Mandukya Upanishad

[Sudarshan]

Mandukya Upanishad is probaby the most controversial Upanishad in the history of vedanta, and has been interprted in an umpteen number of ways:

When read literally, it teaches a form of monism ( absolute, qualified or otherwise). It states that Atma has four pAdas at the outset. It also states that this Atman is Brahman, and also "everything is Brahman", when read literally.

The word Atma itself is interpreted differently by different schools, and the four pAdas can be interpreted to mean a lot of things. Hence this Upanishad has a good number of unique interpretations.

This thread is intended for a detailed exaimination of this Upanishad, with a good summary to begin with and an in depth verse by verse, analysis. No heated debates please, so that every one can contribute their own understanding of the Upanishad. I am just presenting my own understanding of the Upanishad briefly, and will later elaborate in detail, verse by verse.

The first twelve verses of the Upanishad and the 29 verses of Agama prakaraNa maybe used for the discussion.

Mandukya essentially deals with four padas, or quarters, forms or states. I read the pada as a manifestation(form) of the Lord, Sriman Narayana.(Atma)

I dont have any Vishistadvaitin literature on this Upanishad with me, so I have to contruct this solely on my own, with some clues provided in the major commentaries.

The first pada described is the Vaishvarana, who is described with cosnciousness turned outward, and seven limbs and nineteen mouths. Vaishvarana is the manifestation of the Lord in the form of prakriti. Brahman, being the material cause of this prakriti, and immanently present, and controls it. The exact descriptions of the seven limbs and nineteen mouths are varied, and I am honestly least intersted to read it in terms of Philosophy. In essence, it consist of all universes. Bhagavata describes that there are countless number of universes, made of the five stula bhuta tattvas like fire, water, ether, earth and air. Along with many combinations of these, make the prakriti or jagat. Obviously, fire, water or air are not the building blocks in modern science, so these must be properly explained with respect to science to be taken seroously. Philosophy devoid of science is idle talk, so I dont want to elaborate on these tattvas as done by ancient commentrators. Vaishnvanara falls in the realm of avidya, meaning material science. If anybody could present a modern view of this, that would be impressive.(please attempt so even if it is not rigorous)


The second pada described is Taijasa, who is descrined with consciousness directed inwards, and having seven limbs and nineteen mouths.

The description obviously points to the sukshma form of prakriti( because every stula tattva has a corresponding sukshma tattva), which is nothing but the cosmic universe, comprising of the sukshma butha tattvas. Bhagavata again talks of millions of non material universes. All worlds from heaven to the Brahma Loka fall in this category. Brahman, naturally is the material cause of all the cosmic universes. A person who experiences the Taijasa attains apara mukti, and is freed from all karma. He then resides in the higher worlds until the mahapralaya before atatining moksha. He is an aparoxin.

The third pada described is Prajna, who is described as an experiencer of immense bliss.

What else could this be? It is the Lord himself present in every jivatma, and from where he controls the jiva. Jiva, as we know is jnana-svarupa and hence is both bliss and the experiencer of bliss. Any one who realized his self ( his jiVatman) is all conscious. The jiva that realized his atman is omniscient like the Lord. The jiva is not omnipresent as yet.

The fourth pada is described as Turiya, which is the paripurna Brahma anubava, the complete experience of the indescribable Brahman. Jiva who realizes this form of Brahman finds his way into the world of Brahman and enjoys sayujya mukti, a state of oneness with the Lord, and sees a state of oneness, with the manifestation of the Lord everywhere. The Jiva, thus realized, is both omniscient and omnipresent( though he is atomic). The jiva is not omnipotent, because that is the privilege of the Lord alone as taught in the vedanta sutras.(4.4.17)


The stula prakriti is realized with the physical and outward senses alone(including the Yoga nadis). When senses are subdued, the suksma prakriti(Taijasa) can be realized with the mind. Karma Yoga alone purifies one's mind, and is sufficient to obtain this vision of the Lord. The vision of Krishna obtained by Arjuna is complete Taijasa, as Arjuna is a perfect Karma Yogi. All divine experiences of various people, either as visions, mediums,oracles are all partial manifestations of Vaishvanara and Taijasa, and are result of spiritual merits of former births.


Jnana Yoga is needed to subdue the mind, and realize the Atman.

The Yogi who realized his jivatman, is filled with ectasy and flowing love for the Lord, and engages in an uninterrupted Bhakti Yoga, and finally obtains the Turiya.

(In detail later)

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Sudarshan,

catuSpAd (or catuSpad) means “quadruped”, “having made four steps or divided into four parts”, or “having four staffs or consisting of four processes”.

pad means “to stand fast or fixed”, “to fall, fall down or out, or perish”, or “to go, resort or apply to, participate in, keep, or observe”.

pad (or pAd) indicates “a foot, on foot, or sticking to the feet”, “a step”, or “a fourth part, a quarter or quadrant”.

catuSpAd indicates a fourfold footing, stance, or foundation; four “outfalls” or expressions; four ways to go (and thus an intersection or crossing point); four resorts; four applications, modes of participation, or aspects of observance or appearance; four sites or four sights.

catuSpAd indicates four feet or steps, or a fourth part of one whole ~ and thus four quarters or cardinal directions ~ the four corners and four pillars (or beams) ~ four rays of light that are considered as the feet of a heavenly body .

pada indicates “a step, pace, or stride”, “a footstep, trace, vestige, mark, or the foot itself”, “a sign, token, or characteristic”, “a footing, standpoint, position, rank, station, site, abode, or home”, “a business affair, matter, object or cause of”, “a pretext”, or “a part, portion, or division” (e.g. ekapada, dvipada, tripada, catuSpada, etc.), “a square on a chess-board, a plot of ground, or the foot as a measure of length”, “a ray of light”, “a portion of a verse, quarter or line of a stanza”, “any one in a set of numbers, the sum of which is required”, or “a square root”.

pada represents “a foot”, while pAda (more directly) represents “the foot”.

pAda is “the foot (of men and animals)”, “the foot or leg of an inanimate object”, “a column or pillar”, “a wheel”, “a foot as a measure”, “the foot or root of a tree”, “the foot of a mountain, or a hill at the foot of a mountain”, “the base”, “a ray or beam of light (considered as the foot of a heavenly body)”, “a quarter, a fourth part (the fourth of a quadruped being one out of four)”, “the quadrant (of a circle)”, “a verse or line (as the fourth part of a regular stanza)”, or “the chapter of a book or section of a book consisting of four parts”.

The collective plural pAdAH indicates “the four parts” (i.e. all things required for completion of the whole).

sarvaM hyetad brahmAyamAtmA brahma so.ayamAtmA catuSpAd |2|

All this is verily Brahman; this Atman is Brahman; this Atman is quadruped (i.e. having four steps or understandings).

The Upanishad reveals that three of these understandings are associated with division, while the fourth stands undivided and alone.

There are three fundamental phases of manifest existence ~ as a solid, a liquid, or a gas ~ and yet there is only one elemental essence that stands firm and untouched (unmanifest and never changed in its true nature, despite all outward appearances).

The three stages of manifest reality are the three steps or footprints of Vishnu ~ i.e. the earth, the air, and the sky ~ and all of these are ultimately situated in “the space between the eyebrows”.

The fourth stage of unmanifest and ultimate reality is Aja Ekapad ~ the Shivadvaita Turiya.

Vishva and Taijasa and Prajna are aspects of Nara-Narayana; whereas the Turiya aspect is the one and only, unimaginable and unnameable Lord “Rudra Shiva”.

The one Brahman is divided as Narayana, and simultaneously undivided as Shiva.

Kala Brahman is known as Krishna or Vishnu, and Akala Brahman is known as Mahakala or Shiva.

The Turiya Pada is defined as being unmanifest, and so the four Padas can NOT all be considered as “manifestations” of Atman.

The three steps of Vishnu (Vishva, Taijasa, and Prajna) are the very form of Maya or Prakriti (Tamas, Rajas, and Sattva) ~ as I have already explained.

Shri Lakshmi is the Shakti (primary power or “weapon” of Vishnu) and Shri Devi is Maya.

Narayana Vishnu is fully expressed in the Trimurti, the Trikona, and the Three Qualities, Qualifications, Distinctions, or Conditions (i.e. the Three Gunas).

The mystery behind creation and manifestation belongs to Narayana Vishnu; while the mystery behind immortality and non-manifestation (invisibility or destruction) belongs to Rudra Shiva.

Advaita considers all three of the “forked” understandings as relative Avidya, with Turiya alone standing for all eternity as the ultimate and only true Vidya.

[Ram]

Interesting thread::)

Vishva is jagat
Taijasa is Indra (or Brahma)
Prajna is jiva (kaivalya)
Turiya is Brahman (para mukti)

Brahman is One and the Trinity.
Brahman with omnipotence or power of creation(Brahma/Saraswati)
Brahman with omniscience and power of dissolution (Shiva/Shakti)
Brahman with omnipresence and power of preservation ( Vishnu/Lakshmi)



If anybody could present a modern view of this, that would be impressive.(please attempt so even if it is not rigorous)


Indeed, modern science can be explained using the Sankya's 24 principles. I will try to post this when I have time, it will be a lengthy post. Sankya is the most beautiful and complete exposition you will come across that even vedanta did not make any corrections in this regard.

[Ram]

Namaste Sudarshan,

catuSpAd (or catuSpad) means “quadruped”, “having made four steps or divided into four parts”, or “having four staffs or consisting of four processes”.

pad means “to stand fast or fixed”, “to fall, fall down or out, or perish”, or “to go, resort or apply to, participate in, keep, or observe”.

pad (or pAd) indicates “a foot, on foot, or sticking to the feet”, “a step”, or “a fourth part, a quarter or quadrant”.

catuSpAd indicates a fourfold footing, stance, or foundation; four “outfalls” or expressions; four ways to go (and thus an intersection or crossing point); four resorts; four applications, modes of participation, or aspects of observance or appearance; four sites or four sights.

catuSpAd indicates four feet or steps, or a fourth part of one whole ~ and thus four quarters or cardinal directions ~ the four corners and four pillars (or beams) ~ four rays of light that are considered as the feet of a heavenly body .

pada indicates “a step, pace, or stride”, “a footstep, trace, vestige, mark, or the foot itself”, “a sign, token, or characteristic”, “a footing, standpoint, position, rank, station, site, abode, or home”, “a business affair, matter, object or cause of”, “a pretext”, or “a part, portion, or division” (e.g. ekapada, dvipada, tripada, catuSpada, etc.), “a square on a chess-board, a plot of ground, or the foot as a measure of length”, “a ray of light”, “a portion of a verse, quarter or line of a stanza”, “any one in a set of numbers, the sum of which is required”, or “a square root”.

pada represents “a foot”, while pAda (more directly) represents “the foot”.

pAda is “the foot (of men and animals)”, “the foot or leg of an inanimate object”, “a column or pillar”, “a wheel”, “a foot as a measure”, “the foot or root of a tree”, “the foot of a mountain, or a hill at the foot of a mountain”, “the base”, “a ray or beam of light (considered as the foot of a heavenly body)”, “a quarter, a fourth part (the fourth of a quadruped being one out of four)”, “the quadrant (of a circle)”, “a verse or line (as the fourth part of a regular stanza)”, or “the chapter of a book or section of a book consisting of four parts”.

The collective plural pAdAH indicates “the four parts” (i.e. all things required for completion of the whole).

sarvaM hyetad brahmAyamAtmA brahma so.ayamAtmA catuSpAd |2|

All this is verily Brahman; this Atman is Brahman; this Atman is quadruped (i.e. having four steps or understandings).

The Upanishad reveals that three of these understandings are associated with division, while the fourth stands undivided and alone.

There are three fundamental phases of manifest existence ~ as a solid, a liquid, or a gas ~ and yet there is only one elemental essence that stands firm and untouched (unmanifest and never changed in its true nature, despite all outward appearances).

The three stages of manifest reality are the three steps or footprints of Vishnu ~ i.e. the earth, the air, and the sky ~ and all of these are ultimately situated in “the space between the eyebrows”.

The fourth stage of unmanifest and ultimate reality is Aja Ekapad ~ the Shivadvaita Turiya.

Vishva and Taijasa and Prajna are aspects of Nara-Narayana; whereas the Turiya aspect is the one and only, unimaginable and unnameable Lord “Rudra Shiva”.

The one Brahman is divided as Narayana, and simultaneously undivided as Shiva.

Kala Brahman is known as Krishna or Vishnu, and Akala Brahman is known as Mahakala or Shiva.

The Turiya Pada is defined as being unmanifest, and so the four Padas can NOT all be considered as “manifestations” of Atman.

The three steps of Vishnu (Vishva, Taijasa, and Prajna) are the very form of Maya or Prakriti (Tamas, Rajas, and Sattva) ~ as I have already explained.

Shri Lakshmi is the Shakti (primary power or “weapon” of Vishnu) and Shri Devi is Maya.

Narayana Vishnu is fully expressed in the Trimurti, the Trikona, and the Three Qualities, Qualifications, Distinctions, or Conditions (i.e. the Three Gunas).

The mystery behind creation and manifestation belongs to Narayana Vishnu; while the mystery behind immortality and non-manifestation (invisibility or destruction) belongs to Rudra Shiva.

Advaita considers all three of the “forked” understandings as relative Avidya, with Turiya alone standing for all eternity as the ultimate and only true Vidya.

pada means a quarter or a division by extension. Atma is understood to be ekapada, so the chatuspad must be understood to refer to a partcular aspect of Atma and not Atma itself. Treat atma itself as a chatuspad(when it is an ekapad) and then sublating the other three padas is a far fetched interpretation. As it turns out, Atma is Brahman, and the various padas are just different divisions in Atma sakshatkara.

All this interpretations are based on the theory of adhyasa(superimposition), which has been declined by scripture at various places. For eg, the reality of jagat has been explicitly upheld in Bhagwad Gita, which will mean that Vaishvanara is real and not sublated in Turiya:

asatyam apratistam te jagad ahur anisvaram
aparaspara sambhutam kim anyat kama haitukam

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Ram,

pAd refers primarily to the foot or footing, and thus foundational understanding. And catuSpAd refers to four primary understandings, all of which are required to complete the instruction on the fourfold nature of auM.

omityetadaksharamidaM sarvaM tasyopavyAkhyAnaM bhUtaM bhavad-bhaviSyaditi sarvamoÑkAra eva |
yaccAnyat-trikAlAtItaM tadapyoÑkAra eva |1|

Om is the Word, and it is all this; and its explanation is this: All that is past, present, and future, is verily Om.
Also that which is beyond the triple conception of time is verily Om.

Now that the Mandukya has properly introduced its initial perspective, it is quite clear that Om is the “quadruped” under consideration here.

a is Vishva, u is Taijasa, and M is Prajna ~ and these are the three “foot-prints” of Narayana Vishnu.

auM taken as a perfect whole is the Ekapad (Rudra Shiva), and a + u + M is the Tripad (Vamana Vishnu).

Ekapad plus Tripad equals Catushpad!

Solid and Liquid and Gas are the three primary manifestations of all matter; and the pure unchanging and unseen (unless by special techniques) essence that is the basis for all three manifestations is well understood.

Three temporarily divided feet that are in essence only one eternally undivided foot ~ Aja Ekapad.

Is it “far-fetched” to suggest that ice and water and steam are all different understandings of H2O ?

Does any scripture refute the idea that what we perceive as past, present, and future, are in truth only passing aspects of the one eternal and unfathomable continuum of Time itself ?

[Sudarshan]

Namaste-ji!



Three temporarily divided feet that are in essence only one eternally undivided foot ~ Aja Ekapad.

Is it “far-fetched” to suggest that ice and water and steam are all different understandings of H2O ?


Yes, it is too far fetched to suggest that ice and water are sublated by steam....All of water, ice and steam are always real. The interpretation based on explaining the divisions of Brahman( as forms), does not suffer from the need to dismiss the first three states, while stilling upholding that turIya alone is the ultimate reality.




Does any scripture refute the idea that what we perceive as past, present, and future, are in truth only passing aspects of the one eternal and unfathomable continuum of Time itself ?


This is irrelevant. When we are trying to prove something that we dont percieve, proof is needed to prove the concept. The absence of pramana is no proof in such cases. To prove that the world is unreal, you need proof, a very strong one, and not based on any speculations. Infact this possibility is denied in all scriptures and can you show even one single solid evidence. ( not subject to speculations). Simple, find a single authentic quote that dismisses the reality of the world. There are so many that say the opposite.

On the other hand, there is no proof need to prove the reality. What proof do you need to prove that the sky is blue? Padma Purana goes to the extent of saying that wherever jagat is mentioned to be mitya(if at all), it only refers to its non eternal nature.

[Sudarshan]

Hi Ram,



Prajna is jiva (kaivalya)


This is what I stated but I am not sure what Acharya has said. I think the dvaitins interpret Prajna as Brahma.



Brahman with omnipotence or power of creation(Brahma/Saraswati)
Brahman with omniscience and power of dissolution (Shiva/Shakti)
Brahman with omnipresence and power of preservation ( Vishnu/Lakshmi)


Does the Trinity has any proof? Must be your personal opinion.





Indeed, modern science can be explained using the Sankya's 24 principles. I will try to post this when I have time, it will be a lengthy post. Sankya is the most beautiful and complete exposition you will come across that even vedanta did not make any corrections in this regard.

Cool , I would await that.:)

[Sudarshan]

Namaste Ji.



Vishva and Taijasa and Prajna are aspects of Nara-Narayana; whereas the Turiya aspect is the one and only, unimaginable and unnameable Lord “Rudra Shiva”.


Is this Shaiva perspective or that of advaita...Advaita does not consider Nara Narayana as Prajna and Shiva as Turiya. Can you show where Sri Shankara has said that? Either both are Prajna or both are Turiya or Narayana is Turiya and Shiva is Prajna.




Kala Brahman is known as Krishna or Vishnu, and Akala Brahman is known as Mahakala or Shiva.


Gita Bhasya of Sri Shankara starts out with a reverance to the Parabrahman known as Vasudeva and Govinda. Is Parabrahmam same as Kala Brahman( who is just Maya and unreal?)



Advaita considers all three of the “forked” understandings as relative Avidya, with Turiya alone standing for all eternity as the ultimate and only true Vidya.

This is perfect except for the "forked" understandings. All manifestations of the Lord are wonderful, real and eternal isn't it? I beleive the word real and unreal have to properly explained.

[Sudarshan]

asatyam apratistam te jagad ahur anisvaram
aparaspara sambhutam kim anyat kama haitukam


Ah, have you seen how this is handled in Sri Shankara's commentary? He never tries to defend it like it is targetting only Buddhism, because the reasons are obvious. His defence is wholly unrealistic here.

The most "satsifactory" explanation I have heard so far is that Arjuna was not ready yet for hearing about "higher" truths such as Mayavada. How to beleive this considering the fact that Arjuna was revealed the Vishvaroopa, and Bhagavan describes it as a unique form that he displayed to Arjuna?

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Sudarshan,

I have not suggested that the concepts of ice and water are negated by the concept of steam, but it should be obvious that when solid ice melts into liquid water the previously existing block of ice is now non-existent, having been entirely transformed into the liquid state. And when that same body of liquid water evaporated into the gaseous steam phase the previously existing pool of water is now non-existent, having been entirely transformed into the gaseous state. And throughout all of these temporary and conditional changes of manifest nature, the true and ultimate nature of H2O remains untouched and unseen, as the fixed stage for the interplay of its various appearances or temporary manifestations.

Vishva, Taijasa, and Prajna (just as solid, liquid, and gas; or past, present, and future; or A, U, and M) are the three principles of a manifest existence or Creation; and behind that world of manifestation there is a subtle realm of unmanifest but eternal and unborn existence. And that unborn and eternal (“ultimate”) Truth is the Turiya.

The matter of the scriptural refutation of “superimposition”, and thereby the supposed refutation of all of my comments regarding the Catushpad Atman, was brought up by Ramji, and I simply questioned: “Does any scripture refute the idea that what we perceive as past, present, and future, are in truth only passing aspects of the one eternal and unfathomable continuum of Time itself ?”

And you responded: “This is irrelevant.” :confused:

It would appear that you have not actually read the very first line of the Mandukyopanishad, which clearly states:

“All that is past, present, and future, is verily Om; and that which is beyond the triple conception of time is verily Om.”

And I have NOT attempted to “prove that the world is unreal”.

[sarabhanga]

The Turiya is Shiva ~ please read the Mandukyopanishad.

Narayana is the Creator, and (as we also know from the Mandukya) the Creator is Prajna.

It appears that you have never actually spoken with any member of Shri Shankaracarya’s Order.

Narayana is Guru (i.e. Prajna), and Shiva is God (i.e. Turiya), and for Dasanami Sannyasins (and ALL traditional Hindus) the Guru is equivalent with God.

Om namo Narayana !

Since Shankaracarya’s Gita Bhasya is a commentary on the Gita, it naturally begins in praise of Lord Krishna who is commonly known as Vasudeva or Govinda. But remember that Govinda is only Bhairava !

In Advaita there can be no separation of Kala and Akala.

And NO manifestation is absolutely eternal.

And since you are so keen to use the words “real” and “unreal” it would certainly be a good idea for you to explain exactly what you mean by these terms.

[Ram]

Does the Trinity has any proof? Must be your personal opinion.


Indeed, it has proof, provided you are ready to look out of the sectarian box and all bookish and polemic literature.

My reasons are three fold for saying this:

1. For personal reasons, and family background I cannot distinguish between Narayana and Devi. Such a distinction is viewed by me as an offence, so there is ultimately no question of grading the trimurti. Any difference between Shiva and Vishnu or Devi for that matter, if at all true, are superficial and insignificant as far as I am concerned. And I dont need books to teach me anything in this regard.

2. I am guessing that your own views are based on the Vaishnava literature that proves the supremacy of Vishnu, from the vedas, the Upanishads, the puranas and so forth. While there is considerable depth in these polemical literature, it also bypasses references of Shiva as paratattva and even tries to ignore Shaiva Puranas as tamasic. No sane person in the world will agree that the same Vyasa compiled all the puranas, and then labelled some of his own works as tamasic. That is a human interpolation.

