PDA

View Full Version : A Realization : Saguna and Nirguna Brahman



smaranam
18 February 2010, 11:08 AM
prNAm to readers one and all

This may sound like nothing new to many , but to me its a major realization. This truth has dawned on me , not just in thought and theory, but as an experience , both gradually and suddenly, by the grace of the Lord , all shiksha Gurus and UshA , the 'dawn'.


Two Statements :

1. Says Radha : The Supreme Person Krshna
is my Husband, Guru and most dear Friend.
He is the Supreme Lord, and their is nothing beyond.

2. Says a Jnani : Brahman is Nirgun, NirAkAr,
has no form but can take AkAr.

Can both statements be true AT ONCE ? YES, they can, they ARE.
Can God be formless and with form, Nirgun and Sagun, A Person and Impersonal at once ? YES, He can, He IS.

Nirgun Brahman == Sagun Krshna (a repository of Gunas and oppulences)
Sagun Krshna == Nirgun Brahman

To Radha , there is nothing beyond Krshna. Never does she lose sight of Him.
What happens when Radha and Krshna take 7 rounds around AgnI ?
They unite and culminate into Radhe-ShyAm.
Neither remains RAdhA , nor remains ShyAm
What remains is THAT - pin-drop blissful silence of Turya, NirAkAr
Radhe-ShyAm is not a person, it is THAT, formless principle , Brahman NirAkAr

On MahAShivratri Day : Shiva weds UmA
This marraige result in the culmination of Shiva-Shakti
Neither remains UmA nor remains Shankar
What remains is THAT - pin-drop blissful silence of Turya, NirAkAr
UmA-Shankar is not a person, it is THAT, formless principle , Brahman NirAkAr

What is Radhe-ShyAm, UmA-Shankar ?
What is Lakshmi NArAyan, SitA-RAm ?
Radha, Krshna, Vishnu, Lakshmi, Shiva, Parvati are WITHIN US.
This statement is not some distant theory anymore !

RAdhA is the Knower of Krshna , the Known,
To Her there is nothing beyond Him, none, many or one
This is Advaita Bhakti alone.....

But RAdhe-ShyAm is THAT alone
THAT is the Knower as well as the Known
It is the Adi and Anta that Krshna says is Him
It is AnAdi , Ananta, the source and the sink
THIS is Advaita JnAna, He said with a wink

And THAT my dear is Brahman say wise people
Aham Brahmasmi , but that is not all,
Tat tvam asi, THAT THOU ART !
But do not rush, or put the horse before the cart


OH my God ! What have You done !
I don't believe this, I can't contain this
What is THIS ?
THIS , my dear is none other than THAT !

Should I run 5 miles , will I get over it ?
Not so easy, stay with this bliss
This bliss is sought after, but only if you are ready for it.

So never misunderstand , that Deities are "a means to an end"
Do not misread wise statements like "Deities are landmarks"
If such statements make one shudder, that my dear is a sign
that they are not ready for JnAna, that Bhakti alone is their path
Should stay with it , its wisdom, sweetness, n' love that lasts.

~ ~

Stories from the Garden, Feb 18 2010

=========

TERMS

Nirguna = without attributes
NirAkAr = formless
Turya = State of Supreme Consciousness
Adi = beginning
anAdi = without beginning
anta = end
ananta = without end, endless
JnAna = wisdom and knowledge of the Eternal Supreme , in this case, Brahman
Bhakti = devotion

kd gupta
18 February 2010, 11:29 AM
Similarly as husband and wife before marriage celebrate their birthdays , which happen to be two .After marriage the date is celebrated as one [Marriage day] , No seperate Identity[ nirgun ] .

smaranam
18 February 2010, 01:17 PM
Similarly as husband and wife before marriage celebrate their birthdays , which happen to be two .After marriage the date is celebrated as one [Marriage day] , No seperate Identity[ nirgun ] .

Thank You Guptaji , for adding to the pool of wisdom.

When a person starts out in this life on Jnana path, that's different, but even Shankaracharya does not recommend that for all.

However, when one involuntarily starts walking the path of quiet contemplation , after seeing , sensing , tasting Bhakti , as Radha being one and ShyAm another, then that is the winding path of Radhe-ShyAm , Purusha-Prakrti i.e. Brahman.

First they do not realize why, and where they are heading. The courage to stay comes with ShyAm's assurance that He never leaves, and its not
like Radha does not exist after. The end (and beginning) is neither one of them, but something else : Radhe-ShyAm.

smaranam
12 March 2010, 03:12 PM
Namaste



If Saguna were not a projection of the Nirguna for us , earthlings, if Saguna Brahman was IT, I wonder how the extra-terrestrial beings on other planets , in other galaxies would react and relate to BhagavAn in a personal way ?

OR, conversely, how does Brahman project Himself for the sake of those extra-terrestrials ?
With Shankha Chakra GadA Padma ?
Yellow PitAmbar ? Yellow of Hari's pitAmbar symbolizes the silicon-dioxide which mostly represents earth , acc. to Swami ChinmayAnanda in "Glories of Krishna"
Lotus eyes are the best , I can understand those could be "universal" :)

Vayjayanti Haar ?? I did not know there were flowers in other galaxies, also
real Lotuses. Or peacocks for that matter. Where would the Lord get those feathers from ? And the bamboo for the flute, can it grow on Pozidon ?

Please don't get me wrong. I love Hari the way He presents Himself to us,earthlings.

How can we assume He is only made for humans ? Do we have proof that there is no Jiva-jad prakruti, manifest life anywhere else except on earth ?
Are we claiming that earthlings are the only ones around ?


