Why do we get bored with things we initially enjoy ?

[devotee]

Namaste,

Why do we seek pleasure outside ? When we find pleasure in something ... why can't we keep doing that thing non-stop getting non-stop pleasure ? .... why do we get bored with things we initially enjoy ?

i) Does the pleasure come from the objects of pleasure ? If that was the case then it would keep coming from the object non-stop & there would have been no case of boredom. If the pleasure is a creation of mind, why an external object is required at all ?

ii) For pleasure, there must be a desire for the experience. Where does the desire come from & why ? How do we have a sense of satisfaction or a feel of enjoyment when we are fulfilling "our" desires ? Do "I" create my desires & satisfaction ? Or are they created on their own ? If there is something created within me which is making me miserable or happy without my knowledge, then certainly, there is something which is not in my control within me !

iii) Are we really basically unhappy from within ( some fault in our design) that there is an unending biological need to seek happiness outside ?

Thoughts ?

Regards.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Devotee,

The desire is compelled by karma, and when the karma is complete the desire disappears. But for so long as there is karma pending the next compulsion will surely arise in its place.

Extinguish all personal desire, and all personal karma is dissolved.

And all karma arises from the perception of dvaitam without knowing advaitam, so that by the realization of advaitam all previous karma is likewise dissolved.

In dvaitam there is satisfaction and dissatisfaction, while in advaitam there is only sat.

And the experience of that timeless equanimity is infinite pleasure in itself, without any object, without any personal desire, without reason and without end.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam sarabhanga ji

What comes first Desire or Karma?

Jai Shree Krishna

[sarabhanga]

What comes first Desire or Karma?

Namaste Ganeshprasad,

In dvaitam (the perspective of nAra), the chain of causation is endless, with past karma instigating new desires, which compel further selfish actions, which can only accumulate more karma, and the cycle repeats.

But in dvaitAdvaitam (the perspective of nArAyaNa) the first cause of karma is realized as the kAma of brahmA for brAhmI.

And in advaitam (the perspective of nara) the first cause is realized as mAyA, and all karma is dissolved, with only akAma (unintentional) shiva remaining.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Sarabhanga ji




In dvaitam (the perspective of nAra), the chain of causation is endless, with past karma instigating new desires, which compel further selfish actions, which can only accumulate more karma, and the cycle repeats.

But in dvaitAdvaitam (the perspective of nArAyaNa) the first cause of karma is realized as the kAma of brahmA for brAhmI.

And in advaitam (the perspective of nara) the first cause is realized as mAyA, and all karma is dissolved, with only akAma (unintentional) shiva remaining.


Thank you , please forgive my naivete, so that there is no question of misunderstanding on my part.

As I understand nAra in dvaitam = men

Only nArAyaNa as I know is Vishnu, lying on Ananta sesh or Sankh Gadadhari Chaturbujh.

In advaitam nara = man or Purush, eko.
please feel free to correct me


In first scenario there is no scope to know what was first desire or karma kind of like chicken or egg situation.

In second desire seems to be the cause.

In last advaita m maya is the culprit but how?


For me desires seems to be what binds us in this world and being free form them leads to cessation of Karma yet it does not answer why desire in the first place.

iccha-dvesa-samutthena
dvandva-mohena bharata
sarva-bhutani sammoham
sarge yanti parantapa

All beings in this world are in utter ignorance due to the delusion of dualities born of likes and dislikes, O Arjuna. (7.27)

yesam tv anta-gatam papam
jananam punya-karmanam
te dvandva-moha-nirmukta
bhajante mam drdha-vratah


Persons of virtuous (or unselfish) deeds, whose Karma has come to an end, become free from the delusion of dualities and worship Me with firm resolve. (7.28)

jara-marana-moksaya
mam asritya yatanti ye
te brahma tad viduh krtsnam
adhyatmam karma cakhilam


Those who strive for freedom from (the cycles of birth) old age and death by taking refuge in Me know Brahman, the individual self, and Karma in its entirety. (7.29)

Jai Shree Krishna

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste Ganeshprasad,

In dvaitam (the perspective of nAra), the chain of causation is endless, with past karma instigating new desires, which compel further selfish actions, which can only accumulate more karma, and the cycle repeats.

But in dvaitAdvaitam (the perspective of nArAyaNa) the first cause of karma is realized as the kAma of brahmA for brAhmI.

And in advaitam (the perspective of nara) the first cause is realized as mAyA, and all karma is dissolved, with only akAma (unintentional) shiva remaining.

Namaste Sarabhanga,

Excellent post, maybe one of your most clear succinct and enlightened post. It is producing great insights I am shore.
:Cool:

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Ganeshprasad,


puruSa = nAra = brAhmaNa = dvaita = vaishva = nandana = shiSya = karma = mAyA


Through the delusion of duality, born of desire and hatred, all creatures in this world are fallen prey to infatuation. [BG 7.27]


puruSa = nArAyaNa = brahmA = dvaitAdvaita = viSNu = nantavya = Isha = kAma = mAyA


But those virtuous men, whose sins are forgiven, being freed from delusion of duality, worship me with a firm resolve in every way. [BG 7.28]


puruSa = nara = brahma = advaita = shiva = ananta = sheSa = kam = satyam


Those who have taken refuge in me, striving for deliverance from old age and death, they know brahma, the whole adhyAtma, and the entire field of karma. [BG 7.29]

[devotee]

Namaste Devotee,

The desire is compelled by karma, and when the karma is complete the desire disappears. But for so long as there is karma pending the next compulsion will surely arise in its place.

Extinguish all personal desire, and all personal karma is dissolved.

And all karma arises from the perception of dvaitam without knowing advaitam, so that by the realization of advaitam all previous karma is likewise dissolved.

In dvaitam there is satisfaction and dissatisfaction, while in advaitam there is only sat.

And the experience of that timeless equanimity is infinite pleasure in itself, without any object, without any personal desire, without reason and without end.

Namaste Sarbhanga ji,

I think your post has said it all ! ( its is a very good post & hence I copied it as it is here.) Thanks. :)

IMHO,

The desire for happiness has its roots in "forgetfulness" of Non-duality with SELF. There appears an un-ending search for peace, love, happiness ... which is basically the search for the Non-dual state. Once established in Non-duality, the craving, the search ends. Because we don't know our True Nature, we keep on searching "happiness" outside where it is not really there & so the boredom comes from whatever we tend to cling to.

Regards

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Sarabhanga ji


You gave me three different answers, yet it does not satisfy my original question as to what comes first desires or Karma.

In the first perspective the answer can not be ascertained.

In the second it is desire of brahmA for brAhmI as you say.

How does this make jiva responsible for their action?

And in the third, mAya is the cause, then the question arises who is being affected by mAya?

There are no clear cut answer, what else is there to do but heed this advise from Lord Krishna.

na rupam asyeha tathopalabhyate
nanto na cadir na ca sampratistha
asvattham enam su-virudha-mulam
asanga-sastrena drdhena chittva
tatah padam tat parimargitavyam
yasmin gata na nivartanti bhuyah
tam eva cadyam purusam prapadye
yatah pravrttih prasrta purani

The real form of this tree cannot be perceived in this world. No one can understand where it ends, where it begins, or where its foundation is. But with determination one must cut down this tree with the weapon of detachment. So doing, one must seek that place from which, having once gone, one never returns, and there surrender to that Supreme Lord from whom everything has began and in whom everything is abiding since time immemorial.

Jai Shree Krishna

[sarabhanga]

You gave me three different answers, yet it does not satisfy my original question as to what comes first desires or Karma.

Namaste Ganeshprasad,

I have answered as clearly as I can, and if you cannot understand the answer there is little more that I can say on the matter. For you it seems that the origin of karma will forever remain a mystery. But when advaitam is known there is no mystery at all!




In the first perspective the answer can not be ascertained.
In the second it is desire of brahmA for brAhmI as you say.
How does this make jiva responsible for their action?

brahmA is ultimately responsible for all apparent action, but since the first birth of an individual jIva the responsibility for any subsequent actions within the frame of creation lies entirely with that jIva.

A jIva is NOT responsible for the whole of creation, but it is entirely responsible for its own particular karma, and that is called “free will”.




And in the third, mAya is the cause, then the question arises who is being affected by mAya?

In advaitam there is NO mAyA, and any question of causation becomes irrelevant.




There is no clear cut answer.

Well, I have given a clear cut answer!

[atanu]

Pranam Sarabhanga ji
---
In last advaita m maya is the culprit but how?
--
Jai Shree Krishna

Namaskar Ganeshprasad Ji,

Maya as the name itself indicates cannot be the reality and hence cannot be the culprit. Maya is realised as the culprit means something that is not Sat is the culprit.

Yet, your questions are very valid. Maya is not Asat. If it was then it would not have any effect. Advaita theory says that Maya is inexplicable -- neither Sat nor Asat, something like an image of a face on the mirror.

Shri Krishna also says Atman is indivisible and that the Truth is known in Samadhi alone.

Saying all that the following is what we (jivas in dvaita) can take as Upadesha.

na rupam asyeha tathopalabhyate
nanto na cadir na ca sampratistha
asvattham enam su-virudha-mulam
asanga-sastrena drdhena chittva
tatah padam tat parimargitavyam
yasmin gata na nivartanti bhuyah
tam eva cadyam purusam prapadye
yatah pravrttih prasrta purani

The real form of this tree cannot be perceived in this world. No one can understand where it ends, where it begins, or where its foundation is. But with determination one must cut down this tree with the weapon of detachment. So doing, one must seek that place from which, having once gone, one never returns, and there surrender to that Supreme Lord from whom everything has began and in whom everything is abiding since time immemorial.

Regards

Om

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Sarabhanga ji




I have answered as clearly as I can, and if you cannot understand the answer there is little more that I can say on the matter. For you it seems that the origin of karma will forever remain a mystery. But when advaitam is known there is no mystery at all!


I thank you for your time to answer my inane questions, I have no doubt in my mind, as you put it “when advaitam is known there is no mystery” and in my case if and when I have my union with the sweet Lord, all will be revealed.

Until such time the beginning of Karma or the first desire and why, will remain a mystery to me.




brahmA is ultimately responsible for all apparent action, but since the first birth of an individual jIva the responsibility for any subsequent actions within the frame of creation lies entirely with that jIva
A jIva is NOT responsible for the whole of creation, but it is entirely responsible for its own particular karma, and that is called “free will”..



I agree an individual jIva is responsible for its own karma, nor can it ever bring forth the creation but why would it choose this perpetual cycle of birth and death in preference to eternal bliss.






In advaitam there is NO mAyA, and any question of causation becomes irrelevant.

Yet it is apparent cause of creation as you say “And in advaitam (the perspective of nara) the first cause is realized as mAyA” .

Who has this realisation and why was he deluded?




Well, I have given a clear cut answer!


I seems I have a lot to learn and it is my own shortcoming and karma that I can not grasp this mystery, but I will keep plugging at it, may be one day the penny will drop.


Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Atanu ji




Maya as the name itself indicates cannot be the reality and hence cannot be the culprit. Maya is realised as the culprit means something that is not Sat is the culprit.




This is some thing that is very difficult to comprehend and overcome but Krishna says,

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

My divine Maya consisting of three Gunas is very difficult to overcome. Only they who surrender unto Me cross over this Maya. (7.14)




Yet, your questions are very valid. Maya is not Asat. If it was then it would not have any effect. Advaita theory says that Maya is inexplicable -- neither Sat nor Asat, something like an image of a face on the mirror.

Krishna says this is my divine energy.

it is Sat nor Asat as its ever changing nature, face of a mirror on other side has no consciousness so it can not fully satisfy the nature of jiva in grip of Maya as an example but it does come close.



Shri Krishna also says Atman is indivisible and that the Truth is known in Samadhi alone.

Saying all that the following is what we (jivas in dvaita) can take as Upadesha.

Here we agree on this note I shell go and do my daily routine and make a plea to the sweet Lord.

Jai Shree Krishna

[atanu]

Pranam Atanu ji
This is some thing that is very difficult to comprehend and overcome but Krishna says,
My divine Maya consisting of three Gunas is very difficult to overcome. Only they who surrender unto Me cross over this Maya. (7.14)
Krishna says this is my divine energy.
it is Sat nor Asat as its ever changing nature, face of a mirror on other side has no consciousness so it can not fully satisfy the nature of jiva in grip of Maya as an example but it does come close.
--
Here we agree on this note I shell go and do my daily routine and make a plea to the sweet Lord.

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaskar Ganeshprasad Ji,

It is good that we agree. IMO, it is also prudent to recognise that an advanced Yogi's status need not be same as mine. Shri Krishna himself has taught that the truth is known in Samadhi. Patanjali says that one's nature is known when all movements in mind get stilled in Samadhi. Upanishad's teach of Abheda.

And logic says that if Atman is one and indivisible then what is this me -- different from everyone? Face on the mirror is very near description (though not accurate as expected). Say, if I had no perception of touch and I was blind to immediate objects (my body), I would imagine that the face on the mirror is me. Similarly, since, the Self is imperciptible, so we see only the mind and its thoughts and believe the thoughts to be me.

Another example (used in Shiva Purana as cited by Agnideva) is of one true sun and its many many images in many ponds etc.

The truth perceived differently at different stages (as noted above by Shri Sarabhanga) is a practical reality and cannot be ignored. But the truth cannot be many.

Regards,

Om

[Bob G]

Namaste Devotee,

"why do we get bored with things we initially enjoy ?"

If we are moving with the life force nothing can bore us, whether we are scrubbing the floor or at a major religious celebration. Only the life force gives things enjoyment (so to speak) and not really the forms of those things which quickly fade away.

