity of the environment we live and take in. This ahara shruddi + yoga brings us to purity of Being (the sattva shuddhi); Sattva is the finer levels of being. And this influences that voice (vak), prana (our vital energy) and manas (mind). It is this notion of purifying finer levels of our self, to get to SELF. To prepeare oneself to finally break the knot.

Other knots people talk of are passion, greed, anger, some call these shadripu or 6 enemies. Why are they the enemies? Because they pull the mind away from same-ness, sama, from even-ness of mind, of balance. They pull us back into 'me', the individual, not the Universal, that of being consumed with ones small self. These can be counteracted with yama&niyama.


Yet this final 'radical knot' as some call it is core to what it means to be an individual , this 'me'. This is the ego, this me. And for this final knot to be broken, and as pure as we can be, we still need help (so says the Upanishad and I believe also). And this help is Divine, it's Sanatkuma , born of Brahma, born of his thought.


We know Sanatkumara as the son of Brahma ( along with the 3 other kumaras); We know him as Skanda, son of Siva. In the Gita, Krsna says, of the Generals I am Skanda. So we know Him to be Krsna also.

And who is He to fight or overcome? The final knot, the 'me' the ego. This IMHO is His Grace, many talk of. Of reaizing the SELF by His Grace.

We only need to prepare the soil and we are in good hands


pranams,

Kaos
05 October 2007, 12:32 PM
Pranam yajvan,

Thank you again for your highly informative reply.
I find this thread quite interesting and would like to pursue some more relevant questions, if you don't mind. Perhaps, other members can share their thoughts as well.

It has been established that maya, (she who veils), illusion is none other than THAT. Therefore, it can also be said, that the combination of the real and unreal, can produce something apparently real.

It shows that the apparent world (creation) could arise from undefinable maya, since maya can be both unreal and produce something apparently real.

The ancients say: When the illusive power, Maya, disappears, what remains is Pure Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. Sat Cit Ananda.

Your thoughts?

yajvan
05 October 2007, 01:16 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Pranam yajvan,

Thank you again for your highly informative reply.
I find this thread quite interesting and would like to pursue some more relevant questions, if you don't mind.

The ancients say: When the illusive power, Maya, disappears, what remains is Pure Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. Sat Cit Ananda.

Your thoughts?

Namaste K,

I am happy to answer. This maya is like the knot in a rope. Take out the knot and where did it go? it was never there. It is just how one looks at the world (the rope). The Upainshads allude to ignorance as confounding a rope for a snake also. One see the rope on the ground and there is fear of it being a snake. Upon further inspection (jnana) and applying more light (jyotishmati) to the matter, one sees the snake as the rope.

Like that, when one views this world from Brahmanistha ( established in the unwavering Being, the SELF), then the world of multiplicity/duplicity/disharmony is replaced by Satcinanda. In fact a poor use of words, there is no replacement, ones 20-20-20 vision returns.
Why three 20's?.
The right eye is that of the Sun, Surya. This is the eye of dharma - that which upholds or holds together. One is established in Universal Dharma. He that upholds the natural law of Creation, an expression of Satcinanda.

The left eye - is that of the moon, Chandra. This is the development of compassion and empathy. The heart becomes fully developed as all beings/objects and the like are seen as expressions of Satcinanda.

The ajna - Is that of divine sight. It is that of Agni. What is developed is Ritambhara prajna - or that which only knows the truth ( originally said as unalloyed , unblemished truth). This satyam expresses as Satcinanda.


Perhaps others have a POV on this matter and we can then discuss their ideas and thoughts.

pranams,

Madhavan
05 October 2007, 02:10 PM
Pranam yajvan,

Thank you again for your highly informative reply.
I find this thread quite interesting and would like to pursue some more relevant questions, if you don't mind. Perhaps, other members can share their thoughts as well.

It has been established that maya, (she who veils), illusion is none other than THAT. Therefore, it can also be said, that the combination of the real and unreal, can produce something apparently real.

It shows that the apparent world (creation) could arise from undefinable maya, since maya can be both unreal and produce something apparently real.

The ancients say: When the illusive power, Maya, disappears, what remains is Pure Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. Sat Cit Ananda.

Your thoughts?

The concept of mAyA is related an important topic known as adhyAsa or superimposition.

The obstacle to enlightenment is a misconception on our part, which superimposes up the real and non-real, which drives an empirical view of the world as an apparent duality of subjects, objects, and means of knowing these objects. The misconception is innate to us, and is called by the name adhyAsa( superimposition). This adyAsa is the basis of avidyA. Once this avidyA is removed, what is left is vidyA or knowledge that is the experience of brahman, the Ultimate Reality.

To get into adhyAsa we must ask:

Atman is real, and is the eternal subject I . Everything else is not real, and is perceived as a separate object. How is it possible to superimpose the concepts of subject and object, as they are by nature as different as light and dark. Such confusion should be theoretically impossible. ( this is the main objection raised by dualists as to how such confusion can ever happen)


It is, however, a matter of common experience , that, through lack of discrimination, we superimpose concepts on each other and their qualities, even though they and their attributes are utterly distinct in nature due by false knowledge , it is a human error to confuse the real and the non, real or the "I" and "mine". We see duality where in reality there is none, we mistake one thing for another every day.( especially so during twilights)

How is adhyAsa defined?

1) It is simply the superimposing the qualities of one thing on another.
2) It is a confusion of our faculty to discriminate.
3) It is the superimposing two entities things and their attributes that are of opposite nature.

A few examples are given in the classical texts:

a) Seeing silver in the shell.
b) Mirage in a desert.
c) Seeing two moons when one eye is slightly pressed.

yajvan
06 October 2007, 01:26 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namate K,

Many ideas have been offered to you for your consideration. Yet at the end of the day, this ignorance exists and is beyond just an intellectual POV.

That is to say, we talk of these constraints of ones inability to view the Fullness of Being, Bhuma, Brahman. There are also physical and meta-physical constraints that one has to remove, dissolve or work though.
Simple stress in the system is one. It inhibits the 'village of the senses' the nervous system to perceive and experience the finer levels of consciousness. This is part of transcending. ANother is vasanas or past impressions, incloded into our mind-frame if you let me use that word.

So ,we offer the intellect 'food' for understanding, to give a vision of possibilitieds of what Reality may look like. Yet the experience of pure consciousness, finer levels of consciousness, are also needed. That is, knowledge and experience. One compliments the other.

We talk of the banana, its shape, color and taste, yet the knowledge blossoms when one peels back the skin and takes a bite. Then the knowledge has merit in the actual taste. Like that.

So to fully offer the total comprehension of this subject we have maya down pat, because all we need to do is look around and we see duality. Now what to do about seeing Unity? About experiencing turiya? This is the 'taste of the banana' if you will.

pranams,

atanu
06 October 2007, 02:16 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~
-----So to fully offer the total comprehension of this subject we have maya down pat, because all we need to do is look around and we see duality. Now what to do about seeing Unity? About experiencing turiya? This is the 'taste of the banana' if you will.
pranams,

Pranam,

I still need the following answers.
What is there in curves and flesh? Why orgasmic bliss is mistakenly related to symmetry or oomph etc of another? What is there in sensuality?

Or is this topic a taboo?

Om

yajvan
06 October 2007, 05:04 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Pranam,
I still need the following answers. What is there in curves and flesh? Why orgasmic bliss is mistakenly related to symmetry or oomph etc of another? What is there in sensuality? Or is this topic a taboo?

Om

Namaste atanu,
I am happy to take a stab at your question, yet do not get the jest of what you ask... can you try a different angle, metaphor or the like to position the question. that is:


what is the attraction to curves and flesh that move us to passion?
bliss of organism? = same as what is there in sensuality that attracts us, I will presume.
symmetry or oomph ? I do not comprehendI get point 1, but not point 2 and 3.


dhanyavad

atanu
07 October 2007, 03:55 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~~
Namaste atanu,
I am happy to take a stab at your question, yet do not get the jest of what you ask... can you try a different angle, metaphor or the like to position the question. that is:

what is the attraction to curves and flesh that move us to passion?
bliss of organism? = same as what is there in sensuality that attracts us, I will presume.
symmetry or oomph ? I do not comprehendI get point 1, but not point 2 and 3.
dhanyavad

Namaste Yajvan Ji,

What and whence is that ignorance which makes one try to find the bliss (let's say bliss of orgasm) through another?

Why some form of another is more sought after? Why there is a preferred sense of beauty and attractiveness where actually the flesh is just inert?

Why one needs another to enjoy that bliss at all when that momentary bliss is simply obtained through friction of some nerves?

Isn't this running after another to taste the bliss, which belongs to oneself, is the greatest Maya to which which we are tied like puppets?

If yes, then why so? What's at the root of this false sensual attraction?

Om

Kaos
07 October 2007, 11:13 AM
“Just as the perceiver of a pot is ever distinctly different from the pot and can never be the pot – so too, you, the perceiver of your body, are distinct from your body and can never be the body – this you firmly ascertain in yourself.”

Vakya Vritti
Adi Sankaracharya

Namaste Atanu, and all,

I think, the root of the problem is the mis-identification of one's "self" as the body.

Nuno Matos
07 October 2007, 11:28 AM
Namaste Kaos


"I think, the root of the problem is the mis-identification of one's "self" as the body."

But the body is a part of Brahman!


Om namah shivaya!

Kaos
07 October 2007, 11:31 AM
But the body is a part of Brahman!




Namaste Nuno M.,

Is Brahman born?

atanu
07 October 2007, 11:32 AM
“Just as the perceiver of a pot is ever distinctly different from the pot and can never be the pot – so too, you, the perceiver of your body, are distinct from your body and can never be the body – this you firmly ascertain in yourself.”

Vakya Vritti
Adi Sankaracharya

Namaste Atanu, and all,

I think, the root of the problem is the mis-identification of one's "self" as the body.

Namaste Kaos,

Yes, mis-identification of one's "self" as the body -- that's the root problem no doubt.

Yet, if I am not the body then whose passion I see rising (pun intended)?


Om

Nuno Matos
07 October 2007, 11:56 AM
Namaste Kaos and Atanu

" Is Brahman born? "

" Yet, if I am not the body then whose passion I see rising (pun intended)? "

Very well said Atanu

Kaos
07 October 2007, 11:59 AM
Namaste Kaos,

Yes, mis-identification of one's "self" as the body -- that's the root problem no doubt.

Yet, if I am not the body then whose passion I see rising (pun intended)?


Om

Namaste Atanu and all,

My response to that would be that this maya illusion, produces the passion (joy?) by it's own destruction?

Why destruction?

My response to that would be, because attachment to this passion, to this false sense of identity leads to bondage.

Again, these are only my own words and thoughts. I would like to invite others to share their thoughts and viewpoints.

Kaos
07 October 2007, 12:17 PM
Yet, if I am not the body then whose passion I see rising (pun intended)?





No ones.

Nuno Matos
07 October 2007, 12:32 PM
Namaste Kaos

" No ones."

Lol! Dont you think that´s funny. And yet it is true, we are "no ones" as well.

Nuno Matos
07 October 2007, 12:58 PM
Namaste Kaos

What do i find to be "maya"?
Well maya belongs to Brahman it´s is the result of the uncaused cause called brahma which is unborn . Maya is Saguna Brahman and the self of that i.e. maya is brahma. Brahma by it self is maya the same as vacuum only joined on Saguna Brahman does Brahma becomes the Self i.e. Brahman. It is important not to confound the method with it´s results.


Om namah Shivaya!

Kaos
07 October 2007, 01:53 PM
Namaste Kaos

" No ones."

Lol! Dont you think that´s funny. And yet it is true, we are "no ones" as well.


It is said, that the Lord, time, prakrti and the living entity are permanent and eternal. The manifestations of prakrti are temporary, but not false.

Therefore, the "you" and the "i" are only apparently real.



There is only Brahman

yajvan
07 October 2007, 02:29 PM
Namaste Yajvan Ji,

What and whence is that ignorance which makes one try to find the bliss (let's say bliss of orgasm) through another?

Why some form of another is more sought after? Why there is a preferred sense of beauty and attractiveness where actually the flesh is just inert?

Why one needs another to enjoy that bliss at all when that momentary bliss is simply obtained through friction of some nerves?

Isn't this running after another to taste the bliss, which belongs to oneself, is the greatest Maya to which which we are tied like puppets?

If yes, then why so? What's at the root of this false sensual attraction?

Om

Namaste Atanu,
I now see the question… Let me offer some possible perspectives. IMHO the senses are acting within the field of the sense that motivates one to objects in general. Here are few concepts and ideas. Its a little long winded as I wanted to offer simular points from simple-physical to more spiritual.

I am not the final authority on this matter and always look for others to add more dimensions. Here is my initial thinking:

Natural attraction to others is that of natural procreation. As we have hunger for food there is the hunger for procreation; Hence this is one of the drivers.
Having intimacy with another is also natures natural tranquilizer; One benefits from this in this manner. Overdone, it depletes one of vital energy e.g. ojas and depletes ones overall constitution
Yajnavalkya's conversation with his wife Maitreyi in the Maitreyi Brahmana of the Brihadaranyaka I think is a root explanation.He explains, 'Not for the love of the husband my dear is the husband dear to his wife, but for the love of the SELF'. He goes on to describe this for 10 in total ( Our 10 number returns!) beings - wife, sons, gods, bramana, kshatriya, etc.

It simply suggests and guides us that all love is directed to the SELF. Now, let me be clear, love here does not mean the passion of intimacy. Yet it suggests the natural attraction of the SELF, to us, and the magnetism of the sense for something grater then itself, or the individual to the universal.
This for me suggests that natural looking and seeking the Infinite. If in fact we say that the Infinite is Ananda, bliss, and then has an intimate relationship, some bliss is experienced, even for a short time, it suggests to the senses, I have found a source for this bliss, let me go back to the well. If perchance I will have this experience, maybe this is what I was looking for. Maybe this time it will last longer the a fleeting moment. It is this natural search for joy, that brings one back to kama. Yet we know this is not the answer, to the senses, it is a taste. Now one asks does this become food ana for one of the 5 kosha's that brings one back to the kama. It seems to feed the first 3 koshas (annamaya, pranamaya and manomaya)

So lets advance to the Artabhaga Brahmana. The sage Artabhaga addresses Yajnavalka about the sense organs. Yajnavalka explains how the organs are 'seized' by their objects… that is, the organ of smell is seized by odour e.g. the nose smells cookies and the mind goes there. The tongue is siezed by taste, the eye is seized by form-objects. He says the mind is also a sense organ and it too is seized by desire. So with passion, the skin, the fingers, the lips, and other parts of ones anatomy is seized by touch.It is interesting that in this kanda the term graha is used, associated with the organs of the senses. This Graha has a few meanings - it is considered 'that which binds or holds' and we also know the grahas are the planets which do the same, bind and hold. They, the grahas are also associated with the senses, Sani is that of air/vayu tattva and gives on the sense of touch, smell is that of Buddhi of solid, privati, earth and gives rise to smell; Venus gives rise to fluids, taste, tongue and that of passions, etc etc. So there is a tight correlation here with the term graha used in this valli.

Hence - we have the senses operating within the field of the sense or objects that attract and bind. Add to this that touch and taste and smell and hearing, the senses are completely engaged during intimacy and they find delight/joy in the outcome, how does one not go back to this well to drink again?

The mind has this natural desire for expansion of happiness, that of more. It is said, that the desire for final freedom, for Infinity or Moksha, when projected through the senses becomes a desire for objects and possessions. It’s the notion that' perhaps this object, this feeling is it…that will make me feel full. The initial joy one has is there, and fleeting, then the mind goes back for its search for the Infinite again. We are wired as such - for more and more. This is the Universal itch for the Infinite that only gets scratched when one is possessed of the SELF.
In the final analysis, it is the desire for the Infinite; to be in Union again with Bhuma. And, this passion and relationship is that with the Divine, as to who is your partner anyway? an extention of your SELF, that of Brahman.pranams,

Nuno Matos
07 October 2007, 02:34 PM
Namaste Kaos

"It is said, that the Lord, time, prakrti and the living entity are permanent and eternal. The manifestations of prakrti are temporary, but not false.

Therefore, the "you" and the "i" are only apparently real."



Can you please expand the relation above?

Nuno Matos
07 October 2007, 02:53 PM
Namaste kaos


[Therefore, the "you" and the "i" are only apparently real."]


They are real just non different.

suresh
08 October 2007, 01:36 AM
Why some form of another is more sought after? Why there is a preferred sense of beauty and attractiveness where actually the flesh is just inert?

Why one needs another to enjoy that bliss at all when that momentary bliss is simply obtained through friction of some nerves?


Maybe, this bliss obtained 'through the friction of nerves' is the only bliss there is. That could be a strong possibility, perhaps concrete reality to most people. Why? Because this 'bliss' has been experienced from time immemorial, from the cavemen to the civilized folk.

OTOH, the 'bliss within', whatever that may be, has been experienced by very, very few people, so not only its authenticity but the authenticity of the experiencer can be questioned.:( Inert or not, 99% of humans, regardless of their religion, race, gender, find some kind of beauty in the flesh, in its symmetry, curves, and all the rest. So there has to be some truth in it. In fact, the idea that bliss is within could be maya, because it's something that's never experienced, yet we believe it to be true!

In short, what we call 'bliss of the self' could be maya, a thing that appears to be true though essentially false. Whereas, bliss from external objects might be the only reality, considering humanity's collective experiences from the dawn of time.

Suresh

atanu
08 October 2007, 06:53 AM
---Inert or not, 99% of humans, regardless of their religion, race, gender, find some kind of beauty in the flesh, in its symmetry, curves, and all the rest. So ---In short, ----bliss from external objects might be the only reality, ----
Suresh


Suresh,

You have got me thinking. Have you ever seen a normal person lusting after a curvaceous dead body?

Om

suresh
08 October 2007, 07:06 AM
Suresh,

You have got me thinking. Have you ever seen a normal person lusting after a curvaceous dead body?

Om

And your point?

Kaos
08 October 2007, 07:30 AM
Suresh,

You have got me thinking. Have you ever seen a normal person lusting after a curvaceous dead body?

Om


Namaste Atanu and all,


I would think, all these illusions originate in the mind.

atanu
08 October 2007, 08:27 AM
Namaste Suresh,


And your point?

The point is obvious. You said "---Inert or not, 99% of humans, regardless of their religion, race, gender, find some kind of beauty in the flesh, in its symmetry, curves, and all the rest---".

Thereafter, I wondered if the beauty, attraction and bliss are in the flesh and its curves etc., then why a curvaceous dead body does not appeal?


Maybe, this bliss obtained 'through the friction of nerves' is the only bliss there is ---- In short, what we call 'bliss of the self' could be maya --- Whereas, bliss from external objects might be the only reality

So, as per you the 'bliss of the self' is maya and bliss from the external objects is the reality?

