Today Shree has given me a piece of her mind

[atanu]

In Bhagavatam Sage Bhrigu warned Shiva that His followers will live like vagabonds in penury. That is a bit frightening. But some say that Shree is Shiva Himself. Yajur Veda says that one who pours oblations to Agni and Vishnu prosper.

I have used blue fonts where it is intimidating. Please offer comments and solace.

In what kind of man or woman, does the
goddess of prosperity always reside?

This question was asked by king Yudhishthira, and the answer is given by Bhishma in the Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva, Sec XI.
Bhishma said:

Sree (goddess of prosperity said): I always reside with him that is eloquent, active, attentive to business, free from wrath, given to the worship of the deities, endued with gratitude, has his passions under complete control, and is high-minded in everything.

I never reside with one that is inattentive to business, that is an unbeliever, that causes an intermixture of races in consequence of his lustfulness, that is ungrateful, that is of impure practices, that uses harsh and cruel words, that is a thief, that cherishes malice towards his preceptors and other seniors, those persons that are endued with little energy, strength, life, and honour, that are distressed at every trifle, and that always indulge in wrath.

I never reside with these that think in one strain and act in a different one. I never reside also with him who never desires any acquisition for himself, of him who is so blinded as to rest content with the lot in which he finds himself without any exertion or with those that are contented with small acquisitions.

I reside with those that are observant with the duties of righteousness, or those that are devoted to the service of the aged, or those that have their passions under control, or those that are endued with cleansed souls, or those that observe the virtue of forgiveness, or those that are able and prompt in action, or with such women as are forgiving and self-restrained.

I reside with those women also that are devoted to truth and sincerity and that worship the deities.

I do not reside with those women that do not attend to household furniture and provisions scattered all around the house, and that always utter words contrary to the wishes of their husbands. I always avoid those women that are fond of the houses of other people and that have no modesty.

On the other hand, I reside with those women that are devoted to their husbands, that are blessed in behaviour, and that are always decked in ornaments and attired in good robes. I always reside with those women that are truthful in speech, that are of handsome and agreeable features, that are blessed and that are endued with all accomplishments.
I always avoid such women as are sinful and unclean or impure, as always lick the corners of their mouths, as have no patience or fortitude, and as are fond of dispute and quarrelling, as are given to much sleep, and as always lie down.

I always reside in conveyances and the animals that drag them, in maidens, in ornaments and good vestments, in sacrifices, in clouds charged with rain, in full blown lotuses, and in those stars that bespangle the autumnal firmament. i reside in elephants, in the cow pen, in good seats, and in lakes adorned with full-blown lotuses. I live also in such rivers as babble sweetly in their course, melodious with the music of cranes, having banks adorned with rows of diverse trees, and resorted to by Brahmanas and ascetics and others crowned with success. I always reside in those rivers also that have deep and large volumes of rolling waters rendered turbid by lions and elephants plunging into them for bathing or slaking their thirst. I reside also in infuriate elephants, in bovine bulls, in kings, on the throne, and good men.

Lakshmi resides in that house in which...

I always reside in that house in which the inmate pours libation on the sacrificial fire and worships kine(cow), Brahmans and the deities.
I reside in that house where at the proper time offerings are made unto the deities, in the course of worship.

I always reside in such Brahmanas as are devoted to the study of the Vedas, in Kshatriyas devoted to the observance of righteousness, in Vaisyas devoted to cultivation, and the Sudras devoted to the service of the three upper classes.

I reside with a heart firm and unchangeable, in Narayana, in my embodied self. In Him is righteousness in its perfection and full measure, devotion to the Brahmanas, and the quality of agreeableness.

I do not reside in my embodied form in any of these places that I have mentioned, except Narayana. That person in whom I reside in spirit increases in righteousness and fame and wealth and objects of desire.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

In Bhagavatam Sage Bhrigu warned Shiva that His followers will live like vagabonds in penury. ----

I never reside with these that think in one strain and act in a different one. I never reside also with him who never desires any acquisition for himself, of him who is so blinded as to rest content with the lot in which he finds himself without any exertion or with those that are contented with small acquisitions.

--Om Namah Shivaya

Now the following:


Selections from Prayers and Meditations
Compiled from the scriptures of India
By Swami Prabhavananda and Clive Johnson
From the book 'Prayers and Meditations'
Vedanta Society of Southern California

This is the sum of all the scriptures
There is no sight equal to learning, no austerity equal to truthfulness, no misery like passion, and no happiness equal to following the ideal of renunciation.

The secret meaning of the Vedas is truth; of truth, self-control; of self-control, freedom from all limitations. This is the sum of all the scriptures.
Purity of conduct is the greatest purity. To think of God continuously, to worship Him, to chant His name and sing His praises – this is the best way of attaining the highest good.

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

Some wise and calm soul here in HDF has to reconcile two above teachings for me (indolent yet passionate).

Om

[atanu]

Sri Krishna to Uddhava
He indeed is rich who is rich in virtues

Calmness is a steady flow of the mind toward God.
Self-restraint is control of the organs of sense.
Patience is bearing the burden of life cheerfully.
Steadiness is overcoming the palate and the impulse of sex.

The highest charity is refraining from violence.
Austerity is the giving up of desire.
Valour is the conquest of one’s own self.
To know the truth is to see the oneness of the Self with God.
Truthfulness is true and agreeable speech
as exemplified by the sages.

Purity is nonattachment to work.
Renunciation is overcoming the world.
Virtue is the treasure that men covet.
I, the Supreme Lord, am the sacrifice.
The greatest gift is the gift of knowledge.
The greatest strength is the control of prana.
Fortunate is he who meditates on My divine powers.
The highest profit is in devotion to Me.
Wisdom is removing false ideas of multiplicity
and realizing the unity of the Self.
Modesty is abhorrence of evil deeds.
Excellence of character arises from disregard of worldly considerations.

Happiness is the transcending of both pleasure and pain.
Misery is hankering after pleasures of sense.
Learned is he who discriminates between bondage and freedom.
Ignorant is he who identifies himself with the body.
The right path is that which leads to Me.
The wrong path is that which causes restlessness of the mind.
Heaven is the domination of sattva in the mind.
Hell is the predominance of tamas.
The teacher who has realised his oneness with Me is the true friend.

He indeed is rich who is rich in virtues.
Poor is he who is discontented.
Mean is he who is not master of his senses.
Godly is he who is not attached to objects of sense.
Divine is he who has overcome both good and evil.

-Srimad Bhagavatam

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Atanu,

The only reason for doubt could be incomplete or inappropriate dIkshA.

Please (re-)consider the following posts:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=4468&postcount=1

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=19756&postcount=20

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=20074&postcount=227

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=14339&postcount=14

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu,
The only reason for doubt could be incomplete or inappropriate dIkshA.
--

Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

Thank you very much for guidance. But, actually there is no doubt, else I would not have posted: "He indeed is rich who is rich in virtues", simultaneously. And the Diksha that has been passed down is: The fullest effort is the effort expended towards Meditation of God - Atman. That only is the fullest effort, since it requires FULL of one's mind.

When Shree talks of effort to improve one's lot, she cannot ignore this effort. True that Bhrigu cursed Shiva, who came down to Varanasi. In Varanasi, Shree gave Shiva something in secret. A Shiva lover has nothing to worry about. Shiva is infinitely stronger than Bhrigu and infinitely more cunning, if I may use that word. Scriptures do hide the Good. It is not in the surface of the Vak, but it is in the spirit of Vak.

Thank You,

Om

[atanu]

He indeed is rich who is rich in virtues.
Poor is he who is discontented.
Mean is he who is not master of his senses.
Godly is he who is not attached to objects of sense.
Divine is he who has overcome both good and evil.

----------------------
This is the sum of all the scriptures

There is no sight equal to learning, no austerity equal to truthfulness, no misery like passion, and no happiness equal to following the ideal of renunciation.

The secret meaning of the Vedas is truth; of truth, self-control; of self-control, freedom from all limitations. This is the sum of all the scriptures.

Purity of conduct is the greatest purity. To think of God continuously, to worship Him, to chant His name and sing His praises – this is the best way of attaining the highest good.

Om Namah Shivaya

[sm78]

I never reside also with him who never desires any acquisition for himself, of him who is so blinded as to rest content with the lot in which he finds himself without any exertion or with those that are contented with small acquisitions.
I am only finding this portion of the above little hard to swallow ...

"I never reside also with him who never desires any acquisition for himself"

[atanu]

Originally Posted by Bhu Devi

I am only finding this portion of the above little hard to swallow ...

"I never reside also with him who never desires any acquisition for himself"


Namaskar SM,

You have zoomed on to the part that perplexed me. I think one has to at least desire acquisition/possession of God-Self. That is known as Subheccha in Advaita paralance. Else one can be like a stone?

This is how I thought about it.

Regards,

OM

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Singhi and Atanu,

shrI never resides with him who never desires any acquisition for himself.

shrI is inherent in brahmA; while brahma is sadAshiva, without any trace of mAyA, and such advaitam demands saMnyAsa.

[atanu]

Namaste Singhi and Atanu,

shrI never resides with him who never desires any acquisition for himself.

shrI is inherent in brahmA; while brahma is sadAshiva, without any trace of mAyA, and such advaitam demands saMnyAsa.

Namaste Sarabhanga,

I agree. Om

Subheccha to attain saMnyAsa, is desire for sadAshiva, who is shrI as well as brahmA.

Om

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Atanu,




sadAshiva, who is shrI as well as brahmA


Please do not force gender on brahma, which remains always neutral. I have tried to explain this very many times, but it seems that you have missed the point of ajAtivAda. Your understanding is dvaitAdvaitavAda or parAdvaitavAda or vishiSTAdvaitavAda, but not pure advaitavAda.

shrI is inherent in brahmA; while brahma is sadAshiva, without any trace of mAyA (i.e. without shrI or shakti), and such advaitam demands total saMnyAsa.

nara = hara = brahma = sadAshiva = advaitam
nArAyaNa = hari = brahmA = Ishvara = dvaitAdvaitam

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu,

Please do not force gender on brahma, which remains always neutral. I have tried to explain this very many times, but it seems that you have missed the point of ajAtivAda. Your understanding is dvaitAdvaitavAda or parAdvaitavAda or vishiSTAdvaitavAda, but not pure advaitavAda.

shrI is inherent in brahmA; while brahma is sadAshiva, without any trace of mAyA (i.e. without shrI or shakti), and such advaitam demands total saMnyAsa.

nara = hara = brahma = sadAshiva = advaitam
nArAyaNa = hari = brahmA = Ishvara = dvaitAdvaitam

Namaste Sarabhanga,

I was alluding to those who consider Shri as consort of Brahma and not to Ajativada, which I may truly be ignorant of. However, What we see and what we refer with names is Brahma alone so I did not commit any mistake. Whether Shri or Narayana or Sarabhanga, only Brahma is absolute. Show me from this thread where any reference to Ajativada is made? It is beyond me why suddenly you bring in the subject of Ajativada.