If Vyasa Bhagavan referred to Shiva as the supreme in some of his works, Vishnu in some other, and Devi in some other, what can it mean? All of these are just arthavada, or just eulogizing a particular entity. To any Hindu who is not bowing to dogma, it should be clear that these texts are just meant to emphasise different apects of the same God. Any Hindu can teach you this.

I also clearly mentioned the reason in another thread, why proving Vishnu sarvottama is so critical to establishing a dvaita-advaita philosophy. So it is only a polemical strategy. You need to either establish either Shiva sarvottama or Vishnu sarvottama to prove Vishsitadvaita or Dvaita, because even though dvaita-advaita vada is strongly supported by scripture, it cannot be rigorously defended by holding Vishnu and Shiva in a complementary relationship. So, Shaiviate of dvaita origin will have to prove that Shiva is paramatma and Vishnu is a jeevatma or Shiva's Shakti to defend their philosophy. Similarly, Vaishnavites need to prove that Shiva is just a jeeva to firmly prove their philosophical position. Can you show me a single school that preached dvaita or dvaita-advaita, without either a Vishnu or a Shiva bias? There is none, and they wont be taken seriously. Monothesim, by very defintion requires a particular diety to be the supreme and the controller of all others - whether it be Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu or Shiva. Some followers of monotheism get greatly attached to this supreme concept of God, and get overwhelmingly devoted and win their liberation. Some others misunderstand things, they end up abusing the religion, and thrive by snubbing others who dont beleive in their God and so on...the religion of Monotheism is not at fault, the fault is in the followers who have failed to read into the strong message of total faith that lies embedded in Monotheism.(Bhakti and grace is much more emphasised in Monotheism than Monism for obvious reasons)

3. Thirdly, I cannot honestly find a good reason why Vishnu worship is superior to Shiva worship to a layman like me. I do not know either Vishnu or Shiva. I only beleive in a supreme being, which has no form , or has a form that is not prakritik. That means, I cannot visualize God in anyway, whether it be Vishnu or Shiva. Any form of God that we see in photos is purely imaginative. Is Vishnu really the being who has four weapons? Is Shive really the being with a matted hair and having bhasma on his forehead? This is all human symbols given to God.

So let us say I want to meditate on Vishnu. What am I supposed to meditate on? A God with four hands, and blue skin color? Or, is it a God who looks like Shiva? So, all this is absolutely meaningless when it comes to meditation. The object of meditation is to know God, for which an initial object is assumed as a focus of concentration. Some symbol is chosen to start with. Honestly, I find it impossible to concentrate on such human like Gods with considerable details. It is much easier to concentrate on a single small point, located betwen the eye brows, or at the center of your heart. I concentarte on a single black imagined dot, and assume it is Vishnu. That is all is possible as long as you neither know Vishnu or Shiva. Shaivites would think that this small dot is Shiva. Any difference in approach?

Absolutely none. To a starter, any differences between Shiva and Vishnu are just fictitious. You will automatically know more as you grow in spiritual wisdom from repeated medittaive practice. Then you can figure out how to meditate on Shiva or Vishnu ( that is, after you know who these two Gods are in reality)

All these differences between Gods are man made. Even if they are true, who am I, a mere mortal supposed to grade Gods? Isn;t the very thought apalling? Acharyas and sages are different, they had honest intentions to make these claims, but we should ask ourselves are we really competent to grade Shiva and Vishnu? Why so much arguing, hatred and violence based on different concepts of God? There is truly one God whom you can call by any name and any form -- until you are mature enough to realize God. It is possible that Vishnu is a higher God than Shiva or vice versa, but the why the hell do I care now?

[atanu]

Namaste-ji!

Yes, it is too far fetched to suggest that ice and water are sublated by steam....All of water, ice and steam are always real.


Just came in on invitation from a friend.


Namaste Sudarshan,

I think that both you and Ram have got the example of water appearing as liquid, solid and gas wrong. It is not the case of ice/water/steam sublated by each other. But knowing the real unseen unborn cause that appears as in any of the three states of liquid/solid/gas. Beneath, whatever is seen, there in an unborn principle. We see water as liquid/ice/or vapour. But a scientist will see water as H2O -- a molecule. A spiritualist, however, will know water as Apah -- an expression of a desire in Brahman. Ultimately and fundamentally, what is water? It is a desgin made in consciousness, without consciousness itself changing (even consciousness being a mere name to indicate that unchanging indescribable reality).

Regarding, Turiya, please refer to the description of it in Mandukya. Turiya is stated as the Self itself. The other padas are not so described. The three states of Pragnya, Taijjas, and Visva lead to each other, the Turiya remaining as the whole timelessly. In Pragnya there is no thought, yet it leads to thoughts/dreams (Taijassa), which again leads to Visva. These three states are in the realm of Pragnya. But the Turiya is not -- it is neither Pragnya or non Pragnya. It is the indescribable Self, which can only be experienced in unity with it.


I understand that Mandukya Upanishad can be understood truly in Turiya only, since its subject is Turiya, which is indescribable, nor Pragnya and neither non-Pragnya.


Regards

[Ram]

Regarding, Turiya, please refer to the description of it in Mandukya. Turiya is stated as the Self itself. The other padas are not so described. The three states of Pragnya, Taijjas, and Visva lead to each other, the Turiya remaining as the whole timelessly. In Pragnya there is no thought, yet it leads to thoughts/dreams (Taijassa), which again leads to Visva. These three states are in the realm of Pragnya. But the Turiya is not -- it is neither Pragnya or non Pragnya. It is the indescribable Self, which can only be experienced in unity with it.


Let us see each of your lines:

"Turiya is stated as the Self itself" - Turiya is stated to be Atma, which in your trasnlation is the Self. I dont translate Self as Atma. Atma is Brahman. Yes, Brahman is Turiya.

"The other padas are not so described" - True, Prajna is Jiva, which is not Brahman, and Visva and Taijasa, which are not identical to Brahman - no contradictions, even by your own words.


"The three states of Pragnya, Taijjas, and Visva lead to each other, the Turiya remaining as the whole timelessly." - Correct, Atma sakshatrakara proceeds as Visva, Brahman and Jiva, all of which are Kala. No contradictions with my interpretations, even by your own descriptions.

"In Pragnya there is no thought, yet it leads to thoughts/dreams (Taijassa), which again leads to Visva. " - This is a self contradiction. You said that Prajna has no thoughts, but it leads to thoughts..akin to saying that I am not rich, but I bought a benz car.


"These three states are in the realm of Pragnya." - Yes, I have not contradicted this anywhere. Atma sakshatkara includes Vishva and Brahma sakshatkara.


"But the Turiya is not -- it is neither Pragnya or non Pragnya. It is the indescribable Self, which can only be experienced in unity with it."

Yes, Turiya is not Prajna (Brahman is not jiva), it is the indestructible Brahman, which is experienced only(sayujya mukti) in unity with it.





I understand that Mandukya Upanishad can be understood truly in Turiya only, since its subject is Turiya, which is indescribable, nor Pragnya and neither non-Pragnya.


This is not in objection with Vishsitadvaita in anyway. Do prove me wrong.

Your problem is equating Atma with the Self, as any non advatin will point out. Replace Atma with Brahman, and read Ayam Atma Brahma in an organic body-part relationship, and there are no contradictions anywhere.

Atanu Bannerjee, could you point out errors in Vishsitadvaita interpretation of Mandukya, I will be too glad to correct them for you. We read it almost like advaitins, but you know, our interpretation does not suffer from a problem of the need to sublate all non Turiya states. Make a simple change - Change Atma to Brahman. Read all Mahavakyas in an organic relationship, in a co-ordinate predicate way. There are no contradictions to sort out, no need to introduce anivachaniya, nor any need to make Brahman Nirguna, nor any need to negate the reality of Visva or Tajasa.

[atanu]

Namaskar,

[Replace Atma with Brahman, and read Ayam Atma Brahma in an organic body-part relationship, and there are no contradictions anywhere.]

Oh. I will replace self with Atma wherever I used self. But dear, what does Atma mean -- that which is one's own self. The point, however, is there is nothing beside the Turiya Atma, mntioned as the truth in the particular upanishad. There is no individual soul or individual being, which also you cannot interpolate. So, this Atma is Brahman. And this atma is shivoadvaitam. I know different people understand advitam to mean different thing as per their predilection. So, if you have your own view of this advaitam then you may also have your own view of Advaita. Why bother?



Also, I note that you have ignored to mention the mis-understanding wrt to the real water that appears as solid, liquid and vapour. The real water is Pragnya wishing to see it as water. The Pragnya has not changed however.



["In Pragnya there is no thought, yet it leads to thoughts/dreams (Taijassa), which again leads to Visva. " - This is a self contradiction. You said that Prajna has no thoughts, but it leads to thoughts..akin to saying that I am not rich, but I bought a benz car.]



Yes, I am correct. Pragnya is not thought, which are the various faces of Pragnya. Please refer to Mandukya where it says that "Its face (Lord Pragnya's face) is thought. It is wrong to say "I am not rich", in the first place. How can I be rich? I is I. However a thought in I can feel that I is rich. This is the crux of the matter; attaching thoughts emanating from consciousness as the consciousness itself is the first superposition.



[-----. There are no contradictions to sort out, no need to introduce anivachaniya, nor any need to make Brahman Nirguna, nor any need to negate the reality of Visva or Tajasa.]


There is no need to sublate non Turiya states at all. You only think that Advaita has a need to do so. OM as a whole is Brahman, the Amatra beneath the OM is Brahman. But without the indescribable amatra, the OM (Vag) is not there at all. Jagat Miythya, Brahman Satya, Brahman Jagat. I request you to examine concepts as organic whole and not pick some part alone. Advaita does not conflict with any knowledge whatsoever. It only conflicts with sense perceptions, which are as such faulty. Like seeing blue color in sky, where there is none.


Regarding, VA understanding, the greatest problem I face is the dictum: When Experience and shruti contradict, the experience should get precedence. A short write up follows.

The foundation of vishistadvaita is the dictum “In cases of Scripture conflicting with Perception, Scripture is not stronger”. VA either ignores or adds qualification to the verses that speak of “distinction less Brahman – the Supreme” as the highest truth. Few such verses that point to “distinction less Brahman – the Supreme” are presented below.


'In the beginning, my dear, there was that only which is, one only without a second' (Kh. Up. VI, 2, 1); 'Bliss is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. III, 6, 1); 'All this is that Self' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 7); 'There is here no diversity whatever' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 19); 'From death to death goes he who sees any difference here' (Ka. Up. II, 4, 10); 'For where there is duality as it were, there one sees the other'; 'but where the Self has become all of him, by what means, and whom, should he see? by what means, and whom, should he know?' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 15); 'the effect is a name merely which has its origin in speech; the truth is that (the thing made of clay) is clay merely' (Kh. Up. VI, 1, 4); ‘for if he makes but the smallest distinction in it there is fear for him' (Taitt. Up. II, 7)


The following passages are from the Vishnu-purâna:

In which all difference vanishes, which is pure Being, which is not the object of words, which is known by the Self only--that knowledge is called Brahman' (VI, 7, 53); .--'Of that Self, although it exists in one's own and in other bodies, the knowledge is of one kind, and that is Reality; those who maintain duality hold a false view' (II, 14, 31); 'As owing to the difference of the holes of the flute the air equally passing through them all is called by the names of the different notes of the musical scale; so it is with the universal Self' (II, 14, 32); 'He is I; he is thou; he is all: this Universe is his form. Abandon the error of difference. The king being thus instructed, abandoned the view of difference, having gained an intuition of Reality' (II, 16, 24). 'When that view which gives rise to difference is absolutely destroyed, who then will make the untrue distinction between the individual Self and Brahman?' (VI, 7, 94).


'He knows Brahman, he becomes Brahman only' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 9); 'Knowing him only a man passes over death; there is no other path to go' (Svet. Up. III, 8).



To ignore such shruti and say: “In cases of Scripture conflicting with Perception, Scripture is not stronger” is correct? I do not understand. It is better to first look at sense perception and see how weak they are and understand them in the light of advaitam Turiya. I ask “Is what is perceived through the senses the absolute truth?” Then animals know better than us since they have better sense apparatus – they see, hear, and smell better. And then what is the use of scriptures? Is scripture only meant to state what is obvious to the senses? Though the proponents of Dvaita and vishistadvaita hold that “scripture is authoritative on the ground of eternity, begininglessness and free from defects”, still they argue “scripture is to be interpreted without opposing the perception”. So, they add modifications to very simple "Thou art That". Why shruti is even needed? Perception alone would do, since by no means perception is to be opposed.


Further, in support of “Perception” the following is argued by VA proponents:


“If in some cases cognition of difference be a defect, it does not follow that it is always so in respect to everything. Such a contingency would arise even in respect of non-difference. For the knowledge of the scared text cannot arise except with the knowledge of the difference involved in words, the sentences and their meanings.

The knowledge of non-difference too is dependent upon the cognition of difference like perception and therefore the distinction between the scripture and perception as the sublater and sublated does not hold good.

Therefore visistadvaitin conclude, whenever scriptural texts conflict with perception, the former should be interpreted without opposition to the later.

Perception is the foundational and basic factor of all experiences. It offers subsistence to inference and scripture, and thus is of greater force than scripture which depends on perception.”

End of citation


Is Turiya experiece a sense perception? If sense perceptions are required to interpret and color mahavakyas then, what is the need of Vedas at all. Perceptions alone should do. The knowledge of Turiya is not of perception, since it is neither Pragnya and nor not-Pragnya. And this also ignores the fact that Avidya leads to Vidya, but Avidya is not the truth. They simply ignore shruti verses such as below:

'Having known it, let him practise meditation' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 21);


TB II, 8, 8, 5

The Word, imperishable, is the Firstborn
of Truth, mother of the Veda and hub of
immortality. May she come to us in
happiness in the sacrifice! May she,
our protecting Goddess, be easy of
entreaty!


So, although Vac is the first born of truth but Vac is not THAT, independent of the Turiya source. The result of meditation as enjoined above in Bri. Up. IV, 4, 21 (after revelation of the vac) is the final goal. Therefore pramanas are the directives to the truth – which is part less as per shruti. And shrutis themselves are not THAT but they are pointers to THAT, like an address is a pointer to a man but not the man himself.



Om namah bhagavate shri Vasudevayya namah
Om namah Sivayya

[Sudarshan]

I also clearly mentioned the reason in another thread, why proving Vishnu sarvottama is so critical to establishing a dvaita-advaita philosophy. So it is only a polemical strategy. You need to either establish either Shiva sarvottama or Vishnu sarvottama to prove Vishsitadvaita or Dvaita, because even though dvaita-advaita vada is strongly supported by scripture, it cannot be rigorously defended by holding Vishnu and Shiva in a complementary relationship. So, Shaiviate of dvaita origin will have to prove that Shiva is paramatma and Vishnu is a jeevatma or Shiva's Shakti to defend their philosophy. Similarly, Vaishnavites need to prove that Shiva is just a jeeva to firmly prove their philosophical position. Can you show me a single school that preached dvaita or dvaita-advaita, without either a Vishnu or a Shiva bias? There is none, and they wont be taken seriously. Monothesim, by very defintion requires a particular diety to be the supreme and the controller of all others - whether it be Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu or Shiva. Some followers of monotheism get greatly attached to this supreme concept of God, and get overwhelmingly devoted and win their liberation. Some others misunderstand things, they end up abusing the religion, and thrive by snubbing others who dont beleive in their God and so on...the religion of Monotheism is not at fault, the fault is in the followers who have failed to read into the strong message of total faith that lies embedded in Monotheism.(Bhakti and grace is much more emphasised in Monotheism than Monism for obvious reasons)


Please give a good justification for such guesses. Are you trying to say that Acharya's work was just contrived? And he did not even beliieve in what he was establishing? Are you trying to say that Sri Ramanuja did not beleive in Vishnu sarvottama and yet he proved it in his works. Looks like a speculation. On what reasoning can you base such claims?

Please dont write irrelevant stuff that nobody will beleive in. Please answer properly.

[Sudarshan]

Namaste Atanu,



Oh. I will replace self with Atma wherever I used self. But dear, what does Atma mean -- that which is one's own self. The point, however, is there is nothing beside the Turiya Atma, mntioned as the truth in the particular upanishad. There is no individual soul or individual being, which also you cannot interpolate. So, this Atma is Brahman. And this atma is shivoadvaitam. I know different people understand advitam to mean different thing as per their predilection. So, if you have your own view of this advaitam then you may also have your own view of Advaita. Why bother?


It is due to the highly controversial nature of the texts of Upanishads that Sage Vyasa composed a summary of the vedanta and called it Brahma sutras. Thus, all disputes are to be settled using Brahma sutras, insteading of fighting it out with Upanishads, open to interpretations...

What do Brahma Sutras say regarding advaita, and regarding Ajati vada or Mayavada or even regarding Nirguna Brahman?

What does the Gita say regarding them?


Have an open mind while reading scriptures and judging the commentaries of others. One single verse in vedanta sutras are enough for advaita: (2.1.22). Note that this verse is a restatement of an earlier statement and confirms the relationship.


Read Sri Shankara's own commentary on this verse and decide for yourself. When the verse explicitly declares that Brahman and jiva are different because it is taught by the scripture, Shankaracharya brushes aside the sutra in a characteristic way, like this:

The scriptures teach that Brahman and the soul are different, (inserted here by Shankara) but we know it is purely due to avidya.

Brahmasutras have never spoken of a concept called Maya nor of avidya of the advaitin kind. Nor is the identity ever affirmed ever later in the entire commentary, which means the dualist relationship holds for the entire length of the sutras. Yet Sri Badarayana is given a super knockout in that commentary. When Vyasa, who is an incarnation of Vishnu is given such rough treatment, how to take your commentaries seriously? The same thing has been done to the Mandukya as well.

Brahmasutras also say that soul is part of the Brahman.(2.3.43). Read Shankara's interpretations of this pada to see how he deals with the "part" and makes it a "whole".

[Sudarshan]

And since you are so keen to use the words “real” and “unreal” it would certainly be a good idea for you to explain exactly what you mean by these terms.


Advaita's definitions regarding reality:
Real: One which has not been sublated.( defined in a neagtive sense actually)

Vishsitadvaitin's definition will look like:
Real: Being or occurring in fact or actuality or having verifiable existence.

The problems regarding a negative defintion is that there is no frame of reference to know what is sublated or not, and not a particularly useful definition in a practical context.

So a sage realizing the paramArtika satta says that everything that others see is sublated, while others have no means to verify them. Hence, to take serious claims of such definitions, we need scripture to precisely define this for us. It has not, and it makes no references to sublations anywhere. This maybe the biggest controversy in the history of vedanta. No non advaitic sage has yet been able to verify if this is the case. Advaita does rely on super natural verification even to start with, for a logical defence -- which others dont have to.

Vishsitadvatins even hold dreams as real as we still recollect the dream, and if we had a nightmare we wake up with a pounding heart etc, so the experience is actually real. Ever had a thief or ghost chasing you in the dream? You will wake up with a big alarm!! The dream is recorded in the memory as if it were real - we can remember dreams for several hours and even for years.

[Sudarshan]

The Turiya is Shiva ~ please read the Mandukyopanishad.


Just because it uses the term Shivodvaitam? Even Shankara has not referred to as Shiva here. Shivodvaitam is just referred to as an auspicious advaita, which is Narayana.



Narayana is the Creator, and (as we also know from the Mandukya) the Creator is Prajna.


There are enough pramANas to indicate that Narayana is unborn, and not Prajna, who is born from Turiya. By the way, Bhagavad Gita should be a good proof of the fact that Vasudeva Krishna is the absolute -- he does say that there is nothing highest whatsoever to him.( mattah parataram nasti..)




Since Shankaracarya’s Gita Bhasya is a commentary on the Gita, it naturally begins in praise of Lord Krishna who is commonly known as Vasudeva or Govinda. But remember that Govinda is only Bhairava !


It does not merely praise him as Prajna, but as the Parabrahman. Read his Brahmasutra Bhasya, and read the header at the start of each pada - the same highest Vasudeva! He makes a few reference to Vishnu being the highest goal in a few places. And yes, he uses the name of Shiva once in his BSB - to refute the Pasupata doctrine promulgated by Shiva.

There are absolutely no indications in Shankara's works to prove that Narayana is Prajna, as in both BSB and GitaBhasya, Narayana is held to be the unborn supreme being! I request you show some evdience in either the BSB or the Gitabhasya to prove your assertion - Shiva is turiya and Narayana is prajna from within Shankara's prastana granthas. That is not his view at all, though it maybe the view of modern advaitin Acharyas.

Note the number of quotes from Vishnu Purana in his BSB and compare it with the number of quotes from Shaiva Puranas. Note how he interprets the word "Shiva" in Vishnu Sahasranama, "Vishnu alone is praised as Shiva in scripture because he is auspicious".

I am not trying to say that advaita has a different "rating" for Vishnu or Shiva. ( we can see even Ram siding with that!)

But what was Shankara's preference? There is very little doubt regarding that....you are free to prove otherwise by quoting from his main works especially the BSB. The BSB is the true yardstick with which his preferences can be judged instead of works like GitaBhaasya.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Sudarshan,

I asked for your own understanding of “reality” and “unreality” because you have been using those terms quite freely.

Advaita considers that true Reality is eternal and unborn Existence or Being.

If Vishishtadvaita’s definition of reality is “actual being” or “verifiable existence”, then it considers true Reality is “true Existence”. And the nature of “truth”, in this case, is apparently connected only with its “actuality” or “verifiability” ~ and then we have plenty of scope for argument over the precise verification methods, and on it goes.

Advaita only knows that the Truth is immortal, and although I must agree that im-mortal is a “negative definition” of Truth, consider what is negated here!

And Sanatana Dharma is NOT primarily defined by its “verification” ~ rather, Hindu Dharma is defined by its sanAtana (i.e. eternal, perpetual, permanent, everlasting) nature.

Advaita does NOT depend on verification by anyone ~ rather, Advaita follows the lead of Sanatana Dharma and relies on eternity as its primary judge of “actual” or ultimately true Reality.