And if the whole fight and war against Advaita VedAnta waged by dualists , is out of possible danger to theism, that's perfectly understandable, and I say this :

Is prem (Love) so weak ? That we have to box and bash the advaitic Truth for prem to survive ?
Will accepting the advaitic param Absolute Truth (not by all, by those who appreciate it) leave no room for Leela with Parameshwar ?
Will it weaken our Love of God , or even make any difference to that Love ? Just because we now know that this sweetness is VyAvahAric Satya only (relatively real) albeit eternal for all practical purposes ?


Sant Dnyaneshwar wrote in his BhAvArtha DeepikA :

BG12.16 <--> Ovee 172 to 189: ...THAT devotee reached the limit of "I am That Brahman" in the spirit (bhAv) of sameness (sAmyAvasthA), and has become complete by reaching the other shore of duality (dvait). There is no room for duality in his mind, yet keeps the minimum duality and enjoys the bliss of devotion to Me. He divides his heart into two compartments. To one he gives My name (for Me to dwell) and stays in the other half.....

SwAmi VivekAnanda said in one of his DnyAna(Jn~ana) Yog lectures :

IF you think the Ved-purANa are all mythology, then you are an even bigger mythology !

That made me laugh. So true. Saguna Brahman may be a projection of Nirguna Brahman , but it is certainly more real than the transmigrating, transient, jIva (sukshma sharIra - subtle body) which is really just a character in Ishwar's dream !

All bhUta are swimming in Ishwar's dream as long as they have not woken up. What does the awakened jiva do ? She has all the freedom to

>> Just be as in exist !
>> Love and adore her Lord all she wants
>> Love the whole wide world as her own Self
>> Be the witness to the dream ( her own BMI and the world )

Sky is the limit for such a being.
Humility becomes an adorned ornament.
Working for others , helping 'others' is helping her Self or the Lord, she being Brahman, one without a second.
No qualms , pursuits, Asakti remains so she can walk , skate, glide and fly with the Lord, who is her very Self, on her side.
She may be subject to hardships, pain, misery, but knows she is Brahman, neither the dream events nor the BMI.


Shri Krshna Govind Hare MurAre
He NAth NArAyana VAsudeva

atanu
18 March 2010, 05:13 AM
Namaste
All jIvas are swimming in Brahman's dream as long as they have not woken up. What does the awakened jiva do ? She has all the freedom to


Namaste smaranam

Nice series of posts. I hope you will not mind my intrusion, perhaps? I am intruding to clarify a point, as I understand.

Brahman-Atman is only Sat-Chit-Ananda, which is not a Knower. It is only the Seer. The Knower, the vigyaan atman is formed of consciousness by Atman. Vigyaan Atman - the Purusha, is the functional form for the function of knowing but it is essentially consciousness, since knowing is impossible without consciousness.

Purusha of Thousand heads is all this. With limbs and heads He has entered 36,000 forms of arka (fire-desire). Each of these 36 thousand arka (fire) forms are as great as the primordial arka, the Purusha. Most of these forms are of Pasus. But some are controllers.

If the mind knows fully the 'M (Purusha-Sarvesvara)' of AUM or knows the OM as one indivisible, the effects are same. The various Rivers (16 outgoing kalAs of Purusha) then lose their names and forms and become Purusha.

Now, the above theory itself is probably a dreaming. Actually nothing ever happened -- as nothing happens in deep sleep.

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

There is no end to imagination at all. It is andimat - without beginning. To stop that, a very simple Advaita approach, as I understand, is to understand and remember that OM is all these diverse things, only when OM is seen by a particular seer as consisting of parts and states. It is said in Dvaita that it is Atman alone who assigned the functions, so the coming out of that function is eternally not possible for the Jiva, who must continue in its nature. IMO, it is only partially correct, since, the particular form has as its essence the Atman alone.

So one can meditate that OM actually is amAtra, indivisible, ungraspable, advaita, and changeless. That is why the highest Advaita sadhana is just "Soham". Another way is to practise Neti-Neti or "Who Am I?". All these are prescribed in shastra.

Dvaita and VA and other streams have their own approaches suitable for particular persons. And those methods are also prescribed in shastra.

The fights that go on are again good. Indra is always a fighter.

Best Wishes and Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

smaranam
18 March 2010, 07:52 AM
Namaste smaranam

Nice series of posts. I hope you will not mind my intrusion, perhaps? I am intruding to clarify a point, as I understand.

Namaste Atanuji, not at all. I am delighted to see you on this thread.
Of Course, I stand corrected.

Is the statement "All bhUta are swimming in Ishwar's dream" more accurate ? That's probably what i meant anyway. (There is another thread on which i have to correct this - "Tat Tvam Asi".) Although this is what 'occured' to me suddenly one day, BhAgvat says the world is MahAvishnu's dream, YogamAyA is of course involved.


Brahman-Atman is only Sat-Chit-Ananda, which is not a Knower. It is only the Seer. The Knower, the vigyaan atman is formed of consciousness by Atman. Vigyaan Atman - the Purusha, is the functional form for the function of knowing but it is essentially consciousness, since knowing is impossible without consciousness.

Although not entirely new, this is nectar. Let me digest it.
So Brahman-Atman is the Sakshi ? Wouldn't that be the role of the functioning Purusha (vidnyAn-AtmA) as well ?



Purusha of Thousand heads is all this. With limbs and heads He has entered 36,000 forms of arka (fire-desire). Each of these 36 thousand arka (fire) forms are as great as the primordial arka, the Purusha. Most of these forms are of Pasus. But some are controllers.

This Purusha of Purusha Sukta is the sAkshyam - the witnessed as well as the witness. (sAkshi-sAskyam as i understand it) .

The controllers are appearantly what we call the devas presiding on various (departmental) functions, forces and sub-tattvas.


If the mind knows fully the 'M (Purusha-Sarvesvara)' of AUM or knows the OM as one indivisible, the effects are same. The various Rivers (16 outgoing kalAs of Purusha) then lose their names and forms and become Purusha.