Neither did I refer to Shri as Maya.


Forget it.
---------------------------

Sure. sadAshiva = advaitam. Agreed.

Then why the second line nArAyaNa (assumingly with Shri) = hari = brahmA = Ishvara = dvaitAdvaitam?

Where from the second line? From Vacuum? What connects the two parallel lines? Your parallel lines are indicative as if some names are Brahman and some are not. Two parallel lines are Dvaita. You seem to have missed the point that names are not that indescribable Turyam. I have been trying to gently remind you of that.

I agree fully that "such advaitam demands total saMnyAsa". But a beginning called Subheccha is the common prescription, else a rock is in total saMnyAsa. You should know that Subheccha means a type of Shivam desire.


Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

[Bob G]

...bold text if over used can easily be seen or taken as an affront - thus to me it has a real potential to engender counter-productive dialogue or stop dialogue even though or if a technical point is trying to be made or referred to while using it.

Also, I'm happy for those that can partake in the exchanges of sanskrit meanings and or nuances with one another...

...and when coming upon such exchanges I then (no offense meant) mostly seek other posts that a western world, blue collar working man like me can read (taking into consideration that his remaining time is really to short to sally forth into the vastness of sanskrit study), although recognizing that some of such is still needed for the study of eastern traditions.

Om

[indianx]

that a western world, blue collar working man like me can read

To be honest, an Eastern world, blue collar working man like me can't read some of these conversations either. I realize that it's helpful to learn and understand Sanskrit and to study the scriptures in detail, but at the same time, I think that practice, rather than studying, to the extent that they're exclusive, some of the more esoteric concepts, is more important in my situation.

[Znanna]

Namaste,

I came across a similar topic earlier today in my net wanderings, nice coincidence.

This was my reply, perhaps it fits here, too:

I decided that it didn't matter whether one has everything or nothing,
to create the balance which allow for effortless whatever.

Everything's much better than nothing in the material world; in the
immaterial world, there's no difference anyways, so WTF.

I love y'all :)


ZN

[yajvan]

...bold text if over used can easily be seen or taken as an affront




....but it looks good! http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[satay]

Namaskar,



Everything's much better than nothing in the material world; in the
immaterial world, there's no difference anyways, so WTF.

I love y'all :)


ZN

And WTF in your quote stands for 'Work Time Fun'.

Right? :)

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Atanu and others,




In Bhagavatam Sage Bhrigu warned Shiva that His followers will live like vagabonds in penury.

That is a bit frightening.

It is intimidating.

Please offer comments and solace.




I always reside with him that is active, and given to the worship of the deities.

I never reside with him who never desires any acquisition for himself.

I reside in Narayana.

That person in whom I reside in spirit increases in righteousness and fame and wealth and objects of desire.




There is no happiness equal to following the ideal of renunciation.




Some wise and calm soul here in HDF has to reconcile two above teachings for me (indolent yet passionate).




Actually there is no doubt, since: “He indeed is rich who is rich in virtues”.




I am finding this portion a little hard to swallow ... “I never reside also with him who never desires any acquisition for himself.




You have zoomed on to the part that perplexed me.




shrI never resides with him who never desires any acquisition for himself.

And this is because shrI is inherent only in brahmA (nArAyaNa); while brahma is sadAshiva, without any trace of mAyA (shrI lakshmI), and such advaitam demands saMnyAsa.




sadAshiva is shrI as well as brahmA.



shrI is inherent only in brahmA (nArAyaNa); while brahma is sadAshiva, without any trace of mAyA (shrI lakshmI), and such advaitam demands saMnyAsa.

nara = hara = brahma = sadAshiva = advaitam
nArAyaNa = hari = brahmA = Ishvara = dvaitAdvaitam



Show me from this thread where any reference to Ajativada is made? It is beyond me why suddenly you bring in the subject of Ajativada.




sanAtana dharma is varNAshrama dharma

brAhmaNa brahmacarya = dvaitavAda & yamAniyama

brAhmaNa gRhastha = dvaitAdvaitavAda & sAdhana

brAhmaNa vAnaprastha = advaitavAda & saMyama

brAhmaNa saMnyAsa = ajAtivAda & samAdhi

avadhUta = nirvAda & yAma




Neither did I refer to Shri as Maya.

shrI means “to mix or mingle, to burn or diffuse light”.
shrI is “diffusing light or radiance”.
shrI is “power or distinction”.
And shrI is lakshmI.
shrI was produced at the churning of the ocean.
shrI is the consort of nArAyaNa viSNu.
shrI is the wife of dharma and the mother of kAma.
shrI is shakti and prakRti.

viSNu mAya is “measuring or creating illusions”, and that mAyA is shrI lakshmI.

mAyA is “the shakti or power of viSNu”.
mAyA is “dvaitam or illusion”.
mAyA is “the source of manifestation”.
mAyA is the wife of dharma and the mother of kAma and mRtyu.
And mAyA is the daughter of adharma and nirRti.

shrI = lakshmI = shakti = prakRti = mAyA

All of which is inherent in brahmA (nArAyaNa), but which is absent from brahma (nara).


sat = satyam = nivRtti = nara = aja = advaitam = sadAshiva = sharva = anantyam
satI = mAyA = pravRtti = nArAyaNa = jA = dvaitAdvaitam = viSNumAya = bhava = nantva


AUM = vaishvAnara = trimUrti
UMA = taijasa = shrI mAyA
MAU = prAjña = viSNumAyau
MA = turIya = durgamA
M = turya = brahma


I have explained very many times that NONE of the names in such equations is not a name of brahman. And I have also repeatedly explained that brahma and brahmA are quite different conceptions, and that if they remain confused there will be no end to pointless disagreements based on completely different impressions of the meaning of the one word, which is correctly (but nebulously) defined as brahman.

And to satisfy those who are fearful of bold print, I have not particularly marked any saMskRta terms, nor any particular word formations that deserve special attention, nor anything that I have repeated before but which seems to have been missed. And I hope that makes my words less intimidating, but I doubt that it will help with the comprehension of what I am actually trying to say!

But then, I don’t really expect anyone who is younger than about 50 years and not already a saMnyAsin to properly grasp some of my points, nor anyone with little understanding of saMskRtam ~ which (as often mentioned) is intrinsic to sanAtana dharma, and without some common saMskRta words any discussion becomes enormously cumbersome, with individual terms often deserving a full page of explanation to convey the full implications of their meaning. And without some basic understanding of saMskRta grammar it is very difficult to convey some of the most subtle points (which are the very points that generate most disagreement).

And what of the original conundrum of shrI lakshmI’s definition of herself, which began this discussion? Confusion was admitted, then denied, then re-expressed (despite my attempted answer), and now it is denied that shrI devI has any connexion with mAyA! Was there any point to this thread? Was the question merely rhetorical? And what language are we dealing with, where shrI is not mAyA? And what religion are we dealing with, where lakshmI is not the consort and shakti of nArAyaNa viSNu? The initial question is easily answered when the implications of ajAtivAda are truly grasped. But apparently ajAtivAda is irrelevant to this discussion, and the turya sadAshiva must be equated with shrI lakshmI. Oh well, so much for advaitam. :(

[devotee]

Namaste Atanu,

I think your main point of discussion was :


I never reside also with him who never desires any acquisition for himself, of him who is so blinded as to rest content with the lot in which he finds himself without any exertion or with those that are contented with small acquisitions.

... so, he who doesn't desire anything for himself is foresaken by Sri/Goddess Lakshmi ? On the other hand, if you don't foresake desires, you stay in bondage !

That is ok, if someone has not taken shelter under God's grace. Otherwise, "Yoga Kshemam vahamyam" is the insurance cover against that ! :)

Regards

[Bob G]

Hello Sarabhanga,

Among the many points you made there was the following one:

"I don’t really expect anyone who is younger than about 50 years and not already a saMnyAsin to properly grasp some of my points"

Ok, but do you love the others with a Love that bridges the differences that you have so carefully delineated? (and thus to me have seemingly gone about encompassing and encumbering yourself with)

"Sadasiva" embodied in Satguru does bridge the apparent differences and meanings.

In roaring Silence Love sings and dances with unmistakeable Truth and clairity to and in the heart, and It does so better than any form of language can; ultimately..."there is no other".

Om

[atanu]

Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

I noticed that this thread has been graced by Sri and Bhu, courtesy SM.

Please do not take any further pain to make understand a Hindu, the role and relationship of Brahmaa, Vishnu, Mahesh to Brahma.
That Brahma is absolutely not an agent of any happening and is nirvikara, nirakara, infininite, changeless, etc. is not comprehended by all, the way Advaitins have comprehended. Please do not assume that other advaitins do not understand the ‘Nirlipt’ nature of Brahma - Atman as in Gita (13 th Chapter) :



yathä sarva-gataà saukñmyäd äkäçaà nopalipyate |


sarvaträvasthito dehe tathätmä nopalipyate ||32||


Most Hindus evoke their particular dieties from the full only. When Ganesha is evoked, prayers go to Brahman in the role of Ganesha-Vignesvara, who removes obstacles. Most Vaisnavites do not comprehend this. (And this wrong. This is my Adhasya -- superimpostion of my concept on the truth that No one is ignorant, No one is striving for liberation.)

I believe in “Nothing Ever Happenened”, yet saying ‘sadAshiva is shrI as well as brahmA’, is correct as is saying ‘clay has names/forms called cup and saucer’. Then, you yourself indicate that Shree is not Maya -- if some people consider Sri as a second, a consort, I am not responsible. Sri is “power or distinction", who is in every sariram and in the space in between. She is not broken. She is the luminosity of Sun Narayana and everywhere. Is it Maya? She is Rodasi, consort of Rudra, but she is not Maya when one knows that Rudra Himself is Rodasi. She is Viraj, one lady married to many Devas. To see anything as different from Self is Avidya and that is Maya. It is easy to project one's concepts on another. Just because the name Sri is evoked does not mean that Maya is evoked, else Shankaracharya would not have prayed to Sri to alleviate the sufferings of an old lady. 'Adhyasa' is the primary teaching of dear Lord Shiva, who came as Shankara (And Shiva told it to Kant also but Kant could not understand it and made a mere theory out of the knowledge.)

Finally, let it be. I do not know 'my self', so how can my understanding be perfect? The revealer will remove the confusions soon. "Nothing Ever Happened".

Namaste, Regards and best wishes
Om

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Bob,




I don’t really expect anyone who is younger than about 50 years and not already a saMnyAsin to properly grasp some of my points.

And that is related to my initial post in this thread:




Please (re-)consider the following posts:

But since the suggested posts have apparently not be considered, I shall repeat some of their salient points.




Only Brahmana Dharma includes 4 stages of life, with Vanaprastha (which was merely preparation for total renunciation) followed by Sannyasa Ashrama.

In the traditional system of Brahmana Ashramas, few Sannyasins would be less than about 70 years old.

It is possible for anyone to become a Sannyasin, but only after passing through all of the Samskaras proper to a Brahmana in that situation.