Om

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Devotee,

"why do we get bored with things we initially enjoy ?"

If we are moving with the life force nothing can bore us,
Om


Well said...

Boredom - the desire for desires... Tolstoy

[suresh]

Pranam Sarabhanga ji

I thank you for your time to answer my inane questions, I have no doubt in my mind, as you put it “when advaitam is known there is no mystery”

"When advaita is known...." isn't an answer but an evasion, because one is questioning the very validity of the thing to be known. When the validity of an experience itself is in question, one cannot say, 'experience it and you'll know its validity.' That's as illogical as saying, 'once the round square is known, you'll never doubt its validity,' when the very possibility of its existence is being denied, so where's the question of experiencing and then knowing it to be valid?;)

[suresh]

Yet, your questions are very valid. Maya is not Asat. If it was then it would not have any effect. Advaita theory says that Maya is inexplicable -- neither Sat nor Asat, something like an image of a face on the mirror.


We only know and experience sat and asat, so how can one be sure there's some state which is neither? Either a thing exists or it doesn't, period.

[suresh]

iii) Are we really basically unhappy from within ( some fault in our design) that there is an unending biological need to seek happiness outside ?


Most probably, yes. Pleasure is always outside, objects give us pleasure, which is why all people go after them. If happiness were an inward thing, then we'd all be staying in our rooms, experiencing bliss again and again.;) There'll be no activity, no pursuits, nothing. Obviously, that isn't the case, because people seek pleasure from outside objects, objects in the real world.

One can therefore conclude that humans are intrinsically unhappy beings (taamasa-s), and their only solution is to seek pleasure from various objects. Boredom is just a natural consequence of being taamasa jiivas.

[atanu]

We only know and experience sat and asat, so how can one be sure there's some state which is neither? Either a thing exists or it doesn't, period.

Suresh,

Why do you use "period"?

The analogy of neither Sat nor Asat has been provided. Only, if you open up a bit. What is the nature of your image in a mirror? Or what is the nature sun, appearing in two water poodles?

I will try with another example. You enter a dark room and walk across without hitting anything and you say "The room has no objects". Another man trips and says "There is a chair". After the light is put on, you say "oh, indeed there is a chair".

The truth is always the truth, but experiences may vary.

When Vedas say that the innermost sheath of a Man (who is the true one) is anandamaya, I do not have any doubt. Do you mean to say that Veda is for mis-leading humans?

Om

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Atanu ji




It is good that we agree. IMO, it is also prudent to recognise that an advanced Yogi's status need not be same as mine
Om


Lord Krishna Advises one to surrender to such advanced yogi, I have no illusion of my status and if I come across disrespectful I apologise.



Shri Krishna himself has taught that the truth is known in Samadhi. Patanjali says that one's nature is known when all movements in mind get stilled in Samadhi. Upanishad's teach of Abheda.

Lord Krishna has taught many different ways to arrive at the same truth, Bhed Abeheda vad has been with us and debated, by many advanced souls, I have no grasp of any, that is not to say I have no preference.




And logic says that if Atman is one and indivisible then what is this me -- different from everyone? Face on the mirror is very near description (though not accurate as expected). Say, if I had no perception of touch and I was blind to immediate objects (my body), I would imagine that the face on the mirror is me. Similarly, since, the Self is imperciptible, so we see only the mind and its thoughts and believe the thoughts to be me.

Advaita is very difficult to percieve in face of duality which very much apperent.

Atma and paramatma are both indiviable, only that parmatma that reside in all appears as divisable, I believe upanisad does talk about two birds on a tree.
And Krishna says

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. bg 2.12

Mind and thoughts are changing all the time yet there is within this me that remains constant which accumulates Karma, through unending desires. if I was just bundle of thoughts or budhi then all this upadhi would disappear at the time of death.



Another example (used in Shiva Purana as cited by Agnideva) is of one true sun and its many many images in many ponds etc.

There are different ways one see the same example, without the existence of many ponds one true sun is truly alone.


Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam suresh


"When advaita is known...." isn't an answer but an evasion, because one is questioning the very validity of the thing to be known. When the validity of an experience itself is in question, one cannot say, 'experience it and you'll know its validity.' That's as illogical as saying, 'once the round square is known, you'll never doubt its validity,' when the very possibility of its existence is being denied, so where's the question of experiencing and then knowing it to be valid?;)


Very good question but then the subject matter is beyond the realm of logic,

Supreme Brahman is one without a second he/she is known in many different forms.
To some he is the super soul within the heart to some he is nirvikar , nirguna and yet some see him as Bhagvan.


He is not knowable by perception, turned inward or outward, nor by both combined.
He is neither that which is known, nor that which is not known, nor is he the sum of all that might be known.
He can not be seen, grasped, bargained with.
He is undefineable, unthinkable, indescribable.
The only proof of his existence is union with him.
He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.
This is the fourth condition of the self- the most worthy of all. (Mandukya Upanishad)

Jai Shree Krishna

[atanu]

Pranam Atanu ji
Lord Krishna Advises one to surrender to such advanced yogi, I have no illusion of my status and if I come across disrespectful I apologise.


Namaskar Ganeshprasad ji,

No. No. No question of my perceiving any disrespect etc. I just pointed out that the truth can be known in different flavours at different stages.



Lord Krishna has taught many different ways to arrive at the same truth, Bhed Abeheda vad has been with us and debated, by many advanced souls, I have no grasp of any, that is not to say I have no preference.


Lord Krishna has spoken at many levels. He has said a Yogi sees all in Me and Me in all.



Advaita is very difficult to percieve in face of duality which very much apperent.

Does it prove the truth of duality as the ultimate truth? Because Advaita cannot be perceived, so Abheda srutis are important.



And Krishna says

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. bg 2.12


Yes. Krishna also says: Arjuna you and I have taken birth many times. I remember all. You do not.

Then He also says: One who knows me as unborn mahesvara knows truly.

Can you reconcile? He has taken many births but truly He is unborn?
------------

The question for everyone is: Who is born? There is a world, three dream states from Sarvesvara down and another unchanging unsleeping unborn EYE, which views these three dream states.

Regards

Om

[atanu]

Pranam Atanu ji
There are different ways one see the same example, without the existence of many ponds one true sun is truly alone.
Jai Shree Krishna

Where are the ponds without the eko?

Om

[Bob G]

Hello Ganeshprasad,

"Very good question but then the subject matter is beyond the realm of logic..."

Indeed and well said. For we are not really our minds or anything they may contain, even though we often think we are. The sayings that teach us to calm and clear our minds also mean master the mind...for we are not our individual minds or its mentations or even the vast mind...and there is That which knows this but It is not of the mind, nor does It use any power of mind to know so!

Why a calm and clear mind, (?) such becomes like a superconductor with zero resistance or blockage to the True.

Om

[devotee]

Namaste Devotee,

"why do we get bored with things we initially enjoy ?"

If we are moving with the life force nothing can bore us, whether we are scrubbing the floor or at a major religious celebration. Only the life force gives things enjoyment (so to speak) and not really the forms of those things which quickly fade away.

Om

Namaste Bob G,

Can you elaborate what you intend to indicate with the term, 'life force" ?


Most probably, yes. Pleasure is always outside, objects give us pleasure, which is why all people go after them. If happiness were an inward thing, then we'd all be staying in our rooms, experiencing bliss again and again.;) There'll be no activity, no pursuits, nothing. Obviously, that isn't the case, because people seek pleasure from outside objects, objects in the real world.

Namaste Suresh,

You have missed the point that if there was pleasure in things outside, we would have always got pleasure from those things but that is not true. As soon as your demand gets satisfied, you loose interest in that thing .... that thing cannot give you pleasure any more. This proves that the pleasure is not in the things outside.

Regards

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Atanu ji and thank you




Lord Krishna has spoken at many levels. He has said a Yogi sees all in Me and Me in all.
Om

Indeed and he also say this

This knowledge is the king of all knowledge, is the most secret, is very sacred, it can be perceived by instinct, conforms to Dharma, is very easy to practice, and is imperishable. (9.02)

This entire universe is pervaded by Me, the unmanifest Brahman. All beings depend on (or remain in) Me. I do not depend on them. (9.04)

And yet beings, in reality, do not remain in Me. Look at the power of My divine mystery. Though the sustainer and creator of all beings, I do not remain in them (9.05)

Consider that all beings remain in Me as the mighty wind, moving everywhere, eternally remains in space. (9.06)










Does it prove the truth of duality as the ultimate truth? Because Advaita cannot be perceived, so Abheda srutis are important.

No it does not prove either way.
But all srutis are important but the interpretation varies depending what school of thought one is looking at, just as Krishna says

Persons of firm resolve worship Me with ever steadfast devotion by always singing My glories, striving to attain Me, and prostrating before Me. (9.14)

Some worship Me by knowledge sacrifice. Others worship the infinite as the one in all (or non-dual), as the master of all (or dual), and in various other ways. (9.15)



Can you reconcile? He has taken many births but truly He is unborn?

Yes because unlike us he appears of his own free will, call it birth but factually the lord never takes birth like we do.

Whenever there is a decline of Dharma and the rise of Adharma, O Arjuna, then I manifest (or incarnate) Myself. I incarnate from time to time for protecting the good, for transforming the wicked, and for establishing Dharma, the world order. (4.07-08)

The one who truly understands My transcendental birth and activities , is not born again after leaving this body and attains My abode, O Arjuna. (4.09)

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Hello Ganeshprasad,

"Very good question but then the subject matter is beyond the realm of logic..."

Indeed and well said. For we are not really our minds or anything they may contain, even though we often think we are. The sayings that teach us to calm and clear our minds also mean master the mind...for we are not our individual minds or its mentations or even the vast mind...and there is That which knows this but It is not of the mind, nor does It use any power of mind to know so!

Pranam Bob ji
I thank you
Krishna confirms what you say,
The senses are said to be superior (to matter or the body), the mind is superior to the senses, the intellect is superior to the mind, and Atma is superior to the intellect. (3.42)
Thus, knowing the Atma to be superior to the intellect, and controlling the mind by the intellect (that is purified by Jnana), one must kill this mighty enemy, Kaama, O Arjuna. (3.43)





Why a calm and clear mind, (?) such becomes like a superconductor with zero resistance or blockage to the True.

Om



And it is important, with a calm mind the fog of darkness disappears.

Totally abandoning all selfish desires, and completely restraining the senses (from the sense objects) by the intellect; (6.24)

One gradually attains tranquillity of mind by keeping the mind fully absorbed in the Self by means of a well-trained (and purified) intellect, and thinking of nothing else. (6.25)

Wheresoever this restless and unsteady mind wanders away, one should (gently) bring it back to the reflection of the Supreme. (6.26)

Supreme bliss comes to a Self-realized yogi whose mind is tranquil, whose desires are under control, and who is free from sin (or faults). (6.27)



Coming back to Why do we get bored with things we initially enjoy ?
Fact is any thing temporary in nature can never satisfy the soul.
We have been simply chewing the chewed, there is no taste there but we come back for more (glutton for punishment).

Jai Shree Krishna

[atanu]

Namaskar Ganeshprasad Ji,


Pranam Atanu ji and thank you

Yes because unlike us he appears of his own free will, call it birth but factually the lord never takes birth like we do.


So, in truth he is unborn?



Whenever there is a decline of Dharma and the rise of Adharma, O Arjuna, then I manifest (or incarnate) Myself. I incarnate from time to time for protecting the good, for transforming the wicked, and for establishing Dharma, the world order. (4.07-08)

I then am compelled to understand that Lord is a bit sadist. Sorry for the implication, but it surely comes out this way. And that Lord is not present at all times but only at certain times?

And when Lord is immanent then why this need for a special descent?



And yet beings, in reality, do not remain in Me. Look at the power of My divine mystery. Though the sustainer and creator of all beings, I do not remain in them (9.05)

Surely. We had a long discussion on this. Same as the Sun is not in its images in ponds, rivers, puddles, Lord is not in the objects called bodies that are considered to be "Me" in ignorance.

This is the highest proof of Advaita Adhyasa.

Om

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Atanu ji






So, in truth he is unborn?

Yes for that there is no doubt he says very clearly in Bhagvat Gita and if you were to read Bagvat puran he first appears in his Chaturbugh form to Devki and then he transforms himself in to beautiful baby Krishna.



I then am compelled to understand that Lord is a bit sadist. Sorry for the implication, but it surely comes out this way.

I don’t know why you feel like that, this material world, due to its ever changing nature is full of pain and misery. We are here out of our own free will and can only get out if we so desire. He does not interfere but out of his compassion for us, he comes from time to time in his original form, to save us when situation goes out of control.

One can easily blame the lord and reasonably ask why create such a miserable world?

Its kind like prisoner asking why me.



And that Lord is not present at all times but only at certain times?
And when Lord is immanent then why this need for a special descent?

Of course he is present in every atom, he is so merciful that he accompanies us every where in his ParmAtma form. But we are so unfortunate that we can not see the Antaryami. We create havoc and make a mess of everything, even though he is present in theory how many of us, act as if he is there? Then he comes to cure that, how does that make him sadist?





Quote:
And yet beings, in reality, do not remain in Me. Look at the power of My divine mystery. Though the sustainer and creator of all beings, I do not remain in them (9.05)

Surely. We had a long discussion on this. Same as the Sun is not in its images in ponds, rivers, puddles, Lord is not in the objects called bodies that are considered to be "Me" in ignorance.

This is the highest proof of Advaita Adhyasa.