[sarabhanga]

Sudarshan: “This thread is intended for a detailed examination of this Upanishad … No heated debates please, so that every one can contribute their own understanding of the Upanishad … The first twelve verses of the Upanishad and the 29 verses of Agama Prakarana [i.e. the Prathama Prakarana of Shri Gaudapada Karikas] may be used for the discussion.

First you used the Vedanta (Brahma) Sutras, and then the Padma Purana, and then Shankaracarya’s Gita Bhashya, and then the Bhagavadgita itself, and then Shankaracarya’s Brahmasutra Bhashya, and then the Vishnu Purana and the Vishnu Sahasranamavali !

And you have so far avoided the Mandukyopanishad and the Gaudapadakarika, and when I introduced the very first line of the actual Upanishad you deemed it irrelevant !

You started this thread and set the ground rules, and ever since you have completely ignored the very basis of this discussion !

If you cannot follow simple rules, why do you impose them on others ?

[sarabhanga]

Sudarshan: “Sage Vyasa composed a summary of the vedanta and called it Brahma sutras. Thus, all disputes are to be settled using Brahma sutras, instead of fighting it out with Upanishads, which are open to interpretations.”


THE SUTRAS

These systematic treatises were written in short aphorisms, called Sutras, meaning clues; and they were intended as memory aids to discussions on any topic which the student had already gone through with his Guru.

The thought was very much condensed, because much was taken for granted; and consequently, the maximum of thought was compressed into these Sutras in as few words as possible.

The desire for brevity was carried to such extremes that most of the Sutra literature is now unintelligible, and this is particularly true of the Vedanta Sutras, which has consequently given rise to different schools of interpretation.

Swami Vireswarananda

[Ram]

Please give a good justification for such guesses. Are you trying to say that Acharya's work was just contrived? And he did not even beliieve in what he was establishing? Are you trying to say that Sri Ramanuja did not beleive in Vishnu sarvottama and yet he proved it in his works. Looks like a speculation. On what reasoning can you base such claims?

Please dont write irrelevant stuff that nobody will beleive in. Please answer properly.

Hi Sudarshan,


Let us consider the fact there are zillions of religions in the world, and that there are atleast three well known philosophical positions in Vedanta- advaita, vishistadvaita, and dvaita.

There are only four possibilities.

1. All religions are man made and wrong - a position accepted by atheists.

2. Some religions are right, some are wrong, and following a wrong system
leads to disaster.

3. Some religions are right, some are wrong, but following all religions ultimately lead to the truth.

4. There is only one true system, and any other is a doorway to destruction.

All people in the world will fall into one of these categories. Let me know which category you fall into, because without knowing your answer, with any argument I make, I will just make a fool of myself. If you are already "convinced" that any view that is against your views is irrelevant and wrong, then I dont want to waste my time in defending my logic. You are free to your hold your views.

In short, I want to know if you are open to ideas or closed to any inputs.

[Ram]

THE SUTRAS


These systematic treatises were written in short aphorisms, called Sutras, meaning clues; and they were intended as memory aids to discussions on any topic which the student had already gone through with his Guru.

The thought was very much condensed, because much was taken for granted; and consequently, the maximum of thought was compressed into these Sutras in as few words as possible.

The desire for brevity was carried to such extremes that most of the Sutra literature is now unintelligible, and this is particularly true of the Vedanta Sutras, which has consequently given rise to different schools of interpretation.

Swami Vireswarananda

This is not a neutral view of the sutras. Any person versed in purva mimamsa would immediately know that advaitin commentary breaks rules of interpretation of sutras. Even an advatin like Dr.S.Radhakrishnan has conceded this, and for your info even an advatin stalwart( of advaitasiddhi fame) like Madhusudhana Saraswati has confessed to this fact.

Advaita can at the best, interpret the sutras of Badarayana in favour of the lower Brahman or Isvara, and the concept of Nirvishesha Brahman has been denied here.

The sutras are brief and concise, but they are to the point and honestly least ambiguos in most places. Madhavcharya's Bhasya in my opinion is the most perfect, if you take the exact words of the sutras. I am not a follower of his school though, and I do not think his view of the vedanta is accurate.( but no denying that he was faithful to the sutras, even better than Sri Ramanuja, and I can justify this). Madva is the only one who justifies his meaning of every sutras in his anuvyakyana. INfact, he is thorough and justifies why his interpretation is valid very rigorously. Ramanuja does not do this with precision and in Shankara's commentary we find blatant violation of rules of interpretation without any justification. ( more on the lines of - I interpret as it pleases and suits me)

Most commentrators have rightly interpreted them , in accordance with the mimasa shastras. If you do not understand me, I would be too glad to point out some of these places where exactly these rules are broken. Simply following the words of fellow advatins wont help. You must take point of views from every source. I do so, and I have to confess that only Madhva Bhasya can be considered as the most accurate one going by rules of interpretation, grammer and intellectual honesty.(note that I am not a Madhva follower, but can you find a single flaw in his commentary?). Madhva is Madhva, there is no denying his intellectual prowess and commitment. ( And of course, I do not think dvaita is correct and has a Sankya bias).:)


And also guys, please carry forward discussions into another thread. Let this be restricted to Mandukya. It is out of topic already.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Ram,

The Swami’s view is completely neutral !

mImAMsA is “profound thought or reflection or consideration, investigation, examination, discussion, or theory”; and particularly “examination of the Vedic text”.

There are TWO schools of Mimamsa:

1. Purva-Mimamsa or Karma-Mimamsa by Jamini, concerned chiefly with the correct interpretation of Vedic texts, and commonly called “the Mimamsa”; and

2. Uttara-Mimamsa or Brahma-Mimamsa by Badarayana, concerned chiefly with the nature of Brahma, and commonly called “the Vedanta”.

Since Vedanta does NOT depend on Purva-Mimamsa, it is not at all surprising that wise Vedantins have not concerned themselves with the foolishness of using Purva-Mimamsa in any analysis of Vedantic texts! And I completely agree that no Advaitin commentary of the Vedanta Sutras pays any attention to Purva-Mimamsa !

[Ram]

Since Vedanta does NOT depend on Purva-Mimamsa, it is not at all surprising that wise Vedantins have not concerned themselves with the foolishness of using Purva-Mimamsa in any analysis of Vedantic texts! And I completely agree that no Advaitin commentary of the Vedanta Sutras pays any attention to Purva-Mimamsa !

Can you enumerate the rules of interpretation of scriptures in Uttara Mimamsa? And tell me how different it is from Purva Mimamsa? All such foundation come solely from Mimamsa and it is clearly explained in some of the Upanishads. In which text has the rules for the interpretation of Vedanta sutras mentioned? The answer is none has been mentioned, and naturally it means all rules are from the former mimamsa. You cannot make your own new rules.

This is a joke. I hope you do know what you are saying. Advaita discards the rituals of purva mimamsa, but no Hindu school can discard any of Shankya, Nyaya or purva mimansa when coming to interpretation of scriptures. All schools heavily borrow from both Shankya, Nyaya and Purva Mimamsa, and without them there is absolutely no Uttara Mimamsa. Are you saying that Advaita does not need the Nyaya philsophy and the rich logical content it brings? The very basic learning and interpretation of Uttara Mimamsa pre supposes knowledge of purva mimasa and Nyaya. Advaita follows them wherver it is convenient for them, and chooses to discard wherever it is a problem. Advaita uses plenty of purva mimamsa logic in their granthas and wherever they want to they just dump it.

Shankara's commentary overrides the views of Badarayana(openly) in certain contexts - that should show you where the commentary stands. Yours is not a NEUTRAL one, because you cannot make neutral decisions without knowledge of how others interpret the sutras.

Shankara sees very few purva pakshas, and breaks conventions in the interpretations. Your explanation is indeed very funny. In some places, Shankara realizes that he has violated the convention and gives some (lame) explanations, and sometimes even bypasses that.

A standard protocol folowed in any sutras is that the views of the purva pakshas are stated, and then siddhanta is stated. This is a such a common practice. Only in Shankara's commentary will you find that some times purva paksha is taken as siddhanta, or dismissed altogether. Occasionally, you will find Shankara using a long series of sutras(which are siddhantas) as a purva paksha. I hope you atleast understand what I am saying. Not to speak of the context switches between Niguna and Saguna Brahman in the Phala Adhyaya without any reasons.

As I said earlier, Brahma Sutras, explained in advaita's term can at the best qualify as Isvara sutras. Brahma sutras carry no more info about the Nirguna.


Unable to face such charges from others, some advaitins do offer excuses like Badarayana was not as knowledgeabe as Shankara in the samanvaya of Upanishads, and that list included Madhusudhana Sarasvati. That is a lot better than denouncing mimamsa rules which are the at the very core of shastras and even laid out very clearly in some of the Upanishads. Of course, you will not like this, but the truth is to be said - Vedanta sutras are not advaitic by any length of imagination. some Upanishads maybe, Mandukya maybe so, but VS is not. Just accept that, Badarayana was not an advaitin.

I am not going answer further remarks on this topic because this answer is ridiculous. Anyway this is offtopic, so I stop here.

[satay]

Is Vishnu really the being who has four weapons?


Yes.


Is Shive really the being with a matted hair and having bhasma on his forehead?

Yes.


So let us say I want to meditate on Vishnu. What am I supposed to meditate on? A God with four hands, and blue skin color? Or, is it a God who looks like Shiva? So, all this is absolutely meaningless when it comes to meditation. The object of meditation is to know God, for which an initial object is assumed as a focus of concentration. Some symbol is chosen to start with. Honestly, I find it impossible to concentrate on such human like Gods with considerable details. It is much easier to concentrate on a single small point, located betwen the eye brows, or at the center of your heart. I concentarte on a single black imagined dot, and assume it is Vishnu. That is all is possible as long as you neither know Vishnu or Shiva. Shaivites would think that this small dot is Shiva. Any difference in approach?


We could also concentrate on the symbol OM as it represents the supreme.



All these differences between Gods are man made. Even if they are true, who am I, a mere mortal supposed to grade Gods? Isn;t the very thought apalling? Acharyas and sages are different, they had honest intentions to make these claims, but we should ask ourselves are we really competent to grade Shiva and Vishnu? Why so much arguing, hatred and violence based on different concepts of God? There is truly one God whom you can call by any name and any form -- until you are mature enough to realize God. It is possible that Vishnu is a higher God than Shiva or vice versa, but the why the hell do I care now?

Isn't God man made also? :D

Just kidding...

satay

[Sudarshan]

First you used the Vedanta (Brahma) Sutras, and then the Padma Purana, and then Shankaracarya’s Gita Bhashya, and then the Bhagavadgita itself, and then Shankaracarya’s Brahmasutra Bhashya, and then the Vishnu Purana and the Vishnu Sahasranamavali !

And you have so far avoided the Mandukyopanishad and the Gaudapadakarika, and when I introduced the very first line of the actual Upanishad you deemed it irrelevant !

You started this thread and set the ground rules, and ever since you have completely ignored the very basis of this discussion !

If you cannot follow simple rules, why do you impose them on others ?

Do you think Mandukya sublates all other scriptures? That is what advaitins seem to think so...

Here, I have not brought in anything related to it - I am simply asking why Narayana is held to be Prajna and Shiva as Turiya( you mentioned that in this thread) when Sri Shankara himself never mentions anything. Nirguna Brahma is both ashabda and avachya and cannot be called Shiva(auspicious) - breaks the very definition of NB. So who is Shiva according to advaita, yeah the same Rudra or Umapati?

Mind you, I have great regard for Shankara unlike some of the other Vaishnavites who call him devil or something like that. He is a great Vishnu bhakta though his interpretations are not anybody other than a Mayavadin would accept. Simply because many concepts of advaita have no scriptural basis. Nor any logical basis. Even by advaitin interpretations, the scriptural support is found in less than 1% of the scripture and the rest of the scripture is maya.(false truth)

[Sudarshan]

The sutras are brief and concise, but they are to the point and honestly least ambiguos in most places. Madhavcharya's Bhasya in my opinion is the most perfect, if you take the exact words of the sutras. I am not a follower of his school though, and I do not think his view of the vedanta is accurate.( but no denying that he was faithful to the sutras, even better than Sri Ramanuja, and I can justify this). Madva is the only one who justifies his meaning of every sutras in his anuvyakyana. INfact, he is thorough and justifies why his interpretation is valid very rigorously. Ramanuja does not do this with precision and in Shankara's commentary we find blatant violation of rules of interpretation without any justification. ( more on the lines of - I interpret as it pleases and suits me)



Can you elaborate on why Madhva commentary is the best?

[Sudarshan]

Hi Sudarshan,


Let us consider the fact there are zillions of religions in the world, and that there are atleast three well known philosophical positions in Vedanta- advaita, vishistadvaita, and dvaita.

There are only four possibilities.

1. All religions are man made and wrong - a position accepted by atheists.

2. Some religions are right, some are wrong, and following a wrong system
leads to disaster.

3. Some religions are right, some are wrong, but following all religions ultimately lead to the truth.

4. There is only one true system, and any other is a doorway to destruction.

All people in the world will fall into one of these categories. Let me know which category you fall into, because without knowing your answer, with any argument I make, I will just make a fool of myself. If you are already "convinced" that any view that is against your views is irrelevant and wrong, then I dont want to waste my time in defending my logic. You are free to your hold your views.

In short, I want to know if you are open to ideas or closed to any inputs.

Well, I am not closed. I am a little sectarian as all Vaishnavas are, and for the matter even most advaitins are. People think that if you dont equate Shiva and Vishnu you are sectarian. What nonsense. Advaita equates Shiva and Vishnu using the Aham Brahmasmi type of logic, not that there is any concrete evidence for this. I am supposed to have my own views, right? All Hindus are dogmatic, whether it be advatin or Vaishnava, but the blame usually falls on the Vaishnava. An advaitin is free to beleive that the world is false ( no proof), that Brahman is Nirguna ( no proof nor understandable) but he is not dogmatic? When the Vaishnava uses the scripture for his beleifs, suddenly he is called bookish or sectarian? Measure everyone with the same yard stick, there are no big difference between any religeous person in the world. Each person would think his guru is infallible irrespective of his qualifications.

I belong to the third category for sure. I do beleive that even mlecchas and even the worst criminals are saved someday by the karuna murthy. You cant expect everyone to accept all contradictory views and then claim to be secular. That is not sectarianism.

You cannot be advaitin and VA at the same time, though VA and dvaitin are pretty close.( I think). What do you think?

Anyway I am curious to hear your answer. I promise not to attack your views even if I disagree.

[Sudarshan]

We could also concentrate on the symbol OM as it represents the supreme.


How do you meditate on the symbol OM Satay? Its English rendering? Sanskrit rendering? The sound of OM? What do you concentrate on? I think you need to mentally recite OM, and fix your concentration in the middle of the heart, where the jiva(Prajna) resides.




Isn't God man made also? :D



Yep, God created man. Man "invented" God.:D

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Ram,

This section of Sutra discussion should be moved to its own thread, but for now I will continue here.

You seem to be asserting that there is no such thing as Uttara-Mimamsa.

If there is only one Mimamsa, then why has it been necessary to distinguish the original Mimamsa as Purva-Mimamsa?

“The Mimamsa” (i.e. Purva-Mimamsa) is the correct interpretation of Shruti (which includes the Upanishads).

“The Vedanta” (i.e. Uttara-Mimamsa) is the correct interpretation of the Brahmasutras (which are Smriti rather than Shruti).

The fundamental rule of Vedanta is that Badarayana’s Brahmasutras themselves are the basis for the correct interpretation of all scripture.

No new school of Vedanta can be established without its own particular interpretation of the Sutras, and all of the accepted schools of Vedanta have their founding Acarya’s Brahmasutra commentary as an inviolable starting point for all philosophical investigations.

Advaitins would certainly consider the rules of Purva-Mimamsa when interpreting the words of the Upanishads; but when it comes to interpreting the words of Shri Badarayana, then Purva-Mimasa is not required ~ and for Advaitins only the Bhashya of Shri Shankaracarya is required for the correct interpretation of the Brahmasutras.

This is no joke, and I hope that you can understand what I am saying here.

Shri Vireshvarananda was making comment on the intended purpose and nature of “Sutras”, and the general unintelligibility of most of the Sutra literature in the absence of any Acarya’s commentary. And in this he was certainly unbiased and accurate. And my own comments have also been quite neutral.

Your own understanding of Uttara-Mimamsa (i.e. the Vedanta), is one of the most biased that I have ever encountered !

[satay]

How do you meditate on the symbol OM Satay? Its English rendering? Sanskrit rendering? The sound of OM? What do you concentrate on?

On the symbol of OM resonating with vibrations from my conciousness...
I do it not from the heart but from the brow chakra...though I should really be doing it from the crown.

satay

[Ram]

I have never said that Uttara Mimamsa is the same as Purva Mimasa. Since no guidlines are available, you are expected to use the standard rules for interpretations of Upanishads. If you create new rules, you are atleast expected to be consistant and not to monkey dance here and there. If you claim that it is your right, then you know where you stand.

Anyway, the aim of Sri Shankara's commentary is not to commentate on the sutras, but to "defeat" Badarayana. One particular instance where he discards the view of Badarayana in favour of a purva paksha is a bit too much. There is an explicit reference to rejection of non dualty, and the sutras stating that jiva and Brahman are different. Completelly bypassed by Shankara by adding in brackets that this difference is unreal, and Badarayana is just joking!

Am I partial in stating that Badarayana was a non advaitin? Only about 2 of the several commentrators thought Badarayana was an advaitin, and screwed up the whole text, doing a few somersaults here and there to prove their hypothesis.

Sutras define Brahman as the one from which creation etc proceeds, thus automatically implying that it is dealing with Isvara, and not NB, thus even dismissing the non creation theory. NB cant do any creation himself, as he is actionless. You can use all your imaginaiton to conclude that it is NB that is referred here and that it is in your favour. Someone talking about being unbiased!

[Ram]

Well, I am not closed. I am a little sectarian as all Vaishnavas are, and for the matter even most advaitins are. People think that if you dont equate Shiva and Vishnu you are sectarian. What nonsense. Advaita equates Shiva and Vishnu using the Aham Brahmasmi type of logic, not that there is any concrete evidence for this. I am supposed to have my own views, right? All Hindus are dogmatic, whether it be advatin or Vaishnava, but the blame usually falls on the Vaishnava. An advaitin is free to beleive that the world is false ( no proof), that Brahman is Nirguna ( no proof nor understandable) but he is not dogmatic? When the Vaishnava uses the scripture for his beleifs, suddenly he is called bookish or sectarian? Measure everyone with the same yard stick, there are no big difference between any religeous person in the world. Each person would think his guru is infallible irrespective of his qualifications.

I belong to the third category for sure. I do beleive that even mlecchas and even the worst criminals are saved someday by the karuna murthy. You cant expect everyone to accept all contradictory views and then claim to be secular. That is not sectarianism.


You are entitled to your beleifs, there is nothing wrong. Nobody gets sectarian that way. But trying to impose your "dieties" on others could be called sectarian because that interferes with the freewill of people. Philosophically, you can disagree and argue -- but the clash with Gods is almost ridiculous.




You cannot be advaitin and VA at the same time, though VA and dvaitin are pretty close.( I think). What do you think?


I would think, VA is closer to dvaita, philosophically. But going by nature of worship, there is not much difference between any religions. I will elaborate later.



Anyway I am curious to hear your answer. I promise not to attack your views even if I disagree.

Thanks for atleast being open minded. I will be away for a few days and will answer you in a separate thread.

[sarabhanga]

I have just given the fundamental guidelines for both Purva and Uttara Mimamsa.

Shruti should always be considered in the light of Purva Mimamsa.

Smriti itself does not require Purva Mimamsa for correct interpretation.

And no new rules have been created in this matter !

It is NOT possible for a Vedantin to “defeat” Badarayana, and Shri Shankaracarya would never have attempted to discredit the very basis of Vedanta !

Unborn does NOT mean Uncreative !


“The Mimamsa” (i.e. Purva-Mimamsa) is the correct interpretation of Shruti (which includes the Upanishads).

“The Vedanta” (i.e. Uttara-Mimamsa) is the correct interpretation of the Brahmasutras (which are Smriti rather than Shruti).

The fundamental rule of Vedanta is that Badarayana’s Brahmasutras themselves are the basis for the correct interpretation of all scripture.

No new school of Vedanta can be established without its own particular interpretation of the Sutras, and all of the accepted schools of Vedanta have their founding Acarya’s Brahmasutra commentary as an inviolable starting point for all philosophical investigations.

Advaitins would certainly consider the rules of Purva-Mimamsa when interpreting the words of the Upanishads; but when it comes to interpreting the words of Shri Badarayana, then Purva-Mimasa is not required ~ and for Advaitins only the Bhashya of Shri Shankaracarya is required for the correct interpretation of the Brahmasutras.

This is no joke, and I hope that you can understand what I am saying here.

[Sudarshan]

I have just given the fundamental guidelines for both Purva and Uttara Mimamsa.

Shruti should always be considered in the light of Purva Mimamsa.

Smriti itself does not require Purva Mimamsa for correct interpretation.

And no new rules have been created in this matter !

It is NOT possible for a Vedantin to “defeat” Badarayana, and Shri Shankaracarya would never have attempted to discredit the very basis of Vedanta !

Unborn does NOT mean Uncreative !

Viewed through the lens of either Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva, Sri Shankara appears to be plain crypto Buddhist. Some of the reasons that are given are

1. Borrowing heavily from Buddist doctrines - the multiple classification of reality into three. When the three fold classification of reality was thoroughly exposed by both Vishistadvaita and Dvaita, advaitins created two more levels of reality. None with any scriptural basis. Reality of the world is upheld comprehensively in so many verses, in Rig veda, in Padma Purana, in Bhagavad Gita etc.


2. The concept of Brahman devoid of all gunas is negated by the scripture. Shankara needs to defend his thesis so rigorously that he concedes that Brahman does not know itself, in Br.Up. How ridiculous can it get?

3. Advaita reagrds 4-5 verses of scripture as truth and calls the rest as teaching falsehood. In Shankara's own words, much of the scripture is atattvAvedaka (false-telling), including the ones that extol the gloroious attributes of Bhagavan. This has been considered to utterly avaidika and the primary reason for the rejection of the school.

