PDA

View Full Version : Who or what controls the mind and intellect, according to the Bhagavad Gita?



Onkara
13 September 2010, 03:24 AM
Within the context of the Bhagavad Gita, who or what controls the intellect/mind/senses?

E.g.
yas tv indriyani manasa
niyamyarabhate ’rjuna
karmendriyaih karma-yogam
asaktah sa visisyate

One who controls the senses by a trained and purified mind
and intellect and engages the organs of action to selfless
service, is superior, O Arjuna. (3.07)

mukunda20
13 September 2010, 04:01 AM
Namaste Snip,
the answer to your question is given by Sri Krishna in the same chapter (sloka 42) where He clearly describes the hierarchy when Arjuna asks Him as to why people commit sin(Paapa).
chapter 3 sloka 42
indriyani parany ahur
indriyebhyah param manah
manasas tu para buddhir
yo buddheh paratas tu sah

(rough translation) It is declared the senses are superior (to the body), but more than the senses, the mind is superior. but more than the mind, the intellect is superior, but more than the intellect that which is superior is the Atma.
So the hierarchy in descending order is as follows.
Atma
|
Buddhi (Intellect)
|
Manas(Mind)
|
Indriya(Senses)
|
Deha(Body)

one can clearly see that the physical body(Stula sharira) consists of the last layer(Deha) and the subtle body(sookshma sharira) consists of the upper layers stated in the above hierarchy.

indeed the following information is not pertaining to the question asked, but is related to the hierarchy.Sri Krishna explains in the 15th chapter as to what happens when prana leaves a body(when a living being dies).
if we see the chapter 15 sloka 7,8 and 9.
sloka 7
mamaivamso jiva-loke
jiva-bhutah sanatanah
manah-sasthanindriyani
prakriti-sthani karshati
verily the embodied living entity(Atma) is My infinitesimal potency(Amsha) and eternal; in the world of embodied living entities, the influence of the material energy is carried by the mind and the six perceptual senses.

sloka 8
sariram yad avapnoti
yac capy utkramatishvarah
grhitvaitani samyati
vayur gandhan ivasayat
whatever body the Atma enters and from whatever body it departs,it carries the subtle body from the old body and transfers it to a new body just like the air carries away the fragnance from its point of origin
sloka 9
srotram caksuh sparshanam ca
rasanam ghranam eva ca
adhisthaya manas cayam
visayan upasevate
The living entity, thus taking another gross body, obtains a certain type of ear, eye, tongue, nose and sense of touch, which are grouped about the mind. He thus enjoys a particular set of sense objects.

roughly put, Sri Krishna explains beautifully as to what happens when a living being dies and what body(stoola sharira) it takes and how the Atma puts the subtle body(sookshma sharira consisting of the buddhi, manas and indriyas) from one body to another.
hope this helps,
regards,
mukunda

kallol
13 September 2010, 04:32 AM
Analogy :

A robot :

The heirarchy :

1. Body for action - organ of actions

2. Sensors for inputs - organ of senses

3. I/O port with right filters (for input and output) - Mind

4. Intelligence & processor - Intellect

5. Power - Consciousness

In all there are actions but power does not. It is only an enabler.

Body and sensors are dumb inert entities - these are used by superior mind and intellect to interact with outside.

Mind is an entity which controls inward and outward flow of information depending on the filters (gunas) it has.

The intellect processes the incoming information with memory or analysis and sends back for action again through the mind.

Mind filters the information and directs the action organ accordingly.

Sometimes the mind is highly clogged in some aspects that the information almost does not reach intellect and the action information is based on the input to the mind only.

In all these the power or Consciousness is an enabler and does not take part in the karma cycle.

Love and best wishes.

Onkara
13 September 2010, 04:43 AM
Namasté mukunda20
Thank you for your detailed reply, it is useful. Later the Lord tells us that all actions in all instances are done by the gunas. If this is so then is the action of controlling the intellect and mind different from actions done by gunas:

All actions, in all instances,
Are done by Prakriti’s gunas;
Those with ego-deluded mind
Imagine: “I am the doer.” (2. 27)

Also the Atman is considered to not be the doer of actions:
And yet these acts do not bind Me,
Sitting as one indifferent
And fully unattached to them:
This is the truth, Dhananjaya. (9.9)

And in 13:
The Supreme Purusha is called
The Looker-on in this body:
The Permitter, the Supporter,
Experiencer, Lord, and Self. (13.22)
The one who truly sees is he
Who sees that all actions are done
Solely by Prakriti alone,
And that the Self is actionless. (13.29)

Being without beginning and
Devoid of gunas, unchanging,
This Supreme Self, though embodied,
Does not act, and is not tainted. (13.31)

So the question seems to hinge on the word “act” as the Atman is not acting yet someone or something is “controlling”. If the Atman does not act but controls, is then the “control of the mind” not an act?

Namasté Kallol
Great illustration and one I can relate to in modern ideas! I think you hit the nail on the head to the problem I post above also (addressing mukunda20 initially but open to all ideas) So if we refer to Atman as consciousness we can then say it is consciousness which appears to be controlling the intellect and mind but really just enables it by its presence alone? It seems so from your description. :)

All that then remains is for one to know that consciousness which enables and controls the mind?

kallol
13 September 2010, 06:04 AM
Dear Snip,

It is always a pleasure discussing these topics with you.

Just like power, consciousness does not control anything. Otherwise it will become karta or the owner of the karma. Then it will also have the karmaphals. And being the topmost in the heirarchy, it will be the biggest sansari and we will become dummy and akarta.

So it remains as enabler, as the playground, as the light. It is the gadget, or the players or the object which performs in the presence of the above.

So is the prakriti - whose presence is known, which performs, which changes, in the presence of consciousness or purusha.

Detach the mind from the body and you will see the body objectively which goes through the pains, pleasure, actions, etc. And I smile looking at those. Beyond that, see the mind from the intellect POV, the constant shiva dance will be seen - going on in the mind. Mind being connected with the cosmic, is a vibration point and it is a contributor to the shiva dance of the cosmic.

Beyond that it is the mind again, which is the only vehicle (when rightly tempered by intellect) to take us to the near the door steps of the consciousness. Beyond the door there is no mind and it is all blank to be felt, understood, defined, etc.

The knower cannot be known, the source cannot be illuminated - it is the purusha or the consciousness.

Love and best wishes

mukunda20
13 September 2010, 06:28 AM
Namaste Snip and Kallol,
firstly Kallol has already answered your questions and i cant put it in any other better way than give reference in the Gita as to what Kallol has stated.
Snip said
"All that then remains is for one to know that consciousness which enables and controls the mind?"
Kallol said
"The knower cannot be known, the source cannot be illuminated - it is the purusha or the consciousness. "

for both the above statements,
Sri Krishna said in chapter 15 sloka 6
na tad bhasayate suryo
na sasanko na pavakah
yad gatva na nivartante
tad dhama paramam mama
rough translation
The Sun does not illumine that place, nor the moon, nor fire.
that is my All- illuminating transcendental abode;having reached from which, there is no return.
so the answer to Snip
"All that then remains is for one to know that consciousness which enables and controls the mind?" is YES(conclusion from the above sloka).
in essence, you have asked the question as to what is the final goal of every entity.
best regards,
mukunda

atanu
13 September 2010, 06:54 AM
Namaste Snip and friends

I think till the doership is compleyely renounced there is indeed a karta - a doer.

Chapter 18

13. Learn from Me, O mighty-armed Arjuna, these five causes, as declared in the Sankhya system for the accomplishment of all actions!

14. The body, the doer (karta), the various senses, the different functions of various sorts, and the presiding Deity, also, the fifth,

15. Whatever action a man performs by his body, speech and mind, whether right or the reverse, these five are its causes

And this karta is entirely isolated from the Self, as below:

16. Now, such being the case, he who, owing to untrained understanding, looks upon his Self, which is isolated, as the agent, he of perverted intelligence, sees not.


Om Namah Shivaya

Onkara
13 September 2010, 07:01 AM
Namasté Kallol and Mukunda20
Wonderful perspectives... I feel that the start of my week has been graced with a satsang :)

Permit me to build on these posts, as unless I have missed the answer in the subtle depth of Krishna's teaching, I have not seen a verse in the Bhagavad Gita which confirms the answer to the question "who is it that controls the intellect/mind"?

I am satisfied from your posts above that the movement of mind is witnessed by consciousness, from which "there is no return". But Krishna told Arjuna that the Atman (consciousness) does not act. If consciousness is not acting but at the same time we witness the action of the mind, then to whom does Krishna address the instructions to "control the senses and mind"? Surely there has to be a recipient of those instructions?

Perhaps based on the words of Krishna quote below, the control of the mind is also an illusion or a figment of maya that is only overcome through complete devotion?

This divine illusion of Mine
Is difficult to go beyond.
Only those devoted to Me
Shall pass beyond this illusion. (7.14)

Onkara
13 September 2010, 10:36 AM
Namaste Snip and friends

I think till the doership is compleyely renounced there is indeed a karta - a doer.

Namasté Atanu and friends
Thanks for your input.

From the above it seems kartA is something to be considered in it's own right. Can the kartA (or the actor, performer, doer) be considered to be a conglomeration of intellect-mind-memory-ego working together in an independent sense as the thinker/doer which is witnessed?

If this is so then can we say that the controller of the mind is the kartA? And it is the (Arjuna's) KartA who Krishna addresses in the first verse I quoted above?

kallol
14 September 2010, 05:40 AM
Namasté Kallol and Mukunda20
Wonderful perspectives... I feel that the start of my week has been graced with a satsang :)

Permit me to build on these posts, as unless I have missed the answer in the subtle depth of Krishna's teaching, I have not seen a verse in the Bhagavad Gita which confirms the answer to the question "who is it that controls the intellect/mind"?

I am satisfied from your posts above that the movement of mind is witnessed by consciousness, from which "there is no return". But Krishna told Arjuna that the Atman (consciousness) does not act. If consciousness is not acting but at the same time we witness the action of the mind, then to whom does Krishna address the instructions to "control the senses and mind"? Surely there has to be a recipient of those instructions?

Perhaps based on the words of Krishna quote below, the control of the mind is also an illusion or a figment of maya that is only overcome through complete devotion?

This divine illusion of Mine
Is difficult to go beyond.
Only those devoted to Me
Shall pass beyond this illusion. (7.14)

Thought of proceeding on the interesting discussion yesterday but Durga puja related activities and office related tour took the priority. Anyway these discussions are best done with satvik mind and not rajasik !!