Sure we had gone down this road many times, and you may feel satisfied reading this verse in isolation, but very next verse says

As the mighty wind, blowing everywhere, always rests in ethereal space, know that in the same manner all beings rest in Me.(9.06)

Jai Shree Krishna

[sarabhanga]

I agree an individual jIva is responsible for its own karma, nor can it ever bring forth the creation but why would it choose this perpetual cycle of birth and death in preference to eternal bliss.



In advaitam there is NO mAyA, and any question of causation becomes irrelevant.

Yet it is apparent cause of creation as you say “And in advaitam (the perspective of nara) the first cause is realized as mAyA”.

Who has this realisation and why was he deluded?

Namaste,

sat is “being, existing, occurring, happening, being present, living, lasting, enduring, real, actual, as any one or anything ought to be, true, good, right, beautiful, wise, venerable, honest, well, or right”.

And sat refers to “that which really is, entity or existence, essence, the true being or really existent, the self-existent universal spirit, brahma, that which is good or real or true, good, advantage, reality, or truth”.

asat is “not being, not existing, not occurring, not happening, not being present, not living, not lasting, not enduring, unreal, not actual, not as any one or anything ought to be, untrue, bad, wrong, not beautiful, not wise, not venerable, not honest, not well, or unreal”.

And asat refers to “nonexistence, nonentity, unreality, absence, illusion, distortion, error, untruth, falsehood, dishonesty, ignorance, unworthiness, evil, illness, and death”.

In the dvaitam of nAra, mAyA is sat and advaitam is asat.

In the dvaitAdvaitam of nArAyaNa, sat and asat are ultimately indistinguishable and equally omnipresent and eternal.

In the advaitam of nara, mAyA and dvaitam and dvaitAdvaitam and nArAyaNa are all equally asat.

advaitam is not the cause of creation, but its full realization is the cause of true enlightenment and ultimate bliss.

[Bob G]

Hello Devotee,

You asked, "Can you elaborate what you intend to indicate with the term, 'life force" ?

Below is what I feel is a great explanation (!) via an excerpt from:

The chhandogya upanishad, commentary by Swami Krishnananda
The Divine Life Society - Sivananda Ashram, Rishikesh, India

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.swami-krishnananda.org/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.swami-krishnananda.org/images/spacer.gifChapter Three: Sanatkumara's Instructions on Bhuma-Vidya Section 15: Life

Prano vava asaya bhuyan, yatha va ara nabhau samarpitah, evam asmin prane sarvam samarpitam, pranah pranena yati, pranah pranam dadati, pranaya dadati, prano ha pita, prano mata, prano bhrata, pranah svasa, prana acaryah, prano brahmanah."Nobody can understand what life is. We utter the word 'life' many times, but we cannot explain what it means. It is not what we do daily that is called life. Though we generally identify life with our activity, it is a mistake that we commit. Life is something inscrutable. Life is really what we are. Here, it is called prana. It is not the breathing process, but the life principle itself, without which there would be neither aspiration, nor self-consciousness, nor anything for that matter. The entry of the universal into the particular is the juncture which is called life operating in our personality. It is the borderland of the infinite, where the individual expands into the expanse of the infinite and the infinite contracts itself into the finite, as it were. This particular junction is what we call life. It has the characteristics of both. Therefore, it is inscrutable. It is neither individual nor universal. We do not know what it is. We are unable to define what life is. But whatever it be, this principle of life is superior to everything else. This is what we call the reality of life. It is not merely the activity of life, the function of life, social life, or personal life or any kind of manifestation of it, but life as such. This is superior to everything. The Upanishad now tells us how inscrutable it is.
"Beyond all things, superior to all that I have told you up to this time, is life," says Sanatkumara. As spokes are fixed to the nave of a wheel, so is everything fixed to the principle of life. Whatever there is in this world, anything worthwhile, meaningful, that is nothing but prana, life. Minus life, everything is meaningless. What do we mean by saying "He is my father", "She is my mother", "She is my sister", "He is my brother"? We do not know. We are not referring to the body as father, mother, sister and brother. There is something else in them and that is the father, the mother, the brother, the sister, and so on. We ourselves do not know what we are when we speak about ourselves. Our importance vanishes when the life principle is withdrawn. We are valuable only so long as we are living. If we have no life, what are we? We are nothing. What we regard ourselves in worldly parlance, viz., the body, is not our real personality.

Sa yadi pitaram va mataram va bhrataram va svasaram va acaryam va brahmanam va kimcid-bhrsam iva pratyaha, dhik tvastvity-evainam ahuh, pitrha vai tvam asi, matraha vai tvam asi, bhratrha vai tvam asi, svasrha vai tvam asi, acaryaha vai tvam asi, brahmanaha vai tvam asiti.Why do we say that life is superior to everything, and minus life everything is valueless? The Upanishad says that if one speaks irreverently to one's father, for instance, people would say, "How stupid this person is; he talks irreverently to his own father." Similarly, if a person speaks something harsh to his mother, to his relatives, and to revered persons, good people censure him. We revere great people, we valuehumanity and we respect life in this world. This is something well-known to us. "Fie upon you," say people when we talk irreverently to elderly ones or behave in a stupid manner which would not be becoming of one in a human society. And if we behave in such a way in respect of elders, they say that it is like slaying them, or injuring them. We say, "Do not hurt people." What do we mean by this? Hurting whom? Hurting people. But what is 'people'? Surely not the body. The Upanishad here implies that we are enjoined not to hurt the life in them. The life principle in a person is affected by our reaction to that person. The manifestation of life principle in the embodiment of a particular person is what is referred to as 'a person'. A person is nothing but the life in that person, not the mere shape of that person in the form of a body. So, when we say that one has behaved in such and such a way with one's father or mother, with one's sister or brother, with this person or that person, we mean to say that one has behaved in that way with the life principle present in them, not merely with the body. But suppose the life principle has gone from the father, that revered one whom we have been worshipping. Then what happens? We simply set fire to that 'father', we throw him, we prick him with pokes in the funeral pyre. Then people do not say, "Oh, this man is burning his father." Nobody says anything like that. What happens to that father, the very same father whom we revered just a few hours before, who is just before our eyes and whom we are now setting fire to in the funeral pyre? It may be our sister, it may be our Guru, it may be anybody, it makes no difference to us. It may be an emperor whom we have been respecting so much and regarding so much, and now we throw him into the pitch and bury him in the ground, or float him in the water, or set fire to him. And everybody then says, "Very nice", "Well done". You set fire to the emperor and then say, "It is very nice"! How is it possible? Yes, it is possible, because it is a great ritual that we are performing. But when he is alive, if we do that, it is murder. It is a heinous crime. So, what is our definition of mankind or humanity or any worthwhile thing in this world? Not the body certainly. If the body was our father, we would not set fire to him in the funeral pyre, and we would not prick him with pokes as if he means nothing. Even the dearest and the nearest ones are cast aside if the life principle withdraws itself from them. So, what we love as our relatives and our dear and near ones is the life, and not the body. But we never understand this point. We say, "Oh, my father is no more." Where has he gone? He is there in the way in which he was, but we mistook him for something else. It is the principle of life that is valuable in this world, and not anything that is manifest as name and form.

Atha yady-apy-enan utkranta-pranan sulena samasam vyatisandahet naivainam bruyuh pitrhasiti, na matrhasiti, na bhratrhasiti, na svasrhasiti, na acaryahcasiti, na brahmanahasiti.The whole of life is nothing but this inscrutable thing which we call prana. This is the great reality manifesting itself in various names and forms. We mistake the names and forms for this supreme Being which is masquerading here as the objects of sense, as human beings and everything else that we see with our eyes. The supreme reality of every form of visible existence is life. It is manifested in some degree in plants, in greater degree in animals, and in still greater degree in human beings, and it has to manifest itself in still more greater degrees higher up. We have come to a point where it is very difficult to understand where exactly we are. We are in an inscrutable realm. We cannot understand still as to what we are speaking about. We think we have understood what life is, but we have not understood what it really is. It is a mystery that is operating in all names and forms. Whoever understands this mystery as the all-comprehensive Reality which is superior to all names and forms, which is infused into all names and forms, which is the Reality of even the so-called names and forms, including the name and form of our own self, is a master of Knowledge. He is called in this Upanishad as ativadi, aspecific term here indicating one who possesses surpassing knowledge and whose utterances are surpassingly true.

Prano hy-evaitani sarvani bhavati, sa va esa evam pasyan, evam manvanah, evam vijanan atvadi bhavati, tam ced bruyuh ativadyasiti, ativady-asmiti bruyat, napahnuvita.The greatest knowledge is the knowledge of life, not merely the knowledge of objects of sense. Whoever sees this Reality as it is in itself, whoever can think in this manner, whoever can understand in this way, transcends all, because here the knowledge has gone beyond all objects of sense. It has comprehended them in its own Being. And, therefore, it has become one with Truth. It is not merely a pursuit of truth that we are referring to here as knowledge, but Truth itself that has become one with knowledge. A person who has such a knowledge has really comprehended Truth, and what he speaks in such a stage of knowledge is called ativada. This term ativada means transcended speech, speech which is pregnant with truth, speech which is to materialise in life as truthfulness. Whatever a person with this knowledge speaks will get materialised in life, because the truth or the reality of all things is contained in the knowledge which this person has. Therefore, speech being an expression of one's thought and knowledge, whatever one utters becomes true in this stage of experience. And if people cannot understand him and they say to him, "You are speaking something which we cannot understand." Then he must say, "Yes, I speak something which you cannot understand, because this is a matter which is not supposed to be understood by your mind." Here, we are not in the realm of understanding of objects of sense, but we are in the realm of Being with things. So, one who is capable of attuning himself with the Being of the objects, alone can understand what the truth of this exposition is. It is true when the Upanishad speaks like this; it speaks what one cannot understand. Neither is it intended to be understood by the layman whose mind has not been adequately transformed, because here we are being led gradually from mere sensation and perception, from mentation and understanding, to the intuition of objects, wherein the objects become one with the knowing perceiver, knowing reality-the Subject.
At this stage, Narada is unable to speak. His breath is held up, as it were. He does not know what he is hearing from this great master. This master observes the silence of the disciple who now does not say as on previous occasions, "Please let me know if something more is there." He keeps quiet, his mouth is hushed and his mind has stopped thinking. He does not know what to speak. Seeing this, the master himself starts pursuing the subject further without being accosted by the disciple."

Om

[Bob G]

Hello Ganeshprasad,

An Excellent quote by you: "The senses are said to be superior (to matter or the body), the mind is superior to the senses, the intellect is superior to the mind, and Atma is superior to the intellect. (3.42)"

I often use the term "mind" to include all of the categories described above. Thus where Atma (or indivdual soul) fades away is the threshold to Atman.

Om

[Nuno Matos]

Namaaste Bob,

Yes! Mind would be the correct word to describe de first two Koshas.


Om Namah Shivaya!

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste,

Yoga Sutra by sage Patanjali

Chpt I SamAdhi PAda,
Aph XXI;

" TIvra-samvegAnAm Asannah. "

SamAdhi is close to the ones who wish them so.

Any comments?

[sarabhanga]

Either a thing exists or it doesn't, period.




When advaitam is known there is no mystery at all!

puruSa = nara = brahma = advaita = shiva = ananta = sheSa = kam = satyam

Those who have taken refuge in me, striving for deliverance from old age and death, they know brahma, the whole adhyAtma, and the entire field of karma. [BG 7.29]

A thing is born or created and later dies or is destroyed. It was “non-existent”, then it is “existent”, then it will be “non-existent”. And it “exists” only in a relative sense, for a certain period of time.

However, the one unborn immortal and infinite Being itself has an eternal reality, beyond any conception of time.

[atanu]

Namaskar Ganeshprasad Ji,


Pranam Atanu ji
Yes for that there is no doubt he says very clearly in Bhagvat Gita and if you were to read Bagvat puran he first appears in his Chaturbugh form to Devki and then he transforms himself in to beautiful baby Krishna.



So, we agree that the truth of Lord Krishna is the unborn. That same has many views (and who has the cognitive power to view?).



I don’t know why you feel like that, this material world, due to its ever changing nature is full of pain and misery. We are here out of our own free will and can only get out if we so desire. He does not interfere but out of his compassion for us, he comes from time to time in his original form, to save us when situation goes out of control.

One can easily blame the lord and reasonably ask why create such a miserable world?

Its kind like prisoner asking why me.

Answer is there in the above agreement. For some it is necessary to believe that He will descend. But likes of Prahlad know that He is there in a wall also.

What will descend will ascend also. What is eternal does not leave.




Of course he is present in every atom, he is so merciful that he accompanies us every where in his ParmAtma form. But we are so unfortunate that we can not see the Antaryami. We create havoc and make a mess of everything, even though he is present in theory how many of us, act as if he is there? Then he comes to cure that, how does that make him sadist?


I agree. I do believe that Lord's forms are Karuna Avatara forms.



Sure we had gone down this road many times, and you may feel satisfied reading this verse in isolation, but very next verse says

As the mighty wind, blowing everywhere, always rests in ethereal space, know that in the same manner all beings rest in Me.(9.06)


Again I agree. Yes, it is very well known that the mighty wind rests on mighty ether called 'Kh', which again rests on Atman -- pure consciousness, the vertical eye that enlivens the three states of existence and three heavens. All things are in it yet nothing is in it. It alone IS.

'Kh' is reachd at the end of OM, where one can tangibly feel the calm unlimited bodyless Shantam. The Atman has the tangible feel but is the intangible indescribable shivo advaita.


Regards. Pranam.

Om

[atanu]

Pranam suresh
Very good question but then the subject matter is beyond the realm of logic,

Supreme Brahman is one without a second he/she is known in many different forms.
To some he is the super soul within the heart to some he is nirvikar , nirguna and yet some see him as Bhagvan.