That would be the typical position of Advaita as seen through the eyes of other Acharyas. I wonder what Ram is going say regarding the reconciliation of advaita and VA.

As for Brahmasutras, the conclusions are unanimous - it is not advaita at all. You just need to read advaitic commentary along with the commentary of Ramanuja to know that. You must know that advatin comentartors have always confessed that there is never any real need even to prove Dvaita or Vishsitadvaita because bedha is evident in perception, by logic and by scriptural statements. Advaita is against perception and logic.(Can you imagine the seer and the seen being one, and what logic is there?).

So advaita must prove itself comrehensively from very basic principles that advaita is right ( not from within advaitic framework and speculations), based on scripture and logic, and MUST prove both VA and dvaita to be wrong. It has not done that, and can never do that. When this is the case, you have resorted to using such statements:

"Since Vedanta does NOT depend on Purva-Mimamsa, it is not at all surprising that wise Vedantins have not concerned themselves with the foolishness of using Purva-Mimamsa in any analysis of Vedantic texts! And I completely agree that no Advaitin commentary of the Vedanta Sutras pays any attention to Purva-Mimamsa !"

[sarabhanga]

Sudarshan !

You have not yet explained what you mean by “reality” or “unreality”, so all of you comments regarding the same are without any meaning !

And I have repeatedly explained that Advaita does NOT depend on Buddhism in any way !

The scriptures are quite clear that Brahman is both Kala (i.e. with Gunas, and thus divided) and Akala (without Gunas, and thus undivided) !

If all opposing views are rejected, then the conclusions will always be unanimous ~ but that does not mean that the conclusions will be any more truthful !

Please try to keep this thread to a discussion of the Mandukyopanishad !

And your continuing disparagement of Shri Shankaracarya and Advaitavada is disruptive and offensive !

Methinks ye doth protest too much ~ what are you afraid of Sudarshan?

[Ram]

Hi Sarabanga,



You have not yet explained what you mean by “reality” or “unreality”, so all of you comments regarding the same are without any meaning !


You read my concept on reality? I do not personally think that the concept of reality in advaita is wrong, but it does not have scriptural evdience. In particular the theory of sublations has no basis. If it had a basis, you wont see any arguments raised ever.




The scriptures are quite clear that Brahman is both Kala (i.e. with Gunas, and thus divided) and Akala (without Gunas, and thus undivided) !


Akala Brahman is not Nirguna, by the way. Unless you mean to argue that Nirguna stands for "devoid of prakriti gunas" or "devoid of defects". Akala Brahman is Brahman beyond the concept of Time, but that does not require Brahman to be Nirguna.




If all opposing views are rejected, then the conclusions will always be unanimous ~ but that does not mean that the conclusions will be any more truthful !


It is Hindu tradition to argue a case for philosophical correctness-- Shankaracharya dismissed almost every school in his time, if you read his BSB. I would say Vishistadvaita went a step ahead and dismissed advaita. Dvaita went a step further ahead and dismissed both Vishistadvaita and advaita. Since advaita is more popular than other schools due to the promotion received from neo vedantins, your complaints are given more heed, and advatins might get more projection. In the yonder past, all Hindu schools have been to the point - all non vedic schools were neatly refuted by Shankara and shown the exit door out of India. The post Buddhist revival of Hinduism in India was large due to Shankara, so his contributions are great inspite of criticisms. I would say, later developments in vedanta were a product of social needs in addition to philosophical disagreements. It is very unlikely that Ramanuja and Madhava had so much grudge towards Shankara though their works might show other wise.




Methinks ye doth protest too much ~ what are you afraid of Sudarshan?



Appears to me more to be having fun than a protest. Because, I dont see any arguments going on, but just point blank statements. That is not a debate by any imagination.

By the way, most Vaishnavites are against Shankara because their own traditions are somewhat hostile in this regard, so it is quite natural. I am sure 90% of all learned Vaishnavas would not have a good opinion on Shankara, and those who do so, are not going to be tolerated within their own group.

Madhvas are usually much more hostile. People need to think why there has been a tradition of philosophical discussions and sometimes even lots of hostilities in the past. Just blindly following the tradition has no value in the modern world.

[Ram]

Viewed through the lens of either Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva, Sri Shankara appears to be plain crypto Buddhist. Some of the reasons that are given are

1. Borrowing heavily from Buddist doctrines - the multiple classification of reality into three. When the three fold classification of reality was thoroughly exposed by both Vishistadvaita and Dvaita, advaitins created two more levels of reality. None with any scriptural basis. Reality of the world is upheld comprehensively in so many verses, in Rig veda, in Padma Purana, in Bhagavad Gita etc.


2. The concept of Brahman devoid of all gunas is negated by the scripture. Shankara needs to defend his thesis so rigorously that he concedes that Brahman does not know itself, in Br.Up. How ridiculous can it get?

3. Advaita reagrds 4-5 verses of scripture as truth and calls the rest as teaching falsehood. In Shankara's own words, much of the scripture is atattvAvedaka (false-telling), including the ones that extol the gloroious attributes of Bhagavan. This has been considered to utterly avaidika and the primary reason for the rejection of the school.

That would be the typical position of Advaita as seen through the eyes of other Acharyas. I wonder what Ram is going say regarding the reconciliation of advaita and VA.

As for Brahmasutras, the conclusions are unanimous - it is not advaita at all. You just need to read advaitic commentary along with the commentary of Ramanuja to know that. You must know that advatin comentartors have always confessed that there is never any real need even to prove Dvaita or Vishsitadvaita because bedha is evident in perception, by logic and by scriptural statements. Advaita is against perception and logic.(Can you imagine the seer and the seen being one, and what logic is there?).

So advaita must prove itself comrehensively from very basic principles that advaita is right ( not from within advaitic framework and speculations), based on scripture and logic, and MUST prove both VA and dvaita to be wrong. It has not done that, and can never do that. When this is the case, you have resorted to using such statements:

"Since Vedanta does NOT depend on Purva-Mimamsa, it is not at all surprising that wise Vedantins have not concerned themselves with the foolishness of using Purva-Mimamsa in any analysis of Vedantic texts! And I completely agree that no Advaitin commentary of the Vedanta Sutras pays any attention to Purva-Mimamsa !"

I will post my views on why there were apparent hostilties. I dont beleive it really is seriously intended that way.

You are right - Dvaita requires no proof, and is impossible to refute it. How do you contradict perception?

Though Vaishnavas are more hostile due to obvious reasons, I dont think many advatins are any better either - I have seen many posts of advatins calling later vedantins as foolish and "not enlightened". Which has no basis outside of their framework. I would say secularism is a new Hindu word. Hindu vedantins always had considerable emphasis on criticizing other views and promoting their beleifs. But the main difference is they were great teachers and scholars. Nowadays, just any one who has learnt a bit indulges in this....and thinks he has scored a point.

[Ram]

To ignore such shruti and say: “In cases of Scripture conflicting with Perception, Scripture is not stronger” is correct? I do not understand. It is better to first look at sense perception and see how weak they are and understand them in the light of advaitam Turiya. I ask “Is what is perceived through the senses the absolute truth?” Then animals know better than us since they have better sense apparatus – they see, hear, and smell better. And then what is the use of scriptures? Is scripture only meant to state what is obvious to the senses? Though the proponents of Dvaita and vishistadvaita hold that “scripture is authoritative on the ground of eternity, begininglessness and free from defects”, still they argue “scripture is to be interpreted without opposing the perception”. So, they add modifications to very simple "Thou art That". Why shruti is even needed? Perception alone would do, since by no means perception is to be opposed.


For all Hindu schools including advaita - the force of perception is higher than scripture. Read Shankara's commentary on Upanishads where he says that even if shruti calls a crow as white a thousand times, it does not passeth.

You cannot interpret scripture the way you want. Advaitic interpretation of Turiya as Nirguna Brahman is incorrect because:

1. Turiya is described to be "all seer" in verse 24.( AG 12), which is a logical impossibility as Turiya being pure consciousness cannot see.

2. Turiya is described to be prabuh or Lord in verse 10

3. Turiya is described to be all pervading in verse 10.

4. Turiya is described to be beautiful or visible(darshatam) in Brihard Aranyaka Up 5.14.3

Thus Turiya has many qualities and is also describable - it is not Nirguna or non dual in advaitic sense because Turiya is also Lord.( without any one to Lord over this is a meaningless expression)

[Ram]

Can you elaborate on why Madhva commentary is the best?

Because it is the most consistant in interpretation without making any guess in meanings or adding anything to the sutras themselves. Shankara makes a lot of such insertions into the sutras, and Ramanuja adds a bit too.

I do not think Madva's commentary is more correct than Ramanuja though...because Brahmasutras appear to be promoting dvaita-advaita and not dvaita. Most commentrators of the sutras have stuck with the dvaita-adviata vada because that is what that makes sense with the Phala Adhyaya. As you know, dvaita vada is always easier to establish because of obvious reasons.

The powers of universal governance are ruled out for the liberated soul, so it cannot be identical with Brahman. Advaitins contend that this is only for those liberated in Brahma Loka and not the full emancipation, but there is nothing within the sutras that seem to indicate this distinction and no commentrator other than Shankara followed this approach. Even if we take Shankara's interpretation to be correct, it has to be observed that apara mukti is the state of Prajna . But Mandukya says that even Prajna is non dual ( according to advaita) and is an all controller. Even here, you can see that advaitin interpretation has problems. Advatins like Krishnananda of Sivananda Ashram and even Swamy Vivekananda admit that these verses are a problem for advaita. Similarly Shankara's rendering of Ananda as jiva is against the purport of the sutras.( Badarayana explicitly states that Ananda is Brahman)

Sri Ramanuja's problem also comes from word twisting at places and assuming meanings not conveyed by the sutras. For eg, the defence of Panchartara in Adhyaya 2, is not in tune with the flow of sutras in the avirodha section.

Madhva's interpretations are probably free from such defects, but then we can observe that dvaita was not agreed upon even by post Madhva comentrators, so more than a good logical and compliant system, it does not seem to convey the true essence of the scripture.

There is no doubt that scripture makes jiva a part of Brahman, and there is no point in stating that jiva is different from Brahman. I have no doubt that scriptures are either in favour of advaita or Vishsitadvaita(more likely). All schools that separated jiva form Brahman are divisive philosophies and one can take the proof from Christianity and Islam. The creator and creation cannot be separated - that would lead to too much divisions and sectarian teachings.

[Ram]

So, they add modifications to very simple "Thou art That".


This is an uninformed opinion. Even advaitin veterans like Vachaspati Misra have conceded that none of nine illustrations for "Thou art That" can preach absolute identity.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Ram,

What is your “concept of reality in Advaita” ?

The twin of Kala and Akala may be interpreted in various (complementary) ways.

kAla means “black, or of a dark colour”; and it indicates “the black part of the eye”, or the Kalasarpa (“black snake”), or the letter m.

And kAla (from kal ~ “to calculate or enumerate”) is “a fixed or right point of time, a space or measure of time, or time (in general)”; and it indicates a particular “occasion, circumstance, hour, or season”.

And so kAla points to “a section or part”.

kAla is “the end, death by age, or time (as leading to events, the causes of which are imperceptible to the mind of man)”; “destiny, fate, or time (as destroying all things)”; “death or time of death (often personified and represented with the attributes of Yama, the regent of the dead, or even identified with him)”.

akAla indicates “a wrong or bad time”, and its common meaning is “unseasonable”.

“Twofold are the forms of Brahman, Kala and Akala; one should worship Kala as Brahman” ~ Maitrayani Samhita.

Brahman should be worshipped at and as the right time, and not the wrong time.

Kala Brahman is timely or in time, whereas Akala Brahman is un-timely or beyond time.

Brahman should be worshipped as one undivided (i.e. eternal) moment.

Kala Brahman (i.e. Brahman with parts, or Saguna Brahman) should be worshipped.

Akala Brahman (i.e. Brahman without parts, or Nirguna Brahman) can not be worshipped in the normal sense ~ for without any division at all (including that of the worshipper and the worshipped) all such actions or relations are impossible.

Kala is the Dark One (i.e. Krishna), and Akala is the Light One (i.e. Arjuna) ~ and one should always worship Krishna in preference to Arjuna.

Kala is the Black Naga (i.e. Krishna), and Akala is the White Naga (i.e. Balarama) ~ and one should worship Krishna in preference to Balarama.

And God is most directly seen in Kala (as the uniform pupil of the eye); whereas Akala (as the variegated iris, and all that surrounds it ~ ie. the whole view) is not proper for worship.

Saguna Brahma is the immediate cause of Trimurti, and the highest abstraction of Narayana may be equated with Saguna Brahma.

Nirguna Brahma is the highest philosophical abstraction or ultimate Truth; however, according to the “Uttama Satya” (ultimate Truth) of Shri Gaudapada’s Ajativada (doctrine of Non-origination), Nirguna Brahma cannot actually be the cause of anything.

Guna means “a single thread or strand of a cord or twine”, “string or thread”, “rope”, “a garland”, “a bow-string”, “the string of a musical instrument” , “a multiplier”, “a subdivision, species, or kind”, “a secondary element”, “a subordinate or unessential part of any action”, “an auxiliary act”, “a side-dish”, “the secondary or less immediate object of an action”, “a quality, peculiarity, attribute, or property”, “an ingredient or constituent of Prakriti”, “the number three”, “an epithet”, “good quality”, “virtue”, “merit”, “excellence”, “an organ of sense”.

All Gunas may be reduced to the three essential categories of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas (which indicate much more than the trivial classes of “goodness”, “passion”, and “ignorance”), but there is another more comprehensive list of 24 principal Gunas, including: Rupa ~ shape and colour; Rasa ~ savour; Gandha ~ odour; Sparsha ~ tangibility; Samkhya ~ number; Parimana ~ dimension; Prithaktva ~ severalty; Samyoga ~ conjunction; Vibhaga ~ disjunction; Paratva ~ remoteness; Aparatva ~ proximity; Gurutva ~ weight; Dravatva ~ fluidity; Sneha ~ viscidity; Shabda ~ sound; Buddhi or Jnana ~ understanding or knowledge; Sukha ~ pleasure; Duhkha ~ pain; Iccha ~ desire; Dvesha ~ aversion; Prayatna ~ effort; Dharma ~ merit or virtue; Adharma ~ demerit; and Amskara ~ the self-reproductive quality.

And Nirguna Brahman is beyond all of this.

Saguna means “together with a string or cord”, “furnished with particular attributes or properties”, “having qualities”, or “qualified”; and Nirguna means “having no cord or string”, “devoid of all qualities or properties”, or “having no epithet”.

“Twofold are the forms of Brahman, Kala (with parts) and Akala (without parts); one should worship Kala as Brahman.”

Kala is Saguna Brahma, who should be worshipped; and Akala is Nirguna Brahma, who is beyond any normal means of worship and only realized in Samadhi.

The Ultimate Truth, according to Shri Shankaracarya, is One Changeless Differenceless Actionless Uncharacterizable Impersonal Spirit, or Nirguna Brahma.

When qualified by the inexplicable Maya, this Brahman appears as One Personal God or Ishvara endowed with infinite power and wisdom and capable of self-manifestation in infinite ways and forms in space and time, or Saguna Brahma (the Mayika appearance of Nirguna Brahma).

Saguna Brahma may be worshipped in diverse holy names and forms, although Moksha consists in transcending Saguna Brahma and realizing the absolute non-dual reality of Nirguna Brahma.

The Nirgunabrahmatattva of Shankara is very close to the Shunyatattva of the Buddhists. Existence (Satta) for the Buddha is a phenomenal existence with practical efficiency, and Shunya is non-existence or Absolute Void.

For Shankara, however, Existence is an eternal infinite noumenal existence (the non-existence of which, at any time, is inconceivable); and Nirguna Brahma, the Eternal Infinite Background of all spatio-temporal existences, is Absolute Existence.

Ishvara Narayana is Saguna Brahma; and Nirguna Brahma is Sadashiva.

Nirguna Brahma is Rudra-Shiva, the unnamed Ganapati; and Saguna Brahma is the Host of Rudras or Ganas (cf. Gunas).

Om namo Narayana! Hara Hara Mahadeva!

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu,

Have an open mind while reading scriptures and judging the commentaries of others. One single verse in vedanta sutras are enough for advaita: (2.1.22). Note that this verse is a restatement of an earlier statement and confirms the relationship.

Read Sri Shankara's own commentary on this verse and decide for yourself. When the verse explicitly declares that Brahman and jiva are different because it is taught by the scripture, Shankaracharya brushes aside the sutra in a characteristic way, like this:

The scriptures teach that Brahman and the soul are different, (inserted here by Shankara) but we know it is purely due to avidya. ".

Yes. This is typical. First you say Brahma Sutras say: Brahman and Jiva are different (I agree since Brahman is Satya Jiva is Mithya). Then you say "The scriptures teach that Brahman and the soul are different". So, soul is Jiva?

Use consistent terms please.

Scripture says This Atma is Brahman.

[atanu]

You cannot interpret scripture the way you want. Advaitic interpretation of Turiya as Nirguna Brahman is incorrect because:



Namaskar,

Mind cannot reach him. Words return from him. Scriptures are to be be meditated upon and not interpreted as per sense perceptions. This is the basic flaw -- arguing based on perceptions and not based on meditative experience.

Please do not speculate on what is Nirguna and what is not. It is better to work hard for the experience of Turiya itself.

Regards.

[atanu]

Hi Sarabanga,
Akala Brahman is not Nirguna, by the way. Unless you mean to argue that Nirguna stands for "devoid of prakriti gunas" or "devoid of defects". Akala Brahman is Brahman beyond the concept of Time, but that does not require Brahman to be Nirguna.


The problem is really trying to define that which is ONE, beyond definitions and beyond cognition.

Please read the Gita wherein Lord Krishna defines indivisible Brahman as Nirguna (You may like to see the attachement and there are more). Now, you would like to interpret this Nirguna (in Gita) as something of your choice? And this is Guna controlled behaviour.

You define nirguna as "devoid of prakriti gunas" and also "devoid of defects". A host of assumptions really. Why insert prakriti? By this, you agree that Gunas are limited to Prakriti and has no place in Brahman, which then is truly nirguna. Why assume guna means defect?

Gunas are three: Satya, Rajas, and Tamas (predilections); all three residing in Avidya. What is Vidya is free of these three Gunas and is also the controller of the Gunas. I just wanted to emphasize that these are all interpretations whereas Brahman is truly Nirgunam.

Regards

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Atanu,

I notice that you have added Devanagari text as an Attachment.
No problem with that, but do you not have some system for producing Devanagari text?
If not, have you tried Itranslator (from Omkarananda Ashram)?

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu,

-----have you tried Itranslator (from Omkarananda Ashram)?

Namaskar Sarabhanga Ji,

I have the Itranslator but never could get time to use it. You may start some of us by giving a brief outline of it, if that is not out of place (or in a new thread perhaps).

Regards,

Atanu

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Atanu,

Most of us would be familiar with the Itrans code; and with Itranslator, one simply puts Itrans text in and Devanagari text comes out! :cool:

[atanu]

This is an uninformed opinion. Even advaitin veterans like Vachaspati Misra have conceded that none of nine illustrations for "Thou art That" can preach absolute identity.

Namaskar Ram Ji,

I do not understand what absolute identity means, since this term is not defined here. However, I understand that Shankara did not equate Thou and That literally. It is very clear that a being (a soul as per you and an ego as per me), who is existing as a distinct entity separate from the underlying Turiya and separate from all other beings cannot be equated to Brahman.

But experience of sages and verse after verse of shruti proclaiming the ocean to one and devoid of partition, cannot be disregarded. We are all in Dvaita. Some accept the higher teaching of advaita theoretically and logically and some do not -- due to preference towards a particular form. It may be instructive to carefully re-read the passage where Shri Krishna tells Arjuna to see whatever Arjuna wished to see in His visvarupa form. Your universe and my universe are not same though the supporting consciousness is One. Everyone has his own universe. Whatever is considered true in consciousness becomes the manifested truth. That is the power of consciousness but the consciousness remain the same undivided consciousness despite all manifests.



Regards

[TruthSeeker]

It is surprising to see a thread on Mandukya not going to classical interpretations at all, from any point of view.

[TruthSeeker]

I do not strictly belong to any Hindu tradition. I am attracted to advaita's abstract ideas on realities, and at the same time attracted to the devotional movements in other Hindu systems. With that in mind, I dont want to proclaim any "truth" here, but rather give standard advaitin and Vishsitadvaitin interpretations of the chatuspad. I also want to add my own summary based on many interpretations that I have come across.

In Sri Shankara's advaita (taken from Gaudapada Karika)

Vaisvanara is The Virat Purusha.

Taijasa is Hiranyagarbha

Pranjna is Isvara, comonly referred to by Sri Shankara as Vishnu( in both BSB and Gitabhasya) and sometimes by Shiva.

Turiya is Nirguna Brahman without any specific name or definition.
( X U ~X, for all X is my favourite description)

[TruthSeeker]

Vishistadvaitin Interpretation is as four forms of Vishnu:

Vaisvanara is Anirudda Narayana, who is the preserver of the universe.

Taijasa is Pradyumna Narayana, who is the creator of the universe.

Pranjna is the Sankarshana Narayana, the destroyer of the universe.

Turiya is Vasudeva, Paravasudeva or as Krishna.

This is clearly mentioned in the Mahabaratha, in the 12th parva, and also in the tapani upanishads.

[TruthSeeker]

My own view of Mandukya Up, based on several interpretations:

The four states of Atma, are the four stages of samadhi, having four different realizations of God, and four seer-seen relationships. They are also related to the limbs of the classical Yoga.

Vishva is the first stage of God realization, and corresponds to the completion of the levels of Yama, Nimaya, Asana, Pranayama and Pratyahara, which involve complete sense control. The Yogi becomes equal to a lower diety like Karma Devata at the time of realization of Vishva. God realized in this stage is Aniruddha, or Virat. The character called Laxmana, younger brother of Lord Rama, is mentioned to be Vaisvarnara in the Ramottariya Tapani Upanishad. Knowledge of Visva, makes the Yogi all knowing in the physical world, and free from all danger from material dangers. Technically, this is called the Svarga or Heaven.