This is easy.


Now, the above theory itself is probably a dreaming. Actually nothing ever happened -- as nothing happens in deep sleep.

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

There is no end to imagination at all. It is andimat - without beginning. To stop that, a very simple Advaita approach.....

Hmmm i understand (implying , this mind understands somewhat, in theory). It will go over this for a while....

All this mind knows is it belongs to KRSNa. Of KRSNa , for KRSNa. irrespecticve of whether, to others, He is Ishwar , Brahman, SaguNa , NirguNa, pramAtmA or just ShyAmsundar VAsudev of DwApar Yuga.

There are times when this mind wants to know Him or the source, and there are times when it doesn't want to know, doesn't care. He is mine that's it.

It(mind) alternates between silence and activity whenever it naturally feels like, without having to lift a finger, as KRSNa(SELF) looks on. It had better stay away from this folder for a while.



Best Wishes and Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

You (and all of you) have been revealing a lot of scriptural treasure that is food for the intellect.

Many many humble praNAms

Jai Sri KRSNa
Aum Namah Shivaya

atanu
19 March 2010, 12:00 AM
[quote]This Purusha of Purusha Sukta is the sAkshyam - the witnessed as well as the witness. (sAkshi-sAskyam as i understand it) .

Yes that is what the sruti teach. It is good and new to me that Purusha is witness and the witnessed. That I think is excellent.


Is the statement "All bhUta are swimming in Ishwar's dream" more accurate ?

That may be very correct yet I do not know Ishwara. I know that something in me sees/thinks/knows etc. As long as the knowing is of measurable/seeable objects, it is OK.

But it has been told that the indivisible OM "I Am", the Self -the knower, who is all this, is unthinkable. Yet what can we do? We think of that which is unthinkable and take the thought/idea as "I am".

Isn't it? So, this is saguna. It is OK as long as the view leads to goodness. But that is not always the case.

I, as an advaitin, believe that thoug unthinkable "I am" is still the knowledge and the goal of knowledge, as taught in Vedanta and Gita. So, my methods are accordingly suited.

Hope this small post increases clarity instead of increasing muddiness.

Best Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

smaranam
19 March 2010, 12:02 PM
That may be very correct yet I do not know Ishwara. I know that something in me sees/thinks/knows etc. As long as the knowing is of measurable/seeable objects, it is OK.

But it has been told that the indivisible OM "I Am", the Self -the knower, who is all this, is unthinkable. Yet what can we do? We think of that which is unthinkable and take the thought/idea as "I am".

Isn't it? So, this is saguna. It is OK as long as the view leads to goodness. But that is not always the case.

I, as an advaitin, believe that thoug unthinkable "I am" is still the knowledge and the goal of knowledge, as taught in Vedanta and Gita. So, my methods are accordingly suited.

Hope this small post increases clarity instead of increasing muddiness.

Best Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Namaste

It does increase clarity, thank you.
The mind-intellect does not know Ishwar, but can theoretically accept that it is part of Ishwar's dream-creation. After all, the sAdhana is either thru' silence (beginning with silent observation of thought) - nidhidhyAsana , but also shravaNa, manana thru' the intellect.

Certainly "I AM" is the fact, and the AUM way is better than or a compliment to neti neti.
Which means that the silence after M of AUM is what this boils down to.

I suppose the choices for the BMI are , either to maintain the silence , or alternate between silence and
making use of what comes out of the silence to be with/do the best for Ishwar,
which feeds back into the silence.
That constitute Karma-Jn~Ana-Bhakti i guess, which are really all in the same place.

Silence is Brahman
Silence is Golden
So Brahman is golden (the centre of the Sun) [just kidding]


praNAm

atanu
19 March 2010, 01:06 PM
[quote=atanu;41604]
So Brahman is golden (the centre of the Sun) [just kidding]
praNAm


Pranam Smaranam

No kidding. The person in the Sun and the person in the right eye are one and same. That is a stupendous thing. The person is so vast. In the eye, He is seer Jivatman. In the Sun, He is Rudra or Surya Narayana, as per sampradaya. In the middle and everywhere, He is Brahman-Param Atman.

:)

Om namah Shivaya

amith vikram
22 March 2010, 02:02 AM
Namaste smaranam

Dvaita and VA and other streams have their own approaches suitable for particular persons. And those methods are also prescribed in shastra.

The fights that go on are again good. Indra is always a fighter.

Best Wishes and Regards

Om Namah Shivaya
namaste atanuji,
i always stop 2 read your posts fully and sometimes i come back and read again.but i am a bit confused with this stand.not only u but many advaitins say this.i am confused coz i am still in the process of clear understanding.in the commentaries,people clearly refute other views/schools.
how does this statement of 'suits particular people' stand?
dont get me wrong

atanu
22 March 2010, 05:55 AM
namaste atanuji,
i always stop 2 read your posts fully and sometimes i come back and read again.but i am a bit confused with this stand.not only u but many advaitins say this.i am confused coz i am still in the process of clear understanding.in the commentaries,people clearly refute other views/schools.
how does this statement of 'suits particular people' stand?
dont get me wrong


Namaste Amith

Not at all. We are discussing and through queries, understanding ripens. I agree that Advaita teachers are fixed in their teaching that it is the Jnana that alone is the cause of Moksha and the works are like attendants that help. The example given is of a horse and a plough, which alone ploughs; the horse being the attendant here.

Maitrayana-Brahmaya U. explains in the following way:

'Meditation is directed to the highest Being (Brahman) within, and (before) to the objects (body, Om, mind); thence the indistinct understanding becomes distinct.

And when the works of the mind are dissolved, then that bliss which requires no other witness, that is Brahman (Atman), the immortal, the brilliant, that is the way, that is the (true) world.'
-----------

So, the objects of meditation (and also the works) have a place in the scheme of things. Yet, finally when the ego i fully dissolves in the "I", and no trace of ego i remains, then only the goal is said to be attained. To me it is the ultimate meaning of surrender, which is not possible till the Jnana of Atman is gained.

