PDA

View Full Version : SELF



grames
02 September 2009, 01:54 AM
It is my Million Dollar Q as well curiosity...

Does anyone ever thought about this word "Self" and why such term is invented?

How "Advaita" would be with out this word "Self" ??

Just curious

Eastern Mind
02 September 2009, 06:43 AM
Namaste Grames:

I view 'Self" as something like the word "Hindu" . Its a word that got there historically for some odd reason. The person attempting to describe it in English chose the word "Self' and somehow it stuck. I am not sure of the history, or when the tern "Self-realisation" came into being. Perhaps there is a linguistics historian on here.

It has caused some confusion as have many words coined by the British and other explorers. But that is the way it is now, as with "Hindu."

But if we didn't have Self, we'd have Essence, or Core, or Inner Truth, or Inner God. So despite words, That is still there.

It's also interesting that a few original words just got borrowed, like "karma".

Aum Namasivaya

yajvan
02 September 2009, 10:51 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

Namasté grames


It is my Million Dollar Q as well curiosity...

Does anyone ever thought about this word "Self" and why such term is invented? How "Advaita" would be with out this word "Self" ?? Just curious

I too find it curious that 'SELF' has become so popular in defining brahman, ātma, etc. It seems to cause some confusion. I think it would be better to say Universal SELF, then we get closer to its orginal intent. That is, One Being, One Existence.

EM writes

I am not sure of the history, or when the tern "Self-realisation" came into being. Perhaps there is a linguistics historian on here.


I think he is on to something as Self-realization does a better job of depicting the essence of the word. This Self-realization is ātmānubhava ( ātma + ānu +bhava or the ātma coming to existence ~realization~).
My teacher hardly used this term SELF, but preferred pure awareness, pure consciousness, Being, etc. For me these terms rang true.


praṇām

rkpande
03 September 2009, 01:39 AM
F max muller while writing the preface to the sacred book of the east (part I of his translations of Upanishads), takes credit of using the word self to translate Atman for the first time instead of soul,mind or spirit.
his logic was that it will be a fundamental mistake of using words which may be predicate, in place of a word which is a subject only, and can never become a predicate. he therefore used selfs instead of selves for the first time in a translation, which was never used in English language of his time.
Westerners are bound to get confused with usage of this word 'self'. As in 'self defence' it connotes body, 'self control' is related to mind control, etc
where as for us Atman means only one entity and one meaning.

atanu
03 September 2009, 05:36 AM
Namaste

'At' means thereupon or therefrom.

'man' means "I" or "Me" and which pertains to manas (mind).

------------------
That wherefrom "I" arises or that which gives rise to the "I" or "Me", is Atman.

That Atman also moves, breathes, etc. etc., through the manas.

Om Namah Shivaya

grames
03 September 2009, 07:06 AM
Hmm,

Self - self are two different words which easily works out for Advaita.

My Q is,


How "Advaita" would be with out this word "Self" ??

Eastern Mind
03 September 2009, 07:07 AM
F max muller while writing the preface to the sacred book of the east (part I of his translations of Upanishads), takes credit of using the word self to translate Atman for the first time instead of soul,mind or spirit.
his logic was that it will be a fundamental mistake of using words which may be predicate, in place of a word which is a subject only, and can never become a predicate. he therefore used selfs instead of selves for the first time in a translation, which was never used in English language of his time.
Westerners are bound to get confused with usage of this word 'self'. As in 'self defence' it connotes body, 'self control' is related to mind control, etc
where as for us Atman means only one entity and one meaning.

Thank you for this. Learn something new every day. BTW, its not just westerners who get confused because of translations. No language can describe that which ever is.

Aum Namasivaya

bhaktajan
03 September 2009, 02:03 PM
grames asks:
How "Advaita" would be with out this word "Self" ??

<<It is like asking, 'What would a rich banker do if the world operated without cash?'>>

Yet no one (no advaitan) understands the genius of this most simply question.

IMO the question is not about alternative translation of the word self [IMO the english word 'self' is perfect for interpreting the idea of atma] ---the question seems to me to be a superb "trick-question".

The trick question means "If an advaitan philosopher had no "self" no negate ---then what would be left, in the end, to advaita-sise? No self means no Advaitin philosophy so, if the advaitin acknowledges that there is a self ---that makes advaitin 'self-negators'"

sorry for the sad news ---yours & ours' SELF is absolute and cannot be negated as an omniscient presence,
bhaktajan

atanu
03 September 2009, 11:14 PM
Hmm,
Self - self are two different words which easily works out for Advaita.

My Q is,

How "Advaita" would be with out this word "Self" ??

Funny. As if Self word was the cornerstone of upanishadic sages who have taught advaitatma.

In fact, if the WORD had not proliferated, then it would not be possible to comprehend "The Truth is one, sages call it by different names". Also, because the WORD has indeed become many, it is difficult to understand ""The Truth is one, sages call it by different names".

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
03 September 2009, 11:41 PM
I heard a Sufi song in the morn. The part refrain, as if sung by a female, goes like : "tum aur main ek hi hai. agar tum ho, to main kaun hui?"

You and Me are same only. If YOU ARE then Who AM I?

Om Namah Shivaya

grames
04 September 2009, 03:43 AM
grames asks:
How "Advaita" would be with out this word "Self" ??

<<It is like asking, 'What would a rich banker do if the world operated without cash?'>>

Yet no one (no advaitan) understands the genius of this most simply question.


Thats correct especially if you happen to read only the English translated literature, you get carried away or made to easily believe that, Self, self are one and the same and so you got the power. :)

Have you noticed that, all these english translations by Advaitins actually use the Sanskrit words directly instead of attempting to translate them? But, in the case of Atman and Brahman, they usually never use it as it is in their explanations or purports and so why my curiosity came in to picture.

self = Self How easy it is to get convinced as it is literally convincing you of the philosophy. How many times you come across this as a beginner? Atman = Brahman or Atman == Brahman??

Capitalizing the same word is the curiosity for this question :). Of course, bank will be bankrupt with out currencies. :)

Eastern Mind
04 September 2009, 06:30 AM
Namaste: Generally in the translations, self refers to the ego self, as in myself, or self-absorbed, whereas Self refers to the Self -God within.

Aum Namasivaya

grames
04 September 2009, 06:37 AM
Namaste: Generally in the translations, self refers to the ego self, as in myself, or self-absorbed, whereas Self refers to the Self -God within.

Aum Namasivaya


are you sure??

Atanu is here.... i am sure he will explain. :)

atanu
04 September 2009, 06:44 AM
Namaste: Generally in the translations, self refers to the ego self, as in myself, or self-absorbed, whereas Self refers to the Self -God within.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste EM,

Yes. It is so simple. Further:



'At' means thereupon or therefrom. 'man' means "I" or "Me" and which pertains to manas (mind).
------------------
That wherefrom "I" arises or that which gives rise to the "I" or "Me", is Atman.
That Atman also moves, breathes, etc. etc., through the manas.

The ego self consisting of five koshas is a property of the Self, Atman, wherefrom the ego self sprouts (surely by the will of Self). Whether the ego-self will roam ever in samsAra absolutely ignorant of its source, or will worship the source as another great purusha (man), or will meditate on the God as the Guru and the whole, is, IMO, not ego's choice. But ego thinks that it has great choice.

(Remember we discussed this earlier? The bound Pasu, the Pasupati, etc.).

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

grames
04 September 2009, 07:29 AM
Hmm...

This is problem of Advaita ;)

self is not just ATMAN :)
Self is not just Brahman :)

self is liek ego self :) but in classical advaita also, EGO is not Atman and Atman is finer than EGO. self should then mean 100&#37; of the word Atman as in the shrutis.

My Self and myself are two different things. The advertisement subject 'My' is due to ego but what lies beyond this ego is Atman or the 'self'.

So what is "Self"? God with in?

Now i guess you know why i raised this question out of my curiosity.

bhaktajan
04 September 2009, 02:22 PM
Hmm? . . .
problem of Advaita
"Self is not just ATMAN --Self is not just Brahman . . . "
Atman is finer than EGO
self should then mean 100&#37; of the word Atman as in the shrutis
beyond this ego is Atman or the 'self'
So what is "Self"? God with in?

. . . I wait spellbound . . . out of my amasement . . .

yajvan
04 September 2009, 03:06 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

Namast&#233;



'At' means thereupon or therefrom.
'man' means "I" or "Me" and which pertains to manas (mind).
------------------
That wherefrom "I" arises or that which gives rise to the "I" or "Me", is Atman. That Atman also moves, breathes, etc. etc., through the manas.
Om Namah Shivaya


This ātman is rich with insights and knowledge.
ātman has some roots to it i.e. from an , to breathe , at , to move
Yet what of this ā ? It is a noun of śiva. And atanu offers that 'man' means I or Me.

Said another way , this 'man' means 'to think one's self or be thought to be , appear as'. So, in this use one can say 'man' + 'ā' or I am śiva. And who is this śiva? The Universal Self.

...just a thought

praṇām

bhaktajan
05 September 2009, 12:27 AM
I have been newly confused:

How is it that Shakaracarya [an advaita monist] is considered a Shivite?

Also,

How is it that Lord Shiva [a vaishnava par excellance] is considered an advaita monist?

How is it that advaita monism is considered connected with Lord Shiva?

How is it that advaita monism is considered part and parcel to worship of Lord Shiva?

Would not the opinions of the Greatest Devotees of Lord Shiva be quoted regarding Lord Shiva's glories? like Sri Parvati? Like Ganesha?

devotee
05 September 2009, 04:59 AM
Namaste,

Already there are quite good inputs here in this thread. I shall add my 2 cents :

Atma in Samskrit means "what the subject is" i.e. "Self". It is used with a lot of root words in conjuction to create new words :

Atmavishleshana ==> Atma + Vishleshana ===> Self-Analysis
AtmashlAghA ===> Atma + ShlAghA ====> Self-Praise

et. etc.


Does anyone ever thought about this word "Self" and why such term is invented?

How "Advaita" would be with out this word "Self" ??

Long back I pondered over it. There is no "invention", as I see. The "Realisation" (of the God-realised Saints) was Advaitic in nature ===> they realised that there is really no difference between the "seer" & the "seen" ===> there is no difference between the "creator" & the "created".

"I" is the seer. The Seen is the World which is again "I" i.e. Self .... everything which was, is & which shall be is again "I" i.e. "Self" ====> The whole relationship (with everything in this universe including God & the devotee) boils down to "I-I". So, SELF comprises everything & was ,imho, so called.

Advaita will be Advaita. Is it dependent on a word ? Advaita is the Reality & that is One. Once you don't accept Advaita, you don't accept the Oneness of the things ( and you don't accept the reality) ... so the relationship is "I-You", "I-He", "I-They", "I-It" etc instead of "I-I". So, the "concept" (as it is just a concept for the dualists) of Self is not required at all.

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


How is it that Shakaracarya [an advaita monist] is considered a Shivite?

An Advaitin can be a Shaivite, a Vaishnavite, or a Shakta or even a Christ follower, Allah-worshipper etc. There is no problem here for the Advaitins. However, it cannot be understood by people who don't understand Advaita.


How is it that Lord Shiva [a vaishnava par excellance] is considered an advaita monist?

Who said so ? Srila Prabhupad ?? For your kind information, Lord Shiva is one of the forms/names of the Supreme Godhead. He can't be grouped with Vaishanvas or Shaivas. I will tell you a story sometime on this when I am slightly free.

Dear Bhaktajan, your doubts are quite understandable but for clearing your doubts you must understand Advaita correctly.


OM

bhargavsai
06 September 2009, 01:57 AM
Hmm...