Taijasa is the second stage of God realization, and corresponds to the stages of Dharana and Dhyana in Yoga. The Yogi elevates to status of a deva during the realization of Taijasa. He becomes Agni, Varuna, etc, and becomes Indra, and is a master of both senses and the mind. God is realized in the form of Pradyuma, or Brahma. Shatrughna is mentioned to be Taijasa. Knowledge of Taijasa leads to krama mukti. The Yogi can choose to die or live according to his wish and has conquered physcial death. Seven generations of a person who realised Taijasa are known to be very evolved souls, and capable of attaining the Brahman. Both Visva and Taijasa are dualistic realizations and corespond to the Dvaita Philosophy. The seer and the seen are distinct in both these realizations. Technically, this is called Brahma Loka, including the worlds of Mahat, Jana, Tapa and Satya.

Pranjna is the third stage of God realization, and corresponds to the savikalpa(bija) samadhi. God is seen as Sankarshana, or Shiva or his forms as Rudras, or Vishnu in his many forms, or Devi in her many forms. The Yogi is technically equal to Brahma in Pranjna, and realizes God in the way described by Vishsitadvaita, ie as both different and non different from Isvara. The Yogi never is equal to Isvara in this plane, though he has the same omniscience of Isvara. Technically, this can be described as Vaikunta or Kailasa. Bharata of Ramayana is Pranjna, as described in the tapani.

Turiya is the final stage where dualty essentially ceases(nirbija samadhi), and the Yogi is able to see the Lord in himself, and himself everywhere. It is questionable if the soul called the Yogi completely dissolves, or a faint trace of the Yogi remains in Turiya. Even according to Sri Shankara, Pranjna always coexists with Turiya, without which Pranjna can never arise from Turiya. Hence the state of Turiya is always left undefined - speculations and imaginations dont prevail here and it is pure knowledge. It is to be possibly concluded that the soul will completely become merged or not, depending on the will of Isvara. Turiya is best described without adjectives though it can be technically equated to Narayana, or Sadashiva or Parashakti, the first cause of all causes.

[TruthSeeker]

Is Vishnu the God with four hand- Yes.


In matters like these, it is essential to strike a balance between myth and facts. If read too literally, it becomes a superstition and if rejected, it leads to atheism. The ideal way is to understand the symbolism as used in puranas, for which explanations are provided in the puranas themselves.

Let us take Vishnu, who is usually described to be having a human like form, four hands, with Chakra in one hand, Gada in another, Shanka in one hand, Lotus in another. He is also described to reclining on a serpant named Ananta, and also having a vehicle bird named Garuda. Take this literally, and we are inviting charges of idolatory and superstition. This is suffcient for westerners to put down our religion.

But the symbolic meanings of each of these terms is provided beautifully in many of the puranas.

Four hands of Vishnu are nothing but the four major tattvams - Ahamkara and the three major Gunas of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas, which form the basis of all evolution of prakriti.

Sudarshana Chakra is nothing but Mind tattva, also called Taijasa.

Shanka is nothing but the ten tattvas, comprising of the five tanmatras and five bhuta tattvas.

Gada is the Ahamkara or Buddhi tattva, also called the Pranjna or Maya.

Padma denotes the tranquility and bliss.

The serpent Ananta on which Vishnu resides is his Infinite and all pervading nature.

Garuda is nothing but paroxa jnana, in the form of his body, and his two wings represent the two paths to Vishnu, ie Karma Yoga and Jnana Yoga.

Our scriptures contain no myth or superstitions when interpreted properly, and all the clues are provided within the scripture itself.

Meditation on Vishnu as four handed forms is technically accurate: It is meditation on the four major tattvas. True meditation on the four handed Vishnu is not possible until the tattvas themselves are not realized, and until then Vishnu can be worshipped only in idols and images, yes, the four handed form. All you need to understand the significance of these terms.

[atanu]

My own view of Mandukya Up, based on several interpretations:

The four states of Atma, are the four stages of samadhi, having four different realizations of God, ---.

Vishva is the first stage of God realization, ---Svarga or Heaven.

Taijasa is the second stage of God realization, ----Tapa and Satya.

Pranjna is the third stage of God realization, ---- as described in the tapani.

Turiya is the final stage -----, or Sadashiva or Parashakti, the first cause of all causes.



All these are adding colour of imagination to a beautiful and precise Upanishad.

There cannot be any stages to God realization.

[TruthSeeker]

All these are adding colour of imagination to a beautiful and precise Upanishad.

There cannot be any stages to God realization.

That is your imagination. If this were true, we had no need for scripture, and it need teach us nothing. Why do we need millions of verses of Hindu scripture otherwise? Why do we need anything other than Mandukya in your opinion?

Just see what Sri Shankara had to say in his vivekachudamani:

2. Human nature is the hardest of creaturely states to obtain, even more so that of manhood. Brahminhood is rarer still, and beyond that dedication to the path of Vedic religion. Beyond even that there is discrimination between self and non-self, but liberation by persistence in the state of the unity of God and self is not to be achieved except by the meritorious deeds of hundreds of thousands of lives.

3. These three things are hard to achieve, and are attained only by the grace of God - human nature, the desire for liberation, and finding refuge with a great sage.


4. He is a suicide who has somehow achieved human birth and even manhood and full knowledge of the scriptures but does not strive for self-liberation, for he destroys himself by clinging to the unreal.


5. Who could be more foolish than the man who has achieved the difficult attainment of a human body and even manhood but still neglects his true good?


6. People may quote the scriptures, make sacrifices to the gods, perform actions and pay homage to the deities, but there is no liberation without recognising the oneness of one's own true being - not even in the lifetime of a hundred Brahmas.

You can clearly see that the number of stages are virtually infinite given than your origin is beginningless. Even a human birth is acheived through very hard effort, the birth of a devout by many meritorious deeds, being a sincere devout leads to a great sage, such a contact will lead through many stages to realization. What makes you think there are no stages? Or does an insect also can directly get liberated?

Even according to advaita, God realization is achieved only through penetrating through the five koshas, each of which represents one stage. When you finally come of the anandamaya kosha you are realized. Every kosha represents a certain level of realization.

These koshas correspond to the various stages in Mandukya too.

Annamaya kosha and Pranamaya Kosha are Visva
Manamaya kosha is Taijasa
Vijnanamaya kosha and Anandamaya kosha are Pranjna
The Atman is Turiya.

By the way, that various pAdAs in Mandukya are various stages( or various forms of God) are supported by the scripture in many other places. So I dont know upon what you are basing your opinion.


Every Yoga has several well defined stages - Patanjali system has eight, Jnana Yoga has seven, Kundalini has seven, and so on. God realization is not an instantaneous process, it is achieved thorugh many incarnations of systematic progress (including ups and downs) and final realization. Every mantra that is prescribed in the vedas in only intended to awaken the spiritual consciouness in various stages.

[sarabhanga]

Why do we need anything other than Mandukya in your opinion?If the ultimate Truth can be found in the twelve sublime declarations of the Mandukya, what more is needed? :)

[TruthSeeker]

If the ultimate Truth can be found in the twelve sublime declarations of the Mandukya, what more is needed? :)

:)

That is exactly why there are many stages of God realization. Because the 12 verses are hardly sufficient for anyone who has not reached the final stage. Some people are in a stage that they interpret Mandukya as "pure dualism", so how can we say that Mandukya is sufficient for everyone?

Very few will have access to the Mandukya - one sixth of global pop.
Very few will read the Mandukya ( 10% of Hindus?)
Very few will understand the true meanings. ( 1% of all Hindus?)
Very few will be able to move from theory to practice.( negligible percentage)

So, what exactly is the difference between these different people who do different things with the Mandukya? Different stages of realization, of course!

[atanu]

Namaskar Truthseeker.


That is your imagination. If this were true, we had no need for scripture, and it need teach us nothing. Why do we need millions of verses of Hindu scripture otherwise? Why do we need anything other than Mandukya in your opinion?.

Yes, they are what you call the stages. Sages teach as per the level.

I rather suggest you see what Sri Shankara had to say in his vivekachudamani:

6. People may quote the scriptures, make sacrifices to the gods, perform actions and pay homage to the deities, but there is no liberation without recognising the oneness of one's own true being - not even in the lifetime of a hundred Brahmas.





These koshas correspond to the various stages in Mandukya too.

Annamaya kosha and Pranamaya Kosha are Visva
Manamaya kosha is Taijasa
Vijnanamaya kosha and Anandamaya kosha are Pranjna
The Atman is Turiya.




Agreed agreed agreed. Only I would re paste and add a bit:

Annamaya kosha and Pranamaya Kosha are Visva
Manamaya kosha is Taijasa
Vijnanamaya kosha and Anandamaya kosha are Pranjna

The Atman is Turiya.


Only knowing the Turiya Self is God Realization and everything else is maturing on the path. --- Transcending the stages as Neti Neti. Nothing exists apart from the Turiya Self.



I agree that to realise the Turiya Self to be ONE AND ALL, one needs to go through the stages. This is true for even for attaining the pakkwa required to become cognizant of the 12 verses of Mandukya --- possibly the best ever (scientific) paper ever written. Only the finger mudra of Dakshinamurti is more precise and more potent.

Regards.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste TruthSeeker,

Given that there about 900,000,000 Hindus in India, there should be about 8,000,000 Brahmanas familiar with the Mandukyopanishad. And of those Brahmanas, there should be about 70,000 Sannyasins actually practising the Vedanta. And of those Sannyasins, there should be about 600 Paramahamsas who have fully realized the Brahman. And 600 enlightened Paramahamsas should be sufficient to illuminate the whole world!

[TruthSeeker]

And 600 enlightened Paramahamsas should be sufficient to illuminate the whole world!

One should be good enough, why 600?;)

I suppose the illumined sanyasin will rarely bother with the rest who are not well advanced enough. He might even choose to give instruction that matches the spiritual level of the aspirant.

I have read accounts of many vedantins who have cited Patanjali as a less enlightened master who did not know the ultimate truth. It often makes me laugh. Most of these vedantins are bookish, while Patanjali accomplished such difficult Yoga and wrote a treatise on it.

It is also possible that Patanjali did not write all that he realized. His work may have been for aspirants in some stage of spiritual development. Many books at graduate level are written by top doctorate holders. Just like that.

[TruthSeeker]

Namshkar Atanuji,



I rather suggest you see what Sri Shankara had to say in his vivekachudamani:

6. People may quote the scriptures, make sacrifices to the gods, perform actions and pay homage to the deities, but there is no liberation without recognising the oneness of one's own true being - not even in the lifetime of a hundred Brahmas.


Did you notice that none of these are related to spirituality?

Quoting the scripture - showing of one's ego( if the quoter merely remains a quoter without practising anything)

Make sacrifices to Gods - material activity
perform actions - material
Homage to dieties - might be material or spiritual depending on many factors.

Sri Shankara says that recognizing the true nature of the Self is the final goal, but what is the means of reaching there? What is it that makes one strive for the goal? Everyone is following a path that leads him to a next higher stage. He could go either up, maintain status quo or go down after every birth. But no one can make a quantum leap from the lowest stages to the final goal suddenly - that is what is emphasised in vivekachudamani. It is also impossible to know what stage somebody is in too - external appearances are not reliable. It is also possible that a pure atheist is a very highly evolved soul too- one present birth amongst the million of past births are hardly any evidence of one's spiritual status isnt it? ;)

[atanu]

Namshkar Atanuji,



It is also possible that a pure atheist is a very highly evolved soul too- one present birth amongst the million of past births are hardly any evidence of one's spiritual status isnt it? ;)


I agree to this. But I hold steadfast that God realisation is Self realisation and there are no stages, since only proof of Self is in identity with it. Either one is a jnani or an ajnani. There cannot be in between, except from the view point of ajnani (whose view points are not jnana).

[TruthSeeker]

I agree to this. But I hold steadfast that God realisation is Self realisation and there are no stages, since only proof of Self is in identity with it. Either one is a jnani or an ajnani. There cannot be in between, except from the view point of ajnani (whose view points are not jnana).

That depends on whom you call as Jnani. As I mentioned earlier, the Yogi who has penetrated through the five koshas is the true Jnani. But every layer is essentially associated with increasing awareness. Beyond Pranamaya, stUla shahira does not exist. Beyond Manomaya, the sUkshma sharira does not exist. Vijnanamaya and Anandamaya, are associated only with linga deha, where there is great spiritual awakening and universal consciousness. These are all various grades of Jnanins.

A switch like classification between Jnana and Ajnana means that except non dual Brahman there is no jnani - in that case we have to rule out the possibility of any Jnanins exisiting on earth altogether, as such perfect non dual realization is attained only on videha mukti. Under your classification, SB like Shiva and Vishnu(Pranja Atman) have to be classifed as Ajnanis, which does not look very appropriate.

[atanu]

That depends on whom you call as Jnani. As I mentioned earlier, the Yogi who has penetrated through the five koshas is the true Jnani. But every layer is essentially associated with increasing awareness. Beyond Pranamaya, stUla shahira does not exist. Beyond Manomaya, the sUkshma sharira does not exist. Vijnanamaya and Anandamaya, are associated only with linga deha, where there is great spiritual awakening and universal consciousness. These are all various grades of Jnanins.

A switch like classification between Jnana and Ajnana means that except non dual Brahman there is no jnani - in that case we have to rule out the possibility of any Jnanins exisiting on earth altogether, as such perfect non dual realization is attained only on videha mukti. Under your classification, SB like Shiva and Vishnu(Pranja Atman) have to be classifed as Ajnanis, which does not look very appropriate.


No. We believe that Jnana in body is possible. And King Janaka is one example.

I said that grades of Jnani is relevant from non jnani's point of view. For a jnani there is no other.

[TruthSeeker]

No. We believe that Jnana in body is possible. And King Janaka is one example.

I said that grades of Jnani is relevant from non jnani's point of view. For a jnani there is no other.

Jnana in body or Jivanmukti is not monolithic. There are three grades of it - Jivamukti, Padartha Bhavana and Turiya. Except the last stage of Turiya, both the other kinds of Jivanmuktas are subject to prArabhdha Karma, and can never be considered to be pUrna jnanins. BUt these have to be considered as jnanins for all practical purposes.

In the first stage, non dualty is not actually fully realized, but the Jnanin is certain about that, like sighting a land while travelling in the sea. The Jnanin knows "Aham Brahmasmi" at this point, but he is not Brahman, and suffers from prArabdha Karma and still has the linga deha. This is kind of the Vishistadvaitin concept of mukti - we call that sArUpya mukti. This is symbolically represented by the mukta having four hands like Vishnu with the four hands representing the Ahamkara and the three gunas of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas.


In the second stage, prArabdha Karma is gone, but the jnanin has pure Sattvik Ahamkara, and is represented by the two handed Krishna. Have you heard that ISKCONs claiming that the two handed Krishna is superior to the four handed Vishnu? They do it without knowing the significance, but the two hands represent the Ahamkara and the Sattva guna and complete destruction of Rajas and Tamas. This is why the two handed Krishna is technically superior.

In Turiya, this Ahamkara and the Sattva guna are both merged in the Brahman and have no independent existance, and according to advaita this is not possible while embodied. This is called videha mukti.

If a jnanin dies in the stage of Jivanmukta ( called Asamsakti), he gets sArUpya mukti and lives in the realm of SB for a long time in great enjoyment and is dissolved in the Brahman during laya.

If a jnanin dies in Padarta Bhavana he never goes to the realm of SB, and is directly merged in the Brahman.

These are discussed in Yoga Vasistha and other texts. Because such concepts are not well described in standard scriptures, advaitins dont bother to dvelve deeply and elaborate on various jnanins. That does not mean Jnana is a hit or miss thing. A mukta who lives in the world of SB, with sArUpya mukti is a pUrna jnanin who "nearly" knows that he is Brahman with a faint trace of "I". Advaitins must not simply fight shy of all concepts and translate everything to NB which is well neigh impossible for most jivas or even the greatest Yogis.

Similarly, sAlokya and samIpya muktis are what are achieved by people following the paths of Karma Yoga. These muktas will advance to sArUpya in due course, and finally attain laya. All these jIvas are also jnanins of a high order, and we cannot call them Ajnanins. This is the path of Krama mukti, and this is the route of salvation for 99.99%(??) of all souls on earth. Why bypass this and club them as Ajnanins? These great souls will never incarnate on earth and be ever bonded with karma, for all practical purposes these are Jnanins, and even if you attain this you are a very commendable Yogi.


Very few Yogis have attained the stage of Padarta Bhavana and attained sadyo mukti and the primary qualifications for even following this path is complete virAgya. If you not have that, there is no way you can ever get sadyo mukti or direct liberation. Possibly this is one of the reasons, advaita is described in less than 25 verses in the whole of scripture.;)

Vaishnavism is essentially Karma Yoga preaching krama mukti and naturally this philoosphy is generally dualistic or not completely non dualistic.

Shaivism is technically higher and preaches Jnana Yoga with the objective of either sArUpya mukti or sadyo mukti. But, in worldly practice, even Shaivism is representing only Karma Yoga nowadays as evident from the spiritual practices most people follow. This is the reason I dont engage in any debates with non advaitins as they are also perfectly correct in their beleifs. Why would I reject something that has strong scriptural and logical support? They fall in our umbrella and if they keep shouting at us, it has to be ignored like a child's tantrums - simple.:)

[atanu]

Jnana in body or Jivanmukti is not monolithic. There are three grades of it - Jivamukti, Padartha Bhavana and Turiya. Except the last stage of Turiya, both the other kinds of Jivanmuktas are subject to prArabhdha Karma, and can never be considered to be pUrna jnanins. BUt these have to be considered as jnanins for all practical purposes.

In the first stage, non dualty is not actually fully realized, but the Jnanin is certain about that, like sighting a land while travelling in the sea. The Jnanin knows "Aham Brahmasmi" at this point, but he is not Brahman, and suffers from prArabdha Karma and still has the linga deha. This is kind of the Vishistadvaitin concept of mukti - we call that sArUpya mukti. This is symbolically represented by the mukta having four hands like Vishnu with the four hands representing the Ahamkara and the three gunas of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas.


In the second stage, prArabdha Karma is gone, but the jnanin has pure Sattvik Ahamkara, and is represented by the two handed Krishna. Have you heard that ISKCONs claiming that the two handed Krishna is superior to the four handed Vishnu? They do it without knowing the significance, but the two hands represent the Ahamkara and the Sattva guna and complete destruction of Rajas and Tamas. This is why the two handed Krishna is technically superior.

In Turiya, this Ahamkara and the Sattva guna are both merged in the Brahman and have no independent existance, and according to advaita this is not possible while embodied. This is called videha mukti.

If a jnanin dies in the stage of Jivanmukta ( called Asamsakti), he gets sArUpya mukti and lives in the realm of SB for a long time in great enjoyment and is dissolved in the Brahman during laya.

If a jnanin dies in Padarta Bhavana he never goes to the realm of SB, and is directly merged in the Brahman.

These are discussed in Yoga Vasistha and other texts. Because such concepts are not well described in standard scriptures, advaitins dont bother to dvelve deeply and elaborate on various jnanins. That does not mean Jnana is a hit or miss thing. A mukta who lives in the world of SB, with sArUpya mukti is a pUrna jnanin who "nearly" knows that he is Brahman with a faint trace of "I". Advaitins must not simply fight shy of all concepts and translate everything to NB which is well neigh impossible for most jivas or even the greatest Yogis.

Similarly, sAlokya and samIpya muktis are what are achieved by people following the paths of Karma Yoga. These muktas will advance to sArUpya in due course, and finally attain laya. All these jIvas are also jnanins of a high order, and we cannot call them Ajnanins. This is the path of Krama mukti, and this is the route of salvation for 99.99%(??) of all souls on earth. Why bypass this and club them as Ajnanins? These great souls will never incarnate on earth and be ever bonded with karma, for all practical purposes these are Jnanins, and even if you attain this you are a very commendable Yogi.


Very few Yogis have attained the stage of Padarta Bhavana and attained sadyo mukti and the primary qualifications for even following this path is complete virAgya. If you not have that, there is no way you can ever get sadyo mukti or direct liberation. Possibly this is one of the reasons, advaita is described in less than 25 verses in the whole of scripture.;)

Vaishnavism is essentially Karma Yoga preaching krama mukti and naturally this philoosphy is generally dualistic or not completely non dualistic.

Shaivism is technically higher and preaches Jnana Yoga with the objective of either sArUpya mukti or sadyo mukti. But, in worldly practice, even Shaivism is representing only Karma Yoga nowadays as evident from the spiritual practices most people follow. This is the reason I dont engage in any debates with non advaitins as they are also perfectly correct in their beleifs. Why would I reject something that has strong scriptural and logical support? They fall in our umbrella and if they keep shouting at us, it has to be ignored like a child's tantrums - simple.:)


Namaskar TS,

Excellent exposition and I reproduce it fully. I agree that I am aware of three grades of Jivan muktas. Fortunately or unfortunately, my Guru (who is God to me) has stated that mukti is the stage of Sahaja Samadhi where one requires no conscious effort to be in samadhi. He becomes the Samadhi itself but is fully aware (as was the case of King Janaka). Fully aware of all diversities as in Self and of Self only.

From the point of view of such jnani (truly rare), there is no other. So, questions of grade will not arise.



This is theoretical for me, but my Guru (and other scriptures also) state that without theoretically accepting the scripture of absolute one ness a priori (by means of discrimination etc.) one cannot practice.

Similar are my Guru's views regarding Tattwas and chakras etc. Very typically, he says, before dumping the waste one does not sift through the garbage. He teaches: since ONE alone is true and that ONE is the Self, once must abide in Self and nothing else.

Well this is extreme for me. But that is how it is.


The jist is that when Self is repeatedly realised consciously and that jnana becomes unconscious (permanent without volition), that alone is mukti. In that state grades do not exist.

To quote you: All experience is in the domain of Dvaita. And perception of grades are experiences only. I reiterate that discussion with you is most valuable.