Hope this is of use but I welcome you to enlighten us with your understanding also.

Om Namah Shivaya

amith vikram
22 March 2010, 07:55 AM
namaste,
i didn't understand ur reply.r u telling that eventually a person'll find the destiny(advaita?)
what i feel is,karma yoga is impossible without the advaitic understanding.
so my view is,dvaita and va or any other path is not the road towards moksha.
but i asked u a Q,why would anyone say,all paths are OK 'to some extent',when u refute the other paths at the same time.

atanu
22 March 2010, 11:23 AM
namaste,
i didn't understand ur reply.r u telling that eventually a person'll find the destiny(advaita?)

Namaste amith

Thank you for your post. It raises questions that I may not be able to address fully. Regarding the above, I agree that eventually a person will arrive at the only sea there is. That is probably like an apple falling and not flying away. There is scripture which supports this.


what i feel is,karma yoga is impossible without the advaitic understanding.

I feel the same. But stages of karma yoga may be possible for different people for different reasons. For example, same injunctions are issued in different ways to different people. Shri Krishna tells there are (i think) four types of devotees and He speaks highly of the wise. That indicates that the wise are the real motiveless devotees. Yet gaining that wisdom of motiveless living may be somewhat like learning cycling -- a fall a few times is natural.

Discarding age old samskara of natural thinking "What is there in it for me?" does take time and surely it raises its head in advaitins also.


so my view is,dvaita and va or any other path is not the road towards moksha.

I think that is for the leader of the Paths to decide. Ishwara is called pathInAM pataye (Leader of all paths).


but i asked u a Q,why would anyone say,all paths are OK 'to some extent',when u refute the other paths at the same time.

I actually said "Dvaita and VA and other streams have their own approaches suitable for particular persons---."

For example, on certain days/times, it is very easy for me to just drop the i onto the unlimited and continue for days or weeks with the egoless existence. But at other times the i comes up and then perforce, i have to revert to Dvaita meditation. Different stages in meditation are known and the progress always is not linear.

While it is true that Advaita experience is the final moksha but does that mean a materialistic man will never approach it? Or a dualistic devotee will not lose oneself and realise the single existence anytime?

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
22 March 2010, 11:20 PM
namaste,
but i asked u a Q,why would anyone say,all paths are OK 'to some extent',when u refute the other paths at the same time.

Namaste Amith

It was pointed out above that my actual statement was different. However, even this statement should be understood.

First, for Advaita darshana there is no conflict with any other darshana. Gaudapada taught:


III-17. The dualists, firmly settled in their own doctrine which is arrived at by their own conclusions, contradict one another. But this (view of the non-dualist) is in no conflict with them.
III-18. Non-duality is indeed the supreme Reality, inasmuch as duality is said to be its product. For them duality constitutes both (the Real and the unreal). Hence this (our view) is not opposed (to theirs).


-------------------------
We are concerened only with sat, leaving aside the asat of the phenomena.


What is perceived as refutation of other paths by advaitins is less of refutation and more of explanation. For example, Vidyaranya is credited to have observed that excellent teaching of Dvaita leads to Advaita (same view as the blue part highlighted above).


When a Buddhist refutes Advaita, we say "That which you are denying, with that you are refuting -- namely the consciousness". We also remind them that Buddha has taught of an unchangeable unborn reality. We counter VA proponent, when he refutes Advaita, with the logic that Brahman cannot be comprised of parts that are limited intelligence called souls and achit matter. If these were really parts of Brahman then karma of these limited beings are attributable to Brahman. To the bhakta who says that Surrender is the only way, we remind him whether he could surrender that one thing, which separates him from God? And more.


Om Namah Shivaya

kd gupta
23 March 2010, 08:29 AM
namaste atanuji,
i always stop 2 read your posts fully and sometimes i come back and read again.but i am a bit confused with this stand.not only u but many advaitins say this.i am confused coz i am still in the process of clear understanding.in the commentaries,people clearly refute other views/schools.
how does this statement of 'suits particular people' stand?
dont get me wrong

I too maintain a distance from Advaitins , with the fear of landing in atheism:o because dil to kachcha hai , I feel myself immatured .

Atanuji , namaste

I want the explanation of this shloka in Advaitin language…
Kaangkshantah karmanaam siddhim yajanta iha devataah;
Kshipram hi maanushe loke siddhir bhavati karmajaa….4/12
Those who long for success in action in this world sacrifice to the gods, because success
is quickly attained by men through action.

atanu
23 March 2010, 11:16 AM
I too maintain a distance from Advaitins , with the fear of landing in atheism:o because dil to kachcha hai , I feel myself immatured .

Namaste KD ji

It is very normal. As long as 'i' is there, the 'I' will be another, and the relationship will oscillate from vibhakti (division) and bhakti (union). That is why dil kachcha hai. When the 'i' is known as an error of perception, where is the question of the above kind of osciillation?

:gotcha:


I want the explanation of this shloka in Advaitin language…

Kaangkshantah karmanaam siddhim yajanta iha devataah;
Kshipram hi maanushe loke siddhir bhavati karmajaa….4/12
Those who long for success in action in this world sacrifice to the gods, because success is quickly attained by men through action.

I think 4.11 and 4,12 should be taken together in the context of Amith's Q.

Om Namah Shivaya

Nara
23 March 2010, 03:56 PM
.... Yet, finally when the ego i fully dissolves in the "I", and no trace of ego i remains, then only the goal is said to be attained. To me it is the ultimate meaning of surrender, which is not possible till the Jnana of Atman is gained.

Dear atanu, what you are describing is VA, not A at all.

