PDA

View Full Version : The Import of Turiya ...



yajvan
08 August 2007, 12:47 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste vispulinga, ( spark)
This post is a continuation in general of http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1773 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1773) with multiple points of view and great analogies by Saidevo;

This post will specifically pick up the conversation from this post of http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=14570#post14570 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=14570#post14570)


A key contribution to the development of this topic is Atanu with his posts http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=14532&postcount=1 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=14532&postcount=1) [ this is a great reference and insight]

The above references are offered to connect the dots and insure if someone wants to figure out how we got to this point , the knowledge is offered in the HDF postings shown.

Based upon HDF and all of our postings, it is clear that many desire a closer relationship with HIM/HER. This can be accomplished using all different methods, ( bhakti, kriya, prayer, meditation, yama, niyama, etc.). I have been taught all roads lead to turiya as the platform that brings one closer to the desired relationship with the Divine

Please feel free to probe and ask questions. I am not the final authority on this, but am willing to share the knowledge and teachings I have been blessed with over the years.


IMHO and in my experience, becoming intimate with this knowledge advances ones progress on the path - The upanishad say knowledge is the greatest purifer; Hence for sadaka's the discussion and removal of doubts, and no less the probing is a boon to comprehension understanding. May all these posts offered by many on HDF move us to the light. You are highly qualified to talk & discuss this, because at your core, our most simplest level, this Turiya is you.

This Turiya
This 4th, this delicate, yet omnipresent turiya is of great importance. How so? It is the bridge to the Divine.
Let me see if I can represent it here - again this is to assist...there are always other ways to show this, but there is a lot said for being simple, yes?

Mundane Consciousness ---T---Divine Consciousness

Turiya, the 4th is the bridge as it remains, unchanged , infinite, without a second, immutable, and verily indescribable. See this post on the Mundaka Upanisad , here on HDF: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=14539&postcount=8 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=14539&postcount=8)


So What do I mean by this Mundane and Divine consciousness turiya as the bridge? Lets look:

Waking or jagrat chetana
Dreaming or swapn chetana
Dreamless Sleep or sushupti chetana

Turiya

Cosmic Consciousness turiyatit chetana (sustained turiya)
God consciousness or bhagavat chetana
Brahman Consciousness or brahmi chetana

Each state of consciousness has a corresponding mind-body experience, and a world-surroundings experience ( perception). Lets start here:

Waking or jagrat chetana
All of us should be in waking state now - Yes? As we read this, the mind is active, the body is also active. We are aware of our surroundings. If a noise is heard our attention goes there. If we smell something the senses are active, ;we smell them and our attention goes there. Our senses are engaged with the environment. The mind goes to other places as the senses may direct it. If this post becomes boring, ones attention is then directed to another place that may give it more. ( This 'more' experience is wired in our circuitry, the village of the senses).
Duality exists - that is, there is me, and then the objects I perceive - cars, people, family, job, actions, all are outside of me.

Dreaming or swapn chetana
Dreaming , we have the mind active and the body resting. Some say they do not dream, this can be left for another time. In dream the mind can experience flying, smelling, taste, and a whole range of experiences, yet the body does not. It is thought that this activity is part of The stress release process for the individual. The surroundings in this state of consciousness is of the minds choice. Some in color, some black&white surroundings. This dream state is a bit less restrictive then waking.
Duality exists- I am active in mind, and other 'things' and experiences are in motion, distinct from me.

Dreamless Sleep or sushupti chetana
Deep sleep. The mind is withdrawn, the body inactive, the senses are inactive, to feed the mind, so mind is not present.
No Duality - There is no experience, no Duality - which is a definition of enlightenment, yet one is not aware of this, so the condition of enlightenment as a possible state is disqualified.

Turiya
Some call this pure consciousness. The 'raw materials' for Being. For "Being" please finish the sentence yajvan! . It is 'Being' or existence. It is awareness itself. Aware of what ? just awareness. Our previously posted example: You go to the movies and what all the action on the screen. The movie ends, they turn on the house lights, and you see the white screen on where the movie was being played. Like that , this turiya provides the canvas for all other levels of consciousness to take place. This screen is White, so all things can be reflected. Turiya contains all possibilities yet is indescribable itself. The metaphor breaks down here. Unlike the movie screen, turiya has no boundaries or edges like the screen. The rishi's say it is Unbounded.

The mind is still, but alert, resting in SELF; the body is rested, balanced. This is unlike the other 3 states of waking dreaming and sleeping. This state of awareness/consciousness is experienced by transcending. Going to finer levels of Consciousness, until the activity of the mind is still, and pure consciousness is experienced/enjoyed. It's like a pot of water on the stove. We have flames (activity) , and the water ( consciousness) boils and bubbles. When we remove the heat the water (consciousness) settles down, and becomes calm, without ripples, bubbles. This is where this metaphor breaks down. When one transcends and experiences this pure awareness, it is boundless there is no constraints of the pot. This is groomed and cultured over time. It is the experience of meditating daily that cultures the village of the senses to allow this state or condition to exist even in activity.

Lets stop there - no one likes long posts. Then we will take a look at the following:

Turiya as the foundation (continued)
Cosmic Consciousness - turiyatit chetana (sustained turiya consciousness)

God consciousness or bhagavat chetana
Brahman Consciousness or brahmi chetana
Whats different about these chetana levels of Being?
How does one benefit - why even pursue?" O Svetaketu, do you understand what I am telling you? This great but most essence of all the worlds is the Truth, the Atman, the Supreme Reality within you, and you are THAT" - sage Uddalaka, Chhandogya Upanishad

Znanna
08 August 2007, 06:38 PM
How does one benefit - why even pursue?

How about because it feels really really good?



ZN
/smiling :)

yajvan
08 August 2007, 06:52 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

How about because it feels really really good?

ZN
/smiling :)

Hello and Namaste ZN
... a reasonable assessment.
When one chooses to pursue the 4th , 4 areas of life improve:



Ones spiritual advancement - clarity of purpose and harmony with oneself improves.
Mental health - balanced mind; negative thoughts decline; stress and strain are reduced; over time, this becomes perfectly balanced mind, no negative thoughts, no additional vasana's are produced i.e. one uses more of their full potential over time AND the full potential of Intellignece of nature ( this I hope we can talk more about) - its organzing power. Intuition improves also.
Physical health - due to mental health - the mind-body coordination improves
Social health - a happier and balanced individual interacts better within the family, neighborhood and society (work, school, etc).One becomes, more and more, the exponent of reality over time... how could this not be joyous as you have stated.

thank you for your comments.
pranams,

yajvan
09 August 2007, 08:21 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

Continuing the conversation... in the first post we offered a foundation for this knowledge; we are now looking at more evolved states of consciousness. That is, some may call this conversation a discussion about axenic (or free from contamination) levels of Being.

A note - this post is a bit longer then the last. It may take a few reads to digest. Please poke/probe and ask questions.

1st post subject matter
Waking or jagrat chetana
Dreaming or swapn chetana
Dreamless Sleep or sushupti chetana

Turiya

This post
Cosmic Consciousness turiyatit chetana (sustained turiya)
God consciousness or bhagavat chetana
Brahman Consciousness or brahmi chetana


Once this state, turiya, can be sustained in activity without it being overshadowed by actions, expreriences, stress, strain, then it is considered stable, and Cosmic (without bounds) consciousness is established.

Once this turiya is a perpetual experience one rests in the SELF, in Brahman. Before this, one is blessed with glimpses of this...that can come purposefully during meditation or techniques one practices (siddhi's, bhakti, kriya, etc.) or one can fall into this experience naturally, yet with no means of recreating it again; happenstance or chance.

Cosmic Consciousness - turiyatit chetana (sustained turiya)
In this state, one is associated with the SELF. Some call this Self referral. One is grounded in this silence, completely separate from activity. This Self referral there 7x24x365 days. It is Turiya that is established and experienced in ones consciousness , whether in waking, dream or sleep states. When Sri Krsna tells Arjuna be without the 3 gunas (BG 2.45, 2.50, 17, 3.19) established in the SELF (atman), He speaks of the Cosmic Consciousness, turiyatit established.

When we talk of being non-attached to action, not concerned about the fruits of action, this is the stake of consciousness the rishi's and sages and masters are discussing. Not mood making or 'trying' to act like this BEFORE the state of consciousness exists. Its as if one is asking you to be a king, and you have no kingdom! Once this state of consciousness is established, then the SELF is established, one is of resolute intellect we associate ourselves with the SELF ( SELF referral).
Much can be said about this state. How one performs action, what becomes of the 3 gunas, etc . We will take this up if there is interest from the readers. Yet In this state, restful alertness, some call this dynamic restfulness (a new functioning of the nervous system) is established and remains so. This is the baseline for further unfoldment to bhagavat chetana. That is, this level of consciousness changes the individual in mind and body.God consciousness or bhagavat chetana
In this state of consciousness, and developing this state of consciousness, one's perception improves. One is able to perceive the finest levels of creation. The senses are refined, not blocked from stresses and strains. One is able to view and appreciate HIS/HER creation, the finest details, and the expression of Consciousness that manifests. This perception brings the highest level of appreceation to ones heart as it swells with love of the Supreme, of the Divine. What is developed is the nervious system of perception and the heart ( emotions)

Its my opinion that Love defined, is the highest level of appreciation one can have. It is from this love that devotion to the Supreme gets established. This is bhakti. It is based upon the ability for one's consciousness to be pure, established in the SELF, one pointed, without knots.
As my teacher has said, this level of consciousness is based upon the silence that is realized and stabilized in turiyatit chetana.
A few ideas then:
In Transcendental consciousness the silence that is experienced, is total silence, without activity, absorbed in the SELF, nothing else exists, as one transcends the nervous system can only entertain this level awareness while still, quiet. Then in Cosmic Consciousness one is established in the silence of the SELF, yet external to him/her there is activity ( work, actions, life buzzing around). There is me/Self and not-Self that can now be experienced. One can be in activity (walking/acting) yet the Silence of SELF never leaves.
In God Consciousness, there is this silence of SELF AND activity into the one-ness of HIM. It’s a highly evolved state of silence with activity, simultaneously. You ask how can this be. Yes! This is Divine. This is the individual +SELF+God+activity , combined or attuned together. There is no thing that is not seen as an expression of His grace. It is this Omni-presence of silence that encompasses everything. Like akasha (space) it surrounds and is in everything - there is no-thing that it is not. Think on how highly evolved our nervous system is that allows this to happen.Brahman Consciousness or brahmi chetana
This most evolved state is Supreme. All the mahavakya's ( great, full, robust sayings) point to this state of being. We hear many on this HDF praise these sayings and repeat and remind us of this level of Being. This is the practical side , the defined, experintial side.

As I understand it, when one has this experience, it requires the master to assist and help - Tat tvam asi, That thou art. You no longer are in relationship to this creation, you ARE this creation, this Brahman.
There is no duality, there is no other. Quite a profound state to experience. All things are an extension of you. There are no-things , as all is you . You are at home no matter where you are at, because it is you.
'This' is one homogeneous/ubiquitous expression of consciousness and you are that. There is nothing to be done, because all has been accomplished already. There is no past, present or future, as Brahman (aham brahmasmi) , one is amala ( a or 'not' + mala blemish or 'impurity') without any blemish.
Ones actions are universal and the actions of the Universe here on earth. One is full of and possessed of Dharma-megha , or cloud pouring virtue.
What ever is willed (satya-samkalpah) bears fruit as the total universe is the support structure for this to occur. Yet what is there to be done? Only His Divine work.What can be an example of this? Consider yourself a container, with a lid on it. You have a specific boundary of height and width, a volume. You are this akasha within this Boundary. This container then is broken and removed. You realize there is no difference from the space that was outside the container ( that held the container) to the Space within the container… you. There is no boundary of you, there is no difference of space (akasha) and you. IT is one contiguous fullness (Bhuma) of existence.

This is the wisdom of the Tradition, it is not my possession... I am in hopes it adds , compliments or advances ones understanding of this great knowledge.

" O Svetaketu, do you understand what I am telling you? This great but most essence of all the worlds is the Truth, the Atman, the Supreme Reality within you, and you are THAT" - sage Uddalaka, Chhandogya Upanishad

Nuno Matos
09 August 2007, 09:34 AM
Namaste Yajvan

Thank you.Very well putted! You are indeed a source of great knowledge and Help!

atanu
09 August 2007, 11:22 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

Continuing the conversation... in the first post we offered a foundation for this knowledge; we are now looking at more evolved states of consciousness. That is, some may call this conversation a discussion about axenic (or free from contamination) levels of Being.

A note - this post is a bit longer then the last. It may take a few reads to digest. Please poke/probe and ask questions.

1st post subject matter
Waking or jagrat chetana
Dreaming or swapn chetana
Dreamless Sleep or sushupti chetana

Turiya

This post
Cosmic Consciousness turiyatit chetana (sustained turiya)
God consciousness or bhagavat chetana
Brahman Consciousness or brahmi chetana
-----

" O Svetaketu, do you understand what I am telling you? This great but most essence of all the worlds is the Truth, the Atman, the Supreme Reality within you, and you are THAT" - sage Uddalaka, Chhandogya Upanishad

Namaste Yajvan Ji,

We have discussed this before also. Since this has come up again, so I am repeating my understanding based on Mandukya Upanishad that is entirely different. No doubt, many scriptural texts describe seven states of Consciousness but they all are within Consciousness -- below Pragnya, who is Sarvesvara.

Knowing Pragnya, who is Sarvesvara, Bhagavan, and Brahman, is itself Bhagavat Chetana. Turiya is neither consciousness nor nonconsciousness but is the seed of consciousness, so how can it be within a classification of states of Chetana -- which are mental states?

Turiyatita is a state of a sadhaka who is fully established in Turiya. But itself Turiya (the being) is changeless, timeless, Self. It has no other. There is no question of chetana of a second here, since it is defined as changeless and Advaita.

Moreover, the shruti "-- this Self is Brahman" very clearly states that the Self that is Turiya is Brahman. In fact, Turiya in Pragnya pada proclaims "I am Brahman". That's why it is said "Pragnya is Brahman". Self (Turiya) is the seed of Brahman.


I write this to emphasise again that the seven states of consciousness are from the view of sadhaka and cannot be an elucidation of Turiya, which is ONE, CHANGELESS, past, present, future and beyond time and seed of Brahman.


Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
09 August 2007, 12:42 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste Yajvan Ji,

We have discussed this before also. Since this has come up again, so I am repeating my understanding based on Mandukya Upanishad that is entirely different. No doubt, many scriptural texts describe seven states of Consciousness but they all are within Consciousness -- below Pragnya, who is Sarvesvara.

Knowing Pragnya, who is Sarvesvara, Bhagavan, and Brahman, is itself Bhagavat Chetana. Turiya is neither consciousness nor nonconsciousness but is the seed of consciousness, so how can it be within a classification of states of Chetana -- which are mental states?

Turiyatita is a state of a sadhaka who is fully established in Turiya. But itself Turiya (the being) is changeless, timeless, Self. It has no other. There is no question of chetana of a second here, since it is defined as changeless and Advaita.

Moreover, the shruti "-- this Self is Brahman" very clearly states that the Self that is Turiya is Brahman. In fact, Turiya in Pragnya pada proclaims "I am Brahman". That's why it is said "Pragnya is Brahman". Self (Turiya) is the seed of Brahman.


I write this to emphasise again that the seven states of consciousness are from the view of sadhaka and cannot be an elucidation of Turiya, which is ONE, CHANGELESS, past, present, future and beyond time and seed of Brahman. Om Namah Shivaya

Namaste atanu,

Yes, I concur turiya is changeless of this there is no doubt and I think the post ( yours also) reinforces this notion. With that, when the sadhaka is established in turiya s/he too is now that. What remains is lesh-avidya.

These seven states is a framework for ones discussions and for the sadhaka, we are in agreement. Otherwise the statement of turiya is grand, true, and inviting, yet without a road map ( as I see it).

Turiya = Brahman = Self, yet there are different experiences and the evolution of the senses is a key part. This is what I am pointing out.
By His grace , one does not go from ignorance to Brahman Consciousness or brahmi chetana in one swoop.
This is where I belive symantics gets in the way. Absolutely turiya= Brahman. Yet there is some additional development
to bring this fully in the village of th senses ( the total nervious system).

There is substantial contrast to begin with initially and turiya must first be established... this may be where you see something a bit differently then me perhaps. This maybe where we need to talk more; yet I think we may lose some of our HDF readers along the way and we're back to being too too esoteric ( which is fine for me but perhaps limits total HDF participation?)

The notions given in the post is not to limit or restrict but to help one discern. I was quite cautious to not suggest turiya as the 4th state of consciousness, but to suggest there is a level of consciousness that allows the 4th to be part of ones daily life. If there is no reference point within the individual, then where does one look? If one looks outside of ones self, then we're back to the 3 gunas and the senses being dragged about.
[ And I know you are not suggesting this, I point it out to compare and contrast the notion. And if this post was atanu-centric it would have a different look and feel, due to your reading and background ]

If you can offer a better solution to this conundrum - I am happy to consider it. This is why I have been trying to throttle the conversation. We know that in the final analysis all this is indeed Brahman, yet what of the new comer that scratches his/her head and says, what do I do with this information? Yes the wonderful; Upanishads say I am indeed this Brahman, now what?

If too much information and permutations are offered then it is like drinking out of a fire hose.

One method of teaching and discussion is based upon a vision of possibilities, followed by some framework or rigor that gets one grounded in the knowledge. I looked at it from this point and of the sisya's that were taught in the manner with my teacher and it seemed to worked well... Then the info that you describe and that of the Upanishads, and other agamas can be entertained and discussed with confidence as the principles are established. I am open to other methods, Yet this has served me well for some time.

thank you again, and please lets continue.

pranams.

Znanna
09 August 2007, 07:08 PM
what do I do with this information? Yes the wonderful; Upanishads say I am indeed this Brahman, now what?

Yes, this niggling question persists. The only way I know to get a resolution is to earnestly pray, and accept the revelation.


ZN

yajvan
09 August 2007, 08:16 PM
Hari Om
~~~~

Yes, this niggling question persists. The only way I know to get a resolution is to earnestly pray, and accept the revelation.
ZN

Namaste ZN (et.al)...

the wise say if you don't know where your going then any road will take you there. [ ZN this is not 'you' in this sentence it is 'we' and 'us' on a general scale].

Hence if we discuss overall the states of being ,of development, then one can look on the map and say ' Oh yes! I see I am here and I understand which way is north and south'. Or one can say time out I am not on the map AND I did not even know there was a map!
Like that , this is what I humbly believe the value of HDF is and is consistently improving over time. This is where I think HDF members can make a difference: Define the map and direction and help others move in the direction they are compelled to explore.

If we care to just come and discuss ideas, then go back to our routines, this is well and good, many will benefit. We can also come and discuss this matter of ones development, which leads to OUR development. No one is independent on this earth , that is the joke on us and the illusion many have bought into. Hence I am completely at a loss on how to improve this earth if not done one human at a time. This I think is a reasonable contribution to the family of man in Kali Yuga.

So, what to do with this information? If I know where I am approximately at on the map I can then choose venues to get me to where I want to go, really, what I want to become.

Then our discussions can be - how to get to the next stage? how does one meditate if they wish to pursue this, or the need of a guru, spiritual advisor, or the guru-within. All possibilities.

The Veda's are so fast, so deep. How to boil it down ? And then people offer this knowledge to others; It has to be a collective effort until one reaches this Brahmavit (enlightened) level of Being.

The boiling down of the vedas = the BHagavad Gita, all one needs to know in 700 ( some argue 701) verses. Yet the vedas are so fast , so robust, people come from different vantage points. That is, one may say Krsna is not my path, Okay fine, and not to worry because as far as I can tell all roads for spiritual development lead to turiya-Self-Brahman.

Getting comfortable with these notions and not just the verbiage and snippets of knowledge is a development process. The Upanishads say knowledge is the greatest purifier. This is true and this has been experienced, and I am a better person for it. Yet - I am just one more bozo on the bus. Yet I am blessed. I am clear on which direction that bus is heading, why it is going in the direction, and doing all I can to help the driver steer. I am not unconscious about my development and do not leave it to the wind. This do not infer that others are, in any way, shape or form. If we can help, then we are doing dharma, upholding society, by upholding our citizens.

To perhaps answer the implied question which you brought " this niggling question persists." - the answer is to stablize turiya so it resides there all the time in wake dream and sleep. At least one then knows the goal at hand - I Need to do ....
How ? - with the proper technique or the guru. Is one needed? Can one get started w/o a instructor and get warmed up? Is one even needed? Or, I have a guru - is s/he gving you guidence to turiya? if yes all well and good. If not, ?

you also mention: The only way I know to get a resolution is to earnestly pray, and accept the revelation. This sounds like a perfect fit for you at this juncture and as you have mentioned before, you are fortunate to have help from others that are present to assist you.

Yet the nagging question - no revelations are coming for Tommy, and Bobby, and Amit, Prasada, and Suti, Now what? If the mountain does not come to Mohammad, Mohammad must go to the mountain. We have the map!

pranams,

Znanna
09 August 2007, 08:30 PM
Namaste, yajvan,

I'm sort of simple in the way I interact - there have been times where I've said to myself, what do I do with this information? So, I pray, I get instruction, I do that and everything's cool. It works for me :)

I still wonder sometimes where the instruction comes from, but, it works so I really don't care most of the time. The rest of the time, well, I just keep a poker face. I've no doubt there's intelligences out there which are greater than mine, and discreet, too. If I didn't hold that opinion, I'd consider myself much crazier than I already do.


Love,
ZN

mirabai
09 August 2007, 09:03 PM
Namaste, yajvan,

I'm sort of simple in the way I interact - there have been times where I've said to myself, what do I do with this information? So, I pray, I get instruction, I do that and everything's cool. It works for me :)

I still wonder sometimes where the instruction comes from, but, it works so I really don't care most of the time. The rest of the time, well, I just keep a poker face. I've no doubt there's intelligences out there which are greater than mine, and discreet, too. If I didn't hold that opinion, I'd consider myself much crazier than I already do.


Love,
ZN

Namaste ZN,

I think what works, as you said, is the best path to walk.
Comment from a loved one just yesterday, made this crystal clear for me; When we develop and become our own true nature, THAT is the path. THAT leads to realization. THAT is our dharma.

Mira

yajvan
10 August 2007, 08:48 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaste ZN,

I think what works, as you said, is the best path to walk.
Comment from a loved one just yesterday, made this crystal clear for me; When we develop and become our own true nature, THAT is the path. THAT leads to realization. THAT is our dharma. Mira

Namaste Mira,
wise words... for all the posts we have here this is at the core. How to make this a 'process' and not a random act. i.e. finding our true nature, turiya. That is, the development - the how to. This has been the subject matter of this post and the other post - "Consciousnesss Care to Discuss".

As aksara is seperate from the relative field of life - IT is quite happy in Itself - it has no motivation to come get us! We need to go find it. To this , the stimulation of conversation - akshara's definition, etc. assists the seeker.

May we all be blessed with finding this turiya, this Being.

pranams,

atanu
10 August 2007, 09:25 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~
Namaste atanu,

Yes, I concur turiya is changeless of this there is no doubt and I think the post ( yours also) reinforces this notion. With that, when the sadhaka is established in turiya s/he too is now that. What remains is lesh-avidya.

These seven states is a framework for ones discussions and for the sadhaka, we are in agreement. Otherwise the statement of turiya is grand, true, and inviting, yet without a road map ( as I see it).

Turiya = Brahman = Self, yet there are different experiences and the evolution of the senses is a key part. ----.


Namaskar Yajvan Ji,

The experiences and their evolution is of senses and the mind. I am not denying that.

But to avoid the mis-conception that one who is established in Turiya (and thus has become Turiya) has further to go, I re-emphasised that Turiya is ONE and it has to be known as ONE. There is no other way.

Moreover, many say that we already know waking, dreaming, and deep sleep states. Its not correct. To know Jagrat is to know ONE Agnivaisvanaro. To know dreaming is to Know ONE Taijjassa. And to know deep sleep is know ONE Sarvesvara. Knowing these three states only one is established as one consciousness. Then alone one has attained the qualification for Samadhi/Turiya.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
10 August 2007, 09:38 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste atanu,

------
These seven states is a framework for ones discussions and for the sadhaka, we are in agreement. Otherwise the statement of turiya is grand, true, and inviting, yet without a road map ( as I see it).

Turiya = Brahman = Self, -----
-----
pranams.

Namaste,

Well, I don't see it that way, since scriptures related to OM are the roadmaps. AUM is itself the road map. The knowledge of three steps is the road map. The knowledge of seven states of consciousness can help one who has not been graced with the import of OM.


I repeat that Turiya is not a state of Chetana.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
10 August 2007, 09:53 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~
Namaste atanu,

--------- but to suggest there is a level of consciousness that allows the 4th to be part of ones daily life.


That is a mental level of knowing that beneath all these is ONE Self. That is not the settled experience, which cannot come without praying/meditating/prostrating at the feet of Sarvesvara.



----This is why I have been trying to throttle the conversation. We know that in the final analysis all this is indeed Brahman, yet what of the new comer that scratches his/her head and says, what do I do with this information? Yes the wonderful; Upanishads say I am indeed this Brahman, now what?

----pranams.

Again knowing I am Brahman is not the knowledge.

Brihad. Upanishad says: Knowing this one should meditate. But even this theoretical knowing does not get statbilsed, till one reaces the Feet of Sarvesvara and experiences for certain that all this is Conciousness alone, who is Sarvesvara.

Svet. Upanishad

Chapter One

11
When the Lord is known all fetters fall off; with the cessation of miseries, birth and death come to an end. From meditation on Him there arises, after the dissolution of the body, the third state, that of universal lordship. And lastly, the aspirant, transcending that state also, abides in the complete Bliss of Brahman.
12
The enjoyer (jiva), the objects of enjoyment and the Ruler (Isvara)—the triad described by the knowers of Brahman—all this is nothing but Brahman. This Brahman alone, which abides eternally within the self, should be known. Beyond It, truly, there is nothing else to be known.
13
The visible form of fire, while it lies latent in its source, the fire—wood, is not perceived; yet there is no destruction of its subtle form. That very fire can be brought out again by means of persistent rubbing of the wood, its source. In like manner, Atman, which exists in two states, like fire, can be grasped in this very body by means of Om.
14
By making the body the lower piece of wood and Om the upper piece and through the practice of the friction of meditation, one perceives the luminous Self, hidden like the fire in the wood.

Om

yajvan
10 August 2007, 12:11 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

Well, I don't see it that way, since scriptures related to OM are the roadmaps. AUM is itself the road map. The knowledge of three steps is the road map. The knowledge of seven states of consciousness can help one who has not been graced with the import of OM.

I repeat that Turiya is not a state of Chetana.

Regards, Om Namah Shivaya

Namaste Atanu,

I have read your posts... I see your view point and we differ. Yet where do we agree? Turiya. That is my point on this matter. If you see that I am saying something different please advise accordingly.

I have no desire to confine turiya to consciousness or to any one thing. Yet how does one experince this turiya ? Via consciousness.
As turiya incompasses consciousness, but is not limited to it. Consciousness is key here, not a constraint to turiya.
Regarding Om. We again have differing opinions on the word roadmap - that is what is getting in the way I believe. For me the roadmap, a construct, (7 states of consciousness) does not = vehicle to get there. For me and my learning, the vehicle is OM.
Why do I look at this in this manner? Mundukaopanishad 2.2.4 - Pranava (Om) is the bow, the Atma is the arrow and Brahman is called its aim. It is to be hit by a man who is self-collected and then as the arrow becomes one with the target, he will become one with Brahman.
From another POV “I will tell you briefly of that Goal which all the Vedas with one voice propound, which all the austerities speak of, and wishing for Which people practice discipline: It is Om.” (Katha Upanishad 1.2.15)If you differ on this matter I respect your orientation. Yet I do not see that we are far off. That said, my only desire is to state my views and that of what I have learned, my teachings, and what I practice daily, etc. I am not in pursuit of converting your thoughts on this. Yet differences are healthy as long as the foundation is strong .

Yudhishthira-ji suggests the following from the Yaksha Prasna – Mahabharata, Vana Parva
"There is not even one Rishi whose opinion can be accepted by all; the truth about religion and duty is hid in caves: therefore, that alone is the path along which the great have trod. This world full of ignorance is like a pan. The sun is fire the days and nights are fuel. The months and the seasons constitute the wooden ladle. Time is the cook that is cooking all creatures in that pan (with such aids); this is the news."

pranams,

atanu
11 August 2007, 03:24 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Atanu,

-----I have no desire to confine turiya to consciousness or to any one thing. Yet how does one experince this turiya ? Via consciousness.
As turiya incompasses consciousness, but is not limited to it. Consciousness is key here, not a constraint to turiya.



Namaskar Yajvan Ji,

Turiya is ungraspable and indescribable, that which has the consciousness. It is the essence of consciousness. Are we confusing the subject and object.


The above is still OK. My main problem of understanding happened with quote below:




So What do I mean by this Mundane and Divine consciousness turiya as the bridge? Lets look:

Waking or jagrat chetana
Dreaming or swapn chetana
Dreamless Sleep or sushupti chetana

Turiya

Cosmic Consciousness turiyatit chetana (sustained turiya)
God consciousness or bhagavat chetana
Brahman Consciousness or brahmi chetana

Each state of consciousness has a corresponding mind-body experience, and a world-surroundings experience ( perception). Lets start here:




Pragnya Sarvesvara is the bridge to Turiya, which is bridge to nowhere, since it is ONE and ALL. It is not any self, but it is this Self, which is Brahman.

Instead of me, let Mandukya's verses do the work:

VII
Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, It is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And below is what Gaudapada says.

10
Turiya, the changeless Ruler, is capable of destroying all miseries. All other entities being unreal, the non—dual Turiya alone is known as effulgent and all—pervading.

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

So, it is very difficult for me to adjust and accept your statement "So What do I mean by this Mundane and Divine consciousness turiya as the bridge?"


Since, the fourth is not the bridge per se and not consciousness per se, but it the real being -- the goal and it is the bridge as well. However, differences do not matter, since the goal is same (as you have already said).


Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
14 August 2007, 04:02 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~


but it the real being...


Om Namah Shivaya

Namaste atanu,
Again I look for places were we agree , as it bears more fruit I believe. And a perfect agreement point is Being. I must agree 10,000% on Being. My teacher has called it such for years, Being.

And - the next part and I think ZN has asked this, how does one experience this? The following is from the Kathopanishad parva 2 valli 3 sutra 10, and fits nicely into the discussion on mind ( in our other posts):

When the five organs of knowledge (pancha jnanani) are at rest together with the mind, and when the intellect ceases to function ( become calm) that they call the highest state.

The next sutra (10) continues: The fixity of the senses (sthirm indriya dharanam), they regard as yoga. At that time one gets careful for yoga is acquired and lost.

This could have just as easily come from the yoga darsana of Patanjali-muni.

We need to go back a few sections to insure we can discuss the 'how to' to round out this converdsation: parva 1 valli 3 sutra 3:

Know the Atman as the Lord of the chariot, the body as the chariot; know the intellect as the charioteer and the mind as the reins.

Now , if you care to , and may I ask your help - lets discuss these 3 sutras. It suggests and guides the native on what is expected to experience Being within ones self.

One needs to bring the indryias or senses to rest - that is, balance or sama;
The mind must also be at rest as it is the reins. To what? to the horses, that are the senses.
What next? - and I think this is brilliant - one needs to also bring the intellect (viveka is driven by intellect) to calmness , without fluctuations; that is, the intellect is constantly evaluating what is going on; Is this Being? Is this? Have I arrived? What's that? What was that tought on? This constant evaluation of the mind's condition halts it from experiencing this Being, this Atman, this perfect calmness.
Next is key to the sadhu: the word control has been used for years on this matter , to control the mind. This IMHO is the root cause for ones inability to experience Being. How so? Control = Management. Management = attention and herding, in ones mind. This keeps the intellect engaged. If the Intellect remains engaged then it does not calm down and one cannot experience Being....it is that simple. We do not fulfil the vidya of these sutras by control.Let me leave it here and see what you and others may which to add, suggest, or kick around. We then can go to, well what do you do then if one does not control the mind? This is the diamond in the rocks conversation that needs to be had.

pranams,

atanu
14 August 2007, 11:28 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~


Namaste atanu,
Again I look for places were we agree , as it bears more fruit I believe. And a perfect agreement point is Being. I must agree 10,000% on Being. My teacher has called it such for years, Being.

-----Know the Atman as the Lord of the chariot, the body as the chariot; know the intellect as the charioteer and the mind as the reins.

Now , if you care to , and may I ask your help - lets discuss these 3 sutras. It suggests and guides the native on what is expected to experience Being within ones self.

One needs to bring the indryias or senses to rest - that is, balance or sama;
The mind must also be at rest as it is the reins. To what? to the horses, that are the senses.
What next? - and I think this is brilliant - one needs to also bring the intellect (viveka is driven by intellect) to calmness , without fluctuations; that is, the intellect is constantly evaluating what is going on; Is this Being? Is this? Have I arrived? What's that? What was that tought on? This constant evaluation of the mind's condition halts it from experiencing this Being, this Atman, this perfect calmness.
Next is key to the sadhu: the word control has been used for years on this matter , to control the mind. This IMHO is the root cause for ones inability to experience Being. How so? Control = Management. Management = attention and herding, in ones mind. This keeps the intellect engaged. If the Intellect remains engaged then it does not calm down and one cannot experience Being....it is that simple. We do not fulfil the vidya of these sutras by control.------
pranams,


Pranam Yajvan Ji,

Yes. In one word it is called 'Mauna'. Absolute silence of the mind with awareness intact. Momentary attainments indicate that it is cool, cool, light, light, and fresh, fresh.

But then, this initial practice and the world's requirements are not matching. So, there is tension, tension, turmoil, turmoil, heat, heat.


God must balance it now (It appears that writing and arguing about consciousness will not help).


Regards,

OM

yajvan
15 August 2007, 10:10 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Pranam Yajvan Ji,

Yes. In one word it is called 'Mauna'. Absolute silence of the mind with awareness intact. Momentary attainments indicate that it is cool, cool, light, light, and fresh, fresh.

But then, this initial practice and the world's requirements are not matching. So, there is tension, tension, turmoil, turmoil, heat, heat.


God must balance it now (It appears that writing and arguing about consciousness will not help). Regards, OM

Namste Atanu,
thanks for the post... I think this, for me, closes the subject on a positive note. I have not seen others engage, yet the overall postings lay a nice foundation to understand this matter. I am hoping it is not so esoteric that one still scratches their head wondering...It is not the words that bring mauna, but practice.


Many are inspired to take resolve to accomplish self-development, this may last for 3 minutes or 3 hours, some for 3 days. Less stay with the intent for 3 months or 3 seasons. Even less for 30 months. The ones that are successful keep their resolve for 30 seasons and 30 years; it is this focus that bears fruit for the seeker.


pranams

atanu
15 August 2007, 12:42 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namste Atanu,
----- I am hoping it is not so esoteric that one still scratches their head wondering...It is not the words that bring mauna, but practice.


Many are inspired to take resolve to accomplish self-development, this may last for 3minutes or 3 hours, some for 3 days. Less stay with the intent for 3 months or 3 seasons. Even less for 30 months. The ones are are successful keep their resove for 30 seasons and 30 years; it is this focus that bares fruit for the seeker.

pranams

Namaskar,

Very nicely said.

One says control another says sadhana and yet another sahaja. Guruji says, "once you have put your head in tiger's mouth, there is no going back." All stages will be traversed and at the end one is likely to smile ---


Regards,

Om

sarabhanga
17 August 2007, 12:49 AM
Namaste,

caturtha and caturya indicate “the 4th”, and turya is an abbreviated form.

turya is “the 4th”, and especially “the 4th state of the soul”. And turya also refers to “being in the 4th state of soul”.

turIya means “of 4 parts”, and it indicates “the 4th state of spirit (pure impersonal spirit or brahma)”. And turIya also refers to “being in the 4th state of soul”.

Whichever term is used, we must be careful to distinguish the 4th state itself from the various grades of experiencing or being in that state. For one who is entirely immersed in the turya state, there is surely no difference, but for discussion we must recognize these two aspects of meaning.

Yajvan has been explaining the nature of “being in the 4th state”, whereas Atanu has been considering the turya itself, and I think that this has caused some confusion.

Shri Gaudapada used turya when referring to the absolute “4th”, so perhaps the term turIya should be reserved for “being in the 4th state of soul”.

In which case, the turIya could indeed be described as a “bridge” to the turya.

And, while the nature of turya is beyond cetana, the experience of turIya certainly involves cetana.

:)

atanu
17 August 2007, 08:14 AM
Namaste,

caturtha and caturya indicate “the 4th”, and turya is an abbreviated form.

turya is “the 4th”, and especially “the 4th state of the soul”. And turya also refers to “being in the 4th state of soul”.

turIya means “of 4 parts”, and it indicates “the 4th state of spirit (pure impersonal spirit or brahma)”. And turIya also refers to “being in the 4th state of soul”.

-------Shri Gaudapada used turya when referring to the absolute “4th”, so perhaps the term turIya should be reserved for “being in the 4th state of soul”.

In which case, the turIya could indeed be described as a “bridge” to the turya.

And, while the nature of turya is beyond cetana, the experience of turIya certainly involves cetana.

:)

Namaste,

Thank you for disginguishing between Turiya and Turya. I have not seen it earlier. Yoga Vashista clubs Bhagavat Chetana and Brahmic Chetana as the bridge to Turiya.

The context of the whole discussion (even from a previous thread) was Prajna and Turya. As Yajvan Ji has defined it here "Turiya: Some call this pure consciousness. The 'raw materials' for Being. " and he has agreed to the verses of Mandukya Upanishad (describing the fourth) also, I think one can assume that here the FOURTH was in reference.

This is more so, since the following equation was given: Turiya = Brahman = Self.

In this context, I wished to stress that the fourth is beyond Akshara (Prajna-Isvara), so for a sadhaka who has attained union with Turya -- the Bhagavat chetana and Brahmic chetana cannot remain pending. I have seen some Vaisnava literature trying to obfuscate and create many more hierarchies above ONE SELF. So I took the pain.

But through open minded discussion only comprehension goes deeper and deeper.

Thanking all for clarification of the matter.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
17 August 2007, 08:19 AM
Three States of Consciousness
By S.S.Raghavachar, M.A.
Dept. of Philosophy, University of Mysore, India


Human experience passes through three states, Waking, Dream and Deep-sleep. These three must be studied closely and their distinctive characteristics noted. In Waking, there is the experience of the solid external world through sense-perception.

In Dream, senses do not function. The impressions deposited in the mind by previous experiences are revivified and shaped into the likeness of waking itself. The internal perception by the mind of these revivified impressions lodged within itself, as if they are realities of the waking state itself, is dream.


In Deep-sleep, neither the senses function nor the mind functions. The self withdraws into itself as it were, but there is no self-understanding. The self is covered by a primeval ignorance from which spring all wakings, and dreams. This ignorance covers the self in all its states, but it does not set up the presentation of the non-self in the deep-sleep as it does in the waking and dream

This analysis of the states brings out the threefold nature of embodiment. In the waking state the self is embodied in what is called the gross body consisting of the five gross elements and their modifications. In the Vedic philosophy of nature, at least three stages are discernible.

In the first stage, as represented by the Chandogya Upanisad, three elements, namely, Fire, Water and Earth are posited.

In the second stage, as represented, for instance, in the Taittiriya Upanisad, there is the addition of Air and Space. Further on, the empirical fact that these elements are not to be found in their pure and unmixed state and that they are clearly independent substances is not much of a demonstrated scientific truth must have led to the explanation that the five elements are pure and independent only in their subtle state, while as found empirically they are mixed up a great deal.

Each empirically given gross element has within it, according to this view, all the other elements also. For instance, in the gross Earth, half of it consists of pure earth and the other half consists of the other four pure elements. This process of the composition of the gross elements is what is called Panchikaranam.
[Note: 'Panchikarana' The fivefold combination which the five subtle rudimentary elements have to undergo to become gross ones.

Experience of these elements and their products through sense-perception is characteristic of waking life. In the dream-state the embodiment is said to be subtle. The body of the dream-self, in the first place, contains the five organs of knowledge and the five organs of action, which are ten in all and are called Indriyas (organs).
[Note: The five organs of knowledge are Tongue (taste), Nostrils (smell), Ears (sound), Eyes (vision) and Skin (touch). The five organs of action are Tongue (speech), Hands, Feet, organ of Excretion and the Generative organ.

It also contains the five vital breaths called Pranas. [Note: The five Pranas are Prana, Apana, Vyana, Udana and Samana.

It has the internal sense, (Antahkarana) consisting of intellect (Buddhi), mind (Manas), and ego-sense (Ahamkara) and the faculty of contemplation (Chitta). It also contains the five subtle elements. In addition to these five factors, i.e., organs of knowledge, organs of action, vital breath, internal sense and the subtle elements, it also has their foundation Avidya, Kama and Karma. These eight factors (according to Varttika of Sri Suresvara) constitute the subtle body of the self.

Seventeen-fold Subtle Body
According to another enumeration, the subtle body consists of seventeen factors. They are the ten organs of knowledge and action, the five vital breaths, the intellect and the mind. This is the analysis of the subtle body as decisively given in some works like Sankshepa Shariraka (3-20).
The Panchikarana of Sri Sankaracharya enumerates the five subtle elements, the five breaths, the ten Indriyas, Manas and Buddhi as constituting the seventeen-fold subtle body.

In deep-sleep the body of the self is said to be causal, meaning that it is the seed of the subtle and the gross bodies and that it is the pure unactualised potentiality of the body. It consists of the original Nescience (ignorance) from which spring the phenomenal manifestations of the dream and waking worlds.
This nescience is not the negation of the native consciousness of the Atman (self), for it must itself subsist in the presence of that consciousness, even as a cloud, however much it may conceal the Sun, owes its being to the Sun. Moreover, it covers and does not annihilate the self-effulgence of the Atman. This nescience truly defies definition, analysis and description.

It is neither real nor unreal. Nor is it both real and unreal. It is neither one nor many, nor one and many. It is neither simple nor composite, nor both. All that can be positively asserted about it is that it is subject to termination by only the knowledge of the identity of Brahman and Atman. The problem of explaining it does not arise when one is unaware of the Atman. When he comes to be aware of the Atman, the ignorance has disappeared and does not exist enough to call for an explanation.
It is only the co-existence of the clear awareness of the Atman and ignorance concerning it that would raise a problem. But that co-existence is impossible. Hence the nature of the primeval nescience is inexplicable. But it positively disappears when we awake to reality. This ignorance is the causal body operating by itself in the state of deep-sleep. Thus the Atman is encased in a threefold body.

Gross, Subtle and Causal Body
The three states and the three bodies are relative to the self. We can speak of three selves from the empirical standpoint in relation to the states and bodies.
The self as embodied in the gross body and undergoing the experiences of waking is called VISHVA.

The self as encased in the subtle body and undergoing dream-experiences is the TAIJASA.

The self as resting in the causal body in the state of deep-sleep is the PRAJNA.

This is the terminology to be adopted when we take an individualistic or Microcosmic point of view. But if we adopt the Macrocosmic point of view and regard the totality of being, the Cosmic Self or the Deity can be said to maintain itself in three planes of phenomenal manifestation.

In its primordial plane as associated with Maya or cosmic self-concealment it is AKSHARA. As enfolded in the cosmic totality of subtle bodies and dream-state, it is Sutratman or HIRANYAGARBHA.

In relation to the totality of the gross universe as revealed to waking consciousness, the cosmic spirit is said to be VIRAT. (pronounced Viraat).
Thus there are three phases of the individual self corresponding to the three planes of the phenomenal appearance of the universal spirit.

AUM
PRANAVA or the syllable AUM consists of three component elements. They are A, U and M.

The Mandukya Upanisad initiated the tradition of regarding the three sound elements of AUM as corresponding to and as signifying the phases of the self conditioned by the three bodies, and as manifesting itself in the three phenomenal states.
A signifies the VIRAT in the Macrocosm and the VISHVA in the Microcosm.
U represents HIRANYAGARBHA in the Macrocosm and TAIJASA in the Microcosm.
M signifies PRAJNA in the Microcosm and AKSHARA or ISVARA in the Macrocosm.
[Note: VIRAT: The Consciousness associated with the aggregate of all gross bodies.
VISHVA: The Consciousness which identifies itself with the individual gross body and the waking state. HIRANYAGARBHA: The subtle objective totality. TAIJASA: The Consciousness associated with the dream state and the subtle body. PRAJNA: The Consciousness associated with the deep-sleep state and the causal body or ignorance.

AKSHAR(ATMA): The indestructible (spirit). ISVARA: The great cause of the universe, the Pure Consciousness associated with its own power called MAYA.]
This fusion of the particular and cosmic standpoints is insisted upon and we are to see in the three constituents of AUM the signification of the three phases of the one integral spirit.

Thus the whole universe is viewed in three levels, the causal, the subtle and the gross. The spirit which is the ultimate reality, appears conditioned by these. Now the philosophical problem for man is to ascend to the apprehension of the real as transcending the conditions in which it is seemingly embodied.

The spiritual problem is to release oneself from these limiting conditions and to realise one's identity with the Ultimate Principle. The symbol AUM is maintained to contain the direction for developing this transcendent integrality of knowledge and life.
The first sound-constituent of AUM, namely A represents the gross point of view. It connotes the native realism and pluralism of common sense.

From this we ought to move on to the level of thought represented by U. U signifies the understanding of the world as the projection of the universe by the Spirit itself. The point of view is found on the dream-experience and its philosophy may be described as Dynamic Idealism. Spirit, through the instrumentality of mind, sets up within itself the entire cosmos. When this standpoint reaches maturity, we must pass beyond it.
The next stage is represented by M. The diversity of presentation conjured up in the dream-world is nothing real. It is a projection of the unreal. Such projection is founded upon the non-apprehension of the real. The realisation of this fact of radical non-apprehension is promoted by the consideration of the experience of deep-sleep.
We dream because we are asleep. The worlds taken as real in waking is really of the same status as dream world and the pre-supposition of such comic dreaming is the failure to see that the Atman is the sole reality.

This failure is most clearly illustrated in deep-sleep. We must pass into the frame of thought according to which our empirical life which is in reality a dream, is due to our being asleep to spirit, the fundamental substance of our being. We are most asleep when we fancy ourselves most awake. Even as the chanting of the sacred Pranava (AUM) culminates in the serenity of silence after the final sound M, the philosophic contemplation of man's experience in its entirety must pass after the consideration of the state of deep-sleep into the unconditioned effulgence of the pure and transcendent Self.

The seed of phenomenal life namely ignorance most strikingly present in sleep must be destroyed and the sleeper must wake up to the infinite reality of the spiritual essence. This ultimate self-affirmation is the goal of contemplation. The agnosticism of sleep must be burnt up in this transcendent self-realisation.

Following the Pranava (AUM) in all its phases, and to its farthest merger in silence, one must review the spirit's manifestation in the three states and up to its embodiment in the Nescience-body and pass beyond even that causal sheath into the utter freedom of its absolute illumination. An analysis of man's three states does thus fulfil itself in the vision of his Divine essence in all the glory of its "stateless" eternity.

AUM

atanu
17 August 2007, 08:22 AM
Mandukya Upanishad Explanations drawn from the writings of Swami Nikhilananda
Sri Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, New York

[Mandukya Upanishad is the shortest of the
major Upanishads, containing only 12 verses.]


The first chapter of Mandukya Upanishad discusses Turiya by means of the Vedic symbol AUM. The restless mind cannot think of the transcendental Reality without the help of a concrete symbol. Thinking is possible only through symbols. The student is asked to imagine four parts in Brahman, or Cosmic Reality. They are called four quarters. The first three- gross, subtle and causal- constitute the phenomenal world. The fourth, so called only in relation to the three just mentioned, is transcendental, being beyond time, space and causality. It is Turiya, or the unconditioned Brahman.


Brahman and Atman (Self) are identical. The gross aspect of Brahman has its counterpart in the waking state (Visva) of Atman, when the external world is perceived by means of the sense-organs; the subtle aspect, in the dream state (Taijasa), when the internal world, created by waking experiences, is perceived; and the causal aspect, in deep sleep or dreamless sleep (Prajna), characterised by bliss and the cessation of mental activity. The transcendental aspect of Atman, or Pure Consciousness, which is its true nature, is the same as Turiya.


Like Brahman, AUM also has four parts, called letters. The first three are A, U, and M, corresponding to the first three quarters of Brahman and Atman. In addition to these there is an undifferentiated sound of AUM, which comes after the first three letters are pronounced. Devoid of all characteristics, it is not any particular sound, but the substratum of all sounds. It is the same as the unconditioned Brahman, or Turiya. Turiya is here figuratively called a quarter. In reality it does not denote any part. It is Brahman Itself, which does not admit of any differentiation. The knowledge of the fourth quarter is realised by merging in it the previous three. That is to say, the waking state is merged in the dream state, the dream state in dreamless sleep, and finally, dreamless sleep in Turiya, or Pure Consciousness. Thus through meditation on AUM one can realise Brahman both in its cosmic and in its acosmic aspect.


The four quarters are like the quarters of a coin, and not like the four feet of a cow. A large coin, for instance a silver dollar, can be divided into four quarters. But these quarters are not essential or intrinsic characteristic of the dollar; they are designed to serve a practical purpose. That is not true of the four feet of a cow, which are essential parts of it. Atman (Self) is partless. Therefore the four quarters mentioned in the text are superimposed upon Atman as the quarters are superimposed on the coin. Again, the waking state merges in the dream state, the dream state in the dreamless sleep, and dreamless sleep in Turiya. The three preceding states are the means of realising the fourth, or Turiya. The attainment of Turiya is the object of philosophical inquiry. Turiya is not a part of Atman.



AUM

atanu
17 August 2007, 08:28 AM
Mandukya Upanishad

HARIH AUM! Aum, the word, is all this . A clear explanation of it is as follows: All that is past, present, and future is, indeed, AUM. And whatever else there is, beyond the three- fold division of time- that also is truly Aum. (Mandukya Upanishad,Verse 1)


All this is, indeed, Brahman (the Supreme Reality). This Atman (Self) is Brahman. This same Atman has four quarters (padas). (Mandukya Upanishad, Verse 2)


The first quarter (pada) is called Vaisvanara, whose sphere of activity is the waking state, who is conscious of external objects, who has seven limbs and nineteen mouths, and who is the experiencer of gross objects.
(Mandukya Upanishad, Verse 3).

[I][Note: "Who is conscious of external objects", : The self in the waking state is aware of objects other than itself. Consciousness appears to be related to outer objects. This is due to Avidya, or ignorance. From the standpoint of Reality, Brahman or Atman, is Pure Consciousness. Consciousness is non-dual and nothing exists outside it. The duality of ego and non-ego, subject and object, appears in the Cosmic Mind due to avidya. Material objects are illusory in nature and have no independent existence.

"Seven limbs": The word limbs is used here to denote parts of the body. The seven limbs are the head, the eyes, the mouth, the breath, the middle part of the body, the kidney, and the feet. They have their counterparts in the universe, namely the heavens, the sun, fire, air, akasa (space), water, and earth.

"Nineteen mouths": Namely, the five organs of perception (hearing, touch, sight, taste, and smell), the five organs of action (the organs of speech or the tongue), hands (for grasping etc.), feet (for locomotion), generation (for procreation), and excretion, the five pranas (the vital breath in its five aspects: prana, apana, vyana, samana, and udana), the mind (manas), the intellect (buddhi), I-consciousness (ahamkara), and the mind-stuff (chitta). These are, as it were, the mouths or organs by means of which the waking person (Vaisvanara) experiences gross objects. Like the seven limbs, these also are superimposed through avidya (ignorance), upon Atman. The etymological meaning of the word 'Vaisvanara' is "common to all men".

The universe may be regarded from two standpoints: the microcosmic and the macrocosmic. The microcosmic (subjective) entity (adhyatma) is endowed with four quarters, namely, Vaisvanara (or Visva), Taijasa, Prajna, and Turiya. Likewise the macrocosmic (objective) universe, comprising the sphere of the sun, the moon, the stars, etc., has four quarters. The first three are known as Virat (the totality of gross physical bodies), Hiranyagarbha (the totality of subtle bodies), and Isvara or Avyakrita, the Unmanifested (the totality of causal bodies). The attributeless Brahman, like Turiya, is the fourth. It is transcendental, beyond all causal relations, and is the unrelated substratum of all appearances. A parallelism runs through the subjective and the objective. The macrocosm is superimposed upon Brahman, and the microcosm upon Atman (Self), through avidya (ignorance). Both are illusory appearances. On account of the non-difference between the subjective and the objective, the limbs of Vaisvanara are described in terms of the objective universe. The purpose is to show the illusory nature of the entire phenomenal world and establish the non-duality of Atman (Self) and Brahman (Supreme Reality).

The identity of Vaisvanara and Virat indicates the similar identity of Taijasa and Hiranyagarbha, and also of Prajna and Isvara. Taijasa is the dream self, the experiencer of subtle ideas. Hiranyagarbha is Consciousness identified, through maya, with the totality of minds. At the time of deep sleep all distinctions between subject and object, and also between objects themselves, as experienced in the waking state and the dream state, are obliterated. The same thing happens at the time of cosmic dissolution.]

The second quarter (pada) is Taijasa, whose sphere of activity is the dream state, who is conscious of internal objects, who is endowed with seven limbs and nineteen mouths, and who is the experiencer of subtle objects.
(Mandukya Upanishad, Verse 4)

[Note: "Dream state": The impressions of waking experiences are reproduced in the form of dream objects. From the empirical standpoint there is a causal relationship between the waking state and the dream state.

'Internal": In dreams mental states consisting of the impressions of the waking state are experienced. During the dream state the sleeping man is aware of the external world and of internal ideas. But when he awakes and reviews the dream experiences, he comes to realise that they were nothing but the internal activity of the mind. When a man is asleep his sense organs are inactive. Therefore the dream experiences cannot but be mental states.

"Endowed with..": The experiencer in the dream state is non-different from the experiencer in the waking state.

"Subtle objects": In the waking state one's consciousness is associated with gross objects, whereas in the dream state one sees the impressions of past experiences. But in reality the experiences of waking and dreaming are of the same nature; for in both states the perceiver is aware only of his mental states. From the standpoint of dreams, the dream objects are as gross and physical as those experienced in the waking state. It is from the standpoint of waking alone that one infers that the dream objects are subtle, inasmuch as in the dream state no gross object exists for the dreamer.]

That is the state of deep sleep wherein one asleep neither desires any object nor sees any dream. The third quarter is Prajna, whose sphere is deep sleep, in whom all experiences become unified, who is, verily, a mass of consciousness, who is full of bliss and experiences bliss, and who is the door leading to the knowledge of dreaming and waking. (Mandukya Upanishad, Verse 5)

[Note: "That is the state of deep sleep": All three states have a common feature, namely, the absence of the knowledge of Reality. But deep sleep differs from waking and dreaming in that it is associated neither with gross objects nor with subtle impressions, which are the characteristics of the other two. Though the same person, ignorant of Reality, experiences the three states, yet the experiencer of the waking state perceives gross objects, and the experiencer of the dream state perceives dream objects.

"Prajna": That is to say, the knower par excellence. This state is characterised only by general consciousness. The other two states are associated with the knowledge of particulars.

"Unified": In deep sleep all the diversified experiences of waking and dreaming, which are nothing but the activities of the mind, reach the state of non discrimination, without, however, losing their peculiar characteristics- just as the various objects perceived during the day lose their diverse appearances when enveloped by the darkness of night. This state of non-discrimination is known in empirical language as the causal state. A person viewing dreamless sleep from the waking state takes it to be the causal state because he finds that the experiences of waking and dreaming merge in deep sleep. This unified experience of deep sleep is quite different from the unity experienced through the knowledge of Brahman; for in the waking or dream state that follows it, one again takes multiplicity to be real. After attaining the knowledge of Brahman one never takes multiplicity to be real.

'Mass of consciousness": That is to say, free from the knowledge of multiplicity. In deep sleep no specific knowledge is present. As in a dark night all cows appear black and cannot be distinguished from one another, so in deep sleep all discriminative knowledge disappears.

"Full of bliss": Deep sleep is a state of ease and repose. The friction caused by the subject-object relationship is absent. All effort disappears. Hence a person in deep sleep experiences bliss, in the sense that one who is free from effort is said to be happy. This bliss is quite different from that of Brahman.

"Door leading to the knowledge": The unified consciousness of deep sleep, wherein all diversities disappear, is the antecedent of the waking and dream experiences. Hence it is regarded as the cause of, or the door to, the other two states.]

He is the Lord of all. He is the knower of all. He is the inner controller. He is the source of all; for from Him all beings originate and in Him they finally disappear.
(Mandukya Upanishad, Verse 6)

[Note: Consciousness associated with deep sleep is known as Prajna. His nature is described in this verse 6.

"He": Refers to Prajna, or Consciousness functioning in deep sleep. In this state, Consciousness, free from the diversities of waking and dreaming, manifests in a marked degree its natural purity.

'The Lord of all": That is to say, of the physical and the supra-physical universe. But this lordship does not refer to an extra-cosmic Creator, as some schools hold. (Compare Brahadaranyaka Upanishad, 4,4,22.).]

[The following comments refer to the next verse No.7. The three states superimposed on Brahman through avidya (ignorance) have already been explained. Within them the causal law operates. Now will be explained the fourth state, known as Turiya, which is free from causality, is of the very nature of Pure Consciousness, and is the Supreme Reality. This will be done through the negation of the three states.] :

Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, and indescribable. The essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self (in the three states), It (Turiya) is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss, and non-dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman (Self), and this has to be realised.
(Mandukya Upanishad, Verse 7)

[The following comments refer to the next verse No.8. The highest truth, as explained above by the refutation of the erroneous superimpositions, can be grasped only by students endowed with sharp or moderate intelligence. But ordinary students, who cannot understand philosophical reflections, are advised to concentrate on AUM as the symbol of Ultimate Reality.]:

The same Atman [explained before as being endowed with four quarters] is now described from the standpoint of the syllable AUM. AUM, too, divided into parts, is viewed from the standpoint of letters. The quarters [of Atman] are the same as the letters of AUM, and the letters are the same as the quarters. The letters are A,U, and M.
(Mandukya Upanishad, Verse 8)

[Note: "The same Atman is now described…": The Mandukya Upanishad commences with the statement that AUM covers all things and also that which is beyond. Further, AUM is identical with Atman, which is endowed with four quarters. In the explanation of the word, emphasis has been given to Atman, which the word indicates. The present verse explains AUM from the standpoint of the world itself.

The first verse of the Upanishad states that AUM is everything- past, present, and future, and what is beyond time. The second verse states that AUM is the same as Brahman and Atman. Next follows the explanation of Atman with its four quarters. All these explanations of AUM have been given from the standpoint of Atman, emphasizing the name (i.e. Atman) indicated by AUM. Now the same AUM is being explained from the standpoint of the word itself.

AUM is pronounced OM.

"In Sanskrit language the vowel 'O' is constitutionally a diphthong, contracted from a + u. Om therefore may be analysed into the elements a + u + m." (R.E.Hume, The Thirteen Principal Upanishads, Oxford University Press.)

Vaisvanara Atman, whose sphere of activity is the waking state, is A, the first letter (of AUM), on account of his all-pervasiveness or on account of his being the first. He who knows this obtains all desires and becomes first (among the great). (Mandukya Upanishad, Verse 9)

[Note: "Vaisvanara Atman": Atman functioning through the waking state. His other name is Visva; he is identical with Virat.

"His": Here Atman is personalised.

"All-pervasiveness…": The sound A pervades all sounds. It is present in all sounds. No sound can be produced without opening the mouth, and the sound that is thus produced is A. Likewise, the entire universe is pervaded by Vaisvanara Atman. It has already been stated that knowledge of the dream state and of deep sleep is possible only in the waking state. Since the three states constitute our entire experience of the universe, the waking state pervades the whole universe. Another point of resemblance between A and Vaisvanara is that just as A is the beginning, or first, of the three letters constituting AUM, so also, Vaisvanara, or the waking state, may be said to be the beginning, or first, of the three states. ]

Taijasa Atman, whose sphere of activity is the dream state, is U, the second letter (of AUM), on account of his superiority or intermediateness, He who knows this attains a superior knowledge, receives equal treatment from all, and finds in his family no one ignorant of Brahman.
(Mandukya Upanishad, Verse 10)

[Note: In this verse the identity of the second quarter of Atman and the second letter of AUM is pointed out.

"Taijasa Atman": Atman functioning through the dream state.

"Superiority": As a matter of fact, A, being the first of all letters, is superior to them all. But U, coming after A, is stated here to be superior in a figurative sense. Taijasa, or Atman functioning through the dream state, is said to be superior to Vaisvanara because he perceives ideas, whereas the latter sees only gross objects. While investigating dreams the student realises physical phenomena to be states of the mind, which knowledge brings him nearer to truth.

"Intermediateness": As the letter U is between A and M, so the dream state is between waking and deep sleep.]

Prajna Atman, whose sphere is deep sleep, is M, the third letter (of AUM), because both are measure and also because in them all become one. He who knows this is able to measure all and also comprehends all within himself.
(Mandukya Upanishad, Verse 11)

[Note: The identity of the third quarter of Atman and the third letter of AUM is pointed out.

""Measure": Both the waking state and the dream state emerge from (during manifestation) and disappear into (during non-manifestation) the dreamless state. Therefore both Vaisvanara and Taijasa are said to be contained in Prajna, which may be compared to the container. The word 'measure' in the text is used in the sense of a container.

"All become one": When the word AUM is repeated quickly several times, the sound actually heard is MAUM. That is why it is said that the letters A and U become one with M. Likewise, Visva and Taijasa become one with, or merge in, Prajna in deep sleep.

"Is able …all": That is to say, he knows the real nature of the universe. He realises that the universe perceived in the waking and the dream states is essentially the same as the experience of deep sleep, inasmuch as all the three states are characterised by non-apprehension of Reality.

"Comprehend all within himself': He attains the status of Isvara, who is the cause of the universe.]

The Fourth (Turiya) is without parts and without relationship; It is the cessation of phenomena; it is all good and non-dual. This AUM is verily Atman. He who knows this merges his self in Atman- yea, he who knows this.
(Mandukya Upanishad, Verse 12)

[Note: AUM, in its transcendental aspect, is Turiya.

"Without parts": That is to say, without sound. This aspect of AUM cannot be expressed by any sound. Being non-dual, it cannot even be described as the substratum of the three other sounds. The AUM uttered through sounds points, by contrast, to the soundless AUM. All sounds must some time or other merge in silence or soundlessness. The soundless AUM is the same as Turiya.

"Without relationship": That is to say, incomprehensible. Objects and their corresponding names or sounds both disappear in Turiya. The physical world is only an idea. Therefore all objects are but ideas expressed by names or sounds. The contemplation of Turiya destroys ignorance and also the mind created by ignorance. With the destruction of thoughts and sounds, there remains nothing by which Turiya can be comprehended.

"This AUM is verily Atman": As already stated, the three letters or sounds of AUM are identical with three states of Atman.]

[The following is adapted from Sri Shankaracharya's commentary] :

Those who have realised Brahman, the Highest Reality, merge the self in Turiya because they have transcended the notion of cause and effect, which inheres in the third quarter of Atman. They are not born again; for they have realised their identity with the causeless Turiya. The illusory snake which has merged in the rope as a result of discrimination between the snake and the rope, does not reappear. Students of dull or mediocre mind who have renounced the world and are endowed with spiritual virtues should meditate on the common features of the sounds of AUM and the quarters of Atman, as explained before. Thus, proceeding step by step, they ultimately realise Turiya, devoid of any state or sound, and attain the Highest Goal.

[The following quotations are from Gaudapada Karika]:

As in dreams the mind acts through maya, presenting the appearance of duality, so also in the waking state the mind acts through maya, presenting the appearance of duality.

There is no doubt that the mind, which is in reality non-dual, appears to be dual in dreams; likewise, there is no doubt that what is non-dual (i.e. Atman) appears to be dual in the waking state. (61-61)

The mind should be concentrated on AUM. AUM is the fearless Brahman. He who is always absorbed in AUM knows no fear whatever. (25)

Aum is indeed the beginning, middle, and end of all things. He who has realised AUM as immutable immediately attains the Supreme Reality. (27)

Here ends the Mandukya Upanishad.

atanu
17 August 2007, 08:40 AM
Thank You Yajvan Ji, Thank You Sarabhanga Ji for this opportunity to revisit Mandukya Upanishad in detail. I personally consider this Upanishad as the pinnacle of Science and I doubt whether such a clear exposition and eye opener is available in any other spiritual group?

Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
17 August 2007, 10:00 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

caturtha and caturya indicate “the 4th”, and turya is an abbreviated form.

turya is “the 4th”, and especially “the 4th state of the soul”. And turya also refers to “being in the 4th state of soul”.

turIya means “of 4 parts”, and it indicates “the 4th state of spirit (pure impersonal spirit or brahma)”. And turIya also refers to “being in the 4th state of soul”.

And, while the nature of turya is beyond cetana, the experience of turIya certainly involves cetana.

Namaste,
Knowledge is the greatest purifier...


pranams, and thank you for your contribution.

atanu
17 August 2007, 11:35 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~
Namaste,
Knowledge is the greatest purifier...

If one cannot experience this turiya - then all the words of the Upanishads are ink on paper and to that, the greatest muni's desire for mankind's spiritual advancement are left idle.

pranams, and thank you for your contribution.

Namaste Yajvan Ji,

Turiya or Turya?

(I just note that Swami Nikhilananda and others have used plain Turiya for THE FOURTH.)

Retaining the meanings noted by Sarabhanga Ji, when one is in the Fourth state of Turya, one has to be identical to Turya, which is neither chetana nor not chetana etc..

----

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
17 August 2007, 12:21 PM
Namaste,

------

------ For one who is entirely immersed in the turya state, there is surely no difference, but for discussion we must recognize these two aspects of meaning.

Yajvan has been explaining the nature of “being in the 4th state”, whereas Atanu has been considering the turya itself, and I think that this has caused some confusion.

------
:)

Namaskar Sarabhanga ji,

There has been no confusion at all. You must have seen that 'an experiencer of Turya' and 'the Turya' were separated very early in the discussion, as quoted below.



I write this to emphasise again that the seven states of consciousness are from the view of sadhaka and cannot be an elucidation of Turiya, which is ONE, CHANGELESS, past, present, future and beyond time and seed of Brahman.



Still.

A being in Turya is Turya. A Being in 'Advaita Atma' cannot be another atma and still know Advaita Atma as Advaita Atma.

But when that being comes back to Vaisvanaro, say due to force of prarabdha (or voluntarily to teach), can he be called Turya or Turiya? No. He is a sage who has experienced Turiya but might or might not be settled in Turiya (Turiyatita). The Turya or the Turiya experience, whichever way you prefer, still remains transcendental -- it has not fallen to chetana level, being indescribable.

Bhagavat Chetana and Brahmic Chetana should not be transcendental to a being who is Turiya or Turya. How does one attain Turya without knowing Prajna? (MY POV, may be Prajna is not Iswara then?)

Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
17 August 2007, 01:16 PM
I repeat the purport of Shri Shankara

Those who have realised Brahman, the Highest Reality, merge the self in Turiya because they have transcended the notion of cause and effect, which inheres in the third quarter of Atman. They are not born again; for they have realised their identity with the causeless Turiya. ----.


Note: Is it possible to reach here without Bhagawat chetana?


Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
17 August 2007, 03:31 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

I repeat the purport of Shri Shankara

Those who have realised Brahman, the Highest Reality, merge the self in Turiya because they have transcended the notion of cause and effect, which inheres in the third quarter of Atman. They are not born again; for they have realised their identity with the causeless Turiya. ----.


Note: Is it possible to reach here without Bhagawat chetana?


Om Namah Shivaya

Namaste atanu,
I am impressed with your focus... I will leave a few days to read all your posts over as you have been quite productive these last hours and this is good.

If perhaps you have the time and interest the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Jyotir Brahmana does a fine job of outlining turiya. I am not suggesting this usurps Mundaka; it is the perfect adjunct.

I am comfortable in my understanding of this matter and choose not to change your mind on turiya vs. turya - this has never been my intent. What was my intent? A road map for one to see where one could go if they chose to pursue this unfoldment.

It is in the wording that is causing mischief. Even with Brahman...one can be with this level of Being, identified with turiya. Yet that said, it does not infer that this identification is infused on the level of the senses.

It does not suggest or infer 1/4 Full or 1/2 Full - Fullness is there, yet the senses remain another area for Being to expand into. As one established in Being is in Silence, and looking out sees activity and the 3 guna in actions. Perfect Silence in me, and total activity in the relative field of life.

So , one can then bring this silence, see this silence on all levels of existence, not only Self-referral, but on the level of activity, sight , sound, touch, taste, etc. This has been my orientation - that this total growth is available and with His Grace can become Reality.

I will leave it here for now; Thank you for your efforts and posts as they have been rewarding.

atanu
17 August 2007, 09:58 PM
~~~~~
Namaste atanu,
I am impressed with your focus... I will leave a few days to read all your posts over as you have been quite productive these last hours and this is good.