Om Namah Shivayya

[atanu]

If a jnanin dies in Padarta Bhavana he never goes to the realm of SB, and is directly merged in the Brahman.

These are discussed in Yoga Vasistha and other texts. ----

------This is the reason I dont engage in any debates with non advaitins as they are also perfectly correct in their beleifs. Why would I reject something that has strong scriptural and logical support? They fall in our umbrella and if they keep shouting at us, it has to be ignored like a child's tantrums - simple.:)

Jivan Muktas are expounded in Yoga Vashista and also in Tripura Rahasya, wherein Janaka is cited as an example.

Regarding completeness of non advaitin concepts, I agree that they are valid at some stages of consciousness. But I believe that they completly reject abheda vakyas, in effect but not verbally, to explain sense experiences. The suble point that Brahamn is different from and beyond the sense experiences but is the sensor within is missed by these schools. I feel, that some form of preference is the cause.

As for tantrums, yes. Who cares? Some times, however, some points may be elucidated for mutual benefit through genuine discussions. Advaita cannot be in the assertion but in silent realization. So, egoistic debates are anathema to Advaita. True. Agreed.

[Sudarshan]

As for tantrums, yes. Who cares? Some times, however, some points may be elucidated for mutual benefit through genuine discussions. Advaita cannot be in the assertion but in silent realization. So, egoistic debates are anathema to Advaita. True. Agreed.

VA also holds Brahman to be beyond senses and mind, though one can imagine a form for the purpose of worship and meditation. But it says there is a concrete goal of all this - there is a certain entity to be realized in the end, and one knows it when he has realized it. Advaita's strange axioms are that 1. There can be no final experience 2. There are no ways to know if you reached there or even realized Brahman. You cant expect logic to pierce these postulates, and yet claim that there is something superior in it. By strict definition of advaita, a Jivanmukta does not know he is one! What do others make out of it? So whatever way you want to put it, some dualty is implied in every circumstance. On the top of it, Brahman is said to be unaware of himself- you cannot say anything you want.!;)

[atanu]

VA also holds Brahman to be beyond senses and mind, though one can imagine a form for the purpose of worship and meditation.


This is accetable to most (maybe to all).



Advaita's strange axioms are that 1. There can be no final experience 2. There are no ways to know if you reached there or even realized Brahman. You cant expect logic to pierce these postulates, and yet claim that there is something superior in it. By strict definition of advaita, a Jivanmukta does not know he is one! What do others make out of it? So whatever way you want to put it, some dualty is implied in every circumstance. On the top of it, Brahman is said to be unaware of himself- you cannot say anything you want.!;)

Sudarshan Ji,

I respect you. But I must say that you are literal and do not appreciate the true meaning well in some cases.

Can you show me some english translation from a genuine source (from advaitin of course) which states that as per advaita there cannot be a final experience?


A treasure of Advaita literature: Tripura Rahasya has few passages where King Janaka imparts knowledge to Ashtavakra. The king says: The ultimate is indescribable but it is teachable, else there would be no scripture.

What is actually meant is that the Self is the ONE who experiences all that is experienced. So, truly it is beyond the realm of experience. It is the experiencer. And since Self is Brahman who alone is, what can Self experience? It experiences itself only. That is advaita. Self only takes forms (using Maya) and comes to teach. I cannot make you understand this. But I can only point out again and again that if you are experiencing the Sun, it is you who is experiencing. Sun does not come and declare its presence to you. If you search for the cognition apparatus who is the experiencer of everything, then only you can appreciate the truth of ONE SELF some day. And are you devoid of the Self? Or do you have two selves?

Similarly, a true Jivan mukta is the Self. He is no more a body and "I" and thus his verbal assertion "I am Jivanmukta and you are not", would be absolutely wrong. Such a Jivan mukta (a true one of course) can however say: I became the Sun, I became the Moon.


Since from Self is all these.


I expect that One day we will talk sweetly without dragging in personalities etc.

[atanu]

Namaskar


On the top of it, Brahman is said to be unaware of himself- you cannot say anything you want.!;)

I love you Sudarshana. I pity you also. Please read Gopala Tapaniya to get the answer for your query.

Extracts from Gopala Tapaniya

18. Taste is contained within the element of water, although taste and water are different. Taste is contained within water. This water does not know. I am spirit. How can I be a materialistic enjoyer?


---------- (please read other containers and contents also)





21. When spirit is everything how does one think? Where does one go? I am spirit, how can I be a materialistic enjoyer?






I wish to rephrase for you.

I and you are in the Self. I and You are different from the Self. I and you are contained in the Self. But the Self does not know that.


And again, lest you degrade the spirit as is the usual effect of your unknowing and unintentional statements:

When spirit is everything how does one think? Where does one go? I am spirit, how can I be a materialistic enjoyer?


Well Sudarshana contemplate and reflect. Self knows Self only. It does not know of I and You.

Best wishes.

[Sudarshan]

Namaskar



I love you Sudarshana. I pity you also. Please read Gopala Tapaniya to get the answer for your query.

Extracts from Gopala Tapaniya

18. Taste is contained within the element of water, although taste and water are different. Taste is contained within water. This water does not know. I am spirit. How can I be a materialistic enjoyer?


---------- (please read other containers and contents also)





21. When spirit is everything how does one think? Where does one go? I am spirit, how can I be a materialistic enjoyer?






I wish to rephrase for you.

I and you are in the Self. I and You are different from the Self. I and you are contained in the Self. But the Self does not know that.


And again, lest you degrade the spirit as is the usual effect of your unknowing and unintentional statements:

When spirit is everything how does one think? Where does one go? I am spirit, how can I be a materialistic enjoyer?


Well Sudarshana contemplate and reflect. Self knows Self only. It does not know of I and You.

Best wishes.

Who said I dont beleive that Brahman is not self aware? Advaita denies it because of kartR^ikarmavirodha - the dualty that arises between the thinker and thought and concludes that Brahman has no self awareness. The apparent logical flaw leads to the fact that one can never know if he has atatined moksha or not. I pity you;)

Niow you will want to say that - Ok, I admit that Brahman has Self Awareness, that means Brahman and his thought are different. I have no idea why advaita has to go to these illogical extent to prove "non dualism". Why not accept Brahman and his thought as separate? Now people will ask now, why not gunas and shakti also? And so on...now you will finally realize that advaita itself goes if this premise is sacrificed, as it leads to more and more multiplicity. The main problem is advaita made Maya as inexplicable, instead of giving it the proper ontological status - below the Brahman and under his control. In that case, the very non dual premise can be questioned. In any case, no simple answer is found. Instead of positing Brahman as the weilder of Maya, Advaita chose to Brahman coming under the infleuence of (own) Maya and having "distortion".

[atanu]

Who said I dont beleive that Brahman is not self aware?

Why not accept Brahman and his thought as separate?


For the first point: As usual no discussion on the point under consideration but obfuscation. Ego never bends, it falls. You ask: who said that Brahman is not Self aware. But for you the Self is I and you. Brahman is shown in Tapaniya to be not aware of I and You.

Why do not you accept that you were wrong in your sarcastic comment on Advaita? What prevents you from accepting that you might have been wrong? Isn't it ego? And that is the hindrance to know the truth. You will always be unbending to try to keep upright your ego and thus obstruct the truth from shining of itself within you.


For the second point: We simply do not consider Thought as another being beside Brahman/Self. You as of now is simply a thought that "I am such and such". There is no reality in that thought except that it has arisen in the unlimited Self.


Considering Powers and the powerful as different things is foolish. Powerful is the only being. Lingarupi Shaktiman purusha is the only real being. Rest is all his powers.

[atanu]

instead of giving it the proper ontological status - below the Brahman and under his control. In that case, the very non dual premise can be questioned. In any case, no simple answer is found. Instead of positing Brahman as the weilder of Maya, Advaita chose to Brahman coming under the infleuence of (own) Maya and having "distortion".

How long one does indulge in inane discussion? Time and again it has been said that Ishwara is with Maya (actually controller of Maya) and Not Brahman, who is ONE WITHOUT A SECOND. Ishwara is a 'pada' and not the Self.

Self only appears as Ishwara, Jiva, and Jagat, without ever changing from its unlimited Self hood. This is there in Svet. Up. also. Check it up calmly.


A prayer: Lord please impart us passionless intellect so that we may desist from inane discussions.

[TruthSeeker]

Namaskar TS,

Excellent exposition and I reproduce it fully. I agree that I am aware of three grades of Jivan muktas. Fortunately or unfortunately, my Guru (who is God to me) has stated that mukti is the stage of Sahaja Samadhi where one requires no conscious effort to be in samadhi. He becomes the Samadhi itself but is fully aware (as was the case of King Janaka). Fully aware of all diversities as in Self and of Self only.


That is right Atanu, but all these stages are of the Nirvikapla kind. To even realize the Dvaitin view of mukti or the much higher VAs mukti, one need to be able to ascend into Nirvikalpa. An advatin might say that true identification with Self is the pinnacle of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Have you read Patanjali's system, which mandates such a samAdhi even in a dualistic system? Thus, even the highest stages of samAdhi have multiple stages them with domains of operation in the Manas, Buddhi and Ahamkara. This Ahamkara is not eliminated in either dvaita or VA, but only in Advaita. But to assume that it is easier to attain to even the stage of Dvaita is a mistake. Make no mistake about it Atanu - even if you follow Dvaita you will attain to the highest Self though it goes through a different path.




Similar are my Guru's views regarding Tattwas and chakras etc. Very typically, he says, before dumping the waste one does not sift through the garbage. He teaches: since ONE alone is true and that ONE is the Self, once must abide in Self and nothing else.

Well this is extreme for me. But that is how it is.


I agree literally. But you also address the practical side too. Without a theoretical knowledge, and then a practical knolwedge of the tattvams how will transcend them?

Let us take the Advaitin idea is the most rigid sense: I have no body, no subtle body, no Manas, no Buddhi, and no Ahamkara - but I am the all pervading, all conscious infinite Self. This is the object of attainment. But can you reach there by just assuming this truth? Impossible!

Why? You might want to assume this truth, and might even try to put it into practice. Let us say you decide for yourself, I am not this body. You will cling to this beleif as long as things remain favourable. Let us say you touch the hot fire, or see a snake nearby, all your thoughts are immediately focussed on "Oh, I am now in danger. I have been burnt. I am in pain!!" etc. This is not so easy to conquer because these are the result of former vAsanas(kleSa) which cannot be routed by simply making up the mind. That is, a systematic understanding of the origin of these vAsanas, how they influence you, and how the Manas stupidly follows the Chitta instead of the Buddhi is absolutely essential. Hence the need for systematic disciplines in spirituality. Three grades of Jivanmuktas are those who have accomplished this to different degrees with a high level of success.

Hinduism in general specifies that three things are critical to the success of accomplishing the above "I am not the body" once for ever. Intense sAdhana in the form of meditation and samAdhi, Bhakti and NishkAma Karma or devotion, and the grace of God(Guru) or Isvara Kripa. There is no mukti even if one of these is not present. Since the scripture does not directly stipulate the ideal proportions of these in any path you follow, different ideas give different weightages to each of these.

Advaita, for example, puts more importance on Dhyana over all others, followed by Bhakti and Kripa.

VA, gives more priority on Bhakti and Karma aspects, and gives lesser importance to kripa, and even less to Dhyana.

Dvaita, on the grace of God, and goes so far as to say that even a Jnani cannot get liberated without kripa.

These views are different readings of the same scripture by prioritizing different aspects, and in order to strongly recommend this particular view, the Acharyas of each of these schools denounced each other. So whom should as aspirant follow? He should follow his heart, and which ever makes sense to him. According to his temperament, one of the ideas will make most sense to him. The philosopical part of Advaita, VA or Dviata are nearly meaningless, as the ultimate objective is to adopt a regimen that is suitable for your nature.

Also, all these schools say that mukti is most achieved easily by following their own school. How could that be true? Advaita says that just by meditating,beleiving and concentaring on "Aham Brahmasmi" liberation is attained. Is this verified at all in practice? VA says that just surrender to God without doing any sAdhana leads to mukti - again a clear cut arthavAda. Dvaita says that those who dont beleive in it might end up in hell - this is a big time arthavAda. One should read all philosophies, take the best out of these and concentrate on some sAdhana that "impresses" and makes most sense for you. The goal of liberation is best left uncared for, and once proper sAdhana is performed, Jnana will arise and dispel all doubts.

There is no doubts whatsoever that the Self is realized in stages - first as the Lord encompassing all creation( Vishvarupa), then as the Lord dwelling in all creatures ( as the antaryAmi), then as the Lord who is beyond space and time( Isvara) and then as Yourself. All jivanmuktas have seen Isvara, the being beyond all notions of time and space, but not necessarily identified themselves with him- that is "Ayam Atma Brahma"

[atanu]

Namaskar TS,



That is right Atanu, but all these stages are of the Nirvikapla kind. -----


I fear that I have to disagree here. The highest kind is called Sahaja, in Tripura Rahasya and is endorsed by my Guru.

And though many will not realise it, this is also the pinnacle goal of Gita. Abide always in Me -- Lord Krishna says, who is the Self. Whether one is working or meditating does not matter in such a state. One become the meditation itself and work or whatever else goes on. This is yuktatma stage.

Mind is stilled while one is in Nirvikalpa and rises again. But in Sahaja, the mind has been killed by continous abidance and awareness of SELF is never lost, whatever one may be engaged in.




- even if you follow Dvaita you will attain to the highest Self though it goes through a different path.



Obviously. But then Dvaita will not remain. Surrender, which Dvaita requires, cannot happen fully till one has an Ego intact. Even a trace of Ego (a sense of I as a separate being) cannot allow self surrender, which truly means surrender of the small apparent self to the true Self, which is ONE.

There are mystic vaishnav saints who have sung on the above subject. Similarly in Bible and Moslem scriptures there are passages of advaita, which, as expected are not taught commonly. Bible says: I am that I am. Jesus says: I and my father in heaven are same. Most Christian leaders give their own interpretations and remove the simplicity, like it happens in our case with Mahavakyas. May be with a cause since Advaita is not for egoists.




I agree literally. But you also address the practical side too. Without a theoretical knowledge, and then a practical knolwedge of the tattvams how will transcend them?


Yes. One who has reached the point of enquiry into the source of I has done that previously.




There is no doubts whatsoever that the Self is realized in stages - first as the Lord encompassing all creation( Vishvarupa), then as the Lord dwelling in all creatures ( as the antaryAmi), then as the Lord who is beyond space and time( Isvara) and then as Yourself. All jivanmuktas have seen Isvara, the being beyond all notions of time and space, but not necessarily identified themselves with him- that is "Ayam Atma Brahma"


Yes and no. These are verbal differences. I will say Self is experienced (and not realized) in stages - first as the Lord encompassing all creation( Vishvarupa), then as the Lord dwelling in all creatures ( as the antaryAmi), then as the Lord who is beyond space and time (Isvara) and then as SELF.



See actually there is nothing like Self Realization. Self is always there realized. Mind uncovers the sheaths and has different experiences but Self is always there realized. If Self was not there then Mind would'nt be there.

If something was realized at some point of time then that is not the eternal truth, whereas Self is the eternal truth. Experiencing Self as Visvarupa or Ishwara, will always be intermittent -- this is not the truth that you are.



Let us go back to Mandukya. Should we, since thses verbal differences may not be for us?

Regards,

Om Namah Shivayya

[Santosh Gairola]

omityetadaksharamidaM sarvaM tasyopavyAkhyAnaM
bhUtaM bhavad-bhaviSyaditi sarvamoÑkAra eva |
yaccAnyat-trikAlAtItaM tadapyoÑkAra eva |1|

Om is the Word, and it is all this; and its explanation is this:
All that is past, present, and future, is verily Om.
Also that which is beyond the triple conception of time is verily Om.


I disagree for two things;

Akshar (अक्षर) does not mean Word. Word is traslated as Shabda (शब्द). Akshar means Imperishable.
"is verily Om": It is not Om, but Omkar, Which is characteristically different. Om is a denote, but Omkar is sound of Om.Lets check the verse:


ओमित्येतदक्षरमिदंसर्वं तस्योपव्याख्यानं।
भुतं भवद् भविष्यदिति सर्वमोंकार एव ।
यच्चान्यत् त्रकालातीतं तदप्योंकार एव ॥ 1 ॥
omityetadaksharamidam sarvam tasyopavyAkhyAnam,
bhutam bhavad-bhavishhyaditi sarvamonkaara eva |
yachchaanyat-trikaalaateetam tadapyonkaara eva |1|


aum - aum
iti - like that
tad - then
aksharam - imperishable
idam - this
sarvam - whole/all
tasya - its
vyakhyanam - explanation

bhutam - created - 'past'
bhavat - become (becoming) - 'present'
bhavishyad - of future
iti - like that
sarvam - whole/all
omkar - the sound of aum
eva - verily/'used to put emphasis'

yatha - just as
anyat - others
trikal - tree dimensions of time
atitam - beyond/surpassed
tadabhyo - that too
omkar - the sound of aum
eva - verily/'used to put emphasis'

Thus the meaning goes something like:


AUM, that is imperishable, is all; its explanation:
What has been created (past), becoming (present) and will become (future); verily, is the sound of AUM. Just as other too, beyond the three dimensions of time; verily, is the sound of AUM.

[sarabhanga]

aum iti tad aksharam idam sarvam tasya vyakhyanam
aum like that then imperishable this all its explanation
“AUM, that is imperishable, is all; its explanation:”


Namaste Santosh,

omityetadaksharamidaM sarvaM tasyopavyAkhyAnaM is more correctly rendered as:

om iti etad aksharam idaM sarvaM tasya upavyAkhyAnaM

etad generally refers to what precedes, especially when connected with idam, the latter then referring to what follows.

Thus, oM ~ this (preceding) aksharaM (i.e. the syllable oM), this (following) sarvaM (i.e. the whole or all of the parts, as explained) ~ its clear explanation:

As an adjective, akshara means “imperishable or unalterable”. Although, as a neuter noun, aksharam is “a syllable, letter, vowel, sound, or word” ~ particularly referring to the sacred syllable om. And the feminine aksharA indicates “word or speech”.

“Thus oM, this word, this all, a clear explanation of it (is this):”


omkAra is “the sacred syllable om” or “pronouncing the syllable om”, and the term is certainly not restricted to just the sound of its pronunciation.

[vishnu]

Hi,

New to this site and posting first time. I first read Mandukya upanishad only which got me so interested since it states of experiences which u can relate to.

Kindly read mandukya upanishad along with bhagwat gita 8.10-13 to get full understanding. I think both dvaita and advaita are "stupid" concepts. Both are far from what the scriptures say and from general experience. Also note that Brahman is consciousness. Therefore, this atma which is conscious has four parts as explained in mand. That is atma is therefore brahman. Brahman is a grand concept of consciousness -- thats all.

Regarding the turiya state, i will only give a hint to that for those who have not experienced it. (as scriptures are against giving "gyan" to others). Please draw a chart comparing the diff between all the four states. u can figure it out urself. Also Aum is said to be soundless sound. Please ponder over this and u will get that answer urself.

Please reply if u get any hints or want to comment otherwise.

Thanks,
vishnu.

No intention of hurting anyone. But please do not interpret scriptures according to your suitability. If u do not conclude the same as scriptures, ur thinking/ exp is not right rather than interpreting the scriptures in ur desired way. That is mark of a good student who says he did not get it till he gets it. Also please focus on your experience rather than going by somebody else bhasya.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Vishnu: Welcome to these forums. I hope your stay is fruitful.

Aum Namasivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Also Aum is said to be soundless sound. Please ponder over this and u will get that answer urself. .
We can call this anirukta¹ or some just call amātra. Meaning a+ mātra : a = not + mātra = measure, in a boundless manner - Hence without bounds.

praṇām

words

anirukta अनिरुक्त - is 'not explained', indefinable; it is unspeakable, un-uttered

[vishnu]

Hi,

Thanks all for the welcome. I have been taught Sanskrit in school and know how cryptic it is. Thats why i am asking to concentrate on your own experience simply because we really don't know in what context these terms were used some 4-5 thousand years ago.

Also it is very simple to find out that our goal in life is to see/meet/etc etc the so called "supreme". That is why i said read bhagwat gita 8.10-8.13. it is asking to close the "doors of your senses" --- when that is so how can u open your mouth and chant om? than how can you open your ears and listen to somebody chanting om? etc etc....

Also i think the majority people on this forum will be brahmins. I for a change am not one but a Kshatriya. We genuinely hate somebody teaching us grammar :). No offense intended. Also as manduka upanishad states that the goal of our life is to have a sattvic mind of strength. this appeals to me more than anything else. simply because no matter how many times an impotent man reads kamasutra he is never goin to have sex. so wats the point in reading one?? also just because you chant "sex " "sex" will not result in one having sex. This is so true for our general experience too. That is why how can gyan make you achieve liberation?? how can bhakti make you achieve liberation? also the sattvic person will always be a devotee and a "gyani" rather than vice versa.

Also please note the fact that Vedic religion has a strong point compared to other religion. We always say "moksha" is the main goal. When salvation does not figure so much in other religion or is completely a stupid concept when in our case it is not so. Please also note the fact that we worship many gods but we never worship brahman. when upanishads state that he/it is the ultimate destination. dont you think it is quite contrary. that is why vedic religion is an intelligent religion. to follow it we have to keep our minds open and alert.

Hoping for more comments and reaction. Please comment on gita 8.10-13 also.

Thanks,

Vishnu.
enjoying my stay here at the forum :)
again no offense intended when i criticize others point. it is just to be emphatic. that's ALL !!!

[devotee]

Namaste Vishnu,



Kindly read mandukya upanishad along with bhagwat gita 8.10-13 to get full understanding. I think both dvaita and advaita are "stupid" concepts. Both are far from what the scriptures say and from general experience. Also note that Brahman is consciousness.

Calling great Acharayas's philosophy as stupid can not be considered better than stupid unless you have credentials better than Madhava and Shankara. What are your credentials ? Have you attained Brahman ? Please remember, he who knows Brahman "becomes" That !

OM

[Eastern Mind]

Also i think the majority people on this forum will be brahmins. I for a change am not one but a Kshatriya. We genuinely hate somebody teaching us grammar :). No offense intended.