I wonder why we sleep blissfully when there are no objects? I wonder why some external objects ( appear to give more pleasure than others -- what is the role of our own preference and desire in this? I wonder where from the bliss that is generated upon friction of nerves comes from -- does it come from air around us?

Om

Kaos
08 October 2007, 09:01 AM
Namaste Atanu and all,

Allow me to participate some more in this interesting discussion. I invite others to join in and share their thoughts as well.


According to Shri Adi Sankaracharya :
The world is not an illusion. The world is relatively real (Vyavaharika Satta), while Brahman is absolutely real (Paramarthika Satta). The unchanging Brahman appears as the changing world because of a superimposition of non-Self (objects) on Self (subject - Brahman). This is called Avidya.

The Jiva or the individual soul is only relatively real. Its individuality lasts only so long as it is subject to unreal Upadhis or limiting conditions due to Avidya. The Jiva identifies itself with the body, mind and the senses, when it is deluded by Avidya or ignorance. Just as the bubble becomes one with the ocean when it bursts, so also the Jiva or the empirical self becomes one with Brahman when it gets knowledge of Brahman. When knowledge dawns in it through annihilation of Avidya, it is freed from its individuality and finitude and realizes its essential Satchidananda nature. It merges itself in the ocean of bliss. The river of life joins the ocean of existence. This is the Truth.



In the words of Adi Sankaracharya :

The whole universe is a projection of the mind;
therefore it is a mode of the mind,
The true nature of the mind
is bliss, and when the mind
is stilled, bliss absolute is revealed.

Chapter VI, Avadhutta Gita.



My question is, if the whole universe, creation is a projection of the mind.

Whose mind is it?

Any takers?

suresh
08 October 2007, 09:08 AM
Thereafter, I wondered if the beauty, attraction and bliss are in the flesh and its curves etc., then why a curvaceous dead body does not appeal?


Suppose the person concerned doesn't know that it's a dead body, don't you think the reaction will be different?


I wonder where from the bliss that is generated upon friction of nerves comes from -- does it come from air around us?

It's a physiological response producing pleasure, that's all.

suresh
08 October 2007, 09:17 AM
My question is, if the whole universe, creation is a projection of the mind.

Whose mind is it?

Any takers?

The materialist may argue that this idea itself is as illusory as a flower in the sky, thus proving that there's nothing beyond matter, and that anything else one may consider beyond sensory perception is also maya. Hence, we must conclude that 'Jagat Satya, Brahman Mithya!;)

Kaos
08 October 2007, 09:29 AM
The materialist may argue that this idea itself is as illusory as a flower in the sky, thus proving that there's nothing beyond matter, and that anything else one may consider beyond sensory perception is also maya. Hence, we must conclude that 'Jagat Satya, Brahman Mithya!;)


Interesting.
Therefore, if indeed we must conclude that there is nothing beyond matter, who does the concluding? Who does the thinking?

suresh
08 October 2007, 10:29 AM
Interesting.
Therefore, if indeed we must conclude that there is nothing beyond matter, who does the concluding? Who does the thinking?

Brain is the center of thinking. Does that answer your q?

Suresh

Kaos
08 October 2007, 10:34 AM
Brain is the center of thinking. Does that answer your q?

Suresh


Does a preserved cadaver brain in a formalin glass jar think?

Something other than this lump of brain cells, nerves and tissues must make this brain think.

suresh
08 October 2007, 12:57 PM
Does a preserved cadaver brain in a formalin glass jar think?

Something other than this lump of brain cells, nerves and tissues must make this brain think.

If there's such a thing, there's no proof of its existence. Regarding your q, brain doesn't function in isolation, certain conditions need to be fulfilled, heart has to function for the organism to be 'alive', in which case the brain does its natural function-thinking.

Nuno Matos
08 October 2007, 01:08 PM
Namaste all

I am enjoying very much this debate i only want to add this two concepts that i think might help some of us.
They are:

1º Budhi/Ahamkara and,
2º The Universal mind who controls all created minds

atanu
08 October 2007, 07:39 PM
Namaskar Suresh


Suppose the person concerned doesn't know that it's a dead body, don't you think the reaction will be different?

Well such a person may as well enjoy making love to a piece of stone.



It's a physiological response producing pleasure, that's all.

I will repeat what Kaos has said: Who knows about the pleasure? Who seeks it? In a dead body, the brain does not seek pleasure nor does it feel pleasure.

If it is a plain physiological response then why seek an attractive partner? A stone piece should be sufficient. Or one should be satisfied with masturbation. Also, eventually one may not be satisfied with a partner and may seek a new spice. Is this the story of re-birth?

Further, you have not pondered upon: "--- wonder why we sleep blissfully when there are no objects? I wonder why some external objects ( appear to give more pleasure than others -- what is the role of our own preference and desire in this?"


Regarding your q, brain doesn't function in isolation, certain conditions need to be fulfilled, heart has to function for the organism to be 'alive', in which case the brain does its natural function-thinking.

In a dead body nothing appears to function. A dead body and plain soil are not different.


The materialist may argue that this idea itself is as illusory as a flower in the sky, thus proving that there's nothing beyond matter, and that anything else one may consider beyond sensory perception is also maya. Hence, we must conclude that 'Jagat Satya, Brahman Mithya!

Yes. For being such a materialist, you have to agree that an inert stone is more powerful than you, since it has the power to create a thinking person like you. A stone has the power to animate itself, without your help at all.


Om

yajvan
08 October 2007, 07:52 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste all

I am enjoying very much this debate i only want to add this two concepts that i think might help some of us.
They are:

1º Budhi/Ahamkara and,
2º The Universal mind who controls all created minds

Namaste Nuno,
these points will contribute- so , please jump in and an apply them...lets see what unfolds.



http://www.rudraksha-ratna.com/images/mantra_images/M4.gif
Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya

pranams,

suresh
08 October 2007, 11:01 PM
Namaskar Atanu,


Namaskar Suresh



Well such a person may as well enjoy making love to a piece of stone.



I will repeat what Kaos has said: Who knows about the pleasure? Who seeks it? In a dead body, the brain does not seek pleasure nor does it feel pleasure.

and


If it is a plain physiological response then why seek an attractive partner? A stone piece should be sufficient.

These qs are based on the misconception that all inanimate matter are one and the same. They are not. That should answer all these questions.


Further, you have not pondered upon: "--- wonder why we sleep blissfully when there are no objects?

The brain, after a hard day's work, is tired, so it retires into silence. It doesn't function as actively as it does during the waking state. We translate this as bliss, because relatively speaking, it seems to be way better than the tension and stress we go through in the waking state. Nothing more.


In a dead body nothing appears to function. A dead body and plain soil are not different.

Again, this is based on the misconception that all inanimate matter are one. When you're thirsty, you don't drink poison, you drink water, you don't argue that they're both inanimate and therefore, must be the same. Likewise, every object is unique, serving a unique purpose, which is why some objects appear attractive, while others don't. Naturally, comparisons between dead body, stones, soil, are meaningless.

Suresh

Kaos
09 October 2007, 12:32 AM
I
If there's such a thing, there's no proof of its existence.



Namaste Suresh,

Are you saying there is no proof of the existence of mind... how about the existence of consciousness?




Regarding your q, brain doesn't function in isolation, certain conditions need to be fulfilled, heart has to function for the organism to be 'alive', in which case the brain does its natural function-thinking.




What about a perfectly physically healthy person who has been traumatized by war, violence, i.e. PTSD.

The person is physically fit and healthy and yet, something's wrong with the mind. What happened to the mind? If the mind did not exist apart from the brain, which considered none other than a sense organ, then this person would be considered perfectly healthy. And yet, obviously, a person suffering from PTSD is not.

Your thoughts?

suresh
09 October 2007, 12:59 AM
Namaste Kaos,



Are you saying there is no proof of the existence of mind... how about the existence of consciousness?

Brain is the seat of consciousness, which means there's no consciousness apart from the brain.


What about a perfectly physically healthy person who has been traumatized by war, violence, i.e. PTSD.

The person is physically fit and healthy and yet, something's wrong with the mind. What happened to the mind? If the mind did not exist apart from the brain, which considered none other than a sense organ, then this person would be considered perfectly healthy. And yet, obviously, a person suffering from PTSD is not.

Your thoughts?

Brain is the center of memories, from where thinking originates. Suppose your memory goes back to an unpleasant incident, your body is affected. Your heart rate may go up, your breathing could be erratic, and so on. In short, brain's activity affects the rest of the body, and vice versa. This explains PTSD without any reference to 'mind' as distinct from the brain.

Suresh

Kaos
09 October 2007, 01:34 AM
Namaste Kaos,

Brain is the seat of consciousness, which means there's no consciousness apart from the brain.




Ramakrishna said that the heart was like God's living room. So we need to keep it clean. Ramana Maharshi explained that to seek true Consciousness you must concentrate on the Heart which is the seat of Consciousness or is Consciousness itself. The heart is another name for Reality, he said, and this is neither inside nor outside the body.


So where is the real seat of consciousness? Which is it, is it the heart or the brain? Any takers?

atanu
09 October 2007, 02:09 AM
Namaskar Atanu,

These qs are based on the misconception that all inanimate matter are one and the same. They are not. That should answer all these questions.
------
Again, this is based on the misconception that all inanimate matter are one. -.

Suresh

Very good points Suresh.

I agree to discuss from your perspective. So, all inanimate matter are not one. Some inanimate matter are inanimate -- lifeless. And some inanimate matter are animate -- full of life.

Ha Ha.

The question is where from the life and desire? Who has the desire? What animates and what makes one intelligent?
Om

atanu
09 October 2007, 02:17 AM
The brain, after a hard day's work, is tired, so it retires into silence. It doesn't function as actively as it does during the waking state. We translate this as bliss, because relatively speaking, it seems to be way better than the tension and stress we go through in the waking state. Nothing more.
---

"The brain, after a hard day's work, is tired, so it retires into silence". I wonder what you do when the brain retires into silence. You agree that it is a relatively happier state even though there are no objects to play with.

Om

suresh
09 October 2007, 07:09 AM
Very good points Suresh.

I agree to discuss from your perspective. So, all inanimate matter are not one. Some inanimate matter are inanimate -- lifeless. And some inanimate matter are animate -- full of life.


That's news to me.;) If inanimate matter is full of life, it'd cease to be inanimate matter. It's that simple. Let me give an example.

Water quenches your thirst, whereas poison kills. So there's a diff. between the two with respect to the purpose they serve, even though both of them are inanimate matter, jada vastu. Would you like to say "water and poison are both inanimate, yet water is more animate-full of life?" Evidently not, that would be silly. But that's exactly what you're suggesting.:)


"The brain, after a hard day's work, is tired, so it retires into silence". I wonder what you do when the brain retires into silence. You agree that it is a relatively happier state even though there are no objects to play with.

The brain is quiet without being overactive, that's all there's to it. You may translate this to happiness, but where's the evidence for this? None, whatsoever.

Suresh

suresh
09 October 2007, 07:16 AM
Ramakrishna said that the heart was like God's living room. So we need to keep it clean. Ramana Maharshi explained that to seek true Consciousness you must concentrate on the Heart which is the seat of Consciousness or is Consciousness itself. The heart is another name for Reality, he said, and this is neither inside nor outside the body.


So where is the real seat of consciousness? Which is it, is it the heart or the brain? Any takers?

With due respect to RM's words, there's no evidence that the heart is the seat of consciousness, and moreover, RM and RK are referring to the heart chakra, not the physical heart. If that's the case, I am afraid there's not much evidence for the existence of chakras and the rest. So we're forced to conclude that the brain is the seat of consciousness.:)

Kaos
09 October 2007, 07:22 AM
.. brain doesn't function in isolation, certain conditions need to be fulfilled, heart has to function for the organism to be 'alive', in which case the brain does its natural function-thinking.

Namaste Suresh,

I have the impression that you are giving us a materialistic view of everything, creation, etc. That there is no god, no controller, etc., etc..

Are you suggesting that perhaps, you or someone else could put attach together different body parts including a brain a heart, blood vessels, muscles, etc. and create a living human being?

Where is the evidence?

Or rather, do all these parts simply come together naturally at some point in time, without some sort of controller? Hmmm....

atanu
09 October 2007, 07:34 AM
That's news to me.;) If inanimate matter is full of life, it'd cease to be inanimate matter. It's that simple. Let me give an example.


Namaskar Suresh,

Suresh, I had asked why a person desires an attractive living being and not a stone? You answered "These qs are based on the misconception that all inanimate matter are one and the same. They are not. That should answer all these questions."

For reference the matter is cited below.




If it is a plain physiological response then why seek an attractive partner? A stone piece should be sufficient.


These qs are based on the misconception that all inanimate matter are one and the same. They are not. That should answer all these questions.


I was comparing life with inert and you said that all inanimate matter differ. So, from your premise only, I deduce that some inanimate matter may be animate after all.




The brain is quiet without being overactive, that's all there's to it. You may translate this to happiness, but where's the evidence for this? None, whatsoever.

Suresh

Well you only said "We translate this as bliss, because relatively speaking, it seems to be way better than the tension and stress we go through in the waking state. Nothing more."

Now you say that there is no evidence. If it seems to be better then that is the evidence. What other evidence is required? If you were not happy in deep sleep, would you ache to go to sleep every night?

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

This discussion with Suresh is not what I wished for.


Yajvan has answered the queries comprehensively as to what may be the root cause of seeking sexual bliss through a partner.

The hidden root cause is desire for progeny -- to try to become immortal. But another cause is to share pleasure with a so-called another. But seeing another in pleasure, one partakes of that pleasure. One's pleasure is multiplied, so, it is also the pleasure of the Self. Both these points are covered in Brihadaraynaka Upanishad. We are just restating.

And to me, it is the greatest effect of Maya that we do not realise that whatever we do, is actually the worship of the Self. Only the intervening ego sense of doership needs effacement.

Om

Kaos
09 October 2007, 07:38 AM
So we're forced to conclude that the brain is the seat of consciousness.:)




So, if the the brain is the seat of consciousness. What happens when a person in a coma, with the brain fully intact, is declared brain dead?

Can you say, that his brain is still the seat of his consciousness?

What makes the brain work? What makes the brain think? Is it simply a matter of chance that the neurons, cells, blood vessels somehow assembled themselves together to be able to function?

Did you create your own brain? Or did your brain parts simply come together by chance accident?

Kaos
09 October 2007, 07:46 AM
I agree with Atanu.
The materialistic viewpoint that certain inanimate body parts simply coming together as if by chance and somehow a human being is born and perhaps create a wonderful masterpiece, etc. simply do not hold.

There is no evidence of that.

Therefore, there must be something else other than simply inanimate organs and body parts.

sm78
09 October 2007, 07:51 AM
With due respect to RM's words, there's no evidence that the heart is the seat of consciousness, and moreover, RM and RK are referring to the heart chakra, not the physical heart. If that's the case, I am afraid there's not much evidence for the existence of chakras and the rest. So we're forced to conclude that the brain is the seat of consciousness.:)


Evidence comes from practice of a spiritual path. Not we, but you may conclude what you have concluded. ;)

Though there have been a lot of posts on this site, on how modern science echoes the ancient ideas of our rishis regarding life, matter and universe, I'll not argue on these lines. Clearly, matter has not been denied in our religion, but something beyond it has been indicated. But the fact is, one cannot point out the consciousness to someone who just sees the matter.

However the materialist cannot disprove the existence of consciousness as well. This is the crux. And, as for the materialist, as long he is happy with the matter, the spiritualist and God adds little value to him and rightly.

...... As long as he doesn't appear as a road block to the spiritualist.

Whether materialist or spiritualist, no one can deny the impermanence of sensual objects and the suffering that is present in this world.

The spiritualist only says there is a way to end this suffering and offers the same.

atanu
09 October 2007, 08:34 AM
Namaste Kaos,

Brain is the seat of consciousness, which means there's no consciousness apart from the brain.

Brain is the center of memories, Suresh

Namaste Suresh,

Visualise a dead man. The brain is there, the pump called heart is there. Liver is there. The DNA chromosome everything is there.

The brain, which you say is the center of memories, should then cry out "I am so and so, I am conscious. Do not take me to the funeral pyre."

Om

Nuno Matos
09 October 2007, 08:14 PM
Namaste friends

Budhi is understanding or the capacity of making distinctions and Ahamkara the Ego or the sustainer and manas the conceptual mind. All this three together are what i call MIND! Organics out for the propose of exposition; sometimes i use term Jiva.
The Jiva knows nothing he lives in the light projected by is mind i.e Education. I love the expression " under the veil of maya".
The Universal MIND can be understood in a simple way as consciousness that overtakes and controls the ordinary jiva. There are some who say collective consciousness others say the "veil of maya".:rolleyes:
According to the Upanishads the Mind has errors and one way of dealing with maya is by reducing errors i.e. karma trough meditation. Ore by discriminating the real.
Do know yourself.


Om namah shivaya

Nuno Matos
09 October 2007, 08:28 PM
Namaste

From the Yoga Sutra chapter IV, Kaivalya Páda, aphorisms 5º and 6º:

5. Pravritti-bhede prayojakam chittam ekam anekshám.

6. Tatra dhyánajamanáshayam.

suresh
10 October 2007, 07:45 AM
As I feel I am repeating myself without getting any relevant response, I'll try to approach it differently.

If happiness doesn't depend on external objects, why is there total boredom instead of pleasure, when there are no external objects to keep our minds occupied with? Doesn't that contradict the theory that happiness is within, and doesn't depend on anything external?

Boredom, loneliness, fear etc. are the most common experiences, when a person isn't preoccupied with external objects. Some people even go mad. These experiences, far from proving the 'happiness is within' theory, prove the exact opposite. Further, there's not much evidence for this theory except for some vague passages in scriptures, and some sayings from famous people. Objectively speaking, we can't consider these as pramaana.

Hence, we can conclude that the theory is an illusion, and that happiness is only derived from external objects. This seems to be the realistic approach. Everything else seems to be wishful thinking without much substance.

Suresh

Kaos
10 October 2007, 09:27 AM
As I feel I am repeating myself without getting any relevant response, I'll try to approach it differently.

... and that happiness is only derived from external objects. This seems to be the realistic approach. Everything else seems to be wishful thinking without much substance.

Suresh


Namaste Suresh,

It's funny that you consider others here to be "repeating themselves" and irrelevant. On the other hand, I think, it is you who indeed keeps repeating himself with your materialistic viewpoint and your "there is no evidence" mantra over and over again.

If happiness is only derived from external objects, then why do fat people over-consume, why do they over eat? Obviously, what they have is more than sufficient already. And yet, something within themselves, something beyond the mere aggregation of flesh and bones, propel these individuals to engage in eating and consuming more and more, despite the fact that they already have more than enough already.