I have mentioned in other threads that the whole of this system (purusha and prakriti) is self intelligent, based on certain rules. Thus the system is totally automated to function. Some discussions happened on yajvanji's thread of Hawking's view and some I have put in my thread Why and How avatar.

To give an analogy I will take an example of a semihard balls rolling down the mountain which like the normal ones is not uniform. Even if they started from the same point, they will choose different paths and end in different places and in the process they will acquire different shapes and sizes. Use them again from the top and they will now traverse the paths according to their shape and size. It goes on.

The rule here is the gravity. Under that rule the balls took different decisions to traverse different paths and acquire different gunas. With those gunas they are born and they again traverse different paths according their state of mind and how they can use the body (the intellect and the action organs). The montain enables them or is the playground. The balls use that playground and act as per rules. But they act differently according to their size and shape (gunas).

So it is the body-mind complex, which takes the decision and depending on it the life moves on.

Now there are several ways to move on.

1. The normal people move like - one blind moving in a darkest night in a desert without any light or guiding stuff towards nothing.

2. The people in initial part of devotion move like - one moving in a darkest night in a desert with an initial direction setting towards imagined goal. He will surely deviate again and again.

3. The people in spiritual path and well read - one moving in a darkest night in a desert with an initial direction setting and also a lamp towards a described goal. He will succeed but there may be some corrections required in between.

4. Self realised or enlightend ones - one moving in a darkest night in a desert with a lamp at the goal. He will succeed surely and even if there is deviation he will correct himself.

That the TRUTH is all within us, that we are all connected, that the source is a SINGLE one is proven by the ones in #4. That is why we see that the TRUTH is all same whether it is Geeta, Shankaracharya, Ramakrishna, Ramana, Vivekananda, Buddha, Aorobindo, Chaitanya, etc.

Love and best wishes

atanu
14 September 2010, 11:24 AM
Namasté Atanu and friends
Thanks for your input.

From the above it seems kartA is something to be considered in it's own right

Namaste Snip

I understand kartA as actor (such as Clarke Gable while enacting a movie role). I understand Deity as the director, such as Satyajit Ray, when directing the movie. I understand the body as light and shadow of Purusha. All these -- Clarke Gable and Satyajit Ray, the Purusha became through its interaction with Pradhana. And Purusha and Pradhana are the Self.

Else, there is no way that the Self can be absolved.

Om Namah Shivaya

Note: The above is for illustration only and not meant for demeaning any faith.

Onkara
15 September 2010, 03:05 AM
Namasté Kallol and Atanu

Your analogy, Kallol, of the weighted balls is a wonderfully explanation of how we are all unique by time and place (on the slope of karma) and yet all destined by the same forces (gravity or gunas for example). Each way I look at this analogy it is clear that it is the overall picture which is required in order to answer the question: who is it that Sri Krishna addresses when He says “control the mind”.

Likewise, Atanu’s insight into the actor, director and the play itself summarises that the parts can be better understood when we consider the whole picture. All the parts are moving together and there is no one part which controls the mind nor can be said to be the “controller of mind”.

So, who is it that Sri Krishna addresses with the advice to control the mind? There appears to be no single word which concludes an answer in the Bhagavad Gita. Isn’t that interesting! The point it seems is that we must first try to understand the whole teaching of Sri Krishna in order to know the answer, which you both provide above in your words.

Thanks for your input!

atanu
15 September 2010, 07:00 AM
Namasté Kallol and Atanu

Likewise, Atanu’s insight into the actor, director and the play itself summarises that the parts can be better understood when we consider the whole picture. All the parts are moving together and there is no one part which controls the mind nor can be said to be the “controller of mind”.

So, who is it that Sri Krishna addresses with the advice to control the mind? ---
Thanks for your input!

Namaste Snip

Let me rewrite the whole thing again. The Self becomes two - Purusha and Prakriti. The two inteact and the Purusha becomes many, say Clark Gable (kartA), as an actor and Satyajit Ray (Deity) as a director and so on. Now, in the particular movie, Clarke Gable is a thief and the character starts acquiring karma.

In such cases, the actor may get so engrossed that he (say Clark Gable) may forget that he is Clarke Gable and not the thief. So, then the Director (Deity) issues a rebuke to the Actor (kartA): "Hey You. You are forgetful of the reality that you are Clark Gable and not the thief. Control your mind. "
.......

Else why should jnana be able to burn up sin? And otherwise, how can the teaching that the Self is taintless be true?

Om Namah Shivaya

kallol
15 September 2010, 07:44 AM
Atanu has given the answer in the correct perspective.

I will try out in a different way.

As we advance in the knowledge level, the I part moves from body to mind to intellect ...... to brahman.

Body part is the lower part of the pyramid where you have maximum people. The best people can move is upto the intellect level. Only a few has the capability and perseverence and grace of moving beyond.

But till the intellect level it is difficult to judge oneself objectively as I is attached to the body-mind complex which also houses the intellect. And in difficult situation this becomes a problem - a problem of clarity.

But again when the I moves to intellect level it starts regulating the mind.

There are two ways to look at it. One is that we are born with a definite handicap (accumulated gunas). Let us represent that by a line of a particular length. Till the intellect line crosses that length, the mind dominates. But as the intellect line length crosses the guna line, it starts regulating the mind. This phenomenon we see as we move from childhood to adulthood.

Another way is the behaviour of the society. When the ruling power is weak, there is chaos and disruption. But when the ruling power gets stronger and stronger, though the society may not like it, still they fall in line.

So it is the sword of knowledge which controls mind. The seat of knowledge is the intellect. That is what Krishna was addressing to.

Love and best wishes

Onkara
15 September 2010, 09:07 AM
Namasté Antau and Kallol

Just to be clear, I was not implying that either explanation was inaccurate or needed further elaboration, but rather I was pointing out that an explanation such as yours above is required to explain the teaching of Sri Krishna because the answer to “who controls the mind?” cannot be captured completely in a single word. :) It is a pleasure to receive feedback.

The intellect is not “me” (as I am atman/Brahman according to the Gurus). The intellect arises with prakriti and is also subjected to gunas as it is explained in 18.30-32. So intellect is transient in nature and not the highest truth nor the one who controls the mind. Sri Krishna asserts:

There is no entity on earth,
Or in heaven among the gods,
Found devoid of these three gunas,
Born of Prakriti, Arjuna. (18.40)

So who is it who control the mind, as it is not the intellect, nor the kartA, nor anything on earth.

If I am correct in how I read the analogy by Atanuji, there is an actor-kartA called “Clark Cable” who mistaking himself in the role of a thief, is reminded by the director (Deity-Brahman) that he is not a theif but the actor.

This needs some tweaking in my humble opinion, as the kartA is prakriti and so transient and not the final truth. This is so because Atman is not the kartA.

Knowledge too is not sentient, it alone cannot do anything, it does have the quality to change or influence prakriti. Knowledge alone is impotent, like a book of spells, it requires the other parts: mind-intellect-kartA etc to be of use.

What is happening (in my version of the film) is as follows:

The directory (Brahman/Krishna) tells the actor (Clark Cable) to control the mind (this is the sword knowledge which cuts away avidya). However the mind-intellect cannot be controlled as everything is under the powers of the gunas. When the realisation dawns that it is not under control, one sees that one cannot be the mind-intellect or actor(kartA) alone, as they are all moved by the gunas. All that remains is to realise that one is the silent and inactive witness – the Atman. And the scriptures confirm that all this (incl. the apparent individual) is strung on Brahman likes pearls on a necklace: aham brahamsi.

Thanks!

mukunda20
15 September 2010, 09:18 AM
Namaste everyone,
Snip wrote
"So, who is it that Sri Krishna addresses with the advice to control the mind? There appears to be no single word which concludes an answer in the Bhagavad Gita"
if we go back to the hierarchy again.
Atma-Buddhi-Manas-Indriya-Deha.
these are basically 2 shariras
Deha = stoola sharira(physical)
Indriya+Manas+Buddhi are all part of sookshma sharira for which Atma\Eshwara is the head (all these are meta physical)
if one notices carefully, the Deha is just a tool for the sookshma sharira to interact with Prakruti.
example: if you hit a nail with a hammer, after completion, people will say that "you hit the nail" and not "the hammer hit the nail".
now if we replace the hammer with deha, hitting of nail as karma and you as the sookshma sharira(the whole package and not any single sub entity) getting the job done; then we can relate that Sri Krishna is referencing to the Sookshma sharira on the whole when He tells Arjuna to control the mind.
If He is referring to the sookshma sharira, then how are we to comprehend that the lower layers(Indriyas) can be of any help in controlling the mind, what part does buddhi play in controlling the mind and how can Atma take a part in this controlling of mind?
basically we will take only the buddhi and indriyas into consideration(As Atma is Eshwara)
Buddhi: if buddhi of a person travelling the path of realisation is to be considered then, by default,this buddhi moulds the mind in the right direction(thus doing its part in controlling the mind from wavering).
NOTE: Buddhi is doing its part in the top down approach.
Indriya: if indriyas external input signals are sent to the mind and the mind uses its existant buddhi to process and the buddhi directs the mind towards the path(as stated above), then the indriyas are passed down the result of what the buddhi concluded to the manas(thus triggering the manas to proceed further in increasing that respective guna(satvika in this case)).
this can be viewed as similiar to nuclear fission reaction where one spark(from the buddhi) can trigger the manas to increase a particular guna and thus the whole package of sookshma sharira moves in the right direction. thus the indriyas do their part of reacting accordingly and do their part of using the stoola sharira(deha) for doing karma. Hence the mind is controlled.
hope this is not too much confusing or please correct me if wrong
regards,
mukunda

mukunda20
15 September 2010, 09:36 AM
Namaste everyone,
Snip wrote
"So, who is it that Sri Krishna addresses with the advice to control the mind? There appears to be no single word which concludes an answer in the Bhagavad Gita"
if we go back to the hierarchy again.
Atma-Buddhi-Manas-Indriya-Deha.
these are basically 2 shariras
Deha = stoola sharira(physical)
Indriya+Manas+Buddhi are all part of sookshma sharira for which Atma\Eshwara is the head (all these are meta physical)
if one notices carefully, the Deha is just a tool for the sookshma sharira to interact with Prakruti.
example: if you hit a nail with a hammer, after completion, people will say that "you hit the nail" and not "the hammer hit the nail".
now if we replace the hammer with deha, hitting of nail as karma and you as the sookshma sharira(the whole package and not any single sub entity) getting the job done; then we can relate that Sri Krishna is referencing to the Sookshma sharira on the whole when He tells Arjuna to control the mind.
If He is referring to the sookshma sharira, then how are we to comprehend that the lower layers(Indriyas) can be of any help in controlling the mind, what part does buddhi play in controlling the mind and how can Atma take a part in this controlling of mind?
basically we will take only the buddhi and indriyas into consideration(As Atma is Eshwara)
Buddhi: buddhi of a person travelling the path of realisation is to be considered** then, by default,this buddhi moulds the mind in the right direction(thus doing its part in controlling the mind from wavering).
NOTE: Buddhi is doing its part in the top down approach.
Indriya: if indriyas external input signals are sent to the mind and the mind uses its existant buddhi to process and the buddhi directs the mind towards the path(as stated above), then the indriyas are passed down the result of what the buddhi concluded to the manas(thus triggering the manas to proceed further in increasing that respective guna(satvika in this case)).
this can be viewed as similiar to nuclear fission reaction where one spark(from the buddhi) can trigger the manas to increase a particular guna and thus the whole package of sookshma sharira moves in the right direction. thus the indriyas do their part of reacting accordingly and do their part of using the stoola sharira(deha) for doing karma. Hence the mind is controlled.
hope this is not too much confusing or please correct me if wrong
regards,
mukunda

buddhi of a person travelling the path of realisation is to be considered**
This is the obvious thing to be considered as irrespective of the extent of the deviation from the path, every Atma's journey will be in some minimal quantity be oriented towards the path of realisation as Atma is an amsha of the Paramatma (Bhagavad Gita 15.7)
mamaivamso jiva-loke
jiva-bhutah sanatanah
manah-sasthanindriyani
prakriti-sthani karshati
rough translation
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.