He is not knowable by perception, turned inward or outward, nor by both combined.
He is neither that which is known, nor that which is not known, nor is he the sum of all that might be known.
He can not be seen, grasped, bargained with.
He is undefineable, unthinkable, indescribable.
The only proof of his existence is union with him.
He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.
This is the fourth condition of the self- the most worthy of all. (Mandukya Upanishad)

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaskar Ganesh Prasad Ji,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Jai Shree Krishna
Om Namah Shivaya

[devotee]

Namaste Bob G,

Thanks for a very good post ! :)

Namaste Suresh,

[Either a thing exists or it doesn't, period.]

Can you clearly define what is existence & what is Non-existence ?

Regards

[suresh]

I will try with another example. You enter a dark room and walk across without hitting anything and you say "The room has no objects". Another man trips and says "There is a chair". After the light is put on, you say "oh, indeed there is a chair".

Namaste Atanu,

Sorry, but I do not see how this analogy helps in establishing that there's a state beyond sat and asat. Either the chair exists or it doesn't, that's all this analogy proves.


When Vedas say that the innermost sheath of a Man (who is the true one) is anandamaya, I do not have any doubt. Do you mean to say that Veda is for mis-leading humans? Veda says many things, and if we take them literally, we'll be in trouble.

[suresh]

Pranam suresh
Very good question but then the subject matter is beyond the realm of logic,


Namaste GP,

One trying to prove the existence of a round square may also say the same thing. Since the subject matter is beyond the realms of logic, we must accept the round sqaure as true, even if there isn't any proof whatsoever.;)

If this were standard Vedic practice, then why does our tradition stress on pramaana again and again? If this subject matter is beyond logic and reasoning, it's tantamount to saying our tradition contains a vast literature all aimed at proving a single point: that there is no proof or logic for anything written in the literature!:)

[suresh]

Namaste Bob G,

Thanks for a very good post ! :)

Namaste Suresh,

[Either a thing exists or it doesn't, period.]

Can you clearly define what is existence & what is Non-existence ?

Regards

Namaste Devotee,

Existence is that which is an object of knowledge. E.g. World. That which isn't is non-existence, such as round square etc. To say that there's something which is neither or both is an assertion without factual basis.

[sarabhanga]

that there's a state beyond sat and asat

Namaste Suresh,


dvaitam = nAra = sAti
dvaitAdvaitam = nArAyaNamAye = satAsatI
advaitam = nara = sat

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu,

Sorry, but I do not see how this analogy helps in establishing that there's a state beyond sat and asat. Either the chair exists or it doesn't, that's all this analogy proves.


Namaskar Suresh,

I have a feel that your original queston might be hinting of a deeper thing than is apparent. But I am not sure. Let the time take its own course.

However coming to the present question. I did not say that there is a third state that is beyond. But there is definitely a state of mind which is mere perception of a thing and not the thing-in-itself. Funny really. You are saying what I am saying. Yes, there is either a chair or there is no chair. But, depending on mere perception, in darkness, one says there is no chair in the room.

Similarly with our limited perception, we do not hear certain wavelengths which dogs and cats hear. So, can we really say that those sounds do not exist? We are saying the same thing that only the Sat is existence and true. And what is existence and true cannot be true one day and false another day. The so-called observation, obtained based on some limited perception, is declared true. But under certain other conditions the same truth may become false. These perceptions are neither truth nor untruth, but perceptions only.




Veda says many things, and if we take them literally, we'll be in trouble.

Then take it as you wish. Take anandamaya kosha as dukkhamaya kosha.

How do you enjoy or abhor some of your dream objects? There is no external light, yet you can see bright bodies of bright colours.

Om

[suresh]

Namaste Suresh,

dvaitam = nAra = sAti
dvaitAdvaitam = nArAyaNamAye = satAsatI
advaitam = nara = sat

Namaste Sarabhanga,

I am afraid I don't understand this equation. Could you explain a bit more?

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Suresh


Namaste GP,

One trying to prove the existence of a round square may also say the same thing. Since the subject matter is beyond the realms of logic, we must accept the round sqaure as true, even if there isn't any proof whatsoever.;)

If this were standard Vedic practice, then why does our tradition stress on pramaana again and again? If this subject matter is beyond logic and reasoning, it's tantamount to saying our tradition contains a vast literature all aimed at proving a single point: that there is no proof or logic for anything written in the literature!:)

Rishis through their extreme tapsya realised the truth which is revealed in Vedas .
I can describe to you the taste of mangoe but no amount of description will give you the satisfaction until you taste it your self. In other words the taste is beyond words, what to speak of the supreme who is beyond this trigunatic world.
The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Sarbhanga ji


Namaste,

advaitam is not the cause of creation, but its full realization is the cause of true enlightenment and ultimate bliss.

With due respect, I find this very difficult to understand. By defination advaita means there is no second, so I ask whose need is there to be realised?
There is no one else but eko and the eko is never deluded so whose seeking the sat?
I ask this without any chalange, i have no axe to grind with the different concepts that does exist in Hindu Dharma.

Jai Shree Krishna

[devotee]

Namaste Devotee,

Existence is that which is an object of knowledge. E.g. World. That which isn't is non-existence, such as round square etc.

Namaste Suresh,

If that definition is correct then the following should be true.

"Dinosaurus is an object of knowledge, right ? So it should be existent."

Which is not correct. So the definition is not really correct. Therefore the question remains, what is existence ?

Let's ask the question in a different way : If I see something, does it exist ? Or if I feel the touch of something, does it exist ? Or, if I smell something, does it exist ?

Again, if there is something which I am not able to see, smell, touch, taste or hear, can I say that it doesn't exist ?

Regards

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Sarabhanga ji


A thing is born or created and later dies or is destroyed. It was “non-existent”, then it is “existent”, then it will be “non-existent”. And it “exists” only in a relative sense, for a certain period of time.

This apply to the material creation and the deha of jivas, that takes birth but the eternal soul that occupies the body is eternal as Krishna describes in Bhagvat Gita chapter two,

There was never a time when I, you, or these kings did not exist; nor shall we ever cease to exist in the future. (2.12)

Just as the Atma acquires a childhood body, a youth body, and an old age body during this life, similarly Atma acquires another body after death. The wise are not deluded by this. (See also 15.08 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%2015.08)) (2.13)

The contacts of the senses with the sense objects give rise to the feelings of heat and cold, and pain and pleasure. They are transitory and impermanent. Therefore, (learn to) endure them, O Arjuna. (2.14)

Because the calm person, who is not afflicted by these feelings and is steady in pain and pleasure, becomes fit for immortality, O Arjuna. (2.15)

There is no nonexistence of the Sat (or Atma) and no existence of the Asat. The reality of these two is indeed certainly seen by the seers of truth. (2.16)

Know That, by which all this is pervaded, to be indestructible. No one can destroy the indestructible (Atma) . (2.17)

Bodies of the eternal, imperishable, and incomprehensible soul are said to be perishable. Therefore, fight, O Arjuna. (2.18)

The one who thinks that Atma is a slayer, and the one who thinks that Atma is slain, both are ignorant, because Atma neither slays nor is slain. (2.19)

The Atma is neither born nor does it die at any time, nor having been it will cease to exist again. It is unborn, eternal, permanent, and primeval. The Atma is not destroyed when the body is destroyed. (2.20)

O Arjuna, how can a person who knows that the Atma is indestructible, eternal, unborn, and imperishable, kill anyone or cause anyone to be killed? (2.21)

Just as a person puts on new garments after discarding the old ones, similarly Atma acquires new bodies after casting away the old bodies. (2.22)


If individual soul has a beginning and end then there is no question of carrying on. Krishna here is describing the state of Atma that resides in this body, and says in no uncertain terms, that it is eternal, imperishable.


Jai Shree Krishna

[sarabhanga]

I am afraid I don't understand this equation. Could you explain a bit more?
Namaste Suresh,

In this thread (and very many others) I have done nothing but repeatedly explain this one equation ~ expanding from the one, through diverse visions of the many, and back again to the one, and revealing the auspicious steps of shrI kailAsa from numerous perspectives.

Please re-consider the explanation already presented in this thread.


Desire is compelled by karma, and when the karma is complete the desire disappears. But for so long as there is karma pending the next compulsion will surely arise in its place.

Extinguish all personal desire, and all personal karma is dissolved.

And all karma arises from the perception of dvaitam without knowing advaitam, so that by the realization of advaitam all previous karma is likewise dissolved.


In dvaitam there is satisfaction and dissatisfaction, while in advaitam there is only sat.

And the experience of that timeless equanimity is infinite pleasure in itself, without any object, without any personal desire, without reason and without end.

advaitam is not the cause of creation, but its full realization is the cause of true enlightenment and ultimate bliss.

A thing is born or created and later dies or is destroyed. It was “non-existent”, then it is “existent”, then it will be “non-existent”. And it “exists” only in a relative sense, for a certain period of time.

However, the one unborn immortal and infinite Being itself has an eternal reality, beyond any conception of time.

brahmA is ultimately responsible for all apparent action, but since the first birth of an individual jIva the responsibility for any subsequent actions within the frame of creation lies entirely with that jIva.

In advaitam there is no mAyA, and any question of causation becomes irrelevant.


In dvaitam (the perspective of nAra), the chain of causation is endless, with past karma instigating new desires, which compel further selfish actions, which can only accumulate more karma, and the cycle repeats.

But in dvaitAdvaitam (the perspective of nArAyaNa) the first cause of karma is realized as the kAma of brahmA for brAhmI.

And in advaitam (the perspective of nara) the first cause is realized as mAyA, and all karma is dissolved, with only akAma (unintentional) shiva remaining.


puruSa = nAra = brAhmaNa = dvaita = vaishva = nandana = shiSya = karma = mAyA
Through the delusion of duality, born of desire and hatred, all creatures in this world are fallen prey to infatuation. ~ [BG 7.27]

puruSa = nArAyaNa = brahmA = dvaitAdvaita = viSNu = nantavya = Isha = kAma = mAyA
But those virtuous men, whose sins are forgiven, being freed from delusion of duality, worship me with a firm resolve in every way. ~ [BG 7.28]

puruSa = nara = brahma = advaita = shiva = ananta = sheSa = kam = satyam
Those who have taken refuge in me, striving for deliverance from old age and death, they know brahma, the whole adhyAtma, and the entire field of karma. ~ [BG 7.29]

When advaitam is known there is no mystery at all!


sat is “being, existing, occurring, happening, being present, living, lasting, enduring, real, actual, as any one or anything ought to be, true, good, right, beautiful, wise, venerable, honest, well, or right”.

And sat refers to “that which really is, entity or existence, essence, the true being or really existent, the self-existent universal spirit, brahma, that which is good or real or true, good, advantage, reality, or truth”.

asat is “not being, not existing, not occurring, not happening, not being present, not living, not lasting, not enduring, unreal, not actual, not as any one or anything ought to be, untrue, bad, wrong, not beautiful, not wise, not venerable, not honest, not well, or unreal”.

And asat refers to “nonexistence, nonentity, unreality, absence, illusion, distortion, error, untruth, falsehood, dishonesty, ignorance, unworthiness, evil, illness, and death”.


In the dvaitam of nAra, mAyA is sat and advaitam is asat.

In the dvaitAdvaitam of nArAyaNa, sat and asat are ultimately indistinguishable and equally omnipresent and eternal.

In the advaitam of nara, mAyA and dvaitam and dvaitAdvaitam and nArAyaNa are all equally asat.


dvaitam = nAra = sAti

dvaitAdvaitam = nArAyaNamAye = satAsatI

advaitam = nara = sat

[sarabhanga]

I find this very difficult to understand.

Namaste Ganeshprasad,

“I can describe to you the taste of mango, but no amount of description will give you the satisfaction until you taste it your self.”




By definition advaita means there is no second, so I ask whose need is there to be realized?

It is the apparent need of every apparently divided jIva to realize the absolute unity that has apparently been lost.




There is no one else but eko and the eko is never deluded so whose seeking the sat?

sAti (nAra) is always seeking the sat (shiva), but the mAyA of prajApati (nArAyaNa) denies the possibility of any such communion. And only bhairava, the kapAlin, knows the way to ultimate salvation.

advaitam is not the cause of creation, but its full realization is the cause of true enlightenment and ultimate bliss.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Ganeshprasad,

sarve vayam (“all of us”) is the advaita puruSa of nara, the paramAtmA that is sadAshiva, which is sat. And only sat is avinAsI (“imperishable”). And the sharIrI (“embodied soul”) is truly immeasurable and eternal.

The seers of truth, having observed both sat and asat, have concluded that only sat is eternal and that asat cannot endure.

The advaita puruSa is aja and amRta and ahantva.

And the AtmA that appears to reside in the various bodies of nAra is in truth only the one unborn and immortal, never divided, never changing, never ending corpus of nara.