Anyone without knowledge is a Shudra; anyone with some Artha is a Vaishya; anyone performing Tapasya is a Kshatriya; and anyone who renounces all is a Brahmana.




Ignorance (or outright rejection) of varNAshrama dharma has caused serious problems in the interpretation and practice of hindu dharma.

There are in fact TEN fundamental perspectives of the one sanAtana dharma, each colored by the particular conditions of education and age, which together determine the most appropriate vocation and dharma.

The final stage in the matrix of Aryan society is saMnyAsa, which only occurs in the context of brAhmaNa dharma. The brAhmaNa varNa is dedicated to spiritual instruction, and their greatest wisdom is embodied in the Ashrama of saMnyAsa.

In saMnyAsa itself, there is no distinction, and the saMnyAsa dIkshA involves the renunciation of varNa and every previous Ashrama ~ indeed, saMnyAsa involves the renunciation of attachment to the three worlds!

The highest knowledge of saMnyAsAshrama declares that all men are equal in the eye of god, and that varNa, Ashrama, and ultimately even dharma, are superfluous constructs. But this esoteric wisdom has unfortunately become exoteric dogma in some non-brAhmaNa circles, and the dismissal of varNAshrama dharma is especially favored by aspirants who were born without dvija varNa.






That is precisely why Advaita and dvaitAdvaita are both valid. One could either escape vyavahAra and go beyond mAyA and become 'inactive', or choose to be in vyavahAra in Ishvara sAyujya - and be 'active' within the realm of mAyA.( but fully knowing what mAyA is like Ishvara). This is the reason why there is apparent contradictions in scriptures too....some people leaning excessively on non dualism, and some people trying to force dualism( or dvaitAdvaita) as the only truth.

sanAtana dharma is varNAshrama dharma


shUdra = kuvAda & ayAma

vaishya brahmacarya = dvaitavAda & yama

vaishya gRhastha = dvaitavAda & yamAniyama

kshatriya brahmacarya = dvaitavAda & yamAniyama

kshatriya gRhastha = dvaitAdvaitavAda & sAdhana

kshatriya vAnaprastha = dvaitAdvaitavAda & saMyama

brAhmaNa brahmacarya = dvaitavAda & yamAniyama

brAhmaNa gRhastha = dvaitAdvaitavAda & sAdhana

brAhmaNa vAnaprastha = advaitavAda & saMyama

brAhmaNa saMnyAsa = ajAtivAda & samAdhi

avadhUta = nirvAda & yAma




A great deal of confusion arises from the misunderstanding (and consequent rejection) of Varna or “Caste”. There is only one ultimate Truth, but Dharma is certainly not “one size fits all”.

Ahimsa and Brahmacarya are good examples, with some arguing from a Brahmana perspective, others from a Kshatriya perspective, and others from a general Vaishya perspective. And of course, all of these views are valid in their appropriate place and conditions.

Brahmana Dharma is rather strict, because a Brahman is supposed to have a high degree of understanding, and someone who surely knows the right way and yet turns away from that knowledge and follows the wrong path is the greatest “sinner” who will suffer for his foolish Adharma.

All of which is presupposed in my second post:




shrI never resides with him who never desires any acquisition for himself.

shrI is inherent in brahmA; while brahma is sadAshiva, without any trace of mAyA, and such advaitam demands saMnyAsa.


If saMskRtam is considered as an unnecessary encumbrance to sanAtana dharma, and if varNAshrama dharma is considered as an unnecessary encumbrance to hinduism, and if all we can say without hurting someone’s feelings are simple truths such as “God is love” or “all are equal in the sight of God” or “the truth is found only in silence and no words can describe it” or “all truth is embodied in the sadguru”, then we have a theology akin to protestant christianity or baha’i. Of course these are ultimate truths that should never be forgotten, but hinduism has many more insights to offer.

And some standard terms seem to be regarded by some members either as an insult or as the highest praise (depending on individual perspective) ~ e.g. dvaitavAda, advaitavAda, ajAtivAda, mAyA, deva, brAhmaNa, shUdra ~ which makes it difficult to speak rationally about such ideas.

Do I love others enough to bridge the differences? Why do you think I have been defining them in the first place!!! Certainly NOT to divide, but to create some true overall perspective within which ALL of the different true perspectives may be united. Indeed, it is the ancient perspective of traditional hindu dharma, which is all encompassing, but the encompassing is not achieved simply by throwing all diverse conceptions into the one bag and just assuming that no differences exist. That is not advaitam, it is merely an indiscriminate chaos that is of little value for any aspirant and certainly doesn’t help to explain anything!

I seem to have inadvertently offended some members (and I apologize without reservation), but if the majority of members consider saMskRtam, varNa, Ashrama, dIkshA, guru, etc., as an “encumbrance” to dharma, then there is little point in any of my posts. If that is truly the case, then it seems that there is no place on the internet for any reasonable discussion of hindu dharma, and the internet is certainly not the place for a saMnyAsin to be wasting his time.

But I would have thought that every child learned in primary school that if you don’t understand a word you should look it up in a dictionary, which in most cases will quickly answer your doubts.

[atanu]

Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

I noticed that this thread has been graced by Sri and Bhu, courtesy SM.

Please do not take any further pain to make understand a Hindu, the role and relationship of Brahmaa, Vishnu, Mahesh to Brahma.
That Brahma is absolutely not an agent of any happening and is nirvikara, nirakara, infininite, changeless, etc. is not comprehended by all, the way Advaitins have comprehended. Please do not assume that other advaitins do not understand the ‘Nirlipt’ nature of Brahma - Atman as in Gita (13 th Chapter) :



yathä sarva-gataà saukñmyäd äkäçaà nopalipyate |


sarvaträvasthito dehe tathätmä nopalipyate ||32||


Most Hindus evoke their particular dieties from the full only. When Ganesha is evoked, prayers go to Brahman in the role of Ganesha-Vignesvara, who removes obstacles. Most Vaisnavites do not comprehend this. (And this wrong. This is my Adhasya -- superimpostion of my concept on the truth that No one is ignorant, No one is striving for liberation.)

I believe in “Nothing Ever Happenened”, yet saying ‘sadAshiva is shrI as well as brahmA’, is correct as is saying ‘clay has names/forms called cup and saucer’. Then, you yourself indicate that Shree is not Maya -- if some people consider Sri as a second, a consort, I am not responsible. Sri is “power or distinction", who is in every sariram and in the space in between. She is not broken. She is the luminosity of Sun Narayana and everywhere. Is it Maya? She is Rodasi, consort of Rudra, but she is not Maya when one knows that Rudra Himself is Rodasi. She is Viraj, one lady married to many Devas. To see anything as different from Self is Avidya and that is Maya. It is easy to project one's concepts on another. Just because the name Sri is evoked does not mean that Maya is evoked, else Shankaracharya would not have prayed to Sri to alleviate the sufferings of an old lady. 'Adhyasa' is the primary teaching of dear Lord Shiva, who came as Shankara (And Shiva told it to Kant also but Kant could not understand it and made a mere theory out of the knowledge.)

Finally, let it be. I do not know 'my self', so how can my understanding be perfect? The revealer will remove the confusions soon. "Nothing Ever Happened".

Namaste, Regards and best wishes
Om

Namah Gaudapada.

And Shiva told it to Kant also but Kant could not understand it and made a mere theory out of the knowledge. He did not have the clue that the thing in itself was the self.

Om

[atanu]

Namaste Sarabhanga,


Namaste Singhi and Atanu,

shrI never resides with him who never desires any acquisition for himself.

shrI is inherent in brahmA; while brahma is sadAshiva, without any trace of mAyA, and such advaitam demands saMnyAsa.


I agree. Om

Subheccha to attain saMnyAsa, is desire for sadAshiva, who is shrI as well as brahmA.

Om


Namaste to all:

The above is what was said by me. May be I should have written it as, "sadAshiva, is both shrI and brahmA like clay is a flower vase and a saucer". Then I would have possibly avoided the following:


Please do not force gender on brahma, which remains always neutral. I have tried to explain this very many times, but it seems that you have missed the point of ajAtivAda. Your understanding is dvaitAdvaitavAda or parAdvaitavAda or vishiSTAdvaitavAda, but not pure advaitavAda..

Well what to do? Sri must have played an active role here.

Namah Namah. Pranam to All. Pranam to Sarabhanga. Pranam to Sri.

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste Atanu

Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj say´s that the Jiva who follows Lakshemi takes death and suffering only! Instead he advices to be always near what he call´s ady atma and all treasures in the world would be at reach. That is written in Maharaj " Amrut Laya " if I am not mistaken.

[Bob G]

Namaste Sarabhanga,

1. Ok, the "encumbered" remark by me was not very clear or considerate. I definitely did not mean that you are encumbering yourself or others with the vast and deep teachings of Hinduism (!!!); but apparently with the various misunderstandings, disagreements (or reactions) that are taking place between various parties.

2. I don't feel that a true renunciate to God can waste his/her time in any way (including if its on the internet) for they have surrended all of their time and life to God.

3. Eccles 11:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=21&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) : "Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days". (and for what its worth - I think such is a true idea)

Om Shanti... Om Shanti ... Om Shanti Om ......

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste Bob G


" 2. I don't feel that a true renunciate to God can waste his/her time in any way (including if its on the internet) for they have surrended all of their time and life to God."

So for you the internet is a Devilish thing? And God is a Snob?

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Atanu,

Please do not take this as “bullying”, but I am still not sure that the subtle difference between our understandings has been properly grasped. And numerous misunderstandings have resulted from each individual considering their own path as the uttamasatyam, along with various interpretations simultaneously claiming the title of advaitavAda. So please forgive this repetition.




That Brahma is absolutely not an agent of any happening and is nirvikara, nirakara, infinite, changeless, etc. is not comprehended by all, the way Advaitins have comprehended.

sadAshiva, who is shrI as well as brahmA.




Your understanding is dvaitAdvaitavAda or parAdvaitavAda or vishiSTAdvaitavAda, but not pure advaitavAda.

shrI is inherent in brahmA; while brahma is sadAshiva, without any trace of mAyA (i.e. without shrI or shakti), and such advaitam demands total saMnyAsa.

nara = hara = brahma = sadAshiva = advaitam
nArAyaNa = hari = brahmA = Ishvara = dvaitAdvaitam

shrI never resides with him who never desires any acquisition for himself.