kallol
15 September 2010, 09:42 AM
Little more addition to what Mukunda said.

Heirarchy wise intellect is above mind but again mind is the gatekeeper for inputs and outputs. It acts like I/O port with filters.

So the cycle (sensory organ to) mind to intellect to mind (to action organ) can become an obstruction in case we clog (through karma) the mind more and more and can become an enabler if cleared (through karma) more and more.

It is like driving up the mountain and driving down the mountain. Initial part of unclogging is tough - needs bhakti, (sakama to niskama), karma (sakama to niskama) and enter the gyana part. Once the gyana part is reached the flow of TRUE knowledge accelerates the cleaning part.

The mirror (mind) becomes cleaner and the light of brahman starts enlightening (reflected consciousness) the intellect more and more. This in turn cleans the mirror faster.

Though the knowledge is dumb but the enabled intellect uses the knowledge to clean the mind.

All (body, intellect and mind) act under the light of consciousness. All are enlivened and are seperate entities.

Love and best wishes

atanu
15 September 2010, 09:45 AM
Namasté Antau and Kallol

If I am correct in how I read the analogy by Atanuji, there is an actor-kartA called “Clark Cable” who mistaking himself in the role of a thief, is reminded by the director (Deity-Brahman) that he is not a theif but the actor.

This needs some tweaking in my humble opinion, as the kartA is prakriti and so transient and not the final truth. This is so because Atman is not the kartA.

Thanks!

Namaste Snip

That's not what was meant exactly, although, as a step towards revelation, the above is also not wrong. Next step would be "You are Clarke gable, who has the nature of an actor". Then, "You are the Purusha playing in Prakriti". Then "You are That".

Om Namah Shivaya

Onkara
15 September 2010, 10:01 AM
Namaste Snip

That's not what was meant exactly, although, as a step towards revelation, the above is also not wrong. Next step would be "You are Clarke gable, who has the nature of an actor". Then, "You are the Purusha playing in Prakriti". Then "You are That".

Om Namah Shivaya
Namasté Atanu
My perception is the reverse “Prakriti is playing in me – I am purusha – I am consciousness.” This is why I can say that from the perspective of purusha there are “no steps towards revelation” nor away from it, as I am beyond the play yet witnessing it as an apparent part or jIva. As the jIva I can say “I make steps or I don’t know”.

These two perspectives, (purusha and jIva) are something which you and I need to ensure we match equally when speaking or we will become muddled by syntax. :) Speaking from the state of purusha brings greatest clarity on these spiritual topics imho.

atanu
15 September 2010, 12:05 PM
Namasté Atanu
My perception is the reverse “Prakriti is playing in me – I am purusha – I am consciousness.”

namaste Snip

I am afraid i do not understand this. Prakriti (Pradhana) is jada. Prakriti may have white, red, or black colour. But the preference for a color belongs to Purusha. Atman is preference less. It some purushas (actors) may lose themselves due to preference.

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.

Prakriti is the cause, being the repository of qualities but intelligence to either get deluded or to come over is of Purusha.

What you say "---I am purusha – I am consciousness ----", is the pinnacle state. But I was talking of stepwise gain of jnana -- and in that state even prakritic objects and qualities are special modifications of consciousness.

I will give it more time.

Om Namah Shivaya

Onkara
15 September 2010, 03:31 PM
Namasté Atanu

The Truth (for me) is nondual. So there is no divide between the soul and nature (Brahman and Sakti). Both arise simultaneously in a divine embrace. Maya causes the duality between them so that He may be many.

Krishna provides the answers that Arjuna requires as Arjuna’s mind prompts, so we will find what appears to be contradictory teachings, yet all are true and require examination until satisfied.

We must keep in mind that there are two vantage points; 1) that of jIva bound by the belief, born of maya, that they are prakriti (the field), and 2) that of Krishna consciousness (the field knower) which is satchitananda. Brahman is beyond space and time, as turiya it permeates all, so appears in and outside prarkriti. We must turn to Chapter 13. I have quoted and highlighted a few parts but strongly recommend reading the whole chapter again (with Sri Adi Shankara’s commentary, given all we have discussed):

The Holy Lord said:
This body is known as the Field,
And he who knows it thus is called
The Knower of the Field by those
Who know of both Field and Knower. (1)

Know Me also, O Bharata,
To be the Knower in all Fields.
The knowledge of Field and Knower
I consider as the knowledge. (2)

Outside and inside all beings;
Both the unmoving and moving;
Incomprehensible because
It is subtle and far and near. (15)

Undivided, yet It exists
As if divided in beings:
The sustainer of all beings–
He absorbs and generates them. (16)

The Supreme Purusha is called
The Looker-on in this body:
The Permitter, the Supporter,
Experiencer, Lord, and Self. (22)

kallol
15 September 2010, 10:41 PM
The clarity of the consciousness and the reflected consciousness is very important for disecting the apparent togetherness of the prakriti and purusha.

The role of mind and the state of mind in enabling the consciousness in the body (which includes the senses, action organs and intellect) can only be understood in proper perspective only when the reflected consciousness phenomenon is understood.

Consciousness is the light source. Mind is the mirror which reflects the light into the dark room (the body). Both source and mirror are required to lighten the room. But mirror is not the source and by itself source cannot lighten the room. The mirror state can be different out of size, shape, colour and dust. Accordingly the life strength, will power, intellect power will get lighten up. But again they are not the sources but they perform under the presence of the consciousness (reflected).

Love and best wishes

atanu
16 September 2010, 01:14 AM
Namasté Atanu
The Truth (for me) is nondual.


Namaste Snip.

I agree as this is so here as well. Yet, for me this is not experiential.


We must keep in mind that there are two vantage points; 1) that of jIva bound by the belief, born of maya, that they are prakriti (the field), and 2) that of Krishna consciousness (the field knower) which is satchitananda.

I agree too. In the context of this thread, I am looking down-Up (and not up-Down), as the question in OP was what controlled whom? In this regard, I agree to your phrasing:


The director (Brahman/Krishna) tells the actor (Clark Cable) to control the mind (this is the sword knowledge which cuts away avidya).

However, I cannot understand the following as non-dual :


And the scriptures confirm that the Atman is strung on Brahman likes pearls on a necklace: aham brahamsi.

I think this is the persistent source of difference, such as an earlier statement of yours: His mind and my mind.

What you say above is correct from VA point of view, as jivas being essentially of knowledge nature (same as Brahman), yet Jivas forming part of Brahman, as small pieces of jigsaw puzzle. As per Advaita and Dvaita, Brahman is internally and externally homogeneous.


Actually Mandukya Up. states that this Atman is Brahman. So, Atman is not a bead hung on Brahman called Krishna. Atman has no delineation and thus no limit and no shape. That is my understanding.

Let us contemplate.

Om Namah Shivaya

Onkara
16 September 2010, 02:59 AM
Namaste friend Atanu
The concept of beads/pearls on a thread comes from Bhagavad Gita 7.7 (English translation alternates on the word bead/pearl/jewel):

Higher than Me, Dhananjaya,
There is absolutely nothing.
All creation is strung on Me
Like strands of jewels on a thread. (7.7)

This is a illustrative statement which one could take to be apparent differences in the Lord, bhedābheda, or in line with the Mandukya Upanishad you quote that “Atman is Brahman” and the concept should be taken to be like jewels strung on a thread. The key word in 7.7 is “like” which implies a simile in English grammar i.e. an allegorical description or metaphor to describe a difficult concept. Understood as such then Sri Krishna does not contradict the Mandukya Upanishad.

We appear to be many but the scriptures confirm that everything is Brahman. This is because creator and creation are one in Vedanta and all we are doing is discussing how this appears not to be so to our mortal minds. I totally agree with your explanation that “Brahman is internally and externally homogeneous”. The reason something appears separate or different than Brahman is due to the veiling power of maya (translated as illusion below):

This divine illusion of Mine
Is difficult to go beyond.
Only those devoted to Me
Shall pass beyond this illusion. (7.14)

As you say. Let us contemplate this :)




I think this is the persistent source of difference, such as an earlier statement of yours: His mind and my mind.


I am not able to find a post in this thread where I say “his mind and my mind” please quote if useful?