[sarabhanga]

The one unborn, immortal, never divided, never changing, never ending corpus of nara.



liṅgāṣṭakam


brahmamurārisurārcitaliṅgaṁ nirmalabhāsitaśobhitaliṅgam |
janmajaduḥkhavināśakaliṅgaṁ tatpraṇamāmi sadāśivaliṅgam || 1 ||

devamunipravarārcitaliṅgaṁ kāmadahaṁkaruṇākaraliṅgam |
rāvaṇadarpavināśanaliṅgaṁ tatpraṇamāmi sadāśivaliṅgam || 2 ||

sarvasugandhisulepitaliṅgaṁ buddhivivardhanakāraṇaliṅgam |
siddhasurāsuravanditaliṅgaṁ tatpraṇamāmi sadāśivaliṅgam || 3 ||

kanakamahāmaṇibhūṣitaliṅgaṁ phanipativeṣṭitaśobhitaliṅgam |
dakṣasuyajñavināśanaliṅgaṁ tatpraṇamāmi sadāśivaliṅgam || 4 ||

kuṅkumacandanalepitaliṅgaṁ paṅkajahārasuśobhitaliṅgam |
sañcitapāpavināśanaliṅgaṁ tatpraṇamāmi sadāśivaliṅgam || 5 ||

devagaṇārcitasevitaliṅgaṁ bhāvairbhaktibhirevacaliṅgam |
dinakarakoṭiprabhākaraliṅgaṁ tatpraṇamāmi sadāśivaliṅgam || 6 ||

aṣṭadalopariveṣṭitaliṅgaṁ sarvasamudbhavakāraṇaliṅgam |
aṣṭadaridravināśitaliṅgaṁ tatpraṇamāmi sadāśivaliṅgam || 7 ||

suragurusuravarapūjitaliṅgaṁ suravanapuṣpasadārcitaliṅgam |
parātparaṁparamātmakaliṅgaṁ tatpraṇamāmi sadāśivaliṅgam || 8 ||


liṅgāṣṭakamidaṁ puṇyaṁ yaḥ paṭhet śivasannidhau |
śivalokamavāpnoti śivena saha modate ||

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Sarabhanga ji And Atanu ji and all


Both of you have given me compelling arguments on advaita and I thank you all for that and to bear with me.

I have given due respect to all Vedic concepts that do exist in our dharma and I shell continue to do so, but at the end of the day all concepts disappear when true experienced is had, and as you remind me the taste is in pudding, I endavour to continue in my journey to reach that following Dharma.


liṅgāṣṭakamidaṁ puṇyaṁ yaḥ paṭhet śivasannidhau |
śivalokamavāpnoti śivena saha modate ||


Jai Shree Krishna

[Bob G]

Hello Ganeshprasad,


"If individual soul has a beginning and end then there is no question of carrying on. Krishna here is describing the state of Atma that resides in this body, and says in no uncertain terms, that it is eternal, imperishable"

In the context of Param-atman there is no beginning or ending...many created souls but only one Param-atman. Yes?

Om

[atanu]

Pranam Sarabhanga ji And Atanu ji and all
---
I have given due respect to all Vedic concepts that do exist in our dharma and I shell continue to do so, but at the end of the day all concepts disappear when true experienced is had, and as you remind me the taste is in pudding, I endavour to continue in my journey to reach that following Dharma.

liṅgāṣṭakamidaṁ puṇyaṁ yaḥ paṭhet śivasannidhau |
śivalokamavāpnoti śivena saha modate ||

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam Ganeshprasad Ji,

Nicely said. Lord is Advaita -- no school denies that. And all schools agree that Atman must be known. That is a good common goal of sanatana dharma.

I wish to point out three things.

There was never a time when I, you, or these kings did not exist; nor shall we ever cease to exist in the future. (2.12)

Because you have said that both Param Atman and Jiva Atman are immortal, let us ponder that what tag attaches to this immortal Jiva Atman as it roams from body to body. What is its name, what is its form and how does it differ from Param Atman in terms of these tags?

I am not forcing an answer but requesting contemplation only.

I know you will specify a few tags, but I will request you to reconsider whether those tags are immortal or not. While pondering, we may keep in mind that the tags of name and form accompany us in Waking and in Dreaming only. In Deep Sleep, the Atman remains alone without the tags.

Second. When Lord speaks of Yogis who see Lord (Self) in oneself and oneself in Lord (Self), He is speaking of a level. When He tells Arjuna that I and you have had many births, He is speaking at another level. And this business of birth is negated with the verse "Those know me truly who know me as unborn mahesvara."

Third, Atman, whether Param or Jiva, is not divisible. So, what differentiates Param and Jiva Atman must be a few tags made up of Gunas. And we know from Shruti that these Tags are ever chageable and made of mind material (thoughts).

The whole exercise, as per Advaita Gurus, is to brush aside these Guna tags, and know that which is never untrue and which is NOT TWO.

Difficult task indeed.


Thanks. Regards.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Bob G


Hello Ganeshprasad,


"If individual soul has a beginning and end then there is no question of carrying on. Krishna here is describing the state of Atma that resides in this body, and says in no uncertain terms, that it is eternal, imperishable"

In the context of Param-atman there is no beginning or ending...many created souls but only one Param-atman. Yes?

Om



Yes Parmatma is one that permeates the whole creation has no beginning or end.

avibhaktam ca bhutesu
vibhaktam iva ca sthitam
bhuta-bhartr ca taj jneyam
grasisnu prabhavisnu ca

Although the Supersoul appears to be divided, He is never divided. He is situated as one. Although He is the maintainer of every living entity, it is to be understood that He devours and develops all. (13.07)

Query is what is the position of jiva in relation to Parmatma ?

Are we eternal being ? Here is what Krishna says

There are two entities in this world: the perishable and the imperishable. (The bodies of) all beings are perishable, and the Atma is imperishable. (15.16)

There is another supreme spirit called Ishvara or Paramaatma, the indestructible Lord who pervades the three worlds and sustains them. (15.17)

I am beyond the perishable body, and higher than the imperishable Atma; therefore, I am known in this world and in the Vedas as Purushottama. (15.18)

The wise one, who truly knows Me as the Purushottama, knows everything and worships (or surrenders unto) Me wholeheartedly, O Arjuna. (See also 7.14, 14.26, and 18.66) (15.19)

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Atanu ji


Pranam Ganeshprasad Ji,

Nicely said. Lord is Advaita -- no school denies that. And all schools agree that Atman must be known. That is a good common goal of sanatana dharma.


Yes



I wish to point out three things.

There was never a time when I, you, or these kings did not exist; nor shall we ever cease to exist in the future. (2.12)

Because you have said that both Param Atman and Jiva Atman are immortal, let us ponder that what tag attaches to this immortal Jiva Atman as it roams from body to body. What is its name, what is its form and how does it differ from Param Atman in terms of these tags?

So far so good.



I am not forcing an answer but requesting contemplation only.

This is the true sprit of Sanatan Dharma , there is no compulsion.



I know you will specify a few tags, but I will request you to reconsider whether those tags are immortal or not. While pondering, we may keep in mind that the tags of name and form accompany us in Waking and in Dreaming only. In Deep Sleep, the Atman remains alone without the tags.

Agreed.




Second. When Lord speaks of Yogis who see Lord (Self) in oneself and oneself in Lord (Self), He is speaking of a level. When He tells Arjuna that I and you have had many births, He is speaking at another level. And this business of birth is negated with the verse "Those know me truly who know me as unborn mahesvara."

Agreed but he says this also

ajo 'pi sann avyayatma
bhutanam isvaro 'pi san
prakrtim svam adhisthaya
sambhavamy atma-mayaya

Though I am eternal, imperishable, and the Lord of all beings; yet I (voluntarily) manifest by controlling My own material nature using My Yoga-Maya. (See also 10.14) (4.06)



Third, Atman, whether Param or Jiva, is not divisible. So, what differentiates Param and Jiva Atman must be a few tags made up of Gunas. And we know from Shruti that these Tags are ever chageable and made of mind material (thoughts).
The whole exercise, as per Advaita Gurus, is to brush aside these Guna tags, and know that which is never untrue and which is NOT TWO.

Difficult task indeed.


Although we may understand this a bit differently or may be not, you ask what differntiate jiva and Param and my answer is very simple. Param is never deluded but I am. When tags disappears truth is known.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Bob G]

Hello Ganeshprasad,

To me your quote more or less answers your query, as in:

"Query is what is the position of jiva in relation to Parmatma?"
Paramatman or "He devours and develops all. (13.07)". (in a manner of speaking)

Thus in my pov Paramatman is not limited to the golden soul body, divine forms, cosmic time and space, or the very highest of heavens - which are related to the limits of existence and also the final boundaries that individual souls can not cross. (which includes the soul bodies of the Gods) Thus Paramatman meets Paramatman when that boundary is crossed via leaving any and all types of soul body-identification behind, although Paramatman never really left or went anywhere; and only that is the complete satisfaction and happiness. (which is not found in even the highest heaven)

Om

[atanu]

Hello Ganeshprasad,
---
"Query is what is the position of jiva in relation to Parmatma?"
Paramatman or "He devours and develops all. (13.07)". (in a manner of speaking)
-
Om

Pranam Bob,

But Upanishads say: He neither devours nor is eaten.

Om

[atanu]

Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,


Pranam Atanu ji
ajo 'pi sann avyayatma
bhutanam isvaro 'pi san
prakrtim svam adhisthaya
sambhavamy atma-mayaya

Though I am eternal, imperishable, and the Lord of all beings; yet I (voluntarily) manifest by controlling My own material nature using My Yoga-Maya. (See also 10.14) (4.06)


Agreed. No problem here at least to my understanding. Only problem is the use of the word 'material nature' (used by the translator, who I feel has something to prove of his own material nature). That is why I have asked 'what is prakriti' in another thread.



Although we may understand this a bit differently or may be not, you ask what differntiate jiva and Param and my answer is very simple. Param is never deluded but I am. When tags disappears truth is known.


Yes, here we may have apparent difference. The one who thinks to be deluded, knows that one is deluded. This is knowing and only the Sat is the knower -- there is no second being who knows. The feeling of being deluded is a feeling.

Sat is there. The knowing is there. Only the Ananda is apparently missing.

Om

[Bob G]

following Om in creative emanation "develops", (cosmic creation)
following Om in reverse of emanation "devours". (cosmic dissolution)

In a manner of speaking

[atanu]

Pranam Bob G
Yes Parmatma is one that permeates the whole creation has no beginning or end.

avibhaktam ca bhutesu
vibhaktam iva ca sthitam
bhuta-bhartr ca taj jneyam
grasisnu prabhavisnu ca

Although the Supersoul appears to be divided, He is never divided. He is situated as one. Although He is the maintainer of every living entity, it is to be understood that He devours and develops all. (13.07)

Query is what is the position of jiva in relation to Parmatma ?
----
There are two entities in this world: the perishable and the imperishable. (The bodies of) all beings are perishable, and the Atma is imperishable. (15.16)

There is another supreme spirit called Ishvara or Paramaatma, the indestructible Lord who pervades the three worlds and sustains them. (15.17)

I am beyond the perishable body, and higher than the imperishable Atma; therefore, I am known in this world and in the Vedas as Purushottama. (15.18)
-
Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste Ganeshprasd ji,

WRT, "I am beyond the perishable body, and higher than the imperishable Atma; therefore, I am known in this world and in the Vedas as Purushottama. (15.18)", again I say that the translator is trying to force his own material nature on the verse. If you see the original verse you will see just "the imperishable Kutastha" and not "the impershable Atman". Advaitins understand this imperishable to be the moola prakriti (which indeed is the second Atman -- mind of the Self/Atman called Death). Please see below the original verses.

Dwaavimau purushau loke ksharashchaakshara eva cha;
Ksharah sarvaani bhootaani kootastho’kshara uchyate.

16. Two Purushas there are in this world, the perishable and the imperishable. All beings are the perishable, and the Kutastha is called the imperishable.

Uttamah purushastwanyah paramaatmetyudaahritah;
Yo lokatrayamaavishya bibhartyavyaya ishwarah.

17. But distinct is the Supreme Purusha called the highest Self, the indestructible Lord who, pervading the three worlds, sustains them.

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

You will see that the two purushas are perishable and imperishable. The imperishable one is called Kutastha (the reflection of Atman called the mind/intellect). Lord has not used the word: Atman, which He himself is -- the highest. Yet, in fact Uttama Purusha is Sat and Asat. Atman is Sat. The simple fact is that there may be a doubt as to whether Shri Krishna exists or not -- there is no way to prove it. But there is no way to disprove the existence of the "I am" (please do not consider this heretic. The intelligence itself is the highest and what is beyond the highest).

Aitreya Upanishad says: Atman alone was there. It created five categories and built up Purusha from the waters.

Om

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Ganeshprasad,

Titles such as puruSottama, bhUtesha, and Ishvara, refer particularly to nArAyaNa.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Atanu ji
Let me please clear one thing, I have not used translation from your favourite person you know who, but from translator, Dr. Ramanand Prasad, of the American Gita Society.

If you are really interested here is it is.

Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all sentient beings, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form. (4.06)
dvau--two; imau--in this (world); purusau--living entities; loke--in the world; ksarah--fallible; ca--and; aksarah--infallible; eva--certainly; ca--and; ksarah--the fallible; sarvani--all; bhutani--living entities; kuta-sthah--in oneness; aksarah--infallible; ucyate--is said.

TRANSLATION
There are two classes of beings, the fallible and the infallible. In the material world every entity is fallible, and in the spiritual world every entity is called infallible.
uttamah--the best; purusah--personality; tu--but; anyah--another; parama--the supreme; atma--self; iti--thus; udahrtah--is said; yah--one who; loka--of the universe; trayam--the three divisions; avisya--entering; bibharti--maintaining; avyayah--inexhaustible; isvarah--the Lord.

TRANSLATION
Besides these two, there is the greatest living personality, the Lord Himself, who has entered into these worlds and is maintaining them.
yasmat--because; ksaram--the fallible; atitah--transcendental; aham--I; aksarat--from the infallible; api--better than that; ca--and; uttamah--the best; atah--therefore; asmi--I am; loke--in the world; vede--in the Vedic literature; ca--and; prathitah--celebrated; purusa-uttamah--as the Supreme Personality.