If perhaps you have the time and interest the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Jyotir Brahmana does a fine job of outlining turiya. I am not suggesting this usurps Mundaka; it is the perfect adjunct.




Hari Om

Namaste Yajvan Ji,


Seven states of Consciousness and Three Steps of Atma.

Yajvan Ji your contribution is more voluminous (and more useful). Thank you for that.

But I personally adore the simple 12 verses than any Jungle. Through jungle one will arrive at the simplicity that is called Self, which has three stations. From a simple reading of Mandukya and logical analysis that ADVAITA SHIVO ATMA has to be known as ADVAITA only and in no other way, I am convinced that all Chetanas are within the ambit of Pragnya. Turya or Turiya is simply the essence of that. If Self is not there then who will experience Chetana? I should say that I am comfortable with this simple logical necessity of shruti, which is indeed the basis of Advaita.

One who is identical to shivo advaita atma turiya is the source of all chetana and he also experiences all chetana as omniscient. He is thus the seeker, the bridge, and the goal. Narada Bhakti Sutras also give the goal as attainment of Turiya, through Bhakti. Some do it through AUM. And there are innumerable other ways. But in Samadhi only the truth is known.


Yes I have read Brihad Arayanaka and I am still reading it. However, its not clear to me whether you are referring to Mandukya or Mundka?

I feel that there are no contradictions in Upanishads. 'One who understands Pragnya (the third state of Atma)' is different 'from one who sleeps ignorantly but theoretically understands Pragnya (like we all do).' One who has no ignorance of Sleep is Ishwara. Great globe of fire with sparks is One Agni. Great effulgence is One Taijjassa. Ishwara is One controller of every being, the third step of Atma . All these are steps of Shivo Advaita Atma.

I just repeat a verse from Svet. Upanishad:

Svet. Upanishad

Chapter One

11
When the Lord is known all fetters fall off; with the cessation of miseries, birth and death come to an end. From meditation on Him there arises, after the dissolution of the body, the third state, that of universal lordship. And lastly, the aspirant, transcending that state also, abides in the complete Bliss of Brahman.


So, beyond the third step is Brahman. You are enumerating Seven states of Consciousness and I am talking about Three Steps of Atma. Consciousness (Pragnya) is indeed a step of Atma. I must again point out that we do not even know Agni Vaisvanaro (the great ball of fire from which sparks emanate). We do not know Vena -- the clear bright effulgence. Ishwara is far off. Turya? It's so close yet distant.


I just happened to intuit the root of this mis-understanding. You are talking of seven states of consciousness and I am talking of three steps of Atma.



Yes, Turiya (the Fourth) encompasses all states of consciousness, from mundane to Brahmic.




It is in the wording that is causing mischief. Even with Brahman...one can be with this level of Being, identified with turiya. Yet that said, it does not infer that this identification is infused on the level of the senses.




Perfect. I agree fully. I just point out that one well settled in Turya/Turiya should have no chains on him that stops him to roam the jungles of senses. He is the real Avimukta.


Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
17 August 2007, 10:25 PM
Hari OM
~~~~~


Hari Om
Seven states of Consciousness and Three Steps of Atma.

Turya or Turiya is simply the essence of that. If Self is not there then who will experience Chetana? I should say that I am comfortable with this simple logical necessity of shruti, which is indeed the basis of Advaita.


Yes, Turiya (the Fourth) encompasses all states of consciousness, from mundane to Brahmic.



Perfect. I agree fully. I just point out that one well settled in Turya/Turiya should have no chains on him that stops him to roam the jungles of senses. He is the real Avimukta. Om Namah Shivaya




Namaste atanu,


Yes, we have been on the same page all the way along... thank you for your note and clarity. I like how you say "should have no chains on him that stops him to roam the jungles of senses".


Yes, agree. I am in hopes that both of us can speak from this personal level of experience soon!


The Upanishads have been a blessing for me - just a wealth of practical knowledge that allows me to vividly understand this level of Being. For this I am grateful.


thank you again,


pranams,

atanu
18 August 2007, 01:08 AM
Hari OM
~~~~~
Namaste atanu,



Yes, we have been on the same page all the way along... thank you for your note and clarity. I like how you say "should have no chains on him that stops him to roam the jungles of senses".


Yes, agree. I am in hopes that both of us can speak from this personal level of experience soon!


The Upanishads have been a blessing for me - just a wealth of practical knowledge that allows me to vividly understand this level of Being. For this I am grateful.


thank you again,


pranams,





Namaste Yajvan Ji,

It is your wisdom and your vast reading that carried this discussion. Else, it would have degenerated into circular ego-arguments long back.

Accept my regards please.

Om

sarabhanga
18 August 2007, 01:17 AM
I personally adore the simple 12 verses than any Jungle. Through jungle one will arrive at the simplicity that is called Self, which has three stations. But from a simple reading of Mandukya and logical analysis that ADVAITA SHIVO ATMA has to be known as ADVAITA only and in no other way, I am convinced that all Chetanas are within the ambit of Pragnya. Turya or Turiya is simply the essence of that. If Self is not there then who will experience Chetana? I should say that I am comfortable with this simple logical necessity of shruti, which is indeed the basis of Advaita.

One who is identical to shivo advaita atma turiya is the source of all chetana and he also experiences all chetana as omniscient. He is thus the seeker, the bridge, and the goal. Narada Bhakti Sutras also give the goal as attainment of Turiya, through Bhakti. Some do it through AUM. And there are innumerable other ways. But in Samadhi only the truth is known.

Namaste Atanu,

I fully agree!

sarabhanga
18 August 2007, 06:06 AM
Namaste,

turya is “the 4th”, and especially “the 4th state of the soul”. And turya also refers to “being in the 4th state of soul”.

turIya means “of 4 parts”, and it indicates “the 4th state of spirit (pure impersonal spirit or brahma)”. And turIya also refers to “being in the 4th state of soul”.

Whichever term is used, we must be careful to distinguish the 4th state itself from the various grades of experiencing or being in that state. For one who is entirely immersed in the turya state, there is surely no difference, but for discussion we must recognize these two aspects of meaning.

Shri Gaudapada used turya when referring to the absolute “4th”, so perhaps the term turIya should be reserved for “being in the 4th state of soul”.

In which case, the turIya could indeed be described as a “bridge” to the turya.

And, while the nature of turya is beyond cetana, the experience of turIya certainly involves cetana.

The “3rd state” of Consciousness is known as prAjña, and the genitive (“of the 3rd state”) is prAjñasya.

The Aitareyopanishad, however, uses the term pra-jñAna (“great knowledge or wisdom”) and the genitive prajñAnasya (“of great wisdom”).

prajñA (“wisdom”) is the basis of the world. Verily, prajñAna (“great wisdom”) is brahma.

As “deep sleep”, prAjña is pra-ajña (“very unconscious”), and this is different to the “great intelligence” of pra-jñA.

turya = prajñA = brahma

Immersed in turIya (as brahmA) one experiences prajñA but appears to be prAjña.

turIya (or being in turya) happens in prAjña, but it is the “bridge” to turya.

From the perspective of both turya and turIya, however, prAjña and prajñA (like the opposites of vidyA and avidyA) are one and the same.

turIya is a veritable bridge to turya.

prAjña is a veritable bridge to prajñA.

brahmA is a veritable bridge to brahma.

And before ANY particular aspect of absolute Consciousness is dissected and described we must already have distinguished these identical Twins.

atanu
18 August 2007, 09:49 AM
Namaste,

turya is “the 4th”, and especially “the 4th state of the soul”. And turya also refers to “being in the 4th state of soul”.

turIya means “of 4 parts”, and it indicates “the 4th state of spirit (pure impersonal spirit or brahma)”. And turIya also refers to “being in the 4th state of soul”.

Whichever term is used, we must be careful to distinguish the 4th state itself from the various grades of experiencing or being in that state. For one who is entirely immersed in the turya state, there is surely no difference, but for discussion we must recognize these two aspects of meaning.

Shri Gaudapada used turya when referring to the absolute “4th”, so perhaps the term turIya should be reserved for “being in the 4th state of soul”.

In which case, the turIya could indeed be described as a “bridge” to the turya.

And, while the nature of turya is beyond cetana, the experience of turIya certainly involves cetana.

The “3rd state” of Consciousness is known as prAjña, and the genitive (“of the 3rd state”) is prAjñasya.

The Aitareyopanishad, however, uses the term pra-jñAna (“great knowledge or wisdom”) and the genitive prajñAnasya (“of great wisdom”).

prajñA (“wisdom”) is the basis of the world. Verily, prajñAna (“great wisdom”) is brahma.

As “deep sleep”, prAjña is pra-ajña (“very unconscious”), and this is different to the “great intelligence” of pra-jñA.

turya = prajñA = brahma

Immersed in turIya (as brahmA) one experiences prajñA but appears to be prAjña.

turIya (or being in turya) happens in prAjña, but it is the “bridge” to turya.

From the perspective of both turya and turIya, however, prAjña and prajñA (like the opposites of vidyA and avidyA) are one and the same.

turIya is a veritable bridge to turya.

prAjña is a veritable bridge to prajñA.

brahmA is a veritable bridge to brahma.

And before ANY particular aspect of absolute Consciousness is dissected and described we must already have distinguished these identical Twins.


Brilliant.

Om Namah Shivaya

Nuno Matos
18 August 2007, 03:16 PM
Namaste,

turya is “the 4th”, and especially “the 4th state of the soul”. And turya also refers to “being in the 4th state of soul”.

turIya means “of 4 parts”, and it indicates “the 4th state of spirit (pure impersonal spirit or brahma)”. And turIya also refers to “being in the 4th state of soul”.

Whichever term is used, we must be careful to distinguish the 4th state itself from the various grades of experiencing or being in that state. For one who is entirely immersed in the turya state, there is surely no difference, but for discussion we must recognize these two aspects of meaning.

Shri Gaudapada used turya when referring to the absolute “4th”, so perhaps the term turIya should be reserved for “being in the 4th state of soul”.

In which case, the turIya could indeed be described as a “bridge” to the turya.

And, while the nature of turya is beyond cetana, the experience of turIya certainly involves cetana.

The “3rd state” of Consciousness is known as prAjña, and the genitive (“of the 3rd state”) is prAjñasya.

The Aitareyopanishad, however, uses the term pra-jñAna (“great knowledge or wisdom”) and the genitive prajñAnasya (“of great wisdom”).

prajñA (“wisdom”) is the basis of the world. Verily, prajñAna (“great wisdom”) is brahma.

As “deep sleep”, prAjña is pra-ajña (“very unconscious”), and this is different to the “great intelligence” of pra-jñA.

turya = prajñA = brahma

Immersed in turIya (as brahmA) one experiences prajñA but appears to be prAjña.

turIya (or being in turya) happens in prAjña, but it is the “bridge” to turya.

From the perspective of both turya and turIya, however, prAjña and prajñA (like the opposites of vidyA and avidyA) are one and the same.

turIya is a veritable bridge to turya.

prAjña is a veritable bridge to prajñA.

brahmA is a veritable bridge to brahma.

And before ANY particular aspect of absolute Consciousness is dissected and described we must already have distinguished these identical Twins.

Namaste Sarabhanga


Most elucidating !

yajvan
18 August 2007, 08:50 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


prajñA (“wisdom”) is the basis of the world. Verily, prajñAna (“great wisdom”) is brahma.


Namaste sarabhanga,

this is noteworthy and some of the wise say ignorance if the basis of the world. How so? In ignorance duality and diversity exist, hence giving us the world as we in avidya see it. With turiya, there is no world, but Brahman, ubiquity of existence.

The great Brahmarshi Gaudapada tells us the truth from his level of enlightenment:
The supreme truth is this: there is no birth and no dissolution, no aspirant to liberation and no liberated, and no one who is in slavery
(Mandukyakarika, II, 32).

Yet this takes the notion of your post and the cadence of what you are saying out of context. That is, you are building a foundation for a conclusion and I am suggesting one brick is out of alignment.

There is no ill-intent here as I see the wisdom of the post... just thought to offer another view; In the final anaysis, all is Brahman, and can be considered pure wisdom.


thank you and pranams,

atanu
19 August 2007, 02:51 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~



prajñA (“wisdom”) is the basis of the world. Verily, prajñAna (“great wisdom”) is brahma.

Namaste sarabhanga,

this is noteworthy and some of the wise say ignorance if the basis of the world. -----,

Namaskar All,


I think the bricks are laid properly. The whole concept seems to go well with Isha Upanishad.

Om

Madhavan
19 August 2007, 03:13 AM
Namaste,

turya is “the 4th”, and especially “the 4th state of the soul”. And turya also refers to “being in the 4th state of soul”.

turIya means “of 4 parts”, and it indicates “the 4th state of spirit (pure impersonal spirit or brahma)”. And turIya also refers to “being in the 4th state of soul”.

Whichever term is used, we must be careful to distinguish the 4th state itself from the various grades of experiencing or being in that state. For one who is entirely immersed in the turya state, there is surely no difference, but for discussion we must recognize these two aspects of meaning.

Shri Gaudapada used turya when referring to the absolute “4th”, so perhaps the term turIya should be reserved for “being in the 4th state of soul”.

In which case, the turIya could indeed be described as a “bridge” to the turya.

And, while the nature of turya is beyond cetana, the experience of turIya certainly involves cetana.

The “3rd state” of Consciousness is known as prAjña, and the genitive (“of the 3rd state”) is prAjñasya.

The Aitareyopanishad, however, uses the term pra-jñAna (“great knowledge or wisdom”) and the genitive prajñAnasya (“of great wisdom”).

prajñA (“wisdom”) is the basis of the world. Verily, prajñAna (“great wisdom”) is brahma.

As “deep sleep”, prAjña is pra-ajña (“very unconscious”), and this is different to the “great intelligence” of pra-jñA.

turya = prajñA = brahma

Immersed in turIya (as brahmA) one experiences prajñA but appears to be prAjña.

turIya (or being in turya) happens in prAjña, but it is the “bridge” to turya.

From the perspective of both turya and turIya, however, prAjña and prajñA (like the opposites of vidyA and avidyA) are one and the same.

turIya is a veritable bridge to turya.

prAjña is a veritable bridge to prajñA.

brahmA is a veritable bridge to brahma.

And before ANY particular aspect of absolute Consciousness is dissected and described we must already have distinguished these identical Twins.

Good points. I too always thought that turIya is not a monolithic or an irreverisble state. It is a bridge to the Absolute. It is possible to attain turIya even with the vAsaNas.( like when Sri Ramakrishna conferred it on vivekananda momentarily) The loss of turIya samAdhi due to the pull of vAsanAs explains the fact that it is not the final state, and that there is the disturbance of indriyas. This is the main difference between Ishvara ( who is the only being who never comes under ignorance) and a realized sage who still cannot maintain perpetual turIya and has to try-try-try again until he is permanently immersed in turIya.

sarabhanga
19 August 2007, 03:18 AM
Namaste Yajvan,

This is quoted directly from the Aitareya Upanishad:

“prajñA is the basis of the world. Verily, prajñAna is brahma”.

And the prajñA (“wisdom, intelligence, knowledge, discrimination, or judgment”) which is the “basis of the world” or the “support of all” is described (both in its diverse appearance and its underlying unity) in the preceding lines:

“This which is known as the heart, this mind, consciousness, mastery, knowledge of arts, comprehension, recollection, perception, fortitude, reflection, independent thinking, distress of the mind, memory, volition, application, maintenance of life, desire, lust, all these are indeed the appellations (applications) of prajñA.”

“This brahmA, this indra, this prajApati, all these Gods, these five great elements, earth, air, ether, water, fire, all these small creatures, these others, the seeds of creation, these oviparous, viviparous, sweat-born, sprout-born, horses, cows, men, elephants, whatever else which breathes and moves and flies and is immoveable ~ all these are guided by prajñA and are supported by prajñAna. The universe has prajñA for its guide. prajñA is the basis of all (the world). Verily prajñAna is brahma.”

brahma = prajñA = turya

And the pra-jñAnam (“great wisdom”) is exactly equivalent with the uttama satyam (“highest truth”) of Shri Gaudapada.

brahma = prajñA = turya = satya

I can see no misalignment here!

brahma = prajñA = satya
brahmA = prAjña = asatya

brahmA created the world out of ignorance or error (out of uncontrolled desire for brahmANI).

dvaita is asatya (a result of mAyA), and only advaita is ultimately satya (and shiva).

atanu
19 August 2007, 04:17 AM
Hope it does not generate too much controversy.

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



brahma = prajñA = turya

----

Namaste Sarabhanga Ji and others,

At this stage, I bring forth another view. Of course, this view is not universally accepted, yet from scriptures and by fitting pieces like in zigsaw puzzle, I arrive here.

Prajnanam Brahma. Brahman is pure consciousness, which becomes the world. Everything is just modification of this pure consciousness.


But the knower of this eternal Brahman, wherein both vidya and avidya are hidden, is Brahma Pare – beyond Brahman. He is the controller of Maya. He is the One who went abroad. He is the Param Seer. He is Brahma yoni. He sees Hiryanagarbha being born. He is Purushottama when manifested and He is paramaà parastäd mahesvara.


This mahesvara is Iswara whithin Brahman, yet He is Brahma pare.

Svet Upanishad
Chapter 5

dve akñare brahma-pare tv anante
vidyävidye nihite yatra güòhe |
kñaraà tv avidyä hy amåtaà tu vidyä
vidyävidye éçate yas tu so’nyaù ||1||

yo yonià yonim adhitiñöhaty eko
viçväni rüpäëi yonéç ca sarväù |
åñià prasütaà kapilaà yas tam agre
jïänair bibharti jäyamänaà ca paçyet ||2||

1. In the imperishable and infinite Highest Brahman, wherein the two, knowledge and ignorance, are hidden, the one, ignorance, perishes, the other, knowledge, is immortal; but he who controls both, knowledge and ignorance, is another, beyond Brahman.

2. It is he who, being one only, rules over every germ (cause), over all forms, and over all germs; it is he who, in the beginning, bears in his thoughts the wise son, the fiery, whom he wishes to look on while he is born.


bhäva-grähyam anéòäkhyaà bhäväbhäva-karaà çivam |
kalä-sarga-karaà devaà ye vidus te jahus tanum ||14||


14. Those who know him who is to be grasped by the mind, who is not to be called the nest (the body), who makes existence and non-existence, the happy one (Shivam), who also creates the elements, they have left the body.


Chapter 6

tam éçvaräëäà paramaà maheçvaraà
taà devatänäà paramaà ca daivatam |
patià paténäà paramaà parastäd
vidäma devaà bhuvaneçam éòyam ||7||

Let us know that highest Mahesvara, the highest deity of deities, the master of masters, lord of lords, beyond the highest, as god, the lord of the world, the adorable.


I have seen different interpretations of Brahma pare (in verse 5.1 above). I go with what I have presented, since there is a term Brahma Yoni in this upanishad as well as in Gita.

So, Turya is prajñAnasya, while brahma = Prajnanam (the third step of Atma). Prajnanam is decidely param (definable), since it manifests in awareness, Turya is however, indescibable and beyond, param parastad.


Shankara has said: Those who have realised Brahman, the Highest Reality, merge the self in Turiya because they have transcended the notion of cause and effect, which inheres in the third quarter of Atman. They are not born again; for they have realised their identity with the causeless Turiya. ----.

Shankara does not say that those who have realised Brahman merge only in Brahman but goes further. Thus, Those who have known the jagat as Prajnanam (Brahman), are united with Turya.

And finally: "This Self is Brahman" indicates that Brahman is from this Self and not the reverse, supporting "Brahma yoni" phrase in shruti.


Om Namah Shivaya

sarabhanga
19 August 2007, 05:44 AM
Namaste Atanu,

1. In the immortal and infinite brahmapara (i.e. brahma) the twin vidyAvidya is hidden; avidya is verily mortal and vidya is verily immortal; indeed, brahma who controls vidyAvidya is quite different from these (i.e. from vidya and avidya considered separately).

2. It is He (i.e. brahma) who, being one only, presides over every cause and every form; He sees the begetting and birth of the first born golden seer (hiraNyagarbha ~ i.e. brahmA) and endows him with all knowledge at the beginning.

brahma = brahmapara = vidyAvidya
brahmA = hiraNyagarbha = vidya & avidya

There is nothing beyond brahma!


brahmA is prajñAnasya (“of prajñA”) just as nArAyaNa is “of nara”.

turya = brahma = prajñA = prajñAnam = nara
turIya = brahmA = prAjña = prajñAnasya = nArAyaNa

In which case, the prajñAnasya nAmadheyAni of Aitareyopanishad 5.2 is specifically referring to the diverse “brahmA names” rather than the “names of brahma”.

But the next line (5.3) confirms that all of this is supported by brahma.

yajvan
19 August 2007, 09:44 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaskar All,

prajñAna is indeed the world (some say that shanti is the world). prajñAna (“great wisdom”) is brahma. How we see the world is through prAjña (in ignorance).
I think the bricks are laid properly. The whole concept seems to go well with Isha Upanishad. Om

Namaste atanu,
thank you for your addition... this makes sense, as how we see the world
prAjña (in ignorance); Once enlightement dawns then this is washed away... the oinment of knowledge applied to the eyes as they say.

pranams,

yajvan
19 August 2007, 09:49 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Atanu,

Namaste Atanu,
1. In the immortal and infinite brahmapara (i.e. brahma) the twin vidyAvidya is hidden; avidya is verily mortal and vidya is verily immortal; indeed, brahma who controls vidyAvidya is quite different from these (i.e. from vidya and avidya considered separately).

2. It is He (i.e. brahma) who, being one only, presides over every cause and every form; He sees the begetting and birth of the first born golden seer (hiraNyagarbha ~ i.e. brahmA) and endows him with all knowledge at the beginning.
brahma = brahmapara = vidyAvidya
brahmA = hiraNyagarbha = vidya & avidya
There is nothing beyond brahma!
brahmA is prajñAnasya (“of prajñA”) just as nArAyaNa is “of nara”.
turya = brahma = prajñA = prajñAnam = nara
turIya = brahmA = prAjña = prajñAnasya = nArAyaNa
In which case, the prajñAnasya nAmadheyAni of Aitareyopanishad 5.2 is specifically referring to the diverse “brahmA names” rather than the “names of brahma”.
But the next line (5.3) confirms that all of this is supported by brahma.


Namste sarabhanga,
beautiful - thank you for your efforts here.

turya = brahma = prajñA = prajñAnam = nara= Arjuna
turIya = brahmA = prAjña = prajñAnasya = nArAyaNa=Krsna


'Thou art mine and I am thine, while all that is mine is thine also! He that hateth thee hateth me as well, and he that followeth thee followeth me! O thou irrepressible one, thou art Nara and I am Narayana! We are the Rishis Nara and Narayana born in the world of men for a special purpose. O Partha, thou art from me and I am from thee! O bull of the Bharata race, no one can understand the difference that is between us!' ... Krsna, talking to Aruna, Arjunabhigamana Parva, Mahabharata



One more thing.. I do not comprehend this, can you help?

In which case, the prajñAnasya nAmadheyAni of Aitareyopanishad 5.2 is specifically referring to the diverse “brahmA names” rather than the “names of brahma”.

Can you perhaps compare/contrast the 'diverse names' to the 'names of brahma' - I see the names as a litany of them vs. diverse list - care to assist me in my understanding? I will go and look this up too,so there is no expectation of 'spoon feeding'.

pranams,

atanu
19 August 2007, 01:45 PM
Namaste Atanu,

1. In the immortal and infinite brahmapara (i.e. brahma) the twin vidyAvidya is hidden; avidya is verily mortal and vidya is verily immortal; indeed, brahma who controls vidyAvidya is quite different from these (i.e. from vidya and avidya considered separately).

2. It is He (i.e. brahma) who, being one only, presides over every cause and every form; He sees the begetting and birth of the first born golden seer (hiraNyagarbha ~ i.e. brahmA) and endows him with all knowledge at the beginning.

brahma = brahmapara = vidyAvidya
brahmA = hiraNyagarbha = vidya & avidya

There is nothing beyond brahma!


brahmA is prajñAnasya (“of prajñA”) just as nArAyaNa is “of nara”.

turya = brahma = prajñA = prajñAnam = nara
turIya = brahmA = prAjña = prajñAnasya = nArAyaNa

In which case, the prajñAnasya nAmadheyAni of Aitareyopanishad 5.2 is specifically referring to the diverse “brahmA names” rather than the “names of brahma”.

But the next line (5.3) confirms that all of this is supported by brahma.



Namaskar Sarabhanga Ji,

You have said that there is nothing beyond Brahman. That is accepted by all. However, Brahman is expressed as Mukho of Pragnya and is measurable. Source of this measurable Brahman however is indescribable, which is beyond the term Param.

I know the translation that you give. It is commonly accepted and I also go by it. But Shri Aurobindo and few others give the alternative translation. As the sentence is "dve axare brahmapare tvanante", and not brahmpara, I have some curiosity. More so since mahesvara is stated to be paramparastaad and not just param, so I think that pure Pragnya is Param (Isha sarvasya yoni) -- whose mukha is "chit" and Saguna Brahman, whereas Turya is indescribable and param parastaad.


Else the following does not make sense:

Those who have realised Brahman, the Highest Reality, merge the self in Turiya because they have transcended the notion of cause and effect, which inheres in the third quarter of Atman. They are not born again; for they have realised their identity with the causeless Turiya. ----.

Shankara does not say that those who have realised Brahman merge only in Brahman but goes further. Thus, Those who have known the jagat as Prajnanam (Brahman), are united with Turya.


Om Namah Shivaya


It does not matter however, since in any case, the ignorance of deep (pragyanghana) sleep has to go.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

sarabhanga
19 August 2007, 05:49 PM
Namaste Yajvan,

“This which is known as the heart, this mind, consciousness, mastery, knowledge of arts, comprehension, recollection, perception, fortitude, reflection, independent thinking, distress of the mind, memory, volition, application, maintenance of life, desire, lust, all these are indeed the prajñAnasya nAmadheyAni.”

I had originally translated prajñAnasya nAmadheyAni as “the appellations (applications) of prajñA”. But, following comments suggesting that prajñAnasya should itself be regarded as a name, I adjusted the translation. This variation, however, makes no difference to the overall meaning.

prajñAnasya is the genitive form of prajñAnam ~ the conception or seed of prajñA ~ the hiraNyagarbha.

What is the difference between a “list” and a “litany”?

This is a list (or litany) of various aspects of prajñA (“wisdom, intelligence, knowledge, discrimination, or judgment”) which are all part of worldly existence.

If we insist that these “kinds of intelligence” are specifically referring to the various “brahmA-namings”, then we see that brahmA (or nArAyaNa, both being influenced by mAyA) is directly responsible for all of these fluctuations of mind.

turya = brahma = prajñA = prajñAnam = nara = kRSNa = namaH shivAya = aghorghoratara
turIya = brahmA = prAjña = hiraNyagarbha = nArAyaNa = arjuna = shiM = aghoraghora

yajvan
19 August 2007, 06:09 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan,

“This which is known as the heart, this mind, consciousness, mastery, knowledge of arts, comprehension, recollection, perception, fortitude, reflection, independent thinking, distress of the mind, memory, volition, application, maintenance of life, desire, lust, all these are indeed the prajñAnasya nAmadheyAni.”

I had originally translated prajñAnasya nAmadheyAni as “the appellations (applications) of prajñA”. But, following comments suggesting that prajñAnasya should itself be regarded as a name, I adjusted the translation. This variation, however, makes no difference to the overall meaning.

prajñAnasya is the genitive form of prajñAnam ~ the conception or seed of prajñA ~ the hiraNyagarbha.

What is the difference between a “list” and a “litany”?

This is a list (or litany) of various aspects of prajñA (“wisdom, intelligence, knowledge, discrimination, or judgment”) which are all part of worldly existence.

If we insist that these “kinds of intelligence” are specifically referring to the various “brahmA-namings”, then we see that brahmA (or nArAyaNa, both being influenced by mAyA) is directly responsible for all of these fluctuations of mind.

turya = brahma = prajñA = prajñAnam = nara = kRSNa = namaH shivAya = aghorghoratara
turIya = brahmA = prAjña = hiraNyagarbha = nArAyaNa = arjuna = shiM = aghoraghora


Namsate sarabhanga,
thank you for your efforts here.. now I see what you are naming i.e. aspects or wisdom, intelligence, knowledge, discrimination, or judgment.
I was thinking other names of Brahman e.g. Bhuma, Aham, etc.

Now i see the logic of your post...

& like the valid additions you have made to this, yet would not Krsna = narayana? and Arjuna= nara?
turya = brahma = prajñA = prajñAnam = nara = kRSNa = namaH shivAya = aghorghoratara
turIya = brahmA = prAjña = hiraNyagarbha = nArAyaNa = arjuna = shiM = aghoraghora

I think we have made some signifcant progress on this matter of turiya and turya. Thank you and atanu for the great contributions. I am in hopes others can follow this line of reasoning, either from this HDF string , or;

Perhaps we can start a Turiya-lite post and boil it down so one can see and connect the dots back to their own sadhana e.g. turiya+turya+consciousness and ones potential progress/unfoldment - what it is, why it's possible, and grounded in the shastras.

I am sure for some that have followed this , at times, it must have felt like trying to take a drink out of a fire hose at 1500 psi.http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

pranams,

sarabhanga
19 August 2007, 06:54 PM
But Shri Aurobindo and few others give the alternative translation. As the sentence is "dve axare brahmapare tvanante", and not brahmpara, I have some curiosity.

Namaste Atanu,

IN the immortal and infinite brahmapara the twin vidyAvidya is hidden; avidya is verily mortal and vidya is verily immortal; indeed, brahma who controls vidyAvidya is quite different from these.

brahmapare is the locative case of brahmapara, which has been translated as “in brahmapara”.

I can not understand your point. Can you please explain how this line is interpreted without assuming that brahmapare is simply the locative singular case of brahmapara.

Madhavan
20 August 2007, 02:01 AM
& like the valid additions you have made to this, yet would not Krsna = narayana? and Arjuna= nara?
turya = brahma = prajñA = prajñAnam = nara = kRSNa = namaH shivAya = aghorghoratara
turIya = brahmA = prAjña = hiraNyagarbha = nArAyaNa = arjuna = shiM = aghoraghora


nara is used in two distinct ways - one as the puruSa, the primevial being, and the other as a jiva. I am guessing Sarabhanga is referring to the former.

I dont see Krishna and narayana at an identical level of abstraction. To me, nArAyaNa(being on the ocean) is perhaps the more abstract, as Sri Shankara himself begins his gIta bhAShya with "nArAyaNo parovyaktadaNdamavyakta sambhavam" - the cause of both the universe and its seed(mAyA) and beyond them. I would consider Krishna as the essence of mAyA atleast in the context of Mahabaratha. Not surprisingly the word nArAyaNa never appears in the Bhagavad Gita though Krishna is repeated called by Arjuna as viSNu.

So I might take the stand: nArAyaNa--becomes--> viSNu---becomes-->KrishNa

Obviously, by nArayaNa I do not refer to a God who has the characteristics of a body with conch and discuss and all that. It is the being on the ocean( or consciousness). When this non dual being (or non being) appears in all its infinite multiplicity it is called viSNu or Krishna which is viSvarUpa.( in which all other beings including brahma have their abode)

After all, what is in a name?? You can see this from many angles.

sarabhanga
20 August 2007, 08:31 AM
Perhaps we can start a Turiya-lite post and boil it down so one can see and connect the dots back to their own sadhana e.g. turiya+turya+consciousness and ones potential progress/unfoldment - what it is, why it's possible, and grounded in the shastras.

Namaste Yajvan,

Just follow the nivRtti mArga (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1878) :)

atanu
20 August 2007, 11:43 AM
Namaste Atanu,

IN the immortal and infinite brahmapara the twin vidyAvidya is hidden; avidya is verily mortal and vidya is verily immortal; indeed, brahma who controls vidyAvidya is quite different from these.

brahmapare is the locative case of brahmapara, which has been translated as “in brahmapara”.

I can not understand your point. Can you please explain how this line is interpreted without assuming that brahmapare is simply the locative singular case of brahmapara.


Namaste Sarabhanga ji,

I passed with difficulty in grammar, be it my mother tongue bengali, or hindi or english. I have never studied sanskrit. But is this case "pare" is used to mean "beyond" by one school while another school uses "Param Brahman" for "brahmapare". You will note that in both the cases, two separate tattwas are indicated: a) Param Brahman and Brahman b)Brahma and a being who is beyond.

Since Brahman is Param, the option "b", seems more appropriate and it goes well with indescribale Self -- which cannot be Param.

I am citing the translation of Shri Aurobindo below:

Svet. Up. 5.1

Both of these in the transcendence, the knowledge and ignorance, yea, both have their hidden being in the Eternal and Infinite Who dwelleth beyond Brahman of the Veda, and are set in it for ever. But of these ignorance dieth and knowledge liveth forever; and He who is master (the original is "Ishate" and not "Brahma") of both is other than they.

I simply go by logic, Brahman tattwa is Pragnya tattwa-- the eternal of the nature of pure knowledge. It is as is. The servant or controller of this Pragnya Tattwa may be useless like Atanu. Or He, by having made the Pragnya tattwa His willing consort and servant, has gone abroad. This is unborn mahesvara tattwa, which is Param Parastaad.

Actually, I feel that Sanskrit leaves a dramatic scope of creating understanding as per the need of the seeker. One who is fond of Mahesvara Shiva, will follow Shri Aurobindo (and possibly without mistake). And smartas may not even try to comprehend what Param Parastaad may mean (possibly equally correctly).

To me Param Parastaad means, the being (again a Tattwa within Brahman but still beyond), which soars high above the highest, by His will called Durga. He is Guru tattwa as well. He is Isha Tattwa. Since HE is GOOD. His will is GOOD. Since, within Brahman, He has the highest will, which is GOOD. He is called Shiva. It is the Self, which brings forth Purusha from the waters (Aitreya).

And this Self is Brahman.


Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

Lord prove me correct.

Madhavan
21 August 2007, 04:42 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga ji,

I passed with difficulty in grammar, be it my mother tongue bengali, or hindi or english. I have never studied sanskrit. But is this case "pare" is used to mean "beyond" by one school while another school uses "Param Brahman" for "brahmapare". You will note that in both the cases, two separate tattwas are indicated: a) Param Brahman and Brahman b)Brahma and a being who is beyond.

Since Brahman is Param, the option "b", seems more appropriate and it goes well with indescribale Self -- which cannot be Param.

I am citing the translation of Shri Aurobindo below:

Svet. Up. 5.1

Both of these in the transcendence, the knowledge and ignorance, yea, both have their hidden being in the Eternal and Infinite Who dwelleth beyond Brahman of the Veda, and are set in it for ever. But of these ignorance dieth and knowledge liveth forever; and He who is master (the original is "Ishate" and not "Brahma") of both is other than they.

I simply go by logic, Brahman tattwa is Pragnya tattwa-- the eternal of the nature of pure knowledge. It is as is. The servant or controller of this Pragnya Tattwa may be useless like Atanu. Or He, by having made the Pragnya tattwa His willing consort and servant, has gone abroad. This is unborn mahesvara tattwa, which is Param Parastaad.

Actually, I feel that Sanskrit leaves a dramatic scope of creating understanding as per the need of the seeker. One who is fond of Mahesvara Shiva, will follow Shri Aurobindo (and possibly without mistake). And smartas may not even try to comprehend what Param Parastaad may mean (possibly equally correctly).

To me Param Parastaad means, the being (again a Tattwa within Brahman but still beyond), which soars high above the highest, by His will called Durga. He is Guru tattwa as well. He is Isha Tattwa. Since HE is GOOD. His will is GOOD. Since, within Brahman, He has the highest will, which is GOOD. He is called Shiva. It is the Self, which brings forth Purusha from the waters (Aitreya).

And this Self is Brahman.


Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

Lord prove me correct.

Namaste Atanu - You will probably be interested in some of the doctrines that expound many higher tattvas, upto 36 or even 108. There is nothing really like "higher than the highest" because it is a self contradiction to say so.( what else is meant by highest then and to say that something higher exists?). So Brahman is the ultimate.

You will also remember your earlier words to me regarding param, which is totally meaningless from the Absolute viewpoint. To use the word "param parastaad" would thus be from the vyavahArika sense only, since Brahman is advitIya. From the Absolute viewpoint such distinctions such as param or parastaad are meaningless and refer to the Saguna Brahman.

The word Brahma means "complete" or "full" and theoretically no adjective can qualify it and nothing higher to it can exist. The word Para Brahman is sometimes used to distinguish Brahman from Brahma Deva, but that does not mean there exist two entities called Brahman and Para Brahman. Brahman implies Para Brahman unless the context dictates otherwise.

____________________

But your idea can be traced to the Gita also:-

What does Lord Krishna say?

yasmat ksaram atito 'ham
aksarad api cottamah
ato 'smi loke vede ca
prathitah purusottamah ( 15.18)

He introduces the entity named Purushottama which is held to be higher than both xaram and axaram. Now what is axaram here? After all, Brahman is the only axaram ( indestructible or eternal). Does Krishna appear to be saying he is higher than Brahman? Everyone interprets axaram differently here...though most contend that the axaram here refers to mAyA and not Brahman. Is mAyA really axaram, ie eternal? It is with this perspective I argued that Saguna Brahman is eternal on the other thread.

atanu
21 August 2007, 09:24 AM
Namaste Atanu - -----So Brahman is the ultimate.

------
But your idea can be traced to the Gita also:-

What does Lord Krishna say?

yasmat ksaram atito 'ham
aksarad api cottamah
ato 'smi loke vede ca
prathitah purusottamah ( 15.18)

He introduces the entity named Purushottama which is held to be higher than both xaram and axaram. Now what is axaram here? After all, Brahman is the only axaram ( indestructible or eternal). Does Krishna appear to be saying he is higher than Brahman? Everyone interprets axaram differently here...though most contend that the axaram here refers to mAyA and not Brahman. Is mAyA really axaram, ie eternal? It is with this perspective I argued that Saguna Brahman is eternal on the other thread.


Namaste Madhavan,

I agree with what you are saying. I emphasize that Param Parastaad is not Higher than the highest. It is beyond the definition of Param, since there is no other (for this being).

When Maya has no existence apart from Brahman, considering Axaram as Maya alone is a bit of logical difficulty. On the other Hand, without destroying a bit of Advaita -- I can easily prove that it is the Self that is Advaita and Self's reality (or nature) is of fullness. This strengthens Advaita and also explains how there is "I" -- as "I am Atanu" and as "I am Brahman -- the full" and "I am Brahma yoni".

"I am" is the Supreme awareness, yet this "I" in itself is indescribable, since it only knows.

In absolute term, the Svet Upanishad says: When the light rises, the blessed ONE (Shiva) alone is there. But from relative standpoint, the Saguna Brahman is Param whereas the Nirguna is indescribale Self. This Self is Brahma Yoni. Only this way I can reconcile Gita, Svet. Upanishad, Mandukya (which indicates that Pragnya is a station of Atma) and the shruti "Prajanam Brahman".

I understand this as following.

One factor that is Supreme as well as beyond the definition of Supreme is indescribable Self -- Atma, which alone can say "I" and which can exist as a thief or as mahesvara -- Param parastaad. The difference in a thief and mahesvara is that the latter knows "I am Brahman -- the full" and also at relative level He is a controller of Maya, which is inherent in Brahman, who is of the nature of unlimited, unconditioned pure Pragnya. So, Mandukya Upanishad says: This Self is Brahman. Yoga Vashsista also says that Brahman is a state of fullness of Atma. When Atma is deluded by association with Maya it is Jiva.

Brahman is as is. But the Self that has the I sense. It can go down in samsara or be able to say "I am Brahman". But "This Atma is Brahman". This I feel, is the import of Turya -- the Atma who is aware of "I", it is the fullness as pure unconditioned Pragnya, but who in itself is indescribable, except that sages call it Shivo -- the good.

And this shivo is ADVAITA and has to be known as ADVAITA.

Regards,

Om

sarabhanga
21 August 2007, 10:10 AM
Namaste Atanu,

dve akshare brahmapare tvanante vidyAvidye nihite yatra guDhe |
ksharaM tvavidyA hyamRtaM tu vidyA vidyAvidye Ishate yastu so'nyaH ||

In the immortal and infinite brahmapara (i.e. brahma) the twin vidyAvidya is hidden; avidya is verily mortal and vidya is verily immortal; indeed brahma who controls vidyAvidya is quite different from these (i.e. from vidya and avidya considered separately).

para can mean “ulterior” (or beyond), but also “ultimate” (or highest).

brahmapara is the ultimate brahma (= parabrahma).

brahmapara may be read as “brahma-beyond”, referring to “the two” (i.e. vidyAvidya).

The compound brahma-para, however, may be either brahma para or brahmA para; and since there is nothing beyond brahma, the twin must be beyond brahmA (i.e. beyond “the brahman of the veda”).

And certainly, two tattvas are considered here ~ brahmA (“brahman of the vedas” or “vidya and avidya considered separately”) and brahma (“he who is master of both” or “he who controls vidyAvidya”).