Onkara
16 September 2010, 03:29 AM
(reduced for space only)
if we go back to the hierarchy again.
Atma-Buddhi-Manas-Indriya-Deha.
if one notices carefully, the Deha is just a tool for the sookshma sharira to interact with Prakruti.
example: if you hit a nail with a hammer, after completion, people will say that "you hit the nail" and not "the hammer hit the nail".
now if we replace the hammer with deha, hitting of nail as karma and you as the sookshma sharira(the whole package and not any single sub entity) getting the job done; then we can relate that Sri Krishna is referencing to the Sookshma sharira on the whole when He tells Arjuna to control the mind.
If He is referring to the sookshma sharira, then how are we to comprehend that the lower layers(Indriyas) can be of any help in controlling the mind, what part does buddhi play in controlling the mind and how can Atma take a part in this controlling of mind?
basically we will take only the buddhi and indriyas into consideration(As Atma is Eshwara)
Buddhi: buddhi of a person travelling the path of realisation is to be considered** then, by default,this buddhi moulds the mind in the right direction(thus doing its part in controlling the mind from wavering).
NOTE: Buddhi is doing its part in the top down approach.
Indriya: if indriyas external input signals are sent to the mind and the mind uses its existant buddhi to process and the buddhi directs the mind towards the path(as stated above), then the indriyas are passed down the result of what the buddhi concluded to the manas(thus triggering the manas to proceed further in increasing that respective guna(satvika in this case)).
this can be viewed as similiar to nuclear fission reaction where one spark(from the buddhi) can trigger the manas to increase a particular guna and thus the whole package of sookshma sharira moves in the right direction. thus the indriyas do their part of reacting accordingly and do their part of using the stoola sharira(deha) for doing karma. Hence the mind is controlled.
hope this is not too much confusing or please correct me if wrong
regards,
mukunda

buddhi of a person travelling the path of realisation is to be considered**
This is the obvious thing to be considered as irrespective of the extent of the deviation from the path, every Atma's journey will be in some minimal quantity be oriented towards the path of realisation as Atma is an amsha of the Paramatma (Bhagavad Gita 15.7)
mamaivamso jiva-loke
jiva-bhutah sanatanah
manah-sasthanindriyani
prakriti-sthani karshati
rough translation
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.
Namaste mukunda

I think this is an excellent illustration! I agree that “the whole package and not any single sub entity” is at work here. The whole organism (jIva) changes for the better, under the influence of the teahing of Sri Krishna. You explain how each part (Atma-Buddhi-Manas-Indriya-Deha) must work together under sattvic guna in order to arrive at the goal Sri Krishna wills for Arjuna. Thanks!

Onkara
16 September 2010, 03:30 AM
Little more addition to what Mukunda said.
(Cut for Space)
All (body, intellect and mind) act under the light of consciousness. All are enlivened and are seperate entities.

Namaste Kallolji
I agree with what you say too. The only area that I feel inclined to embellish is that on the “separate entities” of mind, intellect etc. I would say that you are correct of course, they “act under the light of consciousness” but I would also add that any sense of separation is due to nature i.e. a sense of separation. This separation is known by consciousness of course and consciousness is nondual. Enlightenment does imply that these "separate entities" will stop being seen as separate, but rather that they will all be known intuitively as the whole (Brahman) i.e. consciousness.

Edit: I overlooked your last post (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=51070&postcount=23) 23 before responding and I feel you explain this in your words on this in post 23 also. :)

atanu
17 September 2010, 12:52 AM
Namaste friend Atanu
The concept of beads/pearls on a thread comes from Bhagavad Gita 7.7 (English translation alternates on the word bead/pearl/jewel):

Higher than Me, Dhananjaya,
There is absolutely nothing.
All creation is strung on Me
Like strands of jewels on a thread. (7.7)



Namaste Snip

Is the above verse same as "----And the scriptures confirm that the Atman is strung on Brahman likes pearls on a necklace: aham brahamsi. ---=-", which was your statement?

My Director has told me that Atman is uncreated. My Director has also instructed me to by-pass the beads, and dive deed within the common thread to know the common thread as it is. Shri Krishna as Universal Director General has also instructed thus.

Om Namah Shivaya

Onkara
17 September 2010, 01:45 AM
Namaste Snip

Is the above verse same as "----And the scriptures confirm that the Atman is strung on Brahman likes pearls on a necklace: aham brahamsi. ---=-", which was your statement?

My Director has told me that Atman is uncreated. My Director has also instructed me to by-pass the beads, and dive deed within the common thread to know the common thread as it is. Shri Krishna as Universal Director General has also instructed thus.

Om Namah Shivaya

Namasté Atanu
You are correct! Thanks for picking up and correcting this. :)

mayi sarvam idam protam - All this on me strung.
sutre mani-gana iva - on a thread beads like.

atanu
17 September 2010, 02:19 AM
Namasté Atanu
You are correct! Thanks for picking up and correcting this. :)

mayi sarvam idam protam - All this on me strung.
sutre mani-gana iva - on a thread beads like.

Namaste Snip

That is OK. I am gaining knowledge. Thanks for that.:)

Yet.


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 (Atman); that is to be known.

So, can we equate 'All this' in 'All this strung on Me' of Gita 7.7 to Atman?

Om Namah Shivaya

Onkara
17 September 2010, 05:36 AM
Namaste Atanu
In a sense we have progressed much form the original topic and I am not sure if others are interested, so I would be happy to take this off-line to focus better if you feel that would be more comfortable.

Permit me to approach the answer in a new angle with the question based on the last line of your quote: “who is it that knows (the Self)?”

I understand the “Fourth” to mean turiya, which is equal to chit or divine consciousness and is in Satchitandanda, which is Brahman. In other words they are the same from an Advaitin perspective. Please correct me if you do not agree or we will be talking about different things.

Above in your quotation, we are presented with a list which pretty much implies that turiya (or divine consciousness from now on) is nothing which can be thought of. It is “unthinkable, un-inferable, action-less”. So the divine consciousness cannot be a thought. Consciousness however can still be known as the quote confirms: “this is to be known”, This “knowing” is a vital point. We should not confuse thinking with knowing here. What we know may arise as thoughts, but for the sake of finding consciousness let’s say that the knowing itself is “behind” the thoughts. Consciousness is the silent witness which knows the mind, thoughts, senses and the body (name and form). Similar to the hierarchy given by Makundaji in post number 2: (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=50890&postcount=2)

"So the hierarchy in descending order is as follows.
Atma
|
Buddhi (Intellect)
|
Manas(Mind)
|
Indriya(Senses)
|
Deha(Body)"

Atman is that divine consciousness which “knows”. I don’t imply knowing facts, like the population of Dehli, but knowing all mind and sense data. Mind has thoughts. When you sit in silence, who is it that witnessing (knows) the thoughts of the mind?

When the mind rests (in deep sleep) that which witnesses the mind rests in itself: in bliss, in pure consciousness. That which knows is always there and it knows itself through the reflection of prarkiti through the mind. Conscious being is confirmed to be in deep sleep as when one awakes one says “I slept blissfully although I remember nothing!”. That is why I say “prakriti is in me (consciousness)” Because when I am in deep sleep, prakriti no longer exists to be known by consciousness. (This part needs further explanation but please lets consider the above if you wish).


However it not incorrect to say that Brahman or consciousness is in everything and surrounds everything. The only difference is the point of view. Here is a creative illustration for enjoyment: Shakti says "I see you lord in everything, in all forms and yet beyond them too". Shiva says "I see you Shakti in me, permeated by me as the sustaining force, experier and enjoyer without separation" Together they say "I am Brahman: satchitananda".

kallol
17 September 2010, 05:59 AM
Indulging one more time.

1. There are two (apparent) consciousness levels - one is the absolute and another reflected. The reflected one is because of the mind which is the only entity which can enshrine the consciousness in the body. With that reflected consciousness the body starts functioning.

2. We all agree that the absolute consciousness is beyond our perception and can be inferred indirectly.

3. However at the next level the reflected consciousness is connected with the mind. This is perceivable. But to reach that place we need to clean the mind to have a clear understanding of that. To clean the mind the intellect needs to be equipped with right knowledge as it is the only way to clean the mind.

4. This reflected consciousness (in conjunction with mind) creates the sense "I". And this is the "I" we are encouraged to seek through "who am I", "self realisation" "self knowledge" etc.

5. This is the maximum one can go in seeking the knowledge of God. It can come mostly through deep meditation on the subject "who am I" or similar metaphysical questions. Maharishi Ramana meditated on status after death.
This enquiry when seeked with deep intensity bores through the clogs of the mind and reaches the light of consciousness and the seeker is blessed with a flash of enlightenment. That bore reaches the ocean of knowledge which pours out like spring. This knowledge helps to clean the mind further (increasing the bore diameter). This knowledge guides the seeker in his lifestyle and he is blessed with higher knowledge (knowledge of scripture). That is the lamp at the goal which I mentioned in my earlier post.

Love and best wishes

Onkara
17 September 2010, 06:03 AM
Thanks for your input Kallol
That is a spot on explanation. :)

atanu
17 September 2010, 07:06 AM
Namaste Atanu
In a sense we have progressed much form the original topic and I am not sure if others are interested, so I would be happy to take this off-line to focus better if you feel that would be more comfortable.

Permit me to approach the answer in a new angle with the question based on the last line of your quote: “who is it that knows (the Self)?”

I understand the “Fourth” to mean turiya, which is equal to chit or divine consciousness and is in Satchitandanda, which is Brahman. In other words they are the same from an Advaitin perspective. Please correct me if you do not agree or we will be talking about different things.

Above in your quotation, we are presented with a list which pretty much implies that turiya (or divine consciousness from now on) is nothing which can be thought of. It is “unthinkable, un-inferable, action-less”. So the divine consciousness cannot be a thought. Consciousness however can still be known as the quote confirms: “this is to be known”, This “knowing” is a vital point. We should not confuse thinking with knowing here. What we know may arise as thoughts, but for the sake of finding consciousness let’s say that the knowing itself is “behind” the thoughts. Consciousness is the silent witness which knows the mind, thoughts, senses and the body (name and form). Similar to the hierarchy given by Makundaji in post number 2: (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=50890&postcount=2)

"So the hierarchy in descending order is as follows.
Atma
|
Buddhi (Intellect)
|
Manas(Mind)
|
Indriya(Senses)
|
Deha(Body)"

Atman is that divine consciousness which “knows”. I don’t imply knowing facts, like the population of Dehli, but knowing all mind and sense data. Mind has thoughts. When you sit in silence, who is it that witnessing (knows) the thoughts of the mind?

When the mind rests (in deep sleep) that which witnesses the mind rests in itself: in bliss, in pure consciousness. That which knows is always there and it knows itself through the reflection of prarkiti through the mind. Conscious being is confirmed to be in deep sleep as when one awakes one says “I slept blissfully although I remember nothing!”. That is why I say “prakriti is in me (consciousness)” Because when I am in deep sleep, prakriti no longer exists to be known by consciousness. (This part needs further explanation but please lets consider the above if you wish).


However it not incorrect to say that Brahman or consciousness is in everything and surrounds everything. The only difference is the point of view. Here is a creative illustration for enjoyment: Shakti says "I see you lord in everything, in all forms and yet beyond them too". Shiva says "I see you Shakti in me, permeated by me as the sustaining force, experier and enjoyer without separation" Together they say "I am Brahman: satchitananda".