TRANSLATION
Because I am transcendental, beyond both the fallible and the infallible, and because I am the greatest, I am celebrated both in the world and in the Vedas as that Supreme Person. (15. 16/17/18.)


Jai Shree Krishna

[atanu]

Pranam Atanu ji
Let me please clear one thing, I have not used translation from your favourite person you know who, but from translator, Dr. Ramanand Prasad, of the American Gita Society.

If you are really interested here is it is.

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam Ganeshprasad Ji,

Did I annoy you? I am sorry. I was a bit hasty. I just wished to show that the word Atman has not been used in the said original verse and the actual word for the imperishable is Kutastha. I know the translations that you posted earlier was not of Shri Prabhupada. At the same time Dr. Ramanand Prasad's translation that I have differs a bit from your original citation. In the translation that I have, he uses the word Spirit instead of Atman as below.


There are two entities in the cosmos: The changeable Temporal Beings, and the unchangeable Eternal Being (Spirit). All created beings are subject to change, but the Spirit does not change. (15.16)
------------------------------------------
I just pointed out that in the said verse the imperishable to which Lord is higher is not Atman but the Kutastha as below:

15.16 Dwaavimau purushau loke ksharashchaakshara eva cha;
Ksharah sarvaani bhootaani kootastho’kshara uchyate.

15. 16. Two Purushas there are in this world, the perishable and the imperishable. All beings are the perishable, and the Kutastha is called the imperishable.

Regards

Om

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Atanu ji


Pranam Ganeshprasad Ji,

Did I annoy you? I am sorry. I was a bit hasty. I just wished to show that the word Atman has not been used in the said original verse and the actual word for the imperishable is Kutastha. I know the translations that you posted earlier was not of Shri Prabhupada. At the same time Dr. Ramanand Prasad's translation that I have differs a bit from your original citation. In the translation that I have, he uses the word Spirit instead of Atman as below.



Om


No my friend I am not annoyed at all I was just pointing what I had used as my translation.

And it does not matter weather what translation we prefer, fact of the matter is Krishna says there are two beings in this world, a perishable which is this mortal body and imperishable sprit as you say and he says he is higher then both.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Atanu ji



The simple fact is that there may be a doubt as to whether Shri Krishna exists or not -- there is no way to prove it. But there is no way to disprove the existence of the "I am" (please do not consider this heretic. The intelligence itself is the highest and what is beyond the highest).

I know you are metaphorically speaking, but now i am begining to understand why there is so much antagonism between different sects.

Jai Shree Krishna

[atanu]

Pranam Atanu ji

No my friend I am not annoyed at all I was just pointing what I had used as my translation.

And it does not matter weather what translation we prefer, fact of the matter is Krishna says there are two beings in this world, a perishable which is this mortal body and imperishable sprit as you say and he says he is higher then both.
Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,

That is not a problem at all. I only objected to equating Kutashtha as Atman, with the implication that Shri Krishna was higher than the Self (the implication is not from you, but there is a school who do it). The embodied Lord Krishna cannot be devoid of the Self.



I know you are metaphorically speaking, but now i am begining to understand why there is so much antagonism between different sects.

I am speaking only that which Lord Krishna says: I am the Self, Arjuna. There is no reason to fear antagonism. The whole Gita is told in the backdrop of antagonism. Dialectical war between Deva and Asura forces will never wane, in two states of Taijjassa and Vaisvanaro. It is actually Prajapati's war to win immortality.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

Dwaavimau purushau loke ksharashchaakshara eva cha;
Ksharah sarvaani bhootaani kootastho’kshara uchyate.

16. Two Purushas there are in this world, the perishable and the imperishable. All beings are the perishable, and the Kutastha is called the imperishable.

Uttamah purushastwanyah paramaatmetyudaahritah;
Yo lokatrayamaavishya bibhartyavyaya ishwarah.

17. But distinct is the Supreme Purusha called the highest Self, the indestructible Lord who, pervading the three worlds, sustains them.

Namaskar Ganeshprasad Ji,

There is no problem at all that in the World, Jiva (imperishable) and prakritic entitities are pervaded and ruled by Supreme Lord, Ishwara -- the Prajna of the Turya. But we have seen, very definitely, that the Turya is ONE and Atman.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Ishwara (equivalent of Sarvesvara Prajna) pervades and rules the world soul Hiranyagarbha BrahmA (equivalent of Taijjassa). Turya is beyond the world. For the beings in Taijjassa and Vaisvanaro, the intentless Turya, wherein actually there is no inner and outer, is Ishwara -- in his three aspects of creation, maintenance, and destruction.

Hiranyagarbha BrahmA is from Narayana. Many here are a bit uncomfortable that Advaita Atman/Turya/Nara/Shiva is placed transcendentally to Narayana. They point out that "Narayana alone was there. There was no Ishana no BrahmA." Usually, Ishana is considered to be Shiva so the problem of perception arises. But the same passage says: "Alone He was not happy"(Maha Upanishad). These are exactly same as the Brihadarayanaka passage: "Death alone was there covering it. Death is hunger".

When hunger is there or when unhappiness is there, can we designate it as Sat-Chit-Ananda?

The same Maha Upanishad later says:

Maha Upanishad

sarva.n shaanta.n niraalamba.n vyomastha.n shaashvata.n shivam.h .anaamayamanaabhaasamanaamakamakaaraNam.h .. 45..

na sannasanna madhyaanta.n na sarva.n sarvameva cha .manovachobhiragraahyaM puurNaatpuurNa.n sukhaatsukham.h .. 46..

V-45. All is calm (needing) no support, existing in the ether (of the heart), eternal, auspicious, devoid of ailment and illusion, name and cause.

V-46. Neither existent nor non-existent, nor in between, nor the negation of all; beyond the grasp of mind and words, fuller than the fullest, more joyful than joy.
------------------------

Only Advaita can give the calm that the more joyful than joy is ALL (in three states), though it is ONE, requiring no support.


Om Namah Shivaya

Regards

Om

[atanu]

So why do we get bored at all? IMO, hunger-death is our apparent nature. It is the nature of this Universe, layered in three tiers and represented by the belly of Ganesha.

But fuller than the fullest, more joyful than joy is our real nature that needs unravelling.

Om

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Atanu ji




The embodied Lord Krishna



Na,
This is all I have to say, which is what Bhagvan says.

janma karma ca me divyam
evam yo vetti tattvatah
tyaktva deham punar janma
naiti mam eti so 'rjuna

The one who truly understands My transcendental birth and activities (of creation, maintenance, and dissolution), is not born again after leaving this body and attains My abode, O Arjuna. (4.09)




arjuna uvaca
param brahma param dhama
pavitram paramam bhavan
purusam sasvatam divyam
adi-devam ajam vibhum
ahus tvam rsayah sarve
devarsir naradas tatha
asito devalo vyasah
svayam caiva bravisi me

Arjuna said: You are the Supreme Brahman, the supreme abode, the supreme purifier, the eternal divine spirit, , purusam sasvatam divyam (No translation needed) (10.12)

All sages have thus acclaimed You. The divine sage Narada, Asita, Devala, Vyaasa, and You Yourself tell me. (10.13)

svayam evatmanatmanam
vettha tvam purusottama
bhuta-bhavana bhutesa
deva-deva jagat-pate

O Creator and Lord of all beings, God of all gods, Supreme person and Lord of the universe, You alone know Yourself by Yourself. (10.15)

embodied like us! No way


Jai Shree Krishna

[Bob G]

Hello Atanu,

Borrowing from and reflecting on your last post;
All use of Pranas in the end is given back in service and Love, thus "Spirit unto Spirit" is the nature that gives freedom to one in the universe and kills death.

Om

[Bob G]

Hello Ganeshprasad,

Borrowing part of and reflecting on your quote my pov is:

"...You alone know Yourself by Yourself"...which could be said to be the "Soul of the soul" or Soul of all souls, thus all individual souls will come to realize that this One Soul of their soul is their deepest and truest Self which is not bound by any particular forms or weavings of their separate soul bodies, bodies which can only exist in cyclic time and space.

Om

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Atanu,

Does this correctly interpret your explanation?

turya = nara = brahma
prAjña = nArAyaNa = Ishvara
taijasa = hiraNyagarbha = brahmA
vaishvAnara = prakRti = brAhmaNa

[atanu]

Pranam Atanu ji
---
embodied like us! No way

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,

Nothing here contradicts and surpasses the transcendental Turya. I have not said embodied like us. I have said:


There is no problem at all that in the World, Jiva (imperishable) and prakritic entitities are pervaded and ruled by Supreme Lord, Ishwara -- the Prajna of the Turya. But we have seen, very definitely, that the Turya is ONE and Atman. .

If you are insisting that the soul/spirit that Lord Krishna is superior to refers to Turya Advaita Atman, then I deny it.

In other words, if you are implying that the Kutastha in the following verse is Turya Self Brahman and Shri Krishna is transcendental to it, I deny it.

Dwaavimau purushau loke ksharashchaakshara eva cha;
Ksharah sarvaani bhootaani kootastho’kshara uchyate.
-------------

In all other aspects I have no difference with your views. Jiva is never equal to Ishwara's function. Only after removal of all functional tags from all parties that the Advaita is revealed.

Regards

Om

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu,
Does this correctly interpret your explanation?
turya = nara = brahma
prAjña = nArAyaNa = Ishvara
taijasa = hiraNyagarbha = brahmA
vaishvAnara = prakRti = brAhmaNa

Namaskar Sarabhanga Ji,

Yes, except probably vaishvAnara = prakRti , which I am not sure about.

MAITRAYANA-BRAHMAYA-UPANISHAD
SEVENTH PRAPATHAKA

(7) There is the person in the eye, there is he who walks as in sleep, he who is sound asleep, and he who is above the sleeper: these are the four conditions (of the Self), and the fourth is greater than all.

(8) Brahman with one foot moves in the three, and Brahman with three feet is in the last.

It is that both the true (in the fourth condition) and the untrue (in the three conditions) may have their dessert, that the Great Self (seems to) become two, yes, that he (seems to) become two.

Regards

Om

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Bob G


Hello Ganeshprasad,

Borrowing part of and reflecting on your quote my pov is:

"...You alone know Yourself by Yourself"...which could be said to be the "Soul of the soul" or Soul of all souls, thus all individual souls will come to realize that this One Soul of their soul is their deepest and truest Self which is not bound by any particular forms or weavings of their separate soul bodies, bodies which can only exist in cyclic time and space.

Om


And that self can not be less then its creation and when he says his form is transcendental and never deteriorates I have no reason to doubt it.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Atanu ji


Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,

If you are insisting that the soul/spirit that Lord Krishna is superior to refers to Turya Advaita Atman, then I deny it.

In other words, if you are implying that the Kutastha in the following verse is Turya Self Brahman and Shri Krishna is transcendental to it, I deny it.

Dwaavimau purushau loke ksharashchaakshara eva cha;
Ksharah sarvaani bhootaani kootastho’kshara uchyate.


Om

And then he says


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

I am beyond the perishable body, and higher than the imperishable Atma; therefore, I am known in this world and in the Vedas as Purushottama, (supreme person)(15.18)

And this is what Arjun said

You are the father of this animate and inanimate world, and the greatest guru to be worshipped. No one is even equal to You in the three worlds; how can there be one greater than You? O Being of Incomparable Glory. (11.43)







In all other aspects I have no difference with your views. Jiva is never equal to Ishwara's function.


well i am glad to here this, but at the end of the day these are all upadhi of the mind is that it?




Only after removal of all functional tags from all parties that the Advaita is revealed.

if I read this correctly advaita was some how lost to us and as to how and why god knows,
And when it is rediscovered jiva and ishvara becomes superfluous.

Jai Shree Krishna

[atanu]

Pranam Atanu ji
And then he says
yasmat ksaram atito 'ham
aksarad api cottamah
ato 'smi loke vede ca
prathitah purusottamah

I am beyond the perishable body, and higher than the imperishable Atma; therefore, I am known in this world and in the Vedas as Purushottama, (supreme person)(15.18)



Namaskar Ganeshprasad Ji,

I have not said Shri Krishna is not Param Atman.

But I am sorry, the sanskrit verse does not say Atman at all. Is 'aksarad api cottamah' translated to 'imperishable Atma'? Just to insist upon the alleged eternal difference between Jivatma and Paramatma? Let me clear this up. Do you accept the following translation of Shri Prabhupada as correct? If you accept the translation as correct then we may as well stop here.

I shall now explain the knowable, knowing which you will taste the eternal. Brahman, the spirit, beginningless and subordinate to Me, lies beyond the cause and effect of this material world.(13.13).



if I read this correctly advaita was some how lost to us and as to how and why god knows, And when it is rediscovered jiva and ishvara becomes superfluous.
Jai Shree Krishna

No, Advaita Atman remains Advaita Atman. How can it ever be lost? The true nature of Sat-Chit-Anand is as if regained.


all upadhi of the mind is that it

Except Sat-Chit-Ananda, which is the very nature of Brahman, the Guna Upadhis are in mind only. Where else? I consider Ishwara to be white and sitting. You consider Ishwara to be tribhangamurari, a christian sees God upon a cross. Are these ideas tucked somewhere out of Mind? Ishwara, as per Mandukya Upanishad is the Prajna (revealed intellect) everywhere. As revealed intellect, Ishwara is devoid of variety of imaginative gunas (that are contradictory from culture to culture) but is very intimate reality for every one.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Atanu ji


Namaskar Ganeshprasad Ji,



But I am sorry, the sanskrit verse does not say Atman at all. Is 'aksarad api cottamah' translated to 'imperishable Atma'? Just to insist upon the alleged eternal difference between Jivatma and Paramatma? Let me clear this up. Do you accept the following translation of Shri Prabhupada as correct? If you accept the translation as correct then we may as well stop here.