And this is because shrI is inherent only in brahmA (nArAyaNa); while brahma is sadAshiva, without any trace of mAyA (shrI lakshmI), and such advaitam demands saMnyAsa.

sanAtana dharma is varNAshrama dharma


shUdra = kuvAda & ayAma
vaishya brahmacarya = dvaitavAda & yama
vaishya gRhastha = dvaitavAda & yamAniyama
kshatriya brahmacarya = dvaitavAda & yamAniyama
kshatriya gRhastha = dvaitAdvaitavAda & sAdhana
kshatriya vAnaprastha = dvaitAdvaitavAda & saMyama
brAhmaNa brahmacarya = dvaitavAda & yamAniyama
brAhmaNa gRhastha = dvaitAdvaitavAda & sAdhana
brAhmaNa vAnaprastha = advaitavAda & saMyama
brAhmaNa saMnyAsa = ajAtivAda & samAdhi
avadhUta = nirvAda & yAma


AUM = vaishvAnara
UMA = taijasa
MAU = prAjña
MA = turIya
M = turya


shrI means “to mix or mingle, to burn or diffuse light”.
shrI is “diffusing light or radiance”.
shrI is “power or distinction”.
And shrI is lakshmI.

shrI was produced at the churning of the ocean.
shrI is the consort of nArAyaNa viSNu.
shrI is the wife of dharma and the mother of kAma.
shrI is shakti and prakRti.

viSNu mAya is “measuring or creating illusions”, and that mAyA is shrI lakshmI.

mAyA is “the shakti or power of viSNu”.
mAyA is “dvaitam or illusion”.
mAyA is “the source of manifestation”.
mAyA is the wife of dharma and the mother of kAma and mRtyu.
And mAyA is the daughter of adharma and nirRti.

shrI = lakshmI = shakti = prakRti = mAyA

All of which is inherent in brahmA (nArAyaNa), but which is absent from brahma (nara).


sat = satyam = nivRtti = nara = aja = advaitam = sadAshiva = sharva = anantyam
satI = mAyA = pravRtti = nArAyaNa = jA = dvaitAdvaitam = viSNumAya = bhava = nantva


AUM = vaishvAnara = trimUrti
UMA = taijasa = shrI mAyA
MAU = prAjña = viSNumAyau
MA = turIya = durgamA
M = turya = brahma


I have explained very many times that NONE of the names in such equations is not a name of brahman. And I have also repeatedly explained that brahma and brahmA are quite different conceptions, and that if they remain confused there will be no end to pointless disagreements based on completely different impressions of the meaning of the one word, which is correctly (but nebulously) defined as brahman.




Neither did I refer to Shri as Maya.

You yourself indicate that Shree is not Maya.

However:




Sree (goddess of prosperity) said: “I never reside also with him who never desires any acquisition for himself”.

Lakshmi resides in that house in which ...

And I have nowhere indicated that shrI is not mAyA.




Sri is “power or distinction", who is in every sariram and in the space in between. She is not broken. She is the luminosity of Sun Narayana and everywhere. Is it Maya?

Yes.




She is Rodasi, consort of Rudra, but she is not Maya when one knows that Rudra Himself is Rodasi. She is Viraj, one lady married to many Devas. To see anything as different from Self is Avidya and that is Maya.

Your understanding is dvaitAdvaitavAda or parAdvaitavAda or vishiSTAdvaitavAda, but not pure advaitavAda ~ i.e. it is advaitavAda qualified by jAtivAda, which cannot see beyond sAdAshivI (durgamA) or sAdAshiva to the ultimate unqualified sadAshiva, which alone is aja and absolute advaitam.

To realize even brahmA as mAyA is the ultimate aim of advaitavAda.




Just because the name Sri is evoked does not mean that Maya is evoked, else Shankaracharya would not have prayed to Sri to alleviate the sufferings of an old lady.




advaitam itself CANNOT be worshipped, only being known in perfect meditation, and ALL worship MUST be offered to nArAyaNa (as brahmA or viSNu or mahAdeva).

advaitam itself CANNOT be worshipped, only being known in perfect meditation.

And ALL worship MUST be offered to nArAyaNa (as brahmA or viSNu or mahAdeva).

And in truth there is NO difference between nArAyaNa and shrI.


sat = satyam = nivRtti = nara = aja = advaitam = sadAshiva = sharva = anantyam
satI = mAyA = pravRtti = nArAyaNa = jA = dvaitAdvaitam = viSNumAya = bhava = nantva



AUM = vaishvAnara = trimUrti
UMA = taijasa = shrI mAyA
MAU = prAjña = viSNumAyau
MA = turIya = durgamA

M = turya = brahma



Now, please don’t take this as a presumptuous assertion, but (whatever your dIkshA or jAti) from your understanding alone I would assume that you are a brAhmaNa in gRhasthAshrama, and as such your understanding is perfectly correct.

And, despite the fact that one might not expect a saMnyAsin to spend quite so much time on the internet (my title may be avadhUta, but my saMskAra is not digambara ~ i.e. I am a sAdhaka, not yet sAdhu) I would hope that my understanding reflects the traditional views of saMnyAsAshrama and the followers of shrI shaÑkarAcArya.

So, given that I have correctly interpreted your stance, I assume that a slight difference in the finer points of our understanding will remain. And there is nothing wrong with that, but I have been trying to clarify the exact discrepancy so as to avoid any misunderstanding in communication.

[Bob G]

Nuno,

"So for you the internet is a Devilish thing? And God is a Snob?"

How you came up with the projected assumption above is beyond a projected assumption or guess by me?!
But I'll give it a shot anyway; did you think my meaning was to renounce God? I meant renouncing the limits of the world for God; and which I thought was quite clear in my following sentence: "for they have surrended all of their time and life to God"

Om

[satay]

Namaskar!


I seem to have inadvertently offended some members (and I apologize without reservation), but if the majority of members consider saMskRtam, varNa, Ashrama, dIkshA, guru, etc., as an “encumbrance” to dharma, then there is little point in any of my posts. If that is truly the case, then it seems that there is no place on the internet for any reasonable discussion of hindu dharma, and the internet is certainly not the place for a saMnyAsin to be wasting his time.


To the contrary, internet 'should be' and 'must become' a place for any saMnyAsin to discuss the hindu dharma since it is here on the internet where the new generation spends most of its time and it is here where most misunderstandings exist due to no direction and due to misinformation spread by adharmic forces. As such I request you to continue correcting misnuderstandings even in the face of severe attacks.

In some weird sort of way, your comments reminded me of something a pastor told his audience in a church; I was in the audience with my wife. He said, "people say why go to church, only hypocrites and people with some emotional problems go there, asking for this and that from god. Some people justify not coming to be with god by saying such things. I say to them, "this is exactly the place for hypcrites and people with emotional problems and for those who want to ask God this and that! where else are they supposed to go!!" "

I suppose my point is that, this is (internet) 'exactly' the place where a saMnyAsin should be operating in this yuga.

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu,

Please do not take this as “bullying”, ----

Your understanding is dvaitAdvaitavAda or parAdvaitavAda or vishiSTAdvaitavAda, but not pure advaitavAda ~ i.e. it is advaitavAda qualified by jAtivAda, which cannot see beyond sAdAshivI (durgamA) or sAdAshiva to the ultimate unqualified sadAshiva, which alone is aja and absolute advaitam.To realize even brahmA as mAyA is the ultimate aim of advaitavAda.


Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

What made you think that I believe BrahmA is the goal? I have been maintaining for last three years that BrahmA is a conception. If that was not the case, then you should have pointed out two years back. Except Eko, everything else is conception, including equations and opinions and vadas. Some conceptions have immense power and some do not.

Your ideas are yours, I cannot change them and I do not need to. I know what beliefs and practices have been given to me by God and that God will decide.

I am still waiting to learn, in plain english, how the Brahma line and BrahmA lines are linked in your equations, since Brahma is not an agent in any sense?

Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

[vcindiana]

Namaskar!
To the contrary, internet 'should be' and 'must become' a place for any saMnyAsin to discuss the hindu dharma since it is here on the internet where the new generation spends most of its time and it is here where most misunderstandings exist due to no direction and due to misinformation spread by adharmic forces. As such I request you to continue correcting misnuderstandings even in the face of severe attacks.



Well said Satay, Internet is the thing of the present. I consider it is as one of the most beautiful gifts of God. How else we can effectively reach other and almost touch other around this globe? I do not know much about these people who call themselves Sanyasi or Sadhu or Pope, for me, this life has to be fully experienced. I just thought life was just difficult but I just realized it is even more, it is very RISKY, and it is not for people who try to isolate themselves. I wondered is there some selfishness involved when we stop connecting with people?
My favorite Geeta verse 47 in Ch 2 sums it up to me, in the absolute freedom , I am just asked (not forced!) to act and risk using my talent, my skills, my time , my interest, my security, my future, my priorities and my reputations . I need to put all these at risk in order to accomplish what I envision as a greater good, but I have no guarantee. I can never be certain the result would be what I was looking for, that too is a risk. Love is a risky job. God gave internet, He knew the risk, and this could be misused. But with internet we can touch other and bring the goodness of Love.
Love.................................VC

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu,

I think your main point of discussion was :



... so, he who doesn't desire anything for himself is foresaken by Sri/Goddess Lakshmi ? On the other hand, if you don't foresake desires, you stay in bondage !

That is ok, if someone has not taken shelter under God's grace. Otherwise, "Yoga Kshemam vahamyam" is the insurance cover against that ! :)

Regards

Namaste Devotee,

Can you elaborate a bit more?

Regards

Om

[Bob G]

Some of this is getting kinda complex imho...

I'd say that without one trying to reach the one True desire (that often and obviously ends up taking many forms, twists and turns), one begins to negate soul-body connection with Prana in its deepest and pureset sense, or to give up. And without that fuel, without that hope, and without that faith one can then fall deeper into forms of nihilism and or other pov.. Also, God would not force help in such a situation because forcing help goes against universal law and then would become a curse, thus it is the person that really forsakes God for God can not be other than God. (as source of all blessings)

Om

[sarabhanga]

I do not know much about these people who call themselves Sanyasi or Sadhu or Pope, for me, this life has to be fully experienced. I just thought life was just difficult but I just realized it is even more, it is very RISKY, and it is not for people who try to isolate themselves. I wondered is there some selfishness involved when we stop connecting with people?

My favorite Geeta verse 47 in Ch 2 sums it up to me, in the absolute freedom , I am just asked (not forced!) to act and risk using my talent, my skills, my time , my interest, my security, my future, my priorities and my reputations . I need to put all these at risk in order to accomplish what I envision as a greater good, but I have no guarantee. I can never be certain the result would be what I was looking for, that too is a risk. Love is a risky job.

Namaste VC,

There is an unfortunate perception in some circles that the only true “god-man” is one solely devoted to “god” and without any consideration of “man”, but in sanAtana dharma nothing could be further from the truth!

See: dAsharAjñam and the añjalibandhanam of sudAsa (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=20382&postcount=238)

You are absolutely correct that the whole of creation depends on ahiMsat (perfect love). And the human relationships implied by varNAshrama dharma all involve self-sacrifice, and risk, but in each case the risks are connected with personal pride and the illusion of separation, both of which (though dearly held) must be discarded on the way to realizing the promise of yama.



shUdra . . ↔ . avadhUta
↕ . . . . . . . . . . . . ↕
vaishya brahmacarya . ↔ . . brAhmaNa saMnyAsa
↕ . . . . . . . . . . . . ↕
vaishya gRhastha . . . . . ↔ . brAhmaNa vAnaprastha
↕ . . . . . . . . . . . . ↕
kshatriya brahmacarya . ↔ . . . . . brAhmaNa gRhastha
↕ . . . . . . . . . . . . ↕
kshatriya gRhastha . . . ↔ . brAhmaNa brahmacarya



And the kshatriya vAnaprastha is responsible for the entire manifestation, throughout the whole of time, and so his is the greatest self-sacrifice of all.