Vannakkam vishnu: You seem to have jumped to some erroneous conclusions. I'm sure there are Brahmins here, but many aren't. I'm one that isn't. In terms of caste, I'm an untouchable.

I find the last part of your phrasing contradictory. On one hand you're saying you hate, yet on the other you state, 'no offense intended'. I cannot help but see a parallel to the Abrahamics when they say "God loves you, but you're going to hell." Perhaps you can again explain what you meant. I very well may be misunderstanding all this. Maybe 'hate' was just meant as 'dislike'. Words can just get lead us into so many misunderstandings sometimes.

Aum Namasivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté vishnu

You have spoken about turīya

Please draw a chart comparing the diff between all the four states. u can figure it out urself.

Please talk to us about turīyātīta:

turīyātīta is turīya + atīta - the 4th + beyond, past. Hence turīyātīta is beyond the 4th. atīta अतीत - gone beyond, past.

You mention,


Brahman is a grand concept of consciousness -- thats all.

Please offer the śāstra & śloka-s to support this position, as this too is conntected with turīyātīta.

praṇām

[charitra]

[quote=vishnu;59847]Hi,

" Also i think the majority people on this forum will be brahmins. I for a change am not one but a Kshatriya."

No Iam not. It would be sensible to avoid any mention of caste here on this forum; my respect for this forum is still intact. Lot of non indian race hindus are here and the born brown hindus (myself included) have to learn a few things from their gracious dedication to hinduism. If at all we mention caste here, we ought to bring it up to condemn any discrimination and harassment in the name of caste. Within the american and european context the hindus dont talk about the caste, the second generation onwards I mean. For example our kids only know their faith and they never heard of caste. Thakns to an explosion of intercaste marriages in India, we will see the demon disappearing fast right in our lifetime. Then and only then hinduism will be viewed favorably by all. Shanti...:D

[vishnu]

Hi All,

Thanks all for the generous comments. I have got the blood boiled now. Dont let it stop from using your head. Good to know that there are kind hearted people on this forum.

I will reply to all queries since it will also help me discover myself better which i think we all are aiming for. I have huge respect for the rishis because i have myself gone to various assemblies, but i will continue to criticize them simply because it will help me better understand them clearly and i hope that everybody agrees that asking questions helps in better understanding.

Now reply to questions one by one..
1. Calling advaita and dvaita philoshpy stupid. and " Have you attained Brahman ? Please remember, he who knows Brahman "becomes" That ! "

Ans: Dvaita philosophy : One becomes Lord in the third state itself. Because in deep sleep state, neither one desires anything nor one wants something. This is the greatest achievement one can have. Please try to sleep for 15 days without seeing any dreams (although quite impossible but can be tried). We ( our consciousness) experience different things in different states. This is what the rishis are highlighted about. Also note the fact that in dream state, we can change our consiousness from this body to another !!!Miracle. We can become the snake, the dog , the bird we see in our dreams ourselves. this is clearly leads to karma and rebirth theories. A clear case of drawing parallelism. this is clearly quoted in other upanishad as well. i am unable to find the link now but will quote soon.

That is why dvaita is "stupid" in terms that it is simply ignoring the fact that the atman undergoes these experiences in different states rather than the fact that there is a separate jiva and ishvara. and pls note the fact that i said that one become LORD in 3 state rather than in 4 !!!!

Advait philosophy : pls read the link.
http://www.astrojyoti.com/aitareyaupanishad-2.htm
III i-2 to III-i-4.Consciousness is Brahman.
This is very clearly stated in upanishad.
Now, since (1.) Consciousness is Brahman and (2.)Atman is conscious ==Atman is brahman.

Simple logic. This is what is stated in Mandukya upanishad. so the mahakavays does not imply advaita at all!!
"tat tvam asi" "aham Brahman asi" etc etc is very simply. requires no usage of head at all!!! It only implies that we have to look for brahman in our atman rather than somewhere else.


Now i request Mr. devotee to pls tell from which upanishad he has got this statement == he who knows Brahman "becomes" That ! "
also request other member to comment on 8.10-13 of bhagwat gita simply because it will clarify all the things. Pls refer to my earlier post. here gita is important because i gita is is stated "pranay kale" at the time of death.

Thanks,

Vishnu.
Wanted to say more but wud like to see the reaction first. But pls do comment on bhagwat gita too.

[vishnu]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté vishnu

You have spoken about turīya


Please talk to us about turīyātīta:

turīyātīta is turīya + atīta - the 4th + beyond, past. Hence turīyātīta is beyond the 4th. atīta अतीत - gone beyond, past.

You mention,



Please offer the śāstra & śloka-s to support this position, as this too is conntected with turīyātīta.

praṇām

hey,

the puzzle is solved than. somebody has experienced beyond turiya too. lets learn from him about turiya :))
i think yajavan has a tendency to go around all the "babas" who have made it their occupation to claim grand things about hinduism.
If vedas is really written by such babas i will definitely save a lot of time ignoring almost all of hinduism.

God save my soul !!!

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



III i-2 to III-i-4.Consciousness is Brahman.
This is very clearly stated in upanishad.
Now, since (1.) Consciousness is Brahman and (2.)Atman is conscious ==Atman is brahman.
There is no doubt that brahman is consciousness...
Some say brahman is pāramārthika (absolute) and vyāvahārika (relative). Many talk of brahman as ekam evādvitiyam - One truly without a second. Yet we note the following:

daśa santaiḥ tat kṛtam - What is created of that One becomes 10. (chāndogya upaniṣad 4.3.8)

To think brahman is only consciousness is a miscalculation in the fullness (bhūman) of this Being. But is there something that is subtler then consciousness is then the question... to this I say yes, it is sattā. Brahman is also this sattā, Being itself.

praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté




To think brahman is only consciousness is a miscalculation in the fullness (bhūman) of this Being

He is the One that shines ( rāṭ ) in every specific form ( vi ) ~ virāṭ ¹ ~ . He manifests in all the worlds.

praṇām

words

virāṭ is the form of virāj to be illustrious or eminent , shine forth , shine out ; we also know this word as a ruler, to reign , rule , govern , master
vi is from dvi mean in parts, directions, distribution. the rsi applies it to mean 'specific forms' or diversity.

[karthikm]

Hi,

Regarding the turiya state, i will only give a hint to that for those who have not experienced it. (as scriptures are against giving "gyan" to others). Please draw a chart comparing the diff between all the four states. u can figure it out urself. Also Aum is said to be soundless sound. Please ponder over this and u will get that answer urself.

Please reply if u get any hints or want to comment otherwise.

Thanks,
vishnu.



Namaste Vishnu,

Turiya is NOT a state. It is the base (adhishtanam) on which waking, dream & deep sleep state come and go. If you say that you have experienced Turiya, from which state did you experience it? What Upadhi did you have to experience Turiya?

[rainycity]

Obviously, fire, water or air are not the building blocks in modern science, so these must be properly explained with respect to science to be taken seroously. Philosophy devoid of science is idle talk, so I dont want to elaborate on these tattvas as done by ancient commentrators. Vaishnvanara falls in the realm of avidya, meaning material science. If anybody could present a modern view of this, that would be impressive.(please attempt so even if it is not rigorous)


ether - space
air - vibration, movement
fire - energy
water - fluidity
earth - form

[Waruna]

Namaste Vishnu,

Turiya is NOT a state. It is the base (adhishtanam) on which waking, dream & deep sleep state come and go. If you say that you have experienced Turiya, from which state did you experience it? What Upadhi did you have to experience Turiya?
turiya is a state, it is a continual state in which the yogi has unbroken or continual absorption in Aum/soundless sound/nada/shabda/omkar/pranava (inner sounds of bell, flute, ocean, mridanga/damaru, thunder etc...). Hopefully when Vishnu says Aum is soundless sound he is educated enough to know that is refering to the inner sounds continuosuly resounding in the head at all times

[karthikm]

turiya is a state, it is a continual state in which the yogi has unbroken or continual absorption in Aum/soundless sound/nada/shabda/omkar/pranava (inner sounds of bell, flute, ocean, mridanga/damaru, thunder etc...). Hopefully when Vishnu says Aum is soundless sound he is educated enough to know that is refering to the inner sounds continuosuly resounding in the head at all times

From which state is Turiya experienced? Is it from the waking state? If so, which organ of perception and which organ of knowledge is used to identify and experience Turiya? Or is it experienced in the Turiya state? In that case what is the upadhi that we have in Turiya state to experience that?

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté karthikm,



From which state is Turiya experienced? Is it from the waking state? If so, which organ of perception and which organ of knowledge is used to identify and experience Turiya? Or is it experienced in the Turiya state? In that case what is the upadhi that we have in Turiya state to experience that?

turīya - starts its origin in the word catur meaning 4. Hence turīya has come to be known as the 4th. Yet when we talk of the 2nd derivitive
of this turīya it is a discussion of the spirit and no longer does this 'part' or 'state' perfectly apply as spirit is far from be fractionated as a part
or state. It is considered whole ( bhūman or full, filled )

The wise also teach us of turīyātīta : turīya + atīta - the 4th + beyond, past. Hence turīyātīta is beyond the 4th; atīta अतीत - gone beyond, past.
What is this then? Perhaps others may wish to offer their views.

Another view ( not differnt, just extended) of this turīya is called turyasvastha ( some spell turīyasvastha) . It means/defined as Self-abiding ,
being in one's Self or really 'in the Self' one's natural state.

We see then how 'state' can sneak into the conversation as one wishes to talk of natual state of Being. It is based upon the 4th ( turīya )
and beyond the 4th ( turīyātīta ).

praṇām

[karthikm]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté karthikm,




turīya - starts its origin in the word catur meaning 4. Hence turīya has come to be known as the 4th. Yet when we talk of the 2nd derivitive
of this turīya it is a discussion of the spirit and no longer does this 'part' or 'state' perfectly apply as spirit is far from be fractionated as a part
or state. It is considered whole ( bhūman or full, filled )

The wise also teach us of turīyātīta : turīya + atīta - the 4th + beyond, past. Hence turīyātīta is beyond the 4th; atīta अतीत - gone beyond, past.
What is this then? Perhaps others may wish to offer their views.

Another view ( not differnt, just extended) of this turīya is called turyasvastha ( some spell turīyasvastha) . It means/defined as Self-abiding ,
being in one's Self or really 'in the Self' one's natural state.

We see then how 'state' can sneak into the conversation as one wishes to talk of natual state of Being. It is based upon the 4th ( turīya )
and beyond the 4th ( turīyātīta ).

praṇām

Namaste yajvan,

Absolutely agree with all your points. In fact Mandukya Upanisad only refers to the 4th pada as chaturtam (4th) and it is the base on which the other three states come and go.

Regarding Turiyatita and/or Turiyavastha, Mandukya upanisad does not refer to them. They are discussed more in the Yoga philosophy. Since this thread is about Mandukya upanisad, my humble opinion is bringing them in into this discussion would only confuse. Mandukya upanisad lays out a different path before explaining about Turiya. Similarly Yoga philosophy lays out a different path before explaining about Turiyatita. To me they should be discussed separately and not together.

Namaste.

[kd gupta]

Namaste vishnu
Your quotes are very complicated for me to understand . mandukya means frog which can have four stages..awake,sleepwhen dreaming,deep sleep and turiya or hibernation .
May be in samadhi when human can attain turiya . During all these stages IS the soul said to be in consciousness? .
Taking shlokas 10 to 13/8 , atma tries to attain brahman , means soul is not the real consciousness .
Gita shloka 59/18 says ...prakritih tvam niyokshati..means the nature borne by sanskar will engage you in war .
60/18 says...nibaddhah sven karmana...means your past deeds will lead you to war .
Both these shlokas hint the soul not to be the real consciousness otherwise gita was not needed .
Vedic word sayuja sakhayau...means brahman is present with soul hence soul is not the real consciousness .
So how you infer ..seeker to be the SOUGHT ?

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

If there is something more subtle than consciousness is there than we cannot detect it ever !!!

I am happy with your certainty. Yet consciousness rests on sattā. If you think that it takes consciousness to experience it, then there is 2,
and you are not at its subtlest level - see the point?

To say I want to know Reality - this too is a misnomer. This then suggests there is the object of knowing ( Reality) and the knower.
Once again there is 2, duality, and this is not the final resting point.

If there is 2, then one is not in the most subtlest level. One can only be reality.

[karthikm]

Namaste,

Mandukya Up. is only stating where you will find Aum very beautifully. But we can never describe what Aum is apart from the fact that it is soundless sound/ inner sound.

I even dont know why they call aum as atma??

"brahman present with the soul" --but mandukya up says atma is brahman. Aum is atma. So aum is brahman. So attaining atma is equal to attaining brahman. So brahmvidya is equal to atmavidya.
Here i think the rishis first found aum and than they described it rather than the other way out. But aum is real. and since they found aum to be at the centre of their self, they called aum as atma. Than why did they have to go on with the concept of brahman is also a puzzling thing???:rolleyes:


Mandukya upanisad takes a very logical route. Let me try to explain about my understanding.
There are many names & forms in this world. Each object has a name and a particular form. We could say that there is a world of names and a world of objects. When a child is born it is an object and we associate a name to it.

Mandukya Upanisad first takes the world of objects and associates it with the three states (waking, dream & deep sleep). There are forms in all the 3 states. Even in deep sleep the objects are there but in dormant state; only we don't recognize it, just like the objects in a dark room. It goes to the fourth level where there is no form.

Next it takes the world of names. All the sounds are associated with the three matras of AUM. Then the fourth is the AMatra. Soundless or nameless.

So Brahman which is the fourth (base) has no name and no form. All the name and forms come and go.

[devotee]

Namaste Vishnu,



If what karthik describes is ever true than i will be the first person to change my religion. It is the MOST BORING and STUPID concept i have ever heard in my life.


It that is the condition for changing your religion ... please do it today ! Or just tell us when you are undergoing this change .. just for our information.

Whatever I have gathered from your posts, your understanding of AUM and Atman is very much flawed & unfortunately you have very strong opinions based on your faulty understanding. Mandukya Upanishad is a master piece scripture & if you are able to understand it properly, you don't need any other scripture to understand what the Reality is.

If you are interested to understand what AUM is etc. you may like to read series of threads with names begining with "Aham Brahmasmi". You may also like to read thread "A few Questions on Advaita and their answers" in the same forum.

OM

[karthikm]

Namaste,

If what karthik describes is ever true than i will be the first person to change my religion. It is the MOST BORING and STUPID concept i have ever heard in my life.



Unfortunately Vishnu, Brahman is formless, nameless & attribute less. It can be as BORING as possible. If you are looking for a Brahman with full of fun & activities, good luck on your search. :)

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Unfortunately Vishnu, Brahman is formless, nameless & attribute less. It can be as BORING as possible. If you are looking for a Brahman with full of fun & activities, good luck on your search. :)
If one agrees that all this is indeed brahman, then brahman is both named and nameless, form and formless, beginning-less and beginning.
Yet these are mere words. We are told it is na agrāhya - not graspable.
That is, the totality of brahman is not an object of knowledge.

praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Namaste, What is the description of brahman as per vedic scriptures than? Hari Om
The avadhūta¹ ( realized being) says it anirukta - unspeakable. Some say anirvacanīya (a+nirvacanīya) - unutterable , indescribable. Yet we're in human form (vyakti ¹) and wish a description. For this, an in-depth reivew of this brahman, I suggest reading/studying the chāndogya upaniṣad as one of the 10 most valuable for this offering of brahman.
Here is a list if you have interest: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4617


praṇām


words

avadhūta - one who has shaken-off from himself worldly feeling and obligation; What is shaken off? Duality. Such a person is held to be pure 'consciousness' (caitanya) in human form. The avadhūt's roam freely , as Being itself.
vyakti -~observer~ due to the definition meaning individual; visible appearance or manifestation , becoming evident or known or public
vyakta - perceptible by the senses (as opposed to a-vyakta , transcendental) (in sāṃkhya) 'the developed or evolved'

[karthikm]

Namaste,

What is the description of brahman as per vedic scriptures than?

Hari Om

Well Mandukya Upanisad itself describes about Brahman in the 7th sloka.

Sloka:-
Nantah-prajnam na bahih-prajnam, nobhayatah-prajnam na prajnana-ghanam na prajnam naprajnam. Adrishtam-avyavaharayam-agrahyam- alakshanam-acintyam-avyapadesyam-ekatma-pratyayasaram, prapancopasarnam santam sivam-advaitam caturtham manyante sa tm sa vijneyah

Meaning:-
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.

[devotee]

Unfortunately Vishnu, Brahman is formless, nameless & attribute less. It can be as BORING as possible. If you are looking for a Brahman with full of fun & activities, good luck on your search. :)

Is it really BORING ? How do you know that ? That from which all enjoyment comes ... can be boring ?

This is what happens when we try to see something beyond mental realm with our limited understanding with the given senses and mind. You know Karthikm, Muslims believe that there can be no enjoyment beyond sensual pleasures. So, in their heaven, extra facilities are provided just to enjoy sexual pleasure because from their point of view, there can be no enjoyment greater than sexual enjoyment ! That is some bankrupcy of logical thinking !

The Brahman is blissful in the third and the fourth states. Can a blissful state be boring ? What is the meaning of "bliss" ? We, unfortunately, like the Muslims, believe that there can be no fun beyond sensual pleasure !

OM

[sunyata07]

That is why Om has more importance than Brahman.



Namaste,

Maybe you have misinterpreted Shankaryacharya's words. How are Om and Brahman any different from each other? I don't understand what you mean by saying that Om has more importance than Brahman, especially when it has been made clear that Om allows one to attain the supreme Brahman. This cosmic syllable Om from which all else emanates, then, is surely the medium through which Brahman can be understood most closely by people on this worldly plane (shabda brahman). Om is Brahman. Brahman is Om. It would be erroneous to claim one has greater import than the other. Unless I am misunderstanding your quote.

Om namah Shivaya

[vishnu]

Namaste,

Looking at devotee 's remarks, I have even further doubts. since ancient times, it was believed that the sun is revolving around the earth. But now we know that it is the other way around.


Similarly, we know that the vedas, this world, sanskrit language have come from Om. I also know that Om is a soundless sound/inner sound which has a definite existence. It can thus readily be assumed that the rishis MAY be wrong in there assumption of the significance of Om. But the amazing fact is that when u listen to Om, u feel like it is "God" only. So, i think the vedas direct us to Om only. We have to be careful about its interpretation ( it is interpretation only rather than fact )too.

That is the reason i said i believe in om rather in Brahman.

Even now i think that devotee has never heard Om. That is why he has no right to comment here.

Hari Om.

[sunyata07]

Namaste Vishnu,

I'm not going to argue against your experiences of Om from reading the Mandukya Upanishad, even if I disagree with some of the points you were making. If that is your belief, so be it. Although most of what your saying has not made much sense, especially when you are claiming that you are a neophyte. I assume this means you have only recently begun to study the scriptures, so where does your air of superiority regarding this knoewledge come from? To claim that the rishis have been deluded in some of their thinking, to say that Sharkaryacharya and Madhva "did not find Om", and yet you did in your sleep? How do you expect any of the rest of us to react, especially when you make these statements without backing them up (an important part of posting that was made clear in the rules for joining HDF).



I have neither time to study nor energy to argue with people on something in which i have no interest.


This is a strange statement. If an issue does not interest you, you would rather abandon it. How, then, can you make such radical claims as saying that Om is greater than Brahman? I can see the points you were making earlier, and what merit might come out of them from a practical stance, but even so, that is taking it a bit too far in my opinion.

Also, let me say that is unfair to call Devotee, one of our most knowledgeable and esteemed members here on the forum, out as being "undeveotee" like and not being able to understand. You couldn't be any more wrong about that, and I think it's quite rude that you are talking to him via 3rd person. Kindly address him directly in future with the same courtesy as you have paid me and the others.

Om namah Shivaya

[satay]

Admin Note

Namaste,
The troll has been kicked.

[kd gupta]

Namaste,

Looking at devotee 's remarks, I have even further doubts. since ancient times, it was believed that the sun is revolving around the earth. But now we know that it is the other way around.


Similarly, we know that the vedas, this world, sanskrit language have come from Om. I also know that Om is a soundless sound/inner sound which has a definite existence. It can thus readily be assumed that the rishis MAY be wrong in there assumption of the significance of Om. But the amazing fact is that when u listen to Om, u feel like it is "God" only. So, i think the vedas direct us to Om only. We have to be careful about its interpretation ( it is interpretation only rather than fact )too.

That is the reason i said i believe in om rather in Brahman.

Even now i think that devotee has never heard Om. That is why he has no right to comment here.

Hari Om.
Aum kham brahman...aum space brahman...17/40 yajurveda
so aum is not brahman and aum contains three letters a u m .
When with the three-stringed charm came three strong eagles,
sharing the Sacred Syllable and mighty,
With immortality they drove off Mrityu, obscuring and conceal-
ing all distresses...8/28/5/atharvaveda 1

[scmittal]

While searching for Mandukya U. I came across this forum and am glad to have found it. It seems that there has been no discussion for over a year now and I am not sure if it can be revived.
I would like to ask a question about the practical aspect of AUM chanting. Specifically, how to interpret the three states of waking, dream and sleep and weave them into the AUM chanting. Let us take the waking state as an example. MA #3 states that Vaishvanara possesses seven limbs (earth, water, fire, air, ether, sun, heaven) and 19 mouths (5 karmendriyas, 5 jnanendriyas, 5 pranas, manas, buddhi, ahamkara and chitta) and enjoys gross objects. How do I bring in all these concepts while meditating on AUM. I would like similar guidance for the other states as well.
Another question I have relates to the sequence of awareness that I should follow. Should I focus first on Vaishvanara only until I feel that I have mastered the concept and then move on to Taijas? Or, should I develop an awareness of each of the three states in every session of meditation?
I would truly appreciate any guidance from the learned members of this group.
- Subhash

[devotee]

Namaste SCM,




I would like to ask a question about the practical aspect of AUM chanting. Specifically, how to interpret the three states of waking, dream and sleep and weave them into the AUM chanting. Let us take the waking state as an example. MA #3 states that Vaishvanara possesses seven limbs (earth, water, fire, air, ether, sun, heaven) and 19 mouths (5 karmendriyas, 5 jnanendriyas, 5 pranas, manas, buddhi, ahamkara and chitta) and enjoys gross objects. How do I bring in all these concepts while meditating on AUM. I would like similar guidance for the other states as well.