I shall now explain the knowable, knowing which you will taste the eternal. Brahman, the spirit, beginningless and subordinate to Me, lies beyond the cause and effect of this material world.(13.13).


Om Namah Shivaya

Now now Atanu ji, no need take that line, for one i can tell you i do not reed Shri Prabhupada books, only on internet it is avaiable with Slokas which is very handy and you would have noticed i dont post his translations.

and in one word in answer to your ultimatum, NO i dont

let me remind you i do not belong to any sect.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Bob G]

Hello Ganeshprasad,
Thank you for your feedback.

"And that self can not be less then its creation and when he says his form is transcendental and never deteriorates I have no reason to doubt it".

Ok, but it sounds to me like there might be some contradiction in your statement above, thus to clairify do you agree that this "transcendental" is not containable by any mental ability or power of mind, and that it is not bound by any of the laws in effect for creation which also include preservation and dissolution?

As for the idea that the Self can not be less than its creation... I do have a different view from some schools of thought on this,... in that the Self is not disconnected (although transcendent) from a resulting creation, with Om having clear connection with and cause of the Tattvas in a transformational and unfolding like way. Thus all of the emanation and stages of creation are ultimately reabsorbed in dissolution and not lost out there somewhere in some kind of lesser no-where.

Om

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Bob G




"And that self can not be less then its creation and when he says his form is transcendental and never deteriorates I have no reason to doubt it".

Ok, but it sounds to me like there might be some contradiction in your statement above, thus to clairify do you agree that this "transcendental" is not containable by any mental ability or power of mind, and that it is not bound by any of the laws in effect for creation which also include preservation and dissolution?
Om

Yes, if i understand your question correctly.

Jai Shree Krishna

[sarabhanga]

turya = nara = brahma
prAjña = nArAyaNa = Ishvara
taijasa = hiraNyagarbha = brahmA
vaishvAnara = prakRti = brAhmaNa

Namaste Atanu,

I would be inclined to compress the equation into two perfect lines.


turya = nara = brahma
prAjña = nArAyaNa = Ishvara = hiraNyagarbha = brahmA

The two perspectives are interwoven through all such discussions ~ the world creating view of nArAyaNa, and the world destroying view of nara. And if we consider nArAyaNa’s creation, the three phases are prAjña, tejas, and vishva; but if we consider nAra’s redemption, the three phases are vaishvAnara, taijasa, and prAjña. So that more lines are required to sufficiently describe the practical situation.

The following four-fold equation, however, seems to satisfy all perspectives. :)


turya = nara = brahma = kRSNa = shiva
prAjña = naranArAyaNa = yama = kRSNArjuna = ashvinau
tejas = nArAyaNa = brahmA = vishvarUpa = viSNu
vishva = nAra = brAhmaNa = pANDava = bhairava

[atanu]

Pranam Atanu ji
and in one word in answer to your ultimatum, NO i dont

let me remind you i do not belong to any sect.

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,

If you do not put faith in the cited translation of Shri Prabhupada then there is possibly no major difference in our views.

Regards

Om

[atanu]

Hello Atanu,
Borrowing from and reflecting on your last post;
All use of Pranas in the end is given back in service and Love, thus "Spirit unto Spirit" is the nature that gives freedom to one in the universe and kills death.
Om
-----------------
Hello Ganeshprasad,
Borrowing part of and reflecting on your quote my pov is:
"...You alone know Yourself by Yourself"...which could be said to be the "Soul of the soul" or Soul of all souls, thus all individual souls will come to realize that this One Soul of their soul is their deepest and truest Self which is not bound by any particular forms or weavings of their separate soul bodies, bodies which can only exist in cyclic time and space.
Om


Hello Bob,

I borrow two quotes of yours. These two quotes should belong together.

------------------------------------------------
Svetasvatara Upanisad has often been cited as proof of the eternal distinction between embodied soul and the SELF, by many famed non-advaitic philosophers.

Dvaitic philosophers endeavour in every way possible to hide the truth of Jiva’s potential oneness with Shiva. In the verse shown below, it is said that Jiva on knowing the Atman, attains oneness and gets rid of all sorrows. I have shown first three translations as meaning nearly the same and the fourth one in red fonts (ISKCON translation), alone not acknowledging the ‘ekaH’ word in the verse.

Svetasvatara Upanisad
Chapter 2

yathaiva biMbaM mR^idayopalipta.n tejomaya.n bhraajate tat.h sudhaantam.h .tadvaa.a.atmatattvaM prasamiixya dehii ekaH kR^itaartho bhavate viitashokaH .. 14..

II-14: Just as the same metal disc, which was stained by dust before, shines brilliantly when cleaned, so the embodied being, seeing the truth of Atman, realizes oneness, attains the goal and becomes sorrowless.

Just as a mirror covered by dust
shines brilliantly when it has been cleaned,
so the embodied one on seeing the nature of the soul,
becomes ONE, the goal attained, free from sorrow.

14 As gold covered by earth shines bright after it has been purified, so also the yogi, realising the truth of Atman, becomes one with the non—dual Atman, attains the goal and is free from grief

Chapter 2 TEXT 14
As a jewel washed of mud shines brightly so an embodied soul who sees the Supreme Personality of Godhead becomes glorious and free of all sufferings.

The same translator who ignores the word ‘ekaH’ in the above verse, replaces the words Rudra and Shiva, wherever these occur, by ‘The Supreme Personality of Godhead’, as if Brahman is a only the Top Personality.

Chapter 3
eko hi rudro na dvitiiyaaya tasthu\-
rya imaa.nllokaaniishata iishaniibhiH .
pratyaN^ janaastishhThati saJNchukochaantakaale
sa.nsR^ijya vishvaa bhuvanaani gopaaH .. 2..

TEXT 2
The Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is one without a second, with His potencies rules the worlds. He stays within the living entities. He protects the worlds. He created the worlds and at the last moment He withdraws them.

Om

[Bob G]

Hello Atanu,
I have not studied the dualistic school you speak of but thanks for the quotes. Listed below is another commentary that speaks of or for the non-dualistic school.

Quoted excerpt from the Divine Life Society:

"...Just as finite objects appear to get lost in the impersonal causes from where they have come, even so this being, having risen from its bodily existence, attains to the immortal state, shining in nature, as the pure consciousness which it originally was. This is the most serene condition of one's own Self. We cannot say we are serene or composed merely because there are no sounds and there are no contacts. Serenity or composure is real freedom, the experience of which is free from every kind of sorrow or limitedness in the states of waking, dream and sleep. One has to rise above these three states, the physical, the subtle and the causal conditions, which are limitations of the Atman. The three states - waking, dream and sleep - are the three conditions to which the consciousness of the Atman is apparently attached, and due to which one appears to be an individual. One has to rise up from these limited embodiments. From the waking physical experience, from the limitations of even the mind which works in dream, and from the limitations of deep sleep, one has to rise up. Then it is that one becomes the true Being.
True Being is not unconscious. It is not a cause, nor is it the subtle manifest condition. It is not also a physical body. It is supreme luminosity, param jyoti. It is the Light of all lights. It is not a light like the light of the sun, but it is self-luminous Being. It is a Light which does not need illumination from something else other than itself. It is self-luminous in the sense that it illumines itself. This does not mean that it is ignorant of the existence of others. It is the Self of all beings. It is not the self of one person or two persons, of one individual or a group of individuals. The word 'self' is an abused term; so is the term 'Atman' due to the limitations of language. We are always accustomed to use the term 'self' in respect of individuals as 'myself', 'yourself', 'himself', 'herself', 'itself', etc. It is not in this sense that the word 'self' is used here. It is not this self or that self we are referring to. It is the Selfhood which is the true Being of everything that is.
So, Self-luminosity does not mean the luminosity of any particular self in the sense of a body, because we have already made it clear that the Self is not a body. To bring it once again in association with a body for the purpose of the interpretation of the meaning of the Self would be a travesty of affairs. Self-luminosity is Universal luminosity. It is not luminosity of an individual. Why is it Universal luminosity? Because, it is the Self of everything in the universe. It is the Selfhood of everything that is anywhere. So it is a comprehensive luminosity of universal Selfhood".

"O Indra, such is your true Being into which you seek initiation. This is the true serenity and composure of the Self. You have to stand by your own right. You have to assume your real status. This is freedom, this is called atma-svarajya, the freedom of the Self," said Prajapati"

Om

[atanu]

The Concept of Soul or Self in Advaita Vedanta

Swami Tathagatananda, The Vedanta Society of New York (http://www.vedanta-newyork.org/ved-soc-ny.htm)

http://www.vedanta-newyork.org/articles/concept_of_soul_1.htm
http://www.vedanta-newyork.org/articles/concept_of_soul_2.htm
http://www.vedanta-newyork.org/articles/concept_of_soul_3.htm

Om

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste All

" is the nature that gives freedom to one in the universe and kills death."

It is not possible to kill death. There is no such thing as death.
Trying to Kill death is a non-sense. If death disappears from life there will be no individual room/traum i.e existence & samahdi.
Life is one with death.

No Fun! ;)


Om namah shivaya!

[Bob G]

Hello Nuno,

"What is the sound of one hand clapping?" is a perfectly sensible question to me.

Om

[Bob G]

pardon me,

...or in other words non-duality kills the duality of life and death (with 'kills' being used in a manner of speaking)

Perhaps a look at the Isa Upanisad, chapter 1, 12-14

"...Into blind darkness they enter, people who worship non-becoming; and into still blinder darkness, people who delight in becoming.

It's far different from coming-into-being, they say, different also from not-coming into-being, we're told--so we have heard from wise men, who have explained it all to us.

The becoming and the destruction--a man who knows them both together; passes beyond death by destruction, and by becoming attains immortality"

Om

[Nuno Matos]

Hello Bob,

" "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" is a perfectly sensible question to me."

Stop hearing with your ears and star listening with your eyes.

Om namah shivaya.

[sarabhanga]

And the anAhatanAda is known as ॐ

[atanu]

Namaste All,
Gaudapada
III-26. On the ground of non-apprehension (of Brahman), all the preceding instruction (for Its comprehension) is negated by the sruti, "This Self is that which has been declared as ‘Not this, not this’". Hence the unborn Self becomes revealed by Itself.


III-33. (The knowers of Brahman) say that the knowledge which is free from imagination, and unborn is not distinct from the knowable. The knowledge of which Brahman is the sole object is unborn and everlasting. The unborn (Self) is known by the (knowledge that is) unborn.
---------
Not through ears and eyes.


Om

Also

IV-57. From the relative plane (of thinking) everything seems to be born and is not, therefore, eternal. From the absolute plane (of perception) everything is the unborn (Self) and there is, therefore, nothing like destruction.

Om

[sarabhanga]

And the anAhatanAda is known as ॐ


AhatavisargatA is the deadening or blunting of visarga, which is thereby changed into okAra, and Ahatavisarga is the visarga that is revealed as okAra.

And the anAhatavisarga (the anAhatanAda) is oM resurrected as the pure breath of visarga.

And the an-Ahata nAda (“unstruck sound”) is revealed in hRdaya as the ana-ahata nAda (“immaculate breath resonance”) of visarga.

[Bob G]

Gaudapada
"III-26. On the ground of non-apprehension (of Brahman), all the preceding instruction (for Its comprehension) is negated by the sruti..."

Atanu, That is a fine quote.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
And the an-Ahata nAda (“unstruck sound”) is revealed in hRdaya as the ana-ahata nAda (“immaculate breath resonance”) of visarga. Thank you Sarabhanga.


My take; that "breath" is like a million million singing suns yet the "unstruck sound" swallows those million million singing suns and all else in an eternal instant of roaring Silence.

Om

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste Bob,

" My take; that "breath" is like a million million singing suns yet..."

What breath?
There are five vital " breath's " plus the subsidiary ones. Please ask me if you do not know what I am talking about.

"...the "unstruck sound" swallows those million million singing suns and all else in an eternal instant of roaring Silence."

Very fine line of poetic prose; beware that the unstruck sound in the heart chakra is not the same as the great silence of Turya in the sahasrara. The knowledge of the heart is pure light shining from within and you cant ear, see, touch or smell.
The knowledge of the heart is the same as the knowledge of the mind. And the first step towards moksha is done

om namah shivaya!

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~



What breath? There are five vital " breath's " plus the subsidiary ones. Please ask me if you do not know what I am talking about.
om namah shivaya!


Namaster nuno,
This breath we have... 21,600 breaths each day [ a day is 86,400 seconds in a day divided by 4 second breath = ~ 21,600 ].
I between each breath there is stillness. That stillness can bring restful alertness, turiya.

My teacher has always said, save the breath. Life ( from an Ayurveda perspective) is metered out in breaths.

pranams

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste yajvan

" between each breath there is stillness. That stillness can bring restful alertness, turiya."

But you cant realize Turya in the anahata chakra and that as bin vastly argued here in HDF.
The knowledge of the heart is the same as the knowledge of the mind. And the first step towards moksha is done.

" Life ( from an Ayurveda perspective) is metered out in breaths " = Maya

The view from the the top of the mountain as shunned disease as being an illusion. Now he just have to realize that true.

"...or in other words non-duality kills the duality of life and death (with 'kills' being used in a manner of speaking) "

You can say it´s like dyeing and be reborn.

" And the anAhatavisarga (the anAhatanAda) is oM resurrected as the pure breath of visarga."

Om namah shivaya!

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste yajvan

" between each breath there is stillness. That stillness can bring restful alertness, turiya."