I can see no essential difference between Aurobindo’s translation and my own.

param-parastAt is “beyond beyond”.

parama = brahma = vidyAvidya = prajñAna = brahmayoni = paramparastAt
para = brahmA = vidya + avidya = jñAna = brahmabIja = parampara-sthA

atanu
21 August 2007, 11:20 AM
Namaste Atanu,

dve akshare brahmapare tvanante vidyAvidye nihite yatra guDhe |
ksharaM tvavidyA hyamRtaM tu vidyA vidyAvidye Ishate yastu so'nyaH ||

In the immortal and infinite brahmapara (i.e. brahma) the twin vidyAvidya is hidden; avidya is verily mortal and vidya is verily immortal; indeed brahma who controls vidyAvidya is quite different from these (i.e. from vidya and avidya considered separately).

para can mean “ulterior” (or beyond), but also “ultimate” (or highest).

brahmapara is the ultimate brahma (= parabrahma).

brahmapara may be read as “brahma-beyond”, referring to “the two” (i.e. vidyAvidya).

The compound brahma-para, however, may be either brahma para or brahmA para; and since there is nothing beyond brahma, the twin must be beyond brahmA (i.e. beyond “the brahman of the veda”).

And certainly, two tattvas are considered here ~ brahmA (“brahman of the vedas” or “vidya and avidya considered separately”) and brahma (“he who is master of both” or “he who controls vidyAvidya”).

I can see no essential difference between Aurobindo’s translation and my own.

param-parastAt is “beyond beyond”.

parama = brahma = vidyAvidya = prajñAna = brahmayoni = paramparastAt
para = brahmA = vidya + avidya = jñAna = brahmabIja = parampara-sthA


Namaskar Sarabhanga Ji,

Yes. This is what I had also said; either 'brahma and Parabrahma' or 'brahma and brahmapare'. In either case we seem to get two entities. I am suggesting that the 'brahmapare' is indescribable Turiya.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Madhavan
21 August 2007, 01:37 PM
Namaste Atanu,


Namaste Madhavan,

I agree with what you are saying. I emphasize that Param Parastaad is not Higher than the highest. It is beyond the definition of Param, since there is no other (for this being).

When Maya has no existence apart from Brahman, considering Axaram as Maya alone is a bit of logical difficulty. On the other Hand, without destroying a bit of Advaita -- I can easily prove that it is the Self that is Advaita and Self's reality (or nature) is of fullness. This strengthens Advaita and also explains how there is "I" -- as "I am Atanu" and as "I am Brahman -- the full" and "I am Brahma yoni".


Sri Shankara treats axaram as samsArav^xabIjabhUtam ( the seed of the tree of the universe) which is mUlaprakriti or just mAyA. That axaram hence is yogamAyA or durga. So I guess there isn't any logical issues with that. Yes, that would mean mAyA is eternal although it would be eternal only in the vyavahAra daSa. Although vyavahAra is sublated from the absolute standpoint, one has to still concede that the concept of eternity exists even in the relative plane of existance, which maybe the reason why purANas talk of the eternal existance of worlds like vaikuNTa or kailAsa.

Madhavan
21 August 2007, 02:09 PM
When Atma is deluded by association with Maya it is Jiva.


I generally dont think in terms of a theory of delusion because it does not make too much sense for the omnipotent Atma to be under delusion. A reasonable example would be that of Sun(Atma) and its rays(jagat) that emanate from the Sun. It is the characteristic of the Sun to produce rays which does not indicate that ray is an effect of any delusion of the Sun.

It is in the essential nature of Atma to create which has no cause, just like the Sun does not cause the rays through any cause but by its mere existance alone. An individual ray(jiva) must recognize and reverse back to the sun rather than speeding away from it.( Yes, rays will speed away by default!) The ray that continues to speed away is in 'avidya'.:)

atanu
21 August 2007, 08:00 PM
Namaste Atanu,

Sri Shankara treats axaram as samsArav^xabIjabhUtam ( the seed of the tree of the universe) which is mUlaprakriti or just mAyA. That axaram hence is yogamAyA or durga. So I guess there isn't any logical issues with that. Yes, that would mean mAyA is eternal although it would be eternal only in the vyavahAra daSa. Although vyavahAra is sublated from the absolute standpoint, one has to still concede that the concept of eternity exists even in the relative plane of existance, which maybe the reason why purANas talk of the eternal existance of worlds like vaikuNTa or kailAsa.

samsArav^xabIjabhUtam ( the seed of the tree of the universe) is Pragnya. What transcends that is Turya. What I have been saying is not a bit different from Shri Shankara. I wanted to emphasize that Shri Shankara has distinguished between Brahma (macrocosm) and Turya (microcosm).

What He has said is

Those who have realised Brahman, the Highest Reality, merge the self in Turiya because they have transcended the notion of cause and effect, which inheres in the third quarter of Atman. They are not born again; for they have realised their identity with the causeless Turiya. -----

The highest reality is what can be defined as highest reality. It is Pragnya and its manifestation as the Univese. But Turya (the Self wherefrom the Pragnya and the Seer of Pragnya sprout) is indescribable and ungraspable. Ignorance is a natural inability to see that all the diverisities are of the nature of Pragnya, which is not independent of ADVAITA Turya Atma.

That is: The diversities are not indepedent of one's own Pragnya.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
21 August 2007, 08:10 PM
I generally dont think in terms of a theory of delusion because it does not make too much sense for the omnipotent Atma to be under delusion. A reasonable example would be that of Sun(Atma) and its rays(jagat) that emanate from the Sun. It is the characteristic of the Sun to produce rays which does not indicate that ray is an effect of any delusion of the Sun.

It is in the essential nature of Atma to create which has no cause, just like the Sun does not cause the rays through any cause but by its mere existance alone. An individual ray(jiva) must recognize and reverse back to the sun rather than speeding away from it.( Yes, rays will speed away by default!) The ray that continues to speed away is in 'avidya'.:)

Namaskar Madhavan,

The theory of Maya says that there is in reality no Maya. There is only Avidya. And we have seen that vidyaavidya both sprout from the highest (in Svet. Upanishad verse cited above).

Atma is said to be "Na lipayate". In reality, it does not create. I agree with the metaphor of Sun's rays. I have felt it so myself often. Sun's rays run away as if to establish there own reality, which is futile.

Om Namah Shivaya

sarabhanga
22 August 2007, 08:25 AM
Namaste Atanu,




brahmapare is the locative case of brahmapara, which has been translated as “in brahmapara”.




This is what I had also said; either 'brahma and parabrahma' or 'brahma and brahmapare'.

As I mentioned before, I cannot understand this line if brahmapare is not merely the locative case of brahmapara.

brahmapare means “in brahmapara”.

Why do you continue to call turya as brahmapare? Is there something that I have missed in the translation? How can brahmapare NOT be the locative case of brahmapara in this sentence? You mentioned two different approaches to translation, but both translations seem the same to me, with neither considering brahmapare as a nominative singular.

It could be a dual form agreeing with tve vidyAvidye ~ but do you consider “the brahmapare” as two, or is it only one?




I am suggesting that the 'brahmapare' is indescribable Turiya.

Then it must be singular, and thus named as brahmapara (= parabrahma, the “exceeding or highest brahma”).




I wanted to emphasize that Shri Shankara has distinguished between Brahma (macrocosm) and Turya (microcosm).

Hmmm. I doubt that Shankaracarya would agree. He certainly would have distinguished the twin brahman, but surely microcosm and macrocosm should be reversed.

brahma (neuter) = turya = macrocosm
brahmA (masculine) = prAjña + prajñA = microcosm

And brahmA is caturmukha, whereas brahma is pañcamukha.

atanu
22 August 2007, 10:02 AM
Namaste Atanu,

Then it must be singular, and thus named as brahmapara (= parabrahma, the “exceeding or highest brahma”).



Namste Sarabhanga Ji,

I thought it was clear that I am citing Shri Aurobindo who takes brahmapare as singular and beyond supreme brahma, as below:

Svet. Up. 5.1

Both of these in the transcendence, the knowledge and ignorance, yea, both have their hidden being in the Eternal and Infinite Who dwelleth beyond Brahman of the Veda, and are set in it for ever. But of these ignorance dieth and knowledge liveth forever; and He who is master (the original is "Ishate" and not "Brahma") of both is other than they.




Hmmm. I doubt that Shankaracarya would agree. He certainly would have distinguished the twin brahman, but surely microcosm and macrocosm should be reversed.

brahma (neuter) = turya = macrocosm
brahmA (masculine) = prAjña + prajñA = microcosm

And brahmA is caturmukha, whereas brahma is pañcamukha.


Yes I also doubt. Since for Turya there is no in and out. No macrocosm and microcosm.


Regards.

Om Namah Shivaya

sarabhanga
22 August 2007, 10:21 PM
Namaste Atanu,

Shri Aurobindo does not say “beyond supreme brahma”, but rather “beyond brahman of the vedas”, which (as explained) is equivalent with “beyond brahmA”.

“Beyond supreme brahman” would be parabrahmapara!

“Dwelling beyond brahmA” and “dwelling in brahma” are effectively identical statements ~ although (as mentioned) I can see that some translations read brahmapara as brahma para while others read it as brahmA para.

But it seems to me that both interpretations are reading brahmapare as a locative case (indicating “in brahmapara”).

brahmapara (with the locative brahmapare) is exactly the same as parabrahma (with the locative brahmaNi), and in each case the gender is ambiguous.

What I cannot understand is the use of brahmapare as a singular nominative or vocative case (i.e. as a name for something).


The turya is neuter ~ brahma (voc.) and brahma (nom.) ~ “beyond the beyond” and beyond all duality ~ known as hara or nara.
The turIya is masculine ~ brahman (voc.) and brahmA (nom.) ~ “the beyond” or macrocosm ~ known as hari or nArAyaNa (or nArAyaNau).
The turIyAtIta is masculine ~ brAhma (voc.) and brAhmaH (nom.) ~ “here and now” or microcosm ~ both nAra and nAri, and known as hAra and hAri.

The turIyAtIta is also explicitly feminine ~ brAhmi (voc.) and brAhmI (nom.).
And in the turIya (as masculine brahmA) there is the implication of a similar feminine form.
The turya brahma, however, is beyond any gender and always neuter.

The turIyAtIta is known as the padam, which is sthA.
The turIya is known as the paraM padam, which is parastAt.
And the turya is known as the paramaM padam, which is paramparastAt.

hari is nArAyaNa, but secretly nArAyaNau; and this innermost twin has its own twin implications ~ implying both nAra-nArAyaNa and nara-nArAyaNa.

As above, so below ~ and likewise above and below that as well!

In practice, the hidden nArAyaNau is the key to the whole equation.

The starting point is always nAra or nAri, and the final destination is always nara (the paramaM padam), but the path can only be via the nArAyaNau, and so (in practice) that vital guheSa must always be the aim. And once the guheSa is truly known, the full knowledge of hara and paramaM padam comes automatically ~ and the goal is attained. :)

The brahmayoni (hara jyeSTha) is neuter and unborn, while the brahmabIja (hiraNyagarbha hari) is a fertile twin that is ever repeated ~ but remember that the son of a barren women cannot truly exist (and thus the uttamasatyam of ajAtivAda). ;)

atanu
23 August 2007, 12:17 PM
Namaste Atanu,

Shri Aurobindo does not say “beyond supreme brahma”, but rather “beyond brahman of the vedas”, which (as explained) is equivalent with “beyond brahmA”.

“Beyond supreme brahman” would be parabrahmapara!


Namaste sarabhanga Ji,

Neither did I say that something is beyond parabrahman. What is beyond Brahman is para. And that is simply the point. Till Turya is not known, Atma is not Brahman. In Turya "This Atma is Brahman".

If you equate Brahman of Vedas to four faced Brahma, then again we are saying that Turya is "Brahman of Vedas" and not the other way around.






-----
~ but remember that the son of a barren women cannot truly exist (and thus the uttamasatyam of ajAtivAda). ;)

That's correct.


Om Namah Shivaya

sarabhanga
23 August 2007, 07:53 PM
Namaste Atanu,

First you said: “I thought it was clear that I am citing Shri Aurobindo who takes brahmapare as singular and beyond supreme brahma.” And now you say: “Neither did I say that something is beyond parabrahman.”

“Beyond supreme brahma” and “beyond parabrahman” are exactly the same thing. Please make up your mind! I had thought that you were making some point, but perhaps there was no point at all (?) :headscratch:

And caturmukha does NOT necessarily refer to the turya, which is surely pañcamukha!

The brahmabIja is caturmukha, and the brahmayoni is pañcamukha ~ this should already be clear from my previous posts.

I don’t think I can explain the turya (including turIya and turIyAtIta) in any more detail, and the traditional understanding of these inner relationships relies on an understanding of Sanskrit and its grammatical operation. The English language (and especially the 26 letter alphabet) is an insufficient vehicle for the task.

Atman is not Brahman only in Avidya and Maya ~ and on this point we seem to agree. :)

Madhavan
24 August 2007, 01:52 AM
Namaste sarabhanga Ji,

Neither did I say that something is beyond parabrahman. What is beyond Brahman is para. And that is simply the point. Till Turya is not known, Atma is not Brahman. In Turya "This Atma is Brahman".

If you equate Brahman of Vedas to four faced Brahma, then again we are saying that Turya is "Brahman of Vedas" and not the other way around.






That's correct.


Om Namah Shivaya

Is it some kind of confusion between the terms brahma and brahman?

brahmA in the conventional sense denotes Brahma Deva, also known as axara, pragnya, hiraNyagarbha, mahat and so on. This is not parabrahman since brahmA is dissolved during the time of praLaya.

Brahman(brahma) is the ultimate truth denoted by terms such as Aja, Advaita, ISvara, Atma etc. Brahman gives rise to the above brahmA and hence is superior to brahmA in principle. This is the parabrahman.

There is again some minor difference between ISvara and Brahman, as pointed out by Sri Sarabhanga.( the differences between turIya, turya and turiyatIta are very subtle). Atman, as used by Sri Shankara is used as the indwelling principle and is the same as ISvara - there is a minor difference between Atman(catuSpAd) and Brahman(ekapAd) because Atman is also defined as the "creator", "destroyer" etc, while Brahman is viewed from the absolute viewpoint alone from where there is no real creation. One could say that Atman is viSNu and Brahman is Shiva. In turya, Atma=brahman.

brahman is brahma(four faced) - this is correct
four faced brahma is brahman - is not quite correct.

atanu
24 August 2007, 02:57 AM
Namaste Atanu,

First you said: “I thought it was clear that I am citing Shri Aurobindo who takes brahmapare as singular and beyond supreme brahma.” And now you say: “Neither did I say that something is beyond parabrahman.”

“Beyond supreme brahma” and “beyond parabrahman” are exactly the same thing. Please make up your mind! I had thought that you were making some point, but perhaps there was no point at all (?) :headscratch:

-------
Atman is not Brahman only in Avidya and Maya ~ and on this point we seem to agree. :)


Namaskar,

Yes, words help or cloud.

There is still some confusion, to which I agree I have added. Equations do not aid comprehension either (you may or may not agree, hehe). If there is no Self, there would not arise the statement of Vishnu "I am Cipivishta". The confusion is due to inadequate comprehension of two things. Param is Supreme Leader. Para is beyond. Param Parastaad is beyond Supreme Leader.

Brahman is Supreme. The Param -- the Supreme leader. In this saguna state, there are others and thus comparison is possible.

Parabrahman is what is beyond the definition of Leader (Param). And more appropriate words are "brahmapare" or "brahmayoni", which shruti use.

Turya is beyond the definition of Param and everything else that words can convey-- it is indescribable and beyond -- param parasstaad. Turya is EKO -- advaita -- there is no basis for comparison with anything else.

One knows "I am Brahman". It is knowable. But the One who knows so, is in itself indescribable, ungraspable, neither consciousness nor not consciousness, shivo advaita atma.

That is why Lord Krishna says "I am brahma yoni".

But in Turya, the distictinction between the knowable and unknowable disappears. That is why scriptures, such a Tripura Rahasya and others, define Self as both knowable and unknowable. It is the light that knows everything, still it in itself is indescribable. This is Turya. I hope I am clear.

In reality there is no distinction between Self and Brahman. So the statement, "Atman is not Brahman only in Avidya and Maya", is from avidya perspective, since Self is unchangeable, uncuttable.

Regards


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
24 August 2007, 04:19 AM
Is it some kind of confusion between the terms brahma and brahman?

-----
Brahman(brahma) is the ultimate truth denoted by terms such as Aja, Advaita, ISvara, Atma etc. Brahman gives rise to the above brahmA and hence is superior to brahmA in principle. This is the parabrahman.

----- One could say that Atman is viSNu and Brahman is Shiva. In turya, Atma=brahman.

brahman is brahma(four faced) - this is correct
four faced brahma is brahman - is not quite correct.

Namaskar Madhavan,

What you have said is correct.

As I have added in the above post. Saguna Brahman is Param. Nirguna is Param and beyond. parabrahman need not mean that Brahman is not Param.

The sentence "----- One could say that Atman is viSNu and Brahman is Shiva. In turya, Atma=brahman.", can also be written as "----- Atman is Shiva and Brahman is viSNu. In turya, Atma=brahman."

This is so, since Mandukya Upanishad calls Self as shivoadvaita.

And in truth, Atman=Brahman. Not only in Turya, since Turya is always the truth. Ignorance hides it. What appears as evident under ignorance is not the truth.

I agree that "four faced brahma is brahman - is not quite correct".


My point always has been that one has to take into account "I am brahmayoni" of Shree Krishna and pramparastaad of upanishads. All pervasive consciousness of Self is Brahmic state.


One travels through mahavakyas.

All this is Brahman. How can one ball, one bat, one cat, one man, which appear as things be Brahman, which is said to be saman, without any difference?

Then comes. Prajanam Brahman. Consciousness is Brahman. All this is consciousness. All this is born of consciousness. The ball, the bat etc., are all consciousness.

When all this is known as consciousness comes "You art that". The inner being Vishnu is Brahman. Since Shri Krishna says, know this light to be mine. In the light of one's consciousness all things exist. And all this is Brahman.

When the light of consciousness is known as one's own, then come "I am Brahman" and "This Self is Brahman".

So, Lord says: I am brahmayoni.

My POV.

But timelessly and eternally Self = Brahman and Brahman = Self. What appears as self (in ignorance, however, is appearance and not the truth.

That which is everywhere, is also within us, and what is within us is everywhere. This is ‘Brahman,’ because it is plenum, fills all space, expands into all existence, and is vast beyond all measure of perception or knowledge. But space and knowledge do not exist apart from the Self. On account of self-luminosity, non-relativity and universality, Atman and Brahman are the same. This identification of the Self with Absolute is not any act of bringing together two differing natures, but is an affirmation that absoluteness or universality includes everything, and there is nothing outside it.

In the sentence, ‘Aham Brahmasmi,’ or I am Brahman, the ‘I’ is that which is the One Witnessing Consciousness, standing apart form even the intellect, different from the ego-principle, and shining through every act of thinking, feeling, etc. This Witness-Consciousness, being the same in all, is universal, and cannot be distinguished from Brahman, which is the Absolute. There is no difference between the all pervasive "I" and Brahman. When the witnessing I enquires as to who is witnessing Brahman, there remains no distinction between the witness (I) and the witnessed Brahman.


So, Lord says: I am brahmayoni. And Yoga Vasista teaches that Brahman is the all pervasive, without a second state, of the Self. Without the witness I, this would not be known.


Om Namah Vasudevaya. Om Namah Shivaya.

sarabhanga
24 August 2007, 09:50 AM
Namaste Atanu,

As an adjective, para can mean “far, distant, remote (in space), opposite, ulterior, farther than, beyond, on the other or farther side of, extreme; previous (in time), former; ancient, past; later, future, next; following, succeeding, subsequent; final, last; exceeding (in number or degree), more than; better or worse than, superior or inferior to, best or worst, highest, supreme, chief; strange, foreign, alien, adverse, hostile; other than, different from; left, remaining; or concerned or anxious for”.

parA is particularly used to indicate “having as the chief object, given up to, occupied with, engrossed in, intent upon, resting on, consisting of, serving for, or synonymous with”; or adverbially as “away, off, aside, along, or on”.

As a feminine noun, parA is “a foreign country, or abroad”.

As a masculine noun, para is “another (different from one’s self), a foreigner, enemy, foe, or adversary”.

As a masculine or neuter noun, para or param is “the Supreme or Absolute Being, or the Universal Soul”.

As a neuter noun, param is “remotest distance; highest point or degree; final beatitude; or any chief matter or paramount object; or existence (regarded as the common property of all things).

And param is particularly used to indicate “afterwards, later; beyond, after; in a high degree, excessively, greatly, completely; rather, most willingly, by all means; I will, so be it; at the most, at the utmost, merely, no more than, nothing but; but, however, or otherwise”.

pAra means “bringing across”, and the neuter noun pAra or pAram indicates “the further bank or shore or boundary, any bank or shore, the opposite side, the end or limit of anything, or the utmost reach or fullest extent”.

The masculine noun pAra indicates “a crossing”, “quicksilver” or “a guardian or keeper”.

The locative pare is used as an adverb, indicating “later, farther, in future, or afterwards”.

And as a verb, pare means “to go or run away, go along, or go towards; to depart, or die; or to reach, attain, or partake of”.

Now, in the masculine para (nominative singular paraH) we find param as the accusative singular; and we find pare as the nominative plural and locative singular.

In the neuter para, we find param as the nominative and accusative singular; and we find pare both as the nominative and accusative dual and as the locative singular.

And in the feminine parA we find pare as the nominative and accusative dual case.

In the neuter pAra, we find pAre as the nominative, vocative and accusative dual, and as the locative singular; and we find pAram as the nominative, vocative and accusative singular case.

param certainly means “supreme Being”, but not particularly “supreme leader” ~ although, in the sense of “the paramount object” it comes very close. And this param also indicates “Existence”, which is perfect. :)

pAram is “the further bank or shore or boundary, any bank or shore, the opposite side, the end or limit of anything, or the utmost reach or fullest extent”; and pAram particularly indicates “the crossing”, or “the guardian or keeper”.

Perhaps “the guardian” is close to your idea of “the leader”, but the spelling is pAram.

The param is brahma, while the pAram is brahmA ~ and note that there is no vocative case for param (i.e. param brahma is beyond praise).

parastAt means “further away, further on, towards; beyond, above; from afar off, from before or behind; aside, apart; hereafter, afterwards, or later”.

And paramparastAt is “beyond the beyond” or “beyond the hereafter” or “beyond the supreme Being” or “beyond the paramount object” or even “beyond existence”.

paramparastAt could perhaps be interpreted as “beyond brahma” ~ although, in Vedanta this can only be Absolute Void (which by definition does not exist).

praSTha means “standing in front, foremost, principal, best, or chief”, and it indicates “a foreman, leader, or conductor”.

So that parampraSTha explicitly indicates the “supreme leader”.

paramparastAt is “beyond beyond” or “beyond the paramount object of devotion” and parampraSTha is “supreme leader”, and this seems to be the source of some confusion.

“Beyond the supreme leader” would be paramparampraSTha or parampraSThapara!

parabrahma and brahmapara and brahmayoni all indicate exactly the same thing ~ the absolute turya ~ nirguNa brahman.

brahmapare, however, is not a proper name (unless you consider it as a masculine plural, or as a neuter or feminine dual form).

I have noted that brahma (i.e. shiva) is equivalent with nArAyaNau (and likewise the yamau and ashvinau). And so, brahmapare could equally be treated as a grammatical dual expression for a veritable singular form. And this ultimate Twin is both neuter and feminine. ;)

turya is paramparastAt and advaita and kRSNa and brahmayoni ~ exactly as expressed in my equations.

Atman is not Brahman only in Avidya ~ and since Avidya only pertains to Maya (which is ultimately non-existent) the ultimate truth is that Atman is never not Brahman! :)

atanu
24 August 2007, 11:53 AM
From Svet. Upanishad

ya eko.avarNo bahudhaa shaktiyogaad.h varaNaananekaan.h nihitaartho dadhaati .vichaiti chaante vishvamaadau cha devaH sa no buddhyaa shubhayaa sa.nyunaktu .. 1..Chapter 4

1.He who is one and without hue, but has ordained manifoldly many hues by the Yoga of his Force and holds within himself all objects, and in Him the Universe dissolves, That Godhead was in the beginning. May He yoke us with a god and bright understanding.

tadevaagnistadaaditya\- stadvaayustadu chandramaaH .tadeva shukra.n tad.h brahma tadaapastat.h prajaapatiH .. 2..

2.That alone is fire and hat the sun and That the wind and That too the moon; That is luminous, That the Brahman, That the waters, That the Father and Lord of creatures.


2nd translation of 4.2

IV-2: That Itself is the fire, That is the sun, That is the air, That is the moon, That is also the starry firmament, That is the Brahman, That is the waters, That is Prajapati.



Chapter 5

dve axare brahmapare tvanante vidyaavidye nihite yatra guuDhe .xara.n tvavidyaa hyamR^ita.n tu vidyaa vidyaavidye iishate yastu so.anyaH .. 1..

Svet. Up. 5.1

Both of these in the transcendence, the knowledge and ignorance, yea, both have their hidden being in the Eternal and Infinite Who dwelleth beyond Brahman of the Veda, and are set in it for ever. But of these ignorance dieth and knowledge liveth forever; and He who is master(the original is "Ishate" and not "Brahma") of both is other than they.


tad.h vedaguhyopanishhatsu guuDha.n tad.h brahmaa vedate brahmayonim.h .ye puurva.n devaa R^ishhayashcha tad.h vidu\- ste tanmayaa amR^itaa vai babhuuvuH ..6..

6. BrahmA knows this, which is hidden in the Upanishads, which are hidden in the Vedas, as the womb of the eternal Brahman. The ancient gods and seers who knew it, they became it and were immortal.


Shiva is the womb of eternal Brahman -- the Pragnya, which is ALL. And Shiva is Turya, whose one step is Pragnya -- Sarvesvara -- the womb of the Universe. (sarvasya yoni).


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
24 August 2007, 12:10 PM
Namaste Atanu,

---
parabrahma and brahmapara and brahmayoni all indicate exactly the same thing ~ the absolute turya ~ nirguNa brahman.

brahmapare, however, is not a proper name (unless you consider it as a masculine plural, or as a neuter or feminine dual form).

------
Atman is not Brahman only in Avidya ~ and since Avidya only pertains to Maya (which is ultimately non-existent) the ultimate truth is that Atman is never not Brahman! :)


Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

Let us now give it a rest. My head will crack with the weight of a and A.

Svet. Upanishad uses both brahmapare and brahmayoni, as shown in the above post, to describe master of Maya -- beloved Lord Shiva. It also uses paramparastaad. It also uses the descriptions nirguna and anadimat.

No doubt this Self is Brahman.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
24 August 2007, 12:20 PM
Namaste Atanu,

-----
turya is paramparastAt and advaita and kRSNa and brahmayoni ~ exactly as expressed in my equations.



Ha Ha. This equation is indeed near perfect. And this is what Atanu has been shouting hoarse. hehe.


I will add to the equation: turya is paramparastAt and advaita and kRSNa and brahmayoni and tad brahma


That alone is fire and That the sun and That the wind and That too the moon; That is luminous, That the Brahman, That the waters, That the Father and Lord of creatures.



Om Namah Shivaya

sarabhanga
24 August 2007, 06:51 PM
Namaste Atanu,

I am sorry, but when the discussion is distinguishing (nirguNa) brahman from (saguNa) brahman, the exact use of a and A is very important.

We are in agreement, but really the ONLY thing I was trying to point out was that, as a name for turya, brahmapare can either be a neuter or feminine dual form, or a masculine plural form; but if it is to be considered as a singular, then it must be a locative form (meaning something like “in supreme brahma”).

And, just as one would not normally take this phrase out of context and start calling the supreme brahma as “in the supreme brahma”, it seems strange to take brahmapare and use it as a particular name for brahmapara.

I have not said that anything has been incorrectly translated, only that I still cannot understand why you are using brahmapare instead of brahmapara. And unless I can understand this point, my preferred translation is in doubt.

I thought that perhaps you had some particular grammatical reason for insisting on brahmapare rather than brahmapara ~ but since you have not explained any reason, and otherwise we seem to be in full agreement, perhaps it better to let the matter drop.

Znanna
24 August 2007, 09:22 PM
I might understand about one tenth of what y'all talking about, but its very interesting!

Namaste,
ZN
/doing is easier than 'splaining, I think :P

yajvan
24 August 2007, 10:09 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

I ZN
/doing is easier than 'splaining, I think :P


Namaste Z,

Thats a 'roger' on that.

This consciousness level of Being trying to be described is so delicate, so subtle.... so indescribable. NOte we are the 8th page of this posting.

Books and great thinkers, munis, rishi's, kavi's, pundits, gurus and charanas look to explain this rasakunda ( this nector-vessel) found as turiya-turya, pure consciousness.

Many hail this chetana, some call cidakasha, or consciousness space, few live it purely ... many desire for this experience to last longer then a fleetiing minute. Once it is estabilighed 7x24x365 then we are functioning as
the Universe.

Yet even without this stability of experience, we all use it [consciousess] every day, yes? We could not take one step out of bed without the engagement of it.

The more we can explain it gracefully the more one gets it. So is the wisdom of the Upanishads.


pranams,

atanu
25 August 2007, 04:13 AM
I might understand about one tenth of what y'all talking about, but its very interesting!

Namaste,
ZN
/doing is easier than 'splaining, I think :P

I understand one millionth. But 'splaining to oneself u know?

hehe

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
25 August 2007, 04:25 AM
Namaste Atanu,

----
----only that I still cannot understand why you are using brahmapare instead of brahmapara. -----

Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

Well, I do not know the reason myself. brahmpare is what is there in the original Svet. Upanishad 5.1.

That's all I know. And I know that two schools derive two different meanings. One translates "Param Brahman" another translates as "beyond Brahman". Similar description of the Self being "brahmayonim" in Mundka Upanishad is a matter of great debate etc. Shankara says that this Brahman is the lower one.

I can reconcile everything when "Pragnya Brahman" is taken as a station of Turya, which one may call "Param Brahman" or "brahmapare". brahmapare would mean beyond cognition and Param Brahman would mean the highest Brahman. I personally think that brahmapare is more apt.


brahmapare/paramparastaad/brahmayonim are dominantly terms used in shruti. Although Param Brahman is also used.


Om Namah Shivaya

sarabhanga
25 August 2007, 06:41 AM
Namaste Atanu,

Thanks. I now see that you have taken brahmapare without regard to its grammar, which is rather controversial (and perhaps best left to stand as it is). And I have restricted possibilities according to my own general understanding; although, depending on exactly how this one term is interpreted in the upaniSad, there is possible justification for advaita, dvaita, vishiSTAdvaita, shAkta, and even shUnyavAda!

How many individuals are there in an identical conjoined twin? !!

If brahmapare (rather than brahmapara) is used as an alternative name for brahma, however, it seems to me that the implications would tend to deny the absolute singularity of advaita, and also to suggest shaktivAda.

atanu
25 August 2007, 08:07 AM
Namaste Atanu,

-----
If brahmapare (rather than brahmapara) is used as an alternative name for brahma, however, it seems to me that the implications would tend to deny the absolute singularity of advaita, and also to suggest shaktivAda.

Namaste,

No sorry. brahmapare is not taken as just Brahman by any school. One school (advaitins) consider 'brahmapare' to be higher than the unmanifest (hiranyagarbha) and hence translate brahmapare as Param Brahman (or the real nirgunam Brahman). This school also holds that Self is brahmayonim for the lower saguna Brahman .

The other school, usually the "personality cult" people say: the personality of Purushottama Krishna, is brahmpare, brahmyonim, and above akshara. A very naive way, without comprehending that the personality itself is Maya endowed.

Mandukya Upanishad makes it amply clear. The indescribable Self is indeed brahmayonim for the dense Pragnya -- sarvesvara Brahman (hiranyagarbha and akhshara). Whereas, the Turya itself is advaita. Some people call this 'Advaita Self' as Param Brahman - the highest Brahman, not signifying one leader among many but signifying the greatest SAMAN -- beyond which there is no other Saman.

Simple 'brahma-pare', means that it is beyond the Brahman that is describable in scriptures. It is simply indescribable and incomparable. In this case 'Advaita Atma', retains its full meaning of 'without a second'. Pragnya is its highest station but itself is beyond Pragnya.

Self is the reality. It is the Ananda. It is indescribable. This Self has four stations. a)The silence of full AUM (Advaita indescribable Self, Nirgunam Brahman); b) M -- Dense Pragnya and controller sarvesvara (some call it hiranyagarbha); c) U -- Thoughts and dreams where the bodies are of light; and d) A -- agni vaisvanaro, where the bodies are of matter.

The silence of partless OM runs through all above stations as common thread, as Saman.


Now A-U-M and also the soundless OM are each Brahmans , having different "saman" (commonality) at their own level. Controllership remains meaningful below the station M -- pragnya, but not in Advaita Self, which is simply ONE WITHOUT A SECOND and GOOD. Thus advaita atma remains na lipayate -- since nothing is different from it. Yet it is the controller of all, through M, U, and A.


Note: Brahman is that which runs common as a thread runs through a garland. Thus life breath is Brahman. The vision is Brahman for all Forms etc. etc. Pragnya is common for all that can be understood or cognised. It is Narayana and it is the source of Saguna Brahmans which operate in waking and dreaming stations. Narayana is also the common thread for them.

Self is however, the highest Brahman for all. It is indeed the highest Brahman. It is the common thread in all states. But it is indescribable and alone.



To talk as a layman the way Ramana Maharshi teaches. "I" is the commonality that runs through all thoughts/words/actions/cognitions in all states (of deep sleep/dream/waking). This is Brahman.


The shivoadvaitaatma (Self), which is the source of "I" , is beyond. It is the hridaya. It is Turya. It has nothing beyond it and it has no second besides it.


Om Namah Shivaya
Om Namah Shivaya
Om Namah Shivaya
Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
25 August 2007, 10:00 AM
Namaste,

-Note: Brahman is that which runs common as a thread runs through a garland. Thus life breath is Brahman. The vision is Brahman for all Forms etc. etc. Pragnya is common for all that can be understood or cognised. It is Narayana and it is the source of Saguna Brahmans which operate in waking and dreaming stations. Narayana is also the common thread for them.

Self is however, the highest Brahman for all. It is indeed the highest Brahman. It is the common thread in all states. But it is indescribable and alone.

To talk as a layman the way Ramana Maharshi teaches. "I" is the commonality that runs through all thoughts/words/actions/cognitions in all states (of deep sleep/dream/waking). This is Brahman.

The shivoadvaitaatma (Self), which is the source of "I" , is beyond. It is the hridaya. It is Turya. It has nothing beyond it and it has no second besides it.

Om Namah Shivaya
Om Namah Shivaya
Om Namah Shivaya
Om Namah Shivaya


Shruti describing the "I" and its source Turya.


Mahanarayana

XII-12: May He, Rudro, join us with beneficial remembrance – He who is superior to all, who has been revealed in the Vedas, who is the Supreme Seer and who sees Hiranyagarbha who is the first among the gods and who is born before all the rest.

XII-13: Other than whom there is nothing higher, nothing minuter, nothing greater, by that Purusha – the One who stands still like a tree established in heaven – all this is filled.

XII-17: He is the Supreme Lord who transcends the syllable Om --- uttered at the commencement of the recital of the Vedas that is well established in the Upanishads and that dissolves in the primal cause during contemplation.


Svet. Up.

6.7 tamiishvaraaNaaM paramaM maheshvara.n
ta.n devataanaaM parama.n cha daivatam.h .
patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad.h\-
vidaama devaM bhuvaneshamiiDyam.h .. 7..

6.7 We will know this mightiest one who is far above all the mighty – this summit of the gods and their godhead, king of kings and lord of lords, who towereth high above all summit and greatnesses. Let us learn of god for he is this universes' master and all shall adore him.


Mandukya
VII
Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, It is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual (shivoadvaitaatma). This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized.


Om Namah Shivaya

Madhavan
25 August 2007, 10:52 AM
Namaste Atanu,

Are you suggesting that Saguna Brahman is hiraNyagarbha( axara)? I dont think so, Saguna Brahman is indeed Turiya understood from the vyavahAra, that is all. To see the difference-

Nirguna Brahman - non dual and an 'entity' where all ananta kalyANa guNas are in the state of a mere potential.

Saguna Brahman - Nirguna Brahman viewed from vyavahAra, with his guNas resolved(still non dual). This is why Turiya is called the prabu, deva etc, which dont apply to NB. The controller of mAyA is called SB. NB cannot be said to be the controller of anything...

There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between SB and NB.

hiraNyagarbha, on the other hand is a product of mAyA and under its influence although he is the most exalted of all with the aham sense. hiraNyagarbha undergoes dissolution in praLaya when SB causes creation to undergo involution. hiraNyagarbha accounts for all the manifested dualty.

In the sun example I gave, the sun is the Brahman, the interior of the sun is NB(detached from creation), the surface of the sun that emits rays is SB. hiranyagarbha is the 'ray world' or the sum collection of all rays emitted by SB.

hiraNyagarba says "I am the world" and "I view the parabrahman"
SB says "I am Brahman"
NB says "I am"

Ah, now I realize why we argued over the eternity of SB...:)

atanu
25 August 2007, 12:41 PM
Namaste Atanu,

Are you suggesting that Saguna Brahman is hiraNyagarbha( axara)? --

Nirguna Brahman - non dual and an 'entity' where all ananta kalyANa guNas are in the state of a mere potential.

Saguna Brahman - Nirguna Brahman viewed from vyavahAra, with his guNas resolved(still non dual). This is why Turiya is called the prabu, deva etc, which dont apply to NB. The controller of mAyA is called SB. NB cannot be said to be the controller of anything...

There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between SB and NB.

hiraNyagarbha, on the other hand is a product of mAyA and under its influence although he is the most exalted of all with the aham sense. hiraNyagarbha undergoes dissolution in praLaya when SB causes creation to undergo involution. hiraNyagarbha accounts for all the manifested dualty.

------
Ah, now I realize why we argued over the eternity of SB...:)


Namaste Madhavan,

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. Hiranyagarbha is Taijjasa whereas Ishwara Sarvesvara is Pragnya. Gunas are potential in Iswara. Gunas are refulgent in Taijjassa. Ishwara is also non-dual, seen as associated with Maya only from ignorant's point of view. Ishwara is Brahman.


(It is described with clarity in the posts wherein Gaudapada Karika and other purports of Mandukya Upanishad are cited that Hiranaygarbha is the counterpart of Taijjassa (thoughts and dreams with effulgent bodies).)


I am a bit surprised that on one hand you say that there is absolutely no difference between SB and NB and on the other you say "This is why Turiya is called the prabu, deva etc, which dont apply to NB. " I say that forget this NB and SB business. Turya residing as Pragnya, Taijjassa and Vaisvanaro --- describes it all.


In earlier two posts I tried to highlight that the the highest commonality is Turya. It is not Prabhu yet it is the highest Prabhu; as the ONE non-dual Atma stationed as Brahman in different realms, it is Prabhu and the ruled both. But in its being it is actionless -- na lipayate.



Nirguna Brahman - non dual and an 'entity' where all ananta kalyANa guNas are in the state of a mere potential.



This we will verify when we attain union with Him. No point arguining over non-verifiable statements.

But as stated earlier, I believe the Gunas are of Prakriti (mind) alone, which reside as potential in Pragnya and not in Turya. Gunas are as much vyavahArika as is hiranayagarbha. Citations are there in this thread itself to substantiate this belief.



Om Namah Shivaya

sarabhanga
25 August 2007, 07:59 PM
Namaste Atanu,

Looking at your posts, the following correspondences are found:

advaita = shiva = aja = brahma = prajñA = turya = brahmayoni = brahmapara = paramparastAd = paraM brahma = nirguNa = ekapad = [AUM]

and

dvaita = viSNu = jA = brahmA = prAjña = turIya or turIyAtIta = hiraNyagarbha = brahmabIja = paramparasthA or parampraSThA = saguNa = sahasrapad or tripad = A + U + M

Please forgive me if I have misrepresented your position, but all of these correspondences have also been repeatedly noted in my own posts, and I cannot see that we have any disagreement!

advaita absorbs all of this equally as Atman or brahman or paramaM padam or turya or aja ekapad or rudra or “Self”, which is nirguNa and shiva. And this perfectly intertwined thread is the nArAyaNau (nara or hara).

dvaita is veiled by mAyA, however, and from that perspective the upper thread is only dimly perceived or ignored completely. And this is nArAyaNa (hari).

And ajAtivAda concentrates entirely on the uppermost thread.


avidyavidyA = puruSa = Atman = naranArAyaNa = vidyAvidya

vidyA = puruSa = paramAtman = nara (or nArAyaNau)
mAyA = puruSa = jIvAtman = nArAyaNa (or nAra)


brahma = prajñA = satya
brahmA = prAjña = asatya

brahma = brahmapara = vidyAvidya
brahmA = hiraNyagarbha = vidya & avidya

turya = brahma = prajñA = prajñAnam = nara
turIya = brahmA = prAjña = prajñAnasya = nArAyaNa

turya = brahma = prajñA = prajñAnam = nara = kRSNa = namaH shivAya = aghorghoratara
turIya = brahmA = prAjña = hiraNyagarbha = nArAyaNa = arjuna = shiM = aghoraghora

brahma = prajñAnam = brahmayoni = nara = kRSNa = namaH shivAya = aghorghoratara = paramparastAt
brahmA = hiraNyagarbha = brahmabIja = nArAyaNa = arjuna = shiM = aghoraghora = paramparasthA

parama = brahma = vidyAvidya = prajñAna = brahmayoni = paramparastAt
para = brahmA = vidya + avidya = jñAna = brahmabIja = paramparasthA


parabrahma and brahmapara and brahmayoni all indicate exactly the same thing ~ the absolute turya ~ nirguNa brahman.

turya is paramparastAt and advaita and kRSNa and brahmayoni.


The turya is neuter ~ brahma (voc.) and brahma (nom.) ~ “beyond the beyond” and beyond all duality ~ known as hara or nara.
The turIya is masculine ~ brahman (voc.) and brahmA (nom.) ~ “the beyond” or macrocosm ~ known as hari or nArAyaNa (or nArAyaNau).
The turIyAtIta is masculine ~ brAhma (voc.) and brAhmaH (nom.) ~ “here and now” or microcosm ~ both nAra and nAri, and known as hAra and hAri.

The turIyAtIta is also explicitly feminine ~ brAhmi (voc.) and brAhmI (nom.).
And in the turIya (as masculine brahmA) there is the implication of a similar feminine form.
The turya brahma, however, is beyond any gender and always neuter.

The turIyAtIta is known as the padam, which is sthA.
The turIya is known as the paraM padam, which is parastAt.
And the turya is known as the paramaM padam, which is paramparastAt.

hari is nArAyaNa, but secretly nArAyaNau; and this innermost twin has its own twin implications ~ implying both nAra-nArAyaNa (below) and nara-nArAyaNa (above).

The brahmayoni (hara jyeSTha) is neuter and unborn, while the brahmabIja (hiraNyagarbha hari) is a fertile twin that is ever repeated ~ but remember that the son of a barren women cannot truly exist (and thus the uttamasatyam of ajAtivAda).


The param is brahma, while the pAram is brahmA ~ and note that there is no vocative case for param (i.e. param brahma is beyond praise).


brahmapara is the ultimate brahma (= parabrahma).

brahmapara (= parabrahma, the “exceeding or highest brahma”).

brahmapara may be read as “brahma-beyond”, referring to “the two” (i.e. vidyAvidya).

The compound brahma-para, however, may be either brahma para or brahmA para; and assuming that there is nothing beyond brahma, the twin must be beyond brahmA (i.e. beyond “the brahman of the veda”).

Does brahmapare mean brahma-pare or does it mean brahmA-pare?

It could be a dual form agreeing with tve vidyAvidye.

So, is brahmapare actually twofold for eternity?

“Dwelling beyond brahmA” and “dwelling in brahma” are effectively identical statements ~ although “dwelling beyond brahma” and “dwelling in brahmA” have entirely different implications. And of all these possibilities exist within the one term brahmapare.

brahmapara (with the locative brahmapare) is exactly the same as parabrahma (with the locative parabrahmaNi), and in each case the gender is ambiguous.

brahma (i.e. shiva) is equivalent with nArAyaNau (and likewise the yamau and ashvinau). And so, brahmapare could equally be treated as a grammatical dual expression for a veritable singular form. And this ultimate Twin could be neuter or feminine.

brahmapare can either be a neuter or feminine dual form, or a masculine plural form; but if it is to be considered as a singular, then it must be a locative form (meaning something like “in supreme brahman” or “in the brahman beyond” or “in beyond the brahman”).

And so, what is the correct gender and number of brahmapare? And is “the two” in the brahman or beyond the brahman? ~ and which brahman (brahma or brahmA)?

These are all questions posed by the precise grammar of “tve brahmapare”.

But without grammar, all of these questions remain unconsidered and unanswered.

Znanna
25 August 2007, 08:21 PM
As a novice student of Sanskrit, this is a whole lot to try to absorb!

ZN
/thanks, I'll get back to y'all after a while on this!

atanu
26 August 2007, 12:52 AM
Namaste Atanu,
------
Does brahmapare mean brahma-pare or does it mean brahmA-pare?
It could be a dual form agreeing with tve vidyAvidye.
So, is brahmapare actually twofold for eternity?
--------
But without grammar, all of these questions remain unconsidered and unanswered.

Namaste sarabhangaji,

There is no difference in the common thread that runs through. Thank you for your excellent efforts towards unravelling the jigsaw that will be helpful for all.

brahmapare is not indicated to be twofold for eternity, since the svet. passage says: it is another who controls vidyavidya and that another is the highest common thread. Moreover, avidya dieth and knowledge liveth forever. The Ishate is not different from the knowledge -- immortality being common. The very next verse of Svet. says:

yo yoni.n yonimadhitishhThatyeko
vishvaani ruupaaNi yoniishcha sarvaaH .
R^ishhiM prasuuta.n kapila.n yastamagre
GYaanairbibharti jaayamaana.n cha pashyet.h .. 2..

yonimadhitishhThatyeko and vishvaani ruupaaNi yoniishcha sarvaaH.

My point, I feel is still misunderstood. I will try to clarify.

The vidyaAvidya is hidden in the Self (which is indescribable) and beyond the describable Brahman of the Vedas. What is described and cognised is still within Pragnya. But the Self, which is the highest Brahman is beyond Pragnya.

As Ishwara, Self controls the avidyavidya.

----------------------------------------
All this knowing, all these grammar, should not leave unkown that one who knows all this (who is clearly declared to be adavaitaatma in shruti) -- else it is avidya. As Brihadarayanaka queries: "---what did Brahman know?". As Soma is Vakpati and Soma has birth in Parjanya, who has his origin in That --what is called heaven -- the Self. A long way.

The truth is known in Samadhi -- wherein I doubt whether grammar is.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

Madhavan
26 August 2007, 01:08 AM
Namaste Atanu,

I see apparent mismatch between what you mentioned earlier and what you say now.Is hiraNyagarbha pragnya or taijasa according to you? The hiraNyagarbha was directly procreated by rudra as the Svet up shows, so I guess pragnya is indeed hiraNyagarbha.( Svet 3.4)

Earlier:


Mandukya Upanishad makes it amply clear. The indescribable Self is indeed brahmayonim for the dense Pragnya -- sarvesvara Brahman (hiranyagarbha and akhshara). Whereas, the Turya itself is advaita. Some people call this 'Advaita Self' as Param Brahman - the highest Brahman, not signifying one leader among many but signifying the greatest SAMAN -- beyond which there is no other Saman.

Self is the reality. It is the Ananda. It is indescribable. This Self has four stations. a)The silence of full AUM (Advaita indescribable Self, Nirgunam Brahman); b) M -- Dense Pragnya and controller sarvesvara (some call it hiranyagarbha); c) U -- Thoughts and dreams where the bodies are of light; and d) A -- agni vaisvanaro, where the bodies are of matter.


Now:



Hiranyagarbha is Taijjasa whereas Ishwara Sarvesvara is Pragnya


Regarding your references to Sri Aurobindo:- From what little I know about Aurobindo, I think he rejected Advaita vedanta of Sri Shankara and had a somewhat different philosophy in mind. For example, he rejects the idea of jaganmityatva(in more of a sense that the Absolute enjoys the world and wilfully created it) and has some ideas like the super mind.

atanu
26 August 2007, 01:30 AM
Namaste Atanu,

I see apparent mismatch between what you mentioned earlier and what you say now.Is hiraNyagarbha pragnya or taijasa according to you? The hiraNyagarbha was directly procreated by rudra as the Svet up shows, so I guess pragnya is indeed hiraNyagarbha.( Svet 3.4)

-----

Namaste Madhavan,

Fortunately you have used a "apparently". Yes, all that is cognised is Pragnya alone.

"The indescribable Self is indeed brahmayonim for the dense Pragnya -- sarvesvara Brahman (hiranyagarbha and akhshara). "

The above mistakenly omitted a few words. It should have read:

"The indescribable Self is indeed brahmayonim for the dense Pragnya -- sarvesvara Brahman (akshara); Taijassa -Hiranyagarbha and Agnivaisvanaro Jagat."


I am aware of the position of Shri Aurobindo and that is why I brought it here. I fully ascribe to Ramana Maharshi's views, who clearly said that grace does not descend from sky, which is sort of a critique of the view held by Shri Aurobindo. Simply put. Advaitaatma is Atma, one's very Self -- it does not descend as another.

Om

Madhavan
26 August 2007, 01:40 AM
I am a bit surprised that on one hand you say that there is absolutely no difference between SB and NB and on the other you say "This is why Turiya is called the prabu, deva etc, which dont apply to NB. " I say that forget this NB and SB business. Turya residing as Pragnya, Taijjassa and Vaisvanaro --- describes it all.


Let me clarify what I had in mind when I made that statement. I do not hold Pragnya as the Saguna Brahman ( I presume this is your view) but only as mAyA. I view Turiya itself as the twin rather than the turiya/pragnya pair.

I am just giving here a comparison between (advaita) vedanta and some of the schools of Shaivism that elaborate the principle of Brahman in more detail. This is the order of the principles, and I have given the vedantic equivalent in braces, if any.


Turiya:

1. Shiva, the nameless, formess, the unlimited undifferentiated pure consciousness. (Nirguna Brahman, turya)
2. Shakti, the unlimited power of Shiva ( Saguna Brahman, turIya, brahmayoni)

The three aspects of Saguna Brahman.
3. Iccha Shakti (Brahma)
4. Jnana Shakti ( Vishnu)
5. Kriya Shakti (Rudra)

All these are aja( unborn).



Pragnya( axara)

6. Maya ( the veiling power of Saguna Brahman)
7. Kalaa
8. Vidya
9. Raaga
10. Kaala
11. niyati
12. Purusha ( jiva)
13. Prakriti ( manifest form of avyakta)

Taijasa:
14. Buddhi ( Mahat)
15. Ahamkara
16. Manas

Jnanendriyas
17. Srotra
18. Tvak
19. Chakshu
20. Jihva
21. ghrana

Karmendriyas
22. Vak
23. Pani
24. Pada
25. Payu
26. Upastha

Tanmaatras
27. shabdha
28. sparsha
29. rupa
30. rasa
31. gandha

Vishva:
32. akasha
33. vayu
34. agni
35. apa
36. pritivi

Hope I am clear.

atanu
26 August 2007, 02:37 AM
------

Turiya:

1. Shiva, the nameless, formess, the unlimited undifferentiated pure consciousness. (Nirguna Brahman, turya)
2. Shakti, the unlimited power of Shiva ( Saguna Brahman, turIya, brahmayoni)

-------
Hope I am clear.

Namaskar Madhavan,

Yes You are clear. Unless you consider advaita and Atma as two, the above is not tenable.

Turya is advaitaatama. It is neither another nor it has any another. From this view, and based on:

a) Mandukya Upanishad, which enumerates Pragnya as a state of Self (turya), which itself is beyond Pragnya;
and b) Shruti "Prajanam Brahman";

i persist that Pragnya is the Brahman (the Saman, the Common Factor) within the limits of cognition. The Self is brahmayonim and beyond Pragnya. But it is the essence of Pragnya of all states. It is para.

That Pragnya is Sarvesvara is not my view. It is shruti.

atanu
26 August 2007, 02:48 AM
---- I view Turiya itself as the twin rather than the turiya/pragnya pair.

----.

In that case, what is the harm in considering Turya as Quadruplet? In that case all karmas will attach to atma.

And why not as Advaita? In which case it remains Na Lipayate?


Regards,

atanu
26 August 2007, 02:55 AM
-----
Turiya:

1. Shiva, the nameless, formess, the unlimited undifferentiated pure consciousness. (Nirguna Brahman, turya)
2. Shakti, the unlimited power of Shiva ( Saguna Brahman, turIya, brahmayoni)

-----.

Namaskar Madhavan,

Just ponder a bit. How can shakti be saguna? It can only beget Saguna. Don't you agree?


Om

Madhavan
26 August 2007, 03:07 AM
Namaskar Madhavan,

Just ponder a bit. How can shakti be saguna? It can only beget Saguna. Don't you agree?


Om

Why do srutis describe Brahman as satyam jnAnam and anantam if Brahman were indescribable? These descriptions cant be that of Brahman conditioned with mAyA. That is why nirguna and saguna form a pair and not different.

When you call Brahman as sacchitananda, isn't obvious it is also making a reference to these guNas? Each of these guNas is itself Brahman - at the same time the guNa cannot be considered as mere fiction: - if that is the case then there is no need to ascribe these guNas.

atanu
26 August 2007, 03:28 AM
Why do srutis describe Brahman as satyam jnAnam and anantam if Brahman were indescribable? These descriptions cant be that of Brahman conditioned with mAyA. That is why nirguna and saguna form a pair and not different.
----

Namaskar Madhavan,

You did not answer how Shakti can be saguna?

Ishwara is akshara (Pragnya). He is with Maya as per our view. In reality Iswara is Brahman. So, shruti "satyam jnAnam and anantam" is apt.

The Self is brahmayonim. It is indescribable. But being the common factor in Iswara, Jiva and Jagat, it is the highest Brahman.

You are just supporting what I have been trying to convey. As Keno Upanishad says: Not this which you worship here. That which is the mind of mind (my note: Which mind will know the mind of the mind? Who will know the qualities therein?). Mandukya Upanishad without leaving any doubt describes it as indescribable and ungraspable. The only qualification it adds is that it is Good. But that I feel is not the quality but the essential being.

What you worship and what shruti describes is all within the ambit of Pragnya, which is a state (the highest state) of the indescribable Turya -- the Self. So, what is within the ambit of Pragnya is worshippable. But the brahmayonim is not worshippable. It is knowable in union with it -- in Samadhi.

You can call the Self as brahmayonim, parabrahman, brahmapare, param brahman or nirguna brahman. It is the highest common factor. It is beyond Gunas. Since, Gunas are begot below the state of Pragnya. If the highest had some Gunas, which made it different from any other thing/part, then how it would remain the highest common factor. How it would remain Saman?

I suppose that one may never conclude this argument if one does not experience Turya.


Om

Madhavan
26 August 2007, 04:29 AM
Namaskar Madhavan,

You did not answer how Shakti can be saguna?


By definition, if NB alone existed and is both non dual and also actionless, then there cannot be any creation. The 'urge' to create is implicit in NB due to Shakti. This shows that NB is also the personal God also. In the Absolute state, Shakti is in perfect equilibrium with Brahman.