Namste Snip

Thank you for the detailed post. My only observation and difference is in respect of terms. You had written:
"----And the scriptures confirm that the Atman is strung on Brahman likes pearls on a necklace: aham brahamsi. ---=-",

(and provided proof from Gita 7.7, implying that Shri Krishna was talking of Atma-s hung like beads on a same thread).


I am not able to agree to this. I do not know whether there is any Atma, which is different from Turiya and which is also perceivable and graspable?

Thanks a lot.

Om Namah Shivaya

Onkara
17 September 2010, 07:51 AM
Namste Snip

Thank you for the detailed post. My only observation and difference is in respect of terms. You had written:
"----And the scriptures confirm that the Atman is strung on Brahman likes pearls on a necklace: aham brahamsi. ---=-",

(and provided proof from Gita 7.7, implying that Shri Krishna was talking of Atma-s hung like beads on a same thread).


I am not able to agree to this. I do not know whether there is any Atma, which is different from Turiya and which is also perceivable and graspable?


Thanks a lot.

Om Namah Shivaya
Namaste Atanu
Yes it was an error in my haste with terms, as I wanted to imply that although there appears to be a multiplicity of apparent people (or the impression that there are multiple souls) to the ignorant mind, they are all in fact the nondual Brahman as they are one with him, like pearls on a thread. As Atman is Brahman, there is no way that there is division of Atman except through the apparent form of prarkriti.


I feel this is has been cleared up now so hope we can move on to other topics. :)

atanu
20 September 2010, 04:02 AM
Indulging one more time.

4. This reflected consciousness (in conjunction with mind) creates the sense "I". And this is the "I" we are encouraged to seek through "who am I", "self realisation" "self knowledge" etc.


Namaste Kallol

Kindly permit me this observation. Just as there is one Sun and its many reflections on water bodies, the one aham -- called OM, is seen variously as many 'i' -s.

Om Namah Shivaya

kd gupta
20 September 2010, 05:39 AM
Namaste everybody
Atma controls .Gita..atmana .

Therefore every atma is in the search of truth . Scriptures lead to gyan karm and bhakti .Gita cancels karm …Sarvam karmaakhilam paartha jnaane parisamaapyate.

If you believe in karm , why not to perform the karm which overcomes the death , so gyan nulls the karm .
Now what is gyan ? to know the truth and the Brahman at last , call it bhakti . But what after bhakti or after attaining Brahman , nobody knows . Goswamiji writes…
jhµutheu satya jahi binu jane , jimi bhujanga binu raju pahichane .
jehi jane jaga jai herai, jage jatha sapana bhrama jai .
.Due to lack of knowledge even the unreal passes for real, just
as ignorance about a rope leads us to mistake it for a snake. Even so the moment we
know Him the world of matter vanishes, just as the delusion of a dream disappears as
soon as we wake up.

Therefore the conclusion is Tanme manah shivsankalmastu and that mind is prayed to be controlled by atma [ the Brahman] .

kallol
20 September 2010, 09:23 AM
Namaste Kallol

Kindly permit me this observation. Just as there is one Sun and its many reflections on water bodies, the one aham -- called OM, is seen variously as many 'i' -s.

Om Namah Shivaya

Absolutely spot on Atanu. It is like so many minds thus many mirrors or reflections

Love and best wishes

atanu
23 September 2010, 05:33 AM
Scripture does teach us about the eventual controller of all knowledge and all beings.

mahanarayana U.

ekavi.nsho.anuvaakaH .
iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaM
brahmaadhipatirbrahmaNo.adhipatirbrahmaa shivo me astu sadaashivom.h
.. 1..

Om Namah Shivaya

Onkara
24 September 2010, 02:22 PM
Scripture does teach us about the eventual controller of all knowledge and all beings.

mahanarayana U.

ekavi.nsho.anuvaakaH .
iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaM
brahmaadhipatirbrahmaNo.adhipatirbrahmaa shivo me astu sadaashivom.h
.. 1..

Om Namah Shivaya
Namaste Atanu
Thanks for sharing this.
Can we define how it controls all knoweldge and all beings? That the Lord controls I do not deny, but how or what "part" of the Lord controls the mind, I am curious to confirm :)

I thank kd guptaji for your input also. You conclude it is the Atman that controls the mind through prayer. The statement that it is the Atman who is controller is in line with the great Archayas, I understand. However I feel inclined to say it is the Atman which is the silent witness and in context of the Bhagavad Gita (explored in earlier posts), I am yet to feel convinced that Atman actively controls the mind.

atanu
24 September 2010, 04:06 PM
However it not incorrect to say that Brahman or consciousness is in everything and surrounds everything. The only difference is the point of view. Here is a creative illustration for enjoyment: Shakti says "I see you lord in everything, in all forms and yet beyond them too". Shiva says "I see you Shakti in me, permeated by me as the sustaining force, experier and enjoyer without separation" Together they say "I am Brahman: satchitananda".

Namaste Snip

First I will like to say a few things on the above, as I have understood and fleetingly experienced.

What you say above is not incorrect in a state of Seer, yet such possibly is not the scenario (if one can at use the word) in Turya or in the Self. If you re-examine Mandukya Up., you will see the Self is simply not the realm of seeing or thinking etc. As per Upanishads, the Self that is Brahman is homogeneous-partless-differenceless and one without a second. Similarly as per Gita:

Prakrityaiva cha karmaani kriyamaanaani sarvashah;
Yah pashyati tathaa’tmaanam akartaaram sa pashyati.

13.30. He sees, who sees that all actions are performed by Nature alone and that the Self is actionless.

It is about 'seeing' Prakriti playing. But devoid of the 'seeing', what the Self is in itself? As Gita and all Upanishads teach us, we must know it as such -- as without a second.

If you see Uttara Gita, again you will see Shri Krshna teaching: mahesvara beyond the prakriti.

Uttara Gita, Chapter I

17. The syllable (Aum) with which the Vedas begin, which figures in the middle of the Vedas, and with which the Vedas end, unites Prakrti with its Own Self; but that which is beyond this Prakrti-united-Pranava is Mahesvara.
..........
Similarly , Gaudapada Karika says that there is no one seeking, no one liberated etc. Svet. Up. says, when the light of knowledge rises there is only That.


I know this may seem to be insignificant and hair splitting, but darshanas are built on these minute differences. I am not saying as to which darshana is correct and which is incorrect -- i cannot judge. But we need to understand these differences to appreciate each other's point of view.

I hope we agree to pursue a line of choice rather than get confused.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
24 September 2010, 04:32 PM
Namaste Snip

Let me give another approximate perspective of the above. Suppose you see and know yourself through others' eyes from a distance of say 10 meters. You may see yourself from 1 meter. You may see with mind the senses or shut out senses. You may then observe the moving mind, remaining as Buddhi (intellect). Yet all this is seen and involves lower prakriti of five elements, indriya, buddhi, and ego.

What you are actually at zero meter distance?

Om Namah Shivaya

kallol
24 September 2010, 11:34 PM
The two entities Purusha and Prakriti have different characteristics. One is permanent, unchanged, ever present and all pervading.

Other one is moving in waves, changing forms, shape, colour, etc.

One is the consciousness and other the inert.

But both together is God just like any of us - a mixture of higher entity (consciousness) and lower entity (inert part).

When we talk of the changes in the mind and intellect (which are parts of the inert), we need to understand the characteristics of the inert part i.e. the prakriti. The eternal waves and the basic rules it follows. That understanding will lead us to the understanding of the macro level changes in the mind and intellect.

However this has no connection with the higher level of consciousness - which is constant for all. It is the characteristics of the prakriti which determines how much it can make use of the consciousness. Small mirror - small reflection. Big mirror - big reflection. Dirty mirror - less reflection. Clean mirror - brighter reflection.

Let us treat the higher and lower seperately as exclusive of each other as entities, which does not mix or take part in each others activities. These are two sides of the tennis courts needed for one tennis court.
This might bring more clarity of the functioning.

Love and best wishes

atanu
25 September 2010, 12:02 AM
The two entities Purusha and Prakriti have different characteristics. One is permanent, unchanged, ever present and all pervading.

Namaste kallol

I wish to make a point, which I will place at the end. Here i ask which purusha you are referring to, since purusha occurs at three or more levels.


One is the consciousness and other the inert.

Since you are a scientist/engineer, I will ask: "How consciousness, which manifests as thoughts and understanding and is subtler than the subtlest and which cannot be grasped, can form a surface against inert gross element, like say an arm, to move it?"


When we talk of the changes in the mind and intellect (which are parts of the inert), we need to understand the characteristics of the inert part i.e. the prakriti. The eternal waves and the basic rules it follows. That understanding will lead us to the understanding of the macro level changes in the mind and intellect.

However this has no connection with the higher level of consciousness - which is constant for all. It is the characteristics of the prakriti which determines how much it can make use of the consciousness. Small mirror - small reflection. Big mirror - big reflection. Dirty mirror - less reflection. Clean mirror - brighter reflection.

Let us treat the higher and lower seperately as exclusive of each other as entities, which does not mix or take part in each others activities. These are two sides of the tennis courts needed for one tennis court.
This might bring more clarity of the functioning.

This is my understanding as well.


But both together is God just like any of us - a mixture of higher entity (consciousness) and lower entity (inert part).

Yes. Ishwara manifests and functions with its own mAyA. But in itself what is the ungraspable conciousness -- beneath its prakriti? The question is somewhat similar to asking "What actually you are beneath the desgnation of General Manager". Or it is similar to asking "What one is at 0 meter distance?" (Which i asked Snip also). I am writing this, since, I feel if we mix concepts of different darshanas, it is difficult to follow a line. I have asked above questions (and also to Snip) for this purpose only -- not to get lost in maze of terms. I am talking from the point of view of Upanishadic statements that Atman alone is all this. To reiterate Uttara Gita:

Uttara Gita, Chapter I

17. The syllable (Aum) with which the Vedas begin, which figures in the middle of the Vedas, and with which the Vedas end, unites Prakrti with its Own Self; but that which is beyond this Prakrti-united-Pranava is Mahesvara.
.......

Ishwara, at the world controller level is united with prakriti, as controller of prakriti. But the unborn mahesvara (which Shri Krishna proclaims Himself to be) is beyond prakriti, which exists on account of existence-concsiousness-bliss -- and not the other way around. I am talking from this perspective.

Om Namah Shivaya

kallol
25 September 2010, 04:29 AM
Dear Atanu,

It is a pleasure to discuss these deep topics. I hope to do my best.


