PDA

View Full Version : Practical Advaita



atanu
25 April 2006, 01:48 PM
Practical Advaita


Preamble
A child watches ever changing forms on a glowing Neon board and is fascinated. The child knows the ever changing glow as real. When grace attends, then only the child will know that the neon board as the sub stratum is the truth.

His Instructions
Suppose you are of the form of a beautiful flower vase. You know yourself as a beautiful thing. You have pride of your thin neck, wide middle, and tapering base. You also have pride that you are so useful; you are beautiful and help to uphold beautiful flowers. But you have fear and anxiety about your fragility and about your temporary existence. You can’t do anything to enhance your longevity; your longevity is outside your power. You are jealous of more beautiful but more fragile flower vases. You are also jealous of less beautiful but sturdier flower vases. Now suppose you know that you are the clay; the substratum that makes the pot. Now you are immortal. Your knowledge that you are a temporary form and name is your egoity. Remove the illusion of the egoity, identify yourself with the substratum and be immortal.

Suppose you are a shining leaf in a big Banyan tree. You have forgotten that you exist for the tree. You have forgotten that you are the tree. You have forgotten that the tree flourishes aided by your unselfish efficient work but you as a single leaf is not indispensable. You and infinite others will come and go. You have forgotten that the tree will exist for a very long time and you fear that you will fall and die the coming winter. Realize that you are the tree; the substratum -- and you are immortal.

Suppose you work for an efficient organization under a super efficient boss. You have pride that you are doing profoundly important tasks. You also have become vain. You feel that you are indispensable. You have pride that you have fame. But you also enjoy comforts and you are fearful of losing those comforts. You are anxious about changes. According to the master plan of your organization and your super efficient boss, you are asked to relocate to Nigeria. You fear mosquitoes will finish you off in Nigeria. You lament the loss of comfort, telephones, cars, and what not. But your boss knows better. He knows that with super abundant profits from the Nigeria operation, the company will flourish and you will also. Suppose you hinder the relocation plan. The Boss will simply get rid of you and send someone else. Now suppose the organization is our universe and your super efficient boss is the all knowing Lord, the supreme. This understanding will solve all your negative mind problems. Identify with the Boss. Become one with him. Work with your soul for him. Do not work for your small, fragile, and illusory egoity.

How to identify and become one with the substratum, with the Boss -- so that you may be immortal? You will, through meditation, by enquiring into your real nature. Imagine you are a fruit. With the illusory sense of egoity that you have, you are pained that you will rot in no time. If you enquire, you will find that you have a more durable seed inside you. But that does not give you complete peace since you will worry whether the sprouts from the seed will survive? You enquire further and wonder what the power of the seed is; how it will replicate your form again? You go inside further and see that there is empty space inside the seed. The empty space is the substratum and the substratum that is empty space is Him. He is the empty space, present everywhere, present in every one, and He is one. He is indivisible, undifferentiated, unchanging and ever-present One. He has the master plan. He is in the seed and he is in you. You are Him.

Realize that the examples are approximations. I can understand a report created by me but it can never understand me. Likewise I will never understand Him fully.

Do not associate with matter – money and other material resources. Do not associate with physical forms – beauty and physique. Do not associate with the power of mind. Associate with the Boss.

The prayer
O, Lord, you have become the greatest sage and leader of the thief. You have become joy and you have become pain. You have become Rajasic and you have become Tamasic. You are the subtle and the gross. You are the smallest and the infinite. You are the Sun and the moon and you are air, water and fire. You are the plants. You are Sat-Chit-Anand and you are the reactive anger and the subsequent sorrow. You are the fragrance, the nourishment, and the knowledge – Vidya and Avidya both. You are the eternal substratum that is one without a second.

But you are the eternal Sat-Chit-Anand that is ever auspicious, the substratum that is real, everything else is transitory. You only open the gates to the Vidya.

Thus I prostrate to Sat-Chit-Anand that is auspicious and alone remains on dissolution of forms and name. I prostrate to you who is Guru Ramana. I prostrate to you who is Ganapati who guards the gates to the Vidya. I prostrate to you who is all pervading pure sattvik Vishnu. I prostrate to you who is ever compassionate Annapurna. I prostrate to you who is eternal auspicious Shiva. Let your grace never depart from me and my friends.

Pray, let what you have expressed remain eternal fragrance

satay
25 April 2006, 03:17 PM
Namaste!
Nice post...

I have a question...What exactly is 'lord' to an advaitin? Isn't Brhaman just energy and not a person?

I ask this not to belittle or insult advaitins but to have a better understanding of the philosophy. It is said that 'sri shamkara' is the most misunderstood acharya since most mortals like me do not grasp his ideas.

Also, as you may know, I do not identify myself as an advaitin...in fact, I am not sure where I fit in the different sects or philosophies...but since I have respect for 'all' hindu sects and philosophies I consider myself a hindu. :)

I am trying to study a little bit of Vendanta but most texts are beyond my mental capacity or shall we say it is due to my past karma! :rolleyes:

atanu
26 April 2006, 03:40 AM
Namaste!
Nice post...

I have a question...What exactly is 'lord' to an advaitin? Isn't Brhaman just energy and not a person?

:)

I am trying to study a little bit of Vendanta but most texts are beyond my mental capacity or shall we say it is due to my past karma! :rolleyes:

Namaste Satay Ji,

If Satay exists and if Atanu exists, then surely Isha exists.

These are theoretical questions, since till the final dissolution, Isha Upanishad reigns supreme. And Advaita is beyond mind. It is Turiya. One may experience it but mind will always come back.

Namo Naraayana

atanu
26 April 2006, 03:48 AM
Namaste!
Nice post...

Isn't Brhaman just energy and not a person?

:rolleyes:

If Brahman was so easily definable then Brahma Sutras would have defined Him that way. Brahma Sutras say: Brahman is that from which the acts of creation, maintenance, and dissolution proceed.

Arjuna
26 April 2006, 05:52 AM
Namaste,

As far as i know, Vedanta never explains Brahman as "just energy", although it doesn't call His a "person" either.

Famous Shankara's maxima says "Brahma Satyam", Brahman is Truth (Reality). And this part of his statement is in total accordance with all Shruti, Vedas/Upanishads and Agamas.

It is Tantric philosophy that sees Brahman as both passive and active, transcendent and immanent, Shiva and Shakti. Shankara's Vedanta doesn't accept any "energy" inherent in Brahman (correct me if i am wrong).

willie
27 April 2006, 10:16 PM
I thought that brahman was in a state like thought, but without the electro-chemical activity. Just there and in all places in equal proportion. Perhaps brahman can cause thoughts to enter into human minds and that could explain why holybooks and holy thoughts come into peoples minds.

Of course , anything with that ability could manufacture a body when and if needed.

TruthSeeker
28 April 2006, 03:32 AM
Namaste!
Nice post...

I have a question...What exactly is 'lord' to an advaitin? Isn't Brhaman just energy and not a person?

I ask this not to belittle or insult advaitins but to have a better understanding of the philosophy. It is said that 'sri shamkara' is the most misunderstood acharya since most mortals like me do not grasp his ideas.

Also, as you may know, I do not identify myself as an advaitin...in fact, I am not sure where I fit in the different sects or philosophies...but since I have respect for 'all' hindu sects and philosophies I consider myself a hindu. :)

I am trying to study a little bit of Vendanta but most texts are beyond my mental capacity or shall we say it is due to my past karma! :rolleyes:

I would say both - God is both a person and a non person, which are not different from each other.

On one hand, we have a definition based on negation: as in neti, neti.
On the other hand, we have a defintion based on positives, sarvam khalvidam brahma.

The first definition is not to limit Brahman to anything, he is a non being in this regard. The second one is to make Brahman the substratum of everything, he is a person in this regard. Ideally, Brahman would be best described as the set of X and ~X, for any X. Hence to say that Brahman is satyam is not truly valid, because is not just "Satyam". Hence it is better defined as not "asatyam".

atanu
01 May 2006, 06:56 AM
I would say both - God is both a person and a non person, which are not different from each other.



Ayamatman Brahman.

When Atanu enjoys watching a beauty and when Atanu dreams of a beauty and when Atanu does not know anything in deep sleep, Atma remains unchanged as seer, permitter and enjoyer. This Atma is Brahman.

atanu
02 May 2006, 08:14 AM
I thought that brahman was in a state like thought, but without the electro-chemical activity. Just there and in all places in equal proportion. Perhaps brahman can cause thoughts to enter into human minds and that could explain why holybooks and holy thoughts come into peoples minds.

Of course , anything with that ability could manufacture a body when and if needed.

Dear Willie,

Mind is conglomerate of thoughts, of future or of past (memories). There is no way for a thought to enter the mind, which has no existence apart from thoughts.

And the process is just the reverse. When thoughts subside, the intuitive faculties come into play. Sages, poets, scientists, all get such glimpses when the mind is tranquil and not when there is riot of thoughts. (However, often a riot of thoughts is followed by tranquility.)

A bird was trapped in a fire place and could not escape since it was attempting to fly up only. My Guru said: the bird would be free, if it retraced the path by which it came.

He added: so with us. The nature of the mind is to go outwards and seek happiness in objects. To be happy, however, the mind must retrace its way back and find the person who says "I", since that "I" is the beginning of all thoughts such as "I have to do" etc. And that "I" sense has origin from that which we quest for but which is always the core of all beings.


Of course, this is what my Guru teaches.


Regards

TruthSeeker
11 May 2006, 03:53 PM
I thought that brahman was in a state like thought, but without the electro-chemical activity. Just there and in all places in equal proportion. Perhaps brahman can cause thoughts to enter into human minds and that could explain why holybooks and holy thoughts come into peoples minds.

Of course , anything with that ability could manufacture a body when and if needed.

These are all mere speculations. No one knows what is on the other side. The process is technically called involution, which needs considerable effort in the initial stages in the form of Karma, bhakti etc to get the mind purified enough. From some point on, one is qualified to follow the involution right to the source.

Brahman being in thought is also a guess only. How do you explain the nAsadiya sukta and the Taittiriya Up where the Brahman is said to have desired to become many?

Adi Shankara has said that no independent being ( God) would ever voluntarily go into real or imaginary bondage( like thoughts). By no means of imagination, can this be an accident since the Lord is omnipotent. It cannot have been planned either.

But creation is happening in beautiful periodic cycles in vyavaharika. Thus, it must imply something more than a random thought process , certainly beyond human understanding.

atanu
21 May 2006, 04:12 AM
These are all mere speculations. No one knows what is on the other side. ----
But creation is happening in beautiful periodic cycles in vyavaharika. Thus, it must imply something more than a random thought process , certainly beyond human understanding.


True, it is not a object of knowing but the subject itself that knows. But so called creation cycles belong in time which does not exist apart from the reality which is ever unchanging and time less.

mirabai
22 July 2007, 01:27 AM
Namaste!
Nice post...

I have a question...What exactly is 'lord' to an advaitin? Isn't Brhaman just energy and not a person?

I ask this not to belittle or insult advaitins but to have a better understanding of the philosophy. It is said that 'sri shamkara' is the most misunderstood acharya since most mortals like me do not grasp his ideas.

Also, as you may know, I do not identify myself as an advaitin...in fact, I am not sure where I fit in the different sects or philosophies...but since I have respect for 'all' hindu sects and philosophies I consider myself a hindu. :)

I am trying to study a little bit of Vendanta but most texts are beyond my mental capacity or shall we say it is due to my past karma! :rolleyes:

Dear Satay,
I believe it will be impossible to define "Lord" until that time when one is able to define "self" for it is only by the mirror of self that Lord can be perceived.

atanu
22 July 2007, 02:58 AM
Dear Satay,
I believe it will be impossible to define "Lord" until that time when one is able to define "self" for it is only by the mirror of self that Lord can be perceived.

Namaste Mirabai

Pragnya, Perceptions, and then definitions arise in Brahman. He sustains.

Self itself is indescribable and ungraspable. But it is that agencies of which grasp and define.



Om

mirabai
22 July 2007, 12:29 PM
Namaste!
Nice post...

I have a question...What exactly is 'lord' to an advaitin? Isn't Brhaman just energy and not a person?

I ask this not to belittle or insult advaitins but to have a better understanding of the philosophy. It is said that 'sri shamkara' is the most misunderstood acharya since most mortals like me do not grasp his ideas.

Also, as you may know, I do not identify myself as an advaitin...in fact, I am not sure where I fit in the different sects or philosophies...but since I have respect for 'all' hindu sects and philosophies I consider myself a hindu. :)

I am trying to study a little bit of Vendanta but most texts are beyond my mental capacity or shall we say it is due to my past karma! :rolleyes:


I am not any authority on Advaita or Vedanta either, I am a student like you, but you may find this "definition" pleasing; I like it very much:

Mundaka Upanishad II, Second Khanda

Manifest, near, moving in the cave (of the heart) is the great Being. In it everything is centred which ye know as moving, breathing, and blinking, as being and not-being, as adorable, as the best, that is beyond the understanding of creatures.
2. That which is brilliant, smaller than small, that on which the worlds are founded and their inhabitants, that is the indestructible Brahman, that is the breath, speech, mind; that is the true, that is the immortal. That is to be hit. Hit it, O friend!
3. Having taken the Upanishad as the bow, as the great weapon, let him place on it the arrow, sharpened by devotion! Then having drawn it with a thought directed to that which is, hit the mark, O friend, viz. that which is the Indestructible!
4. Om is the bow, the Self is the arrow, Brahman is called its aim. It is to be hit by a man who is not thoughtless; and then, as the arrow (becomes one with the target), he will become one with Brahman.
5. In him the heaven, the earth, and the sky are woven, the mind also with all the senses. Know him alone as the Self, and leave off other words! He is the bridge of the Immortal.
6. He moves about becoming manifold within the heart where the arteries meet, like spokes fastened to the nave. Meditate on the Self as Om! Hail to you, that you may cross beyond (the sea of) darkness!
7. He who understands all and who knows all, he to whom all this glory in the world belongs, the Self, is placed in the ether, in the heavenly city of Brahman (the heart). He assumes the nature of mind, and becomes the guide of the body of the senses. He subsists in food, in close proximity to the heart. The wise who understand this, behold the Immortal which shines forth full of bliss.

mirabai
22 July 2007, 12:47 PM
Namaste Mirabai

Pragnya, Perceptions, and then definitions arise in Brahman. He sustains.

Self itself is indescribable and ungraspable. But it is that agencies of which grasp and define.



Om

Namaste Atanu,

I appreciate your clarifications. Comprehension is still emerging in me. I have only some small beginning of understanding, and constantly strive for clarity. Thank you for shedding some light.
I understand and agree that Self itself is indescribable. The Self cannot look back on itself and form a definition for to do so would be to describe a dual self, apart from Self. The act of defining indicates that there is the I who is defining and the I who is being defined, when in actuality there is only I.

The agencies of the Self which would grasp and define Brahman are the sense organs. The moment that manah, buddhi, citta, ego come into play to define, it is false definition, because Self and Brahman are not dual. The duality is seen, but only because of absence of understanding. In Turiya there is no separation, is my impression.

I think Brahman cannot be defined, only pointed to. Please correct me if this is in error.




Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner world, not that which is conscious of the outer world, not that which is conscious of both, not 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, It is the cessation of all phenomena. It is all peace, all bliss, and non-dual. This is what is to be known as the fourth (Turiya). This is Atman, and this has to be realised. (Ma.Up.7) http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/chittaranjan/advaita_chittaranjan.htm

atanu
23 July 2007, 11:39 AM
Namaste Atanu,

I appreciate your clarifications. Comprehension is still emerging in me. I have only some small beginning of understanding, and constantly strive for clarity. Thank you for shedding some light.
I understand and agree that Self itself is indescribable. The Self cannot look back on itself and form a definition for to do so would be to describe a dual self, apart from Self. The act of defining indicates that there is the I who is defining and the I who is being defined, when in actuality there is only I.

The agencies of the Self which would grasp and define Brahman are the sense organs. The moment that manah, buddhi, citta, ego come into play to define, it is false definition, because Self and Brahman are not dual. The duality is seen, but only because of absence of understanding. In Turiya there is no separation, is my impression.

I think Brahman cannot be defined, only pointed to. Please correct me if this is in error.



http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/chittaranjan/advaita_chittaranjan.htm


Namaste Mira,

You have said it better than I could.

Thanks and Regards.

Jai Shree Krishna

atanu
21 August 2007, 01:24 PM
Some metaphors that are commonly used in Advaitic parlance.


The movie

In some ways, the movie metaphor strikes more deeply at the illusoriness of the manifestation, and therefore may be better than the dream metaphor at producing the shock necessary to induce awakening.
We as individuals are nothing but the figures on a movie screen. We have no more reality, independence, or volition than the images projected onto the screen. Everything we seemingly think, feel, or do is actually recorded on the film through which the Light of Awareness shines and projects the images onto the screen of Awareness. The absurdity of our situation is made clear at the thought that a mere image on a screen can strive for success, yearn for fulfillment, or seek for its source! Yet, all this seems to happen, not because the images are doing it, but because it is all recorded on the film! The film is the analog of Plato’s or Goswami’s transcendental realm (both of which are unverifiable concepts), and the light and the screen are the analogs of our true nature, which is pure Awareness. The light and the screen are completely unaffected by the film and the images. The images appear from nowhere, do their dance, and disappear back into nowhere, leaving no trace. (The viewer, who is not only aware but who also reacts to the images on the screen, is analogous to the individual mind.)

The puppet and the robot

This metaphor is similar to that of the movie. The body-mind organism is nothing but a puppet that moves according to the way its strings are pulled (e.g., by thoughts and impulses that appear from nowhere) and according to its mechanical construction (its conditioning). A more contemporary version would be the robot which performs a task according to instructions that are fed to it and according to its programming. Neither the puppet nor the robot can initiate any thoughts or actions of its own. There is no need to be depressed by this because you are not the body-mind organism; you are the Awareness of the body-mind organism.

The shadow

This metaphor is similar to that of the puppet. The object casts a shadow, but the shadow is nothing but a poor facsimile of the object. It can be nothing else. As individuals, we are like shadows of Awareness, which is our true nature.

The ocean

An extremely useful metaphor to help us picture the relationship between phenomenality (pure objectivity) and Noumenality (pure Subjectivity) is that of the waves on the surface of the ocean. The waves (phenomenon) cannot exist without the ocean (Noumenon). The ocean in its depths is quiet, peaceful and undisturbed. Waves, storms, and foaming surf arise on the surface without disturbing the depths. Likewise, Noumenality is totally undisturbed by the frenzied and meaningless activity of phenomenality. Each wave consists of a crest and a trough. One cannot appear without the other, just as all of the inseparable opposites of phenomenality must appear together. When the ocean identifies with a wave and the wave thinks of itself as being separate from the other waves and from the ocean itself, the illusory individual appears. This is ignorance. When identification ends and awakening occurs, it is clear that there is only the ocean (Awareness), there has always been only the ocean, and the ocean is You.

The thorns

If a thorn enters the foot (if the concept of the individual “I” enters the mind), another thorn (concept) can be used to remove it. The thorn must be pointed and sharp and it must be deftly used in order to be effective. A dull thorn aimed at the wrong spot will only mutilate the foot. A thorn that has been softened so that it will not hurt will be ineffective. A collection of a large number of thorns will only confuse and distract, especially if the attention is on collecting thorns rather than using the best one to remove the one imbedded in the foot. The thorns themselves are not Reality, so after the first thorn is removed, both thorns are thrown away. We cannot describe Reality by using concepts, but we can use concepts to remove false concepts and to point to Reality. When Reality is revealed, all concepts become irrelevant, and can be thrown away.

Electricity and the appliance

An electrical appliance (a human body) is an inert object that comes to "life" when electricity (Awareness) flows through it (identifies with it). In the absence of the electricity, the appliance is "dead". A variant of this metaphor is that a fan continues to turn for a time even after the electricity has been turned off, meaning that the fear/desire emotions and their derivatives may continue for a time after awakening but they cause no suffering because there is no identification with them.

The gold object

The gold in a bracelet is the same as the gold in a ring. Only the form is different. If the bracelet and ring are melted down, the forms change, but we still have the gold, which is unchanged. The gold is the analog of pure Awareness, while the forms of the bracelet and ring are the analog of the manifestation.

The dust in a light beam

A light beam is invisible unless it strikes something that reflects it. Awareness (the light beam) perceives Itself by reflecting from the manifestation (the dust), which is also Itself. Awareness sees its own light reflected from Itself and is thereby aware of Itself.

The mirror

An ideal mirror (pure Awareness) is invisible and reflects images (the manifestation) without distortion and without being affected by them. Thus, It reflects pure Reality truly. A distorted mirror (the mind) reflects distorted images. Thus, it reflects Reality as if It were distorted by separation. Without a mirror there can be no images (manifestation), and without images, the presence of the mirror would not be apparent.

The snake and the rope

In dim light (ignorance), a rope (the manifestation) can be mistakenly perceived as a snake (a world separate from the self), and fear can result. When a bright light (Awareness) is turned on, the rope will be seen for what it is (nothing but Awareness itself). This metaphor can also be used to refer to the ego (the snake), which is seen to be nothing but Awareness (the rope) after awakening.
A variant of this metaphor is the ego seen as the rope itself (no snake). During the steps to awakening, the rope is burned in the fire of Awareness. After awakening, only the burned rope remains. The ego still persists but has no power to bind anyone, or to tie anybody up. This powerless ego is the remaining identification of Awareness with the body-mind organism, which is necessary for the organism to survive. When the sage says "I", he/she is referring to the burned rope.

The mirage

In the meditation for April 9 of A Net of Jewels (1996), Ramesh says,
"We speak of diversity in the manifest world as of water in a mirage. Time, space and duality itself are all notions or concepts--mere thoughts. All is nothing but Consciousness appearing as mind, whether mountains, oceans, rivers, animals or human beings."

A desert mirage (the manifestation) as seen from a distance (from ignorance) appears to be water, but up close (after awakening), is seen to be a reflection of the sunlight (Awareness).

The pot and the space in which it exists

The space (Awareness) in which a pot (the fictitious “I”-entity or the world) exists is unaffected by the pot. The same space exists outside, inside, and within (is immanent in) the walls of the pot. When the pot is broken (when awakening occurs), the space inside and within is seen to be the same as the space outside. A slight variation of this metaphor makes the inner space the mind, the outer space Awareness, with the mind merging with Awareness at awakening.


Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
22 August 2007, 09:32 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

If Brahman was so easily definable then Brahma Sutras would have defined Him that way. Brahma Sutras say: Brahman is that from which the acts of creation, maintenance, and dissolution proceed.

Namaste Atanu,

Yes, this Brahma Sutras are most excellent... what you say is true. Yet Brahman is more, indescribable, unbounded and infinite. We at best only comprehend 1/4th of this Bhuma. When Brahman applies HimSelf to Creative matters we get create-maintain-disolve. Yet what of the time when He/IT/BEing is not active doing this? This is the greatest mystery too, yes?

We know there are 5 exponents of reality that view Brahman in various lights.
Adi Shankara - Kevala Advaita
Sri Ramanuja - Visista Advaita
Sri Nimbarka - Bhedabheda vada
Sri Madhva -Dvaita vada
Sri Vallabha Suddhadvaita vada

Some of these muni's say Brahman is with attributes (Savisesh), some say without attributes and completely homogeneous. Some say Brahman is the efficient and effective cause of all THIS.

How can these realized beings have different views of the same elephant? For me, they are the same rungs on the same latter, just different views. Our ability to talk of the 5 'looks' or dristi of the same elephant (Brahman) gives us five different ways of appreciating the elephant's greatness.

There tends to be the behavior in man that one way ( usually the one taught to him) is the Right view. I have been taught it is wise to look at Brahman from different viewpoints to appreciate the greatness of this Being. Perhaps a valuable conversation is looking to Brahman from these 5 vantage points? Do you wish to lead this conversation?


Also - excellent job on the other post on metaphors. I also like the light/candle inside the hollowed-out pumpkin.


Thank you for your posts on this.


pranams,

atanu
22 August 2007, 01:07 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~
Namaste Atanu,

--We know there are 5 exponents of reality that view Brahman in various lights.
Adi Shankara - Kevala Advaita
Sri Ramanuja - Visista Advaita
Sri Nimbarka - Bhedabheda vada
Sri Madhva -Dvaita vada
Sri Vallabha Suddhadvaita vada

----
How can these realized beings have different views of the same elephant? For me, they are the same rungs on the same latter, just different views. Our ability to talk of the 5 'looks' or dristi of the same elephant (Brahman) gives us five different ways of appreciating the elephant's greatness.

There tends to be the behavior in man that one way ( usually the one taught to him) is the Right view. I have been taught it is wise to look at Brahman from different viewpoints to appreciate the greatness of this Being. Perhaps a valuable conversation is looking to Brahman from these 5 vantage points? Do you wish to lead this conversation?

pranams,

Namaskar Yajvan Ji,

Who am I to lead this conversation?