VA says brahman is the supporter, commander, and the master of Jagat. This three fold connection is never separable. Jagat is an attribute of Brahman and is never separated from Brahman. In as much as the blemishes of one's body do not touch its soul, the blemishes of Jagat do not contaminate brahman. With this, the bheda, abheda, and ghataka shruti all fall nicely into place.

In the ultimate, when Jiva realizes this relationship through an interrupted contemplation upon the glories of Brahman, namely bhakti yoga , or through total and unconditional surrender, namely prapatti, salvation results. Then, when ties of samsara falls off, so does the notion of an independent I. The jiva fully comprehends and enjoys the bliss of complete and inseparable dependence on Brahman. An inseparable unity between the jiva and brahman results even while the separate individuality is present.

Cheers!

p.s.
satay and I have been exchanging PMs and I have decided to return to the forum, may be to the dismay of some :). I wish to thank satay for his even handed and fair approach.

atanu
23 March 2010, 05:33 PM
Dear atanu, what you are describing is VA, not A at all.

Namaste nara

I said:


.... Yet, finally when the ego i fully dissolves in the "I", and no trace of ego i remains, then only the goal is said to be attained. To me it is the ultimate meaning of surrender, which is not possible till the Jnana of Atman is gained.
If above is description of VA understanding, then you are perhaps a follower of Advaita. But I see that later you write:


----- namely prapatti, salvation results. Then, when ties of samsara falls off, so does the notion of an independent I. The jiva fully comprehends and enjoys the bliss of complete and inseparable dependence on Brahman. An inseparable unity between the jiva and brahman results even while the separate individuality is present.

This is not Advaita. This is the stage of many of us who have not attained Turya. You may contemplate on the oft repeated question as to how an 'i' (ego 'i') is going to experience Advaita Atman as a Second Self?


Om Namah Shivaya

PS:


satay and I have been exchanging PMs and I have decided to return to the forum, may be to the dismay of some :). I wish to thank satay for his even handed and fair approach.

??????????????

smaranam
23 March 2010, 07:11 PM
p.s.
satay and I have been exchanging PMs and I have decided to return to the forum, may be to the dismay of some :). I wish to thank satay for his even handed and fair approach.

Welcome back

amith vikram
24 March 2010, 03:28 AM
atanuji,
you've defended ur statement very nicely.i dont know if i'll ever have such a 'foreign policy' towards other schools:)
all the siddhantas are more or less same(i know very little,though),but the one point where all other schools deflect is the jagan mithya concept.well,i've tried 2 discuss with a few people why they burst out at this,all the time people take the examples or concentrate on part of examples as the whole,or in some ocassions they quote a verse which explains somethin else in some other context.
so i said the other schools cant lead to the final point.how can it,when it misses the most important thing of 'aham brahmasmi' on which the whole lot of karma is based on?

smaranam
24 March 2010, 08:44 AM
Namaste



so i said the other schools cant lead to the final point.how can it,when it misses the most important thing of 'aham brahmasmi' on which the whole lot of karma is based on?

The thing is , the other schools don't want to reach the same point. i.e. Kaivalya or even Sayujja. The definition of liberation is different.

salokya - same abode as the Lord
samipya - proximity with the Lord
sarupya - same form as the Lord
sayujja - union or oneness with the Lord

The very nature of bhakti is desirelessness , which includes no expectations even for liberation. This is naishkarmya siddhi.
I too do not understand "pushing away liberation" or "i don't want even the first three forms of mukti" . It really means , the devotee does not keep any expectation from His Grace. If it descends, it descends. No demand.

Acc. to Lord Dattatreya, the above 4 is the sequence, and ultimately, one comes around to sayujja as its the highest form of selflessness - giving up one's individuality.
This is 'impersonalism' to personal devotees, and unthinkable. They claim they will never [feel the need to] go for it.

As of today, there are times when it is unthinkable for me as well.
But i don't condemn it, or show contempt for it, like some sAmpradAyas do. I just cannot handle it , not prepared or willing, that's all.

THIS is what Atanuji was refering to. That eventually everyone will come around to advaita.

Aham Brahmasmi is interpreted differently by different schools. Absolute Advaitic Jn~Ana is not a joke and not for everyone in this life at least.

That brings my QN - what is sukshma sharIra that one carries over while transmigrating ? Is it something about genetic memory and genes , coupled with consciousness and intelligence ? Where are the samskAr stored ? Who keeps track of them ? The SELF of course. We cannot say He will not remember everyone's samskAr. Wonder how He preserves localized samskAr , hence individual karma , which He has nothing to do with. He is amazing nevertheless.

Here is a post by Saidevoji on this topic
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=34955&postcount=7

atanu
24 March 2010, 11:30 AM
atanuji,
you've defended ur statement very nicely.i dont know if i'll ever have such a 'foreign policy' towards other schools:)
all the siddhantas are more or less same(i know very little,though),but the one point where all other schools deflect is the jagan mithya concept.well,i've tried 2 discuss with a few people why they burst out at this,all the time people take the examples or concentrate on part of examples as the whole,or in some ocassions they quote a verse which explains somethin else in some other context.
so i said the other schools cant lead to the final point.how can it,when it misses the most important thing of 'aham brahmasmi' on which the whole lot of karma is based on?

Dear Amith

Young fellows are fast and naughty.:) I agree with you fully. You are correct and probably that is why so many bhaktas fall from Vaikuntha, despite being in presence of saguna Lord. Smaranam has already stated that the goals are different. I however, feel that scripturally VA and D cannot be faulted within their scope. I will try to explain. A geologist may describe a whole Mountain and another geologist may describe the rock compostion of that same mountain. The descriptions will vary. They do not miss 'aham brahmasmi' but they interpret it differently because their attainment target is limited to saguna.