This is problem of Advaita ;)

self is not just ATMAN :)
Self is not just Brahman :)

self is liek ego self :) but in classical advaita also, EGO is not Atman and Atman is finer than EGO. self should then mean 100% of the word Atman as in the shrutis.

My Self and myself are two different things. The advertisement subject 'My' is due to ego but what lies beyond this ego is Atman or the 'self'.

So what is "Self"? God with in?

Now i guess you know why i raised this question out of my curiosity.


Self is not just a word used to specify Ego Self. The word self is an abstraction for something intimately ours. When we see in this gross material universe then Self means body. When we consider Self in regards with the body then My self is mind.

I mean when you are happy, then you say I am happy. Is your body happy? No! Your mind is happy. Then you refer to mind as your self.

Taking this Self further, when self is considered with regards with mind then it is the Ego. When your mind is hurt then you say "I" am hurt, here you refer to "I" or ego as Self.

With regards to Ego, what is the self? It is the Atman.

Because it is ultimately the sole thing which is the most intimately ours. It does not matter when you use "Self" or "self", as this word is nothing but abstraction.

That which is intimately Yours, that is Self. And that is Atman.

grames
06 September 2009, 04:39 AM
Not sure if the Capital letter is noticed here.. self is with lower case 's' and "Self" is with upper case.

So, do you still believe these two are what you meant or explained?

Eastern Mind
06 September 2009, 06:03 AM
Namaste:

Another line of thought on how to explain it.
We say "I have a body." This separates "I" from "body". Therefore we are not the body.

Similarly, we say "I have a mind".
"I have an identity."
"I have a name."
"I have a soul."
"I have a (big) ego."

So who exactly is this "I" we keep referring to?

Aum Namasivaya

devotee
06 September 2009, 06:42 AM
Not sure if the Capital letter is noticed here.. self is with lower case 's' and "Self" is with upper case.

So, do you still believe these two are what you meant or explained?

There is norm to write self to indicate "individual self" (also called ego self etc.) which has a separate meaning in Samskrit as JivAtmA. Let's be clear that "soul" is not an exact meaning of the JivAtmA. This JivAtmA is what claims to do, to experience & which differentiates & asserts its unique identity. This JivAtma is enveloped under various layers of ignorance. It accumulates Karmas & experiences the fruits of its own Karmas.

SELF is the self of all 'self's. self are many but SELF is one. self goes into the cycles of births & deaths but SELF is Unborn. It doesn't get tainted by the Karmas of any one or all 'self's.

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


Another line of thought on how to explain it.
We say "I have a body." This separates "I" from "body". Therefore we are not the body.

Similarly, we say "I have a mind".
"I have an identity."
"I have a name."
"I have a soul."
"I have a (big) ego."

So who exactly is this "I" we keep referring to?

This is a good introspection which can ultimately lead to Self-realisation. What is this "I" & where is it located within "me" ? "I" doesn't grow with the body, it doesn't become beautiful or ugly by making our bodies beautiful or ugly , it also doesn't get reduced after losing some body parts. What is this "I" which appears to be this body but it is not in reality ?

OM

rkpande
06 September 2009, 08:15 AM
Its an old debate. Lets see.
Mundaka Up III.1.1, The bird sitting and watching is Self and the one eating is self.
Katha Up I.3.1, The light is Self and the shade is self.

My earlier argument that the Atman incarnates and ultimately when the web of maya is dissolved,it merges with the Brahman, implying it has no independent existence there after, it has become Brahman. self merges with Self and loses its own identity, there is no self now. That's end of the journey of the Atman. If there is an end there has a beginning, Atman is not eternal in true sense therefore it cant be Brahman.

devotee
06 September 2009, 10:08 AM
Its an old debate. Lets see.
Mundaka Up III.1.1, The bird sitting and watching is Self and the one eating is self.
Katha Up I.3.1, The light is Self and the shade is self.

My earlier argument that the Atman incarnates and ultimately when the web of maya is dissolved,it merges with the Brahman, implying it has no independent existence there after, it has become Brahman. self merges with Self and loses its own identity, there is no self now. That's end of the journey of the Atman. If there is an end there has a beginning, Atman is not eternal in true sense therefore it cant be Brahman.

"Ayam Atman Brahman" (Mandukya Upanishad). Atman doesn't incarnate, it is unborn. What incarnates is JivAtma which is loosely called Atman. Truly speaking, the JivAtman in its pure form i.e. without samskaras & ignorance is Atman itself ("Aham Atman Gudakesha Sarva BhUteshu Sthitam" -B.G.) but there is a subtle difference here.

The biggest difference is that there is only one Atman which reflects as many JivAtma in all beings.

OM

atanu
06 September 2009, 10:10 AM
The biggest difference is that there is only one Atman which reflects as many JivAtma in all beings.

OM

Namaste Devotee,

That is nicely said indeed.

Om

rkpande
06 September 2009, 12:26 PM
How long are we going to play with letters. You have not answered my question. I saw a thread in this forum as to how the different vegetables effect our body as per their shape- kidney beans keeps your kidney healthy etc. I agree, the Brahma has littered us with clues in nature for us to realise as to what he is. Why else this,dualism all around us, pleasure and pain, light and shadow, hate and love, it carries on.

devotee
06 September 2009, 07:20 PM
How long are we going to play with letters. You have not answered my question. I saw a thread in this forum as to how the different vegetables effect our body as per their shape- kidney beans keeps your kidney healthy etc. I agree, the Brahma has littered us with clues in nature for us to realise as to what he is. Why else this,dualism all around us, pleasure and pain, light and shadow, hate and love, it carries on.

Namaste RK,

Sorry, I am unable to understand what exactly you want to say. There is no playing with "letters" and there was no question to be answered.

Can you be specific ?

OM

grames
07 September 2009, 02:34 AM
Atman doesn't incarnate, it is unborn. What incarnates is JivAtma which is loosely called Atman. Truly speaking, the JivAtman in its pure form i.e. without samskaras & ignorance is Atman itself
OM

Don't you think is it word jugglary? Can you provide the actual sources of the following conclusions?

1. Atman Doesn't incarnate
2. JivatMa Incarnates which is loosly called Atman ( who is loosely calling it as atman?)
3. And then 'Truly" speaking, Atman itself is OM

Are they your belief? If so, ignore my post please.

Thanks.

devotee
07 September 2009, 04:06 AM
Namaste Grames,

If you think it is a jugglery of words, I have no inclination to contribute anything further.

However, if it helps, I can tell you :

a) Atman doesn't incarnate :

===> This has been stated in many places in Upanishads. I shall quote Bhagwad Gita here :

Na JAyte Mriyate va KadachinnAyam BhutvA BhavitA va na BhUyah,
Ajo Nityah ShAshwato ayam, purANo, na hanyate hanyamAne sharire ! (Chapter-2)

I hope it is amply clear with terms used here, "Na JAyate" (doesn't take birth) and "Ajo" (Unborn).

b) "JivatMa Incarnates which is loosly called Atman ( who is loosely calling it as atman?)"

===> That is not for you. It was in response to RK's post. Moreover, if you are living in India, you should know this very well.

c) Atman itself is OM

===> Please refer to Mandukya Upanishad.

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

The tone of your post doesn't show your inclination to have a proper dialogue, so if that doesn't satisfy you, please ignore all my posts in this thread.


OM

bhargavsai
07 September 2009, 05:23 AM
Not sure if the Capital letter is noticed here.. self is with lower case 's' and "Self" is with upper case.

So, do you still believe these two are what you meant or explained?

Yeah I think you believe "Self" stands for the noun, and the noun specifies a thing or person. And while you believe "self" stands for a verb or adjective? But the Noun "Self" is what we are talking about, and this "Self" can be written as "self", capital letter does not matter unless you use "self" as adjective. :D

grames
07 September 2009, 06:04 AM
Hi Devotee,

Namaste. First, sorry if my words gave a wrong tone when you read it but that is definitely not intended. I am interested in the subject alone and with my idiotic comments, if i made you feel offended, my sincere apology for that.

I called it Jugglery cos, there are new terms invented and then given new meanings and then a new conclusion is arrived. Also, i have nothing against your personal faith and belief and i am responding so that another view is also takes its position here.

Atman and Jivatman are one and same and the clarity of it comes from all the verses along with what you have posted here, from BG 2.17 to BG 2.25




avinasi tu tad viddhi
yena sarvam idam tatam
vinasam avyayasyasya
na kascit kartum arhati


antavanta ime deha
nityasyoktah saririnah
anasino 'prameyasya
tasmad yudhyasva bharata


ya enam vetti hantaram
yas cainam manyate hatam
ubhau tau na vijanito
nayam hanti na hanyate


na jayate mriyate va kadacin
nayam bhutva bhavita va na bhuyah
ajo nityah sasvato 'yam purano
na hanyate hanyamane sarire


vedavinasinam nityam
ya enam ajam avyayam
katham sa purusah partha
kam ghatayati hanti kam


vasamsi jirnani yatha vihaya
navani grhnati naro 'parani
tatha sarirani vihaya jirnany
anyani samyati navani dehi


nainam chindanti sastrani
nainam dahati pavakah
na cainam kledayanty apo
na sosayati marutah


acchedyo 'yam adahyo 'yam
akledyo 'sosya eva ca
nityah sarva-gatah sthanur
acalo 'yam sanatanah


avyakto 'yam acintyo 'yam
avikaryo 'yam ucyate
tasmad evam viditvainam
nanusocitum arhasi


So, first point is crystal clear and what Vedantic school refers as "soul" in english is in fact the "Atman" and jivAtma itself.


Here is an additional verses where Arjuna asks for further clarity...



arjuna uvaca
aparam bhavato janma
param janma vivasvatah
katham etad vijaniyam
tvam adau proktavan iti
sri-bhagavan uvaca
bahuni me vyatitani
janmani tava carjuna
tany aham veda sarvani
na tvam vettha parantapa
This is where the dots are connected...the Atman aka Jivatma changes from childhood to old age and then transmigrate in to another body but does not remember any of the past. ( No doubt as we do not remember our past lives ) but He, as Bhagavan says,


tany aham veda sarvani
na tvam vettha parantapa


What a clarity here.

If anyone translated this verse


pitaham asya jagato
mata dhata pitamahah
vedyam pavitram omkara
rk sama yajur eva ca


this verse to mean Atman in here referred as OM, it is certainly not correct. It is the Lord who is OM and not the Atman because He says so.

'OM Iti Brahma' and 'OM iti idaM sarvamh' talks about the Supreme Brahman and His potentcies and not Atman. A Deva Lakshna like OM has no shuriti support at all to mean Atman ( even as per the classical Advaita ).


Refer this verse again... BG 7.8


raso 'ham apsu kaunteya
prabhasmi sasi-suryayoh
pranavah sarva-vedesu
sabdah khe paurusam nrsu


here it is again Lord Krishna who is telling He is the OM in the mantras. BG 10.25


maharsinam bhrgur aham
giram asmy ekam aksaram
yajnanam japa-yajno 'smi
sthavaranam himalayah



Also one more here.. Srimad Bagavatam 11.16.12


hiranyagarbho vedanam´
mantranam´ pranavas tri-vrt
aksaranam a-karo 'smi
padani cchandusam aham

Also the promise for the spiritual person uttering OM


om ity ekaksaram brahma
vyaharan mam anusmaran
yah prayati tyajan deham
sa yati paramam gatim



Though Mandukya starts with OM, it is not referring to the Atman for the reason that Atman/Jivatman is not beyond all three syllables of that AuM (yet as per advaita darshana). It refers to that Brahman alone. ( vyavaharika and paramarthika view has to be remembered when reading advaitic translations to be at least clear of Advaita)

Do not just read the translations with "Advaita" alone in mind... especially if you are learning and refer all the verses above the quoted one and also the verses following the quoted one. It will give you a clear context of the subjects, information delivered and the knowledge to be gained.