MAndukya Upanishad is for understanding the Reality/Brahman and the universe. This Upanishad doesn't say how to meditate. Therefore, learning meditation by MAndukya is out of question.

AUM is the Universal Reality that alone exists and which has been described as Self or Brahman. AUM is a "sound" (without vibration of any material thing ... also called the AnAhat or sound which is produced without striking at any object) which is produced from every pores of the universe and is heard continuously as the sound produced by striking a big gong made of bell metal while meditating by a person whose Heart Chakra is activated.

There are different ways to meditate upon AUM. You may meditate by focussing on AUM sound resonating from your chakras in the right ear by closing your ears and focussing on the sound that is most prominent. You may also practise AUM meditation by chanting AUM and progressively meditating on each chakra starting from MoolAdhAr chakra and ending at SahasrAr. You may also chant AUM ad meditate on point between your eyebrows. It all depends upon what your Guru tells you to do.

In my opinion, it is better to do it under the guidance of a Guru.

OM

[scmittal]

Thank you, devotee, for your response.
You write, "MAndukya Upanishad is for understanding the Reality/Brahman and the universe. This Upanishad doesn't say how to meditate. Therefore, learning meditation by MAndukya is out of question."
My understanding is that the knowledge of the Upanishads was revealed to the rishis during their meditation. When you say that MU is for understanding the reality/Brahman, I am assuming that you don't mean just an intellectual understanding. True understanding and knowledge can only come through deep meditation. That's the reason I raised the question of learning how to focus the meditation so we can grasp the concepts of MU.
Just by reading that A is the same as the waking state etc, it gives me no real understanding of what that is supposed to mean. Or, just by reading that AUm is the same as Brahman, it gives me clue as to what it is supposed to mean.
I would appreciate any guidance on how to develop a deeper understanding of the concepts presented in MU. It is unfortunate that I don't have a "guru" who I can go to for clarifications. That's why I am seeking guidance from the learned members of this forum.
- Subhash

[devotee]

Namaste SCM,

Upanishadic teachings primarily aim at intellectual understanding of the Reality except some Upanishads dedicated to teaching Yoga e.g. YogachURamaNi Upanishad etc. MAnudukya Upanishad aims at intellectual understanding and is not a practical guide on how to achieve it. The practical aspect traditionally has been with the Guru-Shishya parampara.

It is forbidden to teach someone meditation unless one is authorised to do so. That is why I am unable to tell you the complete process. However, if you so desire, you can go through NAd Bindu Upanishad which tells you how to meditate on NAd i.e. AUM sound resonating through your activated chakras.

http://www.yousigma.com/religionandphilosophy/nadabindu.pdf

OM

[scmittal]

Thanks, devotee, for the reference to the Nadabindu U. I went through the document. However I did not find any reference to the chakras that you have mentioned. The technique mentioned therein is simply to start listening to internal sounds through the right ear. It describes the different sounds like a bell, musical instruments, conch etc that you may hear in the process. Finally, it says, you will get absorbed in "ashabda" or soundless para-Brahma.
This seems like a very beautiful technique. However, my main interest in posting the question is to try and understand the MU at a level which is beyond intellectual.
Thanks for your assistance.

[devotee]

Namaste SCM,


However I did not find any reference to the chakras that you have mentioned.

You are right. The Upanishad doesn't mention Chakras, as I have mentioned again and again in this thread. This was told to me by my Guru that the sound heard by the seeker depends upon his spiritual progress and the activated chakras. If the seeker has only MoolAdhAr chakra activated, he/she will hear sound of bees etc., if his/her SwadhisthAn/Manipur chakras are activated, he/she will hear a different sound. When AnAhat chakra is activated one hears the clear AUM sound as if coming from striking a big gong made of bell metal.


However, my main interest in posting the question is to try and understand the MU at a level which is beyond intellectual.


Our aim is to reach that level ... but that can be understood only when the Reality reveals Itself to you. Listening to the AUM sound as described in the NAd Bindu Upanishad is one of those techniques. It is a fast track meditational process which may lead to Self-Realisation quite fast as claimed in the VedAnta.

OM

[scmittal]

"
but that can be understood only when the Reality reveals Itself to you
I guess that's the real answer to all my questions - I'll just have to wait till reality reveals itself! I think what it means is that I keep doing my sadhana and it may come to me in a flash.

[Hindu33]

I just finished reading mandukya upanishad with gaudapada's commentary. It was very very exciting but i understood only a little. There are 1000 questions in my head. It says om is everything which corresponds to waking, dreaming and deep sleep. So where does god fit in this om? According to gaudapada, god is like a concept. He also equates waking state to dreaming state. This is almost like inception movie!!(in a very good sense btw)
Is it just me or is my understanding correct?

[devotee]

Namaste Hindu,


It says om is everything which corresponds to waking, dreaming and deep sleep. So where does god fit in this om? According to gaudapada, god is like a concept.

MAndukya Up. starts with saying that "This all is Aum". "This all" includes Waking state, Dreaming state, Deep Sleep state and Turiya i.e. the fourth which cannot be given any significant name and on which (i.e. Turiya) appear the first three due to MAyA. Turiyqa is the unchanging reality. Turiya actually is not a separate state even though it is called the the "Fourth" (state). Actually, it is the unchanging reality where the first three states appear and disappear.

OM, i.e. AUM has been made up of A + U + M + silence. The first part i.e. "A", corresponds to the waking state i.e. this world as you see in your waking state. "U" corresponds to Dreaming state, also named "Taijasa", "M" is the God state and "silence" which is called the Self (this is the Self and that has to be known) has been called the "furth" or Turiya.

Waking state is indeed equated with Dreaming state as the false perception of the reality is similar to dream state. In the Dream state, the reality is not perceived and "Mithya" world is perceived where the reality is as the substratum of everything. That is why except for the difference in things being "Gross" or "Subtle" in the two states respectively, both the states are otherwise similar.

Now, these two states have a Lord/God which is Omniscient and Omnipotent which is the third state and is the "letter M" of "AUM". So, here the God fits in in Saguna form which has attributes and who is the Lord of all beings. This state though creation within MAyA is not deluded by MAyA as the other beings are in the first two states. The fourth is the Nirguna Brahman when everything disappears as the effect of MAyA is completely gone leaving the unchanging Reality as it really is.

OM

[jignyAsu]

It was very very exciting but i understood only a little.


LOL. This is Upanishad and extremely difficult to understand. Back in those days, to instruct a disciple the Guru will first ask him to practise Brahmacharya and austerities for years. Such sharp intellect to understand these texts let alone experience it is almost absent in this Yuga.



So where does god fit in this om? According to gaudapada, god is like a concept. He also equates waking state to dreaming state.


VA (VishishtAdvaita) points to these descriptions within the same Upanishad: "This is the Lord of all, the all-knowing inner controller". "This is the origin and destruction of all." etc.

These qualities, absent in the Jivatma during the 3 states, can belong to (Param)Atma (God) alone.

So God does have place in the Upanishad. The views in regards to His true nature and the relationship of the Jivatma to Him is sectarian.

[Hindu33]

That's a very nice explanation devotee. Now my understanding on this subject is : One sees or imagines turya according to his/her tendency. There are many more questions but i'll have to think it over myself first.

Jignyasu, I agree. I don't practise brahmacharya in the real sense. Although I am single, I am attracted to women and I never thought of holding back such thoughts. I always have this question : what is the point of brahmacharya?

Yes, lordship is perhaps man's most cherished desire although one may not know it. And that is why we sing praises of our lords(human lords). Gaudapada refers to the third state as isha. But it is still not clear how the 'seemingly inert' nirguna state can also be a saguna god shiva or krishna or rama. And then there is also devis. Some people worship godess alone. It's quite confusing for me at this stage :)

[jignyAsu]

Jignyasu, I agree. I don't practise brahmacharya in the real sense. Although I am single, I am attracted to women and I never thought of holding back such thoughts. I always have this question : what is the point of brahmacharya?


A small deviation on the topic of the thread (but final :) ).

I do admire your frankness. Attachment to God and material desires are like day and night and all (notable) Hindu saints have upheld the requirement of purity. So control is very much required.

But then as per Gita, going to extremes in suppression instead of gradual progress is also highly discouraged. If Sri Krishna even discourages Arjuna from going to extremes, one wonders where one stands. So in my opinion dedicating the mornings to God (alone), afternoon to work(with Karma yoga) and leave passion for night only is encouraged! This is celebrated by Upanishads even.

Having relationship in marriage only is required.

Reg your other questions, I think my Advaita friends can help. Myself having found peace in VishishtAdvaita don't hold that I -the atma, will ever become ParamAtma(God).

[Amrut]

That's a very nice explanation devotee. Now my understanding on this subject is : One sees or imagines turya according to his/her tendency. There are many more questions but i'll have to think it over myself first.

Jignyasu, I agree. I don't practise brahmacharya in the real sense. Although I am single, I am attracted to women and I never thought of holding back such thoughts. I always have this question : what is the point of brahmacharya?

Yes, lordship is perhaps man's most cherished desire although one may not know it. And that is why we sing praises of our lords(human lords). Gaudapada refers to the third state as isha. But it is still not clear how the 'seemingly inert' nirguna state can also be a saguna god shiva or krishna or rama. And then there is also devis. Some people worship godess alone. It's quite confusing for me at this stage :)

The God (with for or without form) that you worship is the supreme. This is taught as you cannot accept that the Ishwara that you are worshipping is dependent and inferior. So Krushna devotees will say Krushna is everything ans the supreme deity. So will Rama and Shiva Devotees. Similarly, in Advaita, we think that from formless came form like water turning into ice. Water is shuddha Brahman and Ice is a concrete shape, which forms by the coolness of bhakti. All forms of God are equally potent capable of giving what you need and grant moksha. Advaita encourages one to loose completely into this formless God (Brahman). OM is such tatva which is very neutral. It takes you beyond maya straight into non-dual state - into atma sthiti. In Gita Krushna says I am OM and also says to Live like Janak. So If you read Ashtavakra Gita (I STRONGLY SUGGEST NOT TO READ IT), it is based upon ajat vada, which means that nothing is born. So it even rejects maya and just explains that state of non-duality. It is the joy of Jnani. Alat Shanti prakaran (last part) of Mandukya upanishads may talk about ajaat vada and so does Yog-Vasista.

Coming back to topic, speaking from advaita POV, OM is nirakara (there is no deity called OM and a temple dedicated to deity OM). OM is called as pranava mantra and just chanting OM is enough to grant moksha. OM neutralizes all thoughts and desires, be it good or bad. So even a sattvik desire like serving humanity or keep serving God may be uprooted by OM, as one has to completely renounce i.e. detach or dis-associate with 3 Gunas - satva, rajas, and tamas, which are considered as doshas superimposed upon atman (Brahman). OM is attached to almost all mantras ans is said to increase or rather double the potency of any mantra.

From Advaita POV, when one meditates on OM and goes beyond it i.e. into turiya state, 4th state, then one is in nirvikalp samadhi. Sri Ramana Maharshi says that Tapa is merging of mind into source of mantra. Only pure mind can meditate successfully. Because of the very nature of sadhana, Advaita sadhaka will find peace and bliss almost unbroken throughout day, independent of any external conditions. I would say Advaita is not for beginners, as we all have desires and advaita asks us to quit them as soon as possible. This is possible when MOKSHA is the ONLY Goal.

Now I hope you understand why brahmacharya is said to observe, as one has to overcome the sensual desire which is natural. Beginner are said to practice everything in moderation.

Aum

[shiv.somashekhar]

Myself having found peace in VishishtAdvaita don't hold that I -the atma, will ever become ParamAtma(God).

Advaita does not say that the Jivatma will become Paramatma.

To be fair, this is not a complaint against people who hold this misconception because Advaitins are to be blamed for failing to set out their position correctly on discussion forums and elsewhere - as they frequently make the mistake of blurring the all important line between Vyavaharika and Paramartika Satya (noted by Shankara in his Brhadarayanka bhashya and possibly elsewhere; also found in Buddhism). This error leads to non-Advaitins drawing some seriously faulty conclusions about Advaita such as -

Advaita says I am God
Advaita says I will become God
Advaita says you are me and I am you

and so on.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Jignyasu, I agree. I don't practise brahmacharya in the real sense. Although I am single, I am attracted to women and I never thought of holding back such thoughts. I always have this question : what is the point of brahmacharya?

Brahmacharya is for Sanyasins - not for everyone. A lot of people are confused on this subject - especially some Hare Krishnas who believe that everyone should be celibate!

As I have pointed out several times before, up until a couple of centuries ago, the topic of Vedanta was strictly reserved for Sanyasins and scholars. Western scholars (through printing) and Vivekananda made Vedanta fashionable to the point where just about anyone can explore the topic - which in my opinion is unwise as it is leading to lots of confusion.

If you are interested in Advaita - or perhaps for everyone who is interested in the topic - I highly recommend investing time in reading the first few portions of Shankara's Upadesha sahasri. Here, he lays out the criteria for a qualified student and how the student and the teacher engage each other. If not anything else, this atleast clears up the question of qualification.

I would put it this way. If one is really, really serious, then he has to be willing to become a sanyasin and devote *all* his time to the quest. Else, he is not truly serious (which is OK), in which case he should accept the fact and treat his interest in Vedanta as a hobby. This will avoid confusion about celibacy and other problems.

[jignyAsu]

Advaita does not say that the Jivatma will become Paramatma

I agree. I am aware how crazy the statement: "Becoming God" sounds in Advaita.

However, the Advaita (traditional) also holds sadhana, purity and detachment as a prereq. They would not agree seeing a person neck deep in attachment to be realized...they would ask him to do sadhana and say there's time.

Noting this only I chose the sentence: "becoming God". Otherwise a new sadhaka would think that he can continue living that way without any sadhana whatsover.


Brahmacharya is for Sanyasins - not for everyone. A lot of people are confused on this subject - especially some Hare Krishnas who believe that everyone should be celibate!


Both Vedanta Sutras and the Gita hold that practising purity and detachment is for householders too. I bet the Advaiti Sri Sankara would agree with this, because he translates these.



If you are interested in Advaita - or perhaps for everyone who is interested in the topic - I highly recommend investing time in reading the first few portions of Shankara's Upadesha sahasri.

Why not read his Bhashya on Vedanta Sutras, Gita? :) I too agree that everyone should spend doing his own research ...otherwise just reading opinions what use?



I would put it this way. If one is really, really serious, then he has to be willing to become a sanyasin and devote *all* his time to the quest.

This refutes every discussion in Gita. King Janaka was a self-realized Grihasta. I bet Sri Adi Shankara agrees with this.

It is however true that the journey should blossom into an *all* time mindset. To take up sanyasa first is highly detrimental.

So are you basing your argument on Sri Adi Sankara's Bhashya's ..just curious.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Both Vedanta Sutras and the Gita hold that practising purity and detachment is for householders too. I bet the Advaiti Sri Sankara would agree with this, because he translates these.

And here begins the problem. How does a housholder with a family practice detachment?

1. Is it Ok for him to react to a family member in pain?
2. Is it OK for him to aspire for a promotion at work?
3. is it OK for him to desire a better future for his kids, which would require him to be competitive - which is all in the realm of material desire?
4. Can he like Rasgullas?
5. Can he enjoy music, ESPN, cinema?

if all the above are OK, then he is not detached in any sense of the word. And if they are not OK, then he is failing to carry out his responsibility as a householder, which is bad because he signed up for it and is not delivering.


This refutes every discussion in Gita. King Janaka was a self-realized Grihasta. I bet Sri Adi Shankara agrees with this.

In my opinion, it is impractical for someone to be a grhasta and also practice detachment at the same time. It is a serious conflict of interest that can lead nowhere - the confusion that I was referring to in my previous post. Instead of failing in both tasks, it is better to accept that the worldly life comes first and the other is a hobby, where you still perform whatever limited sadhana you can, but without the conflict (married celibates, etc). Else, quit worldly life and become a sanyasin. It is not possible to have it both ways.

[Hindu33]

Brahmacharya is for Sanyasins - not for everyone. A lot of people are confused on this subject - especially some Hare Krishnas who believe that everyone should be celibate!

As I have pointed out several times before, up until a couple of centuries ago, the topic of Vedanta was strictly reserved for Sanyasins and scholars. Western scholars (through printing) and Vivekananda made Vedanta fashionable to the point where just about anyone can explore the topic - which in my opinion is unwise as it is leading to lots of confusion.

If you are interested in Advaita - or perhaps for everyone who is interested in the topic - I highly recommend investing time in reading the first few portions of Shankara's Upadesha sahasri. Here, he lays out the criteria for a qualified student and how the student and the teacher engage each other. If not anything else, this atleast clears up the question of qualification.

I would put it this way. If one is really, really serious, then he has to be willing to become a sanyasin and devote *all* his time to the quest. Else, he is not truly serious (which is OK), in which case he should accept the fact and treat his interest in Vedanta as a hobby. This will avoid confusion about celibacy and other problems.

That makes sense. Some of the rigid rules and high expectations are totally out of sync if we consider present times. I second your opinion on vedanta be reserved for the sanyasins because it is more about practice or intense practice. Although it's impractical to follow the upanishads, still it is quite fascinating to know the, may i say fundamental concept/theory, behind a religion. On the other hand, it begs the question, why do we need to follow dharma/religion when it's really about satisfying basic human desires?

[philosoraptor]

Arjuna was a grhastha, and Sri Krishna seemed fairly confident that he could practice detachment. Otherwise, why 700 shlokas lecturing him on the subject?

[shiv.somashekhar]

Arjuna was a grhastha, and Sri Krishna seemed fairly confident that he could practice detachment. Otherwise, why 700 shlokas lecturing him on the subject?

Did it help? Was he detached when he heard the news of Abhimanyu's death?

We can lecture all we want. The fact is, wordly life is based entirely on attachments and it is impossible to live a worldly life and also be detached at the same time.

[philosoraptor]

Did it help? Was he detached when he heard the news of Abhimanyu's death?

We can lecture all we want. The fact is, wordly life is based entirely on attachments and it is impossible to live a worldly life and also be detached at the same time.

As a matter of fact, it did help. Both the mahAbhArata and the bhAgavata document that the pAndavas gave up worldly life towards the end. This no doubt was easier for them because of their more regulated lifestyles prior to this. But your point is well taken that worldly life involves attachments, however regulated they may be. Still, Krishna's message is clearly one of practicing regulated detachment, and this is what makes it relevant. In other words, it is not about being 100% detached throughout worldly life. This is a laudable goal but not easy to attain. It is about regulated detachment (and enjoyment), with works performed with an attitude of giving up their fruits. This kind of practice enables one to better cope with the kinds of tragedies and conflicts which worldly life brings. A jnaani may go through the typical emotional reaction when confronted with the loss of a loved one, but he is better able to rebound from it, having an intellectual framework within which to understand this as the inevitable result of worldly life.

[Omkara]

For all Hindu schools including advaita - the force of perception is higher than scripture. Read Shankara's commentary on Upanishads where he says that even if shruti calls a crow as white a thousand times, it does not passeth.

You cannot interpret scripture the way you want. Advaitic interpretation of Turiya as Nirguna Brahman is incorrect because:

1. Turiya is described to be "all seer" in verse 24.( AG 12), which is a logical impossibility as Turiya being pure consciousness cannot see.

2. Turiya is described to be prabuh or Lord in verse 10

3. Turiya is described to be all pervading in verse 10.

4. Turiya is described to be beautiful or visible(darshatam) in Brihard Aranyaka Up 5.14.3

Thus Turiya has many qualities and is also describable - it is not Nirguna or non dual in advaitic sense because Turiya is also Lord.( without any one to Lord over this is a meaningless expression)

Agree. from a shaiva perspective, Turiya,Prajna, Taijasa and Vishva are PERSONS.
Turiya- Shiva
Prajna- Rudra
Taijasa-Vishnu
Vishva- Brahma

Shruti Pramana-

Atharvashika Upanishad-
4. The first part (Matra) of it represents the Earth, the letter Akara, the hymns of the Rigveda, Brahma, Vasus (eight in number), Gayatri metre and Garhapatya fire.

5. The second represents antariksha (Bhuvarloka), the letter U, the various Yajurmantras of Yajurveda, Vishnu, Rudras (eleven in number), Trishtup metre, and Dakshinagni.

6. The third represents heaven, the letter M, Samaveda with the Samans, Rudras and Adityas (twelve in number), Jagati metre, and Ahavaniya fire.

7. That which is the fourth and last of it (Om) with Ardhamatra represents Soma Regions, Omkara, (in full) Atharvaveda with Atharva mantras, Samvartaka fire, Maruts (seven in number), Virat, (Universal one), Ekarshi (a seer in the Atharvaveda Vide Mundaka-Up. 6-10).

8. Thus said to be, these (four parts) are resplendent ones.

9. The first is said to be red and yellowish and has the great Brahma as its presiding Deity.

10. The second is bright and blue and has Vishnu as its presiding Deity.

11. The third, which is auspicious and otherwise, is white, and has Rudra as its presiding Deity.

12 & 13. That which is the fourth and last with Ardha-Matra, has all bright colours, and Purusha is its presiding Deity.

Brahma Upanishad

3. Now this Purusha has four seats, the navel, the heart, the throat, and the head. In these shines forth the Brahman with four aspects: the state of wakefulness, of dream, of dreamless sleep, and the fourth or transcendental state. In the wakeful state, He is Brahma; in the dreaming state, He is Vishnu; in dreamless sleep He is Rudra; and the fourth state is the Supreme Indestructible One; and He again is the Sun, the Vishnu, the Ishwara, He is the Purusha, He the Prana, He the Jive or the animate being, He the Fire, The Ishwara, and the Resplendent; (yea) that Brahman which is transcendent shines within all these !

[savithru]

The other name for Jiva is VishwaTaijasaPrajna and this Jiva is itself the Brahman.