Dvaita says that the eternal reality is sat (Prabhu) and jivas-we, distinctively apart eternally. So, they are saying that the eternal truth is sat and asat; and Seer runs as common factor joining these two. So the Seer cannot be anything but Sat, the eternal, and the single principle. This is same as Advaita. Rest of Dvaita is also OK as Vyavarika Satyam, but Advaita, as per the Mahavakyas and as per the direction that the Sat must be known, goes further and establishes the mithyam of Jagat, which is like a movie going on the screen of Brahman. One movie ends and another is begun -- so the movies play on. But some seers that inhabit the jiva forms (that are eternal because these are unborn) leave those Jiva forms and unite wth Eko Seer, which is the Seer, the Seen, and the Seeing. Thus getting freed of the jiva form wherein the purushs is dwelling is the goal for Advaitins.

VA also does not teach that there are more than one Atman. It teaches that there are eternal jivas within Brahman, and these eternal jivas are qualitatively same but quantitatvely different from Brahman (VA teaches jivas are like shapes made of gold and this is not different from Advaita). But I see the point that jivas, which are living beings are actually Purusha plus Prakriti and not only Purusha. So, when the question of knowing the Purusha will arise, VA will have no answer. Moreover, making the Jivas as eternally real as Brahhman, VA subjects Brahman to Karma and also breaks the sruti that Brahman is partless. So, Madhava opposes VA on this ground.

Va and D both thus appear to contradict the vedanta that there is only a single funadamental principle, which is the highest truth and which is called Brahman-Self. Another aspect on which VA and D on one hand and A on the other differ is mode of worship. Advaita targets to attain the Nirguna. VA and D target the Saguna. We have ealier seen the consequences of this.


It is true that the transcendental akshara Atman is avvyaya (imperishable) Pragnya in the sensual Universe. So, one can have the target of attainment, the avvaya. And being joined with the imperishable Pragnya, one may worship the Supreme Person manifest in the Universe - namely the Sun or Ishwara in any form. Now, to such a person, if it be told that Jagat Mithyam -- then the heaven will break lose. Such a person will not pause to understand that we are saying "God is the single Truth".

But in Jagat, we are also not able to follow Advaita fully. In fact, Shri Ramana Maharshi teaches that till one is unified with Pragnya, one must not apply Advaita to Ishwara and Guru.

What I have written is my understanding and may not be error free. But there is the dictum of Shri Ramana; and Shri Shankara himself instituted Ishwara puja in a formal way, including all Deities that represent the Paramatma tattva in Hindu faith.

Om Namah Shivaya

Nara
24 March 2010, 12:08 PM
.... If above is description of VA understanding, then you are perhaps a follower of Advaita.

Dear atanu, I am not a follower of any of these, my discussion is purely academic.

VA is Advaitam only in the sense there is only one immutable reality called Brahman or Iswara, with jagat as its attributes and endowed with infinite auspicious qualities. Jagat is not mitya, it is real, but its existence is completely dependent upon Brahman as the existence of a body is completely dependent on the jiva pervading it.

VA rejects the concept of Nirguna Brahman as such a proposition that is contrary to all pramana, pratyaksha, anumana and shruti.

While A can state that there is a Nirguna Brahman and that is moksham, it is only a stated position, not an indisputable fact totally consistent with the pramanas.


??????????????Just my attempt at a little humor, that is all....

Cheers!

atanu
24 March 2010, 12:16 PM
Dear atanu, I am not a follower of any of these, my discussion is purely academic.

VA is Advaitam only in the sense there is only one immutable reality called Brahman or Iswara, with jagat as its attributes and endowed with infinite auspicious qualities. Jagat is not mitya, it is real, but its existence is completely dependent upon Brahman as the existence of a body is completely dependent on the jiva pervading it.

VA rejects the concept of Nirguna Brahman as such a proposition that is contrary to all pramana, pratyaksha, anumana and shruti.

While A can state that there is a Nirguna Brahman and that is moksham, it is only a stated position, not an indisputable fact totally consistent with the pramanas.

Just my attempt at a little humor, that is all....

Cheers!

Dear Shri nara

I take it as humour only and I suggest that we may discuss in the original thread 'meant for refutation' etc., wherein all pramans are recorded. Let there be some threads wherein followers of a path discuss among themselves and some other posts where inter path discussions may take place.

I think we may follow this idea. I think Snip or Ekanta proposed this.

Om Namah Shivaya

vivendi
24 March 2010, 02:01 PM
If above is description of VA understanding, then you are perhaps a follower of Advaita. But I see that later you write:
Dear Atanu, Professor Nara is a follower of Buddhism.

Welcome back professor. I look forward to reading your posts and expose Hinduism.

Nara
24 March 2010, 09:08 PM
Dear Atanu, Professor Nara is a follower of Buddhism.


vivendi, I am amazed at your insight. Truly remarkable, you are able to figure things out about me that I did not even know, so conclusively. Pray tell, what kind of ice-cream do I like? What kind of music do I enjoy most? I am really really curious, and dying to know, please enlighten me.

peace....

kd gupta
24 March 2010, 09:59 PM
Dear atanu, I am not a follower of any of these, my discussion is purely academic.

VA is Advaitam only in the sense there is only one immutable reality called Brahman or Iswara, with jagat as its attributes and endowed with infinite auspicious qualities. Jagat is not mitya, it is real, but its existence is completely dependent upon Brahman as the existence of a body is completely dependent on the jiva pervading it.

VA rejects the concept of Nirguna Brahman as such a proposition that is contrary to all pramana, pratyaksha, anumana and shruti.

While A can state that there is a Nirguna Brahman and that is moksham, it is only a stated position, not an indisputable fact totally consistent with the pramanas.

Just my attempt at a little humor, that is all....