Please once again forgive me and i have nothing personal with you.

devotee
07 September 2009, 08:16 AM
Namaste Grames,

Let’s analyse what you have said & quoted :


Atman and Jivatman are one and same and the clarity of it comes from all the verses along with what you have posted here, from BG 2.17 to BG 2.25

Let’s go verse by verse :

1. avinasi tu tad viddhi
yena sarvam idam tatam
vinasam avyayasyasya
na kascit kartum arhati

==> How do you translate “Yena Sarvam Idam Tatam” ? Does it indicate one or many ? If it talks about “many” i.e. World that we see, becomes indestructible. What is your say on this ?


2. antavanta ime deha
nityasyoktah saririnah
anasino 'prameyasya
tasmad yudhyasva bharata

==> I think your understanding is that the JivAtma ( bear with me for the time being for using it separate from Atman) is eternal & indestructible & the body that it wears is destructible. Let’s leave this verse in its place because it supports both your & mine almost equally.

3. ya enam vetti hantaram
yas cainam manyate hatam
ubhau tau na vijanito
nayam hanti na hanyate

==> This neither supports nor denies any of the two views, so let’s leave this verse too.

4. na jayate mriyate va kadacin
nayam bhutva bhavita va na bhuyah
ajo nityah sasvato 'yam purano
na hanyate hanyamane sarire

==> You say that Atman (which is same as JivAtma ?) incarnates. Now, why here the terms, “Na JAyate” and “Ajo” are used ? How does it fit into your understanding ?

5. vedavinasinam nityam
ya enam ajam avyayam
katham sa purusah partha
kam ghatayati hanti kam

==> Again in this verse too, term “ajam” is used. Why ? Avinishino & Nityam are ok but why “Ajam” ?

6. vasamsi jirnani yatha vihaya
navani grhnati naro 'parani
tatha sarirani vihaya jirnany
anyani samyati navani dehi

==> This & other verses quoted by you are neutral verse on both views. So, let’s again leave all of them.


You have quoted these verses :

a. bahuni me vyatitani
janmani tava carjuna
tany aham veda sarvani
na tvam vettha parantapa


==> I don’t find it saying anything in contradiction to the view I have expressed. Arjuna’s JivAtmA has to undergo cycles of births & deaths until it attains realization.

b. pitaham asya jagato
mata dhata pitamahah
vedyam pavitram omkara
rk sama yajur eva ca


this verse to mean Atman in here referred as OM, it is certainly not correct. It is the Lord who is OM and not the Atman because He says so.

'OM Iti Brahma' and 'OM iti idaM sarvamh' talks about the Supreme Brahman and His potentcies and not Atman. A Deva Lakshna like OM has no shuriti support at all to mean Atman ( even as per the classical Advaita ).

==> OM is all the four quaerters/states of Brahman & the third state is the God state, the Lord of all.

Let’s see what Mandukya Upanishad says :

1. "Ōmityetadakṣharamidam sarvam, tasyopavyākhyanam,
bhūtam bhavatbhaviṣhyaditi sarvamomkāra eva;
yaccānyat trikālātītam tadapyomkāra eva."

OM! - This Imperishable Word is the whole of this visible universe. Its explanation is as follows: What has become, what is becoming, what will become, - verily, all of this is OM. And what is beyond these three states of the world of time, - that too, verily, is OM.

==> I think you are saying that it is talking about Brahman and not the Atman. Ok. Let’s see the next verse :

2. "Sarvam hyeted brahma; ayamātmā brahma;"

All this, verily, is Brahman. The Self is Brahman. This Self has four quarters.

==> Here this Upanishad declares in no uncertain terms that “This Self is Brahman”. Is there still any doubt ? Now, if you refer to the first verse keeping in mind this verse, you will find that AUM, Brahman and Self all are same.

3. The God state is the third quarter/state of Brahman or Self or AUM.

"Yatra supto na kancana kāman kāmayate;
na kancana svapnam paśyati tat suṣhuptam.
suṣhuptasthāna ekibhūtah praj&#241;ānāghana evānandamayo
hyānandabhuk cetomukhah prāj&#241;as-tṛtīyah pādah."

The third quarter is prāj&#241;a, where one asleep neither desires anything nor beholds any dream: that is deep sleep. In this field of dreamless sleep, one becomes undivided, an undifferentiated mass of consciousness, consisting of bliss and feeding on bliss. His mouth is consciousness.

"Eṣha sarveśvara eṣha sarvaj&#241;a eṣho'ntaryāmyesha
yonih sarvasya prabhavāpyayau hi bhūtānam."

This is the Lord of All; the Omniscient; the Indwelling Controller; the Source of All. This is the beginning and end of all beings.

===> I think there is no need to explain things further.
=========================

Calling other person’s views just a belief etc. doesn't help any discussion. I have no intention to prove that Advaita is superior to Bhakti Yoga. In fact, Advaita has no contradiction with Bhakti-Yoga. I have been a Lord Krishna devotee since my childhood. I started reading BG when I was in my teens. BG was my philosopher & guide but it left many questions unanswered ( Read Verse 13.17 of BG & try to explain that with a dualist view) and I found the answers in the Upanishads. I also found that many verses in B. Gita were almost copied from Upanishads. That is why it is said that BG is the essence of the Upanishads.

Advaita is not just a belief system for me. It is the Truth which I have known after reading scriptures, scientific & logical contemplation, discussions and vichara. However, it doesn’t lower the importance of Bhakti-Yoga for me. Lord Krishna still remains my God, philosopher & guide.

OM

atanu
07 September 2009, 08:54 AM
Dear Devotee,

My dear friend grames does not know what he is talking about. He says:


Atman and Jivatman are one and same and the clarity of it comes from all the verses along with what you have posted here, from BG 2.17 to BG 2.25

On the other hand, grames recommended that I read "Essentials of Upanishad" from the Dvaita.Org, as below:



Does Mandukya promises the remembrance of the experience or bliss that you get at sushupta Sthana? I am just wondering
read some more here http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/upani...tml#section_10 (http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/upanishad.html#section_10)

Again, this is not to convince you but for Knowledge. :)


I was taken aback and made speechless, because Dvaita Guru was very staunch in his teaching that OM, Brahman, Atman signified the same Advaita Prabhu and which is different from Jiva. This is the essence of Dvaita understanding. The relevant portion from the above page is reproduced below for all to read. The Atman-Brahman identity is in bold font.




ayaM AtmA brahma
This expression in the second passage means that the guNapUrNa Brahman conveyed by Om and AtmA present in all entities who regulates and controls, is one and the same. The word AtmA does not refer to the individual souls, but to God who is immanent in them. akshara or Brahman conveyed by OM, and AtmA present in all as their inner controller is the same. Thus, God's characteristic of sarvaniyAmakatva is brought out here. The context of giving an exposition of the meaning of Om and the purpose of the statement ayaM AtmA brahma show that the identity of the jiiva and God is not plausible. On the other hand, three important characteristics of God, guNapUrNatva, trikAlAtItatva and sarvaniyAmakatva are conveyed with the minimum of words. The Upanishad also clearly explains the correct interpretation of the words OM, AtmA, Brahman, and akshara, all of which denote Brahman by describing Him with His special attributes.


Good friend grames has himself not understood what guru Madhava has taught. Madhavacharya teaches that OM, AtmA, Brahman, and akshara, all denote God. But grames says atman and jiva are identical????????????

:rolleyes:
--------------------

Nice try grames. I request you to be less harsh and sarcastic in your posts.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
07 September 2009, 09:22 AM
Namaste Atanu,

Thanks for the information. :)

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

Dear Grames,

You may also like to answer these questions based on the verses quoted below :


Acchedyo Ayam Adahyoayamakledyoashoshyaeva cha,
Nityah Sarvagatah Sthanurachaloyam sanatanah. llBG 2.24ll

If all the verses are talking about individual soul then how this soul is called "Sarvagatah" ?

Avyaktoayam Achintyoayam Avikaryoayam Uchyate,
Tasmadevam viditvainam nanushochitumarhasi. ll BG 2.25 ll

If it is talking about individual soul, how is it that it is "Avyakta" (which cannot be described), "Achintya" (cannot be known by thinking over it) & "AvikArya" which is never tainted ? If it doesn't get tainted, then why does it go in cycles of births & deaths & also sometimes in hell.

Maya Tatam idam sarvam jagadavyakta murtina ll BG 9.4 ll

How do you explain it ? Where is space left for individual souls if the above is true ?

"Samam sarveshu Bhuteshu tishthanti parameshwaram,
Vinashytsva avinashyantam yah pashyati sah pashyati. ll BG 13.27ll

Why in the above verse only Parmeshwar sitting in the Bhutas is said non-destructible & not the Bhutas when the JiVatma is indestructible ??

There are many others which I can mention if you so wish.

OM

atanu
07 September 2009, 11:24 AM
Though Mandukya starts with OM, it is not referring to the Atman for the reason that Atman/Jivatman is not beyond all three syllables of that AuM (yet as per advaita darshana). It refers to that Brahman alone. ( vyavaharika and paramarthika view has to be remembered when reading advaitic translations to be at least clear of Advaita)

Please once again forgive me and i have nothing personal with you.

????????????????? Please read below:

Mandukya Upanishad

I
Harih Aum! AUM, the word, is all this, the whole universe. A clear explanation of it is as follows: All that is past, present and future is, indeed, AUM. And whatever else there is, beyond the threefold division of time—that also is truly AUM.
II
All this is, indeed, Brahman. This Atman is Brahman. This has four quarters.
----------------------------

And compare the above with Madhavacharya's teachings (from dvaita.org):

ayaM AtmA brahma
This expression in the second passage means that the guNapUrNa Brahman conveyed by Om and AtmA present in all entities who regulates and controls, is one and the same. The word AtmA does not refer to the individual souls, but to God who is immanent in them. akshara or Brahman conveyed by OM, and AtmA present in all as their inner controller is the same. Thus, God's characteristic of sarvaniyAmakatva is brought out here. The context of giving an exposition of the meaning of Om and the purpose of the statement ayaM AtmA brahma show that the identity of the jiiva and God is not plausible. On the other hand, three important characteristics of God, guNapUrNatva, trikAlAtItatva and sarvaniyAmakatva are conveyed with the minimum of words. The Upanishad also clearly explains the correct interpretation of the words OM, AtmA, Brahman, and akshara, all of which denote Brahman by describing Him with His special attributes.

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

Do not claim that you understand or follow Dvaita darshana, which is solid as rock and irrefutable within its scope. But as per your understanding, if Atman is the mere individual soul, then the following Mandukya Verse has a devastating consequence:

II
All this is, indeed, Brahman. This Atman is Brahman. This has four quarters.
------
V
That is the state of deep sleep wherein one asleep neither desires any object nor sees any dream. The third quarter is Prajna, whose sphere is deep sleep, in whom all experiences become unified, who is, verily, a mass of consciousness, who is full of bliss and experiences bliss and who is the door leading to the knowledge of dreaming and waking.
VI
He is the Lord of all. He is the knower of all. He is the inner controller. He is the source of all; for from him all beings originate and in him they finally disappear.
-----------------------

So, Sarvesvara, Lord of all becomes the third state of individual soul. That is what you imply, dear grames?

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
07 September 2009, 11:41 AM
Mandukya Upanishad

II
All this is, indeed, Brahman. This Atman is Brahman. This has four quarters.
------
V
That is the state of deep sleep wherein one asleep neither desires any object nor sees any dream. The third quarter is Prajna, whose sphere is deep sleep, in whom all experiences become unified, who is, verily, a mass of consciousness, who is full of bliss and experiences bliss and who is the door leading to the knowledge of dreaming and waking.
VI
He is the Lord of all. He is the knower of all. He is the inner controller. He is the source of all; for from him all beings originate and in him they finally disappear.