No offense, but your position that there is nothing other than matter, is actually, no pun intended, without substance. :)

atanu
10 October 2007, 11:12 AM
As I feel I am repeating myself without getting any relevant response, I'll try to approach it differently.
----

Namaskar Suresh,

You are correct that you are repeating yourself (like a parrot) -- without contemplating a bit and reading a bit. And unnecessarily you are denigrating scriptures.

Within and without are mental concepts. The boredom you are talking about is also a mental thought.

If objects were what gave happiness then there would be no stealing, no hoarding, no divorce, no war. Objects only lead to discontentment and desire (in absence of knowledge of the real source of happiness).

Happiness has no out and in -- such as in deep sleep. Yet deep sleep is a thought of absence of any thought and there is ignorance in the form of darkness.

Beyond deep sleep is that waking deep sleep (happiness-Turya) where there is no 'in and out' and no ignorance.

Sages have talked of this state as immortal and there are living beings who transmit the peace of this state without touch or with touch.

Your insisting again and again about vague upanishadic teachings is unbecoming.


If objects were what gave happiness then there would be no stealing, no hoarding, no divorce, no war. Objects only lead to discontentment and desire (in absence of knowledge of the real source of happiness).


Om

satay
10 October 2007, 12:01 PM
If happiness doesn't depend on external objects, why is there total boredom instead of pleasure, when there are no external objects to keep our minds occupied with? Doesn't that contradict the theory that happiness is within, and doesn't depend on anything external?
Suresh

Namaste!

Hinduism and thus HDF has a place for people who share your worldview. Please post in the carvaka forum more about your worldview http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=32

Thanks,

Kaos
10 October 2007, 12:04 PM
...thus proving that there's nothing beyond matter, and that anything else one may consider beyond sensory perception is also maya.




If there is nothing beyond matter, what differentiates a rock from a young child. How come a young child sneezes and snores and makes wonderful sand castles and sometimes gets bored while a rock does not? :)

Kaos
10 October 2007, 10:02 PM
I am afraid there's not much evidence for the existence of chakras and the rest. .:)




Namaste suresh,

Do you have a mind?

Or is there no evidence for the existence of your mind as well. :)

suresh
11 October 2007, 01:48 AM
Namaste!

Hinduism and thus HDF has a place for people who share your worldview. Please post in the carvaka forum more about your worldview http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=32

Thanks,

Thanks for the wonderful opportunity, but not being a charvaka, I am afraid I'll have to pass.:)

suresh
11 October 2007, 02:45 AM
Namaskar Suresh,

You are correct that you are repeating yourself (like a parrot) -- without contemplating a bit and reading a bit. And unnecessarily you are denigrating scriptures.

Namaste Atanu,

Perhaps, we should do away with personal attacks?


Within and without are mental concepts. The boredom you are talking about is also a mental thought.

Bottom line, you feel bored when you're empty, when there's no contact with external objects. Whether you define this as thought, feeling, whatever, the fact, however, remains. Why is there boredom rather than bliss, when there's inward aloneness?


If objects were what gave happiness then there would be no stealing, no hoarding, no divorce, no war.

Not sure how. Happiness and sorrow are both realities, both derived from external objects. So if one says happiness is only derived from external objects, does that necessarily mean there's a total cessation of sorrow, and there'll be no war, divorce etc.?:( It's illogical to link the two.


Happiness has no out and in -- such as in deep sleep. Yet deep sleep is a thought of absence of any thought and there is ignorance in the form of darkness.
Beyond deep sleep is that waking deep sleep (happiness-Turya) where there is no 'in and out' and no ignorance.

Unfortunately, there's a problem here. The level of consciousness up to deep sleep, namely waking, dreaming etc., can be considered, because it happens to be a common experience for all people. But there's no pramaana for this 4th level, is there?

Hence, we're forced to consider the 3rd state alone, namely the mere absence of contact with external objects, and the experience we derive from it. For nearly all people, it's boredom/emptiness, not what sages call 'joy of the self', and so forth.

Suresh

p.s.
I hope we can learn from each other, rather than treat this as some kind of verbal duel.

suresh
11 October 2007, 02:55 AM
If happiness is only derived from external objects, then why do fat people over-consume, why do they over eat?

You must ask fat people.;)


And yet, something within themselves, something beyond the mere aggregation of flesh and bones, propel these individuals to engage in eating and consuming more and more

How so? Could there not be a simple reason, such as liking the taste of the food, and so on?

Suresh

atanu
11 October 2007, 04:03 AM
Namaste Suresh,


Namaste Atanu,
Perhaps, we should do away with personal attacks?


Not perhaps but surely. It is welcome. You said that you were repeating without getting any relevant response. There have been responses, which you are not weighing but repeating the same thing. So.



Bottom line, you feel bored when you're empty, when there's no contact with external objects. Whether you define this as thought, feeling, whatever, the fact, however, remains. Why is there boredom rather than bliss, when there's inward aloneness?


The bottom line is that no one is unhappy in deep sleep.



Not sure how. Happiness and sorrow are both realities, both derived from external objects. So if one says happiness is only derived from external objects, does that necessarily mean there's a total cessation of sorrow, and there'll be no war, divorce etc.?:( It's illogical to link the two.


Happiness is the reality, else in absence of thoughts of objects one would not sleep happily. If attaining objects of desire meant happiness then, there should be an end to desire, which never happens.



Unfortunately, there's a problem here. The level of consciousness up to deep sleep, namely waking, dreaming etc., can be considered, because it happens to be a common experience for all people. But there's no pramaana for this 4th level, is there?


Shruti pramana is there. Many have experienced the fourth, which is not a level but the Self that experiences the three states.

You have said "The level of consciousness up to deep sleep, namely waking, dreaming etc., can be considered". May I ask you who is considering the three states of waking, dreaming and sleeping as the only reality? Who?




Hence, we're forced to consider the 3rd state alone, namely the mere absence of contact with external objects, and the experience we derive from it. For nearly all people, it's boredom/emptiness, not what sages call 'joy of the self', and so forth.


Can you prove that you were unhappy due to non contact with objects in your deep sleep?
-------------------------------
Earlier you said that brain is the seat of memory.

I queried: The brain, which you say is the center of memories, should then cry out "I am so and so, I am conscious. Do not take me to the funeral pyre."

There was no response from you to this.

Om

atanu
11 October 2007, 04:15 AM
And yet, something within themselves, something beyond the mere aggregation of flesh and bones, propel these individuals to engage in eating and consuming more and more

How so? Could there not be a simple reason, such as liking the taste of the food, and so on?

Suresh

Though the response is for Kaos, I ask: Who has the taste? Is he an object? If the taster is an object then a further question arises: Who knows the taster? I thought you said there was nothing beyond objects?

Om

Kaos
11 October 2007, 07:39 AM
You must ask fat people.;)




I asked a fat person, and he said, it's the desire of eating which leads to overconsumption inspite of the fact that the activity has lead to his being fat, and perhaps, even unhealthy. We can say that this is some form of an addiction.

Although, at some point, their desire is satisfied, something compels these people to engage in continually seeking to satisfy their lust, desire, craving for whatever it is they seem to be addicted to whether it be drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, sex, etc.

Mind you, I didn't ask a mere lump of fat, muscles, skin and bones. I asked a living, breathing person.

Therefore, something more than a mere mass of external objects is compelled to engage the body to overconsume.

Kaos
11 October 2007, 07:46 AM
I am afraid there's not much evidence for the existence of chakras and the rest.



Namaste suresh,


Do you have energy? Do you have mind? Are you conscious?

Or is there no evidence of your having any "energy", "mind" or "consciousness" as well.

yajvan
11 October 2007, 09:00 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~



That suffering is needed for spiritual advancement
That the earth is rotating at over 1,000 mph and I do not feel the wind in my face. That I cannot, though my senses, feel this movement.
That I see the sun go from east to west, yet one tells me it is me that is moving.
That I have grown over time but cannot point to any one moment to measure the difference.
That my nature is Infinite, yet I would have never discovered this notion on my own, without the help of the Tradition as a guide.
That people are genuinely good and sattvic, yet will kill their own kind when provoked.
That we love dogs and cats and invite them in our homes, but will eat a cow for supper.
That we are compelled to pursue happiness, yet it is within us, and look elsewhere for this miracle.
That many on this earth will kill in the name of the Lord
That some on this good earth think that the 'truth' (satyam) can be measured with numbers and by science.
That we are Whole and Full yet we feel incomplete.
That we acquire finite things to bring us joy and it only burdens us with more things to take care of.
That one group believes their God is better then anothers and that He/She is qualitatively and quantitatively different.
That we are told we have been here before, yet we cannot remember the occasion or the time spent.
That some think the veda's are book and should be read as such , as if it was written by man And - that the world is as we are... if one is having a good day , then all is well. If one is having a bad day, then the world is dark, yet the only thing that changed was the persons view of life.
That many may think actions we perform on our own perhaps even in our own home, behind closed doors only impact and travel no further then the doer of that action. As if a bell was rung, and the vibrations stay secluded to ones property (ether of the body or the home).
In the Mahabharata, a Yaksha asks Yudhishthira (also known as Dharmaraj) , What is the most unbelievable thing in this world?Yudhishthira answers, That people perpetually die in this world, but man acts and lives as though he will never die.
That on this earth we can produce a saint that brings the wisdom and glory of the Divine to the earth he walks on; on the same dirt being walked, there are those that want to bring evil to the family of man.
That one can do good deeds and take a life-time to accomplish this and another can take that life, in one second with a bad deed.
That we talk of time, and zillions and billions of years² that this creation has been in place but what matters is only now.

Namaste,
Adding to my list:


That one can take a container ( glass, or urn, can, or pot), put a top on it and say 'I have contained space inside'.
To take the same idea above , that of our body and say 'I have contained space inside of me'.
To take the same idea, that of the body, and to say, ' I have contained the SELF inside of me and it goes no further then the boundaries of my skin'.
For me to understand these concepts above and appreciate them, yet to still reside in avidya... I know nothing.Indestructible (akshitamasi) you are, Unchangeable (achyutamasi) you are, You are the subtle essence of Prana (pranasamshitamasi) -Chandogya Upanishad [3.17.6]

pranams,

suresh
11 October 2007, 09:38 AM
Namaste Yajvan,

Thanks for this, it's very beautiful.

Just a small clarification, if you don't mind.