But the locus of "creation" also exists in Turiya only, and not in pragnya. Brahman, when viewed as the creator and as the controller of mAyA is called ISvara. NB does not create anything, so it cannot be really called as brahmayoni. It is when Isvara creates axara(brahma) through his mAyA, he is known as brahmayoni. You are referring to the axara as Saguna Brahman.

I have a feeling that inspite of the somewhat different terminologies, we are on the same page. I think the words axara and brahma, with their multiple meanings are behind all this.

sarabhanga
26 August 2007, 07:02 AM
Namaste Atanu,

advaita = turya = brahmayoni = nirguNa = ekapad = [AUM]
dvaita = turIya or turIyAtIta = hiraNyagarbha or brahmabIja = saguNa = tripad = A + U + M

The trayI is distinguished only in dvaita; and all of sattva-rajas-tamas and prAjña-taijasa-vishva and Rc-yajus-sAman (etc.) are implicit in the tripada hiraNyagarbha.

By accepting that brahmapare is not dual, the possibility of brahmapare being feminine is removed. And I assume that a masculine plural would also be out of the question! And that leaves only the masculine and neuter singular as possibilities.

If brahmapare is masculine, then it would refer to brahmA (masc.); and if brahmapare is neuter, then it would more likely refer to brahma (neut.). In both cases, however, it could only be the locative singular form ~ i.e. “in brahmapara”.

If para is an adjective describing brahman, then brahmapara is the “ulterior brahman” or “extreme brahman”.

If para means something like “exceeding”, “superior to”, or “beyond”, then it would usually be associated with an ablative form ~ i.e. brahmaNaH para ~ but rarely para may appear as a suffix in a simple compound ~ i.e. brahma-para, meaning either “beyond the brahman” or “the supreme brahman”.

brahma and brahmA both have exactly the same stem, so that brahma-para could be any of “the highest brahmA”, “the highest brahma”, “beyond brahmA”, or “beyond brahma”.

And brahma-pare would be the locative case ~ “in the highest brahmA” (i.e. “in brahmA”), “in the highest brahma” (i.e. “in brahma”), “in the beyond of brahmA” (i.e. “in brahma”), or “in the beyond of brahma” (i.e. “in shUnya”).

And so, there is still doubt as to the location of brahmapare:

Is brahmapare referring to masculine brahmA, to neuter brahma, or to an absolute void (or some unthinkable realm) that is beyond even brahma?

You have assumed that brahmapare is referring to brahmA trayyAH (the “brahmA of the veda”) ~ as “beyond brahmA”.

And I have assumed that brahmapare is referring to brahma (the paramaM padam of the turya) ~ as “supreme brahma”.

In both cases, however, it must be assumed that brahmapare is the locative case of brahmapara!

You say that the two are hidden “in beyond brahmA”; and I say that the two are hidden “in supreme brahma” ~ and in the end, we are both saying “in brahma”.

The supreme vidyA is the avidyavidyA, which knows that the supreme Self is the possessor (controller or equal) of vidyAvidya.

avidyavidyA = Self = vidyAvidya

And vidya is distinguished from avidya only in prAjña.

brahma = prajñA = brahmapara = vidyAvidya
brahmA = prAjña = hiraNyagarbha = vidya & avidya

Once again, this is exactly as I have been repeating (and repeating).

And once again, I fail to see any difference between us!

When the turya is known, in the silence even after AUM, there is surely no grammar. But until then, saMskRta and its grammar provide the fundamental script for literally everything that “descends from” (or “forgets”) and “ascends to” (or “remembers”) brahman.

atanu
26 August 2007, 11:36 AM
Namaste Atanu,
-----
You have assumed that brahmapare is referring to brahmA trayyAH (the “brahmA of the veda”) ~ as “beyond brahmA”.
And I have assumed that brahmapare is referring to brahma (the paramaM padam of the turya) ~ as “supreme brahma”.
--------
And once again, I fail to see any difference between us!

When the turya is known, in the silence even after AUM, there is surely no grammar. But until then, saMskRta and its grammar provide the fundamental script for literally everything that “descends from” (or “forgets”) and “ascends to” (or “remembers”) brahman.

Namskar sarabhanga Ji,

Not contradictory to you, I have also assumed that brahmapare is the highest Brahman. But since this is called brahmayonim as well, so there is a need for differentiating Turya Self and Brahman. Like my old example of water. The real water is unperceived (similar to Self). It is known in its solid or liquid or gas states as ice or water or vapour.

Similarly the real indescribable Self (you may call it Nirguna) is cognised only as Saguna. Atanu says "I am this body". Lord Vishnu says "I am cipivishta". There is no other way of knowing the Nirguna, other than union with it in samadhi.


I understand: Turya Self is the highest common factor in all its states. And, I presume you also understand it this way (comprehending and explaining through grammar and equations the same conclusions).

saMskRta and its grammar indeed provide the fundamental script. But that cannot mean that an eskimo is barred from knowing the Self, which is beyond vak and thoughts. This I believe, since this is my Guru's teaching: one has to unlearn to unravel Self.


This, nonethless, not meaning to lower your scholarship or your efforts, which I hold in high esteem. Since each one's path is carved out nicely and perfectly.

Regards


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
26 August 2007, 11:51 AM
By definition, if NB alone existed and is both non dual and also actionless, then there cannot be any creation. ----.

Namaste Madhavan,

In fact there is no creation. If what is real water (unpercieved), changes its form from solid ice to vapour steam, do we say that a creation has taken place? In fact your definition of anantam goes against it.

Secondly, what you say about Saguna Brahman may be a personal choice but this view definitely contradicts shruti which says "One who sees any difference in Brahman goes from death to death." If Brahman has, qualities such as anantam, purity etc., then does some other thing remain devoid of those qualities? In that case Brahman is no more all pervading?

What you are citing as qualities are possibly not qualities but the very being itself.

Yet, yes, we are on the same page.

Regards,

Om

atanu
26 August 2007, 01:41 PM
Namaste All,

I feel that the distinction between the Self that is called brahmayonim and brahma (brahman) has not been clarified despite very long discussions. I will write a short note before retiring and giving it time to grow.

Brahman is specific knowledge that the study of Vedas and Upanishads reveal. Life breath is called Brahman. The Eye of eye, the ear of ear, the mind of mind, and etc. etc. are all called Brahman because these being the common threads that unite.

On the other hand, even a novice has a self; no one says "I do not exist". Without this Self, no knowledge, least of all the knowledge that the Self is the highest Brahman, would be possible.

Vedanta makes it a bit easy by directing that one who can see all as Brahman (hung on a common thread of pragnya), attains the Turya -- which is the highest Brahman state.

But an eskimo in igloo may also be graced with an intuition and experience of the Self being all pervasive and unlimited, without knowing that it is called Brahman in Vedanta.

Brahman is the truth of infinite self conveyed through words/analogy/concept. Self is That. Self is called the truth of the truth. The truth being the life force.


This is what, I think, I wanted to convey.




To talk as a layman the way Ramana Maharshi teaches. "I" is the commonality that runs through all thoughts/words/actions/cognitions in all states (of deep sleep/dream/waking). This is Brahman manifested.

The shivoadvaitaatma (Self), which is the source of "I" , is beyond. It is Turya. It has nothing beyond it and it has no second besides it. This is Brahman unborn.



Regards to all,

Om Namah Shivaya

sarabhanga
27 August 2007, 03:48 AM
Namaste Atanu,

Nothing that I have posted in this thread will make much sense if one does not understand that (following the Harvard-Kyoto transliteration scheme) a indicates a short “a” and A indicates a long “aa”.

There is very much confusion about brahman, which has two forms (one masculine, and one of neutral gender), and the whole purpose of this thread (as I have understood it) was to distinguish and relate the various concepts that are commonly equated with turya or turIya (which terms are themselves often loosely distinguished, and consequently the source of even more confusion).

And for some days now, this conversation has been going in circles!

Of course I realize that you have considered the term brahmapare as “the highest brahman” (ignoring the fact that it is a locative case, which would actually translate as “in the highest brahman”); but, also ignoring the fact that brahmapare could be either brahmA-pare or brahma-pare, you seem to have missed my point.

brahmapara is the brahmayoni ~ i.e. brahma (neut.) ~ and you have repeatedly noted that it is “beyond the brahman of the veda” ~ i.e. “beyond brahmA” (masc.).

The brahmayoni is brahmapare, and you have insisted that brahmapare simply means “beyond brahmA”.

And I have always taken brahmapare as the locative case of brahmapara, meaning “in the highest brahman” ~ i.e. “in brahma”.

Can you see the subtle difference between “beyond brahmA” and “in brahma”? The meaning is identical, but you have been presenting the former (in which pare is clearly connected with brahmA) and I have been presenting the latter (in which pare is clearly connected with brahma).

Your “the Self that is called brahmayonim”, “the truth of the truth”, is my brahma.
And your “brahma (brahman)” that is “knowledge of the Vedas” or “the truth” is my brahmA.

And ALL of my two-fold lines of equation have been clearly distinguishing these same two aspects of “Self” ~ brahma (ekapad) and brahmA (tripad) ~ the brahmayoni (brahma) and the brahmabIja (brahmA).

It is true that all humans are already Self-realized (and if we don’t know it now, we should just forget everything we have learned), and I suppose we could leave it at that! But Sanatana Dharma has provided and explained the blueprint for the apparent Creation and its ultimate Dissolution, and wise Hindus have always followed the traditional script. Of course everyone is free to travel alone and unguided (and I do not doubt that some few will succeed), so perhaps we should ignore the Hindu scriptures and traditions as superfluous mumbo-jumbo and just cut to the chase!

OK. Creation never happened, and we are all immortal God. Nothing more needs to be said, and now everyone should understand perfectly!

The “import of turIya” is aja ekapad ~ just unravel the Self by yourself ~ case closed!

Madhavan
27 August 2007, 04:27 AM
Thanks Sarabhanga for your final words - especially The “import of turIya” is aja ekapad ~ just unravel the Self by yourself ~ case closed! It seems to me that many Hindus take this too literally....and yet do not realize why they are not realized yet! Hinduism is much much beyond the ekapAd....;)

I would like to point out that according to Advaita vedAnta no other statements other than the equivalents of "neti neti" are considered as true pramANas for NB. Yet, we have Sri Krishna saying that sarvaischa vedah ahamevavedyo - all the vedas sing only my glory. It is quite true that all words vedas use is to sing the praise of Ishvara, and nobody else( and nothing beyond). In such a case, there is no room for saying that something beyond Ishvara exists even in a figurative speech. Holding that Ishvara is pragnya amounts to saying that vedas do not speak of the ultimate truth, but of some enitity in the fictitious samsAra that will ultimately dissolve. That is why Ishvara has his locus in turIya and not in pragnya.

Nothing exists beyond the brahma(n) of the vedas. Just because his nature is explained in human words does not mean what is being described is not the highest being. ( and that there is a brahman beyond it)

By brahmayoni( supreme Ishvara), it is meant to be the progentor of the four faced brahma(hiraNyagarbha), and not brahman of the vedas. The term brahmayoni does not equate to the yoni of the brahman of the vedas.

Madhavan
27 August 2007, 06:33 AM
Namaste Madhavan,

In fact there is no creation. If what is real water (unpercieved), changes its form from solid ice to vapour steam, do we say that a creation has taken place? In fact your definition of anantam goes against it.

Secondly, what you say about Saguna Brahman may be a personal choice but this view definitely contradicts shruti which says "One who sees any difference in Brahman goes from death to death." If Brahman has, qualities such as anantam, purity etc., then does some other thing remain devoid of those qualities? In that case Brahman is no more all pervading?

What you are citing as qualities are possibly not qualities but the very being itself.

Yet, yes, we are on the same page.

Regards,

Om

What gives you the impression that Sri Shankara and his commentrators hold the belief that Brahman has absolutely no guNas- which will be a void only?

It maybe possible for the layman to convince himself that the meaning of the terms satyam, jnAnam and anantam maybe identical to the being of Brahman. Is really 'knowledge', truth' and 'endless' identical? What is the proof to conclude so? Then what is the need to describe Brahman thus and what information does it provide to the seeker? The logician in Shankara cannot wantonly say that all these qualities are identical with the being. Nor is he willing to concede that these are qualities as understood in a worldly sense, because the nature of Brahman is different - so he terms Brahman as nirguNa.

What Sri Shankara says is;

satyam should not be understood as the truth in the way things are normally understood. So he interprets satyam as "non untruth". jnAna is "absence of ignorance". anantam is "non finite". These are implied qualities, but they cannot be defined like they can be for wordly objects.

For example,

Let us say that a tree is tall. It can also be called as 'non short'. But 'non short' can be more fuzzy that saying that the tree is tall, and this is the preferred way to handle Brahman. For eg, the tree could be of medium height. So NB has implied qualities( not explicitly defineable) of the nature 'absence of ignorance' or 'non finiteness' etc, which are not related to the triguNa. Viewed in this way, NB is a personal being with implied qualities (not describable in words though satyam, jnAnam and anantam are close approx.) and with a witness consciousness(sAxi) of the world. Without such an idea, it is impossible to explain any creation ( even the illusory world).

atanu
27 August 2007, 07:44 AM
Namaste Atanu,
Nothing that I have posted in this thread will make much sense if one does not understand that (following the Harvard-Kyoto transliteration scheme) a indicates a short “a” and A indicates a long “aa”.


Namaste sarabhanga Ji

Well this an assumption about which I can say nothing. It is a bit low. Difference between BrahmA and Brahman is understood at preliminary level.



The brahmayoni is brahmapare, and you have insisted that brahmapare simply means “beyond brahmA”.


I have not alluded to this as will be shown below.



Your “the Self that is called brahmayonim”, “the truth of the truth”, is my brahma.
And your “brahma (brahman)” that is “knowledge of the Vedas” or “the truth” is my brahmA.


No. Dear sarabhanga Ji. My “the Self that is called brahmayonim”, “the truth of the truth”, is my brahma, as well, as shown in the quote below.



To talk as a layman the way Ramana Maharshi teaches. "I" is the commonality that runs through all thoughts/words/actions/cognitions in all states (of deep sleep/dream/waking). This is Brahman manifested.

The shivoadvaitaatma (Self), which is the source of "I" , is beyond. It is Turya. It has nothing beyond it and it has no second besides it. This is Brahman unborn.



Yes this 'Brahman unborn' is aja ekapad.

Can you see in red letters above that I am saying what you are saying? My only point of seeming difference is that I insist that the Self has been there before the term Brahman came in the consciousness of the Self. You may or may not disagree with this.



so perhaps we should ignore the Hindu scriptures and traditions as superfluous mumbo-jumbo and just cut to the chase!


The knowledge of ONE Aham - "I" is not numbo-jumbo. It is very much the part of knowing the Self.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Ps: I am sorry, if I caused any anger, which is apparent in your rejoinder. I am genuinely sorry, though I do not understand the reason for the rasp note of the post.

Nuno Matos
27 August 2007, 09:09 AM
Namaste Atanu

" To talk as a layman the way Ramana Maharshi teaches. "I" is the commonality that runs through all thoughts/words/actions/cognitions in all states (of deep sleep/dream/waking). This is Brahman manifested. "

That is Shakti. Maybe the confusion lays on gender terms after all. Sri Aurobindo was a Shakta.
And Sarabhanga tried to explain the matter in a pure Brahmanical non dual point of view. Then the use of masculine and neuter forms instead of masculine/feminine or masculine plural of the shaktas and samkhias.

" By accepting that brahmapare is not dual, the possibility of brahmapare being feminine is removed. And I assume that a masculine plural would also be out of the question! And that leaves only the masculine and neuter singular as possibilities.

If brahmapare is masculine, then it would refer to brahmA (masc.); and if brahmapare is neuter, then it would more likely refer to brahma (neut.). In both cases, however, it could only be the locative singular form ~ i.e. “in brahmapara”."

atanu
27 August 2007, 09:22 AM
Namaste Atanu

" To talk as a layman the way Ramana Maharshi teaches. "I" is the commonality that runs through all thoughts/words/actions/cognitions in all states (of deep sleep/dream/waking). This is Brahman manifested. "

That is Shakti. Maybe the confusion lays on gender terms after all. Sri Aurobindo was a Shakta.
------




Namaste Nuno,

The I is not shakti. The I is the manifestation of Shiva/Shakti -- ONE being. And I am not talking of Shri Aurobindo.

Regards

atanu
27 August 2007, 10:06 AM
-----


Let us say that a tree is tall. It can also be called as 'non short'. But 'non short' can be more fuzzy that saying that the tree is tall, and this is the preferred way to handle Brahman. -----

Namaste,

Let me take your example. Let us assume that Brahman is “Not short”. As all is Brahman, it is not possible for “short” to exist. If “short does not exist, then what does “Not-short” mean? By giving some attribute to Brahman you make the opposite attribute impossible.

Why so much trouble? Mandukya Upanishad says Turya is indescribable. Brihad Arayanaka says “Neti Neti” in alternate chapters. Gita and Svet. Upanishad use the term "nirguna".




Holding that Ishvara is pragnya amounts to saying that vedas do not speak of the ultimate truth, but of some enitity in the fictitious samsAra that will ultimately dissolve. That is why Ishvara has his locus in turIya and not in pragnya.


Check what you say. First, Vedas truly do not speak of the ultimate truth but Vedas point to it. Else “words return from Him, mind returns from Him—“ or “neti-neti” or “indescribable”, would not have arisen. And Shri Krishna would not have taught “The truth is known in Samadhi alone”.

Second, Ishwara is pure Pragnya as Mandukya Upanishad terms pure (dense) Pragnya as “Sarvesvara” (Taijjassa is equated with Hiranyagarbha).

Third, please check what you have said. First you deny that Ishwara is Pragnya. Then you affirm that Ishwara has His locus in Turya and not in Pragnya. Can you not see the contradiction?

Who said Ishwara has locus in Pragnya? Ishwara is pure Pragnya. Yes, pure Pragnya has locus in Turya and in Pure Pragnya, Hiranyagarbhaha is located.

Om Shanti
Om Namah Shivaya

Nuno Matos
27 August 2007, 10:12 AM
Namaste Atanu

But that "I" that you refer is still limited and manifested Brahman can be equated with shakti. If you take in consideration that shakti means the infinite multitude of forms of Brahman and not what is beyond that i.e. Paramshiva.
You can say that saguna brahman or BrahmA is what polarizes consciousness into aham and idam without separating them dualistically.

atanu
27 August 2007, 10:27 AM
Namaste Atanu

But that "I" that you refer is still limited and manifested Brahman can be equated with shakti. If you take in consideration that shakti means the infinite multitude of forms of Brahman and not what is beyond that i.e. Paramshiva.
You can say that saguna brahman or BrahmA is what polarizes consciousness into aham and idam without separating them dualistically.

Namaste Nuno,

I is not limited. It is the common thread of existence.

Shakti is unmanifest. Is energy manifest? One sees its effects. Maitrayana Brahmana Upanishad says: In the beginning it was death alone, it was in the highest . Moved by the highest, it became uneven. Moved by the highest the light issued.

Om

Nuno Matos
27 August 2007, 10:49 AM
Namaste Atanu


In Turya that "I" does not exists only in Turiya is that "I" present and that is called the shiva-shakti play. Beyond that "I" resides the true self the unborn, paramshiva. That state is called Turya.

atanu
27 August 2007, 12:28 PM
Namaste Atanu


In Turya that "I" does not exists only in Turiya is that "I" present and that is called the shiva-shakti play. Beyond that "I" resides the true self the unborn, paramshiva. That state is called Turya.

No problems Nuno. That is what I also believe.

Om

Madhavan
27 August 2007, 03:02 PM
Namaste,

Let me take your example. Let us assume that Brahman is “Not short”. As all is Brahman, it is not possible for “short” to exist. If “short does not exist, then what does “Not-short” mean? By giving some attribute to Brahman you make the opposite attribute impossible.

Why so much trouble? Mandukya Upanishad says Turya is indescribable. Brihad Arayanaka says “Neti Neti” in alternate chapters. Gita and Svet. Upanishad uses the term "nirguna".


But it seems you have no problem in accepting that Turya is prabhu or devah, which are direct expressions of guNa? With respect to whom, if Brahman is all?

Brahman is very strictly speaking guNAtIta, and we have no idea what his guNas can be - the nearest approx is given by terms such as anantam or jnAnam. What I intend to say is that Sri Shankara uses the term nirguNa only in sense of guNAtIta as evident from his style of reasoning. Calling Brahman as "free from ignorance" is an indirect way of saying "Brahman has/is bliss". You must read his commentary on Brihad. Up. Yes, he refers to Brahman as nirguNa, and interprets the guNas of sruti ex-negativa. Brahman according to Shankara is "free from ignorance", "not finite", "not non existing" ( he has never equated the guNas with brahma anywhere as such) and so forth, which are not direct expressions of guNa, but implied ones. From the word "free from ignorance" the idea blissful is conveyed, but what Sri Shankara wants us to realize is that this bliss is not anything related to the world.





Check what you say. First, Vedas truly do not speak of the ultimate truth but Vedas point to it. Else “words return from Him, mind returns from Him—“ or “neti-neti” or “indescribable”, would not have arisen. And Shri Krishna would not have taught “The truth is known in Samadhi alone”.


There is a difference between definability and describability. Suppose that I define Brahman as anantam. Do you really think that you now understand Brahman? Brahman can be defined by the term anantam, but your mind will still return from it. No word can capture infinity, but it still conveys the intended meaning. We understand none of the guNas that are beyond prakriti. The anantam can be known in samAdhi, agreed - but that does not prevent me from defining Brahman as anantam without contradicting "neti neti".( the sruti infact does so in several places).

Another way of looking at neti neti is "not just thus", "not just thus". Brahman is anantam - applying neti neti to this can also mean that the definition of Brahman remains incomplete with that definition. No amount of words can describe brahma, that is why it is said that anantavai vedah ( vedas are infinite}. Somebody was complaining in this forum that we lost most of the vedas and we have lost "true hinduism". What can be there in that missing portions other than more and more efforts at trying to describe the indescribable?

Let us not discuss about the rest( brahma, brahman, pragnya etc) because we are probably going in circles while trying to say the same thing ultimately.

atanu
27 August 2007, 11:20 PM
[/size][/font]
But it seems you have no problem in accepting that Turya is prabhu or devah, which are direct expressions of guNa? With respect to whom, if Brahman is all?
Brahman is very strictly speaking guNAtIta, -----
[/size][/font]
There is a difference between definability and describability. -----
Let us not discuss about the rest( brahma, brahman, pragnya etc) because we are probably going in circles while trying to say the same thing ultimately.

Namaskar Madhavan,

Yes, there is no problem with "Turya is prabhu" as also with "Turya is jagat" as also with "Turya is anisa". Gunatita is OK with me (fully). I do not have any problem with trying to describe/understand Turya/Self through the derivatives as indicators. But defining Turya? Well ----. How will a report written by me understand me?

I agree with the rest. And I agree with your comment in another post that despite all apparent mental and verbal differences (resulting in lot of fume), all agree that the Self must be known.

Is that acceptable to you? (Devas are those who thrive on commonalities).

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

sarabhanga
28 August 2007, 01:15 AM
Namaste Atanu,

I am not angry, but the circular nature of this discussion is rather frustrating.




Nothing that I have posted in this thread will make much sense if one does not understand that (following the Harvard-Kyoto transliteration scheme) a indicates a short “a” and A indicates a long “aa”.




Well this an assumption about which I can say nothing. It is a bit low. Difference between BrahmA and Brahman is understood at preliminary level.

That was NOT an assumption! And if you can say nothing about it, it is only because you have been ignoring Sanskrit grammar. Eskimos don’t know anything about Sanskrit grammar, so why should anyone else bother! :rolleyes:

Perhaps you have not noticed that I said “if ONE does not understand”, not particularly “if YOU do not understand”. But the comment is NOT “low”, it is simply TRUE!

If the difference between brahma and brahmA was already understood, how could you then say: “I feel that the distinction between the Self that is called brahmayonim and brahma (brahman) has not been clarified despite very long discussions.”

Every one of my posts here has been clearly distinguishing brahma (brahmayoni) and brahmA (“of the veda”), so if the distinction has indeed not been clarified, either you are saying that my (exhaustive) distinctions are incorrect or insufficient, or you have not understood them!

In response to this, I tried to show that brahmayoni (“the truth of the truth”) and brahman (as “the truth”) have indeed been well distinguished, using your own words in direct comparison with my own terminology (which as remained entirely consistent).




Your “the Self that is called brahmayonim”, “the truth of the truth”, is my brahma.
And your “brahma (brahman)” that is “knowledge of the Vedas” or “the truth” is my brahmA.

Several times in this thread, I have attempted to point out our agreement (and that is what I was attempting to do here), and you have replied with “No”, but then you go on to repeat exactly the same thing! :confused:




No. Dear sarabhanga Ji. My “the Self that is called brahmayonim”, “the truth of the truth”, is my brahma, as well.

But since you have previously used “brahma” to indicate “brahma of the veda”, when you say that brahma is the brahmayoni the actual meaning of this statement remains ambiguous!

And now you claim that you have not even alluded to the meaning of brahmapare as “beyond brahman” !!




From scriptures and by fitting pieces like in zigsaw puzzle, I arrive here…

The knower of this eternal Brahman, wherein both vidya and avidya are hidden, is Brahma Pare – beyond Brahman… He is Brahma yoni.




He who controls both, knowledge and ignorance, is another, beyond Brahman.




Both have their hidden being in the Eternal and Infinite Who dwelleth beyond Brahman of the Veda.




I am citing Shri Aurobindo who takes brahmapare as singular and beyond supreme brahma.




First you said: “I thought it was clear that I am citing Shri Aurobindo who takes brahmapare as singular and beyond supreme brahma.” And now you say: “Neither did I say that something is beyond parabrahman.”

“Beyond supreme brahma” and “beyond parabrahman” are exactly the same thing. Please make up your mind! I had thought that you were making some point, but perhaps there was no point at all (?)




Parabrahman is what is beyond the definition of Leader (Param). And more appropriate words are "brahmapare" or "brahmayoni", which shruti use.




Both have their hidden being in the Eternal and Infinite Who dwelleth beyond Brahman of the Veda.




brahmapare would mean beyond cognition.




Simple 'brahma-pare', means that it is beyond the Brahman that is describable in scriptures.




My point, I feel is still misunderstood. I will try to clarify.

The vidyaAvidya is hidden in the Self (which is indescribable) and beyond the describable Brahman of the Vedas.




The brahmayoni is brahmapare, and you have insisted that brahmapare simply means “beyond brahmA”.




I have not alluded to this.

And I am lost for words. :banghead:

atanu
28 August 2007, 01:56 AM
Namaste Atanu,
And I am lost for words. :banghead:
I am not angry, but the circular nature of this discussion is rather frustrating.


Namaste Dear Sarabhanga Ji

Ok. Don't be frustrated. You will hurt your forehead. hehe. (my use of 'Dear' is genuine).

Remember our earlier agreement that nothing, least of all words, should need to ruffle one's tranquility. I have highest respect for you and you know that.

Regarding all other evidences that you have quoted, I will remind that I have placed both view points: of the school of Aurobindo (VA in general) and of Shankara. I had also pointed out that I ascribe to Shankara's views for the sake of consistensy and clarity. I cited the controversy with Mundka Upanishad verse also. Specifically, "beyond Brahman" was a citation of Shri Aurobindo's translation.

Probably the impression gained that I was supporting one view over the other. No, I was trying to re-concile for myself -- not for any other. But I said that there may be a need (I used the word curiosity) to comprehend this -- to understand why scriptures say: "This Self is Brahman" and also "The Self is Brahmayonim"?

My POV, aided by my Gurus teachings and this discussion with you is as below:





To talk as a layman the way Ramana Maharshi teaches. "I" is the commonality that runs through all thoughts/words/actions/cognitions in all states (of deep sleep/dream/waking). This is Brahman manifested.

The shivoadvaitaatma (Self), which is the source of "I" , is beyond (parastaad). It is Turya. It has nothing beyond it and it has no second besides it. This is Brahman unborn.

Yes this 'Brahman unborn' is aja ekapad.

--------The (awareness of) the Self has been there before the term Brahman came in the consciousness of the Self. -----


I will add that neither Atman nor its stations need be masculine or feminine. And I personally understand that BrahmA, similar as us, is in the consciousness of sages (as stated in a Rig verse), who again are consciousness of the Self. The truth is the Self and its all pervading consciousness.


Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Madhavan
28 August 2007, 02:42 AM
Namaste Atanu,

It is a pleasure talking to you as you are quite knowledgeable.




Yes, there is no problem with "Turya is prabhu" as also with "Turya is jagat" as also with "Turya is anisa". Gunatita is OK with me (fully). I do not have any problem with trying to describe/understand Turya/Self through the derivatives as indicators. But defining Turya? Well ----. How will a report written by me understand me?


Are you trying to say that relationship between Brahma and jagat is like you and your report? Hmm...I am not sure.

I agree that Turiya cannot be defined completely, but defined partly which is what sruti attempts to do. For eg, nirguNam is itself a definition. Advaita is another definition. Shivam(good) is another. param parastAd, brahmayoni are all accurate definitions isn't it? You are right when you say that Turiya cannot be described because it has no form or any prakriti related qualities.

Just like Turiya is called prabhu, because it is prabhu of the other three states, Turiya can be assigned other qualities based on its comparison with the other three states. For eg, Turiya is called Shivam because it alone is auspicious, while there is karma and related evil(avidya) in the other states.



I agree with the rest. And I agree with your comment in another post that despite all apparent mental and verbal differences (resulting in lot of fume), all agree that the Self must be known.

Is that acceptable to you? (Devas are those who thrive on commonalities).


Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Yes indeed.:)

atanu
28 August 2007, 03:14 AM
Namaste Atanu,

It is a pleasure talking to you as you are quite knowledgeable.


Namaskar Madhavan,

Thank you for thinking so.



[/b]

Are you trying to say that relationship between Brahma and jagat is like you and your report? Hmm...I am not sure.

I agree that Turiya cannot be defined completely, but defined partly which is what sruti attempts to do. -----
Yes indeed.:)


Regarding the report metaphor, it is a metaphor. Your "I am not sure" is correct. For the rest of your post I say "Yes indeed".

Regards

Shivam Shivam

sarabhanga
28 August 2007, 05:05 AM
Namaste Atanu, Madhavan, Nuno, et al.

The nirguNa puruSa is shiva, and the triguNa prakRti is shakti.

The turya brahma, alone and advaita, eternally resounds only “am”.
The turIya brahmA, together with mAyA, at the moment of creation, says “I am”.
And the turIyAtIta brAhma, in samAdhi, says “I am brahman”.

The common threads are the turya, the brahman, and “am” (the first person singular of “be” ~ i.e. pure existence, without any name, and even without any sense of “I”).

The turya prajñA is pañcamukha.
The turIya prAjñA is caturmukha.
The turIyAtIta prAjña is trimukha.
The taijasa ajña is dvimukha.
And the vaishvAnara AjñA is ekamukha.

The common thread from AjñA to ajña to prAjña to prAjñA to prajñA is simply jña (“knowing”), which is another name for the puruSa (i.e. brahman, and all if its derivative expressions).

The uttama satya (“highest truth”) of ajAtivAda is the self same prajñA (“great wisdom”) of turya, which is pañcamukha, unborn, nirguNa and entirely without mAyA. While everything from vaishvAnara to turIya is born, saguNa and necessarily associated with mAyA.

The brahman is satya ~ i.e. eternal Truth.
The brahman is prajñA ~ i.e. true Knowing.
And the brahman is prabhu ~ i.e. wise Being.

turya = prajñA = IshAna = sadAshiva.
turIya = prAjñA = tatpuruSa = umAvaktra.
turIyAtIta = prAjña = aghora = nandivaktra.
taijasa = ajña = vAmadeva = bhairava.
vaishvAnara = AjñA = sadyojAta = mahAdeva.

Znanna
28 August 2007, 08:08 PM
Thanks all y'all for your commentary. This is a wonderful study :)

I was referred to this link as a result:



MANDUKYA KARIKA

(Translated by Vidyavachaspati V. Panoli)






http://www.shiningworld.com/Home%20Page%20Links/Source%20Texts%20in%20HTML/MANDUKYA%20KARIKA.htm (http://www.shiningworld.com/Home%20Page%20Links/Source%20Texts%20in%20HTML/MANDUKYA%20KARIKA.htm)

Ah ha, here is a better translation, perhaps, I like it that is more concise:

http://www.spiritual-teachers.com/mandukya.htm


Very nice!


Namaste,
ZN

atanu
29 August 2007, 02:29 AM
Shivam Shivam

Pranam to all.

Om is "I am". "I am", translated in any language, is OM. It is one single awareness in the moment in which resides memory of past; grand vision of future; Jagat, all gods; and all jivas. It is the Seer sthanu Rudro Maharshi -- the tree that stands in heaven. It can be imagined as partitioned, but it is not necessary for the stithipragnya, who abides in OM.

OM is also the silent substratum Shivam.

Both are ONE.

From Karikas

76. When one no longer perceives the highest, the intermediate and the lowest consciousness, it undergoes no birth. How can there be an effect without a cause?
77. The birthlessness of consciousness when free from causes is absolute and constant - all this is merely something perceived by the birthless, non-dual consciousness.
78. Having realised the truth of causelessness, and not accepting any individual cause, one attains freedom from fear, suffering and desire.

Om Namah Shivaya

Madhavan
29 August 2007, 02:47 AM
Namaste Atanu, Madhavan, Nuno, et al.

The nirguNa puruSa is shiva, and the triguNa prakRti is shakti.

The turya brahma, alone and advaita, eternally resounds only “am”.
The turIya brahmA, together with mAyA, at the moment of creation, says “I am”.
And the turIyAtIta brAhma, in samAdhi, says “I am brahman”.

The common threads are the turya, the brahman, and “am” (the first person singular of “be” ~ i.e. pure existence, without any name, and even without any sense of “I”).

The turya prajñA is pañcamukha.
The turIya prAjñA is caturmukha.
The turIyAtIta prAjña is trimukha.
The taijasa ajña is dvimukha.
And the vaishvAnara AjñA is ekamukha.

The common thread from AjñA to ajña to prAjña to prAjñA to prajñA is simply jña (“knowing”), which is another name for the puruSa (i.e. brahman, and all if its derivative expressions).

The uttama satya (“highest truth”) of ajAtivAda is the self same prajñA (“great wisdom”) of turya, which is pañcamukha, unborn, nirguNa and entirely without mAyA. While everything from vaishvAnara to turIya is born, saguNa and necessarily associated with mAyA.

The brahman is satya ~ i.e. eternal Truth.
The brahman is prajñA ~ i.e. true Knowing.
And the brahman is prabhu ~ i.e. wise Being.

turya = prajñA = Ishana = sadAshiva.
turIya = prAjñA = tatpuruSa = umAvaktra.
turIyAtIta = prAjña = aghora = nandivaktra.
taijasa = ajña = vAmadeva = bhairava.
vaishvAnara = AjñA = sadyojAta = mahAdeva.


So it seems plausible that only five states will complete the absolute truth? Something beyond Turiya. Is there scriptural support in favour of something beyond turIya? In the mANDUkya and its commentaries, nothing beyond turiya finds a mention and it is mentioned to be nirguNa.

atanu
29 August 2007, 04:15 AM
So it seems plausible that only five states will complete the absolute truth? Something beyond Turiya. Is there scriptural support in favour of something beyond turIya? In the mANDUkya and its commentaries, nothing beyond turiya finds a mention and it is mentioned to be nirguNa.

Namaste,

Can anything beyond Self, be without a Self?

Om

sarabhanga
29 August 2007, 05:34 AM
Namaste Madhavan,

The Mandukyopanishad mentions neither turIya nor turya, only using the term caturtha. And Shri Gaudapada refers to the caturtha as turya, but not turIya.

There is only one thing higher than the turIya, and that is the turya!

The eternal caturtha was anciently known as yama (the Twin), so that five states of consciousness have always been implied.

And the Mandukya has actually compressed turIya (tatpuruSa) and turIyAtIta (aghora) into the one class of prAjña, which itself has a double meaning, as pra-ajña (deep sleep or unconsciousness) and pra-Ajña (great intelligence or mighty power).

So returning to the familiar fourfold plan (and not mentioning the unmentionable aghora) we have:

turya = prajñA = IshAna = sadAshiva.
prAjña = turIyAtIta = tatpuruSa = umAvaktra.
taijasa = ajña = vAmadeva = bhairava.
vaishvAnara = AjñA = sadyojAta = mahAdeva.

There is nothing higher than the Fourth, but there are far more than three things below it!

yajvan
29 August 2007, 12:43 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste all,

I am exceedingly happy to see and watch the dedication to this matter unfold. As all want the accuracy , crisp-ness, and legibility of concepts, ideas and metaphors to resonate in the other readers minds.

When I read all this, what possibly can I contribute? I am thinking that Adi Shankara's Manisha Panchakam as the culmination of all these good works found on this posting.

Shankara, in 5 verses brings out essence of Advaita Vedanta. He answers two questions posed by the sweeper ( and is Siva ultimately), he asks:


O great among the twice-born! What is it that you want to move away by saying, ”Go, go”? Do you want the body made up of food to move away from another body made up of food? Or do you want consciousness to move away from consciousness?
Is there any difference between the reflection of the sun in the waters of the Ganga and its reflection in the water in a ditch in the quarters of the outcastes? Or between the space in a gold pot and in a mud pot? What is this illusion of difference in the form, “This is a Brahmana and this is an outcaste” in the indwelling self which is the ripple-free ocean of bliss and pure consciousness?Shankara goes on to answer these two questions, and brilliantly outlines Brahman, Self, pure consciousness , its relationship to wake , dream , sleep, let alone the senses and the universe and how all this fits together.

IMHO Shankara has been able to sum up this excellent HDF conversation for easy digestion.

I will not post the 5 replys, as one can 'google' on this Manisha Panchakam and enjoy the read.

pranams,

Madhavan
30 August 2007, 01:45 AM
Namaste Madhavan,

The Mandukyopanishad mentions neither turIya nor turya, only using the term caturtha. And Shri Gaudapada refers to the caturtha as turya, but not turIya.

There is only one thing higher than the turIya, and that is the turya!

The eternal caturtha was anciently known as yama (the Twin), so that five states of consciousness have always been implied.

And the Mandukya has actually compressed turIya (tatpuruSa) and turIyAtIta (aghora) into the one class of prAjña, which itself has a double meaning, as pra-ajña (deep sleep or unconsciousness) and pra-Ajña (great intelligence or mighty power).

So returning to the familiar fourfold plan (and not mentioning the unmentionable aghora) we have:

turya = prajñA = Ishana = sadAshiva.
prAjña = turIyAtIta = tatpuruSa = umAvaktra.
taijasa = ajña = vAmadeva = bhairava.
vaishvAnara = AjñA = sadyojAta = mahAdeva.

There is nothing higher than the Fourth, but there are far more than three things below it!

Namaste.

Very good reply. So I was right when I said that turiya is itself the twin( Shiva/Shakti twin)

So what is the difference between turya and turIya in terms of consciousness?

1. Is is that some trace dualty is still present in turIya( because of which samAdhi cannot be maintained perpetually) and completely absent in turya? If trace dualty is present, is this the consciousness(turIya) present in devotees of God like nArada or hanumAn, who always seem to praise the Lord instead of claiming absolute identity with the him?

2. Or both completely non dual with turya representing a 'higher' ( whatever that means) non dualty than turIya.

When we compare these with the kuNDAlini yoga, I think agnya cakra corresponds to pragnya, and sahasrAra to turya. Then turIya must correspond to the intermediate cakra between agnya and sahasrAra - namely guru cakra.

sarabhanga
30 August 2007, 06:13 AM
Namaste Madhavan,

The very first twin was simply nara and nAra, with man made exactly in the image of God ~ “twin-born”, so to speak. And this is the original yamau.

The twin deity yama is also known as yama (masc.) and yamI (fem.), or yama (“the driver”) and yAma (“the chariot”).

The prajñA of turya brahma is pure transcendental wisdom; and the prAjñA of turIya brahmA is a divided intelligence, depending on subjects and objects.

The kAla brahmA is nArAyaNa or viSNu, and the akala brahma is nara or shiva.

turya = prajñA = sahasrAra
turIya = prAjñA = AjñA
turIyAtIta = prAjña = vishuddha
taijasa = ajña = anAhata
vaishvAnara = AjñA = maNipUra

atanu
30 August 2007, 09:40 AM
Namaste Madhavan,

----
The prajñA of turya brahma is pure transcendental wisdom; and the prAjñA of turIya brahmA is a divided intelligence, depending on subjects and objects.

The kAla brahmA is nArAyaNa or viSNu, and the akala brahma is nara or shiva.

turya = prajñA = sahasrAra
turIya = prAjñA = AjñA
turIyAtIta = prAjña = vishuddha
taijasa = ajña = anAhata
vaishvAnara = AjñA = maNipUra

Namaste All,


Is prAjñA of turIya brahmA same as third state "Shushupti?"

And is there some scripture that says turya = ---- = sahasrAra?


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
30 August 2007, 11:06 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~
Namaste all,

----Shankara's Manisha Panchakam as the culmination of all these good works found on this posting.

IMHO Shankara has been able to sum up this excellent HDF conversation for easy digestion.

I will not post the 5 replys, as one can 'google' on this Manisha Panchakam and enjoy the read.

pranams,

Dear Yajvan,

Do you mind if I paste the five verses? Since your pointer to Panchkam and ZN's pointer to Karikas are all that are required? And since the Pannchkam provides the proof that the awareness of "I" is prior to awareness of other and the world, this is pertinent here. "I" only creates the world.

The sweeper’s (Lord Shiva as a sweeper) questions:--

1. O great among the twice-born! What is it that you want to move away by saying, ”Go, go”? Do you want the body made up of food to move away from another body made up of food? Or do you want consciousness to move away from consciousness?

2. Is there any difference between the reflection of the sun in the waters of the Ganga and its reflection in the water in a ditch in the quarters of the outcastes? Or between the space in a gold pot and in a mud pot? What is this illusion of difference in the form, “This is a Brahmana and this is an outcaste” in the indwelling self which is the ripple-free ocean of bliss and pure consciousness?

Sri Sankara’s answers:--

1.If a person has attained the firm knowledge that he is not an object of perception, but is that pure consciousness which shines clearly in the states of waking, dream and deep sleep, and which, as the witness of the whole universe, dwells in all bodies from that of the Creator Brahma to that of the ant, then he is my Guru, irrespective of whether he is an outcaste or a Brahmana. This is my conviction.

2. “I am Brahman (pure consciousness). It is pure consciousness that appears as this universe. All this is only something conjured up by me because of avidya (nescience) which is composed of the three gunas (sattva, rajas and tamas)”. One who has attained this definite realization about Brahman which is bliss itself, eternal, supreme and pure, is my Guru, whether he is an outcaste or a Brahmana.

3. Having come to the definite conclusion, under the instruction of his Guru, that the entire universe is always perishable, he who, with a calm and pure mind constantly meditates on Brahman, and who has burnt his past and future sins in the fire of knowledge, submits his present body to the operation of his praarabdha karma. This is my conviction.

4. The Self or pure consciousness is experienced clearly within by animals, men, and gods as ‘I’. It is by the reflection of this pure consciousness that the mind, senses and body, which are all insentient, appear to be sentient. External objects are perceived only because of this consciousness. This Self is, however, concealed by the very mind, senses and body which are illumined by it, just as the sun is concealed by clouds. The yogi who, with a calm mind, always meditates on this Self is my Guru. This is my conviction.

5. The Self, which is Brahman, is the eternal ocean of supreme bliss. A minute fraction of that bliss is enough to satisfy Indra and other gods. By meditating on the Self with a perfectly calm mind the sage experiences fulfillment. The person whose mind has become identified with this Self is not a mere knower of Brahman, but Brahman itself. Such a person, whoever he may be, is one whose feet are fit to be worshipped by Indra himself. This is my definite conviction.

Om

yajvan
30 August 2007, 05:33 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaste atanu,
Thank you for posting... it is very enjoyable to read these 5 lines again and again.

Such is the wisdom of Adi Shankara - he , that mānīṣin or sage, muni and his Manisha Panchakam;

Panchakam or 5 + Manisha मानीषा mānīṣā or his reflections, convictions

... perhaps we can talk of these 5 lines and their application to this conversation as interest permits.


dhanyavad,

Nuno Matos
30 August 2007, 06:56 PM
Namaste

Jñana is waking up from the dream. What is Vijñana?!

Thank you!

sarabhanga
31 August 2007, 12:24 AM
Is prAjñA of turIya brahmA same as third state "Shushupti?"
And is there some scripture that says turya = ---- = sahasrAra?

Namaste Atanu,

suSupti (deep sleep or complete unconsciousness) is the same as prAjña or pra-ajña (deep sleep or complete unconsciousness); and this is the turIyAtIta consciousness.

The turIya-atIta has “passed away” into the turIya, as “one who has gone beyond”.

I have related the prajñA of turya with the indiscriminate wisdom of sahasrAra, and the prAjñA of turIya with the wisely discriminating intelligence of AjñA. The “thousand rays” remain uncounted and effectively advaita (as absolute illumination), while the two rays of AjñA are decisively dvaita (as brightness and darkness). And all sense of dvaita is extinguished when consciousness is raised beyond the limits of AjñA cakra.

Expanding the equation again, to reveal the SaTcakra:

prajñA = sahasrAra = turya = M
prAjñA = AjñA = shambhu = AUM
prAjña = vishuddha = sadAshiva = haM
ajña = anAhata = IshAna = yaM
AjñA = maNipUra = rudra = raM
ajñA = svAdhiSThAna = viSNu = vaM
jña = mUlAdhAra = brahmA = laM

And in this context, the turya (even more subtle than shambhu) is known as parashiva (parabrahma or brahmapara).

According to the SaTcakra nirUpaNa:

tadUrdhve … shUnyadeshe … padmaM dashashatadalaM … kevalAnandarUpaM

Above all these … in the vacant space … is the lotus of a thousand petals … and it is the absolute Bliss.

Iha sthAne devaH paramashivasmAkhyAnasiddhaH prasiddhaH svarUpI sarvAtmA

Here is the Deva who is known to all as Paramashiva. He is the Brahman and the Atma of all beings.

shivasthAnaM shaivAH paramapuruSaM vaiSNavagaNA
lapantIti prAyo hariharapadaM kecidapare
pabaM devyA devicaraNayugalAMbhojarasikA
munIndrA apyanye prakRtipuruSasthAnamamalaM

The Shaivas call it the abode of Shiva; the Vaishnavas call it Parama Purusha; others again call it the place of Hari-Hara. Those who are filled with a passion for the lotus feet of the Devi call it the excellent abode of the Devi; and other great sages call it the pure place of Prakriti-Purusha.

It is the Sahasrara Lotus, and it is the Turya Self. :)

sarabhanga
31 August 2007, 02:03 AM
Jñana is waking up from the dream. What is Vijñana?!

Namaste Nuno,

vijñAna is worldly knowledge, the knowledge of nAra,
jñAna is spiritual knowledge, the knowledge of nArAyaNa, and
prajñAna is ultimate knowledge, the knowledge of nara.

sarabhanga
31 August 2007, 06:14 PM
Namaste Atanu (et al.),

Yoga is the reconciliation and unification of nara and nAra; and the process involves a transformation of consciousness, from the basic sentience and animal instinct of mUlAdhAra cakra to the transcendental wisdom of sahasrAra cakra.

So, how can we make this transformation from the simple “knowing” of jña into the “great knowledge” of prajñA?

It is the operation of Sanskrit itself which provides the clue!

The literal transfiguration from jña to prajñA involves a graduation of consciousness through its various degrees, but (whatever the course) the progression must go via ajña (“forgetting”).

Sanskrit has suggested the absolute necessity of forgetting or unlearning in the quest for ultimate knowledge, and the Sages have confirmed this dictum by personal experience.

yajvan
31 August 2007, 08:15 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Atanu (et al.),

The literal transfiguration from jña to prajñA involves a graduation of consciousness through its various degrees, but (whatever the course) the progression must go via ajña (“forgetting”).
.

Namaste Sarabhanga,
can you assist me a bit more... I am in doubt of this understanding, the forgetting. My point of reference is quite opposite, so I need to compare and contrast the knowledge you offer.
Let me see if I can articulate a point or two:

This forgetting - is it that of samadhi? - I can then see the notion here.
Is it of conscious effort? - then I do not see the notion offered.
When I think of what has been offered my mind goes directly to Chapt 18.73 of the Gita, and what Arjuna tells Krsna - he says, the opposite that he has regained his memory [smrti] and is now free of doubt i.e. has realized his true SELF.Perhaps you can offer some insights on some of these ideas and assist me with clarity - perhaps others will also benefit.

pranams,

Znanna
31 August 2007, 08:38 PM
Namaste,

From my contrary point of view, the forgetting is a process of letting go of the process, of blowing out an intention like dandelion seeds onto the breeze and letting the natural processes determine the path of growth. Yet, the life in the seed retains its integrity and finds root, creating on its own accord the next germination of life.

The notion of intention, of doing but without the attachment of quantifying the effort of doing? Does the blowing of the seed create the life, or is it the process which invokes the breeze?

Eh, I should delete this whole post :)

Really, for me, because the process itself is so fun I enjoy the doingness of the doing and am blessed with enjoyment of the 'itness'.

Bottom line: to me there is no greater pleasure, potential of growth, of 'itness' than in meditation. Its manifestation is something I may or not define, but at the moment I don't really care because its loverly (as they said in My Fair Lady) :P

Love,
ZN

sarabhanga
01 September 2007, 01:51 AM
Namaste Yajvan (and ZN),

The vijñAna of nAra is based in duality, within the divided dimensions of both time and space. This knowledge always depends on the recognition of opposite pairs, such as subject and object, male and female, more and less, good and bad, right and left, before and after, cause and effect, this and that, not this and not that, etc., etc..

The jñAna of nArAyaNa is spiritual rather than material, but it is similarly dualistic, with karma operating in time and space, and with clear distinction of vidya and avidya, satya and asatya, kAla and akala, hara and hari, brahma and brahmA, kRSNa and arjuna, ghora and aghora, etc., etc..

The prajñAna of nara, however, is entirely advaita, but it is not entirely vacant with all previous knowledge entirely erased. This “great wisdom” indeed comprehends and supersedes all dualistic knowledge, only the dividing lines have been realized as veritable illusion and erased or “forgotten”.

When brightness and darkness are fully comprehended, there is only pure Illumination.

And when all states of consciousness are fully comprehended, there is only pure Being. :)

Madhavan
01 September 2007, 02:02 AM
Namaste Atanu,

suSupti (deep sleep or complete unconsciousness) is the same as prAjña or pra-ajña (deep sleep or complete unconsciousness); and this is the turIyAtIta consciousness.

The turIya-atIta has “passed away” into the turIya, as “one who has gone beyond”.

I have related the prajñA of turya with the indiscriminate wisdom of sahasrAra, and the prAjñA of turIya with the wisely discriminating intelligence of AjñA. The “thousand rays” remain uncounted and effectively advaita (as absolute illumination), while the two rays of AjñA are decisively dvaita (as brightness and darkness). And all sense of dvaita is extinguished when consciousness is raised beyond the limits of AjñA cakra.

Expanding the equation again, to reveal the SaTcakra:

prajñA = sahasrAra = turya = M
prAjñA = AjñA = shambhu = AUM
prAjña = vishuddha = sadAshiva = haM
ajña = anAhata = IshAna = yaM
AjñA = maNipUra = rudra = raM
ajñA = svAdhiSThAna = viSNu = vaM
jña = mUlAdhAra = brahmA = laM

And in this context, the turya (even more subtle than shambhu) is known as parashiva (parabrahma or brahmapara).

According to the SaTcakra nirUpaNa:

tadUrdhve … shUnyadeshe … padmaM dashashatadalaM … kevalAnandarUpaM

Above all these … in the vacant space … is the lotus of a thousand petals … and it is the absolute Bliss.

Iha sthAne devaH paramashivasmAkhyAnasiddhaH prasiddhaH svarUpI sarvAtmA

Here is the Deva who is known to all as Paramashiva. He is the Brahman and the Atma of all beings.

shivasthAnaM shaivAH paramapuruSaM vaiSNavagaNA
lapantIti prAyo hariharapadaM kecidapare
pabaM devyA devicaraNayugalAMbhojarasikA
munIndrA apyanye prakRtipuruSasthAnamamalaM

The Shaivas call it the abode of Shiva; the Vaishnavas call it Parama Purusha; others again call it the place of Hari-Hara. Those who are filled with a passion for the lotus feet of the Devi call it the excellent abode of the Devi; and other great sages call it the pure place of Prakriti-Purusha.

It is the Sahasrara Lotus, and it is the Turya Self. :)

Namaste,

There was some difference to this as explained by Sri Ramana.


Question: How to churn up the Nadis (psychic nerves) so that the Kundalini may go up the Sushumna?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Though the Yogi may have his methods of breath control for his object, the Jnani’s method is only that of enquiry. When by this method the mind is merged in the Self, the Sakti or Kundalini, which is not apart from the Self, rises automatically.
The Yogis attach the highest importance to sending the Kundalini up to the Sahasrara, the brain centre or the thousand petalled lotus. They point out the scriptural statement that the life current enters the body through the fontanelle and argue that, Viyoga (separation) having come about that way, yoga (union) must also be effected in the reverse way. Therefore, they say, we must, by yoga practice, gather up the Pranas (vital force) and enter the fontanelle for the consummation of yoga. The Jnanis on the other hand point out that the yogi assumes the existence of the body and its separateness from the Self. Only if this standpoint of separateness is adopted can the yogi advise effort for reunion by the practice of yoga.
In fact the body is in the mind which has the brain for its seat. That the brain functions by light borrowed from another source is admitted by the yogis themselves in their fontanelle theory. The Jnani further argues: if the light is borrowed it must come from its native source. Go to the source direct and do not depend on borrowed sources. That source is the Heart, the Self.
The Self does not come from anywhere else and enter the body through the crown of the head. It is as it is, ever sparkling, ever steady, unmoving and unchanging. The individual confines himself to the limits of the changeful body or of the mind which derives its existence from the unchanging Self. All that is necessary is to give up this mistaken identity, and that done, the ever shining Self will be seen to be the single non-dual reality.
If one concentrates on the Sahasrara there is no doubt that the ecstasy of Samadhi ensues. The Vasanas, that is the latent mental tendencies, are not however destroyed. The yogi is therefore bound to wake up from the Samadhi because release from bondage has not yet been accomplished. He must still try to eradicate the Vasanas inherent in him so that they cease to disturb the peace of his Samadhi. So he passes down from the Sahasrara to the Heart through what is called the Jivanadi, which is only a continuation of the Sushumna. The Sushumna is thus a curve. It starts from the lowest Chakra, rises through the spinal cord to the brain and from there bends down and ends in the Heart. When the yogi has reached the Heart, the Samadhi becomes permanent. Thus we see that the Heart is the final centre.