1. Which purusha you are referring to, since purusha occurs at three or more levels ?

There is only one purusha. The rest are derivatives and reflections of that ONE. The purusha does not change. The apparent change is due to the reflector size, shape and colour. The apparentness is due to the POV from the position we observe. A day looks gloomy with cloud cover if we are on ground. If we are on a plane above the cloud, the day looks bright. Then if we are beyond the atmosphere in a rocket the day will look brightest. What is our POV ?

2. How consciousness, which manifests as thoughts and understanding and is subtler than the subtlest and which cannot be grasped, can form a surface against inert gross element, like say an arm, to move it?

The consciousness does not manifests as thoughts. The thoughts are inert but the consciousness makes them live.
The thoughts can be compared to the changes in the computer screen (the mind) out of the proccessing in the CPU (the intellect). The power (consciousness) enables the screen and so we can experience the thoughts.

The property of consciousness is beyond our comprehension and will remain unknown as knower cannot be known or the source cannot be enlightened. It is not subtler or subtlest - it is not an entity which can be percieved or defined.

Regarding the functioning of the arm - there are so many examples of powered systems (even these computers) like automobile assembly line robots, dedicated robots, modern washing machines, cruise missiles, smart phones, etc. The power i.e. the electricity does not play any role in the functioning except for enabling them. These smart systems take their own decisions as per the situations and act accordingly. The power only enables them. The action may be right or wrong that depends on the machine. The power has no stake in that. One is enabler other is intelligent performer. If you put a diagnostic device and connect it to the equipment, then the screen will show the processing also (this is the analogy of thoughts). Without the screen there is no way the processing can be experienced. Without the mind, we cannot have thoughts. And the mind, body (all inclusive) is enlivened (powered) by consciousness.

Different parts gets different level of power according to their need through power distribution units (PDU). If the levels of powers to each device are correct the functioning is OK. if there is a deviation , the fuctioning faulters. Same with us. Which faculty will fuction with what capability depends on the PDU (the mind with inherited charateristics).

3. Ishwara manifests and functions with its own mAyA. But in itself what is the ungraspable conciousness -- beneath its prakriti?

Again Iswara is a combination of prakriti and purusha. Just like our body changes shape, size, colour, characteristics, etc - the prakriti also does. But as the underlying reflected consciousness is there to support or enable this body, the same is the case with prakriti at macro level being enabled and supported by consciousness.

This together is a system - self sustained, self intelligent, self balanced, self contained.

I do not know whether I could grasp your queries correctly or whether my attempt to answer was in the right direction.

With all of our combined prayas and with grace of Lord, we should be able to grasp the knowledge.

Love and best wishes.

atanu
25 September 2010, 08:35 AM
Namaste Kallol

Thank you for your reasoned and nice reply. I understand, as of now, possibly you are approaching the system from the dvaita/vishsitadvaita darshanas. That is not a problem, if we know our locus standii.



It is a pleasure to discuss these deep topics. I hope to do my best.
1. Which purusha you are referring to, since purusha occurs at three or more levels ?
There is only one purusha. The rest are derivatives and reflections of that ONE. The purusha does not change. The apparent change is due to the reflector size, shape and colour. The apparentness is due to the POV from the position we observe. A day looks gloomy with cloud cover if we are on ground. If we are on a plane above the cloud, the day looks bright. Then if we are beyond the atmosphere in a rocket the day will look brightest. What is our POV ?
I agree that there is only Purushottoma, who Himself says that I am Param Atman, which is immuatble, indivisible, ungraspable. Please refer to the previous post, where you said that Purusha is an entity and Prakriti another. So, is Purusha a measurable entity, just as Prakriti is? Is Param Atman a graspable entity, different from conciousness, which is unknowable and not an entity (as per you ).

I agree that the view of the one is as per the nature of reflector. But then what is this reflector and who are we? Can reflectors know anything on their own? There must be something connecting the original intelligence and the reflectors, else who knows? Reflectors cannot know.



2. How consciousness, which manifests as thoughts and understanding and is subtler than the subtlest and which cannot be grasped, can form a surface against inert gross element, like say an arm, to move it?,
The consciousness does not manifests as thoughts. The thoughts are inert but the consciousness makes them live. The thoughts can be compared to the changes in the computer screen (the mind) out of the proccessing in the CPU (the intellect). The power (consciousness) enables the screen and so we can experience the thoughts.

Agreed. That is why I had said 'consciousness, which manifests as thoughts and understanding'


The property of consciousness is beyond our comprehension and will remain unknown as knower cannot be known or the source cannot be enlightened. It is not subtler or subtlest - it is not an entity which can be percieved or defined.

This I agree. Then, is Purusha, which you had said was an entity, different from this consciousness, which is at the root of knowing and which is said to be 'All these'?


Regarding the functioning of the arm - there are so many examples of powered systems (even these computers) like automobile assembly line robots, dedicated robots, modern washing machines, cruise missiles, smart phones, etc. The power i.e. the electricity does not play any role in the functioning except for enabling them. These smart systems take their own decisions as per the situations and act accordingly. The power only enables them. The action may be right or wrong that depends on the machine. The power has no stake in that. One is enabler other is intelligent performer. If you put a diagnostic device and connect it to the equipment, then the screen will show the processing also (this is the analogy of thoughts). Without the screen there is no way the processing can be experienced. Without the mind, we cannot have thoughts. And the mind, body (all inclusive) is enlivened (powered) by consciousness. Different parts gets different level of power according to their need through power distribution units (PDU). If the levels of powers to each device are correct the functioning is OK. if there is a deviation , the fuctioning faulters. Same with us. Which faculty will fuction with what capability depends on the PDU (the mind with inherited charateristics).

The question remains. The electricity is sthula -- it is manifest, measurable, graspable (you do get electric shock). On the other hand, that which makes the electrons flow (or perceive the flow) is ungraspable and has no boundary with which it can impel a gross surface. The question remains as to how that which is ungraspable moves something, which is graspable.


3. Ishwara manifests and functions with its own mAyA. But in itself what is the ungraspable conciousness -- beneath its prakriti?Again Iswara is a combination of prakriti and purusha. Just like our body changes shape, size, colour, characteristics, etc - the prakriti also does. But as the underlying reflected consciousness is there to support or enable this body, the same is the case with prakriti at macro level being enabled and supported by consciousness. This together is a system - self sustained, self intelligent, self balanced, self contained.
I do not know whether I could grasp your queries correctly or whether my attempt to answer was in the right direction.
With all of our combined prayas and with grace of Lord, we should be able to grasp the knowledge.
Love and best wishes.


Here, IMO, we differ in major way (I do not say that I am correct). May be I am not able to understand your POV. I showed you the reference to uttara gita, which shows that mahesvara is unborn and beyond prakriti. But it seems that the point was not considered. So, let me try to paraphrase and you may comment on that.

When you say '-- this together is a system -- self sustained', do you mean that Purusha is not self sustained without Prakriti? For example, we think that we are sustained by this world. But actually Atma-Consciousness sustains this world. In deep sleep there remains no world and no time -- but we are sustained in the bestest way in deep sleep. Similary, can Prakriti exist without Turya? Or does Turya need Prakriti to sustain itself?

My main question is what is that irreducible entity/non entity which is Self and which is self sustained? Is it dependent on Prakriti for its sustenance or its existence?This clarification alone is required (both from Snip and from you) to be able to understand. Then we may clear the inconsistencies.

(My view: My nature is of me. I exist so the harsh or soft nature. But, I, as existence, is not dependent on my nature. Advaita tackles this question at the highest level, by showing the irreducible self dependent entity/no-entity by means on Neti-Neti or "Who Am I?". Transcending the lower nature, which contains the 'ego i', the "I" itself is known as the higher nature - the unmanifest moola prakriti-sarvesvara-deep sleep-shusupti, pragnya ghana -- of Paramatman. (The bodies made of 5 great elements, Mind (reflector), Buddhi (intellect), and Egoity are the lower Prakriti of Param Atman). But Param Atman obviously does not have to depend even on "I", the higher moola Prakriti -- pragnya ghana sarvesvara shushupti-deep sleep-- for self existence. And advaita holds that the Heart every where is That only, which is the controller of All -- in the Seer mode, though it is non-dual. That must be known to be rid of all agonies.

Integrating with Upanishad, Turya is the true Prabhu, which is the whole immutable system and non-dual. As Self in Shushupti it is the controller of All states that proceed from it. As Self in Taijjasa it is the ruler of BrahmA - the creator. As Self in Vaisvanaro it is All, the universe and as well as the Lord -Agni in the waking world of agni vaisvanaro.

So, through lower prakriti -- great elements, mind, intellect, egoity and through higher moola prakriti, which is ground of all manifestations, the Prabhu, Turya is the controller. But in itself it is not a controller at all -- there is nothing else to control. When it is known then there is no one seeking liberation and no one under bondage).

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Onkara
25 September 2010, 11:38 AM
Similary, can Prakriti exist without Turya? Or does Turya need Prakriti to sustain itself?

My main question is what is that irreducible entity/non entity which is Self and which is self sustained? Is it dependent on Prakriti for its sustenance or its existence?This clarification alone is required (both from Snip and from you) to be able to understand. Then we may clear the inconsistencies.



Namaste Atanu and Kallol

Atanu,
Permit me to jump in here, as I find your clarification of a question useful to re-focus thoughts. We do need to clear the inconsistencies. :)

My understanding is as follows. I am influenced by Advaita, intially from the Vaishnav literature but more recently I am finding Shakti-Shiva to be more appealing to my intellect.

Prakriti cannot, never has nor never will exist without turiya. Turiya, or consciousness, is the foundation for all existance. Turiya is Brahman.

Everything that prakriti requires is found in prakriti: it is a system. So food to keep the body alive is a part of the same eco-system. What allows prakriti to be experienced is turiya or consicousness. It is because you are consciousness, that you can say "I tasted the food" or "I know the body". You are consciousness experiencing prakriti. "Ignorance" arises when we identify our true self as the body i.e. as prakriti.

The way I see it is that nature (prakriti) has arisen from pure consciousness through the will of the divine i.e. the Creator (Brahman/Krishna/Shiva). However it is not independent from the Creator, but rather everything in prakriti arises, is sustained, and disolves on (or in) the foundation of the Creator (pure consciousness or turiya).

This is why turiya permeates all, yet is independent of it. So a man can kill another man, and all this goes on in prakriti only and the turiya looks on unaffected, eternal, divine. It cannot be cut or burnt, nor does it act or do.

All doing and changes occour in prakriti (by Shakti in the Shiva-Shakti view). It is for this reason described as a play on a screen, because all change is going on in the changeless foundation of turiya/consciousness/Brahman.