Your view is the view from a vantage point that possibly sages of high order gain. Actually, Advaita does not exclude all these possibilties within the ONE reality and they are also built in Mandukya Upanishad. If you recall, Yoga Vashista says that what transpires in consciousness is true, since the consciosness is true. The so-called apparent divisions are also forms of consciousness.

Only on one aspect, I remain adamant. Advaita atma cannot be known as another.

I request you to start a thread outlining the commonalities and dissimilarties of teachings of above five schools.


Regards.

Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
22 August 2007, 05:15 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaskar Yajvan Ji,

Who am I to lead this conversation? Your view is the view from a vantage point that possibly sages of high order gain. Actually, Advaita does not exclude all these possibilties within the ONE reality and they are also built in Mandukya Upanishad. If you recall, Yoga Vashista says that what transpires in consciousness is true, since the consciosness is true. The so-called apparent divisions are also forms of consciousness.

Only on one aspect, I remain adamant. Advaita atma cannot be known as another. I request you to start a thread outlining the commonalities and dissimilarities of teachings of above five schools.
Regards. Om Namah Shivaya

Namaste atanu,
Thank you for your note... Perhaps we should start a new thread then. My only limited concern is that of just us having the conversation and others on the sidelines watching. The subject matter is noble enough to pursue, I would hope other choose to participate.

Also doing all 5 at the same time will , IMHO, add to the complexity. So, perhaps we do one or two, then digest the matter, then pursue additions to the subject.

One other point - I see your knowledge and others adept in this matter, Please do not hesitate at taking a stab some of the 5 above. Dhi shakti is strong in your writings. Do not hesitate if you are motivated to do so... lets choose to take the slow-but-sure route as we proceed.

pranams,

atanu
23 August 2007, 01:28 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaste atanu,
Thank you for your note... Perhaps we should start a new thread then. ---
pranams,

Namaste Yajvan Ji, Yes, a fresh thread will be appropriate.

Om

atanu
23 August 2007, 01:32 PM
Chapter XV on Ashtavakra Section
ON WHAT NEED BE KNOWN AND NEED NOT BE KNOWN
AND ON THE NATURE OF THE SELF

Translated by MUNAGALA S. VENKATARAMAIAH (a devotee of Shri Ramana Maharshi)



1. On hearing Dattatreya relate the wonderful story of the Hill City, Parasurama marvelled more and more.
2. He, with a clear mind, pondered over the teachings of his Master, and then returned to him and asked him again:
3. "Lord, I have considered the purport of your teachings in the shape of the magnificent stories you told me.
4. "I understand that intelligence alone is real and single, and that objects are only unreal images like a city reflected in a mirror.
5. "Her Transcendental Majesty, the Maheswari, is that consciousness manifesting as Intelligence cognisant of the whole range of phenomena beginning from the unmanifest state of sleep and ending with this world passing in quick succession within itself.
6. "All these are apparently due to the self-sufficiency of that consciousness and they come into being without any immediate cause. This much I have understood after deep consideration.
7. "But this intelligence is said to be beyond cognition because it always remains as pure knowledge itself.
8. "I do not see how it can be realised if it surpasses knowledge. The goal is not achieved without realising it.
9. "The goal is liberation. What is its nature? If one can be liberated while alive, still how is the course of his emancipated life regulated, if that is at all possible?
10. "There are sages who are active. What is the relation between the world of action and their pure conscious being?
11. "How can they engage in action while all the time they inhere in absolute consciousness? Such consciousness can be of only one kind, and liberation also can be only one in order to be effective.
12-17. "How then are these differences noticed in the lives of the jnanis? Some of them are active; some teach scriptures; some worship deities; some abstract themselves into samadhi; some lead an austere life and emaciate themselves; some give clear instructions to their disciples; some rule kingdom quite justly; some openly hold disputations with other schools of thought; some write down their teachings and experiences; others simulate ignorance; a few even reprehensible and loathsome actions; but all of them are famous as wise men in the world.
18. "How can there be such differences in their lives when there can be no difference in the state of liberation common to all? Or are there grades in knowledge and liberation?
19. "Kindly enlighten me on these points, because I am eager to learn the truth and submit to you as my sole Teacher."

20. Thus requested, Dattatreya appeared pleased with the questions and answered the worthy disciple as follows:
21. "Worthy Rama! You are indeed fit to reach that goal because you have now turned towards the right way of investigation.
22. "This is due to the Grace of God which puts you in the right way of investigation. Who can attain anything worthy, without divine Grace?
23. "The beneficent work of the self-inhering divine Grace is finished when the inward turning of one's mind increases in strength day by day.
24-25. "What you have said so far is quite true; you have rightly understood the nature of consciousness but have not realised it. A knowledge of the property of a thing without actual experience of the thing itself is as useless as no knowledge.

26. "True experience of the Self is the unawareness of even 'I am'. Can the world persist after such unawareness? Second-hand knowledge is no better than the recollection of a dream.

27. "Just as the accession of treasure in a dream is useless, so also is secondhand knowledge.
28. "I shall illustrate it with a very ancient story. There was formerly a very virtuous king ruling over Videha.

29. "He was Janaka by name, very wise and conversant with both this world and beyond. At one time he worshipped with sacrificial rites the Goddess, inhering as the Self.
30. "There came for the occasion, all the Brahmins, pandits, hermits, critics, those versed in the Vedas, those accustomed to share in sacrificial rites and sacrifices, etc.
31. "At the same time, Varuna, the God of waters, wanted to perform a similar sacrifice, but worthy men did not accept the invitation.
32-37. "For they were pleased with Janaka who respected them duly.
"Then Varuna's son, who was a great dialectician, came to them. He disguised himself as a Brahmin, in order to decoy the Brahmin guests. On entering the royal chamber he duly blessed the king and addressed him thus before all the assembly. 'O King, your assembly is not as good as it should be. It looks like a lovely lake of lotuses ravaged by crows, jackdaws and herons; it would be better without this medley of incompetents. I do not find a single individual here who will be an ornament to a great assembly like a swan to a lovely lake of lotuses. May God bless you! I shall have nothing to do with this multitude of fools.'
38-41. "Being thus insulted by Varuna's son, the whole assembly stood up to a man and said in anger:
"You charlatan of a Brahmin! How dare you insult everybody here? What learning have you which is wanting in us? Wicked man that you are, you are only a bluffer! You shall not leave this place until you have proved your superiority over us. There are great pandits assembled here from all over the world. Do you hope to subdue all of them by your learning? Tell us your special subject in which you imagine yourself more proficient than us!'
Thus challenged, Varuni replied:
42-43. "I will in a minute outdo you all in debate; but that shall be only on the condition that if I am defeated, you will throw me into the sea; and if you are defeated, I will consign you to the sea, one after another. If you agree to this condition, let us have a debate.
44-45. "They consented and the debate began in right earnest. The pandits were shortly defeated by the fallacious logic of the opponent and they were sunk in the sea by hundreds.
46. "Varuna's followers then took away the sunken pandits to his sacrifice where they were received with respect which much pleased them.
47. "There was one by name Kahoela, among those who were thus sunk. His son Ashtavakra, having heard of his father's fate, hastened to Janaka's court and challenged the debater skilled in fallacy. The masquerader was now defeated and straightaway condemned to the sea by the young avenger. Then Varuni threw off his mask in the court and restored back all the men formerly drowned in the sea. Kahoela's son was now puffed with pride and behaved offensively before the assembled court. The pandits were made to feel mortified before the youth.

51-52. "Just then, a female ascetic appeared in their midst, to whom the offended assembly looked for help. Encouraging them in their hopes, the charming maiden with matted locks and hermit's clothes was highly honoured by the king and she spoke in sweet and yet firm tones:
53. "'Oh child! Son of Kahoela! You are indeed very accomplished, for these Brahmins have been rescued by you after you defeated Varuni in debate.

54-56. "'I want to ask of you a short question, to which please give a straight answer, explicit and unreserved. What is that condition reaching which there will be all-round immortality: knowing which all doubts and uncertainties will disappear; and established in which all desires will vanish? If you have realised that unbounded state, please tell me directly.'

"Being approached by the ascetic, the son of Kahoela replied with confidence:
57-58. "'I know it. Listen to what I say. There is nothing in the world not known to me. I have studied all the sacred literature with great care. Therefore hear my answer.
59-63. "What you ask is the primal and efficient cause of the universe, being itself without beginning, middle or end, and uneffected by time and space. It is pure, unbroken, single Consciousness. The whole world is manifested in it like a city in a mirror. Such is that transcendental state. On realising it, one becomes immortal; there is no place for doubts and uncertainties, as there is no more reason for ignorance as at the sight of innumerable reflected images; and there will be no more room for desire, because transcendence is then experienced.
"It is also unknowable because there is no one to know it, besides itself.
"Ascetic! I have now told you the truth as contained in the Scriptures.'

64-71. "After Ashtavakra had finished, the hermit spoke again: 'Young sage! What you say, is rightly said and accepted by all. But I draw your attention to that part of your answer where you admitted its unknowability for want of a knower outside of consciousness; and also that its knowledge confers immortality and perfection. How are these two statements to be reconciled? Either admit that consciousness is unknowable, is not known to you, and thus conclude its non-existence; or say that it is, and that you know it - and therefore it is not unknowable.
"You evidently speak from secondhand knowledge, gathered from the scriptures. Clearly, you have not realised it and so your knowledge is not personal.
"Think now - your words amount to this - you have a personal knowledge of the images but not of the mirror. How can that be?
"Tell me now if you are not ashamed of this prevarication before King Janaka and his assembly.'
"Being thus reprimanded by the ascetic, he could not speak for some time because he felt mortified and ashamed; so he remained with bent head thinking it over.

72-73. "However, the Brahmin youth could not find any satisfactory answer to her question, so he submitted to her in great humility: 'O ascetic! Truly I cannot find the answer to your question. I submit to you as your disciple. Pray tell me how the two scriptural statements are to be reconciled. But I assure you that I have not told a deliberate lie, for I know that any merits a liar may have are counteracted by his lies so that he is condemned as unworthy.'

74. "Thus requested, the ascetic was pleased with Ashtavakra's sincerity and said to him in the hearing of the assembly.
75-84. "'Child, there are many who being ignorant of this sublime truth, live in a state of delusion. Dry polemics will not help one to Reality for it is well guarded on all sides. Of all the people now assembled here, no one has experienced Reality, except the king and myself. It is not a subject for discussion. The most brilliant logic can only approach it but never attain it. Although unaffected by logic coupled with a keen intellect, it can however be realised by service to one's Guru and the grace of God.
"O thou who art thyself the son of a Sage, listen to me carefully, for this is hard to understand even when hearing it explained. Hearing it a thousand times over will be useless unless one verifies the teachings by means of investigation into the Self with a concentrated mind. Just as a prince labours under a misapprehension that the string of pearls still clinging to his neck has been stolen away by another and is not persuaded to the contrary by mere words but only believes when he finds it around his neck by his own effort so also, O youth, however clever a man may be, he will never know his own self by the mere teaching of others unless he realises it for himself. Otherwise he can never realise the Self if his mind is turned outward.

85. "A lamp illumines all around but does not illumine itself or another light. It shines of itself without other sources of light. Things shine in sunlight without the necessity for any other kind of illumination. Because lights do not require to be illumined, do we say that they are not known or that they do not exist?

"Therefore, as it is thus with lights and things made aware by the conscious self, what doubt can you have regarding abstract consciousness, namely the Self?

"Lights and things being insentient, cannot be self-aware. Still, their existence or manifestation is under no doubt. That means they are self-luminous. Can you not similarly investigate with an inward mind in order to find out if the all-comprehending Self is conscious or not conscious?

"That Consciousness is absolute and transcends the three states (wakefulness, dream and slumber) and comprises all the universe making it manifest. Nothing can be apprehended without its light.
"Will anything be apparent to you, if there be no consciousness? Even to say that nothing is apparent to you (as in sleep) requires the light of consciousness. Is not your awareness of your unawareness (in sleep) due to consciousness?

"If you infer its eternal light, then closely investigate whether the light is of itself or not. Everybody falls in this investigation however learned and proficient he may be, because his mind is not bent inward but restlessly moves outward. As long as thoughts crop up, so long has the turning inward of the mind not been accomplished. As long as the mind is not inward, so long the Self cannot be realised. Turning inward means absence of desire. How can the mind be fixed within if desires are not given up?
"Therefore become dispassionate and inhere as the Self. Such inherence is spontaneous (no effort is needed to inhere as the Self). It is realised after thoughts are eliminated and investigation ceases. Recapitulate your state after you break off from it, and then will know all and the significance of its being knowable and unknowable at the same time. Thus realising the unknowable, one abides in immortality for ever and ever.
"I have now finished. Salutations to you! Farewell!

"But you have not yet understood my words because this is the first time you hear the truth. This king, the wisest among men, can make you understand. So ask him again and he will clear your doubts."
"When she had finished, she was honoured by the king and the whole assembly, and then she instantly dissolved in air and disappeared from human sight.
"I have now related to you, O Rama, the method of Self-Realisation."

Thus ends the Chapter XV on Ashtavakra Section in Tripura Rahasya.

atanu
30 August 2007, 10:12 AM
Jnana Bhumikas

Traditionally the following are considered the seven stages through which a seeker of knowledge travels

Subeccha
The desire for enlightenment

Vicharana
Enquiry

Tanumanasa
Tenuous mind

Satwapatti
Self-realisation

Asamsakti
Non-attachment

Padarthabhavana
Non-perception of objects

Turyaga
Transcendence

Those who have attained the last four stages are called:

Brahmavid
Brahmavidvara
Brahmvidvarya
Brahmvidvarishta

Jnana begins from the stage 4.


Om Namah Shivaya

Madhavan
01 September 2007, 03:50 AM
Subeccha - desire for liberation, giving up all worldly pursuits and follow the path of the Self single mindedly. Includes many years of practising the disciplines of yama and niyama.

Vicharana - reflections from study of scriptures and understanding the truth and the way to obtain release from avidya.( paroxa jnana)


Tanumanasi - Highly purifed mind obtained by the practice of dhyana and nishkAma karma. In Tanumanasi, the yogi is able to see even an atom( and even subtler things), and even percieve divine beings(devatas) and communicate with them.


Satwapatti - The knowledge that the world we see is not a reality but only a mental modification, and a consequent realization that the world is only a form of Brahman. The individuality is still retained and realized as a part of the cosmic whole.

Asamsakti - This is the individuality that knows "I am Brahma" which destroys all sanchita karma. The Jnani is still under the influence of the prArabdha karma, and occasionally experiences jnAna tirodAna or loss of samAdhi. His existance is like a 'wise' wave on the water.

Padarthabhavana - Individuality is permanently destroyed and no more lapses from samAdhi are caused. He does not see anything superior to himself and crowns himself the 'king of the universe'. His existance is like a line drawn on the surface of water, just for the sake of instructing others.

Brahmvidvarishta - When all prArabdha karma has ceased, the jnAni goes completely beyond the pale of guNas and mAyA. His existance is water.

Arjuna
02 September 2007, 03:42 PM
We know there are 5 exponents of reality that view Brahman in various lights.
Adi Shankara - Kevala Advaita
Sri Ramanuja - Visista Advaita
Sri Nimbarka - Bhedabheda vada
Sri Madhva -Dvaita vada
Sri Vallabha Suddhadvaita vada

If to speak of Vedanta, we know that there are also Shaiva commentaries upon Brahma-sutras, which i have metioned somewhere on this forum earlier. As i remember they are two, one belonging to Vira-shaivism and another to Shivadvaita.

If to speak of vAdas, it is needed to mention ParAdvaita, the monistic doctrine of Bhairava and Kaula Tantras.

Agnideva
02 September 2007, 07:54 PM
Namaste Arjuna,

If to speak of Vedanta, we know that there are also Shaiva commentaries upon Brahma-sutras, which i have metioned somewhere on this forum earlier. As i remember they are two, one belonging to Vira-shaivism and another to Shivadvaita.

If to speak of vAdas, it is needed to mention ParAdvaita, the monistic doctrine of Bhairava and Kaula Tantras.
Some good points.

The two Shaiva Brahma-Sutra commentaries are:

1. Brahma-mimamsa by Srikantha (Shivadvaita)
2. Srikara-bhasya by Sripati Pandita (Visheshadvaita)

However, I am not sure that any school of Shaivism can be strictly called "Vedanta", since Agamic Shaivism is neither based on nor strongly aligned with the Prasthana Traya. Anyway, this is all to rehash what you've already mentioned in some messages months ago.

OM Shanti,
A.

atanu
05 September 2007, 05:20 AM
Subeccha - desire for liberation, giving up all worldly pursuits and follow the path of the Self single mindedly. Includes many years of practising the disciplines of yama and niyama.

Vicharana - reflections from study of scriptures and understanding the truth and the way to obtain release from avidya.( paroxa jnana)


Tanumanasi - Highly purifed mind obtained by the practice of dhyana and nishkAma karma. In Tanumanasi, the yogi is able to see even an atom( and even subtler things), and even percieve divine beings(devatas) and communicate with them.


Satwapatti - The knowledge that the world we see is not a reality but only a mental modification, and a consequent realization that the world is only a form of Brahman. The individuality is still retained and realized as a part of the cosmic whole.

Asamsakti - This is the individuality that knows "I am Brahma" which destroys all sanchita karma. The Jnani is still under the influence of the prArabdha karma, and occasionally experiences jnAna tirodAna or loss of samAdhi. His existance is like a 'wise' wave on the water.

Padarthabhavana - Individuality is permanently destroyed and no more lapses from samAdhi are caused. He does not see anything superior to himself and crowns himself the 'king of the universe'. His existance is like a line drawn on the surface of water, just for the sake of instructing others.

Brahmvidvarishta - When all prArabdha karma has ceased, the jnAni goes completely beyond the pale of guNas and mAyA. His existance is water.


Thank You

atanu
15 September 2007, 02:37 PM
To St. Francis of Assisi (1182-1226, founder of the Franciscan Order of the Roman Catholic Church) is attributed the remark (footnote in Posthumous Pieces (1968), p. 139),

"What you are looking for is what is looking."


Inquiry, as described by Ramana Maharshi is the direct approach in the sense that it directly confronts the illusory "I" and reveals our true nature. It is a practice that does not reinforce the sense of personal doership. In fact it helps to remove it fastest through discrimination.

The purpose of inquiry is to reveal the nonexistence of the "I"-entity, and the reality of the Self or pure Awareness. Initially it is seemingly practiced by the "I", but the practice itself questions the "I"-entity’s existence. It shifts the identity away from the mind and its concepts, which by their very nature are contracting and limiting, towards the expansiveness and limitlessness of pure Awareness. It is a valuable sitting meditation technique as well as an eyes-open technique used in activity.

Inquiry is an investigation into the distinction between the self and the Self, i.e., between what changes and what does not change. It is not mysterious or mystical and can be practiced by anybody. It is a process of becoming aware of, and focusing on, Awareness itself rather than on the contents of Awareness. This produces disidentification from all thoughts, feelings, emotions, sensations, perceptions, and actions. This does not mean that they end, only that there is no longer a fictitious entity that thinks, feels, perceives, acts, and suffers.



Who is it that is feeling depressed?
Who is it that is feeling helpless?
Who is it that is feeling anxious?
Who is it that is feeling anger/rage/hatred?
Who is it that is feeling regret/guilt/shame?
Who is it that is feeling envy?
Who is it that is feeling despair?
Who is it that is suffering?
Who/what is this "I"?

Om

atanu
15 September 2007, 02:43 PM
"Why are you unhappy? Because 99.9 per cent of everything you think, and of everything you do, is for yourself—and there isn't one."


Ask the Awakened (2002), Wei Wu Wei

atanu
15 December 2007, 01:45 AM
Om Ganeshaya Namah

Suppose you befriend Rama. Rama tells you a lot of stories about himself and about Krishna. Being very shy He has extolled Krishna and downplayed his own virtues. Another friend of yours meets Krishna, who similarly extols Rama and downplays his own virtues.

Both you and your friend come across very many stories and you get settled in your respective initial views that one of them is more virtuous. Now you and your friend start fighting to establish who is more virtuous. You may even go to the extent of beheading the other. But being Hindus, you are mild (and possibly cowards), so you decide to visit Rama and Krishna at their dwellings and discuss the matter with them. Surprisingly, your friend also decides to do the same.

When you meet Rama in his house, you meet your friend there, who has come to meet Krishna. Then, you are further surprised when Rama responds and runs to his mother when she shouts “Krishna, O, Krishna, come here.”

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

Thus both you and your friend understand that it only a play of words and Rama and Krishna are one – One Advaita God. And you (Jiva) and your friend (the world) exist.

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

But I made up this story. I know God, myself, and my friend. The “I”, who becomes the knower is from the true Advaita Atman.


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
08 January 2008, 06:15 AM
Mahavakyas of the Upanishads

Prepared by Jayaram Srinivasan


Prajnanam Brahma: Consciousness is Brahman

(Aitareya Upanishad 3.3, of Rg Veda)


Ayam Atma Brahma: This Self is Brahman

(Mandukya Upanishad 1.2, of Atharva Veda)


Tat Tvam Asi: Thou art that

(Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7, of Sama Veda, Kaivalya Upanishad)


Aham Brahmasmi: I am Brahman

(Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10, of Yajur Veda, Mahanarayana Upanishad)


Prajnanam Brahma: Consciousness is Brahman

(Aitareya Upanishad 3.3, of Rg Veda)

Other Translations: Brahman is pure consciousness; Brahman is knowing; Brahman is intelligence

In the sentence, ‘Prajnanam Brahma’ or Consciousness is Brahman, a definition of Reality is given. The best definition of Brahman would be to give expression to its supra-essential essence, and not to describe it with reference to accidental attributes, such as creatorship etc. That which is ultimately responsible for all our sensory activities, as seeing, hearing, etc., is Consciousness. Though Consciousness does not directly see or hear, it is impossible to have these sensory operations without it. Hence it should be considered as the final meaning of our mental and physical activities. Brahman is that which is Absolute, fills all space, is complete in itself, to which there is no second, and which is continuously present in everything, from the creator down to the lowest of matter. It, being everywhere, is also in each and every individual. This is the meaning of Prajnanam Brahma occurring in the Aitareya Upanishad.**


Ayam Atma Brahma: This Self is Brahman

(Mandukya Upanishad 1.2, of Atharva Veda)

Other Translations: Brahman is this Self; This Self is Brahma

The Mahavakya, ‘Ayam Atma Brahma’ or ‘This Self is Brahman,’ occurs in the Mandukya Upanishad. ‘Ayam’ means ‘this,’ and here ‘thisness’ refers to the self-luminous and non-mediate nature of the Self, which is internal to everything, from the Ahamkara or ego down to the physical body. This Self is Brahman, which is the substance out of which all things are really made. That which is everywhere, is also within us, and what is within us is everywhere. This is called ‘Brahman,’ because it is plenum, fills all space, expands into all existence, and is vast beyond all measure of perception or knowledge. 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.**


Tat Tvam Asi: Thou art that

(Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7, of Sama Veda, Kaivalya Upanishad)


Other Translations: That is how you are; That art thou

In the Chandogya Upanishad occurs the Mahavakya, ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ or ‘That thou art.’ Sage Uddalaka mentions this nine times, while instructing his disciple Svetaketu in the nature of Reality. That which is one alone without a second, without name and form, and which existed before creation, as well as after creation, as pure Existence alone, is what is referred to as Tat or That, in this sentence. The term Tvam stands for that which is in the innermost recesses of the student or the aspirant, but which is transcendent to the intellect, mind, senses, etc., and is the real 'I' of the student addressed in the teaching. The union of Tat and Tvam is by the term Asi or are. That Reality is remote is a misconception, which is removed by the instruction that it is within one’s own self. The erroneous notion that the Self is limited is dispelled by the instruction that it is the same as Reality.**

Aham Brahmasmi: I am Brahman.

(Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10, of Yajur Veda, Mahanarayana Upanishad)


In the sentence, ‘Aham Brahmasmi,’ or I am Brahman, the ‘I’ is that which is the One Witnessing Consciousness, standing apart from 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. Hence the essential ‘I’ which is full, super-rational and resplendent, should be the same as Brahman. This is not the identification of the limited individual ‘I’ with Brahman, but it is the Universal Substratum of individuality that is asserted to be what it is. The copula ‘am’ does not signify any empirical relation between two entities, but affirms the non-duality of essence. This dictum is from the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad.**


** Excerpted from: Swami Krishnananda, The Philosophy of the Panchadasi, “Chapter V: Discrimination of the Mahavakyas,” The Divine Life Society, Sivananda Ashram, Rishikesh, India.

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
08 January 2008, 07:10 AM
According to Shri Atmananda, the four Mahavakyas lead a 'sAdhaka' (seeker) to the ultimate Absolute Reality, abolishing all traces of non-duality in these stages:

1. 'tat tvam asi' or 'You are that.' This represents the guidance of a living teacher, essential to bring mere words and symbols to life, so that a disciple may come to living truth.

2. 'aham brahmAsmi' or 'I am complete reality.' This broadens ego's narrowness, in preparation for a non-dual realization that must come about through a knowing in identity.

3. 'ayam AtmA brahma' or 'This self is all reality.' Here, the same thing is said as in the previous Mahavakya, but in a way that is impersonal, using the phrase 'this self' instead of the word 'I'. For the 'I' may still have a sense of the personal in it -– even after the broadening of ego's petty considerations.

4. 'prajnyAnam brahma' or 'Consciousness is all there is.' This finally establishes the true nature of the self, known purely in identity, as consciousness that is identical with everything that’s known.

Quoted from the book Some teachings from Shri Atmananda by Krishna Menon (http://www.advaitin.net/Ananda/SomeTeachings.pdf - 251 KB)

sarabhanga
09 January 2008, 09:07 PM
Namaste,

See also: mahAvAkyam (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=282)

atanu
19 February 2008, 08:04 AM
Dr. K. Sadananda




Does the world exist independent of an observer?

First, let us ask some basic questions which might have escaped the attention of many. How do we know that there is a world out there? What kind of question is that? I know the world because I experience the world every day, in fact every minute. I am in the world; everything reminds me of that fact including your question.

Good. Let us pose the next question, does the world exists if we do not experience it?

Of course it does, whether we experience it or not. We come into this world and we exit from the world; the world has always been there from our forefathers’ time and it will be there even after we leave. We exit from this world, but the world will always exist.

Is that so? But, how do you know that? Does the world tell you that it exists? Or do you infer that the world exists based on the information you have gathered from books or listening to others?

If there is no conscious entity to report the fact, can one prove that the world exists? The world cannot declare that it exists, since it is inert. Others, including historians, report that the universe has existed from the time of the big bang and there is no reason why it should disappear. In fact, matter can never be destroyed – that is the law.

But we are not discussing here the destruction of matter; we are questioning the very existence of matter, before we talk about its destruction. Can one prove the existence of matter or any inert entity without a conscious entity to establish its existence? Essentially, can one establish the existence of the universe independent of a conscious entity?

Histories and theories etc. are all products of the conscious entity based on observations and deductions. The fact of the matter is that the existence of the world can never be proved without a conscious entity being present. Let us pose the question in a different way. Does the world exist when you go into the deep sleep state?

Of course it exists - when I get up in the morning, everything is in the same place that I left it in the night, including all the problems that I had. The world was there before you went to sleep, since you were there to experience it. The world is there in the morning, since you are there to experience it. The question is: without the presence of an experiencer, a conscious entity, can one prove the existence of the inert world on its own?

Remember we posed a similar question when you are in a pitch dark room. You are there independent of any means of knowledge or pramANa since you are a self-conscious entity and therefore a self-existent entity. But you were not sure about the presence of any objects in the dark room since you could not see them or experience them. The question is the same, but is now being asked in terms of the world of objects, in fact the whole universe that includes not only objects but other beings as well. (From my reference point, all other beings are only objects, since I can only perceive their body and at best make inferences about their minds or the manifested aspects of their consciousness).

The existence of the world independent of a conscious entity is not possible since the world is not self-conscious and therefore not a self-existent entity. One can infer its existence based on the continuity principle but even to infer that, I have to be there. Whether the world can exist independent of me becomes a moot question since there is no way to prove that existence. Hence Shankara calls it ‘anirvachanIya’ – inexplicable. In the world of math it is called an indeterminate problem. That is, one cannot say the world is nor can one say the world is not; and to say ‘is’ or ‘is not’, I the conscious entity have to exist first.

Furthermore, I should also illumine the world for me to be conscious of the world. This is in addition to any other illuminating factors needed to illumine the objects for me to be conscious of them. Recall the example of the pitch dark room. I am there alright, but I also need another light to see the existence or non-existence of the objects in that room. Otherwise I can only illumine the darkness that envelopes all the objects. Until I illumine the objects too, in the presence of a light, I cannot say whether the objects in the room exist or not - their existence is indeterminate. Suppose I am not there, but there is a bright light burning in that room. I still would not know if there are any objects in that room or not. This means that two factors are needed to establish the existence of the universe. One is a conscious entity that I am, and the other factor is presence of all the factors needed for complete operation of the means of knowledge or pramANa. If I am there but the light is too dim for me to see clearly, I may see snakes instead of ropes. The bottom line is that, without the presence of ‘I am’, the existence of the world cannot be established.

You can postulate that the world is real and is always present, as some philosophers propose. But even to postulate that, I have to be there. No, No, Vedas say so! – Sir, that is your interpretation. Vedanta says in fact the opposite, in tune with the above analysis. But the fact of the matter is that, even to validate what Vedanta says, I have to be there. The Vedas are also part of this world, not out of this world. No – they are apauruSheya, not written by a human being and they eternally exist. Yes, even to believe that I have to be there first. This is blasphemy. No. Vedas are scientific truths and they themselves declare that they come under apara vidyA [superior knowledge], like any other scientific truths, which are eternal. However, I have to be there even to validate the existence of the Vedas too. In short, ‘I am’ comes before the world comes into existence.

This is really weird. You have mentioned before that the Vedas are only pramANa or a means of knowledge to know the absolute. And now, you are dismissing the Vedas too, along with the world. You are contradicting yourself. How can the Vedas which are part of the world be a means of knowledge for that which is beyond the world of plurality? This is not Vedanta.

Sir, contradictions are only at the level of the mind. Vedas are pramANa for POINTING in the direction of the truth that is beyond any means of knowledge. The truth as we said before is ‘aprameyam’, beyond any means of knowledge. What we said is that Vedanta, in the hands of a teacher, becomes the means for a well-prepared mind to take off to a ‘state’ beyond any description and beyond that even Vedas describe as indescribable – ‘adRRiShTam, avyapadeshyam, agrAhyam, achintyam, - imperceptible, indescribable, unattainable, unthinkable etc.


Om

atanu
23 February 2008, 03:35 AM
Namaste All,

There has been some auspicious discussion regarding the nature of Brahman and Maya in another thread, which being now closed, I post a few points herein. These are my POVs, which may differ from other Advaitins without altering the verity of Advaita, even by a hair’s width.

Upanishads give three kinds of definitions for Brahman: ‘creator’ etc, ‘satchidanandam’ and ‘alakshana’. Mandukya clearly says this self is Brahman and defines the true self-the fourth as Alakshana, yet as Shiva, the all good on account of being absolute non-dual. While quenching a fire-brand, the fire should be recognised as the true nature of the circular (or crooked) shaped fire-brand, appearing to be so due to movement. Similarly, it will be a failure, if we do not see the Good in the world. Removing forms and names, the essential nature of the Universe is found to be Non-Dual Good alone.

Maya is never existent. Sat, Non-Dual Good one is the One and only being. To posit Maya as Asat, however, allows Dvaitins to give almost equal status to Maya (which they do by positing Vishnu as opposed to Shiva as if) and even point towards a superiority of Maya (as if it is another person) in that it is able to hide Brahman. As if Maya is another being. They have a point since, an Asat thing (which never existed or which can never exist – such as a barren women’s son) cannot hide Brahman, which is self resplendent.

Shankara has indeed taught that Maya is never existent, being just illusory. It has no comparison basis with the TRUE-SAT being. And thus Shankara teaches, for such illusory beings, resulting as if from Maya, the definitions of ‘a being’ or ‘not a being’ simply do not apply. It is just Avidya – a wrong notion, similar to crooked shape of moon seen in turbulent water. When seen through senses, Brahman will appear crooked or circular – just as fire may appear to be crooked or circular when waved. True Seer/Knower is Brahman itself as there is no second. But the Avidya is ego – ruling the sense of a separate knower/seer who sees only name and form bearing bodies as real. That is why Neti-Neti s auspicious.

Om Namah Shivaya

karun
02 April 2008, 12:32 PM
dear sirs

Brahman being in thought is also a guess only. How do you explain the nAsadiya sukta and the Taittiriya Up where the Brahman is said to have desired to become many?

brahman becomes many and stays one. it ist the source of creation which actualy does NOT take place. this "seemingly taking place" is metaphoricaly expressed by "it desires to become many". this "seeming" is maya.
maya follows after the identifacation with mind body and is its cause. thus "I" am here and there is the world (the other) = duality. you can call it leela( the game of the absolut). it stays one and uses the mind to appear as many WITHIN the range of the mind. but still this appearances (like person and a universe) are brahman.
modern sience more and more proves, that there is no world outside the mind. believing that there IS, a real world outside means avidya.

Adi Shankara has said that no independent being ( God) would ever voluntarily go into real or imaginary bondage( like thoughts). By no means of imagination, can this be an accident since the Lord is omnipotent. It cannot have been planned either.

like the sun never will be obscoured, brahman can never be not-brahman. the mind is a system believing in its own reality. in this way it appears to the mind, to be seperate. when the notion of "i am somebody" (ego) ends, that which is allways, shines as allways.

But creation is happening in beautiful periodic cycles in vyavaharika. Thus, it must imply something more than a random thought process , certainly beyond human understanding.

time, space and creation happen in your mind. the feeling: there is a creation is also in your mind. so everything is just vritti (motion in mind).
even the feeling of your head banging a tree and the pain is in your mind.
just switch of the mind...there is no tree, no head, no pain, no creation.
thats maya. beyond is ME. the real self, brahman.

regards
karun

atanu
08 May 2008, 05:13 AM
A nice interesting way to explain.

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/advaita-vedanta/440949-weekly-definition-advaita.html

What is Advaita? - Dennis Waite



"So, Swami-ji, what would you say that Advaita is?" The eager young woman
crossed her legs and sat expectantly, pencil poised above a pristine pad of
paper.

"It simply means 'not two' - the ultimate truth is non-dual," replied the
Sage, reclining in a large and comfortable-looking armchair and not sitting
in an upright lotus position, as he ought to have been, for the sake of the
photograph that she had just taken, if nothing else.

She continued to wait for further elucidation before beginning to write but
it soon became apparent that the answer had been given. "But is it a
religion? Do you believe in God, for example?"

"Ah, well, that would depend upon what you mean by those words, wouldn't
it?" he responded, irritatingly. "If, by 'religion', you mean does it have
priests and churches and a band of followers who are prepared to kill
non-believers, then the answer is no. If, on the other hand, you refer to
the original, literal meaning of the word, namely to 'bind again', to
reunite the mistaken person that we think we are with the Self that we truly
are, then yes, it is a religion. Similarly, if by 'God' you mean a separate,
supernatural being who created the universe and will reward us by sending us
to heaven if we do what He wants, then the answer is no. If you use the term
in the sense of the unmanifest, non-dual reality, then yes, I most certainly
do believe in God."

The pencil raced across the paper, recording the answer for the benefit of
the magazine's readers but, as the words clashed with previous ideas in her
memory, the lack of a clear resolution of her questions was reflected by an
increasing puzzlement in her expression.

He registered this with compassion and held out his hand towards her. "Give
me a piece of paper from your pad."

She looked up, mouth slightly open as she wondered why he could possibly
want that. But she turned the pad over, carefully tore off the bottom sheet
and placed it in his outstretched hand. He turned to the table at his right
and deftly began to fold and refold the paper. After a few moments, he
turned back and, before she had had time to see what he had done, he held
the paper aloft and launched it into the air. It rose quickly and circled
gracefully around the room before losing momentum and diving to meet a
sudden end when its pointed nose hit a sauce bottle on the dining table.
"Could you bring it back over here do you think?" he asked.

"So, what would you say that we have here?" he asked, as she handed it back
to him.

"It's a paper aeroplane," she replied, with just a hint of questioning in
her voice, since the answer was so obvious that she felt he must have some
other purpose in mind.

"Really?" he responded and, in an instant, he screwed up the object and,
with a practised, over-arm movement, threw it effortlessly in a wide arc,
from which it landed just short of the waste paper basket in the corner of
the room. "And now?" he asked.

"It's a screwed-up ball of paper", she said, without any doubt in her voice
this time.

"Could you bring it back again, please", he continued. She did so, wondering
if this was typical of such an interview, spending the session chasing about
after bits of paper like a dog running after a stick. He took the ball and
carefully unfolded it, spread it out on the table and smoothed his hand over
it a few times before handing it back to her. "And now it is just a sheet of
paper again," he said, "although I'm afraid it's a bit crumpled now!"

He looked at her, apparently anticipating some sign of understanding if not
actual revelation but none was forthcoming. He looked around the room and,
after a moment, he stood up, walked over to the window and removed a rose
from a vase standing in the alcove. Returning to his seat, he held the rose
out to her and asked, "What is this?"

She was feeling increasingly embarrassed as it was clear he was trying to
explain something fundamental, which she was not understanding. Either that
or he was mad or deliberately provoking her, neither of which seemed likely,
since he remained calm and open and somehow intensely present. "It's a
flower," she replied eventually.

He then deliberately took one of the petals between his right-hand thumb and
fore-finger and plucked it. He looked at her and said, "And now?" She didn't
reply, though it seemed that this time he didn't really expect an answer. He
continued to remove the petals one by one until none remained, looking up at
her after each action. Finally, he pulled the remaining parts of the flower
head off the stem and dropped them onto the floor, leaving the bare stalk,
which he held out to her. "Where is the flower now?" he asked. Receiving no
reply, he bent down and picked up all of the petals, eventually displaying
them in his open hand. "Is this a flower?" he asked.

She shook her head slowly. "It was a flower only when all of the petals and
the other bits were all attached to the stem."

"Good!" he said, appreciatively. "Flower is the name that we give to that
particular arrangement of all of the parts. Once we have separated it into
its component parts, the flower ceases to exist. But was there ever an
actual, separate thing called 'flower'? All of the material that constituted
the original form is still here in these parts in my hand.

"The paper aeroplane is an even simpler example. There never was an
aeroplane was there? And I don't just mean that it was only a toy. There was
only ever paper. To begin with, the paper was in the form of a flat sheet
for writing on. Then, I folded it in various ways so that it took on an
aerodynamic shape which could fly through the air slowly. The name that we
give to that form is 'aeroplane'. When I screwed it up, the ball-shape could
be thrown more accurately. 'Aeroplane' and 'ball' were names relating to
particular forms of the paper but at all times, all that ever actually
existed was paper.

"Now, this sort of analysis applies to every 'thing' that you care to think
of. Look at that table over there and this chair on which you are sitting.
What are they made of? You will probably say that they are wooden chairs?"

He looked at her questioningly and she nodded, knowing at the same time that
he was going to contradict her.

"Well, they are made of wood certainly, but that does not mean that they are
wooden chairs! On the contrary, I would say that this, that you are sitting
on, is actually chairy wood, and that object over there is tably wood. What
do you say to that?"

"You mean that the thing that we call 'chair' is just a name that we give to
the wood when it is that particular shape and being used for that particular
function?" she asked, with understanding beginning to dawn.

"Exactly! I couldn't have put it better myself. It is quite possible that I
could have a bag full of pieces of wood that can be slotted together in
different ways so that at one time I might assemble them into something to
sit upon, another time into something to put food upon and so on. We give
the various forms distinct names and we forget that they are ONLY names and
forms and not distinct and separate things.

"Look - here's an apple," he said, picking one out of the bowl on the table
and casually tossing it from one hand to the other before holding it up for
her to examine. "It's round or to be more accurate, spherical; its reddish
in colour and it has", he sniffed it, "a fruity smell. No doubt if I were to
bite into it, I would find it juicy and sweet.

"Now all of these - round, red, fruity, juicy, sweet - are adjectives
describing the noun 'apple.' Or, to use more Advaitic terms, let me say that
the 'apple' is the 'substantive' - the apparently real, separately existing
thing - and all of the other words are 'attributes' of the apple - merely
incidental qualities of the thing itself. Are you with me so far?"

She nodded hesitantly but, after a little reflection, more positively.

"But suppose I had carried out this analysis with the rose that we looked at
a moment ago. I could have said that it was red, delicate, fragrant, thorny
and so on. And we would have noted that all of those were simply attributes
and that the actual existent thing, the substantive, was the rose. But then
we went on to see that the rose wasn't real at all. It was just an
assemblage of petals and sepals and so on - I'm afraid I am not a botanist!
In the same way, we could say that the apple consists of seeds and flesh and
skin. We may not be able to put these things together into any form
different from an apple but Nature can.

"If you ask a scientist what makes an apple an apple, he will probably tell
you that is the particular configuration of nucleotides in the DNA or RNA of
the cells. There are many different species of apple and each one will have
a slight variation in the chromosomes and it is that which differentiates
the species. If you want to explain to someone what the difference is
between a Bramley and a Granny Smith, you will probably say something like
'the Bramley is large and green, used mainly for cooking and is quite sharp
tasting, while the Granny Smith is still green but normally much smaller and
sweeter'. But these are all adjectives or attributes. What is actually
different is the physical makeup of the cell nuclei.

"But, if we look at a chromosome or a strand of DNA, are we actually looking
at a self-existent, separate thing? If you look very closely through an
electron microscope, you find that DNA is made up of four basic units
arranged in pairs in a long, spiral chain. And any one of these units is
itself made up of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, again
arranged in a very specific way. So even those are not separate
'things-in-themselves'; they are names given to particular forms of other,
more fundamental things.

"And so we arrive at atoms - even the ancient Greeks used to think that
everything was made up of atoms. Are these the final 'substantives' with all
of the apparent things in the world being merely attributes? Well,
unfortunately not. Science has known for a long time that atoms mainly
consist of empty space with electrons spinning around a central nucleus of
protons and neutrons. And science has known for somewhat less time that
these particles, which were once thought to be fundamental, are themselves
not solid, self-existent things but are either made up of still smaller
particles or are in the form of waves, merely having probabilities of
existence at many different points in space.

"Still more recently, science claimed that all of the different particles
are themselves made out of different combinations of just a few particles
called quarks and that those are the ultimately existing things. But they
have not yet progressed far enough. The simple fact of the matter is that
every 'thing' is ultimately only an attribute, a name and form superimposed
upon a more fundamental substantive. We make the mistake of thinking that
there really is a table, when actually there is only wood. We make the
mistake of thinking that there is really wood, when actually there is only
cellulose and sugars and proteins. We make the mistake of thinking there is
protein when this is only a particular combination of atoms. "Ultimately,
everything in the universe is seen to be only name and form of a single
substantive.

The journalist was transfixed; not exactly open-mouthed but her pencil had
not moved for some time. Eventually, she asked in a small voice: "But then
where do I fit into all of this?"

"Ah", he replied. "That again depends upon what you mean by the word 'I'.
Who you think you are - 'Sarah' - is essentially no different from the table
and chair. You are simply name and form, imposed upon the non-dual reality.
Who you really are, however. well, that is quite different - you are that
non-dual reality. You see, in the final analysis, there are not two things;
there is only non-duality. That is the truth; that is Advaita."

******

Dennis Waite has been a student of Advaita for over 20 years and maintains
one of the most visited websites on the subject. He is the present Chief
Moderator of the Advaitin group and has published several books, including
'The Book of One' and, this month, 'Back to the Truth: 5000 Years of
Advaita'. For information about the books, together with endorsements and
many extracts, visit www.advaita.org.uk (http://www.advaita.org.uk/).

******

atanu
14 May 2008, 11:20 PM
Om

Today morning, I took out a few cubes of ice from the fridge and kept them on kitchen slab. Nearby some water was boiling.

I saw the ice cubes squirming in heat and telling the boiling water "What cruel thing you are, never steady and so hot. Bubbling with pride. Look at us we are so cool and steady. You are going to kill us. You are cruel". And the ice cubes died by melting and while dying they cursed the boiling water "You will have the same fate and you will die the same way".

And the samsara goes on.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
30 May 2008, 09:54 AM
The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.

That is the Self; that is to be known" (Mandukya).

It is unchanging, it is known as One, all phenomena come to ceasation, it is the Self -- not another one.

Self cannot be another one. It is unchanging, so number of other souls joining it as different entities is ruled out.

It is Advaita. Number of other souls joining it yet remaining separate entities is ruled out.

It is actionless. So, thoughts of serving it or actual tasks undertaken to serve it are not possible.

It is not conscious of the inner or the outer. So, the consciousness of me and another is impossible.

It not unconsciousness either. So, it is aware of itself without inner or outer perceptions.

It is the Self which is Brahman. So nothing exceeds it.



Om

devotee
31 May 2008, 09:11 AM
Namaste Atanu,

This thread is a mine of priceless gems on Advait. Thanks ! :)

Regards

OM

atanu
23 November 2008, 12:24 AM
Namaste Friends,

In Rig Veda, there is a conversation between Prajapati (BrahmA) and Indra (BrahmA's son). Prajapati asks Indra "Ka?". Who Am I? Indra replies "If you enquire so, then you are that".

'Who Am I?' query at the mental level clarifies that this i, which is identical to this body-mind is nothing. It is just a speck in infinite time and infinite space. It is not different from a chair or a table, in so far as the Mahat, the great Cosmic mind has assumed identification with a so-called dead chair similarly as with a so-called living body. The moment the attention of the Cosmic mind removes itself from the body it becomes poorer than a chair, which at least has some use.

'Who Am I?' then goes deeper to meditative level, discarding the layers of raiments and in time reveals the nude one.:)

Om Namah Shivaya

brahman
05 December 2008, 11:26 AM
Please find these verses from Bhagavad Gita

This divine power (Maya) of Mine, consisting of three states (Gunas) of mind, is very difficult to overcome. Only those who surrender unto Me easily cross over this Maya. (BG 7.14)

Four types of virtuous ones worship or seek Me, O man. They are:
1) The distressed,
2) the seeker of Self-knowledge,
3) the seeker of wealth,
4) and the enlightened one who has experienced the Supreme. (7.16)

Among them the enlightened devotee (Jnaani), who is ever united with Me and whose devotion is single-minded, is the best.

Because I am very dear to the enlightened, and the enlightened is very dear to Me. (7.17)

The en-lighted one is the most practical entity and then comes the seeker of Self-knowledge( seeker is the seeker of truth ,its not one who has literally learned all the ancient literature)

Brahman

PRABHU P
06 December 2008, 09:50 AM
Namsthe Viewers,

The Brhmam is all pervasive from Anu to Mahat. It is easier to establish in self by releasing all the kosas, than to establish in the same Brahman that pervades every where. There is no proof required to be one self. It is actualisation. Being a self without any Vikshebams can be acomplished easily, that is what I feel, than the Vichara of Chetanachetanam of the prakruthi.

PRABHU P

yajvan
06 December 2008, 12:52 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~




'Who Am I?'
'Who Am I?' then goes deeper to meditative level, discarding the layers of raiments and in time reveals the nude one.:) Om Namah Shivaya


Namaste atanu,

Or one can say I am whom ...
Śiva = I
Śaivī is śakti or Śrī Devī = am
whom, or all existence = nara



Pāṇini¹ ( the grammarian) tells us ' put the first letter and the last letter and combine them' . What do we get ? a अ (Śiva) + ha ह (śakti) + ṁ ( nara) = ahaṁ अहं= I
Take the first letter a or anuttara¹ + ha or anāhata¹ + ṁ or anusvāra¹ = pratyāhāra प्रत्याहार - the comprehension of a series of letters or roots into one syllable which is ahaṁ अहं, which = the reabsorption into ones SELF, Brahman, Wholeness ( pūrṇata).


pranams

words

Pāṇini's grammar (7th centurt B.C.) is called Astādhyāyī - it is a rule bound description of spoeken language (bhasa) and composition ( vaidiki). I have been studing this as of late and consider myself only a student ( śiṣya) and take no authority or authorship of what little I know and pass on. Greater minds then me offer this knowledge via my studies i.e. Dimensions of Pāṇini grammar by Kapil Kapoor, Śiva Sūtra-s by Svāmī Lakṣman-jū , etc. May I do this with the least amount of error.
pratyāhāra प्रत्याहार- is also a group of letters combined as we did above the body of text i.e. the comprehension of a series of letters or roots into one syllable;
a अ - we know this as the first letter of the nāgarī alphbet and english alphbet.
ha ह - the thirty-third and last consonant of the nāgarī alphabet in Pāṇinis system; belongs to the guttural class , and usually pronounced like the English h in hard ; it is not an original letter , but is mostly derived from an older gh , rarely from dh or bh).
ṁ anusvāra अनुस्वार- is the nasal sound which is marked by a dot above the line and belongs to a preceding vowel.
anuttara अनुत्तर- Supreme, chief, the best, unsupassible
anāhata अनाहत - unbeaten, complete, intact; this is also considered that which cannot be recited.
More on ahaṁ ? see HDF http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3093&highlight=aham+Abhinavagupta (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3093&highlight=aham+Abhinavagupta)

PRABHU P
06 December 2008, 09:15 PM
Namasthe Yajvan ji,

I have no knowledge of Samskrit. Please explain me how a is related to Shiva, Ha is realted to Sakthi and m is related to Nara.

With best regards,
PRABHU P

brahman
08 December 2008, 11:58 AM
unfortunately I do not find a single hint of advaita involved in any of the discussions happened so far. I think Devotee has mentioned it earlier, also Karun had tried diverting it to the target "practical advaita". But at the moment this thread is going off the track.

Please let me if i am wrong and kindly advice me the nectar of this thread.

Brahman

yajvan
08 December 2008, 10:28 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~


Namaste

Prabhu writes,


Namasthe Yajvan ji,
I have no knowledge of Samskrit. Please explain me how a is related to Shiva, Ha is realted to Sakthi and m is related to Nara.
Let me see if I can explain.
Mātrikā-cakara is the understanding of the alphabet. All that is created is that of Śiva or Maheśvara. Now Śiva and the alphabet (Mātrikā-cakara) is full, complete (bhūman), yet we look at His fullness in 5 different energies or śakti-s. These are found in the 16 vowels of the sanskrit alphabet. They are a, ā, i, ī, u, ū, ri, rī, li, lī, e,ai, o, au, ṁ and ḥ. ( More on the 5 śakti-s if there is interest).

They all proceed from a and this is a or anuttara, Supreme, chief, the best, unsurpassable hence a representation of Śiva. That is why my last post suggested a + ha + ṁ = ahaṁ¹ which is the sanskrit word for 'I' . And the Supreme 'I' , purely subjective, purely independent (svātantrya) pure and perfect Being (sattā) is Śiva.

So, as a reference lets look at one śloka found in the Bhāgavad gītā Chapter 10.33
akṣarānām akāro 'smi
dvandvah sāmāsikasya ca
aham evākṣayah kālo
dhātāhaṁ viśvato-mukhaḥ

Kṛṣṇa is saying of the letters (akṣarānām) I am the first (akaraḥ). And what is the 1st? It is a. Without a, nothing comes forth. He goes on and says He is also time eternal (kālaḥ) and the Creator we know as Brahmā.

And Kṛṣṇa reminds us He is this Brahman, this Absolute, and He reminds us that as Brahman, He too is Śiva. This is found in
śloka 10.23. Yet He does not use the word Śiva, He uses the word Śaṁkara शंकर or He that bestows śaṁ - prosperity, auspiciousness , beneficence.

Kṛṣṇa in the Mahābhārata¹ (Anusadana Parva, Section CLXI or section 161 ) also sings the glory of Maheśvara. We are talking now of this Kṛṣṇa and Śaṁkara as Brahman, as most Supreme, anuttara (unsurpassable) and is recognized as such as this letter a.


pranams

references
More on ahaṁ , see HDF Post http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3093&highlight=nara

HDF post on the Mahābhārata, Anusadana Parva, Section CLXI can be found here http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=21582&postcount=5 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=21582&postcount=5)

atanu
08 December 2008, 11:13 PM
unfortunately I do not find a single hint of advaita involved in any of the discussions happened so far. I think Devotee has mentioned it earlier, also Karun had tried diverting it to the target "practical advaita". But at the moment this thread is going off the track.

Please let me if i am wrong and kindly advice me the nectar of this thread.

Brahman

Namaste Brahman,

You are correct. Yet only in Samadhi one can be above the categories. When one is speaking and writing, some Dvaita is pre-supposed, although the writer may be very well writing or speaking for no other.


Om

brahman
09 December 2008, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Atanu
You are correct. Yet only in Samadhi one can be above the categories. When one is speaking and writing, some Dvaita is pre-supposed, although the writer may be very well writing or speaking for no other.

Thats true, I guess we would come to a conclusion that there is nothing such "practical advaita" since advaita is undefined and beyond senses to be explained.

According to me; One enjoys the state of advaita practices 'Karma in Akarma' and 'Akarma in Karma', the one seems to be more practical.

Brahman

atanu
09 December 2008, 10:53 PM
Thats true, I guess we would come to a conclusion that there is nothing such "practical advaita" since advaita is undefined and beyond senses to be explained.

According to me; One enjoys the state of advaita practices 'Karma in Akarma' and 'Akarma in Karma', the one seems to be more practical.

Brahman

Namaste Brahman,

Thank You. Yes, Advaita is undefined and 'Practical Advaita' term is wrong. I understand that Advaita is experienced as Advaita and in no other way. Yet, metaphors are always indicative.

Om

brahman
10 December 2008, 11:17 AM
Brahman

atanu
10 December 2008, 12:29 PM
Brahman

Thank you Brahman,


All this is the letter Om. All that is past, present, and future is but Om. Whatever transcends the three periods of time, too, is Om.

Om

atanu
10 January 2009, 11:56 AM
Nasadiya Sukta


Then was neither being nor non-being; there was no realm of air nor sky beyond. What covered it, and where? what sheltered it? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal; no sign was there, nor day's and night's divider. That One being, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it there was nothing else.

------------------------------------------
Can anyone vouch that this is not about one's deep sleep?


he knows - or maybe he does not.Om

atanu
18 March 2009, 05:15 AM
May this not be tinged with ego.

Namaste to all,

Some say that Advaita holds that only the Brahman is true and the world is unreal. They snigger that how that which is pratyaksha – the world, can be unreal. The following note attempts to clear the doubt.

Advaita does not say this much only. Advaita says: Brahman Sat, Jagat Mithya, Brahman Jagat. Brahman is true, Universe is Myth (known wrongly due to sense superposition, but it is not Asat). Brahman, the true is only the Universe. Advaita holds that the Om, which is all that was, is, and will be, and also beyond time as true. Yet the unborn Atman is Advaita, the one without a second, which is the unchanging.


With respect to the claim of uncountable souls held by Dvaita, the following verses will show that only one is the source for all innumerable so-called diverse beings. So, the question of many eternal atma does not arise. Atman, the primeval being is Eko, one.
Svet. Upanishad
III-21: I know this undecaying primeval Immanent Self of all, who is omnipresent because of His all-pervasiveness, and whom the expounders of Brahman declare to be eternally free from birth.
IV-1: May that Divine Being, who, though Himself colourless, gives rise to various colours in different ways with the help of His own power, for His own inscrutable purpose, and who dissolves the whole world in Himself in the end – may He endow us with good thoughts !
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.
IV-3: Thou art the woman, Thou art the man, Thou art the youth and the maiden too. Thou art the old man who totters along, leaning on the staff. Thou art born with faces turned in all directions.
IV-4: Thou art the dark blue butterfly, and the green parrot with red eyes. Thou art the thunder-cloud, the seasons and the oceans. Thou art without beginning, and beyond all time and space. Thou art He from whom all the worlds are born.The Atman, Self, reveals itself as homogeneous Pragnya, called bliss, shushupti, 'm' of AUM, Sarvesvara, which itself is nirakar, yet holds all categories as potential forms (thoughts or concepts) and as names (vak). The forms and names are expressed in dream state, taijjasso, svapna,'U' of AUM, as light bodies, wherein the Seer is Rudra Mahesvara. The dream state further opens to waking state of agnivaisvanaro, 'A' of AUM, wherein the forms and names are gross. Agni-Indra is the Lord and Seer here.
It is true that the states are eternal as long as AUM is seen as composed of matras. As long as the Self exists (which is anadimat - existing from without beginning), the states are co-eternal, as per wish of sarvevsara. And thus the categories or divinities are also eternal in the states, either in expressed fashion or as potential in Sarvesvara.

Further explanation and support for the above summary is given below.


Whatever is pratyaksha in the waking gross world has correspondence in spiritual world of Vachaspati Soma in Brahma loka, Param Vyom, from where issues Gauri and becomes All. Similarly what is in Param Vyom as knowledge, gets a gross waking state manifestation via Gauri (the Madhyamika Vak). The verses are as below:
RV Book 1, HYMN CLXIV. Visvedevas, Asya Vamiya Sukta
34 I ask thee of the earth's extremest limit, where is the centre of the world, I ask thee. I ask thee of the Stallion's seed prolific, I ask of highest heaven where Speech abideth.
35 This altar is the earth's extremest limit; this sacrifice of ours is the world's centre. The Stallion's seed prolific is the Soma; this Brahman highest heaven where Speech abideth.
40 Forunate mayst thou be with goodly pasture, and may we also be exceeding wealthy. Feed on the grass, O Bhagavati, at every season, and coming hitherward drink limpid water.
41 Forming the water-floods, Gauri Mimaye, one-footed or two-footed or four-footed, she, Who hath become eight-footed or hath got nine feet, the thousand-syllabled in the sublimest heaven.
42 From her descend in streams the seas of water; thereby the world's four regions have their being, Thence flows the imperishable flood and thence the universe hath life.So, effectively, Rudriya Vak (holy hymns), Universe with its leaders and life originate from Soma (who is called auspicious energy in Rig Veda), as shown below:
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.
The Brhamaloka, Param Vyom, the home of Vak, is Shivam Sarvesvara (which is called Narayana in Maha Narayana Upanishad) is the bliss, Nirguna and greater than the greatest.
Maha Upanishad
tadbrahmaanandamadvandva.n nirguNa.n satyachidghanam.h . viditvaa svaatmano ruupa.n na bibheti kadaachana .. 70..
paraatpara.n yanmahato mahaantaM svaruupatejomayashaashvata.n shivam.h .kaviM puraaNaM purushha.n sanaatanaM sarveshvara.n sarvadevairupaasyam.h .. 71..
IV-70-72. One fears never (and from nothing) on knowing the nature of the self as Bliss unequalled, attributeless and one mass of truth and consciousness. That is beyond all that is beyond, greater than the greatest, lustrous and eternal in nature, wise, ancient Being, Sarvesvara.Though Sarvesvara Shivam Narayana is Nirguna but contains the Vak, the various Universes, and their leaders in potential knowledge form, yet the unborn Sarvesvara – the bliss is supportless, one, as below:
Maha Upanishad
sarva.n shaanta.n niraalamba.n vyomastha.n shaashvata.n shivam.h . anaamayamanaabhaasamanaamakamakaaraNam.h .. 45..
na sannasanna madhyaanta.n na sarva.n sarvameva cha . manovachobhiragraahyaM puurNaatpuurNa.n sukhaatsukham.h .. 46..
V-45. All is calm (needing) no support, existing in the ether (of the heart), eternal, auspicious, devoid of ailment and illusion, name and cause.
V-46. Neither existent nor non-existent, nor in between, nor the negation of all; beyond the grasp of mind and words, fuller than the fullest, more joyful than joy.Shri Krishna teaches in the Chapter 13th of Gita that immortality is gained by knowing the Anadimat Param Brahman which is neither a being nor a non being, seated as Self in all Hearts equally undivided, though it appears divided in beings. Turya is the advaita atman, which is Brahman and which has to be known as per Gita and Mandukya Upanishad. Turya's first revealed state is shushupti, deep sleep, homogeneous Pragnya, the Sarvesvara. It is homogeneous and dark to us since there is no second being in it to be known. It is the bliss, attractive to all and controller of all.


It is true that in the subsequent dreaming and waking states, the homogeneous Pragnya appears as the Universe, Ishwara, and Jiva, by its own Prakritic powers. As long as Self exists, the states will also. But as per the teaching of Mandukya Upanishad, one must know the advaita shivo atman, which is defined as:

Mandukya Upanishad

The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.The Upanishad teaches us that the Self that has been described has to be known. How do we know it? The following necessary implications emerge from the given shastra.
· It is unchanging and it is known as One, all phenomena come to cessation. It is the Self -- not another one. Self cannot be another one.
· It is Advaita. Number of other souls joining it yet remaining separate entities is ruled out. In that case advaita will be broken
· It is unchanging, so number of other souls joining it as different entities is ruled out. Else, its composition will continuously change.
· It is actionless. So, thoughts of serving it or actual tasks undertaken to serve it are not possible.
· It is not conscious of the inner or the outer. So, the consciousness of me and another is impossible. It not unconsciousness either. So, it is aware of itself without inner or outer perceptions.
· It is the Self which is Brahman. So nothing exceeds it.In summary, what exists as knowledge must also exist as gross reality and what exists as gross reality must have its spiritual reality. But all these categories are in Pragnya Ghana in potential form and expressed in Svapna and Jagrat. Advaita Atman, the revealer of homegeneous Pragnya, is however unchangeable eko. It is not possible to know advaita atman by remaining as a second being apart from advaita atman. In that case neither advaita (not two) is upheld, nor can another be atman. It is also not possible to hold thae notion "I am doing". Thus Shri Krishna says that the truth is known in samadhi alone.

Advaita thus does not deny the reality of the phenomenal realms of Taijjasso and Agnivaisvanaro, neither does it deny existence of potential forms and names in Shushupti in seed form. It however, gives a concrete outlook to fulfil the scripture's call "That is the Self, that is to be known".

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
24 March 2009, 11:49 AM
The standard criticism of advaitavada by ISKCON comes in the form of following objections. The refutations are answered below with respect to each objection. This assumes that ISCKON means advaitavada by their term mayavada, for which they say the propounder is Shankacharya.

1. Since we possess individuality, it is not logical that our ultimate source doesn't possess individuality. Since we can normally observe that personality is superior to an impersonal energy, we can conclude that personality is superior to impersonal energy. Since the Vedanta sutra explains that the Absolute Truth is the source of all existence, it must also be the source of personality and possess personality.

It is like saying that we are jealous, hatredful, lusty. So, our ultimate source is full of those things. It is like proving a hypothesis by the hypothesis. First imagine that "I am an individual" and then assert that the Truth, the God must be so, since "I am an individual."

This also betrays a lack of depth of understanding of scriptures and their guidance. Irrespective of so called alleged higher and lower status, scriptures teach that "Neither being nor non being Brahman is the object of knowledge, it must be known". The philosophy of opponent is a poison in that they try to hide this from innocent devotees.

Moreover, imagining the personal God as higher to all pervading Brahman is imagining two gods at war at same time. It is like saying that a bangle is superior to gold whereas every thing in a bangle is gold alone.

2. The Mayavadis say that the brahman is manifested in a personal form in this material world. How can something personal be manifested from something impersonal? Where do we have an experience of such a phenomena? Lord Krsna explains in Bg 7:24 that this theory is extremely illogical and indicates a lack of intelligence.

That which is All, cannot be personal but is not non being. Because it is without a Second, it cannot be a being in the sense "I am this and there is the Universe". Nasadiya Sukta queries and answers that the link between the immutable and the being, who sprouts from the immutable, is desire. The source of all the manifestation is Pragnya Ghana, the revealed intelligence of Atma, which is subtle and homogeneous in entirety. To say that the being (Hiranyagarbha) that rises from the subtle Pragnya Ghana is solid matter, is a incorrect understanding merely. This world is as subtle as its origin, the Atman -- but it does not appear so. The Gita verse cited as proof of the foolish contention in fact points the opposite as it is clear when the next verse is also considered.


24. The foolish think of Me, the Unmanifest, as having manifestation, knowing not My higher, immutable and most excellent nature.
Naaham prakaashah sarvasya yogamaayaasamaavritah; Moodho'yam naabhijaanaati loko maamajamavyayam.
25. I am not manifest to all (as I am), being veiled by the Yoga Maya. This deluded world does not know Me, the unborn and imperishable.
Vedaaham samateetaani vartamaanaani chaarjuna; Bhavishyaani cha bhootani maam tu veda na kashchana.
26. I know, O Arjuna, the beings of the past, the present and the future, but no one knows Me. No being actually knows the unmanifest aja. Each mind (manus), which is a packet of desire, knows the aja as per its own desire only only.

3. It is said that brahman is unchangeable. How then can it split into different living entities within the material world? And why should it do that? In Bhagavad-gita, Lord Krsna explains (15:7) that the living entities are eternal parts and parcels of the Supreme and states than individuality is an eternal principle (Bg 2:12).


No existence is external to Brahman, which is also saman - homogeneous. There cannot be parts in Brahman since it is known as impartible. This objection again assumes that living entitities are split and separate from Brahman.
Na twevaaham jaatu naasam na twam neme janaadhipaah;
Na chaiva na bhavishyaamah sarve vayam atah param.
There was never a time when I, you, or these kings did not exist; nor shall we ever cease to exist in the future. (2.12)Indeed this is apparently difficult to understand. If understood from a priori position of individuality as eternal, then it indeed seems that "I as Atanu is eternal." But is this the experience of anyone? Non discriminative cannot analyse anything in entirety because of their a-prioiri assumption of individual soul as a personality.Two critical aspects are missed:

The opponent fails to read "In time", in the above verse and also does not know that in deep sleep (shushupti) itself Time is Not and "I and You" is not. Upanishads say that OM is all that was, is, and will be and what is beyond three categories of Time. Isha Upanishad says that Self created the samvatsara (time-kAla, death-yama) as the ruler, implying clearly that the time itself is born. Whereas Atman is ever unborn and beyond time. In the domain of Time (samvatsara-kAla) only "I and they" exist.

4. If we were all God, why is there so much suffering and ignorance in the world? Also, if we say that we are God but just temporarily covered by illusion, then illusion would be more powerful than God, which doesn't make any sense.

There are not many gods. We are not all God, who is Advaita. What is true underneath the perishable bodies and minds is the Advaita. Of course power of illusion is able to delude the minds, due to desire which directs the minds to see as desire's dictates and not as it is. Minds see Brahman superimposed by discreteness and also does not see the link between infinite homogeneous Pragnya (deep sleep) to subtle light universe (dream) on to further discrete gross world (of waking). Power of illusion is however always subjugated to Atman. Brahman does not say "I am covered up by illusion". This is imagination of the opponent, who is associated with the mind-body.

5. The speculation that Krsna's body is material clearly indicates a complete misunderstanding regarding the transcendental appearance and nature of Krsna. Krsna's body does not consist of matter and contains unlimited, varied energies and attracts even liberated personalities, who are free from material attachments. (SB 1.7.10)

Advaita does not say that Krishna's body is material. But the clear cut understanding that eludes the opponent is that a particular form is not inclusive of all forms. Form of Pragnya Ghana Sarvesvara is Krishna to an Indian but is Jesus to a Christian. To a Muslim Sarvesvara is a bearded person. This is merely superposition. Whereas Sarvesvara Pragnya Ghana, which is all attractive to all, which is pure bliss, which sustains all, which is infinite being from which everything origininate, which is controller of all, and to which everyone go to sleep, is eternal in Time.

The atman is slumberless.

6. Reality according to Mayavada philosophy is beyond material form and duality. But they are erring in the premise that there is no spiritual form or variety. The negation of these facts is a materialistic concept and doesn't provide us any information about spiritual reality.

Yes. Spiritual forms are present as subtle light Universe in Taijjaso state but merge into Sarvesvara Shushupti, wherein they remain as potential forms of names of desire. Atman being indivisible and homegeneous is Eka and without any delusion of desire.

7. The desire to become one with God is called the "last snare of maya". Because the Mayavadis got frustrated with their attempt to become the supreme enjoyer in this material world, they want to become one with the Supreme. This desire is illusory because the soul is by constitution Krsna's servant. The Srimad Bhagavatam(10:2:32) explains that the misconception of the impersonalists is caused by an impure intelligence and that consequently their realizations are not ultimate and they are thus forced to fall down again to the material platform.

It is just the opposite. Advaita is a meditative process. Any desire is poison for attaining slumberless Samadhi, which Shri Krishna teaches is the only way to know the Truth. The ignorance that is the main obstacle is very well described in Braihadaraynaka Upanishad as below.


Brihadaraynaka Upanishad
I-iv-10: This (self) was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew only Itself as, ‘I am Brahman’. Therefore It became all. And whoever among the gods knew It also became That; and the same with sages and men. The sage Vamadeva, while realising this (self) as That, knew, ‘I was Manu, and the sun’. And to this day whoever in like manner knows It as, ‘I am Brahman’, becomes all this (universe). Even the gods cannot prevail against him, for he becomes their self. While he who worships another god thinking, ‘He is one, and I am another’, does not know. He is like an animal to the gods. -----The beginning of the Vichara is that the Atman is not another.

8. The material world is not false ("brahma satyam, jagan mithya" is one of their favourite slogans)/ because the material world originates in the Absolute Truth, it is real but temporary. However, the belief that the material world is permanent is false-in other words the material world is real but temporary.

The statement of half truth is the practice of the ignorant. Advaita says: brahma satyam, jagan mithya. brahma jagat. To see the jagat as separate from one's atma is ignorance, because atma, in the beginning gave birth to time, remaining beyond time and also as a Seer of three states of the jagat. Atman is the immutable, saman, eko, which must be known as such.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
28 March 2009, 04:11 AM
"These cruel haters, worst among men in the world, I hurl these evil-doers into the wombs of demons only. Entering into demoniacal wombs and deluded, birth after birth, not attaining me, they thus fall, Oh Arjuna, into a condition still lower than that,"
There was never a time when I, you, or these kings did not exist; nor shall we ever cease to exist in the future. (2.12)Reformist minds with missionary zeal find ultimate truth in verses as above that signify taratamya (differences) in this world and in time. The key point in all these taratamya verses is not the difference but some other condition of Prakriti, indicated by "In time"; "In this loka"; or ""evil doers" etc; either some guna bound changing characteristics or a product of sat-chit-ananada.

Dvaita Guru, however, in an unsullied way highlighted the permanent division between the advaita Lord, not divided by anything, and the ego bound limited minds. Is it against advaita? No. Dvaita is a restatement of Turya advaita of Mandukya Upanishad. Thus, a revered advaita guru said "The excellent teaching of dvaita only leads to advaita."

Minds which yet fail to see one consciousness linking waking, dreaming, and homogeneous deep sleep, need to know Lord as distinctlly different, Advaita and Transcendental from the ego bound being. Similarly, some minds which understand the subtle chitta as the world are told that the 'chitta' that one is is a speckle, a mere very small part of unlimited Sarvesvara Pragnya, in vishistadvaitavada. This too is a restatement of Mandukya Upanishad's Shushupti.

All scriptures, however, exhort us to know the undivided Param Brahman-shivo atman as the Great Lord. Coming to know this theoretically is truly dvaita, since Mahesvara is distinct from a thinking mind. On the other hand, Gita says, the truth is known in samadhi -- in experience alone.

What is that experience? Is it an individual experiencing another that is atma, that is indivisble, that is saman, that is beyond time, and that is without a second?


I have heard and read experts say that the three darshanas see the truth in three different ways. This is only partially correct. Shankara was not a fool that He would not know that the truth is indescribable and ungraspable? The three darshanaa are surely three steps of Vishnu.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
03 June 2009, 11:12 AM
Rig Veda

10.054.01 (I celebrate), Maghavat, the great glory (you have acquired) by your might; when heaven and earth alarmed called upon you, you did defend the gods, and destroy (their) adversary; (I celebrate your glory), Indra, in that you gave strength to one person (the worshipper).

10.054.02 When you proceed, Indra, increasing in form, and proclaiming your prowess among mankind, false is that your (wandering), false the combats which you have narrated; you (find) now no enemy (to attack), did you formerly find one?

10.054.03 Who among the r.s.is before us have obtained the limit of your entire greatness, since from your own person you have generated at once both mother and father (or earth and heaven)?


Om

Eastern Mind
05 June 2009, 05:17 PM
Sometimes I think the title of this thread is an oxymoron.

Aum Namasivaya

atanu
06 June 2009, 12:31 AM
Sometimes I think the title of this thread is an oxymoron.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste EM,

Why only 'sometimes'? And that has the answer.

Regards

Om

Eastern Mind
06 June 2009, 01:48 PM
Namaste: Fair enough. To tell the truth, it has been a long time since I studied Advaita. I remember discarding it for not being practical enough at that time and then leaning much more to being a bhaktar rather than a scholar. These are examples of questions I found it couldn't answer, if my memory serves me right.

So I just got angry at a loved one. How can I calm down for now, and then make adjustments so that there isn't a repeat of the performance?

Sometimes I just get too attached to work, or to the activity I am into, whether it be coaching volleyball, or driving a long distance. This intensity makes me forget about God and the purpose for my existence on the planet. What steps can I take to help me remember in a more regular way that I am a soul in evolution?

My physical body is in pain from overwork. When its in pain, it distracts from my meditations. All I can feel is my sore knee. I even have difficulty regulating my breath. What should I do?

Someone at work laughed at my new shirt. Although I like it, I reacted to this person's ridicule. I know intellectually, its just another person's different idea of good style, but I want to know how not to react to such petty criticisms.

My wife wants to spend money I don't feel we have on something I feel we don't need. I want to avoid an argument, yet don't want to just give in. What do I do?

You see, Atanu, I didn't find answers in the scriptural study of Advaita. And yet the simple knowledge intellectually that there is a bigger picture, a larger reality. Well, that's reassuring in times of discomfort, I suppose.

Aum Namasivaya

atanu
06 June 2009, 08:15 PM
Namaste: Fair enough. To tell the truth, it has been a long time since I studied Advaita. I remember discarding it for not being practical enough at that time and then leaning much more to being a bhaktar rather than a scholar. These are examples of questions I found it couldn't answer, if my memory serves me right.

So I just got angry at a loved one. How can I calm down for now, and then make adjustments so that there isn't a repeat of the performance?

Sometimes I just get too attached to work, or to the activity I am into, whether it be coaching volleyball, or driving a long distance. This intensity makes me forget about God and the purpose for my existence on the planet. What steps can I take to help me remember in a more regular way that I am a soul in evolution?

My physical body is in pain from overwork. When its in pain, it distracts from my meditations. All I can feel is my sore knee. I even have difficulty regulating my breath. What should I do?

Someone at work laughed at my new shirt. Although I like it, I reacted to this person's ridicule. I know intellectually, its just another person's different idea of good style, but I want to know how not to react to such petty criticisms.

My wife wants to spend money I don't feel we have on something I feel we don't need. I want to avoid an argument, yet don't want to just give in. What do I do?

You see, Atanu, I didn't find answers in the scriptural study of Advaita. And yet the simple knowledge intellectually that there is a bigger picture, a larger reality. Well, that's reassuring in times of discomfort, I suppose.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste EM,

You do speak wisdom. The mind's way is common to all. I will repeat a verse from another post:

Gita
There is no knowledge of the Self to the unsteady, and to the unsteady no meditation is possible; and to the un-meditative there can be no peace; and to the man who has no peace, how can there be happiness?
-------------------------
Does this answer your question? The Self is that biggest thing that you mentioned. Even an inkling of it gives patience and tranquility -- and that is Practical Advaita.

Regards

Om

atanu
06 June 2009, 08:22 PM
There are views that advaita was a discovery of Shankara and was non-existent before, implying that it has no root in Vedas/Vedanta.

Satapatha Brahmana speaks of two valid ways as below:


Sataptha Brahmana

11.2.6.13. As to this they ask, 'Who is the better one, the self-offerer, or the god-offerer?' Let him say, 'The self-offerer;' for a self-offerer, doubtless, is he who knows, 'This my (new) body is formed by that (body of Yagña, the sacrifice), this my (new) body is procured 1 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44016.htm#fn_161) thereby.' And even as a snake frees itself from its skin, so does he free himself from his mortal body, from sin; and made up of the Rik, the Yagus, the Sâman, and of offerings, does he pass on to the heavenly world.

11:2:6:14. And a god-offerer, doubtless, is he who knows, 'I am now offering sacrifice to the gods, I am serving the gods,'--such a one is like an inferior who brings tribute to his superior, or like a man of the people who brings tribute to the king: verily, he does not win such a place (in heaven) as the other.
-------------------------------------------------------

A God offerer says "I will do this and I will do that".

A Self offerer has, with knowledge, handed over the self to the Self. All acts are of Self's powers only. Actually, the self offerer has not done it. The Self chooses. Also, it is unknown and indeterminate as to how Self appoints the self in time, as an individual self or as the no-entity. It does not matter, since the self is offered. It was never there. Also,the self offerer never becomes Ishwara or anything. That great Lord is anadi mat -- without beginning.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
09 June 2009, 12:59 AM
Some say that God is absolutely transcendental. His presence in Universe is also transcendental (whatever that means). Some others say the Universe is Narayana, God, Shiva. Every bit is Shiva. These fight each other. Shankaracharya opined that the difference between above two positions was avidya-superposition.The adherants of first two classes together now sloganeer 'Down with Shankaracharya'. Who knows the inscrutable ways?

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
20 June 2009, 10:59 PM
Advaita in Practice
from the book Sri Gurukripa VilAsam, published by Sringeri ShAradA PItham

Practical tips for a sAdhakA seeking advaita jnAna by Sri AbhinavavidyAtIrtha MahaSwamigaL, 35th pontiff of the DhakshiNAmnaya Shringeri ShArada PItham, from his guru Sri Chandrasekhara Bharathi MahaswamigaL's upadesha to him:

When in Shringeri Nrusimha vanam (forests), I used to go to Sri ShAradAmbAL temple and stay there for a while. Once after I came back, my GurunAthar asked me, "You have come crossing the river. What thoughts arose in your mind?"

"What thoughts!", I wondered and said, "Things were many that I saw".

"What was new among them?"

"Nothing. I just looked at whatever was seen by the eyes."

"Must one should look at whatever comes under the sight of eyes?"

"If the eyes were close so as not to see things, walking wouldn't be possible!"

"You should see them; but also remain without seeing them."

"How would that be possible?"

To that he said, "आत्मांबोधेस् तरङ्गोऽस्ंयहं इति गमने--AtmAMbodhes tara~ggo&sMyahaM iti gamane--(while walking one should think 'I am a wave in the ocean of AtmA')--and this is how one should remain.

When we stand up from the earlier seated posture and start walking, there should be no thought such as 'I am going somewhere walking'. A big wave has risen in the ocean of AtmA; and that wave is progressing forward; there is no difference whatsoever between the wave and the ocean. So one should think that one is a wave in the ocean of AtmA--'I am a wave in the ocean of bliss'."

I was surprised by his advice. He continued: "Always--even when one is conversing with another--should one reiterate this thought in mind."

What thought should one have while sitting? He said:

"... भावयन् आसनस्त्तः
संविद्सूत्रानुविद्धो महिरणिमिति वाऽस्मि

"... bhAvayan AsanastaH
saMvidsUtrAnuviddho mahiraNimiti vA&smi

"(when sitting, one should think, 'I am a bead strung in the thread of chaitanyam--intelligence, spirit')

"'A bead is strung in the thread of jnAnam (knowledge); that bead can't be removed, and the thread, made of chaitanyam, can't be snapped either; I am that bead.'--one's thoughts should function in this way.

"... इन्द्रियार्थप्प्रतीतौ
दृष्टोऽसंयात्मावलोकातिति

"... indriyArthappratItau
dRuShTo&saMyAtmAvalokAtiti

"Whenever a thing is seen, then the attention should not be in looking at that thing. 'AhA, chaitanyam by its own nature is objectless--without any relation to manifest things; but now it appears to be associated with things; and this increases the pUrNatvam (completeness) of the AtmA. If we receive a blow, the feel of our body is accentuated. In the same way, when things are seen, the specific presence of AtmA is known. Even ordinarily we have the feel of our body, but when we receive a blow, this feeling increases. Similarly, although chaitanyam is always present, the specific darshan of AtmA is had when things are seen and perceived.'

"When one is lying down, one should think:

"शयनविधौ मग्न आनदसिन्धौ

"shayanavidhau magna Anadasindhau

"That is, one should think 'now I am immersed in the sea of bliss'. Such thoughts should be continually be practised in mind, which would be very good. Anyone can test the difference between ordinarily lying down and getting into sleep and lying down voluntarily removeing thoughts and then get immersed in sleep. While lying down, one should invite the feeling of a blissful state and should prolong it until sleep takes over. The experience of bliss obtained by practising this way to get into sleep would be clearly seen in a few days.

"अन्तर्निष्टो मुमुक्षुः स खलु तनुबृताम् यो नयत्येवमायुः ॥

"antarniShTo mumukShuH sa khalu tanubRutAm yo nayatyevamAyuH ||

"One who conducts one's life in this way, one becomes among people a mumukShu, one who is desirous of mokSha, with a mind directed inwards.

"Therefore, while walking or sitting or lying down, we should lead only such a life. This is the advice that my GurunAthar gave me."

Note: The shlokas taught here are from Adi Sankara's Shatasloki. The full shloka is:

आत्मांबोधेस् तरङ्गोऽस्ंयहं इति गमने भावयन् आसनस्तः ।
संविद्सूत्रानुविद्धो महिरणिमिति वाऽस्मि इन्द्रियार्थप्प्रतीतौ ।
दृष्टोऽसंयात्मावलोकातिति शयनविधौ मग्न आनदसिन्धौ ।
अन्तर्निष्टो मुमुक्षुः स खलु तनुबृताम् यो नयत्येवमायुः ॥

AtmAMbodhes tara~ggo&sMyahaM iti gamane bhAvayan AsanastaH |
saMvidsUtrAnuviddho mahiraNimiti vA&smi indriyArthappratItau |
dRuShTo&saMyAtmAvalokAtiti shayanavidhau magna Anadasindhau |
antarniShTo mumukShuH sa khalu tanubRutAm yo nayatyevamAyuH ||

atanu
21 June 2009, 01:34 AM
Advaita in Practice
from the book Sri Gurukripa VilAsam, published by Sringeri ShAradA PItham

Practical tips for a sAdhakA seeking advaita jnAna by Sri AbhinavavidyAtIrtha MahaSwamigaL, 35th pontiff of the DhakshiNAmnaya Shringeri ShArada PItham, from his guru Sri Chandrasekhara Bharathi MahaswamigaL's upadesha to him:

When in Shringeri Nrusimha vanam (forests), I used to go to Sri ShAradAmbAL temple and stay there for a while. Once after I came back, my GurunAthar asked me, "You have come crossing the river. What thoughts arose in your mind?"

"What thoughts!", I wondered and said, "Things were many that I saw".

"What was new among them?"

"Nothing. I just looked at whatever was seen by the eyes."

"Must one should look at whatever comes under the sight of eyes?"

"If the eyes were close so as not to see things, walking wouldn't be possible!"

"You should see them; but also remain without seeing them."

"How would that be possible?"

To that he said, "आत्मांबोधेस् तरङ्गोऽस्ंयहं इति गमने--AtmAMbodhes tara~ggo&sMyahaM iti gamane--(while walking one should think 'I am a wave in the ocean of AtmA')--and this is how one should remain.

When we stand up from the earlier seated posture and start walking, there should be no thought such as 'I am going somewhere walking'. A big wave has risen in the ocean of AtmA; and that wave is progressing forward; there is no difference whatsoever between the wave and the ocean. So one should think that one is a wave in the ocean of AtmA--'I am a wave in the ocean of bliss'."

I was surprised by his advice. He continued: "Always--even when one is conversing with another--should one reiterate this thought in mind."

What thought should one have while sitting? He said:

"... भावयन् आसनस्त्तः
संविद्सूत्रानुविद्धो महिरणिमिति वाऽस्मि

"... bhAvayan AsanastaH
saMvidsUtrAnuviddho mahiraNimiti vA&smi

"(when sitting, one should think, 'I am a bead strung in the thread of chaitanyam--intelligence, spirit')

"'A bead is strung in the thread of jnAnam (knowledge); that bead can't be removed, and the thread, made of chaitanyam, can't be snapped either; I am that bead.'--one's thoughts should function in this way.

"... इन्द्रियार्थप्प्रतीतौ
दृष्टोऽसंयात्मावलोकातिति

"... indriyArthappratItau
dRuShTo&saMyAtmAvalokAtiti

"Whenever a thing is seen, then the attention should not be in looking at that thing. 'AhA, chaitanyam by its own nature is objectless--without any relation to manifest things; but now it appears to be associated with things; and this increases the pUrNatvam (completeness) of the AtmA. If we receive a blow, the feel of our body is accentuated. In the same way, when things are seen, the specific presence of AtmA is known. Even ordinarily we have the feel of our body, but when we receive a blow, this feeling increases. Similarly, although chaitanyam is always present, the specific darshan of AtmA is had when things are seen and perceived.'

"When one is lying down, one should think:

"शयनविधौ मग्न आनदसिन्धौ

"shayanavidhau magna Anadasindhau

"That is, one should think 'now I am immersed in the sea of bliss'. Such thoughts should be continually be practised in mind, which would be very good. Anyone can test the difference between ordinarily lying down and getting into sleep and lying down voluntarily removeing thoughts and then get immersed in sleep. While lying down, one should invite the feeling of a blissful state and should prolong it until sleep takes over. The experience of bliss obtained by practising this way to get into sleep would be clearly seen in a few days.

"अन्तर्निष्टो मुमुक्षुः स खलु तनुबृताम् यो नयत्येवमायुः ॥

"antarniShTo mumukShuH sa khalu tanubRutAm yo nayatyevamAyuH ||

"One who conducts one's life in this way, one becomes among people a mumukShu, one who is desirous of mokSha, with a mind directed inwards.

"Therefore, while walking or sitting or lying down, we should lead only such a life. This is the advice that my GurunAthar gave me."

Note: The shlokas taught here are from Adi Sankara's Shatasloki. The full shloka is:

आत्मांबोधेस् तरङ्गोऽस्ंयहं इति गमने भावयन् आसनस्तः ।
संविद्सूत्रानुविद्धो महिरणिमिति वाऽस्मि इन्द्रियार्थप्प्रतीतौ ।
दृष्टोऽसंयात्मावलोकातिति शयनविधौ मग्न आनदसिन्धौ ।
अन्तर्निष्टो मुमुक्षुः स खलु तनुबृताम् यो नयत्येवमायुः ॥

AtmAMbodhes tara~ggo&sMyahaM iti gamane bhAvayan AsanastaH |
saMvidsUtrAnuviddho mahiraNimiti vA&smi indriyArthappratItau |
dRuShTo&saMyAtmAvalokAtiti shayanavidhau magna Anadasindhau |
antarniShTo mumukShuH sa khalu tanubRutAm yo nayatyevamAyuH ||


Namaste saidevo ji,

The above is the first practical post in the thread.:)


Vasista muni to Rama:
Steady in the state of fullness which shines when all desires are given up and peaceful in the state of freedom in life, act playfully in the world, O Rhagava!



Inwardly free from all desires, dispassionate and detached, but outwardly active in all directions, act playfully in the world, O Raghava!



Free from egoism, with mind detached as in sleep, pure like the sky, ever untainted, act playfully in the world, O Raghava!



Conducting yourself nobly with kindly tenderness, outwardly conforming to conventions but inwardly renouncing all, act playfully in the world, O Raghava!



Quite unattached at heart but for all appearance acting as with attachment, inwardly cool but outwardly full of fervor, act play- fully in the world, O Raghava!
Om Namah Shivaya

Nondogmatic Nondualist
22 June 2009, 09:25 PM
Namaste: Fair enough. To tell the truth, it has been a long time since I studied Advaita. I remember discarding it for not being practical enough at that time and then leaning much more to being a bhaktar rather than a scholar. These are examples of questions I found it couldn't answer, if my memory serves me right.

So I just got angry at a loved one. How can I calm down for now, and then make adjustments so that there isn't a repeat of the performance?

Sometimes I just get too attached to work, or to the activity I am into, whether it be coaching volleyball, or driving a long distance. This intensity makes me forget about God and the purpose for my existence on the planet. What steps can I take to help me remember in a more regular way that I am a soul in evolution?

My physical body is in pain from overwork. When its in pain, it distracts from my meditations. All I can feel is my sore knee. I even have difficulty regulating my breath. What should I do?

Someone at work laughed at my new shirt. Although I like it, I reacted to this person's ridicule. I know intellectually, its just another person's different idea of good style, but I want to know how not to react to such petty criticisms.

My wife wants to spend money I don't feel we have on something I feel we don't need. I want to avoid an argument, yet don't want to just give in. What do I do?

You see, Atanu, I didn't find answers in the scriptural study of Advaita. And yet the simple knowledge intellectually that there is a bigger picture, a larger reality. Well, that's reassuring in times of discomfort, I suppose.

Aum Namasivaya

I would say that Advaita is extremely practical, perhaps the most practical of philosophies (though to call it a mere philosophy is not quite correct). Advaita points out to us who we really are (Tat tvam asi), which is the foundation for everything one does. When we identify out of ignorance (avidya) with the mind, the body and the ego, that affects everything we do in this life. If you want to lead a better life, then change the foundation from which you lead it; find out who it is that is living this life, and who indeed is life itself.

It has often been said that the truth of who one is cannot be adequately articulated in words. Words are only pointers (the finger pointing at the moon), and they are not the thing they describe. This is one reason why many spiritual teachers do not speak about what enlightenment or self-realization is; they speak about what it is not (the via negativa). By seeing the false, one comes closer to seeing the true. One good rule is that anything that appears in your consciousness (anything you can perceive) is not you because there must be something perceiving it; therefore, you are not the body, the mind or the external world. What is it that is aware of all these things, and that in fact is awareness itself?

As to your practical concerns, remember that one cannot truly understand Advaita with the mind; the mind is incapable of perceiving the Self (Atman). Therefore, one must not believe what the mind says about who one really is. Your mind tells you repeatedly that you are this small, divided self in a hostile world; as long as you believe it, you will suffer. When you observe the falsehoods of the mind, they fall away; that is the nature of illusion, that it loses its power when one sees it for what it is. Therefore, one should practice presence and learn to observe the movement of the mind for what it is; recognition of one's true identity will cause all mental anguish to become irrelevant. When you know who you really are, all action will arise spontaneously from the Source and there will be no question as to how to respond to practical situations in life.

I would recommend that, in addition to traditional Advaita texts, you try reading the works of modern Advaita teachers like Ramana Maharshi, H.W.L. Poonja (Papaji), Nisargadatta Maharaj and J. Krishnamurti. They do an excellent job of making Advaita practical and relevant to our lives. I can also recommend the Western teachers Eckhart Tolle, Gangaji and Adyashanti; they put things very clearly, and their teachings are entirely consistent with Advaita. It is also possible to buy audio recordings of J. Krishnamurti in CD form or to download them online; indeed, at amazon.com there are four Krishnamurti talks that only cost 99 cents each (and they last for over one hour each). Also, try searching for these teachers on Google Video and YouTube; there are many videos that are completely free to watch, and some on Google Video can be downloaded to one's computer and/or put on an iPod.

atanu
27 June 2009, 11:26 AM
Practicality is a relative perception for different people. For a hungry man on the road, nothing is more practical than a meal. For music lover me, nothing satisfies except Bose Music System, though friends term this madness as stupendously impractical.

For a true advaitin, the ultimate practicality is to abide as Self.

Om Namah Shivaya

Eastern Mind
27 June 2009, 12:52 PM
I would say that Advaita is extremely practical, perhaps the most practical of philosophies (though to call it a mere philosophy is not quite correct). Advaita points out to us who we really are (Tat tvam asi), which is the foundation for everything one does. When we identify out of ignorance (avidya) with the mind, the body and the ego, that affects everything we do in this life. If you want to lead a better life, then change the foundation from which you lead it; find out who it is that is living this life, and who indeed is life itself.

It has often been said that the truth of who one is cannot be adequately articulated in words. Words are only pointers (the finger pointing at the moon), and they are not the thing they describe. This is one reason why many spiritual teachers do not speak about what enlightenment or self-realization is; they speak about what it is not (the via negativa). By seeing the false, one comes closer to seeing the true. One good rule is that anything that appears in your consciousness (anything you can perceive) is not you because there must be something perceiving it; therefore, you are not the body, the mind or the external world. What is it that is aware of all these things, and that in fact is awareness itself?

As to your practical concerns, remember that one cannot truly understand Advaita with the mind; the mind is incapable of perceiving the Self (Atman). Therefore, one must not believe what the mind says about who one really is. Your mind tells you repeatedly that you are this small, divided self in a hostile world; as long as you believe it, you will suffer. When you observe the falsehoods of the mind, they fall away; that is the nature of illusion, that it loses its power when one sees it for what it is. Therefore, one should practice presence and learn to observe the movement of the mind for what it is; recognition of one's true identity will cause all mental anguish to become irrelevant. When you know who you really are, all action will arise spontaneously from the Source and there will be no question as to how to respond to practical situations in life.

I would recommend that, in addition to traditional Advaita texts, you try reading the works of modern Advaita teachers like Ramana Maharshi, H.W.L. Poonja (Papaji), Nisargadatta Maharaj and J. Krishnamurti. They do an excellent job of making Advaita practical and relevant to our lives. I can also recommend the Western teachers Eckhart Tolle, Gangaji and Adyashanti; they put things very clearly, and their teachings are entirely consistent with Advaita. It is also possible to buy audio recordings of J. Krishnamurti in CD form or to download them online; indeed, at amazon.com there are four Krishnamurti talks that only cost 99 cents each (and they last for over one hour each). Also, try searching for these teachers on Google Video and YouTube; there are many videos that are completely free to watch, and some on Google Video can be downloaded to one's computer and/or put on an iPod.

Thanks but no thanks. Thanks for taking the time to make suggestions. But as my post indicated, the questions refer to a distant past. I was merely giving examples of questions I once had, to show how I once discarded Advaita, or rather put it to the side. Now I have practical answers, mostly from my Guru. I practise monistic Saiva Siddhantha philosophically, which indeed is extremely close to Advaita, from my understanding. But then I'm not much of a scholar. I got the basics, now try to practice by action, trying to follow The Yamas, and Nyamas to my ability.

I also don't believe in reading many works by many authors. (Actually reading much at all) It may be all the same stuff said in different ways, but yet there are subtle differences. I think it would be like saying you have more than one Guru. Do you take a math class simultaneously from 3 different professors? I think not.

The other aspect is level of the individual soul's attainment. I didn't find that Advaita addressed that much. (But like I said, I'm not a scholar. Lets take charity, as an example. A millionaire might find giving up a dollar a huge step, whilst a beggar might easily pass on a few rupees to the next chap in line. That is because each is in a different stage of evolution.

Aum Namasivaya

atanu
30 June 2009, 11:33 AM
Upadesa Saram "Teaching Essence" By Ramana

In the vast ocean of cause and effect, actions happen and impermanent results follow. If one takes them as ‘my’ actions the idea of having a free will gets stronger. This sense of personal doership gives rise to a feeling of guilt or pride and effectively blocks the spiritual understanding that everything happens according to the will of God.

When there is total acceptance that all actions happen purely by the will of God, and if the fruits and the consequences are accepted as His grace, the mind gets purified and attains freedom from expectations.

Accepting and understanding that God has created the world for His sport and God is playing the lila through billions of body-mind organisms, is better than chanting the sacred names of the Lord, which in turn is superior to worshipping the image of the Lord with body, mind and speech.

When there is an understanding that God himself has become the manifestation; when, by His grace, one feels His presence in the phenomenal existence one obtains the blessings of worshipping the Lord of eight-fold forms without neglecting one's responsibilities.

Understanding that nothing happens according to ‘my’ will and merely witnessing the billions of body-mind organisms act under God's will is excellent. It is superior to singing the glories of the Lord or reciting His sacred names.

When there is an understanding that God's will prevails all the time and witnessing happens without any ‘one’ to witness, it is like the stream of ghee (clarified butter) or the flow of a river. This is true meditation. It is much better than meditating with an assumption that one has free will.

The nondualistic approach of understanding that ‘I AM’ is God is far more purifying and superior than the dualistic approach of assuming the difference between God and the ‘me’ and struggling to be one with Him.

By the grace of God or the Master when one is firmly established in the ‘I AM,’ devoid of the thinking mind, with an impersonal knowing that there is no ‘me’ to get involved, that is Supreme Devotion.

The dissolving of the thinking mind in the Heart, purely by the grace of God or the Master, is true devotion, Yoga and understanding.
Through the act of regulating breath the mind is subdued, just as a bird is restrained when caught in a net. This helps in checking the involvement of the thinking mind at that moment.

Thought and breath have their origin in Consciousness.

When the mind is absorbed, in work or otherwise, and the thinking mind is not active it may be said that the mind is in control temporarily, only to become active again. When, through the deep understanding that "God is the doer and no ‘one’ has any control over thoughts and actions" the thinking mind is totally annihilated, then it can be said that the thinking mind in that body-mind organism is dead and only the working mind remains.

The thinking mind can be temporarily suspended through the control of breath. It can be annihilated only when there is total understanding that God's will prevails all the time and the different forms are only puppets having no free will of their own. With this understanding three beautiful things happen: there is no ‘one’ to feel guilty or proud, to get frustrated or to have a sense of enmity. Life becomes simple.

The Sage, whose thinking mind has been destroyed by the total acceptance of the fact that nothing happens unless it is the will of God, and Who rests in the ‘I AM’ does all the actions with the knowledge that Consciousness alone functions through the billions of body-mind organisms.

When the enquiry, "What is the thinking mind?" occurs, the thinking mind understands intuitively that it has no free will and stops thinking itself to be the doer and gives way to the feeling of ‘I AM.’ This is the Direct path.

In the ordinary man when a thought occurs the ego takes delivery of it as ‘my thought’ and gets involved. The thinking mind is nothing but the ego identifying with a thought and getting involved. In the enlightened Sage, when a thought arises, witnessing happens and involvement with the thought does not take place.
 
When one enquires, "Where has the ‘me’ come from?" it will vanish into Consciousness revealing the truth that the ‘me’ has really come from Totality as part of the Divine Hypnosis. Consciousness has created the ego and Consciousness will annihilate the ego by initiating the process of Self-enquiry.

When we accept that God's will prevails all the time and not the individual will, the ‘me’ as the doer gets smaller and smaller till it gets completely merged in Consciousness.

When the sense of personal doership disappears with the total acceptance that "All there is, is Consciousness," the thinking mind ceases to exist during the waking hours as in deep sleep. What remains is the light of pure Consciousness, the indestructible ‘I AM.’

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
04 July 2009, 10:06 AM
Om

Today morning, I took out a few cubes of ice from the fridge and kept them on kitchen slab. Nearby some water was boiling.

I saw the ice cubes squirming in heat and telling the boiling water "What cruel thing you are, never steady and so hot. Bubbling with pride. Look at us we are so cool and steady. You are going to kill us. You are cruel". And the ice cubes died by melting and while dying they cursed the boiling water "You will have the same fate and you will die the same way".

And the samsara goes on.

Om Namah Shivaya

I was stepping up on staircase, when I saw the top stair look down upon the lower stairs with disdain and say "I am the highest". The lowest stair retorted "You all exist supported by me. If I remove myself, you all will crumble. I sustain you all." Then the concrete said "You fools, you all are me only."

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..


The upanishad vouchsafes that everyone will know patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad, The Lord of all Lords, the Supreme beyond the Supremest. That is the guarantee of Advaita.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
15 July 2009, 04:27 AM
This is a general evaluation of Theravadin critique of Vedanta in general and Advaita in particular.



From Theravadin
In essence there is no inner core of any kind in Theravada
If that is really what Buddha taught then Buddha was absolutely different and wrong from the perspective of Veda, which teaches: "The Truth is one, sages call it by different names."

For a Hindu, it is impossible to say that Buddha taught one truth and Veda teaches another. One of these must be untrue, since truth does not brook a second. Secondly, the knower of Truth also cannot remain many, since knowing what is one is not possible by a second.

What is stated by the Theravadin is, IMO, an opinion devoid of meditative knowledge. Buddha says that the born is subject to decay. This is the view of Hindus also. Buddha teaches that craving for anything born is dukkha since the born is temporary. Agreed, this is the view of Hindus also. However, the very assurance of Nibbana predicates imperishable existence beyond death.



From Buddha
That which is born, become, arisen, made, conditioned,
And thus unstable, put together of decay and death,
The seat of disease, brittle,
Caused and craving food,
That is not fit to find pleasure in.

Buddha did teach of the core, which is ever present and without which the born could not obtain Nibbana, as shown below:



Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. (http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic2-abbrev.htm/lUd./t_blank) VIII, 3.

Buddha also teaches:


Ud 1.3
PTS: Ud 2
Bodhi Sutta: Awakening (3) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
------------------
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed: As phenomena grow clear to the brahman — ardent, absorbed — he stands, routing the troops of Mara, like the sun that illumines the sky.

This means that the blessed one, the enlightened one is a reality – a core, a teacher, irrespective of THIS and THAT. The enlightened attains Brahman hood – the Jnani, the all pervasive Buddha in every heart.

Theravadins assert again and again that atta or anything pertaining to atta is nowhere to be found as a core everlasting principle. As evidence of Buddha teaching this concept, they cite the following:



Samyutta Nikaya III 144:
"Bhikkhus [monks, the Buddha said, holding a fleck of cow dung in his hand], if even if that much of permanent, everlasting, eternal selfhood/metaphysical being (attabhava), not inseparable from the idea of change, could be found, then this living the holy life could not be taught by me."

True, inseparable from the ‘idea of change’ (the universe and the ego) no core can be found. All religions warn against worship of anya devata. Whatever is known of Universe by direct perception or by report is nothing but Brahman/Self/theTrue, whose many forms are the ideas of change (Universe and Ego). The true is called by different names because the names are after that but the True is un-nameable.

The Self, which is Ajata, akhanda, and unconditioned, is not to be found separable from the idea of change (the Universe and the Ego), not even a small bit as a piece of cow dung.

The unborn, unproduced, unmade, unconditioned is the true akhanda Self, as it is to be NOT FOUND SEPARATE from the idea of change (the ego). If a separate Self was found, then Buddha could not teach, Theravadin could not preach, and we could not oppose, since the Buddhi would be outside us. Though an individual self made of flesh, marrow and bone is illusion and devoid of self, since flesh, bone, and marrow do not say "I". But the inner core of revealed Buddhi and its unborn source is held to be eternal even by scriptures cited by the Theravadin, who simply reads partly as per his own preference.

Else, in absence of an imperishable core, there would be no point in striving towards Nibbana, towards unborn-imperishable from the state of birth, which is perishable.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
04 August 2009, 12:03 AM
Upanishads contain subtle hints/jokes. A sage says: That purusha in the sun is same as the purusha in the right eye. Wow. So, is the Purusha in anyone's eye different? Are there many Purushas? Rig Veda also has subtle joke. After glorifying many fiery fights and utter destruction of foes that Indra, the Lord, the Mind, indulges in, Rig Veda teaches the following:

Rig Veda

10.054.01 (I celebrate), Maghavat, the great glory (you have acquired) by your might; when heaven and earth alarmed called upon you, you did defend the gods, and destroy (their) adversary; (I celebrate your glory), Indra, in that you gave strength to one person (the worshipper).

10.054.02 When you proceed, Indra, increasing in form, and proclaiming your prowess among mankind, false is that your (wandering), false the combats which you have narrated; you (find) now no enemy (to attack), did you formerly find one?

10.054.03 Who among the r.s.is before us have obtained the limit of your entire greatness, since from your own person you have generated at once both mother and father (or earth and heaven)?


Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
20 August 2009, 10:02 PM
Here is a great practical advice from Sri Chandrasekhara BharatI MahAsvAmigaL, the 34th Jagadguru of DakShiNAmya Shringagiri Sri ShAradA PITham:

"In the language we speak--even in English--advaita bhAvam (feel of Advaita) is clear. Take the English word 'I'. I call me 'I'. You call me 'you'. Someone there calls me 'he'. I am only 'I', not 'you', not 'he'. 'He' and 'you' are nAma-bheda (differences by names). The vastu (entity) that is there is only the 'I'. Now, just as I refer to me as 'I', you would call yourself 'I' and he would call himself 'I'. Thus all of us are only the 'I'. All that vyavAhara (references) by 'he, you' are all only nAma-bheda. 'I', that is, the 'AtmA' is only one. Everyone is of that AtmA. I am who is the 'I', appear as 'he' to one man and 'you' to another.

Let us look at it in another way. What is this plural 'we'? Can we say that it is the equivalent of 'I' + 'I'? Never. Only if the 'I' and 'you' and 'he' come together, the plural 'we' would occur. 'I' has no plural form. The AtmA has no plural form. Only the nAma-rUpa (names and forms) by which the AtmA is seen are plural. These are just appearance. The reality is only the 'I', the AtmA."

(From the Tamil book guru kripA vilAsam, vol.3, pp.236.xviii-xix)

atanu
21 August 2009, 02:20 AM
Here is a great practical advice from Sri Chandrasekhara BharatI MahAsvAmigaL, the 34th Jagadguru of DakShiNAmya Shringagiri Sri ShAradA PITham:

"In the language we speak--even in English--advaita bhAvam (feel of Advaita) is clear. Take the English word 'I'. I call me 'I'. You call me 'you'. Someone there calls me 'he'. I am only 'I', not 'you', not 'he'. 'He' and 'you' are nAma-bheda (differences by names). The vastu (entity) that is there is only the 'I'. Now, just as I refer to me as 'I', you would call yourself 'I' and he would call himself 'I'. Thus all of us are only the 'I'. All that vyavAhara (references) by 'he, you' are all only nAma-bheda. 'I', that is, the 'AtmA' is only one. Everyone is of that AtmA. I am who is the 'I', appear as 'he' to one man and 'you' to another.

Let us look at it in another way. What is this plural 'we'? Can we say that it is the equivalent of 'I' + 'I'? Never. Only if the 'I' and 'you' and 'he' come together, the plural 'we' would occur. 'I' has no plural form. The AtmA has no plural form. Only the nAma-rUpa (names and forms) by which the AtmA is seen are plural. These are just appearance. The reality is only the 'I', the AtmA."

(From the Tamil book guru kripA vilAsam, vol.3, pp.236.xviii-xix)

Namaste saidevo ji,

Great. Thanks also.

Ramana also says it with another flavour: The second and third persons exist because of the first person. If "I" is not there then "You" and "Him" will not occur. Then he teaches to enquire whether this "I" has any boundary or not?

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
21 February 2010, 10:04 AM
************************************************************
Essential Distinctions
************************************************************
KAnchi ParamAchArya gives a sum-up of the various Hindu religious siddhAntas--doctrines, in his long exposition "shrI Shankara charitam".

• There is nothing beyond the jagat--world, that you see with your own eyes; nothing beyond could be known also. So long as you are alive, without any controls, keep enjoying the indrya saukhyas--sensual comforts. When you die, your soul dies too; AtmA, punar janma--rebirth, svargam--heaven, mokSham--liberation, are all just deceptions.--the ChArvAkam which has such teachings is what is also known as Materialism and Agnosticism.

• What are called 'material', and 'spiritual' are both the flow of baseless imagination. In reality, everything is only sUnya--void.--the Bauddham--Buddhism, that teaches this way is Nihilism.

• The Jainas too are only half-Bauddhas--AchAryAL has referred to them as 'ardha-vainAshikas'--half Nihilists. This is because, if the Bauddhas say "There is nothing, only nothing", these people say, "It may be there, or it may not be there", so what they teach is Skepticism. When they say that the karmic flow can be extracted and removed from AtmA only by torturing the body, it is Stoicism.

• The MImAMsa that targets only the heavenly pleasures simply by doing the Veda karmas, without going to the subject of AtmA or having any Ishvara bhakti, may perhaps be called Vedic Materialism?

• Although the SAMkhya-Yoga shAstras which show the AtmA as distinct without any mix of guNa-karma--attributes and actions, look like Advaita that teaches Non-dualism, when they say that there are numerous AtmAs in this way, they also strangely look as Dualism!

• The NyAya-VaisheShikas that are just are scriptures of reasoning and intellectual research, may perhaps be called Intellectualism?

All the above siddhAntas are only ways of the intellect. The ChArvAkas too, only by inquiring with bhuddhi--intellect, say that there is no AtmA, no God or no shAstras.

If we look at the bhakti matas--devotional religions, where it comes to siddhAnta--doctrine, since they need to spell out their doctrines only in the intellectual way, they too remain as -isms:

• The Dvaita that is Dualism, and
• The VishiShtadvaita that is Qualified Non-dualism.

Although they are in this way, if we look at what is the basis of their sAdhana-krama--methods of practice, it is only bhakti--devotion. In other words, Love. While all the other siddhAntas above cater to the intellect, where there is no scope for emotion, these two religions cater to emotion that can feel BhagavAn, and that emotion is Love.


Shankara's Advaita

What to call AchAryAL's Advaita? It is one that does not come under any '-ism's! Cannot come too!

• Calling it Non-dualism does not speak the full truth about it; even the word Advaita is in that way! For, Advaita is only what is literally translated as (a-dvaita)--Non-dualism.

The tattvam--philosophy, that speaks about Brahman which is nAma-rahita--free from names (and forms) is also one that is nAma-rahita!

Except to indicate that it is incorrect to think that the JIvAtman is different and the ParamAtman is different, so it is A-dvaita, it is not possible to give it a name by referring to what it actually is!

It is the only paripUrNa tattvam--supremely complete philosophy. It speaks about the ParipUrNam, the very JIva becoming the sat-chit-Ananda paripUrNam.

Someone said that it can be called Absolutism. He said that this name could be given because it speaks about the satyam--Reality, that remains pUrNam--Complete/full, in itself, without depending on anything else.

But even this name does not seem right to me. This is not only the satya pUrNam that does not depend on anything else. All the remaining asatya-apUrNas, because they are dependent on this, they appear visible/perceptible to us! Thus, the term 'Absolutism' cannot indicate its nature of wrapping up everything as its dependents, and that only this tattvam is the adhAra--support, for all that is Relative, isn't it?

And then, is this siddhAnta, Intellectual or Emotional? Or is it Action like the MImAMsa?

Only because the JnAna MArgam--way of knowledge, is buddhi-vAda--doctrine of intellect, it is called that. But then this JnAnam is never the intellect-samAchara that can be inquired into by the brain. Except that it is such during the time of study through the shAstras, the saukhyam--comfort, shAnti--peace, Ananda--bliss, that is obtained when that knowledge is rolled up inside, is not all the brain-stuff. Is it then emotion, of feeling Brahman? Is the AanndAnubhavam--experience of bliss, emotional? Not at all, because emotions are the experiences of the mind, and in Advaita the mind and brain would be gone!

Even then (that is, after the brain and mind is gone), to know the satyam and experience it in bliss, what words to use to describe it? One is inclined to say that it is determinably not Action, but then the ParamAdvaitins like AchAryAL were all kAryamaya--full of action, so it also gives place to Action! Thus we are helpless to give it a suitable name!

Although the lakShyam--target, is to become actionless, as there is nothing to do when it is known that there is nothing good or nothing bad, the people who have reached that lakShya siddhi, instead of seeming to us to be actionless, do all sorts of apAra anugraha kArya--boundless actions of divine favour! What name to give for this sleepless sleep? We call what can't be explained in words, Advaita.

• When we say that one siddhAnta is Knowledge, another is Love, Devotion and a third one is Action, if we look at what Advaita is, it seems that we can call it ShAnti--Peace.

But it is not the shAnti that we think about! The shAnti known to us is one where everything has subsided. Although this is mahA shAnti too, within that shAnti, all the Knowledge, all the Love and all the Actions remain with shakti--power! Only in that way did AchAryAL was doing his work without cessation, as sarvajna--all-knowing, and sarva bhUta dayAkara--compassionate towards all beings? By what name to call that?

• Only the jagat is satyam, Brahman asatyam--this is ChArvAka;
• the jagat as well as Brahman are both asatyam--this is Bauddha;
• both jagat and Braham are satyam--this is NyAya;

• SAmkhya would say, "jagat is asatya becuase it is only the cheShTitam--movement, of prakRuti--Nature; only Brahman (referred to by the name PuruSha) is satyam;

• What did AchAryAL say? He said that only Brahman is the satyam, jagat is mithyA, that is, not satyam. It does not also mean that jagat is altogether asatyam. Jagat is only the falsity that appears like satyam, until the jnAnam of seeing everything as Brahman comes; when that jnAnam comes, this falsity/appearnce of the jagat goes away.

'Goes away' does not mean that it ended up as gone. The JnAni would also see the apparent jagat; as to how he would see, he would see it in sama--equality, that the jagat is the Brahman which is the satyam. It would then become not only 'only Brahman is satyam, jagat is mithyA', but also, 'only Brahman is satyam, and the jagat is also that brahma satyam'!

• In both Bauddha and MImAMsa, Ishvara the saguNa Brahman, and the nirguNa brahma tattvam--both are not there.

• In SAMkhya, there is no saguNa Brahman.

• In Yoga and NyAya-VaisheShika, although both are there, the relation between them, their relation with the jagat and the jIvas are not clearly defined.

• In the bhakti matas, only saguNa Brahman is there, no nirguNa Brahman.

• In Advaita, both saguNa and nirguNa Brahman are there. It says that if it is the jaDa prakRuti--inert Nature, that creates the mAyA jagat--apparant world, it does so, only by taking Brahman as the adhAra--support. In other words, saying "Only the nirguNa Brahman takes up/controls the mAyA to become saguNa Brahman, and shows itself as jagat, not only as jaDa prapancha--inert universe, but also as jIva prapancha--universe of beings", it gives an integrated siddhAnta that unites all the four--nirguNa Brahma, saguNa Brahman, jIvAtma and the jagat!

About the jagat sRuShTi--Creation of the World,

• the MImAMsakas would say, "Why should we say that sRuShTi was done by some Ishvara at some inderminate time? Jagat has always been there for ever, as it is now. In that the fruits are obtained according to karma."

• "By the lifeless power Nature, jagat appeared and is going on; there is no Ishvara, no karma, and no fruits"--CharvAka would say.

• "The jagat which is satyam is made of aNu--atoms. Ishvara is one who creates objects that did not exist before, combing these atoms in many varieties."--NyAya-VaisheShika would say. This is called Arambha-vAda--theory of origination.

• In the SAMkhya-Yogas, there is no Ishvara-sambandha--God's connection, for Creation. They won't agree also that the jagat was not there before and only created later. Only the PrakRuti (called mAyA and Nature) has tansformed into the jagat. This is called pariNAma vAda--theory of evolution.

• What Advaita says is that:

In actually, nothing as sRuShTi--Creation, was done.

The aNu is also not satyam, and there is nothing like a satya jagat made of atoms; calling it PrakRuti's pariNAmam--evolution, is also not correct. If that be true, then just as the mUla vastu--root substance is lost after it evolves, the PrakRuti itself would be lost!

So, there is nothing that is created, and nothing that changes. Only the One appears as the Other. Just as the rope appears like a snake in darkness, so does Brahman appear as jagat in mAyA. To put it in other words, the nirguNa Brahman itself becomes saguNa Brahman, joining with mAyA, and shows itself as the jagat.

The snake was not created from the rope, right? Nor did the rope actually evolv into a snake, right? In the same way is jagat, remaining only as an appearance, without being a creation or evolution. If a lamp is brought, the darkness goes and the confusion of the rope appearing as snake disappears; in the same way, in jnAna prakAsham--shine of knowledge, the darkness of mAyA would go, and what appeared before as jagat would start appearing as Brahman.

Without the sRuShTi or the pariNAmam, only the One appearing as the jagat is called vivarta vAda--theory of illusion.


Three principles of Shankara Advaita

Three things are referred to as the distinct principles that AchAryAL has given in anugraham.

• The first is the 'vivarta vAda'. The One appearing as jagat, and the illusion of jagat is perceived as the immediate reality.

• The second is the adhyAsa--superimposition. There is no original creation; it is not also evolution; nor is it the flow of falsity without any support of the satyam. This jagat is only the superimposition of mAyA on Brahman which is satyam, like the snake on the rope.--This is adhyAsa. The sphaTika--crystal, lingam (which in itself is colorless) appearing red because of a shoe-flower (Hibiscus rosa-sinensis), placed behind it, is adhyAsa--superimposition.

• The third principle is that in addtion to the two states satyam and asatyam, there is one more concept where, something that looks satyam--real, in the ajnAna dasha--duration/condition of ignorance, would later become asatya--unreal, in the state of jnAna. It has the name 'prAtibhAsika satyaM'--subjective/apparent reality.

********************

saidevo
22 February 2010, 07:08 AM
************************************************************
Some Essential Definitions
************************************************************
In discussing Advaita, we need to be clear about the exact meaning and significance of certain terms that we would frequently encounter. The book panchAdashI by shrI VidyAraNya svAmi has the following definitions.

• Atma chaitanya, is the pure consciousness of Brahman (Self), which resides immanent and transcendent in all the forms of Creation.

• chidAbAsa is the reflection of the pure consciousness of Brahman in the intellect.

• antaHkaraNa is another name for the mind.

Explanation of the Terms

• The term chaitanya is from the words chit--consciousness, and anya--inexhaustible. Thus chaitanya is inexhaustible consciousness of Brahman. The chit--consciousness, in chaitanya is the same as the chit in sat-chit-Ananda, existence-consciousness-bliss which is the nature of Brahman.

• chidAbAsa is from the words chit--consciousness, and bhAsa--light, lustre, impression. Thus chidAbAsa is the impressed or reflected consciousness of chaitanya--Brahman, the pure consciousness.

• antaHkaraNa is from the combination of antaH--inner, karaNa--organ. Thus antaHkaraNa is the inner organ of man, which is the mind. In fact the very name human--manuShya, is because of the mind--manas.

Nature and Relationship

• The nature of Atma chaitanya is to reside immanent and transcendent in all forms of Creation--animate and inanimate. Thus, Brahman is the substratum of everything in the Universe, remaining as a silent witness.

• chidAbAsa we said is the reflected consciousness of Brahman. Where does the reflection take place? In other words, what is the media of its reflection? The media is the intellect. Thus the reflection of Brahman in the intellect is known as chidAbAsa.

Now, 'we have a situation' here: because of mutual superimposition between Brahman and the intellect, the chidAbAsa identifies itself with the intellect, instead of with Brahman! This is like a reflected image identifying itself with the mirror which reflects it, rather than the source of light. The image in the mirror is only gross vibration so this cannot happen, whereas Brahman imparts its nature of consciousness to its reflection in the intellect, hence the 'situation'.

The chidAbAsa thus identified with the intellect is the jIva--individual self. The jIva, i.e., the chidAbAsa,--which is like a proxy server, to use an analogy of Infotech--looks upon himself as an agent and an enjoyer.

Because of its identification with the gross and subtle bodies, the jIva attributes to himself the joys and sorrows which pertain to the bodies alone. When the jIva gives up his identification with the bodies, he realizes that he is the substratum, Brahman, which is pure consciousness and devoid of association with anything.

• What about the role of antaHkaraNa in this relation between Brahman and jIva? We said that chidAbAsa is reflection of Brahman in the intellect and that antaHkaraNa is another name for mind. What is the relation between the intellect and the mind?

Although, the medium of reflection of Brahman is only one which is the antaHkaraNa--mind, it carries different names according to its four functions. When the mind cogitates it is known as the manas--mind. When it comes to a decision, it is called buddhi--intellect. When it stores information and experiences, it is called chittam--individual consciousness. The notion of 'I-ness' which is behind all these functions is called ahaMkAra--ego.

How did this medium of antaHkaraNa rise? At the command of Ishvara, the five subtle elements ether, air, fire, water and earth arose from the part of PrakRti in which tamas predominates. The five subtle organs of sense, namely, those of hearing, touch, sight, taste and smell respectively arose from the sattva parts of the five subtle elements ether, air, fire, water and earth. From a combination of the sattva parts of all the subtle elements arose the antaHkaraNa--mind.

**********

Thus, in the Ishvara lIlA--God's play, of Creation, the Self becomes individual selves like the actors in a play; and the selves act out their roles in the play of one life, get deeply attached to the roles they play, and feel intensely sad and anxious when the play is over. In the next play in another stage, they assume different roles and again get deeply involved in them. The cycle of the lIlA thus goes on and on.

smaranam
22 February 2010, 08:15 AM
praNAm Saidevoji

Thank You for these summations.



Someone said that it can be called Absolutism. He said that this name could be given because it speaks about the satyam--Reality, that remains pUrNam--Complete/full, in itself, without depending on anything else.

Absolutism, or Kevala Advaita. How about pUrNatva or purNavAd ?
It seems no word can define this , since it is so inclusive of everything, just as no word can define Brahman, however, the IshavAsya verse comes close :

oṁ pūrṇamadaḥ pūrṇamidaṁ pūrṇāt pūrṇamudacyate |
pūrṇasya pūrṇamādāya pūrṇamīvāvashiṣyate ||



• When we say that one siddhAnta is Knowledge, another is Love, Devotion and a third one is Action, if we look at what Advaita is, it seems that we can call it ShAnti--Peace.

But it is not the shAnti that we think about!

3. Having taken the Upanishad as the bow, as the great weapon, let him place on it the arrow, sharpened by devotion! Then having drawn it with a thought directed to that which is, hit the mark, O friend, viz. that which is the Indestructible!
4. Om is the bow, the Self is the arrow, Brahman is called its aim. It is to be hit by a man who is not thoughtless; and then, as the arrow (becomes one with the target), he will become one with Brahman.
- Mundaka Upanishad II (in this thread itself)


In other words, saying "Only the nirguNa Brahman takes up/controls the mAyA to become saguNa Brahman, and shows itself as jagat, not only as jaDa prapancha--inert universe, but also as jIva prapancha--universe of beings", it gives an integrated siddhAnta that unites all the four--nirguNa Brahma, saguNa Brahman, jIvAtma and the jagat!

Most certainly does.



vivarta vada , AdhyAsa, prAtibhAsik satyam

sums up Shankara-bhasya so precisely.

saidevo
22 February 2010, 10:20 AM
********************************
brahma satyam jagat mithyA
********************************
As an Advaitin, it is important for us to understand the exact meanings and significance of the term 'mithyA' and 'satyam' in the following famous quite from Adi Shankara BhagavadpAda:

brahma satyaM jagan mithyA jivo brahmaiva nAparaH ||

and its popular interpretation

"Brahman is the Reality, the universe is an illusion; the living being is Brahman alone, none else."

Here is a compilation from various sources, with analogies from my part:

Trying to trace the source of this famous quote in Shankara's works, was a bewildering experience to see that the google search threw up over 5,000 links, yet not one of them gave the source of his quote!

• After searching fervently for over an hour, at least one source cropped up, but it said the work was attributed to Shankara:

श्लोकर्धेन प्रवक्श्यमि यद्युक्तम् ग्रन्थकोतिभिः ।
ब्रह्म सत्यम् जगन् मिथ्य जिवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः ॥

shlokardhena pravakshyami yadyuktam granthakotibhiH |
brahma satyam jagan mithya jivo brahmaiva nAparaH ||
--bAlabodhinI, a compendium of vedAnta in 47 stanzas, attributed to Adi Shankara.

"With half a shloka (stanza) I will declare what has been said in thousands of volumes: Brahman is real, the world is false, the atomic individual self is only Brahman, nothing else."

• Later, my knowledgeable friend shrI Atanu gave me two more references, both of which are obviously Shankara's works:

The first quote from Viveka ChUDAmaNi is very close to our quote, although it differs in the second part of the verse:

ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्येत्येवंरूपो विनिश्चयः ।
सोऽयं नित्यानित्यवस्तुविवेकः समुदाहृतः ॥ २० ॥

brahma satyaM jaganmithyetyevaMrUpo vinishchayaH |
so&yaM nityAnityavastuvivekaH samudAhRutaH || 20 ||
--Viveka ChUDAmaNi

A firm conviction of the intellect that Brahman alone is Real and the phenomenal world is unreal is known as discremination (viveka) between the Real and the unreal.
--Tr. svAmi ChinmayAnanda

• The second quote from BrahmajnAnAvaLI matches exactly with the popular quote, and adds more:

ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या जिवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः ।
अनेन वेद्यं सच्छास्त्रमिति वेदान्तडिण्डिमः ॥ १८ ॥

brahma satyaM jaganmithyA jivo brahmaiva nAparaH |
anena vedyaM sachChAstramiti vedAntaDiNDimaH || 18 ||
--BrahmajnAnAvaLI

18. Brahman is Truth, the world of objects and beings is false, and the egocentric sense of separativeness (jeeva) is itself in fact nothing other than Brahman. That by which this Truth is known is the truest science, the Science of sciences, thus roars Vedanta.
--Translation as found in the Webpage http://svbf.org/journal/vol4no1/brahma.pdf

Understanding 'jagat' as 'mithyA'

While the term 'jagat' is popularly and correctly understood as the world, the popular understanding of 'mithyA' as 'illusion' is not the direct meaning of the term, although it can be derived from its connotations.

When the derivation 'illusion' is (incorrectly) associated with 'unreal', it spawns all sorts of criticism against the philosophy of Advaita, specially Shankara's exposition of it with his famous quote as the basis.

So what exactly does the (controversial) term 'mithyA' mean and connote?

• jagat: from the dhAtus--roots, ja--jAyate--arise/originate/born; and ga--gamana--that which goes/moves/changes. Thus the term 'jagat' means 'the moving/changing world that arose/originated'.

• mithyA: from the dhAtu 'mith' for which Apte gives five meanings:
01. To associate with; 02. To unite, pair, copulate; 03. To hurt, injure, strike, kill; 04. To understand, perceive, know; 05. To wrangle (i.e., to herd).

When we seek to appy these meanings to Brahman and jagat, we find that except the third, all the other meanings match, giving an idea of the different facets of the world:

01. Only Brahman exists, jagat is 'associated with' him/it.

02. Only Brahman exists, and he forms the jagat 'uniting with' mAyA (whereby he becomes saguNa brahman). It is for this reason that mAyA is called the shakti--power, of saguNa Brahman, and in the TrimUrti, who are forms of saguNa Brahman, the pair is personified as consorts: BrahmA-SarasvatI, ViShNu-LakShmI, Shiva-PArvatI. (The term 'maithuna' meaning 'connected by marriage' is also derived from the root 'mith').

03. The meaning 'To hurt, injure, strike, kill', does not even remotely apply to Brahman, although it applies very well to the jagat!

04. Only Brahman exists, and jagat, comprising its jIva prapancha--universe of beings, is formed to (ultimately) 'know/understand/perceive' Brahman as its substratum.

05. Only Brahman exists, who forms the jagat with all its jIvas and 'wrangles'--that is, herds, and he/it tends them.

Veda pramANa

The Veda pramANa for the concept 'brahma satyam jagat mithyA' are:

• ekam sat--Reality/Existence is One.--RV i.164.46

• ekam evadvitiyam brahma -- Brahman is one, without a second.
--Chandogya upaniShad VI.ii.1

• prajnanam brahma -- Consciousness is Brahman.
--Aitareya upaniShad 3.3, of Rg Veda

• sarvaM khalvidaM brahma -- All of this is brahman.
-- Chandogya upaniShad 3.14.1 of the Sama Veda

The combined message of these pramANas is:

Everything here is Brahman, but it hardly seems so, because of their limitations in matter, mind, and intellect; these limitations appear to measure out, compartmentalize and dilute the nature of Brahman and make the One look like the Many, because of the power of mAyA--restrained dispensations (from ma--measure out, ya--restrain/regulate).

Some analogies

We can understand the illusory concept of mAyA which makes our perception of the world mithyA by some analogies.

• When I draw a matrix of lines on the white background of a page on the computer screen (let us call it paper), the figure of the matrix looks more real to me than the paper, although the lines are only superimposed on the substratum of the paper, and the lines may be erazed restoring the nirguNa glory of the paper. Thus the matrix is nothing more than the 'measured out illusion' created by mAyA.

• When I draw a picture on the above 'paper', the colors and shades of the picture measures out and restrains the visible span of the paper. This action of measurement and restraint is projected over the substratum of the white paper. While a viewer can readily see the picture, and admire its yathArtham--surface reality, he can also understand about the substratum of the white paper, if he has the will.

• The surface reality of mAyA becomes terribly more influential when we watch a film. It is the same with the world: a multi-dimensional hologram projected over the substratum of Brahman.

• Most things in this world of duality are bipolar, but some are not: light and darkness for example. Light is reality, but is darkness so? Darkness is only the absence of light. It pales into shades of gray when a ray of light shines upon it. It decreases with the intensity of light and finally disappears, with the presence of pure, white light all around.

That pure light is Brahman, and the darkness of illusion, which restrains and measures out that light, or rather appears to do so, is mAyA that appears/appeals to us as the reality of the world.

This is how the popular meaning 'Brahman is real, the world is only an illusion' came about.

Understanding the 'satyam' of Brahman

MAtA AmRutAnandamayI DevI has elaborated on the contrasted meaning of 'satyam' and 'mithyA' in our popular quote here--a must-read:
http://archives.amritapuri.org/matruvani/vol-02/sep02/02mv09reality.php

MAtA scrutinizes Shankara's statement and explains its full import thus:

• a. brahma satyam ("Brahman is the Reality"): In Vedanta, the word "Satyam" (Reality) is very clearly defined and it has a specific significance. It means, "that which exists in all the three periods of time (past, present and future) without undergoing any change; and also in all the three states of consciousness (waking state, dream state and deep-sleep state)." This is therefore the absolute Reality — birthless, deathless and changeless — referred to in the Upanishads as "Brahman."

• b. jagan mithyA ("the world is an illusion"): The world appears "real" only in the "waking state;" but it is negated (it disappears) in the dream and deep-sleep states. Hence, it is not real, according to the definition above. Therefore, the world is said to be mithya by the Acharya.

However, many people seem allergic to the word, "mithyA," when it is used to refer to the perceptible world. For this reason, perhaps, the Acharya, in his later works, like Brahmasutra Bhashya, calls it "vyavaharika satta" (relative reality) or "pratibhasika satta" (apparent reality), as if to accommodate them.

• c. jiva brahmaiva nApara ("the jiva is Brahman alone, none else"): "Jiva" refers to the sentient principle in all living beings, including human beings. In the deep-sleep state, the body, senses, mind and intellect are all negated (rendered totally ineffective or insentient). Hence, the jiva is one with the sentient, inner life-principle, which revives the body, senses, mind and intellect after sleep. This life-principle is the pure consciousness that is the same in all beings. The all-pervading Brahman of the Upanishads is that pure consciousness present in all jivas as their antaryami (inner spirit).

Thus, in conclusion, MAtA says:

No one has any hesitation, obviously, in taking the dream world as an illusion; for, when they wake up to this familiar world, the dream world disappears. But all of us find it hard to believe that this familiar world, which we all actually perceive and experience, is an illusion.

But a spiritual aspirant may ask, "Is there a higher state to which I can wake up, so that this waking world will disappear, just like the dream world?"

The answer is a resounding "yes." What that higher state is no one can precisely describe. But Sri Shankaracharya was an intellectual and spiritual prodigy. He could experience that sublime, transcendental state (turiya, wherein the jiva is in a state of complete identification with Brahman), just like the Upanishadic seers. Thus, the great Acharya could confirm and authoritatively summarise the vision of the ancient seers of Sanatana Dharma — the truth of Advaita. Before he left his mortal coil, he firmly established this philosophy by his masterly commentaries on the prasthanatraya (the three basic texts on Vedanta, viz., Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras).

Sources:
01. Meanings of jagat and mithyA from this blog: http://kalchiron.blogspot.com/2009/01/brahma-satyam-jagat-mithya.html

where the author also traces the connection of these meanings with Advaita, VishiShtadvaita and Dvaita.

02. Reality and Illusion
http://archives.amritapuri.org/matruvani/vol-02/sep02/02mv09reality.php

********************

saidevo
22 February 2010, 10:45 AM
namaste Smaranam.

Thanks for your post and its valuable additions from the UpaniShads. As you say, the 'pUrNamadaH' verse of the IshAvAsya upaniShad comes close to the all-inclusive nature of Advaita.

Swami Dayananda Sarasvati has enlightened on it, and we have a compilation of it here:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=23105&postcount=8

devisarada
28 February 2010, 11:25 PM
"Tat Tvam Asi"

The Vaikya Vritti written by Shri Adi Shankaraacharya tries to explain this concept in words.

Although Adi Shankar came close, the understanding of who/what is Brahman cannot be achieved either through logic or through words. Rather, it comes intuitively by inspiration. (by the Muse, as it were)

It is futile to parse Hindu concepts in the same way that Abrahamic concepts are analysed using quotes from sacred texts. These concepts can only be understood by means of an 'epiphany".

The basic concepts in Hinduism just "are", and can only be understood after much sadhana and tapaysa, ideally with the help of a satguru.

There is a similar concept in Zen Buddhism where a Zen master teaches his disciple wordlessly, using a well timed slap to help him achieve realization that one cannot affirm or deny Reality " neti, neti". The correct response is just to accept.

atanu
01 March 2010, 01:35 AM
"Tat Tvam Asi"

The Vaikya Vritti written by Shri Adi Shankaraacharya tries to explain this concept in words.

Although Adi Shankar came close, ----

namaste devisarada,

I agree to your understanding. The role of words and explanations is that of an address. Let me add my bit.

Someone recently said: I have seen God, He plays for India at the fourth stand.

Similarly, Shankara is simply God to me. A thousand reading of Gita may not make it clear as to what exactly is God's mAyA and how it is responsible for gati, called this Universe. Shankara takes an example of a cow led by a sheaf of green grass; and explains the whole thing. Philosophers and Scientists marvel and we can only try to guess.

Happy Holi to all.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
01 March 2010, 01:45 AM
Surrender, Mother's Love, Sleep and Advaita Jnana

Surrender is like an infant or a child leaving all cares to Mother. It goes to Mother's lap and sleeps, knowing instinctively that Mother will drive away that disturbing fly. It knows that Mother will pour water in its mouth when thirsty. There is nothing comparable to mother's love and compassion-- not the physicality but the compassion and love. Compassion and love is there even in the way of absorption of heat of the Existence --- that we mistakenly call carnality.

Sleep is similar. One leaves all cares and goes to sleep in the lap of Mother Moola Prakriti.

However, the child grows up and forgets the meaning of surrender. And we wake up daily and forget the surrender. Chandogya U. says that man traverses the Gold Mine daily yet misses the Gold.

Advaita Jnana however makes the surrender pucca.

Om Namah Shivaya

ranjeetmore
01 March 2010, 08:37 AM
But,forgive me if I sound crude,doesn't this concept of an Universal Mother you talk about fall strictly under the purview of Vaishnava Siddhanta ???

Besides,the sleep you talk of- this state is described in the Bhagavatam .It mentions that after mahapralaya,all the Jeevas enter a state of sleep within the Purusha - Mahavishnu.

But such a state is undesirable as there is no bliss in such a state.

Rasa evam labhdha anandi bhavati. - shruti

The jeeva becomes blissful/anandi after he attains brahm,so a state of sleep is not desirable.

Vedanta is accepted as a scripture above the other 5 ,because it talks of a goal that goes beyond elimination of misery.It talks of attainment of Bliss.It teaches us to attain a state in which the bliss/rasa increases.

And such a state prescribes only to the state found in Paravyoma where the Personal Forms of God reside.

"raso vai saha"

Saha idicates a personal form of God.

atanu
01 March 2010, 08:55 AM
But,forgive me if I sound crude,doesn't this concept of an Universal Mother you talk about fall strictly under the purview of Vaishnava Siddhanta ???

Besides,the sleep you talk of- this state is described in the Bhagavatam .It mentions that after mahapralaya,all the Jeevas enter a state of sleep within the Purusha - Mahavishnu.

But such a state is undesirable as there is no bliss in such a state.

Rasa evam labhdha anandi bhavati. - shruti

The jeeva becomes blissful/anandi after he attains brahm,so a state of sleep is not desirable.

Vedanta is accepted as a scripture above the other 5 ,because it talks of a goal that goes beyond elimination of misery.It talks of attainment of Bliss.It teaches us to attain a state in which the bliss/rasa increases.

And such a state prescribes only to the state found in Paravyoma where the Personal Forms of God reside.

"raso vai saha"

Saha idicates a personal form of God.

Namaste Ranjeet

Yes. Advaita is a bit more and that is discussed seaprately. Thanks for your nice and relevant post.

Om Namah Shivaya

ranjeetmore
02 March 2010, 03:23 PM
I fail to understand how advaita/it's goal goes beyond the attainment of ever increasing bliss ??

especially If the goal of Advaita is found in a dreamless sleep of every other night or even in the completely dormant state that is called as sushupti in the vedas ?

The calmness of sleep is nowhere described to be the nature of Brahm in vedas.

In fact,Brigu rsi tells his father,Varundeva in one of the upanishads :

ananda brahmeti vyajanat....

Ananda is Brahm.From Ananda,the world is created.By ananda,the world is maintained and by ananda,the world is destroyed.

Ananda is itself the final goal of the Jeeva as pointed out by 'rasa evam labhdva anandi bhavati.'

The state of ever increasing bliss is never attained by kaivalya moksha and it appears to not be the state described by the vedas.

devotee
02 March 2010, 08:33 PM
I fail to understand how advaita/it's goal goes beyond the attainment of ever increasing bliss ??


Please read Upanishads to understand Advaita. And please don't pick up half verse without proper context as I find you quoting like Zakir Naik in several posts on this forum ... you won't be able to understand it at all that way. Read the Upanishad thoroughly. You may start with Isa Upanishad, Katha Upanishad. Brihadaranyak Upanishad, Maandukya Upanishad etc. In fact, only one upanishad i.e. Maandukya Upanishad is enough to understand Advaita, the highest philosophy that Vedas have to offer, if you read it carefully. You may also read threads, "Aham Brahmasmi" and "Aham Brahmasmi 2" in Advaita forum.

OM

saidevo
06 March 2010, 08:07 AM
Since satsangha is part of practical Advaita, I reproduce below a compilation I posted under the "How do we counter..." thread. But instead of repeating the contents which are also relevant here, I give just the link:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=40870&postcount=131

atanu
18 March 2010, 01:26 AM
A Neo Upanishad

Dileepunnyaa, Rudhei, and Ramesullu met at madra and were bitten by a profound question: What and How is Atman.

They discussed for long but did not get a clue. Suddenly Rudhei said: "I have seen the massive buildings he has constructed, from that we can know him". Others said how foolish? The buildings are inanimate. One should study the animate. Ramesullu then said "His daughter is tall, fair and her name is Mohini. The father must be like her". Dillepunnyaa became angry. He said "He has no daughter". He has begotten only 4 evil sons.

Then the memory in them (smaranam) rose and said: You all are dreaming. Atman is Eko. He never had a wife or consort that He could generate a progeny. Atman is subtler than air and ether, how can he build solid houses? Moreover, Atman is ungraspable, how can one grasp him, with hands? Atman is nirgunam beyond gunas of mind and words, how can mind and words grasp him?

The objects then were discarded and Atman remained as Atman.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
30 March 2010, 12:15 AM
A remembrance of scripture came to me that the Purusha in the right eye and purusha in the Sun are one.

Then the thought arose. So, why does one pine to look into another pair of deep eyes and lose oneself? Who does one want to find in those other pair of deep eyes?

:headscratch:

smaranam
30 March 2010, 04:06 PM
Namaste


A remembrance of scripture came to me that the Purusha in the right eye and purusha in the Sun are one.

Then the thought arose. So, why does one pine to look into another pair of deep eyes and lose oneself? Who does one want to find in those other pair of deep eyes?

:headscratch:

:)

Even if the answer is "themselves", it is like this :

Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder.

The Golden Silence of Brahman - the Being in the Sun, who is also in the right eye, manifests in the left eye as a mirror. So the mirror reflects what makes Him so beautiful. This is for sheer Ananda , the bliss aspect of Brahman.

So, Radha does not have any choice other than to possibly not exist so KRSNa alone remains. Actually, even to exist or not is not her choice.
KRSNa (the Being in the Sun) makes Radha, Radha. She understands ShyAm, and what Radhe-ShyAm is philosophically, but cannot go any further than that. What is Radha's existence without KRSNa ? Nothing.

It is upto KRSNa to decide when to become TWO and when to remain ONE. When to dissolve Radha into Him.
So, the decision is never Radha's.
(At some times and locations on the Purusha (latitude longitude) He manifests in the left eye, and at other times and locations He doesn't. There is no jagat and jivas, of course. )

Does that make any sense ?

I liked the Neo Upanishad. Its very funny. Acc. to it, AtmAn never built buildings, had any wife or kids. Radha is not KRSNa's wife, she is KRSNa Himself .... or KRSNa's insignificant Self - so she thinks.

atanu
31 March 2010, 01:15 AM
Namaste
:)
I liked the Neo Upanishad. Its very funny. Acc. to it, AtmAn never built buildings, had any wife or kids. Radha is not KRSNa's wife, she is KRSNa Himself .... or KRSNa's insignificant Self - so she thinks.

Namaste Smaranam

Great.

According to Madhu Vidya -- OOPS, according to Madhusudan Saraswati, Brahman and the Mithya (my comment: the MYTH or Maithuna of looking into another pair of eyes:) ) are not of same level. The Myth gives rise to a Mithya called world, which again is not of same level as Brahman but is of same level as the original myth. Thus he teaches that by removing the myth, the world-the mytha is also obliterated.

The point I was making: How many of us are willing to give up the joy of looking deeply into another pair of eyes, although we are taught that Brahman is joy and bliss? :o

Om Namah Shivaya

kd gupta
31 March 2010, 05:20 AM
An example of practical advaita , pl dont break your own head .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oizKThSUM4o

atanu
31 March 2010, 09:17 AM
An example of practical advaita , pl dont break your own head .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oizKThSUM4o


That is good. Male Robins are known to defend their territory against other male robins. They get confused with images, just as we do.

atanu
09 April 2010, 03:23 AM
----How many of us are willing to give up the joy of looking deeply into another pair of eyes, although we are taught that Brahman is joy and bliss? :o

Om Namah Shivaya

Further:

Gaudapada Karika


II-35. By the sages who are free from attachment, fear and anger and well-versed in the Vedas is realised this Self which is beyond all imaginations, in which the phenomenal world ceases to exist and which is non-dual.
II-36. Therefore, having known it thus, one should fix one’s memory on non-duality (ie., should give undivided attention). Having attained the non-dual, one should conduct oneself as though one were a dullard.
II-37. The ascetic should be free from praise and salutation and also from rituals. The body and the Self should be his support and he should depend upon what chance brings.


I comprehended not as to why one should conduct oneself as a dullard? I failed to understand this since Shankaracharya was not a dullard by any consideration. I now understand that Shankara was the teacher. We are students. I understand now that for an advaitin seeker who depends only on chance to fulfill his bare minimum needs (he knows this as the truth and rejects ego efforts all together), being called a dullard in this world is an inevitable outcome. With time, an advaitin's body and mind and resultant worldly attainments will keep lagging behind. That must be an indication of progress. Though one is considered dullard and useless in the world, one is progressing. Eventually the Seer who is one with the seen cannot have any accomplishment -- mental or physical.


Any idea?


Om Namah Shivaya

Onkara
09 April 2010, 05:02 AM
Further:

Gaudapada Karika


II-35. By the sages who are free from attachment, fear and anger and well-versed in the Vedas is realised this Self which is beyond all imaginations, in which the phenomenal world ceases to exist and which is non-dual.
II-36. Therefore, having known it thus, one should fix one’s memory on non-duality (ie., should give undivided attention). Having attained the non-dual, one should conduct oneself as though one were a dullard.
II-37. The ascetic should be free from praise and salutation and also from rituals. The body and the Self should be his support and he should depend upon what chance brings.


I comprehended not as to why one should conduct oneself as a dullard? I failed to understand this since Shankaracharya was not a dullard by any consideration. I now understand that Shankara was the teacher. We are students. I understand now that for an advaitin seeker who depends only on chance to fulfill his bare minimum needs (he knows this as the truth and rejects ego efforts all together), being called a dullard in this world is an inevitable outcome. With time, an advaitin's body and mind and resultant worldly attainments will keep lagging behind. That must be an indication of progress. Though one is considered dullard and useless in the world, one is progressing. Eventually the Seer who is one with the seen cannot have any accomplishment -- mental or physical.


Any idea?


Om Namah Shivaya

Namaste Atanu
In the translation by Swami Gambhirananda he translates the commentary as follows:

"lokam acaret, one should behave in the world: jadavat, like a dull-witted man, that is to say, without advertising oneself as 'I am such and such'."

I also pondered on this expression, because it is not the expected goal of self-liberation that we should expect to end up living as a dull-witted person. Nor in today's society do we expect enlightenment itself to result in giving up family, work and responsibility and roaming the country living from alms (i.e. "what chance brings"). Normally the stage of renunciation (living from alms) comes in the pursuit for enlightenment and not necessarily after the grace of self-realisation dawns. Renunciation does not have to happen after enlightenment as it would then raise the question "who is there to renounce and what is there to give up if all this is verily Brahman!".

So I understand the use of "dullard" to be a simile of the inner attitude and behaviour of a self-realised person. It is used by Sri Gaudapada for those still on the path to enlightenment so that they may gain a glimpse of self-realisation based on their existing knowledge of the material world and "dullards"*.

So in living like a dullard we should find that we no longer need to make claim to our personal endeavors, possessions or skills. Self-realisation can come to King or beggar alike. We need not rely on who we are or what we have but rather on living a life without desire and the need for rituals (i.e. rituals for wealth or good luck). Perhaps a dullard is considered to be a person who does not know they they could be better off, and so illustrate a person freed from the binds of lust, greed and desire. Clearly the disciple and the Guru are not dullards to begin with, as that would equally imply there was never any desire for self-realisation to begin with.

I would be interested in your thoughts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
* "Dullard" or Jadavat is also not a politically correct name for a person in today's society and I also think that the change of use of language adds to the confusion. My guess is that a dull-witted person would live along side monks or communities and it would act as a common example of a person's conduct, much like the "village idiot" idea of the medieval age, rather than a negative stereotype.

vsharma
09 April 2010, 06:08 AM
I earnestly feel that Ramana Maharishi's questioning `Who Am I' is the easiest way to realise SELF.

It is our mind which restricts us from realising inner SELF.

Mind is full of thoughts.

Mind always tries to drives us away to Maya (Outside world)

I tried to follow Ramana Maharishi's advice and definitely there is marked improvement in curtailing thoughts. I am not a saint and just a normal human being. May be further questioning of mind will help me to move towards inner SELF.

Please read Ramana Baghavan's answers in the following website.

http://www.arunachala-ramana.org/publications/self_enquiry.html

I earnestly feel that Advaitha philosophy is greatly simplified by Ramana Maharishi.

Thanks, regards and best wishes

amith vikram
10 April 2010, 12:21 AM
Further:

Gaudapada Karika


II-35. By the sages who are free from attachment, fear and anger and well-versed in the Vedas is realised this Self which is beyond all imaginations, in which the phenomenal world ceases to exist and which is non-dual.
II-36. Therefore, having known it thus, one should fix one’s memory on non-duality (ie., should give undivided attention). Having attained the non-dual, one should conduct oneself as though one were a dullard.
II-37. The ascetic should be free from praise and salutation and also from rituals. The body and the Self should be his support and he should depend upon what chance brings.


I comprehended not as to why one should conduct oneself as a dullard? I failed to understand this since Shankaracharya was not a dullard by any consideration. I now understand that Shankara was the teacher. We are students. I understand now that for an advaitin seeker who depends only on chance to fulfill his bare minimum needs (he knows this as the truth and rejects ego efforts all together), being called a dullard in this world is an inevitable outcome. With time, an advaitin's body and mind and resultant worldly attainments will keep lagging behind. That must be an indication of progress. Though one is considered dullard and useless in the world, one is progressing. Eventually the Seer who is one with the seen cannot have any accomplishment -- mental or physical.


Any idea?


Om Namah Shivaya

namaste atanuji,
i dont see what u see.renouncing things for the sake of renouncing is not what is meant.a lot of confusion arises when it comes to renouncing material pleasures or family attachments.if we take the examples of hanuman or yajnavalkya,we will notice how yajnavalkya acquired a lot of wealth and even got married.i dont belive that advaitin will lag behind in the material acquisition,but rather the opposite.but even while having all the wealth,he will know he should not enjoy in that.i've tried a few things in life atanuji.i was a class topper once.and then i felt why am i doing so much of mugging stuff instead of doing something real,worthy things.then i started to fall,mentally,socially.but now,i am a topper again.but i know its nothing extr-ordinary.i dont enjoy being a topper,rather i enjoy the stability and peace of mind.i think its that shift in the mind which is important.

vsharma
10 April 2010, 08:10 AM
While our physical heart is on the left hand side, our spiritual heart is suppose to be on the right hand side opposite to spiritual heart.

Bringing mind to the spiritual heart and driving away thoughts has to be practiced to realise SELF

Realising SELF is the goal of all Advaitha philosophy followers.

kd gupta
11 April 2010, 11:53 PM
Because the thread has been started by Atanuji and always I have all praise to Advaita , but a different Idea about devotion and as referred by Smaranam that we all are Sisters , A non practical theory is as follows….
This body is made of earth and will be ended in earth say after some years , so it is non practical to nurse it…it is gyan .
Come to practical and be a nurse or sister now your duty is to look after it .

Goswamiji suggests to become a feminine and adopt Bhakti, as the maya being a feminine will not harm you .

Great sages nonetheless point out some
difference between the two, listen to the same with rapt attention Wisdom, dispassion, Yoga (union with God) and Realization.mark me.are all
masculine in conception, The might of man is formidable indeed;
while a woman is naturally weak and dull by her very birth. But that man alone who is unattached and resolute of mind can forwear woman.
not the sensual voluptuary, who has turned his face against the feet of Rama (the
Hero of Raghu.s line). But even such an enlightened sage succumbs
to the charms of a pretty woman at the very sight of her moon-like face. It is God rama
own Maya (deluding potency) that manifests itself in the form of a woman! But that man alone who is unattached and resolute of mind can forwear woman.
Here I do not speak in a partisan spirit, but merely state the view of the Vedas
and Puranas as well as of the saints. A woman is never enamoured of another woman.s
beauty : this, is a strange phenomenon. Maya and Bhakti
(Devotion), mark me, both belong to the feminine group, as everyone knows. Again,
Bhakti is beloved of rama (the Hero of Raghu.s line); while poor Maya is a mere
dancing girl. The Lord of the Raghus is well-disposed towards Bhakti; hence Maya is
terribly afraid of her. Nay, Maya shrinks at the very sight of the man in whose heart ever
abides unobstructed the peerless and guileless spirit of Devotion, and cannot wield her
authority over him. Knowing this, sages who have realized the Truth solicit Bhakti, which
is the fountain of all blessings……from Ramcharitmanas uttarkand
:Cool:

atanu
12 April 2010, 12:37 AM
----This body is made of earth and will be ended in earth say after some years , so it is non practical to nurse it…it is gyan .
Namaste Guptaji

I think that is not correct. It is correct that idol worsahip (body worship) is wrong but it is not correct to say that it is non practical to nurse the idol for sustenance.

Moreover, I think, a bhakta who has undivided devotion to God (which means no devotion to Money, Power, and Fame) will also be called a fool just as a Jnani will be called.


Goswamiji suggests to become a feminine and adopt Bhakti, as the maya being a feminine will not harm you .
Why cannot we accept that there are different requirements for different temperaments? After some time, the bhakti, may begin to sound like an advertisement.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
12 April 2010, 12:41 AM
I earnestly feel that Ramana Maharishi's questioning `Who Am I' is the easiest way to realise SELF.

Thanks, regards and best wishes

Namaste vssharma

But does not Maharshi himself teach that the Self Enquiry of the type taught by Shri Ramana was not for all? He surely said that a pakkva (ripeness) is required before the ability to draw the mind back to Self effortlessly and automatically is gained.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
12 April 2010, 12:45 AM
namaste atanuji,
i dont see what u see.renouncing things for the sake of renouncing is not what is meant.a lot of confusion arises when it comes to renouncing material pleasures or family attachments.if we take the examples of hanuman or yajnavalkya,we will notice how yajnavalkya acquired a lot of wealth and even got married.i dont belive that advaitin will lag behind in the material acquisition,but rather the opposite.but even while having all the wealth,he will know he should not enjoy in that.i've tried a few things in life atanuji.i was a class topper once.and then i felt why am i doing so much of mugging stuff instead of doing something real,worthy things.then i started to fall,mentally,socially.but now,i am a topper again.but i know its nothing extr-ordinary.i dont enjoy being a topper,rather i enjoy the stability and peace of mind.i think its that shift in the mind which is important.

Namaste Amith

I agree with you that it is about the change of attitude of mind. I am also very happy that you are a topper and wish you to be a topper throughout. But do you think you are sufficiently insulated from the successes and failures of the body-mind that you would not be affected if you ceased being a topper?

If you say yes, then you have nothing more to attain.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
12 April 2010, 01:09 AM
Namaste Atanu
In the translation by Swami Gambhirananda he translates the commentary as follows:

"lokam acaret, one should behave in the world: jadavat, like a dull-witted man, that is to say, without advertising oneself as 'I am such and such'."

I also pondered on this expression, because it is not the expected goal of self-liberation that we should expect to end up living as a dull-witted person. Nor in today's society do we expect enlightenment itself to result in giving up family, work and responsibility and roaming the country living from alms (i.e. "what chance brings"). Normally the stage of renunciation (living from alms) comes in the pursuit for enlightenment and not necessarily after the grace of self-realisation dawns. Renunciation does not have to happen after enlightenment as it would then raise the question "who is there to renounce and what is there to give up if all this is verily Brahman!".

So I understand the use of "dullard" to be a simile of the inner attitude and behaviour of a self-realised person. It is used by Sri Gaudapada for those still on the path to enlightenment so that they may gain a glimpse of self-realisation based on their existing knowledge of the material world and "dullards"*.

So in living like a dullard we should find that we no longer need to make claim to our personal endeavors, possessions or skills. Self-realisation can come to King or beggar alike. We need not rely on who we are or what we have but rather on living a life without desire and the need for rituals (i.e. rituals for wealth or good luck). Perhaps a dullard is considered to be a person who does not know they they could be better off, and so illustrate a person freed from the binds of lust, greed and desire. Clearly the disciple and the Guru are not dullards to begin with, as that would equally imply there was never any desire for self-realisation to begin with.

I would be interested in your thoughts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
* "Dullard" or Jadavat is also not a politically correct name for a person in today's society and I also think that the change of use of language adds to the confusion. My guess is that a dull-witted person would live along side monks or communities and it would act as a common example of a person's conduct, much like the "village idiot" idea of the medieval age, rather than a negative stereotype.

Namaste Snip

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I have an understanding which is probably alligned nearest to your analysis. I just wish to add a few points.

The verse in question has linkages to many of the Gita verses, particularly the verse that "Yogi's day is night for a commoner". A spiritual seeker, and especially an advaitin, has nothing to do with world's most common motivations which are money, power, and fame. It is amazing to many of my colleagues that there can be such a person. Now it is also futile to clear doubts of such people. So, what one does?

It is also impossible to make a person, who has just finished a course of pep talk Management Training, to understand what is 'sankalpa free' work. I find no commonality in the teaching of Gita and what most Management Gurus or most motivational leaders would like to teach. They may not be wrong in this world. And for most of these leaders (in my surroundings), atanu (that is me) is an impractical fool -- and a plain dullard, who does not rise up to grab opportunities. I am happy to be such a dullard.

I see the ways of the actions and fruits, which are totally rooted in Prakriti, unconnected from the Self. Since, any idea of such a detachment is absolute rubbish for most people in my environment, they may have very valid reason to call me a dullard.:) (But as the concept of 'view of so-called others' cannot be linked to the unconnected Self but can apply only to a Purusha who is yet to disentangle oneself, this must be restricted to a sadhaka and does not appy to a free Self).

Om Namah Shivaya

upsydownyupsy mv ss
12 April 2010, 03:05 AM
Namaste Satay Ji,

If Satay exists and if Atanu exists, then surely Isha exists.

These are theoretical questions, since till the final dissolution, Isha Upanishad reigns supreme. And Advaita is beyond mind. It is Turiya. One may experience it but mind will always come back.

Namo Naraayana I agree. I have experienced it once or twice in a trance state.

amith vikram
12 April 2010, 05:53 AM
Namaste Amith

I agree with you that it is about the change of attitude of mind. I am also very happy that you are a topper and wish you to be a topper throughout. But do you think you are sufficiently insulated from the successes and failures of the body-mind that you would not be affected if you ceased being a topper?

If you say yes, then you have nothing more to attain.

Om Namah Shivaya
thank you.
but do you think.......a topper?
i dont know about that.becoz,i dont study with a goal in mind,i just study.but ya,i'm aware about my progress.
but what i was trying to say was,who in the past have lagged behind and in what way?

kd gupta
12 April 2010, 10:11 AM
Namaste Atanuji
And if it is the estimation then
Either people have lost their faith OR
Parmatma is loosing his existence .

smaranam
12 April 2010, 04:14 PM
Namaste


a different Idea about devotion and as referred by Smaranam that we all are Sisters ,
[I][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]Come to practical and be a nurse or sister now your duty is to look after it .

Right. You are so funny Guptaji :)




Moreover, I think, a bhakta who has undivided devotion to God (which means no devotion to Money, Power, and Fame) will also be called a fool just as a Jnani will be called.

Yes, of course. It is always the case. An example of self-realized dallard in smrti is Jad BhArat - BhAgwat Canto 5.




Why cannot we accept that there are different requirements for different temperaments? After some time, the bhakti, may begin to sound like an advertisement.

Om Namah Shivaya

I agree with you, Atanuji. The Purusha in the Sun who is also in the right eye is not always in the left eye. The Lord will not like it if Bhakti is turned into an ad. He instructs Arjuna in the 18th chapter.

smaranam
12 April 2010, 04:31 PM
[COLOR=blue]I see the ways of the actions and fruits, which are totally rooted in Prakriti, unconnected from the Self. Since, any idea of such a detachment is absolute rubbish for most people in my environment, they may have very valid reason to call me a dullard.:)



"What is day to others is night to the yogi and vice versa" - Bhagavad Gita. Indeed. So much truth in this statement.

equipoised in honor dishonor, fame infamy, heat cold ... Bh. Gita Chap 12,18
the dullards continue

Sant DnyAneshwar describes a dullard bhakta (Chap 12) something like .... on the surface (or to worldly people) appears immature, petty, foolish and insane , but this person has Atma-JnAna on the palm of his hand. This person always serves others by laying the carpet for others to walk on...



In life there are Golden threads running parellel to the black threads simultaneously. Like socially one could be perceived as immature, foolish, insane, and at work they are doing wonders, for instance. There may be a whole world of worldly people I may not look forward to be with , yet there is a place where people understand me and have similar interests.
Also, golden periods in life make for a comfortable ego, one gets used to it, and there is a sudden abyss (by Lord's Grace) , but is good medicine for the ego which was used to the pratishthA , honour.

Before/without KRshna : not understanding why this is happening, anger (mostly at oneself for not saying /doing the right things at the right time), there is a need to be understood and not misunderstood, a need to be judged correctly and not underestimated, living in a social prison of ego, too attached to the golden days when others think highly of you

After/with KRshna : The dullard cares the least who thinks what, but walks in the world as a harmless dullard , possessing no weapons (intentions) to potentially harm others. The need to be understood and not perpetually misunderstood either wanes or never existed. The pain or even understanding of being underestimated does not exist. Only love exists.

Jai Shri KrshNa

atanu
12 April 2010, 11:29 PM
"What is day to others is night to the yogi and vice versa" - Bhagavad Gita. Indeed. So much truth in this statement.

equipoised in honor dishonor, fame infamy, heat cold ... Bh. Gita Chap 12,18
the dullards continue

Sant DnyAneshwar describes a dullard bhakta (Chap 12) something like .... on the surface (or to worldly people) appears immature, petty, and insane (or even retarded), but this person has Atma-JnAna on the palm of his hand. This person always serves others by laying the carpet for others to walk on...



In life there are Golden threads running parellel to the black threads simultaneously. Like socially one could be perceived as a moron, retarded, insane, and at work you are doing wonders, for instance. There may be a whole world of worldly people I may not look forward to be with , yet there is a place where people understand you and have similar interests.
Also, golden periods in life make for a comfortable ego, one gets used to it, and there is a sudden abyss (by Lord's Grace) , but is good medicine for the ego which was used to the pratishthA , honour.

Before/without KRshna : not understanding why this is happening, anger (mostly at oneself for not saying /doing the right things at the right time), there is a need to be understood and not misunderstood, a need to be judged correctly and not underestimated, living in a social prison of ego, too attached to the golden days when others think highly of you

After/with KRshna : The dullard cares the least who thinks what, but walks in the world as a harmless dullard , possessing no weapons (intentions) to potentially harm others. The need to be understood and not perpetually misunderstood either wanes or never existed. The pain or even understanding of being underestimated does not exist. Only love exists.

Jai Shri KrshNa

:goodpost: :iagree:

vsharma
13 April 2010, 05:13 AM
Namaste vssharma

But does not Maharshi himself teach that the Self Enquiry of the type taught by Shri Ramana was not for all? He surely said that a pakkva (ripeness) is required before the ability to draw the mind back to Self effortlessly and automatically is gained.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Ripeness is definitely required for practicing self inquiry.

Personally I attempted meditation but compared to meditation, self inquiry seems to be a better technique.

But at the same time one has to attain maturity levels for continuing self inquiry.

Probably chanting the name of Ishta devatha could be a better technique for those who have not reached maturity level

Best regards

smaranam
15 April 2010, 02:37 PM
I earnestly feel that Ramana Maharishi's questioning `Who Am I' is the easiest way to realise SELF.

It is our mind which restricts us from realising inner SELF.

....
Please read Ramana Baghavan's answers in the following website.

http://www.arunachala-ramana.org/publications/self_enquiry.html

I earnestly feel that Advaitha philosophy is greatly simplified by Ramana Maharishi.

Thanks, regards and best wishes

Thank You very very very much for this link. I am talking to Myself really, because there is only Me.

Only half-way through the prashNottar - qn-ans session I suddenly discovered myself - really , all inhibitions gone out of the window.

All Ramana Maharshi had to say is that the body includes subtle , causal everything (kArana sharira), all 5 koshas - sheaths/layers.

It was RamaN Maharshi in that blow-up picture that bestowed Grace - it was His krpA - grace,mercy, and KRSNa's krpA that the mind understood how the mind was keeping me - the Self away.

So I am NOT THIS BODY ! So where is the connection to the body ? I am Myself . This is all all all me.
:laugh:

atanu
12 June 2010, 11:32 AM
Day and Night

The day devours night and night devours day. I had a talk with both. The Day complained bitterly of cruelty of Night, who allegedly gobbles up the Day. And Night cried bitterly "Why should I not gobble up Day? He gobbles me up at the least opportunuty". I told Day at daybreak and Night at dusk that both were Time, incarnating. Both were one. Blessing.

Om Namah Shivaya

Kumar_Das
03 September 2010, 01:00 PM
Namaste atanu-ji,

I have some questions pardon me if they are harsh. But I am genuinely curious.

Practical Advaita


Preamble
A child watches ever changing forms on a glowing Neon board and is fascinated. The child knows the ever changing glow as real. When grace attends, then only the child will know that the neon board as the sub stratum is the truth.

From my understanding the moral here is that there is a similitude that is the very basis and bind of multiplicity.

There is a similitude (neon board) and there is a multiplicity(ever changing glow)

That is to say; the percieved, experienced, known may appear with distinction, but the very thing that gives rise to it(cause), the distinctions themselves(effect) are one?

Or is it that the cause remains as the cause alone, which is alone is true. And the effect an illusion?

In this example, there is the neon board, and the various multi-coloured glows. But then there is also the child.

The child is never the neon board, on the various colours, the child is always its ownself as also is the neon board. So there is a distinction being involved to identify what is what in the first place.

Even after the child realizes that the neon board despite glowing in various colours is still the same board, it still remains as its ownself, a child and the board, a board.



His Instructions
Suppose you are of the form of a beautiful flower vase. You know yourself as a beautiful thing. You have pride of your thin neck, wide middle, and tapering base. You also have pride that you are so useful; you are beautiful and help to uphold beautiful flowers. But you have fear and anxiety about your fragility and about your temporary existence. You can’t do anything to enhance your longevity; your longevity is outside your power. You are jealous of more beautiful but more fragile flower vases. You are also jealous of less beautiful but sturdier flower vases. Now suppose you know that you are the clay; the substratum that makes the pot. Now you are immortal. Your knowledge that you are a temporary form and name is your egoity. Remove the illusion of the egoity, identify yourself with the substratum and be immortal.


Yes but this like saying, we are all human beings, despite superficial phenotypic or ethinc differences. We are most similar in respect to the fact that we are all human beings.

At the end of the day, as in this hypothesis, I still will never become the more beautiful yet fragile vase or the less beautiful yet sturdier vase.

By realizing that the material that me and the other two vases are composed of are the same, simply helps me cope with my own inferiority. Nothing ever changes. I am just trying to console my unchangeable existence, which is a fact, by seeing that despite now trying to see what similarities I share with the other two vases, I can never become them or be like them. Only now I have declared the distinctions as superficial and illusory but our material nature which is the same as a fact, the only fact.

If existence under illusion is despair, and recognition of its illusory nature brings one into the state of becoming Brahman, and Brahman is Ananda. The the difference between despair and Ananda must be illusory as well. The emotion is the substratum here. And Brahman being Ananda is an illusion. Is it not so?

If, as you say, that I have become immortal. Have I attained an existence beyond that of flesh and bones? Then why do I continue with worldy existence? Why would I eventually die?

If I attain, Brahmanhood, then why am I still living in this material world and interacting with living beings? Whats the necessity? For now I am immortal. This worldy existence would be redundant and of no use. What good does it do? This was the illusory state of being that I was confined to in the first place, that forced me to be under delusion. So why I should remain here?


Suppose you work for an efficient organization under a super efficient boss. You have pride that you are doing profoundly important tasks. You also have become vain. You feel that you are indispensable. You have pride that you have fame. But you also enjoy comforts and you are fearful of losing those comforts. You are anxious about changes. According to the master plan of your organization and your super efficient boss, you are asked to relocate to Nigeria. You fear mosquitoes will finish you off in Nigeria. You lament the loss of comfort, telephones, cars, and what not. But your boss knows better. He knows that with super abundant profits from the Nigeria operation, the company will flourish and you will also. Suppose you hinder the relocation plan. The Boss will simply get rid of you and send someone else. Now suppose the organization is our universe and your super efficient boss is the all knowing Lord, the supreme. This understanding will solve all your negative mind problems. Identify with the Boss. Become one with him. Work with your soul for him. Do not work for your small, fragile, and illusory egoity.

The Boss was the very reason why I was a sub ordinate employee in the first place. If I become equal to him. Then I should be able to reverse the roles and turn him into my employee instead, couldnt I?

The Boss is the very reason that I had negative mind problems. So it is all his fault. Perhaps previously I had not known my Boss when I was having my negative mind problems. So later I realize that my negative mind problems. He still remains as the cause of my negative problems, so he is the very sadist that was the reason of my suffering. But identifying this sadist, and trying to "merge" with him. Relieves me of my suffering? Will I be able to deliver mind problems to others, as He did? Will I be able to force Him in the same position as He did to me previously?

Does Brahman ever undergo a process for it to be come Brahman, just like I? Does the Brahman at one point, not be Brahman, and under influence of something else, eventually identify itself with that something, and attain its own Brahmanhood?

If there is no distinction, then why call it as it is? Why is there a reference to "Brahman" in the first place?

Brahman is the cause of suffering, and also that which is to be attained to be relieved of suffering. Then I am the sufferer and the cured. Does Brahman ever suffer? Does it ever get cured?

If there is a difference, then will I truly ever be it?

It means that it is unique, that is why there is a name for it. For it to be called by as whatever it is.



How to identify and become one with the substratum, with the Boss -- so that you may be immortal? You will, through meditation, by enquiring into your real nature. Imagine you are a fruit. With the illusory sense of egoity that you have, you are pained that you will rot in no time. If you enquire, you will find that you have a more durable seed inside you. But that does not give you complete peace since you will worry whether the sprouts from the seed will survive? You enquire further and wonder what the power of the seed is; how it will replicate your form again? You go inside further and see that there is empty space inside the seed. The empty space is the substratum and the substratum that is empty space is Him. He is the empty space, present everywhere, present in every one, and He is one. He is indivisible, undifferentiated, unchanging and ever-present One. He has the master plan. He is in the seed and he is in you. You are Him.

Realize that the examples are approximations. I can understand a report created by me but it can never understand me. Likewise I will never understand Him fully.


Huh?

If, without realization, I am a certain way, and with realization, I become a certain way. Where is the place of this realization, when it is still contained within the illusion?



The prayer
O, Lord, you have become the greatest sage and leader of the thief. You have become joy and you have become pain. You have become Rajasic and you have become Tamasic. You are the subtle and the gross. You are the smallest and the infinite. You are the Sun and the moon and you are air, water and fire. You are the plants. You are Sat-Chit-Anand and you are the reactive anger and the subsequent sorrow. You are the fragrance, the nourishment, and the knowledge – Vidya and Avidya both. You are the eternal substratum that is one without a second.


If all that is, is simply it, despite the different states of emotion, it already is it. There is nothing particular to aim for, because there is nothing in particular it is not. So why bother? Just be as you are, whether in sorrow or in joy. You always were the substratum. Even upon enquiry, you always were the substratum, and still even not if, otherwise. So why the necessity for enquiry?

Kumar_Das
03 September 2010, 01:16 PM
Namaste Satay Ji,

If Satay exists and if Atanu exists, then surely Isha exists.

These are theoretical questions, since till the final dissolution, Isha Upanishad reigns supreme. And Advaita is beyond mind. It is Turiya. One may experience it but mind will always come back.

Namo Naraayana

Agreed. Logic can only be applied for subjective reality. And not the absolute reality. You cannot apply the same logic that you do for subjective reality to the absolute reality.

The logic that we have of the Absolute, maybe put into words. But our "understanding" of the Absolute, is beyond the mental state, it is indescribable.

Very beautiful.

"that which makes the tongue speak, but cannot be spoken by the tongue, that alone is God, that which makes the mind think but cannot be thought by the mind, that alone is God, that which makes the eye see but cannot be seen by the eye, that alone is God"

God is the one, who allows us to describe, so how can we adequately describe Him?

Kumar_Das
03 September 2010, 01:20 PM
Namaste!
Nice post...

I have a question...What exactly is 'lord' to an advaitin? Isn't Brhaman just energy and not a person?

I ask this not to belittle or insult advaitins but to have a better understanding of the philosophy. It is said that 'sri shamkara' is the most misunderstood acharya since most mortals like me do not grasp his ideas.

Also, as you may know, I do not identify myself as an advaitin...in fact, I am not sure where I fit in the different sects or philosophies...but since I have respect for 'all' hindu sects and philosophies I consider myself a hindu. :)

I am trying to study a little bit of Vendanta but most texts are beyond my mental capacity or shall we say it is due to my past karma! :rolleyes:

From my understanding, Shri Adi Shankacharaya recognizes Monotheism/Dvaita as being true in terms of a contingent reality. What Advaita seeks is to go "beyond" that.

And yes, unfortunately, Advaita is the most misunderstood. Many claim that Shankaracharya was influenced heavily by Buddhism.

Which leads me to think, that Buddhism, is the one infact, a product of a limited intelligence way of thinking. That seeks to see according to a specific [flawed] way.

atanu
03 September 2010, 01:41 PM
Namaste atanu-ji,
I have some questions pardon me if they are harsh. But I am genuinely curious.

Namaste

Please carry on. You are welcome, since this is a welcome change. I am surprised pleasantly.


From my understanding the moral here is that there is a similitude that is the very basis and bind of multiplicity.

Do you mean that since there is a road, there can be no destination?



If existence under illusion is despair, and recognition of its illusory nature brings one into the state of becoming Brahman, and Brahman is Ananda. The the difference between despair and Ananda must be illusory as well.

Then despair. No one stops you.


The Boss was the very reason why I was a sub ordinate employee in the first place. If I become equal to him. Then I should be able to reverse the roles and turn him into my employee instead, couldnt I?


The Boss is the very reason that I had negative mind problems.


No. Boss did not tell any soul to run hither thither. There is an avidyA problem, from without beginning. That problem is killed on seeing the Isha bird which does not run hither thither to eat. Scripture teaches us so and it is born by experience also.



If all that is, is simply it, despite the different states of emotion, it already is it. There is nothing particular to aim for, because there is nothing in particular it is not. So why bother? Just be as you are, whether in sorrow or in joy. You always were the substratum. Even upon enquiry, you always were the substratum, and still even not if, otherwise. So why the necessity for enquiry?

If one is as one is, in sorrow or in joy, then ideed what was the need for enquiry. But scripture does say "Enquiry into brahma is auspicious".

But if according to you it is superfluos then do not engage in it. simple.

Om Namah Shivaya

Kumar_Das
03 September 2010, 05:26 PM
Surrender, Mother's Love, Sleep and Advaita Jnana

Surrender is like an infant or a child leaving all cares to Mother. It goes to Mother's lap and sleeps, knowing instinctively that Mother will drive away that disturbing fly. It knows that Mother will pour water in its mouth when thirsty. There is nothing comparable to mother's love and compassion-- not the physicality but the compassion and love. Compassion and love is there even in the way of absorption of heat of the Existence --- that we mistakenly call carnality.

Sleep is similar. One leaves all cares and goes to sleep in the lap of Mother Moola Prakriti.

However, the child grows up and forgets the meaning of surrender. And we wake up daily and forget the surrender. Chandogya U. says that man traverses the Gold Mine daily yet misses the Gold.

Advaita Jnana however makes the surrender pucca.

Om Namah Shivaya

huh? whats that word?