There is no incarnate aryaHindu (“wise spark”) that is divorced from humanity and the mortal bond of yama, but that certainly does not mean that the primary intention is not divinity and eternal moksha!

[Bob G]

Hello Sarabhanga,

Regarding innuendos like yours quoted below; what place or purpose do they serve? (imo they only muddy the waters)

"There is an unfortunate perception in some circles..."

Om

[atanu]

Some of this is getting kinda complex imho...

I'd say that without one trying to reach the one True desire (that often and obviously ends up taking many forms, twists and turns), one begins to negate soul-body connection with Prana in its deepest and pureset sense, or to give up. And without that fuel, without that hope, and without that faith one can then fall deeper into forms of nihilism and or other pov.. Also, God would not force help in such a situation because forcing help goes against universal law and then would become a curse, thus it is the person that really forsakes God for God can not be other than God. (as source of all blessings)

Om

Namaste Bob,

I agree fully that disregarding the connection between self (soul in your term) and Prana takes one to blind darkness. When self is associated with the body (as if), the other end of Prana becomes lack of Prana (death). The truth is that the self (along with heart and prana) goes out like a leech and takes up another body (Br. Upanishad). Thus there is no death. And the connection between self and the desires of the heart are as between air and a jar; air remaining untainted. On realising this, the self attains unity with the Self --a unity that was never absent. This requires self to know itself as Self, which is ever unchanged, untainted, infinite, bliss, advaita, and without in and out (partless) (all upanishads).


Isn't 'the one true desire' the same as help of God? Isn't the self itself the grace? Is anything separate from the Self? Can grace be available outside? Persistence of inside/outside is the persistence of ignorance. Thus the 'source of all blessings' is the Self, which is being viewed ignorantly as 'self' because of its association with conditioned intellect (as if being stationed in Intellect- Heart, which is the seat of desires) and as if bound to Prana.

Presence of a little desire other than the singular concentration on the Self will not allow attainment of Samaana (this was accepted in a previous post). Similarly, IMO, recognition of others (different from me) whose paths and likely attainments are considered as inferior, is hindrance to attaining the yoga goal of Self in me and all in Self. It is Dvaita or VA wherein persistence of others in one's consciousness, as being different and as being inferior or superior, persists and this conception is an hindrace.

I maintain that the knower of Turya Atman cannot be different from Turya Atman and thus cannot be superior or inferior to any other. One who sees any difference in Self, has not comprehended the homogeneity of pure intelligence, the nature of which is to give rise to apparent Dvaita.

YMMV. Regards,

Om

[sm78]

imilarly, IMO, recognition of others (different from me) whose paths and likely attainments are considered as inferior, is hindrance to attaining the yoga goal of Self in me and all in Self.

When you can't help not recognizing another, how is natural recognition of the difference becomes a hindrance to yoga ??

As long I see Terrorists, Islamists, Communists and other miscreants living and moving in this world, I would do better to qualify the difference in their path and mine.

IMHO, Self in me and all in Self, is a yog-bhumi which is to be attained thorough sadhana. What happens to all the difference we see now is a question best answered when we reach that state. The most logical solution "When we reach the self, we realize nothing else ever existed".

But when consciousness dwells in duality one must follow one's course based on a suitable interpretation of sanatana varnashrama dharma.

[atanu]

Namaste All,

IMO, Self in me and all in Self, is a yog-bhumi which is not attained with a apriori confirmed idea of all beings being disparate, discrete and the qualities being permanent.

Sarvabhooteshu yenaikam bhaavamavyayameekshate;
Avibhaktam vibhakteshu tajjnaanam viddhi saattwikam.

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

Prithaktwena tu yajjnaanam naanaabhaavaan prithagvidhaan;
Vetti sarveshu bhooteshu tajjnaanam viddhi raajasam.

21. But that knowledge which sees in all beings various entities of distinct kinds as different from one another—know thou that knowledge to be Rajasic (passionate).

And that does not mean that there is a suggestion to abandon one's varnashrama dharma and one's duty, which are paramount.

Further,

Sarvadharmaan parityajya maamekam sharanam vraja;
Aham twaa sarvapaapebhyo mokshayishyaami maa shuchah.

66. Abandoning all duties, take refuge in Me alone; I will liberate thee from all sins; grieve not.


It is not possible for me to judge whether another person is suitable for this stage or whether one is already is in this stage or not. Guru alone knows and He paves the appropriate path, when one has surrendered. Guru is One.



Om

[Bob G]

Hello Atanu,

The way I see it is that realization(s) in samadhi are not final merger,

for with final merger soul ends (or matures) in Self,

thus samadhi experiences are a coming and going so to speak, but with merger there are no further experiences of coming and going; and thus no longer that individual soul left behind for such.

Om

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Atanu,

Please know that I have no disagreement with (almost) everything you post, indeed some of your posts I would regard as “HDF classics”. :) But this is the last I will say of the matter here, which boils down to the difference between dattAdattA and dattAdattam. And, since most people have no idea that such words even exist, any argument might seem like pointless nit-picking. But please read on.

And my comment about “incomplete” dIkshA was certainly not intended to offend, but what I was trying to indicate was that a very simple answer to (what I assumed to be) your question should be known when the dIkshA is matured (i.e. in saMnyAsa), which then led to discussion of the various relatively true perspectives that all lead (in the end) to one absolutely true point, and then to the various interpretations of that one point, and their subsequent implications. :blah:




What made you think that I believe BrahmA is the goal? I have been maintaining for last three years that BrahmA is a conception. If that was not the case, then you should have pointed out two years back. Except Eko, everything else is conception, including equations and opinions and vadas. Some conceptions have immense power and some do not.

shaktivAda aims for aja ekapad brahman, but it is always conditioned by jAtivAda, with the ultimate known as durgamA (equivalent with sAdAshivI). While advaitavAda likewise aims for brahman, but with ajativAda as the core understanding, there is no possibility of satI (shrI) in any eternal relationship with sat (sadAshiva).

shaktivAda (“parAdvaita”) is the left hand of dharma, which progresses from shUdra to the kshatriya in vAnaprasthAshrama (i.e. shrI dattAtreya).

Whereas, advaitavAda is the right hand of dharma, which is entirely brAhmaNa and progresses directly from brahmacarya to avadhUta (i.e. shrI dattAtreya).

The perfect avadhUta dattAtreya mahArAja is indistinguishable from the perfect kshatriya vAnaprastha dattAtreya, and both are identical with nArAyaNa, but only the shaiva avadhUta is close to moksha.

The parAdvaita datta is eternal prosperity and liberation in life, while the advaita datta (known only in saMnyAsa) is eternal rest and liberation from the cycle of life.

After generations of service, the siddha avatAra is relieved of his duty, but there is no guarantee that he will not return in the future (indeed that will be the expectation of all that remember his noble sacrifice). He is dattAtreya, the immortal avatAra, and he knows his true self and his own mother, but the nature of his father is obscure, and the “father” who played no part in his actual creation is atri.

brahma = nara = atri = sat = aja = advaitam
brahmA = nArAyaNa = dattAtreya = satI = jA = dvaitAdvaitam

ajAtivAda denies the eternal existence of all but nara, and any subsequent lines are seen as mAyA (which, from the perspective of advaitam is certainly not aja).

And jAtivAda will immediately insert shakti between nara and nArAyaNa and assert that the resultant trinity is eternally one and the same ~ but this is not the uttamasatyam of advaitavAda.

Can it be wrong to suggest that you seem to be an adult brAhmaNa who has not yet taken vows of saMnyAsa (which is certainly not compulsory for every brAhmaNa), and that your understanding seems quite correct for someone in that position? Have you been trying to show that you were not of the brAhmaNa varNa? Or have you been trying to show that you are a saMnyAsin? If you have taken vows of saMnyAsa then please forgive me, but your (apparent) assertion that shakti is always implicit is not ajAtivAda and thus it is not the advaitavAda of saMnyAsAshrama, but rather the parAdvaita or dvaitAdvaitavAda that is typical of a brAhmaNa in gRhasthAshrama, and which is not different from the exoteric wisdom of the kshatriya vAnaprastha, the hidden “friend of all” who is “difficult of access”, who is nArAyaNa himself, the datta avatAra.

But in absolute truth the datta remains adatta, and despite the illusion of infinite partaking of that gift (which is shrI nArAyaNa), the ungiving giver remains unaffected, and likewise his ungiven (but partaken) gift.

brahma = nara = atri = sat = aja = advaita = dattAdattam
brahmA = nArAyaNa = dattAtreya = satI = jA = dvaitAdvaita = dattAdatta

dattAdattam (datta adatta) is brahma, the gift that is not given.
And dattAdatta (datta Adatta) is brahmA, which is both given and received.

nara is atri and aja, while nArAyaNa is dattAtreya and jA.

Aryan society was originally considered as follows:


vaishya gRhastha ~ brAhmaNa vAnaprastha
kshatriya brahmacarya ~ brAhmaNa gRhastha
kshatriya gRhastha ~ brAhmaNa brahmacarya

And this veritable tripuNDra, confirmed by yama and comprising the dvijA of aryaHindu descent, is superintended by the Ishvara dattAtreya (nArAyaNa) ~ and whatever he knows of his father (the nara who is atri) cannot be expressed.

The highest vision in this realm is one of the naranArAyaNau or ardhanarIshvara, and this is dvaitAdvaitam or parAdvaitam. And even the most subtle shrI durgamA is intimately linked with creation and its eternal preservation and prosperity. And her opposite mahAkAlI is ultimately concerned with destruction, which assumes both a preceding creation and the co-existence of mahAkAla.

And of course mahAkAla is identical with sadAshiva, but when imagined as (in any way) associated with mahAkAlI, then the aja advaitam immediately disappears beyond the veil of mAyA as ajA dvaitam (albeit in perfect yugalam).

brahma reflected once upon his own self, and the conclusion was dattAdattam, but in truth nothing happened.

And the mAyA of dattAdatta (i.e. brahmA) has resounded ever since in the avadhUta paramparA: dattAdattAdattAdattAdattAdattAdattAdattA …

DamaDDamaDDamaDDamanninAdavaDDamarvayam

I have been reading your posts for more than three years, and I rarely disagree with your comments. But on the occasions when I have disagreed it has generally been due to an implication that there is something beyond brahma or that shrI devI is somehow implicit even in the highest advaitam (in this case designated as sadAshiva).

At the start of this thread, it was said that the followers of shiva will live as vagabonds in penury, and I have explained that this is absolutely correct, for the most devoted attendants of shiva are found in saMnyAsAshrama. And the reason that shrI does not reside with such individuals is because they have renounced all mAyA (including shrI) and have eyes only for shivam. And the basis of their understanding is ajAtivAda, which is only proper to saMnyAsa.