I hope that makes my perspective more easy to follow. :o

atanu
25 September 2010, 12:00 PM
Namaste Atanu and Kallol

Atanu,
Permit me to jump in here, as I find your clarification, of a question useful to re-focus thoughts. We do need to clear the inconsistencies. :)

My understanding is as follows. I am influenced by Advaita, intially from the Vaishav literature but more recently I am finding Shakti-Shiva to be more appealing to my intellect.

Prakriti cannot, never has nor never will exist without turiya. Turiya, or consciousness, is the foundation for all existance. Turiya is Brahman.

Everything that prakriti requires is found in prakriti: it is a system. So food to keep the body alive is a part of the same eco-system. What allows prakriti to be experienced is turiya or consicousness. It is because you are consciousness, that you can say "I tasted the food" or "I know the body". You are consciousness experiencing prakriti. "Ignorance" arises when we identify our true self as the body i.e. as prakriti.

The way I see it is that nature (prakriti) has arisen from pure consciousness through the will of the divine i.e. the Creator (Brahman/Krishna/Shiva). However it is not independent from the Creator, but rather everything in prakriti arises, is sustained, and disolves on (or in) the foundation of the Creator (pure consciousness or turiya).

This is why turiya permeates all, yet is independent of it. So a man can kill another man, and all this goes on in prakriti only and the turiya looks on unaffected, eternal, divine. It cannot be cut or burnt, nor does it act or do.

All doing and changes occour in prakriti (by Shakti in the Shiva-Shakti view). It is for this reason described as a play on a screen, because all change is going on in the changeless foundation of turiya/consciousness/Brahman.

I hope that makes my perspective more easy to follow. :o

Namaste Snip

Ya, this is OK and clear, except for a couple points, which i think is not important, if we can accept that Turya must be known.

One point is that Brahman is defined as one whose all desires are fulfilled. This can be seen from two sides.

The second point relates to the creator brahMa, who is said to be controlled by sadashiva (om) in scripture (which I posted before). Sadashiva (Krishna) is the Self residing in Shushupti. It leaves Turya (shivam advaita atman) as desireless and partless.

Being in Prakriti, your knowledge is not wrong for either of us. Yet, mahesvara is beyond prakriti (as per scripture and as shown through citation of Uttara Gita). So, scriptures do ask us to know the Self, where there is no Sun etc.

Hope the above is acceptable.
...............

And regarding the main question of what and who controls -- i reiterate what Guptaji has already said -- eventually the Self is Prabhu.

Om Namah Shivaya

kallol
25 September 2010, 12:31 PM
Dear Atanu,

Thanks for continuing the discussion. Yes it needs quite a few iterations to come to an broad level understanding.

A few thing I would like to clarify.

1. As I understand consciousness, purusha, Brahman, chit, chetana, paraprakriti are all different names of the same "entity" used at different points.

2. I termed it as an "entity" just to put a pointer towards it. The definition of it being "beyond our comprehension and will remain unknown as knower cannot be known or the source cannot be enlightened. It is not subtler or subtlest - it is not an entity which can be percieved or defined" remains the same.

3. At all levels of existence from human to the God, the systems are made of two parts / entities (however you want to term it) - Purusha (it can be also termed differently as in point 1) and Prakriti (it can be also termed differently). The purusha part is know as higher nature and the prakriti part is known as the lower nature.

4. Right from God level to human level (which is the highest form of the evolution), it is part of the same system (God). We are the subsets of the superset God but seamlessly connected by purusha and prakriti.

5. Beacuse the prakriti can change forms - we have this universe which includes us also. But it is only a change in form which is apparent from the POV of us human. From the POV of kaal it is mithya.

6. The mind (reflector) by itself cannot know anything as it is a part of prakriti. As it is also a reflector of the consciousness into the body, it acts like a local source for the body. But again it is the carrier of the gunas and karmaphalas from the earlier births which enables the present body system. That brings in the processing power of the intellect (the intelligence) - which again belongs to the prakriti but enabled by reflected consciouness (which in turn is a part of the original consciousness) - your example of multi reflection points on the waves.
Consciousness is pure - NO ATTRIBUTES.

7. Consciousness does not manifest anywhere - by definition it cannot. It is an enabler. The clarity is important. At the most we can say that the presence of consciousness is inferred through the life, thoughts, intelligence, eco system, universe, etc

8. Electricity, light, radio wave, etc are analogies and not the consciousness itself so we have to take the essence of the context. Form the POV of the machine it does not percieve the electricity. It is we who is outside the system at the level of enabler of electricity who percieves. Let us percieve the electricity from the machine POV.

9. I have not considered Maheswara as I do not know the theory of Maheswara. My knowledge does not have any Shaivism, or Vashnavism, or anything else. So without knowledge I cannot comment.

10. Purusha is independent but prakriti is dependent on purusha. As I have mentioned one is higher nature and other lower nature. But two together is the system. One (prakriti) is changing continuosly and any state is temporary like our body, like the earth, the solarsystem, galaxy and the universe. And the other (purusha) is permanent and unchanging.

Till the mind goes out of the body the continuum of the "I" remains through sleep, samadhi, unconciousness and waking condition.

Because the purusha is permanent, and the "I" sense is out of purusha, that is why again and again the scripture guides us to align the "I" to the purusha - which is permanent.

11. My main question is what is that irreducible entity/non entity which is Self and which is self sustained? Is it dependent on Prakriti for its sustenance or its existence?This clarification alone is required (both from Snip and from you) to be able to understand. Then we may clear the inconsistencies

I have already answered this in point 10. But one point we need to be clear about how far I can know. The question "who am I" can take you to the original clear reflection from the mind and nothing beyond that because beyond that the "I" discontinues to exist and there is no vehicle which can take there. I have discussed this on another thread with Snip.

Reaching that point is enough for us to get the understanding of the source and the knowledge associated out of that experience. That knowledge is the TRUTH which has been described in different ways by the great spiritual scientists.

This is Advaita as I understand but as you all are more knowledgeable in scripture than me, so you should be able to judge better.

As I understand spiritual knowledge is pure science (present and future) and totally logical.

To grasp the totality one needs God's grace. From the Advaita POV, it is easier to understand the arupam, biswarupam, bahurupam and ekarupam.

Love and best wishes

Onkara
25 September 2010, 12:36 PM
Namaste Snip

Ya, this is OK and clear, except for a couple points, which i think is not important, if we can accept that Turya must be known.

One point is that Brahman is defined as one whose all desires are fulfilled. This can be seen from two sides.

The second point relates to the creator brahMa, who is said to be controlled by sadashiva (om) in scripture (which I posted before). Sadashiva (Krishna) is the Self residing in Shushupti. It leaves Turya (shivam advaita atman) as desireless and partless.

Being in Prakriti, your knowledge is not wrong for either of us. Yet, mahesvara is beyond prakriti (as per scripture and as shown through citation of Uttara Gita). So, scriptures do ask us to know the Self, where there is no Sun etc.

Hope the above is acceptable.
...............

And regarding the main question of what and who controls -- i reiterate what Guptaji has already said -- eventually the Self is Prabhu.

Om Namah Shivaya
Namaste Atanu
I agree, turiya is that which must be known. Would you be so kind to point me towards an explanation of "sadashiva", if you know of one please, I am not 100% clear on the term in its full philosophical sense?

I am not sure if you are asking a question or proposing your perspective above. If the latter then I would like to add that I agree: mahesvara is beyond prakriti and I feel that the bonds of prakriti loosen on knowing that and knowing mahesvara as our core self (as consciousness or turiya). This knowing is what fulfills all desires.

I think the original question has been explored sufficiently and I am happy to take on tangents or let this topic rest. To be honest, I enjoy exploring "what is" with you all more than feel that any one of us needs a concerte answer to any question :)

Onkara
25 September 2010, 12:45 PM
I am a scientist / engineer for my sansar life but my actual life is spirituality. The spirituality has manifested in terms of my work style, life style and creativity in engineering and other space. I do not know what I have been in my previous life, but I have been graced by Lord at end of my childhoodin this life. As far as I remember this "Who am I" question was there from class 3 and the intensity grew over the years. The intellect was not coherent in the childhood period so it could not process properly. After the end of childhood the intellect matured and took me through a journey, an experience - a few times - self realisation (I know now). I did not know that it is the spirituality road. I thought I was going mad. The pull was so strong that any time I was alone - it would take me through that journey - beyond the universe - scary - no end - bottomless - unfathomable. Only after the engineering degree, I chanced upon the lectures of Vivekananda. It stunned me. It was the same knowledge which was disturbing me. So I was relieved to know that I was not mad.

Now I listen to the discourses of Gita. It helps me understand some terminologies. But more than so the totality of the knowledge is what I cherish. It is pure science (present and future) and totally logical.

To grasp the totality one needs God's grace. From the Advaita POV, it is easier to understand the arupam, biswarupam, bahurupam and ekarupam.

Love and best wishes
Dear Kallol
I can related to the sensation of going mad. The "shock" is that all that I once took as real is actuall quite different from a perpective I held before, as if I was concentrating on the wrong part then suddenly realised my error. What I find most remarkable is that this knowing never fails to hold true under analysis. I cannot negate or find an underlying fault in the upanishads, Gitas etc. Additionally they seem to say the same things, albeit form different perspectives or in different ways. It is slightly unnerving, yet who is there to be unnerved! :)

Likewise I also feel that no one is free from that pull. So why worry about "others" in a negative way. There is no other to "help" or to "fear" who is beyond this. Rather I sometimes have the thought that all of this talk on philosophy is just play (lila).

Best wishes.

kallol
25 September 2010, 12:53 PM
Dear Kallol
I can related to the sensation of going mad. The "shock" is that all that I once took as real is actuall quite different from a perpective I held before, as if I was concentrating on the wrong part then suddenly realised my error. What I find most remarkable is that this knowing never fails to hold true under analysis. I cannot negate or find an underlying fault in the upanishads, Gitas etc. Additionally they seem to say the same things, albeit form different perspectives or in different ways. It is slightly unnerving, yet who is there to be unnerved! :)

Likewise I also feel that no one is free from that pull. So why worry about "others" in a negative way. There is no other to "help" or to "fear" who is beyond this. Rather I sometimes have the thought that all of this talk on philosophy is just play (lila).

Best wishes.

Thanks for the encouraging words.

The nectar out of these discussions is the fuel for my daily life and the emcouragement to explore more from all perspective.

Love and best wishes

atanu
25 September 2010, 12:54 PM
Namaste Atanu
-----Would you be so kind to point me towards an explanation of "sadashiva", if you know of one please, I am not 100% clear on the term in its full philosophical sense?