The heart that he mentions here is apparently not the anAhata cakra, but something subtler than all the others. So what Sri Ramana says is that

mUlAdhAra -> svAdhiSThAna -> maNipUra ->anAhata -> vishuddha ->AjñA -> sahasrAra -> hridaya( Atman)

I feel he is right because realization of the ultimate will burn all karma and their seeds. If samAdhi cannot be maintained, it cannot be the final realization - he calls it the sahaja samAdhi, where there is absolutely no perception of dualty, yet the sage is able to interact with the world like anybody else even outside of the yogic trance.( like Lord Krishna)

We should also note that vedas tell us of two transits of the soul that occur after death - daxiNAyana ( abode of return from the pitr loka) and uttarAyaNa ( brahma loka from where there is no return and progression to non dualty occurs in brahma loka) +{ Gita chapt 8 verses 24-27}

Also uttarAyaNa is the path of krama mukti only according to Sri Shankara, and the not one of absolute 'merger' with the Brahman. This is explained in the Kena Up 3.16 {

There are one hundred and one arteries of the heart, one of which pierces the crown of the head. Going upward by it, a man at death attains immortality. But when his prana passes out by other arteries, going in different directions, then he is reborn in the world.}

This verse is considered to belong to krama mukti by Sri Shankara. So it is evident that according to both Shankara and Ramana, the sahasrAra is not the ultimate destination, but one that leads to the brahma loka upon death ( of near equality with brahma but not identical to him in all respects).

atanu
01 September 2007, 02:25 AM
Namaste All

From Karikas

76. When one no longer perceives the highest, the intermediate and the lowest consciousness, it undergoes no birth. How can there be an effect without a cause?

77. The birthlessness of consciousness when free from causes is absolute and constant - all this is merely something perceived by the birthless, non-dual consciousness.

78. Having realised the truth of causelessness, and not accepting any individual cause, one attains freedom from fear, suffering and desire.

---------

I feel that classification/reclassification and understanding is always the part of mental action, which is extroverted. By first letting go of the knowledge of non-Self, through introverted enquiry: WHO HAS THIS CONSCIOUSNESS?, the Who is found as it is.

It is as simple as meditating on the I awareness since as Panchkam indicates, I in everybeing is the pratayksha.

Sahsrarara is where Soma is -- the pure mind (there is a Rig Vedic verse to this effect. But the Atman is the Hridaya, the progenitor of Soma.

Atman is not found without knowing the nature of one's nature, i.e. of the true nature of I. This is Ramana Guru's teaching. At the same time, Ramana also validated all other sanatana dharma paths, classed under two ways: TOTAL SURRENDER or ENQUIRY into the NATURE OF I.

Om Namah Shivaya

Madhavan
01 September 2007, 03:01 AM
Sahsrarara is where Soma is -- the pure mind (there is a Rig Vedic verse to this effect. But the Atman is the Hridaya, the progenitor of Soma.


sahasrAra is brahma ~ hridaya is brahmayoni. The whole point of this thread.

Though you have explained well that knowing that source "I" is the final quest, we will encounter many intermediate "I" in the process, that is where theory can help. Various cakras serve as various centres that give rise to false "I". One needs to understand fully every false "I" on the way before the true source of all beings can be reached.

In the path of surrender, "I" is voluntarily reliquished and a "Thou" is sought. The knowledge of "Thou" increases gradually until Thou becomes all ( incluidng I). { sarvam khalvidam brahma} This is bhakti yoga.

In enquiry, "thou" is relegated to secondary status and "I" is sought. In the process, various false "I" come into the picture which must be understood and the higher "I" sought at every step, until "I" becomes "Thou". { neti neti} This is jnana yoga.

yajvan
01 September 2007, 08:30 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan (and ZN),

The vijñAna of nAra is based in duality, within the divided dimensions of both time and space. This knowledge always depends on the recognition of opposite pairs, such as subject and object, male and female, more and less, good and bad, right and left, before and after, cause and effect, this and that, not this and not that, etc., etc..

The jñAna of nArAyaNa is spiritual rather than material, but it is similarly dualistic, with karma operating in time and space, and with clear distinction of vidya and avidya, satya and asatya, kAla and akala, hara and hari, brahma and brahmA, kRSNa and arjuna, ghora and aghora, etc., etc..

The prajñAna of nara, however, is entirely advaita, but it is not entirely vacant with all previous knowledge entirely erased. This “great wisdom” indeed comprehends and supersedes all dualistic knowledge, only the dividing lines have been realized as veritable illusion and erased or “forgotten”.

When brightness and darkness are fully comprehended, there is only pure Illumination.

And when all states of consciousness are fully comprehended, there is only pure Being. :)


Namaste Sarabhanga (et.al)
I have read and re-read the posts here, yet my doubts remain.
My doubts are quite parochial.

Let me , if I may, focus on one area of verbiage... note I do this for comprehension , to pick a kernal of wisdom so it will sprout in me, as of this instant this seed is dormant.

You write:
This “great wisdom” indeed comprehends and supersedes all dualistic knowledge, only the dividing lines have been realized as veritable illusion and erased or “forgotten”.

Yes I 'get' great wisdom supercedes dualistic knowledge, as for me, it transcends it, this is intuitive and resonates well.
"Only the dividing lines" need to be "realized as veritable illusion and erased or fogotten ... Note I added words to your sentence - is this what you meant or intended ? If so then it aligns well with Patanjali muni's instruction of (viveka) or the distinction between buddi (intellect) and Purusha (pure consciousness or the transcendent) - and I get it.
Being practical, is this fogetting a conscious exercise? In your opinion what is the process to invoke? For me, I am confortable with my practice, yet always look to understand anothers approach.Sarabhanga, If you choose to take a stab at this can we just start with these simple points so we do not boil the ocean of knowledge , this will be good.



To know the world you forget the SELF to know the SELF you forget the world...
Sri Nisargadatta's knowledge seems to apply nicely for this conversation

pranams,

sarabhanga
02 September 2007, 12:45 AM
Namaste Yajvan,

The “great forgetting” occurs in samAdhi.

The turIyAtIta, in samAdhi, knows “I am brahman”.

turIyAtIta = prAjña = aghora = nandivaktra.

prAjña (pra-ajña ~ “deep sleep or complete unconsciousness”) is the turIyAtIta consciousness.

The turIya-atIta has “passed away” into the turIya, as “one who has gone beyond”.

turya = prajñA = sahasrAra = paramashiva = M
turIya = prAjñA = AjñA = shambhu = AUM
turIyAtIta = prAjña = vishuddha = sadAshiva = haM
taijasa = ajña = anAhata = IshAna = yaM
vaishvAnara = AjñA = maNipUra = rudra = raM

The forgetting is conceived in the taijasa, matured in the turIyAtIta, and realized as wisdom in the turIya. And all sense of dvaita is extinguished when consciousness goes beyond the AjñA cakra.

Where is the effort in forgetting?

Arjuna has doubtlessly remembered advaita, but necessarily forgotten dvaita and its attendant doubts (e.g. balancing all the conflicting perspectives of “truth”).

“Transcendence” is exactly what I had intended by “comprehension and supersession”. :)

Learning requires guidelines, but perfect knowledge requires that those lines be erased.

The notion of forgetting (especially in the waking state) is perhaps similar to someone who is brought up discriminating on the basis of skin color suddenly realizing the unity of humanity and the error of past judgments. If you are only avoiding discrimination at a superficial level, then conscious effort may be required; but when there is no longer any division perceived, there is surely no effort at all.

To know dvaita you forget advaita, and to remember advaita you forget dvaita. :)

atanu
02 September 2007, 03:41 AM
sahasrAra is brahma ~ hridaya is brahmayoni. The whole point of this thread.

-----

Namaskar

Yes, Soma -- the Lord of Word, the primordial soul of sacrifice, is Brahman, as defined in Aasiya Bamiya Sukta of Rig Veda. And Soma is the child of parji.

Om

sarabhanga
02 September 2007, 06:19 AM
Namaste Madhavan (and Atanu),

I have said nothing here of “churning up the nadis so that the kundalini may go up the sushumna”. And this whole discussion has been an enquiry into the nature of Self, particularly expressed as variations on “knowing” or the various states of Self-Consciousness.

Does sahasrAra cakra necessarily assume the existence of a mortal body? I don’t think any turIyAtIta would agree with this assumption!

And I have not mentioned “effort” (except to question its validity).

The “Heart of the Self” is in the sahasrAra cakra (and vice versa).

sahasrAra = turya = paramashiva = brahma = brahmayoni = [M]
AjñA = turIya = shambhu = brahmA = brahmabIja = AUM

There is only one turya, but it appears as a twin, and the parts may be divided and divided again, ad infinitum.

From this twin, we progressed to the expression of trinity and the “fourth” that lies beyond. But then there is one beyond that (the “fifth”). But the five must involve a “sixth”, and so we progressed to the six cakras, which system has declared the turya as a veritable “seventh heaven” transcending all cakras. And now there is demand for the insertion of yet another “beyond the beyond”.

The transcendent fourth is exactly the same as the transcendent seventh (or eighth, or whatever) simply because of their absolutely transcendent nature.

Every lotus may be regarded as a nectar-filled heart surrounded by a radiant whorl, but I have simply noted the whole cakra.

avidya is removed only in samAdhi, but for so long as the jIva remains attached to a mortal body, mAyA (and thus avidya) yet remains ~ and this is kramamukti (the first stage of mukti).

When this state is maintained until the mortal frame is finally discarded (in mahAsamAdhi) and both avidya and mAyA are entirely removed, then this is sadyomukti.

The uttarAyaNa goes via kramamukti (where the nectar has been tasted) to sadyomukti (where there is only nectar). Where does shrI shaÑkarAcArya say that the uttarAyaNa path does not lead to advaita?

The dakshiNAyaNa (the southern path to yama) follows pitRyajña and pitRyANa and pravRtti mArga in an eternal cycle of consciousness that oscillates between the AjñA of maNipUra and the prAjñA of AjñA.

The uttarAyaNa (the northern path to rudra) follows brahmayajña and brahmAyaNa and nivRtti mArga in a direct ascent of consciousness to the immortal prajñA of sahasrAra.

And one who has truly tasted the nectar of turya will always be turIyAtIta.

How is the consciousness in sahasrAra any different from the consciousness in turya?

kAla brahman is saguNa ~ the anuttara satya of pravRtti and bhakti.
akala brahman is nirguNa ~ the uttama satya of nivRtti and jñAna.

advaita vedAnta takes the ultimate perspective of akala brahman (the caturtha or “turya”).

vaishvAnara = tamas = viSNu-mAyA
taijasa = rajas = shiva-shakti
prAjña = sattva = brahmA-brAhmI
turya = nirguNa = brahma

advaita akala brahman (mahAkAla sadAshiva ajaikapAd rudra) is the one and only true God, who cannot be worshipped as such, being only known in advaita, by the nivRtti-mArga and jñAna-yoga, and by the direct experience of that one perfect Atman as the undivided essence of eternal Being.

nivRtti-mArga (the Path of Inward Movement) denies the absolute necessity of rebirth, proposing the devayAna (Way of the Gods).

nivRtti is the path of jñAna (Knowledge ~ the irrefutable intuition of universal unity), which leads directly to the perfect realization of one’s own true Self, nothing less than becoming one with the Supreme Spirit.

And thus it leads to moksha, the absolute Liberation of the Soul (AtmA or jIiva) from all the limitation and sorrow that it apparently suffers in the plane of phenomenal embodied existence.

yajvan
02 September 2007, 06:28 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan,

The “great forgetting” occurs in samAdhi.

The turIyAtIta, in samAdhi, knows “I am brahman”.

The notion of forgetting (especially in the waking state) is perhaps similar to someone who is brought up discriminating on the basis of skin color suddenly realizing the unity of humanity and the error of past judgments. If you are only avoiding discrimination at a superficial level, then conscious effort may be required; but when there is no longer any division perceived, there is surely no effort at all.

To know dvaita you forget advaita, and to remember advaita you forget dvaita. :)

Namaste sarabhanga,

The explanation you mention is congruent with my understanding and experience...
This was my question back a few posts ago i.e. This forgetting - is it that of samadhi? that I probed on. Now I understand your orientation, thank you for taking the time to explain.

Regarding 'forgetting' and 'effort' during waking state - in your example.
This is a good way to look at it. That said if there is effort on any level of advaita it is then contrived.

Many seekers have thought that this fullness one experiences was a mind-set , a mood that is created if you will. This is not the case. How so? The notion of samadhi is to 'practice' the experience of Bhuma again and again and culture the mind in this state of Being. This then spills out into waking state and one begins to experience it in waking , then dream, and in sleep.

Last, I see how one can use the term forget, and I can appreciate the term, yet for me, the notion of remembering who one is, this Brahman, seems to resonate a bit better with me. This does not suggest one notion is better then the other. Same with emptiness of samdahi. Some say perfect emptiness, some say perfect fullness. For me Fullness + remembering = Emptiness + Forgetting.

all is right with the world...

Znanna
02 September 2007, 10:00 AM
Fullness + remembering = Emptiness + Forgetting.


Namaste,

I like that linear equation; but I think it also can be perceived as the direction in which the vortex twists.



ZN
/drift

sarabhanga
03 September 2007, 12:58 AM
Namaste Atanu (and Madhavan),

Rgveda 1.164 (to the vishvedevA)

1. [vaishvAnara] Of this benevolent one who is the object of our invocation, there is an all-pervading middle brother, and a third brother who is well fed with oblations of ghee. Here I behold the Lord with seven sons.

The Lord with seven sons is Aditya, the seventh son of aditi; and his younger brothers are vAyu and agni. The three brothers are the triguNa expression of parameshvara Aditya. And the seven sons are the seven solar rays.

This parameshvara is brahmA, the seed of aditi (i.e. of brahma).

2. [taijasa] They yoke the seven to the one-wheeled chariot; and the single courser named Seven draws it. Three-naved is the wheel, sound and undecaying, whereon all these worlds of being are resting.

3. [prAjña] The seven who are mounted on the seven-wheeled chariot are the seven horses who draw it onward. Seven sisters ride in it together, in whom the names of the seven rays are treasured.

4. [turya] Who hath beheld him (i.e. brahmA) as he sprang to being, seen how the boneless one (i.e. mAyA or brahmA) supports the bony (i.e. vishva or manifest creation)? Where is the blood of earth, the life, the spirit? Who may approach the man who knows (i.e. nara or brahma) to ask it?

turya = brahma = aditi = parjanya = brahmayoni = dyauSpitR = ajapati
turIya = brahmA = Aditya = soma = brahmabIja = dyAvApRthivI = prajApati

sarabhanga
03 September 2007, 03:09 AM
19. [1] Those that come hitherward they call departing, those that depart they call directed hither.
And what so ye have made, Indra and Soma, steeds bear along the worlds yoked as a twain.

20. [2] Two birds with fair wings, knit with bonds of friendship, in the same sheltering tree have found a refuge.
One of the twain eats the sweet fig; the other abstaining, only looks on.

21. [3] Where those fine birds hymn ceaselessly their portion of life eternal, and the sacred synods,
There is the universe’s mighty keeper, who, wise, hath entered into me the simple.

22. [4] The, tree whereon the fine birds eat the sweetness, where they all rest and procreate their offspring;
Upon its top they say the fig is luscious: none gaineth it who knoweth not the Father.

dyauSpitR = nara = hara = rudra = namaHshivAya

13. [4] Upon this five-spoked wheel revolving ever, all living creatures rest and are dependent.
Its axle, heavy-laden, is not heated: the nave from ancient time remains unbroken.

sarabhanga
03 September 2007, 03:55 AM
gaurIrmimAya salilAni takshatyekapadI dvipadI sA catuSpadI |
aSTApadI navapadI babhUvuSI sahasrAksharA parame vyoman || 1.164.41 ||

Forming the waters, the buffalo hath lowed, one-footed or two-footed or four-footed, she, who hath become eight-footed or hath got nine feet, the thousand-syllabled in the highest heaven.

sahasrAksharA (the thousand-syllabled) parame vyoman (in the highest heaven).

The reference is to the sahasrAksharA in the hRdayAkAsha ~ NOT “the hRdaya beyond the sahasrAra”. :rolleyes:

atanu
04 September 2007, 02:28 AM
Namaste Madhavan (and Atanu)

I have said nothing here of “churning up the nadis so that the kundalini may go up the sushumna”. And this whole discussion has been an enquiry into the nature of Self, particularly expressed as variations on “knowing” or the various states of Self-Consciousness.
Does sahasrAra cakra necessarily assume the existence of a mortal body? I don’t think any turIyAtIta would agree with this assumption!
------
The “Heart of the Self” is in the sahasrAra cakra (and vice versa).
sahasrAra = turya = paramashiva = brahma = brahmayoni = [M]
AjñA = turIya = shambhu = brahmA = brahmabIja = AUM
-------And now there is demand for the insertion of yet another “beyond the beyond”.


Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

There is no demand for 'beyond' the beyond. Beyond is one. There are pancha Brahmans, each representing the highest commonality beneath some diversity. For example, commonality beneath all diverse speech is the mind – Soma. Behind the mind is the one aham “I”. Beneath the aham “I”, is parabrahman – the Self.

You say that Sahararara need not be known in reference to the body. In that case, I concur with you and all argument stops.

But the fact remains that traditionally sahasrarara is known in reference to other chakras imagined as located in the body, and as made of petals etc.. And although, saharshaakshara is infinite wherein the Lord of the Word, Soma is resident in the wooly highest central point. Param Vyoman. But Soma is also not the goal. Soma has a further reference to Parjanya.

RV 1.164.35 This altar is the uttermost end of the earth; this sacrifice is the navel of the world; this Soma is the fecundating power of the rain-shedding steed; this Brahman is the supreme heaven of (holy) speech.

RV 1.164.41 The sound (of the clouds) has been uttered, fabricating the waters, and being one-footed, two-footed, four-footed, eight-footed, nine-footed, or infinite in the supreme heaven.

RV 9.12 - soma pavamana
4 Far-sighted Soma, Sage and Seer, is worshipped in the central point of heaven, the straining-cloth of wool.

RV 1 HYMN XLIII. Rudra.
7 O Soma set thou upon us the glory of a hundred men, The great renown of mighty chiefs.
---------
9 Soma! head, central point, love these; Soma! Know these as serving thee, Children of thee Immortal, at the highest place of holy law.

Soma is auspicious energy, primordial sacrifice, born of Parjanya.


Book 9 HYMN LXXXII. Soma Pavamana.
3 Parjanya is the Father of the Mighty Bird: on mountains, in earth's centre hath he made his home. The waters too have flowed, the Sisters, to the kine: he meets the pressing-stones at the beloved rite.

4Thou givest pleasure as a wife delights her lord. Listen, O Child of Pajri, for to thee I speak. Amid the holy songs go on that we may live: in time of trouble, Soma, watch thou free from blame.

Scriptures definitely recommend traveling through the path of the Sun (Rudra Hridaya) rather than through the path of the Moon (Soma).


And the following are the teachings of my Guru:

---------------------------
Mr. T. K. S. Iyer, a devotee, was speaking of the chakras Sri Bhagavan said: Atman (the Self) alone is to be realised. Its realisation holds all else in its compass. Sakti, Ganapati; siddhis, etc., are included in it. Those who speak of these have not realised the Atman. Atman is in the heart and is the Heart itself. The manifestation is in the brain. The passage from the heart to the brain might be considered to be through sushumna or a nerve with any other name. The Upanishads say pare leena - meaning that sushumna or such nadis are all comprised in para, i.e., the atma nadi. The yogis say that the current rising up to sahasrara (brain) ends there. That experience is not complete. For jnana, they must come to the Heart. Hridaya (Heart) is the alpha and omega.
---------------------------
D.: What is the Sun marga? What is the Moon marga? Which of them is easier?

M.: Ravi marga (Sun marga) is jnana. Moon marga is Yoga. They think that after purifying the 72,000 nadis in the body, sushumna is entered and the mind passes up to the sahasrara and there is nectar trickling. These are all mental concepts. The man is already overwhelmed by world concepts. Other concepts are now added in the shape of this Yoga. The object of all these is to rid the man of concepts and to make him inhere as the pure Self - i.e., absolute consciousness, bereft of thoughts! Why not go straight to it? Why add new encumbrances to the already existing ones?
---------------------------

Henceforth, I am not going to argue on this point, assuming that Sarabhanga ji is not referring to the sahasrara, which is located at the crown but of saharsarara, which is Hridaya and which has no inside and no outside. Here I emphasize, for the last time, that all words that have been used to understand various levels of Pragnya are mere words, which have their origin in mind, which has origin in ego called “I”, which has its origin in the Self. Self is closest to one. Words are somewhat distant.


Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
04 September 2007, 03:04 AM
Self is closest to one. Words are later and somewhat distant and complicated to say the least (especially as below).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sahasrAra = turya = paramashiva = brahma = brahmayoni = [M]
------------------------

turya = prajñA = sahasrAra = paramashiva = M
turIya = prAjñA = AjñA = shambhu = AUM
turIyAtIta = prAjña = vishuddha = sadAshiva = haM
taijasa = ajña = anAhata = IshAna = yaM
vaishvAnara = AjñA = maNipUra = rudra = raM
--------------------------

turya = prajñA = Ishana = sadAshiva.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now sadAshiva = Turya or turIyAtIta or turIya or prAjña or prajñA ?

Ultimately it is simple to understand that sadAshiva is paramashiva, but why touch the ear from behind? To me, Pragnya is One and without hierarchy, it is the first station of shivoadvaitaatma. It is Sarvasyayonim -- the progenitor of all and Sarvesvara -- Ishwara of all.

Ishwara of the highest Self must be His own Pragnya.

Om Namah Shivaya

sarabhanga
04 September 2007, 06:03 AM
Namaste Atanu,


I. turya = prajñA = IshAna = sadAshiva.

II. turIya = prAjñA = tatpuruSa = umAvaktra.

III. turIyAtIta = prAjña = aghora = nandivaktra.

IIII. taijasa = ajña = vAmadeva = bhairava.

V. vaishvAnara = AjñA = sadyojAta = mahAdeva.

The pañca IS the highest commonality!

But, returning to the familiar fourfold plan (and not mentioning the unmentionable aghora) we have:


I. turya = prajñA = IshAna = sadAshiva.

II. prAjña = turIyAtIta = tatpuruSa = umAvaktra.

III. taijasa = ajña = vAmadeva = bhairava.

IIII. vaishvAnara = AjñA = sadyojAta = mahAdeva.

And expanding the equation again, to reveal the SaTcakra:


I. prajñA = sahasrAra = paramashiva = M

II. prAjñA = AjñA = shambhu = AUM

III. prAjña = vishuddha = sadAshiva = haM

IIII. ajña = anAhata = IshAna = yaM

V. AjñA = maNipUra = rudra = raM

VI. ajñA = svAdhiSThAna = viSNu = vaM

VII. jña = mUlAdhAra = brahmA = laM

All of this expansion has only arisen to satisfy apparent objections, and yes, different names have appeared in different contexts, but I have attempted to reconcile all of these various systems in one simple matrix.

The main point of my discussion, however, has always been this:


I. brahma = pañcamukha = parabrahman = parjanya = “[ I ] am” = nirguNa = ekapAda = brahmayoni

II. brahmA = caturmukha = brahman = soma = “I am” = saguNa = tripAda = brahmabIja

I have related the prajñA of turya with the indiscriminate wisdom of sahasrAra, and the prAjñA of turIya with the wisely discriminating intelligence of AjñA. The “thousand rays” remain uncounted (i.e. infinite) and effectively advaita (as absolute illumination), while the two rays of AjñA are decisively dvaita (as brightness and darkness). And all sense of dvaita is extinguished when consciousness is raised beyond the limits of AjñA cakra.

The dakshiNAyaNa (the southern path to yama) follows pitRyajña and pitRyANa and pravRtti mArga in an eternal cycle of consciousness that oscillates between the AjñA of maNipUra and the prAjñA of AjñA.

The uttarAyaNa (the northern path to rudra) follows brahmayajña and brahmAyaNa and nivRtti mArga in a direct ascent of consciousness to the immortal prajñA of sahasrAra.

The “northern path” IS the path of the sun, which goes straight to the hRdayAkAsha (the very heart of rudra), and the “southern path” is more concerned with the wealth and power of hiraNyagarbha and soma.

Just as hRdaya does not particularly refer to the physical heart, sahasrAra does NOT particularly refer to the physical brain! And (again) I have said nothing of “nadis”, only speaking of AtmajñAna.

jñAna is the method and aim of the nivRtti mArga, and I have ONLY been speaking of this jñAna yoga!




Henceforth, I am not going to argue on this point. Here I emphasize for the last time that all words that have been used to understand various levels of Pragnya are mere words.

Then perhaps any discussion of prajñA (“wisdom”) or jñAna (“knowledge”) is impossible with one who holds such an untouchable attitude (?)

The Self of brahmA assumes ego, while the Self of brahma is the eternal “[ I ] am” (pure existence, beyond any conception of ego).

How can the idea of ultimate Self possibly be expressed more perfectly than an implied but unspoken “[ I ]” ?

This discussion, however, has been an attempt to explain and reconcile the diverse terminology that has arisen in discourse on the perfect “[ I ]”, and in the process (hopefully) to clarify the nature of God and to illuminate the path to realization of this God-head.

I am truly at a loss as to where we have any disagreement, since nothing you have said disagrees with the basic equations that I have repeatedly given.


I. brahma = pañcamukha = parabrahman = parjanya = “[ I ] am” = nirguNa = ekapAda = brahmayoni

II. brahmA = caturmukha = brahman = soma = “I am” = saguNa = tripAda = brahmabIja



I. brahma = sahasrAkshara = sahasrAra = hRdayAkAsha

II. brahmA = akshara = AjñA = AkAsha

sarabhanga
04 September 2007, 07:18 AM
Namaste Atanu,

When the “head” of pañcabrahma vidyA is confounded with the “heart” of SaTcakra vidyA, we find:

eka = catur
prajñA = ajña
sahasrAra = anAhata
IshAna = sadAshiva

Which seems to accord with your Guru’s teaching (?)

atanu
04 September 2007, 10:52 PM
When the “head” of pañcabrahma vidyA is confounded with the “heart” of SaTcakra vidyA, we find:
eka = catur
prajñA = ajña
sahasrAra = anAhata
IshAna = sadAshiva
Which seems to accord with your Guru’s teaching (?)

Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

Yes, the head is confounded till it knows that it needs to be still. EKO is Two (when shakti is separated). Eko is three. Eko is four. Eko is pancha (panch kosha). Or Eko is sahsrapat. All this happens when Soma flows and Gaurimimaye. My Guru only emphasises that theories of creation all vary. Theories of truth all vary. There will never be ONE THEORY.

But the truth is ONE Self.

'Panchbrahman' is apparent in the realm of waking and dreaming states only. In Shushupti there is no 'Panchabrahman'. In shushupti one Brahman is with ignorance and in Turya only the Brahman.

When Soma flows the heaven, the earth, the Sun, the Moon, Agni, Indra and Vishnu are born and they partake in joy of Soma. Jivas however seem to moan. When Soma is still -- sthanu, santam, mauna ----- the eko Rudra is known and Jiva is Shiva. And all worship is worship of Soma.

-------------------------
Book 9 HYMN II. Soma Pavamana.
10 Winner of kine, Indu, art thou, winner of heroes, steeds, and strength; Primeval Soul of sacrifice.
--------------------------
Book 9. HYMN LX. Soma Pavamana.

1. SING forth and laud with sacred song most active Pavamana, laud Indu who sees with thousand eyes.
2 Thee who hast thousand eyes to see, bearer of thousand burthens, they Have filtered through the fleecy cloth.
----------------------------------------
Book 9 1. HYMN XCI Soma.
1. Thou, Soma, art preeminent for wisdom; along the straightest path thou art our leader. Our wise forefathers by thy guidance, Indu, dealt out among the Gods their share of treasure.
-----
5 Thou, Soma, art the Lord of heroes, King, yea, Vrtra-slayer thou: Thou art auspicious energy.
-----
22 These herbs, these milch-kine, and these running waters, all these, O Soma, thou hast generated. The spacious firmament bast thou expanded, and with the light thou hast dispelled the darkness.
---------------------------------
Book 9 RV Book 9 HYMN XCVI. Soma Pavamana
5 Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward the Father of the earth, Father of heaven: Father of Agni, Surya's generator, the Father who begat Indra and Visnu.

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

When Soma flows the heaven, the earth, the Sun, the Moon, Agni, Indra and Vishnu are born and they partake in joy of Soma. Jivas however seem to moan.

When Soma is still -- sthanu, santam, mauna ----- the eko Rudra is known and Jiva is Shiva.

And all worship is worship of Soma.

--------------------------
YV iii. 1. 10.
g ---- he returns, and with a verse addressed to Visnu reverences Soma;

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



That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.


Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
04 September 2007, 11:21 PM
Namaste Atanu,
The main point of my discussion, however, has always been this:
I. brahma = pañcamukha = parabrahman = parjanya = “[ I ] am” = nirguNa = ekapAda = brahmayoni
II. brahmA = caturmukha = brahman = soma = “I am” = saguNa = tripAda = brahmabIja


Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

The above has always been correct except for a single weakness. I do not think that there is any parallel second equation. And in fact Soma is both Brahman and Prajapati BrahmA, similar as the Self is Soma, Brahman and BrahmA.


--------





Henceforth, I am not going to argue on this point. Here I emphasize for the last time that all words that have been used to understand various levels of Pragnya are mere words


Then perhaps any discussion of prajñA (“wisdom”) or jñAna (“knowledge”) is impossible with one who holds such an untouchable attitude (?)


What is quoted above is not full of what I said, which is as below:



Originally posted by Atanu:

Henceforth, I am not going to argue on this point, assuming that Sarabhanga ji is not referring to the sahasrara, which is located at the crown but of saharsarara, which is Hridaya and which has no inside and no outside.


I do not feel that there is any untouchability intended in above !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In fact there is ground for common understanding (And that is my point. Word, has great potential bothways).

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
04 September 2007, 11:37 PM
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

sarabhanga
05 September 2007, 04:42 AM
The turya is first, and remains always one, undivided.

The turIya is second, and undergoes self division ~ 2/2 or 3/3 or 7/7 (etc.).

The creative formula is “1/1 divided by 3/3 remains equal to 1”.

God is eternally unified, and yet always triple in expression ~ and 1 + 3 = 4.

And in ajAtivAda, only the turya exists as an intrinsic eternal verity.



brahman exists.

brahman is unborn and eternal.

brahman is one, alone, but apparently twain (as yama).

There is nothing beyond brahma (the parabrahman or brahmayoni).


brahma = pañcamukha = parabrahman = aditi = “[ I ] am” = ekapAda = brahmayoni = sahasrAkshara = hRdayAkAsha
brahmA = caturmukha = brahman = Aditya = “I am” = tripAda = brahmabIja= akshara = AkAsha


So let us consider the apparent divergence of brahma and brahmA:


brahmA from brahma = a
Aditya from aditi = aa or aya

In brahmA there is motivation and active breath, while in brahma everything is silent and fixed.


caturmukha from pañcamukha = ekamukha
tripAda from ekapAda = dvipAda

brahmA appears with one face and two legs (i.e. in the image of man), while brahma remains indescribable.


brahman from parabrahman = para
akshara from sahasrAkshara = sahasra

brahma is exceeding and infinite, while brahmA is limited and finite.


I am from [ I ] am = [ ]

brahma is known only by implication, whereas brahmA is explicit.


bIja from yoni = nirRti

brahma is remains unbounded and sterile, while brahmA is ever fertile and repeatedly divided.


AkAsha from hRdayAkAsha = hRdaya

brahmA is the mortal frame, while brahma is the immortal heart.

Nuno Matos
05 September 2007, 05:13 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga

I want to say that i really appreciate and find great use and knowledge on your post's.
Keep on you are a must on this forum and one of the great soul's on it.
thank you!:)

sarabhanga
05 September 2007, 05:25 AM
I do not think that there is any parallel second equation.

Do you think that brahma and brahmA are absolutely identical?

In which case, there is no conception of number, dimension, time, gender, or cause and effect, nor any discrimination of manifestation or non-manifestation.

Or do you think that brahmA simply does not exist?

In which case, there is no conception at all!

In either case, if that is truly what you think, then you are indeed a saint of the highest order.

:bowdown:

atanu
05 September 2007, 06:13 AM
Do you think that brahma and brahmA are absolutely identical?

In which case, there is no conception of number, dimension, time, gender, or cause and effect, nor any discrimination of manifestation or non-manifestation.

Or do you think that brahmA simply does not exist?

In which case, there is no conception at all!

In either case, if that is truly what you think, then you are indeed a saint of the highest order.

:bowdown:

Namaste,



brahma = pañcamukha = parabrahman = ----
brahmA = caturmukha = brahman = Aditya ----


Namaste Sarabhanga ji,

Assuming positivity.

No saint. atanu (spirit) it is, dear sarabhanga ji -- surely you comprehend it. Conception is always in atanu --surely you comprehend it.

If you believe in something that something will surely come true, since consciousness only believes and by its unlimited power, its beliefs are concieved sooner or later. That is why Shankara teaches that a jnana seeker must first separate out the eternal from the transitory by discrimination.


Any one who has entered into silence, while investigating the nature of I that emanates from somewhere, will know all forms to be modifications (conditioning) of unlimited Pragnya alone, including BrahmA, the form filled unlimited mind (the universe).

It is true that the simple is unappealing. And it is also true that holding on to I --- which if not held on to, goes out sprouting branches and fruits --- is unappealing, since it is apparently tedious and fruitless. But it is well to remember that abidance in Self cannot happen bypassing the ever Pratyaksha I. It is well to comprehend that there is no world if there is no I -- the Seer. Conception of number, dimension, form, and concepts etc. would not have risen in the absence of the Seer. Concepts would not arise in absence of the thinker. It is well to seek the Thinker and the Seer, in that order.

It is well to remember that the third person owes its existence to the first person. Who will tell how the boneless gives rise to the bony? All other questions will finally lead to this question. Why not solve it, when the question has surfaced?

Why act like a pigeon who closes its eyes and says "There is no cat"? The question stares at us.


Om Namah Shivaya

Nuno Matos
05 September 2007, 06:43 PM
Namaste Sarahbanga

"brahmA appears with one face and two legs (i.e. in the image of man), while brahma remains indescribable."

It appears to me that brahmA as you are exposing it works as some sort of "meta-concept". In that case you can say that brahmA and Ishvara are the same thing, god; which is form the Self ( brahma ) but different for the purpose of consciousness. Be it towards the Self (nivriti), be it towards the world ( pritivi ). This "self" is every were.
In that way brahmA is Shiva ( the monistic ishvara ), brahma param-shiva the all encompassing one to be realized the I[am] or simply "am"; and brahmA is shackti in it's infinite multitude of possible forms as in the "I am" standing alone in the three worlds.
So is it correct to say that BrahmA=Saguna Brahman=Ishvara and Brahma=Nirguna Brahman=Turya? :o

Madhavan
06 September 2007, 03:14 AM
Namaste All,

Thanks for the nice replies...



avidya is removed only in samAdhi, but for so long as the jIva remains attached to a mortal
body, mAyA (and thus avidya) yet remains ~ and this is kramamukti (the first stage of
mukti).
The uttarAyaNa goes via kramamukti (where the nectar has been tasted) to sadyomukti (where
there is only nectar). Where does shrI shaÑkarAcArya say that the uttarAyaNa path does not
lead to advaita?


In Krama mukti, the 'soul' is supposed to be free from the wheel of life and death, and in an evolved state of conciousness until final liberation is attained. Those who attain sadyomukti do not go through krama mukti. So I do not understand what you mean by 'the first stage of mukti'.
-------------------
Krama mukti is explained by passages such as...
evamevaisa samprasadoasmaa sarirat samuttaya paramjyothirupasampadya svenarupena
abhinishpadyate.( Ch Up 8.12.2)
sa kalevam vartayan yavadayusam brahmalokam abhisampadhyathe na cha punaravartathe ( Ch up
8.15.1)
which mean the individual soul when its shed off its mortal coil reaches the brahman and
attains its true form. He who reaches brahma loka does not return to the world.
so asnute sarvan kaman saha brahmana vipaschiteti ( Tait Up 1.2)
which shows the jeeva enjoys brahman together with all its auspicious attributes.
--------------------
Sadyo mukti is explained only by verses proclaiming absolute identity with brahman ( and not as saha brahmana vipaschiteti) and can be achieved right here in this world. The difference between krama mukti and sadyo mukti is in the way the liberation is effected:

In krama mukti, the soul breaks off all fetters of worldly existance, attains the consciousness of Brahman ( in various degrees) and after several kalpas of existance in the company of Brahma ( in which avidya is completely destroyed), the soul merges in Brahman, along with Brahmadeva. In sadyo mukti, such gradual ascendence to liberation is not there. One could be born as an ordinary person in this world, and under right circumstances( like getting right guru and perfoming the right sAdhana), he could be completely liberated here itself without ever going to the high heavens.

The uttarAyaNa describes the process of attaining the company of Brahman, and not directly becoming discarnate. In uttarAyaNa, both gross and subtle bodies are destroyed, but the causal body is intact. daxiNayana is that path that is obtained by works, namely sacrifices and good conduct. It is a place of return back to mundane existance. uttarAyaNa is obtained by saguna meditation and devotion, and it is a state of no return to mundane existance. Advaita is attained by realizing oneself as the limitless spirit, even beyond the causal body. All these three are rather distinct paths...but uttarAyaNa leads to Advaita after a long time spent in the company of Brahma while daxiNAyana does not.

Why three paths described by scripture, instead of one shoe fits all?

Most people are worldly in most respects, and for them is recomended the daxiNAyana - perform atleast good actions and atleast sometime in life godward, so that when you are reborn you will be born in better circumstances.

There are others, who are desireless and extremely devoted to God, and want to enjoy his glory as the ruler of the vast universe, and spend all their lives meditating on the Saguna Brahman with love. Such people do not want to attain Advaita and reject the very idealogy. For them, is prescribed the path of uttarAyaNa, in which God is realized as the limitless ruler of this universe. Such a state also confers on the individual freedom from rebirth, a very exalted state of consciousness and bliss that is on par with Brahman. These souls will be confered the advaita jnAna in due course by God.

There are yet others, who are desireless and even beyond the desire to enjoy an exalted individual existance in the company of God. They seek the "I" at the source, and attain the Advaita consciousness right here on earth, without going up gradually. This is beyond daxiNAyana or uttarAyana.

sarabhanga
06 September 2007, 04:44 AM
Namaste Nuno,

Ishvara is “able to do”, indicating “the master, lord, king or queen”, and especially “God” or “the Supreme Being”.

Ishvara is synonymous with Atman, and shiva, and rudra, and kAma, and the number eleven.

Ishvara is present in the hRdaya.

Only saguNa brahmA is “able to do”, being always associated with shakti.

The nirguNa brahma is the one rudra, while the Ishvara is one of the eleven rudrA (i.e. saguNa brahmA).

Ishvara is the Aditya ~ the beloved turIya saguNa brahmA rather than the remote turya nirguNa brahma.

Madhavan
06 September 2007, 04:53 AM
Do you think that brahma and brahmA are absolutely identical?

In which case, there is no conception of number, dimension, time, gender, or cause and effect, nor any discrimination of manifestation or non-manifestation.

Or do you think that brahmA simply does not exist?

In which case, there is no conception at all!

In either case, if that is truly what you think, then you are indeed a saint of the highest order.

:bowdown:

brahma(Shiva) in motion is brahmA(shakti) - this is jiva's perspective

brahmA at rest is brahma - this is jnAni perspective.

jiva cannot understand the perspective of the jnAni, but the jnAni can also understand the perspective of the jIva. That means jnAni always has a conception of the universe, though he understands that it does not have an independent existance apart from the self. The jnAni sees all dualty thru the lens of non dualty and knows dualty for what its true worth is...as spandanam (vibration) of the self.

The jnAni certainly sees the world though he sees it from the centre of being( not as a localised ego) , and not apart(different) from himself.

sarabhanga
06 September 2007, 06:19 AM
Namaste Madhavan,

avidya is removed only in samAdhi, but for so long as the jIva remains attached to a mortal body, until then this is kramamukti (the first stage of mukti).

The uttarAyaNa goes via kramamukti (where identity with the turya has been experienced in samAdhi, and the sAdhu remains as a turIyAtIta) to sadyomukti (where the turIyAtIta is finally dissolved into the turya).

krama indicates “a step” or “a stage”, and kramamukti is the staging post for final liberation.

sadyomukti is the “immediate liberation” of mahAsamAdhi, which (for the mortal body) effectively means “sudden death”.

The uttarAyaNa path goes to advaita brahma (with no return), while the dakshiNAyaNa path goes to dvaita brahmA (returning again and again).

Yes there are [only] two paths you can go by, but in the long run,
There’s still time to change the road you’re on.

Christianity (following its advaita roots) assumes uttarAyaNa and denies that there is any return, and the repeated descent of dakshiNAyaNa is interpreted as the pathway to Hell.

dvaitavAda is entirely ignorant of the brahmA-brahma twin, which Christians remember as the expulsion of Satan (i.e. rudra or nirRti) from Heaven.

sarabhanga
06 September 2007, 07:19 AM
prajñA = sahasrAra = brahma = shani

prAjñA = AjñA = shambhu = guru

prAjña = vishuddha = sadAshiva = soma

ajña = anAhata = IshAna = sUrya

AjñA = maNipUra = rudra = maÑgala

ajñA = svAdhiSThAna = viSNu = shukra

jña = mUlAdhAra = brahmA = budha

atanu
06 September 2007, 07:50 AM
Namaste Sarahbanga

"brahmA appears with one face and two legs (i.e. in the image of man), while brahma remains indescribable."

It appears to me that brahmA as you are exposing it works as some sort of "meta-concept". In that case you can say that brahmA and Ishvara are the same thing, god; which is form the Self ( brahma ) but different for the purpose of consciousness. Be it towards the Self (nivriti), be it towards the world ( pritivi ). This "self" is every were.
In that way brahmA is Shiva ( the monistic ishvara ), brahma param-shiva the all encompassing one to be realized the I[am] or simply "am"; and brahmA is shackti in it's infinite multitude of possible forms as in the "I am" standing alone in the three worlds.
So is it correct to say that BrahmA=Saguna Brahman=Ishvara and Brahma=Nirguna Brahman=Turya? :o



Namaste Nuno,

Ishwara is all-powerful, omniscient, all pervading - mahesvara. Brahman viewed from ignorance is Ishwara.

BrahmA on the other hand is the creative ego aspect of the nature of the Self and that aspect (along with the maintaining and the dissolving aspects) functions in Jiva. One of these three aspects gains dominance at different times when the other two aspects are shown as defeated.

Prajapati the primordial mind is all -- the creator, the maintainer, and the destroyer. But in reality, for a jnani, there is no separate mind and thus no separate creator etc.

Ishwara, however, is never defeated by a second. It is the master of the mind. For a jnani, Ishwara is Brahman.

Regards,

Om

Madhavan
06 September 2007, 08:51 AM
Namaste Madhavan,

avidya is removed only in samAdhi, but for so long as the jIva remains attached to a mortal body, until then this is kramamukti (the first stage of mukti).

The uttarAyaNa goes via kramamukti (where identity with the turya has been experienced in samAdhi, and the sAdhu remains as a turIyAtIta) to sadyomukti (where the turIyAtIta is finally dissolved into the turya).

krama indicates “a step” or “a stage”, and kramamukti is the staging post for final liberation.

sadyomukti is the “immediate liberation” of mahAsamAdhi, which (for the mortal body) effectively means “sudden death”.

The uttarAyaNa path goes to advaita brahma (with no return), while the dakshiNAyaNa path goes to dvaita brahmA (returning again and again).

Yes there are [only] two paths you can go by, but in the long run,
There’s still time to change the road you’re on.

Christianity (following its advaita roots) assumes uttarAyaNa and denies that there is any return, and the repeated descent of dakshiNAyaNa is interpreted as the pathway to Hell.

dvaitavAda is entirely ignorant of the brahmA-brahma twin, which Christians remember as the expulsion of Satan (i.e. rudra or nirRti) from Heaven.

Let us look at the last adhyAya of brahmasutra for an answer:

According to Shankara, these passages describe the fate of liberated souls who attain the Sabdha Brahman, ie dvaita brahma acording to you.

The last five sutras(4.4.17-4.4.22) are

Jagadvyaparavarjam prakaranadasannihitattvaccha

This sutra rules out any liberated soul from special privileges attributed only to Ishvara - implying multiplicity in this kind of liberation


Pratyakshopadesaditi chennadhikarikamandalasthokteh
Vikaravarti cha tatha hi sthitimaha

The liberated souls are dependent on the Lord for existance and are not unlimited in every sense.


Darsayataschaivam pratyakshanumane


Bhogamatrasamyalingaccha

The liberated soul is equal to Brahman only in matters of enjoyment; and this is param padam; This is the case of liberation where multiplicity still exists.


Anavrittih sabdadanavrittih sabdat


This Sutra says that those who go to Brahmaloka by the path
of the gods do not return from there. Because scriptural passages teach that they do not so return.

Those who to Saguna Brahman do not return to this world - this is devayAna. In pitryAna(daxiNAyana), the soul does not go to Brahma Loka, but only lower heavens like bhuva, suva etc, therefore returns back to bondage. True advaitic teaching relegates both devayAna and daxiNAyana to be inferior to Advaitic liberation, where the jnAni becomes unlimited and one without a second, unlike the state described by the final passages of the vedanta sutras where there is only partial equality attained with the Saguna Brahman.

The immediate goal of daxiNAyana is the attainment of svarga presided over by Lord Yama, and return back to worldly existance.

The immediate goal of uttarAyaNa is the attainment of Brahma Loka gradually through mahar, jana and tapo lokas, that is why it is called krama mukti. From Brahma Loka, advaitic liberation is attained at a later time.

The goal of sadyo mukti is to be directly absorbed in the Self here and now upon death by realizing the truth of the mahAvAkyas. without necessarily going through the gradual ascending process.

I think you have a different view of these concepts, but this is the view you can get from Shankara's works.

For example, I have mentioned below Shankara's interpretation for BG 8.24:


Fire-is a deity presiding over a period of time; similarly,light-also is a deity presiding over a period of time. Or fire and light are the well-known Vedic deities. As the expression 'mango grove' is used with regard to a place where mango trees are more numerous, similarly, the expressions 'at which time' and 'that time' (in the earlier verse) are used in view of the predominance (of the deities presiding over time). [If the first two (fire and light) are taken as Vedic deities, then the remaining three are the only deities of time. Still, the latter being numerically greater, all the five deities are referred to as deities of time. The deities of both the Paths-of gods and manes, or of the Northern and the Southern Paths as they are called-who are gods of time, are referred to here as 'time' by such words as day, fortnight, six months, etc.]. So also, daytime, means the deity of daytime. Suklah, the bright fortnight, implies the deity presiding over the bright fortnight. Sanmasah uttarayanam, the six months of the Northern solstice-here, too, is understood the deity presiding over the Path. This is the principle (of interpretation followed elsewhere (in the Upanisads also). following this Path, persons who are brahma-vidah, knowers of
Brahman, those engaged in meditation on (the qualified) Brahman;
gattain Brahman when they die. It is understood that they attain Brahman through stages. Indeed, according to the Upanisadic text, 'His vital forces do not depart' (Br. 4.4.46), there is neither going nor coming back for those established in full realization, who are fit for immediate Liberation. Having their organs merged in Brahman, they are suffused with Brahman, they are verily identified with Brahman.

A summary of what Shankara says is:

Those who meditate on the Saguna Brahman, and become brahmavid( of Saguna Brahman) go through the path of gods upon death, and
they attain Nirguna Brahman in stages, after their physical death. The difference from sadyo mukti is that, the brahmavid( of Nirguna Brahman) is completely absorbed upon death without going in stages.
So the knowers of Saguna Brahman, after death 'live' with Brahman( see Tait 1.2) without returning to the world, while the knowers of Nirguna Brahman attain completely identity with Brahman upon death.

daxiNAyana need not always deal with Brahman(saguna or nirguna) at all, and even atheists who have performed good deeds in their lives will go to heaven upon death and return. Also, it is to be noted that for a sage completely realized in the Self, dying during particular seasons, phases of the moon and daytime are not significant, while uttarAyaNa is specific about death times, indicating it is not kAlAtIta.

Madhavan
06 September 2007, 09:06 AM
Please read this:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/1999-September/011588.html

yajvan
06 September 2007, 10:10 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Let us look at the last adhyAya of brahmasutra for an answer:

According to Shankara, these passages describe the fate of liberated souls who attain the Sabdha Brahman, ie dvaita brahma acording to you.

A summary of what Shankara says is:

Those who meditate on the Saguna Brahman, and become brahmavid( of Saguna Brahman) go through the path of gods upon death, and
they attain Nirguna Brahman in stages, after their physical death. .

Namste Madhavan
Yes I have studied this for some time... an intersting set of knoweldge. Sivananda-ji has also commented on this matter. Being part of Shankara's parampara, his wisdom aligns 100% with Adi Shankara's.

Sivianda-ji does give some offers for meditations on Niguna Brahman - these vidya's are quite profound - if we have an appetite for some of these, perhaps we can outline one or two? If you have knowledge of these , please do not hesitate to offer them. If not, I will be happy to post one or two... to post more and assume comprehension will infer or boast one is not a fool ( that would be me)... Perhaps a new string on this will be in order.

Pranams,

atanu
07 September 2007, 07:39 AM
Let us look at the last adhyAya of brahmasutra for an answer:
According to Shankara, these passages describe the fate of liberated souls who attain the Sabdha Brahman, ie dvaita brahma acording to you.
The last five sutras(4.4.17-4.4.22) are

Jagadvyaparavarjam prakaranadasannihitattvaccha
This sutra rules out any liberated soul from special privileges attributed only to Ishvara - implying multiplicity in this kind of liberation

Pratyakshopadesaditi chennadhikarikamandalasthokteh
Vikaravarti cha tatha hi sthitimaha
The liberated souls are dependent on the Lord for existance and are not unlimited in every sense.

Darsayataschaivam pratyakshanumane
Bhogamatrasamyalingaccha
The liberated soul is equal to Brahman only in matters of enjoyment; and this is param padam; This is the case of liberation where multiplicity still exists.

Anavrittih sabdadanavrittih sabdat
This Sutra says that those who go to Brahmaloka by the path

of the gods do not return from there. Because scriptural passages teach that they do not so return.


Those who to Saguna Brahman do not return to this world - this is devayAna. In pitryAna(daxiNAyana), the soul does not go to Brahma Loka, but only lower heavens like bhuva, suva etc, therefore returns back to bondage. True advaitic teaching relegates both devayAna and daxiNAyana to be inferior to Advaitic liberation, where the jnAni becomes unlimited and one without a second, unlike the state described by the final passages of the vedanta sutras where there is only partial equality attained with the Saguna Brahman.

The immediate goal of daxiNAyana is the attainment of svarga presided over by Lord Yama, and return back to worldly existance.

The immediate goal of uttarAyaNa is the attainment of Brahma Loka gradually through mahar, jana and tapo lokas, that is why it is called krama mukti. From Brahma Loka, advaitic liberation is attained at a later time.

The goal of sadyo mukti is to be directly absorbed in the Self here and now upon death by realizing the truth of the mahAvAkyas. without necessarily going through the gradual ascending process.

I think you have a different view of these concepts, but this is the view you can get from Shankara's works.
----
A summary of what Shankara says is:

Those who meditate on the Saguna Brahman, and become brahmavid (of Saguna Brahman) go through the path of gods upon death, and
they attain Nirguna Brahman in stages, after their physical death. The difference from sadyo mukti is that, the brahmavid( of Nirguna Brahman) is completely absorbed upon death without going in stages.
So the knowers of Saguna Brahman, after death 'live' with Brahman( see Tait 1.2) without returning to the world, while the knowers of Nirguna Brahman attain completely identity with Brahman upon death.

daxiNAyana need not always deal with Brahman(saguna or nirguna) at all, and even atheists who have performed good deeds in their lives will go to heaven upon death and return. Also, it is to be noted that for a sage completely realized in the Self, dying during particular seasons, phases of the moon and daytime are not significant, while uttarAyaNa is specific about death times, indicating it is not kAlAtIta.


Namaste,

Thre are several points raised in the above post. First, I cannot find the purports cited herein as those of Shankara.

Second, Shankara Bhasya, as understood from 2nd hand translations are themselves very complicated. And these purports with respect to the Adhaya IV seem to go against Shankara very easily.

I cite the verses in question from Advaita Vedanta Library below and I place my understanding (apparently independent but alligned fully with Shankara's Advaita philosophy).

Brahma Sutras

SECTION - IV

Topic-1: Nature of Freedom

1. Having reached the “highest Light”, the soul becomes manifest in its own real nature because of the use of the term “in its own” (in the Upanishad).
2. The soul then attains liberation, that being the (Upanishadic) declaration.
-----

Topic-2: Liberated Soul Inseparable from Brahman

4. In liberation the soul exists in a state of inseparableness from the supreme Self, for so it is noticed in the Upanishad.

----
Topic-4: Fulfilment of Desire through Will
----
9. And for that very reason (a man of knowledge has) no other lord (to rule over him).
----
Topic-7: Acquisition of Divine Powers

17. The released soul gets all the divine powers except that of running the universe (with its creation, continuance and dissolution), as is known from the context (which deals with God) and from the non-proximity (of the individual soul).
18. If it be held (that the powers of the liberated soul are unlimited) owing to direct scriptural declaration, then it is not so, since it is (the attainment) of Him, who appoints others as lords of the spheres and resides in those spheres that is spoken of (in the Upanishad).
19. And there is another form of the supreme Lord that does not abide in the effect, for so has the Upanishad declared.
20. And both the Upanishadic and Smriti texts show thus (that the supreme Light is beyond all changing things).
21. Also from the indicatory mark in the Upanishads about the equality of experience alone (it is known that the liberated souls do not get unfettered powers).
22. There is no return for the released souls on the strength of the Upanishadic declaration; there is no return for the released souls on the strength of the Upanishadic declaration.


My understanding:

The liberation throughout the Fourth Adhaya refers to the higfhest liberation only, as 'inseparableness' and 'has no other Lord' in the beginning and 'no return' at the end indicate.

That in the last 5-6 verses, Brahma Sutras seems to limit powers of the liberated one's to a secondary status is the view of those who consider the World business as the Supreme power of the Brahman. It is not so. Since 1)only one Feet of Brahman is all beings and the three feet are in heaven; 2) The highest does not abide in objects; and 3) The highest is unchangeable light.

The Supreme power of Brahman is to 1) remain unchanged timelessly in a transcendental state as a seer and also to 2)appoint leaders for relative planes and abide in those planes. If Brahman was really the creator etc., then surely He is the creator of sins also and that is unimaginable. If it is argued, in Dvaita fashion, that He alone is Good and others are sinful, then of what use is the power?

How will a soul which desires to attain the powers of Ishwara ever attain either Ishwara or Brahman, since attainment of Brahman is possible in a desireless mode? Dis-passion is the foremost requirement. One who begins to create becomes a BrahmA and is separated from Brahman. How can any individuality be retained in Brahman, which will make it possible for one to proclaim "I am creator"? The highest Brahman being the partless light, how can a separate creator exist in the same plane? When Brahman is One without a Second, how can a separate creator exist in the same plane?