Since you are (presumably) not a saMnyAsin, and your preference is shaktivAda, you seem to have missed both the intention and the content of my posts in this thread, which underscores the very point I have been making. And that is only to say that our understandings are subtly divergent, and sometimes what you are calling advaitavAda begins to sound more like parAdvaita or dvaitAdvaitavAda to me.

I have only tried to answer the initial conundrum of a shrI-less existence for shaiva, which seems to me entirely related to the nature of saMnyAsa and the principle of ajAtivAda, and all of this relates to varNAshrama dharma. But all of that seems to have been dismissed as personal opinions. I am really not sure why a question was posed in the beginning. :headscratch:

advaitam itself CANNOT be worshipped, only being known in perfect meditation.
And ALL worship MUST be offered to nArAyaNa (as brahmA or viSNu or mahAdeva).
And in truth there is NO difference between nArAyaNa and shrI.


shrI means “to mix or mingle, to burn or diffuse light”.
shrI is “diffusing light or radiance”.
shrI is “power or distinction”.
And shrI is lakshmI.
shrI was produced at the churning of the ocean.
shrI is the consort of nArAyaNa viSNu.
shrI is the wife of dharma and the mother of kAma.
shrI is shakti and prakRti.
viSNu mAya is “measuring or creating illusions”, and that mAyA is shrI lakshmI.
mAyA is “the shakti or power of viSNu”.
mAyA is “dvaitam or illusion”.
mAyA is “the source of manifestation”.
mAyA is the wife of dharma and the mother of kAma and mRtyu.
And mAyA is the daughter of adharma and nirRti.

shrI = lakshmI = shakti = prakRti = mAyA

All of which is inherent in brahmA (nArAyaNa), but which is absent from brahma (nara).



sat = satyam = nivRtti = nara = aja = advaitam = sadAshiva = sharvAnantyam
satI = mAyA = pravRtti = nArAyaNa = jA = parAdvaita = sAdAshiva = bhavanantva



AUM = vaishvAnara = trimUrti
UMA = taijasa = shrI mAyA
MAU = prAjña = viSNumAyau
MA = turIya = durgamA

M = turya = brahma

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu,
Please know that I have no disagreement with (almost) everything you post, indeed some of your posts I would regard as “HDF classics”. :) -

Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

Well said. A little of anything is not bad. Some disagreements are good. I was indeed pained with 'incomplete or inappropriate dIkshA', not for my sake. I feel that only a few people can empathise and I surely consider you to be one who can empathise. As the Good is not missing ever, the matter is over and forgotten with sweet touch of the Good.

You have correctly pointed out something. I was, over a period, contemplating on Anadimatparam. It then dawned that in partless Brahman there cannot be any part which will be the highest part. So, the contemplation and the storm was also Good.


ajAtivAda denies the eternal existence of all but nara, and any subsequent lines are seen as mAyA (which, from the perspective of advaitam is certainly not aja).
And jAtivAda will immediately insert shakti between nara and nArAyaNa and assert that the resultant trinity is eternally one and the same ~ but this is not the uttamasatyam of advaitavAda.

I am not sure that I am into Shaktivada, but I will not go into that. There is no need. The Nara is the ETERNAL ONE WITHOUT A SECOND EXISTENCE. But there is a slight misapprehension that I would like to clarify. Gurus like Ramana, do not accept anything but Ajativada. Gaudapada in Karikas, implies (in fact says): people give many explanations for the Universe, yet it is just the very nature of the Existent - the Lord. I have, on few occassions, accepted without going into arguments (in Satay's Shiva post): well well yes Shiva Shakti. That was to avoid arguments, since Ajativada has such stupendous implications. And the Guru prohibits it.
-------------------------

Regarding your post I have one question. Why you consider 'M' to be the Turya -- although I have some inkling why, I am not sure. It would be good, if you explained.

(Another aside. Please take it as a joke. The 50 year rule should not be made a rule, else there will be no more Shankaracharyas).

Best wishes and regards.

Om Namah Shivaya

[devotee]

Namaste Devotee,

Can you elaborate a bit more?

Regards

Om

Namaste Atanu,

I am a little perplexed over two things -

i) This thread has apparently gone in a little different direction than was perhaps originally intended. I don't know, if I am right.

ii) I thought my post needed no elaboration ... & when Atanu asks to elaborate & keeping the above in mind, I don't know whether my post was relevant to the context !

Anyway, I am speaking out my mind here :

My post pertains to the quote what I noted in my post from yours. There are three verses in Gita which I would like to quote :

i) Chapter -10, sloka-34. ===> I am Shri, Vak, Smriti, Medha, Dhriti & Kshama among women.

ii) Chapter - 2, sloka-45 ===> You should not desire for Yoga-Kshema (i.e. desire to aquire something by luck & its preservation)

iii) Chapter-9, sloka-22 ====> Those who without any desire worship me I take care of their Yoga-Kshema.

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

So, Shri is nothing but Brahman. Once we surrender to Brahman, our yoga-kshema are taken care of by the Lord himself. If we don't, then normal rule apply -- i.e., those who don't want anything for themselves ( for fear of hard work & not for love of Lord i.e. because of their Tamasik nature) are forsaken by Goddess Shri.

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

Regards

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~~



(Another aside. Please take it as a joke. The 50 year rule should not be made a rule, else there will be no more Shankaracharyas).

Om Namah Shivaya


Namaste,

I have little value to add to this string, but thought to offer the notion of the age of 50.

In jyotish there are many dasa systems. One that is standard for all is the naisargika (natural) dasa system. It suggests the following:

The moon has its greatest influence from ages 0 to 1 year old.
Mars from 1 to 3 years of age.
Mercury from 3 to 12 years
Venus, from 12 to 32 years of age
Jupiter from 32 to 50 years of age
Sun from 50 to 70 years of age
Saturn from 70 to 120 years ( 120 is the end of the Vimshottari Dasa period)So this 50 year age selection is not a random number. Starting at 50 the Sun ( Surya) has a great influence on the native.

The sun is the atmakarka ( the significator of Atman) and so begins the journey of sadhana with increased focus. Sun is also the karaka of temples and pilgrimages. Also of vision and sight. This vision is inner and outer vision. While the sun has much to do with the 10th house and career, as we move forward in life we see his influence in the Vimsamsa Divisional Chart ( the 20th division. This indicates the spiritual side of life.This is a harmonic of the 10th house ( 2 X 10 =20).

Pending ones inclinations this 50 year mark begins a new part of life.

pranams

[Bob G]

Hello Atanu,

"Isn't 'the one true desire' the same as help of God? Isn't the self itself the grace? Is anything separate from the Self? Can grace be available outside? Persistence of inside/outside is the persistence of ignorance. Thus the 'source of all blessings' is the Self,"

I think I agree with your meaning above but for the sake of debate where would we agree that ignorance ends?

1. In the Absolute, ParaSiva or the Transcendent?
2. In Parasakti or Satchidananda?
3. In Paramesvara, or Supreme Mahadeva?

What purpose the veils and shall we call the veiling action of God ignorance? Thus to me the word ignorance is another one of those
catch-all generalizations that few agree upon.

Example: where does ignornace begin (and end) in the list below?
And how can there really be any permutations into ignorance from the, "Source of all blessings"?

334

Om

[Bob G]

Hello Yajvan,

That was an interesting addition to this string regarding the age of 50! :)

Another bit of information I've come across relates to the seven major chakras and having more or less 7 years experience in each =49...

which in another system would be related to a full octave of evolution, function and freedoms compared to that of a person at a beginning level.

And to me this represents the beautiful term and Being of a Guru-deva.

Om

[satay]

Okay Guys, I will be back when I turn fifty.

(disappears in fog, running and abonding the forum)






:)

[Bob G]

Okay Satay,

See you back in an eye-blink. :D

Om

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Hello Yajvan,
That was an interesting addition to this string regarding the age of 50! :)

Another bit of information I've come across relates to the seven major chakras and having more or less 7 years experience in each =49...

which in another system would be related to a full octave of evolution, function and freedoms compared to that of a person at a beginning level.

And to me this represents the beautiful term and Being of a Guru-deva.

Om

Namaste BG,
thank you for the note...as you offer the chakras, its of interest to know the significance of this 7. It shows up often e.g. 7 states of consciousness, 7 rivers, etc etc.

Here is another POV offered by Agni Deva on various stations or ashrama
(āśrama or halting place, stage of life; hermitage; a place of striving)


The 60 year cycle that Saidevo mentions is also very interesting. 1 Jovian (Jupiter) year is roughly equivalent to 12 earth (solar) years. In ancient times, time was measured per the Sun, moon and Jupiter. Each Jovian year (~12 years on earth) was also considered one stage (ashram) of life.

0-12 = childhood
12-24 = brahmacharya
24-36 = grihastha
36-48 = vanaprastha
48-60 = sannyasa


So this 50 year age period is of great spiritual interest.


pranams

[sm78]

Hari Om
~~~~~~




Namaste,

I have little value to add to this string, but thought to offer the notion of the age of 50.

In jyotish there are many dasa systems. One that is standard for all is the naisargika (natural) dasa system. It suggests the following:
The moon has its greatest influence from ages 0 to 1 year old.
Mars from 1 to 3 years of age.
Mercury from 3 to 12 years
Venus, from 12 to 32 years of age
Jupiter from 32 to 50 years of age
Sun from 50 to 70 years of age
Saturn from 70 to 120 years ( 120 is the end of the Vimshottari Dasa period)So this 50 year age selection is not a random number. Starting at 50 the Sun ( Surya) has a great influence on the native.

The sun is the atmakarka ( the significator of Atman) and so begins the journey of sadhana with increased focus. Sun is also the karaka of temples and pilgrimages. Also of vision and sight. This vision is inner and outer vision. While the sun has much to do with the 10th house and career, as we move forward in life we see his influence in the Vimsamsa Divisional Chart ( the 20th division. This indicates the spiritual side of life.This is a harmonic of the 10th house ( 2 X 10 =20).

Pending ones inclinations this 50 year mark begins a new part of life.

pranams

This is an interesting point and as Bob G points out the age around 50 is marked a turning point in spiritual sadhana as I have come across writing of teachers of different traditions.

[atanu]

Hari Om
~~~~~~
Namaste,
Sun from 50 to 70 years of age-
pranams

Namaste Yajvan Ji,

Do not fear, we will soon catch up with you. Satay of course should be delayed very much. Yes, in some cases, the sense of agelessness may begin to dawn from the age of 50.

There is another reason why this part of life after 50 starts becoming important. The first part of life is Vasus -- representing dependence. The second part belongs to the Rudras -- when life force and mind being the masters, brings in a sort of freedom and cruelty. The third part belongs to Adityas -- the time, which draws everthing towards it.

You have not talked of the last part belonging to Saturn. What does it signify? Or we should not talk of that part?