But you cant realize Turya in the anahata chakra and that as bin vastly argued here in HDF. The knowledge of the heart is the same as the knowledge of the mind. And the first step towards moksha is done.
" And the anAhatavisarga (the anAhatanAda) is oM resurrected as the pure breath of visarga."

Om namah shivaya!


Namaste nuno,

My offer of turiya between breaths comes from Vijnana Bhairava¹ tantra. For me, there are no doubts. If there are arguments on this, I will step aside and allow the polemics to pursue.
We can consider Saktopaya (Shakti-upaya) as a conversaton. The means of approach to the Divine through śakti, the ever-recurring contemplation of the pure thought of oneself being essentially śiva or the Supreme Aham.



Regarding Om...
There are some techiques (dhāranā -contemplations/meditations) that cannot be spoken of or recited. Whats that? An example of this would be amātra² or the unstuck sound at the end of the bija-aksara Om.

After Om there is silence, the fouth part of A-U-M____ this silence at the end. The sadhu is using this 4th part, that which cannot be sounded or spoken of as a vehicle.
This 4th is turiya. This is not my wisdom, and comes from Mandukya Upanishad 12th sloka.

ॐनमःिशवाय


pranams

1. Vijnana Bharirava is one of the basic āgamas- the conversation between siva and parvati. The 24th karika ( some write kArikA), is where śiva gives this wisdom to śri devī.
2. amatra (amAtra or amātra अमात्र) - without measure , boundless: not metrical or prosodical

[Bob G]

Hello Nuno,

"Please ask me if you do not know what I am talking about" hmm, I thought that was what Sarabhanga was alluding to...

And thanks anyway but I'm not looking for a Guru on the internet, just sharing, exchanging and or exploring a few little bits and pieces here and there.

(without a need for putting everything in boxes)

Om

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste Bob;



" "Please ask me if you do not know what I am talking about" hmm, I thought that was what Sarabhanga was alluding to..."

" that "breath" is like a million million singing suns yet the "unstruck sound"



:D

"
And thanks anyway but I'm not looking for a Guru on the internet, just sharing, exchanging and or exploring a few little bits and pieces here and there.

(without a need for putting everything in boxes) "

I repeat, what "breath" since you have said " that [breath]"?

And Sri Sarabhanga Giri has bin alluding many things.


It is not putting everything in boxes. I my self personally am not attached to any particular sect or group. I have heard that in this forum we should stay more or less close to the tread title and I more or less try to follow that convenience procedure.
And I am not and I want to make that clear trying to be a guru to you or any body else here on HDF. If you like what I write it is with you the responsibility of the use you made. I am not charging. Has you have said some post ago I should not disturb the system from were I am extracting my food. And I think that comes very close to realise the non difference between death and Life. High school Bio-physical laws if you want a sorted perspective.
Concluding for the above said by you and by me and by Sarabhanga along this tread I really don´t understand what are you talking about.

Pranams

[sarabhanga]

This breath we have... 21,600 breaths each day [ a day is 86,400 seconds in a day divided by 4 second breath = ~ 21,600 ].
In between each breath there is stillness. That stillness can bring restful alertness, turiya.

My offer of turiya between breaths comes from Vijnana Bhairava tantra. For me, there are no doubts.


shrI devI said: “In what way is the parAdevI said to be the door of entrance into bhairava?”

shrI bhairava said: “parAdevI, who is of the nature of visarga, goes on expressing herself upward as prANa and downward as jIva (apAna). By steady fixation of the mind at the two places of their origin, there is the situation of plenitude.”

This “situation of plenitude” (bahiritAsthitiH) is the pregnant fullness of brahmA (which is the turIya state of nArAyaNa) but not the virgin expanse of brahma (which is the turya of nara).

The singular experience of turIya or turya requires the maintenance of alertness from normal waking consciousness into dreaming, and from dreaming into deep sleep, and only from the unconditioned condition of “alert unconsciousness” to the unborn immortal fourth stateless state, the kingless kingdom of perfect advaitam. And turIya or turya may be held a theoretical ideal, but the absolute experience is beyond “restful alertness”.

[sarabhanga]

From the gauDapAda kArikA (third chapter):

That the identity of jIva and Atman without any difference is praised, and multiplicity is censured – that is indeed only rational by assuming that jIva is a creation of mAyA. [13]

What separateness of jIva and Atman prior to creation has been declared, that is figurative, referring as it does to the state to come; the nature of the primary sense does not fit in. [14]

The creation which has been authoritatively mentioned otherwise by illustrations of earth, iron, sparks, etc., that is a device for the grasping of the true position; no difference whatsoever exists between jIva and Atman. [15]

There are three-fold stages of life, having low, middle and excellent vision; this mode of worship is prescribed for them, out of compassion, by the shruti. [16]

The dualists are firmly fixed in their laying out of their conclusions; they contradict one another; ajAtivAda does not conflict with them. [17]

Non-duality is indeed the highest reality; duality is spoken of as its modification. For them exists duality in both ways; with that dvaita this advaita does not conflict. [18]

This unborn advaita indeed becomes modified through mAyA, not otherwise under any circumstances. If indeed it were to be modified in reality, the immortal would go the way of mortality! [19]

The dvaitins wish to prove the origination of the entity which is verily unoriginated. How indeed can an unborn and immortal entity pass on to mortality? [20]

The immortal does not become mortal; nor likewise the mortal immortal. There would not be under any circumstances a change otherwise of one’s nature. [21]

He for whom an entity, immortal in its own nature, goes to mortality – how will his artificially made immortal remain changeless? [22]

In the matter of being created, whether from the already existent, or from the non-existent also, the shruti supports both views. What is fortified with logical reasoning and ascertained holds, not the other. [23]

And from the shruti text “no multiple here”, from the shruti text “indra by means of mAyA powers” aswell, from the shruti text “he being unborn is however born in various ways through mAyA”, and from the denial of origination, in the IshAvAsyopaniSad, origination is barred out. By the shruti “who possibly would produce this Atman?”, the cause of origination is barred out. [24-25]

As the explanation “this one, he is not, is not” denies all by the reason of the incomprehensibility of Atman, the unborn Atman shines forth. [26]

The birth of the existent is indeed reasonable through mAyA, but not in reality. For whom the existent is born in reality, for him indeed the already born is born! [27]

The birth of the non-existent either through mAyA or in reality is assuredly not reasonable; the son of a barren woman is not born either in reality or even through mAyA. [28]

All this duality whatsoever, comprising the movable and the immovable, is perceivable by the mind; when the mind has indeed become non-mind, duality is assuredly not experienced. [31]

When the mind does not imagine owing to the comprehension of the truth, namely Atman, it goes to the state of non-mind; it is without cognition in the absence of the cognizable. [32]

They assert the jñAna free from imagination and unborn as being not different from the knowable. brahman is the knowable, unborn and eternal. Thus is made known the unborn by the unborn. [33]

[Bob G]

Hello Nuno,

I was thinking of the aspect(s) of Om in movement, similar to breath in movement. (alluded to as the singing suns)

And, the Silence (however one may try to describe it such as, "unstruck sound") includes a Still-point that is beyond although not divorced from movement.

Also, I realize that my use of certain terms may not fit with more accepted, recognized or agreed upon definitions of those terms as commonly used in Hinduism. (which I'm not very well studied up on)

Om

[atanu]

Gaudapada
My take; that "breath" is like a million million singing suns yet the "unstruck sound" swallows those million million singing suns and all else in an eternal instant of roaring Silence.
Om

Namaste and Hello Bob,

What a surprise. Some do view life-force as the physical Vayu only. There is no problem in that since all views are approximate only. That breath – the life force is actually undefined. The view of it may vary from person to person. Million small suns rising, bathing the body with bright yet cool light pregnant with exquisite fragrance and an exquisite flavour, singing an exquisite chorus, with sound all filling yet not heard, the melody unmatched by any human composition. I was granted this dream, which persisted for some time after waking. The song sang itself for a few days and became my own, but I ache to get back its unmatched sweetness, as happens only when it gains its own volition and life. The silence ensues (as per instructions imparted to me and as per a few fleeting experiences) when one is conscious of the view and is able to discern the Seer of the life force.

I pray that let us not demean experience of any other, in HDFpuri. Om Namah Shivaya.

Regards to all.

[Bob G]

Namaste Atanu,

Very well said and sincerely touching in heart!

"The Song Sang Itself"
Om Tat Sat

[NayaSurya]

Hari Om
~~~~~

In between each breath there is stillness. That stillness can bring restful alertness, turiya.




Reading this is like a bell rang to my heart.

Because...

When I go out from this still vessel, it is between the very very slowed breaths.

When I have been to the hospital due to my heart issues the alarms go off constantly as my breaths may only be 5-6 a minute. This makes them very upset until I explain I was born breathing very slowly this way. Then they shut off the alarm for good.:p

I was settling down the other night for meditation and thought a lot about the moment I no longer feel my heart is the moment between those very slowed breaths. This allows me to remove myself from the chore of keeping it up. It is the ability to slow it enough which makes the exit possible.

It is as if the handful of sand you carried is suddenly upswept by the wind and you become free.


What you have written is a simple sentence, yet so full of that Truth I had to repost it.

I had never read it until this moment...but feel it was meant for me to find today after my pondering of the stillness of that moment myself.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Naya et al: The thread title did remind me of these immortal words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fk2prKnYnI

Aum Namasivaya

[NayaSurya]

i love BB King! ty for posting<3

He sing with his fingers...can you see it?
<---soul sister

I do not have the condition mentioned in the title. No matter how many times it happen, I am always up for goodness and happiness at any level.

Never ever get bored with the things I enjoy! But, I am a simple fool.:p

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Naya: I've been blessed to see him live. Managed to grab a guitar pick from the front of the stage. Gotta love the facial expressions (second only to the riffs) .

Aum Namasivaya

[JaiMaaDurga]

Namaste,

As always on an HDF thread, very interesting discussion; my initial thought-response to the thread's original question was that it originates from the material aspect of existence; being embodied, we are subject to the laws which govern any living creature, the interpretation at the very basic level of any sense-stimulus being either a positive or negative toward survival and reproduction of the organism... those things which we are naturally inclined to interpret either as dangerous or threatening on the one hand, or advantageous or enriching on the other, are what "the sleeping mind" directs itself toward foremost, classified further as to the level of intensity. The smell of gas, the sound of gunfire, the sight of blood, the taste of spoiled food, the feeling of unexpectedly hot metal- all of these will prompt immediate and strong instinctive reaction. Similarly does the smell of cooking food or the sound of running water provoke those who are undergoing severe hunger or thirst. For many living today, there is neither such an abundance of threat nor scarcity of resource in the course of daily life to merit such instinctual responses to our environment; with basic needs of safety, food, etc. met, it is possible to become "bored". Our minds are made to "tune out" any sensory stimulus which is not a threat or a resource that remains persistent over time. Think of all the day-to-day backround noise which modern life (especially urban life) contains, which our ancient ancestors would find initially quite bizarre and disturbing. We are such that we immediately focus first on that which is novel, that is an unknown- we are compelled to determine where on the "bad thing/good thing" scale it lies. If it becomes a matter of indifference to us, then it simply vanishes off the radar; the living creature is designed to survive and reproduce in the complex environment. When the "sleeping mind" has no information to process, it will seek it; if finding none, it will create it. This is what happens when those with no training or experience in meditation undergo prolonged periods of sensory deprivation. Calluses help protect one's hands and feet from damage that would be otherwise unavoidable, at the expense of tactile sensitivity; were my soles as sensitive as my lips, I might be fearful of standing up, let alone walking!
Yet the mind often cannot perceive its own "calluses", nor find the use in them, if it does. For me, I do my best to remember that Devi has no need for survival instincts, has no "sleeping mind" coloring the nature of Her pastimes- nothing for Her is "mandatory" or "work", weighed on any scale of "good/bad"- all for Devi is lila. Remembering this, I remember the nature of "sleeping mind", and seeking novelty, seeking to relieve boredom, is akin to insisting all kayaks require climate control and power steering... or perhaps it is more akin to trying to fill a black hole (of the galactic variety) by adding mass to it....
I have rambled on long enough, Thank you for reading this far!
JAI MATA DI

[NayaSurya]

You bring up an important topic, daily noise and distractions.

Once, my Beloved son was born with a severe hearing loss. Before his birth...fluid had hardened upon his ear drum leaving him almost completely deaf. He failed the birth hearing test...but I was told many normal children will do so.

Over time, I recognized his silence...and at about 2 years old took him to the doctor. There, he failed completely a series of hearing test. So we went to a surgeon and found his hearing could be fully restored. On the day before Thanksgiving, my son heard for the first time in his life.

Every sound made him laugh SO hard! He began saying MAMAMAMAMA! and laughing and laughing! What a joyous day this was! A true Thanksgiving.

But, as the days wore on...something more sad happened...he was afraid....very much...a child who had never been afraid before, suddenly refused to get into cars...or go outside...or watch television.

It was so much information he simply shut down and began to cry.

Night time was the worst, as the sounds of night made him extremely upset. The whining of tires upon a distant highway...the owls...whippoorwills.

So I thought about a baby...and you know...babies aren't born with all their faculties for a very important reason. Just as we slip ourselves slowly into cold water at the pool...our vessels wake up slowly so we can adjust.

I used ear muffs to cover his ears at first...and he tolerated this very well...and then each night I sat beside a window slightly cracked and played a game with Alexander until he would smile from recognition.

What is this sound Alex? "It's a BIRD!"

Yes...and what is this sound? "It is a TRUCK!"

and for months this went on...and now that 13 year old young man...standing almost 6 feet tall...can hear everything...and chases fireflies in the night without a second thought!

The machine is phenomenal, but is absolutely trainable.