Cheers!
Thanks Prof Nara
You really did a good job adding this word… Humor and also adding a new concept of Academic Brahman . Now I want to know about this happening .
One day I tried my best to sneak , to climb a tree , but could not see the Road show , suddenly a tall old man helped me on his shoulders and I enjoyed the show .

I think that the person was not a Academic or Nirgun one .:rolleyes:

atanu
24 March 2010, 11:49 PM
Thanks Prof Nara
You really did a good job adding this word… Humor and also adding a new concept of Academic Brahman . Now I want to know about this happening .
One day I tried my best to sneak , to climb a tree , but could not see the Road show , suddenly a tall old man helped me on his shoulders and I enjoyed the show .

I think that the person was not a Academic or Nirgun one .:rolleyes:

Dear KD

And there at the same place, I was also there. I wanted to see a very low thing and that tall man could not stoop low enough and make the low thing visible. Then I took help of a moosika and saw the low thing.

Brahman is not Mind and the attributes of Mental Guna do not apply to God. If I say Brahman is Tall that means Brahman cannot be short. If I say Brahman is strong that means Brahman cannot be weak. Etc. Etc.


Om Namah Shivay

atanu
24 March 2010, 11:54 PM
Dear Vivendi

I think you surmise correctly. But probably not a proper practising Buddhist either. When someone does not believe a Personal God, yet asserts that Shankara bluffed by differentiating Nirgunam and Sagunam, drawing support from Ramanuja's teachings, the picture seems unclear.

Regards

Om

atanu
24 March 2010, 11:59 PM
Dear Amith and Friends

Shankaracharya says in Vivekachudamani that one following Advaita should be able to defend the darshana with wisdom and knowledge. The following is towards that so that we may together understand better and explain better when the need arises. Again this is what I understand and you all are requested to add and expand.

Guna refers to three kinds of Guna-s that pertain to Prakritic Mind. Brahman is the source/creator of this Mind and is not influenced by the Guna-s. On the contrary Brahman is the controller of Guna-s, when appearing as Ishwara.

Those opposed to Advaita say that Brahman cannot be without attributes. IMO, it is a confusion they have between measurable attributes such as Length breath etc of a body and the very nature of Purusha that inhabits the body, namely Sat-Chit-Ananda. This higher Prakriti is that which is co-eval with existence itself -- the Brahman. The higher Prakriti, the very nature of Brahman is said to be Sat-Chit-Ananda-Anantam and also akarta, nirakar, nirguna etc.

The higher nature -- the sat-chit-ananda, naturally give rise to ardour (tapa) and thoughts, which is the Mind. The lower natures of Guna-s pertain to the effect called Mind alone.

Shri Krishna Himself teaches Arjuna "Be above the Prakritic Gunas --". In the 13th Chapter of Gita, Paramatman is described as nirguna. At several places Shri Krishna talks of His higher and lower natures. He also clarifies that Parmatman does not create karma for anyone.

So, one must distinguish between swabhava (the inherent nature, which is a constant companion of a thing and by which the measurements are made) from the measurable acquired attributes as length, strength, splendour etc. which always vary.

In this context, it is interesting to note that unlimited splendour and opulence is attributed to Saguna Lord, who however, says that "Sun does not shine there -- By its light all others shine. Brahman-Self is unthinkable. Our thinking or perception of Brahman for the purpose of worship or meditation, however is always with Guna. So our perception is always saguna.

Om

vivendi
25 March 2010, 11:12 AM
vivendi, I am amazed at your insight. Truly remarkable, you are able to figure things out about me that I did not even know, so conclusively. Pray tell, what kind of ice-cream do I like? What kind of music do I enjoy most? I am really really curious, and dying to know, please enlighten me.

peace....

Thank you dear brother Nara. Lets just say that I have a great insight and leave it at that. We are discussing philosophy here, not ice cream or music. In case if you happen to discuss the pros and cons of various ice creams and music, then I may choose to post about your likings there too. Unfortunately or fortunately, this forum is about discussing Hindu dharma we can focus on that for now.

amith vikram
26 March 2010, 01:01 AM
Jagat is not mitya, it is real, but its existence is completely dependent upon Brahman as the existence of a body is completely dependent on the jiva pervading it.

VA rejects the concept of Nirguna Brahman as such a proposition that is contrary to all pramana, pratyaksha, anumana and shruti.

While A can state that there is a Nirguna Brahman and that is moksham, it is only a stated position, not an indisputable fact totally consistent with the pramanas.

Just my attempt at a little humor, that is all....

Cheers!
namaste,
all the shrutis and puranas say that brahman is the only reality.when u say jagat is real,just tell me what is jagat?please explain jagat and reality seperately and then you explain how jagat is real.
u say jagat which is 'real' is 'dependant' on brahman,which is what?a greater reality?how real is this jagat?
and further u say,like a body dependant on jiva.body perishes.so body is not real,although we can see our body and do things through it.so this is not a valid reason.actually u cant find anything which supports the view of a reality depending on reality.and what is this jiva again?
i think nirguna brahman and saguna brahman is the modern concept being evolved.brahman is defined as being nirguna always.even BG says that.i guess some where krishna says,i have no love or hate towards anyone....etc.scriptures apart,logically speaking, guna leads to karma and samsara.a person being born is bound by guna and karma.that is due to the wrong notion of 'i'.when we understand that the 'i' is not dependant on karma,etc.,the wrong notion vanishes.the guna takes effect only when there is karma,which is based on aishanas which is based on wrong notion of 'i'.as long as there is the wrong notion of 'i',we are not freed of guna and karma.so when there is no guna to jiva,how can we say there is guna to brahman?.then the mahavakya tat tvam asi will be a joke.coz anyway,we too have guna,and brahman too has guna,so why so much fuss about yoga,karma,meditation,liberation....etc..etc...
i may be totally wrong.but this is my understanding.

smaranam
29 March 2010, 03:37 PM
I prefer two very simple logic. First, if the Truth is one, then what that Truth (you as Atman) imagines of a second entity (the world or Ishwara) can only be an imagination. It is imagination by the True of a non-existent entity. Thus Shri Krishna is Sat and Asat. Second, if the scripture asks us to know the Truth of Advaita Atman, then the knowing cannot involve knowing of a knower and another known. Scripture has very skillfully used the word "Advaita Atman". Knowing Advaita Atman cannot lead to knowing of another Atman.