Hari Om
~~~~~
Namaste,To take the same idea, that of the body, and to say, ' I have contained the SELF inside of me and it goes no further then the boundaries of my skin'.

If the Self is more powerful than the body, how come it's become a prisoner of the body, and can't leave the body at will?

Or, am I to understand that the self, like space, is all-pervasive, and it's imprisoned in the body, as the space is imprisoned inside the jar? If so, space is insentient, and therefore it's quite understandable as to why it doesn't attain freedom by itself, namely by destroying the jar. But the self being sentient could drop the body to retain its omnipresent status. Yet, it doesn't feel powerful enough to do this.

I am just wondering about this, sharing my thoughts. Sorry if you feel I am hijacking your thread.:) Just let me know, and I won't do it again.

Suresh

Kaos
11 October 2007, 10:25 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste,
Adding to my list:


That one can take a container ( glass, or urn, can, or pot), put a top on it and say 'I have contained space inside'.
To take the same idea above , that of our body and say 'I have contained space inside of me'.
To take the same idea, that of the body, and to say, ' I have contained the SELF inside of me and it goes no further then the boundaries of my skin'.

For me to understand these concepts above and appreciate them, yet to still reside in avidya... I know nothing.Indestructible (akshitamasi) you are, Unchangeable (achyutamasi) you are, You are the subtle essence of Prana (pranasamshitamasi) -Chandogya Upanishad [3.17.6]

pranams,


Namaste yajvan,

Thank you for your valuable thoughts and input. They are much appreciated.

For me, most of the issues and important questions have already been raised and explored in this thread.

I feel, I have no more to contribute and henceforth will remain silent in any further discussion.

To me, I see an interbeing, an interpenetrating view of creation, this universe, this reality. Even that is maya...


Regards,
K

yajvan
11 October 2007, 12:29 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan,

Thanks for this, it's very beautiful.

Just a small clarification, if you don't mind.
If the Self is more powerful than the body, how come it's become a prisoner of the body, and can't leave the body at will?

Or, am I to understand that the self, like space, is all-pervasive, and it's imprisoned in the body, as the space is imprisoned inside the jar? If so, space is insentient, and therefore it's quite understandable as to why it doesn't attain freedom by itself, namely by destroying the jar. But the self being sentient could drop the body to retain its omnipresent status. Yet, it doesn't feel powerful enough to do this.

I am just wondering about this, sharing my thoughts. Sorry if you feel I am hijacking your thread.:) Just let me know, and I won't do it again.

Suresh


Namaste Suresh,
a good question... and please pursue this. This is a good frame of questioning. Let me take a stab at it then:

The SELF is like space itself. Brahman on many occasions is associated to akasha as an ideal example of ITself. Without bounds. We find this in the Upanishads. Like that, we talk much of the Self in us, and yes, this is true. Yet, the nature if IT, is its unboundedness.

The notion of the space in the jar is an example... let me explain. The space in the jar, this akasha, is not a prisoner to the jar. Yet if one looked at it, they would say, you have bounded and contained that space. Yet, it is the SPACE that holds the jar in it! That is, this space, is ubiquitiois, inside and outside the jar and is without containment. Even if you take the jar, close it tightly and walk 100 meters, you have not taken that space with you, because it cannot be contained. You can walk the jar and yourself through space, but have not transported as such.

Like that so is the SELF and yet we hold the thought the SELF resides in us. Sure it does, yet it resides every place else too. It is Brahman, it is not other then Brahman, it is like akasha, every-where.


Just as the earth is turning and moving. We go around the sun and come back to the same location. Say 10 of Aug 2007 there is a specific location in space within the solar system we are at and it is measured. One year from now we come back to the same location. Yet it is not the same space. Why so ? the whole solar system is moving, the galaxy is moving, all the galaxies are moving in this infinite ocean of akasha. No place is the same for even 1/10,000,000 of a second. We float and move in this akasha. So that means, even when you go to work, and come back home to your computer, it looks the same as yesterday, but that akasha is not the same, its a fresh, new space.


This is one of the awakenings one has in enlightenment...unbounded SELF, within me and outside of me, all round.
This was one of the realities my freind experienced for ~ 4 months. There was no place he was not.

http://www.rudraksha-ratna.com/images/mantra_images/M8.gif
Om Sri Maha Lakshmyai Namah

pranams,

atanu
12 October 2007, 01:11 AM
Namaste Yajvan,
---
If the Self is more powerful than the body, how come it's become a prisoner of the body, and can't leave the body at will?
-.
Suresh

Namaste All,

Who has ascertained that the Self is a prisoner of the body and can't leave the body at will?

Om

suresh
12 October 2007, 02:11 AM
Namaste All,

Who has ascertained that the Self is a prisoner of the body and can't leave the body at will?

Om

Isn't it self-evident? Hope you see the irony here!

atanu
12 October 2007, 02:33 AM
Isn't it self-evident? Hope you see the irony here!

Namaste Suresh,

I see the irony very well and so I asked. I wonder whether you can see the irony at all or not? Since you are not pausing with open mind to contemplate what others have written.

Self is advaita. Are you putting up the question as Advaita Self? Is advaita self proclaiming "I am a prisoner?"

Or is it Suresh (not advaita Self) proclaiming that Self is a prisoner.

First know the Advaita Self and then enquire again.

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

I request you to take some time and contemplate on what has already been written. I grant that your questions are of great importance.


Self was never a prisoner and never will be a prisoner. The contrary feeling is from ego, which is Maya and ignorance.

Om

suresh
12 October 2007, 08:50 AM
Namaste Atanu,



First know the Advaita Self and then enquire again.


That's exactly the problem, it's circular reasoning, isn't it? The inquiry is done to ascertain whether or not there's an advaita self, so if one knows the advaita self, inquiry would become redundant. We cannot assume there's an advaita self first, and then start the inquiry. That would be meaningless, as meaningless as assuming a 'round square', then breaking one's head to 'prove' its existence.



Self was never a prisoner and never will be a prisoner. The contrary feeling is from ego, which is Maya and ignorance.I've considered this also, but it poses another problem. Like a dream, this maya will also vanish once we wake up; or so they say. But this does contain the fallacy of interdependence, in that we have to wake to know all this is maya, and at the same, in order to wake up, we must consider this as maya! Premise A must depend on B, and vice versa, so how can this be considered pramaana?


Since you are not pausing with open mind to contemplate what others have written.There's no pramaana for this either.;) And I thought we agreed to do away with such personal remarks?

Suresh

yajvan
12 October 2007, 09:07 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaste Atanu,



That's exactly the problem, it's circular reasoning, isn't it?
There's no pramaana for this either. Suresh

Namste Suresh,
one must consider the SELF and its realization as svatasiddha, or self proven. That is the pramana (means of valid knowldge). This then becomes your experience, its abhaita, or non-contradicted.

Also I am in hope you have time to repsond to my previous post:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=16958&postcount=99

I am interested in your opinions.




pranams,

atanu
12 October 2007, 11:54 AM
Namaste Atanu,

That's exactly the problem, it's circular reasoning, isn't it? The inquiry is done to ascertain whether or not there's an advaita self, so if one knows the advaita self, inquiry would become redundant. We cannot assume there's an advaita self first, and then start the inquiry. That would be meaningless, as meaningless as assuming a 'round square', then breaking one's head to 'prove' its existence.


Namaste Suresh,

In fact that is the tragedy. Without knowing the self, how you can assert that the self is imprisoned? Is that is not a fallacy? eh? Whereas the fourth is the self evident knower that only sees other three states.



I've considered this also, but it poses another problem. Like a dream, this maya will also vanish once we wake up; or so they say. But this does contain the fallacy of interdependence, in that we have to wake to know all this is maya, and at the same, in order to wake up, we must consider this as maya! Premise A must depend on B, and vice versa, so how can this be considered pramaana?


You are using hackneyed borrowed logic.

No one has asked you to assume anything. Not that the Self is imprisoned nor that it is advaita.

To discuss all these things it is judicious to know who is discussing. Where is your thinking apparatus and where is your source of energy? And who are you -- the owner of a thinking apparatus that you do not know?



There's no pramaana for this either.;) And I thought we agreed to do away with such personal remarks?
uresh

Is there is any pramana that an observation is a personal remark? Moreover, who is feeling that it is a personal remark? Is he a solid flesh, or subtle dream like, or dark nothing?


Om

suresh
13 October 2007, 07:11 AM
Yet, it is the SPACE that holds the jar in it! That is, this space, is ubiquitiois, inside and outside the jar and is without containment. Even if you take the jar, close it tightly and walk 100 meters, you have not taken that space with you, because it cannot be contained. You can walk the jar and yourself through space, but have not transported as such.

Like that so is the SELF and yet we hold the thought the SELF resides in us. Sure it does, yet it resides every place else too. It is Brahman, it is not other then Brahman, it is like akasha, every-where.


Namaste Yajvan,

Thanks, that's a novel way of looking at it. Rather than consider space in the jar, we might as well consider the space itself as the vast field of existence, where the jar exists. But if we extend this logic to the self, why is it we don't feel that we're inside and outside the body, that we're all-pervasive? Before pointing to maya, let's understand this a bit more.

Obviously, this feeling, or what people call cosmic consciousness, has to be there permanently, it should never be lost even for a moment. Why? Because you mentioned elsewhere that when it comes to the existence of the self, svapramaana is the only pramaana, it couldn't possibly depend on any other instrument of knowledge, an external source, for it'd lead to circular reasoning. Keeping this in mind, let's see if the concept of maya has any relevance here.

Now if one points to maya as the cause of the self losing this awareness, there's another problem. Let's consider the common example of the sun's luminosity being 'obstructed' by the clouds. In actuality, it is not, it only appears so, and when the clouds vanish, we can see the real nature of the sun. This is how some people link the self to the sun, and maya to the clouds.

The fallacy in this type of argument is that the self is not apart from us, and therefore no amount of maya should obstruct us. The sun never loses its identity as a luminous object, even though it may appear that way to a third person, a person who is different from the sun, due to the influence of clouds. The sun itself is never affected, clouds or no clouds.

Likewise, the self itself should never be affected, maya or no maya, ego or no ego, or whatever else one may posit. If it is, the concept of svapramana will go out the window. If it isn't affected, then cosmic consciousness should never be lost even for a moment, which evidently isn't the case with us, plus even the concept of maya would become redundant.

I hope I am making myself clear. Perhaps, some ideas and insights on this would be helpful.

Suresh

yajvan
13 October 2007, 08:05 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan,

Thanks, that's a novel way of looking at it. Rather than consider space in the jar, we might as well consider the space itself as the vast field of existence, where the jar exists. But if we extend this logic to the self, why is it we don't feel that we're inside and outside the body, that we're all-pervasive? Before pointing to maya, let's understand this a bit more.

Obviously, this feeling, or what people call cosmic consciousness, has to be there permanently, it should never be lost even for a moment. Why? Because you mentioned elsewhere that when it comes to the existence of the self, svapramaana is the only pramaana, it couldn't possibly depend on any other instrument of knowledge, an external source, for it'd lead to circular reasoning. Keeping this in mind, let's see if the concept of maya has any relevance here.

Now if one points to maya as the cause of the self losing this awareness, there's another problem. Let's consider the common example of the sun's luminosity being 'obstructed' by the clouds. In actuality, it is not, it only appears so, and when the clouds vanish, we can see the real nature of the sun. This is how some people link the self to the sun, and maya to the clouds.

The fallacy in this type of argument is that the self is not apart from us, and therefore no amount of maya should obstruct us. The sun never loses its identity as a luminous object, even though it may appear that way to a third person, a person who is different from the sun, due to the influence of clouds. The sun itself is never affected, clouds or no clouds.

Likewise, the self itself should never be affected, maya or no maya, ego or no ego, or whatever else one may posit. If it is, the concept of svapramana will go out the window. If it isn't affected, then cosmic consciousness should never be lost even for a moment, which evidently isn't the case with us, plus even the concept of maya would become redundant.

I hope I am making myself clear. Perhaps, some ideas and insights on this would be helpful. Suresh

Namaste Suresh,
In a word , your post is brilliant! you are perfectly clear in what you say...this reasoning is the beautiful beginning/continuation of viveka
(discrimination) - the core for Moksha.

This is why they call moksha enlightenment - that one sees the conundrum you point out, and it is not really there, one brings the light and Ah-ha! I see there is no boundaries to this SELF, it is ubiquitous and I am that, ever present SELF.

All this talk we have of maya is fine, it just frames the problem that we are not seeing clearly. Yes, the sun is every present, ever shining. The clouds are temporary and pass by. So , one can say, how can this Self luminous Sun be covered by the clouds , how can this be?

So it requires the application of the ointment of knowledge - knowledge is the greatest purifier say the wise. How many years, how many lives have we been through of not even having this thought of what SELF is, and now we talk of this.... this is His Grace, the beginning of peeling away ignorance.

So first we understand it, that Being, SELF is what we are. Now we need to taste it and say, oh yes, now I remember who I am ( Even Arjuna a.k.a. Nara) says this in the 18th chapt of the Gita... Arjuna says nastah mojah smrtih labdha... my illusion (moha) has been dispelled, I remember ,(smrtih) I regained my memory. That of who I really am.

So now the taste is needed, the experience of pure consciousness, of Samadhi to compliment ones knowledge, it is this that takes one across the shore of ignorance, this maya.

... keep with this thinking, it is core to unfolding the truth.

pranams,

atanu
13 October 2007, 02:03 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Suresh,
In a word , your post is brilliant! ---
So now the taste is needed, the experience of pure consciousness, of Samadhi to compliment ones knowledge, it is this that takes one across the shore of ignorance, this maya.

... keep with this thinking, it is core to unfolding the truth.

pranams,

Namaste Yajvan,

At the same time, if the cart is put before the horse, samadhan will not happen. That the Self is distinct from the the three states of experiences, can be ascertained logically by using discrimination.

Like we know water in its three states as liquid, solid and gas but what actually water is?

Om

yajvan
13 October 2007, 03:41 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan,

At the same time, if the cart is put before the horse, samadhan will not happen. That the Self is distinct from the the three states of experiences, can be ascertained logically by using discrimination.

Like we know water in its three states as liquid, solid and gas but what actually water is? Om

Namaste Atanu,

Help me here with your notion. In this case, what would be putting the cart before the horse, so I can grasp your POV.

IMHO and experience and teaching, one must get wet. Knowledge + experience say the wise. Understand and experience together.

We talk of the apple , we know the color, we know it has so much potassium and vitamins, and it grows in the sun. Now, it is time to taste the apple to compliment the knowledge.

Like that, we talk of the transcendent, we understand it a bit, now it is time to have the experience. Otherwise it is words of the Upanishads without the experience of the rishi ( in this case, the rishi is the native).

The SELF is known and can be deduced by the intellect, yet that experience, one needs to experince that pure awareness. There is no constraint for anyone to start this experience, that has the desire to do so.

pranams,

atanu
14 October 2007, 01:46 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~
Namaste Atanu,

Help me here with your notion. In this case, what would be putting the cart before the horse, so I can grasp your POV.

IMHO and experience and teaching, one must get wet. Knowledge + experience say the wise. Understand and experience together.
---
pranams,

Namaste Yajvan Ji,

For correct experimental results, the hypothesis needs to be correct, else one changes the hypothesis and repeats the experiment.

Earlier we have discussed that consciousness is kalpa vriksh -- even for us. What transpires in consciousness takes concrete shape -- eventually for us and instantaneously for adepts. If the thought is that "I am this", the illusion is strengthened. On the other hand, if through discrimination, one shuts out the possibilty of "I" being the body, then the result would be different. So, Shankara teaches discrimination of the real and transient as the beginning of Jnana sadhana.

When I say "putting the cart before the horse", I mean the following:


The fallacy in this type of argument is that the self is not apart from us, and therefore no amount of maya should obstruct us.

The cart before the horse is that one does not know what is meant by 'us' in the above quote, but assumes identity of this 'us' with Self and then posits ignorance on Self. And then one is not ready to enquire/meditate also.

This is just an example, as a general case. I hope Mercury retrograde effect does not veil this.

Pranam

Om

yajvan
14 October 2007, 04:22 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan Ji,

For correct experimental results, the hypothesis needs to be correct, else one changes the hypothesis and repeats the experiment.

Earlier we have discussed that consciousness is kalpa vriksh -- even for us. What transpires in consciousness takes concrete shape -- eventually for us and instantaneously for adepts. If the thought is that "I am this", the illusion is strengthened. On the other hand, if through discrimination, one shuts out the possibilty of "I" being the body, then the result would be different. So, Shankara teaches discrimination of the real and transient as the beginning of Jnana sadhana.

When I say "putting the cart before the horse", I mean the following:
The cart before the horse is that one does not know what is meant by 'us' in the above quote, but assumes identity of this 'us' with Self and then posits ignorance on Self. And then one is not ready to enquire/meditate also.
This is just an example, as a general case. I hope Mercury retrograde effect does not veil this. Pranam Om

Namaste Atanu,

I see your point now and can better respond.

When I have suggested Knowledge + Experience, the experience part of this is without intellectual requirement. That is the getting wet part in my last post.

To experience transcending , or restful alertness, lets use this term as it and can easily explained, the intellect is left at the curb. It needed enter into the picture.

That is, with simple meditative techniques and even breathing techniques, ones intellect is not needed. Hence no confusion.

Yet let me say this, before one chooses to meditate or take a breathing exercise, an explanation is offered to what one is doing e.g. instruction. The information given is to give info on the technique - yet a full review of SELF is not needed for the technique to be effective... like eating a banana. You may not be ( or care) about the vitamins or minerals in the banana. It does not stop you from the taste. Like that. One may not grasp the whole concept of restful alertness, the march to the SELF, yet still can preform the technique with effectiveness, the banana still nourishes.


That has been my point - complement knowledge with experience.
Yet I still see your point - the person could have a convoluted view of
Aham, yet in the final analysis, the experience, the taste, and this restful alertness is not contingent on this native's comprehension of SELF.

And I have tried it the other way - experience a technique then the reasoning of what the technique was doing after a period of time. The result was still fruitful.

So this is my orientation. I hope you can see the landscape I have offered.

And I am sure Mercury retrograde is not in the way, as it is still combust, too close to the sun. Yet the mischief will start in a day or so... then we will see how the intellect on HDF as a group is influenced.


Thank you for taking the time to lay out your POV and thoughtful response.

pranams,

atanu
15 October 2007, 06:57 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~
----
That is, with simple meditative techniques and even breathing techniques, ones intellect is not needed. Hence no confusion.

---- - yet a full review of SELF is not needed for the technique to be effective... like eating a banana. ----

----Yet I still see your point - the person could have a convoluted view of
Aham, yet in the final analysis, the experience, the taste, and this restful alertness is not contingent on this native's comprehension of SELF.

-----pranams,

Namaste Yajvan,

I agree to what you say since that is what happens and you explain nicely. For example Shri Ramana knew nothing of Vichara, when Self dawned on him. Yet He taught Vichara (since He had presumably done that in his previous appearances).

Svet. Upanishad says: With application of intellect and faith God is found in the Heart.

I will relate a story:

A man wanted chintamani and sat on tapas. Almost immediately, he was granted his wish when chintamani dropped on his lap. He thought, it could not be so easy and he threw away the mani assuming it to be worthless. Then after long tapas he was given a piece of glass and he preserved it lovingly. Absence of discrimination does this. This guy had no wisdom to keep the chintamani.

I hope my point is clear and I know that we are saying the same thing, since finally it is Self that unravels the Self, which never went hiding.

Pranam,

Om

yajvan
19 October 2007, 10:12 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan,

I will relate a story:

A man wanted chintamani and sat on tapas. Almost immediately, he was granted his wish when chintamani dropped on his lap. He thought, it could not be so easy and he threw away the mani assuming it to be worthless. Then after long tapas he was given a piece of glass and he preserved it lovingly. Absence of discrimination does this. This guy had no wisdom to keep the chintamani.

I hope my point is clear and I know that we are saying the same thing, since finally it is Self that unravels the Self, which never went hiding.
Pranam, Om

Namaste atanu,

yes, your point is appreciated and succinct.... my teacher suggest too a similar story.
A person needs the knowledge to have the appreciation of what one receives, the discrimination to see its value.

He says, as if one receives a huge diamond not knowing what it is, and it is put around ones neck not knowing what it is... The person thinks, what am I to do with this? its heavy and gets in the way when I walk , my neck hurts, what am I suppose to do with this big piece of glass?

Then someone tells the person of its worth. The all of a sudden the persons awareness shifts. Then the person thinks, look at this beautiful big stone , this diamond! I am so fortunate to have this, and it is so big and beautiful, I think I will keep it around neck for all to see.


Like that we have the same thing happening to us. Some call this kancutas. The constrictons/limitatations that cover the SELF, the diamond. These five are like the kosha's we have mentioned yet not equal in definition.. I'd like to get your thoughts (and others) on this. They are:

Niyati tattva -or the impression that SELF is localized, residing in a particular place, not ubiquitous.
KAla tattva - that SELF exists in a particular time - as your life-time slot.
Raga tattva - that SELF and its limitation of attachment; this gives the localization of SELF and the absence of not being full, Bhuma.
Vidya tattva - that the SELF is localized in knowledge, limited knowledge.
KalA tattva - that the SELF is localized or channeled to a particular creative ability vs. unlimited creativity.

These notions are the orientation of Kashmir Saivism and is a worthy way of viewing this. It nicely fits my orientation of maya , as the Infinite measured out; As if Siva in incremental slices of time , space, cause. Yet Siva rejoices in this expression of Himself; yet we miss the fullness behind it all; Paramasiva , if you will.

This view , IMHO , allows me to see Brahman as THAT, or as Siva, in the final analysis , it is this Infinity we are viewing, yet in maya, we see particulars vs. the samasta, wholeness. This is the ignorance in ones eyes ( mala or blemish).

Mark Twain I think captures the essence here, “It's not what we don't know that hurts us, it's what we know for certain that just ain't so.”

We know for certain that there is a body, time, mind, emotions, etc - yet it is not, in the final analysis the Truth of this Reality. This discrimination (viveka) between the diamond and the glass is the crest jewel for the sadhu.

pranams,

yajvan
29 October 2007, 08:29 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,



My continuing list....

That suffering is needed for spiritual advancement;
That the earth is rotating at over 1,000 mph and I do not feel the wind in my face. That I cannot, though my senses, feel this movement.
That I see the sun go from east to west, yet one tells me it is me that is moving.
That I have grown over time but cannot point to any one moment to measure the difference.
That my nature is Infinite, yet I would have never discovered this notion on my own, without the help of the Tradition as a guide.
That people are genuinely good and sattvic, yet will kill their own kind when provoked.
That we love dogs and cats and invite them in our homes, but will eat a cow for supper.
That we are compelled to pursue happiness, yet it is within us, and look elsewhere for this miracle.
That many on this earth will kill in the name of the Lord
That some on this good earth think that the 'truth' (satyam) can be measured with numbers and by science.
That we are Whole and Full yet we feel incomplete.
That we acquire finite things to bring us joy and it only burdens us with more things to take care of.
That one group believes their God is better then anothers and that He/She is qualitatively and quantitatively different.
That we are told we have been here before, yet we cannot remember the occasion or the time spent.
That some think the veda's are book and should be read as such , as if it was written by man
And - that the world is as we are... if one is having a good day , then all is well. If one is having a bad day, then the world is dark, yet the only thing that changed was the persons view of life.
That many may think actions we perform on our own perhaps even in our own home, behind closed doors only impact and travel no further then the doer of that action. As if a bell was rung, and the vibrations stay secluded to ones property (ether of the body or the home).
In the Mahabharata, a Yaksha asks Yudhishthira (also known as Dharmaraj) , What is the most unbelievable thing in this world?Yudhishthira answers, That people perpetually die in this world, but man acts and lives as though he will never die.
That on this earth we can produce a saint that brings the wisdom and glory of the Divine to the earth he walks on; on the same dirt being walked, there are those that want to bring evil to the family of man.
That one can do good deeds and take a life-time to accomplish this and another can take that life, in one second with a bad deed.
That we talk of time, and zillions and billions of years² that this creation has been in place but what matters is only now.
The impurity of action ( some call karmamala). This mala deposits impression on us. These are the impressions of pleasure and pain. I am happy, then I am sad, then I have pains, then no pain. I am happy because I got a promotion; I am unhappy because I did not get the promotion. One collects these impressions and over time they become who one is e.g. I am really lucky, I am smart, I am the boss , the prime minister, I am really ________.
The impurity of duality (some call mayiya mala). One can have this feeling , this observation this remoteness that ' I am different then others' . Many times, it is suggested and encouraged, to be unique, be different. This is fine, yet this difference hardens the individuality... that one is unconnected from the whole.
The impurity of feeling incomplete (some call anavamala). Due to this feeling one looks for things to make themselves feel complete (and activates karmamala). Maybe if I have a new car, a bigger house. This may bring pleasure for a short time, or it can give pain e.g. A big house with a big family ..Oh! Now I have big bills, no time for myself, I must work and pay the bills or fix the house. Where is there time for sadhana , that is for others, not for me.
And if one does not accomplish their acquisition for more, they view themselves as failing, or society ( friends and family) sees the native this way. This feeds more duality, that I am 'different' then the successful person. What am I doing wrong not gaining, achieving more possessions?
... finite things do not contain happiness. This is the blemish, this is the mala.

yajvan
31 October 2007, 06:21 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~


Namaste,
I continue with my list of this mAyA माय. I wish to add a few more items .
Just thinking today in the USA is Halloween. Not sure if it is practiced WW, yet different flavors exist around the globe. Some of the points below relate to this day of the mccabe...

Humans in general are afraid to die, perhaps they have done this before and find it an uncomfortable to frightening experience. Yet each year they celebrate death, ghosts and goblins (rakshasa) that bring them this unhappiness.
That people avoid pain, grief and angst, yet there are video games (XBox, Nentendo, etc) that are filled with giving pain and practicing pain albeit a 'game' as entertainment. How does this not dull the sense of compassion?
So the maya of death and the maya of pain have become entertainment. Yet when one encounters these experiences in life they call for God's help and blessing to take the grief away, yet practiced these things for years, preparing the soil for grief and now look for relief. Is this not the seed of karma-mala in action?I myself have avoided Halloween the best I can. If one tries to explain the reasoning behind this, without the other person being somewhat grounded in advaita, dvaita, etc. the conversation is fruitless.

For me, how many more covers and masks do I need over mySELF, how many more koshas to increase the distance between me and Aham?

I wish all those well that find fun and joy in this holiday.. I will still pass out the candy to the children and revel in their innocence of playing someone else... Just as "I" and playing someone else too.

pranams,

atanu
01 November 2007, 02:50 AM
Namaste Yajvan Ji,

To me Ignorance and Maya are almost similar and the Ignorance is one only.

It gives a stupendous feeling of awe to think how the "I", which is subtle, of the nature of knowledge, and without boundary, comes to be considered a property of flesh, which is inert and has no capability to be aware of "I".

It happens because the pains and joys are felt as if in the body and by the body. When a mosquito bites my body, I only feel the itch not another.

This is the wonder, why the pain is felt by me alone and not by another body sitting beside me? At present, I know that that there is another body beside me is also known by me alone. There is no independent proof of any 2nd object, including the sun and the moon, apart from my knowledge apparatus. If someone says "No I also see the sun", even then I will only know the dissenting person. So, the so-called 2nd proof belongs to my knowledge apparatus alone -- and is thus not independent. What is this "I" that knows everything and where is this "I"? Is the "I" this body, or is it the thoughtful mind or it is another thing?

Does samadhi and complete removal of Prarabdha (jivan mukti) remove the sense of bodily pain etc.? Will the waking dream be comprehended as a mere dream? Well, sadhakas do not agree unanimously and the disagreement "I" only know. he he.


Om

yajvan
01 November 2007, 09:06 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan Ji,
To me Ignorance and Maya are almost similar and the Ignorance is one only.
It gives a stupendous feeling of awe to think how the "I", which is subtle, of the nature of knowledge, and without boundary, comes to be considered a property of flesh, which is inert and has no capability to be aware of "I".

It happens because the pains and joys are felt as if in the body and by the body. When a mosquito bites my body, I only feel the itch not another.

This is the wonder, why the pain is felt by me alone and not by another body sitting beside me? At present, I know that that there is another body beside me is also known by me alone. There is no independent proof of any 2nd object, including the sun and the moon, apart from my knowledge apparatus. If someone says "No I also see the sun", even then I will only know the dissenting person. So, the so-called 2nd proof belongs to my knowledge apparatus alone -- and is thus not independent. What is this "I" that knows everything and where is this "I"? Is the "I" this body, or is it the thoughtful mind or it is another thing?

Does samadhi and complete removal of Prarabdha (jivan mukti) remove the sense of bodily pain etc.? Will the waking dream be comprehended as a mere dream? Well, sadhakas do not agree unanimously and the disagreement "I" only know. he he. Om

Namaste atanu,
as usual, your insights are based on common sense and rewarding to read.
If I may, let me comment on a few things you have said. Let me also leave my ego at the door as I am not the final authority on these matters but offer to share what my studies and experience afford me.


To me Ignorance and Maya are almost similar and the Ignorance is one only

Yes, two sides of the same coin. One feeds the other. What is interesting here, is , from a Kasmir Shavism POV maya shakti is svatantrya shakti or independent absolutely free shakti when experienced in ignorance.

When the SAME energy is experienced in the Universal State of Living that is, possessed of the SELF, this energy is now svatantrya ,independent, unbound to the individual. Two sides of the same coin again. Said another way, when one experiences skakti in a crooked way i.e. ignorance , it becomes maya. This is abuddha or a=not + budh= to enlighten, to know, so this state is abhudda - or without enlightenment, without possession of SELF.

Some call this svatantrya shakti the will of Siva, God's will. So the impurity is the blemish in maya is on the individual side, not on the svatantrya shakti side of the coin.



It happens because the pains and joys are felt as if in the body and by the body. When a mosquito bites my body, I only feel the itch not another.

Yes, I understand this. When one has an experience, one is absorbed totally in the experience. Hook -line-and sinker as they say in the USA. That means, the body, the mind, the spirit are possessed of the experience. One has lost the SELF to the experience.

The SELF is not experienced , is lost, at the same time. That is, the action of the mosquito bite, takes over completely. This is not an easy thing to say or type, because we as yet do not experience it.

Yet if one were possessed of the SELF, then the bite would be an action you would view from the SELF, not connected to the body, divorced of the feeling of the pinch that is experienced. The experience may be 'Oh look , this body got stung by a mosquito'. you are not thrown out of still being possessed of the SELF. Everything happens from SELF referral.

It is no longer "I" got stung, because I is totally subjective, no bee can sting I, or SELF. Its the realization that I am the movie screen and the movie is playing on top of me, yet no matter how many people get run over in the movie, it is not "I" ... it is the act that is playing on top of me, the screen. The pure white, unbounded screen that is untouched by the dance of light from the movie projector (prakriti) - So I do not feel pain. It is the impurity of karma-mala that one feels the pain.

I think the Dali Lama makes it simple for me to comprehend; Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional. I have the greatest appreciation for this. The mosquito bites will still be there ( yet I will comment on that too), but the suffering is optional suggests in ignorance ( or option 1) the pain will register with you and possess you . Or (option 2) , you can be possessed of the SELF, where the observation of that act will be seen, yet the pain is to the body not to the SELF. And one in views everything thing in SELF referral.

Let me offer one other POV from my teacher. As one becomes possessed of the SELF, s/he begins to operate at this Universal State, this native gets support from the environment, the laws of nature work with the individual not against him/her i.e. the mosquito does not seek out the sadhu! Nature supports - prakriti is a friend to the person possessed of the SELF. All things come on time, happen with purpose, are supported by the Universe as it is this Intelligence now that begins to manifest though the muni possessed of the SELF. This is the blessing.


Does samadhi and complete removal of Prarabdha (jivan mukti) remove the sense of bodily pain etc.? Will the waking dream be comprehended as a mere dream?

So to answer your question , pain is part of the 3 gunas. When one is possessed of the SELF, one has transcended the the 3 guna and leave the pains to the body. These pains that come can be the remains of ignorance (lesh avidya). Yet pain does not seek out the muni. And if there is pain, it is not registered with the SELF - no fire can burn it, noting can cleave it, it cannot get wet - so how can the SELF be of pain? This is way Krsna says be without the 3 guna.

Wake-Dream-Sleep is something one watches roll buy on the movie screen. I do not think all 3 states are 'dream like' , yet I will have to wait on this one and experience it myself.

So these notions above used to be foreign to me and distant concepts . They are much more appreciated and understood as of late. Perhaps progress is finally being made.

pranams,

yajvan
06 December 2007, 07:09 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste fellow samsarin,
We have written much about this delusion of maya.

Let me post this for your consideration. Do you consider Siva-Barirava to be real? Do you consider Visnu to be real, and/or Mother Divine ( Shakti or Durgati, Parvati)? If you say yes ( I say yes), the how is it that this creation of theirs ( of His) is considered an illusion?

You are the the Clay Maker and you make a pot... you are real, but your pot that you create is not real, how can this be? Siva is the Clay Maker, all of creation is the pot, how is the pot not real?

Have you considered looking at this in this manner? This maya then becomes very interesting, don't you think?


We read the world wrong and say that it deceives us....Rabindranath Tagore


pranams,

sarabhanga
06 December 2007, 11:04 PM
How is it that this creation is considered an illusion?

Namaste Yajvan,

The nature of the illusion depends on one's definition of reality.

atanu
07 December 2007, 08:02 AM
Namaste Yajvan,

The nature of the illusion depends on one's definition of reality.

Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

A very precise statement, which prompts a precise question. Who this one is?

Om

yajvan
07 December 2007, 01:05 PM
Namaste Yajvan,

The nature of the illusion depends on one's definition of reality.

Atanu writes,

A very precise statement, which prompts a precise question. Who this one is?

Namaste sarabhanga and atanu,

It seems to me the operative word here that is being used is 'nature' i.e. how the illusion operates, is perceived, acted upon , how it unfolds and how it impacts the native.

Let me offer a few views... I am not inferring these are the only options, nor am I the final authority on this, just some ways to look at the word 'nature' sarabhanga offers.

This 'illusion' can be that of a masquerade, slight of hand, etc. Many purport that 'This' does not exist. Thinking back on something singh (sm78) offered, it's not so much that is does not exist ( the relative field of life) but that it is transitory. Permutation and innovation of the Creative Impulse, or spanda. This suggests, don't confuse permutations for Reality.

If we use the age old analogy of the rope and the snake , and the native mis-takes a rope to be a snake, that can be the illusion. Yet the rope is still there. Like that, one can take all of this creation of diversity yet it is consciousness.
It is Siva or Visnu, Brahman, etc. expressing Itself as different forms of consciousness abeit matter. This suggests do not confuse the raw material of consciousness for the material world.

Yet one may offer the POV its more like a mirage in the desert, there is no oasis, yet it is a reflection. And this universe can be this also, a reflection of Brahman. This suggests do not confuse the reflection as real, with the origin, the Reflector, the Real Reality.

The Upanishads sing the praises of all this being Brahman. The Yoga Vashishta informs us that all this is a mass of Consciousness. These things make sense; For the one not in kevalya, the perception and personal experience may not parallel this wisdom, but insights come and we have the proper understanding from the rishi's to guide us accordingly. All this is indeed Brahman and the reality of this is nirguna + saguna. We discuss it as two ( manifest and unmanifest) yet it is One Being. The illusion is we think this manifest is all that there is.


Yet the wisdom of the Isavasya Upanishad¹ comes to mind again and again:
Om Isavasyamidam sarvam yatkiñca jagatyam jagat |
tena tyaktena bhuñjitha ma grdhah kasyasvid dhanam ||

All this (the entire universe) is pervaded ( some write covered) by the Lord (Isa); for the reason that it is dependent upon nature (prakriti), which in its turn is also pervaded by Him. He alone is independent.
For this reason, enjoy whatever is given to you by Him, and do not seek wealth from any other source.



1. The rishi is Svayambhuva Manu. the devata is yagya and is considered Lord Hari.
1.1 I chose Acarya Madhva's (1238-1317 CE) translation; Usually I use Swami Sivananda's. They differ a bit.


pranams

atanu
08 December 2007, 06:58 AM
The nature of the illusion depends on one's definition of reality.

The nature of the illusion depends on one's definition of reality.

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

And 'defining' includes defining oneself. Therein lies Maya hidden.



Om

saidevo
08 December 2007, 09:06 AM
Namaste Suresh and others.



Likewise, the self itself should never be affected, maya or no maya, ego or no ego, or whatever else one may posit. If it is, the concept of svapramana will go out the window. If it isn't affected, then cosmic consciousness should never be lost even for a moment, which evidently isn't the case with us, plus even the concept of maya would become redundant.

I hope I am making myself clear. Perhaps, some ideas and insights on this would be helpful.


I think there are two complementary paths to the Self: knowing and feeling; in other words, knowledge and experience. Feeling or experience can't arise without the knowledge as with any scientific law or fact.

Knowledge is obtained from external sources. We absorb so much of scientific knowledge from books and teachings, can verify by our own feeling and experience not even a fraction of it, and yet we don't question the validity of the knowledge that is not part of our experience. Whereas when it comes to the knowledge of Self, we find it easy to question our sages and scriptures, though unlike the case of scientific knowledge, every human being is capable and endowed with the instruments and apparatus to obtain the knowledge of Self!

Why is this so? Why some people seek to vociferously deny what most other people believe, express and even experience to be stages to the Absolute Truth? I think this is where the endowment of Freewill comes to play. We can associate our Freewill either with the unchanging Purusha or with the changing Prakriti. It is an individual choice that can't be influenced by others beyond a point; and even that individual choice is not final or irrevocable and does change in degrees from one end to the other as the individual progresses spiritually. Therefore the knowledge, experience and realization of Self is 'svatasiddha', or self proven as Yajvan said.

If we choose to identify our Self and happiness with the physical body and external objects, that's fine, but even in these days of stem cell research and cloning scientists are not able to define or deny what is soul, so evidently there is something that remains unchanging beyond life and death. The knowledge of whether that something is individual Jiva, Atman, Pratyagatman or Brahman is again limited by individual propensities. But one thing is sure: the persistly questioning seeker is bound to arrive at the Truth sooner or later.

Bob G
08 December 2007, 09:17 AM
...something from a Zen master:

"Thirty years ago, before I began the study of Zen, I said, 'Mountains are mountains, waters are waters.' After I got insight into the truth of Zen through the instructions of a good master, I said, 'Mountains are not mountains, waters are not waters.' But now, having attained the abode of final rest, I say, 'Mountains are really mountains, waters are really waters."

saidevo
08 December 2007, 10:54 AM
Namaste Atanu, Yajvan, Sarabhanga and others.



To me Ignorance and Maya are almost similar and the Ignorance is one only.


Can we say that 'a-vidyA' is the Primal Error of associating the 'I' or Self with 'This' or 'Not-Self' (without realizing 'aham etat na'--in which scripture do we find this famous quote which is the root of Vedanta?) and that 'mAyA' is the condition under which such error arises?

How does the condition of 'mAyA' as 'etat' arise on the 'aham'? As Sarabhanga explained, it may be due to the original karma of the 'aham' that was actually 'kAmA'.

Initially, only the 'aham' (or Nirguna Brahman) existed. Now because of its 'kAmA', the 'mAyA' of 'etat' ('This' or Prakriti with the three 'guNA's) got superimposed on it. Thus the Saguna Brahman ('aham etat') was born.

Lurking under the state of Saguna Brahman is the knowledge 'aham etat na'. Although the Not-Self got superimposed on the Self, the Self always has the knowledge that it is not 'This' (or Not-Self).

Thus while the 'icchA shakti' brought forth the 'etat' on 'aham', and the 'jnAna shakti' denied the 'Not-Self' or 'This' as the 'Self', it resulted in creation of the world-process ('samsAra') due to the 'kriA shakti'.

Though 'aham' and 'etat' always co-exist, 'aham' is the only Eternity and Infinity, while 'etat' can only be a pseudo-eternity and psuedo-infinity. Their very co-existence and denial by the Self created the vortex of cyclic motion in the 'etat' and brought in time, space, the other elements and Jivas.

Since 'aham' at all its levels of existence as Brahman, Pratyagatman and Jiva continuously deny the 'etat' by its very nature, the 'etat' is in an eternal flux in a cycle of creation and dissolution.

Thus the 'neti, neti' path is the only way to realization of Pratyagatma as the Universal Self and then Brahman as the Supreme Self.

This is the explanation that Bhagavan Das offers in his book The Science of Peace.

atanu
10 December 2007, 08:05 AM
Maybe, this bliss obtained 'through the friction of nerves' is the only bliss there is. That could be a strong possibility, perhaps concrete reality to most people. Why? Because this 'bliss' has been experienced from time immemorial, from the cavemen to the civilized folk.

OTOH, the 'bliss within', whatever that may be, has been experienced by very, very few people, so not only its authenticity but the authenticity of the experiencer can be questioned.:( Inert or not, 99% of humans, regardless of their religion, race, gender, find some kind of beauty in the flesh, in its symmetry, curves, and all the rest. So there has to be some truth in it. In fact, the idea that bliss is within could be maya, because it's something that's never experienced, yet we believe it to be true!

In short, what we call 'bliss of the self' could be maya, a thing that appears to be true though essentially false. Whereas, bliss from external objects might be the only reality, considering humanity's collective experiences from the dawn of time.

Suresh



Time we had another reading of Gita.

Renunciation of Action

Chapter 5

21. " He who is disinterested in external sense objects and finds happiness in himself, such a yogi, his mind firmly established in Brahman, enjoys unlimited bliss.
22. "O son of Kunti, the pleasures that are born out of sensory contacts are sources of pain. They certainly are transient, having a beginning and an end. The intelligent man is wise enough not to indulge in them.
24. "He who is inwardly happy , who enjoys within himself, whose inner light is lit up, that mystic attains union with Brahman and enters the Supreme Self.


Om

yajvan
10 December 2007, 12:29 PM
Time we had another reading of Gita.

Renunciation of Action

Chapter 5

21. " He who is disinterested in external sense objects and finds happiness in himself, such a yogi, his mind firmly established in Brahman, enjoys unlimited bliss.
22. "O son of Kunti, the pleasures that are born out of sensory contacts are sources of pain. They certainly are transient, having a beginning and an end. The intelligent man is wise enough not to indulge in them.
24. "He who is inwardly happy , who enjoys within himself, whose inner light is lit up, that mystic attains union with Brahman and enters the Supreme Self. Om


Namaste atanu, saidevo (et.al)
There are muliple posts above that are most excellent and I would like to give some time to address them as they are of great import. Saidevo brings us some intersting ideas to chew on, and we will need to get to these, as there is wisdom in his words as there is in EM's post.

Yet, What you offer from the Gita is of great insight, but also a subject that needs some discussion.

5.21 He who is disinterested in external sense objects and finds happiness in himself, such a yogi, his mind firmly established in Brahman, enjoys unlimited bliss.

It is important to consider that this 'disinterestedness' is not a mood, or a way of thinking. It is the natural result of the mind finding balance and peace in Brahman. In fact some purport 'no mind' happens and one is now Cosmic Mind.
That said, pretending, a mood of being dis-interested continues maya.

This disinterested state is outside of doing and we has humans are do-ers; one may think let me just think dis-interested and I will accomplish this state of Being. I know you know this, but it was worth mentioning

This 'disinterested' is also seen as 'untouched by external contacts' or 'not attracted to sense pleasures' . This clearly suggests the sadhu is established in the SELF.

Saidevo writes
Knowledge is obtained from external sources.
Yes this is true but there is higher knowledge and lower knowledge. "Lower' does not suggest inferior, it is the knowledge of the way of the world. This knowledge is fractionalized and limited in nature as it does not address the Whole, samasta or pervading the whole.

Hence lower knowledge is obtained from external sources, yet higher knowledge is the direct experience of Brahman, turiya, SELF. This does not come from external sources, but is self-realized. One could argue that to do this, there must be some instruction some upasana for this to occur, and I completely agree; yet at the end of the day, its the sadhu that touches the Divine, and from this a new level of knowledge, jnana, dawns.

Up until then, every thing that was known was 'borrowed' some say krtima (artificial) and assimilated by the native; with the dawn of Brahman, then one's intellect comes into full bloom.

Then (tadA) akrtimo dharnah¹ (ones innate nature, Freedom of Full Consciousness ) comes into being (manifested) some write flashes forth; jnatva (knowledge/cognition) and kartrtva (active) become laksana or ever present, so say the Spanda karikias.

So what was dropped? asuddhi or impurity , mala. One then resides in the Home of all knowledge.


pranams



1. Spandakaraka - Chapt 1, karika 10-11.

saidevo
10 December 2007, 09:05 PM
Namaste Atanu, Yajvan, Sarabhanga and others.

Yajvan, I totally agree with you that knowledge is of two kinds and that the higher knowledge is only obtained by 'the direct experience of Brahman, turiya, SELF'.

Besides being the Primal Error, 'a-vidyA' is also personified as the Goddess Shakti and related as the consort of Brahma(n), as Bhagavan Das explains in the extracts below:

'avidyA' as the Primal Error

A feeling of identification with this phantas-magoria (of the Not-Self), a feeling of its being 'I' and 'Mine', 'sva-tA', arises through 'a-vidyA, PrimaJ Error; and it (the feeling) persists only so long as the 'buddhi' the 'vidyA', the right knowledge, does not arise, viz., the Consciousness 'I-am-Not-This', 'na-etat-aham', and 'This-is-Not-Mine', 'na-etat-mama',...

Aphorism 2.5 of Patanjali's yoga-sUtra says:

anitya-ashuci-duHkha-anAtmasu nitya-shuci-sukha-AtmakhyAtir avidyA
anitya-ašuci-dukha-anatamasu nitya-šuci-sukha-atma-khyatir avidya

"The 'khyAti' (awareness, feeling, sense, notion, thought, idea, consciousness), belief, that the perishing-impure-miseryful-Non-Self (body) is the Eternal-Pure-Blessed-Self this is 'a-vidyA', Ne-Science, Primal Error, Original Sin'.

'avidyA' as the Goddess Shakti

It (rhe relation between Self and Not-Self) is Absolute Free-Will, which is called in the sacred books by the name of Maya-Shakti, Impersonal Goddess of a thousand names and a thousand hymns; who alone is in reality worshipped by every worshipper, either as Nirguna Vidya or as Saguna A-vidya; because she ensouls all the million forms that human beings worship, each according to his heart's desire.

'Shakti becomes an Efficient Cause, 'nimitta', by conjunction with Consciousness, 'chaitanya'; and a necessary Condition, concomitant, 'saha-kAri', (or 'sAdhAraNa', 'a-prthak-siddha', 'upa-kAraNa') in transformations of objects. Some call Her 'tapas', some 'tamas', 'jada', 'a-jnAna', 'mAyA', 'prakRti', or 'ajA'. Shaivas name Her 'vimarsha'; Vaidikas, 'a-vidyA'. Such are Her many names in the 'nigamas', traditions, of different thinkers and worshippers.'

--Devl Bhagavata, VII, xxxii

'When men wish to express contempt for a (feeble, lethargic, inert, spineless) person, they do not call him Rudra-less or Vishnu-less, but Shakti-less, Power-less, Energy-less. We meditate on Her, the Sovereign Goddess of the Universe, as the very Meaning, the whole significance, of 'pra-Nava', AUM.'

--Devl Bhagavata, VII, xxviii

As 'a-vidyA', this primal Energy turns more towards Not-Self and becomes 'aparA-prakRti', which name is used to cover not only the force which leads the 'jIva' outwards, but also the objective manifestations of Not-Self which it especially brings out, and into which it leads the 'jIva'. As 'vidyA', it turns more towards Self, and is 'parA-prakRti', the source of subjective life; nay, which, as consciousness, in Self, of Not-Self, is life, and so includes all 'jlvas'. As the two together, she is Daivi-Prakrti, in which 'vidyA' and 'a-vidyA' coalesce into Maha-vidya, regarded not as knowledge, but rather as Shakti, Energy, which utilises all knowledge, for the carrying on of the World-Process.

The book The Science of Peace by Bhagavan Das seems to be a wonderful and comprehensive collection of answers to most of the seeker's questions, with a wealth of quotes from mainly Sanskrit texts, and then western philosophy and Thesophy. This book can be downloaded at http://www.archive.org/details/scienceofpeace029498mbp (23.1 MB). As soon as I finish reading the book (I am half-way through), I shall try to post a synopsis in HDF, on which we can have fruitful discussions.

atanu
11 December 2007, 12:44 AM
-It is important to consider that this 'disinterestedness' is not a mood, or a way of thinking. -
-

Namaste Yajvan,

The following verse does not talk of a disinterested mood:

21. " He who is disinterested in external sense objects and finds happiness in himself, such a yogi, his mind firmly established in Brahman, enjoys unlimited bliss.

It is knowledge that objects are temporary and thus cannot afford permanent happiness, as is taught in the following verse:

22. "O son of Kunti, the pleasures that are born out of sensory contacts are sources of pain. They certainly are transient, having a beginning and an end. The intelligent man is wise enough not to indulge in them.

It is knowledge (discrimination and understanding). In short it is Vichara.

Moreover, the verse was cited in response to the following assertion of Shri Suresh:


In short, what we call 'bliss of the self' could be maya, a thing that appears to be true though essentially false. Whereas, bliss from external objects might be the only reality, considering humanity's collective experiences from the dawn of time.

Suresh


The third verse settles the issue that contentment is of the Self alone.

24. "He who is inwardly happy , who enjoys within himself, whose inner light is lit up, that mystic attains union with Brahman and enters the Supreme Self.

These three verses re-assure that happiness is to be had in Self. Shree Krishna also teaches that nothing burns up the ignorance like Jnana does.


Om

yajvan
11 December 2007, 07:24 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~
Namaste Yajvan,

The following verse does not talk of a disinterested mood:

21. " He who is disinterested in external sense objects and finds happiness in himself, such a yogi, his mind firmly established in Brahman, enjoys unlimited bliss.

It is knowledge that objects are temporary and thus cannot afford permanent happiness, as is taught in the following verse:

Om

Namate atanu,
what you say is correct and was my point. I have found seekers that look to some of the verses and think the instuction is a mental selection , a change in mood ( I am happy to site the verses that get mis-applied as examples ).

That is, this discussion is to show another side - for those that may be new to the knowledge, to avoid this pitfall. That the experince of Brahman is real, not a mood. I can pretend to be disinterested, I can pretend to be happy; I cannot not pretend to be established in Brahman, but can think If I am dis-interested and happy, this must be Brahman.

Side note: Another reason why I mention this is I do not find many translations that choose dis-interested for asakta असक्त or detached from worldly feelings or passions , unattached. So asakta+atama = one who is detached, unattached.

Hope this clarifies the POV for the post I offered.

pranams,

yajvan
11 December 2007, 11:42 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~



21. " He who is disinterested in external sense objects and finds happiness in himself, such a yogi, his mind firmly established in Brahman, enjoys unlimited bliss.
These three verses re-assure that happiness is to be had in Self. Shree Krishna also teaches that nothing burns up the ignorance like Jnana does.
Om


Namaste,
What is another way of say this? This is not to suggest Krsna's words are inadequate.. just another angle of viewing the same subject.

One whose mind is fixed (established) on Reality ( Brahman), even though enjoying ( or experiencing) sense objects cannot be touched by vice, even as a lotus leaf cannot be touched by water.

As one who is equipped with mantras (or upaya's) that remove the effect of poison does not, even after devouring poison, become unconsciousness under its influence, similarly a yogi of great wisdom ( one established in Brahman) is not affected by the enjoyment of sense objects....Malini-vijaya tantra , some call Sri Purva Shastra Chapt 18.120

Some key words for me in the sloka is 'vice' - not the 'bad' behaviors one thinks of , but the vice of impressions that lead to vasnas and binding the SELF to non-Self.

And 'enjoyment of sense objects' - the eyes go on seeing, the ears hear, the tongue continues to taste, yet the yogi and yogini stay firmly established in the SELF, unswayed by the relative field of life - completely independent.

This independence is svātantrya. Some call this svātantrya sakti or the power of Absolute Freedom , the nature of Parashakti. This Absolute Freedom of Siva, is known as spanda, and is the core discussion point of the Spandakirakas. That is, understanding the vibrance of the Absolute and not just dormant and perfect silence, but of this spanda, this 'throb' or vibration that exists, some call this quivering.

From this spanda one sees unmeṣa¹ and nimeṣa² of Siva's nature. Umeṣa is categorized as the opening of His eyes and with that expansion of the universe takes place - the display , appearance. And with nimeṣa , the closing of His eyes then we see dissolution, reabsorption, some use the word concealment of the universe then takes place.

So Krsna's words are pregnent with wisdom as it leads us to other slokas that help describe this level of Being, of Reality, that is experinced for the sadhu.

1. unmeṣa उन्मेष - the act of opening the eyes , looking at; coming forth , becoming visible , appearing
2. nimeṣa निमेष - shutting the eye , twinkling , winking


pranams

saidevo
11 December 2007, 10:20 PM
Namaste everyone.



Hence lower knowledge is obtained from external sources, yet higher knowledge is the direct experience of Brahman, turiya, SELF.


In the three stages of normal existence, we know that our consciousness is focussed on our body, senses and the outer world in the wakeful state. During dream-sleep, it is focussed on our astral body and on the world of dreams spun by our 'vAsanAs' (past impressions).

Where is our consciousness focussed during our deep sleep state? If it is on Atman we don't we realize it as in Turiya, during and after the state? On a larger scale this state is the equivalent of the state after 'praLayA' (dissolution) and before the next creation. In this stage Brahman, I think, doesn't even think or dream and keeps His consciousness focussed just on himself as in the case of a Black Hole. Is our Self in such a condition during deep sleep? Any mention of this in our scriptures?

Any insights and thoughts on this topic are welcome.

atanu
11 December 2007, 11:23 PM
Namaste everyone.

In the three stages of normal existence, we know that our consciousness is focussed on our body, senses and the outer world in the wakeful state. During dream-sleep, it is focussed on our astral body and on the world of dreams spun by our 'vAsanAs' (past impressions).

Where is our consciousness focussed during our deep sleep state? If it is on Atman we don't we realize it as in Turiya, during and after the state? On a larger scale this state is the equivalent of the state after 'praLayA' (dissolution) and before the next creation. In this stage Brahman, I think, doesn't even think or dream and keeps His consciousness focussed just on himself as in the case of a Black Hole. Is our Self in such a condition during deep sleep? Any mention of this in our scriptures?

Any insights and thoughts on this topic are welcome.

Namaste Saidevoji,

You have brought out an important point. Surprising though it may seem, it is said that deep sleep is a state of thought wherein the notion is of sleep and darkness -- not seeing anything. Death is said to be again a notion of another dimension. Pralaya is as below:

He is the Ancient One, Who creates the Creator of all;
He is the God, Who preserves the Preserver of things created;
He is the God, Who destroys the Destroyer; (15)
But, thinking without thought, regards the things destroyed.
------------------------------------
Spanda mentioned by Yajvan ji seems equivalent of what vibrates in the "M" state --- the "I". The ego "i" dies in "I" and it is death - Tamas. But "i" is not the source of awareness, so sadhaka who remains awake to the capital "I" crosses Tamas and enters what is called Tamasa Parastaat.

Om

atanu
11 December 2007, 11:29 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namate atanu,
what you say is correct and was my point. I have found seekers that look to some of the verses and think the instuction is a mental selection , a change in mood ----pranams,

Namaste Yajvan,

I agree. At the same time a deliberate selection of a meditative path based on discrimination using buddhi is hallmark of Sanatana Dharma, lacking to a very large extent in exoteric faiths.

Om

yajvan
11 December 2007, 11:36 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste everyone.


Where is our consciousness focussed during our deep sleep state? If it is on Atman we don't we realize it as in Turiya, during and after the state? ... Any mention of this in our scriptures? Any insights and thoughts on this topic are welcome.


Namaste saideveo,
yes we can talk of this... but first I thought to suggest a few places where this has been discussed:


The Manduka Upanishad - this discusses wake , dream and sleep (Vaisvanara, Taijasa, and Prajana) as the 3 quarters; the 4th is Turiya. Getting comfortable with this then enlivens the Jyotir Brahmana (next) with greater insights IMHO.
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad , Jyotir Brahmana ( Chapt 4.3 in the Brihadaranyaka) - a conversation between the King Janaka and the sage Yajnavalkya; deep sleep is discussed.We have Posts on this in HDF, I will try and seek them out as additional references, yet a great conversation to pursue.

pranams

saidevo
13 December 2007, 11:07 AM
Aum

MOkshasaadhanam (Means of Liberation) – 19
by Krishna Sastri
http://www.kanchiforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2163

CONCIOUSNESS IN DEEP SLEEP

Sishya: I have a doubt about the existence of pure consciousness in my deep sleep.

Guru: What doubt?

Sishya: The ideas such as “I am a seer”, “I am a hearer” etc., indicating consciousness in me in my dream and in my waking state are absent in deep sleep together with the two states (of waking and dream). In my deep sleep I know of nothing, so there is no proof that pure consciousness existed during my deep sleep.

Guru: Did we not prove before that the Self which is consciousness is independent and therefore should not be understood to co-exist with another for mutual benefit?

Sishya: Sir, did you not say that the Self is always known to oneself? I was not aware of anything in my deep sleep and so I am making this statement.

Guru: You are contradicting yourself by saying that you were not conscious when as a matter of fact, you were (and you are and you will be).

Sishya: How so? I was never conscious of either myself or any object in my deep sleep.

Guru: You were definitely conscious in your deep sleep. Otherwise how can you make the statement of denial of the existence of objects in your deep sleep? Only when there was consciousness one could say that there IS or there IS NOT an object. Your own Self, the consciousness, is ‘absolute’ knowledge. It is only because the presence of this ‘absolute’ knowledge that you say that you were conscious of nothing. That knowledge of not knowing anything is also awareness, pure consciousness! If it was not for the pure consciousness you would have gone to sleep as Shankar and woken up as Bhaskar!

Bhagavan Ramana once remarked: "You wake up and say, 'I had a good sleep, I sept happily.' If it was not for the Self - the Consciousness - you would not have known of such an experience."


It seems that in the equation 'aham etat na', the consciousness in deep sleep was with 'aham' in its purest and most effective state of denial of the 'etat'. Deep sleep is thus perhaps a summation or totality of the equation, which was not a sUnya (zero) but a pUraNa (full). If this be so, what other proof do we require that everyone of us is Brahman?

The shop keeper first hangs the signboard 'shop closed' and proceeds to shut the doors. Then he makes some final arrangements of certain things such as collecting the day's earnings, closing the drawers and shelf doors etc. and then switches off all the lights and finally withdraws to his quarters deep within the shop itself!

With simpler external display, the shop is closed more easily for the night or other recess. With elaborate and showy fanfare, the winding up takes more time and efforts and delays the ultimate recess.

yajvan
13 December 2007, 11:47 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

It seems that in the equation 'aham etat na', the consciousness in deep sleep was with 'aham' in its purest and most effective state of denial of the 'etat'. Deep sleep is thus perhaps a summation or totality of the equation, which was not a sUnya (zero) but a pUraNa (full). If this be so, what other proof do we require that everyone of us is Brahman?


Namaste Saidevo,

lets poke at this a bit more. There is the simularity between deep sleep and the state of Liberation no doubt. What is one of the key criteria? that of duality, it does not exist in deep sleep nor in Liberation. Yet what then is different?

In deep sleep one is unaware of duality; in Liberation ( some say Brahma Sakshtkara -Self Realization or turiyatit chetana sustained turya), one is aware of the absense of duality.

Some call this deep sleep sUnya, another word for void. Some call it abhAva or non-existance. Some call this the void the Buddists talk of.

Yet you point out that of pUraNa, fullness. Some also call this samasta or wholeness, 'compounded' pervading the whole.

In deep sleep, one only recalls of this deep slumber upon awakening and say says' I slept well' due to the fact of not experiencing anything, no duality. Yet in kevalya ( Liberated) one experiences the slumber from turiya and full awareness of SELF does not leave.

For both the substratum of Brahman is there, in one, the native is aware of this, for the other, there is the absence of awareness.

This is the conversation is augmented by Brihadaranyaka Upanishad , Jyotir Brahmana. The wise say there is simularity between both (deep sleep and Liberation), yet the opposite poles of void to fullness.

pranams,

atanu
14 December 2007, 01:15 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~
Namaste Saidevo,

lets poke at this a bit more. There is the simularity between deep sleep and the state of Liberation no doubt. What is one of the key criteria? that of duality, it does not exist in deep sleep nor in Liberation. Yet what then is different?

In deep sleep one is unaware of duality; in Liberation ( some say Brahma Sakshtkara -Self Realization or turiyatit chetana sustained turya), one is aware of the absense of duality.

Some call this deep sleep sUnya, another word for void. Some call it abhAva or non-existance. Some call this the void the Buddists talk of.

Yet you point out that of pUraNa, fullness. Some also call this samasta or wholeness, 'compounded' pervading the whole.

In deep sleep, one only recalls of this deep slumber upon awakening and say says' I slept well' due to the fact of not experiencing anything, no duality. Yet in kevalya ( Liberated) one experiences the slumber from turiya and full awareness of SELF does not leave.

For both the substratum of Brahman is there, in one, the native is aware of this, for the other, there is the absence of awareness.

This is the conversation is augmented by Brihadaranyaka Upanishad , Jyotir Brahmana. The wise say there is simularity between both (deep sleep and Liberation), yet the opposite poles of void to fullness.

pranams,

Namaste Yajvan,

Excellent and Lucid.

saidevo
14 December 2007, 10:42 PM
Namaste Yajvan.



Some call this deep sleep sUnya, another word for void. Some call it abhAva or non-existance. Some call this the void the Buddists talk of.

Yet you point out that of pUraNa, fullness. Some also call this samasta or wholeness, 'compounded' pervading the whole.


I find this from Swami Krishnanda in his book The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad [http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brdup/Brhadaranyaka_Upanishad.pdf (3.6 MB)], on the nature of the deep sleep--if it is void (sUnya) or fullness (pUrNa) (emphasis and numbering mine):



1. And so, though you are virtually on the borderland of eternity and have temporarily transcended empirical experience, in sleep, you are not conscious of it. So you come back merely with the impact of that contact, that impact being felt in the form of an intense satisfaction of delight, a happiness, a revival of spirit, a resurgence of energy and a feeling of fulfilment. The satisfaction, the joy, the fulfilment, the revived spirit that we feel after sleep is due to the contact with the Supreme Being there in sleep. But when you wake up, you are again the same individual as before, with all your desires, because you were not actually aware of the event that took place in sleep, irrespective of the pleasure, irrespective of the strength and energy that you gained. (p.301)

2. "This is an indication to you, O Balaki," says Ajatasatru "as to what the Ultimate Reality is. This is the state into which one enters in sleep, and it is not any particular form or a shape. It is Universal Existence. This is the Atman; this is Brahman." (p.478)

3. Yajnavalkya, ... regards deep sleep as a virtual merger in the Absolute, where, if only one were to be endowed with Consciousness, there would be transcendence of all relativistic values and experience of the Undivided Ocean of Reality. (p.528)


Swami Krishnanda also says, "It is doubtful if the sleep of a human being is different in quality from the sleep of an animal or an ant. It is said that the sleep condition is uniform in all created beings. Everyone has the same experience."

Thus it seems to me that in deep sleep all of us beings dip into the same ocean of bliss which is fullness and not empty and is the source of the Self (the Self being the same as Atman and Brahman) and recharge their Jivas to cope with the karma-ridden life in the other two states.

Thus deep sleep is an indicator for the unity of everything at the essence, which is nothing but the one Absolute Reality. It is the absence of consciousness and the presence of hidden desires that differentiates deep sleep from liberation, but still deep sleep is everyone's everyday liberation, albeit only brief and unconscious.

Slumber knows 'No-Thing'

As Bhagavan Das says in his book The Science of Peace, a person awaking from 'sushupti' or deep sleep says: 'I slept well, I knew nothing.' Although the person after waking up does not remember the import of this part of his/her statement 'I know nothing', it actually means that in deep sleep the Jiva was out of Time and entered the Self and in that One, Negating Consciousness literally regarded the Nothing or Not-Self before or within that Self for its 'This-ness'. The Jiva saw the massive cloud of all the not-selves in one unity of the 'etat' or Not-Self and realized its own Self during that time.

On waking up, however, the Jiva was back in Time and so its One Negating Consciousness got diluted and passed into the other phases of dreaming and waking consciousness.

Thus the more-than-likely conclusions we can derive as to the nature of deep sleep are:

1. Since it renews us with energy, it should be a state of fullness rather than void.

2. Since the Jiva is one with the Self and regards the Not-Self, it is out of Time.

3. Except for the break in consciousness, its state is identical to that of Moksha or liberation.

yajvan
14 December 2007, 10:59 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste Yajvan.

Thus the more-than-likely conclusions we can derive as to the nature of deep sleep are:

1. Since it renews us with energy, it should be a state of fullness rather than void.

2. Since the Jiva is one with the Self and regards the Not-Self, it is out of Time.

3. Except for the break in consciousness, its state is identical to that of Moksha or liberation.


Namaste saidevo,
I think your accessment is vaild, yet I would like to add one more POV. Swami Sivananda also has more on this matter, and I want to get it right before I quote him ( probably a good policy, eh?) so I will look this up.

Yet here's the Pickle , if one is absorbed in Brahman , in the Fullness of the SELF during deep sleep, why do we wake up in Ignorance again? Swami-ji addresses this.

How can this be if we do this night after night? There is something more to this.


pranams,

saidevo
15 December 2007, 09:41 AM
Namaste Yajvan.

The subject of deep sleep and liberation is so fascinating. I suggest Satay might move the related posts in this thread to a separate one titled perhaps 'Deep Sleep: What it is and How it Helps in Sadhana', if it is okay with the other participants.



Yet here's the Pickle , if one is absorbed in Brahman , in the Fullness of the SELF during deep sleep, why do we wake up in Ignorance again? Swami-ji addresses this.

How can this be if we do this night after night? There is something more to this.


To whatever extent 'sushupti' (deep sleep) is related to 'moksha' (liberation), there are many wonderful things about it:

1. The experience of 'moksha' in the form of 'savikalpa' (occasionally experienced) or 'nirvakalpa' (always experienced) 'samAdhi' differs among the yogis and 'jIvan-muktA's (liberated while living in body).

The experience of bliss in deep sleep is uniform among all humans and perhaps with the other beings too. The dreaming states certainly differ among humans but our scriptures and gurus generally talk about an identical experience of bliss during 'sushupti'.

2. The body consciousness is totally absent in both 'moksha' and 'sushupti'. In the latter case the body is sleeping but the internal organs function under the control and supervision of the brain, as if on their own! If life is consciousness and there is no body consciousness in sleep, how do the organs function? What principle of life drives them? What are your and others' thoughts on this issue? When I am in deep sleep and a mosquito pricks at me, my hands automatically try to drive it away or smash it, and I can see the bloodmark and the smashed body of the mosquito on me after I wake up!

The body of the yogi or 'jIvan-mukta' in 'nirvikalpa samAdhi' need not necessarily be still. Bhagavan Ramana was always immersed in the Self whatever he was doing; and when he sat down on meditation, he was like a rock, his eyes open and never blinking for periods of thirty minutes or more!

Kanchi Paramacharya devoted an hour daily for explicit meditation. He once went into 'samAdhi' holding a fruit in his hand, freezed in that pose! His disciples have seen him experience the bliss of 'moksha' even when he was travelling on foot. His feet were on the road, but his five senses were completely absent: thus on one occasion he was not at all conscious of the death wails of some puppies stuck under the wheels of a bus!

Sadasiva Brahmendra, a 'brahma jnAni', was totally unconscious of his body most of the time, whatever he (or rather it) was doing. Once he wandered in Thajavur, Tamilnadu, through the Nawab's quarters with just a loin cloth on him. The women complained to the Nawab who sent a solder to attack him. The soldier cut his arm, but the sage moved on, totally unaware of what was happening to him. The Nawab was so overwhelmed with fear and reverence that he ran to the sage with the severed hand on a golden plate and offered it to him. The sage simply stuck the hand back to his body and walked on, the hand getting merged back into his body instantly!

Once some children in Thanjavur wanted to attend a festival at the Sri Ranganathan temple, Srirangam, Triohy (about 60 miles away). Sadasiva asked them to hold his hand, teleported them to the festival site and brought them back after sometime, the children carrying balloons and candies they bought in Srirangam!

Once when Sadasiva Brahmendra was doing 'tapas' on the banks of the Kaveri river, floods engulfed him. Later the villagers found only a mound of earth where the sage was sitting and grieved that he had departed. After a week or so, when somebody dug the soil, the sage came to body consciousness and walked on, as if nothing happened to him!

These are not puranic stories but real incidents that happened in Bharat during the last 100 years or so, and many more such incidents are always happening here!

Here we have a strong indication of the difference between 'moksha' and 'sushupti': while they are essentially the same, 'moksha' confers 'siddhi's (powers) to the yogi who has accomplished it, though the yogi may or may not seek them.

3. What about the sleep of the yogis and 'jIvan mukta's? Though they sleep hardly for four or five hours a day, they do sleep anyway. Do they have dreams and perhaps manipulate them to go to places in their subtle body and bless their devotees in their own dreams? Why is it that even these yogis and rishis are not able to describe exactly what happens in 'sushupti'? Does it mean that it is the summit of reality which is the undescribable Absolute Reality?

4. What about people in coma? Are they in 'sushupti' until they, if at all, wake up? Do they have dreams?

Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj provides some answers to these haunting questions (emphasis mine):



Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj on deep sleep

Q: In deep sleep there is no experience of the present reality.

M: The blankness of deep sleep is due entirely to the lack of specific memories. But a general memory of well-being is there. There is a difference in feeling when we say 'I was deeply asleep' from 'I was absent'.
-----

Q: In sleep there is neither the known, nor the knower. What keeps the body sensitive and receptive?

M: Surely you cannot say the knower was absent. The experience of things and thoughts was not there, that is all. But the absence of experience too is experience. It is like entering a dark room and saying: 'I see nothing'. A man blind from birth knows not what darkness means. Similarly, only the knower knows that he does not know. Sleep is merely a lapse in memory. Life goes on.

Q: Can I make myself remember my state of deep sleep?

M: Of course! By eliminating the intervals of inadvertence during your waking hours you will gradually eliminate the long interval of absent-mindedness, which you call sleep. You will be aware that you are asleep.
-----

Questioner: What do you do when asleep?

Maharaj: I am aware of being asleep.

Q: Is not sleep a state of unconsciousness?

M: Yes, I am aware of being unconscious.

Q: And when awake, or dreaming?

M: I am aware of being awake or dreaming.

Q: I do not catch you. What exactly do you mean? Let me make my terms clear: by being asleep I mean unconscious, by being awake I mean conscious, by dreaming I mean conscious of one's mind, but not of the surroundings.

M: Well, it is about the same with me, Yet, there seems to be a difference. In each state you forget the other two, while to me, there is but one state of being, including and transcending the three mental states of waking, dreaming and sleeping.

Q: Coming back to sleep. Do you dream?

M: Of course.

Q: What are your dreams?

M: Echoes of the waking state.

Q: And your deep sleep?

M: The brain consciousness is suspended.

Q: Are you then unconscious?

M: Unconscious of my surroundings -- yes.

Q: Not quite unconscious?

M: I remain aware that I am unconscious.

Q: You use the words 'aware' and 'conscious'. Are they not the same?

M: Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience.
-----

M: Energy comes first. For everything is a form of energy. Consciousness is most differentiated in the waking state. Less so in dream. Still less in sleep. Homogeneous -- in the fourth state. Beyond is the inexpressible monolithic reality, the abode of the jnani.
-----

M: Surely you can exist without memory. You do so -- in sleep.
-----

M: Outside the Self there is nothing. All is one and all is contained in 'I am'. In the waking and dream states it is the person. In deep sleep and turiya it is the Self. Beyond the alert intentness of turiya lies the great, silent peace of the Supreme. But in fact all is one in essence and related in appearance. In ignorance the seer becomes the seen and in wisdom he is the seeing.
-----

Q: The realised man eats, drinks and sleeps. What makes him do so?

M: The same power that moves the universe, moves him too.

Q: All are moved by the same power: what is the difference?

M: This only: The realised man knows what others merely hear; but don't experience. Intellectually they may seem convinced, but in action they betray their bondage, while the realised man is always right.
-----

Q: Give us at least some insight into the content of your mind while you live your daily life. To eat, to drink, to talk, to sleep -- how does it feel at your end?

M: The common things of life: I experience them just as you do. The difference lies in what I do not experience. I do not experience fear or greed, hate or anger. I ask nothing, refuse nothing, keep nothing. In these matters I do not compromise. Maybe this is the outstanding difference between us. I will not compromise, I am true to myself, while you are afraid of reality.
-----

M: Meet your own self. Be with your own self, listen to it, obey it, cherish it, keep it in mind ceaselessly. You need no other guide. As long as your urge for truth affects your daily life, all is well with you. Live your life without hurting anybody. Harmlessness is a most powerful form of Yoga and it will take you speedily to your goal. This is what I call nisarga yoga, the Natural yoga. It is the art of living in peace and harmony, in friendliness and love. The fruit of it is happiness, uncaused and endless.
-----

M: ... During sleep the mind is in abeyance and so are pain and pleasure. The process of, creation continues, but no notice is taken. The mind is a form of consciousness, and consciousness is an aspect of life. Life creates everything but the Supreme is beyond all.
-----

Questioner: What is the daily and hourly state of mind of a realised man? How does he see, hear, eat, drink, wake and sleep, work and rest? What proof is there of his state as different from ours? Apart from the verbal testimony of the so-called realised people, is there no way of verifying their state objectively. Are there not some observable differences in their physiological and nervous responses, in their metabolism, or brain waves, or in their psychosomatic structure?

Maharaj: You may find differences, or you may not. All depends on your capacity of observation. The objective differences are however, the least important. What matters is their outlook, their attitude, which is that of total detachment, aloofness, standing apart.
-----

Or, take another example. We wake and we sleep. After a day's work sleep comes. Now, do I go to sleep or does inadvertence -- characteristic of the sleeping state -- come to me? In other words -- we are awake because we are asleep. We do not wake up into a really waking state. In the waking state the world emerges due to ignorance and takes one into a waking-dream state. Both sleep and waking are misnomers. We are only dreaming. True waking and true sleeping only the jnani knows. We dream that we are awake, we dream that we are asleep. The three states are only varieties of the dream state. Treating everything as a dream liberates. As long as you give reality to dreams, you are their slave. By imagining that you are born as so-and-so, you become a slave to the so-and-so. The essence of slavery is to imagine yourself to be a process, to have past and future, to have history. In fact, we have no history, we are not a process, we do not develop, nor decay; also see all as a dream and stay out of it.
-----

Q: Just as the waking state exists in seed form during sleep, so does the world the child creates on being born exist before its birth. With whom does the seed lie?

M: With him who is the witness of birth and death, but is neither born nor dies. He alone is the seed of creation as well as its residue. Don't ask the mind to confirm what is beyond the mind. Direct experience is the only valid confirmation.
-----

Q: I know only my conditioned existence; there is nothing else.

M: Surely, you cannot say so. In deep sleep you are not conditioned. How ready and willing you are to go to sleep, how peaceful, free and happy you are when asleep!

Q: I know nothing of it.

M: Put it negatively. When you sleep, you are not in pain, nor bound, nor restless.

Q: I see your point. While awake, I know that I am, but am not happy; in sleep I am, I am happy, but I don't know it. All I need is to know that I am free and happy.

M: Quite so. Now, go within, into a state which you may compare to a state of waking sleep, in which you are aware of yourself, but not of the world. In that state you will know, without the least trace of doubt, that at the root of your being you are free and happy. The only trouble is that you are addicted to experience and you cherish your memories. In reality it is the other way round; what is remembered is never real; the real is now.
-----

Q: When you sleep, are you conscious or unconscious?

M: I remain conscious, but not conscious of being a particular person.

Q: Can you give us the taste of the experience of self-realisation?

M: Take the whole of it! It is here for the asking. But you do not ask. Even when you ask, you do not take. Find out what prevents you from taking.

Q: I know what prevents -- my ego.

M: Then get busy with your ego -- leave me alone. As long as you are locked up within your mind, my state is beyond your grasp.

Q: I find I have no more questions to ask.
-----

Q: Is the waking state more important for spiritual practice than sleep?

M: On the whole we attach too much importance, to the waking state. Without sleep the waking state would be impossible; without sleep one goes mad or dies; why attach so much importance to waking consciousness, which is obviously dependent on the unconscious? Not only the conscious but the unconscious as well should be taken care of in our spiritual practice.

Q: How does one attend to the unconscious?

M: Keep the 'I am' in the focus of awareness, remember that you are, watch yourself ceaselessly and the unconscious will flow into the conscious without any special effort on your part. Wrong desires and fears, false ideas, social inhibitions are blocking and preventing its free interplay with the conscious. Once free to mingle, the two become one and the one becomes all. The person merges into the witness, the witness into awareness, awareness into pure being, yet identity is not lost, only its limitations are lost. It is transfigured, and becomes the real Self, the sadguru, the eternal friend and guide. You cannot approach it in worship. No external activity can reach the inner self; worship and prayers remain on the surface only; to go deeper meditation is essential, the striving to go beyond the states of sleep, dream and waking. In the beginning the attempts are irregular, then they recur more often, become regular, then continuous and intense, until all obstacles are conquered.
-----

M: ... The three states -- sleeping, dreaming and waking are all in consciousness, the manifested; what you call unconsciousness will also be manifested -- in time; beyond consciousness altogether lies the unmanifested. And beyond all, and pervading all, is the heart of being which beats steadily -- manifested-unmanifested; manifested-unmanifested (saguna-nirguna).
-----

Questioner: Do you experience the three states of waking, dreaming and sleeping just as we do, or otherwise?

Maharaj: All the three states are sleep to me. My waking state is beyond them. As I look at you, you all seem asleep, dreaming up words of your own. I am aware, for I imagine nothing. It is not samadhi which is but a kind of sleep. It is just a state unaffected by the mind, free from the past and future. In your case it is distorted by desire and fear, by memories and hopes; in mine it is as it is -- normal. To be a person is to be asleep.
-----

Q: Your working theory seems to be that the waking state is not basically different from dream and the dreamless sleep. The three states are essentially a case of mistaken self-identification with the body. Maybe it is true, but, I feel, it is not the whole truth.

M: Do not try to know the truth, for knowledge by the mind is not true knowledge. But you can know what is not true -- which is enough to liberate you from the false.

yajvan
15 December 2007, 11:37 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~~


Namaste saidevo,

this is perfect...


Questioner: What do you do when asleep?
Maharaj: I am aware of being asleep.
Q: Is not sleep a state of unconsciousness?
M: Yes, I am aware of being unconscious.
Q: And when awake, or dreaming?
M: I am aware of being awake or dreaming.


This is the experience of being anchored in turiya... perfect!

yajvan
15 December 2007, 12:32 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~


Namaste saidevo,

regarding this 'deep sleep'.. your post was informative.

you wrote,

To whatever extent 'sushupti' (deep sleep) is related to 'moksha' (liberation), there are many wonderful things about it:


Let me offer a few words from Swami Sivananda. This is from some of his comments on the Manduka Upanishad (one of my favorites), sloka 5.
He says, in deep sleep the mind is involved into its cause, the Mula Ajnana. Threre is the veil¹ of ignorance between the individual soul and Brahman. Again this is for the samskarin ( one still in the cycle of births and deaths). Thererfore the jiva cannot attain knowledge of Brahman (while in this state). This knowledge Swamiji refers to is direct cognition knowledge, not that of books, inferences and judgement.
He mentions that the bliss enjoyed in deep sleep is avidya avrika sukha or blissed enveloped by ignorance.

Now the sloka calls out Prajana² whose sphere is deep sleep, in whom all experiences have become one, who is verily a mass of consciousness, who is full of bliss, who enjoys bliss and who is the way leading to knowledge ( of the other two states wake and dream).
Yet Swami-ji says this Anandamaya - or full of bliss is not absolute Bliss i.e. not Bliss Infinite of the Atman or the highest Nirvikalpa Samadhi bliss.

He says the mind is in a state of quiescence, which there is no thought and no doubts ( sankalph-vikalpa), that is, the mind is free from troubles and experiencing the freedom from unhappiness; this is the origin of the bliss in this state.

He also says that the sloka is referring to chetomukha, that deep sleep forms the doorway to the experience of wake and dream states i.e. the antecedent of wake and dream.

FYI - I cannot say I have experienced bliss. I know joy, happinesss, yet have no context for bliss. Maybe this bliss is joy to the 10th power.

pranams


1. I will assume also the veils Swamiji refers to are the 5 koshas.
2. Prajna is identified as Sarvesvara, the Lord of all, in the next sloka.

santosh
02 January 2009, 05:48 PM
When God enters the world of His creation as jiva, under the influence of His own energy, maya (she who veils), he becomes bewildered.

That too is maya.

The Supreme Lord is never in Maya. He is the Master of Maya at all times. Maya or Material Energy is one of innumerable energies of God. God is never bewildered by Maya because Maya is subordinate to Him, at all times.

When someone is bewildered or confused, he/she makes mistakes. God is beyong that. Because God is the owner of Maya, Maya serves God and not the other way around.

The Supreme Lord manifests in this material world out of His own sweet will. Jiva or living entity is not God. There is God and there is jiva. Yes, God is creator or emnator of jiva and so He is the origin of jiva. Individual living entity is eternally servant of God.

atanu
03 January 2009, 03:47 AM
The Supreme Lord is never in Maya. He is the Master of Maya at all times. Maya or Material Energy is one of innumerable energies of God. God is never bewildered by Maya because Maya is subordinate to Him, at all times.

When someone is bewildered or confused, he/she makes mistakes. God is beyong that. Because God is the owner of Maya, Maya serves God and not the other way around.

The Supreme Lord manifests in this material world out of His own sweet will. Jiva or living entity is not God. There is God and there is jiva. Yes, God is creator or emnator of jiva and so He is the origin of jiva. Individual living entity is eternally servant of God.

Namaste Santosh,

Cannot understand this. You say: "The Supreme Lord manifests in this material world out of His own sweet will". Then you say "He is the master of Maya at all times".

So, He manifests as another -- a different being apart from Himself and then makes that another being His servant? Is that so?

When you say that God manifests in this material world that should mean 'at some point of time', so servitude also could not have been eternal.

Om

santosh
03 January 2009, 05:10 PM
Hare Krishna and Namaste atanuji,

Thank you for your good questions.

When the Lord manifests in this material world, He comes for His purposes and according to His own plans.(BG 4:7 and 4:8). When in material world, He is still the Supreme Lord or the Supersoul. He is not a soul or jiva. Therefore He is not under the influence of Maya. Maya can not touch Him because He is master of Maya. Jiva is just jiva, he never becomes the Lord.

Other living entities (jivas or souls) who are in the material world, usually, are under the influence of Maya (of course there are exceptions to that. The exceptions being the pure devotees of the Lord, like Sri Madhvacharya, Sri Ramanujacharya, Sri Vallabhacharya etc. and many other saints)

Example given in this regard is a Governer of a state sometimes may visit prison to see how things are working there. So during his visit to the prison, he is in the Prison but he is not the prisoner like the other prisoners. He is moving freely in the prison. Even the prison-in-charge is taking orders from the Governer. At that time, other prisoners are also there with him. But the status of the two is completely different. Actually the Governer has the power to pardon any prisoner and set him free.

Similarly Lord appears in this material world but He is not bound by the laws of the material world. Example - Lord Krishna appeared 5000 thousand years ago. When He took birth from the womb of Srimati Devaki, it is not like how usually a baby is born out of woman's womb. When a human baby is born, it is covered with blood and residue of other liquids in the womb. The nurses have to clean the baby first. When Krishna appeared, at the time of His birth, He just appeared outside of Srimati Devaki's womb. He first appeared in four handed form of Lord Narayan and then he took the form of little baby. The little baby, obviously unlimited beautiful beyond any imagination, was decorated with wonderful ornaments, jewels etc.

Another example, When Krishna was just three months old, by the kick of His little toe, He broke down huge cart. Later as a little baby, He killed demon Putana and liberated her and gave her the position of His Mother in the spiritual world. Also as a boy of 6 years of age, Krishna lifted the Govardhan Hill on His left little finger.

Lord is in charge of Maya at all times. Two verses from Bhagavad Gita 7:14 (http://vedabase.net/bg/7/14/en) and 9:10 (http://vedabase.net/bg/9/10/en)

BG 7:14

daivī hy eṣā guṇa-mayī
mama māyā duratyayā
mām eva ye prapadyante
māyām etāḿ taranti te

Translation:

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.

BG 9:10

mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ
sūyate sa-carācaram
hetunānena kaunteya
jagad viparivartate

Translation:

This material nature, which is one of My energies, is working under My direction, O son of Kuntī, producing all moving and nonmoving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again.

The Supersoul and the soul are eternally related. One is eternally the Master and the other is eternally the servant. When in material world someone dies, what dies is the body. The soul can not die. The soul simply moves on to the next body given to it by higher authorities (daiva netrena) according to Karma it performed in the previous life or lives. So in the new body also, the living entity is still servant of the Lord. When anyone perfects their existence by serving the Supreme Lord under the guidance of the bonafide Spiritual Master, he returns back to the Spiritual World. There in the spiritual world also he is servant of the Lord.

Servitude is the eternal relation between the Lord and the individual jiva whether or not the jiva is in the material world or in spiritual world. This servitude is not what we understand in this material world, that is, Malik and-Naukar relationship where Malik is exploiting the Naukar. The servitude relationship between Lord and jiva is that of loving reciprocation of each other's feeling. Example - Damodar Lila where mother Yashoda bound baby Krishna to grinding mortar. Even as baby, Krishna is still the Supreme all powerful Lord (and He exibited that by killing demons Putana, Trinavarta), but He agreed to be bound by the Love of Mother Yashoda.

Thank you.

srivijaya
04 January 2009, 10:32 AM
Namaste Santosh,

Cannot understand this. You say: "The Supreme Lord manifests in this material world out of His own sweet will". Then you say "He is the master of Maya at all times".

So, He manifests as another -- a different being apart from Himself and then makes that another being His servant? Is that so?

When you say that God manifests in this material world that should mean 'at some point of time', so servitude also could not have been eternal.

Om

Hi atanu,
I ran into teachings on Maya within Mahayana Buddhism and studied them at some depth. The conclusion of the Mahayanist pondering is suitably Buddhist but in hindsight just as paradoxical as the sentence you query.

I have been forced to conclude that all teachings on Maya are mistaken from the outset, as they fail to address that which we directly experience.

Maya sets up a scenario that places us into error from the outset. For a Hindu it's God failing to recognize himself, for a Buddhist it's a being failing to grasp emptiness - the ultimate state.

If there is 'illusion' (Maya), there must be non-illusion (true reality) which we somehow fail to grasp. But, this can never be established, as we are always only within our sensory field.

Add to that the transformation of this assumed 'error' into a beguiling goddess, leading us into error and the sorry theory reaches its ludicrous end.

namaste

atanu
04 January 2009, 10:59 AM
Hi atanu,
I ran into teachings on Maya within Mahayana Buddhism and studied them at some depth. The conclusion of the Mahayanist pondering is suitably Buddhist but in hindsight just as paradoxical as the sentence you query.

I have been forced to conclude that all teachings on Maya are mistaken from the outset, as they fail to address that which we directly experience.

Maya sets up a scenario that places us into error from the outset. For a Hindu it's God failing to recognize himself, for a Buddhist it's a being failing to grasp emptiness - the ultimate state.

If there is 'illusion' (Maya), there must be non-illusion (true reality) which we somehow fail to grasp. But, this can never be established, as we are always only within our sensory field.

Add to that the transformation of this assumed 'error' into a beguiling goddess, leading us into error and the sorry theory reaches its ludicrous end.

namaste

Namaste Sri,

Thank you for your keen observations. Actually some Gurus wisely ask devottees to find out as to who is in Maya rather than try to define and explain Maya.


Best Wishes

Om

atanu
04 January 2009, 11:10 AM
Dear Santosh,

My specific questions were as below:



Cannot understand this. You say: "The Supreme Lord manifests in this material world out of His own sweet will". Then you say "He is the master of Maya at all times".

So, He manifests as another -- a different being apart from Himself and then makes that another being His servant? Is that so?


I am not doubting about Shri Krishna's Governor like status (by the way are you short of examples? I see the same examples everywhere).

I am asking you "Where from the Jiva/Jivas came? What is the essence (true nature) of the Jiva? Are there two kinds of true natures, one belonging to Shri Krishna and another for Jiva? If so, then what are these two essences? As a hint I will offer that Shri Krishna's true nature is Sad-Chit-Ananda (as per my understanding).

What are the two basic true natures (for Lord and for Jiva) as per you?


Om


Hare Krishna and Namaste atanuji,

Thank you for your good questions.

When the Lord manifests in this material world, He comes for His purposes and according to His own plans.(BG 4:7 and 4:8). When in material world, He is still the Supreme Lord or the Supersoul. He is not a soul or jiva. Therefore He is not under the influence of Maya. Maya can not touch Him because He is master of Maya. Jiva is just jiva, he never becomes the Lord.

Other living entities (jivas or souls) who are in the material world, usually, are under the influence of Maya (of course there are exceptions to that. The exceptions being the pure devotees of the Lord, like Sri Madhvacharya, Sri Ramanujacharya, Sri Vallabhacharya etc. and many other saints)

Example given in this regard is a Governer of a state sometimes may visit prison to see how things are working there. So during his visit to the prison, he is in the Prison but he is not the prisoner like the other prisoners. He is moving freely in the prison. Even the prison-in-charge is taking orders from the Governer. At that time, other prisoners are also there with him. But the status of the two is completely different. Actually the Governer has the power to pardon any prisoner and set him free.

Similarly Lord appears in this material world but He is not bound by the laws of the material world. Example - Lord Krishna appeared 5000 thousand years ago. When He took birth from the womb of Srimati Devaki, it is not like how usually a baby is born out of woman's womb. When a human baby is born, it is covered with blood and residue of other liquids in the womb. The nurses have to clean the baby first. When Krishna appeared, at the time of His birth, He just appeared outside of Srimati Devaki's womb. He first appeared in four handed form of Lord Narayan and then he took the form of little baby. The little baby, obviously unlimited beautiful beyond any imagination, was decorated with wonderful ornaments, jewels etc.

Another example, When Krishna was just three months old, by the kick of His little toe, He broke down huge cart. Later as a little baby, He killed demon Putana and liberated her and gave her the position of His Mother in the spiritual world. Also as a boy of 6 years of age, Krishna lifted the Govardhan Hill on His left little finger.

Lord is in charge of Maya at all times. Two verses from Bhagavad Gita 7:14 (http://vedabase.net/bg/7/14/en) and 9:10 (http://vedabase.net/bg/9/10/en)

BG 7:14

daivī hy eṣā guṇa-mayī
mama māyā duratyayā
mām eva ye prapadyante
māyām etāḿ taranti te

Translation:

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.

BG 9:10

mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ
sūyate sa-carācaram
hetunānena kaunteya
jagad viparivartate

Translation:

This material nature, which is one of My energies, is working under My direction, O son of Kuntī, producing all moving and nonmoving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again.

The Supersoul and the soul are eternally related. One is eternally the Master and the other is eternally the servant. When in material world someone dies, what dies is the body. The soul can not die. The soul simply moves on to the next body given to it by higher authorities (daiva netrena) according to Karma it performed in the previous life or lives. So in the new body also, the living entity is still servant of the Lord. When anyone perfects their existence by serving the Supreme Lord under the guidance of the bonafide Spiritual Master, he returns back to the Spiritual World. There in the spiritual world also he is servant of the Lord.

Servitude is the eternal relation between the Lord and the individual jiva whether or not the jiva is in the material world or in spiritual world. This servitude is not what we understand in this material world, that is, Malik and-Naukar relationship where Malik is exploiting the Naukar. The servitude relationship between Lord and jiva is that of loving reciprocation of each other's feeling. Example - Damodar Lila where mother Yashoda bound baby Krishna to grinding mortar. Even as baby, Krishna is still the Supreme all powerful Lord (and He exibited that by killing demons Putana, Trinavarta), but He agreed to be bound by the Love of Mother Yashoda.

Thank you.

santosh
04 January 2009, 03:46 PM
My specific questions were as below:

I am not doubting about Shri Krishna's Governor like status (by the way are you short of examples? I see the same examples everywhere).

I am asking you "Where from the Jiva/Jivas came? What is the essence (true nature) of the Jiva? Are there two kinds of true natures, one belonging to Shri Krishna and another for Jiva? If so, then what are these two essences? As a hint I will offer that Shri Krishna's true nature is Sad-Chit-Ananda (as per my understanding).

What are the two basic true natures (for Lord and for Jiva) as per you?


Om

Hare Krishna Atanuji,

Thank you for your even more wonderful questions.

Where do Jivas come from? Jivas come from the Supreme Lord. The Supreme Lord emanates it, that's why He is called our Creator and we are His creation.

There are two tattvas (or natures) 1. Vishnu-tattva 2. Jiva tattva.
All jivas are of jiva tattva category. Lord is Vishnu-tattva.

(There are other tattvas also Shiva Tattva and Sri Tattva)

The jiva tattva is also called as tatastha shakti (translated as marginal energy). The tatastha shakti can be under the jurisdiction of either Yogamaya (Para Shakti of the Lord) or Mahamaya (Apara Shakti of the Lord). The jiva has minute independence to decide under whose jurisdiction it wants to be.

Para Shakti and Apara Shakti are explained in Srimad Bhagvad Gita.

What is Lord Krishna's nature? Yes, like you wrote Lord Krishna's eternal nature is Sat-Chid-Ananda. Even when Lord appears in the material world, He is always in Sat-Chid-Ananda state eventhough externally He appears to behave like an ordinary human being.

The original constitutional position of jiva is also sat-Chid-Ananda. However, the jiva out of its foolishness develops false ego and deviates from that and falls from spiritual world into material world and and is under the spell of Maya.

Achintya Bhedabhed (simultaneously one and different) philosophy explains the Supreme Lord and Jiva are qualitatively same but quantitatively different. The example given in this regard is a drop of ocean water is qualitatively same with the ocean water but quantitatively different than the ocean.

Similarly, The Supreme Lord and we are same qualitatively but quantitatively we are tiny and the Lord is Infinite. Even practically we can uderstand this - we do have some shakti or energy for example we can lift some weight which does require shakti, but we can not lift Govardhan Mountain on our little left finger, nor can we put The Sun and The Moon in its celestial position.

(Srimad Bhagavatam Canto first provides more details on Creation, nature of the Supreme Lord etc.)

By performing Bhakti to Supreme Lord, jiva can return back to the Spiritual World which is its true Home.

Thank you.

satay
05 January 2009, 09:46 AM
Namaskar Santosh,
I was enjoying your sweet post but then I ran into this...



The original constitutional position of jiva is also sat-Chid-Ananda. However, the jiva out of its foolishness develops false ego and deviates from that and falls from spiritual world into material world and and is under the spell of Maya.


Earlier in your post you said that




Where do Jivas come from? Jivas come from the Supreme Lord. The Supreme Lord emanates it, that's why He is called our Creator and we are His creation.


I am puzzled. How does something that emanates from the Supreme Lord can do something 'foolish'? Are you saying that Lord is the source of this Foolishness? or is there any other source that injects this foolishness into the jivas?

santosh
05 January 2009, 07:01 PM
Hare Krishna Satayji,

Thank you for your appreciation and great question. It's certainly "the" most difficult question in terms of fully understanding why/how a jiva, which comes from all pure, all good Supreme Lord, falls from spiritual world. I myself had this same question when I came to ISKCON and many other seekers ask this question. Like you say, it is extremely puzzling.

So I am humbly putting forward this reply which is derived from the teachings of the Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya Sampradaya.

The Lord is all pure, all good and supremely independent. Becuase He is Supremely independent, the jivas emanated from Him also have some independence, they can be obedient or rebellious. Lord does not force them to love Him. Love means loving someone on one's own free will, not by force. Just like a man/woman can not say to other woman/man by putting gun to their head - love me. No, that's not love. Love means voluntarily loving someone. So in Spiritual World jiva has freedom to choose. It can use the freedom given to it or misuse it and rebel against the Lord. If it rebels, it falls from the Spiritual World. Example given in this regard is a government in a democracy gives free will to its citizens to behave good. Some do behave good and obey the laws of the state and others don't. Those who don't, are arrested by police and put in prison. The government is impartial to all citizens (and so is the prison-in-charge), but some citizens choose to break the law and then they suffer because of the bad choices they made.

Therefore this material world in Scriptures is called a prison house (Durg) and the keeper of this prison is Durgadevi. Neither the Supreme Lord nor Mother Durgadevi is against the jivas. Both the Supreme Lord and Mother Durgadevi are extremely kind, the individual jiva is to blame itself.

When trapped in this material world which is dukhalayam ashashwatam, the jivas obviously suffer under the influences of the three modes of material nature (sattva, raja, tama), three types of kleshas (miseries) - Adhi Daivik, Adhi Bhautik and Adhi Atmic.

In the material world, the jiva commits some good action sometime, some bad action other times and accordingly either enjoys or suffers respectively due to karmic reaction as instrumented under the law of karma. But the suffering does have important purpose that is to realize that this place (material world with 14 planetory systems, ours is eighth) is not a good place to be and think of how to get out of this repeated cycle of birth and death. If the jiva really sincerely repents and wants to get out, the Lord presents him with a bonafide Guru who can show him the path to go back to its original home - the spiritual world.

satay
06 January 2009, 09:54 AM
Namaskar Santosh,


Hare Krishna Satayji,
The Lord is all pure, all good and supremely independent. Becuase He is Supremely independent, the jivas emanated from Him also have some independence, they can be obedient or rebellious.

Let's focus on the above point of you put forward.
Lord is supremely independent - agreed.
Jivas emanate from him - agreed

Then you say, "Jivas also have some independence, they can be obedient or rebellious".

If the jivas 'also have some independce' as you mentioned, then I agree that logically it implies that jivas can either be obedient or rebellious. However, where does this 'rebellious' nature come from? Since jivas are emanated from the Lord, logically it implies that the source of the rebellious nature is Lord himself.

Secondly, if the Jivas have some independence, then why would the Lord punish them with karmic debt simply becuase they exercise this independence? Logically it implies that 'rebellion' is implied in the so called 'independence' or 'independent will'.

From his instruction we know that he is beyond karmic law yet. If Jivas are emanated from the Lord and jivas get some of his qualities like 'independence' then why jivas also don't the same ability to be beyond karmic law? Why Jivas get engtangled in the karmic law? Why this one particular quality of the lord doesn't get injected into the Jivas?


My problem is that this type of logic makes the Lord look like irresponisble and unjust Lord. In addition, it makes his shakti or emanation look like it has some flaw. That is to say that in the process of emanation somehow somewhere jivas either don't get all of his qualities or a 'flaw' gets injected in it somehow.

Lord is pure thus logically anything emanating from him should also be pure. Lord has supreme independence, logically then anything emanating from him should have at least some indepence in its nature. Lord is beyond Karmic law, logically then anything emanating from him should have at least some ability to be beyond karmic law. Yet jivas don't have the ability...

atanu
08 January 2009, 02:52 AM
Hare Krishna Atanuji,

Thank you for your even more wonderful questions.

Where do Jivas come from? Jivas come from the Supreme Lord. The Supreme Lord emanates it, that's why He is called our Creator and we are His creation.



Namaste Santosh,

All what you say is mental speculation of Maya alone.

Temporarily agreeing to your concept of a Jiva/Jivas emanating from Lord, I point out that still a Jiva does not lose the essential nature of Sat-Chit-Ananda, which is also the nature of Brahman.

Your notion that '-- the Jiva is fallen separate entity --' (that the creator and the created are separate entities) is itself the Maya-- The ignorance, an imagination of thirsty mind. The Sat-Chid-Ananda never becomes asat-achit-dukkha. Lord has said that what is sat is always sat and what is Asat is ever Asat. Your mental speculation fall in the second category.

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

A wave is not the ocean. But a wave thinking that it has an essential nature different and independent from the ocean is in error -- in Maya.

A wave which sees the ocean and finds the source of its existence in the ocean, yet still thinks that its difference is eternal is in Maya called Dvaita. The wave will break and the form will be gone.

A wave which thinks itself to be essentially same as the ocean yet a different being -- a part of ocean, is in Maya called Vishista Advaita.

A wave which comes to know its own nature and of other waves to be the water that makes up the ocean also, has attained Advaita knowledge, comprehending Lord's saying that Yogis see same everywhere.

Sat-Chit-Ananda is Sat-Chit-Ananda. The concept of time and place sprouts off Sat-Chit-Ananda, which being prior to Time and Space does not allow differentiation or any partition of itself.


Om

brahman
09 January 2009, 12:59 AM
What I Find to be 'Maya'

Everything what you find and feel is MAYA. Your atman alone is reality.

Mind free of imaginations is called Atman.
Brhaman