The verse 4.7.17, indicates to me, that that Mukti is the highest one, which attains oneness with Brahman, who himself is not creator/maintainer/destroyer, but His appointed ones are all powerful world leaders.


As I understand, these verses are the highest in support of Advaita. What is apparent as against Advaita is actually against those who equate glamorous powers and attributes with partless Brahman.

Countless Abheda vakyas of Vedas cannot be thrown away, but more numerous Bheda vakyas can all be explained, by Advaita.

The attributes of Brahman are its essential being and not of Prakriti.


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
07 September 2007, 07:39 AM
Let us look at the last adhyAya of brahmasutra for an answer.


According to Shankara, these passages describe the fate of liberated souls who attain the Sabdha Brahman, ie dvaita brahma acording to you.
The last five sutras(4.4.17-4.4.22) are

Jagadvyaparavarjam prakaranadasannihitattvaccha
This sutra rules out any liberated soul from special privileges attributed only to Ishvara - implying multiplicity in this kind of liberation

Pratyakshopadesaditi chennadhikarikamandalasthokteh
Vikaravarti cha tatha hi sthitimaha
The liberated souls are dependent on the Lord for existance and are not unlimited in every sense.

Darsayataschaivam pratyakshanumane
Bhogamatrasamyalingaccha
The liberated soul is equal to Brahman only in matters of enjoyment; and this is param padam; This is the case of liberation where multiplicity still exists.

Anavrittih sabdadanavrittih sabdat
This Sutra says that those who go to Brahmaloka by the path

of the gods do not return from there. Because scriptural passages teach that they do not so return.

Those who to Saguna Brahman do not return to this world - this is devayAna. In pitryAna(daxiNAyana), the soul does not go to Brahma Loka, but only lower heavens like bhuva, suva etc, therefore returns back to bondage. True advaitic teaching relegates both devayAna and daxiNAyana to be inferior to Advaitic liberation, where the jnAni becomes unlimited and one without a second, unlike the state described by the final passages of the vedanta sutras where there is only partial equality attained with the Saguna Brahman.

The immediate goal of daxiNAyana is the attainment of svarga presided over by Lord Yama, and return back to worldly existance.

The immediate goal of uttarAyaNa is the attainment of Brahma Loka gradually through mahar, jana and tapo lokas, that is why it is called krama mukti. From Brahma Loka, advaitic liberation is attained at a later time.

The goal of sadyo mukti is to be directly absorbed in the Self here and now upon death by realizing the truth of the mahAvAkyas. without necessarily going through the gradual ascending process.

I think you have a different view of these concepts, but this is the view you can get from Shankara's works.
----
A summary of what Shankara says is:

Those who meditate on the Saguna Brahman, and become brahmavid (of Saguna Brahman) go through the path of gods upon death, and they attain Nirguna Brahman in stages, after their physical death. The difference from sadyo mukti is that, the brahmavid( of Nirguna Brahman) is completely absorbed upon death without going in stages.
So the knowers of Saguna Brahman, after death 'live' with Brahman( see Tait 1.2) without returning to the world, while the knowers of Nirguna Brahman attain completely identity with Brahman upon death.

daxiNAyana need not always deal with Brahman(saguna or nirguna) at all, and even atheists who have performed good deeds in their lives will go to heaven upon death and return. Also, it is to be noted that for a sage completely realized in the Self, dying during particular seasons, phases of the moon and daytime are not significant, while uttarAyaNa is specific about death times, indicating it is not kAlAtIta.


Namaste,

Thre are several points raised in the above post. First, I cannot find the translations and the purports cited herein as those of Shankara. Second, Shankara Bhasya, as understood from 2nd hand translations are themselves very complicated. And these purports with respect to the Adhaya IV seem to go against Shankara very easily.

I cite the verses in question from Advaita Vedanta Library below and I place my understanding (apparently independent but alligned fully with Shankara's Advaita philosophy).

-----------------
Brahma Sutras

SECTION - IV
Topic-1: Nature of Freedom
1. Having reached the “highest Light”, the soul becomes manifest in its own real nature because of the use of the term “in its own” (in the Upanishad).
2. The soul then attains liberation, that being the (Upanishadic) declaration.
-----
Topic-2: Liberated Soul Inseparable from Brahman
4. In liberation the soul exists in a state of inseparableness from the supreme Self, for so it is noticed in the Upanishad.
----
Topic-4: Fulfilment of Desire through Will
9. And for that very reason (a man of knowledge has) no other lord (to rule over him).
----
Topic-7: Acquisition of Divine Powers
17. The released soul gets all the divine powers except that of running the universe (with its creation, continuance and dissolution), as is known from the context (which deals with God) and from the non-proximity (of the individual soul).
18. If it be held (that the powers of the liberated soul are unlimited) owing to direct scriptural declaration, then it is not so, since it is (the attainment) of Him, who appoints others as lords of the spheres and resides in those spheres that is spoken of (in the Upanishad).
19. And there is another form of the supreme Lord that does not abide in the effect, for so has the Upanishad declared.
20. And both the Upanishadic and Smriti texts show thus (that the supreme Light is beyond all changing things).
21. Also from the indicatory mark in the Upanishads about the equality of experience alone (it is known that the liberated souls do not get unfettered powers).
22. There is no return for the released souls on the strength of the Upanishadic declaration; there is no return for the released souls on the strength of the Upanishadic declaration.
----------------------------------------

My understanding:

The liberation throughout the Fourth Adhaya refers to the highest liberation only, as 'inseparableness' and 'has no other Lord' in the beginning and 'no return' at the end indicate.

That in the verses 17 to 21, sutrakara seems to limit powers of the liberated soul to a secondary status is the view of those who consider the World business as the Supreme power of the Brahman. It is not so. Since 1)only one Feet of Brahman is all beings and the three feet are in heaven; 2) The highest does not abide in objects; and 3) The highest is unchangeable light.

The Supreme power of Brahman is to 1) remain unchanged timelessly in a transcendental state and also to 2)appoint leaders for relative planes and abide in those planes. If Brahman was really the creator etc., then surely He is the creator of sins also and that is unimaginable. If it is argued, in Dvaita fashion, that He alone is Good and others are sinful, then of what use is the power?

How will a soul which desires to attain the powers of Ishwara ever attain either Ishwara or Brahman, since attainment of Brahman is possible in a desireless mode? Dis-passion is the foremost requirement. One who begins to create becomes a BrahmA and is separated from Brahman. How can any individuality be retained in Brahman, which will make it possible for one to proclaim "I am creator"? The highest Brahman being the partless light, how can a separate creator exist in the same plane? When Brahman is One without a Second, how can a separate creator exist in the same plane? Finally, how a liberated one who is said to be 'inseparable' remain inseparable from its creation, if it were to create?

The verse 4.7.17, indicates to me, that that Mukti is the highest one, which attains oneness with Brahman, who himself is not creator/maintainer/destroyer, but His appointed ones are all powerful world leaders in different planes, where Brahman abides as a whole and does not abide in parts. One who has attained 'inseparableness', cannot remain or cannot aspire to be a different controller. Such aspiration itself will not allow a soul to attain the fullness of Brahman. How can 'has no other Lord' go together with the Dvaita or VA concepts is abslutely beyond me. And 'from the non-proximity (of the individual soul)', indicates to me the absence of an individual soul (in Brahman plane).

As I understand, these verses are the highest in support of Advaita. What is apparent to be against Advaita is actually against those who equate glamorous powers and attributes with partless Brahman. Countless Abheda vakyas of Vedas cannot be thrown away, but more numerous Bheda vakyas can all be explained, by Advaita.

Om Namah Shivaya

Madhavan
08 September 2007, 02:44 AM
Namaste Atanu,

I do not know much about Dvaita ~ but Sri Shankara distinctly two kinds of liberation , known by the names para and apara mukti. Para mukti is absolute identity with the Brahman, and apara mukti is many kinds of 'intermediate liberation' explained by terms such as sAlokya, sArUpya etc( these are discussed at depth in many purANAs) , which are considered in the Advaita tradition as essentially belonging to the 'high ends' of the samsAra.




Thre are several points raised in the above post. First, I cannot find the translations and the purports cited herein as those of Shankara. Second, Shankara Bhasya, as understood from 2nd hand translations are themselves very complicated. And these purports with respect to the Adhaya IV seem to go against Shankara very easily.


Brahmasutras have many commentaries on them: - especially where the sUtrakAra denies the abiltiy of the soul to exercise the cosmic privileges. In Advaita tradition, this view refers only to the apara mukta jIvas, and not the sage who has realized the Self.



I cite the verses in question from Advaita Vedanta Library below and I place my understanding (apparently independent but alligned fully with Shankara's Advaita philosophy).

-----------------
Brahma Sutras

SECTION - IV
Topic-1: Nature of Freedom
1. Having reached the “highest Light”, the soul becomes manifest in its own real nature because of the use of the term “in its own” (in the Upanishad).
2. The soul then attains liberation, that being the (Upanishadic) declaration.
-----
Topic-2: Liberated Soul Inseparable from Brahman
4. In liberation the soul exists in a state of inseparableness from the supreme Self, for so it is noticed in the Upanishad.
----
Topic-4: Fulfilment of Desire through Will
9. And for that very reason (a man of knowledge has) no other lord (to rule over him).
----
Topic-7: Acquisition of Divine Powers
17. The released soul gets all the divine powers except that of running the universe (with its creation, continuance and dissolution), as is known from the context (which deals with God) and from the non-proximity (of the individual soul).
18. If it be held (that the powers of the liberated soul are unlimited) owing to direct scriptural declaration, then it is not so, since it is (the attainment) of Him, who appoints others as lords of the spheres and resides in those spheres that is spoken of (in the Upanishad).
19. And there is another form of the supreme Lord that does not abide in the effect, for so has the Upanishad declared.
20. And both the Upanishadic and Smriti texts show thus (that the supreme Light is beyond all changing things).
21. Also from the indicatory mark in the Upanishads about the equality of experience alone (it is known that the liberated souls do not get unfettered powers).
22. There is no return for the released souls on the strength of the Upanishadic declaration; there is no return for the released souls on the strength of the Upanishadic declaration.
----------------------------------------


The answer is the third pAda of the fourth adhyAya which is divided by Sankara into two adhikaranas. Of these the former one , sutras (7-14) teaches that the Brahman to which the departed soul is led by the guardians of the path of the gods(devayAna or uttarAyana) is not the highest Brahman, but the effected (kriya) or qualified (saguna) Brahman. This is the opinion propounded in Sutras 7-11 by Badari, and, finally, accepted by Sankara in his commentary on Sutra 14. If you can go through the third pAda of Shankara or his sub commentrators, this will be all too clear.



My understanding:

The liberation throughout the Fourth Adhaya refers to the highest liberation only, as 'inseparableness' and 'has no other Lord' in the beginning and 'no return' at the end indicate.


The clause "no return" is also used with apara mukti in numerous places in sruti a few of which I have cited earlier.



That in the verses 17 to 21, sutrakara seems to limit powers of the liberated soul to a secondary status is the view of those who consider the World business as the Supreme power of the Brahman. It is not so. Since 1)only one Feet of Brahman is all beings and the three feet are in heaven; 2) The highest does not abide in objects; and 3) The highest is unchangeable light.

The Supreme power of Brahman is to 1) remain unchanged timelessly in a transcendental state and also to 2)appoint leaders for relative planes and abide in those planes. If Brahman was really the creator etc., then surely He is the creator of sins also and that is unimaginable. If it is argued, in Dvaita fashion, that He alone is Good and others are sinful, then of what use is the power?


But why are you briniging in dvaita here, I have not talked about Dvaita anywhere. Dvaita's interpretation of the fourth adhyaya talks about only one form of mukti where the liberated soul attains the Brahman and hence cannot have such powers. Moroever, Dvaita does not say that God is the creator or sin or soul ( dont confuse with Christianity). There is a triparatite classifications of souls in Dvaita, some of which are intrinsically wicked and the main cause of misery in the world.



How will a soul which desires to attain the powers of Ishwara ever attain either Ishwara or Brahman, since attainment of Brahman is possible in a desireless mode? Dis-passion is the foremost requirement. One who begins to create becomes a BrahmA and is separated from Brahman. How can any individuality be retained in Brahman, which will make it possible for one to proclaim "I am creator"? The highest Brahman being the partless light, how can a separate creator exist in the same plane? When Brahman is One without a Second, how can a separate creator exist in the same plane? Finally, how a liberated one who is said to be 'inseparable' remain inseparable from its creation, if it were to create?


Yes, this is Advaita's explanation for how the apparent denial of Lordship still does not go against Advaita. But you should note that when Brahman incarnates he is called avatara, who 'creates'. If the soul, should become Brahman - this incarnation is that of the liberated soul only. Otherwise Krishna would not have said that he is the creator and contradicted himself by saying that he is the Self also. When the soul becomes freed of avidya, it becomes the Brahman, and by virtue of that Ishvara also, thus getting the Lorship also. It is with this in mind that turya is also called the Lord of all. The cognition of Brahman, which is known as sAxi or the seer is called Ishvara. How can then it be absent for a mukta? A mukta will retain the power of Lordship et al if his mukti is para.

Madhavan
08 September 2007, 03:10 AM
The verse 4.7.17, indicates to me, that that Mukti is the highest one, which attains oneness with Brahman, who himself is not creator/maintainer/destroyer, but His appointed ones are all powerful world leaders in different planes, where Brahman abides as a whole and does not abide in parts. One who has attained 'inseparableness', cannot remain or cannot aspire to be a different controller. Such aspiration itself will not allow a soul to attain the fullness of Brahman. How can 'has no other Lord' go together with the Dvaita or VA concepts is abslutely beyond me. And 'from the non-proximity (of the individual soul)', indicates to me the absence of an individual soul (in Brahman plane).


I do not know how authoritative Muktika Upanishad is, but it does have the answer the question of the two fold mukti very well. I have posted a translation here.

Om ! That (Brahman) is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite. The infinite proceeds from the infinite. (Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe), It remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone.
Om ! Let there be Peace in me ! Let there be Peace in my environment ! Let there be Peace in the forces that act on me !

I-i-1-6. In the beautiful city of Ayodhya, in the centre of a pavilion set with gems, together with Sita, Bharata, Lakshmana and Satrughna, was Rama seated, glorified day and night by sages like Sanaka, Vasistha and Suka as well as other devotees, unchanging witness of thousands of modifications of the intellect, delighted in contemplating his own form. At the end of this Samadhi, Hanuman asked with devotion, ‘O Rama, you are the supreme being, of the nature of Sat, Chid and Ananda. I desire to know your nature truly for liberation. Please tell me how I can be released from bondage without strain.
I-i-7-14. Rama: Well asked. I shall tell you. I am well established in Vedanta.
Hanuman: What is Vedanta and where is it ?
Rama: The Vedas in all their great extent are my breath, Vedanta is well grounded in them, like oil in sesamum.
Hanuman: How many are the Vedas and how many branches do they have ? Of these what are the Upanishads ?
Rama: Vedas are four, Rig-Veda etc., many branches and Upanishads exist in them. Rig-Veda has 21 branches and Yajus has 109. Sama has 1000 and Atharva has 50. Each branch has one Upanishad. Even by reading one verse of them with devotion, one gets the status of union with me, hard to get even by sages.
I-i-15-17. Hanuman: Rama, sages speak differently: some say there is only one kind of liberation. Others say it can be got by worshipping your name and by the Taraka mantra at Kashi. Others speak of Sankhya-Yoga and Bhakti-Yoga, the enquiry into Vedanta-Vakyas etc.
I-i-18-23. Rama: Liberation is of four kinds: Salokya etc. But the only real type is Kaivalya. Anybody even though leading a wicked life, attains Salokya, not other worlds, by worshipping my name. Dying in the sacred Brahmanala in Kashi, he will get the Taraka-mantra and also liberation, without rebirth. On dying anywhere (else) in Kashi, Maheshvara will utter the Taraka-mantra in his right ear. He gets Sarupya with me as his sins are washed away.
The same is called Salokya and Sarupya. Persevering in good conduct, with mind fixed upon me, loving me as the Self of all, the twice-born gets nearer to me – This is called the three forms of liberation. Salokya, Sarupya and Samipya.
I-i-24-25. Meditating on my eternal form as prescribed by the Teacher, one will surely achieve identity with me like the insects changing into the bee. This alone is the liberation of identity (Sayujya) yielding the bliss of Brahman.
All these four kinds of Mukti will be got by worshipping Me.
I-i-26-29. But by what means is the Kaivalya kind of Moksha got ? The Mandukya is enough; if knowledge is not got from it, then study the Ten Upanishads. Getting knowledge very soon, you will reach my abode. If certainty is not got even then, study the 32 Upanishads and stop. If desiring Moksha without the body, read the 108 Upanishads. Hear their order.
I-i-30-39.
1. Isa
2. Kena
3. Katha
4. Prasna
5. Munda
6. Mandukya
7. Taittiri
8. Aitareya
9. Chandogya
10. Brihadaranyaka
11. Brahma
12. Kaivalya
13. Jabala
14. Svetasva
15. Hamsa
16. Aruni
17. Garbha
18. Narayana
19. Paramahamsa
20. Amritabindu
21. Amritanada
22. Atahrvasirah
23. Atharvasikha
24. Maitrayini
25. Kaushitakibrahmana
26. Brihajjabala
27. Nrisimhatapini
28. Kalagnirudra
29. Maitreya
30. Subala
31. Kshurika
32. Mantrika
33. Sarvasara
34. Niralamba
35. Sukarahasya
36. Vajrasuchika
37. Tejobindu
38. Nadabindu
39. Dhyanabindu
40. Brahmavidya
41. Yogatattva
42. Atmabodha
43. Naradaparivrajaka
44. Trisikhi
45. Sita
46. Yogachudamani
47. Nirvana
48. Mandalabrahmana
49. Dakshinamurti
50. Sarabha
51. Skanda
52. Tripadvibhuti-Mahanarayana
53. Advayataraka
54. Ramarahasya
55. Ramatapani
56. Vasudeva
57. Mudgala
58. Sandilya
59. Paingala
60. Bhiksu
61. Mahat
62. Sariraka
63. Yogasikha
64. Turiyatita
65. Sannyasa
66. Paramahamsaparivrajaka
67. Akshamalika
68. Avyakta
69. Ekakshara
70. Annapurna
71. Surya
72. Akshi
73. Adhyatma
74. Kundika
75. Savitri
76. Atma
77. Pasupata
78. Parabrahma
79. Avadhutaka
80. Tripuratapini
81. Devi
82. Tripura
83. Katharudra
84. Bhavana
85. Rudrahridaya
86. Yoga-kundali
87. Bhasma
88. Rudraksha
89. Ganapati
90. Darsana
91. Tarasara
92. Mahavakya
93. Panchabrahma
94. Pranagnihotra
95. Gopalatapini
96. Krishna
97. Yajnavalkya
98. Varaha
99. Satyayani
100. Hayagriva
101. Dattatreya
102. Garuda
103. Kalisamtarana
104. Jabali
105. Saubhagyalakshmi
106. Sarasvatirahasya
107. Bahvricha
108. Muktika

I-i-40-43. These destroy three kinds of Bhavana (regarding) body, senses and mind respectively as identified with Atman. The best of Brahmanas will become Jivanmuktas if they study upto the destruction of Prarabdha, these 108 Upanishads from a Guru along with the Shanti-pada. Then, in course of time they will get Vedeha-mukti, surely.
I-i-44-52. These 108 are the essence of all Upanishads and can cut away all sins by merely hearing once. These cause release whether read with or without knowledge. One may give away a kingdom, wealth etc., to one who asks, but not these 108 to just anyone – to an unbeliever (nastika), ungrateful, of bad conduct, one against devotion to me, deluded by wrong scripture or lacking devotion to the Guru.
But they shall be taught to one devoted to service, devotee, of good conduct, birth and wisdom. He should be well tested. A Rik verse on this: the goddess of knowledge came to a Brahmana and said ‘Protect me, I am your treasure, do not teach me to one who is jealous, dishonest and deceitful – then I shall powerful, but give it to one who is learned, careful, wise and celibate, after examining him’.

I-ii-1. Then Maruti asked Sri Ramachandra thus: Please relate to me separately the Shanti-mantras of the different Vedas, Rig etc.
Sri Rama then said: "My speech rests on my mind … " [Vanme-Manasi….]. This is the Shanti-mantra of the following ten Upanishads forming part of the Rig-Veda:

1. Aitareya
2. Kaushitakibrahmana
3. Nadabindu
4. Atmabodha
5. Nirvana
6. Mudgala
7. Akshamalika
8. Tripura
9. Saubhagyalakshmi
10. Bahvricha

I-ii-2. "That (which lies beyond) is full" [Purnamada ….] – and so on: This is the Shanti-mantra of the following Nineteen Upanishads, forming part of the Sukla-Yajur-Veda:
1. Isavasya
2. Brihadaranyaka
3. Jabala
4. Hamsa
5. Paramahamsa
6. Subala
7. Mantrika
8. Niralamba
9. Trisikhibrahmana
10. Mandalabrahmana
11. Advayataraka
12. Paingala
13. Bhiksu
14. Turiyatita
15. Adhyatma
16. Tarasara
17. Yajnavalkya
18. Satyayani
19. Muktika

I-ii-3. "May (the Brahman of the Upanishads) protect us both" [Sahanavavatu …] – and so on: This is the Shanti-mantra of the following Thirty-Two Upanishads, forming part of the Krishna-Yajur-Veda:
1. Kathavalli
2. Taittiriyaka
3. Brahma
4. Kaivalya
5. Svetasvatara
5. Garbha
6. Narayana
7. Amritabindu
8. Amritanada
9. Kalagnirudra
10. Kshurika
11. Sarvasara
12. Sukarahasya
13. Tejobindu
14. Dhyanabindu
15. Brahmavidya
16. Yogatattva
17. Dakshinamurti
18. Skanda
19. Sariraka
20. Yogasikha
21. Ekakshara
22. Akshi
23. Avadhuta
24. Katharudra
25. Rudrahridaya
26. Yoga-kundalini
27. Panchabrahma
28. Pranagnihotra
29. Varaha
30. Kalisamtarana
31. Sarasvatirahasya

I-ii-4. "May the unseen powers nourish" [Apyayantu ….] – and so on: This is the Shanti-mantra of the following Sixteen Upanishads forming part of the Sama-Veda:
1. Kena
2. Chandogya
3. Aruni
4. Maitrayani
5. Maitreya
6. Vajrasuchika
7. Yogachudamani
8. Vasudeva
9. Mahat
10. Sannyasa
11. Avyakta
12. Kundika
13. Savitri
14. Rudrakshajabala
15. Darsana
16. Jabali

I-ii-5. "May we hear with our ears the auspicious truths of the Vedanta" [Bhadram-Karnebhih…] – and so on: This is the Shanti-mantra of the following Thirty-One Upanishads of the Atharva-Veda:
1. Prasna
2. Mundaka
3. Mandukya
4. Atahrvasiras
5. Atharvasikha
6. Brihajjabala
7. Nrisimhatapini (Purvottara)
8. Naradaparivrajaka
9. Sita
10. Sarabha
11. Tripadvibhuti-Mahanarayana
12. Ramarahasya
13. Ramatapini (Purvottara)
14. Sandilya
15. Paramahamsaparivrajaka
16. Annapurna
17. Surya
18. Atma
19. Pasupatabrahmana
20. Parabrahma
21. Tripuratapini
22. Devi
23. Bhavana
24. Bhasmajabala
25. Ganapati
26. Mahavakya
27. Gopalatapini (Purvottara)
28. Krishna
29. Hayagriva
30. Dattatreya
31. Garuda

I-ii-6. Men who are seekers after Liberation and well-equipped with the four requisite means ! Approach properly, with gifts in the hands, a good teacher who is dedicated, belonging to a good family, well-versed in the Vedas, interested in the scriptures, of good quality, straightforward, interested in the welfare of all creatures, compassionate and learn in the prescribed manner the one hundred and eight Upanishads; study them through listening, reflection and deep absorption continuously; the accumulated Karmas will be dissolved, the three kinds of bodies (gross, subtle and causal) are abandoned and like the ether of the pot when released from its Upadhi, rise to the level of fullness called Videha-mukti. This indeed is the Absolute Liberation (Kaivalya-mukti). That is why even those in the Brahma-loka, get identity with Brahman after listening to the Upanishads from his mouth. And for everyone Absolute Liberation is stated to be (attainable) only through knowledge; not through Karma rituals, not through Sankhya-Yoga or worship. Thus the Upanishad.
II-i-1. Then Hanuman asked Ramachandra: What is this Jivanmukti, Videha-mukti ? What is the authority, means of success and purpose ? Rama said: For a person there is bondage from doer-ship, enjoyer-ship, pleasure, pain etc., -- their prevention is liberation in the body. Videha-mukti (liberation without the body) is from the destruction of Prarabdha (operative) karma, like the space in a pot released from the conditioning (enclosing) pot. For both the authority is the 108 Upanishads. The purpose is eternal happiness through the stopping of the misery of doer-ship etc. This can be achieved by human effort just as a son is got by putra-kama sacrifice, wealth by trade etc., and heaven by jyotistoma.
II-ii-1-9. There are these verses: Human effort is said to be of the two kinds: For and against the Shastras – the former gives disaster, the latter the ultimate reality. True knowledge does not come to one from latent impressions through the world, Shastras and the body. Such impressions are two-fold: good and bad; if you are induced by the good, you shall reach me gradually but quickly; the bad ones involved lead to trouble and should be overcome with effort. The river of impression flowing through good and bad paths, must be turned into the good path with human effort – One should fondle the mind-child with human effort. When by means of practice, good impressions arise, then the practice has been fruitful. Even when this is in doubt, practice only the good tendencies – there shall be no fault.
II-ii-10-15. The destruction of impressions, cultivation of knowledge and destruction of the mind, when practised together for long will yield fruit. If not practised together, there will be no success even after hundreds of years, like mantras which are scattered. When these three are practised long, the knots of the heart surely are broken, like lotus fibre and the stalk. The false impression of worldly life is got in a hundred lives and cannot be destroyed without long practice. So avoid desire of enjoyment as a distance with effort and practise the three.
II-ii-16. The wise know that the mind is bound by the impressions, it is liberated when released well from them. So, O Hanuman, practice the destruction of mental impression, quickly.
II-ii-17-18. When impressions die out, the mind becomes put out like a lamp. Whoever gives up impressions and concentrates on Me without strain, he becomes Bliss.
II-ii-19-23. Whether he concentrates on actions or not, when he avoids all the desires of the heart, he is doubtlessly liberated. He has nothing to gain from action or inaction. If his mind is not freed from impressions even Samadhi and Japa cannot give fruit. The highest place cannot be got without silence free from impressions. Sense organs like the eye go towards external objects without voluntary impression but because of the latent impression just as the eye falls voluntarily without attachment on external objects, so the man of wisdom operates in work.
II-ii-24-31. The sages know that Vasana comprises all objects generated by creative faculty of the mind in attaining or avoiding them. The very unsteady mind which is the cause of birth, old age and death is generated by desire for objects in excess. By the influence of Vasana there is the pulsation of Prana, from it comes Vasana (again) like seed and sprout. For the tree of the human mind, the pulsation and Vasana are two seeds – when one dies both die. Latent impressions stop operating through detached behaviour, avoidance of worldly thought and realization that the body is mortal.
The mind becomes non-mind by giving up Vasanas. When the mind does not think, then arises mindlessness giving great peace; so long as your mind has not fully evolved, being ignorant of the supreme reality, perform what has been laid down by the teacher, Shastra and other sources. Then with impurity ripened (and destroyed) and Truth understood, you should give up even the good impressions.
II-ii-32-37. In a Jivanmukta the destruction of the mind is with form – in a Videhamukta it is formless – when you achieve it, the mind with qualities like friendliness will surely attain peace. The mind of the Jivanmukta has no rebirth.
The mind is the root of the tree of Samsara which has thousands of sprouts, branches, fruits etc. I take the mind to be nothing but construction; make it dry in such a way that the tree also is dried up.
II-ii-38-47. There is only one means for overpowering mind. Shooting up of one’s mind is one’s undoing, its destruction is good fortune. The mind of the knower is destroyed, it is a chain for the ignorant. As long as the mind is not defeated by means of firm practice, the impressions jump in the heart like ghosts at night.
The impressions of enjoyment die, like lotus in winter, for one whose mental pride is reduced and the senses – the enemies – are defeated. One should at first conquer the mind, hands locked in hands, teeth set on teeth and limbs subdued. The mind cannot be conquered without defectless reasoning (methods) by merely sitting, just as an elephant in rut without a goad. The reasons (methods) well-nourished in mind-conquest are knowledge of Vedanta, contact with good people, giving up impressions and stopping of the pulsation of Prana. Those who ignore these and control the mind by force, throw away the lamp and search in darkness by means of soot, also (try to) bind an elephant in rut by lotus fibre.
II-ii-48-50. The tree of mind, bearing the weight of the creepers of thought, has two seeds: the pulsation of Prana and strong impressions. All pervasive consciousness is shaken by the pulsation of Prana – In contrast, by means of concentration the knowledge arises. The Dhyana, its means, is now imparted. Dissolving thought totally in the reverse order, think only of the remaining pure consciousness.
II-ii-51-56. After the Apana sets and before Prana arises in the heart, there exists the state of Kumbhaka (immobility) experienced by Yogins. Kumbhaka in the external form is the fullness of Prana after in-breath disappears and out-breath arises. By repeatedly practising meditation of Brahman without ego, Samprajnata Samadhi will be got. The Asamprajnata Samadhi, loved by Yogins, is (from) the mind giving great bliss after (all) the mental modifications (thoughts) die away. It is valued by sages, being the spirit devoid of the light (of ego), of the mind (of dream) and of the intellect (in deep sleep). This concentration is other than what is not Brahman. Full above, below and in the middle the essence of goodness – this state, prescribed by the Upanishads, is the ultimate reality.
II-ii-57-60. Latent impression is that unexamined grasping of objects by persistent imagination. What one brings into being, through intense dispassion by one’s self, is realized quickly, devoid of opposite impressions. Influenced by impressions, a person looks upon those things as reality by the peculiarity of the impressions, the ignorant person sees the spirit wrongly though it does not lose its own nature.
II-ii-61-68. The impure impression binds, the pure destroys birth. The impure one is solid ignorance and ego, causes rebirth. The restful state is like the roasted seed, giving up the (sprout of) rebirth. Can the inner light be sought with chewing the cud of many Shastras, uselessly ? One who remains alone giving up perception as well as non-perception is himself the Brahman – A person cannot know Brahman by merely learning the four Vedas and Shastras, as the ladle cannot taste the food.
If a person does not get detachment by the bad smell of his own body, what other cause of detachment can be taught ? The body is very impure – the soul is pure. When one knows the difference, what purification need be prescribed ? Bondage is by impressions, Moksha is their destruction – you give them up as well as the desire for Moksha.
II-ii-69-71. Give up mental impressions of objects and cultivate pure impressions like friendship; then, discarding even these while acting according to them, putting down all desires, have only the impression of consciousness. Give up these too along with mind and intellect; concentrate only on me.
II-ii-72-77. Contemplate me as devoid of sound, touch, form, taste and smell, eternal, indestructible, without name and family, destroying all suffering, the nature of vision like the sky, the one syllable Om, unsmearing though omnipresent, unique, without bondage, forward, across, above, below, I fill ever place.
Unborn, ageless, shining by myself, not the cause nor effect, ever contented when the body dies away, giving up the state of Jivanmukta, one enter the Videhamukti stage.
So says the Rik: That supreme place of Vishnu the sages see ever – like an eye extended in heaven. The wise and awakened persons, free from emotions, keep it alight.
Om – This is the Upanishad. Om ! That (Brahman) is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite. The infinite proceeds from the infinite. (Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe), It remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone.
Om ! Let there be Peace in me ! Let there be Peace in my environment ! Let there be Peace in the forces that act on me !

atanu
08 September 2007, 03:22 AM
Namaste Atanu,


----Yes, this is Advaita's explanation for how the apparent denial of Lordship still does not go against Advaita. But you should note that when Brahman incarnates he is called avatara, who 'creates'. If the soul, should become Brahman - this incarnation is that of the liberated soul only. Otherwise Krishna would not have said that he is the creator and contradicted himself by saying that he is the Self also. When the soul becomes freed of avidya, it becomes the Brahman, and by virtue of that Ishvara also, thus getting the Lorship also. It is with this in mind that turya is also called the Lord of all. The cognition of Brahman, which is known as sAxi or the seer is called Ishvara. How can then it be absent for a mukta? A mukta will retain the power of Lordship et al if his mukti is para.


Namaste Madhavan,

I feel that the liberated one has all the freedom and powers, except world maintenance as an individual soul. You will remember that Shri Krishna says "I do not abide in objects".

And as discussed earlier there is no contradiction in saying that Brahman is creator, Brahman is Jiva, Brahman is Ishwara etc etc. But it would definitely be wrong to say that the released soul is a creator apart from Brahman. This will go against the very premise of Brahman being Advaitaatma.

Moreover, whereas Ishwara has been the Lord timelessly, how can an individual soul, which gets rid of the veil of ignorance and attains unity with Brahman at a point of time, enjoy the powers of Iswara? But, the Self of the liberated one and the Self of Ishwara do not retain any difference (in a different plane from Advaita Brahman plane). Brahma Sutras say that like lighting many lamps from one fire, a liberated one can pervade (animate) many bodies.

And this mukti is krama till one truly attains Brahman, where there is no possibility of a second. How can one know Brahman as another being? This is my view point and I feel comfortable with it. Not denying the difference between krama mukti and sadyo mukti, I hold that mukti is mukti, only when an identity is established, for the simple reason that knowing Brahman as another is not knowing Him at all.


I feel that a few western translators (who are actually inclined towards Ramanuja) have twisted Shankara's commentaries -- to show how illogical Shankara is. This has been done by Shri Aurobindo also. Whether my opinion is correct or not, however, does not matter. My point is that it may not be at all necessary to invoke the theory that a lower kind of mukti is being ddiscussed in verses 17 to 20, while the highest kind of mukti is being discussed in the beginning verses where "inseparabilty" and "No other Lord" are mentioned.


Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Madhavan
08 September 2007, 04:44 AM
I feel that a few western translators (who are actually inclined towards Ramanuja) have twisted Shankara's commentaries -- to show how illogical Shankara is. This has been done by Shri Aurobindo also. Whether my opinion is correct or not, however, does not matter. My point is that it may not be at all necessary to invoke the theory that a lower kind of mukti is being ddiscussed in verses 17 to 20, while the highest kind of mukti is being discussed in the beginning verses where "inseparabilty" and "No other Lord" are mentioned.


Namaste Atanu - but without introducing the mukti of two kinds, you are indirectly supporting non advaitic commentaries!!

Inseparability is interpreted by Advaita as "water in water", Vishistadvaita as "milk in water" and Dvaita as "seeds in a nut" etc.

"No other Lord" is easily explained by Dvaita as the mukta having no other Lord than Brahman.

I have come across two kinds of advaitic viewpoints on this: - one is that these verses describe the mukti of an inferior kind( where some divine powers are absent) and the other explaining that it is that of a jIvanmukta who is still unable to weild such powers due to prArabdha karma.

See this site from an advaitin, Swami Krishnananda who echoes my own views:

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brahma/brahma_13.html

Madhavan
08 September 2007, 05:39 AM
Namaste.




I feel that the liberated one has all the freedom and powers, except world maintenance as an individual soul. You will remember that Shri Krishna says "I do not abide in objects".


How is this consistant with Advaita which says there is only Brahman? The Lord does not abide in objects because he would become the locus of their ignorance. Atma is only the passive cause of the universe. Liberated soul in Advaita is completely identical with Brahman, and rules over all of Turiya, Prajna, Taijasa and Vaishvanara - if so, then how can the power of non maintanence of the world be denied? What would be the purpose in saying "I am Shiva" but holding that when Shiva dances, you do not dance?




And as discussed earlier there is no contradiction in saying that Brahman is creator, Brahman is Jiva, Brahman is Ishwara etc etc. But it would definitely be wrong to say that the released soul is a creator apart from Brahman. This will go against the very premise of Brahman being Advaitaatma.

Moreover, whereas Ishwara has been the Lord timelessly, how can an individual soul, which gets rid of the veil of ignorance and attains unity with Brahman at a point of time, enjoy the powers of Iswara? But, the Self of the liberated one and the Self of Ishwara do not retain any difference (in a different plane from Advaita Brahman plane). Brahma Sutras say that like lighting many lamps from one fire, a liberated one can pervade (animate) many bodies.


Brahman has always existed with mAyA, and consequently as Isvara. The individual soul is an individual soul only as long as it is in bondage. In moksha, the soul will loose its own identity and become the Brahman. When the cosmic creation happens again in cycles, Isvara comes live again. The released soul is hence Isvara...though he was not prior to his release.



And this mukti is krama till one truly attains Brahman, where there is no possibility of a second. How can one know Brahman as another being? This is my view point and I feel comfortable with it. Not denying the difference between krama mukti and sadyo mukti, I hold that mukti is mukti, only when an identity is established, for the simple reason that knowing Brahman as another is not knowing Him at all.


Yes, all mukti is krama in a sense. But what is the distinguishing feature of Shankara's teaching is that Brahman can be known in two ways - one in his nirguna aspect through jnAna mArga and another in his saguna aspect through upAsana mArga. Knowing the nirguna brahman is the preferred advaitic goal, which leads to sadyo mukti. Knowledge of Saguna Brahman leads to a state of bliss but is not the highest form of knowledge.

All devatAs know Saguna Brahman, but do not know NB. Yet devatAs are known as viprAh and sUrayaH - which means such knowledge is not regarded by the scripture as ignorance. devatAs are muktas in a limited sense and their knowlege cannot be classified as "not knowing Him at all". In the kAtha Upanishad, Lord yama is seen instructing nachiketa about brahmavidyA, and hence he must be an enlightened soul himself. But still devatAs still do not know Brahman fully as explained in the Gita -

10:14:


O Krishna, I totally accept as truth all that You have told me. Neither the gods nor the demons, O Lord, can understand You.

The extent to which anyone knows the Self is dependent on the extent to which they know the non self. Because the Self cannot be known. Only non self( all non eternal entities) can be known. When all of non self is known as unreal- the unchanging reality automatically shines forth.

atanu
08 September 2007, 10:06 AM
Namaste Atanu - but without introducing the mukti of two kinds, you are indirectly supporting non advaitic commentaries!!

Inseparability is interpreted by Advaita as "water in water", Vishistadvaita as "milk in water" and Dvaita as "seeds in a nut" etc.

"No other Lord" is easily explained by Dvaita as the mukta having no other Lord than Brahman.
------
See this site from an advaitin, Swami Krishnananda who echoes my own views:
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brahma/brahma_13.html (http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brahma/brahma_13.html)



Namaste Madhavan,

I have read Swami Krishnananda and I do not contradict it but offer a fresh perspective of Shankara Bhasya that as per my understanding is what Shankara says.

Shankara has been heavily criticized by the same ones who have translated Shankara Bhasya, mainly on the ground that apparently Shankara resorts to illogical theory that sutrakara is speaking of a lower kind of Mukti near the end of Brahma Sutras. They contend that it is illogical that sutrakara will introduce a new subject and talk of an inferior result near the end.

I have read and re-read Shankara Bhasya and I am not sure that Shankara has stated that an inferior kind of Mukti is being spoken of in the verses 17 to 20 of the Sutras. On the contrary, I understand that Shankara says: Those who consider Mukti to be attended with worldly powers are talking of an inferior mukti (my comment: we all know that seekers of Siddhi powers do not attain Brahman and a desire for Lordship cannot be conducive towards attaining the eternal bliss and peace that is taintless Brahman)

The Dvaita and VA interpretations of ‘inseparable’ and ‘no other Lord’ fall flat against Abheda vakyas such as (to quote only a few):
------
When the light rises, only the blessed One alone remains (Svet.)

As rivers unite with Ocean losing identity (Mundka).

Advaitatama should be known (Mandukya).

But as pure water poured into pure
becomes the selfsame--wholly pure,
so too becomes the self of the silent sage,
of the one, O Gautama, who has understanding (Katha).

The man who knows this,
he verily attains
the Oneness of the One (Maitrayana).
-----------------
Whereas Dvaita Vakyas are easily accommodated within the ambit of Advaita theory, which cognizes potential multiplicity in Pragnya and manifest multiplicity in Taijjassa and Vaisvanaro, which themselves are states of Turya/Brahman.

Moreover, if you note that Sutras mention (in the same chapter) that the ‘will of the liberated one is fructified’ and ‘the liberated atma can animate many bodies like one fire animates many lamps’, where is the need of Lordship? It may be true that at the end of a kalpa a liberated being owns up Ishwara’s powers (as you have pointed out). But then He is not the individual and He does not fall from being Brahman, since there is no return.


How is this consistant with Advaita which says there is only Brahman?
Advaita does not negate infinite forms of Brahman, endowed with different powers and different functionalities, in planes below that of Pragnya. Ishwara is considered a special Purusha, who in reality is non-different from Brahman. Shri Krishna also says that “this form is acquired by using my own Maya powers”.

In summary, I maintain that I understand Shankara as saying that a seeker’s desire for Lordly powers does not lead to the highest mukti of ‘no return’, which sutrakara is talking about. And this view does not contradict the view of Muktika Upanishad. In fact, all scripture, including Yoga Sutras, recommend perfection of meditation of saguna followed by nirguna upasana.

Muktika Upanishad as in "II-ii-24-31. The sages know that Vasana comprises all objects generated by creative faculty of the mind in attaining or avoiding them. " and the following verses is entirely in conformity with the view that vasanas for Lordship or anything is the obstacle towards full mukti of no return.

Om Namah Shivaya

Madhavan
08 September 2007, 02:19 PM
Namaste Atanu:

I agree with what you say...but it still does not mean that Shankara did not classify it into two.

This is what Shankara says while interpreting 4.3.10.

4.3.10
________

When the reabsorption of the effected Brahman world
draws near, the souls in which meanwhile perfect knowledge
has sprung up proceed, together with Hiranyagarbha the
ruler of that world, to 'what is higher than that' i.e. to the
pure highest place of Vishnu. This is the release by
successive steps which we have to accept on the basis of
the scriptural declarations about the non-return of the
souls. For we have shown that the Highest cannot be
directly reached by the act of going.

_________________________________________________

The world of Hiranyagrabha is the world of Saguna Brahman. All the enlightened souls along with Brahma(Hiranyagarbha) enter into Vishnu (nArAyaNa or Atma or parabrahma) at the time of release.

See also, the rendering by Swami Shivananda.

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_4/bs_4-3-05.html

pasted here...
"



Karyatyaye tadadhyakshena sahatah
paramabhidhanat IV.3.10 (527)
On the dissolution of the Brahmaloka (the souls attain) along with the ruler of that world what is higher than that (i.e., the Supreme Brahman) on account of the declaration of the Sruti.
Karyatyaye: on the dissolution of the Brahmaloka (Karya: of the effect, i.e., the universe, the relative Saguna Brahman); Tad: of that; Adhyakshena: with the ruler-president, i.e., Hiranyagarbha or the four-faced Brahma; Saha: with; Atahparam: higher than that, i.e., the Supreme Brahman; Abhidhanat: on account of the declaration of the Sruti.
The individual soul's final absorption in the Para Brahman or the Absolute is now stated.
The Purvapakshin says: If the souls who go by the path of the gods reach the Saguna Brahman, then how can statements like, "They who proceed on that path do not return to the life of man" (Chh. Up. IV.15.6); "For them there is no return here" (Bri. Up. VI.2.15); "Moving upwards by that a man reaches immortality" (Chh. Up. VIII.6.5), be made with respect to them, as there is no permanency anywhere apart from the Highest Brahman? The Sutra declares that at the dissolution of Brahmaloka the souls, which by that time have attained knowledge, along with the Saguna Brahman attain what is higher than the Saguna Brahman, i.e., Para Brahman or the pure highest place of Vishnu. This is called Kramamukti or successive (progressive) liberation or release by successive steps. So the Sruti texts declare.
"


which almost always follows Shankara.

In sadyo mukti, the concept of all souls moving with Hiranyagarbha, into Parabrahman is not relevant ~ it is relevant only to krama mukti.

The Lordly powers come to the liberated soul on its own, and not by seeking them. Yes, a liberated sage can split the universe into two if he so desires...after all, the dualty has come about by Brahman desiring to become many and himself becoming the servant and master, controller and controlled etc.

sruti is explicit about it:

sO$kAmayata | bahu syAm prajAyEyEti | sa tapO&tapyata
| sa tapastaptvA | idaM sarvamasRujata | tat sRuShTvA
| tadEvAnuprAvishat |

Madhavan
08 September 2007, 03:07 PM
Namaste.



The Dvaita and VA interpretations of ‘inseparable’ and ‘no other Lord’ fall flat against Abheda vakyas such as (to quote only a few):


Are you trying a refutation of these philosophies based only on abedha vAkyas? Would you be able to defend your arguments strongly on a dvaitin forum - you can shout here, hehe. You need to be a good scholar to examine the merits and demerits of the respective interpretations, there are very few people in the world now who are good vedantins. Abedha vAkyas literally yield monism, but shruti also literally yields dualism too.

Both Advaita and Vishistadvaita have some real issues dealing with parts of the Gita. for eg 16.19 and 16.20, where Bhagavan states that asuras are hurled into samsAra and hell "for ever" and they "never attain" him. How is such a situation conceivable in a monistic doctrine? Naturally, advaitins or vishistadvaitins give up on the literal meanings of "forever" and "never attain me" to reconcile their philosophies. Literally interpreted, Krishna is talking of eternal damnation of souls, which is an impossible proposition for both monism and qualified monism.

You cannot build or defend any system of philosophy based on selective reading of the scripture. You must strongly defend the context of the passages, the entire framework of interpretation with respect to the six tAtparya lingAs, and also provide criticism of alternate interpretations(pUrvapaxas). Without doing these, merely stating the abedha vAkyas is no proof of Advaita, unless you are in the midst of advaita-only scholars...

Madhavan
08 September 2007, 04:07 PM
In summary, I maintain that I understand Shankara as saying that a seeker’s desire for Lordly powers does not lead to the highest mukti of ‘no return’, which sutrakara is talking about. And this view does not contradict the view of Muktika Upanishad. In fact, all scripture, including Yoga Sutras, recommend perfection of meditation of saguna followed by nirguna upasana.



You are right about nirgunopAsana following sagunopAsana. The point to be noted is that Nirguna Brahman is not an object of meditation like Saguna Brahman, and hence theoretically nirguNopAsana is impossible.

The attributes of Saguna Brahman belong to Prakriti, and hence are easily visualizable for the sAdhaka in terms of forms or syllables of a mantra. In NirgunopAsana, the meditation is performed on abstract concepts like Satyam, jnAnam or anantam - which represent Nirgunatvam.

Most sAdhakAs cannot meditate on concepts like infinity.

Those who worship and meditate on the Saguna Brahman of any form will ultimately get vision of Saguna Brahman( like Arjuna's viSvarUpa darshana) and is called an apara mukta, who will proceed on devayAna at the time of death, and get advaita jnAna in Brahma Loka and get fully liberated the time of praLaya.

Those who progress beyond this Saguna vision, and are able to meditate on Brahman as Nirguna ( guNAtIta) will attain sadhyo mukti and will not go through devayAna. In sadyo mukti, the sage is liberated while living and his physical death is no consequence whatsoever. sadyo mukti is very rare and most people who get mukti will go through devayAna.

Madhavan
08 September 2007, 04:42 PM
Shankara has been heavily criticized by the same ones who have translated Shankara Bhasya, mainly on the ground that apparently Shankara resorts to illogical theory that sutrakara is speaking of a lower kind of Mukti near the end of Brahma Sutras. They contend that it is illogical that sutrakara will introduce a new subject and talk of an inferior result near the end.



This is quite right. Even Swami Krishnananda apprently does not comprehend Shankara Bhaashya fully. See what he says on that link:



A very pertinent issue arising in the Brahma Sutra is when it defines Anandamaya Brahman, stating that Anandamaya is Brahman. The word Anandamaya occurs in the texts on Vedanta philosophy, indicating that it is one of the sheaths covering the soul, there being five sheaths, the other four being the physical, the vital, the mental and the intellectual. Inspite of the fact that the covering of the soul cannot be the soul, the Sutra seems to emphasise that Anandamaya is itself Brahman. Commentators generally bypass this issue and would not like to enter into any controversy for fear of contradicting the obvious intention of the text and the reasoned conclusions spontaneously coming out of the issue. It was Acharya Sankara alone who had the courage to disagree with the Sutra and declare that the Anandamaya cannot be Brahman. The reason is that the Anandamaya sheath is the one into which the individual enters in the state of deep sleep. But if Anandamaya which causes sleep is itself Brahman, the individual will merge in Brahman in the state of sleep itself, which however is not the case. It is seen that after sleep, the individual wakes up to ordinary waking experience and involves itself in world consciousness. Now, what doctrine is the Brahma Sutra preaching, since Ramanuja would certainly be happy to fully agree with the statement that Anandamaya is Brahman itself. Would a commentator stand against the obvious meaning of the Sutra and contradict it by insisting on a non-dualistic interpretation? Here again comes in the quandary that liberation cannot be complete unless the soul enters into the unqualified Brahman and not the one with relative characteristics of any kind.


The true fact is Shankara did not refer to the Anandamaya as the individual soul, but as savisesha brahman or Ishvara, which is perfectly in tune with the sUtras. Shankara, in addition goes on to show why Taittiriya should incorporate an additonal Nirguna Brahman inside of the anandamaya kosha. I will try to post about this in more detail..

atanu
08 September 2007, 11:11 PM
Namaste Atanu:
I agree with what you say...but it still does not mean that Shankara did not classify it into two.

This is what Shankara says while interpreting 4.3.10.
-----


Dear Madhvan,

I think there is some confusion going on. Earlier you had said (to sarabhanga ji): "According to Shankara, these passages describe the fate of liberated souls who attain the Sabdha Brahman, ie dvaita brahma acording to you.
The last five sutras(4.4.17-4.4.22) are------"

Now you refer to 4.3.10.
---------------------------------

The 4.3 in whole deals with attainemet of Saguna, whereas 4.4 in total deals with attainment of Param Brahman -- attainment of nothing new but one's own nature.

The lusty of powers claim that this cannot be the ultimate since powers of world governance is not granted. The advaitin says that the power of governance is not the ultimate since Param Brahman merely appoints leaders (such as Adityas who are kalas) and abides in those lokas as SEER.

I have checked the translation of Swami Vireswarananda (purports as per Shankara) and nowhere he mentions a mukti higher than attaining one's self nature (as 4.4.1 to 4.4.21 of Brahma Sutras in full). This is the highest attainment.


Repeat:
I have checked the translation of Swami Vireswarananda (purports as per Shankara) and nowhere he mentions a mukti higher than attaining one's self nature (as 4.4.1 to 4.4.21 of Brahma Sutras in full). This is the highest attainment.


----------
It will be very easy to ridicule Shankara, if one can prove that Shankara was degrading the 'Mukti of no return' of BS (4.4.1 to 4.4.21) as inferior. How can BS finish with an inferior result and keep silent about the superior result?

It is either a misunderstanding or a ploy. I have seen VA symathetic translators of Shankara Bhasya create this confusion as if Shankara was downgrading the Mukti spoken of in the last Adhyaya and the last section of Brahma Sutras.

----------

Regarding arguing in Dvaita or VA forum: I have already fulfilled that Karma in a HK forum. But for future, I do not relish the idea at all, since they (dvaitins) freely abuse. It does not benefit anyone. It is God's will how things should proceed, so if Niyati pushes me, what can I do?

But to me, the matter is very simple.

1)

'Inseparability' and 'no other Lord', together make anything but absolute identity impossible.

In case of Milk and Water, Milk is the Lord -- another entity from Water. 'No other Lord' is violated.

In case of Seed and Nut again, Seed is the Lord -- another entity. 'No other Lord' is violated.

Another Lord is not there. It is absolute Advaita condition of ONE SPIRIT. Such a spirit tenants the bodies of Ishwara and many devas.

2)

Mandukya Upanishad says 'advaitaAtma' must be known.

Here also Dvaitins delude themselves. They say that Advaita means One Lord, distinct from Jivas (and they simply forget about the atma part).

Ask dvaitins and VA proponents, how can one know advaitaatma as another? How can another be Atma? How can there be more than one Atma in a being? Does anyone have two selves? How can advaitaatma be another -- when you know it?

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

I hold that those who are lusty of powers (dvaitins mainly) consider the Mukti (as taught in 4.4.1 to 4.4.21) of Brahma Sutras as inferior. Shankara never considered this Mukti inferior.

Shankara has emphatically said that 'A liberated one does not enjoy powers of world governance' (Simply because such powers are 1)delegated to Adityas; 2) therefore not required and 3) desire for such powers will hinder the attainment itself).


Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
08 September 2007, 11:33 PM
Originally Posted by atanu

Shankara has been heavily criticized by the same ones who have translated Shankara Bhasya, mainly on the ground that apparently Shankara resorts to illogical theory that sutrakara is speaking of a lower kind of Mukti near the end of Brahma Sutras. They contend that it is illogical that sutrakara will introduce a new subject and talk of an inferior result near the end.



I have checked Swami Visreswarananda's BS, which is based on Shankara's purports.

Shankara has never even hinted that the Mukti of no return as taught in 4.4.1 to 4.4.21 is inferior.

I have seen this allegation made in the work of a foreign translator who has translated both Ramanuja and Shankara Bhasyas and who is Ramanuja sympathiser.

It seems Swami Krishnannada is just following that foreign translator and then trying an impossible job -- of defending Shankara of an alleged crime, which Shankar did not commit, but which Krishnnanda agrees that Shankara committed.


Om Namah Shivaya

Madhavan
09 September 2007, 01:03 AM
Namaste Atanu,

This is turning out to be a good discussion and I thank you for it. Since the last few posts have deviated from the turIya/turya concept and is OFF the OP, could the moderator spawn off a new thread for these postings?



have checked the translation of Swami Vireswarananda (purports as per Shankara) and nowhere he mentions a mukti higher than attaining one's self nature (as 4.4.1 to 4.4.21 of Brahma Sutras in full). This is the highest attainment.


Repeat:
I have checked the translation of Swami Vireswarananda (purports as per Shankara) and nowhere he mentions a mukti higher than attaining one's self nature (as 4.4.1 to 4.4.21 of Brahma Sutras in full). This is the highest attainment.

It will be very easy to ridicule Shankara, if one can prove that Shankara was degrading the 'Mukti of no return' of BS (4.4.1 to 4.4.21) as inferior. How can BS finish with an inferior result and keep silent about the superior result?

It is either a misunderstanding or a ploy. I have seen VA symathetic translators of Shankara Bhasya create this confusion as if Shankara was downgrading the Mukti spoken of in the last Adhyaya and the last section of Brahma Sutras.


I have almost no doubts that Sri Shankara referred only to the lower mukti in those final passages...I have seen it discussed at length on the advaita mailing list and I have not found anyone state otherwise yet. You can post the translations of Swami Vireswarananda here and we can examine his words more closely. I will try to post the sanksrit original so that we can avoid some confusion - I dont have the BSB with me at this time.


This is his interpretation for 4.4.21:
bogamAtrasAmyalinga cha

The lordly power of those who take their stand on the
effected(saguna) Brahman is not absolute, for that reason also that
scripture teaches that their enjoyment only is equal to that
of the eternally perfect Lord. For scripture contains statements
and indications of the difference (of the Lord and the
released soul); compare 'To him he says, Water indeed is
enjoyed (by me); that world (is to be enjoyed by thee
also)' (Kau. Up. I, 7); 'As all beings honour that deity, so
do all beings honour him who knows that' (Br/. Up. I, 5, 20);
'He obtains through it equality (in body) and
sameness of abode with that deity' (Br. Up. I, 5, 23). But
from the circumstance of the lordly power of the released
souls not being absolute it follows that it comes to an end,
and then they will have to return from the world of
Brahman!--To this objection the reverend Badarayana
replies in the following Sutra

Again 4.4.22

22. (Of them) there is non-return, according to
scripture; non-return, according to scripture.

Those who, in following the road of the gods, to which
the vein and the ray are leading, and on which light is the
first stage, reach the world of Brahman as described by
scripture--where 'there are the two lakes Ara and Nya in
the world of Brahman, in the third heaven from hence,' and
where 'there is the lake Airammadya and the Asvattha
tree showering down Soma. and the city of Brahman
Aparjiit and the golden hall built by Prabhu' --and set forth at length in mantras, arthavdas, and so on; those, we say, who reach that world
do not return from there after having finished the enjoyment
of their deeds; as those do who have gone to the world of
the moon and other places.---Why so?--Because scriptural
passages teach that they do not so return. Compare
'Moving upwards by it he reaches the immortal' ; 'For them there is no return' ;'Those who proceed on that path do not
return to the life of man' ; 'He
reaches the world of Brahman and does not return'
;That the finality of their lordly
power does not imply their return to the life of man, we
have shown under IV, 3, 10. It is a settled matter that
those who through perfect knowledge have dispelled all
mental darkness and are devoted to the eternally perfect
state do not return. And as those also who rely on the
knowledge of the qualified Brahman in the end have
recourse to that (moksha), it follows that they also do not
return.--The repetition of the words, 'Non-return, according
to scripture,' indicates the conclusion of this body of
doctrine.


I must admit that Sri Shankara is more bold than other commentrators in that he does not always follow convention, but he does better systematization of the scripture than most others. Vedic scripture is an apparent bundle of mutually conficting views, that is why we have so many interpretations of vedas, and perhaps Shankara alone was able to reconcile the conflicting views in the best manner possible.

Madhavan
09 September 2007, 01:28 AM
Namaste Atanu,



Regarding arguing in Dvaita or VA forum: I have already fulfilled that Karma in a HK forum. But for future, I do not relish the idea at all, since they (dvaitins) freely abuse. It does not benefit anyone. It is God's will how things should proceed, so if Niyati pushes me, what can I do?


HK is not dvaita ~ dvaita is tattvavAda. HK is based on gaudiya vaishnavism. HK is not based on proper vedanta( makes some outrageous claims based on Bhagavata and throws vedas to the winds), while Dvaita is a very robust one. Dont mix them. I have not really seen Dvaitins or VAs abuse when two educated people are discussing, though certain people seem to enjoy scoring brownie points. But HKs are a different matter. A dvaitin will not tolerate you if you engage in a debate without first learning Dvaita from its sources( the works of Madhva, Jayatirtha, Vadiraja et al) - that is but a fair deal.



But to me, the matter is very simple.
1)
'Inseparability' and 'no other Lord', together make anything but absolute identity impossible.

In case of Milk and Water, Milk is the Lord -- another entity from Water. 'No other Lord' is violated.


I think you read me wrong. Milk is the individial soul and water is the Lord. It justifies no other Lord( water is the lord of milk and milk has no other lord).

In case of Seed and Nut again, Seed is the Lord -- another entity. 'No other Lord' is violated.{ Same answer}



Another Lord is not there. It is absolute Advaita condition of ONE SPIRIT. Such a spirit tenants the bodies of Ishwara and many devas.


This is where you should learn dvaita before criticizing their views. In Dvaita, God is Advaita, ie non dual and devoid of internal differences. But soul is not God.



2)
Mandukya Upanishad says 'advaitaAtma' must be known.
Here also Dvaitins delude themselves. They say that Advaita means One Lord, distinct from Jivas (and they simply forget about the atma part).
Ask dvaitins and VA proponents, how can one know advaitaatma as another? How can another be Atma? How can there be more than one Atma in a being? Does anyone have two selves? How can advaitaatma be another -- when you know it?


This is a very deep discussion and it is not as simple as you think. I dont know enough Dvaita to answer your questions.

In Dvaita, Atma almost always refer to the paramAtman, and not the pratyagAtman. You need to understand this difference before you will bring arguments against Dvaita. Only in very rare case will a Dvaitin use Atma for denoting the jIvAtman ` only when it is mentioned that Atma is weak or ignorant etc.

The term AdvaitAtma simply means Atma that is non dual, that is one without a second, or does not have internal differences. It can mean many things. In Adi Shankara's definition advaita means ekameva advitIyam { one only, without a second} and such a definition has not been accepted by many others. The terms dvaita or advaita do not make much sense on their own. Advaita could very well be called Dvaita because it has two concepts of Brahman , saguna and nirguna. You must define the terms Advaita and Dvaita( which are not defined by shruti), before making use of concepts like advaitAtma.

Madhavan
09 September 2007, 02:18 AM
Sivianda-ji does give some offers for meditations on Niguna Brahman - these vidya's are quite profound - if we have an appetite for some of these, perhaps we can outline one or two? If you have knowledge of these , please do not hesitate to offer them. If not, I will be happy to post one or two... to post more and assume comprehension will infer or boast one is not a fool ( that would be me)... Perhaps a new string on this will be in order.


Yes, please go ahead. I am eager to read your posts. As Atanu has pointed out, concentrating on "Niguna Brahman" is not a good idea except for very advanced sAdhakAs. But theory is still good to learn.

From what we learn from Shankara, man needs no sAdhana as such to realize NB as it is our very own being. sAdhana is needed only to bring on chitta shuddhi. One who attains chitta shuddhi will be graced by the guru, and guru alone can give him moksha from that point. Grace is the only thing that can give moxa, all forms of sAdhana whether karma, bhakti or jnana is meant to make us deserving to get this grace.

Even after realizing the Self, prArabdha karma can bring on miseries. For some advanced sAdhakas who have done intense sAdhana in former birth, mere contact with a paramaguru will bring on realization. For others, Self realization must be followed up with vairAgya and sAdhana to avoid the opposites resulting from karma. Such sages are at the best position to give instructions on how to do nirgunopAsana.

atanu
09 September 2007, 03:05 AM
Namaste Atanu,

HK is not dvaita ~ dvaita is tattvavAda. ----
----
This is a very deep discussion and it is not as simple as you think. I dont know enough Dvaita to answer your questions.
In Dvaita, Atma almost always refer to the paramAtman, and not the pratyagAtman. -----

Namaste Madhavan,

I feel this discussion should remain here as it has relevance to Turya, which is always ONE and unchangeable. And scripture guides us to know this Turya. Being ONE and unchangeable the Turya cannot be known as another. It is a logical impossiblity.

Yes HK is not Dvaita, which is truly very robust since they say the same thing as Shankara says, except on one point. Dvaita is very correct when a neophyte misunderstands "I am Brahman" as meaning "I this perceived one is Brahman". Actually "I the perceiver is Brahman". As you say that in Dvaita, Atma is always Paramatma, so it is in Advaita, since Atma can never be cut. Madhavan's Atma and Atanu's Atma and all so-called Atmas are actually one Atma. Advaita does not admit that there are several atmas of different grades. Gita speaks of Purusha immersed in Prakriti as the deluded one. Gita also teaches that Pram Atma is ONE but appears divided in bodies. Dvaita philosophy however, has used some shruti as evidence, which are not traceable; Jabali Shruti, Bhallaveya Shruti for example, to establish that Jiva and Atma are permanently divorced and they were never married. They simply ignore the Abheda Vakyas by translating "You are that" as "You are not that" and "atma" as "anatma".

Forget about Dvaita. It is not required to comprehend that advaitaatma cannot be another.

I will again ask how will one know the 'shivoadvaitaatma' as another? If you know shivoadvaitaatma as another then that another is not atma (another cannot be atma) and neither advaita remains advaita when another is there.


And same treatment is applicable to 'seed and fruit' and 'Milk and Butter'. Svet. Upanishad says that the Great Self, Shiva, is hidden as butter is hidden in milk (this becomes the basis of Dvaita). But then the Upanishad also says that 'When the light rises, only the blessed ONE alone is there and the ancient Pragnya of Savitur proceeded therefrom'.

One can decide whether, the perception in dark is true or the perception in illumination is true?
(That there is avidyaVidya is not objected to.)

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

With respect to attainment of Brahman, you are correct, when you understand that the Saguna Brahman is talked about in Adhyaya 4 Section 3 and the final no return liberation is being talked about in Adhyaya 4 Section 4.

In in Adhyaya 4 Section 3, words such as 'Karya' and 'Visheshitattwat' etc. and then mention of a transit to Param on dissolution of Lokas, indicate this to be so.

On the other hand, Adhyaya 4 Section 4, deals with soul attaining nothing new but its own nature. This is the Here and Now Mukti. The Self is all pervading, one truly needs to go nowhere and needs to attain nothing new. But still Shankara clarifies that even in this final mukti, the released soul is not Ishwara -- who is Anadimat. Shankara is the one who differentiates between Karana and Karya -- the cause and effect. But Gaudapada does not do that even. Gaudapada simply says that there is no Karana and Karaka. What can be the karana of creating karya for the One Param Brahman, whose all desires have been fulfilled? Who is ever blissful?


Om Namah Shivaya

Note: Ramana Guru teaches that theory can never be final. He exhorts again and again "Be as You are" or "Find out who has all these doubts".

Madhavan
09 September 2007, 04:07 AM
Namaste Ji,



Yes HK is not Dvaita, which is truly very robust since they say the same thing as Shankara says, except on one point.

Dvaita is very correct when a neophyte misunderstands "I am Brahman" as meaning "I this perceived one is Brahman". Actually "I the perceiver is Brahman". Dvaita Guru, however, has used some shruti as evidence, which are not traceable; Jabali Shruti, Bhallaveya Shruti for example.


Bhallaveya Shruti has been quoted even by Shankara.(BSB 3.3.26) I dont see your point. Perhaps some verses are missing from older editions now? I dont think advaitin contemporaries of Madhvacarya charged him with new scripture 'creation'. Dvaita was given a prominent place in the vedantic tradition and I dont think any vedantin worth his salt would pay any attention to a system which fabricated scriptures. Why do you think Madhusudhana Saraswathy composed Advaita siddhi to counter Dvaita? If all Dvaita had was some home made scripture it would have been ridiculed out of existance at the time of its inception. Note that Advaita siddhi did not acuuse Dvaita of making new srutis. :)



But as you say in Dvaita, Atma is always Paramatma, so is in Advaita, since Atma can never be cut. Gita speaks of Purusha immersed in Prakriti as the deluded one. Advaita does not admit that there are several atmas of different grades.


What I mean to say is:

In Advaita, in verses like ayam Atma Brahma, Atma is taken as pratyagAtman( which is Atma reflected as buddhi), while in Dvaita it is taken as Parabrahman himself. In Advaita, Atma is not always interpreted as paramAtma is my opinion.






With respect to attainment of Brahman, you are correct, when you understand that the Saguna Brahman is talked about in Adhyaya 4 Section 3 and the final no return liberation is being talked about in Adhyaya 4 Section 4.

In in Adhyaya 4 Section 3, words such as 'Karya' and 'Visheshitattwat' etc. and then mention of a transit to Param on dissolution of Lokas, indicate this to be so.

On the other hand, Adhyaya 4 Section 4, deals with soul attaining nothing new but its own nature. This is the Here and Now Mukti.


But did you go through the translation I posted for 4.4.21 and 4.4.22? Where does it talk about absolute liberation in those passages, according to Shankara? In Adhyaya4, section 4 - Shankara is dealing with both absolute and intermediate mukti. Starting from 4.4.17 he is talking only of intermediate mukti. The "no return" is interpreted for the intermediate liberation only since he quotes devayAna and the description of Brahma Loka from Kaushitaki Brahmana.



The Self is all pervading, one truly needs to go nowhere and needs to attain nothing new.


That is why the "no return" clause is better applicable to krama mukti. There is no point in saying that mukta does not return since he is present everywhere.



But still Shankara clarifies that even in this final mukti, the released soul is not Ishwara -- who is Anadimat.


In which sutra? Can you post the exact place? Brahman and Ishvara afaik are one and the same. Note that I am not referring to hirangyagarbha. A released soul certainly does not become the universal soul hiranyagarbha as such ( a product of mAya), but certainly becomes Shiva, the maheshvara( the controller of mAyA).

Madhavan
09 September 2007, 05:31 AM
This is the original text of Shankara's commentary ;

http://www.brahmasutra.iitk.ac.in/framepage.htm

Regarding 4.4.22

It is very obvious that Shankara is discussing whether the (partially) released individual soul in Brahma Loka may have to return to samsAra because it does not have all Lordly powers. He says the soul does not return on account of scriptural evidence.

atanu
09 September 2007, 10:38 AM
Namaste Ji,

Bhallaveya Shruti has been quoted even by Shankara.(BSB 3.3.26) ---- If all Dvaita had was some home made scripture it would have been ridiculed out of existance at the time of its inception. Note that Advaita siddhi did not acuuse Dvaita of making new srutis. :)


Namaste Madhavan

You can find on your own. Although, I do not say that the allegations are 100% correct, I would point out that it would have been foolish of Shankara or Ramanuja, to have ignored the ultimate Bheda shrutis that were quoted and that are not found anywhere else. Please, no further comment on this.



In Advaita, in verses like ayam Atma Brahma, Atma is taken as pratyagAtman( which is Atma reflected as buddhi), while in Dvaita it is taken as Parabrahman himself. In Advaita, Atma is not always interpreted as paramAtma is my opinion.


In advaita, atma is taken at three levels depending on the context, but ultimately you should remember that Atma alone is the truth, which is indivisible.





But did you go through the translation I posted for 4.4.21 and 4.4.22? Where does it talk about absolute liberation in those passages, according to Shankara? -----
That is why the "no return" clause is better applicable to krama mukti. There is no point in saying that mukta does not return since he is present everywhere.


Yes, I have gone through 4.4.21 and 4.4.22 now and earlier also. I do not deny your view at all. It is the majority view. But please re-read 4.4.21 again and see whether there is scope for another perspective or not? Viresvarananda has not used this translation. To me it can equally mean that those who take stand on 'Saguna powers' as 'Supreme attainement' are refuted herein.

I have said earlier that this is my understanding, since this rendering of Shankara Bhasya does not contradict anything.
Moreover, I see no point in differentiating Krama and Immediate Mukti (except theoretically). At some point of time, it is going to be immediate whether here or there.

I re-iterate that 4.4.17, as per my understanding, is a critique of those who equate Mukti to attainment of Lordly powers and not of the particular Mukti being of an inferior kind. This is my perspective and let us not argue on this, since we will require presence of Shankara amidst us, to solve this.Trying to understand Upanishad through Sutras, through commentaries, through translations and then through conditioned intellects is likely to increase differences exponentially.

I have no problem with your view either, which indeed is the view of majority of the advaitic teachers..... I feel that this distinction is not needed to arrive at advaita philosophy.

-------------------------
On the other hand, there is a very easy way; to ask the self/Self: how will one know the shivoadvaitaatma as another, since another cannot be atma and neither advaitaatama remains advaita when another is there.

Does Dvaita teach that there is no Self in Jivas or that there are two Selves?

Moreover, Milk and butter are indeed separable. Seed and fruit are even more easlily separable. I do not think that BS would mention such inseparabilty.



In which sutra? Can you post the exact place? Brahman and Ishvara afaik are one and the same. Note that I am not referring to hirangyagarbha. A released soul certainly does not become the universal soul hiranyagarbha as such ( a product of mAya), but certainly becomes Shiva, the maheshvara( the controller of mAyA).

In 4.4.17 itself. On release, the being does not become what it is not. Reality is Shiva (Self) in Jiva form, Shiva in Ishwara form, and Shiva is world in Jagat form. On attaining this Self, where is the question of taking up a form of Ishwara? A mukta who thinks "I am Ishwara" as opposed to "I am", is not a mukta proper. THIS IS ONLY POSSIBLE FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF IGNORANT ONLOOKER, LIKE WE SAY 'BHAGAWAN RAMANA'.


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
09 September 2007, 01:56 PM
Dear Madhavan,

It is definitely indicated by translation of George Thibault that as if Shankara was very illogically indicating that BS has not outlined the highest kind of mukti at all. Translations of Indian Swamijis give slightly different perspective.

Specifically, regarding 'world adminstration powers', Swamijis indicate that 'world adminstration' is a function of Ishwara and Ishwara is not the goal of Mukti, which is attaining the Self nature.

'Inseparablity' is treated as 'non-dual', hence there cannot be any question of a second being beside the Brahman. As mentioned earlier, milk and butter are separatable. Seed and fruit are separatable.


Then the following two verses together indicate that 'no other Lord' should mean 'no other Lord' only.

8. But by mere will (the released effect their purposes); because scripture states that.
9. And for this very same reason (the released soul is) without another lord.

Muslims have no other Lord but Allah, Christians have one lord only, and we have one Lord only but are all these denominations Mukta? 'No other Lord' should mean 'no other Lord besides oneself'. This is not illogical.

Om Namah Shivaya

Madhavan
10 September 2007, 02:18 AM
Namaste Atanu


Namaste Madhavan

You can find on your own. Although, I do not say that the allegations are 100% correct, I would point out that it would have been foolish of Shankara or Ramanuja, to have ignored the ultimate Bheda shrutis that were quoted and that are not found anywhere else. Please, no further comment on this.


Do you know which bhedha shrutis were quoted by Madhva from Ballaveya, and why are they so important for him? I am particularly curious because there is really no need to fabricate a bedha shruti - shruti has already lots of them, and this is accepted by Advaita also.

You will always find some quotes from Shankara which was not quoted by Ramanuja or Madhva or vice versa, because maybe it did not fit their views. Does that mean Shankara fabricated those shrutis?

Remember that Madhva, like Shankara wrote commentaries on all principal upanishads and he quotes from around 64 texts in all( if I remember right) while Shankara himself make reference to atleast 40. They may or may not use the same texts or verses in every case.




Yes, I have gone through 4.4.21 and 4.4.22 now and earlier also. I do not deny your view at all. It is the majority view. But please re-read 4.4.21 again and see whether there is scope for another perspective or not? Viresvarananda has not used this translation. To me it can equally mean that those who take stand on 'Saguna powers' as 'Supreme attainement' are refuted herein.


But in a sutra you have to use every word correctly. The word equal is applied to boga, ie enjoyment, and says nothing about powers. It simply states that the bliss of the liberated soul is equal to the bliss of the Lord.( note the word sAmyam which can make sense only if two entities are compared). This cannot be Absolute liberation because the bliss of the mukta cannot be compared to anything else, including the Lord - the mukta is one without a second.



I have said earlier that this is my understanding, since this rendering of Shankara Bhasya does not contradict anything.
Moreover, I see no point in differentiating Krama and Immediate Mukti (except theoretically). At some point of time, it is going to be immediate whether here or there.


Agreed.



I re-iterate that 4.4.17, as per my understanding, is a critique of those who equate Mukti to attainment of Lordly powers and not of the particular Mukti being of an inferior kind. This is my perspective and let us not argue on this, since we will require presence of Shankara amidst us, to solve this.Trying to understand Upanishad through Sutras, through commentaries, through translations and then through conditioned intellects is likely to increase differences exponentially.


Shankara is not really needed here - we have several excellent commenataries on the Shankara Bhaashya like the bhAmati, kalpataru etc, who are authorities on the works of Shankara. After all, it is unlikely any one amongst us would be able to understand Shankara better than his disciples. There are certain areas in Shankara's works that are open to diferent opinions, like his theory of mAyA, because he did not
examine them indepth. But in ideas like Krama mukti, there have been uniformity of views amongst all classical advaitins.


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



In 4.4.17 itself. On release, the being does not become what it is not. Reality is Shiva (Self) in Jiva form, Shiva in Ishwara form, and Shiva is world in Jagat form. On attaining this Self, where is the question of taking up a form of Ishwara? A mukta who thinks "I am Ishwara" as opposed to "I am", is not a mukta proper. THIS IS ONLY POSSIBLE FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF IGNORANT ONLOOKER, LIKE WE SAY 'BHAGAWAN RAMANA'.


Do you mean to say that Brahman is totaly unaware of the jagat or Ishvara? If this your view, then I accept your idea. But if Brahman is aware of jagat and Ishvara { Shankara advaita says Brahman is a witness to dualty, but is inactive} then it must follow that Brahman knows that Brahman takes the form of Ishvara and jagat too. In such a case, why is it not applicable to the mukta? Brahman knows avidya to be of the nature of Brahman.

From your defintion, it would seem to me that you hold Ishvara himself to be mukta improper since he says "I am Ishvara", and hence mukta>Ishvara?

What is the difference between a brahmavid-variSTa( who remains alive) and Ishvara, in your opinion? What about Hanuman and other chiranjeevis? Are they mukta improper? Advaita does not use two tier reality like real and unreal, but a tristate. What is unreal ( a hare's horn) is imperceptible to Brahman, what is sadasadavilaxana( neither real nor unreal like avidya or jagat) is known to Brahman as a form of "non dualty".

It is Brahman who has become all. through his own will. Nothing prevents a mukta from assuming any form or nature after mukti, though he does so very consciously and is not influenced by mAyA. Such a person is called an avatara who is Ishvara tulya. It cannot be said that a mukta is gone once and all into the void for ever by any stretch of imagination. If this were assumed to be true, there would be no dualty present even now because there was never any reason whatsoever for Brahman to become many, nor any need for avidya to exist( even phenomenally) at any point of time. It is Brahman's very nature to express himself through dualty.
na sa punaraavartate, na sa punaraavartate is indended to convey the idea that mukta will never ever be bound by avidya again.

Madhavan
10 September 2007, 02:44 AM
Dear Madhavan,

It is definitely indicated by translation of George Thibault that as if Shankara was very illogically indicating that BS has not outlined the highest kind of mukti at all. Translations of Indian Swamijis give slightly different perspective.

Specifically, regarding 'world adminstration powers', Swamijis indicate that 'world adminstration' is a function of Ishwara and Ishwara is not the goal of Mukti, which is attaining the Self nature.

'Inseparablity' is treated as 'non-dual', hence there cannot be any question of a second being beside the Brahman. As mentioned earlier, milk and butter are separatable. Seed and fruit are separatable.


Then the following two verses together indicate that 'no other Lord' should mean 'no other Lord' only.

8. But by mere will (the released effect their purposes); because scripture states that.
9. And for this very same reason (the released soul is) without another lord.

Muslims have no other Lord but Allah, Christians have one lord only, and we have one Lord only but are all these denominations Mukta? 'No other Lord' should mean 'no other Lord besides oneself'. This is not illogical.

Om Namah Shivaya

Why should any advaitin pay any attention to the opinion of Thibaut? Thibaut has expressed his personal opinion. It is upto individuals to decide for themselves if Shankara is illogical( as claimed by Thibaut) or not, based on their own research! That is Hinduism ~ we have the freedom, dont we? But Thibaut also mentions that shankara systematized the upanishads even better than vedanta sutras themselves, showing that he was not really prejudiced by any other vedantic views!! He views it neutrally as a rank outsider would.

The verses you have cited are interpreted entirely differently by the dvaita tadition ~ so no use in quoting:

8. But by mere will (the released effect their purposes); because scripture states that.
9. And for this very same reason (the released soul is) without another lord.

Moroever, you should note that 4.4.21 is comparing the bliss of the mukta with the bliss of Ishvara using the word sAmyam, and also states that the equality is limited to the aspect of bliss only(bogamAtra). This automatically implies Ishvara is the Lord of the mukta. All these hold ground only in a form of relative mukti, and not the Absolute mukti.

Why is isn't the Brahma sutras stating openly that the released soul has become the Brahman towards the end, if that was the purport? Why does it have to use indirect expressions like it does not create or enjoy powers etc? One would expect to find a sutra on the lines of brahmvid brahmaiva bhavati in the sutras, but there is not a single sutra like that. That is why Shankara is correct in suggesting that most of vedanta sutras deal with the krama mukti only. Other explanations are merely trying to explain the sutras away instead of providing a legitimate explanation as to why the released soul has certain limitations at all.

atanu
10 September 2007, 06:01 AM
Namaste Madhavan



But in a sutra you have to use every word correctly. The word equal is applied to boga, ie enjoyment, and says nothing about powers. It simply states that the bliss of the liberated soul is equal to the bliss of the Lord.( note the word sAmyam which can make sense only if two entities are compared). This cannot be Absolute liberation because the bliss of the mukta cannot be compared to anything else, including the Lord - the mukta is one without a second.


If Mukta is one without a second, then where from a second Lord comes? We may agree to stop here. Else we continue as below.

A word may mean very differently to different conditioned individuals. For example, the word used in BS is ‘non-divisible’ or ‘inseparable’, which has been understood as ‘milk in milk’ or ‘milk in water’ or ‘seed in fruit’. Whereas I say, milk and water are definitely separable. Attaining oneness with the spirit (which always one is), does not mean attaining the power of Saguna Sun or Fire, who are appointed for specific purpose.

I hold on to the view that Brahman being Na lIpayate, desire to wield administrative powers, is contra-indicated as such. I feel that you are mixing up dvaita concepts here. Does Dvaita (or VA) consider Mukta to be ‘One without a second’? If not then, why discuss further?



-----Shankara advaita says Brahman is a witness to dualty, but is inactive ------
-----What about Hanuman and other chiranjeevis? Are they mukta improper? ----


There is no confusion that “Brahman is a witness to dualty, but is inactive”. And for this very reason, a mukta is not the doer and not the controller. You support my view.

You tell me, in what form Hanuman (or say Ganesha), exists for Christians or Muslims? That should answer your question, eventually.



----It cannot be said that a mukta is gone once and all into the void for ever by any stretch of imagination. ------

na sa punaraavartate, na sa punaraavartate is indended to convey the idea that mukta will never ever be bound by avidya again.

Mukta going into a void? Who said that? That is a very typical dvaita or HK argument against attaining oneness in Nirgunam.

Let us see how it evolves. Following this process of ‘na sa punaraavartate’, one fine day there should be no avidya any more, and only billions and trillions of Muktas. Isn’t it? Considering that the world has passed through a longish time, this should have had happened and there should have been no ignorant person left but there should have been zillions of Muktas perhaps?

Your whole argument seems to be based on the permanent real personalities. Whereas I know personality as a bundle of embodied desire – a form of conditioned consciousness. Mukti means loss of strength of desire and cutting of abidance to a local body, though a mukta may animate bodies on purpose, without any identification with them. A mukta remains a Self and nothing more and there is no other.

If a Mukta (Self) is a controller, in primary sense, then Mukta is no more Mukta but He is Prajapati. Creator becomes four faced and does not remain in the same plane of advaitaatma.

What I mean to say is that a Mukta knows that He never does anything. All is done by the powers of the Self. Atma does nothing yet Atma does everything. One who sees action in inaction and inaction in action, knows. One who wishes or one who thinks himself to be a doer (creator for example) is a Jiva – under ignorance. Such a one cannot be 'Na Lipayate'.

Yet a mukta (Self) may animate a creator and allow Gunas to create, without feeling that the Self is creating.

When we say ‘Bhagawan Ramana’, we perceive the localized Ramana as Bhagawan. But Ramana has no such notion. Mukta has no abidance in any localized form, but is limitless ONE consciousness and thus has no specific power over others, as there is no other. He is sankalpa free but wishes that may arise are fulfilled by Prakriti.



Moroever, you should note that 4.4.21 is comparing the bliss of the mukta with the bliss of Ishvara using the word sAmyam, and also states that the equality is limited to the aspect of bliss only (bogamAtra). This automatically implies Ishvara is the Lord of the mukta. All these hold ground only in a form of relative mukti, and not the Absolute mukti.


Please do not conclude in hurry. Bliss of Mukta is compared with Brahman and not with Ishwara. No one ever becomes abhinya from Ishwara, who is Brahman as viewed from Avidya (where there are many). Avidya disappearing, Ishwara and Brahman are the same, one without a second. Whereas, ‘world controllers such as Sun, Moon, Fire, Air etc. remain in their forms as world controllers. Muktas wishes are fulfilled by them.

Mukta is Self, so, it is not wrong to say that a Mukta is His own Lord or Self is the only Lord of Mukta, who has realized his inseparability with Brahman. This is the majority Advaita view.

As stated above, Ishwara as we know through indicatory marks, is our conception, a view within Prakriti. Four-armed Vishnu, or elephant faced Ganesha, or hanuman do not exist in the consciousness of a Muslim or a Christian, but Ishwara does exist as pure Pragnya for all in this world. On the other hand, Mukta is transcendental, one with Brahman, wherein the Self is the lord of the Self. Since Sarvesvara pure Pragnya is of the Self. That is why it is said “When the light rises, the blessed one alone is there. The primordial Pragnya of Savitur proceeded there from”.



Why is isn't the Brahma sutras stating openly that the released soul has become the Brahman towards the end, if that was the purport?

Soul does not become Brahman. The real meaning of Self Realisation is removal of Avidya to reveal the true Self-nature, which Brahma Sutra does in 4.4.1. Advaitins agree that this is attainment of Param Brahman.

I am a bit surprised that the commentaries of verses, 4.4.1 to 10, which have been taken as indicators of attainment of Param Brahman by all Advaitin commentators, are not acceptable to you as being such indicators. On the other hand, I do not have any problem to accept some of the verses being related to saguna attainment, except that I believe that it is not necessary.

I also note that you are avoiding comment on as to how advaitaatma will be known as another? This the crux.

Note:
There is no doubt that traveling through a path of gods itself is indicative of a saguna mukti. This type of Mukti has to be limited since one cannot meditate on infinite as Saguna. Brahma Sutras, however, seem to indicate that such a path will eventually lead to Self Realisation (in 4.4.1). Attaining the self-nature as mentioned in BS 4.4.1, is agreed by all advaitins to be attainment of Paramatma.

If Atanu were to realize the Self and become a Mukta, Ishwara power will still vest eternally with anadi Brahman and will not be transferred to Atanu Mukta, since Atanu will be a transitory form only.

Moreover, does the Self, in primary sense, wield any power? When there is no other, on whom to exercise the powers?

He who is neither inward-wise, nor outward-wise, nor both inward- and outward-wise, nor wisdom self-gathered, nor possessed of wisdom, nor unpossessed of wisdom, He Who is unseen and incommunicable, unseizable, featureless, unthinkable, and unnameable, Whose essentiality is awareness of the Self in its single existence, in Whom all phenomena dissolve, Who is Calm, Who is Good, Who is the One than Whom there is no other, Him they deem the fourth ; He is the Self, He is the object of Knowledge.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
10 September 2007, 09:22 AM
And the man who knows Our Lord,
He gets no results.




Allamma Prabhu


Disappointing indeed.

Madhavan
10 September 2007, 01:25 PM
Namaste,

I feel this is getting too repetitive.:)




There is no confusion that “Brahman is a witness to dualty, but is inactive”. And for this very reason, a mukta is not the doer and not the controller. You support my view.

You tell me, in what form Hanuman (or say Ganesha), exists for Christians or Muslims? That should answer your question, eventually.



Mukta going into a void? Who said that? That is a very typical dvaita or HK argument against attaining oneness in Nirgunam.

Let us see how it evolves. Following this process of ‘na sa punaraavartate’, one fine day there should be no avidya any more, and only billions and trillions of Muktas. Isn’t it? Considering that the world has passed through a longish time, this should have had happened and there should have been no ignorant person left but there should have been zillions of Muktas perhaps?


I did not mean that several muktas exist. There exists only one mukta, the one eternal Brahman. But you should note that many sages who have realized the Brahman still exist in the earth, they reside in the heavens and so on. Just the same way Lord Krishna incarnated on earth. When the Lord exists everywhere, why do you do call a certain person as an incarnation and another as an ignorant jIva? This is what I meant. Though the incarnation sees the Self in all beings and all beings inside the Self, the incarnation is still able to percieve dualty, and teach the world. This is what I mean by the existance of muktas, who are also known as avadhutas. A person who is thus liberated, may retain his body or assume forms elsewhere in the universe, though he is not the body you see.



Your whole argument seems to be based on the permanent real personalities. Whereas I know personality as a bundle of embodied desire – a form of conditioned consciousness. Mukti means loss of strength of desire and cutting of abidance to a local body, though a mukta may animate bodies on purpose, without any identification with them. A mukta remains a Self and nothing more and there is no other.

If a Mukta (Self) is a controller, in primary sense, then Mukta is no more Mukta but He is Prajapati. Creator becomes four faced and does not remain in the same plane of advaitaatma.


What I am saying is that it is indeed the same mukta who becomes the Prajapati. Mukta in this case is also the controller of Prajapati, what else causes Prajapati to undergo dissolution?





Please do not conclude in hurry. Bliss of Mukta is compared with Brahman and not with Ishwara. No one ever becomes abhinya from Ishwara, who is Brahman as viewed from Avidya (where there are many). Avidya disappearing, Ishwara and Brahman are the same, one without a second. Whereas, ‘world controllers such as Sun, Moon, Fire, Air etc. remain in their forms as world controllers. Muktas wishes are fulfilled by them.


If mukta is compared with Brahman, then why does it say the comparison stops with the equation of bliss alone? Why not knowledge or other aspects? Why, the sUtra could have directly stated that the mukta is brahman. That alone is the reason why that part of the commentary deals with a relative existance. You are only giving your view, but it is not a view shared by Shankara or his commentrators.

Again, you must note the word "linga" in bogamAtrasAmya linga cha, which means an inferential mark or a viSaya vAkya associated with the sUtra. Can you trace for me one single vishaya vAkya for bogamAtrasAmyam in shruti?? Shankara quotes Bri. Up. I.5.23 as one of the vishaya vAkyas but this shruti does not pertain to absolute mukti.

You cannot simply infer whether the comparison was made with Ishvara or Brahman unless you can cite a viSaya vAkya for your hypothesis. B.U 1.5.23 is one such vishaya vAkya which shows the mukta was compared with Ishvara.




Mukta is Self, so, it is not wrong to say that a Mukta is His own Lord or Self is the only Lord of Mukta, who has realized his inseparability with Brahman. This is the majority Advaita view.


The inseperability and the the "no other lord" are valid in the absolute mukti as per advaita interpretation. However, if you note

Pradipavadavesastatha hi darsayati ( 4.4.15 )

You are forced to conclude that this is pertaining to the relative mukti. This Sutra shows the possibility of the liberated soul of simultaneously possessing several bodies other than his own. When you say the own body of the mukta, it clearly means the mukta is still not bodyless, which cannot indicate absolute mukti at all. What I indicated earlier is that the para mukta can choose any number of bodies on any plane of existance, but still cannot 'own' a body, because the mukta is all pervading in the absolute state.



As stated above, Ishwara as we know through indicatory marks, is our conception, a view within Prakriti. Four-armed Vishnu, or elephant faced Ganesha, or hanuman do not exist in the consciousness of a Muslim or a Christian, but Ishwara does exist as pure Pragnya for all in this world. On the other hand, Mukta is transcendental, one with Brahman, wherein the Self is the lord of the Self. Since Sarvesvara pure Pragnya is of the Self. That is why it is said “When the light rises, the blessed one alone is there. The primordial Pragnya of Savitur proceeded there from”.


It is wrong to think that Four armed Vishnu or elephant faced God is Ishvara. Ishvara's true form is beyond description and Arjuna sees a bit of it in the vishvarUpa adhyAya.

Pragnya exists even in the absolute state also. otherwise it is meaningless to refer to Turya as Lord and other glorifying epithets in the mANDUkya Up. Do you know that Pragnya is also called axara? What does axara mean - indestructible, meaning eternal! Then how can an eternal entity vanish in any kind of liberation? Pragnya is the witness consciousness of the Self. Turya(mukta) rules over Pragnya.




Soul does not become Brahman. The real meaning of Self Realisation is removal of Avidya to reveal the true Self-nature, which Brahma Sutra does in 4.4.1. Advaitins agree that this is attainment of Param Brahman.


Yes, it is interpreted so. The 'becoming' Brahman is used in loka vyavahAra, we have shruti itself using the phrase brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati. What I was referring was there there is absolutely no equivalent of a mahAvAkya in the Brahma sutras. It is also well accepted that Brahman could have been defined better in the sUtras - janmAdyasya yatah is not a very good definition for advaitins because it pertains to Ishvara only. When the definition itself starts with a relative definition, why cant Brahmasutras be dealing with relative mukti? I, for instance would have liked to see Brahman defined as sacchidAnanda or neti neti, instead of janmAdyasya yatah.




I am a bit surprised that the commentaries of verses, 4.4.1 to 10, which have been taken as indicators of attainment of Param Brahman by all Advaitin commentators, are not acceptable to you as being such indicators. On the other hand, I do not have any problem to accept some of the verses being related to saguna attainment, except that I believe that it is not necessary.


I have only mentioned that none of the sUtras are very clear in their meaning. If there had been a sUtra equivalent to a mahAvAkya in the final passages, your interpretation would be unambigous.



I also note that you are avoiding comment on as to how advaitaatma will be known as another? This the crux.


I have told you clearly before - the meaning of Advaita is "non dual" ( no two) and how you interpret the meaning of "non dual" is entirely a question of semantics. Shankara equates advaita with ekameva advitIyam. Only under this definition, the advaitAma can be known only in identity.




There is no doubt that traveling through a path of gods itself is indicative of a saguna mukti. This type of Mukti has to be limited since one cannot meditate on infinite as Saguna. Brahma Sutras, however, seem to indicate that such a path will eventually lead to Self Realisation (in 4.4.1). Attaining the self-nature as mentioned in BS 4.4.1, is agreed by all advaitins to be attainment of Paramatma.

If Atanu were to realize the Self and become a Mukta, Ishwara power will still vest eternally with anadi Brahman and will not be transferred to Atanu Mukta, since Atanu will be a transitory form only.

Moreover, does the Self, in primary sense, wield any power? When there is no other, on whom to exercise the powers?

He who is neither inward-wise, nor outward-wise, nor both inward- and outward-wise, nor wisdom self-gathered, nor possessed of wisdom, nor unpossessed of wisdom, He Who is unseen and incommunicable, unseizable, featureless, unthinkable, and unnameable, Whose essentiality is awareness of the Self in its single existence, in Whom all phenomena dissolve, Who is Calm, Who is Good, Who is the One than Whom there is no other, Him they deem the fourth ; He is the Self, He is the object of Knowledge.



When Atanu becomes the Self, the jIva called Atanu disappears and all things pertaining to the Self pertain to the now jIva called Atanu. If the Self creates, then Atanu creates - why is it so hard to understand?

From the Self is born Isvara. When a mukta becomes the Self, from himself is born Ishvara also.

The scenario is something like this. The Self designs a big drama ( the drama of creation) in which it assumes all roles, including the big role of Ishvara. The only difference being that except Ishvara, each other actor in the drama thinks the drama is 'real life'. Self or Turya is the Lord of the dualty in the drama as all dualty arises from the Self. Self is also the Lord of Ishvara. mANDukya directly calls Turya as Lord, isnt it sufficient for you then that for anyone who inherits the Turya consciousness is also the Lord( of pragnya)? Self does not act, because it does not have to do anything to accomplish anything. Mere will causes all action. The difference between Krama mukti and sadyo mukti is that, the soul continues to act with knowledge that it is only a drama in Krama mukti, while the absolutely liberated soul usually stops all involvement with the drama, and opts out of it. Since the drama is 'directed' by the Self, any mukta does what the Self does...design another drama after the other in an endless chain.

Mukta is called one without a second, because he is the only REAL entity, everything else has only temporary existance. Mukta(Self) is the Lord of all temporary entities, including time and space....he exercises the powers on the temporary entities he has created out of himself.

atanu
11 September 2007, 01:58 AM
Namaste,
I feel this is getting too repetitive.:)
--
You cannot simply infer whether the comparison was made with Ishvara or Brahman unless you can cite a viSaya vAkya for your hypothesis. B.U 1.5.23 is one such vishaya vAkya which shows the mukta was compared with Ishvara.
-----
When you say the own body of the mukta, it clearly means the mukta is still not bodyless, which cannot indicate absolute mukti at all.
----
When Atanu becomes the Self, the jIva called Atanu disappears and all things pertaining to the Self pertain to the now jIva called Atanu. If the Self creates, then Atanu creates - why is it so hard to understand?



Namaste Madhavan,

Yes, I think we are repeating the same concepts and that your and my views do not differ except on very minor points.

Regarding comparison with Ishwara, it is not my comparison. It is from both Vireswarananda and Gambhirananda.

Regarding body of mukta. I feel u are contradicting yourself, since you say that avataras are full muktas. Surely they have body. Why can't a Jivan Mukta have a body?

Regarding attainment of administratrive powers. I hold on that Sun and Moon etc., remain as appointed leaders of Lokas. And beyond Lokas, the ONE and ONLY Master is anadi Brahman-Ishwara Rudra. What is eternally true cannot be falsified when a Jiva attains Self Nature, which itself is knowledge -- so it is not required to say that Jiva attains knowledge equal to Brahman.

Regarding Atanu-the Jiva. Jiva is Maya. It is nothing but a limited form of Brahman. On mukti, the notion that Atanu is something has to go. Till it goes, there is no mukti. Even, Indra, Agni, Vayu where chastised that they held the notion of being the victors.



I have only mentioned that none of the sUtras are very clear in their meaning. If there had been a sUtra equivalent to a mahAvAkya in the final passages, your interpretation would be unambigous.


Remember that mahavakyas themselves are not uniformly understood.


----------------------
I remind you that I have said several times that I do not think it is any problem that some verses in 4.4 part can be attributed to Saguna Mukti. But it is not necessary (or primary argument) for defence of Advaita. If some one argues that Seed and Fruit are inseparable then let them do so. How does it matter?


Regards,

The discussion with you has been very fruitful for me. I hope it has been the same for you.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
11 September 2007, 01:37 PM
This is quite right. Even Swami Krishnananda apprently does not comprehend Shankara Bhaashya fully. See what he says on that link:



From Swami Krishnananda
A very pertinent issue arising in the Brahma Sutra is when it defines Anandamaya Brahman, stating that Anandamaya is Brahman. The word Anandamaya occurs in the texts on Vedanta philosophy, indicating that it is one of the sheaths covering the soul, there being five sheaths, the other four being the physical, the vital, the mental and the intellectual. Inspite of the fact that the covering of the soul cannot be the soul, the Sutra seems to emphasise that Anandamaya is itself Brahman. Commentators generally bypass this issue and would not like to enter into any controversy for fear of contradicting the obvious intention of the text and the reasoned conclusions spontaneously coming out of the issue. It was Acharya Sankara alone who had the courage to disagree with the Sutra and declare that the Anandamaya cannot be Brahman. The reason is that the Anandamaya sheath is the one into which the individual enters in the state of deep sleep. But if Anandamaya which causes sleep is itself Brahman, the individual will merge in Brahman in the state of sleep itself, which however is not the case. It is seen that after sleep, the individual wakes up to ordinary waking experience and involves itself in world consciousness. Now, what doctrine is the Brahma Sutra preaching, since Ramanuja would certainly be happy to fully agree with the statement that Anandamaya is Brahman itself. Would a commentator stand against the obvious meaning of the Sutra and contradict it by insisting on a non-dualistic interpretation? Here again comes in the quandary that liberation cannot be complete unless the soul enters into the unqualified Brahman and not the one with relative characteristics of any kind.

The true fact is Shankara did not refer to the Anandamaya as the individual soul, but as savisesha brahman or Ishvara, which is perfectly in tune with the sUtras. Shankara, in addition goes on to show why Taittiriya should incorporate an additonal Nirguna Brahman inside of the anandamaya kosha. I will try to post about this in more detail..

The fact is that Shankara does not apriori assume an individual soul at all.

[The following is adapted from Sri Shankaracharya's commentary on Mandukya] :

Those who have realised Brahman, the Highest Reality, merge the self in Turiya because they have transcended the notion of cause and effect, which inheres in the third quarter of Atman. They are not born again; for they have realised their identity with the causeless Turiya. ----- Thus, proceeding step by step, they ultimately realise Turiya, devoid of any state or sound, and attain the Highest Goal.


Brahman is Agni Vaisvanaro. Brahman is Taijassa, Brahman is Dense Pragnya -- the Anandamaya-Sarvesvara. All of these states being realised, one knows Turya (or Turiya as in Shankara's commentary above).

Turya is Transcendental, Para, Param Parastaad, Param Brahman, Brahma Yoni. Comprehending and integrating the vidya of Mandukya Upanishad leaves no doubt that Shankara and Sutras are attuned to each other to the finest degree. Not comprehending the import of Turya, one may feel that either Shankara or Badarayana is correct.

It is said that before writing Bhasya, Shankara had a meeting with Badarayana.


Om Namah Shivaya

Madhavan
12 September 2007, 01:44 AM
Namaste,




Regarding body of mukta. I feel u are contradicting yourself, since you say that avataras are full muktas. Surely they have body. Why can't a Jivan Mukta have a body?


But does the avatara identify himself with the body we see?

Let us take the case of Sai baba, who is widely beleived to be an avatara. It is mentioned that he was first born as Shirdi Sai baba, then as Satya Sai baba and it is also foretold that he will be born as Premsai in future. If he is an avatara, then he is a mukta. Then from where does the question arise for a mukta to take birth after birth, if mukta's death means becoming discarnate for ever?

I remember ( cant quote right now) Shankara mentioning somewhere that at the time of death, the jIvanmukta can either choose to completely merge in Brahman ( like water in water) or take on a very subtle body(pragnyasvarUpa), which poses no limitations upon him. If the second option is not allowed, then there is no way Saibaba or any sage can return back after death. One who has disappeared into Brahman can never come back with a former identity. The pragnyasvarUpa makes him Ishvara ~ and he can retain it for as long as he wants. Some realized souls will retain it for ever, like in the case of chiranjeevis and in the case of divine sages like Narada. These souls will have consciousness in Turiya, but the world will see them as a 'body'.




Regarding attainment of administratrive powers. I hold on that Sun and Moon etc., remain as appointed leaders of Lokas. And beyond Lokas, the ONE and ONLY Master is anadi Brahman-Ishwara Rudra. What is eternally true cannot be falsified when a Jiva attains Self Nature, which itself is knowledge -- so it is not required to say that Jiva attains knowledge equal to Brahman.


When vAmadeva realizes his identity with the Brahman, he also knows that he became surya and manu.

"In the beginning (before creation), Brahma alone existed. He knew
Himself as Brahma, who alone exists. Therefore, he became every thing else (sarvam) in the world {the entire process of creation is implied here).
Who ever knew Brahman in this manner amongst the Devas, Rishis and
Manushyas (men) they became that. Sri Vamadeva Rishi also cognised Him in this manner that he became Manu, Surya etc. Therefore, who ever cognises "Aham BrahmAsmi" will become everything (sarvam). This can not be prevented even by gods or by any body else. "






I remind you that I have said several times that I do not think it is any problem that some verses in 4.4 part can be attributed to Saguna Mukti. But it is not necessary (or primary argument) for defence of Advaita. If some one argues that Seed and Fruit are inseparable then let them do so. How does it matter?


The one problem I see with advaita's interpretation is most of the verses in the 4.4 pertains to the saguna mukti. Moroever, saguna mukta has been completely dealt with in 4.3, and it is a reasonable requirement for 4.4 to be dealing with nirguna mukti. But it seems only seven sutras out of the the 48 sutras ( 4.3 and 4.4 combined) are interpreted as dealing with the absolute mukti.

It is for this reason that I think what Sarabhanga says maybe more correct. There is possibly no reason to treat devayAna as a path different from absolute mukti, as various stages in devayAna can be interpreted as various grades of jnAna yoga ( the seven bhUmika). But classical advaitins have treated devayAna as karma/bhakti yoga and treated jnAna yoga entirely differently. If we go by Sarabhanga's theory, I feel we dont have to deal with the twin saguna/nirguna mukti ideas in the sutras, and can handle saguna mukti as one of the stages of jnAna yoga( satvapatti or asamsakti ) while nirguna mukti is padArta bhavana or turya. I dont think brahma loka is a place to visit as classical commentrators have interpreted, but it is a state of consciousness bordering near turya. If we keep this in mind, vedanta sutras can be rather easily interpreted without bringing in different types of muktis.

In saguna mukti too, mukti cannot be attained without Atma jnAna ( which is not complete as in the case of advaita) , so it should be ideal to treat it as part of the jnAna yoga process.

One problem I see for Shankara to use this form of interpretation is because texts like Yoga Vasishta which describe these beautifully are not recognized as authority by vedantins, and hence they are forced to resort to indirect and circuitous means of interpreting the scripture.










The discussion with you has been very fruitful for me. I hope it has been the same for you.



The feelings are mutual. Regards.

atanu
12 September 2007, 08:25 AM
Namaste,

But does the avatara identify himself with the body we see?
-----
I remember ( cant quote right now) Shankara mentioning somewhere that at the time of death, the jIvanmukta can either choose to completely merge in Brahman ( like water in water) or take on a very subtle body(pragnyasvarUpa), which poses no limitations upon him. -----


Yes, Siddhas are supposed do that. Ramana and Shankara both teach so. BS mentions both body and bodyless existence. But those are just bodies, the karana remains infinite Brahman (if it has to be a complete mukti).



One problem I see for Shankara to use this form of interpretation is because texts like Yoga Vasishta which describe these beautifully are not recognized as authority by vedantins, and hence they are forced to resort to indirect and circuitous means of interpreting the scripture.


Actually, I do not see much problem except of language and its comprehension. Nirguna Mukti or Nirguna Brahman is beyond experience. What can a treatise explain? It can only explain the tangible and point to the intangible. Attaining Self Nature is the best pointer that could be.

BS, I feel does a grand job of it. And Shankara Bhasya is equally grand towards making it a bit more lucid. However, language will always have problem wrt to the intangible.


Thanks and Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
19 September 2007, 07:19 AM
FROM THE VEDAS
"He who meditates on the Highest Person through this syllable Aum, consisting of three letters, becomes united with the effulgent sun. As a snake is freed from its skin, even so he is freed from sin."

Atharva Veda, Prasna Upanishad 5.5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meditating on A-U-M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rishi Pippalada shares secrets about the Primal Sound

Satyakama, the son of Sibi, asked Pippalada: "Sir, if among men someone should here meditate on the syllable Aum until death, which world, verily, would he win thereby?" Pippalada replied: "O Satyakama, the syllable Aum is the Supreme Brahman and also the other Brahman. Therefore he who knows it attains, with its support, the one or the other.

"If he meditates on one letter (matri), then, being enlightened by that alone, he quickly comes back to Earth after death. The Rig verses lead him to the world of men. By practicing austerity, chastity and faith, he enjoys greatness.

"If, again, he meditates on the second letter, he attains the mind and is led up by the Yajur verses to the intermediate space, to the Plane of the Moon. Having enjoyed greatness in the Plane of the Moon, he returns hither again.

"Again, he who meditates on the Highest Person through this syllable Aum consisting of three letters, becomes united with the effulgent Sun. As a snake is freed from its skin, even so he is freed from sin.

"The three letters of Aum [used separately] are mortal; but when joined together in meditation on the total Reality and used properly on the activities of the external, internal and intermediate states, the knower trembles not.

"The wise man, meditating on Aum, attains this world by means of the Rig verses; the intermediate world by means of the Yajur verses; and that which is known to the seers by means of the Sama verses. And also through the syllable Aum he realizes that which is tranquil, free from decay, death and fear, and which is the Highest."


Atharva Veda, Prasna Upanishad 5.1-7, Translation by Swami Nikhilananda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commentary by Swami Nikhilananda

Meditate: Meditation means the continuous flow of the mind toward Atman through the total exclusion of all ideas foreign to It. The aspirant should meditate on Aum with great love, regarding it as the symbol of Brahman, as a life-long vow ("until death").


Which World: Many are the worlds that spiritual seekers may attain after death. Aum is the symbol of both the Lower Brahman and the Higher Brahman. Brahman may be worshiped by the aspirant in both aspects. From the Lower Brahman he can attain the Higher Brahman by gradual stages. The Supreme Brahman, also called the Higher Brahman, is devoid of all characteristics and cannot be known through words or thought. Aparabrahman, or the lower, "other" Brahman, is the first manifestation of the Absolute, or Pure Consciousness, in maya.

Brahman, being transcendental in nature, cannot be directly comprehended by the mind. Therefore, many indirect meditations on Brahman are laid down in the scriptures. One such is meditation through a symbol, or pratika, which means meditation on one aspect of an all-pervading entity, or on something associated with it, as the thing itself. Aum is the most immediate symbol of Brahman. It is much more effective than any other symbol. By contemplating the Supreme Brahman through Aum, one realizes the highest plane, and by using Aum as a symbol of the Lower Brahman, one attains a lower plane.

Plane of the Moon: The second syllable, U, is the symbol of the verses of the Yajur Veda leading up to the Somaloka, Plane of the Moon, located in the space between Heaven and Earth where dwellers experience various supernatural glories ("greatness"). The mind is controlled by the Deity who governs the moon. It is associated with dreams, since dreams are creations of the mind. Dream experiences are projections of the mind. The after-death experiences in the Plane of the Moon are of the same nature as ideas and are therefore compared to dreams.

Sama Verses: He is led up, by the Sama Veda verses, of which M is the symbol, to the World of Brahma. From this, which is the aggregate of all lives, he beholds the Supreme Purusha, higher than the High and pervading all bodies. This exalted plane is known also as Satyaloka.

But When Joined Together: If the aspirant meditates separately on each of the three letters constituting Aum, he is born again in this world. This is because A, U, and M, taken separately, do not indicate Saguna Brahman, the realization of which alone enables one to transcend death. When the three letters are joined together to form the syllable Aum, that syllable should be used as the symbol of Brahman, or the Cosmic Reality.

Trembles Not: As a result of meditation on Brahman, the aspirant realizes his oneness with Saguna Brahman, or the World Soul. Therefore, he has no reason to be afraid of anything. Attaining Brahmaloka, he overcomes death and rebirth. He who meditates on the entire syllable Aum, bearing in mind his identity with Brahman, attains Brahmaloka and ultimately final Liberation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Swami Nikhilananda (1895-1973), was founder and spiritual leader of the Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center of New York from 1933 to his Mahasamadhi in 1973. His four-volume Upanishad translation was completed in 1959.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
19 September 2007, 07:47 AM
To Know the Unknowable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rishi Yajnavalkya distinguishes the highest path

Translation by Swami Nikhilananda

If a man knows the self as "I am this," then desiring what and for whose sake will he suffer in the wake of the body? Whoever has realized and intimately known the Self, which has entered this perilous and perplexing place, is the maker of the universe; for he is the maker of all. All is his Self, and he, again, is indeed the Self of all. Those who know Brahman become immortal, while others only suffer misery. When a person following a teacher's instructions directly beholds the effulgent Self—the Lord of all that has been and will be—he no longer wishes to hide himself from It. That in which the five groups of five and the akasha rest, that very Atman (the soul) I regard as the Immortal Brahman. Knowing that Brahman, I am immortal. They who know the Vital Breath (Prana) of the vital breath (prana), the Eye of the eye, the Ear of the ear, the Mind of the mind, have realized the ancient, primordial Brahman.