It is for you to stay fixed or to explore with genuine openness.

My Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Namaste Atanuji

I-the-mind understand, but did you-the-mind not say that AtmAn never imagines or dreams ? So i-the-mind said perhaps "Ishwar dreams up jivas and jagat" is more accurate than saying "Brahman dreams". Unless you mean 'vijn~yana Brahman'.

Now, AtmAn that I AM, chooses to be "WE ARE" and stay "WE ARE".

"We Are" as "Him and (insignificant)me"

This is where WE choose to draw the line, whether it is considered NirguNa , SaguNa , both, or neither sat nor asat.

Sant GorA KumbhAr sang in praise of PAnduranga Vitthal "NirguNAchA sanga dharilA jo Avadi kar katAvari theuniyA...." I do not have the exact words.
In short he calls PAnduranga (KRSNa) NirguNa.

So the gateway to the same NirguNa takes different forms - KRSNa, Shiva, Devi etc. To each , KRSNa Himself is the AtmAn and NirguNA Infinite or Shiva Himself is that NirguNa Infinite. They are not simply the outward peacock feather & flute OR jatA mukut & Crescent moon, etc.

I am sure you agree with that.

If you say this is saguNa or vyAvahAric , that's fine with me :) "We are saguNa-nirguNa"

praNAm
Jai Shri KRSNa

smaranam
01 April 2010, 09:12 AM
Radha looked over the deck as the ship slowly moved towards the harbor. The Advaita VedAnta cruise was good, she learnt many things, but it was time to disembark. She pondered over the happenings in the last few days....

How could she have not noticed such a fundamental piece - which does not acknowledge her existence, and prem ? What was she doing ??
Wait a minute... perhaps KRSNa had sent YogaMAyA to cast a spell on her so she would not notice, and all the clues and words would go on deaf ears ? Simply because He wanted her to have a good time on the Vedanta cruise ? Undisturbed, so she would not disembark in the middle of it ? Since the cruise was what she wanted to do , to get to know Him better ? What kind of a tender Heart He has ! softer than butter.

One qn they asked her was "why the need for another pair of eyes" Need ? That's what she is made for ! It only appears as a need, but in reality is existence.
The error is in asking the wrong person - Radha.

Radha is not a stand-alone AtmA, but KRSNa's creation, and the essence and purpose of her existence was adoration of KRSNa.

KRSNa manifests Radha , but reaches out to the dream-jiva for the sake of the jiva. Jiva needs KRSNa. To bhaja that Govinda , jiva has to look into His Lotus Eyes.

KRSNa is BhagavAn, sat-chit-Ananda , complete, and a bramhachAri as per GopAl TApani Upanishad. Yet He manifests Radha. Why ?
The jiva witnesses Radha bloom as KRSNa keeps watering the plant.

This qn (why two) is really questioning BhagavAn Shri KRSNa , of the existence of Radha
and BhagavAn Shri VishNu, of the existence of Shri.

Radha cannot 'not exist' , her manifestation is for a purpose. Even if she (in some absurd way) had the tools to do so, what right does she have to not exist , after being created , chosen and adored by KRSNa ? How could she even think of something like that ?

So Radha lives for KRSNa, and KRSNa keeps Radha alive for Radha , which in turn is for Himself. They go in an infinite and recursive loop. This is Prem, not kAm. Surely they know that ? Prem is selfless, kAm is selfish.

When it comes to a sAdhak-jiva (aspirant), certainly they have a point, as the selfless prem has not yet developed.
However, prem is shAsvat (eternal) , pure (pavitra) and not to be mistaken for Myth- mithya- kAm, so say the AchAryas. Apparently this does not create any sansAr or jagat . Worldly attachment is mithya and kAm. This is why Radha-KRSNa have to leave Prakrti behind so she can let the dream-jagat continue... Radha is not part of the dream, just as Prakrti isn't.



At some times and locations on the Purusha (latitude longitude) He manifests in the left eye, and at other times and locations He doesn't.

Read as : For some aspirants, the involuntary calling is RAdhA, for some others, it could be the more Universal Shivo-AtmA. The key word is involuntary. Hence asking Radha the above qn is futile.


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


She felt a gentle hand on her shoulder , which dizzied her with happiness "What are you thinking so deeply about, Radhe ?" (As if He did not know)
She fought back tears before turning to Him "Nothing.... Thank You for a very good cruise , KAnhA, but i am glad it is over."
"Why so soon ? Don't you want to go further south and see ...."
"I don't think so KAnhA"
She looked at the Gentle One . Did not want to tell Him that she would become the reason for more aparAdh (offense) to Him. The people she met on the cruise were not at fault , they were just following their school. May KRSNa bless them , may Shiva bless them..... they ARE blessed............. She paid her heartfelt obeissances to them.

praNAm

smaranam
01 April 2010, 11:47 AM
Namaste

A million thanks , Atanuji , for taking the effort to put questions and point out things that were logical flaws or contradictory acc. to you, and acc. to Advaita.

You have unknowingly helped Radha :)
This post above was supposed to explain what is the purpose of Radha , that is all. I was going to reply to your qn in the other thread, but keeping it in this thread becs its more relevant here than on a thread titled 'practical advaita', and a part of a more generic post on Radha.

** This is not April Fool **

And million thanks Gramesji, for praying for me

praNAm
Jai Shri KRSNa