I am not sure if you are asking a question or proposing your perspective above. If the latter then I would like to add that I agree: mahesvara is beyond prakriti and I feel that the bonds of prakriti loosen on knowing that and knowing mahesvara as our core self (as consciousness or turiya). This knowing is what fulfills all desires.

I think the original question has been explored sufficiently and I am happy to take on tangents or let this topic rest. To be honest, I enjoy exploring "what is" with you all more than feel that any one of us needs a concerte answer to any question :)


Namaste Snip

I reciprocate fully about the nice feeling i get while discussing with you -- that of course is not easy, given your penchant for difficult questions and high order critical faculty.

Shruti scripture says that sadashiva is om and controller of all beings and things and bramhA. In other scripture, Sarvesvara (all controller) is said to be the Self abiding in Shushupti.

Shri Krishna says he plants the seeds in mahat brahma (creator BrahmA) and He also says that He is unborn Mahesvara.

Shushupti is dark yet all attractive (krsna). Shri krishna is all attractive and known as sarvesvara.

Shri Krishna says that mahevara is beyond prakriti. And beyond prakriti is the Turya, also called advaita shivam. Shri Krishna also says that He is the Self.

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

Hope you enjoy the above and feel the joy of uniting names.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
25 September 2010, 01:13 PM
Dear Atanu,

3. At all levels of existence from human to the God, the systems are made of two parts / entities (however you want to term it) - Purusha (it can be also termed differently as in point 1) and Prakriti (it can be also termed differently). The purusha part is know as higher nature and the prakriti part is known as the lower nature.

Love and best wishes

Namaste Kallol

Thanks for your grand post. In regard to above, i will request you to kindly let me differ.

Brahman (God) is both kAla and akAla. Your above statement is true in kAla domain and as we are in kAla domain, the above is true for you and me. But in akAla domain, hint of which everyone recieves in deep sleep when time is not, the above, IMO, do not hold.

If by 'existence' you mean samsara-agni-vaisvanaro waking state only, then the above is fully agreeable to me.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
25 September 2010, 08:40 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté snip (et.al)


you mention,



Rather I sometimes have the thought that all of this talk on philosophy is just play (lila).

These words may be wiser then you think. To be specific on this matter may cause an upheaval so I will not venture to comment too too much on this.
Yet a most adored goal of some of the talks of philosophy is that of remembering and reminding of the Supreme. To be top of mind in one's day.


praṇām

kallol
25 September 2010, 10:06 PM
Namaste Kallol

Thanks for your grand post. In regard to above, i will request you to kindly let me differ.

Brahman (God) is both kAla and akAla. Your above statement is true in kAla domain and as we are in kAla domain, the above is true for you and me. But in akAla domain, hint of which everyone recieves in deep sleep when time is not, the above, IMO, do not hold.

If by 'existence' you mean samsara-agni-vaisvanaro waking state only, then the above is fully agreeable to me.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Dear Atanu,

As we all are at different point of time, space and material - the difference of perception and opinion is natural and is also good to have.

Before bowing out from this thread I would like to make 2 points for clarifications.

1. Brahman is beyond time. The dancing (waves) of the prakriti, with the purusha as base, comes within the time (when it manifests) and goes beyond when it is unmanifested.

2. The existence at all levels means the manifested and unmanifested states of the prakriti. It includes all the 14 lokas.

Thanks to all of you for the grand discussion.

Love and best wishes

atanu
26 September 2010, 01:16 AM
Dear Atanu,
As we all are at different point of time, space and material - the difference of perception and opinion is natural and is also good to have.
Before bowing out from this thread I would like to make 2 points for clarifications.

1. Brahman is beyond time. The dancing (waves) of the prakriti, with the purusha as base, comes within the time (when it manifests) and goes beyond when it is unmanifested.

2. The existence at all levels means the manifested and unmanifested states of the prakriti. It includes all the 14 lokas.

Thanks to all of you for the grand discussion.

Love and best wishes

Namaste Kallol

That is nice summary. I agree to the 1st point, subject to the suggestion for the 2nd point. I cannot say unequivocally that i can agree to the 2nd point, as dance of prakriti cannot be known by the inert alone.

It does not matter however, since 'who controls ---', the main theme of the thread, IMO, is understood commonly now.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
26 September 2010, 02:22 AM
Dear Kallol
----- I cannot negate or find an underlying fault in the upanishads, Gitas etc. Additionally they seem to say the same things, albeit form different perspectives or in different ways. It is slightly unnerving, yet who is there to be unnerved! :)

Likewise I also feel that no one is free from that pull. So why worry about "others" in a negative way. There is no other to "help" or to "fear" who is beyond this. Rather I sometimes have the thought that all of this talk on philosophy is just play (lila).

Best wishes.

Namaste Snip, Kallol, and Yajvanji

First, i must say that the above is gem, if experienced and practised. I am not able to -- fully.

I have a spiritual friend at office with whom i sometimes kill time. Once into a discussion, i asked him how and what sadhana he does. He told me that he did nothing. He added that if sweet did not taste sweet then it was unnatural. On same vain, he said, that if bitter did not taste bitter then it was unnatural. On another day, in a meeting, our common boss passed a bitter remark against him and after the meeting, i found my friend complaining bitterly about the behaviour of the boss. I again asked him and he said it would be unnatural not be bitter.

That was ok and i do not have any answer. Neither do i have any way of knowing whether that bitterness was thrown away or stored. I have no judgement since i do not know his mind.

From my perspective, however, sadhana is a must. From Shri Ramana's perspective, Ramana has never done any sadhana.

From Gaudapada's perspective, there is no one bound and no one seeking liberation. From my perspective, that is the pinnacle of attainment. My Guru teaches that it is ever the truth beneath the mental turbulence and thus the only job is to shed away the turbulences and their causes.

I say "Guruji, kindly grace me". He says "Do your work".

Just rambling. Regards to you all.

Om Namah Shivaya

Onkara
26 September 2010, 03:19 AM
Namaste Snip, Kallol, and Yajvanji

First, i must say that the above is gem, if experienced and practised. I am not able to -- fully.
(cut)

From my perspective, however, sadhana is a must. From Shri Ramana's perspective, Ramana has never done any sadhana.

From Gaudapada's perspective, there is no one bound and no one seeking liberation. From my perspective, that is the pinnacle of attainment. My Guru teaches that it is ever the truth beneath the mental turbulence and thus the only job is to shed away the turbulences and their causes.

I say "Guruji, kindly grace me". He says "Do your work".

Just rambling. Regards to you all.

Om Namah Shivaya
Namaste Atanu,
In my reflection of your comment above, I would say this is a sound observation. That which speaks in bold is the mind. The mind is "not able to fully", because it is by its very nature transient and changeful. The mind is influenced by the gunas. However the mind is resting in something which is not changeful. That which does not undergo change and is able to confirm the above statement is your consciousness. In other words there has to be a witness of inability as well as ability, and that witness is the eternal You. Change is irrelevant when one recognises their changessless Self. Abiding with that is, in my opinion, the highest sadhana. All sadhana is a must to come to that point of observation. So I agree and wish to point out that the observation you share is an importnat one. :)

Dear Yajvanji I apprectiate your feedback always and I feel you are absolutely correct. This remembering or being reminded of the Supreme is itself a grace.

atanu
26 September 2010, 03:56 AM
Namaste Atanu,
In my reflection of your comment above, I would say this is a sound observation. That which speaks in bold is the mind. The mind is "not able to fully", because it is by its very nature transient and changeful. The mind is influenced by the gunas. However the mind is resting in something which is not changeful. That which does not undergo change and is able to confirm the above statement is your consciousness. In other words there has to be a witness of inability as well as ability, and that witness is the eternal You. Change is irrelevant when one recognises their changessless Self. Abiding with that is, in my opinion, the highest sadhana. All sadhana is a must to come to that point of observation. So I agree and wish to point out that the observation you share is an importnat one. :)

Dear Yajvanji I apprectiate your feedback always and I feel you are absolutely correct. This remembering or being reminded of the Supreme is itself a grace.

Namaste Snip

That is excellent and matches with Gurus teaching. Who am I? is the work that small i - the ego (individual sense of being body mind) has to initiate and conduct, ironically, to its destruction.:)

Yet, on the other hand, see the difficulty of say Shri Ramana (i cite Him, simply because iI have knowledge of this knowledge only. There are other examples as well). Ramana could not take a shishya -- He could not ever utter 'You are my shishya'. i thinks that that must be a difficult situation (grammar is correct).

:D

yajvan
26 September 2010, 01:00 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


atanu mentions,


From my perspective, however, sadhana is a must. From Shri Ramana's perspective, Ramana has never done any sadhana.

From Gaudapada's perspective, there is no one bound and no one seeking liberation. From my perspective, that is the pinnacle of attainment. My Guru teaches that it is ever the truth beneath the mental turbulence and thus the only job is to shed away the turbulences and their causes.

I say "Guruji, kindly grace me". He says "Do your work".

Here is a hint for rāmana-muni never doing sādhana - his was the 4th way:

In kaśmir śaivism 3 upāya-s¹ are recognized (for now we can call them sādhana-s) , others say there are 4.

1. sāmbhavopāya (sāmbhava upāya)
2. śākopāya (shakti-upāya )
3. āṇavopāya - āṇu अणु = fine , minute , atomic is known as 'atom' - which is another name for the individual jiva. This upāya is the means whereby the āṇu or the individual jiva uses his own kāraṇa-s or
instruments i.e. senses, prana and manas for self-realization. It includes disciplines concerning the regulation of prana, japa, concentration, meditation, etc.


There is a 4th way called 'no way' or anupāya or 'without means or no upāya' - the way is without a way, as one person has said it. It does not really involve any process. Due to śaktipata or descent of grace in a very intense degree, everything needed for the realization, beginning from the liquidation of individual impurity down to the recognition of the state of Parameśvara may be achieved by the sādhu immediately and without going through any sādhana or discipline.


praṇām


words
upāya - a way, means, technique. More on these 3 at this HDF site: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=18339&postcount=4

kallol
27 September 2010, 08:58 AM
Namaste Kallol

That is nice summary. I agree to the 1st point, subject to the suggestion for the 2nd point. I cannot say unequivocally that i can agree to the 2nd point, as dance of prakriti cannot be known by the inert alone.

It does not matter however, since 'who controls ---', the main theme of the thread, IMO, is understood commonly now.

Om Namah Shivaya


You are right. The dance of the prakriti cannot be known without purusha. As I have mentioned purusha is independent but prakriti is dependent on purusha for existence and the dance.

Love and best wishes