Also, I request to contemplate whether the all attractive dark krsna, called sarvesvara, relate to above verses in any way? How the comprehension, if any, relate to individuals?

Om

bhaktajan
07 September 2009, 12:21 PM
So everyone is in agreement that the “Self” (of whatever grade) does exist absolutely, yes?

So everyone is in agreement that each “Self” is qualitatively the same as any other “Self”, yes?

So all the varieties of activities (except: tapasya, penance, or even, duties) that these individual “Self(s)” are engaged-in ---ultimately culminates in the same ‘maya, illusion-like’ outcome for each “Self”, yes?

So the countless “Self(s)” are all, more or less, doing the same activities, Yes? ---Is this not an ‘Absolute Truth’ of existence? Is it not the ‘status quo’ of the “Self(s)” along with the cosmic existence?

If this “status quo of the “Self(s)” along with the cosmic existence” is accepted as absolute---then, we herein see Three Things existing side-by-side:
1 the Self(s)
2 the cosmic existence/Activities
3 the empty space (brahman)

Note that the status quo of these three are inseparable and Divine because they are absolutely the way things are.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Aksara,undiminishing; infallible; also means, syllable; of the different sounds; pranava (javascript:void(0)) [Om –the all-pervading sum and source of all &#231;abda, sound –‘situated in acts of sacrifice’ ---hence ‘object-speaker-ether’ is defined ---‘From that o&#224;k&#228;ra Lord Brahm&#228; created all the sounds of the alphabet’ ---ergo, spar&#231;a and t&#228;lavya-var&#235;as: full of juice/taste/aroma (rasa/gandha), touch (spar&#231;a), sound (&#231;abda) and form (r&#252;pa-gu&#235;a) respectively]; “kara-spar&#231;a” = to shake hands; spar&#231;a—senses;

Related Sanskrit word: &#228;k&#228;&#231;a—the subtle form of sky, sound; sky of the heart or cosmic space

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Bhagavad-g&#233;t&#228; 15.7
“The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling very hard with the six senses, which include the mind.”

While trying to dominate material nature, the living soul struggles hard for existence. The soul struggles so hard to enjoy itself that the soul cannot even enjoy the material resources.

There are two kinds of living entities: one is called k&#241;ara, and the other is ak&#241;ara. K&#241;ara refers to those who have fallen down and become conditioned, and ak&#241;ara refers to those who are not conditioned.

The vast majority of living entities live in the spiritual world and are called ak&#241;ara. They are in the position of Brahman, pure spiritual existence.

They are different from those who have been conditioned by the three modes of material nature.

Being above both the k&#241;ara and ak&#241;ara, Lord K&#229;&#241;&#235;a, V&#228;sudeva, is described in Bhagavad-g&#233;t&#228; 15.18 as Puru&#241;ottama.

In the B&#229;had-&#228;ra&#235;yaka Upani&#241;ad (1.4.1) there is the hymn:



. . . &#228;tmaivedam agra &#228;s&#233;t puru&#241;a-vidha&#249; . . .

This mantra indicates the Supreme Personality of Godhead (K&#229;&#241;&#235;a) even before the appearance of the puru&#241;a incarnation.

In the Bhagavad-g&#233;t&#228; 15.18 it is said that Lord K&#229;&#241;&#235;a is Puru&#241;ottama because He is the supreme puru&#241;a, transcendental even to the puru&#241;a-ak&#241;ara and the puru&#241;a-k&#241;ara. The ak&#241;ara-puru&#241;a, or the Mah&#228;-Vi&#241;&#235;u, throws His glance over prak&#229;ti, or material nature, but the Puru&#241;ottama existed even before that.

bhaktajan
07 September 2009, 12:28 PM
Devotee wrote in regards to grimes:
". . . I have doubts over Grame's sincerity. "

Dear Devotee,
Where is the sansrit word "devotee" found in the Vedas?
Thank you inadvanced of looking up the definition,
bhaktajan

yajvan
07 September 2009, 12:34 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

Namasté bhaktajan



So everyone is in agreement that each “Self” is qualitatively the same as any other “Self”, yes?


There is only one SELF, tad ekam ~ that One¹~. If this is your point, then I agree with your assessment.

praṇām

words
tad ekam tad = तद् , ekam =एक: tad as a noun is 'it , that' , 'this' + eka is 'alone' , 'solitary' , 'single'

bhaktajan
07 September 2009, 01:02 PM
yajvan wrote: "There is only one SELF, tad ekam ~ that One&#185;~. If this is your point, then I agree with your assessment."

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
OK, Let me agree with the definition you have stated ---Now, I ask:
Only "One SELF that is thee one SELF" in contrast with what other possible pronouncement or philosophical conclusion?

There is one self, which I see as stated in sastra.
What else is there to possibly conflate with the 'nature of the self' then there is an absolute reality where 'reality' is one?

So, IF, everyone is in agreement that each “Self” is qualitatively the same as any other “Self” (Paramatma) ---What about the "Field"(Brahman) and "Overseer" (Paramatma)?**

[**Source reference: See Bhagavad-gita]

BTW, "tad" = 'it , that' , 'this' is a Pronoun ---a reference to a Proper Noun. To find to whom the sanskrit word tad was referring to we'd have to keep the citation in context to the original speaker of the passage that is cited here.

yajvan
07 September 2009, 07:58 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

Namasté bhaktajan

For your consideration and contemplation:
ekam evādvitiyam ¹
ekatvam एकत्व oneness , unity , union; singleness
eka एक(one) eva एव (indeed , truly , really) a अ (not) dvaita द्वैत (two,duality) Hence, One truly without a second

Another quality of Brahman is bhūma or fullness, completeness, seemlessness.

We go to the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (chapter 7) and the great student ( Nārada) asks his teacher/guru:
What is this bhūma? What is this Fullness?

"Do you want to know what Completeness is? And do you want to know what finitude is? Here is the definition," says Sanatkumāra [ the ṛṣi of the vidyā] . "Where one sees nothing except one's own Self, where one hears nothing except one's own Self, where one understands nothing except one's own Self, that is Bhuma, the Absolute; and where one sees something outside oneself, where one hears something outside oneself, where one understands or thinks something outside oneself, that is the finite ( or alpa - small , minute , trifling , little)."

… and where can it be found? asks Nārada

"O my dear Nārada, your question itself is unfounded and unwarranted. Why do you ask where It is, as if It is in space? But if you want me to tell you where It is, I say It is in space, It is in every nook and corner, in every pinpoint of space. There is no space where It is not; there is no space which It does not occupy."

You mention

So, IF, everyone is in agreement that each “Self” is qualitatively the same as any other “Self” (Paramatma) ---What about the "Field"(Brahman) and "Overseer" (Paramatma)?**

You now have enough information to think your question through to its conclusion... If you feel you are missing some information, the Chāndogya Upaniṣad is there to resolve any of your issues.


praṇām


words and references
Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6:2:1
a + dvaita; a अ= not ( like 'un' in English) + dvaita द्वैत= duality , duplicity , dualism = not (a) dual (dvaita). ) advaita ( not two)

devotee
08 September 2009, 01:28 AM
Devotee wrote in regards to grimes:
". . . I have doubts over Grame's sincerity. "

Dear Devotee,
Where is the sansrit word "devotee" found in the Vedas?
Thank you inadvanced of looking up the definition,
bhaktajan

Namaste Bhaktajan,

I am sorry. I think I should not have written that. I have, therefore, edited that text. Thanks for your reminder.

Your question, "Where is Samskrit word 'devotee' found in the Vedas ?" took me by surprise. "Devotee" is an English word & you must know it better than me, I suppose, as English is not my native.

Perhaps, you have objection to use of an English Word for my Id here ? Is it so ?

OM

devotee
08 September 2009, 01:32 AM
While reading the thread, "Creation and Advaita", I found beautiful excerpt from a discussion between a Guru & his Shishya on similar thoughts, posted by Saidevoji.

A portion of that long post is reproduced here :


665. S: I see. The matter envelopment, that is perishable, comes from PrakRti.
666. G: JIva itself, our spirit component, is a fragment of the Citshakti (Pure Consciousness) of Brahman.
667. S: I thought you said there are two shaktis, parA-shakti and aparA-shakti.
668. G: Yes. The parAshakti has three facets: Desire (IcchA), Action (KriyA) and Consciousness (jnAna or cit).
669. S: Is parA-shakti the source of our jIva?
670. G: JIva, the kshhara-purushha in us, is just an atomic fragment of that Power of Consciousness (cit-shakti).
671. S: So that is why our essential content is Consciousness. Is this our akshhara-purushha, the Witness in us?
672. G: Exactly. It is also called kUTastha, the One which remains unchanged like the anvil in a smithy.
673. S: If I remember right, the Gita talks of a third purushha, namely, purushhottama.
674. G: The Purushhottama is the supreme who appears as the other two purushhas.
675. S: Can I have a picture that incorporates all the three purushhas and their roles?
676. G: The roles are actually three poises of the same purushhottama. The kshhara-purushha – who is the result of identification of the jIva with the BMI – reflects the varied workings of PrakRti and thinks of himself as the ego-doer of works. He is the one that remembers ‘I slept well last night’. So He is saguNa, personal. On the other hand when the Purushha takes the poise of akshhara, he is nirguNa, impersonal. He is dissociated from the doings of the guNas. He is aware that prakRti is the doer and himself is only the witnessing self. The purushottama creates, sustains and dissolves, through His prakRti and manifests in the jIva. In the akshhara, He is untouched and indifferent. In the kshhara He is the immanent Will and the present active Lord.
677. S: It is all pretty complicated. Why don’t you give some analogies?
678. G: Certainly. Let the entire space represent the Purushottama. Then the space within a jar is the akshhara-Purushha.
679. S: That fits in with the Purushottama appearing as the akshhara-Purushha, just because of the limitation of the jar.
680. G: Now fill up the jar with water.Outer space is reflected in that water. This reflected space is the kshara-Purushha.
681. S: What goes on in the reflected space due to vibrations in the water, does not affect the jar-space, the akshhara.
682. G: Not only that. The reflected space, the kshara, hides the very presence of the jar-space, the akshhara.
683. S: Wonderful. When you throw the water away, the jar-space comes to light.
684. G: Exactly. That water is our mind. The Supreme, reflected in our mind, is what makes us the jIva, the kshara.
685. S. When there is no separate thing as mind – water in the jar – the akshhara shows up by itself.
686. G: There you have the entire picture.

grames
08 September 2009, 05:44 AM
Hi Dear Devotee,

It is a pleasure and i admire the way you have put across your points. At the end you said,
However, it doesn’t lower the importance of Bhakti-Yoga for me. Lord Krishna still remains my God, philosopher & guide.
It brings me a lot of joy and cheer and also assures me i am talking to someone who can relate to a lot of spiritual topics and rahasyas that are hidden in the realm of Divine conscious.

Believing your faith in Lord Krshna as your God, Guru and Philosopher, i firmly expect that you will accept His words in toto with out adulterations of 'views'. Correct me if this is not an acceptable assumption.

So, in a very broader view, put aside Advaita or Dvaita or bedabeda or bedaabedha philosophies for a minute and lets just examine the possibilities.


I will use this word, Lord Krshna as He is the One who is speaking all the verses and so it is all His words and there shouldn't be any urgent need for substituting His words with Self or any such new words.

uvaca madhusudanah - BG 2.1

So it is clear that, they are words of Lord Krishna Himself.

Arjuna, out of confusion does this to receive the confidential knowledge..

yac chreyah syan niscitam bruhi tan me
sisyas te 'ham sadhi mam tvam prapannam - Bg 2.7

(I am Your disciple, and a soul surrendered unto You. Please instruct me.)
prapannam is very significant word here but of course every words is significant.

Then Lord says,


sri-bhagavan uvaca
asocyan anvasocas tvam
prajna-vadams ca bhasase
gatasun agatasums ca
nanusocanti panditah


What a response? Do not pose like you are a Panditah cos those who are wise, never lament for neither living nor dead. What does this mean? Why should a wise does not lament for living or dead? ( gata asun and agata asun) .

Lord Continues...


na tv evaham jatu nasam
na tvam neme janadhipah
na caiva na bhavisyamah
sarve vayam atah param
Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. "sarve' means all of us and the individuality is not going to be lost ever as it is clearly stated by Lord Himself. ( Translation magic starts from here for advaitic view though with a poor justification...sarve is translated as 'we' as in bodies ... such a loose understanding and do a litmus test here. Lord is talking about individual soul and addressing the subjects individually, aham, tvam and jana-adhipah and if He meant bodies, He wouldn't be saying they will continue to exist in future. It will become poor language or grammar for Lord to say the future existence of the bodies but it is only the interpretations which are wrong and the right understanding should be, not the bodies but the soul - Serve - the Souls, Atmans. Why should i be this sure of this understanding. The merciful Lord explains in the very next verse....)


dehino 'smin yatha dehe
kaumaram yauvanam jara
tatha dehantara-praptir
dhiras tatra na muhyati


I am sure there is no twise in translations of this verse by Shri Sankara and it is clearly stating the fact that, "Something" that is transmigrating from boyhood, youth to old age and then transmigrate. Dehina - what is that something?

nasato vidyate bhavo
nabhavo vidyate satah
ubhayor api drsto 'ntas
tv anayos tattva-darsibhih


Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent there is no endurance, and of the existent there is no cessation. This seers have concluded by studying the nature of both. ( satah and asatah translated as real and unreal by advaitic translations though it simply means existence and nonexistence). So why it should be about existence and nonexistence here? Because, Lord is talking about "something" that is transmigrating from body to body at the time of death. So, what is not existing has no endurance and what is existing there is no cessation. OK very nice and what is this existing thing which is transmigrating? Lord continues...


avinasi tu tad viddhi
yena sarvam idam tatam
vinasam avyayasyasya
na kascit kartum arhati

Know that which pervades the entire body is indestructible. No one is able to destroy the imperishable soul. ( sarvam here should be the entire body not the entire Universe as how advaitin wants to translate... why jump to out of context and hold a philosophical view? ) Just a verse above, Lord is explaining the secret of "existent" and "non-existent" and so the focus is only on body and the "existent" of the body. Now, He begins the verse after affirming that, this "existent" thing in the body which is "imperishable" and then describing about its nature. This imperishable pervades all of the body - which is very true and we have 'consciousness' as symptom of life and death means, cessation of this consciousness. So, sarvam here has no place for meaning like, "All Universe" etc. And this "imperishable" cannot be destroyed any anyone, reminding Arjuna that what is going to be killed by him is just the bodies and not this imperishable thing which is indestructible. And that clarity is reaffirmed in the immediate verse....


antavanta ime deha
nityasyoktah saririnah
anasino 'prameyasya
tasmad yudhyasva bharata


Only the material body of the indestructible, immeasurable and eternal living entity is subject to destruction; therefore, fight, O descendant of Bharata.
(Advaitic translations comes back to normal now and they do not alter this meaning. How come? Lord should be talking about something else if advaitic meanings are taken for all previous verses and then all of the sudden do a somersault and say, deHah here does not mean to mean "Sarva" in one of the previous verse? So, here deHa simply means body as for Advaitin too).

But, Lord is even more clear and instructs future...


ya enam vetti hantaram
yas cainam manyate hatam
ubhau tau na vijanito
nayam hanti na hanyate
na jayate mriyate va kadacin
nayam bhutva bhavita va na bhuyah
ajo nityah sasvato 'yam purano
na hanyate hanyamane sarire


ajo - directly describing the nature of the "soul" that is embodied in the deHa and no confusion of translation here. No school denies or misinterpret this and all vedantic school accept the fact that, soul is unborn, eternal. It is very much true that, eternal means, it takes no birth and it never dies, it is indestructible, undying, ever existing and all are characteristic of the soul. With that truth expounded, Lord then emphatically says,


vedavinasinam nityam
ya enam ajam avyayam
katham sa purusah partha
kam ghatayati hanti kam

O Partha, how can a person who knows that the soul is indestructible, unborn, eternal and immutable, kill anyone or cause anyone to kill? ( enam is the word used to describe the "something" which is described all the above verses- as 'this' and not as "this One"). What happens if a man is killed then??? Then Lord says,


vasamsi jirnani yatha vihaya
navani grhnati naro 'parani
tatha sarirani vihaya jirnany
anyani samyati navani dehi
As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, similarly, the soul accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones. Here the word samyati simply means 'accepts' and not "unites" as how a twist is introduced. The flow of the knowledge is very much focused and no deviation, no distractions and also no room for doubts. Will anything happens to the Soul as it transmigrates from body to body? Lord Krishna says...


nainam chindanti sastrani
nainam dahati pavakah
na cainam kledayanty apo
na sosayati marutah
acchedyo 'yam adahyo 'yam
akledyo 'sosya eva ca
nityah sarva-gatah sthanur
acalo 'yam sanatanah

The soul can never be cut into pieces by any weapon, nor can he be burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind. This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, all-pervading, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same. Sarva-gatah is a very tricky thing here. So, how should we understand it?? This 'ayam' can live anywhere and everywhere with a suitable body. Why should i take this meaning? Because, the characteristic of the 'soul' is described all along and so the sarvah-gatah should also be the characteristic of the 'Soul" only rather than separating the "ayam" from being a subject to character or nature. Am i really making sense.... Lord Krishna supports and make this understanding very sound in the next verse...

avyakto 'yam acintyo 'yam
avikaryo 'yam ucyate
tasmad evam viditvainam
nanusocitum arhasi

It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable, immutable, and unchangeable. Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body. So, all above said are the nature of the soul and so do not worry about killing the body.

But, then Lord differentiate the nature of the Soul of Arjuna and Himself. I am not sure whether you are convinced or understood but, His leela and His nature of incarnating are all very well described in Upanishad and Puranas.

So, what is my intention? Proving Bhakthi Yoga is the best? May be :)
But why? Because, i guess it is wise to take up what Lord says and He says clearly in the conclusion of Gita,


ya idam paramam guhyam
mad-bhaktesv abhidhasyati
bhaktim mayi param krtva
mam evaisyaty asamsayah
na ca tasman manusyesu
kascin me priya-krttamah
bhavita na ca me tasmad
anyah priyataro bhuvi
adhyesyate ca ya imam
dharmyam samvadam avayoh
jnana-yajnena tenaham
istah syam iti me matih


But, is this debate about Bhakthi Yoga? Not really. I believe, Shri Sankara and other advaitic Gurus also practiced Bhakthi Yoga. The issue is about, deniel of Lord and which is the only reason why i write responses.

If you have faith in Lord,

sarva-karmany api sada
kurvano mad-vyapasrayah
mat-prasadad avapnoti
sasvatam padam avyayam


He will deliver you for sure!

grames
08 September 2009, 06:32 AM
Good friend grames has himself not understood what guru Madhava has taught. Madhavacharya teaches that OM, AtmA, Brahman, and akshara, all denote God.But grames says atman and jiva are identical????????????

My Goodness...am i harsh? If so, i don't hesitate to be sorry.

But, what an urgency in your messages and i wonder whether you write a reply for the message or just drum something very loud out of your ego only. Did you read what you have copy pasted here? Does it convey what you think it is conveying?

Not sure whether it is problem of English or your expertise in understanding them. Please do a check again.

For others who think Atanu investigated smartly and found the truth that Grames is sarcastic, harsh etc and unintelligible... here is the full excerpt of what he copy pasted....


ayaM AtmA brahma
This expression in the second passage means that the guNapUrNa Brahman conveyed by Om and AtmA present in all entities who regulates and controls, is one and the same. The word AtmA does not refer to the individual souls, but to God who is immanent in them. akshara or Brahman conveyed by OM, and AtmA present in all as their inner controller is the same. Thus, God's characteristic of sarvaniyAmakatva is brought out here. The context of giving an exposition of the meaning of Om and the purpose of the statement ayaM AtmA brahma show that the identity of the jiiva and God is not plausible. On the other hand, three important characteristics of God, guNapUrNatva, trikAlAtItatva and sarvaniyAmakatva are conveyed with the minimum of words. The Upanishad also clearly explains the correct interpretation of the words OM, AtmA, Brahman, and akshara, all of which denote Brahman by describing Him with His special attributes.
Dvaita school upholds the pancha Bedha and it is really ignorance of anyone who thinks that, Dvaita is equating Atman with Brahman. :) Read the posted excerpt any number of times and you will then understand what the above passage conveys. :)

devotee
08 September 2009, 08:05 AM
Namaste Grames,

Your post brings a smile on my face ! :)

I think Lord Krishna very cleverly stated the Truth in a manner which can be understood in both Dualist & Non-dualist ways. That shows his unparalleled compassion towards his both types of devotees.

All the verses where you see Dvait, I see Advait. :)

No wonder, both schools of Vedanta are so strong & that this argument is going on for centuries.


I believe, Shri Sankara and other advaitic Gurus also practiced Bhakthi Yoga. The issue is about, deniel of Lord and which is the only reason why i write responses.

Hey, dear Grames, how can both the sentences be simultaneously true ? I have not come across even one Advaitin who denies God !

"sarva-karmany api sada
kurvano mad-vyapasrayah
mat-prasadad avapnoti
sasvatam padam avyayam"

So be it ! May the Lord show all of us the way !! :)

OM

bhaktajan
08 September 2009, 09:48 AM
"Where is Samskrit word 'devotee' found in the Vedas ?" took me by surprise.


See how language is so malleable.

Not "Devotee"--in english.

I meant ""Where is [Samskrit word] 'Bhakta' found in the Vedas ?""

I assume that it is never mentioned in Monistic scriptures.

It would seem to be a contradiction for a person pursuing Brahman-Realization to declare themselves a Bhakta (Devotee) ---since Monistic scriptures do not hold a Supreme Conscious Transendent Personality as the definition of Godhead and thus the goal of Self-Realization.

Unless Bhakta (Devotee) can be regarded as "Devotee of One's own Self" [vs 'master of the house/master of our own domain'].

atanu
08 September 2009, 10:33 AM
My Goodness...am i harsh? If so, i don't hesitate to be sorry
But, what an urgency in your messages and i wonder whether you write a reply for the message or just drum something very loud out of your ego only. Did you read what you have copy pasted here? Does it convey what you think it is conveying?

Namaste grames,

I cannot control your perception. But I wonder why you, who drum the surrender theme incessantly, come to Advaita Category to refute? Why cannot you place your view in Dvaita Category?:D Have you surrendered your ego?

I mention it because, I wish that you will not harp on personal inadequacies of others but will stick to point reply.


Not sure whether it is problem of English or your expertise in understanding them. Please do a check again.
As usual. But the problem may be in your teaching ability?



Dvaita school upholds the pancha Bedha and it is really ignorance of anyone who thinks that, Dvaita is equating Atman with Brahman. Read the posted excerpt any number of times and you will then understand what the above passage conveys.
Dvaita Guru is faultless. The differences in phenomenal realms are real, since they are differences among the finitized items. But he teaches that the Atman-Brahman-Prabhu stands apart as one. No finitized item is equal or same as the infinite immutable. And that ekam advitviyam must be known by the sadhaka. That is the goal (at least as expounded in Upanishads).

You are actually vainly trying to confound yourself by using the context of Mandukya and the verses of Gita.;) Your confusion can be shown. You started by saying that Mandukya was talking of Brahman alone and not of Atman (with an assumption that Atman refers to individual soul).



By grames
Though Mandukya starts with OM, it is not referring to the Atman for the reason that Atman/Jivatman is not beyond all three syllables of that AuM (yet as per advaita darshana). It refers to that Brahman alone.
You implicitly declare that Atman and Jivatman are same and thus there are millions of such Atman.

First. Atman was never cuttable or divisible that the primeval Atman would become many pieces. Second, Shri Krishna calls the Jivatman as Purusha immersed in Prakriti and not Atman, as below:



13.22 Purushah prakritistho hi bhungkte prakritijaan gunaan;Kaaranam gunasango’sya sadasadyoni janmasu.

13. 22. The soul seated in Nature experiences the qualities born of Nature; attachment to the qualities is the cause of his birth in good and evil wombs.
You should know that there is a subtle difference between Atman (Turiyam) and Purusha (Pragnya Ghana, sprouting into Hiranyagarbha). The latter is created/revealed while the Atman is revealer/uncreated ekam advittiyam. There is one saharsashira purusha, but some heads are clear and some heads are immersed in Prakriti. So, Purusha also is ekam, but He is endowed with sahasrashira (infinfinite number of minds).

The second proof that Atman and Purusha have a relation of the originator and the created is shown below:



Aitereya Upanishad
OM aatmaa vaa idameka evaagra aasiinnaanyatki.nchana mishhat.h . sa Ikshata lokaannu sR^ijaa iti .. 1..

sa imaa.N llokaanasR^ijata . ambho mariichiirmaapo.ado.ambhaH pareNa diva.n dyauH pratishhThaa.antarikshaM mariichayaH ..
pR^ithivii maro yaa adhastaatta aapaH .. 2..

sa iikshateme nu lokaa lokapaalaannu sR^ijaa iti .. so.adbhya eva purushha.n samuddhR^ityaamuurchhayat.h .. 3..

Atman created Purusha by forming Him from the waters (consciousness). That there are infinite immortal Atman is christian concept. Sanatana Dharma teaches that there is no knower but Him. That makes it very clear that despite appearance of infinite jivas as cognizers, the source of cognition and source of Aham (I Am) is One Without a Second.
---------------------------

So the plea that Atman means Jivatman and that the indwelling Lord is another Atman, is untenable. What you call Jivatman, I call ego and that is not immortal. Does any one say "I have two selves"? Only under certain medical condition this may happen.

Now let us come to respected Madhavacharya's teaching and let us forget all the rest.



ayaM AtmA brahma
This expression in the second passage means that the guNapUrNa Brahman conveyed by Om and AtmA present in all entities who regulates and controls, is one and the same. The word AtmA does not refer to the individual souls, but to God who is immanent in them. akshara or Brahman conveyed by OM, and AtmA present in all as their inner controller is the same. Thus, God's characteristic of sarvaniyAmakatva is brought out here. The context of giving an exposition of the meaning of Om and the purpose of the statement ayaM AtmA brahma show that the identity of the jiiva and God is not plausible. On the other hand, three important characteristics of God, guNapUrNatva, trikAlAtItatva and sarvaniyAmakatva are conveyed with the minimum of words. The Upanishad also clearly explains the correct interpretation of the words OM, AtmA, Brahman, and akshara, all of which denote Brahman by describing Him with His special attributes.
Madhavacharya declares unequivocally that Atman, spoken in Mandukya is immanent controller God and not individual soul.

Mandukya desribes the Turya-Brahman-Atman-Prabhu and exhorts us to know that Atman:



shaantaM shivamadvaitaM chaturthaM manyante sa aatmaa sa viGYeyaH .. 7.

The full translation below:



Mandukya Upanishad

The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.
Whatever name you give to AtmA, it does not become many. It does not become changeable. It does not take birth (as shown many times by Devotee, but ignored by you).

Now we may examine the implications of knowing the Advaita Atman:

It is unchanging, it is One, it is Self .
Self cannot be another one. It is unchanging, so number of other souls joining it as different entities is ruled out.
It is Advaita, "not two". Number of other souls joining it yet remaining separate entities is ruled out.
It is actionless. So, thoughts of serving it or actual tasks undertaken to serve it are not possible.
It is not conscious of the inner or the outer. So, the consciousness of me and another is impossible.
It not unconsciousness either. So, it is aware of itself without inner or outer perceptions.
It is the Self which is Brahman, whose third state is Lord Sarvesvara. So nothing exceeds it.Advaita Prabhu has to be known as Advaita. A second person cannot say "I see Advaita Prabhu", since that will break Advaita and that will make AtmA a Second to the Seer. The ultimate knowing is Seer becoming the Seen. All Upanishads teach of this ultimate seeing. That is all I have to say. But just in case, you pout that Mandukya is sectarian, let examine the Gita also.



Aksharam brahma paramam swabhaavo’dhyaatmamuchyate; Bhootabhaavodbhavakaro visargah karmasamjnitah.

Brahman is the Supreme. There is no question of something higher than Brahman. Nothing exists outside of Brahman, yet Brahman is partless.


Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute; Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.
13.13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.

Avibhaktam cha bhooteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam; Bhootabhartru cha tajjneyam grasishnu prabhavishnu cha.

13.17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.

Jyotishaamapi tajjyotistamasah paramuchyate; Jnaanam jneyam jnaanagamyam hridi sarvasya vishthitam.

13.18. That, the Light of all lights, is beyond darkness; it is said to be knowledge, the Knowable and the goal of knowledge, seated in the hearts of all.

How will one know this goal of knowledge, the Param Atma, who is samAn, indivisible and Atma? Will one know Param Atma as another? Will one know Param Atman as asamAn? Will one know this indivisible Param Atman as divided?

Can one stand apart and say "I have seen Brahman"? It is simply not possible to remain a second or a part and yet gain knowledge of indivisible and all pervasive Brahman. You have to lose your self (ego) to Self.

Jai Shri Krishna

Dear Grames, one more pont. Advaita does not teach that a Jiva is God or that a Jiva becomes God. That is knowledge gap on your part.

Om Namah Shivaya

bhaktajan
08 September 2009, 10:38 AM
"the waters of consciousness"

Oh my Garbho-daka-shayi Vishnu!

It must just be the english rendering that gets everything foggy.

bhaktajan
08 September 2009, 10:42 AM
Atanu wrote: Advaita does not teach that a Jiva is God or that a Jiva becomes God.

.................................................................................................... ..........

Q. If advaitins did not have the term god 'to contend with' --then what would they talk about?

A. The 24 elements/Karma/Samasara; the individual soul's quest for extingishment; the Void.

Q. If advaitins talk about the topics of The 24 elements etc ---why do they bother with God's status?

A. To illustrate the only glitch in their calculus.

yajvan
08 September 2009, 07:49 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

Namast&#233;

bhaktajan offers the following:



Q. If advaitins did not have the term god 'to contend with' --then what would they talk about?

A. The 24 elements/Karma/Samasara; the individual soul's quest for extingishment; the Void.

Q. If advaitins talk about the topics of The 24 elements etc ---why do they bother with God's status?

A. To illustrate the only glitch in their calculus.

These 24 elements ( tattva - that-ness) are considered part of the śāṁkhya सांख्य school ( philosophy, or darsana) of thinking; śāṁkhya means ' relating to number'. Hence the 24 elements you mention , yet śāṁkhya see's a 25th element , puruṣa.

Hence in this vew there are still 2 (dvaita). 'God' is not a subject quickly recognized in the śāṁkhya view as offered from Kapila muni ( the sage of this great work). So, śāṁkhya has prakṛti + puruṣa - still 2 (fyi - the 24 elements come from prakṛti)

So what may adhavidin's talk about that still has tattva ( elements) yet no divisions? Śaivism offers the following:

Bhairava śāstra-s - 64 in number; these are considered non-dual some call monistic; parā Oh? So Śaivism sees no duality? That would be a false statement. Śaivism also recognizes the following:

Rūdra śāstra-s - 18 in number; these are considered dual-non-dual or mono-dualistic ; parāparā
Śiva śāstra-s - 10 in number; these are considered dualistic; aparāIf we add them up we get a total of 92 śāstra-s that make up the āgama-s , yet some say there are 96.

You said there were tattva-s? How many ? There are 36. The 25 that are found in the śāṁkhya system are also within the 36. Yet a few more are recognized, all finally culminating in śiva, then in parama śiva. Now this parama śiva is found in each and every tattva, yet is not specific to one, hence the ~argument~ that parama śiva is not a tattva .

It is ubiquitous - a continuum, everywhere, yet the wise say no-where. Why so? It is not ONE place, that would isolate it locally and make it bound - so they say it is everywhere and nowhere for a description.

Why do you mention (all this) of adavita and davita? Pending ones path and experiences different schools and views are appropriate to one's
development. To debate one being better or more worthy then another is to miss the point of one's spiritual unfoldment.

praṇām

atanu
08 September 2009, 08:28 PM
na tv evaham jatu nasam
na tvam neme janadhipah
na caiva na bhavisyamah
sarve vayam atah param
Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. "sarve' means all of us and the individuality is not going to be lost ever

Namaste

Sure. In Time (in the realm of kAla) 'You and I' exist. But 'You and I' exist only in Pragnya, which is the nature of AtmA, which itself is beyond time. The goal is to know AtmA and not the divisions that exist within time.

As long as I exists, the 'you' and 'they' will also exist. But Turya does not recognise the inner and outer conciousness. Turya is to be known.

Om

devotee
08 September 2009, 10:48 PM
Namaste,

Well said Atanu ! If one misses the Pragna-ghana & how it is the source & end of all beings, these verses can be misconstrued to strengthen the idea of permanence of individual souls.

The above has been stated clearly in Mandukya Upanishad & the following verse from BG also supports it :

AhamAtmA GudAkesha SarvabhUtAshya Sthitah,
Ahmadishcha Madhyam cha BhUtanmanta eva cha. ll BG 10.20ll

O Arjuna, I am the Self sitting in the hearts of all beings. I am the beginning, the middle & end of all beings.
===> This is exactly what the Mandukaya Upanishad says about Prajna, the Sarveshvara, the Lod of all.

And this verse too says almost similar thing :

Avibhaktam cha bhUteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam,
BhUtBhartri cha Tajgyeyam grasishnu cha prabhavishnu cha. llBG 13.17ll

The Undivided ( Undivided Prajna) appears as divided in all beings.
That is to be known as the creator, the sustainer and that who devours all.

=====================

In Chapter 6 of BG, He advises to meditate on Atma, the Self :

Yogi yunjit satatam atmAnam rahasi sthitah,
EkAki yatchitAtmA NirAshIrparigrahah ll BG 6.10 ll

Yato Yato nishcharati manshchanchalamsthiram,
tatastato niyamyaiva tadatmanyeva vasham nayet ll BG 6.26 ll

SarvabhUtasthamAtmAnam SarvabhUtAni chAtmani,
Ikshate yogyouktAtmA sarvatra samadarshanah ll BG 6.29ll

OM

grames
09 September 2009, 05:47 AM
Dear Devotee,

Its a pleasure to type your nick here :)


dear Grames, how can both the sentences be simultaneously true ? I have not come across even one Advaitin who denies God !
OM

The word 'God' is too generic i guess. Advaitin has to deny the Bagavan aspect of the Brahman as, Bagavan is not the Ultimate Brahman. (Though, BS says opposite of it and i have posted three links in one of the message and please read it if you like it. )

Being an Advaitin is different thing but being a devotee is a bliss. It doesn't matter as long as you remain a devotee to get the "Jnana".

Hare Krishna

grames
09 September 2009, 05:55 AM
Dear Atanu,

After reading this message, i took one very good point and i am glad and thankful to you for reminding me of that which is


Namaste grames,
But I wonder why you, who drum the surrender theme incessantly, come to Advaita Category to refute? Why cannot you place your view in Dvaita Category?:D Have you surrendered your ego?


It is very true and i think i started writing in to this forum as one of my belief is that, as you discuss these things your spiritual knowledge expands. So, instead of polluting an "Advaitic" forum, i will restrain myself to Vaishnava forums ( Dvaita, ISKCON, V.A etc ) and i am sure you guys will refrain from polluting those too :). I love to see more of non advaitins coming in to this forum and contribute their experiences, knowledge and make this forum a worthy place for seekers.

Thanks for reminding this simple mistake of me.

Hare Krishna.

atanu
09 September 2009, 07:43 AM
Dear Atanu,

It is very true and i think i started writing in to this forum as one of my belief is that, as you discuss these things your spiritual knowledge expands. So, instead of polluting an "Advaitic" forum, i will restrain myself to Vaishnava forums ( Dvaita, ISKCON, V.A etc ) and i am sure you guys will refrain from polluting those too :). I love to see more of non advaitins coming in to this forum and contribute their experiences, knowledge and make this forum a worthy place for seekers.

Thanks for reminding this simple mistake of me.

Hare Krishna.

Namaste grames,

Is anyone of us beyond ego? Differences are part of this existence. However, Hinduism needs less of ego bickerings and more cohesiveness now. I hope you will agree here.

I am as serious a bhakta as you are but I do not believe that only Vaisnava gurus have realised the truth. I also do not believe that only Advaitins have realised the truth. I believe that the vAdas, being dependent on words and mind, are in the realm of Gunas, which a Self Realised needs to transcend. I also believe that vAdas are complementary and constitute a cyle in the realm of tri-gunas.

That for a knower of Brahman, Veda is not required is taught by Lord in Gita.

You say: Being an Advaitin is different thing but being a devotee is a bliss. Your wish and preferences are perfectly OK. But for me, that does not allow Self-Knowledge, which is a dictum of Gita and Upanishads.

As per me, you understand the "Surrender to Me" of Gita as Christians understand "I am the Way" of Bible, in exclusive mode and not in inclusive mode. Frankly speaking, we know that these views fail to understand that God is unlimited whole and there is no second which is another unlimited whole. Shri Krishna teaches us to submit to the unlimited fullness, which in truth He is.

I know that we differ vastly on above two points, and I am amenable to a civil debate anywhere and anyplace. I have asked a few queries of you in this thread and in the other thread 'Creation and Advaita'. I will request you to consider those questions and offer your opinions with an open mind, without any reservation whatsoever.

I had similar bitter difference with another Vaisnava. But somehow, these questions and surely as part of divine plan, the situation has changed completely.

The questions are repeated in the next post. If you wish you may ponder and offer dissent or assent, whatever.

Best Wishes

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
09 September 2009, 07:52 AM
The Pointers to the Ultimate Advaita Experience of the Self.


Mandukya desribes the Turya-Brahman-Atman-Prabhu and exhorts us to know that Atman:


shaantaM shivamadvaitaM chaturthaM manyante sa aatmaa sa viGYeyaH .. 7.


The full translation below:



Mandukya Upanishad

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


.
Whatever name is given to AtmA, it does not become many. It does not become changeable. It does not take birth.

Now we may examine the implications of knowing the Advaita Atman:

It is unchanging, it is One, it is Self .
Self cannot be another one. It is unchanging, so number of other souls joining it as different entities is ruled out.
It is Advaita, "not two". Number of other souls joining it yet remaining separate entities is ruled out.
It is actionless. So, thoughts of serving it or actual tasks undertaken to serve it are not possible.
It is not conscious of the inner or the outer. So, the consciousness of me and another is impossible.
It not unconsciousness either. So, it is aware of itself without inner or outer perceptions.
It is the Self which is Brahman, whose third state is Lord Sarvesvara. So nothing exceeds it.Advaita Prabhu has to be known as Advaita. A second person cannot say "I see Advaita Prabhu", since that will break Advaita and that will make the Seer's AtmA a Second to the Seer. That is impossible.

Below we examine from Gita:


Aksharam brahma paramam swabhaavo’dhyaatmamuchyate; Bhootabhaavodbhavakaro visargah karmasamjnitah.
.
Brahman is the Supreme. There is no question of something higher than Brahman. Nothing exists outside of Brahman, yet Brahman is partless.



13.13 Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute; Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.
13.13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.

Avibhaktam cha bhooteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam; Bhootabhartru cha tajjneyam grasishnu prabhavishnu cha.

13.17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.

Jyotishaamapi tajjyotistamasah paramuchyate; Jnaanam jneyam jnaanagamyam hridi sarvasya vishthitam.

13.18. That, the Light of all lights, is beyond darkness; it is said to be knowledge, the Knowable and the goal of knowledge, seated in the hearts of all.
Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute; Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.
13.13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.

Avibhaktam cha bhooteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam; Bhootabhartru cha tajjneyam grasishnu prabhavishnu cha.

13.17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.


Jyotishaamapi tajjyotistamasah paramuchyate; Jnaanam jneyam jnaanagamyam hridi sarvasya vishthitam.

13.18. That, the Light of all lights, is beyond darkness; it is said to be knowledge, the Knowable and the goal of knowledge, seated in the hearts of all.

How will one know the goal of knowledge, the Param Atma, who is samAn, indivisible and Atma? Will one know Param Atma as another and divided?

Can one stand apart and say "I have seen Brahman"? It is simply not possible to remain a second or a part and yet gain knowledge of indivisible and all pervasive Brahman. You have to lose your self (ego) to the Self. And that is the ultimate surrender in our school.


Jai Shri Krishna
Om Namah Shivaya

bhaktajan
09 September 2009, 10:27 AM
Yes, we (vaishnavas) know. We know.

........................................................
Atanu:
. . . not possible to remain "a part" and yet gain knowledge of indivisible Brahman.

You have to lose your self (ego) to the Self.

And that is the ultimate surrender . . .
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Else where we (the soul) must be objective to see its subjective relation to the object of desire ---and then merge to experience bliss devoid of duties and continued discipline. So Utopic.

But it is not absolute ---your rendering of "brahman" is too closely tied to maya's influence.

atanu
10 September 2009, 12:28 PM
Yes, we (vaishnavas) know. We know.

Namaste bhakta,

How curious. Upanishad says: There is no knower but Him:


Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3:7:23

“He is never seen, but is the Seer; He is never heard, but is the Hearer; He is never thought of, but is the Thinker; He is never known, but is the Knower. There is no other seer than He, there is no other hearer than He, there is no other thinker than He, there is no other knower than He. He is your Self, the Inner Controller, the Immortal. Everything else but Him is perishable.”



Else where we (the soul) must be objective to see its subjective relation to the object of desire ---and then merge to experience bliss devoid of duties and continued discipline. So Utopic.
But it is not absolute ---your rendering of "brahman" is too closely tied to maya's influence.


Because of ignorance alone, one has even the temerity to propose the subject -object relationship, making God the object and Ego the subject.

You have now been told and henceforth it will be blasphemy.


Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1:4:7
“This Self has entered into these bodies, as a razor lies hidden in its case, or as fire, which sustains the world, lies hidden in its source. People do not see the Self, for when viewed in parts It is incomplete….The Self alone is to be meditated upon, for in It all these become unified. Of all these, this Self alone should be known, for one knows all these through It.”


Om Namah Shivaya

bhaktajan
10 September 2009, 01:59 PM
Yes, we (vaishnavas) know. We know.

Your name "Brahman" is the name of God the Person

or

Your term "Brahman" is the name of a Blissfull state of Trance that 'elludes' qualities and even a definition that can be accepted as realilty as we know it.

Feel free to proffer an alternative of my definition.

bhaktajan
10 September 2009, 02:23 PM
Atanu, surely you are beholding to other persons for your sustenance—come do you interpret the obligations to honor the prajapatis and then neglect them your person by considering that Yoga is meant to conquer and by-pass them? We cannot make any plans or moves with out asking permission to leave them. By the supreme order we must be good Putras to our respective descendants.

Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad (3.8.9):


etasya vä akñarasya praçäsane


gärgi sürya-candramasau vidhåtau

tiñöhata etasya vä akñarasya
praçäsane gärgi dyäv-äpåthivyau vidhåtau tiñöhataù




“By the supreme order, under the superintendence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the moon, the sun, and the other great planets are moving.”


Just as everyone can see that Jesus's fame is base on the pastime that he rose from the dead and ascended to the Father . . . so similarly, why do Sanskrit translators make such a mess of relating the obvious? The Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad states clearly repeatedly the Vaishnava conclusion.

Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad (4.3.15):


ärämam asya paçyanti na taà paçyati kaçcana


na tam vidätha ya imä jajänänyad yuñmäkam antaram babhüva

néhäreëa prävåtä jalpyä cäsu-tåpa uktha-çäsaç caranti




“Everyone can see the place where the Lord manifested Himself in this world for His own pleasure, but still no one sees Him. None of you know Him who generated all these living beings, and thus there is a great difference between your vision and His. Covered by the fog of illusion, you performers of Vedic rituals indulge in useless talk and live only to gratify your senses.”


Surely you agree that the Vedic Literatures originated with God the Supreme Personality of Personalism? As stated in the sruti?

Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad (4.5.11):


asya mahato bhütasya


niçvasitam etad yad åg-vedo

yajur-vedaù sämavedo ’tharväìgirasaù




“The four Vedas—namely the Åg Veda, Yajur Veda, Säma Veda, and Atharva Veda—are all emanations from the breathing of the great Personality of Godhead.”

atanu
10 September 2009, 09:25 PM
Yes, we (vaishnavas) know. We know.

Your name "Brahman" is the name of God the Person

or

Your term "Brahman" is the name of a Blissfull state of Trance that 'elludes' qualities and even a definition that can be accepted as realilty as we know it.

Feel free to proffer an alternative of my definition.

Bhakta,

You must be a christian masquareding as a Hindu. You insult the faith of many without pausing to think. Have you experienced Brahman that you make comments that are in utter bad taste?

Lord Krishna teaches us:

Aksharam brahma paramam swabhaavo’dhyaatmamuchyate; Bhootabhaavodbhavakaro visargah karmasamjnitah.

And you, who thinks himself higher than Shri Krishna, terms it 'elusion', and you want a definition of this Aksharam brahma paramam?

God and Brahman both are words and thus names. Whereas God means controller, Brahman means infinite encompasser -- outside which there is no Sat-Chit-Ananda.

Om

atanu
10 September 2009, 09:31 PM
Atanu, surely you are beholding to other persons for your sustenance—

Bhakta,

Stop this nonsense please, so that a civil exchange can take place. Just stick to points and try to write simple english and not jigsaw puzzles. You think that you are writing simple english but you are not.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
10 September 2009, 09:57 PM
Yes, we (vaishnavas) know. We know.

Your name "Brahman" is the name of God the Person
or
Your term "Brahman" is the name of a Blissfull state of Trance that 'elludes' qualities and even a definition that can be accepted as realilty as we know it.
Feel free to proffer an alternative of my definition.

Bhakta,

Cut out the non-essential.

Shri Krishna says:

Aksharam brahma paramam swabhaavo’dhyaatmamuchyate; Bhootabhaavodbhavakaro visargah karmasamjnitah.

Brahman is the Paramam.

He further says:

13.13 Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute; Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.

13.13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.

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

What objection you have to this goal? Are you surrendered? Are you really following Shri Krishna's teachings?

Om

bhaktajan
10 September 2009, 10:32 PM
"Stop this nonsense please, so that a civil exchange can take place. Just stick to points and try to write simple english and not jigsaw puzzles. You think that you are writing simple english but you are not?"

Krishna delcares "He, who attains my personal company" ---also, attains Brahman* (Immortality aka, neither being nor non-being) ---Krishna says "I am that Brahman. I am the source and resting place of that Brahman"

Atanu, there is no shame in being fearfull of the loss of this present birth---you will find fearlessness after putting it to the test repeatedly during life.

ma sucah and thank-you Atanu-jnani-ji,
bhaktajan

[*Atanu wrote "beginningless supreme" --- I ask Atanu, 'Is there any other type of Brahman?']

atanu
11 September 2009, 12:27 AM
Krishna delcares "He, who attains my personal company" ---also, attains Brahman* (Immortality aka, neither being nor non-being) ---Krishna says "I am that Brahman. I am the source and resting place of that Brahman"
ma sucah and thank-you Atanu-jnani-ji

Namaste,
The fonts in red show that you have difficulty in maintaining a normal communication channel. You cannot desist to pepper your communications with snide remarks.


Have you attained Shri Krishna's sanniddhi? Your snide remarks and discontented state indicates the contrary. As, by your own admission, Shri Krishna is that Brahman, so it is all the more reason that you abide by His dictum:

13.13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.

And remember His other teaching:

Aksharam brahma paramam swabhaavo’dhyaatmamuchyate; Bhootabhaavodbhavakaro visargah karmasamjnitah.


[*Atanu wrote "beginningless supreme" --- I ask Atanu, 'Is there any other type of Brahman?']

Yes. There is.

Om Namay Shivaya

bhaktajan
11 September 2009, 04:10 PM
Atanu-jnani-ji,

Are you explaining the nature of your SELF?

You're being a bit crytic don't you think?

BTW, I do not execpt that there is more than one type/Kind/grade/Class of Brahman.

Just as 'water is wet' so too--- Brahman is beginningless & Supreme & Complete.

Wheater small brahman or big Brahman. Brahman is Brahman is Brahman.

[Not to be conflated with Param-Brahman's Person].

BTW, There are no 'snide remarks'. Your imagination is getting the best of you.
Maybe you are thinking of the word 'dis-ingenuous'?
But I sometimes think that your posts are somehow philosophically dis-ingenuous.

Jai Sri Sri Radha-Vrindavan-Chandra Ki Jai,
Bhaktajan

atanu
12 September 2009, 02:00 AM
Atanu-jnani-ji,
Are you explaining the nature of your SELF?
You're being a bit crytic don't you think?
BTW, There are no 'snide remarks'. Your imagination is getting the best of you.
Maybe you are thinking of the word 'dis-ingenuous'?
But I sometimes think that your posts are somehow philosophically dis-ingenuous.
Bhaktajan


Dear Bhaktajan,

On one hand you call me Atanu-jnani-ji and on the other 'crytic' (I do not know what that means) and dis-ingenuous, :D That is the very example of disingenuosness.


I request that instead of dodging here and there behind voluminous irrelevant texts we may please ponder over the main requirement, consisting of just two teachings:


Aksharam brahma paramam swabhaavo’dhyaatmamuchyate; Bhootabhaavodbhavakaro visargah karmasamjnitah.

and


13.13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.

Om Namah Shivaya

rkpande
12 September 2009, 06:15 AM
Dear Bhaktajan ji,
Namaskar,
I also some how, many a times, sensed that You always try to talk from a higher pedestal.

rk

Eastern Mind
12 September 2009, 07:30 AM
rkpande: lol Everyone's perceptions vary. I don't get that about Atanu. We all come from different backgrounds etc. I was born in a family full of practical jokers and sarcastic wit so many people don't get me. But then I don't get them. It's just the dance of the Lord.

Aum namasivaya

rkpande
12 September 2009, 10:11 AM
Dear EM,
I couldn't agree more with you. lol all the way. Dance of shiva, that's it.

yajvan
12 September 2009, 12:11 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
Namast&#233;

Namast&#233;
I have read the last several posts and what continues to ring in my ear is the wisdom of the kaṭhopaniṣad (2nd vallī, 8th sūtra) ,

One view
Thought of variously, It ( ātman or SELF) is not truly understood when taught by an inferior person (or nareṇāvareṇa). Yet when taught by one who sees himself not different ( or bahudhā , many parts) from the Real , then no other goal reamains to be attained. for sublter than the subtlesty, it is inaccessable to reasoning.

Another view
ātman, when taught by an inferior person, is not easily comprehended, because It is diversely regarded by disputants.
But when It is taught by him who has become one with ātman, there can remain no more doubt about It. Atman is subtler than the subtlest and not to be known through argument.


Said another way, we are blessed when Reality is taught by the muni of enlightened vision. Many on HDF has had this experience, many have not. There is a vast cavern in quality and comprehension between the two.

We do the best we can on HDF to offer keen insights, yet it is like the light of night - lots of stars that try to lighten the sky; but with the dawn, the brightness of the sun (sūrya) emerges to shine on all, the stars rejoice in the fullness of light that comes from the dawn - uṣa.

satyamantra ajanayan uṣasam - by the Truth in their thoughts (satyamantra) they brought the birth (ajanayan) of the Dawn (uṣasam) - ṛg ( some write ṛk, or rig) ved - 7.76.4


The brightness, brilliance, the Dawn of light and insight of brahman.


words
uṣa उष - the dawn; in the veda we see Her as the devā of spiritual awakening. ṛg veda 1.20.20 ' Lover of praises O Uṣa, deathless one,
Which mortal is fit to enjoy thee? O Luminious One, whom does thou attain?'

bhaktajan
12 September 2009, 03:58 PM
Atman is the Knower.

If a knower knows all things great and small yet does not know what the atman is ---all his work done for temporary goals.

Brahma-Bhuta is there underlying all temporary goals ---while you go about paying your bills.

Nowhere in the daily tabloids and periodicals for same at the corner market are aimed at the Brahma-Bhuta self-realization ---but Brahma-Bhuta state & the atman(knower) is present . . . but the attention to this detail is overlooked by "paying the rent ergo, life's desires".

Yajvan, what is the difficulty?
1 Serve a superior mentor (guru) ergo, gleen knowledge from the mentor.

2 Japa (harinama) & Divya-smaranam (sastra) & sanga (associate with colleagues of the Mentor),

3 Atmarama (satisfaction of the self without hankering) is a progressive engagement.

4 Sukadeva gosvami repeats the words he heard ---that sets the standard

Always in-want & hankering & divided-mind regarding the set goals to aspire for is the antitheist of Self-realisation.

Self-realisation has one prime-benefit: "Saving loved ones from ruination" Albeit, "Physician heal thy self" comes first ---then, secondly, the old doc later can lead a life as a bonefide Physician.

The whole of the Bhagavata-purana is prompted by a conceited little brahmana-bandhu boy . . . whose precipitated the entire Bhagavata-purana, causing the main character to ask the highest Paramount Question of all time:

Mah&#228;r&#228;ja Par&#233;k&#241;it’s main question was:
Bhagavata- purana (1.19.37-38) “ . . . I am therefore begging you to show the way of perfection for all persons, and especially for one who is about to die. Please let me know what a man should hear, chant, remember and worship, and also what he should not do. Please explain all this to me.

&#199;ukadeva Gosv&#228;m&#233; answered” (Bh&#228;g. 2.1.5):


tasm&#228;d bh&#228;rata sarv&#228;tm&#228;

bhagav&#228;n &#233;&#231;varo hari&#249;
&#231;rotavya&#249; k&#233;rtitavya&#231; ca
smartavya&#231; cecchat&#228;bhayam


“Everyone who desires to be free from all anxieties should always hear about, glorify and remember the Personality of Godhead, who is the supreme director of everything, the extinguisher of all difficulties, and the Supersoul of all living entities”.

Yajvan, do you think there is a higher dutiy for a man then to know the proper means of dyng? Are there more important goals to put on a spiritual aspirants’ lsit of things to-do?





BTW, "Nirvana" simply put is, "no qualities" ---some posters ask for scriptural verses to be cited & others ask for "personal testimony" ---I am surprised the simplest transaltion of "Nirvana" was omitted.

yajvan
12 September 2009, 08:02 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namast&#233; bhaktajan





Yajvan, what is the difficulty?
1 Serve a superior mentor (guru) ergo, gleen knowledge from the mentor.

2 Japa (harinama) & Divya-smaranam (sastra) & sanga (associate with colleagues of the Mentor),

3 Atmarama (satisfaction of the self without hankering) is a progressive engagement.

4 Sukadeva gosvami repeats the words he heard ---that sets the standard

Always in-want & hankering & divided-mind regarding the set goals to aspire for is the antitheist of Self-realisation.

Self-realisation has one prime-benefit: "Saving loved ones from ruination" Albeit, "Physician heal thy self" comes first ---then, secondly, the old doc later can lead a life as a bonefide Physician.

Yajvan, do you think there is a higher dutiy for a man then to know the proper means of dyng? Are there more important goals to put on a spiritual aspirants’ lsit of things to-do?

BTW, "Nirvana" simply put is, "no qualities" ---some posters ask for scriptural verses to be cited & others ask for "personal testimony" ---I am surprised the simplest transaltion of "Nirvana" was omitted

I am at a loss for the question(s) you may be answering within the context of the last ~ 10 posts or so within the theme of this overall string... yet thank you for the effort expended.
i.e.

Serve a superior mentor - okay, but to this, what was the question?
Japa - fine, sounds like a plan and worthy of a discussion.
Atmarama (satisfaction of the self without hankering) is a progressive engagement - fine.
do you think there is a higher dutiy for a man then to know the proper means of dyng?
- do you wish for me to answer this? how do I connect the dots with the theme?
etc. etc.You have offered various subject matter (content) worthy of discussion , yet I do not see it in the context of a theme or perhaps the next progressive idea that would fall in line. That is , I see multiple brush stokes in your offers/posts/ideas, yet I do not see the picture you wish to paint (communicate). I miss the continunity, the contiguious POV you offer.

That was the answer to your question of:
what is the difficulty? Others may have 20-20 vision on your offers, for me, I do not. Perhaps in a future post I will get what you offer.


praṇām

bhaktajan
13 September 2009, 10:58 AM
Ma priya Pandita Yajvan naradevji,

You wrote: "I do not see the picture you wish to paint"

as a result I am knocked off my seat and fallen to the ground.

Obviously I omited a translated phrase: Divya-smaranam (Remember divine lilas (pastimes) of sastra).

Let us get real! Hindu Dharma BEGINS WITH being a Proud Hindu
PUTRA.

The Identity of this thread's Title is the "SELF" ---therefore dharma follows in the form of becoming a proper PUTRA or PUTRI.

If the SELF/SOUL of every individual exists and thus preforms their own duties (sva-dharma) ---I thus, remind you from atop the highest pedistal that e-blogging allows, "The Duties of a Good PUTRA" is what I, bhaktajan, posted in Post #76.

It is the standard for being a good and responsible dutiful PUTRA/PUTRI who knows how to value of the Parampara that accorded him/her this present birth.

Yajvan, re-read Post 76 with the nostalgic memories of your provincial Hindu youth and recognise the traditions of your forefather's best wishes.

yajvan
13 September 2009, 11:15 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté bhaktajan



You wrote: "I do not see the picture you wish to paint"

as a result I am knocked off my seat and fallen to the ground.


I am in hopes your bump is small.:)


praṇām