Regards

Om

[atanu]

Hello Atanu,

"Isn't 'the one true desire' the same as help of God? Isn't the self itself the grace? Is anything separate from the Self? Can grace be available outside? Persistence of inside/outside is the persistence of ignorance. Thus the 'source of all blessings' is the Self,"

I think I agree with your meaning above but for the sake of debate where would we agree that ignorance ends?

1. In the Absolute, ParaSiva or the Transcendent?
2. In Parasakti or Satchidananda?
3. In Paramesvara, or Supreme Mahadeva?

What purpose the veils and shall we call the veiling action of God ignorance? Thus to me the word ignorance is another one of those
catch-all generalizations that few agree upon.

Example: where does ignornace begin (and end) in the list below?
And how can there really be any permutations into ignorance from the, "Source of all blessings"?

334

Om

Namaste Bob G,

Why do you think that the terms ignorance and the end of ignorance are 'catch-all generalizations'? The term 'catch-all generalizations' itself is a 'catch-all generalization'.

Those who know, know that the self is fearless, immortal, and infinite. Atanu does not know it and so atanu is ignorant. Of course, I am taking recourse to shruti as the true expression (in terms of speech-vak) of the truth and believing it 100%. So, we may need some further analysis.

On the other hand, logically also, the self is never ignorant. When one says "i am ignorant", one is expressing something known and thus the self is never in ignorance. It knows something or the other at all times. Knowing is its very nature. Similarly, in deep sleep, one is fearless and being bodyless is infinite. No one can say that the self did not exist in deep sleep. Shruti again says that the self sees in deep sleep, since the function of seeing is infinite and immortal. Logically again, the self is still the seer in deep sleep. But it does not see anything or smell anything since it has become one. How can the knower know the knower? So, in deep sleep the knower alone remains. It is dense knowledge and the knower itself -- one. Nothing else is there which can be known.

The truth is not the terms Parashakti, Parashiva. If I were allowed a bit of Vedic drama, I would touch my chin and say "The truth is here. Truth and nothing but the truth".

Veda is such that it only reveals this. Veda is the only independent pointer to the truth since there is no other witness to the truth. The truth is its own witness -- alone.

I hope it is ok (back to the doubting self).

Regards

Om

[atanu]

From Nuno
Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj say´s that the Jiva who follows Lakshemi takes death and suffering only! Instead he advices to be always near what he call´s ady atma and all treasures in the world would be at reach. That is written in Maharaj " Amrut Laya " if I am not mistaken.



From Devotee
iii) Chapter-9, sloka-22 ====> Those who without any desire worship me I take care of their Yoga-Kshema.

So, Shri is nothing but Brahman. Once we surrender to Brahman, our yoga-kshema are taken care of by the Lord himself. If we don't, then normal rule apply -- i.e., those who don't want anything for themselves ( for fear of hard work & not for love of Lord i.e. because of their Tamasik nature) are forsaken by Goddess Shri.




From Sarabhanga
ajAtivAda denies the eternal existence of all but nara, and any subsequent lines are seen as mAyA (which, from the perspective of advaitam is certainly not aja).




RV Book 1 HYMN XLIII. Rudra.
1 WHAT shall we sing to Rudra, strong, most bounteous, excellently wise, That shall be dearest to his heart?
2 That Aditi may grant the grace of Rudra to our folk, our kine, Our cattle and our progeny;
3 That Mitra and that Varuna, that Rudra may remember us, Yea, all the Gods with one accord.
4 To Rudra Lord of sacrifice, of hymns and balmy medicines, We pray for joy and health and strength.




Book 1 HYMN LXXXIX. Visvedevas.
10 Aditi is the heaven, Aditi is mid-air, Aditi is the Mother and the Sire and Son. Aditi is all Gods, Aditi five-classed men, Aditi all that hath been born and shall be born


Namaste Devotee,

You have succintly summarised almost all that is my view also.

I have tried to put together a few aspects that may be relevant for summing up. We possibly need to include a teacher's view, presented by Nuno, that sole attachment to Lakshmi takes one to death and suffering.


Sarabhanga points out that Nara only is the eternal existence. This has implication that what you get from non-eternal can be non-eternal only. But I have noted that you have said "Shri is nothing but Brahman". I have added two verses from Rig Veda. Here Aditi is All -- the Universe of three dreams. And Rudra is that unknown -- the Lord of sacrifice who is known from the Vedas alone.

Given this background will you like to integrate? What one should want for oneself from Sri?

Regards and Thanks,

Om

[sm78]

Given this background will you like to integrate? What one should want for oneself from Sri?

I don't fully comprehend the background, but there is only one thing to ask from shrI for an upasaka, prIti of devi

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan Ji,

You have not talked of the last part belonging to Saturn. What does it signify? Or we should not talk of that part?

Regards

Om


Namaste atanu,
Yes, we can talk of Sani starting from 70 + on. For the sadhu this is a time of tapas, the inward stoke of life as they say. Sani brings discipline and steadiness internally. Yet externally one may be seen as frail. He is also karaka of the 12th house, moksa + rest.

For the sanyas and sadhu a good time to behold as more purification is achieved or the existing purification begins to flourish, one comes closer to Moska if not reached already. Sani, like ketu is also a moksha-karaka.

To others not on the path, this time is a time of winding down, as sani and vata dosa rule this age.

This is why sani is mis-understood. On one side this discipline he offers is seen as too constraining and limiting, but on the other side it is this discipline as tapas that brings the fullness of Being.

Because sani is the karaka of the 12th house, it's the house of endings. Endings are good, as ending of ignorance applies, due to the 12 house of moksha. It is also ending of the physical self, and the time when the body has served its purpose and time to move on.

For the un-realized, for those that cling, that have not considered the SELF, this death is a most serious ending. For those on the path, they know the nature of truth and do not cling to the body. So this death is just one more action of the 3 gunas.


pranams

[sarabhanga]

One yugam lasts for five years, and there are 20 years in one caturyugam.

The first yugam is the kaliyugam (0-5 years), where no rules apply and everyone is an innocent shUdra.

The second yugam is the dvApara (5-10 years), where dharma is introduced at a primary level. And throughout the third tretAyugam (10-15 years) the process is repeated at a secondary level.

The fourth yugam is the satyayugam (15-20 years), where the best students continue their education at a tertiary level, finally graduating fully qualified from the first (kali) caturyugam of brahmacaryAshrama.

The past life is over and a new life begins in gRhasthAshrama, which proceeds through another caturyugam (the dvApara) of family life, which mirrors the various yugas of one’s offspring (in a complex pattern that depends on individual circumstances). And given the ideal situation of an heir being conceived on the wedding night, the four yugas of one’s gRhasthAshrama (20-40 years) should mature at exactly the appropriate rate to cope best with the requirements of raising the child through its own first caturyugam.

And when the child graduates from brahmacarya into married life and gRhasthAshrama, the parent begins his third (tretA) caturyugam, in a new life of vAnaprastha (40-60 years). And this is where the turning point of 50 years occurs.

And the final fourth four-yuga life (turya caturyugam) begins in saMnyAsa, which lasts for as long as it takes for liberation to be attained, but the normal plan would again last for a total of 20 years.

And after four different but coordinated lives lived, every one to the full, the sAdhu leaves his body at about 80 years of age.

And anyone who persists through the fifth caturyuga (80-100 years) is an avadhUta, and anyone over 100 years must be an immortal siddha or nAgA.


sUrya influences life,
soma influences conception,
budha influences pregnancy,
shukra influences birth,
maÑgala influences childhood,
guru influences schooling and parenting,
shani influences maturity and aging,
mandatara influences death and re-birth, and
varuNa influences immortality and moksha.

[devotee]

Namaste Atanu,


What one should want for oneself from Sri?

Can't say for others ! As for me, I ask for help when I am in trouble but adding, " I am asking all these, but give me what you consider the best for me. I don't know what is really good for me." & further followed by "Asato Ma sadgamaya ....".

Regards

[Bob G]

Hello Atanu,

I see the Holy Books (Vedas for Hindus) as the words given out by the "True Witness". Thus without this True Witness no Vedas or Holy Books could be written down, and without the True Witness the Vedas and Holy Books that have been written down can not really be fully understood! Maybe we are alluding to the same thing?

I see some problems in defining of the term "ignorance" just as I do with the term "enlightenment". You gave an absolute type example of ignorance...but in this world and other worlds (and schools) there are many degrees of ignorance and or enlightenment. Even major Gurus of various orders state differences along such lines. That is the point I was trying to make.

Om

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Hello Atanu,

I see the Holy Books (Vedas for Hindus) as the words given out by the "True Witness". Thus without this True Witness no Vedas or Holy Books could be written down, and without the True Witness the Vedas and Holy Books that have been written down can not really be fully understood! Maybe we are alluding to the same thing?
Om

Hello BobG,
Hope its okay to join in... I have one thing to offer on the fore said idea above.

There is a rig veda¹ sloka that says ,
the rks or the verses of the veda reside in aksara, the imperishable, the Absolute (richo akshare). The sloka continues and says He whose awareness is not open to this field this aksara, what can the verses accomplish for him?

This is also called out in the Svetasvatara Upanishad ( one of my favorites) Chapt 3.8 - It says of what use are the vedas to him who does not know that indestructible, highest Being in whom all the devata and vedas reside.

So what is my point here? That reading does not insure comprehension. That studying the vedas without the infusion of pure awareness, what can the rks accomplish for that person? That is why a realized being, the fully awake , add so much value to the student. He/She is operating from aksara from the indestructible level of Being, and reading the rks is reading about his/her own nature.

That is why the vedas are so different. The offering of knowledge is on multiple levels. Just reading the vedas without the complementary level of consciousness , one does not derive the full benefit, as would the brahmavit.

This has been the enlightened criticism of many in the east to the scholars of the west, they thought they broke-the-code. They missed the sanketa (symbolism) offered by the rishi's and they missed the satyam (truth) that resides in the rks.
Many (not all) thought the Rk Ved was storytelling, camp fire myths and the like. They missed the robust knowledge offered. Yet how could they see it any way? They were not established in ritambara prajna - that which only knows the truth.


pranams and thank you for letting me be a but-in-ski , as my grandmother would say.


1. Richo akshare parame vyoman yasmin deva adhi vishve nisheduh,
Yastanna veda kim richa karishyatiya it tad vidus ta ime samasate.
(Rig Veda, 1.164.39)

[Bob G]

No problemo Yajvan, :)

That was some very good expounding given by you...gracious.

:goodpost:

Om

[sarabhanga]

One yugam lasts for five years, and there are 20 years in one caturyugam.

The first yugam is the kaliyugam (0-5 years), where no rules apply and everyone is an innocent shUdra.

The second yugam is the dvApara (5-10 years), where dharma is introduced at a primary level. And throughout the third tretAyugam (10-15 years) the process is repeated at a secondary level.

The fourth yugam is the satyayugam (15-20 years), where the best students continue their education at a tertiary level, finally graduating fully qualified from the first (kali) caturyugam of brahmacaryAshrama.