Through the mind alone is Brahman to be realized. There is in It no diversity. He goes from death to death who sees in It, as it were, diversity. Unknowable and constant, It should be realized in one form only. The Self is free from taint, beyond the akasha, birthless, infinite and unchanging. The intelligent seeker of Brahman, learning about the Self alone, should practice wisdom (prajna). Let him not think of too many words, for that is exhausting to the organ of speech.

That great, unborn Self, which is identified with the intellect (vijnanamaya) and which dwells in the midst of the organs, lies in the akasha within the heart. It is the controller of all, the lord of all, the ruler of all. It does not become greater through good deeds or smaller through evil deeds. It is the lord of all beings, the ruler of all beings, the protector of all beings. It is the dam that serves as the boundary to keep the different worlds apart. The brahmins seek to realize It through the study of the Vedas, through sacrifices, through gifts, and through austerity which does not lead to annihilation. Knowing It alone, one becomes a sage (muni).

Wishing for this World (i.e., the Self) alone, monks renounce their homes. The knowers of Brahman of olden times, it is said, did not wish for offspring. They thought, "What shall we do with offspring—we who have attained this Self, this World?" They gave up, it is said, their desire for sons, for wealth, and for the worlds, and led the life of religious mendicants. That which is the desire for sons is the desire for wealth, and that which is the desire for wealth is the desire for the worlds; for both these, indeed, are but desires.

This Self is That which has been described as neti, neti, "not this, not this." It is imperceptible, for It is not perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered, for It never feels pain and never suffers injury. This has been expressed by the following Rig verse: "This is the eternal glory of Brahman: It neither increases nor decreases through work. Therefore one should know the nature of That alone. Knowing It, one is not touched by evil action."

Therefore, he who knows It as such becomes self-controlled, calm, withdrawn into himself, patient and collected; he sees the Self in his own self (body); he sees all as the Self. Evil does not overcome him, but he overcomes all evil. Evil does not afflict him, but he consumes all evil. He becomes sinless, taintless, free from doubts, a true Brahmana (knower of Brahman). That great, unborn Self is undecaying, immortal, undying, fearless; It is Brahman (infinite). Brahman is indeed fearless. He who knows It as such becomes the fearless Brahman.

Shukla Yajur Veda, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.12-25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commentary by Swami Nikhilananda

It may be contended that there is a contradiction in the two statements, namely, that Brahman is unknowable and that It should be known. The contention is not valid. When it is said that Brahman is unknowable, the statement means that Brahman cannot be known as an object by the ordinary means of knowledge. Again, when it is said that Brahman should be known, the statement means that Brahman can be known only through scriptural evidence. The scriptures, too, describe Brahman by the denial of such attributes as if It is the subject or the object of knowledge. They do not speak of Brahman as an object. The "knowledge of Brahman" really means the cessation of Its identification with extraneous objects, such as the body and organs. It is the knowledge of identity with Atman. Such identity is not to be attained; it always exists but remains hidden because of the false identification with the body, organs, etc. When the false identity is destroyed, the natural identification of the Self with Brahman is revealed. This is expressed by the statement "The Self is known."


Om Namah Shivaya

sarabhanga
19 October 2007, 01:29 AM
Pragnya exists even in the absolute state, otherwise it is meaningless to refer to Turya as Lord and other glorifying epithets in the Mandukya Up.

Mandukya directly calls Turya as Lord.

Namaste Madhavan,

The Mandukyopanishad does NOT refer to the Turya as Lord ~ the Sarveshvara (and other glorifying epithets) of verse 6 refer only to Prājña.

turya = brahma (neut.) = sadAshiva
prAjña = brahmA (masc.) = Ishvara

sarabhanga
19 October 2007, 01:54 AM
Namaste,

In dvaita, there is both jIvAtman and paramAtman; whereas, in advaita, there is only paramAtman.

atanu
19 October 2007, 02:28 AM
Namaste Madhavan,

The Mandukyopanishad does NOT refer to the Turya as Lord ~ the Sarveshvara (and other glorifying epithets) of verse 6 refer only to Prājña.

turya = brahma (neut.) = sadAshiva
prAjña = brahmA (masc.) = Ishvara

Yeah, prAjña =Ishvara. Brahman, viewed as with and as controller of its Prakriti (Pragnya).

Om Namah Shivaya

sarabhanga
19 October 2007, 07:07 AM
You must define the terms Advaita and Dvaita before making use of concepts like advaitAtma.


dvaita is duality or duplicity, and doubt ~ the non-identity of paramAtman and jIvAtman.
advaita is non-duality or unity, and ultimate truth ~ the identity of paramAtman and jIvAtman.

And advaitAtman is Atman devoid of duality, without duplication or division, peerless and unique.

yajvan
19 October 2007, 12:28 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

dvaita is duality or duplicity, and doubt ~ the non-identity of paramAtman and jIvAtman.
advaita is non-duality or unity, and ultimate truth ~ the identity of paramAtman and jIvAtman.

And advaitAtman is Atman devoid of duality, without duplication or division, peerless and unique.


Namaste.

this has been the long standing definiiton, the cornerstone...i.e. advaita is non-duality or unity.
Madhavan (et.al) I am in hopes we are not re-considering a redifinion on this nor on turya.

This makes perfect since and supported by the upanishads
e.g. turya = brahma (neut.) = sadAshiva

pranams

Rajalakshmi
20 January 2008, 09:55 AM
Namaste All,

There seems to be have been a discussion in this thread as to whether Saguna Brahman is eternal or not. This is my take on it:

Nirguna Brahman or the Absolute truth, the Atma is eternal ( is eternity itself!) and completely disconnected with the phenomemon of creation. It has never given rise to anything anytime, and even beyond time, space, thought. It is the source of mAyA, but mAyA was never born from it and it is an eternal phenomenon like rays of the sun being as old as the sun itself. We can call this Atman as shivaM advaitaM, one beyond all descriptors.

mAyA or nArAyaNa is unborn but the source is the Atma. Atma is without guNas, but nArAyaNa is an expanded form of Atma, with infinite number of guNas all of which are infinite and is as equally inconcievable as Atma. nArAyaNa is always absorbed in the transcendendal bliss of Atma and is the omniscient, omnipotent ruler of the universe. There is no individual ego that can ever become become to this being and he is the purushottama. From this aja nArAyaNa, all creation proceed. He has coexisted with a phenomenon called kAlA, and all these have no beginning or end. Both mAyA and kAlA are anAdi nityaM. Innumerable jIvas have also coexisted with nArAyaNa from anAdi kAlA. nArAyaNa never ceases to exist in the vyavahAra dasha, so Saguna Brahman is eternal.

During every kalpa, the golden egg called hiraNyagarbha emerges from the navel of nArAyaNa, and all further creation, maintanence and destruction is directed by the Lord, and he pervades the creation and becomes omnipresent. During every creation, jIvas are born according to their karmas. They perform sAdhana for liberation.

There are two distinct pathways to liberation.

Some of the most gifted jIvas are able to follow the nivR^itti mArga and able to completely transcend the great mAyA of nArAyaNa (kr^ishNa) and attain the to the Absolute truth of Atman beyond time and space, and they have no kind of individual existance upon moksha and never return in any form to the vyavahArik mAyA.

Most of the jIvas are unable to completely cross mAyA, and perform sharaNAgati to nArAyaNa and meditate on the mystic symbol OM, and are liberated from this samsAra cakra through his grace gradually. They attain to the Ishvara lOka, which is an advanced state of consciousness where every jIva is omniscient and enjoy AnandasAmyaM with nArAyaNa and enjoy his glories and also take part in creation process, get appointed as gaurdian dieties, dikpAlakAs and serve as gurus for other jIvas. These liberated jIvas are called uttama purushas who do not have the powers of creation etc, which are in the sole custody of nArAyaNa. These uttama purushas stay in these high lOkas until the Lord wills otherwise - it is possible that mukta jIvas can be eternal too, and it depends on the Lord's will if they continue to coexist with him or not! These muktas are like jIvanmuktas on earth.

Both Advaita and dvaitAdvaita are equally true philosophies. Some jIvas will benefit from advaitavAda and some others from dvaitAdvaita vAda. Pure dvaitavAda is not taught in vedAnta and is applicable only during the various stages of mukti itself, and Dvaita is not an eternal truth.

~RL

yajvan
20 January 2008, 03:50 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste All,

There seems to be have been a discussion in this thread as to whether Saguna Brahman is eternal or not. This is my take on it:

mAyA or nArAyaNa is unborn but the source is the Atma. Atma is without guNas, but nArAyaNa is an expanded form of Atma, with infinite number of guNas all of which are infinite and is as equally inconceivable as Atma.


Namaste Rajalakshmi,
Wanted to let you know I enjoyed reading your post... can you expand a bit on the notion of infinite number of guNas. That is, help us better understand this.
When one thinks of guNas we think of sattva, rajas and tamas. We also can think of the number of permutations of the guNas. And we can think that every entity within creation has these triguna in various measures in them...
So, if you have the time help us ( me ) better understand your notion of applying the gunas as infinite in number.

pranams and dhanyavadah

Bob G
20 January 2008, 10:11 PM
Hello RL,

Interesting post and thank you for sharing your pov..

My pov is quite different from your second sentence when you say: "Nirguna Brahman or the Absolute truth, the Atma is eternal ( is eternity itself!) and completely disconnected with the phenomemon of creation. It has never given rise to anything anytime, "...

My pov uses the idea of transcendent to phenomenon although not disconnected from it per-se. For instance I'll use an analogy with electrical equipment in it to try and illustrate what I'm alluding to:

Lets say an electrical transformer has one million volts on one side of its wires and one thousand volts on the other side; also as with transformers there is no physical connection between these wires on the two sides of the transformer yet somehow energy from one side is passed to other - thus there must be an invisible connection between the two (apparently separate) sides of the transformer; and if we ask how can that be? ...well science says that it's done with a magnetic field that transforms and transfers the power across!

Further, and more or less taking that analogy into consideration, we could say Brahman is on one side of a special transformer and Lord Brahma is on the other side - with an invisible and magnetic like field connecting them together. Thus the Absolute passes (or emanates) transformed power to Lord Brahma yet remains transcendent to Him! (because Lord Brahma can not pass back into this field towards Brahman (so to speak) and still exist as creator and creation since the field will not allow his passage as an individual Being (even an exceedingly great creator Being of 3 in oneness!)

Don't know if that makes sense to you or anyone else but its my two cents worth.

Om

Rajalakshmi
21 January 2008, 12:06 AM
Hello RL,

Interesting post and thank you for sharing your pov..

My pov is quite different from your second sentence when you say: "Nirguna Brahman or the Absolute truth, the Atma is eternal ( is eternity itself!) and completely disconnected with the phenomemon of creation. It has never given rise to anything anytime, "...

My pov uses the idea of transcendent to phenomenon although not disconnected from it per-se. For instance I'll use an analogy with electrical equipment in it to try and illustrate what I'm alluding to:

Lets say an electrical transformer has one million volts on one side of its wires and one thousand volts on the other side; also as with transformers there is no physical connection between these wires on the two sides of the transformer yet somehow energy from one side is passed to other - thus there must be an invisible connection between the two (apparently separate) sides of the transformer; and if we ask how can that be? ...well science says that it's done with a magnetic field that transforms and transfers the power across!

Further, and more or less taking that analogy into consideration, we could say Brahman is on one side of a special transformer and Lord Brahma is on the other side - with an invisible and magnetic like field connecting them together. Thus the Absolute passes (or emanates) transformed power to Lord Brahma yet remains transcendent to Him! (because Lord Brahma can not pass back into this field towards Brahman (so to speak) and still exist as creator and creation since the field will not allow his passage as an individual Being (even an exceedingly great creator Being of 3 in oneness!)

Don't know if that makes sense to you or anyone else but its my two cents worth.

Om

The point to be noted in Turya is the one and only reality. It is not a thinking personality and cannot give rise to anything by will. So whatever that comes out of Turya must be coming out rather without a cause and without a direction.

Fortunately, Turya is full, and only full can emerge from it. 'pUrNamadah pUrNamidaM pUrNAt pUrNamudacyate'. So, Ishvara is also always full. But Ishvara has not been created by Turya- both are co-eternal, the former is Absolute Truth and the latter is mAyA, both are one and the same, and simultaneously different as well - their oneness and difference is inexplicable and indeterminate.

Your logic would hold only if there were two eternally different real entities, with Turya influencing the other indirectly. But there is only one Turya, and therefore it cannot be related to creation in anyway. All creation is result of mAyA alone- whose origin is untraceable. Turya is responsible for mAyA, but not its direct cause or origin.

Yes, it is very difficult to understand. The Absolute Reality has no connection with the world, but still an indirect cause of it. Yoga vasishTa and shankarAdvaita are very emphatic about it.

Theory of leela is also valid only in vyavahAra - the whole thing is NOT the leela of Nirguna Brahman at all.

Rajalakshmi
21 January 2008, 12:30 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~




Namaste Rajalakshmi,
Wanted to let you know I enjoyed reading your post... can you expand a bit on the notion of infinite number of guNas. That is, help us better understand this.
When one thinks of guNas we think of sattva, rajas and tamas. We also can think of the number of permutations of the guNas. And we can think that every entity within creation has these triguna in various measures in them...
So, if you have the time help us ( me ) better understand your notion of applying the gunas as infinite in number.

pranams and dhanyavadah

Namaste,

Turya is full, pUrNaM. But Turya does not have any guNas and serves as a mere 'creative potential' for guNas. Turya is gunAtita and an unlimited source of guNas. mAyA being an (indirect) effect of Turya manifests the guNas not inherently manifest in Turya. guNa and shakti are identical terms.

Ishvara is associated with primarily three shaktis kriya shakti, jnAna shakti and ichcha shakti. Each of these shaktis have innumerable inconcievable forms and Ishvara is a full blown projection of the unmanifest Turya, and is unlimited in every dimension and respect. Knowing Ishvara is 'nearly' equal to knowing Turya, and I dont know what the difference might be.( the concept of knowing is not relevant for Turya though as there is no knower-known distinction) Turiya with self awareness is called Ishvara.

Ishvara has only pure sattva guNas( non prAkritic) inherited from Turya. It is when Ishvara creates/activates Prakriti, the three guNas come about. HiraNyagarbha has the three guNas. It is this Ishvara Parabrahman who is talked about in the scripture - as Turya is beyond description. Such a Prabrahman resides in many forms in many lOkas- there are infinite of them. Every religion gives a different model of moksha sthAna isn't it? These are all due to huge differences in the way Ishvara has manifested. All these Ishvara lOkas exist forever in the vyavahAra realm, though all lOkas in Prakriti are destroyed in praLaya.

sarabhanga
21 January 2008, 12:56 AM
Namaste Rajalakshmi,

If nara (as nirguNa brahma) is aja, and nArAyaNa (“son of nara”, as saguNa brahmA) is also aja, then your understanding is that there was never any first creation, but that the “creation” has always existed together with its “creator” in some kind of dvaitAdvaita relation.

The unborn eternity of mAyA is not suggested by advaitavAda.

If there was no origin of nArAyaNa, and the naranArAyaNau has always existed as a twin, the possibility of nara (the unnamable rudra brahma) alone is denied, and rudra has never been without a name, and the brahman has never been without gender, and hara has never been without hari, and ananta has never been without viSNu, and the arrow of time has always been in flight.

When ananta is a spiraling manifold vortex, there is a relatively still point at its heart, but when the true unbounded unfolded nature of ananta is revealed there is no support even for nArAyaNa viSNu, and all mAyA disappears from the absolute stillness and unmarked eternity of nara nivRtte, which alone has ever been so.

Rajalakshmi
21 January 2008, 01:57 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga-ji,

So you hold that nArAyaNa was born? At what point of time? Turya has no time in itself, so how can it be ever associated with any 'creation' of nArAyaNa.( without time, there can be no event or creation)

Also see this RV verse:

tamid garbha prathama dadhra Apo yatra devA-samaghachanta vishve
ajasya nAbhAvadhyekamarpitayasmin vishvAni bhuvanAni tasthuH - RV 10.82.6

The waters verily first retained the embryo in which all the gods were aggregated, single deposited on the navel of the unborn (creator), in which all beings abide.

It has been clearly mentioned that all creation proceeded from the navel (nAbhi) of the unborn.( ajaH). The navel is a clear reference to nArAyaNa ( that is why he is called padmanAbha) who is mentioned to be ajaH, and in whom all gods were deposited in praLaya, and in whom all the creation abides.

mAyA is anAdi:

The gauDapAda kArikA (I.16) says :

anAdi-mAyayA supto yadA jIvaH prabudhyate | ajam anidram asvapnam advaitaM budhyate tadA ||

(When the jIva, sleeping under the influence of the beginningless mAyA is awakened, then does he realize the Unborn, the Sleepless, the Dreamless, the One without the second.)

Is there a pramANa to show that nArayaNa is destroyed in vyavahAra dasha? I dont think so. If the 'creator' is destroyed, then where from the next creation comes from? Only hiraNyagarbha or chaturmukta brahma is destroyed in praLaya, and not Ishvara.

Also note that:

na tasya kaarya.n karaNa.n cha vidyate
na tatsamashchaabhyadhikashcha dR^ishyate
paraasya shaktirvividhaiva shruuyate
svaabhaavikii GYaanabalakriyaa cha

( these shaktis are svAbhAviki or intrinsic to Ishvara and cannot perish)



kAtha upanishad infact talks of attaining this permanent abode of nArAyaNa.( Yama's instruction to nachiketa)

viGYaanasaarathiryastu manaH pragrahavaannaraH .
so.adhvanaH paaramaapnoti tadvishhNoH paramaM padam.h

This cannot be considered as turya because turya is param parastAd. param padaM is the highest eternal abode in the vyavahAra dasha.

The eternity of turya is timleess. The eternity in vyavahAra is infinite duration of time - this is the difference.

~RL

atanu
21 January 2008, 02:42 AM
mAyA is anAdi:
The gauDapAda kArikA (I.16) says :
anAdi-mAyayA supto yadA jIvaH prabudhyate | ajam anidram asvapnam advaitaM budhyate tadA ||
(When the jIva, sleeping under the influence of the beginningless mAyA is awakened, then does he realize the Unborn, the Sleepless, the Dreamless, the One without the second.)
---------------------------
The eternity of turya is timleess. The eternity in vyavahAra is infinite duration of time - this is the difference.


Dear Rajalakshmi,

Namaste,

Both you and Sarabhanga Ji are correct. There is one mistake in your view however, if we consider from the Advaita perspective. What you are explaining is not Advaita but your understanding of Advaita (or perhaps VA). And there is one clarification missing from Sarabhanga ji's explanation.

In Brahman there is vidyaAvidya. Vidya (Sat) is eternal while Avidya (Asat) is destroyed by Iswara. So, as seed, Maya (avidya) is co-eval with Brahman, but it loses its potency to create illusion of diversity when Ishwara graces. The final point is that Brahman is "Not Two".

Though knowedge called vidyaAvidya is co-eval with Brahman, when Avidya prevails, Brahman is seen as Hiranyagarbha and His prajas. When individual soul (in Hiranyagarbha's domain) kills Avidya with grace of Ishwara (seen within Hiranyagarbha only), then only NOT TWO BRAHMAN is known (as ONE SELF). So, the play of Maya is not eternal. It statrts with Avidya prevailing and it ends with rise of light. Similarly Narayana as name, form and made of Gunas is not eternal but Narayana as unborn Mahesvara is. Turya is beyond time.

Narayana, in truth is Iswara but under ignorance He is viewed as Hiranyagarbha, as having many component parts. And in truth, Iswara is Brahman. In truth Jiva is also Brahman. The final word is NOT TWO.

-------------------------
The funny part is that if you start with Varuna and penetrate, you reach That. If you start with Rudra and penetrate you reach That. If you start with sacrifice Jiva (Vishnu), and penetrate you reach That. And actually Jiva is Purna as Brahman is Purna.

Again the point is that it is NOT TWO. "When the light rises the blessed Shiva alone exists". Now I think you can appreciate the great gauDapAda kArikA (I.16) better :

anAdi-mAyayA supto yadA jIvaH prabudhyate | ajam anidram asvapnam advaitaM budhyate tadA ||

(When the jIva, sleeping under the influence of the beginningless mAyA is awakened, then does he realize the Unborn, the Sleepless, the Dreamless, the One without the second.)

Maya is anadi. But its effect is not.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

(One is sometimes tempted to say that Brahman under ignorance is Maya. But that is Bauddha view and can easily be shown as groundless.)

Rajalakshmi
21 January 2008, 03:48 AM
Namaste Atanu,

That there are distinctly two forms of mukti is mentioned at numerous places in shruti. One in which there is total absorption in turya and another in which an absorption does not take place, but the liberated soul becomes omniscient and sees oneness in Ishvara( and becomes a shakti of Ishvara). A strict advaitin may dismiss the validity of these verses, or a strict dvaitAdvaitin may dismiss the concept of turya Atma - but there are both such ideas in shruti. There was a discussion on the advaita-list on this formerly- actually many members had no problem in reconciling the truth of both Advaita in paramArta and the bhAgavata religion in the vyavahAra. Because shruti says so. The 8.24 verse of Gita also refers to this kind of mukti.(devayAna mArga)



The chAndogya clearly mentions about such a mukti of individual existance. (note that this cannot be hiraNyagarbha loka which is destroyed in praLaya and also because all these muktas are called Atma-jnAnins)

athaata aatmaadesha evaatmaivaadhastaadaatmoparishhTaadaatmaa
pashchaadaatmaa purastaadaatmaa dakshiNata aatmottarata
aatmaiveda\m+ sarvamiti sa vaa eshha evaM pashyannevaM manvaana evaM
vijaanannaatmaratiraatmakriiDa aatmamithuna aatmaanandaH sa
svaraaDbhavati tasya sarveshhu lokeshhu kaamachaaro bhavati
atha ye.anyathaato viduranyaraajaanaste kshayyalokaa bhavanti
teshhaa\m+ sarveshhu lokeshhvakaamachaaro bhavati || 7\.25\.2||

tadyatheha karmajito lokaH kshiiyata evamevaamutra puNyajito
lokaH kshiiyate tadya ihaatmaanamanuvidya vrajantyetaa\m+shcha
satyaankaamaa\m+steshhaa\m+ sarveshhu lokeshhvakaamachaaro
bhavatyatha ya ihaatmaanamanivudya vrajantyeta\m+shcha
satyaankaamaa\m+steshhaa\m+ sarveshhu lokeshhu kaamachaaro bhavati
|| 8\.1\.6||


sa yadi pitR^ilokakaamo bhavati saMkalpaadevaasya pitaraH
samuttishhThanti tena pitR^ilokena saMpanno mahiiyate || 8\.2\.1||
atha yadi maatR^ilokakaamo bhavati saMkalpaadevaasya maataraH
samuttishhThanti tena maatR^ilokena saMpanno mahiiyate || 8\.2\.2||
atha yadi bhraatR^ilokakaamo bhavati saMkalpaadevaasya bhraataraH
samuttishhThanti tena bhraatR^ilokena saMpanno mahiiyate || 8\.2\.3||||
atha yadi svasR^ilokakaamo bhavati saMkalpaadevaasya svasaaraH
samuttishhThanti tena svasR^ilokena saMpanno mahiiyate || 8\.2\.4||
atha yadi sakhilokakaamo bhavati saMkalpaadevaasya sakhaayaH
samuttishhThanti tena sakhilokena saMpanno mahiiyate || 8\.2\.5||
atha yadi gandhamaalyalokakaamo bhavati saMkalpaadevaasya
gandhamaalye samuttishhThatastena gandhamaalyalokena saMpanno
mahiiyate || 8\.2\.6||
atha yadyannapaanalokakaamo bhavati saMkalpaadevaasyaannapaane
samuttishhThatastenaannapaanalokena saMpanno mahiiyate || 8\.2\.7||
atha yadi giitavaaditralokakaamo bhavati saMkalpaadevaasya
giitavaaditre samuttishhThatastena giitavaaditralokena saMpanno
mahiiyate || 8\.2\.8||
atha yadi striilokakaamo bhavati saMkalpaadevaasya striyaH
samuttishhThanti tena striilokena saMpanno mahiiyate || 8\.2\.9||
yaM yamantamabhikaamo bhavati yaM kaamaM kaamayate so.asya
saMkalpaadeva samuttishhThati tena saMpanno mahiiyate || 8\.2\.10||

Also note these verses from taittiriya up.

AUM brahmavidaapnoti param.h . tadeshhaa.abhyuktaa .

satyaM GYaanamanantaM brahma . yo veda nihitaM guhaayaaM parame vyoman.h .
so.ashnute sarvaan.h kaamaan saha . brahmaNaa vipashchiteti ..
tasmaadvaa etasmaadaatmana aakaashaH saMbhuutaH . aakaashaadvaayuH .
vaayoragniH . agneraapaH . ad.hbhyaH pR^ithivii .


The knower of Brahman attains the highest. Here is a verse uttering that very fact: “Brahman is truth, knowledge, and infinite. He who knows that Brahman as existing in the intellect, lodged in the supreme space in the heart, enjoys, as in the company of the all- knowing Brahman, all desirable things simultaneously.

Note the word saha . brahmaNaa vipashchiteti , where it says the mukta enjoys all desires in the company of Brahman. The Brahman here cannot be hiraNyagarbha because Brahman is described as satyam jnAnaM anantaM, which can only be Ishvara.



Brahman is not two. One is in paramArta and another is in vyavahAra, like 1 and i. You need to think a bit deeper without any bias to arrive at this conclusion.

~RL

atanu
21 January 2008, 04:26 AM
Namaste Atanu,

--- There was a discussion on the advaita-list on this formerly- actually many members had no problem in reconciling the truth of both Advaita in paramArta and the bhAgavata religion in the vyavahAra. Because shruti says so. The 8.24 verse of Gita also refers to this kind of mukti.(devayAna mArga)---


Namaste Rajalakshmi,

That is true. Devayana Marga is still in the realm of Hiranyagarbha (which is Mithya). From there by the grace of Ishwara jivas travel further to inseparabilty. What I am telling is it is ONE Brahman and not two.

And the specific point was about whether Maya is eternal or not. I demonstrated that the effect of Maya is not eternal, though Maya as vidyaAvidya is.



-Brahman is not two. One is in paramArta and another is in vyavahAra, like 1 and i. You need to think a bit deeper without any bias to arrive at this conclusion.

~RL

What does it mean? One is in Paramartha and another in Vayvarika? That makes Two. No, then it is not Advaita. And neither Vedic. Veda is all about the EKO.

See, Paramarthika and Vyavarikas are kind of two views -- such as when a database page is viewed with different formatting in different client computers. When Brahman views Himself as with thousand heads the view is Vyavarika.

The Paramarthika view without involving any head (in samadhi) reveals the Eko to Eko.

Regards,

Om

Rajalakshmi
21 January 2008, 05:55 AM
Namaste!




That is true. Devayana Marga is still in the realm of Hiranyagarbha (which is Mithya). From there by the grace of Ishwara jivas travel further to inseparabilty. What I am telling is it is ONE Brahman and not two.

And the specific point was about whether Maya is eternal or not. I demonstrated that the effect of Maya is not eternal, though Maya as vidyaAvidya is.


mAyA will cease to exist only for the liberated. But it still exists in the vyavahAra. Just because one person gets liberated will not negate the vyavahAra itself, in such a case everyone will get liberated when one person gets it. This is why mAyA is eternal.

Do you think this cycle of creation/destruction will ever cease or ever had a beginning- why do you think so?

I have already clarified how the eternity in these states are different.

devayAna mArga leads one to Ishvara, not hiraNyagarbha.
See what Gita itself says:

agnirjotirahaH shuklaH ShaNmAsA uttarAyaNam.h .
tatra prayAtA gachchhanti brahma brahmavido janAH

It talks about 'knower of Brahman' or brahmavid.( not an ajnAni)

See 8.26 & 8.27, which says these are two alternative paths. One that leads to Ishvara ( permanency) and the other that leads to return to the world. hiraNyagarbha is taijasa and his abode does not grant mukti of any kind.

The taittirIya verse is emphatic that the Brahman there is satyam,jnAnam and anantaM and that the liberated soul enjoys all desires in the company of this Brahman ( which are not the characteristics of hiraNyagarbha who is a jIva!).



What does it mean? One is in Paramartha and another in Vayvarika? That makes Two. No, then it is not Advaita. And neither Vedic. Veda is all about the EKO.

See, Paramarthika and Vyavarikas are kind of two views -- such as when a database page is viewed with different formatting in different client computers. When Brahman views Himself as with thousand heads the view is Vyavarika.

The Paramarthika view without involving any head (in samadhi) reveals the Eko to Eko.


Yes, the two views on different computers go on for ever in their own domain! How does it become non Advaita? The mAyic view happens at a lower level of reality, and is not Absolute truth! You seem to be under the impression that devayAna mArga is attained without samAdhi. That is not correct. In either case, the realization is the about the same - in the former Ishvara grants complete absorption and in the latter he does because the bhakta( or Ishvara) does not want it! Note that all devayAna muktas are brahmavit only.

~RL

sarabhanga
21 January 2008, 07:25 AM
Namaste Rajalakshmi,

There could be no nArAyaNa if not for the pre-existence of nara, but nara is entirely independent of nArAyaNa.

Only nara is aja, while the “son of nara” is jA.

The birth of nArAyaNa is the birth of time itself, but since you consider that time has no beginning, you will assume that nArAyaNa is likewise unborn.

The turya is NOT associated with any creation, and that is the point of ajAtivAda. All creation, including the source of creation, is mAyA, which is identical with nArAyaNa ~ so you will also assume that mAyA is unborn and eternal.


“When the individual soul, asleep, owing to beginningless mAyA is awakened, he then realizes the unborn, sleepless, dreamless non-duality.”
“If the prapañca really existed, it would continue to be, no doubt. But this duality is just mAyA ~ there is only non-duality in reality.”

From the individual soul’s perspective, mAyA is beginningless; but when advaitajñAna is realized, that mAyA disappears, because in reality there is only aja advaitam.




Is there a pramANa to show that nArayaNa is destroyed in vyavahAra dasha? I dont think so.

Since vyavahAradashA is “the state of common everyday reality” I would not expect any destruction of nArAyaNa !

And that supreme place of viSNu is the paramam padam, which is the very vasudeva (nara), the svayamprakAsha. And vAsudeva viSNu (nArAyaNa) is his son.

nara = aja = brahma = vasudeva = nabhi = avahAra = paramam padam
nArAyaNa = jA = brahmA = vAsudeva = nAbhi = vyavahAra = param padam

The turIyAtIta is known as the padam, which is sthA.
The turIya is known as the param padam, which is parastAd (and paramparasthA).
And the turya is known as the paramam padam, which is paramparastAd.

The unborn eternity of mAyA is not suggested by advaitavAda.

If there was no origin of nArAyaNa, and the naranArAyaNau has always existed as a twin, then the possibility of nara (the unnamable rudra brahma) alone is denied, and rudra has never been without a name, and the brahman has never been without gender, and hara has never been without hari, and ananta has never been without viSNu, and the arrow of time has always been in flight. And all of this is mAyA !

When ananta is a spiraling manifold vortex, there is a relatively still point at its heart, but when the true unbounded unfolded nature of ananta is revealed there is no support even for nArAyaNa viSNu, and all mAyA disappears from the absolutely unmarked eternity of nara nivRtte, which alone has ever been so.

atanu
21 January 2008, 07:26 AM
Namaste Rajalakshmi,


Namaste!
mAyA will cease to exist only for the liberated. ----


mAyA will cease to exist for the liberated (and the liberated one being non-different from Brahman, there is no second being to Him).


Yes, the two views on different computers go on for ever in their own domain! How does it become non Advaita?

That is all. The views are not the viewer, who is nirgunam, samaan, unchangeble and Atman. He has to be known and not the views.

That nirgunam Brahman being the Truth of truth, the eternal infinite qualities you talk about in vayavarika are hues of three basic gunas of Prakriti and not of Self.

More than this the words will cause confusion.

Regards,

Om

Rajalakshmi
21 January 2008, 07:41 AM
That nirgunam Brahman being the Truth of truth, the eternal infinite qualities you talk about in vayavarika are hues of three basic gunas of Prakriti and not of Self.


Namaste,

Prakriti has triguNa, but Ishvara does not. That is the main thing. Only hiraNyagarbha has prakriti guNa. Ishvara's qualities are manifestation of the qualities that are unmanifest in turya. The distinction between Ishvara and hiraNyagarbha is critical. You have apparently equated nArAyaNa with hiraNyagarbha going by you mails( because you said that devayAna leads to hiraNyagarbha). That is definitely wrong because you must note that even Brahma and all gods exist within Ishvara( read the vishvarUpa adhyAya).

None of passages I have quoted refer to prakriti guNas. Where did you get the impression that satyaM jnAnaM and anantaM are prakriti guNas? The Brahman there is not nirguNa either- because his guNas are enjoyed by the muktas in that passage. You have not answered my objection on the taittirIya passage.

~RL

Rajalakshmi
21 January 2008, 07:51 AM
Since vyavahAradashA is “the state of common everyday reality” I would not expect any destruction of nArAyaNa !


That is precisely why Advaita and dvaitAdvaita are both valid. One could either escape vyavahAra and go beyond mAyA and become 'inactive', or choose to be in vyavahAra in Ishvara sAyujya - and be 'active' within the realm of mAyA.( but fully knowing what mAyA is like Ishvara) The AnandAnubhava in either state is identical and infinite as VedantasUtras teach. This is the reason why there is apparent contradictions in scriptures too....some people leaning excessively on non dualism, and some people trying to force dualism( or dvaitAdvaita) as the only truth.

atanu
21 January 2008, 08:24 AM
Namaste,

---You have apparently equated nArAyaNa with hiraNyagarbha going by you mails (because you said that devayAna leads to hiraNyagarbha). That is definitely wrong because you must note that even Brahma and all gods exist within Ishvara (read the vishvarUpa adhyAya).



Namaste RL,

I have now serious reservation whether you are talking about VA or Advaita? If you are equating Ishwara with the Third state of Pragnya ghana (which I am doing and which all Advaitins do), then as per Mandukya and Karika, Ishwara is non-dual. BrahmA and others will reside in Ishwara in a lower state called Hiranyagarbha -- aggregate of light bodies.

Regarding Narayana, you have not understood. Agni that you see flaming in your house exists in waking (as Sun), in hiranyagarbha (as light), then as Ishwara non-dual, before becoming one with Brahman -- pure intelligence. Manifestation of multifold is possible in Dreaming (Hiranyagarbha) or in Waking (Agni Vaisvanaro) states and not in Shshupti (Ishwara) and Turya, which are non-dual.

So, anyone who is ruling over others has to be in Taijjassa- Hiranyagarbha or in Vaisvanaro states. The locus of that ruler, however, is the Third non-dual Sarvesvara --- pure intelligence manifest in intellect.

And the pure unlimited intelligence is Self-Brahman.

Om

Rajalakshmi
21 January 2008, 08:59 AM
Namaste RL,

I have now serious reservation whether you are talking about VA or Advaita? If you are equating Ishwara with the Third state of Pragnya ghana (which I am doing and which all Advaitins do), then as per Mandukya and Karika, Ishwara is non-dual. BrahmA and others will reside in Ishwara in a lower state called Hiranyagarbha -- aggregate of light bodies.

Regarding Narayana, you have not understood. Agni that you see flaming in your house exists in hiranyagarbha as controller of many, then as Iswara non-dual, before becoming one with Brahman -- pure intelligence.

Manifestation of multifold is possible in Dreaming (Hiranyagarbha) or in Waking (Agni Vaisvanaro) and not in Shshupti (Ishwara) and Turya, which are non-dual.

So, anyone who is ruling over others has to be in Taijjassa- Hiranyagarbha or in Vaisvanaro states. The locus of that ruler, however, is the Third non-dual Sarvesvara --- pure intelligence manifest in intellect.

And the pure unlimited intelligence is Self-Brahman.

Om

Namaste,

I am a little confused with your reply. V.Advaita's interpretations of mANDUkya are entirely different, so let us not bring that issue here. Let us stick with Advaita.

Ishvara is not perfectly non dual. How can it be? Did vishvarUpa teach you that? The vishvarUpa contains within it, all vyavahAra which is Ishvara. Inside such a vishvarUpa, our samsAric jagat, and spiritual eternal worlds like vaikuNTa and kailAsa exist. How can such an Ishvara be perfectly non dual?

If you enter deep sleep, you will experience only bliss, but have no consciousness, and such a state is non dual( because nothing is percieved). But 'waking deep sleep' in its full vision is that of sarveshvara, the entire vyavahAra existance. It is not non dual. Sarveshvara having all his infinite manifested qualities and having the uncountable brahmANDAs and jIvas in his body cannot be a non dual experience at all.

You should differentiate between shushupti and jAgrat-shushupti. The former is non dual, the latter is not. The latter is the full knowledge of mAyA with all its diversity. In both jAgrat and taijasa states only an insignificant part of mAyA is known. This is where the Yogi destroys the seeds of karma( in the causal plane) that may lead to future birth, and if he sees no dualty then what karmic seeds(vAsanas) will he find to destroy?


~RL

yajvan
21 January 2008, 11:03 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

Turya is full, pUrNaM. But Turya does not have any guNas and serves as a mere 'creative potential' for guNas. Turya is gunAtita and an unlimited source of guNas. mAyA being an (indirect) effect of Turya manifests the guNas not inherently manifest in Turya.

Namaste rajalakshmi,

I see from this post and one after this one where you say
None of passages I have quoted refer to prakriti guNas

Now I see your point... I assumed you were discussing prakriti guNas.
I will have my other questions that can extend this conversationbut will leave for another time, as I see you have your hands full http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

atanu
21 January 2008, 11:28 AM
Namaste,
---Ishvara is not perfectly non dual. How can it be? Did vishvarUpa teach you that? ---?
If you enter deep sleep, you will experience only bliss, but have no consciousness, and such a state is non dual( because nothing is percieved). But 'waking deep sleep' in its full vision is that of sarveshvara, -----.


Namaste RL,

I do not know where from you are coming and where you are going. I suggest that you note down your key understandings of one theory (or at least your theory) in a separate thread and then we can compare notes.

Waking deep sleep is Turya and not Prajna. And I do not know where from you derive that Visvarupa is Sarvesvara, as spoken of in Mandukya. Yet you are not comprehending "NOT-TWO", that there is no other.Prajna state is ghana, which is revealed pure intelligence. There is no Visva in it yet. Visva and beings are after the pure intelligence and not before it. There is no part in it, though it is the source of all and it is the dissolution of all.

----------------------
Mandukya says the following.

Where the sleeper desires not a thing of enjoyment and sees not any dream, that state is deep sleep. (The Self) seated in the state of deep sleep and called Prajna, in whom everything is unified, who is dense with consciousness, who is full of bliss, who is certainly the enjoyer of bliss, and who is the door to the knowledge (of the preceding two states), is the third quarter.

This is the Lord of all; this is omniscient; this is the in-dwelling controller (of all); this is the source and indeed the origin and dissolution of all beings.

Karikas say the following


I-12. Prajna knows neither himself nor others, neither truth nor untruth. But that Turiya is ever the all seer.
I-13. The non-cognition of duality is common to both Prajna and Turiya. Prajna is possessed of sleep of the nature of cause, whereas that sleep does not exist in Turiya.
-------------------------


Prajna is thus the indwelling pure all pervading intelligence everywhere and in everybeing. It is the inner controller, being your and my intelligence. It is partless. It is the source of all and it also the dissolutionj It is not Visvarupa, which has parts. And when one attains waking sleep it is transcendental to Prajna -- it is Turya -- which again is Non-Dual. Parts are only possible in Tajjassa and Vaisvanaro.



You should differentiate between shushupti and jAgrat-shushupti. The former is non dual, the latter is not. The latter is the full knowledge of mAyA with all its diversity.

If you have experienced Jagrat Shushupti, then discuss. Else wait for the experience. Turya is Jagrat Shushupti. Turya is purely non-dual yet Turya being All is experiencer in all and controller in all.

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

If you wish I can follow you in a separate thread where key points are fixed and discussion takes place on thsose without digression.

Om

sarabhanga
21 January 2008, 08:03 PM
That is precisely why Advaita and dvaitAdvaita are both valid. One could either escape vyavahAra and go beyond mAyA and become 'inactive', or choose to be in vyavahAra in Ishvara sAyujya - and be 'active' within the realm of mAyA.( but fully knowing what mAyA is like Ishvara) The AnandAnubhava in either state is identical and infinite as VedantasUtras teach. This is the reason why there is apparent contradictions in scriptures too....some people leaning excessively on non dualism, and some people trying to force dualism( or dvaitAdvaita) as the only truth.


sanAtana dharma is varNAshrama dharma


shUdra = kuvAda & ayAma

vaishya brahmacarya = dvaitavAda & yama

vaishya gRhastha = dvaitavAda & yamAniyama

kshatriya brahmacarya = dvaitavAda & yamAniyama

kshatriya gRhastha = dvaitAdvaitavAda & sAdhana

kshatriya vAnaprastha = dvaitAdvaitavAda & saMyama

brAhmaNa brahmacarya = dvaitavAda & yamAniyama

brAhmaNa gRhastha = dvaitAdvaitavAda & sAdhana

brAhmaNa vAnaprastha = advaitavAda & saMyama

brAhmaNa saMnyAsa = ajAtivAda & samAdhi

avadhUta = nirvAda & yAma


AUM = vaishvAnara
UMA = taijasa
MAU = prAjña
MA = turIya
M = turya

Rajalakshmi
21 January 2008, 09:58 PM
Thanks for all your inputs - there has been too much digression from my original comment into discussion of mANDUkya( which were not in my intentions at this time), so I will end this by summarizing:

From the pAramArtika satya - nArAyaNa exists only as the Self. mAyA is non existant. There is no need to discuss mAyA when taking this view, so the birth of nArAyaNa as mAyA would be meaningless.

From the vyavahArika satya, nArAyaNa exists only as mAyA. Under this view, taking of the birth of mAyA would be illogical because it would break the ajAti vAda by positing a timed event for mAyA from the pAramArtika satya, which is timeless. In this view, mAyA can be considered only as unborn eternal.

So, whichever of the above positions we take, when we talk of mAyA ( we cannot talk about non existant things) we have to talk about it from the vyavahArika satya where mAyA will have to be considered as unborn and eternal. Sarabhanga-ji's comments are taken well - yes, this mAyA has its root in the Self and would be non existant without the Self though it is still uncaused or born. This idea is difficult to appreciate for most of us who understand everything only from the perspective of time.

Putting, all this in a nutshell:

Shrutis that talk of nArAyaNa as Parabrahma actually talk of pAramArtika where nArAyaNa is one with the shivodvaitaM Atma - devoid of forms and qualities. Shrutis that talk of the birth of creation from nArAyaNa talk of vyavahArika where nArAyaNa is seen as mAyA, invested with forms and qualities( inherited from the Self).

~RL

Bob G
21 January 2008, 10:23 PM
"Not two"...

so simple that everything is broken open and free in joy!

atanu
21 January 2008, 10:33 PM
-
From the pAramArtika satya - nArAyaNa exists only as the Self. mAyA is non existant. There is no need to discuss mAyA when taking this view, so the birth of nArAyaNa as mAyA would be meaningless.

From the vyavahArika satya, nArAyaNa exists only as mAyA. Under this view, taking of the birth of mAyA would be illogical because it would break the ajAti vAda by positing a timed event for mAyA from the pAramArtika satya, which is timeless. In this view, mAyA can be considered only as unborn eternal.
----


Namaste RL,

I do not wish to expand the digression. pAramArtika satya or vyavahArika satya, whatever satya --- the Atman is the satya of all satyas.

That is shivoadvaita Atman and it has to be known. Atman is the one who is cogniser and the basis of the thinker, all the concepts, and words. Atman is not the produced things.



Shrutis that talk of nArAyaNa as Parabrahma actually talk of pAramArtika where nArAyaNa is one with the shivodvaitaM Atma - devoid of forms and qualities. Shrutis that talk of the birth of creation from nArAyaNa talk of vyavahArika where nArAyaNa is seen as mAyA, invested with forms and qualities( inherited from prakriti of the Self).

~RL

Accepted. Great. "Not Two".

Regards

Om

sarabhanga
22 January 2008, 12:04 AM
Namaste,

The pAramArthika satyam is that nara alone is sat, and that (ultimately) even nArAyaNa is asat.




When we talk of mAyA ( we cannot talk about non existant things)

From the perspective of ajAtivAda, all talk of mAyA is “talk about non existent things” !




The Atman is the satya of all satyas. That is shivoadvaita Atman and it has to be known.




nara

naranArAyaNa

nArAyaNa

nAra

Bhaskar
23 January 2008, 05:16 AM
Hello,
All this talk of ajAti vAda and mAyA are anti vedic.
Sri Krishna says in the Gita:
asatyamapratiShTha.n te jagadAhuranIshvaram.h .
aparasparasambhUtaM kimanyatkAmahaitukam.h
They say that this world is unreal, with no foundation, no God in control. They say it is produced of sex desire and has no cause other than lust.
Therefore, those who say this world is asat( unreal or illusion) has asuree sampath( demonic inclinations) as per Gita. jagat represents the glory of Lord and is his sport - how dare people deny it? They denied not only the jagat but also the glorious personality of God.
There is absolutely no proof for this so called ajAti vAdA and mAyA vAda except in the minds of convoluted interpretations, who seek to denigrate the Lord.

Quoted from sarabhanga:
From the perspective of ajAtivAda, all talk of mAyA is “talk about non existent things” !
Answer:
Very good. Talking of non existent things? How about talking about the children and the grandchildren of a barren woman? This is the biggest contradictions of advaitins.
Sarabhanga:
The pAramArthika satyam is that nara alone is sat, and that (ultimately) even nArAyaNa is asat.
Answer:
Yeah, nArAyaNa is asat. Very great philosophy. You have called gItAchAryan as asat - stop quoting from Gita hereafter. Where did Krishna teach that Arjuna was also Parabrahman who forgot that he was Parabrahman?

Rajalaksmi:
That is precisely why Advaita and dvaitAdvaita are both valid. One could either escape vyavahAra and go beyond mAyA and become 'inactive', or choose to be in vyavahAra in Ishvara sAyujya - and be 'active' within the realm of mAyA.( but fully knowing what mAyA is like Ishvara) The AnandAnubhava in either state is identical and infinite as VedantasUtras teach. This is the reason why there is apparent contradictions in scriptures too....some people leaning excessively on non dualism, and some people trying to force dualism( or dvaitAdvaita) as the only truth.
Answer:
Both cant be true. advaitin can become a void and become an illusion himself if he wants to. dvaitAdvaitins go to vaikuNTa and enjoy eternal bliss. Advaitins have ignored 99.99% of the scripture to comeup with their weird and fanciful theories. Three or four broken sentences from vedas are used to justify that Arjuna was Parabrahman who forgot that he was God!

---Bhaskar

atanu
23 January 2008, 06:44 AM
Hello,
-----
Therefore, those who say this world is asat( unreal or illusion) has asuree sampath( demonic inclinations) as per Gita. jagat represents the glory of ----


Namaste Bhaskar Ji,

But Advaita does not say that the Jagat is Asat. Advaita says Jagat is Mithya. Asat is "non-existent" and not "illusion". You can be illuded by something which is existent but not by something which is asat (non-existent).



Sarabhanga:
The pAramArthika satyam is that nara alone is sat, and that (ultimately) even nArAyaNa is asat.

Answer:
Yeah, nArAyaNa is asat. Very great philosophy. You have called gItAchAryan as asat - stop quoting from Gita hereafter.

But Narayana himself says I am Sat and Asat. One knows who knows me as unborn Mahesvara.

Why does He say that He is Asat?

Om

satay
23 January 2008, 09:07 AM
Namaskar Bhaskar and welcome to HDF,

A few requests for you to consider.
1. Please post an introduction of yourself so that other members can know a bit about yourself.

2. When responding to other members please use the 'quote' '/quote' tags

3. Please consider reading this post http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2550 The post outlines some core ideas that we adhere to in HDF.

And finally,


Hello,
All this talk of ajAti vAda and mAyA are anti vedic.
---Bhaskar

Such generalisations are not welcomed here. Please either start a new thread to present your point of view or tone down your future posts.

Thanks,

soham3
24 January 2008, 01:28 AM
In my opinion, what is important is experiencing the Self and not jargon or polemics. Argumentation is useless.

TatTvamAsi
24 January 2008, 11:33 AM
Hello,
All this talk of ajAti vAda and mAyA are anti vedic.
Sri Krishna says in the Gita:
asatyamapratiShTha.n te jagadAhuranIshvaram.h .
aparasparasambhUtaM kimanyatkAmahaitukam.h
They say that this world is unreal, with no foundation, no God in control. They say it is produced of sex desire and has no cause other than lust.
Therefore, those who say this world is asat( unreal or illusion) has asuree sampath( demonic inclinations) as per Gita. jagat represents the glory of Lord and is his sport - how dare people deny it? They denied not only the jagat but also the glorious personality of God.
There is absolutely no proof for this so called ajAti vAdA and mAyA vAda except in the minds of convoluted interpretations, who seek to denigrate the Lord.

Quoted from sarabhanga:
From the perspective of ajAtivAda, all talk of mAyA is “talk about non existent things” !
Answer:
Very good. Talking of non existent things? How about talking about the children and the grandchildren of a barren woman? This is the biggest contradictions of advaitins.
Sarabhanga:
The pAramArthika satyam is that nara alone is sat, and that (ultimately) even nArAyaNa is asat.
Answer:
Yeah, nArAyaNa is asat. Very great philosophy. You have called gItAchAryan as asat - stop quoting from Gita hereafter. Where did Krishna teach that Arjuna was also Parabrahman who forgot that he was Parabrahman?

Rajalaksmi:
That is precisely why Advaita and dvaitAdvaita are both valid. One could either escape vyavahAra and go beyond mAyA and become 'inactive', or choose to be in vyavahAra in Ishvara sAyujya - and be 'active' within the realm of mAyA.( but fully knowing what mAyA is like Ishvara) The AnandAnubhava in either state is identical and infinite as VedantasUtras teach. This is the reason why there is apparent contradictions in scriptures too....some people leaning excessively on non dualism, and some people trying to force dualism( or dvaitAdvaita) as the only truth.
Answer:
Both cant be true. advaitin can become a void and become an illusion himself if he wants to. dvaitAdvaitins go to vaikuNTa and enjoy eternal bliss. Advaitins have ignored 99.99% of the scripture to comeup with their weird and fanciful theories. Three or four broken sentences from vedas are used to justify that Arjuna was Parabrahman who forgot that he was God!

---Bhaskar

LMAO!! After reading the first line of your post I knew there was some air of "Vaishnavism" coming on. hahaha.. and now banned? After ONE post? THat must be a record of some sort? lol...

Subham.

satay
24 January 2008, 12:17 PM
LMAO!! After reading the first line of your post I knew there was some air of "Vaishnavism" coming on. hahaha.. and now banned? After ONE post? THat must be a record of some sort? lol...

Subham.

'banned' because multiple ids are suspected. Account still under review by me.

sarabhanga
27 January 2008, 07:29 AM
shUdra = kuvAda & ayAma
vaishya brahmacarya = dvaitavAda & yama
vaishya gRhastha = dvaitavAda & yamAniyama
kshatriya brahmacarya = dvaitavAda & yamAniyama
kshatriya gRhastha = dvaitAdvaitavAda & sAdhana
kshatriya vAnaprastha = dvaitAdvaitavAda & saMyama
brAhmaNa brahmacarya = dvaitavAda & yamAniyama
brAhmaNa gRhastha = dvaitAdvaitavAda & sAdhana
brAhmaNa vAnaprastha = advaitavAda & saMyama
brAhmaNa saMnyAsa = ajAtivAda & samAdhi
avadhUta = nirvAda & yAma


The brAhmaNa progression follows its own guru paramparam from brahmacarya to avadhUta, and this is the right hand of sanAtana dharma, which is shiva. And the left hand comprises the rest of the population, which is shakti.

And there are particular intimate connexions between the various fingers of both hands, which do not necessarily indicate a guru-shiSya relationship (although that opportunity is afforded by the close association), but which do represent an obligation for some kind of mutual service or special respect.



shUdra ~ avadhUta
vaishya brahmacarya ~ brAhmaNa saMnyAsa
vaishya gRhastha ~ brAhmaNa vAnaprastha
kshatriya brahmacarya ~ brAhmaNa gRhastha
kshatriya gRhastha ~ brAhmaNa brahmacarya



And the whole yoga is controlled by the kshatriya vAnaprastha (as vishvAmitra), the retired lord who remains elusive, dwelling alone as a veritable immortal, but secretly informing and maintaining the whole system by his continuous tapasya. Such a rare individual is known as a jina, a nAtha, or a siddha, and throughout every age there must always be such an avatAra living (somewhere) in the world.

The perfect society of sanAtana dharma is maintained by this añjali mudrA, divined long ago by sudAsa and established as the perfect solution to the dAsharAjñam (“battle of the ten kings”).

soham3
28 January 2008, 10:40 PM
My views / experiences :-

(1) Prakritti / objective reality can't be ignored. There are planetary influences on man's life. All life on earth is possible because of sun and not by Inner Reality.
(2) Laws of karma do not exonerate a person who is in turiyavastha but indulges in criminal activities.
(3) Gaudapada's karika on mandukya upanishad does not help when a man is suffering from toothache.
(4) To say that waking & dream states are same may not serve any purpose when you are facing so many problems in daily life.
(5) If you conduct erratically after attaining gyana / jnana / turiya, police would lock you up inside.
(6) There are people who are thorough with Yoga Vasishtha, Ribhu Gita, Tripura Rahasya, Bhagvadgita, upanishads, ashtanga yoga of Patanjali and somilar works but they are involved in all sorts of dirty activities.

TatTvamAsi
29 January 2008, 12:12 AM
My views / experiences :-

(3) Gaudapada's karika on mandukya upanishad does not help when a man is suffering from toothache.
(6) There are people who are thorough with Yoga Vasishtha, Ribhu Gita, Tripura Rahasya, Bhagvadgita, upanishads, ashtanga yoga of Patanjali and somilar works but they are involved in all sorts of dirty activities.

HAHAHAHHAHA.. OMG I almost fell off of my chair... LOL.. HAHHAHAH

atanu
30 January 2008, 01:53 AM
My views / experiences :-

(1) Prakritti / objective reality can't be ignored. There are planetary influences on man's life. All life on earth is possible because of sun and not by Inner Reality.
----(6) There are people who are thorough with Yoga Vasishtha, Ribhu Gita, Tripura Rahasya, Bhagvadgita, upanishads, ashtanga yoga of Patanjali and somilar works but they are involved in all sorts of dirty activities.

Namaste Soham,

I wonder how you know so much-- by an inner or by an outer reality?

Om