The past life is over and a new life begins in gRhasthAshrama, which proceeds through another caturyugam (the dvApara) of family life, which mirrors the various yugas of one’s offspring (in a complex pattern that depends on individual circumstances). And given the ideal situation of an heir being conceived on the wedding night, the four yugas of one’s gRhasthAshrama (20-40 years) should mature at exactly the appropriate rate to cope best with the requirements of raising the child through its own first caturyugam.

And when the child graduates from brahmacarya into married life and gRhasthAshrama, the parent begins his third (tretA) caturyugam, in a new life of vAnaprastha (40-60 years). And this is where the turning point of 50 years occurs.

And the final fourth four-yuga life (turya caturyugam) begins in saMnyAsa, which lasts for as long as it takes for liberation to be attained, but the normal plan would again last for a total of 20 years.

And after four different but coordinated lives lived, every one to the full, the sAdhu leaves his body at about 80 years of age.

And anyone who persists through the fifth caturyuga (80-100 years) is an avadhUta, and anyone over 100 years must be an immortal siddha or nAgA.


sUrya influences life,
soma influences conception,
budha influences pregnancy,
shukra influences birth,
maÑgala influences childhood,
guru influences schooling and parenting,
shani influences maturity and aging,
mandatara influences death and re-birth, and
varuNa influences immortality and moksha.

This is a very ancient system, which forms the basis for some later mythological extrapolations, and it was overwritten by the undoubted importance of guru’s 12 year cycle. And the 30 year cycle of shani marks another four phases of maturation.

shUdra ~ conception to 5 years.

brahmacarya I ~ 5-11 years.

brahmacarya II ~ 11-18 years.

brahmacarya III ~ 18-24 years.

gRhastha ~ 24-48 years ~ with the kRta shani yugam completed at 30 years (as one’s first child enters brahmacarya I).

vAnaprastha ~ 48-72 years ~ with the dvApara shani yugam and pañcama guru yugam completed simultaneously at 60 years.

saMnyAsa ~ 72-96 years ~ with the Adya mandatara yugam passed after 80 years, the saptama guru yugam passed at 84 years, and the tretA shani yugam over at 90 years.

nAgA ~ 96-120 years ~ with the turya shani yugam completed simultaneously with the dashama guru yugam at 120 years, which marks the limit of mortal existence.

[sarabhanga]

kuNDalinI has 3½ coils, including the 3 whorls of shani and terminating half a coil short of the fourth. But the final mysterious crescent represents an orbit of guru. So the maximum extent of incarnation remains 120 years, but mortality ends at 108.

A shUdra is entirely without dharma, which includes all children under 5 years and all humans without the brahmacaryadIkshA (i.e. without yama).

The vidyA of brahmacarya (5-24 years) is dvaitavAda, with three levels of dIkshA. Starting with brahmacarya I (5-11 years) where the presentation of dharma is shAkta, then brahmacarya II (11-18 years) where the presentation of dharma is vaishnava, and finishing with brahmacarya III (18-24 years) where the presentation is shaiva.

It is admission to brahmacarya that first raises a shUdra to become vaishya, and the level of graduation will color all subsequent perspectives.

The vaishya has no formal requirement beyond brahmacarya I, while the kshatriya should attain brahmacarya II, and the brAhmaNa should graduate with honors from brahmacarya III.

And after brahmacarya there is the gRhasthAshrama (24-48 years) which is common to every varNa, but with the shUdra gRhasthin having no vidyA and no particular dharma, the vaishya gRhasthin following dvaitavAda (most likely shAkta), the kshatriya gRhasthin following dvaitAdvaitavAda (most likely vaishnava), and the brAhmaNa gRhasthin following dvaitAdvaitavAda (most likely shaiva).

For the shUdra and vaishya, there is no Ashrama beyond gRhastha.

But after gRhastha there is the vAnaprasthAshrama (48-72 years), and only the kshatriya and brAhmaNa varNa resort to this Ashrama, but only when their offspring have themselves become gRhastha. With the kshatriya vAnaprasthin following dvaitAdvaitavAda, and the brAhmaNa vAnaprasthin following adviatavAda.

For the kshatriya in vAnaprastha there is no final saMnyAsAshrama (72 years and beyond), which is assumed only for the brAhmaNa, but the perfect kshatriya vAnaprasthin becomes a virtual immortal (such as Arthur, the once and future king, presumed now to be hidden in a mountain, as is the case for every eternal RSi).

And the final stage of saMnyAsa is avadhUta (96-120 years) where there is only ajAtivAda and both karma and dharma are dissolved.


shUdra = kuvAda & ayAma
vaishya brahmacarya = dvaitavAda & yama
vaishya gRhastha = dvaitavAda & yamAniyama
kshatriya brahmacarya = dvaitavAda & yamAniyama
kshatriya gRhastha = dvaitAdvaitavAda & sAdhana
kshatriya vAnaprastha = dvaitAdvaitavAda & saMyama
brAhmaNa brahmacarya = dvaitavAda & yamAniyama
brAhmaNa gRhastha = dvaitAdvaitavAda & sAdhana
brAhmaNa vAnaprastha = advaitavAda & saMyama
brAhmaNa saMnyAsa = ajAtivAda & samAdhi
avadhUta = nirvAda & yAma


Of course this is an ideal, but the ancient varNAshrama system considers genetic inheritance, maturity (both physical and mental), education, experience, and saMskAra, before the determination of an individual’s most appropriate karma and dharma.

The vocational classes are often mentioned, and parentage and employment have become the major determinants of varNa, and thus the determinants of social status and spiritual purity (with darker skin indicating a darker more tAmasika soul, and lighter skin indicating a lighter more sAttvika soul).

However, it is saMskAra, vidyA, dIkshA, yoga, and ultimately yama, that truly determine the varNa and Ashrama of an individual Hindu, and thus (secondarily) the appropriate social status and most suitable social relations, and the most satisfying and productive field of employment, may be deduced.


:)

[sarabhanga]

kuNDalinI has 3½ coils, including the 3 whorls of shani and terminating half a coil short of the fourth. But the final mysterious crescent represents an orbit of guru. So the maximum extent of incarnation remains 120 years, but mortality ends at 108.

A shUdra is entirely without dharma, which includes all children under 5 years and all humans without the brahmacaryadIkshA (i.e. without yama).

The vidyA of brahmacarya (5-24 years) is dvaitavAda, with three levels of dIkshA. Starting with brahmacarya I (5-11 years) where the presentation of dharma is shAkta, then brahmacarya II (11-18 years) where the presentation of dharma is vaishnava, and finishing with brahmacarya III (18-24 years) where the presentation is shaiva.

It is admission to brahmacarya that first raises a shUdra to become vaishya, and the level of graduation will color all subsequent perspectives.

The vaishya has no formal requirement beyond brahmacarya I, while the kshatriya should attain brahmacarya II, and the brAhmaNa should graduate with honors from brahmacarya III.

And after brahmacarya there is the gRhasthAshrama (24-48 years) which is common to every varNa, but with the shUdra gRhasthin having no vidyA and no particular dharma, the vaishya gRhasthin following dvaitavAda (most likely shAkta), the kshatriya gRhasthin following dvaitAdvaitavAda (most likely vaishnava), and the brAhmaNa gRhasthin following dvaitAdvaitavAda (most likely shaiva).

For the shUdra and vaishya, there is no Ashrama beyond gRhastha.

But after gRhastha there is the vAnaprasthAshrama (48-72 years), and only the kshatriya and brAhmaNa varNa resort to this Ashrama, but only when their offspring have themselves become gRhastha. With the kshatriya vAnaprasthin following dvaitAdvaitavAda, and the brAhmaNa vAnaprasthin following adviatavAda.

For the kshatriya in vAnaprastha there is no final saMnyAsAshrama (72 years and beyond), which is assumed only for the brAhmaNa, but the perfect kshatriya vAnaprasthin becomes a virtual immortal (such as Arthur, the once and future king, presumed now to be hidden in a mountain, as is the case for every eternal RSi).

And the final stage of saMnyAsa is avadhUta (96-120 years) where there is only ajAtivAda and both karma and dharma are dissolved.


shUdra = kuvAda & ayAma
vaishya brahmacarya = dvaitavAda & yama
vaishya gRhastha = dvaitavAda & yamAniyama
kshatriya brahmacarya = dvaitavAda & yamAniyama
kshatriya gRhastha = dvaitAdvaitavAda & sAdhana
kshatriya vAnaprastha = dvaitAdvaitavAda & saMyama
brAhmaNa brahmacarya = dvaitavAda & yamAniyama
brAhmaNa gRhastha = dvaitAdvaitavAda & sAdhana
brAhmaNa vAnaprastha = advaitavAda & saMyama
brAhmaNa saMnyAsa = ajAtivAda & samAdhi
avadhUta = nirvAda & yAma


Of course this is an ideal, but the ancient varNAshrama system considers genetic inheritance, maturity (both physical and mental), education, experience, and saMskAra, before the determination of an individual’s most appropriate karma and dharma.

The vocational classes are often mentioned, and parentage and employment have become the major determinants of varNa, and thus the determinants of social status and spiritual purity (with darker skin indicating a darker more tAmasika soul, and lighter skin indicating a lighter more sAttvika soul).

However, it is saMskAra, vidyA, dIkshA, yoga, and ultimately yama, that truly determine the varNa and Ashrama of an individual Hindu, and thus (secondarily) the appropriate social status and most suitable social relations, and the most satisfying and productive field of employment, may be deduced.






shUdra ~ avadhUta
vaishya brahmacarya ~ brAhmaNa saMnyAsa
vaishya gRhastha ~ brAhmaNa vAnaprastha
kshatriya brahmacarya ~ brAhmaNa gRhastha
kshatriya gRhastha ~ brAhmaNa brahmacarya
[kshatriya vAnaprastha]



When the varNAshramadharmacakram in set in motion (as is the prerogative of the mysterious immortalized kshatriya vAnaprastha ~ the siddha, the nAtha, the nAgA, the jina, the buddha) the following noble actions ensue:

The shUdrAs are inspired and informed by the vaishyAs and by the avadhUta.
The vaishya brahmacaryAs are inspired and informed by the vaishya gRhasthI and by the saMnyAsI.
The vaishya gRhasthAs are inspired and informed by the kshatriyAs and by the brAhmaNa vAnaprastha.
The kshatriya brahmacaryAs are inspired and informed by the kshatriya gRhasthI and by the brAhmaNa gRhasthI.
The kshatriya gRhasthAs are inspired and informed by the kshatriya vAnaprastha and by the brAhmaNAs.
The brAhmaNa brahmacaryAs are inspired and informed by the brAhmaNa gRhasthI and by the kshatriya vAnaprastha.
The brAhmaNa gRhasthAs are inspired and informed by the brAhmaNa vAnaprastha.
The brAhmaNa vAnaprasthAs are inspired and informed by the saMnyAsI.
The saMnyAsAs are inspired and informed by the avadhUta.
And the avadhUtAs are inspired and informed only by shiva.

The shUdrAs are continuously born from the earth (as fallen rays of sunlight), and the dharmacakram raises them up and returns them all purified to the source (and beyond).

:grouphug: